大乘義章 19.7

19.7

次第三門辨定其因。且約三土以定其因。先約法報二土辨因，應後別說。法報二土因相云何？分相論之，無始法性是法土因，諸度等行是報土因。攝相言之，二土並用無始法性諸度為因，於中義分有緣有正。緣正相對，曲有兩門：一別相說。法性之土，無始法性以為正因，諸度行以為緣因。實報之土，諸度等行以為正因，以親生故；法性為緣。二通相說。二土並用無始法性以為正因。雖俱法性以為正因，與別名因。法土之因，本有法體，與後顯時體無增減，隱顯為異。報土因者，本無法體，但於向前法土因上，從本已來有其緣起可生之義，遇緣便生。如礦中金有可造作莊嚴具義，遇緣便作，非先有法，以在其中。二土齊用諸度業行以為緣因。雖俱諸度以為緣因，於中細分，其義亦異。異相如何？諸度等行有能生義，說之以為報土之緣，如地水等能生諸物。諸度等行有能了義，說之以為法性土之緣。前二如是。次論應土。應土之因，有無不定。攝用從體，更無別因。譬如世人因形有影，影無別物。業見土異，非我為故。分用異體，亦說有因，以是果故。因二種：一同類因，還以應行而為應因。諸佛如來得土已久，現修諸行莊嚴國。如彌陀佛國現修四十八弘誓願及諸所行，莊嚴西方世界，如是等也。二異類因，實行真法為應土因。然就應中義別有二：一是法應，淨土三昧法門力故，現種種剎。二是報應，以本大悲願力因緣，現種種土。義別如是。此二別分，法應之土，如來藏中淨土法門以之為因。報應之土，大悲願力以之為因。悲願為主，統攝諸行皆為因矣。分相如是。攝相言之，二應並用淨土法門悲願為因，於義別分有緣有正。緣正不定。若論法應，淨土法門以為正因，大悲願等以為緣因。若無悲願，彼法不能獨生應土。譬如火珠雖能出火，要因見日；亦如水珠雖能出水，要須見月。故經說言「異法有故異法出生，異法無故異法滅壞。」報應之土，大悲願等以為正因，淨土法門以為正緣因。若無彼法，雖有悲願應土不生。譬如音聲雖能發響，必依㵎谷；面能生像，必依水鏡。問曰：應土從實悲願法門力起，何不名真，乃說為應？釋言：大悲願力行等，正得真土，增上緣力兼生應土。由非正起，故不名真；緣力兼生令人見聞，故說為應。辨因如是。

Next, the third section determines their causes. For the present, the causes are determined in relation to the three lands. First, the causes are differentiated in relation to the dharmakāya and reward lands, while the response [land] will be explained separately afterward. What are the characteristics of the causes of the dharmakāya and reward lands? Discussed in terms of differentiated characteristics: beginningless dharmatā is the cause of the dharmakāya land, and practices such as the pāramitās are the cause of the reward land. Stated in terms of comprehending their characteristics: both lands employ beginningless dharmatā and the pāramitās as their causes, wherein the sense is divided into the auxiliary [cause] and the direct [cause]. In the mutual opposition of auxiliary and direct, there are precisely two modes. First, explaining according to differentiated characteristics: for the land of dharmatā, beginningless dharmatā is taken as the direct cause, and the practices of the pāramitās are taken as the auxiliary cause. For the land of true reward, practices such as the pāramitās are taken as the direct cause, because they directly give rise [to it]; dharmatā is the auxiliary. Second, explaining according to common characteristics: both lands employ beginningless dharmatā as their direct cause. Although both take dharmatā as their direct cause, they are named causes differently. As for the cause of the dharmakāya land, the entity of the dharma is fundamentally existing, and its entity undergoes neither increase nor decrease compared to when it is subsequently revealed; concealed versus revealed constitutes the difference. As for the cause of the reward land, the entity of the dharma does not fundamentally exist, but solely upon the aforementioned cause of the dharmakāya land, from the very beginning there has been the sense that it can arise dependently; upon encountering conditions, it then arises. Just as gold within ore has the capacity to be made into adornments, and upon encountering conditions it is made, yet is not an already existent dharma previously located therein. Both lands equally employ the karmic practices of the pāramitās as their auxiliary causes. Although both take the pāramitās as their auxiliary causes, when minutely divided within this, their meanings are also different. What are the different characteristics? Practices such as the pāramitās have the sense of being able to produce, and are said to be the auxiliary of the reward land, just as earth, water, and so forth can produce all things. Practices such as the pāramitās have the sense of being able to disclose, and are said to be the auxiliary of the dharmatā land. The former two are thus. Next, discussing the response land: whether the cause of the response land exists or not is unfixed. Subsuming function into entity, there is no separate cause. For example, just as worldly people have a shadow caused by their form, the shadow is not a distinct entity; karma perceives the land differently, but this is not done by oneself. Differentiating function from entity, it is also said to have a cause, because it is an effect. The causes are of two kinds. First, causes of the same kind: one still takes response practices as the response cause. The Buddhas and Tathāgatas, having attained the land long ago, manifest the cultivation of various practices to adorn the realm. Just as the realm of the Buddha Amitābha manifests the cultivation of the forty-eight great vows and various deeds to adorn the Western realm, and so forth. Second, causes of a different kind: true practices and real dharmas serve as the cause of the response land. Yet regarding the response [land], there are two differences in sense: first is the dharma-response, where through the power of the pure land samādhi dharma-gate, various lands are manifested; second is the reward-response, where through the causes and conditions of original great compassion and the power of vows, various lands are manifested. The differences in sense are thus. To distinguish these two separately: for the dharma-response land, the pure land dharma-gate within the tathāgatagarbha is taken as its cause; for the reward-response land, the power of great compassion and vows is taken as its cause. Compassion and vows are primary, commanding and subsuming all practices as causes. Differentiated characteristics are thus. Stated in terms of comprehending their characteristics: both responses employ the pure land dharma-gate, compassion, and vows as causes, and conceptually divide into auxiliary and direct. Auxiliary and direct are unfixed. If one discusses the dharma-response, the pure land dharma-gate is taken as the direct cause, and great compassion, vows, and so forth are taken as auxiliary causes. If there were no compassion and vows, that dharma could not solely give rise to the response land. Just as a fire-crystal, although capable of producing fire, must rely on seeing the sun; and just as a water-crystal, although capable of producing water, must rely on seeing the moon. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Because a different dharma exists, a different dharma arises; because a different dharma does not exist, a different dharma perishes.' For the reward-response land, great compassion, vows, and so forth are taken as the direct cause, and the pure land dharma-gate is taken as the direct auxiliary cause. If that dharma were absent, then even if there were compassion and vows, the response land would not arise. Just as a sound, although capable of generating an echo, must rely on a mountain ravine; and a face can produce an image, but must rely on water or a mirror. Question: Since the response land arises from the power of the real compassion, vows, and dharma-gates, why is it not called 'true', but instead spoken of as 'response'? Explanation: The power of great compassion, vows, practices, and so forth directly obtains the true land, and through the power of sovereign conditions, additionally gives rise to the response land. Because it does not directly arise [from them], it is not called 'true'; because the power of conditions additionally gives rise to it, causing beings to see and hear it, it is spoken of as 'response'. Determining the causes is thus.