釋淨土群疑論 1.10

1.10

釋曰：計彼地前菩薩、聲聞、凡夫，未證遍滿真如、未斷人法二執，識心麁劣，所變淨土，不可同於地上諸大菩薩微細智心所變微妙受用淨土。然以阿彌陀佛殊勝本願增上緣力，令彼地前諸小行菩薩等，識心雖劣，依託如來本願勝力，還能同彼地上菩薩所變淨土，微妙廣大清淨莊嚴亦得見，故名生他受用土。《佛地論》等說「初地已上生他受用土，地前菩薩生變化土。」此據自力分判地前、地上居二土別，不據他力別願勝緣而說。只如肉眼論言唯見障內色，唯見欲界不見色界，唯是離中知不是合中知。然《法華經》說「父母所生清淨肉眼，見於內外彌樓山等，乃至阿迦尼吒天色。」豈不是肉眼能見障外等色，及見色界諸天色耶？又《解深密經》及《攝大乘論》等說「如人照鏡自見本面，以彼鏡中無有面像，當見自面黑白之精。」此扶根塵與眼根合，何見彼扶根色塵。此豈不是合中知？若言見障外色界及自扶根色塵者，便與論文相違。若不見者，復與經文相違。故知佛地論師，據大分自因而說，不據他殊勝力別緣而說，而定自在所生色非是色塵，不合為眼所見。若得大威德定，所變定自在所生色，即能令凡夫人眼所見。今此亦爾，以本願力令彼地前菩薩等生受用土，不可一向判令不生也。又如《觀經》第九觀云「阿彌陀佛真金色身，高六十萬億那由他恒河沙由旬，八萬四千相好。」唯是他受用身佛，非是地前所能觀見。下文言「然彼如來宿願力故，有憶想者必得成就。」故知乘宿願力觀見受用之身，亦乘宿願之力生受用土。《佛地論》中亦作是問，前說淨土最極自在淨識為相，云何會中有聲聞等而不相違？有何相違？諸聲聞等同菩薩見，同菩薩見故聞說妙法。一論師言，或復如來神力加被，令暫得見聞說妙法。此是如來不思議力，不可難以根地度等。此師意明，說《佛地經》時，在他受用土，諸聲聞等見彼淨土、聞《佛地經》，此由如來不思議力。彼是一時化緣令暫得見。今此是不可思議本願力，令亦得生，斯有何過也。

Explanation: Considering those bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis, śrāvakas, and pṛthagjanas, who have not yet realized all-pervading tathatā and have not yet severed the two grasping views of self and phenomena, their conscious minds are coarse and inferior. The pure lands they transform cannot be identical to the exquisitely subtle saṃbhoga pure lands transformed by the subtle, wise minds of the great bodhisattvas on the bhūmis. However, by the dominant conditioning power of Amitābha Buddha’s extraordinary fundamental vow, although the conscious minds of those bodhisattvas of lesser practice prior to the bhūmis and others are inferior, through relying on the superior power of the Tathāgata’s fundamental vow they are still able to share in the pure land transformed by the bodhisattvas on the bhūmis, and can also perceive its exquisite subtlety, vastness, and pure adornment; therefore it is said that they are born in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra. The Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra and other texts say, ‘Those from the prathamā bhūmi and above are born in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra, whereas bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis are born in the nirmāṇa-kṣetra.’ This is stated in terms of distinguishing between residing prior to the bhūmis and residing on the bhūmis in the two lands according to self-power, and is not spoken based on the extraordinary conditions of another’s power and specific vows. Just as treatises say that the fleshy eye sees only form within obstructions, sees only the desire realm and does not see the form realm, and knows only by apprehension at a distance, not by apprehension in contact. Yet the Lotus Sūtra says, ‘With the pure fleshy eye born of one’s father and mother, one sees Mount Meru and so forth, within and without, up to the forms of the Akaniṣṭha Heaven.’ Is this not the fleshy eye being able to see forms beyond obstructions and the like, as well as seeing the forms of the devas of the form realm? Furthermore, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and other texts say, ‘Just as a person looking into a mirror sees his own face, because there is no face-image in that mirror, he should see the black and white pupils of his own face.’ Since these supporting physical elements are in contact with the visual faculty, how could he see those form-particles of the supporting faculty? Is this not knowledge in contact? If one says that it sees the form realm beyond obstructions and its own form-particles of the supporting faculty, it contradicts the treatises. If it does not see them, it then contradicts the sūtra texts. Therefore, one knows that the masters of the Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra spoke according to the general rule of one's own causes, and did not speak based on another's extraordinary power and specific conditions; and the form produced by meditative mastery is not form-matter [in the ordinary sense], and is not fit to be seen by the eye. Yet if one attains samādhi of great majestic virtue, the form produced by meditative mastery that is transformed can then be seen by the human eyes of a pṛthagjana. Here it is also like this: through the power of the fundamental vow, he causes those bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis and others to be born in the saṃbhoga-kṣetra; one must not rigidly determine that they cannot be born there. Furthermore, as the ninth visualization of the Guan jing states: ‘Amitābha Buddha’s true gold-coloured body is six hundred billion nayutas of Ganges sands of yojanas tall, with eighty-four thousand marks and signs.’ This is strictly the parasaṃbhogakāya Buddha, which is not something that those prior to the bhūmis can visualize and see. The subsequent text states: ‘Yet by the power of that Tathāgata’s past vows, anyone who contemplates him will certainly attain accomplishment.’ Thus one knows that by mounting the power of the past vows one visualizes and sees the saṃbhoga body, and also by mounting the power of the past vows one is born in the saṃbhoga-kṣetra. In the Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra, this question is also raised: ‘It was previously said that the pure land has the most utterly sovereign pure consciousness as its characteristic; how is it that there are śrāvakas and others in the assembly without contradiction?’ What contradiction is there? The various śrāvakas see in the same way as the bodhisattvas; because they see in the same way as the bodhisattvas, they hear the wondrous Dharma being expounded. One treatise master said: ‘Or again, the Tathāgata’s spiritual power sustains them, causing them to temporarily be able to see and hear the wondrous Dharma being expounded. This is the Tathāgata’s inconceivable power; it cannot be challenged on the basis of faculties, bhūmi levels, and so on.’ What this master meant is that when the Buddhabhūmi Sūtra was expounded in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra, the śrāvakas and others saw that pure land and heard the Buddhabhūmi Sūtra through the Tathāgata’s inconceivable power. That was a temporary teaching circumstance causing them to see it for a short time. Here, however, it is the inconceivable power of the fundamental vow causing them also to attain rebirth; what fault is there in this?