大乘法界無差別論疏 1.7

1.7

第四、教所被機者，於上四宗中，初小乘宗，一切眾生皆非此為，以彼宗中總無人向大菩提故。次依第二第三宗，於一切眾生內，半為半不為。謂五種性中，菩薩種性及不定性是此所為；餘三定性即非此為，以各無因故。第四宗中，明一切眾生皆此所為，以悉有佛性並當成佛。《涅槃經》中，除草木等無心，為非佛性；凡諸有心，悉有佛性。《佛性論》中，言一分無性為不了義。《寶性論》等，為謗大乘因，依無量時故說無佛性，非謂究竟無清淨性。《楞伽》五性中，無種性人亦當得佛，以如來不捨諸眾生故。如此等文，廣如別說。定性二乘入涅槃後，要皆當得發菩提心。《法華》第三「生滅度想入於涅槃，而於彼土求佛智慧，是故唯以佛乘而得滅」等。《法華論》「決定聲聞根未熟故，菩薩授記方便令發心」等，又云「彼以諸禪三昧為涅槃，本無實涅槃」。《入楞伽》「三昧酒所醉」等，乃至云「酒消然後覺，得佛無上身」。《密嚴》第一頌云「涅槃若滅壞，眾生有終盡。眾生若有終，是亦有初際，應有非生法，而始作眾生。」解云：此亦是聖教，亦是正理。若入寂二乘灰斷永滅，則是眾生作非眾生。若令眾生作非眾生，則應有非眾生而始作眾生。《唯識論》中說有漏生於無漏，則難：勿無漏法還生有漏。今亦例同。既眾生入滅同非眾生，勿非眾生法而還作眾生。況復此是聖言，彼非佛說。又《勝鬘經》、《無上依經》、《佛性論》、《寶性論》皆同說，三界外聲聞緣覺及大力菩薩受三種變易身。又《智論》九十三引《法華》第三釋云「有妙淨土，出過三界，阿羅漢當生其中。」是故定知入滅二乘，滅麁分段名入涅槃，實有變易在淨土中，受佛教化行菩薩道。若不爾者，未迴心時既無變易，迴心已去即是漸悟菩薩，不名二乘。故知於三界外所受變易，小乘以為涅槃，大乘深說，實是變易，本無涅槃。《勝鬘》云「聲聞緣覺實無涅槃，唯如來有涅槃故。」此論下云「應知唯有一乘道。若不爾者，異此應有餘涅槃故。同一法界，豈有下劣涅槃、勝妙涅槃耶？」以此當知，二乘之人既無涅槃，無不皆當得菩提故，一切眾生皆是所為也。餘義如別說。

Fourth, concerning the capacities addressed by the teaching: among the four tenets above, as for the first, the Hīnayāna tenet, all sentient beings are not addressed by this [Mahāyāna teaching], because within that tenet there is nobody at all who tends toward great bodhi. Next, according to the second and third tenets, among all sentient beings, half are addressed and half are not addressed. That is, among the five gotras, the bodhisattva gotra and the indeterminate gotra are addressed by this; the other three fixed gotras are not addressed by this, because each lacks the cause. Within the fourth tenet, it is explained that all sentient beings are addressed by this, because all possess buddhadhātu and will all achieve Buddhahood. In the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, excluding grass, trees, and other insentient things as lacking buddhadhātu, all that have mind possess buddhadhātu. In the Buddhadhātuśāstra, it is said that the teaching of a portion lacking nature is not of definitive meaning. The Ratnagotravibhāga and others state that, based on the cause of slandering the Mahāyāna and relying on an immeasurable time, it is said that they have no buddhadhātu; it does not mean that they are ultimately devoid of the pure nature. In the five gotras of the Laṅkāvatāra, even persons lacking gotra will attain Buddhahood, because the Tathāgata does not abandon sentient beings. Passages such as these are extensive, as explained elsewhere. After those of the fixed-nature two vehicles enter nirvāṇa, they will necessarily all arouse bodhicitta. The Lotus Sūtra, fascicle three, says: "Giving rise to the thought of extinction, they enter nirvāṇa, yet in that land they seek the Buddha's wisdom; therefore, only by the Buddha-vehicle do they attain extinction," and so forth. The Lotus Sūtra Treatise says: "Because the faculties of the definitive śrāvakas are not yet mature, the Bodhisattva confers vyākaraṇa on them as an expedient to cause them to arouse the mind," and so forth, and further says: "They take the various dhyāna-samādhis to be nirvāṇa; originally there is no real nirvāṇa." The Laṅkāvatāra says: "Intoxicated by the wine of samādhi," and so forth, down to: "When the wine wears off, they then awaken and attain the Buddha's unsurpassed body." The first verse of the Ghanavyūha says: "If nirvāṇa were extinction and destruction, sentient beings would have an end. If sentient beings had an end, they would also have an initial limit; there would have to be unproduced dharmas that freshly became sentient beings." The explanation says: this is also holy teaching and also correct reasoning. If the two vehicles entering quiescence were to suffer ash-like annihilation and eternal extinction, then sentient beings would become non-sentient beings. If sentient beings were made to become non-sentient beings, then there would have to be non-sentient beings that freshly became sentient beings. In the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, it argues that impure dharmas give rise to pure ones, refuting: lest pure dharmas in turn give rise to impure ones. The present case is also analogous: since sentient beings entering extinction are the same as non-sentient beings, would not non-sentient dharmas in turn become sentient beings? Moreover, this is the holy word, whereas that is not the Buddha's preaching. Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra, the Anuttarāśraya-sūtra, the Buddhadhātuśāstra, and the Ratnagotravibhāga all identically state that beyond the three realms, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas of great power receive three kinds of transformative bodies. Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, fascicle ninety-three, cites the third fascicle of the Lotus Sūtra and explains: "There is a wondrous pure land surpassing the three realms; arhats will be born therein." Therefore, one definitively knows that when those of the two vehicles who enter extinction extinguish the coarse delimited [body], this is termed entering nirvāṇa; in reality, they possess transformative bodies in the pure land, receive the Buddha's instruction, and practice the bodhisattva path. If it were not so, then since before changing their minds they lack the transformative body, and from changing their minds onward they are gradually awakened bodhisattvas, they could not be called the two vehicles. Therefore, one knows that the transformative body received beyond the three realms is regarded by the Hīnayāna as nirvāṇa; the profound teaching of the Mahāyāna is that it is truly a transformative body and that originally there is no nirvāṇa. The Śrīmālādevī says: "Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas in reality have no nirvāṇa, because only the Tathāgata has nirvāṇa." Below in this treatise it says: "One should know that there is only the path of the Ekayāna. If it were not so, other than this there would be another nirvāṇa. Being of the same single dharmadhātu, how could there be an inferior nirvāṇa and an exquisitely wondrous nirvāṇa?" By this one should know: since persons of the two vehicles have no nirvāṇa, there are none who will not achieve bodhi; hence, all sentient beings are those addressed. The remaining meanings are as explained elsewhere.