[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [觀音玄義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727) › 2.39 # 觀音玄義記 2.39 觀音玄義記 2.39 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.39) 二、「夫依」下，正釋境智，二：初、定先後。二、「世者」下，依義釋，二：初、釋境，二：初、釋世，二、初、釋名義，二：初、示世分三種，二：初、直列三種。《大論》釋百八三昧中，至釋能照一切世間三昧云「得是三昧故，能照三種世間，謂眾生世間，住處世間，五陰世間。」故一家用義，準彼論之三世，演《法華》之十如，妙談三千，固非常情之所企及。二、「既有」下，義須至三。二、「世是」下，辯三通十界，二：初、約依正明世間。二、「各各」下，約因果明法界。二、「今就」下，示妙境，二：初、示妙義，二：初、明三千緣起。界有相性，至究竟等因果方備。十界皆爾則成百法，十界互具既成百界，則使因果成於千法。如是千法，不出解惑因緣及以所生世出世法。小說無漏因緣但能滅法，故令四聖終歸灰斷。大說無漏因緣則能顯法，故使四聖終歸常住。故引《大經》證大乘義須了緣起。修性皆然，皆由理具方有事用故也。然復應知，今明千法即是三千，以約三種釋世間故。且一界報須論依正，正復假實，又如初相，如世日者記於此世。夭壽賢愚實法也，僧俗仕庶假名也，衣食田宅依報也，豈非初相能表三邪？初後既爾，中可例知，故千法三千但廣略爾。今文前明三種世間，今說一千因果之法，前後相顯，其義圓足。二、「是諸」下，示三諦妙境。以三千法皆因緣生，是故一一即空假中，三諦互具非縱非橫。故荊溪云：「三德三諦三千，皆絕言思，是為妙境。」二、「此境」下，該三法，二：初、約三人分二境。一家明觀不出二境，四念處心對陰色而分內外，此文心對生佛而分自他。十不二門以心對彼依正色心而分內外，則依正生佛及己色陰皆名為外。荊溪特會兩處之文立外境也。應知生佛依正及己色心皆是法界，無不具足三千三諦，故內外自他皆是妙境。但為觀境近而復要莫若內心，故諸經論多明心法遍攝一切。須知遍攝由乎不二，故四念處云「唯是一識、唯是一色。」萬象之色既許心具，千差之心何妨色具？眾生成佛是依報成，國土廢興豈是他事？有不達者，但執唯心不許色具，而立難云：色具三千，應自成佛。何處曾見草木受記？是何言歟！是何言歟！以說心具，義則易明；於色示具，相則難顯。故使教文多明心具，欲稟教者因易解難。以心例色，乃顯諸法一一圓具，故云唯色唯聲唯香唯味唯觸。況唯心之說有實有權，唯色之言非權唯實，是故大師為立圓宗。特宣唯色，乃是吾祖獨拔之談。固隱圓宗唯同他說，其意何邪？唯心之義，今非不談，以明自心及依正色，此之三處各具諸法，則令唯心不與他共。何者？忽若不明萬法互具，如何可立心具三千？《金光明》云「於一切法含受一切。」斯之密義深可依憑。 > Second, from "Now based on" onward, directly explains object and wisdom, in two parts: first, determining the precedence; second, from "The word world" onward, explaining according to meaning, in two parts: first, explaining the object, in two parts: first, explaining "world", in two parts: first, explaining the name and meaning, in two parts: first, demonstrating that the world is divided into three kinds, in two parts: first, directly listing the three kinds. In the Da zhidu lun's explanation of the hundred and eight samādhis, when explaining the samādhi that can illuminate all worlds, it says: "Because of attaining this samādhi, one is able to illuminate three kinds of worlds: the world of sentient beings, the world of dwelling places, and the world of the five aggregates." Therefore, the meaning used by our school is based on the three worlds of that treatise to unfold the ten suchnesses of the Lotus Sūtra and marvelously speak of the three thousand, which is certainly beyond the reach of ordinary minds. Second, from "Since there are" onward, shows that by meaning there must be three. Second, from "The world is" onward, distinguishes that the three pervade the ten realms, in two parts: first, clarifying the world in terms of circumstantial and direct retribution; second, from "Each and every" onward, clarifying the dharmadhātu in terms of cause and effect. Second, from "Now regarding" onward, reveals the marvelous object, in two parts: first, revealing the marvelous meaning, in two parts: first, clarifying the dependent origination of the three thousand. The realms possess marks, natures, up to the ultimate; only then are cause and effect complete. If each of the ten realms is like this, they become a hundred dharmas; since the ten realms mutually include each other, becoming a hundred realms, they make cause and effect become a thousand dharmas. These thousand dharmas do not go beyond the causes and conditions of liberation and delusion and the mundane and supramundane dharmas produced thereby. The Hīnayāna explains that uncontaminated causes and conditions can only extinguish dharmas, thereby causing the four sages ultimately to return to reduction to ashes and extinction. The Mahāyāna explains that uncontaminated causes and conditions are able to reveal dharmas, thereby causing the four sages ultimately to return to eternal abiding. Therefore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is cited to prove that for the Mahāyāna meaning, one must thoroughly understand dependent origination. Cultivation and inherent nature are both like this, for all phenomenal functions exist solely because of inherent inclusion in principle. Furthermore, one should know that the clarification here of the thousand dharmas is precisely the three thousand, because "world" is explained in terms of the three kinds. Now, in the retribution of a single realm, circumstantial and direct must be discussed; direct again has nominal and real. Moreover, taking the initial mark as an example: it is like a worldly astrologer making divinations in this world. Early death, longevity, wisdom, and folly are real dharmas; monastic, lay, official, and commoner are provisional names; clothing, food, fields, and houses are circumstantial retribution. Can the initial mark not signify these three? Since the beginning and the end are like this, the middle can be known by analogy; therefore, the thousand dharmas and the three thousand are merely extensive and concise. The present text earlier clarified the three kinds of worlds, and now speaks of the one thousand dharmas of cause and effect; the earlier and later mutually illuminate each other, and their meaning is fully complete. Second, from "These various" onward, reveals the marvelous object of the three truths. Because the three thousand dharmas are all produced by causes and conditions, each and every one is precisely empty, provisional, and middle; the three truths are mutually inclusive, neither vertical nor horizontal. Therefore, Jingxi said: "The three virtues, the three truths, and the three thousand are all beyond words and thought; this is the marvelous object." Second, from "This object" onward, covers the three dharmas, in two parts: first, dividing into two objects in terms of three persons. Our school's clarification of contemplation does not go beyond two objects: the Four Applications of Mindfulness contrasts the mind with aggregate form to divide inner and outer; this text contrasts the mind with sentient beings and Buddhas to divide self and other. The Ten Non-Dual Gates contrasts the mind with those circumstantial and direct retributions, forms, and minds, to divide inner and outer; then circumstantial and direct retribution, sentient beings and Buddhas, as well as one's own aggregate of form are all termed outer. Jingxi specifically unified the texts of the two places to establish the outer object. One should know that sentient beings, Buddhas, circumstantial and direct retribution, and one's own form and mind are all the dharmadhātu, none of which fails to be fully endowed with the three thousand and the three truths; therefore, inner and outer, self and other are all marvelous objects. However, as an object of contemplation, nothing is more immediate and essential than the inner mind; therefore, the sūtras and treatises mostly clarify that the dharma of mind universally subsumes all things. One must know that universal subsumption derives from non-duality; therefore, the Four Applications of Mindfulness states: "There is only a single consciousness; there is only a single form." Since the form of all phenomena is accepted as inherently included in the mind, how could the mind of thousandfold distinctions not be inherently included in form? When sentient beings become Buddhas, circumstantial retribution also attains \[Buddhahood\]; how could the decline and rise of the lands be another matter? There are those who do not understand, clinging only to mind-only and not admitting that form includes \[all\], raising the objection: "If form includes the three thousand, it should attain Buddhahood by itself. Where have we ever seen grasses and trees receive a prophecy?" What kind of talk is this! What kind of talk is this! Because when mind-inclusion is explained, the meaning is easily clarified; when inclusion is shown in form, the marks are difficult to manifest. Therefore, scriptural texts mostly clarify mind-inclusion, wishing that those receiving the teachings might understand the difficult by way of the easy. To draw an analogy from mind to form reveals that all dharmas are each and every one fully endowed; hence it says: only form, only sound, only scent, only taste, only touch. Moreover, the doctrine of mind-only has both the real and the provisional, whereas the statement of form-only is not provisional but exclusively real. Therefore, the Great Master established the Perfect School. Specially proclaiming form-only was our patriarch's uniquely outstanding discourse. If one stubbornly conceals the Perfect School and only agrees with others' teachings, what would be the intention? The meaning of mind-only is by no means unmentioned now; but by clarifying that one's own mind and circumstantial and direct forms—these three loci—each include all dharmas, it makes this mind-only not shared with others. Why is that? If one abruptly fails to clarify that the myriad dharmas are mutually inclusive, how can one establish that the mind includes the three thousand? The Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra says: "In all dharmas, all are contained." This esoteric meaning can be deeply relied upon. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.38) - [Next: 2.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.40) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727~en-mt.2.39) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1727.2.39) · Pramāṇa