English
English version: Answer: Initially, thinking that quoting other scriptures is to achieve one's own views is an obstacle. Within this, there are two situations. First, understanding the Great Original (referring to the original version of the *Amitayus Sutra*). It is said: The two scriptures are one body, and should not be divided into self and other. Because the *Amitayus Sutra* has five formal translations and one compiled version, its original has six versions, all called the Great Original. And the current scripture is called the Small Original, which is just different versions of the same scripture, only with more or less text. How can it be judged as self or other? For example, the Great Original that is quoted, some say trees adorned with one treasure, and some say trees adorned with various treasures. Then, although the current scripture does not have this text, the 'seven rows of trees' it mentions actually uses four words to summarize the meaning of pure treasure adornment and mutual adornment. Also, as quoted in the Great Original, immeasurable precious flowers emit immeasurable precious light, then although the current scripture does not have this text, the blue, yellow, red, and white it mentions actually uses four colors to summarize the meaning of immeasurable flower light. Therefore, the commentaries repeatedly say that the scripture has this meaning, but the text is simplified, which is exactly what it means. From this, it can be seen that the Great Original should be quoted, which does not need to be discussed. Second, understanding the *Contemplation Sutra* (*Amitayurdhyana Sutra*). It is said: The *Contemplation Sutra* is slightly sparse, but it is not a different system. Because some texts are not present in the words, but are actually present in the meaning. For example, as quoted in the *Contemplation Sutra*, the Buddha manifests both a vast body of six hundred trillion, and also manifests a small body of sixteen feet, then although the current scripture does not have this text, immeasurable life and immeasurable light are the meaning of the vast body, and being present before all the saints is the meaning of manifesting either a large body or a small body. By analogy, the *Contemplation Sutra* has mandarin ducks, geese, and ducks, so does the current scripture's Pure Land only have white cranes, peacocks, etc.? The *Contemplation Sutra* has five hundred billion pavilions, so does the current scripture's Pure Land only have seven rows of pavilions? The *Contemplation Sutra* has Avalokiteshvara (Guanyin) and Mahasthamaprapta (Shizhi), so does the current scripture's Pure Land only have Amitabha Buddha, and lack the two attendants? Conversely, the current scripture has seven layers of railings, but the *Contemplation Sutra* does not have this sentence, so does the Pure Land of that side only have rows of trees without railings? The current scripture has countless bodhisattvas, but the *Contemplation Sutra* does not have this sentence, so does the Pure Land of that side only have Avalokiteshvara and Mahasthamaprapta two bodhisattvas? Like this, referring to each other, so it is said that the texts appear to each other, and the meaning must be complete. Then the Great Original is originally one body, and the *Contemplation Sutra* is also extremely close, quoting them as evidence is not quoting other scriptures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
圆觉证法华。引华严证涅槃之比也。二通前后相违妨。前言其同。后不曾言其异。只说尤为简约。故称要妙。以其简而该也。非对散而名要。对粗而名妙也。三通分全混同妨。此经虽曰分圆。正与观经之圆不异。何以故。观经对华严。亦分圆故。盖是同分别教一乘之圆也。此别字。非藏通别圆之别也。四通观念混同妨。汝盖以念字专属持名。然观经下品文云。其人苦逼。不遑念佛。岂非观即是念乎。今经亦说光明无量。行树楼阁。种种庄严。岂非观境乎。又持名观想。同出一心。一心观想。一心持名。皆得名为念佛也。五通繁约混同妨。上已详陈言有多寡。义无差殊。不劳更辩矣。噫。若入华藏玄门。则己他前后。乃至繁简。相即相入。不可思议。故此经名不可思议。 问。西竺之言。称梵语者。乃本乎光音天人之所传也。今言梵者。净也。对华而言。文质之谓。盖不足以尽之。况彼梵音。岂有质而无文。此土华言。岂有文而无质。儒称文质彬彬。然后君子。释称文随于义。义随于文。若彼质此文。则互有阙。辅行云。古来诤竞未生。西方之言。皆称胡语。后因道士伪造化胡经。方以葱岭之西为梵。葱岭之东为胡。今若以净释梵而为质。岂可以乱而释胡。致使文质俱丧也。 答。疏中文质。略借此间语而 现代汉语译本 圆觉证法华，好比引用《华严经》来证明《涅槃经》一样。二通前后相违的妨碍：前面说它们相同，后面不曾说它们不同，只是说更加简约，所以称为‘要妙’，因为它简要而赅括。不是针对繁杂而称为‘要’，针对粗略而称为‘妙’。三通分全混同的妨碍：这部经虽然说是‘分圆’，但与《观经》的‘圆’并没有不同。为什么呢？因为《观经》相对于《华严经》来说，也是‘分圆’。大概是同属于分别教一乘的‘圆’。这里的‘别’字，不是藏、通、别、圆的‘别’。四通观念混同的妨碍：你大概认为‘念’字只专属持名念佛。然而《观经》下品文说：‘其人苦逼，不遑念佛’，难道不是观想就是念佛吗？这部经也说光明无量，行树楼阁，种种庄严，难道不是观境吗？而且持名观想，同出一心。一心观想，一心持名，都可以称为念佛。五通繁约混同的妨碍：上面已经详细陈述，言语有多寡，义理没有差别，不用再辩论了。唉！如果进入华藏玄门，那么自己、他人、前后，乃至繁简，相互即入，不可思议。所以这部经名为‘不可思议’。 问：西竺（印度）的言语，称为梵语，是本于光音天人所传。现在说‘梵’，是‘净’的意思，相对于‘华’而言，是文质的意思，大概不足以完全表达它的含义。况且那梵音，难道只有质而没有文？此土华言，难道只有文而没有质？儒家说‘文质彬彬，然后君子’，佛家说‘文随于义，义随于文’。如果彼质此文，那么互相都有缺失。《辅行记》说：‘古来诤竞未生，西方之言，皆称胡语。’后来因为道士伪造《化胡经》，才以葱岭（帕米尔高原）之西为梵，葱岭之东为胡。现在如果用‘净’来解释‘梵’而认为是‘质’，岂可以用‘乱’来解释‘胡’，导致文质都丧失呢？ 答：疏文中说的文质，略微借用此地的语言而
English
English version 'Yuánjué' (Perfect Enlightenment Sutra) proves 'Fǎ Huá' (Lotus Sutra), just like using the 'Huáyán' (Avatamsaka Sutra) to prove 'Nièpán' (Nirvana Sutra). Second, it resolves the contradiction between the beginning and the end: the former says they are the same, the latter never says they are different, only that it is more concise, so it is called 'essential and wonderful', because it is concise and comprehensive. It is not called 'essential' in contrast to complexity, nor 'wonderful' in contrast to crudeness. Third, it resolves the confusion between partial and complete: although this sutra says 'partial completeness', it is no different from the 'completeness' of the 'Guān Jīng' (Contemplation Sutra). Why? Because the 'Guān Jīng' is also 'partial completeness' relative to the 'Huáyán'. It is probably the 'completeness' of the One Vehicle of the teaching of differentiation. This 'differentiation' is not the 'differentiation' of the Tripitaka, Common, Separate, and Perfect teachings. Fourth, it resolves the confusion between contemplation and mindfulness: you probably think that the word 'mindfulness' is only exclusive to holding the name of the Buddha. However, the lower-grade text of the 'Guān Jīng' says: 'That person is oppressed by suffering and has no time to be mindful of the Buddha.' Isn't contemplation mindfulness? This sutra also says that the light is immeasurable, the rows of trees and pavilions are all kinds of adornments. Aren't they objects of contemplation? Moreover, holding the name and contemplation arise from the same mind. Contemplating with one mind and holding the name with one mind can both be called mindfulness of the Buddha. Fifth, it resolves the confusion between complexity and simplicity: it has been explained in detail above that there are more or fewer words, but the meaning is no different, so there is no need to argue further. Alas! If you enter the profound gate of 'Huázàng' (Avatamsaka), then self, others, before, after, and even complexity and simplicity, are mutually inclusive and inconceivable. Therefore, this sutra is called 'Inconceivable'. Question: The language of 'Xīzhú' (India), called 'Brahma language' (Sanskrit), is based on what was transmitted by the people of the 'Guāngyīn' (Abhasvara) heaven. Now, 'Brahma' means 'pure', in contrast to 'Huá' (Chinese), it means literary substance, which is probably not enough to fully express its meaning. Moreover, does that Brahma sound only have substance and no literature? Does this Chinese language only have literature and no substance? The Confucianists say, 'Literary substance and quality are in harmonious proportion, then one is a gentleman.' The Buddhists say, 'Literature follows meaning, and meaning follows literature.' If that is substance and this is literature, then they are mutually deficient. 'Fǔ Xíng Jì' (Commentary on the Lotus Sutra) says: 'In ancient times, before disputes arose, the language of the West was all called 'Hu' (barbarian) language.' Later, because Taoists forged the 'Huà Hú Jīng' (Scripture on the Conversion of the Barbarians), they regarded the west of the 'Cōnglǐng' (Pamir Plateau) as Brahma and the east of the 'Cōnglǐng' as 'Hu'. Now, if we use 'pure' to explain 'Brahma' and consider it as 'substance', how can we use 'disorder' to explain 'Hu', causing both literature and substance to be lost? Answer: The literary substance mentioned in the commentary slightly borrows the language of this place and --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
为影喻。意以梵者清白之相。华者文彩之相。殊无大故。何必费辞。然古人既取华对梵。必有义也。不可忽也。又引文质彬彬。甚为不当。文质必兼。何以商尚质。周尚文耶。二代何以称圣世耶。优波离之净戒。迦旃延之文饰。二尊者不彬彬耶。盖从其所重。固无妨也。又行之洁白者名梵行。音之古淡者名梵言。奚不可以净而释梵也。况以净释梵。出自古译。清凉大师华严疏亦云。梵是西域之音。具云勃㘕摩。此翻云净。离染中极。故名为梵。夫离染而言极者。正清净之至也。又引文义相随。以证文质。然义之一字。安可为质。华梵尚不得称文质。文义顾可称文质耶。又胡者。夷狄也。五天。赡部之中央。诸佛之生处。概之为胡者。谬人之论。非僧所宜言也。又净乱何可相对。净是染净之净。非动静之静。而云以净释梵。以乱释胡。使文质俱丧。何言之无谓也。 问。妙宗云。教教四门。门门四悉。今何以四悉为门。 答。凡能引人入道者。皆可言门。四悉亦门也。妙宗意谓教教各有四门。四门亦复各有四悉檀门也。无门字者。省文也。不信此言。更参考天台下尊宿。 问。经通五人所说。余四佛印。即同佛说。今言佛说如圣王敕。不同臣下之言。有扬此抑彼之失。真谛释金光明经。偏赞本典。智 这是用影射来比喻。意思是梵语代表清白之相，汉语代表文采之相，其实并没有什么大问题，何必多费口舌。然而古人既然用‘华’来对应‘梵’，必定有其道理，不可忽视。又引用‘文质彬彬’，非常不恰当。如果文和质必须兼备，那又为何殷商崇尚质朴，周朝崇尚文采呢？这两个朝代又为何被称为圣世呢？优波离（Upali，持戒第一的弟子）的清净戒律，迦旃延（Katyayana，论议第一的弟子）的文采修饰，这两位尊者难道不‘彬彬’吗？大概是从他们所重视的方面来说，本来就没有妨碍。而且行为的洁白叫做‘梵行’，声音的古朴淡雅叫做‘梵言’，为什么不能用‘净’来解释‘梵’呢？况且用‘净’来解释‘梵’，出自古老的翻译。清凉澄观大师的《华严疏》也说：‘梵是西域的语音，具足地说应该是勃㘕摩（Brahma），翻译成汉语就是‘净’，远离染污而达到极致，所以叫做‘梵’。’ 远离染污而达到极致，正是清净到了极点。又引用‘文义相随’来证明‘文质’，然而‘义’这个字，怎么能算是‘质’呢？‘华’和‘梵’尚且不能称为‘文质’，‘文’和‘义’难道就可以称为‘文质’吗？还有，‘胡’是夷狄的意思，五天（印度），是赡部洲（Jambudvipa，我们所居住的这个世界）的中央，是诸佛出生的地方，把它们概括为‘胡’，是荒谬的言论，不是僧人应该说的。还有，‘净’和‘乱’怎么可以相对？‘净’是染净的‘净’，不是动静的‘静’，却说用‘净’来解释‘梵’，用‘乱’来解释‘胡’，使得文采和实质都丧失了，这是多么无谓的言论啊。 问：妙宗（《法华玄义释签》的作者湛然）说，教教有四门，门门有四悉檀（Siddhanta，四种成就），现在为什么用四悉檀作为门？ 答：凡是能够引导人进入佛道的方法，都可以称为门。四悉檀也是门。妙宗的意思是说，每个教法都有四门，每个门又各有四悉檀门。没有‘门’字，是省略了文字。如果不相信这个说法，可以参考天台宗的下辈尊宿的著作。 问：经典可以由五种人宣说，其余四种人所说的，经过佛的印可，就等同于佛说。现在说佛说的话如同圣王的敕令，不同于臣下的言论，这有抬高一方贬低另一方的嫌疑。真谛（Paramārtha，南朝时期来华的印度僧人）翻译《金光明经》时，偏袒赞美这部经典，智