釋淨土群疑論 2.15

2.15

釋曰：《攝論》言「唯由發願而得往生」者，此別時意也。然古來諸德，咸以此文證是別時之意，言未即得生。今詳此文證，是即得往生，顯其論主之意。何者？論言「唯由發願」者，是簡持義。簡去念佛之行，持取唯空發願，更無有行。孤有此願，故曰唯由發願。若唯發願而得生者，此即是別時意也。非即發願之時，終後即生淨土，故曰別時。今時念佛至心，即意業善行也；稱佛名號，即語業善行也；合掌禮拜，即身業善行也。由此三業善行，能滅八十億劫生死重罪。行願相扶，即得往生。此豈「唯是其願」哉？論主說此「唯由發願」之言，意顯兼行非別時之意。惑者不細尋文義，朦朧總謂別時。若以念佛行亦是別時，論文何因不言如念阿彌陀佛得生西方者此是別時也。既不言以念佛修十六觀行三福善之文是別時之教，故知念佛等生西方非別時之意也。有釋者言：念佛修十六觀等，即是發願。又有釋言：論師雖舉願言，意亦取其念佛亦是別時之意。今此二釋，為顯利益？為顯解義？若顯利益作此解文，更令無量眾生流轉穢土、巡歷三途，不得往生淨土出離生死。若為解義者，細依文句取義，猶恐不合宗途，朦朧以釋論文翻將得其旨趣，何斯謬也？如《俱舍論》等，諸部諍義，引其聖教，楷定旨歸，拾取一字兩字，以成諸部得失。況乃《觀經》等教，備陳種種行門，或述三種散善為淨土正因，或說十六妙觀為西方正業，如何總將為發願文也？又所以得知論師不以念佛是別時意者，此有八意：一、論師釋經，本以經意難知為甚深之教，凡夫披讀莫能曉悟，造論解釋佛教，欲令愚智咸知。只如《觀經》、《無量壽經》、《阿彌陀經》等所說，念阿彌陀佛得生西方。文義顯然，愚智皆解，何用所不了須論釋耶？二、法藏比丘發四十八弘誓願、接引眾生，欲令生佛淨土。豈將別時之意而發弘誓、引接眾生耶？彼願之中即言「念佛不得往生，不取正覺」，不言「唯發願人不得生者，不取正覺」，故知念佛等行定得往生。入在四十八願中，非別時也。唯由發願不即往生，不在四十八願中，故是別時意也。三、稱讚淨土經，十方恒沙諸佛出廣長舌相證得往生，豈證別時之意？諸佛舒舌，本為難信眾生將為念佛功德不多，盡此一形即生淨土，咸生疑謗、不信是經，故現不虛誑之舌相、發誠諦之真言，令眾生覩相聽言除疑生信。乃謂別時之教未即得生西方，後至初地得生。眾生有何疑惑，須佛舒舌相證往生西方耶？四、《阿彌陀經》先勸應當發願生彼國土，後教稱念佛名一日至七日，即言聖眾臨命終來迎行者得生。若言念佛即是願言，前已勸言令其發願，後更何須教令念佛？故知前文是願、後文是行，行願相扶得生淨土。豈容念佛而是願耶？五、《淨土論》與《攝論》同是世親菩薩所造，寧容世親製《淨土論》即言念佛得生西方非別時之意，釋《攝論》乃曰念佛等是別時之意非即得生耶？造論如是兩人，容許二師意別，何必《攝論》得經旨趣、《淨土論》迷其聖言。況兩論同世親所造，文義故非鉾楯，以論求於人意，故知願是別時也。六、《淨土論》說有五門：一身業禮拜門、二口業念佛門、三意業觀察門、四發願門、五迴向門。若修行即是發願，前三業行與第四發願門有何差別也？若是其一，即應無有五門。若是其異，故知前是行門也。七、《起信論》馬鳴所造，言其念佛得生西方，正是行門，非別時意。故知天親所造論意亦同然，不以念佛等門而為別時意也。如馬鳴菩薩所造《起信論》教初學菩薩言，有八因緣而造此論。至第七緣，為示專念方便，生於佛前，必定不退信心故。復次眾生初學是法，欲求正信，其心怯劣，以住於此娑婆世界，自畏不能常值諸佛親承供養，懼謂信心難可成就意欲退者，當知如來有勝方便攝護信心，謂以專意念佛因緣，隨願得生他方佛土，常見於佛，永離惡道。如修多羅說，若人專念西方極樂世界阿彌陀佛，所修善根迴向，願求生彼世界，即得往生。常見佛故，終無有退。若觀彼佛真如法身，常勤修習，畢竟得生，住正定故。八、若以念佛非是行者，三福十六觀等是行、非行耶？若是行者，如地觀中說「作是觀者，除八十億劫生死之罪，捨身他世必生淨佛國，心得無疑。」「念阿彌陀佛，亦於念念之中滅八十億劫生死重罪，得生西方。」何故滅罪是同，而彼是行、此非行，彼得生、此不得生耶？若俱非行者，韋提希夫人及五百侍女，佛記得生，為由作此觀等得生？為由餘行得生？若由此觀等得生者，此既非行，如何得生？若作觀不得生者，何須夫人請說不生之法、如來為說不生法耶？又若總是願門，即應唯是其一，何須分別為十六觀耶？又為此解，非但不曉經文，亦乃毀其正見，自損損他，於人於法總無益也。

I explain: When the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, "obtaining rebirth solely by making a vow," this is an intention regarding a different time (kālāntarābhiprāya). However, eminent figures from the past all cited this text as evidence of an intention regarding a different time, saying that one does not obtain rebirth immediately. Now, carefully examining this textual proof shows that one does indeed obtain rebirth immediately, thus revealing the treatise master's intent. How so? When the treatise says "solely by making a vow," this has the meaning of exclusion and retention. It excludes the practice of buddhānusmṛti, and retains only empty vow-making without any practice. Having this vow in isolation, it is therefore called "solely by making a vow." If one were to obtain rebirth solely by making a vow, this indeed would be an intention regarding a different time. It is not that at the very time one makes the vow, one will be reborn in the pure land immediately upon death; hence it is called "a different time." Now, when one recollects the Buddha with sincere mind, that is a good practice of mental karma; when one recites the Buddha's name, that is a good practice of verbal karma; when one joins palms and makes prostrations, that is a good practice of bodily karma. By means of these good practices of the three karmas, one can extinguish the grave sins of birth and death for eighty hundred million kalpas. With practice and vow mutually assisting each other, one immediately obtains rebirth. How could this be "solely its vow"? When the treatise master spoke these words, "solely by making a vow," his intent was to reveal that accompanied by practice, it is not an intention regarding a different time. Those who are confused do not scrutinize the textual meaning closely, but dimly regard it all as an intention regarding a different time. If the practice of buddhānusmṛti were also an intention regarding a different time, why does the treatise text not say, "Such as recollecting Amitābha Buddha and obtaining rebirth in the West is an intention regarding a different time"? Since it does not state that the texts on recollecting the Buddha, practicing the sixteen contemplations, and cultivating the goodness of the three blessings are teachings of a different time, one therefore knows that recollecting the Buddha and so forth to obtain rebirth in the West is not an intention regarding a different time. Some commentators say: Recollecting the Buddha, cultivating the sixteen contemplations, and so forth are simply making a vow. Other commentators say: Although the treatise master mentioned only the word "vow," his intention also included recollecting the Buddha as being an intention regarding a different time. Now, do these two interpretations reveal benefit, or do they reveal the understanding of the meaning? If they make this interpretation of the text to reveal benefit, they will only cause immeasurable sentient beings to transmigrate through the defiled land and wander through the three miserable destinies, unable to attain rebirth in the pure land and escape birth and death. If it is to understand the meaning: even when closely adhering to the text and phrases to extract the meaning, one still fears failing to accord with the cardinal tenets; how absurd is it to dimly interpret the treatise text and yet claim to have grasped its essential purport? Just as in the Abhidharmakośa and other texts, where the various schools dispute doctrines, they cite the sacred teachings to conclusively determine the ultimate purport, seizing on one or two words to establish the successes and failures of the schools. How much more so when teachings such as the Guan jing fully set forth diverse approaches of practice, either describing the three kinds of diffused goodness as the correct causes for the pure land, or expounding the sixteen wondrous contemplations as the correct karma for the West—how could one take them all simply as texts on making vows? Furthermore, there are eight reasons why we know that the treatise master did not take buddhānusmṛti to be an intention regarding a different time: First, treatise masters explain sūtras originally because the sūtras' intent is difficult to know, being a profound teaching; pṛthagjanas, perusing them, are unable to comprehend, so [treatise masters] compose treatises to explain the Buddha's teachings, wishing to enable both the foolish and the wise to understand. Taking precisely what is taught in texts like the Guan jing, the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, and the Amitābha Sūtra—that recollecting Amitābha Buddha brings about rebirth in the West—the textual meaning is evident, and both the foolish and the wise understand it; why would what is not misunderstood require explanation in a treatise? Second, when the monk Dharmākara made the forty-eight vast vows to receive and guide sentient beings, he wished to enable them to be born in the Buddha's pure land. Would he have made his vast vows and received and guided sentient beings with an intention regarding a different time? Within those vows, he immediately stated, "If they recollect the Buddha and do not attain rebirth, may I not attain supreme awakening"; he did not say, "If persons who merely make a vow do not attain rebirth, may I not attain supreme awakening." Thus we know that practices such as buddhānusmṛti definitely result in rebirth. Being included in the forty-eight vows, they are not [teachings of] a different time. Obtaining rebirth not immediately, solely by making a vow, is not in the forty-eight vows; hence it is an intention regarding a different time. Third, in the Sūtra Praising the Pure Land, Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions extend their broad and long tongue marks to certify the attainment of rebirth; would they certify an intention regarding a different time? The Buddhas extended their tongues originally because sentient beings difficult to bring to faith would think the merit of buddhānusmṛti is not great, yet throughout this single lifetime one would immediately be born in the pure land, and would all generate doubts and slander, not believing this sūtra. Therefore they manifested the tongue mark of non-falsehood and uttered true and sincere words, to cause sentient beings, beholding the mark and hearing the words, to remove doubts and generate faith. If it were a teaching of a different time meaning one does not immediately attain rebirth in the West, but only attains rebirth later upon reaching the prathamā bhūmi, what doubt would sentient beings have that would require the Buddhas to extend their tongue marks to certify rebirth in the West? Fourth, the Amitābha Sūtra first exhorts that one ought to make a vow to be born in that realm, and afterwards teaches one to recite the Buddha's name for one day up to seven days, whereupon it states that at the end of life the assembly of sages will come to welcome the practitioner, who then attains rebirth. If one says that recollecting the Buddha is itself making a vow, then having already exhorted beforehand to make a vow, why would there be any further need afterwards to teach one to recollect the Buddha? Thus we know that the preceding text is the vow, and the subsequent text is the practice; practice and vow mutually assisting each other, one attains rebirth in the pure land. How could buddhānusmṛti possibly be the vow? Fifth, the Treatise on the Pure Land (Jingtu lun) and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha were both composed by the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu. How could it be that when Vasubandhu wrote the Treatise on the Pure Land he stated that recollecting the Buddha brings about rebirth in the West without being an intention regarding a different time, yet when commenting on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha he said that buddhānusmṛti and so forth are an intention regarding a different time and do not bring about immediate rebirth? If they were composed by two different persons, one could allow that the two masters had differing intents; but why must the Mahāyānasaṃgraha have grasped the sūtra's purport while the Treatise on the Pure Land was deluded about the sacred words? Moreover, both treatises were composed by Vasubandhu, so the textual meanings are surely not contradictory; if we examine the author's intent through the treatises, we know that [only] the vow is [an intention regarding] a different time. Sixth, the Treatise on the Pure Land speaks of five gates: first, the bodily karma gate of prostration; second, the verbal karma gate of buddhānusmṛti; third, the mental karma gate of observation; fourth, the gate of making vows; fifth, the gate of dedication. If cultivating practice were itself making a vow, what difference would there be between the practices of the first three karmas and the fourth gate of making vows? If they were one, then there should not be five gates. If they are different, one knows that the preceding are gates of practice. Seventh, the Awakening of Faith (Qixin lun) was composed by Aśvaghoṣa; it states that recollecting the Buddha to attain rebirth in the West is precisely a gate of practice, not an intention regarding a different time. Thus we know that the intent of the treatise composed by Vasubandhu is also the same, not taking gates such as buddhānusmṛti to be an intention regarding a different time. As Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa taught beginning bodhisattvas in the Awakening of Faith he composed, there are eight causes and conditions for composing this treatise; coming to the seventh condition, it is to demonstrate the skillful means of single-minded recollection, to be born before the Buddha and definitely not backslide in faithful mind. Furthermore: When sentient beings first learn this teaching and wish to seek correct faith, their minds are timid and weak; dwelling in this Sahā world, they fear of themselves that they cannot constantly meet the Buddhas and personally serve and make offerings to them, fearing that faithful mind will be difficult to accomplish and wishing to backslide. They should know that the Tathāgata has an excellent skillful means to protect and preserve faithful mind: namely, by the cause and condition of single-mindedly recollecting the Buddha, in accordance with their vow they attain rebirth in another Buddha-land, constantly see the Buddha, and are forever freed from the evil destinies. As the sūtra says: If a person single-mindedly recollects Amitābha Buddha of the Western world of Sukhāvatī, dedicating the roots of goodness cultivated and vowing to seek rebirth in that realm, they will immediately attain rebirth; because they constantly see the Buddha, they will never backslide. If they contemplate that Buddha's tathatā dharmakāya and constantly and diligently cultivate it, they will ultimately attain rebirth, because they abide in the stage of correct determination. Eighth, if one regards buddhānusmṛti as not being a practice, are the three blessings, the sixteen contemplations, and so forth practices or not? If they are practices, as it is stated in the Ground Contemplation: "Those who perform this contemplation eliminate the sins of birth and death for eighty hundred million kalpas; relinquishing the body in another world, they will certainly be born in the pure Buddha-land, their minds having no doubt." "Recollecting Amitābha Buddha also, in thought after thought, extinguishes the grave sins of birth and death for eighty hundred million kalpas, and one attains rebirth in the West." Why is it that the extinction of sins is the same, yet that is a practice while this is not, and that attains rebirth while this does not? If both were not practices, when Queen Vaidehī and her five hundred attendants were prophesied by the Buddha to attain rebirth, was it by performing these contemplations and so forth that they attained rebirth, or by other practices? If they attained rebirth through these contemplations and so forth, since these would not be practices, how could they attain rebirth? If performing the contemplations does not bring about rebirth, why would the Queen ask to be taught a teaching that does not bring about rebirth, and why would the Tathāgata teach her a teaching that does not bring about rebirth? Furthermore, if all were exclusively the gate of vows, then there should only be one; why would there be need to distinguish sixteen contemplations? Moreover, making such an interpretation not only fails to comprehend the sūtra text, but also destroys correct view, harming oneself and others, bringing no benefit whatsoever to persons or to the Dharma.