觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 3.3.2

3.3.2

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.