維摩經略疏 1.17

1.17

一、總明佛國者，前說普集及諸方等多明正報，今因寶積獻蓋、如來合蓋現土，即表欲說依報。何者？正報既顯，須廣明依。如說王民，必須知土治正事業。言佛國者，佛所居域故名佛國。譬如王國，雖臣民共住，而從王受稱名某王國。今佛雖與有緣共居，而從佛受名名某佛國。佛身所依名為佛土，佛住界分名佛世界，佛所居止萬境不同亦名為剎。然國有事理，事即應身之域、理則極智所照之境。而至理虛寂，本無境智之殊，豈有能所之別？但以隨機應物說有真應，故明理事也。然非本無以垂迹，故有應形應土；非迹無以顯本，故引物同歸法身真國。故文云「雖知諸佛土永寂如空，而現種種清淨佛土」，則應同凡聖、現有封疆。凡聖果報高下殊別，所現淨穢亦復如是。故《瓔珞》云「起一切眾生應、一切國土應。」或有釋言：應國者是眾生集業所感，故文云「眾生之類是菩薩淨土」。聖人慈悲來此現生，故《法華》云「而生三果朽故火宅，為度眾生生老病死。」有云「諸佛法身猶如明鏡，一切色像悉現其中。」是則一切國土皆從法身本國應現，國由佛身故云佛國。故《法華》云「今此三界皆是我有，其中眾生悉是吾子。」今詳斯語，若云應國從法身現即是自生，若從眾生即是他生，眾生對佛即是共生，若離生離佛即是無因而有土也。皆墮性義，此即須破。當知國土若淨若穢皆不可說，有因緣故而可說者，悉檀赴機皆得說也。

First, as for explaining the buddha-lands in general: the earlier explanation of the universal assembly and the various vaipulya [texts] mostly elucidated the direct retribution. Now, because Ratnakūṭa offers parasols and the Tathāgata joins the parasols to manifest lands, it signifies the wish to explain circumstantial retribution. Why so? Once direct retribution has been made clear, one must broadly explain circumstantial [retribution]. Just as when speaking of a king and his subjects, one must know of the lands and governance that are their upright undertakings. As for the term "buddha-land" (fóguó): because it is the domain where a buddha dwells, it is called a "buddha-land." By analogy, in the kingdom of a king, although subjects and ministers dwell together [in it], it receives its designation from the king and is called the kingdom of such-and-such a king. Here, although the Buddha dwells together with those who have karmic affinity, it receives its name from the Buddha and is called such-and-such a buddha-land. That upon which the Buddha's body relies is called a buddha-land (fótǔ); the realm within which the Buddha resides is called a buddha-world (fó shìjiè); and the myriads of differing realms in which the Buddha stays are also called kṣetras. However, lands have both phenomenal and ultimate aspects: the phenomenal is the domain of the response body; the ultimate is the realm illuminated by the ultimate wisdom. Yet ultimate reality is vacant and tranquil; originally there is no distinction between realm and wisdom—how could there be a division between grasper and grasped? It is merely in accordance with capacities and responding to beings that we speak of true and response [bodies], and thus clarify phenomena and principle. However, without the original, there is nothing by which to project the traces, hence there are response forms and response lands; without the traces, there is nothing by which to manifest the original, hence beings are guided to return together to the true land of the dharmakāya. Therefore the text states, "Although he knows all buddha-lands to be eternally tranquil like empty space, he nonetheless manifests all manner of pure buddha-lands." Thus the response accords with ordinary beings and sages, manifesting actual territorial borders. Since the retributions of ordinary beings and sages differ greatly in rank, the manifested purity and defilement are also like this. Therefore the Yingluo [jing] states, "He generates responses for all sentient beings, and responses for all lands." Or, some explain it thus: "Response lands are induced by the accumulated karma of sentient beings; hence the text states, 'The categories of sentient beings are the pure lands of bodhisattvas.' Sages, out of compassion, come to manifest birth here; hence the Lotus [Sūtra] states, 'And born in the decaying, ancient burning house of the three realms, in order to cross over sentient beings from birth, old age, sickness, and death.'" Some say, "The dharmakāya of all buddhas is like a clear mirror; all physical images fully appear within it. That is to say, all lands are manifest responses from the original land of the dharmakāya; because the land derives from the Buddha's body, it is called a buddha-land." Hence the Lotus [Sūtra] states, "Now these three realms are all my possession, and the sentient beings within them are all my children." Now, examining these statements in detail: if one says that the response land manifests from the dharmakāya, that is self-production; if from sentient beings, that is production from other; if sentient beings in relation to the Buddha, that is joint production; if apart from sentient beings and apart from the Buddha, that is having a land without a cause. All fall into substantialist views, which must be refuted. One should know that whether lands are pure or defiled, they are all ineffable; that they can be spoken of due to causes and conditions means that according to the siddhāntas responding to capacities, they can all be spoken of.