能顯中邊慧日論 4.17.2

4.17.2

The *Yogācārabhūmi* further states: "Next, concerning all the characteristics possessed by one who abides in the gotra: they are contrary to all the characteristics of a pudgala without nirvāṇa-dharma; you should know that this is called a pudgala abiding in the gotra." All the characteristics are contrasted in six pairs of characteristics, as explained in detail therein. It further states: "Or there is one who merely abides in the gotra, yet has neither entered upon [the path] nor attained departure: this refers to a pudgala who is endowed with the seeds of the supramundane noble dharmas, but has not yet attained close association with virtuous spiritual friends or the hearing of the correct Dharma, has not yet attained correct faith in the Dharma and Vinaya properly awakened to and properly taught by the Tathāgata, has not maintained pure precepts, has not gathered vast learning, has not increased wisdom and renunciation, and has not subdued views—this is called merely abiding in the gotra while having neither entered upon [the path] nor attained departure." Furthermore, in the explanation of the ten causes in the thirty-eighth fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi*, and in the explanation of the ten causes in the *Bhadraśīlasūtra* and the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra*, which clarify that the gotra is innate, the passages are all similar, so they are not cited in full to avoid verbosity. Fascicle 4 of the *Buddhagotraśāstra* states: "'The five dharmas that possess a beginningless associated wholesome nature'—the commentary explains: 'Without beginning' means that since wisdom (prajñā), great compassion, dhyāna-concentration, and the dharmakāya are obtained by nature and are innate, it is therefore said to be 'without beginning'. If the anāsrava were produced from the sāsrava, then the causes of wisdom, great compassion, dhyāna-concentration, and so on would be phenomena with a beginning; how could they be without beginning? If produced from the sāsrava, how could they be called 'obtained by nature'?" Fascicle 4 of the *Ratnagotravibhāga* states: "There are two kinds of buddhadhātu: the first is like a subterranean treasure, and the second is like a fruit on a tree," and so forth. According to the meaning of that text, the subterranean treasure is an analogy for tathatā, and the fruit on the tree is an analogy for wisdom, and so on. Hence it next says: "Based on the first analogy, one knows that there is the first dharmakāya; based on the second analogy, one knows that there are the two buddha-bodies and two kinds of buddhadhātu; both are spoken of as existing from beginningless saṃsāra, without clarifying that the anāsrava is innate and not merely newly arisen. Furthermore, if anāsrava seeds were merely newly arisen, then the sāsrava hearing and perfuming would be the sākṣāt-hetupratyaya for supramundane correct view." Why does the Liang translation of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* state: "The Buddha, the World-Honoured One, said: 'Hearing the voice from another and proper reflection by oneself: through these two causes, correct view is produced.'" The commentary states: "In the class of purity, correct view is the foremost; what dharma serves as the adhipatipratyaya for this correct view? It refers to hearing the voice from another and proper reflection by oneself. These two causes are precisely the adhipatipratyaya for correct view." And further down it says: "'Through these two causes, correct view is produced; these two causes are the adhipatipratyaya for correct view.' What is now spoken of as 'cause' (hetu) is a general term; that is, a condition (pratyaya) is spoken of as a cause." Furthermore, the treatise states: "The mundane mind is associated with proper reflection; the supramundane pure mind is associated with correct view; at no time can they arise together and perish together." The commentary states: "Proper reflection and the wisdom of proper cultivation arise from the four foundations of mindfulness, and the stage of worldly supreme dharmas (laukikāgradharma) is their position. This mind has not yet realised and seen the four noble truths, so it is called the 'mundane mind'. Having already realised and seen the four noble truths, it is called 'supramundane'. Being a dharma free from intrinsic nature, it is an attainment through cultivation, so it is called the 'pure mind'. Correct view is the first factor among the eightfold noble path; this correct view is inseparable from the thirty-seven factors of awakening." And further down it says: "Since it arises from the thirty-seven factors of awakening, it attains the supramundane. From beginningless time, the mundane and supramundane minds have never possessed the meaning of arising together and perishing together, because their natures are contrary." The treatise says: "Therefore, this mundane mind is not perfumed by the pure mind. Since there is no vāsanā, it should not be capable of becoming a supramundane seed." The commentary states: "If the wisdom of reflection were perfumed by the supramundane mind, it could become a supramundane seed. Since there is no meaning of being perfumed, the meaning of a supramundane seed is not established." According to this text of the treatise, if an anāsrava seed were produced through new perfuming, it would only be produced as a result of being accompanied by the anāsrava. Since there is no anāsrava prior to the path of seeing (darśanamārga), how could the sāsrava perfume to form the anāsrava? If one allows that the sāsrava perfumes an anāsrava seed, one should not object to another that a seed cannot be perfumed when not accompanied by the anāsrava, since one personally accepts that something not accompanied by the anāsrava perfumes an anāsrava seed. Question: If prior to the path of seeing, the sāsrava hearing and perfuming cannot produce the anāsrava, why does the treatise state: "Although it is a mundane dharma, it forms the supramundane mind"? The commentary explains: "Just as the mental consciousness, although a mundane dharma, can penetrate the tathatā of the four noble truths and counter the hindrances to the four noble truths, it forms the supramundane mind. The śrutavāsanā is also like this: although it is a mundane dharma, because both its cause and fruit are supramundane dharmas, it also forms the supramundane mind." Answer: Because the innate anāsrava is subtle, hidden, and difficult to know, relying on the superior adhipatipratyaya of sāsrava perfuming, the innate anāsrava seed is revealed. This very seed, at the stage of perfuming, is also called śrutavāsanā. Hence the treatise next says: "Why is this?" The commentary explains: "Why is this? This dharma is solely supramundane and not a mundane dharma, because there are four kinds of antidotes." According to this, since it says it is solely supramundane and not a mundane dharma, it is clear that it is not sāsrava. Furthermore, the treatise states: "When this supramundane pure mind of the seed has not yet arisen, it is an antidote to all manifest defilements." According to this, we know that prior to the path of seeing, at the stage of sāsrava perfuming, there is already the seed of the anāsrava mind. It also states: "The seed is precisely the śrutavāsanā; the bodhisattva's faculty of unknown-knowing (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya) is called the supramundane pure mind. Before this mind is present, it is śrutavāsanā, belonging to the stage of the wisdom of hearing and reflection, within the stage of hearing and reflection." According to this, we know that the statement that sāsrava perfuming forms the supramundane mind is spoken in terms of the adhipatipratyaya. Furthermore, it is explained in detail therein, so to be brief, it is not cited further. Question: Since all sentient beings equally possess tathatā and the eighth consciousness, why are these not accepted as the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha? Answer: Since tathatā itself does not produce, it also does not directly serve as a pradhāna-hetu that produces dharmas, as has been clarified before. If one accepts that the eighth consciousness is the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha, it would then be anāsrava. Furthermore, it is only by countering the sāsrava eighth consciousness that one can attain buddhahood; if one accepts the eighth consciousness as the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha, it should then be capable of countering the eighth consciousness itself. If so, it would contradict the Liang translation of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, which states: "How could the fruit-retribution consciousness of all seeds become the cause of the class of impurity if it can serve as the cause of the supramundane pure mind that counters defilement?" The commentary explains: "If one posits the mūlavijñāna as the supramundane cause that counters defilement, then one cannot take the mūlavijñāna as the cause of the class of impurity. The class of impurity refers to the truth of the origination [of suffering] and the truth of suffering; because they are seeds of karma and defilements, they are the truth of origination." And further down it says: "Since it is posited as the antidote to defilement and the cause of the supramundane mind, it should no longer be spoken of as the cause of the class of impurity." According to this, the sāsrava eighth consciousness is not the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha.