請觀音經疏闡義鈔 2.18

2.18

隨病隨機，凡有四意：一執教忘行、二得事失理、三義易觀難、四情局性遍。示行示理、從難從遍，且就理明義。例明一家觀心，不出三種，謂約行、附法、託事。約行則存乎止觀，事、法則遍在諸文。然應深曉《止觀》所談心性三千，遍攝一切大小理惑智行位教，若依若正不離己心，方了諸文隨事表對其旨有歸。是知觀雖有，三意唯在一，以附法託事扶成約行耳。今釋大林精舍，即附事觀心也。故萬德之言並約己心，非指他果。若指他果，必迷自境。若了心境，自即他故、他即自故；不了此境，自尚成他，況觀他耶？問：《淨名疏》釋毘舍離等，皆約三義：一事釋、二約法門、三約觀心。直爾表對是約法門，以三觀攝事方名觀心。今疏以包含二諦故名大等，乃是約法門釋，應非附事觀心。答：文義隨便，不可一準。以《淨名經》中有「法喜為妻」等文。文云「諸佛解脫當於眾生心行中求」。既有二文，故分二釋。若諸文只以法門表對，即是觀心，如《止觀》普賢白象、《方等》旛壇此皆直爾表對法門，而《義例》指為附事觀心，故須隨文豐約唯變所適，故今所表即是觀心。

In adapting to ailments and capacities, there are four intents: first, clinging to teachings and forgetting practice; second, grasping phenomena and losing principle; third, meanings being easy and contemplation being difficult; fourth, feelings being narrow and nature being pervasive. Revealing practice and revealing principle, proceeding from the difficult and proceeding from the pervasive, it briefly clarifies meaning in terms of principle. By way of example, our lineage's contemplation of mind does not exceed three kinds: namely, in terms of practice, appended to dharmas, and anchored in phenomena. In terms of practice, it resides in the Great Calming and Contemplation; phenomena and dharmas are pervasive across all texts. Yet one should deeply understand that the three thousand realms in the nature of mind discussed in the Great Calming and Contemplation entirely encompass all great and small principles, afflictions, wisdoms, practices, stages, and teachings; whether dependent or proper [reward], they do not depart from one's own mind. Only then does one comprehend that across various texts, corresponding expressions adapted to phenomena have their proper orientation. Thus we know that although there are three forms of contemplation, their intent is purely one: appending to dharmas and anchoring in phenomena merely support and accomplish contemplation in terms of practice. Now explaining the monastery of the Great Forest is contemplating the mind anchored in phenomena. Therefore the words 'ten thousand virtues' are all in terms of one's own mind, not pointing to another's fruition. If pointing to another's fruition, one will surely be confused about one's own sphere. If one comprehends the mind-sphere, self is other, and other is self; if one does not comprehend this sphere, self still becomes other, so how could one contemplate other? Question: The Vimalakīrti Commentary explains Vaiśālī and the rest all in terms of three meanings: first, phenomenal explanation; second, in terms of Dharma gates; third, in terms of mind contemplation. Direct symbolic correspondence is in terms of Dharma gates; subsuming phenomena with the three contemplations is properly called mind contemplation. Now the commentary says that because it encompasses the two truths it is called 'great', which is an explanation in terms of Dharma gates, and should not be contemplating the mind anchored in phenomena. Answer: Textual meaning adapts to convenience; it cannot be made uniform. Because in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra there are passages such as 'the joy of Dharma is the wife,' and the text says 'the liberation of all Buddhas should be sought within the mental activities of sentient beings.' Since there are two passages, it divides into two explanations. If various texts merely make symbolic correspondences with Dharma gates, that is itself mind contemplation; just as with Samantabhadra's white elephant in the Great Calming and Contemplation and the banner-altar in the Vaipulya [repentance], these are direct correspondences with Dharma gates, yet the Exemplary Meaning indicates them as contemplating the mind anchored in phenomena. Therefore one must follow the text's fullness or brevity, adapting as appropriate; thus what is represented here is indeed mind contemplation.