觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 3.2.3

3.2.3

既不符理，信非圓宗，故云「邪倒無印」。 體若異宗，則理不即事，事外之理其體不周。 法性之體既異因果，則一切法皆成別有。 二、「宗體」下，舉過結。 二、「今言」下，示。 今據《普賢觀經》驗其宗體不定一異。 故彼經云「大乘因者，諸法實相是。 大乘果者，諸法實相是。 」實相因果不異而異，非倒有印，此為妙宗； 因果實相不一而一，非事外理，此為妙體。 豈同他立定一定異？ 他不聞此，偏說奈何。 講茲疏文，合知宗體。 唯想事境，三觀靡施，正同次家邪倒無印，可傷之甚。 二、「今此」下，就體明宗，三：初、依經直示。 大乘之法其要在心，心具易知、色具難解，故《止觀》云「因通易識，果隔難知」，故觀自觀他皆修心觀。 今觀淨土須求於心，心能具故、心能造故，心垢土垢、心淨土淨，此猶通示，未是的論。 的在一心頓修三觀，此觀觀於安養依正畢竟清淨，名心觀淨。 此觀能令四佛土淨，如是方為此經宗致。 二、「四種」下，約土廣明，三：初、列四土。 二、「各有」下，立淨穢。 隨文釋義，教觀俱沈； 用義解文，解行可發。 前釋觀字文中明示一心三觀，又文頻示心觀為宗，至結宗云修心妙觀能感淨土。 今消此文四土淨穢，須準此觀為四淨因。 若依諸文逐其四土、各論土因，何能通貫前後之文，焉令聞者證無生忍？ 初「五濁輕為同居淨」者，此淨甚通，須知別意。 如戒善者、四教凡位，皆悉能令五濁輕薄，感同居淨。 而圓觀輕濁，感同居淨，依正最淨。 如此經說地觀已去一一相狀，比於餘經修眾善行、感安養土，其相天殊。 言「體析巧拙有餘淨穢」相者，此土人眾淨相亦寬，析觀感穢可在三藏，體觀感淨不專通人，衍門三教對三藏析俱明體法，通但空體，別次第體，圓不次體，三人生彼俱感淨相。 圓人最淨如《觀音疏》，別向圓修，圓七信去，見彼依正同於實報，住行及通見相俱劣。 今經妙體須異三人，故同居有餘所明淨相，文通意別，須以前後頓觀之文、妙宗之語，解此通文令歸的趣。 言「次第頓入實報淨穢」者，若論實證，此土唯有圓聖所居。 別人初地證與圓同，稱實感報，有何優降？ 今就教道十地不融，致所感土異於圓人，故約漸頓分於淨穢。 言「分證究竟寂光淨穢」者，若就別人同圓證實，論寂光者唯約真因對圓極果而分淨穢。 今論教道詮於極果，但斷無明一十二品，寂光猶穢； 圓知須斷四十二品，名究竟淨。 仍要了知圓人始終，能用上品常寂光理而為觀體。 今談究竟，意成行人修心妙觀也。 三、「娑」下，釋名相。 但釋土名，略指淨穢。 若的論四淨能感之因，唯一圓觀，已如向述。 文四：初、釋同居。 同居約人、淨穢約土，謂凡人聖人同居穢土也。 淨土亦有凡聖同居，二處凡聖凡即是實、聖通權實，始證為實、應來為權。 「次於泥洹」者，泥洹、涅槃，梵音新舊爾。 生安養者，煩惱調伏近於涅槃，故名為次。 「皆正定聚」者，三聚判也。 若如此土博地凡夫，屬邪定聚； 發心修行未不退者，屬不定聚； 得不退，者屬正定聚。 若生安養，不論高下。 五逆罪人臨終十念得往生者，亦得不退，故云皆正定聚。 《起信論》明初心生彼住正定。 故《小彌陀經》云「生彼皆得阿鞞跋致」。 同居淨中，極樂當其上品土也。 若依今經十六觀門圓妙修者，通惑縱存，生於彼土，常覩勝相，如此土華嚴諸大乘會機所見也。 二、釋有餘，三：初、約修斷釋名。 九種行人合生彼土：藏二、通三、別住行二。 既修空假，皆方便道。 別向圓信所修雖實，猶居似道，判屬方便。 不生分段，蓋除四住，約此修斷，得名方便。 斷通餘別，故曰有餘。 二、「釋論」下，據經論釋相。 小乘雖云同入法性，而執法性體類虛空，子果若忘，永無身土。 大乘法性體具色心，子果若忘，身土廣大。

Since it does not accord with noumenon, it is truly not the Perfect doctrine; hence it is said: “perverse and inverted, lacking a seal.” If the essence were different from the doctrine, then noumenon would not be identical with phenomena, and an essence outside of phenomena would not be all-pervading. If the essence of the Dharma-nature were different from cause and effect, then all phenomena would become separate and external. Second, from “Doctrine and essence” onward, he raises the error to conclude. Second, from “Now to speak” onward, he reveals it. Now, relying on the *Samantabhadra Contemplation Sūtra*, we examine its doctrine and essence as being neither definitively identical nor different. Thus that sūtra states: “The cause of the Great Vehicle is the true mark of all phenomena. The fruit of the Great Vehicle is the true mark of all phenomena.” Cause and effect of the true mark are not different yet different, not inverted and possessing the seal—this is the wondrous doctrine; the true mark of cause and effect is not one yet one, not a noumenon outside of phenomena—this is the wondrous essence. How could it be like others who establish a definitive identity or definitive difference? Others have not heard this; what can be done about their one-sided teachings? When lecturing on this commentary, one should know doctrine and essence. Merely contemplating phenomenal objects while the threefold contemplation is never applied is precisely identical to the next master’s perverse inversion without a seal, which is extremely lamentable! Second, from “Now this” onward, he clarifies the doctrine with respect to the essence, in three parts: first, he directly shows it relying on the sūtra. The essential point of the Great Vehicle’s Dharma lies in the mind. That the mind possesses [all things] is easy to know; that form possesses [all things] is difficult to comprehend. Therefore *Stopping and Contemplation* states: “Because the cause is common, it is easy to recognize; because the fruit is separated, it is difficult to know.” Hence, whether contemplating oneself or contemplating others, one always cultivates the mind-contemplation. Now, in contemplating the Pure Land, one must seek it in the mind, because the mind can possess it and the mind can create it. When the mind is defiled, the land is defiled; when the mind is pure, the land is pure. This is still a general indication, not yet the definitive exposition. The definitive exposition consists in頓 cultivating the threefold contemplation in a single mind. This contemplation contemplates the environment and self of Anyang as ultimately pure, which is called purity of mind-contemplation. This contemplation can purify the four Buddha lands; only such is the doctrine and purport of this sūtra. Second, from “Four kinds” onward, he broadly clarifies them with respect to the lands, in three parts: first, he lists the four lands. Second, from “Each has” onward, he establishes the pure and defiled. If one explains the meaning merely following the words, teaching and contemplation will both sink; if one uses the doctrine to interpret the text, understanding and practice can arise. The preceding text explaining the word “contemplation” clearly indicated the threefold contemplation in a single mind, and the text repeatedly indicated mind-contemplation as the doctrine, culminating in the conclusion on doctrine stating that cultivating the wondrous contemplation of the mind can resonate with the Pure Land. Now, in interpreting this text's purity and defilement of the four lands, one must base oneself on this contemplation as the cause of the four purities. If one follows various passages, pursuing their four lands and separately discussing the cause for each land, how could one connect the preceding and subsequent texts, and how could one cause listeners to realize the anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti? First, regarding “where the five turbidities are light, it is the purity of [the land of] common residence”: this purity is very broad, and one must know the special meaning. For instance, those with precepts and goodness, or ordinary beings of the four teachings, are all able to lighten the five turbidities and resonate with the purity of common residence. Yet when the perfect contemplation lightens the turbidities to resonate with the purity of common residence, its environment and self are the purest. As this sūtra explains, from the ground contemplation onward, each and every feature, compared to other sūtras’ cultivating various good deeds to resonate with the land of Anyang, is vastly different. Regarding the features of “purity and defilement of [the land of] remainder, through skillfulness or clumsiness in embodying or analyzing”: the purity features of the beings of this land are also broad. The analytic contemplation resonates with defilement in the Tripiṭaka Teaching; the embodied contemplation resonating with purity is not exclusive to the Shared Teaching. The three teachings of the Mahāyāna, contrasted with the Tripiṭaka Teaching’s analysis, all explain embodying phenomena: the Shared Teaching embodies only emptiness, the Separate Teaching embodies successively, and the Perfect Teaching embodies non-successively. When these three kinds of persons are born there, they all resonate with pure marks. The person of the Perfect Teaching is the purest, as in the *Commentary on the Avalokiteśvara [Sūtra]*: from the Separate [Teaching's] Dedications cultivating the Perfect, and from the Perfect [Teaching's] seventh stage of faith onward, they see the environment and self there as identical to the land of real reward, whereas the Abodes, Practices, and the Shared Teaching see inferior marks. The wondrous essence of this sūtra must differ from these three persons; therefore, the pure marks clarified in common residence and remainder are general in text but specific in intention. One must use the preceding and subsequent texts of sudden contemplation and the phrases of wondrous doctrine to interpret this general text and bring it to its definitive focus. Regarding “gradual and sudden entry into the purity and defilement of [the land of] real reward”: in terms of actual realization, this land is inhabited solely by sages of the Perfect Teaching. When a person of the Separate Teaching at the first bhūmi realizes the same as the Perfect Teaching, resonating with the reward in accordance with reality, what superiority or inferiority could there be? Now, in terms of the pedagogical path, the ten stages are not interpenetrating, causing the land resonated with to differ from that of the person of the Perfect Teaching; hence purity and defilement are distinguished in terms of gradual and sudden. Regarding “partial realization and ultimate purity and defilement of [the land of] quiescent light”: if one considers the person of the Separate Teaching as realizing reality identically with the Perfect Teaching, then discussing quiescent light distinguishes purity and defilement solely with respect to the true cause contrasted with the ultimate fruit of the Perfect Teaching. Now, discussing the pedagogical path’s exposition of the ultimate fruit, it severs only twelve grades of ignorance, so quiescent light is still defiled; the Perfect Teaching knows that one must sever forty-two grades, which is called ultimate purity. Furthermore, one must realize that from beginning to end, the person of the Perfect Teaching can use the principle of the upper grade of constantly quiescent light as the essence of contemplation. In discussing the ultimate here, the intention is to fulfill the practitioner's wondrous contemplation of the mind. Third, from “Sa-” onward, he explains the names and marks. He merely explains the names of the lands, briefly pointing to purity and defilement. If one strictly discusses the causes capable of resonating with the four purities, it is exclusively the single perfect contemplation, as stated above. The text has four parts: first, he explains common residence. “Common residence” is with respect to persons; “purity and defilement” is with respect to the lands; that is to say, ordinary persons and sages commonly reside in the defiled land. The pure land also has ordinary persons and sages commonly residing: the ordinary persons in both places are real, while the sages include both provisional and real—those newly realized are real, while those who respond and come are provisional. Regarding “next to nirvāṇa”: *nidu* [nihuan] and *nirvāṇa* are merely new and old Sanskrit transcriptions. Those born in Anyang have their afflictions subdued and are close to nirvāṇa, hence it is called “next.” Regarding “all in the group of correct determination”: this is judged by the three groups. Ordinary beings bound to the ground in this land belong to the group of wrong determination; those who have aroused the aspiration and practice but have not reached non-retrogression belong to the group of indeterminate determination; those who have attained non-retrogression belong to the group of correct determination. If born in Anyang, regardless of high or low, even those who committed the five grave offenses who at the point of death attain rebirth through ten recitations also attain non-retrogression; hence it says “all in the group of correct determination.” The *Treatise on the Arousing of Faith* explains that those with the initial mind born there abide in correct determination. Therefore the *Shorter Amitāyus Sūtra* states: “All who are born there attain avaivartika.” Among the purities of common residence, Sukhāvatī corresponds to its highest-grade land. If one cultivates the perfect and wondrous according to the sixteen contemplation gates of this sūtra, even if common delusions still remain, when born in that land, one constantly beholds superior marks, just like what was seen by the capacities present at the assemblies of the *Avataṃsaka* and other Mahāyāna sūtras in this land. Second, he explains remainder, in three parts: first, he explains the name with respect to cultivation and severance. Nine kinds of practitioners are eligible to be born in that land: two of the Tripiṭaka [Teaching], three of the Shared [Teaching], and the Abodes and Practices of the Separate [Teaching], which make two. Since they cultivate emptiness and provisionality, these are all paths of expedients. Although what is cultivated in the Separate [Teaching's] Dedications and the Perfect [Teaching's] Faiths is real, they still reside in the path of resemblance and are judged as belonging to expedients. Not being born into mortal existence [is because] they have eliminated the four abodes; with respect to this cultivation and severance, it receives the name “expedients.” Having severed common [delusions] while the separate remain, it is called “remainder.” Second, from “The commentary states” onward, he explains the marks relying on sūtras and treatises. Although the Lesser Vehicle speaks of entering the Dharma-nature together, it grasps the essence of Dharma-nature as resembling empty space; once causes and fruits are forgotten, there is never any body or land. The Mahāyāna Dharma-nature intrinsically possesses form and mind; once causes and fruits are forgotten, body and land are vast and great.