觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 1.6.1

1.6.1

二、隨釋，五：初、釋名，二：初、標。 二、「一切」下，釋，二：初、對通略示，二：初、就三處論通別，三：初、約一化，二：初、釋，二：初、示諸題具通別。 他釋經題，皆以經字為能詮教，餘字並是所詮之義。 作此分之，甚違佛旨。 且人法譬皆是名字，豈非能詮，那得一向屬所詮義？ 經字不可一向屬教，如《妙經》云「法華經藏深固幽遠，無人能到」，又云「為佛護念，植種德本，入正定聚，發救一切眾生之心。 成就四法，必得是經。 」疏釋此四是開示悟入佛之知見，知見證理名為得經。 此二豈非以理為經？ 《金光明》云「十方諸佛常念是經」，豈令諸佛但念於教？ 此例蓋多，不能備引。 故知諸師以能詮所詮釋眾經題，失旨之甚。 今家皆用通別釋題，方無所失。 二、「通則」下，明通別有三種。 今解諸經通別二名，俱是能詮、俱是所詮。 良以通別各自具於教行理故，勿謂二名但在於教。 須知通別自有教名、行名、理名。 如一別題，佛說是教，觀即是行。 無量壽佛是理，豈非別教、別行、別理？ 以此三別對於經字，即是通教、通行、通理。 今於三中，初、明教通別，二：初、正明一化。 通名者，頓說漸說、施權開權，律、論之外皆名為經，故稱通也。 別名者，別相乃多，今從三種，謂人、法、譬。 單三、複三并具足一，以成七別。 單三者，單人，如《阿彌陀經》等； 單法，如《大般涅槃經》等； 單譬，如《梵網經》等。 複三者，人法，如《文殊問般若經》等； 法譬，如《妙法蓮華經》等； 人譬，如《如來師子吼經》等。 人法譬具足者，如《勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經》等。 以此七別與通，合標一代佛法。 二、「今經」下，別指此經。 本論一化，言此經者，以明七別，此屬單人，是故言也。 雖屬單人，而人自分，能說釋迦、所說彌陀，以此二人而為別目。 經同一化，故曰通名。 據有觀字，合是人法，能從於所，以人兼之，故略不示。 然分通別，不同廣釋，故未委悉。 二、「為行」下，行通別。 諸經有用一種之行而為別名，以對通名，經即通行。 若論別行，其數無量，卒難說盡。 今以增數示於行人，似可領會。 一如一行等，二如二智等，三如三觀等，四如四念等，五如五根等，六如六妙等，七如七覺等，八如八正等，九如九禪等，十如十度等，乃至百千萬億無量行也。 此等別行皆趣涅槃、究竟四德，略言常樂。 約趣涅槃，別行即通，故為行經。 彼釋籤中，乃以因果判行通別，須知其意非謂至果其行方通。 欲知意者，據各修因，名為行別； 約趣一果，此別即通。 斯乃別時論通、通時論別。 豈唯行爾，教理亦然。 如以機應對教通別，佛以一音演說法，眾生隨類各得解。 各解則機別、一音則應通，各解不離一音、一音不妨各解。 如《金光明玄》以能詮文字為教通、以能詮所以為教別，所以即是四悉檀也，一一悉檀皆用文字、一一文字不離悉檀。 如以名實對理通別，多名不離一實、一實不妨多名，故三通別皆悉同時。 悉類樂中管色之韻，約聲則通、約曲則別，通別二用不相妨礙。 三、「理雖」下，理通別。 名實相對，名即是門，乃以四門彰一理也，亦是事別而對理通。 良以諸經多用一事而彰於理，得理別名。 如此經題，以無量壽佛名為別理，以對通名，經則通理。 若於一化，以通別理解經題者，莫若四門以為別理。 四門者，有門、空門、雙亦門、雙非門，四門名通。 須分四教，所謂三藏教、通教、別教、圓教。 四教各開有等四門，四四乃成一十六門，詮於別理成十六理。 理尚非一，那得十六？ 然理無礙能應諸門，猶彼虛空其體實非方圓大小，以無礙故，故能隨彼方圓等物成無量相。 從無量說，即是別理； 體是一空，名為通理。 無通不別、無別不通，通別合標成一題目。

Second, the commentary on the text, in five parts: first, explaining the title, in two parts: first, introducing it; second, from 'All [sūtras]' onward, explaining it, in two parts: first, briefly indicating it with respect to the common, in two parts: first, discussing common and specific with respect to the three locations, in three parts: first, regarding the lifetime teaching, in two parts: first, explaining, in two parts: first, indicating that the titles possess common and specific. Other masters, in explaining sūtra titles, all take the word 'sūtra' as the teaching that expresses, and the remaining words as the meaning that is expressed. Making this division severely violates the Buddha's intention. Moreover, persons, dharmas, and analogies are all names; how could they not be that which expresses? How could they exclusively belong to the meaning that is expressed? The word 'sūtra' cannot exclusively belong to the teaching. As the Wondrous Sūtra says: 'The storehouse of the Dharma Flower Sūtra is deep, solid,幽 distant, and no one can reach it.' It also says: 'Being protected and kept in mind by the buddhas, planting roots of virtue, entering the group of the truly settled, and giving rise to the mind to rescue all sentient beings—accomplishing these four dharmas, one will certainly attain this sūtra.' The commentary explains that these four are opening, displaying, awakening to, and entering the Buddha's knowledge and vision; when knowledge and vision verify the principle, this is called attaining the sūtra. Do not these two passages take principle as the sūtra? The Golden Light says: 'The buddhas of the ten directions are constantly mindful of this sūtra.' Could this cause the buddhas to be mindful only of the teaching? Cases like this are numerous, and cannot all be cited. Thus we know that the various masters, in explaining the titles of the various sūtras through that which expresses and that which is expressed, err greatly with respect to the purport. Our school universally uses the common and the specific to explain titles, and only then is there no fault. Second, from 'The common is' onward, explaining that there are three kinds of common and specific. In our present explanation of the two designations—common and specific—of the various sūtras, both are that which expresses, and both are that which is expressed. This is because the common and the specific each possess the teaching, practice, and principle; do not say that these two designations reside only in the teaching. One must know that the common and specific inherently have names of teaching, names of practice, and names of principle. For instance, in a specific title, 'The Buddha spoke' is the teaching, 'contemplation' is the practice, and 'the Buddha of Immeasurable Life' is the principle—are these not specific teaching, specific practice, and specific principle? Pairing these three specifics with the word 'sūtra', there is the common teaching, common practice, and common principle. Now, among these three, first, explaining the common and specific of teaching, in two parts: first, directly explaining the lifetime teaching. As for the common name, whether spoken suddenly or spoken gradually, whether deploying the provisional or opening the provisional, outside of the Vinaya and treatises they are all named 'sūtra'; hence it is called common. As for the specific name, specific marks are indeed many, but here we follow three kinds: namely, person, dharma, and analogy. The simple three, the compound three, together with the one that is complete, make up the seven specifics. The simple three are: simple person, as in the Amitābha Sūtra, etc.; simple dharma, as in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, etc.; simple analogy, as in the Brahmajāla Sūtra, etc. The compound three are: person and dharma, as in the Mañjuśrī's Inquiry on Prajñā Sūtra, etc.; dharma and analogy, as in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra, etc.; person and analogy, as in the Tathāgata's Lion's Roar Sūtra, etc. The one complete in person, dharma, and analogy is, for instance, the Śrīmālā Lion's Roar One Vehicle Great Expedient Extensive Sūtra, etc. By joining these seven specifics with the common, the Buddha's lifetime Dharma is collectively designated. Second, from 'In the present sūtra' onward, specifically pointing to this sūtra. In discussing the lifetime teaching originally, mentioning this sūtra is to clarify that among the seven specifics, this belongs to simple person; hence it is stated. Although it belongs to simple person, the persons are divided into two: the speaker, Śākyamuni, and the spoken of, Amida; using these two persons, they form the specific designation. The sūtra is shared across the lifetime teaching; hence it is called the common name. Given that it has the word 'contemplation', it should properly be person and dharma; but the active conforms to the object, and is subsumed under the person, so it is briefly omitted. However, dividing common and specific here is not like the extensive explanation, so it is not yet detailed. Second, from 'As practice' onward, the common and specific of practice. Various sūtras use one kind of practice as the specific name; paired with the common name, 'sūtra' is the common practice. If we discuss specific practices, their number is immeasurable, and it is hard to speak of them exhaustively. Now, presenting them by incremental numbers to practitioners, they seem graspable: one is like the one practice, etc.; two is like the two knowledges, etc.; three is like the threefold contemplation, etc.; four is like the four stations of mindfulness, etc.; five is like the five faculties, etc.; six is like the six wondrous [doors], etc.; seven is like the seven factors of awakening, etc.; eight is like the eightfold correct [path], etc.; nine is like the nine dhyānas, etc.; ten is like the ten pāramitās, etc., and so on up to hundreds, thousands, myriads, kotis, and immeasurable practices. These specific practices all tend toward nirvāṇa and culminate in the four virtues, spoken of briefly as permanence and bliss. Regarding their tending toward nirvāṇa, the specific practices are common; hence it is the sūtra of practice. In that Explication, cause and fruit were used to distinguish the common and specific of practice. One must know that its meaning does not imply that only upon reaching the fruit does the practice become common. If you wish to understand its meaning: based on each cultivating the cause, it is named specific practice; regarding tending toward the one fruit, these specifics are common. This is discussing the common at the time of the specific, and discussing the specific at the time of the common. How could it be so only for practice? Teaching and principle are also like this. For instance, pairing capacity and response with the common and specific of teaching: the Buddha preaches the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each attain understanding according to their kind. Their individual understandings are the specific capacity; the single voice is the common response. The individual understandings are not separate from the single voice, and the single voice does not obstruct the individual understandings. Just as the Profound Meaning of the Golden Light takes the expressing characters as the common teaching, and the rationale of that which expresses as the specific teaching—the rationale being the four siddhāntas—each and every siddhānta employs characters, and each and every character is not separate from the siddhāntas. Just as pairing name and reality with the common and specific of principle: many names are not separate from the one reality, and the one reality does not obstruct many names; hence the three commons and specifics are all simultaneous. They are entirely like the notes of wind and string instruments in music: regarding the sound, it is common; regarding the melody, it is specific. The two functions, common and specific, do not obstruct each other. Third, from 'Although principle' onward, the common and specific of principle. Name and reality being paired, name is the door, which manifests the one principle through the four doors; it is also phenomenal specifics paired with the common principle. This is because various sūtras mostly use a single phenomenon to manifest the principle, obtaining the specific name of principle. As in the title of this sūtra, the name 'the Buddha of Immeasurable Life' is taken as the specific principle; paired with the common name, 'sūtra' is the common principle. If, throughout the lifetime teaching, one explains sūtra titles by the common and specific principle, nothing is better than taking the four doors as the specific principle. The four doors are: the door of existence, the door of emptiness, the door of both, and the door of neither. The names of the four doors are common. One must distinguish the four teachings: namely, the Tripiṭaka Teaching, the Common Teaching, the Separate Teaching, and the Perfect Teaching. The four teachings each open four doors such as existence, so four times four becomes sixteen doors; expressing specific principles, they form sixteen principles. Since principle is not even one, how could there be sixteen? Yet principle is unobstructed and can correspond to the various doors, just as space in its substance is truly neither square nor round, neither large nor small, but because it is unobstructed, it can follow those square and round objects to form immeasurable marks. Speaking from the immeasurable, this is the specific principle; its substance being the one emptiness, this is named the common principle. There is no common without the specific, and no specific without the common; the common and the specific joined together form a single title.