觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 1.5

1.5

二、「此經」下，敘經宗體。「心觀」者，經以觀佛而為題目，疏今乃以心觀為宗，此二無殊，方是今觀。良以圓解全異小乘，小昧唯心，佛從外有，是故心佛其體不同。大乘行人知我一心具諸佛性，託境修觀佛相乃彰。今觀彌陀依正為緣，熏乎心性。心性所具極樂依正，由熏發生。心具而生，豈離心性？全心是佛、全佛是心，終日觀心、終日觀佛，是故經目與疏立宗，語雖不同，其義無別。又應須了，若觀佛者必須照心，若專觀心未必託佛，如一行三昧直觀一念，不託他佛而為所緣。若彼般舟及此觀法，發軫即觀安養依正，而觀依正不離心性，故曰心觀。須知此觀不專觀心，內外分之，此當外觀，以由託彼依正觀故。是以經題稱為「觀佛」。若論難易，今須從易。《法華玄》云「佛法太高、眾生太廣，初心為難。心佛眾生三無差別，觀心則易。」今此觀法非但觀佛，乃據心觀就下顯高，雖修佛觀不名為難。是知今經心觀為宗，意在見佛，故得二說義匪殊途。又應了知，法界圓融不思議體作我一念之心，亦復舉體作生作佛、作依作正、作根作境，一心一塵至一極微無非法界全體而作。既一一法全法界作，故趣舉一即是圓融法界全分。既全法界，有何一物不具諸法？如《義例》中僻解師云「四教中圓，唯論心具一切諸法，身色依報則不論具。唯一頓頓，方明三處皆具諸法。」荊谿論曰「四教中圓，何甞不云三處具法？稟今宗者若云心具色等不具，同彼謬立漸圓之見，望彼頓頓天地相懸，尚劣於彼，何預今宗？」以一切法一一皆具一切法故，是故今家立於唯色唯香等義。若其然者，何故經論多以一心為諸法總立觀境邪？良以若觀生佛等境，事既隔異，能所難忘。觀心法者近而復要，既是能造，具義易彰。又即能觀而為所照，易絕念故。《妙玄》云「三無差別，觀心則易。縱觀他境，亦須約心。」此經正當約心觀佛也。「實相為體」者，心觀之宗方能顯發中道實相深廣之體。所以者何？若於心外而觀佛者，縱能推理，但見偏真，即如善吉觀佛法身但證小理。今約唯心，觀佛依正當處顯發中實之體，中必雙照三諦具足，故云「此經心觀為宗，實相為體」，文特於此。舉宗體者，成前敘觀、顯後敘題。成前者，以敘觀文雖具三觀四土之義，語且總略，恐失意者，謂但敘於同居淨土觀行之意故。敘觀畢，特示唯心妙觀之宗，以顯中道實相之體。實相既是常寂光土，若謂十六只觀應佛依正之相，豈能顯此實相寂光？若於十六用圓三觀，尚能感得寂光極樂，豈不能感三土極樂？以此成前樂邦、金寶等諸文義，皆明四種淨土因果也。顯後者，行人若得此宗體意，則知敘題能說之佛、所說觀境徒眾依報，及以通名，如是諸義悉皆圓妙、非小非偏，方是今經首題名字。敘觀敘題兩楹之際云乎宗體，其意在茲。三、「所言」下，敘經題目，二：初、別題。七字具含能說所說、能觀所觀，正文釋名備顯其義。今序但明以勝攝劣、攬別為總，立題之意也。以十六境佛境最勝，故云「佛是所觀勝境」。蓋十六觀不出依正及以徒主，若論依正，佛是正報，舉正收依，則攝日氷地樹等六觀也。若分徒主，佛是化主，述主包徒，則攝觀音勢至三輩等九觀也。故云「觀雖十六言佛便周」。故入正文，以圓三觀釋乎能觀，以妙三身釋所觀佛。佛既總攝餘十五境，豈不一一皆是圓妙三諦三觀邪？二、「經者」下，通題。儒經講解，有茲二訓：萬代軌則，故訓法也；百王不易，故訓常也。佛經亦然，十界咸規、三世不易，復以由義而釋於經。由佛大聖金口宣吐自證之法，故名為經。《法華玄義》委解通名，當宗學人不可不究。二、入文，二：初、取義釋題，二：初、標列。注「云云」者，令依諸部明於通釋五章之義，《妙玄》最委。故彼文云「就通作七番共解：一標章、二引證、三生起、四開合、五科簡、六觀心、七會異。標章令易憶持，起念心故。引證據佛語，起信心故。生起使不雜亂，起定心故。開合、料揀、會異等，起慧心故。觀心即聞即行，起精進心故。五心立成五根，排五障成五力，乃至入三解脫。」略說七重共意如此，今疏從略，但標五名也。

Second, from "This sūtra..." onwards, he states the sūtra's central doctrine and substance. Regarding "mind contemplation": the sūtra takes contemplating the Buddha as its title, yet the commentary here takes mind contemplation as its central doctrine. Only when these two are understood as not distinct is it the contemplation of the present [sūtra]. For the perfect understanding is completely different from the Hīnayāna. The lesser [vehicle] is blind to mind-only; to it, the Buddha exists externally, and therefore mind and Buddha are different in substance. The Mahāyāna practitioner knows that our single mind inherently possesses the nature of all buddhas; relying on an object to cultivate contemplation, the marks of the Buddha then become manifest. Now, contemplating Amida's environment and self serves as the condition that perfumates the mind-nature. The Sukhāvatī environment and self inherently possessed by the mind-nature are brought forth through this perfuming. Since they are inherently possessed by the mind and brought forth [from it], how could they be apart from the mind-nature? The entirety of the mind is the Buddha; the entirety of the Buddha is the mind. To contemplate the mind all day long is to contemplate the Buddha all day long. Therefore, though the words of the sūtra's title and the commentary's formulation of the central doctrine differ, their meaning is not different.

Moreover, one must understand: if one contemplates the Buddha, one must illuminate the mind; but if one exclusively contemplates the mind, one does not necessarily rely on a Buddha—as in the single-practice samādhi, where one directly contemplates a single thought without relying on another Buddha as the object. By contrast, in the pratyutpanna-[samādhi] and this contemplation method, from the very outset one contemplates the environment and self of Anyang, yet this contemplation of environment and self is not apart from the mind-nature; hence it is called "mind contemplation". One must know that this contemplation does not exclusively contemplate the mind; dividing into inner and outer, this corresponds to external contemplation, because it contemplates by relying on that environment and self. It is for this reason that the sūtra title is called "Contemplating the Buddha".

If one discusses difficulty and ease, one must now follow what is easy. The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra states: "The Buddha-dharma is too exalted, and sentient beings are too vast; for beginners, [contemplating them] is difficult. The mind, the buddhas, and sentient beings—these three are without distinction; contemplating the mind is easy." Now, this contemplation method does not merely contemplate the Buddha; rather, it is based on mind contemplation, revealing the exalted through the lowly. Thus, although one cultivates the Buddha-contemplation, it is not called difficult. Hence we know that this sūtra takes mind contemplation as its central doctrine with the intent of seeing the Buddha; thus the two statements do not follow divergent paths.

Furthermore, one must understand: the wondrous, inconceivable substance of the harmonious dharmadhātu constitutes our single thought of mind, and in its entire substance it also constitutes sentient beings and buddhas, constitutes environment and self, and constitutes sense faculties and sense objects. From a single mind or a single speck of dust down to a single infinitesimal particle, there is none that is not constituted by the entire substance of the dharmadhātu. Since each and every phenomenon is constituted by the entire dharmadhātu, whatever single phenomenon one points to is entirely the harmonious dharmadhātu. Since it is the entire dharmadhātu, what single thing could fail to inherently possess all phenomena? As the biased masters mentioned in the Illustrative Examples claimed: "The Perfect [Teaching] among the Four Teachings only asserts that the mind inherently possesses all phenomena, but does not assert inherent possession in physical form or environmental reward. Only the unique Sudden-Sudden [Teaching] explains that all three places inherently possess all phenomena." Jingxi argued against this, saying: "When has the Perfect [Teaching] among the Four Teachings ever failed to state that all three places inherently possess phenomena? If one who receives our lineage says that the mind possesses them while form and the like do not, he shares the mistaken view of establishing a 'Gradual-Perfect', which is as far apart from that 'Sudden-Sudden' as heaven and earth, and is even inferior to it; how could he belong to our lineage?" Because all phenomena each and every one inherently possess all phenomena, our school establishes such doctrines as "form-only" and "fragrance-only".

If that is so, why do sūtras and treatises mostly take the single mind as the general object of contemplation for all phenomena? Because if one contemplates objects such as sentient beings or buddhas, the phenomena are already separated and distant, making it difficult to forget subject and object. Contemplating the phenomenon of the mind is proximate and essential: since it is that which produces, the meaning of inherent possession is easily manifested. Furthermore, that which contemplates is identical to that which is illuminated, making it easy to cut off discursive thoughts. The Profound Meaning states: "'These three are without distinction; contemplating the mind is easy.' Even when contemplating other objects, one must still do so in terms of the mind." This sūtra precisely contemplates the Buddha in terms of the mind.

Regarding "taking the real mark as its substance": only the central doctrine of mind contemplation can reveal and bring forth the deep and broad substance of the real mark of the Middle Way. Why is this? If one contemplates the Buddha outside the mind, even if one can infer the noumenon, one only sees the biased truth, just as when Subhūti contemplated the Buddha's dharmakāya and merely realized the lesser truth. Now, based on mind-only, contemplating the Buddha's environment and self directly reveals and brings forth the substance of the middle and real on the spot; the Middle necessarily illuminates both, possessing all three truths. Therefore it says, "This sūtra takes mind contemplation as its central doctrine and the real mark as its substance," particularly raising them here.

Raising the central doctrine and substance serves to complete the preceding account of the contemplation and to reveal the subsequent account of the title. It "completes the preceding" because although the text accounting for the contemplation contained the meaning of the three contemplations and four lands, its words were general and brief; fearing that those who miss the point might think it only recounted the intention of the contemplation practice of the land of common residence, therefore, having finished accounting for the contemplation, he specifically indicates the central doctrine of the wondrous contemplation of mind-only to reveal the substance of the real mark of the Middle Way. Since the real mark is the land of eternally quiescent light, if one were to say that the sixteen [contemplations] only contemplate the marks of the environment and self of the response Buddha, how could they reveal this real mark of quiescent light? If one applies the perfect threefold contemplation to the sixteen, and can even induce the Sukhāvatī of quiescent light, how could one fail to induce the Sukhāvatī of the [other] three lands? By this he completes the preceding explanations of the Land of Bliss, gold and jewels, and so forth, showing that all of them clarify the causes and effects of the four kinds of pure lands. It "reveals the subsequent" because if practitioners grasp this intention of the central doctrine and substance, they will know that in the account of the title, the Buddha who speaks, the contemplation objects, assembly, and environmental reward that are spoken of, as well as the common title—all such meanings are completely perfect and wondrous, neither lesser nor biased; only then do they constitute the words of the opening title of this sūtra. To state the central doctrine and substance precisely at the threshold between accounting for the contemplation and accounting for the title—such is the intention here.

Third, from "As for..." onwards, he accounts for the sūtra's title. This has two parts: first, the specific title. The seven characters fully encompass that which speaks and that which is spoken of, that which contemplates and that which is contemplated; the main text explaining the title will fully reveal their meanings. Here, the preface merely clarifies the intention of establishing the title by subsuming the inferior under the superior and gathering the specific into the general. Because among the sixteen objects the object of the Buddha is supreme, it says: "The Buddha is the supreme object to be contemplated." For the sixteen contemplations do not go beyond environment and self, or the retinue and the master. If one speaks of environment and self, the Buddha is the primary reward; raising the primary encompasses the environmental, thereby subsuming the six contemplations of the sun, water, ground, trees, and so forth. If one divides the retinue and the master, the Buddha is the teaching master; stating the master includes the retinue, thereby subsuming the nine contemplations of Avalokiteśvara, Mahāsthāmaprāpta, the three grades, and so forth. Therefore it says: "Although the contemplations are sixteen, mentioning the Buddha makes it complete." Thus, entering the main text, he explains that which contemplates through the perfect threefold contemplation, and explains the Buddha who is contemplated through the wondrous three bodies. Since the Buddha already subsumes the remaining fifteen objects, is not each and every one of them the wondrously perfect three truths and three contemplations?

Second, from "As for sūtra..." onwards, the common title. In Confucian commentaries on the classics, there are these two glosses: as a rule for ten thousand generations, it is glossed as "model" (fa); as unchanging through a hundred kings, it is glossed as "constant" (chang). With Buddhist sūtras it is also thus: they are the norm across the ten realms and unchanging throughout the three times; furthermore, [the character] jing is explained in terms of "route" or "source" (you). Because it is the Dharma of personal realization proclaimed from the golden mouth of the Buddha, the great sage, it is named a sūtra. The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra explains the common title in detail; students of our school must investigate it.

Second, entering the text has two parts: first, taking the meaning to explain the title, which has two parts: first, listing the headings. The note stating "and so on" instructs one to rely on the various works to clarify the general explanation of the five chapters, of which the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra is the most detailed. Thus that text states: "Regarding the common [explanation], there are seven rounds of shared explanation: first, presenting the headings; second, citing proof; third, sequential arising; fourth, opening and combining; fifth, categorisation and selection; sixth, contemplating the mind; seventh, reconciling differences. Presenting the headings makes them easy to remember and uphold, because it arouses the mindful mind. Citing proof relies on the Buddha's words, because it arouses the faithful mind. Sequential arising prevents disorder, because it arouses the concentrated mind. Opening and combining, categorisation and selection, reconciling differences, and so forth arouse the wise mind. Contemplating the mind means practicing as soon as one hears, because it arouses the energetic mind. When the five minds are established, they become the five roots; repelling the five hindrances, they become the five powers, up to entering the three liberations." A brief explanation of the shared meaning of the seven layers is like this; the present commentary follows brevity and merely lists the five names.