釋淨土群疑論 2.15

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.