Part 7 of 10 · Doubt 7 · 淨土十疑論 T1961 · Complete

Tuṣita or Sukhāvatī?

The seventh doubt asks why not simply wait for Maitreya, the next buddha, in his Tuṣita Heaven — closer, and requiring only the ten wholesome deeds rather than rebirth in a pure land beyond the three realms. This is also the doubt at the center of the authorship question discussed in Part 1: its closing story is the same one told in Xuanzang's seventh-century travel account, decades after the death of the master this treatise names as its author.

Translator: Ru-Yi Meditation Center Status: Part 7 of 10 complete Source: Taishō T1961, 淨土十疑論 (attrib. Zhiyi) Reading notes after Chengyu's 注十疑論 (X1149)

Doubt 7: Why Not Wait for Maitreya in Tuṣita?

Chinese Source

第七疑
問:「彌勒菩薩,一生補處,即得成佛。上品十善,得生彼處,見彌勒菩薩,隨從下生三會之中,自然而得聖果。何須求生西方淨土耶?」

答:「求生兜率,一日聞道見佛,勢欲相似,若細比校,大有優、劣。且論二種:一者、縱持十善,恐不得生。何以得知?《彌勒上生經》云:『行眾三昧,深入正定,方始得生。』更無方便接引之義。不如阿彌陀佛本願力、光明力,但有念佛眾生,攝取不捨。又釋迦佛說九品教門,方便接引,殷勤發遣,生彼淨土。但眾生能念彌陀佛者,機、感相應,必得生也。如世間慕人,能受慕者,機會相投,必成其事。二者、兜率天宮是欲界,退位者多——無有水鳥、樹林、風聲、樂響,眾生聞者,悉念佛發菩提心,伏滅煩惱;又有女人,皆長諸天愛著五欲之心,又天女微妙,諸天耽玩,不能自勉。不如彌陀淨土,水鳥、樹林,風聲、樂響,眾生聞者,皆生念佛,發菩提心,伏滅煩惱。又無女人、二乘之心,純一大乘,清淨良伴。為此煩惱惡業,畢竟不起,遂至無生之位。如此比校,優、劣顯然,何須致疑也?如釋迦佛在世之時,大有眾生見佛,不得聖果者如恒沙;彌勒出世亦爾,大有不得聖果者。未如彌陀淨土,但生彼國已,悉得無生法忍,未有一人退落三界,為生死業縛也。

「又聞西國傳云:『有三菩薩:一名無著、二名世親、三名師子覺。此三人契志,同生兜率,願見彌勒。若先亡者,得見彌勒,誓來相報。師子覺前亡,一去數年不來。後世親無常臨終之時,無著語云:「汝見彌勒,即來相報!」世親去已,三年始來。無著問曰:「何意如許多時始來?」世親報云:「至彼天中,聽彌勒菩薩一坐說法,旋繞,即來相報。為彼天日長故,此處已經三年。」又問:「師子覺今在何處?」世親報云:「師子覺為受天樂,五欲自娛,在外眷屬。從去已來,總不見彌勒。」』諸小菩薩,生彼尚著五欲,何況凡夫?為此願生西方,定得不退,不求生兜率也。」

Ru-Yi Translation

Doubt 7

Question: "The bodhisattva Maitreya is one birth away from buddhahood, and will surely attain buddhahood. Those who keep the ten wholesome deeds at the highest grade may be born in his presence, following him down to be born again at his side in the three assemblies, and there naturally attain the fruit of sagehood. Why, then, must one seek rebirth in the western pure land at all?"

Answer: "Seeking rebirth in Tuṣita, hearing the teaching in a single day and beholding a buddha, may seem, at first, much the same thing. But compared in detail, there is a great difference of better and worse between the two. Let us take up two points. First: even keeping the ten wholesome deeds in full, one may still fail to be reborn there. How do we know this? The Sūtra on Maitreya's Ascent to Rebirth says: 'One must practice the many samādhis, and enter deeply into correct concentration, before one can attain rebirth there' — there is no mention of any skillful means of being drawn across by another's power. This is unlike Amitābha Buddha, whose original vow-power and light-power gather in and never abandon anyone at all who is simply mindful of him. Śākyamuni Buddha, moreover, taught the nine grades of practice as a skillful means to draw beings across, sending them off earnestly toward that pure land; any being at all who is capable of being mindful of Amitābha Buddha, capacity and response answering each other, will certainly attain rebirth — just as, in the world, when someone seeks followers and there are those capable of being drawn to follow, opportunity and readiness meet, and the matter is certain to succeed.

"Second: the Tuṣita palace lies within the desire realm, and many who dwell there fall back from their attainment. It has no water, birds, groves of trees, sound of wind, or music, whose hearing would lead beings to be mindful of the Buddha, give rise to the aspiration for enlightenment, and subdue their afflictions; and it has women, all of whom nourish the heavenly beings' attachment and craving for the five desires — its heavenly maidens being subtle and wondrous, the gods there indulge and amuse themselves with them, unable to restrain themselves. This is unlike Amitābha's pure land, where the water, birds, groves of trees, sound of wind, and music, whoever hears them, all give rise to mindfulness of the Buddha, the aspiration for enlightenment, and the subduing of affliction; and where there is no attachment of women, nor any mind of the two lesser vehicles, but only pure and good companions of the single Great Vehicle throughout. For this reason, afflictions and evil karma never arise there at all, and one arrives, in the end, at the stage of no-birth. Compared this way, the difference of better and worse is plain — what need is there to keep doubting? When Śākyamuni Buddha was himself in the world, there were as many beings who saw the Buddha and yet failed to attain the fruit of sagehood as there are grains of sand in the Ganges; and it will be exactly the same when Maitreya comes into the world — there too will be many who fail to attain that fruit. None of this compares to Amitābha's pure land, where, once a being is simply born in that land, all attain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, and not a single one has ever fallen back into the three realms, bound again by the karma of birth and death.

"I have also heard an account transmitted from the western regions: there were three bodhisattvas, the first named Asaṅga, the second Vasubandhu, and the third Siṃhabhadra. These three, of one accord, were reborn together in Tuṣita, wishing to behold Maitreya, and made a pact: whichever of them died first and came to see Maitreya would vow to return and report to the others. Siṃhabhadra died first, and for several years after his departure, he did not return. Later, when Vasubandhu himself was on the point of death, Asaṅga said to him: 'When you have seen Maitreya, come at once and report to me.' Vasubandhu departed, and it was three years before he returned. Asaṅga asked him: 'Why did it take you so long to come back?' Vasubandhu answered: 'When I arrived in that heaven, I listened to Maitreya Bodhisattva give a single session of teaching, and circled him once in reverence, and then came at once to report to you — but because a day in that heaven is so much longer than ours, three years have already passed here.' Asaṅga then asked: 'And where is Siṃhabhadra now?' Vasubandhu answered: 'Siṃhabhadra, given over to the enjoyment of heavenly pleasures, is amusing himself with the five desires, off among his outer retinue — since his departure, he has never once seen Maitreya at all.' If even these lesser bodhisattvas, once born there, still remain attached to the five desires, how much more so an ordinary being? This is why one should vow to be born in the western land, where non-retrogression is certain — and not seek rebirth in Tuṣita instead."

Reading note — after Chengyu

Chengyu glosses Maitreya's own name in two halves: Maitreya (梅怛麗) by clan, meaning "the Compassionate One," and Ajita (阿逸多) by given name, meaning "None Can Excel." He locates the "three assemblies" precisely, in the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom's thirty-fourth fascicle: at Maitreya's first Dragon-Flower assembly he liberates 9.6 billion śrāvakas, at the second 9.4 billion, at the third 9.2 billion. And he traces "capacity" (機) — the word this doubt uses twice, for how a being's readiness meets a buddha's response — back to its literal sense as a crossbow's trigger mechanism, quoting the old line that "a crossbow drawn to a thousand-jun tension does not fire its trigger for a mouse": a being's own wholesome capacity is a trigger already cocked, and a sage's unconditioned compassion is what answers it the instant it moves.

What Chengyu does not do, writing in 983, is pause over the account of Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, and Siṃhabhadra at all — he treats it exactly as he treats every other citation in the treatise, glossing only its incidental numbers: the population of Śrāvastī from the Great Perfection of Wisdom's eleventh fascicle (nine hundred million households, a third who saw the Buddha, a third who heard of him without seeing him, a third who neither saw nor heard), and the graduated correspondence between a day in each heaven and a stretch of years on earth, which is what lets Vasubandhu return after "three years" here having heard only "a single session" of Maitreya's teaching there. It is worth naming what this absence means: the modern case, discussed in Part 1, that this very story ties the treatise's composition to Xuanzang's seventh-century travel account depends on a textual-historical comparison Chengyu had no occasion to make. To him the story is simply one more transmitted account among the many the treatise cites — evidence of how completely settled the attribution to Zhiyi already was in his own time, three centuries before anyone thought to ask whether this particular passage could actually have come from Zhiyi's own pen.

Part 7 Complete

This closes Part 7, and with it the treatise's comparison between the two most commonly proposed alternatives to a single-minded Pure Land practice. Parts 8 and 9 return to two of the hardest practical objections a skeptical reader can raise: whether a deathbed's worth of practice can really outweigh a lifetime of accumulated evil, and how a weak, ordinary being could possibly cross the vast distance the treatise's own source texts describe.

Continue to Part 8 — Can Ten Final Thoughts Undo a Lifetime of Evil? →