A Question of Withstanding Challenge
A genuinely difficult question opens this section: an ordinary practitioner's own wisdom is shallow, and a challenger armed with scriptural citations could easily seem to have the stronger argument. Shandao's own answer does not dispute the cited scriptures at all — it disputes whether they were ever speaking to this situation in the first place.
A Genuine Difficulty, Honestly Named
問曰：「凡夫智淺惑障處深，若逢解行不同人多引經論來相妨難，證云一切罪障凡夫不得往生者。云何對治彼難，成就信心，決定直進，不生怯退也？」
Question: "Ordinary beings possess but shallow wisdom, and their own obstructions run deep — should they encounter people of differing understanding and practice who cite many sūtras and treatises to raise objections against them, arguing that ordinary beings burdened with the obstruction of sin cannot attain rebirth, how might one counter such objections, bring one's own faith to completion, and advance resolutely and directly, without giving rise to timidity or retreat?"
An Answer: Context, Not Contradiction
答曰：「若有人多引經論證云不生者，行者即報云：『仁者雖將經論來證噵不生，如我意者決定不受汝破。何以故？然我亦不是不信彼諸經論，盡皆仰信。然佛說彼經時，處別、時別、對機別、利益別。又說彼經時，即非說《觀經》、《彌陀經》等時。然佛說教備機，時亦不同，彼即通說人天菩薩之解行。今說《觀經》定散二善，唯為韋提及佛滅後五濁五苦等一切凡夫，證言得生。為此因緣，我今一心依此佛教決定奉行，縱使汝等百千萬億噵不生者，唯增長成就我往生信心也。』
Answer: "Should there be a person who cites many sūtras and treatises to argue that rebirth cannot be attained, the practitioner should reply, saying: 'Though you, sir, bring forward sūtras and treatises to argue that rebirth cannot be attained, as far as my own understanding goes, I am resolved not to accept your refutation. Why is this so? It is not that I myself disbelieve those very sūtras and treatises — I hold them all in reverent faith. But when the Buddha spoke those particular sūtras, the place was different, the time was different, the audience addressed was different, and the benefit intended was different. Further, at the time he spoke those sūtras, he was not, at that same time, speaking the Contemplation Sūtra or the Amitābha Sūtra. The Buddha's own teaching accords fully with the capacity of his listeners, and the occasion likewise differs from case to case — those other sūtras spoke generally of the understanding and practice belonging to gods, humans, and bodhisattvas. But now, in expounding the Contemplation Sūtra's own contemplative and dispersed goodness, this was intended solely for Vaidehī, and for all ordinary beings of the five turbidities and five sufferings after the Buddha's own final nirvāṇa, bearing witness that they shall attain rebirth. For this very reason, I now single-mindedly rely upon this very teaching of the Buddha, resolved to carry it out — and even should you, sir, with a hundred thousand myriad koṭis of arguments, insist that rebirth cannot be attained, this shall only increase and bring to completion my own faith in rebirth all the more.'
Shandao's own scripted reply models a specific rhetorical move worth naming: rather than disputing the authority of the sūtras a challenger might cite, the practitioner affirms them fully — "I hold them all in reverent faith" — and instead disputes their relevance to this particular question, on the grounds that "the place was different, the time was different, the audience addressed was different." This is a claim about the occasional, situated nature of scriptural teaching generally: a sūtra addressed to bodhisattvas discussing bodhisattva practice was never making a claim about whether an ordinary being reciting Amitābha's name after the Buddha's own final nirvāṇa can be reborn, because that specific situation was simply not what it was speaking to. The closing line — that a hundred thousand myriad koṭis of counterarguments would only strengthen rather than weaken this faith — previews the escalating structure the rest of this passage will build on, testing this same resolve against ever more formidable sources.
Part 76 Complete
This closes Part 76. Part 77 escalates this thought experiment: what if the challengers were not ordinary scholars, but bodhisattvas, arhats, and even beings who have reached the tenth and highest ground of the bodhisattva path, all insisting in unison that this teaching is false?
Continue to Part 77 — Even If Every Bodhisattva Disagreed →