第二疑
Second Doubt
問：「諸法體空，本來無生，平等寂滅。今乃捨此求彼，生西方彌陀淨土，豈不乖理哉？又經云：『若求淨土，先淨其心，心淨故即佛土淨。』此云何通？」
Question: "All phenomena are inherently empty, originally unborn, equal and quiescent. Yet now we abandon this to seek that, aspiring to be reborn in Amitabha's Pure Land in the West. Does this not contradict the principle? Moreover, the sutra says: 'If you wish to attain a pure land, first purify your mind. When the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is pure.' How do we reconcile this?"
答：「釋有二義：一者、總答；二者、別答。總答者，汝若言：『求生西方彌陀淨土，則是捨此求彼，不中理。』者，汝執住此，不求西方，則是捨彼著此，此還成病，不中理也。又轉計云：『我亦不求生彼，亦不求生此。』者，則斷滅見。故《金剛般若經》云：『須菩提！汝若作是念，發阿耨菩提者，說諸法斷滅相。莫作是念！何以故？發菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相。』
Answer: There are two ways to explain this: first, a general explanation; second, a specific explanation.
The general explanation is this: If you say, "Seeking rebirth in Amitabha's Pure Land of the West means abandoning this world to pursue that one—this is unreasonable," then your insistence on remaining here and not seeking the Western Land is itself abandoning that to cling to this. This too becomes a fault and is unreasonable.
Furthermore, if you then argue, "I seek rebirth neither there nor here," that is the view of annihilation. As the *Diamond Sutra* states: "Subhuti, if you think, 'One who has set forth the mind of supreme enlightenment teaches the annihilation of all phenomena,' do not think so. Why? One who has set forth the mind of enlightenment does not teach the annihilation of phenomena."
「二、別答者，夫不生、不滅者，於生緣中，諸法和合，不守自性，求於生體，亦不可得，此生生時無所從來，故名不生。不滅者，諸法散時，不守自性，言我散滅，此散滅時去無所至，故言不滅。非謂因緣生外，別有不生、不滅。亦非不求生淨土，喚作無生。為此，《中論》偈云：『因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦名為假名，亦名中道義。』又云：『諸法不自生，亦不從他生，不共不無因，是故知無生。』又《維摩經》云：『雖知諸佛國，及與眾生空，而常修淨土，教化諸群生。』又云：『譬如有人，造立宮室，若依空地，隨意無礙；若依虛空，終不能成。』諸佛說法，常依二諦，不壞假名而說諸法實相。智者熾然求生淨土，達生體不可得，即是真無生，此謂心淨故即佛土淨。愚者為生所縛，聞生即作生解，聞無生即作無生解，不知生者即是無生，無生即是生。不達此理，橫相是非，嗔他求生淨土，幾許誤哉！此則是謗法罪人，邪見外道也。」
**2. The Specific Explanation:**
What is meant by "neither arising nor ceasing"? When conditions for arising come together, all dharmas, lacking a fixed nature of their own, converge. If you search for a substantial essence of this arising, you cannot find one. This "arising" does not come from anywhere when it occurs; therefore, it is called "non-arising."
What is meant by "non-ceasing"? When dharmas disperse, they do not maintain a fixed nature declaring, "I am dispersing and ceasing." This dispersal and cessation do not go anywhere; therefore, it is called "non-ceasing."
This does not mean there is a separate "non-arising, non-ceasing" outside of conditioned arising. Nor does it mean that not seeking rebirth in the Pure Land is called "non-arising."
For this reason, the *Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā* verse states: "All dharmas arising from conditions, I declare are empty. They are also conventional designations, And this is the meaning of the Middle Way."
It also says: "Dharmas do not arise from themselves, Nor do they arise from another, Nor from both, nor without cause; Therefore, one knows there is no arising."
Furthermore, the *Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra* states: "Although knowing all Buddha-lands, And sentient beings are empty, One constantly cultivates the Pure Land, Teaching and transforming all beings."
It also says: "It is like a person building a palace. If based on open ground, one can build freely without obstruction. If one tries to build upon empty space, it can never be completed."
The Buddhas always teach the Dharma relying on the Two Truths, speaking of the true nature of dharmas without destroying conventional designations.
The wise person fervently seeks rebirth in the Pure Land, while realizing that the essence of rebirth is ungraspable. This is true non-arising. This is what is meant by "When the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is pure."
The foolish person is bound by the concept of "rebirth." Hearing "rebirth," they grasp it as substantial rebirth. Hearing "non-arising," they grasp it as substantial non-arising. They do not understand that "rebirth" is precisely "non-arising," and "non-arising" is precisely "rebirth." Not comprehending this principle, they arbitrarily create right and wrong, angrily criticizing others for seeking rebirth in the Pure Land. How greatly mistaken they are! Such a person is a slanderer of the Dharma, a person of wrong views, an outsider.