[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) › [御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733) › 1.10.1 # 御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.10.1 御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.10.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.10.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733.1.10.1) 第四所被根宜者。 初辨根性。 後以教被且初根性差別不同。 一乘五性。 自故紛諍。 今略敘之。 三說不同。 一云眾生皆有佛性。 決定無有定性二乘及無性者。 涅槃經第二十七云。 師子吼者。 是決定說一切眾生悉有佛性。 又云。 一切眾生悉皆有心。 凡有心者。 悉當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。 是故我說一切眾生悉有佛性。 又第三十七云。 為非佛性。 說於佛性。 非佛性者。 所謂牆壁瓦石無情之物。 離如是等無情之物。 是名佛性。 准此經文。 非是唯理。 有情五蘊。 不被簡故。 亦非少分離無情。 是佛性故。 豈可為非佛性。 說於佛性。 佛性之中有佛性。 如說離有為法。 說於無為。 無為之中有有為耶。 又涅槃云。 一切眾生。 皆有三定。 謂上中下。 上者佛性。 中者初禪。 下者大地。 中定數下中二定非是少分故知上定。 亦是一切同一文故。 既云。 是定故非唯理說。 首楞嚴定。 為佛性故。 法花經云。 一大事因緣。 出現於世。 欲令眾生開佛知見。 使得清淨等。 又云。 十方佛土中。 唯有一乘法。 無二亦無三。 除佛方便說。 但以假名字。 引道於眾生。 佛性論云。 二空真如名應得因。 以應得佛果故。 名應得因。 故知有理性者。 定有行果理既一切皆有行果故非少分。 若謂法花二乘無滅悉當成佛此說不定二乘。 非是定性者。 不然不定。 亦成佛教。 起初轉法輪。 今說與昔說若同。 何故殷勤三請許說增上慢人。 起誑驚怖。 舍利弗等。 疑佛為魔良由今昔懸殊。 有斯疑謗故。 經云。 所以未曾說。 說時未至故。 今正是其時。 決定說大乘。 故知今說非先說也。 又云。 種性有五。 一聲聞性。 二緣覺性。 三如來性。 四不定性。 五無種性。 問云。 何得知有無種性。 答。 四卷八卷二楞伽經。 皆云。 大悲菩薩一闡提人。 畢竟不成正覺。 若有性眾生。 即應有成佛盡。 如何大悲。 畢竟不作。 又勝鬘經云。 離善知識無聞非法眾生以人天善根而成熟之。 善戒經云。 無種性人。 無種性故。 雖復發心勤行精進。 終不能得無上菩提。 地持瑜伽亦同此說。 又涅槃經。 三種病人。 第三若遇不遇。 一良醫決定不善。 若是有性。 如何不差。 又恒河七人第一常沒七人各一。 即無種性。 大莊嚴論第一說闡提有二種。 一時邊。 二畢竟。 時邊有四。 一者一向行惡。 二者普斷諸善法。 三者無解說分善根。 四者善根不具足。 畢竟無涅槃法者。 無因故。 彼無般若涅槃性。 謂但求生死不樂涅槃。 然有釋云。 畢竟者。 一約所斷兼善生得善斷三世因盡。 名為畢竟。 無涅槃法。 兩約時以有鈍根長時流轉。 不能生信。 名為畢竟。 無涅槃法不言。 盡未來際。 決定無性。 名為畢竟。 此釋不然。 諸斷善根。 但斷生約非方便善。 又伏現行。 非無種子。 如何無因。 又與時邊。 普斷善法。 應無差別。 又斷善根。 大小經論。 俱是利根者。 畢竟之與盡未來際。 文別義同。 若不爾者。 究竟如虛空。 應非遍法界。 又瑜伽第六十七。 更有五難六答。 廣成無性。 此應撿敘。 上來無性。 次成定性。 依大般若五百九十三。 善勇猛請言。 唯願世尊哀愍我等。 為具宣說如來境智。 若有情類。 於聲聞乘性決定者。 聞此法已。 速能證。 問。 自無漏地於獨覺乘性決定者。 聞此法已。 速於自乘。 而得出離。 乃至云若有情類。 雖未已入正性離生而於三乘性不定者。 聞此法已。 速證無上正等覺。 心既決定。 外別說不定。 明知別有決定聲聞。 又瑜伽七十六。 解深密第二。 皆說一向趣寂聲聞花嚴第四十。 說定性緣覺。 大莊嚴經第一。 亦爾。 涅槃第三十言。 我於經中。 為諸比丘。 > Fourth, concerning the capacities of those addressed: first, distinguishing the lineage-capacities; second, addressing them with the teaching. First, regarding the diversity of lineage-capacities: the one vehicle and the five lineages have long been a subject of dispute. Now we briefly set them forth. There are three differing explanations. The first says that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, and that there are definitely no śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas of fixed lineage, nor those without lineage. Fascicle 27 of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'The Lion's Roar is the definitive teaching that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature.' It also says: 'All sentient beings possess a mind; all who possess a mind will attain anuttarā samyaksambodhi. Therefore, I say that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature.' Furthermore, Fascicle 37 says: 'It is for the sake of non-Buddha-nature that Buddha-nature is taught. Non-Buddha-nature refers to insentient things such as walls, tiles, and stones; that which is free from such insentient things is called Buddha-nature.' According to this sūtra passage, it is not merely principle, because the five aggregates of sentient beings are not excluded, nor is it only a partial portion, since being free from insentient things is Buddha-nature. How could one teach Buddha-nature for the sake of non-Buddha-nature? Is there Buddha-nature within Buddha-nature, just as one teaches the unconditioned apart from conditioned phenomena—is there conditioned phenomenon within the unconditioned? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says: 'All sentient beings have three \[levels of\] concentration, namely superior, middling, and inferior. The superior is the Buddha-nature, the middling is the first dhyāna, and the inferior is the great earth.' The middling concentration counts the lower two concentrations, which are not merely a partial portion; thus we know that the superior concentration is likewise possessed by all, as it is part of the same text. Since it says it is 'concentration', it is not spoken solely in terms of principle, because the Śūraṅgama Samādhi is the Buddha-nature. The Lotus Sūtra says: 'For the sake of one great cause \[the Buddhas\] appear in the world: desiring to cause sentient beings to open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and to cause them to attain purity,' and so forth. It also says: 'In the Buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle; there are not two, nor are there three, except where the Buddha uses expedients, merely using conventional names to guide sentient beings.' The Fo xing lun (Treatise on Buddha-nature) says: 'The tathatā of the two emptinesses is called the cause that should be obtained; because one should obtain the Buddha fruit, it is called the cause that should be obtained.' Therefore, we know that one who possesses the nature of principle will definitely have the practice and fruit; since the principle is possessed by all, the practice and fruit are therefore not merely for a partial portion. If one says that in the Lotus \[Sūtra\] the two vehicles do not undergo extinction and will all become Buddhas, and that this refers to those of unfixed lineage rather than those of fixed lineage—this is not so. If they were unfixed, they too would already have realized the Buddha's teaching from the initial turning of the wheel of Dharma. If what is taught now were the same as what was taught in the past, why would there be the earnest three requests before permitting the teaching, and why would the arrogantly proud arise, become deluded and terrified, while Śāriputra and others doubted whether the Buddha might be Māra? It was precisely because past and present were vastly different that these doubts and slanders arose. Hence the sūtra says: 'The reason it was not taught before is that the time to teach had not yet arrived; now is precisely the time to decisively teach the Great Vehicle.' Thus we know that the present teaching is not the previous teaching. It also says that there are five lineages: first, the śrāvaka lineage; second, the pratyekabuddha lineage; third, the tathāgata lineage; fourth, the indeterminate lineage; and fifth, the lineage-less. Question: 'How do we know there is a lineage-less \[category\]?' Answer: 'Both the four-fascicle and eight-fascicle Laṅkāvatāra Sūtras say that the icchantikas of great compassion will ultimately never attain true awakening. If all sentient beings had the nature, then attaining Buddhahood would be exhaustive; how could one of great compassion ultimately not do so? Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra says: "Sentient beings who are apart from good spiritual friends and who have heard no Dharma are matured through the wholesome roots of humans and devas." The Śīla-upadeśa Sūtra says: "Persons without lineage, because they lack the lineage, even if they generate the mind \[for bodhi\] and diligently practice vigor, will ultimately be unable to attain unsurpassed bodhi." The Bodhisattvabhūmi and the Yogācārabhūmi also have the same explanation. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra speaks of three kinds of patients: regarding the third, whether he encounters an excellent physician or not, he will definitely not recover. If all had the nature, how could he fail to be cured? Furthermore, of the seven persons in the Gaṅgā River, the first is perpetually submerged; each of the seven persons corresponds to one \[type\], and this is precisely the lineage-less. Fascicle 1 of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra says that there are two kinds of icchantika: first, temporary; second, ultimate. The temporary has four \[types\]: first, one who exclusively practices evil; second, one who cuts off all wholesome dharmas; third, one who lacks the wholesome roots of the aids to liberation; fourth, one whose wholesome roots are incomplete. Those who are ultimately devoid of the dharma of nirvāṇa do so because they lack the cause; they lack the nature of prajñā and nirvāṇa, meaning they only seek saṃsāra and take no delight in nirvāṇa. However, some commentators say: "As for 'ultimate', first, in terms of what is severed, cutting off both the innate wholesome roots and acquired wholesome roots, thereby exhausting the causes of the three times, is called 'ultimately devoid of the dharma of nirvāṇa'; second, in terms of time, because there are dull-rooted ones who transmigrate for a long time and cannot generate faith, this is called 'ultimately devoid of the dharma of nirvāṇa'—it does not mean that throughout the future they are definitely devoid of the nature, which is called 'ultimate'." This explanation is incorrect. Those who sever the wholesome roots only sever the innate ones, not the wholesome roots of expedients. Furthermore, they merely suppress active manifestations, not that they lack seeds; how could they lack the cause? Moreover, there would then be no difference from the temporary ones who broadly sever wholesome dharmas. Furthermore, regarding the severing of wholesome roots, in both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras and treatises, they are all sharp-rooted; thus 'ultimate' and 'throughout the future' differ in wording but are identical in meaning. Were it not so, 'ultimate like space' would not pervade the dharmadhātu. Moreover, Fascicle 67 of the Yogācārabhūmi contains five more objections and six replies that extensively establish the absence of lineage; this should be examined and set forth. The above concerned the absence of lineage; next, establishing the fixed lineage. Relying on Fascicle 593 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, Suvikrāntavikrāmin requested, saying: "We only pray that the World-Honoured One, having pity on us, will fully proclaim the Tathāgata's realm and wisdom. If there are beings who are fixed in the lineage of the śrāvaka vehicle, having heard this Dharma, they will quickly be able to realize their own uncontaminated stage. Those who are fixed in the lineage of the pratyekabuddha vehicle, having heard this Dharma, will quickly attain departure in their own vehicle..." and further says: "If there are beings who, although not yet entered into the certainty of rightness and freedom from rebirth, are indeterminate in the lineage of the three vehicles, having heard this Dharma, they will quickly realize unsurpassed right and complete awakening." Since the indeterminate are spoken of separately outside of the fixed, it is clear that there are separately śrāvakas of fixed lineage. Furthermore, Yogācārabhūmi Fascicle 76 and Sandhinirmocana Fascicle 2 both speak of śrāvakas who exclusively head towards quiescence. Fascicle 40 of the Avataṃsaka speaks of pratyekabuddhas of fixed lineage, and Fascicle 1 of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra does likewise. Fascicle 30 of the Nirvāṇa says: "In the sūtras, for the sake of the bhikṣus..."' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733.1.9) - [Next: 1.10.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733.1.10.2) - [Up: 1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733.1.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733~en-mt.1.10.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [妙法蓮華經玄贊](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1723.1.17) — Classical Chinese - [仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1709.1.32) — Classical Chinese - [金剛般若經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2741.1.2) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733.1.10.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733.1.10.1) · Pramāṇa