[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1751) › 2.4 # 觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 2.4 觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 2.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1751.2.4.1) 三、釋觀字，即所說也。 上十二部八萬等法，豈非所說？ 然是泛舉顯於能說。 下「無量壽」及今「觀」字，的是此經所說義也。 釋觀分二：初、牒釋雙標。 牒起觀字，以觀釋之，乃用觀法觀於勝境。 若非觀法，將何觀之？ 撮經所詮，立茲題目。 經明十六以為能觀，今釋題名唯論三觀。 經文是別，題是總名。 總總於別，別別於總。 若也立題收文不盡，則不能應篇章之式，故知今立三觀釋觀，乃是經文十六觀體。 若就十六各各示於三觀相者，其文繁廣，故於釋題總而示之，令其修者以茲觀法入十六門，則境境皆三、心心絕妙。 四依被物，言簡意周，雙標次第及以一心二三觀者，此乃以次顯於不次。 不融別觀無以明圓，如《止觀》中皆用思議顯不思議。 二、「從假」下，據教雙釋，二：初、次第三觀，二：初、列名指經。 所列諸名，釋中自見。 二、「今釋」下，釋相結果。 依前列名，釋三觀相。 第一空觀，而有二名。 「假是」等者，見思取境，無而謂有，虛假凡俗知虛名諦。 二空之理是審實法，知實名諦。 不究俗虛莫知真實，要須照假方得入空，是故名曰從假入空。 又假是等者，迷世俗時謂虛是實，則二俱不諦。 若悟俗虛必知真實，則二俱諦。 故復得名二諦觀也。 此觀等者，修觀名因、證智名果。 《釋論》三智為易解，故分屬三人。 故以聲聞對一切智，即空觀果當於別教十住位也。 第二假觀，亦有二名。 先斥住空墮二乘地。 若修假觀能成佛法、能益眾生，觀空欲作入中方便，故於空智證而不住，三界惑著須蕩令空，諸法因緣須究本末，見思重數如塵若沙，以大悲心遍觀遍學，名為知病。 諸法諸門破性破相，一一對治無不諳練，是名識藥。 隨惑淺深知機生熟，神通駭動智辯宣揚，四悉當宜各令獲益，如此授藥方肯服行。 皆由證空能入此假，故此觀名從空入假。 而言等者，前除見愛破假用空，今遣塵沙破空用假。 於空於假各一破用，前後相望至今均等，故復名為平等觀也。 「此觀」等者，若依《釋論》以菩薩人對道種智，即假觀果，位在十行。 「二空」下，第三、中觀。 初、雙標。 「初觀空生死」者，別人初心信，今知覺本是常住中道佛性，從教道故，名為但中，唯善唯淨不具染惡。 雖無染惡，其性靈知，強覺忽生境界斯現，分別境相執著我人，不昧之知、邪思邪見，現前染惡既非性具，皆是隨緣變造而有。 是變造故非性本然，是故見思不即中道，定須破故，即義不成，故不得云唯愛唯見唯色唯香。 設欲修中，能所不絕，故修空為正、中觀為傍。 何者？ 心既著有，須別緣空破茲愛見。 所觀之空是二乘法，既非性具乃是別修，空非畢竟，是故空觀但空生死。 「次觀空涅槃」者，生死之有雖已破除，心又著空，須別緣假破此空著。 假是建立、是菩薩法，非性具故亦是別修，能蕩空著名空涅槃。 「此之」等者，前空生死，見思惑忘； 次空涅槃，塵沙惑盡。 二惑既盡，心無偏著，是故得為雙遮方便。 「初觀」等者，復因次第用於二觀觀其二諦，是故得為雙照方便。 方便立已圓觀可修，於十向中即以所顯中道佛性而為能觀中道之觀，諦觀不二惑智一如，三觀圓融是無作行，故得自然入薩婆若。 此觀之果名一切種智，位在初地。 二、一心三觀。 斯乃稱性而觀、絕待而照。 蓋一切法，性是法身、般若、解脫，如伊字三點，三非孤立，一一圓具，舉一即三，乃以三德而為三諦，般若是真、解脫是俗、法身是中。 德既不縱不橫，諦乃絕思絕議，此是佛之所諦。 今以此諦而為所觀，諦既即一而三，觀豈前後而照？ 故依妙諦以立觀門，即於一心而修三觀。 此觀觀法能所雙絕，況無量壽佛本修此觀成就三身，法報泯然、真應融即，非茲妙觀寧顯妙身？ 化主若斯，徒眾亦爾，正報既妙，依報豈麁？ 故十六境皆須妙觀。 > Third, explaining the character "contemplation" (guan), which is what is taught. Are not the twelve divisions of scriptures and eighty-thousand Dharma stores above also what is taught? However, that was a general mention to reveal the capacity to teach. The subsequent "Amitāyus" and the present character "contemplation" are precisely the specific teachings of this sūtra. The explanation of "contemplation" is twofold: first, citing the term to explain it and proposing both \[types of contemplation\]. Citing the character "contemplation" and explaining it with contemplation means employing the method of contemplation to contemplate the superior object. If it were not for the method of contemplation, with what could one contemplate it? Condensing what the sūtra explains, this title was established. The sūtra expounds the sixteen \[contemplations\] as the contemplating subject, whereas here the explanation of the title discusses only the threefold contemplation. The sūtra text is specific; the title is the general name. The general encompasses the specific; the specific belongs to the general. If the established title did not subsume the entire text, it could not conform to the model of textual composition. Therefore, one should know that establishing the threefold contemplation here to explain "contemplation" is indeed the essence of the sixteen contemplations in the sūtra text. If one were to demonstrate the aspects of the threefold contemplation for each of the sixteen, the text would be prolix and vast; hence, in explaining the title, it is demonstrated comprehensively, enabling the practitioner to enter the sixteen portals by means of this method of contemplation, so that every single object is threefold and every single thought is exceedingly wondrous. The Four Reliances convert beings with concise words and comprehensive meaning, presenting both the sequential and the single-mind threefold contemplations, which reveals the non-sequential by means of the sequential. Without harmonizing the separate contemplation, there is no way to illuminate the perfect; just as throughout the Zhiguan (Great Calming and Contemplation), the conceivable is used to illuminate the inconceivable. Second, from "from the provisional" onward, explaining both according to the teachings, which has two parts: first, the sequential threefold contemplation, which again has two parts: first, listing the names and referring to the sūtra. The various names listed will be seen in the explanation itself. Second, from "now explaining" onward, explaining their characteristics and concluding with their fruits. Based on the previous list of names, the characteristics of the threefold contemplation are explained. The first, the contemplation of emptiness, has two names. The phrase "the provisional is..." and so forth: grasping objects through views and desires, one takes what is non-existent to be existent; when the false provisionality of ordinary worldliness is known to be empty, it is called a truth. The principle of the twofold emptiness is an ascertained and real phenomenon; knowing what is real is called a truth. Without investigating mundane falsity, one cannot know the genuine truth; one must illuminate the provisional before gaining entry into emptiness. For this reason, it is called entering emptiness from the provisional. Furthermore, regarding the phrase "the provisional is..." and so forth: when deluded about the mundane world, one considers the false to be real, and then neither is a truth. If one awakens to the falsity of the provisional, one will certainly know the genuine truth, and then both are truths. Therefore, it also receives the name contemplation of the two truths. In the phrase "this contemplation..." and so forth: cultivating contemplation is called the cause, and realizing wisdom is called the fruit. In the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, to facilitate understanding, the three wisdoms are allocated respectively to three kinds of persons. Thus, matching the śrāvaka with the wisdom of all \[phenomena\] (sarvajñatā) means that the fruit of the contemplation of emptiness corresponds to the ten abodes of the Separate Teaching. The second, the contemplation of the provisional, also has two names. First, it reprimands dwelling in emptiness and falling into the stage of the two vehicles. If one cultivates the contemplation of the provisional, one can accomplish the Buddha-Dharma and benefit sentient beings. When contemplating emptiness, one wishes to make it an expedient for entering the middle; therefore, regarding the wisdom of emptiness, one realizes it but does not abide in it. The delusions and attachments of the triple realm must be swept away and made empty, while the causes and conditions of all dharmas must be investigated from root to branch. The varieties of views and desires are like dust and sand; with great compassion one contemplates them everywhere and studies them everywhere, which is called knowing the disease. In all dharmas and all portals, one demolishes nature and demolishes marks; in every single antidote, there is none in which one is not thoroughly trained, which is called recognizing the medicine. In accordance with the shallowness or depth of delusions, one knows whether capacities are raw or ripe; astonishing and moving them with spiritual penetrations, and propagating \[the Dharma\] with wisdom and eloquence, one applies the four siddhāntas appropriately, causing each to gain benefit; only when the medicine is administered in this way will they be willing to take it and practice. It is entirely because of realizing emptiness that one is able to enter this provisionality; hence, this contemplation is named entering the provisional from emptiness. As for the phrase "...is called", and so forth: previously, in eliminating views and attachments, one demolished the provisional by using emptiness; now, in expelling delusions like dust and sand, one demolishes emptiness by using the provisional. Regarding emptiness and the provisional, in each case there is one demolition and one application; when viewed in sequence from first to last, they now attain balance and equality; hence, it is also named the contemplation of equality. In the phrase "this contemplation..." and so forth: if one follows the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra in matching the bodhisattva with the wisdom of the paths (mārgajñatā), this is the fruit of the contemplation of the provisional, with its rank in the ten practices. From "the two emptinesses" onward is the third, the contemplation of the middle. First, proposing both aspects. Regarding "first, contemplating the emptiness of birth-and-death": a beginner in the Separate Teaching has faith, now understanding that consciousness is originally the eternally abiding middle-path Buddha-nature; yet according to the doctrinal path, it is called the exclusive middle, which is solely good and solely pure, not endowed with defiled evil. Although it has no defiled evil, its nature is spiritual awareness. When arbitrary perception suddenly arises, objective realms appear; discriminating the objective marks, it clings to self and others; with unabated awareness, deviant thoughts and deviant views \[arise\]. The currently manifest defiled evil, not being inherently possessed by nature, all exists through transformation and production in accordance with conditions. Because it is transformed and produced, it is not original to nature; for this reason, views and desires are not identical with the middle path. Because they must certainly be demolished, identity is not established, and therefore one cannot say that it is solely attachment, solely views, solely form, or solely fragrance. Even if one wishes to cultivate the middle, subject and object are not ended; hence, cultivating emptiness is primary, while the contemplation of the middle is secondary. Why is this? Since the mind is attached to existence, it must separately focus on emptiness to demolish these attachments and views. The emptiness contemplated is the method of the two vehicles; since it is not inherently possessed by nature, it is a separate cultivation. Emptiness is not ultimate; for this reason, the contemplation of emptiness empties only birth-and-death. Regarding "next, contemplating the emptiness of nirvāṇa": although the existence of birth-and-death has already been eliminated, the mind again clings to emptiness, so it must separately focus on the provisional to demolish this attachment to emptiness. The provisional is establishment, the bodhisattva's method; because it is not inherently possessed by nature, it is also a separate cultivation, capable of sweeping away attachment to emptiness, and is called the emptiness of nirvāṇa. Regarding the phrase "this..." and so forth: previously, by emptying birth-and-death, the delusions of views and desires were forgotten; next, by emptying nirvāṇa, the delusions of dust and sand were exhausted. When both delusions are exhausted, the mind has no one-sided attachment; therefore, it can serve as the expedient of twofold negation. Regarding the phrase "first contemplating..." and so forth: furthermore, because of the sequence, one uses the two contemplations to contemplate their two truths; therefore, it can serve as the expedient of twofold illumination. Once the expedients are established, the perfect contemplation can be cultivated: in the ten dedications, precisely by means of the revealed middle-path Buddha-nature, one forms the contemplation of the middle path as the contemplating subject. Truth and contemplation are not two, delusion and wisdom are as one, the threefold contemplation is perfectly interfused, and it is uncreated practice; therefore, one naturally enters sarvajñatā. The fruit of this contemplation is named the wisdom of all modes (sarvākārajñatā), and its rank is at the first stage (bhūmi). Second, the threefold contemplation in a single mind. This is contemplating in accord with nature and illuminating in absolute transcendence. For all dharmas, their nature is dharmakāya, prajñā, and liberation—like the three dots of the letter 'i', the three do not stand alone, but each is completely endowed; mentioning one immediately implies the three. Thus, the three virtues are taken as the three truths: prajñā is the real, liberation is the provisional, and dharmakāya is the middle. Since the virtues are neither vertical nor horizontal, the truths are beyond thought and beyond deliberation; this is what the Buddha takes as truth. Now, taking this truth as the object of contemplation: since the truth is threefold while being one, how could the contemplation illuminate in front and behind? Therefore, relying on the wondrous truth to establish the contemplation portal, one cultivates the threefold contemplation directly within a single mind. This contemplation's method of contemplating transcends both subject and object; how much more so for the Buddha Amitāyus, who originally cultivated this contemplation to accomplish the three bodies! The dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya are quiescent, and the true and manifest bodies are interfused and identical. If not for this wondrous contemplation, how could the wondrous bodies be revealed? If the converting lord is like this, so too are his disciples. Since the primary reward is wondrous, how could the environmental reward be coarse? Therefore, all sixteen objects require this wondrous contemplation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1751.2.4.2) 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. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1751.2.4.3) 理智既極，始本兩忘，無相無名，不可說示，寧得立其身及壽量？ 二、「隨順」下，隨世俱立，二：初、列三身各三。 據究竟覺第一義諦，則不可言身及壽量。 為度生故，乃順世間立名立相，故說三身及三壽量。 是則真佛無三，隨世故有，然須了知有無之意。 言佛本無身無壽量者，但無有相隨情之三，非無性具微妙身等，是故真佛究竟一切淨穢法門。 若一向無，何異小乘所詮真理？ 故真無俗有、真有俗無，皆是悉檀，不可偏執。 今文意者，蓋立三身釋無量壽，恐執定有，是故先言佛本無三，隨世說有。 得此意已，分別三身三壽三量則無滯也。 二、「法身」下，釋三身三義，二：初、約義分別，二、據理融即。 以有次文盡理融即，故今且約修二性一一塗分別。 初自為三：初、法身，二：初、別釋，三：初、法身者，師軌釋法，捨通從別。 通則生佛俱軌法性，然其九界雖軌而違，如人依師不順師教； 唯有諸佛從初發心軌法而修，今能究竟冥合法性。 故《大經》云「諸佛所師，所謂法也，以法常故。 」諸佛亦常順法性故，名法為師。 實非所師與能體別，故即所師法而為其身。 雖名為身，已出五陰，故非色質及非心智。 色是初陰、心智即四陰，既其非陰亦非入界，故非三科任持攝屬。 此則已簡分段變易，以示生死陰等攝故。 亦可色質簡應、心智簡報，三科簡因，既非此等，何以狀名？ 為物機故，強指法性名為法身。 二、「法性」下，壽。 連持之壽，親依命根。 今法性壽，非識息煖報得命根，亦非三事連持之壽。 為物顯德，乃指法性非八相遷、非九世易，強名為壽。 三、「此壽」下，量。 壽之分量，合論長短及以延促。 今法性壽，實無此等分量之相，此則通簡。 若別簡者，長是報佛、短是眾生，能延能促即是應身。 非此等量，為成觀故，強指法壽同虛空量。 二、「此即」下，總示。 法性三義，非陰聚身、非報得壽、非長短量，不可思議，強於法性說身說壽說量故也。 二、報身，二：初、稱法有報，二：初、引經。 報即酬報也。 修行是因，感於妙報而酬因也。 《法華》證智德，經云「慧光照無量，久修業所得」。 《大般涅槃》證斷德也。 此二果德，酬答修因，是故名報。 二、「如如」下，釋相。 感報之時，其相何似？ 故以一法二喻顯之。 如名不異，所觀差別，不名如境； 智外有境，不名如智。 各二如者，境如如智、智如如境，此之境智故得應冥。 智慧名通，故以果覺菩提簡之，即是無上菩提之智與法性境相應相冥。 先舉函蓋喻其相應，恐謂函蓋雖際畔相當，終存兩相，故重舉水乳以喻相冥，令知始本同是覺性。 其體泯然，正同水乳，則顯境外無智、智外無境。 水乳可見。 二、「法身」下，於報立三，即身、壽、量也。 三中一一言法身者，報智所冥，離法無報故。 初、身。 言「非身」者，非應佛有分齊身。 「非不身」者，非報佛無分齊身。 又非身則非有、非不身則非空，中道法身乃本覺體，始覺冥此，能冥亦忘。 為成觀故，強名報智。 二、「法壽」下，明壽。 言「非壽」者，非應同連持之壽。 「非不壽」者，非報智不連持壽。 雙非二邊，冥中法體。 強名之意，同前身也。 三、「法量」下，明量。 非應有量、非報無量，及非二邊義同身壽。 三、應身，三：初、明應物，有三：初、身。 如谷答響，大小隨聲。 如鑑現形，端醜在質。 應萬物感，現勝劣身。 二、「應同」下，壽。 身既同物，壽豈差機？ 三、「應同」下，量。 隨宜長短，示量無量。 二、「智與」下，明依二有應，三：初、法。 智即報身、體即法身，此二冥合，應用無方。 二、「如水」下，喻。 真金上色，須水銀和，方能塗物。 闕此一緣，金無塗用。 三、「功德」下，合。 報智功德契會法身，隨有機處應無不往。 > When principle and wisdom have reached their utmost, initial and original \[awakening\] are both forgotten; free of marks and free of names, it cannot be expressed or demonstrated. How then could one establish its body or lifespan? Second, from "Accords with" onward, both are established in accordance with the conventional world, which has two parts: first, listing three for each of the three bodies. Relying upon the ultimate awakening, the supreme truth, one cannot speak of body or lifespan. For the sake of saving sentient beings, names and marks are established in accordance with the world, and thus the three bodies and three lifespans are expounded. It is thus that the true Buddha does not have three, yet according to the world they exist; nonetheless, one must comprehend the meaning of their existence and non-existence. When it is said that the Buddha originally has neither body nor lifespan, it only means that there are no three that possess marks and accord with feelings; it does not mean there are no subtly wondrous bodies, etc., inherent in the nature. Therefore, the true Buddha culminates in all pure and defiled teachings. If it were entirely non-existent, how would it differ from the true principle expounded by the Hīnayāna? Therefore, true non-existence and conventional existence, true existence and conventional non-existence, are all siddhāntas and must not be grasped one-sidedly. The intention of the present text is that, in establishing the three bodies to explain Amitāyus, it fears that one might cling to definite existence; therefore it first says that the Buddha originally does not have three, but speaks of existence in accordance with the world. Having grasped this meaning, one will be unimpeded in distinguishing the three bodies, three lifespans, and three measures. Second, from "Dharmakāya" onward, explaining the three meanings of the three bodies, which has two parts: first, distinguishing them in terms of meaning; second, fusing and identifying them in terms of principle. Because the subsequent text fully identifies them in terms of principle, for now it distinguishes them along the single path of the two \[aspects\] of cultivation and the one of nature. The first itself has three parts: first, the dharmakāya, which has two: first, separate explanation, with three: first, regarding the dharmakāya, it explains "dharma" in the sense of a model or standard, setting aside the common to take up the distinct. Commonly speaking, both sentient beings and Buddhas take the dharma-nature as their model; however, the nine realms, though modeling upon it, contravene it, like a person relying upon a master yet not obeying the master's instructions. Only the Buddhas, from their initial resolve of the mind, practice while modeling upon the Dharma, and now can definitively and invisibly unite with the dharma-nature. Thus the Great Sūtra says: "That which is the master of all Buddhas is what is called the Dharma, because the Dharma is eternal." Because all Buddhas also eternally accord with the dharma-nature, the Dharma is called the master. In truth, it is not that what is modeled upon is distinct in substance from that which can \[model upon it\]; therefore, the very Dharma that is modeled upon constitutes the body. Although it is called a body, it has already transcended the five aggregates; thus it is neither material form nor mental wisdom. Material form is the first aggregate, and mental wisdom is the four aggregates; since it is neither aggregates nor sense bases or elements, it is not sustained by or subsumed under the three categories. This already eliminates fragmented \[birth and death\] and change \[birth and death\], because it shows that birth and death are subsumed under the aggregates, etc. One may also say that material form eliminates the response \[body\], mental wisdom eliminates the reward \[body\], and the three categories eliminate causes; since it is none of these, how could it be characterized by a name? For the sake of the capacities of beings, one arbitrarily points to the dharma-nature and names it the dharmakāya. Second, from "Dharma-nature" onward, the lifespan. Lifespan as continuous maintenance directly relies upon the life-faculty. Now, the lifespan of dharma-nature is not the retribution-obtained life-faculty of consciousness, breath, and warmth, nor is it a lifespan continuously maintained by these three things. To reveal virtue for the sake of beings, one points to the dharma-nature as not shifting through the eight marks and not changing across the nine times, and arbitrarily names it lifespan. Third, from "This lifespan" onward, the measure. The measure of lifespan properly discusses long and short, as well as prolonged and abbreviated. Now, the lifespan of dharma-nature is truly without these marks of measure; this is a general elimination. If distinguished separately, long belongs to the reward Buddha, short belongs to sentient beings, and being able to prolong or abbreviate belongs to the response body. Being none of these measures, for the sake of completing contemplation, one arbitrarily points to the lifespan of dharma as equal to the measure of empty space. Second, from "This is" onward, general demonstration. The three meanings of dharma-nature are not an aggregate body, not a retribution-obtained lifespan, and not a measure of long or short; being inconceivable, body, lifespan, and measure are arbitrarily spoken of in terms of the dharma-nature. Second, the reward body, which has two parts: first, that according with the Dharma there is a reward, with two: first, citing sūtras. "Reward" means recompense. Practice is the cause, which evokes the wondrous reward to recompense the cause. The Lotus Sūtra testifies to the virtue of wisdom, where the sūtra says: "The light of wisdom illuminates immeasurably, obtained through deeds practiced for long." The Mahāparinirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] testifies to the virtue of elimination. These two fruit-virtues recompense the cultivated causes, and thus it is named reward. Second, from "As-suchness" onward, explaining its characteristics. At the time when the reward is evoked, what are its characteristics like? Therefore it is revealed through one dharma and two metaphors. "As-such" means not different; if the contemplated is differentiated, it is not called the as-such object; if there is an object outside of wisdom, it is not called as-such wisdom. As for each of the two being as-such, the object is as-such to as-such wisdom, and wisdom is as-such to the as-such object; therefore this object and wisdom are able to invisibly correspond. "Wisdom" is a common name, so it is distinguished by the bodhi of fruit-awakening, which is the wisdom of unexcelled bodhi invisibly corresponding with the object of dharma-nature. First, the box and lid are cited to illustrate their correspondence; fearing one might think that although the edges of a box and lid match, two characteristics ultimately remain, it cites water and milk again to illustrate their invisible union, causing one to know that initial and original \[awakening\] are equally the nature of awakening. Their substance is completely fused, just like water and milk, which reveals that there is no wisdom outside the object, and no object outside of wisdom. Water and milk can be seen \[together\]. Second, from "Dharmakāya" onward, establishing the three for the reward, which are body, lifespan, and measure. The reason why each of the three speaks of the dharmakāya is that it is what the reward-wisdom invisibly unites with, for apart from the Dharma there is no reward. First, the body. When it says "not a body," it means it is not the delimited body of the response Buddha. When it says "not non-body," it means it is not the nondelimited body of the reward Buddha. Furthermore, "not a body" means not existing; "not non-body" means not empty. The dharmakāya of the Middle Way is the substance of original awakening; when initial awakening invisibly unites with this, that which can invisibly unite is also forgotten. For the sake of completing contemplation, it is arbitrarily named reward-wisdom. Second, from "Lifespan of dharma" onward, clarifying lifespan. When it says "not a lifespan," it means it is not a continuously maintained lifespan like that of the response \[Buddha\]. When it says "not non-lifespan," it means it is not the non-continuously maintained lifespan of reward-wisdom. Refuting both two extremes, it is the dharma-substance invisibly united within the middle. The intention of arbitrarily naming it is the same as the body above. Third, from "Measure of dharma" onward, clarifying measure. It is not the response \[Buddha's\] having a measure, nor the reward \[Buddha's\] being immeasurable; and refuting both extremes has the same meaning as with body and lifespan. Third, the response body, with three: first, clarifying responding to beings, which has three: first, the body. Like an echo responding in a valley, its magnitude follows the sound. Like a mirror reflecting a form, uprightness or ugliness resides in the matter. Responding to the resonance of all beings, it manifests superior and inferior bodies. Second, from "Responding identically" onward, the lifespan. Since the body is identical to beings, how could the lifespan fail to match their capacities? Third, from "Responding identically" onward, the measure. Long or short according to what is fitting, it displays a measure or the immeasurable. Second, from "Wisdom and" onward, clarifying that relying on the two there is a response, with three: first, the doctrine. Wisdom is the reward body, and substance is the dharmakāya; when these two invisibly unite, their responsive function is boundless. Second, from "Like water" onward, the metaphor. Superior color of pure gold requires the addition of mercury before it can be applied to coat objects. Lacking this one condition, gold has no coating function. Third, from "Merit and virtue" onward, the application. The merit and virtue of reward-wisdom tally with the dharmakāya; wherever there are capacities, there is nowhere its responses do not reach. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1751.2.4.4) 三、「能為」下，明應遍三土，二：初、雙明報應。 二、「有量」下，單示應身。 初義者，上所說報但論冥法，即自受用也。 今明垂應，以他受用常住之應，對於生身無常之應，示二迹用，是故雙明身等。 身即生身，有分齊相，故名為身。 非身是報，無分齊相，故曰非身。 《小般若》云「佛說非身，是名大身」，大身者乃他受用身也。 無分齊身，其壽則常，故無量也。 有分齊身，壽則無常，故有量也。 此二應用，乃依真中二理而住，機依事業二識而見。 住理，廣如《金光疏》說。 二識，委在《起信論》。 明論意要在事識見，則取色分齊，故名應佛。 業識見則離分齊相，故是報身。 此義至後釋觀佛觀鈔中辯之。 行者須知，常身無量，通應三土； 無常有量，但應同居。 所以者何？ 蓋實報機分證論見他受用身，方便土人唯稟別圓。 所見佛相雖小優降，然匪生身，悉是報佛。 若同居土，具四教機稟別圓者，能覩報佛。 故《法華》明常在靈山，《華嚴》說法盡未來際，及諸大乘即於應相見是法性尊特之身，故知常身遍應三土。 若無常身，唯應同居，逗藏通機，生凡夫善也。 次義，分二：初、明有量二義。 上之所說，自受用外垂三土身，皆名為應。 其他受用，雖就對機名之為應，而是實因之所感剋，復名為報，非是差別逗機之用。 若論逐物隨緣、參差長短、身壽量者，須就同居無常用說。 故今別示應身之相，但於有量開出兩量。 而此兩量，依於事識但空見故，唯屬無常。 若依業識不空見者，即此無常全體是常，則常無常二用相即、二鳥雙遊也。 若上二土機息應轉，亦是無常，以非八相，故且言常。 言「七百」等者，《首楞嚴三昧經》云「堅首菩薩問：佛壽幾何？ 佛令往東方過三萬二千佛土，於莊嚴國問照明莊嚴自在王佛。 彼佛答云：如釋迦壽，我亦如是。 汝欲知者，我壽七百阿僧祇劫。 堅首迴此白佛。 阿難云：彼佛乃是釋迦異名。 」雖機勝見長，而七百猶可數故，亦是有量之量。 若阿彌陀，人天莫數，故是有量之無量也。 二、「應佛」下，結應佛皆然。 佛佛既皆三身圓證，應身被物、物壽長短，豈不隨順各示兩量？ 故彌陀現長亦能現短，釋迦現短亦能現長。 故《大論》第三十六云「當知釋迦文佛更有清淨國土，如阿彌陀佛國。 阿彌陀佛亦有不嚴淨國，如釋迦文佛國。 」又第三十八云「此間閻浮惡故，釋迦壽應短。 餘處好故，佛壽應長。 」故《涅槃》二十二云「西方去此三十二河沙有無勝國，所有莊嚴如安樂世界，我於彼土出現於世。 」斯皆隨逐物機也。 二、「然」下，據理融即。 上辯三身，法是本有、報約修成、應論現往。 其言似縱，須知報應二種之修，性德本具。 雖是性德，修相宛然，全性起修、全修在性，三一冥泯，思說莫窮。 「不可」等者，如上豎論，顯非並一。 若言性具三身壽量，顯非別異。 若作並別一異之解，即乖所詮圓常法體，即一而三故不橫，即三而一故不縱，非縱非橫不可思議。 如此解者，乃會能詮玄妙之文也。 > Third, from 'Able to act as' downwards clarifies that the response-body pervades the three lands, which has two parts: first, it explains both reward and response together; second, from 'Having a measure' downwards solely indicates the response-body. In the first meaning: what was explained above regarding the reward-body only discussed the tacit convergence with reality, which is the self-enjoyment \[body\]. Now, in clarifying the manifestation of responses, it contrasts the response of other-enjoyment that is eternally abiding with the response of the born body that is impermanent, demonstrating the functions of two traces; therefore, it explains both 'body' and so forth together. 'Body' is the born body, which possesses delimited marks, and so it is called 'body'. 'Non-body' is the reward\[-body\], which has no delimited marks, and so it is called 'non-body'. The \*Shorter Prajñā\* states, 'The Buddha said that non-body is called the great body'; the 'great body' is indeed the other-enjoyment body. For a body without delimitation, its lifespan is eternal, hence it is 'immeasurable'. For a body with delimitation, its lifespan is impermanent, hence it 'has a measure'. These two response-functions abide by relying on the two principles of the true and the middle, and their capacities are seen by relying on the two consciousnesses: the phenomenal and the karmic. Abiding in principle is extensively explained as in the \*Commentary on the Suvarṇaprabhāsa\*. The two consciousnesses are elaborated in the \*Awakening of Faith\*. Clarifying the treatise's intent: essentially, when seen by the phenomenal consciousness, one grasps the delimitation of form, and so it is called the response-buddha; when seen by the karmic consciousness, one transcends delimited marks, and so it is the reward-body. This meaning will be distinguished later in the subcommentary on the contemplation of the Buddha. Practitioners must know: the eternal body is immeasurable, universally responding to the three lands; the impermanent body has a measure, responding only to \[the land of\] common residence. Why is this? Because the capacities of the \[land of\] real reward, by virtue of partial realization, see the other-enjoyment body, while the people of the land of expedients exclusively receive the Separate and Perfect \[teachings\]. Although the buddha-marks they see have slight degrees of superiority and inferiority, they are not the born body; all are the reward-buddha. If in the land of common residence, those possessing the capacities of the four teachings who receive the Separate and the Perfect can behold the reward-buddha. Therefore, the \*Lotus Sūtra\* clarifies that \[the Buddha\] is ever on Vulture Peak, the \*Avataṃsaka\* states that his preaching extends to the end of the future, and various Mahāyāna texts state that within the responsive marks one sees this noble, superior body of the Dharma-nature; hence we know that the eternal body universally responds to the three lands. As for the impermanent body, it only responds to common residence, accommodating the capacities of the Tripiṭaka and Shared \[teachings\] and giving rise to the good of ordinary beings. In the next meaning, there are two parts: first, clarifying the two meanings of having a measure. In what was discussed above, the bodies manifested in the three lands outside of self-enjoyment are all termed 'response'. As for other-enjoyment, although it is termed 'response' in relation to facing \[specific\] capacities, yet because it is what is realized through authentic causes, it is again termed 'reward'; it is not the differentiated function of accommodating capacities. If one speaks of following beings and according with conditions, with variations of long and short in the measures of body and lifespan, one must speak in terms of the impermanent function of common residence. Therefore, now separately indicating the marks of the response-body, it merely opens out two measures within 'having a measure'. And these two measures, because they rely on the phenomenal consciousness's seeing of mere emptiness, belong solely to impermanence. If one relies on the karmic consciousness's seeing of non-emptiness, then this very impermanence is in its entirety the eternal; then the two functions of the eternal and the impermanent are mutually identical, like two birds flying together. If the capacities in the upper two lands cease and the responses transform, that too is impermanence; but because it is not the eight marks, it is tentatively called eternal. Regarding the words 'seven hundred' and so on, the \*Śūraṅgama-samādhi Sūtra\* says: 'Bodhisattva Dṛḍhamati asked: How long is the Buddha's lifespan? The Buddha instructed him to go eastward past thirty-two thousand buddha-lands to the country of Adornment, to ask the Buddha King of Luminous Adornment and Sovereign Ease. That Buddha replied: Like the lifespan of Śākya\[muni\], mine is also like this. If you wish to know, my lifespan is seven hundred asaṃkhyeya kalpas. Dṛḍhamati returned here and reported this to the Buddha. Ānanda said: That Buddha is indeed another name for Śākyamuni.' Although due to superior capacities \[that Buddha\] is seen as long\[-lived\], yet seven hundred can still be counted, so it is the measurable of what has a measure. As for Amitāyus, humans and devas cannot count it, so it is the immeasurable of what has a measure. Second, from 'The response-buddhas' downwards concludes that it is thus for all response-buddhas. Since each and every buddha has fully realized the three bodies, when their response-bodies receive beings and beings' lifespans are long or short, how could they not accord with them and each display the two measures? Therefore, Amida manifests the long and can also manifest the short, while Śākyamuni manifests the short and can also manifest the long. Thus the thirty-sixth fascicle of the \*Great Commentary\* states, 'One should know that Śākyamuni Buddha also has pure realms, like the realm of Amitābha Buddha. Amitābha Buddha also has unadorned and impure realms, like the realm of Śākyamuni Buddha.' Again, the thirty-eighth fascicle says, 'Because this Jambudvīpa is evil, Śākyamuni's lifespan should respond by being short. Because other places are good, the Buddha's lifespan should respond by being long.' Thus the twenty-second fascicle of the \*Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\]\* says, 'Westward from here, past sands of thirty-two Gaṅgā rivers, there is an Invincible Land, whose adornments are like the World of Peace and Joy; I appear in the world in that land.' These all accord with and follow beings' capacities. Second, from 'However' downwards integrates and identifies \[them\] based on principle. The preceding distinguished the three bodies: the Dharma\[-body\] is fundamentally inherent, the reward\[-body\] is in terms of cultivated accomplishment, and the response\[-body\] is discussed as manifesting and departing. Those words seem vertical, but one must know that the two kinds of cultivation—reward and response—are fundamentally possessed in inherent virtue. Although they are inherent virtue, the marks of cultivation are clearly present; fully activating cultivation from within nature, cultivation resides entirely in nature; the three and the one are tacitly extinguished, beyond the reach of thought or speech. Regarding 'cannot' and so forth: discussing them vertically as above demonstrates that they are not horizontally aligned as one. If one says that inherent nature possesses the three bodies and their spans of life, it demonstrates that they are not differentiated and distinct. If one forms an understanding of horizontal alignment, distinction, oneness, or difference, one goes against the round and eternal reality of what is expressed: being identical to one yet three, it is not horizontal; being identical to three yet one, it is not vertical; being neither vertical nor horizontal, it is inconceivable. Only one who understands in this way can comprehend the profound and wondrous text of what expresses it. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1751~en-mt.2.4.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [金光明經文句記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1786.2.166) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1751.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1751.2.4) · Pramāṇa