金剛般若經疏 1.2

1.2

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.