English
English version: These sutras all fall under the scope of the Ninth Family Sutra. It is precisely because of this expedient means that the fusion of the fundamental and the derivative allows the various vehicles to be named the causal dharma of the One Vehicle. Moreover, because it accords with the Dharma Realm, there is no obstruction between the three and the one. These all belong to the non-fused common teachings. Now I ask: Does this gate of eliminating expedient means and returning to reality arise from the differentiation of the various vehicles, or does it arise from the fusion of the fundamental and the derivative? If it arises from the differentiation of the various vehicles, how can there be a distinct teaching of the One Vehicle in the Family Sutra? If it arises from the fusion of the fundamental and the derivative, then the fundamental is the non-fused common teaching, how can it nurture the perfectly interpenetrating Avatamsaka? Commentary: From the perspective of meaning, expedient means and reality always exist, the principle of the Dharma Realm is complete, and its essence is not dualistic. Critique: From the perspective of meaning, is this 'gate' the gate of meaning or the gate of dharma? If it is the gate of dharma, why does the chapter say: 'Because the gates of meaning are different, expedient means and reality always exist'? If it is the gate of meaning, why does it say 'meaning belongs to meaning'? Commentary: From 'Therefore' onwards, the number of sentences is counted, until 'One and only One Vehicle, the universal dharma is independent and without all things,' like the distinct teaching above, and even 'neither three nor one,' is the perfect culmination of the nature-fruit, as discussed earlier. Critique: Do these four sentences summarize and connect both the common and distinct teachings, or do they only summarize the common teaching? If it is only the common teaching, why did it say earlier 'it is only for convenience, not the main sutra'? Moreover, are the first and last two sentences only for convenience, not the main sutra? Could it be that the differentiation of the vehicles is too narrow, and the fusion is not wide enough? Or is the one and only One Vehicle neither one nor three, is it cited and attributed to other sutras or the content covered by the Family Sutra? If it summarizes and connects the two gates, then to which part of the fusion of the fundamental and the derivative should it belong? However, the Bodhisattvas who study the teachings have a rational affiliation, and the statements are biased towards their own group. If one truly wants to use this childlike effort to align with the profound and mysterious principles of the Great Sutra, it would be better to follow the example of Master Fazhen burning firewood. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------