法華玄論 9.198

9.198

答：劫直是時節，名三災，必為過患，故穢土有、淨土無，如五濁例也。生法師釋淨土不毀云：「夫佛之不在者，良以眾生穢惡故也。以穢故不在，無穢必在。無穢故寄七寶以明之者，明無土砂之穢耳。雖有寶土之淨，比於無形亦何異穢質耶。以理論之，乃是無土義。既寄土言無，故云淨土。無土之淨，豈非法身所託？至於穢土被燒者，自眾生罪報，亦何傷於無不淨乎。是以眾生見燒，淨土不毀也。」評曰：佛或開三身，或名為本迹二身，以身例土亦有三土及與二土。法身栖中道第一義土，如《瓔珞》所辨。又如《仁王》云「三賢十聖住果報，唯佛一人居淨土。」又《攝大乘論》明真如即是佛所住土也。晚見《法華論》亦明真如常住為土也。二舍那報身化諸菩薩處於淨土，故有四淨：化主淨、國土淨、徒眾淨、教門淨。此四皆由菩薩心器淨故有此四淨，故舍那化菩薩也。三者釋迦化二乘即是穢土，謂二乘人天心器不淨，故感四種不淨也。若合三身為本迹二身者，法身託本土，餘二託迹土也。若然者，什公以土沙為穢、寶玉為淨，明異質同處者，此是迹身淨土耳。生公著《七珍論》此是法身無淨土論。今請評之：若言法身不託土沙之穢，復不在寶玉之淨，故云無土者，如前所判也。若取法身栖形實相中道之法，亦無此土者，是義不然。詳生公意，但是無寶玉之土也，非無中道之土也。若爾，生公得法身土則失迹土，什公得於迹土失於本土。若二師各明一義者，無所失。以今文具明三身，則具明三土。以昔未開三身，今始開之，三土亦然也。

Answer: A kalpa is merely a temporal period; what is called the 'three disasters' must be misfortunes. Therefore the impure land has them, whereas the pure land does not, just as in the case of the five turbidities. Dharma Master [Dao]sheng, explaining why the pure land is not destroyed, says: 'That the Buddha is not present is truly because sentient beings are defiled and evil. Because of defilement he is not present; where there is no defilement, he must be present. Because there is no defilement, the seven jewels are used metaphorically to explain it, clarifying only that it lacks the defilement of earth and sand. Although there is the purity of a land of jewels, compared to the formless, how does it differ from a defiled substance? Reasoned according to principle, this is in fact the meaning of "no land." Since land is used metaphorically to speak of absence, it is called a "pure land." How could the purity of "no land" not be that upon which the dharmakāya relies? As for the defiled land being burned, that is the karmic retribution of sentient beings themselves; how could it harm that which has no non-purity? Thus, sentient beings see it burn, but the pure land is not destroyed.'

Evaluation: The Buddha sometimes opens three bodies, and sometimes names them the two bodies of origin and trace. Taking the bodies to illustrate the lands, there are also three lands and two lands. The dharmakāya resides in the land of the middle way and ultimate truth, as explained in the Yingluo [jing]. It is also as the Renwang [jing] says: 'The three [grades of] worthy and ten [grades of] noble abide in karmic retribution; only the Buddha alone dwells in the pure land.' Again, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha explains that true thusness is itself the land where the Buddha abides. Later I saw that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa also explains that the permanent abiding of true thusness is the land. Second, the sambhogakāya of [Vai]rocana transforms the bodhisattvas and abides in a pure land; therefore there are four purities: purity of the transforming master, purity of the land, purity of the retinue, and purity of the doctrinal gates. These four all exist because the bodhisattvas' mental vessels are pure, which is why [Vai]rocana transforms bodhisattvas. Third, Śākyamuni transforming the two vehicles is precisely the defiled land; this means that because the mental vessels of humans, devas, and the two vehicles are impure, they induce four kinds of impurity. If the three bodies are combined into the two bodies of origin and trace, the dharmakāya relies on the land of origin, while the remaining two rely on the land of the trace. If so, when Venerable [Kumāra]jīva takes earth and sand as defilement and precious gems as purity, explaining different substances occupying the same place, this is merely the pure land of the trace body. Master [Dao]sheng composed the Treatise on the Seven Treasures, which is a treatise on the dharmakāya having no pure land. Now let us evaluate this: if one says that the dharmakāya does not rely on the defilement of earth and sand, nor does it abide in the purity of precious gems, and is therefore called 'having no land,' it is as judged previously. But if one holds that the dharmakāya's lodging its form in the dharma of the middle way of the true mark also lacks this land, this meaning is not correct. Examining Master [Dao]sheng's intention, it is merely that there is no land of precious gems; it is not that there is no land of the middle way. If so, Master [Dao]sheng grasped the land of the dharmakāya but lost the land of the trace, while Venerable [Kumāra]jīva grasped the land of the trace but lost the land of the origin. If the two masters each explained one meaning, there is no loss. Since the present text fully clarifies the three bodies, it fully clarifies the three lands. Because previously the three bodies had not been opened and now they are first opened, the three lands are likewise so.