English
This is a metaphor using shadows. It means that '梵' (梵语, Sanskrit) represents the aspect of purity, and '华' (汉语, Chinese) represents the aspect of literary elegance. Actually, there is no major problem, so why waste words? However, since the ancients used '华' to correspond to '梵', there must be a reason, which should not be ignored. Furthermore, quoting '文质彬彬' (wén zhì bīn bīn, a balanced combination of literary grace and substance) is very inappropriate. If literary grace and substance must be combined, then why did the Shang dynasty value substance and the Zhou dynasty value literary grace? Why were these two dynasties called the age of sages? Are the pure precepts of Upali (持戒第一的弟子, foremost in upholding the precepts) and the literary embellishments of Katyayana (论议第一的弟子, foremost in debate) not '彬彬'? It is probably from the aspect they valued, which is not an obstacle. Moreover, pure conduct is called '梵行' (brahmacarya, pure conduct), and ancient and simple sounds are called '梵言' (brahmavāṇī, pure speech). Why can't we use '净' (purity) to explain '梵'? Moreover, using '净' to explain '梵' comes from ancient translations. Master Qingliang Chengguan's commentary on the Avatamsaka Sutra also says: '梵 is the sound of the Western Regions, fully called Brahma, which translates to '净' in Chinese, being the ultimate in being free from defilement, hence it is called '梵'.' Being free from defilement and reaching the ultimate is precisely the ultimate in purity. Furthermore, quoting '文义相随' (literary grace and meaning follow each other) to prove '文质' (literary grace and substance), how can the word '义' (meaning) be considered '质' (substance)? '华' and '梵' cannot be called '文质', so can '文' (literary grace) and '义' (meaning) be called '文质'? Also, '胡' (Hu) means barbarians. The Five Indias (五天, the five regions of India) are the center of Jambudvipa (赡部洲, the world we live in), the place where all Buddhas are born. To generalize them as '胡' is a ridiculous statement, not something a monk should say. Also, how can '净' (purity) and '乱' (chaos) be compared? '净' is the '净' of defilement and purity, not the '静' (stillness) of movement and stillness. To say that '净' is used to explain '梵' and '乱' is used to explain '胡' causes both literary grace and substance to be lost. What a meaningless statement! Question: Miaozong (妙宗, Zhanran, the author of 'Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') says that each teaching has four gates, and each gate has four Siddhantas (Siddhanta, 四种成就, four accomplishments). Why are the four Siddhantas now used as gates? Answer: Anything that can lead people into the Buddhist path can be called a gate. The four Siddhantas are also gates. Miaozong means that each teaching has four gates, and each gate also has four Siddhanta gates. The omission of the word 'gate' is an abbreviation. If you don't believe this statement, you can refer to the works of the later eminent monks of the Tiantai school. Question: Sutras can be spoken by five kinds of people. What the other four kinds of people say, after being approved by the Buddha, is equivalent to what the Buddha said. Now, saying that the Buddha's words are like the edicts of a sage king, different from the words of ministers, has the suspicion of elevating one side and belittling the other. When Paramārtha (真谛, a monk from India who came to China during the Southern Dynasties) translated the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra (金光明经), he favored and praised this sutra. Zhi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
者云。使愚者有忽他经之失。不宜偏赞。今若云菩萨因人等者。华严多菩萨说。维摩不二法门。皆菩萨说。涅槃夜叉说偈。法华仙人传经。岂以人微而忽其道。经云。依法不依人。何得以人而判于法。若以人而判法者。则空生所说般若。应入阿含。如来所说小乘。应归大教。此疑梗塞。愿垂教之。 答。对臣子而尊君父。天理人情之至也。本非平肩人。何得谓之扬抑。若谓真谛偏赞金光明为失。则智者偏赞法华。亦乃有失耶。若云法华更无胜者。则华严其可抑耶。世尊于法华赞诸经之王。于金光明经亦赞诸经之王。随宜而赞。皆是也。岂世尊亦有失耶。又云。华严多菩萨说。至杂引夜叉等。然谓佛印者即同佛说则可。谓即是佛说则不可。今百官所出政令。凡已禀国王者。岂即名之为诏书耶。又菩萨等既与佛无别。何不自立。而待佛印。待佛印。则师资上下。了然辩矣。况今只明此是佛说。不同余人。不曾非诋菩萨等。谓不得说经。何为作此无风起浪之语。助臣子与君父争高。于天理不顺。于人情不安。况佛法耶。又云。空生般若。应入小乘等。亦非也。今论人不论法。非有罗汉说大法而我小之也。此等处本无人生疑。疑自今始矣。因疑此。并疑经。遂不信净土。其慎辞哉。 问。毗婆尸佛。至释迦时。九 现代汉语译本： 提问者说：‘如果因为害怕愚昧的人犯下忽略其他经典的过失，就不应该偏袒赞扬某一部经典。如果像您这样说菩萨因人而异等等，那么《华严经》大多是菩萨所说，《维摩经》的不二法门也是菩萨所说，《涅槃经》中有夜叉说偈，《法华经》中有仙人传经，难道可以因为说法的人地位卑微就忽略其中的道理吗？经典上说，‘依法不依人’，怎么能因为说法的人是谁就判断佛法的价值呢？如果因为说法的人来判断佛法，那么须菩提（空生）所说的般若，就应该被归入《阿含经》，如来说的小乘佛法，就应该被归入大乘佛教。’这个疑问让我感到困惑，希望您能指教。 回答者说：‘对臣子来说尊敬君王和父亲，是天经地义的事情。我本来就不是和菩萨平起平坐的人，怎么能说我是在抬高自己贬低他人呢？如果说真谛法师偏袒赞扬《金光明经》是错误的，那么智者大师偏袒赞扬《法华经》，也是错误的吗？如果说《法华经》没有比它更殊胜的经典，那么《华严经》就可以被贬低吗？世尊在《法华经》中赞扬它是诸经之王，在《金光明经》中也赞扬它是诸经之王，随顺时机而赞扬，都是可以的。难道世尊也有错吗？’又说，‘《华严经》大多是菩萨所说，甚至引用夜叉等。’然而，说菩萨所说是佛印可的，等同于佛说，是可以的；但说菩萨所说就是佛说，则不可以。现在百官所发布的政令，凡是已经禀告过国王的，难道就可以直接称之为诏书吗？而且菩萨等既然与佛没有区别，为什么不自己创立经典，而要等待佛的印可？等待佛的印可，师资之间的上下关系，就清楚明白了。况且现在只是说明这部经是佛说的，不同于其他人说的，并没有否定或诋毁菩萨等，说他们不得说经。为什么要说这种无中生有的话，帮助臣子与君父争高下呢？这在天理上是不顺的，在人情上是不安的，更何况是佛法呢？又说，‘须菩提所说的般若，应该被归入小乘’等等，这也是不对的。现在讨论的是说法的人，而不是佛法本身，不是因为罗汉说了大法，我就把它看作是小乘。这些地方本来没有人会产生疑问，疑问是从现在才开始的。因为怀疑这些，连带着怀疑经典，于是就不相信净土法门了。说话要谨慎啊！ 提问：毗婆尸佛（Vipashyi Buddha）到释迦牟尼佛（Shakyamuni Buddha）时期，九
English
English version: The questioner said: 'If, for fear that ignorant people will make the mistake of neglecting other scriptures, it is not appropriate to partially praise one scripture. If you say that Bodhisattvas vary according to the person, etc., then the *Avatamsaka Sutra* (*Huayan Jing*) is mostly spoken by Bodhisattvas, the non-dual Dharma gate of the *Vimalakirti Sutra* (*Weimo Jing*) is also spoken by Bodhisattvas, in the *Nirvana Sutra* (*Nirvana Jing*) there are Yakshas reciting verses, and in the *Lotus Sutra* (*Fahua Jing*) there are immortals transmitting scriptures. Can we neglect the truth in them just because the speaker is of humble status? The scripture says, 'Rely on the Dharma, not on the person.' How can we judge the value of the Dharma based on who speaks it? If we judge the Dharma based on the person, then the *Prajna* spoken by Subhuti (Kong Sheng) should be classified into the *Agama Sutras* (*Ahan Jing*), and the Small Vehicle Dharma spoken by the Tathagata should be classified into the Great Vehicle teachings.' This doubt confuses me, and I hope you can enlighten me. The respondent said: 'For a subject to respect the ruler and father is the ultimate of natural law and human sentiment. I am not on equal footing with Bodhisattvas, so how can you say that I am elevating myself and belittling others? If it is wrong for the *Dharmasatya* to partially praise the *Golden Light Sutra* (*Jin Guangming Jing*), then is it also wrong for the *Master Zhiyi* to partially praise the *Lotus Sutra*? If you say that there is no scripture more supreme than the *Lotus Sutra*, then can the *Avatamsaka Sutra* be belittled? The World Honored One praised it as the king of scriptures in the *Lotus Sutra*, and also praised it as the king of scriptures in the *Golden Light Sutra*. Praising according to the occasion is all appropriate. Is the World Honored One also wrong?' It is also said, 'The *Avatamsaka Sutra* is mostly spoken by Bodhisattvas, and even quotes Yakshas, etc.' However, saying that what the Bodhisattvas say is approved by the Buddha, equivalent to the Buddha's words, is acceptable; but saying that what the Bodhisattvas say is the Buddha's words is not acceptable. Now, the decrees issued by the officials, all those that have been reported to the king, can they be directly called imperial edicts? Moreover, since Bodhisattvas are no different from the Buddha, why don't they establish their own scriptures, but wait for the Buddha's approval? Waiting for the Buddha's approval clarifies the hierarchical relationship between teacher and disciple. Moreover, now I am only clarifying that this scripture is spoken by the Buddha, different from what others say, and I have not denied or slandered the Bodhisattvas, saying that they are not allowed to speak scriptures. Why make such unfounded remarks, helping subjects compete with the ruler and father? This is not in accordance with natural law, it is uneasy in human sentiment, let alone the Buddha Dharma? It is also said, 'The *Prajna* spoken by Subhuti should be classified into the Small Vehicle,' etc., this is also incorrect. Now we are discussing the person who speaks, not the Dharma itself, not because a *Arhat* speaks the Great Dharma, I regard it as the Small Vehicle. No one would have doubted these places originally, the doubt only starts now. Because of doubting these, they doubt the scriptures along with it, and then they do not believe in the Pure Land Dharma. Be careful with your words! Question: From Vipashyi Buddha to Shakyamuni Buddha, nine --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
十一劫。何故言二。若言是大劫。应增一大字。况以大劫论之。八十小劫为一大劫。但一劫有余耳。 答。何不看钞中首尾二劫四字。七佛。三属庄严劫尾。四属贤劫首。是首尾二大劫否。首尾二大劫。正九十一小劫也。分明是大劫。何必更加大字。唐译成佛以来十劫。云十大劫。什师止云十劫。即是十大劫也。亦不更加大字。又云止是一劫有余。一劫有余。非首尾二劫乎。思之。 问。何得说什师为千佛译师。引父母为例。千佛父母。乃在佛世。况父母与子。及侍者等。此人不多。无他可并。惟权无实。无别所妨。今译师则多。若罗什为千佛之译师。则义净玄奘等例尔。若一切皆然。何贵乎罗什所译。偏堪弘赞。若译师既然。则禅律等例尔。圣人既然。凡亦应尔。则大乱权实。是故不可。惟应守旧。 答。是何小视什师耶。因举七佛。故曰七佛以来。若举八佛九佛十佛。安知不曰多佛以来译经师也。若定执七佛。则文殊亦定止是七佛师耶。释迦亦定出自伽耶城。今方成佛。而非成佛以来无量无边劫耶。又言必在佛世。是不知虽无文王犹兴也。又引母佛子佛侍佛者无二人。而译经者有多众。夫母一。子一。则诚然矣。佛成道三十年。阿难始为侍者。佛弟子无量。三十年都无一人侍佛耶。侍佛者有多 现代汉语译本 十一劫。为何说成二劫？如果说是大劫，应该增加一个‘大’字。况且以大劫来论，八十小劫才是一个大劫，现在只多出一个劫而已。 答：为何不看钞本中‘首尾二劫’这四个字？过去七佛，有三位属于庄严劫的末尾，四位属于贤劫的开始。这不是首尾两个大劫吗？首尾两个大劫，正是九十一个劫。分明是大劫，何必再加‘大’字？唐朝翻译成佛以来十劫，说成‘十大劫’，鸠摩罗什大师只说是‘十劫’，也就是‘十大劫’的意思，也没有增加‘大’字。又说只是一个劫多一点，一个劫多一点，不就是首尾二劫吗？仔细想想。 问：为何说鸠摩罗什大师是千佛的译师？用父母为例，千佛的父母，乃是在佛世。况且父母与儿子，以及侍者等，人数不多，没有其他可以并列的。只是权宜之说，没有实际意义，没有其他妨碍。现在译师很多，如果罗什是千佛的译师，那么义净、玄奘等也一样。如果一切都这样，那罗什所翻译的有什么可贵的，值得弘扬赞叹？如果译师是这样，那么禅宗、律宗等也一样。圣人是这样，凡人也应该这样，那就大大扰乱了权实之别。所以不可以这样说，应该保持旧有的说法。 答：为何如此轻视鸠摩罗什大师？因为提到了过去七佛，所以才说‘七佛以来’。如果提到八佛、九佛、十佛，怎么知道不会说‘多佛以来’的译经师呢？如果一定执着于七佛，那么文殊菩萨也一定只是七佛的老师吗？释迦牟尼佛也一定只是从伽耶城开始，现在才成佛，而不是成佛以来无量无边劫吗？又说一定在佛世，这是不知道即使没有文王也会兴盛。又引用母亲、佛子、侍佛者没有两个，而译经者有很多。母亲一个，儿子一个，这确实如此。佛成道三十年，阿难才开始做侍者。佛的弟子无量，三十年难道没有一个人侍奉佛吗？侍奉佛的人有很多。