念佛三昧寶王論 3.25

3.25

A question asks: "Flowers are phenomena; where is the principle in them? Where lies the reciprocal retribution of having faith versus slandering?" I replied: "Flowers are themselves the principle; form is itself emptiness. Regarding the retribution of faith, the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka Sūtra says: 'Long ago, there was a prince named Abhaya, who held a lotus flower in his hands and offered it to Ratnagarbha Buddha. The Buddha said: "Because you have imprinted the lotus flower upon empty space, I now grant you the name Ākāśamudrā. When you become a buddha in the future, your realm will be named Padmā, and your buddha name will be Padmottama—you are that one."' Both the land and the buddha were named according to the lotus flower offered in the past, in order to make clearly understood the principle that practicing the cause produces the fruit. Why then discourage the presentation of flowers of the dāna-pāramitā, wishing instead to adhere separately to signlessness? Regarding the retribution of slander, the Mahāvaipulya Dhāraṇī Sūtra states: 'Long ago there was a monk named Śuddhamati who abode in right view and held flowers in offering; there was another monk named Dharmācāra who abode in wrong view, had attained the four dhyānas through sitting, and constantly claimed that the emptiness doctrine of prajñā was supreme. He slandered the Dharma Master Śuddhamati, saying: "The flowers Śuddhamati receives are not used for offerings, but for his own enjoyment." Due to this single remark, for sixty thousand lifetimes he was constantly devoid of the tongue-faculty, and even upon attaining buddhahood he still resided in the five corruptions.' Who was that person? It was Śākyamuni himself! The Buddha said: 'People of little learning who make two different assertions within my Dharma will, after death, fall into hell for many hundreds of thousands of kalpas. If with evil eyes one looks upon a person who has given rise to the bodhicitta, one will receive the retribution of having no eyes; if with an evil mouth one slanders a person who has given rise to the bodhicitta, one will receive the retribution of having no tongue.' If one could become a bodhisattva merely by cultivating the single prajñāpāramitā, then when in the past King Kāśi practiced the bodhisattva conduct, he relinquished his beloved body, head, eyes, marrow, and brain. At that time, did this king lack wisdom? Thus we know that the six pāramitās should all be fully cultivated; to grasp one and reject the rest is māra's work. How could one cast aside the dāna-pāramitā of offering flowers, and through an ill-conceived grasp of emptiness arrogantly despise the true signlessness of prajñā? The retribution of having no tongue brings calamity upon oneself. The Tathāgata cited his own past fault precisely because he wished sentient beings not to overturn their carts in the same old ruts. A single flower being like this, so too with all images of clay and wood, sūtras on bamboo and silk, tonsured monks and nuns, the presiding Triple Jewel, and the trainings in morality, calm, and discernment—regardless of whether they are fields of merit or not, all are worthy of veneration. For all to enter the ocean of offerings to the dharmadhātu through the true three karmas—what could be objectionable about this? Why should one wish to omit it? The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka verse says: