樂邦文類 4.102

4.102

或問：唯心淨土、本性彌陀，為當往生？為即心是？若往生者，何謂唯心？若即心是，何故經云「過十萬億佛土」耶？或答：事理有異，約事須當往生、據理即心而是。今議曰：圓家事理一體無殊，何得抗分而通此義？當知十界四土，若淨若穢，不離我心。此心全是妄念，以本具故，具足百界千如依正等法，此但直具而已。若達全具為遍，遍彼生佛，彼彼生佛互遍亦爾。趣舉一法是法界之大都，互具各具互融互攝，參而不雜、離亦不分，一多自在，不相留礙。夫如是者，豈有娑婆釋迦、樂邦彌陀而離我心耶？故《輔行》曰「又復學者，縱知內心具三千法（各具義也），不知我心遍彼三千，彼彼三千互遍亦爾（互具義也。一彼彼生一彼彼佛，心佛眾生彼彼皆具也）。苟順凡情生內外見（今疑唯心淨土遠過十萬億剎者，正是生內外見也），應照理體本無四性、心佛眾生三無差別。能知此者，依俙識心（文）。」準此則知，三千本是融妙之法，任運具攝依正色心淨穢國土。既曰三法無差，則唯心本性無復致疑。今更以譬喻顯之。如彼帝釋殿上千珠寶網，眾珠之影映在一珠，一珠具足眾珠，彼彼千珠互映亦爾。現前一心，即是千珠中一，彼彌陀佛土亦是千珠中一，所有十界眾生趣舉一界皆是千珠中一。既我一珠能映眾珠，我心之內無復眾珠，則離我心外無別淨土。何故爾耶？以釋迦亦是一珠、彌陀亦是一珠，既舉一全收，豈心外有法？故曰唯心淨土、本性彌陀也。然則唯心之言足矣，又何謂之過十萬億佛土耶？當知經旨乃是以理揀情說之。何者？情生則十萬迢遙，唯心乃一念理是。若爾唯心而已，何云淨土？須知體非因果，一念唯心迷悟既殊，因果宛爾。彌陀果悟、我等因迷，忻厭心生，順佛勸往，故云唯心，又稱淨土矣。然則既有取捨忻厭，莫成虛偽耶？曰當知圓人捨則捨穢究盡，三土九界皆捨；取則取淨窮源；直取上品寂光。故《妙宗》曰「取捨若極，與不取捨亦非異轍。良由寂光不離三土，十界只是四土耳。」若以四眼二智觀之，則萬像森羅、三土九界須捨。若以佛眼種智觀之，則真空冥寂，非離三土九界別有寂光，非寂光外別有娑婆。如古德曰「只緣即心是佛，須假修行」者，乃此意也。會得唯心，則不妨十萬之程，以理揀情其旨深矣。又復須知，此約順，謂了性為行以說。若論逆，則背性成迷，亦可談於唯心地獄。以地獄亦是千珠中一，亦是全具為遍，此地獄外無復餘法，一切趣地獄。是趣不過，六即三千，俱皆地獄。如是則鐵床非苦、變易非遷，一切皆是性德本具。性惡法門，由是而知。若逆若順、因果迷悟、事理修性，若了唯心本性，只一三千融妙之法，十萬遐方皆不為礙。何以故？以真具故、以三千故、以融攝故，故得如斯。以上略提梗概，若欲深證此理，須除情想。

Someone asked: "Regarding the mind-only Pure Land and the self-nature Amitābha, should one be reborn there, or is it identical to the mind as it is? If one is reborn there, why is it called mind-only? If it is identical to the mind as it is, why does the sūtra say that it is 'past a hundred thousand koṭis of buddha-lands'?" Someone answered: "Phenomena and principle are different. In terms of phenomena, one must be reborn there; according to principle, it is identical to the mind as it is." Now I deliberate and say: In the Perfect Teaching, phenomena and principle are one substance without distinction; how could one set them in opposition and division to understand this meaning? One should know that the ten realms and four lands, whether pure or defiled, do not depart from my mind. This mind is entirely deluded thought, yet because it inherently possesses them, it is fully endowed with the hundred realms, thousand thusnesses, and the dharmas of circumstantial and primary rewards; this is simply directly endowed. If one penetrates that complete endowment is omnipresence, then it is omnipresent in those beings and buddhas, and those beings and buddhas mutually pervade each other in like manner. Whichever single dharma one may cite is the great capital of the dharmadhātu; mutually endowed and individually endowed, mutually blending and mutually subsuming, mingling without confusion, separate yet not divided, one and many are unimpeded, not obstructing one another. Such being the case, how could the Sahā Śākyamuni and the Land of Bliss's Amitābha depart from my mind? Therefore the Fuxing says: 'Furthermore, even if practitioners know that the internal mind possesses the three thousand dharmas (the meaning of individual endowment), they do not know that my mind pervades those three thousand, and those three thousand mutually pervade each other in like manner (the meaning of mutual endowment; one by one beings and one by one buddhas—mind, buddha, and sentient beings all mutually possess each other). If one accords with common passions and generates views of internal and external (those today who doubt that the mind-only Pure Land is distantly past a hundred thousand koṭis of lands are precisely generating views of internal and external), one should illuminate that the principle-substance fundamentally lacks the four natures, and that mind, buddha, and sentient beings are three without distinction. One who can know this roughly recognizes the mind.' Accords with this, one knows that the three thousand are fundamentally harmonious and wondrous dharmas, naturally endowing and subsuming circumstantial and primary rewards, form and mind, pure and defiled lands. Since it is said that the three dharmas are without distinction, then mind-only and self-nature admit of no further doubt. Now I shall further clarify it by an analogy: Like the net of a thousand jewels in Lord Śakra's palace, the reflections of all the jewels are reflected in a single jewel, and a single jewel fully contains all the jewels; those thousand jewels mutually reflecting one another are also like this. The single mind present before us is precisely one among the thousand jewels; that Amitābha Buddha's land is also one among the thousand jewels; and all sentient beings of the ten realms, whichever realm one might mention, are all one among the thousand jewels. Since my single jewel can reflect all the jewels, and within my mind there are no other jewels, outside of my mind there is no separate Pure Land. Why is this so? Because Śākyamuni is also one jewel, and Amitābha is also one jewel. Since citing one entirely gathers all, how could there be dharmas outside the mind? Therefore it is called the mind-only Pure Land and the self-nature Amitābha. However, if the words 'mind-only' are sufficient, why speak of it being 'past a hundred thousand koṭis of buddha-lands'? One should know that the sūtra's purport uses principle to eliminate passions in its explanation. Why is this? When passions arise, the hundred thousand [lands] are distant and remote; mind-only is the principle of a single thought. If so, and it is merely mind-only, why speak of a Pure Land? One must know that the substance is not cause and effect, yet in a single thought of mind-only, delusion and awakening differ, and cause and effect are distinct. Amitābha is the awakening of the fruition; we are in the delusion of the cause. When the mind of aspiration and aversion arises, one accords with the Buddha's exhortation to go there. Thus it is called mind-only, and also termed the Pure Land. However, since there is adopting and rejecting, aspiration and aversion, does it not become false and artificial? I say: One must know that when a person of the Perfect Teaching rejects, they reject defilement to the uttermost—the three lands and nine realms are all rejected; when they adopt, they adopt purity to its deepest source—directly taking the highest grade of Quiescent Light. Therefore the Miaozong says: 'If adopting and rejecting reach the ultimate, they do not run on a different track from non-adopting and non-rejecting. This is truly because Quiescent Light does not depart from the three lands, and the ten realms are merely the four lands.' If one contemplates them with the four eyes and two wisdoms, then the myriad phenomena are dense and varied, and the three lands and nine realms must be rejected. If one contemplates them with the Buddha-eye and the wisdom of all modes, then true emptiness is silent and quiescent; there is no separate Quiescent Light apart from the three lands and nine realms, nor is there a separate Sahā outside of Quiescent Light. As the ancients said, 'Precisely because the mind itself is the Buddha, one must rely on cultivation'—this is what it means. If one comprehends mind-only, it does not impede the journey of a hundred thousand [lands]; using principle to eliminate passions, its purport is profound indeed. Furthermore, one must know that this is spoken in terms of conformity—meaning that understanding nature constitutes practice. If one discusses non-conformity, turning against nature results in delusion, and one could also speak of a mind-only hell. Because hell is also one among the thousand jewels and is also completely endowed as omnipresent, outside this hell there are no remaining dharmas; all realms tend toward hell. It tends nowhere beyond this; the six stages of identity and the three thousand are entirely hell. Thus the iron bed is not suffering, and change and transformation are not migration; all are fundamentally endowed as the virtue of nature. The dharma-gate of the inherent evil of nature is known from this. Whether non-conformity or conformity, cause and effect, delusion and awakening, phenomena and principle, cultivation and nature—if one realizes the mind-only self-nature, it is merely the single harmonious and wondrous dharma of the three thousand, and the distant quarters of a hundred thousand [lands] pose no obstruction. Why is this? Because it is truly endowed, because of the three thousand, and because of harmonious subsumption; therefore it is like this. The above briefly presents the outline; if one wishes to deeply realize this principle, one must eliminate passion and discursive thought.