Notes Beside the Bamboo Window — Third Collection, Part 21

There was a lay scholar surnamed Bao who recited the Lotus Sutra and the Śūraṅgama Sutra daily without fail. After a long time, having come to feel fluent and confident in his own understanding, he composed a treatise called On the West, consisting of three sections structured as answers to a visitor's questions. The first section still spoke reasonably enough, though it hinted that the Western Pure Land was not truly worth seeking rebirth in; the second and third sections went much further, condemning outright anyone who wished for rebirth there. Some urged me to write a refutation. I recalled that Chan Master Konggu once said that the words of a mistaken person are no more worth arguing with than a woodcutter's or herdsman's idle singing. But what Bao now argues draws on genuine principles of Chan teaching, and so persuades people all the more easily — leading sentient beings into doubt and error, and causing them to abandon their own aspiration for rebirth. The harm this could do is not small, and so I can no longer remain silent!

In his first section, he divides the Western Pure Land into three grades: the first is the West attained by great bodhisattvas such as Mañjuśrī, Samantabhadra, Aśvaghoṣa, and Nāgārjuna; the second is the West attained by spiritual teachers such as Master Huiyuan and Master Yongming, and by worthy laymen such as Su Shi and Yang Jie; the third is the West attained by ordinary, mediocre, or even evil beings and animals. This account sounds plausible enough on its surface, but the ninefold classification of rebirth is already stated explicitly in the sutras, as clear as the sun and moon suspended in the midday sky — why would one need Bao's separate threefold scheme on top of it? It is as though, once a sovereign has established the law of the land and all nations honor it, some rustic commoner in the hills should presume to draft his own separate code — is that acceptable? This is his first error. The Buddha's teaching of nine grades reflects the fact that the Western Pure Land is not actually two separate lands at all; it is simply that different beings have different capacities, so that those reborn there naturally sort themselves into nine grades. Bao's account instead claims that the West was originally divided into three separate lands, each awaiting its own separate class of being — which does not accord with the sutras at all. This is his second error.

He further claims: "When teachers like Yongming and Huiyuan, or worthy men like Su Shi and Yang Jie, sought rebirth there, this was in truth not for their own benefit at all, but purely for the benefit of others." But seeking rebirth in that land is precisely for the sake of drawing near to the Tathāgata, in hope of gaining supreme benefit oneself. Setting aside the great bodhisattvas for the moment, were figures like Su Shi and Yang Jie really so complete in their own bodhisattva attainment that they sought the Pure Land only to save others, with no benefit sought for themselves at all? The verses of the Chapter on Universal Worthy's Vows themselves say: "Personally beholding the Tathāgata's boundless light, receiving in his very presence the prophecy of my own future buddhahood" — if seeking such a prophecy is not seeking one's own benefit, what is it? This is his third error. He also says: "Sage and ordinary being share the same essence; it is only delusion and awakening that temporarily divide them into higher and lower. Yet the moment one turns the light of awareness back upon oneself, sage and ordinary being become, as quickly as turning one's palm, utterly different from one another." But if turning the light back upon oneself reveals the shared essence of sage and ordinary being, how can it then be said that this same act makes them utterly different? He immediately follows by asking, "Can they really share the same essence?" — contradicting his own words outright. This is his fourth error. He also says: "One should not cling to the notion of a self in wishing to be reborn in that land." Yet the Buddha himself, out of compassionate concern, repeatedly and earnestly exhorted beings to aspire to rebirth there — is the Buddha, then, teaching people to cling to the notion of a self? This is his fifth error.

As for the second and third sections, his denunciations grow still more extreme, and his errors more severe still. He writes: "Those who now direct the Dharma treat only the Pure Land as the one true matter, taking only this as real." Does this mean he considers the Pure Land itself to be unreal? Does he mean the Buddha's own teaching of the Pure Land is a deceitful lie? Not believing that a Golden-Colored World truly exists is precisely the error the Śūraṅgama Sutra itself condemns — and yet Bao, who recites the Śūraṅgama daily, has arrived at exactly this nihilistic view. This is his sixth error. He also writes: "'One-pointed and undistracted mind' does not mean holding fast to the Name with every thought fixed upon it. As for those who do practice by holding the Name, such people are everywhere; I have personally seen several who recited the Buddha's name day and night, confirmed even by several venerable teachers, who nevertheless all later fell into demonic entanglement beyond any hope of rescue." But holding fast to the Name is the Buddha's own teaching — does this mean the Buddha himself misled these several people into demonic entanglement? We likewise see people who practice Chan meditation without reciting the Buddha's name fall prey to demonic states — how does he explain that? The sutras state that those who attain rebirth through Buddha-recitation reach the stage of non-retrogression, and so must necessarily enter the ranks of the sages; the Buddha himself sanctions this entry into sagehood, and yet Bao takes it instead for entanglement with demons. This is his seventh error.

He also writes: "What is called 'one-pointed mind' is simply the mind each person already possesses by nature — inherently wondrous, inherently complete in itself, with nothing whatsoever beyond it." But the sutra text explicitly says "holding fast to the Name, one-pointed and undistracted" — by what right does he strip away the first four characters of that phrase and speak only of "one-pointed mind" alone? If he were speaking without reference to the sutra at all, simply offering his own view of mind in the abstract, that would be one thing; but this phrase came from the Buddha's own golden mouth, true words and real words — is the Buddha mistaken, and Bao here to correct him? The Lotus Sutra itself teaches people to "call upon the name of Avalokiteśvara with one-pointed mind" — how does he account for that as well? This is his eighth error. He also says: "To practice according to this method is certain to lead into a heterodox path." Having earlier called it demonic entanglement, he now calls it a heterodox path — is Buddha-recitation truly so harmful? Why, then, did the Buddha himself never forbid people from reciting his name, leaving it instead for Bao to forbid? This is his ninth error.

He also says: "The ancients of old first exhorted people to attain the root, and only afterward exhorted them toward rebirth." But seeking rebirth through Buddha-recitation is, by its very nature, a matter of beginning with lower learning in order to reach the higher attainment — does it make sense to reach the higher attainment first and only then begin the lower learning? Would anyone claim that a man first passes at the very top of the imperial examinations and rises to the rank of chief minister, and only afterward begins studying the Six Classics, the Analects, and the Mencius, learning to compose the essays required for the examinations in the first place? This is his tenth error. He also says: "If the Buddha-dharma really came down to no more than this, then a single scroll of the Amitābha Sutra would be enough — and if that alone were sufficient, who could not become a teacher of gods and men, who could not be called a spiritual guide?" But the great Mahāyāna sutras — the Lotus, the Śūraṅgama, the Avataṃsaka, the Prajñāpāramitā — are recited and expounded without a single day's interruption; who among their practitioners clings exclusively to the Amitābha Sutra alone while sweeping aside all the others? And in any case, one need hardly fear that anyone has truly, genuinely relied on a single sutra alone — should someone actually rely on a single sutra so completely as to attain the Buddha-recitation samādhi through it, what disgrace would there be in calling such a person a spiritual guide? This is his eleventh error. He also says: "The buddha-lands are without limit — if one teaches people to seek rebirth exclusively in a single one of them, will not all the other buddha-lands feel neglected and cold?" How can he fail to realize that were beings as numerous as motes of dust all to be reborn in that one land, its numbers would not thereby increase; and were not a single being among that same infinite number ever reborn there, its numbers would not thereby decrease either? What coldness, what warmth, what silence, what clamor could there possibly be? This is nothing but a childish view, a twisted argument. This is his twelfth error.

Countless sutras and treatises praise the Western Pure Land; countless sages and worthy men throughout history have sought rebirth in that land — and Bao alone, of all people, heaps repeated slander upon it. How can he not fear the karmic consequences of such speech? When this layman first came to the faith, his sincerity was deep and genuine, and I was truly fond of him for it; to see him come to this now fills me with real concern for him.