翻譯名義集 7.142

English (machine translation) 7.142

Language: English

7.142.1

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.

7.142.2

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.'

7.142.3

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."

7.142.4

" 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."

7.142.5

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).

7.142.6

The second is the path of easy practice: having faith in the Buddha's words, one is taught the buddhānusmṛti-samādhi and vows to be born in the Pure Land; carried and sustained by the power of Amitābha Buddha's vow, one's rebirth is assured. This is called the path of easy practice." These seven doctrinal topics distinguish the various buddha lands; even if their number exceeds the dust motes of the earth, in principle they are all like reflections in a mirror. Unfolded, the myriad transformations are displayed abreast; folded, not a single phenomenon is truly established.'

Linked texts (1)

翻譯名義集 — 法雲, Classical Chinese