翻譯名義集 7.142.5

7.142.5

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).