釋淨土群疑論 5.5

5.5

Explanation: There are three explanations for this: first, there is exposition without encouragement; second, there is encouragement but few [suitable] capacities; third, the text of encouragement is incomplete. First, regarding 'exposition without encouragement': as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'Passing beyond forty-two Ganges-sands of worlds to the west of here, there is a marvelous pure land named Aparājita, which is entirely identical to the Western Sukhāvatī without any difference. The Tathāgata relinquished that pure land and came to be born in this Sahā world to teach and transform sentient beings.' If any pure land can simply be aspired to, why did Śākyamuni Tathāgata not encourage rebirth in his own pure land, but solely encouraged rebirth in Sukhāvatī? Even across the various Mahāyāna sūtras, although pure lands are expounded, there are no passages encouraging rebirth [there]. Second, regarding 'encouragement but few [suitable] capacities': as when Vimalakīrti brought the Abhirati world from afar and set it down in this land to show it to the great assembly, the Buddha encouraged the great assembly to be born in that land. There were fourteen nayutas of people who generated the bodhicitta and aspired to be born in that land, and the Buddha predicted their future birth. Then it says below: 'The Abhirati world, having completed what it should do to benefit this land, returned to its original place.' If all sentient beings were fittingly able to be born in this pure land, why did the Tathāgata, aside from those fourteen nayutas of people, ultimately not universally encourage the original sentient beings to be born in Abhirati, saying instead that Abhirati had completed its benefiting, and so forth? Therefore, we know that because the karmic capacity was absent, he did not encourage it. Third, regarding 'the text of encouragement is incomplete': sūtras such as the Suiyuan wangsheng jing and the Bhaiṣajyaguru Sūtra, although pointing to pure lands of other directions and encouraging people to attain rebirth there, do not have comprehensive texts. What is comprehensive? For example, in the Guan jing and other sūtras encouraging rebirth in the West: first, ordinary people are revealed; second, the future is clarified; third, the committing of sins is made clear; fourth, there is the testimony of the Buddhas of the ten directions extending their tongues; fifth, there are multiple texts of sūtras bearing identical witness. Relying on them to cultivate and study, there are no doubts or obstacles; therefore, this karma for the Western pure land is easy to rely on and practice. Since the other sūtras lack the aforementioned texts and have only a sentence or two encouraging rebirth, they are difficult to rely upon. Why should one abandon vast and numerous passages and take up minor sūtra texts? Furthermore, the sūtra texts encourage relying on nītārtha sūtras and not relying on neyārtha sūtras. The Tripiṭaka Master explained that there are four kinds of nītārtha and neyārtha sūtras, whose meanings have already been fully set forth in the Commentary on the Guan jing. Now, this teaching of the Pure Land possesses all four meanings and is a nītārtha sūtra; therefore, one can rely on it to cultivate pure practices. Although the textual meaning of other sūtras expounds pure lands, they do not possess the four meanings and are neyārtha; it is difficult to rely on them to cultivate pure karma.