入楞伽心玄義 1.60

1.60

五、佛性遍通門者，有說：一切眾生中有一分無佛性者，如五性中，一分半有佛性，餘定無佛性等，如《瑜伽》等說。有說：一切眾生悉有佛性，唯除草木，如《涅槃》、《楞伽》等。如此二說，今竝和會，然有二義：一就法、二就教。法中，於一佛性融通隱顯，有其四義：一、就執非有門，如小乘中隨於法執，總不說有大菩提性。二、隨事虧盈門，如《瑜伽》等中，但就法爾種子有為無漏為菩提性，是故不說普遍眾生。三、約理遍情門，如此經及《涅槃》等，凡諸有心皆有佛性，是故眾生無非有心。有心無非有性，以心必有性。性必為因，背凡成聖。若爾，何故前教定說有無佛性耶？《佛性》、《寶性》二論自釋，為一闡提謗法罪重，依無量時故作是說，非謂究竟無清淨性。四、相想俱絕門，如《諸法無行經》，解佛種性皆離名離相離見離念，具如彼說。二、就教者，《佛性論》第二卷末云「若一切眾生悉有佛性，何故如來經中說有一分無般涅槃眾生？但如來說法有二種：一了義、二不了義。汝不應執不了義。」解云：此是天親菩薩論主良斷，可定百篇也。

Fifth, regarding the gateway of the universal pervasion of Buddha-nature: some say that among all sentient beings there is a portion who lack Buddha-nature, as among the five lineages, one and a half possess Buddha-nature while the rest definitely lack Buddha-nature, as taught in works such as the Yogācārabhūmi. Others say that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, excluding only grasses and trees, as in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and so forth. These two explanations are now reconciled together, yet there are two aspects: first, with respect to phenomena; second, in terms of teachings. Regarding phenomena, in the interfusion, concealment, and manifestation of the single Buddha-nature, there are four aspects: 1. The gateway of non-existence according to clinging: as in the Hīnayāna, following attachment to dharmas, they do not speak at all of the nature of great bodhi. 2. The gateway of deficiency and fullness according to phenomena: as in the Yogācārabhūmi and the like, they merely take the conditioned, uncontaminated seeds inherent in nature as the nature of bodhi, and therefore do not speak of it pervading all sentient beings. 3. The gateway of principle pervading sentient beings: as in this sūtra, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, and the like, all who possess mind have Buddha-nature; therefore, there are no sentient beings who do not possess mind. Those possessing mind cannot fail to possess the nature, because mind must possess nature. The nature must serve as the cause, turning from the ordinary to become noble. If so, why do the former teachings definitely speak of the existence or non-existence of Buddha-nature? The two treatises, the Treatise on Buddha-Nature and the Ratnagotravibhāga, explain this themselves: for the sake of the icchantika whose sin of slandering the Dharma is grave, this was stated relying on an immeasurable time, not meaning that they ultimately lack the pure nature. 4. The gateway where marks and concepts are both cut off: as in the Sūtra of Non-action of All Dharmas, which explains that the Buddha-lineage is completely free from names, marks, views, and thoughts, fully as taught therein. Second, in terms of teachings: at the end of the second fascicle of the Treatise on Buddha-Nature, it states: 'If all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, why did the Tathāgata say in the sūtras that there is a portion of sentient beings who do not attain parinirvāṇa? It is simply that the Tathāgata's teachings are of two kinds: first, of definitive meaning; second, of provisional meaning. You should not cling to the provisional meaning.' Explanation: This is the excellent judgment of the treatise master Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, which can settle a hundred treatises.