English
English version Eleven kalpas (劫). Why say two? If you say it is a great kalpa (大劫), you should add the word 'great'. Moreover, according to the calculation of great kalpas, eighty small kalpas (小劫) make one great kalpa. Now there is only one kalpa more. Answer: Why don't you look at the four words 'beginning and end two kalpas' (首尾二劫) in the commentary? Of the past seven Buddhas (七佛), three belong to the end of the Adornment Kalpa (庄严劫), and four belong to the beginning of the Worthy Kalpa (贤劫). Are these not the beginning and end two great kalpas? The beginning and end two great kalpas are exactly ninety-one small kalpas. It is clearly a great kalpa, why add the word 'great'? The Tang translation says ten kalpas since becoming a Buddha, calling them 'ten great kalpas' (十大劫). Master Kumarajiva (鸠摩罗什) only says 'ten kalpas' (十劫), which means 'ten great kalpas', without adding the word 'great'. It is also said that it is only a little more than one kalpa. Isn't a little more than one kalpa the beginning and end two kalpas? Think about it. Question: Why say that Master Kumarajiva is the translator of a thousand Buddhas (千佛)? Taking parents as an example, the parents of a thousand Buddhas are in the Buddha's time. Moreover, parents and sons, as well as attendants, are few in number, and there is nothing else to compare them with. It is just an expedient, without practical meaning, and without other obstacles. Now there are many translators. If Kumarajiva is the translator of a thousand Buddhas, then Yijing (义净), Xuanzang (玄奘), etc., are the same. If everything is like this, then what is so valuable about Kumarajiva's translations, worthy of being promoted and praised? If translators are like this, then Zen (禅宗), Vinaya (律宗), etc., are the same. If sages are like this, then ordinary people should also be like this, which would greatly disrupt the distinction between expedient and real. Therefore, it cannot be said like this, and the old saying should be maintained. Answer: Why do you underestimate Master Kumarajiva so much? Because the past seven Buddhas were mentioned, it was said 'since the seven Buddhas'. If eight, nine, or ten Buddhas were mentioned, how do you know that it would not be said 'translators since many Buddhas'? If you are determined to adhere to the seven Buddhas, then is Manjushri Bodhisattva (文殊菩萨) also definitely only the teacher of the seven Buddhas? Is Shakyamuni Buddha (释迦牟尼佛) also definitely only from Gaya (伽耶城), and only now becoming a Buddha, and not countless kalpas since becoming a Buddha? It is also said that it must be in the Buddha's time, which is not knowing that even without King Wen (文王), there will still be prosperity. It is also cited that there are not two mothers, Buddha sons, and Buddha attendants, while there are many translators. One mother and one son are indeed true. Thirty years after the Buddha attained enlightenment, Ananda (阿难) began to be an attendant. The Buddha has countless disciples, and in thirty years, is there not a single person serving the Buddha? There are many people serving the Buddha. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
众。则阿难亦无世世侍佛之理耶。又引义净玄奘等亦应尔。诸师凡夫亦应尔。复大不然。译师更无胜劣耶。圣凡更无分别耶。则今日四夷馆通使。其智慧皆与什师等耶。又言七佛译师。天人所说。然安知天人止见七佛。而未见七佛以前耶。如佛世老人求出家。而罗汉不知彼八万劫前之善根。汝又安能测什师多劫之因缘耶。且钞中初未尝以旧说七佛为非。特以理度之。容有多佛译经之理耳。昔人云。旻法师。毗婆尸佛时即为法师。又云。毗婆尸佛早留心。盖远指者。寻常以七佛为率。而非定限七佛也。孟子曰。圣人百世之师也。岂定限百世。而不能师二百三百世耶。许可人者曰。此五百僧善知识。岂定限五百。而六百七百便不可耶。赞老子云。无世不出。永嘉云。吾早曾经多劫修。何必不使什师宽一佛地耶。此语且置。法华称富楼那七佛以来说法第一。又云。九十亿佛以来。说法人中。亦为第一。是金口语否。试展卷一观之。 问。显教者。修多罗是也。密教者。咒是也。何乃以梵语为密。华言为显。为以东方不测西竺之言为密耶。为以梵语在彼即密耶。若在彼即密者。则西土无显教。若此土不测彼言为密者。则此土典籍。传至西土。未翻译时。亦应云密。若未翻译。则不可测。若已翻译。是则可知。若尔。何故 众：那么按照你的说法，阿难（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以记忆力超群著称）就没有世世代代侍奉佛陀的道理了吗？按照你的说法，义净（Yijing，唐代著名译经师）、玄奘（Xuanzang，唐代著名译经师）等人也应该如此。所有译经师和凡夫俗子也应该如此，这太不对了。难道译经师没有优劣之分吗？圣人和凡人没有区别吗？那么今天四夷馆的翻译官，他们的智慧都和鸠摩罗什（Kumarajiva，后秦时代著名译经师）一样吗？ 你又说七佛（Seven Buddhas，过去七佛）的译师是天人所说。但你怎么知道天人只见过七佛，而没见过七佛以前的佛呢？就像佛陀在世时，有老人求出家，而罗汉（Arhat，小乘佛教修行证果者）不知道他八万劫前的善根。你又怎么能测度鸠摩罗什多劫的因缘呢？况且钞中最初也未曾说旧说七佛是错误的，只是以道理推测，容许有多佛译经的道理罢了。以前有人说，旻法师在毗婆尸佛（Vipassi Buddha，过去七佛之一）时就是法师了。又说，毗婆尸佛早就留心了。大概是说，通常以七佛为常例，而不是限定只有七佛。孟子说：‘圣人是百代的老师。’难道是限定只能做一百代的老师，而不能做二百代、三百代的老师吗？许可别人说：‘这五百僧是善知识。’难道是限定只有五百，而六百、七百就不可以吗？赞美老子说：‘没有哪一世不出现。’永嘉禅师说：‘我早就经历多劫修行。’为什么不能让鸠摩罗什宽裕一个佛的果位呢？ 这些话暂且放在一边。《法华经》（Lotus Sutra）称赞富楼那（Purna，佛陀十大弟子之一，以善于说法著称）在七佛以来说法第一。又说：‘九十亿佛以来，说法的人中，也是第一。’这是佛陀亲口说的吗？你可以展开经卷看看。 问：显教（Exoteric Buddhism）就是修多罗（Sutra，佛经）吗？密教（Esoteric Buddhism）就是咒语（Mantra）吗？为什么用梵语（Sanskrit）说是密，用汉语说是显呢？是因为东方人不能理解西竺（India）的语言所以说是密吗？还是因为梵语在印度就是密呢？如果在印度就是密，那么印度就没有显教了。如果因为我们这里不能理解他们的语言就说是密，那么我们这里的典籍，传到印度，在没有翻译的时候，也应该说是密。如果没有翻译，就不可理解；如果已经翻译，那就是可以理解的。如果是这样，为什么还要说是密呢？
English
Question: Then, according to you, would Ananda (one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha, known for his exceptional memory) have no reason to serve the Buddha lifetime after lifetime? Following your logic, Yijing (a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures in the Tang Dynasty), Xuanzang (a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures in the Tang Dynasty), and others should also be the same. All translators and ordinary people should be the same, which is utterly wrong. Are there no differences in skill among translators? Are there no distinctions between saints and ordinary people? Then, are the interpreters at the Court of State Ceremonial today as wise as Kumarajiva (a famous translator of Buddhist scriptures in the Later Qin Dynasty)? You also say that the translators of the Seven Buddhas (the Seven Buddhas of the Past) were spoken of by devas (deities). But how do you know that the devas only saw the Seven Buddhas and not the Buddhas before the Seven Buddhas? Just as when an old man sought ordination in the Buddha's time, the Arhats (those who have attained enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism) did not know his roots of goodness from eighty thousand kalpas (eons) ago. How can you measure Kumarajiva's karmic connections over many kalpas? Moreover, the commentary has never said that the old saying of the Seven Buddhas is wrong, but only infers from reason that there may be a reason for many Buddhas to translate scriptures. In the past, someone said that Dharma Master Min was already a Dharma Master during the time of Vipassi Buddha (one of the Seven Buddhas of the Past). It was also said that Vipassi Buddha had long been mindful. Generally, the Seven Buddhas are taken as the norm, but it is not limited to only the Seven Buddhas. Mencius said, 'A sage is a teacher for a hundred generations.' Is it limited to only being a teacher for a hundred generations and not for two hundred or three hundred generations? When someone is praised, it is said, 'These five hundred monks are good advisors.' Is it limited to only five hundred, and six hundred or seven hundred are not allowed? Praising Lao Tzu, it is said, 'He appears in every age.' Yongjia said, 'I have long cultivated through many kalpas.' Why can't Kumarajiva be granted the attainment of Buddhahood? Let's put these words aside for now. The Lotus Sutra praises Purna (one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha, known for his eloquence) as the foremost in preaching since the Seven Buddhas. It also says, 'Since ninety billion Buddhas ago, he has also been the foremost among preachers.' Are these the Buddha's own words? Try opening the scripture and see. Question: Is Exoteric Buddhism (the teaching that is open to all) the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures)? Is Esoteric Buddhism (the teaching that is only for initiates) the Mantras (sacred utterances)? Why is it said that Sanskrit is esoteric and Chinese is exoteric? Is it because people in the East cannot understand the language of India, so it is said to be esoteric? Or is it because Sanskrit is esoteric in India? If it is esoteric in India, then there is no Exoteric Buddhism in India. If it is said to be esoteric because we here cannot understand their language, then our scriptures, when transmitted to India, should also be said to be esoteric before they are translated. If they are not translated, they are incomprehensible; if they are translated, then they are comprehensible. If that is the case, why should it be said to be esoteric? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 云咒者非下凡可测。
Chinese
答。凡称理二字下语句。须另着眼始得。盖格外之谭。不可拘文滞相。逐逐然以训诂之法而等例之也。况今非正释经咒显密时也。夫新学沙弥。莫不知经之为显。咒之为密矣。宁知影略借喻。权实无方。反覆转移。纵横不碍。类而推之。世出世间。凡昭然易见者。皆可言显也。凡幽然难知者。皆可言密也。且必以不可测为密。可测为显乎。经中法华云。是法非思量分别之所能解。维摩云。不知是何言。不知以何答。涅槃会上。世尊拈华云众。百万人天。悉皆罔措。是经有时乎不可测也。则经反成密矣。咒中。阿字是毗卢全身。吽字是三解脱门。文殊五字咒。阿者无生义。啰者无染义。是咒有时乎可测也。则咒反成显矣。故知汝言梵语为密。则西土无显教。此方之言。西土不知。亦可言密。以此为难者。皆繇执泥训诂显密二字之过也。且显密二字。是从来世间字义。欲发明经咒圆通者。取此二字配之。非许氏说文。及古篇韵家。曾训诂云。显者经也。密者咒也。则此二字。何为更不可别处一用。故云。凡昭然易见者皆可言显。凡幽然难知者皆可言密也。试举一例。论语云。天下有道则见。无道则隐。则见者出义。隐者处义。既隐见是出处。何得释中庸莫见乎隐者。以见为明处。隐为暗处。隐 现代汉语译本：云咒者的境界，不是凡人能够轻易测度的。 答：凡是称作‘理’的语句，必须另眼相看才能理解。因为这是格外之谈，不能拘泥于字面和表象，像训诂那样逐字逐句地等同看待。况且现在不是专门解释经咒显密的时候。新学的沙弥，没有谁不知道经是显教，咒是密教。难道他们知道影略借喻，权巧和真实没有定法，可以反复转移，纵横无碍吗？以此类推，世间和出世间，凡是昭然易见的，都可以说是显；凡是幽深难知的，都可以说是密。难道一定要以不可测为密，可测为显吗？经中《法华经》说：‘是法非思量分别之所能解。’（这种佛法不是思量分别所能理解的。）《维摩经》说：‘不知是何言，不知以何答。’（不知道说的是什么，也不知道该如何回答。）涅槃会上，世尊拈花示众，百万人天，都茫然不知所措。经有时候也是不可测度的，那么经反而成了密。咒中，‘阿’字是毗卢遮那佛（Vairocana）的全身，‘吽’字是三解脱门。文殊五字咒，‘阿’是无生义，‘啰’是无染义。咒有时候也是可以测度的，那么咒反而成了显。所以说，如果认为梵语是密，那么西土就没有显教了。此地的语言，西土的人不知道，也可以说是密。以此来诘难的人，都是因为执着于训诂显密二字的过失。而且显密二字，是从来世间的字义，想要发明经咒圆通的人，取这两个字来配合，不是许慎的《说文解字》，以及古代篇韵家，曾经训诂说，显是经，密是咒。那么这两个字，为什么就不能在别处使用了呢？所以说，凡是昭然易见的，都可以说是显；凡是幽深难知的，都可以说是密。试举一个例子，《论语》说：‘天下有道则见，无道则隐。’（天下有道的时候就显现，无道的时候就隐退。）那么见是出仕，隐是退隐。既然隐见是出仕和退隐，为什么解释《中庸》的‘莫见乎隐’，要以见为明处，隐为暗处呢？