觀彌勒上生兜率天經贊 1.35

1.35

贊曰：第四、說法處也。梵云室羅筏悉底，言舍衛者，音訛略也。此中印土境憍薩羅國之都城名，為別南憍薩羅，故以都城為國之稱。真諦法師云：「昔有兄弟二人，一名舍婆、二名婆提。」故彼所翻《金剛般若》云「在舍婆提城，兄弟二人於此習仙，後而果遂，城因此號名舍婆提。」今新解云：應云豐德城，一具財物、二好欲境、三饒多聞、四豐解脫。國豐四德，故以名焉。祇樹者，應云誓多林，祇樹者訛也。誓多云勝，此即太子名。太子生時，隣國怨至，戰而得勝遂以為名。給孤獨者，是蘇達多長者，此云善施。善施仁而且叡，積而能散，拯濟貧乏哀恤孤老，時人美其德，號給孤獨，是鉢剌𡱝刪特特王，舊云婆斯匿，此名勝軍，彼王之大臣也。佛在摩揭陀未遊舍衛，給孤獨長者為兒取婦遂詣王舍城。時有長者將延請佛，敬修供具。善施問其所由，長者具陳請佛。彼聞佛德，深心歡喜。佛在鷲山相去數十餘里，遙放光照，善施尋光遙見世尊，悲感喜哽如子見父。尋光詣佛，路逢天祠，善施禮拜，佛光遂滅。善施慚愧，光明還燭，尋明至佛，請佛詣國普化有緣，何獨此土？佛時許可，令舍利子先瞻度焉。佛言：「出家之人當須寂靜。」豐德人鬧，城中小隘，唯城南五六里餘有太子誓多之園地，唯[塽-(爻*爻)+((人/人)*(人/人))]塏泉林蘩欝壁方十里，可設伽藍。善施請買，太子不許，因戲言曰：「布金滿地厚敷五寸時即賣之。」善施許諾。太子辭以戲言，因陳不與。善施請為斷理，時淨居天恐人遮之曲從，遂化為斷事者，斷與善施。善施得之，布金而取。時少五百步未滿十里，一庫金盡。使者來報，善施思惟當取何金。太子疑其情悋，請悔地還金。善施具陳心非悔買。太子知其情邈自發勝心，人之所貴莫過金寶，而彼當能傾庫買地以造僧園，我何所乏而無修建？請悔先地，長者不從。太子云：「許地取金，未論林樹。地隨汝主，林屬我身。共助成功，俱陳供養。」佛後遊此，告阿難曰：「園地善施所買，樹林誓多所施，二人同心共崇功德。自今已後應謂此地為誓多林給孤獨園。」化身在此，彰報佛而有淨土；劫盡火燒，而我土由來安穩。結集不可具陳，二佛並顯淨穢之土，隨標一土義准有三。事中有二，理亦有三，三身所居各有異故。如《理趣疏》。

The commentary says: Fourth is the place where the Dharma was taught. In Sanskrit it is called Śrāvastī; to say Shewei (舍衛) is an erroneous abbreviation. This is the name of the capital city of the kingdom of Kosala in Central India. To distinguish it from Southern Kosala, the kingdom was named after its capital city. Master Paramārtha said, "In ancient times there were two brothers, one named Shepo and the other named Bati." Therefore, his translation of the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā says: "In the city of Shebati, two brothers practiced as immortals (ṛṣis) here, and subsequently attained their goal; the city was accordingly named Shebati." Now the new interpretation says: it should be called Fengdecheng (City of Abundant Virtues), [because it] possesses four [virtues]: first, it is endowed with wealth; second, it has fine realms of sensory desires; third, it has an abundance of great learning; fourth, it is replete with liberation. Because the country is abundant in these four virtues, it is named accordingly. As for 'Jeta's Trees', it should be called Jetavana; 'Jishu' is an error. 'Jeta' means 'Victorious'; this was the prince's name. When the prince was born, enemies from neighboring countries arrived; because he fought and was victorious, he was named after this. As for 'Anāthapiṇḍada', this is the elder Sudatta, which translates as Good Giver (Shan Shi). The Good Giver was benevolent and wise, capable of dispersing what he accumulated, rescuing the poor and destitute, and pitying the lonely and elderly. People of the time praised his virtue and called him Anāthapiṇḍada (Giver to the Unprotected). He was a great minister to King Prasenajit—formerly called Bosi'ni, which means Victorious Army. When the Buddha was in Magadha and had not yet traveled to Śrāvastī, the elder Anāthapiṇḍada went to Rājagṛha to take a wife for his son. At that time, another elder was about to invite the Buddha and respectfully prepared offerings. The Good Giver asked the reason, and the elder explained in full the invitation to the Buddha. Hearing of the Buddha's virtues, [Sudatta's] heart rejoiced deeply. The Buddha was at Gṛdhrakūṭa, several tens of li away, and shone light from afar to illuminate him. Following the light, the Good Giver saw the World-Honoured One from a distance; moved with sorrow and choked with joy, he was like a son seeing his father. Following the light to go to the Buddha, he met a deva shrine on the road; when the Good Giver bowed to it, the Buddha's light vanished. The Good Giver felt ashamed, and the light shone again. Following the radiance, he reached the Buddha and invited the Buddha to visit his country to universally transform those who had affinities [with him], saying, "Why [remain] only in this land?" The Buddha then consented, and ordered Śāriputra to go ahead to inspect and measure [a site]. The Buddha said, "Those who have gone forth must have solitude and quiet." Fengde was noisy, and inside the city was narrow and cramped; only five or six li south of the city was a garden belonging to Prince Jeta, high, dry, with springs and lush woods, ten li square within its walls, suitable for establishing a saṅghārāma. The Good Giver asked to purchase it, but the prince would not agree, saying in jest, "Cover the ground with gold five inches thick, and then I will sell it." The Good Giver agreed. The prince made excuses, saying it was a joke, and stated he would not grant it. The Good Giver asked for arbitration; at that time, a deva of the Śuddhāvāsa heaven, fearing someone might prevent it through bias, transformed into an arbiter and adjudicated it to the Good Giver. The Good Giver obtained it, laying out gold to take it. At that point, it was five hundred paces short of the full ten li, and one treasury of gold was exhausted. When the messenger came to report, the Good Giver pondered from which treasury to take more gold. The prince suspected he was stingy and asked to cancel the land deal and return the gold. The Good Giver explained in full that his heart had not regretted the purchase. Knowing his sublime purpose, the prince himself gave rise to a superior resolve: "Of what humans prize, nothing surpasses gold and jewels; yet he is able to empty his treasuries to purchase land to build a monastery for the saṅgha. What do I lack that I should not construct it?" He asked to cancel the previous land [transaction], but the elder would not comply. The prince said, "I agreed to give the land and take the gold, but we did not discuss the trees. The land follows you as master; the trees belong to me. Together we will bring it to completion, and together present the offering." Later, when the Buddha traveled here, he told Ānanda, "The land of the garden was purchased by the Good Giver, and the trees were given by Jeta. The two men were of one mind in revering merit together. From this day forward, this place should be called Jetavana-Anāthapiṇḍadārāma." The nirmāṇakāya being here reveals that the saṃbhogakāya has a pure land: when the kalpa ends and fire burns, my land remains peaceful and secure from the beginning. The councils cannot be described in full; the two Buddhas jointly manifest pure and defiled lands, and in accord with marking one land, by principle there are three. In practice there are two, and in principle there are also three, because the abodes of the three bodies are each distinct. This is as explained in the Commentary on the Prajñāpāramitānaya.