釋淨土群疑論 3.19

3.19

釋曰：此不救言，為是怖諸造罪之者。如來密意欲令畏罪不敢為非，恐造斯愆永沈苦海。佛既不救，遂不行非，故言不救耶？為對此人造罪已，無慚愧懺悔，佛對於彼欲令懺悔，言不救耶？為是此罪實懺悔不滅，若造此過諸佛不救耶？復未知此罪，第二階人亦得造斯十惡輪罪不耶？若言不得，何為第二階人能造五逆，而不能造十惡輪罪耶？若造而不救，此顯第二階人亦不得生淨土。何因偏以此而證第三階人不得生於淨土耶？若造而亦救，經文但言「造此罪者諸佛不救」，寧得第二階人造此輪罪而蒙佛救耶？禪師以何道理，言此十惡輪罪，二救三不救、二生三不生？經文無簡，既許俱為，何意言救偏言第二？此乃人解佛語，非大聖教。添意釋經，不當聖旨。計尋念佛，重罪皆除，五逆十輪悉皆消滅。五逆經言定業，此定罪既滅除，十輪稱佛不救，何廢阿彌陀迎接？若如禪師執文迷義，於理未通。請尋斯旨，以祛疑滯也。

I explain: Does this statement of 'cannot be saved' serve to frighten those who commit offenses—the Tathāgata's esoteric intention being to make them fear offenses so that they dare not do wrong, fearing that if they commit these transgressions they will sink forever into the ocean of suffering, so that since the Buddha does not save them, they will consequently not do wrong, hence saying 'cannot be saved'? Or was it spoken to those who, having committed offenses, lack shame and remorse and do not repent, the Buddha wishing to make them repent, hence saying 'cannot be saved'? Or is it that these offenses truly cannot be extinguished through repentance, so that if one commits these faults, the Buddhas do not save them? Furthermore, it is not yet known whether a person of the second stage can also commit these offenses of the ten evil wheels. If one says they cannot, why is it that a person of the second stage can commit the five rebellious acts, yet cannot commit the offenses of the ten evil wheels? If they do commit them and are not saved, this shows that people of the second stage also cannot be born in the Pure Land. Why, then, use this specifically to prove that people of the third stage cannot be born in the Pure Land? If they commit them and are also saved, the scriptural passage simply says 'those who commit these offenses cannot be saved by any of the Buddhas'—how could a person of the second stage commit these wheel offenses and receive the Buddha's salvation? By what reasoning does the Dhyāna Master state regarding these offenses of the ten evil wheels that the second [stage] is saved while the third is not saved, and that the second is born while the third is not born? The scriptural passage makes no distinction; since it allows both to commit them, why does he say salvation applies specifically to the second? This is a human interpretation of the Buddha's words, not the Great Sage's teaching. Adding personal interpretations to explain the sūtras does not accord with the sage's intent. When properly considering buddhānusmṛti, heavy offenses are entirely eliminated; the five rebellious acts and the ten wheels are all eradicated. The sūtras state that the five rebellious acts are fixed karma; since these fixed offenses are eliminated, though the ten wheels are called 'not saved by the Buddha', what prevents Amitābha from coming to welcome them? If one clings to the literal text and is deluded about the meaning like the Dhyāna Master, it is unviable in principle. Please examine this intent to dispel doubt and stagnation.