請觀音經疏闡義鈔 3.10

3.10

「若作」下，破凡二意：一有動移故非真、二未極淨故非真。「不復得移動」等者，此初意也。真理寂然，無去來移動、無淨穢優劣。經說彌陀從彼來此，彼優此劣豈是真耶？「若彼」下，次意也。若是真身，應居寂光極淨之土。既法說三乘、人分九品，雖無四趣而有人天，故於同居尚未極淨。據此則不可謂是真身也，故云「此則不可」。故《淨名疏》明二十七品淨土，彌陀止是第六。而諸經偏讚為淨者，形此土故、由物機故、是攝生故、令專注故、宿緣厚故、約多分故。「此語則寬」者，以久本今迹俱應身故。此一往許之也，二往不可，故云「今亦不用」。以無經文明說，故曰「那知」。須知二佛各有久本今迹也。「那互為」者，責他以彼為本、以此為迹。

From "If considered" below, the refutation has two points: first, because there is movement and relocation, it is not the true; second, because it is not ultimate purity, it is not the true. Regarding "no longer being able to move" and so forth: this is the first point. True principle is tranquil, without coming, going, moving, or shifting, and without purity, defilement, superiority, or inferiority. The sūtras state that Amitābha comes here from there; with that superior and this inferior, how could this be the true? From "If that" below: this is the second point. If it were the true body, it should dwell in the land of ultimate purity, the Land of Eternally Quiescent Light. Since the Dharma explains the three vehicles and people are divided into nine grades, and although there are no four evil destinies there are still humans and gods, within the land of common abode it is not yet supremely pure. According to this, it cannot be called the true body; hence it says, "this then is impermissible." Therefore, the Commentary on Vimalakīrti clarifies twenty-seven grades of pure lands, and Amitābha's is only the sixth. Yet the various sūtras especially praise it as pure because it is contrasted with this land, because of the capacities of sentient beings, because it gathers in beings, to make them concentrate single-mindedly, because their past conditions are profound, and on account of the majority. Regarding "these words are broad": this is because both the remote origin and present traces are response bodies. This is accepted provisionally, but on further examination it is impermissible; hence it says, "Now this is also not adopted." Because there is no explicit scriptural passage, it says, "How could one know?" One must know that each of the two Buddhas has his own remote origin and present traces. Regarding "How could they be mutually [origin and trace]?": this reproves the other for taking that one as the origin and this one as the trace.