觀音玄義 1.39

1.39

第四料簡者，問：人對觀音、法對普門者，方等有普門法王子標於人名，此義云何同？答：此應作四句分別：人非法、法非人、人即法、法即人。若約華嚴次第意，地前生死行人未是實相之法，此法亦非彼人；若作不次第意者，人即實相、實相即人，人、法不二也。若三藏有門，明無假人、但實法，此法非人；若空門攬實法成假人，人、法兩異；若其不離人論法、不離法論人，此乃是二諦意，非中道之人法也。若方等對小明大論人法者，明小同三藏、明大同華嚴，般若涅槃等例爾。今方等中明普門者，即大乘意。今明普門是法，何得有法無人？彼明普門是人，何得但人無法？此則人法互舉，彼經標人，此處標法爾。例如小乘明身子智慧第一，餘弟子各就餘法門論第一，本以智慧斷惑，發真無漏，餘人無慧，那得入道？既得道果，果知有慧，但各舉其初門，別稱第一。譬如刀刃斷物，必藉於背方有利用，諸數如刀背，慧數如刀刃。今普門義亦爾，但以因緣之法當普門之名，何得無了因之人耶？若併從觀音標名者，此則通漫。欲使世諦不亂，互舉別名，如身具六根，但稱為淨眼淨意，豈得無餘根耶？

Fourth, in the critical evaluation: Question: If the person corresponds to Avalokiteśvara and the dharma corresponds to the universal gate, in the Vaipulya sūtras there is the Prince of the Dharma named Universal Gate who is designated by a person's name; how can this meaning be the same? Answer: One should make a fourfold distinction on this: person is not dharma; dharma is not person; person is precisely dharma; dharma is precisely person. If according to the sequential perspective of the Avataṃsaka, a practitioner in birth-and-death prior to the stages is not yet the dharma of the true mark, and this dharma is also not that person; if according to the non-sequential perspective, the person is precisely the true mark and the true mark is precisely the person, person and dharma being non-dual. If according to the gate of existence in the Tripiṭaka [teaching], it explains that there is no provisional person, only real dharmas—this dharma is not the person; if according to the gate of emptiness, grasping real dharmas to constitute a provisional person, person and dharma are two different things; if one does not discuss the dharma apart from the person, nor discuss the person apart from the dharma, this is the sense of the two truths, not the person and dharma of the middle way. If in the Vaipulya one contrasts the small with the great to discuss person and dharma: clarifying the small is the same as the Tripiṭaka, and clarifying the great is the same as the Avataṃsaka; Prajñā, Nirvāṇa, and the rest are likewise. Now, the universal gate explained in the Vaipulya has the meaning of the Mahāyāna. Now we explain that the universal gate is a dharma: how could there be a dharma without a person? That [sūtra] explains that the universal gate is a person: how could there only be a person without a dharma? This is merely citing person and dharma reciprocally: that sūtra designates the person, whereas this passage designates the dharma. For instance, the Hīnayāna explains that Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom, while the other disciples are each discussed as foremost with respect to other Dharma-gates: originally, one eradicates delusion and gives rise to genuine outflowlessness through wisdom; if the other people had no wisdom, how could they enter the path? Having attained the fruit of the path, one naturally knows they possess wisdom; they merely cite each one's initial entry and individually call them foremost. For example, when a knife blade cuts an object, it must rely on the back [of the blade] to have utility: the other mental factors are like the back of the knife, and the mental factor of wisdom is like the blade of the knife. Now the meaning of the universal gate is also like this: it merely matches the name of the universal gate with the dharma of causes and conditions; how could it lack a person of the revealing cause? If one designated the name together solely from Avalokiteśvara, this would be too broad and indistinct. Wishing to keep conventional truth from confusion, they reciprocally cite distinct names; just as the body is endowed with the six sense faculties, yet one is merely called 'pure eyes' or 'pure mind'—how could one lack the remaining faculties?