瑜伽論記 13.447

13.447

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.