淨名玄論 3.27

3.27

第四、明本迹不思議。肇公正用本迹釋不思議，故以四句明本、以四句辨迹。四句明本者，統萬行則以權智為主，樹德本則以六度為根，濟矇惑則以慈悲為悲首，語宗極則以不二為言，此不思議本也。至如借座燈王、請飯香土、室苞乾像、手接大千，不思議之迹也。問：此就何義辨本迹耶？答：講者多誦此言，並謂以法身為本、應物為迹，故云非本無以垂迹、非迹無以顯本，本迹雖殊，不思議一也。今謂非無法身為本、應物為迹，但肇公意不然，正以理本為本、事迹為迹。若次第論之，不出三法：一理、二智、三教。理能發智，則理為智本。智能說教，則智為教本。今以理智對教，故理智皆是其本，則以教為迹。理智為本者，不二即是理，權實及六度四等，皆是悟理故成。所以肇公云「語宗極則以不二為言」。理智雖皆是本，但理是本中之本，故名宗極。故束此四句，開其二本：一句為理本，三句為行本。迹中四句，應有二迹：一以形為迹、二以言為迹。以形為迹，就形明不思議。以言為迹，就言示不思議。但今四句，皆就形迹示不思議，不就言迹辨不思議者，良以形迹示不思議顯，故如借座請飯等。言迹示不思議不顯，口雖說本不思議，不現其事者則取信莫由，故不就言明不思議迹也。問：何故云非本無以垂迹？答：要由根本有不思議理及不思議智，方得為眾生示不思議。以上化下，故名為垂也。由此不思議事，得顯不思議理，故言非迹無以顯本也。問：但以法身為本、應身為迹，有何失耶？答：但得以智為本，不得以理為本；但得本中之末，不得本中之本。斯意則局。今辨迹者，若形若教、若內身若外報、此土他方，隨有不思議事，皆得因此顯不思議本，非但應身也。問：云何名本迹雖殊，不思議一？答：有人言：明本迹二身相即，故云一，如云吾今此身即是法身。有人言：本迹雖殊，明不二二義；不思議一，明二不二義。今謂未解讀他文章，故有異說。原肇公論本迹意者，正欲解不思議。此經既名不思議，約何物法辨不思議？是故不思議中有本有迹，故開本迹二門。雖有本有迹，而同是不思議，故明不思議一耳。何勞云云作諸異釋？若言明本迹不思議一，便作前二解者，肇公又云「始自淨國、終訖法供養，其文雖殊，不思議一也。」可復有餘釋耶？而一師云：本迹雖殊，故開於二身。不思議一，明本迹是因緣義，非本無以垂迹、非迹無以顯本。故本是迹本、迹為本迹，本迹則不迹、迹本則不本，不本不迹，名為正法，故稱為一。蓋寄此文明二不二義耳。聽者不聽其旨，妄咎大師。問：既明本迹不同，云何不思議是一耶？答：既是不思議經，一切不思議，故云不思議一。所以然者，此之本迹皆是佛菩薩無依無礙法門，凡夫二乘所不能測，故云不思議一。又此本迹，同是無功用心，不假思量議度，故云不思議一。前據所化不思議一，後約能化不思議一。問：既有本跡不思議，亦有本迹解脫不？答：法身為本、應身為迹，亦得有二解脫。又內德為本、外事為迹，即此迹縱任自在，又是諸佛菩薩依果，亦是解脫。

Fourth, explaining the inconceivable of root and trace. Master Sengzhao precisely used root and trace to explain the inconceivable; therefore, he elucidated the root with four clauses and distinguished the trace with four clauses. As for the four clauses elucidating the root: in overarching all myriad practices, provisional cognition takes the lead; in planting the root of virtue, the six pāramitās serve as the basis; in delivering the deluded, loving-kindness and compassion are foremost; in speaking of the ultimate principle, nonduality is the expression. This is the inconceivable root. As for borrowing seats from the King of Sumeru-lamps, requesting food from the Fragrant Land, the room accommodating the forms of the universe, and taking up the great trichiliocosm in one's hand—these are the inconceivable traces. Question: In terms of what meaning are root and trace distinguished here? Answer: Lecturers mostly recite these words, yet all say that the dharmakāya is the root and responding to beings is the trace; hence they say: 'Without the root, there is nothing by which to project traces; without traces, there is nothing by which to reveal the root. Although root and trace differ, their inconceivability is one.' I now say: it is not that the dharmakāya cannot be the root and responding to beings cannot be the trace, but Master Sengzhao's intention was not this; he took the root of principle precisely as the root, and the traces of phenomena as traces. If analyzed sequentially, they do not exceed three factors: first, principle; second, cognition; third, teaching. Principle can generate cognition; hence principle is the root of cognition. Cognition can expound teaching; hence cognition is the root of teaching. Now, contrasting principle and cognition with teaching: both principle and cognition are the root, whereas teaching is the trace. As for principle and cognition being the root: nonduality is precisely the principle, while the provisional and real, the six pāramitās, and the four immeasurables are all realized by awakening to principle. This is why Master Sengzhao said, 'in speaking of the ultimate principle, nonduality is the expression.' Although principle and cognition are both the root, principle is the root of roots, and is therefore called the ultimate principle. Thus, grouping these four clauses yields two roots: one clause is the root of principle, and three clauses are the root of practice. In the four clauses of the trace, there should be two traces: first, taking form as trace; second, taking words as trace. Taking form as trace elucidates the inconceivable in terms of form. Taking words as trace demonstrates the inconceivable in terms of words. However, the present four clauses all demonstrate the inconceivable in terms of traces of form, and do not distinguish the inconceivable in terms of traces of words, truly because demonstrating the inconceivable through traces of form is manifest—such as borrowing seats, requesting food, and so forth. Demonstrating the inconceivable through traces of words is not manifest; though the mouth speaks of the inconceivable root, if one does not display its phenomena, there would be no basis for inspiring faith. Hence he did not elucidate the inconceivable traces in terms of words. Question: Why is it said that 'without the root, there is nothing by which to project traces'? Answer: It is fundamentally required that there be the inconceivable principle and inconceivable cognition before one can display the inconceivable for sentient beings. Because the higher transforms the lower, it is called 'projecting'. Because of these inconceivable phenomena, the inconceivable principle can be revealed; hence it is said, 'without traces, there is nothing by which to reveal the root.' Question: If one merely takes the dharmakāya as the root and the nirmāṇakāya as the trace, what flaw is there? Answer: One would only obtain cognition as the root, and would not obtain principle as the root; one would only obtain the branch within the root, and would not obtain the root of roots. This intention would be narrow. Now, in distinguishing traces, whether form or teaching, internal body or external retribution, this land or other directions—wherever there are inconceivable phenomena, all can thereby reveal the inconceivable root; it is not merely the nirmāṇakāya. Question: What does it mean that 'although root and trace differ, their inconceivability is one'? Answer: Some say that this explains that the two bodies of root and trace are mutually identical, hence called 'one'—just as it is said, 'My present body is precisely the dharmakāya.' Some say that 'although root and trace differ' explains the two meanings of nonduality, while 'their inconceivability is one' explains the meaning of two being nondual. I now say that they have not understood how to read his text, which is why there are divergent explanations. Tracing Master Sengzhao's intention in discussing root and trace, it was precisely to explain the inconceivable. Since this sūtra is named 'Inconceivable', in terms of what phenomena should the inconceivable be distinguished? For this reason, within the inconceivable there are root and trace, and so he opened the two gates of root and trace. Although there are root and trace, they are identically inconceivable; hence he merely explained that their inconceivability is one. Why bother making all kinds of disparate interpretations? If one claims that explaining the oneness of the inconceivable of root and trace warrants those two previous interpretations, Master Sengzhao also said: 'From the Purification of the Land at the beginning to the Dharma Offering at the end, although the text differs, the inconceivability is one.' Could there be another interpretation for that as well? Yet one master said: 'Although root and trace differ' therefore opens into the two bodies. 'Their inconceivability is one' explains that root and trace have the meaning of conditioned origination: without the root, there is nothing by which to project traces; without traces, there is nothing by which to reveal the root. Therefore, the root is the root of the trace, and the trace is the trace of the root; the root of the trace is not the trace, and the trace of the root is not the root; being neither root nor trace is called the true Dharma, and is therefore called one. He merely made use of this passage to explain the meaning of two being nondual. Those listening did not attend to his intent and falsely faulted the Great Master. Question: Since it has been explained that root and trace are not the same, how is the inconceivable one? Answer: Since it is the Inconceivable Sūtra, everything is inconceivable, hence it is said that their inconceivability is one. Why is this so? These roots and traces are all the unattached and unimpeded Dharma gates of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, which cannot be measured by ordinary people or the two vehicles; hence it is said that their inconceivability is one. Furthermore, these roots and traces are both the mind of effortless action, which requires no deliberation or consideration; hence it is said that their inconceivability is one. The former is based on the oneness of the inconceivable in what is transformed, while the latter is based on the oneness of the inconceivable in that which transforms. Question: Since there is the inconceivable of root and trace, is there also a liberation of root and trace? Answer: Taking the dharmakāya as root and the nirmāṇakāya as trace, there can also be two liberations. Furthermore, internal virtue is the root and external phenomena are the trace; this trace itself is free and autonomous, and is also the dependent retribution of the buddhas and bodhisattvas; it is also liberation.