能顯中邊慧日論 2.12.1

2.12.1

There is an opinion: The tathāgatagarbha and the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna) are possessed equally by all sentient beings. This is called the gotra as nature (prakṛtistha-gotra), and is also called the original nature. What is subsequently perfumed is called the adventitious nature. Due to new perfuming (abhinava-vāsanā), the gotras of the five vehicles differ, and this is not fundamentally existent. Because tathatā and the mūlavijñāna are equal in nature, there is no distinction among any [beings]. This statement is unreasonable, because the proposition is false. Why is this? The tathatā-dharmadhātu and the eighth consciousness are possessed equally by all sentient beings; the authentic texts of the sūtras and treatises say so, and both the foolish and the wise agree. As for taking these to be the gotra as nature, the wise do not do so. Why? If this tathatā and the eighth consciousness were called the gotra as nature, then since all equally possess them, how could it be called sublime? It is called sublime because there are naturally present (dharmatā) anāsrava seeds, whose differences across the three vehicles are distinguished from the lack of gotra. Therefore, the first [chapter] of the *Bhadramāyākāra-vyākaraṇa* (or *Bodhisattva-śīla-sūtra*) first clarifies the "Chapter on Gotra as Wholesome Conduct" and does not speak of a chapter on gotra as principle. It also says: "Cultivating holy conduct and walking the path to the wholesome fruit of bodhi, there are ten dharmas that can gather all wholesome dharmas." The *Yogācārabhūmi* and the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra* are both similar to this: they first clarify the chapter on the original nature's arousal of the mind, and only below do they clarify the gotra acquired through practice (samudānīta-gotra). Clarifying the acquired gotra within the gotra as nature is merely an explanation by contrast, not the primary topic. It has already adopted the characteristics verified by the six pāramitās from the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra*, saying that bodhisattvas by nature delight in giving, and so forth. The *Yogācārabhūmi* says: "Furthermore, bodhisattvas have the characteristics of the gotra of the six pāramitās; due to these characteristics..." and so forth. Moreover, the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra* says: "Because a person without gotra lacks gotra, even if they arouse the mind and diligently cultivate vigor, they will definitely not achieve ultimate anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi." Nor can one say that lacking the acquired gotra [is meant here], for how could this very arousal of the mind and diligent cultivation of vigor not be the acquired nature, yet it says they will ultimately never attain it? From this we know that there must be naturally present anāsrava seeds for it to be called the acquired gotra. If there were no original gotra, how could the acquired gotra arise? The *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: "Although there are many conditions, without a seed it will not arise, hence it is not made by another." The *Śīla-sūtra* also says: "If one lacks the bodhisattva-gotra, one cannot attain bodhi." Nor can one say it refers to one lacking the acquired nature, for the sūtra says: "Therefore it should be known that the bodhisattva-gotra does not exist because of arousing the mind." Since this acquired gotra is caused by arousing the mind, how could it say that the bodhisattva-gotra does not exist because of arousing the mind? Again, the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra* says: "If one lacks the bodhisattva-gotra, even if one possesses all expedient practices, one will ultimately not achieve unsurpassed bodhi." The *Śīla-sūtra* says: "Even if one is fully endowed with these four matters, if one lacks the bodhisattva-gotra, that one could attain anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi is impossible." Furthermore, the fourth fascicle of the *Buddhagotraśāstra* says, "Five [dharmas] without a beginning and associated with wholesome nature serve as phenomena," and the commentary explains: "'Without a beginning' means that because prajñā, great compassion, dhyāna, and the dharmakāya obtained through nature are all fundamentally existent, it is said to be without a beginning. Essence and function have never been separated, so they are said to be associated. Saying 'obtained through nature' means precisely not through perfuming." Since it says they are fundamentally existent and without a beginning, it is clear that they are not newly arisen; one cannot say that this statement refers to the principle of tathatā. The treatise says: "Because prajñā, great compassion, dhyāna, and the dharmakāya are all fundamentally existent." If it were speaking collectively only of tathatā, what would it be "along with"? Moreover, earlier it said that afflictions, karma, and vipāka are all without a beginning, thus granting three distinctions; now it says that four dharmas are all without a beginning, so how could it refer merely to principle? Furthermore, if original anāsrava seeds were not called the gotra as nature, why would the *Śīla-sūtra* name it the "Chapter on Gotra as Wholesome Conduct"? In addition, the *Buddhagotraśāstra* only allows that the nature of tathatā is non-existent [of defilement] so as to cause afflictions to be extinguished, but does not allow that it exists as an active nature. In the seventy-fourth fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi*, the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna) is also [distinguished], and the substance of the eighth mind is likewise not the gotra as nature. The gotra as nature is its anāsrava fundamentally existent seeds. Since the substance of the eighth mind is sāsrava, how could it be the pradhāna-hetu for anāsrava? Therefore, Asvabhāva's *Mahāyānasaṃgrahopanibandhana*, fascicle three, says: "One has never seen poison turn into amṛta. The ālayavijñāna is like poison; how could it produce the transcendent, amṛta-like, pure mind?" Also, the Liang translation of the treatise says: "Why did the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, state that from hearing sounds from another and from one's own proper contemplation, by these two causes right view is born?" The commentary explains: "These two causes are the adhipati-pratyaya for right view. The cause spoken of now is the general name of hetupratyaya, speaking of a condition as a cause." Since it says that śrutavāsanā is an adhipati-pratyaya, it is clear that right view fundamentally has its own cause. Below it says that because vāsanā serves as a seed, the transcendent mind can arise. The treatise had already reconciled this above, so it does not explain it further below, intending that all should infer this accordingly, not merely referring to what is directly present. Hearing the name opens up perfuming, and the original seed of right view is also called perfuming, because it increases. Therefore, the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra* and other treatises also call it a cause and call it increase. Since this vāsanā is not subsumed under the ālayavijñāna, and is its antidote, it is clear that one cannot take the substance of the eighth [consciousness] as the bodhisattva gotra as nature and call it an equal cause. If you grant that it is anāsrava, then being the antidote to suffering and origin, it cannot be the cause for defiled phenomena. Therefore, the Liang translation says: "Since it is established as the antidote to defilement and the cause of the transcendent mind, it should not later be called the cause of impurities." If you say, "I take the qualities upon consciousness," then due to the natural presence or absence of gotra distinctions, the fundamentally existent gotra of practice is authentically taught everywhere. Not knowing that these fundamentally existent seeds are called the gotra as nature, and falsely taking tathatā and the eighth consciousness to be the gotra as nature—should one not feel ashamed? Should one not feel benighted? Because the original intention of Asvabhāva's *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* commentary is identical, I do not cite it fully. All treatises state that the vāsanā of anāsrava seeds is the cause; they do not say that the substance of tathatā or of the eighth consciousness is the direct janaka-hetu. Furthermore, tathatā does not rely on any phenomena, hence the *Ratnagotravibhāga* says, "Space does not rely on earth," and so forth. It also says, "The mind naturally pure in nature does not abide in those phenomena." Authentic teachings everywhere say this, so I will not trouble to cite them all. Why must you bring up the intention of the six āyatanas and insist on taking that tathatā? Furthermore, [the opponent] says: "The *Anuttarāśrayasūtra* says: 'The tathāgata-dhātu is inconceivable. All sentient beings possess the sublime characteristics and categories of skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, manifested internally and externally, flowing continuously from beginningless time, naturally obtained (dharmatā-pratilabdha).' Based on this sūtra text, it is precisely the tathatā-dhātu that is called the gotra as nature." This too is not so, for you have cited the sūtra erroneously to save your position. Based on this sūtra text, it is precisely the beginningless, natural gotra of practice that is called the sublime characteristics and categories of skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, flowing continuously internally and externally, naturally obtained. "Naturally obtained" means precisely dharmatā.