[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) › [能顯中邊慧日論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863) › 1.13.2 # 能顯中邊慧日論 1.13.2 能顯中邊慧日論 1.13.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.13.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.1.13.2) 二乘一分實滅，下〈示正〉中廣為分別。 又云：《大菩薩藏經》第五「邪定聚眾生非法器故，若使如來為彼說法、若不為說，終不堪任證於解脫。 如來如實知彼有情非法器已，而便棄捨。 」世親釋云「惡趣名邪性，定入惡趣名邪定。 涅槃名正性，定得涅槃名正定涅槃。 既却退惡趣，後定出。 出惡趣已，非邪定聚。 邪定聚時如來捨置，非邪定時菩薩化也。 」故知是非畢竟無性。 《大集》第十云「為邪定者方便演說令壞邪定，無善子者令種善子，無法器者令作法器，為法器者演說菩提。 」亦不應理。 《菩薩藏》、《大集經》二說意別。 《菩薩藏》說「若使如來為彼說法、若不說法，終不堪任證於解脫。 知非法器，而便棄捨。 」據無種性。 不得涅槃。 云「非法器而便棄捨」，非全棄捨，亦令彼得人天樂故。 若是惡趣名為邪定，佛棄捨者，云何菩薩垂形六道？ 豈許菩薩慈悲過佛？ 又若言：在惡趣邪定之時佛便捨置，出惡趣已非邪定時佛菩薩化。 豈非滅削諸聖悲願？ 《大集經》云「為邪定者方便演說令壞邪定，無善子者令種善子，無法器者令作法器，為法器者宣說菩提。 」此據有性，得涅槃記。 由作五逆等名邪定聚。 設是有性斷善根者，亦名邪定聚。 由斷見善及五逆等，未有廣多新熏善種，云無善子。 未至成就，云非法器。 不爾，如何《菩薩藏經》邪定棄捨，《大集》即云方便為說。 亦不得說言《大集經》中據出邪定，若出邪定便非邪定者，說為邪定者方便演說故。 由不能知經論所說三聚有別，作此通經，下〈示正〉中廣為開示。 又云：《央掘摩羅經》第二云「云何名邪定？ 諸佛不能化。 」又次下云「所言邪定謂一闡提，正定謂二乘菩薩。 斷善根者名一闡提，善根續已即非一闡提。 斷時名不可治，續已可治。 」《涅槃》三十三云「一闡提人而不能救地獄之苦，名不可治。 作後世種，還名可治。 故一切眾生皆有佛性。 」故不可治，說近非遠。 亦不應然。 《央掘摩經》云「邪定聚，佛不能化，是無種性。 」與《涅槃經》三十三別。 涅槃為作後世因者，即是能化。 又第十說「如白羊角」等。 闡提同《央掘經》。 又一闡提非唯斷善，但將續善說為可治，此說有餘。 又一闡提雖有當善，而不能救地獄之苦，未來可救，現在之世無如之何，名不可救，據定報說。 若非決定，地獄苦可救。 不爾，如何有於現在或生死位，及以後世續善根別。 又如五逆名無間業，作已決定往惡趣受。 經論又說「五逆四重悔淨滅除，不往惡趣，生人天等。 」此由業果有定不定。 於定之中，復時報別。 經一向說，解亦有餘，證有佛性，故亦不可。 彼由不了闡提多種，故謬通經。 下〈示正〉中當為開顯。 又云：《善戒經》第三云「眾生調伏有其四種：一聲聞乘性，得聲聞道。 二緣覺乘性，得緣覺道。 三有佛性，得佛道。 四有人天性，得人天樂。 」《地持》第二、《瑜伽》三十七所說皆同。 然調伏有六：一性調伏、二人調伏。 性調伏說本性，至發心位； 人調伏說四客性。 本性說遠，一切皆欲菩提。 客性說近，有四種別。 故經云「性調伏者，有善種子故修善法，修善法故壞二障，修善法故身心清淨。 身心清淨故，若遇善友、若不值遇，能壞二障。 如癰已熟，遇師悉得除愈等。 一切眾生亦復如是，修行畢得菩提時，是名為熟，是名性調伏。 」既說本性調伏已，密意說一切眾生當成佛也。 同《法華論》及《十法經》定性聲聞以佛性因記成佛也。 二人調伏者四，如上所說，故知人調伏是近因也。 有無人無性等，皆是近故。 既無人天性，後有人天性，故知先無三乘性，後得三乘性。 此說亦非。 言性調伏，總明本來法爾自性。 二眾生調伏，即明所調伏。 故《瑜伽》云「所成熟補特伽羅略有四種，約生明性，有無不同、大小性別。 > A portion of \[those of\] the dviyāna genuinely undergo cessation, which will be extensively distinguished below in the \[chapter\] 'Revealing the Correct.' \[An opponent\] also says: Fascicle five of the Mahā-bodhisattva-piṭaka Sūtra states: 'Because sentient beings of the group of false certainty are not vessels of the Dharma, whether the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma for them or does not expound it, they will ultimately be incapable of realizing liberation. Having truly known that those sentient beings are not vessels of the Dharma, the Tathāgata then abandons them.' Vasubandhu explains: 'Destinies of rebirth in evil realms are called false nature; being destined to enter evil realms is called false certainty. Nirvāṇa is called right nature; being destined to attain nirvāṇa is called right certainty of nirvāṇa. Since, having fallen back into evil realms, one is later certain to emerge, once one has emerged from the evil realms, one is no longer in the group of false certainty. When they are in the group of false certainty, the Tathāgata abandons them; when they are not in \[the group of\] false certainty, the bodhisattvas convert them.' Therefore we know that this is not a matter of being definitively agotraka. Fascicle ten of the Mahāsaṃnipāta \[Sūtra\] states: 'For those of false certainty, he expediently expounds \[the Dharma\] to cause them to shatter false certainty; for those without good seeds, he causes them to plant good seeds; for those who are not vessels of the Dharma, he causes them to become vessels of the Dharma; for those who are vessels of the Dharma, he expounds bodhi.' This is also unreasonable. The purport of the two statements in the Bodhisattvapiṭaka and the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra differs. When the Bodhisattvapiṭaka states, 'Whether the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma for them or does not expound it, they will ultimately be incapable of realizing liberation. Knowing they are not vessels of the Dharma, he then abandons them,' this is based on the agotraka. They cannot attain nirvāṇa. When it says 'knowing they are not vessels of the Dharma, he then abandons them,' it does not mean complete abandonment, for he also causes them to obtain the bliss of humans and devas. If an evil realm were called 'false certainty' and the Buddha abandoned them, why would bodhisattvas manifest their forms in the six destinies? How could one grant that the compassion of bodhisattvas surpasses that of the Buddha? Furthermore, if one says that when they are in the false certainty of evil realms the Buddha abandons them, and once they have emerged from evil realms and are no longer in false certainty, buddhas and bodhisattvas convert them—does this not annul and eliminate the compassionate vows of all the noble ones? The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra states: 'For those of false certainty, he expediently expounds \[the Dharma\] to cause them to shatter false certainty; for those without good seeds, he causes them to plant good seeds; for those who are not vessels of the Dharma, he causes them to become vessels of the Dharma; for those who are vessels of the Dharma, he expounds bodhi.' This is based on those who have the gotra and obtain the prediction of nirvāṇa. It is on account of committing the five inexpiable offenses and the like that they are named the 'group of false certainty.' Even if one possesses the gotra, one who cuts off the roots of good is also named the 'group of false certainty.' Because they have severed the good of wrong views and committed the five inexpiable offenses, not yet having an abundance of newly-perfumed good seeds, it says 'without good seeds.' Because they have not yet reached fulfillment, it says 'not vessels of the Dharma.' Otherwise, how could the Bodhisattvapiṭaka Sūtra say that those of false certainty are abandoned, while the Mahāsaṃnipāta immediately says he expediently expounds \[the Dharma\] for them? Nor can one say that the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra is speaking based on emerging from false certainty, for if emerging from false certainty meant one was no longer in false certainty, \[the sūtra would not\] say that he expediently expounds \[the Dharma\] 'for those of false certainty.' It is because \[the opponent\] does not understand that the three groups spoken of in the sūtras and treatises are distinct that he fabricates this reconciliation of the sūtras, which will be extensively elucidated below in 'Revealing the Correct.' \[The opponent\] also says: Fascicle two of the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra states: 'What is called false certainty? It is that which all buddhas cannot convert.' And further down it states: 'The so-called false certainty refers to the icchantika; right certainty refers to the dviyāna and bodhisattvas. Those who cut off roots of good are named icchantika; once the roots of good have reconnected, they are no longer icchantika. At the time of severance they are called incurable; once reconnected they are curable.' Fascicle thirty-three of the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] states: 'An icchantika being unable to be saved from the suffering of hell is called incurable. Insofar as a seed is made for future lives, they are still called curable. Therefore all sentient beings have the buddhadhātu.' Therefore 'incurable' is spoken of the immediate, not the remote. This also should not be so. The Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra states that 'the group of false certainty cannot be converted by buddhas; these are the agotraka.' This is distinct from fascicle thirty-three of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. In the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\], because a cause is made for future lives, that is precisely being able to convert them. Furthermore, fascicle ten \[of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra\] speaks of 'like a white ram's horn' and so forth; its icchantika is identical to that of the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra. Moreover, an icchantika is not solely one who has severed the roots of good; merely taking the reconnection of good to mean 'curable' is an incomplete explanation. Furthermore, although an icchantika has future good, they cannot be saved from the suffering of hell; while they can be saved in the future, nothing can be done in the present life, which is called 'unsavable'—this is spoken based on determined retribution. If it were not determined, the suffering of hell could be averted. Otherwise, how could there be distinctions between the present, or the state of saṃsāra, and reconnecting roots of good in future lives? Moreover, as with the five inexpiable offenses being named anantarya karma, once committed one is determined to go and receive retribution in the evil realms. Sūtras and treatises also state: 'If the five inexpiable offenses and the four grave offenses are purified and eliminated through repentance, one does not go to the evil realms, but is born among humans, devas, and the like.' This is because karmic fruits have determined and undetermined \[aspects\]. Even within what is determined, there are further distinctions in time and retribution. The sūtra speaks categorically, and the \[opponent's\] interpretation is also incomplete; to prove that \[all\] have the buddhadhātu through this is therefore also inadmissible. Because he does not understand the many kinds of icchantika, he erroneously reconciles the sūtras. This will be revealed below in 'Revealing the Correct.' \[The opponent\] also says: Fascicle three of the Shan-jie jing states: 'Sentient beings under discipline are of four kinds: first, having the gotra of the śrāvaka vehicle, they attain the śrāvaka path. Second, having the gotra of the pratyekabuddha vehicle, they attain the pratyekabuddha path. Third, having the buddhadhātu, they attain the Buddha path. Fourth, having the gotra of humans and devas, they attain the bliss of humans and devas.' Fascicle two of the Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra and fascicle thirty-seven of the Yogācārabhūmi state the same. However, discipline has six \[aspects\]: first, discipline of nature; second, discipline of persons. Discipline of nature speaks of the original nature, up to the stage of generating the mind \[for bodhi\]; discipline of persons speaks of the four adventitious natures. The original nature speaks of the remote, that all desire bodhi. The adventitious natures speak of the immediate, having four distinct kinds. Thus the sūtra states: 'As for discipline of nature, because they have good seeds they cultivate good dharmas; because they cultivate good dharmas they shatter the two obscurations; because they cultivate good dharmas their body and mind become pure. Because their body and mind are pure, whether they encounter a good friend or do not meet one, they can shatter the two obscurations. Just as an ulcer that has ripened will be completely cured upon meeting a physician, etc., all sentient beings are likewise: when upon cultivating practice they ultimately attain bodhi, this is called ripening, and this is called discipline of nature.' Since it has already spoken of the discipline of original nature, it speaks with hidden intent (saṃdhi) that all sentient beings will attain Buddhahood. This is the same as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-śāstra and the Daśadharmaka Sūtra predicting that those of determined gotra among the śrāvakas will attain Buddhahood by virtue of the cause of the buddhadhātu. As for the second, discipline of persons, it is of four kinds as stated above; therefore we know that discipline of persons is an immediate cause. Having or lacking persons, having or lacking gotra, and so forth, are all because of the immediate. Since one originally lacks the gotra of humans and devas and later has the gotra of humans and devas, we know that one previously lacks the gotra of the triyāna and later attains the gotra of the triyāna. This explanation is also incorrect. The term 'discipline of nature' generally clarifies the originally innate (dharmatā) intrinsic nature. The second, 'discipline of sentient beings', clarifies the ones to be disciplined. Therefore the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'The pudgalas to be matured are briefly of four kinds; explaining nature in terms of beings, existence and non-existence differ, and the natures of the great and small differ.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.13.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.1.13.1) - [Next: 1.13.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.1.13.3) - [Up: 1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.1.13) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863~en-mt.1.13.2) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.1.13.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.1.13.2) · Pramāṇa