Ten Proofs, and the "Deferred-Time" Objection

Fourth, bringing forward the text itself as clear proof.

Question: "As for the meaning of this reversed refutation given above, how can it be known for certain that the World-Honored One fixed this teaching for ordinary beings, and not for sages? It is not yet clear whether this is settled merely by taking human sentiment as one's standard, or whether there is, in fact, sacred teaching to prove it."

Answer: "Sentient beings' own defilements run heavy, and their wisdom is shallow and near-sighted. The sacred intent runs vast and deep — how could I possibly presume to decide this on my own authority! I will now take up, one by one, everything the Buddha himself said, as clear proof. Within this proof there are exactly ten passages. What are they? First, as the Contemplation Sūtra says: 'The Buddha said to Vaidehī: "I will now, for your sake, explain at length every kind of simile, and will also cause every ordinary being of future ages who wishes to cultivate pure karma to attain rebirth in the western land of Ultimate Bliss"' — this is the first proof. Second, it says: 'The Tathāgata now, for the sake of every sentient being of future ages harmed by the thief of affliction, expounds this pure karma' — this is the second proof. Third, it says: 'The Tathāgata now teaches Vaidehī, and every sentient being of future ages, to contemplate the western world of Ultimate Bliss' — this is the third proof. Fourth, it says: 'Vaidehī said to the Buddha: "I am now able, through the Buddha's own power, to see that land. But after the Buddha has entered extinction, sentient beings, turbid, evil, and unwholesome, pressed by the five sufferings — how will they be able to see that buddha's own land at all?"' — this is the fourth proof. Fifth, as the very opening of the sun-contemplation says: 'The Buddha said to Vaidehī: "You, and every sentient being, should single-mindedly hold this in thought"' — down through "every sentient being, provided only they are not blind from birth, anyone with eyes at all can see the sun" — this is the fifth proof. Sixth, as the text on the earth-contemplation says: 'The Buddha said to Ānanda: "Hold fast to the Buddha's own words, and, for the sake of every sentient being of future ages who wishes to be freed from suffering, teach this method of contemplating the ground"' — this is the sixth proof.

"Seventh, as the text on the lotus-throne contemplation says: 'Vaidehī said to the Buddha: "I am able, through the Buddha's own power, to see Amitābha Buddha and his two bodhisattvas — but how will sentient beings of future ages be able to see them?"' — this is the seventh proof. Eighth, in the answer to this request further on, it says: 'The Buddha said to Vaidehī: "You, and every sentient being who wishes to contemplate that buddha, should give rise to this same act of visualization"' — this is the eighth proof. Ninth, as the text on the image-contemplation says: 'The Buddha said to Vaidehī: "Every buddha, every Tathāgata, enters into the very mind and thought of every sentient being — and so, at the very moment your own mind holds the Buddha in thought..."' — this is the ninth proof. Tenth, as each and every one of the nine grades itself says: "for the sake of every sentient being" — this is the tenth proof. Though these ten passages differ from one another, taken together they prove that the Tathāgata, in speaking these sixteen contemplations, spoke them only for the sake of beings constantly sunk in suffering, and that this has nothing whatsoever to do with sages, whether of the greater or the lesser vehicle. Taking this text as proof — how could this possibly be a mistaken reading?"

Fifth, reconciling the meaning of "deferred time." There are two points here.

First: the treatise says, "It is like a person who recollects the buddha Prabhūtaratna, and thereby attains non-retrogression in unsurpassed bodhi." Now, "bodhi," generally speaking, is the name for a buddha's own fruit — it is also the Dharma by which one accomplishes buddhahood through the principle of direct retribution. It requires the full and complete accomplishment of ten thousand practices before it can ever actually be realized. How, then, could the single practice of recollecting the Buddha alone be expected to accomplish it? There is no such possibility. Though it is said that this alone does not yet realize buddhahood, it is nonetheless one practice among the ten thousand. How is this known? As the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "The bhikṣu Meghaśrī said to Sudhana: 'Within the ocean of samādhi in the Buddha-dharma, I know only a single practice — namely, the samādhi of recollecting the Buddha.'" Taking this text as proof, is this not indeed one practice among many? Though it is only one practice, within the whole of birth and death, all the way up to the attainment of buddhahood itself, it never once retrogresses or is lost — hence it is called "non-retrogression."

Question: "If this is so, then the Lotus Sūtra says: 'Even a single utterance of homage to the Buddha is already the accomplishment of the buddha-path.' This, too, should mean that buddhahood is already accomplished in full. What difference is there between these two texts?"

Answer: "In the treatise, calling upon the Buddha's name is intended solely to accomplish buddhahood for oneself. In the sūtra, calling upon the Buddha's name is meant to distinguish this from the ninety-five kinds of heterodox paths. For among these heterodox paths, there is no one at all who calls upon a buddha's name in the first place. So the moment anyone at all utters a buddha's name even once, they are already gathered into the buddha-path — hence it is said to be 'already accomplished.'"

Second, the treatise also says, "It is like a person who, merely by making a vow, is born in the land of peace and bliss" — and for a long time now, scholars given to general theorizing about this treatise have failed to grasp its actual intent, mistakenly citing the lowest of the lower grade, whose ten utterances of the Buddha's name resemble this passage, and concluding that such a person does not attain rebirth immediately. It is, they say, like a single gold coin that eventually grows into a thousand — but only after many days, not becoming a thousand in a single day. The ten utterances of the Buddha's name, they say, are the same: they serve only as a distant cause for eventual rebirth, and so rebirth is not attained immediately. They say the Buddha spoke this only for the sake of ordinary beings of the future, wishing to have them give up evil and call upon the Buddha's name, and that when he speaks of rebirth, this is a kind of expedient exaggeration — that rebirth is not, in fact, actually attained — and this is called the teaching of "deferred time."

Why, then, does the Amitābha Sūtra say: "The Buddha said to Śāriputra: 'If there is a good son or good daughter who, hearing Amitābha Buddha spoken of, holds fast to his name, whether for one day or up to seven days, with a single mind, wishing to be reborn there — when their life comes to its end, Amitābha Buddha, together with the assembly of sages, will come to welcome and receive them into rebirth'" — and, further on, buddhas of the ten directions, each as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, each extending their own broad and long tongue, covering an entire trichiliocosm, speak these true and honest words: "You, sentient beings, should all believe in this sūtra, which every buddha alike watches over and holds in mind." What is meant by "watches over and holds in mind" is exactly this same practice described above — holding fast to the Buddha's own name for one day, or up to seven. Given that there already exists this kind of sacred teaching as clear proof, it remains unclear why present-day practitioners, for whatever reason, place their trust in the theorizing of lesser scholars, while treating the true and honest words of every buddha as if they were mere falsehood instead. How bitter, how extreme, that anyone could utter words this unbearable! And yet, I can only look up and beg every teacher and every practitioner who wishes to attain rebirth there to reflect carefully on this for themselves: it is better to risk, in this present life, mistakenly placing one's trust in the Buddha's own words, than to cling to a bodhisattva's treatise as though it were one's own guiding compass.

Should one hold fast to this misreading, one would lead oneself astray, and mislead others besides.

Question: "How does this square with the claim that, unless one actually undertakes the practice, one cannot attain rebirth?"

Answer: "For one who wishes to attain rebirth, it is necessary that both vow and practice be complete together before rebirth can be attained at all. In this treatise, only the making of a vow is spoken of — the question of actual practice is simply not discussed there."

Question: "Why is it not discussed?" Answer: "Because not even a single thought has yet actually been put into action — this is exactly why it is not discussed."

Question: "What difference is there between the meaning of vow and the meaning of practice?"

Answer: "As the sūtra itself says: 'Practice alone, with no vow, is solitary, and arrives nowhere; vow alone, with no practice, is empty, and arrives nowhere as well — vow and practice must support each other before what one sets out to do can ever be accomplished.' This is exactly why this treatise, speaking only of the arising of a vow without discussing actual practice, means that rebirth is not attained immediately, but only serves as a cause for eventual, distant rebirth — and this much of its meaning is indeed true."

Question: "How, then, is it said that this vow alone does not lead to rebirth?"

Answer: "It is when someone hears another say that the west is blissful beyond conception, and simply makes the vow, saying, 'I too wish to be reborn there' — and, having said these words, carries this thought no further at all — that this is properly called mere 'vow' alone. But in this present Contemplation Sūtra, the ten utterances of the Buddha's name already contain, within them, ten vows and ten complete practices at once. How are they complete? The word 'namo' is itself taking refuge, and is itself the meaning of making a vow and dedicating it; the words 'Amitābha Buddha' are themselves the very practice. It is for this reason that rebirth is certainly attained. And further, in the treatise's own passage, calling upon the buddha Prabhūtaratna, seeking the fruit of buddhahood, is exactly direct retribution itself; while, below, merely making a vow to seek rebirth in the Pure Land is exactly retributive support. One is direct, the other is supportive — how could these two possibly be treated as the same thing? Direct retribution is difficult to expect quickly — a single practice, however diligent, has not yet accomplished it. Retributive support, however, is easy to seek — which is why a single moment's vow has not yet, on its own, been enough to enter it. And yet, it is like how, on the frontier, submitting to a ruler's authority is easy, while actually becoming that ruler oneself is hard. Those who now vow to be reborn there are, every one of them, simply submitting themselves to another's rule — how could this not be easy? So long as one is able, at the very fullest, to sustain this practice across an entire lifetime, or, at the very least, ten thoughts alone, riding upon the power of the Buddha's own vow, without exception, all such people go there — this is exactly why it is called easy. This cannot simply be settled by assertion alone; those who might otherwise place their trust in it are left instead in doubt — it is necessary to bring forward the sacred teaching itself to make this plain, so that whoever hears it may finally have their doubt dispelled."