Notes Beside the Bamboo Window — Second Collection, Part 7
A short but weighty trio of entries under one running title — "The Pure Land's Difficulty of Belief" — in which Zhuhong defends the Pure Land teaching's own doctrinal depth against those who dismiss it as fit only for the simple-minded, citing his own classification of the Amitābha Sutra and the striking fact that the Flower Ornament Sutra's own bodhisattvas vow rebirth in the Pure Land rather than their own Flower Treasury World.
92. 淨土難信之法一 — The Pure Land's Difficulty of Belief, First Note
A defense of the Pure Land teaching's own depth against the charge that it is a path fit only for simple, uneducated believers.
淺淨土者，以為愚夫愚婦所行道。天如斥之，謂非鄙愚夫愚婦，是鄙馬鳴、龍樹、文殊、普賢也。故予作《彌陀經疏鈔》，乃發其甚深旨趣。則又以為解此經不宜太深，是畢竟愚夫愚婦所行道也。佛謂此經難信之法，不其然乎？
Those who look down on the Pure Land teaching consider it a path followed only by foolish men and women. Master Tianru rebuked this view, saying that such people do not merely look down on foolish men and women — they look down on Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna, Mañjuśrī, and Samantabhadra themselves. This is exactly why I wrote my own Commentary on the Amitābha Sutra — to bring out this teaching's truly profound meaning.
And yet there are also those who hold that this sutra should not be explained too deeply, since it is, after all, only a path for foolish men and women to follow. But did not the Buddha himself call this very sutra "a teaching difficult for the world to believe"? Is this not spoken precisely for people like these, who doubt the Pure Land?
Master Tianru (Weize, d. 1354) was a genuine Yuan-dynasty Chan master in Zhongfeng Mingben's own lineage — the same Zhongfeng already cited in entry 75 above — whose Questions and Answers on the Pure Land is the actual source of the rebuke Zhuhong quotes here; the four names invoked, Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna, Mañjuśrī, and Samantabhadra, are traditionally honored within Huayan lineage histories as patriarchs of that very tradition, making the charge of "looking down on them" a pointed one against readers who might otherwise consider themselves sophisticated Huayan students.
93. 淨土難信之法二 — The Pure Land's Difficulty of Belief, Second Note
A response to two further objections to Zhuhong's own commentary — that the Amitābha Sutra's text is too simple to merit deep exegesis, and that it belongs to a period of the Buddha's teaching too early to be classified as Perfect Teaching.
或謂不宜太深者，此經本淺，鑿之使深，故不可。噫！《法華》以治世語言皆即實相，而此經橫截生死，直登不退，寧不及治世語言乎？或又謂此經屬方等，《疏》以為圓，則不可。噫！《觀經》亦方等攝也，智者圓之。《圓覺》亦方等攝也，圭峰圓之。《彌陀經》予特以為分圓，何不可之有？佛言難信之法，不其然乎？
Some say this sutra should not be explained too deeply because its own text is inherently simple, and to dig for depth where none exists is therefore wrong. Ah! The Lotus Sutra teaches that even ordinary worldly speech is itself ultimate reality — and this sutra cuts crosswise through birth and death and leads directly to the stage of non-retrogression; how could it possibly fall short of mere worldly speech?
Some also say this sutra belongs to the Vaipulya period of the Buddha's teaching, and that my own Commentary is wrong to classify it as Perfect Teaching. Ah! The Contemplation Sutra likewise belongs to the Vaipulya period, and yet Zhiyi himself classified it as Perfect; the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment likewise belongs to the Vaipulya period, and yet Guifeng classified it as Perfect. I have classified the Amitābha Sutra only as partially Perfect — what could possibly be wrong in that? Did not the Buddha call this teaching difficult to believe? Is this not spoken precisely for people like these?
The five-period classification Zhuhong invokes here (Flower Ornament, Deer Park, Vaipulya, Prajñā, and Lotus-Nirvana) is Tiantai Zhiyi's own standard scheme for organizing the Buddha's lifetime of teaching by relative depth; Zhuhong's argument is careful and precise rather than merely assertive — he does not claim the Amitābha Sutra escapes its assigned period, but points out that two other universally respected texts (the Contemplation Sutra and the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment) share that same period classification and were still judged "Perfect" by their own most eminent commentators, Zhiyi and Guifeng Zongmi respectively.
94. 淨土難信之法三 — The Pure Land's Difficulty of Belief, Third Note
Two further pieces of evidence for the Pure Land's genuine depth: a healing spirit's liberation gate in the Flower Ornament Sutra explained through Buddha-recitation, and the striking fact that Samantabhadra himself vows rebirth in the Pure Land rather than his own Flower Treasury World.
《華嚴》第十主藥神，得念佛滅一切眾生病解脫門。清涼《疏》謂：「趣稱一佛，三昧易成，敬一心濃，餘盡然矣。況心凝覺路，闇蹈大方者哉！」前數語弘讚專念，後二句入理深談，誰謂淨土淺也！《行願品》廣陳不可說世界海、不可說佛菩薩功德，臨終乃不求生華藏而求生極樂，誰謂淨土淺也！聖賢垂訓如是，而人自淺之，佛言難信之法，不其然乎？
The tenth of the Medicine Spirits described in the Flower Ornament Sutra attained the liberation gate of extinguishing all sentient beings' illness through Buddha-recitation. Master Qingliang's own Commentary explains: "Reciting a single buddha's name brings samādhi easily to completion; when reverence and single-mindedness deepen, everything else naturally follows in kind. How much more so, then, when the mind gathers itself upon the path to awakening, and silently treads the great and boundless Way!" The first lines here praise single-minded recitation; the last two enter deeply into ultimate principle — who, then, could call the Pure Land a shallow teaching?
The Chapter on the Vows of Samantabhadra extends at length upon inconceivable oceans of world-systems and the inconceivable merit of buddhas and bodhisattvas — and yet at the very end, it teaches that one should aspire, at the moment of death, not to be reborn in the Flower Treasury World, but in the Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss instead. Who, then, could call the Pure Land a shallow teaching? Sages and worthies have handed down this teaching with such clarity, and yet people still take it as something shallow. Did not the Buddha call this a teaching difficult for the world to believe? Is this not spoken precisely for people like these?
Master Qingliang is Chengguan, the fourth patriarch of the Huayan school already praised elsewhere in this collection as "the reincarnation of Mañjuśrī" (entry 65 above); the observation that closes this trio — that Samantabhadra's own closing vow in the Flower Ornament Sutra's climactic chapter directs rebirth toward the Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss rather than the Flower Treasury World that gives the sutra its name — was already the central textual evidence Master Tianru used in entry 92 to argue that dismissing the Pure Land amounts to dismissing Huayan's own greatest bodhisattva.