釋淨土群疑論 3.7

I explain: When Dhyāna Master Xinxing interpreted the exclusion and acceptance in these two sūtras by distinguishing the second and third levels, he missed the intended purport of the sūtras. If one relies on his interpretation, there will be the error of excessive inclusion and the error of deficient exclusion. As for the error of excessive inclusion, people of the second level also commit the five rebellious acts; since the name is identical, they should equally be excluded. As for the error of deficient exclusion, people of the third level do not commit the five rebellious acts, and there is no text stating that they are excluded, so they should equally be accepted. The sūtra's words 'only excluding those who commit the five rebellious acts and slander the correct Dharma' refer to the exclusion of persons, and this [interpretation] incurs the two errors of excessive inclusion and deficient exclusion. That sūtra should have said 'only excluding sentient beings of the third level', and thereby been free from these two errors. Thus, when the monk Dharmākara made these vast vows, his exclusion of persons would have had the errors of excessive inclusion and deficient exclusion. Was his holy wisdom deficient such that his words were not comprehensive? If Dharmākara's words are without fault, then the Dhyāna master has the guilt of an erroneous interpretation; moving forward or backward, how can he escape blame? Therefore, this must be the error of an ordinary mortal, not a mistake of the sage. The masters of the Three Levels defend this, saying: 'The words "only excluding the five rebellious acts, etc." mean excluding the entirety of the third level. Because those of the third level are all purely deviant without correctness and purely evil without good, possessing infractions from the beginning until now, they are all beyond the salvation of all Buddhas and are rejected by the pure lands of the ten directions. Therefore, Dharmākara's text stating the exclusion of the five rebellious acts and so forth means totally excluding all sentient beings of the third level without exception.' I refute this, saying: Although this seems to resolve the error of deficient exclusion, it completely fails to resolve the objection of excessive inclusion. If you say that the person of the lowest grade of the lowest class in the Guan jing resolves the objection of excessive inclusion, this defense is incorrect. Why is that? Amitābha set forth the forty-eight vast vows before his initial entry into the stage of generating the aspiration [for awakening]; Śākyamuni spoke the Guan jing on the sixteen contemplations after his realization of awakening at wonderful enlightenment. The interval between them is separated by an incalculable asaṃkhyeya [of kalpas]; how could he incur an objection across unreckonable kalpas and let the days of the lowest grade of the lowest class pass in vain—how can distant water save a nearby fire? That is, before Vaidehī made her request, on the days when the Guan jing had not yet been set forth, if this objection had been encountered within the vows, how would the Bodhisattva have resolved the dispute? This defense does not eliminate the error of excessive inclusion. Moreover, [by your view,] all persons of the third level are called those who commit rebellious acts. If they have already suffered the torments of Niraya in a past life, the karma and its fruition are completed, so they are not rebellious persons. If in this present life they are not aware of having committed an anantarya sin, how can it be permitted that all beings of the third level are persons of the five rebellious acts? If you say they are all rebellious persons, then they should all belong to the assembly of fixed deviance, their actions being none other than karma ripening in the next rebirth, so that after death they are definitively bound to fall into Avīci and will not be born into other evil destinies, nor could they enter the Buddha's Dharma to renounce the household life. Because they possess the monastic precepts, there would be no people of the indeterminate assembly and no indeterminate karma; thus the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's statement that 'for all sentient beings, indeterminate karma is plentiful, and determinate karma is scarce' would be erroneous. This defense also fails to resolve the error of deficient exclusion. The Dhyāna master defends [his view], saying: 'When it is said now that all are those of the five rebellious acts, it does not necessarily mean that they currently harm their two parents, shed the Buddha's blood, kill an arhat, or cause schism in the Saṃgha; it is not that only currently committing rebellious infractions makes one called a rebellious person. Rather, it is merely that this person's faculty and temperament are exceedingly evil, both deviant and correct are deviant to them, both good and evil are evil to them; their seven hatreds and seven loves have not departed from the six senses, and how could their five pleasures be abandoned in the three karmas? Since they possess the twelve inversions, they are beyond the salvation of the five kinds [of methods]. Although they do not immediately perform the rebellion, they are nevertheless of the faculty and temperament that commit rebellious acts; therefore, using that term "rebellion", it comprehensively excludes the class of the third level.' I refute this, saying: Although this seems to defend against the error of deficient exclusion, it also completely fails to defend against the objection of excessive inclusion. Moreover, this single explanation invites seven objections: First, if because one is able to commit rebellious acts one is termed a faculty and temperament that commits rebellious acts, then persons of the second level are also able to commit rebellious acts. Since their giving rise to rebellion is identical, how do the two levels differ? This is the first objection. (The faculties of persons of the first level are correct, and they are able to cover evil with good, so they commit fewer transgressions. The faculties of persons of the second level and third level are deviant, and they are able to cover good with evil; the arising of their faults is not equal to persons of the second level.) Furthermore, since the Dhyāna master asserts that persons of the third level are those of the five rebellious acts, they possess the thirteen impediments—how could they become great monks? They should merely be persons without the precepts; they could not be called violators of the precepts. If you say that they merely possess the faculty and temperament without currently committing rebellious sins and so can attain full precepts, since that [vow] only excludes the five rebellious acts, they are also persons who have not committed rebellious acts. How can you say that excluding the third level means they are called those who commit rebellious acts? This is the second objection. Furthermore, if a person of the third level has not committed the five rebellious acts and yet is called one of the five rebellious acts, do they belong to the assembly of fixed deviance? Or do they belong to the indeterminate assembly? If they belong to the assembly of fixed deviance, since they have not committed rebellious acts, how could they belong to the assembly of fixed deviance? If they belong to the indeterminate assembly, how can you say that excluding the five rebellious acts means all sentient beings of the third level? This is the third objection. Furthermore, if a person who has not committed rebellious acts is called one of the five rebellious acts because they are of the faculty and temperament that commits rebellious acts, then likewise a person who possesses pure precepts and is capable of attaining sagehood, even though they have not realized the noble path, should also be called a sage. If one says, 'I am a sage', one would become [established in] the assembly of correct fixation and ought to abandon the nature of an ordinary worldling; yet this also constitutes a pārājika offense—how could such a one be called a person who upholds the precepts? This is the fourth objection. Furthermore, the Guan jing says that the five rebellious acts are accepted, which refers to persons who have already committed rebellious acts. In the vow, where the five rebellious acts are excluded, how could it be spoken in terms of faculty and temperament? Comparing these two sūtras, it is therefore not about that faculty and temperament. This is the fifth objection. Furthermore, if a person of the third level, although having not committed rebellious acts, is called a person of the five rebellious acts because they are of that faculty and temperament, then could it also be that even if a person of the second level commits the five rebellious acts, because they are not of the rebellious faculty and temperament, they should not be a person of the five rebellious acts? This is the sixth objection. If you say that persons of the second level are also considered committers of rebellious acts in terms of faculty and temperament, then the three persons of the lowest class would share the error of forming a single grade, because none of them commit the five rebellious acts and all are of the faculty and temperament of the five rebellious acts; furthermore, there would be no distinction of early or late for the opening of the lotus flower, nor any difference in the amount of sins eradicated. This is the seventh objection. (The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'Good son! When the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma, for the sake of sentient beings, there are seven kinds of speech: 1. causal speech; 2. fruitional speech; 3. cause-and-fruit speech; 4. metaphorical speech; 5. unspeakable speech; 6. worldly conventional speech; 7. speech as one wills.' Now, when exclusion is explained in terms of faculty and temperament, which kind of speech does it belong to? If you say causal speech, this is also not causal speech. Even if it were causal speech, what benefit would there be in making such an exclusion?)

Furthermore, there are those who explain that sūtra's [clause] excluding those who commit the five heinous acts, saying: "Those people of the third level who do not commit the five heinous acts are not prevented from being born in the Pure Land; however, they must practice universal Dharma before they can be born in that Western [Land]. If they have committed heinous offenses, even if they practice universal Dharma, they will not abide [there]. Therefore, Dharmākara's vast vow excludes only those of the third level who commit the five heinous acts. If sentient beings of the third level have committed the five heinous acts, even if they are made to practice universal Dharma, they still cannot be born in the Pure Land. If they have not committed the five heinous acts and practice universal [Dharma], they will definitely attain rebirth in the Pure Land. For this reason, the Chan master's wisdom is vast and his compassion is deep and earnest. [Seeing that] these people of the third level sink into the defiled land and take birth [there], he opened the universally true and universally correct Dharma-door to receive and guide those who are purely heterodox and purely evil, causing them to learn the Buddha-Dharma that matches their capacity, and leading all of them to be born in that Western [Land]. This is something that Dharmākara did not discuss and that Śākyamuni did not speak of. The Chan master alone revealed this teaching to rescue those people of the third level. Therefore it is said: 'He spoke the sūtras that the buddhas did not speak, and delivered those whom the buddhas did not deliver.' Rejoicing at hearing this compiled record, we revere and uphold it, and no longer read or recite the various other sūtras. Having consulted and changed our almanacs and calendars, alas, you cling to former errors, continuing to read those specific sūtras and creating karma for the hells! Thus we know that when Sunakṣatra upheld the treasury of teachings, he sank for eternal kalpas, while Sadāparibhūta practiced only the universal teaching and ascended purely to the other shore. This is because learning the Buddha-Dharma that matches one's capacity brings benefits and losses as distant as heaven and earth. You fail to discern this right from wrong, and only know how to practice exclusively the specific Dharma; a mistake is indeed a mistake, and you have no way to attain rebirth. Now that I provide this explanation, it should dispel your confusion." A critique says: Although they restate this interpretation, it gives rise to even deeper doubts. I shall set forth these cross-examinations once more, in the hope of an authoritative adjudication. A refutation says: Although this seems to resolve the fault of excessive reduction, it completely fails to resolve the challenge of excessive overreach. One does not know whether the words "even as few as ten recitations" are universal Dharma or specific Dharma. If they are universal Dharma, these "ten recitations" merely refer to ten recitations of Amitābha Buddha. How can reciting this specific Buddha be considered that universal [Dharma]? This is the first challenge. Furthermore, if it is universal, then it is the Dharma of the third level; on what grounds do you classify this sūtra and others as teachings of the second level? This is the second challenge. Furthermore, if it is universal, what difference is there between this and the lowest grade of the lowest class in the Guan jing, where one is endowed with ten recitations invoking Amitābha Buddha? Yet the ten recitations in the Guan jing are specific Dharma, while the ten recitations in the vow are universal Dharma; thus the same words turn out to have two different [meanings]. This is the third challenge. Furthermore, universal Dharma can rescue people of the third level, but rescues only those who have not committed the heinous acts. Why is it that specific Dharma can rescue people of the second level, and also rescues those who have committed the heinous acts? Is it that when people of the third level have committed the heinous acts, there is ultimately no principle by which their sins can be eliminated, and so they cannot attain rebirth in the Pure Land? Or is it that their [sins] can also be eradicated, but those who once committed the heinous acts simply ought not be born in the Pure Land? Please explain this. This is the fourth challenge. If these ten recitations are specific Dharma, then whether people of the third level have committed heinous acts or not, if they practice specific Dharma, none can attain rebirth. This would mean that specific Dharma excludes people, and excluding people would in turn incur the fault of both overreach and reduction. Not only does excluding people incur the fault of overreach and reduction, but selecting people also leads to the error of too many or too few. Neither alternative can escape severe censure (First challenge). Then that vow should have said: "If, when I attain buddhahood, sentient beings of the ten directions who with sincere mind and joyfully entrust themselves, desiring to be born in my land, practice universal Dharma, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect awakening; excluded are only those of the third level who commit the five heinous acts and slander the correct Dharma." In that case, it would set forth the universal teaching, and the meaning of the text would be explicit. Then the exclusion and inclusion of the two categories and three levels, as well as the setting aside of those of the second level who commit heinous acts, would be lucid and beyond doubt. Yet when the Bodhisattva set forth this gateway of vows, it served as the profound crux of acceptance and rejection, intending that future students might thereby determine whether to depart or remain. If this gateway spoke of the universal, then the meaning of acceptance and rejection would be complete; if this gateway spoke of the specific, then the people who depart or remain would not be comprehensively covered. If in these two alternatives one finds no presentation of universal Dharma, even if it were stated elsewhere, how could that remedy the flaw in this text? If you say there is an underlying intention such that it was inappropriate to speak of the universal here, please present the subtle reason; I venture to ask for the crucial rationale (Second challenge). Furthermore, as praised in the sūtra, the bhikṣu Dharmākara was a great bodhisattva, a sage of the ten bhūmis, not a great being of the three levels of worthies prior to the bhūmis. He was thus fully endowed with compassion and wisdom, broadly embracing sentient beings. How could he, when making his great vows to receive and guide extremely evil sentient beings who had affinity [with him] so that they might be born in the Pure Land, make vows exclusively with specific Dharma to rescue these people of the second level, and fail to establish vows with universal Dharma, thereby excluding those of the third level? (Third challenge). Was it that people of the third level ultimately have no share in rebirth in the Pure Land, and Dharmākara regarded them as ruined seeds, so that his vow did not encompass them? (Fourth challenge). Or was it that they also ought to attain rebirth, but Dharmākara did not understand how to bestow his universal teaching to rescue those of the third level, and so excluded them without accepting them? (Fifth challenge). Or again, did he understand it but not preach it, begrudging the Dharma and not teaching sentient beings, his compassionate mind failing to reach these people, so that he did not embrace them to be born in the Pure Land? (Sixth challenge). Or was it that although he was endowed with compassion and wisdom, it was simply that this category of beings was difficult to transform and perfect, so that [he thought], "I cannot deliver them now; I entrust them to Chan Master Xinxing"? (Seventh challenge). Or was it that the Bodhisattva had no affinity with people of the third level, and only the Chan master of vast instruction had affinity and was uniquely able to rescue and deliver them? Moreover, those within the Great Tang who encounter the Chan master's teaching might attain rebirth in the Western [Land]; but as for sentient beings of the third level in the eastern and western continents, the five regions of India, the three thousand realms, and the tens of billions of four-continent worlds who do not encounter the Chan master's teaching, how are they to attain rebirth in the Pure Land? (Eighth challenge). Then Dharmākara's understanding and practice were not yet complete, allowing for the possibility that his embrace of sentient beings was not exhaustive; but Śākyamuni having already attained perfect awakening, why did he not deliver these people? This would mean his four great vows were not comprehensive and the intent of the four debts of gratitude was not fulfilled. If he abandoned his severely ill children, how could he be called one who pities all universally? To say in vain that "all those who should be delivered have already been delivered, and for those who have not yet been delivered, the causes and conditions for their deliverance have already been created"—such words would be an erroneous account! Yet you merely wish to praise the Chan master above the superior sages while debasing the World-Honoured One below the ordinary and inferior, unaware that these words constitute a monumental error. Furthermore, the Buddha preached teachings such as the Guan jing for sentient beings of the second level, and when people of the second level in the three thousand worlds practice according to these Dharma-doors, they all attain rebirth in the Pure Land. The Buddha did not preach a separate fascicle of a universal sūtra for sentient beings of the third level, nor did the buddhas who together extended their tongues to vouch for the Great Being Dharmākara make a separate universal vow for these people of the third level.

All the third-stage sentient beings in the hundred billion four continents who do not encounter the Compilations of the Three Stages will generally be unable to be reborn in the pure land; even if they read and recite the various sūtras, not being bodhisattvas of the four refuges, it will be hard for them to understand and gather the universal teachings, and they will all drift aimlessly in the Sahā [world]. Thus one would know that the Buddha ought to have specially preached a one-fascicle universal sūtra for third-stage sentient beings, so that sentient beings in places where Chan Master Xinxing is absent might be reborn in the West. That the World-Honoured One did not preach this sūtra would be a profound and major defect. Furthermore, the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra belongs to the specific teachings, and the Great Master, because of compassion when the pathway of the sūtras was being extinguished, specially made it remain in the world for a hundred years. For what reason, when the universal teachings correspond to the final era, did he not preserve the universal Dharma to transform sentient beings? The specific teachings are not for evil times, yet he preserved a specific sūtra to the detriment of living beings! How could the Lord of Great Compassion, who rescues from suffering, adapt to capacities in such a manner? (Ninth objection). Why would not only Śākyamuni Tathāgata fail to know how to save third-stage people, but also the Buddhas of the ten directions, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, extend their tongues to verify his specific Dharma that rescues only those of the second stage, and not extend their tongues to verify his universal Dharma that delivers those third-stage people? How could the Great Holy World-Honoured One, the All-Awakened One of the ten directions, who possesses all knowledge and the knowledge of all aspects, whose grace and conduct embody the four immeasurables and whose compassion regards [all] as an only child, jointly conceal this universal Dharma and fail to save these people? What is more, his teaching covers the three-thousandfold [world], his transformation flows through the hundred billion [continents], and his forty-eight vows fill the ten directions. Beginning from when he was a cakravartin who first produced the thought [of awakening] before the first incalculable aeon of Ganges sands, and ending after the second incalculable aeon of Ganges sands when Avalokiteśvara would succeed to his place, he made these grand vows, verified by the Buddhas of the ten directions. Just as he was about to vertically cover the three realms and horizontally encompass the four modes of birth, would they fail to reach those of the third stage, such that he excluded them without accepting them? The Buddhas and bodhisattvas, observing with noble wisdom, knew that they could not attain rebirth and that there was no Dharma by which they could be delivered, and so ceased using the hand of the true Dharma to pull them out of the mire. Yet Chan Master Xinxing could further extend clever skillful means, expounding the universal, true Buddha-Dharma to succeed in saving third-stage people. This would mean his compassion surpasses Śākyamuni and his wisdom exceeds Amitāyus; thus the Unsurpassed Tamer would conversely become a 'surpassed' World-Honoured One, and the Incomparable One would become a Fully Awakened One who has been surpassed. Chan Master Xinxing would then be superior to the Buddha! Another objection: If you say that the division between exclusion and acceptance is due to the difference between the second and third stages regarding [the commission of] the five cardinal sins, and is not determined by whether the recitations are few or many, why, in the passage where the cardinal sins are excluded, is the phrasing 'down to ten recitations' placed, while in the passage where the cardinal sins are accepted, the phrasing 'replete with ten recitations' is set down? Why did he not place the name of 'third-stage people' in the passage excluding the cardinal sins, and set down the words 'second-stage people' in the passage accepting the cardinal sins? Why would the Great Master forcefully insert the unnecessary phrasing 'down to ten recitations,' while of the words that needed to be spoken, there is not even the mention of the words 'second' or 'third stages'? The Chan master defends [his view], saying: 'The nine grades in the Guan jing are an extremely detailed specific exposition. That is to say, because the good and evil of those born in the nine grades are expounded separately, for the lowest evil people the method of one recitation is not expounded (one recitation is the method for good people to attain rebirth); rather, the method for evil people to attain rebirth is expounded separately, which is why it specifically says 'replete with ten recitations' ('replete' is a word contrasted with 'deficient,' meaning the count of recitations must be filled to ten). The two passages in the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra are an extremely concise general statement. That is to say, the good and evil of those born in the lower two grades are expounded together; the phrasing implicitly contains the methods of few or many, and the meaning generally encompasses people of both good and evil. Therefore, within the earlier 'down to,' there is the method of one recitation for good people; within the later 'down to,' there is also the method of ten recitations for evil people. Because good and evil, few and many, are brought forth in a general embrace, it is called 'general.' Because it remotely speaks of 'down to' without bringing up the initial term, it is 'extremely concise.' Thus, the earlier phrase 'down to ten recitations' is an expression going from one toward ten. When the expression ends by saying 'ten,' it begins remotely from one, skipping over the intervening nine. Therefore, within this text, the method of one recitation for good people must be contained. The later phrase 'down to one recitation' is an expression going from ten toward one. When the expression ends by saying 'one,' it begins remotely from ten, skipping over the other nine. Therefore, within this text, the method of ten recitations for evil people must be contained. Thus, it is simply because within the lower 'down to' there must be ten recitations, and the method of ten recitations is applied to evil people. Among the ranks of evil people, the deviant and the correct are mixed together; therefore, it selectively speaks of excluding the cardinal sins and slander. How does excluding the cardinal sins and slander have anything to do with [the number of recitations] being as few as one?' The objection is: Now, having the cardinal sins and being without the cardinal sins constitutes the two kinds of people, good and evil; and the second stage and third stage divide the two grades of deviant and correct. Could it not be that within the two ranks of deviant and correct there are also both good and evil people? In the rank of evil people, the deviant and correct are mixed, and therefore it selectively speaks of excluding the cardinal sins and slander; it could likewise be that in the rank of good people, the deviant and correct are mixed, so why does it not selectively speak of excluding those who are not guilty of cardinal sins and slander, instead taking those who are not deviant and evil to be identical with deviant and evil people, uniformly stating that they are excluded under ten recitations? Furthermore, as for the extremely concise words 'one recitation' and 'ten recitations': within the method for good people, the correctly good people are accepted and the deviantly good people are not excluded; why, within the method for evil people, are the correctly evil people accepted while the deviantly evil people are excluded? Furthermore, within the method for evil people, the correctly evil are accepted while the deviantly evil and deviantly good are excluded; it could likewise be that within the method for good people, the correctly good are accepted while the deviantly good and deviantly evil are excluded. Furthermore, within the method for good people, it only discusses accepting those who should be excluded, and does not speak of excluding the deviantly good. Why, within the method for evil people, does it also discuss accepting those who should be excluded, yet speaks of excluding the deviantly evil? Furthermore, the deviantly evil should be excluded in the context of evil, but the sūtra does not exclude them in the context of good. The deviantly good should be excluded in the context of good, so why are they instead excluded in the context of evil? Furthermore, within the method for good people, deviantly good people can be named among the class of the deviantly evil. Why, within the method for evil people, cannot the class of the deviantly evil also be named deviantly good people? Furthermore, within the method for evil people there are the deviant and the correct, and the sūtra accepts the correct and excludes the deviant. Why do you not allow that within the method for correct people there are good and evil, and the sūtra accepts the good people and excludes the evil? Furthermore, the ten recitations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra accept the correctly evil, which means it speaks of excluding those who are deviantly evil. Why, for the ten recitations of the Guan jing, in accepting the correctly evil, does it not speak of excluding those who are deviantly evil? Furthermore, both sūtras speak of ten recitations; the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra speaks of acceptance and also discusses exclusion—why do both sūtras not set forth what is not ten recitations? The Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra speaks of acceptance and also speaks of exclusion. Although the Chan master and others attempt to forcefully defend Chan Master Xinxing's interpretation of these two sūtras as an exquisite explanation, since obstacles and objections become tangled and numerous doubts arise in competition, this is not an exquisite interpretation; let scholars be aware of this. The Chan master again objects, saying: 'If it were said that the cardinal sins are excluded because the Dharma of one recitation is few, then since there is the greater Dharma of ten recitations, for what reason would it speak of exclusion?' The answer is: this is no valid objection.

The Buddha's intent was to make it clear that if a person on the verge of death can recite the Buddha's name once or twice, down to being able to recite nine or ten times, they all attain rebirth in the world of Sukhāvatī, with the sole exception of those who commit the five cardinal sins and slander the true Dharma. The intent of this sūtra is to reveal that if a person at the end of life can recite the Buddha's name once and their life ends, or recites up to ten times and their life ends, both can attain rebirth in the pure land. Is it not that the Buddha's intent was to reveal that for those without cardinal sins, whether [their recitations are] few or many, all are reborn; while for those with cardinal sins, if few they are not reborn, and they must fulfill ten before they can attain rebirth? To distinguish those without cardinal sins, who universally can be reborn whether [recitations are] few or many, it says that those who commit the cardinal sins and slander the true Dharma are excluded; what does this have to do with the 'deviant' and 'cardinal sins' [of the third stage]? If all sentient beings, when arriving at the day of death, only then encounter a good spiritual friend who teaches them to recite the Buddha's name, and all fulfill ten utterances, it might be as charged by that [opponent]; but granting that their life ends before completing ten recitations, would you then cause those who committed cardinal sins not to be spoken of as excluded?