能顯中邊慧日論 2.14

2.14

There is an opinion: The differences among the five gotras are entirely due to new perfuming (abhinava-vāsanā). Fascicle three of the Zheng fahua jing says, "Previously lacking the gotra of the three vehicles, afterwards planting the causes of the three vehicles, they are named as having the gotra of the three vehicles." Since it says "afterwards planting", it is clear that they are not originally existent (upapattipratilambhika). [The claim that] the above passages from the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and the Mahāsaṃnipāta are stated on the basis of the gotra acquired through practice (samudānīta-gotra) rather than the gotra by nature (prakṛtistha-gotra) is also unreasonable. Moreover, that they state that tathatā and mind constitute the gotra by nature is erroneous, for fascicle twenty-one of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Namely, either the intrinsic nature of gotra, or the establishment of gotra, and so forth." Within [the explanation of] the intrinsic nature of gotra, it says: "Now what is the essence of this gotra? Answer: It inheres in the basis (āśraya), having such a characteristic, and is subsumed under the six sense-bases. Successively transmitted from beginningless time, it is obtained by dharmatā." If it were tathatā, how could it be called inhering in the basis and subsumed under the six sense-bases? Furthermore, within [the explanation of] the establishment of gotra, [it says]: "How can it be said that there are manifold continuities and manifold transmigrations? Such bījas do not have distinct characteristics apart from the six sense-bases; precisely in such category and state, the six sense-bases are superior, successively transmitted from beginningless time, obtained by dharmatā, having such characteristics and designations, which are called gotra, bīja, dhātu, and prakṛti. Therefore, it should be said to belong to one continuity." Based on what is stated here, the passages in the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the Shanjie jing, and the Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra explaining the gotra by nature are all identical to this, making it clear that it is not tathatā. That it is due to new perfuming is erroneous: based on the preceding text, since it is not tathatā, the subsequent statement of "beginningless" makes clear the original distinction of gotras. If the distinction among the five gotras existed only through new perfuming, then before the path of seeing anāsrava [dharmas] would not be admitted. Why then does the subsequent text say: "What is called a pudgala abiding in the gotra? One who merely abides in the gotra but has neither entered nor departed. Namely, like there being now a pudgala who has accomplished the bījas of supramundane noble dharmas, but has not yet obtained closeness to virtuous friends, has not heard the correct Dharma, has not obtained correct faith in the Tathāgata's correct awakening and correctly expounded Dharma and Vinaya, has not received and upheld pure morality, has not acquired extensive learning, has not increased generous giving, and has not subdued views—such is called merely abiding in the gotra but not yet having entered." Please cite this text: how could the original nature of a śrāvaka be due to new perfuming? How could the doctrine established by the Vaibhāṣikas be needed? The passages in the Bodhisattvabhūmi speaking of beginningless, dharmatā, the superiority of the six sense-bases, and so forth, can be understood by analogy to this. Furthermore, the Buddhagotraśāstra says: "Being without a beginning is because the naturally obtained great compassion, prajñā, dhyāna, and dharmakāya are originally existent; therefore it is said to be without beginning." Trust that great compassion and so forth are the four virtues; since it says "without beginning", it clarifies that the cause exists. Furthermore, it says "naturally obtained", clarifying that it is not newly perfumed. Furthermore, the Wei, Liang, and Tang translations of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha all say: "Moreover, this mind associated with appropriate mental attention (yoniśomanaskāra) is a worldly mind, and that mind associated with right view is a supramundane mind; there was never a time when they arose together and ceased together. Therefore, this mind is not perfumed by that one. Since it is not perfumed, for it to be the bīja of that [supramundane mind] is unreasonable." However, regarding the statement that the perfuming of what is heard (śrutavāsanā) is the cause of the supramundane mind, the Liang translation itself explains that it is an adhipatipratyaya, and the Tang translation further says: "Here, the perfuming of what is heard appropriates its bījas because they are discordant." Furthermore, the Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra says: "If there were no difference in gotra, there would be no difference in faith," and up to: "If there were no difference in gotra, there would also be no difference in fruit. Due to these four differences, therefore one should know that gotra has an substantial entity." The Śāradvatīputra-parivarta of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, the Śrīmālādevī, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the Shanjie jing, the Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra, the Yogācārabhūmi, and the Buddhabhūmisūtraśāstra all state the natural distinction of gotras and do not say it is due to perfuming; fearing prolixity, I will not quote them. Therefore, when the Zheng fahua jing says: "Previously lacking the gotra of the three vehicles, afterwards planting the causes of the three vehicles; the buddha-bīja arises from conditions," and so forth, these are all because of encountering conditions that nurture and perfume the original gotra so that it can attain the fruit; it is not that there were originally no causes and the five gotras newly arose. Generating the differences among the five gotras without a cause does not explain bījas. Furthermore, just as the Sūtra of the Questions of the Devaputra Praśāntaviniścayapratihāryasamādhi says: "Like the food of a poor person, it is poison to a cakravartin." The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka does not permit drawing close to the Hīnayāna; why would the World-Honoured One, seeing an equal, rational mind and a great nature, not teach the generation of the great aspiration and instead cause the generation of lesser intentions? Wishing to travel the Great Path, why take such a narrow lane? "He himself has no wound; why harm him?" Ponder this thoroughly and do not err. Hence we know that the five gotras exist naturally by dharmatā, awaiting present conditions to manifest so that the fruit ripens. Therefore, sāsrava and anāsrava bījas each have two kinds: first, the original nature (prakṛtistha), and second, the acquired nature (samudānīta). Thus fascicle two of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Moreover, the substance of bījas has been continuous without interruption from beginningless time; although they exist by nature, yet through the varied perfuming and activation of pure and impure karma, in view of repeatedly taking vipāka fruits, they are said to be new." The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "For the perfuming of what is heard and so forth to have no fruit arising is unreasonable." Fascicle twenty-six of the Mahāparinirvāṇa says: "The buddhadhātu of sentient beings is not called a buddha. Through the combination of causes and conditions of all merits, one comes to see the buddhadhātu, and thereafter becomes a buddha. You say: All sentient beings have the buddhadhātu, why do they not see it? This meaning is not correct. Why is that? Because causes and conditions have not yet combined. For this reason, I expound two causes: the direct cause (pradhāna-hetu) and the contributory cause (pratyaya-hetu). The direct cause is called the buddhadhātu; the contributory cause is giving rise to the bodhicitta. Through the two causes and conditions, one attains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, like extracting gold from stone. The cause that is buddhadhātu is not permanently existent like space, nor nonexistent like a hare's horn." One must understand according to this. If one says: The Upāsakaśīlasūtra says, "If one says there is a bodhisattva-gotra, this is named an outsider (tīrthika)"—it is not so. The Shanjie jing says that there is a bodhisattva-gotra because the Mahāyāna matures [them], and the Mahāparinirvāṇa also says that all possess the buddhadhātu; are these outsiders? Wishing to demonstrate that the five gotras are solely newly perfumed, they claim that saying there is an original gotra is the doctrine of outsiders, while wishing to prove that all possess the buddhadhātu; and if one says it is absent, that this is the doctrine of the Hīnayāna, thus resulting in contradiction. Vainly quoting numerous passages to make erroneous explanations is not as good as relying on the treatises to interpret the Buddha's sūtras. Fearing that this text would become tedious, I will not cite them at length.