Chinese
卍新续藏第 22 册 No. 0426 阿弥陀经疏钞问辩 No. 426 阿弥陀经疏钞问辩 疏钞既出。有不惬者。致辞诘难。其可从者。忻然从之。不可从者。一一辩正。太无紧要。则置弗录。研几析理。不得不然。非曰尚争。是名法喜。 问。念佛之心。无杂无间。即精进度。何故乃云不退堕耶。 答。将谓精进乃能不退堕。非精进即是不退堕耶。辩此有二。一者。亦可即是不退。何以故。虽常言精不杂。进不退。然此二字。总之成就进义。古云精进度懈怠是也。进与退对。故精进即不退。二者。此重念佛普摄诸度。不重训诂精进二字。况既云精进乃能不退。今念佛之人。永不退堕。则念佛即成精进。不必更求精进矣。如所问。乃是精进念佛。非念佛即精进。 问。华严八地。圆教初住。皆无生忍。天台云。圆教之机。一生有登十地者。华严善财。法华龙女。禅宗诸祖。即其人也。何故雷同。皆难造入。 答。八地始名真得无生。是华严宗语。据华严。则初地以去。尚未云真得。况初住耶。岂不是圣且难之。只叹其难得。不说定无人得也。彼一生十地者。谁敢抑之不令造入耶。又禅宗诸祖。大有差等。谈何容易。 问。若以五法对三自性者。应 现代汉语译本 《阿弥陀经疏钞问辩》 疏钞刊行之后，有人觉得不满意，于是提出质疑和诘难。其中合理的，就欣然接受；不合理的，就一一辩驳匡正。如果无关紧要，就不予收录。研究事理，不得不这样做，并非为了争论，而是为了法喜。 问：念佛之心，没有夹杂，没有间断，就是精进的程度。为什么还说是不退堕呢？ 答：你认为精进才能不退堕，难道精进就不是不退堕吗？对此辩解有二：一是，也可以说精进就是不退。为什么呢？虽然常说精不杂，进不退，但这两个字，总的来说成就了进的意义。古人说精进度懈怠就是这个意思。进与退相对，所以精进就是不退。二是，这里侧重念佛普摄一切度，不侧重训释精进二字。况且既然说精进才能不退，现在念佛之人，永远不退堕，那么念佛就成了精进，不必再另外寻求精进了。如你所问，乃是精进地念佛，不是念佛就是精进。 问：华严宗的八地菩萨，圆教的初住菩萨，都证得了无生忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti，对事物不生不灭的真理的证悟）。天台宗说，圆教的根机，一生之中有能登上十地（dasabhumi，菩萨修行的十个阶段）的人。华严经中的善财童子（Sudhana），法华经中的龙女（Naga-kanya），禅宗的各位祖师，就是这样的人。为什么都说很难达到呢？ 答：八地菩萨才开始真正获得无生忍，这是华严宗的说法。按照华严宗的观点，初地菩萨乃至七地菩萨，还不能说是真正获得。更何况是初住菩萨呢？难道不是圣人也觉得难吗？只是感叹其难得，不是说一定没有人能达到。那些一生登上十地的人，谁又敢阻止他们不让他们达到呢？而且禅宗的各位祖师，境界差别很大，谈何容易。 问：如果用五法（五种认知过程）来对应三自性（三种存在的模式），那么……
English
English version 《Amitabha Sutra Commentary: Questions and Answers》 After the publication of the commentary, some were dissatisfied and raised questions and challenges. Those that were reasonable were gladly accepted; those that were unreasonable were refuted and corrected one by one. If it was not essential, it would not be included. Studying principles, one must do this, not for the sake of argument, but for the joy of Dharma. Question: If the mind of mindfulness of Buddha (Buddha-anusmrti) is without mixture and without interruption, that is the degree of diligence. Why is it said to be non-regression? Answer: Do you think that diligence is the only way to achieve non-regression? Is diligence not non-regression? There are two arguments for this: First, it can also be said that diligence is non-regression. Why? Although it is often said that 'diligence is not mixed' and 'progress is not regression,' these two words, in general, accomplish the meaning of progress. The ancients said that 'diligence, progress, and laziness' is what it means. Progress is the opposite of regression, so diligence is non-regression. Second, this emphasizes that mindfulness of Buddha universally encompasses all perfections (paramita), and does not emphasize the interpretation of the words 'diligence' and 'progress.' Moreover, since it is said that diligence is the only way to achieve non-regression, now that those who are mindful of Buddha will never regress, then mindfulness of Buddha becomes diligence, and there is no need to seek diligence elsewhere. As you asked, it is diligent mindfulness of Buddha, not that mindfulness of Buddha is diligence. Question: The eighth ground (bhumi) of the Avatamsaka School, and the initial dwelling (prathama-avastha) of the Perfect Teaching, have all attained the patience with non-arising (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti, the realization of the truth that things neither arise nor perish). The Tiantai School says that the capacity of the Perfect Teaching allows some to ascend to the ten grounds (dasabhumi, the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice) in one lifetime. Sudhana in the Avatamsaka Sutra, Naga-kanya in the Lotus Sutra, and the various patriarchs of the Chan School are such people. Why is it said that they are all difficult to attain? Answer: The eighth ground is the beginning of truly attaining non-arising, which is the language of the Avatamsaka School. According to the Avatamsaka School, the first ground and beyond cannot yet be said to be truly attained. How much more so the initial dwelling? Is it not difficult even for sages? It only laments its rarity, not saying that no one can attain it. Those who ascend to the ten grounds in one lifetime, who dares to stop them from attaining it? Moreover, the various patriarchs of the Chan School have great differences in their levels, how can it be easy? Question: If the five dharmas (five cognitive processes) are used to correspond to the three self-natures (trisvabhava, three modes of existence), then... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
以名相对依他。妄想对遍计。楞伽。唯识。皆如此说。今何不然。楞伽云。彼名及相。是妄想自性生。请观生之一字。此即依他起自性。分别缘所生也。非谓名相即是妄想。乃是妄想之所生耳。如言舍利弗。鹙之所生。岂子即鹙耶。 答。谓名相等三性错配。又谓名相为妄想所生。非名相即是妄想。而引楞伽之文以证。然楞伽乃云。彼名及相。是妄想自性。则名相属遍计。又分明下个是字。而无生字。魏译唐译皆同。其分配与汝所说相反。我依古译直述。是金口所出。将非之耶。将无别得梵本。而欲更为一译耶。又言楞伽唯识皆然。却是不曾见楞伽来。可骇也。且五法入三自性。本出自楞伽。贤首。清凉。据楞伽判顿教。不据唯识也。今论顿教。正当用楞伽文。又不讲唯识论。不必杂入。嗟乎。三译文字。昭如日月。今是译人错耶。世尊错耶。吾不得而知之矣。记取当来问弥勒。 问。引大本观经证圆义。有多违妨。一者引他成己妨。他经圆意。不关此故。二者前后相违妨。今疏前后多云此经胜于大本。及十六观。乃要中之要。妙中之妙故。三者分全混同妨。今疏判此为分圆。妙宗判彼为纯圆故。四者观念混同妨。此经持名。彼观佛故。五者繁约混同妨。此经至要。彼文烦故。故知不应引彼为此证也。 现代汉语译本： 问：你认为名相是依他起性，妄想是遍计所执性。《楞伽经》、《唯识论》都是这么说的。为什么现在你却不这么认为呢？《楞伽经》说：‘彼名及相，是妄想自性生。’请注意‘生’这个字。这说明名相是依他起自性，是分别缘所生的。并不是说名相就是妄想，而是说名相是妄想所生的。就像说舍利弗是鹙鸟所生，难道儿子就是鹙鸟吗？’ 答：你认为名相等三性错配，又认为名相是妄想所生，而不是名相本身就是妄想，还引用《楞伽经》的经文来证明。然而，《楞伽经》却说：‘彼名及相，是妄想自性。’这说明名相属于遍计所执性。而且经文中明明写的是‘是’字，而没有‘生’字。魏译本和唐译本都是一样的。你所说的分配方式与我所说的相反。我依据古译本直接叙述，这是佛的金口所说，难道我会反对吗？还是说你另外得到了梵文本，想要重新翻译一遍呢？你又说《楞伽经》和《唯识论》都是这样说的，看来你是不曾见过《楞伽经》啊，真是令人惊讶。而且五法入三自性，本来就出自《楞伽经》。贤首和清凉都是根据《楞伽经》来判别顿教，而不是根据《唯识论》。现在讨论顿教，正应该使用《楞伽经》的经文，而且现在又不讲解《唯识论》，所以不必混杂进来。唉，三个译本的文字，明明白白如同日月。现在是译者错了呢？还是世尊错了呢？我不得而知啊。记住，将来去问弥勒菩萨吧。 问：引用《大本观经》（《无量寿经》）来证明圆顿教义，有很多不妥之处。一是‘引他成己’的妨碍，因为其他经典的圆顿教义与此无关。二是前后矛盾的妨碍，因为你的疏钞前后多次说这部经胜过《大本》（《无量寿经》）以及十六观，是‘要中之要，妙中之妙’。三是‘分圆’与‘纯圆’混同的妨碍，因为你的疏钞判这部经为‘分圆’，而妙宗大师判《大本》（《无量寿经》）为‘纯圆’。四是念佛方法混同的妨碍，这部经是持名念佛，而《大本》（《无量寿经》）是观佛。五是繁简混同的妨碍，这部经至简至要，而《大本》（《无量寿经》）的经文繁琐。所以，不应该引用《大本》（《无量寿经》）来为此经作证。
English
English version: Question: 'You believe that names and forms (名相) [name and form] are dependent origination (依他起性) [dependent nature], and that false discriminations (妄想) [delusion] are completely conceptualized nature (遍计所执性) [pervaded and grasped nature]. The *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* (楞伽经) [Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra] and *Vijñānavāda* (唯识论) [Consciousness-only] both say this. Why do you not think so now? The *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* says: ‘Those names and forms are born from the nature of false discriminations.’ Please pay attention to the word ‘born.’ This shows that names and forms are dependent origination, born from discriminative conditions. It is not saying that names and forms are false discriminations, but that names and forms are born from false discriminations. Just like saying that Śāriputra (舍利弗) [Śāriputra] was born from a heron (鹙), does that mean the son is the heron?' Answer: 'You believe that the three natures (三性) [three natures] of names, forms, etc., are mismatched, and that names and forms are born from false discriminations, rather than names and forms themselves being false discriminations. You even cite the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* to prove this. However, the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* says: ‘Those names and forms are the nature of false discriminations.’ This shows that names and forms belong to completely conceptualized nature. Moreover, the text clearly uses the word ‘is’ (是), not ‘born’ (生). The Wei translation and the Tang translation are the same. Your allocation is the opposite of what I say. I directly narrate based on the ancient translations, which are the words of the Buddha. Would I oppose them? Or have you obtained another Sanskrit version and want to retranslate it? You also say that the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* and *Vijñānavāda* both say this, but it seems you have never seen the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra*. This is astonishing. Furthermore, the entry of the five dharmas (五法) [five dharmas] into the three natures originally comes from the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra*. Xianshou (贤首) [Xianshou] and Qingliang (清凉) [Qingliang] both determine the sudden teaching (顿教) [sudden teaching] based on the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra*, not based on *Vijñānavāda*. Now that we are discussing the sudden teaching, we should use the text of the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra*. Moreover, we are not explaining *Vijñānavāda* now, so there is no need to mix it in. Alas, the words of the three translations are as clear as the sun and moon. Is it the translator who is wrong? Or is it the Buddha who is wrong? I do not know. Remember to ask Maitreya (弥勒) [Maitreya] in the future.' Question: 'Citing the *Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* (大本观经) [Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra] to prove the perfect and sudden teaching (圆义) [perfect meaning] has many drawbacks. First, there is the hindrance of ‘using others to establish oneself,’ because the perfect and sudden teachings of other sutras are unrelated to this. Second, there is the hindrance of contradicting oneself, because your commentary repeatedly says that this sutra is superior to the *Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* and the Sixteen Contemplations (十六观) [Sixteen Contemplations], being the ‘most essential of the essentials, the most wonderful of the wonderful.’ Third, there is the hindrance of confusing the ‘partial perfect’ (分圆) [partial perfect] with the ‘pure perfect’ (纯圆) [pure perfect], because your commentary judges this sutra to be ‘partial perfect,’ while Master Miaozong (妙宗) [Miaozong] judges the *Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* to be ‘pure perfect.’ Fourth, there is the hindrance of confusing the methods of mindfulness of Buddha (念佛) [Buddha-Recitation], this sutra is the mindfulness of Buddha by reciting the name (持名) [name-recitation], while the *Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* is the contemplation of Buddha (观佛) [Buddha-contemplation]. Fifth, there is the hindrance of confusing the concise with the verbose, this sutra is extremely concise and essential, while the text of the *Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* is verbose. Therefore, one should not cite the *Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* to prove this sutra.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
答。初通引他成己妨。于中复二。一通大本。曰。二经一体。不名己他。良以无量寿经。五正译。一参会。其本有六。皆号大本。而今经乃名小本。是同为一经。但言有多寡耳。何得判为己他。如所引大本。或以一宝严树。或以杂宝严树。则今经虽无此文。而其云七重行树。实以四字摄纯严互严之义也。又所引大本。无量宝华。出无量宝光。则今经虽无此文。而其云青黄赤白。实以四种摄无量华光之义也。故疏钞屡言经中具有此义。但文省耳。正谓此也。是知大本当引。固不待论。二通观经。曰。观经稍疏。亦非异体。良以于文或无。亦于义实有。如所引观经。佛既现六十万亿广大之身。而又现丈六小身。则今经虽无此文。而寿无量。光无量。即广大身故。与诸圣众现在其前。即或现大身或现小身故。例而推之。观经有凫雁鸳鸯。岂今经之极乐。只白鹤孔雀等耶。观经有五百亿楼阁。岂今经之极乐。只七重楼阁耶。观经有观音势至。岂今经之极乐。只弥陀一佛。而缺二侍耶。又反而论之。今经有七重栏楯。观经无此语。岂彼之极乐。只行树无栏楯耶。今经有菩萨众无量无边。观经无此语。岂彼之极乐。只观音势至二菩萨耶。如是参合。故云文互见。而义必周也。则大本原同一体。观经亦复极亲。引以为证。非引 现代汉语译本： 答：最初认为引用其他经典是为了成就自己的观点，这是一种妨碍。其中又分为两种情况。一是通达大本（指《无量寿经》的原本）。说：两部经本为一体，不应分己分他。因为《无量寿经》有五种正式译本，一种参考会集本，其原本有六种，都称为大本。而现在的经本被称为小本，这只是同一部经的不同版本，只是文字有多有少而已，怎么能判断为己方或他方呢？比如所引用的大本，有的说用一宝严饰的树，有的说用杂宝严饰的树，那么现在的经本虽然没有这段文字，但其中说的‘七重行树’，实际上是用四个字概括了纯宝严饰和互相严饰的含义。又如所引用的大本，无量的宝华，发出无量的宝光，那么现在的经本虽然没有这段文字，但其中说的青、黄、赤、白，实际上是用四种颜色概括了无量华光的含义。所以疏钞屡次说经中具有此义，只是文字简略而已，正是说的这个意思。由此可知大本本来就应该引用，这本来就不需要讨论。二是通达《观经》（《观无量寿经》）。说：《观经》稍有疏略，也不是不同的体系。因为有的文字上没有，但在意义上实际是有的。比如所引用的《观经》，佛既现六十万亿广大之身，而又现丈六小身，那么现在的经本虽然没有这段文字，但寿无量、光无量，就是广大身的意思，与诸圣众现在其前，就是或者现大身或者现小身的意思。以此类推，《观经》有凫、雁、鸳鸯，难道现在的经本所说的极乐世界，只有白鹤、孔雀等吗？《观经》有五百亿楼阁，难道现在的经本所说的极乐世界，只有七重楼阁吗？《观经》有观音、势至，难道现在的经本所说的极乐世界，只有弥陀一佛，而缺少两位侍者吗？又反过来说，现在的经本有七重栏楯，而《观经》没有这句话，难道彼方的极乐世界，只有行树而没有栏楯吗？现在的经本有菩萨众无量无边，而《观经》没有这句话，难道彼方的极乐世界，只有观音、势至二位菩萨吗？像这样互相参照，所以说文字上互相显现，而意义上必定是周全的。那么大本原本就是同一体，观经也极其亲近，引用它们作为证据，不是引用他经。