淨土或問 1.21

1.21

問曰：取捨之談，無敢議矣。但往生之說，能不乖於無生之理乎？答曰：天台云「智者熾然求生淨土，達生體不可得即是真無生，此謂心淨故佛土淨。愚者為生所縛，聞生即作生解、聞無生即作無生解，不知生即無生、無生即生也。」長蘆曰「以生為生者，常見之所失也。以無生為無生者，斷見之所惑也。生而無生、無生而生者，第一義諦也。」天衣曰「生則決定生，去則實不去。」三家之說其旨甚明。今余復以性相二字釋之。妙真如性本自無生，因緣和合乃有生相，以其性能現相故，曰無生即生。以其相由性現故，曰生即無生也。知此則知淨土之生，惟心所生，無生而生。理何乖焉？

Question: Regarding the discourse on taking and abandoning, I would not presume to dispute it. But as for the teaching of rebirth, can it avoid contradicting the principle of non-arising? Answer: Tiantai said: “The wise fervently seek rebirth in the Pure Land, understanding that the essence of birth is ungraspable, which is truly non-arising; this is what is meant by ‘because the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is pure.’ The foolish are bound by birth: hearing of birth, they interpret it as birth; hearing of non-arising, they interpret it as non-arising, not knowing that birth is precisely non-arising, and non-arising is precisely birth.” Changlu said: “To take birth as birth is the error of the eternalist view; to take non-arising as non-arising is the delusion of the annihilationist view. To be born yet non-arising, non-arising yet born, is the supreme truth.” Tianyi said: “Rebirth is definitely rebirth, yet going is truly not going.” The doctrines of the three masters are extremely clear. Now I shall further explain it with the two characters ‘nature’ (svabhāva) and ‘characteristics’ (lakṣaṇa). The nature of marvelous True Suchness is fundamentally without arising; only through the coming together of causes and conditions are there characteristics of arising. Because its nature can manifest characteristics, it is said that non-arising is precisely arising. Because its characteristics are manifested from nature, it is said that arising is precisely non-arising. Knowing this, one knows that the rebirth in the Pure Land is born of mind alone, arising without arising. How could it contradict principle?