大乘玄論 5.6

5.6

淨土第三。有二義：一通、二別。淨土者，蓋是諸佛菩薩之所栖域，眾生之所歸總。談佛土，凡有五種：一淨、二不淨、三不淨淨、四淨不淨、五者雜土。所言淨者，菩薩以善法化眾生，眾生具受善法、同搆善緣，得純淨土。言不淨者，若眾生造惡緣，感穢土也。淨不淨者，初是淨土，此眾生緣盡，後惡眾生來，則土變成不淨也。不淨淨者，不淨緣盡，後淨眾生來，則土變成淨，如彌勒與之釋迦也。言雜土者，眾生具起善惡二業，故感淨穢雜土。此五皆是眾生自業所起，應名眾生土，但佛有王化之功，故名佛土。然報土既五，應土亦然，報據眾生業感、應就如來所現，故合有十土。就淨土中更開四位：一凡聖同居土，如彌勒出時，凡聖共在淨土內住。亦如西方，九品往生為凡，復有三乘賢聖也。二大小同住土，謂羅漢辟支及大力菩薩，捨三界分段身，生界外淨土中也。三獨菩薩所住土，謂菩薩道過二乘，居土亦異，如香積世界無二乘名，亦如七寶世界純諸菩薩也。四諸佛獨居土，如《仁王》云「三賢十聖住果報，唯佛一人居淨土。」諸淨土位不出此四，即從劣至勝為次第。問：以何為土體？答：土體有三。一相論其體有五，謂化處淨、化主淨、教門淨、徒眾淨、時節淨無刀兵等。二若就三世間明土世間，則以七珍為體。三者竪論義，望道而言，土以不土為體，要由不土方得有土。即以有空義故，一切法得成也。攝論師云：識所變異是淨土，以心為體。今明有三種：若是法身淨土，以中道為體，亦是報佛淨土，七珍為體，亦是化身淨土，以應色為體。通而為論，皆是中道為體，以二是用。有人言：佛無淨土，但應眾生，報以化主為言，故言佛土耳。此是成論師意，非經論所明。經論云佛無淨土者，無分段變易淨土。有淨土者，乃是萬行所得真常淨土。故經言「法身淨土是真成淨土。」報佛淨土，經論處處皆明淨土。問：有人言，淨土二處二質，如西方淨土與此穢土。二者二質一處、三者一質二處，如《淨名》云「斷取妙喜淨土，置此穢土中。」且是一土，在彼復來此，故一質二處。如是四師各成諍論。今明各有其義，莫執一邊傷其義味。身子見穢土、梵王見真成淨土，上文十七句所明淨土是報土，足指案地等淨土是應土，餘文可知。問：經云「眾生見燒盡，吾淨土不燒。」是何淨土耶？答：羅什云「是異質同處義。淨穢麁細不同，故不相礙。」如首真天子身不礙於地。又如無間地獄，雖百千共處亦不違妨。又如醍醐不礙麁器，況淨穢二質而相妨耶？故燒穢不燒淨土。佛開三身，以身例土，亦有三土。又《仁王》云「唯佛一人居淨土」，《攝論》云「真如即是佛所住」，《法華論》亦明真如常住為土。問：經云一質異見，是何物一質耶？答：一質多種。若以一實相為一質，以失實相故有六道異見。大經云「是一味藥，隨其流處有六種差別。」如人見水即有三塵：一鬼見於火，倒心所感，故成水火二見。如人見恒河為水、鬼見為火、天見為地、魚見窟宅。淨穢亦爾，業不同故見淨穢，實無如此淨穢。此是中道土質，淨穢二緣見其二土。攝論師明皆唯識為淨土體，就迹為論。一質二見者，身子見佛土穢但見人土，梵王見天土，而佛土非人天土，如經云「寶莊嚴土」，而況釋迦真土。問：一質二見可然。復淨質見穢，穢被燒淨燒不耶？答：惡業故見不淨燒，而淨實不燒也。問：淨質壞者，穢亦壞不耶？答：穢隨壞也，於淨寄見穢耳。以淨壞故，即穢緣無所見。如鬼本於水見火，水竭不見火也。於穢質見淨亦然。第二別論西方淨土，有五之別：一常無常者，有人言：此經猶是無常覆相說常，與《法華》相似。今明常住，文云「究竟一乘至於彼岸。」故知是常。依論種種說常。二明三界非三界者，如《釋論》所明「在地不名色界，無欲染故不名欲界，有色形故不名無色。」經云「無須彌山大海江河。」故知無三界。文云「佛問彌勒阿難：汝見彼國於地以上至於淨居天，其中所有微妙嚴淨自然之物不？阿難對曰：唯然。已見。」既言已見，不得無三界。自在物機，不可定判，斯則無麁三界有細三界耳。第三有聲聞無聲聞者，經云「有得阿羅漢果。」解釋不同。一云：下輩生於花中，退菩提心，出生之後受二乘果，實有聲聞。二云：法藏比丘設願，願國中無有聲聞二乘之名；今言聲聞者，仍本為名，實無聲聞。今謂如香積佛國，無有聲聞之名。今此經言有，故應有聲聞。第四有天人無天人者，經云「非天非人」。若依此文，則是一相，豈可分別是人是天？而文云「因順餘方故有人天之名」者，此有時勝者為天、劣者為人，欲引穢土人天生於淨土，實無人天別也。第五有胎生無胎生者，皆應化生，應無胎生。而經言「下輩受胎生」者，此非胞胎，於花臺中久不出，故言胎生，非實胎生。禽獸之類亦如是，實無禽獸而有應禽獸，故經云「池中有鳧雁等」也。

Third, the Pure Land. There are two aspects: general and specific. The Pure Land is the domain inhabited by the buddhas and bodhisattvas, the refuge of all sentient beings. In discussing buddha-lands, there are five kinds in all: first, pure; second, impure; third, impure-[becoming]-pure; fourth, pure-[becoming]-impure; fifth, mixed lands. What is termed "pure" means that a bodhisattva transforms sentient beings by means of wholesome dharmas; sentient beings fully accept the wholesome dharmas and together construct wholesome conditions, obtaining a purely pure land. What is termed "impure" means that if sentient beings create unwholesome conditions, they bring about an impure land. What is termed "pure-[becoming]-impure" means that it is initially a pure land, but when these sentient beings' conditions are exhausted and later unwholesome sentient beings arrive, the land turns into an impure one. What is termed "impure-[becoming]-pure" means that when impure conditions are exhausted and later pure sentient beings arrive, the land turns into a pure one, as in the cases of Maitreya and Śākyamuni. What is termed "mixed lands" means that sentient beings fully give rise to both wholesome and unwholesome karmas, thereby bringing about a land mixed with purity and defilement. These five are all arisen from sentient beings' own karma and should be named "lands of sentient beings"; but because the Buddha has the merit of royal transformation, they are called "buddha-lands." However, since retribution lands are fivefold, response lands are also the same: retribution is based on what sentient beings' karma brings about, while response is based on what the Tathāgata manifests; hence together there are ten lands. Within the pure lands, four stations are further distinguished: First, the land where ordinary beings and noble ones dwell together, as when Maitreya appears in the world, ordinary beings and noble ones dwell together within the pure land. It is also like the Western [Pure Land], where those born of the nine grades are ordinary beings, yet there are also worthy ones and noble ones of the three vehicles. Second, the land where the great and small dwell together, which refers to arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas of great power who have abandoned the body of fragmented [cycle of birth and death] within the three realms and are born in a pure land outside the realms. Third, the land where bodhisattvas dwell exclusively, which refers to bodhisattvas whose path surpasses the two vehicles and who dwell in a different land, just as in the world of Sarvagandhasugandhā there is no name of the two vehicles, and also like the world of seven jewels which is purely composed of bodhisattvas. Fourth, the land where buddhas dwell exclusively, as the Renwang [jing] says: "The three [grades of] worthy ones and ten [stages of] noble ones dwell in fruit-retribution; only the Buddha alone dwells in the pure land." The stations of the various pure lands do not go beyond these four, which proceed in order from inferior to superior. Question: What is taken as the essence of the land? Answer: There are three [explanations of] the essence of the land. First, in terms of phenomenal characteristics, its essence is fivefold: the purity of the place of transformation, the purity of the master of transformation, the purity of the doctrinal gates, the purity of the assembly of disciples, and the purity of the season, being free from weapons and warfare, and so forth. Second, if explained in terms of the world of the land within the three worlds, then the seven precious gems are taken as its essence. Third, vertically discussing the principle: viewed in relation to the Way, the land takes non-land as its essence; it is necessary that by relying on non-land there can be a land. That is, "because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas are able to be established." The Mahāyānasaṃgraha masters say: What consciousness transforms into is the pure land, taking the mind as its essence. Now I explain that there are three kinds: if it is the pure land of the dharmakāya, it takes the Middle Way as its essence; if it is the pure land of the retribution buddha, it takes the seven precious gems as its essence; and if it is the pure land of the transformation body, it takes the responsive form as its essence. Universally speaking, they all take the Middle Way as their essence, while the two [forms of existence] are functions. Some say: Buddhas have no pure land; it merely responds to sentient beings; retribution is spoken of in terms of the master of transformation, hence it is merely called a "buddha-land." This is the view of the Tattvasiddhi masters, not what the sūtras and treatises explain. When sūtras and treatises say that buddhas have no pure land, it means they have no pure land of fragmented or transformational [birth and death]. When they say there is a pure land, it is the truly eternal pure land obtained through the myriad practices. Therefore a sūtra says: "The pure land of the dharmakāya is the truly established pure land." As for the pure land of the retribution buddha, sūtras and treatises everywhere explain the pure land. Question: Some say that the pure land has two locations and two substances, like the Western Pure Land and this defiled land. A second [view] says they are two substances in one location. A third [view] says they are one substance in two locations, as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "severing and taking the pure land of Abhirati, and placing it within this defiled land." For the time being it is one land, existing there and again coming here; therefore it is one substance in two locations. In this manner, four masters each form contentious disputes. Now I explain that each has its own meaning; do not grasp one side and harm the flavor of its meaning. Śāriputra saw an impure land, while the Brahmā King saw the truly established pure land. The pure land explained above in the seventeen verses is a retribution land, while the pure land manifested when pressing the earth with a toe, and so forth, is a response land; the rest of the text can be known accordingly. Question: The sūtra says: "When sentient beings see [the world] burned up completely, my pure land is not burned." What pure land is this? Answer: Kumārajīva says: "This is the meaning of different substances in the same location. The pure and the defiled, the coarse and the subtle, are different, and therefore they do not obstruct each other." It is like the body of the deva-son Śuddhāvāsa not obstructing the earth; it is also like the Avīci Hell, where although hundreds of thousands dwell together, they do not interfere with or obstruct each other; it is also like clarified butter not obstructing a coarse vessel. How much less would the two substances of pure and defiled obstruct each other? Therefore, the defiled is burned while the pure land is not burned. The Buddha established three bodies; by analogy of the bodies with the lands, there are also three lands. Furthermore, the Renwang [jing] says: "Only the Buddha alone dwells in the pure land"; the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Thusness is the dwelling place of the Buddha"; and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa also explains that eternally abiding thusness is the land. Question: The sūtra says that one substance is seen differently. What kind of thing is this one substance? Answer: One substance has many kinds. If one real mark is taken as the one substance, because the real mark is lost, there are the different perceptions of the six destinies. The Great Sūtra says: "It is a single-flavored medicine; following the places where it flows, there are six kinds of differences." Just as when humans see water there are three objects: hungry ghosts see it as fire, which is brought about by an inverted mind, thus constituting the two perceptions of water and fire. As humans see the Ganges as water, hungry ghosts see it as fire, devas see it as lapis lazuli ground, and fish see it as their cavernous home. The pure and the defiled are also like this: because their karmas are different, they see purity and defilement, while in reality there are no such purity and defilement. This is the substance of the Middle Way land; according to the two conditions of purity and defilement, the two lands are seen. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha masters explain that all take consciousness-only as the essence of the pure land, discussing it in terms of traces. As for one substance and two perceptions: Śāriputra seeing the buddha-land as defiled was merely seeing a human land; the Brahmā King was seeing a deva land; yet the buddha-land is neither a human nor a deva land, as the sūtra speaks of "the land adorned with jewels"—and how much more so the true land of Śākyamuni! Question: That there is one substance and two perceptions may be granted. But if one sees defilement in a pure substance, and the defiled is burned, is the pure burned or not? Answer: Because of unwholesome karma, one sees the impure being burned, but the pure is truly not burned. Question: If the pure substance is destroyed, is the defiled also destroyed or not? Answer: The defiled is destroyed along with it, for defilement is merely perceived based upon the pure. Because the pure is destroyed, the condition for defilement has nothing to perceive. Just as hungry ghosts originally see fire based upon water, when the water dries up, they do not see fire. Seeing the pure based on a defiled substance is also like this. Second, specifically discussing the Western Pure Land, there are five distinctions: First, eternal and impermanent: Some say that this sūtra is still impermanent, provisionally preaching permanence through concealed characteristics, similar to the Lotus Sūtra. Now I explain that it is eternally abiding, for the text states: "Ultimate single vehicle, reaching the other shore." Therefore we know it is eternal. In reliance upon treatises, it is in various ways explained as eternal. Second, explaining whether it is of the three realms or not of the three realms: As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explains, "Being upon the ground, it is not called the form realm; being free from sensual desire and defilement, it is not called the desire realm; having bodily forms, it is not called the formless realm." The sūtra says: "There are no Mount Sumerus, oceans, rivers, or streams." Therefore we know there are no three realms. But the text also states: "The Buddha asked Maitreya and Ānanda: 'Do you see in that land, from the ground up to the Śuddhāvāsa heavens, all the subtle, wonderfully adorned, pure, and spontaneous things within it?' Ānanda replied: 'Yes indeed, I have seen them.'" Since it says "have seen them," there cannot be an absence of the three realms. The capacities of beings are free and flexible, and cannot be definitively determined; thus there are no coarse three realms, but there are subtle three realms. Third, having śrāvakas and having no śrāvakas: The sūtra says: "There are those who attain the fruit of arhatship." The interpretations are different. One says: Those of the lowest grade are born in lotus flowers; when they regress from the mind of bodhi, after emerging they receive the fruit of the two vehicles; so there are truly śrāvakas. A second says: The bhikṣu Dharmākara made a vow, wishing that within his land there would be no name of śrāvakas or the two vehicles; now when it speaks of śrāvakas, it is still using the name according to their original status; in reality there are no śrāvakas. Now I say: Just as in the buddha-land of Sarvagandhasugandhā there is no name of śrāvakas, now since this sūtra says there are, there should indeed be śrāvakas. Fourth, having devas and humans, and having no devas and humans: The sūtra says: "Neither devas nor humans." If we rely on this text, then it is of a single mark; how could one distinguish between humans and devas? Yet the text says: "In accordance with other regions, there are the names of humans and devas." This means that at times the superior are devas and the inferior are humans; wishing to guide the humans and devas of the defiled land to be born in the pure land, there is in reality no distinction of humans and devas. Fifth, having womb-birth and having no womb-birth: All should be born by transformation, and there should be no womb-birth. Yet when the sūtra says that "the lowest grade receives womb-birth," this is not a maternal womb; because they remain inside the lotus calyx for a long time without emerging, it is called womb-birth, not real womb-birth. Birds and beasts are also like this: in reality there are no birds or beasts, but there are response-birds and beasts, which is why the sūtra says: "In the ponds there are wild ducks, geese, and the like."