[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [釋淨土群疑論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1960) › 4.5 # 釋淨土群疑論 4.5 釋淨土群疑論 4.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1960.4.5) 釋曰：按禪師立教之意，以當根佛法為宗，將為得聖教之旨歸，陵架於古今學者。然禪師以其三義尋教，知是當根法門：一依時、二約處、三准人。詳禪師立此三門，求諸教意，可謂妙即妙矣、能即能焉。然古來盛德，雖探賾幽微，學該內外、義兼半滿，窮法門之巢穴、究真乘之祕藏，未有如禪師作斯以判宗旨也。然禪師自立其義而自乖其趣。何者？《觀經》言「如來今日教韋提希及未來世一切凡夫為煩惱賊之所害者，說清淨業」。及未來世，惡時也；為煩惱賊之所害者，惡人也；此教化茲穢土，惡處也。然此經具斯三義，計是當根佛法。禪師言不當根，何意也？《維摩經》八法，不言為未來世，非惡時也；菩薩成就八法，非惡人也；唯有化茲穢土，是惡處也。此經有斯一義、闕彼二門而言當根，何義也？ > Explanation: Examining the Chan master's intention in establishing his teachings, he takes the 'Buddha-dharma appropriate to the capacity' as the central tenet, considering that he has captured the ultimate intent of the sacred teachings and eclipsing scholars past and present. The Chan master investigates the teachings through three criteria to determine whether a teaching is appropriate to the capacity: first, relying on the time; second, taking into account the place; third, conforming to the person. Examining these three gateways established by the Chan master to seek the intention of the various teachings, one could say it is subtle indeed, and capable indeed! Yet among the eminent virtues of ancient times, although they explored the obscure and subtle, their learning covered both the internal and external, and their understanding encompassed both the partial and the complete, exhausting the lair of the Dharma gates and investigating the secret treasury of the true vehicle, none ever formulated such an approach to determine the central doctrine as the Chan master did. However, the Chan master establishes his own thesis yet contradicts his own premise. How so? The Guan jing says: 'Today the Tathāgata teaches Vaidehī and all pṛthagjanas of future ages who are harmed by the thieves of afflictions, expounding the pure karmas.' 'And future ages' refers to an evil time; 'those who are harmed by the thieves of afflictions' refers to evil persons; this teaching transforms this defiled land, which is an evil place. Since this sūtra possesses all three criteria, it should be considered the Buddha-dharma appropriate to the capacity. When the Chan master says it is not appropriate to the capacity, what does he mean? The eight dharmas of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra do not say they are for future ages, so it is not an evil time; 'bodhisattvas accomplish eight dharmas' does not refer to evil persons; there is only the transformation of this defiled land, which is an evil place. This sūtra possesses only this single criterion and lacks those other two gateways, yet he says it is appropriate to the capacity—what logic is this? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1960.4.4) - [Next: 4.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1960.4.6) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1960.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1960~en-mt.4.5) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1960.4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1960.4.5) · Pramāṇa