樂邦文類 4.90

4.90

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?"