能顯中邊慧日論 4.17.3

4.17.3

又復第八一切同有，無三乘別，即《善戒》、《地持》〈菩薩地〉等明定異因三乘性別及調伏中，三乘性別皆不淨成，故依附此識本無漏種是佛正因。 問：若不許真如為佛正因，如何《佛性論》說真如理為佛正因，信般若等為佛緣因？ 《瑜伽》復云「從真如所緣緣種子生」。 答。 此二論文如前已會，今更重釋。 云真如所緣緣種子生者，似說所緣緣為種子，真如實非所為法種。 如說信般若等為四德種子，法身四德非彼所生，是常住法，由彼顯故，似名為種。 故梁《攝論》云「聞熏習但是四德道種子，四德道能成顯四德。 四德本來是有，不從種子生，從因作名故稱種子」。 准此故知，四智心品緣彼如生，似說真如名為種子。 若許真如實是種子能生有為，即違《瑜伽》種子七義第一無常法為因等，亦違《佛性論》三性中一有體能生有體文。 問：若有定性二乘不作佛者，違《涅槃經》三十六說「須陀洹人、斯陀含人、阿那含人、阿羅漢人、辟支佛人悉當成佛，聞是說已不生信心，乃至云是名常沒。 」《法華經》云「聲聞若菩薩，聞我所說法，乃至於一偈，皆成佛無疑」等。 答：此說不定性聲聞四果辟支佛悉當成佛。 聞而不信名為常沒等，非說一切定不定性皆當成佛。 不爾，云何《涅槃》自云「皆得作佛，不解我意。 」又《菩提資糧論》等，豈不見《涅槃經》，而云不作佛？ 問：有闡提定不成佛者，云何《涅槃經》三十六云「若人心口異相異說，言一闡提不得菩提，是人亦謗佛法僧。 」答：准此文意，若說一闡提定不得菩提，名謗佛法僧，非遮少入。 若爾，復違《寶性論》說云「向說闡提常不入涅槃無涅槃性者，為欲迴轉誹謗大乘心，不求大乘心故，依無量時故如是說，以彼實有清淨性故。 」《佛性論》云「言有性者，是顯了說。 言無性者，是不了說。 乃至重故，佛觀一切眾生有自性清淨故，後時決定得清淨法身。 」准此故知，無闡提人無佛性者，亦無有情不成佛者。 答：此據理性平等意樂，及《涅槃經》常沒之中第二雖非闡提亦名常沒，《無上依》等三種無涅槃法中第二人說，《楞伽》第五無性乘人亦同此會，不會闡提名為常沒、七人各一，及《無上依經》第一無涅槃法。 問：若爾，何故《寶性》、《佛性》俱引經說，一闡提人墮邪定聚有二種身：一本性法身、二隨意身，佛日慧光照此二身。 法身法者，即真如理。 隨意身者，即從如理起佛光明，為憐愍闡提。 闡提二身者：一為令法身得生、二為令加行得長修菩薩行，故觀得成。 答：此據有性闡提人說。 不爾，自違前〈事能品〉云「不定聚眾生起此二事為用，不言定聚為用。 」又云「是人由淨分為緣、淨性為因，故成此觀，非無因緣。 若不由於此二事成，觀無因緣。 如闡提無涅槃性，應得此觀。 」與一闡提既無此觀，故知定須因緣觀，方可現無性。 既不許有觀，明知無性不得作佛。 又亦同《涅槃》第九云「大涅槃光入於一切眾生毛孔，而能作菩提因者，此義不然。 何以故？ 世尊！ 犯四重禁、作五逆人及一闡提，光明入身作菩提因者，如是等輩與淨持戒修習諸善法有差別。 乃至佛言：善男子？ 除一闡提，其餘眾生聞是經已，悉皆能作菩提因緣。 法聲光明入毛孔者，必定當得阿耨菩提。 」准此故知，《佛性論》等引經所說，佛日慧光照闡提身令生長者，是有性人。 《涅槃經》說除一闡提者，是無性人。 不爾，何以除不除別？ 又云「若得聞是《大涅槃經》，雖犯四禁及五無間，猶故能作菩提因緣。 一闡提輩則不如是，雖得聽受是妙經典，而不能生菩提道因。 」又多譬喻，如枯木石山水所不住，譬如燋種雖遇甘雨終不生。 又云「假使一切無量眾生一時成就阿耨菩提已，此諸如來亦復不見彼一闡提得成菩提。 」此乃《涅槃》顯了之說，如何不信有不成佛？

Furthermore, the eighth consciousness is shared identically by all, with no distinction among the three vehicles; thus, in the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra*, the *Shanjie jing*, the "Bodhisattvabhūmi", and so forth, where the cause of determinate differentiation and the differences among the gotras of the three vehicles are clarified, as well as in the "Subduing" chapter, the distinctions among the gotras of the three vehicles could never be properly established. Therefore, the originally existing anāsrava bījas adhering to this consciousness are the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha.
Question: If tathatā is not accepted as the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha, how is it that the *Buddhagotraśāstra* says the principle of tathatā is the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha, and faith, prajñā, and so on are the pratyaya-hetus of a buddha? And the *Yogācārabhūmi* also says: "They arise from bījas that have tathatā as their cognitive object (ālambanapratyaya)"?
Answer: These two treatises' passages have already been reconciled above; now they are re-explained once more. Saying that "they arise from bījas that have tathatā as their cognitive object" is merely a metaphorical statement taking the cognitive object as a bīja; tathatā is not in reality the bīja of conditioned phenomena. Just as faith, prajñā, and so forth are said to be the bījas of the four virtues, yet the four virtues of the dharmakāya are not generated by them but are permanently abiding phenomena, called "bījas" metaphorically because they are revealed by them. Therefore the Liang *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: "Śrutavāsanā is merely the bīja of the path to the four virtues; the path to the four virtues can accomplish and reveal the four virtues. The four virtues are originally existent and do not arise from bījas; they are called 'bījas' by taking their name from the cause." Based on this, one knows that the mental constituents of the four wisdoms take that tathatā as an object and arise, and tathatā is called a bīja only metaphorically. If one accepts that tathatā is an actual bīja capable of producing conditioned phenomena, this would contradict the first of the seven definitions of bīja in the *Yogācārabhūmi*, that an impermanent phenomenon serves as a cause, and it would also contradict the passage on the three natures in the *Buddhagotraśāstra* where an existent entity produces an existent entity.
Question: If there are dviyāna practitioners of determinate gotra who do not become buddhas, this contradicts fascicle 36 of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, which says: "Stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, arhats, and pratyekabuddhas will all become buddhas; if one hears this teaching and does not generate faith, [...] it is called ever-drowned." And the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra* says: "Whether śrāvakas or bodhisattvas, hearing the Dharma I preach, even down to a single verse, all will become buddhas without doubt", and so forth.
Answer: This is spoken with respect to the practitioners of the four fruits of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddhas of indeterminate gotra all becoming buddhas. Hearing it and not having faith is called ever-drowned, etc.; it does not mean that all of both determinate and indeterminate gotra will become buddhas. Were it not so, why does the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* itself say: "They say that all attain buddhahood because they do not understand my intention"? Furthermore, how could the *Bodhisambhāraśāstra* and so forth not have seen the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, yet still state that they do not become buddhas?
Question: Regarding the claim that there are icchantikas who definitely do not become buddhas, how is it that fascicle 36 of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "If a person has a discrepancy between mind and mouth, expressing differences, saying that an icchantika does not attain bodhi, that person also slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha"?
Answer: According to the sense of this passage, if one says that an icchantika definitely does not attain bodhi, this is called slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha; it does not exclude a few who do enter. If that were so, this would again contradict the *Ratnagotravibhāga*, which says: "Previously stating that icchantikas never enter nirvāṇa and have no nature for nirvāṇa was intended to turn around their mind of slandering the Mahāyāna and their mind of not seeking the Mahāyāna; it was spoken with reference to an immeasurable period of time, because in reality they possess the pure nature." And the *Buddhagotraśāstra* says: "The statement that there is a gotra is an explicit teaching. The statement that there is no gotra is an implicit teaching. [...] Furthermore, because it is weighty, the Buddha observes that all sentient beings possess an intrinsically pure nature, and so in later times they will definitely attain the pure dharmakāya." Based on this, one knows that there is no icchantika who lacks the buddhadhātu, nor is there any sentient being who does not become a buddha.
Answer: This is said on the basis of the intention of the equality of the principle nature, and refers to the second type among the 'ever-drowned' in the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, who although not an icchantika is also called 'ever-drowned', and to the second person among the three types of beings without the capacity for nirvāṇa in the *Wushangyi jing* and elsewhere; the fifth person with the gotra of no-gotra in the *Laṅkāvatāra* is also harmonized in this way; this does not harmonize the icchantika who is called ever-drowned, one each among the seven persons, and the first being without the capacity for nirvāṇa in the *Wushangyi jing*.
Question: If so, why do both the *Ratnagotravibhāga* and the *Buddhagotraśāstra* cite a sūtra stating that an icchantika who falls into the definitely false assembly has two kinds of bodies: first, the fundamental dharmakāya; second, the body born of will; and the wisdom-light of the Buddha-sun shines upon these two bodies? As for the dharmakāya, it is the principle of tathatā. As for the body born of will, from the principle of tathatā arises the Buddha's radiance out of pity for the icchantika. Regarding the two bodies of the icchantika: first, to cause the dharmakāya to arise; second, to cause the preparatory practice to increase and the bodhisattva practices to be cultivated, so that contemplation can be accomplished.
Answer: This is spoken with respect to an icchantika who possesses the gotra. Otherwise, it would contradict the earlier chapter "Functions and Capacities", which says: "Sentient beings in the indeterminate assembly give rise to these two matters as functions; it does not say that those in the determinate assembly do so." It also says: "This person has the pure portion as a condition and the pure nature as a cause, and therefore accomplishes this contemplation; it is not without causes and conditions. If it were not accomplished by these two matters, the contemplation would lack causes and conditions. Just as an icchantika lacks the nature of nirvāṇa, they would have to attain this contemplation." Since an icchantika lacks this contemplation, one definitely knows that causes and conditions are required for contemplation before it can appear in one without gotra. Since contemplation is not conceded, it is clear that one without gotra cannot become a buddha. Furthermore, it is also the same as fascicle 9 of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, which says: "'The radiance of great nirvāṇa enters into the pores of all sentient beings and can serve as a cause of bodhi'—this meaning is not correct. Why is that? World-Honoured One! If those who commit the four grave offences, commit the five heinous acts, and are icchantikas have the radiance enter their bodies to serve as a cause of bodhi, what difference would such people have from those who purely maintain the precepts and cultivate all wholesome dharmas? [...] The Buddha said: 'Good man! Excepting the icchantika, when all other sentient beings have heard this sūtra, they can all make it a cause and condition of bodhi. Those into whose pores the sound of the Dharma and the radiance enter will definitely attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.'" Based on this, one knows that when the *Buddhagotraśāstra* and other treatises cite the sūtra saying that the wisdom-light of the Buddha-sun shines upon the icchantika's body to make it grow, this refers to those who possess the gotra. When the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* speaks of excepting the icchantika, it refers to those without the gotra. Otherwise, why would there be a difference between excepting and not excepting them? It also says: "If one hears this *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, even if one has committed the four grave offences and the five heinous sins of immediate retribution, it can still serve as a cause and condition of bodhi. The class of icchantikas is not like this; although they hear and receive this wonderful classic, they cannot produce the cause of the path to bodhi." There are also many similes: just as water does not stay on withered wood or rocky mountains, and just as scorched seeds never sprout even when encountering sweet rain. It also says: "Even if all immeasurable sentient beings simultaneously accomplished anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, these Tathāgatas would still not see that icchantika attain bodhi." This is the explicit teaching of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*; how could one not believe that there are those who do not become buddhas?