[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) › [兩卷無量壽經宗要](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1747) › 1.3 # 兩卷無量壽經宗要 1.3 兩卷無量壽經宗要 1.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1747.1.3) 第二簡宗致者，此經正以淨土因果為其宗體，攝物往生以為意致。總標雖然，於中分別者，先明果德、後顯因行。果德之內略有四門：一淨不淨門、二色無色門、三共不共門、四漏無漏門。第一明淨不淨門者，略以四對顯其階降，謂因與果相對故、一向與不一向相對故、純與雜相對故、正定與非正定相對故。所言因與果相對門者，謂金剛以還菩薩所住名果報土，不名淨土，未離苦諦之果患故。唯佛所居乃名淨土，一切勞患無餘滅故。依此義故，《仁王經》云「三賢十聖住果報，唯佛一人居淨土。一切眾生暫住報，登金剛源居淨土。」第二、一向與不一向相對門者，謂八地以上菩薩住處得名淨土，以一向出三界事故，亦具四句一向義故。七地以還一切住處未名淨土，以非一向出三界故，或乘願力出三界者一向四句不具足故，謂一向樂、一向無失、一向自在。七地以還出觀之時，或時生起報無記心，末那四惑于時現行，故非一向淨、非一向無失；八地以上即不如是。依此義故，《攝大乘》云「出出世善法，功能所生起。」釋曰：二乘善，名出世。從八地以上乃至佛地，名出出世。出世法，名世法對治。出出世法，為出世法對治。功能以四緣為相，從出出世善法功能生起此淨土故，不以集諦為因，乃至廣說故。第三、純與雜相對門者，凡夫二乘雜居之處，不得名為清淨世界。唯入大地菩薩生處，乃得名為清淨世界。彼非純淨，此純淨故。依此義故，《瑜伽論》言「世界無量，有其二種，謂淨不淨。」清淨世界中，無那落迦、傍生、餓鬼，亦無欲界、色無色界，純菩薩眾於中止住，是故說名清淨世界。已入第三地菩薩，由願力故，於彼受生，無有異生及非異生聲聞獨覺。若非異生菩薩得生於彼，解云：此第三地是歡喜地，以就七種菩薩地門第三淨勝意樂地故，攝十三位、立七種地。具如彼論之所說故。第四正定與非正定相對門者，三聚眾生苦生之地是為穢土，唯正定聚所居之處名為淨土。於中亦有四果聲聞，乃至復有四疑凡夫，唯無邪定及不定聚耳。今此經說無量壽國，就第四門說為淨土。所以然者，為欲普容大小、兼引凡聖，竝生勝處、同趣大道故。如下文言「設我得佛，國中人民不住正定聚必至滅度者，不取正覺。」又言「設我得佛，國中聲聞，有能計量知其數者，不取正覺。」乃至廣說。又《觀經》中說「生彼國已，得羅漢果」等，乃至廣說故。論說云「女人及根缺，二乘種不生」者，是說決定種性二乘，非謂不定根性聲聞。為簡此故，名二乘種。由是義故，不相違也。又言女人及根缺者，謂生彼時非女非根缺耳，非此女等不得往生，如韋提希而得生故。然《鼓音王陀羅尼經》云「阿彌陀佛，父名月上轉輪聖王，其母名曰殊勝妙眼」等，乃至廣說者，是說化佛所居化土。論所說者，是受用土。由是道理，故不相違。上來四門所說淨土，皆是如來願行所成，非生彼者自力所辨，不如穢土外器世界，唯由眾生共業所成，是故通名清淨土也。次第二、明有色無色門者，如前所說四種門中，初一門顯自受用土，後三門說他受用土。三門有色，不待言論。自受用土，說者不同。或有說者自受用身，遠離色形法性淨土為所住處，是故都無色相可得。如《本業經》說「佛子果體圓滿，無德不備、理無不周，居中道第一義諦。清淨國土，無極無名無相，非一切法可得，非有體非無體。」乃至廣說。《起信論》云「諸佛如來，唯是法身智相之身。第一義諦，無有世諦境界，離於施作，但隨眾生見聞皆得益，故說為用。此用有二種：一者凡夫二乘心所見者，名為應身。二者諸菩薩從初發意，乃至菩薩究竟地，心所見者，名為報身。」依此等文，當知所見有色相等，皆得他受用身，說自受用中無色無相也。或有說者，自受用身有無障礙微妙之色，其所依土具有六塵殊勝境界。如《薩遮尼乾子經》云「瞿曇法性身，妙色常湛然。如是法性身，眾生等無邊。」《華嚴經》云「如來正覺成菩提時，得一切眾生等身、得一切法等身，乃至得一切行界等身、得寂靜涅槃界等身。佛子！隨如來所得身，當知音聲及無礙心亦復如是。如來具足如是三種清淨無量。」《攝大乘》云「若淨土中，無諸怖畏，六根所受用法悉具有。又非唯是有，一切所受用具最勝無等。是如來福德智慧行圓滿因，感如來勝報依止處，是故最勝。」依此等文，當知圓滿因之所感自受用身，依止六塵也。或有說者，二師所說皆有道理，等有經論不可違故、如來法門無障礙故。所以然者，報佛身土略有二門，若就正相歸源之門，如初師說；若依從性成德之門，如後師說。所引經論，隨門而說，故不相違。此是第二色無色門也。次第三、明共不共門者，通相而言，土有二種：一者內土、二者外土。言外土者，是共果。言內土者，是不共果。內土之中亦有二種：一者眾生五陰，為正報土。人所依住，故名為土。二者出世聖智，名實智土，以能住持後得智故、依根本智離顛倒故。如《本業經》云「土名一切賢聖所居之處，是故一切眾生賢聖各自居果報之土。」若凡夫眾生住五陰中為正報之土，山林大地共有，為依報之土。初地聖人亦有二土：一實智土，前智住後智為土；二變化淨穢。逕劫數量應現之土。乃至無垢地土亦復如是。一切眾生乃至無垢地。盡非淨土。住果報故。總說雖然，於中分別者，正報之土，不共果義，更無異說。依報之土為共果者，諸說不同。或有說者，如山河等，非是極微合成，實有一體，多因共感，直是有情異成各變，同處相似，不相障礙，如眾燈明。如多因所夢，因類是同，果相相似。處所無別，假名為共，實各有異。諸佛淨土，當知亦爾。若別識變，皆遍法界，同處相似，說名為共，實非共也。若有一土，非隨識別者，即成心外，非唯識理。如《解深密經》云「我說識所緣，唯識所現故。」《唯識論》云「業熏習識內，執果生於外。何因熏習處，於中不說果？」或有說者，淨土依果雖不離識，而識是別，土相是一，由彼別識共所成故。如攬四塵以成一柱，一柱之相不離四微，非隨四微成四柱故。當知此中道理亦爾。於中若就自受用土，佛與諸佛共有一土，猶如法身，諸佛共依故。若論他受用土相者，佛與諸菩薩等共有，如王與臣共有一國故。又二受用土，亦非別體。如觀行者觀石為玉，無通慧者猶見是石。石玉相異，而非別體。二土同處，當知亦爾。如《解深密經》云「如來所行如來境界，此何差別？佛言：『如來所行，謂一切種。如來共有無量功德眾，莊嚴清淨佛土。』」如來境界，謂一切種。五界差別，所謂有情界、世界、法界、調伏界、調伏方便界。解云：此說自受用土，諸佛共有，非各別也。《瑜伽論》云「相等諸物，或由不共分別為因，或復由共分別為因。若共分別之所起者，分別雖無，由他分別所住持故而不永滅。若不爾者，他之分別應無其果。彼雖不滅，得清淨者於彼事中正見清淨。譬如眾多修觀行者，於一事中，由定心故，種種異見可得。彼亦如是。」解云：此說依報不隨識別。若執共果隨識異者，我果雖滅，他果猶存，即他分別，不應無異。故彼不能通此文也。《攝大乘論》云「復次，受用如是淨土，一向淨、一向樂、一向無失、一向自在。」釋曰：恒無雜穢，故言一向淨。但受妙樂，無苦無捨，故言一向樂。唯是實善，無惡無記，故言一向無失。一切事悉不觀餘緣，皆由自心成，故言一向自在。復次，依大淨說一向淨、依大樂說一向樂、依大常說一向無失、依大我說一向自在。解云：此中初「復次」，顯他受用義。後「復次」，顯自受用義。義雖不同，而無別土。所以本論唯作一說。故知二土亦非別體也。問：如是二說，何得何失？答曰：如若言取，但不成立；以義會之，皆有道理。此是第三共不共門也。次第四、明漏無漏門者，略有二句：一者通就諸法，顯漏無漏義；二者別約淨土，明漏無漏相。初通門者，《瑜伽論》說「有漏無漏，各有五門。有漏五者，一由事故、二隨眠故、三相應故、四所緣故、五生起故。無漏五者，一離諸纏故、二隨眠斷故、三是斷滅故、四見所斷之對治自性相續解脫故、五修所斷之對治自性相續解脫故。」於中委悉，如彼廣說。今作四句，略顯其相：一者有法一向有漏，謂諸染污心心所法等，由相應義是有漏故，而無五種無漏相故。二者有法一向無漏，謂見道時心心所法等，由有自性解脫義故，而無五種有漏相故。三者有法亦有漏亦無漏，謂報無記心心所法等，隨眠所縛故、諸纏所離故，雖復無漏而是苦諦，由業煩惱所生起故。四者有法非有漏，謂甚深法不墮數故。次別明中亦有二門：一有分際門、二無障礙門。有分際門者，若就諸佛所居淨土，於四句中唯有二句。依有色有心門，即一向是無漏，自性相續解脫義故、遠離五種有漏相故。若就非色非心門者，即非有漏亦非無漏，非有非無故、離相離性故。若就菩薩，亦有二句，恰論二智，所顯淨土，一向無漏，道諦所攝。如《攝論》說「菩薩及如來唯識智，無相無功用，故言清淨。離一切障，無有退失，故言自在。此唯識智，為淨土體故，不以苦諦為體。」乃至廣說故。若就本識所變之門，亦是無漏，以非三界有漏所起，樂無漏界，故是無漏。無明住地為緣出故，名果報土，故是有漏。雖亦無漏而是世間，故於無作四諦門內，苦諦果報之所攝也。如經言「三賢十聖住果報」故。《寶性論》云「依無漏界中，有三種意生身，應知彼因無漏善根所作，名為世間；以離有漏諸業煩惱所作世間法故，亦名涅槃。」依此義故，《勝鬘經》言「世尊！有有為世間、有無為世間，有有為涅槃、有無為涅槃。」故此中說意生身，乃是梨耶所變正報。正報既爾，依報亦然，同是本識所變作故。然此梨耶所變之土，及與二智所現淨土，雖為苦道二諦所攝，而無別體，隨義異攝耳。如他分別所持穢土，得清淨者即見為淨，淨穢雖異而無別體。當知此中二義亦爾。此約有分際門說也。次就無障礙門說者，應作四句：一者諸佛身土皆是有漏，不離一切諸漏故。如經說言：諸佛安住三毒四漏等一切煩惱中，得阿耨菩提，乃至廣說故。二者凡夫身土皆是無漏，以離一切諸漏性故。如經說言：色無漏無繫，受想行識無漏無繫，乃至廣說故。三者一切凡聖穢土淨土亦是有漏亦是無漏，以前二門不相離故。四者一切凡聖穢土淨土非有漏非無漏，以無縛性及脫性故。如經說言：色無縛無脫，受想行識無縛無脫，乃至廣說故。此是第四有漏無漏門也。上來四門合為第一淨土果竟。 > Second, explaining the doctrinal purport: this sūtra takes the causes and fruits of the Pure Land as its essential doctrine, and taking in sentient beings to attain rebirth \[there\] as its purpose. Although this is a general formulation, in analyzing it, \[we\] first elucidate the virtues of fruition and subsequently clarify the causal practice. Within the virtues of fruition, there are briefly four gates: first, the gate of pure and non-pure; second, the gate of form and formless; third, the gate of common and uncommon; fourth, the gate of with-outflows and without-outflows. > > First, elucidating the gate of pure and non-pure: \[we\] briefly clarify its gradations by means of four pairs: namely, the contrast of cause with fruition, the contrast of exclusive with non-exclusive, the contrast of pure with mixed, and the contrast of definitely determined with not definitely determined. > > Regarding the gate of the contrast of cause with fruition: the dwelling place of bodhisattvas from the adamantine stage downward is termed a fruition-retribution land and is not termed a pure land, because they have not yet departed from the afflictions of fruition of the truth of suffering. Only the dwelling of the Buddha is termed a pure land, because all toils and afflictions are extinguished without remainder. In accordance with this meaning, the Renwang jing says: “The three \[levels of\] worthies and ten \[stages of\] sages dwell in retribution; only the Buddha alone resides in the pure land. All sentient beings temporarily dwell in retribution; ascending to the adamantine source, one resides in the pure land.” > > Second, the gate of the contrast of exclusive with non-exclusive: the dwelling places of bodhisattvas from the eighth bhūmi upward receive the name of pure land, because they exclusively transcend the affairs of the three realms and also because they are fully endowed with the four clauses of the meaning of ‘exclusive.’ All dwelling places from the seventh bhūmi downward are not yet termed pure lands, because they do not exclusively transcend the three realms, or because those who transcend the three realms by the power of vows are not fully endowed with the four clauses of ‘exclusive’—namely, exclusive joy, exclusive faultlessness, and exclusive mastery. When those from the seventh bhūmi downward emerge from contemplation, at times they give rise to retribution-indeterminate minds, and the four defilements of manas are then active; thus they are not exclusively pure and not exclusively faultless. Those of the eighth bhūmi upward are not like this. In accordance with this meaning, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: “Arising from the functionality of trans-supramundane wholesome dharmas.” Explanation: The wholesome \[dharmas\] of the two vehicles are termed supramundane. From the eighth bhūmi upward to the Buddha ground is termed trans-supramundane. Supramundane dharmas are called the antidotes to mundane dharmas. Trans-supramundane dharmas serve as the antidotes to supramundane dharmas. Functionality takes the four conditions as its marks; because this pure land arises from the functionality of trans-supramundane wholesome dharmas, it does not take the truth of accumulation as its cause, and so on up to extensive explanations. > > Third, the gate of the contrast of pure with mixed: places where ordinary beings and the two vehicles dwell together in mixture cannot be called pure worlds. Only the birthplaces of bodhisattvas who have entered the great grounds can be called pure worlds. Those \[places\] are not purely pure, whereas these are purely pure. In accordance with this meaning, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says: “Worlds are immeasurable; they are of two kinds, namely pure and non-pure.” In a pure world, there are no naraka \[hells\], beasts, or hungry ghosts, nor is there a desire realm, form realm, or formless realm; only an assembly of bodhisattvas abides therein, and therefore it is called a pure world. Bodhisattvas who have entered the third bhūmi are born there by the power of their vows, and there are no ordinary beings, nor non-ordinary śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. If bodhisattvas who are non-ordinary beings attain rebirth there, it is explained: this third bhūmi is the Joyful Ground (Pramuditā-bhūmi), because according to the gate of the seven kinds of bodhisattva grounds, it is the third ground of pure and superior intention; subsuming thirteen stations, seven kinds of grounds are established, exactly as expounded in that treatise. > > Fourth, the gate of the contrast of definitely determined with not definitely determined: lands where sentient beings of the three categories of beings are born to suffering are defiled lands; only places where those of the samyaktva-niyata-rāśi dwell are called pure lands. Therein are also śrāvakas of the four fruits, and even ordinary beings of the four doubts; there are only no beings of the mithyātva-niyata-rāśi or aniyata-rāśi. Now, this sūtra’s exposition of the Land of Immeasurable Life is explained as a pure land according to the fourth gate. Why is this? Because it intends to universally accommodate both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and simultaneously draw both ordinary beings and sages, so that they are reborn together in an excellent place and advance together toward the Great Path. As a passage below says: “If, when I attain Buddhahood, the humans and devas in my land do not abide in the samyaktva-niyata-rāśi and inevitably reach extinction, may I not attain right awakening.” It also says: “If, when I attain Buddhahood, there should be anyone able to calculate and know the number of śrāvakas in my land, may I not attain right awakening,” and so on up to extensive explanations. Moreover, the Guan jing says that having been reborn in that land, they attain the fruit of an arhat, and so on up to extensive explanations. As for the treatise’s statement that “women, those with defective sense organs, and the lineage of the two vehicles are not born \[there\],” this speaks of the two vehicles of definite gotra, not of śrāvakas of indefinite capacity. In order to distinguish this, it is called the “lineage of the two vehicles.” For this reason, there is no contradiction. Furthermore, the mention of “women and those with defective sense organs” means that when born there, they are neither women nor defective in their sense organs; it does not mean that women and such cannot attain rebirth, just as Vaidehī was able to attain rebirth. However, the Drum-Sound King Dhāraṇī Sūtra says: “The father of the Buddha Amitābha was named Candrocchaya the Wheel-Turning Sagely King, and his mother was named Utpalāvatī,” and so on up to extensive explanations; this refers to the transformation land inhabited by a nirmāṇabuddha. What the treatise speaks of is an enjoyment land. By this reasoning, there is therefore no contradiction. The pure lands expounded in the above four gates are all accomplished by the Tathāgata’s vows and practices, not accomplished by the self-power of those born there; unlike the outer container world of defiled lands which is accomplished solely by the shared karma of sentient beings, they are therefore all generally called pure lands. > > Next, second, elucidating the gate of form and formless: among the four kinds of gates expounded above, the first gate shows the land for self-enjoyment, and the latter three gates explain lands for others' enjoyment. That the three gates have form requires no debate. Regarding the land for self-enjoyment, exponents differ. Some say: the body of self-enjoyment takes the Pure Land of Dharma-nature, far removed from corporeal forms, as its dwelling place, and therefore no marks of form at all can be found. As the Benye jing says: “Disciples of the Buddha, the fruition-essence is consummate; there is no virtue it does not possess, no principle it does not encompass; it dwells in the supreme truth of the middle way. The pure land is boundless, nameless, and signless; not a single dharma can be found, neither having an essence nor lacking an essence,” and so on up to extensive explanations. The Awakening of Faith says: “The Buddhas, Tathāgatas, are solely the dharmakāya, the body of the marks of wisdom. As the ultimate truth, it has no realm of conventional truth and is free from intentional activity, yet simply in accordance with sentient beings seeing and hearing, all attain benefit; hence it is called function. This function has two kinds: first, that which is seen by the minds of ordinary beings and the two vehicles is called the response body. Second, that which is seen by the minds of bodhisattvas from their initial aspiration up to the ultimate ground of bodhisattvas is called the saṃbhogakāya.” Relying on these texts, one should know that visible marks of form and the like all belong to the body of enjoyment for others, and that within self-enjoyment there is neither form nor mark. > > Others say: the body of self-enjoyment has subtle, unhindered form, and its supporting land fully possesses the superior realms of the six sense objects. As the Satyaka-nirgrantha Sūtra says: “Gautama’s Dharma-nature body / Has wondrous form that is ever serene. / Such a Dharma-nature body / Is equal to sentient beings, boundless.” The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: “When the Tathāgata, the Truly Awakened One, accomplished bodhi, he attained a body equal to all sentient beings, attained a body equal to all dharmas, and so on up to attaining a body equal to the realm of all practices, attaining a body equal to the tranquil realm of nirvāṇa. Disciples of the Buddha! In accordance with the body attained by the Tathāgata, you should know that his voice and unhindered mind are also like this. The Tathāgata is fully endowed with these three kinds of pure immeasurability.” The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: “If in a pure land there are no terrors, the dharmas enjoyed by the six sense faculties are all fully present. Furthermore, not only are they present, but all implements of enjoyment are supreme and peerless. This is the consummate cause of the Tathāgata’s practices of merit and wisdom, evoking the supporting place of the Tathāgata’s superior retribution; therefore it is supreme.” Relying on these texts, one should know that the body of self-enjoyment evoked by the consummate cause relies upon the six sense objects. > > Others say: what both masters have expounded is reasonable, for they equally have sūtras and treatises that cannot be contradicted, and the Tathāgata’s Dharma-gate is unobstructed. Why is this? The retribution Buddha’s body and land briefly have two gates: if in terms of the gate of returning to the source of right marks, it is as the first master expounded; if relying upon the gate of perfecting virtues from nature, it is as the latter master expounded. The cited sūtras and treatises are spoken according to their respective gates, and therefore they do not contradict each other. This is the second gate of form and formless. > > Next, third, elucidating the gate of common and uncommon: speaking in terms of general characteristics, lands are of two kinds: first, internal lands; second, external lands. The external land is a common retribution. The internal land is an uncommon retribution. Within the internal land there are also two kinds: first, the five aggregates of sentient beings, serving as the primary retribution land; because persons rely upon and dwell in them, they are called lands. Second, supramundane sagely wisdom, called the real wisdom land, because it can uphold subsequent wisdom, and because relying upon fundamental wisdom it is free from inversion. As the Benye jing says: “‘Land’ is the name for the dwelling place of all worthies and sages; therefore all sentient beings, worthies, and sages each dwell in their own land of fruit-retribution.” Ordinary sentient beings dwelling in the five aggregates constitute the land of primary retribution, while the shared mountains, forests, and great earth constitute the land of environmental retribution. Sages of the first bhūmi also have two lands: first, the real wisdom land, where the prior wisdom dwells, taking the subsequent wisdom as land; second, transformation pure and defiled lands, manifested in accordance with the count of kalpas. Up to the stainless ground (Vimalā-bhūmi), the lands are also like this. All sentient beings up to the stainless ground are entirely non-pure lands, because they dwell in retribution. > > Although this is a general explanation, in analyzing it: regarding the land of primary retribution having the meaning of an uncommon retribution, there are no divergent views. Regarding the land of environmental retribution being a common retribution, various explanations differ. Some say: things like mountains and rivers are not an aggregation of subtle atoms possessing an actual single entity evoked in common by multiple causes; rather, they are merely diverse formations uniquely transformed by each sentient being, similar in the same location and not obstructing each other, like the light of many lamps. Just as when multiple causes are dreamed, the categories of causes are identical, and the marks of the fruits resemble each other. The location is not distinct, and is conventionally designated as common, but in reality each is distinct. One should know that the pure lands of the Buddhas are also like this: transformed by distinct consciousnesses, they all pervade the Dharma realm; being in the same location and resembling each other, they are spoken of as ‘common,’ but in reality they are not common. If there were a single land not following individual consciousnesses, it would then be outside the mind and not the principle of consciousness-only. As the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: “I say that the cognitive objects of consciousness are only what is manifested by consciousness.” The Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra says: “Karmic perfuming is within consciousness, yet one clings to the fruit being produced outside. For what reason, in the place where perfuming occurs, does one not speak of the fruit therein?” > > Others say: although the environmental fruit of the pure land is not separate from consciousness, yet the consciousnesses are distinct while the marks of the land are one, because it is jointly accomplished by those distinct consciousnesses. Just as combining the four sense objects accomplishes a single pillar, the mark of the single pillar is not separate from the four subtle atoms, yet it does not follow the four subtle atoms to become four pillars. One should know that the reasoning here is also like this. Therein, if in terms of the land for self-enjoyment, Buddha and Buddhas jointly possess one land, just as with the dharmakāya, which all Buddhas jointly rely upon. If discussing the characteristics of the land for others' enjoyment, the Buddha and bodhisattvas jointly possess it, just as a king and his ministers jointly possess a single state. Moreover, the two enjoyment lands are also not distinct entities. Just as a practitioner of contemplation views a stone as jade, while one without supernormal wisdom still sees it as stone: the marks of stone and jade are different, yet they are not distinct entities. That the two lands share the same location should be known to be also like this. As the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: “What is the difference between the Tathāgata’s activity and the Tathāgata’s realm? The Buddha said: ‘The Tathāgata’s activity means all modes; the Tathāgata shares in common an immeasurable multitude of merits, adorning the pure Buddha land.’ The Tathāgata’s realm means all modes: the distinctions of the five realms, namely the sentient being realm, the world realm, the Dharma realm, the discipline realm, and the discipline-expedient realm.” Explanation: This speaks of the land for self-enjoyment being jointly possessed by all Buddhas, not distinct for each. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says: “Things such as marks have uncommon conceptual construction as their cause, or have common conceptual construction as their cause. If arisen from common conceptual construction, even though conceptual construction is absent, because it is upheld by the conceptual construction of others, it does not permanently perish. If it were not so, the conceptual construction of others would have no fruit. Although it does not perish, one who has attained purity correctly sees purity in that thing. Just as numerous practitioners of contemplation, within a single thing, on account of their concentrated minds, can obtain various different views; that is also like this.” Explanation: This says that environmental retribution does not follow the distinctions of consciousness. If one clings to common fruits following the distinctions of consciousness, then although my fruit perishes, another’s fruit still exists; then another’s conceptual construction ought not to be without difference. Therefore, that \[former view\] cannot resolve this text. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: “Furthermore, enjoying such a pure land is exclusively pure, exclusively joyful, exclusively faultless, and exclusively sovereign.” Commentary: Ever free from mixed defilement, hence it says ‘exclusively pure.’ Only experiencing wondrous joy, free from suffering and neutral feeling, hence it says ‘exclusively joyful.’ Solely true wholesomeness, free from evil and indeterminate \[states\], hence it says ‘exclusively faultless.’ All matters do not depend on other conditions at all and are accomplished entirely by one’s own mind, hence it says ‘exclusively sovereign.’ Furthermore, relying upon great purity it speaks of ‘exclusively pure’; relying upon great joy it speaks of ‘exclusively joyful’; relying upon great permanence it speaks of ‘exclusively faultless’; relying upon great self it speaks of ‘exclusively sovereign.’ Explanation: Here, the first ‘furthermore’ reveals the meaning of others' enjoyment. The second ‘furthermore’ reveals the meaning of self-enjoyment. Although the meanings differ, there are no distinct lands. Therefore, the root treatise offers only a single explanation. Thus one knows that the two lands are also not distinct entities. Question: What are the merits and faults of these two explanations? Answer: If taken literally, they simply cannot be established; if reconciled through their meaning, both are reasonable. This is the third gate of common and uncommon. > > Next, fourth, elucidating the gate of with-outflows and without-outflows: there are briefly two propositions: first, generally regarding all dharmas, revealing the meaning of with-outflows and without-outflows; second, specifically regarding the pure land, clarifying the characteristics of with-outflows and without-outflows. In the first, general gate: the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states: “With-outflows and without-outflows each have five gates. The five with-outflows are: first, by reason of thing; second, latent disposition (anuśaya); third, conjunction (samprayukta); fourth, cognitive object (ālambana); fifth, arising. The five without-outflows are: first, separation from fetters; second, severance of latent dispositions; third, being cessation; fourth, liberation of the self-nature of the continuum through the antidote abandoned by seeing; fifth, liberation of the self-nature of the continuum through the antidote abandoned by cultivation.” The details therein are as extensively explained in that text. Now, formulating four clauses, \[we\] briefly reveal its characteristics: first, there are dharmas that are exclusively with-outflows, namely all defiled mental states and mental factors, because they are with-outflows through the meaning of conjunction, and because they lack the five kinds of without-outflows marks. Second, there are dharmas that are exclusively without-outflows, namely the mental states and mental factors at the time of the path of seeing, because they possess the meaning of self-nature liberation, and because they lack the five kinds of with-outflows marks. Third, there are dharmas that are both with-outflows and without-outflows, namely retribution-indeterminate mental states and mental factors, because they are bound by latent dispositions yet separated from fetters; although they are without-outflows, they belong to the truth of suffering, because they arise from karma and afflictions. Fourth, there are dharmas that are neither with-outflows \[nor without-outflows\], namely profound dharmas that do not fall into categories. > > Next, within the specific explanation there are also two gates: first, the gate with boundaries; second, the gate without obstruction. Regarding the gate with boundaries: in terms of the pure land inhabited by the Buddhas, among the four clauses there are only two clauses. Relying on the gate of possessing form and possessing mind, it is exclusively without-outflows, because of the meaning of liberation of the self-nature of the continuum, and because it is far removed from the five kinds of with-outflows marks. In terms of the gate of neither form nor mind, it is neither with-outflows nor without-outflows, because it is neither existent nor non-existent, and is free from marks and free from nature. In terms of bodhisattvas, there are also two clauses: considering the two wisdoms, the pure land manifested \[by them\] is exclusively without-outflows, subsumed under the truth of the path. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: “The consciousness-only wisdom of bodhisattvas and Tathāgatas is signless and effortless, and is therefore called pure. Being free from all hindrances and without regress, it is therefore called sovereign. Since this consciousness-only wisdom is the essence of the pure land, it does not take the truth of suffering as its essence,” and so on up to extensive explanations. In terms of the gate of transformation by the fundamental consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna), it is also without-outflows, because it does not arise from the with-outflows of the three realms and is an enjoyable without-outflows realm, therefore it is without-outflows. Because it arises taking the ground of ignorance as condition, it is called a fruition-retribution land, and is therefore with-outflows. Although it is without-outflows, it is mundane; hence within the gate of the unconditioned four truths, it is subsumed under the fruit-retribution of the truth of suffering. As the sūtra says: “The three \[levels of\] worthies and ten \[stages of\] sages dwell in retribution.” The Ratnagotravibhāga says: “Relying upon the realm without outflows, there are three kinds of mind-made bodies; one should know that because their cause is produced by wholesome roots without outflows, they are called mundane; because they are free from mundane dharmas produced by karma and afflictions with outflows, they are also called nirvāṇa.” In accordance with this meaning, the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: “World-Honored One! There is a conditioned mundane and an unconditioned mundane; there is a conditioned nirvāṇa and an unconditioned nirvāṇa.” Thus what is spoken of here as the mind-made body is the primary retribution transformed by the ālaya. Since primary retribution is like this, environmental retribution is also like this, because both are transformed by the fundamental consciousness. However, this land transformed by the ālaya and the pure land manifested by the two wisdoms, although subsumed under the two truths of suffering and path, are not of distinct entities, but are merely subsumed differently according to the meaning. Just as with the defiled land upheld by another’s conceptual construction, one who has attained purity sees it as pure; although pure and defiled differ, they are not of distinct entities. One should know that the two meanings here are also like this. This is explained according to the gate with boundaries. > > Next, speaking according to the gate without obstruction, four clauses should be formulated: first, the bodies and lands of all Buddhas are all with-outflows, because they are not separate from all outflows. As the sūtra says: the Buddhas abide in all afflictions such as the three poisons and four outflows to attain anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi, and so on up to extensive explanations. Second, the bodies and lands of ordinary beings are all without-outflows, because they are separated from the nature of all outflows. As the sūtra says: form is without outflows and without binding, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are without outflows and without binding, and so on up to extensive explanations. Third, all ordinary beings and sages, defiled lands and pure lands, are both with-outflows and without-outflows, because the preceding two gates are not separate from each other. Fourth, all ordinary beings and sages, defiled lands and pure lands, are neither with-outflows nor without-outflows, because they lack the nature of binding and the nature of liberation. As the sūtra says: form has neither binding nor liberation, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness have neither binding nor liberation, and so on up to extensive explanations. This is the fourth gate of with-outflows and without-outflows. > > The above four gates combined conclude the first \[part\], the fruition of the Pure Land. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1747.1.2) - [Next: 1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1747.1.4) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1747.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1747~en-mt.1.3) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.26.28) — Classical Chinese - [大乘起信論義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1846.3.222) — Classical Chinese - [佛說無量壽經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.sukhavativyuha*zh-sanghavarman-wei.1.44) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1747.1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1747.1.3) · Pramāṇa