釋淨土群疑論 3.7.3

3.7.3

百億四天下所有三階眾生，不逢三階集錄，普不得生淨土，雖復讀誦眾經，不是四依菩薩，難解採拾普教，咸悉流浪娑婆。 故知佛可為三階眾生別說普經一卷，令無信行禪師之處眾生生於西方。 世尊不說此經，深成大失也。 又《無量壽經》是於別教，大師以慈悲經道滅盡，特留住世百年。 何因普教當末運，不留普法化生？ 別教教非惡時，乃留別經損物。 大悲救苦之主，豈宜如此逗機（九難）。 何但釋迦如來不解救第三階人，亦乃十方恒沙諸佛舒舌證其別法唯救第二階者，不舒舌證其普法濟彼第三階人耶？ 寧容大聖世尊十方種覺，具一切智一切種智、恩行四等悲同一子，減共匿茲普法，不救斯人者哉？ 況教被三千、化流百億，四十八願遍滿十方，始於輪王發心，於初恒沙阿僧祇劫之前，終於觀音補處，為第二恒沙阿僧祇劫之後，發茲弘大誓願，十方諸佛所證。 方欲竪該三界、橫亘四生，而不及彼三階，遂乃除而不取也？ 諸佛菩薩以聖智觀察，知彼不得往生、無法可以濟度，罷以正法教手拔之令出淤泥。 而信行禪師更能垂巧方便，陳於普真佛法，救得第三階人，即慈悲勝於釋迦、智慧過無量壽，即於無上調御翻成有上世尊，無等等者便成過等正覺，即信行禪師乃應勝佛者也。 又難，若言由逆有二三階殊也已分除取，不由念有少多以明除取者，何因除逆之處，便安「乃至十念」之言？ 取逆之處，即置「具足十念」之語？ 何故不於除逆之處安第三階人之名，取逆之處置第二階人之語。 大師何為不須之語，強安乃至十念之文； 須說之言，竟無二三階字？ 禪師救曰：《觀經》九品者，至廣之別說也。 謂九品生人善惡別說，故於最下惡人不說一念之法（一念是善念人生法），別說惡人生法，是故特言「具足十念」也（具足者，對闕之言，必須念數充十也）。 《壽經》兩段，極略之總言也。 謂下二品生人善惡合說，言含多少之法，義總善惡之人也。 是以前乃至中，即有一念善人之法矣； 後乃至中，亦有十念惡人之法矣。 善惡多少舉總包，故曰總也。 懸言乃至不舉初辭，故為極略也。 即前言乃至十念者，從一向十之辭也。 辭終言十，即初從一起懸超其九。 故此文中，必具一念善人之法也。 後言乃至一念者，從十向一之辭也。 辭終言一，即初從十起懸超餘九。 故此文中，必具十念惡人之法矣。 故僅以為下乃至中必有十念，十念之法施於惡人。 惡人位中邪正相雜，是故簡言除逆謗矣。 何關由一念少故除逆謗哉？ 難曰：且有逆無逆為善惡二人，二階三階分邪正兩品，豈不邪正兩位減有善惡二人耶？ 惡人位中邪正相雜，是故簡言除逆謗矣； 亦可善人位中邪正相雜，何不簡言除非逆謗矣，而乃以非邪惡人之類同於邪惡之人，齊於十念之下雷同說除者也。 又言，一念與十念極略之言，善人法中取正善人，不除邪善人； 何由惡人法中取正惡人，而除邪惡人耶？ 又惡人法中取正惡，除彼邪惡及邪善； 亦可善人法中取正善，除彼邪善及邪惡。 又善人法中唯論取合除，邪善不言除。 何為惡人法中亦論取合除，邪惡即論除？ 又邪惡應於惡處除，經即不於善處除。 邪善應於善處除，何為乃於惡處除？ 又善人法中，邪善人乃得名為邪惡類。 何不惡人法中邪惡類而亦得名邪善人？ 又惡人法中有邪正，經取其正除於邪。 何不許正人法中有善惡，經取善人除惡者？ 又《壽經》十念取正惡，即說除其邪惡人。 何為《觀經》十念，取正惡不說言除邪惡者？ 又兩經俱說於十念，《壽經》說取亦論除，何不兩經俱陳非十念？ 《壽經》說取亦說除，禪師等雖欲強救信行禪師釋此兩經將為妙解，既妨難糾紛、眾疑競起。 此非妙釋，請學者知焉。 禪師又難言：若一念法少言除逆者，既有十念多法，何因說除者哉？ 答曰：此非難也。

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.