[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [華嚴一乘教義分齊章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866) › 2.17 # 華嚴一乘教義分齊章 2.17 華嚴一乘教義分齊章 2.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.2.17) 問：「若並有性，如何建立五種性中無性者耶？」答：「論自有釋，故《寶性論》云『一向說闡提無涅槃性，不入涅槃者，此義云何？為欲示顯謗大乘因故。此明何義？為欲迴轉誹謗大乘心，依無量時故作是說，以彼實有清淨佛性故。』又《佛性論》云『問曰：「若爾，云何佛說眾生不住於性，永無般涅槃耶？」答曰：「若曾背大乘者，此法是一闡提因，為令眾生捨此法故。若墮闡提因，於長夜時輪轉不息。以是義故，經作是說。若依道理，一切眾生皆悉本有清淨佛性，若不得般涅槃者，無有是處。是故佛性決定本有，離有離無故。」』解云：又此論前文廣破無性，乃至末文云『三者失同外道，有本定有，無本定無；有不可滅，無不可生。此等過失，由汝邪執無性義生』，乃至廣說。」 > Question: "If all possess the nature, how is the one lacking gotra among the five gotras established?" Answer: "The treatises provide their own explanation. Thus the Ratnagotravibhāga says: 'It is definitively stated that the icchantika has no nature of nirvāṇa and does not enter nirvāṇa. What is the meaning of this? It is because \[the Buddha\] wished to show the cause of slandering the Mahāyāna. What does this clarify? In order to turn around the mind that slanders the Mahāyāna, this was spoken relying on \[an extent of\] immeasurable time, because they truly possess the pure Buddha-nature.' Furthermore, the Foxing lun says: 'Question: "If so, why did the Buddha say that sentient beings do not abide in the gotra and are eternally without parinirvāṇa?" Answer: "If one has turned one's back on the Mahāyāna, this dharma is the cause of an icchantika. It was in order to cause sentient beings to abandon this dharma \[that he said this\]. If one falls into the causes of an icchantika, one transmigrates without cessation in the long night \[of saṃsāra\]. By this principle, the sūtra speaks thus. If one relies on reason, all sentient beings originally possess the pure Buddha-nature; that they should not attain parinirvāṇa is impossible. Therefore, Buddha-nature is definitively originally possessed, being free from existence and free from non-existence."' Explanation: Furthermore, the earlier text of this treatise extensively refutes the absence of gotra, up to its concluding text, which says: 'Third is the error of being identical with the non-Buddhists: what originally exists definitely exists, and what originally does not exist definitely does not exist; what exists cannot be destroyed, and what does not exist cannot be produced. Faults such as these arise from your mistaken attachment to the doctrine of the absence of gotra,' and so forth, up to extensive explanations." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.2.16) - [Next: 2.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.2.18) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866~en-mt.2.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1866.2.17) · Pramāṇa