[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776) › 4.49 # 維摩義記 4.49 維摩義記 4.49 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.49) 問曰：此中所辨因果，與上何異而須更論？異如上辨，今更顯之。先就因明，後就異說。因異有二：一、約人分別。向前兩會，為化娑婆穢土眾生，專教求淨，明所行專求淨土。此會為化眾香世界淨土菩薩，教其隨深，不盡不為、不住無為。二、常法分別。前初會中直出法體，未明修相；後之兩會明修成相。於中前會教修趣寂，破離有無趣入不二。〈問疾〉訖盡〈觀眾生品〉，破離凡夫著有趣寂。〈佛道〉一品，破離二乘著無趣寂。〈不二門品〉，破離菩薩差別二見以趣一寂。此會明其從寂起用，不盡有為是其用也。麁分且然，細分實兼通。因異如是。果異如何？先就身論，後就土說。身中初會明應身果，前寄寶積歎以顯之，始在佛樹力降魔等，悉明應也。第二會中明報身果，說從一無量功德生等。此會明其法身之果，如下文說「觀身實相，觀佛亦然。我觀如來，前際不來、後際不去。」如是等也。細求亦通，麁分亦然。土果如何？前初會中寄就釋迦顯其淨土，第二會中寄就香積而辨淨土，此會寄就無動如來而彰淨土。前寄釋迦，即染彰淨，明淨土體。第二寄就香積如來，染外彰淨，明淨土相。此會寄就無動如來而辨淨土，取之置此，彰淨隨染，明淨土用。通則前會取飯、此食亦是用矣。辨法如是。 > Question: How do the causes and effects explained here differ from those above, such that they need to be discussed again? The differences are as explained above, but we will now make them even clearer. We will first explain in terms of the causes, and afterwards speak in terms of the \[effects\]. As for the differences in causes, there are two. First, differentiation according to persons: The preceding two assemblies were for transforming the sentient beings of the defiled Sahā world, teaching them exclusively to seek purity, showing that their practice was devoted to seeking the pure land. This assembly is for transforming the bodhisattvas of the pure land of the Sarvagandhasugandhā world, teaching them to accord with the profound, \[namely\] neither exhausting the conditioned nor abiding in the unconditioned. Second, differentiation according to regular Dharma: In the previous first assembly, the essential nature of dharmas was directly presented, but the marks of practice were not yet explained; the latter two assemblies explain the marks of completing the practice. Therein, the preceding assembly taught practice toward quiescence, refuting and abandoning existence and non-existence to enter non-duality: from \[Chapter 5\] "Inquiring about Illness" to the end of \[Chapter 7\] "Contemplating Sentient Beings", it refutes and abandons the ordinary person's attachment to existence in order to proceed toward quiescence; the single chapter \[Chapter 8\] "The Buddha Way" refutes and abandons the two vehicles' attachment to non-existence in order to proceed toward quiescence; \[Chapter 9\] "The Dharma Gate of Non-duality" refutes and abandons the bodhisattvas' differentiated dualistic views in order to proceed toward the single quiescence. This assembly explains giving rise to function from quiescence: not exhausting the conditioned is its function. This is so in a coarse distinction, though a fine distinction actually encompasses both. Such are the differences in causes. How do the effects differ? We first discuss them in terms of the body, and afterwards speak in terms of the land. Regarding the body, the first assembly explained the effect of the response-body (nirmāṇakāya), previously manifested through Ratnakūṭa's praise, all the way from first being at the tree of awakening, subduing the māras by power, and so forth, all explaining the response\[-body\]. The second assembly explained the effect of the reward-body (saṃbhogakāya), speaking of its being born from a single immeasurable merit and so forth. This assembly explains the effect of the dharmakāya, as the text below says: "Contemplating the true mark of the body, one contemplates the Buddha likewise. I contemplate the Tathāgata: he does not come from the past, nor go to the future," and so forth. A detailed investigation also encompasses both, while a coarse distinction is also like this. How about the effects of the lands? In the previous first assembly, the pure land was revealed with reference to Śākyamuni; in the second assembly, the pure land was explained with reference to Sugandhakūṭa; in this assembly, the pure land is manifested with reference to Akṣobhya Tathāgata. The former, with reference to Śākyamuni, manifested the pure right within the defiled, explaining the essence of the pure land. The second, with reference to Sugandhakūṭa Tathāgata, manifested the pure outside the defiled, explaining the characteristics of the pure land. This assembly, with reference to Akṣobhya Tathāgata, explains the pure land by taking it and placing it here, manifesting the pure according with the defiled, explaining the function of the pure land. Generally speaking, bringing the food in the previous assembly and consuming it here are also functions. Such is the explanation of the Dharma. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.48) - [Next: 4.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.50) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776~en-mt.4.49) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.49) · Pramāṇa