能顯中邊慧日論 2.14

2.14

有義：五性差別皆由新熏。《正法華》第三云「先無三乘性，後殖三乘因，名有三乘性。」既云後殖，明非本有。上《法華經》及《大集》文，據習性說，非性種性者。亦不應理。且彼說真如及心為性種性，妄者如《瑜伽》二十一云「謂若種性自性、若種性安立等。」種性自性中云「今此種性以何為體？答：附在所依有如是相，六處所攝。從無始世展轉傳來法爾所得。」若是真如，豈名附在所依六處所攝？又種性安立中，「云何得言種種相續種種流轉？如是種子非於六處有別異相，即於如是種類分位六處殊勝，從無始世展轉傳來法爾所得，有如是相及以言說，謂為種性種子界性。是故當言墮一相續。」准此所說，〈菩薩地〉、《善戒》、《地持》明性種性文皆同此，明非真如。新熏妄者，准前文說既非真如，後言無始明本性別。若唯新熏有五性別，即見道前不許有無漏，云何下文云「云何名為安住種性補特伽羅？唯住種性而未趣入亦未出離。謂如今有一補特伽羅，成就出世聖法種子，而未獲得親近善士、聽聞正法，未於如來正覺正說法毘奈耶獲得正信、未受持淨戒、未攝受多聞、未增長惠捨、未調伏諸見、如是名為唯住種性而未趣入。」請舉斯文，聲聞本性豈由新熏？豈須有部所立宗耶？〈菩薩地〉言無始法爾六處殊勝等文，准此可知。又《佛性論》云「無初者，以性得大悲、般若、禪定、法身本有故，故言無初。」信大悲等是四德，既云無初，明因有。復云性得，明非新熏。又魏梁唐等《攝論》并云「又此如理作意相應是世間心，彼正見相應是出世心，未曾有時俱生俱滅，是故此心非彼所熏。既不所熏為彼種子，不應道理。」然說聞熏習為出世心因者，梁論自會是增上緣，唐論復云「此中聞熏習攝受彼種子，不相應故。」又《大莊嚴論》云「若無性差別，則無信差別。」乃至云「若無性差別，亦無果差別。由此四差別，是故應知種性有體。」《大般若．善勇猛會》、《勝鬘》、《楞伽經》、《善戒經》、《地持論》、《瑜伽論》、《佛地論》皆說法爾性別，不言由熏，恐煩不引。所以《正法華》云「先無三乘性，後殖三乘因，佛種從緣起」等者，皆由逢緣資熏本性方能得果；非本無因，五性新起。無因而生五性差別，非釋種子。又如《寂調音天子所問經》云「如貧人食，是輪王毒。」《法華》不許親近小乘，云何世尊見有平等理心大性，而不教發大心令興小意？欲行大道，何爾小徑？「彼自無瘡，何傷之也。」熟思勿誤。故知五性法爾自有，待現緣發方果成熟，故漏無漏種各二類：一本性、二習性。故《瑜伽》第二云「又種子體無始時來相續不絕，性雖有之，然由淨不淨業差別熏發，望數數取異熟果說彼為新。」《攝大乘》云「聞等熏習無果生，非道理。」《涅槃》二十六云「眾生佛性不名為佛。以諸功德因緣和合，得見佛性，然後得佛。汝言：眾生悉有佛性，何故不見者。是義不然。何以故？因緣未和合故。以是義故，我說二因：正、緣因。正因名為佛性，緣因者發菩提心。以二因緣得阿耨菩提，如石出金。佛性之因非如空常有、非如兔角無。」准此須解。若云：《優婆塞戒經》云「若說有菩薩性，是名外道」者。不爾。《善戒經》說有菩薩性者以大乘成熟等，《涅槃》亦說悉有佛性，豈外道耶？欲明五性唯新熏。云有本性者，即外道義，欲證一切有佛性。若說無者，是小乘義，故成相反。徒引多文妄為解釋，不如依論以釋佛經。恐此文煩，故略不舉。

There is an opinion: The differences among the five gotras are entirely due to new perfuming (abhinava-vāsanā). Fascicle three of the Zheng fahua jing says, "Previously lacking the gotra of the three vehicles, afterwards planting the causes of the three vehicles, they are named as having the gotra of the three vehicles." Since it says "afterwards planting", it is clear that they are not originally existent (upapattipratilambhika). [The claim that] the above passages from the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and the Mahāsaṃnipāta are stated on the basis of the gotra acquired through practice (samudānīta-gotra) rather than the gotra by nature (prakṛtistha-gotra) is also unreasonable. Moreover, that they state that tathatā and mind constitute the gotra by nature is erroneous, for fascicle twenty-one of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Namely, either the intrinsic nature of gotra, or the establishment of gotra, and so forth." Within [the explanation of] the intrinsic nature of gotra, it says: "Now what is the essence of this gotra? Answer: It inheres in the basis (āśraya), having such a characteristic, and is subsumed under the six sense-bases. Successively transmitted from beginningless time, it is obtained by dharmatā." If it were tathatā, how could it be called inhering in the basis and subsumed under the six sense-bases? Furthermore, within [the explanation of] the establishment of gotra, [it says]: "How can it be said that there are manifold continuities and manifold transmigrations? Such bījas do not have distinct characteristics apart from the six sense-bases; precisely in such category and state, the six sense-bases are superior, successively transmitted from beginningless time, obtained by dharmatā, having such characteristics and designations, which are called gotra, bīja, dhātu, and prakṛti. Therefore, it should be said to belong to one continuity." Based on what is stated here, the passages in the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the Shanjie jing, and the Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra explaining the gotra by nature are all identical to this, making it clear that it is not tathatā. That it is due to new perfuming is erroneous: based on the preceding text, since it is not tathatā, the subsequent statement of "beginningless" makes clear the original distinction of gotras. If the distinction among the five gotras existed only through new perfuming, then before the path of seeing anāsrava [dharmas] would not be admitted. Why then does the subsequent text say: "What is called a pudgala abiding in the gotra? One who merely abides in the gotra but has neither entered nor departed. Namely, like there being now a pudgala who has accomplished the bījas of supramundane noble dharmas, but has not yet obtained closeness to virtuous friends, has not heard the correct Dharma, has not obtained correct faith in the Tathāgata's correct awakening and correctly expounded Dharma and Vinaya, has not received and upheld pure morality, has not acquired extensive learning, has not increased generous giving, and has not subdued views—such is called merely abiding in the gotra but not yet having entered." Please cite this text: how could the original nature of a śrāvaka be due to new perfuming? How could the doctrine established by the Vaibhāṣikas be needed? The passages in the Bodhisattvabhūmi speaking of beginningless, dharmatā, the superiority of the six sense-bases, and so forth, can be understood by analogy to this. Furthermore, the Buddhagotraśāstra says: "Being without a beginning is because the naturally obtained great compassion, prajñā, dhyāna, and dharmakāya are originally existent; therefore it is said to be without beginning." Trust that great compassion and so forth are the four virtues; since it says "without beginning", it clarifies that the cause exists. Furthermore, it says "naturally obtained", clarifying that it is not newly perfumed. Furthermore, the Wei, Liang, and Tang translations of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha all say: "Moreover, this mind associated with appropriate mental attention (yoniśomanaskāra) is a worldly mind, and that mind associated with right view is a supramundane mind; there was never a time when they arose together and ceased together. Therefore, this mind is not perfumed by that one. Since it is not perfumed, for it to be the bīja of that [supramundane mind] is unreasonable." However, regarding the statement that the perfuming of what is heard (śrutavāsanā) is the cause of the supramundane mind, the Liang translation itself explains that it is an adhipatipratyaya, and the Tang translation further says: "Here, the perfuming of what is heard appropriates its bījas because they are discordant." Furthermore, the Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra says: "If there were no difference in gotra, there would be no difference in faith," and up to: "If there were no difference in gotra, there would also be no difference in fruit. Due to these four differences, therefore one should know that gotra has an substantial entity." The Śāradvatīputra-parivarta of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, the Śrīmālādevī, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the Shanjie jing, the Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra, the Yogācārabhūmi, and the Buddhabhūmisūtraśāstra all state the natural distinction of gotras and do not say it is due to perfuming; fearing prolixity, I will not quote them. Therefore, when the Zheng fahua jing says: "Previously lacking the gotra of the three vehicles, afterwards planting the causes of the three vehicles; the buddha-bīja arises from conditions," and so forth, these are all because of encountering conditions that nurture and perfume the original gotra so that it can attain the fruit; it is not that there were originally no causes and the five gotras newly arose. Generating the differences among the five gotras without a cause does not explain bījas. Furthermore, just as the Sūtra of the Questions of the Devaputra Praśāntaviniścayapratihāryasamādhi says: "Like the food of a poor person, it is poison to a cakravartin." The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka does not permit drawing close to the Hīnayāna; why would the World-Honoured One, seeing an equal, rational mind and a great nature, not teach the generation of the great aspiration and instead cause the generation of lesser intentions? Wishing to travel the Great Path, why take such a narrow lane? "He himself has no wound; why harm him?" Ponder this thoroughly and do not err. Hence we know that the five gotras exist naturally by dharmatā, awaiting present conditions to manifest so that the fruit ripens. Therefore, sāsrava and anāsrava bījas each have two kinds: first, the original nature (prakṛtistha), and second, the acquired nature (samudānīta). Thus fascicle two of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Moreover, the substance of bījas has been continuous without interruption from beginningless time; although they exist by nature, yet through the varied perfuming and activation of pure and impure karma, in view of repeatedly taking vipāka fruits, they are said to be new." The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "For the perfuming of what is heard and so forth to have no fruit arising is unreasonable." Fascicle twenty-six of the Mahāparinirvāṇa says: "The buddhadhātu of sentient beings is not called a buddha. Through the combination of causes and conditions of all merits, one comes to see the buddhadhātu, and thereafter becomes a buddha. You say: All sentient beings have the buddhadhātu, why do they not see it? This meaning is not correct. Why is that? Because causes and conditions have not yet combined. For this reason, I expound two causes: the direct cause (pradhāna-hetu) and the contributory cause (pratyaya-hetu). The direct cause is called the buddhadhātu; the contributory cause is giving rise to the bodhicitta. Through the two causes and conditions, one attains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, like extracting gold from stone. The cause that is buddhadhātu is not permanently existent like space, nor nonexistent like a hare's horn." One must understand according to this. If one says: The Upāsakaśīlasūtra says, "If one says there is a bodhisattva-gotra, this is named an outsider (tīrthika)"—it is not so. The Shanjie jing says that there is a bodhisattva-gotra because the Mahāyāna matures [them], and the Mahāparinirvāṇa also says that all possess the buddhadhātu; are these outsiders? Wishing to demonstrate that the five gotras are solely newly perfumed, they claim that saying there is an original gotra is the doctrine of outsiders, while wishing to prove that all possess the buddhadhātu; and if one says it is absent, that this is the doctrine of the Hīnayāna, thus resulting in contradiction. Vainly quoting numerous passages to make erroneous explanations is not as good as relying on the treatises to interpret the Buddha's sūtras. Fearing that this text would become tedious, I will not cite them at length.