觀音玄義記 3.26

3.26

二、「何以」下，釋經義，二：初據本經釋。若真不二，必不存一。「亦名不有不無」者，圓教中道也。此中能破藏通二教單俗單真，故云「不有破假、不無破空」。又破別教複俗單真，故云「不有破二、不無破一」。蓋前三教各以二諦為縛解故。圓中能具三種二諦，具故融即，乃以融即破於不融令成不二。「若爾」下，明能融亦蕩。雖曰圓中，存則成待。二、「大經」下，例《涅槃》釋。《淨名》生死與涅槃不二、《大經》無明與明不二，二遣一亡，兩經義合。既其二邊與中俱蕩，名畢竟空，此乃約空明普門也。二、「三十」下，尋《淨名》門。門具四二：初、舉一品諸門。三十一菩薩妙德淨名，若說若默無非實相，當體為門。若就現文增勝而說，可以分對空等四門，及以第五不可說藏，皆名不二無非普門。二、「細尋」下，示圓義各四。大師妙解盡理而窮，見一一門具四門義，如向所引生死涅槃，二既即中、中亦即二，中即生死名妙有門、中即涅槃名妙空門。二即中道，中必遮照，雙照是第三門、雙遮即第四門。雖於一門，約義開四，此四皆悉攝法遍周，俱得名普。餘三十門既皆融二而歸不二，各四宛然。文殊以言顯於無言，淨名以默彰於無說。蓋示三諦體是祕藏，本絕言詮。既示三諦，豈非四門？復由向者三十一菩薩，皆從無說顯示四門，門門妙絕不可言思，得意之機隨其所聞，忘言而證；其失意者猶謂有說，莫契無生。故二大士以言以默，顯乎四門離言說相，則使彼彼四門之機，各於其門忘言趣理。須了無說，被四門機其功最大，故諸菩薩雖各興言不談一字，淨名杜口廣說四門，是則說時常默、默時常說。若不爾者，何故備舉三十三門，而言皆有四門義邪？非旋總持莫窮斯旨，細尋之說其致甚深。三、「肇師」下，就諸經分文對四。三十三門，門門具四。義雖成就，文且幽深。欲使咸知，故就顯文示四門相。肇注《淨名經》云「諸菩薩歷言法相，文殊言於無言。」山家準肇判屬二門。《思益》一切即邪即正，邪是俗有、正是真空。《華嚴》遊心遍入法界，豈非妙有？即達如空，豈非妙空？故此二經皆雙亦門也。復取淨名杜於言說，顯於諸法皆非二邊，示第四門其文甚顯。此則諸經據圓實理開乎四門，深而復廣皆是普門。二、「大品」下，通明普門。《大品》、《法華》三句明門，雖不別屬四門之數，而遍攝法皆是普門。四十二字，字字皆具三種般若，非縱非橫、而高而廣，故能互攝諸字功德。智門一門皆通實理，難入狹小其義相成。難入故狹、狹故難入，四十餘年調機方說。此門甚妙，非七方便能解能入，斯乃至廣而受狹名。二、「眾經」下，結門名普。此經開權永異諸部，顯示實理與昔圓同，故與眾經同明普門。四隨觀心並在《大本》第八辯體中明。謂隨彼根機種種差別，赴欲赴宜、赴治赴悟，故四門異說也。觀心者，若以教為門，即於四門隨門得悟，不須修觀，名信行人。若聞而不悟，應須修觀，名法行人。四教四門各有十觀，學者尋之。

Second, under "Why...", he explains the meaning of the sūtra, in two parts: first, he explains based on this sūtra itself. If it is true non-duality, it definitely does not retain oneness. "Also called neither existent nor non-existent" is the Middle Way of the Perfect Teaching. Here, the Middle can refute the single conventional and single real of the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings; hence it says: "'Neither existent' refutes the provisional; 'nor non-existent' refutes emptiness." It also refutes the complex conventional and single real of the Separate Teaching; hence it says: "'Neither existent' refutes the two; 'nor non-existent' refutes the one." This is because the preceding three teachings each take the two truths as bondage and liberation. The Perfect Middle can inherently include the three kinds of two truths; because it includes them, they are interpenetratingly identical, thereby using interpenetrating identity to refute non-interpenetration so as to bring about non-duality. Under "If so...", he clarifies that what interpenetrates is also cleared away. Although it is called the Perfect Middle, if it is retained it becomes relational. Second, under "The Great Sūtra...", he explains by analogy with the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra. In the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are non-dual; in the Great Sūtra, ignorance and illumination are non-dual: the two are dismissed and the one is abolished, so the meanings of both sūtras coincide. Since both the two extremes and the Middle are cleared away, it is called ultimate emptiness; this clarifies the universal gate in terms of emptiness. Second, under "Thirty...", he examines the gates in the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. The gates possess four [aspects], in two parts: first, he adduces all the gates in the one chapter. The thirty-one bodhisattvas, Mañjuśrī, and Vimalakīrti, whether speaking or remaining silent, are nothing other than the true mark; their very essence constitutes the gate. If speaking in terms of the predominant qualities of the present text, they may be correlated respectively with the four gates of emptiness and the rest, as well as the fifth, the inexpressible treasury—all are called non-dual and none are other than universal gates. Second, under "Examining closely...", he indicates the four aspects for each in the Perfect meaning. The Great Master's marvelous understanding exhaustively plumbs the principle; he sees that each single gate possesses the meaning of four gates. As cited above regarding saṃsāra and nirvāṇa: since the two are precisely the Middle and the Middle is also precisely the two, the Middle being saṃsāra is called the gate of marvelous existence; the Middle being nirvāṇa is called the gate of marvelous emptiness. The two are precisely the Middle Way, and the Middle necessarily quells and illuminates: double illuminating is the third gate, and double quelling is precisely the fourth gate. Although within a single gate, four are opened according to meaning, and these four all encompass phenomena universally, so all may be named universal. Since the remaining thirty gates all resolve duality back into non-duality, the four aspects of each are clearly evident. Mañjuśrī uses words to reveal the wordless; Vimalakīrti uses silence to manifest the inexpressible. This is to indicate that the essence of the three truths is the secret treasury, originally transcending verbal expression. Having indicated the three truths, how could they not be the four gates? Furthermore, because the aforementioned thirty-one bodhisattvas all manifest the four gates from the inexpressible—each gate wonderfully transcendent and beyond verbal thought—capacities that grasp the meaning attain realization by forgetting words according to what they hear; whereas those who miss the meaning still think there is something spoken and fail to accord with the unborn. Therefore the two great beings, through speech and silence, manifest that the four gates transcend the characteristics of verbal expression, thereby causing the capacities of the respective four gates to each forget words and approach the principle in their own gate. One must realize that the inexpressible has the greatest efficacy in accommodating the capacities of the four gates. Therefore, although the various bodhisattvas each spoke without uttering a single word, Vimalakīrti kept his mouth closed yet broadly expounded the four gates; thus, when speaking they are always silent, and when silent they are always speaking. Were it not so, why would all thirty-three gates be fully cited, and stated to each possess the meaning of the four gates? Without revolving dhāraṇī, none could plumb this import; the statement to "examine closely" has an extremely profound import. Third, under "Master Zhao...", he correlates the texts with the four based on the various sūtras. Each of the thirty-three gates possesses four. Although the meaning is established, the text remains subtle and deep. To cause all to understand, he indicates the characteristics of the four gates based on explicit texts. Sengzhao's commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa states: "The bodhisattvas successively spoke of the characteristics of dharmas; Mañjuśrī spoke of the wordless." Our school, following Sengzhao, assigns these to two gates. The Viśeṣacinti-brahma-paripṛcchā states that all things are both deviant and correct: the deviant is conventional existence; the correct is true emptiness. The Avataṃsaka-sūtra states that allowing the mind to wander and penetrate everywhere into the dharmadhātu—is this not marvelous existence? And immediately reaching it as like empty space—is this not marvelous emptiness? Therefore these two sūtras both represent the gate of both-is. Furthermore, taking Vimalakīrti's cessation of speech to reveal that all dharmas are neither of the two extremes indicates the fourth gate, and its text is very explicit. Thus, based on the Perfect real principle, the various sūtras open the four gates; being profound and vast, they are all universal gates. Second, under "The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā...", he clarifies the universal gate in general. The three phrases clarifying the gate in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Lotus Sūtra, although not distinctly belonging to the enumeration of the four gates, universally encompass dharmas and are all universal gates. In the forty-two syllables, each syllable possesses the three kinds of prajñā, neither vertical nor horizontal, yet lofty and broad; therefore they can mutually encompass the merits of the various syllables. The gate of wisdom is a single gate that leads to the real principle; "difficult to enter" and "narrow" are mutually complementary in meaning. Because it is difficult to enter, it is narrow; because it is narrow, it is difficult to enter; only after training capacities for more than forty years was it expounded. This gate is extremely marvelous; it cannot be understood or entered by persons of the seven expedient stages; thus it is maximally broad yet receives the name "narrow." Second, under "The various sūtras...", he concludes that the gate is named universal. This sūtra's opening of the provisional is forever distinct from the various other sections; its revelation of the real principle is identical with the Perfect of the past; hence, together with the various sūtras, it clarifies the universal gate. The four kinds of contemplation of the mind are all explained in the eighth fascicle of the main text of the Fahua xuanyi under "discerning the substance." That is, in accordance with the various differences in those roots and capacities, matching their desires, matching their fitness, matching their remediation, and matching their awakening, the four gates are expounded differently. Regarding contemplation of the mind: if one takes the teaching as the gate, then within the four gates one attains awakening according to whichever gate, without needing to cultivate contemplation; this is called a person of faith-practice. If one hears but does not awaken, one must cultivate contemplation; this is called a person of Dharma-practice. Each of the four gates of the four teachings has ten contemplations; let scholars seek them out.