Chinese
。何为顿顿。问此法华之文具足二待。岂可离文判属二涂。答会竟无二未会则别。喻曰。此师非但迷于玄文待绝之名。亦乃不达法华开会之意。一代教法会在法华。彼判法华唯有相待。更立何部称为会经。若以法华会入华严。实无开显之说。若尔两俱未会应别立一经以会斯二。若以观会会则无文。今家所判以法华之绝。绝彼华严。当知华严未绝明矣。又何但未绝。亦乃无待。以兼别故独显不成。尚非相待绝何所寄。会竟无二还归法华。何故判之。云非顿顿。问法华之文岂有不会。答对前称待应无别理。喻曰。若据此答定判。法华唯有相待。虽有相待理亦不周。但得待前之言。失于能对之妙。纵使法华但有相待。终成不晓所待之名。所待即前诸粗。前谓华严。若望彼所判还负己宗。华严既粗顿顿何在。法华咸妙顿顿不疑。相待既然绝待可判。问修观之法准义用文。既同法华。应依会义因何对昔而分二涂。又以法华为不会。乃将华严为绝待。答修观不同于教。是故观二教一。喻曰。凡修观者必依于教。若观二教一其理不成。法华既融。只应还依融义修观。其虚立二观。谬以绝为华严会义。既归法华顿顿之名徒设。况教一观二。一观无文。又与立宗全成乖互。本立华严为顿顿。顿顿却归于法华。顿义既归于法华。言判为渐者 现代汉语译本： 问：什么是顿顿（dùn dùn）？（指顿悟之顿，顿教之顿） 答：提问者认为《法华经》的文句具备相待（xiāng dài，相对、对待）和绝待（jué dài，绝对、超越对待）二种特性。难道可以脱离经文，判定它属于二种不同的教法吗？ 答：会归之后就没有二，未会归之前则有差别。例如，这位法师不仅迷惑于玄妙经文和绝待之名，也不明白《法华经》开显会归的意义。一代的教法都汇归于《法华经》，他却判定《法华经》只有相待。如果这样，又将哪一部经典称为会经呢？如果认为《法华经》会归于《华严经》，实际上并没有开显会归的说法。如果这样，两部经都未会归，应该另外立一部经来会归这两部经。如果用观行来会归，则没有经文依据。我们所判定的，是用《法华经》的绝待来超越《华严经》。由此可知，《华严经》尚未达到绝待是明显的。不仅尚未达到绝待，而且也没有相待的特性，因为它兼具别教的特性，无法独立显现，尚且不是相待，又如何寄托绝待呢？会归之后就没有二，最终还是归于《法华经》，为什么要判定它为非顿顿呢？ 问：《法华经》的文句难道没有会归的含义吗？ 答：如果针对前面所说的相待，应该没有差别之理。例如，如果按照这个回答来判定，就断定《法华经》只有相待。即使有相待，道理也不完备，只得到了相待之前的说法，失去了能对待的妙用。纵然《法华经》只有相待，最终还是不明白所待之名。所待就是之前的各种粗浅教法，之前指的是《华严经》。如果按照他所判定的，还是违背了自己的宗旨。《华严经》既然是粗浅的，顿顿又在哪里呢？《法华经》全部是精妙的，顿顿是毫无疑问的。相待既然如此，绝待也可以判定。 问：修习观行的方法，依据义理运用经文，既然与《法华经》相同，应该依据会归的意义，为何要针对过去而分为二种不同的途径？又认为《法华经》不会归，反而将《华严经》作为绝待？ 答：修习观行不同于教法，所以观行有二，而教法是一。例如，凡是修习观行的人，必须依据教法。如果观行有二，教法是一，这个道理是不成立的。《法华经》既然是融会的，只应该依据融会的意义来修习观行。他虚假地设立二种观行，错误地将绝待作为《华严经》的会归之义。既然归于《法华经》，顿顿之名就是徒劳设置的。况且教法是一，观行有二，一种观行没有经文依据，又与他所立的宗旨完全背离。本来立《华严经》为顿顿，顿顿却归于《法华经》。顿义既然归于《法华经》，说它被判为渐教。
English
English version: Question: What is dundun (頓頓)? (Referring to the 'dun' in sudden enlightenment and the 'dun' in sudden teaching) Answer: The questioner believes that the text of the *Lotus Sutra* possesses both xiang dai (相待, relative, conditional) and jue dai (絕待, absolute, beyond conditions) characteristics. How can it be separated from the text and judged to belong to two different teachings? Answer: After convergence, there is no duality; before convergence, there are differences. For example, this teacher is not only confused by the profound text and the name of juedai but also does not understand the meaning of the *Lotus Sutra*'s opening and convergence. The teachings of a generation all converge in the *Lotus Sutra*, yet he judges the *Lotus Sutra* to have only xiangdai. If so, which sutra is called the convergence sutra? If one believes that the *Lotus Sutra* converges into the *Avatamsaka Sutra*, there is actually no explanation of opening and convergence. If so, since both sutras have not converged, another sutra should be established to converge these two. If one uses contemplation to converge, there is no textual basis. What we judge is using the *Lotus Sutra*'s juedai to transcend the *Avatamsaka Sutra*. From this, it is clear that the *Avatamsaka Sutra* has not yet reached juedai. Not only has it not reached juedai, but it also does not have the characteristic of xiangdai, because it combines the characteristics of separate teachings and cannot independently manifest. It is not even xiangdai, so how can it rely on juedai? After convergence, there is no duality, and it ultimately returns to the *Lotus Sutra*. Why judge it as non-dundun? Question: Does the text of the *Lotus Sutra* not have the meaning of convergence? Answer: If it is directed at the previously mentioned xiangdai, there should be no difference in principle. For example, if one judges according to this answer, one would conclude that the *Lotus Sutra* only has xiangdai. Even if there is xiangdai, the principle is not complete, only obtaining the statement before xiangdai, losing the wonderful function of being able to confront. Even if the *Lotus Sutra* only has xiangdai, one will ultimately not understand the name of what is being waited for. What is being waited for is the previous various coarse teachings, and the previous refers to the *Avatamsaka Sutra*. If judged according to his judgment, one would still violate one's own doctrine. Since the *Avatamsaka Sutra* is coarse, where is dundun? The *Lotus Sutra* is all wonderful, and dundun is beyond doubt. Since xiangdai is like this, juedai can also be judged. Question: The method of cultivating contemplation, based on the meaning and using the text, is the same as the *Lotus Sutra*. It should be based on the meaning of convergence. Why divide it into two different paths in response to the past? And consider the *Lotus Sutra* as not converging, but regard the *Avatamsaka Sutra* as juedai? Answer: Cultivating contemplation is different from teaching, so there are two contemplations, but the teaching is one. For example, anyone who cultivates contemplation must be based on teaching. If there are two contemplations and the teaching is one, this principle is not valid. Since the *Lotus Sutra* is a fusion, one should only cultivate contemplation based on the meaning of fusion. He falsely establishes two contemplations, mistakenly taking juedai as the meaning of the *Avatamsaka Sutra*'s convergence. Since it returns to the *Lotus Sutra*, the name of dundun is a futile setting. Moreover, the teaching is one, and the contemplation is two. One contemplation has no textual basis and completely deviates from the doctrine he established. Originally, the *Avatamsaka Sutra* was established as dundun, but dundun returns to the *Lotus Sutra*. Since the meaning of dun returns to the *Lotus Sutra*, it is said to be judged as gradual teaching. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
谬矣。问观本依教无教。如何立观。答根别。喻曰。此乃临急之说不思前后相违。观既随根。根本顺教。有根无教同于本迷。若以顿顿为华严。则渐圆无教。若以法华为渐教。则顿顿无文。问曰。云何名为顿顿观相。答前即后故名空。后即前故名假。前后不二名中。喻曰。后即是前何异。前即是后徒于不二。前后谬立空假之名。实未能知三观相状。又自说云。顿顿如法华六根清净位。但云六根清净不云先断见思。故知是顿顿。渐圆如仁王十信菩萨位。既云长别苦海。即是先除见思。故云渐顿。喻曰。自言相违不可穷尽。初以法华为渐顿。今以法华为顿顿。况复不知山门诸部。并将仁王以证法华。法华云。无漏意根。仁王云。长别苦海。无漏与别苦但有因果之殊。不见义同。从文分二。又云。前文既云。大意在一顿。当知五略正明顿顿。释名已去并是渐顿。喻曰。大意与下文但是广略之殊。如何分二。故分别中将大意对八章十义。分别广略即其一焉。岂有略顿而广渐耶。又第五初列前六重。以开解令依解以立行。如何以解为顿顿。以行为渐圆。依解起行行既违解。此乃目视东而足西。膏南而明北。又若大意唯在于顿顿。何故大行通引三乘。若下文唯在于渐圆。何故复有一心止观及中。即三观破前神通。又若大意唯在顿顿 现代汉语译本： 这是错误的。你问关于观行的根本是依据教法还是不依据教法，却又说如何建立观行。回答说，这取决于根器的差别。这好比是临时的说法，没有考虑到前后互相矛盾。观行既然随顺根器，那么根器就应该顺应教法。如果只有根器而没有教法，就和根本的迷惑没有区别了。如果认为顿悟就是《华严经》（Hua Yan Jing，佛教经典），那么渐悟和圆悟就没有教法了。如果认为《法华经》（Fa Hua Jing，佛教经典）是渐悟的教法，那么顿悟就没有文字依据了。 你问：‘什么叫做顿顿观相？’回答说：‘前念即是后念，所以叫做空；后念即是前念，所以叫做假；前后念不二，叫做中。’这好比说，后念就是前念有什么区别？前念就是后念，只是徒劳地建立空、假之名，实际上并不能了解三观的真实相状。而且你自己说，顿顿观相就像《法华经》中六根清净的位次，只是说六根清净，却没有说先断除见思惑（Jian Si Huo，佛教术语，指见惑和思惑），所以知道这是顿顿观相。渐圆观相就像《仁王经》（Ren Wang Jing，佛教经典）中十信菩萨的位次，既然说永远脱离苦海，就是先除掉了见思惑，所以说是渐顿观相。’ 这好比说，你自己说的话互相矛盾，说也说不完。一开始认为《法华经》是渐顿，现在又认为《法华经》是顿顿。更何况你还不了解山门各部的说法，竟然用《仁王经》来证明《法华经》。《法华经》说‘无漏意根’，《仁王经》说‘永远脱离苦海’，无漏和脱离苦海只是因果上的差别，没有看到它们的意义相同，却从文字上分为两种说法。’ 又说：‘前面的文章已经说了，大意在于一顿，应当知道五略正是说明顿顿观相，解释名相之后都是渐顿观相。’这好比说，大意和下面的文章只是广略上的差别，怎么能分为两种说法呢？所以在分别中将大意对应八章十义，分别广略只是其中之一。难道有略说是顿悟而广说是渐悟的吗？而且第五章一开始就列出前面的六重，用开解来让人依据理解来建立修行，怎么能以理解为顿顿，以行为渐圆呢？依据理解而开始修行，修行却违背理解，这就像眼睛看着东方而脚却走向西方，用南方的膏油来照亮北方。 而且如果大意只在于顿顿观相，为什么大行要普遍引用三乘（San Cheng，佛教术语，指声闻乘、缘觉乘和菩萨乘）的教义？如果下面的文章只在于渐圆观相，为什么又有一心止观以及中观，即三观来破除前面的神通？而且如果大意只在于顿顿观相……
English
English version: This is wrong. You ask whether the basis of contemplation relies on teachings or not, and then ask how to establish contemplation. The answer is that it depends on the differences in faculties. This is like a temporary explanation, not considering the contradictions between the beginning and the end. Since contemplation follows faculties, then faculties should follow teachings. If there are only faculties without teachings, it is no different from fundamental delusion. If one considers sudden enlightenment to be the Hua Yan Jing (Flower Garland Sutra, a Buddhist scripture), then gradual and complete enlightenment have no teachings. If one considers the Fa Hua Jing (Lotus Sutra, a Buddhist scripture) to be the teaching of gradual enlightenment, then sudden enlightenment has no textual basis. You ask: 'What is called the aspect of sudden and sudden contemplation?' The answer is: 'The previous thought is the subsequent thought, therefore it is called emptiness; the subsequent thought is the previous thought, therefore it is called provisionality; the non-duality of the previous and subsequent thoughts is called the middle.' This is like saying, what is the difference between the subsequent thought being the previous thought? The previous thought being the subsequent thought is merely establishing the names of emptiness and provisionality in vain, and in reality, one cannot understand the true aspects of the three contemplations. Moreover, you yourself say that the aspect of sudden and sudden contemplation is like the stage of purification of the six senses in the Fa Hua Jing, only saying that the six senses are purified, but not saying that one first cuts off the delusions of views and thoughts (Jian Si Huo, Buddhist term, referring to delusions of views and delusions of thoughts), so one knows that this is sudden and sudden contemplation. The aspect of gradual and complete contemplation is like the stage of the ten faiths of the Bodhisattva in the Ren Wang Jing (Benevolent Kings Sutra, a Buddhist scripture), since it says that one is forever separated from the sea of suffering, it means that one has first removed the delusions of views and thoughts, so it is called gradual and sudden contemplation.' This is like saying that your own words contradict each other, and one cannot finish speaking about it. At first, you considered the Fa Hua Jing to be gradual and sudden, but now you consider the Fa Hua Jing to be sudden and sudden. Moreover, you do not understand the various schools of the mountain gate, and you actually use the Ren Wang Jing to prove the Fa Hua Jing. The Fa Hua Jing says 'unleaked mind-root', and the Ren Wang Jing says 'forever separated from the sea of suffering'. Unleaked and separated from suffering are only different in terms of cause and effect, and one does not see that their meanings are the same, but divides them into two based on the text.' It also says: 'The previous text has already said that the main idea lies in one suddenness, and one should know that the five summaries are precisely explaining sudden and sudden contemplation, and after explaining the names, they are all gradual and sudden contemplation.' This is like saying that the main idea and the following text are only different in terms of breadth and brevity, how can they be divided into two? Therefore, in the differentiation, the main idea is matched with the eight chapters and ten meanings, and differentiating breadth and brevity is only one of them. Could there be a brief explanation that is sudden enlightenment and a broad explanation that is gradual enlightenment? Moreover, the fifth chapter initially lists the previous six levels, using explanation to allow people to establish practice based on understanding, how can one consider understanding to be sudden and sudden, and practice to be gradual and complete? Starting practice based on understanding, but the practice contradicts the understanding, this is like the eyes looking east but the feet walking west, using southern ointment to illuminate the north. Moreover, if the main idea only lies in sudden and sudden contemplation, why does the great practice universally cite the teachings of the Three Vehicles (San Cheng, Buddhist term, referring to the Hearer Vehicle, the Solitary Realizer Vehicle, and the Bodhisattva Vehicle)? If the following text only lies in gradual and complete contemplation, why is there also one-mind cessation-and-contemplation and the middle way, that is, the three contemplations to break through the previous supernatural powers? Moreover, if the main idea only lies in sudden and sudden contemplation... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------