四明尊者教行錄 2.20

2.20

答曰：理解釋題，事行消觀，未之可也。何則？題標觀佛，經說兼餘，主伴正依具有十六，恐謂異轍，故先示云：舉正報以收依果，言化主則包徒眾。經既從要而明，疏乃就總而說，講者必須以總貫別，修者仍須以理融事，方得名實相，稱宗體無違。儻解行有差、總別相反，則題非此經之名，觀非此名所召。世之述作若也背題，則不應式，況聖教乎。若謂無文，則成誣罔也。故經云：諸佛法界身，入眾生心想中。是故心想佛時，是心即是三十二相。是心作佛，是心是佛。疏作感應道交釋、解入相應釋。若無初釋，則觀非觀佛；若無次釋，則生佛體殊。二釋相成，是今觀法。疏云：佛法界體無所不遍，念佛三昧解入相應，故云入心想中。自非一心三止三昧，安與法界而論應入？是心作佛者，明即心變，全性成修。是心是佛者，心外無佛，佛外無心。此令行者隨觀一境皆知心變，全體是心。既全是心，心豈見心？如指不自觸、刀不自傷。故《般舟》云：我所念者即見，心作佛，心自見心。乃至云：心者不知心，心者不見心。心有想則癡，無想則泥洹。《止觀》約此而立中觀，中觀若立，任運即三也。《般舟》此文與今經廣略少殊，其旨不別。如來本恐著相觀佛不成妙宗，故於真像之前示乎觀體，令依此法而觀佛身。儻不依此法，豈獨不成妙觀，抑亦不發勝相。智者得經妙旨，乃於首題預明觀體，令將此觀入十六門，則相相圓融、心心寂滅。故第九佛想，疏目為真法身觀。真縱對像，法如何消？與《法華》微妙淨法身，具相三十二，云何異耶？須知小乘法身，義同生身；大乘生身，義同法身。故釋迦牟尼名毘盧遮那，八萬相海寧非法身？況非目擊，但是觀成。經文自云：佛法界身入心想中。又云：是心是佛。豈可局在應身之身、有想之想耶？故韋提聞已頓入分真，侍女聽之便階相似。非圓觀境，安得當機證入如此？以結益驗，觀法可知。

Answer: Interpreting the title through the principle while explaining contemplation solely through phenomenal practice is inadmissible. Why so? The title specifies 'contemplating the Buddha', while the sūtra also includes the rest: primary and secondary, host and companion, totaling sixteen. Fearing that these might be seen as divergent paths, it was stated at the outset: 'Adducing the primary retribution subsumes the secondary fruition; speaking of the teaching host includes the assembly of disciples.' Since the sūtra explains according to what is essential, the Commentary explains according to what is general. The lecturer must string the specific together with the general, and the practitioner must integrate phenomena with principle; only then do the name and reality correspond, and the source-principle and substance remain unviolated. If understanding and practice diverge and the general and specific oppose each other, then the title is not the name of this sūtra, and the contemplation is not what this title designates. In worldly writings, if one contradicts the title, the work fails to meet the standard; how much more so with the sacred teaching! If one claims there is no scriptural passage, that would be sheer slander. Thus the sūtra states: 'The dharmadhātu-body of all Buddhas enters into the mental thought of sentient beings. Therefore, when the mind thinks of the Buddha, this mind itself is the thirty-two marks. This mind makes the Buddha; this mind is the Buddha.' The Commentary interprets this both as 'the mutual resonance of stimulus and response' and as 'the concordance of understanding and entry.' Without the first interpretation, the contemplation would not be contemplating the Buddha; without the second, sentient beings and the Buddha would be distinct in substance. The two interpretations complete each other; this is the present method of contemplation. The Commentary says: 'The substance of the Buddha's dharmadhātu pervades everywhere; when the samādhi of mindfulness of the Buddha accords with understanding and entry, it is said to enter into mental thought.' Were it not for the samādhi of the three cessations in a single mind, how could one speak of resonance and entry with the dharmadhātu? 'This mind makes the Buddha' clarifies that it is transformed from the mind itself, bringing the nature fully into cultivation. 'This mind is the Buddha' means that there is no Buddha outside the mind, and no mind outside the Buddha. This enables the practitioner, whatever realm is contemplated, to know that it is a transformation of mind and that its entire substance is mind. Since it is entirely mind, how could mind see mind? Just as a finger cannot touch itself and a blade cannot cut itself. Thus the Pratyutpanna says: 'What I recollect, I immediately see; the mind makes the Buddha, the mind itself sees the mind.' And further: 'The mind does not know the mind; the mind does not see the mind. When the mind has thoughts, there is delusion; when it is without thought, there is nirvāṇa.' The Great Calming and Contemplation establishes the middle contemplation based on this; if the middle contemplation is established, spontaneously the three are present. The text of the Pratyutpanna differs only slightly from the present sūtra in being concise or expansive, but their import is not distinct. The Tathāgata originally feared that contemplating the Buddha while clinging to marks would not accomplish the wondrous source-principle, so before the contemplation of the sculpted image he revealed the substance of contemplation, instructing one to contemplate the Buddha's body based on this method. If one does not rely on this method, not only will one fail to accomplish wondrous contemplation, but one will also fail to manifest superior marks. Zhizhe, having grasped the sūtra's wondrous intent, clarified the substance of contemplation beforehand in the title, directing one to bring this contemplation into the sixteen gates; then mark after mark is perfectly interfused, and thought after thought is extinguished in stillness. Therefore, regarding the ninth contemplation of the Buddha, the Commentary designates it as the contemplation of the true dharmakāya. Even if 'true' is contrasted with 'image', how can 'dharma' be explained? How does it differ from the Lotus Sūtra's 'subtle and pure dharmakāya, complete with thirty-two marks'? One must know that the Hīnayāna dharmakāya is synonymous with the physical birth-body, while the Mahāyāna physical birth-body is synonymous with the dharmakāya. Thus Śākyamuni is named Vairocana; how could the ocean of eighty thousand marks not be the dharmakāya? Furthermore, this is not physical seeing, but the accomplishment of contemplation. The sūtra text itself says: 'The Buddha's dharmadhātu-body enters into the mental thought.' And it says: 'This mind is the Buddha.' How could it be confined to the physical form of the response body or to ordinary conceptual thought? Therefore, upon hearing it, Vaidehī abruptly entered partial realization of the true, and her maidservants, hearing it, immediately ascended to resemblance realization. Without the realm of perfect contemplation, how could those present attain such realization? Verified by the concluding benefits, the method of contemplation can be known.