釋淨土群疑論 1.42

1.42

釋曰：如向所說，大乘空義究竟了教，深生敬信，不敢誹謗。究竟出離二種生死，斷人法執，證大涅槃，唯此一門更無二路。小行菩薩二乘凡夫，修菩薩行欲求佛果，未證無生法忍，不免退轉輪迴，非無種種法門句義，依之修學趣求出世。如何所引諸大乘經，說畢竟空破人法相，唯此等教是真佛說？今《觀經》等所說西方淨佛國土，勸諸眾生往生其國，此亦是於真佛言教。既俱佛說，並為真語。何為將彼空經難斯淨教？信彼謗此豈成理也。然佛說法不離二諦，一俗諦、二第一義諦。俗諦是因緣生法，依他起性，非有似有。第一義諦是無相真法，圓成實性，諸聖內證，妙有真有。然其二諦非一非異，以真統俗，無俗不真，即一切諸法皆歸寂滅。若不以真攝俗，即一切諸法緣會故有、緣離故無，萬法宛然，不可言無也。佛或破眾生相令歸無相，欲除人法二執、見修兩惑，偏明第一義諦，說一切皆空。欲令眾生捨凡成聖、斷惡修善，欲求淨土厭離穢土，具說種種法界因果差別，凡聖兩位、淨穢二土。今遣捨穢歸淨、隔凡成聖，即於此門中說種種諸法，皆為成就佛法、利益眾生，化宜方便、逗機善巧，理宜如此。故教有二門，不可讀第一義諦之經、畢竟無相之理，即謂淨土因果等教將非是佛真言，不為究竟之說，便謗而不信也。不可讀種種因果差別言教，不信說一切空寂甚深般若波羅蜜多無相玄宗，便毀而不持也。此即於諸大乘經三藏聖教有讚有毀、懷疑懷信，亦修善法、亦造重罪，信不具足名一闡提，如《十輪經》具明其罪。可須俱生敬信，善會二宗旨趣也。故《維摩經》言「能善分別諸法相，於第一義而不動。」能善分別諸法相者，此依世諦門說也；於第一義而不動者，此依第一義諦門說也。又言：「諸法不有亦不無，以因緣故諸法生。」不有不無者，第一義諦，離有離無等四句也；諸法生者，世諦，從因緣等世間出世間種種諸法生也。又言「雖觀諸佛國永寂皆空，而不畢竟墮於寂滅，是菩薩行。」雖成就一切諸法，而離諸法相。成就一切諸法者，世諦法也。而離諸法相者，第一義諦無相也。又言「雖知諸佛國及與眾生空，而常修淨土，教化於群生。」上兩句第一義諦，下兩句世諦。《大品經》等雖說內外空等，第一義諦也；而言淨佛國土教化眾生，世諦也。如是等眾多大乘言教，皆說畢竟空寂法門，即言淨佛國土教化眾生。子須具讀經文，上下參綜，自相和會。除其信謗之心，為人宣說，勿有讚毀之語。此即自利利他，同得離苦解脫。而乃披尋聖教，文義不同，自信不具毀陷其身，令他聽徒成闡提業，自損損他也。《解深密》、《楞伽經》及《瑜伽論》、《攝大乘論》、《唯識論》等，三性三無性義，一圓成實性、二依他起性、三遍計所執性。圓成實性離相真實，依他起性非有似有，遍計所執性情有理無，猶如龜毛兔角等物。汝引《大品經》等，或約圓成實性畢竟空理，佛說為空，實非空也。或約遍計所執，猶如空花，佛說無法。今說淨土等，教約依他起性，從因緣生法，非有似有，因果之義萬法宛然。而子但見說圓成實性、無相之教，破遍計所執畢竟空無之文，遂不信說依他起性因緣之教法也。即是不信因果之人，說於諸法斷滅相者，故經文「寧起我見如須彌山，不起空見如芥子許」，斯言誠可誡也。又說空有皆俗隨機，第一義諦非空非有，故說淨土佛國空者皆俗，隨機令其入法，何是何非？

I explain: As was just said, toward the Mahāyāna doctrine of emptiness, the definitive, ultimate teaching, I give rise to deep reverence and faith and do not dare slander it. In ultimately escaping the two kinds of birth and death, severing attachment to person and to dharmas, and realizing great nirvāṇa, there is only this single gate, and there is no second path. For lesser-practicing bodhisattvas, the two vehicles, and pṛthagjanas who cultivate the bodhisattva path seeking the fruit of buddhahood but have not yet realized the tolerance of the non-arising of dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti) and are not exempt from retrogression in saṃsāra, it is not the case that there are not various Dharma gates and textual meanings on which to rely, to practice and study in order to seek escape from the world. Why should it be that the various Mahāyāna sūtras you cite, which speak of ultimate emptiness and shatter the marks of persons and dharmas, are alone the true words spoken by the Buddha? Now, the Western pure Buddha land spoken of in the Guan jing and other texts, which urges sentient beings to be reborn in that land, is also the true verbal teaching of the Buddha. Since both are spoken by the Buddha, both are true words. Why take those sūtras on emptiness to challenge this pure teaching? To believe that and slander this—how can that be reasonable? However, when the Buddha teaches the Dharma, it does not depart from the two truths: the first is the conventional truth; the second is the ultimate truth. The conventional truth is phenomena arising from causes and conditions, of other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), which are not existent yet appear to exist. The ultimate truth is the markless true reality, the consummate nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva), which the sages realize internally, subtle existence and true existence. Yet these two truths are neither one nor different: if the ultimate subsumes the conventional, there is no conventional that is not ultimate, which means that all phenomena return to quiescence. If one does not subsume the conventional with the ultimate, then all phenomena exist because conditions assemble and do not exist because conditions disperse; the myriad phenomena are vividly present and cannot be called nonexistent. The Buddha may shatter the marks of sentient beings to lead them back to marklessness; wishing to eliminate the two attachments to person and dharmas and the two delusions of view and cultivation, he exclusively illuminates the ultimate truth and states that all is empty. Wishing to make sentient beings abandon the profane and achieve the noble, sever evil and cultivate good, and wishing them to seek the pure land and be repulsed by the defiled land, he fully teaches the diverse distinctions of cause and effect in the dharmadhātu, the two stations of profane and noble, and the two lands of defiled and pure. Now, directing them to abandon the defiled and return to the pure, to surpass the profane and become noble, he teaches various phenomena precisely within this gate. All of this is done to accomplish the Buddha-dharma and benefit sentient beings: accommodating the suitable means for converting, and skillfully attuning to their capacities; in principle, it should be so. Therefore, the teaching has two gates. One must not, upon reading the sūtras of the ultimate truth and the principle of ultimate marklessness, immediately claim that the teachings on the causes and effects of the pure land are not the true words of the Buddha and not definitive expositions, thereby slandering them and not believing in them. Nor must one, upon reading the verbal teachings on the various distinctions of cause and effect, disbelieve the profound, markless abstruse tenets of the Prajñāpāramitā that teach universal emptiness and quiescence, thereby disparaging them and failing to uphold them. This would mean that, toward the sacred teachings of the Mahāyāna sūtras and the Tripiṭaka, one praises some and disparages others, harbors doubt and harbors faith, cultivating good dharmas while also creating grave offenses, having incomplete faith and being called an icchantika, whose faults are fully elucidated in the Daśacakra Sūtra. One ought to give rise to reverence and faith toward both, and skillfully reconcile the purports of the two tenets. Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'He is able to skillfully distinguish the marks of all dharmas, yet remains unmoved in the ultimate truth.' 'Being able to skillfully distinguish the marks of all dharmas' is spoken in accordance with the gate of the conventional truth; 'remaining unmoved in the ultimate truth' is spoken in accordance with the gate of the ultimate truth. It also says: 'All dharmas are neither existent nor nonexistent; by causes and conditions do all dharmas arise.' 'Neither existent nor nonexistent' is the ultimate truth, being free from the four propositions of existence, nonexistence, and so forth; 'dharmas arise' is the conventional truth, where all the various mundane and supramundane dharmas arise from causes and conditions and the like. It also says: 'Although observing all Buddha lands to be eternally quiescent and completely empty, yet not ultimately falling into quiescence—this is the bodhisattva practice.' 'Although accomplishing all dharmas, yet being free from the marks of all dharmas.' Accomplishing all dharmas is the dharma of the conventional truth; being free from the marks of all dharmas is the marklessness of the ultimate truth. It also says: 'Although knowing that all Buddha lands and sentient beings are empty, he constantly cultivates the pure land and teaches and transforms all living beings.' The first two lines are the ultimate truth; the latter two lines are the conventional truth. Although the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and others speak of internal and external emptiness and so forth, that is the ultimate truth; but speaking of purifying the Buddha lands and teaching and transforming sentient beings is the conventional truth. In this way, numerous Mahāyāna verbal teachings all speak of the Dharma gate of ultimate emptiness and quiescence, and then speak of purifying the Buddha lands and teaching and transforming sentient beings. You must read the sūtra texts completely, collating and synthesizing them from beginning to end, and reconciling them internally. Cast away the mind of believing [some] and slandering [others], and expound for others without words of praise and disparagement. This then is to benefit oneself and benefit others, together attaining liberation from suffering. But instead, you search through the sacred teachings and, seeing differing texts and meanings, lack faith yourself and sink into ruin, while causing your listeners and disciples to produce the karma of an icchantika, harming yourself and harming others. The Sandhinirmocana Sūtra, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, as well as the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, and other texts teach the doctrine of the three natures and the three non-natures: first, the consummate nature; second, the other-dependent nature; third, the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva). The consummate nature is free from marks and truly real; the other-dependent nature is not existent yet appears to exist; the imagined nature is conceptually existent but rationally nonexistent, like a turtle's fur or a rabbit's horns. In the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and others that you cite, the Buddha's speaking of emptiness is either in reference to the ultimate principle of emptiness of the consummate nature, which is not truly empty; or it is in reference to the imagined [nature], like sky-flowers, where the Buddha speaks of having no dharma. Now, in speaking of the pure land and so forth, the teaching is in reference to the other-dependent nature, dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, which are not existent yet appear to exist, wherein the meaning of cause and effect and the myriad dharmas are vividly present. Yet you, seeing only the teaching that speaks of the consummate nature and marklessness, and the texts that shatter the imagined [nature] as ultimately empty and nonexistent, consequently do not believe in the teaching of the other-dependent nature and causes and conditions! This is to be a person who does not believe in cause and effect, one who speaks of the mark of annihilation in all dharmas. Therefore, the sūtra text says: 'Better to give rise to a view of self as large as Mount Sumeru than to give rise to a view of emptiness as small as a mustard seed.' These words should truly serve as an admonition! Moreover, speaking of emptiness and existence are both conventional, according with capacities; the ultimate truth is neither empty nor existent. Therefore, speaking of pure lands and Buddha lands being empty are both conventional, causing [beings] to enter the Dharma in accordance with their capacities. What is right and what is wrong?