觀音玄義 1.64

1.64

問眾生各有三業，何意但觀音然？通論皆得。常念恭敬，得離三毒，即是觀世音；禮拜供養，所求願滿，即是觀世身。而今但言觀世音者，舊釋此義為六：一趣立者，諸名不可累出，舉一趣以標名，「若稱為觀世身者」已，復還問此言「何意不名觀世音」，此則非問。二隨俗者，釋迦所說以音聲為佛事，故言觀世音，若遊諸國土隨彼所宜。三互舉者，能觀所觀，所觀即眾生色心也，今從能觀故但言觀。能聞所聞，能聞是聖人耳識，所聞是眾生音聲，今取所聞之音聲。舉所聞得能聞，舉能觀得所觀，從此為名故言觀世音。舊問：能所既爾，何不取所觀之色心、能聞之耳識以標名稱，為聞色心菩薩耶？舊答云：菩薩一觀於色心，此是應廣；眾生之一音，此是機狹。若從難者，則機有兩字，應但一字，便是應狹機廣，故不如所難。今更作難，此語應從義理，那得逐字？菩薩以能觀色心，何意不能觀音聲？眾生何意但以聲感色，心不能感耶？若其俱感、俱應，此逐字為觀，則感應齊等，若為判其廣狹？今不作此明，互舉凡聖感應皆通三業，而聖人與意、凡夫與聲，故言觀世音爾。四義攝者，如發聲必先假意，氣觸脣口，其音能出；口業若成，則攝得身意。若觀於口業，亦攝得身意，觀餘不爾，故言義攝。五隱顯者，身雖禮拜、意雖存想，未知歸趣何等？故名隱。若口音宣暢，事義則彰，故名顯。舉顯沒隱，故言觀世音。六難易者，臨危在厄，意則十念難成，身則拜跪遲鈍，口唱為急故成機，從易受名也。又，第六為有緣，觀音昔為凡夫，居茲忍界，見苦發誓；今生西方，多還此土，既有誓緣，急須稱名。今明若如前六義，皆遍有所舉。若依《釋論》其義即圓。何以故？出入息是身行、覺觀是口行、受為心行，心覺觀故尚具三業，何況發音成聲而不備三業耶？但舉一觀即備三應、但舉一音即備三機，而凡情謂聲彊智利，逐物標名；圓義往推，悉皆具足。

Question: Sentient beings each possess three karmas; why is it that [he] contemplates sounds alone? Answer: Generally speaking, all are acceptable. Constantly recollecting and revering [him] and thereby attaining freedom from the three poisons is contemplating the world's sounds (Avalokiteśvara); prostrating and making offerings [to him] and having what one seeks fulfilled is contemplating the world's body. Yet why does [the text] now only say 'Contemplating the World's Sounds'? Former masters explained this meaning in six ways: First, positing one [name] in an inclusive manner: names cannot be listed repeatedly; one is cited to establish the designation. If one had called him 'Contemplator of the World's Body,' one would turn around and ask here: 'Why is he not called Contemplator of the World's Sounds?' This, then, is not a valid question. Second, following conventions: what Śākyamuni taught made sounds the work of the Buddha; therefore it is said 'contemplating the world's sounds.' If roaming across various lands, he complies with whatever is suitable there. Third, mutually presenting [subject and object]: the contemplating subject and the contemplated object—the contemplated object is the physical forms and minds of sentient beings, but now from the contemplating subject it is merely said 'contemplating.' The hearing subject and the heard object—the hearing subject is the sage's ear-consciousness, and the heard object is the sounds of sentient beings; now [the name] takes the heard sounds. Presenting what is heard brings along the hearing subject; presenting the contemplating subject brings along the contemplated object. In deriving the name from this, it is called Avalokiteśvara ('Contemplating the World's Sounds'). An old question asked: Since subject and object are like this, why not take the contemplated physical forms and minds and the hearing ear-consciousness to establish the designation, making him the 'Bodhisattva Who Hears Physical Forms and Minds'? The old reply was: The Bodhisattva's single contemplation of physical forms and minds is a broad response; the sentient beings' single sound is a narrow capacity. If one followed the objection, the capacity would have two words and the response would have only one word, which would mean that the response is narrow and the capacity is broad; hence it does not match what was objected. Now, to raise another objection: this formulation should follow doctrinal principle—how could it chase after words? Since the Bodhisattva can contemplate physical forms and minds, why would he be unable to contemplate sounds? Why would sentient beings stimulate only with sound, while physical form and mind could not stimulate? If both stimulate and both respond, and one chases after words for 'contemplation,' then stimulus and response are equal; how could one judge them as broad or narrow? Now, we do not explain it this way: mutually presented, the stimulus and response between ordinary people and sages both pervade the three karmas, yet the sage [is associated] with mind and the ordinary person with sound; therefore it is simply called Avalokiteśvara. Fourth, inclusion by implicit sense: when uttering a sound, one must first rely on intention; breath touches the lips and mouth, and its sound can come out. If the vocal karma is accomplished, it subsumes physical form and mind. If one contemplates vocal karma, it also subsumes physical and mental karma; contemplating the others does not do so, hence it is called 'inclusion by implicit sense.' Fifth, the hidden and the manifest: although the body prostrates and the mind cherishes thoughts, one does not know what refuge is sought; hence it is called 'hidden.' If the vocal sound is proclaimed clearly, the matter and principle become apparent; hence it is called 'manifest.' Presenting the manifest and leaving out the hidden, it is therefore called Avalokiteśvara. Sixth, the difficult and the easy: when facing danger and distress, ten recitations in the mind are difficult to complete, and the body is slow and sluggish in prostrating and kneeling; calling out with the mouth is urgent and thus forms the capacity, taking the name from what is easy. Furthermore, the sixth is having affinities: Avalokiteśvara was formerly an ordinary being living in this Sahā world who saw suffering and made vows; now born in the West, he mostly returns to this land. Since there is a vow-affinity, one must urgently call upon his name. Now I explain: if one follows the previous six meanings, each partially presents something. But if one relies on the Dàzhìdù lùn, the meaning is complete. Why? Inhaling and exhaling are bodily actions; initial and sustained thought are vocal actions; feeling is mental action. Because the mind has initial and sustained thought, it already possesses the three karmas; how much more so when vocal sound is emitted—how could it not be equipped with the three karmas? Just presenting a single contemplation completely possesses the three responses; just presenting a single sound completely possesses the three capacities. Yet ordinary sensibilities suppose that sounds are prominent and wisdom is sharp, following objects to establish names; when deduced with the complete meaning, all are fully possessed.