寶王三昧念佛直指 1.46

1.46

夫觀慧三昧者，當以斯觀慧之旨，觀彼極樂依正，使此心純熟，心境理一而直生於彼土也。道場正觀者，以彼雖達觀慧之旨，而六根所對尚留塵境，或有退轉，故於道場聖像乃至莊嚴供具，即與極樂依正一體而觀。行人雖未離娑婆，以此心觀一故，如已生淨土矣，於命終時莫不感應。且如行人懺悔行事、清淨道場、莊嚴供事，至於一香一華，豈不即彼三諦之理？若不以此諦理，事事之中正念觀察使勝行有歸，則於大乘圓頓之道不能開顯。如彼佛土有無量一一莊嚴之具，皆從彼佛初修菩薩行時因行所感。因行既立，果土現前，故莊嚴具勝妙無盡。我今觀果知因，則知三昧道場一一莊嚴與彼極樂因果無二，豈不亦各各成大三昧，顯諸法門圓融微妙，如極樂土等無差別，亦自即彼嚴具為妙身相，身相供事非彼非此、非一非多，依正互融顯法界理，如諸佛土不可思議，豈可視為土木所成境耶？故知或境或心、或身或土，同一受用自在無礙。經云：以波羅蜜所生一切寶蓋，於一切境界清淨解所生一切華帳，無生法忍所生一切衣，入金剛法無礙心所生一切鈴網，解一切法如幻心所生一切堅固香，周遍佛境界如來座心所生一切寶眾妙座，供養佛不懈心所生一切寶幢，解諸法如夢歡喜心所生一切佛所住處寶宮殿，無著善根所生一切寶蓮華雲等。以是觀之，則知極樂依正之境乃是彌陀如來因行所成，今感其果。我此道場既是生淨土因，勝劣雖有不同如海如渧，而其氣分豈不與同體耶？因是義故，則道場中六根所對香華燈燭、勝旛寶蓋、一切供具，乃至衣服、臥具、飲食、醫藥、諸受用具，一色一香及一微塵，無非三昧、無非法門，皆能使人發乎妙解悟心證聖。雖未聞音，亦能表現念佛三昧諸大法門。亦即一切生佛之身境智無礙，亦能與我同行為真法侶。行人敢輕視之，使不發妙悟俱生彼國，可乎？經云：禪定持心常一緣，智慧了境同三昧。義亦若是。能作此觀，則根境一致，何但我之三業為能修也。又如地獄苦具、刀杖劍火，以彼先造惡因所使皆能搖動，為蛇為狗、為蟲為鳥穿骨入體，作諸苦事；況道場中諸莊嚴具，而不依正同源皆解脫法，與我共成三昧者乎？又道場莊嚴形皆異物，尚能使人發乎妙解；況今所奉尊像，恭敬供養、盡心竭志，如父如母，豈不能令我解脫速生安養？且如一佛二菩薩像置道場中，為的對懺悔之主，餘像是伴；總名為正，諸莊嚴具悉名為依，是則主伴依正與彼極樂依正雖麁妙不同，而其像主所有神通願力同佛真身，扣之則靈、求之則應，有何差別？既無差別，則於此像豈可但作土木膠漆金彩所成之見，而不作西方極樂大願相好真身之佛觀耶？若於像中不見真身，則其心不一，三昧難成，妙悟不深。失之甚矣！蓋今所見之像，與彼真身實無二致。但以彼佛大慈普遍，於無二身隨機應現，示真示化或示形像。而我亦眼障尚深，於一法中所見自異，於佛真身而謂像耳。則知此像豈實像哉。譬如觀經三輩九品接引之佛，隨其品位，所遣從勝至劣各各不同。故知我所見像，實亦當我所見，豈佛慈不普，而示我以像哉？雖然見有不同，皆即彌陀一體。又如經說，懺彼眼障漸薄，見佛座已，先見一佛二佛。障又薄時，漸漸見佛遍虛空界。以彼例此，若我懺願求生之心與理相應，先見佛像及化，後能見佛真身。又如華嚴會上佛體本一，大菩薩眾見佛是廣大無量天冠莊嚴舍那之身，三乘見佛是王宮降生老比丘身，我等凡夫故應見佛是土木所成之身。不爾，云何《普賢觀經》但懺眼罪而得見佛？是知佛本一體，或真或像，實見者自異耳。又昔有人刻木為母，母身本木，人有借覓於母，或與或悋，木母亦能形喜慍色與真母同。彼世間孝意所感尚能若是，況我無量大願神通之佛即真寶像不及木母者乎？況古今造像徵驗不一，或放光明、或示瑞應，乃至身生舍利，水溺火焚不壞者，載之傳記不可具陳。則我道場像主即是彌陀如來真實色身，而我障故謂是像耳。縱彼直謂是像，亦能入前像觀從像見真，豈不顯同體之妙？經云：佛清淨身遍一切處。又云：一切諸法無非佛法。何特此像而非佛乎？或問：離一切相，即名為佛。佛身尚非，何況此像與佛同耶？答：若於相非佛，何止於像，離舍那報身亦非是佛。若一切非佛，即一切是佛，何非佛耶？若知此義，則悟我今所奉尊像不離願海、具大神方、能攝能受，所有一切方無畏等、十八不共、大慈大悲、常樂我淨、相好光明，與彌陀全身等無差別。而我於中懺悔行事，當如乞人得近帝王，常懷慚戰、畏愛兼抱，渴仰攝受、冀求出離。況復歷劫難過，今既遭逢，豈可輕易使勝行不進自作障難耶？又念彼佛哀憫我故，垂示像身受我懺悔。既受我懺，則一切重罪定得消滅，必生淨土。於是心得歡喜，忽如天廓地清獲得法眼，彼極樂國可如目覩。故知真像一致之說非不甚深，學者宜盡其誠，莫作異解。

As for the samādhi of contemplative wisdom, one ought to use the essential principle of this contemplative wisdom to contemplate the circumstantial and primary [rewards] of that Sukhāvatī, making this mind fully ripened so that mind and object become one in principle, thereby directly taking birth in that land. The correct contemplation in the bodhimaṇḍa means that although one may have arrived at the essential principle of contemplative wisdom, what the six faculties face is still retained as dust-objects, where retrogression may occur; therefore, toward the sacred images and even the adorned offering implements in the bodhimaṇḍa, one contemplates them as forming a single entity with the circumstantial and primary [rewards] of Sukhāvatī. Although the practitioner has not yet departed from Sahā, because this mental contemplation is one, it is just as if one were already born in the Pure Land; at the end of life, there is none who does not evoke a response. Moreover, regarding the practitioner's practice of repentance, the purification of the bodhimaṇḍa, and the adornment of offering duties, down to a single incense stick and a single flower, how could they not be the very principle of the three truths? If one does not use this principle of the truths to observe with right mindfulness amid every single affair and give the superior practice a destination, then one cannot reveal the round and sudden path of the Mahāyāna. For instance, in that Buddha-land there are immeasurable adornments, each and every implement, all evoked by the causal practices when that Buddha first practiced the bodhisattva path. Once the causal practices were established, the fruit-land appeared before him; hence the adornments and implements are exquisitely wonderful without end. Now, by observing the fruit I understand the cause, and thereby know that each and every adornment in this samādhi bodhimaṇḍa is not two in cause and fruit with those of Sukhāvatī. How could they not also each constitute a great samādhi and reveal all the roundly fused and subtle Dharma gates, being equal and without distinction to the land of Sukhāvatī, and themselves directly taking those adorned implements as wonderful physical marks? Physical marks and offering affairs are neither that nor this, neither one nor many; circumstantial and primary [rewards] mutually fuse to reveal the principle of the dharmadhātu, just like the inconceivable nature of all Buddha-lands. How could one regard them as mere realms formed of earth and wood? Therefore know that whether realm or mind, whether body or land, they are identical in their functioning, sovereign and unobstructed. A sūtra says: All jeweled canopies born of the pāramitās; all flower canopies born of pure understanding in all realms; all robes born of the forbearance of the non-arising of phenomena; all bell-nets born of the unobstructed mind entering the adamantine Dharma; all steadfast incense born of the mind understanding all phenomena to be like illusions; all assemblies of jewels and wonderful thrones born of the mind of the Tathāgata's seat pervading the Buddha-realm; all jeweled banners born of the unflagging mind in making offerings to the Buddha; all jeweled palaces where the Buddhas dwell born of the joyful mind understanding all phenomena to be like dreams; all clouds of jeweled lotuses born of unattached roots of goodness, and so forth. Viewing it from this, one knows that the circumstantial and primary realms of Sukhāvatī were accomplished through the causal practices of the Tathāgata Amitābha, and now their fruit is evoked. Since this bodhimaṇḍa of mine is the cause for rebirth in the Pure Land, although superior and inferior differ like the ocean and a drop of water, how could its atmosphere and quality not share the same entity with it? For this reason, in the bodhimaṇḍa, whatever the six faculties encounter—incense, flowers, lamps, candles, excellent banners, jeweled canopies, and all offering implements, down to clothing, bedding, food and drink, medicine, and all articles of daily use, every single color, every single fragrance, and every single speck of dust—there is nothing that is not samādhi, nothing that is not a Dharma gate. All can cause a person to generate wonderful understanding, awaken the mind, and realize holiness. Though not hearing their sound, they can also manifest the great Dharma gates of buddha-mindfulness samādhi. They are directly the bodies, realms, and wisdom of all sentient beings and Buddhas, unobstructed, and can also practice alongside me as true Dharma companions. How could a practitioner dare to look down upon them and fail to generate wonderful awakening to be reborn together in that land? A sūtra says: Meditative concentration holds the mind constantly on a single object; wisdom understands the realm to be identical with samādhi. The meaning is just like this. If one can perform this contemplation, then faculties and objects are unified; how could it be only my three karmas that are capable of cultivation? Furthermore, just like the instruments of suffering in the hells—knives, staves, swords, and fire—which, driven by the evil causes previously created by those beings, are all able to stir and move, becoming snakes, dogs, worms, and birds that pierce through bones and enter the body to inflict various kinds of suffering, how much more so should the various adornments in the bodhimaṇḍa, which share the same source with the circumstantial and primary [rewards] and are all phenomena of liberation, not together accomplish samādhi with me? Moreover, the adornments of the bodhimaṇḍa are in form diverse objects, yet they can still cause people to generate wonderful understanding; how much more so the revered images now venerated, which we revere and make offerings to with all our heart and determination, like father and mother—how could they fail to make me liberated and swiftly attain rebirth in the [Land of] Peaceful Nurture? Furthermore, when the images of one Buddha and two bodhisattvas are placed in the bodhimaṇḍa as the principal masters of repentance facing us directly, the other images are companions; altogether they are called the primary [reward], while all the adorned implements are called the circumstantial [reward]. Thus, although the masters, companions, circumstantial, and primary [rewards] differ in coarseness and subtlety from the circumstantial and primary [rewards] of Sukhāvatī, the spiritual powers and vow-power possessed by the master of these images are identical to the Buddha's true body: invoke it and there is efficacy, seek it and there is a response—what difference is there? Since there is no difference, then regarding these images, how could one merely view them as being formed of earth, wood, glue, lacquer, gold, and paint, and not contemplate them as the true body of the Buddha of the Western Sukhāvatī with great vows and marks of excellence? If within the images one does not see the true body, then one's mind will not be unified, samādhi will be difficult to accomplish, and wonderful awakening will not be deep. The loss would be grave indeed! For the images seen now are truly not different from that true body. It is only because that Buddha's great compassion is all-pervading that, within his non-dual body, he responds and manifests according to the capacity [of beings], displaying the true, displaying the transformation, or displaying a physical image. And because my own ocular obstructions are still deep, what is seen within the single Dharma naturally differs, and toward the Buddha's true body I say it is merely an image. Thus one knows: how could this image be a mere image? For example, regarding the Buddhas who come to receive and guide the three grades and nine classes in the Contemplation Sūtra, according to their ranks, those dispatched differ from superior to inferior. Hence we know that the image I see is truly what corresponds to what I should see; how could it be that the Buddha's compassion is not universal and that he displays an image to me [arbitrarily]? Even though the sightings differ, they are all the single entity of Amitābha. Moreover, as a sūtra says, when repenting so that ocular obstructions gradually thin, after seeing the Buddha's seat, one first sees one Buddha or two Buddhas; when the obstructions become thinner still, one gradually sees Buddhas pervading the empty space. Applying that to this: if my mind of repentance, vows, and seeking rebirth accords with the principle, I will first see the Buddha's image and transformation, and later be able to see the Buddha's true body. Again, for example, in the Avataṃsaka assembly, the Buddha's essence was originally one: the assembly of great bodhisattvas saw the Buddha as the vast and immeasurable body of Rocana adorned with a heavenly crown, while the three vehicles saw the Buddha as the body of an old monk born in the royal palace, and we ordinary beings should therefore see the Buddha as a body formed of earth and wood. If not so, why would the Contemplation of Samantabhadra Sūtra state that merely by repenting the sins of the eyes one is able to see the Buddha? Thus we know that the Buddha is fundamentally one entity; whether true or an image, the difference truly lies in the perceiver. Furthermore, in the past someone carved wood to represent his mother; the mother's body was fundamentally wood, but when someone came to borrow something from the mother, whether giving or withholding, the wooden mother could also display joy or displeasure just like a real mother. When what is evoked by the filial intention of the worldly realm can still be like this, how much more so with our Buddha of immeasurable great vows and spiritual powers, who is directly the true, precious image—could he be inferior to a wooden mother? Moreover, past and present verifications of making images are manifold: some emit rays of light, some display auspicious responses, and some even produce relics from their bodies or remain undamaged by drowning in water or burning in fire—these are recorded in biographies and cannot be fully recounted. Thus the master of the images in our bodhimaṇḍa is the true physical body of the Tathāgata Amitābha, yet due to our obstructions we call it an image. Even if one directly calls it an image, one can also enter the previous contemplation on the image to see the true from the image; does this not reveal the wonder of the identical entity? A sūtra says: The Buddha's pure body pervades all places. It also says: All dharmas are none other than the Buddha-dharma. Why should this image alone not be the Buddha? Someone may ask: Leaving behind all marks is named Buddha. Even the Buddha's body is not [Buddha], so how much less could this image be identical with the Buddha? I reply: If regarding marks one says it is not the Buddha, why stop at the image? Leaving aside the Rocana saṃbhogakāya, it too would not be the Buddha. If all are not the Buddha, then all are the Buddha; what would not be the Buddha? If one understands this meaning, one will awaken to the fact that the revered image we now venerate is not separate from the ocean of vows, possesses great spiritual methods, is able to gather in and receive, and possesses all fearlessnesses, the eighteen unshared qualities, great kindness and great compassion, permanence, bliss, self, and purity, marks of excellence, and radiance, equal and without difference to the entire body of Amitābha. And as for my performing the practice of repentance before it, I should be like a beggar gaining access to an emperor, constantly cherishing shame and trembling, holding both awe and love, thirsting to be gathered in and received, hoping to seek liberation. Furthermore, having passed through difficult kalpas and now having encountered this, how could I treat it lightly, cause superior practice not to advance, and create obstacles for myself? Moreover, mindful that that Buddha pities me and deigns to manifest the image-body to receive my repentance, since he receives my repentance, then all grave sins will certainly be extinguished and I will surely be born in the Pure Land. Thereupon the mind attains joy; suddenly, as if the heavens opened and the earth cleared, one attains the Dharma eye, and that land of Sukhāvatī can be seen as if before one's eyes. Therefore know that the explanation of the unity of the true and the image is by no means not profoundly deep; students should exert their utmost sincerity and not make divergent interpretations.