能顯中邊慧日論 3.6

3.6

An opinion states: "The former sūtras speak of preserving the life-span, and treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi explain this as 'increasing the life-span until great bodhi.' However, anāsrava karma is not the direct cause of transformed [birth-and-death]. Without abandoning the body with its sense-faculties, one undergoes the birth-and-death of transformation. In the later teachings, having attained the fruit of an aśaikṣa, one abandons the apportioned body; taking the cognitive obstacles as condition, newly initiated erroneous anāsrava karma directly produces transformed birth-and-death outside the three realms. Resting in the bliss of samādhi, one regards it as non-remainder nirvāṇa, not the cessation attainment. Awakening from this, one begins to generate the great aspiration. Although the eighth [consciousness] is sāsrava, because afflictions are exhausted it does not belong to the bound realms and is called 'outside the three realms.' It is not that apart from the three realms there are separate sentient beings. However, although the gotra of the dviyāna has the distinction of niyata and aniyata, both undergo transformation. Having undergone transformation, they no longer abandon the body, continuing thus until the vajra[-like samādhi], at which point they first abandon it. Thus the Buddhagotraśāstra says: 'There is only a single rebirth, which is termed existent existence.' If, as in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and other works, one undergoes transformation without abandoning apportioned [birth-and-death], how could it be called birth-and-death? If one means moment-by-moment, it contradicts the Buddhagotraśāstra's statement that there is only a single rebirth. If one means from the beginning to the end of a lifespan, it contradicts the Yogācārabhūmi's 'increasing all activities of life-span.' Moreover, if it is said to increase the life-span, how can it be called death? Since there is no death, how can there be birth? Furthermore, since they do not abandon the apportioned [existence], the Yogācārabhūmi also contains no mention of a female arhat transforming faculties and increasing life-span. Even if a female body endures, if it is for the sake of attaining Buddhahood, one can only rely on the sūtras to give rise to understanding; ordinary people must not make arbitrary conjectures." This statement is incorrect. When the holy fruits of the dviyāna turn their minds toward the Mahāyāna, it is permissible in all cases that they undergo transformed birth-and-death. In the Śrīmālādevīsūtra, it is explained with reference to the determined [case]: those of aniyata-gotra who attain the fruit of an aśaikṣa definitively turn their minds and are no longer reborn [in the apportioned realm], definitively undergoing transformation. Although the śaikṣa of aniyata[-gotra] also turns the mind and undergoes transformed rebirth, because it is not definitive, it is not spoken of in the sūtra. Can one, because the Śrīmālādevī does not speak of the śaikṣa turning the mind, thereby disallow that śaikṣas in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka assembly advance to the Great [Vehicle]? Therefore, treatises such as the Buddhagotraśāstra agree with the Śrīmālādevīsūtra, tentatively relying on those who definitively undergo [transformation]. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra speaks of three mind-made bodies with reference to those of sudden awakening who fear afflictions. The Yogācārabhūmi and the Buddhabhūmi[vyākhyāna] agree with the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and others in all allowing the turning of the mind. Since they speak of turning the mind, it is permissible for them to undergo transformed birth-and-death. Since there is no text preventing it, that the śaikṣa who turns the mind clearly attains transformed [rebirth] is also the correct explanation. Their [view] lacks textual support, whereas ours has textual statements. The Nirvāṇa and Saddharmapuṇḍarīka both allow turning the mind, and the Yogācārabhūmi and Buddhabhūmi allow undergoing transformation. When they themselves say, "One can only rely on the sūtras to give rise to understanding; ordinary people must not make arbitrary conjectures," are they themselves great sages, such that these works like the Yogācārabhūmi are completely refuted by them? Furthermore, to summarize their textual meaning, there are briefly eleven errors: Regarding their claim that abandoning the apportioned body to separately receive transformed [rebirth], from which holy teaching does this come? Neither the Śrīmālādevīsūtra nor other works contain the words "abandoning the apportioned [body]"; treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi and Buddhabhūmi all state that "anāsrava concentration and vows nourish past karma, causing the body so produced to gradually become superior and endure longer." Chapter sixteen of the Prakaraṇāryavācā states: "Relying on the transformation-body, one is able to arrive at the Buddha-stage," and it also does not speak of abandoning the apportioned [body]. The Mahāyānāvatāra also speaks of sustaining the life-span. Not relying on sūtras and treatises, they arbitrarily decide it by their own minds. Furthermore, their claim that "taking cognitive obstacles as condition, newly initiated erroneous anāsrava karma separately produces transformed birth-and-death outside the realms" should not be so. If newly created karma were the direct productive cause, why does the Buddhagotraśāstra say: "As for causal birth-and-death, it is like those above the srotāpanna, who only use past karma and do not generate new karma"? If one were to newly incur birth-and-death by means of anāsrava [karma], this analogy would not hold. Moreover, in the Pratītyasamutpādasūtra and other texts, holy ones do not create karma producing future existence. If it were not existence, sūtras and treatises would not speak of "existent existence birth-and-death"; if it were existence, how could a holy one create karma producing future existence? Furthermore, if one allows the creation of karma producing future existence, an anāgāmin should not, by commingled practice of dhyāna, nourish past lower karma to take birth in the five pure abodes. If they say the power between the great and the small is different, this too is not so: if there is a difference between superior and inferior bodies, why could it not be created? Moreover, if the powers are different, only bodhisattvas should create new karma to induce [birth], while the dviyāna, having inferior power, could not create it to induce [birth]. Furthermore, if bodhisattvas are permitted to newly create karma that induces transformed rebirth, that would be the fruition-rebirth karma of the transformed body in the palace of Maheśvara; why does the Daśabhūmika-śāstra say: "Fruition-benefit afterwards is produced by the wisdom of Maheśvara"? Therefore the Buddhagotraśāstra says: "Just as those above the srotāpanna only use past karma and do not produce new karma." From this it is known that the statements in the Yogācārabhūmi and Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi about "nourishing past karma" are the correct explanation. If it were newly induced by anāsrava [karma], it would be subsumed under the truth of origin. Although established and unestablished truths differ, they do not deviate from the four truths. Nowhere is it said that origin is non-abandonable, capable of being anāsrava, or something to be cultivated; it is only said that the truth of origin is to be abandoned, is sāsrava, and is not to be cultivated. Contradicting reason while seeking textual [support] is therefore untenable. Furthermore, if abandoning the body and separately taking rebirth were transformed death, this would contradict the four declarations: 'One without afflictions dies and is not reborn.' If they say this is based on apportioned [existence], this is also not so: is their transformed [existence] not subsumed under rebirth? Furthermore, if abandoning the apportioned is termed 'death and not being reborn,' this is a conceptual differentiation; why need it say 'one without afflictions dies and is not reborn'? For just as entering the path of vision abandons various hardships and the like, this can also be called not being reborn. If one says that being identical to apportioned rebirth is not termed abandonment, then being identical to the sāsrava eighth [consciousness] should also not be termed abandonment. Since there is no 'death and not being reborn,' this would cause the Great Master to speak falsely. Furthermore, the Mahāyānāvatāra states: 'Question: How does one sustain the life-span? Answer: Arhats have no afflictions; like bodhisattvas of the eighth stage, because they cultivate the bases of psychic power well, they can abide in the world according to their will, even until the end of birth-and-death.' Rāhula, Piṇḍola, and others all abide in the world; if they had abandoned the apportioned [body], how could they abide in the world according to their will? Distrusting the Great Master's daily records, they claim that a separate body is received. Contradicting the texts to establish a doctrine is therefore also an error. Furthermore, their claim that 'anāsrava directly producing rebirth outside the three realms is termed transformed rebirth' is also not so. Newly created anāsrava karma may indeed not fall into the realms, but why would the sāsrava eighth [consciousness] not be of the realms? If they say that because it is free from bondage it is called 'not of the realms,' this is identical to the old explanation; why need it be repeated? Moreover, just as afflictions can produce rebirth, so they should be able to bind. They admit that cognitive [obstacles] are truly like afflictions, capable of initiating karma to produce the sāsrava eighth [consciousness] and serving as obstacles to bodhi. Why are they not binding? Because they say anāsrava birth is like grasping as condition and sāsrava karma as cause giving rise to the three existences, they cling to transformation as being separately born in that way. Since they say it is 'like grasping,' cognitive [obstacles] should bind, and anāsrava would be subsumed under origin. This statement is not accepted; therefore one should not cling to transformation as separate rebirth. If, as in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and other texts, it is called severing cognitive [obstacles], although the body is preserved to abide, anāsrava concentration and vows nourish its past karma, then there is no such error. The sūtra's statement 'like grasping as condition and sāsrava karma as cause giving rise to the three existences' is merely a partial metaphor. Furthermore, the Mahāyānāvatāra states: 'If you say there are no afflictions, I am also thus. If there is affection and you take refuge in me with faith, I shall explain it for you. Question: How does one sustain the life-span? Answer: Arhats have no afflictions; like bodhisattvas of the eighth stage, because they cultivate the bases of psychic power fully, they can abide in the world according to their will.' Since it says 'abide according to their will,' it is clear that there is no separate reception of rebirth; nor can one say this interprets the teaching from forty years prior. The text of the treatise itself cites cases like Rāhula; thus we know it also explains teachings such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Therefore the explanation of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi does not contradict sūtras and treatises, whereas their contradiction is an error. Furthermore, their claim that 'having undergone transformed death, one abides in the bliss of samādhi, regarding it as non-remainder nirvāṇa, not the cessation attainment; awakening from this, one begins to generate the great aspiration' is based on the aniyata-gotra. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi does not contradict this. If one claims it applies to the niyata-gotra, this too is not so, as it contradicts the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and other texts, as cited earlier. Failing to understand that there are differences in faculties and gotra, they universally speak of turning the mind, contradicting sūtras and treatises. Furthermore, the second fascicle of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka states: 'We now abide in the remainder nirvāṇa of our final body,' not speaking of non-remainder; the Śrīmālādevī is also the same. Furthermore, they themselves say that when an aśaikṣa turns the mind, they must abide in the cessation attainment, regarding it as non-remainder, and only after arising from this can they advance to the Great [Vehicle]. Now they say it is not the cessation attainment, which is internally contradictory. Establishing a doctrine by turning one's back on the sūtras is the greatest of errors. Furthermore, regarding their claim: 'If the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi holds that one receives transformation without abandoning the apportioned [body], how is it called birth-and-death? If one means moment-by-moment, it contradicts the Buddhagotraśāstra's statement that there is only a single rebirth; if one means from the beginning to the end of a lifespan, it contradicts the Yogācārabhūmi's increasing all activities of life-span, for if all activities of life-span are increased, there is no death; since there is no death, how can there be birth?' This too is not so, for the name 'birth-and-death' is general. Moreover, as in the Anuttarāśrayasūtra and Buddhagotraśāstra, the four kinds of birth-and-death are simply called birth-and-death; it is not based on separately taking rebirth after each respective death that it is called birth-and-death. If it is said to be called birth-and-death because it is the dharma of birth-and-death of the transformed body, it is also called birth-and-death because the dharma of apportioned birth-and-death is transformed to become transformed [birth-and-death]—what fault is there in accepting this? If one abandons the apportioned to undergo birth-and-death, why is it called 'transformation'? Furthermore, if you allow that anāsrava can be new karma directly incurring birth-and-death, and the Laṅkāvatārasūtra speaks of three mind-made bodies whose stages are distinct, then one should undergo them repeatedly; why call it a single rebirth? Therefore, the objection raised is in vain, which is the fifth error. Furthermore, regarding the claim: 'Since they do not abandon the apportioned [body], and the Yogācārabhūmi also lacks any text on transforming faculties, how could a female arhat attain Buddhahood?' This too is not so. If, because the Yogācārabhūmi lacks a text on transforming faculties, one allows that a female body attains Buddhahood, the Śrīmālādevīsūtra, Buddhagotraśāstra, and Anuttarāśrayasūtra also lack words on transforming faculties. Even supposing they abandoned the body, how could the dull faculties of the dviyāna attain Buddhahood? The Yogācārabhūmi and Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi hold that the nourishment by anāsrava and so forth is uniquely called 'transformation,' and transformation precisely has the meaning of transforming faculties. Failing to understand this is an extreme error. Furthermore, regarding the claim: 'Just as the path of an upper stage, destroying the [afflictions of] the upper stage, produces the path of the upper stage, and destroying the lower stage, induces the retribution of the upper stage; when the anāsrava of the dviyāna shatters the apportioned to induce transformed rebirth, what logical flaw is there?' This too is not so. The sāsrava path of an upper stage suppresses the lower but does not suppress the upper; being sāsrava, it can induce retribution. The path of anāsrava completely severs both upper and lower, not being identical to sāsrava; how could it induce [retribution]? Furthermore, regarding the claim: 'The Yogācārabhūmi speaks of preserving the faculties to increase the life-span, abiding in this continent in remote solitude, unseen by others. Following this treatise text, this is preserving the activities of life-span, not transformed birth-and-death. Later treatise masters added arbitrary elaborations that were not the intent of the Yogācārabhūmi.' This too is not so. Later treatise masters conformed to the text to establish the principle, unlike their claim which contradicts the Yogācārabhūmi. If the Yogācārabhūmi allowed abandoning the apportioned body to separately receive transformation, the later treatise masters' statement of 'nourishing past karma' could indeed be considered an addition. In the Yogācārabhūmi, increasing the life-span without abandoning the body with its faculties is precisely transformation; it is not like the activities of increasing the life-span through the sāsrava concentration and vows of the dviyāna, because it is not for many kalpas and because others of the human and deva realm can all see it. Furthermore, in Asaṅga's Prakaraṇāryavācā, it is described as a transformation-body, and in Bandhuprabha's Buddhabhūmivyākhyāna, it is called transformed death. Furthermore, the Mahāyānāvatāra states: 'Answer: Arhats have no afflictions; like bodhisattvas of the eighth stage, because they cultivate the bases of psychic power well, they can abide in the world according to their will, even until the end of birth-and-death.' It also states: 'As explained in the Mahāsāṃghika[-vinaya], the Tathāgata Nīlanetra, in order to transform bodhisattvas, resided in the Ābhāsvara heaven with an assembly of śrāvakas for immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of kalpas. Just as in that heaven the śrāvakas sustained their life-span for many kalpas, one should know that in this world there are also śrāvakas who can abide thus.' If they had to abandon the life-span and receive a body elsewhere, how could it be called 'abiding in the world'? 'In this world there are also...' and so on. It also asks: 'Do they abide in the world with this body, or is there another body with which they abide?' Answer: 'To abide in the world with a real body is without basis; if it is a transformation-body sustaining life for many kalpas, there is such a possibility.' If they separately received a body, that would be a real body; how could it be called a transformation? Hence we know that increasing the life-span and transforming the defiled original form is called transformation. If it is so, grasping the meaning in accordance with the term and applying it to the past involves no contradiction. If one had to abandon the body before receiving transformation, not only would the name be discordant, it would also contradict the holy teachings. Their intention not only rejects the masters of Vijñaptimātrata, but also bodhisattvas such as Asaṅga and Dhiramati, whom they also question with brevity: having insufficient reverence for ordinary persons, they have more than enough contempt for sages. Furthermore, regarding the claim: 'Just as in the three realms afflictions are the condition and sāsrava karma is the cause for birth in the three realms; if there is karma and affliction not yet subdued, one is definitively born in the three realms. Thus we know that if there is erroneous anāsrava karma not yet severed, because of the ground of ignorance one undergoes transformation.' This too is not so, as in the case of a srotāpanna. Moreover, although they have karma and afflictions of the three realms not yet severed, it is not determined that they must undergo rebirth in the three realms before attaining the state of an aśaikṣa, for it is permitted that they attain it in the present body. Thus we know that bodhisattvas on the stages are also like this, because in the present body they can attain the fruit. If you say that the śaikṣa of the dviyāna can suppress the delusions of cultivation and thus may not be reborn, bodhisattvas can also suppress cognitive obstacles; why would they need a separate rebirth before they can attain the fruit? Furthermore, from the eighth stage onward, there is anāsrava karma and the ground of ignorance is not yet severed; why do they not undergo further [rebirth]? Are the three mind-made bodies only a single rebirth? Furthermore, among the thirteen differences, the seventh states: 'According to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, it is not subsumed under the three realms, because the cause and condition are not the karma of the three existences and the afflictions of the three realms cannot bind it.' This is not so. Where does the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka speak of the transformed body as not being subsumed under the realms? If speaking of the apportioned body whose delusions are exhausted, it is also said to be outside the realms. Thus a later passage in the sūtra states: 'Through the Buddha's teaching, they escape the suffering of the three realms, traversing three hundred yojanas,' and so forth. If one considers the present body, the eighth, seventh, and five consciousnesses, as well as the five faculties and so forth, are all sāsrava; how could they not be of the realms? One should know that stating transformation is 'transcending the three realms' is also identical in meaning to this. Moreover, in terms of causal birth-and-death it is said not to be bound by the realms, but if considered in terms of the five [consciousnesses], the eighth [consciousness], and so forth, it still belongs to the realms. Although not bound by delusion, its substance follows the realms. If it were not subsumed under the realms, it should be supramundane. If it were supramundane, how would it differ from a Buddha? If you say: 'Because it is sāsrava, it differs from a Buddha,' then since you say it is sāsrava, how could it not be of the realms? Furthermore, the Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises in various places define the substance of the realms and destinies solely based on the eighth [consciousness]; now failing to understand this, they have also committed an error. Among the differences, the twelfth states: 'The Anuttarāśrayasūtra and Buddhagotraśāstra hold that erroneous anāsrava karma constitutes birth-and-death, which serves as an adversarial obstacle to great bodhi. Treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi hold that through anāsrava concentration, the body and life-span are nourished to abide in order to attain bodhi.' This too is not so. If it were not for attaining unsurpassed bodhi, why would they preserve the body to abide for a long time to perform these practices? Why would the transformed body received by a bodhisattva on the ten stages be an obstacle to bodhi? Furthermore, the seventh fascicle of the Laṅkāvatāra states: 'Mahāmati! Because bodhisattvas see the gate of the bliss of tranquil samādhi, they remember their original vows and great compassion to cross sentient beings over. Knowing the ten inexhaustible wisdoms of true practice, they therefore do not immediately enter nirvāṇa. Bodhisattvas of great compassion are far removed from the mind of false discrimination,' and so on. Since it says that out of compassion for sentient beings they know the ten inexhaustible wisdoms of true practice, how could they not know and still initiate erroneous anāsrava karma to undergo transformed rebirth that serves as an obstacle to bodhi? If, through not knowing, they initiated erroneous anāsrava to induce transformed rebirth, it should be like ordinary persons creating karma to incur fruit, which is not merely a single rebirth, due to the power of karma. If you say they intentionally receive a transformed body, how is it an obstacle? It is merely because there is cognitive obstacle obstructing great bodhi that, in order to attain bodhi, they preserve the body to abide for a long time to sever this cognitive obstacle. If it were not so, they would immediately enter nirvāṇa. However, when sūtras speak of it as a difficulty and treatises call it an adversarial obstacle, it is because it obstructs great bodhi. The reason they must undergo it is that they wish to eradicate it. Just as a brave person has an enemy and seeks out the enemy for that reason, not because he is unable to avoid him, so being struck and harmed upon encountering the enemy is an adversarial obstacle; undergoing a transformed body should be understood in the same way. Furthermore, they say: 'The teachings of the second and third periods hold only that the body and wisdom of the dviyāna of niyata-gotra are severed and extinguished; the teachings of the fourth and fifth periods hold that the dviyāna has no real nirvāṇa, and all five gotras will become Buddhas without being severed and extinguished.' This too is not so. You yourselves accept the Laṅkāvatārasūtra as the teaching of the fifth period, yet it only speaks of those who regress from the bodhicitta turning toward the Great [Vehicle]. The Śrīmālādevī is considered definitive in teaching the Ekayāna, yet it also says it is an expedient teaching given according to their inclinations. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkā-upadeśa explains that it does not benefit the determined śrāvaka. In the parable of the medicinal herbs, the treatise states: 'It causes them to know the difference of the vehicles. The Nirvāṇasūtra was stated last of all; in saying that all attain Buddhahood, it did not understand my intention.' From this it can be inferred that the definitive Mahāyāna of the Yogācārabhūmi and the Saṃdhinirmocana corresponds completely with the Laṅkāvatāra and Nirvāṇa. To say that the teaching is divided into five periods, that all those of determined nature attain Buddhahood, and that only after an aśaikṣa enters non-remainder do they turn their minds, abandoning the apportioned body to separately receive transformation—since this has no basis in the holy teachings and is merely their own assertion, who other than a gullible person could accept it? If there are contradictions, they will be harmonized and explained later.