請觀音經疏闡義鈔 3.10

3.10

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.