觀音義疏記 3.3

3.3

第三、勸持，二：初、科經。二、「勸持」下，釋義，三：初、勸持。二、格量，二：初、科。二、「格量」下，釋，四：初、格量。本經舉六十二億恒河沙不多不少者，《佛頂首楞嚴》云「此三千大千世界現住世間，諸法王子有六十二億恒河沙數，修法垂範教化眾生，隨順眾生方便智慧各各不同。」既是現住娑婆菩薩，是故特舉為格量本。二、問。三、答。四、正格量，二：初、約教釋，二：初、約佛眼略示，二：初、以少格多。二、問起答釋，二：初、以人情問。二、「答佛」下，約佛眼答。佛眼所照稱法界量，四多法界不增、四少法界不減，故云功德正齊。二、「問何」下，對他解廣釋，二：初、問。雖示佛眼稱量不謬，其意難明，故須問起。先引古釋，方彰今義。二、「舊解」下，答，二：初、敘舊解非，五：初、引物論等。其福實殊者，謂六十二億之福實勝觀音，但是方便引物論等。此解最謬，破意可知。二、「二云」下，田有高下，對劣顯勝。不見觀音證理之德，何名為歎？三、心有濃淡。四、時解不解。意謂觀音雖少，稱名之時解心現前。六十雖多，供養之時解心不發，是故多少得福乃等。此之二釋皆在持供心之優劣，歎德遠矣。五、有緣無緣。父母有生育之緣，故供之福深、毀之罪重，路人無緣故淺。文雖不斥，理亦全疎，豈可觀音但與眾生有緣而已？二、「今明」下，明今義是，二：初、明今立義，二：初、約實際釋。一多人法皆無性相，二空既顯一實斯彰，存則假實暫分、亡則一多齊致，存亡不二方名正等。二、「一中」下，以經偈釋。舉《華嚴》偈釋今經意。良由一與無量俱同實際，故互能圓解也。以實際之多生觀音之一，故非是一；以實際之一生河沙之多，故非是多。既其一多無決定性，故互生非實也。照其事理者，事謂一多之相、理謂融即之體，慎勿以多為事、以一為理。二、「法華」下，引本論證論。以持六十二億河沙佛名為校量者，古云論誤，蓋不解論意也。今具引論文并荊溪解釋，方曉其義。論云「受持觀音名，與六十二億恒沙諸佛名，彼福平等」者，有二種義：一、信力故；二、畢竟知故。信力復二：一者、求我如觀音，畢竟信故。二、生恭敬心，如彼功德，我亦得故。二、畢竟知者，決定知法界故。法界者名為法性，初地菩薩能證入一切諸佛平等身故。平等身者，謂真如法身。是故受持觀音，與六十二億恒沙諸佛功德無差。荊溪云：「以此驗知，須依圓釋。何者？於二義中，信力約事、畢竟約理，事理相資方成所念。如信力二中既云求我身如觀音，即指化身。又云觀音功德我亦得之，乃指報身願齊報應方乃成念。但念果德者，何必識理？故次義云知法界等。次引證位，即是初地且引分證令人識之。故知若念觀音三身，須却以念佛校之。若以念法身論之，縱引十方諸佛其功亦等，何但六十二邪？所以論文雖似舉經，乃是增句釋義。亦如方便初加難解難知，欲說大法乃增三句而為申釋，今六十二億菩薩加以佛釋。」二、「又約」下，約觀釋。雖三種觀俱受修名，而中是性，是故得云二觀發中。二觀實不等者，破立不等也。雖乃不等，而二皆是中道之德，二與中道畢竟不異。中道既等，二豈不等？是故言空三皆是空、假則皆假、中則皆中。乞人、難勝，其實不等，亦以此二同一法性是故等也。三、結成。此但通云受持名號，以正格中言一時故。復引《大品》一華供佛，以類一時持觀音名，其善流入法性海，故如海無盡。言至畢苦者，二死盡也，蓋言成佛散華之福猶尚不盡。

Part three: Exhortation to uphold [the name], in two parts: first, dividing the sūtra text; second, from "Exhortation to uphold" onwards, explaining the meaning, in three parts: first, exhortation to uphold; second, comparative assessment, in two parts: first, outline; second, from "Comparative assessment" onwards, explanation, in four parts: first, comparative assessment. As for the present sūtra citing sixty-two billion Ganges sands as neither more nor less, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra of the Buddha's Uṣṇīṣa says: "The Dharma princes presently dwelling in the world within this trichiliocosm number sixty-two billion Ganges sands; cultivating the Dharma, they set models to teach and transform sentient beings, their expedient means and wisdom following along with sentient beings each being different." Since these are bodhisattvas presently dwelling in the Sahā world, they are specifically cited as the basis for the comparative assessment. Second, the question. Third, the answer. Fourth, the primary comparative assessment, in two parts: first, explaining in terms of the teaching, in two parts: first, briefly indicating in terms of the Buddha-eye, in two parts: first, assessing the many by means of the few; second, question raised and answer explaining, in two parts: first, questioning in terms of human sentiments; second, from "Answer: The Buddha..." onwards, answering in terms of the Buddha-eye. What the Buddha-eye illuminates is commensurate with the measure of the dharmadhātu: with four 'many' the dharmadhātu does not increase, and with four 'few' the dharmadhātu does not decrease; therefore it is said that the merits are exactly equal. Second, from "Question: Why..." onwards, extensively explaining in contrast to others' interpretations, in two parts: first, the question. Although it indicates that the weighing by the Buddha-eye is unerring, its meaning is difficult to understand, so a question must be raised. First citing ancient explanations, the present meaning is only then made manifest. Second, from "Former interpretations" onwards, the answer, in two parts: first, recounting the errors of former interpretations, in five points: first, citing the argument of guiding beings, etc. "Their merit is actually different" means that the merit of the sixty-two billion actually surpasses that of Avalokiteśvara, and this is merely an expedient argument to guide beings, etc. This interpretation is the most erroneous, and the intent of refuting it can be known. Second, from "The second says" onwards: fields have higher and lower, revealing the superior in contrast to the inferior. Without perceiving Avalokiteśvara's virtue of realizing the principle, how can it be called praise? Third: minds have intensity and mildness. Fourth: whether at the time there is understanding or no understanding. The meaning is that although Avalokiteśvara is few, at the time of reciting the name an understanding mind is manifest before one; although the sixty[-two billion] are many, at the time of making offerings the understanding mind does not arise; therefore, whether many or few, the merit obtained is equal. Both of these two interpretations lie in the superiority or inferiority of the mind upholding or offering; this is far removed from praising virtue. Fifth: having a karmic connection or lacking a karmic connection. Parents have the connection of giving birth and raising; therefore the merit of making offerings to them is deep, and the offense of defaming them is heavy; a passerby lacks this connection, hence it is shallow. Although the text does not refute this, in principle it is also entirely wide of the mark: how could Avalokiteśvara merely have a karmic connection with sentient beings and nothing more? Second, from "Now we clarify" onwards, clarifying that the present meaning is correct, in two parts: first, clarifying the position established at present, in two parts: first, explaining in terms of the actual limit. The one and the many, persons and dharmas, are all devoid of nature and marks; once the two kinds of emptiness are revealed, the one reality is manifested. When preserved, the provisional and the real are temporarily distinguished; when abolished, the one and the many are brought to the same level. That preservation and abolition are non-dual is only then called true equality. Second, from "Within one..." onwards, explaining through sūtra verses. Verses from the Avataṃsaka Sūtra are cited to explain the meaning of the present sūtra. It is precisely because the one and the immeasurable are both identical to the actual limit that they can mutually bring about perfect understanding. Because the 'many' of the actual limit produces the 'one' of Avalokiteśvara, it is not one; because the 'one' of the actual limit produces the 'many' of the river sands, it is not many. Since the one and the many have no determinate nature, their mutual production is not real. As for illuminating their phenomena and principle: 'phenomena' refers to the marks of the one and the many, and 'principle' refers to the essence of mutual fusion and identity; be careful not to take 'many' as phenomena and 'one' as principle. Second, from "The Lotus..." onwards, citing the basic treatise to provide verification. Taking the upholding of the names of sixty-two billion Ganges-sands Buddhas as the comparison, the ancients said that the treatise was in error, which was entirely due to not understanding the intent of the treatise. Now, fully citing the treatise text together with Jingxi's explanation, its meaning is only then made clear. The treatise states: "Upholding the name of Avalokiteśvara and [upholding] the names of sixty-two billion Ganges-sands Buddhas: their merits are equal." This has two meanings: first, by the power of faith; second, by ultimate knowing. The power of faith also has two aspects: first, seeking that I be like Avalokiteśvara, because of ultimate faith; second, giving rise to a reverent mind, because I will also obtain virtues such as his. Second, 'ultimate knowing' means definitively knowing the dharmadhātu. 'Dharmadhātu' is called the Dharma-nature, because a bodhisattva of the first stage can realize and enter the equal body of all Buddhas. The 'equal body' refers to the dharmakāya of suchness. Therefore, upholding Avalokiteśvara and upholding sixty-two billion Ganges-sands Buddhas have no difference in merit. Jingxi says: "By this it is known by examination that one must rely on the perfect explanation. Why? Among the two meanings, the power of faith concerns phenomena, and ultimate [knowing] concerns principle; only when phenomena and principle mutually assist each other is that which is contemplated accomplished. As for the two aspects of the power of faith, since it says 'seeking that my body be like Avalokiteśvara,' this refers to the transformation body; and since it says 'I will also obtain Avalokiteśvara's virtues,' this refers to the saṃbhogakāya: only when vows are equal to the saṃbhoga[kāya] and nirmāṇa[kāya] is the contemplation accomplished. If one only contemplates the fruition virtues, why must one recognize the principle? Therefore, the next meaning speaks of knowing the dharmadhātu, etc. Next, citing the stage of realization, namely the first stage: it temporarily cites partial realization to make people recognize it. Therefore, know that if one contemplates the three bodies of Avalokiteśvara, one must conversely compare it with contemplating a Buddha. If discussed in terms of contemplating the dharmakāya, even if one cites the Buddhas of the ten directions, their merit is still equal; why only sixty-two [billion]? Thus, although the treatise text seems to cite the sūtra, it adds phrases to explain the meaning. It is just like in the Expedient Means [chapter], where it first adds 'difficult to understand and difficult to know,' and wishing to explain the Great Dharma, it adds three phrases to expound it; here, to the sixty-two billion bodhisattvas, it adds 'Buddha' to explain it." Second, from "Also in terms of..." onwards, explaining in terms of contemplation. Although all three contemplations receive the name of 'cultivation', the Middle is the nature; therefore it can be said that the two contemplations initiate the Middle. That the two contemplations are actually unequal means that subverting and establishing are unequal. Although they are indeed unequal, both are virtues of the Middle Way, and the two are ultimately not different from the Middle Way. Since the Middle Way is equal, how could the two not be equal? Therefore, when emptiness is spoken of, all three are empty; when provisionality is spoken of, all are provisional; when the Middle is spoken of, all are the Middle. The beggar and the Indomitable are actually unequal, but also because these two share the same Dharma-nature, they are therefore equal. Third, concluding the accomplishment. This merely refers generally to upholding the name, because in the primary comparison it speaks of 'a single moment'. Furthermore, citing the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā regarding offering a single flower to the Buddha is used to categorize upholding Avalokiteśvara's name for a single moment: its goodness flows into the ocean of Dharma-nature, and hence is inexhaustible like the ocean. Saying 'until suffering is exhausted' means the two kinds of death are brought to an end; this means that even upon attaining Buddhahood, the merit of scattering the flower is still not yet exhausted.