能顯中邊慧日論 4.9

4.9

准《楞伽經》及《瑜伽》等說五乘性，第五闡提亦名無性。然此闡提合有三種：一名一闡提底迦，是樂欲義，樂生死故；二名阿闡底迦，是不樂欲義，不樂涅槃故。此二通不斷善根人，不信愚癡所覆弊故。亦通大悲菩薩，大智大悲所熏習故。三名阿顛底迦，名為畢竟，畢竟無涅槃性故。此無性人亦得前二名，前二久久當會成佛，後必不成。然諸經論所說不同，或隨說一、或總說三，如《楞伽經》俱說前二為無性乘。經云「闡提有二：一焚燒一切善根、二作盡眾生界願。大慧問佛：云何作佛？佛答大慧云：焚燒善根非作盡界願，善根可續故。眾生無盡，總是有性；斷善無現，因大悲無當果，名為無性，非無種子。」《瑜伽論》中唯說第三畢竟無性，《無上依經》、《佛性論》、《寶性論》、《涅槃》具說三種。《無上依經》云「佛告阿難：世間中有三品眾生。一者著有，著有復二：一背涅槃道、無涅槃性，不求涅槃，願樂生死；二者於我法中不生渴仰、誹謗大乘，乃至落闡提網，不能自出。」前是無性，後是有性，然俱名邪定聚。然餘處言化邪定聚令作佛者，是後有性。不爾，二人如何差別？《寶性論》中說第二著有，云「於佛法中，闡提因位明非無性。」《佛性論》云「二已隨定位。定位者，非聖非凡，進退無取，而是佛法內人，背大乘法。因此人故，佛說是言：我非彼師」等，故《無上依經》等，初人無性。第二人者，云「不能自出。於無量時，佛等為緣還能得出。」《涅槃》第九廣以喻明終不能作菩提因緣，乃至云「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菩提故。」第三十云「善男子！生死大海亦復如是。有七種人，畏煩惱故，發意欲度。乃至廣說。第一人者斷善，常沒三惡道中。第二人者，雖近善友能得信心，後遇惡反斷善還沒。第三人者，由近善友，雖斷善根，得名為出。堅住信慧，心無退轉，名住。第四人者，斷善根故，於中沈沒；近善友故，乃至遍觀四方。四方者，四沙門果。第五人者，斷善沈沒，近善友故，乃至謂辟支佛雖能自度不及眾生，是名為出。第六人者斷善沈沒，近善友得信，名之為出，到淺處已即住不去。所謂菩薩為度眾生，住觀煩惱空。第七人者，斷善故沈沒，近善友得出，乃至既前進已得到彼岸，登大高山多受安樂，喻佛常住。」《大般涅槃》三十二文大意同，然少有別，第三十云：或本有六字。一人具七，前說不定，皆發意渡生死河故。三十六說定不定，故於常沒中，云「心業重故不能得出。何故？其心不能生善法故。雖有無量諸佛出世，不聞不見，故名常沒。」上無性人。又云「我雖復說一闡提等名為常沒，復有常沒非一闡提。何者是耶？如人為有修世戒善，是名常沒。瞿伽離等，名出已還沒。舍利弗等，名出已不沒。須陀洹人，如觀四方。斯陀含人，如觀已行。阿那含人，加行已復住，三乘無學猶如神龜，水陸俱行。」准此配喻，與前少別。准文，七人若逢惡友，俱可斷善，名為常沒。若逢善友，續善根已，得渡生死河。第一人中，無性畢竟沒，有性暫時，亦名常沒。雖俱言常，有永暫別。如三種常，常言雖同，非無差別。不爾，如何前文法喻有七差別，俱常沒故。又釋：或七眾生總云常沒者，言總意別，故亦無違。下復云「是七種人，或有一人具七、或七人各一。」准此故知，有定不定。一人具七中，言常沒者，即《無上依經》及《寶性論》等第二求有人，亦即《佛性論》等所會闡提無涅槃法者，見斷善故。若不有常沒及定性者等，只是一人具七，如何得有七人各一？七人各一中，常沒之者即是無性。《涅槃》第三十二，第一人中云「雖非闡提，如人為有修施戒善，是名常沒」者，即《無上依經》等著有之中第二人也。二有性闡提，即《涅槃經》七種斷善中第一少分後之六人，及《楞伽經》無性乘。是諸經論中所說不定，《涅槃經》、《無上依經》、《大莊嚴論》、《寶性論》等皆通說二。《楞伽經》中唯說有性。《瑜伽》、《顯揚》、《地持》、《善戒》所說無性，唯畢竟無。由此應知，《涅槃》第三十三云「一闡提人能生善根，生善根已相續不斷得阿耨菩提」者，此說有性。第九中說闡提之人，如枯木石山敗種龜甲，乃至一切作佛不見闡提得阿耨菩提，此說無性。餘皆准知。若作斯解，經論無違。說皆有性，違多聖教，廣如前引。

According to the *Laṅkāvatārasūtra*, the *Yogācārabhūmi*, and other texts, which speak of the gotras of the five yānas, the fifth, the icchantika, is also termed the "absence of gotra" (agotraka). Yet, taken together, there are three kinds of such icchantikas: first, called *icchantika*, meaning "desire," because they desire cyclic existence; second, called *acchantika*, meaning "non-desire," because they do not desire nirvāṇa. These two apply to persons who do not sever their roots of virtue, because they are veiled by disbelief and ignorance. They also apply to bodhisattvas of great compassion, because they are perfumed by great wisdom and great compassion. The third is called *atyantika*, meaning "ultimate," because they ultimately lack the gotra for nirvāṇa. This person without gotra also receives the previous two designations: the former two will eventually attain Buddhahood after a long time, whereas the latter certainly will not. However, the statements in various sūtras and treatises are not identical: some speak of only one, while others speak comprehensively of all three. For example, the *Laṅkāvatārasūtra* speaks of both the first two as the agotraka-yāna. That sūtra states: "Icchantikas are of two kinds: first, those who incinerate all roots of virtue; second, those who make the vow to exhaust the realm of sentient beings. Mahāmati asked the Buddha: 'How do they become Buddhas?' The Buddha replied to Mahāmati: 'Those who incinerate roots of virtue [can become Buddhas], not those who make the vow to exhaust the realm [of sentient beings], because roots of virtue can be rejoined. Sentient beings being endless, [the latter] all possess the nature [to become Buddhas]; for those who sever roots of virtue there is no actualization, and for the cause of great compassion there is no future fruit—hence they are termed "agotraka," not that they lack bījas.'" The *Yogācārabhūmi* speaks solely of the third, the ultimate agotraka, whereas the *Anuttarāśrayasūtra*, the *Buddhagotraśāstra*, the *Ratnagotravibhāga*, and the *Nirvāṇasūtra* speak comprehensively of all three kinds. The *Anuttarāśrayasūtra* states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'There are three classes of sentient beings in the world. The first are those attached to existence. Those attached to existence are further of two kinds: first, those who turn their backs on the path to nirvāṇa and lack the gotra for nirvāṇa, who do not seek nirvāṇa and wish for and delight in cyclic existence; second, those who do not generate thirst and longing for my Dharma, slander the Mahāyāna, and ultimately fall into the net of the icchantika, unable to extricate themselves.'" The former is agotraka, while the latter possesses the gotra; yet both are called the group of wrong determination (mithyātvaniyata-rāśi). Where other passages speak of transforming the group of wrong determination to make them become Buddhas, this refers to the latter who possess the gotra. Otherwise, how could there be a distinction between the two kinds of persons? The *Ratnagotravibhāga*, speaking of the second kind of those attached to existence, says: "In the Buddha's Dharma, the cause-stage of an icchantika makes clear that they are not agotraka." The *Buddhagotraśāstra* says: "The second have already conformed to the determined stage. Those of the determined stage are neither noble nor ordinary, taking neither progression nor regression, but are persons within the Buddha's Dharma who turn their backs on the Mahāyāna Dharma. On account of such persons, the Buddha spoke these words: 'I am not their teacher,' and so forth." Thus, according to the *Anuttarāśrayasūtra* and other texts, the first person is agotraka. Of the second person, it says: "They cannot extricate themselves [on their own]. Over an immeasurable time, with the Buddhas and others acting as conditions, they can still emerge." The ninth fascicle of the *Nirvāṇasūtra* extensively uses metaphors to explain that [the icchantika] can never serve as a cause or condition for bodhi, even saying: "Even if all immeasurable sentient beings simultaneously achieved anuttarabodhi, these Tathāgatas would still not see that icchantika attain bodhi." The thirtieth fascicle says: "Good sons! The great ocean of saṃsāra is also like this. There are seven kinds of persons who, out of fear of the afflictions, generate the intention to cross over..." up to speaking extensively: "The first person severs roots of virtue and is ever-drowned in the three evil destinies. The second person, although able to attain faith by associating with good friends, subsequently encounters evil, conversely severs roots of virtue, and is drowned again. The third person, by associating with good friends, although having severed roots of virtue, is termed 'emerged'; firmly abiding in faith and wisdom, their mind does not backslide, which is termed 'abiding.' The fourth person, having severed roots of virtue, is submerged therein; by associating with good friends, up to gazing in all four directions—the four directions are the four fruits of a śramaṇa. The fifth person, having severed roots of virtue and submerged, by associating with good friends, up to saying that a pratyekabuddha, though able to deliver themselves, does not reach other sentient beings—this is termed 'emerging.' The sixth person severs roots of virtue and submerges, but by associating with good friends attains faith, which is termed 'emerging'; having reached the shallow water, they then abide and do not leave—this refers to a bodhisattva who, in order to deliver sentient beings, abides in contemplating the emptiness of afflictions. The seventh person, having submerged due to severing roots of virtue, emerges by associating with good friends, up to advancing forward and reaching the other shore, ascending a great high mountain and experiencing much peace and happiness—this is a metaphor for the Tathāgata's eternal abiding." The general meaning of the text in fascicle thirty-two of the *Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra* is the same, yet there are slight differences. Fascicle thirty says: (Some editions have six characters here.) One person embodies the seven; what was previously explained was indeterminate, because they all generate the intention to cross the river of saṃsāra. Fascicle thirty-six speaks of the determinate and indeterminate; hence, among the ever-drowned, it says: "Because their mental karma is heavy, they cannot emerge. For what reason? Because their minds cannot give rise to wholesome dharmas. Though immeasurable Buddhas appear in the world, they do not hear or see them; hence they are called 'ever-drowned.'" The above is the agotraka person. It also says: "Although I have further said that icchantikas and the like are called 'ever-drowned,' there are also the ever-drowned who are not icchantikas. Who are they? Like a person who cultivates mundane precepts and virtues for the sake of existence—this is termed 'ever-drowned.' Kokālika and others are called 'those who emerge and then drown again.' Śāriputra and others are called 'those who emerge and do not drown.' The srotāpanna is like gazing in the four directions. The sakṛdāgāmin is like proceeding after gazing. The anāgāmin is like abiding again after application of effort. The aśaikṣas of the three yānas are like divine turtles, traveling both in water and on land." According to this alignment of metaphors, it is slightly different from the previous one. According to the text, if the seven persons encounter evil friends, all can sever roots of virtue and be called "ever-drowned"; if they encounter good friends and rejoin their roots of virtue, they can cross the river of saṃsāra. Among the first person, the agotraka is ultimately drowned, whereas those possessing the gotra are temporarily so; both are called "ever-drowned." Although both are said to be "ever," there is a distinction between perpetual and temporary. Just as with the three kinds of eternity, although the word "eternal" is the same, there is no absence of distinction. Otherwise, how could the previous text have the seven distinctions in Dharma and metaphor, given that all are ever-drowned? Another explanation: when the seven sentient beings are collectively called "ever-drowned," the phrasing is collective but the intent is distinct, so there is also no contradiction. Below it further says: "As for these seven kinds of persons, either one person embodies all seven, or seven persons embody one each." Based on this, we know that there are the determinate and the indeterminate. In "one person embodies all seven," the one called "ever-drowned" is precisely the second kind of person who seeks existence in the *Anuttarāśrayasūtra*, the *Ratnagotravibhāga*, and other texts; it is also the icchantika lacking the dharma of nirvāṇa reconciled in the *Buddhagotraśāstra* and other texts, because their severance of roots of virtue is seen. If there were not the ever-drowned and those of determinate gotra, but only one person embodying all seven, how could there be seven persons each embodying one? Among the seven persons each embodying one, the one who is ever-drowned is precisely the agotraka. In fascicle thirty-two of the *Nirvāṇasūtra*, regarding the first person, where it says: "Although not an icchantika, like a person who cultivates giving, precepts, and virtue for the sake of existence, this is called 'ever-drowned'"—this is precisely the second person among those attached to existence in the *Anuttarāśrayasūtra* and other texts. The second, the icchantika possessing the gotra, refers to the small portion of the first person and the subsequent six persons among the seven kinds who sever roots of virtue in the *Nirvāṇasūtra*, as well as the agotraka-yāna in the *Laṅkāvatārasūtra*. Thus, what is explained in various sūtras and treatises is not uniform: the *Nirvāṇasūtra*, the *Anuttarāśrayasūtra*, the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra*, the *Ratnagotravibhāga*, and so forth all comprehensively explain both. The *Laṅkāvatārasūtra* speaks solely of those possessing the gotra. What the *Yogācārabhūmi*, the *Prakaraṇāryavācā*, the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra*, and the *Bodhisattva-śīlasūtra* explain as agotraka is solely the ultimate absence. From this one should know that where fascicle thirty-three of the *Nirvāṇasūtra* says: "An icchantika can give rise to roots of virtue, and having given rise to roots of virtue, continuously uninterrupted, they attain anuttarabodhi"—this speaks of those possessing the gotra. Where the ninth fascicle speaks of an icchantika as being like withered wood, a stone mountain, spoiled seeds, or turtle hair, up to all becoming Buddhas without seeing an icchantika attain anuttarabodhi—this speaks of the agotraka. All others should be understood accordingly. If one interprets it in this way, the sūtras and treatises do not contradict each other. To say that all possess the gotra contradicts many sacred teachings, as extensively cited before.