觀無量壽佛經義疏 1.11

Second, distinguishing between what the ancients and moderns rejected or established, which is divided into five parts: first, clarifying blessings and contemplation; second, distinguishing between concentrated and scattered [practices]; third, showing the spiritual stages; fourth, resolving the demonic theory; fifth, pointing out misleading transmissions.

First, clarifying blessings and contemplation. Later in the sūtra, Vaidehī requests: "I only pray that the World-Honoured One teach me how to contemplate and teach me how to achieve correct reception." Ancient commentaries took the three blessings as answering "how to contemplate," and the sixteen contemplations as answering "how to achieve correct reception."

Shandao's *Profound Meaning* states: "Various masters match contemplation to the three blessings and correct reception to the sixteen contemplations. Now I say this is not so. The *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* says that contemplation and correct reception are merely alternative names for samādhi." Vaidehī's earlier request simply said, "Teach me to contemplate the place of pure karma," whereby we know that contemplation and correct reception are merely requesting contemplation. Preliminary expedients before the contemplation are called contemplation; the completion of correct contemplation is named correct reception. However, a person who practices contemplation must cultivate karmic blessings to assist in perfecting the wisdom of contemplation; therefore, the three blessings are explained first, and the contemplative practice is set forth afterwards. The three blessings are like precious cargo, and contemplative wisdom is like the ship's mast; thus, phenomena and principle support each other, and blessings and wisdom are exercised in tandem. How could someone practicing contemplation sit blankly upright, neither serving teachers and parents, nor upholding the refuges and precepts, nor reciting the Mahāyāna? Therefore, many virtues are required to assist in completing correct contemplation; how could a single wheel or a lone wing reach anywhere? Later, when explaining the text, this will be distinguished even more thoroughly.

Second, distinguishing between concentrated and scattered [practices]. Shandao's *Profound Meaning* states: "The first thirteen contemplations are concentrated goodness, and the later three blessings and nine grades—corresponding to the earlier three blessings—are scattered goodness. Now I say this is not so. If it were judged like this, there should only be thirteen contemplations; how could they be called the sixteen contemplations? Furthermore, in the nine grades below, the superior grade concludes by saying, 'This is called the perception of rebirth for the superior grade; it is named the fourteenth contemplation.' The same applies to the middle and inferior grades. How could the last three alone be named scattered goodness? Relying solely on this investigation, [their theory] collapses of itself." Relying on the Dharma and not on persons is the ultimate admonition of the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*. When reaching the nine grades below, we shall distinguish this further.

Third, showing the spiritual stages. Based on the *Profound Meaning*, it says: "Various masters from ancient times have all used the Mahāyāna's three stages of the worthy and ten stages of the noble to correspond to the top three grades; the Hīnayāna's two stages of ordinary beings and four fruits to correspond to the middle three grades; and initial-learning ordinary beings of the Mahāyāna, according to the gravity of their transgressions, to correspond to the bottom three grades." That text refutes this in detail, so it will not be cited in full again. Now I say: if we judge that spiritual stages are discussed only after one has been born in that land based on the nine grades below, it may be as the various masters say. Yet according to the sūtra text, those seeking rebirth from this land are all ordinary beings, so we must rely on the *Profound Meaning*. It cites ten passages from the sūtra as proof, by which the past errors can be verified.

The sūtra says: "I shall now explain many parables extensively for you, and also cause all ordinary beings in future worlds who wish to cultivate pure karma to attain rebirth in the Western [Direction]"—this is the first proof.

It also says: "The Tathāgata now expounds pure karma for future sentient beings who are harmed by the thieves of afflictions"—this is the second proof.

It also says: "The Tathāgata now teaches Vaidehī and future sentient beings to contemplate the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss"—this is the third proof.

It also says: "Vaidehī addressed the Buddha, saying: 'By the Buddha's power, I have seen that land. If, after the Buddha's extinction, sentient beings are oppressed by defilement, evil, unwholesomeness, and the five sufferings, how will they see that Buddha's land?'"—this is the fourth proof.

It also says: "You and sentient beings should concentrate your minds... even those who are not blind from birth, anyone with eyes can see the setting sun"—this is the fifth proof.

It also says: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'Uphold the Buddha's words, and for all the great assembly in future worlds who wish to be liberated from suffering, preach this method of contemplating the ground'"—this is the sixth proof.

It also says: "Vaidehī addressed the Buddha: 'Now, by the Buddha's power, I have been able to see that Buddha and the two bodhisattvas. How should future sentient beings contemplate them?'"—this is the seventh proof.

It also says: "The Buddha told Vaidehī: 'You and sentient beings who wish to contemplate that Buddha should give rise to the visualization...'" and so on—this is the eighth proof.

It also says: "The Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, are the Dharma-realm body and enter into the minds and thoughts of all sentient beings. Therefore, when your minds think of the Buddha..."—this is the ninth proof.

Also, as in each of the nine grades it says "If there are sentient beings..." and so on—this is the tenth proof.

The above ten passages prove that the Tathāgata expounded the sixteen contemplations solely for sentient beings constantly submerged [in saṃsāra], and not for the worthy and noble persons of the Great or Small [Vehicles] (all the above is from the text of the *Profound Meaning*). Examining these ten passages, texts one, two, four, and five are the most essential. Thus we know that this scripture is specifically directed to fully bound ordinary beings of the defiled world; it is only after reaching that realm that eradication [of defilements] and realization are discussed.

Fourth, resolving the demonic theory. Some say that when practicing the pure karma of the Western Direction, all the visions perceived at the end of life are demonic. This arises because they have not opened the scriptural teachings, take no pleasure in cultivation, and enjoy using heterodox words to obstruct the correct faith of others, causing no small harm; therefore, this must be distinguished. Furthermore, there are four kinds of māras: first, the skandha-māras; second, the affliction-māras; third, the death-māra; fourth, the deva-māra. The upper three māras are your own body and mind; only the deva-māra dwells in the heavens of the desire realm. This is a great expedient [power] that repels evil and advances goodness; only when one possesses great meritorious practice can he be stirred. When ordinary beings cultivate the Path, if their inner minds are not correct, they will certainly suffer demonic disturbances; if the mind is genuine, the demons can do nothing. Thus we know that demons come from oneself and are not brought about by others. Just as worldly seductresses bewitch people: if one is upright in mind and dignified in countenance, they certainly cannot approach; but if one indulges desire and glances about, one is surely bewildered by them. Now I cite various explanations to end all doubts.

One says: within the great illumination, there are absolutely no demonic occurrences, just as in broad daylight treachery and theft are hard to accomplish.

One says: contemplating the mind in this land and looking back upon one's own skandhas often generates demonic occurrences; now, contemplating the real realm of Amitāyus's fruition-virtue, there are no demonic occurrences.

One says: people mindful of the Buddha are all protected and kept in mind by all Buddhas; since they are protected by Buddhas, how could there be demons?

One says: if people cultivating pure karma inevitably stir up demons, the Buddha would surely have pointed it out and exposed it, as in the *Prajñāpāramitā*, the *Śūraṅgama Sūtra*, and so forth. If the Buddha did not point it out, he would mislead sentient beings into falling into the net of demons. Now, the various Pure Land sūtras do not mention demons at all, whereby it is clear that this method has no demons.

Dharma Master Qingwen of Shanyin distinguished this in great detail in his *Gateway of Correct Faith*, which I now cite in full.

He asked: "Some people say: 'Seeing the Buddha and bodhisattvas radiating light and holding a dais at the end of life, with heavenly music and wondrous fragrance arriving to welcome one for rebirth—all of these are demonic occurrences.' What about this statement?"

He answered: "Some, relying on the *Śūraṅgama Sūtra* to practice samādhi, stir up the skandha-māras. Some, relying on the *Treatise on the Mahāyāna* to practice samādhi, stir up external demons (meaning the deva-māras). Some, relying on the *Treatise on Calming and Contemplation* to practice samādhi, stir up seasonal spirits. All of these are people cultivating dhyāna-concentration through their self-power; demonic seeds previously present are provoked and stimulated by concentration, and therefore these events appear."

If one can understand and recognize them clearly, one will be able to dispel them by applying each specific antidote; but if one takes them to be sacred realizations, one will in all cases be obstructed by demons' (the above explains how entering the path in this realm triggers demonic phenomena). Now, in terms of the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi practiced [here], it relies upon the Buddha's power, just as when one draws close to an emperor no one dares to infringe upon or offend him. This is because the Buddha Amitāyus possesses the power of great compassion, the power of great vows, the power of great wisdom, the power of great samādhi, the power of great spiritual majesty, the power to greatly crush heresy, the power to greatly subdue demons, the power of the divine eye to see afar, the power of the divine ear to hear from afar, the power to thoroughly discern others' minds, and the power of light shining everywhere to gather in sentient beings. With such inconceivable powers of merit, how could he fail to protect and uphold the person mindful of the Buddha up to the moment of death, causing him to be without obstacles? If he did not provide protection and support, where would his power of compassion be? If he could not eliminate demonic obstructions, where would his power of wisdom, power of samādhi, power of spiritual majesty, power to crush heresy, and power to eliminate demons be? If he could not discern and observe someone obstructed by demons, where would his power of the divine eye seeing afar, power of the divine ear hearing from afar, and power to thoroughly discern others' minds be? The sūtra says: 'The light of Amitāyus's marks and signs shines everywhere throughout the worlds of the ten directions, gathering in and never forsaking sentient beings who are mindful of the Buddha.' If one were to claim that a person mindful of the Buddha is obstructed by demons at the time of death, where would his power of light shining everywhere to gather in sentient beings be? Furthermore, the manifestations perceived at the end of life by those mindful of the Buddha come from numerous sūtras and are all the Buddha's words; how could one disparage them as demonic obstructions? Now, to definitively shatter heretical doubts, one must generate correct faith" (the above is his text). Furthermore, the Śūraṅgama [Sūtra] says: 'In the mind of dhyāna-concentration, one sees Rocana seated upon the terrace of celestial light, surrounded by ten Buddhas,' and so forth; this is termed being tainted by the soul's numinous awakening. When the light of the mind is refined and clarified, illuminating the various worlds, one temporarily attains such a state, but it is not a sacred realization. The Zizhong Shu says: 'If one practices the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi and this realm appears before one, it accords with the sūtras and is called a correct sign. If one practices other contemplations, even if one sees the form of a buddha it is not correct, because mind and realm do not correspond. How much more so when contemplating true suchness, where one does not grasp any characteristics: if there is any attachment, how could it not be a demon?' Zizhong's critical judgment is extremely precise and appropriate; thus citing fully the previous explanations permanently removes the obstacles of doubt. 5. Pointing out erroneous transmissions. The teachings of the Pure Land originated in ancient times during the Jin dynasty with the White Lotus Society of Mount Lu. Since then, eminent and worthy masters such as Shandao, Huaigan, Huiri, and Shaokang, down to the masters of Chan and doctrinal lectures of the previous dynasty in our present era, have also widely propagated and chanted it. Only Dharma Master Ciyun of Tianzhu thoroughly mastered the doctrine and vigorously revitalized it for a time, producing the Greater and Lesser Amitāyus Repentance Rituals, the Biographies of Rebirth [in the Pure Land], the Verses on Correct Faith, Poems on the Buddhānusmṛti-samādhi, along with various diagrams and charts that circulate in the world. Since him, few have been able to carry it on. With the passage of time and changing circumstances, the transmission became erroneous and distorted, and this teaching nearly ceased; even if people heard and studied it, conjectural assertions were most numerous. If one does not distinguish and clarify them, I fear later students will be misled. I shall briefly cite several matters for the discerning to examine in detail. The Confucian texts of this land also speak of the west. For example, the Zhoushu yiji says that at the time of the Buddha's birth, auspicious vapors floated in the sky. The Grand Astrologer Su You memorialized: 'A great sage is born in the west; after one thousand years, the sounds of his teaching will reach here.' Later, when the Buddha passed into extinction, twelve white rainbows pierced from south to north. The Grand Astrologer Heduo memorialized: 'This is the omen of a great sage in the west entering extinction.' Furthermore, Liezi says that in the past, the Grand Minister of Song, Pi, asked Confucius: 'Who is a sage?' Confucius replied: 'In the west there is a sage. He does not govern, yet there is no disorder; he does not speak, yet he is naturally trusted; he does not convert, yet things naturally take their course,' and so forth. Wenzhongzi says: 'The Buddha's Dharma is the teaching of the west; in the Central Realm it is an obstruction.' Down to later generations, Confucians have mostly taken Buddhism to refer to the west, meaning the Western realm of India relative to this land, not the west spoken of in the present sūtra. Let us briefly explain this: One sun and moon, one Mount Sumeru, and one set of four continents are called one world. A thousand such worlds are called a small-thousand world; a thousand small-thousand worlds are called a medium-thousand world; a thousand medium-thousand worlds are called a great-thousand world. This is the domain transformed by a single Śākyamuni. Now, this Southern Jambudvīpa is merely one continent within a single world. This land, the Divine Continent [of China], is again merely a single corner of that continent. The five regions of India occupy the center of Jambudvīpa; the Divine Continent lies to their southeast. Looking toward them from here, it is therefore designated 'the west.' If we speak of Amitāyus's Pure Land, it lies outside the great-thousand world, passing beyond more than one hundred thousand billion lands. Master Zhiyi says: 'The Western Pure Land transcends the three realms.' Thus we know it is as far apart from this Jambudvīpa and Western India as heaven and earth; how could they be casually conflated? In my humble observation, throughout antiquity and the present, there are two obstacles to lack of faith in the Pure Land: the first is obstruction by others, and the second is obstruction by oneself. As for obstruction by others, it means that worldly transmissions spread divergent theories without distinguishing right from wrong, so that people contrary [to reason] do not believe and accept the Buddha's words. I shall briefly list several items; the rest cannot be exhausted. For instance, in the Biographies of Eminent Monks: 'Huibu said: "Although that land is pure, it is not my desire. To enjoy pleasure for ten kalpas within a lotus flower is not as good as saving sentient beings in the places of extreme suffering in the three wretched destinies."' I now say: For a bodhisattva who has attained [anutpattika-dharma-]kṣānti, such words may be permissible; but if one has not yet attained kṣānti, one cannot even save oneself, so how could one save others? The Dazhidu lun says: 'That a common person bound by all fetters should have great compassion to rescue sentient beings is impossible'—explained in detail as refuted in the first doubt of the Shiyi lun. Someone says: 'If the mind is pure, that is the Western Paradise of one's own nature; why must one seek rebirth in a Pure Land of another realm?' I now say: It is not that this principle does not exist, but this refers to the land of the principle of dharma-nature within the teachings, and is not what is explained in the present sūtra. However, when common people bound by all fetters have not yet ascended to the stage of kṣānti, even if they suddenly awaken to their own mind, who can constantly preserve its purity? Though the dharma is high and sublime, it does not embrace the capacities of the multitude; with only empty words, by what means could one enter? Another says: 'The Western Paradise is one hundred and eight thousand li from here.' This also mistakenly takes the four regions of India to be the Western Paradise. The sūtra says: 'Passing from here westward beyond a hundred thousand billion Buddha lands, there is a world named Sukhāvatī'—how could it be merely one hundred and eight thousand? I merely point out one detail; the rest are not worth debating. Someone says: 'These sixteen contemplations are directed only at those of lower faculties.' I now say: This sūtra is the round and sudden supreme vehicle, the dharma for becoming a buddha; 'this mind is the Buddha' comes from the present sūtra. When Vaidehī heard it once, she immediately shattered ignorance and attained anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti, and her five hundred maidservants resolved their minds on bodhi; could they all have been of lower faculties? Another says: 'When a person mindful of the Buddha feels the buddhas and bodhisattvas coming to welcome him at the end of life, these are all manifestations of his own mental karma, and no buddha truly comes from another realm.'

Now, examining this statement in detail, it contains many errors: First, it does not believe the Buddha's words, for the appearances experienced at the approach of death in the nine grades of the Contemplation Sūtra were all spoken by the Buddha. Second, it does not rely on the Buddha's power, for the compassionate vows of the buddhas and bodhisattvas extract suffering and bestow bliss without abandoning any sentient being. Third, it does not believe in the Buddha's essence, for the essential natures of the Buddha and sentient beings are equal, and whenever there is a stimulus, there must be a response; if the Buddha had no response, then lacking the three bodies he would not be a buddha. If these three are disbelieved, what can be believed? Furthermore, someone says: 'Do not emulate foolish people in seeking rebirth in the Pure Land.' Now I say that the *Sūtra of Amitāyus* states that all the bodhisattvas of the ten directions vow to be reborn in the Pure Land, not to mention that Samantabhadra's vows of practice and Mahāsthāmaprāpta's perfect penetration both vow for rebirth in the Pure Land. Could all those superior good persons destined for succession to the stage of non-retrogression be foolish people? Furthermore, the eminent monks of the ancient Jin dynasty recorded in the *Biographies of Eminent Monks*—Dao Sheng, Seng Rong, Hui Chi, and Hui Yuan—as well as the master of Nanyue, the Tiantai master, and the eighteen sages of Mount Lu, all practiced this method; could they also be foolish people? You now cling to the three realms and are attached to the five turbidities, willingly enduring the manifold sufferings without any thought of leaving them behind, yet conversely consider yourselves wise persons—how topsy-turvy! Even supposing you had yourselves attained the power of patience and delighted in abiding in the three realms to deliver sentient beings, why utter such words to obstruct the practice of others? Furthermore, someone says: 'Seeking rebirth in the Pure Land, being mindful of the Buddha, and practicing contemplation are all forms of clinging and grasping at signs, by no means a method of transcendence.' Now I say: clinging or not clinging, grasping or not grasping, depends on whether the understanding of the person's mind and wisdom is clear or deluded; how can it be that all who are seen engaged in practice are uniformly clinging to signs, while those who act with unrestrained indulgence are entirely men of penetration? Moreover, when the Buddha spoke of not clinging to signs, it was to cause one not to cling to the signs of self, person, sentient being, and lifespan, nor to abide in the signs of the dharmas practiced, so that by dispelling the two attachments to self and dharmas, one directly realizes the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas. How has keeping the mind focused and advancing in cultivation ever been deemed clinging to signs? Furthermore, worldly people contend over self and other, flaunt power and influence, indulge in sights and sounds, chase after profit and fame, hoard wealth and grain, and cling with affection to wives and children—towards all these signs of beginningless entanglement of craving, which the Buddha admonishes them to leave far behind, they conversely cling ever more deeply; whereas toward the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi, which they have never experienced since time without beginning and which the Buddha admonishes them to practice, they conversely suspect it of clinging to signs. Sentient beings are deluded and topsy-turvy to such an extent! Now I say that if one practices the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi, it is definitely not clinging to signs. Why is this so? The Buddha's body is without signs; what is there that could be clung to? Therefore the *Dazhidu lun* states: 'Planting seeds in the Buddha's field of merit refers to the mind of wisdom being steadfastly attached; according to one's ability one makes offerings of incense and flowers, reaching the Buddha without exhaustion.' Could the treatise master Nāgārjuna not have understood prajñā? When he spoke of 'steadfastly attached', was that also clinging to signs? The dharma of prajñā-emptiness was originally intended to cause those who practice the six perfections not to abide in signs. If the six perfections are not practiced, what use is prajñā? Those who have truly attained the Way understand that cultivation is non-cultivation, and comprehend that mindfulness is non-mindfulness; this is what is meant by 'cultivating all day long yet never beginning to cultivate, being mindful all day long yet never having been mindful.' The *Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* states: 'Without signs of self, person, sentient being, or lifespan, one cultivates all wholesome dharmas and thereby attains anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.' Therefore we know: how could thoroughly comprehending persons ever not cultivate good? Furthermore, someone has said: 'At the time of death, if one sees realms such as banners, flags, and lotus flowers appearing before oneself, one must not go with any of them.' Now I say that when visions appear at death, some are naturally evoked by correct mindfulness and wholesome karma, while others are brought on by evil thoughts and the commission of bad deeds; how can they be indiscriminately dismissed as the work of Māra? Moreover, once an evil sign appears, one is pulled along spontaneously by karma; how could it be left to your own wish whether you go or not? Just as when a person has created karma deserving a fall into the three miserable destinies and evil visions appear at death, how could they avoid going? Therefore we know this is an erroneous tradition, unworthy of belief. Someone made a vow, saying: 'I vow that from this life until I realize correct awakening, before I attain the Way, my body may be free from sudden illness and my lifespan not cut short midway; when my proper life ends I may not see evil signs; I may always obtain a human body, intelligent and upright; I may not be born in an evil land or encounter an evil king; and wherever I am born, I may encounter the Buddha, hear the Dharma, leave the household in youthful innocence, and form a harmonious saṅgha.' Now I say that if one is born in the Pure Land, then there are no perils of sudden illness, premature death, evil lands, or evil kings, and one will spontaneously and constantly encounter the Three Jewels, leave the household, and become a monk. It is merely because of not knowing the Pure Land that such a vow is made. This is also like Chen Chuling's vow, saying: 'I vow to return immediately into the human realm, to be born in a place neither high nor low,' and so forth. He was a Confucian scholar, not subject to censure. Masters of Chan and scholastic lectures mostly hold this view, all saying: 'I merely vow that in future lives I may not lose a male body, leave the household, and study the Way.' I once ventured to say to them: 'You have now already obtained a male body and left the household; it is only proper that you seek liberation forthwith. Why then seek again for a male body and vow anew to leave the household, without the slightest superior advancement?' Second, regarding self-obstruction, six kinds may be briefly stated. One says: 'The Pure Land is difficult to be born in; I have no strength and do not dare to hope for too much; if I merely do not lose the human body, that will suffice.' Another says: 'I have broken the precepts and violated the fasts, and my evil karma is profound and heavy; how could I be born in the Western Pure Land?' Another says: 'The Buddha's speaking of the West was an expedient inducement to sentient beings, bidding them temporarily to be mindful of good; it is wholly without reality.' Seeing others cultivate pure karma, they conversely mock them. Another says: 'With cleverness and sharp intelligence one directly awakens to one's own mind, and whatever one does accords with the Way; how could this be the same as inferior persons being mindful of the Buddha and engaging in practice?' Another says: 'A person's birth is merely an accumulation of blood and breath, nominally designated as a body; when death arrives, the hundred bones dissolve and disperse, and everything returns to emptiness. How could there be a Pure Land in which one can be born?' Another says: 'At the time of death, one forms a visualization to seize the skandhas of another's womb, instantly exchanging retribution without passing through a womb.' Now I say: the recompense dharmas of form and mind are produced by past karma; how could my consciousness seize another's recompense? I suspect that the spiritual consciousness first lodged in that womb, and when retribution ended and it proceeded to rebirth, it was not another's skandhas. Even supposing it could be seized, what intention could there be in troubling the mind with visualizations seeking to enter a womb? This goes against the aspiration of leaving the household and turns its back on the gate of liberation. Moreover, our Buddha, with great compassion, revealed the Pure Land and earnestly exhorted it throughout the Mahāyāna; yet having seen it with their eyes and heard it with their ears, they specifically produce doubt and slander, willingly wallowing in weakness and having no longing to transcend and ascend—these the Tathāgata declared to be pitied. This is truly because they do not know that this Dharma is extraordinarily different from common paths: it does not distinguish between the wise and the foolish, it makes no selection between monastics and laypeople, it does not discuss whether one's practice is of long or short standing, and it does not ask whether the sins one has committed are heavy or light; it only requires giving rise to resolute faith, which is the causal seed for rebirth. Dharma Master Ciyun said: 'Only the pure karma of Sukhāvatī can be practiced quickly and directly. If there are members of the fourfold assembly who wish to quickly shatter ignorance and permanently eradicate heavy and light sins such as the five heinous offenses and the ten unwholesome deeds, they should practice this method. If they wish to restore to purity the essence of the great and small precepts, to attain the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi, and to accomplish the bodhisattva's perfections, they should study this method. If they wish at the approach of death to be free from all fears, their own minds peaceful and happy, with the multitude of sages appearing before them and extending their hands to receive and guide them, immediately upon leaving the worldly defilements reaching non-retrogression, and without passing through long kalpas directly attaining non-arising, they should practice this method,' and so forth.

Can one fail to follow the Dharma words of ancient sages? The above five gates have briefly indicated the essentials; the rest, not being exhausted here, will be detailed in the commentary on the text. According to the *Kaiyuan Record*, this sūtra had two translations in all; the earlier version is already lost, and the present version was translated by Kālayaśas. The *Biographies of Eminent Monks* states: 'Kālayaśas, translated here as Shicheng, was a person of the Western Regions. He was upright and unyielding in character, with few desires, and was thoroughly conversant in the Tripiṭaka. At the beginning of the Yuanjia era of the Song dynasty, he arrived at the capital. Emperor Wen greatly sighed in admiration and decreed that he reside at Daolin Monastery on Mount Zhong. Seng Han requested him to translate this sūtra together with the *Sūtra on the Contemplation of the Two Bodhisattvas Bhaiṣajyarāja and Bhaiṣajyasamudgata*, with Han acting as the recorder. Later he traveled to Min and Shu, and returning, died in Jiangling.' Furthermore, there were several interpretations in previous generations: Dharma Master Huiyuan of the Sui dynasty and Great Master Zhizhe of Tiantai both had commentaries, and Preceptor Shandao of the Tang dynasty also established *The Profound Meaning*, which circulate together in the world; but each favored their own sectarian traditions and mutually engaged in acceptance and rejection. Therefore, what is explained now chooses the good and follows it; where there are errors, they are certainly corrected.