釋淨土群疑論 3.7.2

3.7.2

Furthermore, there are those who explain that sūtra's [clause] excluding those who commit the five heinous acts, saying: "Those people of the third level who do not commit the five heinous acts are not prevented from being born in the Pure Land; however, they must practice universal Dharma before they can be born in that Western [Land]. If they have committed heinous offenses, even if they practice universal Dharma, they will not abide [there]. Therefore, Dharmākara's vast vow excludes only those of the third level who commit the five heinous acts. If sentient beings of the third level have committed the five heinous acts, even if they are made to practice universal Dharma, they still cannot be born in the Pure Land. If they have not committed the five heinous acts and practice universal [Dharma], they will definitely attain rebirth in the Pure Land. For this reason, the Chan master's wisdom is vast and his compassion is deep and earnest. [Seeing that] these people of the third level sink into the defiled land and take birth [there], he opened the universally true and universally correct Dharma-door to receive and guide those who are purely heterodox and purely evil, causing them to learn the Buddha-Dharma that matches their capacity, and leading all of them to be born in that Western [Land]. This is something that Dharmākara did not discuss and that Śākyamuni did not speak of. The Chan master alone revealed this teaching to rescue those people of the third level. Therefore it is said: 'He spoke the sūtras that the buddhas did not speak, and delivered those whom the buddhas did not deliver.' Rejoicing at hearing this compiled record, we revere and uphold it, and no longer read or recite the various other sūtras. Having consulted and changed our almanacs and calendars, alas, you cling to former errors, continuing to read those specific sūtras and creating karma for the hells! Thus we know that when Sunakṣatra upheld the treasury of teachings, he sank for eternal kalpas, while Sadāparibhūta practiced only the universal teaching and ascended purely to the other shore. This is because learning the Buddha-Dharma that matches one's capacity brings benefits and losses as distant as heaven and earth. You fail to discern this right from wrong, and only know how to practice exclusively the specific Dharma; a mistake is indeed a mistake, and you have no way to attain rebirth. Now that I provide this explanation, it should dispel your confusion." A critique says: Although they restate this interpretation, it gives rise to even deeper doubts. I shall set forth these cross-examinations once more, in the hope of an authoritative adjudication. A refutation says: Although this seems to resolve the fault of excessive reduction, it completely fails to resolve the challenge of excessive overreach. One does not know whether the words "even as few as ten recitations" are universal Dharma or specific Dharma. If they are universal Dharma, these "ten recitations" merely refer to ten recitations of Amitābha Buddha. How can reciting this specific Buddha be considered that universal [Dharma]? This is the first challenge. Furthermore, if it is universal, then it is the Dharma of the third level; on what grounds do you classify this sūtra and others as teachings of the second level? This is the second challenge. Furthermore, if it is universal, what difference is there between this and the lowest grade of the lowest class in the Guan jing, where one is endowed with ten recitations invoking Amitābha Buddha? Yet the ten recitations in the Guan jing are specific Dharma, while the ten recitations in the vow are universal Dharma; thus the same words turn out to have two different [meanings]. This is the third challenge. Furthermore, universal Dharma can rescue people of the third level, but rescues only those who have not committed the heinous acts. Why is it that specific Dharma can rescue people of the second level, and also rescues those who have committed the heinous acts? Is it that when people of the third level have committed the heinous acts, there is ultimately no principle by which their sins can be eliminated, and so they cannot attain rebirth in the Pure Land? Or is it that their [sins] can also be eradicated, but those who once committed the heinous acts simply ought not be born in the Pure Land? Please explain this. This is the fourth challenge. If these ten recitations are specific Dharma, then whether people of the third level have committed heinous acts or not, if they practice specific Dharma, none can attain rebirth. This would mean that specific Dharma excludes people, and excluding people would in turn incur the fault of both overreach and reduction. Not only does excluding people incur the fault of overreach and reduction, but selecting people also leads to the error of too many or too few. Neither alternative can escape severe censure (First challenge). Then that vow should have said: "If, when I attain buddhahood, sentient beings of the ten directions who with sincere mind and joyfully entrust themselves, desiring to be born in my land, practice universal Dharma, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect awakening; excluded are only those of the third level who commit the five heinous acts and slander the correct Dharma." In that case, it would set forth the universal teaching, and the meaning of the text would be explicit. Then the exclusion and inclusion of the two categories and three levels, as well as the setting aside of those of the second level who commit heinous acts, would be lucid and beyond doubt. Yet when the Bodhisattva set forth this gateway of vows, it served as the profound crux of acceptance and rejection, intending that future students might thereby determine whether to depart or remain. If this gateway spoke of the universal, then the meaning of acceptance and rejection would be complete; if this gateway spoke of the specific, then the people who depart or remain would not be comprehensively covered. If in these two alternatives one finds no presentation of universal Dharma, even if it were stated elsewhere, how could that remedy the flaw in this text? If you say there is an underlying intention such that it was inappropriate to speak of the universal here, please present the subtle reason; I venture to ask for the crucial rationale (Second challenge). Furthermore, as praised in the sūtra, the bhikṣu Dharmākara was a great bodhisattva, a sage of the ten bhūmis, not a great being of the three levels of worthies prior to the bhūmis. He was thus fully endowed with compassion and wisdom, broadly embracing sentient beings. How could he, when making his great vows to receive and guide extremely evil sentient beings who had affinity [with him] so that they might be born in the Pure Land, make vows exclusively with specific Dharma to rescue these people of the second level, and fail to establish vows with universal Dharma, thereby excluding those of the third level? (Third challenge). Was it that people of the third level ultimately have no share in rebirth in the Pure Land, and Dharmākara regarded them as ruined seeds, so that his vow did not encompass them? (Fourth challenge). Or was it that they also ought to attain rebirth, but Dharmākara did not understand how to bestow his universal teaching to rescue those of the third level, and so excluded them without accepting them? (Fifth challenge). Or again, did he understand it but not preach it, begrudging the Dharma and not teaching sentient beings, his compassionate mind failing to reach these people, so that he did not embrace them to be born in the Pure Land? (Sixth challenge). Or was it that although he was endowed with compassion and wisdom, it was simply that this category of beings was difficult to transform and perfect, so that [he thought], "I cannot deliver them now; I entrust them to Chan Master Xinxing"? (Seventh challenge). Or was it that the Bodhisattva had no affinity with people of the third level, and only the Chan master of vast instruction had affinity and was uniquely able to rescue and deliver them? Moreover, those within the Great Tang who encounter the Chan master's teaching might attain rebirth in the Western [Land]; but as for sentient beings of the third level in the eastern and western continents, the five regions of India, the three thousand realms, and the tens of billions of four-continent worlds who do not encounter the Chan master's teaching, how are they to attain rebirth in the Pure Land? (Eighth challenge). Then Dharmākara's understanding and practice were not yet complete, allowing for the possibility that his embrace of sentient beings was not exhaustive; but Śākyamuni having already attained perfect awakening, why did he not deliver these people? This would mean his four great vows were not comprehensive and the intent of the four debts of gratitude was not fulfilled. If he abandoned his severely ill children, how could he be called one who pities all universally? To say in vain that "all those who should be delivered have already been delivered, and for those who have not yet been delivered, the causes and conditions for their deliverance have already been created"—such words would be an erroneous account! Yet you merely wish to praise the Chan master above the superior sages while debasing the World-Honoured One below the ordinary and inferior, unaware that these words constitute a monumental error. Furthermore, the Buddha preached teachings such as the Guan jing for sentient beings of the second level, and when people of the second level in the three thousand worlds practice according to these Dharma-doors, they all attain rebirth in the Pure Land. The Buddha did not preach a separate fascicle of a universal sūtra for sentient beings of the third level, nor did the buddhas who together extended their tongues to vouch for the Great Being Dharmākara make a separate universal vow for these people of the third level.