樂邦文類 4.90

4.90

空名居士謂無已法師曰：竊惟傳記所載，始自晉時廬山遠公與諸信士結香火之社，願生西方，乃請社中劉遺民者為誓文。或曰：斯乃教門權漸之方便；若究觀根極，其惟息心達本是正修行。有唐雍州藍田釋法喜，專修禪業，預知將死。大眾忽聞林北有音樂之聲，因以告喜。喜曰：「世間果報，久已捨之。如何更生樂處？」乃默而入定，須臾樂聲便止，喜亦端坐而終。又唐京師釋曇倫，臨終有問：「往生何處？」答云：「無盡世界。」於是寂然而化。今詳二師善逝，正是泥洹絕境。夫何遺身之徒，求生淨土？以彼較此，一何麁疎？願叩兩端，用袪未悟。法師曰：余向者已聞楊公之書，謂極樂為示權，誡乎忻厭取捨之說。不俟再問，方欲連茹引而伸之；今蒙致詰，如弦得筈，豈得不發。所言極樂為權，權必對實也。請試陳之。為以小乘是權、大乘是實耶？為以有法是權、無法是實？即若謂小乘是權者，且聲聞經中曾無一言勸讚往生十方淨土。故迦葉云：「但念空無相無作，於菩薩法游戲神通、淨佛國土、成就眾生，心不喜樂。」若謂有法是權者，何但極樂是權，至於泥洹皆是權耳。故須菩提云：「若有法勝於涅槃，我說亦復如幻如夢。」由是言之，忻泥洹而厭極樂，亦猶逃峰赴壑，俱不免於害也。又若謂吾不取極樂亦不著泥洹，曠然無朕，不可擬議。若爾，則滅後無生，何殊外道斷滅之見？復有說云：吾滅度後，十方世界皆是我身，何必定生西方極樂？若爾，則便同聖人普現色像。儻未證謂證，大妄語罪其誰當之？天台智者云：「常人聞生，即作生解；聞無生，即作無生解。不知生即無生、無生即生，橫相是非，瞋他求生淨土，幾許誤哉。」故知法喜不求於樂處、曇倫示歸於無盡，斯乃遺情離著之語，必非滅後永寂如空，凡夫則循業受生，聖人亦隨機利見。況法喜滅後，降神於弟子曰：「吾欲露屍山野，給施眾生等。」豈非此身雖謝，彼識猶生乎？而指為泥洹絕境者，將何以驗之？且夫泥洹，此翻滅度。統括諸教，其唯二焉。若聲聞泥洹者，滅見思煩惱，度分段生死，證偏空之理。理既偏矣，空不能有，故身土皆亡。此方便之說也。若諸佛泥洹，滅無明煩惱，度變易生死，證中道之理。理既中矣，非空非有，故應化無窮。此了義之談也。今未審倫喜二師是何泥洹？若是偏空，未免麁疎；若是中道，何名絕境？今之學人，孰不謂即心是佛、觸目皆真，寧勞乎轉物同如，亦已乎超毘越釋。及無根其所自核，其所歸空空然，冥若夜游，實貪恚之具存，何忻厭而不起？眷富貴如骨肉、顧貧賤如瘡疣，於吾善者願欲升之太階、於吾惡者恨不戮之都市。凡此之類，恥修淨土，謂之忻厭者，不知其可也。僧傳習禪篇中，甚有苦節謹終之者，或西務安養、或上忻知足，慧真絕粒以行懺、淨度然身以為燈。僧顯現感於彌陀、智晞明見於兜率，莫謂此等皆是習俗麁疎之人乎？廬山遠公稀代之僧寶，西域梵眾咸稱漢地有大乘道士，每燒香禮拜輒東嚮稽首，豈迷圓頓之教、顓由權漸之門？劉雷之徒皆晉世髦傑，何詭誕而隨之乎，而不知漸門多昧於往生、頓教盛稱於淨土？佛言：「讀誦大乘方等經典，善解義趣，於第一義心不驚動，斯為上品往生之業。」又天親云：「二乘種人，不生極樂。」《華嚴》有勸生之說、《法華》有記往之文，十方如來出長舌相，靡不稱讚往生彼國。彌勒問佛：「於此世界，有幾菩薩生彼佛國？」佛言：「有六十七億不退菩薩。一一菩薩已曾供養無數諸佛，次如彌勒者也。」又佛言：「末世法滅之後，特留無量壽經百年住世，接引眾生。」以此證之，如何芥視往生之人？如何蓁塞極樂之路？所損至大，可不謹乎。

The lay practitioner Kongming said to Dharma Master Wuyi: "I have privately reflected upon what is recorded in the biographies: starting in the Jin dynasty, Master Yuan of Mount Lu formed an incense-fire society with various faithful gentlemen, vowing to be reborn in the West, and invited Liu Yimin from within the society to compose the text of their pledge. Some say: this is merely an expedient, gradual means of the doctrinal teachings; if one examines the ultimate root, it is solely ceasing the mind and reaching the fundamental source that constitutes true cultivation. In the Tang dynasty, in Lantian of Yongzhou, there was the monk Faxi, who devoted himself exclusively to the practice of dhyāna and knew in advance that he was about to die. The assembly suddenly heard the sound of music to the north of the grove and thus informed Faxi. Faxi said: 'Worldly retributions have long since been abandoned by me; why should I further be reborn in a place of joy?' He then entered samādhi in silence; in an instant the music ceased, and Faxi also passed away sitting upright. Furthermore, in the Tang capital, when the monk Tanlun was on the verge of death, someone asked: 'Where will you be reborn?' He replied: 'In the inexhaustible worlds,' whereupon he quietly passed away. Now, examining the departure of these two masters, it was precisely the absolute realm of nirvāṇa. Why then should those who renounce the body seek rebirth in a Pure Land? Comparing that to this, how coarse and unrefined is it! I wish to inquire into both sides so as to dispel my lack of awakening." The Dharma Master said: "I have previously read Master Yang's letter, which claims that the Land of Ultimate Bliss is an expedient manifestation, cautioning against the doctrine of yearning and revulsion, grasping and discarding. Without waiting to be asked again, I was just wishing to follow this through and expound upon it; now that I have received your question, it is like an arrow finding the notch of the bowstring—how could it not be released? As for stating that the Land of Ultimate Bliss is expedient: the expedient must be paired with the real. Allow me to set this forth. Do you consider the Hīnayāna to be expedient and the Mahāyāna to be real? Or do you consider the existence of dharmas to be expedient and the non-existence of dharmas to be real? If you say that the Hīnayāna is expedient, then in the sūtras of the śrāvakas there is not a single word encouraging or praising rebirth in the Pure Lands of the ten directions. Thus Kāśyapa said: 'We only contemplate emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness; toward the bodhisattva dharmas of sporting with spiritual penetrations, purifying buddha lands, and maturing sentient beings, our minds find no joy.' If you say that the existence of dharmas is expedient, why would only the Land of Ultimate Bliss be expedient? Even nirvāṇa would be expedient as well! Thus Subhūti said: 'Even if there were a dharma superior to nirvāṇa, I would still say it is like an illusion, like a dream.' Speaking from this, yearning for nirvāṇa and reviling the Land of Ultimate Bliss is also like fleeing a mountain peak only to plunge into a ravine; in both cases one does not escape harm. Furthermore, if you say: 'I do not grasp at the Land of Ultimate Bliss, nor do I cling to nirvāṇa; vast and trackless, it cannot be deliberated upon'—if so, then being without rebirth after extinction, how would this differ from the non-Buddhist view of annihilationism? Others again say: 'After my extinction, the worlds of the ten directions are all my body; why must I definitely be born in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss?' If so, this would be identical to a sage universally manifesting physical forms. If one claims realization without having realized it, who will bear the guilt of this grave false speech? Tiantai Zhizhe said: 'Ordinary people, upon hearing of "birth", understand it as birth; upon hearing of "non-birth", they understand it as non-birth. Not knowing that birth is precisely non-birth, and non-birth is precisely birth, they randomly make distinctions of right and wrong and resent others seeking rebirth in the Pure Land—how manifold are their errors!' Therefore know that Faxi's not seeking a place of joy and Tanlun's manifesting a return to the inexhaustible were words to leave behind emotional attachments and depart from grasping; they certainly do not mean that after extinction one is eternally quiescent like empty space. Ordinary beings receive rebirth according to their karma, while sages also manifest to benefit others in accord with capacities. What is more, after Faxi's extinction, his spirit descended to his disciples, saying: 'I wish to expose my corpse in the mountain wilderness to give as alms to sentient beings and others.' Is it not the case that although this body had ceased, that consciousness was still born? Yet pointing to this as the absolute realm of nirvāṇa, by what would you verify it? Furthermore, 'nirvāṇa' is translated here as extinction and crossing over. Comprehending all teachings, there are only two kinds. In the nirvāṇa of śrāvakas, one extinguishes the afflictions of view and thought, crosses over fragmentary birth and death, and realizes the principle of biased emptiness. Since the principle is biased, emptiness cannot possess existence; therefore both body and land are completely extinguished. This is an expedient discourse. In the nirvāṇa of all buddhas, one extinguishes the affliction of avidyā, crosses over transformational birth and death, and realizes the principle of the Middle Way. Since the principle is the Middle Way, it is neither empty nor existent; therefore responsive manifestations are inexhaustible. This is the definitive discourse. Now, I do not know which nirvāṇa the two masters Lun and Xi attained. If it was biased emptiness, it cannot escape being coarse and unrefined; if it was the Middle Way, how could it be called an 'absolute realm'? Among today's scholars, who does not say 'mind itself is buddha' or 'everything that meets the eye is real'? Why would one labor to convert things to be identical with suchness, or already surpass Vairocana and transcend Śākyamuni? Yet when one examines their origin without foundation, that to which they return is empty and blank, dark as a night journey; in reality, greed and hatred fully persist, so how could yearning and revulsion not arise? They cherish wealth and honor like flesh and blood, look upon poverty and lowliness like ulcers and warts; toward those who are good to them, they wish to elevate them to the highest steps of the palace; toward those they dislike, they regret not executing them in the public market. When people of this sort feel ashamed to cultivate the Pure Land and call it 'yearning and revulsion', I do not know how that can be approved. In the section on practicing dhyāna in the Biographies of Monks, there are many who observed strict asceticism and were cautious to the end: some strove for Peaceful Nurture in the West, some yearned upward for the Contented [Heaven]; Huizhen abstained from grain to practice repentance; Jingdu burned his body as a lamp; Sengxian experienced a manifest response from Amitābha; Zhixi clearly saw Tuṣita. Could one say that these were all vulgar and coarse people? Master Yuan of Mount Lu was a monastic jewel rare in any age; the Indian assemblies of the Western Regions all praised him, saying that in the land of Han there was a Mahāyāna man of the Way, and whenever they burned incense and made obeisance, they always bowed with their heads to the ground facing east—how could he have been confused about the perfect and sudden teaching and exclusively followed the gate of the expedient and gradual? Liu, Lei, and their cohort were all eminent men of the Jin dynasty; how could they have followed him out of deceit and delusion? Yet people do not know that the gradual gate is often ignorant of rebirth, while the sudden teaching extensively praises the Pure Land! The Buddha said: 'Reading and reciting the Mahāyāna Vaipulya scriptures, thoroughly understanding the meaning and principle, and remaining unshaken in mind regarding the ultimate truth: this is the karma for rebirth in the highest grade.' Furthermore, Vasubandhu said: 'Those belonging to the lineage of the two vehicles are not born in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.' The Huayan has teachings encouraging rebirth; the Lotus Sūtra has text prophesying rebirth; the Tathāgatas of the ten directions extend the sign of the broad and long tongue, and none fails to praise rebirth in that land. Maitreya asked the Buddha: 'In this world, how many bodhisattvas are born in that buddha land?' The Buddha said: 'There are sixty-seven hundred million non-retrogressing bodhisattvas. Each and every bodhisattva has already made offerings to countless buddhas, second only to Maitreya.' Furthermore, the Buddha said: 'After the Dharma is extinguished in the final age, I will specially retain the Immeasurable Life Sūtra for one hundred years to abide in the world and guide sentient beings.' Using this as verification, how can one look upon those who attain rebirth as mustard seeds? How can one obstruct the path to the Land of Ultimate Bliss? The harm done is exceedingly great—can one not be cautious?"