English (machine translation)
Translation of 釋淨土群疑論
- Language
- English
- Extent
- 305 passages, 85,418 words
- Text
- complete digital text
- Source
- pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.1960 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…
Contents
Text
1.1
Preface to the Treatise Resolving the Many Doubts about the Pure Land
1.2
Composed by Meng Xian of Pingchang, Vice Director in the Bureau of Agricultural Colonies
1.3
Empty space is boundless, and heaven and earth are born within it; once the ruins and the universe took form, the myriad beings multiplied within them. Thereupon the multitude of sentient beings vied to arise, their consciousnesses racing together, sinking and floating in the river of craving and desire, galloping along the tracks of birth and death. Causes and retributions are so tangled that piled-up ink cannot distinguish them; the cycle of conditions and retaliations is such that accumulated dust cannot count it. The Buddhas of the past and the Buddhas of the future, reward bodies and transformation bodies, have each turned back those straying on their course, and all have rescued those sinking and perishing, opening the three clarities to deliver the common run, approaching the eight sufferings to proclaim compassion. Grand indeed is Amitābha! Early on he gathered a pure land, brought forth vast vows, and manifested great bright light; having laid open the gate of expedient means, he further unfolded the path of resonant communion. Once the ten recitations are accomplished, one is instantly drawn down upon the golden ground; when the nine classes attain rebirth in the Pure Land, they abruptly roam together in the silver realm. The principle transcends distant kalpas, and the facts are verified boundlessly: Dao'an profoundly praised it in Qin, and Huiyuan first disseminated it at the end of the Jin. From then on down to the present, all have praised that earlier voice. But as for one who could shoulder the succession and exaltation, distantly receive the entrustment, contemplate fulfilling the past Dharma, and bring about ultimate completion for future times—unfolding the profound tenets from the string of flowers and praising the subtle words from the palm leaves—was that not Master Huaigan alone? The Master, [realising that] what originally did not exist now exists, and once born one must pass away, had firm and upright power of faith and pure and strict grades of precepts. When the texts of the *Dhūta* were proclaimed, his reputation spread; when the tenets of the vinaya were expounded, his fame raced forth. Although his eloquent explanation was inexhaustible, he feared that spoken words would become an encumbrance; he contemplated refining his spirit to cease outer limits, waiting upon concentration to preserve his light. Abandoning the lingering tracks of doctrinal study, he then sincerely sought [the truth] and attained realization. His frosted resolution specially burst forth, his stride on ice transcended alone; his achievement accorded with principle, and his capacity converged with the spirit. Composing his countenance and proceeding to tranquility, he then had an audience with Anyang. As the Master's intention returned to the true, he was indeed a holy companion of avaivartikas; although his contemplation preserved signs, his feeling and essence were without attachment, recognized by the multitude and revered by the world. Although the victory banner had been erected, the fortress of Māra was still high; failing to awaken to the draw of holy power, many were confounded by common tracks: blue eyes glared like ospreys at it, and red beards bristled like hedgehogs over it. At first they attacked it as wrong, and subsequently they insulted and slandered it; those who challenged to battle followed in each other's tracks, and the faction laying ambushes stood shoulder to shoulder. The Master first relied on inexhaustible wealth, and next commanded unprecedented words; no sooner had the great bell vibrated than the short weapons were already routed: the leader who burned his beard broke his horns, and the companions with belly plates shed their bowels. Those whose collars were bent pulled down their flags to plead for life; those who swallowed defeat offered their coffins and returned to the West. The army of Anyang announced victory; the troops of pratyutpanna were at peace once more. To give form to the dynamics of these questions and answers, he thereupon produced this treatise resolving doubts. When they met at dawn, they gave free rein to their passions and vied to advance. The questions, being straight as awls, aroused the mind; the answers, also advancing like spearpoints, pierced the skull. Thus where there was doubt, there had to be a question, and no question from the guests was not deep; where there was a question, there had to be an answer, and no answer from the host was not apt. Relying on the provisional to proclaim the real, his words were venerated by the four assemblies; accessing birth to declare the constant, the principle was recompensed by the five orders. Truly, this is the easy path of rebirth in the Pure Land, the pavilion-highway to the pure realm. Before the arrangement of the text was completed, the Master was transformed as soon as the work was achieved, leaving behind repeated compilations. There was Master Huaiyun: Huaiyun and Master Huaigan were both foot-disciples of Master Dao. In the four dhyānas they were both tranquil, and in the ten victor-stages they were equally exalted; the depth of their accord and realization—how could it stop at roaming together in the seven purifications? The weight of their conditioning and practice—how could it merely be advancing together toward the One Vehicle? Dim years are easily hidden; the senior passed away first. The three gates were left in vain, and the seven assemblies shared the grief. Huaiyun, having completed this book of noble words from his old friend, dared to circulate this treatise resolving doubts left by his departed companion. Taking Meng Xian of Pingchang as one who early on cultivated pure karma, he relied on him to write a preface, serving to propagate it widely. I have ventured to put together these unpolished lines to make known this precious treasure, stated as seven fascicles and proclaimed as a single work. So it is said.
1.4
Composed by Huaigan, Bhadanta of Qianfu Monastery in the Western Capital
1.5
Question: How many bodies does a Buddha have? How many kinds of pure lands are there?
1.6
Explanation: A Buddha has three bodies, and lands are of three kinds. The three bodies are: first, the dharmatā-kāya; second, the sambhogakāya; third, the nirmāṇakāya. The three kinds of lands are: first, the dharmatā-kṣetra; second, the saṃbhoga-kṣetra; third, the nirmāṇa-kṣetra. The dharmatā-kāya abides in the dharmatā-kṣetra; the sambhogakāya abides in the saṃbhoga-kṣetra; the nirmāṇakāya abides in the nirmāṇa-kṣetra. Both the dharmatā-kāya and its land take tathatā, the pure dharmadhātu, as their essential nature. As the Prajñā says: 'The marvelous essence of that Tathāgata is indeed the dharmakāya Buddhas.' As Mañjuśrī's homage in the Dharmadhātuprakṛti Sūtra says: 'Without color and without form or sign, without faculties and without abode, because it is neither born nor extinguished, I pay homage to that which is unobservable, and so forth.' The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'Just as when one observes the true nature of one's own body, observing the Buddha is also like this.' Regarding the dharmatā-kṣetra, the Prajñā says: 'What is called adorning the Buddha lands is no adornment.' Moreover, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'Although one knows that the Buddha lands and sentient beings are empty,' and also says: 'All Buddha lands are likewise empty,' and also says: 'The Buddha lands of the ten directions are all like empty space; though one knows body and land are both one tathatā.' Now, tathatā is neither one nor different; as for saying that the dharmatā-kāya abides in the dharmatā-kṣetra, this refers to the meaning of the nature of awareness and illumination as 'body', and the real principle-essence of phenomena as 'land'; this is spoken from the approach of conventional, posited truth. Second, regarding the saṃbhoga body and land, there are two kinds: first, the svasaṃbhoga body and land; second, the parasaṃbhoga body and land. As for the svasaṃbhoga body and land, through the bodhisattva's practice of the eighty-four thousand pāramitā practices, cultivating to perfection the fruit-virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges, benefiting oneself and benefiting others, the four wisdoms being fully rounded and the five aggregates purified, this constitutes the essence of the svasaṃbhoga body; that is, the subtle, all-pervading, vast, and pure four dusts manifested upon wisdom, which only a Buddha and a Buddha can know and see. The locus on which the svasaṃbhoga body relies constitutes the essence of the svasaṃbhoga-kṣetra. As for the parasaṃbhoga body and land, for the sake of the great bodhisattvas from the prathamā bhūmi and above, the samatājñāna stirs the altruistic virtues of the ādarśajñāna, and according to what is appropriate manifests a portion of subtle signs, which constitutes the essential nature of the parasaṃbhoga body and land. As for the nirmāṇa body and land, for the sake of bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis and the pṛthagjanas of the two vehicles, the kṛtyānuṣṭhānajñāna stirs the altruistic virtues of the ādarśajñāna, and according to what is appropriate manifests a portion of coarse signs, which constitutes the essential nature of the nirmāṇa body and land. The essential nature of these two lands, saṃbhoga and nirmāṇa, has three aspects: first, the essence of gathering phenomena back to the real; second, the essence of gathering signs back to the mind; third, the essence of explaining the root and branches distinctly. Regarding the essence of gathering phenomena back to the real: all conditioned phenomena take tathatā as their essence. These two lands, reward and transformation, precisely take tathatā as their essence. Second, regarding the essence of gathering signs back to the mind: these two lands, reward and transformation, are both manifested by the pure mind of the Tathāgatas and others. Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'In accordance with the purity of their minds, the Buddha land is pure.' This is what the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and other texts explain: all the myriad phenomena are not separate from one's own mind. Third, regarding the essence of explaining the root and branches distinctly: both of these two pure lands take ornamentation with various jewels as their essence.
1.7
Question: In which of the three kinds of lands is this western Sukhāvatī currently subsumed?
1.8
Explanation: There are three explanations of this. First, it is a parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra: because the Buddha's body is sixty trillion nayutas of Ganges sands of yojanas in height, because there are many ekajātipratibaddhas within it, because there is no suffering whatsoever and only the experience of various pleasures, and so forth, it is exclusively a parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra. Second, it is said that it is exclusively a nirmāṇa-kṣetra: What sacred teaching states that if the Buddha is sixty trillion nayutas of Ganges sands of yojanas in height, it proves that it is a parasaṃbhoga body and land? What prevents a transformation body in a pure land from being sixty trillion nayutas of Ganges sands of yojanas in height? Since texts like the Guan jing all speak of pṛthagjana sentient beings attaining rebirth in the Pure Land, we know that it is a nirmāṇa-kṣetra. Third, it is common to both lands: those prior to the bhūmis see a nirmāṇa-kṣetra, and those on the bhūmis see a parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra; occupying the same single place, each according to their own mind sees differently, so it is common to both lands. For this reason, the sūtra states that this Amitābha is not the domain of pṛthagjanas, and that they should perform the contemplation of the sixteen-foot [body].
1.9
Question: Regarding the first explanation above, if it is a parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra, how can pṛthagjanas prior to the bhūmis be born there? If it is a nirmāṇa-kṣetra, how can holy persons on the bhūmis be born there?
1.10
Explanation: Considering those bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis, śrāvakas, and pṛthagjanas, who have not yet realized all-pervading tathatā and have not yet severed the two grasping views of self and phenomena, their conscious minds are coarse and inferior. The pure lands they transform cannot be identical to the exquisitely subtle saṃbhoga pure lands transformed by the subtle, wise minds of the great bodhisattvas on the bhūmis. However, by the dominant conditioning power of Amitābha Buddha’s extraordinary fundamental vow, although the conscious minds of those bodhisattvas of lesser practice prior to the bhūmis and others are inferior, through relying on the superior power of the Tathāgata’s fundamental vow they are still able to share in the pure land transformed by the bodhisattvas on the bhūmis, and can also perceive its exquisite subtlety, vastness, and pure adornment; therefore it is said that they are born in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra. The Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra and other texts say, ‘Those from the prathamā bhūmi and above are born in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra, whereas bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis are born in the nirmāṇa-kṣetra.’ This is stated in terms of distinguishing between residing prior to the bhūmis and residing on the bhūmis in the two lands according to self-power, and is not spoken based on the extraordinary conditions of another’s power and specific vows. Just as treatises say that the fleshy eye sees only form within obstructions, sees only the desire realm and does not see the form realm, and knows only by apprehension at a distance, not by apprehension in contact. Yet the Lotus Sūtra says, ‘With the pure fleshy eye born of one’s father and mother, one sees Mount Meru and so forth, within and without, up to the forms of the Akaniṣṭha Heaven.’ Is this not the fleshy eye being able to see forms beyond obstructions and the like, as well as seeing the forms of the devas of the form realm? Furthermore, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and other texts say, ‘Just as a person looking into a mirror sees his own face, because there is no face-image in that mirror, he should see the black and white pupils of his own face.’ Since these supporting physical elements are in contact with the visual faculty, how could he see those form-particles of the supporting faculty? Is this not knowledge in contact? If one says that it sees the form realm beyond obstructions and its own form-particles of the supporting faculty, it contradicts the treatises. If it does not see them, it then contradicts the sūtra texts. Therefore, one knows that the masters of the Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra spoke according to the general rule of one's own causes, and did not speak based on another's extraordinary power and specific conditions; and the form produced by meditative mastery is not form-matter [in the ordinary sense], and is not fit to be seen by the eye. Yet if one attains samādhi of great majestic virtue, the form produced by meditative mastery that is transformed can then be seen by the human eyes of a pṛthagjana. Here it is also like this: through the power of the fundamental vow, he causes those bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis and others to be born in the saṃbhoga-kṣetra; one must not rigidly determine that they cannot be born there. Furthermore, as the ninth visualization of the Guan jing states: ‘Amitābha Buddha’s true gold-coloured body is six hundred billion nayutas of Ganges sands of yojanas tall, with eighty-four thousand marks and signs.’ This is strictly the parasaṃbhogakāya Buddha, which is not something that those prior to the bhūmis can visualize and see. The subsequent text states: ‘Yet by the power of that Tathāgata’s past vows, anyone who contemplates him will certainly attain accomplishment.’ Thus one knows that by mounting the power of the past vows one visualizes and sees the saṃbhoga body, and also by mounting the power of the past vows one is born in the saṃbhoga-kṣetra. In the Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra, this question is also raised: ‘It was previously said that the pure land has the most utterly sovereign pure consciousness as its characteristic; how is it that there are śrāvakas and others in the assembly without contradiction?’ What contradiction is there? The various śrāvakas see in the same way as the bodhisattvas; because they see in the same way as the bodhisattvas, they hear the wondrous Dharma being expounded. One treatise master said: ‘Or again, the Tathāgata’s spiritual power sustains them, causing them to temporarily be able to see and hear the wondrous Dharma being expounded. This is the Tathāgata’s inconceivable power; it cannot be challenged on the basis of faculties, bhūmi levels, and so on.’ What this master meant is that when the Buddhabhūmi Sūtra was expounded in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra, the śrāvakas and others saw that pure land and heard the Buddhabhūmi Sūtra through the Tathāgata’s inconceivable power. That was a temporary teaching circumstance causing them to see it for a short time. Here, however, it is the inconceivable power of the fundamental vow causing them also to attain rebirth; what fault is there in this?
1.11
Question: If so, this also entails a fault. Those prior to the bhūmis ought not to be born in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra, yet if it is acceptable that they attain rebirth by mounting the fundamental vow, then those on the bhūmis ought not to be born in the svasaṃbhoga-kṣetra, yet they should also attain rebirth by mounting the fundamental vow.
1.12
Answer: The svasaṃbhoga-kṣetra is designated as ‘for oneself’; one cannot mount a vow to let another use it. The parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra is already ‘for others’; by mounting that superior condition, one can also attain rebirth. Furthermore, the svasaṃbhoga-kṣetra is exceedingly subtle; one cannot mount a vow and attain rebirth [there]. The parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra is manifested for others; even though it is subtle, it allows those below to see it. Furthermore, the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra has a fundamental vow; mounting its fundamental vow, pṛthagjanas can attain rebirth. The svasaṃbhoga-kṣetra has no fundamental vow; for this reason it does not allow bodhisattvas to see it.
1.13
Question: If the svasaṃbhoga-kṣetra is designated as ‘for oneself’, and another could also attain rebirth there, the meaning of ‘for oneself’ would not stand. If the svasaṃbhoga-kṣetra is seen by buddhas together, then when other buddhas can see it, there is no meaning of ‘for oneself’.
1.14
Answer: A buddha is the body of ultimate liberation; fully realizing oneness, other and self correspond. Bodhisattvas have not yet eliminated their afflictive obscurations; they cannot be born in a buddha's self-land. There are many such questions and answers, which cannot be detailed one by one; the wise should contemplate them according to the meaning. Furthermore, even if bodhisattvas prior to the bhūmis and others, through the objective aspect of their own consciousness, see a coarse-featured pure land and do not see the exquisitely subtle, pure land as the jeweled land of exquisite purity seen by the bodhisattvas, nevertheless, because they enjoy the joy of the Dharma like the great bodhisattvas, without any sorrow or suffering of body and mind, having only immeasurable, pure joy, without fear or joy, or generating revulsion, or severing doubts, it may therefore also be termed being born in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra. Furthermore, the Treatise on the Awakening of Faith says: ‘What is seen from the first aspiration of the mind up to the ultimate bhūmi-mind of a bodhisattva is called the saṃbhogakāya.’ This text of the treatise already accommodates those prior to the bhūmis being able to see the parasaṃbhogakāya. If they are able to see the parasaṃbhogakāya, what is to prevent them from attaining rebirth in the parasaṃbhoga-kṣetra? By this single meaning, it resolves what was explained by one master of the Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra; alternatively, the passage in the Awakening of Faith is spoken based on seeing the Buddha upon the realization of the aspiration to awakening on the prathamā bhūmi and above. As for the statement that bodhisattvas on the bhūmis are born in the nirmāṇa-kṣetra: here, manifesting a single body in principle accommodates both saṃbhoga and nirmāṇa; what is to prevent each from being seen differently according to suitability, with ordinary and noble beings differing? Those below cannot be born in the superior saṃbhoga-kṣetra of those above, because those below cannot see the superior and wondrous land. Moreover, their karma is weak and inferior, so they cannot attain rebirth; those above can see those below, and in order to guide and receive pṛthagjanas prior to the bhūmis, they are born in the nirmāṇa-kṣetra—what impediment is there to this? Furthermore, when bodhisattvas on the bhūmis are born in the nirmāṇa-kṣetra, they are all transformation bodies, and there is no fault in this either.
1.15
Question: Since Sukhāvatī is conceded to allow pṛthagjanas to be reborn there, we do not know: is it an impure land, or is it a pure land free of outflows?
1.16
Explanation: In the land transformed by the Tathāgata, the Buddha’s mind is free of outflows, and the land is likewise free of outflows. The minds of pṛthagjanas have not yet attained freedom from outflows; relying upon that land of the Tathāgata free of outflows, their own minds transform and manifest an outflow-bound land, and they are born within it. If spoken with reference to the Tathāgata’s original land, it can also be named rebirth in a land free of outflows. If spoken with reference to enjoying the land transformed by their own minds, it can also be said that they are born in an outflow-bound land. Although it has outflows, because it is transformed and manifested relying on the Tathāgata’s land free of outflows, it resembles the Buddha's state free of outflows extremely closely and is also without any evil faults or calamities.
1.17
Question: If it is an outflow-bound land, which realm among the three realms subsumes it?
1.18
Explanation: There are two explanations. First, the outflow-bound pure land is subsumed under the desire and form realms, because the mind with outflows is not separate from the five realms. The three realms are precisely that which has outflows, and that which has outflows is precisely the three realms. Since it is said to have outflows, it is subsumed under the three realms. If one has not yet detached from the desires of the desire realm, and through the innate good or skillful good of the desire realm, one recites the Mahāyāna Vaipulya sūtras, cultivates the threefold blessed actions, and also the sixteen visualizations and so forth, through these roots of good being born in the pure land, that which is transformed by this mind is subsumed under the desire realm. If one has already detached from desire and attained a mind of the form realm, cultivating the sixteen visualizations and being born in the pure land, it is subsumed under the form realm. Therefore, that pure land pertains to both the desire and form realms. Beings of the formless realm have no actual physical form that could be born in the pure land. Because the pure land is adorned with many jewels, it is actually not subsumed under the formless realm; that it is manifested by a meditative mind is logically plausible. That which is on the jeweled ground of that pure land belongs to the desire realm; that which is in empty space belongs to the heavens of desire and form. Therefore, in the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, Ānanda said to the Buddha: ‘If that buddha-realm has no Mount Meru, upon what do its Four Heavenly Kings and the Trāyastriṃśa devas reside?’ The Buddha said to Ānanda: ‘Upon what do the devas from the third Yāma Heaven up to the Akaniṣṭha Heaven reside?’ Ānanda said to the Buddha: ‘The fruitional retribution of karmic activity is inconceivable.’ The Buddha said to Ānanda: ‘The fruitional retribution of karmic activity is inconceivable, and the realms of the buddhas are also inconceivable. Those various beings reside in the grounds of karmic activity through the power of merits and wholesome roots; therefore it can be so.’ The lower fascicle states that at that time the Buddha told Ānanda: ‘Do you see that realm, from the ground up to the Śuddhāvāsa Heavens, wherein there are subtle, adorned, pure, spontaneous things? Do you see them all or not?’ Based on this, one knows that the pure land transformed by the mind with outflows is subsumed under the desire and form realms. The second explanation is that although it is a pure land transformed by [a mind] with outflows, it cannot be called subsumed under the three realms.
1.19
Question: Since it is transformed by a conscious mind with outflows, and the mind with outflows is subsumed under the three realms, there is no mind with outflows that transcends subsumption under the three realms. Since the mind is subsumed under the three realms, how could the manifested pure land not belong to the three realms?
1.20
Explanation: Although we know that the essential nature of having outflows does not transcend the three realms, nevertheless, by a special meaning, it can only be named as having outflows, and cannot be named as the three realms; thus the name ‘three realms’ is narrow, while the name ‘having outflows’ is broad. Just as when a pṛthagjana attains rebirth in the Western direction, it is not subsumed under the five destinies. Thus the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra says: ‘Transversely cutting off the five evil destinies, the evil destinies naturally close.’ Also, the Amitābha Sūtra says: ‘In that buddha-realm there are no three evil destinies,’ and so forth. Furthermore, the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra says: ‘The sentient beings of that realm are neither devas nor humans; because of conforming to other regions, they have the designations of humans and devas.’ Therefore one knows that in that land there are no five destinies. Since it is conceded that those born are pṛthagjanas and yet are not subsumed under the five destinies, what is to prevent the land from being named as having outflows and yet not being subsumed under the three realms?
1.21
Question: Whether the pṛthagjanas in that land are humans or devas, what contradiction is there in the meaning? The sūtra text only says there are no three evil destinies; what is to prevent there being human and deva destinies? When the sūtra says they are neither devas nor humans, this speaks of the great bodhisattvas and others as being neither devas nor humans, having the names of humans and devas merely in conformity with other regions, and is not spoken with reference to the pṛthagjanas who attain rebirth. For pṛthagjanas born there to be either in the human destiny or the deva destiny is logically without contradiction.
1.22
Answer: If pṛthagjanas who attain rebirth in the Pure Land belong to the human or deva destinies, then if it is the human destiny, the human destinies are four: are they humans of southern Jambudvīpa, or of the eastern and western two continents, or the human destiny of northern Uttarakuru? If it is the deva destiny, is it from the devas of the Four Heavenly Kings up to the Akaniṣṭha Heaven of the form realm? If they are the human destiny of the four continents, then northern Uttarakuru should be the obstacle of Uttarakuru among the eight difficulties. If it were the form realm and so forth, it should be the obstacle of the long-lived devas. These are places of difficulty; how could it be called a pure land and sentient beings be encouraged to be reborn there? If you say it is the human destiny but cannot be called humans of the four continents, etc., and can also be called the deva destiny but not the devas of the Four Heavenly Kings, etc., if that is so, is there another human destiny outside the four continents? Is there another deva destiny outside the devas of the Four Heavenly Kings, etc.? If you say there is, why then are sentient beings of the Pure Land humans and devas, but not the humans and devas of the four continents, etc.? Likewise, there is a Pure Land that is contaminated without being contaminated within the three realms—what fault is there in that principle? If you say that outside the human destinies of the four continents, etc., there is no other human destiny, and outside the devas of the Four Heavenly Kings, etc., there is no other deva destiny, so that pṛthagjanas in the Pure Land can also be called pṛthagjanas but cannot be called the human destiny or deva destiny, then what prevents the Pure Land from also being called contaminated, yet not called the three realms? Illustrating these three realms by analogy with those five destinies, the meaning is clear and one should not be deluded or adhere [to extremes]. Furthermore, among dharmalakṣaṇas there are broader and narrower [categories]: just as "world" is broad and "contaminated" is narrow, "contaminated" is broad and "three realms" is narrow, "three realms" is broad and "four modes of birth" is narrow, and "four modes of birth" is broad and "five destinies" is narrow. How so? Just as the defiled and evil lands transformed by the Tathāgata, though resembling the three realms, are not like the three realms; though uncontaminated, they are called "world"—this is "world" being broad and "contaminated" being narrow. As for "contaminated" being broad and "three realms" being narrow: this is the Pure Land manifested by the contaminated, conscious minds of pṛthagjanas and the like; it can also be called contaminated, but cannot be called the three realms. Therefore, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "The Pure Land is not the three realms: having no desire, it is not the desire realm; dwelling on the ground, it is not the form realm; having form, it is not the formless realm." The intended meaning of this treatise is not that the Pure Land manifested by the uncontaminated, conscious mind is called transcending the three realms, but rather that the receptacle world manifested by the contaminated, conscious mind—its layout, functioning, establishment, and the benefiting and delighting of sentient beings—is not the same as the characteristics of these three realms, and therefore is called "not the three realms." As for "three realms" being broad and "four modes of birth" being narrow: the four modes of birth include only the sentient world of the five vipāka-skandhas, whereas the three realms pervade the three natures and the receptacle world; hence "three realms" is broad and "four modes of birth" is narrow. As for "four modes of birth" being broad and "five destinies" being narrow: the intermediate state (antarābhava) is apparitional birth (upapāduka) but is not the five destinies, and sentient beings of the Pure Land are apparitional birth, not a destiny. Such differences in the breadth of names and essential nature exist in these sūtras and treatises; how could the statement that the Pure Land is transformed by the contaminated, conscious mind force it to be subsumed within the three realms? Furthermore, just as the eighth consciousness has three names—first, ālaya; second, ādāna; third, vipāka—if one attains the fruit of arhat or pratyekabuddha, and for all eighth consciousnesses of bodhisattvas who have entered the eighth bhūmi, it is only called ādāna and vipāka, and cannot be called ālaya. Could one, on the grounds that it lacks the name ālaya, thereby assert that an arhat has no eighth consciousness to uphold the seeds of all dharmas? How could it be that, because of the absence of the name "three realms," pṛthagjana sentient beings reborn in the Pure Land would have their contaminated, conscious minds not transform, enjoying various Mahāyāna Dharma delights in the pure Buddha land? Furthermore, relying on the Tathāgata's uncontaminated Pure Land, although they manifest their pure land with a contaminated mind, yet this pure land derives from the nature and characteristics of that land; the land is also not bound by objective conditioning (ālambanabandhana) or corresponding binding (saṃprayuktabandhana), and defilements do not increase. Just as when a contaminated mind takes the truths of cessation and the path as objects, defilements do not increase, just as gazing at the solar disc impairs the visual faculty. Therefore, it is not the three realms, nor do the defilements bound to the three realms increase.
1.23
Question: If it is not granted to be subsumed under the desire and form realms, why does the *Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* say, "up to the Śuddhāvāsa devas," and so forth?
1.24
Answer: These are provisionally established as devas; they cannot immediately be real devas divided into the desire and form realms. If they were real devas, being transformed by the Tathāgata's pure mind, how could they be subsumed under the desire and form realms? Furthermore, if it were the form realm, would the desire devas below be superior or inferior? If inferior, how could the form realm conversely be inferior to the desire realm? If superior, just as in this Sahā world the desire and form realms differ in superiority and inferiority, and sentient beings of desire and form have distinctions of excellence and deficiency, so too in that land those born in the form realm would be superior to those born in the desire realm. Why, then, would the forty-eight great vows state: "If the humans and devas in my land should differ in form and colour, having the beautiful and the ugly, may I not attain correct enlightenment"? Since that form-realm appearance would be superior to the desire-realm appearance, how could they be said to be identical? Therefore, we know they are conventionally designated as Śuddhāvāsa devas, etc., and are not really the desire and form realms. Between the two preceding explanations, the first explanation is correct. The substance of the vipāka consciousness is a real sentient being; since sentient beings and bodhisattvas born there have not yet extinguished vipāka, how could they be said not to be real devas and humans?
1.25
Question: If the Pure Land transformed by pṛthagjanas is contaminated and not karmically generated by the three realms, and those born there differ from other humans and devas who create evil and undergo suffering results, they are said not to be humans and devas. Just as the *Śrīmālā Sūtra* says: "Inconceivable transformation death (pariṇāmikīcyuti) is not subsumed under the three realms; it is not the real retribution of saṃsāra, but apparitional birth, not the human and deva destinies"—we do not yet know whether the apparitionally born pṛthagjanas of the Pure Land are not of the three realms. The *Yingluo jing* says that the claim that there are sentient beings outside the three realms is the doctrine of Master Anduo of the kingdom of Bimbisāra, not taught by the Buddha. Therefore, are they bodies of the three realms, or truly not bodies of the three realms? Based on this latter interpretation, this question is asked again.
1.26
Explanation: What doubt is there here that prompts asking this again? Although the receptacle world of the Pure Land is transformed by the contaminated, conscious mind, it cannot be called the three realms; this is the meaning of "contaminated" being broad and "three realms" being narrow. Pṛthagjanas of the Pure Land are only called apparitionally born sentient beings, and cannot be called the two destinies of humans and devas; this is "four modes of birth" being broad and "five destinies" being narrow. The present case is also like this: although it is the contaminated body of a pṛthagjana, it cannot be called a body of the three realms.
1.27
Question: This point is even more difficult. If that were so, then the body would not be a body of the three realms, and the karma would not be karma of the three realms. If the karma is not of the three realms, while in the Sahā [world] one is filial to parents, cultivates the three merits, and performs karma such as the sixteen contemplations and buddhānusmṛti. When such karma arises, if one has not yet attained the form-realm mind, it is the mind of innate wholesome [roots], hearing-derived wisdom, and thinking-derived wisdom of the desire realm; if one attains form-realm concentration, it is the cultivation-derived wisdom mind of the form realm. Having been born into the form realm, vowing to be reborn in the West is the mind of innate wholesome [roots], hearing-derived wisdom, and cultivation-derived wisdom of the form realm; an uncontaminated mind cannot karmically produce retribution. Since karma is subsumed under its respective realm, when karma brings about retribution, it must still be contained within the three realms. Cause and effect are certain; how could one contradict this principle and say that rebirth in the Pure Land is not a body of the three realms?
1.28
Explanation: The earlier statement that it is contaminated yet not of the three realms has already been extensively established. This merely loses the name without losing the substance; what error is there in this that you question it yet again? Although we know that at the time of creating karma, this karma is a contaminated wholesome mind of the desire and form realms, the retribution karmically produced by this contaminated wholesome mind is the form of the Pure Land, and is not called being subsumed under the desire and form realms. And since this karmic retribution subsumes the cause within the fruit, it cannot be called karma of the desire and form realms; it can only be called the karma of the Pure Land. If you say that a body of the desire or form realm gives rise to a mind of the desire or form realm and creates karma, how could it not be desire or form karma? The retribution of humans and devas produced by desire-realm karma lasts at most no more than sixteen thousand years; yet if it produces the Pure Land, one thereupon attains a lifespan of immeasurable, boundless asaṃkhyeya kalpas. How could desire-realm karma produce a life of immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas? This is also by relying on the inconceivable power of Amitābha Buddha's great vows, which causes that karmic power to produce an exceedingly long retribution, beyond the reckoning of pṛthagjanas. The scriptural texts are clear and cannot but be believed. The principles and purports of the Mahāyāna are difficult to understand; the realm of the Buddhas is beyond the conjecture of ordinary beings. One need only have reverent faith and devote oneself sincerely to cultivation and learning; one must not strictly define right and wrong based on individual dharmalakṣaṇas, debating whether it is the three realms or not the three realms.
1.29
Question: Regarding the Pure Land in which pṛthagjana sentient beings are reborn, since pṛthagjanas have not yet attained an uncontaminated, pure mind, the land transformed according to their mind is still contaminated. A contaminated land is called a defiled realm; how can one also speak of rebirth in a pure land?
1.30
Explanation: There are many kinds of purity: real purity, semblance purity, ultimate purity, and non-ultimate purity. Real purity refers to the uncontaminated wholesome mind. Semblance purity refers to the contaminated wholesome mind. Ultimate purity refers to the Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones. Non-ultimate purity refers to those from the tenth bhūmi downward to pṛthagjanas. There is purity of substance with defilement of appearance; defilement of substance with purity of appearance; purity of both substance and appearance; and defilement of both substance and appearance. Purity of substance with defilement of appearance means that because the Buddha's mind is uncontaminated and pure, the land manifested is likewise pure; yet the manifested land displays defiled characteristics, hence it is called purity of substance with defilement of appearance. Therefore, the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra* says: "In order to deliver these lowly people, he manifests this defiled land of various evils." Defilement of substance with purity of appearance means: as with the fundamental consciousness and the contaminated sixth and seventh consciousnesses from the tenth bhūmi downward, along with all the contaminated minds of pṛthagjanas prior to the bhūmis, because the pure land manifested is contaminated, it is called defilement of substance; because, relying on the Tathāgata's pure Buddha land, their own consciousness transforms and manifests the appearance of a semblance pure land, it is called purity of appearance. Purity of both substance and appearance means: as with the pure land manifested in the uncontaminated minds of the Buddhas and those from the tenth bhūmi downward, it is called purity of both substance and appearance. Defilement of both substance and appearance means: as with defiled lands manifested by contaminated minds, and so forth. Now, although those who attain rebirth in the West are pṛthagjanas, they belong to the second category above: defilement of substance with purity of appearance.
1.31
Question: As the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra* says: "If a bodhisattva wishes to attain rebirth in a pure land, he should purify his mind; according as his mind is purified, the Buddha land is purified." This scriptural passage on purifying the mind only applies to bodhisattvas of the tenth bhūmi to be called a pure mind; how could pṛthagjanas immediately wish to be reborn in a pure land? If you say they attain rebirth in a pure land, one should say they have already purified their mind. Moreover, for fully bound pṛthagjanas, the various afflictions of view and cultivation arise in confusion and contention without ceasing for a moment; now, since they have not purified their mind, how can they attain rebirth in a pure land?
1.32
I explain: Pure lands are of many kinds, not of a single mode. There is the fundamentally ultimate pure mind, and there is the not-yet-ultimate pure mind; there is the pure mind with outflows, and there is the pure mind without outflows; there is the pure mind with characteristics, and there is the pure mind without characteristics; there is the pure mind that suppresses manifest activity, and there is the pure mind that severs seeds; there is the pure mind by self-power, and there is the pure mind by other-power. Their meanings are manifold and cannot be made into an objection. The Buddhas, Tathāgatas, adapt to faculties when teaching the Dharma: sometimes speaking from the perspective of the ultimate, sometimes speaking from the perspective of the not-yet-ultimate; teachings such as these have indefinite purport. One must not rely solely on the text of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra speaking of the ultimate pure mind—that at the stage of the ten bhūmis, when the mind is pure, the land is pure—and thereby disbelieve the Guan jing that by suppressing manifest defilements and relying upon other-power one attains rebirth in the Western direction, saying that if the mind is not pure one is not born in a pure land. For instance, just as a person who has attained supernormal powers is only then able to soar into the sky, what prevents someone who has not yet attained supernormal powers from also soaring into the sky by relying on one who has attained them? Furthermore, what that text calls 'pure' refers to the ultimate pure mind being able to manifest an outflow-free pure land for other sentient beings. The present rebirth in the pure land means manifesting that pure land by relying upon the Buddha's pure characteristics. That is the root and this is the branch; one relies on the other and the other is relied upon. The ways of master and disciple differ, and so superior and inferior are distinguished. That text speaks according to the superior, while this one treats the lower; they do not obstruct each other.
1.33
Question: In the place of that Western Pure Land, is there also an impure land or not? If there is, how can it be called a pure land? If there is not, it is also like the thousand-petaled lotus flower of Rocana Buddha: upon each and every petal are ten billion lands, and every one of these lands is an impure land. How is it that upon the pure petals of the seat of the flower king upon which Rocana Buddha sits in the Lotus Treasury World, there are impure lands? Moreover, Śāriputra saw impurity while the Brahmā King saw purity; both pure and impure lands appeared in the same place. Why then does Sukhāvatī have only a pure land and no impure land?
1.34
I explain: There are two explanations for this. One says that Sukhāvatī has only a pure land, and in that place there is no characteristic of an impure land, because that pure land is supremely pure and wondrous. If there were one, there would be the fault of its being both pure and impure. Furthermore, material phenomena are obstructive and cannot occupy the same place; the two characteristics of impurity and purity cannot be manifest at the same time because they are mutually incompatible and because of the fault of confusion; and texts such as the Guan jing have never mentioned this, nor is there such a vow among the forty-eight vows. If there were, the sentient beings reborn there should also be born in it and should also see it. Since they are not born in it and do not see it, we know it does not exist. Another explanation says that there is also an impure land, and they do not obstruct each other in the same place at the same time. To say that two material phenomena cannot accommodate each other is the non-definitive teaching of the Hīnayāna. Since both pure and impure lands pervade the ten directions without limit, right where this impure land is, there is a pure land. Just as the pure flower-king seat of Rocana has the manifestations of hundreds of billions of impure lands, in all cases where there is a pure place there is impurity, and where there is an impure place there is purity; they do not defile each other and do not obstruct each other, differing in purity and impurity each according to what is seen, differing in pure land and impure land each according to where one is born. Objections such as the previous one are all Hīnayāna; the Mahāyāna school does not speak like this. As explained extensively in texts such as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and various Mahāyāna sūtras, it need not be related at length. Although we know that pure and impure in the same place can be established, nevertheless, that Western direction is solely pure and not impure, because sentient beings with impure minds are not born there. The sūtras speak only of purity and do not speak of impure characteristics, in order to cause sentient beings in other directions to desire rebirth there.
1.35
Question: As Dharma Master Dao'an's Treatise on the Pure Land says: Are the two lands, pure and impure, one substance perceived differently? Are they different substances perceived differently? Or are they perceived without substance? His explanation states: 'Because being one substance cannot be established, purity and impurity wax and wane; because being different substances cannot be established, when searching into the profound, they merge; because being without substance cannot be established, dependent arising forms myriad shapes.' Although there is this explanation, the meaning of the text is abstruse and hidden. Please elucidate it and expound the profound principle at length.
1.36
I explain: Dharma Master Dao'an had an open and enlightened intelligence, and a spirited, refined mind. In composing this treatise, he plumbed its deep purport with wondrous insight. At that time, the texts and meanings of the Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises were not yet fully available, yet he was already able to make such inquiries; he was truly the 印手 Bodhisattva. He may be said to have hewn a road through the wilderness to open a track, and marked the profound purport upon the emptiness of nature. Nevertheless, the text is hidden and the meaning deep, so readers rarely understand its intent. I shall now expound its meaning for you at length. The two lands, pure and impure, arise from pure and impure karma, causing their own minds to transform and manifest as pure and impure characteristics. These pure and impure characteristics are manifested by pure and impure minds: when the mind is pure, the land is pure; when the mind is impure, the land is impure; each derives from its own mind. Since the minds are different, how could the lands be called one? Therefore it is said: 'Because being one substance cannot be established, purity and impurity wax and wane.' Before the Buddha pressed the earth with his toe, impurity waxed and purity waned. After the Buddha pressed the earth with his toe, purity waxed and impurity waned. As the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra states: 'Thus we know that the two minds of Śāriputra and the Brahmā King were each different, and the lands manifested had differences of pure and impure.' They cannot be said to be one; therefore it is said: 'Because being one substance cannot be established, purity and impurity wax and wane.' Although the two minds, pure and impure, manifest the two lands, pure and impure, and the minds have two substances and the lands form two characteristics, nevertheless they do not obstruct each other in the same place at the same time. One cannot say that where there is a pure place there is no impurity, and where there is an impure place there is no purity, manifesting in distinct places and possessing obstruction. Because pure and impure manifest in the same place at the same time, therefore it is said: 'Because being different substances cannot be established, when searching into the profound, they merge.' 'To search' means to seek out. 'Profound' means abstruse and deep. When one searches out its abstruse and profound import, the two characteristics of pure and impure merge and exist in the same single place; they cannot be divided into two locations. Strictly speaking, it should say: 'Although being different substances is established, when searching into the profound, they merge.' This Dharma Master had not yet fully understood the meaning of consciousness-only, and therefore because they are in the same single place, he stated that being different substances cannot be established. Alternatively, it may mean that while the characteristics of pure and impure differ, their substance is not two; when one searches for their actual substance, it is only a single suchness, and therefore he says: 'when searching into the profound, they merge.' As for 'Because being without substance cannot be established, dependent arising forms myriad shapes': although these pure and impure lands manifest in the same place, their two characteristics are distinct. They are all transformed and manifested into various thorny forests, jeweled trees, rubble, and pearls through the diverse causes and conditions of pure and impure karma. Only when arising from conditions through the dependent-arising nature (paratantra-svabhāva) do they form the characteristics of lands, unlike those sky-flowers, turtle hairs, or rabbit horns of the conceptually constructed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), which exist mentally but lack substance and have no physical forms or substances. Therefore it is said: 'Because being without substance cannot be established, dependent arising forms myriad shapes.'
First 36 of 313 passages. Read on