能顯中邊慧日論 4.17.2

4.17.2

《瑜伽》又云「次復住種性者所有諸相，謂與一切無涅槃法補特伽羅諸相相違，當知即名安住種性補特伽羅。 」所有諸相六相相對，廣如彼辨。 又云「或有唯住種性而未趣入亦未出離，謂如有一補特伽羅，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，未增長慧捨，未調柔諸見，如是名為唯住種性而未趣入亦未出離。 」又《瑜伽論》第三十八解十因中，及《善戒》、《地持》辨於十因，明性本有，文皆相似，繁不具引。 《佛性論》第四云「五無初相應善性為法者，釋云：無初者，以性得般若大悲禪定法身并本有，故言無初。 若是無漏從有漏生，即般若大悲禪定等因是有始法，何得無初？ 從有漏生，何名性得？ 」《寶性論》第四云「佛性有二：一者如地藏、二如樹菓」等。 准彼文意，地藏譬真如，樹菓喻般若等。 故次云「依初譬喻故知有初法身，依第二譬喻知有二佛身、二種佛性，俱云無始世界，未明無漏本有，不唯新生。 又無漏種若唯新生，即有漏聞熏與出世正見為親因緣。 」云何梁《攝大乘論》云「佛世尊說：從他聞音及自正思惟，由此二因正見得生。 」釋曰：清淨品以正見為上首，此正見以何法為增上緣？ 謂從他聞音及自正思惟。 此二因即是正見增上緣。 乃至云「由此二因正見得生，此二因於正見是增上緣。 」今所言因是通名，即說緣為因。 又論云「世間心與正思惟相應，出世淨心與正見相應，無時得共生共滅。 」釋曰：正思惟正修慧從四念處生，世第一法是其位。 此心未證見四諦，故名世間心。 已證見四諦，故名出世。 離自性法，是修得法，故名淨心。 正見即八聖道中之第一分，此正見與三十七品不相離。 乃至云：由三十七品生，故得出世。 從無始以來，世出世心不有俱生俱滅義，以性相違故。 論曰「是故此世間心非開淨心所熏。 既無熏習，不應得成出世種子。 」釋曰：思慧若為出世心所熏，可得成出世種子。 既無被熏義，故出世種子義不成。 准此論文，無漏種子若新熏生，由無漏俱方始得生。 見道已前既無無漏，有漏如何熏成無漏？ 若許有漏熏無漏種，不應難他非無漏俱不得熏種，自許非無漏俱熏無漏種故。 問：若見道前有漏聞熏不能生無漏，如何論云「雖復世間法，成出世心。 」釋云：如意識，雖是世間法，能通達四諦真如，對治四諦障故，成出世心。 聞熏習亦爾，雖是世間法，以因果皆是出世法故，亦成出世心。 答：以本無漏微隱難知，寄有漏熏習勝增上緣，顯本無漏種子。 即此種子在熏習位，亦名聞熏習。 故次論云「何以故？ 」釋云：何以故？ 此法但是出世，非世間法，有四種對治故。 准此，既云但是出世非世間法，明非有漏。 又論云「此種子出世淨心未起時，一切上心惑對治。 」准此故知，見道已前有漏熏習位，已有無漏心之種子。 又云「種子即是聞熏習，菩薩未知欲知根名出世淨心。 此心未在之前是聞熏習，屬聞思慧位，在聞思位中。 」准此故知，說有漏熏習成出世心者，據增上緣說。 又廣如彼解，略更不引。 問：既諸有情齊有真如及第八識，如何不許為佛正因，答：如自不生，亦不親為正因生法。 如前已明。 若許第八為佛正因，即是無漏。 又復對治有漏第八方能成佛，許第八識為佛正因，即應能治第八自識。 若爾，即違梁《攝論》云「云何一切種子果報識成不淨品因，若能作染濁對治出世淨心因。 」釋云：若立本識是染獨對治出世因，則不得以本識為不淨品因。 不淨品即集諦及苦諦，是業煩惱種子，故是集諦。 乃至云「既立為染濁對治及出世心因故，不應復說為不淨品因。 」准此，有漏第八非佛正因。

The *Yogācārabhūmi* further states: "Next, concerning all the characteristics possessed by one who abides in the gotra: they are contrary to all the characteristics of a pudgala without nirvāṇa-dharma; you should know that this is called a pudgala abiding in the gotra." All the characteristics are contrasted in six pairs of characteristics, as explained in detail therein. It further states: "Or there is one who merely abides in the gotra, yet has neither entered upon [the path] nor attained departure: this refers to a pudgala who is endowed with the seeds of the supramundane noble dharmas, but has not yet attained close association with virtuous spiritual friends or the hearing of the correct Dharma, has not yet attained correct faith in the Dharma and Vinaya properly awakened to and properly taught by the Tathāgata, has not maintained pure precepts, has not gathered vast learning, has not increased wisdom and renunciation, and has not subdued views—this is called merely abiding in the gotra while having neither entered upon [the path] nor attained departure." Furthermore, in the explanation of the ten causes in the thirty-eighth fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi*, and in the explanation of the ten causes in the *Bhadraśīlasūtra* and the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra*, which clarify that the gotra is innate, the passages are all similar, so they are not cited in full to avoid verbosity. Fascicle 4 of the *Buddhagotraśāstra* states: "'The five dharmas that possess a beginningless associated wholesome nature'—the commentary explains: 'Without beginning' means that since wisdom (prajñā), great compassion, dhyāna-concentration, and the dharmakāya are obtained by nature and are innate, it is therefore said to be 'without beginning'. If the anāsrava were produced from the sāsrava, then the causes of wisdom, great compassion, dhyāna-concentration, and so on would be phenomena with a beginning; how could they be without beginning? If produced from the sāsrava, how could they be called 'obtained by nature'?" Fascicle 4 of the *Ratnagotravibhāga* states: "There are two kinds of buddhadhātu: the first is like a subterranean treasure, and the second is like a fruit on a tree," and so forth. According to the meaning of that text, the subterranean treasure is an analogy for tathatā, and the fruit on the tree is an analogy for wisdom, and so on. Hence it next says: "Based on the first analogy, one knows that there is the first dharmakāya; based on the second analogy, one knows that there are the two buddha-bodies and two kinds of buddhadhātu; both are spoken of as existing from beginningless saṃsāra, without clarifying that the anāsrava is innate and not merely newly arisen. Furthermore, if anāsrava seeds were merely newly arisen, then the sāsrava hearing and perfuming would be the sākṣāt-hetupratyaya for supramundane correct view." Why does the Liang translation of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* state: "The Buddha, the World-Honoured One, said: 'Hearing the voice from another and proper reflection by oneself: through these two causes, correct view is produced.'" The commentary states: "In the class of purity, correct view is the foremost; what dharma serves as the adhipatipratyaya for this correct view? It refers to hearing the voice from another and proper reflection by oneself. These two causes are precisely the adhipatipratyaya for correct view." And further down it says: "'Through these two causes, correct view is produced; these two causes are the adhipatipratyaya for correct view.' What is now spoken of as 'cause' (hetu) is a general term; that is, a condition (pratyaya) is spoken of as a cause." Furthermore, the treatise states: "The mundane mind is associated with proper reflection; the supramundane pure mind is associated with correct view; at no time can they arise together and perish together." The commentary states: "Proper reflection and the wisdom of proper cultivation arise from the four foundations of mindfulness, and the stage of worldly supreme dharmas (laukikāgradharma) is their position. This mind has not yet realised and seen the four noble truths, so it is called the 'mundane mind'. Having already realised and seen the four noble truths, it is called 'supramundane'. Being a dharma free from intrinsic nature, it is an attainment through cultivation, so it is called the 'pure mind'. Correct view is the first factor among the eightfold noble path; this correct view is inseparable from the thirty-seven factors of awakening." And further down it says: "Since it arises from the thirty-seven factors of awakening, it attains the supramundane. From beginningless time, the mundane and supramundane minds have never possessed the meaning of arising together and perishing together, because their natures are contrary." The treatise says: "Therefore, this mundane mind is not perfumed by the pure mind. Since there is no vāsanā, it should not be capable of becoming a supramundane seed." The commentary states: "If the wisdom of reflection were perfumed by the supramundane mind, it could become a supramundane seed. Since there is no meaning of being perfumed, the meaning of a supramundane seed is not established." According to this text of the treatise, if an anāsrava seed were produced through new perfuming, it would only be produced as a result of being accompanied by the anāsrava. Since there is no anāsrava prior to the path of seeing (darśanamārga), how could the sāsrava perfume to form the anāsrava? If one allows that the sāsrava perfumes an anāsrava seed, one should not object to another that a seed cannot be perfumed when not accompanied by the anāsrava, since one personally accepts that something not accompanied by the anāsrava perfumes an anāsrava seed. Question: If prior to the path of seeing, the sāsrava hearing and perfuming cannot produce the anāsrava, why does the treatise state: "Although it is a mundane dharma, it forms the supramundane mind"? The commentary explains: "Just as the mental consciousness, although a mundane dharma, can penetrate the tathatā of the four noble truths and counter the hindrances to the four noble truths, it forms the supramundane mind. The śrutavāsanā is also like this: although it is a mundane dharma, because both its cause and fruit are supramundane dharmas, it also forms the supramundane mind." Answer: Because the innate anāsrava is subtle, hidden, and difficult to know, relying on the superior adhipatipratyaya of sāsrava perfuming, the innate anāsrava seed is revealed. This very seed, at the stage of perfuming, is also called śrutavāsanā. Hence the treatise next says: "Why is this?" The commentary explains: "Why is this? This dharma is solely supramundane and not a mundane dharma, because there are four kinds of antidotes." According to this, since it says it is solely supramundane and not a mundane dharma, it is clear that it is not sāsrava. Furthermore, the treatise states: "When this supramundane pure mind of the seed has not yet arisen, it is an antidote to all manifest defilements." According to this, we know that prior to the path of seeing, at the stage of sāsrava perfuming, there is already the seed of the anāsrava mind. It also states: "The seed is precisely the śrutavāsanā; the bodhisattva's faculty of unknown-knowing (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya) is called the supramundane pure mind. Before this mind is present, it is śrutavāsanā, belonging to the stage of the wisdom of hearing and reflection, within the stage of hearing and reflection." According to this, we know that the statement that sāsrava perfuming forms the supramundane mind is spoken in terms of the adhipatipratyaya. Furthermore, it is explained in detail therein, so to be brief, it is not cited further. Question: Since all sentient beings equally possess tathatā and the eighth consciousness, why are these not accepted as the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha? Answer: Since tathatā itself does not produce, it also does not directly serve as a pradhāna-hetu that produces dharmas, as has been clarified before. If one accepts that the eighth consciousness is the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha, it would then be anāsrava. Furthermore, it is only by countering the sāsrava eighth consciousness that one can attain buddhahood; if one accepts the eighth consciousness as the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha, it should then be capable of countering the eighth consciousness itself. If so, it would contradict the Liang translation of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, which states: "How could the fruit-retribution consciousness of all seeds become the cause of the class of impurity if it can serve as the cause of the supramundane pure mind that counters defilement?" The commentary explains: "If one posits the mūlavijñāna as the supramundane cause that counters defilement, then one cannot take the mūlavijñāna as the cause of the class of impurity. The class of impurity refers to the truth of the origination [of suffering] and the truth of suffering; because they are seeds of karma and defilements, they are the truth of origination." And further down it says: "Since it is posited as the antidote to defilement and the cause of the supramundane mind, it should no longer be spoken of as the cause of the class of impurity." According to this, the sāsrava eighth consciousness is not the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha.