請觀音經疏 1.20

1.20

第二、從爾時佛告長者，名為正說。三序既足，弄引義成，是故正須利益，故言正說。就此為五：一示能除毒害人方所、二勸長者三業祈請、三因光見佛三聖降臨、四具㯫枝淨水、五說呪治病有生起意（云云）。就初示方所為二：一示方所、二列名歎德。言不遠者，西方去此二十恒河沙，何故言不遠？一解云：於凡是遠，於聖不遠。今解不爾，若機緣未熟，雖近而遠；若機緣熟，雖遠而必應，故言不遠。西方者，佛法之中乃非時方數，陰持入所不攝，但隨俗故，亦有時方，使人信受。言西者，若依五行，西即是金，金王決斷剛直之義。若對四諦即道諦，道是能通，用智慧見理。此言彼有大智觀音，能以無閡陀羅尼消此之毒，故西方用表道諦也。又解云：日從東出而入於西，此明東土釋迦能發生物善，西方之佛能斷除眾生之惑，生滅兩機在此二土，故言西方也。無量壽者，佛有二種無量：一生身無量，此則有量之無量也。二法身無量，此是無量之無量也。今釋迦、彌陀俱是法身之無量，此化緣短故，故生身是有量；彼佛化道長，非人天所知，故生身是無量而實有數也。耆闍凜師解云：釋迦為應，彼佛為真。執應不能除毒害見，真則能消伏毒害。今不用此解。但此土西土同是應佛，淨穢相形故有優劣。若作真語，不復得移動。辨其優劣，若彼是真佛土應極淨，此則不可。若作本迹語，此為迹、彼為本，本迹相傳望，此語則寬。雖然，今亦不用，那知釋迦是迹、無量是本？二佛各有本迹，那互為本迹？此又不可。今明此土為穢、彼即為淨，今穢國眾生見思毒害，欲借淨土來破其病，是故請於彼佛。國土相形互為優劣，破惑互有消除。如十種行人，作意祈請方法不同，是故觀音十種垂應有異。此亦十種西方、十種祈請、十種消伏毒害也。

Second, from the passage where "At that time the Buddha addressed the elder" onward is designated the central discourse. The three preludes being complete, the preparatory introduction is accomplished; therefore, benefit must now directly be conferred, which is why it is called the central discourse. Within this, there are five sections: first, revealing the person and location capable of eliminating poisonous harms; second, exhorting the elder to make invocation with the three karmas; third, seeing the Buddha and the descent of the three sages by means of light; fourth, preparing willow branches and pure water; fifth, explaining the dhāraṇī to cure illness, which includes the intention behind its arising (and so forth). As for the first, revealing the location, there are two parts: first, revealing the location; second, listing the names and praising their virtues. Regarding "not far": the Western direction is twenty Ganges sands away from here; why is it said to be "not far"? One explanation says: it is distant to ordinary persons, but not distant to sages. The present explanation is not like that: if the capacity and conditions are not yet ripe, though near it is far; if the capacity and conditions are ripe, though far it will certainly respond; hence it is called "not far." As for "the Western direction": within the Buddhadharma, it is fundamentally free of time, direction, and number, and is not subsumed under the aggregates, realms, or sense bases; yet simply in accordance with conventional truth, there are also time and direction, in order to lead people to believe and accept. As for "the West": if based on the five phases, the West is metal, and metal has the meaning of being master, decisive, unyielding, and upright. If correlated with the four truths, it is the truth of the path; the path is what is capable of penetrating, using wisdom to perceive the principle. This signifies that over there is the Guanyin of great wisdom, capable of dispelling this poison by means of the unhindered dhāraṇī; therefore the Western direction is used to represent the truth of the path. Another explanation says: the sun rises in the east and sets in the west; this clarifies that Śākyamuni of the eastern land is capable of giving rise to goodness in beings, while the Buddha of the Western direction is capable of cutting off and eliminating the delusions of sentient beings; the two capacities of arising and cessation reside in these two lands, hence it is called "the Western direction." As for "Amitāyus": the Buddha has two kinds of immeasurability: first, the immeasurability of the manifested body, which is an immeasurable that has a measure; second, the immeasurability of the dharmakāya, which is the immeasurable of immeasurability. Now Śākyamuni and Amitābha are both the immeasurable of the dharmakāya; because the conditions for converting here are short, the manifested body has a measure; that Buddha's path of conversion is long and not something humans or devas can fathom, so the manifested body is immeasurable, yet in reality it has a number. Master Lin of Qishe explained: Śākyamuni is the response body, and that Buddha is the true body; clinging to the response body cannot eliminate poisonous harms, whereas seeing the true body can dispel and subdue poisonous harms. I do not use this explanation now. Rather, this land and the western land are both response buddhas; because purity and defilement are contrasted with each other, there is superiority and inferiority. If one speaks in terms of the true body, one cannot shift anymore. In distinguishing their superiority and inferiority, if that were the true Buddha, the land ought to be ultimately pure, which is not permissible here. If one speaks in terms of origin and traces, this land is the trace and that land is the origin; viewing the transmission between origin and traces, this statement would be broader. Even so, I do not use it now either: how can one know that Śākyamuni is the trace and Amitāyus is the origin? The two Buddhas each have origin and traces; how could they mutually be origin and traces to each other? This also is not permissible. Now I clarify that this land is defiled and that land is pure; now sentient beings in the defiled land suffer the poisonous harm of view and thought delusions, and wish to borrow the pure land to break their disease; therefore they invite that Buddha. Because the lands contrast with each other, they are mutually superior and inferior, and in breaking delusion they mutually eliminate it. Just as the ten kinds of practitioners have different methods when directing the mind in prayer and invocation, so Guanyin's ten kinds of responses differ accordingly. This also constitutes ten kinds of Western directions, ten kinds of invocations, and ten kinds of dispelling and subduing poisonous harms.