能顯中邊慧日論 3.3

3.3

有義：前經漸教，唯說四住為三有因；後經顯了，通說五住為生死本，四住不斷故受分段身，無明住在故得變易體。由斷佛說前後不同，論釋佛經不違時教。如《深密》已前說為前教，《法華》會後即為後教。不了唯說不定回心趣寂猶存實滅，不捨三界之身，不別說受變易死，但說留行留分段身，即《解深密經》、《瑜伽論》等是。《法華》後經，定不定性皆悉回心無二乘實滅，捨三界身則受變易，非是三界，《楞伽》、《勝鬘》、《無上依經》、《佛性論》等是。此說不爾。所以者何？《法華》四十年後經有明文，《楞伽》等經并非已前，出何聖教？且《無上依經》非《法華》後。何以得知？闍王未流國位，可有頻婆娑羅；《法華經》內已列闍王，列王如何《無上依經》猶說頻婆在會？何者？《無上依經》列眾中云「頻婆娑羅以為上首」，以此准知非《法華》後。又《勝鬘經》亦非四十年後。何以得知？經云「波斯匿王及末利夫人信法未久」，《仁王般若經》內云「初年月八日」即三十年初。何以得知？准經月光經云「如來已為我等，二十九年說《摩訶般若》。」故知至說《仁王經》時，月光信佛已久。《勝鬘經》云「信佛未久」，明在《仁王般若》已前。不爾，已二十九年聞經，如何《勝鬘經》中言「信佛未久」？准此即知非《法華》後。又《入楞伽經》准三藏菩提流支云：又依結集，初年說《大集》、《寶幢陀羅尼》及《楞伽》、《海龍王》，九年說《鴦掘摩羅》，十年說《如來藏》。又云：《華嚴》、《涅槃》、《般舟》、《鴦掘摩羅》、《如來藏》等皆自說年月。准此，《楞伽》非四十年後。雖下持云「我於《象腋》、《涅槃》、《大雲》等經已令斷肉」，《楞伽》未必在《涅槃經》後。何以故？准文自說「龍宮七日，始入楞伽方說斯教」，豈說《涅槃》雙林滅已更住龍宮等耶？所指《涅槃經》未必即是《大涅槃》。若云見聞有異，何妨不是說《涅槃》後。若爾，何妨見聞異，准結集說即在初年。又云：《大般若》在《法華前》者，准流支說。五年即說《大般若經》，准《智論》文，乃在《法華》後說。何以得知？准彼〈畢定品〉中問「一切菩薩皆畢定不」，論釋，云何問此？見《法華》中童子聚沙皆成佛道，及明二乘作佛，故作斯問。准此，《大品》乃在《法華》後說。憑何定判是四十年前？又《佛性論》及《寶性論》不是唯釋《法華》後經，兩論不引《涅槃》、《法華》，多依《無上依》、《楞伽》、《深密》、《如來藏》及《勝鬘經》說。准問定經，二論及釋《法華》前教。彼定前後既并憑虛，依彼標章復有多過。其過者何？且云：前經雖說二乘實入涅槃，後經釋云「如化城羊鹿」。《楞伽經》聲聞種性墮變易死，二乘無滅，非唯不定性者。不爾，《楞伽》說墮變易能趣大者是不定性。何以得知？准第七云「大慧菩薩白佛言：『世尊！世尊說聲聞辟支佛入第八菩薩地寂滅樂門，乃至云尚未能證初地之法，何況八地寂滅樂門。』佛告大慧：『聲聞有三種。言入八地寂滅樂門者，此是先修菩薩行者，墮聲聞地，還依本心修菩薩行，同入八地寂滅樂門；非增上慢寂滅聲聞，以彼不能入菩薩行，未曾覺知三界唯心，未曾修行菩薩諸法，未曾修行諸波羅蜜十地之行，是故決定寂滅聲聞不能證彼菩薩所行寂滅樂門。』」又頌云「決定諸聲聞，不行菩薩行。同入八地者，是本菩薩故。」准此，即是五乘之中不定乘也。《法華》、《瑜伽》意皆同也。又第八云「如何佛世尊與諸大阿羅漢記等？佛答云：大慧！我為曾行菩薩行諸聲聞等，依無餘涅槃即與授記。大慧！我與聲聞授記，為怯弱眾生生勇猛心。大慧！此世界中及餘佛國，有諸眾生行菩薩行，而復樂於聲聞乘法，佛為轉彼取大菩提。」頌云「三乘及非乘，諸佛無量乘，一切記佛地，說諸煩惱斷。內身證聖智，及無餘涅槃，進怯弱眾生，是故隱覆說。」准此，正同《解深密》說三意生身，初地已上決定趣寂。既不證菩薩所行寂滅樂門，明彼不能得意生身而不能知，故為過也。又云：《不空羂索經》及《僧伽經》說：淨居天皆發趣大，判作《法華》後教。未知憑何得知？有教即合，明言無證，如何抑判？又云：《唯識》兩師，所說皆不應理，故知《法華》會前一切聖人皆不發心，《法華》會後淨居亦發。《唯識》論師違經立義，非唯一二者。不爾，如何《解深密經》彼自許在《法華》前說？唯《深密經》於淨土說，說淨土相，列眾歎德皆同佛地。《佛地論》釋如實義者，皆是不定種性聲聞，得小果已趣大菩提，故名為大。若非回心，不觀淨土。又《攝論》等十義說一乘云為不定性，即通有學及無學聖皆許回心。又《智度論》釋《大品經》、《法華》兩教云「三種人有妙淨土出於三界，乃至無有煩惱之名，於是國土佛所聞《法華經》，具佛道。」如何得說《法華經》一切聖人皆不發心。又云：《楞伽經》分明說定性寂滅有變易死，教理顯然，豈得執弘前教非後經說者？此亦不爾。准《入楞伽》第四云「大慧！聲聞辟支佛未證法無我，未得不可思議變易生，是故我為諸聲聞故說一乘道。」此云未得，更據何文云分明說決定之人得受變易？依此文意，不定性人未聞大乘不得變易，豈許決定不能回心得受變易？亦此經文亦有云「未離不可思議變易死」，亦有云「不得離不思議變易死」，亦有云「未得離不思議變易死」，無分明文作決定說定性之人得受易。亦第二中說「墮不思議變易死故」者，此說不定回心已後墮不思議變易生死，無決定性得變易文。若又許受變易生身，如何得言「如是等得入人無我，乃至生心以為涅槃。」凡夫受分段，自知生死身；聖人受變易，豈執為涅槃，謂得有餘？即非知障知餘若在，故彼自不許，謂有餘依回心向大，要捨分段別受變易，得三昧樂謂為無餘故。亦如少聞，得第四定將為極果，死見前相尚趣起謗心。豈況聖人見受變易，謂為無餘耶？又准五乘文，初二乘中無入大乘語，唯第四不定乘中言「大慧！彼三種人離煩惱障熏習，得清淨，故見無我；得三昧樂門故，聲聞緣覺畢竟證得如來法身。」言彼三種人者，即不定乘中有三種人，非是指前初之三乘。若爾，即前須別說為第四乘。或可前三乘定不定性皆悉合說第四人，唯取不定性者言彼三種，即前三中不定性者。若不如此，謂即前三定不定性皆許入大，違下第七第八所說，如前已引。無文顯說定性寂滅受變易死，虛言教理顯然，故為過也。又問答中云：何故二說不同？答云：如經中未說王宮以為化佛。弘此時教，即說三十四心成佛，未說阿賴耶。弘此時教，即說滅定唯在欲色，及說種子依色心也。弘後時教，其義即改《瑜伽》，即弘前教。四十年後二滅非真，有阿賴耶，墮不思議變易生死。弘此時經，論亦隨教者。此亦不爾。自許《華嚴》是已前教，豈唯說王宮化身以為真佛？《瑜伽》、《攝論》并說王宮為非真佛。三十四身成者，是小乘論文。滅定依欲色身，有部之說。種子依於心色，經部師宗《瑜伽》并改前宗種子依於第八識等，同《楞伽》等亦說不定無實。《涅槃》、《智論》、《顯揚》、《佛地》俱說有變易生死，何義不同，而判《瑜伽》、《佛地論》等為四十年前之教？如前已引判前後非，於同不解其同非異，強見於異故為過也。又云：《瑜伽》八十說二涅槃，由異熟識無有取故依轉識等不復得生，唯餘清淨無為離垢真法界有。當《楞伽經》而滅諸相，不取未來境界是三昧樂，二乘謂為涅槃。此亦不爾。彼經所說，前後又異。第二卷則說聲聞辟支佛畏生死妄想苦而求涅槃，不知世間涅槃無差別故，分別一切法與非法而滅諸根不取，未來境界妄取以為涅槃者，是二乘有學凡夫之人，執無學者滅諸根已所得無餘謂為究竟，不知阿賴耶識轉成勝無餘故。次云「是故彼愚癡人說有三乘法，而不能知唯心想滅得寂滅法。若即聖人不應。」次云「是故大慧！彼愚癡人於世間生死輪中常轉不住。」亦據實義，決定性人滅諸根等者，身智俱滅唯有真如。《楞伽》云「唯心想滅得寂滅法，寂滅法者非三昧樂。」三昧樂者，是第七卷文說「不定性回心向大得入諸地」，以本名說。同頓悟菩薩諸地中得滅盡定，名墮三昧樂法門。何以得知？彼自問答云「佛告大慧：『我今為汝分別宣說。大慧！聲聞有三種。言入八地寂滅門者，此是先修菩薩行者墮聲聞地，還依本心修菩薩行，同入八地寂滅樂門。非增上慢寂滅聲聞。』」若是二乘捨分段身住於三昧名得涅槃者，何故第四卷云「須陀洹有三品」，皆言入涅槃。經說第二果云「以善見禪修行相故，一來世間便斷苦盡，入於涅槃。」何以故？受變易身改有行苦，豈得說云便斷苦盡入於涅槃？又復此是決定趣寂。何以得知？次下大慧問佛云：「為說得決定寂滅羅漢？為發菩提願善根妄善根阿羅漢為化應羅漢？」佛告大慧：「為說得決定寂滅聲聞羅漢，非餘羅漢。」故知定性入無餘依，唯有真如。同《楞伽經》而滅諸根及心想滅云入涅槃。若住三昧樂生涅槃想者，是退菩提。不定性者，顯文不解，故亦為失。

There is an opinion that states: In the earlier sūtras of the gradual teaching, it is taught solely that the four entrenchments are the cause of the three realms of existence; in the later sūtras of explicit exposition, it is universally taught that the five entrenchments are the root of birth-and-death, such that because the four entrenchments are not severed one undergoes the body of demarcated [birth-and-death], and because the entrenchment of ignorance remains one attains the embodiment of transformation. Due to the differences between what was taught by the Buddha earlier and later regarding severing, the treatises' interpretations of the Buddha's sūtras do not contradict the temporal teachings. For example, what was spoken before the Saṃdhinirmocana is considered the earlier teaching, whereas what was spoken after the assembly of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka is considered the later teaching. The incomplete [teachings] only speak of the indeterminate [gotra] turning their minds toward [the Mahāyāna], while those directed toward quiescence still possess actual extinction, do not abandon the bodies of the three realms, and do not separately speak of undergoing transformative death, but merely speak of retaining the karmic formations and retaining the demarcated body—namely, the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, Yogācārabhūmi, and so forth. In the sūtras after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, both determinate and indeterminate gotras all turn their minds, there is no actual extinction of the dviyāna, and abandoning the bodies of the three realms, they then undergo transformation, which is not of the three realms—such as the Laṅkāvatāra, Śrīmālādevī, Anuttarāśraya, and Buddhagotraśāstra, etc.

This assertion is not so. Why is this? The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka has explicit text [dating it] after forty years; on what sacred teaching is it based that sūtras such as the Laṅkāvatāra are not prior to it? Furthermore, the Anuttarāśrayasūtra is not subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. How is this known? King Ajātaśatru had not yet usurped the throne of the state, so Bimbisāra could still be present; within the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, Ajātaśatru is already listed [among the assembly], so if the kings are thus listed, how could the Anuttarāśrayasūtra still state that Bimbisāra was in the assembly? Why so? In listing the assembly, the Anuttarāśrayasūtra states: "Bimbisāra was the foremost"; based on this, one can know that it is not subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka.

Moreover, the Śrīmālādevīsūtra is also not after the forty years. How is this known? The sūtra states: "King Prasenajit and Queen Mallikā have not believed in the Dharma for long." Within the Benevolent Kings Prajñā Sūtra, it states: "The eighth day of the month of the first year"—namely, the beginning of the thirtieth year. How is this known? Based on the Candraprabha Sūtra, it states: "The Tathāgata has already spoken the Mahāprajñā for twenty-nine years for our sake." Therefore, we know that by the time the Benevolent Kings Sūtra was spoken, Candraprabha had already believed in the Buddha for a long time. The Śrīmālādevīsūtra states: "Having believed in the Buddha not long ago"; it is clear that it was before the Benevolent Kings Prajñā. If this were not so, having already heard the sūtras for twenty-nine years, how could it be said in the Śrīmālādevīsūtra, "having believed in the Buddha not long ago"? Based on this, one knows that it is not subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka.

Moreover, regarding the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, according to Tripiṭaka Master Bodhiruci: Based also on the compilation [records], in the first year were spoken the Mahāsaṃnipāta, Ratnaketudhāraṇī, Laṅkāvatāra, and Sāgaranāgarāja; in the ninth year was spoken the Aṅgulimāla; in the tenth year was spoken the Tathāgatagarbha. It also states: The Avataṃsaka, Nirvāṇa, Pratyutpanna, Aṅgulimāla, Tathāgatagarbha, and others all state their own years and months. Based on this, the Laṅkāvatāra is not after the forty years. Although the latter portion holds: "I have already caused the cessation of meat eating in sūtras such as the Hastikakṣya, Nirvāṇa, and Mahāmegha," the Laṅkāvatāra is not necessarily subsequent to the Nirvāṇasūtra. Why is this? Based on the text itself, it says: "Having spent seven days in the Dragon Palace, upon first entering Laṅkā, this teaching was then spoken"; could it be that having already taught the Nirvāṇa and passed into extinction at the Twin Trees, [the Buddha] again dwelt in the Dragon Palace and the like? The Nirvāṇasūtra referred to is not necessarily the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra. If one says that what was seen and heard differed, what prevents it from not being after the teaching of the Nirvāṇa? If so, what prevents there being differences in what was seen and heard, and that based on the compilation records it was indeed in the first year?

Furthermore, as for saying that the Mahāprajñāpāramitā was prior to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, this is according to Bodhiruci. In the fifth year, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra was spoken; yet based on the text of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, it was actually spoken after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. How is this known? Based on the 'Definite Chapter' therein, it asks: "Are all bodhisattvas definite or not?" The treatise explains: Why is this asked? Because seeing in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka that children heaping sand all achieve the Buddha Path, and clarifying that the dviyāna become buddhas, this question was therefore asked. Based on this, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā was actually spoken after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Relying on what is it definitively judged to be prior to forty years?

Moreover, the Buddhagotraśāstra and the Ratnagotravibhāga do not merely comment on sūtras subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka; neither treatise cites the Nirvāṇa or the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, but mostly relies on the Anuttarāśraya, Laṅkāvatāra, Saṃdhinirmocana, Tathāgatagarbha, and Śrīmālādevīsūtras. Based on the examination of these sūtras, the two treatises actually comment on the teachings prior to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Since their establishing of the earlier and later is completely baseless, many errors further arise from the chapters they establish. What are these errors?

First, they say: Although the earlier sūtras speak of the dviyāna actually entering nirvāṇa, the later sūtras explain it as 'like the conjured city and the sheep and deer carts'; in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the śrāvaka-gotra falls into transformative death, and the dviyāna have no extinction, which is not only true for the indeterminate gotra. This is not so. The Laṅkāvatāra states that those who fall into transformation and are able to advance toward the Great [Vehicle] are of the indeterminate gotra. How is this known? Based on the seventh fascicle, it states: 'Bodhisattva Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! The World-Honoured One says that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas enter the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bodhisattva bhūmi, and so forth, down to saying that they are not yet able to realize the dharma of the first bhūmi, how much less the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bhūmi." The Buddha told Mahāmati: "There are three kinds of śrāvakas. As for saying that they enter the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bhūmi, these are those who previously cultivated bodhisattva practices, fell into the stage of the śrāvaka, and returning to rely on their original mind, cultivate bodhisattva practices, entering together the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bhūmi; they are not the excessively arrogant śrāvakas of quiescence. For they are unable to enter bodhisattva practices, have never awakened to the fact that the three realms are mind-only, have never cultivated the various bodhisattva dharmas, and have never cultivated the practices of the pāramitās and the ten bhūmis. Therefore, the śrāvakas of determinate quiescence cannot realize that gate of the joy of extinction practiced by the bodhisattvas."' Moreover, the verse states: 'Determinate śrāvakas / Do not practice bodhisattva practices. / Those who enter the eighth bhūmi together / Are originally bodhisattvas.' Based on this, they belong to the indeterminate yāna among the pañcayāna. The intent of both the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and the Yogācārabhūmi is the same.

Furthermore, the eighth fascicle states: 'How does the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, confer prediction upon the great arhats, etc.?' The Buddha answered, saying: 'Mahāmati! For the sake of those śrāvakas who had previously practiced bodhisattva conduct, I confer prediction on them based on nirvāṇa without remainder. Mahāmati! My conferring prediction upon śrāvakas is in order to give rise to a courageous mind in timid sentient beings. Mahāmati! In this world and in other buddha-lands, there are sentient beings who practice bodhisattva conduct, yet further delight in the dharma of the śrāvakayāna; the Buddha turns them so that they take up great bodhi.' The verse states: 'The three yānas and the non-yāna, / The immeasurable yānas of the buddhas; / All are predicted to the Buddha stage, / Taught through the severance of all afflictions. / Realizing noble wisdom in one's own body, / And nirvāṇa without remainder, / To encourage timid sentient beings, / Therefore it is taught with hidden intent.' Based on this, it precisely agrees with the Saṃdhinirmocana's exposition of the three manomayakāyas: those above the first bhūmi are definitely directed toward quiescence. Since they do not realize the gate of the joy of extinction practiced by the bodhisattvas, it is clear that they cannot attain the manomayakāya and are unable to know it; thus it is an error.

Moreover, they say: The Amoghapāśasūtra and the Saṃghāṭasūtra state that all Śuddhāvāsa devas resolve to advance toward the Great [Vehicle], so they classify them as teachings subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. It is not known what they rely on to know this. If there is a teaching, it should correspond; when explicit words have no proof, how can one arbitrarily judge? Furthermore, they say: What the two masters of Vijñāptimātratā state both do not accord with reason; therefore, we know that before the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka assembly, no noble persons resolved their minds, whereas after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka assembly, even those in the Śuddhāvāsa resolved. That the Vijñāptimātratā treatise masters established theses contrary to the sūtras is not just in one or two instances. This is not so. Why is the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra admitted by themselves to have been spoken before the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka? Yet the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is spoken in the Pure Land; its exposition of the Pure Land's marks and its listing of the assembly and praising of their virtues are identical to the Buddhabhūmi. The Buddhabhūmiśāstra explains that those of true reality are all śrāvakas of indeterminate gotra who, having attained the lesser fruition, advance toward great bodhi, and are therefore called 'great'. If they had not turned their minds, they would not perceive the Pure Land. Furthermore, the ten meanings of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and other texts explain the ekayāna as being for the indeterminate gotra, universally allowing both śaikṣa and aśaikṣa noble ones to turn their minds. Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, in commenting on the two teachings of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, states: 'For three kinds of persons, there is a sublime Pure Land transcending the three realms, down to where there is not even the name of affliction; in this realm, from the Buddha, they hear the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra and complete the Buddha Path.' How could one say that in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra all noble persons had not yet resolved their minds?

Moreover, they say: The Laṅkāvatārasūtra clearly explains that those of determinate quiescence have transformative death; the teaching and reason are evident, so how can one cling to propagating the earlier teaching and not what is spoken in the later sūtras? This is also not so. Based on the fourth fascicle of the Laṅkāvatāra, it states: 'Mahāmati! Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have not realized the selflessness of dharmas, and have not attained inconceivable transformative birth; therefore, for the sake of the śrāvakas, I teach the path of the ekayāna.' Here it says 'have not attained'; based on what further text do they say it clearly states that persons of determinate [nature] attain transformation? According to the meaning of this text, persons of indeterminate nature who have not heard the Mahāyāna do not attain transformation; how could it be allowed that those of determinate nature who cannot turn their minds attain transformation? Also, in this sūtra's text, it sometimes says 'have not escaped inconceivable transformative death', sometimes says 'cannot escape inconceivable transformative death', and sometimes says 'have not attained escape from inconceivable transformative death'; there is no explicit text definitively stating that persons of determinate nature attain transformation. Also, where it states in the second fascicle 'because of falling into inconceivable transformative death', this speaks of the indeterminate falling into inconceivable transformative birth-and-death after turning their minds; there is no text saying that the determinate nature attains transformation. If, moreover, they were allowed to undergo transformative birth and body, how could it say: 'Such ones attain entry into personal selflessness, down to giving rise to the thought that it is nirvāṇa'? When ordinary beings undergo demarcated [existence], they themselves know it is a body of birth-and-death; when noble ones undergo transformation, could they cling to it as nirvāṇa, claiming to have attained [nirvāṇa] with remainder? That is not knowledge-obscuration knowing remainder if it exists; thus they themselves do not accept it, claiming that those who turn their minds to the Great [Vehicle] with remainder must abandon demarcated [existence] and separately undergo transformation, attaining the joy of samādhi and taking it to be without remainder. This is also like someone of little learning who, attaining the fourth dhyāna, takes it to be the ultimate fruition; upon death, seeing the signs of what lies ahead, they even give rise to a slanderous mind. How much more so could a noble one, seeing that they undergo transformation, consider it to be without remainder?

Furthermore, according to the text of the pañcayāna, among the first two yānas there is no expression of entering the Mahāyāna; only in the fourth, the indeterminate yāna, does it state: 'Mahāmati! Those three kinds of persons are separated from the vāsanā of the affliction-obscuration and attain purity, therefore seeing selflessness; because of attaining the gate of samādhi joy, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas ultimately realize the Tathāgata's dharmakāya.' When it says 'those three kinds of persons', it refers to the three kinds of persons within the indeterminate yāna, not pointing to the former first three yānas. If that were so, then the former must be separately spoken of as the fourth yāna. Or perhaps the former three yānas collectively speak of both the determinate and indeterminate gotras, while the fourth person exclusively takes the indeterminate gotra, saying 'those three kinds', which means the indeterminate persons among the former three. If it were not like this, claiming that the determinate and indeterminate gotras of the former three are all allowed to enter the Great [Vehicle], it would contradict what is taught below in the seventh and eighth fascicles, as cited before. There is no text explicitly stating that those of determinate quiescence undergo transformative death; to falsely say that the teaching and reason are evident is therefore an error.

Moreover, in a question and answer, it is said: Why are the two expositions different? The answer states: For example, in the sūtras, it was not yet taught that [the Buddha in] the royal palace was a transformation buddha. When propagating this temporal teaching, it was taught that buddhahood is attained with thirty-four minds, and the ālayavijñāna was not yet spoken of. When propagating this temporal teaching, it was taught that the cessation attainment exists only in the desire and form realms, and that seeds rely on form and mind. When propagating the later temporal teaching, its meaning was changed; the Yogācārabhūmi propagates the earlier teaching. After forty years, the two extinctions are not real, there is the ālayavijñāna, and one falls into inconceivable transformative birth-and-death. When propagating the sūtras of this period, the treatises also followed the teaching. This is also not so. You yourself accept that the Avataṃsaka is an earlier teaching; did it only teach that the transformation body in the royal palace was the true Buddha? Both the Yogācārabhūmi and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha state that the royal palace [embodiment] is not the true Buddha. Attaining buddhahood with thirty-four [minds/bodies] is a thesis of Hīnayāna treatises. That the cessation attainment relies on the body of the desire and form realms is a thesis of the Sarvāstivāda. That seeds rely on mind and form is the tenet of the Sautrāntika masters. The Yogācārabhūmi reformed the former tenets so that seeds rely on the eighth consciousness and so forth, and like the Laṅkāvatāra and others, it also teaches that the indeterminate have no real [nirvāṇa]. The Nirvāṇa, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Prakaraṇāryavācā, and Buddhabhūmi all speak of transformative birth-and-death; what meaning differs, that one should classify the Yogācārabhūmi, Buddhabhūmiśāstra, and others as teachings prior to the forty years? As cited before, the judging of earlier and later is incorrect; regarding what is identical, they do not understand that identity is not difference, and forcibly see difference; therefore it is an error.

Moreover, they say: The eightieth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi speaks of two nirvāṇas: because the vipākavijñāna has no appropriating, it cannot be produced again relying on the pravṛttivijñānas, etc., and only the pure, unconditioned, stainless true dharmadhātu remains. This corresponds to the Laṅkāvatārasūtra's extinguishing of all marks, not apprehending future realms being the joy of samādhi, which the dviyāna consider to be nirvāṇa. This is also not so. What is taught in that sūtra is again different earlier and later. The second fascicle explains that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, fearing the suffering of the false discrimination of birth-and-death, seek nirvāṇa; not knowing that the worldly and nirvāṇa have no distinction, they discriminate all dharmas and non-dharmas, extinguish the sense organs, and do not apprehend; falsely grasping future realms to be nirvāṇa refers to śaikṣa and ordinary persons of the dviyāna who, clinging to the extinction of the sense organs by the aśaikṣa, take what is attained without remainder to be ultimate, not knowing that the ālayavijñāna transforms into the superior [nirvāṇa] without remainder. Next it states: 'Therefore, those foolish people say that there are three yāna dharmas, yet they cannot know that when mental conceptions are extinguished, one attains the dharma of quiescence. If they were noble ones, it would not be so.' Next it states: 'Therefore, Mahāmati! Those foolish people constantly revolve without stopping in the wheel of worldly birth-and-death.' According to the actual meaning, when persons of determinate gotra extinguish the sense organs and so forth, both body and wisdom are extinguished, and only tathatā remains. The Laṅkāvatāra states: 'Only when mental conceptions are extinguished does one attain the dharma of quiescence; the dharma of quiescence is not the joy of samādhi.' The joy of samādhi is the text in the seventh fascicle, which states that 'the indeterminate gotra, turning their minds toward the Great [Vehicle], attain entry into the bhūmis', spoken of under its original designation. It is like the suddenly awakening bodhisattvas attaining the cessation attainment in the bhūmis, termed 'falling into the dharma-gate of the joy of samādhi'. How is this known? Its own question and answer states: 'The Buddha told Mahāmati: "I shall now analyze and expound it for you. Mahāmati! There are three kinds of śrāvakas. As for saying that they enter the gate of quiescence of the eighth bhūmi, these are those who previously cultivated bodhisattva practices, fell into the stage of the śrāvaka, and returning to rely on their original mind, cultivate bodhisattva practices, entering together the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bhūmi. They are not the excessively arrogant śrāvakas of quiescence."' If the dviyāna, having abandoned the demarcated body, dwell in samādhi and this is termed attaining nirvāṇa, why does the fourth fascicle state that 'srotāpannas have three grades', all of which are said to enter nirvāṇa? The sūtra speaks of the second fruition: 'Because of cultivating the marks of the dhyāna of good vision, returning once to the world, they then exhaust suffering completely and enter nirvāṇa.' Why is this? Since undergoing a transformative body alters the suffering of conditioned existence, how could it be said that they then exhaust suffering completely and enter nirvāṇa? Furthermore, this is the definite direction toward quiescence. How is this known? Immediately below, Mahāmati asked the Buddha: 'Do you speak for the arhats who attain determinate quiescence, or for the arhats who produce the bodhi vow, having wholesome roots or false wholesome roots, or for the transformationally manifested arhats?' The Buddha told Mahāmati: 'I speak for the śrāvaka arhats who attain determinate quiescence, not for the other arhats.' Therefore, we know that the determinate gotra enters nirvāṇa without remainder, where only tathatā remains. In agreement with the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, extinguishing the sense organs and mental conceptions is called entering nirvāṇa. If one dwells in the joy of samādhi and gives rise to the conception of nirvāṇa, that is regression from bodhi. As for the indeterminate gotra, failing to understand the explicit text is likewise an error.