能顯中邊慧日論 1.19

1.19

有義：總論佛性理事兩門，理即真如法界，名因名性等，一切眾生皆悉同也。事即三十二相、十力等種，一切有情有無不同。問：若爾，三十年前猶說二乘實滅，成道十載即說《如來藏經》，寧以三乘五性先說為權，佛性一乘後說為實。答：猶總相明，未簡持故，非為決定。《涅槃經》說「凡是有心皆當作佛」，即簡無心；對非佛性說於佛性，即簡瓦礫。故但有心是有情者悉有佛性，皆當作佛故。後一乘及說佛性，皆為了義。此亦不然。若有簡持，名為顯了；若無簡持即，為隱密者。《解深密經》所說一乘極有簡持，簡去眾生根性，持取三性，名之為一。簡去定性，特取不定當得作佛，定是了義。故《涅槃經》第三十二云「於是經中，或說三乘、或說一乘。」既云或說三乘，復說那含中、生般等，即存二滅。《勝鬘經》云「是故三乘即是一乘」，又云「如來隨彼所欲而方便說。即是大乘無有二乘，二乘者入於一乘，一乘者即第一義乘。」既云方便，即顯四乘是真實，說同《解深密》。《法華》一向唯說一乘，對聲聞人。若唯為菩薩，論云「為一向求大乘者，說雨喻令知乘異。」論釋乘一依法身理，不說根性一切無異，正同《深密》據理說一，非根無別。又《如來藏經》云「一切眾生雖在諸趣，煩惱身中有如來藏，常無染污、德相備足，如我無異。」乃至云「佛見眾生如來藏已，欲令開敷，為說經法，除滅煩惱，顯現佛性。」既云一切眾生，即簡非情訖。又云「《如來藏經》能大饒益，若有聞者皆成佛道。」即同聞《涅槃經》則見佛性，喻如天雷生象牙花。與《涅槃》說同有簡別，何非是實？

One position holds: In treating buddhadhātu generally, there are two aspects: principle and phenomena. The principle is tathatā, the dharmadhātu, which is designated as "cause" and designated as "gotra"; all sentient beings are identical in this. Phenomena are the seeds of the thirty-two marks, the ten powers, and so on; among all sentient beings, these differ as to whether they possess them or not. Question: If so, thirty years before, the Buddha was still teaching that the two vehicles attain real cessation; yet only ten years after attaining the Way, he had already preached the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. Why, then, would the triyāna and the five gotras have been taught first as provisional, while the buddhadhātu and the ekayāna were taught later as real? Answer: It was still explained in general terms and had not yet delimited and selected; hence it was not definitive. The Nirvāṇasūtra states, "Whoever has a mind shall attain Buddhahood," which delimits [and excludes] what is mindless; and in contrasting buddhadhātu with what is not buddhadhātu, it delimits [and excludes] tiles and rubble. Therefore, all those who possess a mind and are sentient beings possess buddhadhātu and will all become Buddhas. Hence, the subsequent teaching of the ekayāna and the teaching of buddhadhātu are both of definitive meaning. This too is incorrect. If delimiting and selecting is termed explicit, and lack of delimiting and selecting is termed implicit, then the ekayāna taught in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is extremely delimited and selective: it delimits and excludes the dispositions of sentient beings, and selects the three natures to term them "one"; it delimits and excludes the niyata-gotra and specifically selects the aniyata-gotra as destined to attain Buddhahood, which is definitely of definitive meaning. Thus the Nirvāṇasūtra, fascicle 32, states: "In this sūtra, sometimes the three vehicles are taught, and sometimes the one vehicle is taught." Since it says that sometimes the three vehicles are taught, and further mentions the anāgāmin who passes into parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state, upon rebirth, and so on, it maintains the cessation of the two [vehicles]. The Śrīmālādevīsūtra says: "Therefore, the three vehicles are indeed the one vehicle." It also says: "The Tathāgata speaks expediently in accordance with what they desire. That is to say, there is the Great Vehicle and there are no two vehicles; the two vehicles enter into the one vehicle, and the one vehicle is the supreme vehicle of the ultimate truth." Since it speaks of "expediently," this reveals that the four vehicles are the real teaching, in agreement with the Saṃdhinirmocana. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka exclusively teaches the one vehicle only with respect to the śrāvakas. If it were solely for bodhisattvas, the treatise states: "For those who exclusively seek the Great Vehicle, the parable of the rain was spoken to make them know the differences among the vehicles." The treatise explains that the unity of the vehicles is based on the principle of the dharmakāya; it does not say that all gotras are without difference. This precisely agrees with the Saṃdhinirmocana's speaking of oneness on the basis of principle, not that there is no distinction among dispositions. Furthermore, the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra states: "Although all sentient beings are in the various destinies, within the body of defilements there is a tathāgatagarbha, eternally unpolluted, fully endowed with virtues and marks, no different from myself," and so on, down to: "The Buddha, having seen the tathāgatagarbha of sentient beings, desires to cause it to unfold, and preaches the scriptures and Dharma for them, eliminating defilements and manifesting the buddhadhātu." Since it says "all sentient beings," it has already delimited [and excluded] the non-sentient. It also says: "The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra can bring great benefit; if any hear it, they will all achieve the Buddha Path." This is the same as hearing the Nirvāṇasūtra and thereby seeing the buddhadhātu, compared to celestial thunder causing ivory flowers to bloom. Like what is taught in the Nirvāṇa[sūtra], it possesses delimitation and distinction; why would it not be real?