能顯中邊慧日論 2.12.1

2.12.1

有義：如來藏及識藏，一切有情皆平等有，即此名性種性，亦名本性。 後熏習者，名為客性。 由新熏故，五乘性別，非是本有。 真如本識性平等故，一切無別。 此說非理，立宗妄故。 所以者何？ 真如法界及第八識，有情齊有。 經論誠文，愚智咸許。 即此名為性種性者，智者不爾。 何故？ 若此真如及第八識名性種性，一切俱有，何名殊勝？ 由有法爾無漏種子，三乘差別異於無性，名為殊勝故。 故《善戒經》第一先明〈善行性品〉，不言理性品。 又云「修習聖行，行於善果菩提之道，有十法則能攝取一切善法。 」《瑜伽》、《地持》并皆相似。 初明本性發心品，下始明習性。 性種性中明習種性者，且相對明，非正明。 已取以《地持》六度印相，云菩薩性自樂施等。 《瑜伽論》云「又諸菩薩有六波羅蜜多種性相，由此相故等。 」又《地持》云「非種姓人無種姓故，雖復發心懃修精進，必不究竟阿耨菩提。 」亦不得云無習種性，即此發心懃修精進可非習性，云終不得。 以此故知，要有法爾無漏種子，方名習種性。 若無本性，習性何生？ 《雜集論》云「雖有眾緣，無種子不生，故非他作。 」《善戒經》亦云「若無菩薩性者，不得菩提。 」亦不得云無習性者，經云「是故當知，非因發心有菩薩性。 」此習種性因發心者，如何得言非因發心有菩薩性？ 又《地持》云「若無菩薩性，雖有一切諸方便行，終不得成無上菩提。 」《善戒經》云「雖復具足如是四事，若無菩薩性，而能得成阿耨菩提者，無有是處。 」又《佛性論》第四云「五無初相應善性為法」者，釋曰「無初者，以性得般若大悲禪定，法身普本有故，故言無初。 體用未曾相離，故言相應。 此言性得，即不由熏。 」既即言本有無初，明非始起，不得說言此說如理。 論云「般若大悲禪定法身并本有故」，總但說如，與誰為并？ 又前說煩惱業報并無初，即許三別； 今說四法并無初，如何但據理？ 又本無漏種不名性種性，何故《善戒經》名〈善行性品〉。 又《佛性論》但許真如性無令煩惱滅，不許性有。 《瑜伽》七十四圓成亦同第八心體，亦非性種性。 性種性者，是其無漏本有種子。 第八心體既是有漏，如何得為無漏正因？ 故無性《攝大乘》第三云「未曾見有毒為甘露。 阿賴耶識猶如毒藥，云何能生出世甘露清淨之心？ 」又梁論云「何佛世尊說，從他聞音及自正思惟，由此二因正見得生？ 」釋云「此二因於正見是增上緣。 今所言因是通名因緣，說緣為因。 」既說聞熏習為增上緣，明知正見本自有因。 下言熏習為種子故，出世心得生。 論前會訖，下更不釋，皆令准知，非唯親現。 聞名開熏習，本正見種亦名熏習，因增長故。 所以《地持論》等亦名為因、亦名增長。 既此熏習非阿賴耶攝，是此能對治，明知不得以第八體為菩薩性種性名平等因。 若許是無漏，則苦集對治，即不得為染法因。 故梁論云「即既立為染濁對治及出世心因故，不應後說為不淨名因。 」若云：我取識上功德者，即因法爾有無性別，本有行性，處處誠說。 不知有此本有種子名性種性，妄取真如及第八識為性種性，可不慚乎！ 可不昧乎！ 無性《攝論》本意皆同故，故不具引。 諸論皆說無漏種子熏習為因，不說真如第八識體為正生因。 又復真如不依諸法，故《寶性論》云「空不依地」等。 又云「自性清淨心，不住彼諸法。 」處處誠說，不能煩引。 何須舉六處意，定取彼真如？ 又云：《無上依經》云「如來界不可思議。 一切眾生有陰入界勝相種類，內外所現，無始時節相續流來，法爾所得。 」准此經文，即真如界名性種性。 此亦不爾，謬引經救故。 准此經文，正是無始法爾行性，名陰入界勝相種類內外相續流來法爾所得。 法爾所得即法爾義。

There is an opinion: The tathāgatagarbha and the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna) are possessed equally by all sentient beings. This is called the gotra as nature (prakṛtistha-gotra), and is also called the original nature. What is subsequently perfumed is called the adventitious nature. Due to new perfuming (abhinava-vāsanā), the gotras of the five vehicles differ, and this is not fundamentally existent. Because tathatā and the mūlavijñāna are equal in nature, there is no distinction among any [beings]. This statement is unreasonable, because the proposition is false. Why is this? The tathatā-dharmadhātu and the eighth consciousness are possessed equally by all sentient beings; the authentic texts of the sūtras and treatises say so, and both the foolish and the wise agree. As for taking these to be the gotra as nature, the wise do not do so. Why? If this tathatā and the eighth consciousness were called the gotra as nature, then since all equally possess them, how could it be called sublime? It is called sublime because there are naturally present (dharmatā) anāsrava seeds, whose differences across the three vehicles are distinguished from the lack of gotra. Therefore, the first [chapter] of the *Bhadramāyākāra-vyākaraṇa* (or *Bodhisattva-śīla-sūtra*) first clarifies the "Chapter on Gotra as Wholesome Conduct" and does not speak of a chapter on gotra as principle. It also says: "Cultivating holy conduct and walking the path to the wholesome fruit of bodhi, there are ten dharmas that can gather all wholesome dharmas." The *Yogācārabhūmi* and the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra* are both similar to this: they first clarify the chapter on the original nature's arousal of the mind, and only below do they clarify the gotra acquired through practice (samudānīta-gotra). Clarifying the acquired gotra within the gotra as nature is merely an explanation by contrast, not the primary topic. It has already adopted the characteristics verified by the six pāramitās from the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra*, saying that bodhisattvas by nature delight in giving, and so forth. The *Yogācārabhūmi* says: "Furthermore, bodhisattvas have the characteristics of the gotra of the six pāramitās; due to these characteristics..." and so forth. Moreover, the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra* says: "Because a person without gotra lacks gotra, even if they arouse the mind and diligently cultivate vigor, they will definitely not achieve ultimate anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi." Nor can one say that lacking the acquired gotra [is meant here], for how could this very arousal of the mind and diligent cultivation of vigor not be the acquired nature, yet it says they will ultimately never attain it? From this we know that there must be naturally present anāsrava seeds for it to be called the acquired gotra. If there were no original gotra, how could the acquired gotra arise? The *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: "Although there are many conditions, without a seed it will not arise, hence it is not made by another." The *Śīla-sūtra* also says: "If one lacks the bodhisattva-gotra, one cannot attain bodhi." Nor can one say it refers to one lacking the acquired nature, for the sūtra says: "Therefore it should be known that the bodhisattva-gotra does not exist because of arousing the mind." Since this acquired gotra is caused by arousing the mind, how could it say that the bodhisattva-gotra does not exist because of arousing the mind? Again, the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra* says: "If one lacks the bodhisattva-gotra, even if one possesses all expedient practices, one will ultimately not achieve unsurpassed bodhi." The *Śīla-sūtra* says: "Even if one is fully endowed with these four matters, if one lacks the bodhisattva-gotra, that one could attain anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi is impossible." Furthermore, the fourth fascicle of the *Buddhagotraśāstra* says, "Five [dharmas] without a beginning and associated with wholesome nature serve as phenomena," and the commentary explains: "'Without a beginning' means that because prajñā, great compassion, dhyāna, and the dharmakāya obtained through nature are all fundamentally existent, it is said to be without a beginning. Essence and function have never been separated, so they are said to be associated. Saying 'obtained through nature' means precisely not through perfuming." Since it says they are fundamentally existent and without a beginning, it is clear that they are not newly arisen; one cannot say that this statement refers to the principle of tathatā. The treatise says: "Because prajñā, great compassion, dhyāna, and the dharmakāya are all fundamentally existent." If it were speaking collectively only of tathatā, what would it be "along with"? Moreover, earlier it said that afflictions, karma, and vipāka are all without a beginning, thus granting three distinctions; now it says that four dharmas are all without a beginning, so how could it refer merely to principle? Furthermore, if original anāsrava seeds were not called the gotra as nature, why would the *Śīla-sūtra* name it the "Chapter on Gotra as Wholesome Conduct"? In addition, the *Buddhagotraśāstra* only allows that the nature of tathatā is non-existent [of defilement] so as to cause afflictions to be extinguished, but does not allow that it exists as an active nature. In the seventy-fourth fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi*, the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna) is also [distinguished], and the substance of the eighth mind is likewise not the gotra as nature. The gotra as nature is its anāsrava fundamentally existent seeds. Since the substance of the eighth mind is sāsrava, how could it be the pradhāna-hetu for anāsrava? Therefore, Asvabhāva's *Mahāyānasaṃgrahopanibandhana*, fascicle three, says: "One has never seen poison turn into amṛta. The ālayavijñāna is like poison; how could it produce the transcendent, amṛta-like, pure mind?" Also, the Liang translation of the treatise says: "Why did the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, state that from hearing sounds from another and from one's own proper contemplation, by these two causes right view is born?" The commentary explains: "These two causes are the adhipati-pratyaya for right view. The cause spoken of now is the general name of hetupratyaya, speaking of a condition as a cause." Since it says that śrutavāsanā is an adhipati-pratyaya, it is clear that right view fundamentally has its own cause. Below it says that because vāsanā serves as a seed, the transcendent mind can arise. The treatise had already reconciled this above, so it does not explain it further below, intending that all should infer this accordingly, not merely referring to what is directly present. Hearing the name opens up perfuming, and the original seed of right view is also called perfuming, because it increases. Therefore, the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra* and other treatises also call it a cause and call it increase. Since this vāsanā is not subsumed under the ālayavijñāna, and is its antidote, it is clear that one cannot take the substance of the eighth [consciousness] as the bodhisattva gotra as nature and call it an equal cause. If you grant that it is anāsrava, then being the antidote to suffering and origin, it cannot be the cause for defiled phenomena. Therefore, the Liang translation says: "Since it is established as the antidote to defilement and the cause of the transcendent mind, it should not later be called the cause of impurities." If you say, "I take the qualities upon consciousness," then due to the natural presence or absence of gotra distinctions, the fundamentally existent gotra of practice is authentically taught everywhere. Not knowing that these fundamentally existent seeds are called the gotra as nature, and falsely taking tathatā and the eighth consciousness to be the gotra as nature—should one not feel ashamed? Should one not feel benighted? Because the original intention of Asvabhāva's *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* commentary is identical, I do not cite it fully. All treatises state that the vāsanā of anāsrava seeds is the cause; they do not say that the substance of tathatā or of the eighth consciousness is the direct janaka-hetu. Furthermore, tathatā does not rely on any phenomena, hence the *Ratnagotravibhāga* says, "Space does not rely on earth," and so forth. It also says, "The mind naturally pure in nature does not abide in those phenomena." Authentic teachings everywhere say this, so I will not trouble to cite them all. Why must you bring up the intention of the six āyatanas and insist on taking that tathatā? Furthermore, [the opponent] says: "The *Anuttarāśrayasūtra* says: 'The tathāgata-dhātu is inconceivable. All sentient beings possess the sublime characteristics and categories of skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, manifested internally and externally, flowing continuously from beginningless time, naturally obtained (dharmatā-pratilabdha).' Based on this sūtra text, it is precisely the tathatā-dhātu that is called the gotra as nature." This too is not so, for you have cited the sūtra erroneously to save your position. Based on this sūtra text, it is precisely the beginningless, natural gotra of practice that is called the sublime characteristics and categories of skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, flowing continuously internally and externally, naturally obtained. "Naturally obtained" means precisely dharmatā.