觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 2.4.2

2.4.2

此文為三：初、依智論釋，二：初、釋相，二：初、約法釋。 三智即前次第所明一切智、道種智、一切種智，令易解故，分屬三人。 剋性圓論，三智實在一心中得。 三智是果，三觀是因，果在一心，因豈前後？ 因果不二方曰圓修，故舉智後即明三觀。 「只一觀而三觀」者，趣舉一觀即具三觀，舉一空觀，假中亦空，三觀悉能蕩相著故。 舉一假觀，中空亦假，三觀皆有立法義故。 舉一中觀，空假亦中，三觀當處皆絕待故。 若知三觀只在一心，則一一觀任運具三也。 「觀於一諦而三諦」者，諦觀名別，其體不殊，全諦發觀、觀還照諦。 既無別體，以何義故立諦立觀？ 若欲分別，就三因說，性三為諦，修三為觀。 性了是真，性緣是俗，正是中諦。 不是了因非大真諦，俗中亦然。 此之三諦，方與三觀體性不殊。 頑空為真，與觀體別，俗中亦爾。 三觀互具者，蓋性三本融，全性成修此之謂矣。 二、「類如」下，引類釋。 以有為法類無為性。 一剎那心初生即滅，兩間名住，不無三相而在一心。 三相無常尚居促念，三觀稱性無作無生，具於一心其義何爽？ 二、「此觀」下，結果。 不明智果，觀法無歸，故示觀成惑滅理顯，豁然妙證三種智慧實在一心。 或具論三智、或從勝說，只但名為一切種智。 「寂滅」等者，論自解釋。 一切種智雙寂二邊無明之相，雙照二諦種種行類，始自初心圓修三觀，妙觀中道念念雙忘，而即二邊念念雙照，一心二觀法爾如然。 今入分真，本智顯發，全由始行亡照之功。 二、引《中論》證。 論云「因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦名為假名，亦名中道義」，論通衍三。 今證圓觀，觀所對法豈有不從因緣生者？ 今修圓觀，必先解知能生因緣及所生法皆不思議，方於此境觀空假中。 又須了知妙諦妙觀悉是能觀，因緣所生陰等諸境皆是所觀。 前且直云觀於一諦而三觀，須知於陰等境觀一諦等也。 勿守略文，須尋觀義。 又不可謂先解所觀不思議故，便不得言陰及無明。 何者？ 本說因緣及所生法是不思議，若非無明，何名因緣？ 若非陰等，何名所生？ 有人見釋心法妙云「心法在因，約迷以說； 佛法在果，約悟以說」，輒便難云：心法稱妙，何得是迷？ 良由此人不知所以。 解迷是妙方曰圓人，如論苦集稱為無作，及十二因緣名不思議，豈不得云不思議無明？ 人雖解妙法體是迷，不知理即一向在迷，妙覺一向屬解，中間四位迷解共俱。 名字即人若不觀迷，何處用觀？ 等覺之位若不破迷，寧登妙覺？ 以上上智斷下下惑，惑非迷邪？ 人之多僻，其類實繁。 釋論三智，已如前釋。 三、「此觀」下，約妙結示。 初一句，總歎微妙。 次二句，約三一歎妙。 一不定一、一即是三，三不定三、三即是一，釋論以不決定解不可思議。 次三句，對十六歎妙。 上明一三融，即總一妙觀也。 即此一觀遍入諸門，名「一觀一切觀」。 雖入諸門，只一妙觀，名「一切觀一觀」。 觀若定一，莫入多門； 觀若定多，不可為一。 實不可以一多思議，故云「非一非一切」。 後二句，結示。 雖非一多，能攝一切，是故十六無非妙觀。 四、釋無量壽。 正示三觀所觀境也。 前明三觀，且以三德及以三因而為諦境，蓋示所觀融即，用顯能觀絕妙。 須知性中三德，體是諸佛三身，即此三德三身為我一心三觀。 若不然者，則觀外有佛、境不即心，何名圓宗絕待之觀； 亦阿彌陀三身以為法身，我之三觀以為般若，觀成見佛即是解脫。 舉一具三，如新伊字。 觀佛既爾，觀諸依正，理非異塗。 此意不明，非今觀佛。 釋此為二：初、牒名從梵。 無量壽者已是華言，天竺梵語稱阿彌陀。 二、「佛本」下，從真出俗，二：初、約本無三標無量壽。 乃是無量而為其量，是則題中已言壽量，壽量依身乃成三義，故約三義而論有無。 所言佛者，究竟覺也。

This text has three parts: first, explaining based on the Treatise [on the Great Perfection of Wisdom]; second; first, explaining the characteristics; second; first, explaining in terms of dharmas. The three wisdoms are the all-knowledge, knowledge of the aspects of the path, and knowledge of all aspects explained earlier in sequence; to make them easy to understand, they were assigned separately to three types of persons. Speaking accurately and definitively in terms of the perfect [teaching], the three wisdoms are in truth attained within a single mind. The three wisdoms are the fruition, and the threefold contemplation is the cause; since the fruition is within a single mind, how could the cause be sequential? Only when cause and fruition are non-dual is it called "perfect cultivation"; hence, right after mentioning the wisdoms, he clarifies the threefold contemplation. As for "only a single contemplation, yet it is the threefold contemplation": if one takes up any single contemplation, it immediately possesses the three contemplations; if one takes up the single contemplation of emptiness, the provisional and the middle are also empty, because all three contemplations are able to sweep away attachments to characteristics. If one takes up the single contemplation of the provisional, the middle and emptiness are also provisional, because all three contemplations have the significance of establishing dharmas. If one takes up the single contemplation of the middle, emptiness and the provisional are also middle, because all three contemplations in their very place transcend all relativity. If one knows that the threefold contemplation is only within a single mind, then each single contemplation spontaneously possesses all three. As for "contemplating a single truth, yet it is the three truths": the names of "truth" and "contemplation" differ, but their essence is not distinct; the contemplation arises entirely from the truth, and the contemplation in turn illuminates the truth. Since they have no separate essence, on what basis are "truth" and "contemplation" established? If one wishes to distinguish them, they are explained in terms of the three causes [of buddhahood]: the three [causes] of inherent nature are the truths, and the three [causes] of cultivation are the contemplations. The inherent wisdom-cause is the ultimate [truth], the inherent condition-cause is the conventional [truth], and the inherent direct cause is the middle truth. If it is not the wisdom-cause, it is not the great ultimate truth; the same is true of the conventional and middle. Only these three truths are not distinct in nature and essence from the threefold contemplation. If inert emptiness is taken as the ultimate [truth], it differs in essence from contemplation; the same is true of the conventional and middle. That the three contemplations mutually contain one another is because the three [causes] of inherent nature are fundamentally merged; this is what is meant by "cultivation being accomplished entirely from inherent nature." Second, from "Analogously, as..." downward, adducing an analogue to explain. He uses conditioned dharmas to serve as an analogue for unconditioned nature. In a single thought-moment of mind, it is extinguished as soon as it arises, and the interval between them is called "abiding"; there cannot fail to be the three marks present within a single thought. The three impermanent marks still reside within a brief thought-moment; the three contemplations correspond to nature, being uncreated and unarisen—how could their being possessed within a single mind be incorrect? Second, from "This contemplation..." downward, concluding with the fruition. If one does not clarify the fruition of wisdom, the method of contemplation will have no destination; therefore, he shows that when contemplation is perfected, delusions are extinguished, and noumenon becomes manifest, one suddenly and wondrously realizes that the three kinds of wisdom are truly present within a single mind. Whether one treats the three wisdoms in full or speaks from the perspective of supremacy, it is simply called the "knowledge of all aspects." As for "quiescent..." and so forth, the treatise itself explains it. The knowledge of all aspects simultaneously brings to quiescence the characteristics of ignorance of the two extremes, and simultaneously illuminates the various practices and classes of the two truths; starting from the initial mind's perfect cultivation of the threefold contemplation, wondrously contemplating the Middle Way, thought after thought one simultaneously forgets both [extremes], and in accordance with the two extremes, thought after thought one simultaneously illuminates both; the two contemplations [of emptiness and the provisional] within a single mind are inherently so. Now, entering the [stage of] partial reality, the original wisdom becomes manifest, entirely due to the efficacy of forgetting and illuminating in the initial practice. Second, citing the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā for verification. The treatise says: "Dharmas arisen from causes and conditions, I say they are empty; they are also designated by provisional names, and are also the meaning of the Middle Way." The treatise applies to the three [teachings of the] Mahāyāna. Here, to verify the perfect contemplation: among the dharmas to which the contemplation is directed, how could any not be born from causes and conditions? In now cultivating the perfect contemplation, one must first understand and know that both the causes and conditions capable of producing and the dharmas produced are inconceivable; only then, in reference to this objective realm, does one contemplate emptiness, the provisional, and the middle. Moreover, one must thoroughly know that the wondrous truths and wondrous contemplation are both that which contemplates, while the aggregates and other objective realms arisen from causes and conditions are all that which is contemplated. Previously, it was merely stated directly that "one contemplates a single truth, yet it is the three contemplations"; one must know that it means contemplating the single truth, etc., upon the objective realms of the aggregates and so forth. Do not cling to the abbreviated text; one must seek the meaning of the contemplation. Furthermore, one must not say that because one first understands that that which is contemplated is inconceivable, one can no longer speak of the aggregates and ignorance. Why? Originally it was said that causes and conditions and the dharmas produced are inconceivable; if not ignorance, what would be called "causes and conditions"? If not the aggregates and so forth, what would be called "that which is produced"? There are those who, seeing the explanation of the wondrousness of the dharma of mind which states, "The dharma of mind is on the side of the cause, spoken of in terms of delusion; the dharma of buddhahood is on the side of the fruition, spoken of in terms of awakening," immediately raise an objection, saying: "Since the dharma of mind is called wondrous, how can it be delusion?" This is truly because such people do not understand the reason. Understanding that delusion is wondrous—only this marks a person of the Perfect [Teaching]. Just as when the [truths of] suffering and accumulation are termed "uncreated," and the twelve links of dependent origination are called "inconceivable," how could one not speak of "inconceivable ignorance"? Although people understand that the wondrous dharma-essence is delusion, they do not know that the stage of noumenal identity is entirely within delusion, while wondrous awakening entirely belongs to understanding, and in the four intermediate stages, delusion and understanding coexist. If a person at the stage of verbal identity does not contemplate delusion, where would they apply contemplation? If those at the stage of virtual awakening do not destroy delusion, how could they ascend to wondrous awakening? When the highest wisdom severs the lowest delusion, is not that delusion [still] delusion? People's misconceptions are truly many and diverse. The three wisdoms of the Treatise have already been explained above. Third, from "This contemplation..." downward, concluding and indicating in terms of the wondrous. The first sentence praises its subtlety and wondrousness in general. The next two sentences praise the wondrousness in terms of the three and the one. The one is not definitively one, the one is precisely the three; the three are not definitively three, the three are precisely the one. The Treatise explains "inconceivable" in terms of not being definitive. The next three sentences praise the wondrousness with respect to the sixteen [contemplations]. Above, it was clarified that the one and the three are merged, which is the total single wondrous contemplation. This single contemplation universally enters into all the gates, which is called "one contemplation is all contemplations." Although entering into all the gates, it is just a single wondrous contemplation, which is called "all contemplations are one contemplation." If the contemplation were definitively one, it could not enter multiple gates; if the contemplation were definitively multiple, it could not be one. It truly cannot be conceived of as one or multiple; hence it says "neither one nor all." The final two sentences conclude and indicate: although it is neither one nor multiple, it can subsume all; therefore, among the sixteen, there is none that is not a wondrous contemplation. Fourth, explaining "Amitāyus." This directly shows the objective realm contemplated by the threefold contemplation. Earlier, in clarifying the threefold contemplation, the three virtues and the three causes were temporarily taken as the objective realm of truths; this was to show the interpenetration of that which is contemplated, in order to manifest the absolute wondrousness of that which contemplates. One must know that the three virtues within inherent nature are essentially the three bodies of all buddhas; these very three virtues and three bodies constitute our threefold contemplation in a single mind. If this were not so, there would be a buddha outside the contemplation, and the objective realm would not be identical with mind—how could that be called the contemplation of the absolute of the Perfect School? Moreover, the three bodies of Amitābha constitute the dharmakāya, our threefold contemplation constitutes prajñā, and seeing the Buddha when contemplation is perfected is liberation. To take up one is to possess all three, like the new letter 'I' [∴]. Since contemplating the Buddha is like this, contemplating the various [elements of] environment and self is, in principle, no different. If this intention is not understood, it is not the contemplation of the Buddha meant here. Explaining this has two parts: first, taking up the name according to Sanskrit. "Amitāyus" (Measureless Life) is already the Chinese phrasing; in the Sanskrit of India, it is called Amitābha. Second, from "Buddha fundamentally..." downward, emerging from the ultimate into the conventional, which has two parts: first, indicating Amitāyus in terms of the fundamental absence of the three [bodies]. It is taking the measureless as its measure; thus the title has already spoken of lifespan, and lifespan relies upon the body to form three meanings; therefore, presence and absence are discussed in terms of the three meanings. What is called "Buddha" is the ultimate awakened one.