觀無量壽佛經義疏 1.11.3

1.11.3

今詳此說乃有多失：一則不信佛語，觀經九品臨終感相皆佛說故。 二、不修佛力，諸佛菩薩慈悲誓願拔苦與樂不遺物故。 三、不信佛體，佛與眾生體性平等，有感必應。 佛若無應，三身不備則非佛故。 此三不信，孰可信耶？ 又有人云：莫學愚人求生淨土。 今謂《無量壽經》說十方諸菩薩皆願往生淨土，況普賢行願、勢至圓通皆願往生淨土。 補處不退諸上善人，豈皆愚人耶？ 又僧傳所敘古晉高僧生、融、持、遠，南岳天台、廬山十八賢，皆修此法，豈亦愚人耶？ 汝今滯著三界、耽戀五濁，甘受眾苦、無思出離，反是智人，一何顛倒？ 假令自得忍力，樂住三界度生，那發此言障他修習？ 又云：求生淨土念佛修觀，皆是執著取相，殊非超越之法。 今謂著與不著、取與不取，在人心智所見明昧，豈得凡見修持例皆著相？ 於恣不撿盡是通人？ 且佛言不著相者，蓋令不著我人眾生壽者等相、不住所修法相，遣除人法二執，即達人法二空。 何甞以繫念進修而為著相乎？ 且世人爭競我人、衒耀權勢，耽荒聲色、奔逐利名，聚斂財穀、繫戀妻拏，此等諸相無始愛纏，佛勸遠離，反更深著； 念佛三昧無始未經，佛勸修習，反疑著相。 眾生迷倒一至於此。 今謂若修念佛三昧，定非著相。 何以然耶？ 佛身無相，有何可著？ 故《智論》云「植佛福田者，謂慧心堅著也。 隨以香華供養，至佛無盡。 」龍樹論師豈不解般若？ 而言堅著者豈亦著相耶？ 夫般若空法，元為修六度者令不住相。 六度不修，般若焉用？ 真得道者達修無修、了念無念，所謂終日修而未始修、終日念而未甞念。 《金剛般若》云「無我人眾生壽者，修一切善法，則得阿耨菩提。 」故知了達之士何甞不修善耶？ 又有說云：臨命終時若見幢幡蓮華等境界現前，並不得去。 今謂臨終境現自有正念善業所感，亦有邪心造惡所招，豈得一槩斥為魔事？ 況惡相既現任運業牽，豈由汝意願去不去？ 如人造業合墮三途，臨終惡現，何由不去？ 故知謬傳，不足取信。 有人發願云：願從今生至成正覺未得道前，身無橫病壽不中夭，正命盡時不見惡相，長得人身聰明正直，不生惡國不值惡王，乃至所生之處值佛聞法、童真出家、為僧和合。 今謂若生淨土，則無橫病夭壽、惡國惡王之患，任運常值三寶出家為僧。 祇由不知淨土，故有此願。 亦猶陳除陵願云：願即還人中不高不下處託生等。 彼乃儒流，不在言責。 禪講宗師率多此見，皆言但願後世不失男子出家學道。 甞試語曰：汝今已得男子出家，秖合便求出離。 何乃復求男子再願出家，略無勝進乎？ 二、自障者，略說六種。 一云：淨土難生，吾無力量非敢過望，但不失人身足矣。 一云：吾毀戒破齊惡業深重，西方淨土何由可生？ 一云：佛說西方，權誘眾生且念為善，皆無其實。 見修淨業反生嗤笑。 一云：聰明利智直悟己心，任己所為無非合道，豈同下士念佛修行耶？ 一云：凡人之生血氣所聚假名為身，及乎死去百骸潰散一切歸空。 何有淨土是可生耶？ 一云：臨終作想奪彼胎陰，剎那換報不歷胞胎。 今謂色心報法宿業所成，安有我神能奪他報？ 竊恐識神靈妙先托彼胎，報謝趣生即非他陰。 假令可奪，作想勞神求入胞胎，未知何意？ 違出家志、背解脫門。 而況我佛大慈開示淨土，慇懃觀囑遍諸大乘，目見耳聞特生疑謗，自甘沈弱不慕超昇，如來說為可憐愍者。 良由不知此法特異常途，不擇賢愚、不簡緇素，不論修行久近、不問造罪重輕，但令決定信心，即是往生因種。 慈雲法師云「唯安養淨業捷直可修。 若有四眾欲得速破無明、永滅五逆十惡重輕等罪、當修此法。 欲得大小戒體還復清淨、得念佛三昧成就菩薩諸波羅蜜，當學此法。 欲得臨終離諸怖畏自心安快，眾聖現前授手接引，初離塵勞便至不退，不歷長劫即得無生，當修此法」等。

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.