---
title: "阿彌陀經疏鈔問辯 · 問答"
description: "《阿弥陀经疏钞问辩》是明代高僧袾宏（莲池大师）所著的一部佛教经典注释。袾宏是净土宗的重要代表人物，生活在明朝中后期，以弘扬净土法门著称。该书是对《阿弥陀经》的深入疏解与问答辩难，系统阐释了净土信仰的核心教义，包括念佛往生、极乐世界的殊胜等内容。作为净土宗的重要文献，它融合了禅净思想，在佛教史上影响深远，至今仍被奉为修学净土法门的权威指南，对推动净土信仰在中国民间的普及起到了关键作用。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcxh9xo30bojlc04qcxcok72"
---

問：念佛之心，無雜無間，即精進度。何故乃云「不退墮」耶？

> Question: When the mind of Buddha Recitation is free of distraction and interruption, that is the perfection of Diligence. Why then do you speak of "not falling back"?

答：將謂精進乃能不退墮，非精進即是不退墮耶？辯此有二：一者，亦可即是不退。何以故？雖常言：精不雜、進不退。然此二字，總之成就「進」義，古云「精進度懈怠」是也。「進」與「退」對，故精進即不退。二者，此重念佛普攝諸度，不重訓詁「精進」二字。況既云精進乃能不退，今念佛之人，永不退墮，則念佛即成精進，不必更求精進矣。如所問，乃是精進念佛，非念佛即精進。

> Answer: Are you saying that it is only through diligence that one can avoid falling back, and that diligence itself is not the same as non-regression? There are two ways to address this: First, diligence can indeed be non-regression. Why? Although it is commonly said that "jing" means undefiled and "jin" means non-regression, these two characters together ultimately accomplish the meaning of "progress." As the ancients said, "The perfection of diligence overcomes laziness." Since "progress" is the opposite of "regression," diligence is itself non-regression. Second, the emphasis here is on how Buddha Recitation universally encompasses all the perfections, not on philological analysis of the two characters "jingjin." Moreover, if it is said that only through diligence can one avoid regression, then since the person who practices Buddha Recitation never regresses, Buddha Recitation itself becomes diligence, and there is no need to seek diligence elsewhere. According to your question, it would be "diligent Buddha Recitation," not "Buddha Recitation is itself diligence."

問：《華嚴》八地、圓教初住，皆無生忍。天台云：「圓教之機，一生有登十地者。」《華嚴》善財、《法華》龍女、禪宗諸祖，即其人也。何故雷同，皆難造入？

> Question: In the Avatamsaka Sutra, the eighth ground and the initial abiding of the Perfect Teaching both attain the acceptance of non-arising. Tiantai says: "For those of the Perfect Teaching capacity, within a single lifetime there are those who reach the tenth ground." Sudhana in the Avatamsaka, the dragon girl in the Lotus Sutra, and the patriarchs of the Chan school are such people. Why is it that these are all alike and yet all difficult to enter?

答：八地始名真得無生，是華嚴宗語。據《華嚴》，則初地以去，尚未云真得，況初住耶？豈不是聖且難之？只歎其難得，不說定無人得也。彼一生十地者，誰敢抑之不令造入耶？又禪宗諸祖，大有差等，談何容易。

> Answer: It is the Huayan school's teaching that only at the eighth ground does one truly realize non-arising. According to the Huayan Sutra, even those from the first ground onward are not yet said to have truly attained it—how much less those at the first abiding? Isn't this indeed a matter of the noble path being difficult? The passage merely laments how hard it is to attain; it does not say that absolutely no one can attain it. As for those who traverse the ten grounds in a single lifetime—who would dare to hold them back and prevent them from advancing? Moreover, the various patriarchs of the Chan school differ greatly in their levels; it is no easy thing to speak of.

問：若以五法對三自性者，應以名相對依他，妄想對徧計。《楞伽》、《唯識》，皆如此說。今何不然？《楞伽》云：「彼名及相，是妄想自性生。」請觀「生」之一字，此即依他起自性，分別緣所生也。非謂名相即是妄想。乃是妄想之所生耳。如言舍利弗，鶖之所生。豈子即鶖耶？

> Question: If we match the five dharmas with the three natures, then "name" and "form" should correspond to the dependent nature, and "false imagination" to the imagined nature. The Lankavatara Sutra and the Consciousness-Only teachings both say this. Why do you now disagree? The Lankavatara Sutra says: "Those names and forms are born from the imagined nature." Please look carefully at the single word "born." This refers to the dependent nature, which arises from the conditions of discrimination. It does not mean that names and forms are themselves false imagination. Rather, they are what false imagination produces. For example, when we say "Shariputra," it means "born from a myna bird." Surely the son is not the myna bird himself, is he?

答：謂名相等三性錯配，又謂名相為妄想所生，非名相即是妄想，而引《楞伽》之文以證。然《楞伽》乃云：「彼名及相，是妄想自性。」則名相屬徧計。又分明下箇「是」字，而無「生」字，魏譯、唐譯皆同，其分配與汝所說相反。我依古譯直述，是金口所出，將非之耶？將無別得梵本，而欲更為一譯耶？又言《楞伽》、《唯識》皆然。却是不曾見《楞伽》來，可駭也。且五法入三自性，本出自《楞伽》。賢首、清涼據《楞伽》判頓教，不據《唯識》也。今論頓教，正當用《楞伽》文，又不講《唯識論》，不必雜入。嗟乎！三譯文字，昭如日月。今是譯人錯耶？世尊錯耶？吾不得而知之矣。記取當來問彌勒。

> Answer: You claim that name and appearance are mismatched with the three natures, and further claim that name and appearance are produced by false imagining—though name and appearance are not themselves false imagining—and you cite the Lankavatara Sutra to prove it. But the Lankavatara Sutra actually says: "Those names and appearances are the very nature of false imagining." This means name and appearance belong to the imagined nature. Moreover, the text clearly has the word "are," not the word "produced." The Wei translation and the Tang translation are the same on this point. Their assignment of meaning is the opposite of what you say. I am simply stating directly what the ancient translation says—words that came from the Buddha's own golden mouth. Are you going to deny them? Or have you obtained some different Sanskrit manuscript and want to make yet another translation? You also say that both the Lankavatara and the Consciousness-Only teachings agree. But it is clear you have never even looked at the Lankavatara Sutra—how shocking. Besides, the five dharmas entering the three natures originally comes from the Lankavatara Sutra. Fazang and Qingliang used the Lankavatara Sutra to classify the sudden teaching; they did not rely on Consciousness-Only. Now, when discussing the sudden teaching, one should properly use the text of the Lankavatara Sutra, and since we are not discussing the Consciousness-Only treatise, there is no need to mix it in. Alas! The texts of the three translations shine as bright as the sun and moon. So tell me: is it the translators who are wrong, or the World-Honored One who is wrong? I cannot know. Remember this—when you meet Maitreya in the future, ask him.

問：引《大本》、《觀經》證圓義，有多違妨。一者引他成己妨。他經圓意，不關此故。二者前後相違妨。今疏前後多云此經勝於《大本》及《十六觀》，乃要中之要、妙中之妙故。三者分全混同妨。今疏判此為分圓，《妙宗》判彼為純圓故。四者觀念混同妨。此經持名，彼觀佛故。五者繁約混同妨。此經至要，彼文煩故。故知不應引彼為此證也。

> Question: Citing the Great Sutra and the Contemplation Sutra to prove the perfect teaching involves several contradictions. First, there is the problem of using one text to establish another—the perfect meaning of those other sutras has no bearing on this one. Second, there is the problem of internal inconsistency—throughout this commentary, it is repeatedly stated that this sutra surpasses both the Great Sutra and the Sixteen Contemplations, for it is the essence of the essential and the wondrous within the wondrous. Third, there is the problem of confusing the partial with the complete—this commentary judges this sutra as partially perfect, while the Miaozong judges that one as purely perfect. Fourth, there is the problem of confusing mindfulness of the name with visualization—this sutra involves holding the name, while that one involves contemplating the Buddha. Fifth, there is the problem of confusing the concise with the elaborate—this sutra is supremely essential, while that text is verbose. Therefore, one should know that those texts should not be cited as proof for this one.

答：初通引他成己妨。於中復二：一通《大本》。曰：二經一體，不名己他。良以《無量壽經》，五正譯、一參會，其本有六，皆號《大本》。而今經乃名《小本》。是同為一經，但言有多寡耳，何得判為己他？如所引《大本》：「或以一寶嚴樹，或以雜寶嚴樹。」則今經雖無此文，而其云「七重行樹」，實以四字攝純嚴、互嚴之義也。又所引《大本》：「無量寶華，出無量寶光。」則今經雖無此文，而其云「青黃赤白」，實以四種攝無量華、光之義也。故《疏鈔》屢言經中具有此義，但文省耳，正謂此也。是知《大本》當引，固不待論。二通《觀經》。曰：《觀經》稍疏，亦非異體。良以於文或無，亦於義實有。如所引《觀經》：佛既現六十萬億廣大之身，而又現丈六小身。則今經雖無此文，而壽無量、光無量，即廣大身故；「與諸聖眾現在其前」，即或現大身、或現小身故。例而推之，《觀經》有鳧、鴈、鴛鴦，豈今經之極樂，只白鶴、孔󳭋等耶？《觀經》有五百億樓閣，豈今經之極樂，只七重樓閣耶？《觀經》有觀音、勢至，豈今經之極樂，只彌陀一佛，而缺二侍耶？又反而論之，今經有七重欄楯，《觀經》無此語，豈彼之極樂，只行樹無欄楯耶？今經有菩薩眾無量無邊，《觀經》無此語，豈彼之極樂，只觀音、勢至二菩薩耶？如是參合，故云文互見，而義必周也。則《大本》原同一體，《觀經》亦復極親。引以為證。非引《圓覺》證《法華》，引《華嚴》證《涅槃》之比也。

> Answer: First, regarding the charge that citing other sutras to establish one's own case creates a conflict between self and other — this is not so. Within this, there are two parts. First, regarding the Larger Sutra. It is said: these two sutras are one body; they cannot be divided into self and other. Indeed, the \*Larger Sutra on Amitāyus\* has five proper translations and one comparative edition, making six versions in all, each called the "Larger Text." The present sutra is called the "Smaller Text." Since they are the same single scripture, differing only in whether the text is abridged or full, how can one judge them as self and other? Consider the passage cited from the Larger Text: "Some adorned trees with one kind of jewel, others adorned trees with mixed jewels." Although the present sutra lacks this specific passage, its phrase "seven rows of trees" actually encompasses in four characters the meaning of both single-jewel adornment and intermixed adornment. Again, consider the passage cited from the Larger Text: "Innumerable jeweled flowers emit innumerable jeweled lights." Although the present sutra lacks this passage, its phrase "blue, yellow, red, and white" actually encompasses in four colors the meaning of innumerable flowers and lights. Therefore the \*Commentary on the Amitābha Sutra\* repeatedly states that this sutra contains these meanings; it is only that the text is abbreviated — precisely this is what is meant. Thus we know that passages from the Larger Text should certainly be cited; this goes without saying. Second, regarding the \*Contemplation Sutra\*. It is said: the \*Contemplation Sutra\* is somewhat more distant, yet it is not a different body either. For where the text may lack something, the meaning is truly present. Consider the passage cited from the \*Contemplation Sutra\*: the Buddha manifested a vast body of six hundred billionfold \[units\], and also manifested a small body of sixteen feet. Although the present sutra lacks this passage, its "immeasurable lifespan and immeasurable light" are precisely the vast body; and "appearing before them together with all the sages" is precisely manifesting either a great body or a small body. Extending this reasoning: the \*Contemplation Sutra\* mentions ducks, geese, and mandarin ducks — would the Pure Land of the present sutra then have only white cranes and peacocks? The \*Contemplation Sutra\* mentions five billion pavilions — would the Pure Land of the present sutra then have only seven-tiered pavilions? The \*Contemplation Sutra\* mentions Guanyin and Dashizhi — would the Pure Land of the present sutra then have only Amitābha Buddha alone, lacking the two attendant bodhisattvas? And reasoning in reverse: the present sutra mentions seven-tiered railings, which the \*Contemplation Sutra\* does not — would its Pure Land then have only rows of trees and no railings? The present sutra mentions innumerable, boundless assemblies of bodhisattvas, which the \*Contemplation Sutra\* does not — would its Pure Land then have only the two bodhisattvas Guanyin and Dashizhi? Interweaving the texts in this way, we say that the wording appears reciprocally and the meaning is necessarily complete. Thus the Larger Text is originally of one body, and the \*Contemplation Sutra\* is likewise extremely close. Citing them as evidence is not comparable to citing the \*Complete Enlightenment Sutra\* to prove the \*Lotus Sutra\*, or citing the \*Avataṃsaka Sutra\* to prove the \*Nirvana Sutra\*.

二通前後相違妨。前言其同，後不曾言其異。只說尤為簡約，故稱要妙，以其簡而該也。非對散而名要，對麤而名妙也。

> The second point addresses the contradiction between the earlier and later parts: the earlier text spoke of their sameness, but the later part never mentioned their difference. It only says that this is especially concise and brief, which is why it is called essential and wondrous — because it is simple yet all-encompassing. It is not called "essential" in contrast to scattered teachings, nor called "wondrous" in contrast to coarse ones.

三通分全混同妨。此經雖曰分圓，正與《觀經》之圓不異。何以故？《觀經》對《華嚴》，亦分圓故。蓋是同分別教一乘之圓也。此「別」字，非「藏通別圓」之「別」也。

> The three classifications are fully mixed together without obstruction. Although this sutra is said to belong to the "distinct" and "perfect" teachings, its perfect teaching is no different from the perfect teaching of the Contemplation Sutra. Why? Because the Contemplation Sutra, when compared with the Avatamsaka Sutra, is also classified as distinct-perfect. It is the same perfect teaching of the distinct teaching of the One Vehicle. This word "distinct" is not the "distinct" in the four teachings of Pitaka, Shared, Distinct, and Perfect.

四通觀念混同妨。汝蓋以「念」字專屬持名。然《觀經》下品文云：「其人苦逼，不遑念佛。」豈非「觀」即是「念」乎？今經亦說光明無量，行樹、樓閣，種種莊嚴，豈非觀境乎？又持名、觀想，同出一心。一心觀想，一心持名，皆得名為念佛也。

五通繁約混同妨。上已詳陳言有多寡，義無差殊，不勞更辯矣。

噫！若入華藏玄門，則己他、前後，乃至繁簡，相即相入，不可思議。故此經名「不可思議」。

問：西竺之言，稱「梵語」者，乃本乎光音天人之所傳也。今言：「梵者，淨也。對華而言，文質之謂。」蓋不足以盡之。況彼梵音，豈有質而無文？此土華言，豈有文而無質？儒稱「文質彬彬，然後君子」。釋稱「文隨於義，義隨於文」。若彼質此文，則互有闕。《輔行》云：「古來諍競未生，西方之言，皆稱『胡語』。後因道士偽造《化胡經》，方以葱嶺之西為梵，葱嶺之東為胡。」今若以「淨」釋「梵」而為質，豈可以「亂」而釋「胡」，致使文、質俱喪也？

答：疏中「文質」，略借此間語而為影喻。意以梵者清白之相，華者文彩之相。殊無大故，何必費辭？然古人既取華對梵，必有義也，不可忽也。又引「文質彬彬」，甚為不當。文、質必兼，何以商尚質，周尚文耶？二代何以稱聖世耶？優波離之淨戒，迦旃延之文飾，二尊者不彬彬耶？蓋從其所重，固無妨也。又行之潔白者名「梵行」，音之古淡者名「梵音」，奚不可以「淨」而釋「梵」也？況以「淨」釋「梵」，出自古譯。清涼大師《華嚴疏》亦云：「梵是西域之音，具云『勃㘕摩』，此翻云『淨』。離染中極，故名為梵。」夫離染而言極者，正清淨之至也。又引文義相隨，以證文質。然「義」之一字，安可為「質」？華、梵尚不得稱文、質，文、義顧可稱文、質耶？又「胡」者，夷狄也。五天，贍部之中央，諸佛之生處。槩之為「胡」者，謬人之論，非僧所宜言也。又淨、亂何可相對？淨是染淨之淨，非動靜之靜。而云以「淨」釋「梵」，以「亂」釋「胡」，使文、質俱喪。何言之無謂也！

問：《妙宗》云：「教教四門，門門四悉。」今何以四悉為門？

答：凡能引人入道者，皆可言門，四悉亦門也。《妙宗》意謂教教各有四門，四門亦復各有四悉檀門也。無「門」字者，省文也。不信此言，更參考天台下尊宿。

問：經通五人所說。餘四佛印，即同佛說。今言佛說如聖王勅，不同臣下之言。有揚此抑彼之失。真諦釋《金光明經》，偏讚本典。智者云：「使愚者有忽他經之失，不宜偏讚。」今若云「菩薩因人」等者。《華嚴》多菩薩說，《維摩》不二法門皆菩薩說，《涅槃》夜叉說偈，《法華》仙人傳經，豈以人微而忽其道？經云：「依法不依人。」何得以人而判於法？若以人而判法者，則空生所說般若，應入《阿含》。如來所說小乘，應歸大教。此疑梗塞，願垂教之。

答：對臣子而尊君父，天理人情之至也。本非平肩人，何得謂之揚抑？若謂真諦偏讚《金光明》為失，則智者偏讚《法華》，亦乃有失耶？若云《法華》更無勝者，則《華嚴》其可抑耶？世尊於《法華》讚諸經之王，於《金光明經》亦讚諸經之王。隨宜而讚，皆是也。豈世尊亦有失耶？又云《華嚴》多菩薩說，至雜引夜叉等。然謂佛印者即同佛說則可，謂即是佛說則不可。今百官所出政令，凡已稟國王者，豈即名之為詔書耶？又菩薩等既與佛無別，何不自立，而待佛印？待佛印，則師資上下，了然辯矣。況今只明此是佛說，不同餘人。不曾非詆菩薩等，謂不得說經。何為作此無風起浪之語？助臣子與君父爭高，於天理不順，於人情不安，況佛法耶？又云空生般若，應入小乘等，亦非也。今論人不論法，非有羅漢說大法而我小之也。此等處本無人生疑，疑自今始矣。因疑此，并疑經，遂不信淨土，其慎辭哉！

問：毗婆尸佛，至釋迦時，九十一劫。何故言二？若言是大劫，應增一「大」字。況以大劫論之，八十小劫為一大劫，但一劫有餘耳。

答：何不看鈔中「首尾二劫」四字。七佛，三屬莊嚴劫尾，四屬賢劫首。是首尾二大劫否？首尾二大劫，正九十一小劫也。分明是大劫，何必更加「大」字？唐譯「成佛以來十劫」，云「十大劫」。什師止云「十劫」，即是十大劫也，亦不更加「大」字。又云止是一劫有餘。一劫有餘，非首尾二劫乎？思之。

問：何得說什師為千佛譯師，引父母為例？千佛父母，乃在佛世。況父母與子，及侍者等，此人不多，無他可並。惟權無實，無別所妨。今譯師則多，若羅什為千佛之譯師，則義淨、玄奘等例爾。若一切皆然，何貴乎羅什所譯，偏堪弘讚？若譯師既然，則禪、律等例爾。聖人既然，凡亦應爾。則大亂權實，是故不可。惟應守舊。

答：是何小視什師耶？因舉七佛，故曰「七佛以來」。若舉八佛、九佛、十佛，安知不曰「多佛以來譯經師」也？若定執七佛，則文殊亦定止是七佛師耶？釋迦亦定出自伽耶城，今方成佛，而非成佛以來無量無邊劫耶？又言必在佛世，是不知雖無文王猶興也。又引母佛、子佛、侍佛者無二人，而譯經者有多眾。夫母一，子一，則誠然矣。佛成道三十年，阿難始為侍者。佛弟子無量，三十年都無一人侍佛耶？侍佛者有多眾，則阿難亦無世世侍佛之理耶？又引義淨、玄奘等亦應爾，諸師、凡夫亦應爾，復大不然。譯師更無勝劣耶？聖凡更無分別耶？則今日四夷館通使，其智慧皆與什師等耶？又言七佛譯師，天人所說。然安知天人止見七佛，而未見七佛以前耶？如佛世老人求出家，而羅漢不知彼八萬劫前之善根。汝又安能測什師多劫之因緣耶？且鈔中初未嘗以舊說七佛為非，特以理度之，容有多佛譯經之理耳。昔人云：「旻法師，毗婆尸佛時即為法師。」又云：「毗婆尸佛早留心。」蓋遠指者，尋常以七佛為率，而非定限七佛也。《孟子》曰：「聖人百世之師也。」豈定限百世，而不能師二百、三百世耶？許可人者曰：「此五百僧善知識。」豈定限五百，而六百、七百便不可耶？讚老子云：「無世不出。」永嘉云：「吾早曾經多劫修。」何必不使什師寬一佛地耶？此語且置。《法華》稱富樓那「七佛以來說法第一」。又云：「九十億佛以來，說法人中，亦為第一。」是金口語否？試展卷一觀之。

問：顯教者，脩多羅是也。密教者，呪是也。何乃以梵語為密，華言為顯？為以東方不測西竺之言為密耶？為以梵語在彼即密耶？若在彼即密者，則西土無顯教。若此土不測彼言為密者，則此土典籍，傳至西土，未翻譯時，亦應云密。若未翻譯，則不可測。若已翻譯，是則可知。若爾，何故云呪者非下凡可測？

答：凡「稱理」二字下語句，須另著眼始得。蓋格外之譚，不可拘文滯相，逐逐然以訓詁之法而等例之也。況今非正釋經呪顯密時也。夫新學沙彌，莫不知經之為顯，呪之為密矣。寧知影略借喻，權實無方。反覆轉移，縱橫不礙。類而推之，世出世間，凡昭然易見者，皆可言顯也。凡幽然難知者，皆可言密也。且必以不可測為密，可測為顯乎？經中《法華》云：「是法非思量分別之所能解。」《維摩》云：「不知是何言，不知以何答。」涅槃會上，世尊拈華云眾，百萬人天，悉皆罔措。是經有時乎不可測也，則經反成密矣。呪中，「阿」字是毗盧全身，「吽」字是三解脫門。《文殊五字呪》，「阿」者無生義，「囉」者無染義。是呪有時乎可測也，則呪反成顯矣。故知汝言梵語為密，則西土無顯教。此方之言，西土不知，亦可言密。以此為難者，皆繇執泥訓詁「顯密」二字之過也。且「顯密」二字，是從來世間字義。欲發明經呪圓通者，取此二字配之。非許氏《說文》，及古篇韻家，曾訓詁云：顯者經也，密者呪也。則此二字，何為更不可別處一用？故云：凡昭然易見者皆可言顯，凡幽然難知者皆可言密也。試舉一例。《論語》云：「天下有道則見，無道則隱。」則「見」者「出」義，「隱」者「處」義。既「隱見」是「出處」，何得釋《中庸》「莫見乎隱」者，以「見」為明處，「隱」為暗處？「隱見」可以「明暗」、「出處」通用，「顯密」獨不可以經呪、華梵通用耶？

然此且據外書而言，若以內典言之，顯密者，非即半滿、新舊之類乎？既以小乘為半，大乘為滿矣，何又云「《悉曇章》生字之根本名半，餘章文字具足為滿」耶？是半、滿可通用也。既以佛王三界為新，輪王十善為舊矣，何又云「三德相即為新，三德不相即為舊」耶？是新、舊可通用也。然此猶據比例而言。若的就顯密言之，既以經為顯，呪為密矣，何又云：聲聞見八萬一人得道為顯，菩薩見無量阿僧祇人得道為密耶？是顯、密可通用也。何於華、梵而疑之？又此且就震旦，若通二土，亦可東土華顯而梵密，西土梵顯而華密也。

以上急為辯疑，作是煩碎語。如實而說，夜半正明，天曉不露，爾從何處辯顯密來？不見道：「蓮華荷葉報君知，出水何如未出時。江北江南問王老，一狐疑了一狐疑。」

問：前藏乘分攝中，言惟有二藏，一聲聞藏，二菩薩藏，而緣覺即攝入聲聞藏中。何故今阿難持緣覺藏耶？

答：二藏者，賢首、清涼依《攝論》及《莊嚴論》所出也。且合緣覺、聲聞為一藏，單菩薩為一藏，分合之常例也，有何不可？譬如兄弟三人，二人同居一宅，一人獨居一宅，亦何不可？而便謂既分二宅，不得名三兄弟耶？仲兄附季弟之宅，非謂無仲也。緣覺攝聲聞之藏，非謂無緣覺也。時合時分，固並行而不悖也。

問：《金剛疏》云：舍衛亦名舍婆提，此以人為名。昔有兄弟二人，名舍婆提，故立此名。今何故云「多賢人故」？

答：彼疏云兄弟二仙。夫世人兄弟聯登者，號多才之門。今兄弟俱證仙品。謂多賢之國，亦奚不可？

問：前以「無恃無怙」而釋「孤獨」，所引證者，亦應同上。《語》云：「君子周急不繼富。」此但無財，何謂無恃？

答：定以無財貧窮名「急」乎？夫言孤獨，意該貧窮。言貧窮，意該孤獨。鈔中「非不普慈」，其意甚明。何乃執泥「孤獨」二字，以辭害意？假使一人無父而大富，須達亦給之耶？假使一人有子而貧甚，須達以其非孤獨而不給之耶？今養濟院，俗曰孤老院。豈其皆無父無子而多財者耶？且鰥、寡、孤、獨，乃有四種。其鰥夫、寡婦，須達決所不給耶？至於孔子，又豈止周無財，而孤獨之輩皆在所棄耶？又「怙恃」是「玄序」中語，與此無涉，不可援引。

問：亡僧全戒，先見佛者。此但心見，非是見心，以佛色身對彼識故。若引華色見佛色身，善現見佛法身。此正見心，有何不可？

答：佛法即是佛心。此僧寧守戒死，不破戒生，得佛心矣。故《梵網》以戒為千佛心地也。得佛心者，是名見佛。且所云心見者，為以何心見佛乎？若是妄心，妄屬虗偽，不能見佛。若是真心，真無去來，真無生滅。無去無來，無生無滅，即佛法身。何得不名見心？又云以佛色身對彼識故，尤為不通。將謂彼既亡矣，彼識迅速，疾於人行，先往佛所而見佛之金色身乎？則何殊人死見閻羅也，安足取也？故須菩提之見佛，與此僧之見佛，均之見佛法身也，何得不名見心？

問：迦葉身光，映蔽餘光，使不現故，名曰「飲光」。何故云「色」？若吞餘色，應云「飲色」。何況色不可吞。以色對光，逾明顯故。

答：繇色有光。無金色者，光從何來？色不可吞，光獨可吞耶？夫「吞」之為義，體貼「飲」字。既知是映蔽之意。映蔽餘色，使光不現，即名「飲」耳。豈真吞噉入彼腹耶？拘執之病，一至於是。

問：「拘絺羅」下，應當言其入道因緣，然後論其答問第一。若不爾者，則似此人於外道法中，答問第一。

答：鈔中「繇精勤故」，正入道因緣也。以「精勤」二字，略攝多種因緣。又云恐濫外道論議。不知外道具四辯才否？況此專重發揚念佛，與會之眾，略敘而已。今日不作拘絺羅行實傳也。

問：「羅睺」下，應云是佛之子。然後消釋，義有所歸。若不云者，下諸文義，都無下落，而亦迷却此人所從。

答：試觀「佛為所障，不即出家」，及「指腹」等語，此人是佛子耶？佛姪耶？佛孫耶？尚復迷却所從耶？

問：「正宗」初科，廣明依正。此乃生信、發願、起行之境，今何故唯言生信境耶？

答：入道以信為主。經中說「若有信者」，又云「難信之法」。信該行、願故，信為道元功德母故。

問：此中應云：「須摩提，此云極樂。」然後乃以餘名綴之。何故不云本經「極樂」，但言他名耶？

答：經文若言「有世界名須摩提」，則應云「須摩提，此云極樂」。今經文乃言「有世界名極樂」，則應云「極樂者，梵語須摩提」。此不易之法也。況下文舉「安樂」、「安養」等餘名已竟，而以「極樂」總結。前後照應，明亦甚矣。

問：天台諸處所明四土，皆以同居為第一，乃至寂光第四。今何以寂光為第一耶？

答：從劣而勝，同居第一。從勝而劣，寂光第一。喻如登仕者先九品而至一品，序爵者先一品而至九品，皆可也。有時而言兄弟，有時而言弟兄，皆可也。今不講《四教儀》，不須費辭於無益之地。

問：經云：「無有眾苦，但受諸樂。」苦樂有於多種，應以四土簡之，如《妙宗鈔》說。今若直言無二死苦，故名極樂。但以寂光，失下三土。以寂光淨土方離二死故。九品往生，惟上上品，方分離變易。上中、上下，方離分段。其餘六品，二死全在。豈二死在，不名極樂耶？故須細釋，方免此妨。

答：多種苦樂，勝劣不同，自有鈔文在後。繇同居以至寂光，四種顯然，何謂不細釋也？今文總明無苦，故詳舉諸苦已竟，而以二苦結歎。言蓮華化生，則便離分段。一生不退，則終離變易也。然謂中、下六品，二死全在。「全」之一字，「死」之一字，大為不可。變易可說尚存，分段何云全在？略說有三：一者，分段乃有質有礙，故有生死。《大本》云：「生彼國者，皆清虗之身。」安得有分段死也？二者，只聞從蓮華中生，未聞於蓮華中死。故此經云：「及其人民，壽命無量。」《大本》云：「若我成佛，國中有情，壽有齊限者，不取正覺。」智者大師云：「生彼國者，即得壽命永劫，共佛菩薩齊等。」安得有分段死也？三者，死必有生，未聞彼國有死此一華中，別生彼一華中者。智者大師云：「但生彼國已，即得無生法忍，未有一人退落三界生死業縛者。」安得有分段死也？離生死苦，故願求生。生死同於娑婆，求生何益？慈雲懺主云：「彼國無復生死。」無為居士云：「彼國身非分段。」二公縱不足信，智者大師猶不足信乎？若據伏惑、斷惑，而曰未斷惑者有分段死，乃此土修行則然耳。豈不聞淨土是帶惑往生，故殊勝異常也。如極樂與諸世界等，何智者云：「釋迦佛時，大有眾生見佛，不得聖果者。彌勒出世亦爾。」而獨讚極樂也？況極樂果報不可思議，毋以名相拘之。

問：古人以「夏仍飛雪，冬積堅冰」，釋「清涼山」。有人難云：「若爾，應云清冷。」故知「涼」之與「冷」，宜應別焉。

答：夏仍飛雪，冬積堅冰，不得云「清涼」者，此齊東語也。夫五臺夏雪冬冰，至今猶然。而古稱萬菩薩所居，何無一菩薩為正其錯，改作「清冷山」耶？以其曾無炎暑，故號清涼，正「涼」、「冷」通用也。又曰不寒不熱，乃名清涼。寧知不寒不熱，則和之謂耳。春溫夏熱，總之屬陽。秋涼冬冷，總之屬陰，故可通用也。何必瑣瑣焉較「涼」、「冷」二字於無益之地，亦惑矣。又《法數》釋唐譯「清冷」，亦曰「清瀅涼冷」。

問：「清涼」、「潤澤」，不可以「劫火不可使其熱、涸」等銷之。何則？萬法從緣，變化不測。真如性非生滅，尚自隨緣。淨土雖曰唯心，寧無轉變？若不轉變，是頑礙物，何足為妙？是故經云：「欲冷則冷，欲煖則煖，欲滿欲淺，皆隨人意。」故知不必以不熱、不涸而釋「清冷」、「潤澤」。

答：若只平常說箇清冷、潤澤，凡水皆然，何得西方獨擅功德之名也？如必以不變為頑礙之物。佛言：「劫火所燒時，我此土安隱。」是亦可謂之頑礙耶？例而推之，油鼎不能爛惠公之手，汝縱以為頑礙手。烈𦦨不能燔摩騰之經，可亦以為頑礙經耶？猶未也。鬼母傾家屬，不能啟如來之鉢。外道誦千呪，不能飛稠師之衣。文殊盡神力，不能出女子之定。日可令冷，月可令熱，不能易四諦之法。汝以為披頑礙衣，持頑礙鉢，入頑礙定，說頑礙法耶？劫火洞然毫末盡，青山依舊白雲中。是則此土尚不曾移易一絲毫許，而云淨土寧無轉變可乎？《無量壽經論》云：「勝過三界道，究竟如虗空。」虗空還可轉變否？水、火、風難，大三災所不能動之地，故勝過三界也。又引寶池隨意之文以證轉變，尤為不可。寶池是自心受用之樂，劫火是外難侵逼之苦。外難可侵，則繇境不繇心矣，尚得為隨意轉變乎？果如汝言，寶池必可乾涸，金地必可銷鎔，行樹必可摧殘，樓閣必可傾毀，然後為妙土耶？又前言二死全在，今言劫火可燒，則極樂乃成穢土耳，豈理也哉！

問：五方之屬五行，乃震旦之世數也。於其西域，尚未盡通，況十萬億土之外極樂乎？若極樂在娑婆之西，而屬庚辛金者。則從是西方已去，不可說不可說佛剎，皆在娑婆之西，皆屬庚辛金，盡雨白華，理豈然乎？若西方屬金，而雨白華。娑婆在極樂之東，應屬甲乙木，而常雨青華。何故佛說《法華》，而雨大小赤白？何況極樂蓮開四色，而更有間雜等耶？故知不應以此五行，而判彼佛土也。

答：鈔文先敘多種雜色天華，正意已竟，後出言外餘意，故安「亦可」二字，言亦可西方屬金，以表白業，蓋取雜色中之白華。何曾說彼國純白華耶？如此分別，何必引蓮開四色而為證也？又此經單舉白華以該餘色，故微露世尊巧妙勸導之神機耳。可與知者道，未易與拘士譚也。棗柏以八卦判方隅，其世界亦不少，未可議其為非也。如以娑婆西去，世界無量，不得皆名西方。意以東看成西，西看成東。不知《華嚴》以東方表不動智，文殊從東方無量剎來，其國皆名不動。夫既以東方為不動，則娑婆看之成東，彼世界外看之乃成西耳，何得仍名不動？善財南詢，以南方為正位，意亦如是。噫！若入華藏玄門，盡世界可名西，盡天華可名白。正西之時，不礙五方齊現。正白之時，不妨五色爛然。他方他色，即入融通，亦復如是。

問：自歸於佛，當願眾生。此則以他對己而稱為「自」。自為能歸，佛為所歸。何故以歸依自佛釋之？禪宗元有此語，恐難施於教乘。理論則可，事則不去。

答：這裏是什麼去處，說能說所？又云禪宗難施於教。低聲低聲，不獨迷禪，兼亦迷教矣。何謂迷禪？無佛處不得住，有佛處急走過。試買草鞋行脚三十年，抱著箇「能歸」，走盡天涯覓「所歸」去。如何是佛？即汝便是。汝既是佛，則為所歸。能歸者畢竟在甚麼處？何謂迷教？《華嚴》云：「念念自心，常有佛成正覺。」《法華》云：「自知當作佛。」《圓覺》云：「始知眾生，本來成佛。」而四弘誓云：「自性佛道誓願成。」豈不覽也？又既云理論、事論，何不看此是「稱理」下語？而復云於理可，於事不可。判禪、教為兩途，隔事、理成二物。悲夫！

問：經云：「轉輪聖王百千種樂，不如忉利天一音之美。乃至他化天百千種樂，不如極樂樹中一音之美。」此中以多為能況，以少為所況，乃是以多況少。何故云以少況多？若云極樂一音，勝如他化百千種樂，此乃以少況多也。

答：疏云「以少況多」，釋今經也。今經先言極樂風樹之音，後言百千種樂，正以少況多故。鈔中乃引《大本》，則先人天，後極樂，方是以多況少耳。何不審也？雖然，以少況多，以多況少。將天比地，將地比天。朝暮四三，爭論且止。

問：《起信疏》云：不退有三。初則十信初心，未嘗斷惑，位非不退。但生彼國，無有退緣，是故不退。後之二種，方是斷惑不退位人。此如天台所判九品，其義是同。故知生彼土人，雖然皆名「䟦致」，初一種多。要至無生，萬中一二。何故槩云頓超，而勝四教諸不退者？弘讚大乘，理則應爾。抑揚太過，恐生諍競。

答：《起信》三種不退，鈔中自開，不須援引。今是總明不退，以讚念佛殊勝功德也。且四教都言到某處方不退，則未到時，應有退緣。此經直言不退，是但生彼國，畢竟當證無生，故異諸教。豈貶諸教為不美也？蓋世尊悲心太切，既說諸教，猶恐利鈍不一，或墮退緣。今以一法該羅，更無退者。乃相助諸教，速成弘濟，非與諸教諍勝負也。當名和合，云何反說起諍？況前八地文中，說無生極易。今此䟦致文中，又說無生極難。何前倨而後恭，忽揚而忽抑也？豈不是諍競？

問：須陀洹七生者，分段生死也。一生補處者，惟有一分無明，一變易生死也。故圓教初地，至妙覺位，有十一生，皆約變易而論。所以《法華》有「增道損生」之說。故知二種生死，不可雷同。豈得以須陀洹與補處並？生西方者，補處甚難。下品生人，至阿羅漢，尚經多劫。何況七生？而須陀洹位在中品。

大師慈心太煞，讚經可，然再宜緩欵，使他莫測。

答：鈔中引三果、四果聖人，去佛處尚遠，正比況讚歎一生補處之難及耳。殊無須陀洹並於補處之意。來說與鈔文略不相蒙。今此駁難，反成我義矣，奇哉！況釋經貴圖令人易知，何必使他莫測。