宗鏡錄 48.15

48.15

答。唯識論云。一切種子。皆本性有。不從熏生。由熏習力。但可增長。如契經說。一切有情。無始時來有種種界。如惡叉聚。法爾而有。界即種子差別名故。又經偈云。無始時來界。一切法等依。界是因義。瑜伽亦說。諸種子體。無始時來性雖本有。而由染淨新所熏發。諸有情類無始時來。若般涅槃法者。一切種子皆悉具足。不般涅槃法者。便闕三種菩提種子。如是等文。誠證非一。契經說。心性淨者。說心空理所顯真如。真如是心真實性故。或說心體。非煩惱故。名性本淨。非有漏心。性。是無漏。故名本淨。由此應信。諸有情無始時來。有無漏種不由熏習。法爾成就。後勝進位。熏令增長。無漏法起。以此為因。無漏起時。復熏成種。有漏法種。類此應知。釋云。心性者。真如也。真如無為非心之因。亦非種子。能有果法。如虛空等故。非有漏心。性是無漏。名本性淨也。又若取正義。本有新熏合生現行。非有前後。一本有者。謂無始時異熟識內。法爾而生蘊處界等。功能差別。世尊。依此。說諸有情。無始時來有種種界。如惡叉聚。法爾而有。一切種子與第八識。一時而有。從此能生前七現行。現行頭上又熏種子。二新熏者。謂無始時來。數數現行熏習而有。名新熏故。世尊依此。說有情心。染淨諸法所熏習故。無量種子之所積習故。護法意云。有漏無漏種子。皆有新熏本有。合生現行。亦不雜亂。若新熏遇緣。即從新熏生。若本有遇緣。即從本有生。若偏執唯從新熏。或偏執但是本有。二俱違教。若二義俱取。善符教理。

Answer: The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'All seeds are originally existing by nature and are not produced from perfuming; through the power of perfuming, they merely increase and grow. As a sūtra says: "All sentient beings from beginningless time have various elements (dhātus), like a cluster of akṣa fruits, existing naturally by dharma-nature." "Element" is an alternate name for seed. Furthermore, a sūtra verse says:
"The element from beginningless time
Is the common basis of all dharmas."
"Element" means cause. The Yogācārabhumī also says: "Although the substances of all seeds are originally existing by nature from beginningless time, they are newly perfumed and stimulated by defilement and purity. From beginningless time, if sentient beings have the dharma of entering parinirvāṇa, they are fully endowed with all seeds; if they do not have the dharma of entering parinirvāṇa, they lack the seeds of the three kinds of bodhi." Passages such as these provide reliable evidence in no small number. When sūtras say that the nature of mind is pure, they speak of the tathatā revealed by the principle of the emptiness of mind, because tathatā is the true nature of mind. Or they say that the mind substance, not being kleśa, is named "originally pure by nature"; it is not that the nature of the defiled mind is uncontaminated and therefore called originally pure. From this, one should believe that all sentient beings, from beginningless time, possess uncontaminated seeds that do not derive from perfuming, being naturally accomplished by dharma-nature. Later, at the stage of superior advancement, they are perfumed and caused to increase and grow, and uncontaminated dharmas arise, taking these as cause; when the uncontaminated arises, it again perfumes to form seeds. Seeds of defiled dharmas should be known analogously.' The commentary explains: 'The nature of mind is tathatā. Unconditioned tathatā is not the cause of mind, nor is it a seed capable of possessing result dharmas, like empty space and so forth. Therefore, it is not that the nature of the defiled mind is uncontaminated that it is called originally pure by nature.' Furthermore, if one takes the correct doctrine, the originally existing and the newly perfumed combine to produce the actualized, without there being before and after. First, as for the originally existing: within the maturation consciousness from beginningless time, the capacities and differences of the aggregates, bases, and elements arise naturally by dharma-nature. Relying on this, the World-Honoured One said that all sentient beings have various elements from beginningless time, like a cluster of akṣa fruits, existing naturally by dharma-nature. All seeds and the eighth consciousness exist simultaneously; from this, the actualization of the first seven can be produced, and atop the actualized, seeds are again perfumed. Second, as for the newly perfumed: they exist from beginningless time through the repeated perfuming of actualization, hence called newly perfumed. Relying on this, the World-Honoured One said that the mind of sentient beings is perfumed by defiled and pure dharmas, and is accumulated through immeasurable seeds. Dharmapāla's intent is: contaminated and uncontaminated seeds both have newly perfumed and originally existing [aspects], which combine to produce the actualized without confusion. If the newly perfumed meets conditions, it arises from the newly perfumed; if the originally existing meets conditions, it arises from the originally existing. If one one-sidedly clings that they are only from the newly perfumed, or one-sidedly clings that they are only originally existing, both contradict the teachings. If one takes both meanings, it accords well with teaching and reason.'