大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊24Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 24
淨佛國土品Purifying the Buddha-land
全文五層 →Full five layers →總說
〈淨佛國土品〉承前品而來，接的正是前品並提而未及展開的那一半。前品說菩薩道之照明與具足，其中須菩提已問過何等是菩薩道而能成就眾生、淨佛國土，所答則止於六波羅蜜乃至十八不共法之為道，其下所廣說者唯成就眾生一邊。本品開卷，須菩提不再發言，只作是念：「何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴？」而佛「知須菩提心所念」，仍以言答。一品之起處即是眼目：問者無言，答者有言。論主隨即替這一默一語立其所以——問者之默，是因「有菩薩及諸天深入禪定，不好語言而欲得法利，是故須菩提不發言而心念」；答者之言，是因「佛身色，視無厭足；如色無厭，聲亦如是，雖語而不妨細禪定行」，且佛「安立寂滅相」而「隨所問、所念而答」，故「不與須菩提同」。品名之所指，要到卷中須菩提再問「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土？」才正式立定，而佛答只是一句最平實的話：「有菩薩從初發意已來，自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業，亦淨他人身、口、意麁業。」淨土不從國土說起，從自身三業說起——全品之骨即在此立。全品二經二論，跨卷九十二、九十三兩卷：之上一經一論，先窮菩薩道之無所住，而後落到麁業之目；之下一經一論，卷首帶「之餘」續題，轉入願行莊嚴與淨土之相，終以「是國土中眾生，畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」收筆。
之上一分，由道入麁。經①先答所問之道：「六波羅蜜是菩薩摩訶薩道」，三十七助道法、十八空、八背捨、九次第定、佛十力乃至十八不共法皆是道，而末後一句最寬——「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」；何以須如此寬？佛自立其據：「無有法菩薩所不應學者」，因為「菩薩不學一切法，不能得一切種智」。須菩提立難於此：既然一切法空，說此說彼、說世間出世間，豈不是「將無世尊無戲論中作戲論耶」？佛不避此難，反把空推到底而後答：「一切法實空」，且正因實空，菩薩乃能得無上菩提——「若一切法不空者，菩薩摩訶薩不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」；所以說分別者，只因「今眾生實不知一切法空」。其下教菩薩思惟之法：「一切諸法中定性不可得，但從和合因緣起法故有名字諸法」，而思惟至極處是「空不著空，空亦不可得，何況空中有著」；如是乃能「不著一切法而學一切法」。既學而不著，觀眾生時所見便與常情相反——眾生所行在虛妄不實中，菩薩反生歡喜：「是眾生著不實虛妄法，易度耳！」於是以方便教化，教布施而即斷其恃：「汝諸眾生！當行布施，可得饒財，亦莫恃布施果報而自高」，乃至教人得四果辟支佛道佛道而仍說「莫念有是法」。這一路教化之相，經文自名之曰「行菩薩道而無所著」。無所著推到行門上，便是一串「不住」：六波羅蜜行而「亦不住是中」，四禪、四無量、四無色定、八背捨、九次第定皆然，乃至得四沙門果、得辟支佛道亦「不住是中」。須菩提問其故，佛給兩因：「一者、諸道果性空，無住處，亦無所用法，亦無住者；二者、不以少事為足」——第二因說得極親切，不是不得果，是得而不停：「我不應不得須陀洹果，我必應當得須陀洹果，我但不應是中住」，理由只一句：「我從初發意已來，更無餘心，一心向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」住是一心者，「所作身、口、意業皆應阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，於是「能生菩提道」。生字既出，須菩提又難：「若一切諸法不生，云何菩薩摩訶薩能生菩提道？」佛先可其難——「一切法無生」；又立其常——「有佛、無佛，是諸法法相常住」；而道之所以仍須生，只為眾生不知此法相，故「菩薩摩訶薩為眾生故生菩提道，用是道拔出眾生生死」。其下四番逼問最緊：用生道得菩提否，答「不也」；用不生道，答「不也」；用不生非不生道，答「不也」；須菩提遂直問「云何當得菩提」，佛乃落下全品最著名的一句：「非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提。須菩提！菩提即是道，道即是菩提。」須菩提即以此反難：若果如此，未作佛之菩薩應當已得菩提，則諸佛之三十二相、十力、四無所畏、十八不共法又何以說？佛不正答而反問：「佛得菩提不？」須菩提自答「佛不得菩提」，因「佛即是菩提，菩提即是佛」。佛乃補其所差——菩薩須「具足住如金剛三昧，用一念相應慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是時名為佛，一切法中得自在」。道相菩提相既明，須菩提方問「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」，佛答以自淨他淨三麁業；再問何者是麁業，佛乃逐目而說：不善業「若殺生乃至邪見」是麁；「慳貪心、破戒心、瞋心、懈怠心、亂心、愚癡心」是意麁業；「戒不淨」是身口麁業；遠離四念處乃至三解脫門是麁業；而末一目最出人意表——「菩薩摩訶薩貪須陀洹果，乃至貪阿羅漢果證、辟支佛道，是名菩薩摩訶薩麁業」。
論①逐段釋其所以，而釋得最細者正在「麁」之一字。先釋起處之默問與言答，次釋道之三種與一種：「六波羅蜜是菩薩初發心道」，四禪八背捨九次第定及三十七品「但求涅槃」，十八空佛十力等「但為求佛道」，此三種「皆是生身菩薩所行」，所以者何——「分別諸法故」；而「一切法皆是菩薩道」一句別屬一層，「是法性生身菩薩所行，不見諸法有好惡，安立諸法平等相故」。學一切法之實義亦即點出：「學一切法者，用一切種門，思惟、籌量、修觀、通達。」戲論之相，論主開列得極具體：「此東、彼西，是上、是下，是常、是無常，是實、是虛，是世間、是出世間，乃至是二乘法、是佛法。」何以不得說法有定實？論主逆推一串：「若法實定有不空者，即是無生無滅，無生無滅故無四諦，無四諦故無佛、法、僧寶」，三寶既壞，則定有之說自破。菩薩思惟之語，論主替他說成一段自白：「我從無始世來，著是虛誑法，於六道中厭受苦惱。我今是三世十方佛子，般若是我母，今不應復隨逐虛誑法。」照明道相之後，其心所安亦只一句——「我但斷著心，道自然至。」眾生易度一節，論主以聚土為喻：小兒「聚土為穀，以草木為鳥獸，而生愛著」，有奪之者則瞋恚啼哭，而其父知「此子今雖愛著，此事易離耳，小大自休」，所以者何——「此物非真故」；反過來說，「若眾生所著之物定實有者，雖得信等五根，著之轉深，亦不能離」，正因諸法虛誑，得無漏智慧眼時便能遠離，而其遠離之狀是「大自慚愧」——「譬如狂病，所作非法，醒悟之後，羞慚無顏」。教化而不令人著法，論主又給一喻：諸法雖清淨大有所益，仍是有為從緣，「汝等若著是法，能生苦惱」，「譬如熱金丸，雖是寶物，捉則燒手」。不住之二因，論主歸得更簡：「一者、菩薩深入空，不見諸法性，故不住；二者、不以小事為足，故不住。」四句不得菩提一節，其釋最須細讀：生道所以不得，因觀有為生滅相「謂是實」；不生法「即是無為，無作法故，亦不可以得菩提」；至於非生非不生，過在分別——「取相生著故，故言有過」，而一轉即是出路：「若能不著，則是菩提道。」菩提與道之所以是一，論主立其體：「菩提名諸法實相，是諸佛所得究竟實相，無有變異。一切法入菩提中，皆寂滅相；如一切水入大海，同為一味。」若二者果異，「行道不應到菩提」，然諸法因果本「不一不異」。須菩提之難，論主點明其為誰而發——「須菩提為新學菩薩故，分別難佛」；佛之反問，答在和合：「菩提不離佛、佛不離菩提；二法和合故，是佛、是菩提。」更設一問：佛是眾生、菩提是法，何得言一？答曰先有相好功德莊嚴而「不名為佛；得菩提故，名之為佛」，且「微妙清淨五眾和合假名為佛」，而「菩提即是五眾實相」，故不異者實不異，「但凡夫心中分別有異」。又自設一問：既言不一不異，經中何以逕說即是？答語極見分寸——「一、異雖俱不實而多用一」，如常與無常同是二邊而多用無常，因其能破顛倒；此處亦然，「若以觀種種別異法故多生著心；若觀諸法一相——若無常、苦、空等，是時煩惱不生」；而末後一句把門也關上：「於實義中，一亦不用；若著一，即復是患。」三名之別亦一句了當：「得者是佛，法是菩提，求菩提者是菩薩。」其下轉入淨土。須菩提何以此時發問，論主自答：「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事」，且「諸阿羅漢、辟支佛無有力知淨佛國事，是故問」。何等是淨佛土？論主先界其量：「佛土者，百億日月、百億須彌山、百億四天王等諸天，是名三千大千世界。如是等無量無邊三千大千世界，名為一佛土。」次說佛於其中所作——晝夜六時以佛眼遍觀「誰可種善根？誰善根成就應增長？誰善根成就應得度」；而莊嚴之所以，只為易度——「是故諸菩薩莊嚴佛土，為令眾生易度故」。何以初發意即說淨三業？答曰三業清淨本非專為淨土，「一切菩薩道皆淨」，而其所以能及於國土者，在「非但一人，生國土中者皆共作因緣」——內法與外法互為因緣，故「多惡口業故，地生荊棘；諂誑曲心故，地則高下不平；慳貪多故，則水旱不調、地生沙礫」，反之則地平多寶，「如彌勒佛出時，人皆行十善故，地多珍寶」。何以獨說三業而不說布施等？答在思業為首：「得是思業已，起身、口、意業。布施、禪定等，以思為首；譬如縫衣，以針為導」，而三業一攝，意業盡攝心心數法、身口盡攝色法；一句喻收之——「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」。麁業之目既易知，須菩提何以仍問？答曰「麁、細不定故」：布施於求道人為麁而於白衣為細，「如小乘中不善業為麁，善業為細；摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」——一句話把此品之麁字提到摩訶衍之高處，其下諸目遂皆可解。十不善道之外何以別說六蔽？答曰「是六法不入十不善道，十不善道皆是惱眾生法；是六法不但為惱眾生」，如慳但自惜財而未惱眾生。六度中既說戒，何以復說戒不淨？答曰「破戒法是殺生等麁罪。戒不淨是微細罪，不惱眾生；如飲酒等，不入十不善道」，其下並列不憶念戒、迴向天福、邪見持戒諸相。遠離道品何以名麁？因此中「心皆觀實法，隨涅槃、不隨世間」，一出則散——「譬如蛇行本性好曲，若入竹筒則直，出筒還曲」。而貪四果之所以為麁，論主判得最重：本願是為眾生作佛，「今為自身而欲取證，是為欺佛，亦負眾生」，「譬如人請客，欲設飲食而竟不與，是則妄語負客」。
之下一分，由麁入願、由願入果。經②先把麁業再推一層：取色受想行識相、取六根六塵相、男女相、三界相、善不善相、有為無為相，「是名菩薩麁業」；遠離如是麁業相而後行布施持戒乃至智慧，且「持是福德與一切眾生共之，迴向淨佛國土故」。其下是一串願：以三千大千國土滿中珍寶施與三尊而願「令我國土皆以七寶成」；以天妓樂樂佛及塔而願「願我國土中常聞天樂」；以天香供養而願國中常有天香；以百味食施佛及僧而願「令我國土中眾生皆得百味食」；以天香細滑施而願眾生受天香細滑；以隨意五欲施佛及僧并一切眾生而願「令我國土中弟子及一切眾生皆得隨意五欲」，乃至「我得佛時，是國土中如天五欲，應心而至」。願之末一番轉向定慧：「我當自入初禪，亦教一切眾生入初禪」，四禪、四無量乃至三十七助道法皆如是，而成佛之時「令一切眾生不遠離四禪，乃至不遠離三十七品助道法」。行滿願足，則「是菩薩自成就一切善法，亦成就一切眾生善法」，乃至「是菩薩受身端正，所化眾生亦得端正。所以者何？福德因緣厚故」。其下說果：「是國土中，乃至無三惡道之名」，亦無邪見三毒二乘之名，「耳不聞有無常、苦、空之聲」，亦無諸結使煩惱之名、無分別諸果之名；而說法者不是佛之現身，是樹——「風吹七寶之樹，隨所應度而出音聲」，所出者即諸法實相之音：「有佛無佛，一切法、一切法相空，空中無有相，無相中則無作」，而聞之無時不在——「若晝、若夜，若坐、若臥、若立、若行，常聞此法」。其得菩提時，「十方國土中諸佛讚歎；眾生聞是佛名，必至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」；其說法時，聞者無有生疑而問是法非法者，所以者何——「諸法實相中，皆是法，無有非法」。反面則說薄福之人：不種善根、不隨善知識、沒在我見邊見之中，遂「非佛言佛、佛言非佛，非法言法、法言非法」，如是破法而墮惡道；而諸佛得菩提時「見此眾生往來五道，令離邪聚，立正定聚中，更不墮惡道」。末後總收：淨佛國土中眾生「無雜穢心」，於世間出世間、有漏無漏、有為無為皆無所雜，「乃至是國土中眾生，畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。
論②起處先安取相之難。有問：男女相可說虛妄，色等與善法若不取相，如何能厭色、如何能成善法？論主答以二空：「佛法中有二種空：一者、眾生空，二者、法空」，眾生空破男女等相，法空破色等虛妄相；而能觀色等善法如幻如化、不取定實相，得厭心而捨常無常等戲論，「是不名為取相」。又問：有為假名可不取，無為真實如法性實際何以亦不取？答語極簡而極嚴：「以不取相是無為法，無相名為無為法門；若取相，便是有為。」總相既畢，論主自標其次第——「上總相說，下別相說」，其下逐願而釋。滿三千大千世界珍寶從何處得、誰能受之？答曰是菩薩「是法性生身，住具足神通波羅蜜中」，寶物乃神通所作，輕細無妨，「如第三禪遍淨天，六十人坐一針頭而聽法，不相妨礙」。其下更補經文所無而義所有者數願：或變身如須彌山為燈炷而願「令我國土常有光明，不須日月燈燭」；或雨華香幡蓋瓔珞而願「令我國土眾生端正如華，身相嚴淨，無有醜陋」。伎樂供養一難最見佛意：諸佛離欲，何須音樂歌舞？答曰「諸佛雖於一切法中心無所著、於世間法盡無所須，諸佛憐愍眾生故出世，應隨供養者，令隨願得福故受」；而菩薩求好音之本意，是「欲使國土中眾生聞好音聲，其心柔軟；心柔軟故，易可受化」。百味一目，論主並錄諸家異說而不判：或言能以百種供養是名百味，或言餅種數五百而其味有百，或言百種藥草藥果作歡喜丸，或言飲食羹餅總有百味，或言飲食種種備足故稱為百味；其下自申其義：人食百味、天食百千種味，而菩薩福德果報食及神通變化食「則有無量味，能轉人心，令離欲清淨」，故「是四種食，菩薩隨因緣供養佛及僧，是故國土中自然有百味飲食」。塗香一目先釋其俗——「天竺國熱，又以身臭，故以香塗身」；設難曰「沙彌戒乃至受一日戒，尚不以香塗身，云何以香供養佛及僧」，答在所用之處：菩薩以身所貴之物隨所須而供，「或以塗地、塗壁及行坐處」。五欲一目是全論最長之難。難者引佛語為據：「此五欲，佛說如火、如坑、如瘡、如獄、如怨、如賊，能奪人善根」，又佛教弟子納衣乞食坐林樹下，菩薩何以反為眾生求五欲？論主之答分三層。其一，五欲本是福報：「天上、人中五欲是福德果報」，而貧窮薄福者不能自活則行劫盜、乃至妄語，「如是，次第作十不善，皆由貧窮故作」；故「菩薩國土眾生豐樂自恣、無所乏少，則無眾惡，但有愛、慢等軟結使」，其心柔軟利根，聞無常苦空即便得道——「譬如垢膩之衣，則以灰泥淹之，經宿以水浣之，一時都去」；所以其施五欲之意，不在令著，「但欲令一時捨故與之」。其二，納衣乞食之教有其所對：宿罪因緣生在惡世者染著心多，得好衣食則著心轉深，且妨廢行道；而淨佛國土眾生「無量福德成就，五欲一等故，不復貴著，亦不更求，故無所妨」。且離欲修苦行則增長瞋恚，憶念五欲則生煩惱，故佛言「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道」。其三，毘尼中有比丘自言「雖受五欲而不妨道」而佛呵擯之，此又何說？論主辨之甚明：佛所說白衣弟子受五欲而得初二果之事，「不知是事佛為誰說。佛為白衣故說，此比丘持著出家法中說」；出家者自誓不犯而犯，是自誓一罪、故違一罪；故「淨佛國土有二種眾生：若出家，若在家」，在家受五欲無罪亦無所妨，出家者隨佛所聽亦無過咎；而小乘所對者是「薄福重罪之人，心多悔故」，至於「淨佛土者，世世習行六波羅蜜、三解脫門，雖得五欲，亦不染著」。願行既釋，論主乃順經收之：菩薩作無量阿僧祇願而具足之，「一切善法成就故，得身端正，見者無厭」。其下釋果。何以淨土無三惡道——諸佛以大悲為苦惱眾生出世，若無三惡道則所憫者誰？論主先答一層：「三惡道眾生不可度，但可令種善根而已」，故佛號天人師；再答一層：「憐愍一切眾生，平等無異；此中說清淨業因緣，是國土中無三惡道」，且佛土非一——「佛有清淨國土、有雜國土。雜國土中則具有五道」。無三毒邪見何以仍須佛出世？此處並列二說而不判：或言「是中大福德因緣故，邪見、三毒不發故言無」，或言「是中諸菩薩皆得無生法忍，常修六波羅蜜等諸功德，常遊十方度脫眾生」，其教化之功轉大。無二乘之名一目，難在餘佛何以有三乘，答曰「佛出五濁惡世，於一道分為三乘」；更難以不生五濁之諸佛國土仍有三乘，答在本願——初發心時見諸佛以三乘度眾生，遂自發願「我亦當以三乘度眾生」。無無常苦空之名，其理如藥：「以眾生深著常、樂等顛倒故，為說無常等苦法。是中無常、樂等倒故，不須無常、苦；若無病，則不須藥。」樹出法音一節，先說其便——「寶樹遍滿國土故，眾生生便聞法，餘心不生，但生法心」；而何以不逕現無量身說法？論主之答最耐尋味：「眾生甚多，若佛處處現身眾生不信，謂為幻化，心不敬重」；又眾生受法之情各異——「有眾生從人聞法，心不開悟；若從畜生聞法，則便信受」，而更有謂畜生亦有欺誑者，「以樹木無心而有音聲，則皆信受」；末以一句判餘土與此土之別：「餘國土以神通力、口力種種變化，此中常自然音聲。」聞名畢定一節亦設兩難：餘佛勤苦說法而眾生尚不得道，何以但聞佛名便得？答曰餘處說法非不得益，「若聞是佛名，畢至阿鞞跋致，不言今得」；一切佛聞名皆當作佛，何以獨說淨國佛？答在敬信之深淺——聞餘佛名者多謂其「受生與人無異，但有一切智得道為異」，心不敬重故所種不深；而淨國之佛「是法性身，佛身無量無邊，光明、說法音聲遍滿十方國土」，一一毛孔常出無量諸佛，而「隨應度眾生見佛優劣，根本真佛無有分別大小之異」，如是聞見而深信敬重，所種善根「云何不畢定作佛」。無疑一節，論主直引經文自說之因緣：「有人薄福不種善根、不得善知識故生疑」，而其病之極處是順己與否——「諸佛說畢竟空，不順其意，便言非佛」。末後一問收全品：上說聞名畢定至佛，此說於諸法無礙必得作佛，二者何別？答曰此中眾生「常見佛、常聞法、深種善根、多集佛法故，疾得作佛；聞名者，雖俱畢竟定而小不如」——同是畢定，而遲疾有分。論主末句只淡淡一收：「如是等，名為淨國土相」。
兩分弧之別，一言可斷：之上說能淨之人，之下說所淨之土。之上所窮者是一個「不」字——不住六度、不住諸果、不用生道不用不生道、不以少事為足，直至連四果之證亦判為麁；之下所鋪者是一個「願」字——願國土七寶、願常聞天樂、願有天香百味、願眾生得隨意五欲、願一切眾生不遠離四禪與道品。看似一遮一表、一奪一與，其實同出一源：正因之上把「取」之為病說到極處——連涅槃、連取善法相皆名為麁，之下之「願」才不至於落為另一重取；也正因之下把國土之相說得如此具足，之上之「不住」才不至於落為枯守。品名之立在「淨」字而不在「土」字，亦正為此：經文答淨土之問，第一句不說土而說業——自淨三麁業、亦淨他人三麁業；而論主更以一喻把內外之序點死：「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨。」土之淨，是像之淨；面不淨而求鏡中像淨，是全品所不許者。
因此，讀此品之每一段時，至少可問三層。其一，這一句所遮的是事還是取——經文列麁業至細，而其中最出人意表之二目，一是取善法相與涅槃相，一是貪四沙門果與辟支佛道；二者皆非惡事，而皆判為麁。故凡見一法現前，先問己心是取是行，不問此法好不好；論主之判準已備在一句話裡——「摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」。其二，這一願若被反讀，會成什麼——之下諸願所求者七寶、天樂、天香、百味、五欲，若只取其相，便與世間之欲無異；然經文每一願皆有其歸處：「持是福德與一切眾生共之，迴向淨佛國土故」，而論主釋其所以更直指人心——求好音是為「其心柔軟；心柔軟故，易可受化」，施五欲是「但欲令一時捨故與之」。願之為願，不在所願之物，在其迴向與其所為。其三，我今尚未有土，此品於我何用——答其實已寫在起處：淨土之行「從初發意已來」即可起手，所起者只是自淨身口意麁業，並淨他人身口意麁業；而其驗亦極平實，論主說得毫不玄遠——多惡口則地生荊棘，諂誑則地高下不平，慳貪則水旱不調。順著二經二論讀下去，終會落在論主那一句最樸素的判語上：麁與細本無定量，「麁、細不定故」；今日以為細者，明日或即是麁——淨佛國土之所以能「從初發意已來」起修而至於一土之成，正因這一把尺是活的，一路提得上去。
依原論次序讀下去
Overview
"Purifying the Buddha-land" follows on from the preceding chapter, and takes up precisely the half that the preceding chapter named alongside the other but did not go on to unfold. The preceding chapter spoke of the illumination and the completeness of the bodhisattva path; within it Subhūti had already asked what the bodhisattva path is by which one can bring beings to accomplishment and purify buddha-lands, yet the answer stopped at the six perfections and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas being the path, and what was set out at length below it was only the one side of bringing beings to accomplishment. As this chapter opens, Subhūti no longer speaks aloud; he only has this thought: 「何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴？」 tr. "What is the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva? Abiding in this path, can the bodhisattva take on such a great adornment?" And the Buddha 「知須菩提心所念」 tr. "knew what Subhūti was thinking in his mind", and still answered him in words. Where the chapter rises is its very eye: the one who asks is without words, the one who answers has words. The treatise-author at once sets up the reason for this one silence and this one speech—the asker's silence is because 「有菩薩及諸天深入禪定，不好語言而欲得法利，是故須菩提不發言而心念」 tr. "there were bodhisattvas and gods who had entered deeply into meditative concentration, who did not like words and yet wished to obtain the benefit of the Dharma; therefore Subhūti did not speak aloud but thought it in his mind"; the answerer's speech is because 「佛身色，視無厭足；如色無厭，聲亦如是，雖語而不妨細禪定行」 tr. "the Buddha's bodily form one looks at without ever being satisfied; just as his form does not make people weary, his voice is likewise: though he speaks, it does not hinder the subtle practice of meditative concentration", and moreover the Buddha 「安立寂滅相」 tr. "is established in the mark of quiescence" and 「隨所問、所念而答」 tr. "answers according to what is asked and what is thought", and so he is 「不與須菩提同」 tr. "not the same as Subhūti". What the chapter's name points to is formally fixed only in the middle of the fascicle, when Subhūti asks again, 「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土？」 tr. "How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva purify buddha-lands?", and the Buddha's answer is only the plainest of sentences: 「有菩薩從初發意已來，自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業，亦淨他人身、口、意麁業。」 tr. "There are bodhisattvas who, from their first arousing of intent until now, themselves remove the coarse deeds of body, remove the coarse deeds of speech, remove the coarse deeds of mind, and also purify the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others." The pure land is not spoken of starting from the land; it is spoken of starting from the three kinds of deeds of one's own self—the bones of the whole chapter are set up right here. The whole chapter, two sūtra sections and two treatise sections, spans the two fascicles ninety-two and ninety-three: the First Part, one sūtra and one treatise, first exhausts the path's having nowhere to abide, and then comes down to the items of the coarse deeds; the Last Part, one sūtra and one treatise, carries at the head of the fascicle a continued title bearing 「之餘」 tr. "the remainder", turns to the adornment of vow and practice and to the marks of the pure land, and lays down its brush with 「是國土中眾生，畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the beings within this land ultimately reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi".
The First Part goes from the path into the coarse. Sūtra ① first answers the path that was asked about: 「六波羅蜜是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "the six perfections are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva"; the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the eighteen emptinesses, the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions, the Buddha's ten powers, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas are all the path, and the last sentence is the widest of all—「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva"; why must it be so wide? The Buddha himself sets up the ground for it: 「無有法菩薩所不應學者」 tr. "there is no dharma that the bodhisattva should not train in", because 「菩薩不學一切法，不能得一切種智」 tr. "if the bodhisattva does not train in all dharmas, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds". Subhūti raises his objection right here: since all dharmas are empty, to speak of this and speak of that, to speak of the worldly and the world-transcending—is this not 「將無世尊無戲論中作戲論耶」 tr. "that the World-Honored One makes idle discourse within the absence of idle discourse"? The Buddha does not evade this objection; on the contrary, he pushes emptiness to the very bottom and only then answers: 「一切法實空」 tr. "all dharmas are truly empty", and precisely because they are truly empty can the bodhisattva obtain unsurpassed awakening—「若一切法不空者，菩薩摩訶薩不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "if all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva could not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; and the reason for speaking in distinctions is only that 「今眾生實不知一切法空」 tr. "now beings in reality do not know that all dharmas are empty". Below that he teaches the bodhisattva the way to reflect: 「一切諸法中定性不可得，但從和合因緣起法故有名字諸法」 tr. "within all dharmas a fixed nature is unfindable; it is only from causes and conditions coming together that dharmas arise, and so there are dharmas that are names", and reflection at its utmost is 「空不著空，空亦不可得，何況空中有著」 tr. "emptiness does not cling to emptiness, and emptiness too is unfindable—how much less is there clinging within emptiness"; in this way he can 「不著一切法而學一切法」 tr. "train in all dharmas without clinging to all dharmas". Training and yet not clinging, what he sees when he contemplates beings is the reverse of ordinary feeling—what beings practise lies within the false and the unreal, and the bodhisattva on the contrary gives rise to joy: 「是眾生著不實虛妄法，易度耳！」 tr. "What these beings cling to are unreal, false dharmas; they are easily delivered, that is all!" Thereupon he teaches and transforms them by skilful means, teaching giving and at once cutting off reliance on it: 「汝諸眾生！當行布施，可得饒財，亦莫恃布施果報而自高」 tr. "You beings! You should practise giving, and you can obtain abundant wealth; yet do not rely on the retribution of giving and exalt yourselves", and so on up to teaching people to obtain the four fruits, the pratyekabuddha path, and the Buddha path while still telling them 「莫念有是法」 tr. "not to keep in mind that these dharmas exist". The marks of this whole road of teaching and transforming the sūtra text itself names 「行菩薩道而無所著」 tr. "practising the bodhisattva path without clinging to anything". When clinging to nothing is pushed onto the gate of practice, it becomes a string of 「不住」 tr. "not abiding": the six perfections are practised and yet 「亦不住是中」 tr. "he does not abide in it either"; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, the four formless absorptions, the eight liberations, and the nine successive absorptions are all so, and so on up to obtaining the four fruits of the śramaṇa and obtaining the pratyekabuddha path, where again 「不住是中」 tr. "he does not abide in it". Subhūti asks the reason, and the Buddha gives two causes: 「一者、諸道果性空，無住處，亦無所用法，亦無住者；二者、不以少事為足」 tr. "First, the nature of the fruits of the paths is empty; there is no place to abide, nor any dharma made use of, nor anyone who abides; second, he is not content with a small matter"—the second cause is spoken with great intimacy: it is not that he does not obtain the fruit; it is that he obtains it and does not stop there: 「我不應不得須陀洹果，我必應當得須陀洹果，我但不應是中住」 tr. "I should not fail to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; I surely should obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; only I should not abide in it", and the reason is only one sentence: 「我從初發意已來，更無餘心，一心向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "From my first arousing of intent until now I have had no other mind; with one mind I face anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." For one who abides in this one mind, 「所作身、口、意業皆應阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the deeds of body, speech, and mind that he does are all in accord with anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", and thus he 「能生菩提道」 tr. "can give rise to the path of awakening". Once the word ‘give rise’ has come out, Subhūti objects again: 「若一切諸法不生，云何菩薩摩訶薩能生菩提道？」 tr. "If all dharmas are unarisen, how can the bodhisattva-mahāsattva give rise to the path of awakening?" The Buddha first concedes the objection—「一切法無生」 tr. "all dharmas are non-arising"; then sets up what is constant—「有佛、無佛，是諸法法相常住」 tr. "whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, these marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly"; and the path must still be given rise to only because beings do not know these marks of dharmas, and so 「菩薩摩訶薩為眾生故生菩提道，用是道拔出眾生生死」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva gives rise to the path of awakening for the sake of beings, and with this path pulls beings out of birth and death". Below this the four rounds of pressing questions are the tightest: is awakening obtained by means of the path of arising?—the answer is 「不也」 tr. "no"; by means of the path of non-arising?—the answer is 「不也」 tr. "no"; by means of the path of neither arising nor non-arising?—the answer is 「不也」 tr. "no"; Subhūti then asks directly 「云何當得菩提」 tr. "how can awakening be obtained", and the Buddha sets down the most famous sentence of the whole chapter: 「非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提。須菩提！菩提即是道，道即是菩提。」 tr. "Awakening is not obtained by means of the path, nor is awakening obtained by means of what is not the path. Subhūti! Awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening." Subhūti at once turns this into an objection: if it really is so, the bodhisattva who has not yet become a Buddha should already have obtained awakening; then how are the buddhas' thirty-two marks, ten powers, four fearlessnesses, and eighteen unshared dharmas to be spoken of? The Buddha does not answer directly but asks back: 「佛得菩提不？」 tr. "Does the Buddha obtain awakening?" Subhūti answers it himself, 「佛不得菩提」 tr. "the Buddha does not obtain awakening", because 「佛即是菩提，菩提即是佛」 tr. "the Buddha is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the Buddha". The Buddha then supplies what was lacking—the bodhisattva must 「具足住如金剛三昧，用一念相應慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是時名為佛，一切法中得自在」 tr. "being complete, abide in the like-vajra samādhi, and by the wisdom associated with a single thought obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; at this time he is named Buddha, and within all dharmas obtains mastery". Only when the mark of the path and the mark of awakening have been made clear does Subhūti ask 「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva purify buddha-lands", and the Buddha answers with purifying the three kinds of coarse deeds in oneself and in others; asked again what the coarse deeds are, the Buddha speaks item by item: unwholesome deeds, 「若殺生乃至邪見」 tr. "such as killing living beings and so on up to wrong views", are coarse; 「慳貪心、破戒心、瞋心、懈怠心、亂心、愚癡心」 tr. "the mind of stinginess, the mind of breaking morality, the mind of anger, the mind of slackness, the scattered mind, the deluded mind" are coarse deeds of mind; 「戒不淨」 tr. "impure morality" is a coarse deed of body and speech; being far from the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the three gates of liberation is a coarse deed; and the last item is the most unexpected of all—「菩薩摩訶薩貪須陀洹果，乃至貪阿羅漢果證、辟支佛道，是名菩薩摩訶薩麁業」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva craving the fruit of the srota-āpanna, and so on up to craving the realisation of the fruit of the arhat and the pratyekabuddha path—this is named a coarse deed of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva".
Treatise ① explains, passage by passage, the reasons for all this, and what it explains most finely is precisely the single word 「麁」 tr. "coarse". It first explains the silent question and the spoken answer at the start, and next explains the three kinds of path and the one kind: 「六波羅蜜是菩薩初發心道」 tr. "the six perfections are the path of the bodhisattva at the first arousing of the mind"; the four dhyānas, the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions, and the thirty-seven limbs of the path 「但求涅槃」 tr. "seek only nirvāṇa"; the eighteen emptinesses, the Buddha's ten powers, and the rest are 「但為求佛道」 tr. "only for seeking the Buddha path"; these three kinds 「皆是生身菩薩所行」 tr. "are all practised by the bodhisattva in a fleshly body"; why is this?—「分別諸法故」 tr. "because he discriminates dharmas"; whereas the sentence 「一切法皆是菩薩道」 tr. "all dharmas are the bodhisattva path" belongs separately to another layer: 「是法性生身菩薩所行，不見諸法有好惡，安立諸法平等相故」 tr. "this is practised by the bodhisattva whose body is born of the Dharma-nature, who does not see dharmas as good or bad, because he is established in the mark of the equality of dharmas". The real meaning of training in all dharmas is pointed out as well: 「學一切法者，用一切種門，思惟、籌量、修觀、通達。」 tr. "Training in all dharmas means, by gates of every kind, reflecting, reckoning, cultivating contemplation, and penetrating." The marks of idle discourse the treatise-author lists out most concretely: 「此東、彼西，是上、是下，是常、是無常，是實、是虛，是世間、是出世間，乃至是二乘法、是佛法。」 tr. "This is east, that is west; it is above, it is below; it is permanent, it is impermanent; it is real, it is false; it is worldly, it is world-transcending; and so on up to it is the dharma of the two vehicles, it is the dharma of the Buddha." Why may one not say that dharmas are fixed and real? The treatise-author reasons backwards in a chain: 「若法實定有不空者，即是無生無滅，無生無滅故無四諦，無四諦故無佛、法、僧寶」 tr. "If a dharma really and fixedly existed and were not empty, then it would be non-arising and non-ceasing; because it is non-arising and non-ceasing there would be no four truths; because there are no four truths there would be no Buddha Jewel, Dharma Jewel, or Saṅgha Jewel"; once the Three Jewels are destroyed, the claim of fixed existence breaks down of itself. The words of the bodhisattva's reflection the treatise-author speaks for him as a confession: 「我從無始世來，著是虛誑法，於六道中厭受苦惱。我今是三世十方佛子，般若是我母，今不應復隨逐虛誑法。」 tr. "From beginningless time I have clung to these false and deceptive dharmas, and within the six destinies I have undergone suffering and vexation to the point of weariness. Now I am a son of the buddhas of the three times and the ten directions; prajñā is my mother; now I should no longer follow after false and deceptive dharmas." After the mark of the path has been illuminated, where his mind rests is again only one sentence—「我但斷著心，道自然至。」 tr. "I need only sever the clinging mind, and the path will arrive of itself." On the passage about beings being easily delivered, the treatise-author takes heaping earth as his simile: a little child 「聚土為穀，以草木為鳥獸，而生愛著」 tr. "heaps earth as grain, takes grass and trees as birds and beasts, and gives rise to love and attachment for them", and if someone takes them away he is angry and cries, while his father knows 「此子今雖愛著，此事易離耳，小大自休」 tr. "although this son now loves and is attached to them, this matter is easily left behind, that is all; when he grows up it will stop of itself"; why is this?—「此物非真故」 tr. "because these things are not real"; put the other way round, 「若眾生所著之物定實有者，雖得信等五根，著之轉深，亦不能離」 tr. "if the things that beings cling to definitely and really existed, then even though they obtained the five faculties of faith and the rest, their clinging to them would only grow deeper, and they could not part from them"; precisely because dharmas are false and deceptive, when one obtains the eye of wisdom without outflows one can be far from them, and the manner of that being far from them is 「大自慚愧」 tr. "to feel great shame"—「譬如狂病，所作非法，醒悟之後，羞慚無顏」 tr. "just as with madness, all that one does is out of keeping with what is proper, and when one comes to one's senses one is so ashamed that one has no face left". As for teaching and transforming without making people cling to dharmas, the treatise-author gives one more simile: although dharmas are pure and of great benefit, they are still conditioned and arise from conditions; 「汝等若著是法，能生苦惱」 tr. "if you cling to these dharmas, they can give rise to suffering and vexation", 「譬如熱金丸，雖是寶物，捉則燒手」 tr. "just as with a hot ball of gold: although it is a treasure, if you grasp it, it burns the hand". The two causes of not abiding the treatise-author sums up more simply still: 「一者、菩薩深入空，不見諸法性，故不住；二者、不以小事為足，故不住。」 tr. "First, the bodhisattva enters deeply into emptiness and does not see the nature of dharmas, and so does not abide; second, he is not content with a small matter, and so does not abide." The passage on the four alternatives by which awakening is not obtained—its explanation most needs careful reading: the path of arising does not obtain it because one contemplates the mark of arising and ceasing of conditioned dharmas and 「謂是實」 tr. "takes it to be real"; the dharma of non-arising 「即是無為，無作法故，亦不可以得菩提」 tr. "is precisely the unconditioned; because it is a dharma without making, it too cannot be used to obtain awakening"; as for neither arising nor non-arising, the fault lies in discrimination—「取相生著故，故言有過」 tr. "because one grasps at marks and gives rise to clinging, it is said to have faults", and with a single turn that same place is the way out: 「若能不著，則是菩提道。」 tr. "If one is able not to cling, that is precisely the path of awakening." Why awakening and the path are one, the treatise-author establishes from its substance: 「菩提名諸法實相，是諸佛所得究竟實相，無有變異。一切法入菩提中，皆寂滅相；如一切水入大海，同為一味。」 tr. "Awakening is named the real mark of all dharmas; this is the ultimate real mark obtained by the buddhas, without change. All dharmas, entering into awakening, are all of the mark of quiescence; just as all waters, entering the great ocean, are alike of one flavour." If the two really were different, 「行道不應到菩提」 tr. "practising the path should not reach awakening"; yet the cause and fruit of dharmas are from the first 「不一不異」 tr. "neither one nor different". As for Subhūti's objection, the treatise-author makes plain for whom it was raised—「須菩提為新學菩薩故，分別難佛」 tr. "Subhūti, for the sake of bodhisattvas new to the training, made the distinction and objected to the Buddha"; the Buddha's counter-question is answered in coming together: 「菩提不離佛、佛不離菩提；二法和合故，是佛、是菩提。」 tr. "Awakening is not apart from the Buddha, the Buddha is not apart from awakening; it is because the two dharmas come together that there is the Buddha and there is awakening." He further sets up a question: the Buddha is a being and awakening is a dharma; how can they be said to be one? The answer is that first there is the adornment of the marks and minor signs and of merit, and yet 「不名為佛；得菩提故，名之為佛」 tr. "he is not named Buddha; because he obtains awakening, he is named Buddha", and moreover 「微妙清淨五眾和合假名為佛」 tr. "the subtle and pure five aggregates coming together are provisionally named Buddha", while 「菩提即是五眾實相」 tr. "awakening is precisely the real mark of the five aggregates"; so what is not different is truly not different, 「但凡夫心中分別有異」 tr. "it is only that ordinary people discriminate in their minds and take them to be different". Again he sets up a question himself: since it is said that they are neither one nor different, why does the sūtra say outright ‘is precisely’? The answer is very finely measured—「一、異雖俱不實而多用一」 tr. "although one and different are both not real, ‘one’ is mostly used", just as permanence and impermanence are alike the two extremes and yet impermanence is mostly used, because it can break inversion; here likewise, 「若以觀種種別異法故多生著心；若觀諸法一相——若無常、苦、空等，是時煩惱不生」 tr. "if one contemplates all kinds of separate and different dharmas, a clinging mind arises in abundance; if one contemplates dharmas as of one mark—whether impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and so on—at that time afflictions do not arise"; and the final sentence shuts that gate too: 「於實義中，一亦不用；若著一，即復是患。」 tr. "Within the real meaning, ‘one’ too is not used; if one clings to ‘one’, that again is a fault." The distinction among the three names is likewise settled in one sentence: 「得者是佛，法是菩提，求菩提者是菩薩。」 tr. "The one who obtains is the Buddha, the dharma is awakening, the one who seeks awakening is the bodhisattva." Below this it turns to the pure land. Why Subhūti asks at this point the treatise-author answers himself: 「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事」 tr. "Subhūti has heard from the Buddha the mark of awakening and the mark of the path, and the bringing of beings to accomplishment is finished; now he asks about the matter of purifying buddha-lands", and 「諸阿羅漢、辟支佛無有力知淨佛國事，是故問」 tr. "the arhats and pratyekabuddhas have no power to know the matter of purifying buddha-lands; so he asks". What is a pure Buddha-land? The treatise-author first marks out its measure: 「佛土者，百億日月、百億須彌山、百億四天王等諸天，是名三千大千世界。如是等無量無邊三千大千世界，名為一佛土。」 tr. "What is called a Buddha-land is a hundred koṭi of suns and moons, a hundred koṭi of Mount Sumerus, a hundred koṭi of the Four Heavenly Kings and the other heavens; this is named the three-thousand great-thousand world. Such immeasurable and boundless three-thousand great-thousand worlds are named one Buddha-land." Next he speaks of what the Buddha does within it—six times by day and by night he contemplates everywhere with the Buddha-eye: 「誰可種善根？誰善根成就應增長？誰善根成就應得度」 tr. "Who can plant roots of goodness? Whose roots of goodness are accomplished and should increase? Who, with roots of goodness accomplished, should be delivered?"; and the reason for the adornment is only ease of delivery—「是故諸菩薩莊嚴佛土，為令眾生易度故」 tr. "therefore the bodhisattvas adorn the Buddha-land in order to make beings easily delivered". Why speak of purifying the three kinds of deeds right from the first arousing of intent? The answer is that the purity of the three kinds of deeds is from the first not only for the pure land; 「一切菩薩道皆淨」 tr. "the whole bodhisattva path is purified"; and the reason it can reach as far as the land lies in this: 「非但一人，生國土中者皆共作因緣」 tr. "it is not one person alone; those born in the land all together make the causes and conditions"—the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas are causes and conditions for each other, and so 「多惡口業故，地生荊棘；諂誑曲心故，地則高下不平；慳貪多故，則水旱不調、地生沙礫」 tr. "because of many evil verbal deeds, the ground grows thorns; because of flattering, deceitful, crooked minds, the ground is high and low and uneven; because of much stinginess, water and drought are out of season and the ground grows sand and gravel", and conversely the ground is level and has many treasures, 「如彌勒佛出時，人皆行十善故，地多珍寶」 tr. "as when Maitreya Buddha appears, because everyone practises the ten wholesome paths, there are many precious things on the ground". Why speak only of the three kinds of deeds and not of giving and the rest? The answer lies in the deed of construction standing at the head: 「得是思業已，起身、口、意業。布施、禪定等，以思為首；譬如縫衣，以針為導」 tr. "having obtained this deed of construction, one raises the deeds of body, speech, and mind. Giving, meditative concentration, and the rest have construction at their head; as in sewing a garment the needle leads the way"; and once the three kinds of deeds gather everything in, the deeds of mind gather in all mind and mental-factor dharmas, and those of body and speech gather in all dharmas of form; one simile sums it up—「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」 tr. "because the inner dharmas are pure, the outer dharmas too are pure; just as, because the face is pure, the image in the mirror too is pure". Since the items of the coarse deeds are easy to know, why does Subhūti still ask? The answer is 「麁、細不定故」 tr. "because coarse and subtle are not fixed": giving is coarse for one who seeks the path and yet subtle for the white-robed; 「如小乘中不善業為麁，善業為細；摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」 tr. "as in the Small Vehicle unwholesome deeds are coarse and wholesome deeds are subtle; in the Mahāyāna, grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma, and so on up to nirvāṇa, is all named coarse"—this one sentence lifts the chapter's word ‘coarse’ to the height of the Mahāyāna, and all the items below it thereupon become understandable. Why are the six obscurations spoken of separately, apart from the ten unwholesome paths? The answer: 「是六法不入十不善道，十不善道皆是惱眾生法；是六法不但為惱眾生」 tr. "these six dharmas do not enter the ten unwholesome paths; the ten unwholesome paths are all dharmas that vex and harm beings, while these six dharmas are not only for vexing and harming beings"—as stinginess only cherishes one's own wealth and does not yet vex beings. Since morality has been spoken of among the six perfections, why speak again of impure morality? The answer: 「破戒法是殺生等麁罪。戒不淨是微細罪，不惱眾生；如飲酒等，不入十不善道」 tr. "The dharma of breaking morality is a coarse sin such as killing living beings and the like. Impure morality is a subtle sin, which does not vex or harm beings; such as drinking wine and the like, which do not enter the ten unwholesome paths", and below it he lists side by side the cases of not recollecting the precepts, dedicating them to heavenly merit, and keeping the precepts with wrong views. Why is being far from the limbs of the path named coarse? Because within these 「心皆觀實法，隨涅槃、不隨世間」 tr. "the mind is always contemplating real dharmas, in accord with nirvāṇa and not in accord with the world"; as soon as it comes out, it scatters—「譬如蛇行本性好曲，若入竹筒則直，出筒還曲」 tr. "it is like a snake moving: by its nature it likes to bend; if it enters a bamboo tube it becomes straight, and when it comes out of the tube it bends again". And as for why craving the four fruits is coarse, the treatise-author judges it most heavily of all: the original vow was to become a Buddha for the sake of beings, and 「今為自身而欲取證，是為欺佛，亦負眾生」 tr. "now for his own sake he wishes to take realisation—this is to deceive the Buddha and also to betray beings"; 「譬如人請客，欲設飲食而竟不與，是則妄語負客」 tr. "it is like a person who invites guests and means to set out food and drink, yet in the end does not give it; this is false speech and a betrayal of the guests".
The Last Part goes from the coarse into the vow, and from the vow into the fruit. Sūtra ② first pushes the coarse deeds one layer further: grasping at the marks of form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, grasping at the marks of the six faculties and the six sense-objects, the male and the female mark, the marks of the three realms, the marks of wholesome and unwholesome, the marks of conditioned and unconditioned—「是名菩薩麁業」 tr. "this is named the coarse deed of the bodhisattva"; only after being far from such marks of coarse deeds does he practise giving, keeping morality, and so on up to wisdom, and moreover 「持是福德與一切眾生共之，迴向淨佛國土故」 tr. "he shares this merit with all beings, for the sake of dedicating it to purifying buddha-lands". Below this comes a string of vows: giving precious things filling the three-thousand great-thousand land to the Three Honoured Ones, he vows 「令我國土皆以七寶成」 tr. "may my land be made wholly of the seven jewels"; delighting the Buddha and his stūpas with heavenly music, he vows 「願我國土中常聞天樂」 tr. "may heavenly music always be heard within my land"; making offerings with heavenly fragrance, he vows that there will always be heavenly fragrance within his land; giving food of the hundred flavours to the Buddha and the Saṅgha, he vows 「令我國土中眾生皆得百味食」 tr. "may the beings within my land all obtain food of the hundred flavours"; giving heavenly fragrance and fine smoothness, he vows that beings will receive heavenly fragrance and fine smoothness; giving the five desires at will to the Buddha and the Saṅgha and to all beings, he vows 「令我國土中弟子及一切眾生皆得隨意五欲」 tr. "may the disciples and all beings within my land all obtain the five desires at will", and so on up to 「我得佛時，是國土中如天五欲，應心而至」 tr. "when I obtain buddhahood, within this land the five desires, like those of the heavens, will arrive as the mind wishes". The last round of vows turns toward concentration and wisdom: 「我當自入初禪，亦教一切眾生入初禪」 tr. "I shall myself enter the first dhyāna, and also teach all beings to enter the first dhyāna"; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and so on up to the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path are all likewise, and when he becomes a Buddha, 「令一切眾生不遠離四禪，乃至不遠離三十七品助道法」 tr. "I shall cause all beings not to be far from the four dhyānas, and so on up to not to be far from the thirty-seven limbs of the path, the dharmas that aid the path". When practice is full and the vows complete, then 「是菩薩自成就一切善法，亦成就一切眾生善法」 tr. "this bodhisattva himself accomplishes all wholesome dharmas, and also accomplishes the wholesome dharmas of all beings", and so on up to 「是菩薩受身端正，所化眾生亦得端正。所以者何？福德因緣厚故」 tr. "the body this bodhisattva receives is upright and handsome, and the beings he transforms also obtain upright handsomeness. Why? Because the causes and conditions of merit are thick". Below this it speaks of the fruit: 「是國土中，乃至無三惡道之名」 tr. "within this land there is not even the name of the three evil destinies", nor the names of wrong views, the three poisons, or the two vehicles; 「耳不聞有無常、苦、空之聲」 tr. "the ear does not hear the sound of impermanence, suffering, or emptiness"; nor are there the names of the fetters and afflictions, nor the names that distinguish the several fruits; and the one who teaches the Dharma is not the Buddha's manifest body but the trees—「風吹七寶之樹，隨所應度而出音聲」 tr. "the wind blows on the trees of the seven jewels and, according to those who are to be delivered, brings out sound", and what comes forth is precisely the sound of the real mark of all dharmas: 「有佛無佛，一切法、一切法相空，空中無有相，無相中則無作」 tr. "whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, all dharmas and the marks of all dharmas are empty; in emptiness there is no mark; in the signless there is then no making", and there is no time when it is not heard—「若晝、若夜，若坐、若臥、若立、若行，常聞此法」 tr. "whether by day or by night, whether sitting, lying down, standing, or walking, they constantly hear this Dharma". When he obtains awakening, 「十方國土中諸佛讚歎；眾生聞是佛名，必至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the buddhas in the lands of the ten directions praise him; beings who hear this Buddha's name will surely reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; when he teaches the Dharma, among those who hear it there is none who gives rise to doubt and asks whether this is the Dharma or not the Dharma; why is this?—「諸法實相中，皆是法，無有非法」 tr. "within the real mark of all dharmas, all is Dharma; there is nothing that is not the Dharma". On the reverse side it speaks of people of meagre merit: not planting roots of goodness, not following a good friend, sunk within the view of self and the view of extremes, they thereupon 「非佛言佛、佛言非佛，非法言法、法言非法」 tr. "call what is not the Buddha's word the Buddha's word, and the Buddha's word not the Buddha's word, call what is not the Dharma the Dharma, and the Dharma not the Dharma", and destroying the Dharma in this way they fall into the evil destinies; whereas when the buddhas obtain awakening they, 「見此眾生往來五道，令離邪聚，立正定聚中，更不墮惡道」 tr. "seeing these beings going and coming in the five destinies, make them leave the wrongly assured assembly and establish them in the rightly assured assembly, so that they no longer fall into the evil destinies". At the end it sums up: the beings within the pure Buddha-land have 「無雜穢心」 tr. "no mixed and defiled mind"; toward the worldly and the world-transcending, with outflows and without outflows, conditioned and unconditioned, there is nothing mixed, 「乃至是國土中眾生，畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "and so on up to: the beings within this land ultimately reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi".
Treatise ② at its rising first settles the objection about grasping at marks. Someone asks: the male and female marks may be called false, but if form and the rest, and wholesome dharmas, are not grasped as marks, how can one grow weary of form, and how can one accomplish wholesome dharmas? The treatise-author answers with the two emptinesses: 「佛法中有二種空：一者、眾生空，二者、法空」 tr. "within the Buddha's Dharma there are two kinds of emptiness: first, the emptiness of beings; second, the emptiness of dharmas"; the emptiness of beings breaks the male and female marks and the like, the emptiness of dharmas breaks the false marks of form and the rest; and when one can contemplate form and the rest, and wholesome dharmas, as like an illusion, like a conjuration, not grasping at a definitely real mark, one obtains the mind of weariness and relinquishes such idle discourse as permanent and impermanent—「是不名為取相」 tr. "this is not called grasping at marks". Again he is asked: the conditioned, being provisional names, may be left ungrasped; but why is the unconditioned, the true and real, such as the nature of dharmas and the limit of reality, also not grasped? The answer is very brief and very strict: 「以不取相是無為法，無相名為無為法門；若取相，便是有為。」 tr. "Because not grasping at marks is the unconditioned dharma, and the signless is called the gate of the unconditioned dharma; if one grasps at marks, it is then the conditioned." When the general mark is done, the treatise-author himself marks out his order—「上總相說，下別相說」 tr. "above, said by way of the general mark; below, said by way of the specific marks", and below this he explains vow by vow. From where are the precious things filling the three-thousand great-thousand world obtained, and who can receive them? The answer is that this bodhisattva 「是法性生身，住具足神通波羅蜜中」 tr. "is a body born of the Dharma-nature, abiding complete in the perfection of the supernormal powers"; the treasures are made by the supernormal powers, light and fine, and obstruct nothing, 「如第三禪遍淨天，六十人坐一針頭而聽法，不相妨礙」 tr. "just as in the Heaven of Universal Purity of the third dhyāna sixty people sit on the point of one needle and hear the Dharma without obstructing one another". Below this he further supplies several vows that the sūtra text does not have but the meaning does: some transform the body to be like Mount Sumeru as a lamp-wick and vow 「令我國土常有光明，不須日月燈燭」 tr. "may my land always have light, without need of sun or moon, lamps or candles"; some rain down flowers, incense, banners, canopies, and necklaces and vow 「令我國土眾生端正如華，身相嚴淨，無有醜陋」 tr. "may the beings of my land be upright and handsome like flowers, their bodily marks adorned and pure, without any ugliness". The objection over offerings of music shows the Buddha's intent most of all: the buddhas are free from desire, so what need have they of music, song, and dance? The answer: 「諸佛雖於一切法中心無所著、於世間法盡無所須，諸佛憐愍眾生故出世，應隨供養者，令隨願得福故受」 tr. "although the buddhas' minds cling to nothing within all dharmas and they have no need at all of worldly dharmas, the buddhas appear in the world because of compassion for beings; they should accord with those who make offerings, and they receive in order to let them obtain merit according to their wishes"; and the bodhisattva's real intent in seeking fine sounds is 「欲使國土中眾生聞好音聲，其心柔軟；心柔軟故，易可受化」 tr. "to make the beings within the land hear fine sounds, so that their minds become soft; because the mind becomes soft, they can easily receive transformation". On the item of the hundred flavours, the treatise-author records the differing views of various people side by side without judging: some say that being able to make offerings of a hundred kinds of things is called the hundred flavours, some say that the kinds of cakes number five hundred and their flavours a hundred, some say that joy-pills are made of a hundred kinds of medicinal herbs and medicinal fruits, some say that food and drink, broths and cakes, have a hundred flavours in all, and some say that because food and drink of every kind are fully provided it is called the hundred flavours; below that he sets out his own meaning: humans eat the hundred flavours, gods eat a hundred thousand kinds of flavours, while the bodhisattva's food that is the retribution of merit and food produced by the transformations of the supernormal powers 「則有無量味，能轉人心，令離欲清淨」 tr. "then have immeasurable flavours, being able to transform a person's mind, making him free from desire and pure", and so 「是四種食，菩薩隨因緣供養佛及僧，是故國土中自然有百味飲食」 tr. "these four kinds of food the bodhisattva offers to the Buddha and the Saṅgha according to causes and conditions; therefore within the land there is, of itself, food and drink of the hundred flavours". The item of smearing fragrance first explains the custom—「天竺國熱，又以身臭，故以香塗身」 tr. "the land of India is hot, and moreover because the body has a bad smell, people smear the body with fragrance"; an objection is posed, 「沙彌戒乃至受一日戒，尚不以香塗身，云何以香供養佛及僧」 tr. "one who holds the śrāmaṇera precepts, and so on up to one who receives the one-day precepts, does not even smear the body with fragrance; how can one make offerings to the Buddha and the Saṅgha with fragrance", and the answer lies in where it is used: the bodhisattva offers what his body prizes, according to what is needed, 「或以塗地、塗壁及行坐處」 tr. "or uses it to smear the ground, to smear walls, and the places of walking and sitting". The item of the five desires is the longest objection in the whole treatise section. The objector cites the Buddha's words as his grounds: 「此五欲，佛說如火、如坑、如瘡、如獄、如怨、如賊，能奪人善根」 tr. "these five desires the Buddha said are like fire, like a pit, like a sore, like a prison, like an enemy, like a thief, able to rob people of their roots of goodness", and moreover the Buddha taught his disciples to wear robes of cast-off rags, beg for food, and sit beneath the trees of the forest; why then does the bodhisattva on the contrary seek the five desires for beings? The treatise-author's answer divides into three layers. First, the five desires are by origin a retribution of merit: 「天上、人中五欲是福德果報」 tr. "the five desires of the heavens and of the human world are the retribution of merit", whereas the poor and those of meagre merit, unable to keep themselves alive, commit robbery and theft, and so on up to false speech—「如是，次第作十不善，皆由貧窮故作」 tr. "in this way, in sequence they commit the ten unwholesome deeds, all done because of poverty"; therefore 「菩薩國土眾生豐樂自恣、無所乏少，則無眾惡，但有愛、慢等軟結使」 tr. "the beings within the bodhisattva's land are rich and happy, free at their will, lacking nothing, and so they have none of the various evils, only soft fetters such as love and pride"; their minds are soft and their faculties keen, and hearing of impermanence, suffering, and emptiness they at once obtain the path—「譬如垢膩之衣，則以灰泥淹之，經宿以水浣之，一時都去」 tr. "it is like a garment soiled with grease: one soaks it in ash and mud, and after a night washes it with water, and at one time it is all removed"; so his intention in giving the five desires lies not in making them cling: 「但欲令一時捨故與之」 tr. "he gives them only wishing to make them relinquish at one time". Second, the teaching of rag robes and begging for food has those it is addressed to: those born in an evil age through the causes and conditions of past sins have many defiled and clinging minds, and obtaining fine clothing and food their clinging grows deeper still, and it hinders and lays waste the practice of the path; whereas the beings of the pure Buddha-land 「無量福德成就，五欲一等故，不復貴著，亦不更求，故無所妨」 tr. "have accomplished immeasurable merit; because the five desires are all equal, they no longer prize them and cling, nor do they seek further, and so there is no hindrance". Moreover, parting from desire to cultivate austerities increases anger, and recollecting the five desires gives rise to afflictions, and so the Buddha said 「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道」 tr. "relinquish suffering and pleasure, use wisdom, abide in the middle way". Third, in the Vinaya there was a bhikṣu who said of himself 「雖受五欲而不妨道」 tr. "though one receives the five desires it does not hinder the path", and the Buddha rebuked and expelled him—how is this to be explained? The treatise-author distinguishes it very clearly: as to the case the Buddha spoke of, of white-robed disciples who receive the five desires and yet obtain the first and second fruits, 「不知是事佛為誰說。佛為白衣故說，此比丘持著出家法中說」 tr. "he did not know for whom the Buddha spoke of this matter. The Buddha said it for the sake of the white-robed; this bhikṣu took it into the dharma of those gone forth and said it there"; one who has gone forth, having himself sworn not to transgress and yet transgressing, commits one sin against his own oath and one sin of deliberate violation; therefore 「淨佛國土有二種眾生：若出家，若在家」 tr. "within the pure Buddha-land there are two kinds of beings: those gone forth and those at home"; those at home receive the five desires without sin and without hindrance, and those gone forth, keeping to what the Buddha permits, are likewise without fault; and what the Small Vehicle addresses is 「薄福重罪之人，心多悔故」 tr. "people of meagre merit and heavy sin, because they have much remorse in their minds", while as for 「淨佛土者，世世習行六波羅蜜、三解脫門，雖得五欲，亦不染著」 tr. "those who purify buddha-lands, life after life, train in and practise the six perfections and the three gates of liberation; although they obtain the five desires, they are not defiled by them or cling to them". When vow and practice have been explained, the treatise-author follows the sūtra and gathers them in: the bodhisattva makes immeasurable asaṃkhyeya of vows and makes them complete, and 「一切善法成就故，得身端正，見者無厭」 tr. "because all wholesome dharmas are accomplished, he obtains a body upright and handsome, of which those who see it are never satisfied". Below this he explains the fruit. Why has the pure land no three evil destinies—the buddhas appear in the world out of great compassion for suffering beings, so if there are no three evil destinies, for whom then is their compassion? The treatise-author first answers on one layer: 「三惡道眾生不可度，但可令種善根而已」 tr. "the beings of the three evil destinies cannot be delivered; one can only make them plant roots of goodness", and so the Buddha is called Teacher of Gods and Humans; then he answers on a further layer: 「憐愍一切眾生，平等無異；此中說清淨業因緣，是國土中無三惡道」 tr. "his compassion for all beings is equal and without difference; here the causes and conditions of pure deeds are spoken of, and so within this land there are no three evil destinies", and moreover Buddha-lands are not of one kind—「佛有清淨國土、有雜國土。雜國土中則具有五道」 tr. "the Buddha has pure lands and has mixed and defiled lands. Within the mixed and defiled lands the five destinies are all present". Since there are no three poisons and no wrong views, why must a Buddha still appear in the world? Here two views are set side by side without judgement: some say 「是中大福德因緣故，邪見、三毒不發故言無」 tr. "within this land, because of the causes and conditions of great merit, wrong views and the three poisons do not break out, and therefore it is said there are none", and some say 「是中諸菩薩皆得無生法忍，常修六波羅蜜等諸功德，常遊十方度脫眾生」 tr. "within this land the bodhisattvas all obtain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, constantly cultivate all kinds of merit such as the six perfections, and constantly roam the ten directions delivering beings", so that the work of his teaching and transforming grows all the greater. On the item that there is no name of the two vehicles, the difficulty lies in why other buddhas have three vehicles; the answer: 「佛出五濁惡世，於一道分為三乘」 tr. "the buddhas appear in the evil age of the five turbidities, and within the one path divide it into three vehicles"; a further objection is that the Buddha-lands of buddhas not born into the five turbidities still have three vehicles, and the answer lies in the original vow—at the time of first arousing the mind they saw the buddhas delivering beings by the three vehicles, and then themselves made the vow 「我亦當以三乘度眾生」 tr. "I too shall deliver beings by the three vehicles". As for there being no name of impermanence, suffering, and emptiness, its principle is like that of medicine: 「以眾生深著常、樂等顛倒故，為說無常等苦法。是中無常、樂等倒故，不須無常、苦；若無病，則不須藥。」 tr. "Because beings cling deeply to the inversions of permanence, pleasure, and so on, impermanence and the other dharmas of suffering are taught to them. Within this land, because there are no inversions of permanence, pleasure, and so on, there is no need of impermanence and suffering; if there is no disease, there is no need of medicine." The passage on the trees sending forth the sound of the Dharma first speaks of its convenience—「寶樹遍滿國土故，眾生生便聞法，餘心不生，但生法心」 tr. "because the jewelled trees fill the land everywhere, as soon as beings are born they hear the Dharma; other minds do not arise, only the mind of the Dharma arises"; and why does he not simply manifest immeasurable bodies to teach the Dharma? The treatise-author's answer repays the most reflection: 「眾生甚多，若佛處處現身眾生不信，謂為幻化，心不敬重」 tr. "beings are very many; if the Buddha manifested his body everywhere, beings would not believe, taking it for conjuration and transformation, and their minds would not revere it"; moreover beings differ in how they receive the Dharma—「有眾生從人聞法，心不開悟；若從畜生聞法，則便信受」 tr. "there are beings who, hearing the Dharma from a person, are not awakened in mind; if they hear the Dharma from an animal, they then believe and accept it", and further there are those who say that animals too can deceive, and so 「以樹木無心而有音聲，則皆信受」 tr. "since trees have no mind and yet have sound, all believe and accept it"; at the end one sentence decides the difference between other lands and this land: 「餘國土以神通力、口力種種變化，此中常自然音聲。」 tr. "Other lands make all kinds of transformations by the power of the supernormal powers and the power of the mouth; here there is always sound that comes of itself." The passage on hearing the name and being assured likewise sets up two objections: other buddhas teach the Dharma with bitter effort and beings still do not obtain the path, so how is it obtained merely by hearing this Buddha's name? The answer is that teaching the Dharma elsewhere is not without benefit, while 「若聞是佛名，畢至阿鞞跋致，不言今得」 tr. "as for hearing this Buddha's name, one will surely reach avaivartika; it is not said that one obtains it now"; all buddhas are such that those who hear their names will become buddhas, so why speak only of the Buddha of the pure land? The answer lies in the depth of reverence and faith—those who hear the names of other buddhas mostly think that 「受生與人無異，但有一切智得道為異」 tr. "their taking birth is no different from that of people; only in having omniscience and obtaining the path are they different", and because their minds do not revere, what they plant is not deep; whereas the Buddha of the pure land 「是法性身，佛身無量無邊，光明、說法音聲遍滿十方國土」 tr. "is the Dharma-nature body; the Buddha's body is immeasurable and boundless, and its light and the sound of its teaching of the Dharma fill the lands of the ten directions", from each and every pore there constantly issue immeasurable buddhas, and 「隨應度眾生見佛優劣，根本真佛無有分別大小之異」 tr. "according to the beings to be delivered, the Buddha is seen as superior or inferior; the root true Buddha has no distinction of great and small to be discriminated"; seeing and hearing in this way, with deep faith and reverence, the roots of goodness planted—「云何不畢定作佛」 tr. "how could they not be assured of becoming a Buddha". On the passage about the absence of doubt, the treatise-author directly cites the causes and conditions that the sūtra text itself speaks of: 「有人薄福不種善根、不得善知識故生疑」 tr. "some people, because of meagre merit, not planting roots of goodness and not obtaining the good friend, give rise to doubt", and the extreme point of the sickness is whether a thing accords with oneself or not—「諸佛說畢竟空，不順其意，便言非佛」 tr. "when the buddhas teach ultimate emptiness, it does not accord with their minds, and they then say it is not the Buddha's word". The last question gathers in the whole chapter: above it was said that hearing the name one is assured of reaching buddhahood, and here it is said that being without obstruction toward dharmas one will surely become a Buddha; what is the difference between the two? The answer: the beings here 「常見佛、常聞法、深種善根、多集佛法故，疾得作佛；聞名者，雖俱畢竟定而小不如」 tr. "constantly see the Buddha, constantly hear the Dharma, deeply plant roots of goodness, and gather many of the dharmas of the Buddha; therefore they quickly become buddhas. As for those who hear the name, although both are alike ultimately assured, they are slightly inferior"—alike assured, and yet slow and quick each have their portion. The treatise-author's last sentence gathers it in quite lightly: 「如是等，名為淨國土相」 tr. "such as these are named the marks of a pure land".
The difference between the arcs of the two parts can be settled in a single sentence: the First Part speaks of the person who purifies, the Last Part of the land that is purified. What the First Part exhausts is a single word, 「不」 tr. "not"—not abiding in the six perfections, not abiding in the fruits, using neither the path of arising nor the path of non-arising, not being content with a small matter, all the way to judging even the realisation of the four fruits to be coarse; what the Last Part spreads out is a single word, 「願」 tr. "vow"—vowing a land of the seven jewels, vowing always to hear heavenly music, vowing heavenly fragrance and the hundred flavours, vowing that beings obtain the five desires at will, vowing that all beings are not far from the four dhyānas and the limbs of the path. It looks like one negating and one affirming, one taking away and one giving, but in fact they issue from a single source: precisely because the First Part has spoken of 「取」 tr. "grasping" as a sickness to the utmost—even nirvāṇa, even grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma, all named coarse—does the 「願」 tr. "vow" of the Last Part not fall into being one more layer of grasping; and precisely because the Last Part speaks of the marks of the land so completely does the 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" of the First Part not fall into a withered holding-fast. That the chapter's name is set on the word 「淨」 tr. "pure" and not on the word 「土」 tr. "land" is also precisely for this: the sūtra text, answering the question of the pure land, speaks in its first sentence not of land but of deeds—oneself purifying the three kinds of coarse deeds, and also purifying the three kinds of coarse deeds of others; and the treatise-author further nails down the order of inner and outer with one simile: 「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨。」 tr. "Because the inner dharmas are pure, the outer dharmas too are pure; just as, because the face is pure, the image in the mirror too is pure." The purity of the land is the purity of the image; to seek the image in the mirror pure while the face is not pure is what the whole chapter does not allow.
Therefore, when reading each passage of this chapter, one can ask at least three layers of questions. First: does this sentence negate a matter, or a grasping? The sūtra text lists the coarse deeds down to the finest, and among them the two most unexpected items are, one, grasping at the mark of wholesome dharmas and the mark of nirvāṇa, and two, craving the four fruits of the śramaṇa and the pratyekabuddha path; neither is an evil matter, and both are judged coarse. So whenever a dharma appears before one, first ask whether one's own mind is grasping or practising, and do not ask whether this dharma is good or not; the treatise-author's criterion is already complete in one sentence—「摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」 tr. "in the Mahāyāna, grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma, and so on up to nirvāṇa, is all named coarse". Second: if this vow were read backwards, what would it become? What the vows of the Last Part seek is the seven jewels, heavenly music, heavenly fragrance, the hundred flavours, the five desires; if one takes only their marks, they are no different from the desires of the world; yet each vow in the sūtra text has its place of return: 「持是福德與一切眾生共之，迴向淨佛國土故」 tr. "he shares this merit with all beings, for the sake of dedicating it to purifying buddha-lands", and the treatise-author's explanation of the reason points still more directly at the human mind—seeking fine sounds is so that 「其心柔軟；心柔軟故，易可受化」 tr. "their minds become soft; because the mind becomes soft, they can easily receive transformation", and giving the five desires is 「但欲令一時捨故與之」 tr. "giving them only wishing to make them relinquish at one time". What makes a vow a vow lies not in the thing vowed for but in its dedication and in what it is for. Third: I do not yet have a land; what use is this chapter to me? The answer is in fact already written at the starting point: the practice of the pure land can be taken in hand 「從初發意已來」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now", and what is taken in hand is only purifying the coarse deeds of one's own body, speech, and mind, and purifying the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others; and its proof too is very plain, the treatise-author putting it with nothing abstruse at all—much evil speech, and the ground grows thorns; flattery and deceit, and the ground is high and low and uneven; stinginess and craving, and water and drought are out of season. Reading on down through the two sūtra sections and two treatise sections, one will in the end come down upon the treatise-author's plainest verdict: coarse and subtle have from the first no fixed measure—「麁、細不定故」 tr. "because coarse and subtle are not fixed"; what today is taken as subtle may tomorrow be precisely coarse—and the reason purifying buddha-lands can be cultivated 「從初發意已來」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now" all the way to the completion of a land is precisely that this measuring rod is alive, and can be lifted higher all along the way.
Reading On in the Order of the Treatise
淨佛國土品之上Purifying the Buddha-land, Part 1 of 2
全文五層 →Full five layers →淨佛國土品之上：何等是菩薩道；學一切法而不著；行而不住；菩提即是道；云何淨佛國土；身口意麁業之諸目
在問什麼
品名叫〈淨佛國土〉，而之上一單元從頭讀到尾，正面說淨土的只有末後一小段——須菩提問「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」，佛答「自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業，亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」，隨後開列麁業之目。前面那一大片，問的全是別的事：什麼是菩薩道、一切法空何以還要學一切法、行道何以不住、菩提用什麼道得。之上要答的第一個問，就是這個看似走題的走法：問道之問，何以引出淨土之問？
經文自己給了線索。須菩提起問的由頭是「菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴」——他問的本來就不是道的名目，是能成就大莊嚴的那個道。佛把菩薩道從六波羅蜜一路開到「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」，再逼出「菩薩不學一切法，不能得一切種智」；須菩提便在空義上反詰，佛便答以「眾生實不知一切法空」，故菩薩得道已「分別諸法為眾生說」。一路推到菩提與道不二，須菩提無可再問，於是轉問淨佛國土。論主把這個轉折點明得很直白：「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事。」道相說盡、成就眾生說盡，剩下的就是眾生所住的那個地方——國土。問道與問土，是一條線的兩頭。
第二個問在「不住」。經文列了一長串不住：六波羅蜜不住、四禪乃至九次第定不住、諸道果與辟支佛道也不住。須菩提問何故，佛答二因緣，一是「諸道果性空，無住處，亦無所用法，亦無住者」，二是「不以少事為足」。前者是理上無可住，後者是志上不肯住。這兩條要並著看：只講前一條，會把不住讀成什麼都不必得；只講後一條，會把不住讀成貪多。之上要答的第二問，就是『不住』究竟是不得，還是得而不停。
第三個問最險，在四句。須菩提連問生道、不生道、非生非不生道能否得菩提，佛一概答「不也」。四句既盡，須菩提只好問「云何當得菩提」，佛的答語是一個完全不在四句裡的句子：「非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提。須菩提！菩提即是道，道即是菩提。」論主在此設了一重額外的勘難——「生」「不生」既然都有過，「非生非不生」照理該無過，何以也說不得？答處只有一句要害——分別『非生非不生』是好是醜，則「取相生著故，故言有過」。有過的從來不是那個句子，是取相。之上要答的第三問，就是四句之破破的是什麼。
末後一段轉入淨土，而佛答的第一句就與一般所想的淨土不同：不是先說七寶、不是先說國界，是說「從初發意已來，自除身麁業」。論主為此特設一問——淨佛土是得無生法忍、住神通波羅蜜以後的事，何以說從初發意？答處給了本單元最實在的一條因果：「內法與外法作因緣」，惡口故地生荊棘，諂誑故地則高下不平，慳貪故水旱不調、地生沙礫。淨土不是另造一個地方，是內法所感的外法。之上末一問，就是淨土之因何以落在自己的三業上。
逐段解明
一、須菩提不發言而心念問道；佛答六波羅蜜乃至一切法皆是菩薩道。 經文開端是一個特別的起問方式：須菩提沒有出聲，是「作是念」，而「佛知須菩提心所念，告須菩提」。所問是「何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴」。佛的答分兩層：先列名目——六波羅蜜、三十七助道法、十八空、八背捨九次第定、佛十力乃至十八不共法；再加一句把名目全部推開——「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」。末後以反問收束：「頗有法菩薩所不學能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不？」並自答「無有法菩薩所不應學者」，理由是「菩薩不學一切法，不能得一切種智」。要看的是這個「亦」字：前五項是道，一切法「亦」是道，兩者不是同一個層次的並列，下文論主會把它們分開。
二、一切法空，何以言學一切法；佛可其空而說分別之所為。 須菩提的反詰句式極重：「將無世尊無戲論中作戲論耶？」他列了六對——此彼、世間出世間、有漏無漏、有為無為、凡夫阿羅漢、辟支佛佛法——來指佛所說的分別。佛的答先全盤承認：「如是！如是！一切法實空。」並反過來立一個更強的話：「若一切法不空者，菩薩摩訶薩不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」空不是障礙，空正是能得的條件。至於分別，佛把它繫在眾生身上：「若世間眾生知一切法空，菩薩摩訶薩不學一切法、得一切種智。」眾生若自己知空，分別就不必有；「今眾生實不知一切法空」，所以「得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提已，分別諸法為眾生說」。分別之所以不是戲論，因為它是為不知空的人而設，不是佛自己需要。
三、從初已來如是思惟——定性不可得而諸法有名字；觀眾生心行而知易度；以方便力教化而令莫念有法。 這是經①最長的一段，一段之中有三轉。第一轉是菩薩自己的思惟：「一切諸法中定性不可得，但從和合因緣起法故有名字諸法」，於是遍緣六波羅蜜性、三十七助道法、須陀洹果乃至阿羅漢果、辟支佛道乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提而「無所著」，並自設一層防護——「一切法、一切法性空，空不著空，空亦不可得，何況空中有著」。第二轉是向外看：「住是學中，觀眾生心行——是眾生心在何處行？」答是「知眾生虛妄不實中行」，於是有那句極重要的判斷：「是眾生著不實虛妄法，易度耳！」第三轉是教化的口氣：勸行布施而「亦莫恃布施果報而自高」，勸持戒禪定智慧亦然，勸得須陀洹果乃至辟支佛道、佛道而「莫念有是法」。三轉收在一句總結上：「如是教化，行菩薩道而無所著」。要留意「易度」二字，下文論主會專門立喻來釋它。
四、行菩薩道而無所住——六度、諸禪定、諸果皆不住；不住之二因緣。 經文把「無所住」逐項鋪開：六波羅蜜逐一「亦不住是中」，初禪乃至第四禪、慈悲喜捨、四無色定、八背捨、九次第定亦然，須陀洹果乃至阿羅漢果與辟支佛道亦然。其中初禪一項佛自出理由：「是初禪初禪相空，行禪者亦空，所用法亦空」——所行之法、能行之人、所用之具，三處俱空，所以無可住。須菩提問「何因緣故不住是中」，佛答二因緣：一者理上，「諸道果性空，無住處，亦無所用法，亦無住者」；二者志上，「不以少事為足」。第二因緣底下那一段自語值得逐句看：「我不應不得須陀洹果，我必應當得須陀洹果，我但不應是中住」。他不是不得，是得而不停；並把不停的根據推到初心——「我從初發意已來，更無餘心，一心向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。末句「是菩薩摩訶薩住是一心，能生菩提道」，把一心與生道接上，也就引出下一段的難。
五、一切諸法不生，云何能生菩提道。 須菩提抓住「生」字發難。佛的答只有一個迴圈：「如是！如是！一切法無生。」接著自釋無生之義——「無所作、無所起者，一切法不生故」。此處佛並未正面解釋「能生菩提道」與「一切法無生」如何相容，答案要等下一段的法相常住與再下一段的四句才補齊；讀時不宜把此段當作已了。
六、有佛無佛，諸法法相常住；為眾生故生菩提道。 須菩提換一個角度再問：「有佛、無佛，諸法法相不常住耶？」佛仍是先認可：「如是！如是！有佛、無佛，是諸法法相常住。」然後把菩提道的「生」安在眾生的不知上：「以眾生不知是法住法相，為是故，菩薩摩訶薩為眾生故生菩提道，用是道拔出眾生生死。」這一句補了上一段的缺口——道之生不在法相這一邊，在眾生不知這一邊；法相常住，所以道無所增；眾生不知，所以道不得不起。
七、生道、不生道、非生非不生道，三問三答皆曰不也；云何當得菩提。 經文在此壓成一組極短的問答，句子短而步步收緊：「用生道得菩提？」佛言：「不也！」「用不生道得菩提？」佛言：「不也！」「用不生非不生道得菩提？」佛言：「不也！」三答之後，須菩提只好問：「云何當得菩提？」四句之三既已否定，所餘的路已經被堵死，這個問是被逼出來的，不是新起一義。
八、非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提；菩提即是道，道即是菩提。 佛的答語有兩截。前半仍是否定，而且是把四句之外的第五條路也關上——「非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提」，道與非道兩邊都不是得的憑藉。後半是全段之眼：「菩提即是道，道即是菩提。」問題從『用什麼得』被換成『得的與所用的本來不二』。既然不二，「用」這個問法本身就落空了；這正是佛不答四句而答不二的緣故。
九、若道即菩提，菩薩應即是佛之難；佛以反問答；金剛三昧一念相應慧。 須菩提立刻推出一個窘境：「今菩薩未作佛，應當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提！」若道即是菩提，行道的人便該已得；那麼佛的三十二相、八十隨形好、十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法、大慈大悲又如何說？佛不正面解，而以反問代答：「佛得菩提不？」須菩提自答「不也」，並自說其故：「佛即是菩提，菩提即是佛。」佛順著這個答把話接完：菩薩要「具足六波羅蜜、三十七助道法，具足佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法，具足住如金剛三昧，用一念相應慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是時名為佛，一切法中得自在」。不二是就法體說，具足是就成辦說；難之所以成難，是把兩層併作一層。
十、云何淨佛國土；佛答自除三麁業亦淨他人三麁業。 全單元的正題到此才出。須菩提問「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」，佛答只有一句而分兩半：「自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業」是自淨，「亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」是淨他。並冠以時節——「從初發意已來」。淨土之事不從神通說起，不從國界說起，從三業說起，而且從最初發心那一刻說起。這一句是本品的根。
十一、何等是身口意麁業——不善業、六種麁心、戒不淨、遠離道品、貪果證。 須菩提續問麁業之目，佛以五段答之。第一段是總的：「不善業，若殺生乃至邪見，是名菩薩摩訶薩身、口、意麁業」——即十不善道。第二段「復次」加入六種心：「慳貪心、破戒心、瞋心、懈怠心、亂心、愚癡心，是名菩薩意麁業」——正是六波羅蜜的反面。第三段「復次，戒不淨，是名菩薩身、口麁業」。第四段把道品也算進去：遠離四念處乃至八聖道分、空無相無作三昧，「亦名菩薩麁業」。第五段推到最遠：「菩薩摩訶薩貪須陀洹果，乃至貪阿羅漢果證、辟支佛道，是名菩薩摩訶薩麁業。」五段是一條向上收窄的線：從十不善道，到六種麁心，到細戒，到退出道品，到貪二乘之證。名目一段比一段『不像惡事』，而在菩薩份上一概判為麁。
十二、釋曰——須菩提何以不問而心念：時會之疑與深入禪定者。 論主開卷即釋起問的方式，給了兩個因緣。其一是就法會說：「上來須菩提常種種問空法，以時會疑其已體寂滅無戲論法猶復多問，是以不問而心念。」他問得多，聽者已起疑心，於是改用心念。其二是就聽者說：「有菩薩及諸天深入禪定，不好語言而欲得法利」，所以不出聲。兩個因緣一是為己息疑，一是為他不擾。
十三、須菩提無言而佛以言答之所以；佛安立寂滅相而隨問答。 論主自設問答：「須菩提雖無言，而世尊以言答？」答有兩層。第一層就佛的色聲說：「佛身色，視無厭足；如色無厭，聲亦如是，雖語而不妨細禪定行」。佛的聲音與佛的色身同類，不構成對深定的干擾，所以不必效須菩提之默。第二層就佛的位說：「佛安立寂滅相，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提中住，不分別一切法若善、若不善等；眾生有疑而問，佛隨所問、所念而答，是故不與須菩提同。」須菩提之默是為避譏嫌，佛之語是隨機而應；一個是在學地上的斟酌，一個是在果地上的無分別，所以不同。
十四、須菩提所以問道——聞甚深義不得其邊；佛所以答——為增益諸菩薩。 論主把經文之問復述為：「何等是菩薩道？行是道，如清淨無所著六波羅蜜等諸善法莊嚴？」並指其起因是「聞是六波羅蜜等諸法甚深義，不能得其邊」。至於佛何以要答，論主給了一個很坦白的理由：「佛知其意，於須菩提所益雖少，為增益諸菩薩故」。這一句把當機者與受益者分開了——問的人未必是得益最多的人。
十五、三種菩薩道之分；一切法皆道屬法性生身；此中佛自說因緣。 這是論①的骨幹段。論主先把佛所列的名目分作三科：「六波羅蜜是菩薩初發心道；次行四禪、八背捨、九次第定及三十七道品，但求涅槃；十八空、佛十力等微細，但為求佛道。」再換一個角度重分一次，指出三科所為各異：「六波羅蜜道，多為眾生故；三十七品等，但求涅槃；十八空等，於涅槃中出過聲聞、辟支佛地，入菩薩位道。」而後下一個總判：「是三種，皆是生身菩薩所行。所以者何？分別諸法故。」三科雖高下有別，同在分別諸法之列。至於經文那個「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」，論主判歸另一位：「今又一切法皆是菩薩道，是法性生身菩薩所行，不見諸法有好惡，安立諸法平等相故。」前段所說之「亦」字，分界正在此處。末後論主指出經文自帶理由——「此中佛自說因緣」，所說者為「菩薩應學一切法，若一法不學，則不能得一切種智。」並把「學」訓得很具體：「用一切種門，思惟、籌量、修觀、通達。」學不是知其名，是四事俱到。
十六、戲論之難與戲論之相；佛可具說一切法空相。 論主復述須菩提之難，並把「戲論相」略舉一過：「此東、彼西，是上、是下，是常、是無常，是實、是虛，是世間、是出世間，乃至是二乘法、是佛法。」隨後把佛的答鋪成一條反證：「若法實定有不空者，即是無生無滅，無生無滅故無四諦，無四諦故無佛、法、僧寶，如是三寶等諸法皆壞。」不空的代價是三寶俱壞，這是比空更嚴重的過失。既立空已，再退一步防護：「今諸法實空，乃至空相亦空」；而後說分別之所由：眾生「愚癡顛倒故著」，菩薩於是「於眾生中起悲心，欲拔出故，求佛身力；欲令眾生信受其語」。末後給出分界：「若眾生自知諸法空，菩薩但自住空相中，不須學分別一切法。」分別是應病之藥，不是佛自身之所需。
十七、菩薩之自念——畢竟空唯是一法實；照明菩薩道而心安隱；為令眾生信受故學一切法。 論主把經文中菩薩的思惟寫成一段自語，層次很清楚：「一切法無定實性，但從因緣和合起；是眾因緣亦各各從和合起，乃至到畢竟空。」推到底以後下一判斷：「畢竟空唯是一法實；餘者無性，故皆虛誑。」再轉入自己的處境與歸屬：「我從無始世來，著是虛誑法，於六道中厭受苦惱。我今是三世十方佛子，般若是我母，今不應復隨逐虛誑法。」末後把防護推到極處：「是故菩薩乃至畢竟空中亦不著，何況餘法」。隨後一句寫他的心境：「爾時，菩薩照明菩薩道，其心安隱，自念」——「我但斷著心，道自然至。」道不是求來的，是著心斷處自然而至。而知此以後，他並不就此止步——「念眾生深著世間，而畢竟空亦空、無性、無有住處，眾生難可信受」，於是「為令眾生信受是法故，學一切法，修行生起是度眾生方便法」。學一切法的動機在此說得最明白。
十八、觀眾生心行而知所著皆虛誑；小兒聚土之喻；若所著實有則不可捨。 論主先寫觀：「觀眾生心行所趣，知好何法、念何事、何所志願」，觀的結果是「眾生所著處皆是虛誑顛倒，憶想分別故著，無有根本實事」，於是「菩薩大歡喜」——歡喜的理由正是經文那句「眾生易度耳」。隨後立喻：有人之子「喜在不淨中戲，聚土為穀，以草木為鳥獸，而生愛著；人有奪者，瞋恚啼哭」，而其父知道「此子今雖愛著，此事易離耳，小大自休」，因為「此物非真故」。喻的對應處論主明說：菩薩「觀眾生愛著不淨臭身及五欲是無常，種種苦因」，而知眾生「得信等五善根成就時，即能捨離」。喻之後還有一層反證，最見力量：「若小兒所著實是真物，雖復年至百歲，著之轉深，不可得捨」。眾生可度的根據不在眾生的力量，在所著之物的虛妄。末後再補一喻：得無漏清淨智慧眼時能遠離所著而「大自慚愧」，「譬如狂病，所作非法，醒悟之後，羞慚無顏」。
十九、方便教化而不令著；熱金丸之喻；不住之二因緣。 論主把經文的教化語復述並加一層釋：勸布施而誡「莫恃是布施果報而自憍高」，理由是「此中無有堅實，皆當破壞，與未布施時無異」；持戒等乃至十八不共法亦然。而後說出通則：「是諸法雖清淨、大有所益，皆是有為法，從因緣生，無有自性；汝等若著是法，能生苦惱。」並立喻：「譬如熱金丸，雖是寶物，捉則燒手。」是寶物與燒手並不相妨，這正是善法可著而成患的樣子。隨後論主釋不住之義，把「不住」落到布施的具體行相上：「布施時不取三種相，亦不著果報而自高生罪業，布施果報滅壞時亦不生惱。」末後把經文二因緣復述一過：「一者、菩薩深入空，不見諸法性，故不住；二者、不以小事為足，故不住。」
二十、一向能生菩提道；無生之難；佛可其意而簡所為說之機。 論主以一句收前——「是菩薩無有異心，但一向能生菩提道」，隨即接上須菩提的難：「若一切法無生，云何菩薩能生菩提道？」佛之可，論主寫作：「一切法無生，我實處處說諸法無生，非為凡夫說，但為得無作解脫、不起三種業者說。」這一句是本段的要害——無生之教有其所對之機，不是對一切人說的通義；凡夫聞無生而執無生，正是所以要簡。
廿一、法相常住之復問；道之所以起在眾生不知；道非道平等即是道。 論主寫須菩提之復問：「世尊！佛自說：『有佛、無佛，諸法法相常住。』如聖人法相空，凡夫亦如是！」既然聖凡同一法相，何必更起道？佛之可與釋，論主收作三句：「諸法實相常住，以眾生不知不解故，起菩提道」，「但為除凡夫顛倒法，故名為道」，「若決定有道可著者，即復是顛倒」。末後給出一個極重的判語：「道、非道平等即是道，是故不應難！」道之為道只在對治，不在自體；一執其自體，道自身就成了所破之物。
廿二、四句之前三——生道、不生道、非生非不生；熱金丸喻之再用。 論主逐句釋佛之「不也」。生道之所以不可：「生道者，菩薩觀是有為法生滅相謂是實，是故言不。」並回指前喻——「如先說熱金丸喻」。不生之所以不可：「不生法即是無為，無作法故，亦不可以得菩提。」二者既破，論主以一句總斷『生』與『不生』——「二俱有過故」。隨後把經文第三問復述為「非生非不生得菩提耶」，答仍是「不也」。
廿三、非生非不生何以亦有過——過在分別好醜取相。 論主自設一問，問得極合理——『生』與『不生』二俱有過，則『非生非不生』「復不應有過，何以言不得？」答只有一句而力道全在其中：分別『非生非不生』是好是醜，則「取相生著故，故言有過；若能不著，則是菩提道。」同一句話，著則有過，不著即是道。所破的從來不是句子的形式，是取相。此段是本單元四句一節的樞紐，讀前三問之「不也」都要回到這裡。
廿四、不以四句云何得道；菩提即是道之釋；水入大海之喻；因果不一不異。 論主寫須菩提之問：「若不以四句得者，云何得道？」佛答：「不以道、不以非道，則得菩提。」隨後論主自釋其故，先訓菩提：「菩提名諸法實相，是諸佛所得究竟實相，無有變異。」再說一切法與菩提的關係：「一切法入菩提中，皆寂滅相；如一切水入大海，同為一味。」而後把佛語推成一個性上的等式：「菩提性即是道性。」並以反證固之：「若菩提性、道性異者，不名菩提為無戲論寂滅相」。末後再補一層因果之理：「是二法異者，行道不應到菩提——諸法因果，不一不異故。」若道與菩提真是二物，行道便無由到；不一不異，正是行得到而又不是別得一物的緣故。
廿五、菩薩行道應便是佛之難；須菩提為新學而難；佛以反問答之總相。 論主指出須菩提此難是雙向的：「菩薩行道應便是佛」，因為道即菩提；「又佛應是菩薩」，因為菩提即道。並點明其動機：「須菩提為新學菩薩故，分別難佛」。佛之答，論主寫作「以反問答」——「佛得菩提不？」須菩提自答：「不也！何以故？菩提不離佛、佛不離菩提；二法和合故，是佛、是菩提。」論主隨即指出這個自答已足以解難，判云「是故不應難言」。並判其體例：「此總相答。」總相答者，尚未及別相，所以下文還要再問。
廿六、佛是眾生、菩提是法，云何言佛即是菩提。 論主自設此問，問處很細——佛屬人，菩提屬法，人法二事如何相即？答分幾步：先說未成佛時的情形——「先有三十二相莊嚴身、六波羅蜜等功德莊嚴心，而不名為佛」；次說成佛之由——「得菩提故，名之為佛」。所以「佛與菩提不異」。而後把人這一邊拆開：「微妙清淨五眾和合假名為佛，法即是五眾，五眾不離假名」。再把法這一邊接上：「菩提即是五眾實相，一切法皆入菩提故。」人是五眾之假名，菩提是五眾之實相，兩邊本非二物，所以說「佛即是菩提、菩提即是佛」。末後歸其所以有異之見：「但凡夫心中分別有異。」
廿七、不一不異何以經說即是——一異之多用一；相待故一亦不可得；金剛三昧一念相應慧。 論主又自設一問，這一問是回頭校自己的話——先前論議中說菩提與道「不一不異」，而經中卻說「道即是菩提，菩提即是道」、「佛即是菩提，菩提即是佛」，何以如此？答的第一層是權：「一、異雖俱不實而多用一」。並以常無常為例——「常多生煩惱故不用，無常能破顛倒故多用；事既成辦，亦捨無常」；一與異亦復如是，「若以觀種種別異法故多生著心；若觀諸法一相——若無常、苦、空等，是時煩惱不生」，所以多用「一」。但隨即把權收回：「於實義中，一亦不用；若著一，即復是患。」第二層是理：「別異無故，一亦不可得，相待法故」——一與異互相依待，去其一則另一不立；所以用「一」而不取「一相」，才「說無咎」。並由此回答前段之難：「一不實故，菩薩不得即是佛。」第三層論主引經文自出之因緣作結：菩薩「具足六波羅蜜等諸功德，住金剛三昧，以一念相應慧，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。爾時，於一切法中自在，得名為佛」，並補出菩薩與佛兩邊各自不得名的理由——「菩薩雖知道及菩提不異，未具足諸功德故，不名為佛」；「佛諸事畢竟，願、行滿足故，不名為菩薩」。末後以三句分位：「得者是佛，法是菩提，求菩提者是菩薩。」
廿八、須菩提何以此時轉問淨佛國土；阿羅漢辟支佛無力知此事。 這是全單元的轉折句，論主寫得極簡：「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事。」並補一個為何要由須菩提來問的理由：「諸阿羅漢、辟支佛無有力知淨佛國事，是故問。」不是他知道而代問，正因為二乘於此無力，所以必須問。
廿九、何等是淨佛土——一佛土之量；佛眼六時遍觀而隨見教化；國土無所乏少故不生煩惱；樹木出法音之土。 論主自設「何等是淨佛土」一問，答分三層。第一層說量：「佛土者，百億日月、百億須彌山、百億四天王等諸天，是名三千大千世界。如是等無量無邊三千大千世界，名為一佛土。」第二層說佛在其中所作：「佛常晝三時、夜三時以佛眼遍觀眾生」，所觀者是「誰可種善根？誰善根成就應增長？誰善根成就應得度？」見已則「以神通力隨所見教化」。第三層說國土之淨何以有助於度：「眾生心隨逐外緣，得隨意事，則不生瞋惱；得不淨、無常等因緣，則不生貪欲等煩惱；若得無所有、空因緣，則不生癡等諸煩惱。」所以「諸菩薩莊嚴佛土，為令眾生易度故」；又「國土中無所乏少，無我心故，則不生慳貪、瞋恚等煩惱」。末後舉一種淨土之相為例：「有佛國土，一切樹木常出諸法實相音聲，所謂無生無滅、無起無作等；眾生但聞是妙音，不聞異聲，眾生利根故，便得諸法實相。」並指出其出處——「如《阿彌陀》等諸經中說」。此段把「淨」訓在功能上：淨土之所以淨，在於它處處都在斷煩惱之緣。
三十、何以從初發意便淨三業；三業清淨非但為淨佛土；內法與外法作因緣。 論主復述佛答——「菩薩從初發意來，自淨麁身、口、意業，亦教他人淨麁身、口、意業」——隨即設難：「若菩薩淨佛土，是菩薩得無生法忍、住神通波羅蜜，然後能淨佛土」；既然如此，何以經文言「從初發意來，淨麁身、口、意業」？答有兩層。第一層分別二事：「三業清淨，非但為淨佛土，一切菩薩道皆淨。此三業初淨身、口、意業，後為淨佛土。」同一件事，在初心是自淨其行，在後位才成淨土之因，不相妨礙。第二層說何以自淨能及於土：「非但一人，生國土中者皆共作因緣。內法與外法作因緣，若善、若不善」。並逐條列出：「多惡口業故，地生荊棘；諂誑曲心故，地則高下不平；慳貪多故，則水旱不調、地生沙礫。」反面亦然：「不作上諸惡故，地則平正，多出珍寶」，並舉一例為證——「如彌勒佛出時，人皆行十善故，地多珍寶」。此段是本品淨土義的實處：土之相不是另造，是眾生之業共感。
卅一、何以但說淨三業——思為大；縫衣以針為導；面淨故鏡像淨。 論主再設一問：「若布施等諸善法得淨佛土果報，何以但說淨三業？」答的路數是找出諸法之中的主者。先立三個「為大」：「得道時智慧為大；攝心中定為大；作業時思為大」。而後說次第：「得是思業已，起身、口、意業。布施、禪定等，以思為首」。並立喻：「譬如縫衣，以針為導。」又補一句就果報說的：「受後世果報時，業力為大。」既然思與業是主，說三業便已盡攝：「意業中盡攝一切心、心數法，身、口則攝一切色法。」末後回到淨土之義，給出一個極簡的因果與一個極切的喻：「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」，並舉所出之經——「如《毘摩羅詰經》中說」——與一項實例：「不殺生故人皆長壽」
卅二、麁業易知，須菩提何以故問——麁細不定。 論主設問：「身、口、意麁業，是事易知，須菩提何以故問？」答只一句立宗：「麁、細不定故。」隨後以三對相形之例證成：「如求道人中布施是麁善，於白衣為細」——同一布施，在兩種人身上麁細相反；「如小乘中不善業為麁，善業為細」；「摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」。三例一級比一級嚴，到第三例時連涅槃都落在麁邊。麁不是一個固定的名單，是隨所在之乘、所對之機而移的分位；所以雖是「易知」之事，仍須問。
卅三、佛次第為說麁業相——十不善道；破六波羅蜜之六心。 論主隨經文次第釋麁業之目。第一目即十不善道：「所謂奪命，乃至邪見。是三種身業、四種口業、三種意業，皆名為麁。」身三、口四、意三之分是論主所開，經文只出「殺生乃至邪見」之首尾。第二目：「破菩薩六波羅蜜法——慳貪等，皆名為麁。」經文所列六心與六波羅蜜一一相反，論主以「破菩薩六波羅蜜法」一語點出其所以然。
卅四、十不善道已攝慳貪，何以復別說六法——惱眾生與不惱眾生之分；業道之成在能起業。 論主自設此問，答先立總分：「是六法不入十不善道，十不善道皆是惱眾生法；是六法不但為惱眾生。」而後逐條分辨。慳：「但自惜財，不惱眾生。」貪則分二：「一者、但貪他財，未惱眾生；二者、貪心轉盛，求而不得，則欲毀害，是名業道，以能起業故。」瞋亦同例：「小者不名業道，以其能趣惡處故為道。」此處論主把「業道」二字訓得很準——道者，能趣之義；輕者雖是煩惱而未成能趣之道，重者能起業故名道。分辨既明，故結云「別說六法無咎」。
卅五、六波羅蜜中已說戒，何以復說戒不淨——細罪不惱眾生；不破所受戒而戒不淨之四相。 論主設問而答分兩層。第一層就罪相說：「破戒法是殺生等麁罪。戒不淨是微細罪，不惱眾生；如飲酒等，不入十不善道。」第二層更要緊，說的是戒相完好而戒仍不淨的情形：「破五眾戒，名為破戒」是一邊；另一邊是「不破所受戒」而有四種病——「常為三毒覆心」「不憶念戒」「迴向天福」「邪見持戒」。四者皆不犯戒條，而論主一概判為戒不淨。持戒之淨不淨，判在心的去向，不只判在事相有無虧損。
卅六、遠離四念處等三十七品三解脫門何以是麁；蛇入竹筒之喻。 論主釋第四目麁業，先說道品之所以為心之所依：「此中心皆觀實法，隨涅槃、不隨世間；若出四念處等法，心則散亂。」而後立喻：「譬如蛇行本性好曲，若入竹筒則直，出筒還曲。」喻中三事要分清：蛇之本性是心的舊習，竹筒是道品的規範，直是在規範中的暫時之相。所以遠離道品之為麁，不在遠離的那個動作，在心一離規範即回到舊習。
卅七、貪須陀洹果證何以是麁——五十由旬池水之喻；請客不與之喻。 這是麁業之目的最後一級，也是最不像惡事的一級。論主先寫那個貪心如何起：人聞佛說「須陀洹果，不墮三惡道，盡無量苦，如五十由旬池水；餘在者，如一渧、二渧」，「則生貪心」。佛語本是稱歎果德，聞者卻因此起貪，可見貪不必緣惡境。而後論主指出其病根與其重處：「以其心不牢固，本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證，是為欺佛，亦負眾生」。並立喻：「譬如人請客，欲設飲食而竟不與，是則妄語負客。」喻中對應處論主明說：菩薩初發心時作願「我當作佛，度一切眾生」，而中途取證，「是則負一切眾生」。末後推廣一句：「如貪須陀洹果，乃至貪辟支佛道亦如是。」之上一單元至此而止，卷第九十二終。
不要讀錯
不要把「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」讀成菩薩道沒有分際。論主明明把佛所列的名目分了兩層：六波羅蜜、三十七品、十八空佛十力三科「皆是生身菩薩所行」，理由是「分別諸法故」；而「一切法皆是菩薩道，是法性生身菩薩所行，不見諸法有好惡」。讀成一鍋煮，前三科的次第與「所以者何」就全落空了；讀成只有法性生身者才算，則佛那句「無有法菩薩所不應學者」又無著落。兩層並存，不是一層取代一層。
不要把「不住」讀成不得。經文佛答的第二因緣說得極明白：「我不應不得須陀洹果，我必應當得須陀洹果，我但不應是中住」。他是必得而不住，不是不得。論主釋不住時也落在行相上——「布施時不取三種相，亦不著果報而自高生罪業，布施果報滅壞時亦不生惱」——說的是得之而不取其相。把不住讀成不取果、不修證，正與經文相反。
不要把四句之破讀成「非生非不生」這句話本身有毛病。論主的答只有一條：分別其為好醜，則「取相生著故，故言有過；若能不著，則是菩提道。」同一句，著則有過，不著即是道。所破的是取相，不是句式。若以為換一個更周全的句式就能免過，那正是論主所要破的那種心。
不要把「菩提即是道，道即是菩提」讀成菩薩與佛沒有分別。須菩提正是這樣難的，佛也正是就這一難而答的：不二是就法體說，而成佛須「具足六波羅蜜、三十七助道法，具足佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法，具足住如金剛三昧，用一念相應慧」。論主又補了兩邊各自的理由——菩薩「未具足諸功德故，不名為佛」，佛「願、行滿足故，不名為菩薩」。取不二而廢階位，是把總相答當作全部。
不要把「多用一」讀成「一」是究竟。論主說得很警覺：「於實義中，一亦不用；若著一，即復是患。」並補出所以然——「別異無故，一亦不可得，相待法故」。「一」之所以多用，是因為觀一相時煩惱不生，如同無常之所以多用是因為能破顛倒；事既成辦，無常也捨。凡把對治之法當作所歸之地的，此段便是現成之誡。
不要把淨佛國土讀成先莊嚴外境。佛答的第一句是「從初發意已來，自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業」，論主的釋是「內法與外法作因緣」，並逐條舉惡口感荊棘、諂曲感高下、慳貪感水旱沙礫。若把次序倒過來，先求國土之相而不先治三業，本段所說的因果就整個斷了。論主末後那句「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」，說的正是這個先後。
不要把「眾生易度耳」讀成輕慢眾生。菩薩之所以說易度，論主給的理由是所著之物虛妄，不是眾生根器優越；而且他還立了反證——「若小兒所著實是真物，雖復年至百歲，著之轉深，不可得捨」。易度之「易」全在境上，不在人上；讀成看輕眾生，喜的那一邊就成了慢。
不要把「戒不淨」讀成犯戒。論主特別列出「不破所受戒」而仍不淨的四種情形：常為三毒覆心、不憶念戒、迴向天福、邪見持戒。四者都不虧戒條。若以戒條無犯自安，本段所指的正是這一種人。
不要把「麁」當成一張固定的名單。論主立宗只一句：「麁、細不定故。」同一布施，在求道人為麁而在白衣為細；小乘以善業為細，摩訶衍則「取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」。所以麁業之目才會一路開到「貪須陀洹果證」。以自己所在之分位去判他人之麁細，或以他乘之判準自寬，都是把不定之事讀作定法。
不要把「貪須陀洹果」讀成不該求解脫。所斥的是「本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證」——是已立之願中途改向。論主的兩個字說得最重：「欺佛」「負眾生」，並以請客不與為喻。若本無此願，便不在此段所論之列；既立此願而中途自取，才是這裡所說的麁。
修行作用
以「莫念有是法」校自己的用功。經文教化眾生的三句都同一結構：勸行布施而「莫恃布施果報而自高」，勸持戒禪定智慧亦然，勸得道果而「莫念有是法」。這給了一個很順手的自檢：凡做了一件善事、得了一點受用，隨後心裡浮起的那個『我有了』，就是此處所誡。做照做，念不必立。
用「熱金丸」看待自己所得的善法。論主的喻很不客氣：「雖是寶物，捉則燒手。」所指的不是惡法，正是清淨大有所益的善法。日常裡愈是修得有成效的那一分——定力、辯才、戒行、學問——愈要用這一喻校一次：我是在用它，還是在捉著它。
用「內法與外法作因緣」看待自己所處的環境。論主把惡口、諂曲、慳貪與荊棘、高下、水旱一一相繫，這不是隱喻而是因果。與其抱怨所處之地不合意，不如先問這三業近來如何。本段最實用的一句是「非但一人，生國土中者皆共作因緣」——環境是共感的，所以自己那一分不是無足輕重的。
以「思為大」安排用功的著力點。論主把心數法中的主者指得很清楚：得道時智慧為大，攝心中定為大，作業時思為大，並以「譬如縫衣，以針為導」為喻。做事之前先把那個發動的意思校正一過，比事後補救有效得多；這也是佛何以只說三業而不逐條說布施等的緣故。
用「戒不淨」的四相自檢持戒。四相是：常為三毒覆心、不憶念戒、迴向天福、邪見持戒。可以逐條當作問句用——近來持戒時心是否一直在三毒裡、有沒有真的憶念所受之戒、所求的果報是不是人天福、所依的見解有沒有偏。四者都不需要犯戒就能成立，所以特別值得定期一查。
用『蛇入竹筒』理解規範的作用與限度。竹筒使蛇直，但出筒還曲，這就是道品對心的作用——在其中則心不散亂，離則還舊。所以一方面不必因為『離了規範就回到老樣子』而灰心，那本是常態；另一方面也不要以為在規範中的那一段直是已經改了本性。要做的只有一件：不要出筒。
以『本願』校一切階段性的所得。論主判貪果證為麁，判準是「本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證」。這條可以放大到日常：凡當初為他人、為長遠而起的事，做到中途嘗到滋味而改為自利自安的，都在此列。定期把初發心那句話拿出來讀一遍，是最省力的校正。
以『眾生所著皆是虛誑無實』轉自己面對他人執著時的心。論主寫菩薩觀已而「大歡喜」，喜的理由是所著之物本不真實。日常裡遇到他人難以說動的執著，若先斷定此人不可理喻，事就到此為止；若依此段先看所著之物的虛實，心就鬆得開，話也說得下去。並記得那一句反證——難易全在境上，不在人上。
承衍
之上一單元，一經一論，所立的是本品的入路。經文從須菩提心念問道起，歷「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」、學一切法而不著、行菩薩道而無所住、一切法無生而生菩提道、法相常住、四句皆不得菩提，而歸於「菩提即是道，道即是菩提」；至此道相說盡，方轉問淨佛國土，佛答以自除並淨他身口意麁業，而開列麁業五目。論主逐段釋其所以然：以時會之疑與深入禪定者釋不問而心念，以生身與法性生身分三科之道與一切法皆道，以小兒聚土與熱金丸二喻釋眾生易度與善法可患，以取相生著釋四句俱不可得，以五眾假名與五眾實相釋佛即是菩提，以「內法與外法作因緣」釋淨土之因，以「思為大」釋何以但說三業，以「麁、細不定」釋麁業之目何以直開到貪果證。全段的重心可以收在一句上：問的是道，答的是不住；而不住之極處，即是國土之淨。
本品品題，諸本不一。底本論題作〈淨佛國土品〉，而所釋之經本於此品之目作「淨土品」，吉藏《大品經義疏》釋此品亦題作「淨土品」；論題之異文另見石本作「淨土品」、宋本宮本題中無「佛國」二字，與經本、吉藏之短稱同其一系，而底本與其餘諸本則維持全稱。兩造稱名各有所本，此處並錄不判；其逐條校記屬考據之事，不於此備列。
吉藏於本品開端即釋品名之所繫：「此下後文明淨佛土，故云淨土。」並為全品立四分之科：「就文為四：第一明菩薩自住勝道，二者化眾生令因菩薩住勝道，三者令眾生傳化，四眾生令悟共證菩提。」四分之中，之上一單元當其前四分之全幅——自「菩薩自住勝道」起，至「一心得菩提下，第四、明菩薩及眾生了悟皆住菩提也」為止。其於須菩提不發言而心念一事，所釋與論主同一路數：「不好語言而欲得法利，故須菩提不發言默念問也」；於佛何以以言答，亦取「佛身覩之無厭」「只不妨禪定，故異須菩提也」之意——與本單元論主「佛身色，視無厭足」「雖語而不妨細禪定行」兩句義理平行，而文非相襲，兩造並見，誌錄不判。
吉藏於四句一節，判其所破在須菩提之因果二見：「正破須菩提因果二見。如汝必言因果二故行因得果，故作四句問也。今因果不二即果是因，豈可言行因得果耶？」並以此釋下文「菩提應是佛」之難：「先因果二見，今聞不二作一見，故作一句也。」而以「因果既非二」收之。論主於此則以「取相生著」為過之所在，並以「一、異雖俱不實而多用一」與「相待法故」為釋；一以因果之二見立破，一以一異之權實立釋，詳略互見，並存不判。
吉藏於淨土一段，別立二分之科：「第二、明淨佛土。文為二：初、明淨土因；二、明淨土果。因中有二：初、明無惡因；二、明有善因。」其所釋「無惡因」之內容與本單元論主所出者相應——地土之高下干繫於誑曲、慳貪多則水旱不調而土地多諸沙礫、「不作上諸惡故，地平多珍寶」，與論主「內法與外法作因緣」一段同出一源。其於六蔽之別說，設問與論主同：「同十惡已有慳貪，何故更說六蔽？」答亦取「是六法不入十惡」「重瞋能業，故名業道」之分，而歸「故別說六弊也」。其於戒不淨一節，亦設「六度中已說戒不淨」之問，而答云「破戒是煞等麤罪，戒不淨即是細」——三處問答之次第與本單元論主全合，可知其所科即本品之文。惟卍續本此疏訛脫頗多，凡字句不可通處，此處一概不代為校補，亦不取以立義。
慧影《大智度論疏》於本品闕釋。其書現存止於卷次之中途，所存部分未及本品所在之卷；書中雖數見「淨土品」之名，而所指乃其所釋之第五十七品，非本品。慧影自身於別處曾誌「此經兩處明淨土品」，可知同名兩出乃其所自知；讀其書者若逕以「淨土品」三字相繫，必致同名異品之誤。此處據實記闕，不以他處之文充之。均正《大乘四論玄義》無涉本品之文，亦記闕。
《阿彌陀》等諸經與《毘摩羅詰經》二處，係論主自引以明淨土之相與內外相感之理，非後人所繫；其所引之義已入前文逐段解明，此處不重出。之上既以道相與麁業之目為止，其下經文轉入取相、無相與作願莊嚴國土之行，論主隨之而釋七寶樹出法音、百味之諸家異說、聞佛名畢定作佛等事——本品之下繼此展開，此處不預。
Purifying the Buddha-land, First Part: What Is the Bodhisattva Path; Training in All Dharmas without Clinging; Practising without Abiding; Awakening Is Precisely the Path; How Buddha-lands Are Purified; the Items of the Coarse Deeds of Body, Speech, and Mind
What Is Being Asked
The chapter is named "Purifying the Buddha-land", yet reading the First Part unit from head to tail, the only place that speaks directly of the pure land is one small passage at the very end—Subhūti asks 「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva purify buddha-lands", the Buddha answers 「自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業，亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」 tr. "himself removes the coarse deeds of body, removes the coarse deeds of speech, removes the coarse deeds of mind, and also purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others", and then lists the items of the coarse deeds. That whole large stretch before it asks entirely about other matters: what the bodhisattva path is, why, all dharmas being empty, one must still train in all dharmas, why practising the path does not abide, by what path awakening is obtained. The first question the First Part has to answer is this seemingly off-topic way of proceeding: how does the asking about the path lead out into the asking about the pure land?
The sūtra itself gives the clue. The occasion of Subhūti's question is 「菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴」 tr. "abiding in this path, the bodhisattva can take on such a great adornment"—what he asks about from the first is not the names of the path, but the path that can accomplish the great adornment. The Buddha opens the bodhisattva path all the way from the six perfections to 「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva", and then presses out 「菩薩不學一切法，不能得一切種智」 tr. "if the bodhisattva does not train in all dharmas, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds"; Subhūti then asks back on the meaning of emptiness, and the Buddha then answers with 「眾生實不知一切法空」 tr. "beings in reality do not know that all dharmas are empty", so that the bodhisattva, having obtained the path, 「分別諸法為眾生說」 tr. "distinguishes dharmas and proclaims them for beings". It is pushed all the way to awakening and the path being not two; Subhūti has nothing more to ask, and so he turns to ask about purifying buddha-lands. The treatise-author points out this turning point very plainly: 「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事。」 tr. "Subhūti has heard from the Buddha the mark of awakening and the mark of the path, and the bringing of beings to accomplishment is finished; now he asks about the matter of purifying buddha-lands." The mark of the path fully spoken, the bringing of beings to accomplishment fully spoken, what remains is the place where beings dwell—the land. Asking about the path and asking about the land are the two ends of one line.
The second question lies in 「不住」 tr. "not abiding". The sūtra lists a long string of not abiding: not abiding in the six perfections, not abiding in the four dhyānas and so on up to the nine successive absorptions, not abiding in the fruits of the paths and the pratyekabuddha path either. Subhūti asks why, and the Buddha answers with two causes and conditions: the first is 「諸道果性空，無住處，亦無所用法，亦無住者」 tr. "the nature of the fruits of the paths is empty; there is no place to abide, nor any dharma made use of, nor anyone who abides", the second is 「不以少事為足」 tr. "he is not content with a small matter". The former is that in principle there is nothing to abide in; the latter is that in resolve he is unwilling to abide. These two must be looked at together: speak only of the first, and not abiding will be read as nothing needing to be obtained; speak only of the second, and not abiding will be read as craving for more. The second question the First Part has to answer is whether ‘not abiding’ is after all not obtaining, or obtaining and not stopping.
The third question is the most perilous, and lies in the four alternatives. Subhūti asks in succession whether awakening can be obtained by the path of arising, the path of non-arising, the path of neither arising nor non-arising, and the Buddha answers all alike 「不也」 tr. "no". The four alternatives exhausted, Subhūti can only ask 「云何當得菩提」 tr. "how can awakening be obtained", and the Buddha's answer is a sentence wholly outside the four alternatives: 「非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提。須菩提！菩提即是道，道即是菩提。」 tr. "Awakening is not obtained by means of the path, nor is awakening obtained by means of what is not the path. Subhūti! Awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening." Here the treatise-author sets up an extra layer of probing objection—since 「生」 tr. "arising" and 「不生」 tr. "non-arising" both have faults, 「非生非不生」 tr. "neither arising nor non-arising" ought by rights to have no fault, so why is it also said not to obtain? The answer has only one crucial sentence—if one discriminates ‘neither arising nor non-arising’ as good or as ugly, then 「取相生著故，故言有過」 tr. "because one grasps at marks and gives rise to clinging, it is said to have faults". What has a fault has never been that sentence; it is grasping at marks. The third question the First Part has to answer is what the breaking of the four alternatives breaks.
The final passage turns to the pure land, and the very first sentence of the Buddha's answer differs from the pure land people commonly imagine: it does not first speak of the seven jewels, does not first speak of the boundaries of the land, but says 「從初發意已來，自除身麁業」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now, himself removes the coarse deeds of body". For this the treatise-author specially sets up a question—purifying buddha-lands is a matter that comes after obtaining the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and abiding in the perfection of the supernormal powers, so why is it said to be from the first arousing of intent? The answer gives the most solid cause and effect of this unit: 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions"; because of evil speech the ground grows thorns, because of flattery and deceit the ground is high and low and uneven, because of stinginess water and drought are out of season and the ground grows sand and gravel. The pure land is not a separate place made anew; it is the outer dharmas evoked by the inner dharmas. The last question of the First Part is why the cause of the pure land falls upon one's own three kinds of deeds.
Passage by Passage
1. Subhūti does not speak but asks about the path in thought; the Buddha answers that the six perfections and so on up to all dharmas are all the bodhisattva path. The sūtra opens with a special way of raising a question: Subhūti makes no sound; it is 「作是念」 tr. "had this thought", and 「佛知須菩提心所念，告須菩提」 tr. "the Buddha knew what Subhūti was thinking in his mind, and told Subhūti". What is asked is 「何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴」 tr. "what is the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva? Abiding in this path, the bodhisattva can take on such a great adornment". The Buddha's answer falls into two layers: first he lists the items—the six perfections, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the eighteen emptinesses, the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions, the Buddha's ten powers and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; then he adds one sentence that pushes all the items wide open—「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva". At the end he closes with a counter-question, 「頗有法菩薩所不學能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不？」 tr. "Is there any dharma that the bodhisattva does not train in and yet can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?", and answers it himself, 「無有法菩薩所不應學者」 tr. "there is no dharma that the bodhisattva should not train in", the reason being 「菩薩不學一切法，不能得一切種智」 tr. "if the bodhisattva does not train in all dharmas, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds". What is to be looked at is this character 「亦」 tr. "too": the first five items are the path, and all dharmas are 「亦」 tr. "too" the path; the two are not set side by side on the same level, and below the treatise-author will separate them.
2. All dharmas being empty, why is it said that one trains in all dharmas; the Buddha assents to their emptiness and states what distinguishing is for. Subhūti's counter-question is extremely heavy in form: 「將無世尊無戲論中作戲論耶？」 tr. "Is it not that the World-Honored One makes idle discourse within the absence of idle discourse?" He lists six pairs—this and that, worldly and world-transcending, with outflows and without outflows, conditioned and unconditioned, ordinary people and the arhat, the pratyekabuddha and the dharma of the Buddha—to point at the distinctions the Buddha speaks of. The Buddha's answer first concedes everything: 「如是！如是！一切法實空。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! All dharmas are truly empty." And he turns round to set up a still stronger statement: 「若一切法不空者，菩薩摩訶薩不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "If all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva could not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Emptiness is not an obstacle; emptiness is precisely the condition for being able to obtain. As for distinguishing, the Buddha ties it to beings: 「若世間眾生知一切法空，菩薩摩訶薩不學一切法、得一切種智。」 tr. "If the beings of the world knew that all dharmas are empty, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva would not train in all dharmas and obtain the omniscience of all kinds." If beings knew emptiness of themselves, distinguishing would not need to exist; 「今眾生實不知一切法空」 tr. "now beings in reality do not know that all dharmas are empty", and so 「得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提已，分別諸法為眾生說」 tr. "after he has obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he distinguishes dharmas and proclaims them for beings". The reason distinguishing is not idle discourse is that it is set up for people who do not know emptiness, not something the Buddha himself needs.
3. From the very beginning reflecting thus—a fixed nature is unfindable and yet dharmas have names; observing the mental activity of beings and knowing that they are easily delivered; teaching and transforming by the power of skilful means and bidding them not keep in mind that dharmas exist. This is the longest passage of Sūtra ①, and within the one passage there are three turns. The first turn is the bodhisattva's own reflection: 「一切諸法中定性不可得，但從和合因緣起法故有名字諸法」 tr. "within all dharmas a fixed nature is unfindable; it is only from causes and conditions coming together that dharmas arise, and so there are dharmas that are names", and so he takes as his object throughout the nature of the six perfections, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the fruit of the arhat, the pratyekabuddha path and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet 「無所著」 tr. "clings to nothing"; and he sets up for himself a layer of protection—「一切法、一切法性空，空不著空，空亦不可得，何況空中有著」 tr. "all dharmas, and the nature of all dharmas, are empty; emptiness does not cling to emptiness, and emptiness too is unfindable—how much less is there clinging within emptiness". The second turn looks outward: 「住是學中，觀眾生心行——是眾生心在何處行？」 tr. "abiding in this training, he observes where the minds of beings go—where do the minds of these beings go?" The answer is 「知眾生虛妄不實中行」 tr. "he knows that beings go within what is false and unreal", and so there is that extremely important judgement: 「是眾生著不實虛妄法，易度耳！」 tr. "What these beings cling to are unreal, false dharmas; they are easily delivered, that is all!" The third turn is the tone of teaching and transforming: he urges them to practise giving and yet 「亦莫恃布施果報而自高」 tr. "also not to rely on the retribution of giving and exalt themselves"; he urges morality, meditative concentration, and wisdom likewise; he urges them to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha path and the Buddha path, and yet 「莫念有是法」 tr. "not to keep in mind that these dharmas exist". The three turns are gathered into one concluding sentence: 「如是教化，行菩薩道而無所著」 tr. "teaching and transforming in this way, he practises the bodhisattva path without clinging to anything". Take note of the two Chinese characters 「易度」 tr. "easily delivered"; below, the treatise-author will set up a simile specially to explain them.
4. Practising the bodhisattva path with nowhere to abide—not abiding in the six perfections, the meditative absorptions, or the fruits; the two causes and conditions of not abiding. The sūtra spreads out 「無所住」 tr. "nowhere to abide" item by item: of each of the six perfections in turn, 「亦不住是中」 tr. "he does not abide in it either"; the first dhyāna and so on up to the fourth dhyāna, kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, the four formless absorptions, the eight liberations, and the nine successive absorptions are likewise; the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the fruit of the arhat, together with the pratyekabuddha path, are likewise. Among these, for the first dhyāna the Buddha himself gives the reason: 「是初禪初禪相空，行禪者亦空，所用法亦空」 tr. "the mark of the first dhyāna of this first dhyāna is empty, the one who practises dhyāna is empty too, and the dharma used is empty too"—the dharma practised, the person who practises, the means used: all three places are empty, and so there is nothing to abide in. Subhūti asks 「何因緣故不住是中」 tr. "by reason of what causes and conditions does he not abide in it", and the Buddha answers with two causes and conditions: the first concerns principle, 「諸道果性空，無住處，亦無所用法，亦無住者」 tr. "the nature of the fruits of the paths is empty; there is no place to abide, nor any dharma made use of, nor anyone who abides"; the second concerns resolve, 「不以少事為足」 tr. "he is not content with a small matter". The words he speaks to himself under the second cause and condition are worth looking at sentence by sentence: 「我不應不得須陀洹果，我必應當得須陀洹果，我但不應是中住」 tr. "I should not fail to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; I surely should obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; only I should not abide in it". It is not that he does not obtain; he obtains and does not stop; and he pushes the ground for not stopping back to the first mind—「我從初發意已來，更無餘心，一心向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "from my first arousing of intent until now I have had no other mind; with one mind I face anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". The final sentence, 「是菩薩摩訶薩住是一心，能生菩提道」 tr. "this bodhisattva-mahāsattva, abiding in this one mind, can give rise to the path of awakening", joins the one mind to giving rise to the path, and so leads into the objection of the next passage.
5. All dharmas do not arise; how can the path of awakening be given rise to. Subhūti seizes on the character 「生」 tr. "arise" to raise an objection. The Buddha's answer only goes round in a circle: 「如是！如是！一切法無生。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! All dharmas are non-arising." Then he himself explains the meaning of non-arising—「無所作、無所起者，一切法不生故」 tr. "it is without anything made and without anything raised up, because all dharmas do not arise". Here the Buddha does not directly explain how 「能生菩提道」 tr. "can give rise to the path of awakening" and 「一切法無生」 tr. "all dharmas are non-arising" are compatible; the answer is filled in only by the constant abiding of the marks of dharmas in the next passage and the four alternatives in the passage after that; in reading, this passage should not be taken as already settled.
6. Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly; the path of awakening is given rise to for the sake of beings. Subhūti asks again from another angle: 「有佛、無佛，諸法法相不常住耶？」 tr. "Whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, do not the marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly?" The Buddha again first assents: 「如是！如是！有佛、無佛，是諸法法相常住。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! Whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, these marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly." Then he places the 「生」 tr. "giving rise" of the path of awakening on beings' not knowing: 「以眾生不知是法住法相，為是故，菩薩摩訶薩為眾生故生菩提道，用是道拔出眾生生死。」 tr. "Because beings do not know these marks of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, for this reason the bodhisattva-mahāsattva gives rise to the path of awakening for the sake of beings, and with this path pulls beings out of birth and death." This sentence fills the gap of the previous passage—the arising of the path does not lie on the side of the marks of dharmas, but on the side of beings' not knowing; the marks of dharmas abide constantly, so the path adds nothing to them; beings do not know, so the path cannot but arise.
7. The path of arising, the path of non-arising, the path of neither arising nor non-arising: three questions and three answers, all saying no; how can awakening be obtained. Here the sūtra is pressed into a set of extremely short questions and answers, the sentences short and tightening step by step: 「用生道得菩提？」 tr. "Is awakening obtained by the path of arising?" The Buddha said: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" 「用不生道得菩提？」 tr. "Is awakening obtained by the path of non-arising?" The Buddha said: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" 「用不生非不生道得菩提？」 tr. "Is awakening obtained by the path of neither arising nor non-arising?" The Buddha said: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" After the three answers Subhūti can only ask: 「云何當得菩提？」 tr. "Then how can awakening be obtained?" Three of the four alternatives having been denied, the remaining roads are already blocked; this question is forced out, not a new meaning raised.
8. Awakening is not obtained by means of the path, nor is awakening obtained by means of what is not the path; awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening. The Buddha's answer has two halves. The first half is still a denial, and it closes even a fifth road outside the four alternatives—「非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提」 tr. "awakening is not obtained by means of the path, nor is awakening obtained by means of what is not the path"; neither side, the path or what is not the path, is what obtaining relies on. The second half is the eye of the whole passage: 「菩提即是道，道即是菩提。」 tr. "Awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening." The question is changed from ‘by means of what is it obtained’ into ‘what is obtained and what is used are from the first not two’. Since they are not two, the very way of asking with 「用」 tr. "by means of" falls empty; this is precisely why the Buddha does not answer with the four alternatives but answers with non-duality.
9. The objection that if the path is awakening the bodhisattva should be precisely the Buddha; the Buddha answers with a counter-question; the vajra samādhi and the wisdom associated with a single thought. Subhūti at once pushes out a predicament: 「今菩薩未作佛，應當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提！」 tr. "The bodhisattva now, not yet having become a Buddha, should already have obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi!" If the path is precisely awakening, the person practising the path should already have obtained it; then how are the Buddha's thirty-two marks, eighty minor marks, ten powers, four fearlessnesses, four unobstructed knowledges, eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion to be spoken of? The Buddha does not explain head-on, but answers with a counter-question in its place: 「佛得菩提不？」 tr. "Does the Buddha obtain awakening?" Subhūti answers it himself, 「不也」 tr. "no", and himself states the reason: 「佛即是菩提，菩提即是佛。」 tr. "The Buddha is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the Buddha." The Buddha follows this answer and finishes the words: the bodhisattva must 「具足六波羅蜜、三十七助道法，具足佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法，具足住如金剛三昧，用一念相應慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是時名為佛，一切法中得自在」 tr. "be complete with the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, be complete with the Buddha's ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, and the eighteen unshared dharmas, being complete with them abide in the like-vajra samādhi, and by the wisdom associated with a single thought obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; at this time he is named Buddha, and within all dharmas obtains mastery". Non-duality is said with regard to the substance of the dharma; completeness is said with regard to accomplishment; the objection becomes an objection only by merging the two layers into one.
10. How buddha-lands are purified; the Buddha answers: oneself removing the three kinds of coarse deeds, and also purifying the three kinds of coarse deeds of others. Only here does the main topic of the whole unit come out. Subhūti asks 「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva purify buddha-lands", and the Buddha's answer is a single sentence divided into two halves: 「自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業」 tr. "himself removes the coarse deeds of body, removes the coarse deeds of speech, removes the coarse deeds of mind" is purifying oneself; 「亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」 tr. "also purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others" is purifying others. And it is headed with a time—「從初發意已來」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now". The matter of the pure land does not start from the supernormal powers, does not start from the boundaries of the land, but starts from the three kinds of deeds, and from the very moment of first arousing the mind. This sentence is the root of this chapter.
11. What the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind are—unwholesome deeds, six kinds of coarse mind, impure morality, being far from the limbs of the path, craving the realisation of a fruit. Subhūti goes on to ask the items of the coarse deeds, and the Buddha answers in five sections. The first section is general: 「不善業，若殺生乃至邪見，是名菩薩摩訶薩身、口、意麁業」 tr. "unwholesome deeds—such as killing living beings and so on up to wrong views—these are named the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva"—that is, the ten unwholesome paths. The second section, with 「復次」 tr. "further", adds six kinds of mind: 「慳貪心、破戒心、瞋心、懈怠心、亂心、愚癡心，是名菩薩意麁業」 tr. "the mind of stinginess, the mind of breaking morality, the mind of anger, the mind of slackness, the scattered mind, the deluded mind—these are named the coarse deeds of mind of the bodhisattva"—exactly the reverse side of the six perfections. The third section: 「復次，戒不淨，是名菩薩身、口麁業」 tr. "further, impure morality—this is named the coarse deeds of body and speech of the bodhisattva". The fourth section counts the limbs of the path in as well: being far from the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, and from the emptiness, signless, and non-action samādhi, 「亦名菩薩麁業」 tr. "is also named a coarse deed of the bodhisattva". The fifth section pushes to the farthest point: 「菩薩摩訶薩貪須陀洹果，乃至貪阿羅漢果證、辟支佛道，是名菩薩摩訶薩麁業。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva craving the fruit of the srota-āpanna, and so on up to craving the realisation of the fruit of the arhat and the pratyekabuddha path—this is named a coarse deed of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva." The five sections are one line narrowing as it rises: from the ten unwholesome paths, to the six kinds of coarse mind, to subtle matters of morality, to withdrawing from the limbs of the path, to craving the realisation of the two vehicles. Section by section the items look less and less ‘like evil deeds’, and yet in the bodhisattva's portion all alike are judged coarse.
12. Explanation—why Subhūti did not ask but thought in his mind: the doubts of the assembly at that time, and those who had entered deeply into meditative concentration. At the very opening the treatise-author explains the way the question was raised, giving two causes and conditions. The first concerns the Dharma assembly: 「上來須菩提常種種問空法，以時會疑其已體寂滅無戲論法猶復多問，是以不問而心念。」 tr. "Above, Subhūti had constantly asked about the dharma of emptiness in all kinds of ways; because the assembly at that time doubted why, having already embodied the dharma of quiescent extinction without idle discourse, he still asked so much, he therefore did not ask but thought in his mind." He had asked a great deal, the listeners had already given rise to doubt, and so he changed to thinking in his mind. The second concerns the listeners: 「有菩薩及諸天深入禪定，不好語言而欲得法利」 tr. "there were bodhisattvas and gods who had entered deeply into meditative concentration, who did not like words and yet wished to obtain the benefit of the Dharma", and so he made no sound. Of the two causes and conditions, one is for stilling doubt about himself, the other for not disturbing others.
13. Why the Buddha answers with words though Subhūti is without words; the Buddha, established in the mark of quiescence, answers according to what is asked. The treatise-author sets up question and answer himself: 「須菩提雖無言，而世尊以言答？」 tr. "Although Subhūti made no sound, the World-Honored One answered with words?" The answer has two layers. The first layer concerns the Buddha's form and voice: 「佛身色，視無厭足；如色無厭，聲亦如是，雖語而不妨細禪定行」 tr. "the Buddha's bodily form one looks at without ever being satisfied; just as his form does not make people weary, his voice is likewise: though he speaks, it does not hinder the subtle practice of meditative concentration". The Buddha's voice is of a kind with the Buddha's form body and does not amount to a disturbance of deep concentration, so there is no need to imitate Subhūti's silence. The second layer concerns the Buddha's station: 「佛安立寂滅相，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提中住，不分別一切法若善、若不善等；眾生有疑而問，佛隨所問、所念而答，是故不與須菩提同。」 tr. "The Buddha is established in the mark of quiescence and abides within anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and does not discriminate all dharmas as wholesome, as unwholesome, and so on; when beings have doubts and ask, the Buddha answers according to what is asked and what is thought; so he is not the same as Subhūti." Subhūti's silence is to avoid censure and suspicion; the Buddha's speech is a response according to the occasion; the one is a weighing on the ground of training, the other is non-discrimination on the ground of the fruit, and so they are not the same.
14. Why Subhūti asks about the path—hearing the very deep meaning and not reaching its limit; why the Buddha answers—to add to the bodhisattvas. The treatise-author restates the sūtra's question as: 「何等是菩薩道？行是道，如清淨無所著六波羅蜜等諸善法莊嚴？」 tr. "What is the bodhisattva path? Practising this path, how can there be the adornment of wholesome dharmas, the six perfections and the rest, pure and without clinging?" And he points to its cause as 「聞是六波羅蜜等諸法甚深義，不能得其邊」 tr. "hearing the very deep meaning of these dharmas, the six perfections and the rest, he could not reach their limit". As for why the Buddha answers, the treatise-author gives a very candid reason: 「佛知其意，於須菩提所益雖少，為增益諸菩薩故」 tr. "the Buddha knew his meaning; though what it added for Subhūti was little, it was for the sake of adding to the bodhisattvas". This sentence separates the one the teaching is addressed to from the ones who benefit—the one who asks is not necessarily the one who benefits most.
15. The division of three kinds of bodhisattva path; all dharmas being the path belongs to the body born of the Dharma-nature; here the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions. This is the backbone passage of Treatise ①. The treatise-author first divides the items the Buddha listed into three classes: 「六波羅蜜是菩薩初發心道；次行四禪、八背捨、九次第定及三十七道品，但求涅槃；十八空、佛十力等微細，但為求佛道。」 tr. "The six perfections are the path of the bodhisattva at the first arousing of the mind; next, practising the four dhyānas, the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions, and the thirty-seven limbs of the path, one seeks only nirvāṇa; the eighteen emptinesses, the Buddha's ten powers, and the rest are subtle, and are only for seeking the Buddha path." Then he divides them once more from another angle, pointing out that what the three classes are for differs: 「六波羅蜜道，多為眾生故；三十七品等，但求涅槃；十八空等，於涅槃中出過聲聞、辟支佛地，入菩薩位道。」 tr. "The path of the six perfections is mostly for the sake of beings; the thirty-seven limbs of the path and the rest seek only nirvāṇa; the eighteen emptinesses and the rest are the path that, within nirvāṇa, goes out beyond the grounds of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha and enters the bodhisattva's position." And then he gives an overall judgement: 「是三種，皆是生身菩薩所行。所以者何？分別諸法故。」 tr. "These three are all practised by the bodhisattva in a fleshly body. Why? Because he discriminates dharmas." Though the three classes differ in height, they stand alike in the ranks of discriminating dharmas. As for the sūtra's 「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva", the treatise-author assigns it to another station: 「今又一切法皆是菩薩道，是法性生身菩薩所行，不見諸法有好惡，安立諸法平等相故。」 tr. "Now it is further said that all dharmas are the bodhisattva path; this is practised by the bodhisattva whose body is born of the Dharma-nature, who does not see dharmas as good or bad, because he is established in the mark of the equality of dharmas." The dividing line for the character 「亦」 tr. "too" spoken of in the earlier passage lies exactly here. At the end the treatise-author points out that the sūtra carries its own reason—「此中佛自說因緣」 tr. "here the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions", what is stated being 「菩薩應學一切法，若一法不學，則不能得一切種智。」 tr. "The bodhisattva should train in all dharmas; if there is one dharma he does not train in, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds." And he glosses 「學」 tr. "training" very concretely: 「用一切種門，思惟、籌量、修觀、通達。」 tr. "By gates of every kind, reflecting, reckoning, cultivating contemplation, and penetrating." Training is not knowing the name; it is the four things all being reached.
16. The objection of idle discourse and the marks of idle discourse; the Buddha assents and speaks fully of the mark of emptiness of all dharmas. The treatise-author restates Subhūti's objection, and runs briefly through the 「戲論相」 tr. "marks of idle discourse": 「此東、彼西，是上、是下，是常、是無常，是實、是虛，是世間、是出世間，乃至是二乘法、是佛法。」 tr. "This is east, that is west; it is above, it is below; it is permanent, it is impermanent; it is real, it is false; it is worldly, it is world-transcending; and so on up to it is the dharma of the two vehicles, it is the dharma of the Buddha." Then he lays out the Buddha's answer as a proof by the contrary: 「若法實定有不空者，即是無生無滅，無生無滅故無四諦，無四諦故無佛、法、僧寶，如是三寶等諸法皆壞。」 tr. "If a dharma really and fixedly existed and were not empty, then it would be non-arising and non-ceasing; because it is non-arising and non-ceasing there would be no four truths; because there are no four truths there would be no Buddha Jewel, Dharma Jewel, or Saṅgha Jewel; in this way the Three Jewels and all dharmas would all be destroyed." The price of non-emptiness is that the Three Jewels are all destroyed; this is a fault more serious than emptiness. Emptiness established, he steps back once more to guard it: 「今諸法實空，乃至空相亦空」 tr. "now dharmas are truly empty, and so on up to the mark of emptiness too is empty"; and then he states where distinguishing comes from: beings 「愚癡顛倒故著」 tr. "cling because of delusion and inversion", and the bodhisattva therefore 「於眾生中起悲心，欲拔出故，求佛身力；欲令眾生信受其語」 tr. "arouses a mind of compassion among beings, and because he wishes to pull them out, seeks the power of a Buddha's body; he wishes to make beings believe and accept his words". At the end the dividing line is given: 「若眾生自知諸法空，菩薩但自住空相中，不須學分別一切法。」 tr. "If beings knew of themselves that dharmas are empty, the bodhisattva would need only to abide himself within the mark of emptiness, and would not need to train in distinguishing all dharmas." Distinguishing is a medicine that answers to the sickness, not something the Buddha himself needs.
17. The bodhisattva's own thought—ultimate emptiness alone is one dharma that is real; illuminating the bodhisattva path, his mind is at peace; training in all dharmas so as to make beings believe and accept. The treatise-author writes the bodhisattva's reflection in the sūtra as a passage of speaking to himself, its layers very clear: 「一切法無定實性，但從因緣和合起；是眾因緣亦各各從和合起，乃至到畢竟空。」 tr. "All dharmas have no fixed real nature; they arise only from the coming together of causes and conditions; these many causes and conditions too each arise from coming together, and so on until ultimate emptiness is reached." Having pushed to the bottom, he gives a judgement: 「畢竟空唯是一法實；餘者無性，故皆虛誑。」 tr. "Ultimate emptiness alone is one dharma that is real; the rest are without nature, and so all are false and deceptive." Then he turns to his own situation and to where he belongs: 「我從無始世來，著是虛誑法，於六道中厭受苦惱。我今是三世十方佛子，般若是我母，今不應復隨逐虛誑法。」 tr. "From beginningless time I have clung to these false and deceptive dharmas, and within the six destinies I have undergone suffering and vexation to the point of weariness. Now I am a son of the buddhas of the three times and the ten directions; prajñā is my mother; now I should no longer follow after false and deceptive dharmas." At the end he pushes the protection to its extreme: 「是故菩薩乃至畢竟空中亦不著，何況餘法」 tr. "so the bodhisattva does not cling even within ultimate emptiness, how much less to the other dharmas". The sentence that follows describes his state of mind: 「爾時，菩薩照明菩薩道，其心安隱，自念」 tr. "at that time the bodhisattva illuminates the bodhisattva path; his mind is at peace, and he thinks to himself"—「我但斷著心，道自然至。」 tr. "I need only sever the clinging mind, and the path will arrive of itself." The path is not sought and brought in; it arrives of itself where the clinging mind is severed. And having known this, he does not stop there—「念眾生深著世間，而畢竟空亦空、無性、無有住處，眾生難可信受」 tr. "he thinks of how beings cling deeply to the world, while ultimate emptiness too is empty, without nature, without a place to abide, and beings find it hard to believe and accept", and so 「為令眾生信受是法故，學一切法，修行生起是度眾生方便法」 tr. "in order to make beings believe and accept this Dharma, he trains in all dharmas, and cultivates and gives rise to the dharma of skilful means for delivering beings". The motive for training in all dharmas is stated most clearly here.
18. Observing the mental activity of beings and knowing that what they cling to is all false and deceptive; the simile of the little child heaping earth; if what is clung to really existed, it could not be relinquished. The treatise-author first describes the observing: 「觀眾生心行所趣，知好何法、念何事、何所志願」 tr. "he observes where the mental activity of beings tends, and knows what dharmas they like, what matters they think of, and what aspirations they have"; the result of the observing is 「眾生所著處皆是虛誑顛倒，憶想分別故著，無有根本實事」 tr. "the places beings cling to are all false, deceptive, and inverted; they cling because of recollection, imagining, and discrimination; and there is no root real matter", and so 「菩薩大歡喜」 tr. "the bodhisattva is greatly glad"—the reason for the gladness is precisely the sūtra's sentence 「眾生易度耳」 tr. "beings are easily delivered, that is all". Then he sets up the simile: a person's son 「喜在不淨中戲，聚土為穀，以草木為鳥獸，而生愛著；人有奪者，瞋恚啼哭」 tr. "liked to play in filth, heaping earth as grain and taking grass and trees as birds and beasts, and gave rise to love and attachment for them; when someone came to take them away, he would be angry and cry", while his father knew that 「此子今雖愛著，此事易離耳，小大自休」 tr. "although this son now loves and is attached to them, this matter is easily left behind, that is all; when he grows up it will stop of itself", because 「此物非真故」 tr. "these things are not real". The treatise-author states the correspondences of the simile plainly: the bodhisattva 「觀眾生愛著不淨臭身及五欲是無常，種種苦因」 tr. "observes that the impure, foul-smelling body and the five desires, which beings love and are attached to, are impermanent and the cause of all kinds of suffering", and knows that beings, 「得信等五善根成就時，即能捨離」 tr. "when the five wholesome roots, faith and the rest, are accomplished, will be able to relinquish them". After the simile there is one more layer of proof by the contrary, showing the greatest force: 「若小兒所著實是真物，雖復年至百歲，著之轉深，不可得捨」 tr. "if what the little child clung to were really real things, then even when he reached a hundred years of age his clinging would grow deeper, and he could not give them up". The ground on which beings can be delivered lies not in beings' strength, but in the falseness of the things clung to. At the end one more simile is added: when they obtain the pure eye of wisdom without outflows they can be far from what they clung to, and 「大自慚愧」 tr. "feel great shame", 「譬如狂病，所作非法，醒悟之後，羞慚無顏」 tr. "just as with madness, all that one does is out of keeping with what is proper, and when one comes to one's senses one is so ashamed that one has no face left".
19. Teaching and transforming by skilful means without making them cling; the simile of the hot ball of gold; the two causes and conditions of not abiding. The treatise-author restates the sūtra's words of teaching and transforming and adds a layer of explanation: he urges giving and warns 「莫恃是布施果報而自憍高」 tr. "do not rely on the retribution of this giving and exalt yourselves in pride", the reason being 「此中無有堅實，皆當破壞，與未布施時無異」 tr. "within this there is nothing solid; all of it will be broken and destroyed, and will be no different from the time before you gave"; morality and the rest, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, are likewise. And then he states the general rule: 「是諸法雖清淨、大有所益，皆是有為法，從因緣生，無有自性；汝等若著是法，能生苦惱。」 tr. "Although these dharmas are pure and of great benefit, they are all conditioned dharmas, born from causes and conditions, without self-nature; if you cling to these dharmas, they can give rise to suffering and vexation." And he sets up a simile: 「譬如熱金丸，雖是寶物，捉則燒手。」 tr. "It is like a hot ball of gold: although it is a treasure, if you grasp it, it burns the hand." Being a treasure and burning the hand do not obstruct each other; this is exactly how a wholesome dharma can be clung to and become a harm. Then the treatise-author explains the meaning of not abiding, bringing 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" down to the concrete practising marks of giving: 「布施時不取三種相，亦不著果報而自高生罪業，布施果報滅壞時亦不生惱。」 tr. "When giving he does not grasp at the three kinds of marks, nor does he cling to the retribution, exalt himself, and give rise to sinful deeds, and when the retribution of giving perishes he does not give rise to vexation." At the end he restates the sūtra's two causes and conditions once over: 「一者、菩薩深入空，不見諸法性，故不住；二者、不以小事為足，故不住。」 tr. "First, the bodhisattva enters deeply into emptiness and does not see the nature of dharmas, and so does not abide; second, he is not content with a small matter, and so does not abide."
20. Wholly turned one way, he can give rise to the path of awakening; the objection from non-arising; the Buddha assents to his meaning and sifts the occasion for which it is said. The treatise-author gathers up what precedes with one sentence—「是菩薩無有異心，但一向能生菩提道」 tr. "this bodhisattva has no other mind; only, wholly turned one way, he can give rise to the path of awakening"—and at once joins on Subhūti's objection: 「若一切法無生，云何菩薩能生菩提道？」 tr. "If all dharmas are non-arising, how can the bodhisattva give rise to the path of awakening?" The Buddha's assent the treatise-author writes as: 「一切法無生，我實處處說諸法無生，非為凡夫說，但為得無作解脫、不起三種業者說。」 tr. "All dharmas are non-arising; I have indeed said in place after place that dharmas are non-arising; it was not said for ordinary people, but only for those who obtain the liberation of non-action and do not raise up the three kinds of deeds." This sentence is the crux of this passage—the teaching of non-arising has the occasion it addresses; it is not a general meaning said to everyone; ordinary people, hearing of non-arising, cling to non-arising, and that is precisely why it must be sifted.
21. The renewed question about the constant abiding of the marks of dharmas; the path arises because beings do not know; the path and what is not the path being equal is precisely the path. The treatise-author writes Subhūti's renewed question: 「世尊！佛自說：『有佛、無佛，諸法法相常住。』如聖人法相空，凡夫亦如是！」 tr. "World-Honored One! The Buddha himself has said: ‘Whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, the marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly.’ If the marks of dharmas of the sages are empty, those of ordinary people are likewise!" Since sages and ordinary people share one mark of dharmas, why raise a path at all? The Buddha's assent and explanation the treatise-author gathers into three sentences: 「諸法實相常住，以眾生不知不解故，起菩提道」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas abides constantly; because beings do not know and do not understand it, the path of awakening is raised up", 「但為除凡夫顛倒法，故名為道」 tr. "it is only in order to remove the inverted dharmas of ordinary people that it is named the path", 「若決定有道可著者，即復是顛倒」 tr. "if there were fixedly a path that could be clung to, that would again be inversion". At the end he gives an extremely weighty verdict: 「道、非道平等即是道，是故不應難！」 tr. "The path and what is not the path are equal: this is precisely the path; so one should not object in this way!" The path is the path only as a counteragent, not in any self-substance of its own; once its self-substance is clung to, the path itself becomes the thing to be broken.
22. The first three of the four alternatives—the path of arising, the path of non-arising, neither arising nor non-arising; the simile of the hot ball of gold used again. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's 「不也」 tr. "no" sentence by sentence. Why the path of arising will not do: 「生道者，菩薩觀是有為法生滅相謂是實，是故言不。」 tr. "What is called the path of arising is the bodhisattva's contemplating the mark of arising and ceasing of these conditioned dharmas and taking it to be real; so it is said: no." And he points back to the earlier simile—「如先說熱金丸喻」 tr. "like the simile of the hot ball of gold spoken of earlier". Why non-arising will not do: 「不生法即是無為，無作法故，亦不可以得菩提。」 tr. "The dharma of non-arising is precisely the unconditioned; because it is a dharma without making, it too cannot be used to obtain awakening." The two having been broken, the treatise-author settles ‘arising’ and ‘non-arising’ together with one sentence—「二俱有過故」 tr. "because both have faults". Then he restates the sūtra's third question as 「非生非不生得菩提耶」 tr. "is awakening obtained by neither arising nor non-arising", and the answer is still 「不也」 tr. "no".
23. Why neither arising nor non-arising also has a fault—the fault lies in discriminating good and ugly and grasping at marks. The treatise-author sets up a question himself, and asks it very reasonably—if ‘arising’ and ‘non-arising’ both have faults, then ‘neither arising nor non-arising’ 「復不應有過，何以言不得？」 tr. "should in turn have no fault; why is it said that it is not obtained?" The answer is only one sentence, and all its force lies within it: if one discriminates ‘neither arising nor non-arising’ as good or as ugly, then 「取相生著故，故言有過；若能不著，則是菩提道。」 tr. "because one grasps at marks and gives rise to clinging, it is said to have faults; if one is able not to cling, that is precisely the path of awakening." The same sentence: clinging, it has a fault; not clinging, it is the path. What is broken has never been the form of the sentence; it is grasping at marks. This passage is the pivot of this unit's section on the four alternatives; in reading the 「不也」 tr. "no" of the first three questions one must always come back here.
24. If not by the four alternatives, how is the path obtained; the explanation of awakening being precisely the path; the simile of water entering the great ocean; cause and fruit are neither one nor different. The treatise-author writes Subhūti's question: 「若不以四句得者，云何得道？」 tr. "If it is not obtained by the four alternatives, how can the path be obtained?" The Buddha answers: 「不以道、不以非道，則得菩提。」 tr. "Not by the path and not by what is not the path is awakening obtained." Then the treatise-author himself explains why, first glossing awakening: 「菩提名諸法實相，是諸佛所得究竟實相，無有變異。」 tr. "Awakening is named the real mark of all dharmas; this is the ultimate real mark obtained by the buddhas, without change." Then he states the relation of all dharmas to awakening: 「一切法入菩提中，皆寂滅相；如一切水入大海，同為一味。」 tr. "All dharmas, entering into awakening, are all of the mark of quiescence; just as all waters entering the great ocean are alike of one taste." And then he pushes the Buddha's words into an equation of nature: 「菩提性即是道性。」 tr. "The nature of awakening is precisely the nature of the path." And he makes it firm by the contrary: 「若菩提性、道性異者，不名菩提為無戲論寂滅相」 tr. "if the nature of awakening and the nature of the path were different, awakening could not be named the mark of quiescence without idle discourse". At the end he adds one more layer, the principle of cause and fruit: 「是二法異者，行道不應到菩提——諸法因果，不一不異故。」 tr. "If these two dharmas were different, practising the path should not reach awakening—because the cause and fruit of dharmas are neither one nor different." If the path and awakening were truly two things, practising the path would have no way of reaching it; neither one nor different—this is precisely why it can be reached by practice and yet is not some other thing obtained.
25. The objection that the bodhisattva practising the path should then be a Buddha; Subhūti objects for the sake of those new to the training; the Buddha's answer by counter-question is an answer by way of the general mark. The treatise-author points out that this objection of Subhūti's runs in both directions: 「菩薩行道應便是佛」 tr. "the bodhisattva practising the path should then be a Buddha", because the path is awakening; 「又佛應是菩薩」 tr. "and the Buddha should be a bodhisattva", because awakening is the path. And he makes its motive clear: 「須菩提為新學菩薩故，分別難佛」 tr. "Subhūti, for the sake of bodhisattvas new to the training, made the distinction and objected to the Buddha". The Buddha's answer the treatise-author writes as 「以反問答」 tr. "answered with a counter-question"—「佛得菩提不？」 tr. "Does the Buddha obtain awakening?" Subhūti answers himself: 「不也！何以故？菩提不離佛、佛不離菩提；二法和合故，是佛、是菩提。」 tr. "No! Why? Awakening is not apart from the Buddha, the Buddha is not apart from awakening; it is because the two dharmas come together that there is the Buddha and there is awakening." The treatise-author at once points out that this self-answer already suffices to dissolve the objection, judging 「是故不應難言」 tr. "so one should not object, saying". And he judges its form: 「此總相答。」 tr. "This is an answer by way of the general mark." An answer by way of the general mark has not yet reached the specific marks, so below the question must be asked again.
26. The Buddha is a being, awakening is a dharma; how is it said that the Buddha is precisely awakening. The treatise-author sets up this question himself, and it is asked very finely—the Buddha belongs to persons, awakening belongs to dharmas; how can person and dharma, two matters, be one and the same? The answer goes in several steps: first he states the situation before becoming a Buddha—「先有三十二相莊嚴身、六波羅蜜等功德莊嚴心，而不名為佛」 tr. "first there are the thirty-two marks adorning his body, and the merits of the six perfections and the rest adorning his mind, and still he is not named Buddha"; next he states how one becomes a Buddha—「得菩提故，名之為佛」 tr. "it is because he obtains awakening that he is named Buddha". So 「佛與菩提不異」 tr. "the Buddha and awakening are not different". Then he takes apart the side of the person: 「微妙清淨五眾和合假名為佛，法即是五眾，五眾不離假名」 tr. "the subtle and pure five aggregates coming together are provisionally named Buddha; the dharma is precisely the five aggregates, the five aggregates are not apart from the provisional name". Then he joins up the side of the dharma: 「菩提即是五眾實相，一切法皆入菩提故。」 tr. "Awakening is precisely the real mark of the five aggregates, because all dharmas enter into awakening." The person is the provisional name of the five aggregates, awakening is the real mark of the five aggregates; the two sides are from the first not two things, and so it is said 「佛即是菩提、菩提即是佛」 tr. "the Buddha is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the Buddha". At the end he traces where the view of difference comes from: 「但凡夫心中分別有異。」 tr. "It is only that ordinary people discriminate in their minds and take them to be different."
27. If neither one nor different, why does the sūtra say it is precisely so—of one and different, one is mostly used; because they stand over against each other, one too is unfindable; the vajra samādhi and the wisdom associated with a single thought. The treatise-author again sets up a question himself, and this question turns back to check his own words—earlier in the discussion it was said that awakening and the path are 「不一不異」 tr. "neither one nor different", yet the sūtra says 「道即是菩提，菩提即是道」 tr. "the path is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the path" and 「佛即是菩提，菩提即是佛」 tr. "the Buddha is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the Buddha"; why is this? The first layer of the answer is expedient: 「一、異雖俱不實而多用一」 tr. "although one and different are both not real, ‘one’ is mostly used". And he takes permanence and impermanence as an example—「常多生煩惱故不用，無常能破顛倒故多用；事既成辦，亦捨無常」 tr. "permanence mostly gives rise to afflictions and so is not used; impermanence can break inversions and so is mostly used; once the matter has been accomplished, impermanence too is given up"; one and different are likewise, 「若以觀種種別異法故多生著心；若觀諸法一相——若無常、苦、空等，是時煩惱不生」 tr. "if one contemplates all kinds of separate and different dharmas, a clinging mind arises in abundance; if one contemplates dharmas as of one mark—whether impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and so on—at that time afflictions do not arise", and so 「一」 tr. "one" is mostly used. But at once he takes the expedient back: 「於實義中，一亦不用；若著一，即復是患。」 tr. "Within the real meaning, ‘one’ too is not used; if one clings to ‘one’, that again is a fault." The second layer is principle: 「別異無故，一亦不可得，相待法故」 tr. "because separateness and difference do not exist, ‘one’ too is unfindable, because it is a dharma of standing over against each other"—one and different depend on each other; take away the one and the other does not stand; so only by using 「一」 tr. "one" without grasping at 「一相」 tr. "the one mark" is it 「說無咎」 tr. "said without fault". And from this he answers the objection of the earlier passage: 「一不實故，菩薩不得即是佛。」 tr. "Because ‘one’ is not real, the bodhisattva is not precisely the Buddha." For the third layer the treatise-author draws on the causes and conditions the sūtra itself gives, to conclude: the bodhisattva 「具足六波羅蜜等諸功德，住金剛三昧，以一念相應慧，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。爾時，於一切法中自在，得名為佛」 tr. "makes complete all the merits of the six perfections and the rest, abides in the vajra samādhi, and by the wisdom associated with a single thought obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. At that time he has mastery within all dharmas and obtains the name of Buddha", and he supplies the reasons why each side, the bodhisattva and the Buddha, does not take the other's name—「菩薩雖知道及菩提不異，未具足諸功德故，不名為佛」 tr. "although the bodhisattva knows that the path and awakening are not different, because he has not yet made all the merits complete, he is not named Buddha"; 「佛諸事畢竟，願、行滿足故，不名為菩薩」 tr. "the Buddha, all his affairs having been brought to their end, because his vows and practices are fulfilled, is not named bodhisattva". At the end three sentences assign the stations: 「得者是佛，法是菩提，求菩提者是菩薩。」 tr. "The one who obtains is the Buddha, the dharma is awakening, the one who seeks awakening is the bodhisattva."
28. Why Subhūti at this point turns to ask about purifying buddha-lands; the arhats and pratyekabuddhas have no power to know this matter. This is the turning sentence of the whole unit, and the treatise-author writes it very briefly: 「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事。」 tr. "Subhūti has heard from the Buddha the mark of awakening and the mark of the path, and the bringing of beings to accomplishment is finished; now he asks about the matter of purifying buddha-lands." And he adds a reason why it is Subhūti who must ask: 「諸阿羅漢、辟支佛無有力知淨佛國事，是故問。」 tr. "The arhats and pratyekabuddhas have no power to know the matter of purifying buddha-lands; so he asks." It is not that he knows and asks on others' behalf; it is precisely because the two vehicles have no power here that he must ask.
29. What a pure Buddha-land is—the measure of one Buddha-land; the Buddha-eye observing everywhere in the six periods and teaching according to what it sees; because nothing is lacking in the land, afflictions do not arise; a land whose trees put forth the sound of the Dharma. The treatise-author sets up the question 「何等是淨佛土」 tr. "what is a pure Buddha-land" himself, and the answer has three layers. The first layer states the measure: 「佛土者，百億日月、百億須彌山、百億四天王等諸天，是名三千大千世界。如是等無量無邊三千大千世界，名為一佛土。」 tr. "What is called a Buddha-land is a hundred koṭi of suns and moons, a hundred koṭi of Mount Sumerus, a hundred koṭi of the Four Heavenly Kings and the other heavens; this is named the three-thousand great-thousand world. Such immeasurable and boundless three-thousand great-thousand worlds are named one Buddha-land." The second layer states what the Buddha does within it: 「佛常晝三時、夜三時以佛眼遍觀眾生」 tr. "the Buddha constantly, in the three periods of the day and the three periods of the night, observes beings everywhere with the Buddha-eye", and what he observes is 「誰可種善根？誰善根成就應增長？誰善根成就應得度？」 tr. "Who can plant roots of goodness? Whose roots of goodness are accomplished and should increase? Who, with roots of goodness accomplished, should be delivered?" Having seen, he then 「以神通力隨所見教化」 tr. "teaches and transforms them by the power of the supernormal powers according to what he sees". The third layer states why the purity of the land helps deliverance: 「眾生心隨逐外緣，得隨意事，則不生瞋惱；得不淨、無常等因緣，則不生貪欲等煩惱；若得無所有、空因緣，則不生癡等諸煩惱。」 tr. "The minds of beings follow after outer conditions: when they obtain things as they wish, they do not give rise to anger and vexation; when they obtain the causes and conditions of the impure, the impermanent, and the like, they do not give rise to craving and the other afflictions; if they obtain the causes and conditions of being without anything existent and of emptiness, they do not give rise to delusion and the other afflictions." So 「諸菩薩莊嚴佛土，為令眾生易度故」 tr. "the bodhisattvas adorn the Buddha-land in order to make beings easily delivered"; and 「國土中無所乏少，無我心故，則不生慳貪、瞋恚等煩惱」 tr. "within the land nothing is lacking or short; because there is no mind of self, stinginess, anger, and the other afflictions do not arise". At the end he gives one mark of a pure land as an example: 「有佛國土，一切樹木常出諸法實相音聲，所謂無生無滅、無起無作等；眾生但聞是妙音，不聞異聲，眾生利根故，便得諸法實相。」 tr. "In some Buddha-lands all the trees constantly put forth the sound of the real mark of all dharmas, namely non-arising and non-ceasing, non-rising and without making, and so on; beings hear only this wondrous sound and hear no other sound, and because beings have keen faculties, they then obtain the real mark of all dharmas." And he points out where it comes from—「如《阿彌陀》等諸經中說」 tr. "as is said in the Amitābha and other sūtras". This passage glosses 「淨」 tr. "pure" in terms of function: a pure land is pure in that everywhere in it the conditions for the afflictions are being cut off.
30. Why the three kinds of deeds are purified from the first arousing of intent; the purity of the three kinds of deeds is not only for purifying buddha-lands; the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions. The treatise-author restates the Buddha's answer—「菩薩從初發意來，自淨麁身、口、意業，亦教他人淨麁身、口、意業」 tr. "the bodhisattva, from his first arousing of intent until now, himself purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind, and also teaches others to purify the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind"—and at once sets up an objection: 「若菩薩淨佛土，是菩薩得無生法忍、住神通波羅蜜，然後能淨佛土」 tr. "if the bodhisattva purifies buddha-lands, this bodhisattva obtains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and abides in the perfection of the supernormal powers, and only then can he purify buddha-lands"; since that is so, why does the sūtra say 「從初發意來，淨麁身、口、意業」 tr. "from his first arousing of intent until now, he purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind"? The answer has two layers. The first layer separates two matters: 「三業清淨，非但為淨佛土，一切菩薩道皆淨。此三業初淨身、口、意業，後為淨佛土。」 tr. "The purity of the three kinds of deeds is not only for the sake of purifying buddha-lands; the whole bodhisattva path is purified. These three kinds of deeds are at first a purifying of the deeds of body, speech, and mind, and later are for the sake of purifying buddha-lands." The same matter is, at the first mind, purifying one's own conduct, and only at a later station becomes the cause of a pure land; the two do not obstruct each other. The second layer states why purifying oneself can reach as far as the land: 「非但一人，生國土中者皆共作因緣。內法與外法作因緣，若善、若不善」 tr. "it is not one person alone; those born in the land all together make the causes and conditions. The inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions, whether wholesome or unwholesome". And he lists them item by item: 「多惡口業故，地生荊棘；諂誑曲心故，地則高下不平；慳貪多故，則水旱不調、地生沙礫。」 tr. "Because of many evil verbal deeds, the ground grows thorns; because of flattering, deceitful, crooked minds, the ground is high and low and uneven; because of much stinginess, water and drought are out of season and the ground grows sand and gravel." The reverse is likewise: 「不作上諸惡故，地則平正，多出珍寶」 tr. "because the evils above are not done, the ground is level and yields many precious things", and he gives an example as proof—「如彌勒佛出時，人皆行十善故，地多珍寶」 tr. "as when Maitreya Buddha appears, because everyone practises the ten wholesome paths, there are many precious things on the ground". This passage is the solid place of this chapter's meaning of the pure land: the marks of a land are not made separately; they are evoked in common by the deeds of beings.
31. Why only the purifying of the three kinds of deeds is spoken of—construction is greatest; as in sewing a garment the needle leads the way; because the face is pure, the image in the mirror is pure. The treatise-author sets up another question: 「若布施等諸善法得淨佛土果報，何以但說淨三業？」 tr. "If giving and the other wholesome dharmas obtain the retribution of a pure Buddha-land, why is only the purifying of the three kinds of deeds spoken of?" The way of the answer is to find the chief among dharmas. First he sets up three that are 「為大」 tr. "greatest": 「得道時智慧為大；攝心中定為大；作業時思為大」 tr. "at the time of obtaining the path wisdom is greatest; in gathering the mind concentration is greatest; at the time of making deeds construction is greatest". Then he states the sequence: 「得是思業已，起身、口、意業。布施、禪定等，以思為首」 tr. "having obtained this deed of construction, one raises bodily, verbal, and mental deeds. Giving, meditative concentration, and the rest have construction at their head". And he sets up a simile: 「譬如縫衣，以針為導。」 tr. "As in sewing a garment the needle leads the way." And he adds one sentence said with regard to retribution: 「受後世果報時，業力為大。」 tr. "At the time of receiving retribution in later lives, the power of deeds is greatest." Since construction and deeds are the chiefs, to speak of the three kinds of deeds already gathers in everything: 「意業中盡攝一切心、心數法，身、口則攝一切色法。」 tr. "Within mental deeds all mind and mental-factor dharmas are entirely gathered, and body and speech gather in all dharmas of form." At the end he comes back to the meaning of the pure land, giving an extremely simple cause and effect and an extremely apt simile: 「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」 tr. "because the inner dharmas are pure, the outer dharmas too are pure; just as, because the face is pure, the image in the mirror too is pure", and he gives the sūtra it comes from—「如《毘摩羅詰經》中說」 tr. "as is said in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra"—together with one actual instance: 「不殺生故人皆長壽」 tr. "because of not killing living beings, everyone is long-lived"
32. The coarse deeds are easily known, so why does Subhūti ask—coarse and subtle are not fixed. The treatise-author sets up the question: 「身、口、意麁業，是事易知，須菩提何以故問？」 tr. "The coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind are a matter easily known; why does Subhūti ask?" The answer establishes its thesis in one sentence: 「麁、細不定故。」 tr. "Because coarse and subtle are not fixed." Then it proves it with three pairs of contrasting examples: 「如求道人中布施是麁善，於白衣為細」 tr. "for instance, among people who seek the path, giving is a coarse wholesome act, while for the white-robed it is subtle"—the same giving is coarse and subtle in opposite ways for two kinds of people; 「如小乘中不善業為麁，善業為細」 tr. "as in the Small Vehicle unwholesome deeds are coarse and wholesome deeds are subtle"; 「摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」 tr. "in the Mahāyāna, grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma, and so on up to nirvāṇa, is all named coarse". The three examples grow stricter step by step, and by the third even nirvāṇa falls on the coarse side. The coarse is not a fixed list; it is a station that shifts with the vehicle one is in and the occasion addressed; so although it is a matter 「易知」 tr. "easily known", it still must be asked.
33. The Buddha in sequence tells the marks of the coarse deeds—the ten unwholesome paths; the six minds that break the six perfections. The treatise-author follows the sūtra's sequence in explaining the items of the coarse deeds. The first item is the ten unwholesome paths: 「所謂奪命，乃至邪見。是三種身業、四種口業、三種意業，皆名為麁。」 tr. "Namely taking life, and so on up to wrong views. These are the three kinds of bodily deeds, the four kinds of verbal deeds, and the three kinds of mental deeds, all named coarse." The division into three of body, four of speech, and three of mind is opened out by the treatise-author; the sūtra gives only the head and the tail, 「殺生乃至邪見」 tr. "killing living beings and so on up to wrong views". The second item: 「破菩薩六波羅蜜法——慳貪等，皆名為麁。」 tr. "What breaks the dharmas of the bodhisattva's six perfections—stinginess and the rest—are all named coarse." The six minds the sūtra lists are one by one the opposites of the six perfections, and the treatise-author, with the one phrase 「破菩薩六波羅蜜法」 tr. "what breaks the dharmas of the bodhisattva's six perfections", points out why this is so.
34. The ten unwholesome paths already include stinginess and craving, so why are six dharmas spoken of separately again—the division between vexing beings and not vexing beings; a path of deeds is formed in being able to raise deeds. The treatise-author sets up this question himself, and the answer first establishes the overall division: 「是六法不入十不善道，十不善道皆是惱眾生法；是六法不但為惱眾生。」 tr. "These six dharmas do not enter the ten unwholesome paths; the ten unwholesome paths are all dharmas that vex and harm beings, while these six dharmas are not only for vexing and harming beings." Then he distinguishes them item by item. Stinginess: 「但自惜財，不惱眾生。」 tr. "Only begrudging one's own wealth, it does not vex or harm beings." Craving is divided into two: 「一者、但貪他財，未惱眾生；二者、貪心轉盛，求而不得，則欲毀害，是名業道，以能起業故。」 tr. "First, only craving the wealth of others, not yet vexing or harming beings; second, the mind of craving growing more intense, seeking and not obtaining, then wishing to destroy and harm—this is named a path of deeds, because it can raise deeds." Anger follows the same pattern: 「小者不名業道，以其能趣惡處故為道。」 tr. "The small kind is not named a path of deeds; it is because it can tend toward evil places that it is a path." Here the treatise-author glosses the two characters 「業道」 tr. "path of deeds" very precisely—a path means that which can tend toward; the light kind, though it is an affliction, has not yet become a path that can tend toward, while the heavy kind, because it can raise deeds, is named a path. The distinction being clear, he therefore concludes: 「別說六法無咎」 tr. "to speak separately of the six dharmas is no fault".
35. Morality has already been spoken of within the six perfections, so why is impure morality spoken of again—subtle sins do not vex beings; the four marks of morality that is impure without breaking the precepts received. The treatise-author sets up the question, and the answer has two layers. The first layer concerns the marks of sin: 「破戒法是殺生等麁罪。戒不淨是微細罪，不惱眾生；如飲酒等，不入十不善道。」 tr. "The dharma of breaking morality is a coarse sin such as killing living beings and the like. Impure morality is a subtle sin, which does not vex or harm beings; such as drinking wine and the like, which do not enter the ten unwholesome paths." The second layer is more important, and states the situation in which the marks of morality are intact and yet morality is still impure: 「破五眾戒，名為破戒」 tr. "breaking the precepts of the five classes is named breaking morality" is the one side; the other side is 「不破所受戒」 tr. "not breaking the precepts one has received" and yet having four kinds of sickness—「常為三毒覆心」 tr. "constantly having one's mind covered by the three poisons", 「不憶念戒」 tr. "not keeping the precepts in mind", 「迴向天福」 tr. "dedicating them to the merit of the heavens", 「邪見持戒」 tr. "keeping the precepts with wrong views". None of the four violates a precept-rule, and yet the treatise-author judges them all impure morality. Whether keeping morality is pure or impure is judged by where the mind is heading, not only by whether the outward marks have suffered damage.
36. Why being far from the thirty-seven limbs of the path, the four foundations of mindfulness and the rest, and from the three gates of liberation is coarse; the simile of the snake entering a bamboo tube. The treatise-author explains the fourth item of coarse deeds, first stating why the limbs of the path are what the mind relies on: 「此中心皆觀實法，隨涅槃、不隨世間；若出四念處等法，心則散亂。」 tr. "Within these the mind is always contemplating real dharmas, in accord with nirvāṇa and not in accord with the world; if it goes out from the four foundations of mindfulness and the other dharmas, the mind becomes scattered." Then he sets up a simile: 「譬如蛇行本性好曲，若入竹筒則直，出筒還曲。」 tr. "It is like a snake moving: by its nature it likes to bend; if it enters a bamboo tube it becomes straight, and when it comes out of the tube it bends again." Three things in the simile must be kept distinct: the snake's nature is the mind's old habit, the bamboo tube is the norm of the limbs of the path, and straightness is the temporary look it has while within the norm. So being far from the limbs of the path is coarse not in the act of leaving them, but in that the mind, as soon as it leaves the norm, returns to its old habit.
37. Why craving the realisation of the fruit of the srota-āpanna is coarse—the simile of the water of a pond fifty yojana across; the simile of inviting guests and not giving. This is the last level of the items of coarse deeds, and also the level least like an evil deed. The treatise-author first describes how that mind of craving arises: a person hears the Buddha say 「須陀洹果，不墮三惡道，盡無量苦，如五十由旬池水；餘在者，如一渧、二渧」 tr. "the fruit of the srota-āpanna does not fall into the three evil destinies; the suffering exhausted is immeasurable, like the water of a pond fifty yojana across; what remains is like one drop or two drops", and 「則生貪心」 tr. "then gives rise to a mind of craving". The Buddha's words were originally praising the virtue of the fruit, yet the hearer gives rise to craving because of them; one can see that craving need not take an evil object. Then the treatise-author points out the root of the sickness and where its weight lies: 「以其心不牢固，本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證，是為欺佛，亦負眾生」 tr. "because his mind is not firm—originally he sought to become a Buddha for the sake of beings, and now for his own sake he wishes to take realisation—this is to deceive the Buddha and also to betray beings". And he sets up a simile: 「譬如人請客，欲設飲食而竟不與，是則妄語負客。」 tr. "It is like a person who invites guests and means to set out food and drink, yet in the end does not give it; this is false speech and a betrayal of the guests." The treatise-author states the correspondence of the simile plainly: the bodhisattva at the first arousing of the mind made the vow 「我當作佛，度一切眾生」 tr. "I shall become a Buddha and deliver all beings", and yet takes realisation midway; 「是則負一切眾生」 tr. "this is to betray all beings". At the end he extends it with one sentence: 「如貪須陀洹果，乃至貪辟支佛道亦如是。」 tr. "As with craving the fruit of the srota-āpanna, so too with craving and so on up to the pratyekabuddha path." The First Part unit stops here; fascicle ninety-two ends.
Do Not Misread
Do not read 「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva" as the bodhisattva path having no boundaries. The treatise-author plainly divides the items the Buddha listed into two layers: the three classes—the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and the eighteen emptinesses with the Buddha's ten powers—「皆是生身菩薩所行」 tr. "are all practised by the bodhisattva in a fleshly body", the reason being 「分別諸法故」 tr. "because he discriminates dharmas"; while 「一切法皆是菩薩道，是法性生身菩薩所行，不見諸法有好惡」 tr. "that all dharmas are the bodhisattva path is practised by the bodhisattva whose body is born of the Dharma-nature, who does not see dharmas as good or bad". Read them as one pot boiled together, and the sequence of the first three classes and the 「所以者何」 tr. "why" all fall empty; read it as counting only for those whose body is born of the Dharma-nature, and the Buddha's sentence 「無有法菩薩所不應學者」 tr. "there is no dharma that the bodhisattva should not train in" again has nothing to rest on. The two layers stand together; neither one replaces the other.
Do not read 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" as not obtaining. The second cause and condition in the Buddha's answer in the sūtra says it extremely clearly: 「我不應不得須陀洹果，我必應當得須陀洹果，我但不應是中住」 tr. "I should not fail to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; I surely should obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; only I should not abide in it". He surely obtains and does not abide; it is not that he does not obtain. When the treatise-author explains not abiding he too brings it down to the practising marks—「布施時不取三種相，亦不著果報而自高生罪業，布施果報滅壞時亦不生惱」 tr. "when giving he does not grasp at the three kinds of marks, nor does he cling to the retribution, exalt himself, and give rise to sinful deeds, and when the retribution of giving perishes he does not give rise to vexation"—what is spoken of is obtaining and yet not grasping at its marks. To read not abiding as not taking the fruit, not cultivating realisation, is exactly contrary to the sūtra.
Do not read the breaking of the four alternatives as the sentence 「非生非不生」 tr. "neither arising nor non-arising" itself having a defect. The treatise-author's answer has only one point: if one discriminates it as good or as ugly, then 「取相生著故，故言有過；若能不著，則是菩提道。」 tr. "because one grasps at marks and gives rise to clinging, it is said to have faults; if one is able not to cling, that is precisely the path of awakening." The same sentence: clinging, it has a fault; not clinging, it is the path. What is broken is grasping at marks, not the sentence-form. If one thinks that switching to a more complete sentence-form will escape the fault, that is precisely the kind of mind the treatise-author means to break.
Do not read 「菩提即是道，道即是菩提」 tr. "awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening" as there being no distinction between the bodhisattva and the Buddha. That is precisely how Subhūti objected, and it is precisely to this objection that the Buddha answered: non-duality is said with regard to the substance of the dharma, while becoming a Buddha requires 「具足六波羅蜜、三十七助道法，具足佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法，具足住如金剛三昧，用一念相應慧」 tr. "being complete with the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, being complete with the Buddha's ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, and the eighteen unshared dharmas, being complete with them abiding in the like-vajra samādhi, and using the wisdom associated with a single thought". The treatise-author also supplies the reasons on each side—the bodhisattva, 「未具足諸功德故，不名為佛」 tr. "because he has not yet made all the merits complete, is not named Buddha"; the Buddha, 「願、行滿足故，不名為菩薩」 tr. "because his vows and practices are fulfilled, is not named bodhisattva". To take non-duality and discard the stages is to take the answer by way of the general mark for the whole.
Do not read 「多用一」 tr. "‘one’ is mostly used" as 「一」 tr. "one" being ultimate. The treatise-author says it very warily: 「於實義中，一亦不用；若著一，即復是患。」 tr. "Within the real meaning, ‘one’ too is not used; if one clings to ‘one’, that again is a fault." And he supplies why it is so—「別異無故，一亦不可得，相待法故」 tr. "because separateness and difference do not exist, ‘one’ too is unfindable, because it is a dharma of standing over against each other". The reason 「一」 tr. "one" is mostly used is that when one contemplates the one mark afflictions do not arise, just as the reason impermanence is mostly used is that it can break inversions; once the matter is accomplished, impermanence too is given up. For anyone who takes a counteracting dharma as the place of final return, this passage is a ready-made warning.
Do not read purifying buddha-lands as first adorning the outer realm. The first sentence of the Buddha's answer is 「從初發意已來，自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now, himself removes the coarse deeds of body, removes the coarse deeds of speech, removes the coarse deeds of mind"; the treatise-author's explanation is 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions", and item by item he gives evil speech evoking thorns, crookedness evoking high and low, stinginess evoking flood and drought, sand and gravel. If the order is turned round, first seeking the marks of the land and not first tending the three kinds of deeds, the cause and effect this passage speaks of is cut off entirely. The treatise-author's final sentence, 「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」 tr. "because the inner dharmas are pure, the outer dharmas too are pure; just as, because the face is pure, the image in the mirror too is pure", states precisely this before and after.
Do not read 「眾生易度耳」 tr. "beings are easily delivered, that is all" as slighting beings. The reason the bodhisattva says they are easily delivered, as the treatise-author gives it, is that the things clung to are false, not that beings' capacities are superior; and he also set up a proof by the contrary—「若小兒所著實是真物，雖復年至百歲，著之轉深，不可得捨」 tr. "if what the little child clung to were really real things, then even when he reached a hundred years of age his clinging would grow deeper, and he could not give them up". The 「易」 tr. "easy" of easily delivered lies wholly on the side of the object, not on the side of the person; read it as looking down on beings, and the gladness on that side turns into pride.
Do not read 「戒不淨」 tr. "impure morality" as violating the precepts. The treatise-author specially lists four situations of 「不破所受戒」 tr. "not breaking the precepts one has received" and yet still being impure: constantly having one's mind covered by the three poisons, not keeping the precepts in mind, dedicating them to the merit of the heavens, keeping the precepts with wrong views. None of the four damages a precept-rule. If one rests content because no precept-rule has been violated, it is precisely this kind of person this passage points to.
Do not take 「麁」 tr. "coarse" for a fixed list. The treatise-author establishes his thesis in one sentence: 「麁、細不定故。」 tr. "Because coarse and subtle are not fixed." The same giving is coarse for those who seek the path and subtle for the white-robed; the Small Vehicle takes wholesome deeds as subtle, while the Mahāyāna says 「取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」 tr. "grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma, and so on up to nirvāṇa, is all named coarse". That is why the items of coarse deeds open all the way to 「貪須陀洹果證」 tr. "craving the realisation of the fruit of the srota-āpanna". To judge others' coarse and subtle by one's own station, or to excuse oneself by the criterion of another vehicle, is in both cases to read what is not fixed as a fixed dharma.
Do not read 「貪須陀洹果」 tr. "craving the fruit of the srota-āpanna" as meaning one should not seek liberation. What is rebuked is 「本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證」 tr. "originally he sought to become a Buddha for the sake of beings, and now for his own sake he wishes to take realisation"—a vow already set up changing direction midway. The treatise-author's two phrases are said most heavily: 「欺佛」 tr. "deceive the Buddha" and 「負眾生」 tr. "betray beings", and he takes inviting guests and not giving as the simile. If there was from the first no such vow, one is not among those this passage discusses; only having set up this vow and taking for oneself midway is the coarse spoken of here.
Bearing on Practice
Check one's own effort by 「莫念有是法」 tr. "do not keep in mind that these dharmas exist". The sūtra's three sentences of teaching beings share one structure: urging the practice of giving and yet 「莫恃布施果報而自高」 tr. "do not rely on the retribution of giving and exalt yourselves", urging morality, meditative concentration, and wisdom likewise, urging the obtaining of the fruits of the path and yet 「莫念有是法」 tr. "do not keep in mind that these dharmas exist". This gives a very handy self-examination: whenever one has done a wholesome thing or gained a little benefit from it, the ‘I have it now’ that then floats up in the mind is what is warned against here. Do the thing just the same; the thought need not be set up.
Regard the wholesome dharmas one has obtained by the 「熱金丸」 tr. "hot ball of gold". The treatise-author's simile is very blunt: 「雖是寶物，捉則燒手。」 tr. "Although it is a treasure, if you grasp it, it burns the hand." What it points to is not evil dharmas, but precisely wholesome dharmas that are pure and of great benefit. In daily life, the more effective a portion of one's cultivation is—power of concentration, eloquence, conduct in morality, learning—the more one should check it once against this simile: am I using it, or am I grasping it?
Regard the place one lives in by 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions". The treatise-author ties evil speech, crookedness, and stinginess one by one to thorns, high and low, flood and drought; this is not a metaphor but cause and effect. Rather than complain that the place one is in is not to one's liking, first ask how these three kinds of deeds have been of late. The most practical sentence of this passage is 「非但一人，生國土中者皆共作因緣」 tr. "it is not one person alone; those born in the land all together make the causes and conditions"—the environment is evoked in common, so one's own share is not of no account.
Arrange where to put the force of one's effort by 「思為大」 tr. "construction is greatest". The treatise-author points out the chief among the mental-factor dharmas very clearly: at the time of obtaining the path wisdom is greatest, in gathering the mind concentration is greatest, at the time of making deeds construction is greatest; and he takes 「譬如縫衣，以針為導」 tr. "as in sewing a garment the needle leads the way" as the simile. To correct the intention that sets things moving before doing something is far more effective than repairing afterwards; this too is why the Buddha speaks only of the three kinds of deeds and not item by item of giving and the rest.
Examine one's own keeping of morality by the four marks of 「戒不淨」 tr. "impure morality". The four marks are: constantly having one's mind covered by the three poisons, not keeping the precepts in mind, dedicating them to the merit of the heavens, keeping the precepts with wrong views. They can be used item by item as questions—while keeping morality lately, has the mind been in the three poisons all along; have I truly kept in mind the precepts I received; is the retribution I seek the merit of humans and gods; is the view I rely on lopsided. All four can come about without any violation of the precepts, so they are especially worth checking regularly.
Understand the function and the limit of norms by ‘the snake entering a bamboo tube’. The bamboo tube makes the snake straight, but out of the tube it bends again; this is the function of the limbs of the path for the mind—within them the mind is not scattered, apart from them it returns to the old. So on the one hand there is no need to lose heart because ‘once away from the norm I go back to the old way’—that is simply the ordinary state of things; on the other hand, do not think that the straight stretch within the norm means one's nature has already been changed. There is only one thing to do: do not leave the tube.
Check every stage-by-stage attainment against the ‘original vow’. The treatise-author judges craving the realisation of a fruit to be coarse, and the criterion is 「本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證」 tr. "originally he sought to become a Buddha for the sake of beings, and now for his own sake he wishes to take realisation". This can be enlarged to daily life: whatever was begun for others and for the long term, and midway, having tasted its flavour, was turned to one's own benefit and ease, falls into this category. Regularly taking out the words of one's first arousing of the mind and reading them through once is the least effortful correction.
Turn one's own mind when facing the clinging of others by ‘what beings cling to is all false and deceptive, without reality’. The treatise-author writes that the bodhisattva, having observed, is 「大歡喜」 tr. "greatly glad", the reason for the gladness being that the things clung to are from the first not real. In daily life, when one meets a clinging of others that is hard to talk them out of, if one first decides that this person cannot be reasoned with, the matter ends there; if, following this passage, one first looks at whether the thing clung to is real or false, the mind can loosen and the words can be spoken. And remember that proof by the contrary—ease and difficulty lie wholly on the side of the object, not on the side of the person.
Further Resonances
The First Part unit, one sūtra and one treatise, establishes the way into this chapter. The sūtra, starting from Subhūti's asking about the path in thought, passes through 「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva", training in all dharmas without clinging, practising the bodhisattva path with nowhere to abide, all dharmas being non-arising and yet the path of awakening being given rise to, the constant abiding of the marks of dharmas, and awakening not being obtained by any of the four alternatives, and comes home to 「菩提即是道，道即是菩提」 tr. "awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening"; at this point the mark of the path has been fully spoken, and only then does it turn to ask about purifying buddha-lands; the Buddha answers with removing one's own and purifying others' coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind, and lists five items of coarse deeds. The treatise-author explains passage by passage why it is so: by the doubts of the assembly at that time and those who had entered deeply into meditative concentration he explains not asking but thinking; by the fleshly body and the body born of the Dharma-nature he divides the path of the three classes from all dharmas being the path; by the two similes of the little child heaping earth and the hot ball of gold he explains beings being easily delivered and wholesome dharmas being capable of harm; by grasping at marks and giving rise to clinging he explains why none of the four alternatives obtains; by the provisional name of the five aggregates and the real mark of the five aggregates he explains the Buddha being precisely awakening; by 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions" he explains the cause of the pure land; by 「思為大」 tr. "construction is greatest" he explains why only the three kinds of deeds are spoken of; by 「麁、細不定」 tr. "coarse and subtle are not fixed" he explains why the items of coarse deeds open all the way to craving the realisation of a fruit. The centre of gravity of the whole passage can be gathered into one sentence: what is asked about is the path, what is answered is not abiding; and at the farthest point of not abiding lies precisely the purity of the land.
The title of this chapter is not the same in all editions. The base text's treatise title is "Purifying the Buddha-land", while the sūtra being explained gives this chapter's heading as 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land", and Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, explaining this chapter, also entitles it 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land"; among the variant readings of the treatise title, the Ishiyama-dera manuscript further reads 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land", and the Song edition and the Palace edition lack the two characters 「佛國」 tr. "Buddha-land" in the title, belonging to one line with the short name of the sūtra text and of Jizang, while the base text and the remaining editions keep the full name. The names on both sides each have their basis; here they are recorded side by side without judgement; the collation entries one by one belong to the work of textual evidence, and are not set out in full here.
Jizang, at the opening of this chapter, explains what the chapter's name is tied to: 「此下後文明淨佛土，故云淨土。」 tr. "The later text from here on makes clear the pure Buddha-land; so it is called Pure Land." And he sets up a fourfold division for the whole chapter: 「就文為四：第一明菩薩自住勝道，二者化眾生令因菩薩住勝道，三者令眾生傳化，四眾生令悟共證菩提。」 tr. "Taking the text, it is in four: first, making clear the bodhisattva himself abiding in the surpassing path; second, transforming beings so that, by means of the bodhisattva, they abide in the surpassing path; third, causing beings to pass on the transforming; fourth, causing beings to awaken and together realise awakening." Of the four divisions, the First Part unit covers the full span of the first four—from 「菩薩自住勝道」 tr. "the bodhisattva himself abiding in the surpassing path" to 「一心得菩提下，第四、明菩薩及眾生了悟皆住菩提也」 tr. "from ‘with one mind obtains awakening’ below, the fourth, making clear that the bodhisattva and beings, having awakened, all abide in awakening". On Subhūti not speaking but thinking in his mind, what he explains follows the same line as the treatise-author: 「不好語言而欲得法利，故須菩提不發言默念問也」 tr. "they did not like words and yet wished to obtain the benefit of the Dharma, so Subhūti did not speak but asked by silent thought"; on why the Buddha answers with words, he likewise takes the sense of 「佛身覩之無厭」 tr. "the Buddha's body one sees without weariness" and 「只不妨禪定，故異須菩提也」 tr. "it simply does not hinder meditative concentration, so he differs from Subhūti"—running parallel in meaning with the treatise-author's two sentences in this unit, 「佛身色，視無厭足」 tr. "the Buddha's bodily form one looks at without ever being satisfied" and 「雖語而不妨細禪定行」 tr. "though he speaks, it does not hinder the subtle practice of meditative concentration", while the wording is not taken over from one to the other; the two are seen side by side, recorded without judgement.
On the section of the four alternatives, Jizang judges that what is broken is Subhūti's two views of cause and fruit: 「正破須菩提因果二見。如汝必言因果二故行因得果，故作四句問也。今因果不二即果是因，豈可言行因得果耶？」 tr. "It directly breaks Subhūti's view of cause and fruit as two. Since you must say that because cause and fruit are two one practises the cause and obtains the fruit, you therefore ask with the four alternatives. Now cause and fruit are not two, the fruit is precisely the cause; how can one say that one practises the cause and obtains the fruit?" And by this he explains the objection below, 「菩提應是佛」 tr. "awakening should be the Buddha": 「先因果二見，今聞不二作一見，故作一句也。」 tr. "Before, there was the view of cause and fruit as two; now, hearing of non-duality, he makes it a view of one; so he poses one alternative." And he gathers it up with 「因果既非二」 tr. "since cause and fruit are not two". The treatise-author here takes 「取相生著」 tr. "grasping at marks and giving rise to clinging" as where the fault lies, and explains with 「一、異雖俱不實而多用一」 tr. "although one and different are both not real, ‘one’ is mostly used" and 「相待法故」 tr. "because it is a dharma of standing over against each other"; the one sets up its breaking by the two views of cause and fruit, the other sets up its explanation by the expedient and the real of one and different; full and brief complement each other, and both are kept without judgement.
On the pure-land passage, Jizang sets up a separate twofold division: 「第二、明淨佛土。文為二：初、明淨土因；二、明淨土果。因中有二：初、明無惡因；二、明有善因。」 tr. "Second, making clear the pure Buddha-land. The text is in two: first, making clear the cause of the pure land; second, making clear the fruit of the pure land. Within the cause there are two: first, making clear the cause of being without evil; second, making clear the cause of having good." The content of what he explains as 「無惡因」 tr. "the cause of being without evil" corresponds to what the treatise-author gives in this unit—the high and low of the ground being tied to deceit and crookedness, much stinginess making water and drought out of season and the land full of sand and gravel, 「不作上諸惡故，地平多珍寶」 tr. "because the evils above are not done, the ground is level with many precious things"—coming from the same source as the treatise-author's passage on 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions". On speaking separately of the six obscurations, he sets up the same question as the treatise-author: 「同十惡已有慳貪，何故更說六蔽？」 tr. "The ten evils already likewise include stinginess and craving; why are the six obscurations spoken of further?" and his answer likewise takes the division of 「是六法不入十惡」 tr. "these six dharmas do not enter the ten evils" and 「重瞋能業，故名業道」 tr. "heavy anger can make deeds, so it is named a path of deeds", returning to 「故別說六弊也」 tr. "so the six obscurations are spoken of separately". On the section on impure morality, he too sets up the question 「六度中已說戒不淨」 tr. "impure morality has already been spoken of within the six perfections", and answers 「破戒是煞等麤罪，戒不淨即是細」 tr. "breaking morality is a coarse sin such as killing; impure morality is precisely the subtle"—the order of the three questions and answers agrees wholly with the treatise-author in this unit, from which it can be known that what he divides is the text of this chapter. Only, the Man'ji-zokuzō text of this commentary has many errors and lacunae; wherever words and phrases do not make sense, they are here neither collated nor supplemented on its behalf, nor taken up to establish meaning.
Huiying's Commentary lacks an explanation of this chapter. The extant text of his book stops partway through its sequence of fascicles, and the part that survives does not reach the fascicle where this chapter lies; though the name 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land" is seen several times in his book, what it refers to is the fifty-seventh chapter he explains, not this chapter. Huiying himself noted elsewhere 「此經兩處明淨土品」 tr. "this sūtra makes clear a Pure Land chapter in two places", from which it can be known that the same name appearing twice was something he himself knew; if readers of his book directly connect the three characters 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land" with this chapter, they will surely fall into the error of one name for different chapters. Here the lack is recorded according to the facts, and is not filled with text from elsewhere. Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises has no text bearing on this chapter; its lack too is recorded.
The two places, the Amitābha and other sūtras and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, are cited by the treatise-author himself to make clear the marks of the pure land and the principle of inner and outer evoking each other, not attached by later people; the meaning they are cited for has already entered the passage-by-passage explanation above and is not repeated here. The First Part having stopped at the mark of the path and the items of coarse deeds, the sūtra below turns to the practice of grasping at marks, the signless, and making vows to adorn the land, and the treatise-author, following it, explains the trees of the seven jewels putting forth the sound of the Dharma, the various explanations of the hundred flavours, hearing the Buddha's name and being assured of becoming a Buddha, and other matters—the Last Part of this chapter unfolds these in continuation, and they are not anticipated here.
淨佛國土品之下Purifying the Buddha-land, Part 2 of 2
全文五層 →Full five layers →淨佛國土品之下：取相亦是麁業、六願莊嚴國土、五欲之辨、國土無三惡道之名與聞佛名畢定作佛
在問什麼
之上一卷，通篇在答兩件事。前半答「菩薩道」：六波羅蜜、三十七助道法、十八空、八背捨九次第定、佛十力乃至十八不共法，乃至一切法皆是菩薩道；既說一切法皆是道，隨即逼出「若一切法空，云何言菩薩學一切法」之難，佛以「今眾生實不知一切法空」答之——法空是實，眾生不知是實，為不知者分別諸法而說，不名戲論。繼之以「無所住」立行相：行六度而不住六度，得諸果而不住諸果；再由「不住」逼至「道即是菩提」一段——用生道不得、用不生道不得、用不生非不生道亦不得，末乃雙非而立：非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提。後半始入品題：須菩提問「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」，佛答以自除身口意麁業、亦淨他人身口意麁業為總綱，而以殺生乃至邪見為身口意麁業，以慳貪、破戒、瞋、懈怠、亂心、愚癡為意麁業。論主隨文而釋，卷92 於此而盡。
之下承此而來，卻把「麁業」二字再推一層。經文起首即是「復次」，所接的不是新題，是麁業之第三層：前之麁業是十不善，次之麁業是六蔽之心，此之麁業是「取相」——取色相、取受想行識相，乃至取有為法相、無為法相。惡固是麁，善亦是麁；有為固是麁，無為亦是麁。所以之下的第一個關節在此：淨佛國土之「淨」，不是把惡換成善，是連取善之心一併遠離。
遠離既立，下文便全是「立」。經②之主體是六番供養、六番發願——七寶滿國土、天妓樂、天香、百味食、天香細滑、隨意五欲；再加一番四禪四無量乃至三十七品之願。願願皆有同一格式：以某物供養佛及僧，持此善根因緣，願我國土中有某事。這一格式要看清楚：淨土不是求來的，是作出來的；作者是菩薩自己的施與願，不是他力之賜。經文於六願之後，即以「是菩薩隨爾所時行菩薩道，滿足是諸願」收——國土之成，成於願之滿足。
願之果相，經文別為一段：國土之中乃至無三惡道之名，無邪見三毒二乘之名，耳不聞無常苦空之聲，無我所有、無諸結使煩惱之名，無分別諸果之名；風吹七寶之樹而出空無相無作之音；眾生聞此佛名必至菩提；佛說法時無有生疑者。末後轉出反面——薄福之人沒在我見邊見之中，非佛言佛、非法言法，破法故墮惡道；諸佛見此眾生往來五道，拔之令住正定聚。全經以「淨佛國土中眾生，無雜穢心」與「畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」二句總收。
論②則是逐句釋此經文，而其重心有三。其一是「取相」之辨：既說不取相，那麼厭色成善又憑什麼？論主答以眾生空、法空二門——破的是「定實相」，不是色與善法本身。其二是「五欲」之辨，此是本單元文字最長、辯難最密之處：經文既願國土眾生「常得隨意五欲」，而佛明說五欲如火如坑，又教弟子納衣乞食，兩說如何並立？論主由貧窮而作十不善說起，至「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道」一句而定，再以毘尼中阿梨吒比丘之事別其所被之機——佛為白衣說者，比丘不得挪入出家法中。其三是『聞佛名畢定作佛』之辨：既然一切佛聞名皆當作佛，何以獨說淨國之佛？論主以「法性身」答之——所以殊勝者不在名，在聞者之敬重與所見之佛身。
所以之下所說的，仍是「淨佛國土」四字，只是把之上的總綱拆成了因與果兩截來說：因在遠離取相而行六度發願，果在國土無三惡道之名而眾生畢竟至菩提。之上說「淨」是什麼事，之下說「淨」是怎麼成的、成了是什麼樣子。
逐段解明
一、經文別立第三層麁業——取相。 卷93 續題之後，經文即接「復次，須菩提！菩薩取色相、受想行識相，眼相、耳鼻舌身意相，色聲香味觸法相，男相、女相，欲界相、色界相、無色界相，善法相、不善法相，有為法相、無為法相，是名菩薩麁業。」先問一句：之上已說殺生乃至邪見是身口意麁業，已說慳貪、破戒、瞋、懈怠、亂心、愚癡是意麁業，此處何以又立一門？答在「取相」二字。前二層之麁業所對治者是惡，此一層所對治者是取——惡人取惡，行人取善，取善之取仍舊是麁。所列之目自五眾而六根六塵，而男女，而三界，而善不善，而有為無為，由粗至細、由染至淨，末後連「無為法相」也列在麁業之內，正為斷去『取到最細處便不算麁』這一條退路。經文繼云「菩薩摩訶薩皆遠離如是麁業相」，隨即轉入正行：「自布施，亦教他人布施，須食與食、須衣與衣」，乃至「持是福德與一切眾生共之，迴向淨佛國土故」。遠離是遮，布施是表，遮表並行而淨土之因乃立。其中「與一切眾生共之」一語不可略過——布施之福若自受，不成國土；共之而後迴向，國土方是共業所成。末云「持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧亦如是」，六度全舉，非獨布施。
二、六番供養、六番發願。 此段是經②之主體，凡六願，格式整齊：以某物供養，持此善根因緣，願我國土中有某事。一願七寶——「我以善根因緣故，令我國土皆以七寶成」；二願天樂——「以是善根因緣，願我國土中常聞天樂」；三願天香——「令我國土中常有天香」；四願百味食——「令我國土中眾生皆得百味食」；五願天香細滑——「令我國土中一切眾生受天香細滑」；六願隨意五欲——「令我國土中弟子及一切眾生皆得隨意五欲」。六願所對者，正是六塵之中可供養者：寶為色，妓樂為聲，天香為香，百味為味，細滑為觸，五欲則總收。讀此段要防一個誤會：以為菩薩所願只是國土之富麗。經文末一句已自解此疑——「是菩薩以隨意五欲共一切眾生迴向淨佛國土」，所迴向者是「淨佛國土」，不是五欲本身；五欲是所施之物，淨土是所向之果。此末一句自有其願語「我得佛時，是國土中如天五欲，應心而至！」，故本段「作是願言」之文凡七見而所供之物只六——第七見是第六願之重申，就迴向一面再說一遍，非別立一物。又六願之施境不出三類：一願施與三尊，二、三願施於佛及塔，四、五、六願施佛及僧，而第六願更并一切眾生——皆非施於己，亦非施於一己所親；施境之廣，正是願果之廣。
三、四禪四無量乃至三十七品之願，與願滿之相。 前六願皆就依報而發，此一願獨就正報而發：「我當自入初禪，亦教一切眾生入初禪，第二、第三、第四禪，慈、悲、喜、捨心，乃至三十七助道法亦如是」，末更云「我得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，令一切眾生不遠離四禪，乃至不遠離三十七品助道法。」先問一句：前六願所願者是眾生之受用，此願所願者是眾生之行門，何以並列？因為國土之淨不止於器界之淨——器淨而人不行道，仍不名淨佛國土。所以自入與教他並舉，一句之中兩面俱全：「自入初禪，亦教一切眾生入初禪」。經文於此下一斷語：「如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩能淨佛國土。」隨即說願滿之相：「是菩薩隨爾所時行菩薩道，滿足是諸願」，於是「自成就一切善法，亦成就一切眾生善法」，於是「受身端正，所化眾生亦得端正」。何以身得端正？經文自答：「福德因緣厚故。」此一問一答是經文自具之鷹架，不勞外求。末以「須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩應如是淨佛國土」收此因段。
四、國土之果相——無三惡道之名、寶樹出法音、聞名必至菩提，及其反面。 此段最長，含四層，須逐層清。第一層是「無」：「乃至無三惡道之名」，「亦無邪見、三毒、二乘——聲聞、辟支佛之名」，「耳不聞有無常、苦、空之聲」，「亦無我所有乃至無諸結使煩惱之名」，「亦無分別諸果之名」。所無者幾皆說「名」不說「事」（第三目就耳根說「聲」，論主釋時亦收作「名」——「亦無無常、苦、空、無我之名者」）——不是說那裡的眾生把三惡道忘了，是說那裡根本無此一名可立。第二層是「有」：「風吹七寶之樹，隨所應度而出音聲」，所出之音是「空、無相、無作」，更引其所出之語：「有佛無佛，一切法、一切法相空，空中無有相，無相中則無作」；而其聞法之時是「若晝、若夜，若坐、若臥、若立、若行，常聞此法」。第三層是佛之德與眾生之信：「十方國土中諸佛讚歎」，「眾生聞是佛名，必至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，說法之時「無有不信而生疑」；其所以然，經文自釋：「諸法實相中，皆是法，無有非法。」第四層轉出反面，說薄福之人「沒在我見中」「墮在邊見——若斷、若常」，以邪見故「非佛言佛、佛言非佛，非法言法、法言非法」，破法故墮惡道地獄；而諸佛得菩提時「見此眾生往來五道，令離邪聚，立正定聚中，更不墮惡道」。四層之次第是：無惡、有善、有信、拔其不信者——反面一層不可略，略之則淨土成了與惡世不相干的另一處，而經文明說諸佛正是於此拔出眾生。
五、總收——無雜穢心，畢竟至菩提。 經②末段以兩句收：一句說心，「菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土中眾生，無雜穢心：若世間法、若出世間法，若有漏、若無漏，若有為、若無為」；一句說果，「乃至是國土中眾生，畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。「雜穢」二字要就前文看——前文所列之「無」，皆是所以無雜；此處三對六名，正是雜穢之所從起：於世間出世間起分別，於有漏無漏起分別，於有為無為起分別，即是雜穢。所以「無雜穢心」不是說那裡的人心地乾淨而已，是說那裡的人不於此三對上起取捨。末句「是為菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」，與段三之「應如是淨佛國土」前後相應：一結因，一結果。
六、論主起釋——復有麁業，於畢竟空中取相生著。 論段以「釋曰：」起，先總釋經文所新立之麁業：「復有麁業，於諸法畢竟空中取相生著心」，然後把經文所列之目略舉一遍。此處「於諸法畢竟空中」七字是論主所加，經文所無——加得極要緊：取相之所以是麁，不是因為所取之法不好，是因為所取之處本來畢竟空。在空處取相，故名生著。若無此一句，則『取無為法相亦是麁業』一語便無所繫。
七、男女相固是虛妄，餘法若不取相云何厭色成善。 論主自設一難：「男女相可是虛妄不實，餘色等、善不善法，若不取相，云何能厭色等、成就善法？」此難問得極實在——修行本來就是以厭色而離欲、以取善而成道；若說連善法之相也不可取，則厭與成兩皆無據。論主之答分三節。第一節立二空之別：「佛法中有二種空：一者、眾生空，二者、法空。」二空各有所破——「以眾生空破眾生相，所謂男女等相；以法空破色等法中虛妄相」，並指其出處在「破一切法空」之中。第二節說不取相而仍能厭：「能觀色等、善法如幻、如化，不取定實相，得厭心，則捨戲論常、無常等，是不名為取相。」關節在「定實相」三字——所遣者是「定實」，不是「相」之為用；觀如幻如化而生厭，厭仍是厭，只是不執其為定實。第三節說不取相而仍不生煩惱：「又色等及善法皆和合性空行故，不生諸煩惱。」此答之法值得留意：難者以為「不取相」與『厭色成善』二事不可並立，論主不否認其一，而是指出所謂取相另有所指——不破其所求，只正其所指。
八、無為法既是真實，何以亦不取。 難者步步進逼：「一切有為法假名和合故不應取；無為法是真實法，所謂如、法性、實際，何以不取？」此難之勢最險——有為可空，無為總不可空；如、法性、實際正是佛法所歸，若連此也不許取，便似無所歸宿。論主之答只有兩句，卻斷得極淨：「以不取相是無為法，無相名為無為法門；若取相，便是有為。」意思是：無為不是一個可取的對象，「不取」本身即是無為；一旦取之為相，所取者已成有為，不復是無為了。末一句「如是等，一切虛誑取相不實」總收全節——不是說如、法性、實際不實，是說『取其相』這一動作不實。此處要防一個滑失：勿把『無為法不可取』讀成『無為法不存在』。論主所破者是取之方式，非所歸之處。
九、遠離麁身口意業——共清淨因緣故佛土清淨。 論主牒經文一句「遠離麁身、口、意業。」作標，隨即釋之：「菩薩欲行淨佛土，遠離如是等麁身、口、意業，自行六波羅蜜，亦教他人令行；共清淨因緣故，則佛土清淨。」此釋之要在「共」字。經文之「亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」與此處之「亦教他人令行」相承；論主更進一步指出所以然：佛土之清淨不是一人之清淨所能致，須「共清淨因緣」。國土是共報，共報須共因——此語是全品淨土義之骨。
十、論主自標科段——上總相說，下別相說。 短短一句，卻是論段之綱目。上文所說麁業之遮與六度之表，皆就總相；下文所說七寶、燈炷、華香、伎樂、香、百味、塗香、五欲諸願，皆就別相。讀者於此處立一個準備：以下一連串『或有菩薩……作是願』之文，不是雜舉，是「別相」之逐目開列。
十一、別相第一——七寶施佛及僧之願。 論主釋經文之七寶願云：「是菩薩滿三千大千世界七寶施佛及僧，作是願：「我以是布施因緣，令我國土皆七寶莊嚴。」」對讀經文之「施與三尊」與「令我國土皆以七寶成」，可知論主此處是以自己的語序重述經義，非逐字牒經。此一體例在下文諸願中一貫——論主所重不在覆誦，在隨處設難而釋。
十二、三千世界之寶從何處得、誰能受之。 論主設三問並發：「若滿三千大千世界珍寶，從何處得？又諸佛賢聖少欲知足，誰受是者？若凡夫無厭足，何能受三千世界物？」三問各有所指——一問物之來處，二問受者之肯受，三問受者之能受。論主之答亦分三節。其一答來處與身分：「是菩薩是法性生身，住具足神通波羅蜜中，為供養十方佛故，以如三千世界珍寶供養。」「法性生身」四字是此下數段之樞紐，至下文釋淨國之佛是法性身一段時還要用到。其二答能受：「又此寶物，神通力所作，輕細無妨。」寶非世間之重物，故無所謂受不受得起。其三以喻足之：「如第三禪遍淨天，六十人坐一針頭而聽法，不相妨礙，何況大菩薩深入神通所作寶物！」此喻所取者是「不相妨礙」一點——非謂寶小，謂其不占處所。譬喻取其一點而不牽其餘，是本論通例。
十三、別相第二——變身如須彌為燈炷之願。 「或有菩薩變身如須彌山，遍十方佛前，以為燈炷，供養於佛、若佛塔廟，而作願言：「令我國土常有光明，不須日月燈燭。」」此願之所供是身，非身外之物；所願之果是光明。要留意因果之相稱：以身為炷而供光明，故得國土常明。下文諸願皆有此相稱之理，讀時可一一自勘。
十四、別相第三——雨華香幡蓋瓔珞之願，及好色因緣之總。 「或有菩薩雨諸華香、幡蓋、瓔珞以為供養，復作是願：「令我國土眾生端正如華，身相嚴淨，無有醜陋。」」以華供養而願眾生如華，亦是因果相稱。論主隨即以一句作小結：「如是等種種好色因緣。」此句是分節標記——以上燈炷、華香二願同屬「好色」一類，以下乃轉入聲、香、味、觸諸類。讀者於此可見論主之科：六塵為次第。
十五、別相第四——天伎樂供養之願。 「復有菩薩以天伎樂娛樂於佛、若佛塔廟。」論主於此別出供養之三等：「或時以神通力故作天伎樂，或作天王、轉輪聖王伎樂，或作阿修羅神、龍王等天伎樂供養」，末繫其願：「願我國中常聞好音。」三等之列，是說所供之樂隨菩薩之力而有差別，非一概而論。
十六、諸佛離欲，何須伎樂供養。 難曰：「諸佛賢聖是離欲人，則不須音樂歌舞，何以伎樂供養？」此難極正當——以離欲者受歌舞，似違其德。論主之答含三節。第一節先許其所立：「諸佛雖於一切法中心無所著、於世間法盡無所須」，不諱言佛實不須。第二節說受之所以：「諸佛憐愍眾生故出世，應隨供養者，令隨願得福故受。」受不為己，為施者之福。並以華香為例證成之：「如以華香供養，亦非佛所須，佛身常有妙香，諸天所不及，為利益眾生故受。」第三節更就菩薩一邊說其求音之意：「是菩薩欲淨佛土故求好音聲——欲使國土中眾生聞好音聲，其心柔軟；心柔軟故，易可受化。」至此，伎樂之願不落於娛樂，落在「易可受化」四字上。此一答法可作全品五欲諸難之樣式：凡問『聖者何須此物』者，答皆不在物，在受者之益。
十七、別相第五——滿世界香供養之願。 「或有菩薩滿三千大千世界香供養諸佛、若塔」，論主列其香之品目：「根香、莖香、葉香、末香，若天香、若變化香、若菩薩果報生香」，繫其願云：「令我國土中常有好香，無有作者。」末四字最堪玩味——「無有作者」是說香非人工所製，乃福德所生；淨土之物皆爾，不假營為。
十八、別相第六——百味供養，諸家釋「百味」之異說。 「或有菩薩以百味供養諸佛及僧。」論主於此不逕下定義，而錄五家異說，皆以「有人言」發端：一云「能以百種供養，是名百味」；二云「餅種數五百，其味有百，是名百味」；三云「百種藥草、藥果作歡喜丸，是名百味」；四云「飲食羹餅，總有百味」；五云「飲食種種備足故，稱為百味」。五說並列而論主不判——此是本論錄異說之常例，存其所傳，不強為一。錄畢乃自說其所重者不在數目而在食之層級：「人飲食故百味，天飲食則百千種味；菩薩福德生果報食及神通力變化食，則有無量味」，而其功用在「能轉人心，令離欲清淨」。末以一句收攝：「是四種食，菩薩隨因緣供養佛及僧，是故國土中自然有百味飲食。」所謂四種食，即上文所歷之人食、天食、菩薩福德果報所生食、神通力變化食，論主自數而非外加。此段之教在：異說可以並存，而義理之落處須自有所歸——歸在「令離欲清淨」，不在百之為數。
十九、別相第七——天塗香供養之願。 「或有菩薩以天塗香。」論主於此順帶說一段風土之事：「天竺國熱，又以身臭，故以香塗身，供養諸佛及僧。」此是釋「塗香」何以成為供養之物——非為其美，為其去臭；地有寒熱，俗有所宜，故供養之物亦隨方而異。繫願云：「以此因緣故，令我國土眾生，受天細滑。」以塗香而願細滑，仍是因果相稱。
二十、沙彌尚不以香塗身，云何以香供養。 難曰：「沙彌戒乃至受一日戒，尚不以香塗身，云何以香供養佛及僧？」此難依戒而發，問得極緊——受戒者自身且不許用，何得以之奉上。論主之答極簡，只一句：「是菩薩以身所貴物，隨所須時，用以供養，或以塗地、塗壁及行坐處。」答之要點有二：其一是「身所貴物」——所供之義在捨其所貴，不在其物之為香；其二是「塗地、塗壁及行坐處」——用處不在佛身，在處所。難者所執之戒是「不以香塗身」，論主所說之用是塗地塗壁，兩不相違。此答法是就難者所執之文而指其所不及之處，不必別立新義。
廿一、別相第八——隨意五欲施佛僧及眾生之願。 「又以隨意五欲供養諸佛及僧及餘眾生。」論主列其物云：「是菩薩以好車、馬、妻妾、伎直、幡蓋、金銀、衣服、珍寶」，並自加一句限定：「出家人所不受，則施諸眾生」——凡出家人不受之物，即轉施眾生，不強以非法之物奉僧。繫願云：「令我國土眾生常得隨意五欲。」此段一出，下文之大難即起；論主先自設此限定之語，正是為下文之辯預留分際。
廿二、五欲如火如坑，菩薩何以願眾生得之。 此是本單元最長之一難，論主以二問並發：其一據佛語，「此五欲，佛說如火、如坑、如瘡、如獄、如怨、如賊，能奪人善根，菩薩何以願使眾生得五欲？」其二據佛制，「又佛說弟子應納衣、乞食、坐林樹下，菩薩何以為眾生求得五欲？」一問理，一問行。論主先答其理，自貧窮說起：「天上、人中五欲是福德果報。」既是福德之果，則非罪之本。次說貧窮之所生：「貧窮薄福者不能自活，則行劫盜；或為物主所害，或為財殺他；或被詰問，妄言不作。」由劫盜而殺害，而妄語——「如是，次第作十不善，皆由貧窮故作。」末乃翻轉而立其正：「若人五欲具足，則所欲隨意，則不行十不善。」此一節之義理極要緊：五欲之為害，害在求不得而造惡；具足而無所求者，反不由此門入惡。論主不是為五欲翻案，是指出惡之實因在匱乏。
廿三、國土豐樂則無眾惡——垢膩之衣以灰泥淹之之喻。 承上，論主說淨土眾生之情狀：「菩薩國土眾生豐樂自恣、無所乏少，則無眾惡，但有愛、慢等軟結使。」「軟結使」三字是分際——不是全無結使，是所餘者軟。軟則易破，故下云：「若聞佛所說、或聞弟子所說，以心柔軟故，聞法，易可得道」；又補一句以防疑：「雖著心多，利根故，聞無常、苦、空等，即便得道。」隨以喻明之：「譬如垢膩之衣，則以灰泥淹之，經宿以水浣之，一時都去。」此喻之取點在「一時都去」——垢厚而洗法得宜，則一時俱盡；不在垢之多少。末乃直說菩薩之意：「菩薩不欲令眾生著故以五欲施，但欲令一時捨故與之。」與之正為令其捨——此一句是全段之眼，若不見此句，則前文皆成縱欲之辭。
廿四、答納衣乞食之難——淨土眾生五欲一等故不復貴著。 論主至此回頭答難者之第二問，先牒其語：「如汝先說：「佛教弟子納衣、乞食。」」然後別其所被之機：「宿罪因緣生在惡世，染著心多，若得好衣、美食著心則深」，更兼一事：「又為求好衣食故，妨廢行道。」兩事俱是惡世之情。既明其機，則淨土之異自顯：「是菩薩淨佛國土眾生，無量福德成就，五欲一等故，不復貴著，亦不更求，故無所妨。」關節在「五欲一等」四字——惡世之著生於不等，此有彼無，故貴之、求之；一等則無可貴、無可求。納衣乞食之制所對治者是貴著與妨廢，淨土既無此二病，故其制不必施於彼。
廿五、離五欲修苦行則增瞋恚——捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道。 論主更進一層，指出偏執苦行亦有其病：「若行者離五欲修苦行，則增長瞋恚」；而返求於樂亦不可，「憶念五欲，則生煩惱」；兩頭皆失，「爾時則無所向」。既立兩失，乃引佛語為斷：「是故佛言：「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道。」」末結云：「是故淨佛國土，五欲施無妨。」此一段是全篇五欲之辯的正面判決——不是『五欲無害』，是『苦樂二邊皆非，中道以智慧行』。要留意論主所引以定案者是佛語，不是自立之說。
廿六、毘尼中比丘言受五欲不妨道而遭擯出，如何會通。 難者換一路逼來，據律而問：「若爾者，毘尼中何以一比丘言：「我知佛法義，受五欲不妨道！」是比丘應呵，乃至三不止，擯出。」此難甚利——論主方說五欲施無妨，而律中正有比丘以此語見擯。論主之答先立大分：「佛法有二種：小乘、大乘。」次說小乘所被之機：「小乘中，薄福之人三毒偏多。」機既不同，制亦不同——此是下段引經證之張本。
廿七、婆差經之白衣弟子，與阿梨吒比丘之二罪。 論主引經為證：「如《婆差經》中，佛說：「我白衣弟子，非一非二，乃至出五百人，受赤栴檀塗身及受好香花，妻子共臥，使令奴婢，而斷三結得須陀洹；盡三結，薄三毒，得斯陀含。」」此經所說者是白衣受欲而得初二果，確有其事。所以生病者在錯置：「是阿梨吒比丘聞是事，即言：「雖受五欲而不妨道！」不知是事佛為誰說。」論主一語斷之：「佛為白衣故說，此比丘持著出家法中說。」隨後更就誓願之有無別其分際：白衣「不作是言：「我盡形壽不犯欲！」」，以「有餘三毒故，時時忘道而發婬心」；出家人則「於僧中口自誓言：「我盡形壽不犯婬欲！」」，而佛制曰：「若出家人犯欲，則棄。」於是判其二罪：「是比丘自誓而犯，是一罪；知佛所制而故違犯，是二罪。」末更指其根：「是比丘見白衣得道故，而以自身同彼，是故墮罪。」此段之教法極可觀——同一件事實，於白衣為實，於比丘為謬；謬不在事，在「以自身同彼」。讀經而不辨所被之機，正是此病。
廿八、淨佛國土之二種眾生——在家出家俱無過咎。 論主既別小乘之機，乃回到淨土：「淨佛國土有二種眾生：若出家，若在家。」在家者「雖受五欲無罪，亦無所妨」，並引二處為例：「如兜率陀諸天及欝單曰人，雖受五欲，不起重罪。」出家者則「隨佛所聽出家五欲，亦無過咎」——「隨佛所聽」四字是限，非一概許之。二種眾生分說，經文之「弟子及一切眾生皆得隨意五欲」一語於是無礙。
廿九、小乘為阿梨吒而說，淨土者世世習行六度三解脫。 論主作一總判：「小乘法中，為阿梨吒比丘說；薄福重罪之人，心多悔故。」此句回指第廿六、廿七兩段，明其所說之限。隨即說行淨佛土者何以不同：「淨佛土者，世世習行六波羅蜜、三解脫門，雖得五欲，亦不染著。」不染著之所以然在「世世習行」——不是一時之忍耐，是久習所成。至此，五欲之辯全結：所許者非五欲，是不染著；所以能不染著者，是六度三解脫之久習。
三十、如經中說——自入初禪亦教眾生入，作佛時盡行四禪乃至三十七品。 論主回牒經文之四禪願：「如經中說，所謂菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，作是念：「我當自入初禪，亦當教化眾生入初禪；四禪、四無量心乃至三十七品亦如是。」」又牒其願：「是菩薩作是願：「我作佛時，盡行四禪乃至三十七品。」」末繫一句以應前段之五欲之辯：「如是福德故，眾生雖受五欲，不能為妨。」此一句是論主之接榫——經文之四禪願本是別願之一，論主用它來答「受五欲而不妨道」之所以：不是五欲本身無害，是定與道品之力足以不受其害。
卅一、無量阿僧祇願皆具足——身端正，見者無厭。 論主釋經文之願滿段：「是菩薩作無量阿僧祇願，隨爾所時行道，盡具足是願；是菩薩一切善法皆成就，及所成就眾生。」次釋身相之果：「一切善法成就故，得身端正，見者無厭；亦成就眾生，令得端正。」較經文多出「見者無厭」四字——經文只說「受身端正」，論主補其用：端正之為德，在使見者不厭而能受化，非以美為貴。末牒經文一句「須菩提！菩薩應如是淨佛土。」作結，因段至此而盡。
卅二、乃至無三惡之名，何況有三惡道。 以下入果段。論主先牒而申之：「復次，淨佛土者，乃至無三惡之名，何況有三惡道！」經文說「無三惡道之名」，論主以「何況有三惡道」足其勢——名尚無，況有其事。此一句既是釋經，也是下三難之引子。
卅三、若無三惡道，諸佛憐愍誰。 難曰：「諸佛以大慈悲心，為苦惱眾生故出世；若無三惡道，何所憐愍？」此難就佛之出世本懷而發。論主之答分兩節。其一辨所度之機：「佛出為度眾生故，而三惡道眾生不可度，但可令種善根而已，是故佛名「天人師」。」佛號為「天人師」而不稱『五道師』，正因所化在天與人——此是以佛之名號自證其所度之機。其二反設一境以明難之不成：「若無天、人，但有三惡道，可應有難、應作是問。」意思是：若淨土之中連天人也無，此難方得成立；今淨土非無所化之機，難自不成。此答之巧在以佛名為據，不另立理。
卅四、佛憐愍眾生，何以淨土無三惡道眾生。 難者再問，換一個角度：「佛憐愍眾生，淨佛國土中何以無三惡道眾生？」前難問『無所憐愍』，此難問『何不憐愍』。論主之答分四層。其一立平等：「憐愍一切眾生，平等無異」——先斷『淨土之佛偏愛淨機』之疑。其二指此文之所限：「此中說清淨業因緣，是國土中無三惡道」——所說者是清淨業之果報，非佛心之偏。其三開其量：「又佛非但一國土，乃有十方恒河沙國土。」其四別其類：「佛有清淨國土、有雜國土。雜國土中則具有五道；淨佛國土，或有人、天別異，或無有人、天別異。」末以一事證之：「如過去天王佛國土中，唯佛世尊以為法王，是故名為天王佛。」此一例所證者是「或無有人、天別異」一款——彼土無天人之別，唯佛為法王，故其名如此。四層之序是：先斷疑於心，次限之於文，再開之於量，末別之於類。
卅五、復有國土無三毒、邪見。 論主更舉一款國土之相：「復有國土無三毒、邪見。」此是承前「無邪見、三毒」之經文而別立一目，下文即就此發難。
卅六、若無煩惱，佛出世為何——並錄二說。 難曰：「諸佛但為除眾生煩惱故出世，邪見、三毒即是煩惱，若無煩惱，出何所為？」論主於此不自立一解，而錄二家之說。其一云：「有人言：是中大福德因緣故，邪見、三毒不發故言無。」此解取「不發」——煩惱之種未必無，而其現行不起，故經說無。其二云：「復次，有人言：是中諸菩薩皆得無生法忍，常修六波羅蜜等諸功德，常遊十方度脫眾生，於諸佛所修習諸佛三昧」，故其所化之勝：「勝教化無數聲聞、辟支佛，亦勝教化阿鞞跋致菩薩」，末結云：「成就眾生菩薩、淨佛土菩薩，為近佛道故，利益轉大。」此解則不就煩惱之有無說，就所化之勝劣說——彼土雖無煩惱可除，而佛之出世自有更大之利益。二說並錄不判，讀者兩存之：一解安「無」字，一解安『出世之所為』。
卅七、國土無二乘之名——餘佛三乘教化豈是獨劣。 論主牒經文之語作標：「「是國土無二乘之名」者。」隨即設難：「餘佛有三乘教化，豈獨劣耶？」此難是為經文之「無二乘之名」護持餘佛——若無二乘方為勝，則有三乘之土豈非劣。論主之答只一句：「佛出五濁惡世，於一道分為三乘。」答得極簡而極正：三乘非法之本有，是應五濁之機而於一道之中分出；分者應機，非法之優劣。
卅八、阿彌陀、阿閦不生五濁，何以亦有三乘。 難者即以此一句反詰：「若爾，阿彌陀佛、阿閦佛等不於五濁世生，何以復有三乘？」此難極準——既說三乘由五濁而分，則非五濁之土不應有三乘，而事實有之。論主之答不從國土說，從本願說：「諸佛初發心時，見諸佛以三乘度眾生，自發願言：「我亦當以三乘度眾生。」」三乘之在彼土，不由機之濁，由願之所立。此答與前答並立而不相礙：一就應機說，一就本願說；同一事而因緣有二，本論於此類處常兩存之。
卅九、無無常苦空無我之名——無病則不須藥。 論主釋經文之「耳不聞有無常、苦、空之聲」一款：「亦無無常、苦、空、無我之名者，以眾生深著常、樂等顛倒故，為說無常等苦法。」先說其所以有——為對治顛倒而立。次說其所以無：「是中無常、樂等倒故，不須無常、苦」，並以一喻足之：「若無病，則不須藥。」末以例推餘目：「亦無我所有，乃至無諸煩惱結使亦如是。」此段之教在：法之施設皆對治而有，對治之病既無，其法之名亦無——不是那裡的人不懂無常，是那裡無須說無常。讀此可解一疑：淨土無苦空之聲，豈非缺法？答在『無病不須藥』一句。
四十、無二乘故無諸果——七寶之樹隨所應度而出法音。 論主續釋兩款。其一承前：「無二乘故，亦無須陀洹等諸果，但一向著諸法實相。」二乘之名既無，其果之名自無，所餘者唯一向趣向實相。又補一句說彼土之進：「先得無生法忍者，得諸三昧、陀羅尼門，轉復增益諸地等功德。」其二釋寶樹出音：「風吹七寶之樹，隨所應度而出聲者，是菩薩欲使眾生易聞法故，七寶之樹出法音聲。」更說其遍：「寶樹遍滿國土故，眾生生便聞法，餘心不生，但生法心。」「餘心不生」四字是此款之果——不是強令不生，是常聞法故無餘心之隙。
四一、佛有神通，何不現無量身而須樹木音聲。 難曰：「諸佛有無量不可思議神通力，何以不變化作無量身說法度眾生？何須樹木音聲？」此難問得很自然——以佛身說法豈不勝於樹聲。論主之答自眾生一邊立，分三節。其一說多身反招不信：「眾生甚多，若佛處處現身眾生不信，謂為幻化，心不敬重。」其二說聞法之機各異：「有眾生從人聞法，心不開悟；若從畜生聞法，則便信受。」並引經為證：「如《本生經》說：菩薩受畜生身，為人說法；人以希有故，無不信受。」更說其所以信：「又謂畜生心直不誑故。」其三則進至樹木：「有人謂畜生是有情之物，皆有欺誑；以樹木無心而有音聲，則皆信受。」次第分明——佛身、人、畜生、樹木，愈無心則愈見其不誑，愈不誑則愈易信受。此答之理不在法之高下，在受者之信否。
四二、樹木所出之法音——空無相無作，晝夜常出。 論主既說樹木何以能令人信，乃述其所出之法：「所謂空、無相、無作，有佛、無佛，一切法常空，空故無相，無相故無作、無起。」此三句相因而下：由空而無相，由無相而無作無起——正與經文所引之「空中無有相，無相中則無作」相合。末繫其時：「如是等法，晝夜常出。」晝夜常出者，即經文之「若晝、若夜，若坐、若臥、若立、若行，常聞此法」。
四三、餘土以神通口力變化，此中常是自然音聲。 論主以一句作對比之結：「餘國土以神通力、口力種種變化，此中常自然音聲。」餘土之說法須作意而起，此土之法音則自然而常——一作一自然，正是淨與雜之別所在。此句雖短，卻是前兩段之總收。
四四、佛常為諸佛所讚——聞淨國佛名則畢定作佛，何以但聞名便得。 論主先述經文之果：「淨佛國土，佛常為諸佛所讚，大作功德故，能得如是淨國；若聞淨國佛名，則畢定作佛。」隨即設難：「餘佛種種勤苦說法，眾生尚不得道，何以但聞佛名便得道？」此難之利在對比——多說尚不得，少聞反得，於理不順。論主之答分兩節。其一不貶餘佛：「餘處佛種種說法，眾生或得道、或得善根，終不空說」——先立餘佛之說法皆有實益，不令難者誤以為否認。其二正其所許之量：「若聞是佛名，畢至阿鞞跋致，不言今得。」關節在「不言今得」四字——經文所說者是「必至」，不是『即得』；難者以「便得道」為問，已先移了經文之量。此答之法是先校準所論之量，再論其理。
四五、一切佛聞名皆當作佛，何以獨說淨國之佛。 難者更據經而問：「一切佛，若人好心聞名，皆當至佛，如《法華經》中說，福德若大、若小，皆當作佛。何以獨說淨國佛？」此難所據者是他經之通說，難得極有分量。論主之答不否認通說，只說聞者之心有淺深：「人聞餘佛名字，謂：「受生與人無異，但有一切智得道為異。」」既作此想，則「心不敬重故，雖種善根亦不能深」。所以獨說淨國之佛者，不在佛有優劣，在聞者所起之心有淺深——下一段即說其所以起深心之由。
四六、淨國之佛是法性身——毛孔出佛，深信敬重故所種善根畢定作佛。 此段是前難之正答，文最富而理一貫。先立其身：「是中是法性身，佛身無量無邊」，此即第十二段所立之「法性生身」，至此而見其用。次說其德用：「光明、說法音聲遍滿十方國土，國中眾生皆是近佛道者，無量阿僧祇由旬眾中說法」；又說其光：「勝無量億阿僧祇日月光明，常從身出」，並附一限：「佛令眾生見則得見，若不聽則不見」——光非盲照，隨佛之許。再說其化：「是佛一一毛孔邊常出無量無邊阿僧祇佛，一一諸佛等無異，於化佛邊展轉復出。」既言展轉出化，恐人疑其有優劣，故即斷之：「隨應度眾生見佛優劣，根本真佛無有分別大小之異。」優劣在見者，不在佛。末乃歸結所問：「如是等若見、若聞名、若聞如是功德，深信敬重故，所種善根，云何不畢定作佛？」全段之理只一句話——所以獨說淨國之佛者，因其身是法性身，聞之者不得不深信敬重；敬重深故善根深，善根深故畢定。
四七、是佛說法時無有疑者。 論主牒經文之一款：「復次，是佛說法時，無有疑者，乃至無一人言：「是法為非佛口所說！」悉皆是法。」此句承上而來——既是法性身之佛，其說法自無可疑；「悉皆是法」四字，即經文之「諸法實相中，皆是法，無有非法」。
四八、人從釋迦文尼佛聞法生疑者多，如何會通。 難曰：「人從釋迦文尼佛聞法生疑者多？」此難舉現前之事實為問——同是佛說，何以此土多疑。論主之答極直截：「佛此中自說因緣：「有人薄福不種善根、不得善知識故生疑。」」不另立解，逕指經文自有答案。此一答法值得留意：凡經文自具因緣者，論主但引而不繁說——所謂隨經而釋，不於經外別安義理。
四九、我見邊見邪見所覆——非佛言佛、法言非法，淨國中無如是罪人。 論主承上而廣說生疑者之病。其起在見：「著我見、邊見、邪見等諸煩惱覆故，非佛言是佛、是佛言非佛。」其根在二事：「不深種善根、不順善師」。其發在一時：「三毒、邪見一時發起，無所依隨，任意自恣」。其驗在取捨之偏：「若見邪見，順其意故，言是一切智見；諸佛說畢竟空，不順其意，便言非佛」，於是「非法言法，法言非法」。其果在悔：「如是人於諸佛所多生疑，多生疑故心悔。」末乃歸於淨土：「是淨佛國中無如是罪人，故不生疑。」此段所說之病，要害在「順其意」三字——以己意為準而取捨佛法，則所取者必是邪見，所拒者必是畢竟空。此非知見之不足，是以我為量。
五十、佛言破法之人墮惡道——菩薩以神通力拔出令住正定聚。 論主引佛語而述經文之反面一層：「佛言：「如是罪人，破諸法實相故，死墮地獄惡道中！諸菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，見諸罪人往來生死中，以佛神通力，拔出眾生令住正定聚中，不墮三惡趣，是名淨佛土。」」此段之要在末一句——「是名淨佛土」。淨土之義至此又推進一步：不只是自土之無惡，是能拔他土之罪人而令住正定聚。若淨土只是自身清淨而與罪人不相涉，則此句無著落。
五一、是佛土中無如是諸過——無不具足，眾生皆畢竟至菩提。 論主總結果段：「是佛土中無如是諸過。」次說其正面之全備：「無不具足，於世間、出世間，有漏、無漏，有為、無為等中無有障礙」——此即經文之「無雜穢心」三對，論主易「無雜穢」為「無有障礙」，義同而語順。再列其具體之相：「所謂國土七寶，眾生身端正，相好莊嚴，無量光明，常聞法音，常不遠離六波羅蜜乃至十八不共法。」七寶應第一願，身端正應願滿之果，法音應寶樹之音，六度乃至不共法應四禪三十七品之願——一一皆有其所從來，非泛說莊嚴。末結云：「是中眾生皆畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」
五二、聞佛名畢定至佛，與於諸法無礙必得作佛，有何差別。 論主自設末一難，把前後兩處「畢定」作一比較：「上「聞佛名畢定至佛」，此「於諸法無礙必得作佛」，有何差別？」問得極細——同說畢定，是否無別。論主答曰：「此中眾生常見佛、常聞法、深種善根、多集佛法故，疾得作佛；聞名者，雖俱畢竟定而小不如。」關節在「疾」與「小不如」——二者同是畢定，所別在遲速，不在成否。此一答護住了兩頭：既不使聞名者之畢定落空，也不使生於其國者之勝處泯沒。
五三、總收——如是等名為淨國土相。 論段以一句作結：「如是等，名為淨國土相，如「十地中莊嚴菩提樹」說。」末指其詳說之處在「十地中莊嚴菩提樹」一段，示此處所說者是要略，欲廣者別有所歸。全單元至此而畢。
不要讀錯
不要把「取相」之麁業讀成不可用心。經文所列，自色受想行識以至有為無為，皆說「相」而不說「法」——所遣者是取其相為定實，不是廢其法。論主釋得明白：「能觀色等、善法如幻、如化，不取定實相，得厭心，則捨戲論常、無常等，是不名為取相。」厭心仍在，善法仍成，所去者唯「定實」二字。若讀成不許用心，則下文六願皆無所施。
不要把『無為法亦不可取』讀成如、法性、實際是虛。論主之語是「以不取相是無為法，無相名為無為法門；若取相，便是有為」——所破者是取之方式。無為之為無為，正在其不可取；一取則其所取者已是有為，與無為無干。以此句疑如與實際之實，是把『不可取』誤作『不存在』。
不要把六願讀成求生淨土之願。經文六番所願皆繫於「我國土」（五作「令我國土」，一作「願我國土中」）——是菩薩自作其土，不是眾生求往其土。所供是三尊、佛塔與佛僧，第六願更并一切眾生，所願是我土之相，所迴向是淨佛國土。此品自始至終說的是能淨者之行，不是所往者之求。兩事不可混。
不要把「令我國土眾生常得隨意五欲」讀成縱欲之許。論主自說其意：「菩薩不欲令眾生著故以五欲施，但欲令一時捨故與之。」又自立其分際：出家眾生是「隨佛所聽出家五欲」，非一概許之。更以佛語為斷：「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道。」三處合看，所許者是離貧窮之苦與離苦行之偏，不是許著。
不要把阿梨吒比丘之事讀成佛法自相違。論主判其病不在所引之經，在挪用：「佛為白衣故說，此比丘持著出家法中說。」其罪亦有二：「自誓而犯，是一罪；知佛所制而故違犯，是二罪。」同一事實，於白衣為實，於比丘為謬。讀經而不問所被之機，此段即是明鑑。
不要把「無三惡道之名」讀成佛捨棄惡道眾生。論主明說「憐愍一切眾生，平等無異」，又說「此中說清淨業因緣」——所說者是此一國土之業報相，不是佛心有所偏。且經文末段正說諸佛「見此眾生往來五道，令離邪聚，立正定聚中」，論主亦引之而結曰「是名淨佛土」。淨土之淨，含拔罪人一義在內。
不要把「耳不聞有無常、苦、空之聲」讀成淨土不說苦諦。論主之釋是「以眾生深著常、樂等顛倒故，為說無常等苦法。是中無常、樂等倒故，不須無常、苦」，並以「若無病，則不須藥」足之。不須者是藥，不是病已無而藥仍為妄——藥之施設本為病，病無則藥名亦無。此與『淨土不許說苦』全非一事。
不要把「若聞淨國佛名，則畢定作佛」讀成聞名即時得道。論主校得極清：「若聞是佛名，畢至阿鞞跋致，不言今得。」畢至是必至，今得是即得，二者不可互代。又末段更分遲速：「雖俱畢竟定而小不如。」畢定同而疾緩異，此分際亦不可抹。
不要把「一一毛孔邊常出無量無邊阿僧祇佛」讀成有大小優劣之佛。論主已先斷之：「隨應度眾生見佛優劣，根本真佛無有分別大小之異。」優劣在見者之機，不在佛身。若於化佛之間分高下，正墮此段所防之病。
不要把「樹木無心而有音聲」讀成佛不肯現身。論主之理是就受者說的——「若佛處處現身眾生不信，謂為幻化，心不敬重」，而樹木「無心而有音聲，則皆信受」。所取者是易信一點，非謂佛身不如樹。譬喻與方便皆取其一點，牽其餘則失之。
修行作用
拿「取相生著心」勘自己用功之處。一日之中，最難察的不是取惡，是取善——持了戒而有一個『我持戒』之相，靜了心而有一個『我靜』之相，此相一立，已入此段所說之麁。勘的辦法很簡單：看這件善事做完之後，心裡有沒有多出一個東西來。
拿「不取定實相，得厭心」分別真厭與假厭。見色而厭，若是以色為實而惡之，則厭與貪同是取相，來日必反；若是觀其如幻如化而不取為定實，厭乃自然。所以厭心之真假，不看厭得多重，看所厭者被當成什麼。
拿「共清淨因緣故，則佛土清淨」改自己用功的量度。修行若只算自己一身之清淨，永遠算不到國土上去。此句提醒的是：所處之境是共業，故用功之時須帶著「亦教他人令行」一面——不是待自己清淨了再去教人，是自行與教他本為一事。
拿「持是福德與一切眾生共之」處理每一件善事之後。作了一件善，隨手共之、隨手迴向，不令它停在自己名下。停在名下者成福報，共之而迴向者成國土。此事無須等到大善，日用之小善即可行。
拿「天上、人中五欲是福德果報」看待自己的順境。順境不必自責，逆境不必自矜；要看的是順境之中有沒有「所欲隨意，則不行十不善」的實效。若順境反增貪求，那就不是此段所說的福德果報，是新的匱乏。
拿「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道」校正用功之偏。苦行增瞋、憶欲生惱，兩病皆有徵候可驗：前者易怒，後者多念。覺其一起，即知偏在何處；所用者是智慧之照，不是加一倍的勉強。
拿「佛為白衣故說，此比丘持著出家法中說」自檢引經之習。凡讀到一句合己意的經語而心中一鬆，先問一句：這句話佛是對誰說的？我是不是那個人？此一問能斷去大半的自欺。
拿「不深種善根、不順善師」與「若見邪見，順其意故」自察取捨之偏。所信之說是因為它對，還是因為它順我？所拒之說是因為它錯，還是因為它逆我？此二問一問便見底，不必深究義理。
拿「不言今得」安放自己對修行結果的期待。凡有所修，其果多是「畢至」而非「今得」；把必至誤作即得，則不見效驗時必生退心。知其為必至，則一時之無驗不足以動搖。
拿「常見佛、常聞法、深種善根、多集佛法故，疾得作佛」安排日用。畢定與否是一事，遲速又是一事；能改的是遲速，改的辦法經文已列四項——見、聞、種、集。四者皆是可以每日增減之事，不是玄遠之境。
拿「根本真佛無有分別大小之異」看待修行中所見之境。境有優劣，見者之機使然；若因所見之殊勝而自以為高，或因所見之劣而自以為退，皆是於化佛之間分高下。所當看者是根本，不是現前之影。
承衍
之下承之上而來的一條線，是把「淨佛國土」四字從總綱拆成因果兩截。之上之末，須菩提問「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」，佛答以自除身口意麁業、亦淨他人身口意麁業為總綱，而以殺生乃至邪見、慳貪乃至愚癡分屬身口意之麁。之下則於此二層之外別立第三層——取相之麁；既立第三層，於是淨土之因不止於去惡，更在於不取。因既立，乃有六番供養六番發願以為其行，有四禪三十七品之願以為其正報之行；願滿而果現，果之相即國土無三惡道之名、寶樹出法音、聞佛名畢定作佛、說法無有生疑者。論主於此因果兩截之間，插入三場大辯——取相與厭善之辯、五欲與納衣乞食之辯、聞名與勤苦說法之辯；三辯所護者各一：一護『不取相而仍能修』，二護『受五欲而仍不染』，三護『聞名畢定而非即得』。合之上之下而觀，品名四字乃足：淨佛國土者，非莊嚴一境之謂，是自淨、淨他、不取、共成之總名。
本單元卷首續題，諸本所傳不一，並錄如下而不強為判定。底本作「大智度論釋淨佛國土品第八十二之餘」；宮本於題中無「佛國」二字，是作『淨土品』之短稱，與品首所見宋、宮、石三本之短稱一系同其去向。「之餘」二字，宋本作「一下」，元、宮二本作「二下」，明本作「二之下」，底本獨作「二之餘」——四本三式，皆就卷次與品之上下而異其標，非義理之歧。聖本則自用其品次而作「大智度經論卷第九十三釋八十一品下訖第八十二品上」，其分卷分品之界與底本不同。石本於此處更「不分卷及品」，故其下之「【經】」標亦無。又經文起首之「取」字，宋、元、明、宮、石五本皆無；「國土」一語，宋、元、明、宮四本作「界土」，石本作「世界」。以上皆如實誌錄，其取捨屬譯者。
吉藏《大品經義疏》釋此品，於品初即立其名義云：「此下後文明淨佛土，故云淨土。」至本單元所當之經文，吉藏別立科判，判淨佛土一段為因果二門：「白佛：云何淨土？第二、明淨佛土。文為二：初、明淨土因；二、明淨土果。因中有二：初、明無惡因；二、明有善因。」其於善因一門，更分總別云：「自布施下，二、明善業，為二：初、總約六度明行善；次、別發願。」——與論主之「上總相說，下別相說」一句所科正相當。於五欲之難，吉藏所釋與論主同其大意而語更簡：「答：有人貧窮故作十惡，今得五欲無所乏，不作十惡但有受慢之罪，而菩薩復為除之也」；又云「淨土中受五欲，不過起貪著，不妨妨修道」；於毘尼中比丘一事，亦判其挪用之失：「答：佛言受欲不障道，為白衣說也。此比丘不解佛意，安置出家法中，故應呵也。」於納衣乞食一難，吉藏另出一解，以四聖種當之：「答：是惡眾生於四事貪著，為是人故說四聖種也。」——論主就「宿罪因緣生在惡世」說，吉藏就『四聖種』說，二者並存不相違。
於果段，吉藏之科為：「是國土中無三惡名下，第二、明淨土果。」其釋無三毒邪見一款，亦錄二解而不判：「今是初無毒邪見者，一解云：有三毒但未發耳。二解云：此中皆是法性身菩薩，佛教化此人勝教餘人也」——與論主所錄之二「有人言」次第全同，可見此二解古來相傳。於無二乘之名，吉藏亦設同一難而答：「問：故淨土無二乘名。答：佛於五濁世故有二乘也」；於阿彌陀之土何以有三乘，其答則引《法華》而與論主之『本願』說相合：「問：阿彌淨土何故二乘耶？答：法華云彼佛出時雖非惡世，以本願故說三乘法，此亦是未極淨土故有三世。」於無常苦空之名，其釋與論主之『無病不須藥』同意：「無有無苦空名者，此中無有常病故，不須此二義也。」於無諸果一款，別以教與果分說：「無諸果者，先明無教，今明無果修教之人也。」於寶樹出音，吉藏之釋與論主之「樹木無心而有音聲」相承：「風吹七寶樹下，第二、明有善十果。欲使眾生易聞，故樹枝於法音。又云奇特事樹木，能說人皆信，以木無欺誑以故也。」
慧影《大智度論疏》於本品闕釋——其現存文本止於所釋〈大方便品第六十九〉之中而不完，遠早於本品所當之卷九十二、九十三，故於本品無疏可引。其書中雖亦見「淨土品」一名，然所指者是其所釋之第五十七品，與本品同名而異品，不可牽合。均正《大乘四論玄義》於本品亦無所覆帶。凡此皆據實標闕，不以他處之文充之。
Purifying the Buddha-land, Last Part: Grasping at Marks Is Also a Coarse Deed, Six Vows Adorning the Land, the Discussion of the Five Desires, the Land without Even the Name of the Three Evil Destinies, and Hearing the Buddha's Name One Is Assured of Becoming a Buddha
What Is Being Asked
The First Part, a whole fascicle, is answering two matters throughout. Its first half answers 「菩薩道」 tr. "the bodhisattva path": the six perfections, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the eighteen emptinesses, the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions, the Buddha's ten powers and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and so on up to all dharmas—all are the bodhisattva path. Once it has been said that all dharmas are the path, this at once forces out the objection 「若一切法空，云何言菩薩學一切法」 tr. "if all dharmas are empty, how can it be said that the bodhisattva trains in all dharmas", and the Buddha answers it with 「今眾生實不知一切法空」 tr. "now beings in reality do not know that all dharmas are empty"—that dharmas are empty is real, that beings do not know it is real; it is spoken by distinguishing dharmas for the sake of those who do not know, and it is not called idle discourse. Next he sets up the mark of practice with 「無所住」 tr. "nowhere to abide": practising the six perfections without abiding in the six perfections, obtaining the fruits without abiding in the fruits; and from 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" he presses on to the passage 「道即是菩提」 tr. "the path is precisely awakening"—by the path of arising it is not obtained, by the path of non-arising it is not obtained, by the path of neither arising nor non-arising it is also not obtained, and at the end it is established by a double negation: awakening is not obtained by means of the path, nor is awakening obtained by means of what is not the path. Only the second half enters the chapter's title: Subhūti asks 「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva purify buddha-lands", and the Buddha answers with, as the general headrope, himself removing the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind and also purifying the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others; he takes killing and so on up to wrong views as the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind, and takes stinginess, breaking morality, anger, slackness, a scattered mind, and delusion as the coarse deeds of mind. The treatise-author explains following the text, and fascicle 92 ends here.
The Last Part comes on from this, yet pushes the two Chinese characters 「麁業」 tr. "coarse deed" one layer further. The sūtra text begins straight away with 「復次」 tr. "Further", and what it connects to is not a new topic but the third layer of coarse deeds: the first coarse deeds were the ten unwholesome deeds, the next coarse deeds were the minds of the six obscurations, and these coarse deeds are 「取相」 tr. "grasping at marks"—grasping at the mark of form, grasping at the marks of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to grasping at the mark of conditioned dharmas and the mark of unconditioned dharmas. Evil is certainly coarse, but the wholesome too is coarse; the conditioned is certainly coarse, but the unconditioned too is coarse. So the first joint of the Last Part lies here: the 「淨」 tr. "purity" of purifying buddha-lands is not exchanging evil for the wholesome; it is keeping far, all together, even from the mind that grasps at the wholesome.
Once keeping far has been established, what follows is all 「立」 tr. "establishing". The main body of Sūtra ② is six rounds of offering and six rounds of making vows—the seven jewels filling the land, heavenly music and dance, heavenly fragrance, food of the hundred flavours, heavenly fragrance and fine smoothness, the five desires at will; and one more round is added, the vow of the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and so on up to the thirty-seven limbs of the path. Every vow has the same form: making offerings to the Buddha and the Saṅgha with some thing, and, holding these causes and conditions of roots of goodness, vowing that within my land there may be some matter. This form must be seen clearly: the pure land is not obtained by seeking, it is made; what makes it is the bodhisattva's own giving and vowing, not a gift of another's power. After the six vows the sūtra text at once closes with 「是菩薩隨爾所時行菩薩道，滿足是諸願」 tr. "this bodhisattva, through so long a time, practises the bodhisattva path and fulfils these vows"—the accomplishing of the land is accomplished in the fulfilling of the vows.
The marks of the vows' fruit the sūtra text sets apart as a passage of their own: within the land there is not even the name of the three evil destinies, there is no name of wrong views, the three poisons, or the two vehicles, the ear does not hear the sound of impermanence, suffering, or emptiness, there is no name of what is mine or of the various fetters and afflictions, there is no name that distinguishes the several fruits; the wind blows on the trees of the seven jewels and brings out the sound of emptiness, the signless, and non-action; beings who hear this Buddha's name will surely reach awakening; when the Buddha teaches the Dharma there is no one who gives rise to doubt. At the very end it turns out the reverse side—people of meagre merit are sunk in the view of self and in extreme views, call what is not the Buddha's word the Buddha's word and what is not the Dharma the Dharma, and because of breaking the Dharma fall into the evil destinies; the buddhas, seeing these beings going and coming in the five destinies, pull them out and make them abide in the rightly assured assembly. The whole sūtra section is summed up in the two sentences 「淨佛國土中眾生，無雜穢心」 tr. "the beings within the pure Buddha-land have no mixed and defiled mind" and 「畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "ultimately reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi".
Treatise ② explains this sūtra text sentence by sentence, and its centre of gravity is threefold. The first is the discussion of 「取相」 tr. "grasping at marks": since it is said that one does not grasp at marks, on what then do wearying of form and accomplishing the wholesome rest? The treatise-author answers with the two gates of the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas—what is broken is 「定實相」 tr. "a definitely real mark", not form and wholesome dharmas themselves. The second is the discussion of 「五欲」 tr. "the five desires", the place in this unit where the text is longest and the objections most dense: since the sūtra text vows that the beings of the land 「常得隨意五欲」 tr. "always obtain the five desires at will", while the Buddha plainly said that the five desires are like fire, like a pit, and also taught the disciples to wear robes of cast-off rags and beg for food, how can the two sayings stand together? The treatise-author begins from poverty leading to the ten unwholesome deeds, settles it with the one sentence 「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道」 tr. "relinquish suffering and pleasure, use wisdom, abide in the middle way", and then by the affair of the bhikṣu Alizha in the Vinaya distinguishes the capacity each word is addressed to—what the Buddha said for the white-robed, a bhikṣu may not move into the dharma of those gone forth. The third is the discussion of ‘hearing the Buddha's name one is assured of becoming a Buddha’: since for all buddhas, hearing the name, one will become a Buddha, why speak only of the Buddha of a pure land? The treatise-author answers it with 「法性身」 tr. "the Dharma-nature body"—what makes it surpassing lies not in the name, but in the reverence of the hearer and in the Buddha-body that is seen.
So what the Last Part speaks of is still the four Chinese characters 「淨佛國土」 tr. "purifying buddha-lands"; it only takes the general headrope of the First Part and splits it into the two sections of cause and fruit: the cause lies in keeping far from grasping at marks while practising the six perfections and making vows; the fruit lies in the land having no name of the three evil destinies and in beings ultimately reaching awakening. The First Part says what matter 「淨」 tr. "purity" is; the Last Part says how 「淨」 tr. "purity" is accomplished, and what it looks like once accomplished.
Passage by Passage
1. The sūtra text sets up separately a third layer of coarse deeds—grasping at marks. After the continued title of fascicle 93, the sūtra text at once goes on: 「復次，須菩提！菩薩取色相、受想行識相，眼相、耳鼻舌身意相，色聲香味觸法相，男相、女相，欲界相、色界相、無色界相，善法相、不善法相，有為法相、無為法相，是名菩薩麁業。」 tr. "Further, Subhūti! The bodhisattva grasps at the mark of form, the marks of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the mark of the eye, the marks of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, the marks of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and dharmas, the male mark and the female mark, the mark of the desire realm, the mark of the form realm, and the mark of the formless realm, the mark of wholesome dharmas and the mark of unwholesome dharmas, the mark of conditioned dharmas and the mark of unconditioned dharmas—this is called the coarse deed of the bodhisattva." First one question: the First Part has already said that killing and so on up to wrong views are the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind, and has already said that stinginess, breaking morality, anger, slackness, a scattered mind, and delusion are the coarse deeds of mind; why is yet another gate set up here? The answer lies in the two Chinese characters 「取相」 tr. "grasping at marks". What the coarse deeds of the first two layers counteract is evil; what this layer counteracts is grasping—the evil person grasps at evil, the practitioner grasps at the wholesome, and the grasping in grasping at the wholesome is still coarse. The items listed go from the five aggregates to the six faculties and the six sense-objects, to male and female, to the three realms, to the wholesome and the unwholesome, to the conditioned and the unconditioned—from coarse to subtle, from defiled to pure—and at the very end even 「無為法相」 tr. "the mark of unconditioned dharmas" is listed among the coarse deeds, precisely to cut off the line of retreat ‘once the grasping reaches the subtlest place it no longer counts as coarse’. The sūtra text continues 「菩薩摩訶薩皆遠離如是麁業相」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva keeps far from all such marks of coarse deeds", and at once turns into the right practice: 「自布施，亦教他人布施，須食與食、須衣與衣」 tr. "he himself gives, and also teaches others to give; to one who needs food he gives food, to one who needs clothing he gives clothing", and so on up to 「持是福德與一切眾生共之，迴向淨佛國土故」 tr. "he shares this merit with all beings, for the sake of dedicating it to purifying buddha-lands". Keeping far negates, giving discloses; negating and disclosing go together, and only then is the cause of the pure land established. Within this, the phrase 「與一切眾生共之」 tr. "shares it with all beings" must not be passed over—if the merit of giving is received by oneself, it does not become a land; only when it is shared and then dedicated is the land accomplished by shared deeds. At the end it says 「持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧亦如是」 tr. "keeping morality, patience, vigour, meditative concentration, and wisdom are likewise"—the six perfections are all raised, not giving alone.
2. Six rounds of offering, six rounds of making vows. This passage is the main body of Sūtra ②; there are six vows in all, in a regular form: making offerings with some thing, holding these causes and conditions of roots of goodness, vowing that within my land there may be some matter. The first vow is the seven jewels—「我以善根因緣故，令我國土皆以七寶成」 tr. "because of the causes and conditions of my roots of goodness, may my land be made wholly of the seven jewels"; the second vow is heavenly music—「以是善根因緣，願我國土中常聞天樂」 tr. "by these causes and conditions of roots of goodness, may heavenly music always be heard within my land"; the third vow is heavenly fragrance—「令我國土中常有天香」 tr. "may there always be heavenly fragrance within my land"; the fourth vow is food of the hundred flavours—「令我國土中眾生皆得百味食」 tr. "may the beings within my land all obtain food of the hundred flavours"; the fifth vow is heavenly fragrance and fine smoothness—「令我國土中一切眾生受天香細滑」 tr. "may all beings within my land receive heavenly fragrance and fine smoothness"; the sixth vow is the five desires at will—「令我國土中弟子及一切眾生皆得隨意五欲」 tr. "may the disciples and all beings within my land all obtain the five desires at will". What the six vows correspond to is precisely what, among the six sense-objects, can be offered: the treasures are form, music and dance are sound, heavenly fragrance is smell, the hundred flavours are taste, fine smoothness is touch, and the five desires gather them all. In reading this passage one must guard against one misunderstanding: thinking that what the bodhisattva vows is only the wealth and splendour of the land. The last sentence of the sūtra text already resolves this doubt itself—「是菩薩以隨意五欲共一切眾生迴向淨佛國土」 tr. "this bodhisattva, together with all beings, dedicates the five desires at will to purifying buddha-lands"; what it is dedicated to is 「淨佛國土」 tr. "purifying buddha-lands", not the five desires themselves; the five desires are the things given, the pure land is the fruit tended toward. This last sentence has its own vow-words, 「我得佛時，是國土中如天五欲，應心而至！」 tr. "When I obtain buddhahood, within this land the five desires, like those of the heavens, will arrive as the mind wishes!", and so in this passage the words 「作是願言」 tr. "makes this vow, saying" appear seven times in all while the things offered are only six—the seventh appearance is a restatement of the sixth vow, saying it once more from the side of dedication, not setting up a separate thing. Further, the fields of giving of the six vows do not go beyond three kinds: the first vow gives to the Three Honoured Ones, the second and third vows give to the Buddha and the stūpas, the fourth, fifth, and sixth vows give to the Buddha and the Saṅgha, and the sixth vow further includes all beings—none gives to oneself, nor to those one is personally close to; the breadth of the field of giving is precisely the breadth of the vow's fruit.
3. The vow of the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and so on up to the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and the marks of the vows' fulfilment. The six vows before are all made with regard to the dependent retribution; this one vow alone is made with regard to the direct retribution: 「我當自入初禪，亦教一切眾生入初禪，第二、第三、第四禪，慈、悲、喜、捨心，乃至三十七助道法亦如是」 tr. "I shall myself enter the first dhyāna, and also teach all beings to enter the first dhyāna; the second, the third, and the fourth dhyāna, the minds of kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, and so on up to the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, are likewise", and at the end it further says 「我得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，令一切眾生不遠離四禪，乃至不遠離三十七品助道法。」 tr. "When I obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, I shall cause all beings not to be far from the four dhyānas, and so on up to not to be far from the thirty-seven limbs of the path, the dharmas that aid the path." First one question: what the six vows before vow for is what beings enjoy, what this vow vows for is the gate of beings' practice; why are they set side by side? Because the purity of a land does not stop at the purity of the vessel-world—if the vessel is pure and the people do not practise the path, it is still not called purifying buddha-lands. So entering oneself and teaching others are raised together, both sides complete within one sentence: 「自入初禪，亦教一切眾生入初禪」 tr. "myself enter the first dhyāna, and also teach all beings to enter the first dhyāna". Here the sūtra text sets down a verdict: 「如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩能淨佛國土。」 tr. "Thus, Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva is able to purify buddha-lands." At once it speaks of the marks of the vows' fulfilment: 「是菩薩隨爾所時行菩薩道，滿足是諸願」 tr. "this bodhisattva, through so long a time, practises the bodhisattva path and fulfils these vows", whereupon 「自成就一切善法，亦成就一切眾生善法」 tr. "he himself accomplishes all wholesome dharmas, and also accomplishes the wholesome dharmas of all beings", whereupon 「受身端正，所化眾生亦得端正」 tr. "the body he receives is upright and handsome, and the beings he transforms also obtain upright handsomeness". Why does the body obtain upright handsomeness? The sūtra text answers itself: 「福德因緣厚故。」 tr. "Because the causes and conditions of merit are thick." This one question and one answer are scaffolding the sūtra text itself provides; there is no need to seek outside. At the end it closes this section on the cause with 「須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩應如是淨佛國土」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva should purify buddha-lands in this way".
4. The marks of the land's fruit—no name of the three evil destinies, the jewelled trees bringing out the sound of the Dharma, hearing the name one will surely reach awakening, and the reverse side. This passage is the longest; it contains four layers, which must be cleared layer by layer. The first layer is 「無」 tr. "there is not": 「乃至無三惡道之名」 tr. "there is not even the name of the three evil destinies", 「亦無邪見、三毒、二乘——聲聞、辟支佛之名」 tr. "nor are there the names of wrong views, the three poisons, or the two vehicles—the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha", 「耳不聞有無常、苦、空之聲」 tr. "the ear does not hear the sound of impermanence, suffering, or emptiness", 「亦無我所有乃至無諸結使煩惱之名」 tr. "nor is there the name of what is mine, and so on up to the names of the various fetters and afflictions", 「亦無分別諸果之名」 tr. "nor is there the name that distinguishes the several fruits". What is absent is almost always spoken of as 「名」 tr. "name", not as 「事」 tr. "matter" (the third item speaks of 「聲」 tr. "sound" with regard to the ear faculty, and when the treatise-author explains it he too gathers it in as 「名」 tr. "name"—「亦無無常、苦、空、無我之名者」 tr. "as for: nor is there the name of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, or non-self"); it is not saying that the beings there have forgotten the three evil destinies, it is saying that there, there is from the root no such name to be set up. The second layer is 「有」 tr. "there is": 「風吹七寶之樹，隨所應度而出音聲」 tr. "the wind blows on the trees of the seven jewels and, according to those who are to be delivered, brings out sound", the sound brought out being 「空、無相、無作」 tr. "emptiness, the signless, non-action", and it further cites the words brought out: 「有佛無佛，一切法、一切法相空，空中無有相，無相中則無作」 tr. "Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, all dharmas and the marks of all dharmas are empty; in emptiness there is no mark; in the signless there is then no making"; and the time of their hearing the Dharma is 「若晝、若夜，若坐、若臥、若立、若行，常聞此法」 tr. "whether by day or by night, whether sitting, lying down, standing, or walking, they constantly hear this Dharma". The third layer is the Buddha's virtue and beings' faith: 「十方國土中諸佛讚歎」 tr. "the buddhas in the lands of the ten directions praise him", 「眾生聞是佛名，必至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "beings who hear this Buddha's name will surely reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", and when he teaches the Dharma 「無有不信而生疑」 tr. "there is none who fails to believe and so gives rise to doubt"; as to why it is so, the sūtra text explains itself: 「諸法實相中，皆是法，無有非法。」 tr. "Within the real mark of all dharmas, all is Dharma; there is nothing that is not the Dharma." The fourth layer turns out the reverse side, saying that people of meagre merit are 「沒在我見中」 tr. "sunk in the view of self" and 「墮在邊見——若斷、若常」 tr. "fall into extreme views—whether of annihilation or of permanence", that because of wrong views 「非佛言佛、佛言非佛，非法言法、法言非法」 tr. "they call what is not the Buddha's word the Buddha's word, and the Buddha's word not the Buddha's word, call what is not the Dharma the Dharma, and the Dharma not the Dharma", and that because of breaking the Dharma they fall into the evil destiny of hell; while the buddhas, when they obtain awakening, 「見此眾生往來五道，令離邪聚，立正定聚中，更不墮惡道」 tr. "seeing these beings going and coming in the five destinies, make them leave the wrongly assured assembly and establish them in the rightly assured assembly, so that they no longer fall into the evil destinies". The order of the four layers is: no evil, the presence of the wholesome, the presence of faith, pulling out those who do not believe—the layer of the reverse side must not be omitted; omit it, and the pure land becomes another place having nothing to do with the evil world, whereas the sūtra text plainly says that it is precisely here that the buddhas pull beings out.
5. Summing up—no mixed and defiled mind, ultimately reaching awakening. The last passage of Sūtra ② closes with two sentences: one sentence speaks of the mind, 「菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土中眾生，無雜穢心：若世間法、若出世間法，若有漏、若無漏，若有為、若無為」 tr. "the beings within the Buddha-land purified by the bodhisattva-mahāsattva have no mixed and defiled mind: whether worldly dharmas or world-transcending dharmas, whether with outflows or without outflows, whether conditioned or unconditioned"; one sentence speaks of the fruit, 「乃至是國土中眾生，畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "and so on up to: the beings within this land ultimately reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". The two Chinese characters 「雜穢」 tr. "mixed and defiled" must be seen in the light of what precedes—the 「無」 tr. "there is not" listed before are all the reasons there is nothing mixed; the three pairs, six names, here are precisely where the mixed and defiled arises from: to give rise to discrimination about the worldly and the world-transcending, to give rise to discrimination about with outflows and without outflows, to give rise to discrimination about the conditioned and the unconditioned—this is the mixed and defiled. So 「無雜穢心」 tr. "no mixed and defiled mind" does not merely say that the people there are clean at heart; it says that the people there do not give rise to taking and rejecting over these three pairs. The last sentence, 「是為菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」 tr. "this is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's purifying of buddha-lands", answers, the one before and the one after corresponding, to the 「應如是淨佛國土」 tr. "should purify buddha-lands in this way" of entry 3: the one concludes the cause, the other concludes the fruit.
6. The treatise-author begins the explanation—there is another coarse deed: grasping at marks within ultimate emptiness and giving rise to clinging. The treatise section begins with 「釋曰：」 tr. "Explanation:", and first explains in general the coarse deed newly set up by the sūtra text: 「復有麁業，於諸法畢竟空中取相生著心」 tr. "there is another coarse deed: within the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas, grasping at marks and giving rise to a clinging mind", and then briefly runs once through the items the sūtra text lists. Here the seven Chinese characters 「於諸法畢竟空中」 tr. "within the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas" are added by the treatise-author and are not in the sūtra text—and the addition is of the utmost importance: grasping at marks is coarse not because the dharma grasped is not good, but because the place where it is grasped is from the first ultimately empty. Grasping at marks in an empty place is therefore named giving rise to clinging. Without this one phrase, the saying ‘grasping at the mark of unconditioned dharmas is also a coarse deed’ would have nothing to be fastened to.
7. The marks of male and female are certainly false; if one does not grasp at the marks of the other dharmas, how can one weary of form and accomplish the wholesome? The treatise-author poses an objection himself: 「男女相可是虛妄不實，餘色等、善不善法，若不取相，云何能厭色等、成就善法？」 tr. "The male mark and the female mark may be false and unreal; but as for the other dharmas, form and so on, and wholesome and unwholesome dharmas, if one does not grasp at their marks, how can one weary of form and the rest and accomplish wholesome dharmas?" This objection is asked very concretely—practice is from the first to leave desire by wearying of form and to accomplish the path by taking up the wholesome; if it is said that even the mark of wholesome dharmas may not be grasped, then wearying and accomplishing both lose their ground. The treatise-author's answer falls into three sections. The first section sets up the distinction of the two emptinesses: 「佛法中有二種空：一者、眾生空，二者、法空。」 tr. "Within the Buddha's Dharma there are two kinds of emptiness: first, the emptiness of beings; second, the emptiness of dharmas." The two emptinesses each have what they break—「以眾生空破眾生相，所謂男女等相；以法空破色等法中虛妄相」 tr. "by the emptiness of beings one breaks the marks of beings, namely the male mark, the female mark, and the like; by the emptiness of dharmas one breaks the false marks within dharmas such as form"—and he points to its source as lying within 「破一切法空」 tr. "breaking all dharmas as empty". The second section says that without grasping at marks one can still weary: 「能觀色等、善法如幻、如化，不取定實相，得厭心，則捨戲論常、無常等，是不名為取相。」 tr. "To be able to contemplate form and the rest, and wholesome dharmas, as like an illusion, like a conjuration, not grasping at a definitely real mark, obtaining the mind of weariness, and then relinquishing such idle discourse as permanent and impermanent—this is not called grasping at marks." The joint lies in the three Chinese characters 「定實相」 tr. "definitely real mark"—what is dismissed is 「定實」 tr. "the definitely real", not the function of 「相」 tr. "mark"; contemplating things as like an illusion, like a conjuration, one gives rise to weariness, and weariness is still weariness, only one does not hold to it as definitely real. The third section says that without grasping at marks one still does not give rise to afflictions: 「又色等及善法皆和合性空行故，不生諸煩惱。」 tr. "Further, because form and the rest, and wholesome dharmas, are all practised as coming together and empty of nature, one does not give rise to the various afflictions." The method of this answer deserves attention: the objector thinks that 「不取相」 tr. "not grasping at marks" and ‘wearying of form and accomplishing the wholesome’ are two matters that cannot stand together; the treatise-author denies neither of them, but points out that what is called grasping at marks refers to something else—he does not break what is sought, he only corrects what is referred to.
8. Since unconditioned dharmas are real, why are they too not grasped? The objector presses forward step by step: 「一切有為法假名和合故不應取；無為法是真實法，所謂如、法性、實際，何以不取？」 tr. "All conditioned dharmas, because they are the coming together of provisional names, should not be grasped; unconditioned dharmas are real dharmas, namely suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—why are they not grasped?" The force of this objection is the most dangerous—the conditioned may be empty, but the unconditioned surely cannot be empty; suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are precisely where the Buddha's Dharma returns to, and if even these may not be grasped, it seems there is nowhere to return to and rest. The treatise-author's answer has only two sentences, yet it cuts very cleanly: 「以不取相是無為法，無相名為無為法門；若取相，便是有為。」 tr. "Because not grasping at marks is the unconditioned dharma, and the signless is called the gate of the unconditioned dharma; if one grasps at marks, it is then the conditioned." The meaning is: the unconditioned is not an object that can be grasped; 「不取」 tr. "not grasping" is itself the unconditioned; once it is grasped as a mark, what is grasped has already become conditioned and is no longer the unconditioned. The last sentence, 「如是等，一切虛誑取相不實」 tr. "In all such ways, all grasping at marks is false, deceptive, and unreal", sums up the whole section—it is not saying that suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are unreal; it is saying that the act of ‘grasping at their marks’ is unreal. Here one must guard against a slip: do not read ‘unconditioned dharmas cannot be grasped’ as ‘unconditioned dharmas do not exist’. What the treatise-author breaks is the manner of grasping, not the place returned to.
9. Keeping far from coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind—because of shared causes and conditions of purity the Buddha-land is pure. The treatise-author takes up one sentence of the sūtra text, 「遠離麁身、口、意業。」 tr. "Keeping far from coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind.", as a heading, and at once explains it: 「菩薩欲行淨佛土，遠離如是等麁身、口、意業，自行六波羅蜜，亦教他人令行；共清淨因緣故，則佛土清淨。」 tr. "The bodhisattva, wishing to practise purifying buddha-lands, keeps far from all such coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind, himself practises the six perfections, and also teaches others and makes them practise; because of shared causes and conditions of purity, the Buddha-land then becomes pure." The key to this explanation lies in the Chinese character 「共」 tr. "shared". The sūtra text's 「亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」 tr. "also purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others" and the 「亦教他人令行」 tr. "also teaches others and makes them practise" here carry on from one another; the treatise-author goes a step further and points out why it is so: the purity of a Buddha-land is not something one person's purity can bring about; it requires 「共清淨因緣」 tr. "shared causes and conditions of purity". A land is a shared retribution, and a shared retribution requires shared causes—this saying is the bone of the meaning of the pure land in the whole chapter.
10. The treatise-author marks the divisions himself—above, said by way of the general mark; below, by way of the specific marks. A very short sentence, yet it is the outline of the treatise section. The negating of coarse deeds and the disclosing of the six perfections spoken of above are all by way of the general mark; the vows spoken of below—the seven jewels, the lamp-wick, flowers and incense, music and dance, fragrance, the hundred flavours, unguents, the five desires—are all by way of the specific marks. The reader should make a preparation here: the string of passages that follows, ‘again, there are bodhisattvas who … make this vow’, is not a miscellaneous listing; it is the item-by-item laying out of 「別相」 tr. "the specific marks".
11. The first specific mark—the vow of giving the seven jewels to the Buddha and the Saṅgha. The treatise-author explains the sūtra text's vow of the seven jewels, saying: 「是菩薩滿三千大千世界七寶施佛及僧，作是願：「我以是布施因緣，令我國土皆七寶莊嚴。」」 tr. "This bodhisattva gives the seven jewels filling the three-thousand great-thousand world to the Buddha and the Saṅgha, and makes this vow: ‘By the causes and conditions of this giving, may my land be wholly adorned with the seven jewels.’" Reading it against the sūtra text's 「施與三尊」 tr. "gives to the Three Honoured Ones" and 「令我國土皆以七寶成」 tr. "may my land be made wholly of the seven jewels", one can see that here the treatise-author restates the meaning of the sūtra in his own word order, not taking up the sūtra word for word. This pattern holds throughout the vows below—what the treatise-author values lies not in repeating, but in posing objections wherever they arise and explaining them.
12. Where are the treasures of the three-thousand world obtained, and who can receive them? The treatise-author poses three questions at once: 「若滿三千大千世界珍寶，從何處得？又諸佛賢聖少欲知足，誰受是者？若凡夫無厭足，何能受三千世界物？」 tr. "If it is precious things filling the three-thousand great-thousand world, where are they obtained? Moreover the buddhas and the worthy and the sages have few desires and know contentment; who would receive these? If ordinary people are never satisfied, how could they receive the things of the three-thousand world?" The three questions each have their point—the first asks where the things come from, the second asks whether the receivers are willing to receive, the third asks whether the receivers are able to receive. The treatise-author's answer too falls into three sections. The first answers the source and the standing of the body: 「是菩薩是法性生身，住具足神通波羅蜜中，為供養十方佛故，以如三千世界珍寶供養。」 tr. "This bodhisattva is a body born of the Dharma-nature, abiding complete in the perfection of the supernormal powers; for the sake of making offerings to the buddhas of the ten directions, he makes offerings with precious things as many as the three-thousand world." The four Chinese characters 「法性生身」 tr. "a body born of the Dharma-nature" are the pivot of several passages below, and they will be used again in the passage below that explains that the Buddha of a pure land is the Dharma-nature body. The second answers the ability to receive: 「又此寶物，神通力所作，輕細無妨。」 tr. "Further, these treasures are made by the power of the supernormal powers, light and subtle, without obstruction." The treasures are not heavy worldly things, so there is no question of whether one can bear to receive them. The third completes it with a simile: 「如第三禪遍淨天，六十人坐一針頭而聽法，不相妨礙，何況大菩薩深入神通所作寶物！」 tr. "Just as in the Heaven of Universal Purity of the third dhyāna sixty people sit on the point of one needle and hear the Dharma without obstructing one another—how much more the treasures made by a great bodhisattva who has entered deeply into the supernormal powers!" What this simile takes is the one point 「不相妨礙」 tr. "without obstructing one another"—it is not saying the treasures are small, it is saying they occupy no place. A simile takes one point and does not drag in the rest; this is the common practice of this treatise.
13. The second specific mark—the vow of transforming the body to the size of Mount Sumeru as a lamp-wick. 「或有菩薩變身如須彌山，遍十方佛前，以為燈炷，供養於佛、若佛塔廟，而作願言：「令我國土常有光明，不須日月燈燭。」」 tr. "Again, there are bodhisattvas who transform their bodies to be like Mount Sumeru, present everywhere before the buddhas of the ten directions, and make them a lamp-wick, making offerings to the Buddha or to the Buddha's stūpa-shrines, and make a vow, saying: ‘May my land always have light, not needing sun, moon, lamps, or candles.’" What this vow offers is the body, not a thing outside the body; the fruit vowed for is light. One should note how cause and fruit correspond: making the body a wick, he offers light, and so obtains a land always bright. The vows below all have this principle of correspondence; in reading, one can check it for oneself one by one.
14. The third specific mark—the vow of raining flowers, incense, banners, canopies, and necklaces, and the summary of the causes and conditions of beautiful form. 「或有菩薩雨諸華香、幡蓋、瓔珞以為供養，復作是願：「令我國土眾生端正如華，身相嚴淨，無有醜陋。」」 tr. "Again, there are bodhisattvas who rain down all kinds of flowers and incense, banners and canopies, and necklaces as offerings, and further make this vow: ‘May the beings within my land be upright and handsome like flowers, their bodies adorned and pure, without ugliness.’" Making offerings with flowers and vowing that beings be like flowers—this too is the correspondence of cause and fruit. The treatise-author at once makes a small conclusion with one sentence: 「如是等種種好色因緣。」 tr. "All such as these are the various causes and conditions of beautiful form." This sentence is a section marker—the two vows above, the lamp-wick and the flowers and incense, belong alike to the class of 「好色」 tr. "beautiful form"; below, it turns to the classes of sound, smell, taste, and touch. Here the reader can see the treatise-author's division: the six sense-objects are its sequence.
15. The fourth specific mark—the vow of offering heavenly music and dance. 「復有菩薩以天伎樂娛樂於佛、若佛塔廟。」 tr. "Again, there are bodhisattvas who entertain the Buddha, or the Buddha's stūpa-shrines, with heavenly music and dance." Here the treatise-author sets out separately three grades of offering: 「或時以神通力故作天伎樂，或作天王、轉輪聖王伎樂，或作阿修羅神、龍王等天伎樂供養」 tr. "sometimes by the power of his supernormal powers he makes heavenly music and dance, sometimes he makes the music and dance of heavenly kings and wheel-turning sage kings, sometimes he makes heavenly music and dance such as that of the asura spirits and the nāga kings, as offerings", and at the end attaches the vow: 「願我國中常聞好音。」 tr. "May fine sounds always be heard within my land." The listing of three grades says that the music offered differs according to the bodhisattva's power; it is not all of one kind.
16. The buddhas are free from desire—why need offerings of music and dance? The objection: 「諸佛賢聖是離欲人，則不須音樂歌舞，何以伎樂供養？」 tr. "The buddhas and the worthy and the sages are people free from desire, and so have no need of music, song, and dance; why make offerings with music and dance?" This objection is entirely proper—for one free from desire to receive song and dance seems to go against his virtue. The treatise-author's answer contains three sections. The first section first grants what the objector sets up: 「諸佛雖於一切法中心無所著、於世間法盡無所須」 tr. "although the buddhas have a mind without clinging within all dharmas, and within worldly dharmas need nothing at all", not concealing that the Buddha really has no need. The second section says why he receives: 「諸佛憐愍眾生故出世，應隨供養者，令隨願得福故受。」 tr. "The buddhas appear in the world because of compassion for beings; they should accord with those who make offerings, and they receive in order to let them obtain merit according to their wishes." Receiving is not for himself; it is for the giver's merit. And he proves it with the example of flowers and incense: 「如以華香供養，亦非佛所須，佛身常有妙香，諸天所不及，為利益眾生故受。」 tr. "Just as offering flowers and incense is also not something the Buddha needs—the Buddha's body always has a wondrous fragrance that the gods cannot equal—he receives it for the sake of benefiting beings." The third section further speaks, from the bodhisattva's side, of his intention in seeking sound: 「是菩薩欲淨佛土故求好音聲——欲使國土中眾生聞好音聲，其心柔軟；心柔軟故，易可受化。」 tr. "This bodhisattva seeks fine sounds because he wishes to purify buddha-lands—he wishes to make the beings within the land hear fine sounds, so that their minds become soft; because the mind becomes soft, they can easily receive transformation." At this point the vow of music and dance does not land on entertainment; it lands on the four Chinese characters 「易可受化」 tr. "can easily receive transformation". This way of answering can serve as the pattern for all the objections about the five desires in the whole chapter: wherever it is asked ‘what need has a sage of this thing?’, the answer never lies in the thing, but in the benefit to those who receive.
17. The fifth specific mark—the vow of offering fragrance that fills the world. 「或有菩薩滿三千大千世界香供養諸佛、若塔」 tr. "Again, there are bodhisattvas who make offerings to the buddhas, or to stūpas, with fragrance filling the three-thousand great-thousand world"; the treatise-author lists the kinds of fragrance: 「根香、莖香、葉香、末香，若天香、若變化香、若菩薩果報生香」 tr. "root fragrance, stem fragrance, leaf fragrance, powdered fragrance, or heavenly fragrance, or fragrance made by transformation, or fragrance born of the bodhisattva's retribution", and attaches the vow, saying: 「令我國土中常有好香，無有作者。」 tr. "May there always be fine fragrance within my land, and no one who makes it." The last four Chinese characters are the most worth savouring—「無有作者」 tr. "no one who makes it" says that the fragrance is not made by human work but is born of merit; all the things of a pure land are so, needing no contriving.
18. The sixth specific mark—offering the hundred flavours, and the differing explanations of 「百味」 tr. "the hundred flavours" given by different people. 「或有菩薩以百味供養諸佛及僧。」 tr. "Again, there are bodhisattvas who make offerings of the hundred flavours to the buddhas and the Saṅgha." Here the treatise-author does not lay down a definition outright but records five differing explanations, all opening with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says": the first says 「能以百種供養，是名百味」 tr. "being able to make offerings with a hundred kinds of things—this is called the hundred flavours"; the second says 「餅種數五百，其味有百，是名百味」 tr. "the kinds of cakes number five hundred, and their flavours number a hundred—this is called the hundred flavours"; the third says 「百種藥草、藥果作歡喜丸，是名百味」 tr. "making joy-pills out of a hundred kinds of medicinal herbs and medicinal fruits—this is called the hundred flavours"; the fourth says 「飲食羹餅，總有百味」 tr. "food and drink, broths and cakes, have a hundred flavours in all"; the fifth says 「飲食種種備足故，稱為百味」 tr. "because food and drink of all kinds are fully provided, it is called the hundred flavours". The five explanations stand side by side and the treatise-author does not judge between them—this is the treatise's usual practice in recording differing explanations: it keeps what has been handed down and does not force them into one. When the record is done, he speaks for himself of what matters to him, which lies not in the number but in the grades of food: 「人飲食故百味，天飲食則百千種味；菩薩福德生果報食及神通力變化食，則有無量味」 tr. "human food and drink is therefore of a hundred flavours, the food and drink of the gods is of hundreds of thousands of kinds of flavour; the food that is the retribution born of the bodhisattva's merit and the food transformed by the power of the supernormal powers have immeasurable flavours", and its function lies in 「能轉人心，令離欲清淨」 tr. "being able to transform a person's mind, making him free from desire and pure". At the end he gathers it up in one sentence: 「是四種食，菩薩隨因緣供養佛及僧，是故國土中自然有百味飲食。」 tr. "These four kinds of food the bodhisattva offers to the Buddha and the Saṅgha according to causes and conditions; therefore within the land there is, of itself, food and drink of the hundred flavours." The so-called four kinds of food are the human food, the food of the gods, the food born as the retribution of the bodhisattva's merit, and the food transformed by the power of the supernormal powers, which he has just gone through above; the treatise-author counts them himself, and they are not added from outside. The teaching of this passage is: differing explanations may stand together, but where the meaning lands must have its own place of return—it returns to 「令離欲清淨」 tr. "making him free from desire and pure", not to the number being a hundred.
19. The seventh specific mark—the vow of offering heavenly unguents. 「或有菩薩以天塗香。」 tr. "Again, there are bodhisattvas who make offerings with heavenly unguents." Here the treatise-author mentions in passing a matter of local custom: 「天竺國熱，又以身臭，故以香塗身，供養諸佛及僧。」 tr. "The land of India is hot, and moreover because the body has a bad smell, people smear the body with fragrance, and with this he makes offerings to the buddhas and the Saṅgha." This explains why 「塗香」 tr. "unguents" became an object of offering—not for its beauty but for removing smell; lands are hot or cold and customs have what suits them, and so the objects of offering also differ with the region. The vow attached says: 「以此因緣故，令我國土眾生，受天細滑。」 tr. "Because of these causes and conditions, may the beings of my land receive heavenly fine smoothness." Vowing fine smoothness by means of unguents is still the correspondence of cause and fruit.
20. A śrāmaṇera does not even smear his body with fragrance—how can one make offerings with fragrance? The objection: 「沙彌戒乃至受一日戒，尚不以香塗身，云何以香供養佛及僧？」 tr. "One who holds the śrāmaṇera precepts, and so on up to one who receives the one-day precepts, does not even smear the body with fragrance; how can one make offerings to the Buddha and the Saṅgha with fragrance?" This objection is raised on the basis of the precepts and asked very tightly—one who has received the precepts is not permitted to use it even on himself, so how may it be offered up? The treatise-author's answer is extremely brief, only one sentence: 「是菩薩以身所貴物，隨所須時，用以供養，或以塗地、塗壁及行坐處。」 tr. "This bodhisattva takes what he himself prizes and, at the time it is needed, uses it as an offering, or uses it to smear the ground, to smear walls, and the places of walking and sitting." The answer has two key points: the first is 「身所貴物」 tr. "what he himself prizes"—the meaning of the offering lies in giving up what one prizes, not in the thing being fragrance; the second is 「塗地、塗壁及行坐處」 tr. "smear the ground, smear walls, and the places of walking and sitting"—the use lies not on the Buddha's body but on places. The precept the objector holds to is 「不以香塗身」 tr. "not smearing the body with fragrance"; the use the treatise-author speaks of is smearing the ground and smearing walls; the two do not conflict. This way of answering points, within the very wording the objector holds to, to what it does not reach; there is no need to set up a new meaning.
21. The eighth specific mark—the vow of giving the five desires at will to the Buddha, the Saṅgha, and beings. 「又以隨意五欲供養諸佛及僧及餘眾生。」 tr. "Further, with the five desires at will he makes offerings to the buddhas, the Saṅgha, and the other beings." The treatise-author lists the things: 「是菩薩以好車、馬、妻妾、伎直、幡蓋、金銀、衣服、珍寶」 tr. "this bodhisattva takes fine carriages, horses, wives and concubines, hired performers, banners and canopies, gold and silver, clothing, and precious things", and himself adds a limiting sentence: 「出家人所不受，則施諸眾生」 tr. "whatever those gone forth do not accept, he gives to beings"—whatever those gone forth do not accept is turned over and given to beings; things not in accord with the Dharma are not forced upon the Saṅgha. The vow attached says: 「令我國土眾生常得隨意五欲。」 tr. "May the beings of my land always obtain the five desires at will." As soon as this passage appears, the great objection below arises; the treatise-author first sets down this limiting phrase himself precisely to reserve the boundary for the discussion below.
22. The five desires are like fire, like a pit—why does the bodhisattva vow that beings obtain them? This is one of the longest objections in this unit, and the treatise-author poses it as two questions at once: the first rests on the Buddha's words, 「此五欲，佛說如火、如坑、如瘡、如獄、如怨、如賊，能奪人善根，菩薩何以願使眾生得五欲？」 tr. "These five desires the Buddha said are like fire, like a pit, like a sore, like a prison, like an enemy, like a thief, able to rob people of their roots of goodness; why does the bodhisattva vow to make beings obtain the five desires?"; the second rests on what the Buddha established, 「又佛說弟子應納衣、乞食、坐林樹下，菩薩何以為眾生求得五欲？」 tr. "Further, the Buddha said that disciples should wear robes of cast-off rags, practise begging for food, and sit beneath the trees of the forest; why does the bodhisattva seek to obtain the five desires for beings?" One asks about principle, one asks about practice. The treatise-author first answers the principle, beginning from poverty: 「天上、人中五欲是福德果報。」 tr. "The five desires of the heavens and of the human world are the retribution of merit." Since they are the fruit of merit, they are not the root of sin. Next he speaks of what poverty gives rise to: 「貧窮薄福者不能自活，則行劫盜；或為物主所害，或為財殺他；或被詰問，妄言不作。」 tr. "Poor people of meagre merit cannot support themselves and so commit robbery; either they are killed by the owner of the goods, or for the sake of goods they kill others; or when questioned they lie, saying they did not do it." From robbery to killing, to false speech—「如是，次第作十不善，皆由貧窮故作。」 tr. "In this way, in sequence they commit the ten unwholesome deeds, all done because of poverty." At the end he turns it over and sets up the right view: 「若人五欲具足，則所欲隨意，則不行十不善。」 tr. "If a person is complete in the five desires, then whatever he desires is at his will, and he does not practise the ten unwholesome deeds." The meaning of this section is of the utmost importance: the harm of the five desires lies in creating evil when one seeks and does not obtain; one who is complete and seeks nothing, on the contrary, does not enter evil by this door. The treatise-author is not overturning the verdict on the five desires; he is pointing out that the real cause of evil lies in want.
23. When the land is rich and happy there are no evils—the simile of a garment soiled with grease soaked in ash and mud. Carrying on from the above, the treatise-author speaks of the condition of the beings of a pure land: 「菩薩國土眾生豐樂自恣、無所乏少，則無眾惡，但有愛、慢等軟結使。」 tr. "The beings within the bodhisattva's land are rich and happy, free at their will, lacking nothing, and so they have none of the various evils, only soft fetters such as love and pride." The three Chinese characters 「軟結使」 tr. "soft fetters" mark the boundary—it is not that there are no fetters at all, it is that what remains is soft. Being soft, they are easily broken, and so he goes on: 「若聞佛所說、或聞弟子所說，以心柔軟故，聞法，易可得道」 tr. "if they hear what the Buddha teaches, or hear what the disciples teach, because the mind is soft, hearing the Dharma they can easily obtain the path"; and he adds a sentence to forestall doubt: 「雖著心多，利根故，聞無常、苦、空等，即便得道。」 tr. "Although the clinging mind is much, because their faculties are keen, hearing impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and so on, they at once obtain the path." Then he makes it clear with a simile: 「譬如垢膩之衣，則以灰泥淹之，經宿以水浣之，一時都去。」 tr. "It is like a garment soiled with grease: one soaks it in ash and mud, and after a night washes it with water, and at one time it is all removed." What this simile takes is 「一時都去」 tr. "at one time it is all removed"—when the dirt is thick and the way of washing is fitting, it is all gone at one time; the point is not the amount of the dirt. At the end he states the bodhisattva's intention directly: 「菩薩不欲令眾生著故以五欲施，但欲令一時捨故與之。」 tr. "The bodhisattva does not give the five desires wishing to make beings cling; he gives them only wishing to make them relinquish at one time." Giving them is precisely to make them relinquish—this sentence is the eye of the whole passage; if one does not see this sentence, everything before becomes words that indulge desire.
24. Answering the objection about robes of cast-off rags and begging for food—because the five desires are all equal in the pure land, beings no longer prize them and cling. At this point the treatise-author turns back to answer the objector's second question, first taking up his words: 「如汝先說：「佛教弟子納衣、乞食。」」 tr. "As you said before: ‘The Buddha taught the disciples to wear robes of cast-off rags and beg for food.’" Then he distinguishes the capacity addressed: 「宿罪因緣生在惡世，染著心多，若得好衣、美食著心則深」 tr. "through the causes and conditions of sins of former lives they were born in an evil age, and the defiled and clinging mind is much; if they obtained fine clothing and fine food, the clinging mind would become deep", together with one more matter: 「又為求好衣食故，妨廢行道。」 tr. "Moreover, because of seeking fine clothing and food, the practice of the path would be hindered and neglected." Both matters belong to the condition of an evil age. Once the capacity is made clear, the difference of the pure land shows itself: 「是菩薩淨佛國土眾生，無量福德成就，五欲一等故，不復貴著，亦不更求，故無所妨。」 tr. "The beings within the Buddha-land purified by this bodhisattva have accomplished immeasurable merit; because the five desires are all equal, they no longer prize them and cling, nor do they seek further, and so there is no hindrance." The joint lies in the four Chinese characters 「五欲一等」 tr. "the five desires are all equal"—clinging in an evil age arises from inequality: this one has and that one lacks, and so they prize them and seek them; when all is equal there is nothing to prize and nothing to seek. What the rule of robes of cast-off rags and begging for food counteracts is prizing and clinging, and hindrance and neglect; since the pure land is free of these two sicknesses, that rule need not be applied there.
25. Leaving the five desires to practise austerities increases anger—relinquish suffering and pleasure, use wisdom, abide in the middle way. The treatise-author goes a layer further, pointing out that a one-sided clinging to austerities also has its sickness: 「若行者離五欲修苦行，則增長瞋恚」 tr. "if a practitioner leaves the five desires and practises austerities, he increases anger"; yet to turn back and seek pleasure will not do either: 「憶念五欲，則生煩惱」 tr. "if he recollects the five desires, afflictions arise"; both ends are lost, and 「爾時則無所向」 tr. "at that time he has nowhere to tend toward". Having set up the two losses, he cites the Buddha's words as the verdict: 「是故佛言：「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道。」」 tr. "Therefore the Buddha said: ‘Relinquish suffering and pleasure, use wisdom, abide in the middle way.’" At the end he concludes: 「是故淨佛國土，五欲施無妨。」 tr. "Therefore within the pure Buddha-land, giving with the five desires is no hindrance." This passage is the positive verdict of the whole discussion of the five desires in this piece—it is not ‘the five desires are harmless’, it is ‘both extremes, suffering and pleasure, are wrong; one practises the middle way with wisdom’. Note that what the treatise-author cites to settle the case is the Buddha's words, not a view he sets up himself.
26. In the Vinaya a bhikṣu who said that receiving the five desires does not hinder the path was expelled—how is this to be reconciled? The objector presses in by another road, asking on the basis of the Vinaya: 「若爾者，毘尼中何以一比丘言：「我知佛法義，受五欲不妨道！」是比丘應呵，乃至三不止，擯出。」 tr. "If so, why is it that in the Vinaya a bhikṣu said: ‘I understand the meaning of the Buddha's Dharma; receiving the five desires does not hinder the path!’, and this bhikṣu was to be rebuked, and when he did not stop even at the third time, he was expelled?" This objection is very sharp—the treatise-author has just said that giving with the five desires is no hindrance, and in the Vinaya there is precisely a bhikṣu expelled for these words. The treatise-author's answer first sets up the great division: 「佛法有二種：小乘、大乘。」 tr. "The Buddha's Dharma is of two kinds: the Small Vehicle and the Great Vehicle." Next he speaks of the capacity the Small Vehicle addresses: 「小乘中，薄福之人三毒偏多。」 tr. "Within the Small Vehicle, people of meagre merit have the three poisons in excess." The capacities being different, the rules are different too—this is the groundwork for the sūtra proof cited in the next passage.
27. The white-robed disciples of the Pocha Sūtra, and the two sins of the bhikṣu Alizha. The treatise-author cites a sūtra as proof: 「如《婆差經》中，佛說：「我白衣弟子，非一非二，乃至出五百人，受赤栴檀塗身及受好香花，妻子共臥，使令奴婢，而斷三結得須陀洹；盡三結，薄三毒，得斯陀含。」」 tr. "As in the Pocha Sūtra, the Buddha said: ‘My white-robed disciples, not one, not two, and so on up to more than five hundred people, smear their bodies with red sandalwood and receive fine fragrant flowers, lie with their wives, employ servants and maids, and yet sever the three fetters and obtain srota-āpanna; with the three fetters exhausted and the three poisons thinned, they obtain sakṛdāgāmin.’" What this sūtra says—the white-robed receiving desire and obtaining the first two fruits—really is so. Where the sickness arises is in misplacing it: 「是阿梨吒比丘聞是事，即言：「雖受五欲而不妨道！」不知是事佛為誰說。」 tr. "This bhikṣu Alizha, hearing this matter, at once said: ‘Though one receives the five desires, it does not hinder the path!’ He did not know for whom the Buddha said this matter." The treatise-author settles it in one sentence: 「佛為白衣故說，此比丘持著出家法中說。」 tr. "The Buddha said it for the sake of the white-robed; this bhikṣu took it into the dharma of those gone forth and said it there." After this he further distinguishes the boundary by the presence or absence of an oath: the white-robed 「不作是言：「我盡形壽不犯欲！」」 tr. "do not say: ‘For the rest of this life I will not commit desire!’", and because 「有餘三毒故，時時忘道而發婬心」 tr. "the three poisons still remain, at times they forget the path and give rise to lustful thoughts"; whereas one gone forth 「於僧中口自誓言：「我盡形壽不犯婬欲！」」 tr. "in the midst of the Saṅgha takes the oath with his own mouth, saying: ‘For the rest of my life I will not commit sexual desire!’", and the Buddha's rule says: 「若出家人犯欲，則棄。」 tr. "If one gone forth commits desire, he is to be cast out." Thereupon he judges the two sins: 「是比丘自誓而犯，是一罪；知佛所制而故違犯，是二罪。」 tr. "This bhikṣu himself took the oath and broke it: this is the first sin; knowing what the Buddha established and deliberately violating it: this is the second sin." At the end he further points to its root: 「是比丘見白衣得道故，而以自身同彼，是故墮罪。」 tr. "This bhikṣu, because he saw the white-robed obtain the path, made himself the same as them, and therefore fell into sin." The way of teaching in this passage is very much worth seeing—one and the same fact is true for the white-robed and an error for the bhikṣu; the error lies not in the fact, but in 「以自身同彼」 tr. "making himself the same as them". To read the sūtras without distinguishing the capacity addressed is precisely this sickness.
28. The two kinds of beings in the pure Buddha-land—neither those at home nor those gone forth are at fault. Having distinguished the capacity of the Small Vehicle, the treatise-author returns to the pure land: 「淨佛國土有二種眾生：若出家，若在家。」 tr. "Within the pure Buddha-land there are two kinds of beings: those gone forth and those at home." Those at home 「雖受五欲無罪，亦無所妨」 tr. "though they receive the five desires, have no sin, nor any hindrance", and he cites two places as examples: 「如兜率陀諸天及欝單曰人，雖受五欲，不起重罪。」 tr. "Just as the gods of the Tuṣita heaven and the people of Uttarakuru, though they receive the five desires, do not give rise to grave sins." Those gone forth 「隨佛所聽出家五欲，亦無過咎」 tr. "using the five desires that the Buddha permits to those gone forth, also have no fault"—the four Chinese characters 「隨佛所聽」 tr. "according to what the Buddha permits" are a limit, not a blanket permission. With the two kinds of beings spoken of separately, the sūtra text's phrase 「弟子及一切眾生皆得隨意五欲」 tr. "the disciples and all beings all obtain the five desires at will" is thereupon free of obstruction.
29. The Small Vehicle spoke for Alizha's sake; those of the pure land train in and practise the six perfections and the three gates of liberation life after life. The treatise-author makes an overall judgement: 「小乘法中，為阿梨吒比丘說；薄福重罪之人，心多悔故。」 tr. "Within the dharma of the Small Vehicle it was said for the sake of the bhikṣu Alizha; because people of meagre merit and heavy sin have much remorse in their minds." This sentence points back to entries 26 and 27, making clear the limit of what was said. At once he says why the people of the pure land are different: 「淨佛土者，世世習行六波羅蜜、三解脫門，雖得五欲，亦不染著。」 tr. "Those who purify buddha-lands, life after life, train in and practise the six perfections and the three gates of liberation; although they obtain the five desires, they are not defiled by them or cling to them." The reason they are not defiled and do not cling lies in 「世世習行」 tr. "life after life train in and practise"—it is not the patience of a single moment, it is what long training has accomplished. Here the discussion of the five desires closes entirely: what is permitted is not the five desires, it is not being defiled by them and not clinging; what makes it possible not to be defiled and not to cling is long training in the six perfections and the three gates of liberation.
30. As the sūtra says—he himself enters the first dhyāna and also teaches beings to enter it; when he becomes a Buddha all practise the four dhyānas and so on up to the thirty-seven limbs of the path. The treatise-author turns back to take up the sūtra text's vow of the four dhyānas: 「如經中說，所謂菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，作是念：「我當自入初禪，亦當教化眾生入初禪；四禪、四無量心乃至三十七品亦如是。」」 tr. "As the sūtra says, namely, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he has this thought: ‘I shall myself enter the first dhyāna, and shall also teach and transform beings to enter the first dhyāna; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and so on up to the thirty-seven limbs of the path, are likewise.’" He also takes up the vow: 「是菩薩作是願：「我作佛時，盡行四禪乃至三十七品。」」 tr. "This bodhisattva makes this vow: ‘When I become a Buddha, all will practise the four dhyānas and so on up to the thirty-seven limbs of the path.’" At the end he attaches one sentence to answer the discussion of the five desires in the passages before: 「如是福德故，眾生雖受五欲，不能為妨。」 tr. "Because there is such merit, although beings receive the five desires, these cannot constitute a hindrance." This sentence is the treatise-author's joint: the sūtra text's vow of the four dhyānas was originally one of the separate vows, and the treatise-author uses it to answer why 「受五欲而不妨道」 tr. "receiving the five desires does not hinder the path": it is not that the five desires themselves are harmless, it is that the power of concentration and of the limbs of the path is enough not to be harmed by them.
31. Immeasurable asaṃkhyeya vows all made complete—the body upright and handsome, those who see it never satisfied. The treatise-author explains the sūtra text's passage on the fulfilment of the vows: 「是菩薩作無量阿僧祇願，隨爾所時行道，盡具足是願；是菩薩一切善法皆成就，及所成就眾生。」 tr. "This bodhisattva makes immeasurable asaṃkhyeya vows, practises the path through so long a time, and makes all these vows complete; this bodhisattva accomplishes all wholesome dharmas, and so too the beings he accomplishes." Next he explains the fruit of the bodily form: 「一切善法成就故，得身端正，見者無厭；亦成就眾生，令得端正。」 tr. "Because all wholesome dharmas are accomplished, he obtains a body upright and handsome, of which those who see it are never satisfied; he also accomplishes beings, making them obtain upright handsomeness." Compared with the sūtra text it has the four extra Chinese characters 「見者無厭」 tr. "those who see it are never satisfied"—the sūtra text only says 「受身端正」 tr. "the body he receives is upright and handsome", and the treatise-author supplies its function: the virtue of being upright and handsome lies in making those who see it never weary of it and so able to receive transformation; beauty is not prized for itself. At the end he takes up one sentence of the sūtra text, 「須菩提！菩薩應如是淨佛土。」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva should purify buddha-lands in this way.", as the conclusion, and the section on the cause ends here.
32. Not even the name of the three evils, how much less the three evil destinies. From here on it enters the section on the fruit. The treatise-author first takes up the text and extends it: 「復次，淨佛土者，乃至無三惡之名，何況有三惡道！」 tr. "Further, what is called purifying buddha-lands is to have not even the name of the three evils, how much less the three evil destinies themselves!" The sūtra text says 「無三惡道之名」 tr. "no name of the three evil destinies", and the treatise-author fills out its force with 「何況有三惡道」 tr. "how much less the three evil destinies themselves"—even the name is absent, how much more the matter. This sentence is both an explanation of the sūtra and the lead-in to the three objections below.
33. If there are no three evil destinies, on whom do the buddhas have compassion? The objection: 「諸佛以大慈悲心，為苦惱眾生故出世；若無三惡道，何所憐愍？」 tr. "The buddhas, with the mind of great kindness and compassion, appear in the world for the sake of suffering and vexed beings; if there are no three evil destinies, what is there to have compassion for?" This objection is raised from the Buddha's original intention in appearing in the world. The treatise-author's answer falls into two sections. The first distinguishes the capacity to be delivered: 「佛出為度眾生故，而三惡道眾生不可度，但可令種善根而已，是故佛名「天人師」。」 tr. "The Buddha appears for the sake of delivering beings; yet the beings of the three evil destinies cannot be delivered, one can only make them plant roots of goodness; therefore the Buddha is named ‘Teacher of Gods and Humans’." The Buddha is called 「天人師」 tr. "Teacher of Gods and Humans" and not ‘Teacher of the Five Destinies’ precisely because those he transforms are among gods and humans—this proves from the Buddha's own title the capacity he delivers. The second sets up a contrary situation to show that the objection does not hold: 「若無天、人，但有三惡道，可應有難、應作是問。」 tr. "If there were no gods and humans, only the three evil destinies, then there might be such an objection, then one should ask such a question." The meaning is: only if within the pure land there were not even gods and humans could this objection stand; now the pure land is not without a capacity to be transformed, and the objection falls of itself. The skill of this answer lies in taking the Buddha's title as its ground and not setting up a separate principle.
34. The Buddha has compassion for beings—why are there no beings of the three evil destinies in the pure land? The objector asks again, from another angle: 「佛憐愍眾生，淨佛國土中何以無三惡道眾生？」 tr. "The Buddha has compassion for beings; why are there no beings of the three evil destinies within the pure Buddha-land?" The previous objection asked ‘there is no one to have compassion for’; this objection asks ‘why does he not have compassion?’. The treatise-author's answer falls into four layers. The first sets up equality: 「憐愍一切眾生，平等無異」 tr. "his compassion for all beings is equal and without difference"—first cutting off the doubt ‘the Buddha of a pure land favours the pure in capacity’. The second points out the limit of this text: 「此中說清淨業因緣，是國土中無三惡道」 tr. "what is spoken of here is the causes and conditions of pure deeds, and so within this land there are no three evil destinies"—what is spoken of is the retribution of pure deeds, not a partiality in the Buddha's mind. The third opens out its measure: 「又佛非但一國土，乃有十方恒河沙國土。」 tr. "Further, the Buddha has not just one land; he has lands as many as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions." The fourth distinguishes their kinds: 「佛有清淨國土、有雜國土。雜國土中則具有五道；淨佛國土，或有人、天別異，或無有人、天別異。」 tr. "The Buddha has pure lands and has mixed and defiled lands. Within the mixed and defiled lands the five destinies are all present; within the pure Buddha-lands, either there is a distinction of humans and gods, or there is no distinction of humans and gods." At the end he proves it with a matter: 「如過去天王佛國土中，唯佛世尊以為法王，是故名為天王佛。」 tr. "Just as within the land of the past Buddha Heavenly King, only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, was the king of the Dharma; therefore he was named the Buddha Heavenly King." What this one example proves is the clause 「或無有人、天別異」 tr. "or there is no distinction of humans and gods"—in that land there was no distinction of gods and humans, only the Buddha was king of the Dharma, and so his name was as it was. The order of the four layers is: first cut off the doubt in the mind, next limit it to the text, then open out its measure, and last distinguish its kinds.
35. Again, there are lands without the three poisons and wrong views. The treatise-author raises one more clause of the marks of a land: 「復有國土無三毒、邪見。」 tr. "Again, there are lands without the three poisons and wrong views." This takes up the earlier sūtra text 「無邪見、三毒」 tr. "no wrong views, the three poisons" and sets it up as a separate item, and the text below raises an objection on just this.
36. If there are no afflictions, what does the Buddha appear in the world for—recording two explanations together. The objection: 「諸佛但為除眾生煩惱故出世，邪見、三毒即是煩惱，若無煩惱，出何所為？」 tr. "The buddhas appear in the world only for the sake of removing the afflictions of beings; wrong views and the three poisons are precisely afflictions; if there are no afflictions, what do they appear for?" Here the treatise-author does not set up an explanation of his own, but records the explanations of two parties. The first says: 「有人言：是中大福德因緣故，邪見、三毒不發故言無。」 tr. "Someone says: within this land, because of the causes and conditions of great merit, wrong views and the three poisons do not break out, and therefore it is said there are none." This explanation takes 「不發」 tr. "do not break out"—the seeds of the afflictions are not necessarily absent, but their present activity does not arise, and so the sūtra says there are none. The second says: 「復次，有人言：是中諸菩薩皆得無生法忍，常修六波羅蜜等諸功德，常遊十方度脫眾生，於諸佛所修習諸佛三昧」 tr. "Further, someone says: within this land the bodhisattvas all obtain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, constantly cultivate all kinds of merit such as the six perfections, constantly roam the ten directions delivering beings, and in the presence of the buddhas cultivate and train in the samādhis of the buddhas", and so what is transformed there is surpassing: 「勝教化無數聲聞、辟支佛，亦勝教化阿鞞跋致菩薩」 tr. "this surpasses teaching and transforming countless śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and also surpasses teaching and transforming avaivartika bodhisattvas", and it concludes at the end: 「成就眾生菩薩、淨佛土菩薩，為近佛道故，利益轉大。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who accomplishes beings, the bodhisattva who purifies buddha-lands, because he is near the Buddha path, has a benefit that grows the greater." This explanation does not speak in terms of whether afflictions are present or absent, but in terms of the superiority or inferiority of those transformed—though in that land there are no afflictions to be removed, the Buddha's appearing in the world has of itself a greater benefit. The two explanations are recorded side by side without judgement, and the reader keeps both: one explanation settles the word 「無」 tr. "there are none", the other settles ‘what the appearing in the world is for’.
37. In the land there is no name of the two vehicles—are the other buddhas, who teach by the three vehicles, then alone inferior? The treatise-author takes up the sūtra text's words as a heading: 「「是國土無二乘之名」者。」 tr. "As for ‘this land has no name of the two vehicles’." At once he poses an objection: 「餘佛有三乘教化，豈獨劣耶？」 tr. "The other buddhas teach and transform by the three vehicles; are they then alone inferior?" This objection is raised to protect the other buddhas against the sūtra text's 「無二乘之名」 tr. "no name of the two vehicles"—if having no two vehicles is the superior, are not the lands with three vehicles inferior? The treatise-author's answer is only one sentence: 「佛出五濁惡世，於一道分為三乘。」 tr. "The buddhas appear in the evil age of the five turbidities, and within the one path divide it into three vehicles." The answer is extremely brief and extremely right: the three vehicles are not originally in the Dharma; they are divided out within the one path to meet the capacities of the five turbidities; the dividing meets capacities and is not a superiority or inferiority of the Dharma.
38. Amitābha and Akṣobhya are not born in the five turbidities—why do they too have the three vehicles? The objector at once turns this very sentence back in a counter-question: 「若爾，阿彌陀佛、阿閦佛等不於五濁世生，何以復有三乘？」 tr. "If so, Amitābha Buddha, Akṣobhya Buddha, and others are not born in an age of the five turbidities; why do they also have the three vehicles?" This objection is very precise—since it was said that the three vehicles are divided because of the five turbidities, lands without the five turbidities should not have the three vehicles, and yet in fact they have them. The treatise-author's answer does not speak from the side of the land but from the side of the original vow: 「諸佛初發心時，見諸佛以三乘度眾生，自發願言：「我亦當以三乘度眾生。」」 tr. "The buddhas, at the time of their first arousing of the mind, saw the buddhas delivering beings by the three vehicles, and themselves made the vow, saying: ‘I too shall deliver beings by the three vehicles.’" The three vehicles exist in those lands not because of the turbidity of capacities but because of what the vow established. This answer and the previous answer stand side by side without obstructing each other: one speaks of meeting capacities, the other of the original vow; one matter has two causes and conditions, and in places of this kind this treatise usually keeps both.
39. No name of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, or non-self—without disease there is no need of medicine. The treatise-author explains the sūtra text's clause 「耳不聞有無常、苦、空之聲」 tr. "the ear does not hear the sound of impermanence, suffering, or emptiness": 「亦無無常、苦、空、無我之名者，以眾生深著常、樂等顛倒故，為說無常等苦法。」 tr. "As for ‘nor is there the name of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, or non-self’: because beings cling deeply to the inversions of permanence, pleasure, and so on, impermanence and the other dharmas of suffering are taught to them." First he says why they exist—they are set up to counteract inversion. Next he says why they are absent: 「是中無常、樂等倒故，不須無常、苦」 tr. "within this land, because there are no inversions of permanence, pleasure, and so on, there is no need of impermanence and suffering", and he completes it with a simile: 「若無病，則不須藥。」 tr. "If there is no disease, there is no need of medicine." At the end he infers the remaining items by analogy: 「亦無我所有，乃至無諸煩惱結使亦如是。」 tr. "‘Nor is there what is mine’, and so on up to ‘there are none of the various afflictions and fetters’, are likewise." The teaching of this passage is: every provision of a dharma exists in order to counteract something; once the sickness to be counteracted is absent, the name of that dharma is absent too—it is not that the people there do not understand impermanence, it is that there, there is no need to speak of impermanence. Reading this resolves a doubt: if in the pure land there is no sound of suffering and emptiness, is the Dharma not lacking? The answer lies in the one sentence ‘without disease there is no need of medicine’.
40. Because there are no two vehicles there are no fruits—the trees of the seven jewels bring out the sound of the Dharma according to those to be delivered. The treatise-author goes on to explain two clauses. The first carries on from the above: 「無二乘故，亦無須陀洹等諸果，但一向著諸法實相。」 tr. "Because there are no two vehicles, there are also none of the various fruits such as srota-āpanna; they only tend wholly toward the real mark of all dharmas." Since the names of the two vehicles are absent, the names of their fruits are absent of themselves; what remains is only tending wholly toward the real mark. He adds a sentence on the progress in that land: 「先得無生法忍者，得諸三昧、陀羅尼門，轉復增益諸地等功德。」 tr. "Those who have already obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas obtain all kinds of samādhis and dhāraṇī gates, and further increase the merits of the grounds and so on." The second explains the jewelled trees bringing out sound: 「風吹七寶之樹，隨所應度而出聲者，是菩薩欲使眾生易聞法故，七寶之樹出法音聲。」 tr. "As for ‘the wind blows on the trees of the seven jewels and, according to those to be delivered, brings out sound’: this bodhisattva wishes to make it easy for beings to hear the Dharma, and therefore the trees of the seven jewels bring out the sound of the Dharma." He further speaks of how pervasive it is: 「寶樹遍滿國土故，眾生生便聞法，餘心不生，但生法心。」 tr. "Because the jewelled trees fill the land everywhere, as soon as beings are born they hear the Dharma; other minds do not arise, only the mind of the Dharma arises." The four Chinese characters 「餘心不生」 tr. "other minds do not arise" are the fruit of this clause—it is not that they are forcibly kept from arising; it is that, constantly hearing the Dharma, there is no gap for any other mind.
41. The buddhas have supernormal powers—why do they not manifest immeasurable bodies, instead of needing the sound of trees? The objection: 「諸佛有無量不可思議神通力，何以不變化作無量身說法度眾生？何須樹木音聲？」 tr. "The buddhas have the immeasurable, inconceivable power of the supernormal powers; why do they not transform themselves into immeasurable bodies to teach the Dharma and deliver beings? Why must they use the sound of trees?" This objection is asked very naturally—would not the Buddha's body teaching the Dharma surpass the sound of trees? The treatise-author's answer is set up from the side of beings, in three sections. The first says that many bodies would on the contrary invite disbelief: 「眾生甚多，若佛處處現身眾生不信，謂為幻化，心不敬重。」 tr. "Beings are very many; if the Buddha manifested his body everywhere, beings would not believe, taking it for conjuration and transformation, and their minds would not revere it." The second says that the capacities for hearing the Dharma differ: 「有眾生從人聞法，心不開悟；若從畜生聞法，則便信受。」 tr. "There are beings who, hearing the Dharma from a person, are not awakened in mind; if they hear the Dharma from an animal, they then believe and accept it." And he cites a sūtra as proof: 「如《本生經》說：菩薩受畜生身，為人說法；人以希有故，無不信受。」 tr. "As the Jātaka Sūtra says: the bodhisattva received the body of an animal and taught the Dharma for people; people, because it was rare, all without exception believed and accepted it." He further says why they believe: 「又謂畜生心直不誑故。」 tr. "And again, because they held that an animal's mind is straight and does not deceive." The third then advances to trees: 「有人謂畜生是有情之物，皆有欺誑；以樹木無心而有音聲，則皆信受。」 tr. "Some people hold that animals are sentient things and all can deceive; since trees have no mind and yet have sound, all believe and accept it." The order is plain—the Buddha's body, a person, an animal, a tree: the less mind, the more clearly it does not deceive; the less it deceives, the more easily it is believed and accepted. The principle of this answer lies not in the height of the Dharma but in whether the receivers believe.
42. The sound of the Dharma that the trees bring out—emptiness, the signless, non-action, constantly brought out day and night. Having said why trees can make people believe, the treatise-author then states the Dharma they bring out: 「所謂空、無相、無作，有佛、無佛，一切法常空，空故無相，無相故無作、無起。」 tr. "Namely emptiness, the signless, non-action: whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, all dharmas are always empty; because empty, therefore signless; because signless, therefore without making and non-rising." These three sentences follow one from another: from emptiness to the signless, from the signless to without making and non-rising—exactly in accord with the 「空中無有相，無相中則無作」 tr. "in emptiness there is no mark; in the signless there is then no making" that the sūtra text cites. At the end he attaches the time: 「如是等法，晝夜常出。」 tr. "All such dharmas as these are constantly brought out day and night." That they are constantly brought out day and night is precisely the sūtra text's 「若晝、若夜，若坐、若臥、若立、若行，常聞此法」 tr. "whether by day or by night, whether sitting, lying down, standing, or walking, they constantly hear this Dharma".
43. Other lands transform by supernormal power and the power of the mouth; here there is always sound that comes of itself. The treatise-author makes a concluding contrast in one sentence: 「餘國土以神通力、口力種種變化，此中常自然音聲。」 tr. "Other lands make all kinds of transformations by the power of the supernormal powers and the power of the mouth; here there is always sound that comes of itself." In other lands the teaching of the Dharma must be raised by intention; in this land the sound of the Dharma is of itself and constant—the one made, the other of itself: this is precisely where the difference between the pure and the mixed lies. Though this sentence is short, it is the summing up of the two passages before.
44. The Buddha is constantly praised by the buddhas—hearing the name of the Buddha of a pure land one is assured of becoming a Buddha; why is it obtained by merely hearing a name? The treatise-author first states the fruit in the sūtra text: 「淨佛國土，佛常為諸佛所讚，大作功德故，能得如是淨國；若聞淨國佛名，則畢定作佛。」 tr. "Within the pure Buddha-land, the Buddha is constantly praised by the buddhas; because he has made merit on a great scale, he is able to obtain such a pure land; if one hears the name of the Buddha of a pure land, one is assured of becoming a Buddha." At once he poses an objection: 「餘佛種種勤苦說法，眾生尚不得道，何以但聞佛名便得道？」 tr. "The other buddhas teach the Dharma in all kinds of ways with toil and bitter effort, and beings still do not obtain the path; why is it that merely hearing the Buddha's name one then obtains the path?" The sharpness of this objection lies in the contrast—with much teaching they still do not obtain it, while with little hearing they obtain it; this does not follow in principle. The treatise-author's answer falls into two sections. The first does not belittle the other buddhas: 「餘處佛種種說法，眾生或得道、或得善根，終不空說」 tr. "when the buddhas of other places teach the Dharma in all kinds of ways, beings either obtain the path or obtain roots of goodness; in the end it is not empty speech"—first establishing that the other buddhas' teaching of the Dharma always has real benefit, so that the objector does not wrongly think this is being denied. The second corrects the measure of what is granted: 「若聞是佛名，畢至阿鞞跋致，不言今得。」 tr. "As for hearing this Buddha's name, one will surely reach avaivartika; it is not said that one obtains it now." The joint lies in the four Chinese characters 「不言今得」 tr. "it is not said that one obtains it now"—what the sūtra text says is 「必至」 tr. "will surely reach", not ‘obtains at once’; by asking with 「便得道」 tr. "then obtains the path", the objector has already shifted the measure of the sūtra text. The method of this answer is first to calibrate the measure under discussion, and then to discuss its principle.
45. For all buddhas, hearing the name one will become a Buddha—why speak only of the Buddha of a pure land? The objector asks further on the basis of a sūtra: 「一切佛，若人好心聞名，皆當至佛，如《法華經》中說，福德若大、若小，皆當作佛。何以獨說淨國佛？」 tr. "For all buddhas, if a person hears their name with a good mind, he will reach buddhahood, as is said in the Lotus Sūtra: whether merit be great or small, all will become buddhas. Why speak only of the Buddha of a pure land?" What this objection rests on is the general teaching of another sūtra, and the objection carries great weight. The treatise-author's answer does not deny the general teaching; it only says that the hearers' minds are shallow or deep: 「人聞餘佛名字，謂：「受生與人無異，但有一切智得道為異。」」 tr. "When people hear the names of the other buddhas, they think: ‘Their taking birth is no different from that of people; only in having omniscience and obtaining the path are they different.’" Once one thinks this way, then 「心不敬重故，雖種善根亦不能深」 tr. "because the mind does not revere them, although they plant roots of goodness, these cannot be deep". The reason the Buddha of a pure land alone is spoken of lies not in buddhas being superior or inferior, but in the shallowness or depth of the mind the hearer gives rise to—the next passage speaks of what gives rise to the deep mind.
46. The Buddha of a pure land is the Dharma-nature body—buddhas issue from his pores; because of deep faith and reverence the roots of goodness planted are assured of becoming a Buddha. This passage is the direct answer to the previous objection; its text is the richest and its principle runs through as one. First it establishes the body: 「是中是法性身，佛身無量無邊」 tr. "What is here is the Dharma-nature body; the Buddha's body is immeasurable and boundless"—this is the 「法性生身」 tr. "a body born of the Dharma-nature" established in entry 12, and here its function is seen. Next it speaks of its virtue and function: 「光明、說法音聲遍滿十方國土，國中眾生皆是近佛道者，無量阿僧祇由旬眾中說法」 tr. "its light and the sound of its teaching of the Dharma fill the lands of the ten directions; the beings in the land are all people near the Buddha path; he teaches the Dharma within an assembly of immeasurable asaṃkhyeya of yojana"; it also speaks of its light: 「勝無量億阿僧祇日月光明，常從身出」 tr. "light surpassing that of immeasurable koṭi of asaṃkhyeya of suns and moons constantly issues from his body", with a limit attached: 「佛令眾生見則得見，若不聽則不見」 tr. "when the Buddha lets beings see it they can see it; if he does not permit it they do not see it"—the light does not shine blindly; it follows the Buddha's permission. Then it speaks of his transformations: 「是佛一一毛孔邊常出無量無邊阿僧祇佛，一一諸佛等無異，於化佛邊展轉復出。」 tr. "At the side of each single pore of this Buddha there constantly issue immeasurable, boundless asaṃkhyeya of buddhas, each of the buddhas equal and without difference, and beside the conjured buddhas further ones issue in turn." Having spoken of conjured buddhas issuing in turn, and fearing that people will suspect there are superior and inferior among them, it at once cuts this off: 「隨應度眾生見佛優劣，根本真佛無有分別大小之異。」 tr. "According to the beings to be delivered, the Buddha is seen as superior or inferior; the root true Buddha has no distinction of great and small to be discriminated." Superior and inferior lie in those who see, not in the Buddha. At the end it returns to what was asked: 「如是等若見、若聞名、若聞如是功德，深信敬重故，所種善根，云何不畢定作佛？」 tr. "In all such ways, whether seeing, or hearing the name, or hearing of such merits, because of deep faith and reverence, how could the roots of goodness planted not be assured of becoming a Buddha?" The principle of the whole passage is only one sentence—the reason the Buddha of a pure land alone is spoken of is that his body is the Dharma-nature body, and those who hear of it cannot but have deep faith and reverence; because the reverence is deep the roots of goodness are deep, and because the roots of goodness are deep one is assured.
47. When this Buddha teaches the Dharma there is no one who doubts. The treatise-author takes up one clause of the sūtra text: 「復次，是佛說法時，無有疑者，乃至無一人言：「是法為非佛口所說！」悉皆是法。」 tr. "Further, when this Buddha teaches the Dharma, there is no one who doubts, and so on up to there being not a single person who says: ‘This Dharma is not spoken by the Buddha's mouth!’ All is Dharma." This sentence carries on from the above—since he is a Buddha of the Dharma-nature body, his teaching of the Dharma is of itself beyond doubt; the four Chinese characters 「悉皆是法」 tr. "all is Dharma" are the sūtra text's 「諸法實相中，皆是法，無有非法」 tr. "within the real mark of all dharmas, all is Dharma; there is nothing that is not the Dharma".
48. Many people hear the Dharma from Śākyamuni Buddha and give rise to doubt—how is this to be reconciled? The objection: 「人從釋迦文尼佛聞法生疑者多？」 tr. "Are there not many people who hear the Dharma from Śākyamuni Buddha and give rise to doubt?" This objection asks by raising a present fact—both are the Buddha's teaching, so why is there much doubt in this land? The treatise-author's answer is extremely direct: 「佛此中自說因緣：「有人薄福不種善根、不得善知識故生疑。」」 tr. "The Buddha here himself speaks the causes and conditions: ‘Some people, because of meagre merit, not planting roots of goodness and not obtaining the good friend, therefore give rise to doubt.’" He sets up no separate explanation, but points straight to the answer the sūtra text already has. This way of answering deserves attention: wherever the sūtra text has its own causes and conditions, the treatise-author only cites them without saying more—this is what is called explaining according to the sūtra, without placing a separate meaning outside the sūtra.
49. Covered by the view of self, extreme views, and wrong views—calling what is not the Buddha's word the Buddha's word, and the Dharma not the Dharma; in the pure land there are no such sinners. Carrying on from the above, the treatise-author speaks broadly of the sickness of those who give rise to doubt. It begins in views: 「著我見、邊見、邪見等諸煩惱覆故，非佛言是佛、是佛言非佛。」 tr. "Because they are covered by the various afflictions of clinging to the view of self, extreme views, wrong views, and so on, they call what is not the Buddha's word the Buddha's word, and what is the Buddha's word not the Buddha's word." Its root lies in two matters: 「不深種善根、不順善師」 tr. "not planting roots of goodness deeply, not following a good teacher". It breaks out all at once: 「三毒、邪見一時發起，無所依隨，任意自恣」 tr. "the three poisons and wrong views break out at one time; having nothing to rely on and follow, they give free rein to their own minds". It is verified in a one-sided taking and rejecting: 「若見邪見，順其意故，言是一切智見；諸佛說畢竟空，不順其意，便言非佛」 tr. "if they see a wrong view, because it accords with their minds, they say this is the view of omniscience; when the buddhas teach ultimate emptiness, it does not accord with their minds, and they then say it is not the Buddha's word", and thereupon 「非法言法，法言非法」 tr. "they call what is not the Dharma the Dharma, and the Dharma not the Dharma". Its fruit lies in remorse: 「如是人於諸佛所多生疑，多生疑故心悔。」 tr. "Such people give rise to much doubt in the presence of the buddhas; because they give rise to much doubt, their minds feel remorse." At the end it returns to the pure land: 「是淨佛國中無如是罪人，故不生疑。」 tr. "Within this pure Buddha-land there are no such sinners, and therefore no doubt arises." The vital point of the sickness spoken of in this passage lies in the three Chinese characters 「順其意」 tr. "accords with their minds"—to take and reject the Buddha's Dharma by one's own mind as the standard, what is taken will surely be wrong views, and what is rejected will surely be ultimate emptiness. This is not an insufficiency of knowledge; it is taking the self as the measure.
50. The Buddha says those who break the Dharma fall into the evil destinies—the bodhisattvas by supernormal power pull them out and make them abide in the rightly assured assembly. The treatise-author cites the Buddha's words to state the reverse-side layer of the sūtra text: 「佛言：「如是罪人，破諸法實相故，死墮地獄惡道中！諸菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，見諸罪人往來生死中，以佛神通力，拔出眾生令住正定聚中，不墮三惡趣，是名淨佛土。」」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘Such sinners, because they break the real mark of all dharmas, after death fall into the evil destiny of hell! When the bodhisattvas obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, seeing these sinners going and coming in birth and death, by the Buddha's supernormal power they pull beings out and make them abide in the rightly assured assembly, not falling into the three evil courses—this is called purifying buddha-lands.’" The key to this passage lies in the last sentence—「是名淨佛土」 tr. "this is called purifying buddha-lands". Here the meaning of the pure land is pushed one step further: it is not only the absence of evil in one's own land; it is being able to pull out the sinners of other lands and make them abide in the rightly assured assembly. If the pure land were only one's own purity, having nothing to do with sinners, this sentence would have nothing to land on.
51. In this Buddha-land there are none of these faults—nothing incomplete; beings all ultimately reach awakening. The treatise-author concludes the section on the fruit: 「是佛土中無如是諸過。」 tr. "Within this Buddha-land there are none of these various faults." Next he speaks of its positive completeness: 「無不具足，於世間、出世間，有漏、無漏，有為、無為等中無有障礙」 tr. "there is nothing incomplete; within the worldly and the world-transcending, with outflows and without outflows, the conditioned and the unconditioned, and so forth, there is no obstruction at all"—this is the three pairs of the sūtra text's 「無雜穢心」 tr. "no mixed and defiled mind"; the treatise-author changes 「無雜穢」 tr. "nothing mixed and defiled" into 「無有障礙」 tr. "no obstruction at all", the same in meaning and smoother in wording. Then he lists its concrete marks: 「所謂國土七寶，眾生身端正，相好莊嚴，無量光明，常聞法音，常不遠離六波羅蜜乃至十八不共法。」 tr. "Namely, the land is of the seven jewels, the bodies of beings are upright and handsome, adorned with the marks and minor signs, with immeasurable light; they constantly hear the sound of the Dharma, and are constantly not far from the six perfections and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas." The seven jewels answer to the first vow, the upright body answers to the fruit of the vows' fulfilment, the sound of the Dharma answers to the sound of the jewelled trees, the six perfections and so on up to the unshared dharmas answer to the vow of the four dhyānas and the thirty-seven limbs—each one has where it comes from; it is not adornment spoken of at large. At the end he concludes: 「是中眾生皆畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "The beings within this land all ultimately reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi."
52. Hearing the Buddha's name one is assured of reaching buddhahood, and being unobstructed in all dharmas one will surely become a Buddha—what is the difference? The treatise-author poses the last objection himself, setting side by side the two places that speak of being 「畢定」 tr. "assured": 「上「聞佛名畢定至佛」，此「於諸法無礙必得作佛」，有何差別？」 tr. "Above, ‘hearing the Buddha's name, one is assured of reaching buddhahood’; here, ‘being unobstructed in all dharmas, one will surely become a Buddha’—what difference is there?" It is asked very finely—both speak of being assured; is there then no difference? The treatise-author answers: 「此中眾生常見佛、常聞法、深種善根、多集佛法故，疾得作佛；聞名者，雖俱畢竟定而小不如。」 tr. "The beings here constantly see the Buddha, constantly hear the Dharma, deeply plant roots of goodness, and gather many of the dharmas of the Buddha; therefore they quickly become buddhas. As for those who hear the name, although both are alike ultimately assured, they are slightly inferior." The joint lies in 「疾」 tr. "quickly" and 「小不如」 tr. "slightly inferior"—both are assured; the difference lies in slow and quick, not in whether it is accomplished. This answer protects both ends: it neither lets the assurance of those who hear the name fall empty, nor lets the surpassing place of those born in that land be effaced.
53. Summing up—such as these are called the marks of a pure land. The treatise section concludes with one sentence: 「如是等，名為淨國土相，如「十地中莊嚴菩提樹」說。」 tr. "All such as these are called the marks of a pure land, as is said in ‘adorning the bodhi tree within the ten grounds’." At the end it points to the place where this is spoken of in detail, the passage 「十地中莊嚴菩提樹」 tr. "adorning the bodhi tree within the ten grounds", showing that what is spoken of here is an outline, and that those who want it at length have elsewhere to go. The whole unit ends here.
Do Not Misread
Do not read the coarse deed of 「取相」 tr. "grasping at marks" as meaning that one may not apply the mind. What the sūtra text lists, from form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness up to the conditioned and the unconditioned, all speak of 「相」 tr. "mark" and not of 「法」 tr. "dharma"—what is dismissed is grasping at the mark as definitely real, not abolishing the dharma. The treatise-author explains it clearly: 「能觀色等、善法如幻、如化，不取定實相，得厭心，則捨戲論常、無常等，是不名為取相。」 tr. "To be able to contemplate form and the rest, and wholesome dharmas, as like an illusion, like a conjuration, not grasping at a definitely real mark, obtaining the mind of weariness, and then relinquishing such idle discourse as permanent and impermanent—this is not called grasping at marks." The mind of weariness is still there, wholesome dharmas are still accomplished; what is removed is only the two Chinese characters 「定實」 tr. "definitely real". If it is read as not permitting one to apply the mind, then the six vows below have nowhere to be applied.
Do not read ‘unconditioned dharmas too may not be grasped’ as meaning that suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are empty of reality. The treatise-author's words are 「以不取相是無為法，無相名為無為法門；若取相，便是有為」 tr. "because not grasping at marks is the unconditioned dharma, and the signless is called the gate of the unconditioned dharma; if one grasps at marks, it is then the conditioned"—what is broken is the manner of grasping. The unconditioned is the unconditioned precisely in its being ungraspable; once grasped, what is grasped is already conditioned and has nothing to do with the unconditioned. To doubt the reality of suchness and the limit of reality on the strength of this sentence is to mistake ‘cannot be grasped’ for ‘does not exist’.
Do not read the six vows as vows to seek birth in a pure land. The six vows of the sūtra text are all tied to 「我國土」 tr. "my land" (five say 「令我國土」 tr. "may my land", one says 「願我國土中」 tr. "may … within my land")—the bodhisattva makes his own land; it is not beings seeking to go to his land. Offerings are made to the Three Honoured Ones, the Buddha's stūpas, and the Buddha and the Saṅgha, with the sixth vow also including all beings; what is vowed is the marks of my land, what is dedicated to is purifying buddha-lands. This chapter speaks from beginning to end of the practice of the one who purifies, not of the seeking of those who go there. The two matters must not be confused.
Do not read 「令我國土眾生常得隨意五欲」 tr. "may the beings of my land always obtain the five desires at will" as a permission to indulge desire. The treatise-author states his own intention: 「菩薩不欲令眾生著故以五欲施，但欲令一時捨故與之。」 tr. "The bodhisattva does not give the five desires wishing to make beings cling; he gives them only wishing to make them relinquish at one time." He also sets up his own boundary: beings gone forth use 「隨佛所聽出家五欲」 tr. "the five desires that the Buddha permits to those gone forth"; it is not a blanket permission. And he settles it with the Buddha's words: 「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道。」 tr. "Relinquish suffering and pleasure, use wisdom, abide in the middle way." Taking the three places together, what is permitted is to be free of the suffering of poverty and of the one-sidedness of austerities, not to be permitted clinging.
Do not read the affair of the bhikṣu Alizha as the Buddha's Dharma contradicting itself. The treatise-author judges that its sickness lies not in the sūtra cited, but in the moving of it: 「佛為白衣故說，此比丘持著出家法中說。」 tr. "The Buddha said it for the sake of the white-robed; this bhikṣu took it into the dharma of those gone forth and said it there." His sins too are two: 「自誓而犯，是一罪；知佛所制而故違犯，是二罪。」 tr. "Himself taking the oath and breaking it: this is the first sin; knowing what the Buddha established and deliberately violating it: this is the second sin." One and the same fact is true for the white-robed and an error for the bhikṣu. For reading the sūtras without asking what capacity is addressed, this passage is a clear mirror.
Do not read 「無三惡道之名」 tr. "no name of the three evil destinies" as the Buddha abandoning the beings of the evil destinies. The treatise-author plainly says 「憐愍一切眾生，平等無異」 tr. "his compassion for all beings is equal and without difference", and also says 「此中說清淨業因緣」 tr. "what is spoken of here is the causes and conditions of pure deeds"—what is spoken of is the marks of deed and retribution of this one land, not a partiality in the Buddha's mind. Moreover the last passage of the sūtra text says precisely that the buddhas 「見此眾生往來五道，令離邪聚，立正定聚中」 tr. "seeing these beings going and coming in the five destinies, make them leave the wrongly assured assembly and establish them in the rightly assured assembly", and the treatise-author too cites it and concludes 「是名淨佛土」 tr. "this is called purifying buddha-lands". The purity of the pure land contains within it the meaning of pulling out sinners.
Do not read 「耳不聞有無常、苦、空之聲」 tr. "the ear does not hear the sound of impermanence, suffering, or emptiness" as the pure land not teaching the truth of suffering. The treatise-author's explanation is 「以眾生深著常、樂等顛倒故，為說無常等苦法。是中無常、樂等倒故，不須無常、苦」 tr. "because beings cling deeply to the inversions of permanence, pleasure, and so on, impermanence and the other dharmas of suffering are taught to them; within this land, because there are no inversions of permanence, pleasure, and so on, there is no need of impermanence and suffering", completed by 「若無病，則不須藥」 tr. "if there is no disease, there is no need of medicine". What is not needed is the medicine; it is not that the disease is gone while the medicine has become false—the provision of medicine is from the first for the disease, and when the disease is gone, the name of the medicine is gone too. This and ‘the pure land does not permit suffering to be taught’ are not at all the same matter.
Do not read 「若聞淨國佛名，則畢定作佛」 tr. "if one hears the name of the Buddha of a pure land, one is assured of becoming a Buddha" as obtaining the path at once on hearing the name. The treatise-author calibrates it very clearly: 「若聞是佛名，畢至阿鞞跋致，不言今得。」 tr. "As for hearing this Buddha's name, one will surely reach avaivartika; it is not said that one obtains it now." Surely reaching is necessarily reaching; obtaining now is obtaining at once; the two cannot stand in for each other. Moreover the last passage further distinguishes slow and quick: 「雖俱畢竟定而小不如。」 tr. "Although both are alike ultimately assured, they are slightly inferior." The assurance is the same and the quickness and slowness differ; this boundary too must not be effaced.
Do not read 「一一毛孔邊常出無量無邊阿僧祇佛」 tr. "at the side of each single pore there constantly issue immeasurable, boundless asaṃkhyeya of buddhas" as meaning that there are buddhas great and small, superior and inferior. The treatise-author has already cut this off: 「隨應度眾生見佛優劣，根本真佛無有分別大小之異。」 tr. "According to the beings to be delivered, the Buddha is seen as superior or inferior; the root true Buddha has no distinction of great and small to be discriminated." Superior and inferior lie in the capacity of those who see, not in the Buddha's body. To make high and low among the conjured buddhas is to fall into precisely the sickness this passage guards against.
Do not read 「樹木無心而有音聲」 tr. "trees have no mind and yet have sound" as the Buddha being unwilling to manifest his body. The treatise-author's principle is spoken from the side of the receivers—「若佛處處現身眾生不信，謂為幻化，心不敬重」 tr. "if the Buddha manifested his body everywhere, beings would not believe, taking it for conjuration and transformation, and their minds would not revere it", whereas trees 「無心而有音聲，則皆信受」 tr. "have no mind and yet have sound, and so all believe and accept it". What is taken is the one point of being easily believed; it is not saying the Buddha's body is inferior to a tree. Similes and skilful means both take one point; drag in the rest and it is lost.
Bearing on Practice
Take 「取相生著心」 tr. "grasping at marks and giving rise to a clinging mind" and examine the places where you apply yourself. In a single day the hardest thing to detect is not grasping at evil but grasping at the wholesome—having kept the precepts, there is a mark ‘I keep the precepts’; having stilled the mind, there is a mark ‘I am still’; once this mark is set up, one has already entered the coarseness this passage speaks of. The way of examining is very simple: see whether, after this wholesome thing is done, one extra thing has appeared in the mind.
Take 「不取定實相，得厭心」 tr. "not grasping at a definitely real mark, obtaining the mind of weariness" and tell true weariness from false. Seeing form and wearying of it—if it is taking form as real and loathing it, then weariness and craving are alike grasping at marks, and some day it will surely reverse; if it is contemplating it as like an illusion, like a conjuration, not grasping it as definitely real, weariness comes of itself. So whether the mind of weariness is true or false is seen not by how heavily one wearies, but by what the thing wearied of is taken to be.
Take 「共清淨因緣故，則佛土清淨」 tr. "because of shared causes and conditions of purity, the Buddha-land then becomes pure" and change the measure by which you apply yourself. If practice reckons only one's own personal purity, it will never reckon its way to a land. What this sentence reminds one of is: the surroundings one lives in are shared deeds, so when applying oneself one must carry along the side 「亦教他人令行」 tr. "also teaches others and makes them practise"—not waiting until one is pure oneself before going to teach others; practising oneself and teaching others are from the first one matter.
Take 「持是福德與一切眾生共之」 tr. "he shares this merit with all beings" and handle what comes after each wholesome deed. Having done a wholesome deed, share it at once, dedicate it at once; do not let it stop under one's own name. What stops under one's name becomes the retribution of merit; what is shared and dedicated becomes a land. This need not wait for great good; it can be done with the small goods of daily use.
Take 「天上、人中五欲是福德果報」 tr. "the five desires of the heavens and of the human world are the retribution of merit" and regard your own favourable circumstances. In favourable circumstances there is no need to reproach oneself, in adverse ones no need to be proud; what must be seen is whether, within favourable circumstances, there is the real effect of 「所欲隨意，則不行十不善」 tr. "whatever he desires is at his will, and he does not practise the ten unwholesome deeds". If favourable circumstances on the contrary increase craving and seeking, then it is not the retribution of merit this passage speaks of; it is a new want.
Take 「捨苦樂，用智慧，處中道」 tr. "relinquish suffering and pleasure, use wisdom, abide in the middle way" and correct the one-sidedness of your efforts. Austerities increasing anger, recollecting desire giving rise to vexation—both sicknesses have symptoms that can be checked: the former is easily angered, the latter has many thoughts. As soon as one of them is noticed arising, one knows where the one-sidedness lies; what is used is the illumination of wisdom, not doubled forcing.
Take 「佛為白衣故說，此比丘持著出家法中說」 tr. "the Buddha said it for the sake of the white-robed; this bhikṣu took it into the dharma of those gone forth and said it there" and examine your own habit of citing the sūtras. Whenever one reads a sūtra phrase that suits one's own mind and the heart relaxes, first ask one question: to whom did the Buddha say this? Am I that person? This one question can cut off the greater part of self-deception.
Take 「不深種善根、不順善師」 tr. "not planting roots of goodness deeply, not following a good teacher" together with 「若見邪見，順其意故」 tr. "if they see a wrong view, because it accords with their minds" and observe the one-sidedness of your own taking and rejecting. Is a teaching believed because it is right, or because it accords with me? Is a teaching rejected because it is wrong, or because it goes against me? Asked once, these two questions show the bottom; there is no need to probe the doctrine deeply.
Take 「不言今得」 tr. "it is not said that one obtains it now" and settle your expectations of the results of practice. Whatever one cultivates, its fruit is mostly 「畢至」 tr. "surely reaching" and not 「今得」 tr. "obtaining now"; mistake surely reaching for obtaining at once, and when no effect is seen a mind of retreat will surely arise. Knowing it to be surely reaching, the absence of effect for a time is not enough to shake one.
Take 「常見佛、常聞法、深種善根、多集佛法故，疾得作佛」 tr. "constantly seeing the Buddha, constantly hearing the Dharma, deeply planting roots of goodness, and gathering many of the dharmas of the Buddha, therefore they quickly become buddhas" and arrange your daily use. Whether one is assured is one matter, slow or quick is another; what can be changed is slow or quick, and the way of changing it the sūtra text has already listed in four items—seeing, hearing, planting, gathering. All four are matters that can be increased or decreased every day, not a remote state.
Take 「根本真佛無有分別大小之異」 tr. "the root true Buddha has no distinction of great and small to be discriminated" and regard the states seen in practice. States are superior or inferior because of the capacity of the one who sees; if one thinks oneself high because what one sees is surpassing, or thinks oneself retreating because what one sees is inferior, both are making high and low among the conjured buddhas. What should be looked at is the root, not the shadow presently before one.
Further Resonances
The line by which the Last Part carries on from the First Part is the splitting of the four Chinese characters 「淨佛國土」 tr. "purifying buddha-lands" from a general headrope into the two sections of cause and fruit. At the end of the First Part, Subhūti asks 「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva purify buddha-lands", and the Buddha answers with, as the general headrope, himself removing the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind and also purifying the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others, assigning killing and so on up to wrong views, and stinginess and so on up to delusion, to the coarseness of body, speech, and mind. The Last Part then, beyond these two layers, sets up separately a third layer—the coarseness of grasping at marks; with the third layer set up, the cause of the pure land no longer stops at removing evil, but lies further in not grasping. With the cause established, there are the six rounds of offering and six rounds of making vows as its practice, and the vow of the four dhyānas and the thirty-seven limbs as the practice of its direct retribution; when the vows are fulfilled the fruit appears, and the marks of the fruit are the land having no name of the three evil destinies, the jewelled trees bringing out the sound of the Dharma, being assured of becoming a Buddha on hearing the Buddha's name, and no one giving rise to doubt when the Dharma is taught. Between these two sections of cause and fruit the treatise-author inserts three great discussions—the discussion of grasping at marks and wearying of the wholesome, the discussion of the five desires and the robes of cast-off rags and begging for food, the discussion of hearing the name and teaching the Dharma with bitter effort; what the three discussions protect is one thing each: the first protects ‘without grasping at marks one can still cultivate’, the second protects ‘receiving the five desires one is still undefiled’, the third protects ‘hearing the name one is assured, yet does not obtain at once’. Seeing the First Part and the Last Part together, the four Chinese characters of the chapter's name are filled out: purifying buddha-lands is not the adorning of one realm; it is the overall name for purifying oneself, purifying others, not grasping, and accomplishing together.
The continued title at the head of the fascicle of this unit is handed down differently in the various editions; they are recorded side by side below without forcing a judgement. The base text reads 「大智度論釋淨佛國土品第八十二之餘」 tr. "The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa's explanation of the chapter Purifying the Buddha-land, the eighty-second, the remainder"; the Palace edition lacks the two Chinese characters 「佛國」 tr. "Buddha-land" in the title, that is, it makes the short name ‘Pure Land chapter’, going the same way as the line of short names of the Song, Palace, and Ishiyama texts seen at the head of the chapter. For the two Chinese characters 「之餘」 tr. "the remainder", the Song edition reads 「一下」 tr. "one, lower", the Yuan and Palace editions read 「二下」 tr. "two, lower", the Ming edition reads 「二之下」 tr. "two, the lower part", and the base text alone reads 「二之餘」 tr. "two, the remainder"—four texts, three forms, all differing in the marking by fascicle order and by the upper and lower parts of the chapter, not a divergence of doctrine. The Shōgozō manuscript uses its own chapter numbering and reads 「大智度經論卷第九十三釋八十一品下訖第八十二品上」 tr. "Fascicle Ninety-three of the Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise: explaining the lower part of the eighty-first chapter, ending with the upper part of the eighty-second chapter", its boundaries of fascicle and chapter differing from the base text. The Ishiyama text at this place further 「不分卷及品」 tr. "does not divide fascicles or chapters", and so it also lacks the following marker 「【經】」 tr. "[Sūtra]". Further, the character 「取」 tr. "grasps" at the beginning of the sūtra text is absent in all five texts—Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, and Ishiyama; the expression 「國土」 tr. "lands" reads 「界土」 tr. "world-lands" in the four texts Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace, and 「世界」 tr. "worlds" in the Ishiyama text. All the above are recorded as they are; the choice among them belongs to the translator.
Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, explaining this chapter, sets out its name and meaning at the beginning of the chapter, saying: 「此下後文明淨佛土，故云淨土。」 tr. "From here on, the later text makes clear the purifying of buddha-lands; therefore it is called the pure land." When he reaches the sūtra text corresponding to this unit, Jizang sets up his own divisions, dividing the passage on purifying buddha-lands into the two gates of cause and fruit: 「白佛：云何淨土？第二、明淨佛土。文為二：初、明淨土因；二、明淨土果。因中有二：初、明無惡因；二、明有善因。」 tr. "‘He said to the Buddha: How is the land purified?’ Second, making clear the purifying of buddha-lands. The text is in two: first, making clear the cause of the pure land; second, making clear the fruit of the pure land. Within the cause there are two: first, making clear the cause that is without evil; second, making clear the cause that has the wholesome." Within the gate of the wholesome cause, he further divides general and specific, saying: 「自布施下，二、明善業，為二：初、總約六度明行善；次、別發願。」 tr. "From ‘himself gives’ onward: second, making clear wholesome deeds, in two: first, in general, by way of the six perfections, making clear the practice of the wholesome; next, specifically, the making of vows."—which corresponds exactly to the division made by the treatise-author's sentence 「上總相說，下別相說」 tr. "above, said by way of the general mark; below, said by way of the specific marks". On the objection about the five desires, Jizang's explanation shares the main meaning of the treatise-author's, in simpler words: 「答：有人貧窮故作十惡，今得五欲無所乏，不作十惡但有受慢之罪，而菩薩復為除之也」 tr. "Answer: some people commit the ten evils because of poverty; now, obtaining the five desires and lacking nothing, they do not commit the ten evils, but have only the sin of receiving and pride, and the bodhisattva further removes this for them"; and he also says 「淨土中受五欲，不過起貪著，不妨妨修道」 tr. "receiving the five desires within the pure land goes no further than giving rise to craving and clinging; it does not hinder—hinder the cultivation of the path"; on the affair of the bhikṣu in the Vinaya, he too judges the fault of moving it: 「答：佛言受欲不障道，為白衣說也。此比丘不解佛意，安置出家法中，故應呵也。」 tr. "Answer: the Buddha's saying that receiving desire does not obstruct the path was said for the white-robed. This bhikṣu did not understand the Buddha's meaning and placed it within the dharma of those gone forth; therefore he should be rebuked." On the objection about robes of cast-off rags and begging for food, Jizang gives another explanation, matching it with the four noble lineages: 「答：是惡眾生於四事貪著，為是人故說四聖種也。」 tr. "Answer: these evil beings crave and cling to the four requisites; for the sake of such people the four noble lineages were taught."—the treatise-author speaks in terms of 「宿罪因緣生在惡世」 tr. "through the causes and conditions of sins of former lives they were born in an evil age", Jizang speaks in terms of ‘the four noble lineages’; the two stand together without contradicting each other.
On the section on the fruit, Jizang's division is: 「是國土中無三惡名下，第二、明淨土果。」 tr. "From ‘within this land there is no name of the three evils’ onward: second, making clear the fruit of the pure land." His explanation of the clause on there being no three poisons and wrong views also records two explanations without judging: 「今是初無毒邪見者，一解云：有三毒但未發耳。二解云：此中皆是法性身菩薩，佛教化此人勝教餘人也」 tr. "Now, this first item, there being no poisons and wrong views: one explanation says: there are the three poisons, only they have not yet broken out. A second explanation says: here all are bodhisattvas of the Dharma-nature body, and the Buddha's teaching and transforming these people surpasses teaching other people"—in exactly the same order as the two 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" the treatise-author records, from which it can be seen that these two explanations have been handed down from of old. On the absence of the name of the two vehicles, Jizang too poses the same objection and answers: 「問：故淨土無二乘名。答：佛於五濁世故有二乘也」 tr. "Question: hence the pure land has no name of the two vehicles. Answer: it is because the Buddha is in an age of the five turbidities that there are the two vehicles"; as to why Amitābha's land has the three vehicles, his answer cites the Lotus and agrees with the treatise-author's explanation by ‘the original vow’: 「問：阿彌淨土何故二乘耶？答：法華云彼佛出時雖非惡世，以本願故說三乘法，此亦是未極淨土故有三世。」 tr. "Question: why does Amitābha's pure land have the two vehicles? Answer: the Lotus says that when that Buddha appeared, though it was not an evil age, because of his original vow he taught the dharma of the three vehicles; this too is a pure land not yet ultimate, and therefore there are the three times." On the names of impermanence, suffering, and emptiness, his explanation agrees in meaning with the treatise-author's ‘without disease there is no need of medicine’: 「無有無苦空名者，此中無有常病故，不須此二義也。」 tr. "As for ‘there are none of the names of non-, suffering, and emptiness’: here there is no sickness of permanence, and therefore these two meanings are not needed." On the clause on there being no fruits, he speaks separately of teaching and fruit: 「無諸果者，先明無教，今明無果修教之人也。」 tr. "As for ‘no fruits’: before, it made clear that there is no teaching; now it makes clear that there are none of the people of the fruits who cultivate the teaching." On the jewelled trees bringing out sound, Jizang's explanation continues the treatise-author's 「樹木無心而有音聲」 tr. "trees have no mind and yet have sound": 「風吹七寶樹下，第二、明有善十果。欲使眾生易聞，故樹枝於法音。又云奇特事樹木，能說人皆信，以木無欺誑以故也。」 tr. "From ‘the wind blows on the trees of the seven jewels’ onward: second, making clear the presence of the wholesome, the ten fruits. Wishing to make beings hear easily, therefore the branches of the trees give the sound of the Dharma. It also says: a wondrous matter—trees can speak, and people all believe, because wood has no deceit."
Huiying's Commentary lacks an explanation of this chapter—its extant text stops, incomplete, in the middle of the chapter it explains, "The Great Skilful Means", Chapter 69, far earlier than fascicles 92 and 93 to which this chapter corresponds, and so there is no commentary on this chapter to cite. Although the name 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land chapter" also appears in his work, what it refers to is the fifty-seventh chapter he explains—the same name as this chapter but a different chapter, and the two must not be drawn together. Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises also has nothing fastened to this chapter. All of these are marked as lacking according to the facts, and are not filled with text from elsewhere.
淨佛國土品 · 承衍Purifying the Buddha-land · Further Resonances
全文五層 →Full five layers →承衍
〈淨佛國土品〉之所承，在前品已明立其目而未及其實。前品〈照明品〉說菩薩以方便力照明菩薩道，其中須菩提所問已是「世尊！何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩行是道，能成就眾生、淨佛國土？」，佛所答則是「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意已來，行檀波羅蜜，行尸羅、羼提、毘梨耶、禪、般若波羅蜜，乃至行十八不共法，成就眾生、淨佛國土」；然前品其下所廣說者，唯是行六度以成就眾生一邊——自布施而攝取眾生，以至「眾生得是性空，漸漸得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，入無餘涅槃」，淨佛國土一事只掛其名而未展其行。本品便專接此一半。其接處還不止於題目：前品論釋舍利弗歎菩薩曠大心時，正說到「無所依止而能發大莊嚴」，而「如是諸法畢竟空中而作大莊嚴，是為希有」；本品開卷，須菩提心中所念即是「何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴？」——所念之「如是大莊嚴」，正是前品末所歎之莊嚴。本論論主亦自道其承：「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事。」所啟者，在本品末句已備。本品之末，經文兩處落在畢定二字上——「眾生聞是佛名，必至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，「是國土中眾生，畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」；論主釋之亦然，「若聞淨國佛名，則畢定作佛」，而分其遲疾曰「聞名者，雖俱畢竟定而小不如」。次品〈畢定品〉開卷，須菩提即拈此字而問：「世尊！是菩薩摩訶薩為畢定？為不畢定？」佛答「菩薩摩訶薩畢定，非不畢定」，又分其處——「非聲聞、辟支佛道中畢定，是佛道中畢定」，又平其位——「初發意菩薩亦畢定，阿鞞跋致菩薩亦畢定，最後身菩薩亦畢定」。本品說淨土中之眾生畢定，次品即轉問能淨土之菩薩自身畢定與否；本品說聞佛名者畢定而遲疾有分，次品即說初發意與最後身同一畢定而位階有別。一問之轉，正接在此一字上。
品名一事，本品所存兩造最可誌。本論底本卷首題作「大智度論釋淨佛國土品第八十二」，而宋本、宮本於此無「佛國」二字，是其題作釋淨土品；宋本、元本、宮本又於品號下增一「上」字，明本增「之上」。石本所題最異：作「大智度經品第八十二淨土品卷九十三」——既用「淨土品」之短稱，其卷次亦較底本多一。所釋大經於本品正題亦作「淨土品第八十二」，前品作「具足品第八十一」，次品作「畢定品第八十三」；是短稱一名，於石本與所釋大經兩處相合。合而觀之，宋、宮、石三本與所釋大經共成「淨土品」一系，底本與元本、明本共成「淨佛國土品」一系，兩系並陳，如實誌之不判。其卷次與品號之標記亦諸本互異。前品卷末，聖本作「大智度經論卷第九十一釋第八十品」，石本作「大智度經論卷第九十二釋第八十品竟」，品號皆較底本差一階。本品跨卷之處尤見紛然：底本卷末題「大智度論卷第九十二」，宋本於其下增「釋第八十二品上」，元本增「釋第八十二品之上」；而石本於此逕「不分卷及品」，是其卷界不落在此。次卷卷首，底本題「大智度論釋淨佛國土品第八十二之餘」，宮本於此亦無「佛國」二字；其「之餘」二字，宋本作「一下」，元本、宮本作「二下」，明本作「二之下」——宋本作「一下」者，品號又差一階。聖本此處卷題作「大智度經論卷第九十三釋八十一品下訖第八十二品上」，其繫屬與底本全異，且聖本此卷無「龍樹菩薩造」之造號。至本品之末，聖本於末字下增「釋第八十二品」，石本增「釋八十一品竟」，石本又題「卷第九十三終」，而石山本卷末別有「大智度經卷第九十三」九字。更有一事須並錄：次品卷首，石本作「大智度經品第八十二畢定品卷九十四」——「品第八十二」五字於相鄰兩品之卷首題重出，同本之首尾品號亦不相一，如實誌之不強解。所釋大經之卷首總目，於本品與前品所繫之品次編號亦見重出，鄰接數品皆有同款，係目錄標記層自身之偏移，非義理之歧，亦如實誌之。
古德之疏，於本品可據者以吉藏《大品經義疏》為主。其所立品名從所釋大經之短稱，作「淨土品第八十二」，開卷即釋其名：「此下後文明淨佛土，故云淨土。」其科判先就品之前分立四科：「就文為四：第一明菩薩自住勝道，二者化眾生令因菩薩住勝道，三者令眾生傳化，四眾生令悟共證菩提。」於起處之默問，其釋與本論論主同其理路——「諸天深入禪定，不好語言而欲得法利，故須菩提不發言默念問也」；而於此問之所從來，吉藏繫之於前品：「此問從上品三以生，上三段皆明菩薩行六度成就眾生」，是其亦以本品之問承前品之答。至品之後半，吉藏另立一段大判：「白佛：云何淨土？第二、明淨佛土。文為二：初、明淨土因；二、明淨土果。」因中又分二——「因中有二：初、明無惡因；二、明有善因」，而善因之目繫於經文布施之句：「自布施下，二、明善業，為二：初、總約六度明行善；次、別發願。」果之一段，其判在無三惡道之文：「是國土中無三惡名下，第二、明淨土果」，其下更析為四——「二明二果：一、無惡果；二、有善果；三、重明無惡果；四、重明有善果。」數處釋義尤與本論相發。無三毒邪見一目，本論並列二說而不判，吉藏亦作兩解並存：「一解云：有三毒但未發耳。二解云：此中皆是法性身菩薩，佛教化此人勝教餘人也。」無二乘之名一目，其問答與本論同軌：「問：故淨土無二乘名。答：佛於五濁世故有二乘也。」五欲一難，本論辨佛語所對之人，吉藏所判亦同：「佛言受欲不障道，為白衣說也。此比丘不解佛意，安置出家法中，故應呵也」，而其判受用之界則繫於著與不著——「罪重貪著者不得受，若以不貪著亦許出家受」。樹出法音一目，其釋亦取眾生易信之意：「欲使眾生易聞，故樹枝於法音。」至次品之判，吉藏立為別一大段：「此下第二大段，明自他行成位階不退」，與本論以畢定承淨土之勢正相照。
其餘諸家則多闕。慧影《大智度論疏》現存之本，止於第六十九品之中，本品所在之卷已在其書之外，於本品無疏，記闕釋。惟其書中「淨土品」一名數見，須先與本品分辨：其所指乃其所釋之第五十七品——「第五十七品釋論者，名為淨土品」，並自設其次第之問曰「何故次燈炷明淨土品論」，而答以「明不退菩薩具智斷二德，自行既足，唯應以嚴國為事接化眾生，故次此後明淨土品」；是其「淨土品」與本品同名而異品，非本品之疏，不得相混。均正之四論綱要一書，遍檢淨佛國土、淨土品、莊嚴國土、百味諸目皆無所見，其書為綱要體而非隨文釋，非缺陷，如實誌之。天台一系諸書則別是一款：本品品題核心之「淨佛國土」四字，於彼系止觀與玄義諸書中屢見，然逐處核其上下文，皆是「淨佛國土，教化眾生」一類通用搭配之語，未有一處明引本品品題或逐字引本品經論之文，是其為術語之借用而非文本之引據，判非引本品。其中一處線索最須辨：彼系疏記中有「大論九十三」之明引，卷次正指本品所在之卷，然循其所引之文逐字回檢本論，其文乃在次品〈畢定品〉之內，不在本品，是跨品邊界之誤繫，如實誌之，不列本品之見證。
把這一路承衍帶回本品，兩造品名正照見本品義理之兩面。曰「淨佛國土」者，舉其所成——之下一分所鋪者盡是國土之相：七寶成國、常聞天樂、常有天香、百味自然、五欲應心、乃至「風吹七寶之樹，隨所應度而出音聲」，而「是國土中，乃至無三惡道之名」。曰「淨土」者，舉其所淨——本品答淨土之問，第一句不說土而說業：「自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業，亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」；其下所列麁業，由殺生邪見而至慳貪破戒諸心，由戒不淨而至遠離道品，終至於取善法相、貪四沙門果亦皆名麁。一成一淨，看似兩事，其實同出一處：正因「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」，所以土之莊嚴不是別求一處樂邦，只是此心此業之像。兩名並存而不相妨：略「佛國」二字者，其重在淨；具「佛國」二字者，其重在所淨之所成。
因此，〈淨佛國土品〉最終留下的，是一套可以帶進日用的量尺。我見一善法現前而自許時，記得此品把取善法相、取涅槃相亦判為麁——論主之語只一句：「摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁。」我欲取一分現成之果而歇下時，記得此品判貪四沙門果為麁之重話：「今為自身而欲取證，是為欺佛，亦負眾生」。我疑淨土諸願之求七寶五欲近於世欲時，記得論主所釋之本意——求好音是為令眾生「心柔軟故，易可受化」，施五欲是「但欲令一時捨故與之」。我自問未有國土、此品於我何涉時，記得佛答淨土之第一句是「從初發意已來」，所起手者只是自淨三業並淨他人三業；而其驗處極平實：「多惡口業故，地生荊棘；諂誑曲心故，地則高下不平；慳貪多故，則水旱不調、地生沙礫。」我終欲問一句此行何時得果時，記得本品末句與次品首問正接成一線：淨土中眾生「畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，而次品所答是「初發意菩薩亦畢定」——畢定不在遠處，在初發意時已定；其後所別者，唯遲疾而已。
Further Resonances
What "Purifying the Buddha-land" inherits is a heading the preceding chapter had already plainly set up without yet reaching its substance. The preceding chapter, "Illumination," speaks of the bodhisattva illuminating the bodhisattva path by the power of skilful means, and in it what Subhūti asks is already 「世尊！何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩行是道，能成就眾生、淨佛國土？」 tr. "World-Honored One! What is the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, practising which path the bodhisattva can bring beings to accomplishment and purify buddha-lands?", while what the Buddha answers is 「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意已來，行檀波羅蜜，行尸羅、羼提、毘梨耶、禪、般若波羅蜜，乃至行十八不共法，成就眾生、淨佛國土」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva, from the first arousing of intent until now, practises dānapāramitā, practises śīla, kṣānti, vīrya, dhyāna, and prajñāpāramitā, and so on up to practising the eighteen unshared dharmas, bringing beings to accomplishment and purifying buddha-lands"; yet what the preceding chapter lays out broadly below this is only the one side, practising the six perfections so as to bring beings to accomplishment—from gathering in beings by giving, all the way to 「眾生得是性空，漸漸得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，入無餘涅槃」 tr. "beings, obtaining this emptiness of nature, little by little obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and enter nirvāṇa without remainder"—while the one matter of purifying buddha-lands only has its name hung up, its practice not yet unfolded. This chapter then takes up precisely this half. Its point of joining does not even stop at the title: when the preceding chapter's treatise section explains Śāriputra's praise of the bodhisattva's vast great mind, it says precisely 「無所依止而能發大莊嚴」 tr. "taking support in nothing, he is able to arouse the great adornment," and 「如是諸法畢竟空中而作大莊嚴，是為希有」 tr. "thus, within the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas, to take on the great adornment—this is rare"; at the opening of this chapter, what Subhūti thinks in his mind is precisely 「何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴？」 tr. "What is the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva? Abiding in this path, can the bodhisattva take on such a great adornment?"—the 「如是大莊嚴」 tr. "such a great adornment" that he thinks of is precisely the adornment praised at the end of the preceding chapter. The treatise-author of this treatise also states this inheritance himself: 「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事。」 tr. "Subhūti has heard from the Buddha the mark of awakening and the mark of the path, and the bringing of beings to accomplishment is finished; now he asks about the matter of purifying buddha-lands." What it opens is already complete in this chapter's last sentences. At the end of this chapter, the sūtra text comes down in two places on the two characters that mean ‘certain’—「眾生聞是佛名，必至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "beings who hear this Buddha's name will surely reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," 「是國土中眾生，畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the beings within this land ultimately reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; the treatise-author's explanation of it is the same, 「若聞淨國佛名，則畢定作佛」 tr. "if one hears the name of the Buddha of a pure land, one is assured of becoming a Buddha," and he distinguishes slow and quick, saying 「聞名者，雖俱畢竟定而小不如」 tr. "as for those who hear the name, although both are alike ultimately assured, they are slightly inferior." At the opening of the next chapter, "Certainty," Subhūti at once picks up this word and asks: 「世尊！是菩薩摩訶薩為畢定？為不畢定？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Is this bodhisattva-mahāsattva assured? Or is he unassured?" The Buddha answers 「菩薩摩訶薩畢定，非不畢定」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva is assured; he is not unassured," then distinguishes its place—「非聲聞、辟支佛道中畢定，是佛道中畢定」 tr. "not assured in the path of the śrāvaka or the pratyekabuddha; assured in the path of the Buddha"—and then levels its stations—「初發意菩薩亦畢定，阿鞞跋致菩薩亦畢定，最後身菩薩亦畢定」 tr. "the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent is also assured, the avaivartika bodhisattva is also assured, the bodhisattva in his last body is also assured." This chapter says that the beings within the pure Buddha-land are assured, and the next chapter at once turns to ask whether the bodhisattva who can purify the land is himself assured or not; this chapter says that those who hear the Buddha's name are assured, yet slow and quick are distinguished, and the next chapter at once says that the first arousing of intent and the last body are one and the same assurance, while the stations differ in rank. The turn of the one question is joined precisely on this one word.
On the matter of the chapter name, the two parties this chapter preserves are most worth recording. The base text of this treatise heads the opening of the fascicle 「大智度論釋淨佛國土品第八十二」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Explanation of ‘Purifying the Buddha-land’, Chapter Eighty-two," while the Song edition and the Palace edition here lack the two Chinese characters 「佛國」 tr. "Buddha-land," so that it is titled Explanation of "Pure Land"; the Song, Yuan, and Palace editions further add the one character 「上」 tr. "upper" beneath the chapter number, and the Ming edition adds 「之上」 tr. "the upper part." What the Ishiyama-dera manuscript heads it with differs most: it reads 「大智度經品第八十二淨土品卷九十三」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra, Chapter Eighty-two, ‘Pure Land’, Fascicle Ninety-three"—it both uses the short name 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land," and its fascicle number is one more than the base text. The Larger Sūtra being explained likewise has, for this chapter's proper title, 「淨土品第八十二」 tr. "‘Pure Land’, Chapter Eighty-two," for the preceding chapter 「具足品第八十一」 tr. "‘Completeness’, Chapter Eighty-one," and for the next chapter 「畢定品第八十三」 tr. "‘Certainty’, Chapter Eighty-three"; so the one short name agrees in two places, the Ishiyama-dera manuscript and the Larger Sūtra being explained. Taken together, the Song, Palace, and Ishiyama-dera texts, with the Larger Sūtra being explained, form the one line of 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land," and the base text, with the Yuan and Ming editions, forms the line of 「淨佛國土品」 tr. "Purifying the Buddha-land"; the two lines are set out side by side and recorded as they are, without judgement. The markings of fascicle number and chapter number also differ among the editions. At the end of the preceding chapter's fascicle, the Shōgozō manuscript reads 「大智度經論卷第九十一釋第八十品」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, Fascicle Ninety-one, Commentary on the Eightieth Chapter," and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript reads 「大智度經論卷第九十二釋第八十品竟」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, Fascicle Ninety-two, the Commentary on the Eightieth Chapter is finished"; in both, the chapter number is one step off from the base text. Where this chapter crosses the fascicle, things are especially tangled: the base text's fascicle-end title reads 「大智度論卷第九十二」 tr. "Fascicle Ninety-two of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa ends here," beneath which the Song edition adds 「釋第八十二品上」 tr. "Commentary on the Eighty-second Chapter, upper," and the Yuan edition adds 「釋第八十二品之上」 tr. "Commentary on the Eighty-second Chapter, the upper part"; while the Ishiyama-dera manuscript here simply 「不分卷及品」 tr. "does not divide fascicles or chapters," so its fascicle boundary does not fall here. At the head of the next fascicle, the base text's title is 「大智度論釋淨佛國土品第八十二之餘」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Explanation of ‘Purifying the Buddha-land’, Chapter Eighty-two, the remainder," and the Palace edition here too lacks the two Chinese characters 「佛國」 tr. "Buddha-land"; for its two Chinese characters 「之餘」 tr. "the remainder," the Song edition reads 「一下」 tr. "one, lower," the Yuan and Palace editions read 「二下」 tr. "two, lower," and the Ming edition reads 「二之下」 tr. "two, the lower part"—where the Song edition reads 「一下」 tr. "one, lower," the chapter number is again one step off. The Shōgozō manuscript's fascicle title here reads 「大智度經論卷第九十三釋八十一品下訖第八十二品上」 tr. "Fascicle Ninety-three of the Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise: explaining the lower part of the eighty-first chapter, ending with the upper part of the eighty-second chapter"; its attachment is wholly different from the base text, and in this fascicle the Shōgozō manuscript lacks the authorship mark 「龍樹菩薩造」 tr. "composed by the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna." At the end of this chapter, the Shōgozō manuscript adds beneath the last character 「釋第八十二品」 tr. "Commentary on the Eighty-second Chapter," the Ishiyama-dera manuscript adds 「釋八十一品竟」 tr. "the Commentary on the Eighty-first Chapter is finished," and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript further bears the title 「卷第九十三終」 tr. "Fascicle Ninety-three, end," while at the end of the fascicle the Ishiyama-dera manuscript separately has the nine Chinese characters 「大智度經卷第九十三」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra, Fascicle Ninety-three." There is one more matter that must be recorded alongside: at the head of the next chapter's fascicle, the Ishiyama-dera manuscript reads 「大智度經品第八十二畢定品卷九十四」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra, Chapter Eighty-two, ‘Certainty’, Fascicle Ninety-four"—the five Chinese characters 「品第八十二」 tr. "Chapter Eighty-two" appear twice, in the fascicle-opening titles of two adjoining chapters, and the chapter numbers at the beginning and end of the same text do not agree either; this is recorded as it is, without forcing an explanation. In the general table of contents at the head of the Larger Sūtra being explained, the chapter numbers attached to this chapter and to the preceding one are also seen duplicated, and several adjoining chapters all show the same pattern; this is a shift in the marking layer of the table of contents itself, not a divergence of doctrine, and it too is recorded as it is.
Among the commentaries of the ancient masters, what can be relied on for this chapter is chiefly Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra. The chapter name he sets up follows the short name of the Larger Sūtra being explained, reading 「淨土品第八十二」 tr. "‘Pure Land’, Chapter Eighty-two," and at the opening he at once explains its name: 「此下後文明淨佛土，故云淨土。」 tr. "The later text from here on makes clear the pure Buddha-land; so it is called Pure Land." His structural division first sets up four divisions on the earlier part of the chapter: 「就文為四：第一明菩薩自住勝道，二者化眾生令因菩薩住勝道，三者令眾生傳化，四眾生令悟共證菩提。」 tr. "Taking the text, it is in four: first, making clear the bodhisattva himself abiding in the surpassing path; second, transforming beings so that, by means of the bodhisattva, they abide in the surpassing path; third, causing beings to pass on the transforming; fourth, causing beings to awaken and together realise awakening." On the silent question at the starting point, his explanation follows the same line of reasoning as this treatise's treatise-author—「諸天深入禪定，不好語言而欲得法利，故須菩提不發言默念問也」 tr. "the gods had entered deeply into meditative concentration, did not like words, and yet wished to obtain the benefit of the Dharma; therefore Subhūti did not speak but asked by silent thought"; and as to where this question comes from, Jizang attaches it to the preceding chapter: 「此問從上品三以生，上三段皆明菩薩行六度成就眾生」 tr. "This question arises from the three of the chapter above; the three sections above all make clear the bodhisattva practising the six perfections and bringing beings to accomplishment," so he too takes this chapter's question as carrying on from the preceding chapter's answer. Coming to the latter half of the chapter, Jizang separately sets up one great division: 「白佛：云何淨土？第二、明淨佛土。文為二：初、明淨土因；二、明淨土果。」 tr. "‘Addressed the Buddha: how is the land purified?’ Second, making clear the pure Buddha-land. The text is in two: first, making clear the cause of the pure land; second, making clear the fruit of the pure land." Within the cause he further divides two—「因中有二：初、明無惡因；二、明有善因」 tr. "within the cause there are two: first, making clear the cause of being without evil; second, making clear the cause of having good"—and the heading of the good cause he attaches to the sūtra's sentence on giving: 「自布施下，二、明善業，為二：初、總約六度明行善；次、別發願。」 tr. "From ‘himself gives’ onward: second, making clear wholesome deeds, in two: first, in general, by way of the six perfections, making clear the practice of the wholesome; next, specifically, the making of vows." For the one section on the fruit, his division falls at the text on there being no three evil destinies: 「是國土中無三惡名下，第二、明淨土果」 tr. "from ‘within this land there is no name of the three evils’ onward: second, making clear the fruit of the pure land," and beneath it he further analyses it into four—「二明二果：一、無惡果；二、有善果；三、重明無惡果；四、重明有善果。」 tr. "Second, making clear the two fruits: first, the fruit of being without evil; second, the fruit of having good; third, making clear again the fruit of being without evil; fourth, making clear again the fruit of having good." In several places his explanations especially illuminate this treatise. On the heading of there being no three poisons and wrong views, this treatise sets two views side by side without judging, and Jizang too lets two explanations stand together: 「一解云：有三毒但未發耳。二解云：此中皆是法性身菩薩，佛教化此人勝教餘人也。」 tr. "One explanation says: there are the three poisons, only they have not yet broken out. A second explanation says: here all are bodhisattvas of the Dharma-nature body, and the Buddha's teaching and transforming these people surpasses teaching other people." On the heading of there being no name of the two vehicles, his question and answer run on the same track as this treatise: 「問：故淨土無二乘名。答：佛於五濁世故有二乘也。」 tr. "Question: hence the pure land has no name of the two vehicles. Answer: it is because the Buddha is in an age of the five turbidities that there are the two vehicles." On the difficulty of the five desires, this treatise distinguishes the people to whom the Buddha's words were addressed, and Jizang's judgement is likewise the same: 「佛言受欲不障道，為白衣說也。此比丘不解佛意，安置出家法中，故應呵也」 tr. "the Buddha's saying that receiving desire does not obstruct the path was said for the white-robed. This bhikṣu did not understand the Buddha's meaning and placed it within the dharma of those gone forth; therefore he should be rebuked," while his judgement of the limit of enjoyment he attaches to clinging and not clinging—「罪重貪著者不得受，若以不貪著亦許出家受」 tr. "those whose sin is heavy and who crave and cling may not receive them; if it is without craving and clinging, those gone forth too are permitted to receive them." On the heading of the trees bringing out the sound of the Dharma, his explanation likewise takes the sense of making it easy for beings to believe: 「欲使眾生易聞，故樹枝於法音。」 tr. "Wishing to make it easy for beings to hear, therefore the branches of the trees give out the sound of the Dharma." As for his judgement of the next chapter, Jizang sets it up as a separate great section: 「此下第二大段，明自他行成位階不退」 tr. "From here on is the second great section, making clear that, the practice for self and others being accomplished, the stages do not retreat," which mirrors exactly the momentum with which this treatise carries on from the pure land to assurance.
The other masters are mostly lacking. The extant text of Huiying's Commentary stops in the middle of the sixty-ninth chapter; the fascicle in which this chapter lies is already outside his book; there is no commentary on this chapter, and it is recorded as an explanation lacking. Only, the name 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land" appears several times in his book, and it must first be distinguished from this chapter: what it refers to is the fifty-seventh chapter that he explains—「第五十七品釋論者，名為淨土品」 tr. "The treatise explaining the fifty-seventh chapter is named ‘Pure Land’"—and he himself sets up a question about its sequence, saying 「何故次燈炷明淨土品論」 tr. "Why, after the lamp-wick, does the treatise next make clear the ‘Pure Land’ chapter?", and answers with 「明不退菩薩具智斷二德，自行既足，唯應以嚴國為事接化眾生，故次此後明淨土品」 tr. "It makes clear that the non-retrogressing bodhisattva is complete with the two virtues of knowledge and severance; his own practice being sufficient, he should only take the adorning of the land as his business, receiving and transforming beings; therefore, next after this, ‘Pure Land’ is made clear"; so his 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land" shares its name with this chapter but is a different chapter; it is not a commentary on this chapter, and the two must not be confused. Junzheng's book of essentials on the four treatises, searched throughout for the headings purifying buddha-lands, "Pure Land," adorning the land, and the hundred flavours, shows none of them; his book is in the form of essentials, not a commentary following the text; this is no defect, and it is recorded as it is. The books of the Tiantai line are a separate case: the four Chinese characters 「淨佛國土」 tr. "purifying buddha-lands" at the core of this chapter's title appear repeatedly in that line's books on calming and contemplation and on profound meaning, but checked place by place in their contexts, all are words of a common collocation of the type 「淨佛國土，教化眾生」 tr. "purifying buddha-lands, teaching and transforming beings," and there is not a single place that explicitly cites this chapter's title or cites word for word the text of this chapter's sūtra or treatise; so it is a borrowing of terminology, not a textual citation, and it is judged not to cite this chapter. Among these there is one clue that most needs distinguishing: in that line's commentaries and records there is an explicit citation, 「大論九十三」 tr. "the Great Treatise, ninety-three," whose fascicle number points precisely to the fascicle in which this chapter lies; yet when the text it cites is checked back word for word against this treatise, that text lies within the next chapter, "Certainty," not in this chapter; this is a mistaken attachment across the chapter boundary, recorded as it is, and not listed as a witness of this chapter.
Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, the chapter names of the two parties exactly illumine the two faces of this chapter's doctrinal meaning. To call it 「淨佛國土」 tr. "purifying buddha-lands" is to raise what it accomplishes—what the last part lays out is entirely the marks of the land: a land formed of the seven jewels, heavenly music constantly heard, heavenly fragrance constantly present, the hundred flavours arising of themselves, the five desires answering to the mind, and so on up to 「風吹七寶之樹，隨所應度而出音聲」 tr. "the wind blows on the trees of the seven jewels and, according to those who are to be delivered, brings out sound," and 「是國土中，乃至無三惡道之名」 tr. "within this land there is not even the name of the three evil destinies." To call it 「淨土」 tr. "pure land" is to raise what it purifies—when this chapter answers the question of the pure land, its first sentence speaks not of the land but of deeds: 「自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業，亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」 tr. "himself removes the coarse deeds of body, removes the coarse deeds of speech, removes the coarse deeds of mind, and also purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others"; the coarse deeds listed below it run from killing living beings and wrong views to the minds of stinginess and breaking morality, from impure morality to being far from the limbs of the path, and in the end even grasping at the marks of wholesome dharmas and craving the four fruits of the śramaṇa are all named coarse. One accomplishing, one purifying: they look like two matters, but in fact they come from one place: precisely because 「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」 tr. "because the inner dharmas are pure, the outer dharmas too are pure; just as, because the face is pure, the image in the mirror too is pure," the adornment of the land is not the seeking of some separate land of bliss; it is only the image of this mind and these deeds. The two names stand together without hindering each other: the one that omits the two Chinese characters 「佛國」 tr. "Buddha-land" puts its weight on purifying; the one that has the two Chinese characters 「佛國」 tr. "Buddha-land" puts its weight on what the purifying accomplishes.
So what "Purifying the Buddha-land" leaves us in the end is a measuring rule that can be carried into daily use. When a wholesome dharma appears before me and I approve of myself, I remember that this chapter judges even grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma and grasping at the mark of nirvāṇa to be coarse—the treatise-author's words are only one sentence: 「摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁。」 tr. "In the Mahāyāna, grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma, and so on up to nirvāṇa, is all named coarse." When I wish to take a share of ready-made fruit and rest there, I remember this chapter's heavy words judging the craving for the four fruits of the śramaṇa to be coarse: 「今為自身而欲取證，是為欺佛，亦負眾生」 tr. "now for his own sake he wishes to take realisation—this is to deceive the Buddha and also to betray beings." When I suspect that the seeking of the seven jewels and the five desires in the vows for the pure land is close to worldly desire, I remember the original intent the treatise-author explains—seeking fine sounds is so that beings, 「心柔軟故，易可受化」 tr. "because the mind becomes soft, can easily receive transformation," and giving the five desires is 「但欲令一時捨故與之」 tr. "giving them only wishing to make them relinquish at one time." When I ask myself, having as yet no land, what this chapter has to do with me, I remember that the first sentence of the Buddha's answer on the pure land is 「從初發意已來」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now," and that what one sets one's hand to is only purifying one's own three kinds of deeds and purifying the three kinds of deeds of others; and the place where it is tested is utterly plain: 「多惡口業故，地生荊棘；諂誑曲心故，地則高下不平；慳貪多故，則水旱不調、地生沙礫。」 tr. "Because of many evil verbal deeds, the ground grows thorns; because of flattering, deceitful, crooked minds, the ground is high and low and uneven; because of much stinginess, water and drought are out of season and the ground grows sand and gravel." When at last I want to ask when this practice will reach its fruit, I remember that this chapter's last sentence and the next chapter's first question join into one line: the beings in the pure Buddha-land 「畢竟至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "ultimately reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," and what the next chapter answers is 「初發意菩薩亦畢定」 tr. "the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent is also assured"—assurance is not somewhere far off; it is already settled at the time of the first arousing of intent; what is distinguished after that is only slow and quick.