成唯識論掌中樞要 1.32

1.32

In sum: The Nirvāṇa-sūtra, relying on the nature as principle and a small portion of the nature as practice that applies to all, states that there is only one. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha, relying on the sharp and dull faculties of those possessing the nature to elucidate it, merely divides it into superior and inferior. The Śīla-bhadra-sūtra (Shanjie jing), relying on the distinction between the classes of existence and non-existence, speaks of two natures: existent and non-existent. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa-sūtra divides those who possess the nature into two based on sharp and dull faculties, and counts those devoid of gotra as one; hence the sick are divided into three. The Lotus Sūtra converts the indeterminate; without making separate distinctions, it speaks of three in their general characteristics. The Prajñāpāramitā speaks of inquiring about entering the path; it speaks of those possessing the nature, not of those devoid of gotra. The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra uses the metaphor of bearing four classes of burdens, concealing the indeterminate gotra; subsuming the universal under the particular, it does not exceed three classes. The Laṅkāvatāra relies on those possessing the nature to distinguish between future attainment and non-attainment; although it speaks of five, it does not speak of those devoid of gotra. In the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṅkāra, it fully and separately distinguishes that neither cause nor fruit nature manifests, and the fifth is separate from both, not speaking of great compassion. The Yogācārabhūmi discusses generally whether the natures of classes of sentient beings exist or not; although it sets forth five types, within the fifth it speaks neither of great compassion nor of those who have severed wholesomeness; that the Mahāyāna possesses the gotra is universally accepted by all, but the determinate two vehicles and those devoid of gotra are not understood by people. As it is said in the 'Viniścaya' section of chapter 67 of the Yogācārabhūmi: 'Question: Why does the Laṅkāvatāra not speak of those devoid of gotra, and why does the Yogācārabhūmi not speak of the compassionate icchantika?' 'Answer: Because the capacities addressed by the teaching and the assemblies of the time were different. The Laṅkāvatāra was intended to show that the bodhisattva of great compassion is the fifth gotra; since all five types of gotra speak of existence, it accordingly concealed those devoid of gotra among the five and did not discuss them.' The Yogācārabhūmi is based on principle regarding the distinctions among the five classes of gotra; even if one has severed roots of wholesomeness, one is subsumed under the previous natures, for although it is absent in terms of function, the essence of the seed exists. Great compassion and severing wholesomeness belong to the first or the fourth [gotra]; only those devoid of gotra are stated to be in the fifth, which is why it does not speak of the bodhisattva of great compassion.