無量壽經連義述文贊 2.109

2.109

經曰「設我得佛」至「不取正覺」者，述云：第五、攝眾生願。有二：初之四願，攝人天願；後之九願；攝菩薩願。初又有二：初、攝往生者；後、攝所生報。初又有三：此攝上品願也。有說：初下品、次上品、後中品。非也。非唯亂次第，亦違《觀經》不除五逆故。然彼經云「作五逆罪得生淨土」，違此願云「唯除五逆誹謗正法」故。從昔會釋，自成百家。有說：亦謗正法者，除唯造五逆者生。有難此言：彼經亦云「具諸不善」，若不謗法即不可言具諸不善，如何乃言唯造五逆得生淨土？此難非也。若謂彼經具諸不善故亦攝謗法者，即五逆應屬諸不善故，不須別說。今即應彈隨順及言合集之義而相違釋，相違釋者諍頭義故、罪既各別名亦別故。有說：此除不悔，彼之說悔。此亦不然。既十念中念別滅八十億劫生死之罪，應無悔與不悔別故；若更有別懺悔法者，即於下品下生文中都無故。有說：對未造者言除，對已造者說生。此亦不然。未造者尚除，況亦已造故。若已造令進故無此失者，未造應令退耶？有說：正五逆者除，五逆類者生。此亦不然。無有聖教說五逆類名五逆故，不可彼經五逆言類。有說：重心造者除，輕心造者生歟？此亦不然。誹謗正法必有輕重，不可唯言除不生故。有說：除即第三階造五逆者，生即第二階造逆者。此亦不然。眾生有三，非聖教故。設有聖說，亦違自許第三階人不行普法有逆無逆皆不得生。若如所言，應說唯除第三階，而言除逆唯有虛言故。有說：除者先遮，生者後開。此亦非也。先遮若實生，後開實應不生故。有說：未發菩提心造逆者除，已發菩提心作逆者生。此亦不然。已發菩提心若退失者，應如未發心不得生故。若不退心者，必不作逆故。有說：除即對佛說五逆罪決定故，生即對佛說五逆等皆不定故。此亦不然。不善順生後受業等，皆應例此五逆罪等便成大過故。有說：若宿世中無道機者，既作五逆，終無生理。其先發菩提心，雖復逢緣造五逆等，必生深悔，亦得往生，善趣之人有作五逆謗正法故。二文各談一，互不相違。此亦不然。宿世之言應無用故。現發菩提心，逢緣作逆，應亦生故。又彼善趣即十信故，作逆謗法，必無此理，前已說故。有說：一念念佛者除，十念念佛者生。此必非也。即違此云「乃至十念」故。有說：除者具十不具十悉不得生故，生者唯具十聲故。此亦不然。雖兼不具十聲，既亦申具十念，應如彼經不可除故。今即此經上三生中，必無作逆，故須除之。彼說下生雖作五逆，若備十念亦得生故，無違可釋，不應難言中品三生亦無作逆故。不須除者，發菩提心修諸功德，即非作逆，義既顯故。但誹謗正法，罪既深重，於無數劫受苦報故。假具十聲必不得生，所以聖教更無異說，入諸不善者過難多故。有說：此經十念依十法而念，非佛名故，即《彌勒所問》十念是也此亦不然。彼經十念即非凡夫，必非上品三生所能修故。今即還同《觀經》十念，上輩亦修十念，理無違故，欲顯一二等言乃至故。傍論且止，應釋本文。

Regarding the passage from the sūtra stating, "If, when I attain Buddhahood..." to "may I not attain the correct awakening": the commentary states: This is the fifth [section], the vows for gathering sentient beings. There are two [parts]: first, four vows that gather humans and devas; second, nine vows that gather bodhisattvas. The first also has two [parts]: first, gathering those who attain rebirth; second, gathering their resulting retribution in the land where they are born. The first again has three: this is the vow gathering the superior grade. Some say: the first is the inferior grade, the next is the superior grade, and the last is the middle grade. This is incorrect. Not only does it throw the order into confusion, it also contradicts the Visualization Sūtra because that text does not exclude the five grave offenses. However, that sūtra states that "committing the five grave offenses, one attains rebirth in the Pure Land," which contradicts this vow's statement, "excepted only are those who commit the five grave offenses and slander the correct Dharma." Reconciling these since ancient times has naturally produced a hundred schools. Some say: Those who also slander the correct Dharma are excluded, while those who solely commit the five grave offenses are reborn. Someone objected to this, saying: That sūtra also states, "endowed with all kinds of unwholesome deeds"; if one does not slander the Dharma, then one cannot be said to be "endowed with all kinds of unwholesome deeds"; how then can one say that solely committing the five grave offenses allows one to attain rebirth in the Pure Land? This objection is incorrect. If one were to claim that because that sūtra says "endowed with all kinds of unwholesome deeds" it therefore also includes slandering the Dharma, then the five grave offenses would likewise belong to "all unwholesome deeds," so there would be no need to speak of them separately. One should criticize this by contrasting the sense of "conforming" and the sense of "collective inclusion" as a contradiction-compound (dvandva); a contradiction-compound signifies opposing headings, and since the sins are distinct, their designations are also distinct. Some say: This [vow] excludes those who do not repent, whereas that [sūtra] speaks of those who repent. This is also not so. Since each repetition among the ten thoughts extinguishes the sins of birth-and-death of eighty hundred million kalpas, there should be no distinction between repentance and non-repentance; furthermore, if there were another, distinct method of repentance, it is completely absent from the text on the lowest birth of the inferior grade. Some say: It speaks of exclusion with respect to those who have not yet committed them, and speaks of rebirth with respect to those who have already committed them. This is also not so. If those who have not yet committed them are still excluded, how much more so those who have already committed them! If [one claims] there is no such flaw because [the latter] causes those who have already committed them to advance, should [the former] cause those who have not yet committed them to regress? Some say: Those guilty of the actual five grave offenses are excluded, while those guilty of acts resembling the five grave offenses are reborn. This is also not so. No sacred teaching calls the class resembling the five grave offenses by the name "five grave offenses"; one cannot take the five grave offenses in that sūtra to refer to a resembling class. Some say: Do those who commit them with a heavy mind get excluded, while those who commit them with a light mind attain rebirth? This is also not so. Slandering the correct Dharma must also have degrees of lightness and heaviness; one cannot speak solely of exclusion and non-rebirth. Some say: Those excluded are those of the third level who commit the five grave offenses, while those reborn are those of the second level who commit the grave offenses. This is also not so. That sentient beings have three levels is not from sacred teaching. Even if there were a sacred teaching saying so, it also contradicts their own assertion that people of the third level do not practice the universal Dharma and whether with or without grave offenses none can be reborn. If it were as they say, it should say "excepted only are those of the third level," and speaking of excluding the grave offenses would merely be empty words. Some say: The exclusion is an initial prohibition, while rebirth is a subsequent opening. This is also not so. If the initial prohibition actually resulted in rebirth, the subsequent opening should truly result in non-rebirth. Some say: Those who commit the grave offenses without having generated the bodhicitta are excluded, while those who commit the grave offenses having already generated the bodhicitta are reborn. This is also not so. If one who has already generated the bodhicitta regresses and loses it, they should be just like one who has not generated it and not attain rebirth. If they do not regress in mind, they would certainly not commit the grave offenses. Some say: The exclusion addresses the fact that before the Buddha the five grave offenses are determinate, whereas rebirth addresses the fact that before the Buddha the five grave offenses and so forth are all indeterminate. This is also not so. Unwholesome karma to be experienced in the present life, the next life, or subsequent lives would all have to follow the example of these five grave offenses, which would result in great error. Some say: If in past lives one lacked the capacity for the path, once having committed the five grave offenses, there is ultimately no principle by which one could be reborn; but if one previously generated the bodhicitta, even if encountering conditions one commits the five grave offenses and the like, one will certainly give rise to deep repentance and also attain rebirth, because among people of the good destinies there are those who commit the five grave offenses and slander the correct Dharma. The two texts each speak of one case, so they do not contradict each other. This is also not so. The talk of "past lives" would be pointless, and if one generates the bodhicitta in the present and encounters conditions to commit the grave offenses, one should also be reborn. Moreover, because those in the "good destinies" are those in the ten faiths, committing the grave offenses and slandering the Dharma is certainly impossible in principle, as was already stated before. Some say: Those who remember the Buddha for one thought are excluded, while those who remember the Buddha for ten thoughts are reborn. This is certainly incorrect, as it contradicts the phrase here, "even down to ten thoughts." Some say: Those who are excluded cannot be reborn whether endowed with ten [thoughts] or not endowed with ten; those who are reborn are solely those endowed with ten recitations. This is also not so. Although it includes not having ten recitations, since it also expresses possessing ten thoughts, just as in that sūtra they should not be excluded. Now, in the three superior births of this sūtra, there is certainly no committing of grave offenses, so it is necessary to exclude them. That text says that in the inferior birth, even if one commits the five grave offenses, if one completes the ten thoughts one also attains rebirth; thus there is no contradiction that needs reconciling. One should not raise the objection that in the three births of the middle grade there is also no committing of grave offenses, so there would be no need to exclude them; for generating the bodhicitta and cultivating all meritorious virtues inherently means not committing the grave offenses, as the meaning is already clear. But slandering the correct Dharma is an extremely heavy sin, bringing the fruition of suffering for countless kalpas; even if one were endowed with the ten recitations, one certainly cannot attain rebirth. Therefore, sacred teaching has no differing explanation, because falling into all unwholesome deeds entails many faults and difficulties. Some say: The ten thoughts in this sūtra are mindful contemplation based on the ten dharmas and are not the Buddha's name, which refers to the ten thoughts in the Maitreyaparipṛcchā. This is also not so. The ten thoughts of that sūtra are not for ordinary beings, and certainly cannot be what can be cultivated by those of the three superior births. Now it is still identical with the ten thoughts of the Visualization Sūtra; those of the superior grade also cultivate the ten thoughts, so in principle there is no contradiction, and the phrase "even down to" is used to indicate one, two, and so forth. Let us set aside digressions and explain the main text.