淨名玄論 3.27

3.27

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.