釋淨土群疑論 3.11

3.11

I explain: If the Chan master of the Three Levels raises this objection, one wonders: does he grant that persons of the second level in the Sahā world can slander the true Dharma and revile the worthy and noble, or not? If he grants that they can slander the true Dharma and revile the worthy and noble, are they free from being rejected, or not? If he grants that they are rejected, do they attain rebirth in the Pure Land, or not? If they do not attain rebirth, why does the Chan master use this scriptural passage to prove biasedly that only those of the third level do not attain rebirth? If they do attain rebirth, since such a person has slandered the Dharma and reviled the worthy and noble, they ought to be rejected; why then would they attain rebirth in the pure buddha-land? If he asserts that persons of the second level do not slander the Dharma and revile the worthy and noble, and thus are not rejected and so attain rebirth, why could they commit [the deeds of] an icchantika and yet be unable to slander the Dharma? If he asserts that they may slander the Dharma and revile the noble, yet because the pure land does not reject [them] they attain rebirth, please cite the sacred teaching—in what sūtra passage is this found? If he asserts that although they slander the Dharma and revile the worthy and noble and are rejected by the pure land, nonetheless their faculties are upright and their faults light, so that they attain rebirth, why would that sūtra speak of rejection while this sūtra accepts them? Furthermore, do all persons of the third level reside exclusively in the Sahā world, and do they without exception slander the Dharma and revile the worthy and noble? If all without exception revile and slander, how could an infant newly born from the womb slander the true Dharma and revile the worthy and noble? If he grants that there are also persons of the third level who do not slander the Dharma and revile the noble, then these do not fall within the scope of rejection. Why then does he still say they are not reborn in the Pure Land, citing this sūtra as his proof? If he asserts that although they have not reviled it in this life, all of them have reviled it in past lives, how does he know that those of the second level have never reviled it in the past? If he asserts that the intent of this sūtra is to reveal that those of the third level are purely perverse without rectitude, so that whether they slander or not they are all rejected and cannot attain rebirth, whereas persons of the second level are both perverse and upright, so that whether they revile or not they all attain rebirth in the pure land—then his reading of this sacred teaching incurs the two faults of going too far and falling too short. The fault of going too far consists in groundlessly rejecting those of the second level who slander and revile; the fault of falling too short consists in mistakenly failing to reject those of the third level who do not slander and revile. In the lineage and approach of that Chan master, when he cites texts to explain doctrines, he is constantly at complete variance with the sacred teachings; I, in my humble ignorance, have yet to see where his competence lies.