English
This can easily confuse and mislead sentient beings, causing them to lose their aspiration to be reborn in the Western Pure Land, which is a great harm. I cannot remain silent. In his first article, he divides the Western Pure Land into three levels: the first is the Western Pure Land where Bodhisattvas such as Manjushri, Samantabhadra, Ashvaghosa, and Nagarjuna are born; the second is the Western Pure Land where teachers such as Yuan Gong (Master Huiyuan) and Yongming (Yanshou), and virtuous people such as Su Zizhan (Su Shi) and Yang Cigon (Yang Jie) are born; the third is the Western Pure Land where ordinary people, evil people, and animals are born. This statement seems reasonable, but the nine grades of rebirth are clearly stated in the scriptures, as bright as the sun and moon in the sky. Why do we need you to divide them into three levels? If a king establishes a system, all nations admire and follow it. Can a commoner in the mountains and fields establish another set of rules? This is his first mistake. The Buddha explained the principle of the nine grades of rebirth because the Western Pure Land originally did not have two different lands, but because sentient beings have different capacities, those who are reborn naturally achieve different grades. Bao's statement is that the Western Pure Land originally had three levels of land to wait for three levels of people, which is inconsistent with the scriptures. This is his second mistake. He also said that the rebirth of teachers such as Yongming Yanshou and virtuous people is not for their own benefit, but entirely for the benefit of others. Seeking rebirth in that country is precisely to be close to the Tathagata and to hope for supreme benefits. Let's not talk about the great Bodhisattvas for now, but just talk about virtuous people such as Su Shi and Yang Jie. Are they all Bodhisattvas who have completed their practice and specially went to the Pure Land to save sentient beings, without seeking their own benefit? The verse in the 'Practice and Vow Chapter' says: 'I personally see the immeasurable light of the Tathagata, and the Buddha gives me the prediction of Bodhi in person.' Seeking prediction, what is it if not for one's own benefit? This is his third mistake. He also said: 'Saints and ordinary people belong to the same entity, but are temporarily distinguished by superiority and inferiority due to delusion and enlightenment. Reflecting back the light, saints and ordinary people are completely different, like turning the palm of the hand.' Since it is reflecting back the light, why does it become completely different? And he says that they belong to the same entity, can that be? This is self-contradictory. This is his fourth mistake. He also said: 'Do not cling to the ego-self, wanting to be reborn in the Western Pure Land, but the Buddha repeatedly warns and exhorts sentient beings to seek rebirth in the Pure Land. Is the Buddha teaching people to cling to the ego-self?' This is his fifth mistake. As for the second and third articles, they are even more slanderous and defamatory, and his mistakes are even more serious. He said: 'Now, those who preside over the Dharma only take the Pure Land method as their business, and only take this matter as true. Then is the Pure Land method false? Is the Pure Land that the Buddha spoke of a lie? Not believing in the golden world is what the Shurangama Sutra rebukes.' Bao recites the Shurangama Sutra every day, but makes this kind of nihilistic view. This is his sixth mistake. He also said: 'Single-mindedness is not the meaning of holding the name and focusing on every thought.' If it is said that there are as many people holding the name as clouds, personally seeing" ] } ``` -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 数人。昼夜念佛。又经几位老善知识印过。后皆入魔罥。不可救㧞。夫执持名号。佛说也。是佛误此数人入魔罥耶。现见不念佛而参禅。亦有着魔者。何也。经言念佛往生者。得不退转。则必入圣流。佛许入圣流。鲍以为入魔罥。其谬七也。又云所谓一心者。乃当人本有之心。本自灵妙。本是具足。除是之外。更无别法。夫经文明说执持名号。一心不乱。何得革去上文四字而说一心。若无经文。空口高谈。如是说心亦无不可。此则金口所出真语实语。是佛差说。鲍为改正耶。法华云。一心称名观世音菩萨。又如何解。其谬八也。又曰。依此法修。必入邪道。前曰入魔罥。今曰入邪道。念佛之为害如此乎。佛何不禁人念佛。而待鲍禁也。其谬九也。又云。上古人先劝人得本。后劝往生。夫念佛往生。原是下学而上达边事。先上达。后下学。于理通乎。宁有先状元及第。位登宰辅。方乃习读六经论孟学做举业文字者乎。其谬十也。又云。若佛法止此。只消一卷弥陀经足矣。只靠此经。谁不可作人天师。谁不可称善知识。夫法华。楞严华严般若等。诸大乘经。无日不诵。无日不讲。有谁偏执弥陀一经。而扫灭诸经耶。虽然。秪恐不曾真实专靠一经耳。专靠一经得念佛三昧。称善知识。亦何忝乎。十一谬也。又云。佛刹无尽。若专教人求生一刹。其余佛刹。岂不冷静哉。宁知尽微尘众生皆生一刹。不见增多。尽微尘众生无一生彼刹者。亦不灭少。何冷何暖。何静何喧。而作儿童之见。邪僻之说。十二谬也。千经万论。赞叹西方。千圣万贤。求生彼国 ```json { "translations": [ "现代汉语译本：", "有几个人，日夜念佛，又经过几位老修行、有智慧的人印证过，后来都入了魔网，无法救拔。执持名号（专心念诵佛的名号），是佛说的，难道是佛故意让这些人入魔网吗？现在看到不念佛而参禅的人，也有着魔的。这是为什么呢？经典上说念佛往生的人，能够得到不退转（不会退回原来的境界），那么必定进入圣人的行列。佛允许他们进入圣人的行列，鲍某却认为他们进入魔网，这是他的第七个谬误。又说，所谓‘一心’，乃是人本来就有的心，本来就灵妙，本来就具足一切，除了这个之外，没有其他的方法。经典明明说要执持名号，一心不乱，为什么要把上文‘执持名号’这四个字去掉，只说‘一心’呢？如果没有经典依据，空口高谈阔论，这样说‘心’也未尝不可。但这是佛金口所出的真语实语，难道是佛说错了，要鲍某来改正吗？《法华经》说，一心称念观世音菩萨，又该如何解释呢？这是他的第八个谬误。又说，依照这种方法修行，必定进入邪道。前面说是入魔网，现在说是入邪道，念佛的危害竟然如此吗？佛为什么不禁止人们念佛，而要等到鲍某来禁止呢？这是他的第九个谬误。又说，上古的人先劝人明白根本，然后劝人往生。念佛往生，原本是从下向上学习，是边边角角的事情，先向上达到高深境界，然后再向下学习，这在道理上说得通吗？难道有先考中状元，位登宰辅，然后才学习读六经论孟，学习做科举文章的吗？这是他的第十个谬误。又说，如果佛法只是这样，只需要一卷《阿弥陀经》就足够了。只依靠这部经，谁不能成为人天师（人道和天道的导师），谁不能被称为善知识（有德行的老师）？《法华经》、《楞严经》、《华严经》、《般若经》等诸大乘经典，没有一天不诵读，没有一天不讲解，有谁偏执《阿弥陀经》一部经，而扫灭其他经典呢？虽然如此，只是恐怕不曾真正专心依靠一部经罢了。专心依靠一部经，得到念佛三昧（通过念佛进入的禅定状态），被称为善知识，又有什么可惭愧的呢？这是第十一个谬误。又说，佛刹（佛的国土）无边无尽，如果只教人求生一个佛刹，其余的佛刹，岂不是要冷清了吗？难道知道尽如微尘般多的众生都生到一个佛刹，也不见增多；尽如微尘般多的众生没有一个生到那个佛刹，也不见减少。哪里有冷清，哪里有热闹，哪里有安静，哪里有喧嚣？而作出像小孩子一样的见解，邪僻的说法，这是第十二个谬误。千经万论，赞叹西方极乐世界，千圣万贤，求生那个国土。", "English version:", "Several people recited the Buddha's name day and night, and were endorsed by several senior virtuous advisors, but later they all fell into the devil's snare, and could not be rescued. Holding the name (reciting the Buddha's name wholeheartedly) is what the Buddha said. Is it that the Buddha deliberately misled these people into the devil's snare? Now we see that those who practice Chan meditation without reciting the Buddha's name also become possessed by devils. Why is this? The scriptures say that those who recite the Buddha's name and are reborn in the Pure Land will attain non-retrogression (not regress to the original state), then they will surely enter the ranks of the saints. The Buddha allows them to enter the ranks of the saints, but Bao thinks they enter the devil's snare, which is his seventh fallacy. He also said that the so-called 'one mind' is the mind that people originally have, which is originally spiritual and wonderful, and originally complete. Apart from this, there is no other method. The scriptures clearly say to hold the name and be single-minded and undisturbed. Why should we remove the four words 'hold the name' from the above and only say 'one mind'? If there is no scriptural basis, empty talk is not impossible. But these are the true and real words spoken by the Buddha's golden mouth. Did the Buddha say something wrong, and Bao is correcting it? The Lotus Sutra says, 'Single-mindedly reciting the name of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva,' how should this be explained? This is his eighth fallacy. He also said, 'If you practice according to this method, you will surely enter the evil path.' Earlier he said that they entered the devil's snare, now he says that they entered the evil path. Is the harm of reciting the Buddha's name so great? Why doesn't the Buddha forbid people from reciting the Buddha's name, and wait for Bao to forbid it? This is his ninth fallacy. He also said, 'In ancient times, people first advised people to understand the root, and then advised them to be reborn in the Pure Land.' Reciting the Buddha's name and being reborn in the Pure Land is originally learning from the bottom up, a side issue. Is it reasonable to reach a profound state first, and then learn from the bottom up? Is there anyone who first passed the imperial examination at the top rank and became a high-ranking official, and then learned to read the Six Classics and the Analects of Confucius, and learned to write examination essays? This is his tenth fallacy. He also said, 'If the Buddha's teachings are only like this, then only one volume of the Amitabha Sutra is enough. Relying only on this sutra, who cannot become a teacher of humans and devas (teachers of the human and heavenly realms), who cannot be called a virtuous advisor?' The Lotus Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Prajna Sutra, and other major Mahayana sutras are recited and explained every day. Who would be biased towards one Amitabha Sutra and sweep away other sutras? Although this is the case, I am afraid that they have never truly relied on one sutra wholeheartedly. If you rely on one sutra wholeheartedly and attain the Samadhi of Buddha Recitation (the state of meditation entered through reciting the Buddha's name), what is there to be ashamed of in being called a virtuous advisor? This is the eleventh fallacy. He also said, 'Buddha lands (Buddha's realms) are endless. If you only teach people to seek rebirth in one Buddha land, wouldn't the other Buddha lands be deserted?' How do you know that all sentient beings as numerous as dust particles are born in one Buddha land, and it does not appear to increase; and that none of the sentient beings as numerous as dust particles are born in that Buddha land, and it does not appear to decrease. Where is there desertedness, where is there liveliness, where is there quietness, where is there noise? And to make childish views and heretical statements, this is the twelfth fallacy. Thousands of sutras and treatises praise the Western Pure Land, and thousands of saints and sages seek rebirth in that land.