法華文句記 10.172

10.172

先釋無盡意名，於中初釋無盡，先引三經；次總結成三觀，初引《大品》空、《大集》假、《淨名》中，《大品》明空則無盡；《大集》八十無盡門既多門不同，即是假也；《淨名》夫無盡者，無有盡與不盡，雙非故中也。次釋意中亦先約三觀，次結。初空觀中雖並引境智，正在和合皆無自性，智隨境空，無盡家之意名為空意。次「又意」下約假者，世出世是境，智隨於境，境多智多。次約中心者，以能觀心性中故，所觀亦中，此約智照境說。「此約」下結，二處結文並云「觀智」者，咸約能立問答；俱云「慧莊嚴」者，問答已是二莊嚴竟。今釋其意，云問答名莊嚴者，定慧二嚴之中慧莊嚴也。況二菩薩名及以佛名，俱從慧立。「多苦苦一人」等四句，一一句中有苦皆救咸可持名，以有五隻十雙普故，故念念咸益。圓菩薩皆然，但隨緣耳。《經》云「觀世音菩薩即時」等者，有人以「觀世音」三字著下句上，興皇著上句末，於下句上又足「觀世音」三字。二俱不然，依下句頭亦不須足。有人問：何以同念有脫不脫？答：同念是顯機，得脫有冥顯，由過現緣差受益有等級，若其機感厚，定業亦能轉，若過現緣淺，微苦亦無徵。亦有人云：三災有大小，大謂火水風，小即命身財。大次第有二，一從小至大，時義可然；又從急至緩，此未必爾，火不盡急、風不併緩。小亦有二，一從重至輕，二從難至易。此或應爾，事益具如謝敷等《觀音應驗記》。說別答中「三業機」者，七難是口機，以稱名故，三毒是意機，令常念故，二求是身機，常禮拜故。「火難」者，有人引《仁王經》七火不同，一鬼火，二龍火，三霹靂火，四山神火，五人火，六樹火，七賊火。人火者，惡業發時身自出火。樹火者，如久旱時諸木自出火，及至釋水，則無七相，況復七相無所表對，故不用也。今文俱三，火名雖同淺深各異，若不爾者，云何顯觀音力大、念者功深？「入大乘」下引《論》格量。「六十二億」等者，有云：菩薩無殊，欲令偏重觀音故也。有云：佛法二門，謂等不等。不等如禮諸佛教說功異；平等者，得福無殊。今問，若平等者，佛既無偏無不平等，何故不等？以佛不可有等級故，故等不等秖是被緣，雖是被緣亦未申難，故須依今偏圓以釋。非但菩薩諸教不一，亦乃一教設迹不同，此約境判。若心境相對四句分別，今此乃是兩俱句邊，持六十二億心境俱劣，受持觀音心境俱勝，此即定教當教而觀。若二交互句，並境隨心轉。

First, explaining the name of Akṣayamati (Inexhaustible Intention). Therein, first, explaining 'inexhaustible', [the text] first cites three sūtras; next, it summarizes and concludes them into the three contemplations. First, citing the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā on emptiness, the Mahāsaṃnipāta on provisionality, and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa on the middle. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā explains that emptiness is inexhaustible; since the eighty inexhaustible gates of the Mahāsaṃnipāta consist of many different gates, this is provisionality; the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states that the truly inexhaustible has neither exhaustibility nor inexhaustibility, and negating both, it is the middle. Next, in explaining 'intention', it likewise first analyzes according to the three contemplations and then concludes. First, in the contemplation of emptiness, although both object and wisdom are cited, the focus is on their combination as lacking self-nature: wisdom follows the emptiness of the object; the intention of the master of inexhaustibility is called the intention of emptiness. Next, under 'further, intention', regarding the provisional: the mundane and supramundane are the object, and wisdom follows the object; when the objects are many, wisdom is manifold. Next, regarding the middle mind: because the contemplating mind-nature is in the middle, the contemplated is also in the middle; this is explained in terms of wisdom illuminating the object. Under 'this is according to', concluding: that the concluding passages of both places state 'contemplative wisdom' is because both are based on the capacity to establish questions and answers; that both state 'adornment of wisdom' is because questions and answers are already completed as the two adornments. Now explaining its intention, that question and answer are called adornments means the adornment of wisdom among the two adornments of samādhi and wisdom. How much more so the names of the two bodhisattvas and the Buddha's name, which are all established from wisdom! Regarding the four phrases 'greatly suffering, suffering one person', and so on: in every single phrase, wherever there is suffering, all are saved and all can uphold the name, because there are five pairs and ten doubles of universality; therefore, thought-moment after thought-moment, all are benefited. Perfect bodhisattvas are all like this; they simply follow conditions. As for the sūtra stating 'the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara immediately', and so on: some placed the three characters 'Avalokiteśvara' at the beginning of the lower phrase, while [Master] Xīnghuáng placed them at the end of the upper phrase, and moreover added the three characters 'Avalokiteśvara' to the beginning of the lower phrase. Both are incorrect; following the beginning of the lower phrase, there is no need to add them. Someone asks: 'Why is it that, when reciting equally, some are delivered and some are not?' Answer: 'Equal recitation is the manifest capacity. Obtaining deliverance has both hidden and manifest aspects; because conditions of past and present differ, the reception of benefit has gradations. If their responsive capacity is deep, even fixed karma can be transformed; if conditions of past and present are shallow, even slight suffering will show no sign [of relief].' Someone also says: 'The three disasters have great and small: the great are fire, water, and wind; the small are life, body, and wealth. The sequence of the great has two [interpretations]: first, from small to great, the meaning in terms of time may be so; second, from urgent to gradual—this is not necessarily so, as fire is not entirely urgent and wind is not altogether gradual. The small also has two: first, from heavy to light; second, from difficult to easy. This may indeed be so. The factual benefits are fully detailed in records such as Xiè Fū's Records of the Responsive Verifications of Avalokiteśvara.' In the specific answer, regarding the 'capacities of the three karmas': the seven perils are the capacity of speech, because of reciting the name; the three poisons are the capacity of mind, because of causing constant mindfulness; the two seekings are the capacity of body, because of constant worship. Regarding the 'peril of fire': someone cites the Benevolent Kings Sūtra on seven different fires: first, ghost fire; second, dragon fire; third, thunderbolt fire; fourth, mountain-spirit fire; fifth, human fire; sixth, tree fire; seventh, thief fire. 'Human fire' means fire spontaneously emerging from the body when evil karma erupts. 'Tree fire' means various trees spontaneously catching fire during a long drought. But when it comes to explaining water, there are no seven forms; furthermore, the seven forms have nothing to correspond to or signify, so they are not adopted. In the present text, both have three; though the name of fire is the same, shallow and deep differ. Were it not so, how could the great power of Avalokiteśvara and the deep merit of the reciter be revealed? Under 'entering the Great Vehicle', citing the Treatise to weigh and measure. Regarding 'sixty-two koṭīs', and so on: some say: 'Bodhisattvas are not different, but [the text] wishes to place special weight on Avalokiteśvara.' Some say: 'There are two gates in the Buddha Dharma, namely equal and unequal. The unequal is like praising the different merits taught by various buddhas; the equal is that the obtained blessings are not different.' Now I ask: if they are equal, since the Buddha is neither one-sided nor unequal, why would they be unequal? Because the Buddha cannot have gradations; therefore, being equal or unequal is merely on account of the capacities addressed. Although it is on account of capacities addressed, it has not yet resolved the objection; hence one must explain it according to the present one-sided and perfect. Not only are the bodhisattvas across the various teachings not identical, but even within a single teaching the provisionally manifested traces differ; this is judged in terms of the object. If discriminated by the four propositions of mind versus object: this case belongs to the proposition where both are combined—upholding sixty-two koṭīs has both mind and object inferior, while receiving and upholding Avalokiteśvara has both mind and object superior; this is contemplation according to the established teaching within that teaching. If according to the two alternating propositions, then in both, the object transforms following the mind.