樂邦文類 4.64

4.64

Question: Ci'en composed the Commentary on the Maitreya Ascending to Heaven Sūtra deeply praising the inner court of Tuṣita, stating: "The heavenly palace has ten ways of being easy to be born in, while the Pure Land has seven ways of being difficult to be born in." What the holy teacher stated must not mislead people; how is this to be reconciled? Answer: You only know that Ci'en's Commentary on the Ascending Sūtra encourages rebirth in the heavenly palace, but do not see that the General Praise of Amitābha speaks of the ten superiorities of the Pure Land. How could the holy teacher's compositions contradict each other? It is simply that in expounding teachings according to capacities, each shows an expedient means. This is just like the Tathāgata speaking the Amitābha Sūtra, the Infinite Life Sūtra, and so forth to encourage rebirth in the west, while also speaking the Maitreya Ascending to Heaven Sūtra to encourage rebirth in the inner court: their underlying purports are of one accord. Sentient beings' capacities and conditions are distinct, and the Buddha-lands' gathering and reception are likewise so. For example, if someone's destiny of birth is in the south, and preparing a boat they wish to go to Wu and Yue, packing their bags and asking about the route, one who knows will respond to what is asked. How could one instead praise the convenience of land travel and extol the greatness of Qin and Shu? Doing so would only increase confusion and bring no benefit. A person of comprehensive understanding knows where to return according to their vows; those of shallow views and fox-like doubts force differences like Hu and Yue.