---
title: "雲棲淨土彙語 · 淨土難信之法(二)"
description: "雲棲淨土彙語由清代虞執西和嚴培西共同錄編，成書於淨土宗興盛的清初時期。該書輯錄了蓮池大師（雲棲祩宏）的淨土法門開示、語錄及修行要義，集中闡述念佛往生、淨業三福等核心思想。作為淨土宗重要典籍，它系統傳承了雲棲大師的淨土教法，對清代淨土信仰的普及與實踐產生了深遠影響，是研究中國佛教淨土宗思想和修行的重要文獻。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcywaqn606edlb04dhlj9xzs"
---

### 淨土難信之法二

> Pure Land Teaching Hard to Believe<note>2</note>

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。圭峯圓之。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 should not be made too profound." But this scripture is naturally simple; to force depth into it would be wrong. Indeed, the Lotus Sutra teaches that everyday language is itself ultimate reality. How much more so does this sutra, which cuts through the cycle of life and death, leading directly to irreversible spiritual progress—can it not be expressed in everyday language? Others argue, "This sutra belongs to the Vaipulya (Expansive) category, so the commentary should not treat it as Perfect (Yuan) teaching." Yet the Contemplation Sutra is also classified as Vaipulya, yet Master Zhiyi interpreted it as Perfect teaching. The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment is likewise Vaipulya, yet Master Guifeng explained it as Perfect teaching. As for the Amitabha Sutra, I personally consider it to be partially Perfect—why should that be unacceptable? The Buddha spoke of the "difficult-to-believe teaching." Is that not truly the case?