大般涅槃經疏 28.5

28.5

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.