觀音義疏記 4.7

4.7

問：求脫苦難，心念觀音，一切機緣俱能感聖。今釋念彼，那但約圓？豈果報等機全不能感？答：王三昧力救一一難，皆論十番，始離惡報、終入寂光，十界眾機誰不蒙益？疏釋前答，此義備彰。頌開七難而為十二，各合具明十番感應，但以部意正在醍醐，是故長行佛示意機唯令常念，常念必須絕於破立。今聞重頌念彼觀音，必合疑云前令絕所，今教念彼豈不相違？故須約圓釋此伏難，彼此即念能所豈存？學者應知，觀音應物雖無所遺，今宗示人唯在妙觀。是故前疏釋乎意機，全廢餘塗，一向圓解；至今重頌念彼觀音，豈可異前？自從淺解，違大師意。勸今學人，若說若行勿離圓觀。一苦一樂常念觀音，既成妙機何爽圓應？一實事益念念常霑。

Question: Seeking release from suffering and difficulties by mentally being mindful of Avalokiteśvara—all capacities and conditions can stimulate the sage. Why does the present explanation of “mindfulness of that” interpret it solely in terms of the perfect [teaching]? Can it be that capacities such as those bound to karmic retribution cannot stimulate [a response] at all? Answer: By the power of the king of samādhis, rescuing from each single difficulty is discussed in terms of ten turns, beginning with liberation from evil retribution and culminating in entry into tranquil light; among the capacities of the ten realms, who does not receive benefit? In the Commentary's explanation of the earlier response, this principle is made fully manifest. The verses expand the seven difficulties into twelve, and each should fully elucidate the ten turns of stimulus and response. However, because the intent of this section rests precisely in clarified butter, in the prose the Buddha indicated the mental capacity solely by enjoining constant mindfulness; and constant mindfulness must be free of refutation and establishment. Now, hearing the restatement in verse, “be mindful of that Avalokiteśvara”, one would inevitably doubt, saying: “Previously we were told to eliminate the object, but now we are instructed to be mindful of that—how is this not contradictory?” Therefore, one must explain this underlying objection in terms of the perfect [teaching]: since “this” and “that” are identical with thought, how could subject and object remain? Practitioners should know that although Avalokiteśvara's response to beings leaves nothing out, our school instructs people solely by focusing on wondrous contemplation. For this reason, the earlier Commentary, in explaining the mental capacity, completely set aside other paths and adhered exclusively to the perfect understanding. Now, arriving at the restatement in verse, “be mindful of that Avalokiteśvara”, how could it differ from what came before? If one follows a shallow understanding, one goes against the Great Master's intent. I urge contemporary students, whether in speech or in practice, never to depart from the perfect contemplation. In every suffering and every joy, constantly be mindful of Avalokiteśvara; once a wondrous capacity is formed, how could the perfect response ever fail? The actual benefits of the one reality will be constantly received in thought after thought.