維摩經疏 1.31

1.31

自下第三轉釋為眾生取佛土義。先問後解。所以者何問也。問有兩意。一問菩薩得土自安。所以偏言為眾生者何。二問觀空破相之惠能治染過可得淨土為眾生。是其取有之心。所以能得淨土者何下對釋之兩意別解。菩薩取於淨因皆為饒益諸眾生故。解初意也。雖得自安。取土之意原為益生故。說為生而取土耳。譬如有人下釋後意也。釋意如何。淨土是其功德之果。唯空不成故為眾生能得淨土。先喻後合。喻中譬如有人欲於空地造立宮室隨意無礙。順舉其得人喻菩薩。修起淨土名造宮室。依空修惠依有起悲名為空地。用此求土得變不難名為無礙。若於虛空終不能成。舉失顯得。捨有純空無得土義。終不能成下合顯法。先合前得菩薩合人。辨法同喻故曰如是。為成就眾生故合於地也。空略不合。願取佛國合造宮室。隨意無礙略而不合。願取佛國者非於空也。合後失也。純空不成故言非矣也。

From here below is the third [section], further explaining the meaning of appropriating a Buddha-land for the sake of sentient beings. First comes a question, followed by an explanation. "Why is this?" is the question. The question has two points: first, it asks, since the bodhisattva obtains a land to settle himself in peace, why does he exclusively say it is for the sake of sentient beings? Second, it asks, the wisdom that contemplates emptiness and dismantles marks can counteract the defilements of faults and obtain a pure land; doing so for the sake of sentient beings is a mind that appropriates existence—why then is it able to obtain a pure land? Below, these two points are separately explained in response. "Bodhisattvas take up pure causes entirely for the sake of benefiting sentient beings": this explains the first point. Although he obtains personal peace, the purpose of appropriating a land is fundamentally to benefit beings; therefore it is said that he appropriates a land for the sake of beings. The passage from "just as if a man" downward explains the second point. What is the explanation? A pure land is a fruit of merit. It cannot be accomplished by emptiness alone; therefore, being for the sake of sentient beings, he can obtain a pure land. First comes a simile, followed by its application. In the simile: "just as if a man wished to build palaces on an empty plot of land, he could do so at will without obstruction" introduces the successful case. The "man" is a simile for the bodhisattva. Cultivating and giving rise to a pure land is called "building palaces". Cultivating wisdom relying on emptiness and arousing compassion relying on existence is called the "empty plot of land". Seeking a land through this, obtaining transformation is not difficult, which is called "without obstruction". "If it were in empty space, it could never be accomplished": this presents the failure to show the success. Abandoning existence for sheer emptiness has no meaning of obtaining a land. The passage from "it could never be accomplished" downward applies the simile to reveal the Dharma. First, applying it to the previous success: "bodhisattva" corresponds to the "man"; explaining that the Dharma is identical to the simile, it therefore says "in the same way". "For the sake of bringing sentient beings to maturity" corresponds to the "land"; "emptiness" is omitted and not applied. "Vows to take up a Buddha-land" corresponds to "building palaces"; "at will without obstruction" is omitted and not applied. "One who vows to take up a Buddha-land does not do so in empty space" applies to the subsequent failure: because sheer emptiness cannot accomplish it, it says "it is not so".