釋淨土群疑論

3. Rebirth According to Conventional Truth:

Question: Is rebirth in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss brought about by the mind of the past, the mind of the present, or the mind of the future? If the mind of the past is reborn, the mind of the past has already ceased and cannot be reborn. If the mind of the future is reborn, the mind of the future has not yet arrived, so how can it be reborn? If the mind of the present is reborn, the mind of the present does not abide anywhere from thought-moment to thought-moment, so how can it be reborn? Thus, when the mind is sought throughout the three times—past, future, and present—it cannot be found. Why, then, are people now exhorted to seek rebirth in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss? ⁽²¹⁾

Answer: When examined in terms of time, the past has already ceased, the future has not yet arisen, and the present does not remain; therefore, there is no true arising. This is like a lamp: it is not the past flame that is burning, for that flame has already ceased; it is not the future flame that is burning, for that flame has not yet arisen; nor is it the present flame that is burning, for it never remains at rest. Yet neither can it be said that there is no burning, because the flame is dispelling darkness and emitting light, continuing from thought-moment to thought-moment like a stream of water, changing without cease and flowing on uninterruptedly.

At every moment, [the fire] performs four functions: it dispels darkness, emits light, radiates heat, and consumes the wick. The matter here is likewise. When the karma for rebirth in the Pure Land has matured, the assembly of sages comes to welcome the practitioner and escort them to the Pure Land.

The defiled body of the Saha world is relinquished, and a pure body in the Land of Ultimate Bliss is obtained. The dependent arising of the three times is neither eternal nor annihilated. Although all dharmas are originally quiescent and extinct, karmic retribution is clearly manifest.

Although all dharmas are originally unborn, birth and death continue without interruption. The ultimate truth is established without destroying conventional truth. This is the meaning intended here.

In the Vimalakirti Sutra, Vimalakirti asked Sariputra: “If dharmas bear no marks of arising and cessation, why do you ask me where I died and where I was born before coming here?” This passage explains that all dharmas are quiescent, neither coming nor going, and therefore are said to be without arising or cessation. A later passage states that there is a world called Wondrous Joy, whose Buddha is named Akshobhya; this was the land in which Vimalakirti manifested passing into extinction before being born in the Saha world.

Vimalakirti said: “Cessation is a dharma bearing the false mark of decay and destruction, while birth is a dharma bearing the false mark of continuity.” These are provisional designations within conventional truth, not the marks of true arising and cessation. Within ultimate truth, when the three times are examined, there is ultimately no meaning of rebirth. The present exhortation to leave the defiled Saha world and be reborn in the Land of Ultimate Bliss pertains only to conventional truth, in which arising and cessation are provisional designations; nevertheless, this does not mean that there is no departure from the Saha world and rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.

How could you discuss only the principle of ultimate truth and thereby destroy the causal efficacy of conventional truth? The present exhortation to seek rebirth in the Pure Land is based upon the principle of cause and effect within conventional truth.

4. Contemplating Form Is Not Erroneous

Question: The Diamond Prajnaparamita Sutra says:

If one sees the Buddha through form

Or seeks the Buddha through sound,

That person practices a deviant path

And cannot see the Tathagata.

It also says: “Those who are free from all marks are called Buddhas.” Why, then, do people now seek rebirth by practicing the deviant path of contemplating the Buddha as possessing marks? ⁽²²⁾

Answer: Both the Diamond Prajnaparamita Sutra and the Sutra on the Contemplation of Amitayus are teachings spoken by the Buddha. Neither contemplation of the markless nor contemplation of marks may be judged by ordinary beings as right or wrong, for their meanings are exceedingly profound. One cannot rely upon the Diamond Prajnaparamita Sutra to criticize the Sutra on the Contemplation of Amitayus. By harboring praise and blame in your mind, you not only incur grave offenses yourself, but also show that your understanding of the Buddha-Dharma is not yet comprehensive. Why is this so? These two sutras teach differently because practitioners differ in their capacities, their training, and their understanding.

(a) Because practitioners differ in capacity: Those of shallow capacity are not yet able to contemplate the principle, and so they are taught to contemplate form [and marks] and the Buddha’s reward body and transformation body. Those of profound capacity are able to contemplate true reality, and so they are taught to contemplate the markless and the Dharma body. If a person of lesser capacity studies a lofty Dharma, that lofty Dharma will not benefit them, just as the sutras speak of someone who drinks ambrosia yet still dies prematurely. If a person of superior capacity studies an elementary Dharma, their practice will not only fail to advance but will regress. The Buddha therefore taught different Dharmas for these two kinds of capacities.

(b) Because their training is not the same: Beginners who have only recently entered the path practice shallow contemplations and are not yet able to study lofty teachings; they cannot be taught to contemplate true reality. They must first be taught to contemplate form and marks in order to train and discipline their minds. Only after attaining accomplishment may they be taught the contemplation of the markless.

It is like entering the great ocean, proceeding from the shallows into the depths. Only those who have practiced for many years can be taught the contemplation of the markless. The Buddha wished to prevent beginning practitioners from becoming attached to form and marks, and therefore disparaged such contemplation as “deviant”; this does not mean that it is a wrong view.

Suppose, for example, that a miserly person studies the paramita of giving. After eliminating greed and miserliness, that person becomes attached to the practice of giving. The Buddha then wishes that person to advance to the paramita of moral discipline.

If he did not disparage giving, the practitioner would be unable to advance to the study and practice of moral discipline. The Buddha therefore disparages giving and praises moral discipline. In this way, the Great Sage teaches the Dharma in accordance with the capacities of beings.

Foolish people cling to the literal words and fail to understand the true meaning intended by the Buddha. The Buddha’s present disparagement of contemplating marks as a deviant path has a similar meaning.

(c) Because their understandings differ: If one clearly understands the meaning of “form itself is emptiness,” then contemplating form is not erroneous. If one holds that “form is not empty,” then contemplating form is erroneous. If one understands that “emptiness itself is form,” then contemplating emptiness is not erroneous.

If one holds that “emptiness is different from form,” then contemplating emptiness is erroneous. It is because people fail to understand the meaning of “form and emptiness” that they themselves divide them into good and bad. What do form and emptiness themselves have to do with distinctions between right and wrong?

If you clearly understand this meaning, then even if you contemplate form all day long, your contemplation is right. If you remain confused about the Buddha’s original intent, then even contemplating emptiness is erroneous. Excellent indeed is the Buddha’s wondrous purport; you should reflect upon it carefully!

5. Whether the Buddha Comes or Does Not Come

a. The Distinction Between Coming and Not Coming

Question: The Diamond Prajnaparamita Sutra says: “The Tathagata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere; therefore, he is called the Tathagata.” The Vimalakirti Sutra says: “As I contemplate the Tathagata, the preceding thought does not come, the subsequent thought does not go, and the present thought does not abide.” Manjusri said:

Neither abiding nor departing,

Neither grasping nor relinquishing,

Far removed from the six entrances,

I bow to the One who cannot be contemplated.

According to the teachings of these Mahayana sutras, the Buddha neither comes nor goes. For what reason, then, does the Sutra on the Contemplation of Amitayus say that transformation Buddhas come to welcome the practitioner, who follows the Buddha to be reborn there? This involves both going and coming and contradicts the sutras cited above. ⁽²³⁾

Answer: The wondrous principle is profound and far-reaching; the true aspect is equal and impartial. The Tathagata’s Dharma body is originally beyond birth and cessation, yet through the power of his great fundamental vow and boundless great compassion, he receives and guides sentient beings. From the true body, transformation bodies are manifested, reaching throughout the ten directions to receive and guide sentient beings of the nine grades.

Because the transformation body is itself the true body, there is no coming or going; yet because it appears responsively in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings, there is coming and going. The Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra, speaking from the standpoint that “the transformation body is itself the true body,” says that there is no coming or going; whereas the Contemplation Sutra, speaking from the standpoint that “the true body manifests transformation bodies,” says that there is coming and going.

Some explain that in reality no Buddha comes from the Western Land to this realm to welcome beings, nor does any Buddha receive and guide sentient beings to rebirth in the Pure Land. Rather, the empowering causal condition arising from the seeds of merit of the Buddha’s fundamental vow and compassion causes sentient beings who have affinities with him to cultivate such merits as mindfulness of the Buddha, the three meritorious practices, and the sixteen contemplations, taking these as the causes and conditions for rebirth.

Their own minds then manifest Amitabha Buddha coming to receive them, and the practitioners follow the Buddha to be reborn in the Pure Land. To say that the Buddha comes to welcome them does not mean that he actually comes to welcome them. It is merely that the seeds of merit of the Buddha and the practitioners combine and arise simultaneously, causing the practitioners to see a transformation Buddha coming to welcome them.

Thus it is said that he comes, though in reality there is no coming. The merit of Amitabha Buddha’s compassionate vow remains perfectly clear and perpetually quiescent, neither coming nor going. Relying upon the mighty power of the sublime merit of his fundamental vow, the consciousness of sentient beings manifests from their own minds, and they perceive coming and going and perceive themselves being received and guided to rebirth.

These are the objective aspects manifested by their own minds and have nothing to do with the Buddha. The Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra says that there is neither coming nor going from the standpoint of the Buddha’s merit, while the Contemplation Sutra says that there is coming and going from the standpoint of the mental appearances of sentient beings.

Others explain that when the capacities of sentient beings are appropriate, the Buddha responds to them and manifests transformation Buddhas who reach throughout the ten directions to receive and guide them to rebirth. Yet the transformation Buddhas are like wish-fulfilling jewels or celestial drums: without forming any intention, they nevertheless accomplish their work. Although coming and going are spoken of, there is neither coming nor going. This is stated from the standpoint of the true body, as discussed above. Alternatively, it is explained from the standpoint of arising and cessation: each thought-moment does not abide; as soon as it arises, it ceases, and therefore cannot move. It arises in that very place and ceases in that very place.

It arises elsewhere and ceases elsewhere; through resemblance and continuity, this is provisionally called coming and going. It is like a rapidly whirled firebrand: though it is not a circle, it presents the appearance of a circle. It is provisionally called coming and going, though in reality there is no coming or going. Therefore, Master Sengzhao’s Treatise on the Immutability of Things says: “A gale tears mountains apart, yet they remain eternally still; horses gallop in every direction, yet they have never moved; the sun and moon set and rise, yet they have never ascended or descended.” This describes arising and cessation occurring so swiftly that they appear never to move at all.

b. The Two Meanings of Buddha and Permanence.

Question: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says: “Abandoning impermanent form, one realizes permanent form. The same applies to feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.” It also says: “All Buddhas honor the Dharma as their teacher. Because the Dharma is permanent, all Buddhas are likewise permanent.” The three bodies are unmoving, neither shifting nor changing; yet it is now said that they arise and cease without abiding. What does this mean? ⁽²⁴⁾

Answer: This controversy did not begin only today. Scholars of the Nirvana school maintain that all three bodies are permanent, neither arising nor ceasing. They cite detailed passages from such scriptures as the Nirvana Sutra and the Sutra of the Bodhisattva’s Original Deeds and Jeweled Necklace to maintain that all three bodies are permanent.

This position is based largely on the scriptures. Scholars of the Mahayana-samgraha school, however, cite treatises such as the Mahayana-samgraha as evidence that the permanence of the three bodies has three meanings: (a) immutable permanence, namely the Dharma-nature body; (b) uninterrupted permanence, namely the enjoyment body; and (c) continuous permanence, namely the transformation body. Although each body is permanent, the meanings differ, because the latter two bodies arise through causes and conditions.

The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom states that because the latter two bodies arise through causes and conditions, everything conditioned is impermanent. If they were “immutable,” they would have to be identical with the Dharma-nature body, realized through the revealing cause. Moreover, those two bodies would have to be uncomposed of the five skandhas and devoid of thought, reflection, speech, and action.

Reasoning from these principles, the latter two bodies are not “immutably permanent.” For a detailed understanding, one may consult the Treatise on Consciousness-Only and other works. Furthermore, on the basis of imagined attachment, sentient beings all believe that the Buddhas “come and go.” Therefore, the scriptures and treatises say that there is neither coming nor going in order to refute such attachments. In the Vimalakirti Sutra, Vimalakirti says: “Excellent, Manjusri!

You come without any appearance of coming and see without any appearance of seeing, and so forth.” The Contemplation Sutra now speaks of coming and going, but this does not contradict the Mahayana scriptures. Each scripture teaches from the standpoint of a particular meaning, and all are wondrous teachings of the Buddhas.

6. The Buddha’s Name Conveys Meaning.

Question: In the Dharmapada Sutra, the Buddha said to the bodhisattva Baoming: “Good man! Contemplate whether the name of this Buddha exists or does not exist, whether it is real or unreal. Good man!

If a name truly existed, then when someone uttered the words ‘food,’ those who heard it should also become full. If they became full, all food in the world would be useless, for if merely hearing the word ‘food’ made one full, what need would there be to eat?” The meaning of this scriptural passage is that “names are themselves empty” and cannot expound the Buddha’s teachings. Yet people are now taught to concentrate single-mindedly upon mindfulness of the Buddha so that grave offenses may be eradicated and they may be reborn in the Western Land.

How is this any different from saying “food” and thereby making listeners full, or saying “water” and thereby quenching their thirst? ⁽²⁵⁾

Answer: The wondrous Mahayana scriptures all maintain that names are false designations without substantial reality. Thus they say that “words and letters have no inherent nature”; or that “there are no written characters”; or that “names and meanings are adventitious and unreal, and bodhisattvas should contemplate them in this way.” Nevertheless, if the Buddha had sat serenely in silence, Kaundinya would have had no hope of attaining the path, and Subhadra would likewise have been unable to realize the fruit of arhatship.

Although speaker and listener are distinct, and one cannot fill another’s stomach merely by uttering empty words, names ultimately possess the function of explanation, enabling listeners to understand the principles and meanings. Hence there is the analogy of the finger pointing to the moon.

Moreover, the essential nature of names and words is empty; hence there is the analogy of “discarding the raft after crossing the river.” The Buddha knew that ordinary beings cling to names and words and thereby give rise to delusion, either loving or hating, and create karmic offenses and obstacles; either praising or disparaging, they give rise to thoughts of giving life and taking life, commit all ten evil karmas, and fall into the three evil realms.

Wishing to eliminate their afflictions, he therefore taught that names and words are false and provisional. Whether one is praised or disparaged, how could this truly bring one honor or disgrace? If it were said that one feels honored because one is praised and feels humiliated because one is disparaged, this would be like saying that merely speaking of “food” makes one full, or that merely mentioning “blazing fire” causes one to be burned.

In truth, even if one speaks all day of “delicacies and exquisite fare,” one still cannot escape hunger and thirst; and even if one constantly speaks of “blazing fire,” one will not thereby suffer the calamity of being burned. Thus, we know that the essential nature of names and words is false and originally devoid of reality. Ordinary beings fail to awaken to this, give rise to love and hatred, contend for empty fame, and fall into the three evil realms.

Conversely, if one maintains that names and words are useless and have no function, then when water is called for, fire ought to come, and when a man is called, a woman ought to come. Yet at present, when water is called for, water comes, and when a woman is called, a woman comes, without any confusion. Thus, we know that names and words still have a function, like a net used to catch fish or a snare used to catch rabbits.

Therefore, Brahma King requested the Buddha to turn the Dharma wheel, and the Buddha also taught the sutras and Dharma in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings. The profound intent of the Tripitaka shone brilliantly in the Dragon Palace, and the twelve divisions of scripture were proclaimed on Vulture Peak. Gods and humans, ordinary beings and sages, all received and understood the wondrous Dharma; beings in the five destinies and the four modes of birth all revered the Buddha’s teachings.

Those who hear, retain, read, and recite them gain immeasurable benefit, and those who invoke and recollect the names of the Buddhas are all reborn in the Pure Land. How, then, could it be said that names and words are false and have no function in propagating the True Dharma?

Part III. Reconciling the Contradictions in

The Mahayana-samgraha.

1. Reconciling the Third Bhumi.

Question: The Yogacarabhumi-sastra states: “Only bodhisattvas of the Third Bhumi can be reborn in a Pure Land.” What, then, is the intent behind presently exhorting ordinary beings and bodhisattvas at or below the Three Worthy Stages to seek rebirth there? ⁽²⁶⁾

Answer: When the various treatises discuss rebirth in a Pure Land, each proceeds from its own particular basis, and their acceptance and rejection are likewise not the same. Since the various Pure Lands differ in coarseness and subtlety, superiority and inferiority, rebirth in them also has different higher and lower levels. As the Prajnaparamita Sutra for Humane Kings states: “Only the Buddha dwells in the Pure Land; those of the Three Worthy and Ten Holy Stages all dwell in lands of retribution.” This means that bodhisattvas at or below the Ten Bhumis cannot be born in the Pure Land.

Because the Buddha’s Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom manifests an uncontaminated Pure Land, it is called pure; whereas the fundamental consciousnesses of bodhisattvas at or below the Ten Bhumis manifest contaminated Pure Lands, which are therefore not called pure. The eighth consciousness is the consciousness of karmic retribution; therefore, the land it manifests is called a land of retribution. If one speaks from the standpoint of cultivating generosity, observance of precepts, and meditative concentration, attaining uncontaminated concentration, and being able through the power of concentration to be reborn in the various Pure Lands, then only bodhisattvas of the Third Bhumi attain such mastery.

For this reason, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra maintains that only bodhisattvas of the Third Bhumi and above can be reborn in a Pure Land. If one speaks of realizing non-discriminating wisdom, eliminating attachment to self and attachment to dharmas, eliminating the afflictions abandoned on the path of seeing, realizing the gateway to the illumination of the hundred dharmas, and attaining rebirth in the Pure Lands of the Buddhas, then one must be a bodhisattva of the First Bhumi or above.

But if one speaks of relying upon the Buddha’s fundamental vow of great compassion to receive and guide all foolish, obstructed ordinary beings—even those who have committed the ten evil acts and the five rebellious offenses—then, provided they arouse the aspiration for bodhi, they can all attain rebirth there. In that case, one cannot rely on the Yogacarabhumi-sastra’s assertion that only bodhisattvas of the Third Bhumi and above can be reborn in a Pure Land, for that would mean that even bodhisattvas of the First and Second Bhumis could not yet attain rebirth there.

Yet Bodhisattva Nagarjuna received from the Buddha a prediction that, having realized the First Bhumi, he would be reborn in the Land of Ultimate Bliss. How could one say that because he had not realized the Third Bhumi he could not be reborn there, thereby contradicting the essential teaching of the Sutra on the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life!

The Prajnaparamita Sutra for Humane Kings states that bodhisattvas of the First Bhumi realize the gateway to the illumination of the hundred dharmas and behold one hundred Buddha lands. How, then, could it be said that they cannot be reborn in a Pure Land? Moreover, the Avatamsaka Sutra states that ordinary bodhisattvas who have newly aroused the aspiration and make a vow to be reborn in a Pure Land can all attain rebirth there. From this, we know that the Yogacarabhumi-sastra speaks only from the standpoint of “attaining mastery in concentration, becoming free from obstacles, and thereby being reborn in a Pure Land.”

2. Reconciling the Intention Pertaining to Another Time. a. Explaining the Treatise and Refuting Attachment.

Question: The two treatises, the Mahayana-samgraha and the Abhidharmakosa, were composed by the two treatise masters Asanga and Vasubandhu to explain the meaning of the sutras and treatises. They set forth four intentions and four secret statements, including the statement: “Attaining rebirth in a Pure Land merely by making a vow is an intention pertaining to another time.” What, then, is the reasoning behind presently exhorting everyone to cultivate pure karma so as to be reborn in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss?

More than a hundred years have passed since the Mahayana-samgraha was translated. The venerable masters have read it, yet none of them cultivated the Pure Land path or sought rebirth in the West. To say now that recollecting the Buddha enables one to attain rebirth—does this not contradict the original intent of the Mahayana-samgraha? ⁽²⁷⁾

Answer: The Mahayana-samgraha states: “Attaining rebirth in a Pure Land merely by making a vow is an intention pertaining to another time.” From ancient times until now, venerable masters have all used this passage to prove that recollecting the Buddha does not bring about rebirth in the present lifetime. We shall now demonstrate that “through recollecting the Buddha, one immediately attains rebirth in the present lifetime,” and that this is the true meaning intended by Asanga and Vasubandhu. Why is this so? The treatise says, “merely by making a vow,” which means that it does not refer to “practice.” It does not refer to the practice of recollecting the Buddha, but speaks only of “making a vow”; therefore, it says, “merely by making a vow.”

If one attains rebirth “merely by making a vow,” this is “an intention pertaining to another time.” In other words, “another time” means that one does not attain rebirth at the time of death “merely by making a vow.” Now, wholeheartedly recollecting the Buddha is wholesome action performed through the karma of mind; invoking the Buddha’s name is wholesome action performed through the karma of speech; and joining one’s palms and bowing in homage is wholesome action performed through the karma of body.

These three wholesome karmas can eliminate grave offenses accumulated throughout eight billion kalpas. When practice and vow are joined together, one immediately attains rebirth in the present lifetime. How could this be merely making an empty vow!

When the treatise master Asanga said “merely by making a vow,” he meant that “if the vow is accompanied by practice, then this is not an intention pertaining to another time.” Those who study this matter refuse to contemplate this meaning deeply and hastily make the arbitrary assertion that “recollecting the Buddha and attaining rebirth is also an intention pertaining to another time.” If that were so, why did the Mahayana-samgraha not explicitly declare, “For example, attaining rebirth by recollecting Amitabha Buddha is an intention pertaining to another time”?

Since the treatise does not say that “recollecting the Buddha, cultivating the sixteen contemplations, and practicing the three kinds of merit are intentions pertaining to another time,” we know that recollecting the Buddha and the other practices are not intentions pertaining to another time.

Some maintain that “recollecting the Buddha and cultivating the sixteen contemplations also constitute the making of a vow,” while others explain that “although the treatise master says that it is solely by making a vow, he implicitly means that recollecting the Buddha and so forth are also intentions referring to another time.” Let us now examine these two explanations to determine whether they aim to benefit sentient beings or are merely far-fetched interpretations.

With regard to benefit, the first explanation would cause innumerable sentient beings to continue wandering through the five destinies and sinking into the three evil paths, unable to attain rebirth in the Pure Land and escape birth and death. With regard to interpretation, if the meaning of the treatise is carefully examined, the second explanation does not accord with the treatise master’s original intent but is merely a careless and erroneous assertion.

When treatises such as the Abhidharmakosa debate doctrinal tenets and principles, they all rely upon the Buddha’s teachings—the sutras—to determine their purport and ultimate orientation. How much more so now, when the Buddha’s teachings in the Sutra on the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life and other scriptures thoroughly reveal the methods of cultivation—either explaining the three kinds of merit as the true causes of rebirth in the West or presenting the sixteen contemplations as the principal practice for birth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.

Why, then, should all of these be said to be merely the making of a vow?

There are eight reasons for knowing that the treatise master did not maintain that

“recollecting the Buddha is an intention referring to another time”:

⁽¹⁾ Treatise masters explain the scriptures because their meanings are profound and ordinary people find it difficult to understand the Buddha’s original intent. They compose treatises explaining the Buddha’s words so that both the wise and the foolish may clearly understand them. Yet the teachings concerning recollection of the Buddha and rebirth found in the Sutra on the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life, the Sutra of Infinite Life, and the Amitabha Sutra are perfectly clear and are understood by both the wise and the foolish. What difficulty is there that would require explanation?

⁽²⁾ Bhiksu Dharmakara made forty-eight great vows to receive and guide sentient beings. Could he possibly have made those great vows through an “intention referring to another time”? His Fundamental Vow contains the statement: “If those who recollect the Buddha do not attain rebirth, I vow not to attain Buddhahood.” From this we know that practices such as recollecting the Buddha will certainly result in rebirth. This is contained within the Forty-Eight Vows and is not an intention referring to another time. The statement, “Merely by making a vow, one cannot attain rebirth,” is not among the Forty-Eight Vows; that is what pertains to an intention referring to another time.

⁽³⁾ In the Sutra in Praise of the Pure Land, Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges throughout the ten directions all display their broad and long tongues to attest to rebirth there. Could they possibly be attesting to an “intention referring to another time”? The Buddhas display their tongues precisely because sentient beings do not believe in the Pure Land Dharma gate. Those sentient beings think that the effort involved in recollecting the Buddha is slight and wonder how one could attain rebirth within a single lifetime. They consequently give rise to slander and disbelieve the Buddha’s teaching. The Buddhas therefore display their broad and long tongues and speak truthful words, causing those beings who see them and hear their words to dispel all doubts and give rise to faith.

⁽⁴⁾ The Amitabha Sutra first exhorts sentient beings to make a vow to seek birth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss. It then teaches them to recollect the name of Amitabha Buddha for one to seven days, whereupon, at the end of their lives, the assembly of sages will come to receive and guide them to rebirth there. If recollecting the Buddha were merely the making of a vow, then since the preceding section already exhorts them to make a vow, why would the following section also need to teach the practice of recollecting the Buddha? We therefore know that the preceding section concerns the vow and the following section concerns the practice. When practice and vow accord with each other, one attains rebirth. How could recollecting the Buddha be merely the making of a vow?

⁽⁵⁾ Both the Treatise on Rebirth and the Mahayana-samgraha Treatise were composed by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu. Could it be that the teaching in the Treatise on Rebirth that recollecting the Buddha leads to rebirth in the West is not an intention referring to another time, while the Mahayana-samgraha Treatise regards recollecting the Buddha as an intention referring to another time and denies that rebirth can be attained in the present lifetime?

Even if these two treatises had been composed by two masters holding different views, we would still have to ask why only the Mahayana-samgraha Treatise comprehended the purport of the sutras while the Treatise on Rebirth remained confused about the Buddha’s teaching. How much more so when both treatises were composed by Vasubandhu: how could their meanings contradict each other? If we use the treatises to discern the treatise master’s original intent, we should know that only “making a vow without practice” is an intention referring to another time!

⁽⁶⁾ The Treatise on Rebirth describes five gates: (a) the bodily act of prostration, (b) the verbal act of recollecting the Buddha, (c) the mental act of contemplation, (d) making a vow, and (e) dedication of merit. If the first three gates were themselves the making of a vow, how would they differ from the fourth gate, that of making a vow? If they were the same, how could they be called five gates? If they are different, then the first three gates are practices, not vows!

⁽⁷⁾ The Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, composed by Asvaghosa, states that recollecting the Buddha and attaining rebirth in the West are indeed a gate of practice, not an intention referring to another time. From this we know that Vasubandhu’s original intent in composing his treatise was the same as Asvaghosa’s, and that he never regarded the gates of recollecting the Buddha and so forth as intentions referring to another time.

Asvaghosa composed the Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana to instruct beginning bodhisattvas. He gave eight reasons for composing the treatise, of which the seventh states: “To reveal the skillful means of single-mindedly recollecting the Buddha and attaining rebirth in a Buddha-land, thereby assuredly never retreating from faith in the Mahayana. Furthermore, sentient beings who have newly begun to study the Mahayana and wish to seek right faith, but whose faith is not yet firm, may fear that by remaining long in this Saha world, where they cannot constantly draw near to the Buddhas and make offerings to them, their faith in the Mahayana will be difficult to perfect and may perhaps regress and be lost.

They should know that the Tathagata possesses an excellent skillful means for embracing and protecting practitioners’ faith: namely, through the causes and conditions of recollecting the Buddha, they attain rebirth in the Pure Lands, constantly draw near to the Buddhas, and forever depart from the evil paths. As stated in the sutras, if practitioners single-mindedly recollect the name of Amitabha Buddha in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss and then dedicate the roots of virtue from their cultivation toward seeking birth in that world, they will certainly attain rebirth there.

Because they will constantly behold the Buddha, their faith in the Mahayana will never regress.” If they diligently cultivate contemplation of the Buddha’s Dharma-body of True Suchness, they will certainly attain rebirth and abide in right concentration.

⁽⁸⁾ If it is claimed that mindfulness of the Buddha is not a practice gateway, then are the cultivation of the three merits and the sixteen contemplations practice gateways or not? If [cultivating the three merits and the sixteen contemplations] constitutes a practice gateway, the section on the Contemplation of the Ground states that accomplishing the Contemplation of the Ground will eliminate karmic hindrances involving birth and death accumulated over eight billion kalpas; after the end of one’s life, one will be born in the Pure Land, with no doubt remaining in one’s mind.

Likewise, with the recitation of the name of Amitabha Buddha, each recitation also eliminates grave karmic offenses involving birth and death accumulated over eight billion kalpas, enabling one to attain rebirth in the Western Land. Why, when the elimination of offenses is the same, is one teaching a practice gateway while the other is not? Why does cultivating contemplation lead to rebirth, whereas practicing mindfulness of the Buddha does not?

If neither of these two practices is a practice gateway, then did Queen Vaidehi and her five hundred attendants receive the Buddha’s prediction of rebirth because they cultivated these contemplations, or did they attain rebirth by cultivating other practices? If they attained rebirth by cultivating these contemplations, yet these contemplations are not a practice gateway, how could they have attained rebirth? If cultivating these contemplations does not lead to rebirth, why did Queen Vaidehi request a practice that does not lead to rebirth?

And why would the Tathagata teach a Dharma that does not lead to rebirth? If both are gateways of aspiration, then they must be one and the same; why, then, distinguish sixteen contemplations? The two arbitrary explanations above not only fail to understand the scriptural text but also slander right view, harming oneself and others.

They benefit neither the Buddhadharma nor sentient beings.

b. The characteristics of the intention referring to another time.

Question: If merely making an empty aspiration is an intention referring to another time, then what is an intention referring to another time? ⁽²⁸⁾

Answer: The Buddha knew that sentient beings’ afflictions were deep and grave, that they wandered through birth and death and floundered in the ocean of suffering without any day of escape. Therefore, he praised the magnificence of the environmental and sentient adornments of the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss and encouraged sentient beings to attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Although sentient beings hear the Buddha’s teaching, because their afflictive hindrances vary in severity and their understanding varies in depth, their cultivation likewise varies in degree.

(a) There is one class of sentient beings who, upon hearing the Buddha’s teaching, disparage and slander it. Not only are they not born in the Western Land, but they also cause themselves to sink into the ocean of suffering. Such people have no affinity with the Dharma gateway of the Land of Ultimate Bliss.

(b) There is another class of sentient beings who, upon hearing the Pure Land Dharma, give rise to profound faith and do not slander it, yet because they remain infatuated with the five desires and attached to the Saha world, they dare not make the aspiration and are unwilling to practice. If they cultivate goodness, they may be born in the heavens; or they may continue to commit evil and sink into the lower realms. Such people likewise have no affinity with the Western Pure Land.

Of the two classes of people just mentioned, some have no aspiration to seek rebirth, while others give rise to slander. Therefore, the Sutra of Pure and Impartial Enlightenment states: “If there are sentient beings who hear the Pure Land teaching yet hear as though they had not heard and furthermore slander it, I say that such people have not yet attained liberation and have only recently been reborn as humans from the lower realms.” Because they have no faith or lack practice and aspiration, they have not yet attained liberation.

(c) There is another class of sentient beings whose past affinities with Amitabha Buddha have matured. Upon hearing the Pure Land teaching, they give rise to reverent faith and make a great vow, aspiring to attain rebirth in the Western Pure Land and resolving never to seek the rewards of the human or heavenly realms. Although such people make their aspiration with great vigor, they may, because of conditions arising from their afflictions, continue to indulge in the five desires; or they may be heedless and indolent and unable to cultivate the path; or they may encounter evil spiritual companions and commit many offenses.

At the end of their lives, they may not encounter a virtuous spiritual friend; or they may be gravely ill, delirious, and deprived of reason; or their minds may be distracted and they may not understand what others are saying. People such as these have merely made an empty aspiration and have never cultivated the Pure Land practices. Although they cannot attain rebirth in this very life, their aspiration will become a cause and condition for attaining rebirth in future lives.

Or, through the exceptional power of their aspiration, they will later certainly apply themselves diligently to practice. It is with respect to these two kinds of people—those not yet able to practice and those intending to practice—that the treatise presents the meaning of “an intention referring to another time.” Thus, the sutra says that these people will attain rebirth in the Western Land. Because dull-witted people suppose that they need only make the aspiration without cultivating the causes and conditions for rebirth in the Pure Land,

the treatise master explains that this is an intention referring to another time: “It is not solely by making the aspiration that one attains rebirth in the Pure Land in this present life.” People of later generations read the treatise without understanding its purport and consequently claim that even mindfulness of the Buddha does not lead to rebirth.

This is an extremely grave error.

(d) There is another class of sentient beings whose roots of goodness are deep and abundant and whose afflictions are slight and few. Fortunate enough to encounter excellent conditions and hear the Pure Land teaching, they give rise to deep, pure faith, make the aspiration, and cultivate the practices; at the end of their lives, events unfold exactly as described in detail in the sutra. Because their practice and aspiration are complete, they immediately attain rebirth.

They differ from those who merely make the aspiration; therefore, this is not a teaching “referring to another time.” Regarding the two preceding kinds of people who have not yet attained rebirth, the Buddha said that by making the aspiration they would attain rebirth. Fearing that they might mistakenly understand this to mean that merely making the aspiration would enable them to attain rebirth in the same way as those whose practice and aspiration are complete, the treatise master therefore said that those who merely make the aspiration will not attain rebirth in this present life;

this is “an intention referring to another time.” The masters compare the making of the aspiration to a single initial coin, the recitation of the Buddha’s name and cultivation of the practices to the intervening nine hundred and ninety-nine coins, and rebirth in the Pure Land to the thousandth coin.

Thus, the Compendium of the Great Vehicle Treatise gives the analogy of using one coin as capital to generate a thousand coins. Similarly, mindfulness of Prabhutaratna Buddha cannot enable one immediately to realize the stage of non-retrogression. The stage of non-retrogression is the bodhisattva’s stage of the First Abode.

When practitioners are mindful of Prabhutaratna Buddha, they may be at a stage below the Ten Faiths, or at the stage of the First Faith, and so forth. They cannot, merely by being mindful of Prabhutaratna Buddha, immediately pass beyond the ten thousand great kalpas from the First Faith to the First Abode. During the intervening period, they must cultivate the eighty-four thousand paramita gateways before they can reach the First Abode.

Moreover, mindfulness of Prabhutaratna Buddha and the stage of non-retrogression are remotely related as cause and condition; hence, this is called an intention referring to another time.

Part IV: Clarifying the Original Abode with Respect to the Rebirth of Ordinary Beings.

1. Rebirth from the Five Destinies.

Question: Is it only human beings who can attain rebirth in the Pure Land, or can other sentient beings also attain rebirth there? Furthermore, can those who have already been reborn in other realms attain rebirth in the Pure Land? ⁽²⁹⁾

Answer: All sentient beings in the five destinies are able to cultivate the Pure Land practice and attain rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss. For example, devas came to hear the Buddha expound the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life, and a passage later in the sutra states that innumerable devas, nagas, yakshas, and others who heard the Buddha's teaching all rejoiced. At the beginning of the Sutra in Praise of the Pure Land, it is said that innumerable devas, asuras, and others, wishing to hear the Dharma, all came to attend the assembly.

From this we know that all can make the vow to attain rebirth in the Pure Land, cultivate pure karma, and attain rebirth in the Western Land. Furthermore, the Sutra of the Bodhisattva in the Womb says: “A naga king transformed himself into human form and undertook the Eight Precepts. A garuda wished to eat the naga's flesh but was unable to do so, and therefore asked the naga king what Dharma he had undertaken.

The naga king replied that he had undertaken the Eight Precepts. The garuda then followed the naga king down to the naga palace. At that time, the male and female nagas heard the Dharma of the Eight Precepts and gave rise to reverence and faith.

After the end of their lives, they all attained rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.” Likewise, the Sutra of Rebirth in Accordance with One's Vows says: “If the wealth, possessions, fields, and gardens of the deceased are given in generosity to the Three Jewels, the extraordinary power of that generosity can extinguish for them the karmic retribution of hell. Through these causes and conditions, the deceased gain liberation, leave all suffering and affliction far behind, and attain rebirth in the Pure Lands of the Buddhas of the ten directions.” From this we know that all sentient beings in the five destinies can attain rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.

2. The intermediate existence in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.

a. Whether the intermediate existence exists

Question: When beings take birth in this defiled and turbid Saha world, all who possess form must assume a body of intermediate existence, dying here and being born there. There are four kinds of skandha: the intermediate-existence skandha, the birth skandha, the fundamental-life skandha, and the death skandha. Is a body of intermediate existence required for rebirth from the Saha world into the Pure Land? ⁽³⁰⁾

Answer: There are two explanations. (a) Some hold that there is no intermediate existence, because immediately upon the end of one's life in the Saha world, one is already seated upon a lotus flower in the Land of Ultimate Bliss. This belongs to the birth skandha, because being seated within a lotus is analogous to entering a womb. (b) Our present explanation is not necessarily so. Consider the manner of taking birth from a womb in the Saha world: only after going from the place of death to the place of birth does one assume the birth skandha.

For example, when one dies in the Desire Realm and is born in the Form Realm, one must first assume a body of intermediate existence belonging to the Form Realm; only after reaching the Form Realm does one assume the birth skandha of the Form Realm. The meaning of rebirth in the Pure Land is now likewise similar: one cannot remain within this defiled and turbid world and assume the birth skandha of the Pure Land. One must reach the jeweled pond in the Pure Land before the body of intermediate existence becomes the body of the birth skandha.

Since the Formless Realm has no physical body, it may not require a body of intermediate existence to transmit consciousness so that birth may be taken. The Pure Land, however, has physical bodies; why, then, should we not accept that a body of intermediate existence transmits consciousness there so that the body of the birth skandha may be assumed?

b. Distinctions concerning the intermediate existence.

Question: If there is a body of intermediate existence, it must reach the jeweled pond in the Land of Ultimate Bliss before it can sit within a lotus flower, which will subsequently open. Why, while still in the Saha world, is the intermediate-existence body of the practitioner attaining rebirth already seated upon a lotus flower? If this is so, is it any different from the body of the birth skandha in the Pure Land? ⁽³¹⁾

Answer: Could one say that merely because the body of intermediate existence enters a lotus flower in the Saha world, it is therefore the same as the body of the birth skandha in the Land of Ultimate Bliss? Rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss is brought about by the extraordinary power of merit. Although it is still a body of intermediate existence, it undergoes transformation birth supported by a lotus flower and is different from an ordinary body of intermediate existence in the defiled and turbid world.

Although the body of intermediate existence and the body of the birth skandha both dwell within the lotus flower, they differ in superiority and inferiority, luminosity and darkness, by which these two kinds of skandha-body may be distinguished. Moreover, the two meanings of “proceeding toward birth” ^[1] and “arriving at birth” ^[2] are used to clarify the distinction between the intermediate-existence skandha and the birth skandha.

If one maintains that, because the intermediate-existence skandha and the birth skandha are both within the flower, they cannot be distinguished, then in the Saha world neither the intermediate-existence skandha nor the birth skandha has a flower; could one therefore say that these two skandhas are also indistinguishable? Some hold that although neither the intermediate-existence skandha nor the birth skandha has a flower, they can be distinguished by entering the womb, emerging from the womb, and so forth.

This distinction can be made in the three cases of birth from a womb, birth from an egg, and birth from moisture, but in the case of transformation birth, how could one distinguish the intermediate-existence skandha from the birth skandha? From this we know that a body of intermediate existence exists.

Furthermore, in the hells, the body of intermediate existence is already being burned; how could it not be different from the body of the birth skandha? From this we know that the body of intermediate existence and the body of the birth skandha in the Pure Land are similarly distinct. Nevertheless, no sutra or treatise has been found that discusses this matter, and therefore it cannot be definitively judged whether a body of intermediate existence exists for rebirth in the Pure Land. Although there is no scriptural passage that can be cited as evidence, the meaning that “there is a body of intermediate existence” remains more reasonable. Otherwise, what kind of body is it that attains rebirth in the Pure Land?

c. The intermediate existence wearing clothing.

Question: If there is a body of intermediate existence, does the intermediate-existence body associated with the Land of Ultimate Bliss wear clothing? ⁽³²⁾

Answer: Neither the sutras nor the treatises discuss this. Nevertheless, according to the author's assessment, the body of intermediate existence must wear clothing. The Abhidharmakosha Treatise says: “All bodies of intermediate existence in the Desire Realm, except the intermediate-existence body of the bhikshuni Shukla, wear no clothing, because bodies of intermediate existence in the Desire Realm have no sense of shame. All bodies of intermediate existence in the Form Realm wear clothing because they possess a sense of shame.” Reasoning from this, all bodies of intermediate existence associated with the Pure Land wear clothing. Since the Pure Land is more excellent than the Form Realm, how could its bodies of intermediate existence not wear clothing?

d. The form of the intermediate existence.

Question: What is the form of the body of intermediate existence associated with the Pure Land? ⁽³³⁾

Answer: This meaning is likewise known through reasoned assessment. In the Saha world, the intermediate-existence bodies of devas are upright. The intermediate-existence bodies of hell beings have their heads directed downward and their feet upward. The intermediate-existence bodies of humans, hungry ghosts, and animals move horizontally, like birds in flight. The intermediate-existence bodies associated with the Pure Land are also upright. Another explanation holds that the intermediate-existence bodies of devas take birth in a standing posture, whereas those associated with the Pure Land take birth in a seated posture.

e. Whether it feeds upon fragrances.

Question: Before the body of intermediate existence reaches the Land of Ultimate Bliss, how will it eat and drink during its journey across a hundred thousand kotis of Buddha lands? ⁽³⁴⁾

Answer: Before taking birth from a womb, bodies of intermediate existence in the Desire Realm mostly take fragrances as their food. The intermediate-existence body bound for the Land of Ultimate Bliss takes birth there as swiftly as the snap of a finger. Since the interval is not long, it has no need for food or drink. Moreover, during the journey across a hundred thousand kotis of Buddha lands, the body of intermediate existence may take the fragrances in those Buddha lands as food before taking birth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss. The meanings concerning the body of intermediate existence are innumerable and cannot all be explained here.

Part V: Clarifying the Growth of Faith Regarding the Rebirth of Ordinary Beings.

1. Attestation by the Buddhas.

Question: The Tathagata teaches the Dharma in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings. He generally teaches those who have faith in the Buddhadharma, but does not teach those whose minds are filled with doubt. The Medicine Buddha Sutra says: “The Buddha bestows the Dharma upon those who have faith, but does not teach the Dharma to those who harbor doubts.” Why, then, in some sutras do the Buddhas display their broad and long tongues to encourage sentient beings to give rise to faith, while in other sutras they do not display their tongues but simply expound the wondrous principle?

Moreover, when profound and wondrous Dharma is taught, ordinary beings do not understand it; they become doubtful and give rise to slander. For example, when the Buddha taught the Lotus Sutra and united the Three Vehicles into the One Vehicle^[3], those of the Two Vehicles and others did not give rise to faith. Therefore, the Buddha Prabhutaratna manifested his jeweled stupa as testimony, while the Fundamental Teacher had to display his broad and long tongue to demonstrate the truth of the teaching and exhort sentient beings three times to believe his words before he continued teaching the sutra.

The Amitabha Sutra, however, merely discusses the pure and magnificent features of the circumstantial and direct rewards in the Western Land, encouraging practitioners to attain rebirth there and give rise to right faith. Why, then, must the Buddhas of the six directions or the ten directions together display their broad and long tongues to encourage sentient beings to give rise to faith? ⁽³⁵⁾

Answer: In the latter part of the Sutra in Praise of the Pure Land, the Fundamental Teacher himself relates that, when Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges throughout the ten directions saw him teaching the Sutra in Praise of the Pure Land, each of them, remaining in his own land, praised him in unison: “In the Saha world, during the evil age of the five defilements, Buddha Shakyamuni was able to attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi and teach sentient beings this Dharma that is exceedingly difficult to believe.” After receiving the praise of the Buddhas, the Fundamental Teacher said to Shariputra: “In the evil age of the five defilements, I attained anuttara-samyak-sambodhi and taught sentient beings the Dharma gateway that is the most difficult in the world to believe.

This is exceedingly difficult.” The Tathagata taught hundreds of thousands of sutras, yet he never described doing so as difficult. But when he taught the Sutra in Praise of the Pure Land, both the Fundamental Teacher and Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges throughout the ten directions said that this sutra was difficult to believe and difficult to teach. Ordinarily, when the Buddha taught the twelve divisions of the teachings, all non-Buddhists gave rise to slander, while all the Buddha’s disciples gave rise to faith.

Now, however, when the Buddha taught the Amitabha Sutra, declaring that sentient beings who have committed the five heinous offenses and the ten evil deeds can attain rebirth in the Pure Land merely by being mindful of the Buddha, even devout Buddhists became doubtful and did not believe this teaching of the Buddha. Observe now that, although the fourfold assembly of Buddhists consists entirely of people possessing right faith, they still doubt whether mindfulness of the Buddha necessarily leads to rebirth in the present lifetime.

Thus, it is evident that this sutra can hardly inspire faith among all classes of Buddhists. Foreseeing that many sentient beings in future ages would harbor doubts, the Buddhas together displayed their tongues to attest to the sincerity and truth of this teaching and encourage everyone to cultivate and study it.

Moreover, even defiled and evil ordinary beings believe it to be true that bodhisattvas who have reached the Three Stages of Worthiness or above, or great spiritual teachers such as Nagarjuna, attain rebirth in the Pure Land. They consider it unsurprising that such eminent beings, possessing abundant merit and few offenses, should attain rebirth there. Furthermore, the bodhisattvas of the Ten Grounds and the Three Stages of Worthiness all believe without doubt that ordinary beings who have committed the five heinous offenses and the ten evil deeds, if at the time of death they sincerely and earnestly recite the Buddha’s name ten times, may rely upon the Buddha’s fundamental vows and attain rebirth.

Yet, in the particular case of those born in the lowest grade of the lowest level—people who have committed the five heinous offenses and the ten evil deeds and left no evil undone—who at the time of death encounter a spiritual teacher who instructs them to be mindful of the Buddha, and who, upon completing ten recollections, immediately attain rebirth in the Pure Land, those who disbelieve this are precisely people who themselves are committing the ten evil deeds and who do not believe that mindfulness of the Buddha leads to rebirth in the Pure Land.

They consider themselves sinful ordinary beings who, since beginningless time, have committed innumerable evil deeds, and they think: How could ten recollections of the Buddha possess enough merit to eradicate grave offenses and enable one to attain rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss? Alternatively, they claim that this was merely an exhortation by the Buddha, using what is near as an analogy for what is distant; or they claim that it was a teaching given with an intention pertaining to another time.

Through all manner of vague explanations, they deny rebirth in the present lifetime. Few assent to the Buddha’s teaching, while many slander it. Because few people believe this teaching of the Buddha, the Buddhas together displayed their broad and long tongues, covering the trichiliocosm, to testify that the Dharma gateway of mindfulness of the Buddha is true and certain and that rebirth will assuredly be attained.

At the same time, they protect and remain mindful of practitioners so that, through their cultivation, they may attain rebirth in the Pure Land.

2. The Buddhas Fully Possess All Vows.

Question: The Avatamsaka Sutra says: “All Buddhas are equal. Only after fully perfecting their practices and vows did they consummate Perfect Enlightenment and receive the title Honored One Perfect in the Two Kinds of Fulfillment.” Yet the Medicine Buddha Sutra says that, while practicing the bodhisattva path, the Medicine Buddha made only twelve great vows, whereas the Infinite Life Sutra and the Karunapundarika Sutra say that Amitabha Buddha gave rise to the aspiration for bodhi and made forty-eight vows while cultivating bodhisattva practices. This differs completely from the fundamental purport of the Avatamsaka Sutra. What is the intended meaning? ⁽³⁶⁾

Answer: The Avatamsaka Sutra and the Medicine Buddha Sutra are based on two different doctrinal purports, yet there is no contradiction between them. In truth, all Buddhas fully possess all practices and vows, without superiority or inferiority. If even one vow remained unfulfilled, they could not attain perfect enlightenment and could not be honored as the Omniscient Ones.

Nor is there any difference among the merits and virtues of the Buddhas. The Vimalakirti Sutra states: “The merits and virtues of all Tathagata Buddhas are equal.” As for the Medicine Buddha Sutra speaking of twelve vows and the Infinite Life Sutra speaking of forty-eight vows, these were all taught in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings. The Buddhas teach and transform sentient beings, receiving and guiding those with whom they have affinities.

Sentient beings who have affinities with a Buddha will certainly practice in accordance with that Buddha’s fundamental vows. The Buddhas likewise rely upon their own great vows to teach and deliver sentient beings. When the Buddhas first aroused the resolve for bodhi, they all abided in the vast aspiration: “I shall cause all sentient beings to enter nirvana without remainder.” From the moment a bodhisattva first arouses this resolve, the bodhisattva cultivates the bodhisattva practices for immeasurable and boundless asamkhya kalpas and attains perfect enlightenment.

Yet sentient beings are infinite and boundless, and a bodhisattva cannot teach and transform them all. Before the realm of sentient beings has been exhausted, the bodhisattva has already attained Buddhahood. Although the bodhisattvas’ aspirations are vast, the work of delivering sentient beings cannot be completed.

Nevertheless, there are sentient beings who possess sincere and earnest faith in the twelve great vows, and whose conditions in relation to these great vows have now ripened. The same is true of those sentient beings who sincerely arouse faith in Amitabha Buddha’s forty-eight vows: their conditions in relation to these forty-eight vows have now ripened. Although Medicine Buddha and Amitabha Buddha each fully possess great vows as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, they set forth different great vows for sentient beings of differing capacities.

Although Medicine Buddha also possesses forty-eight vows, for sentient beings who have affinities with the twelve vows, he teaches only the twelve vows. Similarly, although Amitabha Buddha also possesses twelve vows, for sentient beings who have affinities with the forty-eight vows, he teaches only the forty-eight vows. It is like the storehouse of medicines belonging to the King of Physicians: although it contains immeasurable kinds of medicine, he compounds different prescriptions according to different illnesses.

One should not see that a prescription is simple and therefore consider the medicine ineffective, nor disbelieve that the King of Physicians’ storehouse contains every kind of medicine needed to cure all illnesses. The Avatamsaka Sutra teaches that the Buddhas are equal and fully possess all vows and practices; this is like the entire storehouse of medicines. The twelve vows of Medicine Buddha and the forty-eight vows of Amitabha Buddha are like prescriptions for treating particular illnesses.

From this, we know that the purport of the Avatamsaka Sutra and that of the Medicine Buddha Sutra are in no way contradictory.

3. Knowing with certainty that one will attain rebirth.

Question: What signs enable one to know clearly whether a practitioner will certainly attain rebirth in the Western Land? Are there any scriptures that provide evidence? ⁽³⁷⁾

Answer: There are three teachings of the Buddha that provide evidence for the rebirth of practitioners who cultivate the Pure Land path:

a) The Sutra in Praise of the Pure Land states: “In this Saha world during this defiled age of the five turbidities, if good men and good women of pure faith hear this Dharma, the most difficult in the world to believe, and are able to give rise to faith and understanding, accept and uphold it, expound it, and practice according to the Buddha’s teaching, one should know that such people are extremely rare and have planted roots of virtue in the presence of immeasurable Buddhas. After their lives end, they will certainly attain rebirth in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss.

b) The Sutra of Pure and Impartial Enlightenment states: “If, upon hearing of the Pure Land Dharma gate, a person’s hair stands on end because of supreme joy, I declare that this person will certainly attain liberation.”

c) Fascicle One of the Pratyutpanna Sutra states: “Sentient beings who cultivate the Samadhi of the Buddhas’ Direct Presence, upon hearing the name of Amitabha Tathagata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Enlightened One, are able to continuously bind their minds to contemplating that Buddha, single-mindedly and without distraction, are called bodhisattvas who have perfected contemplation and accomplished the Samadhi of the Buddhas’ Direct Presence.

Through the majestic power of this samadhi, practitioners are able to behold Amitabha Buddha. They then ask: ‘World-Honored One, what Dharma must bodhisattvas accomplish in order to attain rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss?’ Amitabha Buddha replies: ‘Those who arouse the resolve to seek rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss must constantly bind their minds in right mindfulness of that land; they will then certainly attain rebirth there.’” Practitioners should examine themselves.

If they accord with any one of these three sutras, they will attain rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.

4. Not aspiring to rebirth in the Form Realm.

Question: In this defiled and impure realm, the devas of the Form Realm likewise have no sorrow or suffering but experience only joy and bliss. In what way is this inferior to the Pure Land, such that sentient beings are unwilling to be reborn in the Form Realm and instead seek rebirth in the Pure Land? ⁽³⁸⁾

Answer: Although the devas of the Form Realm have no sorrow or suffering and experience only joy and bliss, theirs is not ultimate bliss, because in the end they must still undergo suffering. Therefore, practitioners do not aspire to rebirth in those heavens. Eight points show that the Form Realm is not the Land of Ultimate Bliss:

1. The Form Realm lacks the bliss of quiescent extinction: Ordinary beings reborn in the Form Realm cannot realize the bliss of quiescent extinction found in great nirvana.

2. After death, beings fall into the three lower realms: After sentient beings in the Form and Formless Realms exhaust their meritorious recompense, they are reborn, according to their residual karma^[4], in lower heavenly realms or fall into the three lower realms.

3. There are no holy beings upon whom to rely: Although the Form Realm also includes the Five Pure Abodes—the five heavens inhabited by non-returners—how could these compare with the Western Land, where there are many bodhisattvas bound to only one more birth?

4. The true Dharma cannot be heard: How could the Form Realm possess Buddhas and bodhisattvas, with even jeweled ponds, jeweled birds, and jeweled trees expounding the wondrous Dharma day and night?

5. Attachment to meditative concentration: Although the Form Realm also possesses pure concentration^[5], it is intermingled with much savoring of concentration^[6], causing practitioners to increase the afflictions of craving and attachment.

6. Increase of wrong views: Those reborn in the Form Realm frequently encounter followers of non-Buddhist paths and easily develop wrong views. Moreover, those reborn in the Heaven of Non-Perception commonly give rise to wrong views when their lives end, slander nirvana, and fall into hell.

7. The three calamities destroy these realms: The heavens at and below the Third Dhyana are subject to three great calamities: the calamity of fire, which destroys the First Dhyana; the calamity of water, which destroys the Second Dhyana; and the calamity of wind, which destroys the Third Dhyana. No such events occur in the Pure Land.

8. They fall among the eight difficulties: Although the Form and Formless Realms are free from sorrow and suffering, they are nevertheless classified under the difficulty of the long-lived devas, one of Buddhism’s eight difficulties.

Because these eight conditions are present, although there is joy and bliss, beings ultimately remain submerged in the ocean of suffering; therefore, this “bliss” is still not ultimate bliss. Compared with the Pure Lands, the difference in superiority is truly as vast as that between heaven and earth. Therefore, practitioners who seek rebirth resolutely do not aspire to rebirth in the Form Realm but aspire to rebirth in the Pure Land, where they will forever be free from retrogression.

5. Observing the precepts brings longevity.

Question: Practitioners who aspire to be reborn in the Pure Land may observe the fasting precepts for one day and one night, practice filial care for their parents, and so forth. If these wholesome deeds are not dedicated toward seeking rebirth there, they will bring about karmic recompense among humans or devas. A human lifespan does not exceed one hundred years, while the longest lifespan in the heavens of the Desire Realm is sixteen thousand years. Why, then, when the merits from observing the precepts and so forth are now used to aspire for rebirth in the West, do they bring about the recompense of a lifespan lasting immeasurable and boundless asamkhya kalpas? The merits of the practices are no greater or lesser, yet the resulting lifespans differ as vastly as heaven and earth. ⁽³⁹⁾

Answer: This principle is truly difficult to explain. The scriptures teach that the power of karma is inconceivable; we can only reverently believe it and cannot fathom it with discursive thought. I shall now offer one explanation.

Although the observance of the precepts for one day and one night is the same, the aspirations with which the precepts are undertaken vary in superiority. Because the minds differ in superiority, the resulting recompenses also differ. If one undertakes the precepts with the aspiration to be reborn in the Pure Land and attain Buddhahood, then the precepts become a supremely excellent cause and condition, bringing about the recompense of a long lifespan in the Western Land.

If one merely aspires to be reborn in a heaven, one’s aspiration is not excellent; it follows the current of birth and death and increases the karma of the Saha world, and therefore brings about the recompense of a short lifespan. Thus, although the precepts are the same, because the conditions associated with them differ, the resulting lifespans are not the same. Furthermore, although the causal basis of the precepts is the same, the aspirations differ.

Because the excellent conditions surrounding the precepts support their causal basis, one attains rebirth in the Pure Land. Moreover, although both involve birth and death—sectional birth and death and transformational birth and death—the aspiration and the conditions that nourish rebirth differ, and therefore their recompenses differ. If this is understood, what room remains for doubt?

Question: If, when first undertaking the precepts, one does so with the aspiration to be reborn in the Pure Land, then they bring about rebirth in the highest grade; the precepts become a supremely excellent cause and condition, resulting in a long lifespan. Suppose, however, that when one first undertakes the precepts, one aspires only to be reborn in a heaven, but at the time of death dedicates the merit of having undertaken the precepts—the unmanifest merit of the precepts—toward rebirth in the Western Land. How can this bring about a lifespan lasting immeasurable asamkhya kalpas? ⁽⁴⁰⁾

Answer: Karmic recompense is not fixed. The heavy may be transformed into the light, or the long changed into the short, as explained in detail throughout the scriptures; we shall not elaborate on this here. Although the practitioner undertook the precepts for the purpose of seeking rebirth in a heaven, later, upon encountering excellent conditions, the practitioner aspires instead to be reborn in the Pure Land. Though the practice performed may be slight, through the earnest power of that aspiration and by relying upon the previously acquired precepts, it is transformed into a supremely excellent supporting condition. This accords with the Buddha’s fundamental vow and brings about a lifespan lasting asamkhya kalpas.

6. Regretting One’s Practice Yet Attaining Rebirth.

Question: Rebirth in the Land of Utmost Bliss through mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha accords with the Buddha’s fundamental vow, so it is natural that one should be reborn there. But through what causes and conditions can mindfulness of Medicine Buddha also result in rebirth in the Land of Utmost Bliss? ⁽⁴¹⁾

Answer: According to the teachings of the Medicine Buddha Sutra: “If disciples of the four assemblies regularly observe the six monthly days of the Eight Precepts, or diligently practice day and night, aspiring to be reborn in the Western Land of Utmost Bliss, continuously contemplating and recollecting it for one to seven days, but during their practice give rise to doubt [not knowing whether they will attain rebirth there], then, if these practitioners hear of the merits of Medicine Buddha Lapis Lazuli Radiance, eight bodhisattvas will come at the time of death to receive and guide them to rebirth in the Western Land of Utmost Bliss.” These practitioners initially aspired to be reborn in the West, but later gave rise to doubt and regretted having cultivated the Pure Land practice.

Because the obstruction of doubt prevents them from attaining rebirth in the West, they hear the name of Medicine Buddha, through which the karmic obstructions of doubt and delusion are eliminated. Medicine Buddha then sends eight bodhisattvas to receive and guide the practitioners to the Western Land of Utmost Bliss. This reveals Medicine Buddha’s power to eliminate obstacles and assist practitioners in attaining rebirth in the West.

It is also reasonable to say that rebirth is brought about by the power of their initial vows together with their diligent cultivation and observance of the precepts. If they did not hear the name of Medicine Buddha, doubt would obstruct their rebirth in the Pure Land. If those practitioners do not repent of their doubt, then at the time of death they must recite the name of Amitabha Buddha in order to attain rebirth in the West.

How could it be reasonable for them not to be mindful of Amitabha Buddha, yet rely upon the name of Medicine Buddha to seek rebirth in the West?

7. Not Exhorting Rebirth in the Pure Land of the Saha World.

Question: According to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, the Vimalakirti Sutra, and so forth, this Saha world also contains a Pure Land. Why, then, is it necessary to seek rebirth in the West? ⁽⁴²⁾

Answer: Although the scriptures state that the Saha world also contains a Pure Land, existing at the same place and time without obstructing the defiled land, and although in the Vimalakirti Sutra the Buddha pressed his toe against the earth to reveal the Pure Land, while in the Lotus Sutra the Buddha spoke of his constant abiding on Vulture Peak and at other dwelling places within the Saha world, nevertheless, from beginning to end, neither of these two sutras ever exhorts practitioners to seek rebirth in the Pure Land of the Saha world. One should not, merely upon hearing the Buddha speak of a Pure Land, immediately voice a vow to be reborn there. If the meanings of these two sutras are carefully examined, it appears that the Buddha had other intentions.

Question: The Buddha’s manifestation of the Pure Land must have been intended to exhort sentient beings to be reborn there. Otherwise, why did he manifest the Pure Land? ⁽⁴³⁾

Answer: The Buddha manifested the Pure Land for other benefits. What benefits were these? In the Vimalakirti Sutra, the Buddha revealed the Pure Land in order to dispel Shariputra’s doubt concerning the principle that “when the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is pure,” enabling Shariputra to see the purity of the Saha world and have faith in the Buddha’s teaching.

He also enabled the bodhisattvas Ratnakuta and others, upon seeing the Pure Land, to attain patience with the non-arising of dharmas. Likewise, the Lotus Sutra sought to clarify the principle that the One Vehicle is subtle and wondrous, while the Two Vehicles are coarse and shallow. It first manifested a defiled land and later manifested a pure land, all for the benefits just described; the manifestation of the Pure Land was unrelated to rebirth there.

Furthermore, because the merits of the Land of Utmost Bliss are supremely excellent, even those reborn in the lowest grade of the lowest rank attain the stage of non-retrogression, to say nothing of those reborn in higher grades. This is not mentioned regarding other Buddha-lands. Therefore, our Original Teacher exhorted practitioners to seek rebirth in the Land of Utmost Bliss; it was not because he believed that the Saha world contained no Pure Land.

Notes:

^[1] Approaching birth: being on the way to the place where birth is to be taken.

^[2] Arrived at birth: having reached the place where birth is to be taken.

^[3] Uniting the three and returning them to the one: Gathering the three vehicles of shravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas into the single Buddha Vehicle, or One Vehicle.

^[4] Karma remaining after its principal recompense has already been experienced.

^[5] Samadhi that increases purity of mind.

^[6] Samadhi that causes practitioners to increase their attachment to joy and bliss.