淨名玄論 3.31

3.31

問：題稱「不思議解脫法門」，文云「有解脫名不思議」，何故前後不同？答：各有其義。文云「解脫名不思議」者，以解脫為體、不思議為名，必由有體故方立名，故云有解脫名不思議也。題云不思議解脫者，題既欲立其名，先云不思議。由不思議名，題不思議體，故先名而後體也。文中則以本垂迹，題則以迹顯本，欲二義相成，故文題互舉。問，何故以解脫為體、不思議為名耶？答：夫論縱任自在無方妙用，必由體無累結，故就解脫辨不思議。又為對二乘人。二乘人云：解脫但是無累之名，無為不能無所不為。故今明諸佛菩薩解脫雖是無為，而能無所不為，故偏就解脫名不思議。又為對凡夫。凡夫亦有不思議，如五不思議中龍力不思議，而無解脫，是故云有解脫名不思議。又凡夫住有、不能觀空，二乘入空、不能觀有，空有俱縛，故無解脫。以無解脫，故非不思議。今雙斥二見，明非凡夫行、非賢聖行，是菩薩行，雖有而常行空、雖空而常涉有，空有無礙，故名解脫也。以有解脫，故名不思議。又對有功用位，以不能空有任運無礙，故名為縛，非不思議。以無功用心空有無礙，故稱解脫，名不思議也。問：何故復言不思議解脫？答：解脫多門，如二乘之人亦有解脫，蓋是思議解脫。今明諸佛菩薩解脫，是不思議解脫。為簡小乘，故作此說也。又大乘中有無量解脫，今是不思議解脫也。

Question: The title is called 'Dharma Gate of Inconceivable Liberation', whereas the text says 'there is a liberation named inconceivable'. Why do the former and the latter differ? Answer: Each has its own meaning. The text saying 'liberation named inconceivable' takes liberation as the essence and inconceivable as the name; only because there is an essence can a name be established, which is why it says 'there is a liberation named inconceivable'. As for the title stating 'inconceivable liberation': since the title intends to establish its name, it first says 'inconceivable'. By means of the name 'inconceivable', the title designates the inconceivable essence, and therefore puts the name first and the essence second. In the text, the root projects the trace; in the title, the trace reveals the root. Intending the two meanings to complement each other, the text and title present them reciprocally. Question: Why take liberation as the essence and inconceivable as the name? Answer: In discussing free, autonomous, and unbounded wondrous function, it must arise from the essence being free of bondages; therefore, the inconceivable is distinguished in terms of liberation. Moreover, it is directed against followers of the two vehicles. Followers of the two vehicles say: liberation is merely a name for the absence of bonds; being unconditioned (asaṃskṛta), it cannot leave nothing undone. Therefore, it is now explained that although the liberation of the buddhas and bodhisattvas is unconditioned, it can leave nothing undone; hence, specifically in terms of liberation, it is named inconceivable. Furthermore, it is directed against ordinary people. Ordinary people also have things that are inconceivable—such as the inconceivable power of dragons among the five inconceivables—yet they lack liberation; therefore it says 'there is a liberation named inconceivable'. Furthermore, ordinary people dwell in existence and cannot contemplate emptiness; the two vehicles enter emptiness and cannot contemplate existence; bound by both emptiness and existence, they lack liberation. Because they lack liberation, they are not inconceivable. Now, both views are refuted simultaneously, explaining that it is neither the practice of ordinary people nor the practice of the worthy and noble, but rather the practice of bodhisattvas: although in existence, they constantly practice emptiness; although in emptiness, they constantly engage in existence. Emptiness and existence are unimpeded, which is called liberation. Because there is liberation, it is named inconceivable. Furthermore, it is directed against the stage of effortful action: because they cannot spontaneously achieve non-obstruction between emptiness and existence, it is called bondage and is not inconceivable. Because with the mind of effortless action emptiness and existence are unimpeded, it is called liberation and named inconceivable. Question: Why is it further called 'inconceivable liberation'? Answer: Liberation has many gates; for example, people of the two vehicles also have liberation, but that is conceivable liberation. Now it is explained that the liberation of the buddhas and bodhisattvas is inconceivable liberation. This is stated in order to distinguish it from the Hīnayāna. Furthermore, within the Mahāyāna there are immeasurable liberations, and the present one is the inconceivable liberation.