釋淨土群疑論 5.5

5.5

釋曰：此有三釋，一有說無勸、二有勸機少、三勸文不具。一有說無勸者，如《涅槃經》云「於此西方過四十二恒沙世界外有妙淨土，名曰無勝，一如西方極樂世界無有異也。如來捨彼淨土而來生此娑婆世界，教化眾生。」若但是淨土即可願生者，何故釋迦如來不勸生自淨土，唯勸往生極樂世界耶？乃至諸大乘經雖說淨土，無勸生文。二有勸機少者，如維摩詰遠接妙喜世界安置此土，示諸大眾，佛勸大眾令生彼國。有十四那由他人，發菩提心願生彼國，佛記當生。即下言「妙喜世界於此國土所應饒益其事訖已，還復本處。」若此淨土合一切眾生悉得生者，佛何故除十四那由他人外，如來竟不普勸本來眾生令生妙喜，而言妙喜饒益訖已等言。故知無機緣故，所以不勸。三勸文不具者，《隨願往生經》及《藥師經》等，雖標餘方淨土勸物往生，而此經文不周悉。何者周悉？只如《觀經》等中勸生西方，一顯凡夫、二明未來、三彰造罪、四有十方諸佛舒舌證誠、五有多本經文同證，依之修學無有疑滯，故此西方淨土業易可依行。諸經既無前件等文，唯有一句兩句勸生之處，難可依據。何故捨廣多文句而就小經文耶？又經文勸依了義經不依不了義經，三藏法師釋了不了義經有其四種，已於《觀經疏》中具述其義也。今此淨土之教具有四義，了義之經，故可依之以修淨行；餘經之文義雖說淨土，四義不具，是不了義，難可依之修淨業也。

Explanation: There are three explanations for this: first, there is exposition without encouragement; second, there is encouragement but few [suitable] capacities; third, the text of encouragement is incomplete. First, regarding 'exposition without encouragement': as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'Passing beyond forty-two Ganges-sands of worlds to the west of here, there is a marvelous pure land named Aparājita, which is entirely identical to the Western Sukhāvatī without any difference. The Tathāgata relinquished that pure land and came to be born in this Sahā world to teach and transform sentient beings.' If any pure land can simply be aspired to, why did Śākyamuni Tathāgata not encourage rebirth in his own pure land, but solely encouraged rebirth in Sukhāvatī? Even across the various Mahāyāna sūtras, although pure lands are expounded, there are no passages encouraging rebirth [there]. Second, regarding 'encouragement but few [suitable] capacities': as when Vimalakīrti brought the Abhirati world from afar and set it down in this land to show it to the great assembly, the Buddha encouraged the great assembly to be born in that land. There were fourteen nayutas of people who generated the bodhicitta and aspired to be born in that land, and the Buddha predicted their future birth. Then it says below: 'The Abhirati world, having completed what it should do to benefit this land, returned to its original place.' If all sentient beings were fittingly able to be born in this pure land, why did the Tathāgata, aside from those fourteen nayutas of people, ultimately not universally encourage the original sentient beings to be born in Abhirati, saying instead that Abhirati had completed its benefiting, and so forth? Therefore, we know that because the karmic capacity was absent, he did not encourage it. Third, regarding 'the text of encouragement is incomplete': sūtras such as the Suiyuan wangsheng jing and the Bhaiṣajyaguru Sūtra, although pointing to pure lands of other directions and encouraging people to attain rebirth there, do not have comprehensive texts. What is comprehensive? For example, in the Guan jing and other sūtras encouraging rebirth in the West: first, ordinary people are revealed; second, the future is clarified; third, the committing of sins is made clear; fourth, there is the testimony of the Buddhas of the ten directions extending their tongues; fifth, there are multiple texts of sūtras bearing identical witness. Relying on them to cultivate and study, there are no doubts or obstacles; therefore, this karma for the Western pure land is easy to rely on and practice. Since the other sūtras lack the aforementioned texts and have only a sentence or two encouraging rebirth, they are difficult to rely upon. Why should one abandon vast and numerous passages and take up minor sūtra texts? Furthermore, the sūtra texts encourage relying on nītārtha sūtras and not relying on neyārtha sūtras. The Tripiṭaka Master explained that there are four kinds of nītārtha and neyārtha sūtras, whose meanings have already been fully set forth in the Commentary on the Guan jing. Now, this teaching of the Pure Land possesses all four meanings and is a nītārtha sūtra; therefore, one can rely on it to cultivate pure practices. Although the textual meaning of other sūtras expounds pure lands, they do not possess the four meanings and are neyārtha; it is difficult to rely on them to cultivate pure karma.