觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 4.10

4.10

二第八、佛菩薩像觀，二：初、分科。二、「法界」下，隨釋，三：初、泛明諸佛法身從心想生。欲想佛身須知觀體，體是本覺，起成能觀，依體立宗斯之謂矣。須知本覺乃是諸佛法界之身，以諸如來無別所證，全證眾生本性故也。若始覺有功，本覺乃顯，故云法身從心想生。又復彌陀與一切佛，一身一智應用亦然。彌陀身顯即諸佛身，諸佛相明即彌陀體，是故泛明生諸佛身以為觀察。彌陀觀體，疏約三義釋此經文。初、釋初八句，二：初、約感應道交釋，二：初、明佛入生心。報佛法性身者，滿足始覺名為報佛，究顯本覺名法性身。始本既冥能起應用，然須能感應方現前。今論三觀淨心念佛，方名能感，故云「眾生心淨法身自在」。此二道交，是為入義，復以白日升天喻始合本，影現百川喻應入淨想。二、「即是」下，相隨物現。「三十」等者，牒經「是故汝等」已下文也。「明佛」下，釋義。由法報冥故應用自在，有淨心感悉能示現。前明佛菩薩者，即指諸佛是法界身之文也。而言菩薩者，以法界身通分證故，故兼菩薩意。明前雖顯示法身入心，未明隨觀現身之相；今明觀佛相好，佛以相好隨心觀現，故云「此顯能隨」也。二、「又法」下，約解入相應釋。前明感應道交，恐謂佛體異眾生體，感召方入。今袪此見，故云「佛身無所不遍」。既法界無外，豈少異眾生？若爾，佛體本遍，全是眾生色心依正。何故經云「入眾生心」？然雖全是，而眾生迷背，是故佛體成出離義。今得觀解契合佛體，是故佛體入觀解心，故得名曰「解入相應」。斯乃始覺解於本覺，是故本覺入於始覺。問：解入相應釋之方的，此義即足。何須前約感應釋邪？答：今之心觀，非直於陰觀本性佛，乃託他佛顯乎本性，故先明應佛入我想心，次明佛身全是本覺。故應佛顯，知本性明，託外義成，唯心觀立。二、釋相假是今觀門，故感應釋闕之不可。二、「是心」下，釋中二句，二：初、作是別明，二：初、約能感能成釋作。作有二義：一、淨心能感他方應佛，故名「是心作佛」。言「佛本是無」者，法身妙絕無有色相，迭相見故。「心淨故有」者，眾生淨心依於業識熏佛法身，故見勝應妙色相也。二、三昧能成己之果佛，故云「亦因」等也。復名是心作佛，初作他佛、次作己佛。二、「是心是」下，約即應即果釋是。是亦二義：一、心即應佛，故名是心是佛。「向聞」等者，佛體無相，心感故有，是則心佛及以有無條然永異。經泯此見，故言心是應佛、心外無佛。二、心即果佛，故名是心是佛，即亦無佛之因一句也。既心是果佛，故無能成三昧之因也。眾生心中已有如來結加趺坐，豈待當來方成果佛？初是應佛、二是果佛，此乃消釋經疏之文。若論作是之義者，即不思議三觀也。何者？以明心作佛故，顯非性德自然有佛。以明心是佛故，顯非修德因緣成佛。應知外道諸句、三教四門所有思議，不出因緣及自然性，故《佛頂經》明乎七大皆如來藏循業發現，一一結云「世間無知，惑為因緣及自然性，皆是識心分別計度，但有言說都無實義。」彼云世間，該於九界。今於一念妙觀作是，能泯性過。即是而作，故全性成修，則泯一切自然之性。即作而是，故全修即性，則泯一切因緣之性。若其然者，何思不絕、何議不忘？既以作是絕乎思議，復以作是顯於三觀，以若破若立皆名為作，空假二觀也；不破不立名之為是，中道觀也。全是而作，則三諦俱破、三諦俱立，名一空一切空、名一假一切假也。全作而是，則於三諦俱非破非立，名一中一切中也。即中之空假名作，能破三惑能立三法，故感他佛三身圓應，能成我心三身當果。即空假之中名是，則全惑即智、全障即德，故心是應佛、心是果佛。故知作是一心修者，乃不思議三觀。十六觀之總體、一經之妙宗，文出此中，義遍初後。是故行者當用此意修淨土因，不可不知，故今略釋。二、「始學」下，作是共釋，二：初、約始終釋。若論六即，皆作皆是；今辯修證，作、是須分。始則名字觀行相似三位，修而未證，故且名作。終則分證究竟任運真覺，得名為是。意存揀濫，故有此釋。二、「若當」下，約當現釋。以現釋是、以當釋作，為令即心見佛法體，以此現因而證當果，故以心佛同體名心是佛，觀生彼果名心作佛。意在即心念佛及令慕果修因，故有此釋。三、「正遍」下，後二句。三智融妙名正遍知，無量甚深故喻如海，斯乃究竟圓明大覺，與我心體無二無別。今依頓教，即三惑染修圓淨心，能生諸佛正遍知海。此約他釋心生也。若依此心能成當果，此約己佛釋心生也。二、「多陀」下，偏觀彌陀并示觀法，二：初、令偏觀。經「是故應當」者，上已明示心感諸佛、心即諸佛，以是義故，知可即心而觀彌陀。心尚能作諸佛，豈不感於彌陀？心尚即是諸佛，豈不即是彌陀？應知彌陀與一切佛不多不少，諸佛乃即一之多、彌陀乃即多之一。「一心繫念諦觀彼佛」者，即一心三觀也。但云諦觀，那云三觀？以所觀境列三號故，顯於能觀知是三觀。何者？多陀阿伽度，此云如來。阿羅訶，此云應供。三藐三佛陀，此云正遍知。此之三號，即召三德。今就所觀，義當三諦。正遍知即般若，真諦也。應供即解脫，俗諦也。如來即法身，中諦也。以三德為三諦，三一圓融不一不異。此諦與觀名別體同，絕思絕議。此乃復見彌陀觀體，當以此觀觀像觀真。疏釋三號，其文可見。問：像觀文中示心作佛、示心是佛，復以三號顯於三諦，妙觀既立，可用此法觀下諸境。其落日觀至華座觀，佛既未示三觀之式，何得行人預用茲觀？答：佛對當機示觀前後，全由聖意非凡所知。滅後之人欲修觀行，所用法則須憑四依。大師釋題能觀之觀既論三觀，題目是總、經文是別，豈不以總而貫於別？況云觀佛，十六俱包。今依天台修習教觀，不憑智者更託何人？如《般舟》三觀妙門、《普賢》六根悔法，皆於定內見聖方宣。而大師教人，預習精熟方入道場，何不疑之？那獨責此？且稟斯宗者，若聞若思不離三觀，須於動靜用空假中立一切行。若其然者，今何不用空假中心想乎日氷及地樹等種種相邪？如心想日，以何力故日想現前？《般舟經》云「我所念即見心作佛，心自見心。心者不知心，心有想則癡、心無想則泥洹。」彼經初心以佛相為境，故言心作佛等。今之初心既先觀日，豈不得云心作日、心自見心等耶？《止觀》以彼經此文示於中觀，中觀若立三觀自成，如此觀日方依此疏修日觀也。況一切法皆是佛法，何得依報非佛法邪？二、「想彼」下，示觀法。子科分經為四：初、觀佛像，二：初、正明像觀。既是具足三號之像，理合於像照空假中。如見此方泥木之像，尚須體達性若虛空，三身宛然、四德無減。觀中寶像豈可不然？若於像觀不達三諦，次觀真佛寧見三身？二、「見像」下，因像見土。像觀既成，心眼開發，廣見依報地樹諸相。應知樹等出過前樹無數倍也。何者？以今寶像必稱華座，座像高勝樹合覆之，皆由妙觀轉深，故使所觀愈勝。二、「見此」下，觀二菩薩。三聖設化，動靜必俱，一主二臣非並非別表乎三法。三一妙融，真身既然，像合相似，觀二足佛令妙觀成三。三、「此想」下，像放光，二：初、明光照諸樹。二、「一一」下，明樹皆三像。四、「此想」下，行者聞法，二：初、明因定聞。二、「行者」下，明與經合。此文疏有二釋：初須定與教合，二須散與定合。初義者，謂出定憶持。定中聞法，須與經中所說符契，故云「令與教法相應」。次意者，謂心雖出定，對彼五塵須息愛憎，淨乎身口三業。若爾，雖不住定亦聞法音，故云「出定入定常聞妙法」。言「與十二部經教合」者，以十二部總稱修多羅，同名為經。三藏分之，經詮定學、律詮戒學、論詮慧學，故名經為定。與修多羅合，是與定合。經若不合名妄想者，若定不合經、若散不合定，皆是發於魔事，全非像觀禪定，故名妄想。若已合名麁想見極樂界者，謂以經驗定無差、出定與在定相似，得名麁想見彼國界。問：見此妙事，那名麁想？答：以像望真，須分麁妙。此想乃是佛觀方便，豈可全同真佛觀邪？三、「作是」下，明修觀利益。像想若成，真觀可獲，故於現身得念佛三昧。

Second, the eighth contemplation: contemplation of the image of the Buddha and the bodhisattvas. It has two parts: first, dividing into sections; second, from "The dharmadhātu..." onward, explaining in succession. This has three parts: first, generally clarifying that the dharmakāya of all buddhas arises from mental ideation. To ideate the Buddha's body, one must know the substance of contemplation: the substance is original awakening, which arises to become the contemplating [mind]. Establishing the doctrine based on the substance—this is what it means. One must know that original awakening is indeed the dharmadhātu body of all buddhas, because all Tathāgatas have no separate realization; they completely realize the fundamental nature of sentient beings. When initial awakening has efficacy, original awakening is revealed; thus it is said that the dharmakāya arises from mental ideation. Moreover, Amida and all buddhas share one body and one wisdom, and their responsive functions are likewise identical. The manifestation of Amida's body is the body of all buddhas, and the clarity of the marks of all buddhas is the substance of Amida; therefore, it generally clarifies the arising of the bodies of all buddhas to serve as contemplation. Regarding the substance of contemplating Amida, the commentary explains this sūtra passage according to three meanings. First, explaining the first eight lines. It has two parts: first, explaining in terms of the mutual resonance between stimulus and response. This has two parts: first, clarifying that the Buddha enters the minds of sentient beings. Concerning the "reward Buddha and dharmatā body": the fulfillment of initial awakening is called the reward Buddha, and the ultimate revelation of original awakening is called the dharmatā body. Once initial and original [awakening] are fused, responsive function can arise; however, there must be a stimulus before the response becomes present. Now, discussing the threefold contemplation, purifying the mind to contemplate the Buddha—only then is it called being able to stimulate; hence it is said, "When the mind of a sentient being is pure, the dharmakāya is unhindered." When these two mutually resonate, this is the meaning of "entering." Furthermore, the bright sun rising in the sky is an analogy for the initial uniting with the original; its reflection appearing in a hundred streams is an analogy for the response entering pure thoughts. Second, from "That is..." onward: the marks manifest according to beings. "Thirty-two..." and so forth cites the text of the sūtra from "For this reason, you..." onward. From "Clarifying that the Buddha..." onward explains the meaning: because the dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya are fused, responsive functions are unhindered; wherever there is a stimulus from a pure mind, [the Buddha] can manifest in all cases. The earlier clarification of "the Buddha and bodhisattvas" refers to the sūtra text stating that all buddhas are the dharmadhātu body. Saying "bodhisattvas" is because the dharmadhātu body is shared by partial realization; thus the intention includes bodhisattvas. It clarifies that although the previous [text] showed the dharmakāya entering the mind, it had not yet clarified the marks of the bodily form manifesting according to the contemplation; now, clarifying the contemplation of the Buddha's marks and signs, the Buddha manifests with marks and signs according to the mental contemplation; hence it says, "This reveals being able to conform [to the mind]." Second, from "Furthermore, the Dharma..." onward: explaining in terms of the correspondence between understanding and entering. The earlier clarification of the mutual resonance between stimulus and response might lead one to suspect that the Buddha's substance is different from that of sentient beings, entering only upon being summoned by a stimulus. Now, dispelling this view, it says: "The Buddha's body is all-pervading." Since the dharmadhātu has nothing outside it, how could it differ in the least from sentient beings? If so, the Buddha's substance is originally all-pervading, completely being the physical and mental, environment and self, of sentient beings. Why then does the sūtra say "enters the minds of sentient beings"? Although it is completely so, sentient beings are deluded and turn away; therefore the Buddha's substance takes on the meaning of transcendence. Now, attaining contemplative understanding, one accords with the Buddha's substance; therefore the Buddha's substance enters the mind of contemplative understanding. Thus it is named "the correspondence between understanding and entering." This is initial awakening understanding original awakening; therefore original awakening enters initial awakening. Question: Explaining it in terms of the correspondence between understanding and entering hits the mark and this meaning is sufficient; why was it necessary earlier to explain it in terms of stimulus and response? Answer: The present contemplation of mind does not merely contemplate the buddha of fundamental nature in the aggregates; it relies on an external Buddha to reveal the fundamental nature. Therefore, it first clarifies that the responsive Buddha enters the ideating mind, and next clarifies that the Buddha's body is entirely original awakening. Hence, when the responsive Buddha is revealed, one knows the fundamental nature is clarified; relying on the external is achieved, and contemplation of mind-alone is established. Mutual borrowing between these two marks is the gateway of the present contemplation; hence the explanation of stimulus and response cannot be omitted. Second, from "This mind..." onward: explaining the middle two lines. It has two parts: first, explaining "makes" and "is" separately. This has two parts: first, explaining "makes" in terms of being able to stimulate and being able to accomplish. "Making" has two meanings: first, a pure mind can stimulate the responsive Buddha of other realms; therefore it is called "this mind makes the Buddha." Saying "The Buddha is originally non-existent" means that the dharmakāya is marvelous and transcendent, having no forms or marks, and beings see it in mutual relation. Saying "It exists because the mind is pure" means that the pure mind of sentient beings relies on karmic consciousness to perfume the Buddha's dharmakāya, and thereby sees the sublime responsive form and marvelous marks. Second, samādhi can accomplish one's own resultant Buddha; hence it says "also the cause..." and so forth. It is again named "this mind makes the Buddha": first making another Buddha, next making one's own Buddha. Second, from "This mind is..." onward: explaining "is" in terms of identity with response and identity with result. "Is" also has two meanings: first, the mind is identical to the responsive Buddha; therefore it is called "this mind is the Buddha." "Previously having heard..." and so forth means that the Buddha's substance is markless and exists because of the mind's stimulus; thus mind and Buddha, as well as existence and non-existence, would be distinctly and perpetually separated. The sūtra dispels this view, hence saying the mind is the responsive Buddha, and there is no Buddha outside the mind. Second, the mind is identical to the resultant Buddha; therefore it is called "this mind is the Buddha," which is the line "also there is no cause of the Buddha." Since the mind is the resultant Buddha, there is no cause capable of accomplishing samādhi. Within the minds of sentient beings, the Tathāgata is already sitting cross-legged; how could one wait for the future before accomplishing the resultant Buddha? The first is the responsive Buddha; the second is the resultant Buddha. This resolves and explains the text of the sūtra and commentary. If one discusses the meaning of "makes and is," it is the inconceivable threefold contemplation. Why? Because clarifying that the mind makes the Buddha reveals that it is not naturally having a buddha by inherent virtue; clarifying that the mind is the Buddha reveals that it is not becoming a buddha through causes and conditions by cultivated virtue. One should know that all the propositions of external paths and all the conceptions of the four gates of the three teachings do not go beyond causes and conditions and natural nature. Therefore, the *Śūraṅgama Sūtra* clarifies that the seven great elements are all the tathāgatagarbha manifesting according to karma, each concluding: "The worldly lack understanding and are confused, taking them to be causes and conditions or natural nature; all these are discriminations and reckonings of the conscious mind, possessing only words and no real meaning." What it calls "worldly" encompasses the nine realms. Now, with "making and being" in a single moment of wondrous contemplation, one can eliminate the error of nature. Being while making, thus the entire nature becomes cultivation, which eliminates all natural nature; making while being, thus all cultivation is identical to nature, which eliminates all nature of causes and conditions. If so, what thought is not cut off, what deliberation is not forgotten? Since "making and being" cuts off thought and deliberation, "making and being" further reveals the threefold contemplation: because whether refuting or establishing, both are called "making"—the two contemplations of emptiness and conventionality; neither refuting nor establishing is called "being"—the contemplation of the Middle Way. Entirely being while making, the three truths are all refuted and all established, termed "one empty, all empty" and "one conventional, all conventional." Entirely making while being, regarding the three truths, there is neither refutation nor establishment, termed "one middle, all middle." Emptiness and conventionality within the Middle are called "making": able to refute the three delusions and able to establish the three dharmas; thus stimulating the complete response of the three bodies of other buddhas, and able to accomplish the future result of the three bodies in one's own mind. The Middle within emptiness and conventionality is called "being": then delusion in its entirety is identical to wisdom, and obstacles in their entirety are identical to virtue; therefore the mind is the responsive Buddha, and the mind is the resultant Buddha. Therefore one knows that cultivating "making and being" in a single mind is the inconceivable threefold contemplation. It is the overall substance of the sixteen contemplations, the wondrous doctrine of the entire sūtra; the text appears here, and its meaning pervades from beginning to end. Therefore, practitioners should use this meaning to cultivate the cause for the Pure Land; it must not be unknown, which is why it is briefly explained now. Second, from "Beginning learners..." onward: explaining "makes" and "is" together. It has two parts: first, explaining in terms of beginning and end. If discussing the six identities, all are making and all are being; now distinguishing cultivation and realization, "makes" and "is" must be differentiated. At the beginning—the three stages of identity in name, identity in contemplative practice, and identity in resemblance—one cultivates without yet realizing, hence it is provisionally called "making." At the end—identity in partial realization and ultimate identity—one naturally attains true awakening, which can be named "being." Intending to guard against confusion, this explanation is given. Second, from "If in the future..." onward: explaining in terms of future and present. Explaining "is" in terms of the present and explaining "makes" in terms of the future: to cause one to see the Buddha's dharmakāya directly in the mind, and to realize the future result by means of this present cause; therefore, taking mind and Buddha as having the same substance is called "the mind is the Buddha," and contemplating the birth of that result is called "the mind makes the Buddha." The intention lies in contemplating the Buddha directly in the mind and inspiring longing for the result to cultivate the cause; hence this explanation is given. Third, from "Right and pervasive..." onward: the last two lines. The harmonious wonder of the three wisdoms is called right and pervasive knowledge; being immeasurable and profound, it is analogized to an ocean. This is the ultimate, completely luminous great awakening, non-dual and not different from the substance of our mind. Now, relying on the Sudden Teaching, by directly cultivating a completely pure mind within the defilements of the three delusions, one can give birth to the ocean of right and pervasive knowledge of all buddhas. This explains the arising from the mind in terms of others. If relying on this mind one can accomplish the future result, this explains the arising from the mind in terms of one's own buddha. Second, from "Tathāgata..." onward: exclusively contemplating Amida and demonstrating the method of contemplation. It has two parts: first, enjoining exclusive contemplation. The sūtra's words "For this reason, you should..." mean: above, it has already clearly shown that the mind stimulates all buddhas and the mind is all buddhas; for this reason, one knows that one can contemplate Amida directly in the mind. If the mind can even make all buddhas, how could it not stimulate Amida? If the mind is even already all buddhas, how could it not already be Amida? One must know that between Amida and all buddhas there is neither more nor less: all buddhas are the many that are identical to the one, and Amida is the one that is identical to the many. "With single-minded mindfulness, clearly contemplate that Buddha" means the threefold contemplation in a single mind. It only says "clearly contemplate"; why say "threefold contemplation"? Because the object of contemplation lists three epithets, revealing that the contemplating [mind] is known to be the threefold contemplation. How so? *Tathāgata* (duotuoejiadu) is translated here as Thus-Come. *Arhat* (aluohe) is translated here as Worthy of Offerings. *Samyaksambuddha* (sanmiaosanfotuo) is translated here as Right and Pervasive Knowledge. These three epithets invoke the three virtues. Now, regarding the object of contemplation, their meaning corresponds to the three truths: Right and Pervasive Knowledge is prajñā, the truth of emptiness; Worthy of Offerings is liberation, the conventional truth; Thus-Come is the dharmakāya, the truth of the Middle. Taking the three virtues as the three truths, the three and the one are perfectly fused, neither one nor different. These truths and the contemplation have different names but the same substance, cutting off thought and deliberation. Here again one sees the substance of contemplating Amida; one should use this contemplation to contemplate the image and contemplate the real. The commentary's explanation of the three epithets can be seen in its text. Question: In the text on contemplating the image, it shows that the mind makes the Buddha and shows that the mind is the Buddha, and further reveals the three truths through the three epithets; since the wondrous contemplation is established, one can use this method to contemplate all the objects below. From the contemplation of the setting sun to the contemplation of the lotus throne, since the Buddha had not yet shown the formula of the threefold contemplation, how could practitioners use this contemplation in advance? Answer: When the Buddha showed the sequence of contemplations to the original audience, it was entirely due to the sage's intention and cannot be known by ordinary beings. For people after his demise who wish to cultivate contemplative practice, the methods used must rely on the four refuges. When the Great Master explained the contemplation of the contemplating [mind] in the title, he already discussed the threefold contemplation; the title is general and the text of the sūtra is particular—how could the general not penetrate the particular? Moreover, speaking of "contemplating the Buddha," all sixteen are encompassed. Now, relying on Tiantai to cultivate teachings and contemplation, if one does not rely on Zhizhe, whom else would one trust? For instance, the wondrous gate of the threefold contemplation in the *Pratyutpanna-samādhi Sūtra*, or the method of repentance for the six senses in the *Samantabhadra Sūtra*, are both proclaimed only upon seeing the sage within samādhi; yet the Great Master taught people to practice and master them in advance before entering the bodhimanda. Why do you not doubt that? Why single out this for blame? Furthermore, for those who receive this lineage, whether hearing or thinking, they do not depart from the threefold contemplation; they must employ emptiness, conventionality, and the Middle in motion and stillness to establish all practices. If so, why now would one not use emptiness, conventionality, and the Middle to mentally ideate the sun, ice, ground, trees, and other various marks? As in mentally ideating the sun, by what power does the ideation of the sun appear? The *Pratyutpanna-samādhi Sūtra* says: "What I think of, I immediately see: the mind makes the Buddha, the mind itself sees the mind. The mind does not know the mind; when the mind has ideation, there is delusion; when the mind has no ideation, there is nirvāṇa." The beginner in that sūtra takes the Buddha's marks as the object, hence it says "the mind makes the Buddha" and so forth. Since the beginner now first contemplates the sun, can one not also say "the mind makes the sun, the mind itself sees the mind," and so forth? *The Great Calming and Contemplation* uses this text from that sūtra to demonstrate the contemplation of the Middle; if the contemplation of the Middle is established, the threefold contemplation is naturally accomplished. Only by contemplating the sun in this manner does one cultivate the sun contemplation according to this commentary. What is more, all dharmas are the Buddhadharma; how could environmental reward not be the Buddhadharma? Second, from "Ideate that..." onward: demonstrating the method of contemplation. The sub-headings divide the sūtra into four parts: first, contemplating the Buddha's image. This has two parts: first, directly clarifying contemplation of the image. Since it is an image endowed with the three epithets, in principle one should illuminate emptiness, conventionality, and the Middle in the image. Just as seeing an image of clay or wood in this land, one must still realize that its nature is like empty space, with the three bodies fully present and the four virtues undiminished; how could the jeweled image in contemplation be otherwise? If in contemplating the image one does not realize the three truths, when next contemplating the true Buddha, how could one see the three bodies? Second, from "Seeing the image..." onward: seeing the land by means of the image. Once the contemplation of the image is accomplished, the mind's eye opens and extensively sees the various marks of environmental reward—the ground, trees, and so on. One should know that these trees and so forth surpass the previous trees countless times. Why? Because the present jeweled image necessarily matches the lotus throne; with the throne and image lofty and sublime, the trees must cover them. Because the wondrous contemplation grows deeper, what is contemplated becomes ever more sublime. Second, from "Seeing this..." onward: contemplating the two bodhisattvas. When the three holy ones set forth transformation, they are inevitably together in motion and stillness: one lord and two ministers, neither combined nor separate, symbolizing the three dharmas. The three and the one are wonderfully fused; since the true bodies are so, the images must be similar. Contemplating the two beings complete in feet and the Buddha brings the wondrous contemplation to fulfillment. Third, from "This ideation..." onward: the images emit light. It has two parts: first, clarifying that the light illuminates the trees; second, from "Every single..." onward, clarifying that every tree has three images. Fourth, from "This ideation..." onward: the practitioner hears the Dharma. It has two parts: first, clarifying hearing on account of samādhi; second, from "The practitioner..." onward, clarifying accordance with the sūtras. On this text, the commentary has two explanations: first, samādhi must accord with the teaching; second, distraction must accord with samādhi. The first meaning refers to remembering upon emerging from samādhi: hearing the Dharma in samādhi must tally with what is taught in the sūtras; hence it says "to make it correspond with the doctrinal teachings." The second meaning is that although the mind has emerged from samādhi, in confronting the five sense objects it must extinguish attachment and aversion, purifying the three karmas of body and speech. If so, even when not dwelling in samādhi, one also hears the Dharma sound; hence it says "emerging from samādhi and entering samādhi, one constantly hears the wondrous Dharma." Saying "accords with the teachings of the twelve divisions of sūtras": the twelve divisions are collectively termed *sūtra*, sharing the common name of sūtra. When divided into the three baskets, sūtras expound the training in samādhi, vinaya expounds the training in morality, and śāstras expound the training in wisdom; therefore sūtras are termed samādhi. According with the sūtras means according with samādhi. If it does not accord with the sūtras, it is called false ideation: whether samādhi does not accord with the sūtras, or distraction does not accord with samādhi, both are generated from demonic affairs and are entirely not the dhyāna-samādhi of image contemplation; hence they are called false ideation. If having accorded, it is called roughly ideating and seeing the realm of Sukhāvatī: verifying samādhi with sūtras without discrepancy, and being similar when out of samādhi and in samādhi, it earns the name of roughly ideating and seeing that realm. Question: Seeing such wondrous affairs, why is it called rough ideation? Answer: Comparing the image to the real, one must distinguish rough from wondrous. This ideation is merely an expedient for contemplating the Buddha; how could it be completely identical to contemplating the real Buddha? Third, from "Practicing this..." onward: clarifying the benefits of cultivating contemplation. If the ideation of the image is accomplished, true contemplation can be attained; therefore, in this very body, one attains the buddhamanasikāra-samādhi.