The Third Mind, and a Difficult Question
The third mind opens by naming what the first two have been building toward all along: taking every root of goodness, one's own and every other being's, and dedicating it, from a mind as unbreakable as vajra, toward a single vow. Then comes the hardest question this teaching has yet faced, stated without softening — how could the gravest offenders possibly enter a birthless land at all?
Dedication and Vowing, Unbreakable as Vajra
三者迴向發願心。言迴向發願心者，過去及以今生身口意業所修世出世善根，及隨喜他一切凡聖身口意業所修世出世善根，以此自他所修善根，悉皆真實深信心中迴向願生彼國，故名迴向發願心也。又迴向發願願生者，必須決定真實心中迴向願作得生想，此心深信由若金剛，不為一切異見異學、別解別行人等之所動亂破壞，唯是決定一心投正直進，不得聞彼人語即有進退心生怯弱，迴顧落道，即失往生之大益也。
The third is the mind of dedication and vowing. As for the mind of dedication and vowing: whatever roots of goodness, mundane and transcendent, one has cultivated through the karma of body, speech, and mind, in this present life and in past lives, together with whatever roots of goodness, mundane and transcendent, all other beings — ordinary or sage alike — have cultivated through their own karma of body, speech, and mind, and in which one rejoices — taking all of these roots of goodness, one's own and others', one dedicates them, from within a genuinely real and deeply faithful mind, vowing to be reborn in that land. Hence this is called the mind of dedication and vowing.
Further, as for dedicating and vowing to be reborn: one must resolutely, from within a genuinely real mind, dedicate this merit and form the thought of vowing to attain rebirth. This deep faith of the mind must be as unbreakable as vajra itself, never to be shaken or destroyed by any divergent view, divergent teaching, or person of separate understanding and separate practice — one must simply proceed directly, with a single, resolute mind, and must not, upon hearing another person's own words, give rise to a wavering mind of advance and retreat, timidity arising, turning back and falling from the path — for this would forfeit the great benefit of rebirth entirely.
The third mind's own scope is worth noting: dedication here extends beyond one's own merit to include "roots of goodness... all other beings — ordinary or sage alike — have cultivated," folded in through simple rejoicing at their goodness. This is not a private transaction between a single practitioner and their own accumulated karma, but a gathering-in of every available source of merit, one's own and the whole world's, directed toward a single vow. The comparison to vajra, unbreakable by any blade, ties this third mind directly back to the deep mind's own escalating resistance to challenge across the previous several parts — the same resolve, now specifically applied to the act of dedication itself.
The Hardest Question: Can the Gravest Offenders Truly Attain This?
問曰：「若有解行不同邪雜人等來相惑亂，或說種種疑難，噵不得往生。或云：『汝等眾生曠劫已來，及以今生身口意業，於一切凡聖身上，具造十惡、五逆、四重、謗法、闡提、破戒、破見等罪，未能除盡。然此等之罪繫屬三界惡道，云何一生修福念佛，即入彼無漏無生之國，永得證悟不退位也？』」答曰：「諸佛教行數越塵沙，稟識機緣，隨情非一。譬如世間人眼可見可信者，如明能破闇，空能含有，地能載養，水能生潤，火能成壞，如此等事悉名待對之法，即目可見，千差萬別，何況佛法不思議之力豈無種種益也。隨出一門者，即出一煩惱門也；隨入一門者，即入一解脫智慧門也。為此隨緣起行，各求解脫。汝何以乃將非有緣之要行，障惑於我？然我之所愛，即是我有緣之行，即非汝所求。汝之所愛，即是汝有緣之行，亦非我所求。是故各隨所樂而修其行者，必疾得解脫也。」
Question: "Should there be people of differing understanding and practice, of deviant and mixed views, who come to cause confusion, raising various doubts and objections, saying that rebirth cannot be attained — or saying: 'You sentient beings, across boundless kalpas and in this present life alike, through the karma of body, speech, and mind, have committed against every ordinary being and sage the ten evils, the five heinous crimes, the four grave offenses, slander of the Dharma, the offenses of an icchantika, breaking the precepts, breaking right view, and have not yet been able to eliminate these offenses entirely. Yet these very offenses bind one to the evil destinies of the three realms — how, then, could a single lifetime of cultivating merit and recollecting the Buddha possibly bring one into that unconditioned, birthless land, there to attain realization permanently, in the stage of non-retrogression?'"
Answer: "The buddhas' own teachings and practices are more numerous than the sands and the dust, according with the countless different capacities and affinities of beings, following their own varied dispositions rather than any single form. Consider, for instance, what ordinary people in this world can see and trust with their own eyes: light is able to dispel darkness; emptiness is able to contain what exists; earth is able to bear and nourish; water is able to give rise to moisture; fire is able to both create and destroy. All such things are called phenomena that depend upon their own counterparts, visible directly to the eye, differing by the thousands and the ten thousands — how much more so, then, should the Buddha-dharma's own inconceivable power lack for manifold benefits of its own?
"Wherever one exits through a single gate, one exits thereby a single gate of affliction; wherever one enters through a single gate, one enters thereby a single gate of liberating wisdom. For this very reason, each being takes up practice according to their own conditions, each seeking liberation in their own way. Why, then, should you take up some essential practice to which you yourself have no karmic affinity, and use it to obstruct and confuse me? What I myself cherish is the very practice to which I have karmic affinity — it is simply not what you yourself are seeking. What you yourself cherish is the very practice to which you have karmic affinity — it is likewise not what I myself am seeking. It is for this very reason that, should each person cultivate the practice they themselves delight in, according to their own affinity, they shall swiftly attain liberation."
What makes Shandao's own response distinctive is what it does not do: he never disputes the challenger's own diagnosis — that ordinary beings genuinely carry the weight of the ten evils, the five heinous crimes, and the rest. Instead, his answer shifts the entire frame from severity to fit, arguing that the sheer variety of the Buddha's own teachings, "more numerous than the sands and the dust," exists precisely because no single path suits every capacity. His closing move — refusing to let the challenger's own chosen practice be treated as the only legitimate gate, since "what I myself cherish... is simply not what you yourself are seeking" — reframes the entire dispute as a mismatch of affinity rather than a disagreement about doctrine, and quietly defends this teaching's own claim on beings the challenger considers too burdened by offense to qualify for it at all.
Part 80 Complete
This closes Part 80. Part 81 opens Shandao's own answer in its most memorable form — not further argument, but a parable he offers "to guard the practitioner's own faith against the danger of outer deviance and differing views": a traveler walking west between two rivers, one of fire, one of water, with only a narrow white path between them.
Continue to Part 81 — The Two Rivers and the White Path →