大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 26.4

26.4

Regarding the Commentary's 'The Buddha should unify them' and below: Resolving objections. Here there are two objections: First, the objection concerning why they are all called 'buddha-lands'. That is, lands have purity and defilement; how could a defiled one be a buddha-land? Therefore it is now answered: A defiled land is also a buddha-land. The decaying mansion of the three realms belongs to one person; the assorted evils of the Sahā world reside within the Flower Store—this is our buddha-land. Second, the passage stating, 'Yet speaking in terms of the Buddha, therefore there is no realm that is not pure.' This resolves the objection of calling an impure land 'pure'. This arises because in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, when Ratnakūṭa wished to hear how to attain the purity of a buddha-land, the Buddha answered: 'The species of sentient beings.' This does not discriminate between pure and defiled; defilement is also pure land. Thus doubt arises: 'A defiled land is called a buddha-land, and when unified by the Buddha, the defiled is called a pure land—further, based on what principle is there such an answer?' Yet the Buddha's lands are all pure; hence when Śāriputra saw mounds, ravines, pits, and ditches, the Buddha said: 'This land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.' The statement that, being identical to defilement yet pure, it is therefore inconceivable, reconciles the above meaning with the verse below, for the verse states: 'The realm of the World-Honoured One is inconceivable.'