維摩經義疏 6.7

"Akṣobhya": here translated as "Immovable"; it is also called "Free from Anger". Previously, the [chapter] title was established from the Dharma; now it takes its name from a person. Furthermore, the preceding was the name of a cause; now it is the fruit [and its] cause. Moreover, previously person and Dharma were raised together—the bodhisattva being the person, and practice being the Dharma; now both object and wisdom are fully provided in the title: "seeing" refers to the wisdom capable of contemplating, and "Akṣobhya" is the object contemplated. Question: Why is there this chapter? Answer: Generally there are four meanings. First, previously this teaching was spoken for that land, and now for these conditions one contemplates that Buddha; indeed, because reception and awakening are not the same, the portals of transformation are not single. Second, the preceding "Bodhisattva Practice Chapter" explained cultivation of practice, and now explains that with practice accomplished, one is thus able to see the Buddha. Question: The two vehicles also see that Buddha; should they cultivate the Buddha's practices? Answer: They merely see the Buddha of the two vehicles, not the true Buddha. Thus, when the five hundred śrāvakas were in the Avataṃsaka assembly, they only saw the sixteen-foot body, identical with the bodies of the two vehicles, cultivating distinct and different roots of goodness, but did not behold the true dharmakāya of the Mahāyāna. Third, the preceding taught the portal of the cause, appropriately followed now by clarifying the dharmas of the fruit. Fourth, from the beginning of the sūtra up to now, the inconceivable was briefly delineated; from this text onward, the unfathomableness of the origin and traces is extensively clarified. "Contemplating the true character of the body, contemplating the Buddha is also thus" refers to the inconceivable origin; next, explaining the transference of Abhirati to enter this land refers to the inconceivable traces. Question: The inconceivable was already clarified above; how is it different from the present? Answer: Comprehensively determining from beginning to end, there are four propositions in all: first, the inconceivable of the great entering the small, as in borrowing the seats from the King of Lamps; second, the inconceivable of the small satisfying the great, as in requesting food from the Land of Fragrance; third, the inconceivable of using the great to enter the great, transporting that Abhirati to enter this Sahā world, the two lands coexisting without increase or decrease, which is called inconceivable. But this matter is easily understood and does not await explanation. The chapter opens into three: first, clarifying the origin of the dharmakāya; second, explaining the traces of the Immovable One; third, praising the Dharma and commending the person. In the first text, there is first a question, and next an answer. From "At that time the World-Honoured One asked Vimalakīrti: 'You wish to see the Tathāgata; by means of what do you contemplate the Tathāgata?'" onward, the Buddha asks Jingming for three reasons: first, from the beginning of the sūtra onward, when the Buddha's body shone with radiant light and sound, the assembly at that time merely grasped the marks of a person and did not see the dharmakāya; therefore he asked Jingming to cause them to behold the true Buddha. Second, above Jingming said that all Buddhas can be seen; the assembly at that time thought that the Buddha could be seen and that there was a person able to see. If so, that is still the view of a Buddha, not seeing the Buddha. Therefore he now clarifies the dharmakāya to put an end to those two views. Question: When the bodhisattvas from Gandhavatī came to see the Buddha, they also gave rise to delusion and attachment; why did he not refute it? Answer: They merely gave rise to an inferior notion; how could they produce defilement? Therefore he waited until they were about to leave to explain it. Third, he was about to clarify that there is neither superior nor inferior. When the Immovable Buddha came alongside Śākyamuni, fearing there would be dual minds of superior and inferior, he beforehand clarified the single contemplation of the dharmakāya; this is why he asked. From "Vimalakīrti said: 'As I contemplate the true character of my own body, contemplating the Buddha is also thus'" onward is the answer. Question: In the four assemblies of this sūtra, the dharmakāya is explained in three places; what is the difference? Answer: The "Upāya Chapter", in contrast to the faults and perils of saṃsāra, praises the merits of the dharmakāya; the "Disciples Chapter" opens up the distinction between origin and traces: the dharmakāya is untainted and unconditioned, while the responsive traces have birth and cessation. This chapter specifically clarifies that the substance of the dharmakāya is cut off from the hundred negations, while its form is equipped with myriad virtues. Question: Why explain these three portals? Answer: Only when equipped with the three portals is the Buddha's body made manifest. First, one must contrast it with the faults and perils of saṃsāra to praise the merits of the dharmakāya, causing them to loathe this saṃsāra and aspire to seek the Buddha's body. Doubters now see that the Buddha's body is still conditioned and has not escaped the taints; why is it worthy of being aspired to? Therefore the second section opens up the origin and traces: the conditioned and tainted are the responsive traces; the untainted and unconditioned are truly the dharmakāya. Some, hearing that for the dharmakāya there is no burden that is not exhausted and no virtue that is not perfected, then claim that it is different from sentient beings. Therefore this section clarifies that contemplating the true character of the body, contemplating the Buddha is also thus; sentient beings and the Buddha are not two. Equipped with these three portals, the meaning is complete, not only applying intimately to this text, but broadly penetrating many sūtras. Furthermore, the first refutes ordinary persons, the second rebukes the two vehicles, and the last instructs bodhisattvas. The first addressed ordinary persons: in the "Upāya Chapter", ordinary persons asked about the illness, so he spoke for them of the faults and perils of saṃsāra and the merits of the dharmakāya. Next, the "Disciples Chapter" directly scolded the śrāvakas, who thought the Buddha's body was identical with the two vehicles, so he opened up the distinction between origin and traces. Bodhisattvas then [differentiate] the Buddha's body, thinking it permanent while sentient beings spontaneously arise and cease; therefore now, contemplating the true character of the body, contemplating the Buddha is also thus, dissolving the two views. Master Kumārajīva said: "There are three ways of contemplating the Buddha: first, contemplating the physical form; second, contemplating the dharmakāya; third, contemplating the emptiness of nature. Among the three kinds of contemplative portals, Jingming answers using the portal of the emptiness of nature; thus he says: 'Contemplating the true character of the body, contemplating the Buddha is also thus.'" Now I say: this section directly clarifies that the dharmakāya is cut off from the four propositions and hundred negations, which is the meaning of the emptiness of nature. Question: How is the true character identical to the Buddha's body? Answer: The Buddha's body is cut off from the four propositions, and the true character of sentient beings is also cut off from the four propositions; therefore the true character is precisely the dharmakāya. Thus the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: "Suchness has neither coming nor going; Suchness is precisely the Buddha." Question: Suchness and true character are merely the contemplative objects of ultimate truth; how can they be the Buddha's wondrous wisdom? Answer: One who poses this question does so merely from the minds of human teachers, not from the words of sūtras and treatises. The Avataṃsaka says: "Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without distinction." The *Zhengguan lun* says: "It is also named Suchness, dharma-nature, and nirvāṇa." Can one say that nirvāṇa is also without knowing? Therefore the dharmakāya has no knowing, yet there is nothing it does not know; the meaning of Suchness is also like this. Question: Contemplating the true character of the body, contemplating the Buddha is also thus: how is this called seeing the Buddha? Answer: Thinking that the Buddha is different from the body is dualistic viewing, not seeing the Buddha. Attaining non-dual contemplation is then called seeing the Buddha. From "I contemplate the Tathāgata as not coming from the prior limit, not going to the posterior limit, and now not abiding" onward, this fully explains that the substance of the dharmakāya is cut off from the hundred negations, while its form is equipped with myriad virtues. This first phrase clarifies that it is not of the three times, intending to explain that the dharmakāya is not conditioned. The conditioned of ordinary persons inevitably falls into the three times; since it is not of the three times, it is therefore not conditioned. From "Not contemplating form, not contemplating the suchness of form, not contemplating the nature of form; not contemplating sensation, perception, volition, or consciousness, not contemplating the suchness of consciousness, not contemplating the nature of consciousness" onward, the five aggregates are also conditioned; therefore next, with respect to the five aggregates, he clarifies that it is not the dharmakāya. Regarding each single aggregate, three kinds of contemplative portals are provided: first, not contemplating form is not contemplating existence; second, not contemplating the suchness of form is not contemplating emptiness;

Third, not contemplating the nature of form dispels "neither existence nor non-existence." Because the dharmakāya transcends the four propositions (catuṣkoṭi), it is also not contemplated as neither existence nor non-existence. Below, from "Not arising from the four great elements, equal to empty space": the five aggregates are the effect, and the four great elements are the cause; since the effect is not the Buddha, the cause is likewise not. Being neither cause nor effect, it is therefore equal to empty space. Below, from "With no accumulation of the six sense entrances": since the dharmakāya is neither cause nor effect, it also transcends internal and external; being neither internal nor external, it cannot be that an accumulation of the six sense entrances constitutes the Buddha. Below, from "Transcending eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind": the preceding explained that it is not the external entrances, and this explains that it transcends the internal nature. Below, from "Not existing in the three realms": as the six entrances were said above to be transcended, one might presume that it does not exist where there are six entrances, or one might presume that it must exist where there are no six entrances; therefore it is further said that it is not in the three realms. Below, from "Having abandoned the three defilements": the above explained that there are no effects of the three realms, and this explains that there are no causes of the three realms. Because there are no three defilements, it is not in the three realms. These preceding six gates explain that the Tathāgata is free from all marks of delusion. Below, from "In accordance with the three gates of liberation": this explains that the dharmakāya is endowed with all virtues. Because it accords with the three gates of liberation, it abandons the three defilements. Below, from "The three clarities, equal to ignorance": there are two kinds of three clarities (vidyā): first, the three of the divine eye, recollection of past lives, and extinction of taints; second, according to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, (1) the bodhisattva's clarity, which is prajñā; (2) the Buddha-eye of the Buddhas, which is the Buddha-eye; and (3) the clarity of non-clarity (avidyā), which is ultimate emptiness. As for ultimate emptiness, its essence is not of the nature of wisdom, so it is not clarity; yet it can give rise to real wisdom, so it is called clarity. Just as the five sensory dusts give rise to the five desires and are also termed desire, because of according with the three gates of liberation, one can equalize clarity and ignorance, and so forth. Furthermore, some might take the three gates of liberation to be clarity, and thus it is subsequently obliterated; hence it says "clarity is equal to ignorance," and so on. Below, from "Neither of single mark nor of different marks": Lord Sengzhao says: "There is no image that is not an image, so it cannot be considered single; it images yet is not an image, so it cannot be considered different." Connecting to the preceding: if one equalizes clarity and ignorance, one might consider them single; if they are not single, one follows marks of difference; therefore it is now explained as neither single nor different. Below, from "Neither of self-mark nor of other-mark": the response body arises through the resonance of sentient beings, hence not self; the essence of the dharmakāya is quiescent, hence not other. Sengzhao says: "Not being self yet according with self, it is self yet not self; not being other yet according with other, it is other yet not other. How could the markless body have its essence contemplated in terms of self and other?" Below, from "Neither without marks nor grasping marks": adapting to others in its actions, it is therefore not without marks; yet the essence of virtue is ever quiescent and without discrimination, therefore not grasping marks. This is explained in terms of combining the two bodies. Sengzhao says: "It is not the mark of having no things, nor is it a mark that can be grasped"; he explains it solely in terms of the dharmakāya. Below, from "Neither on this shore, nor on the other shore, nor in the midstream": saṃsāra is originally non-existent, hence not this shore; nirvāṇa does not exist at present, hence not the other shore. Since there is neither this nor that, how could there be the midstream of the Eightfold Noble Path? Furthermore, being constantly in saṃsāra, it is not the other; not abandoning nirvāṇa, it is not this; practicing both practices without one-sided attachment, it is therefore not in the midstream. Below, from "Yet transforming sentient beings": as it was just said to be not the three, it would seem to cease transforming; therefore it is now said that although it is not the three, it constantly teaches and transforms, causing them to awaken to the non-three. Below, from "Contemplating quiescent extinction yet not eternally extinguished": since it says transforming sentient beings, it would seem that sentient beings are seen to exist, which would not be quiescent extinction. Therefore it is now explained that although transforming, it is ever quiescent, which is why it says "contemplating quiescent extinction"; although quiescently extinguished, it constantly teaches and transforms, hence not eternally extinguished. Below, from "Neither here nor there": since it transforms sentient beings, it would be in this or that [place]. The dharmakāya is markless, hence not here or there. Furthermore, the buddha-lands are all suchness: there is no "this" that can be inhabited, which is termed not here; there is no "there" that can be inhabited, hence it says not there. Below, from "Neither through this nor through that": not being this yet according with this, it is this yet not this; not being that yet according with that, it is that yet not that—how could it again be according with this through this, or according with that through that? This illuminates that the sage's mind has no mind, using "through" to accord with minds. Below, from "Cannot be known by wisdom, cannot be cognized by consciousness": the ten knowledges of the sage do not know it; the six consciousnesses of the ordinary person do not cognize it. In general, the arising of wisdom and consciousness arises within marks; the dharmakāya is markless, so wisdom and consciousness cannot reach it. Below, from "Neither darkness nor illumination": the dharmakāya is without cognition, hence not illumination; there is nothing it does not know, hence not darkness. Below, from "Without name and without mark": it cannot be named with a name, and cannot be marked with a mark; therefore square and circle cannot depict it, and titles cannot transmit it. Below, from "Neither strong nor weak": being supremely pliant with no resistance, it is not rigid; being rigid with nothing unvanquished, it is not weak. Furthermore, moving heaven and earth it is not rigid; responsive to the end of impermanence, it is not weak. Below, from "Neither pure nor defiled": with no taint that is not extinguished, it is not defiled; with no fruit into which it does not enter, it is not pure. Furthermore, the major and minor marks adorning the body are not its purity; the iron lance and the horse barley are likewise not its defilement. Below, from "Neither in a direction nor apart from directions": being wondrous and beyond the three realms, it is not in a direction; with no delusion to which it does not respond, it is not apart from directions. Below, from "Neither conditioned nor unconditioned": marks cannot alter it, hence not conditioned; its wondrous functioning is inexhaustible, hence not unconditioned. Below, from "Without showing and without preaching": being beyond the reach of the six sense faculties, how could it be spoken of to show people? Using words to address people is "showing"; relying on words because of the Dharma is "preaching." Furthermore, showing is for those who should see, and preaching is for those who should hear. But the Buddha cannot be seen or heard, hence there is no preaching and no showing. Below, from "Neither giving nor stingy, neither keeping precepts nor transgressing, neither patient nor angry, neither diligent nor indolent, neither concentrated nor distracted, neither wise nor foolish": taking the six pāramitās as its essence, it can thus respond like an echo. Yet as for the so-called beings to be saved, none are saved; only by neither saving nor not saving does it subsequently save. Below, from "Neither sincere nor deceptive": "sincere" means true; "deceptive" means misleading. Because it cannot be considered good through goodness, it is not sincere; because it cannot be considered evil through evil, it is not deceptive. Furthermore, it empties and abandons the three things, hence not sincere; yet ultimately attains the One, hence not deceptive. Below, from "Neither coming nor going, neither emerging nor entering": riding the path of real suchness is "coming"; the Sugata entering extinction is "going"; hastening into the burning house is "entering"; standing outside the gate is "emerging"; yet the dharmakāya is in reality devoid of them. Below, from "The path of all words is cut off": this summarizes the preceding phrases, explaining that it cannot be expressed in words.

From "Neither a field of merit nor not a field of merit; neither deserving offerings nor not deserving offerings" onward: disdaining it incurs guilt, hence it is not a field of merit; revering it brings merit, hence it is not 'not a field of merit'. Being not 'not a field of merit', it is deserving of offerings; being not a field of merit, it is not deserving of offerings. Some say: the dharmakāya receives nothing, hence it is not a field of merit; yet responding to beings it receives offerings, hence it is not 'not a field of merit'. Furthermore, it is not the same as a good person, hence it is not a field of merit; nor is it the same as a guilty person, hence it is not 'not a field of merit'. "Neither taking nor discarding": being not merit, it does not take; being not 'not a field of merit', it does not discard. From "Neither having characteristics nor lacking characteristics" onward: quiescent and formless, hence it is not characteristics; possessing the thirty-two marks, hence it is not lacking characteristics. From "Identical with the reality limit, equal to the nature of phenomena" onward: the dharmakāya being markless is itself the reality limit; yet someone might consider the Buddha to be different, hence it says "identical". From "Unweighable, immeasurable, surpassing all weighing and measuring" onward: its substance is neither light nor heavy, hence it cannot be weighed; its limits cannot be fathomed, hence it cannot be measured. From "Neither great nor small" onward: greater than heaven and earth, it cannot be deemed small; fine enough to enter where there is no space, it cannot be deemed great. Being able to be great or small, it has no greatness or smallness. From "Neither seen nor heard, neither sensed nor known" onward: not being matter, it is not seen; not being sound, it is not heard; not being smell, taste, or tangibility, it is not sensed by the three faculties; not being mental objects, it is not known by the mind. "Free from all bonds": since it is neither seen, heard, sensed, nor known, where could bonds arise? From "Equaling all wisdom, identical with all living beings, without discrimination among phenomena" onward: wisdom equals the wisdom of the masses of wisdom, and the person equals the person of the multitude; by viewing in this way, there is no discrimination. Furthermore, being identical with the wisdom of the multitude, it is said to equal all wisdom. Nor is there a Buddha who is a great sage distinct from those living beings, hence it says "identical with all living beings". When persons and phenomena are viewed equally, conceptual thought ceases, hence "without discrimination among phenomena". From "Utterly without fault, without turbidity, without affliction" onward: the three types of karma being free of error, it is utterly without fault; without fault, hence without turbidity; without turbidity, then without affliction. From "Without action, without arising, without birth, without cessation" onward: the dharmakāya is unconditioned, cut off from doing and creating; who could act to make it arise, or bring it to birth so as to cause it to cease? "Without fear, without sorrow, without joy, without aversion, without attachment": if there were birth and cessation, that would be fearful phenomena, and one would rejoice in birth and grieve over cessation. Once joy and grief arise, aversion and attachment are possible, yet the dharmakāya is free from both. "It was not, it will not be, and it is not now; it cannot be differentiated or revealed by any words. World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata's body being such, one should view it thus. Those who view it in this way are called viewing correctly; if one views it otherwise, it is called viewing wrongly." This concludes the summary of the Buddha's body and encourages its observation. From "At that time, Śāriputra asked Vimalakīrti: 'Where did you die to come and be born here?'" onward is the second part, next explaining the inconceivable traces. In the text there are two parts: first, clarifying Jingming's meaning of birth and non-birth; second, manifesting the realm of Akṣobhya Buddha. Śāriputra raised the question for three reasons: first, seeing that his spiritual virtue was extraordinary, the place he came from must be sublime, so he asked where he had come from; second, above it was said that one should view the Buddha just as one contemplates the true mark of one's own body, and the true mark is unborn, yet now he manifests having birth—seeking to establish the meaning of contemplating oneself, he asked concerning dying and being born; third, having previously revealed the dharmakāya, he next unfolds the function of traces, and for this reason he asks. "Vimalakīrti said: 'Is there death and birth in the Dharma you have attained?' Śāriputra said: 'There is no death and birth.' 'If phenomena have no mark of death and birth, why do you ask: "Where did you die to come and be born here?" What do you think? Just as an illusionist creates men and women by illusion, is there death and birth?' Śāriputra said: 'There is no death and birth.' 'Have you not heard the Buddha say that all phenomena have illusory marks?' He answered: 'Indeed.' 'If all phenomena have illusory marks, why do you ask: "Where did you die to come and be born here?" Śāriputra! Death is the mark of decay of deceptive phenomena, and birth is the mark of continuity of deceptive phenomena. Although a bodhisattva dies, he does not exhaust his roots of goodness; although he is born, he does not foster evils'" onward: good and evil are both nothing but the continuity and decay of deceptive phenomena. Yet when ordinary beings are born, they foster evil, and when they die, they exhaust goodness; when bodhisattvas are born, they foster goodness, and when they die, they exhaust evil. Although death and birth are the same, fostering and exhausting are not identical, yet both are marks of deceptive decay—how are they different from illusory transformations? From "At that time, the Buddha told Śāriputra: 'There is a realm named Abhirati, and the Buddha is called Akṣobhya. This Vimalakīrti died in that realm to come and be born here.' Śāriputra said: 'How unprecedented, World-Honoured One! That this person could forsake a pure land to come and delight in this place of much anger and harm.' Vimalakīrti said: 'Śāriputra! What do you think? When sunlight appears, does it merge with darkness?' He answered: 'No. When sunlight appears, all darkness is absent.' Vimalakīrti said: 'Why does the sun travel through Jambudvīpa?' He answered: 'Wishing to illuminate it with light and dispel darkness for its sake.' Vimalakīrti said: 'A bodhisattva is just like this: although born in an impure Buddha-land to transform living beings, he does not merge with foolish darkness, but only extinguishes the darkness of the afflictions of living beings'" onward: previously he clarified non-birth, and here he reveals the place of origin, proclaiming in response to beings that his coming is originally not without benefit. Non-birth is the dharmakāya; birth refers to responding traces. Furthermore, when the Buddhas teach the Dharma, they always rely on the two truths: non-birth concerns the ultimate, while birth pertains to the conventional. From "At that time, the great assembly yearned, wishing to see Akṣobhya Tathāgata of the Abhirati world and his assembly of bodhisattvas and śrāvakas. The Buddha, knowing the thoughts of the entire assembly, told Vimalakīrti: 'Good son! Manifest for this assembly the realm of Abhirati, Akṣobhya Tathāgata, and the assembly of bodhisattvas and śrāvakas, for all the assembly wish to see them'" onward: this passage is the second, clarifying why the realm of Akṣobhya is manifested. There are three reasons: first, wishing to cause this assembly to cultivate the practices of a pure land so that they may attain rebirth there; second, wishing to reveal Jingming's inconceivable virtue; third, about to return to Abhirati, the place of his original birth. Forsaking this pure land to enter this defiled realm illustrates the conditions of the Mahāsattva's compassion. The text has four clauses: first, the great assembly wishes to see; second, Jingming manifests the land; third, the assembly gains benefit; fourth, returning to his original abode. This is the first passage.

"Thereupon, Vimalakīrti thought: 'Without rising from my seat, I ought to take the Abhirati realm—its Iron Enclosure mountain, mountains and rivers, ravines and valleys, streams and rivers, great oceans, springs and sources, Mount Sumeru and the other mountains, as well as the palaces of the sun, moon, stars, constellations, gods, dragons, ghosts, spirits, and Brahmā heavens, along with the assemblies of bodhisattvas and śrāvakas, the cities, towns, and villages, men, women, great and small, down to Akṣobhya Tathāgata, the bodhi tree, and the wonderful lotuses that are able to perform Buddha-work throughout the ten directions; the three flights of jewelled steps extending from Jambudvīpa up to the Trāyastriṃśa heaven, by which jewelled steps the devas descend, all to pay homage to Akṣobhya Tathāgata and to listen to and receive the sūtras and teachings, and the people of Jambudvīpa also ascend those steps, going up to the Trāyastriṃśa heaven to see those devas—such immeasurable merits are accomplished in the Abhirati world, up to the Akaniṣṭha heaven and down to the water boundary—and, cutting it off with my right hand, [lift it up] like a potter's wheel.'" Next, the second part explains the manifestation of the land. In the text there are two parts: first, the thought intending to manifest the land; next, the actual manifestation of the land. Kumārajīva says: "The Indic text says 'like cutting clay'; here it says 'like a potter's wheel' to make clear that it was cut and taken right from the middle, like a potter's wheel, not touching the ground below and severed on all four sides." "Entering this world, he showed it to the entire assembly just like holding a garland of flowers" shows that the bodhisattva displaying it did not find the practice difficult; this is an analogy. "Having formed this thought, he entered into samādhi, manifested supernormal power, and with his right palm cut and took the Abhirati world..." Next, this second part properly explains the manifestation of the land, comprising four clauses: first, the actual manifestation of the land; second, Śākyamuni's exhortation to observe; third, the great assembly's beholding; fourth, the exhortation to cultivate the causes of a pure land. Kumārajīva says: "'Cut and took' makes clear that it did not all come." "And placed it in this land. Those bodhisattvas and śrāvaka assemblies who had attained supernormal powers, as well as the other devas and humans, all raised their voices and cried: 'Indeed, World-Honoured One! Who is taking us away? We pray to be rescued and protected!' Akṣobhya Buddha said: 'This was not done by me; it is the work of Vimalakīrti's supernormal power.' The rest, who had not attained supernormal powers, were unaware and ignorant of where they were going. Although the Abhirati world entered this land, it neither increased nor decreased, and this world was not cramped or confined either, being no different from before. At that time, Śākyamuni Buddha told the great assembly: 'All of you, behold the Abhirati world and Akṣobhya Tathāgata: the adornment of that land, the purity of the bodhisattvas' practice, and the immaculate nature of his disciples.'" This is the exhortation to the assembly to observe. "They all said: 'Indeed! We have already seen it.'" This clarifies the great assembly's beholding. "The Buddha said: 'If a bodhisattva wishes to attain such a pure Buddha-land, he should learn the path traversed by Akṣobhya Tathāgata.'" Next, having manifested the wondrous fruit, he exhorts them to cultivate the pure causes. "When this Abhirati realm was manifested, fourteen nayutas of people in the sahā world aroused the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, all aspiring to be born in the Abhirati Buddha-land. Śākyamuni Buddha immediately conferred a prediction upon them, saying: 'You shall be born in that land.'" Next, third is the contemporary assembly obtaining benefit. Master Sengzhao says: "Ten million makes one nayuta." "When the matter of what the Abhirati world was to benefit in this land was concluded, it returned to its original place, and the entire assembly saw it." Next, fourth is its returning to its original place. "The Buddha told Śāriputra: 'Did you see this Abhirati world and Akṣobhya Buddha?'" Next, this third part explains praising the person and extolling the Dharma. Because holy assemblies are difficult to encounter and the sūtra teachings are difficult to hear, he therefore asks, "Did you see it?" "'Indeed! I have already seen it. World-Honoured One! May all sentient beings attain a pure land like Akṣobhya Buddha's, and acquire supernormal powers like Vimalakīrti's! World-Honoured One! We have obtained magnificent and wholesome benefits in being able to see this person, draw near to him, and make offerings to him.'" Next, Śāriputra, by reason of what he saw, makes a vow and praises the person. "'Those sentient beings, whether now in the present or after the Buddha's passing, who hear this sūtra will also obtain wholesome benefits, not to mention those who, having heard it, believe and understand it, receive and uphold it, read and recite it, explain it, and practice it in accordance with the Dharma. If there is anyone into whose hands this classic comes, they have already obtained the treasury of Dharma jewels.'" This praises the Dharma. When one gets the sūtra scroll in hand, though one has not yet recited or mastered it, it is like a person who has already obtained a treasure hoard, but has merely not yet used it. "'If there are those who read and recite it, explain its meaning, and practice it as taught, they will be protected and remembered by all Buddhas.'" Next, when practice responds within, protective mindfulness occurs without; principle and karmic destiny secretly resonate, bringing natural peace. "'If there are those who make offerings to such a person, know that they are making offerings to the Buddha; if there are those who copy and uphold this sūtra scroll, know that the Tathāgata is present in that room; if upon hearing this sūtra one is able to rejoice in accord with it, this person is grasping all-knowledge; if one can believe and understand this sūtra, even a single four-line verse, and speak it for others, know that this person will receive the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.'" Next, because this sūtra directly illuminates the bodhisattva's practice, hearing the sūtra and being able to rejoice in accord with its meaning, one will certainly attain all-knowledge. Believing and understanding a single four-line verse of this sūtra and speaking it for others, one knows the nobility of the bodhisattva path and the baseness of the two vehicles; thus one will never regress from the great aspiration and will certainly become a Buddha, and is therefore worthy of the Buddha's prediction.