觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 3.3.1

3.3.1

二、「分文」下，隨經顯義。 前取經中名等五義解釋總題。 總意雖彰，別文難顯，故須以句節定經文令義顯現。 總別雖異、義無兩塗，方知玄義釋此經題，復了疏句不顯他義。 分二：初、總別科判。 總科三分，別判六章。 二、「初證」下，隨科解釋，三：初序分二：初、正信序，即是通序。 《大論》云「佛將涅槃，阿難問佛：『一切經首，當安何語？ 』佛答阿難：『應云「如是我聞：一時佛在某處某國土，與某大眾」。 非獨我法如是，三世諸佛經初亦然。 』」故知六義即是通序，以諸經同故。 亦名經前序，付囑令安故。 亦名經後序，結集者所置故。 今言「證信」者，令聞者不疑故。 論第四問曰：何不直說般若，而言住王舍城？ 答：說時方人，令人信故。 言「六句」者，但以詮義究竟為句。 如佛但一字，亦名句也。 二、初標指六句。 「如是標於信」者，《釋論》第二問曰：諸佛經何故初稱如是？ 答：佛法大海，信為能入、智為能度。 如是義者，即是信也。 若人有信能入佛法，無信不入。 不信者言是事不如是，信者言是事如是。 「我聞異外道」，親承於佛，故曰我聞。 不同外道，不稟佛也。 「一時辯息諍」者，謂機熟受道之時，故無諍也。 《釋論》云「不應無一時。 佛自言：一人出世，多人得樂。 是者何人？ 佛世尊也。 」二、「如是」下，隨文釋義，六：初、標信。 信名忍樂。 理當言善，方忍方樂。 理當則不異，名如； 言善則無非，曰是。 四教言理皆稱如是，而有淺深。 若其三藏，唯就世俗論於不異及以無非； 通雖即理，但在二諦； 別教知中，要先破二； 唯圓初心即了諸法一一中實，當處皆如，稱此而談，無非曰是。 故圓望三教，皆不如是。 此經所信雖未開廢，而所被機不從偏小，故但就圓明於如是，決定可信也。 此句既爾，下之五句皆意在圓。 故通序文通、其義亦通，而其意別。 今以別意釋其通文，故此云也。 二、「我聞」下，異外道，二：初、正釋。 「有在」者，在於佛也。 雖釋我聞，意多明聞。 次文明我。 二、「我者」下，料揀，二：初、立難。 我者，自在及主宰義。 凡夫小乘於人法中而著於我，今傳圓觀合順二空，何得言我？ 二、「隨俗」下，通難，二：初、直通。 畢竟空中雖我叵得，此空即俗，諸我宛然。 今且約三，分別我相：橫計主宰名為見我、俱生主宰名為慢我、隨世流布即名字我。 阿難尊者至結集時，尚破同體見慢之我，豈有界內二種我邪？ 為傳化故，故順妙俗立名字我。 二、「如人」下，舉譬。 知無我理，如用金錢。 隨俗立我，如易銅錢及草木等。 三、「一者」下，辯息諍，二：初、示論釋，二：初、釋一。 先約真破，次隨俗立，在文可見。 「釋論廣破一異」者，論云「若一與物一、一與物異，二俱有過。 問曰：若一，有何過？ 答曰：若一，瓶是一義。 在在有一，處處皆應是瓶，則無衣等諸物。 一中之過既然，二中之過云何？ 答：若一與瓶異，瓶則非一。 若瓶與一異，一則非瓶。 若瓶與一合，瓶名一者，今一與瓶合，何不名一為瓶？ 是故不得言瓶異一。 」彼文極廣。 蓋瓶顯可見，故以瓶喻時也。 一則是數，時則是體。 若於數體定執一異則諸惑紛然，能離執者則於法解脫。 斯乃寄於數體一文，示離著觀，令於諸法皆袪定計，即知六事及以諸文皆須離於一異之見也。 二、釋時。 此土詮召但直云時，天竺二音，若云迦羅即是實時、云三摩邪即是假時。 亦如此間心有二稱，言智是解心、言識是迷心，故令依智不依識也。 外人執時以為實因，是故對彼云三摩邪，顯時是假。 若內弟子依時而食、護明相等，乃言迦羅，顯時是實。 言迦羅短時、三摩邪長時者，若據論文，短時長時並名三摩邪也。

Second, under "Dividing the Text," he reveals the meaning following the sūtra. Previously, he drew upon the five meanings—the title and the rest—within the sūtra to explain the general title. Although the general meaning has been made manifest, the distinct text [of the sūtra itself] is difficult to reveal clearly; therefore, one must use phrases and clauses to demarcate the sūtra text, causing its meaning to be displayed. Although the general and the distinct differ, the meaning has no two courses. Only then does one know that the profound meaning explains the title of this sūtra, and furthermore understands that the commentary's clauses do not reveal any other meaning. There are two parts: first, a general and distinct outlining. The general outline has three divisions; the distinct division sets out six chapters. Second, under "First, confirming faith," he explains following the outline, in three parts. First, the preface division has two parts: first, the preface that confirms faith, which is the common preface. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "When the Buddha was about to enter nirvāṇa, Ānanda asked the Buddha: 'At the head of all sūtras, what words should be placed?' The Buddha answered Ānanda: 'You should say: "Thus have I heard: at one time the Buddha was at such-and-such a place, in such-and-such a land, together with such-and-such a great assembly." Not only is my Dharma like this, but the beginnings of the sūtras of all Buddhas of the three periods of time are also like this.'" Therefore, one knows that the six meanings constitute the common preface, because all sūtras share them. It is also called the preface before the sūtra, because it was entrusted to be placed [there]. It is also called the preface after the sūtra, because it was set down by the compilers. Here, speaking of "confirming faith" means causing the listeners not to doubt. Fascicle 4 of the *Upadeśa* asks: Why not directly preach prajñā, but instead speak of dwelling in Rājagṛha? The answer is: By speaking of the time, the place, and the persons, it causes people to have faith. As for "six clauses," a clause is designated simply when the expression of meaning is complete. For instance, even the single character "Buddha" is also called a clause. Second, first pointing out the six clauses. As for "'Thus' indicates faith," the second fascicle of the *Upadeśa* asks: Why do the sūtras of all Buddhas initially state "Thus"? The answer is: In the great sea of the Buddha's Dharma, faith is that which can enter, and wisdom is that which can ferry across. The meaning of "thus" is precisely faith. If a person has faith, they can enter the Buddha's Dharma; without faith, they do not enter. The non-believer says that this matter is not thus; the believer says that this matter is thus. "'I heard' distinguishes from non-Buddhists": having received it directly from the Buddha, it is therefore called "I heard." This differs from non-Buddhists, who do not receive it from the Buddha. "'At one time' explains the cessation of dispute": this refers to the time when the faculties are ripe to receive the Path, and so there is no dispute. The *Upadeśa* says: "There should not be no 'at one time.' The Buddha himself said: When one person appears in the world, many people attain joy. Who is this person? It is the Buddha, the World-Honoured One." Second, under "'Thus' and the rest," he explains the meaning following the text, in six parts: first, indicating faith. Faith is called endorsement and delight. Only when the principle is fitting and the words are good does one endorse and delight. If the principle is fitting, it is not divergent, which is called "as" (tathā); if the words are good, there is nothing wrong, which is called "so" (evam). In the Four Teachings, when speaking of principle, all are termed "thus," yet there are degrees of depth and shallowness. In the Tripiṭaka Teaching, they discuss non-divergence and being without fault solely in terms of the conventional. The Shared Teaching, although reaching principle, remains within the two truths. The Separate Teaching knows the center, but must first destroy the two [extremes]. Only the initial mind of the Perfect Teaching realizes that all phenomena are each centered and real, immediately and directly as such; speaking in accord with this, being without fault is called "thus." Therefore, when the Perfect Teaching is viewed against the Three Teachings, none of them are truly "thus." Although the object of faith in this sūtra has not yet undergone opening and discarding, the faculties that it addresses do not follow the biased or the Hinayana; hence, explaining "thus" solely in terms of the Perfect Teaching is definitively trustworthy. Since this clause is like this, the five clauses below are all intended in the Perfect [manner]. Thus, while the text of the common preface is common and its meaning is also common, its intention is distinct. Now, using the distinct intention to explain the common text, this is why he speaks in this way. Second, under "I heard," he distinguishes from non-Buddhists, in two parts: first, the primary explanation. "There is a presence" means presence in the Buddha. Although explaining "I heard," the intent is mostly to clarify "hearing." The next passage clarifies "I." Second, under "As for 'I'," he analyzes, in two parts: first, raising an objection. "I" means autonomy and sovereignty. Worldlings and Hinayanists cling to a self among persons and dharmas; now, conveying the perfect contemplation should conform to the two kinds of emptiness—how can one speak of an "I"? Second, under "Following the conventional," he resolves the objection, in two parts: first, resolving it directly. Although within ultimate emptiness a self cannot be found, this emptiness is immediately the conventional, and the various selves are clearly present. For now, we distinguish the marks of the self in terms of three: arbitrary calculation of a sovereign entity is called the self of view; innate sovereignty is called the self of pride; following worldly usage is the nominal self. The Venerable Ānanda, by the time of the compilation, had already broken the selves of view and pride of the identical substance; how could he have the two kinds of self within the realms? In order to transmit and transform, he therefore accords with the wondrous conventional to establish the nominal self. Second, under "Like a person," he adduces a metaphor. Knowing the principle of non-self is like using gold coins. Establishing a self following the conventional is like exchanging copper coins, grass, wood, and so forth. Third, under "'One'," he explains the cessation of dispute, in two parts: first, indicating the treatise's explanation, in two: first, explaining "one." First, he refutes in terms of the real, and next establishes following the conventional, as can be seen in the text. As for "the treatise extensively refutes identity and difference," the treatise says: "If one is identical with the object, or one is different from the object, both have flaws. The question asks: If they are identical, what flaw is there? The answer says: If they are identical, a jar has the meaning of 'one.' Wherever there is 'one,' everywhere should be a jar, and then there would be no clothes and other objects. If the flaw in 'identical' is like this, what is the flaw in 'different'? The answer: If 'one' is different from the jar, the jar is then not one. If the jar is different from 'one,' 'one' is then not a jar. If the jar unites with 'one' and the jar is named 'one,' then now that 'one' unites with the jar, why not name 'one' a jar? Therefore, one cannot say that the jar is different from 'one.'" That text is extremely extensive. Because a jar is obvious and visible, it uses the jar to illustrate time. "One" is a number, while "time" is the substance. If one definitively clings to identity or difference regarding number and substance, then delusions will multiply in confusion; one who can abandon attachment is liberated in dharmas. This merely lodges in the text of number and substance, showing the contemplation of detachment from attachment and causing one to dispel fixed calculations regarding all phenomena; thus one knows that the six matters and the various passages must all depart from the views of identity and difference. Second, explaining "time." In this land, the designation simply speaks directly of "time." In India there are two sounds: if one says *kāla*, that is real time; if one says *samaya*, that is conventional time. This is just as in this land the mind has two appellations: speaking of wisdom refers to the understanding mind, while speaking of consciousness refers to the deluded mind; hence one is told to rely on wisdom and not on consciousness. Non-Buddhists cling to time as a real cause; therefore, against them one says *samaya* to reveal that time is conventional. When the inner disciples eat according to the time, guard the signs of dawn, and so forth, they speak of *kāla* to reveal that time is real. As for the claim that *kāla* is a short time and *samaya* is a long time, if one relies on the treatise's text, both short time and long time are named *samaya*.