翻譯名義集 7.142.5

7.142.5

修性雖殊，詎存萬有之境； 始本雖二，寧留五陰之形。 故《維摩疏》云：『法身即土，離身無土，離土無身。 』今謂此釋，凡有二非：一能所不辨，妙樂因釋下方空中菩薩，遂以菩薩之身，以表能依之修德； 以虛空土，以表所依之性德。 安得唯釋所表修性，全棄能表身土乎？ 二修性不即，他以性德之理為所依，本覺之智為能依，修德之理為所依，始覺之智為能依。 修德之理為所依，始覺之智為能依。 今謂本覺望修，俱屬乎性，修理望性，俱屬於修。 依其所解，則成以性泯性，以修會修，非修性之不二焉。 當云全性起修，故所依之土，即能依之身，寂光是應身。 全修在性，故能依之身，即所依之土，應身是寂光。 方顯身土之齊等，乃見事理之無別矣。 又云：『若謂寂光無相，便同偏真，猶如太虛』者。 斯由不知大小二理，智非智別也。 如《維摩疏》云：『大乘法性，即是真寂智性，不同二乘偏真之理。 』今問：寂光法身，既俱無相，真寂智性，為依何法？ 既彰智性之無依，顯非卓識之明鑒也。 《雜編》又云：『若據三身相即，四土互具，必須身身即三，土土具四。 若然者，法身寂土，豈得無相耶？ 』通曰：今為子論四土互具之義，若約事理相對論互具者，寂具三土，乃全體起用，無相而相也。 三土具寂，乃全用是體，相即無相也。 今問：全用是體，可得無相； 全體起用，應云有相。 那得一概言無相耶？ 《雜編》又云：『問：「若三相不可混同者，何故荊溪難云：一一塵剎一切剎耶？ 」答：「此指剎性遍收，故云一切。 如《金錍》即狹遍義。 狹何以遍？ 狹即性故。 又如芥容須彌。 芥何以容？ 芥亦性故。 」』此文但見事即是理，不見理即是事。 理不即事，安得芥納須彌，無傷樹木，毛吞巨海，不撓龍魚乎？ 《雜編》又云：『若無依正之相，斯則理無所具，事無所存。 豈可法身便同灰滅？ 答：「小乘無相，猶如太虛，無生法之理。 大乘無相，譬若明鏡，具現像之性。 像由形對，鏡匪自殊。 無謂鏡具像性，便云性已差別。 」』今謂，若言但具於性，不具於相，《觀音玄義》安云：『千種性相，冥伏在心。 』又《不二門》云：『理即名字觀行，已有依正不二之相。 』嗚呼！ 霅川雖留意於山家，但解修性之相依，未達事理之融即。 違法示徒，後嗣絕矣！ 」六對身，《淨名疏》云：「前二是應，即應佛所居。 良以王宮誕質，鶴樹潛神，現生滅相，說三藏法。 化同居土，名劣應身。 洎有餘國，現法性身。 機興應興，機息應息。 斯異娑婆，通佛灰斷，既非果報，但名勝應。 第三亦報亦應，即報佛所居。 以他受用，稱實感報，赴於地住菩薩大機，故彼土佛，亦名應也。 後一但是真淨，非應非報，法身所居。 」此約土體，橫對四佛。 若竪論土，凡聖同居，具現四身，方便唯勝，故無劣應。 其實報土，無二乘人，唯別圓佛，寂光無機，獨妙法身。 七解惑者，或曰，《維摩經》云：「欲得淨土，當淨其心； 隨其心淨，即佛土淨。 」心如形聲，土如影響，祇須自淨其心，何假別求淨土？ 答：「初言心淨，應辨理事。 一者性淨，二者事淨。 且性淨者，《大集經》云：『一切眾生，心性本淨。 心本淨故，煩惱諸結，不能染著，猶如虛空。 』此則眾生國土，同一法性，地獄天宮，俱為淨土。 二事淨者，性雖本淨，心乃忽迷。 一念不覺，二障久翳，當修三觀，以破三惑。 故《仁王》曰：『三賢十聖住果報，唯佛一人居淨土。 』登妙覺果，方究竟淨。 最下凡夫，慎勿叨濫。 次云土淨，須曉難易。 《婆沙論》云：『於此世界，修道有二：一者難行，在於五濁惡世，於無量佛時，求阿鞞跋致，甚難可得。 此難，無數塵沙，說不可盡（《十疑論》明五種難事）。

Though cultivation and nature are distinct, how could the realm of the myriad existences persist? Though initial and original [enlightenment] are two, how could the bodily forms of the five skandhas remain? Hence the *Commentary on the Vimalakīrti* states: 'The dharmakāya is itself the land; apart from the body there is no land, and apart from the land there is no body.' Now I say that this explanation contains two errors: First, failing to distinguish between the supported and the supporting. In explaining the bodhisattvas in the sky below, Miaole took the bodies of the bodhisattvas to represent the cultivated virtue that is the supporting [entity], and took the empty-space land to represent the inherent virtue that is the supported [basis]. How could one only explain the cultivated and inherent virtues being represented, while entirely discarding the bodies and lands that serve as the representations? Second, the non-identity of cultivation and nature. He takes the principle of inherent virtue as the supported, the wisdom of original enlightenment as the supporting, the principle of cultivated virtue as the supported, and the wisdom of initial enlightenment as the supporting. (The principle of cultivated virtue is the supported, and the wisdom of initial enlightenment is the supporting.) Now I say that compared to cultivation, original enlightenment entirely belongs to nature; while the principle of cultivation compared to nature entirely belongs to cultivation. According to his interpretation, this would result in obliterating nature by means of nature and conjoining cultivation by means of cultivation, which is not the non-duality of cultivation and nature. One should say that cultivation arises entirely from nature, and therefore the supported land is itself the supporting body, and Quiescent Light is the nirmāṇakāya. Cultivation resides entirely within nature, and therefore the supporting body is itself the supported land, and the nirmāṇakāya is Quiescent Light. Only then is the equality of body and land revealed, and only then is the non-differentiation of phenomena and principle perceived. Furthermore, it says: 'If one asserts that Quiescent Light is without form, it would then be identical with the biased real, just like empty space.' This is because he does not understand the difference between the two principles of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, or between wisdom and non-wisdom. As the *Commentary on the Vimalakīrti* states: 'The dharmatā of the Mahāyāna is the nature of wisdom that is truly quiescent; it is not like the principle of the biased real of the two vehicles.' Now I ask: If the dharmakāya of Quiescent Light are both formless, what phenomenon does the nature of wisdom that is truly quiescent rely upon? Since it is manifest that the nature of wisdom has no reliance, it is evident that this is not the luminous discernment of profound insight. The *Zabian* further says: 'If we proceed according to the mutual identity of the three bodies and the mutual inherence of the four lands, every single body must be identical to all three, and every single land must contain all four. If that is so, how could the land of the quiescent dharmakāya be without form?' The reply states: 'I now explain to you the meaning of the mutual inherence of the four lands. If we discuss mutual inherence in terms of the contrast between phenomena and principle: Quiescent Light possessing the three lands is the entire substance giving rise to function—formless yet with form. The three lands possessing Quiescent Light is the entire function being substance—form identical to formlessness.' Now I ask: If the entire function is substance, it may be formless; but if the entire substance gives rise to function, one should say it has form. How can one universally claim that it is formless? The *Zabian* further says: 'Question: "If the three forms cannot be conflated, why did Jingxi raise the objection: 'Each single dust-mote land is all lands'?' Answer: 'This refers to the nature of lands encompassing all, and therefore it says 'all'. As in the *Jinbi*, this is the meaning of narrowness being identical to omnipresence. Why is the narrow omnipresent? Because the narrow is itself nature. It is also like a mustard seed containing Mount Sumeru. Why does the mustard seed contain it? Because the mustard seed is also nature."' This passage only sees that phenomena are principle; it does not see that principle is phenomena. If principle were not phenomena, how could a mustard seed contain Mount Sumeru without damaging the trees, or a hair swallow the great ocean without disturbing the dragons and fish? The *Zabian* further says: 'If there are no forms of supporting [environment] and supported [inhabitant], then principle would contain nothing and phenomena would have nowhere to abide. How could the dharmakāya then be reduced to extinction like ashes? Answer: "The formlessness of the Hīnayāna is like empty space, which lacks the principle of generating phenomena. The formlessness of the Mahāyāna is like a bright mirror, which possesses the nature of manifesting images. Images depend on the shapes confronting it; the mirror itself does not differ. Do not say that because the mirror has the nature of images, its nature is already differentiated."' Now I say: If one claims that it only possesses nature and does not possess form, why does the *Guanyin xuanyi* say: 'A thousand kinds of natures and forms are latently contained in the mind'? Furthermore, the *Buer men* states: 'From the stage of identity in principle to that of verbal identity and contemplative practice, there already exist the forms of the non-duality of the supporting [environment] and the supported [inhabitant].' Alas! Though Zhachuan paid heed to the Tiantai school, he only understood the mutual reliance of cultivation and nature, and failed to comprehend the harmonious integration of phenomena and principle. Contradicting the Dharma to instruct his disciples, his succession has come to an end!" Sixth, matching with the bodies. The *Commentary on the Vimalakīrti* states: 'The first two are nirmāṇakāya, being where the nirmāṇa buddhas reside. Because of giving birth to the physical form in the royal palace, concealing the spirit beneath the crane-like [sāla] trees, manifesting the characteristics of arising and ceasing, and preaching the Dharma of the Tripiṭaka to transform the land of common residence, this is called the inferior nirmāṇakāya. When it comes to the land of remnants, they manifest the dharmatā-kāya. When faculties arise, the response arises; when faculties subside, the response subsides. This is different from the Sahā world where the buddhas of the Common Teaching are reduced to ashes and extinction; since it is not a fruition retribution, it is merely called the superior nirmāṇakāya. The third is both saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya, being where the saṃbhoga buddhas reside. Because its other-enjoyment accords with reality to evoke retribution, responding to the great faculties of bodhisattvas at the bhūmis and abodes, the buddha of that land is also called a response [body]. The last one is purely true and pure, neither response nor retribution, and is where the dharmakāya resides.' This matches the four buddhas horizontally according to the substance of the lands. If discussed vertically according to the lands: the land of common residence of ordinary beings and sages manifests all four bodies; the land of expedient means has only the superior response, and thus lacks the inferior response; its land of true retribution has no people of the two vehicles, but only the buddhas of the Distinct and Perfect teachings; and Quiescent Light has no [differential] faculties, but only the wonderful dharmakāya. Seventh, understanding and resolving doubts. Some say: The *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* states, 'If one wishes to attain a pure land, one should purify one's mind; as one's mind becomes pure, the buddha land becomes pure.' The mind is like the form and voice, and the land is like the shadow and echo. One need only purify one's own mind; why rely on seeking another pure land? The answer is: 'First, regarding the purification of the mind, one should distinguish between principle and phenomena. The first is purity of nature; the second is purity in phenomena. As for purity of nature, the *Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra* states: "The mind-nature of all sentient beings is originally pure. Because the mind is originally pure, afflictions and bonds cannot defile it, just like empty space." Thus sentient beings and lands share the same dharmatā; the hells and heavenly palaces are both pure lands. Second, as for purity in phenomena: although nature is originally pure, the mind suddenly falls into delusion. Through one thought of unawareness, obscured by the two hindrances for a long time, one should cultivate the three contemplations to shatter the three delusions. Therefore the *Renwang [jing]* states: "The three classes of worthy ones and the ten sages abide in fruition retribution; only the Buddha alone dwells in the pure land." Only upon ascending to the fruit of wondrous enlightenment is it ultimately pure. Lowest ordinary beings must be careful not to make improper claims. Next, regarding the purity of the land, one must understand difficulty and ease. The *Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra* states: "There are two kinds of cultivating the path in this world: the first is the difficult practice. In the evil world of the five turbidities, seeking avaivartika during the era of immeasurable buddhas is extremely difficult to attain. These difficulties are countless as dust and sand, impossible to recount completely (the *Shiyi lun* explains five kinds of difficult matters).