觀音玄義記 2.42

2.42

二、「問自」下，引二經明各具，二：初、問。前以十界而為世境，次明世境有自有他，他即生佛、自即己心。乃引《華嚴》心如畫師，造種種陰。種種之言，豈非生佛？故據此文而設今問。能造之心可具十界，所造生佛云何各能具十界邪？以知世人不解三法無差之義，謂心為理、生佛是事。理能造事，心隨解緣造佛、心隨迷緣造生。三不相離，名無差別。此解違經隱覆圓義，故興此問以生後答。二、答。先引《淨名》。實相者，即諸法實相也。約今經意，十界諸法皆實相也。觀身觀佛實相既然，豈不各具十法界邪？復引《華嚴》三無差文，以證各具。彼經如來林菩薩云：「心如工畫師，造種種五陰。一切世間中，莫不從心造。如心佛亦爾，如佛眾生然。心佛及眾生，是三無差別。」經文先示心造一切，便以此心而例於佛，示佛權造同心實造。次復以佛而例眾生，示生實造同佛權造。權實雖異、因果暫殊，三皆能造一切世間，故得結云三無差別。云何却謂一是能造、二為所造，何得此三無差別邪？此是今家消彼經文。若明其義，更匪他知。以今經說因緣果報即是實相。因緣是能造、果報是所造，此之造義既在實相，是故造義理本具足。以此理造，方有事造。三法皆爾。是故得云理事不二、本末相映。理既互融，事寧隔異？三法互具互變互攝，深有所以。圓頓之旨終極於斯。荊溪歎云：「不解今文，如何消偈心造一切三無差別。」前問那得自他各具十界，今答豈不各具三諦，故知十界若通若別皆是三諦。二、釋音，二：初、約口業正釋。十法界中佛者，今既明機，須除極果。自分證還但是圓機皆名佛界，悉可稱名。二、「問下」，明三業俱機，二：初、問起。二、「然通」下，答釋，二：初、正明俱通。真寂常照，豈簡身意唯赴口機？二、「而今」下，對偏顯圓，二：初、明古遍局，六：初、趣舉。二、隨俗。三、互舉、三：初、正釋。聖標於觀，必照生之色心，即身意也。生標於音，必對聖之耳識。既聞音聲，復觀色心，則是聖應三業機也。二、「舊問」下，通難，二：初、他難。一等互舉，何不名為聞色心邪？二、「舊答」下，古通，三：初、敘古通。舉觀為應，既色心兩字，則彰應廣。舉音為機，音但一字，則是機狹。機狹應廣，深顯聖德也。二、「今更」下，今載難：若逐字者，則彰感應有可有不。若俱應俱感，則不應云應二感一也。三、「今不」下，今為通聖三俱應、凡三俱感，但約與奪互舉口意。四、義攝。獨有言音具於三業，故云義攝。五、隱顯。六、難易，二：初、難。急口機易。二、「又第」下，誓深宜急稱。二、「今明」下，引論圓釋，二：初、以覺觀況音聲，且引《釋論》。三業之事無不圓具，覺觀纔動與息共俱已成身行，既是語本又成口行。意業隱細尚能具三，身口麁顯各具可知。二、「但舉」下，明觀音圓感應。大聖一觀非獨具於一種三業，須知具足百界三業，以全法界而為應故。眾生一音圓具亦爾，以全法界而為機故。斯由大聖照窮正性、察其本末，難思感應豈以人師凡見測邪？

Second, from "Question: Self..." below, two sūtras are cited to explain that each inherently includes [the ten realms], which has two parts: First, the question. Previously, the ten realms were taken as the worldly object. Next, it is explained that the worldly object comprises both self and other; "other" means sentient beings and Buddhas, and "self" means one's own mind. Then the Avataṃsaka is cited: "The mind is like a painter, creating the various aggregates." Do not the words "the various" refer to sentient beings and Buddhas? Therefore, based on this text, the present question is posed: The mind that can create may inherently include the ten realms, but how can the sentient beings and Buddhas that are created each inherently include the ten realms? This is because the world's people do not understand the meaning of the three dharmas being without distinction, asserting that the mind is principle and that sentient beings and Buddhas are phenomena. Principle can create phenomena: when the mind follows conditions of understanding, it creates Buddhas; when the mind follows conditions of delusion, it creates sentient beings. Since these three are not separate from one another, they are called "without distinction." This interpretation contradicts the sūtra and conceals the perfect meaning; hence this question is raised to prompt the following answer. Second, the answer. First, the Vimalakīrti is cited. The "true mark" is the true mark of all phenomena. In terms of the meaning of the present sūtra, all phenomena of the ten realms are the true mark. Since this is so for contemplating the true mark of the body and contemplating the true mark of the Buddha, how could they not each inherently include the ten dharmadhātus? Next, the text on the three without distinction from the Avataṃsaka is cited to prove mutual inherent inclusion. In that sūtra, Bodhisattva Tathāgatavana says: "The mind is like a skilled painter, / Creating the various five aggregates. / In all the worlds, / There is nothing that is not made from the mind. / As is the mind, so is the Buddha; / As is the Buddha, so are sentient beings. / Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings— / These three are without distinction." The sūtra text first shows that the mind creates everything, and then takes this mind as an analog for the Buddha, showing that the Buddha's provisional creation is identical to the mind's real creation. Next, it takes the Buddha as an analog for sentient beings, showing that sentient beings' real creation is identical to the Buddha's provisional creation. Although provisional and real differ, and cause and effect are temporarily distinct, all three are capable of creating all worlds; therefore, it can conclude that "these three are without distinction." Why, then, turn around and say that one is what can create and the two are what is created? How could these three then be without distinction? This is our school's interpretation of that sūtra text. If one understands its meaning, there is no other way to understand it. For the present sūtra states that cause, condition, effect, and retribution are themselves the true mark. Cause and condition are what can create, and effect and retribution are what is created. Since this meaning of creation is located in the true mark, the meaning of creation is originally fully included in principle. Because of this creation in principle, there is then creation in phenomena. This is true for all three dharmas. Therefore, it can be said that principle and phenomena are non-dual, and the root and the branches reflect each other. Since principle is mutually interpenetrating, how could phenomena be separated and distinct? There is a profound reason why the three dharmas mutually include, mutually transform, and mutually encompass one another. The purport of the perfect and sudden reaches its ultimate limit here. Jingxi sighed, saying: "If one does not understand the present text, how can one explain the verse 'The mind creates all' and 'these three are without distinction'?" The previous question asked how self and other could each inherently include the ten realms; the present answer asks how they could not each inherently include the three truths. Hence we know that whether the ten realms are taken comprehensively or distinctively, all are the three truths. Second, explaining the "sound," which has two parts: First, the primary explanation in terms of vocal karma. As for the Buddha among the ten dharmadhātus, since we are now explaining capacity, the ultimate fruition must be excluded. From the partial realization [of the stages] downward, all are simply the perfect capacity and are called the Buddha realm; all can invoke the name. Second, from "Question:" below, explaining that the three karmas are all capacities, which has two parts: First, the question is raised. Second, from "However, in the comprehensive sense..." below, the answer explains, which has two parts: First, directly clarifying that all are comprehensively shared. The truly tranquil constantly illuminates; how could it discriminate bodily and mental [capacities] and respond only to the vocal capacity? Second, from "Yet now..." below, revealing the perfect in contrast to the biased, which has two parts: First, clarifying the ancient [teachers'] comprehensive and restricted [views], in six points: First, an expedient mention. Second, conforming to common convention. Third, mutual mention, in three parts: First, the primary explanation. When the sage designates "contemplation," it must illuminate the sentient being's physical and mental aspects, which are the body and mind. When the sentient being designates "sound," it must be directed to the sage's ear-consciousness. Hearing the sound and also contemplating the physical and mental aspects is the sage's response to the capacities of the three karmas. Second, from "The former question..." below, resolving the objection, in two parts: First, the other's objection. If it is an equivalent mutual mention, why is it not called "hearing the physical and mental aspects"? Second, from "The former answer..." below, the ancient resolution, in three parts: First, narrating the ancient resolution. Mentioning contemplation as the response uses two words, "physical and mental," thus displaying the broadness of the response. Mentioning sound as the capacity uses only one word, "sound," which is the narrowness of the capacity. The capacity being narrow and the response being broad profoundly reveals the sage's virtue. Second, from "Now again..." below, the present objection: If one follows the wording, it would indicate that in stimulus and response some are possible and some are not. If all respond and all stimulate, one should not say that the response is two and the stimulus is one. Third, from "Now not..." below, the present resolution: The sage's three all respond, and the ordinary person's three all stimulate; it is merely in terms of granting and denying that speech and mind are mutually mentioned. Fourth, conceptual subsumption. Spoken sound alone inherently includes the three karmas; hence it is called conceptual subsumption. Fifth, implicit and explicit. Sixth, difficulty and ease, in two parts: First, difficulty. The urgent vocal capacity is easy. Second, from "Moreover, the number..." below, the vows being deep, one should urgently invoke. Second, from "Now, to clarify..." below, citing the treatise for a perfect explanation, in two parts: First, using gross and subtle mental investigation to illustrate vocal sound, citing the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The matters of the three karmas are all perfectly included: as soon as gross and subtle mental investigation stir, they accompany respiration and have already become bodily activity; since they are the root of speech, they also become vocal activity. If mental karma, being hidden and subtle, can still inherently include the three, it can be known that the body and speech, being coarse and manifest, each inherently include them. Second, from "Simply mentioning..." below, clarifying Avalokiteśvara's perfect stimulus and response. A single contemplation of the Great Sage not only inherently includes one kind of three karmas; one must know that it fully includes the three karmas of the hundred realms, because the entire dharmadhātu is taken as the response. A single sound of a sentient being being perfectly included is also like this, because the entire dharmadhātu is taken as the capacity. This is because the Great Sage illuminates the ultimate true nature and inspects its root and branches. How could such inconceivable stimulus and response be fathomed by the mundane views of human teachers?