[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822) › 1.16 # 俱舍論疏 1.16 俱舍論疏 1.16 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.16) 說一切有部本宗同義：亦有天中修梵行者。佛慈悲等不緣有情，執有有情不得解脫。定無小法能從前世轉至後世。餘如常說。化地部本宗同義：過去、未來是無，現世、無為是有。於四聖諦一時現觀，見苦諦時然見諸諦。異生不行欲界貪、嗔。亦無天中住梵行者。無為有九，謂虛空、擇滅、非擇滅、不動、善法真如、不善法真如、無記法真如、八道支真如、九緣起真如。佛與二乘，皆同一道、同一解脫。飲光部本宗同義：謂若法已斷已遍知則無，未斷未遍知即有。善惡業，果已熟則無，果未熟即有。諸有學有異熟果。經量部本宗同義：謂說諸蘊有從前世轉至後世。異生位中亦有聖法。執有勝義補特迦羅。餘說亦同一切有部。今詳諸部本宗同義，《宗輪論》具述差別；末宗異義多分不述，但云無量。本宗同義中，一切有部執有有情不得解脫，餘部多分指同有部。諸部中本宗同義，無說一切眾生悉有佛性。《佛性論》云「佛為小乘人說有眾生不住於性，永不般涅槃。於此生疑，起不信心。」論自釋云「分別部說，凡聖眾生皆從空出，以空為佛性。若依《毘曇》薩婆多等諸部中說，一切眾生無性得佛性，但有修得佛性。分別眾生凡有三種：一定無佛性，若永不得涅槃；二不定有無，若修即得，不修不得；三定有佛性，即三乘聖人。」撿《宗輪論》，本宗部中無分別部，亦無有執有佛性宗。詳其旨趣，分別部者是末宗異計，立佛性者是末宗異義，分別部中不誦有部所引經故。而不全信，心生疑惑。一切有部以皆共許《阿含》等經，如來性力知種種界成立無性。分別說部復以四義求有佛性，有部即以五義重破：一、種種界可得故；二、無相眾生不可得故；三、同類譬喻不可得故，以有情為同類；四、異類譬喻不同故（以無情為異類也）；五現在無涅槃法不應理故。以分別說部依小乘宗，意有佛性違越契經，於小乘中未說有故。《涅槃經》云「九部經中無方等經，是故不說有佛性也。」又云「我於聲聞、緣覺經中，未說一闡提等悉有佛性。」由此慈氏菩薩於〈聲聞地〉述有部等計破分別說部，以違經故。世親菩薩依《方等經》述《佛性論》，破小乘執品、破有部等計，順大乘故。後代讀《瑜伽》者，以〈聲聞地〉破有性故，《涅槃經》說一切眾生悉有佛性，是不了義，《佛性論》偽惑之甚也。而不知《瑜伽》於〈菩薩地〉後〈五識相應地〉，立一切眾生悉有佛因，即是真如所緣緣種，一切眾生平等有。又與《涅槃》第一義空、佛性、一切諸佛阿耨菩提中道種子無差別也。又《涅槃》第一義空、佛性，亦名非空非不空，能與善法為種子故。有何差別也？ > The shared doctrines of the fundamental Sarvāstivāda: There are also those among the devas who cultivate the brahma-conduct. The Buddha's loving-kindness, compassion, and so forth do not take sentient beings as their object, and one who grasps at the existence of a sentient being does not attain liberation. Definitely no subtle phenomenon can transmigrate from a past lifetime to a future lifetime. The rest are as commonly taught. The shared doctrines of the fundamental Mahīśāsaka: The past and future do not exist; the present and the unconditioned exist. The four noble truths are realized simultaneously; when one sees the truth of suffering, one then sees all the truths. Ordinary beings do not enact desire or ill-will in the desire realm. Nor are there any among the devas who abide in the brahma-conduct. There are nine unconditioned phenomena: space, analytical cessation, non-analytical cessation, the unshakeable state, suchness of wholesome phenomena, suchness of unwholesome phenomena, suchness of neutral phenomena, suchness of the eight limbs of the path, and suchness of the nine links of dependent origination. The Buddha and the two vehicles share the same single path and the same single liberation. The shared doctrines of the fundamental Kāśyapīya: If phenomena are already abandoned and completely known, they do not exist; if they are not yet abandoned and not completely known, they exist. For wholesome and unwholesome karma, if the fruit has already matured, it does not exist; if the fruit has not yet matured, it exists. Those in training possess the fruits of maturation. The shared doctrines of the fundamental Sautrāntika: They teach that the skandhas transmigrate from a past lifetime to a future lifetime. Within the stage of an ordinary being, noble phenomena also exist. They maintain the existence of a paramārtha-pudgala. The rest of their doctrines are also identical to the Sarvāstivāda. Now, in investigating the shared doctrines of the fundamental traditions of these various schools, the Samayabhedoparacanacakra expounds their differences in full; regarding the differing doctrines of the derivative traditions, for the most part it does not expound them, merely stating that they are immeasurable. Among the shared doctrines of the fundamental traditions, the Sarvāstivāda maintains that one who grasps at the existence of a sentient being cannot attain liberation; most of the other schools are indicated to be the same as the Sarvāstivāda. Among the shared doctrines of these various schools, none teach that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature. The Buddhadhātu-śāstra states: 'The Buddha taught to those of the Hīnayāna that there are sentient beings who do not abide in the \[noble\] nature and will never enter parinirvāṇa. Concerning this, doubts arose and they gave rise to lack of faith.' That treatise itself explains: 'The Vibhajyavāda states that all ordinary beings and noble ones emerge from emptiness, taking emptiness to be the Buddha-nature. If according to the Abhidharma of the Sarvāstivāda and other schools, all sentient beings lack a nature that naturally possesses Buddha-nature, having only a Buddha-nature acquired through cultivation. Sentient beings are categorized into three kinds: first, those definitely lacking Buddha-nature, who will never attain nirvāṇa; second, those indeterminate as to whether they have it or not, who attain it if they cultivate, and do not attain it if they do not cultivate; third, those definitely possessing Buddha-nature, namely the noble ones of the three vehicles.' Examining the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, among its fundamental schools there is no Vibhajyavāda, nor is there any school that maintains the existence of Buddha-nature. Investigating this purport: the Vibhajyavāda belongs to derivative differing theories, and the positing of Buddha-nature is a derivative differing doctrine, for within the Vibhajyavāda they did not recite the sūtras cited by the Sarvāstivāda. Not having complete faith, doubts arose in their minds. The Sarvāstivāda, relying on the mutually accepted Āgamas and other scriptures, established the absence of nature through the Tathāgata's power of disposition in knowing the diverse elements. The Vibhajyavāda further used four points to argue for the existence of Buddha-nature, and the Sarvāstivāda immediately refuted them with five points: 1. Because diverse elements are observed; 2. Because markless sentient beings cannot be observed; 3. Because an example of the same category cannot be found—taking sentient beings as the same category; 4. Because an example of a different category is not comparable—taking insentient things as the different category; 5. Because the present absence of the phenomenon of nirvāṇa would be illogical. Since the Vibhajyavāda relies on the Hīnayāna tenets, their intention of \[affirming\] Buddha-nature violates the sūtras, as it was not taught in the Hīnayāna. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'Among the nine classes of scriptures, there are no Vaipulya sūtras; therefore it does not speak of Buddha-nature.' It also says: 'In the sūtras for the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, I did not teach that icchantikas and the like all possess Buddha-nature.' Therefore, Bodhisattva Maitreya in the 'Śrāvakabhūmi' expounded the views of the Sarvāstivāda and others to refute the Vibhajyavāda, because it contradicted the sūtras. Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, relying on the Vaipulya sūtras, composed the Buddhadhātu-śāstra; in the chapter refuting Hīnayāna attachments, he refuted the views of the Sarvāstivāda and others, because he accorded with the Mahāyāna. Later generations reading the Yogācārabhūmi, because the 'Śrāvakabhūmi' refutes the existence of the nature, claimed that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra's teaching that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature is of non-definitive meaning, and that the Buddhadhātu-śāstra is a forged, deeply misleading work. Yet they did not know that the Yogācārabhūmi, in the stage corresponding to the five consciousnesses following the 'Bodhisattvabhūmi', establishes that all sentient beings possess the cause of buddhahood, which is the seed of the objective condition of suchness, possessed equally by all sentient beings. Moreover, it is no different from the ultimate emptiness, the Buddha-nature, and the middle-way seed of the anuttarā samyaksambodhi of all Buddhas in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra. Furthermore, the ultimate emptiness and Buddha-nature in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra is also named 'neither empty nor non-empty', because it can serve as the seed for wholesome phenomena. What difference is there? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.15) - [Next: 1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.17) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822~en-mt.1.16) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大乘阿毘達磨雜集論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.abhidharmasamuccaya!bhasya*zh-xuanzang.2.40) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.16) · Pramāṇa