淨名玄論 8

English (machine translation) 8

Language: English

From beginning to end, this sūtra speaks extensively of the pure land, and the thematic momentum across the two places and four assemblies is interconnected. Although it has already been explained in detail in the Fahua xuanlun, what remains unexhausted will now be briefly presented. According to the Sanskrit text, the beginning was still the introductory chapter; the translators changed it to 'Buddha Land'. Within 'Buddha Land' there are three sections of text: the first says, 'The categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's buddha land'; the next section says, 'The straight mind is the bodhisattva's buddha land.' Although these two sections belong to the text of a single chapter, they are the grand carriage that greatly illuminates the pure land. Many masters construct separate profundities without paying heed to the text, and therefore frequently lose the sūtra's purport.

8.3

Now, expounding the purpose for the advent of these two sections, there are seven [aspects]: First, to answer Ratnākara's two questions on cause and fruition. The first section answers the question on the fruition of the pure land, and the next section answers on the cause of the pure land. When the meaning of the pure land is asked, the replies expand daily. The two gates of cause and fruition subsume all principles. What is called the fruition of the pure land refers to the two lands of retribution and manifestation: retribution varies in refinement and coarseness according to karma, and manifestation appears in accordance with conditions. The first section extensively explains this phenomenon, which is called the fruition of the pure land. The cause of the pure land begins with the straight mind and ends with purity of intention, comprehensively covering the myriad practices of transforming others and one's own practice. The next section extensively explains this phenomenon, which is called the pure cause of the pure land. Question: One should first explain the cause of the land and later attain the fruition; why is fruition first and cause later? Answer: This is based on the sequence of answering the questions, which distinguishes the gate of practice and speech; if regarding cultivation and practice, then cause comes first and fruition later. Furthermore, as for how the two sections differ: the first explains the intention of cultivating the pure land, and the next directly explains the cultivation of the pure land. Regarding the intention of cultivating the pure land: ordinary worldlings merely seek to secure themselves and seek rebirth in a good land; the two vehicles originally expect distress and aim for [nirvāṇa] without remainder, finding no joy in sportful supernatural powers or purifying buddha lands, and therefore neither of them cultivates a pure land. Bodhisattvas universally transform sentient beings, and therefore take a buddha land. Thus it says: 'The categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's buddha land; in accordance with the sentient beings transformed, one takes a buddha land.' Because they universally desire to transform beings, they are unlike ordinary worldlings; and because they take a buddha land, they are distinguished from the lesser practice. Thus in a single statement, sages and ordinary worldlings are distinguished, explaining the bodhisattva's intention in cultivating the pure land. Furthermore, the dharmakāya is formless; what use does it have for a land? Yet cultivating a pure land now is done for the sake of beings. Therefore, the first section explains the intention of cultivating the pure land, and the next section directly [explains] cultivating the pure land, as explained above. Furthermore, as for how the two sections differ: the first section directly explains taking the land for the sake of beings, and the next section explains and establishes the meaning of being for the sake of beings. When a bodhisattva cultivates the cause of the land, by purifying their own mind, they also cause sentient beings' minds to be purified. That is, when cultivating the cause of the land, they benefit beings: in the cause, they simultaneously cultivate both their own practice and transforming others. When the bodhisattva attains buddhahood and obtains the fruition of the pure land, the sentient beings they transformed follow along to take birth there and receive instruction; thus it is for the sake of beings at the time of fruition. Because they benefit beings at both the times of cause and fruition, we know that taking the land is for the sake of beings, which explains the previous section. Furthermore, as for how the two sections differ: the first section directly explains the bodhisattva generating vows, vowing to take a buddha land for the sake of sentient beings. Hence the text says: 'Being able to take a buddha land is not done in emptiness.' The next section explains practice, beginning with the straight mind and culminating in the practice of purity of intention; because capability and practice complete each other, both sections of text are necessary. Furthermore, the first section explains taking the land for the sake of beings, which is generating the bodhicitta; this mind is the root of the pure land. Why is this? Since one wishes to take a buddha land, one ought to generate the buddha mind; therefore, bodhicitta is the root of the pure land. The next section explains the cause of the pure land, which is cultivating bodhisattva practice. Only by cultivating bodhisattva practice can one obtain a buddha land and approach the gate of the Buddha. There are only these two intentions. Therefore, in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, when the youth Sudhana travels everywhere to the good friends throughout the dharmadhātu, he always says that he has already generated bodhicitta, but does not yet know how to cultivate bodhisattva practice. Now these two sections also explain these two dharmas. Furthermore, as for how the two sections differ: the former explains taking the land for the sake of beings, in which great compassion is replete within; seeing beings suffering, one generates a mind of great compassion wishing to pull them out of their suffering, and therefore takes a buddha land. The latter explains establishing the pure land gate for the sake of beings. One who wishes to be a bodhisattva must first have great compassion and later extensively undertake myriad practices; these two are the essential gates for transforming beings and the root of the buddha land, and are therefore explained by the two sections. Furthermore, as for how the two sections differ: the pure land has causes and conditions. Conditions are of two kinds: first, externally there are sentient beings; second, internally the bodhisattva has compassion for the Buddha. The first section explains that the categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's buddha land, which is the two within conditions. The next section explains cultivating the cause of the pure land, which also has two kinds: first, cultivating myriad practices oneself; second, causing sentient beings also to cultivate myriad practices. Only when the conditions possess both and the causal gates are manifold can the buddha land be accomplished. These seven intentions are fully contained in the text and cannot be omitted.

8.4

Next, discussing the two statements of 'is' (shì):

8.5

Question: Earlier it was said, 'The categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's buddha land,' and later it was said, 'The straight mind is the bodhisattva's buddha land.' It is not yet clear where the intent of these two statements of 'is' lies; please explain it. Answer: The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Sons of the Buddha! It is accomplished through causes and conditions as numerous as the dust motes of a world.' Now, to explain: this sūtra essentially only explains taking a land, which has two meanings: first, the conditions for taking the land; second, the causes for taking the land. The former explains the conditions for taking the land. Because there are sentient beings, the bodhisattva takes the land; speaking of the fruition in terms of the conditions, it is therefore said that 'the categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's buddha land.' The latter explains the causes for taking the land. Although it is due to sentient beings, the bodhisattva must generate the causes for taking the land; speaking of the fruition in terms of the causes, it is therefore said that 'the straight mind is the bodhisattva's buddha land.' Therefore, the two statements of 'is' differ according to cause and condition.

8.6

Separately discussing the first section:

8.7

Question: The opening section of the sūtra text has four clauses: first, it says 'in accordance with the sentient beings whom he transforms, he takes a Buddha-land'; next, it says 'in accordance with the sentient beings whom he disciplines, he takes a Buddha-land'; next, it says 'in accordance with what land is needed to generate the roots of a bodhisattva, he takes a Buddha-land'; next, 'in accordance with what land is needed to enter the Buddha's wisdom, he takes a Buddha-land'. How do these four passages differ? Please discuss them. Answer: All four clauses of this text clarify the meaning of taking a land, but the first two clauses generally clarify taking a land for the sake of beings, while the latter two clauses specifically clarify taking a land for the sake of beings. How is this known? The beginning simply says 'in accordance with the sentient beings transformed and in accordance with those disciplined', so we know it is general. The later text specifically clarifies generating the roots of a bodhisattva and entering the Buddha's wisdom, so we know it is specifically for beings. Question: How are the general and the specific [distinguished]? Answer: That which is generally for beings applies universally to sentient beings of the five vehicles, causing them to generate good and extinguish evil. 'In accordance with the sentient beings whom he transforms, he takes a Buddha-land' means transforming them so as to cause them to generate good. 'In accordance with the sentient beings whom he disciplines, he takes a Buddha-land' means disciplining them so as to cause them to extinguish evil. Therefore, the assemblies in the pure lands of the Buddhas differ: some are complete with the assemblies of the five vehicles; some have only assemblies of humans and devas; some have only an assembly of śrāvakas; some have only an assembly seeking pratyekabuddhahood; and some have only an assembly of bodhisattvas, fully as stated in the sūtras.

8.8

Next, clarifying what is specifically for beings:

8.9

Regarding 'generating the roots of a bodhisattva' and 'entering the Buddha's wisdom', the meaning of 'roots' is not fixed. If one explains the bodhisattva roots in contrast to humans, devas, and the two vehicles, then they are the ten stages of faith. How is this known? The root of a bodhisattva fundamentally takes the five dharmas such as faith as its roots; as the Dazhidulun says, 'treading the ten stages of faith' clarifies the faith of a bodhisattva, so we know they are the roots of a bodhisattva. Moreover, wishing to turn the former four vehicles around and cause them to enter the bodhisattva path, he takes a Buddha-land; thus the former four vehicles initially enter the ten stages of faith, so the ten stages of faith are explained as the roots of a bodhisattva. 'Entering the Buddha's wisdom' is the Buddha-fruit. The ten stages of faith are the beginning of what is done for them; the Buddha's wisdom is the end of what is done for them. Embracing the beginning and encompassing the end, the task of what is done for them is exhausted. Furthermore, beginning with the four vehicles and causing them to enter the ten stages of faith up to the Buddha's wisdom encompasses what is done for them from beginning to end, with not a single sentient being left untransformed. Question: Why is it explained first that he takes a Buddha-land for the sake of the four vehicles, and afterwards specifically for the sake of bodhisattvas? Answer: As has been explained previously, the sequence is naturally so: first he gives them small benefits, and afterwards he gives them great benefits. Moreover, as for the Dharma of the Buddhas, though they first explain the three, they ultimately must return to the one. Though this sūtra has not yet openly displayed this meaning in brief, it has already accomplished this hidden transformation. Furthermore, as for the purpose of these two textual passages: the opening section takes a Buddha-land for persons of shallow practice, which refers to the forty minds prior to the bhūmis, causing them to generate good, extinguish evil, generate the bodhicitta, and cultivate bodhisattva practices. The latter passage is particularly for those who have ascended to the bhūmis and above, which is called the roots of a bodhisattva; having ascended to the bhūmis, they have initially attained non-arising, and the roots of the path are first established. Next, it clarifies the Buddha's wisdom: from the seventh bhūmi, entering the stage of the Buddha-eye up to the Buddha-fruit, all are called the Buddha's wisdom. Though what is done for them is broad, it does not exceed the fifty-two ranks; it likewise unites the beginning and encompasses the end, and therefore there is this second text.

8.10

Furthermore, as to their intention: the first two clauses clarify taking a reward land for the sake of beings, and the next two clauses clarify taking a manifested land for the sake of beings. Question: How is this known to be so? Answer: The latter two clauses say 'in accordance with what land is appropriate for the various sentient beings'; this clarifies that the display of pure lands differs in accommodating the conditions of beings. In the Avataṃsaka Sūtra's chapter on the One Million Asaṃkhyeyas of pure lands, the superior or inferior quality of the lands displayed accords with the shallowness or depth of their faculties; therefore we know they are manifested lands. Moreover, when it says 'in accordance with what land', [this encompasses] the five kinds of lands—pure, defiled, mixed, and so forth; thus we know they are manifested lands. The previous text merely clarifies taking a Buddha-land by teaching, transforming, and disciplining, without saying that the land is displayed in accordance with capacity; therefore we know it clarifies the reward land. Though what is done for beings is manifold, it does not exceed reward and manifestation. Question: Are the former and latter meanings not in conflict? Answer: The first meaning subsumes the conditions, clarifying that the conditions for whose sake it is done are universal; the latter meaning subsumes the lands, clarifying that the meaning of the lands is vast. The text contains both purports, and thus the two meanings complete each other. Question: Previously you mentioned five kinds of lands; please show their characteristics. Answer: The first is the pure land; the second is the defiled land; the third is the mixed land; the fourth is originally defiled and later transformed into pure, as when Maitreya arrives; the fifth is originally pure and later transformed into defiled, as when the land returns to defilement after Maitreya departs. These five lands subsume all lands. Moreover, the reward and manifestation lands each have five, thus making ten lands.

8.11

Discussion of Reward and Manifestation

8.12

Question: What is a reward land? What is a manifested land? Answer: If one takes the purity of gems and jade or the defilement of sand and gravel, taking these two lands as Buddha-lands, both are manifested lands and not reward lands. How is this known? All pure and defiled lands do not lie outside the interior and exterior of the three realms; and since the Buddha has no afflictions or karma belonging to either the interior or exterior of the three realms, he has no further land. That there is now a land is entirely to respond to beings, and is called a manifested land. Therefore the Renwang Jing says: 'The three worthies and ten sages dwell in karmic reward; only the Buddha alone resides in the pure land.' This clarifies that the three worthies and ten sages have reward lands inside and outside the three realms, whereas the Buddha has none. Question: Can this very manifested land also be a reward land? Answer: It can also be a reward land. There are generally two meanings: first, based on the Buddha; second, [based on] other sentient beings. Based on the Buddha: the Tathāgata in the past gave rise to Buddha-practices, responding to beings by means of lands; now having accomplished the Buddha-fruit, he is accordingly able to respond to beings by means of lands; one should know that this land is indeed a reward land. Second, as for other sentient beings: though the Buddha displays a land in response to beings, if sentient beings lack the karma to evoke it, they cannot even see it, so how could they be born in the pure land? Because sentient beings cultivate pure causes and evoke this manifested land, this very manifested land can again be called a reward land. As the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'A pure land does not arise from a single cause or condition.'

8.13

Next, clarifying the reward land: if one speaks with reference to the real practices of the three worthies and ten sages in the causal stage, this is a reward land. Because they have not yet escaped the retribution inside and outside the three realms, they must have a dwelling place. The dwelling place is the real reward of a bodhisattva, and is therefore called a reward land. By means of this bodhisattva reward land, they further transform beings, who are born together with the bodhisattva within it. Based on the evocation of sentient beings, the bodhisattva's land is also called a reward land. This very reward land, when it is appropriate for sentient beings to see it, is manifested for them by the bodhisattva; therefore the reward land is also called manifested. It is a reward with respect to the bodhisattva, and manifested with respect to sentient beings. Question: If so, what is the difference between reward and manifestation? Answer: It precisely accommodates all the aforementioned meanings and cannot be sharply and distinctly separated. Our master often said: 'The reward manifested land, the manifested reward land; sentient beings' Buddha-land, the Buddha's sentient-being-land; the Buddha's bodhisattva-land, the bodhisattva's Buddha-land—inferior persons, hearing this, immediately burst into laughter.' Now, fearing that those who fail to reach it are many, I do not elaborate this explanation. These words precisely accord with the purport of the sūtra. Question: Is there now any difference in meaning between reward and manifestation? Answer: If one preliminarily wishes to show their different characteristics, a manifested land is temporary, whereas a reward land is long-lasting. As in this sūtra, when [the Buddha] pressed the earth with his foot, the display ceased after a short time; a reward land, based on what sentient beings jointly invite through karmic retribution, is experienced and enjoyed for a long period. This is their difference. Furthermore, as with a defiled land: it is evoked by the evil karma of sentient beings, and is therefore called a reward; it is not manifested by the Buddha, and so it is not a manifestation. But the Buddha enters the defiled land to transform beings, taking up residence within sentient beings' reward land; therefore this reward is called a Buddha-land. Question: Is this defiled land of sentient beings' evil karma the Buddha's manifested land or not? Answer: Because the Buddha manifests his dwelling within it, it is called a Buddha-land, and may also be called the Buddha's manifested land. Therefore the text below says: 'In order to deliver these inferior people, he merely displays this land of various defilements, evils, and impurities.' Examining the purport of these words, originally Śāriputra and his peers did not rely on the Buddha's wisdom, which is why it says they saw impurity. This is a land evoked by evil karma, just as hungry ghosts evoke iron pellets due to evil karma; it is not the Buddha's manifestation, but because the Buddha manifests his dwelling within it, it is said to be displayed.

8.14

Discussion of the Existence and Non-Existence of Lands

8.15

Some say: 'The Buddha flatly has no land; lands are entirely karmic retributions inside and outside the three realms. The Buddha has completely extinguished the causes of delusion and does not evoke the retribution of a land; therefore he has no land.' Some say: 'The Buddha fully possesses a Dharma-land; since there is no Dharma-gate of the dharmadhātu that is not complete, how could he lack a land?' Now it is clarified that existence and non-existence each have their meaning. If, with the four dwellings [of affliction] as conditions and defiled karma as causes, one evokes the pure and defiled Dharma-lands of retribution within the three realms; and with ignorance as conditions and undefiled karma as causes, one evokes [lands] outside the three realms—one should know that the Buddha has completely severed the causes and no longer has such retributions; therefore it is said that he has no land. Thus the sūtra says: 'Samantabhadra's physical form and life are like empty space.' Relying on suchness and not relying on a Buddha-country, how could there be a land? Yet, having formerly practiced the bodhisattva path, through the capable practice of great compassion, he was able to give rise to Dharma-lands inside and outside the three realms for sentient beings in order to benefit beings; now he is accordingly able to give rise to lands in response to beings. This very fruit of the body recompenses the past causes, and so the Buddha does have a land. The two masters failed to understand their mutual integration, and therefore each clung to a one-sided view. Question: The Renwang Jing says 'Only the Buddha alone resides in the pure land'—what land is this? Answer: This is the middle way, the ultimate truth, which is called a land. At that time, the bodhisattva ascends to the peak of the mountain of the ultimate truth and parts forever from the parents of ignorance; therefore he resides alone in the pure land. Those of lower ranks have not yet dwelt within it. This middle way is explained in various senses: in contrast to the lands of karmic retribution of the three worthies and ten sages below, the middle way is named as the pure land, which is the dwelling place of the dharmakāya. In comparison with the two extremes it is called the middle way; with respect to the conventional truth it is the ultimate; it is explained according to the meaning, and one should not give rise to doubt. The Yingluo Jing and the Lotus Sūtra both have this explanation. Question: Is the land of the middle way also a reward? Answer: Recompensing the cause, it is also a reward. However, because the true nature of the middle way is not produced by causes, it is not given the name of a reward.

8.16

Discussion of the Two Practices

8.17

Question: The texts constantly speak of 'maturing sentient beings' and 'purifying the Buddha-land', yet one sees no difference between them. Please distinguish them. Furthermore, as previously stated, taking a land for the sake of beings shows that purifying the Buddha-land is itself maturing sentient beings. How then are there two distinct practices? Answer: The two practices are mutually constitutive; one cannot arbitrarily separate them as completely different. If we now wish to distinguish their characteristics, the Dazhidulun says: 'Maturing sentient beings means practicing conduct that benefits beings. Purifying the Buddha-land clarifies the practice undertaken to bring about [a land] for the sake of beings.' Because the practices undertaken are distinct, they are divided into two. Moreover, when the Buddha of Immeasurable Life was in the causal stage, he extensively made over forty vows, vowing that his land would be pure, and as a result he later attained a pure land. At the end of the 'Chapter on Practice in Dreams' in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, it is explained that the bodhisattva, seeing sentient beings cold, starving, and hungry, generated great practices and, through this practice, attained a pure land. Furthermore, this very sūtra says: 'By practice one takes a Buddha-land.' Thus we know it is practice. Question: If so, why does one further cultivate the causes for a pure land? Answer: First one makes great vows, and afterwards extensively generates manifold practices; when all the practices are fully complete, one attains the pure land. However, generating a pure land generally has two approaches: First, looking downward and seeing sentient beings in various afflictions and distress, one generates great practices and through practice takes a pure land. Second, looking upward and seeing the lands of the Buddhas to be serene, joyful, and pure, the bodhisattva resolves to seek them, wishing to provide them to beings. Practice also has two approaches, which can be understood by this analogy. Question: Practice of itself induces the land; what is the use of vows? Answer: Practice is like a chariot traveling, and the vows are the driver. Because the mind sets a destination by means of the vows, the driver directs the practice toward it. Moreover, the mind is the initial gate, while practice arises subsequent to it; it is like first making great vows, and only then generating practice. Furthermore, the mind is generated all at once, whereas the practice is cultivated in gradual succession. Question: For what reason does the Dazhidulun say: 'After the bodhisattva attains anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti, he solely explains maturing sentient beings and purifying the Buddha-land'? Answer: Attaining anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti means that one's own practice is already established; what one should do now is exclusively to transform others. Within transforming others, it does not go beyond great practice; because it is great practice, it comprehensively clarifies these two. Question: This great practice—great practice should apply to both self-practice and transforming others; why does it exclusively speak of transforming others? Answer: The ultimate person is empty, hollow, and without causal conditions; of what use would a land be to him? Now since he takes a land, it must be for the sake of beings. Therefore, all these practices are for transforming others. Question: The text says: 'One who desires to attain a pure land must purify his mind; in accordance with the purity of his mind, the Buddha-land is pure.' Is this not self-practice? Answer: If one purifies one's mind for the sake of making the land pure, this too is purifying one's own mind for the sake of beings. If one merely says that the bodhisattva purifies his own mind without expecting the land to be pure, then this pure mind could be considered self-practice. Moreover, whether a bodhisattva engages in self-practice or transforms others, both are transforming others. Why is this so? Because one cultivates self-practice in order to transform others; if one's self-practice is not accomplished, one cannot transform beings. Now, to transform beings, one must have self-practice; therefore, all practices are for the sake of transforming others—how much more so the practice of the pure land!

8.18

Furthermore, to explain the two meanings of purifying the Buddha-land and maturing sentient beings: purifying the Buddha-land is mostly based on the aspect of the fruit, whereas maturing sentient beings is mostly based on the aspect of the cause. Why is this so? It is necessarily at the time of attaining Buddhahood that one attains a Buddha-land. As the sūtra says: 'When the bodhisattva attains Buddhahood, sentient beings who are not deceitful come to be born in his land.' Thus we know that in the causal stage one generates the practice of the pure land, which refers to benefiting beings at the time of the fruit. As for maturing sentient beings being mostly based on the aspect of the cause: because the bodhisattva matures sentient beings, sentient beings have already been born in the pure land. Question: How is this known? Answer: The sūtras and treatises themselves indicate that the two practices are each distinct, speaking of the 'practice of purifying the Buddha-land'; this practice establishes the practice by indicating the fruit. If it is maturing sentient beings, it only concerns benefiting others without indicating the fruit; thus we know it is based on the cause. Moreover, as for the difference between the two practices: the practice of purifying the Buddha-land is the practice of seeking upward, while maturing sentient beings, in benefiting according to their needs, is the practice of transforming downward. The essential practices of a bodhisattva do not go beyond these two. Furthermore, the practice of purifying the Buddha-land is a distinct practice, whereas maturing sentient beings is a common practice. How is this known? It only speaks of purifying the Buddha-land and does not explain defiled lands; therefore it is a distinct practice. Maturing sentient beings explains benefiting beings in whatever places exist, whether pure or defiled; therefore it is a common practice. Question: Previously, you made a distinction between the two based on the aspect of practice. Why now do you say they are both practice? Answer: The author of the treatise clarifies that these are two essential practices; thus we should know that both are practice. When explaining the two practices in terms of stages: from the initial generation of the resolve up to equal enlightenment, both practices are fully cultivated. According to the Daśabhūmika-sūtra, the eighth bhūmi directly clarifies purifying the Buddha-land, and the four unhindered knowledges of the ninth bhūmi carry out maturing sentient beings.

8.19

Discussion on the Two Wisdoms

8.20

Question: The earlier text states: 'It is like building a mansion on empty ground, which is accomplished unobstructed at will; if one tries to build in empty space, it can never be accomplished.' What meaning does this text intend to clarify? Answer: It intends to clarify that in taking a pure land, one must possess both wisdoms. If one only undertakes practices to take a pure land for the sake of beings, then one has upāya but lacks real wisdom, falling into the stage of ordinary beings, because ordinary humans and devas also seek pure and wonderful places. If one only cultivates the contemplation of emptiness, one cannot take a land for the sake of beings, falling into the stage of the two vehicles. Now, possessing the meaning of taking a land through real wisdom and upāya, one takes a land for the sake of beings by means of real wisdom and upāya. With upāya and real wisdom, the land is fundamentally empty and sentient beings are not real ordinary beings, so there is no defilement or attachment. Being free from defilement and attachment, one is not like an ordinary being; taking a land for the sake of beings, one is distinct from the practice of the two vehicles. Therefore, both wisdoms are required, which is why it is said: 'A world cannot be brought about by a single cause and condition.' The mansion is the Buddha-land. The emptiness is real wisdom. The ground is sentient beings. Thus, relying upon the ground of sentient beings with the bodhisattva's empty mind, one subsequently generates the causes of the pure land and attains the fruit of the pure land; therefore it is called 'building a mansion.'

8.21

Discussion on One Substance and Divergent Perceptions

8.22

The Fahua xuanlun has already briefly set this forth, but people frequently become confused about this meaning, so it must be resolved. Question: Precisely what thing is taken as the one substance such that there are said to be divergent perceptions? Answer: Since we are now clarifying one substance and divergent perceptions, we should distinguish them in terms of lands. Although lands are immeasurable, they do not exceed three kinds: first, the root land of the dharmakāya; second, the two lands of saṃbhoga and manifestation explained within the traces. The root land of the dharmakāya is the dharmatā of the middle way; this land is neither defiled nor pure, neither arising nor ceasing, transcending the hundred negations and cutting off the catuṣkoṭi. Not knowing what to call it, one arbitrarily praises it as a 'pure land.' The 'one substance' is precisely the one pure substance of the dharmatā of the middle way. 'Divergent perceptions' means that in relation to the Buddha, the Tathāgata, one constantly sees the dharmatā of the middle way, whereas sentient beings constantly see annihilation and permanence, arising and ceasing. The land of arising and ceasing burns of itself, while the unborn land is not destroyed; therefore it is called one substance with divergent perceptions. Second, to clarify one substance and two perceptions in terms of the two lands of saṃbhoga and manifestation within the traces: taking the manifested land as one substance, if it is a manifested pure land, it is one pure substance; defiled lands are likewise. But what is seen by the two conditions differs respectively: if the mind relies on the Buddha's wisdom, it remains a pure substance; if it does not rely on the Buddha's wisdom, then abandoning the one pure substance, it consequently perceives its defilement. Therefore it is called one substance with divergent perceptions. Question: Those conditioned for defilement naturally see a defiled land; why must there be a manifestation as pure? Answer: There are two meanings. First, to reveal the virtues of the bodhisattvas so as to cause them to advance in their vows and practices. Second, to make apparent the shortcomings of the lesser vehicle so as to make them admire and long for the great path. It is like wanting to admonish the newly born devas regarding the magnitude of their blessings, and therefore having them eat from the same jeweled vessel.

8.23

Next, Clarifying One Substance and Divergent Perceptions Regarding the Saṃbhoga Land

8.24

As for the bodhisattvas obtaining a pure land through retribution, sentient beings of evil karma perceive defilement in the pure. Question: The bodhisattva's pure retribution naturally perceives a pure land; the sentient beings' impure karma naturally perceives the sentient beings' impure land. How is it that they perceive impurity in the bodhisattva's retribution? Answer: If we speak of the two retributions being distinct such that sentient beings do not see it, we are not discussing that now; we are only considering sentient beings seeing the bodhisattva's pure land and taking it to be a defiled land. As the sūtra says: 'This land of mine is pure, yet you do not see it.' It is like water that is the retribution for humans, which hungry ghosts see as fire. Question: Due to their evil karma, ghosts see fire in water and do not see water, while humans see water and do not see fire. Can it be said that Buddhas and bodhisattvas see the pure land and do not see defilement, while ordinary beings and the two vehicles see the defiled land and do not see the pure? Answer: Speaking from principle, it should indeed be so. But the superior can encompass the inferior; therefore, the Buddhas and bodhisattvas see the pure, yet in accord with sentient beings they also see the defiled. As the Avataṃsaka Sūtra's 'Dharmadhātu Chapter' says: 'Devas can see humans, and also see devas. Humans only see humans, and cannot see devas.' Bodhisattvas of themselves perceive an inconceivable sphere, and also perceive the inversion of the practices of the two vehicles. Question: If so, ghosts only see the fire of ghosts and do not see human water; should humans see human water and also see ghost fire? Answer: Seeing water become fire—this distinguishes evil karma. Erroneously seeing fire in water—humans lack this karma, and therefore do not see it. Question: If so, the two vehicles, due to evil karma, erroneously see impurity in the bodhisattva's sphere; should the bodhisattvas not see its impurity? Answer: Because the Buddhas and bodhisattvas possess cognition that accords with inversion, the divine eye, and knowledge of others' minds, they are able to know and see it. Therefore the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'In order to comply with sentient beings, they universally enter all worlds. Their wisdom is constantly quiescent, not like what the worldly see.' Humans lack this ability; therefore they only see human water and do not see ghosts making fire upon the water. All the above are merely relying on phenomena to clarify the matter.

8.25

Discussion on Same Reality with Different [Names]

8.26

Those who study the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra say: "The land is saṃvṛti-satya; it is not without a material substance. But since it is identical with true emptiness, it is therefore without substance." Those who later studied Vijñaptimātratā and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say: "Just as with empty space, the gods see it as a jeweled palace, hungry ghosts see it as raging fire, birds see it as a fine road, and humans see it as empty space; in all of these there are not four substances, but all are seen as these four merely because of transformations of the mind." The Vātsīputrīya says: "There are the establishment of persons, the establishment of saṃyojanas, and the establishment of entities. 'Establishment of entities' refers to the six sense objects and other such entities; this clarifies that there truly is a material substance." The Sarvāstivāda says: "Persons are not established, but saṃyojanas are established and entities are established; there is also a material substance." The Dārṣṭāntika says: "Persons are not established and entities are not established; there is only the establishment of saṃyojanas. For instance, with a single form: a lustful person sees it as pure, a person meditating on impurity considers it impure, and other people see it as neither pure nor impure. Therefore, there is no fixed substance, but only the mind of the saṃyojanas." Examining the proposition of the Dārṣṭāntika, it resembles the tenet of Vijñaptimātratā. Now we first question the Vijñaptimātratā school: If there is mind without objects, then in any discussion of causes there must be effects, and if there is an effect it must requite a cause. The mind is the cause of all transformative manifestations; hence it is said that the triple world is made entirely by the one mind. Since you posit an active cause in the mind that is capable of creating, how could there not be an effect in the objects that are created? If there are no objects and only mind, then that would be to have a cause without an effect. Question: Because the mind transforms, an external object is seen to exist. But the external object is still the mind itself; outside the mind there is no object. Therefore there is a cause and there is also an effect. Answer: Just as an external seed serves as a cause and produces the effect of an external thing, and thus there are cause and effect, now taking the mind as the cause, which transforms and produces the triple world and the five destinies, why do you say that there is no separate effect? If you say that because the mind falsely assumes it, it sees the myriad things, while in reality there are no myriad things—just as an eye disease causes one to see flowers in the sky when in reality there are no flowers in the sky—if that were so, then since in reality there are no myriad things, there would also be no mind of false assumption. Yet for one who falsely assumes, there is a mind of false assumption; likewise, for a person who falsely assumes, there is an object of false assumption. If you say that mind and object are both false assumptions, but ultimately an object exists because of the mind, then this means that the mind of false assumption is the root and the object of false assumption is the branch; one cannot say that the root exists while the branch does not. Furthermore, sentient beings see sentient beings' lands because their minds transform; then who creates the manifested lands of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas? If you say that sentient beings also see manifested lands because their own minds transform, then the Buddha would have no manifested land. If so, there would only be the two bodies of dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya, and there should be no nirmāṇakāya Buddha. Moreover, there would only be the knowledge of others' minds and no divine eye. Question: The Buddha possesses the two cognitions, provisional and real. Real cognition sees tathatā, seeing neither consciousness nor non-consciousness, neither dust-objects nor non-dust-objects; provisional cognition knows objects such as saṃvṛti-satya. Within the cognition of saṃvṛti-satya, there are again two cognitions, provisional and real: that there is only mind is real cognition; if one knows there is form, this is provisional cognition. Therefore, the Buddha accords with sentient beings through provisional cognition, and there are also nirmāṇakāyas and manifested lands. Answer: As for the Buddha according with sentient beings, does he accord because he sees the forms of sentient beings, or does he accord because he does not see them? If he does not see them, how can he accord? If he sees them, since there is no form, what is there to see? Furthermore, if the Buddha were to see form, that would be inverted seeing. Next we examine the doctrine that there is a fixed substance. Answer: If there were a fixed substance, then as in the two viewings of one water, where the hungry ghost sees it as fire, it possesses form and touch; when a human sees it as water, it comprises three sense fields. What fixed substance is it? Form presents an obstruction to one who has not attained unimpeded passage, but does not present an obstruction to one who has attained unimpeded passage; how could one say that form is definitely of an obstructive substance? For a person who holds the view of existence, it is existent; for a person who contemplates emptiness, it is empty. How could form be definitely empty or existent? Deducing from this, one cannot definitely say that there is a material substance, nor can one definitely say that there is no material substance. Question: Why do the sūtras and treatises teach that there is a material substance, and teach that there is no material substance? Answer: Because sentient beings give rise to afflicted karma in the midst of the five sense fields and incur the retribution of birth and death, Master Vasubandhu therefore stated in his treatise that in reality there are no external objects, but all are the creations of the mind. Originally, when there were external objects, greed and anger could arise; since there are no external objects, where could afflictions arise from? Once external objects are absent, the mind also does not exist; thus being neither mind nor object, one then awakens to and enters dharmatā. Therefore, teaching that there are no objects and only mind is a remedial siddhānta, not the ultimate truth. Students fail to comprehend its intent and straightaway claim that there are no objects and only mind. Question: Why is it also explained that there are both mind and objects? Answer: For inverted sentient beings, since there is an inverted mind, there is precisely an inverted object. But it must be because of the inverted mind that there is an inverted object; the inverted mind is the root, and the inverted object is the branch. Therefore, the sūtras teach that there are mind and objects. The various sects, not understanding that this was stated in accordance with sentient beings, then claimed that both mind and objects are truly real. Question: If there are mind and objects, why does one see fire in empty space, and again see fire in water? Answer: A sūtra says: 'Among the five inconceivables, the karmic activity of sentient beings is inconceivable.' There are instances where there is no fire in empty space, but due to evil karma one sees the space as fire; there are instances where for humans the retributive water transforms and becomes fire. Question: If so, that is precisely the absence of objects; how can you say it is not? Answer: For sentient beings, when there is mind, they then see that there are objects; how can you say they are absent? Question: If so, that establishes that there are objects; how can you say it is not? Answer: When the hungry ghost sees fire, a human truly does not see it; how can you say it is present?

8.27

Correct Dharma

8.28

Treatise on the Profound Meaning of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, Fascicle Eight (End)

Linked texts (1)

淨名玄論 — Classical Chinese