觀音玄義記 2.26

2.26

二、「問福」下，辯福慧一異是非，二：初、約隔異難。備舉相資，難今隔異。二、「自有」下，約偏圓答，二：初、立即離四句。大小皆四，故知即離名同義異。二、「如六」下，通偏圓諸教，二：初、明三教即離俱非，二：初、明小衍，二：初、三藏。菩薩一位得兩即句，羅漢白象得二離句。雖有即離，同在三藏。二、「若大」下，大乘。約別地前論於四句，初以行行對於慧行而為福慧，不破無明故俱名福。即此二福能破取相，復受智名。故此福智當兩即句。又地前福智無明全在，故皆名福；地上福智分破無明，故皆名智。此之福智當兩非句。故兩四句，非今福智。二、「方等」下，例二部。二、「今此」下，明圓教開合俱是，二：初、釋，二：初、二而不二，三：初、明相即。一心三止為福，一心三觀為慧，始從理性終乎極果定慧不二，是今兩即也。二、「故大」下，明互具。般若既是尊妙人見，驗慧具福。尊妙即是上定故也。論即《大論》，彼翻首楞嚴為健相也。三昧既能破彼強敵，驗福具慧，強敵即是無明故也。三、「大經」下，明異名。五名之中，般若師子吼是慧，楞嚴金剛是定，佛性是通名也。既是異名，彌彰體一，是故此五皆雙具之稱。復以無妨禪慧以結不二。二、「不二」下，不二而二。法雖不二，不妨分門各作名數而為解釋。二、「此是」下，結。論雖分門別相而說，須知禪慧畢竟不二。

Second, under "Question: merit," he debates the identity, difference, correctness, and incorrectness of merit and wisdom, with two [parts]: first, an objection in terms of separation and difference. Fully citing their mutual assistance, he objects to their present separation and difference. Second, under "Naturally there are," the reply in terms of the biased and the perfect, with two [points]: first, establishing the four propositions of identity and separation. Both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna have four, so we know that while the terms "identity" and "separation" are the same, their meanings differ. Second, under "As the six," he applies them to the biased and perfect teachings, with two [points]: first, explaining that in the three teachings identity and separation are both incorrect, with two [points]: first, explaining the Small and Great [Vehicles], with two [subpoints]: first, the Tripiṭaka [Teaching]. The bodhisattva stage obtains the two propositions of identity; the arhat and the white elephant obtain the two propositions of separation. Although there are identity and separation, they belong alike to the Tripiṭaka [Teaching]. Second, under "As for the Mahāyāna," the Mahāyāna. Discussing the four propositions with respect to the stages prior to the grounds in the Separate [Teaching], at first, taking active practice in contrast with wisdom practice as merit and wisdom, since they do not break ignorance, both are named merit. These very two merits, being able to break attachment to marks, again receive the name of wisdom. Thus this merit and wisdom correspond to the two propositions of identity. Furthermore, in merit and wisdom prior to the grounds, ignorance remains entirely, so both are named merit; in merit and wisdom upon the grounds, ignorance is broken in part, so both are named wisdom. This merit and wisdom correspond to the two propositions of non-identity [and non-separation]. Therefore, these two sets of four propositions are not the merit and wisdom spoken of here. Second, under "Vaipulya," he takes the two periods as an analogy. Second, under "Now here," he explains that in the Perfect Teaching opening and combining are both correct, with two [subpoints]: first, the explanation, with two [points]: first, dual yet non-dual, with three [points]: first, explaining mutual identity. The three cessations in a single thought are merit, and the three contemplations in a single thought are wisdom; from the rational nature at the beginning to the ultimate fruition at the end, concentration and wisdom are non-dual—this is what is meant here by the two identities. Second, under "Therefore the Great," he explains mutual inclusion. Since prajñā is seen by venerable and marvelous persons, this proves that wisdom includes merit. "Venerable and marvelous" refers precisely to superior concentration. The treatise is the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra; it translates Śūraṅgama as "heroic aspect." Since samādhi can crush strong adversaries, this proves that merit includes wisdom, for the strong adversary is precisely ignorance. Third, under "The Great Sūtra," he explains the different names. Among the five names, prajñā and Lion's Roar are wisdom; Śūraṅgama and Diamond are concentration; Buddha-nature is the common name. Since they are different names, this highlights all the more the unity of essence; therefore, these five are all designations that possess both. He further concludes their non-duality by stating that dhyāna and wisdom do not obstruct each other. Second, under "Non-dual," non-dual yet dual. Although the Dharma is non-dual, there is no harm in dividing into categories to assign names and numbers for the sake of explanation. Second, under "This is," the conclusion. Although the treatise explains by dividing into categories and distinct marks, one must understand that dhyāna and wisdom are ultimately non-dual.