English
English version Since the other birds among them no longer sing, and the other medicines, even when mixed, cannot universally cure diseases. Therefore, these are used as metaphors for sudden enlightenment. How can we break the metaphor of sudden enlightenment and achieve gradual and complete understanding? Raising an unfilial son, the fault is difficult to describe with other metaphors; this is the matter itself. 'Two contradictions of oneself' refers to: establishing one's own general idea as sudden enlightenment. These metaphorical texts are all within the general idea. How can one deny oneself and consider it gradual and complete understanding? Question: What is the meaning of the metaphors 'not really father and son' and 'both called strangers' in the first volume? Answer: 'Not really flesh and blood' is a metaphor for the first two teachings, and 'both called strangers' is a metaphor for the latter two teachings. The metaphor says: This is deeply not seeing the metaphorical meaning in the text. The meaning in the text is that there are different principles within and outside the boundary, and each principle has two teachings as the means of expression, and the Four Noble Truths are used as delusion and liberation, which naturally come together in the text. Anger is a metaphor for the Samudaya (accumulation) Truth, and hitting is a metaphor for the Dukkha (suffering) Truth. If 'both called father and son,' and the anger and hitting are mild, it is a metaphor for the direct teaching; if 'both called strangers,' and the anger and hitting are severe, it is a metaphor for the roundabout teaching. This is because the wisdom and understanding of the Marga (path) Truth are different, so that the Nirodha (cessation) Truth of liberation is also different. If the understanding is the same, Dukkha and Samudaya are the truth, like strangers becoming father and son; if the understanding is different, Dukkha and Samudaya are different truths, like father and son becoming strangers. It should be known that 'not really flesh and blood' and 'both called strangers' are only in terms of the meaning of separation in the clumsy teaching. It also lacks the distinction between within and outside the boundary. What kind of clumsiness is this, that it crosses stages and considers it the Four Teachings? The details are explained in the Records of the 'Mohe Zhiguan'. Question: Are the Gradual Teaching and the Distinct Teaching the same or different? Answer: These two are different. The Gradual Teaching reveals the Four Teachings, while the Distinct Teaching does not reveal the Four Teachings. The metaphor says: Since one does not recognize that the Gradual Teaching reveals the Four Teachings, what is the use of laboriously distinguishing the differences with the Distinct Teaching? Now it is said that both the Gradual Teaching and the Distinct Teaching should reveal the Four Teachings, but these two statements are different. The Gradual Teaching revealing the Four Teachings has already been said before. The Distinct Teaching revealing the Four Teachings is specifically in the Four Great Vows of the Distinct Teaching. In terms of the realm of the Four Noble Truths, all experience the Four Teachings. But it is necessary to know in detail the reason for revealing the Four Teachings. However, for others, self-cultivation and transforming others may not fully establish the names of the Four Teachings, but only speak of within and outside the boundary, direct and roundabout, skillful and clumsy. Self-cultivation is a gradual vertical entry, while transforming others is a horizontal application according to circumstances. Although the application is horizontal, what is ultimately achieved is vertical. Although self-cultivation is vertical, universal learning becomes horizontal. For example, when first entering emptiness, one uses the analytical body to break through the delusions of views and thoughts, which is still a biased use of one method of self-cultivation. If one reaches the Ten Practices position, in order to benefit others, then... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
始遍习析体八门。及以无量无作八门。尔时所习乃得名横。是则自他四教义足。读文不委义理轻疏。而便谬判别不开四。问商略之文为是何处。答挹流寻源已下文是。喻曰。此亦二失。一者不晓新旧文意。二者商略谬判祖承。初不晓文意者。旧文十章前五是序后五是正。故旧本初云。窃念述闻共为十章。商略等五名为窃念。己之私窃念兴序故。开章等五名为述闻。述已亲从法会闻故。再治改者。良以。窃念不应连接。述闻为十故废商略。五章之名章名虽废仍存其文。述闻五章次第虽在。亦没章名。新移商略之文以为引证之例。首加止观等字用为通序。则以挹流等文用拟别序。人不见之。便为乱说空张。旧本商略以消别序。新文柰何商略之文复彰祖承之后。甚不可也。问挹流已下正当旧本祖承之文。如何将为商略文耶。答正是商略有师无师。故云商略。喻曰。旧释商略云。略述佛经粗彰圆意。故云商略。即引华严了达贤首闻圆等文。今乃判他祖承之文。而为商略有师无师。既将祖承以为商略。祖承傥更指后辨差。从始至终重重妄说。问有情心法并有情之色。及外依报。此之三法顿及顿顿起观何殊。答顿顿随观即具诸法。渐顿心具余□则无。喻曰。据此答文却用渐圆为顿顿。何者四教中圆奚尝不云三处具法。故四念处圆文 中云。非但唯识。亦乃唯色唯声唯触。二处具法正是四教末后之圆。今谬判为顿顿文者。验知诸判但用胸襟。又渐圆既知心具诸法。诸法遍摄。岂隔色耶。色摄入心心即是色。如何谬判唯心具耶。若别教人初心色心并不具法。何独色耶。渐顿回互教门杂矣。教门既杂依教修观。冥如夜游。问此二种观初心何别。答顿顿观者初发心时三谛俱观。渐顿观者先观中道离于二边。二观先成见思前破。后证中道三谛方同。喻曰。虽指文中三处五处以立顿顿。既无正义。约观判位亦无正文。大师唯引诸经明位。以证四教。不见引证。四教之外别立一顿。况彼诸处顿顿之文。尽是四教最后之圆。彼以此圆判为渐圆。云初发心者。先观中道一切教法。都无此文。别则先观二边。方乃见思先落。岂有但观中道先破见思。圆别不成都无所据。问一心三观与三观一心。二文何别。答一心三观即是假。三观一心即是空。非三非一即是中。为破步马神通。故云空假。若论顿顿一中具三。喻曰。本论三观须有所以。此是佛法大体。又是一家要门。凡用其名须得指实。既用此三格一切法。应晓三意。方尽其门。一者对境成观。如观一心为不思议境。及破法遍等文是也。二者覆疏收束。如第一卷合散非合非散。三一非三非一等。是三者寄名义立。如门非 门非门非不门。权实非权非实等。是此三观一心一心三观。都非此之三观意。只是翻对破彼纵横观。纵观唯约次第之三而不得一。故以即一而三破彼纵义。故云一心三观破竖通塞。横观唯得各别之一。而不得三。故以即三之一破彼横文。故云三观一心破彼横通塞。人不见此。便加双非以对三观。又文自云。空即三故破步涉。假即三故破乘。马中即三故破神通。彼师乃云。为破步马神通故云空假步马。元是单空单假何须更以空假破之。破于横别步马神通。正用圆教一中具三。何故别云。若论顿顿一中具三。此是违文谬说。令迷文者信之。亦是立观违文。令误观者辄受。问相待绝待有何同异。答顿顿是绝待渐顿是相待。喻曰。误之甚矣。依此所判则应相待绝待俱非顿顿。何者以玄文中判今法华。具有二义。谓相待绝待。若尔何处别有顿顿绝耶。又依彼所判。则唯华严是绝法华纯待。若知法华具有二义。复以待绝分为二顿。当知此判自语相违。据斯以论俱迷二待。何者。二待并须非渐唯顿判为相待。又判为渐。此复一重自语相背。凡言相待。待前诸教为渐为粗。方今法华是顿是妙。顿居渐后兼所破说。对渐明顿故云渐顿。人不见之。徒分待绝以对二经。又亦不识绝待之意。绝于所待。名绝待者方是妙顿。彼乃离顿待别立绝名 现代汉语译本 ‘门非门非不门’（门不是门，也不是非门）。‘权实非权非实等’（权宜之法不是权宜之法，真实之法不是真实之法等等）。这就是‘三观一心，一心三观’的意义。但这些都不是‘三观’的真正意图。这只是为了翻转和破除对方的纵横之观。纵观只强调次第的三观，而不能合一。因此，用‘即一而三’来破除对方的纵向理解，所以说‘一心三观’是为了破除竖向的阻塞。横观只能得到各自独立的一，而不能得到三。因此，用‘即三而一’来破除对方的横向理解，所以说‘三观一心’是为了破除横向的阻塞。人们不明白这一点，就用双重否定来对抗三观。而且原文自己说，‘空即三’，所以破除步涉（逐步修行）；‘假即三’，所以破除乘（乘坐交通工具）；‘马中即三’，所以破除神通。那位法师却说，为了破除步涉、乘和神通，所以说空、假、步马。原本只是单一的空和假，何必再用空和假来破除它们呢？破除横向的步涉、乘和神通，正是要用圆教中一中具三的道理。为什么还要分别说呢？如果说顿教中一中具三，这就是违背原文的错误说法，让迷惑的人相信它。这也是建立与原文相悖的观点，让误解的人轻易接受。问：相待（相对）和绝待（绝对）有什么相同和不同？答：顿顿（顿悟）是绝待，渐顿（渐悟后顿悟）是相待。比喻说：这是非常错误的。按照这种判断，那么相待和绝待都不应该是顿顿。为什么呢？因为玄文中判断《法华经》具有两种意义，即相待和绝待。如果这样，哪里还有单独的顿顿绝呢？而且按照他的判断，那么只有《华严经》是绝待，而《法华经》纯粹是相待。如果知道《法华经》具有两种意义，又用相待和绝待分为两种顿，那么应该知道这种判断是自相矛盾的。根据这些来讨论，都是迷惑于二待。为什么呢？二待都必须是非渐唯顿，却判断为相待，又判断为渐，这又是一重自相矛盾。凡是说相待，都是以之前的诸教为渐为粗，而现在的《法华经》是顿是妙。顿居于渐之后，兼有所破之说。为了对比渐而彰显顿，所以说渐顿。人们不明白这一点，就徒劳地划分相待和绝待来对抗两部经。而且也不认识绝待的意义。绝于所待，名为绝待，这才是妙顿。他却离开顿待，另外建立一个绝的名字。
English
English version 'Gate is not-gate, not not-gate' (The gate is not a gate, nor is it a non-gate). 'Provisional and Real are not-provisional, not-real, etc.' (Expedient means are not expedient means, true reality is not true reality, etc.). This is the meaning of 'Three Contemplations in One Mind, One Mind in Three Contemplations'. But these are not the true intention of the 'Three Contemplations'. It is only to reverse and break the opponent's vertical and horizontal views. The vertical view only emphasizes the sequential three contemplations and cannot unite them. Therefore, 'One in Three' is used to break the opponent's vertical understanding, so it is said that 'One Mind in Three Contemplations' is to break the vertical obstruction. The horizontal view can only obtain each independent one and cannot obtain three. Therefore, 'Three in One' is used to break the opponent's horizontal understanding, so it is said that 'Three Contemplations in One Mind' is to break the horizontal obstruction. People do not understand this, so they use double negation to oppose the three contemplations. Moreover, the original text itself says, 'Emptiness is Three', so it breaks 'step-by-step practice' (gradual cultivation); 'Provisional is Three', so it breaks 'riding' (riding a vehicle); 'Middle is Three', so it breaks 'supernatural powers'. That master said, in order to break step-by-step practice, riding, and supernatural powers, so it is said emptiness, provisional, step-by-step, riding. Originally, it was just single emptiness and single provisional, why use emptiness and provisional to break them again? Breaking the horizontal step-by-step practice, riding, and supernatural powers is precisely to use the principle of 'Three in One' in the perfect teaching. Why say it separately? If it is said that 'Three in One' in the sudden teaching, this is a wrong statement that violates the original text, causing confused people to believe it. This is also establishing a view that violates the original text, causing those who misunderstand to easily accept it. Question: What are the similarities and differences between 'relative' (samtā) and 'absolute' (atyanta)? Answer: 'Sudden-sudden' (sudden enlightenment) is absolute, 'gradual-sudden' (gradual enlightenment followed by sudden enlightenment) is relative. The analogy says: This is very wrong. According to this judgment, then both relative and absolute should not be sudden-sudden. Why? Because the profound text judges that the *Lotus Sutra* has two meanings, namely relative and absolute. If so, where is there a separate sudden-sudden absolute? Moreover, according to his judgment, then only the *Avatamsaka Sutra* is absolute, while the *Lotus Sutra* is purely relative. If you know that the *Lotus Sutra* has two meanings, and use relative and absolute to divide into two kinds of sudden, then you should know that this judgment is self-contradictory. According to these discussions, they are all confused about the two relatives. Why? The two relatives must be non-gradual and only sudden, but they are judged as relative and also judged as gradual, which is another self-contradiction. Whenever it is said to be relative, it is because the previous teachings are gradual and coarse, while the current *Lotus Sutra* is sudden and wonderful. The sudden is after the gradual, and also has the saying of what is to be broken. In order to contrast the gradual and highlight the sudden, it is said to be gradual-sudden. People do not understand this, so they futilely divide relative and absolute to oppose the two sutras. Moreover, they do not recognize the meaning of absolute. Being absolute from what is relative is called absolute, and this is wonderful sudden. He leaves sudden and relative and establishes a separate name for absolute. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------