無量壽經連義述文贊 3.4

3.4

經曰「佛告阿難」至「有其三輩」者，述云：此第三、申往生因令人修生。有二：此初、總標也。有說：此中三輩皆生他受用土故，不同《觀經》生變化土之九品也。「假使不能作功德」是假設故，十念亦是《彌勒所問》之所說故。非也。假使之言，縱餘功德令發菩提心故。經言假使，應如餘言，亦是實說故。又若十念，即非凡夫念，如何於上中二輩不說，唯在下輩故。今即合彼九品為此三輩，故其義無異，不應難言彼經中上中中二品皆作沙門，亦見真佛不發大心；中下一生不作沙門，都不見佛不發大心。而此中輩非作沙門，亦見化佛發菩提心，義必相違者。中輩之內自有多類，二經各談，其一無違。而言當發菩提心者，欲顯生彼必發大心，以簡定性不得生故。餘相違文，皆此類也。有說：更有往生而非三輩，謂下文中疑五智人，疑惑心中修諸功德亦信罪福，少修善本願生彼土，以信不定故，非前六少修福故，亦非後三，由此不入九品所攝。此亦不然。帛謙皆云「中輩之人狐疑不信，雖生彼土，在其城中於五百年不見佛、不聞經、不見聖」，必不可言疑智凡夫不在九品故。有說：不決四疑，雖生彼國而在邊地，別是一類非九品攝，是故不應妄生疑惑。此亦不然。二經所說中下之屬，所止寶城既五百，應如此經，疑智凡夫所在寶宮殿亦是邊地故。不爾，便違經云「所居舍宅在地，不能令隨意高大在虛空中，復去阿彌陀佛甚大遠」故。有說疑佛智人，即此中輩《觀經》中品，故帛謙經中輩云「持戒布施、飯食沙門、作寺起塔，後疑不信，其人暫信暫不信，續結其善願得往生。雖生彼國，不得前至無量壽佛所，還道見佛國界邊自然寶城，於五百歲不得見佛聞法」等故。不應非法護經中疑佛智人故。此亦不然。帛謙下輩亦在路城，於五百年不得見佛，如何疑智唯在中輩而非下耶？若言中輩疑智修因相似故，故雖屬中品而非下者，亦可下輩受果似中品故攝疑佛智。果雖相似不攝疑智，因雖復同何容疑智？又彼所言九品之內屬於中上，理必不然。《觀經》中中上、此經疑智，華開見佛聞法獲利皆不同故。若言中上自有多種故無此過者，豈不中下亦有多種故攝疑智？故今即疑佛五智，中下下上二生所攝。由此帛謙後之二輩，皆言在城，於五百年不得見佛聞法見聖故。若三輩若九品，皆無寬狹，攝往生盡。然彼三品集善為上、止惡為中、造惡為下，其間委悉應如理思。此中三輩別有三義：一、身心異。心即俱發菩提之心，專念彌陀，從多同也。身即出家為上、在俗為中下。二、修因異。即具修諸行為上、少分修福為中、稱念彼佛十念一念為下。三、生緣異。即彌陀觀音真身來迎為上、化身迎接為中、夢見佛身為下。帛延三輩別有四義：一、身心異。即出家發菩提心為上、在俗至誠心為中下。二、修行異。即備修眾行夢見諸聖為上、少分修善日夜不絕夢見諸聖為中、唯斷愛怒念佛十日十夜不絕為下。三、見佛異。即同此三種也。四、受果異。即生彼土作阿維越宅舍在空去佛亦近為上、路止寶城舍宅在地去佛大遠為中下。支謙經中從多雖同而有異者，欲生彼國，懸雜繒綵作佛寺起塔、飯食沙門者當斷愛怒，齋戒清淨一心念佛十日不絕為下輩耳。將彼二經對法護本，上輩雖同，中下即異。彼之二品，疑心在懷不發道意；此中二輩，皆發道心決定信故。所以有此參差者，蓋彼梵本雖復備有，帛謙但翻疑信往生之者，法護唯譯淨信修因，其疑智人在後示過故。言雖鉾楯，理必無異，欲釋三輩行位之別，還如前解，故不復論。

On the sūtra passage from 'The Buddha told Ānanda' to 'there are three tiers': The Commentary states: This is the third [part], explaining the causes of rebirth to lead people to cultivate for rebirth. There are two [parts]: this is the first, a general introduction. Some say: The three tiers here are all born into a land of enjoyment for others; thus they differ from the nine grades of the Visualization Sūtra, who are born into a transformation land. 'Even if unable to perform merits' is a hypothetical statement; the ten thoughts are also what is taught in the Questions of Maitreya. This is not correct. The phrase 'even if' concedes other merits in order to have them arouse the bodhi-mind. The sūtra's words 'even if' should be like other statements, being an actual teaching as well. Furthermore, if the ten thoughts were not the thoughts of ordinary beings, why would they not be mentioned for the upper and middle tiers, but only in the lower tier? Now, we combine those nine grades into these three tiers; thus the meaning is not different. One should not object by saying: in that sūtra, both the upper-middle and middle-middle grades become śramaṇas and see the true Buddha without arousing the great resolve; the middle-lower grade does not become a śramaṇa, sees no Buddha at all, and does not arouse the great resolve; whereas the middle tier here does not become a śramaṇa, sees a transformation Buddha, and arouses the bodhi-mind, so their meanings must conflict. Within the middle tier there are naturally many varieties; each of the two sūtras discusses one, and there is no contradiction. As for saying 'they should arouse the bodhi-mind', this aims to reveal that being born there requires arousing the great resolve, so as to exclude those of determinate nature who cannot be reborn. Other conflicting passages are all of this kind. Some say: There are others reborn who do not belong to the three tiers, namely those mentioned below who doubt the five wisdoms; with doubt in their minds they cultivate various merits, yet also believe in retribution for sin and blessing, cultivating a few roots of goodness and aspiring to be born in that land; because their faith is indeterminate, they are not [in] the first six [grades], and because they cultivate little merit, they are not [in] the latter three [grades]; hence they are not included within the nine grades. This is also not correct. Both Bai [Yan] and [Zhi] Qian state: 'People of the middle tier are suspicious and without faith; although born in that land, they are within its city for five hundred years without seeing the Buddha, hearing the sūtras, or seeing the noble ones.' One must not say that ordinary beings who doubt the wisdom [of the Buddha] are not within the nine grades. Some say: If one does not resolve the four doubts, although born in that land one remains in the borderland, constituting a distinct category not included in the nine grades; therefore, one should not rashly give rise to doubts. This is also not correct. In what the two sūtras teach, the jewel city where those of the middle and lower categories dwell is five hundred [yojanas]; as in this sūtra, the jeweled palace halls where ordinary beings who doubt wisdom reside are also the borderland. Were it not so, it would contradict the sūtra's words: 'Their dwellings are on the ground, unable to be made high and large in the void as they wish, and they are furthermore exceedingly far from Amitābha Buddha.' Some say: The people who doubt the Buddha's wisdom are this middle tier, the middle grades of the Visualization Sūtra. Hence the Bai and Qian sūtras state regarding the middle tier: 'Keeping the precepts, giving alms, providing meals to śramaṇas, building monasteries and raising stūpas, yet later being doubtful and without faith, the person temporarily believes and temporarily disbelieves, continuing to bind their good aspirations to attain rebirth. Although born in that land, they cannot advance to the abode of Amitāyus Buddha; on the way back they see a spontaneous jewel city at the border of the Buddha-realm, where for five hundred years they cannot see the Buddha or hear the Dharma,' and so forth. They should not be considered absent from Dharmarakṣa's sūtra regarding those who doubt the Buddha's wisdom. This is also not correct. In the Bai and Qian [versions], the lower tier is also in the city along the way, unable to see the Buddha for five hundred years; how could doubting wisdom be only in the middle tier and not the lower? If one says that because the cause cultivated by the middle tier who doubts wisdom is similar, it belongs to the middle grade and not the lower, then because the fruit received by the lower tier resembles the middle grade, it could also include doubting the Buddha's wisdom. If resembling the fruit does not include doubting wisdom, how could the similarity of the cause admit doubting wisdom? Furthermore, their claim that within the nine grades it belongs to the upper-middle is logically incorrect. In the Visualization Sūtra's upper-middle and this sūtra's doubting of wisdom, the blossoming of the lotus, seeing the Buddha, hearing the Dharma, and obtaining benefits are all different. If one says that because the upper-middle itself has many varieties there is no such fault, could not the middle-lower also have many varieties and thus encompass doubting wisdom? Therefore, now doubting the Buddha's five wisdoms is encompassed by the middle-lower and lower-upper births. For this reason, the latter two tiers in Bai and Qian both speak of being in the city, unable to see the Buddha, hear the Dharma, or see the noble ones for five hundred years. Whether the three tiers or the nine grades, they are neither broader nor narrower; they encompass all rebirth. However, those three grades gather good as the upper, cease evil as the middle, and commit evil as the lower; the details between them should be reflected upon in accord with principle. Here, the three tiers have three distinct meanings: First, differences in body and mind. In mind, they all arouse the bodhi-mind and focus exclusively on Amida, following the majority in being identical. In body, leaving home is the upper, while remaining in secular life is the middle and lower. Second, differences in cultivated causes. Fully cultivating all practices is the upper; partially cultivating merit is the middle; reciting that Buddha's name ten times or one time is the lower. Third, differences in conditions for rebirth. The true bodies of Amida and Avalokiteśvara coming to welcome is the upper; transformation bodies welcoming is the middle; seeing the Buddha's body in a dream is the lower. Bai Yan's three tiers have four distinct meanings: First, differences in body and mind. Leaving home and arousing the bodhi-mind is the upper; being in secular life with an utmost sincere mind is the middle and lower. Second, differences in cultivation. Fully cultivating the multitude of practices and seeing the noble ones in a dream is the upper; partially cultivating goodness day and night without interruption and seeing the noble ones in a dream is the middle; solely severing attachment and anger and recollecting the Buddha for ten days and ten nights without interruption is the lower. Third, differences in seeing the Buddha. These are identical to the three kinds here. Fourth, differences in receiving results. Being born in that land, becoming an avaivartika, with dwellings in the void and near the Buddha is the upper; staying along the way in the jewel city, with dwellings on the ground and far from the Buddha is the middle and lower. In Zhi Qian's sūtra, though mostly identical, there are differences: those desiring to be born in that land who hang variegated silks, build Buddhist monasteries, raise stūpas, and feed śramaṇas should sever attachment and anger, observe pure fasting and precepts, and single-mindedly recollect the Buddha for ten days without interruption—this is the lower tier. Comparing those two sūtras with Dharmarakṣa's version, the upper tier is identical, but the middle and lower are different. Those two grades hold doubt in their hearts and do not arouse the intention for the Way; the two tiers here both arouse the bodhi-mind with determinate faith. The reason there is this discrepancy is that although the Sanskrit text fully contained both, Bai and Qian only translated those of doubtful faith being reborn, whereas Dharmarakṣa only translated the cultivation of causes with pure faith, showing the fault of those who doubt wisdom later. Although the words appear contradictory, in principle there is no difference. If one wishes to explain the distinctions of practices and stages among the three tiers, it is as explained before, so we shall not discuss it again.