翻譯名義集 5.115

5.115

原夫通號意生者，意謂作意，此顯同居之修因。生謂受生，此彰方便之感果。故曰：安樂作空意，三昧作假意，自性作中意。又意者，如意。故魏譯《入楞伽經》云：「隨意速去，如念即至，無有障礙，名如意身。」又意者，意憶。故唐譯《大乘入楞伽經》（文有七卷），佛告大慧：「意生身者，譬如意去，速疾無礙，名意生身。」此即從譬號意生身。彼經兩義，釋此通名，初云：「大慧！譬如心意，於無量百千由旬之外，憶先所見種種諸物，念念相續疾詣於彼，非是其身及山河石壁所能為礙。意生身者，亦復如是。」次云：「如幻三昧力，神通自在，諸相莊嚴，憶本成就眾生願故。猶如意去，生於一切諸聖眾中。」《輔行》釋云：「初云憶處，次云憶願。二義並是意憶生故，名為意生。」然此通名，先達釋云：「生方便已，憶先同居所見凡境，智願熏修，作意來生，神通化物。」今謂此解，違文失旨。且違文者，《淨名疏》云：「三種意生身所不能斷，故生有餘，受法性身。」是則祖師釋名，從下以生上；先達解義，自上而來下，顛倒談之，違於文矣。其失旨者，經中憶先所見，本是喻文，先賢迷之，而作法解。故知舊釋，未善通名也。然智者疏，稱意生身，以依宋譯《楞伽》故（《楞伽阿跋多羅寶經》，文有四卷）。荊溪記中，名意成身，以準唐譯《楞伽》故。雖二經名殊，而義歸一揆。以後譯經，取成就義，號意成身。故記主云：「成之與生，並從果說。」是則意之一字，乃順於因；生之一字，則從於果。故知此名，因果雙立也。次辯別名者，初《法華玄》云：「一、安樂法意生身。此欲擬二乘人，入涅槃安樂意也。二、三昧意生身。此擬通教出假化物，用神通三昧也。三、自性意生身。此擬別教修中道自性意也。」今釋曰：初名安樂者，以舊經云：「安住心海，識浪不生。」故智者立為安樂法也。此乃用經義以立名。二名三昧意生身者，以舊經云：「得如幻三昧，無量相力，具足莊嚴，隨入佛剎。」故智者立為三昧意生也。然則今宗三諦，俱受三昧之名。此文既以神通而釋，則當俗諦三昧。如《釋籤》云：「若於諸知識所，但得俗諦三昧，但破無知，名為無明。」今此三昧，與彼文同。三曰自性者，以舊經云：「覺一切佛法緣，自得樂相。」故智者立為自性意生。以別教中道，是諸法之自性故。《淨名記》云：「若不見中，則不見於諸法自性。」然此玄義，不用被接解釋。唯約前之三教以伸者，斯則順乎教旨也。良以作意之名，從偏教立，由無照性之功，遂有別修之行，所以圓教無此意耳。《輔行》云：「《玄》文不云攝入三者，以觀勝故，且置不論。又意生之名，宜在教道。」二、《淨名疏》云：「一、三昧正受意生身，恐是通教，同入真空寂定之樂。故《涅槃》云：『聲聞定力多故，不見佛性。』二、覺法性意生身，恐是別教。菩薩雖證偏真，而覺知有中道法性。三、無作意生身，此恐是圓教。菩薩觀於中道，無作四諦，圓伏無明。」今釋曰：初名三昧，吾祖既以真空寂定而釋，此則屬乎真諦三昧。以此之定，心寂不動，故名正受。位次言之，如記主云：「若約通教，七地已上，或至九地。此之初名，全依經立（經如下引）。」二名覺法性者，覺謂覺知，法性乃是但中之理。以位言之，如《記》文曰：「言自性者，別住同通應取十行。此之一名，亦依經立。」三名無作者，圓中稱性，修德行亡，故云無作。以位言之，如《記》主云：「圓教既云伏於無明，即知七信也。」然茲疏文，若約正接甄明。此用通教一正，以釋初名，復以別圓兩接，銷後二義。若望《玄》文，前則無於三藏，後乃加乎圓教。而此文中前無三藏者，乃順教旨。以界外之土，小乘未詮，故談意生，不用三藏。後加圓者，此順位義，以由別圓似解，未發真修，皆名作意。然《淨名疏》明意生身，雖指《勝鬘》，及乎釋義，全用《楞伽》。當知《勝鬘》，但有通名，無別號矣。三、《輔行記》云：「一、入三昧樂意成身，亦云正受，即三四五地，心寂不動故。二、覺法自性意成身，即八地中，普入佛剎故，以法為自性。三、種類俱生無作意成身，謂了佛證法。」今釋曰：初之一名，既指通教三地已去，與前二文名義大同。如唐譯經云：「三四五地，入於三昧，離種種心，寂然不動，心海不起轉識浪波，了境心現皆無所有，是名入三昧樂意成身（宋譯、魏譯，則名三昧樂正受意生身）。」二、名覺法自性意成身者，與《妙玄》第二名異義同。然《記》文中，既指八地入假，乃以覺了如幻之法，通達自在，名為覺法自性。故唐譯經云：「謂八地中，了法如幻，皆無有相。心轉所依，住如幻定，及餘三昧，能現無量自在神通。如華開敷，速疾如意，如幻如夢，如影如像，非造所造，與造相似。一切色相，具足莊嚴，普入佛剎，了諸法性，是名覺法自性意成身（宋譯名覺法自性性意生身，魏譯名如實覺知諸法相意生身）。」三、名種類俱生無作行意成身者，種以能生為義，類從流類立名。中道之觀，能生佛界故。此因位與果為類，故曰種類俱生也（經中亦名聖種類身）。言無作者，別十回向，了佛證法，故名無作。故唐譯經云：「了達諸法自證法相，是名種類俱生無作行意成身（宋魏二譯，此名皆同）。」然第三名雖三文立名俱異，而同對中觀，復與《淨名》第二之名義亦同矣。然荊溪師自斷《記》文則云：「此約通教，及以別接，竪判次位。」故知《輔行》用通一正，及別接也。問曰：「凡作《記》者，本扶於疏。何緣此《記》釋意生身，但用通教，竪論位次，有異智者二疏之義？」答曰：「準《記》示云，故知今判，與經意同，經文未攝，別位為異。是知荊溪異智者者，為順本經故。」問曰：「準經判位，既唯在通，何緣智者用四教釋耶？」答曰：「祇由意生之義，該乎九人（藏教二乘，通教三乘，別三十心，圓十信位）。所以吾祖就義釋之，適時有異。」問曰：「天台頓悟，法相朗然，《淨名疏》內，焉稱恐是？《法華玄》中，安言欲擬乎？」答曰：「《淨名記》云皆言恐者，尊重聖典，兼示無執。三重階降，經文義含，為是何教，所以立名既通，解義難局，或以偏圓而釋，或約正接而伸，不固執之，乃云欲擬。」問曰：「小教不談界外，二乘但謂無生，何嘗要心生方便耶？」答曰：「法性之土，雖昔未聞；變易之身，在後當受。何者？期心趣果，秉志修因。欲出煩惱之方，願入涅槃之境。未亡取捨，還有死生。如是之懷，寧逃作意歟？人不曉之，却云約大乘判，謬之甚矣。」問曰：「是時過意地，住在智業中。是則《大論》，明於實報，既是智生，何故《淨名》，定於十地，猶通意生耶？」答曰：「《淨名記》云：『一者但是未極名意，二帶教道挫之言意。』」問曰：「《寶性論》云：『二乘於無漏界，生三種意陰。』未審意生意陰，同異云何？」答曰：「《釋籤》解云：『二乘在彼三中之一。今通言之，故云三種，非謂二乘盡具三也。言意陰者，由意生陰，名為意陰。又作意生陰，名為意陰。又意即是陰，名為意陰。前之兩釋，從因得名，後之一釋，從果立號。』荊溪既云二乘在彼三中之一，此乃當於安樂法意。是則經與論文，名雖小異，義實大同。」昔因講次，聊述梗概，今附此集，刊助來哲。

In tracing the general designation "mind-made body" (manomayakāya), "mind" (manas) means intentional reflection (cetanā/manaskāra); this reveals the cultivating cause belonging to the [Land of] Common Abode. "Made" (or "born", samutpanna) means receiving birth; this manifests the resultant retribution in the [Land of] Expedient Means. Thus it is said: in bliss one takes the intent of emptiness; in samādhi one takes the intent of the provisional; in self-nature one takes the intent of the middle. Furthermore, "mind" means "according to wish" (rddhi). Hence the Wei translation of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra states: "Going swiftly according to wish, arriving instantly as thought occurs, without any obstacle, it is named the body according to wish (rddhimayakāya)." Furthermore, "mind" means mental recollection. Hence the Tang translation of the Mahāyāna-laṅkāvatāra-sūtra (in seven fascicles) says: The Buddha told Mahāmati, "A mind-made body is, by way of analogy, like the movement of the mind, swift and unimpeded; thus it is named 'mind-made body.'" This derives the designation of "mind-made body" from an analogy. That sūtra explains this general name through two meanings. First it says: "Mahāmati! It is, for example, like the mind recollecting various things previously seen hundreds of thousands of yojanas away; thought succeeding thought, it arrives there swiftly, without its body or mountains, rivers, rocks, and walls being able to obstruct it. The mind-made body is likewise." Next it says: "Through the power of the illusion-like samādhi, supernatural transformations are sovereign, all marks are adorned, and because one recollects the original vows to accomplish [the liberation of] sentient beings, just as the mind moves, one is born among all assemblies of noble ones." The Fuxing explains: "The first refers to recollecting places; the second refers to recollecting vows. As both meanings are birth through mental recollection, it is called 'mind-made.'" However, regarding this general name, earlier masters explained: "Having been born in the [Land of] Expedient Means, one recollects the mundane realm previously seen in the Common Abode, perfumed and cultivated by wisdom and vows, and consciously comes to be born, transforming beings through supernatural powers." I now say that this explanation contradicts the text and misses its purport. As for contradicting the text, the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa states: "Because the three kinds of mind-made bodies cannot be severed, one is born in the [Land with] Residue, receiving a dharmatā-body." Thus the ancestral master explained the name from the lower giving rise to the higher; earlier masters understood the meaning from the higher descending to the lower. Discussing it inverted in this way contradicts the text. As for missing its purport, in the sūtra recollecting what was previously seen was originally an analogical passage; earlier worthies were confused by it and took it as a doctrine. Therefore we know that the old explanation was not good at [clarifying] the general name. Now, Zhiyi's commentary refers to it as the "mind-made body" because it relies on the Song translation of the Laṅkāvatāra (the Laṅkāvatāra-ratna-sūtra in four fascicles). In the notes by Jingxi [Zhanran], it is named the "mind-produced body" because it conforms to the Tang translation of the Laṅkāvatāra. Although the names in the two sūtras differ, their meaning comes down to the same principle. Because later translations of the sūtra took the sense of "accomplishment" (siddhi), it was called "mind-produced body." Hence the author of the notes says: "Both 'produced' and 'made' are stated from the perspective of the effect." In that case, the character "mind" accords with the cause, while the character "born/produced" follows the effect. Thus we know that this name establishes both cause and effect. Next, regarding distinguishing the specific names: first, the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra states: "First, the mind-made body of the dharma of bliss. This is intended to approximate the two vehicles' intent of entering the bliss of nirvāṇa. Second, the mind-made body of samādhi. This approximates the shared teaching's stepping into the provisional to transform beings by means of supernatural samādhis. Third, the mind-made body of self-nature. This approximates the distinct teaching's intent of cultivating the self-nature of the middle way." Now I explain: the first is named "bliss" because the older sūtra states: "Abiding peacefully in the ocean of mind, the waves of consciousness do not arise"; therefore Zhiyi established it as the dharma of bliss. This is using the meaning of the sūtra to establish the name. The second is named the "mind-made body of samādhi" because the older sūtra states: "Attaining the illusion-like samādhi, endowed with the power of immeasurable marks and complete adornments, one enters buddha-lands accordingly"; therefore Zhiyi established it as the mind-made [body] of samādhi. Yet in our school all three truths receive the name of samādhi; since this passage explains it in terms of supernatural powers, it corresponds to the samādhi of the conventional truth. As the Shiqian states: "If in the presence of good spiritual friends one obtains only the samādhi of the conventional truth, merely breaking ignorance (ajñāna), this is called avidyā." This samādhi here is the same as in that passage. The third is called "self-nature" because the older sūtra states: "Awakening to the conditions of all buddha-dharmas, one spontaneously attains the marks of joy"; therefore Zhiyi established it as the mind-made [body] of self-nature, because the middle way of the distinct teaching is the self-nature of all dharmas. The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa states: "If one does not see the middle, one does not see the self-nature of all dharmas." However, this Profound Meaning does not employ the explanation of being "receptive to guidance" (jie). It is expounded solely in terms of the former three teachings, which accords with the doctrinal purport. Truly, because the name of "intentional reflection" is established from the biased teachings, owing to lacking the efficacy of illuminating nature, there are practices of distinct cultivation; therefore the perfect teaching has no such intent. The Fuxing states: "The text of the Profound Meaning does not speak of subsuming into the three because its contemplation is superior, so it is set aside for now and not discussed. Moreover, the name 'mind-made' is properly located in the instructional path." Second, the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa states: "First, the mind-made body of the correct reception of samādhi; this is likely the shared teaching, together entering the joy of the quiescent concentration of true emptiness. Thus the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'Because the śrāvakas' power of concentration is excessive, they do not see the buddha-nature.' Second, the mind-made body of awakening to dharmatā; this is likely the distinct teaching. Although the bodhisattva realizes biased truth, he awakens to and knows there is the dharmatā of the middle way. Third, the non-active mind-made body; this is likely the perfect teaching. The bodhisattva contemplates the four noble truths of non-action in the middle way, perfectly subduing avidyā." Now I explain: the first is named samādhi; since our ancestral master explained it in terms of the quiescent concentration of true emptiness, this belongs to the samādhi of the ultimate truth. Because in this concentration the mind is quiescent and unmoving, it is called "correct reception" (samāpatti). In terms of stage sequence, as the author of the notes states: "If in terms of the shared teaching, it is above the seventh stage, or up to the ninth stage. This first name is entirely established in accordance with the sūtra (the sūtra is quoted below)." The second is named "awakening to dharmatā"; "awakening" means understanding, and "dharmatā" is the principle of the exclusive middle. In terms of stages, as the text of the Notes states: "Speaking of self-nature, the distinct abodes correspond to the shared, and should encompass the ten practices. This single name is also established in accordance with the sūtra." The third is named "non-active"; the middle of the perfect [teaching] accords with the nature, where the marks of cultivated virtue vanish; hence it is called "non-active." In terms of stages, as the author of the notes states: "Since the perfect teaching speaks of subduing avidyā, one knows it means the seven faiths." Now, regarding this commentary text, if analyzed in terms of primary teachings and receptive guidance: this uses the single primary of the shared teaching to explain the first name, and furthermore uses the two receptive guidances of the distinct and perfect to resolve the latter two meanings. Looking at the text of the Profound Meaning, initially it lacks the Tripiṭaka [teaching], and at the end it adds the perfect teaching. That this text initially lacks the Tripiṭaka accords with the doctrinal purport. Because the lands beyond the realms are not expounded in the small vehicle, discussing mind-made [bodies] does not employ the Tripiṭaka. Adding the perfect at the end conforms to the meaning of the stages, because through the similitude understanding of the distinct and perfect, where true cultivation has not yet arisen, all are called "intentional reflection." However, though the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa clarifies the mind-made body by citing the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra, when it comes to explaining the meaning, it entirely uses the Laṅkāvatāra. One should know that the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra has only the general name, not specific designations. Third, the Fuxing-ji states: "First, the mind-produced body of entering the joy of samādhi, also called correct reception; that is, the third, fourth, and fifth stages, because the mind is quiescent and unmoving. Second, the mind-produced body of awakening to the self-nature of dharmas; that is, in the eighth stage, because one enters buddha-lands universally, taking dharmas as self-nature. Third, the non-active mind-produced body of kinds arising together, meaning comprehending the dharmas realized by the Buddha." Now I explain: since the first name refers to the third stage and beyond of the shared teaching, its name and meaning are largely the same as the former two texts. As the Tang translation of the sūtra states: "In the third, fourth, and fifth stages, entering into samādhi, free from various thoughts, quiescent and unmoving, the waves of the evolving consciousnesses do not arise in the ocean of mind, and one understands that the objects appearing to the mind are all non-existent; this is named the mind-produced body of entering the joy of samādhi (the Song and Wei translations name it the mind-made body of the correct reception of the joy of samādhi)." Second, the name "mind-produced body of awakening to the self-nature of dharmas" has a different name but the same meaning as the second in the Miaoxuan. In the text of the Notes, since it refers to entering the provisional in the eighth stage, it takes awakening to and comprehending illusion-like dharmas, unimpeded and sovereign, as awakening to the self-nature of dharmas. Hence the Tang translation of the sūtra states: "Namely, in the eighth stage, one understands that dharmas are like illusions, entirely without marks. Relying on the transformation of mind, abiding in illusion-like concentration and other samādhis, one is capable of manifesting immeasurable, sovereign supernatural powers. Like a blossoming flower, swift and according to wish, like an illusion, like a dream, like a shadow, like an image, neither created nor what is created, yet resembling what is created. Fully adorned with all physical forms, universally entering buddha-lands, understanding the nature of all dharmas; this is named the mind-produced body of awakening to the self-nature of dharmas (the Song translation names it the mind-made body of awakening to the nature of the self-nature of dharmas; the Wei translation names it the mind-made body of truly awakening to the marks of all dharmas)." Third, regarding the name "mind-produced body of non-active practice of kinds arising together": "kinds" (bīja/species) takes capable of producing as its meaning; "classes" (samāna) establishes its name from streams of category. Because contemplation of the middle way is capable of producing the buddha-realm, this causal stage belongs to the same category as the effect; hence it is called "kinds arising together" (in the sūtra it is also named the noble-class body). As for "non-active," in the distinct ten dedications one comprehends the dharmas realized by the Buddha, hence it is called "non-active." Thus the Tang translation of the sūtra states: "Comprehending the self-realized dharma-marks of all dharmas, this is named the mind-produced body of non-active practice of kinds arising together (both the Song and Wei translations are identical with this name)." However, although the third name is established differently across the three texts, they equally correspond to the contemplation of the middle, and its meaning is also identical with the second name in the Vimalakīrti. Yet Master Jingxi himself, determining the text of the Notes, said: "This vertically judges the stages in terms of the shared teaching and the distinct receptive guidance." Therefore we know that the Fuxing uses the single primary of the shared, and the distinct receptive guidance. Question: "Generally, those who write subcommentaries originally support the commentary. For what reason does this subcommentary, in explaining the mind-made body, only use the shared teaching to vertically discuss the stages, differing from the meaning of Zhiyi's two commentaries?" Answer: "According to what the Notes indicate, we therefore know that the present judgment agrees with the sūtra's intent; that the sūtra text does not subsume the distinct stages is where it differs. Thus we know that Jingxi's difference from Zhiyi was in order to accord with the root sūtra." Question: "If, according to the sūtra's determination of stages, it lies solely in the shared, for what reason did Zhiyi explain it using the four teachings?" Answer: "Simply because the meaning of 'mind-made' covers nine kinds of persons (the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka teaching, the three vehicles of the shared teaching, the thirty minds of the distinct teaching, and the ten faiths of the perfect teaching). Therefore our ancestral master explained it in accordance with the meaning, varying according to the occasion." Question: "The Tiantai's sudden awakening rendered the characteristics of dharmas completely luminous; within the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, why does he say 'likely' (kongshi)? In the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra, why does he say 'intended to approximate' (yuni)?" Answer: "The Notes on the Vimalakīrti states that all speaking of 'likely' is out of reverence for the sacred scriptures and to show non-attachment. The three levels are implicitly contained in the sūtra text, [yet without specifying] which teaching it belongs to; therefore, since the names established are general, their interpretive meaning is difficult to restrict. Whether explaining by the biased and perfect, or expounding in terms of primary teachings and receptive guidance, not clinging stubbornly to them, he therefore says 'intended to approximate.'" Question: "The lesser teaching does not discuss beyond the realms, and the two vehicles speak only of non-arising; when did they ever intentionally desire to be born in [the Land of] Expedient Means?" Answer: "Although the land of dharmatā was not heard of in the past, the body of transformation must be received subsequently. Why? Aspiring with one's mind to head toward the result, holding to the resolve to cultivate the cause. Desiring to leave the quarter of afflictions, vowing to enter the realm of nirvāṇa. Not having eliminated taking and discarding, there is still death and birth. Can such a state of mind escape intentional reflection? People do not understand this, and instead say it is determined in terms of the Mahāyāna, which is a great error." Question: "'At that time, passing beyond the level of mind, one abides in the activity of wisdom.' Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra clarifies that the [Land of] True Retribution is born of wisdom; why then does the Vimalakīrti determine that up to the tenth stage it still allows for 'mind-made'?" Answer: "The Notes on the Vimalakīrti states: 'First, it is merely that not having reached the ultimate is called mind; second, bringing along the instructional path to humble it, it is spoken of as mind.'" Question: "The Ratnagotravibhāga states: 'The two vehicles generate three kinds of mind-skandhas in the undefiled realm.' I do not yet know how the mind-made [body] and the mind-skandhas are the same or different?" Answer: "The Shiqian explains: 'The two vehicles are one among those three. Now speaking generally, it says three kinds; it does not mean that the two vehicles possess all three completely. Speaking of mind-skandhas: because the skandhas are born of mind, they are named mind-skandhas; again, intentional reflection generating skandhas is named mind-skandhas; again, mind itself is the skandhas, named mind-skandhas. The former two explanations derive their name from the cause, while the latter explanation establishes its title from the effect.' Since Jingxi says that the two vehicles are one among those three, this corresponds to the intent of the dharma of bliss. Therefore, although the names in the sūtras and treatises differ slightly, their meanings are truly largely the same." In the past, during the course of lecturing, I briefly related the main outline; now appending it to this collection, I print it to assist future scholars.