Chinese
云。三乘之诸说。言一乘之法随宜说三。乃至如来明见众生根故。终无虚妄断罪过故。虽无虚妄。若知众生因虚妄说得法利者。随宜方便则为说之。是则诸佛甚深境界非二乘知。准此经文岂可下凡谬为商略。又彼三十四云。善男子。如来世尊为众生故。广中说略。略中说广乃至云。是故随人随意随时故。名如来知诸根力。善男子。我若当于如是等义作定说者。则不得称我为如来且知根力。三十五云。善男子。如来是诤讼是佛境界。非诸声闻缘觉所知。若人于是生疑心者。犹能摧坏。无量烦恼须弥山。若于是中生决定者。是名执着。乃至善男子。如是执着不名为善。何如故。不能摧坏诸疑网故。伽叶复言。世尊如是人者本自不疑。云何说言不坏疑网。善男子。其疑者即是疑也。三十六云。善男子。我虽说言一切众生悉有佛姓。众生不解佛如来等随自意语。善男子。如是语者。后身菩萨尚不能解。况于二乘其余菩萨。又后文云。若有说言一切众生定佛性定无佛性。是人皆名谤佛法僧。准此等又推功归佛谨述而已。故于诸释。随所爱乐任情取舍。以有教理各齐均故。不应于中起朋执心。强生偏见。谓契佛言无有是处。然应是具叙诸家教理。欲令学者知所在故。问。理有一长不应俱是。开释教藏须定指归。今但和光作不定说将 现代汉语译本 云。关于三乘（Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna）的各种说法，说一乘（Ekāyana）之法是随顺众生的根器而方便说为三乘。乃至如来明了地见到众生的根器，所以终究没有虚妄，断除罪过的缘故。虽然没有虚妄，如果知道众生因为虚妄的说法而得到佛法利益，就随顺众生的根器而方便为他们宣说。这正是诸佛甚深境界，不是声闻乘（Śrāvakayāna）和缘觉乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna）所能了解的。依据这部经文，怎么可以降低佛的境界，谬误地进行商议呢？ 又《大般涅槃经》第三十四品说：‘善男子，如来世尊为了众生的缘故，在广说中略说，在略说中广说’，乃至说：‘是故随顺人的意愿，随顺时节的因缘，所以名为如来知诸根力’。善男子，我如果对于这些义理作固定的说法，就不能称为如来，且知众生的根器和力量。《大般涅槃经》第三十五品说：‘善男子，如来是诤讼，是佛的境界，不是诸声闻和缘觉所能知道的。如果有人对此生起疑惑，还能摧毁无量烦恼须弥山。如果于此生起决定之见，这叫做执着’，乃至‘善男子，这样的执着不称为善，为什么呢？因为不能摧毁诸多的疑网’。迦叶（Kāśyapa）又说：‘世尊，这样的人本来就没有疑惑，为什么说不能摧毁疑网呢？’善男子，他的疑惑本身就是疑惑啊。 《大般涅槃经》第三十六品说：‘善男子，我虽然说一切众生都有佛性（Buddhadhātu），众生不理解佛、如来等是随顺自己的意语。善男子，这样的话，后身的菩萨尚且不能理解，更何况是二乘（Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna）和其他菩萨呢？’又后面的经文说：‘如果有人说一切众生决定有佛性，或者决定没有佛性，这个人就叫做诽谤佛、法、僧’。依据这些经文，又把功劳归于佛，我只是谨慎地叙述而已。所以在各种解释中，随自己所喜爱而任情取舍，因为教理各自齐备均衡。不应该在其中生起朋党的执着之心，强行产生偏颇的见解，认为契合佛的言教没有这样的地方。然而应该是具足叙述各家的教理，想要让学者知道所在之处。问：道理有一个长处，不应该都是一样的。开启解释教藏，需要确定指归，现在只是和光同尘，作不确定的说法，将如何呢？
English
English version Cloud. Various explanations of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) state that the Dharma of the One Vehicle (Ekāyana) is expediently taught as three according to the capacities of beings. Furthermore, the Tathāgata clearly sees the faculties of beings, and therefore there is ultimately no falsehood, and the faults of transgressions are cut off. Although there is no falsehood, if it is known that beings can benefit from the Dharma through false teachings, then it is expedient to teach them accordingly. This is precisely the profound realm of the Buddhas, which is not understood by the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna. According to this sutra text, how can one lower the Buddha's realm and mistakenly engage in deliberation? Moreover, the thirty-fourth chapter of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* states: 'Good man, for the sake of beings, the World-Honored Tathāgata speaks briefly in detail and speaks in detail in brief,' and further states: 'Therefore, it is called the Tathāgata's knowledge of the powers of the faculties because it accords with the wishes of people and the conditions of the times.' Good man, if I were to make a fixed statement regarding these meanings, I could not be called the Tathāgata, and I would not know the faculties and powers of beings. The thirty-fifth chapter of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* states: 'Good man, the Tathāgata is a dispute, it is the realm of the Buddha, which is not known by the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas. If someone has doubts about this, they can still destroy the Mount Sumeru of countless afflictions. If one develops a determined view on this, it is called attachment,' and further, 'Good man, such attachment is not called good, why? Because it cannot destroy the many nets of doubt.' Kāśyapa (Kāśyapa) further said: 'World-Honored One, such a person originally has no doubts, why do you say that they cannot destroy the nets of doubt?' Good man, their doubt is itself doubt. The thirty-sixth chapter of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* states: 'Good man, although I say that all beings have Buddha-nature (Buddhadhātu), beings do not understand that the Buddha, the Tathāgata, etc., speak according to their own intentions. Good man, even Bodhisattvas in later lives cannot understand such words, let alone the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna) and other Bodhisattvas?' Furthermore, the following text states: 'If someone says that all beings definitely have Buddha-nature, or definitely do not have Buddha-nature, that person is called a slanderer of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.' According to these sutra texts, I attribute the merit to the Buddha, and I am only carefully narrating. Therefore, in various interpretations, one should choose and discard according to one's own preferences, because the teachings and principles are all complete and balanced. One should not develop partisan attachments in them, and forcibly generate biased views, thinking that there is no place that accords with the Buddha's teachings. However, one should fully narrate the teachings and principles of each school, wanting to let scholars know where they are. Question: There is one strength in reason, it should not be all the same. To open and explain the teachings, one needs to determine the direction, but now one is only harmonizing with the world and making uncertain statements, what will happen? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
令后学何所承禀。答。义有可定不可定者。不决定义理过多解是其一向要令定释。佛尚不定谁敢定乎。问。秘密难知。诚如所过。此土众生乐闻佛性。何故如来不作定说。答。谁言一向乐闻说有。然诸佛众生自有二类。一闻佛性欣乐有凭勇猛进趣。若闻无性无所因说恩迢等心。二者若闻一分无性恐堕此缘加功德进习。若闻皆有情此佛性却生怠堕。由对机异教不定。明但应精勤坚集行愿面奉金颜当自知矣。 上来解释根性不同。以经被者。若依初释更无异论。五性之家应须料简。约正所被唯是上乘。经云。为发大乘说故。即余经云。为诸菩萨说应六波罗蜜。今得一切种智。若约兼被通诸二乘及以无姓。下列四众及于八部无所简故。大般若云。般若波罗蜜多能辨声闻独觉地。即前所引若勇猛文亦被二乘。此下菩萨广大之心。三界四生俱令灭度。无著菩萨问云。何故愿此不可得义。答生所摄故无过。至下当知。 第五依文正解者有二。初释题目后解经文。释经题者。秦魏梁本俱题金刚般若。唐国两本同号能断金。隋朝所翻准彼论后乃名金刚断割。前二本略后三具足。举体摄用。但标法喻之名体用双彰。兼陈断之因。广略虽异义则无违。初离释后令释。梵云跋阇罗。此云金刚。宝中最胜。体类多种。正理论云。帝 现代汉语译本： 问：让后来的学习者应该遵循什么呢？ 答：义理有可以确定的和不可以确定的。不作决定的义理，是因为过多的解释会使其偏离原本要确定的意义。佛尚且不定论，谁又敢妄下定论呢？ 问：秘密难以知晓，诚如您所说。此土众生喜欢听闻佛性，为何如来不作明确的解说呢？ 答：谁说众生一直都喜欢听闻‘有’呢？实际上，诸佛和众生自身有两种情况：第一种，听闻佛性，欣喜并认为有了依靠，从而勇猛精进。如果听闻无性，则会觉得无所依凭，心生懈怠。第二种，如果听闻一部分是无性，则会担心堕入这种因缘，从而更加努力地修习功德。如果听闻一切众生皆有佛性，却又会因此而懈怠。因为针对不同根机的对象，教法是不确定的。明确地告诉你，应该精勤地积累修行和愿力，亲自面见佛，自然就会明白。 以上解释了根性不同，以经典来适应不同根基的人。如果依照最初的解释，就没有其他不同的论点了。五种根性的人需要加以区分。从主要针对的对象来说，只针对上乘根性的人。《经》中说：‘为了宣说大乘而说。’也就是其他经典所说的：‘为了诸位菩萨宣说应修的六波罗蜜，从而证得一切种智。’如果从兼顾的对象来说，则通用于二乘根性以及没有佛性的人。下文所说的四众弟子以及天龙八部等，都没有加以区分。大般若经中说：‘般若波罗蜜多能够辨别声闻和独觉的果位。’也就是前面引用的‘如果勇猛精进’的文句，也包括了二乘根性的人。以下菩萨的广大之心，要使三界四生的众生都得到解脱。无著（Asanga）菩萨问道：‘为何要发愿这种不可得的义理呢？’回答说：‘因为被众生所摄取，所以没有过失。’到下文自然会明白。 第五，依照文字进行正确的解释，分为两个部分：首先解释题目，然后解释经文。解释经题，秦、魏、梁三个译本都题为《金刚般若》（Vajra Prajna）。唐朝的两个译本都叫做《能断金》（Can Duan Jin）。隋朝的译本根据论典之后，才命名为《金刚断割》（Vajra Duan Ge）。前两个译本比较简略，后三个译本比较完整。举整体来包含作用，只标明法和比喻的名称，整体和作用都彰显出来，兼陈述了断除的原因。虽然详略不同，但意义上没有违背。先分开解释，然后合起来解释。梵文是Vajra（跋阇罗），这里翻译为金刚，是宝物中最殊胜的。本体种类很多。《正理论》中说，帝