觀無量壽佛經義疏 1.11.3

1.11.3

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.