[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) › 3.4 # 能顯中邊慧日論 3.4 能顯中邊慧日論 3.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.3.4) 又云：前後二教略有十三不同。一云：《無上依經》由無明住地有變易死，《瑜伽論》等由定願留。此亦不爾。隱經無漏業，設論所知障，以為不同。不云由所知障同無明住地，起無漏定願同無漏業。故亦為過。又云：《楞伽》滅諸根方取變易，《瑜伽》留有根身者。此亦不爾。滅諸根者定入無餘，非受變易。不爾，變易豈無諸根？論留根身，是《楞伽》之不定，故留根身而為變易。不知所以，妄云不同。第三不同，至破變易執，方辨其失。四云：《法華》等經往他佛土，《瑜伽》等留身此洲。此亦不爾。《法華》往他佛土，據佛滅後，此界無佛，無能覺悟令發大心，以佛方便令往餘土。《瑜伽》等論約現逢佛，已能趣大受變易生，留身此土，即《法華經》三周授記。學無學人俱在此洲，不往他土，始能趣大。此而不悟，故亦失也。又云：依《涅槃經》是人未來過八萬劫住等，《瑜伽論》等即留此身或餘一劫。此亦不爾。《瑜伽論》言或餘一劫者，《佛地論》釋「或餘一劫者，此中意說過於一劫。准此八萬劫亦是過一劫，過一劫言無限定故。」又云：依《勝鬘》等，二乘大力菩薩同受意生身；《瑜伽論》等，二乘不同大力菩薩，大力菩薩如意而生，常願生故，二乘遠離而住，一切眾生皆不能見故者。此亦不然。且《涅槃經》云「須陀洹人八萬劫，乃至辟支佛人十千劫住。」此為受變易？為住無餘依？若不受變易，捨分段已八萬劫住後，依何法更趣大耶？若受變易八萬劫住，豈常化生？又《楞伽》第四云「大慧！聲聞辟支佛，若離一切諸過，熏習得證法無我，爾時離於諸過三昧。無漏醉法覺已，修行出世間無漏界中一切功德。」頌云「無有究竟趣，亦復不退還，得諸三昧身，無量劫不覺。譬如惛醉人，酒消然後寤，得佛無上體，是我真法身。」第七亦云「大慧！聲聞辟支佛，於第八菩薩地中樂著寂滅三昧樂門，醉故不能善知唯自心見。乃至大慧！諸菩薩以見三昧寂滅樂門，憶念本願大慈悲心度眾生，知十無盡如實行智，是故不即入於涅槃。」此并二乘雖受變易，利生修行不同菩薩，如何獨謂《瑜伽》不同。第七不同，至破變易中辨。第八第九不同，准前破。又云：《瑜伽》云「留身通於有學」，《勝鬘》等經唯是無學者。此亦不爾。有學不回心，不許受變易。既許彼回心，何不受變易？若謂煩惱在，菩薩亦復然。若謂菩薩雖有煩惱，無漏力勝；何妨有學回趣大已有勝力能。又彼自判《深密》前教，後唯不定回心見道前趣大，不說聖者回心向大，非為顯了；《法華》後教得聖者有學亦許回心為顯了。今《瑜伽論》等亦說有，亦說有學回心，許受變易，斯有何失？《勝鬘》據其定受變易生說，《佛地》依容受受論。不爾，執文說無學受、不許有學，亦應《楞伽》說三地上有意生身，不說二乘無學受變易身。豈可二乘及初二地總不受變易？非過謂過，故為失也。十一不同亦准前破。十二不同，下破變易執中具辨。又云：《涅槃》等先入寂滅、後發大心，《瑜伽》先發大心、然後留身者。此亦不爾。《法華經》有學無學人并悉回心，豈并無學住滅定中，謂無餘滅經多劫已方始趣大？又《涅槃經》云「八萬劫已至阿耨菩提心」等，不言八萬劫已始發大心。不同之者妄謂為同，實同之者即為不同。准彼所論，同亦何曾同、異亦實無異。異種難思，翳目許生空華；異種尋伺，唯妄分別。 > It also says: 'Between the earlier and later teachings there are briefly thirteen differences. First, it is said that according to the Anuttarāśrayasūtra, transformational death occurs due to the ground of ignorance-dwelling, while according to the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts, it occurs due to retention through meditative absorption and vow.' This is also not so. Concealing the sūtra's anāsrava karma and setting up the treatise's cognitive obscurations (jñeyāvaraṇa), \[the author\] considers them to be different. He does not say that cognitive obscurations correspond to the ground of ignorance-dwelling, and that giving rise to anāsrava meditative absorptions and vows corresponds to anāsrava karma. Therefore, this is also an error. 'Second, it is said that according to the Laṅkāvatāra, one takes on transformational \[existence\] only after extinguishing all sense faculties, whereas the Yogācā\[rabhūmi\] speaks of retaining a body with faculties.' This is also not so. One who extinguishes all faculties definitely enters \[nirvāṇa\] without remainder (anupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa), and does not take on transformational \[existence\]. If it were not so, how could transformational \[existence\] lack the faculties? The treatise's retention of a body with faculties refers to the aniyata of the Laṅkāvatāra; hence one retains a body with faculties to undergo transformational \[existence\]. Not knowing the rationale, he falsely claims they are different. The third difference will have its fallacy identified when refuting the attachment to transformational \[existence\]. 'Fourth, it is said that sūtras such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka speak of going to other Buddha-lands, whereas the Yogācā\[rabhūmi\] and other texts speak of retaining the body in this continent.' This is also not so. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka's going to other Buddha-lands is based on the period after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, when there is no Buddha in this realm and no one capable of awakening them to arouse the great mind, so that through the Buddha's expedient means they are made to go to other lands. Treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi refer to presently encountering a Buddha: having already been able to turn toward the Great \[Vehicle\] and undergo transformational rebirth, they retain their bodies in this land. This is precisely the three cycles of prediction in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka: those in training (śaikṣa) and beyond training (aśaikṣa) are all in this continent and do not go to other lands, only then being able to turn toward the Great \[Vehicle\]. Not realizing this, it is also an error. 'Fifth, it is said that according to the Nirvāṇasūtra, this person remains \[in meditative absorption\] through eighty thousand kalpas into the future, and so on, whereas the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts state that one retains this body for one kalpa or more.' This is also not so. When the Yogācārabhūmi says 'for one kalpa or more', the Buddhabhūmiśāstra explains: '"For one kalpa or more" means here exceeding one kalpa. Accordingly, eighty thousand kalpas is also exceeding one kalpa, because the expression "exceeding one kalpa" has no fixed limit.' 'Sixth, it is said that according to the Śrīmālādevī and other texts, both the dviyāna and great-power bodhisattvas alike receive mind-made bodies (manomayakāya); whereas in the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts, the dviyāna is not like the great-power bodhisattvas, for great-power bodhisattvas are born as they wish because they constantly vow to be born, while the dviyāna dwell in isolation so that all sentient beings cannot see them.' This is also not correct. Moreover, the Nirvāṇasūtra says: 'A srotaāpanna remains for eighty thousand kalpas, up to a pratyekabuddha who remains for ten thousand kalpas.' Does this mean taking on transformational \[existence\]? Or does it mean abiding in \[nirvāṇa\] without remainder? If they do not take on transformational \[existence\], having abandoned the portioned \[body\] (pariccheda-kāya) and abiding for eighty thousand kalpas, on the basis of what phenomenon would they further turn toward the Great \[Vehicle\]? If they take on transformational \[existence\] and abide for eighty thousand kalpas, how could they always be apparitionally born? Furthermore, the fourth chapter of the Laṅkāvatāra says: 'Mahāmati! If śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are free from all faults, their vāsanā attains the realization of the selflessness of phenomena; at that time they are free from the samādhi of all faults. Having awakened from the intoxication of anāsrava dharmas, they cultivate all merits within the lokottara-anāsrava-dhātu.' The verse says: 'There is no ultimate destination, / nor do they turn back; / having attained bodies of samādhi, / they remain unawakened for immeasurable kalpas. / Just as a drunk person / awakens after the wine has worn off, / attaining the Buddha's unsurpassed body, / which is my true dharmakāya.' The seventh chapter also says: 'Mahāmati! Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, in the eighth bodhisattvabhūmi, delight in and are attached to the gate of the bliss of cessation-samādhi; being intoxicated, they cannot properly understand what is only seen by their own mind. … Up to: Mahāmati! Bodhisattvas, having seen the gate of the bliss of cessation-samādhi, recall their fundamental vow and the mind of great compassion to deliver sentient beings, and knowing the ten inexhaustible \[vows\] and the knowledge of practicing according to reality, therefore do not immediately enter nirvāṇa.' In both these cases, although the dviyāna undergo transformational \[existence\], their benefiting of beings and cultivation are not the same as bodhisattvas; how could one claim that the Yogācā\[rabhūmi\] alone is different? The seventh difference will be distinguished in the refutation of transformational \[existence\]. The eighth and ninth differences are refuted following the preceding. 'Tenth, it is said that the Yogācā\[rabhūmi\] states that "retaining the body applies also to those in training (śaikṣa)", whereas the Śrīmālādevī and other sūtras say it applies only to those beyond training (aśaikṣa).' This is also not so. If those in training do not turn their minds, they are not allowed to undergo transformational \[existence\]. Since it is accepted that they turn their minds, why should they not undergo transformational \[existence\]? If it is claimed that afflictions still remain, this is also true of bodhisattvas. If it is said that although bodhisattvas have afflictions, their anāsrava power is superior—what prevents those in training, having turned and directed toward the Great \[Vehicle\], from already possessing superior capability? Furthermore, he himself classified the teachings prior to the Saṃdhinirmocana as holding that only aniyata individuals turn their minds before the path of seeing to head toward the Great \[Vehicle\], not speaking of āryas turning their minds toward the Great \[Vehicle\], so that it is not definitive; and held that the teachings after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka are definitive because they allow even āryas in training to turn their minds. Now, the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts also speak of \[āryas\], and speak of those in training turning their minds and allowing them to undergo transformational \[existence\]—what flaw is there in this? The Śrīmālādevī speaks according to those who definitely undergo transformational rebirth, while the Buddhabhūmi\[śāstra\] discusses it in terms of those who potentially undergo it. Otherwise, clinging to the letter to say that those beyond training undergo it while not allowing those in training to do so, one should also hold that because the Laṅkāvatāra speaks of mind-made bodies above the third bhūmi and does not speak of the dviyāna beyond training undergoing transformational bodies, could it be that the dviyāna and the first two bhūmis altogether do not undergo transformational \[existence\]? Claiming a fault where there is none, this is an error. The eleventh difference is also refuted following the preceding. The twelfth difference will be fully distinguished below in the refutation of the attachment to transformational \[existence\]. 'Thirteenth, it is said that according to the Nirvāṇa and other texts, they first enter cessation and later arouse the great mind, whereas according to the Yogācā\[rabhūmi\], they first arouse the great mind and afterwards retain the body.' This is also not so. In the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, both those in training and those beyond training turn their minds; how could all those beyond training dwell in the concentration of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), suppose it to be cessation without remainder, and only after passing many kalpas begin to turn toward the Great \[Vehicle\]? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇasūtra says: 'After eighty thousand kalpas they arrive at the anuttarabodhicitta', and so on; it does not say that only after eighty thousand kalpas do they first arouse the great mind. Things that are different he falsely claims to be identical; things that are genuinely identical he makes out to be different. According to what he argues, what is identical was never identical, and what is different truly has no difference. The varieties are difficult to conceive: eyes with cataracts are allowed to produce sky-flowers; such disparate investigations are merely false discriminations. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.3.3) - [Next: 3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.3.5) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863~en-mt.3.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.3.4) · Pramāṇa