大般涅槃經疏 28.5

28.5

就文為二：初明攝惡、後明攝邪。就攝惡中二：先明佛性用、二歎經。初明用又二：先明斷善、後明生善。以虛妄力故斷善，以佛性力故生善。舊解云：作惡生善兩人，更遞然不相關。又一師云：只是一人，前顛倒故起惡，後遇知識故生善。今明不然，或是一人或是多人，如河中七種，即是多人；若一人始沒乃至成佛，即是一人。舊云：生善有接識義。眾生從界外無明識窟中始起一品無明而來，未起四住，有佛接去即得成佛。此義大妨。設有此經，亦是一時改惡為緣；若無此經，全不堪依。若言必須起五住竟方能改惡作善，亦無一經定作此說；設有此經，亦以一時為緣而已。若爾，任惡極而任運被接，何須修道？與八萬劫得道何異？若言從識窟中來者，即是從無明中來，云何言始起一品無明？若未起惑，應在別處。若從窟中來始起一品而被接者，自後起品乃至四住何不被接？若無明窟中既被接，四住窟中何不接之？故是難信。若爾，併不須修。上數破此義。若佛性力任得菩提不須修者，正破於此。舊言：善星無發迹處，是實惡人。是義不然，雖未見經，義推是權。何者？佛兩弟兩子各行善惡，阿難為善、調達作惡，悉皆是權；今羅云為善、善星作惡，例知是權。

Regarding the text, there are two parts: first, explaining the gathering of evil [beings], and second, explaining the gathering of heterodox [beings]. Within the gathering of evil [beings], there are two parts: first, explaining the function of the buddhadhātu, and second, praising the sūtra. The first, explaining the function, also has two parts: first, explaining the severing of good, and second, explaining the generation of good. Because of the power of delusion, good is severed; because of the power of the buddhadhātu, good is generated. An old commentary states: 'The person who commits evil and the person who generates good are two different persons; they alternate and are completely unrelated to one another.' Another master says: 'It is only one person; previously, due to inversions, evil arose, and later, meeting a spiritual friend, good was generated.' We now explain that this is not so: it may be one person, or it may be many persons. Like the seven types [of swimmers] in the river, they are many persons; if it is one person initially submerging and continuing up to attaining buddhahood, then it is one person. The old [view] says: 'The generation of good involves the principle of the "gathered consciousness". Sentient beings, starting from within the cave of ignorance-consciousness beyond the realms, first produce one grade of ignorance and come forth; having not yet produced the four dwellings, if there is a buddha who gathers them up, they immediately attain buddhahood.' This principle presents a great obstacle. Even if such a sūtra existed, it would merely be a temporary condition for transforming evil; if there is no such sūtra, it is entirely unreliable. If it is said that one must inevitably produce all five dwellings before one can transform evil and do good, neither is there any sūtra that definitively makes such a statement; even if there were such a sūtra, it too would only treat this as a temporary condition. If so, and one is left to the extremes of evil and naturally gathered up, why would there be any need to cultivate the Path? How would this differ from attaining the Path [naturally after] eighty thousand kalpas? If it is said that one comes from the cave of consciousness, that means one comes from ignorance; how can one say that one first produces one grade of ignorance? If one had not yet produced afflictions, one ought to have been in another place. If, having come from the cave and first producing one grade, one was gathered up, why were they not gathered up when subsequent grades up to the four dwellings arose? If they were gathered up in the cave of ignorance, why were they not gathered up in the cave of the four dwellings? Therefore, this is difficult to believe. If that were the case, then altogether there would be no need for cultivation. Above, we have repeatedly refuted this doctrine. If by the power of the buddhadhātu one naturally attains bodhi without needing to cultivate, this is precisely what is refuted. The old [view] says: 'Sunakṣatra has no trace of origin; he is a real evil person.' This doctrine is not correct. Although we have not seen it in the sūtra, by doctrinal inference he is a provisional [manifestation]. Why? The Buddha's two younger brothers and two sons each engaged in good and evil: Ānanda did good while Devadatta committed evil, and both were provisional manifestations. Now Rāhula did good while Sunakṣatra committed evil; by analogy, one knows this is also a provisional manifestation.