能顯中邊慧日論 4.17.3

4.17.3

Furthermore, the eighth consciousness is shared identically by all, with no distinction among the three vehicles; thus, in the *Bodhisattvabhūmidhāra*, the *Shanjie jing*, the "Bodhisattvabhūmi", and so forth, where the cause of determinate differentiation and the differences among the gotras of the three vehicles are clarified, as well as in the "Subduing" chapter, the distinctions among the gotras of the three vehicles could never be properly established. Therefore, the originally existing anāsrava bījas adhering to this consciousness are the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha.
Question: If tathatā is not accepted as the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha, how is it that the *Buddhagotraśāstra* says the principle of tathatā is the pradhāna-hetu of a buddha, and faith, prajñā, and so on are the pratyaya-hetus of a buddha? And the *Yogācārabhūmi* also says: "They arise from bījas that have tathatā as their cognitive object (ālambanapratyaya)"?
Answer: These two treatises' passages have already been reconciled above; now they are re-explained once more. Saying that "they arise from bījas that have tathatā as their cognitive object" is merely a metaphorical statement taking the cognitive object as a bīja; tathatā is not in reality the bīja of conditioned phenomena. Just as faith, prajñā, and so forth are said to be the bījas of the four virtues, yet the four virtues of the dharmakāya are not generated by them but are permanently abiding phenomena, called "bījas" metaphorically because they are revealed by them. Therefore the Liang *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: "Śrutavāsanā is merely the bīja of the path to the four virtues; the path to the four virtues can accomplish and reveal the four virtues. The four virtues are originally existent and do not arise from bījas; they are called 'bījas' by taking their name from the cause." Based on this, one knows that the mental constituents of the four wisdoms take that tathatā as an object and arise, and tathatā is called a bīja only metaphorically. If one accepts that tathatā is an actual bīja capable of producing conditioned phenomena, this would contradict the first of the seven definitions of bīja in the *Yogācārabhūmi*, that an impermanent phenomenon serves as a cause, and it would also contradict the passage on the three natures in the *Buddhagotraśāstra* where an existent entity produces an existent entity.
Question: If there are dviyāna practitioners of determinate gotra who do not become buddhas, this contradicts fascicle 36 of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, which says: "Stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, arhats, and pratyekabuddhas will all become buddhas; if one hears this teaching and does not generate faith, [...] it is called ever-drowned." And the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra* says: "Whether śrāvakas or bodhisattvas, hearing the Dharma I preach, even down to a single verse, all will become buddhas without doubt", and so forth.
Answer: This is spoken with respect to the practitioners of the four fruits of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddhas of indeterminate gotra all becoming buddhas. Hearing it and not having faith is called ever-drowned, etc.; it does not mean that all of both determinate and indeterminate gotra will become buddhas. Were it not so, why does the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* itself say: "They say that all attain buddhahood because they do not understand my intention"? Furthermore, how could the *Bodhisambhāraśāstra* and so forth not have seen the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, yet still state that they do not become buddhas?
Question: Regarding the claim that there are icchantikas who definitely do not become buddhas, how is it that fascicle 36 of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "If a person has a discrepancy between mind and mouth, expressing differences, saying that an icchantika does not attain bodhi, that person also slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha"?
Answer: According to the sense of this passage, if one says that an icchantika definitely does not attain bodhi, this is called slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha; it does not exclude a few who do enter. If that were so, this would again contradict the *Ratnagotravibhāga*, which says: "Previously stating that icchantikas never enter nirvāṇa and have no nature for nirvāṇa was intended to turn around their mind of slandering the Mahāyāna and their mind of not seeking the Mahāyāna; it was spoken with reference to an immeasurable period of time, because in reality they possess the pure nature." And the *Buddhagotraśāstra* says: "The statement that there is a gotra is an explicit teaching. The statement that there is no gotra is an implicit teaching. [...] Furthermore, because it is weighty, the Buddha observes that all sentient beings possess an intrinsically pure nature, and so in later times they will definitely attain the pure dharmakāya." Based on this, one knows that there is no icchantika who lacks the buddhadhātu, nor is there any sentient being who does not become a buddha.
Answer: This is said on the basis of the intention of the equality of the principle nature, and refers to the second type among the 'ever-drowned' in the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, who although not an icchantika is also called 'ever-drowned', and to the second person among the three types of beings without the capacity for nirvāṇa in the *Wushangyi jing* and elsewhere; the fifth person with the gotra of no-gotra in the *Laṅkāvatāra* is also harmonized in this way; this does not harmonize the icchantika who is called ever-drowned, one each among the seven persons, and the first being without the capacity for nirvāṇa in the *Wushangyi jing*.
Question: If so, why do both the *Ratnagotravibhāga* and the *Buddhagotraśāstra* cite a sūtra stating that an icchantika who falls into the definitely false assembly has two kinds of bodies: first, the fundamental dharmakāya; second, the body born of will; and the wisdom-light of the Buddha-sun shines upon these two bodies? As for the dharmakāya, it is the principle of tathatā. As for the body born of will, from the principle of tathatā arises the Buddha's radiance out of pity for the icchantika. Regarding the two bodies of the icchantika: first, to cause the dharmakāya to arise; second, to cause the preparatory practice to increase and the bodhisattva practices to be cultivated, so that contemplation can be accomplished.
Answer: This is spoken with respect to an icchantika who possesses the gotra. Otherwise, it would contradict the earlier chapter "Functions and Capacities", which says: "Sentient beings in the indeterminate assembly give rise to these two matters as functions; it does not say that those in the determinate assembly do so." It also says: "This person has the pure portion as a condition and the pure nature as a cause, and therefore accomplishes this contemplation; it is not without causes and conditions. If it were not accomplished by these two matters, the contemplation would lack causes and conditions. Just as an icchantika lacks the nature of nirvāṇa, they would have to attain this contemplation." Since an icchantika lacks this contemplation, one definitely knows that causes and conditions are required for contemplation before it can appear in one without gotra. Since contemplation is not conceded, it is clear that one without gotra cannot become a buddha. Furthermore, it is also the same as fascicle 9 of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*, which says: "'The radiance of great nirvāṇa enters into the pores of all sentient beings and can serve as a cause of bodhi'—this meaning is not correct. Why is that? World-Honoured One! If those who commit the four grave offences, commit the five heinous acts, and are icchantikas have the radiance enter their bodies to serve as a cause of bodhi, what difference would such people have from those who purely maintain the precepts and cultivate all wholesome dharmas? [...] The Buddha said: 'Good man! Excepting the icchantika, when all other sentient beings have heard this sūtra, they can all make it a cause and condition of bodhi. Those into whose pores the sound of the Dharma and the radiance enter will definitely attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.'" Based on this, one knows that when the *Buddhagotraśāstra* and other treatises cite the sūtra saying that the wisdom-light of the Buddha-sun shines upon the icchantika's body to make it grow, this refers to those who possess the gotra. When the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* speaks of excepting the icchantika, it refers to those without the gotra. Otherwise, why would there be a difference between excepting and not excepting them? It also says: "If one hears this *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, even if one has committed the four grave offences and the five heinous sins of immediate retribution, it can still serve as a cause and condition of bodhi. The class of icchantikas is not like this; although they hear and receive this wonderful classic, they cannot produce the cause of the path to bodhi." There are also many similes: just as water does not stay on withered wood or rocky mountains, and just as scorched seeds never sprout even when encountering sweet rain. It also says: "Even if all immeasurable sentient beings simultaneously accomplished anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, these Tathāgatas would still not see that icchantika attain bodhi." This is the explicit teaching of the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*; how could one not believe that there are those who do not become buddhas?