釋淨土群疑論 3.7.2

3.7.2

又有釋彼除五逆經言：不造五逆第三階人，非是不得生於淨土，然須行於普法，方始生彼西方也； 如造於逆愆，縱行普法而不住。 故法藏弘願，唯除第三階造五逆者。 若其第三階眾生造五逆者，縱令行於普法，亦不得生淨土； 如其不造五逆，行普定得往生。 是以禪師智慧廣弘慈悲厚慇，此第三階沈淪穢土受生，故開普真普正法門，接引純邪純惡之輩，使學當根佛法，皆令生彼西方。 此乃法藏之所不論、釋迦之所不說，禪師獨開此教，拔彼第三階人，故曰說諸佛不說之經、度諸佛不度之者。 我等欣聞集錄，頂戴受持，更不讀誦眾經。 披尋改年歷日，哀哉汝等因執前非，還復讀彼別經，造其地獄之罪。 故知善星受持法藏，永劫沈淪； 不輕但行普教，清昇彼岸。 此由學當根佛法，損益於此天懸。 子不能鑒此是非，但知專行別法，錯則錯矣，生無由生。 今為此釋，可當除其惑也。 責曰：雖彼重申此解，更足深疑。 再陳徵難，以希高判也。 難曰：此雖似釋大減之失，亦全未解太過之難。 未知乃至十念之言，為是普法？ 為是別法？ 若是普法者，此十念言但是十念阿彌陀佛，此念別佛如何是彼普耶？ 一難。 又若普者即是第三階法，何因判此經等為第二階之教耶？ 二難。 又若普者，此與《觀經》下品下生具足十念稱阿彌陀佛有何差別？ 而《觀經》十念是別法，願中十念是普法，同是一言遂成二別。 三難。 又普法能救第三階人，即唯救不造逆者。 何為別法能救第二階者，亦救造逆之人耶，為是第三階人造逆竟，無得滅罪之義而不得往生也； 為是亦得滅除，但曾造逆人不合生於淨土？ 請開演也。 四難。 若此十念是別法者，第三階人逆與不逆、修行別法悉不得生。 此以別法除人，除人還招過減之過。 何但除人有過滅之過，亦乃取人致多少之愆。 進退二途難逃重責也（一難）。 則彼願應言「設我得佛，十方眾生至心信樂欲生我國，修行普法，若不生者不取正覺。 唯除第三階造五逆及謗正法者」，此即陳於普教，文義顯然。 即除取二類三階及簡二階造逆之徒，皎然無惑也。 但菩薩陳此願門，極取捨之幽鍵，欲令未來學者於茲定去留。 如也斯門說普，即取捨之義便周； 如也斯門說別，即去留之人不盡。 若於此進退兩關不見陳於普法，縱令餘處有說，何救斯文之失？ 若言有異意趣，於茲不合說普。 請願陳於妙術，敢欲詳其要道也（二難）。 又法藏比丘，如經所讚，是大菩薩十地聖人，非是地前三賢大士。 此即悲智具足、廣攝眾生，如何發大誓願，接引有緣極惡眾生令生淨土，乃唯以別法發願救茲第二階人，不普法立誓，遂除第三階者（三難）。 為是第三階人，竟無往生之分。 法藏為同敗種，而願不攝彼耶（四難）。 為是亦合難得生，而法藏不能解，垂其普教，救彼第三階者，除而不取其人耶（五難）。 為復解而不說，惜法不教眾生，悲心不及此人，不攝令生淨土也（六難）。 為是雖具悲智，直為此類難化成，我今不能度彼，付與信行禪師（七難）。 為是第三階者菩薩無緣，唯有弘誨禪師有緣，偏能救度？ 且夫大唐內逢禪師之教者，可得生於西方； 東西二洲、五天竺國、三千剎土百億四天下第三階眾生無逢禪師之教者，將何以生淨土也（八難）。 則法藏解行未圓，容許攝生不盡； 釋迦既成正覺，何因不度斯人？ 即四弘之願不周、四恩之意不盡，遺棄重病之子，何名遍怜者哉？ 空言「所應度者皆以度訖，其未度者皆亦已作得度因緣」，斯言謬述也。 而子但欲讚禪師於上聖之上，抑世尊於凡下之下，不覺此言成大失也。 又佛為第二階眾生說《觀經》等教，三千世界第二階人依此教門修行，悉得生於淨土。 佛不為第三階眾生別說普經一卷，諸佛同舒舌證法藏大士，復不別發普願為此第三階人。

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.