釋淨土群疑論 3.7.1

3.7.1

釋曰：信行禪師釋此兩經除取，以二三階別取，失經旨歸。 若依所解，便有太過失及太減失。 太過失者，第二階人亦造五逆，名是同，應同是除也。 太減失者，第三階人不造五逆，無文說除，應等是取也。 經說「唯除五逆誹謗正法」之言，此乃除人，有過、減之二過也。 彼經應言唯除第三階眾生，離於二失矣。 此即法藏比丘發斯弘願，除人有過減之過。 為聖智不足而言不周悉耶？ 如法藏言無有咎，即禪師有謬解之愆，進退二途何以逃責？ 故當是凡者之失，非聖人之誤也。 諸三階師救言：唯除五逆等言，即是除一切第三階也。 以第三階者並是純邪無正、純惡無善之人，始迄今有愆犯，皆一切諸佛之所不救、十方淨土減共擯棄。 故法藏言除五逆等文，即是總除一切第三階眾生盡也。 難曰：此雖似釋太減之失，而全未解太過難也。 若謂《觀經》下品下生之人即是解太過之難者，此救不然。 何者？ 阿彌陀陳四十八弘誓願，於發心初住之前； 釋迦說十六觀經，於妙覺成道之後。 中間相去懸隔無量阿僧祇耶，如何招難於不可數劫之中，空過於下品下生之日，遠水近火何能相救也。 即韋提未請之前、觀經未陳之日，願中如逢斯難，菩薩將何解紛耶？ 此救未為除太過之失也。 又一切第三階人，皆名造逆之者。 若過去身已受泥梨之苦，業與果畢，非是逆人。 若以今生未省造無間罪，寧容三階之類減是五逆人？ 若言皆是逆人，即應悉是邪定之聚，無非生報之業，終後定墮阿鼻，亦不生餘惡趣，不得入於佛法出家。 以具律儀，無有不定聚人及有不定業者，即應涅槃經說「一切眾生不定業多、決定業少」茲言謬矣。 斯救亦復未成除太減之失。 禪師救曰：今言悉是五逆之者，未必現害二親、出佛身血、殺阿羅漢、破和合僧，現造逆愆方名逆者，但是其人根機極惡，邪正俱邪、善惡俱惡，七憎七愛未離於六情，五樂豈捨於三業？ 既具十二顛倒，五種之所不救。 雖非即行其逆，然是造逆根機，是以用彼逆名，總除三階之類也。 難曰：此雖似救太減之失，亦全不救太過之難。 然此一釋便招七難：一、即以能造逆故名造逆根機，即第二階人亦能造逆。 既起逆是同，兩階何異？ 斯一難也（第一階人根正，能以善覆惡，造罪便少。 第二階人、第三階人根邪，能以惡覆善，起過不等第二階人也）。 又禪師既稱第三階人即是五逆之者，有於十三遮難，如何成大比丘？ 但應是無戒之人，不得言破戒之者。 若謂但有根機而未現造逆罪得成具戒之者，彼既唯除五逆，亦是未造逆人。 如何言除三階，即名造逆之者？ 斯二難也。 又第三階人未造五逆，即名五逆之者，為是邪定聚？ 為是不定聚？ 若是邪定聚者，既未造逆，如何即是邪定聚也？ 若是不定聚者，如何言除五逆，即是一切第三階眾生？ 斯三難也。 又未造逆人，是造逆根機，故即名五逆之者； 亦可具淨戒人是可得聖者，雖未證聖道，應亦名為聖人。 若言我是聖人，便成正定聚，應捨異生之性； 又成波羅夷罪，何名持戒人？ 斯四難也。 又《觀經》言取五逆，即是已造逆人。 願中除五逆，豈約根機說也？ 以此兩經相望，故非是彼根機。 斯五難也。 又第三階人雖未造逆，以是根機故名為五逆人； 亦可第二階人縱令造於五逆，以非逆根機，故應非五逆人耶？ 斯六難也。 若言第二階人亦約根機為造逆者，即應下品三人同成一品之過，為並不造五逆俱是五逆根機； 又應花開無早晚之殊、滅罪有少多之別。 斯七難也（《涅槃經》說「善男子！ 如來說法，為眾生故，有七種語：一因語、二果語、三因果語、四喻語、五不應說語、六世流布語、七如意語。 」今約根機說除，為當何者之語？ 若說因語，此亦非是因語。 縱是因語，作斯除而何益也？ ）。

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?)