能顯中邊慧日論 3.3

3.3

There is an opinion that states: In the earlier sūtras of the gradual teaching, it is taught solely that the four entrenchments are the cause of the three realms of existence; in the later sūtras of explicit exposition, it is universally taught that the five entrenchments are the root of birth-and-death, such that because the four entrenchments are not severed one undergoes the body of demarcated [birth-and-death], and because the entrenchment of ignorance remains one attains the embodiment of transformation. Due to the differences between what was taught by the Buddha earlier and later regarding severing, the treatises' interpretations of the Buddha's sūtras do not contradict the temporal teachings. For example, what was spoken before the Saṃdhinirmocana is considered the earlier teaching, whereas what was spoken after the assembly of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka is considered the later teaching. The incomplete [teachings] only speak of the indeterminate [gotra] turning their minds toward [the Mahāyāna], while those directed toward quiescence still possess actual extinction, do not abandon the bodies of the three realms, and do not separately speak of undergoing transformative death, but merely speak of retaining the karmic formations and retaining the demarcated body—namely, the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, Yogācārabhūmi, and so forth. In the sūtras after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, both determinate and indeterminate gotras all turn their minds, there is no actual extinction of the dviyāna, and abandoning the bodies of the three realms, they then undergo transformation, which is not of the three realms—such as the Laṅkāvatāra, Śrīmālādevī, Anuttarāśraya, and Buddhagotraśāstra, etc.

This assertion is not so. Why is this? The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka has explicit text [dating it] after forty years; on what sacred teaching is it based that sūtras such as the Laṅkāvatāra are not prior to it? Furthermore, the Anuttarāśrayasūtra is not subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. How is this known? King Ajātaśatru had not yet usurped the throne of the state, so Bimbisāra could still be present; within the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, Ajātaśatru is already listed [among the assembly], so if the kings are thus listed, how could the Anuttarāśrayasūtra still state that Bimbisāra was in the assembly? Why so? In listing the assembly, the Anuttarāśrayasūtra states: "Bimbisāra was the foremost"; based on this, one can know that it is not subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka.

Moreover, the Śrīmālādevīsūtra is also not after the forty years. How is this known? The sūtra states: "King Prasenajit and Queen Mallikā have not believed in the Dharma for long." Within the Benevolent Kings Prajñā Sūtra, it states: "The eighth day of the month of the first year"—namely, the beginning of the thirtieth year. How is this known? Based on the Candraprabha Sūtra, it states: "The Tathāgata has already spoken the Mahāprajñā for twenty-nine years for our sake." Therefore, we know that by the time the Benevolent Kings Sūtra was spoken, Candraprabha had already believed in the Buddha for a long time. The Śrīmālādevīsūtra states: "Having believed in the Buddha not long ago"; it is clear that it was before the Benevolent Kings Prajñā. If this were not so, having already heard the sūtras for twenty-nine years, how could it be said in the Śrīmālādevīsūtra, "having believed in the Buddha not long ago"? Based on this, one knows that it is not subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka.

Moreover, regarding the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, according to Tripiṭaka Master Bodhiruci: Based also on the compilation [records], in the first year were spoken the Mahāsaṃnipāta, Ratnaketudhāraṇī, Laṅkāvatāra, and Sāgaranāgarāja; in the ninth year was spoken the Aṅgulimāla; in the tenth year was spoken the Tathāgatagarbha. It also states: The Avataṃsaka, Nirvāṇa, Pratyutpanna, Aṅgulimāla, Tathāgatagarbha, and others all state their own years and months. Based on this, the Laṅkāvatāra is not after the forty years. Although the latter portion holds: "I have already caused the cessation of meat eating in sūtras such as the Hastikakṣya, Nirvāṇa, and Mahāmegha," the Laṅkāvatāra is not necessarily subsequent to the Nirvāṇasūtra. Why is this? Based on the text itself, it says: "Having spent seven days in the Dragon Palace, upon first entering Laṅkā, this teaching was then spoken"; could it be that having already taught the Nirvāṇa and passed into extinction at the Twin Trees, [the Buddha] again dwelt in the Dragon Palace and the like? The Nirvāṇasūtra referred to is not necessarily the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra. If one says that what was seen and heard differed, what prevents it from not being after the teaching of the Nirvāṇa? If so, what prevents there being differences in what was seen and heard, and that based on the compilation records it was indeed in the first year?

Furthermore, as for saying that the Mahāprajñāpāramitā was prior to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, this is according to Bodhiruci. In the fifth year, the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra was spoken; yet based on the text of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, it was actually spoken after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. How is this known? Based on the 'Definite Chapter' therein, it asks: "Are all bodhisattvas definite or not?" The treatise explains: Why is this asked? Because seeing in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka that children heaping sand all achieve the Buddha Path, and clarifying that the dviyāna become buddhas, this question was therefore asked. Based on this, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā was actually spoken after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Relying on what is it definitively judged to be prior to forty years?

Moreover, the Buddhagotraśāstra and the Ratnagotravibhāga do not merely comment on sūtras subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka; neither treatise cites the Nirvāṇa or the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, but mostly relies on the Anuttarāśraya, Laṅkāvatāra, Saṃdhinirmocana, Tathāgatagarbha, and Śrīmālādevīsūtras. Based on the examination of these sūtras, the two treatises actually comment on the teachings prior to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Since their establishing of the earlier and later is completely baseless, many errors further arise from the chapters they establish. What are these errors?

First, they say: Although the earlier sūtras speak of the dviyāna actually entering nirvāṇa, the later sūtras explain it as 'like the conjured city and the sheep and deer carts'; in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the śrāvaka-gotra falls into transformative death, and the dviyāna have no extinction, which is not only true for the indeterminate gotra. This is not so. The Laṅkāvatāra states that those who fall into transformation and are able to advance toward the Great [Vehicle] are of the indeterminate gotra. How is this known? Based on the seventh fascicle, it states: 'Bodhisattva Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! The World-Honoured One says that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas enter the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bodhisattva bhūmi, and so forth, down to saying that they are not yet able to realize the dharma of the first bhūmi, how much less the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bhūmi." The Buddha told Mahāmati: "There are three kinds of śrāvakas. As for saying that they enter the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bhūmi, these are those who previously cultivated bodhisattva practices, fell into the stage of the śrāvaka, and returning to rely on their original mind, cultivate bodhisattva practices, entering together the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bhūmi; they are not the excessively arrogant śrāvakas of quiescence. For they are unable to enter bodhisattva practices, have never awakened to the fact that the three realms are mind-only, have never cultivated the various bodhisattva dharmas, and have never cultivated the practices of the pāramitās and the ten bhūmis. Therefore, the śrāvakas of determinate quiescence cannot realize that gate of the joy of extinction practiced by the bodhisattvas."' Moreover, the verse states: 'Determinate śrāvakas / Do not practice bodhisattva practices. / Those who enter the eighth bhūmi together / Are originally bodhisattvas.' Based on this, they belong to the indeterminate yāna among the pañcayāna. The intent of both the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and the Yogācārabhūmi is the same.

Furthermore, the eighth fascicle states: 'How does the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, confer prediction upon the great arhats, etc.?' The Buddha answered, saying: 'Mahāmati! For the sake of those śrāvakas who had previously practiced bodhisattva conduct, I confer prediction on them based on nirvāṇa without remainder. Mahāmati! My conferring prediction upon śrāvakas is in order to give rise to a courageous mind in timid sentient beings. Mahāmati! In this world and in other buddha-lands, there are sentient beings who practice bodhisattva conduct, yet further delight in the dharma of the śrāvakayāna; the Buddha turns them so that they take up great bodhi.' The verse states: 'The three yānas and the non-yāna, / The immeasurable yānas of the buddhas; / All are predicted to the Buddha stage, / Taught through the severance of all afflictions. / Realizing noble wisdom in one's own body, / And nirvāṇa without remainder, / To encourage timid sentient beings, / Therefore it is taught with hidden intent.' Based on this, it precisely agrees with the Saṃdhinirmocana's exposition of the three manomayakāyas: those above the first bhūmi are definitely directed toward quiescence. Since they do not realize the gate of the joy of extinction practiced by the bodhisattvas, it is clear that they cannot attain the manomayakāya and are unable to know it; thus it is an error.

Moreover, they say: The Amoghapāśasūtra and the Saṃghāṭasūtra state that all Śuddhāvāsa devas resolve to advance toward the Great [Vehicle], so they classify them as teachings subsequent to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. It is not known what they rely on to know this. If there is a teaching, it should correspond; when explicit words have no proof, how can one arbitrarily judge? Furthermore, they say: What the two masters of Vijñāptimātratā state both do not accord with reason; therefore, we know that before the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka assembly, no noble persons resolved their minds, whereas after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka assembly, even those in the Śuddhāvāsa resolved. That the Vijñāptimātratā treatise masters established theses contrary to the sūtras is not just in one or two instances. This is not so. Why is the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra admitted by themselves to have been spoken before the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka? Yet the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is spoken in the Pure Land; its exposition of the Pure Land's marks and its listing of the assembly and praising of their virtues are identical to the Buddhabhūmi. The Buddhabhūmiśāstra explains that those of true reality are all śrāvakas of indeterminate gotra who, having attained the lesser fruition, advance toward great bodhi, and are therefore called 'great'. If they had not turned their minds, they would not perceive the Pure Land. Furthermore, the ten meanings of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and other texts explain the ekayāna as being for the indeterminate gotra, universally allowing both śaikṣa and aśaikṣa noble ones to turn their minds. Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, in commenting on the two teachings of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, states: 'For three kinds of persons, there is a sublime Pure Land transcending the three realms, down to where there is not even the name of affliction; in this realm, from the Buddha, they hear the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra and complete the Buddha Path.' How could one say that in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra all noble persons had not yet resolved their minds?

Moreover, they say: The Laṅkāvatārasūtra clearly explains that those of determinate quiescence have transformative death; the teaching and reason are evident, so how can one cling to propagating the earlier teaching and not what is spoken in the later sūtras? This is also not so. Based on the fourth fascicle of the Laṅkāvatāra, it states: 'Mahāmati! Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have not realized the selflessness of dharmas, and have not attained inconceivable transformative birth; therefore, for the sake of the śrāvakas, I teach the path of the ekayāna.' Here it says 'have not attained'; based on what further text do they say it clearly states that persons of determinate [nature] attain transformation? According to the meaning of this text, persons of indeterminate nature who have not heard the Mahāyāna do not attain transformation; how could it be allowed that those of determinate nature who cannot turn their minds attain transformation? Also, in this sūtra's text, it sometimes says 'have not escaped inconceivable transformative death', sometimes says 'cannot escape inconceivable transformative death', and sometimes says 'have not attained escape from inconceivable transformative death'; there is no explicit text definitively stating that persons of determinate nature attain transformation. Also, where it states in the second fascicle 'because of falling into inconceivable transformative death', this speaks of the indeterminate falling into inconceivable transformative birth-and-death after turning their minds; there is no text saying that the determinate nature attains transformation. If, moreover, they were allowed to undergo transformative birth and body, how could it say: 'Such ones attain entry into personal selflessness, down to giving rise to the thought that it is nirvāṇa'? When ordinary beings undergo demarcated [existence], they themselves know it is a body of birth-and-death; when noble ones undergo transformation, could they cling to it as nirvāṇa, claiming to have attained [nirvāṇa] with remainder? That is not knowledge-obscuration knowing remainder if it exists; thus they themselves do not accept it, claiming that those who turn their minds to the Great [Vehicle] with remainder must abandon demarcated [existence] and separately undergo transformation, attaining the joy of samādhi and taking it to be without remainder. This is also like someone of little learning who, attaining the fourth dhyāna, takes it to be the ultimate fruition; upon death, seeing the signs of what lies ahead, they even give rise to a slanderous mind. How much more so could a noble one, seeing that they undergo transformation, consider it to be without remainder?

Furthermore, according to the text of the pañcayāna, among the first two yānas there is no expression of entering the Mahāyāna; only in the fourth, the indeterminate yāna, does it state: 'Mahāmati! Those three kinds of persons are separated from the vāsanā of the affliction-obscuration and attain purity, therefore seeing selflessness; because of attaining the gate of samādhi joy, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas ultimately realize the Tathāgata's dharmakāya.' When it says 'those three kinds of persons', it refers to the three kinds of persons within the indeterminate yāna, not pointing to the former first three yānas. If that were so, then the former must be separately spoken of as the fourth yāna. Or perhaps the former three yānas collectively speak of both the determinate and indeterminate gotras, while the fourth person exclusively takes the indeterminate gotra, saying 'those three kinds', which means the indeterminate persons among the former three. If it were not like this, claiming that the determinate and indeterminate gotras of the former three are all allowed to enter the Great [Vehicle], it would contradict what is taught below in the seventh and eighth fascicles, as cited before. There is no text explicitly stating that those of determinate quiescence undergo transformative death; to falsely say that the teaching and reason are evident is therefore an error.

Moreover, in a question and answer, it is said: Why are the two expositions different? The answer states: For example, in the sūtras, it was not yet taught that [the Buddha in] the royal palace was a transformation buddha. When propagating this temporal teaching, it was taught that buddhahood is attained with thirty-four minds, and the ālayavijñāna was not yet spoken of. When propagating this temporal teaching, it was taught that the cessation attainment exists only in the desire and form realms, and that seeds rely on form and mind. When propagating the later temporal teaching, its meaning was changed; the Yogācārabhūmi propagates the earlier teaching. After forty years, the two extinctions are not real, there is the ālayavijñāna, and one falls into inconceivable transformative birth-and-death. When propagating the sūtras of this period, the treatises also followed the teaching. This is also not so. You yourself accept that the Avataṃsaka is an earlier teaching; did it only teach that the transformation body in the royal palace was the true Buddha? Both the Yogācārabhūmi and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha state that the royal palace [embodiment] is not the true Buddha. Attaining buddhahood with thirty-four [minds/bodies] is a thesis of Hīnayāna treatises. That the cessation attainment relies on the body of the desire and form realms is a thesis of the Sarvāstivāda. That seeds rely on mind and form is the tenet of the Sautrāntika masters. The Yogācārabhūmi reformed the former tenets so that seeds rely on the eighth consciousness and so forth, and like the Laṅkāvatāra and others, it also teaches that the indeterminate have no real [nirvāṇa]. The Nirvāṇa, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Prakaraṇāryavācā, and Buddhabhūmi all speak of transformative birth-and-death; what meaning differs, that one should classify the Yogācārabhūmi, Buddhabhūmiśāstra, and others as teachings prior to the forty years? As cited before, the judging of earlier and later is incorrect; regarding what is identical, they do not understand that identity is not difference, and forcibly see difference; therefore it is an error.

Moreover, they say: The eightieth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi speaks of two nirvāṇas: because the vipākavijñāna has no appropriating, it cannot be produced again relying on the pravṛttivijñānas, etc., and only the pure, unconditioned, stainless true dharmadhātu remains. This corresponds to the Laṅkāvatārasūtra's extinguishing of all marks, not apprehending future realms being the joy of samādhi, which the dviyāna consider to be nirvāṇa. This is also not so. What is taught in that sūtra is again different earlier and later. The second fascicle explains that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, fearing the suffering of the false discrimination of birth-and-death, seek nirvāṇa; not knowing that the worldly and nirvāṇa have no distinction, they discriminate all dharmas and non-dharmas, extinguish the sense organs, and do not apprehend; falsely grasping future realms to be nirvāṇa refers to śaikṣa and ordinary persons of the dviyāna who, clinging to the extinction of the sense organs by the aśaikṣa, take what is attained without remainder to be ultimate, not knowing that the ālayavijñāna transforms into the superior [nirvāṇa] without remainder. Next it states: 'Therefore, those foolish people say that there are three yāna dharmas, yet they cannot know that when mental conceptions are extinguished, one attains the dharma of quiescence. If they were noble ones, it would not be so.' Next it states: 'Therefore, Mahāmati! Those foolish people constantly revolve without stopping in the wheel of worldly birth-and-death.' According to the actual meaning, when persons of determinate gotra extinguish the sense organs and so forth, both body and wisdom are extinguished, and only tathatā remains. The Laṅkāvatāra states: 'Only when mental conceptions are extinguished does one attain the dharma of quiescence; the dharma of quiescence is not the joy of samādhi.' The joy of samādhi is the text in the seventh fascicle, which states that 'the indeterminate gotra, turning their minds toward the Great [Vehicle], attain entry into the bhūmis', spoken of under its original designation. It is like the suddenly awakening bodhisattvas attaining the cessation attainment in the bhūmis, termed 'falling into the dharma-gate of the joy of samādhi'. How is this known? Its own question and answer states: 'The Buddha told Mahāmati: "I shall now analyze and expound it for you. Mahāmati! There are three kinds of śrāvakas. As for saying that they enter the gate of quiescence of the eighth bhūmi, these are those who previously cultivated bodhisattva practices, fell into the stage of the śrāvaka, and returning to rely on their original mind, cultivate bodhisattva practices, entering together the gate of the joy of extinction of the eighth bhūmi. They are not the excessively arrogant śrāvakas of quiescence."' If the dviyāna, having abandoned the demarcated body, dwell in samādhi and this is termed attaining nirvāṇa, why does the fourth fascicle state that 'srotāpannas have three grades', all of which are said to enter nirvāṇa? The sūtra speaks of the second fruition: 'Because of cultivating the marks of the dhyāna of good vision, returning once to the world, they then exhaust suffering completely and enter nirvāṇa.' Why is this? Since undergoing a transformative body alters the suffering of conditioned existence, how could it be said that they then exhaust suffering completely and enter nirvāṇa? Furthermore, this is the definite direction toward quiescence. How is this known? Immediately below, Mahāmati asked the Buddha: 'Do you speak for the arhats who attain determinate quiescence, or for the arhats who produce the bodhi vow, having wholesome roots or false wholesome roots, or for the transformationally manifested arhats?' The Buddha told Mahāmati: 'I speak for the śrāvaka arhats who attain determinate quiescence, not for the other arhats.' Therefore, we know that the determinate gotra enters nirvāṇa without remainder, where only tathatā remains. In agreement with the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, extinguishing the sense organs and mental conceptions is called entering nirvāṇa. If one dwells in the joy of samādhi and gives rise to the conception of nirvāṇa, that is regression from bodhi. As for the indeterminate gotra, failing to understand the explicit text is likewise an error.