[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [翻譯名義集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131) › 7.142 # 翻譯名義集 7.142 翻譯名義集 7.142 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.142.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.142.1) 初憑文者，《維摩經》云：「隨所化眾生而取佛土，隨所調伏眾生而取佛土，隨諸眾生應以何國入佛智慧，隨諸眾生應以何國起菩薩根。 」天台釋云：若對四土，宛然相似，若別出者。 《思益經》云：「東方之國，佛號日月光。 有菩薩梵天，曰思益，白佛：『我欲詣娑婆世界。 』佛言：『便往。 汝應以十法，游於彼土。 』」斯乃淨聖來游穢土。 又《智論》云：「穢土先施三乘，後顯一乘，娑婆是。 淨土先施三乘，後顯一乘，安養是。 」二有餘土，如《法華經》「我於餘國作佛，更有異名。 」《智論》云：「有淨佛土，出於三界，乃無煩惱之名。 於是國土佛所，聞《法華經》。 」三果報土，如《仁王》云：「三賢十聖住果報，唯佛一人居淨土。 」四常寂光，《普賢觀》云：「釋迦牟尼，名毘盧遮那。 其佛所住，名常寂光。 」二釋名。 初曰染淨同居者，染淨三種：一、迷悟分，九界迷逆名染，佛界順悟名淨。 如妙樂云：「相約隨緣，緣有染淨故。 」又《不二門》云：「法性之與無明，遍造諸法，名之為染。 無明之與法性，遍應眾緣，號之為淨。 」二、情理分，《不二門》云：「故知剎那，染體悉淨。 」《指要》云：「今之染淨，約情理說。 」三凡聖分，《淨名疏》云：「六道鄙穢故名染，三乘見真故名淨。 」三、六共住，染淨同居。 問：「《不二門》云：『一理之內，而分淨穢。 別則六穢四聖，通則十通淨穢。 』然此染淨淨穢，《文心》解云：『染淨，從迷悟體用而言。 淨穢，約凡聖界如而辨。 』今謂《淨名》染淨，正約凡聖而分。 云何淨覺却云：『淨穢約凡聖界如而辨』？ 又垂裕云：『染淨之名，約正； 淨穢之名，約依。 二土凡聖共居，通名染淨。 此土砂礫充滿，別受穢名； 彼土金寶莊嚴，別受淨號。 』今謂《淨名疏》云：『四趣共住，名穢； 無四惡趣，名淨。 』此從正報立依報名。 云何孤山却云：『染淨之名約正，淨穢之名約依。 』當知染淨，從凡聖之心以立名。 淨穢，約依正之境而標號。 問：既從染淨，立同居名，還許亦從淨穢，立同居乎？ 」答：「染淨是通名，淨穢是別號。 故垂裕云：『此方即染淨穢土，安養即染淨淨土。 』故知同居，正從染淨而立。 若從通義，如《淨名》中，身子見穢，梵王見淨，乃是娑婆淨穢同居。 又《婆沙》云：『若人種善根，疑則華不開。 信心清淨者，華開即見佛。 』此是安養淨穢同居。 雖通此義，名非正立。 此染淨土，亦名凡聖同居。 故《淨名疏》云：『染即是凡，淨即是聖。 』如疏文云：『凡聖各二。 凡居二者，一惡眾生，即四趣也； 二善眾生，即人天也。 聖居二者，一實二權。 實者，四果及支佛，通教六地，別十住，圓十信。 通惑雖斷，報身猶在。 二權聖者，方便有餘三乘，受遍真法性身，為利有緣，願生同居。 若實報及寂光，法身菩薩及妙覺佛，為利有緣，應生同居，皆是權也。 此等聖人，與凡共住，故名凡聖同居。 』」二方便有餘土，言方便者，如《禪門》云：「善巧修習，故名方便。 」此有三義：一真中，《淨名疏》云：「二乘三種菩薩，證方便道之所居也。 」《輔行》云：「所以在方便者，並屬空邊。 」二真似，《妙玄》云：「別圓似解，未發真修，皆名作意。 」三遍圓，妙樂云：「並以三教而為方便，雖通三義正從證真，立方便名。 」言有餘者，《觀經疏》云：「無明未盡，故曰有餘。 」《淨名疏》云：「若修二觀，斷通惑盡，恒沙別惑，無明未斷。 捨分段身，而生界外。 受法性身，即有變易。 所居之土，名有餘國。 」亦名果報，如《輔行》云：「通有由因感果之報，未入實報。 」又云：「今文且說偏空偏假所感之報，則不如初住已上居果報土。 」又名法性，如《智論》云：「受法性身，非分段生。 」三果報土。 > First, relying on texts: The Vimalakīrti-sūtra says, "In accordance with the sentient beings to be transformed, he takes a buddha-land; in accordance with the sentient beings to be subdued, he takes a buddha-land; in accordance with the country by which sentient beings ought to enter into the wisdom of the buddhas, \[he takes a buddha-land\]; in accordance with the country by which sentient beings ought to generate the roots of a bodhisattva, \[he takes a buddha-land\]." Tiantai explains: if matched to the four lands, they correspond clearly; if brought out separately: The Viśeṣacintā-sūtra says, "In an eastern country, the buddha's name is Candrasūryaprabha. There was a bodhisattva and Brahma named Viśeṣacinti, who said to the buddha: 'I wish to go to the Sahā world.' The buddha said: 'Go then. You should travel in that land by means of ten dharmas.'" This is a pure noble one coming to travel in an impure land. Furthermore, the Dàzhìdù lùn says, "In an impure land, the three vehicles are first set forth, and afterwards the one vehicle is revealed; the Sahā world is such. In a pure land, the three vehicles are first set forth, and afterwards the one vehicle is revealed; the Sukhāvatī \[world\] is such." Second, the land with remainder: As the Lotus Sūtra says, "I become a buddha in other lands, and have still other names." The Dàzhìdù lùn says, "There are pure buddha-lands that transcend the three realms, where even the names of the defilements do not exist. In these lands, in the presence of the buddha, one hears the Lotus Sūtra." Third, the land of reward: As the Benevolent Kings \[Sūtra\] says, "The three \[grades of\] worthies and the ten \[grades of\] sages abide in reward; only the Buddha alone dwells in the Pure Land." Fourth, \[the land of\] eternally quiescent light: The Samantabhadra Contemplation Sūtra says, "Śākyamuni is named Vairocana. Where that buddha dwells is called the Eternally Quiescent Light." Second, explaining the names: First, what is called "cohabitation of the defiled and pure" has three kinds of defiled and pure: (1) distinguished by delusion and awakening: the delusion and contrariness of the nine realms is called "defiled," and the accord and awakening of the buddha-realm is called "pure." As Miaole says, "The characteristics are distinguished according to conditions, for conditions have defilement and purity." Furthermore, the Buer men says, "Dharmatā together with ignorance universally creates all dharmas, which is called defilement. Ignorance together with dharmatā universally responds to the manifold conditions, which is called purity." (2) Distinguished by sentiment and principle: The Buer men says, "Thus we know that in an instant, the substance of defilement is entirely pure." The Zhiyao says, "The defilement and purity of the present text is stated in terms of sentiment and principle." (3) Distinguished by ordinary beings and noble ones: The Jingming shu says, "The six destinies are base and foul, hence called defiled; the three vehicles see reality, hence called pure." When the three \[vehicles\] and the six \[destinies\] dwell together, it is the cohabitation of the defiled and pure. Question: "The Buer men says, 'Within the one principle, pure and foul are differentiated. Specifically, the six \[destinies\] are foul and the four \[realms of\] noble ones are pure; generally, the ten \[realms\] all possess both pure and foul.' However, regarding this defiled and pure versus pure and foul, the Wenxin explains: 'Defiled and pure are spoken of in terms of the substance and function of delusion and awakening. Pure and foul are discerned with reference to the realms and thusness of ordinary beings and noble ones.' Now we say that the defiled and pure in the Jingming \[shu\] is precisely distinguished with reference to ordinary beings and noble ones. Why does Jingjue on the contrary say: 'Pure and foul are discerned with reference to the realms and thusness of ordinary beings and noble ones'? Furthermore, Chuiyu says: 'The terms "defiled" and "pure" refer to the direct \[retribution\]; the terms "pure" and "foul" refer to the environment. The two lands where ordinary beings and noble ones cohabit are generally called "defiled and pure." This land is full of sand and gravel, so it specifically receives the name "foul"; that land is adorned with gold and jewels, so it specifically receives the title "pure."' Now we say that the Jingming shu says: 'Where the four destinies dwell together is called foul; where there are no four evil destinies is called pure.' This establishes the name of the environmental retribution on the basis of the direct retribution. Why does Gushan on the contrary say: 'The names "defiled" and "pure" refer to the direct \[retribution\], while the names "pure" and "foul" refer to the environment'? One should know that 'defiled' and 'pure' establish their names from the minds of ordinary beings and noble ones; 'pure' and 'foul' designate their labels with reference to the states of environment and direct retribution. Question: Since the name 'cohabitation' is established on the basis of defiled and pure, is it also permissible to establish 'cohabitation' on the basis of pure and foul?" Answer: "Defiled and pure is the general designation, while pure and foul is the specific appellation. Thus Chuiyu says: 'This realm is a defiled-and-pure foul land; Sukhāvatī is a defiled-and-pure pure land.' Therefore we know that 'cohabitation' is precisely established on the basis of defiled and pure. If taken according to the general sense, as in the Jingming \[sūtra\], where Śāriputra saw foulness and the Brahma King saw purity, this was Sahā's cohabitation of pure and foul. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā says: 'If a person plants good roots but has doubt, then the flower will not open; for those whose faithful mind is pure, the flower opens and they immediately see the buddha.' This is Sukhāvatī's cohabitation of pure and foul. Although it accords with this meaning, the name is not principally established \[thus\]. This defiled-and-pure land is also called the cohabitation of ordinary beings and noble ones. Thus the Jingming shu says: 'Defiled is precisely the ordinary, and pure is precisely the noble.' As the text of the commentary says: 'Ordinary beings and noble ones each have two kinds. The two kinds of ordinary dwellers are: (1) evil sentient beings, namely the four destinies; (2) good sentient beings, namely humans and devas. The noble dwellers are of two kinds: actual and provisional. The actual are those of the four fruits and pratyekabuddhas, the six stages of the Shared Teaching, the ten abodes of the Separate Teaching, and the ten faiths of the Perfect Teaching. Although their general delusions have been severed, their reward bodies still remain. The second, provisional noble ones, are those of the three vehicles of the \[land of\] expedient means with remainder, who have attained the body of pervasive true dharmatā; in order to benefit those with whom they have affinity, they vow to be born in \[the land of\] cohabitation. As for the \[lands of\] actual reward and quiescent light, the dharmakāya bodhisattvas and the buddhas of wondrous awakening, in order to benefit those with whom they have affinity, manifest birth in \[the land of\] cohabitation; these are all provisional. These noble ones dwell together with ordinary beings; therefore it is called the cohabitation of ordinary beings and noble ones.'" Second, the land of expedient means with remainder: Speaking of expedient means, as the Chánmén says: "Skillfully practicing and cultivating is therefore called expedient means." This has three meanings: (1) True versus middle: The Jingming shu says, "The dwelling place of those of the two vehicles and the three kinds of bodhisattvas who have realized the path of expedient means." The Fuxing says, "The reason they are in expedient means is that they all belong to the side of emptiness." (2) True versus semblance: The Miaoxuan says, "The semblance understanding of the Separate and Perfect \[Teachings\], which has not yet initiated true cultivation, is entirely called deliberate thought." (3) Pervasive versus perfect: Miaole says, "All three teachings are taken as expedient means; although it encompasses the three meanings, it establishes the name 'expedient means' principally from the realization of truth." Speaking of "with remainder": The Guan jing shu says, "Because ignorance has not yet been exhausted, it is called 'with remainder.'" The Jingming shu says, "If one cultivates the two contemplations, one exhausts the severance of general delusions, but the distinct delusions \[as numerous as\] the sands of the Ganges and ignorance are not yet severed. Shedding the body of fragmented lifetimes, one is born outside the realms. Attaining a dharmatā body, one undergoes change. The land in which one dwells is called the country with remainder." It is also called "fruit and reward," as the Fuxing says: "It generally possesses the retribution of evoking a fruit from a cause, but has not entered actual reward." It also says: "The present text speaks provisionally of the retribution evoked by biased emptiness and biased provisionality, which does not equal those from the first abode upward who dwell in the land of reward." It is also called "dharmatā," as the Dàzhìdù lùn says: "Attaining a dharmatā body, not a birth of fragmented lifetimes." Third, the land of reward. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.142.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.142.2) 《淨名疏》云：「報身所居依報淨國，名果報土。 」《輔行》云：「言果報者，從報果為名。 」亦號實報，《觀經疏》云：「行真實法，感得勝報。 」《淨名疏》云：「以觀實相，發真無漏，所得果報，故名為實。 」亦名妙報，如《輔行》云：「唯有別圓初地初住，獲妙果報。 」又名勝妙報，如《止觀》云：「違即二邊果報，順即勝妙果報。 」亦名無障礙，《觀經疏》云：「色心不相妨，故曰無障礙。 」《淨名疏》云：「一世界攝一切世界，一切世界亦如是。 此名世界海，亦名世界無盡藏。 」四常寂光者，《觀經疏》云：「常即法身，寂即解脫，光即般若。 此以不遷不變名常，離有離無名寂，照俗照真名光。 」亦名果報，如《文句》云：「同居有餘自體，皆是妙色妙心果報之處。 」記云：「故知三土，皆是證道色心報處。 寂光既遍，遮那亦遍。 此以妙色妙心果報也。 」問：「如《輔行》云：『今論感報，不論寂光。 』據此，寂光豈名果報乎？ 」答：「所云寂光非果報者，三惑究盡，業報都亡，所以寂光身土亡泯。 雖無惑業之報，而為願行之果。 《淨名疏》云：『修於圓教願行之因，因極果滿，道成妙覺，居常寂光。 』」問：「如垂裕云：『中下寂光，攝在果報。 』不審四十一地生實報土，云何得受寂光名耶？ 」答：「《淨名疏》云：『前四十一地，若約果報，名生實報。 分見真理，名常寂光。 』又彼記云：『約報論生，是故有邊論於果報，約所入邊，則非果報。 但所入邊，即是見真，名常寂光。 』」三辨義，此約教門辨四土義。 復開五門。 初論體用。 寂光是體，餘三屬用，如《釋籤》云：「諸佛寂理，神無方所。 所依寂境，號常寂光。 是故沙石七珍，隨生所感。 」又《輔行》云：「常寂光土，清淨法身，無所莊嚴，無能莊嚴。 為眾生故，而取三土。 」二論事理。 《淨名疏》云：「寂光是理，餘三是事。 」此乃對分事理。 若各分事理，如《淨名疏》云：「諸土非垢，寂光非淨，畢竟無說（此四俱理），而說諸土為垢，寂光為淨。 」記云：「理論不當垢之與淨，約事唯有寂光永淨。 」三論能所。 荊溪記云：「但以寂光而為所成，即以三土而為能成。 故所成唯一，能成有三，是則能所事別故也。 」四論凡聖。 準《雜編》云：「十界對土，有橫有竪。 若竪對者，同居六凡，方便二乘，實報菩薩，寂光佛果（橫誤為竪）。 若橫敵對，同居有十，凡聖同居故。 方便有四，無六凡故； 實報有二，無二乘故； 寂光唯一，無菩薩故（竪誤為橫）。 」五論淨穢。 《淨名疏》云：「諸土為垢，寂光為淨。 三惑覆蔽故為垢，三德究顯故為淨。 」此約四土對論。 若各分者，《觀經疏》云：「五濁輕重，同居淨穢。 」妙宗釋云：「此淨甚通，須知別意。 如戒善者，四教凡位，皆悉能令五濁輕薄。 而圓觀輕濁，感同居淨，依正最淨。 如此經說，地觀已去，一一相狀，比於餘經，修眾善行，感安養土，其相天殊。 」《雜編》乃云：「嘗觀鼓音之外，六經土相，其實是一。 縱有依報大小不同，此蓋如來善權赴機隨時之義也。 良由凡夫心想羸劣，未能觀大，故方便示小，為發觀之境。 若生彼土，所見俱大。 今難霅川，既修偏行，安獲勝果，非獨彰行人之偶報，抑亦顯世尊之妄說。 因果不類，徒虛語耳。 」二體㭊巧拙，有餘淨穢。 《刊正記》云：「通人體色即空故巧，藏人㭊色明空故拙。 」妙宗云：「體觀感淨，不專通人。 衍門三教，對三藏拙，俱明體法。 通但空體，別次第體，圓不次體。 三人生彼，俱感淨相，圓人最淨。 」又《往生記》引《輔行》云：「次明體法，依門修觀，亦應具含三種四門。 」三次第頓入，實報淨穢。 《刊正》云：「別人漸修次第三觀，登地入實，以之為穢。 > The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: 'The pure land of objective recompense in which the reward body resides is called the Land of Fruitional Recompense.' The Fuxing says: 'Speaking of fruitional recompense (guobao), it takes its name from the fruit of recompense (baoguo).' It is also called \[the Land of\] True Recompense. The Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra says: 'By practicing the true Dharma, one evokes a superior recompense.' The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: 'Because one contemplates true reality, gives rise to true undefiled \[wisdom\], and obtains this as a fruitional recompense, it is therefore called "true".' It is also called wonderful recompense; as the Fuxing says: 'Only those of the initial ground in the Separate \[Teaching\] and the initial dwelling in the Perfect \[Teaching\] obtain wonderful fruitional recompense.' It is also called supreme and wonderful recompense; as the Zhiguan says: 'Contravention is fruitional recompense of the two extremes; conformity is supreme and wonderful fruitional recompense.' It is also called unobstructed; the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra says: 'Form and mind do not obstruct each other; hence it is called unobstructed.' The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: 'A single realm subsumes all realms, and all realms are also like this. This is called the ocean of realms, and is also called the inexhaustible treasury of realms.' Fourth, as for \[the Land of\] Eternally Quiescent Light, the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra says: '"Eternally" is the dharmakāya; "quiescent" is liberation; "light" is prajñā. Here, unchanging and unshifting is called eternal; transcending being and non-being is called quiescent; illuminating the conventional and illuminating the ultimate is called light.' It is also called fruitional recompense; as the Wenju says: 'The self-substance of Co-dwelling and Expedient \[with Remainder\] are both loci of the fruitional recompense of wonderful form and wonderful mind.' The Record says: 'Hence we know that the three lands are all loci of recompense of the form and mind of the realized Path. Since Quiescent Light is all-pervading, Vairocana is also all-pervading. This is by virtue of the fruitional recompense of wonderful form and wonderful mind.' Question: 'As the Fuxing says: "Now we discuss the evocation of recompense, not Quiescent Light." Based on this, how could Quiescent Light be called a fruitional recompense?' Answer: 'When it is said that Quiescent Light is not a fruitional recompense, it means that the three delusions are completely exhausted, and karmic recompense has entirely ceased, so that the body and land of Quiescent Light are obliterated. Although there is no recompense of delusions and karma, it is the fruit of vows and practices. The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: "Cultivating the causes of the vows and practices of the Perfect Teaching, when the cause is supreme and the fruit is fulfilled, the Path achieves wonderful enlightenment, and one resides in Eternally Quiescent Light."' Question: 'As Chuiyu says: "The middle and lower Quiescent Light are subsumed under fruitional recompense." I wonder, when beings of the forty-one stages are born into the Land of True Recompense, how do they receive the name of Quiescent Light?' Answer: 'The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: "As for the previous forty-one stages, if considered in terms of fruitional recompense, it is called being born into True Recompense; in terms of partially perceiving the true principle, it is called Eternally Quiescent Light." Also, that Record says: "Recompense is discussed in terms of birth; therefore, in terms of the aspect of existence, it is discussed as fruitional recompense. In terms of the aspect of what is entered, it is not fruitional recompense. But the aspect of what is entered is precisely perceiving the truth, which is called Eternally Quiescent Light."' Third, distinguishing the meanings: this distinguishes the meanings of the four lands according to the doctrinal gates. It is further divided into five gates. First, discussing substance and function. Quiescent Light is the substance, and the other three belong to function. As the Shiqian says: 'The quiescent principle of all Buddhas, spiritually unfathomable, has no fixed direction or locus. The quiescent sphere upon which they rely is named Eternally Quiescent Light. Therefore, sand, stones, and the seven jewels correspond to what sentient beings evoke.' Also, the Fuxing says: 'In the Land of Eternally Quiescent Light, the pure dharmakāya has nothing that adorns it and nothing that can adorn it. For the sake of sentient beings, the three lands are assumed.' Second, discussing phenomenon and principle. The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: 'Quiescent Light is principle; the other three are phenomena.' This is distinguishing phenomenon and principle in relative opposition. If phenomenon and principle are distinguished individually \[within each\], as the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: 'The various lands are not defiled, and Quiescent Light is not pure; ultimately there is nothing to be predicated (these four are all principle); yet it is said that the various lands are defiled and Quiescent Light is pure.' The Record says: 'In terms of principle, defilement and purity are inappropriate; in terms of phenomena, only Quiescent Light is eternally pure.' Third, discussing the active and passive. Jingxi's Record says: 'Merely taking Quiescent Light as that which is accomplished, the three lands are taken as that which accomplishes. Therefore, that which is accomplished is only one, while that which accomplishes has three; thus the active and passive are distinguished by function.' Fourth, discussing ordinary and noble. According to the Zabiān: 'Pairing the ten realms with the lands has horizontal and vertical aspects. If paired vertically, Co-dwelling has the six ordinary realms, Expedient \[with Remainder\] has the two vehicles, True Recompense has the bodhisattvas, and Quiescent Light has the Buddha-fruit (horizontal was mistakenly written as vertical). If directly paired horizontally, Co-dwelling has ten, because ordinary and noble dwell together; Expedient \[with Remainder\] has four, because it lacks the six ordinary realms; True Recompense has two, because it lacks the two vehicles; Quiescent Light has only one, because it lacks bodhisattvas (vertical was mistakenly written as horizontal).' Fifth, discussing purity and defilement. The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: 'The various lands are defiled, while Quiescent Light is pure. Because the three delusions obscure them, they are defiled; because the three virtues are fully revealed, it is pure.' This is a comparative discussion of the four lands. If distinguished individually: the Commentary on the Contemplation Sūtra says: 'Depending on the lightness or heaviness of the five turbidities, there is purity and defilement within Co-dwelling.' Miaozong explains: 'This purity is very broad, so one must understand the distinct meaning. Such as morality and goodness: the ordinary stages of the four teachings can all make the five turbidities light and thin. But the contemplation of the Perfect \[Teaching\] lightens the turbidities, evoking the purity of Co-dwelling, where objective and subjective recompenses are the purest. As this sūtra says, from the contemplation of the ground onward, each and every characteristic, compared to other sūtras cultivating multiple good practices to evoke the Land of Peace and Sustenance, shows a vast difference.' The Zabiān then says: 'I have observed that apart from the Guanyin Guce jing, the land characteristics in the six sūtras are in fact identical. Even if there are differences in the size of the objective recompense, this is entirely the Tathāgata's skillful accommodation to capacities according to the occasion. This is truly because the thoughts of ordinary beings are weak and inferior, unable to contemplate the great, so he expediently manifested the small to serve as an object for generating contemplation. If born into that land, all that is seen is great. Now, to challenge Zhachuan: since one cultivates partial practice, how could one obtain a superior fruit? This would not only manifest an accidental recompense for the practitioner, but also show that the World-Honored One spoke falsely. Causes and fruits would not correspond; these would be merely hollow words.' Second, the skillful and clumsy aspects of embodying and analyzing: purity and defilement in Expedient with Remainder. The Kanzheng ji says: 'Those of the Shared \[Teaching\] embody form as empty itself, hence they are skillful; those of the Pitaka \[Teaching\] analyze form to clarify emptiness, hence they are clumsy.' Miaozong says: 'Evoking purity through the contemplation of embodiment is not exclusive to those of the Shared \[Teaching\]. The three teachings of the Mahāyāna gate, in contrast to the clumsiness of the Tripiṭaka, all clarify the embodiment of phenomena. The Shared \[Teaching\] is only the embodiment of emptiness; the Separate \[Teaching\] is the gradual embodiment; the Perfect \[Teaching\] is the non-gradual embodiment. When these three types of persons are born there, they all evoke pure characteristics, with those of the Perfect \[Teaching\] being the purest.' Also, the Wangsheng ji cites the Fuxing, saying: 'Next, clarifying the embodiment of phenomena: cultivating contemplation relying on the gates should also fully contain the three kinds of four gates.' Third, gradual versus sudden entry: purity and defilement in True Recompense. The Kanzheng says: 'Those of the Separate \[Teaching\] gradually cultivate the three sequential contemplations, and ascending to the grounds they enter the true; this is considered defiled.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.142.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.142.3) 圓人頓修一心三觀，登住入實，以之為淨。 」妙宗云：「若論實證，此土唯有圓聖所居。 別人初地，證與圓同，稱實感報，有何優降？ 今就教道，十地不融，致使感土，異於圓人。 」《雜編》雙取，謂偏成非次第頓入者，即別圓所修巧拙二觀也； 實報淨穢者，即地住所見融礙二相也。 良由別人久習次第，雖回向圓修，入地之時，仍見一分染礙之色，名之為穢。 圓人始終唯修頓行，入住之時，但見此土融通之相，號之為淨。 《往生記》破約教道說，則見神智，自違《輔行》。 義學之者，當思審矣。 四分證究竟，寂光淨穢。 《妙宗鈔》云：「若就別人，同證圓實，論寂光者，唯約真因。 對圓極果，而分淨穢。 今論教道，詮於極果，但斷無明一十二品，寂光猶穢。 圓知須斷四十二品，名究竟淨。 」《往生記》云：「今約分滿相對，故合中下，但名分證，寂光猶穢。 妙覺上品，真常究滿，方為極淨。 請觀今文，諸佛如來所游居處，極為淨土。 豈非分得究竟寂光？ 正約圓家真因極果，對分淨穢。 」四明云：「別教教道，深不可也。 」《刊正記》云：「由分證寂光，方生實報。 今約分證，猶帶無明，無明故穢。 究竟無明已盡故淨。 」《雜編》難云：「若爾，則成穢屬實報，淨屬寂光。 今謂無明分破，證少分無相，故穢。 無明全盡，證究竟無相，故淨。 」四定體，先達通以三道，為下三土當體之體。 引《輔行》云：「分段三道，謂見思惑，為煩惱道。 煩惱潤業，為業道。 感界內生，為苦道。 方便三道，謂塵沙惑，為煩惱道； 以無漏業，名為業道； 變易生死，名為苦道。 實報三道，謂無明惑，為煩惱道； 非漏非無漏業，為業道； 彼土變易，名為苦道。 通以三德為所依體。 苦道即法身，結業即解脫，煩惱即菩提。 先師乃謂惑業是因，苦道是果。 今之土體，三世間中，唯取苦道為國土一千當體之體，還以三德為所依體。 」故荊溪云：「既許法身遍一切處，報應未嘗離於法身。 若寂光土，《觀經》既約四德釋名，當以三德為土當體。 理無所存，遍在於事，乃以三土，為所依體。 」廣慈法師準妙樂云：「本有四德為所依，修德四德為能依。 」遂指修德三因為當體，性德三法為所依。 今謂妙樂因釋下方空中菩薩，所以將身表智，以空表土，故明身土。 今唯辨土，安得兼身。 況將修德以對理土，乃彰能所義顛倒矣！ 五示相，此約教門示四土相。 初示一異相。 娑婆安養，垢淨相別，故名異。 方便有餘，純清淨境，故名一。 《淨名疏》云：「三乘同以無言說道，發真無漏，所感國土，一往相同，故言一也。 」二示融礙相。 方便雖是一相，無明未破，果報隔別。 《淨名疏》云：「染淨有餘，二種眾生，見有障礙。 別圓地住，分破無明，依正互融，一多相即，故名融也。 」三示橫竪相。 舊釋橫竪，句義紛雜，惑亂學者。 今分二義，冷然易解。 初就土自分，如《妙玄》云：「若分別而言，謂方便在三界外； 若分別而言，謂實報在方便外。 例此分別，謂寂光在實報外。 」故《淨名記》「問：『三土之外，何殊太虛？ 』答：『遍同理別。 言理別者，法身即土。 離身無土，離土無身。 但真如實相，非智非境，說智說境。 非身非土，說身說土。 』」約此分別，義當竪矣。 若約相即，如妙樂云：「豈離伽耶，別求常寂？ 非寂光外，別有娑婆。 」《淨名記》云：「橫解者，如前所引《法華》經文，秖於此土，而覩上二。 故小被斥，見淨不驚，足指按地，即其事也。 」約此相即，義屬橫焉。 若約相攝，《淨名記》云：「既一土攝一切土，故得此界，遍攝下二。 準此以勝攝劣，土亦橫矣。 」二與教對分，妙樂記云：「橫論土體，與教相當。 竪論約土，用教多少。 > Those of the perfect \[teaching\]頓修 the three contemplations in a single mind, ascend to the stages of abidance and enter reality, which is considered pure." The Miaozong says: "If one discusses direct realization, this land is inhabited only by sages of the perfect \[teaching\]. When those of the distinct \[teaching\] reach the first bhūmi, their realization is identical with the perfect; in accordance with reality they evoke their retribution—what superiority or inferiority could there be? Now, taking the provisional teaching into account, the ten bhūmis are not interpenetrating, causing the evoked land to differ from that of persons of the perfect \[teaching\]." The Zabian accepts both, stating that the biased attainment versus non-gradual sudden entry refers to the skillful and clumsy contemplations practiced by the distinct and perfect \[teachings\]; the purity and defilement of the real retribution \[land\] refers to the two aspects of interpenetration and obstruction seen in the stages of bhūmi and abidance. This is because practitioners of the distinct \[teaching\], having long cultivated the gradual, even when redirecting toward the perfect practice, still perceive a fraction of defiled and obstructed form upon entering the bhūmi; this is termed 'defiled'. Persons of the perfect \[teaching\] from beginning to end cultivate only the sudden practice; upon entering abidance, they see only the interpenetrating aspects of this land; this is termed 'pure'. The Wangsheng ji refutes the explanation in terms of the provisional teaching, arguing that Shenzhi contradicts the Fuxing. Those who study the doctrine should ponder and examine this carefully. Fourth, partial realization and ultimate \[realization\], the purity and defilement of quiescent light. The Miaozong chao says: "If one considers those of the distinct \[teaching\] sharing the realization of the perfect reality, when discussing quiescent light, it is only in terms of the true cause. Relative to the ultimate fruit of the perfect \[teaching\], purity and defilement are distinguished. Now discussing the provisional teaching, when explaining the ultimate fruit, only twelve grades of fundamental ignorance are severed, and quiescent light is still defiled. The perfect \[teaching\] understands that forty-two grades must be severed; this is termed ultimate purity." The Wangsheng ji says: "Now, contrasting partial and complete, we combine the middle and lower, naming them merely 'partial realization'; quiescent light is still defiled. Only the superior grade of wondrous enlightenment, wherein the true and eternal is completely perfected, is the utmost purity. Please observe the present text: the dwelling place where the Tathāgatas roam is the utmost Pure Land. How could this not be the partially attained ultimate quiescent light? This precisely contrasts the true cause and the ultimate fruit of the perfect school to distinguish purity and defilement." Siming said: "The provisional teaching of the distinct school is profoundly non-acceptable." The Kanzheng ji says: "Because of partially realizing quiescent light, one is born into the real retribution \[land\]. Now regarding partial realization, because it still carries fundamental ignorance, on account of fundamental ignorance it is defiled. Because ultimate \[realization\] has exhausted fundamental ignorance, it is pure." The Zabian objects: "If so, then defilement would belong to real retribution, and purity to quiescent light. Now it is said: Because fundamental ignorance is partially broken, and one realizes a small portion of signlessness, it is defiled. Because fundamental ignorance is completely exhausted, and one realizes ultimate signlessness, it is pure." Fourth, determining the substance. Former masters universally took the three paths as the intrinsic substance of the lower three lands. Quoting the Fuxing, they said: "The three paths of portioned \[birth and death\] are: afflictions of views and thoughts are the path of afflictions; afflictions moistening karma are the path of karma; evoking birth within the realms is the path of suffering. The three paths of expedient means are: dust-and-sand afflictions are the path of afflictions; uncontaminated karma is the path of karma; the birth and death of change is the path of suffering. The three paths of real retribution are: fundamental ignorance is the path of afflictions; neither-contaminated-nor-uncontaminated karma is the path of karma; change in that land is the path of suffering. Universally, the three virtues are taken as the underlying substance. The path of suffering is none other than the dharmakāya; binding karma is none other than liberation; afflictions are none other than bodhi. The late master considered afflictions and karma to be the cause, and the path of suffering to be the fruit. As for the substance of the land now, among the three realms, only the path of suffering is taken as the intrinsic substance of the one thousand lands, while the three virtues are still taken as the underlying substance." Therefore Jingxi said: "Since it is acknowledged that the dharmakāya pervades all places, retribution and response are never separated from the dharmakāya. As for the land of quiescent light, since the Contemplation Sūtra explains the name in terms of the four virtues, the three virtues should be taken as the intrinsic substance of the land. Principle does not abide on its own; it pervades phenomena, and thus takes the three lands as its underlying substance." Dharma Master Guangci, following the Miaole, said: "The inherently existing four virtues are the underlying basis; the cultivated four virtues are what relies \[on them\]." He then pointed to the three cultivated causes as the intrinsic substance, and the three inherent dharmas as the underlying basis. Now it is said: because the Miaole was explaining the bodhisattvas in the empty space below, it used the body to represent wisdom and empty space to represent the land, thereby clarifying body and land. Now we are distinguishing only the land, so how could it include the body? Furthermore, matching cultivated virtue against the land of principle reveals an inversion of the meaning of container and contained! Fifth, showing the characteristics. This is showing the characteristics of the four lands according to the doctrinal gates. First, showing the characteristics of unity and difference. The defilement and purity of Sahā and Anyang are distinct, and are therefore called different. Expedient Means with Remainder is a purely clean realm, and is therefore called one. The Jingming shu says: "Because the three vehicles alike, through the ineffable path, bring forth true uncontaminated \[wisdom\], the lands they evoke are on the whole identical; hence they are called one." Second, showing the characteristics of interpenetration and obstruction. Although Expedient Means is of a single aspect, because fundamental ignorance is not yet broken, the retribution states are kept apart. The Jingming shu says: "The two kinds of sentient beings in defilement and purity with remainder perceive obstructions. In the bhūmis and abidances of the distinct and perfect \[teachings\], fundamental ignorance is partially broken, so environment and person interpenetrate, and the one and the many are mutually identical; hence it is called interpenetrating." Third, showing the characteristics of horizontal and vertical. Past explanations of horizontal and vertical had confusing sentences and doctrines, misleading students. Now two senses are differentiated, making it clear and easy to understand. First, with respect to the land's own divisions: as the Miaoxuan says, "If spoken of by way of discrimination, Expedient Means is outside the three realms; if spoken of by way of discrimination, Real Retribution is outside Expedient Means. By this analogy of discrimination, Quiescent Light is outside Real Retribution." Therefore the Jingming ji asks: "'Outside the three lands, how does it differ from great space?' The answer: 'Universally identical, yet principle is distinct. That principle is distinct means the dharmakāya is the land. Apart from the body there is no land; apart from the land there is no body. Yet true suchness and the real mark are neither wisdom nor realm, though spoken of as wisdom and realm; neither body nor land, though spoken of as body and land.'" According to this discrimination, the meaning corresponds to the vertical. If considered in terms of mutual identity, as the Miaole says: "How could one leave Gayā to seek the eternally quiescent elsewhere? There is no Sahā existing outside of quiescent light." The Jingming ji says: "The horizontal understanding is as quoted earlier from the Lotus Sūtra: right in this land, one beholds the upper two. Thus the lesser \[vehicle\] was reproached, while those who saw the pure were not astonished; pressing the earth with the toe was precisely this matter." In terms of this mutual identity, the meaning belongs to the horizontal. If considered in terms of mutual containment, the Jingming ji says: "Since one land contains all lands, this realm fully contains the lower two. By this analogy of the superior containing the inferior, the land is also horizontal." Second, divided in relation to the teachings: the Miaole ji says: "Horizontally discussing the substance of the land corresponds to the teachings. Vertically discussing with respect to the land uses the teachings in greater or lesser extent." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.142.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.142.4) 」然其竪論，如《止觀》云：「若以四諦竪對諸土，有增有減。 同居有四，方便則三，實報則二，寂光但一。 」《輔行》釋曰：「竪約設教對機。 機既增減不同，致使教有差別。 四土對教，優劣多少，故名為竪。 」此則土相雖竪，教乃橫說。 故《淨名記》云：「然約橫論，同居具四。 餘三漸減，同居機雜。 遂設四教方便，但以大乘，訓令修學，理唯別圓。 蓋為稟三藏者，始生方便，未習通門，逗其為知故學。 遂談通教，以蕩執情，實報約行，證道同圓。 但約有餘，用教之時，教道化機，說別異圓。 具用二教，方生實報。 寂光上品，不須用教，但被中下，故有圓乘。 設教之相雖橫，就土自分成竪。 若約相即，同居橫具四土體相，與四教旨論其相當。 三藏談於生滅，乃與同居無常相當； 通教談乎幻化即空，乃與方便證真相當； 別教從事受名，乃與實報感果相當； 圓教談乎性德，乃與寂光理體相當。 橫辨四教，無復優劣，故名橫矣。 」四示有無相，妙宗云：「經論中言寂光無相，乃是已盡染礙之相，非如太虛空無一物，良由三惑究竟清淨，則依正色心究竟明顯。 故《大經》云：『因滅是色，獲得常色。 受想行識，亦復如是。 』《仁王》稱為法性五陰，亦是《法華》世間相常。 《大品》色香無非中道，是則名為究竟樂邦、究竟金寶、究竟華池、究竟瓊樹。 又復此就捨穢究盡，取淨窮源。 故苦域等，判屬三障，樂邦金寶，以為寂光。 若就淨穢平等而談，則以究竟苦域泥沙而為寂光。 此之二說，但順悉檀，無不圓極。 」又淨覺撰《雜編》云：「且常寂光者，實三德之妙性也。 離為三法，合成一性。 一尚無一，豈有苦樂華胎之相乎？ 當知無相之言，其語猶略。 具足須云：無相不相，所謂無生死相，不涅槃相。 強而名之稱曰實相。 」今議二師所論，與而言之。 若依說示分別，如《普賢觀》示寂光土，乃以四德釋三德法。 故祖師判寂光是理，餘三是事。 約此就說分別，淨覺乃合分別之義。 若約相即所依，理無所存，遍在於事。 故《維摩疏》「問：『別有寂光土邪？ 』答：『不然。 祇分段變易，即常寂光。 』」四明乃合相即之義，奪而言之，分別但解三土之外，別有寂光。 而迷寂光亦遍三土，遂執寂光空空然，誠不異乎太虛，故吾無取焉。 然淨覺《雜編》難四明云：「今問此依正色心，為體為用？ 若言體者，且《妙玄》明體用權實中云：『體即實相，無有差別。 用即立一切法，差降不同。 』妙樂指淨緣為一切法，豈非實體亦無淨相。 若言用者，則依正色心，正是下三土事，何得認為寂光之理邪？ 」今謂如《指要》云：「夫體用之名，本相即之義。 故凡言諸法即理者，全用即體，方可言即。 」《輔行》云：「即者，《爾雅》云合也。 若依此釋，仍似二物相合，其理猶疎。 今以義求，體不二故，故名為即。 」今謂全體之用，方名不二。 故釋迦之王娑婆，即毘盧之處常寂。 故《文句》云：「同居有餘自體，皆是妙色妙心果報之處。 」荊溪釋云：「寂光既遍，遮那亦遍。 」此皆事理相即之明文，云何撥事別求理邪？ 《雜編》又問：「他引《妙經疏》云：『常即常德，寂即樂德，光即我淨。 是為四德祕密之藏。 』妙樂云：『本有四德為所依，修德四德為能依。 能所並有能依之身，依於能所所依之土。 』二義齊等，方是毘盧遮那身土之相。 以此為證，寂光有相，不亦可乎？ 」答：「此人但聞身土之名，便作形相而解，而不知四德為是何物。 又云：『須了遮那本無身土，隨順世間。 』強指妙覺極智為身，如如法界之理為土。 若消妙樂之文，應云：本有四德者，理也； 修德四德者，智也。 能所並有能依之身，所依之土者，謂性德之理為所依，本覺之智為能依。 又修德之理為所依，始覺之智為能依。 > " However, discussing them vertically, as the Zhiguan says: "If one correlates the four truths vertically with the various lands, there is increase and decrease. The \[land of\] common residence has four, \[that of\] expedients has three, \[that of\] true reward has two, and \[that of\] quiescent light has only one." The Fuxing explains, saying: "'Vertically' refers to establishing teachings in response to faculties. Since faculties differ in increase and decrease, this causes the teachings to differ. Correlating the four lands with the teachings involves superiority and inferiority, more and fewer; hence it is called 'vertical.'" Here, although the characteristics of the lands are vertical, the teachings are expounded horizontally. Thus the Jingming ji says: "Yet discussing them horizontally, common residence is endowed with four. The remaining three gradually decrease. The faculties in common residence are mixed. Hence four teachings are established. In \[the land of\] expedients, only through the Mahāyāna are they instructed to practice and study; the principles are only the distinct and the perfect. This is because those who receive the Tripiṭaka \[teaching\] and are newly born into \[the land of\] expedients have not yet practiced the shared gate; adapting to what they need to know, they study. Consequently, the shared teaching is spoken to wash away clinging attachments. In true reward, according to practice, the path of realization is identical to the perfect. But regarding \[the land with\] remainder, when teachings are employed, the pedagogical path transforms faculties, expounding the distinct as different from the perfect. Only by fully using these two teachings is one born into true reward. The superior grade of quiescent light does not require teachings; only to cover the middle and lower \[grades\] is there the perfect vehicle. Although the characteristics of establishing teachings are horizontal, with respect to the lands they naturally become vertical. If considered in terms of mutual identification, common residence horizontally contains the substance and characteristics of the four lands, corresponding to the purports of the four teachings. The Tripiṭaka speaks of arising and ceasing, which corresponds to the anitya of common residence; the shared teaching speaks of illusory transformations being empty, which corresponds to the realization of truth in expedients; the distinct teaching takes its name from phenomenal activities, which corresponds to the retribution received in true reward; the perfect teaching speaks of inherent virtue, which corresponds to the principle-substance of quiescent light. Distinguishing the four teachings horizontally, there is no longer superiority or inferiority; hence it is called horizontal." Fourth, clarifying having and lacking characteristics. Miaozong says: "When the sūtras and treatises say that quiescent light lacks characteristics, this means it has completely eliminated the characteristics of defiled obstruction, not that it is empty and devoid of a single thing like empty space. Truly, because the three delusions are thoroughly purified, physical forms and mental states, both circumstantial and direct \[retribution\], are thoroughly manifest. Therefore the Great Sūtra says: 'Because this form is extinguished, one attains permanent form. The same is also true of feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness.' The Benevolent Kings refers to them as the five skandhas of dharmatā; this is also the Lotus Sūtra's 'permanent worldly characteristics.' In the Large Prajñāpāramitā, forms and scents are all the Middle Way. This is called the ultimate land of joy, ultimate gold and jewels, ultimate flower ponds, and ultimate jeweled trees. Furthermore, this is discussed in terms of thoroughly relinquishing defilement and reaching the source of purity. Hence, the realm of suffering and so forth are judged to belong to the three obstructions, while the land of joy, gold, and jewels are taken as quiescent light. If discussed in terms of the equality of purity and defilement, then the ultimate realm of suffering, mud, and sand are taken as quiescent light. These two explanations merely accord with the siddhāntas, and both are completely perfect." Furthermore, Jingjue writes in the Zabiān: "Now, the eternally quiescent light is truly the wondrous nature of the three virtues. Dispersed, they form three dharmas; combined, they form one nature. One does not even exist as one—how could there be the characteristics of suffering, joy, or flower calyxes? One should know that the phrase 'lacking characteristics' is still an abbreviated expression. To be complete, one must say: neither having characteristics nor lacking characteristics, namely, having neither the characteristic of saṃsāra nor the characteristic of nirvāṇa. Forced to name it, one calls it the true characteristic." Now, to deliberate upon what these two masters discussed: speaking concesively, if one relies on the differentiation of exposition and indication, as when the Samantabhadra Contemplation indicates the land of quiescent light by explaining the dharma of the three virtues through the four virtues, the ancestral master therefore judged that quiescent light is principle, while the remaining three are phenomena. Regarding this in terms of the differentiation of exposition, Jingjue conforms to the meaning of differentiation. If one considers it in terms of the basis of mutual identification, principle has nowhere to abide and is omnipresent in phenomena. Therefore, the Vimalakīrti Commentary says: "Question: 'Is there a separate land of quiescent light?' Answer: 'Not so. The very \[realms of\] portioned and mortal life and of transformation are the eternally quiescent light.'" Siming conforms to the meaning of mutual identification. Speaking critically, differentiation only understands that outside the three lands there is separately quiescent light, and is confused about quiescent light being also omnipresent in the three lands; consequently, clinging to quiescent light as utterly empty, truly no different from empty space, we do not accept it. However, Jingjue's Zabiān challenges Siming, saying: "Now I ask: are these physical forms and mental states, both circumstantial and direct, the substance or the function? If you say substance, the Miaoxuan, in explaining substance, function, provisional, and ultimate, says: 'Substance is the true characteristic, without distinction. Function establishes all dharmas, which vary in hierarchy.' Miaole designates pure conditions as all dharmas; does not the true substance also lack the characteristic of purity? If you say function, then physical forms and mental states, circumstantial and direct, are precisely the phenomena of the lower three lands; how can they be considered the principle of quiescent light?" We now reply: As the Zhiyao says, "The names substance and function are fundamentally the meaning of mutual identification. Therefore, whenever it is said that all dharmas are principle, only when the entire function is the substance can one speak of identification." The Fuxing says: "Regarding identification (ji), the Erya says it means 'to join.' If one relies on this explanation, it still resembles two things joining together, and its principle is still loose. Now, seeking it by principle, because the substance is non-dual, it is called 'identification.'" We now say that only the function of the entire substance is called non-dual. Hence, Śākyamuni's ruling the Sahā world is precisely Vairocana's residing in eternal quiescence. Therefore, the Wenju says: "The self-substance of common residence and \[the land with\] remainder are all places of the retribution of wondrous forms and wondrous minds." Jingxi explains, saying: "Since quiescent light is omnipresent, Vairocana is also omnipresent." These are all clear texts on the mutual identification of phenomena and principle; why brush aside phenomena to seek principle separately? The Zabiān asks again: "Others cite the Miaojing shu as saying: 'Permanence is the virtue of permanence; quiescence is the virtue of bliss; light is self and purity. This is the secret treasury of the four virtues.' Miaole says: 'The inherently existing four virtues are that which is relied upon; the four virtues of cultivated virtue are that which relies. Both that which relies and that which is relied upon have the body that relies, which relies on the land that is relied upon by both that which relies and that which is relied upon.' Only when the two meanings are equal are they the characteristics of Vairocana's body and land. Using this as proof that quiescent light has characteristics, is it not permissible?" Answer: "This person merely hears the names 'body' and 'land' and immediately understands them as physical forms, not knowing what things the four virtues are. It also says: 'One must comprehend that Vairocana fundamentally has no body or land, but complies with the world.' One arbitrarily designates the ultimate wisdom of wondrous enlightenment as the body, and the principle of the tathatā-dharmadhātu as the land. If one analyzes Miaole's text, one should say: the inherently existing four virtues are principle; the four virtues of cultivated virtue are wisdom. That both that which relies and that which is relied upon have the relying body and the relied-upon land means that the principle of inherent virtue is that which is relied upon, and the wisdom of original enlightenment is that which relies. Furthermore, the principle of cultivated virtue is that which is relied upon, and the wisdom of initial enlightenment is that which relies." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.142.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.142.5) 修性雖殊，詎存萬有之境； 始本雖二，寧留五陰之形。 故《維摩疏》云：『法身即土，離身無土，離土無身。 』今謂此釋，凡有二非：一能所不辨，妙樂因釋下方空中菩薩，遂以菩薩之身，以表能依之修德； 以虛空土，以表所依之性德。 安得唯釋所表修性，全棄能表身土乎？ 二修性不即，他以性德之理為所依，本覺之智為能依，修德之理為所依，始覺之智為能依。 修德之理為所依，始覺之智為能依。 今謂本覺望修，俱屬乎性，修理望性，俱屬於修。 依其所解，則成以性泯性，以修會修，非修性之不二焉。 當云全性起修，故所依之土，即能依之身，寂光是應身。 全修在性，故能依之身，即所依之土，應身是寂光。 方顯身土之齊等，乃見事理之無別矣。 又云：『若謂寂光無相，便同偏真，猶如太虛』者。 斯由不知大小二理，智非智別也。 如《維摩疏》云：『大乘法性，即是真寂智性，不同二乘偏真之理。 』今問：寂光法身，既俱無相，真寂智性，為依何法？ 既彰智性之無依，顯非卓識之明鑒也。 《雜編》又云：『若據三身相即，四土互具，必須身身即三，土土具四。 若然者，法身寂土，豈得無相耶？ 』通曰：今為子論四土互具之義，若約事理相對論互具者，寂具三土，乃全體起用，無相而相也。 三土具寂，乃全用是體，相即無相也。 今問：全用是體，可得無相； 全體起用，應云有相。 那得一概言無相耶？ 《雜編》又云：『問：「若三相不可混同者，何故荊溪難云：一一塵剎一切剎耶？ 」答：「此指剎性遍收，故云一切。 如《金錍》即狹遍義。 狹何以遍？ 狹即性故。 又如芥容須彌。 芥何以容？ 芥亦性故。 」』此文但見事即是理，不見理即是事。 理不即事，安得芥納須彌，無傷樹木，毛吞巨海，不撓龍魚乎？ 《雜編》又云：『若無依正之相，斯則理無所具，事無所存。 豈可法身便同灰滅？ 答：「小乘無相，猶如太虛，無生法之理。 大乘無相，譬若明鏡，具現像之性。 像由形對，鏡匪自殊。 無謂鏡具像性，便云性已差別。 」』今謂，若言但具於性，不具於相，《觀音玄義》安云：『千種性相，冥伏在心。 』又《不二門》云：『理即名字觀行，已有依正不二之相。 』嗚呼！ 霅川雖留意於山家，但解修性之相依，未達事理之融即。 違法示徒，後嗣絕矣！ 」六對身，《淨名疏》云：「前二是應，即應佛所居。 良以王宮誕質，鶴樹潛神，現生滅相，說三藏法。 化同居土，名劣應身。 洎有餘國，現法性身。 機興應興，機息應息。 斯異娑婆，通佛灰斷，既非果報，但名勝應。 第三亦報亦應，即報佛所居。 以他受用，稱實感報，赴於地住菩薩大機，故彼土佛，亦名應也。 後一但是真淨，非應非報，法身所居。 」此約土體，橫對四佛。 若竪論土，凡聖同居，具現四身，方便唯勝，故無劣應。 其實報土，無二乘人，唯別圓佛，寂光無機，獨妙法身。 七解惑者，或曰，《維摩經》云：「欲得淨土，當淨其心； 隨其心淨，即佛土淨。 」心如形聲，土如影響，祇須自淨其心，何假別求淨土？ 答：「初言心淨，應辨理事。 一者性淨，二者事淨。 且性淨者，《大集經》云：『一切眾生，心性本淨。 心本淨故，煩惱諸結，不能染著，猶如虛空。 』此則眾生國土，同一法性，地獄天宮，俱為淨土。 二事淨者，性雖本淨，心乃忽迷。 一念不覺，二障久翳，當修三觀，以破三惑。 故《仁王》曰：『三賢十聖住果報，唯佛一人居淨土。 』登妙覺果，方究竟淨。 最下凡夫，慎勿叨濫。 次云土淨，須曉難易。 《婆沙論》云：『於此世界，修道有二：一者難行，在於五濁惡世，於無量佛時，求阿鞞跋致，甚難可得。 此難，無數塵沙，說不可盡（《十疑論》明五種難事）。 > Though cultivation and nature are distinct, how could the realm of the myriad existences persist? Though initial and original \[enlightenment\] are two, how could the bodily forms of the five skandhas remain? Hence the \*Commentary on the Vimalakīrti\* states: 'The dharmakāya is itself the land; apart from the body there is no land, and apart from the land there is no body.' Now I say that this explanation contains two errors: First, failing to distinguish between the supported and the supporting. In explaining the bodhisattvas in the sky below, Miaole took the bodies of the bodhisattvas to represent the cultivated virtue that is the supporting \[entity\], and took the empty-space land to represent the inherent virtue that is the supported \[basis\]. How could one only explain the cultivated and inherent virtues being represented, while entirely discarding the bodies and lands that serve as the representations? Second, the non-identity of cultivation and nature. He takes the principle of inherent virtue as the supported, the wisdom of original enlightenment as the supporting, the principle of cultivated virtue as the supported, and the wisdom of initial enlightenment as the supporting. (The principle of cultivated virtue is the supported, and the wisdom of initial enlightenment is the supporting.) Now I say that compared to cultivation, original enlightenment entirely belongs to nature; while the principle of cultivation compared to nature entirely belongs to cultivation. According to his interpretation, this would result in obliterating nature by means of nature and conjoining cultivation by means of cultivation, which is not the non-duality of cultivation and nature. One should say that cultivation arises entirely from nature, and therefore the supported land is itself the supporting body, and Quiescent Light is the nirmāṇakāya. Cultivation resides entirely within nature, and therefore the supporting body is itself the supported land, and the nirmāṇakāya is Quiescent Light. Only then is the equality of body and land revealed, and only then is the non-differentiation of phenomena and principle perceived. Furthermore, it says: 'If one asserts that Quiescent Light is without form, it would then be identical with the biased real, just like empty space.' This is because he does not understand the difference between the two principles of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, or between wisdom and non-wisdom. As the \*Commentary on the Vimalakīrti\* states: 'The dharmatā of the Mahāyāna is the nature of wisdom that is truly quiescent; it is not like the principle of the biased real of the two vehicles.' Now I ask: If the dharmakāya of Quiescent Light are both formless, what phenomenon does the nature of wisdom that is truly quiescent rely upon? Since it is manifest that the nature of wisdom has no reliance, it is evident that this is not the luminous discernment of profound insight. The \*Zabian\* further says: 'If we proceed according to the mutual identity of the three bodies and the mutual inherence of the four lands, every single body must be identical to all three, and every single land must contain all four. If that is so, how could the land of the quiescent dharmakāya be without form?' The reply states: 'I now explain to you the meaning of the mutual inherence of the four lands. If we discuss mutual inherence in terms of the contrast between phenomena and principle: Quiescent Light possessing the three lands is the entire substance giving rise to function—formless yet with form. The three lands possessing Quiescent Light is the entire function being substance—form identical to formlessness.' Now I ask: If the entire function is substance, it may be formless; but if the entire substance gives rise to function, one should say it has form. How can one universally claim that it is formless? The \*Zabian\* further says: 'Question: "If the three forms cannot be conflated, why did Jingxi raise the objection: 'Each single dust-mote land is all lands'?' Answer: 'This refers to the nature of lands encompassing all, and therefore it says 'all'. As in the \*Jinbi\*, this is the meaning of narrowness being identical to omnipresence. Why is the narrow omnipresent? Because the narrow is itself nature. It is also like a mustard seed containing Mount Sumeru. Why does the mustard seed contain it? Because the mustard seed is also nature."' This passage only sees that phenomena are principle; it does not see that principle is phenomena. If principle were not phenomena, how could a mustard seed contain Mount Sumeru without damaging the trees, or a hair swallow the great ocean without disturbing the dragons and fish? The \*Zabian\* further says: 'If there are no forms of supporting \[environment\] and supported \[inhabitant\], then principle would contain nothing and phenomena would have nowhere to abide. How could the dharmakāya then be reduced to extinction like ashes? Answer: "The formlessness of the Hīnayāna is like empty space, which lacks the principle of generating phenomena. The formlessness of the Mahāyāna is like a bright mirror, which possesses the nature of manifesting images. Images depend on the shapes confronting it; the mirror itself does not differ. Do not say that because the mirror has the nature of images, its nature is already differentiated."' Now I say: If one claims that it only possesses nature and does not possess form, why does the \*Guanyin xuanyi\* say: 'A thousand kinds of natures and forms are latently contained in the mind'? Furthermore, the \*Buer men\* states: 'From the stage of identity in principle to that of verbal identity and contemplative practice, there already exist the forms of the non-duality of the supporting \[environment\] and the supported \[inhabitant\].' Alas! Though Zhachuan paid heed to the Tiantai school, he only understood the mutual reliance of cultivation and nature, and failed to comprehend the harmonious integration of phenomena and principle. Contradicting the Dharma to instruct his disciples, his succession has come to an end!" Sixth, matching with the bodies. The \*Commentary on the Vimalakīrti\* states: 'The first two are nirmāṇakāya, being where the nirmāṇa buddhas reside. Because of giving birth to the physical form in the royal palace, concealing the spirit beneath the crane-like \[sāla\] trees, manifesting the characteristics of arising and ceasing, and preaching the Dharma of the Tripiṭaka to transform the land of common residence, this is called the inferior nirmāṇakāya. When it comes to the land of remnants, they manifest the dharmatā-kāya. When faculties arise, the response arises; when faculties subside, the response subsides. This is different from the Sahā world where the buddhas of the Common Teaching are reduced to ashes and extinction; since it is not a fruition retribution, it is merely called the superior nirmāṇakāya. The third is both saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya, being where the saṃbhoga buddhas reside. Because its other-enjoyment accords with reality to evoke retribution, responding to the great faculties of bodhisattvas at the bhūmis and abodes, the buddha of that land is also called a response \[body\]. The last one is purely true and pure, neither response nor retribution, and is where the dharmakāya resides.' This matches the four buddhas horizontally according to the substance of the lands. If discussed vertically according to the lands: the land of common residence of ordinary beings and sages manifests all four bodies; the land of expedient means has only the superior response, and thus lacks the inferior response; its land of true retribution has no people of the two vehicles, but only the buddhas of the Distinct and Perfect teachings; and Quiescent Light has no \[differential\] faculties, but only the wonderful dharmakāya. Seventh, understanding and resolving doubts. Some say: The \*Vimalakīrti Sūtra\* states, 'If one wishes to attain a pure land, one should purify one's mind; as one's mind becomes pure, the buddha land becomes pure.' The mind is like the form and voice, and the land is like the shadow and echo. One need only purify one's own mind; why rely on seeking another pure land? The answer is: 'First, regarding the purification of the mind, one should distinguish between principle and phenomena. The first is purity of nature; the second is purity in phenomena. As for purity of nature, the \*Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra\* states: "The mind-nature of all sentient beings is originally pure. Because the mind is originally pure, afflictions and bonds cannot defile it, just like empty space." Thus sentient beings and lands share the same dharmatā; the hells and heavenly palaces are both pure lands. Second, as for purity in phenomena: although nature is originally pure, the mind suddenly falls into delusion. Through one thought of unawareness, obscured by the two hindrances for a long time, one should cultivate the three contemplations to shatter the three delusions. Therefore the \*Renwang \[jing\]\* states: "The three classes of worthy ones and the ten sages abide in fruition retribution; only the Buddha alone dwells in the pure land." Only upon ascending to the fruit of wondrous enlightenment is it ultimately pure. Lowest ordinary beings must be careful not to make improper claims. Next, regarding the purity of the land, one must understand difficulty and ease. The \*Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra\* states: "There are two kinds of cultivating the path in this world: the first is the difficult practice. In the evil world of the five turbidities, seeking avaivartika during the era of immeasurable buddhas is extremely difficult to attain. These difficulties are countless as dust and sand, impossible to recount completely (the \*Shiyi lun\* explains five kinds of difficult matters). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) _First 5 of 7 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.142)_ ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131~en-mt.7.142.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [樂邦文類](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1969a.4.41) — Classical Chinese - [法華玄義釋籤](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.14.40) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.142](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.142) · Pramāṇa