能顯中邊慧日論 3.4

3.4

It also says: 'Between the earlier and later teachings there are briefly thirteen differences. First, it is said that according to the Anuttarāśrayasūtra, transformational death occurs due to the ground of ignorance-dwelling, while according to the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts, it occurs due to retention through meditative absorption and vow.' This is also not so. Concealing the sūtra's anāsrava karma and setting up the treatise's cognitive obscurations (jñeyāvaraṇa), [the author] considers them to be different. He does not say that cognitive obscurations correspond to the ground of ignorance-dwelling, and that giving rise to anāsrava meditative absorptions and vows corresponds to anāsrava karma. Therefore, this is also an error. 'Second, it is said that according to the Laṅkāvatāra, one takes on transformational [existence] only after extinguishing all sense faculties, whereas the Yogācā[rabhūmi] speaks of retaining a body with faculties.' This is also not so. One who extinguishes all faculties definitely enters [nirvāṇa] without remainder (anupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa), and does not take on transformational [existence]. If it were not so, how could transformational [existence] lack the faculties? The treatise's retention of a body with faculties refers to the aniyata of the Laṅkāvatāra; hence one retains a body with faculties to undergo transformational [existence]. Not knowing the rationale, he falsely claims they are different. The third difference will have its fallacy identified when refuting the attachment to transformational [existence]. 'Fourth, it is said that sūtras such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka speak of going to other Buddha-lands, whereas the Yogācā[rabhūmi] and other texts speak of retaining the body in this continent.' This is also not so. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka's going to other Buddha-lands is based on the period after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, when there is no Buddha in this realm and no one capable of awakening them to arouse the great mind, so that through the Buddha's expedient means they are made to go to other lands. Treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi refer to presently encountering a Buddha: having already been able to turn toward the Great [Vehicle] and undergo transformational rebirth, they retain their bodies in this land. This is precisely the three cycles of prediction in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka: those in training (śaikṣa) and beyond training (aśaikṣa) are all in this continent and do not go to other lands, only then being able to turn toward the Great [Vehicle]. Not realizing this, it is also an error. 'Fifth, it is said that according to the Nirvāṇasūtra, this person remains [in meditative absorption] through eighty thousand kalpas into the future, and so on, whereas the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts state that one retains this body for one kalpa or more.' This is also not so. When the Yogācārabhūmi says 'for one kalpa or more', the Buddhabhūmiśāstra explains: '"For one kalpa or more" means here exceeding one kalpa. Accordingly, eighty thousand kalpas is also exceeding one kalpa, because the expression "exceeding one kalpa" has no fixed limit.' 'Sixth, it is said that according to the Śrīmālādevī and other texts, both the dviyāna and great-power bodhisattvas alike receive mind-made bodies (manomayakāya); whereas in the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts, the dviyāna is not like the great-power bodhisattvas, for great-power bodhisattvas are born as they wish because they constantly vow to be born, while the dviyāna dwell in isolation so that all sentient beings cannot see them.' This is also not correct. Moreover, the Nirvāṇasūtra says: 'A srotaāpanna remains for eighty thousand kalpas, up to a pratyekabuddha who remains for ten thousand kalpas.' Does this mean taking on transformational [existence]? Or does it mean abiding in [nirvāṇa] without remainder? If they do not take on transformational [existence], having abandoned the portioned [body] (pariccheda-kāya) and abiding for eighty thousand kalpas, on the basis of what phenomenon would they further turn toward the Great [Vehicle]? If they take on transformational [existence] and abide for eighty thousand kalpas, how could they always be apparitionally born? Furthermore, the fourth chapter of the Laṅkāvatāra says: 'Mahāmati! If śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are free from all faults, their vāsanā attains the realization of the selflessness of phenomena; at that time they are free from the samādhi of all faults. Having awakened from the intoxication of anāsrava dharmas, they cultivate all merits within the lokottara-anāsrava-dhātu.' The verse says: 'There is no ultimate destination, / nor do they turn back; / having attained bodies of samādhi, / they remain unawakened for immeasurable kalpas. / Just as a drunk person / awakens after the wine has worn off, / attaining the Buddha's unsurpassed body, / which is my true dharmakāya.' The seventh chapter also says: 'Mahāmati! Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, in the eighth bodhisattvabhūmi, delight in and are attached to the gate of the bliss of cessation-samādhi; being intoxicated, they cannot properly understand what is only seen by their own mind. … Up to: Mahāmati! Bodhisattvas, having seen the gate of the bliss of cessation-samādhi, recall their fundamental vow and the mind of great compassion to deliver sentient beings, and knowing the ten inexhaustible [vows] and the knowledge of practicing according to reality, therefore do not immediately enter nirvāṇa.' In both these cases, although the dviyāna undergo transformational [existence], their benefiting of beings and cultivation are not the same as bodhisattvas; how could one claim that the Yogācā[rabhūmi] alone is different? The seventh difference will be distinguished in the refutation of transformational [existence]. The eighth and ninth differences are refuted following the preceding. 'Tenth, it is said that the Yogācā[rabhūmi] states that "retaining the body applies also to those in training (śaikṣa)", whereas the Śrīmālādevī and other sūtras say it applies only to those beyond training (aśaikṣa).' This is also not so. If those in training do not turn their minds, they are not allowed to undergo transformational [existence]. Since it is accepted that they turn their minds, why should they not undergo transformational [existence]? If it is claimed that afflictions still remain, this is also true of bodhisattvas. If it is said that although bodhisattvas have afflictions, their anāsrava power is superior—what prevents those in training, having turned and directed toward the Great [Vehicle], from already possessing superior capability? Furthermore, he himself classified the teachings prior to the Saṃdhinirmocana as holding that only aniyata individuals turn their minds before the path of seeing to head toward the Great [Vehicle], not speaking of āryas turning their minds toward the Great [Vehicle], so that it is not definitive; and held that the teachings after the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka are definitive because they allow even āryas in training to turn their minds. Now, the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts also speak of [āryas], and speak of those in training turning their minds and allowing them to undergo transformational [existence]—what flaw is there in this? The Śrīmālādevī speaks according to those who definitely undergo transformational rebirth, while the Buddhabhūmi[śāstra] discusses it in terms of those who potentially undergo it. Otherwise, clinging to the letter to say that those beyond training undergo it while not allowing those in training to do so, one should also hold that because the Laṅkāvatāra speaks of mind-made bodies above the third bhūmi and does not speak of the dviyāna beyond training undergoing transformational bodies, could it be that the dviyāna and the first two bhūmis altogether do not undergo transformational [existence]? Claiming a fault where there is none, this is an error. The eleventh difference is also refuted following the preceding. The twelfth difference will be fully distinguished below in the refutation of the attachment to transformational [existence]. 'Thirteenth, it is said that according to the Nirvāṇa and other texts, they first enter cessation and later arouse the great mind, whereas according to the Yogācā[rabhūmi], they first arouse the great mind and afterwards retain the body.' This is also not so. In the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, both those in training and those beyond training turn their minds; how could all those beyond training dwell in the concentration of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti), suppose it to be cessation without remainder, and only after passing many kalpas begin to turn toward the Great [Vehicle]? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇasūtra says: 'After eighty thousand kalpas they arrive at the anuttarabodhicitta', and so on; it does not say that only after eighty thousand kalpas do they first arouse the great mind. Things that are different he falsely claims to be identical; things that are genuinely identical he makes out to be different. According to what he argues, what is identical was never identical, and what is different truly has no difference. The varieties are difficult to conceive: eyes with cataracts are allowed to produce sky-flowers; such disparate investigations are merely false discriminations.