四明尊者教行錄 2.35

2.35

《義例》問云：法華玄文境能照智，雖引承證，理亦難明。答：順方便教，理不可會。若從極說，於理易融。以心為境，心亦能照，能所俱心，心體俱遍，心心相照，於理甚明。故不可思議境初云：不可思議境即是觀。以是得為四句分別：境照於境、境照於智、智照於境、智照於智。照者方照，非說可窮。照者應說，非照可了。說者方說，非照可窮。說者應照，非說可了（因學人問照者下八句，遂而評之）。今輒評此文意者，蓋由上以四句互照明不思議境智。恐疑者云：凡立不思議者，則心行路絕、言語道斷。而反立於四句分別，句句咸皆云照，豈非句即是說、照即是思，何名不思議境智耶？故復立八句以照對說，定是遣非。意云：忘情照者方照，離字說者方說，如此照者應說，如此說者應照。是則忘情故照則圓融，乃能自在而說。離字故說即自在，乃能圓融而照。所以四句皆彰其得，則終日說照、言思道絕，是為聖說聖默也。儻滯情而照、執語而說，則若說若照非窮非了。何者？滯情故照，照則成偏；執語而說，說必有礙。何能如上四句互融耶？故四偏愚句皆斥其失，乃扶不思議之名也。文中以句法交互乍似難見，若以此意定之，則說證之道自明，不思議之名復顯。尚恐總敘未曉，更將此意逐句注之。

The Yili poses a question: 'The profound text of the Lotus Sūtra states that the object can illuminate wisdom; although scriptural proof is cited and adduced, the principle is also difficult to understand.' The answer states: 'Following the provisional teachings, the principle cannot be grasped. If one proceeds from the ultimate exposition, the principle easily fuses. Taking the mind as the object, the mind can also illuminate; both the subject and the object are mind, and the substance of mind is all-pervasive. Mind and mind mutually illuminating is exceedingly clear in principle. Therefore, at the beginning of the contemplation of the inconceivable object, it says: "The inconceivable object is itself contemplation." On this basis, a fourfold differentiation can be made: object illuminates object; object illuminates wisdom; wisdom illuminates object; wisdom illuminates wisdom. Only one who illuminates can illuminate, yet this cannot be exhausted by explanation. One who illuminates should explain, yet this cannot be fully understood by illumination alone. Only one who explains can explain, yet this cannot be exhausted by illumination. One who explains should illuminate, yet this cannot be fully understood by explanation alone.' (Because a student asked about the eight lines beginning with 'Only one who illuminates,' I have accordingly evaluated them.) Now, if I may venture to evaluate the intention of this text, it is that above, the inconceivable object and wisdom were illuminated through the fourfold propositions. Fearing that a doubter might say: 'Whenever the inconceivable is established, the path of mental activity is cut off and the way of words is severed. Yet you conversely establish a fourfold differentiation, and every single phrase speaks of "illuminating"; is not each phrase an explanation, and is not illuminating a conceptualization? How can this be called the inconceivable object and wisdom?' Therefore, eight lines were further established pairing illumination with explanation, definitely affirming what is right and eliminating what is wrong. The intention is: only one who illuminates while forgetting conceptual attachments can truly illuminate; only one who explains while detached from written words can truly explain. Such an illuminator should explain, and such an explainer should illuminate. Thus, because conceptual attachments are forgotten, the illumination is perfectly interfused, and one can then explain with complete ease. Because written words are transcended, the explanation is itself completely easy, and one can then illuminate with perfect interfusion. Therefore, each of the four propositions manifests its accomplishment: thus, all day long explaining and illuminating, the path of words and conceptualization is severed; this is the noble explanation and noble silence. But if one is hindered by conceptual attachments while illuminating, or clings to words while explaining, then whether explaining or illuminating, it will be neither exhaustive nor fully understood. Why so? Because when one is hindered by conceptual attachments and illuminates, the illumination becomes one-sided; when one clings to words and explains, the explanation must encounter impediments. How could they be mutually interfused as in the four propositions above? Therefore, the four one-sided and foolish propositions all rebuke their faults, thereby supporting the designation of 'inconceivable.' In the text, the reciprocal phrasing of the propositions may seem difficult to perceive at first; but if one resolves them with this intention, then the path of explanation and realization will naturally become clear, and the designation of 'inconceivable' will again be illuminated. Still fearing that this general account might not be understood, I shall further annotate this meaning phrase by phrase.