觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 3.2.2

3.2.2

自稟曰名、化他為教，自他雖異俱是能詮，故知四章同歸一體。 三、「譬眾」下，約二喻顯尊。 體於四章，猶如北辰，眾星環拱； 又似東海，萬水潮宗。 以其四章不暫離體，一切諸法無理不成。 經體既然，安得不辯？ 四、「故以」下，以一印結示。 三、「書家」下，具明體德。 體對釋名，但在一德，所謂法身。 蓋釋名中總示三法，利根雖解，鈍者未明。 何者？ 以總示文帶於宗用，體混其中，情想叵忘，本性難顯。 故於總後，別示靈源，永異四魔，諸法皆實。 於彼圓伊當上一點，絕思絕議、非用非宗。 而其性融，一不定一，如伊一點，點不孤然，故直法身非法身，法身必具般若、解脫，故別顯體而談三義。 雖彰三德，意在法身，以空假皆中，是故明三名為體德。 中三：初、約禮義明法身。 書既以體而釋於禮，故今以禮而釋於體。 禮別尊卑，意崇君父。 前明魔事已揀偏邪，今之臣子唯揀宗用，故君父體即是法身。 諸佛所師萬法朝會，體非修證、理絕言思。 欲使標心，強稱貴極。 斯是本覺，非寂非照； 亦是法性，非深非廣。 第一義諦名為本性法身德也。 尋能詮名，欲識此體，體顯故行，令修觀者以此體德體彼依正，一一貴極，成妙宗矣。 二、「復次」下，約底義明般若。 德空即中故，故般若德是諸法底，亦名本源、淵府、實際。 若得中體，則能窮暢也。 論云「智度」，即實相般若。 佛以觀照般若於諸法中證此智體，故云「窮底」。 然法性甚深無有底際，云窮底者，良由佛以無底際智稱性而證，義言窮底。 七方便人以有底智，故不能到諸法源底。 若圓教人，從名字即，以信解心窮智度底； 五品觀行窮底； 十信相似窮底； 四十一位分證窮底； 唯佛與佛究竟窮底。 以此底義辯於經體，則彰法性甚深第一義空，名般若德也。 尋名識體，體顯故行，令修觀者以此體德，窮彼依正一一到底，成妙宗矣。 三、「復次」下，約達義明解脫德。 假即中故，故解脫德是一切法自在之體，復具一切真實名義。 若識此體，則於諸法通達自在，復於世間及出世間一切異名，一中解多、多中解一。 論云「般若」，亦實相般若。 般若、解脫名殊義一，故互舉也。 前明底義，以觀照般若窮實相底； 今明達義，以文字般若說實相般若種種名也。 七方便人迷此體故，於諸異名壅塞障礙。 圓教行人名字體達、觀行體達、相似體達、分真體達。 論今舉佛究竟體達，達義辯體，則彰法性無量如來藏義，名為真性解脫德也。 令修觀者以此體德，達彼依正一一無壅，成妙宗矣。 三、明宗。 宗謂宗要。 此經之要，在修心妙觀，感於淨土。 心觀即是一心三觀，釋名之中其相已委。 感土之相，此文備論。 今經妙宗，在此因果。 且分為二：初、標列。 二、「有人」下，隨釋，二：初、簡示宗體。 以其宗體一異之相，人多惑之，故須簡示。 文二：初、簡，二：初、簡宗體一，二：初、牒言略斥。 宗是因果，此屬於事； 體是一性，此屬於理。 雖不相捨，二義須分。 定執是一，於義實乖，故云「不用」。 二、「何者」下，據義廣破，三：初、約義破。 宗是宗趣，趣果趣理。 趣果必因； 若趣理者，要須修觀。 觀有明昧、理有證不，皆成因果，故云「宗既是二」。 體本是理，觀雖趣理，理非明昧。 因果依理，理非因果。 如波依水，波有千差，水常是一。 故云「體即不二」。 不談諸法同一理性，則不名為大乘經體，故云「二即非體」。 不論修證因果二法，則非佛經所證宗趣也。 二、「如梁」下，立喻破。 屋空梁柱雖不相離，若謂是一，則無虛實也。 三、「宗體」下，舉過結。 二、簡宗體異，二：初、牒言破。 雖破是一，不可執異。 若其定異，則二物孤調。 宗異於體，則非全性而起成修，觀行有作屬於八倒。

Self-received, it is called 'title'; transforming others, it is 'teaching'. Though self and other differ, both are that which expresses; hence we know the four chapters together return to the single substance. Third, from 'As all [stars]' onward, two analogies are adduced to reveal its supreme status. Substance is to the four chapters as the Northern Star to which the multitude of stars circle in reverence; it is also like the Eastern Sea, to which myriad waters flow in homage. Because the four chapters do not leave the substance for an instant, none of all phenomena can be established without noumenon. Since this is so for the substance of the sūtra, how could it not be distinguished? Fourth, from 'Therefore by' onward, a single seal concludes and indicates it. Third, from 'Secular scholars' onward, the virtues of the substance are fully elucidated. In contrast to explaining the title, the substance lies in only one virtue: namely, the dharmakāya. For in explaining the title, the three dharmas are shown collectively; though those of sharp faculties understand, the dull have not yet realized it. Why is this? Because the text showing them collectively carries the crux and the application; the substance is mingled among them, emotional conceptions cannot be forgotten, and the fundamental nature is difficult to reveal. Therefore, following the collective presentation, the spiritual source is shown separately, eternally distinct from the four Māras, with all dharmas being real. In the perfect [Sanskrit letter] I, it corresponds to the upper dot: thought-transcending, discussion-transcending, neither application nor crux. Yet its nature is harmonious, unity is not fixed as merely one; like the dot of I, a dot does not exist in isolation. Hence, dharmakāya alone is not dharmakāya—dharmakāya must possess prajñā and liberation; thus, in separately revealing the substance, three meanings are discussed. Though three virtues are manifested, the intent lies in the dharmakāya; because emptiness and provisionality are both the middle, elucidating the three is therefore called the 'virtue of the substance'. Within this there are three parts: first, clarifying the dharmakāya in terms of the meaning of propriety (lǐ/tǐ). Since secular writings explain propriety by means of substance (tǐ), we now explain substance by means of propriety. Propriety distinguishes high and low, its intention being to exalt ruler and father. The previous clarification of Māra affairs already eliminated the biased and deviant; now, the minister and son eliminate only the crux and application, so the substance of the ruler and father is precisely the dharmakāya. It is that which all Buddhas take as their teacher and the confluence of myriad dharmas; its substance is not cultivated realization, its noumenon transcends speech and thought. Desiring to cause one to fix one's mind upon it, it is forcibly praised as the utmost nobility. This is original awakening, neither quiescent nor illuminating; it is also dharma-nature, neither deep nor wide. The truth of the supreme meaning is termed the inherent virtue of the dharmakāya. Tracing the expressing name, one desires to recognize this substance; the substance being revealed, practice is aroused, causing the practitioner of contemplation to substantiate those environments and selves with this virtue of the substance, each and every one becoming noble to the utmost, thereby accomplishing the wondrous doctrine. Second, from 'Furthermore' onward, prajñā is clarified in terms of the meaning of 'bottom' (dǐ). Because the virtue of emptiness is precisely the middle, the virtue of prajñā is the bottom of all dharmas, also called the fundamental source, the deep treasury, and the limit of reality. If one attains the middle substance, one can fathom it to the bottom. The treatise says 'prajñāpāramitā', which is precisely real-mark prajñā. By means of contemplative-illumination prajñā, the Buddha realizes this wisdom-substance within all phenomena; hence it says 'fathoms the bottom'. Yet the dharma-nature is profoundly deep and has no bottom limit; the statement that it fathoms the bottom is because the Buddha realizes it in accordance with its nature by means of bottomless wisdom, which is figuratively called fathoming the bottom. People of the seven expedients possess wisdom with a bottom, and therefore cannot reach the source and bottom of all dharmas. If a person of the Perfect Teaching, from the stage of identity in name, with a mind of faith and understanding, they fathom the bottom of prajñāpāramitā; in the five grades of meditative practice, they fathom the bottom; in the ten faiths of resemblance, they fathom the bottom; in the forty-one ranks of partial realization, they fathom the bottom; only Buddha with Buddha ultimately fathoms the bottom. Distinguishing the substance of the sūtra by this meaning of 'bottom' manifests the profound emptiness of the supreme meaning of dharma-nature, which is termed the virtue of prajñā. Tracing the name to recognize the substance, the substance being revealed, practice is aroused, causing the practitioner of contemplation to use this virtue of the substance to fathom those environments and selves to the very bottom, each and every one, thereby accomplishing the wondrous doctrine. Third, from 'Furthermore' onward, the virtue of liberation is clarified in terms of the meaning of 'penetration' (dá). Because provisionality is precisely the middle, the virtue of liberation is the sovereign substance of all dharmas, and furthermore possesses all real names and meanings. If one recognizes this substance, one then penetrates sovereignly through all dharmas, and furthermore, regarding all distinct names in the mundane and supramundane worlds, understands the many within the one and understands the one within the many. The treatise says 'prajñā', which is also real-mark prajñā. Prajñā and liberation have different names but the same meaning, hence they are cited interchangeably. Earlier, in clarifying the meaning of bottom, contemplative-illumination prajñā was used to fathom the bottom of the real mark; now, in clarifying the meaning of penetration, written-word prajñā is used to speak of the various names of real-mark prajñā. Because people of the seven expedients are deluded about this substance, they are blocked and hindered regarding diverse names. Practitioners of the Perfect Teaching achieve penetration into the substance in name, penetration into the substance in practice, penetration into the substance in resemblance, and penetration into the substance in partial reality. The treatise now cites the Buddha's ultimate penetration into the substance; using the meaning of penetration to distinguish the substance manifests the boundless meaning of the Tathāgatagarbha of dharma-nature, which is termed the virtue of liberation of true nature. This causes the practitioner of contemplation, by means of this virtue of the substance, to penetrate those environments and selves without any obstruction, each and every one, thereby accomplishing the wondrous doctrine. Third, elucidating the crux (zōng). 'Crux' means the essential purport. The crux of this sūtra lies in practicing the wondrous mind-contemplation to resonate with the Pure Land. Mind-contemplation is precisely the threefold contemplation in a single mind, whose features have already been detailed in explaining the title. The features of resonating with the land are thoroughly discussed in this text. The wondrous doctrine of the present sūtra lies in this cause and effect. This is provisionally divided into two: first, an outline list. Second, from 'Some say' onward, explaining in sequence, which has two parts: first, distinguishing and indicating crux and substance. Because people are often confused about the characteristics of identity and difference between crux and substance, they must be distinguished and indicated. The text has two parts: first, distinguishing, which has two parts: first, dismissing that crux and substance are identical, which has two parts: first, citing the claim and briefly refuting it. Crux is cause and effect, which pertains to phenomena; substance is the one nature, which pertains to noumenon. Though they do not abandon each other, the two meanings must be distinguished. Insisting that they are identical truly contradicts the meaning; hence it says 'not accepted'. Second, from 'Why is this' onward, extensive refutation based on meaning, which has three parts: first, refuting according to meaning. Crux is the trend and destination: tending toward fruit, tending toward noumenon. Tending toward fruit necessarily requires a cause; if tending toward noumenon, one must cultivate contemplation. Contemplation has brightness and obscurity, noumenon has realization or lack thereof; both constitute cause and effect, hence it says 'since the crux is twofold'. Substance is fundamentally noumenon; though contemplation tends toward noumenon, noumenon is neither bright nor obscure. Cause and effect rely on noumenon, but noumenon is not cause and effect. Like waves relying on water: waves have a thousand differences, but water is always one. Hence it says 'the substance is non-dual'. If one does not speak of all dharmas sharing the same noumenal nature, it cannot be called the substance of a Mahāyāna sūtra; hence it says 'the twofold is not the substance'. If one does not discuss the two dharmas of cultivation and realization, cause and effect, it is not the crux and destination realized by the Buddha's sūtra. Second, from 'Like a beam' onward, establishing an analogy to refute it. Although the open space of a house and its beams and pillars are not separate, if one claims they are identical, there would be no distinction between empty and solid. Third, from 'Crux and substance' onward, citing the error to conclude. Second, dismissing that crux and substance are different, which has two parts: first, citing the claim to refute it. Although we refute their identity, one must not grasp at their being different. If they are fixed as different, then the two things are isolated and alienated. If the crux differs from the substance, then cultivation is not aroused entirely from nature, and the practice of contemplation would be conditioned, belonging to the eight inversions.