釋淨土群疑論 3.7.3

3.7.3

All the third-stage sentient beings in the hundred billion four continents who do not encounter the Compilations of the Three Stages will generally be unable to be reborn in the pure land; even if they read and recite the various sūtras, not being bodhisattvas of the four refuges, it will be hard for them to understand and gather the universal teachings, and they will all drift aimlessly in the Sahā [world]. Thus one would know that the Buddha ought to have specially preached a one-fascicle universal sūtra for third-stage sentient beings, so that sentient beings in places where Chan Master Xinxing is absent might be reborn in the West. That the World-Honoured One did not preach this sūtra would be a profound and major defect. Furthermore, the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra belongs to the specific teachings, and the Great Master, because of compassion when the pathway of the sūtras was being extinguished, specially made it remain in the world for a hundred years. For what reason, when the universal teachings correspond to the final era, did he not preserve the universal Dharma to transform sentient beings? The specific teachings are not for evil times, yet he preserved a specific sūtra to the detriment of living beings! How could the Lord of Great Compassion, who rescues from suffering, adapt to capacities in such a manner? (Ninth objection). Why would not only Śākyamuni Tathāgata fail to know how to save third-stage people, but also the Buddhas of the ten directions, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, extend their tongues to verify his specific Dharma that rescues only those of the second stage, and not extend their tongues to verify his universal Dharma that delivers those third-stage people? How could the Great Holy World-Honoured One, the All-Awakened One of the ten directions, who possesses all knowledge and the knowledge of all aspects, whose grace and conduct embody the four immeasurables and whose compassion regards [all] as an only child, jointly conceal this universal Dharma and fail to save these people? What is more, his teaching covers the three-thousandfold [world], his transformation flows through the hundred billion [continents], and his forty-eight vows fill the ten directions. Beginning from when he was a cakravartin who first produced the thought [of awakening] before the first incalculable aeon of Ganges sands, and ending after the second incalculable aeon of Ganges sands when Avalokiteśvara would succeed to his place, he made these grand vows, verified by the Buddhas of the ten directions. Just as he was about to vertically cover the three realms and horizontally encompass the four modes of birth, would they fail to reach those of the third stage, such that he excluded them without accepting them? The Buddhas and bodhisattvas, observing with noble wisdom, knew that they could not attain rebirth and that there was no Dharma by which they could be delivered, and so ceased using the hand of the true Dharma to pull them out of the mire. Yet Chan Master Xinxing could further extend clever skillful means, expounding the universal, true Buddha-Dharma to succeed in saving third-stage people. This would mean his compassion surpasses Śākyamuni and his wisdom exceeds Amitāyus; thus the Unsurpassed Tamer would conversely become a 'surpassed' World-Honoured One, and the Incomparable One would become a Fully Awakened One who has been surpassed. Chan Master Xinxing would then be superior to the Buddha! Another objection: If you say that the division between exclusion and acceptance is due to the difference between the second and third stages regarding [the commission of] the five cardinal sins, and is not determined by whether the recitations are few or many, why, in the passage where the cardinal sins are excluded, is the phrasing 'down to ten recitations' placed, while in the passage where the cardinal sins are accepted, the phrasing 'replete with ten recitations' is set down? Why did he not place the name of 'third-stage people' in the passage excluding the cardinal sins, and set down the words 'second-stage people' in the passage accepting the cardinal sins? Why would the Great Master forcefully insert the unnecessary phrasing 'down to ten recitations,' while of the words that needed to be spoken, there is not even the mention of the words 'second' or 'third stages'? The Chan master defends [his view], saying: 'The nine grades in the Guan jing are an extremely detailed specific exposition. That is to say, because the good and evil of those born in the nine grades are expounded separately, for the lowest evil people the method of one recitation is not expounded (one recitation is the method for good people to attain rebirth); rather, the method for evil people to attain rebirth is expounded separately, which is why it specifically says 'replete with ten recitations' ('replete' is a word contrasted with 'deficient,' meaning the count of recitations must be filled to ten). The two passages in the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra are an extremely concise general statement. That is to say, the good and evil of those born in the lower two grades are expounded together; the phrasing implicitly contains the methods of few or many, and the meaning generally encompasses people of both good and evil. Therefore, within the earlier 'down to,' there is the method of one recitation for good people; within the later 'down to,' there is also the method of ten recitations for evil people. Because good and evil, few and many, are brought forth in a general embrace, it is called 'general.' Because it remotely speaks of 'down to' without bringing up the initial term, it is 'extremely concise.' Thus, the earlier phrase 'down to ten recitations' is an expression going from one toward ten. When the expression ends by saying 'ten,' it begins remotely from one, skipping over the intervening nine. Therefore, within this text, the method of one recitation for good people must be contained. The later phrase 'down to one recitation' is an expression going from ten toward one. When the expression ends by saying 'one,' it begins remotely from ten, skipping over the other nine. Therefore, within this text, the method of ten recitations for evil people must be contained. Thus, it is simply because within the lower 'down to' there must be ten recitations, and the method of ten recitations is applied to evil people. Among the ranks of evil people, the deviant and the correct are mixed together; therefore, it selectively speaks of excluding the cardinal sins and slander. How does excluding the cardinal sins and slander have anything to do with [the number of recitations] being as few as one?' The objection is: Now, having the cardinal sins and being without the cardinal sins constitutes the two kinds of people, good and evil; and the second stage and third stage divide the two grades of deviant and correct. Could it not be that within the two ranks of deviant and correct there are also both good and evil people? In the rank of evil people, the deviant and correct are mixed, and therefore it selectively speaks of excluding the cardinal sins and slander; it could likewise be that in the rank of good people, the deviant and correct are mixed, so why does it not selectively speak of excluding those who are not guilty of cardinal sins and slander, instead taking those who are not deviant and evil to be identical with deviant and evil people, uniformly stating that they are excluded under ten recitations? Furthermore, as for the extremely concise words 'one recitation' and 'ten recitations': within the method for good people, the correctly good people are accepted and the deviantly good people are not excluded; why, within the method for evil people, are the correctly evil people accepted while the deviantly evil people are excluded? Furthermore, within the method for evil people, the correctly evil are accepted while the deviantly evil and deviantly good are excluded; it could likewise be that within the method for good people, the correctly good are accepted while the deviantly good and deviantly evil are excluded. Furthermore, within the method for good people, it only discusses accepting those who should be excluded, and does not speak of excluding the deviantly good. Why, within the method for evil people, does it also discuss accepting those who should be excluded, yet speaks of excluding the deviantly evil? Furthermore, the deviantly evil should be excluded in the context of evil, but the sūtra does not exclude them in the context of good. The deviantly good should be excluded in the context of good, so why are they instead excluded in the context of evil? Furthermore, within the method for good people, deviantly good people can be named among the class of the deviantly evil. Why, within the method for evil people, cannot the class of the deviantly evil also be named deviantly good people? Furthermore, within the method for evil people there are the deviant and the correct, and the sūtra accepts the correct and excludes the deviant. Why do you not allow that within the method for correct people there are good and evil, and the sūtra accepts the good people and excludes the evil? Furthermore, the ten recitations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra accept the correctly evil, which means it speaks of excluding those who are deviantly evil. Why, for the ten recitations of the Guan jing, in accepting the correctly evil, does it not speak of excluding those who are deviantly evil? Furthermore, both sūtras speak of ten recitations; the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra speaks of acceptance and also discusses exclusion—why do both sūtras not set forth what is not ten recitations? The Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra speaks of acceptance and also speaks of exclusion. Although the Chan master and others attempt to forcefully defend Chan Master Xinxing's interpretation of these two sūtras as an exquisite explanation, since obstacles and objections become tangled and numerous doubts arise in competition, this is not an exquisite interpretation; let scholars be aware of this. The Chan master again objects, saying: 'If it were said that the cardinal sins are excluded because the Dharma of one recitation is few, then since there is the greater Dharma of ten recitations, for what reason would it speak of exclusion?' The answer is: this is no valid objection.