Other-Power & Divine Grace: A Comparative Theological Analysis of Soteriology In Pure Land Buddhism & Christianity

他力與神恩：淨土宗與基督教救贖論的比較神學分析

Part I: The Path of Other-Power (Tariki) In Pure Land Buddhism

第一部分：佛教淨土宗的他力（Tariki）之道

Within the vast and diverse landscape of Buddhist thought, the emergence of schools emphasizing devotion and reliance on an external power represents a significant theological development. While Buddhism is fundamentally a non-theistic tradition centered on self-liberation through wisdom and discipline, certain Mahayana schools, most notably Pure Land Buddhism, developed a soteriological framework that is functionally analogous to the concept of grace in theistic religions. This path, known in Japanese as tariki or "other-power," posits that in an age of spiritual decline, enlightenment is no longer attainable through one's own strenuous efforts (jiriki or "self-power"). Instead, liberation is made possible by relying entirely on the compassionate vow of a transcendent Buddha, Amitabha. This section will provide an exhaustive analysis of the origins, doctrines, and core tenets of Pure Land Buddhism, demonstrating that its reliance on "other-power" is not an aberration but a sophisticated and logical development within the Mahayana framework, catalyzed by profound historical and doctrinal pressures. Understanding this path in its full context is essential before any meaningful comparison with Christian theology can be undertaken.

在廣闊而多樣的佛教思想版圖中，強調虔信並依賴外在力量的宗派之崛起，代表了一項重大的神學發展。儘管佛教本質上是一個非神論傳統，其核心是透過智慧與戒律以求自我解脫，但某些大乘宗派，尤其是淨土宗，發展出了一套救贖論框架，其功能上類似於有神論宗教中的恩典概念。這條在日本被稱為「他力」（tariki）或「他者之力」的道路主張，在一個靈性衰微的時代，單憑一己的精進努力（即「自力」，jiriki）已無法證悟。相反，解脫之所以可能，是藉由完全仰賴一位超然的佛陀——阿彌陀佛——的慈悲誓願。本部分將詳盡分析淨土宗的起源、教義與核心信條，旨在證明其對「他力」的依賴並非異端，而是在深刻的歷史與教義壓力催化下，於大乘佛教框架內一種精密且合乎邏輯的演變。在與基督教神學進行任何有意義的比較之前，必須充分理解此道路的完整脈絡。

The Genesis of a Devotional Path

虔信法門的創生

The devotional path of Pure Land Buddhism did not appear fully formed but evolved over centuries from foundational Mahayana concepts, spreading from its origins to become one of the most widely practiced forms of Buddhism in East Asia. Its development was driven by both doctrinal innovation and a powerful sense of spiritual crisis, which together created the conditions for a path centered on faith and external aid.

淨土宗的虔信法門並非一蹴而就，而是歷經數世紀，從大乘佛教的基本概念演變而來，從其發源地傳播開後，成為東亞地區最普及的佛教形式之一。其發展受到教義創新和強烈的靈性危機感的雙重驅動，二者共同為一條以信仰和外在助力為核心的道路創造了條件。

Geographical and Doctrinal Origins

地理與教義起源

Scholarly consensus places the origins of Pure Land thought in a broad geographical area encompassing India, Kashmir, and Central Asia, likely emerging around the 1st century CE. The earliest sutras central to the tradition, such as the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, are believed to have been composed in this period, possibly in the Gandhara region in a language related to Sanskrit. This devotional current did not arise in a vacuum but grew out of the broader Mahayana concept of buddhakṣetras, or "buddha-fields". A buddhakṣetra is the purified sphere of influence that is said to spontaneously emerge around a newly enlightened Buddha, a realm where that Buddha leads sentient beings toward awakening. The Mahayana cosmos is populated by countless such Buddhas and their corresponding fields, creating a vast spiritual geography.

學術界共識將淨土思想的起源置於一個廣泛的地理區域，包括印度、克什米爾和中亞，可能出現於公元一世紀左右。該傳統的核心經典，如《無量壽經》，據信是在這一時期撰寫的，可能是在犍陀羅地區，使用一種與梵語相關的語言。這股虔信潮流並非憑空出現，而是源於更廣泛的大乘佛教「佛剎」（buddhakṣetras）或「佛土」的概念。佛剎是指一位新證悟的佛陀周圍自然顯現的清淨影響範圍，在該領域中，這位佛陀引領有情眾生走向覺醒。大乘佛教的宇宙觀中充滿了無數這樣的佛陀及其相應的佛土，構成了一幅宏大的精神地理圖。

Initially, these pure lands were understood in various ways. Some texts describe them as magnificent, blissful worlds, ideal environments for spiritual progress. Others, however, introduced a more psychological or non-dual interpretation. The Vimalakīrti Sūtra (c. 100 CE), for instance, famously suggests that a buddha-field is not necessarily a physical location but a reflection of a purified mind, stating that "the buddha field is pure when the mind is pure". This established an early precedent for interpreting the Pure Land both as a literal destination after death and as a metaphorical state of consciousness to be realized in the present. The desire to be reborn in such a field was a practical response to the perceived difficulty of the Bodhisattva path, which was said to require immense effort over countless eons (kalpas). A pure land offered a compassionate shortcut, a place where the arduous journey to enlightenment could be completed without the immense suffering and constant setbacks of the ordinary world, or samsara.

最初，這些淨土有多種理解方式。一些經文將其描述為宏偉、極樂的世界，是靈性進步的理想環境。然而，另一些經文則引入了更偏向心理學或不二論的詮釋。例如，《維摩詰經》（約公元100年）中著名的論點是，佛土不必然是一個物理地點，而是一顆清淨心的反映，經中言：「心淨則佛土淨」。這為將淨土既詮釋為死後的實質歸宿，也詮釋為當下可實現的隱喻性意識狀態，樹立了早期的先例。渴望往生於這樣的佛土，是對菩薩道修行之艱難的一種務實回應，因為據說菩薩道需要經歷無數劫（kalpas）的巨大努力。淨土提供了一條慈悲的捷徑，在那裡，通往覺悟的艱辛旅程可以在沒有娑婆世界（samsara）的巨大痛苦和不斷挫折的情況下完成。

The Catalyst of Crisis: The Age of Dharma Decline (Mappo)

危機的催化劑：末法時代（Mappo）

While the seeds of Pure Land devotion were planted in India, the doctrine's transformation into a major, independent religious movement was catalyzed by a powerful eschatological theory that took root in China and reached its zenith in Japan: the concept of the Three Ages of the Dharma. This theory structures Buddhist history into three distinct periods following the death of the historical Buddha, Śākyamuni:

雖然淨土信仰的種子在印度播下，但該教義轉變為一個主要的、獨立的宗教運動，是由一個強大的末世論理論所催化的。該理論在中國紮根，並在日本達到頂峰：即「法之三時」的概念。這一理論將佛教歷史劃分為歷史上的佛陀釋迦牟尼（Śākyamuni）涅槃後的三個不同時期：

1. The Age of the True Dharma (shōbō): Lasting 500 or 1,000 years, this was the era when the Buddha's teaching was practiced correctly, and enlightenment was readily attainable.

• 正法時代（shōbō）： 持續500或1000年，這是佛陀教法被正確實踐、易於證悟的時代。

2. The Age of the Semblance Dharma (zōbō): The next 1,000 years, during which the teachings and practices existed in form, but spiritual corruption had set in, and true attainment was rare.

• 像法時代（zōbō）： 接下來的1000年，教法與修行僅存形式，但靈性已趨敗壞，罕有真實成就者。

3. The Age of the End of the Dharma (mappō): A final, decadent period lasting 10,000 years, in which the teachings survive but human capacity has degenerated to such an extent that no one is able to achieve enlightenment through traditional practices.

• 末法時代（mappō）： 最後一個持續10000年的頹敗時期，教法雖存，但人的根機已退化到無人能透過傳統修行證悟的程度。

By the Kamakura period in Japan (1192–1333), a time of incessant warfare, famine, and social upheaval, there was a widespread belief that humanity had entered the dark age of mappō around the year 1052 CE. This belief precipitated a profound spiritual crisis. If the traditional path of self-effort (jiriki)—the path of sages involving strict discipline, meditation, and wisdom—was now effectively closed to ordinary, passion-ridden human beings, was liberation impossible? This sense of despair and human futility created the theological imperative for a new path.

到了日本的鎌倉時代（1192-1333年），一個戰亂、饑荒和社會動盪不斷的時期，人們普遍相信人類已在公元1052年左右進入了黑暗的末法時代。這種信念引發了一場深刻的靈性危機。如果傳統的自力之道（jiriki）——即聖者之道，包含嚴格的戒律、禪定和智慧——如今對充滿煩惱的凡人實際上已經關閉，那麼解脫是否已無可能？這種絕望和對人類無力感的體認，催生了開創一條新道路的神學需求。

The doctrine of mappō thus functions as the central theological engine driving the Pure Land movement. It is not merely a historical backdrop but the very problem for which Pure Land devotion is the solution. In a manner analogous to how the doctrine of Original Sin functions in some Christian theologies, mappō establishes a universal condition of human helplessness that necessitates an external, grace-like intervention. It redefines the fundamental human predicament from one of simple ignorance, which can be overcome by self-discipline and wisdom, to one of profound and inescapable incapacity. This theological shift created the space and the urgent need for a doctrine of radical reliance on an external source of power, setting the stage for the elevation of Amitabha Buddha's "other-power" as the sole hope for salvation in a degenerate age.

因此，末法教義成為推動淨土宗運動的核心神學引擎。它不僅僅是一個歷史背景，而正是淨土信仰所要解決的問題本身。其作用方式類似於某些基督教神學中的「原罪」教義，末法論確立了一種人類普遍無助的狀態，從而需要一種外在的、如恩典般的干預。它將人類的根本困境從可以透過自律和智慧克服的單純無知，重新定義為一種深刻而無法逃避的無能。這一神學轉變為一種徹底依賴外在力量源泉的教義創造了空間和迫切需求，為將阿彌陀佛的「他力」提升為墮落時代唯一的救贖希望鋪平了道路。

Institutional Development

制度性發展

The formalization of Pure Land as a distinct practice began in China. In 402 CE, the monk Huiyuan gathered a group of monks and laypeople into the White Lotus Society, where they collectively vowed before an image of Amitabha Buddha to be reborn in his Pure Land, Sukhavati. Over the subsequent centuries, practices such as reverently chanting Amitabha's name (nianfo in Chinese), bowing, and sutra recitation became deeply integrated into mainstream Chinese Buddhism. From China, these teachings and practices were transmitted to Korea and Vietnam, where they were generally absorbed into the broader Buddhist landscape.

將淨土作為一種獨特修行方式的正式化始於中國。公元402年，僧人慧遠集合了一群僧俗成立了白蓮社，他們在阿彌陀佛像前共同立誓，願往生其極樂淨土（Sukhavati）。在隨後的幾個世紀裡，虔誠地稱念阿彌陀佛名號（中文為「念佛」）、禮拜和誦經等修行方式，已深度融入中國主流佛教。這些教義和修行從中國傳到韓國和越南，在那裡它們被普遍吸收到更廣泛的佛教版圖中。

It was in Japan, however, under the intense spiritual pressure of the mappō age, that Pure Land developed into distinct and influential schools. The Tendai monk Hōnen (1133–1212), seeking a path accessible to all people, founded the Jōdo Shū ("Pure Land School"). He radically simplified the practice, declaring that the only thing necessary for rebirth in the Pure Land was the sincere and repeated recitation of Amitabha's name, the nembutsu. This was the definitive articulation of the "Easy Path," a direct rejection of the complex meditative and philosophical disciplines of the traditional "Path of Sages," which Hōnen deemed impossible for people of his time.

然而，是在日本，在末法時代巨大的靈性壓力下，淨土宗發展成為獨特且有影響力的宗派。天台宗僧人法然（Hōnen，1133-1212）為尋求一條人人可及的道路，創立了「淨土宗」（Jōdo Shū）。他極大地簡化了修行，宣稱往生淨土唯一需要的就是真誠地反覆稱念阿彌陀佛的名號，即「念佛」（nembutsu）。這是對「易行道」的明確闡述，直接拒絕了傳統「聖道門」中複雜的禪修和哲學訓練，法然認為這些對於他那個時代的人來說是不可能做到的。

Hōnen's student, Shinran (1173–1263), took this logic even further, founding the Jōdo Shinshū ("True Pure Land School"), which is today the largest Pure Land sect in Japan. Shinran argued that if salvation depends entirely on Amitabha's power, then even the act of reciting the nembutsu multiple times could be seen as a form of self-effort. For Shinran, a single recitation uttered with complete and sincere faith—a faith that was itself a gift from Amitabha—was sufficient for salvation. This move to absolute "other-power" marked the culmination of the Pure Land trajectory, offering a message of unconditional deliverance to even the most sinful and hopeless individuals.

法然的學生親鸞（Shinran，1173-1263）將這一邏輯推向極致，創立了「淨土真宗」（Jōdo Shinshū），至今仍是日本最大的淨土宗派。親鸞主張，如果救贖完全依賴阿彌陀佛的力量，那麼即使是多次念佛的行為本身，也可能被視為一種自力。對親鸞而言，僅憑一次完全真誠的信心——而這信心本身也是阿彌陀佛的恩賜——所發出的念佛，就足以得救。這一向絕對「他力」的轉變，標誌著淨土宗發展軌跡的頂點，為即便是罪孽最深重、最絕望的人，也提供了一種無條件救度的信息。

The Architect of Deliverance: Amitabha Buddha

救度的構築者：阿彌陀佛

At the heart of Pure Land devotion is the figure of Amitabha Buddha, the architect of the Pure Land of Sukhavati and the source of the "other-power" upon which practitioners rely. His identity, the nature of his power, and his relationship to the cosmos are defined by a foundational narrative and a set of vows that distinguish him fundamentally from the concept of a creator God in theistic traditions.

淨土信仰的核心是阿彌陀佛，祂是極樂淨土（Sukhavati）的構築者，也是修行者所依賴的「他力」之源泉。祂的身份、其力量的本質，以及祂與宇宙的關係，是由一個根本性的敘事和一系列誓願所定義的，這使祂與有神論傳統中的創世神概念有著根本的區別。

The Bodhisattva's Vow

菩薩的誓願

The doctrinal basis for Amitabha's power is found in the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, which recounts the story of a monk named Dharmakara from a distant past eon. Deeply moved by the suffering of sentient beings, Dharmakara resolved to create a perfect buddha-field, a Pure Land free from all suffering and obstacles, where beings could easily attain enlightenment. Before his teacher, the Buddha Lokeśvararāja, he meditated for five eons and formulated forty-eight specific vows, declaring that he would not attain supreme enlightenment (Buddhahood) unless each of these conditions for the benefit of all beings was perfectly fulfilled. Upon the successful completion of his bodhisattva practices, Dharmakara fulfilled his vows and became the Buddha Amitabha ("Infinite Light"), also known as Amitāyus ("Infinite Life"). Simultaneously, his perfect Pure Land, Sukhavati ("Land of Bliss"), manifested in the western quarter of the cosmos.

阿彌陀佛力量的教義基礎見於《無量壽經》，該經記載了在遙遠的過去劫，一位名叫法藏（Dharmakara）的比丘的故事。法藏比丘因眾生的苦難而深受感動，決心要創造一個完美的佛土——一個沒有任何痛苦和障礙，眾生可以輕易證得覺悟的淨土。他在其師世自在王佛（Lokeśvararāja）前，靜思五劫，立下四十八條具體誓願，並宣稱，除非每一條利益一切眾生的條件都圓滿實現，否則他絕不證得無上正覺（佛果）。在圓滿完成其菩薩行後，法藏履行了他的誓願，成為了阿彌陀佛（Amitabha，「無量光」），也被稱為阿彌陀（Amitāyus，「無量壽」）。與此同時，他完美的淨土——極樂世界（Sukhavati，「極樂國土」），在宇宙的西方顯現。

This narrative structure is theologically critical. Amitabha's salvific power is not an inherent, arbitrary attribute of a divine being. It is "Vow-Power" (ganriki), the accumulated and directed force of eons of compassionate practice and karmic merit. His ability to save others is inextricably linked to his own path to enlightenment. This establishes a framework where his power operates within the universal laws of cause and effect (karma), rather than transcending them as an omnipotent deity would.

這個敘事結構在神學上至關重要。阿彌陀佛的救度之力並非神性存有者與生俱來、任意而為的屬性。它是「願力」（ganriki），是歷經無數劫的慈悲修行和業力功德所積累並導向的力量。祂救度他人的能力，與祂自身的成佛之道密不可分。這建立了一個框架，其中祂的力量在宇宙因果法則（業力）之內運作，而不是像全能神那樣超越這些法則。

This framing reveals that Amitabha's power is fundamentally conditional and contractual, not absolute and inherent. The structure of each of the 48 Vows—"If, when I attain buddhahood, [a specific condition for the benefit of beings] is not met, may I not realize enlightenment"—establishes a reciprocal and causal bond. The salvation of sentient beings is the cause that allows for the effect of Dharmakara's own Buddhahood. His power to save is the very mechanism of his own ultimate attainment. This cosmic bargain is fundamentally different from the Christian conception of God, whose grace flows from a pre-existing, eternal, and unchangeable nature. God's salvific act in Christ is an expression of what He already is; Amitabha's salvific power is the result of what he vowed to become. Thus, Amitabha's "other-power" is a power earned through karmic law, while divine grace is a power inherent in the divine being.

這種框架揭示了阿彌陀佛的力量本質上是條件性的、契約性的，而非絕對和固有的。四十八願的每一個結構——「設我得佛，[某個利益眾生的特定條件]不果遂者，不取正覺」——建立了一種相互依存的因果聯繫。救度有情眾生是「因」，法藏自身的成佛則是其「果」。祂救度的力量正是祂自身最終成就的機制。這種宇宙性的約定與基督教對上帝的觀念有著根本的不同，後者的恩典源於一種早已存在、永恆不變的本性。上帝在基督裡的救贖之舉是祂本然所是的彰顯；而阿彌陀佛的救度之力則是他誓願要成為的結果。因此，阿彌陀佛的「他力」是透過業力法則「掙得」的力量，而神聖恩典則是神性存有者「內在」的力量。

Analysis of the Forty-Eight Vows

四十八願分析

The Forty-Eight Vows, recorded in texts like the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, constitute the blueprint for the Pure Land and the contract for its accessibility. A close analysis reveals a meticulous design aimed at removing every conceivable obstacle to enlightenment. The full texts of these vows are available across several sources. Key vows can be categorized by their function:

記載於《無量壽經》等文本中的四十八願，構成了淨土的藍圖及其可及性的契約。仔細分析可以發現，其設計之精細，旨在消除一切可以想見的證悟障礙。這些誓願的全文可在多種來源中找到。關鍵的誓願可按其功能分類：

• The Cornerstone of Faith—The 18th Vow: Universally recognized as the Primal Vow (pūrva-praṇidhāna), this is the heart of Pure Land soteriology. It states: "If, when I attain buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten directions, who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment". This vow explicitly establishes faith (shinjin), aspiration, and recitation of the name (nembutsu) as the direct and sufficient causes for rebirth, making the path accessible to anyone, regardless of their capacity for complex practices. It is the ultimate guarantee of Amitabha's deliverance.

• 信仰的基石——第十八願： 此願被普遍認作根本誓願（pūrva-praṇidhāna），是淨土救贖論的核心。其內容為：「設我得佛，十方眾生，至心信樂，欲生我國，乃至十念，若不生者，不取正覺。」此願明確地將信心（shinjin）、發願和稱名念佛（nembutsu）確立為往生的直接且充分的因，使得這條道路對任何人，無論其修行複雜法門的能力如何，都敞開大門。這是阿彌陀佛救度的終極保證

• Vows on the Nature of the Land: Many vows are dedicated to ensuring Sukhavati is an ideal environment. Vow 1 and Vow 2 guarantee that there will be no lower realms of existence (hells, hungry ghosts, animals) within the Pure Land, and no one born there will ever fall back into such states. Vow 16 promises that inhabitants will never even hear the name of anything unvirtuous. Vow 38 ensures that all needs, such as clothing, are met spontaneously upon a mere thought, eliminating the need for worldly labor and its attendant anxieties. Together, these vows create a realm of absolute purity and peace, conducive only to spiritual progress.

• 關於國土性質的誓願： 許多誓願致力於確保極樂世界是一個理想的環境。第一願和第二願保證淨土中沒有較低的存在界域（地獄、餓鬼、畜生），且往生者永不墮入此類狀態。第十六願承諾，居住者甚至不會聽到任何不善之名。第三十八願確保所有需求，如衣物，皆能應念而生，從而消除了世間勞作及其伴隨的焦慮。這些誓願共同創造了一個絕對清淨與和平的國度，只利於靈性進步。

• Vows on the Inhabitants' Abilities: Upon rebirth, beings in Sukhavati are immediately endowed with advanced spiritual powers, bypassing the long process of cultivation. Vow 5 grants the ability to recollect all past lives. Vows 8 and 9 bestow the powers of telepathy and instantaneous travel to other buddha-fields. Vow 21 ensures that all inhabitants will possess the thirty-two prominent physical features of a great being, reflecting their advanced spiritual state. These vows ensure that practitioners are not merely placed in a better environment but are themselves transformed into beings capable of rapid spiritual advancement.

• 關於居住者能力的誓願： 往生後，極樂世界的眾生立即獲得高階的神通能力，繞過了漫長的修煉過程。第五願賦予宿命通，能回憶所有過去生。第八願和第九願賦予他心通和能即時遊歷其他佛土的神足通。第二十一願確保所有居住者都將具備偉大聖者的三十二相，反映他們高超的靈性狀態。這些誓願確保修行者不僅被安置在一個更好的環境中，其自身也被轉化為能夠快速靈性提升的存有。

The Crucial Distinction: Buddha vs. Creator God

關鍵區別：佛陀 vs. 創世神

It is impossible to overstate the importance of distinguishing Amitabha Buddha from the concept of a creator God found in monotheistic religions like Christianity. This distinction represents the most profound and irreconcilable difference between the two systems. Buddhism is fundamentally non-theistic; it does not posit a supreme being who created the universe or stands outside it as its omnipotent ruler. The Buddhist cosmos is viewed as beginning-less, governed by the impersonal law of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and karma.

區分阿彌陀佛與基督教等一神教中的創世神概念，其重要性再怎麼強調也不為過。這一區別代表了兩個體系之間最深刻且無法調和的差異。佛教本質上是非神論的；它不設定一個創造宇宙或作為其全能統治者而立於其外的至高存在。佛教的宇宙觀被視為無始的，由非人格化的緣起法則（pratītyasamutpāda）和業力所支配。

Within this framework, Amitabha is a highly advanced, supremely compassionate being, but he is still a being within the cosmos, subject to its laws. He is not the ultimate ground of being. Other powerful beings, such as the deva Brahma, may exist and may even delude themselves into believing they are creators, but the Buddha's teaching reveals this to be a form of ignorance. Amitabha does not create souls, forgive sins in a juridical sense, or demand worship as a sovereign. His power is his Vow-Power, a potent force for liberation generated through his own past actions and resolve. He is a guide and a benefactor, not a creator or a judge. The devotional language of Pure Land Buddhism, while functionally similar to theistic worship, operates on this fundamentally different ontological premise.

在這個框架內，阿彌陀佛是一位高度進化的、至極慈悲的存有，但他仍然是宇宙「之內」的一個存有，受其法則的約束。祂不是存在的終極根基。其他强大的存有，例如天神大梵天，可能存在，甚至可能自欺地相信自己是創造者，但佛陀的教導揭示了這是一種無明。阿彌陀佛不創造靈魂，不以司法意義上的方式赦免罪惡，也不以君主的身份要求崇拜。祂的力量是祂的願力，一種透過祂過去的行為和決心所產生的、強大的解脫力量。祂是一位引導者和施恩者，而不是創造者或審判者。淨土宗的虔信語言，雖然在功能上類似於有神論的崇拜，但其運作建立在這個根本不同的本體論前提之上。

The Realm of Bliss: The Nature of Sukhavati

極樂世界：淨土的本質

The destination promised by Amitabha's vows is Sukhavati, the "Land of Utmost Bliss." Described in vivid and alluring detail in the Pure Land sutras, this realm is not an end in itself but a perfect means to an end. Its nature as a spiritual training ground, rather than a final paradise, is a key element of Pure Land doctrine.

阿彌陀佛誓願所承諾的目的地是極樂世界（Sukhavati），即「至樂國土」。在淨土諸經中，這個國土被以生動誘人的細節描繪，它本身並非目的，而是達成目的的完美工具。其作為靈性修煉場而非終極樂園的性質，是淨土教義的一個關鍵要素。

A World Designed for Enlightenment

為證悟而設計的世界

The Pure Land sutras, particularly the Shorter and Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtras, paint a picture of a world of unimaginable beauty and tranquility. Sukhavati is located "billions of world-systems from us in the west". It is a land where the ground is made of gold, and pavilions, railings, and trees are composed of seven precious jewels. Rivers of fragrant water flow, and their sound, along with the rustling of jeweled trees and the songs of magical birds, is not mere noise but a constant, effortless exposition of the Dharma—the teachings of impermanence, no-self, and the path to enlightenment.

淨土諸經，特別是《佛說阿彌陀經》和《無量壽經》，描繪了一個美與寧靜超乎想像的世界。極樂世界位於「從是西方，過十萬億佛土」。那是一片黃金為地，樓閣、欄杆、樹木皆由七寶構成的國土。芬芳的河水流淌，其水聲，伴隨著寶樹的沙沙聲和奇妙鳥兒的歌唱，並非僅是噪音，而是對佛法的持續、不費力的宣說——即關於無常、無我及證悟之道的教導。

In this realm, there is no suffering (duḥkha), neither physical pain nor mental anguish. The concepts of aging, sickness, and death as we know them do not exist. The inhabitants' lifespans are immeasurable, like that of Amitabha himself (whose name Amitāyus means "Infinite Life"). All material needs are met spontaneously; food and clothing appear simply by thinking of them, freeing beings from all worldly toil and distraction. This entire environment is meticulously designed for a single purpose: to provide the most conducive conditions possible for uninterrupted spiritual practice and the swift attainment of enlightenment.

在這個國度裡，沒有苦（duḥkha），既無肉體之痛，也無心靈之惱。我們所知的衰老、疾病和死亡等概念並不存在。居住者的壽命無量，如同阿彌陀佛本人一樣（其名阿彌陀，Amitāyus，意為「無量壽」）。所有物質需求都能自發滿足；食物和衣物應念而現，使眾生免於一切世間勞役與分心。整個環境都為了一個單一目的而被精心設計：為不間斷的靈性修行和迅速證得覺悟，提供最有利的條件。

The entire concept of Sukhavati can thus be understood as a masterful application of the Mahayana doctrine of upāya, or "skillful means." The ultimate goal of Buddhism, Nirvana, is an abstract state involving the extinction of the self and the cessation of all conditioned existence—a concept that can be difficult to grasp and even frightening for an ordinary person. The path to this goal is long and arduous, especially in a degenerate age like mappō. Amitabha's creation of Sukhavati is a supreme act of upāya. By leveraging the natural human desire for happiness, beauty, and security, he provides a tangible, appealing, and concrete goal. This paradise, however, is not the final reward. It is a perfect "training ground" or "spiritual university" where the very environment serves as a constant teacher. By drawing beings to this blissful realm with promises that appeal to their conventional understanding, Amitabha places them in a situation where they are guaranteed to learn the ultimate, unconventional truth of selflessness and emptiness, thereby fulfilling the core soteriological aim of Mahayana Buddhism.

因此，整個極樂世界的概念可以被理解為對大乘佛教「方便法門」（upāya）或「善巧方便」的精湛運用。佛教的終極目標——涅槃，是一個抽象的狀態，涉及自我的熄滅和一切有為法的終止——這個概念對於普通人來說可能難以理解，甚至令人恐懼。通往這個目標的道路漫長而艱辛，尤其是在像末法這樣的墮落時代。阿彌陀佛創造極樂世界是一種至高的方便法門。祂利用人類對幸福、美麗和安全的自然渴望，提供了一個有形、誘人且具體的目標。然而，這個樂園並非最終的獎賞。它是一個完美的「修煉場」或「靈性大學」，其環境本身就是一位永恆的老師。藉由以迎合眾生常規理解的承諾將他們吸引到這個極樂世界，阿彌陀佛使他們處於一種必定能學到無我與空性之終極、非常規真理的境地，從而實現了大乘佛教的核心救贖目標。

A Stepping Stone, Not a Final Destination

一塊墊腳石，而非終點站

A critical point of clarification, especially in a comparative context, is that Sukhavati is not the Buddhist equivalent of the Christian Heaven. Heaven, in Christian theology, is typically understood as the final, eternal destination for the saved, a state of perpetual communion with God. Sukhavati, by contrast, is an intermediate realm, a "heavenly university" or an "antechamber to Nirvana".

一個關鍵的澄清點，尤其是在比較語境中，是極樂世界並非佛教中等同於基督教天堂的概念。在基督教神學中，天堂通常被理解為得救者最終、永恆的歸宿，一種與上帝永恆共融的狀態。相比之下，極樂世界是一個中介領域，一個「天上的大學」或「涅槃的前廳」。

The primary purpose of being reborn in the Pure Land is to reach the stage of avinivartanīya, or non-retrogression. This is a high level on the bodhisattva path from which it is impossible to fall back into lower states of existence or regress in one's spiritual practice. Once this stage is secured, the attainment of full Buddhahood is guaranteed, though it may still take time. The Pure Land is the place where this irreversible progress is made certain. It is the end of the perilous journey through samsara but the beginning of the final, assured path to Nirvana.

往生淨土的主要目的是為了達到「不退轉」（avinivartanīya）的階位。這是菩薩道上一個很高的階位，從此不可能再墮入較低的存在狀態或在靈性修行上倒退。一旦穩固了這個階位，圓滿成佛便有了保障，儘管可能仍需要時間。淨土是確保這種不可逆轉的進步得以實現的地方。它是穿越娑婆險途的終點，卻是通往涅槃的最後、有保障之路的起點。

The Bodhisattva Ideal Fulfilled

菩薩理想的實現

The ultimate expression of the Mahayana path is the bodhisattva ideal: the compassionate resolve to attain enlightenment not for oneself alone, but for the sake of liberating all sentient beings. The Pure Land path fully incorporates this ideal. The goal is not to remain in the bliss of Sukhavati indefinitely. Once a high degree of spiritual realization is attained, the bodhisattva, empowered by the wisdom and compassion nurtured in the Pure Land, chooses to return to the countless worlds of samsara.

大乘道的終極體現是菩薩理想：即發下慈悲的決心，不僅為自己證悟，更為了救度一切有情眾生。淨土法門完全融合了這一理想。其目標並非無限期地停留在極樂世界的福樂中。一旦達到高度的靈性證悟，菩薩便憑藉在淨土中培育的智慧與慈悲，選擇返回無數的娑婆世界。

They return as compassionate agents, appearing in whatever form is necessary to help guide other suffering beings toward liberation. This act of returning closes the loop of the Mahayana path. The journey to the Pure Land is undertaken for the ultimate purpose of being able to leave it, fully equipped to participate in the universal project of salvation. This underscores that the ultimate goal of Pure Land Buddhism is not personal escape, but the empowerment for universal compassion, a core tenet that distinguishes it from purely transcendental or otherworldly notions of salvation.

他們作為慈悲的使者回歸，以任何必要的形態顯現，以幫助引導其他受苦的眾生走向解脫。這種回歸的行為完成了大乘道的閉環。前往淨土的旅程，其終極目的是為了能夠離開它，並裝備齊全地參與普度眾生的偉業。這強調了淨土宗的終極目標並非個人逃避，而是為了普世慈悲的賦能，這一核心信條將其與純粹超驗或彼世的救贖觀念區分開來。

The Dynamics of Faith and Practice

信心與修行的動態關係

The accessibility of the Pure Land path hinges on its unique dynamics of faith and practice, which evolved over time toward a radical reliance on "other-power." This shift is encapsulated in the dialectic between jiriki (self-power) and tariki (other-power) and is expressed through the three essential components of Pure Land practice.

淨土法門的易行性取決於其獨特的信心與修行動態關係，這種關係隨著時間的推移，演變為對「他力」的徹底依賴。這種轉變體現在「自力」（jiriki）與「他力」（tariki）的辯證關係中，並透過淨土修行的三個基本要素來表達。

The Spectrum of Jiriki and Tariki

自力與他力的光譜

The distinction between self-power and other-power is not an absolute binary but a spectrum that reflects the historical development of Pure Land thought.

自力與他力之間的區別並非絕對的二元對立，而是一個反映淨土思想歷史發展的光譜。

Jiriki refers to the attempt to achieve enlightenment through one's own efforts—meditation, asceticism, wisdom, and moral discipline—the traditional "Path of Sages".

「自力」（Jiriki）指的是試圖通過自身的努力——禪定、苦行、智慧和道德戒律——來達成證悟，即傳統的「聖道門」。

Tariki, in contrast, refers to reliance on the power of a Buddha or bodhisattva, specifically the vow-power of Amitabha.

相對地，「他力」（Tariki）則是指依賴佛或菩薩的力量，特別是阿彌陀佛的願力。

Early Mahayana practices related to pure lands often involved a significant degree of jiriki. The Amitāyurdhyāna Sūtra ("Visualization Sutra"), for example, details a series of sixteen complex meditations and visualizations required to perceive Amitabha and his Pure Land. However, as the doctrine of mappō gained prominence, the perceived efficacy of jiriki waned. Thinkers like Tanluan in 6th-century China began to articulate the path in terms of a clear choice: the "difficult path" of self-power, likened to crossing mountains on foot, versus the "easy path" of other-power, like being carried safely in a boat. In Kamakura Japan, Hōnen and Shinran completed this shift, arguing that in the current degenerate age, the difficult path was no longer viable, and complete reliance on  tariki was the only way.

早期與淨土相關的大乘修行通常包含相當程度的自力。例如，《觀無量壽經》（「觀經」）詳細描述了為觀見阿彌陀佛及其淨土所需的一系列十六種複雜的禪觀和觀想。然而，隨著末法教義日益突顯，自力的有效性被認為逐漸減弱。像六世紀中國的曇鸞這樣的思想家開始用一個清晰的選擇來闡述這條道路：自力的「難行道」，好比徒步翻山越嶺；對比他力的「易行道」，就像安坐船中被載運過岸。在日本鎌倉時代，法然和親鸞完成了這一轉變，他們主張在當前的末法時代，難行道已不可行，完全依賴他力是唯一的途徑。

The Three Essentials

三個要件

The practice of the "Easy Path" is distilled into three interconnected essentials:

「易行道」的修行被提煉為三個相互關聯的要件：

1. Faith (Shinjin): This is the foundation. It is defined as a sincere, deep, and joyful trust in the absolute efficacy of Amitabha Buddha's Primal Vow. This is not blind faith or mere intellectual belief. It is a profound existential entrusting that arises from the honest recognition of one's own nature as a bombu—a foolish, ordinary being, hopelessly entangled in passions and karmic defilements and thus incapable of self-liberation. It is the abandonment of reliance on the limited, deluded ego.

• 信（Shinjin）： 這是基礎。它被定義為對阿彌陀佛本願之絕對效力的真誠、深刻而喜悅的信賴。這不是盲信或僅僅是理智上的相信。它是一種深刻的、關乎存有的託付，源於誠實地認識到自己作為一個「凡夫」（bombu）——一個愚痴、平凡、無可救藥地糾纏於煩惱和業障之中，因而無法自我解脫的眾生——的本質。它是對有限、迷妄之自我的依賴的捨棄。

2. Aspiration (Vow): This is the sincere and single-minded desire to be born in Amitabha's Pure Land, Sukhavati. This aspiration provides the direction and motivation for the practice. Faith in Amitabha's power naturally gives rise to the joyful wish to go to the realm he has prepared.

• 願（Vow）： 這是真誠且一心一意地渴望往生阿彌陀佛的極樂淨土。這個願望為修行提供了方向和動力。對阿彌陀佛力量的信心自然會產生前往祂所準備的國土的喜悅願望。

3. Practice (Nembutsu): This is the primary action of the Pure Land path: the recitation of Amitabha's name. In Chinese, this is "Namo Amituofo," and in Japanese, "Namu Amida Butsu," meaning "I take refuge in Amitabha Buddha". This practice is considered the "principal karma of assured rebirth" because it is the specific action stipulated in the 18th Vow, directly linking the practitioner to Amitabha's saving power. It is simple, direct, and can be performed by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

• 行（Nembutsu）： 這是淨土法門的主要行為：稱念阿彌陀佛的名號。中文為「南無阿彌陀佛」，日文為「南無阿彌陀佛」（Namu Amida Butsu），意為「我歸命於阿彌陀佛」。這種修行被視為「往生正定之業」，因為它是第十八願中規定的具體行為，直接將修行者與阿彌陀佛的救度之力聯繫起來。它簡單、直接，任何人、任何地點、任何時間都可以進行。

The Radical Turn of Shinran

親鸞的激進轉向

The most radical and complete interpretation of tariki was articulated by Shinran, the founder of Jōdo Shinshū. His thought represents the logical culmination of the Pure Land doctrine, pushing the concept of other-power to its absolute limit.

對他力最激進和最完整的詮釋是由淨土真宗的創始人親鸞所闡述的。

• Absolute Other-Power: For Shinran, there is no room for self-effort whatsoever. He argued that if salvation depends entirely on Amitabha, then the very faith (shinjin) required to believe in him cannot be generated by the practitioner. A deluded bombu is incapable of producing pure faith. Therefore, shinjin itself must be a gift, bestowed upon the individual by the compassionate working of Amitabha. The practitioner does not "achieve" faith; they "receive" it. The recitation of the nembutsu is not a practice one performs to gain rebirth, but rather the spontaneous expression of gratitude that erupts from a heart that has already received the assurance of rebirth through the gift of faith.

• 絕對他力： 對於親鸞而言，自力絲毫沒有立足之地。他主張，如果救贖完全依賴阿彌陀佛，那麼相信祂所必需的信心（shinjin）本身就不可能由修行者自己產生。一個迷妄的凡夫沒有能力產生純粹的信心。因此，信心本身必然是一份禮物，是阿彌陀佛慈悲運作所賜予個人的。修行者不是「達成」信心，而是「領受」信心。念佛並非為了「贏得」往生而修行的實踐，而是從一顆已因信心的恩賜而「領受」往生保證的心中，自發噴湧而出的感恩之情的表達。

• Akunin Shōki (The Evil Person as the True Object): This radical doctrine is Shinran's most famous and challenging teaching. He reasoned that if Amitabha's vow is for those who cannot save themselves, then its primary target must be the evil person, who is most acutely aware of their own karmic defilements and complete inability to perform truly good deeds. A "good" person, who still believes they can contribute to their salvation through their own virtue or discipline, is still trapped in the illusion of self-power and the subtle pride of the ego. The evil person, having abandoned all pretense of self-generated righteousness, is paradoxically more open to the unconditional and all-embracing compassion of Amitabha. As Shinran famously stated, "Even a good person can be born in the Pure Land, how much more so an evil person." This profound reversal of conventional morality is the ultimate expression of salvation by absolute "other-power."

• 惡人正機（Akunin Shōki）： 這個激進的教義是親鸞最著名也最具挑戰性的教導。他推論，如果阿彌陀佛的誓願是為那些無法自救的人而發，那麼其主要對象必然是惡人，因為惡人最深切地意識到自身的業障和完全無力行持真正的善行。一個「善人」，若仍然相信可以憑藉自己的德行或修持為自己的救贖做出貢獻，那麼他仍然被困於自力的幻覺和自我的微細驕慢之中。而惡人，因已放棄所有自生正義的偽裝，反而更能向阿彌陀佛無條件、包容一切的慈悲敞開心扉。正如親鸞的名言：「善人尚能往生，何況惡人をや。」這種對傳統道德的深刻顛覆，是絕對「他力」救贖的終極體現。

Part II: The Doctrine of Divine Grace In Christianity

第二部分：基督教中的神恩教義

The Christian theological landscape is defined by the central concept of grace, an idea that, like Pure Land's "other-power," addresses the fundamental problem of human inadequacy in the face of a soteriological goal. Grace, in its essence, is God's benevolent and unmerited favor toward humanity, the ultimate source of salvation. However, the precise nature of this grace, its means of transmission, and its relationship with human free will have been the subject of intense debate and have led to a spectrum of distinct doctrines across the major branches of Christianity. A thorough examination of these interpretations is necessary to establish a firm basis for comparison with the Buddhist concept of tariki.

基督教神學版圖是由「恩典」這一核心概念所定義的，這個概念如同淨土宗的「他力」一樣，處理了人類在面對救贖目標時的根本不足問題。恩典，其本質是上帝對人類仁慈且不配得的恩惠，是救贖的最終源泉。然而，此恩典的確切性質、其傳遞方式，以及它與人類自由意志的關係，一直是激烈辯論的主題，並在基督教主要分支中形成了一系列不同的教義。對這些詮釋進行徹底的檢視，是為了與佛教的「他力」概念進行比較建立堅實基礎所必需的。

Biblical Foundations and Theological Development

聖經基礎與神學發展

The Christian understanding of grace is rooted in biblical scripture and was systematically forged in the crucible of early theological controversies, most notably the debate between Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius.

基督教對恩典的理解根植於聖經經文，並在早期神學爭議的熔爐中被系統地鍛造，其中最著名的是希波的奧古斯丁與伯拉糾之間的辯論。

Grace as "Undeserved Favor"

恩典即「不配得的恩惠」

The core biblical definition of grace (Greek: charis) is "undeserved favor" or "unmerited gift". It is God's spontaneous, loving, and generous action on behalf of humanity, which cannot be earned, merited, or demanded. The classic articulation of this principle is found in the Pauline epistles, particularly Ephesians 2:8–9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast". This passage establishes the foundational tenets of salvation by grace: it is initiated by God, received through faith, and explicitly contrasted with any form of human meritorious works. This "Good News" (Gospel) is that salvation is not a wage to be earned but a gift to be received from a benevolent God who acts out of love to forgive sin and restore humanity to fellowship with Himself.

恩典（希臘文：charis）在聖經中的核心定義是「不配得的恩惠」或「非功而獲的禮物」。它是上帝為人類自發、慈愛、慷慨的行動，是無法賺取、贏得或要求的。這一原則的經典闡述見於保羅書信，特別是以弗所書2:8-9：「你們得救是本乎恩，也因著信；這並不是出於自己，乃是神所賜的； 也不是出於行為，免得有人自誇。」這段經文確立了恩典救贖的基本信條：它由上帝發起，藉由信心領受，並與任何形式的人類功德行為形成鮮明對比。這個「好消息」（福音）是，救贖並非掙來的工價，而是從一位仁慈的上帝那裡領受的禮物，祂出於愛而赦免罪惡，並恢復人類與祂自身的交通。

This doctrine of grace is simultaneously a statement about the nature of God and the nature of humanity. Its formulation is fundamentally relational. Grace as "undeserved" logically presupposes a recipient who is, in fact, undeserving. The Christian anthropological doctrine of Original Sin provides this basis, defining humanity post-Fall as inherently flawed, spiritually dead, and separated from God by a nature inclined toward sin. Therefore, the doctrine of grace cannot be understood apart from its anthropological counterpart. It defines God's character—as loving, merciful, and giving—precisely in response to humanity's defined state of helplessness and moral bankruptcy. This dynamic presents a key contrast with the Buddhist framework. In Buddhism, the need for "other-power" arises from a historical-spiritual condition (mappō) and a universal epistemological problem (ignorance, avidyā). In Christianity, the need for grace arises from an ontological and moral flaw in humanity's relationship with a personal creator—a state of rebellion, not merely ignorance.

這個恩典教義同時是關於上帝本質和人性的陳述。它的表述在本質上是關係性的。恩典作為「不配得的」，邏輯上預設了一個事實上不配得的領受者。基督教的人類學教義「原罪論」為此提供了基礎，它將墮落後的人類定義為本質上有缺陷、靈性上死亡，並因其傾向於罪的本性而與上帝分離。因此，恩典教義不能脫離其人類學的對應部分來理解。它正是為了回應人類被定義的無助和道德破產狀態，而定義了上帝的品格——慈愛、憐憫和給予。這種動態關係與佛教框架形成了一個關鍵的對比。在佛教中，對「他力」的需求源於一種「歷史-靈性」的狀況（末法）和一個普遍的「認識論」問題（無明，avidyā）。在基督教中，對恩典的需求源於人類與一位人格化造物主關係中的「本體論與道德」缺陷——一種反叛的狀態，而不僅僅是無知。

The Augustinian-Pelagian Controversy

奧古斯丁-伯拉糾之爭

The Western Christian doctrine of grace was decisively shaped by the fierce theological debate between Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and the British monk Pelagius in the early 5th century. Pelagius, concerned with moral laxity, emphasized the power of human free will, arguing that humans are capable of choosing to do good and obey God's commands without the absolute necessity of a special, internal divine grace. For Pelagius, grace was primarily the gift of creation, free will itself, and the guidance of the law and Christ's example.

西方基督教的恩典教義，在五世紀初希波的奧古斯丁（354-430）與英國僧侶伯拉糾之間的激烈神學辯論中，得到了決定性的塑造。伯拉糾出於對道德鬆弛的擔憂，強調人類自由意志的力量，認為人類有能力選擇行善並遵守上帝的命令，而無需絕對依賴一種特殊的、內在的神聖恩典。對伯拉糾而言，恩典主要是創造的恩賜、自由意志本身，以及律法和基督榜樣的指引。

Augustine, in stark opposition, argued that Adam's sin had catastrophic consequences for the entire human race. He taught that humanity inherited a corrupted nature ("Original Sin") that renders the will enslaved to sin and makes it impossible for a person to turn to God or perform any truly good act without the prior, initiating act of God's grace. For Augustine, grace is not merely external guidance but an internal, transformative power that heals the will and enables it to choose the good. Pelagianism was formally condemned as heresy at councils like the Council of Carthage (418) and the Council of Ephesus (431). The victory of the Augustinian view established the foundational principle for all subsequent Western theology: salvation is initiated solely by God's grace (gratia praeveniens, or prevenient grace), and human beings are utterly dependent on this divine initiative.

奧古斯丁則持截然相反的觀點，他認為亞當的罪對全人類造成了災難性的後果。他教導說，人類繼承了一種敗壞的本性（「原罪」），這使得意志被罪奴役，若沒有上帝恩典在先的、引導性的行動，人不可能轉向上帝或行出任何真正的善舉。對奧古斯丁來說，恩典不僅僅是外在的引導，而是一種內在的、轉化的力量，它能醫治意志，使其能夠選擇善。伯拉糾主義在迦太基會議（418年）和以弗所會議（431年）等教會會議上被正式定為異端。奧古斯丁觀點的勝利，為所有後續的西方神學奠定了基本原則：救恩完全由上帝的恩典發起（gratia praeveniens，即先在恩典），而人類則完全依賴於此神聖的主動。

A Spectrum of Understanding: Denominational Interpretations

理解的光譜：宗派的詮釋

While the principle of salvation by grace is universally affirmed in Christianity, the precise mechanics of how that grace operates and interacts with human beings has produced a wide spectrum of doctrines. These differences often revolve around the role of sacraments, the nature of justification, and the extent of human free will in the process of salvation.

雖然恩典救贖的原則在基督教中得到普遍肯定，但關於恩典如何運作並與人互動的具體機制，已產生了廣泛的教義光譜。這些差異通常圍繞著聖禮的角色、稱義的性質，以及人類自由意志在救贖過程中的程度。

Roman Catholicism

羅馬天主教

The Catholic Church understands grace as a "participation in the life of God," a supernatural gift that heals and elevates human nature. Catholic theology makes a key distinction between two forms of grace:

天主教會將恩典理解為「分享天主的生命」，一種醫治並提升人性的超自然恩賜。

• Sanctifying Grace (or Habitual Grace): This is a stable, supernatural quality infused by God into the soul. It makes the person holy and pleasing to God, transforming them into an adopted child of God and a "partaker of the divine nature". It is considered a permanent disposition that remains unless forfeited through mortal sin, in which case it can be restored through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

• 聖化恩典（或常存恩寵）： 這是天主注入靈魂的一種穩定的、超自然的品質。它使人成聖，悅樂天主，將其轉化為天主的義子，並成為「分享天主性體者」。它被視為一種永久的傾向，除非因大罪而喪失，此時可透過和好聖事（告解）來恢復。

• Actual Grace: This refers to God's specific, transient interventions that move a person toward conversion or help them perform good actions and grow in holiness.

• 寵佑恩典（現時恩寵）： 這指的是天主特定的、暫時的干預，它促使人悔改，或幫助他們行善並在聖德上成長。

Grace is conferred through various Means of Grace entrusted to the Church, principally the seven sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, etc.). The sacraments are believed to confer grace ex opere operato—that is, by the very performance of the sacramental act, independent of the personal holiness of the minister—though the recipient's disposition affects the fruitfulness of the grace received. While affirming that justification is a free gift, Catholic doctrine maintains that humans, moved and assisted by God's grace, can and must cooperate with their free will in the process of salvation.

恩典是透過託付給教會的各種「施恩具」來授予的，主要是七件聖事（聖洗、聖體等）。聖事被認為是「事效性地」（ex opere operato）施予恩典的——也就是說，藉由聖事行動本身，而與施行者的個人聖德無關——儘管領受者的心態會影響所領受恩典的成效。天主教教義雖肯定稱義是一項白白的恩賜，但同時主張，人類在天主恩典的感動和協助下，能夠也必須以其自由意志在救贖過程中進行「合作」。

Lutheranism

路德宗（信義宗）

The Protestant Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther, was in large part a reaction against what was perceived as a system of works-righteousness in late medieval Catholicism, exemplified by the sale of indulgences. In response, Lutheranism champions the principles of Sola Gratia (Grace Alone) and Sola Fide (Faith Alone).

由馬丁路德發起的宗教改革，在很大程度上是對中世紀晚期天主教中被視為功德主義體系的一種反動，其典型例子便是贖罪券的販售。作為回應，路德宗倡導「唯獨恩典」（Sola Gratia）和「唯獨信心」（Sola Fide）的原則。

In Lutheran theology, grace is understood primarily in the context of forensic justification. This means that God, on the basis of Christ's righteousness, declares a sinner to be righteous in His sight. It is a legal verdict, an external status change, rather than an internal infusion of a new quality (as in the Catholic view). The sinner is not made inherently righteous but is "covered" by the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to them through faith. Humans are considered totally depraved in their sinful nature and helpless to contribute to their salvation. The Means of Grace through which the Holy Spirit creates and strengthens faith are specifically the Word of God (the Gospel) and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.

在路德宗神學中，恩典主要在「法庭式稱義」的背景下被理解。這意味著上帝基於基督的義，在祂眼中宣判一個罪人為義。這是一個法律上的判決，一個外在地位的改變，而不是像天主教觀點那樣，內在被注入一種新的品質。罪人並非在本質上變得公義，而是被基督的義所「遮蓋」，這義透過信心歸算給他們。人類在其罪性中被認為是完全敗壞的，無助於為自己的救贖做出任何貢獻。聖靈藉以創造和堅固信心的「施恩具」，特指上帝的道（福音）以及洗禮和聖餐這兩樣聖禮。

Calvinism (Reformed Theology)

加爾文主義（改革宗神學）

John Calvin and the Reformed tradition developed the Augustinian doctrine of grace to its most deterministic conclusion, often summarized by the acronym TULIP. This framework posits a monergistic view of salvation, where God is the sole active agent from beginning to end.

約翰·加爾文和改革宗傳統將奧古斯丁的恩典教義發展到其最具決定論色彩的結論，通常以縮寫詞 TULIP 來概括。這個框架提出了一種「神恩獨作說」（monergistic）的救贖觀，即上帝是從始至終唯一的行動主體。

• Total Depravity: Like Lutherans, Calvinists affirm that original sin has rendered humanity spiritually dead and completely unable to choose God.

• 全然敗壞（Total Depravity）： 如同路德宗，加爾文主義者肯定原罪已使人類在靈性上死亡，完全無力選擇上帝。

• Unconditional Election: God, before the foundation of the world, chose certain individuals for salvation (the "elect") based not on any foreseen merit or faith, but solely on His own sovereign good pleasure.

• 無條件揀選（Unconditional Election）： 上帝在創世以前，就揀選了特定的人得救（即「選民」），這並非基於任何預見的功德或信心，而僅僅是出於祂自己主權的美意。

• Irresistible Grace: When God extends His saving grace to the elect, it cannot be effectively resisted. God's call regenerates the sinner's heart, creating the very willingness and faith to respond to the Gospel. This stands in sharp contrast to synergistic views that allow for human cooperation or resistance.

• 不可抗拒的恩典（Irresistible Grace）： 當上帝將祂的救贖恩典施予選民時，他們無法有效地抗拒。上帝的呼召重生了罪人的心，創造出回應福音的意願和信心。這與允許人類合作或抗拒的「神人合作說」（synergistic）觀點形成鮮明對比。

Eastern Orthodoxy

東正教

The Eastern Orthodox Church developed its understanding of grace largely separate from the Western debates. It rejects the Augustinian formulation of original sin as inherited guilt and the legal/forensic models of the Reformation.

東正教會對恩典的理解，其發展在很大程度上獨立於西方的辯論。

• Uncreated Energies: Orthodox theology does not see grace as a created substance or quality infused into the soul. Instead, grace is identified with the very uncreated energies of God Himself—the active, divine life and power of God that permeates all of creation.

• 非受造的能量： 東正教神學不將恩典視為一種被創造出來並注入靈魂的實體或品質。相反，恩典被等同於上帝自身「非受造的能量」——即滲透於所有創造物之中的、活躍的、神聖的生命與大能。

• Theosis (Deification): The goal of salvation is theosis, the process by which a person, through cooperation with divine grace, becomes a "partaker of the divine nature" 2 Peter 1:4. This is a lifelong process of transformation into the likeness of God.

• 神化（Theosis）： 救贖的目標是「神化」，即一個人透過與神聖恩典合作，成為「與神的性情有分」的過程（彼得後書1:4）。這是一個終生的、轉化為上帝形象的過程。

• Synergy: Orthodoxy strongly affirms synergism, the doctrine that salvation is achieved through the cooperation of two wills: the divine will and the human will. God's grace enables and invites, but the human person must freely respond and participate in their own salvation.

• 神人合作說（Synergy）： 東正教堅定地肯定「神人合作說」，即救贖是透過兩種意志——神的意志與人的意志——的合作來實現的。神的恩典賦予能力並發出邀請，但人必須自由地回應並參與自身的救贖。

Arminianism (Wesleyanism)

阿民念主義（衛斯理宗）

Arising as a reaction against the perceived harshness of Calvinist predestination, Arminianism (and its later development in Wesleyan theology) offers a synergistic model of grace that seeks to preserve a more robust role for human free will.

作為對加爾文主義預定論被認為過於嚴苛的一種反動，阿民念主義（及其後在衛斯理神學中的發展）提供了一種神人合作的恩典模型，旨在為人類自由意志保留一個更強有力的角色。

• Prevenient Grace: Arminians teach that God's grace is extended to all people, not just the elect. This "prevenient grace" restores a measure of free will to fallen humanity, enabling them to respond to the Gospel call.

• 先在恩典（Prevenient Grace）： 阿民念主義者教導說，上帝的恩典普及於所有人，而不僅僅是選民。這種「先在恩典」為墮落的人類恢復了一定程度的自由意志，使他們能夠回應福音的呼召。

• Resistible Grace: Unlike the Calvinist view, this offer of salvation is not irresistible. Human beings can freely choose to accept God's grace through faith or to reject it. Salvation is therefore contingent on the human response to God's universal gracious initiative.

• 可抗拒的恩典（Resistible Grace）： 與加爾文主義的觀點不同，這個救贖的邀請並非不可抗拒。人類可以自由地選擇透過信心接受上帝的恩典，或拒絕它。因此，救贖取決於人類對上帝普世恩慈主動性的回應。

Part III: A Critical Comparative Analysis

第三部分：批判性比較分析

With the foundational doctrines of Pure Land "other-power" and Christian "divine grace" established, a direct comparative analysis can be undertaken. This comparison reveals striking functional parallels in their soteriological structures, particularly in their address to human helplessness and their emphasis on faith. However, it also uncovers profound and ultimately irreconcilable divergences rooted in their core ontological and teleological claims. The analogy between tariki and grace is powerful but has clear limits.

在確立了淨土宗「他力」和基督教「神恩」的基礎教義之後，可以直接進行比較分析。這種比較揭示了它們在救贖論結構上驚人的功能性相似之處，特別是在處理人類的無助感和對信心的強調方面。然而，它也揭示了根植於其核心本體論和目的論主張的深刻且最終無法調和的分歧。他力與恩典之間的類比雖然有力，但有其明顯的局限。

Soteriological Parallels: Faith, Works, and the External Agent

救贖論的相似之處：信心、行為與外在動力

At a functional level, Pure Land Buddhism and certain forms of Christianity developed remarkably similar solutions to the problem of salvation. Both traditions contain streams that posit a radical dependence on a compassionate external agent, accessed through faith and distinct from meritorious works.

在功能層面上，淨土宗佛教和某些形式的基督教為救贖問題發展出了非常相似的解決方案。兩種傳統中都存在著一些流派，主張對一個慈悲的外在動力抱持徹底的依賴，這種依賴是透過信心來達成的，並與功德行為有所區別。

The Nature of Faith: Shinjin and Fides

信心的本質：信心（Shinjin）與信仰（Fides）

A central parallel lies in the role of faith. Pure Land Buddhism's concept of shinjin and the Christian concept of fides (Latin for faith) both signify a transfer of trust from the self to an external saving power. Shinjin is a deep, existential entrusting in the power of Amitabha's Primal Vow, born from the painful awareness of one's own incapacity (bombu) to achieve liberation. Similarly, Christian faith, particularly in the Protestant tradition of sola fide, is a trust in the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work, rooted in the recognition of one's own sinfulness and inability to earn salvation. Both are fundamentally relational, defining the believer's stance as one of receptive reliance. Shinran's radical teaching that shinjin is itself a gift from Amitabha finds a stunning parallel in the Reformed Christian doctrine that saving faith is not a human work but a gift of God's grace.

一個核心的相似之處在於信心的角色。淨土宗的「信心」（shinjin）概念和基督教的「信仰」（fides，拉丁文意為faith）概念，都意味著將信賴從自我轉移到一個外在的救贖力量上。「信心」（Shinjin）是對阿彌陀佛本願之力的一種深刻的、關乎存有的託付，它源於對自身無力（凡夫，bombu）達成解脫的痛苦覺察。同樣地，基督教的信仰，特別是在新教「唯獨信心」（sola fide）的傳統中，是對基督贖罪工作之充足性的信賴，其根源在於認識到自身的罪性和無力賺取救恩。兩者在本質上都是關係性的，將信徒的姿態定義為一種領受性的依賴。親鸞關於「信心」本身是阿彌陀佛恩賜的激進教導，與改革宗基督教的教義有著驚人的相似之處，後者認為得救的信心並非人的作為，而是上帝恩典的禮物。

The Function of Practice: Nembutsu and Prayer/Sacraments

修行的功能：念佛（Nembutsu）與祈禱/聖禮

The primary practice of Pure Land, the recitation of the nembutsu ("Namu Amida Butsu"), finds functional parallels in Christian devotional practices like the "Jesus Prayer" ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner") or the Catholic Rosary. In their most grace-centric interpretations, these are not considered meritorious works that earn salvation. For Shinran, the nembutsu is not a mantra that manipulates reality or a good deed that accrues merit; it is the spontaneous verbal expression of gratitude from a heart that has already been assured of salvation by Amida's Vow-Power. This reframing of practice as a response to grace, rather than a cause of it, mirrors the Protestant understanding of good works. For Luther and Calvin, good works are the necessary fruits and evidence of true faith, but they contribute nothing to the act of justification itself, which is by faith alone. The internal debate within Pure Land Buddhism over whether the nembutsu is a cause of salvation or a consequence of faith directly reflects the long-standing Christian theological tension over whether sacraments are instrumental causes of grace (the Catholic view) or signs and seals of a grace already received by faith (the Reformed view).

淨土宗的主要修行，即稱念「南無阿彌陀佛」（nembutsu），在功能上與基督教的虔誠實踐有相似之處，如「耶穌禱文」（「主耶穌基督，上帝之子，求你垂憐我罪人」）或天主教的玫瑰經。在其最以恩典為中心的詮釋中，這些行為不被視為能賺取救恩的功德。對親鸞來說，「念佛」不是一種能操控現實的咒語，也不是一種能積累功德的善行；它是一顆已蒙阿彌陀願力保證得救的心，所自發流露出的感恩話語。這種將修行重新定義為對恩典的回應，而非其原因的觀點，反映了新教對善行的理解。對路德和加爾文而言，善行是真實信心的必要果實和證據，但它們對稱義本身——單單憑藉信心——毫無貢獻。淨土宗內部關於「念佛」是得救之因還是信心之果的辯論，直接反映了基督教神學中長久以來的張力：聖禮究竟是恩典的工具性原因（天主教觀點），還是對已憑信心領受之恩典的記號和印證（改革宗教觀點）。

This reveals a shared psychological and spiritual dynamic within both traditions. There exists a persistent human tendency to turn the means of salvation into a form of self-powered, quantifiable merit. The ego constantly seeks to reinsert itself into the process of its own liberation, whether by counting nembutsu recitations or tallying good deeds. In response, both traditions produced radical reformers—figures like Shinran in Buddhism and Martin Luther in Christianity—who sought to purify the doctrine of reliance on an external power by forcefully excising any trace of self-effort or ego-driven calculation from the heart of the salvific process. The most radical "grace-based" theologies in both religions are thus defined by their uncompromising denial of any role for the ego in securing its own salvation.

這揭示了兩種傳統內部共有的心理和靈性動態。人類存在一種持續的傾向，即將救贖的手段轉變為一種自力驅動、可量化的功德。無論是通過計算念佛次數還是統計善行，小我總是不斷試圖將自己重新插入其自我解脫的過程中。作為回應，兩種傳統都產生了激進的改革者——如佛教的親鸞和基督教的馬丁路德——他們試圖通過從救贖過程的核心中，強行剔除任何自力或自我驅動的算計痕跡，來淨化對外在力量的依賴教義。因此，兩種宗教中最激進的「基於恩典」的神學，其定義就在於它們毫不妥協地否認小我在確保自身救贖中的任何作用。

The Salvific Act: Amitabha's Vow vs. Christ's Atonement

救贖之舉：阿彌陀佛的誓願 vs. 基督的贖罪

Both traditions ground their hope in a foundational salvific act performed by the external agent. For Pure Land Buddhists, this is Amitabha's fulfillment of his Forty-Eight Vows, a compassionate, cosmic plan set in motion eons ago to construct a perfect refuge for all beings. For Christians, it is the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, a unique historical event understood to redeem humanity from sin. While both are presented as the ultimate expression of compassion or love, their metaphysical structures differ. Amitabha's act is fundamentally constructive: he builds a new realm, a Pure Land, to facilitate salvation. Christ's act is fundamentally redemptive: he pays a debt, conquers death, or propitiates divine justice to restore a broken relationship within the existing world. One creates a new context for salvation; the other transforms the existing context of damnation.

兩種傳統都將其希望寄託於一個由外在動力所執行的基礎性救贖行為。對淨土宗佛教徒而言，這是阿彌陀佛圓滿其四十八願，一個在無數劫前啟動的、為所有眾生構建完美庇護所的慈悲宇宙計畫。對基督徒而言，這是耶穌基督在十字架上的贖罪犧牲，一個被理解為將人類從罪惡中救贖出來的獨特歷史事件。雖然兩者都被呈現為慈悲或愛的終極表達，但它們的形上學結構有所不同。阿彌陀佛的行為在本質上是「建設性」的：祂建造一個新的領域，一個淨土，以促進救贖。基督的行為在本質上是「救贖性」的：祂償還一筆債務，戰勝死亡，或平息神聖的公義，以在現存世界中恢復一段破碎的關係。一個為救贖創造了新的情境；另一個則轉化了現存的定罪情境。

Foundational Divergences: Ontology and Telos

根本分歧：本體論與目的論

Despite these compelling functional analogies, the soteriological systems of Pure Land Buddhism and Christianity are ultimately built on irreconcilable foundations. The parallels, however striking, operate on the surface of religious practice and psychology; beneath them lie fundamentally different conceptions of reality, the human problem, and the ultimate goal.

儘管存在這些引人注目的功能性類比，淨土宗佛教和基督教的救贖體系最終建立在無法調和的基礎之上。這些相似之處，無論多麼驚人，都作用於宗教實踐和心理的表層；在其之下，潛藏著對現實、人類問題和終極目標的根本不同觀念。

The Core Problem: Ignorance vs. Sin

核心問題：無明 vs. 罪

The two traditions begin with starkly different diagnoses of the fundamental human predicament. Buddhism identifies the root cause of suffering as avidyā, or ignorance. This is not a lack of factual information but a profound misperception of the nature of reality—specifically, failing to see that all phenomena, including the self, are impermanent (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha), and devoid of any independent, enduring essence (anattā). This ignorance leads to craving, attachment, and the perpetuation of the cycle of rebirth and suffering (samsara). The solution, therefore, is wisdom (prajñā)—the dispelling of ignorance through insight.

兩種傳統對人類根本困境的診斷，從一開始就截然不同。佛教將苦的根源認定為「無明」（avidyā）。這並非缺乏事實資訊，而是對現實本質的深刻誤解——具體來說，就是未能看清一切現象，包括自我，都是無常的（anicca）、苦的（dukkha），並且沒有任何獨立、永恆的實體（anattā）。這種無明導致了渴愛、執著，以及生死輪迴與苦難（samsara）的延續。因此，解決方案是智慧（prajñā）——透過洞見來驅散無明。

Christianity, in contrast, diagnoses the core problem as Sin. Sin is not merely ignorance or a mistake; it is a moral and ontological state of rebellion against a personal, holy, and sovereign Creator God. It is a willful transgression that results in guilt, corruption of human nature, and a broken relationship with God, leading to spiritual and physical death. The solution, therefore, is not primarily enlightenment but atonement and reconciliation—the forgiveness of sin and the restoration of a right relationship with God through His grace. This initial diagnosis dictates the entire logic of the respective soteriologies: one path aims to cure ignorance, the other to forgive sin.

相比之下，基督教將核心問題診斷為「罪」。罪不僅僅是無知或錯誤；它是一種對人格化、聖潔、至高的造物主的道德和本體論上的反叛狀態。它是一種故意的違背，導致罪咎、人性的敗壞，以及與上帝關係的破裂，從而引向靈性上和肉體上的死亡。因此，解決方案主要不是證悟，而是贖罪與和解——透過祂的恩典赦免罪惡，並恢復與上帝的正確關係。這個最初的診斷決定了各自救贖論的全部邏輯：一條道路旨在治癒無明，另一條則旨在赦免罪惡。

The Nature of the "Savior": Enlightened Being vs. Creator God

「救主」的本質：覺者 vs. 創世神

As established previously, the ontological status of the salvific agent represents the most profound point of divergence. Amitabha Buddha is a product of the cosmos. He is a being who, through immense effort over countless lifetimes, achieved enlightenment and, out of compassion, used his accumulated merit to create a buddha-field. He operates within the impersonal laws of karma and dependent origination. He is a supreme guide, a compassionate benefactor, a "ferryman" who helps others cross the river of samsara.

如前所述，救贖動力的本體論地位代表了最深刻的分歧點。祂是一位通過無數世的巨大努力而證悟的存有，並出於慈悲，利用祂積累的功德創造了一個佛土。祂在非人格化的業力與緣起法則之內運作。祂是一位至高的引導者、一位慈悲的施恩者、一位幫助他人渡過娑婆之河的「擺渡人」。

The Triune God of Christianity, however, is understood as the ultimate source of the cosmos. He is the uncreated, eternal, omnipotent Creator and Sustainer of all that is. His act of salvation is not the work of a being within the system but the intervention of the author of the system itself. Christ is not merely a guide who shows the way; Christians believe he is "the way, the truth, and the life" John 14:6, the unique incarnation of God Himself. This ontological chasm—between an enlightened being and a creator God—is unbridgeable and ensures that "other-power" and "grace," despite their functional similarities, flow from fundamentally different sources.

然而，基督教的三一神被理解為宇宙的終極源頭。祂是自有永有、永恆、全能的萬物創造者與維繫者。祂的救贖之舉並非系統內某個存有的作為，而是系統創造者本身的介入。基督不僅僅是指路的引導者；基督徒相信祂就是「道路、真理、生命」（約翰福音14:6），是上帝自己獨一的道成肉身。這個本體論上的鴻溝——在一位覺者與一位創世神之間——是無法逾越的，並確保了「他力」與「恩典」，儘管在功能上有相似之處，卻源自根本不同的源頭。

The Ultimate Goal: Nirvana vs. Heaven

終極目標：涅槃 vs. 天堂

The final destinations envisioned by the two paths are also diametrically opposed. The ultimate goal of the Pure Land path is the attainment of Buddhahood, which is synonymous with Nirvana. Nirvana literally means "to extinguish" or "to blow out." It is the complete cessation of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion; the extinction of the conditioned self (anattā); and the final release from the endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. It is a state beyond all concepts, including being and non-being. It is the end of individual, conditioned existence.

兩條道路所設想的最終歸宿也是截然對立的。淨土法門的終極目標是成就佛果，這與涅槃是同義的。涅槃的字面意思是「熄滅」或「吹滅」。它是貪、嗔、痴之火的完全止息；是有為之我（anattā）的寂滅；以及從無盡的生、死、輪迴循環中的最終解脫。它是一個超越所有概念的狀態，包括「有」與「無有」。它是個體、有條件的存在的終結。

The ultimate goal of Christianity is eternal life in the presence of God, often referred to as Heaven or the Beatific Vision. This is not the extinction of the self but its perfection and eternal continuation. The saved individual, retaining their personal identity, enters into a state of perfect, loving communion with God and all the saints. One path leads to the cessation of the self; the other leads to the eternal perfection of the self in relationship with its Creator.

基督教的終極目標是在上帝面前的永生，通常被稱為天堂或榮福直觀。這不是自我的熄滅，而是其圓滿和永恆的存續。得救的個體保留其個人身份，進入與上帝及所有聖徒完美、慈愛的共融狀態。一條道路導向自我的止息；另一條則導向自我與其創造者關係中的永恆圓滿。

The following table provides a structured summary of these core theological distinctions, highlighting how the functional parallels in the human condition and means of access are embedded within fundamentally divergent ontological and teleological frameworks.

下表提供了這些核心神學區別的結構化摘要，突顯了在人類狀況和入門途徑上的功能性相似之處，是如何被嵌入根本不同的本體論和目的論框架之中的。

Case Study in Radical Reliance: Shinran and Karl Barth

徹底依賴的案例研究：親鸞與卡爾·巴特

The most potent test of the analogy between tariki and grace comes from comparing their most radical proponents: the Japanese Pure Land founder Shinran and the 20th-century Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth. In their respective systems, the logic of reliance on an external power is pushed to its absolute conclusion, resulting in a theological structure of astonishing similarity. Yet, even at this point of maximum convergence, the foundational differences remain, illuminating the ultimate limits of the comparison.

對他力與恩典之間類比最有力的檢驗，來自於比較它們最激進的倡導者：日本淨土宗創始人親鸞與20世紀瑞士改革宗神學家卡爾·巴特。在他們各自的體系中，依賴外在力量的邏輯被推至其絕對結論，從而產生了驚人相似的神學結構然而，即便在這一最大趨同點上，根本性的差異依然存在，這也揭示了此比較的最終局限。

A "Striking Parallelism"

「驚人的相似性」

Karl Barth, in his monumental Church Dogmatics, explicitly recognized the profound similarity between the teachings of Hōnen and Shinran and the theology of the Protestant Reformers. He referred to Jōdo Shinshū as a "Japanese 'Protestantism'" and a "religion of grace," acknowledging it as the most adequate non-Christian parallel to Reformed Christianity. This "striking parallelism" is evident in several key areas:

卡爾·巴特在其巨著《教會教義學》中，明確承認了法然和親鸞的教導與新教改革家神學之間的深刻相似性。他將淨土真宗稱為「日本的『新教』」和「恩典的宗教」，承認它是對改革宗基督教最貼切的非基督教類比。這種「驚人的相似性」在幾個關鍵領域表現得十分明顯：

• Radical Human Depravity: Both Shinran and Barth begin with a deeply pessimistic assessment of the human condition. Shinran, reflecting on his own twenty years of futile monastic striving, concluded that the human mind is a "sea of lust" and a "mountain of fame," filled with "greed, anger, evil and deceit". He argued that any seemingly "good" act performed by a person is still tainted by ego and self-interest, a "mixed poison". Similarly, Barth, following the Reformers, emphasized the total depravity of fallen humanity, arguing that humans are utterly helpless before God's justice and incapable of initiating their own salvation. For both thinkers, self-effort is not just insufficient; it is impossible.

• 徹底的人類敗壞： 親鸞和巴特都從對人類狀況的深度悲觀評估開始。親鸞反思自己二十年徒勞的僧侶修行後，得出結論，人心是「欲海」和「名利之山」，充滿了「貪、嗔、邪、偽」。他認為，人所行的任何看似「善」的行為，仍然被自我和私利所玷污，是一種「雜毒」。同樣，巴特追隨改革家們，強調墮落人性的全然敗壞，認為人類在上帝的公義面前完全無助，無法發起自己的救贖。對這兩位思想家來說，自力不僅是不足夠的，而且是不可能的。

• Absolute Reliance on the Other: As a direct consequence, both thinkers posit an absolute reliance on an external saving power. For Shinran, everything rests on the Primal Vow of Amida Buddha, the compassionate redeemer. For Barth, everything rests on the grace of God as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Any human activity or merit is excluded from the process of salvation.

• 對他者的絕對依賴： 作為直接後果，兩位思想家都主張對一個外在救贖力量的絕對依賴。對親鸞而言，一切都仰賴於慈悲的救主阿彌陀佛的本願。對巴特而言，一切都仰賴於在耶穌基督的位格與工作中彰顯的上帝恩典。任何人類的活動或功德都被排除在救贖過程之外。

• Faith as a Gift: Both Shinran and Barth take the final, radical step of declaring that even the faith required to accept this salvation is not a human achievement but a gift from the "other." Shinran taught that true shinjin is conferred by Amida alone. Barth, in line with Calvinist doctrine, taught that saving faith is created in the hearts of the elect by the irresistible grace of the Holy Spirit. In both systems, the human being is purely receptive; the divine or transcendent power is the sole agent.

• 信心作為禮物： 親鸞和巴特都邁出了最後的、激進的一步，宣稱即便是接受此救贖所需的信心，也不是人類的成就，而是來自「他者」的禮物。親鸞教導說，真正的信心（shinjin）唯獨由阿彌陀所賜。巴特則與加爾文主義教義一致，教導說得救的信心是由聖靈不可抗拒的恩典在選民心中創造的。在這兩個體系中，人純粹是領受者；神聖或超然的力量是唯一的行動者。

The Irreducible Difference: Christological Particularity

不可化約的差異：基督論的獨特性

Despite this profound structural convergence, Barth ultimately maintained a clear distinction. While he saw Pure Land faith as a "providential disposition" that serves as a powerful lesson to Christianity—proving that the form of the Christian religion does not possess truth per se—he did not consider it to be the "true religion". For Barth, the single, decisive, and irreducible difference is the unique, historical self-revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

儘管存在這種深刻的結構性趨同，巴特最終仍維持了一個清晰的區別。雖然他將淨土信仰視為一種「天意性的安排」，可作為給予基督教的有力教訓——證明基督教宗教形式本身並不擁有真理——但他並不認為它是「真正的宗教」。對巴特來說，那單一的、決定性的、不可化約的差異，是上帝在耶穌基督位格中獨特的、歷史性的自我啟示。

Barth argued that while many religions might contain concepts of grace, truth is not found in the religious structure itself, no matter how refined. Truth, for Barth, is an event: the event of God's self-disclosure in Christ. Therefore, while Jōdo Shinshū may be the highest form of a "religion of grace," it remains a human religion, a quest for God. Christianity, for Barth, is not ultimately a religion but the result of God's revelation, His quest for humanity, which is uniquely and finally embodied in Jesus Christ. This Christological particularity creates an unbridgeable chasm. Shinran's tariki is grounded in the universal Dharma and the compassionate vow of a Buddha. Barth's grace is grounded in the singular person of Jesus, the one name through which salvation is offered. This case study demonstrates that even where the logic of salvation is nearly identical, the different objects of faith—a universal principle embodied in a Buddha versus a personal God incarnate in a specific historical figure—keep the two traditions fundamentally distinct.

巴特認為，儘管許多宗教可能包含恩典的概念，但真理並不在於宗教結構本身，無論它多麼精緻。對巴特來說，真理是一個事件：即上帝在基督裡自我揭示的事件。因此，雖然淨土真宗可能是「恩典宗教」的最高形式，但它仍然是一種人類的宗教，一種對上帝的追尋。對巴特而言，基督教最終並非一種宗教，而是上帝啟示的結果，是祂對人類的追尋，而這追尋獨特且最終地體現在耶穌基督身上。這種基督論的獨特性創造了一個無法逾越的鴻溝。親鸞的「他力」植根於普世的佛法和一位佛陀的慈悲誓願。巴特的「恩典」則植根於耶穌這獨一無二的位格，那賜下救恩的唯一名號。這個案例研究表明，即便在救贖邏輯幾乎相同的地方，信仰對象的不同——一個體現在佛陀身上的普世原則，對比一個在特定歷史人物中道成肉身的人格神——仍使兩種傳統保持著根本的區別。

Part IV: Synthesis & Concluding Reflections

第四部分：綜合與結論反思

The comparative analysis of Pure Land Buddhism's "other-power" and Christian "grace" reveals a complex relationship of functional analogy and foundational divergence. While the two traditions independently developed soteriological frameworks that bear a striking resemblance in their response to human finitude and helplessness, they remain rooted in profoundly different ontological and teleological worlds. Acknowledging both the parallels and the unbridgeable gaps is essential for a nuanced understanding of each tradition.

對淨土宗佛教「他力」與基督教「恩典」的比較分析，揭示了一種功能上相似而基礎上分歧的複雜關係。雖然這兩個傳統各自發展出的救贖論框架，在回應人類的有限性與無助感上，有著驚人的相似之處，但它們仍然植根於截然不同的本體論與目的論世界。承認這些相似之處與無法逾越的鴻溝，對於細膩地理解每種傳統至關重要。

The Limits of Analogy and the Integrity of Traditions

類比的局限與傳統的完整性

The initial proposition that some schools of Mahayana Buddhism, particularly Pure Land, developed a concept functionally analogous to grace is borne out by this exhaustive analysis. Both tariki and grace represent a theological turn toward an external, compassionate power as the primary agent of salvation, a turn necessitated by a deep-seated conviction that human beings, left to their own devices, are incapable of achieving their ultimate spiritual goal. The emphasis on faith over works, the recognition of human depravity (whether as karmic defilement or sin), and the development of radical "other-power" or "grace-alone" theologies by figures like Shinran and Martin Luther demonstrate a powerful structural convergence. This functional analogy is not a superficial resemblance but a deep parallel in religious logic and psychology.

最初關於某些大乘佛教宗派，特別是淨土宗，發展出一個功能上類似恩典概念的命題，已由本次詳盡分析所證實。「他力」與「恩典」都代表了一種神學上的轉向，即朝向一個外在的、慈悲的力量作為救贖的主要動力，這一轉向是由一種根深蒂固的信念所驅動的：即人類若單靠自己，是無法達成其終極靈性目標的。對信心的強調勝過行為、對人性敗壞（無論是業障還是罪）的認識，以及由親鸞和馬丁路德等人物發展出的激進「他力」或「唯獨恩典」神學，都展現了一種強大的結構性趨同。這種功能上的類比並非膚淺的相似，而是在宗教邏輯和心理學上的深層平行。

However, the analogy has firm and clear limits. It operates at the level of function, not ontology. The report has demonstrated that this shared logic is applied to different problems and is grounded in different ultimate realities. The non-theistic premise of Buddhism is the determinative "firewall" that prevents any true equation of the two concepts. Amitabha's "other-power" is the earned, karmic Vow-Power of an enlightened being   within a beginning-less cosmos. God's grace is the inherent, uncreated power of a personal Creator who stands outside the cosmos as its source. The problem tariki solves is ignorance (avidyā) and karmic suffering; the problem grace solves is sin and separation from God. The goal of the Pure Land path is Nirvana—the extinction of the conditioned self. The goal of the Christian path is eternal life—the perfection of the self in communion with God.

然而，這個類比有其堅定而明確的局限。它在功能的層面上運作，而非本體論層面。本報告已證明，這種共通的邏輯被應用於不同的問題，並植根於不同的終極實在。佛教的非神論前提是一道決定性的「防火牆」，它阻止了這兩個概念任何真正的等同。阿彌陀佛的「他力」是一位覺者在一個無始的宇宙「之內」，透過修行所掙得的、基於業力的願力。上帝的恩典則是一位人格化的創造者固有的、非受造的力量，祂作為宇宙的源頭而立於宇宙「之外」。他力解決的問題是無明（avidyā）和業苦；恩典解決的問題是罪以及與上帝的分離。淨土法門的目標是涅槃——有為之我的寂滅。基督徒道路的目標是永生——自我在與上帝的共融中達至圓滿。

Therefore, the development of a devotional, faith-based path within Buddhism does not alter the fundamental non-theistic premise of the tradition as a whole. Pure Land remains a sophisticated and compassionate form of Buddhist upāya (skillful means), using a framework of faith and reliance to guide beings toward the classic Buddhist goals of wisdom and liberation from samsara. It is a distinct path within the broader Buddhist landscape, not a convergence with theism.

因此，在佛教內部發展出一條虔信的、以信仰為基礎的道路，並未改變該傳統整體的根本非神論前提。淨土宗仍然是一種精密且慈悲的佛教方便法門（upāya），它運用信心與依賴的框架，來引導眾生走向佛教經典的目標——智慧與從輪迴中解脫。它是廣闊佛教版圖中的一條獨特道路，而非與有神論的趨同。

Conclusion of Two Different Soteriologies

两种不同救赎论的总结

The relationship between tariki and grace challenges both facile syncretism and rigid exclusivism. It refutes the simplistic claim that "all religions are ultimately the same" by demonstrating that even where soteriological structures are nearly identical, their foundational philosophical and theological commitments can be diametrically opposed. Pure Land soteriology arose within Mahāyāna’s bodhisattva ethos, reframing enlightenment as a collective enterprise made accessible through Amitābha’s ancient vow. Christian soteriology crystallised around the historical crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, interpreting these events as God’s once-for-all remedy for sin.

他力與恩典之間的關係，對輕率的融合主義和僵化的排他主義都提出了挑戰。它駁斥了「所有宗教最終都相同」的簡單化論調，證明了即使在救贖論結構幾乎相同的情況下，其根本的哲學和神學承諾也可能截然對立。淨土宗的救贖論產生於大乘佛教的菩薩精神之中，將證悟重新定義為一項透過阿彌陀佛古老誓願而變得可及的「集體事業」。基督教的救贖論則圍繞著耶穌「歷史性的受難與復活」而結晶，將這些事件詮釋為上帝為罪所預備的、一次性且永遠有效的補救。

Both traditions democratize spiritual hope: whether through the simple nembutsu or simple faith, salvation is portrayed as a gift for the powerless. Yet their metaphysical backdrops diverge—cyclical rebirth vs. linear redemption, merit-transfer vs. grace-imputation—yielding distinctive understandings of what it ultimately means to be “saved".

兩種傳統都使靈性希望變得普及：無論是通過簡單的念佛，還是簡單的信心，救贖都被描繪成一份給予無力者的禮物。然而，它們的形上學背景卻大相徑庭——「循環的輪迴對比線性的救贖，功德轉移對比恩典歸算」——從而對「得救」的最終意義產生了獨特的理解。

In conclusion, while one may observe superficial structural similarities between the Gospel of grace and the religious systems devised by men, these comparisons are ultimately deceptive and spiritually fatal. The hope offered in the Lord Jesus Christ is unique, exclusive, and divinely wrought. It is rooted in the historical reality of His substitutionary death and bodily resurrection—events that proved He is God in the flesh.

總而言之，雖然人們可能會觀察到恩典的福音與人所設計的宗教體系之間存在膚淺的結構相似之處，但這些比較終究是欺騙性的，並且在屬靈上是致命的。在主耶穌基督裡所提供的盼望是獨特的、排他的，並且是神所成就的。它根植於祂替代性的死亡和身體復活的歷史事實——這些事件證明了祂是道成肉身的神。

The salvation offered in the Bible is not merely a different understanding of being "saved"; it is the only salvation that exists. All other systems, regardless of their philosophical complexity or superficial appeal to the "powerless," are "cunningly devised fables" 2 Peter 1:16 that lead away from the living God. They are built on foundations of sand—be it a "bodhisattva ethos" or the "vow" of a false god—while the Christian's hope is built on the Solid Rock, the Lord Jesus Christ.

所有其他的體系，無論其哲學多麼複雜或對「無能者」有多膚淺的吸引力，都是「乖巧捏造的虛言」（彼得後書 1:16），引人遠離永生的神。它們建立在沙土的根基上——無論是「菩薩的理念」還是假神的「誓願」——而基督徒的盼望則建立在堅固的磐石，主耶穌基督之上。

Let us therefore not be intrigued by facile comparisons but hold fast to the truth once delivered unto the saints, knowing that the Gospel of Christ "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" Romans 1:16. All other ground is sinking sand.

因此，讓我們不要被膚淺的比較所吸引，而是要持守那一次交付聖徒的真道，因為知道基督的福音「本是神的大能，要救一切相信的」（羅馬書 1:16）。此外的一切都是下沉的沙土。

Also see:

• Buddhism Salvation
• Origin of Guanyin
• Mahayana Vs Theravada