釋淨土群疑論

Part VI: Reconciling the Scriptures in Order to Refute Erroneous Interpretations.

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

Question: The eighteenth vow in the Infinite Life Sutra states: “When I attain Buddhahood, if sentient beings throughout the ten directions, with sincere minds and joyful faith, desire to be born in my land and recite my name even as few as ten times, yet are not born there, may I not abide in Perfect Enlightenment, excepting those who commit the five heinous offenses and slander the True Dharma.” The Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life states: “There may be sentient beings who commit the five heinous offenses and the ten evil deeds, performing every kind of unwholesome act.

Because of his evil karma, such a foolish person ought to fall into the evil realms and undergo immeasurable suffering for many kalpas.… A good spiritual friend consoles him in many ways, expounds the wondrous Dharma for him to hear, and further instructs him to contemplate and recollect the Buddha. Although that person hears these instructions, because he is tormented by suffering, he is unable to settle his mind and contemplate the Tathagata of Infinite Life.

Seeing this, the good friend then tells him: ‘If you cannot contemplate that Buddha, you should sincerely recite: “Namo Amitabha Buddha,” continuing until you have completed ten recitations.’” The practitioner follows these instructions and recites the Buddha’s name. With each recitation, he extinguishes the offenses of eighty koṭis of kalpas of birth and death. When his life ends, he sees before him a radiant golden lotus like the orb of the sun.

In the time it takes to snap one’s fingers, he is immediately reborn in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.” Why is it that both sutras refer to committing the five heinous offenses and attaining rebirth through ten recitations of the Buddha’s name, yet one permits those who have committed the five heinous 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⁾ Those whom the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who have repented, whereas those whom the Infinite Life Sutra does not permit to attain rebirth are people who have not repented. ⁽²⁾ Those whom the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who committed heinous offenses with a relatively light intention,

whereas those whom the Infinite Life Sutra does not permit to attain rebirth are people who committed heinous offenses with a grave intention. ⁽³⁾ Those whom the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who committed only heinous offenses, whereas those whom the Infinite Life Sutra does not permit to attain rebirth are people who both committed heinous offenses and slandered the True Dharma. ⁽⁴⁾ Those whom the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who committed offenses analogous to the heinous offenses,

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

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

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

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

five heinous offenses is determinate karma.” ⁽¹²⁾ Those who have committed heinous offenses whom the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who have realized the stages of warmth and summit, whereas those who have committed heinous offenses whom the Infinite Life Sutra does not permit to attain rebirth are people who have not realized the stages of warmth and summit. ⁽¹³⁾ Those who have committed heinous offenses whom the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits to attain rebirth are people who have planted roots of goodness conducive to liberation,

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

whereas the Infinite Life Sutra’s statement that those who have committed heinous offenses are not permitted to attain rebirth refers generally to people who either complete or do not complete all ten recitations.

b. Rejecting Erroneous Views and Revealing the Definitive Meaning.

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

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

If recollection of the Buddha cannot extinguish offenses, why does the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life state that each recollection of the Buddha extinguishes the grave offenses of eighty koṭis of kalpas of birth and death? If recollection of the Buddha has already extinguished the karmic offenses and obstructions, what reason is there to claim that one who has not

repented cannot attain rebirth? Moreover, although the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life permits those who have committed heinous offenses to attain rebirth, nowhere does it mention repentance. This explanation, like the fourteen explanations that follow it, fails to set forth the scripture’s original intent comprehensively and clearly.

When permitting those who have committed heinous offenses to attain rebirth, the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life states: “Upon completing ten recitations, one immediately attains rebirth.” When the Infinite Life Sutra does not permit those who have committed heinous offenses to attain rebirth, it states: “even to the extent of completing ten recitations.” Since both sutras state “even to the extent of completing ten recitations,” what need is there for other explanations?

In the sections on the upper and middle levels of the lowest grade of rebirth, when practitioners are instructed to recollect the Buddha, there is no mention of “completing ten recitations.” They attain rebirth with one or more recitations because these practitioners’ offenses are comparatively less grave, and therefore they need not complete ten recitations. In the lowest level of the lowest grade of rebirth, however, because the practitioner has committed heinous offenses, it is said that he must complete ten recitations before he can be born in the Pure Land.

The scripture’s intent is that if one has not committed heinous offenses, one can attain rebirth regardless of whether one recites many or few times—whether once or ten times. But if one has committed heinous offenses, one must complete all ten recitations before one can attain rebirth; if even one recitation is lacking, one cannot attain rebirth. Therefore, 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 of the two sutras, the Infinite Life Sutra and the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life, distinguishing the rebirth of the two classes of people in the second and third stages, he misconstrued the purport of the sutras. If we follow the Chan master’s explanation, we fall into the two errors of over-inclusion and under-inclusion. The error of over-inclusion is that people of the second stage may also commit the five heinous offenses, and if they have committed the five heinous offenses, they too should be unable to attain rebirth.

The error of under-inclusion is that if people of the third stage have not committed the five heinous offenses, then since the sutra does not say 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 errors of over-inclusion and under-inclusion. If we follow Chan Master Xinxing’s interpretation, should that sutra not have said, “Except only sentient beings of the third stage,” so that it would not fall into the two errors of over-inclusion and under-inclusion?

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

This proves that the error lies with an ordinary being (Xinxing), not with a noble one (Dharmakara).

Scholars of the Three Stages defend their position by saying: The explanation of the words “except only those who commit the five heinous offenses, and so forth,” is intended to mean “except all sentient beings of the third stage,” because sentient beings of the third stage are all crooked and unrighteous, vicious and inhumane. From time immemorial they have done nothing but commit offenses; none of the Buddhas cares to save 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 stage.

Question: Although this appears to explain the error of under-inclusion, it still does not fully explain the error of over-inclusion. If the scholars of the Three Stages maintain that the passage on the lowest grade of the lowest birth in the Contemplation Sutra of the Buddha of Infinite Life explains the error of over-inclusion, I fear that their explanation is unreasonable. Furthermore, all sentient beings of the third stage are called people who have committed the five heinous offenses.

If in past lives they underwent suffering in hell and fully repaid the consequences of those deeds, how could they still be offenders guilty of heinous offenses? If in this life they have never committed an offense leading to the Avici hell, could they nevertheless still be offenders guilty of heinous offenses? If it is claimed that they are all such offenders, they must all belong to the group fixed in wrongness; in their next lives they will certainly fall into the Avici hell and will not be reborn in any other realm.

They cannot renounce the household life and cultivate the path; none of them can belong to the group whose destiny is undetermined or create karma whose result is undetermined. If so, the teaching in the Nirvana Sutra that, for the most part, all sentient beings possess karma whose result is undetermined must be mistaken. The defense offered by the Three Stages school is likewise unable to resolve the error of under-inclusion.

The Chan master replied: To say now that all sentient beings of the third stage are people who commit the five heinous offenses does not mean that each of them must 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 can be called offenders guilty of heinous offenses. It is simply that their capacities are exceedingly evil and their mental dispositions crooked.

They do nothing but evil; they have not yet freed themselves from the seven aversions and seven attachments, nor relinquished the six passions and five pleasures. Their three kinds of karma fully possess the twelve inversions and the five characteristics of those 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.

Therefore, in a general sense, the term “heinous” is used to designate sentient beings of the third stage.

Question: This appears to resolve the error of under-inclusion, but it still does not resolve the error of over-inclusion. Moreover, the preceding explanation gives rise to seven questions. ⁽¹⁾ If they are said to possess the capacity for heinous offenses because they are capable of committing such offenses, then sentient beings of the second stage are also capable of committing heinous offenses. Since both groups can commit heinous offenses, why are they divided into two different stages?^{[3] (2)} Furthermore, Chan Master Xinxing maintains that sentient beings of the third stage commit the five heinous offenses, are subject to the thirteen adversities, and cannot become fully ordained bhikshus.

They can therefore only be called people without precepts; they cannot be called people who break the precepts, because they have no precepts to break. If, however, sentient beings of the third stage merely possess the capacity to commit heinous offenses but have not presently committed any, and they can receive the bhikshu precepts, why is excluding sentient beings of the third stage said to be the exclusion of people who have committed heinous offenses? ⁽³⁾ Furthermore, even though sentient beings of the third stage have not committed heinous offenses, they are still called people who commit the five heinous offenses.

Do they then belong to the group fixed in wrongness, or to the group whose destiny is undetermined? If it is claimed that they belong to the group fixed in wrongness, how can they belong to that group when they have not committed heinous offenses? If it is claimed that they belong to the group whose destiny is undetermined, why is it said that excluding those who commit the five heinous offenses means excluding all sentient beings of the third stage? ⁽⁴⁾ If those who have not committed heinous offenses are said to possess the capacity to commit heinous offenses and are therefore called people who commit the five heinous offenses, they are likewise people capable of fully observing the pure precepts.

Thus, they are also capable of attaining the noble fruits. Although they have not yet attained the noble fruits, could they likewise be called noble ones? If they regard themselves as noble ones, they must belong to the group fixed in rightness 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 the Buddha of Infinite Life permits those who have committed the five heinous offenses to attain rebirth; these are people who have actually committed heinous offenses. The Forty-Eight Vows section of the Infinite Life Sutra excludes people guilty 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 stage have not committed heinous offenses, they are called people who commit heinous offenses solely because they possess the capacity to do so. If sentient beings of the second stage were actually to commit heinous offenses, could it be that, because they do not possess the capacity for heinous offenses, they would not be called people who commit heinous offenses? ⁽⁷⁾ If it is claimed that sentient beings of the second stage also possess the capacity to commit heinous offenses, then the three grades of the lowest birth should be combined into a single grade,

because even those who have not committed heinous offenses would still be people who commit 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]

Another interpretation holds that beings of the third period are not entirely unable to attain rebirth in the Pure Land; however, they must cultivate the Dharma approach of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness before they can be reborn in the West. Yet if they have committed the five heinous offenses, then even if they cultivate the Dharma of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness, they cannot attain rebirth there.

Therefore, Dharma Treasury’s vow excludes beings of the third period who have committed the five heinous offenses. If beings of the third period have not committed the five heinous offenses, then, should they cultivate the Dharma of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness, they will certainly attain rebirth in the Pure Land. If they have committed the five heinous offenses, then even if 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 period who were drowning in the defiled realm. He therefore opened the Dharma approach 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 is something Dharma Treasury had never conceived and the Fundamental Teacher had never mentioned; it was Chan Master Xinxing alone who revealed and developed this doctrine to deliver beings of the third period. It may therefore be said that the Chan Master spoke what the Buddha had not spoken and delivered the beings whom the Buddhas had not delivered. We all aspire to read the Compiled Records of the Three Stages, reverently receiving and upholding it throughout every month and year, no longer daring to read or recite any other scriptures.

Pitiful indeed are those who obstinately cling to their former errors and continue to read and recite the scriptures of Particular Truth and Particular Correctness, thereby creating the karma of hell. One should know that Shanjing, because he studied the Dharma treasury, fell into hell for a long time, whereas Sadaparibhuta, because he cultivated the Dharma of Universal Truth and Universal Correctness, attained the fruit of sainthood and reached the other shore.

This results from not knowing how to study the Buddha Dharma appropriate to one’s time, producing a disparity between harm and benefit as vast as that between heaven and earth. I [Huaigan] have been unable to ascertain whether [Chan Master Xinxing] is right or wrong; therefore, I know only to cultivate the Dharma of Particular Truth and Particular Correctness, and even if this is mistaken, I shall have no regrets. Having now offered this explanation, I hope that it will dispel some measure of doubt.

Someone objected: “Although Chan Master Xinxing explained it in this way, his explanation only increases our doubts. I shall now set forth further questions and respectfully request answers. ⁽¹⁾ The Chan Master’s explanation seems to resolve the fault of being too narrow, yet it still fails to resolve the fault of being too broad. It is unclear whether the phrase ‘even to ten thoughts’ refers to a universal practice or a particular practice.

If it is considered a universal practice, these ‘ten thoughts’ are merely ten recollections of ‘Amitabha Buddha.’ This is the recollection of a particular Buddha; how can it be considered a universal practice? ⁽²⁾ If the recollection of Amitabha Buddha is a universal practice, then it is a Dharma for sentient beings of the third period; why, then, is it regarded solely as a teaching for the second period? ⁽³⁾ If the recollection of Amitabha Buddha is a universal practice, how does it differ from what the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life says concerning practitioners of the lowest grade of the lowest birth, who complete ten recitations of Amitabha Buddha’s name?

Why is the practice of Ten Thoughts in the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life a particular practice, whereas the practice of Ten Thoughts in the section on the Forty-Eight Vows is a universal practice? How can the same words refer to two different practices? ⁽⁴⁾ Why does the universal practice save only those people of the third period who have not committed the rebellious offenses, whereas the particular practice can save people of the second level who have committed the rebellious offenses?

Is this because sentient beings of the third period who commit the rebellious offenses have no means of extinguishing their offenses and therefore cannot attain rebirth in the Pure Land? Or is there a means of extinguishing their offenses, yet those who commit the rebellious offenses still cannot attain rebirth there? Please explain this clearly. ⁽⁵⁾ If this practice of ‘ten thoughts’ is a particular practice, sentient beings of the third period cannot attain rebirth whether or not they cultivate that particular practice.

Using a particular practice to exclude sentient beings entails the fault of being too narrow. Not only does excluding sentient beings entail the fault of being too narrow, but it also causes many people to commit errors. Whether advancing or retreating, one cannot escape grave responsibility toward the Buddhadharma. ⁽⁶⁾ Dharma Treasury’s vow should have been stated as follows: ‘If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings throughout the ten directions who sincerely believe and rejoice, desire to be born in my land, and cultivate the universal practice should fail to attain rebirth there, may I not attain perfect awakening,

excepting sentient beings of the third period 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 sentient beings of the third period, while excluding sentient beings of the second period who commit the five rebellious offenses.

Yet Bodhisattva Dharma Treasury set forth these vows so that sentient beings in 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 not fully convey it. If these two matters are not clearly set forth 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 expedient to state the universal practice, let them clearly present their answers. ⁽⁷⁾ Furthermore, Bhiksu Dharma Treasury, 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 possessed perfect compassion and wisdom and broadly embraced and delivered sentient beings.

Why, when making the great vow to welcome even extremely evil sentient beings to rebirth in the Pure Land, did he use only the particular practice to save sentient beings of the second period, rather than using the universal practice to save sentient beings of the third period? ⁽⁸⁾ If sentient beings of the third period are absolutely unable to attain rebirth there, is it because Bodhisattva Dharma Treasury regarded them as barren seeds and therefore made no vow to save them? ⁽⁹⁾ Or was it because sentient beings of the third period could not attain rebirth that Bodhisattva Dharma Treasury did not bring them the universal teaching to save them,

but instead had no choice but to abandon them? ⁽¹⁰⁾ Or did Bodhisattva Dharma Treasury know the universal practice but refuse to make it known to them, begrudging the teaching and failing to instruct sentient beings, while his compassionate heart did not extend to these sentient beings of the third period, and therefore he did not embrace them and bring them to rebirth in the Pure Land? ⁽¹¹⁾ Or, although Bodhisattva Dharma Treasury possessed perfect wisdom and compassion, were people of the third period so difficult to teach and bring to accomplishment that the Bodhisattva could not save them and therefore entrusted them to Chan Master Xinxing? ⁽¹²⁾ Or did Bodhisattva Dharma Treasury have no karmic affinity with sentient beings of the third period,

while Chan Master Xinxing alone had such an affinity and could save them?

Moreover, only sentient beings living in China could encounter the Chan Master’s instruction and attain rebirth in the Western Land. How, then, could sentient beings of the third period living in other lands, who never encountered the Chan Master, attain rebirth in the Pure Land? ⁽¹³⁾ Suppose that when Bodhisattva Dharma Treasury made his vows, his realization and practice were not yet complete, and therefore his work of embracing and delivering sentient beings was not yet perfect.

Yet the Blessed One attained perfect awakening; for what reason did he not deliver these sentient beings of the third period? If that were so, the Four Great Vows would remain unfulfilled, and the meaning of the four debts of gratitude would remain incomplete. How could abandoning children suffering from grave illness be called compassion for all?

Statements such as, ‘Those who should have been delivered have already been delivered, and for those not yet delivered, the causes and conditions for deliverance have already been established,’ and so forth, would all be empty boasts. Furthermore, I cannot help but admire the Chan Master as one loftier than the sages: he has forcibly reduced the Blessed One to a position lower even than that of the most inferior ordinary beings, without realizing that he himself is proclaiming confused and erroneous words ^[5].”

Furthermore, the Infinite Life Sutra is a teaching for particular capacities, yet the Blessed One, out of special compassion, caused it alone to remain in the world for an additional hundred years. Why, then, did he not preserve in the world the universal teaching suited to the age of the Final Dharma so that it might teach and transform sentient beings, while preserving instead a particular teaching 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 fail to deliver the sentient beings of the third stage; even the Buddhas of the ten directions, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, manifested their broad and long tongues solely to deliver the sentient beings of the second stage, yet did not manifest their broad and long tongues to attest to a universal Dharma capable of rescuing the sentient beings of the third stage.

Could it be that all the Great Sages and Blessed Ones, endowed with omniscient wisdom and all-pervading compassion, who cherish every sentient being as an only child, concealed the universal Dharma and did not deliver the sentient beings of the third stage? Moreover, Amitabha, the Compassionate Father, whose teaching encompasses the three realms and whose forty-eight vows extend throughout the ten directions, first aroused the aspiration to attain Buddhahood immeasurable and innumerable kalpas ago, when he was still a wheel-turning sage-king.

His great vows extend even to immeasurable and innumerable kalpas hence, when Avalokiteshvara succeeds to the seat of perfect and complete enlightenment. These vows, attested by the Buddhas of the ten directions, were made to deliver all sentient beings. Could he possibly abandon and refuse to deliver the sentient beings of the third stage?

Through their noble wisdom and insight, the Buddhas and bodhisattvas knew that the sentient beings of the third stage could not attain rebirth and could not be delivered; they therefore abandoned them and did not employ the True Dharma to rescue them from the mire of birth and death. Yet Chan Master Xinxing was able to provide skillful means and bring forth the Universally True Buddha-Dharma to deliver those sentient beings of the third stage.

This would prove that the Chan master's compassion surpassed that of Shakyamuni and that his wisdom excelled that of the Buddha Infinite Life. It would also mean that the unsurpassed Tamers became Blessed Ones with superiors, while the Incomparable Ones became Perfectly Enlightened Ones who could be surpassed. Chan Master Xinxing was indeed superior even to the Buddhas!

Question: If it is maintained that, because of the commission of the gravest transgressions, there are two kinds of sentient beings of the third stage, distinguished according to whether or not they can attain rebirth, and that the determination is not based on how many times they recollect the Buddha, why does the passage excluding those who have committed the gravest transgressions say, “even as few as ten recollections,” whereas the passage permitting such offenders to attain rebirth says, “fully completing ten recollections”?

Why does the scriptural passage excluding those who have committed the gravest transgressions not mention “sentient beings of the third stage,” while the passage permitting such offenders to attain rebirth does not mention “sentient beings of the second stage”? Why did Chan Master Xinxing add “even as few as ten recollections” where it was unnecessary, 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 speaks too extensively about the teaching for particular capacities; that is, it specifically discusses good and evil persons attaining rebirth in the nine grades. Therefore, regarding persons of the most extreme evil, it does not teach the practice of recollecting a single name^[6], but separately teaches the method of rebirth for such persons, namely, “recollecting for a full ten recollections^[7].” By contrast, the two passages in the Infinite Life Sutra speak too briefly about the universal teaching; that is, they discuss in general the practices for good and evil persons among the two kinds of lower-grade practitioners.

The words of the sutra encompass practices involving both many and few recollections, and their meaning includes both good and evil persons. Thus, the preceding passage teaches the practice of recollecting one name for good persons, while the following passage teaches the practice of recollecting ten names for evil persons. Good and evil, many and few, are discussed only in general terms; hence this is called “general.” As for the words “even as few as,” they do not state the matter exhaustively and are therefore called “too brief.” The phrase “even as few as ten recollections” means from one recollection up to ten recollections.

The final word “ten” means that, beginning with “one,” one proceeds through nine; thus it encompasses the practice of “one recollection” for good persons. The subsequent phrase “even as few as one recollection” counts downward from ten to one. The final word “one” means that, beginning with “ten,” one proceeds through nine; thus it encompasses the practice of “fully completing ten recollections” for evil persons.

Therefore, I, Xinxing, maintain that the words “even as few as” encompass the practice of ten recollections. The practice of ten recollections is intended for evil persons, among whom the heterodox and the orthodox are intermingled. Thus, the passage simply says, “except those who have committed the gravest transgressions and slandered the True Dharma.” It certainly does not mean that they are excluded because they “fall short by one recollection.”

Question: Among those who have committed the gravest transgressions, there are both good and evil persons, while sentient beings of the second and third stages are likewise divided into the two categories of heterodox and orthodox. Are there not both evil and good persons within these two categories of heterodox and orthodox? Because the heterodox and orthodox are intermingled among evil persons, the passage simply says, “except those who have committed the gravest transgressions and slandered the True Dharma.” Yet why, when the heterodox and orthodox are intermingled among good persons, does it not simply say, “except those who have not committed the gravest transgressions and slandered the True Dharma”?

Instead, it maintains that persons who are not heterodox and evil are identical to those who are heterodox and evil, and says in the passage on ten recollections that all are “excluded.” Furthermore, “one recollection and ten recollections” is an exceedingly concise expression. In the practice for good persons, it accepts the orthodox good person without rejecting the heterodox good person. Why, then, in the practice for evil persons does it accept the orthodox evil person while excluding the heterodox evil person?....

Answer: This is not a valid question. The Buddha's original intention was to reveal that persons approaching death who are able to recollect one name, two names, or as many as nine or ten names of the Buddha will all attain rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss, except only those who have committed the gravest transgressions and slandered the True Dharma. The sutra's original intention is to say that persons at the end of life who can recollect the Buddha's name once and then die, or who can recollect the Buddha's name as many as ten times and then die, can all attain rebirth in the Pure Land.

The Buddha's original intention was to make clear that sentient beings who have not committed the gravest transgressions will attain rebirth whether their recollections are many or few, whereas those who have committed the gravest transgressions will not attain rebirth if their recollections are few; they must fully complete ten recollections before they can attain rebirth. To show that those who have not committed the gravest transgressions may attain rebirth whether their recollections are many or few, the passage therefore says, “except those who have committed the gravest transgressions and slandered the True Dharma.” What connection does this have with heterodox offenders?

You could raise this objection only if all sentient beings encountered a good spiritual friend on the verge of death, were taught the practice of recollecting the Buddha, and all fully completed ten recollections. Suppose, however, that someone died before completing ten recollections: how could the passage exclude those who had committed the gravest transgressions 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 states: “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 Buddha-Dharma will decline, and the Buddha’s disciples will concern themselves only with disputes and litigation, with few cultivating wholesome practices.” At present, the sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Recollection Samadhi are practices of concentration and wisdom, 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 to maintain that from the third five-hundred-year period onward, concentration can no longer be cultivated. For what reason, then, are people encouraged to practice the sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Recollection Samadhi? ⁽⁴⁷⁾

Answer: The sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Recollection Samadhi have both profound and shallow levels. The profound level is to practice the sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Recollection Samadhi through cultivated wisdom while abiding in the stage between the four dhyanas and the preliminary concentration. The shallow level is to rely upon the wisdom born of hearing and reflection in the Desire Realm, gathering one’s thoughts and directing one’s attention, through which one can also practice the sixteen contemplations and the Buddha-Recollection Samadhi.

The Sutra on the Contemplation of Amitayus states: “To contemplate in this manner is called seeing the coarse aspect of the Land of Ultimate Bliss. If one attains samadhi, one will see the subtle wonders of the Land of Ultimate Bliss clearly and distinctly, beyond all description.” Thus, it should be understood that when contemplation is accomplished yet only the coarse aspect of the Land of Ultimate Bliss is seen, this results from practicing contemplation through the wisdom born of hearing and reflection in the Desire Realm.

Attaining samadhi and seeing the subtle wonders of the Land of Ultimate Bliss, however, result from practicing contemplation through cultivated wisdom in the Form Realm. When the sutra says that the cultivation of meditative concentration will be steadfast during the second five-hundred-year period, this is said with reference to cultivating wisdom through a concentrated mind in the Form Realm. If contemplation is accomplished through hearing and reflection in the Desire Realm, this applies equally to the second, third, and subsequent five-hundred-year periods.

Otherwise, why does the third fascicle of the Bhadrapala Sutra state: “Bhadrapala! Forty years after my nirvana, this samadhi will circulate widely throughout the world. During the final one hundred years of the fifth five-hundred-year period, when the True Dharma is undergoing destruction, observance of the precepts is declining, violation of the precepts is flourishing, and nations are provoking conflict with one another—in such a time, this sutra will again appear in the world through the awesome spiritual power of the Buddha”?

This is intended to enable sentient beings of that time to hear this sutra, joyfully transcribe 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. Moreover, the second fascicle states: “Bhadrapala! In the past, those good men and good women 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 be destroyed, they will again hear of 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, and they will read and recite it, accept and uphold it, contemplate 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 the practice of 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 stated that during the period more than one thousand years after the Buddha’s nirvana, only universal teachings could be practiced, whereas particular teachings could not. He furthermore classified such Dharma gates as the Buddha-Recollection Samadhi among teachings unsuited to the capacities of sentient beings, meaning that these teachings should be abandoned.

This is an exceedingly grave error!

3. Questions Challenging the Scholars of the Three Stages Teaching.

Question: The tenth fascicle of the Great Collection Moon Treasury Sutra states: “The sentient beings of the Saha world who slander the True Dharma and revile the sages and worthies are rejected by all the Pure Lands throughout the ten directions, which will not receive them.” The rejected sentient beings are those 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 raised by the Chan masters of the Three Stages school were correct, I do not know whether the sentient beings of the second stage in this Saha world would be permitted to slander the True Dharma and revile the sages and worthies. If they are permitted to slander the True Dharma and revile the sages and worthies, are they then rejected and denied rebirth in a Pure Land? If they are permitted to attain rebirth, for what reason 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 rebirth is permitted, then sentient beings of the second stage who slander the True Dharma and revile the sages and worthies should have been rejected; why, then, can they attain rebirth in a Pure Land? If it is maintained that sentient beings of the second stage do not slander the True Dharma or revile the sages and worthies, then why, being icchantikas, would they not slander the True Dharma? If it is further claimed that although they slander the True Dharma and revile the sages and worthies, they can nevertheless attain rebirth, please produce scriptural evidence as proof.

If it is further claimed that although those who slander the True Dharma and revile the sages and worthies should not attain rebirth, they can nevertheless do so because their capacities are mature and their offenses 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 the sages and worthies?

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

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 the past, who knows whether sentient beings of the second stage might likewise have slandered the True Dharma in the past? If it is claimed that the original intent of this sutra is to clarify that all sentient beings of the third stage follow false and improper paths and therefore, 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 therefore, whether or not they commit slander, are permitted to attain rebirth, then these assertions incur the two faults of excess and insufficiency.

The fault of excess lies in denying rebirth to sentient beings of the second stage who slander the True Dharma; the fault of insufficiency lies in permitting rebirth to sentient beings of the third stage who do not slander the True Dharma. When the disciples of Chan Master Xinxing cite scriptures as evidence, they frequently contradict the Buddha’s correct teachings. This foolish man, Huaigan, does not dare believe their proclamations.

4. The Difference Between Permitting and Prohibiting.

Question: The Mahāsamnipāta Sūtra, the Buddhapiṭaka Sūtra, and the various Vinaya texts state: “Our Fundamental Teacher Śākyamuni Buddha does not accept bhikṣus who have broken the precepts, and so forth, as disciples; he does not consent to be their teacher; and he does not permit them to set foot within a saṅghārāma. They are like a tāla tree cut through, which cannot live again; like a stone broken in two, which cannot be joined together again; and like the great ocean, which does not retain a corpse.

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

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 sages, and become Dharma companions of bodhisattvas bound to only one more birth? ⁽⁴⁹⁾

Answer: The sūtras and Vinaya alike contain two approaches: prohibition and compassionate allowance. The teachings of the Lesser Vehicle and the Great Vehicle, and their respective prohibitions and allowances, are not the same. One cannot believe only in the approach of prohibition while disbelieving the teaching of the Contemplation Sūtra on the power of the Buddhas to extinguish offenses.

The Buddha’s initial teachings concerning such prohibitions were either doctrines of the Lesser Vehicle or words of rebuke. They were directed either toward sentient beings who had not yet learned to arouse shame and remorse and repent of their karmic hindrances; toward those who had not yet aroused the aspiration for bodhi and still craved the five sensual pleasures of birth and death; or toward those attached to the Sahā world, who delighted in sinking and wandering through the three realms.

Moreover, if the Tathagata had not first taught the approach for counteracting karmic offenses, sentient beings would certainly have felt no fear of wrongdoing and would constantly have committed evil. Therefore, the Buddha first explained the gravity of such offenses and admonished sentient beings not to commit the offense of breaking the precepts. Or he taught that although repentance extinguishes offenses and spares one from falling into the evil destinies, once the essence of the precepts has been lost, one may no longer use the property of the resident Sangha.

The Pure Land teaching now being expounded teaches one to arouse the aspiration for bodhi, give rise to shame and remorse, earnestly repent of the karmic hindrances created in the past, correct one’s faults, ardently seek to escape the burning house of the three realms, and aspire for rebirth in the Pure Land. Relying upon the Buddha’s fundamental vows, one’s offenses are extinguished and merit arises. Fearing the painful retribution of the evil destinies in future lives, one follows the Buddha’s teaching, abandons evil, and practices good.

Within the Buddha’s gate, the second most valiant person is one who, having inadvertently committed an offense, knows to repent; all Buddhas praise such a person. Although that person is a corpse within the pure ocean of the Fundamental Teacher’s Vinaya, that person may nevertheless attain rebirth in Amitābha 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 that extinguishes offenses; this Buddha does not receive such a person, while that Buddha comes to welcome and guide them.

It is like parents educating their child: one scolds and disciplines, while the other gently admonishes, causing the child to recognize their faults, reform, and repent. The Buddhas are likewise: whether they prohibit or grant compassionate allowance, all seek to benefit sentient beings and bring them to accomplishment. Therefore, both harsh words and gentle words express the ultimate truth.

Furthermore, bhikṣus who commit grave offenses are rebuked in the Vinaya, yet the Dhāraṇī Sūtra instructs them to uphold and recite mantras so that their offenses may be extinguished and the essence of their precepts restored. Prohibition and compassionate allowance are not the same, and praise and censure also differ. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states: “Before one enters the Dharma of the Great Vehicle, it is called fixed karma; after one has entered the Dharma of the Great Vehicle, it is called unfixed karma.” This carries the same meaning as the foregoing. We must understand how to adapt flexibly and should not cling rigidly to only one side.

5. Remaining for One Hundred Years. a. The Time and Conditions for Its Continued Abiding.

Question: The Infinite Life Sūtra states: “In the future age, when the scriptures have become entirely extinct, out of compassion and pity for sentient beings, I shall especially cause this sūtra to remain in the world for another one hundred years.” It is unclear which point in time is used to determine when the scriptures will have become entirely extinct. ⁽⁵⁰⁾

Answer: The Chan masters of the Three Stages School all believe that Chan Master Xinxing was a bodhisattva of the fourth reliance. He compiled the Collected Records of the Three Stages, which states: “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.

Reading and reciting Great Vehicle scriptures will no longer accord with the conditions of the time, and practitioners [who read and recite Great Vehicle scriptures] will fall into the hells throughout the ten directions. At present, the Infinite Life Sūtra and other such scriptures all belong to the Particularly True and Particularly Correct Dharma, also called the Particular Dharma or Particular Teaching. This is the Buddha-Dharma of the second stage, suitable for practice only during approximately the previous one thousand years.

After one thousand years, beings will no longer possess this kind of capacity, and the Particularly True and Particularly Correct teaching must be discarded. Even though a sūtra says that the Amitābha Sūtra will remain for one hundred years, this amounts to only one thousand one hundred years in all.

“Why 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 read or recite the scriptures but devoted himself solely to bowing in reverence.

Therefore, we know that after the True Dharma has become extinct, overweening pride will flourish, and people will no longer be able to read and recite the scriptures but must study the Universally True and Universally Correct Dharma. Because the Universally True and Universally Correct Dharma accords with their capacities, they attain purification of the six sense faculties and also increase their lifespan. By contrast, the bhikṣu Sunakṣatra was a sentient being of the third stage.

Because he read and recited the twelve divisions of scripture, he fell into Avīci Hell. This was a great loss.”

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

If, after one thousand years, the True Dharma has become completely extinguished, leaving only beings of the evil third stage, for whom only the practice of the Universally True and Universally Right Dharma is appropriate, while the Separate True and Separate Right Dharma and the reading and recitation of Mahayana scriptures are inappropriate—and if those who read and recite them will fall into the Avici hells of the ten directions—[then the Tathagata must have harbored malice and jealousy toward beings of the third stage, leaving behind the Separate True and Separate Right Dharma so that they would mistakenly practice it and fall into Avici hell.] If so, this has nothing whatsoever to do with compassionately preserving the Amitabha Sutra for one hundred years.

If the Universally True and Universally Right Dharma is appropriate, why, after teaching this Dharma, did the Buddha not specifically preserve it for one hundred years? If it is said that the Universally True and Universally Right Dharma was not taught by the Buddha, but that Chan Master Xinxing taught sutras that the Buddhas had not taught in order to liberate beings whom the Buddhas had not liberated, 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 Mahayana scriptures contain Universal Teachings and Separate Teachings, and the Universal Teachings do not mention being specially preserved, whereas scriptures of the Separate Teachings speak of being preserved for one hundred years but are nevertheless deemed unsuitable for beings’ capacities, then this truly runs counter to compassion and differs from the Tathagata’s manner of teaching and transforming beings.

If there is no teaching of the Buddha, how can right and wrong be distinguished? If the example of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, who did not read or recite scriptures, is cited as proof that scriptures should not be read or recited during the Age of the Semblance Dharma because it abounds in persons of overweening pride, then why, as Bodhisattva Never Disparaging approached death, did he hear and uphold the twenty thousand myriad kotis of verses of the Lotus Sutra formerly taught by Buddha King Awesome Sound?

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

Furthermore, Bodhisattva Medicine King vowed: “After the Buddha’s parinirvana, we shall reverently uphold, read, recite, and expound the Lotus Sutra. In the evil age of the five turbidities, beings’ roots of goodness will gradually diminish. Most will be persons of overweening pride, greedy for gain and offerings, who increase their unwholesome roots and remain far removed 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 persons who, during the final five hundred years in the Age of the Decline of the Dharma, read, recite, accept, uphold, and so forth. The Bhadrapala Sutra discusses accepting, upholding, reading, and reciting that sutra during the final five hundred years in the Age of the Decline of the Dharma, and so forth.

Could it be that, after one thousand years, when the Separate Dharma has been abolished, it is no longer appropriate to read and recite Mahayana scriptures? I urge practitioners to examine the Buddha’s teachings carefully. Do not delude yourselves and cause others to be deluded as well, thereby bringing about the disappearance of Mahayana scriptures from the world.

This is to drink the poison of wrong views oneself, while also creating the causes and conditions for falling into hell and destroying the very eyes of the True Dharma. What could be more inverted than this? It is truly lamentable.

Some explain “the complete extinction of the path of the scriptures” by relying on the Great Compassion Lotus Sutra (the Karunapundarika Sutra), which states that the True Dharma lasts for one thousand years, the Semblance Dharma lasts for one thousand years, and the Declining Dharma lasts for ten thousand years. After the Age of the Decline of the Dharma, the path of the scriptures becomes completely extinguished, and only the Amitabha Sutra remains for one hundred years.

During this calamity of warfare, human beings mostly commit evil. The grasses and trees in their hands all turn into swords and blades, and they kill one another as the poison of anger blazes to its utmost intensity. Their lifespan is only ten years, and their bodies are merely two handspans 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: they become disenchanted with the Saha world, with its three calamities and utterly evil five turbidities, and vow to be born in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss. Our Original Teacher, Shakyamuni Buddha, foresaw that beings of that time would be oppressed by suffering and thus capable of giving rise to disenchantment.

Therefore, out of compassion, after all other scriptures have become completely extinguished, he specially preserves the Amitabha Sutra in the world for one hundred years, benefiting sentient beings during that calamitous age.

Another person offers the following explanation. The Record of the Abiding of the Dharma, taught by the Venerable Nandimitra, states: “After the calamity of warfare, human beings will become weary of committing evil deeds. They will all give rise to loving-kindness, cease killing, and instead show compassion for one another, regarding one another as fathers and children.

Their lifespans will gradually increase. When their lifespans reach one hundred years, there will be sixteen great arhats who possess the three knowledges, the six supernormal powers, and the eight liberations. They will have mastered the scriptures of the Tripitaka and, having received the Buddha’s entrustment, will preserve the True Dharma and benefit sentient beings without entering nirvana.

Together with other arhats and their disciples, they will propagate 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 construct a precious 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 air and say: ‘Homage to the World-Honored One, Shakyamuni Tathagata, Worthy One, Perfectly Enlightened One. We accepted your instructions, protected and preserved the True Dharma, and together benefited devas and humans. The treasury of the Dharma has now disappeared, and all those with affinities have been delivered. We now take our leave to enter nirvana.’

“Having said this, they will all enter nirvana without remainder simultaneously. 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 become extinct 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 point, the unsurpassed teaching of the World-Honored Shakyamuni Buddha will become completely extinct throughout the trichiliocosm, the Saha world, and will no longer appear.

“Afterward, seventy thousand kotis of pratyekabuddhas will appear simultaneously in this realm. When human lifespans reach eighty thousand years, all these pratyekabuddhas will also pass into extinction. Thereafter, the bodhisattva Maitreya will appear in the world.

For the sake of sentient beings, he too will teach the Pure Land Dharma-gate, enabling immeasurable sentient beings to attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Thus, in succession, the thousand Buddhas of the Auspicious Kalpa and all Buddhas who appear afterward will teach the Pure Land Dharma-gate and encourage people to attain rebirth in the West. Even the Buddhas throughout the ten directions will do likewise.

Amitabha Buddha’s lifespan extends for immeasurable asamkhya kalpas. While he remains in the world, whenever Buddhas appear in worlds throughout the ten directions, they will teach the Pure Land Dharma-gate to sentient beings who have affinities with Amitabha Buddha and encourage them to attain rebirth in the Land of Ultimate Bliss.” Therefore, the statement, “When the scriptures of the Way become extinct, I shall specially preserve this sutra for another hundred years,” refers to this period.

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

Question: The Sutra of Infinite Life states: “In the future age, when the scriptures have become completely extinct, out of loving-kindness and compassion for sentient beings, I shall specially preserve this sutra in the world for another hundred years.” Yet all scriptures are intended to teach and benefit sentient beings. Reading, reciting, accepting, and upholding them all eradicate grave offenses, and by relying on the True Dharma, beings can all escape suffering. Why, then, will only the Sutra of Infinite Life be preserved in this world for one hundred years after all other scriptures have become completely extinct? ⁽⁵¹⁾

Answer: When the Buddha, the World-Honored One, appeared in the world, he taught the Dharma with a single voice, yet each sentient being understood it differently according to their capacities. The sentient beings who heard the Dharma and awakened to the Way were as numerous as grains of dust. Some realized the four fruits of the Lesser Vehicle; some attained the patient acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; some were freed from the evil realms; some attained rebirth among humans or devas; some attained rebirth in the Pure Land; and some planted the causes for liberation in future lives. Sentient beings who had heard the Dharma and cultivated roots of goodness in the past encountered the Buddha’s true teachings, accepted, upheld, read, and recited them, and all received benefit.

When sentient beings possess scant merit and can no longer be taught, all scriptures will be concealed in the dragon palace. At that time, bhikshus will no longer wear dyed kasayas, and none of the karmavacana procedures or ordination ceremonies will 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. Even deluded and ignorant ordinary beings burdened by offenses and karmic obstructions will be able to learn and practice it. Thus, out of compassion, the Great Sage will specially preserve this sutra in the world for another hundred years.

From the words of the sutra, we know that as the Buddhadharma gradually becomes extinct and the merit and virtue of sentient beings grow shallow and meager, only this Pure Land Dharma-gate will remain especially capable of benefiting them. By examining the Dharma-gate in relation to the time and circumstances, we know that the Pure Land Dharma-gate accords with the capacities of sentient beings in the age of the decline of the Dharma.

Therefore, the Sutra on the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life repeatedly states that the Dharma-gate of the Land of Ultimate Bliss was taught for all sentient beings of future ages. I respectfully ask members of both the Sangha and the laity to consult the Buddha’s teachings and thereby discern the capacities of sentient beings. Do not listen to the idle discussions of others and consequently disbelieve the Buddha’s words.

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

Question: The Mahayana Sutra of Kshitigarbha’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 one to attain rebirth in the West? If one can attain rebirth there, that is deliverance. Why, then, does it say that the Buddhas do not deliver them? ⁽⁵²⁾

Answer: When the sutra says “they cannot be saved,” this 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 their offenses would cause them to sink in the ocean of suffering for many lifetimes, so that they would 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 entirely extinguish them, and therefore the Buddhas will not save them?

Moreover, is it not known whether beings of the second period also commit these offenses of the ten evil deeds? If it is said that they do not, then why 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 cases of committing the ten evil deeds alone cited as evidence that beings of the third period cannot attain rebirth in the Pure Land? If it is claimed 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 while beings of the third period are not; that beings of the second period attain rebirth while beings of the third period do not?

The words of the sutra contain no other hidden implication, 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 private ideas into the interpretation of scripture is entirely inconsistent with the Buddha’s purport.

Furthermore, the sutra teaches: “When beings recollect the Buddha, all grave offenses are eliminated; even the five heinous offenses and the ten evil deeds are extinguished.” The sutra says that the five heinous offenses are fixed karma, yet recollection of the Buddha extinguishes this fixed karma. The sutra also says that the ten evil deeds are offenses whose perpetrators cannot be saved; could recollection of the Buddha somehow be unable to save them from these offenses?

Why, then, disregard the fact that Amitabha Buddha comes to receive and guide them? Therefore, it is evident 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 supreme benefits of recollecting the Buddha.

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

These five bhiksus were the leaders of the followers of their respective schools. Bhiksu Universal Affairs understood the meaning and principle of the Dharma of True Emptiness and Nonattainment taught by the Buddha, whereas the other four bhiksus all misunderstood the Buddha’s intent, gave rise to wrong views, and for the most part taught conditioned dharmas subject to arising and cessation. Among the followers who heard Bhiksu Universal Affairs expound the principle of True Emptiness, six billion eight hundred million nayutas of people realized the path and entered nirvana.

The other four evil bhiksus, however, mostly led their followers onto deviant paths. They denied the Dharma of the ultimate truth—nonexistence and final emptiness—and delighted in the teachings of the non-Buddhist Nirgrantha ascetics. The followers of these four evil bhiksus constantly adhered to their teachers’ erroneous 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, did not follow the right path, and destroyed the Buddha’s True Dharma. After their lives ended, those four evil bhiksus fell into the Avici hell. Lying on their backs, lying face down, lying on their left sides, and lying on their right sides, they were burned upon iron beds for nine million kotis of years.

After dying there, they were born again in the Hot Ash Hell, the Reviving Hell, and the Black Rope Hell, where they endured 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 monastic and lay followers of the four evil bhiksus, numbering approximately six hundred and four myriad kotis of people, were born and died together with the 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 myriad kotis of disciples passed from the Avici hell into a hell in another world, where for countless hundreds of thousands of myriads of kotis of nayutas of years they endured immeasurable suffering. When this world formed again, they were reborn once more in the great hells of this realm and remained there for an exceedingly long time.

After emerging from hell, they were born in the human realm and, for five hundred lifetimes, were born blind. They then encountered the Buddha All-Illuminating, left the household life to join the Sangha, and for a hundred thousand kotis of years practiced diligently as though extinguishing a fire upon their heads, yet they still did not attain the acquiescence of conformity, much less realization of the fruit of the path.

After their lives ended, they were again reborn in the Avici hell. Because in the past they had deeply planted grave unwholesome karma, even though they subsequently encountered nine billion Buddhas, they still did not attain the acquiescence of conformity. Why?

Because they did not give rise to reverence and faith toward the profound teachings of the Buddha, but instead acted deceitfully and destructively, harmed holy and worthy bhiksus who observed the precepts, slandered and reviled them, and created the causes and conditions for destroying the Buddhadharma. 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 a hundred thousand kotis of years as though extinguishing a fire upon their heads, they could not eliminate their offense.” How, then, can the merit of recollecting the Buddha’s name once or ten times eliminate offenses and enable one to attain rebirth in the Western Land of Ultimate Bliss? ⁽⁵³⁾

Answer: Because of five supreme causes and conditions, although one recollects the Buddha’s name only briefly, the merit of eliminating offenses and giving rise to faith surpasses that of practicing diligently for a hundred thousand kotis of years as though extinguishing a fire upon one’s head. The five supreme causes and conditions are: (a) the supremacy of generating the aspiration, (b) the supremacy of seeking rebirth, (c) the supremacy of the original vows, (d) the supremacy of merit, and (e) the supremacy of awe-inspiring power.

a) The supremacy of generating the aspiration: Those who attain rebirth in the lowest grade possess Mahayana capacities and generate the Mahayana aspiration. Even those of Hinayana capacity now generate the Mahayana aspiration; in a single thought, they surpass the Hinayana mind cultivated over immeasurable hundreds of thousands of kotis of kalpas. Therefore, their grave offenses are swiftly eliminated.

b) The supremacy of seeking rebirth: Here, with a single thought of recollecting the Buddha, one vows to be born in the Pure Land. Those others, although they practiced diligently as though extinguishing a fire upon their heads, generated the Hinayana aspiration and did not believe that Pure Lands of the Buddhas exist throughout the ten directions. Because they lacked the supreme vow to attain rebirth, their offenses were not extinguished. The practitioners of the Pure Land, however, possess the supreme vow to attain rebirth, and therefore their offenses are extinguished.

c) The supremacy of the original vows: Amitabha Buddha formerly made the great and supreme vow that if any beings who had committed grave offenses recollected his name, their karmic obstructions would be eliminated and he would receive and guide them to rebirth in the Pure Land. Although beings now have committed grave offenses, their roots of goodness from past lives have matured; therefore, with a single thought of recollecting the Buddha, they can immediately attain rebirth.

d) The 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 during 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 by diligently cultivating such contemplative practices as the five methods for stilling the mind and the four foundations of mindfulness.

e) The excellence of awe-inspiring virtue: The Mahayana Sutra of the Identity of the Buddhas states: “The Buddhas have ten stages. Amitabha Buddha occupies the first stage and possesses extraordinary meritorious power. He can therefore use his power to bless and sustain practitioners mindful of the Buddha, ensuring that they will attain rebirth there. This is not the same as with the other Buddhas.”

Notes:

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

^[2] The gate of allowance: permitting and pardoning; the gate of restraint (or gate of prohibition): not permitting and strictly forbidding.

^[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 perverse capacities and can use evil to extinguish good; they are not equal to sentient beings of the second period.

^[4] According to the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life, those of the upper level of the lowest grade, through mindfulness of the Buddha, extinguish grave offenses accumulated during five billion kalpas of birth and death; those of the middle level of the lowest grade, by hearing of the merits of the sutras and so forth, extinguish grave offenses accumulated during eight billion kalpas of birth and death; while those of the lowest level of the lowest grade, through mindfulness of the Buddha, with every thought extinguish grave offenses accumulated during eight billion kalpas of birth and death.

Now, if the argument of the Three Stages Teaching were correct, there would be no distinction among the three levels of the lowest grade, and consequently no distinction in the extinguishing of offenses. (Translator)

^[5] For sentient beings of the second period, the Buddha taught the Sutra of the Contemplation of the Buddha of Infinite Life, enabling them to rely upon its teachings in their practice and all attain rebirth in the Pure Land. Yet he did not teach, for sentient beings of the third period, a single sutra of the universal Dharma that the Buddhas manifested their broad, long tongues to attest; moreover, the bhikshu Dharmakara did not make vows for sentient beings of the third period.

Sentient beings of the third period within the three realms who do not encounter the Six Collections of the Three Stages will be unable to attain rebirth. Even if they read and recite the scriptures, unless these constitute the universal teaching given by the bodhisattva of the four reliances (Chan Master Xinxing), they must still continue to wander through the Saha world. It should therefore be understood that the Buddha could have taught a separate sutra 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 a truly regrettable matter.

^[6] The practice of reciting a single name is intended for good people seeking rebirth.

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