觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 1.6.2

1.6.2

二、「此約」下，結五時之內，一一經題皆具通別。 若不用此教行理判，徒分通別，全無所以也。 然無量行會一常樂，四教四門同詮一理，若專方等未堪此聞，乃是預取法華之意跨節而談。 於佛滅後，解釋諸經不約法華，寧窮一化？ 二、「更約」下，約一題。 一化經目通別二名具教等三，關涉既廣，思修或難，故就即今所解經題，明教行理宛然可見。 此三皆別，以對經字，即是三通，故云「任運有通別意」。 欲使行者即此一題，就說解教、起能觀行、見真佛理。 三、「更就」下，約一字。 一題雖約而涉三名，今示一字，解、行、證三悉得具足。 此復為二：初就說字兼含釋。 題中「說」字最可顯於教行并理，故引《釋論》「所行如所說」句，以示說中含於行理。 「如」者，真如也。 如名不異。 一真覺性，物成無殊、三際平等，契此如理，方得心口說行不異。 故《金剛般若》云「云何為人演說，如如不動」，《法華》云「諸法空為座，處此為說法」。 事相解如，二物相似，以為不異。 理觀解如，二物性一，方名不異。 故釋經如是。 三藏則以傳佛所說，似水傳瓶，名曰文如。 衍教不爾，通以二諦相即為如。 別則唯聞中道為如。 圓以文字性離為如。 三教約此方曰文如。 論就理觀，心口理一，方得說行如如不異。 此令說者行契如理也。 二、「佛即」下，就諸字互具釋。 佛復本源究竟覺體，非寂非照，故屬法身。 觀字即是清淨智慧，寂而常照，故屬般若。 無量壽是自在神通，照而常寂，故屬解脫。 今將諸字分對三德，深有所以。 所以者何？ 向就一字明教行理，雖約說字義具於三，既約修辯尚通前教，而又未明字字具三。 故今特用涅槃三德對於諸字，乃彰諸字性各具三，非前教人所能思說。 良以三德性本圓融一一互具，故直法身非法身，法身必具般若、解脫； 直般若非般若，般若必具解脫、法身； 直解脫非解脫，解脫必具法身、般若。 三德即是教行理三。 般若是教，智在說故； 解脫是行，用從緣故； 法身屬理，是所顯故。 佛字既是法身之理，即具二德及教行也。 觀字既屬般若之教，亦具二德及行理也。 無量壽既是解脫之行，亦具二德及理教也。 若不然者，豈得即一達三、即三達一？ 問：本以一字具教行理，今何得以無量壽三字方具於三？ 則不名為約一字也。 答：以題諸字對三德釋，斯是妙談，貴在得意。 欲令行者知三德性遍一切處，一字一句、一偈一品、一部一經、一時一化，乃至一切依正色心，多亦三德、少亦三德，一塵三德不小、剎海三德不大。 故引《華嚴》云「一中解無量」等也。 若得此意，今之妙觀有造修分。 應色一相可照三身，依報一塵即寂光土，故十六觀皆照三諦。 其不信者，則辜吾祖立茲法矣。 二、「於一」下，約一字以校量，三：初、正校量。 上窮妙旨，從廣至狹； 今校功德，從少至多。 一字尚詮大涅槃理，況一切經豈不圓遍？ 二、「故經」下，引經證。 如《金光明》及諸大乘，多作此說。 三、「若不」下，結今得。 不明一字圓具三德，諸經所說一句一題受持功德無量無邊，便成虛設也。 自非道場得入三昧發旋總持，曷能妙說自在若斯？ 二、「初釋」下，就別廣明，置通釋別也。 文四：初、釋佛字，二：初、正約佛名示六即，二：初、翻名標示。 梵云佛陀，華言覺者，即說教主。 別號稱曰釋迦牟尼，通號有十，今舉第九，故標佛也。 既是極果，即究竟覺。 《起信論》云「覺心初起，心無初相，遠離微細念故。 心即常住，名究竟覺。 」此覺圓淨無所對待，生佛依正鎔融總攝，十方三世亙徹無外，五住二死盡淨無餘，無量甚深永絕思議，強名妙覺。 此之覺義有六種即，即者是義。 今釋迦文，乃究竟是圓淨之覺。

Second, under "This is about...," he concludes that within the five periods, every single sūtra title possesses both general and specific [aspects]. If one does not evaluate it using these three of teaching, practice, and principle, simply dividing into general and specific has no basis whatsoever. Yet, when immeasurable practices converge in the one [truth of] permanence and bliss, and the four teachings and four gates together expound the single principle—if one were restricted to the Vaipulya [period], [listeners] would not have been capable of hearing this; this is taking the intention of the Lotus [Sūtra] in advance to speak across intervals. After the Buddha's passing, when explaining the various sūtras, if one does not base oneself on the Lotus [Sūtra], how could one exhaustively grasp his entire lifetime of teaching? Second, under "Further, regarding...," he discusses a single title. While the two designations of general and specific in the titles of his entire lifetime's teaching possess the three [aspects] of teaching and so forth, because their scope is so broad, reflecting on and cultivating them might be difficult; therefore, taking the sūtra title being explained right now, he makes teaching, practice, and principle clearly evident. These three are all specific; when contrasted with the character "sūtra," they constitute the three generals; hence he says, "spontaneously possessing the meaning of general and specific." He wishes to enable practitioners, through this single title, to understand the teaching in terms of "speaking," to give rise to the practice that contemplates, and to see the true principle of the Buddha. Third, under "Further, regarding...," he discusses a single character. Although a single title is concise, it involves three designations; now, by showing a single character, the three of understanding, practice, and realization are all fully present. This again has two parts: first, explaining through the character "spoken" (shuō) as encompassing [all three]. The character "spoken" in the title is best able to reveal teaching and practice along with principle; hence he cites the phrase from the *Śāstra* (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*), "what one practices is like what one speaks," in order to show that within speaking, practice and principle are contained. "Like" (ruò / rú) means suchness (tathatā / zhēnrú). "Suchness" means non-difference: the one true awakened nature is no different in things or persons, equal across the three times; only by according with this principle of suchness can speech and action of mind and mouth be without difference. Therefore the *Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā* says, "How does one explain it to others? Like suchness, unmoved"; and the *Lotus Sūtra* says, "Taking the emptiness of all phenomena as one's seat, resting here one expounds the Dharma." Phenomenal marks understand "suchness" as two things being similar, taking them as not different; noumenal contemplation understands "suchness" as the nature of two things being identical—only then is it called not different. Therefore, in explaining sūtras, it is thus. The Tripiṭaka [Teaching] takes transmitting what the Buddha spoke, like water transferred between vases, and calls it "textual suchness." The Mahāyāna teachings are not like this: the Shared [Teaching] takes the mutual identity of the two truths as suchness; the Separate [Teaching] only hears of the Middle Way as suchness; and the Perfect [Teaching] takes the nature of words being unattached as suchness. Only according to these do the three teachings speak of "textual suchness." The *Śāstra* proceeds in terms of noumenal contemplation: only when mind, mouth, and principle are one can speaking and practicing be suchlike and non-different. This enables the speaker's practice to accord with the principle of suchness. Second, under "Buddha is...," he explains in terms of all characters mutually containing [one another]. Buddha returns to the fundamental source, the ultimate body of awakening, neither quiescent nor illuminating, and thus belongs to the dharmakāya. The character "contemplation" is pure wisdom, quiescent yet ever illuminating, and thus belongs to prajñā. "Amitāyus" (Measureless Life) is unhindered divine power, illuminating yet ever quiescent, and thus belongs to liberation. Now, correlating the various characters with the three virtues has a profound reason. Why is this? Previously, explaining teaching, practice, and principle in terms of a single character, although using the character "spoken" to encompass the three, was still formulated in terms of cultivation and remained common to the preceding teachings; moreover, it had not yet made clear that character by character possesses the three. Therefore, he now specifically uses the three virtues of nirvāṇa to correlate with the characters, thereby revealing that the nature of each character possesses the three, which is not something people of the preceding teachings could conceive or express. Because the nature of the three virtues is fundamentally completely integrated and mutually contains each other, dharmakāya alone is not dharmakāya—dharmakāya necessarily possesses prajñā and liberation; prajñā alone is not prajñā—prajñā necessarily possesses liberation and dharmakāya; liberation alone is not liberation—liberation necessarily possesses dharmakāya and prajñā. The three virtues are just the three of teaching, practice, and principle: prajñā is teaching, because wisdom lies in speaking; liberation is practice, because function accords with conditions; dharmakāya belongs to principle, because it is what is manifested. Since the character "Buddha" is the principle of dharmakāya, it contains the other two virtues as well as teaching and practice. Since the character "contemplation" belongs to the teaching of prajñā, it also contains the other two virtues as well as practice and principle. Since "Amitāyus" is the practice of liberation, it also contains the other two virtues as well as principle and teaching. Were it not so, how could one reach three from one, and reach one from three? Question: Originally a single character was to contain teaching, practice, and principle; how is it that now only three characters—"Amitāyus" (wú liàng shòu)—contain the three? Then it cannot be called "regarding a single character." Answer: Explaining the title's various characters in correlation with the three virtues is wondrous discourse; what is valued is grasping the meaning. He wishes to cause practitioners to know that the nature of the three virtues is omnipresent: in a single character, a single phrase, a single verse, a single chapter, a single work, a single sūtra, a single period, a single lifetime's teaching, and even all environments, primary rewards, forms, and minds. When many, they are the three virtues; when few, they are also the three virtues. In a single dust-mote the three virtues are not small; in oceans of worlds the three virtues are not large. Therefore he cites the *Avataṃsaka*, saying, "In the one, understanding the measureless," and so forth. If one grasps this meaning, one can engage in cultivating the wondrous contemplation of the present [sūtra]. A single mark of the responsive form can illuminate the three bodies; a single dust-mote of the environmental reward is none other than the land of quiescent light; therefore, the sixteen contemplations all illuminate the three truths. Those who do not believe this turn their backs on our Patriarch's establishment of this method! Second, under "In one...," he evaluates [the merit] regarding a single character, in three parts: first, the primary evaluation. Above, he exhausted the wondrous import from broad to narrow; now he evaluates the merit from small to large. If a single character still expounds the principle of great nirvāṇa, how could all sūtras not be perfectly pervasive? Second, under "Therefore the sūtra...," he cites a sūtra as proof. Like the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa* and various Mahāyāna texts, many speak in this way. Third, under "If not...," he concludes with the present achievement. If one does not understand that a single character perfectly possesses the three virtues, what the various sūtras say about the immeasurable and boundless merit of upholding a single phrase or title would become empty words. If one had not entered samādhi in the bodhimaṇḍa and unleashed the revolving dhāraṇī, how could one speak wondrously and with such unhindered freedom like this? Second, under "First explaining...," he elaborates broadly on the specific, setting aside the general to explain the specific. The text has four parts: first, explaining the character "Buddha," in two parts: first, directly regarding the name of the Buddha to show the six identities, in two parts: first, translating the name and indicating it. In Sanskrit it is *buddha*, in Chinese rendered as "awakened one," namely the master of the teaching being spoken. His specific designation is Śākyamuni; of his ten general designations, the ninth is cited here, hence specifying "Buddha." Since this is the ultimate fruition, it is ultimate awakening. The *Treatise on the Awakening of Faith* says: "When the awakened mind first arises, the mind has no initial mark, because it is far removed from subtle thoughts. The mind is ever-abiding, which is called ultimate awakening." This awakening is completely pure and devoid of relativity; sentient beings, Buddhas, environment, and self are melted together and completely encompassed; the ten directions and three times are thoroughly penetrated without exterior; the five entrenchments and two deaths are completely purified without remainder; immeasurably profound, it forever cuts off conceptual thought, and is forcibly named wondrous awakening. This meaning of awakening has six kinds of identity; "identity" (jí) means "is." Now Śākyamuni is precisely this completely pure awakening in its ultimate [sense].