釋淨土群疑論 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Compiled by the Great Virtuous One Huaigan of Qianfu Monastery in the Western Capital

Question: In being reborn in that West, does the past mind attain rebirth, does the present mind attain rebirth, or does the future mind attain rebirth? If the past mind attains rebirth, the past mind has already perished and cannot be said to be reborn. If the future mind attains rebirth, the future mind has not yet arrived; how can it be said to be reborn? If the present mind attains rebirth, the present mind does not abide; how again can it be reborn? Since looking for rebirth in these three times yields nothing, why do you now urge rebirth in the West?

2.3

I explain: If deduced by way of the three times, that which has already ceased, that which has not yet arisen, and the present which does not abide possess no truly attainable principle of birth. It is just like the wick of a lamp: it is not the past flame that burns the wick, because it has already ceased; it is not the future flame that burns the wick, because it has not yet arisen; it is not the present flame that burns the wick, because it does not abide. Yet it is not that it does not burn the wick, destroy darkness, and generate light. Thought-moment after thought-moment in succession, each new moment perishes; resembling each other in continuity just like a flowing stream, in a single moment it can possess four functions: destroying darkness, generating light, heating the vessel, and burning the wick. This is also like that: due to pure land karma ripening at the moment of inducing rebirth, the assembly of sages comes to welcome one to return and proceed to the pure land; one sheds the defiled physical body of the Sahā world and achieves a pure body in Sukhāvatī. Arising from conditions across the three times is neither eternal nor annihilated: though all phenomena are tranquil and ceased, karmic retribution remains distinct. All phenomena are unarisen, yet birth and death continue in succession; this is precisely the meaning of establishing the ultimate truth without destroying the conventional truth. Thus, in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, the Great Being the Pure-Named questioned Śāriputra, saying: 'Does the Dharma you have attained have passing away and birth?' Śāriputra said: 'It has no passing away or birth.' Vimalakīrti said: 'If all phenomena lack the characteristic of passing away and birth, why did you ask, "From where did you pass away to come and be born [here]?"' This clarifies that in the ultimate truth, all phenomena are tranquil, having no going and no coming; therefore he said there is no passing away or birth. Later the sūtra says: 'There is a world named Abhirati, and the Buddha is titled Akṣobhya. This Vimalakīrti passed away from that land to come and be born here.' Vimalakīrti said: 'Passing away is the characteristic of the destruction of deceptive phenomena; birth is the characteristic of continuity.' This clarifies that in the conventional truth, nominal designations are not the true characteristic of arising and ceasing. Now, we exhort people to abandon this defiled land and be born in that pure quarter; yet within the ultimate truth, when deduced through the three times, there is ultimately no meaning of rebirth in the Pure Land. In the conventional truth of causes and conditions, nominal designations arise and cease, so it is not that there is no abandoning of this Sahā world to be reborn in the Buddha-land. How could you discuss solely the principle of the ultimate truth and thereby destroy the various phenomena of conventional cause and effect, functioning, and the like? This is also an exhortation to be reborn in the pure Buddha-land spoken from within the approach of conventional cause and effect.

2.4

Question: The Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'If one sees me by form, or seeks me by sound, this person walks a deviant path and cannot see the Tathāgata.' It also says: 'To be free from all marks is called the Buddhas.' Why today do you practice visualization of the Buddha with forms, walking a deviant path, and aspire to seek rebirth? This is truly difficult [to accept].

2.5

I explain: Both the Prajñāpāramitā and the Guan jing are sacred teachings. The contemplation of forms and the contemplation of formlessness are neither of them mundane words; each stating that the other is deviant has profound intent. One must not rely on that Prajñāpāramitā to disparage that Guan jing. Not only would harbouring faith and slander together naturally bring about grave sin, but one would also have failed to comprehend the mutual harmony in the Buddha's sacred teachings. Why is this? These two sūtras speak in this way based on differences in persons, in training, and in understanding. As for being based on persons: those of shallow faculties are not yet able to contemplate the principle, so for them form-contemplation is provided, contemplating the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. Those of deep faculties are able to contemplate the true mark, so for them formlessness is spoken, contemplating the dharmakāya. When shallow persons study the profound, the profound Dharma is not medicine; amṛta cuts life short—the sūtras have explicit passages [on this]. When deep persons study the shallow, it does not constitute advancing along the path, and is thus called deteriorating practice—how could they advance in cultivation? Therefore, the Buddha taught these two instructions for the two types of faculties. As for being based on training: when beginners first enter the path, their contemplative practice is still dim and they cannot yet study the profound, so they must not be taught to practice this contemplation of the true mark. They are temporarily taught to contemplate forms to train their minds; only after later study is accomplished do they advance to cultivate formlessness. It is like entering the ocean, going from shallow to deep. Persons of long training are capable of advancing to study that contemplation of formlessness, yet if they cling to the form of that beginner's training, then in order to advance their practice, the former is denounced as deviant; it does not mean this is subsumed under wrong views. Just as a stingy person learns giving: once the obstacle of stinginess is removed, if he remains attached to cultivating the first pāramitā, the Buddha wishes to exhort him to advance to study śīla. If he did not disparage the former, there would be no way to practice the latter; thus he disparages giving and praises the practice of upholding the precepts. This is the Great Sage skilfully according with the capacities of living beings; foolish people do not know this, clinging to the text and losing the meaning. What is now called a 'deviant path' is of the same principle. As for being based on understanding: if one knows that form is emptiness, contemplating form is not deviant; if one is confused and thinks form is not empty, contemplating form is deviant. If one knows that emptiness is form, contemplating emptiness is not deviant; if one thinks emptiness is different from form, contemplating emptiness is deviant. This is an error in understanding leading to different paths, distinguishing itself as fine or flawed—how does it pertain to distinguishing correctness from deviance merely on the basis of the two objects of form and emptiness? If you understand this fundamental path, then contemplating form will always be correct; if you are confused about this intent, even contemplating emptiness will always be deviant. Splendid is this wondrous purport; I pray you examine its reasoning.

2.6

Question: The Diamond Prajñāpāramitā says: 'The Tathāgata has nowhere from which he comes, nor anywhere to which he goes, and is therefore called the Tathāgata.' The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'I contemplate the Tathāgata: he does not come from the past, does not go into the future, and does not abide in the present.' Mañjuśrī said: 'Neither abiding nor going, neither grasping nor relinquishing; being far removed from the six sense entries, I pay homage without anything to contemplate.' According to what is spoken in these various Mahāyāna sacred teachings, the Buddha originally does not come, nor does he have any going. For what reason does the Guan jing state that there is an emanation Buddha who comes to welcome, and one goes following the emanation Buddha? Having coming and having going contradicts the earlier sūtras.

2.7

I explain: In the profound true mark and the wondrous principle of equality, the dharmakāya Tathāgata originally has no arising or ceasing. By means of the Buddha's original vow and boundless great compassion to receive and guide sentient beings, from the real he manifests emanations throughout the worlds of the ten directions. The Tathāgata guides and receives the three classes and nine grades; because the emanation is identical to the real, there is no coming and no going, yet according with capacities to respond to beings, there is going and returning. The earlier sūtras speak of no coming or going based on the emanation's essence being identical to the real; the Guan jing manifests going and returning based on emanations flowing forth from the real. Furthermore, there is an explanation from the West which says: in reality there is no Buddha who comes here from that western direction extending his hand to welcome, nor is there a Buddha who leads those sentient beings to be reborn in the pure land. It is merely that the overriding conditioning power of the seeds of the Tathāgata's compassionate original vow and merits causes sentient beings who have affinity with the Buddha—taking the causal conditions of the power of their various merits in practicing buddhānusmṛti, cultivating blessings, and performing the sixteen contemplations—to manifest from their own minds Amitābha Buddha coming to welcome the practitioner, who follows the Buddha and departs. When it is said that that Buddha sends [an emanation] to come, he does not truly send one; it is simply that when the seeds of merit precisely coincide with the capacity of the being to be transformed, they are caused to see an emanation Buddha coming to welcome them. Therefore it is said that he sends one, but in reality he does not send one. Amitābha Buddha's merits of compassionate vows are serene, clear, and constantly tranquil, having no going and no coming. Sentient beings' conscious minds rely on the superior power of the Buddha's original vow and merits, and from their own minds transformatively manifest coming and going to welcome the practitioner. Seeing that there is rebirth in the Pure Land is an objective aspect (nimittabhāga) of one's own mind, having nothing to do with another. Thus when the earlier sūtras speak of neither coming nor going, they speak with reference to the Buddha's merits; when the Guan jing speaks of coming and going, it speaks with reference to the mental marks of sentient beings. Furthermore, there is an explanation which says: The Tathāgata, responding to capacities, also transformatively manifests, appearing as various emanation bodies throughout the ten directions to welcome sentient beings [attaining] rebirth in the Pure Land. Those emanation Buddhas flow and manifest from the Buddha's ādarśajñāna and great compassion; therefore it is said that that Buddha sends emanations to come and welcome. However, sending emanations to welcome accomplishes this matter without conceptual thought, like a maṇi jewel or a heavenly drum. Yet, as for the manifested emanations having coming and going while it is said there is neither going nor coming: this may be spoken with reference to the real, as was already explained above. Or it may be spoken with reference to arising and ceasing that does not abide from thought-moment to thought-moment: having arisen, it immediately ceases and cannot be moved; it arises in that very place and ceases in that very place, it arises in a different place and ceases in a different place, and in resembling continuity, coming and going are nominally spoken of. Just as a moving flame is not the characteristic of a wheel, yet coming and going are nominally spoken of, while in reality there is no coming or going. Therefore, Dharma Master Zhao's Treatise on the Immutability of Things states: 'A whirlwind that fells mountains is constantly tranquil; rivers and seas that vie in rushing forth do not flow; shimmering mirages that flutter do not move; the sun and moon traversing the sky do not revolve.' These all refer to arising and ceasing being swift, incapable of being moved.

2.8

Question: The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Abandoning impermanent form, one attains permanent form; feelings, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness are also like this.' It also says: 'That which all Buddhas take as their teacher is called the Dharma; because the Dharma is permanent, all Buddhas are also permanent.' This means the three bodies are solidified, unmoving, and unchanging. Why do you now say that they arise, cease, and do not abide? What is the meaning of this?

2.9

I explain: This controversy is not of today alone. One group of venerable scholars of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'The three bodies are all permanent, neither arising nor ceasing.' They broadly cite passages from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, the Bodhisattva Benye Yingluo Jing, and the like to prove that the three bodies are all permanent; this mostly relies on the teachings. Another group of venerable masters relies on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the like, explaining that the Buddha has three bodies and there are three kinds of permanence: first, solidified permanence, referring to the dharmakāya Buddha; second, uninterrupted permanence, referring to the saṃbhogakāya Buddha; third, continuous permanence, referring to the nirmāṇakāya Buddha. Although each is named 'permanent', their meanings are distinct. Because the latter two bodies arise from generative causes, the Prajñā treatises say that since the saṃbhoga and nirmāṇa bodies arise from generative causes, whatever they do is impermanent. If they were solidified, they would be identical to the dharmakāya realized through revealing causes; furthermore, they would not be aggregates, nor would they have cognition, speech, or action. Deducing from these many principles, they are not of solidified permanence. This is extensively established in works such as the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. Furthermore, with reference to the imagined nature (parikalpita), sentient beings falsely calculate that the Buddha has going and coming; in order to break the false clinging to a Buddha existing outside the mind who has going and coming, for the purpose of refuting false sentiments, it is said that he neither comes nor goes. Thus the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'Welcome, Mañjuśrī! Coming without the characteristic of coming, seeing without the characteristic of seeing,' and so forth. Now, what this Guan jing says about having going and coming does not contradict the various Mahāyāna sūtras. Each relies on a particular meaning, and all are wondrous teachings.

2.10

Question: The Faj句 jing states that the Buddha told the Bodhisattva Baoming: 'Good man! For now, observe these names of the Buddhas: are they existent, or are they non-existent? Are they real, or are they unreal? Good man! If names were existent, speaking of food to a person should cause them to be full and satisfied. If they were to be full and satisfied, all food and drink would be of no use. Why is this? Because speaking of food would immediately bring satiety, and there would be no need to eat.' According to the meaning of this sūtra, it intends to clarify that the nature of names is empty, and they cannot express all phenomena. Now, since you teach people to exclusively recite the Buddha's name in order to eradicate the sins of grave obstacles and be reborn in the West, how is this different from speaking of food to bring fullness, or talking of broth to dispel thirst?

2.11

I explain: Relying on the subtle and profound Mahāyāna scriptures, they all say that names are provisional and unreal, lacking any fixed reality. Therefore, a sūtra says: 'The nature of words is detached [from reality]; there are no words.' It also says: 'Names and referents are guests to each other; the bodhisattva should reflect on this.' However, if one were merely silent without words and serenely sat in meditation, then Kauṇḍinya would have had no hope of attaining the Way, and Subhadra would have had no occasion to realize the fruit. It is only because the speaker and what is spoken are distinct that one cannot get full by merely talking about food. Yet in the end, names do convey expressions, and through words one accords with the principle. Because one accords with the principle through words, the metaphor of pointing at the moon arose. Because the nature of names is empty, the parable of abandoning the raft was made. Because foolish persons cling [to words] and give rise to delusion on account of names—producing offenses and errors in either love or anger, generating thoughts of life or slaughter over being reviled or praised, completing the ten unwholesome actions, and tumbling down into the three wretched destinies—the Buddha refuted their deluded attachments by saying that words are provisional and unreal. Even if people praise or defame you, how could that honor or disgrace your person? If one were to say that because of praise your person is graced with glory, or that defamation injures your physical form, then one ought also to be filled by talking of food, or have one's body burned by speaking of fire. Although one speaks of delicacies with the mouth all day, one does not escape the distress of hunger and emptiness; though one talks of torches through the night, one does not see the calamity of one's body being burned. Thus we know that the essence of names is empty, originally lacking reality. Ordinary persons, failing to awaken, recklessly give rise to love and hatred, disputing over reputations at court, and sinking into the evil paths. If one were to say that names are useless and cannot express the essence of phenomena, then should one call for water or fire, or summon a man or woman, they are each and every one summoned without any error. Hence we know that the fish trap and hare snare are not in vain, and the fish and hare are thus obtained. It is for this reason that King Brahmā requested the turning of the wheel of the True Dharma, the Great Sage responded to capacities to widely proclaim the subtle purport, the profound import of the Tripiṭaka shone brightly in the Dragon Palace, the twelve divisions of the scriptures were illuminated on Vulture Peak, humans, devas, ordinary beings, and sages all received his supreme words, and those of the five destinies and four modes of birth all complied with his bequeathed instructions, so that hearing, reading, and reciting them brings vast and profound benefit. As for reciting the Buddha's name to attain rebirth in the Pure Land, one must also not say merely that names are provisional and unreal and do not convey anything.

2.12

Question: The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states, 'Only bodhisattvas of the third bhūmi are born in the pure land.' Now, in encouraging ordinary beings and śrāvakas prior to the bhūmis to be born there, what is the meaning?

2.13

I explain: When the various sūtras and treatises speak of birth in the pure land, each relies on a particular meaning, differing in what they accept or set aside. Some discuss it in terms of superior persons or inferior persons. Since pure lands have various distinctions and differences—coarse or subtle, superior or inferior—attaining birth also has various higher and lower gradations. It is also as the Renwang jing says: 'Only the Buddha alone dwells in the pure land; the three classes of worthy ones and ten classes of noble ones reside in the retribution land.' This means that those from the tenth bhūmi downward cannot be born in the pure land at all, because the pure land manifested by the Buddha's ādarśajñāna is uncontaminated, and therefore it is called 'pure.' The various pure and wonderful lands transformed by the fundamental consciousness of those from the tenth bhūmi downward are contaminated, and therefore are not called 'pure.' Because the eighth consciousness is the retribution consciousness, the lands transformed by it are called retribution lands. If we consider the practice of giving, morality, and cultivation [of meditation] to be free from the hindrances to uncontaminated samādhi, being able by the power of samādhi to take birth at will in various pure lands, then it is bodhisattvas of the third bhūmi who attain mastery of samādhi. Therefore the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Only bodhisattvas of the third bhūmi are born in the pure land.' If we consider attaining non-conceptual wisdom, severing the two clingings to person and phenomena which are the afflictions of the path of seeing, realizing pervasive entry into the dharmadhātu, and awakening to the hundred gates of bright phenomena, so as to attain birth in the pure lands of the buddhas, then those from the prathamā bhūmi upward attain birth in the pure land. If it is by means of the fundamental vow and great compassion leading all ordinary, foolish sentient beings, even down to the lowest grade of the lowest class who have committed the five heinous crimes and the ten unwholesome deeds, so long as they generate the bodhicitta they will all attain rebirth, fully as spoken in the sūtra. One must not simply rely on the Yogācārabhūmi's statement that the third bhūmi attains birth, and immediately claim that bodhisattvas of the first and second bhūmis cannot be born in the pure land either. Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna was prophesied by the Buddha to ascend to the prathamā bhūmi and be born in the Western Sukhāvatī. How could it be that because he had not yet reached the third bhūmi, one should say he could not be born in the pure land, which would then contradict this sūtra? Furthermore, as for a bodhisattva of the prathamā bhūmi, according to the Renwang jing, which says: 'They attain the hundred gates of bright phenomena and see the pure lands of a hundred buddhas,' how could one say they cannot be born in the pure land? Moreover, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: 'Ordinary bodhisattvas who have just generated the aspiration, if they vow to be born in the pure land, will immediately attain rebirth.' Thus we know that the text of the Yogācārabhūmi spoke specifically based on one particular aspect: attaining mastery of samādhi and being free from hindrances.

2.14

Question: In works like the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā, the great treatise masters such as Asanga and Vasubandhu, in explaining the various expressions and meanings of the sūtras and treatises, speak of the four intentions and four secret intentions, [stating that] attaining rebirth in the West merely through making a vow is an intention regarding another time. Today, when you encourage people to cultivate the practices for the West and immediately attain rebirth, how does that make sense? For over a hundred years since the Mahāyānasaṃgraha [was translated] until now, the worthy masters have all seen this treatise passage and not cultivated the pure practices for the West. Now if you say that one attains rebirth, does this not contradict the treatise?

2.15

I explain: When the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, "obtaining rebirth solely by making a vow," this is an intention regarding a different time (kālāntarābhiprāya). However, eminent figures from the past all cited this text as evidence of an intention regarding a different time, saying that one does not obtain rebirth immediately. Now, carefully examining this textual proof shows that one does indeed obtain rebirth immediately, thus revealing the treatise master's intent. How so? When the treatise says "solely by making a vow," this has the meaning of exclusion and retention. It excludes the practice of buddhānusmṛti, and retains only empty vow-making without any practice. Having this vow in isolation, it is therefore called "solely by making a vow." If one were to obtain rebirth solely by making a vow, this indeed would be an intention regarding a different time. It is not that at the very time one makes the vow, one will be reborn in the pure land immediately upon death; hence it is called "a different time." Now, when one recollects the Buddha with sincere mind, that is a good practice of mental karma; when one recites the Buddha's name, that is a good practice of verbal karma; when one joins palms and makes prostrations, that is a good practice of bodily karma. By means of these good practices of the three karmas, one can extinguish the grave sins of birth and death for eighty hundred million kalpas. With practice and vow mutually assisting each other, one immediately obtains rebirth. How could this be "solely its vow"? When the treatise master spoke these words, "solely by making a vow," his intent was to reveal that accompanied by practice, it is not an intention regarding a different time. Those who are confused do not scrutinize the textual meaning closely, but dimly regard it all as an intention regarding a different time. If the practice of buddhānusmṛti were also an intention regarding a different time, why does the treatise text not say, "Such as recollecting Amitābha Buddha and obtaining rebirth in the West is an intention regarding a different time"? Since it does not state that the texts on recollecting the Buddha, practicing the sixteen contemplations, and cultivating the goodness of the three blessings are teachings of a different time, one therefore knows that recollecting the Buddha and so forth to obtain rebirth in the West is not an intention regarding a different time. Some commentators say: Recollecting the Buddha, cultivating the sixteen contemplations, and so forth are simply making a vow. Other commentators say: Although the treatise master mentioned only the word "vow," his intention also included recollecting the Buddha as being an intention regarding a different time. Now, do these two interpretations reveal benefit, or do they reveal the understanding of the meaning? If they make this interpretation of the text to reveal benefit, they will only cause immeasurable sentient beings to transmigrate through the defiled land and wander through the three miserable destinies, unable to attain rebirth in the pure land and escape birth and death. If it is to understand the meaning: even when closely adhering to the text and phrases to extract the meaning, one still fears failing to accord with the cardinal tenets; how absurd is it to dimly interpret the treatise text and yet claim to have grasped its essential purport? Just as in the Abhidharmakośa and other texts, where the various schools dispute doctrines, they cite the sacred teachings to conclusively determine the ultimate purport, seizing on one or two words to establish the successes and failures of the schools. How much more so when teachings such as the Guan jing fully set forth diverse approaches of practice, either describing the three kinds of diffused goodness as the correct causes for the pure land, or expounding the sixteen wondrous contemplations as the correct karma for the West—how could one take them all simply as texts on making vows? Furthermore, there are eight reasons why we know that the treatise master did not take buddhānusmṛti to be an intention regarding a different time: First, treatise masters explain sūtras originally because the sūtras' intent is difficult to know, being a profound teaching; pṛthagjanas, perusing them, are unable to comprehend, so [treatise masters] compose treatises to explain the Buddha's teachings, wishing to enable both the foolish and the wise to understand. Taking precisely what is taught in texts like the Guan jing, the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, and the Amitābha Sūtra—that recollecting Amitābha Buddha brings about rebirth in the West—the textual meaning is evident, and both the foolish and the wise understand it; why would what is not misunderstood require explanation in a treatise? Second, when the monk Dharmākara made the forty-eight vast vows to receive and guide sentient beings, he wished to enable them to be born in the Buddha's pure land. Would he have made his vast vows and received and guided sentient beings with an intention regarding a different time? Within those vows, he immediately stated, "If they recollect the Buddha and do not attain rebirth, may I not attain supreme awakening"; he did not say, "If persons who merely make a vow do not attain rebirth, may I not attain supreme awakening." Thus we know that practices such as buddhānusmṛti definitely result in rebirth. Being included in the forty-eight vows, they are not [teachings of] a different time. Obtaining rebirth not immediately, solely by making a vow, is not in the forty-eight vows; hence it is an intention regarding a different time. Third, in the Sūtra Praising the Pure Land, Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions extend their broad and long tongue marks to certify the attainment of rebirth; would they certify an intention regarding a different time? The Buddhas extended their tongues originally because sentient beings difficult to bring to faith would think the merit of buddhānusmṛti is not great, yet throughout this single lifetime one would immediately be born in the pure land, and would all generate doubts and slander, not believing this sūtra. Therefore they manifested the tongue mark of non-falsehood and uttered true and sincere words, to cause sentient beings, beholding the mark and hearing the words, to remove doubts and generate faith. If it were a teaching of a different time meaning one does not immediately attain rebirth in the West, but only attains rebirth later upon reaching the prathamā bhūmi, what doubt would sentient beings have that would require the Buddhas to extend their tongue marks to certify rebirth in the West? Fourth, the Amitābha Sūtra first exhorts that one ought to make a vow to be born in that realm, and afterwards teaches one to recite the Buddha's name for one day up to seven days, whereupon it states that at the end of life the assembly of sages will come to welcome the practitioner, who then attains rebirth. If one says that recollecting the Buddha is itself making a vow, then having already exhorted beforehand to make a vow, why would there be any further need afterwards to teach one to recollect the Buddha? Thus we know that the preceding text is the vow, and the subsequent text is the practice; practice and vow mutually assisting each other, one attains rebirth in the pure land. How could buddhānusmṛti possibly be the vow? Fifth, the Treatise on the Pure Land (Jingtu lun) and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha were both composed by the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu. How could it be that when Vasubandhu wrote the Treatise on the Pure Land he stated that recollecting the Buddha brings about rebirth in the West without being an intention regarding a different time, yet when commenting on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha he said that buddhānusmṛti and so forth are an intention regarding a different time and do not bring about immediate rebirth? If they were composed by two different persons, one could allow that the two masters had differing intents; but why must the Mahāyānasaṃgraha have grasped the sūtra's purport while the Treatise on the Pure Land was deluded about the sacred words? Moreover, both treatises were composed by Vasubandhu, so the textual meanings are surely not contradictory; if we examine the author's intent through the treatises, we know that [only] the vow is [an intention regarding] a different time. Sixth, the Treatise on the Pure Land speaks of five gates: first, the bodily karma gate of prostration; second, the verbal karma gate of buddhānusmṛti; third, the mental karma gate of observation; fourth, the gate of making vows; fifth, the gate of dedication. If cultivating practice were itself making a vow, what difference would there be between the practices of the first three karmas and the fourth gate of making vows? If they were one, then there should not be five gates. If they are different, one knows that the preceding are gates of practice. Seventh, the Awakening of Faith (Qixin lun) was composed by Aśvaghoṣa; it states that recollecting the Buddha to attain rebirth in the West is precisely a gate of practice, not an intention regarding a different time. Thus we know that the intent of the treatise composed by Vasubandhu is also the same, not taking gates such as buddhānusmṛti to be an intention regarding a different time. As Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa taught beginning bodhisattvas in the Awakening of Faith he composed, there are eight causes and conditions for composing this treatise; coming to the seventh condition, it is to demonstrate the skillful means of single-minded recollection, to be born before the Buddha and definitely not backslide in faithful mind. Furthermore: When sentient beings first learn this teaching and wish to seek correct faith, their minds are timid and weak; dwelling in this Sahā world, they fear of themselves that they cannot constantly meet the Buddhas and personally serve and make offerings to them, fearing that faithful mind will be difficult to accomplish and wishing to backslide. They should know that the Tathāgata has an excellent skillful means to protect and preserve faithful mind: namely, by the cause and condition of single-mindedly recollecting the Buddha, in accordance with their vow they attain rebirth in another Buddha-land, constantly see the Buddha, and are forever freed from the evil destinies. As the sūtra says: If a person single-mindedly recollects Amitābha Buddha of the Western world of Sukhāvatī, dedicating the roots of goodness cultivated and vowing to seek rebirth in that realm, they will immediately attain rebirth; because they constantly see the Buddha, they will never backslide. If they contemplate that Buddha's tathatā dharmakāya and constantly and diligently cultivate it, they will ultimately attain rebirth, because they abide in the stage of correct determination. Eighth, if one regards buddhānusmṛti as not being a practice, are the three blessings, the sixteen contemplations, and so forth practices or not? If they are practices, as it is stated in the Ground Contemplation: "Those who perform this contemplation eliminate the sins of birth and death for eighty hundred million kalpas; relinquishing the body in another world, they will certainly be born in the pure Buddha-land, their minds having no doubt." "Recollecting Amitābha Buddha also, in thought after thought, extinguishes the grave sins of birth and death for eighty hundred million kalpas, and one attains rebirth in the West." Why is it that the extinction of sins is the same, yet that is a practice while this is not, and that attains rebirth while this does not? If both were not practices, when Queen Vaidehī and her five hundred attendants were prophesied by the Buddha to attain rebirth, was it by performing these contemplations and so forth that they attained rebirth, or by other practices? If they attained rebirth through these contemplations and so forth, since these would not be practices, how could they attain rebirth? If performing the contemplations does not bring about rebirth, why would the Queen ask to be taught a teaching that does not bring about rebirth, and why would the Tathāgata teach her a teaching that does not bring about rebirth? Furthermore, if all were exclusively the gate of vows, then there should only be one; why would there be need to distinguish sixteen contemplations? Moreover, making such an interpretation not only fails to comprehend the sūtra text, but also destroys correct view, harming oneself and others, bringing no benefit whatsoever to persons or to the Dharma.

2.16

Question: If solely making a vow is an intention regarding a different time, in what way is it an intention regarding a different time?

2.17

Answer: Because the afflictions of sentient beings are blazing, and they revolve in saṃsāra and sink in the ocean of suffering with no time of release, the Buddha praised the four kinds of adornments of the primary and secondary retributions of the Western Sukhāvatī and exhorted all sentient beings to take rebirth in the pure land. Although various classes of sentient beings hear the Buddha's teachings, their hindrances vary in gravity and their awakenings in depth, which consequently leads to differences in superior and inferior capacities in following the teaching. There is one class of sentient beings who, although they hear the pure teaching, slander and revile it; not only do they fail to be born in the West, they also sink into evil destinies themselves. These are entirely distant from the West. There is another class of sentient beings who, although they hear the pure teaching, have deep faith and do not slander it; yet their minds are entangled in the five desires and they delight in dwelling in the defiled land, neither making vows nor cultivating practice. If such people cultivate wholesome deeds they may be born among humans or gods, or if they commit evil they sink into the evil destinies. For these people, the prospect of rebirth in the West is also distant, because they entirely lack the intention to seek it and, furthermore, slander and revile [the teaching]. The Scripture of Pure, Equal, and Perfect Enlightenment states: 'If there are sentient beings who hear the teaching of the pure land expounded, yet hear it as if not hearing, and conversely give rise to slander, I say that such people have not attained liberation.' Having just come from the three evil destinies, they simply have no faith or inclination, and likewise completely lack practice and vows, and therefore have not attained liberation. There is another class of sentient beings whose past vows and karmic conditions with Amitābha Buddha have matured; hearing the teaching of the pure land expounded, with a pure mind of faith and reverence they make a great vow: 'May I be reborn in the Western Pure Land, and no longer wish to seek the fruits of humans or gods.' Although they make this vow, such people may, due to the conditions of their afflictions, be deeply attached to the five desires, or they may be indolent and remiss, unable to cultivate the path. Meeting with bad spiritual companions, they may widely commit the ten evils; or when facing death they may not meet a good friend; or with their bodies afflicted by severe illness, they may become mad and lose their minds; or they may be unconscious for many days, unable to understand human speech. Thus they end up having made only empty vows without ever cultivating pure practice. Although they are not immediately reborn in the pure land, this vow serves as a distant cause for rebirth; or, by the superior power of having made the vow, they will definitely be able to cultivate practice later; or, as someone who merely gives rise to practice must have the intention to cultivate, though they have not yet been able to initiate practice, they will in the future have the merit of initiating practice. In comparison with the previous two classes of people, they possess the meaning of distant rebirth; therefore the sūtra prophecies and praises such people as attaining rebirth in the West. Foolish people mistakenly suppose that it is attained immediately without relying on separately cultivating pure causes. The treatise master's explanation of this sūtra text as having the meaning of another time signifies that it is not that one immediately attains rebirth in the West merely by making a vow alone. Later people read the treatise without understanding and thus say that by practice one does not attain rebirth. This is a profound error! Furthermore, there is another class of sentient beings whose wholesome roots are deep and thick and whose afflictions are slight; meeting with superior conditions, they hear the pure teaching, give rise to deep, pure faith, make vows and cultivate practice, and at the end of life attain rebirth, fully as expounded in the sūtras. These are those whose practice and vows are both complete and who immediately attain rebirth; being different from those who only make empty vows, this is not an implicit teaching of another time. Because the Buddha was addressing the fact that the previous two classes of people had not yet attained rebirth, he prophesied that those who make the vow would attain rebirth. Fearing that they might be conflated with those who, having both practice and vows complete, immediately attain rebirth, the treatise master separately distinguished those who make only vows as having the meaning of another time. Thus the vow is compared to the first coin, buddhānusmṛti and cultivation of practice and the like are the intermediate nine hundred and ninety-eight coins, and rebirth in the pure land is the one-thousandth coin. Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Just as by means of one coin one trades and obtains a thousand coins.' It is also like recollecting Prabhūtaratna Buddha, where one does not immediately reach the stage of non-retrogression. The stage of non-retrogression is at the initial mind of the ten abodes. When this person recollects Prabhūtaratna Buddha, they are perhaps at the mind prior to the ten faiths, or at the initial mind of the ten faiths, and it cannot be that merely by recollecting Prabhūtaratna Buddha they immediately transcend the ten faiths and ten thousand kalpas to reach the initial mind of the ten abodes; for in the interim they must further cultivate the eighty-four thousand pāramitā practices before reaching that initial mind. Yet recollecting Prabhūtaratna Buddha serves as a distant condition for the practice of non-retrogression; therefore it is called an implicit meaning of another time. The above has clarified the meaning of another time through numerous arguments; it naturally pertains to making vows, not to those who have initiated practice. This is the meaning of another time spoken of by that master of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Furthermore, what the text of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha refers to with the meaning of another time is the reward pure land; with vows and buddhānusmṛti alone, by principle one is not reborn immediately. If it is a transformation pure land, with vows and buddhānusmṛti alone one will certainly be reborn immediately, as in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra; there is no need for doubt.

2.18

Question: Regarding sentient beings who attain rebirth, can only those in this human destiny cultivate pure karma and attain rebirth? Or does it also extend to the other destinies being able to attain rebirth? And can those who have already died also attain rebirth in the nether world?

2.19

Explanation: Among the five destinies, all are able to cultivate pure karma for the West and attain rebirth in Sukhāvatī. According to [the fact that] all the devas could come to listen to the Guan jing, the lower fascicle of the Guan jing states: 'Immeasurable devas, nāgas, and yakṣas, hearing what the Buddha expounded, all rejoiced greatly'; and the Listing of the Assembly in the Chengzan jingtu jing states: 'Immeasurable devas, asuras, and so forth, all came to listen to the Dharma in order to hear the teaching.' Hence we know that all who wish and vow to be reborn in the pure land are able to practice pure karma and attain rebirth in the West. Moreover, according to what is expounded in the fourth fascicle of the Bodhisattva Garbhastha Sūtra: 'A miraculously born nāga held the eightfold precepts, and a garuḍa wished to devour it but could not. The garuḍa asked about its method, and the nāga expounded the method of the eightfold precepts for it. The garuḍa followed the nāga to the palace of the ocean nāga king, where the nāga prince again spoke verses to the garuḍa. At that time, the nāga prince and nāga maiden had their minds opened and attained understanding, and after their lifespans ended they were all to be reborn in the land of Amitābha Buddha.' Furthermore, according to what is expounded in the Scripture on Rebirth in Accordance with One's Vow: 'If one donates the deceased person's bodily adornments, halls, dwellings, parks, and bathing ponds to the Three Jewels, this blessing is supreme and its power of merit is strong, able to eradicate the calamities of hell for that person. Through these causes and conditions, they immediately attain release from the distress of grief and suffering, attain eternal liberation, and are reborn in the pure lands of the buddhas of the ten directions.' By this we can infer and know that sentient beings of all five destinies can attain rebirth in the land of Sukhāvatī.

2.20

Question: Taking birth in this defiled land of the three realms, wherever there is form and physical shape, all undergo the intermediate state (antarābhava); dying here and being born there, coming and going while consciousness is transmitted, one possesses all four states of existence, namely intermediate existence, birth existence, fundamental existence, and death existence. It is not known whether, when taking birth from here into the pure land, there is also an intermediate existence or not.

2.21

Explanation: There are two explanations for this. One says there is no intermediate existence: because at the end of this life one sits inside a lotus flower, we know that this is subsumed under birth existence, for entering inside a lotus flower is similar to abiding in a womb. Now, in explaining this meaning, it is not necessarily so. For example, regarding the principle of taking birth in a defiled land, one must reach that place of birth before undergoing birth existence. Just as when dying in the desire realm to be born in the form realm, one must, upon dying in the desire realm, receive an intermediate body of the form realm, and only upon arriving at that form realm does one receive the birth existence; there is no receiving a birth-existence body of the form realm while still in the desire realm. Now, the meaning of taking birth in the pure land is also like this: one cannot, upon dying in the defiled land, then receive the birth-existence body of the pure land right in the defiled land; one must reach the jewelled pond within that pure land before the birth-existence body is formed. Furthermore, the formless realm has no form, so it may have no transmission of consciousness in an intermediate state to take birth; but the pure land possesses form, and since its location is different, how could one not permit that there is an intermediate state transmitting consciousness to receive the birth existence upon reaching there?

2.22

Question: If there is an intermediate state, then one should reach that jewelled pond upon taking birth there, and only then enter the flower and sit, after which the flower opens. How is it that one enters the flower right here? What distinction is there between this and that birth existence?

2.23

Answer: How could it be that just because the intermediate state enters that flower, it is immediately subsumed under that birth existence? Those born in that pure land have superior power of blessings and virtue; although it is an intermediate state, they mount the flower to go and be reborn, unlike the intermediate state of the defiled land which has no flower. Although both the intermediate and birth existences are within the flower, nevertheless their superiority and inferiority differ, and their brightness and darkness are distinct, thereby distinguishing the difference between the intermediate and birth existences; furthermore, there is a difference in meaning between heading toward birth and arriving at birth. The difference between intermediate and birth existences is distinguished in this way; it is not distinguished according to whether there is a flower or not. If one were to claim that because both are in the flower they are difficult to distinguish, and thus conclude that there is no intermediate state, then one could also say that since intermediate and birth existences in the defiled land both lack a flower, the two existences of intermediate and birth should not be distinguished. If one says that although intermediate existence and birth existence both lack a flower, there are distinctions such as entering the womb, then while distinctions may exist for the three modes of birth such as from an egg, how could the birth existence of apparitional birth be distinguished? By this we know that there is an intermediate state. Furthermore, just as the intermediate state of hell is already burned by fire, how could it be without distinction from the birth existence? Conversely, this clarifies that the wholesome karma of the pure land is similarly analogous to intermediate and birth existences. However, regarding what is expounded here about the intermediate state, since we have not yet seen any passage in the sūtras or treatises stating whether the body that departs when born in the pure land is or is not an intermediate state, it cannot be definitively determined as existing or not. Although there is no sūtra text, taking the view of its existence is superior. Otherwise, what could that departing body be said to be?

2.24

Question: If there is an intermediate state, it is not known whether this pure land intermediate state wears clothing or does not wear clothing?

2.25

Answer: There is no text in the sūtras or treatises, yet by deduction it definitely ought to wear clothing. Because the Abhidharmakośa states: 'In the intermediate state of the desire realm, except for the nun Śuklā, all intermediate states are completely unclothed, because the intermediate state in the desire realm lacks a sense of shame. All intermediate states belonging to the form realm have clothing, because they possess a sense of shame.' By this we can infer and know that the pure land transcends the form realm; how could its intermediate state have no clothing? Therefore, the pure land intermediate state all has clothing.

First 25 of 49 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

釋淨土群疑論 — Classical Chinese