無量壽經連義述文贊 2.126

2.126

經曰「設我得佛」至「不取正覺」者，述云：此第二、遠離譏嫌願也。然《音聲王》云阿彌陀佛有父母者，有說：彼顯穢土，佛有父母非淨土故，不違此文自說魔王名曰無勝、提婆達多名曰寂故。有說：不然。雖有魔王而守護故。不爾，即《法華經》中違飲光淨土魔及魔民皆護佛法故。應說彼經顯變化土，亦有女人自說所生之處永離胞胎穢欲之形故。而無女人者，即受用土也。存此言，善順《菩薩瓔珞經》也。如彼經第十一釋慧智造如來淨土云「但男女眾生不如阿彌陀國得道者」故。雖有男女，而無男女之欲。此必不然。既云男女眾生不如彌陀土，必不言有女人故。有說：彼經父母城邑等皆是功德法，如《維摩》說「智度菩薩母，方便以為父」。《華嚴經》中文殊師利於覺城東遇善財童子，經言覺城還是功德之名，故無違可釋。此亦不然。自受用身必由智度及以方便，應有父母故，許即必有莫大失故。今之所存自有二義：初即彼佛雖復有母，而是變化，唯佛孤有故。言無女者，除佛之母，無更化女況亦其實，故不相違。後即准《悲華經》，或有菩薩於彼國生修菩薩行，即於彼土成等正覺。或有菩薩於此世界生已修行，往他方土成等正覺。《法華》龍女亦一類是也。本願不同，應現異故。今阿彌陀佛蓋亦餘國受胎生身，修菩薩行，往尊音佛淨土而成佛道故。《音王經》云有父母者，說本所生之土。言有淨土者，即成佛世界，故皆無違。略開二途，學者應思。傍論且止，應歸本文。

The sūtra says: "If, when I attain Buddhahood..." up to "may I not attain complete enlightenment." The commentary states: This is the second [vow], the vow to remain far from criticism and reproach. However, as the [Sūtra of the King of] Sounds states that Amitābha Buddha has parents, some say: "That sūtra reveals an impure land, for a buddha having parents is not [the case for] a pure land, and it does not contradict this text, since it personally states that the demon king is named Invincible (Aparājita) and Devadatta is named Quiet (Śānta)." Others say: "That is not so. Although there is a demon king, he acts as a protector. If this were not so, it would contradict [the statement in] the Lotus Sūtra regarding Kāśyapa's pure land that Māra and Māra's subjects all protect the Buddha's Dharma. One should say that that sūtra reveals a transformation land, where there are also women, as it personally states that the place of rebirth is forever separated from the foul, lustful form of the womb." As for there being no women, that refers to the land of enjoyment. Upholding this statement accords well with the Bodhisattva-keyūra-sūtra. As the eleventh fascicle of that sūtra explains, when the Wisdom and Knowledge Tathāgata created a pure land, it states: "Yet male and female sentient beings are not like those who attain the Way in the land of Amitābha." Therefore, although there are males and females, there is no male and female lust. This must not be so. Since it states that male and female sentient beings are not like those in Amitābha's land, it definitely does not say that there are women. Some say: "The parents, cities, and so forth in that sūtra are all qualities of merit (guṇadharma), just as the Vimalakīrti states: 'The perfection of wisdom is the bodhisattva's mother, and expedient means is the father.' In the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Mañjuśrī meets the youth Sudhana to the east of the City of Enlightenment; the sūtra states that the City of Enlightenment is also a name for merit, so there is no contradiction that needs explaining." This also is not so. A self-enjoyment body must arise from the perfection of wisdom and expedient means, so it would have to possess parents; granting that would entail an immense fault. What we now maintain naturally comprises two meanings: First, although that Buddha indeed has a mother, she is a transformation, uniquely possessed by that Buddha alone. When it is said there are no women, it means that except for the Buddha's mother, there are no further transformed women, let alone real ones; thus they do not contradict each other. Second, according to the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka Sūtra, some bodhisattvas are born in that land, practice the bodhisattva conduct, and directly attain equal and complete enlightenment in that land; other bodhisattvas, having been born and practiced in this world, go to other lands and attain equal and complete enlightenment. The dragon girl in the Lotus Sūtra is also of this type. Because original vows differ, manifest responses are distinct. Now Amitābha Buddha probably also took a womb-born body in another realm, practiced the bodhisattva conduct, and went to the pure land of the Buddha Sound of the Venerable One to accomplish the Buddha Way. When the Sūtra of the King of Sounds states that he has parents, it speaks of the land of his original birth. When it states that he has a pure land, it refers to the world in which he attained Buddhahood; thus neither contradicts the other. We have briefly opened these two paths; scholars should reflect upon them. Let the side discussion cease for now, and let us return to the primary text.