釋淨土群疑論 1.22

1.22

答：若是凡夫得生淨土是人天趣者，若是人趣，人趣有四，為是南閻浮提人？為是東西二洲及北欝單越人趣耶？若是天趣，為是四天王天乃至色界阿迦尼吒天耶？若是四天下人趣者，彼北欝單越應是八難之中欝單越難。若是色界等，應是長壽天難。此是難處，云何名淨土、勸眾生生耶？若言是人趣而不得名四天下人等，亦得名天趣，而非四天王天等。若然者，四天下外別有人趣耶？四天王天等外別有天趣等耶？若言有者，何即淨土眾生是人天，非四天下等人天耶？亦有淨土有漏非三界有漏，其義何妨？若言四天下人趣等外無別人趣，四天王天等外無別天趣，淨土凡夫亦得名凡夫，不得名人趣天趣者。何妨淨土亦得名有漏，不得名三界也。以彼五趣例此三界，其義顯然，不可迷執也。又諸法相中有寬有狹，只如世間名寬、有漏名局，有漏名寬、三界名局，三界名寬、四生名局，四生名寬、五趣名局。何者？只如如來所變穢惡國土，雖似三界非如三界，雖是無漏而名世間，此則世間名寬、有漏名局。有漏名寬、三界名局者，即是凡夫等有漏識心所現淨土，亦得名有漏，不得名三界。故《大智度論》言「淨土非三界，無欲故非欲界、地居故非色界、有形故非無色界。」此論義意，非是淨土無漏識心所現淨土名出三界，但有漏識心所變淨土器世間相布置法用安立有情利樂等事，不同於此三界等相，名非三界也。三界名寬、四生名局者，四生唯取異熟五蘊有情世間，三界通三性及器世間，故三界名寬、四生名局也。四生名寬、五趣名局者，中有是化生而非是五趣，及淨土眾生等是化生非趣。如是等名字寬狹、體性差別，此經論等有此不同，豈得有漏識心所變淨土之言則令是三界攝也。又如第八識有三名，一名阿賴耶、二名阿陀那、三名異熟。若得阿羅漢辟支佛果，及入八地諸菩薩等所有第八識，但名阿陀那及名異熟，不得名阿賴耶。豈依無阿賴耶名，即遣阿羅漢無第八識執持諸法種子耶？豈以無三界名，而令凡夫眾生生於淨土，有漏識心不變化，淨佛國土受用種種大乘法樂也。又託如來無漏淨土，雖以有漏心現其淨土，而此淨土從本性相土，土亦非緣縛相應縛縛，不增煩惱。如有漏心緣滅道諦煩惱不增，猶如觀日輪損減眼根也。故非三界，非三界繫煩惱增也。

Answer: If pṛthagjanas who attain rebirth in the Pure Land belong to the human or deva destinies, then if it is the human destiny, the human destinies are four: are they humans of southern Jambudvīpa, or of the eastern and western two continents, or the human destiny of northern Uttarakuru? If it is the deva destiny, is it from the devas of the Four Heavenly Kings up to the Akaniṣṭha Heaven of the form realm? If they are the human destiny of the four continents, then northern Uttarakuru should be the obstacle of Uttarakuru among the eight difficulties. If it were the form realm and so forth, it should be the obstacle of the long-lived devas. These are places of difficulty; how could it be called a pure land and sentient beings be encouraged to be reborn there? If you say it is the human destiny but cannot be called humans of the four continents, etc., and can also be called the deva destiny but not the devas of the Four Heavenly Kings, etc., if that is so, is there another human destiny outside the four continents? Is there another deva destiny outside the devas of the Four Heavenly Kings, etc.? If you say there is, why then are sentient beings of the Pure Land humans and devas, but not the humans and devas of the four continents, etc.? Likewise, there is a Pure Land that is contaminated without being contaminated within the three realms—what fault is there in that principle? If you say that outside the human destinies of the four continents, etc., there is no other human destiny, and outside the devas of the Four Heavenly Kings, etc., there is no other deva destiny, so that pṛthagjanas in the Pure Land can also be called pṛthagjanas but cannot be called the human destiny or deva destiny, then what prevents the Pure Land from also being called contaminated, yet not called the three realms? Illustrating these three realms by analogy with those five destinies, the meaning is clear and one should not be deluded or adhere [to extremes]. Furthermore, among dharmalakṣaṇas there are broader and narrower [categories]: just as "world" is broad and "contaminated" is narrow, "contaminated" is broad and "three realms" is narrow, "three realms" is broad and "four modes of birth" is narrow, and "four modes of birth" is broad and "five destinies" is narrow. How so? Just as the defiled and evil lands transformed by the Tathāgata, though resembling the three realms, are not like the three realms; though uncontaminated, they are called "world"—this is "world" being broad and "contaminated" being narrow. As for "contaminated" being broad and "three realms" being narrow: this is the Pure Land manifested by the contaminated, conscious minds of pṛthagjanas and the like; it can also be called contaminated, but cannot be called the three realms. Therefore, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "The Pure Land is not the three realms: having no desire, it is not the desire realm; dwelling on the ground, it is not the form realm; having form, it is not the formless realm." The intended meaning of this treatise is not that the Pure Land manifested by the uncontaminated, conscious mind is called transcending the three realms, but rather that the receptacle world manifested by the contaminated, conscious mind—its layout, functioning, establishment, and the benefiting and delighting of sentient beings—is not the same as the characteristics of these three realms, and therefore is called "not the three realms." As for "three realms" being broad and "four modes of birth" being narrow: the four modes of birth include only the sentient world of the five vipāka-skandhas, whereas the three realms pervade the three natures and the receptacle world; hence "three realms" is broad and "four modes of birth" is narrow. As for "four modes of birth" being broad and "five destinies" being narrow: the intermediate state (antarābhava) is apparitional birth (upapāduka) but is not the five destinies, and sentient beings of the Pure Land are apparitional birth, not a destiny. Such differences in the breadth of names and essential nature exist in these sūtras and treatises; how could the statement that the Pure Land is transformed by the contaminated, conscious mind force it to be subsumed within the three realms? Furthermore, just as the eighth consciousness has three names—first, ālaya; second, ādāna; third, vipāka—if one attains the fruit of arhat or pratyekabuddha, and for all eighth consciousnesses of bodhisattvas who have entered the eighth bhūmi, it is only called ādāna and vipāka, and cannot be called ālaya. Could one, on the grounds that it lacks the name ālaya, thereby assert that an arhat has no eighth consciousness to uphold the seeds of all dharmas? How could it be that, because of the absence of the name "three realms," pṛthagjana sentient beings reborn in the Pure Land would have their contaminated, conscious minds not transform, enjoying various Mahāyāna Dharma delights in the pure Buddha land? Furthermore, relying on the Tathāgata's uncontaminated Pure Land, although they manifest their pure land with a contaminated mind, yet this pure land derives from the nature and characteristics of that land; the land is also not bound by objective conditioning (ālambanabandhana) or corresponding binding (saṃprayuktabandhana), and defilements do not increase. Just as when a contaminated mind takes the truths of cessation and the path as objects, defilements do not increase, just as gazing at the solar disc impairs the visual faculty. Therefore, it is not the three realms, nor do the defilements bound to the three realms increase.