法華文句記 1.99

1.99

次「觀心」者，前之三釋並是所觀，故云觀前也。悉檀是前因緣，教是前約教，迹是前本迹，等取三釋各具諸義，本雖久遠，圓頓雖實，第一義雖理，望觀屬事故咸成境，故對三為觀便成四釋。於中又三：初、通立觀相；次、引文證成；三、約文顯四。初文言「即通」者，具足應云緣生即空，即指前三皆緣生故。況前緣生境通三諦，從即空邊且判屬通，應知空觀通於一切。空假成別者，地前從別證道必同，亦通亦別者，凡通聖別故也。凡通前教、聖局證中故，空假仍通、中方別故。地前空假通於所非及以所照，登地別在能非能照，真實故也。此是別家對他通別，若唯別教與前永殊。「非通非別」者，無非法界故。雙非辨別與前復殊，此中既以因緣教迹而為觀境，不可復以藏通觀觀，是故但寄通別四句，寄約教義暫分別之。又為成四句，故借別教離為兩句，故第四句即是今經之妙觀也。次、「下文云」去，引〈譬喻品〉證成觀相。三、「信則」下，更約觀心成因緣等，而釋經文一心即具感應等四。信機見應者，於一心中能信如機、覺心如應。言「淺深」者，義當判教，信實相心不同於權，實相之深不同餘淺。「又信」下，約觀論本，則妙教為迹、所詮為本，見實相本即見經中師資之本，以主及伴俱得實故。以龍陀久成，從所證為本。言「龍陀佛」者，真諦云：「須菩提是東方青龍陀佛」。有引《大寶積》云：「舍利弗成佛號金龍陀」，未檢。指此則知一切聲聞咸然，故見空生、身子之迹，則識一切聲聞之本。「又聞經」下，乃以觀心釋成觀心，能覺之心名佛，即此覺心名慧，亦即覺心通數具足，即此覺心與弘誓俱，名慈心淨。「約心」下，結。

Next, “contemplating the mind”: the preceding three explanations are all the objects of contemplation; hence it is called “contemplating the preceding.” Siddhānta is the preceding causes and conditions; teaching is the preceding according to the teachings; traces is the preceding origin and traces; “and so on” includes the various meanings fully possessed by each of the three explanations. Although the origin is remote, although the perfect and sudden is real, and although the supreme truth is principle, when viewed from contemplation they belong to phenomena and thus all become cognitive objects; hence confronting the three as contemplation produces the four explanations. Within this there are also three parts: first, generally establishing the features of contemplation; second, citing texts to corroborate and establish; third, according to the text revealing the four. In the first text, the words “is common” (tong) fully stated should be “originated from conditions, thus empty,” directly pointing to the preceding three as all being originated from conditions. How much more so since the object originated from conditions permeates the three truths; from the side of “thus empty,” it is provisionally judged as belonging to the common [teaching]; one should know that the contemplation of emptiness permeates all. Emptiness and conventionality forming the separate: before the bhūmis, one follows the separate, while the path of realization must be identical; as for “both common and separate”: ordinary beings are common while sages are separate; ordinary beings are common to the preceding teaching, while sages are restricted to realizing the middle; emptiness and conventionality are still common, while only the middle is separate. Before the bhūmis, emptiness and conventionality are common to that which is negated and that which is illuminated; ascending the bhūmis is separate in the active capacity to negate and illuminate, because it is genuine. This is the common and separate of the separate school in contrast to the other; if it were solely the separate teaching, it would be forever distinct from the preceding. As for “neither common nor separate”: because there is nothing that is not the dharmadhātu. Distinguishing the separate through the double negation is again distinct from the preceding. Since here causes and conditions, teachings, and traces are taken as the cognitive object of contemplation, one cannot again contemplate them with the contemplation of the Tripiṭaka and common [teachings]; therefore, he merely draws upon the four propositions of common and separate, provisionally distinguishing them by drawing upon the meaning of the teachings. Furthermore, in order to complete the four propositions, he borrows the separate teaching and divides it into two propositions; hence the fourth proposition is precisely the wondrous contemplation of the present sūtra. Next, from “Below, the text states” onward, he cites the “Parable Chapter” to corroborate and complete the features of contemplation. Third, from “Faith, then” onward, further according to contemplating the mind completing causes and conditions and the like, he explains the sūtra text: a single mind inherently possesses the four, such as stimulus and response. “Faith in the capacity and seeing the response”: within a single mind, the ability to have faith is like the capacity, and the awakening mind is like the response. As for “shallow and deep”: in meaning it corresponds to classifying teachings; the mind that has faith in the true character differs from the provisional; the depth of the true character differs from the shallowness of the rest. From “Furthermore, faith” onward, discussing the origin according to contemplation: the wondrous teaching is the trace, and what is expounded is the origin; seeing the origin of the true character is seeing the origin of master and disciple in the sūtra, because host and companion both attain the real. Since Longtuo has long since attained buddhahood, it follows what was realized as the origin. As for “Longtuo Buddha”: Paramārtha said, “Subhūti is Blue Longtuo Buddha of the east.” Some cite the *Mahāratnakūṭa* as saying, “Śāriputra attained buddhahood with the name Gold Longtuo,” which has not been checked. Pointing to this, one knows that all śrāvakas are likewise; therefore seeing the traces of Subhūti and Śāriputra, one recognizes the origin of all śrāvakas. From “Furthermore, hearing the sūtra” onward, he then explains and completes the contemplation of mind through contemplating the mind: the mind capable of awakening is called buddha; this very awakening mind is called wisdom; this very awakening mind is fully endowed with penetrations and numbers; this very awakening mind, conjoined with the vast vows, is called pure merciful mind. From “according to the mind” onward, he concludes.