釋淨土群疑論 2.5

2.5

釋曰：《般若》、《觀經》俱是聖教，相無相觀並非凡言，互說是邪深有旨趣，不可依其《般若》毀彼《觀經》，何但信謗交懷自成重罪，亦乃於佛聖教未解融通。何者？此兩經就人、就學、就解不同，作斯說也。由人者，淺根之人未能觀理，為作色觀，觀報化身。深根之人能觀實相，為說無相，觀於法身。淺人學深，深法非藥，甘露夭命，經有誠文。深人學淺，不成進道，遂名退業，何能進修？故佛對兩根說斯二教。由學者，初學之人創初入道，觀行猶昧，未能學深，不可教令作是實相觀。且教觀色，調練其心，後學方成，修進無相，譬如入海從淺至深。久學之人堪能進學彼無相觀，而乃滯彼初學色相，為進彼行，毀前是邪，非謂此是邪見攝。如慳人學布施，慳障除已滯修初度，佛欲勸彼進學尸羅。若不毀前，無由習後，故毀其檀捨，讚行持戒。此是大聖善逗物機，愚人莫知，執文迷義。今言邪道，理亦如斯。由解者，若知色即空，觀色非邪；若迷色不空，觀色是邪。若知空即色，觀空非邪；若知空異色，觀空是邪。此乃解誤異途，自分美醜，何關由色空二境以辨其邪正哉。子若曉此宗途，即常色觀而恒正；迷斯旨趣，雖空觀以恒邪。善哉妙旨，願詳其致矣。

I explain: Both the Prajñāpāramitā and the Guan jing are sacred teachings. The contemplation of forms and the contemplation of formlessness are neither of them mundane words; each stating that the other is deviant has profound intent. One must not rely on that Prajñāpāramitā to disparage that Guan jing. Not only would harbouring faith and slander together naturally bring about grave sin, but one would also have failed to comprehend the mutual harmony in the Buddha's sacred teachings. Why is this? These two sūtras speak in this way based on differences in persons, in training, and in understanding. As for being based on persons: those of shallow faculties are not yet able to contemplate the principle, so for them form-contemplation is provided, contemplating the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. Those of deep faculties are able to contemplate the true mark, so for them formlessness is spoken, contemplating the dharmakāya. When shallow persons study the profound, the profound Dharma is not medicine; amṛta cuts life short—the sūtras have explicit passages [on this]. When deep persons study the shallow, it does not constitute advancing along the path, and is thus called deteriorating practice—how could they advance in cultivation? Therefore, the Buddha taught these two instructions for the two types of faculties. As for being based on training: when beginners first enter the path, their contemplative practice is still dim and they cannot yet study the profound, so they must not be taught to practice this contemplation of the true mark. They are temporarily taught to contemplate forms to train their minds; only after later study is accomplished do they advance to cultivate formlessness. It is like entering the ocean, going from shallow to deep. Persons of long training are capable of advancing to study that contemplation of formlessness, yet if they cling to the form of that beginner's training, then in order to advance their practice, the former is denounced as deviant; it does not mean this is subsumed under wrong views. Just as a stingy person learns giving: once the obstacle of stinginess is removed, if he remains attached to cultivating the first pāramitā, the Buddha wishes to exhort him to advance to study śīla. If he did not disparage the former, there would be no way to practice the latter; thus he disparages giving and praises the practice of upholding the precepts. This is the Great Sage skilfully according with the capacities of living beings; foolish people do not know this, clinging to the text and losing the meaning. What is now called a 'deviant path' is of the same principle. As for being based on understanding: if one knows that form is emptiness, contemplating form is not deviant; if one is confused and thinks form is not empty, contemplating form is deviant. If one knows that emptiness is form, contemplating emptiness is not deviant; if one thinks emptiness is different from form, contemplating emptiness is deviant. This is an error in understanding leading to different paths, distinguishing itself as fine or flawed—how does it pertain to distinguishing correctness from deviance merely on the basis of the two objects of form and emptiness? If you understand this fundamental path, then contemplating form will always be correct; if you are confused about this intent, even contemplating emptiness will always be deviant. Splendid is this wondrous purport; I pray you examine its reasoning.