淨名玄論 4.4

4.4

論曰：已知名字，宜識旨歸。旨歸不同，凡有四說。有人言：此經名不思議，即以不思議為宗。標淨名，敘能說之人；題不思議，辨經宗致。故肇公以四句明不思議本、四句明不思議迹，本跡雖殊，不思議一也。有人言：此經雖明不思議解脫，正以因果為宗。如佛國初會，明淨土因果；方便品至不二法門，明法身因果；香積以去竟經，重明淨土行及法身因果。宜以因果為宗。有人言：此經以二行為宗，一淨佛國土行、二成就眾生行。初會明淨土行，次會明成就眾生行，方丈重會雙明二行，問疾至不二法門重明成就眾生行，香積重明淨土行，菴薗後會且雙明二行，菩薩行品明成就眾生行，見阿閦佛品明淨佛國土行，故以二行為宗。菩薩得無生忍以後更無餘事，但欲淨佛國土、成就眾生，故一部始終明此二要行為此經宗。今所明者，非無前義，但師資所習正以二智為宗。問：以何文義用二智為宗？答：〈法供養品〉天主曰「以我雖從佛及文殊聞百千經，而未曾聞是不可思議自在神通決定實相經典。」夫實相是入道本，不思議神通為化物之宗，法中要極莫過斯二。現自在神通即實慧方便，決定實相即方便實慧，雖實相而神通、雖神通而實相，動寂不二而權實宛然。一部之經盛談斯法，故以二智為宗。又智度菩薩母、方便以為父，是淨名父母，即為淨名經宗。又此經所興正起於疾，疾是方便，方便由實，故以二智為宗。又此經名維摩詰經，以菩薩為教主，正以二智名為菩薩，方便實慧不同凡夫、實慧方便簡非小道。又方便實慧名為菩薩、實慧方便名摩訶薩，故以成菩薩法為菩薩經宗。問：二智由二境生，何故不境智合為經宗？答：爾炎雖是智母而三乘共觀，二智獨菩薩法，故般若不屬二乘佛，但屬菩薩。般若之巧名為漚和，般若尚不屬二乘，漚和即聲聞絕分，故以智為宗，不取境也。問：此經始自淨土終訖法養，其文雖殊，不思議一。何故不用不思議為宗？答：一部之教雖皆是難思，別而言正以解脫為不思議，故云諸佛菩薩有解脫名不思議，住此解脫，能現一切形、能說一切教，而物不能測，故通名不思議解脫，則是二智，故以二智為宗。問：解脫云何即是二智？答：二智無累，故稱解脫。則此解脫，心行處斷故意不能思，言語又滅故則口不能議，故知二智則解脫也。問：解脫是二智，既以二智即解脫，何故不以二智解脫為體？答：正以二智為解脫體，不以解脫為二智體。何以知之？經云「慧有方便解，方便有慧解」，不言解脫有方便、解脫有於慧，故知二智為解脫體，不以解脫為二智體。問：若以二智為解脫體，何故不稱二智不思議，而名解脫不思議？答：一切法門凡有二種，一者立名、二者辨體。不思議解脫即經之名，而此解脫以二智為體，故名體兩舉、義則多含。若以不思議為名，復以不思議為體，則名體相監、義無多兼。問：無為法身為果解脫、無漏智為因解脫，若以解脫為宗則因果皆備。今以二智為體，但得因門。答：無為法身、無漏智、不思議解脫，名雖有三而體無二也。無累不盡，稱為解脫。無境不照，名為智慧。真極可軌，故目為法。即以法為身，故名法身。非但義含因果，而亦體備三德。

The treatise says: Having understood the name, one should recognize the central purport. There are four different explanations of this central purport. Some say: Because this sūtra is named "Inconceivable", it takes the inconceivable as its central purport. Setting forth "Vimalakīrti" describes the person capable of preaching; entitling it "Inconceivable" discerns the purport of the sūtra. Hence Master Sengzhao used four phrases to clarify the root of the inconceivable and four phrases to clarify the traces of the inconceivable; although root and trace differ, the inconceivable is one. Some say: Although this sūtra clarifies inconceivable liberation, it takes cause and fruit as its true central purport. For instance, the initial assembly in the Buddha Land clarifies the cause and fruit of the pure land; from the Chapter on Upāya to the Dharma Gate of Nonduality, it clarifies the cause and fruit of the dharmakāya; and from the Chapter on the Fragrance-Accumulating [Buddha] onward to the end of the sūtra, it repeatedly clarifies the practices of the pure land and the cause and fruit of the dharmakāya. Therefore, it is appropriate to take cause and fruit as the central purport. Some say: This sūtra takes two practices as its central purport: first, the practice of purifying the Buddha lands; second, the practice of maturing sentient beings. The first assembly clarifies the practice of the pure land; the next assembly clarifies the practice of maturing sentient beings; the reconvened assembly in the ten-foot-square room clarifies both practices together; from inquiring about illness to the Dharma Gate of Nonduality, it repeatedly clarifies the practice of maturing sentient beings; the Chapter on the Fragrance-Accumulating [Buddha] repeatedly clarifies the practice of the pure land; the subsequent assembly in the Āmrapālī Grove further clarifies both practices together; the Chapter on Bodhisattva Practice clarifies the practice of maturing sentient beings; and the Chapter on Seeing Akṣobhya Buddha clarifies the practice of purifying the Buddha lands. Hence it takes the two practices as its central purport. After a bodhisattva attains the acceptance of non-arising, there is nothing else to do except purify the Buddha lands and mature sentient beings; therefore, from beginning to end, the whole text clarifies these two essential practices as the central purport of this sūtra. What is explained now does not reject the preceding positions, but what masters and disciples have transmitted takes the two cognitions as its true central purport. Question: On the basis of what textual meaning do we take the two cognitions as the central purport? Answer: In the Chapter on the Offering of the Dharma, the King of the Devas says: "Although I have heard hundreds of thousands of sūtras from the Buddha and Mañjuśrī, I have never before heard this scripture of inconceivable, unhindered supernatural powers and decisive dharmatā." Now, dharmatā is the root of entering the path, and inconceivable supernatural power is the principal means for transforming beings; among phenomena, nothing surpasses these two in utmost essentiality. Manifesting unhindered supernatural powers is the upāya of real wisdom; decisive dharmatā is the real wisdom of upāya. Although it is dharmatā, there are supernatural powers; although they are supernatural powers, there is dharmatā; activity and quiescence are nondual, yet provisional and real remain distinct. This entire scripture extensively discusses this teaching; hence it takes the two cognitions as its central purport. Furthermore, prajñā is the mother of bodhisattvas and upāya is their father; these are Vimalakīrti's parents, and thus serve as the central purport of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra. Again, what occasioned this sūtra arose specifically from an illness: illness is upāya, and upāya derives from reality; hence it takes the two cognitions as the central purport. Furthermore, this scripture is named the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, taking a bodhisattva as the lord of the teaching; one is called a bodhisattva precisely on account of the two cognitions: the real wisdom of upāya distinguishes one from ordinary beings, and the upāya of real wisdom sets one apart from the lesser path. Moreover, the real wisdom of upāya is called a bodhisattva, while the upāya of real wisdom is called a mahāsattva; therefore, the dharma that accomplishes a bodhisattva is taken as the central purport of this bodhisattva scripture. Question: The two cognitions are generated from two cognitive objects; why not combine object and cognition to serve as the central purport of the sūtra? Answer: Although the knowable object (jñeya) is the mother of cognition, it is contemplated in common by the three vehicles; the two cognitions, however, are exclusively the teaching of bodhisattvas. Therefore, prajñā does not belong to the two vehicles or to the Buddha, but belongs solely to bodhisattvas. The skillfulness of prajñā is called upāya; since prajñā does not even belong to the two vehicles, śrāvakas are entirely cut off from upāya. Hence we take cognition as the central purport and do not adopt the object. Question: From the pure land at the beginning down to the offering of the Dharma at the end, though the words of this sūtra differ, the inconceivable is one. Why not use the inconceivable as the central purport? Answer: Although the teachings of the entire text are all difficult to conceive, speaking specifically, it is liberation that is the inconceivable. Thus it is said that the buddhas and bodhisattvas have a liberation named "Inconceivable"; abiding in this liberation, they can manifest all forms and preach all teachings while beings cannot fathom them; hence it is universally named inconceivable liberation, which is none other than the two cognitions. Therefore, we take the two cognitions as the central purport. Question: How is liberation identical to the two cognitions? Answer: The two cognitions are free of encumbrance, and are therefore called liberation. In this liberation, the workings of the mind are severed, so the intellect cannot conceive it; words are extinguished, so the mouth cannot discuss it. Thus we know that the two cognitions are liberation. Question: Liberation is the two cognitions; since the two cognitions are identical to liberation, why not take the two cognitions and liberation together as the essence? Answer: It is precisely the two cognitions that are the essence of liberation, not liberation that is the essence of the two cognitions. How do we know this? The sūtra says: "Wisdom has the liberation of upāya, and upāya has the liberation of wisdom"; it does not say that liberation has upāya, or that liberation has wisdom. Hence we know that the two cognitions are the essence of liberation, and that liberation is not the essence of the two cognitions. Question: If the two cognitions are taken as the essence of liberation, why is it not called the "inconceivable two cognitions", but rather named "inconceivable liberation"? Answer: All Dharma gates comprise two aspects: first, establishing the name; second, discerning the essence. "Inconceivable liberation" is the name of the sūtra, while this liberation takes the two cognitions as its essence. Thus, both name and essence are presented, and the meaning contains much. If "inconceivable" were taken as the name and "inconceivable" were also taken as the essence, then name and essence would overlap each other, and the meaning would encompass little. Question: The asaṃskṛta dharmakāya is fruitional liberation, and uncontaminated cognition is causal liberation; if liberation is taken as the central purport, then cause and fruit are both complete. Now if you take the two cognitions as the essence, you obtain only the causal aspect. Answer: The asaṃskṛta dharmakāya, uncontaminated cognition, and inconceivable liberation have three names, but their essence is not dual. Because no encumbrance remains unexhausted, it is called liberation. Because no object remains unilluminated, it is called wisdom. Because the ultimate truth can serve as a model, it is termed Dharma. Taking Dharma as the body, it is called the dharmakāya. It does not merely encompass both cause and fruit in meaning; its essence is also endowed with the three virtues.