觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 3.3.2

3.3.2

謂方時、離合、一異、長短等名字，出凡人著心，是故長短皆假無實。 今以短長分對二名者，恐是大師依建立門巧會論意，以依佛制時則生死時短、外道執時則生死時長，既迴論文必有此意。 二、「今不」下，明今意。 言「不論」等者，今非界內護明相等，故不論實時； 又非破外執時為實，故不論假時。 長短如前。 但是眾生機熟，佛應說經。 機應合一之時，亦是諦智合一之時，故云一時。 文但從應，故云「說經」。 豈無機感，佛空說法？ 故佛說竟，韋提悟訖。 然一時文義本通深淺，今意別在圓機感佛，故使凡夫頓入法忍。 四、「佛者」下，化主，三：初、約異名釋。 《大論》第四以四義釋婆伽婆：一、能破煩惱； 二、有功德； 三、巧分別，能分別諸法總相別相故； 四、好名聲，無有得聲名如佛者故。 今文略出二義，新云薄伽梵，具六義：一自在、二熾盛、三端嚴、四名稱、五吉祥、六尊貴。 以多含故不翻，舊云婆伽婆訛也。 二、「佛者」下，約三覺釋。 「佛者」下，總示。 「既能」下，別示。 三、覺。 對迷說自、對自說他、對因說滿，一平等覺對三不同，說為三覺。 三、「一切」下，約超因釋。 一切智故，異外邪癡； 無緣慈故，異小自度； 三智等故，異偏菩薩； 究竟覺故，異諸因位。 能異不殊，對所異故。 四、種分別。 然釋佛義，六即等說其文稍委，故今略云。 五、「在者」下，論住處，二：初、釋住，二：初、會在同住。 在暫、住久，一往分之，故非盡理。 久在、暫住，有何所妨？ 況靈鷲山，如來應身常在其中，豈得言暫？ 二、「住者」下，約論釋住。 此經云「在」，《大品》言「住」，其義不別，故引彼論住義釋在。 分二：初、標列。 「四威儀」者，謂行、住、坐、臥。 此之身儀皆住靈鷲，而能住法則有四差，即天、梵、聖、佛也。 二、「天住」下，解釋。 今四住文，乃是盡取論釋住義，是知四中皆明因果，而能住法正在於因。 所謂如來以攝物故，示現施戒及十善心，此即佛以欲天之法住王舍城； 為物示現四無量心、示三三昧，即梵法、聖法住王城等。 此皆如來隨他意住。 若隨自意，即以楞嚴至不共等住王城也。 故《普賢觀》云「釋迦牟尼名毘盧遮那，此佛住處名常寂光」。 釋迦遮那既是異名，王城、寂光畢竟無二，故云此佛住處名常寂光。 今之所住是何境界？ 又應了知，若以人法分於能所，施戒至于首楞嚴等皆所住法，佛為能住。 若以王城為所住處，上之人法皆名能住。 又據經文但云「佛住」，論應唯就首楞嚴釋； 而明前三者，荊谿二解：一、從通以趣別，從廣之狹也。 二、將勝以攝劣，佛住王城，必攝欲色及以三乘。 佛住既勝，則無法不住； 非不住惡，為引物故且從善說。 而於善中就世間善，略指定散收一切善，故言天梵。 於出世中，略指小大攝一切法，故言聖佛。 他人不明能住心法，唯云身住王舍城等，則抑極聖同凡夫住。 況復凡聖各各有於能住之法，且如比丘修戒定慧，乃以天梵及以聖住住於房舍。 若破戒者，則以地獄住於房舍。 其有能修一心三觀，則所住處即空假中。 豈非楞嚴為能住法？ 初心尚爾，如何果佛唯論身住？ 二、「王舍」下，釋處，二：初、各釋城山，二：初、釋城，二：初、翻梵名。 亦名摩竭提，此云不害。 言此國法不行刑戮，其有犯死罪者送置寒林。 二、「釋論」下，解釋，三：初、約諸王治化釋； 二、「又先」下，約移居免火釋； 三、「又」下，約畏罪得處釋。 二、「耆闍」下，釋山，二：初、翻名。 二、「諸聖」下，解釋，三：初、約聖靈依就釋； 二、「又名」下，約山形似鷲釋； 三、「又山」下，約鷲鳥棲隱釋。 二、「然法」下，總示法應。 不言報者，報能冥法，復能垂應。 既言法應，報在其中。

Namely, names such as direction, time, separation, union, sameness, difference, long, and short emerge from the grasping mind of common mortals; therefore, long and short are both provisional and lack real substance. The present matching of short and long to the two names is presumably the Great Master's skillful harmonisation of the treatise's meaning in accord with the pedagogical setup: because when time is based on the Buddha's regulation, the duration of birth-and-death is short, while when the non-Buddhists grasp at time, the duration of birth-and-death is long. Since he modified the treatise's text, he must have intended this. Second, from 'Now we do not' onward explains the present intention. When it says 'we do not discuss,' etc., because this is not the interior of the realm [such as] the signs of Prabhāpāla, we do not discuss a real time; furthermore, because this is not refuting the non-Buddhists' grasping at time as real, we do not discuss a provisional time. Long and short are as explained before. It is simply that the capacities of sentient beings were mature and the Buddha responded by preaching the sūtra. The time when capacity and response unite as one is also the time when truth and wisdom unite as one; hence it is called 'at one time'. The text speaks only from the perspective of the response, hence it says 'preaching the sūtra'. Could there be no capacity to stimulate it, so that the Buddha preached the Dharma in vain? Therefore, when the Buddha finished preaching, Vaidehī accomplished her awakening. However, the textual meaning of 'at one time' fundamentally encompasses both the shallow and the deep; the present intention specifically lies in the perfect capacity stimulating the Buddha, which caused ordinary mortals suddenly to enter into the tolerance of dharmas [anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti]. Fourth, from 'The Buddha' onward is the teacher, in three parts: first, explaining by way of alternative names. The fourth [fascicle] of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains bhagavat with four meanings: first, able to destroy afflictions; second, possessing virtues; third, skillfully distinguishing, because he can distinguish the general and specific characteristics of all phenomena; fourth, good fame, because none have attained renown like the Buddha. The present text briefly presents two meanings. The new translation renders it as bhagavat, possessing six meanings: first, sovereign; second, incandescent; third, dignified and majestic; fourth, renowned; fifth, auspicious; sixth, revered. Because it contains multiple meanings it is not translated. The old translation of poguopo was an error. Second, from 'The Buddha' onward explains by way of the three awakenings. From 'The Buddha' onward gives the general indication. From 'Since he can' onward gives the specific indication. Three awakenings: in contrast to delusion one speaks of self-[awakening]; in contrast to self, one speaks of [awakening] others; in contrast to the cause, one speaks of fullness; the one equal awakening, in contrast to the three differences, is spoken of as the three awakenings. Third, from 'All' onward explains by way of transcending causes: by having all-knowledge, he differs from the deluded folly of external paths; by having unconditioned compassion, he differs from the self-deliverance of the Hinayāna; by having the three wisdoms as equal, he differs from biased bodhisattvas; by having ultimate awakening, he differs from all causal stages. That which differs is not distinct, because it is in contrast to that from which it differs. Fourfold distinction. However, in explaining the meaning of 'Buddha', the explanations such as the six identities are rather elaborate, so here it is stated briefly. Fifth, from 'Dwelling' onward discusses the dwelling place, in two parts: first, explaining dwelling, in two parts: first, harmonising 'being in' and 'dwelling'. 'Being in' is temporary and 'dwelling' is enduring; this is a preliminary distinction, so it does not exhaust the principle. What harm is there in enduring 'being in' or temporary 'dwelling'? Moreover, as for the Vulture Peak, the Tathāgata's response body was constantly present within it, so how could one say it was temporary? Second, from 'Dwelling' onward explains dwelling according to the treatise. This sūtra says 'being in' and the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says 'dwelling'; their meaning is not different, so the treatise's meaning of dwelling is cited to explain 'being in'. This has two parts: first, listing the items. 'Four deportments' refers to walking, standing, sitting, and lying down. These physical deportments were all dwelling on the Vulture Peak, yet the dharmas by which he could dwell had four distinctions, namely the heavenly, Brahmā, noble, and Buddha [dwellings]. Second, from 'Heavenly dwelling' onward provides the explanation. The present text on the four dwellings completely adopts the treatise's explanation of the meaning of dwelling; thus one knows that all four explain cause and effect, and the dharmas by which one dwells reside precisely in the cause. That is to say, in order to embrace sentient beings, the Tathāgata manifested giving, morality, and the mind of the ten virtues—this is the Buddha dwelling in Rājagṛha by means of the dharmas of the desire heaven; manifesting the four immeasurables for the sake of beings, or manifesting the three samādhis, is dwelling in the royal city by means of the Brahmā dharmas and the noble dharmas, and so forth. These are all the Tathāgata dwelling according to the minds of others. If it is according to his own mind, he dwells in the royal city by means of everything from the Śūraṅgama to the unshared [qualities]. Therefore, the Samantabhadra Contemplation Sūtra says: 'Śākyamuni is named Vairocana, and this Buddha's dwelling place is named Constantly Quiescent Light.' Since Śākya and [Vairo]cana are different names, the royal city and Quiescent Light are ultimately non-dual; hence it says this Buddha's dwelling place is named Constantly Quiescent Light. What realm is this present dwelling? Furthermore, one should know that if one divides the agent and object by person and dharma, then from giving and morality up to the Śūraṅgama are all the dharmas dwelt in, and the Buddha is the one who dwells. If one takes the royal city as the place dwelt in, then both the person and the dharmas above are called the ones who dwell. Furthermore, relying on the sūtra text's merely saying 'the Buddha dwelt,' the treatise should have explained it solely in terms of the Śūraṅgama; as for why it explained the previous three, Jingxi offers two explanations: first, proceeding from the general to approach the specific, from the broad to the narrow; second, taking the superior to subsume the inferior: when the Buddha dwells in the royal city, he must subsume the desire realm, form realm, and the three vehicles. Since the Buddha's dwelling is superior, there is no dharma in which he does not dwell; it is not that he does not dwell in the bad, but to guide beings, it speaks provisionally from the good. And within the good, regarding worldly good, it briefly points to the dispersed and concentrated to encompass all good, hence saying 'heavenly and Brahmā'; regarding the supramundane, it briefly points to the lesser and greater to subsume all dharmas, hence saying 'noble and Buddha'. Others, failing to understand the mental dharmas by which one dwells, say only that his physical body dwelt in Rājagṛha, etc., thereby debasing the ultimate sage to dwell identically to common mortals. Furthermore, common mortals and sages each have their own dharmas by which they dwell. Take, for instance, a monk practicing morality, concentration, and wisdom: he dwells in the monastery rooms by means of the heavenly, Brahmā, and noble dwellings. If he breaks the precepts, he dwells in the monastery rooms by means of the hells. If there is one capable of practicing the threefold contemplation in a single mind, the place he dwells is precisely emptiness, provisionality, and the middle. How could the Śūraṅgama not be the dharma by which he dwells? If this is so even for the initial mind, how could the fruition-Buddha be discussed solely in terms of bodily dwelling? Second, from 'Rājagṛha' onward explains the place, in two parts: first, explaining the city and mountain separately, in two parts: first, explaining the city, in two parts: first, translating the Sanskrit name. It is also called Magadha, translated here as 'non-harming'. This refers to the law of this country not executing punishment; those who commit capital offenses are sent to be placed in the cold forest [śītavana]. Second, from 'The Commentary' onward provides the explanation, in three parts: first, explained in terms of the governance of the various kings; second, from 'Furthermore, formerly' onward, explained in terms of moving residence to avoid fire; third, from 'Furthermore' onward, explained in terms of obtaining the place out of fear of punishment. Second, from 'Gṛdhra[kūṭa]' onward explains the mountain, in two parts: first, translating the name. Second, from 'The various sages' onward provides the explanation, in three parts: first, explained in terms of the sacred spirits relying upon it; second, from 'Also named' onward, explained in terms of the mountain's shape resembling a vulture; third, from 'Furthermore, the mountain' onward, explained in terms of vulture birds roosting and hiding there. Second, from 'However, the dharma' onward gives a general indication of the dharma and response [bodies]. Not mentioning the reward [body] is because the reward [body] can merge with the dharma [body] and can also project the response [body]. Since it speaks of the dharma and response [bodies], the reward [body] is included within them.