廬山蓮宗寶鑑 3.20

3.20

天台思梵講主，久居臨平山，解行明峻，深造教觀性相淵源，每與士大夫往復，隨有所問答釋粲然。一日有通判鄭公問曰：「教中所明念阿彌陀佛，願生淨土。此專為鈍根方便權說。上根頓悟一超直入佛地，豈假他佛淨土耶？」師云：「吾宗先達呵此說云：『佛在世文殊普賢，佛滅後馬鳴龍樹，此土智者大師、智覺禪師，皆願往生淨土，應是鈍根乎？若以此為權教，將何為實耶？昔孫莘老亦疑於此，因會楊次公、王敏中辯論，遂息此疑，信此淨土非聖人之權設，是圓實之真宗也。注念彼佛，必生淨土，斯乃稱性實言，非權教也。』」

Dharma Lecturer Tiantai Sifan long dwelt on Mount Linping. His understanding and practice were clear and rigorous, and he penetrated deeply into the source of doctrinal contemplation and nature and characteristics. Whenever he conversed back and forth with literati, his answers and explanations in response to their questions were brilliantly clear. One day, Controller Zheng asked: 'What is clarified in the teachings is mindfulness of Amitābha Buddha and wishing to be born in the Pure Land. This was an expedient teaching set forth solely for dull capacities. Those of superior faculties who suddenly awaken directly transcend and enter the Buddha stage at once; why would they rely on another Buddha's Pure Land?' The master said: 'Earlier worthies of our school rebuked this view, saying: "While the Buddha was in the world, Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra, and after the Buddha's passing, Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna, as well as Great Master Zhizhe and Chan Master Zhijue in this land, all aspired to be reborn in the Pure Land. Could they have been of dull capacities? If this is taken to be an expedient teaching, what then would be considered real? Formerly Sun Xinlao also had doubts about this; through meeting with Yang Cigong and Wang Minzhong in debate, he then settled these doubts and had faith that this Pure Land is not an expedient device of the sages, but the true tenet of the perfect and real. Focusing one's mindfulness on that Buddha, one will surely be born in the Pure Land—these are indeed real words according with nature, not an expedient teaching."'