淨土論 2.6

2.6

答曰：彼論所明，有別時、有不別時。若唯空發願，即是別時；若行願兼修，非是別時。若天親菩薩判作別時意者，何故《攝論》後文將造論功德迴向眾生，願往生淨土也？又何故更造《往生論》勸人往生也？復次如《觀經》教興意者，緣韋提希生阿闍世五逆之子，因厭五濁，願生極樂。佛遂為說三福淨業十六觀門，勸眾生往生，乃至十惡五逆悉勸往生。即既淨土請主身居五濁、復生逆子，佛說皆得往生，即知現居五濁凡夫悉得往生。此理明矣。

Answer: What is explained in that treatise has [a case where it refers to] another time, and [a case where it] does not refer to another time. If one merely makes empty vows, that indeed refers to another time; if practice and vows are cultivated together, it does not refer to another time. If Bodhisattva Vasubandhu had determined it to be an expression referring to another time, why would the subsequent text of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha dedicate the merit of composing the treatise to sentient beings, vowing that they be reborn in the pure land? Moreover, why would he further compose the Treatise on Rebirth to encourage people to attain rebirth? Furthermore, regarding the purpose of the arising of the Guan jing's teaching: it was because Vaidehī gave birth to Ajātaśatru, a son who committed the five heinous sins, and, becoming weary of the five turbidities, she vowed to be born in Sukhāvatī. The Buddha then taught for her the pure karma of the three blessings and the sixteen contemplation gates, encouraging sentient beings to attain rebirth, even encouraging those guilty of the ten evil acts and the five heinous sins to attain rebirth. Since the petitioner for the pure land was someone dwelling in the five turbidities and had given birth to a rebellious son, yet the Buddha taught that all can attain rebirth, we know that ordinary beings currently dwelling in the five turbidities can all attain rebirth. This principle is clear.