維摩經義疏 2.6

2.6

「爾時舍利弗承佛威神作是念：若菩薩心淨則佛土淨者，我世尊本為菩薩時意豈不淨，而是佛土不淨若此」。此下第二次明釋疑。就文為二：初明生疑、次辨釋疑。初文三句：一生疑所由、二生疑之處、三正生疑。承佛聖旨者，此辨生疑之所由也。然淨佛國土、成就眾生，蓋是大士法門，本非小乘之事。但今欲明佛土常淨，善惡出自兩緣，故以威神發其疑念，以生言論之端也。若菩薩心淨者，此騰上文，辨生疑處也。我世尊下，正生疑也。以土徵心，用心決定土。在土既穢，心不應淨；在心既淨，則土非穢也。猶預不決，所以成疑。「佛知其念，即告之言：於意云何？日月豈不淨耶？而盲者不見。對曰：不也。世尊！是盲者過，非日月咎。舍利弗！眾生罪故，不見如來佛國嚴淨，非如來咎」。此下第二釋疑也。就文為三：一佛自釋、二梵王助通、三佛重釋。佛為化主，故前釋之。佛雖說淨土，若無人證見，猶為難信。故次梵王釋，明有能見之人，證佛不虛。梵王雖見，身子不覩，猶謂有言無事，故如來變土，成上佛說及梵王所見。又初番說淨得聞知，次梵王覩淨生其信解，三隱穢現淨令其證見，則悟入云次第也。問：日月常淨，盲者不見，是盲人過，非日月咎。合喻應云：土實清淨，而汝不見。是汝等咎，非是土咎。何故云非佛咎耶？答：土因土果普屬於佛，故云非佛咎也。問：佛無何等咎耶？答：佛因無不淨咎、果無穢土咎。又身子疑佛，謂心不淨故土不淨，所以云佛咎。「舍利弗！我此土淨而汝不見」。向明不淨，屬身子；今明淨，則歸佛。故云我也。而云此土者，身子向見此土不淨，言佛別有淨土在於他方而身子不見，故今明此土淨也。「爾時螺髻梵王語舍利弗：勿作是意，謂此佛土以為不淨。所以者何？我見釋迦牟尼佛土清淨，譬如自在天宮」。此第二梵王證釋，就文為三：一呵身子而自陳所見、二身子述己所見以答梵王、三梵王斷其得失。言自在天宮者，有人言：是欲界他化自在天宮，故《無量壽經》云「其寶猶如第六天寶」。有人言：是色界大自在天宮。有人言：是初禪之上，即中間禪自在天宮。以大梵王統領千世界，於千世界住中間禪自在，名自在天宮。問：何故但言自在天宮？答：然佛土真淨、超絕人天，身子在人而見為人土、梵王居天而見為天宮，蓋是齊其所見而為言耳。「舍利弗言：我見此土，丘陵坑坎荊棘沙礫土石諸山穢惡充滿」。此下第二身子自陳所見，以答梵王。所以自陳所見者，欲顯二乘是罪垢之人，以小心之流令欣大道也。「螺髻梵王言：仁者心有高下，不依佛慧，故見此土為不淨耳。舍利弗！菩薩於一切眾生悉皆平等、深心清淨、依佛智慧，則能見此佛土清淨」。第三梵王判其得失。萬事萬形皆由心起，二乘心既不淨，故見上不淨；大士得於淨觀，故則見土清淨。然總論得失，凡有四門：一者二人俱得，身子得穢方便、梵王得淨方便。二者二人俱失，身子偏執穢失淨、梵王偏執淨失穢。三身子失梵王得，符合淨土教門。四身子得梵王失，有時須現穢土，不宜現淨。「於是佛以足指案地，即時三千大千世界若千百千珍寶嚴飾，譬如寶莊嚴佛無量功德寶莊嚴土。一切大眾歎未曾有，而皆自見坐寶蓮華」。此第三佛顯淨重答。就文為二：初明實淨、次辨悟道。什公云「淨穢二土，同處而不相礙。」今隱穢而現淨，以證佛語不虛。梵王見實，又顯二乘為生盲、彰凡夫是罪垢。「佛告舍利弗：汝且覩是佛土嚴淨。舍利弗言：唯然。世尊！本所不見、本所不聞，今佛國土嚴淨悉現。佛告舍利弗：我佛國土常淨若此，為欲度斯下劣人，故示是眾惡不淨土耳」。我此土常淨者，為欲釋疑，故有此章。時眾疑云：土本非淨，今始變成淨耳，則知見穢實。是故釋云：我此國土本來常淨，非始變成淨也。時眾復疑：如其常淨，何故常不現淨土而處穢耶？故復釋云：為欲度斯下劣人，故示是眾惡不淨土耶。然穢土有二：一報、二應。據報土答者，自佛而言是故常淨，為度下劣現居眾生不淨土耳。就應土答者，佛真土常淨，為度下劣作不淨土耳。「譬如諸天共寶器食，隨其福德飯食有異。如是舍利弗！若人心淨，便見此土功德莊嚴」。有此喻來者，上雖以事驗，而時眾未解，何因緣故實是淨土，而我等見穢？故舉此喻重以曉之。始生天者，欲共試知其功德多少，要共一寶器而食天飯。天飯極白，無白為喻。其福多者，舉飯向口，飯色不異。若福少者，舉飯向口，飯色便異。依什公意，一器之內有二種食，應二種眾生。如是一處有淨穢二土，應於二緣，故是異質同處不相礙也。吉藏謂什公此釋於文不便。唯是一白飯，福德厚者則見其白，福德薄者則見其赤。合喻云：實是一淨土，菩薩依佛慧故則見土淨，二乘不依佛慧故見土不淨。不得云器內本有二飯。若本有二飯，何猶得試於天？「當佛現此國土嚴淨之時，寶積所將五百長者子皆得無生法忍，八萬四千人皆發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心。佛攝神定，於是世界還復如故。求聲聞乘三萬二千天及人，知有為法皆悉無常，遠塵離垢得法眼淨。八千比丘不受諸法，漏盡意解」，此第二明時眾得道。佛國之興，其正為此。就文為二：初明得大乘益、次辨得小乘益。大益有二，初得無生忍者，知土本淨、染出妄情，悟一切法亦如此，故得無生。又知土未曾淨穢，淨穢出自兩緣，一切諸法非定有無，有無生乎妄，謂得無生也。次發菩提心者，聞淨土歡喜，發願求之也。於是世界還復如故者，此下明得小乘益也。非分不可久處，故還復彼所應見。又變穢為淨，為益大人；淨而還穢，利於小道。知有為法皆悉無常者，國土穢而可淨、淨而復穢，因悟無常，故得法眼淨，謂見四諦。初見四諦，故名為眼。斷八十八結，名遠塵離垢，稱之為淨。又解：於外境不執，為遠塵；內無我見，為離垢；明見四諦，云法眼淨也。不受諸法漏盡意解者，上明淺益，今辨深利。知土無常，故不貪取諸法，名為不受。九十八結諸漏既盡，意得解脫，成阿羅漢。

"At that time, Śāriputra, sustained by the Buddha's spiritual power, had this thought: 'If a bodhisattva's Buddha-land is pure because his mind is pure, then when our World-Honoured One was formerly a bodhisattva, could his mind not have been pure, such that this Buddha-land is impure like this?'" Below this is the second part, which explains the dispelling of doubt. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining the arising of doubt; next, analyzing the dispelling of doubt. The initial text has three phrases: first, the cause of the arising of doubt; second, the locus of the arising of doubt; third, the actual arising of doubt. "Sustained by the Buddha's holy decree" analyzes the cause of the arising of doubt. Now, purifying Buddha-lands and maturing sentient beings are the Mahāsattva's Dharma-gate and are originally not the affair of the small vehicle. But now, wishing to make clear that the Buddha-land is ever-pure, and that good and evil arise from two different conditions, [the Buddha] thus prompted his doubtful thought through spiritual power in order to give rise to the beginning of discourse. "If a bodhisattva's mind is pure" takes up the text above and analyzes the locus of the arising of doubt. From "our World-Honoured One" onwards is the actual arising of doubt. He examines the mind by means of the land, using the mind to determine the land: since the land is defiled, the mind should not be pure; since the mind is pure, the land would not be defiled. Hesitating without resolving [this] is why it became a doubt. "The Buddha, knowing his thought, thereupon addressed him, saying: 'What do you think? Are the sun and moon not pure, such that the blind do not see them?' He answered: 'No, World-Honoured One. It is the fault of the blind, not the error of the sun and moon.' 'Śāriputra! Because of the sins of sentient beings, they do not see the majestic purity of the Tathāgata's Buddha-country; it is not the Tathāgata's error.'" Below this is the second part, dispelling the doubt. In the text there are three parts: first, the Buddha himself dispels it; second, the Brahmā King assists in clarifying it; third, the Buddha re-explains it. The Buddha is the host of transformation, and therefore he explains it first. Although the Buddha spoke of a pure land, if no person bore witness to seeing it, it would still be difficult to believe. Therefore, next the Brahmā King explains, making clear that there is a person capable of seeing it, testifying that the Buddha does not speak falsely. Although the Brahmā King saw it, Śāriputra did not see it, still thinking there were words without reality; therefore, the Tathāgata transforms the land, verifying what the Buddha spoke above and what the Brahmā King saw. Moreover, in the first round of preaching on purity, he came to hear and know it; next, the Brahmā King beholding purity gave rise to his faith and understanding; third, concealing defilement and manifesting purity caused him to bear witness and see it: thus [his] awakening and entry follows an orderly sequence. Question: The sun and moon are ever pure, and that the blind do not see them is the fault of the blind, not the error of the sun and moon. Conforming to the simile, it should say: "The land is genuinely pure, but you do not see it. It is the fault of you and the others, not the fault of the land." Why does it say "not the Buddha's error"? Answer: The cause of the land and the fruit of the land belong entirely to the Buddha; therefore, it says "not the Buddha's error." Question: What kind of error does the Buddha not have? Answer: As a cause, the Buddha has no error of impurity; as a fruit, he has no error of a defiled land. Furthermore, Śāriputra doubted the Buddha, thinking that because the mind was impure, the land was therefore impure; for this reason, it says "the Buddha's error." "'Śāriputra, this land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.'" The previous clarification of impurity belonged to Śāriputra; now, the clarification of purity belongs to the Buddha. Therefore, he says "mine." And saying "this land": Śāriputra earlier saw this land as impure, thinking the Buddha had a separate pure land situated in another realm which Śāriputra did not see; therefore, he now clarifies that this land is pure. "At that time, the Conch-Topknot Brahmā King said to Śāriputra: 'Do not have this thought, considering this Buddha-land to be impure. Why is that? I see Śākyamuni Buddha's land to be pure, comparable to the palace of the Īśvara Heaven.'" This is the second part, the Brahmā King's testimony and explanation. In the text there are three parts: first, rebuking Śāriputra and stating his own view; second, Śāriputra relating what he himself sees in reply to the Brahmā King; third, the Brahmā King judging their gain and loss. As for saying "the palace of the Īśvara Heaven": some say it is the palace of the Paranirmita-vaśavartin Heaven in the desire realm, so the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra says: "Its jewels are like the jewels of the Sixth Heaven." Some say it is the palace of the Maheśvara Heaven in the form realm. Some say it is above the first dhyāna, namely the Īśvara palace of the intermediate dhyāna. Because the Great Brahmā King presides over a thousand worlds, he abides with sovereignty in the intermediate dhyāna over the thousand worlds, which is named the sovereign heaven palace. Question: Why does it only speak of the sovereign heaven palace? Answer: Now, the Buddha-land is truly pure, transcending humans and devas; Śāriputra is among humans and sees it as a human land, while the Brahmā King abides in heaven and sees it as a heavenly palace. It is simply speaking in accordance with what each sees. "Śāriputra said: 'I see this land filled with mounds, pits, brambles, thorns, gravel, and earth-and-stone mountains, foul and evil.'" Below this is the second part, Śāriputra stating his own view to answer the Brahmā King. The reason he stated his own view is that he wished to reveal that the two vehicles are persons of defilement, so as to cause those of small mind to aspire to the Great Path. "The Conch-Topknot Brahmā King said: 'Venerable Sir, your mind has high and low, and does not rely on the Buddha's wisdom; hence you see this land as impure. Śāriputra! A bodhisattva is completely impartial toward all sentient beings, his profound mind is pure, and relying on the Buddha's wisdom, he is able to see this Buddha-land as pure.'" Third, the Brahmā King judges their gain and loss. All things and forms arise from the mind. Since the minds of the two vehicles are not pure, they therefore see impurity above; the Mahāsattva attains a pure contemplation, and therefore sees the land as pure. Now, discussing their gain and loss overall, there are four perspectives: First, both obtain [the benefit]: Śāriputra obtains the upāya of defilement, while the Brahmā King obtains the upāya of purity. Second, both lose: Śāriputra attaches exclusively to defilement and loses purity, while the Brahmā King attaches exclusively to purity and loses defilement. Third, Śāriputra loses and the Brahmā King gains, which accords with the teaching of the Pure Land. Fourth, Śāriputra gains and the Brahmā King loses, as at times it is necessary to manifest a defiled land and not appropriate to manifest a pure one. "Thereupon the Buddha pressed the earth with his toe, and instantly the trichiliocosm was adorned with hundreds of thousands of rare jewels, comparable to the Jewel-Adorned Land of Immeasurable Merits and Jewel Adornments of the Buddha Ratnavyūha. The entire great assembly marveled at what had never been before, and all saw themselves seated on jeweled lotuses." This is the third part, the Buddha revealing purity in repeated reply. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining actual purity; next, analyzing the awakening to the path. Master Kumārajīva said: "The two lands, pure and defiled, share the same place without mutual obstruction." Now, concealing defilement and manifesting purity is done to bear witness that the Buddha's words are not false. The Brahmā King saw reality, and this also reveals that the two vehicles are born blind and shows that ordinary beings are defiled by sin. "The Buddha addressed Śāriputra: 'Look for a while at the majestic purity of this Buddha-land.' Śāriputra said: 'Indeed, World-Honoured One! What was originally not seen, originally not heard, the majestic purity of the Buddha's country is now fully manifest.' The Buddha addressed Śāriputra: 'My Buddha-country is ever pure like this; in order to save these lowly and inferior persons, I merely display this land of many evils and impurities.'" "This land of mine is ever pure": in order to dispel doubts, there is this passage. The assembly at that time doubted, saying: "The land was originally not pure, and only now has been transformed into purity; thus we know that seeing defilement was real." Therefore, he explains, saying: "This country of mine is originally ever pure, not just now transformed into purity." The assembly at that time doubted again: "If it is ever pure, why does he not constantly manifest the pure land instead of dwelling in defilement?" Therefore, he further explains, saying: "In order to save these lowly and inferior persons, I merely display this land of many evils and impurities." Now, there are two kinds of defiled land: first, retribution; second, response. Explaining based on the retribution land: speaking from the perspective of the Buddha, it is therefore ever pure; for the sake of saving the lowly, he manifests dwelling in the impure land of sentient beings. Explaining in terms of the response land: the Buddha's true land is ever pure; for the sake of saving the lowly, he creates an impure land. "'Just as the devas eat together from a jeweled vessel, yet according to their merits the food differs; so it is, Śāriputra! If a person's mind is pure, he will see this land adorned with merits.'" This simile comes because, although the above was verified by an event, the assembly at that time did not yet understand: for what reason is it truly a pure land, yet we see defilement? Therefore, he cites this simile to enlighten them again. When newly born in heaven, wishing to test and know together the extent of their merits, they must eat heavenly rice together from a single jeweled vessel. Heavenly rice is extremely white, with nothing of comparable whiteness to serve as an analogy. For those with much merit, when they raise the rice to their mouths, the color of the rice does not change. For those with little merit, when they raise the rice to their mouths, the color of the rice promptly changes. According to Master Kumārajīva's interpretation, within one vessel there are two kinds of food, responding to two kinds of sentient beings. Likewise, in one place there are two lands, pure and defiled, responding to two conditions; thus different substances share the same place without mutual obstruction. Jizang considers that this interpretation by Master Kumārajīva is inconvenient in relation to the text. There is only one white rice: those whose merit is thick see it as white, while those whose merit is thin see it as red. Conforming to the simile: there is truly one pure land; the bodhisattva, relying on the Buddha's wisdom, therefore sees the land as pure; the two vehicles, not relying on the Buddha's wisdom, therefore see the land as impure. One must not say that within the vessel there were originally two kinds of rice. If there were originally two kinds of rice, how could it still serve to test the devas? "When the Buddha manifested this country's majestic purity, the five hundred elders' sons led by Ratnākara all attained anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti, and eighty-four thousand people all resolved upon anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The Buddha withdrew his spiritual samādhi, whereupon this world returned to its former state. Thirty-two thousand devas and humans seeking the śrāvaka vehicle knew that conditioned dharmas are all impermanent, became remote from dust and free from defilement, and attained the purity of the Dharma-eye. Eight thousand monks did not grasp at any dharmas, their taints were exhausted, and their minds were liberated." This is the second part, explaining that the assembly at that time attained the path. The arising of the Buddha-country was precisely for this purpose. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining the attainment of the Mahāyāna benefit; next, analyzing the attainment of the Hīnayāna benefit. The great benefit is twofold. First, attaining anutpattika-kṣānti means knowing that the land is originally pure and that defilement arises from deluded passion; realizing that all dharmas are also like this, they therefore attain the unborn. Furthermore, knowing that the land has never been pure or defiled, and that purity and defilement arise from two conditions, all dharmas are not definitively existent or nonexistent; existence and nonexistence arise from delusion, and [realizing this] is called attaining the unborn. Next, giving rise to the bodhi-mind means rejoicing upon hearing of the Pure Land and generating vows to seek it. "Whereupon this world returned to its former state": below this explains attaining the small vehicle benefit. That which is beyond one's capacity cannot be dwelled in for long; therefore it returned to what they ought to see. Moreover, transforming defilement into purity is to benefit great persons; reverting from purity to defilement is of benefit to the small path. "Knowing that conditioned dharmas are all impermanent": the land being defiled can become pure, and being pure reverts to defilement; due to awakening to impermanence, they therefore attained the purity of the Dharma-eye, meaning seeing the Four Truths. Seeing the Four Truths for the first time is why it is called the eye. Severing the eighty-eight fetters is called becoming remote from dust and free from defilement, which is termed purity. Another interpretation: not grasping at external objects is becoming remote from dust; internally lacking the view of self is being free from defilement; clearly seeing the Four Truths is called the purity of the Dharma-eye. "Did not grasp at any dharmas, their taints were exhausted, and their minds were liberated": the above explained the shallow benefit, while now it analyzes the deep advantage. Knowing that the land is impermanent, they therefore do not greedily grasp at any dharmas, which is called not grasping. The ninety-eight fetters and various taints having been exhausted, their minds attained liberation and they became arhats.