瑜伽論記 13.447

13.447

言當知由轉依力，所任持故者，三乘見道轉凡成聖名為轉依，轉依即是真如，真如為緣任持出世諸無漏行相續隨轉。三藏云：八卷楞伽第二卷辨五種性，三乘定性，為前三人，四不定性，五一闡提，闡提有二。一、菩薩闡提，畢竟無成佛義；二、斷善闡提，若遇勝緣必得成佛，余在西方時已有楞伽梵本，本文亦同。西方大德評此義云：楞伽不說第五無性有情，但說有佛種中二種闡提，一是斷善根遇緣還續究竟作佛，二是菩薩大悲純為眾生故不取正覺，顯此希奇故偏別說，即大集經云：菩薩發心誓度眾生，眾生未盡我不作佛，眾生若盡我用方息須入涅槃。又智論云：有諸菩薩因圓滿不取正覺如文殊等。大莊嚴論第二卷云：無佛性人謂常無性。余欲來之時，諸大德論無姓人文，若至本國必不生信。願於所將種論之內略去無佛性之語。戒賢呵云：『彌離車人解何物而輒為彼損？』（基云）勝軍既新種約障以辨三乘，即以此文為正，護月護法本種雖有，今約障說非舊種無，假設有種障不可斷名無種性，何況法爾力故有種無種為緣而障可斷不斷，今觀障說義亦無過，皆以果時所趣因中障不為者，故約障說，以無漏種隱，以法爾故不說，從障而論也。

Regarding the statement 'It should be known that it is because they are upheld by the power of the transformation of the basis': when the three vehicles' path of seeing transforms the ordinary person into a noble one, this is called the transformation of the basis (āśrayaparavṛtti). The transformation of the basis is none other than tathatā; with tathatā as a condition, it upholds all untainted supramundane practices, which continue in succession. The Tripiṭaka Master says: The second fascicle of the eight-fascicle Laṅkāvatāra distinguishes five gotras: those of determined nature in the three vehicles constitute the first three kinds of persons; the fourth is the undetermined nature; the fifth is the icchantika. There are two kinds of icchantikas: first, the bodhisattva-icchantika, who definitively has no possibility of attaining Buddhahood; second, the icchantika who has severed wholesome roots, who will definitely attain Buddhahood if meeting superior conditions. When I was in the West, there was already a Sanskrit manuscript of the Laṅkāvatāra, and its root text was the same. The venerable elders of the West evaluated this meaning, saying: The Laṅkāvatāra does not speak of a fifth class of sentient beings who lack the nature; it only speaks of two kinds of icchantikas among those who possess the Buddha-seed: one has severed wholesome roots, but upon encountering conditions connects them again and ultimately attains Buddhahood; the second is the bodhisattva who, out of great compassion solely for sentient beings, does not take awakening. To highlight this marvel, it spoke of them separately. This is just as the Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra says: 'A bodhisattva gives rise to the resolve, vowing to cross over sentient beings: As long as sentient beings are not exhausted, I shall not become a Buddha; when sentient beings are exhausted, my activity will cease, and I must enter nirvāṇa.' Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says: 'There are bodhisattvas whose causes are complete, yet they do not take awakening, such as Mañjuśrī and others.' The second fascicle of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra says: 'Persons without Buddha-nature are those who permanently lack the nature.' When I was about to return, various venerable elders discussed the text on persons without the gotra, saying that if it arrived in my native country, people would definitely not believe it, and asked me to omit the phrase 'without Buddha-nature' from the treatises on gotras I was bringing. Śīlabhadra scolded them, saying: 'What do mlecchas understand that you should rashly diminish it for their sake?' (Ji says:) Since Jayasena posits new seeds and distinguishes the three vehicles in terms of hindrances, he takes this text as standard. Candrapāla and Dharmapāla hold that although innate seeds exist, here it is explained in terms of hindrances, not that old seeds are absent: even hypothetically granting that there were seeds, if the hindrances cannot be severed, one is called 'lacking the gotra'. How much more so since, through the power of the nature of things (dharmatā), the presence or absence of seeds acts as a condition whereby hindrances can or cannot be severed! Now, viewing it as being explained in terms of hindrances, there is likewise no fault. In all cases, because in the state of the cause one does not remove the hindrances regarding what is to be attained at the time of the fruit, it is explained in terms of hindrances. Because untainted seeds are hidden, and because of the nature of things they are not mentioned, it is discussed in terms of hindrances.