大乘義章 19.9

19.9

次第五門明其凡聖有無之義。昔來諸家所說各異。如生公說：佛無色身亦無淨土，但為化物，應現住於眾生土中。如是說者，眾生有土，諸佛則無。什公所異：諸佛有土，眾生全無，但佛隨化，現土不同。故《維摩》云「為化眾生，故現此土為不淨耳。」又人復說：佛與眾生各別有土，各別住於自業果故。此等所說，義有兼通，不可偏定。是義云何？分別有三：一攝實從相，眾生有土，諸佛無土，隨化現居眾生處故。故經說言「普賢菩薩依於如如，不依佛國。」普賢既爾，諸佛亦然。生公所立，義當此門。二攝相從實，諸佛有土，眾生無土，於一佛土隨其業行種種異見，如佛一身眾生異見。故經說言「佛土清淨如摩尼珠，隨諸眾生種種異現。」《維摩》亦云「我此國土，常淨若此。為欲度斯下劣人故，示是眾惡不淨土耳。」什公所云，義當於此。經說既然，生公所立，佛無色身、全無淨土，義不然。佛無色身，如前涅槃章中廣破。身既非無，土寧不有？又經中說「菩薩修習一切種行為淨土因。」經說有因，云何無果？人亦救言：非全無界，但應非真。若使土果唯應非真，如《維摩》說「一切種行為淨土因，應是應修。」修因既實，果寧不真？若自不解，唯應訪諸，何宜輒謗？謗佛果德，其罪至重，勿後更言。此是第二攝相從實。三分相異實，眾生與佛，各別有土。是義云何？以業攝果，果隨業別，故凡與佛各異有土。如恒河水，餓鬼見火、如來見水，餓鬼火業自見於火，佛以水業自見於水，各自見自業果執，非見他事。佛土亦爾，螺髻心淨見土清淨，舍利心垢見土不淨，如是一切。凡聖有無，辨之略爾。

Next, the fifth section clarifies the sense of the existence or nonexistence of ordinary and noble. In the past, the various masters taught differently. As Master Sheng said: 'The Buddha has no physical body and no pure land; merely for the sake of transforming beings, he responsively manifests and dwells within the lands of sentient beings.' According to such a view, sentient beings have lands, but the Buddhas have none. What Master Shi differed in was: 'The Buddhas have lands, but sentient beings have none at all; it is merely that the Buddha, accordant with transformation, manifests different lands.' Therefore the Vimalakīrti says: 'For the sake of transforming sentient beings, he manifests this land as impure.' Further, others have said: 'The Buddha and sentient beings each distinctly have lands, because each distinctly dwells in their own karmic fruits.' These statements each have partial validity and cannot be dogmatically fixed. What is this meaning? Differentiating them, there are three: First, subsuming reality into characteristics: sentient beings have lands, and Buddhas have no lands, because accordant with transformation they manifest dwelling in the places of sentient beings. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Samantabhadra Bodhisattva relies on tathatā and does not rely on a Buddha land.' If Samantabhadra is like this, the Buddhas are also like that. What Master Sheng posited in meaning corresponds to this approach. Second, subsuming characteristics into reality: the Buddhas have lands, and sentient beings have no lands; in a single Buddha land, they have various different perceptions accordant with their karmic practices, just as with the single body of the Buddha, sentient beings see it differently. Therefore a sūtra says: 'The Buddha land is pure like a maṇi jewel, appearing in various different ways accordant with sentient beings.' The Vimalakīrti also says: 'My realm here is constantly pure like this. In order to deliver these inferior people, I manifest this as an impure land of many evils.' What Master Shi said in meaning corresponds to this. Since the sūtras state this, what Master Sheng posited—that the Buddha has no physical body and entirely lacks a pure land—is not correct in meaning. That the Buddha does not lack a physical body was extensively refuted in the previous chapter on Nirvāṇa. Since the body is not non-existent, how could the land not exist? Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'Bodhisattvas cultivate all varieties of practices as the cause of the pure land.' Since the sūtra speaks of a cause, how could there be no fruit? People also defend [him] by saying: 'It is not entirely devoid of a realm, but is merely response and not true.' If the fruit of the land were merely response and not true, then as the Vimalakīrti says: 'all varieties of practices are the cause of the pure land,' [cultivation] would have to be responsive cultivation. Since the cultivation of the cause is real, how could the fruit not be true? If one does not understand oneself, one should only inquire; how is it appropriate to rashly slander? The offense of slandering the fruit and merits of the Buddha is exceedingly heavy; do not speak of it again hereafter. This is the second [approach], subsuming characteristics into reality. Third, dividing characteristics as different from reality: sentient beings and the Buddha each distinctly have lands. What does this mean? Subsuming the fruit under karma, the fruit differs according to karma; therefore ordinary beings and the Buddha each distinctly have lands. Just as with the water of the Ganges River: hungry ghosts see fire, and the Tathāgata sees water; hungry ghosts through fire-karma see fire themselves, and the Buddha through water-karma sees water himself; each sees and grasps their own karmic fruit, and does not see the matters of another. The Buddha land is also like this: Śikhin's mind being pure, he saw the land as pure; Śāriputra's mind being defiled, he saw the land as impure; everything is like this. The existence or nonexistence regarding ordinary and noble has been briefly determined.