能顯中邊慧日論 1.19

1.19

One position holds: In treating buddhadhātu generally, there are two aspects: principle and phenomena. The principle is tathatā, the dharmadhātu, which is designated as "cause" and designated as "gotra"; all sentient beings are identical in this. Phenomena are the seeds of the thirty-two marks, the ten powers, and so on; among all sentient beings, these differ as to whether they possess them or not. Question: If so, thirty years before, the Buddha was still teaching that the two vehicles attain real cessation; yet only ten years after attaining the Way, he had already preached the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. Why, then, would the triyāna and the five gotras have been taught first as provisional, while the buddhadhātu and the ekayāna were taught later as real? Answer: It was still explained in general terms and had not yet delimited and selected; hence it was not definitive. The Nirvāṇasūtra states, "Whoever has a mind shall attain Buddhahood," which delimits [and excludes] what is mindless; and in contrasting buddhadhātu with what is not buddhadhātu, it delimits [and excludes] tiles and rubble. Therefore, all those who possess a mind and are sentient beings possess buddhadhātu and will all become Buddhas. Hence, the subsequent teaching of the ekayāna and the teaching of buddhadhātu are both of definitive meaning. This too is incorrect. If delimiting and selecting is termed explicit, and lack of delimiting and selecting is termed implicit, then the ekayāna taught in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is extremely delimited and selective: it delimits and excludes the dispositions of sentient beings, and selects the three natures to term them "one"; it delimits and excludes the niyata-gotra and specifically selects the aniyata-gotra as destined to attain Buddhahood, which is definitely of definitive meaning. Thus the Nirvāṇasūtra, fascicle 32, states: "In this sūtra, sometimes the three vehicles are taught, and sometimes the one vehicle is taught." Since it says that sometimes the three vehicles are taught, and further mentions the anāgāmin who passes into parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state, upon rebirth, and so on, it maintains the cessation of the two [vehicles]. The Śrīmālādevīsūtra says: "Therefore, the three vehicles are indeed the one vehicle." It also says: "The Tathāgata speaks expediently in accordance with what they desire. That is to say, there is the Great Vehicle and there are no two vehicles; the two vehicles enter into the one vehicle, and the one vehicle is the supreme vehicle of the ultimate truth." Since it speaks of "expediently," this reveals that the four vehicles are the real teaching, in agreement with the Saṃdhinirmocana. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka exclusively teaches the one vehicle only with respect to the śrāvakas. If it were solely for bodhisattvas, the treatise states: "For those who exclusively seek the Great Vehicle, the parable of the rain was spoken to make them know the differences among the vehicles." The treatise explains that the unity of the vehicles is based on the principle of the dharmakāya; it does not say that all gotras are without difference. This precisely agrees with the Saṃdhinirmocana's speaking of oneness on the basis of principle, not that there is no distinction among dispositions. Furthermore, the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra states: "Although all sentient beings are in the various destinies, within the body of defilements there is a tathāgatagarbha, eternally unpolluted, fully endowed with virtues and marks, no different from myself," and so on, down to: "The Buddha, having seen the tathāgatagarbha of sentient beings, desires to cause it to unfold, and preaches the scriptures and Dharma for them, eliminating defilements and manifesting the buddhadhātu." Since it says "all sentient beings," it has already delimited [and excluded] the non-sentient. It also says: "The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra can bring great benefit; if any hear it, they will all achieve the Buddha Path." This is the same as hearing the Nirvāṇasūtra and thereby seeing the buddhadhātu, compared to celestial thunder causing ivory flowers to bloom. Like what is taught in the Nirvāṇa[sūtra], it possesses delimitation and distinction; why would it not be real?