西方合論 4.12

4.12

六、圓極教者，慈恩《通贊》曰：「此方先德，總判經論有四宗：一、立性宗；二、破性宗；三、破相宗；四、顯實宗。《涅槃》、《法華》、《華嚴》等，是顯于真實中道義，捨化城而歸寶所，故知《彌陀經》乃第四宗也。又以教准宗，宗有其八：一、我法俱有宗；二、有法無我宗；三、法無去來宗；四、現通假實宗；五、俗妄真實宗；六、諸法但名宗；七、勝義皆空宗；八、應理圓實宗。如《華嚴》及《彌陀經》是第八宗收。」又若真歇了禪師等，以帝網千珠，發明淨土圓融之義，諸書具載。近有老宿，以《華嚴》配此經，謂圓全攝此，此分攝圓，得圓少分，分屬圓故。據經判義，甚有旨趣。但圓極義者，無全無分，如月在川，川川皆有全月，乃至瓶池寸水，亦是全月，無分月故；如風在樹，樹樹皆有全風，乃至片葉莖草，亦是全風，無分風故。若圓中有分者，圓即有段；若分中非全者，圓即不遍，分全雙乖，圓義不成。

Sixth, the teaching of ultimate perfection. The Ci'en Tongzan states: 'The ancient worthies of this land comprehensively classified the scriptures and treatises into four traditions: first, the tradition that posits essence; second, the tradition that refutes essence; third, the tradition that refutes characteristics; and fourth, the tradition that reveals the real. The Nirvāṇa[-sūtra], the Lotus [Sūtra], the Avataṃsaka[-sūtra], and so forth reveal the meaning of the real Middle Way, abandoning the conjured city to return to the jewel-place; hence we know that the Amitābha-sūtra belongs to the fourth tradition. Furthermore, matching schools according to teachings, there are eight schools: first, the school of both self and phenomena existing; second, the school of phenomena existing but no self; third, the school of phenomena having neither past nor future; fourth, the school of the present containing both conventional and real; fifth, the school of conventional falsity and ultimate reality; sixth, the school of all phenomena being merely nominal; seventh, the school of the ultimate truth being entirely empty; and eighth, the school of the perfectly real according with principle. The Avataṃsaka and the Amitābha-sūtra are subsumed under this eighth school.' Furthermore, Chan Master Zhenxie Qingliao and others took Indra's net with its thousands of pearls to elucidate the meaning of the perfect interfusion of the Pure Land, as is fully recorded in various texts. Recently, a senior venerable matched the Avataṃsaka with this sūtra, stating that the perfect [teaching] entirely encompasses this [sūtra], whereas this [sūtra] partially encompasses the perfect, obtaining only a minor part of the perfect, because parts belong to the perfect. Judged according to the sūtras, this meaning has great import. However, in the meaning of ultimate perfection, there is neither whole nor part. It is like the moon over rivers: every river has the whole moon, down to the inch of water in a vase or pond, which is also the whole moon, for there is no partial moon. It is like the wind in the trees: every tree has the whole wind, down to a single leaf or stalk of grass, which is also the whole wind, for there is no partial wind. If there were parts within the perfect, then the perfect would have divisions; if within the parts it were not the whole, then the perfect would not be omnipresent. For both part and whole to be contradicted would cause the meaning of perfection to fail.