金剛般若經疏 1.2

1.2

二云。種姓有五。一聲聞姓。二緣覺姓。三如來姓。四不定性。五無種性。問。云何得知有無種姓。答。四卷八卷二楞伽經皆云。大悲菩薩一闡提人畢竟不成覺。若皆有姓眾生即應有成佛盡。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。無種姓人無種姓故。雖復發心勤行精進。終不能得無菩提。地持瑜伽亦同此說。又涅槃經三種病人第三。若遇不遇良醫決定不差。若是有姓如何不差。又恒河七人第一當設七人各一即無種姓。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。三者無解脫分善根。四者善根不具足。畢竟無涅槃法者。無因故彼無般涅槃姓。謂但求生死不樂但涅槃。然有釋云。畢竟者。一約所斷善兼生得善斷三世因盡名為畢竟無涅槃性。二約時以有鈍根長時流轉不能生名為畢竟無涅槃法。不言盡未來際決定無性名為畢竟。此釋不然。諸斷善根但斷生得非方便善。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非鈍根者。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。又瑜伽論第六十七更有五難六答。廣成無姓此應捨敘。

The second [view] states: There are five lineages: first, the śrāvaka lineage; second, the pratyekabuddha lineage; third, the Tathāgata lineage; fourth, the indeterminate lineage; fifth, the lack of lineage. Question: How is it known that there is the presence or absence of lineage? Answer: Both the four-fascicle and eight-fascicle versions of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra say that the icchantika of great compassion and the [icchantika who has severed all roots of goodness] ultimately do not achieve awakening. If all possessed the lineage, then sentient beings would eventually all attain buddhahood; how could Great Compassion ultimately never achieve it? Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra says that sentient beings who are devoid of good spiritual friends, devoid of hearing [the Dharma], and act contrary to Dharma are matured through the wholesome roots of humans and devas. The Bodhisattva-bhadra-śīla Sūtra says that because a person of no lineage lacks the lineage, even though they generate the intention and strive with diligence, they ultimately cannot attain unexcelled bodhi. The Bodhisattvabhūmi and Yogācāra[bhūmi] share this statement. Furthermore, among the three kinds of sick persons in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, the third, whether encountering or not encountering a fine physician, definitely does not recover; if they possess the lineage, how could they not recover? Furthermore, among the seven persons in the Ganges, the first corresponds to [this]; each of the seven persons corresponds to one, and that one is the one without lineage. The first fascicle of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra states that there are two kinds of icchantika: first, the temporary; second, the ultimate. As for the temporary, there are four: first, one who exclusively performs evil; second, one who completely severs all wholesome dharmas; third, one who lacks the wholesome roots conducive to liberation; fourth, one whose wholesome roots are incomplete. As for the one who ultimately lacks the dharma of nirvāṇa, because they lack the cause, they lack the lineage of parinirvāṇa; that is, they only seek saṃsāra and take no pleasure in nirvāṇa. However, some explain: 'Ultimate' means, first, in terms of severed wholesome [roots], simultaneously [severing] innate wholesome [roots], severing the causes of the three times completely—this is called ultimately lacking the nature of nirvāṇa; second, in terms of time, because there are dull-rooted ones who transmigrate for a long time and cannot generate [it], it is called ultimately lacking the dharma of nirvāṇa; it does not mean definitely lacking the nature to the exhaustion of the future limit is called ultimate. This explanation is not correct. Those who sever wholesome roots only sever the innate, not the acquired wholesome roots. Furthermore, they suppress the active manifestation, but are not without the seeds; how could they lack the cause? Also, there would be no difference from the temporary complete severing of wholesome dharmas. Furthermore, those who sever wholesome roots in both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras and treatises are all sharp-rooted, not dull-rooted ones. 'Ultimate' and 'to the exhaustion of the future limit' differ in wording but are identical in meaning. If this were not so, then 'ultimate like space' would not be all-pervading in the dharmadhātu. Furthermore, in the sixty-seventh fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi there are five objections and six answers, extensively establishing the absence of lineage; we shall set aside reciting them here.