[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [法華遊意](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722) › 1.43 # 法華遊意 1.43 法華遊意 1.43 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.43) 昔南土北方皆言：《花嚴》是究竟之教，《法花》是未了之說。今謂不然。此經明初一乘救子不得，後辨一乘救子方得。得與未得義乃有殊，初後一乘更無有異。若後說一乘救子方得遂是不了義教者，初說一乘救子不得亦是不了義教；若初救子不得遂是不了教者，則諸佛出世便欲以不了義法用化群生，便乖諸佛本意、傷父子恩情也。今明《法花》與《花嚴》有同有異。所言同者，明一道清淨平等大慧故。〈踊出品〉云「是諸眾生始見我身聞我所說，即便信受入於佛慧，除前修習學小乘者，如是等人我今亦令得聞是經入於佛慧」，佛慧即是平等大慧，故知《花嚴》與《法花》同名平等大慧，諸佛知見無有異也。所言異者，略明五種：一、化主異。《花嚴》化主多名盧遮那，《法花》化主稱為釋迦；又《花嚴》一佛所說，《法花》則普集分身諸佛說；《花嚴》則菩薩說，《法花》則佛自說。二者、徒眾有異。《花嚴》為直往菩薩說，《法花》為迴小入大人說；《花嚴》純為菩薩說，《法花》雜為五乘人說；《花嚴》頓為菩薩說，《法花》漸漸為菩薩說。三、時節異。《花嚴》始說一乘，《法花》終明究竟。四、教門異。直說一乘平等大道無所破斥，名為花嚴教；此經破三乘執固然後始得歸於一極也。五、約處異。《花嚴》七處八會說，此經一處一會說。 > In the past, both the southern regions and the north said: the Avataṃsaka is the ultimate teaching, while the Lotus Sūtra is an incomplete discourse. I now say this is not so. This sūtra explains that the initial ekayāna was unable to save the son, whereas the later clarification of the ekayāna was able to save the son. Although there is indeed a difference in the sense of being able and not being able, there is no difference at all between the initial and the later ekayāna. If the later preaching of the ekayāna, through which he was finally able to save the son, were an incomplete teaching, then the initial preaching of the ekayāna, through which he was unable to save the son, would also be an incomplete teaching. If the initial inability to save the son made it an incomplete teaching, then the buddhas, upon appearing in the world, would merely wish to transform sentient beings with an incomplete Dharma; this would contradict the original intention of the buddhas and violate the affection between father and son. Now I explain that the Lotus Sūtra and the Avataṃsaka have points of identity and points of difference. What is called identity is because they clarify the purity of the single path and the great wisdom of equality. The chapter ‘Emerging from the Earth’ says: “When these sentient beings first saw my body and heard what I preached, they immediately believed and accepted it, entering into the buddha-jñāna, except for those who had previously cultivated and studied the small vehicle; people such as these I now also cause to hear this sūtra and enter into the buddha-jñāna.” Buddha-jñāna is precisely the great wisdom of equality; therefore we know that the Avataṃsaka and the Lotus Sūtra are equally called the great wisdom of equality, and the knowledge and vision of the buddhas have no difference. What is called difference is briefly explained in five ways: First, the difference in the teacher who transforms. The teacher in the Avataṃsaka is mostly named Rocana, whereas the teacher in the Lotus Sūtra is called Śākyamuni. Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka was preached by a single buddha, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached with all his emanated buddhas universally gathered together; the Avataṃsaka was preached by bodhisattvas, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached by the Buddha himself. Second, there is a difference in the assemblies of disciples. The Avataṃsaka was preached for direct bodhisattvas, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached for people who turn from the small to enter the great. The Avataṃsaka was preached purely for bodhisattvas, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached mixedly for people of the five vehicles. The Avataṃsaka was preached suddenly for bodhisattvas, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached gradually for bodhisattvas. Third, the difference in time. The Avataṃsaka initially preached the ekayāna, whereas the Lotus Sūtra ultimately clarifies the final truth. Fourth, the difference in teaching approach. Directly preaching the great path of equality of the ekayāna without refuting anything is called the Avataṃsaka teaching; this sūtra refutes the stubborn adherence to the triyāna and only then enables them to return to the single culmination. Fifth, the difference regarding location. The Avataṃsaka was preached in seven locations and eight assemblies, whereas this sūtra was preached in one location and one assembly. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.42) - [Next: 1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.44) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722~en-mt.1.43) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.43) · Pramāṇa