釋淨土群疑論

Part VI: Reconciling the Scriptures to Refute Erroneous Interpretations.

1. Whether Those Who Commit the Five Rebellious Offenses and Slander the Dharma Are Received and Guided to Rebirth. a. The Explanations of Fifteen Commentators.

Question: As the eighteenth vow in the Sutra of Infinite Life states: “When I attain Buddhahood, if sentient beings in the ten directions, with sincere minds and joyful faith, wish to be born in my land and recite my name even as few as ten times, yet are not born there, may I not attain perfect enlightenment—excepting those who commit the five rebellious offenses and slander the True Dharma.” The Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life states: “There may be sentient beings who commit the five rebellious offenses and the ten evils, perpetrating every kind of unwholesome deed.

Because of his evil karma, such a foolish person should fall into the lower realms and undergo immeasurable suffering for many kalpas…. A good spiritual friend consoles him in many ways, teaches him the wondrous Dharma, and further instructs him to contemplate and recollect the Buddha. Although that person hears these instructions, he is so tormented by suffering that he cannot calmly contemplate the Tathagata of Infinite Life.

Seeing this, the good spiritual friend says: ‘If you cannot contemplate that Buddha, you should sincerely recite, “Namo Amitabha Buddha,” continuing until you have completed ten recitations.’” Following these instructions, the practitioner recites the Buddha’s name, and with each recitation extinguishes the grave offenses of eight billion kalpas of birth and death. When his life ends, he sees a golden lotus, radiant like the orb of the sun, appear before him.

In the time it takes to snap one’s fingers, he is immediately born in the Land of Utmost Bliss.” Why do both sutras discuss the commission of the five rebellious offenses and rebirth through ten recitations of the Buddha’s name, yet one permits a person who has committed the five rebellious offenses to attain rebirth while the other does not? What is the meaning of this? ⁽⁴⁴⁾

Answer: From ancient times to the present, the venerable masters of old have offered fifteen different explanations of this matter: ⁽¹⁾ The person whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth is one who has repented, whereas the person whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth is one who has not repented. ⁽²⁾ The person whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth is one who committed a rebellious offense with a relatively light state of mind,

whereas the person whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth is one who committed a rebellious offense with a grave state of mind. ⁽³⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who committed rebellious offenses alone, whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth are people who both committed rebellious offenses and slandered the True Dharma. ⁽⁴⁾ The person whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth is one who committed offenses analogous to the rebellious offenses,

whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth are people who committed the actual rebellious offenses. ⁽⁵⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who have aroused the bodhicitta, whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth are people who have not yet aroused the bodhicitta. ⁽⁶⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who sincerely recite the name of Amitabha Buddha,

whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth are people who recite the name of Amitabha Buddha without sincerity. ⁽⁷⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are bodhisattvas at the stage of the Ten Faiths, whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth are people who have not yet become bodhisattvas at the stage of the Ten Faiths. ⁽⁸⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are practitioners who are not icchantikas,

whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth are icchantikas. ⁽⁹⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who have already committed rebellious offenses,

whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth are people who have not yet committed rebellious offenses.^{[1] (10)} The Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permitting people who have committed rebellious offenses to attain rebirth is the “gate of disclosure,” whereas the Sutra of Infinite Life not permitting people who have committed rebellious offenses to attain rebirth is the “gate of restraint.”^{[2] (11)} The Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits people who have committed rebellious offenses to attain rebirth on the principle that “the karma of the five rebellious offenses is indeterminate karma,” whereas the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit people who have committed rebellious offenses to attain

rebirth on the principle that “the karma of the five rebellious offenses is determinate karma.” ⁽¹²⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth after committing rebellious offenses are people who have realized the stages of warmth and summit, whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth after committing rebellious offenses are people who have not yet realized the stages of warmth and summit. ⁽¹³⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth after committing rebellious offenses are people who have planted roots of goodness leading to liberation,

whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth after committing rebellious offenses are people who have not yet planted roots of goodness leading to liberation. ⁽¹⁴⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth after committing rebellious offenses are people of the second stage, whereas those whom the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit to attain rebirth after committing rebellious offenses are people of the third stage. ⁽¹⁵⁾ Those whom the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth after committing rebellious offenses are people who complete all ten recitations,

whereas the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit people who have committed rebellious offenses to attain rebirth because it speaks generally of those who either complete or do not complete all ten recitations.

b. Refuting Errors and Revealing the Definitive Meaning.

Question: Are all fifteen explanations above correct, or are some of them erroneous? ⁽⁴⁵⁾

Answer: The commentators each have their own explanations, and one cannot say that some are superior and others inferior. For example, the first explanation maintains that the practitioners who attain rebirth are those who have repented, while the practitioners who do not attain rebirth are those who have not repented. This explanation shows that the commentator did not clearly understand whether recollection of the Buddha has the power to extinguish offenses.

If recollection of the Buddha cannot extinguish offenses, why does the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life state that each recollection of the Buddha extinguishes the grave offenses of eight billion kalpas of birth and death? If recollection of the Buddha has already extinguished karmic offenses and hindrances, what reason could there be for claiming that those who have not

repented cannot attain rebirth? Moreover, although the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits people who have committed rebellious offenses to attain rebirth, nowhere does it mention repentance. Like the fourteen explanations that follow it, this explanation also fails to present the scripture’s original intent comprehensively and clearly.

When the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits people who have committed rebellious offenses to attain rebirth, its original intent is expressed in the words, “Upon completing ten recitations, one immediately attains rebirth.” When the Sutra of Infinite Life does not permit people who have committed rebellious offenses to attain rebirth, it says, “even to the point of completing ten recitations.” Since both sutras say, “even to the point of completing ten recitations,” what need is there for other explanations?

In the sections on the upper level of the lower grade and the middle level of the lower grade, when practitioners are instructed to recite the Buddha’s name, there is no mention of “completing ten recitations.” They attain rebirth with one recitation or more, because these practitioners’ offenses are comparatively light and therefore they need not complete all ten recitations. In the lower level of the lower grade, however, because the practitioner has committed rebellious offenses, the sutra says that he must complete all ten recitations before being born in the Pure Land.

The sutra’s intent is to say that if one has not committed rebellious offenses, then regardless of whether one recites many or few times—once or ten times—one can attain rebirth. But if one has committed rebellious offenses, one must complete all ten recitations before attaining rebirth; if even one recitation is lacking, one cannot attain rebirth. Hence it says, “excepting.” This has nothing to do with the various explanations of the venerable masters of old.

c. Refuting Chan Master Xinxing.

Question: Other commentators may have misunderstood the meaning of the sutras, but Chan Master Xinxing was a bodhisattva who relied upon the Four Reliances. Could he also have misunderstood the meaning of the sutras? ⁽⁴⁶⁾

Answer: When Chan Master Xinxing explained the acceptance and rejection taught in the two sutras, the Sutra of Infinite Life and the Contemplation Sutra of Infinite Life, and distinguished the rebirth of people belonging to the second and third periods, he misconstrued the purport of the sutras. If we follow the master’s interpretation, we incur the two faults of over-inclusion and under-inclusion. The fault of over-inclusion is that people of the second period also commit the five heinous offenses, and those who have committed the five heinous offenses should therefore likewise be unable to attain rebirth.

The fault of under-inclusion is that if people of the third period have not committed the five heinous offenses, then, since the sutra does not say that they are excluded, they must be able to attain rebirth. The sutra says, “Except only those who commit the five heinous offenses and slander the True Dharma.” This prevents the two faults of over-inclusion and under-inclusion. If we followed Chan Master Xinxing’s view, the sutra should have said, “Except only sentient beings of the third period.” Would this not have avoided the two faults of over-inclusion and under-inclusion?

Yet this was the great vow of Bhikshu Dharmakara, formulated so as to eliminate the two faults of over-inclusion and under-inclusion. Could it be that his wisdom was incomplete and his vow deficient? If Dharmakara’s vow is not mistaken, then Chan Master Xinxing’s interpretation must be erroneous.

This proves that the fault lies with an ordinary person, Xinxing, and not with the noble one, Dharmakara.

Scholars of the Three Stages defend the teaching by saying: The explanation of “except only those who commit the five heinous offenses, and so forth” is intended to mean “except all sentient beings of the third period,” because all sentient beings of the third period are perverse and unrighteous, vicious and inhumane. From time immemorial they have done nothing but commit offenses; none of the Buddhas are concerned with saving them, and none of the Pure Lands of the ten directions will admit them. Therefore, Dharmakara said, “Except those who commit the five heinous offenses, and so forth,” thereby excluding all sentient beings of the third period.

Question: Although this may appear to explain the fault of under-inclusion, it still does not fully explain the fault of over-inclusion. If scholars of the Three Stages maintain that the section on the lowest grade of the lowest birth in the Contemplation Sutra of Infinite Life explains the fault of over-inclusion, I fear that their explanation is unreasonable. Moreover, all sentient beings of the third period are called perpetrators of the five heinous offenses.

If, in a past life, they suffered in hell and fully discharged their retribution, how could they still be perpetrators of heinous offenses? If they have never committed an offense leading to the Avici hell in this life, could they nevertheless still be perpetrators of heinous offenses? If they are all deemed perpetrators of heinous offenses, then they must all belong to the group definitely destined for evil.

In their next lives they will certainly fall into Avici Hell and cannot be born in any other realm; they cannot renounce the household life and practice; none of them belongs to the group of uncertain destiny or creates karma of uncertain fruition. If that is so, the teaching in the Nirvana Sutra that most sentient beings belong to the category of karma of uncertain fruition must be mistaken. The Three Stages school’s defense also fails to resolve the fault of under-inclusion.

The Chan master replied: To say now that all sentient beings of the third period are perpetrators of the five heinous offenses does not mean that they must all have killed their father, killed their mother, shed the blood of a Buddha, killed an arhat, or caused a schism in the Sangha before they may be called perpetrators of heinous offenses. It is merely because their capacities are extremely evil and their mental dispositions perverse; they do nothing but evil, have not yet freed themselves from the seven aversions and seven attachments, and have not yet relinquished the six affections and five pleasures.

Their three kinds of karma fully encompass the twelve inversions and the five kinds of beings who cannot be saved. Although they are not presently committing heinous offenses, they fully possess the capacity to create the karma of the five heinous offenses. Thus, in general, the term “heinous” is used to designate sentient beings of the third period.

Question: This appears to resolve the fault of under-inclusion, but it still does not resolve the fault of over-inclusion. Moreover, the preceding explanation gives rise to seven questions. ⁽¹⁾ If they are called persons with the capacity to commit heinous offenses because they are capable of committing them, then sentient beings of the second period are also capable of committing heinous offenses. Since both groups can commit heinous offenses, why are they assigned to two different periods?^{[3] (2)} Furthermore, Chan Master Xinxing maintains that sentient beings of the third period are perpetrators of the five heinous offenses and are subject to thirteen grave impediments, so that they cannot become fully ordained bhikshus.

They can therefore only be called persons without precepts; they cannot be called persons who break the precepts, because they have no precepts to break. If, however, sentient beings of the third period merely possess the capacity to commit heinous offenses but have never actually committed them, and can receive the bhikshu precepts, then why is excluding sentient beings of the third period regarded as excluding perpetrators of heinous offenses? ⁽³⁾ Furthermore, although sentient beings of the third period have not committed heinous offenses, they are nevertheless called perpetrators of the five heinous offenses.

Do they then belong to the group definitely destined for evil or to the group of uncertain destiny? If they belong to the group definitely destined for evil, how can they belong to it when they have not committed heinous offenses? If they belong to the group of uncertain destiny, why is it said that excluding perpetrators of the five heinous offenses means excluding all sentient beings of the third period? ⁽⁴⁾ If those who have not committed heinous offenses are called perpetrators of the five heinous offenses because they possess the capacity to commit them, then since they are also capable of fully observing the pure precepts, they are likewise capable of realizing the noble fruit.

Although they have not yet realized the noble fruit, they could therefore also be called noble ones. If they regard themselves as noble ones, they must belong to the group definitely destined for the right and should have relinquished the nature of ordinary beings; yet if at the same time they commit a parajika offense, how can they be called observers of the precepts? ⁽⁵⁾ The Contemplation Sutra of Infinite Life permits perpetrators of the five heinous offenses to attain rebirth; these are people who have already committed heinous offenses.

The section on the Forty-Eight Vows in the Sutra of Infinite Life excludes perpetrators of heinous offenses and does not permit them to attain rebirth. Could these instead be people who merely possess the capacity for the five heinous offenses—who are capable of committing them but have not yet done so? ⁽⁶⁾ Although sentient beings of the third period have not committed heinous offenses, they are called perpetrators of heinous offenses merely because they possess the capacity to commit them.

If, then, sentient beings of the second period commit heinous offenses, could they not be called perpetrators of heinous offenses simply because they supposedly lack the capacity to commit them? ⁽⁷⁾ If it is said that sentient beings of the second period also possess the capacity to commit heinous offenses, then the three grades of the lowest birth should be merged into a single grade, because even those who have not committed heinous offenses would still be perpetrators of heinous offenses.

Furthermore, there would be no difference in how quickly or slowly their lotus flowers open, nor any difference in the eradication of their offenses.^[4]

There are also those who explain that beings of the third stage are not entirely unable to attain rebirth in the Pure Land; rather, they must cultivate the Dharma gate of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness in order to attain rebirth in the Western Land. Yet if they have committed the five heinous offenses, then even though they cultivate the Dharma of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness, they cannot attain rebirth there.

Therefore, the vow of the Bodhisattva Dharmakara excludes beings of the third stage who have committed the five heinous offenses. If beings of the third stage have not committed the five heinous offenses and cultivate the Dharma of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness, they will certainly attain rebirth in the Pure Land; but if they have committed the five heinous offenses, then even though they cultivate the Dharma of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness, they cannot attain rebirth there.

For this reason, the Chan Master, endowed with vast wisdom and profound, expansive compassion, took pity on beings of the third stage who were sinking and drowning in the defiled realm. He therefore opened the Dharma gate of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness to receive and guide those who are wholly deviant and wholly evil, enabling them to study the Buddha-Dharma appropriate to their time, so that they might all attain rebirth in the Western World.

This was something that the Bodhisattva Dharmakara had never contemplated and that our Fundamental Teacher had never mentioned. It was the Chan Master Tín Hành alone who revealed this teaching in order to liberate beings of the third stage. Thus, it may be said that the Chan Master spoke what the Buddha had not spoken and liberated beings whom the Buddhas had not liberated.

We all aspire to read the Tam Giai Tập Lục, reverently receiving and upholding it throughout every month and year, and no longer dare to read or recite any other scriptures. Pitiful indeed are those who stubbornly cling to their former errors and continue to read and recite scriptures of Particular Truth and Particular Correctness, thereby creating the karma of hell. It should be known that Thiện Tinh fell into hell for a long time because he read the Dharma treasury, whereas Thường Bất Khinh, because he cultivated the Dharma of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness, realized the noble fruit and reached the other shore.

Because people do not know how to study the Buddha-Dharma appropriate to their time, the difference between harm and benefit is as vast as that between heaven and earth. I [Hoài Cảm] am unable to investigate whether [Chan Master Tín Hành] is right or wrong, and therefore know only to cultivate the Dharma of Particular Truth and Particular Correctness; even if this is mistaken, I shall have no regret. I have now offered this explanation in the hope that it may dispel some measure of doubt.

Someone objected: “Although Chan Master Xinxing explained it in this way, he has only increased our doubts. I now wish to set forth further questions and respectfully seek an answer. ⁽¹⁾ The Chan master’s explanation appears to resolve the fault of being insufficiently inclusive, yet it still has not explained the fault of being overly inclusive. It is unclear whether the phrase ‘even to ten recollections’ refers to a universal practice or a particular practice.

If it is regarded as a universal practice, these ‘ten recollections’ are merely ten recollections of ‘Amitabha Buddha.’ This is the recollection of a particular Buddha; how can it be regarded as a universal practice? ⁽²⁾ If recollection of Amitabha Buddha is a universal practice, then it is a practice for beings of the third stage. Why, then, is it regarded solely as a teaching of the second stage? ⁽³⁾ If recollection of Amitabha Buddha is a universal practice, how does it differ from the passage in the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life concerning practitioners of the lowest grade of the lowest birth who recite Amitabha Buddha’s name ten times in full?

Why is the practice of Ten Recollections in the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life a particular practice, while the practice of Ten Recollections in the Forty-Eight Vows is a universal practice? How can the very same words refer to two different practices? ⁽⁴⁾ Why does the universal practice save only beings of the third stage who have not committed rebellious offenses, whereas the particular practice can save beings of the second stage who have committed rebellious offenses?

Is this because, once beings of the third stage commit rebellious offenses, there is no longer any means of extinguishing their offenses, and therefore they cannot be reborn in the Pure Land? Or is there a means of extinguishing their offenses, yet those who have committed rebellious offenses still cannot be reborn there? Please explain this clearly. ⁽⁵⁾ If this practice of ‘ten recollections’ is a particular practice, then beings of the third stage cannot be reborn there whether or not they cultivate that particular practice.

To use a particular practice to exclude sentient beings incurs the fault of being insufficiently inclusive. Not only does excluding sentient beings incur this fault, but it also causes many people to commit errors. Whether advancing or retreating, one cannot escape grave responsibility toward the Buddha-Dharma. ⁽⁶⁾ Dharmakara’s vow should have been expressed as follows: ‘If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings throughout the ten directions sincerely believe and rejoice, desire birth in my land, and cultivate the universal practice, yet are not reborn there, may I not attain perfect enlightenment—excepting only beings of the third stage who commit the five rebellious offenses and slander the True Dharma.’ This would clearly express the meaning of the universal teaching,

accepting and rejecting the two kinds of beings of the third stage while excluding beings of the second stage who commit the five rebellious offenses.

Bodhisattva Dharmakara, however, set forth these vows so that beings of future ages might clearly understand what is accepted and what is rejected. If so, merely speaking of the universal practice would fully convey the meaning of acceptance and rejection, whereas speaking of a particular practice would leave that meaning incomplete. If these two matters are not clearly presented within the universal practice, how can Chan Master Xinxing’s erroneous explanation be rescued?

If scholars of the Three Stages maintain that the scripture contains another implicit meaning and that it was not appropriate to state the universal practice explicitly, let them clearly present their answers. ⁽⁷⁾ Furthermore, Bhiksu Dharmakara, as praised in the sutra, was a bodhisattva of the Ten Grounds, not merely a bodhisattva of the Three Worthy Stages. This proves that he was endowed with compassion and wisdom and broadly embraced and delivered sentient beings.

Why, when making his great vow to welcome beings of the utmost evil into the Pure Land, did he employ only the particular practice to save beings of the second stage, rather than the universal practice to save beings of the third stage? ⁽⁸⁾ If beings of the third stage can under no circumstances be reborn there, was it because Bodhisattva Dharmakara regarded them as ruined seeds and therefore made no vow to save them? ⁽⁹⁾ Or was it because beings of the third stage could not be reborn there that Bodhisattva Dharmakara did not bring the universal teaching to save them, but instead had no choice but to abandon them? ⁽¹⁰⁾ Or did Bodhisattva Dharmakara know the universal practice but refuse to disclose it to them, begrudging the teaching and failing to instruct sentient beings,

his compassion not extending to these beings of the third stage, and therefore not embracing them for rebirth in the Pure Land? ⁽¹¹⁾ Or, although Bodhisattva Dharmakara was fully endowed with wisdom and compassion, were people of the third stage so difficult to teach and bring to attainment that the bodhisattva could not save them and therefore entrusted them to Chan Master Xinxing? ⁽¹²⁾ Or did Bodhisattva Dharmakara lack karmic affinity with beings of the third stage, while Chan Master Xinxing alone had such affinity and could save them?

Moreover, only those beings living in China could encounter the Chan master’s teaching and be reborn in the Western Land. How, then, could beings of the third stage living in other lands, who never encountered the Chan master, be reborn in the Pure Land? ⁽¹³⁾ Suppose that when Bodhisattva Dharmakara made his vows, his realization and practice had not yet become complete, and therefore his embrace and deliverance of sentient beings were not yet perfect.

Yet the Blessed One has already attained perfect enlightenment; for what reason does he not save these beings of the third stage? If this is so, the four great vows have not been fulfilled, and the meaning of the four debts of gratitude has not been consummated. How can abandoning gravely ill children be called compassion for all?

Statements such as, ‘Those who should be delivered have already been delivered, and those not yet delivered have already been given the causes and conditions for deliverance,’ and so forth, would all be empty boasts. Moreover, I find it astonishing that the Chan master considers himself higher than the sages: he has forced the Blessed One into a position lower even than the most inferior ordinary beings, without realizing that he is making confused and erroneous declarations ^[5].”

Furthermore, the Infinite Life Sutra is a special teaching, yet the Blessed One, out of exceptional compassion, preserved it in the world for an additional one hundred years. Why did he not preserve in the world the universal teaching suited to the age of the Final Dharma in order to teach and transform sentient beings, while preserving in the world a special Dharma unsuited to the age of the Final Dharma, thereby bringing harm to everyone?

How could the compassionate Teacher who rescues beings from suffering fail to understand their capacities clearly? Not only did Shakyamuni Tathagata alone fail to rescue sentient beings of the third stage; even the Buddhas throughout the ten directions, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, manifested their vast and long tongues solely to deliver sentient beings of the second stage, yet did not manifest their vast and long tongues to attest to the universal Dharma that rescues sentient beings of the third stage.

Could all the great sages and Blessed Ones, endowed with knowledge of all modes, whose compassion extends everywhere and who cherish all sentient beings as an only child, have concealed the universal Dharma and refused to deliver sentient beings of the third stage? Moreover, Amitabha, our Compassionate Father, whose teaching encompasses the three realms and whose forty-eight vows extend throughout the ten directions, first resolved to attain Buddhahood immeasurable and incalculable kalpas ago, when he was still a wheel-turning sage-king.

His great vows extend even to immeasurable and incalculable kalpas in the future, when Avalokiteshvara succeeds to the seat of perfect and complete enlightenment, and the Buddhas of the ten directions have attested to them. He seeks to deliver all sentient beings; could he possibly abandon sentient beings of the third stage and refuse to deliver them? The Buddhas and bodhisattvas, observing with noble wisdom, knew that sentient beings of the third stage could not attain rebirth and could not possibly be delivered, and so they abandoned them without using the True Dharma to rescue them from the mire of birth and death.

Yet Chan Master Xinxing was able to establish skillful means and bring forth the Universal True Buddha-Dharma to deliver those sentient beings of the third stage. This demonstrates that the Chan master's compassion surpassed that of Shakyamuni and that his wisdom was superior to that of the Buddha of Infinite Life. This would also mean that the unsurpassed Trainers of Beings became surpassable Blessed Ones, while those unequaled and peerless became Perfectly Enlightened Ones surpassed by another.

Chan Master Xinxing was indeed superior even to the Buddhas!

Question: If it is claimed that the commission of rebellious offenses creates two kinds of sentient beings in the third stage, thereby distinguishing whether or not they attain rebirth, rather than determining this according to how much or how little they recollect the Buddha, then why, when excluding those who commit rebellious offenses, does the text say, “even to ten recollections,” whereas, when permitting those who commit rebellious offenses to attain rebirth, it says, “completing ten recollections”?

Why does the passage excluding those who commit rebellious offenses not mention “sentient beings of the third stage,” while the passage permitting those who commit rebellious offenses to attain rebirth does not mention “sentient beings of the second stage”? Why did Chan Master Xinxing unnecessarily add “even to ten recollections,” yet fail to add “sentient beings of the third stage” where it was necessary?

The Chan master replied: The section on the nine grades in the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life explains the special Dharma too extensively; that is, it discusses separately the good and evil persons reborn within the nine grades. Therefore, in regard to people of extreme evil, it does not speak of the practice of reciting the Name once^[6], but separately explains the practice leading to rebirth for this type of person, namely, “reciting for a complete ten recollections^[7].” The two passages in the Infinite Life Sutra, by contrast, explain the universal Dharma too briefly; that is, they speak generally of the practices of good and evil for the two kinds of practitioners in the lower grade.

The sutra's words encompass both greater and lesser numbers of recitations, and their meaning includes both the good and the evil. Thus, the earlier passage speaks of the practice of reciting the Name once for good persons, while the later passage speaks of the practice of reciting the Name ten times for evil persons. Because good and evil, and greater and lesser numbers, are mentioned only in general, this is called “general.” As for the words “even to,” they indicate that the matter is not fully stated; hence this is called “too brief.” The phrase “even to ten recollections” means from one recollection up to ten recollections.

At the end it says “ten,” meaning that one begins with “one” and proceeds through nine; therefore, this includes the practice of “one recollection” for good persons. The later passage says, “even to recollecting once”; this counts downward from ten to one. At the end it says “one,” meaning that one begins with “ten” and proceeds through nine; therefore, this includes the practice of “completing ten recollections” for evil persons.

Thus I, Xinxing, maintain that the words “even to” encompass the practice of ten recollections. The practice of ten recollections is intended for evil persons, among whom there are two kinds, the deviant and the correct, mixed together. Therefore, the text merely says, “except those who commit rebellious offenses and slander the True Dharma.” It certainly does not mean that they are excluded because they are “one recollection short.”

Question: Among those who commit rebellious offenses, there are two kinds, good and evil; sentient beings of the second and third stages are likewise divided into the two categories of deviant and correct. Are there not both evil and good persons among these two groups, the deviant and the correct? Because the deviant and the correct are mixed together among evil persons, the text merely says, “except those who commit rebellious offenses and slander the True Dharma.” Why, then, when the deviant and the correct are mixed together among good persons, does it not merely say, “except those who do not commit rebellious offenses and slander the True Dharma”?

Instead, it regards those who are not deviant and evil as identical to those who are deviant and evil, saying in the section on ten recollections that they are all “excluded.” Moreover, “one recollection and ten recollections” is a very concise statement. In the practice for good persons, it accepts the correct and good without rejecting the deviant and good; why, then, in the practice for evil persons, does it accept the correct and evil while excluding the deviant and evil?....

Answer: This is not a valid question. The Buddha's original intent was to reveal that people approaching death who are able to recite the Buddha's Name once, twice, or up to nine or ten times will all attain rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss. Only those who commit rebellious offenses and slander the True Dharma are excluded.

The sutra's original intent is to say that people at the end of life who can recite the Buddha's Name once and then die, or recite it up to ten times and then die, can all attain rebirth in the Pure Land. The Buddha's original intent was to make clear that sentient beings who have not committed rebellious offenses will attain rebirth whether their recitations are many or few, whereas those who have committed rebellious offenses will not attain rebirth with only a few recitations; they must complete ten recitations before they can attain rebirth.

In order to show that those who have not committed rebellious offenses may attain rebirth whether their recitations are many or few, the text says, “except those who commit rebellious offenses and slander the True Dharma.” What has this to do with deviant offenders? If all sentient beings encountered a good spiritual friend at the time of death who taught them the practice of recollecting the Buddha, and if all of them completed ten recollections, only then could you raise this objection.

But suppose they died before completing ten recollections; how could the text exclude those who committed rebellious offenses without saying “except”?

2. Recollection of the Buddha during the age of the Semblance Dharma and the age of the Final Dharma.

Question: The Great Collection Moon Treasury Sutra says: “During the first five hundred years after the Buddha’s nirvana, the Buddha’s disciples will be steadfast in wisdom; during the second five hundred years, the Buddha’s disciples will be steadfast in meditative concentration; during the third five hundred years, the Buddha’s disciples will be steadfast in extensive learning; during the fourth five hundred years, the Buddha’s disciples will devote themselves to building monasteries and erecting stupas;

during the fifth five hundred years, the Buddhadharma will decline, and the Buddha’s disciples will concern themselves only with disputes and litigation, with few cultivating wholesome dharmas.” At present, the sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Remembrance Samadhi are practices of concentration and wisdom and are suitable only for the second five-hundred-year period.

Why, then, are people encouraged to study and practice them? Most scholars of the Three Stages Teaching cite this passage as proof that meditative concentration can no longer be cultivated from the third five-hundred-year period onward. For what reason, then, are people encouraged to practice the sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Remembrance Samadhi? ⁽⁴⁷⁾

Answer: The sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Remembrance Samadhi have both profound and shallow levels. The profound level means cultivating the sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Remembrance Samadhi by means of wisdom developed through cultivation, at the stages of the four dhyanas, including the preliminary and intermediate meditations. The shallow level means relying upon the wisdom developed through hearing and reflection in the Desire Realm, gathering one’s thoughts and directing one’s attention; in this way one can also cultivate the sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Remembrance Samadhi.

The Sutra on the Contemplation of Amitayus says: “Contemplating in this manner is called seeing the coarse aspect of the Land of Utmost Bliss. If one attains samadhi, one will clearly behold the wondrous subtleties of the Land of Utmost Bliss, which cannot be fully described.” Thus, it should be understood that when contemplation is accomplished but only the coarse aspect of the Land of Utmost Bliss is seen, this is because contemplation has been cultivated using the wisdom developed through hearing and reflection in the Desire Realm.

When one realizes samadhi and sees the wondrous subtleties of the Land of Utmost Bliss, this is because contemplation has been cultivated using the wisdom developed through cultivation in the Form Realm. When the sutra says that during the second five hundred years people will be steadfast in cultivating meditative concentration, it is speaking with reference to the wisdom developed through cultivation in the Form Realm by means of a concentrated mind.

If contemplation is accomplished through hearing and reflection in the Desire Realm, this applies generally to the second, third, and subsequent five-hundred-year periods. Otherwise, why does the third fascicle of the Bhadrapala Sutra say: “Bhadrapala! Forty years after my nirvana, this samadhi will be widely propagated throughout the world.

In the final one hundred years of the fifth five-hundred-year period, when the True Dharma is falling into ruin, observance of the precepts is declining, violations of the precepts are flourishing, and nations are provoking conflict with one another—in such times, this sutra will once again appear in the world through the awesome spiritual power of the Buddha.” This is intended to enable the sentient beings of that time to hear this sutra, joyfully copy it, read and recite it, accept and uphold it, contemplate its meaning, explain it to others, and practice in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching.

Furthermore, the second fascicle says: “Bhadrapala! Those good men and good women, in the past, heard many Buddhas expound this samadhi, read and recited it, accepted and upheld it, and practiced according to its teaching. For this reason, after the Tathagata’s nirvana, during the final one hundred years of the fifth five-hundred-year period, when the True Dharma is about to fall into ruin, they will once again hear this samadhi.

Having heard it, they will give rise to faith, without any doubt or hesitation; they will give rise to joy, their bodies and minds will tremble with inspiration, and they will read and recite it, accept and uphold it, reflect upon its meaning, explain it to others, and even practice that samadhi for one day and one night, and so forth.” It should therefore be understood that the sutra’s teaching refers to practicing this samadhi near the end of the fifth five-hundred-year period.

How, then, can it be claimed that this samadhi cannot be practiced after the second five-hundred-year period? Chan Master Xinxing, in the Collected Records of the Three Stages, broadly declared that during the period after the first thousand years following the Buddha’s nirvana, only universal teachings could be practiced and distinct teachings could not be practiced. He further classified such Dharma gates as the Buddha-Remembrance Samadhi among teachings unsuited to the capacities of sentient beings, meaning that these teachings should be abolished.

This is an exceedingly grave error!

3. A Challenge to Scholars of the Three Stages Teaching

Question: The tenth fascicle of the Great Collection Moon Treasury Sutra says: “The sentient beings of the Saha world who slander the True Dharma and revile sages and worthies are rejected by all the Pure Lands of the ten directions and are not accepted there.” Those rejected sentient beings are sentient beings of the third stage, who are unworthy of rebirth in a Pure Land. Why, then, is it now permitted for these sentient beings of the third stage, together with those of the first and second stages, all to attain rebirth in a Pure Land? ⁽⁴⁸⁾

Answer: If the challenge posed by the Chan masters of the Three Stages school is correct, then it is unclear whether sentient beings of the second stage in this Saha world are permitted to slander the True Dharma and revile sages and worthies. If they are capable of slandering the True Dharma and reviling sages and worthies, are they then rejected and denied rebirth in a Pure Land? If they are permitted to attain rebirth, why do the Chan masters of the Three Stages school use this scriptural passage to prove that sentient beings of the third stage cannot attain rebirth?

If they can attain rebirth, then sentient beings of the second stage who have slandered the True Dharma and reviled sages and worthies should likewise be rejected; why, then, may they attain rebirth in a Pure Land? If it is claimed that sentient beings of the second stage do not slander the True Dharma or revile sages and worthies, then why, if they are icchantikas, would they not slander the True Dharma? If it is further claimed that, although they slander the True Dharma and revile sages and worthies, they can nevertheless attain rebirth, then please produce scriptural evidence as proof.

If it is further claimed that, although those who slander the True Dharma and revile sages and worthies should not attain rebirth, they may nevertheless do so because their spiritual capacities have matured and their offenses are comparatively light, then why does that sutra not permit their rebirth while this sutra does? Moreover, do all sentient beings of the third stage in the Saha world commit the offenses of slandering the True Dharma and reviling sages and worthies?

If all sentient beings of the third stage revile sages and worthies, then while still in the womb, could they also slander the True Dharma and revile sages and worthies? If it is claimed that there are sentient beings of the third stage who do not slander the True Dharma or revile sages and worthies and who are therefore not included among those unable to attain rebirth in a Pure Land, then why is it said that sentient beings of the third stage cannot attain rebirth, with this sutra cited as proof?

If it is further claimed that, although sentient beings of the third stage do not slander the True Dharma in this life, they did so in past lives, how can it be known that sentient beings of the second stage did not likewise slander the True Dharma in past lives? If it is claimed that the original intent of this sutra is to clarify that sentient beings of the third stage all follow false and improper paths and, whether or not they commit slander, are not permitted to attain rebirth, whereas sentient beings of the second stage are half false and half correct and, whether or not they commit slander, are permitted to attain rebirth, then this teaching incurs the two faults of excess and deficiency.

The fault of excess lies in not permitting sentient beings of the second stage who slander the True Dharma to attain rebirth; the fault of deficiency lies in permitting sentient beings of the third stage who do not slander the True Dharma to attain rebirth. The disciples of Chan Master Xinxing frequently cite scriptures in ways contrary to the Buddha’s correct teachings. This foolish man, Huaigan, dares not believe their assertions.

4. The Difference Between Permitting and Prohibiting

Question: The Mahasamnipata Sutra, the Buddhapitaka Sutra, and the Vinaya texts state: “Our original teacher, Shakyamuni Buddha, does not accept bhiksus who have broken the precepts, and so forth, as disciples; he does not acknowledge himself as their teacher; and he does not permit them to set foot within a sangharama. They are like a tala tree cut through at the trunk, which cannot live again; like a stone split in two, which cannot be joined together again; and like the great ocean, which does not harbor a corpse.

They may not participate in Sangha acts of karman or in the posadha ceremony.” The Buddha does not permit them to partake of food belonging to the Sangha of the ten directions. If they consume offerings made by the faithful, they commit a grave offense; they may not drink even a single drop of water. They may not reside in a sangharama.

Such people are called those who conduct themselves as thieves and dwell as thieves. How much less could they [be allowed to attain rebirth in] the Pure Land, the dwelling place of the noble ones, and become Dharma companions of bodhisattvas bound to only one more birth? ⁽⁴⁹⁾

Answer: The sutras and Vinaya alike contain two approaches: prohibition and allowance under special circumstances. The teachings of the Lesser Vehicle and the Great Vehicle do not have identical prohibitions and allowances. One cannot believe only in the prohibitive approach while refusing to believe the teaching of the Contemplation Sutra on Amitayus concerning the Buddhas’ power to extinguish offenses.

The Buddha’s initial teachings containing such prohibitions may belong to the doctrine of the Lesser Vehicle, may be words of reprimand, or may be directed toward sentient beings who have not yet learned to give rise to shame and remorse and repent of their karmic hindrances; toward those who have not yet aroused bodhicitta and still crave the five desires and samsara; or toward those attached to the Saha world who delight in sinking and wandering through the three realms.

Moreover, if the Tathagata had not first taught the method for counteracting karmic offenses, sentient beings would surely have felt no fear of wrongdoing and would continually have committed evil. Therefore, the Buddha first had to explain the gravity of these offenses and admonish sentient beings not to commit the offense of breaking the precepts. Alternatively, he taught that although repentance extinguishes offenses and prevents descent into the evil realms, once the essence of the precepts has been lost, one may no longer use the property of the permanently resident Sangha.

The Pure Land teaching now expounded teaches one to arouse bodhicitta, give rise to shame and remorse, earnestly repent of karmic offenses committed in the past, correct one’s faults, sincerely seek to escape the burning house of the three realms, and aspire for rebirth in the Pure Land. Relying upon the Buddha’s fundamental vow, one’s offenses are extinguished and merit arises. Fearing the painful retribution of the evil realms in future lives, one follows the Buddha’s teaching, avoids evil, and practices good.

Within the Buddha’s gate, the second most valiant person is one who, after inadvertently committing an offense, knows to repent; all Buddhas praise such a person. Although that person is a corpse within the pure ocean of our original teacher’s Vinaya, he may nevertheless attain rebirth in Amitabha Buddha’s Pure Land and realize the stage of non-retrogression.

Thus, we know that this Buddha rebukes the breaking of precepts, while that Buddha praises repentance and the extinguishing of offenses; this Buddha does not receive such a person, while that Buddha comes to welcome and guide him. It is like parents educating their child: one scolds and punishes, while the other gently admonishes, causing the child to correct himself and repent. The Buddhas are likewise. Whether they prohibit or make allowances, all their actions are intended to benefit sentient beings and bring them to accomplishment. Therefore, both harsh words and gentle words express the ultimate truth.

Again, bhiksus who commit grave offenses are reprimanded in the Vinaya, yet the Dharani Sutras teach them to uphold and recite mantras so that their offenses may be extinguished and the essence of their precepts restored. Prohibition and allowance differ, and praise and censure likewise vary. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra states: “Before one has entered the Dharma of the Great Vehicle, it is called fixed karma; once one has entered the Dharma of the Great Vehicle, it is called unfixed karma.” This has the same meaning as explained above. We must understand how to adapt skillfully and should not cling rigidly to only one side.

5. Remaining for One Hundred Years. a. The Period Appropriate for Its Preservation.

Question: The Sutra of Infinite Life states: “In the future age, when the scriptures have entirely disappeared, out of loving-kindness and compassion for sentient beings, I shall specially preserve this sutra in the world for another one hundred years.” It is unclear from what point in time the complete disappearance of the scriptures should be reckoned. ⁽⁵⁰⁾

Answer: The meditation masters of the Three Stages School all believe that Meditation Master Xinxing was a bodhisattva of the fourth reliance. He compiled the Collected Records of the Three Stages, asserting: “From the present time—the Tang dynasty—until one thousand years hence, sentient beings of the third stage can practice only the Universally True and Universally Correct Buddha-Dharma, also called the Universal Dharma or Universal Teaching.

Reciting the Great Vehicle scriptures is no longer suited to the time, and practitioners [who recite Great Vehicle scriptures] will fall into the hells throughout the ten directions. The Sutra of Infinite Life and other such scriptures are now teachings of the Particularly True and Particularly Correct, also called the Particular Dharma or Particular Teaching. These belong to the Buddha-Dharma of the second stage and were suitable for practice only during the preceding thousand years.

After one thousand years, beings no longer possess such capacities, and the teaching of the Particularly True and Particularly Correct must be abandoned. Although the sutra states that the Amitabha Sutra will remain for one hundred years, this means only until the end of the one thousand one hundredth year.

“How do we know this? During the Age of the Semblance Dharma, when those of overweening pride abounded, the bodhisattva Never Disparaging appeared in the world. He did not recite the scriptures but devoted himself solely to making reverential prostrations.

Thus, we know that after the True Dharma has disappeared, overweening pride will flourish, and people will no longer be capable of recitation but must instead study the Universally True and Universally Correct Dharma. Because studying the Universally True and Universally Correct Dharma accords with their capacities, they attain purification of the six sense faculties and their lifespans are also extended. By contrast, the bhiksu Sunaksatra was a sentient being of the third stage.

Because he recited the twelve divisions of scripture, he fell into the Avici hell. This was a great loss.”

Most practitioners of the Three Stages school share the view stated above. Yet if we investigate its deeper meaning, we will see that the foregoing assertions are unreasonable. Why is this?

If, after one thousand years, the True Dharma has become completely extinct and only evil beings of the third stage remain, for whom it is appropriate only to practice the Universally True and Universally Correct Dharma, but inappropriate to practice the Distinctively True and Distinctively Correct Dharma or to read and recite Mahayana scriptures—and if reading and reciting them would cause them to fall into the Avici hells of the ten directions—[then the Tathagata must have harbored malicious intent and jealousy toward beings of the third stage,

leaving behind the Distinctively True and Distinctively Correct Dharma so that they would mistakenly practice it and consequently fall into Avici hell.] This could hardly have anything to do with compassionately preserving the Amitabha Sutra for another hundred years.

If the Universally True and Universally Correct Dharma is appropriate, why, after teaching this Dharma, did the Buddha not specially preserve it for a hundred years? If it is said that the Universally True and Universally Correct Dharma was not taught by the Buddha, but that Chan Master Xinxing taught sutras that the Buddhas had not taught in order to save beings whom the Buddhas had not saved, then since the Chan master was not a Buddha, how could he teach sutras?

Moreover, why did he have to rely on Mahayana scriptures to compile the Collected Records of the Three Stages? If the Mahayana scriptures contain both Universal Teaching and Distinctive Teaching, and the Universal Teaching says nothing about being specially preserved, while a scripture of the Distinctive Teaching speaks of being preserved for a hundred years even though it is supposedly unsuitable for beings’ capacities, then this truly runs counter to compassion and differs from the Tathagata’s way of teaching and transforming beings.

If there is no teaching from the Buddha, how can the correct be distinguished from the false? If the case of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, who did not read or recite scriptures, is cited as proof that during the Semblance Dharma age, when those of overweening pride abounded, scriptures should not be read or recited, then why, as Bodhisattva Never Disparaging approached death, did he hear and uphold the twenty thousand myriad kotis of verses in the Lotus Sutra previously taught by Buddha King of Awe-Inspiring Voice?

Moreover, why did he attain purification of the six sense faculties, extend his lifespan by two million kotis of nayutas of years, and extensively expound the Lotus Sutra for everyone? If beings of the third stage are not permitted to hear or read Mahayana sutras, why did Bodhisattva Never Disparaging expound the Lotus Sutra to those of overweening pride, thereby causing his listeners to create causes and conditions for falling into the Avici hells throughout the worlds of the ten directions?

Furthermore, Bodhisattva Medicine King vowed: “After the Buddha’s nirvana, we shall respectfully uphold, read, recite, and expound the Lotus Sutra. Among beings in the evil age of the five turbidities, wholesome roots will gradually diminish. Most will be people of overweening pride, greedy for profit and offerings, increasing their unwholesome roots and straying far from liberation.

Although they will be difficult to teach and transform, we shall summon the great power of patience to read and recite the Lotus Sutra, protect and uphold it, expound it, and so forth.” Likewise, the Prajnaparamita Sutra speaks of people reading, reciting, accepting, and upholding it during the final five hundred years in the age of the Final Dharma. The Bhadrapala Sutra discusses accepting, upholding, reading, and reciting that sutra during the final five hundred years of the age of the Final Dharma, and so forth.

Could it really be that, one thousand years later, when the Distinctive Dharma has been abolished, it will no longer be appropriate to read and recite Mahayana scriptures? I urge practitioners to examine the Buddha’s teachings carefully. Do not mislead yourselves, cause others to be misled, and moreover cause the Mahayana scriptures to cease circulating in the world.

This is to drink the poison of wrong views yourselves while also creating causes and conditions for falling into hell and destroying the eyes of the True Dharma. What could be more inverted than these deeds? They are truly lamentable.

Some explain “the complete extinction of the path of the sutras” by relying on the Great Compassion Lotus Sutra (the Karunapundarika Sutra), asserting that the True Dharma lasts for one thousand years, the Semblance Dharma for one thousand years, and the Final Dharma for ten thousand years. After the age of the Final Dharma, the path of the sutras becomes completely extinct, and only the Amitabha Sutra is preserved for another hundred years.

During this kalpa of warfare, human beings mostly commit evil deeds; the plants and grasses in their hands all turn into swords and blades, and they slaughter one another, their venomous anger blazing to the utmost degree. Their lifespan is only ten years, and their bodies are merely about two spans tall. During this period, they can no longer cultivate the profound Dharma methods of morality, concentration, and wisdom.

Only the method of mindfulness of the Buddha remains: becoming disenchanted with the extremely evil Saha world of the three calamities and five turbidities, they aspire to be born in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss. Our Original Teacher, Shakyamuni, foresaw that beings of that time would be oppressed by suffering and thus capable of giving rise to disenchantment. Therefore, moved by compassion, after all other scriptures have become completely extinct, he specially preserves the Amitabha Sutra in the world for one hundred years to benefit sentient beings during that calamitous age.

There is also the following explanation. The Venerable Aiyou’s Record of the Abiding Dharma states: “After the calamity of warfare, human beings will grow weary of committing evil. All will arouse loving-kindness and cease killing; instead, they will cherish one another as fathers and sons.

Their lifespans will gradually increase. When their lifespans reach one hundred years, there will be sixteen great arhats, endowed with the three knowledges and six supernormal powers, fully possessing the eight liberations and thoroughly versed in the scriptures of the Tripitaka. Having received the Buddha’s charge, they will preserve the True Dharma and benefit sentient beings, without entering nirvana.

Together with the other arhats and their disciples, they will spread the teachings of the Tathagata everywhere, teaching and guiding sentient beings, building monasteries and shrines, admitting people into the monastic life, and cultivating morality, concentration, and wisdom. The Buddhadharma will flourish. When human lifespans reach the end of sixty thousand years and the beginning of seventy thousand years, the arhats will gather all the Buddha’s relics and erect a jeweled stupa.

The sixteen great arhats and their disciples will circumambulate the stupa, make offerings of incense and flowers, gaze upon it reverently, and bow in homage. They will then all rise into the sky and say: ‘Homage to the World-Honored One, Shakyamuni Tathagata, Worthy One, Perfectly Enlightened One. We received your instruction, upheld the True Dharma, and together benefited devas and human beings.

The Dharma treasury has now sunk into oblivion, and all those with affinities have been delivered. We now take our leave and enter nirvana.’ Having spoken thus, they will all simultaneously enter nirvana without remainder. The stupa containing the relics will immediately sink into the earth and come to rest at the layer of the Golden Wheel.

The teachings of the Tripitaka will already have been completely extinguished one hundred years earlier, while the Pure Land Dharma gate, the relic stupa, and the arhats will all disappear at the same time. At that time, the unsurpassed teaching of the World-Honored Shakyamuni Buddha throughout the trichiliocosm—the Saha world—will be utterly extinguished and will no longer appear. Thereafter, seventy thousand kotis of pratyekabuddhas will simultaneously appear in this realm.

When the human lifespan reaches eighty thousand years, all the pratyekabuddhas will also pass into extinction. Afterward, the bodhisattva Maitreya will appear in the world. He too will expound the Pure Land Dharma gate for sentient beings, enabling immeasurable beings to attain rebirth in the Pure Land.

In succession, the thousand Buddhas of the Auspicious Kalpa and all subsequent Buddhas will likewise expound the Pure Land Dharma gate and encourage people to attain rebirth in the West; even the Buddhas of the ten directions will all do the same. Amitabha Buddha’s lifespan extends for immeasurable asamkhya kalpas. While he is still present, whenever Buddhas appear in the worlds of the ten directions, they will expound the Pure Land Dharma gate to sentient beings who have affinities with Amitabha Buddha and encourage them to attain rebirth in the Land of Bliss.” Therefore, the statement, “When the path of the scriptures has been completely extinguished, I will especially preserve this scripture for another hundred years,” refers to this period.

b. The significance of preserving the Dharma of mindfulness of the Buddha.

Question: The Infinite Life Sutra states: “In the future age, when the scriptures have been completely extinguished, out of loving compassion for sentient beings, I will especially preserve this scripture in the world for another hundred years.” Yet all scriptures are intended to teach and benefit sentient beings; reciting, receiving, and upholding them all eradicate grave offenses, and by relying upon the True Dharma one can be freed from suffering. Why, then, is only the Infinite Life Sutra preserved in this world for one hundred years after all the other scriptures have been completely extinguished? ⁽⁵¹⁾

Answer: When the Buddha, the World-Honored One, appeared in the world, he taught the Dharma with a single voice, yet sentient beings understood it differently according to their capacities. Those who heard the Dharma and awakened to the Way were as numerous as particles of dust. Some attained the four fruits of the Lesser Vehicle; some attained the patient acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; some escaped the evil destinies; some were reborn in the human or heavenly realms; some attained rebirth in the Pure Land; and some planted causes for liberation in future lives.

Sentient beings who had heard the Dharma and cultivated roots of virtue in the past encountered the Buddha’s true teaching, received, upheld, read, and recited it, and all gained benefit. But when sentient beings possess scant merit and can no longer be taught, all the scriptures will be concealed within the dragon palace. At that time, bhiksus will no longer wear dyed kasayas, and all karman procedures and ordinations will fail to be validly accomplished.

Sentient beings will no longer hear or know the profound Mahayana Dharma or the wondrous teachings concerning the true characteristic, equality, and true suchness. Therefore, these teachings will disappear first, leaving only the Dharma gate of mindfulness of the Buddha, which is easy to cultivate and easy to learn, and which even deluded ordinary beings burdened by offenses and karmic hindrances can study and practice.

Thus, out of compassion, the Great Sage especially preserves this scripture in the world for another hundred years. From the words of the scripture, we know that as the Buddhadharma gradually becomes extinguished and sentient beings’ merit and virtue grow meager, only this Pure Land Dharma gate will remain especially capable of benefiting them. By examining the Dharma gate in relation to the age, we know that the Pure Land Dharma gate accords with the capacities of sentient beings in the Dharma-ending age.

Therefore, the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life states in many places that the Dharma gate of the Land of Bliss was taught for all sentient beings of future ages. I respectfully ask monastics and laypeople alike to consult the Buddha’s teachings and thereby discern the capacities of sentient beings. Do not listen to the groundless discussions of others and consequently disbelieve the Buddha’s words.

6. The eradication of offenses in the Ten Wheels Sutra.

Question: The Mahayana Sutra of Ksitigarbha’s Ten Wheels states: “The Buddhas do not deliver sentient beings who commit the ten evil deeds.” If it says that they do not deliver them, why can mindfulness of the Buddha eradicate offenses and enable rebirth in the West? If they can attain rebirth, this is deliverance; why, then, does it say that the Buddhas do not deliver them? ⁽⁵²⁾

Answer: The sutra’s statement that they “cannot be saved” is intended as an admonition to those who commit evil deeds. This is the Tathagata’s hidden intent: he wished to make evildoers fear that, because of their offenses, they would sink into the sea of suffering for many lifetimes, and thus not dare to continue doing evil. If even the Buddhas will not save them, who will?

Therefore, they dare not act wrongly. How could one suppose that when the Buddha said they “cannot be saved,” he meant that they truly would not be saved? Or is it because their offenses are so grave that repentance cannot completely extinguish them, and therefore the Buddhas do not save them?

Furthermore, do we know whether beings of the second period also commit these ten evil deeds? If it is said that they do not, why then can beings of the second period commit the five heinous offenses but not the ten evil deeds? If they also commit these offenses and cannot be saved, then clearly they too cannot attain rebirth in the Pure Land.

For what reason, then, are only the cases of committing the ten evil deeds cited as evidence that beings of the third period cannot attain rebirth in the Pure Land? If it is maintained that the Buddhas do not save them, the sutra merely says, “The Buddhas do not save those who commit offenses.” Could it be that beings of the second period who commit these offenses are nevertheless saved by the Buddhas? On what principle did Chan Master Xinxing assert that, among those who commit the ten evil deeds, beings of the second period are saved whereas beings of the third period are not; that beings of the second period attain rebirth whereas beings of the third period do not?

The words of the sutra contain no other hidden meaning, so why claim that the Buddhas save only beings of the second period? This is interpreting the scripture according to one’s private opinion, not according to the Buddha’s original intent. To insert one’s own ideas into the interpretation of scripture is wholly inconsistent with the Buddha’s purport.

Moreover, the sutra teaches: “When beings recollect the Buddha, even grave offenses are all eradicated; even the five heinous offenses and the ten evil deeds are completely extinguished.” The sutra says that the five heinous offenses constitute fixed karma, yet recollection of the Buddha extinguishes this fixed karma. Although the sutra says that the ten evil deeds are offenses beyond salvation, could recollection of the Buddha truly be unable to save those who have committed them?

Why, then, disregard the fact that Amitabha Buddha comes to welcome and guide them? Thus, we know that Chan Master Xinxing clung to the words and lost sight of their meaning, not yet comprehending the true principle. I ask you to examine the words of the sutra once more and thereby dispel these doubts.

7. The five extraordinary benefits of recollecting the Buddha.

Question: The third fascicle of the Buddhapitaka Sutra states: “There was a Buddha named Great Adornment. One hundred years after his nirvana, his disciples divided into five schools. The first school was called Universal Service, the second Shore of Suffering, the third Sarvastivada, the fourth Mutual Departure, and the fifth Bhadra-Nanda.

These five bhiksus were the leaders of their respective communities. Bhiksu Universal Service understood the principles of true emptiness and non-attainment taught by the Buddha, whereas the other four bhiksus all misunderstood the Buddha’s intent, gave rise to wrong views, and chiefly expounded conditioned dharmas subject to arising and cessation. Among the communities who heard Bhiksu Universal Service expound the principle of true emptiness, sixty-eight kotis of nayutas of people awakened to the path and entered nirvana.

The other four evil bhiksus, however, chiefly led their communities onto deviant paths. They denied the Dharma of ultimate truth—the complete emptiness in which nothing whatsoever exists—and delighted in the teachings of the Nirgrantha heretics. The followers of the four evil bhiksus continually adhered to their teachers’ false doctrines and clung to them without relinquishing them.

At that time, most of the lay disciples of the four evil bhiksus fell into the evil realms, failed to follow the right path, and destroyed the Buddha’s true Dharma. After death, those four evil bhiksus fell into the Avici hell. Lying on their backs, on their faces, on their left sides, and on their right sides, for nine million kotis of years they were burned upon iron beds.

After dying there, they were born in turn in the Hot Ashes Hell, the Reviving Hell, and the Black-Rope Hell, where they underwent immeasurable suffering for periods equal in duration to their stay in the Avici hell. After dying in the Black-Rope Hell, they were next reborn in the Avici hell. The lay and monastic followers of the four evil bhiksus, numbering approximately six hundred and four myriads of kotis, shared birth and death with those four evil bhiksus and were burned together with them in the great hells.

When the kalpa came to an end, the four evil bhiksus and their six hundred and four myriads of kotis of disciples passed from the Avici hell into a hell in another world, where for innumerable hundreds of thousands of myriads of kotis of nayutas of years they underwent immeasurable suffering. When this world formed again, they were reborn in the great hells of this realm and remained there for an exceedingly long time.

After finally emerging from hell, they were born in the human realm and, for five hundred lifetimes, were born blind. Thereafter, they encountered the Buddha All-Illuminating, renounced the household life, and became members of the Sangha. For one hundred thousand kotis of years, they practiced diligently as though extinguishing a fire upon their heads, yet they still did not attain conforming patience, much less realization of the fruit of the path.

After death, they were again born in the Avici hell. Because they had planted profoundly grave unwholesome karma in the past, although they later encountered nine billion Buddhas, they still did not attain conforming patience. Why was this?

Because they did not give rise to reverence and faith toward the Buddha’s profound teaching, but instead acted treacherously and corruptly, harmed virtuous and holy bhiksus who observed the precepts, slandered and reviled them, and created the causes and conditions for destroying the Buddha-Dharma. Therefore, they received such retribution.” The sutra above says that “because of the offense of impurely expounding the Dharma, even though they practiced diligently for one hundred thousand kotis of years as though extinguishing a fire upon their heads, they could not eradicate that offense.” Why, then, can the merit of reciting the Buddha’s name once or ten times eradicate offenses and enable one to attain rebirth in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss? ⁽⁵³⁾

Answer: Because of five extraordinary causes and conditions, although one recollects the Buddha’s name only briefly, the merit of eradicating offenses and giving rise to faith surpasses one hundred thousand kotis of years of diligent practice performed as though extinguishing a fire upon one’s head. The five extraordinary causes and conditions are: (a) the extraordinary generation of resolve, (b) the extraordinary aspiration for rebirth, (c) the extraordinary original vow, (d) extraordinary merit, and (e) extraordinary spiritual power.

a) The extraordinary generation of resolve: Those who attain rebirth in the lowest grade possess Mahayana capacity and generate the Mahayana resolve. As for those of Hinayana capacity, because they now generate the Mahayana resolve, in a single thought they surpass the Hinayana mind cultivated throughout immeasurable hundreds of thousands of kotis of kalpas. Therefore, their grave offenses are swiftly eradicated.

b) The extraordinary aspiration for rebirth: Here, in a single thought, one recollects the Buddha and vows to be born in the Pure Land. Those others, although practicing diligently as though extinguishing a fire upon their heads, generated the Hinayana resolve and did not believe in the Pure Lands of the Buddhas of the ten directions. Because they lacked the extraordinary aspiration for rebirth, their offenses were not eradicated. The practitioners of the Pure Land path, however, possess the extraordinary aspiration for rebirth, and therefore their offenses are eradicated.

c) The extraordinary original vow: Amitabha Buddha formerly made the extraordinary great vow that if any beings who had committed grave offenses recollected his name, their karmic obstructions would be extinguished, and he would welcome and guide them to rebirth in the Pure Land. Although these present beings have committed grave offenses, their roots of goodness from past lives have ripened; therefore, upon recollecting the Buddha for even a single thought, they immediately attain rebirth.

d) Excellence of merit: Practitioners of the Lesser Vehicle contemplate only the Four Foundations of Mindfulness and therefore cannot extinguish immeasurable offenses. Yet now, a single thought of mindfulness of the Buddha possesses the merit to extinguish grave offenses accumulated throughout one billion kalpas of birth and death, as explained in detail in the sutras. Therefore, the merit of a single thought of mindfulness of the Buddha surpasses the merit gained through diligent cultivation of such contemplative practices as the Five Methods for Stilling the Mind and the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.

e) Excellence of majestic power: The Mahayana Sutra on the Sameness of Nature states: “The Buddhas have ten stages. Amitabha Buddha abides in the first stage and possesses extraordinary merit and majestic power. Therefore, he can use his power to empower practitioners mindful of the Buddha, ensuring that they will attain rebirth there. In this respect, he is unlike the other Buddhas.”

Notes:

^[1] The Sutra of Immeasurable Life, wishing to warn those who have not yet committed the offenses of rebellion so that they will not commit them, therefore declares: “Those who commit the offenses of rebellion cannot attain rebirth there.”

^[2] The gate of allowance: permission and leniency; the gate of restraint (or gate of prohibition): disallowance and strict prohibition.

^[3] Sentient beings of the first period have upright capacities and can use good to extinguish evil; they commit fewer offenses than sentient beings of the second period. Sentient beings of the third period have deviant capacities and can use evil to extinguish good; they are inferior to sentient beings of the second period.

^[4] According to the Sutra on the Contemplation of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life, those of the upper grade of the lowest class, through mindfulness of the Buddha, extinguish grave offenses accumulated throughout five billion kalpas of birth and death; those of the middle grade of the lowest class, by hearing of the merit of the scriptures and so forth, extinguish grave offenses accumulated throughout eight billion kalpas of birth and death; and those of the lowest grade of the lowest class, through mindfulness of the Buddha, with each thought extinguish grave offenses accumulated throughout eight billion kalpas of birth and death.

Now, if the argument of the Three Stages Teaching were correct, there would be no difference among the three grades of the lowest class, and consequently no difference in the offenses extinguished. (Translator)

^[5] For sentient beings of the second period, the Buddha expounded the Sutra on the Contemplation of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life, enabling them to practice according to the teaching and all attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Yet for sentient beings of the third period, he did not expound a single scripture of the universal Dharma to which the Buddhas manifested their broad and long tongues in testimony. Moreover, the bhiksu Dharmakara did not make vows for sentient beings of the third period.

Those sentient beings of the third period within the three realms who do not encounter the Six Compilations of the Three Stages will not attain rebirth there. Even if they read and recite the scriptures, unless these belong to the universal teaching given by the bodhisattva who is one of the Four Reliances—the Chan Master Xinxing—they must still continue to wander through the Saha world. It should therefore be understood that the Buddha could have separately expounded a scripture of the universal Dharma for sentient beings of the third period, thereby sparing Chan Master Xinxing the labor of rescuing them and enabling their rebirth in the Pure Land.

This is indeed truly regrettable.

^[6] The practice of reciting a single Name is intended for good persons seeking rebirth there.

^[7] “In full” is stated in contrast to “not in full.” One must recite the Name a full ten times.