釋淨土群疑論 4.5
English (machine translation) 4.5
- Language
- English
4.5
Explanation: Examining the Chan master's intention in establishing his teachings, he takes the 'Buddha-dharma appropriate to the capacity' as the central tenet, considering that he has captured the ultimate intent of the sacred teachings and eclipsing scholars past and present. The Chan master investigates the teachings through three criteria to determine whether a teaching is appropriate to the capacity: first, relying on the time; second, taking into account the place; third, conforming to the person. Examining these three gateways established by the Chan master to seek the intention of the various teachings, one could say it is subtle indeed, and capable indeed! Yet among the eminent virtues of ancient times, although they explored the obscure and subtle, their learning covered both the internal and external, and their understanding encompassed both the partial and the complete, exhausting the lair of the Dharma gates and investigating the secret treasury of the true vehicle, none ever formulated such an approach to determine the central doctrine as the Chan master did. However, the Chan master establishes his own thesis yet contradicts his own premise. How so? The Guan jing says: 'Today the Tathāgata teaches Vaidehī and all pṛthagjanas of future ages who are harmed by the thieves of afflictions, expounding the pure karmas.' 'And future ages' refers to an evil time; 'those who are harmed by the thieves of afflictions' refers to evil persons; this teaching transforms this defiled land, which is an evil place. Since this sūtra possesses all three criteria, it should be considered the Buddha-dharma appropriate to the capacity. When the Chan master says it is not appropriate to the capacity, what does he mean? The eight dharmas of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra do not say they are for future ages, so it is not an evil time; 'bodhisattvas accomplish eight dharmas' does not refer to evil persons; there is only the transformation of this defiled land, which is an evil place. This sūtra possesses only this single criterion and lacks those other two gateways, yet he says it is appropriate to the capacity—what logic is this?
Linked texts (1)
- 釋淨土群疑論 — Classical Chinese