[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [法華玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720) › 3.82 # 法華玄論 3.82 法華玄論 3.82 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.82](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.3.82) 答：《釋論》解《大品．往生品》云「菩薩從一佛土至一佛土」，至一佛土者，此是出三界外淨土，云何言不明界外事耶？又明菩薩捨肉身受法性生身，二乘亦爾，豈非明界外事耶。又《大品》、《淨名》未明界外事者，為未得開權故。若分明說界外事，則辨羅漢生處便是開權，此時根緣未堪故不說，但直明三界外淨土菩薩往生，則菩薩利根懸得領解，二乘根鈍故不知界外更受生身。又難：若言《淨名》、《大品》未明二乘作佛亦未顯實者，《華嚴》云「大藥王樹根不生二處，謂深水火坑。」既言二乘不生菩提心，若爾《華嚴》應未顯實也。又《華嚴．法界品》明二乘未入法界，《法華》已明入一乘，然一乘、法界是異名耳，豈可言《華嚴》未明二乘作佛故顯實亦未足耶？ > Answer: The Dàzhìdù lùn, explaining the chapter "Rebirth" in the Pañcaviṃśati, says: "Bodhisattvas go from one buddha-land to another buddha-land." Going to another buddha-land refers to pure lands beyond the three realms; how can you say it does not explain affairs beyond the realms? Furthermore, it explains that bodhisattvas abandon the fleshly body and receive a body born of the dharmatā, and the two vehicles do likewise; does this not explain affairs beyond the realms? Moreover, as for the Pañcaviṃśati and the Vimalakīrti not explaining affairs beyond the realms: this was because they were not yet able to open the provisional. If they had clearly spoken of affairs beyond the realms, delineating the place of rebirth for arhats would have amounted to opening the provisional; at that time their spiritual capacities and conditions were not yet capable of this, so it was not spoken. Merely directly explaining that bodhisattvas are reborn in pure lands beyond the three realms allowed bodhisattvas of sharp faculties to comprehend it from afar, while those of the two vehicles, having dull faculties, did not know that they would take further birth in bodies beyond the realms. Moreover, to object: if you say that because the Vimalakīrti and the Pañcaviṃśati do not explain the two vehicles attaining buddhahood, they also do not reveal the real, the Avataṃsaka states: "The roots of the great king of medicinal herbs do not grow in two places: namely, deep water and a pit of fire." Since it states that the two vehicles do not generate the bodhicitta, then according to this, the Avataṃsaka would also not have revealed the real. Furthermore, the chapter "Entering the Dharmadhātu" of the Avataṃsaka explains that the two vehicles have not entered the dharmadhātu, whereas the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka has already explained entering the one vehicle; yet the one vehicle and the dharmadhātu are merely different names. How could one say that because the Avataṃsaka does not explain the two vehicles attaining buddhahood, its revelation of the real is also inadequate? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.81](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.3.81) - [Next: 3.83](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.3.83) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720~en-mt.3.82) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.3.82](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.3.82) · Pramāṇa