翻譯名義集 7.142.4

7.142.4

」然其竪論，如《止觀》云：「若以四諦竪對諸土，有增有減。 同居有四，方便則三，實報則二，寂光但一。 」《輔行》釋曰：「竪約設教對機。 機既增減不同，致使教有差別。 四土對教，優劣多少，故名為竪。 」此則土相雖竪，教乃橫說。 故《淨名記》云：「然約橫論，同居具四。 餘三漸減，同居機雜。 遂設四教方便，但以大乘，訓令修學，理唯別圓。 蓋為稟三藏者，始生方便，未習通門，逗其為知故學。 遂談通教，以蕩執情，實報約行，證道同圓。 但約有餘，用教之時，教道化機，說別異圓。 具用二教，方生實報。 寂光上品，不須用教，但被中下，故有圓乘。 設教之相雖橫，就土自分成竪。 若約相即，同居橫具四土體相，與四教旨論其相當。 三藏談於生滅，乃與同居無常相當； 通教談乎幻化即空，乃與方便證真相當； 別教從事受名，乃與實報感果相當； 圓教談乎性德，乃與寂光理體相當。 橫辨四教，無復優劣，故名橫矣。 」四示有無相，妙宗云：「經論中言寂光無相，乃是已盡染礙之相，非如太虛空無一物，良由三惑究竟清淨，則依正色心究竟明顯。 故《大經》云：『因滅是色，獲得常色。 受想行識，亦復如是。 』《仁王》稱為法性五陰，亦是《法華》世間相常。 《大品》色香無非中道，是則名為究竟樂邦、究竟金寶、究竟華池、究竟瓊樹。 又復此就捨穢究盡，取淨窮源。 故苦域等，判屬三障，樂邦金寶，以為寂光。 若就淨穢平等而談，則以究竟苦域泥沙而為寂光。 此之二說，但順悉檀，無不圓極。 」又淨覺撰《雜編》云：「且常寂光者，實三德之妙性也。 離為三法，合成一性。 一尚無一，豈有苦樂華胎之相乎？ 當知無相之言，其語猶略。 具足須云：無相不相，所謂無生死相，不涅槃相。 強而名之稱曰實相。 」今議二師所論，與而言之。 若依說示分別，如《普賢觀》示寂光土，乃以四德釋三德法。 故祖師判寂光是理，餘三是事。 約此就說分別，淨覺乃合分別之義。 若約相即所依，理無所存，遍在於事。 故《維摩疏》「問：『別有寂光土邪？ 』答：『不然。 祇分段變易，即常寂光。 』」四明乃合相即之義，奪而言之，分別但解三土之外，別有寂光。 而迷寂光亦遍三土，遂執寂光空空然，誠不異乎太虛，故吾無取焉。 然淨覺《雜編》難四明云：「今問此依正色心，為體為用？ 若言體者，且《妙玄》明體用權實中云：『體即實相，無有差別。 用即立一切法，差降不同。 』妙樂指淨緣為一切法，豈非實體亦無淨相。 若言用者，則依正色心，正是下三土事，何得認為寂光之理邪？ 」今謂如《指要》云：「夫體用之名，本相即之義。 故凡言諸法即理者，全用即體，方可言即。 」《輔行》云：「即者，《爾雅》云合也。 若依此釋，仍似二物相合，其理猶疎。 今以義求，體不二故，故名為即。 」今謂全體之用，方名不二。 故釋迦之王娑婆，即毘盧之處常寂。 故《文句》云：「同居有餘自體，皆是妙色妙心果報之處。 」荊溪釋云：「寂光既遍，遮那亦遍。 」此皆事理相即之明文，云何撥事別求理邪？ 《雜編》又問：「他引《妙經疏》云：『常即常德，寂即樂德，光即我淨。 是為四德祕密之藏。 』妙樂云：『本有四德為所依，修德四德為能依。 能所並有能依之身，依於能所所依之土。 』二義齊等，方是毘盧遮那身土之相。 以此為證，寂光有相，不亦可乎？ 」答：「此人但聞身土之名，便作形相而解，而不知四德為是何物。 又云：『須了遮那本無身土，隨順世間。 』強指妙覺極智為身，如如法界之理為土。 若消妙樂之文，應云：本有四德者，理也； 修德四德者，智也。 能所並有能依之身，所依之土者，謂性德之理為所依，本覺之智為能依。 又修德之理為所依，始覺之智為能依。

" However, discussing them vertically, as the Zhiguan says: "If one correlates the four truths vertically with the various lands, there is increase and decrease. The [land of] common residence has four, [that of] expedients has three, [that of] true reward has two, and [that of] quiescent light has only one." The Fuxing explains, saying: "'Vertically' refers to establishing teachings in response to faculties. Since faculties differ in increase and decrease, this causes the teachings to differ. Correlating the four lands with the teachings involves superiority and inferiority, more and fewer; hence it is called 'vertical.'" Here, although the characteristics of the lands are vertical, the teachings are expounded horizontally. Thus the Jingming ji says: "Yet discussing them horizontally, common residence is endowed with four. The remaining three gradually decrease. The faculties in common residence are mixed. Hence four teachings are established. In [the land of] expedients, only through the Mahāyāna are they instructed to practice and study; the principles are only the distinct and the perfect. This is because those who receive the Tripiṭaka [teaching] and are newly born into [the land of] expedients have not yet practiced the shared gate; adapting to what they need to know, they study. Consequently, the shared teaching is spoken to wash away clinging attachments. In true reward, according to practice, the path of realization is identical to the perfect. But regarding [the land with] remainder, when teachings are employed, the pedagogical path transforms faculties, expounding the distinct as different from the perfect. Only by fully using these two teachings is one born into true reward. The superior grade of quiescent light does not require teachings; only to cover the middle and lower [grades] is there the perfect vehicle. Although the characteristics of establishing teachings are horizontal, with respect to the lands they naturally become vertical. If considered in terms of mutual identification, common residence horizontally contains the substance and characteristics of the four lands, corresponding to the purports of the four teachings. The Tripiṭaka speaks of arising and ceasing, which corresponds to the anitya of common residence; the shared teaching speaks of illusory transformations being empty, which corresponds to the realization of truth in expedients; the distinct teaching takes its name from phenomenal activities, which corresponds to the retribution received in true reward; the perfect teaching speaks of inherent virtue, which corresponds to the principle-substance of quiescent light. Distinguishing the four teachings horizontally, there is no longer superiority or inferiority; hence it is called horizontal." Fourth, clarifying having and lacking characteristics. Miaozong says: "When the sūtras and treatises say that quiescent light lacks characteristics, this means it has completely eliminated the characteristics of defiled obstruction, not that it is empty and devoid of a single thing like empty space. Truly, because the three delusions are thoroughly purified, physical forms and mental states, both circumstantial and direct [retribution], are thoroughly manifest. Therefore the Great Sūtra says: 'Because this form is extinguished, one attains permanent form. The same is also true of feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness.' The Benevolent Kings refers to them as the five skandhas of dharmatā; this is also the Lotus Sūtra's 'permanent worldly characteristics.' In the Large Prajñāpāramitā, forms and scents are all the Middle Way. This is called the ultimate land of joy, ultimate gold and jewels, ultimate flower ponds, and ultimate jeweled trees. Furthermore, this is discussed in terms of thoroughly relinquishing defilement and reaching the source of purity. Hence, the realm of suffering and so forth are judged to belong to the three obstructions, while the land of joy, gold, and jewels are taken as quiescent light. If discussed in terms of the equality of purity and defilement, then the ultimate realm of suffering, mud, and sand are taken as quiescent light. These two explanations merely accord with the siddhāntas, and both are completely perfect." Furthermore, Jingjue writes in the Zabiān: "Now, the eternally quiescent light is truly the wondrous nature of the three virtues. Dispersed, they form three dharmas; combined, they form one nature. One does not even exist as one—how could there be the characteristics of suffering, joy, or flower calyxes? One should know that the phrase 'lacking characteristics' is still an abbreviated expression. To be complete, one must say: neither having characteristics nor lacking characteristics, namely, having neither the characteristic of saṃsāra nor the characteristic of nirvāṇa. Forced to name it, one calls it the true characteristic." Now, to deliberate upon what these two masters discussed: speaking concesively, if one relies on the differentiation of exposition and indication, as when the Samantabhadra Contemplation indicates the land of quiescent light by explaining the dharma of the three virtues through the four virtues, the ancestral master therefore judged that quiescent light is principle, while the remaining three are phenomena. Regarding this in terms of the differentiation of exposition, Jingjue conforms to the meaning of differentiation. If one considers it in terms of the basis of mutual identification, principle has nowhere to abide and is omnipresent in phenomena. Therefore, the Vimalakīrti Commentary says: "Question: 'Is there a separate land of quiescent light?' Answer: 'Not so. The very [realms of] portioned and mortal life and of transformation are the eternally quiescent light.'" Siming conforms to the meaning of mutual identification. Speaking critically, differentiation only understands that outside the three lands there is separately quiescent light, and is confused about quiescent light being also omnipresent in the three lands; consequently, clinging to quiescent light as utterly empty, truly no different from empty space, we do not accept it. However, Jingjue's Zabiān challenges Siming, saying: "Now I ask: are these physical forms and mental states, both circumstantial and direct, the substance or the function? If you say substance, the Miaoxuan, in explaining substance, function, provisional, and ultimate, says: 'Substance is the true characteristic, without distinction. Function establishes all dharmas, which vary in hierarchy.' Miaole designates pure conditions as all dharmas; does not the true substance also lack the characteristic of purity? If you say function, then physical forms and mental states, circumstantial and direct, are precisely the phenomena of the lower three lands; how can they be considered the principle of quiescent light?" We now reply: As the Zhiyao says, "The names substance and function are fundamentally the meaning of mutual identification. Therefore, whenever it is said that all dharmas are principle, only when the entire function is the substance can one speak of identification." The Fuxing says: "Regarding identification (ji), the Erya says it means 'to join.' If one relies on this explanation, it still resembles two things joining together, and its principle is still loose. Now, seeking it by principle, because the substance is non-dual, it is called 'identification.'" We now say that only the function of the entire substance is called non-dual. Hence, Śākyamuni's ruling the Sahā world is precisely Vairocana's residing in eternal quiescence. Therefore, the Wenju says: "The self-substance of common residence and [the land with] remainder are all places of the retribution of wondrous forms and wondrous minds." Jingxi explains, saying: "Since quiescent light is omnipresent, Vairocana is also omnipresent." These are all clear texts on the mutual identification of phenomena and principle; why brush aside phenomena to seek principle separately? The Zabiān asks again: "Others cite the Miaojing shu as saying: 'Permanence is the virtue of permanence; quiescence is the virtue of bliss; light is self and purity. This is the secret treasury of the four virtues.' Miaole says: 'The inherently existing four virtues are that which is relied upon; the four virtues of cultivated virtue are that which relies. Both that which relies and that which is relied upon have the body that relies, which relies on the land that is relied upon by both that which relies and that which is relied upon.' Only when the two meanings are equal are they the characteristics of Vairocana's body and land. Using this as proof that quiescent light has characteristics, is it not permissible?" Answer: "This person merely hears the names 'body' and 'land' and immediately understands them as physical forms, not knowing what things the four virtues are. It also says: 'One must comprehend that Vairocana fundamentally has no body or land, but complies with the world.' One arbitrarily designates the ultimate wisdom of wondrous enlightenment as the body, and the principle of the tathatā-dharmadhātu as the land. If one analyzes Miaole's text, one should say: the inherently existing four virtues are principle; the four virtues of cultivated virtue are wisdom. That both that which relies and that which is relied upon have the relying body and the relied-upon land means that the principle of inherent virtue is that which is relied upon, and the wisdom of original enlightenment is that which relies. Furthermore, the principle of cultivated virtue is that which is relied upon, and the wisdom of initial enlightenment is that which relies."