T45n1863_能顯中邊慧日論
大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1863 能顯中邊慧日論
No. 1863
能顯中邊慧日論第一
淄州大云寺苾芻慧沼撰
十力五眼大聖雄 為物求法無邊劫 八萬四千妙寶藏 咸契其真勝彼岸 隨機詮顯各令鑒 故號能仁為法王 佛日權隱涅槃山 正教隨潛慧眼滅 十地三賢諸聖眾 愍物護法釋深經 末世命念慧行微 多者隨情迷聖旨 偏釋正教從己見 自迷迷他礙法流 今采經論會諸文 通法濟生令正解 故我稽首歸三寶 唯愿慈悲見加護
夫勝義無差。經論起平等之說。俗諦有異。諸聖流四一之談。隨相理智星分。歸性心言並絕。或真或俗。乍實乍權。量為應物示因符機趣果。理雖是一。根器寔多。故更使十二玄門說有同別。三藏奧旨詮或總分。或有執如而作生因。心體為諸法種。迷執一文總不令異。有異難會。即指為小為權。不知如來有根性等力。有情有種種界等。或有偏固別詮咸使不一。有一乖反即云隨假隨人。不知世尊有同體意樂。依如有不定性等。所以聲聞被詰。為不識機差。菩薩見訶。由不依理一。若言真如佛性是一。齊得作佛。種性不殊。即四擔三草之喻不成。若言闡提二乘盡不作佛。種性各一。即三車二城之況不立
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《能顯中邊慧日論》第一
淄州大云寺苾芻慧沼 撰
十力五眼的大聖雄（佛陀），爲了眾生求法經歷了無邊的劫數。 八萬四千種微妙的佛法寶藏，都與真理相契合，超越了彼岸。 佛陀隨機說法，使眾生各自領悟，所以被稱為能仁，是法中之王。 佛陀的智慧之日暫時隱沒于涅槃之山，正法隨著隱退，智慧之眼也隨之黯淡。 十地菩薩、三賢位的聖眾，憐憫眾生，護持佛法，解釋深奧的佛經。 末法時代，人們的記憶力、理解力和修行力都很微弱，很多人隨著自己的情感而迷惑于聖人的旨意。 片面地解釋佛法正教，按照自己的見解，自己迷惑也迷惑他人，阻礙了佛法的傳播。 現在我採擷經論，會通各種文句，通達佛法，救濟眾生，使他們能夠正確理解。 所以我稽首歸依三寶，唯愿佛菩薩慈悲加護。
勝義諦（Paramārtha-satya）是沒有差別的，所以經論中才會有平等之說。世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya）是有差異的，所以諸聖才會有四種性、唯一佛乘的談論。隨著現象、理性、智慧而區分，歸於自性時，心和言語都寂滅了。或者說真，或者說俗，有時是實，有時是權，都是爲了適應眾生而示現的方便，應合根機而趣向果位。道理雖然只有一個，但眾生的根器確實很多。所以才要用十二玄門來說明相同和差別，用三藏的奧妙旨意來詮釋總和與分別。或者有人執著于如來藏而作為產生萬法的根本原因，認為心體是諸法的種子，迷惑地執著於一種說法，總是不允許有差異，一旦有差異難以會通，就指責為小乘或權宜之說。他們不知道如來有根性等力，有情有種種界等。或者有人偏執于個別的詮釋，使之完全不一致，一旦有不一致就說是隨順假名或隨順人情。他們不知道世尊有同體大悲的意樂，依據如來藏而有不定性等。所以聲聞（Śrāvaka）被詰難，是因為不認識根機的差別；菩薩（Bodhisattva）被呵斥，是因為不依據理的一致性。如果說真如（Tathatā）、佛性（Buddha-dhātu）是一樣的，都能成佛，種性沒有差別，那麼四種擔三草的比喻就不成立了。如果說一闡提（Icchantika）、二乘（Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna）最終都不能成佛，種性各自不同，那麼三車二城的譬喻就不成立了。
【English Translation】 English version The Treatise on the Sun of Wisdom that Manifests the Middle Way and the Extremes, Part 1
Composed by Bhikshu Huizhao of Dayun Temple in Zizhou
The great and heroic sage with the ten powers and five eyes (Buddha), sought the Dharma for beings through limitless kalpas. The eighty-four thousand wonderful Dharma treasures all accord with the truth, surpassing the other shore. The Buddha expounds the Dharma according to the capacity of beings, enabling each to understand, hence he is called 'Śākyamuni', the king of the Dharma. The sun of the Buddha's wisdom temporarily hides behind the mountain of Nirvana, the true teachings gradually disappear, and the eye of wisdom dims. The Bodhisattvas of the ten grounds and the sages of the three levels of holiness, pity beings, protect the Dharma, and explain the profound sutras. In the degenerate age, people's memory, understanding, and practice are weak, and many are deluded by their emotions, straying from the holy intentions. They interpret the true teachings of the Dharma one-sidedly, according to their own views, deluding themselves and others, hindering the flow of the Dharma. Now I gather the sutras and treatises, harmonizing the various texts, to understand the Dharma and save beings, enabling them to understand correctly. Therefore, I bow and take refuge in the Three Jewels, hoping that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas will compassionately protect me.
The ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya) is without difference, hence the sutras and treatises speak of equality. The conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) has differences, hence the sages speak of the four natures and the one Buddha vehicle. Differentiated by phenomena, reason, and wisdom, when returning to self-nature, both mind and speech cease. Sometimes true, sometimes conventional, sometimes real, sometimes expedient, all are skillful means shown to adapt to beings, according with their capacities and leading to the fruition. Although the principle is one, the capacities of beings are indeed many. Therefore, the twelve profound gates are used to explain similarities and differences, and the profound meaning of the Tripitaka is used to explain the totality and the parts. Or some cling to the Tathāgatagarbha (Tathāgatagarbha) as the root cause of the arising of all dharmas, believing that the mind-essence is the seed of all dharmas, mistakenly clinging to one statement, never allowing for differences. Once there are differences that are difficult to reconcile, they criticize it as Hinayana or expedient teachings. They do not know that the Tathagata has the power of natures, etc., and sentient beings have various realms, etc. Or some are biased towards individual interpretations, making them completely inconsistent. Once there is inconsistency, they say it is in accordance with provisional names or in accordance with human feelings. They do not know that the World-Honored One has the intention of great compassion for all beings, and based on the Tathāgatagarbha, there is indeterminacy, etc. Therefore, the Śrāvakas (Śrāvakayāna) are questioned because they do not recognize the differences in capacities; the Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva) are criticized because they do not rely on the unity of principle. If it is said that Suchness (Tathatā) and Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu) are the same, and all can attain Buddhahood, and there is no difference in nature, then the analogy of the four carrying three grasses would not hold. If it is said that the Icchantikas (Icchantika) and the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) ultimately cannot attain Buddhahood, and their natures are different, then the analogy of the three carts and two cities would not stand.
。故由生界種性。有無約理。周遍有識。皆有據事差別。有識有無。有性復有定不定殊。無性復有暫畢竟別。以此聲聞說有多類。闡提復演數沒。因斯乘或一二三五等分果。或凡聖權實等別。或說皆有佛性皆當作佛。或說有無種性非皆作佛。然佛因既為無為異。佛果亦常無常分。依三義而標常住之名。或據或無以立無為之稱。或有迷斯妙旨。云三佛而總凝然。見說無為。將四智而無生滅不知。皆是正遍知尊。依四秘密。四種意趣。隨自隨他。十二分教。佛自會通。散在諸經。率難被究。彌勒菩薩廣制瑜伽論釋云。理無不究。事無不盡。文無不釋。義無不詮執無不破。疑無不遣。行無不修。果無不證。正為菩薩。令于諸乘境行果等。皆得善巧。勤修大行。證大菩提。廣為有情。常無倒說。兼為余乘。令依自法修自分行得自果證。無著等師或別釋一部。或通明大趣。並教理符煥。本末遞暉。然有情昏密旨。欲大海而灌㘭塘。心翳衣珠。舉穢食而投寶器。連城魚目卉木無分。毒藥醍醐薰蕕弗別。恃螢光而指日月。陵寶劍而振鉛鋒。多羅竟定后先。達磨率分顯密。若也互相發起。即旨約文。遵實執為真。乃詞乖理爽。余雖不敏。曾酌法海之波瀾。念惑徽猷。疑懷濟險之南指。既逢高論。握管前驅。采三藏之精微。捷五乘之奧旨
。顯其幽趣。以契宏途。略述三章。用開未悟。文雖不麗。理寔可觀。冀諸玄鑒鏡詳其致。
爰真破執章第一
破定時因一 破定時教二 破定權實三 破妄通經四 破定顯密五 破緣正佛性六
破定時因一
有云。經論之內或有名同而義異。如解深密等說於一乘。與法華等說於一乘。此雖名同。深密即存三明一。法華則破二明一。而義有異。何者。深密存於二滅。云定性二乘不坐道場。頌云。故於其中立一乘。非有情性無差別。此存三明一。法華等云。聲聞若菩薩。聞我所說法。乃至於一偈。皆成佛無疑。唯此一事實。餘二則非真。舍羊鹿而滅化城。破二滅而歸寶所。故義有異。此說非理。所以者何。諸說一乘名義無異。法華深密略舉其同。且法華一乘與深密等。攝論既引法華會中舍利弗記別。在十義中。如何得言法華已前說一乘別。攝論但釋已前一乘不釋法華。既同所釋。明知不別。又定性人無有顯又說得作佛。楞伽經中。大慧問佛答。昔發菩提愿者非決定等。法華經論。決定之人根未熟故。菩薩與記令使發心。文言既總。復說往事。既說破二滅。一乘為顯了。即須決定說二乘皆作佛。何故除決定。又第三喻。為一向求大乘者。謂離大乘無別二乘。令知種種乘異。故說雨喻。故同深密
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 爲了彰顯其中幽深的趣味，以契合弘大的佛法道路，我將簡要地闡述三個章節，用來開啟那些尚未覺悟的人。文章雖然不華麗，但其中的道理確實值得一看。希望各位具有玄妙鑑賞力的人能夠仔細地考察其中的精髓。
爰真破執章 第一
破定時因 一
有人說：『在佛經和論著之中，有時會出現名稱相同但意義不同的情況。例如，《解深密經》（Samdhinirmocana Sutra）等經典所說的一乘（ekayana，唯一佛乘），與《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）等經典所說的一乘，雖然都名為一乘，但《解深密經》是保留三種性質而歸於一乘，《法華經》則是破除二乘而彰顯一乘，因此意義有所不同。』為什麼這麼說呢？《解深密經》保留了二滅（指聲聞和緣覺的涅槃），說斷定成佛可能性的二乘人不會坐在菩提道場。經中的偈頌說：『所以在其中建立一乘，並非有情眾生的根性沒有差別。』這是保留三種性質而歸於一。《法華經》等經典則說：『聲聞（sravaka，聽聞佛法之聲而悟道的修行者）或菩薩（bodhisattva，立志普度眾生的修行者），聽到我所說的法，乃至僅僅一句偈頌，都無疑能夠成佛。』『唯有這一件事是真實的，其餘二乘都不是真實的。』捨棄羊車、鹿車而滅除化城（比喻二乘涅槃），破除二滅而回歸寶所（比喻佛果）。所以意義有所不同。 這種說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？各種經典所說的一乘，其名稱和意義並沒有不同。《法華經》和《解深密經》只是略微地舉例說明了它們的相同之處。而且，《法華經》的一乘與《解深密經》等經典是一致的。《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）既然引用了《法華經》法會中舍利弗（Sariputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）被授記的情節，放在十義之中，怎麼能說《法華經》之前所說的一乘是不同的呢？《攝大乘論》只是解釋了《法華經》之前的一乘，並沒有解釋《法華經》，既然解釋的是相同的內容，就明顯知道它們沒有區別。而且，斷定成佛可能性的人，也有經典說他們可以成佛。《楞伽經》（Lankavatara Sutra）中，大慧（Mahamati，菩薩名）問佛，佛回答說：『過去發過菩提愿的人，並非斷定不能成佛。』《法華經》和相關論著中說，斷定成佛可能性的人，是因為他們的根基尚未成熟，所以菩薩才給他們授記，讓他們發菩提心。經文的語言既是總括性的，又說了過去的事情。既然說了破除二滅，一乘才得以彰顯，就必須斷定地說二乘人都能成佛，為什麼要排除斷定成佛可能性的人呢？而且，第三個比喻（指《法華經》中的三車比喻），是爲了一心一意求取大乘的人而說的，讓他們知道離開大乘就沒有其他的二乘，讓他們知道種種乘的差異，所以才說了雨的譬喻。因此，《法華經》與《解深密經》是相同的。
【English Translation】 English version: To reveal its profound and subtle interest, so as to accord with the grand path of the Dharma, I will briefly describe three chapters to enlighten those who are not yet awakened. Although the writing is not ornate, the principles within are indeed worth contemplating. I hope that all of you with profound discerning abilities can carefully examine its essence.
Chapter One: Uprooting Attachment to the Real
Breaking the Fixed Cause
Some say: 'Within the sutras and treatises, there are times when the names are the same but the meanings are different. For example, the ekayana (one vehicle, the only Buddha vehicle) spoken of in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Explanation of the Profound Secrets Sutra) and other scriptures, and the ekayana spoken of in the Lotus Sutra and other scriptures, although both are called ekayana, the Samdhinirmocana Sutra retains the three natures and returns to one, while the Lotus Sutra breaks the two vehicles and reveals the one, so the meanings are different.' Why is this so? The Samdhinirmocana Sutra retains the two extinctions (referring to the Nirvana of Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas), saying that those of the fixed nature of the two vehicles will not sit in the Bodhi-mandala (enlightenment place). The verse in the sutra says: 'Therefore, within it, the one vehicle is established, not that the nature of sentient beings is without difference.' This is retaining the three natures and returning to one. The Lotus Sutra and other scriptures say: 'Sravakas (listeners who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) or Bodhisattvas (beings who aspire to liberate all beings), who hear the Dharma I speak, even just one verse, will undoubtedly become Buddhas.' 'Only this one thing is real, the other two are not true.' Abandoning the goat cart and deer cart and extinguishing the phantom city (metaphor for the Nirvana of the two vehicles), breaking the two extinctions and returning to the treasure land (metaphor for Buddhahood). Therefore, the meanings are different. This statement is unreasonable. Why? The ekayana spoken of in various scriptures, its name and meaning are not different. The Lotus Sutra and the Samdhinirmocana Sutra only briefly exemplify their similarities. Moreover, the ekayana of the Lotus Sutra is consistent with the Samdhinirmocana Sutra and other scriptures. Since the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of Mahayana) quotes the episode of Sariputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) being prophesied in the Lotus Sutra assembly, placing it among the ten meanings, how can it be said that the ekayana spoken of before the Lotus Sutra is different? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha only explains the ekayana before the Lotus Sutra, and does not explain the Lotus Sutra. Since it explains the same content, it is clear that they are not different. Moreover, there are scriptures that say that those of the fixed nature can become Buddhas. In the Lankavatara Sutra (Descent into Lanka Sutra), Mahamati (name of a Bodhisattva) asked the Buddha, and the Buddha replied: 'Those who made the Bodhi vow in the past are not necessarily unable to become Buddhas.' The Lotus Sutra and related treatises say that those of the fixed nature are because their roots are not yet mature, so the Bodhisattva gives them a prophecy to make them generate the Bodhi mind. The language of the scriptures is both comprehensive and speaks of past events. Since it is said that by breaking the two extinctions, the ekayana is revealed, it must be definitively said that the two vehicles can all become Buddhas, why exclude those of the fixed nature? Moreover, the third parable (referring to the three carts parable in the Lotus Sutra) is spoken for those who wholeheartedly seek the Mahayana, to let them know that apart from the Mahayana there are no other two vehicles, to let them know the differences of the various vehicles, so the parable of the rain is spoken. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra is the same as the Samdhinirmocana Sutra.
趣寂種性不坐道場。法華唯為退菩提心及變化聲聞。三週說一乘。所授聲聞皆唯此二。經論共同。總無趣寂。在文具顯。故同深密不定種姓能趣正覺。法華經云。欲示眾生佛之知見。論釋同義云。同者三乘法身平等。三乘法身平等者。佛性法身無差別故。此同深密依三無性勝義無性等。亦是梁論依法如平等故說一乘。法華經中。四大聲聞自說譬喻。初為除糞客作賤人。中間付財自無悕取。後集眾告方生領悟。此同深密第三時教。又同諸論所攝一類法無我等。梁唐攝論文皆具顯。云彼不釋法華一乘。故同異言但妄分別。又云。或有名異而體同。涅槃佛性體即真如。佛性論中名為應得。既許理性遍有情。不信應得定作佛者。此亦非理。雖有應得因緣。然許大悲菩薩並有加行因。盡眾生界故常不作佛。何廢有情雖有應得因。無加行因故常不作佛。若云我許作者。即是違經。加行有無下。顯正中自當廣辨。有義云。因有緣正。果有近遠。緣即相應善等。正謂八識。如來藏性。八識齊成。真如遍有。縱闕緣因。修之當有。不信正因。豈不迷乎。彼執不然。且以真如為正因者。為望生果名為正。為據迷悟依為正。若能生果名為正因。遍違經論常非生因。菩薩地經第四。瑜伽論三十八。地持第三十。因四緣無。說常法。常法為因緣者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 趣寂種性（趣向于寂滅的根性）不會在菩提道場成佛。而《法華經》只是爲了那些退失菩提心以及權宜示現的聲聞（聽聞佛法之聲而悟道的修行者）而說。其中三週說法，宣講一乘（唯一成佛之道）。所教化的聲聞也只是這兩種。《經》和《論》的共同之處在於，總的來說沒有趣向寂滅的說法。在經文里都清楚地顯示，所以和《深密經》一樣，不定種性也能趣向正覺。《法華經》說：『想要向眾生開示佛的知見。』論的解釋也表達了相同的含義，說：『相同之處在於三乘的法身是平等的。』三乘法身平等，是因為佛性法身沒有差別。這裡所說的『同』，和《深密經》所依據的三無性（相無自性、生無自性、勝義無自性），特別是勝義無自性等同。也和梁朝的論典一樣，因為依法如是平等，所以說一乘。《法華經》中，四大聲聞自己講述譬喻，最初是為他人清除糞便的傭工，中間被託付財產但自己沒有貪求，最後聚集眾人告知才開始領悟。這和《深密經》第三時教相同。又和各種論典所攝受的一類法無我等相同。梁朝和唐朝的攝論文都清楚地顯示了這些。說他們不解釋《法華經》的一乘，所以說相同或不同只是虛妄的分別。又說：『或者名稱不同而本體相同。』涅槃佛性的本體就是真如。在《佛性論》中，真如被稱為應得。既然承認理性遍佈一切有情眾生，卻不相信應得就能決定成佛，這也是沒有道理的。雖然有應得的因緣，但承認大悲菩薩也有加行因，爲了度盡眾生界所以常常不成佛。那麼，為什麼有情眾生雖然有應得的因，卻沒有加行因，所以常常不成佛呢？如果說我承認他們會成佛，那就是違背了經文。加行有無等問題，在下面的正中會詳細辨析。有一種觀點認為，因有緣和正因，果有近和遠。緣就是相應的善等，正因就是八識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識、末那識、阿賴耶識），如來藏性（一切眾生皆有的成佛的可能性）。八識同時成就，真如遍佈一切。即使缺少緣因，修習之後也會有。不相信正因，豈不是迷惑嗎？他們認為不是這樣。暫且以真如作為正因來說，是爲了希望產生結果而稱為正因，還是根據迷悟的依據而稱為正因？如果說能產生結果才稱為正因，那就普遍違背了經論，因為真如常常不是生因。《菩薩地經》第四，《瑜伽師地論》第三十八，《地持經》第三十，因為四緣無，所以說常法。常法作為因緣。
【English Translation】 English version Those of the 'qu ji' lineage (those inclined towards quiescence) do not sit at the Bodhi-mandala (enlightenment seat). The Lotus Sutra is only for those who have regressed from Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment) and the transformed shravakas (those who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings). It speaks of the One Vehicle (Ekayana, the single path to Buddhahood) in three rounds of teachings. The shravakas it instructs are only these two types. This is common to both sutras and shastras (treatises). There is no mention of those inclined towards quiescence in general. This is clearly shown in the texts. Therefore, like the Sandhinirmocana Sutra (Explication of Underlying Meaning Sutra), those of uncertain lineage can also attain perfect enlightenment. The Lotus Sutra says: 'Wishing to show all beings the Buddha's knowledge and vision.' The commentaries express the same meaning, saying: 'The similarity lies in the equality of the Dharmakaya (Dharma body) of the Three Vehicles.' The equality of the Dharmakaya of the Three Vehicles is because the Buddha-nature Dharmakaya is without difference. This 'similarity' is the same as the Three Non-Natures (lakshana-nihsvabhavata, utpada-nihsvabhavata, agra-paramartha-nihsvabhavata) in the Sandhinirmocana Sutra, especially the Ultimate Non-Nature. It is also like the Liang Dynasty treatises, because the Dharma is equally such, it speaks of the One Vehicle. In the Lotus Sutra, the four great shravakas themselves tell parables, initially working as cleaners of excrement, then being entrusted with wealth but without any desire for it themselves, and finally gathering the assembly to announce their awakening. This is the same as the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma in the Sandhinirmocana Sutra. It is also the same as the category of Dharma-non-self (dharma-nairatmya) included in various treatises. The Liang and Tang Dynasty She Lun (Mahayana-samgraha) treatises all clearly show this. Saying that they do not explain the One Vehicle of the Lotus Sutra is therefore just a false distinction between sameness and difference. It is also said: 'Or the names are different but the substance is the same.' The substance of Nirvana Buddha-nature is precisely tathata (suchness). In the Buddha-nature Treatise, tathata is called 'attainable'. Since it is admitted that reason pervades all sentient beings, it is unreasonable not to believe that 'attainable' will definitely lead to Buddhahood. Although there are the causes and conditions for 'attainable', it is admitted that the Bodhisattvas of great compassion also have the cause of additional practice, and therefore constantly do not become Buddhas in order to exhaust the realms of sentient beings. Then, why is it that sentient beings, although they have the cause of 'attainable', do not have the cause of additional practice, and therefore constantly do not become Buddhas? If you say that I admit that they will become Buddhas, then that is contrary to the sutras. The presence or absence of additional practice will be extensively discussed in the following section on the correct middle way. One view is that the cause has conditions and the correct cause, and the result has near and far. The conditions are corresponding goodness, etc., and the correct cause is the eight consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness, manas-consciousness, alaya-consciousness), the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha-womb, the potential for Buddhahood inherent in all beings). The eight consciousnesses are simultaneously accomplished, and tathata pervades everything. Even if the conditions and causes are lacking, they will be present after cultivation. How can one not be confused if one does not believe in the correct cause? They think it is not so. Let us temporarily take tathata as the correct cause, is it called the correct cause because it is hoped to produce a result, or is it called the correct cause based on the basis of delusion and enlightenment? If it is said that it is called the correct cause only if it can produce a result, then that is universally contrary to the sutras and shastras, because tathata is often not a cause of production. The fourth chapter of the Bodhisattvabhumi Sutra, the thirty-eighth chapter of the Yogacarabhumi-sastra, and the thirtieth chapter of the Bodhisattvabhumi Sutra say that the constant Dharma is due to the absence of the four conditions. The constant Dharma is the cause and condition.
。瑜伽攝論種子之義亦悉相返。若云彼並緣因。非親生果者。違諸經論。便成大過。又豈不許報佛之身具五蘊耶。若具五蘊。因尚非蘊攝。寧為蘊因。又佛性論不許真實能生有。故八識雖為正因。非據無始現行識說。楞伽經云。具足無漏薰習法。故名不空如來藏。若取無始現行之識為佛正因。即佛正因無漏恒現行。何得有凡夫。若云是有漏者。即何得為正因。即違攝大乘說毒為甘露。又心心所法豈非報佛正因。若非報佛正因。違莊嚴論及攝論等四智心品名為報身。許為報佛。云相應善等為緣因者。何太猛耶。若以真如為法身正因者。不過二。所謂生了。真如望法身。非生了因攝。如何名正因。只可得許因果位殊。因名如來藏。果位名法身。如不生如。復不自顯。既非生了。不知何理能為正因。體於二位不改易故。故分因果緣正妄施。三身正因下。顯正中廣為分別。有義久修菩薩行者。成堪任持。住自乘性必得作佛。未至此位。云不作佛。有迷不任菩薩自乘種性。最初發心非堪任持。云無種性。便謂畢竟是無種性不得作佛。彼亦非理。所以者何。菩薩地經云。因初發心決定必得阿耨菩提。地持云。云何名持。菩薩自種性。初發心。及一切菩提分法。是名為持。何以故。菩薩依種性必定堪任阿耨菩提。是故種性名必定持。
乃至云。是故初發心名菩薩行方便持。菩薩依行方便滿足阿耨菩提。既云是故初發心名菩薩行方便持。依行方便滿足菩提。何得說言由其久習方名為持方名有性。又菩薩地經云。若無菩薩性者。雖復發心勤修精進。終不能得阿耨菩提。是故當知。非因發心勤修精進有菩薩性。若久修習至堪任持名有種性。云何經言非因發心有菩薩性。又地持論云。非種性人無種性故。雖復發心勤修精進。必不究竟阿耨菩提。是故當知。雖不發心不修行方便。猶得名為種性持。既云雖不發心名種性持。何煩妄分初后。有云。見小乘五性之文。即謂三乘法爾差別。或無涅槃因。畢竟無性。謂阿顛帝迦無法爾種。不知畢竟無性。無發心因。后時還有五乘差別。所有種性皆新薰起。聲聞地文非為定證。此說全非。何以故。瑜伽彌勒菩薩所造。說非定證。勝鬘善戒釋迦世尊所宣。將為小教。如斯兇悖。誰敢與言。然云畢竟無性無發心因。后時還有。今問彼言。后發心因為從種起。為無因生。若本無因心自然起。非釋迦子。故四卷楞伽第一云。大慧若復說無種。有三種識。三緣合生者。龜應生毛。沙應出油。汝宗則壞。違決定義。又若不許五乘無始法爾性別。但同一如。盡當成佛。五性新熏非本有者。云何世尊令彼熏五性。不唯說大乘令同熏佛種。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 乃至（經文）說：『因此，最初發菩提心名為菩薩行方便之所持。菩薩依靠行方便而滿足阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。』既然說『因此，最初發菩提心名為菩薩行方便之所持，依靠行方便滿足菩提』，為何又說因為長期修習才能稱為『持』，才能稱為『有自性』？ 又《菩薩地經》說：『如果沒有菩薩自性的人，即使發菩提心並勤奮修行精進，最終也不能證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』因此應當知道，並非因為發菩提心並勤奮修行精進才具有菩薩自性。如果說長期修習到能夠堪任持戒才稱為具有種性，那麼經文怎麼說並非因為發菩提心才具有菩薩自性呢？ 又《地持論》說：『非種性的人因為沒有種性，即使發菩提心並勤奮修行精進，也必定不能究竟證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』因此應當知道，即使不發菩提心，不修行方便，仍然可以稱為種性之所持。既然說即使不發菩提心也名為種性之所持，何必徒勞地分別先後呢？ 有人說，見到小乘五性（five natures of Śrāvakayāna）的經文，就認為三乘（three vehicles）的法爾（dharma-dhātu，法界）存在差別，或者認為沒有涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）之因，畢竟沒有自性，認為阿顛帝迦（atyantika，斷善根者）沒有法爾的種性。卻不知道畢竟沒有自性，就沒有發菩提心的因，以後還會有五乘的差別，所有的種性都是新熏習而產生的。聲聞地（Śrāvakabhūmi，聲聞地）的經文不能作為確定的證據。這種說法完全不對。為什麼呢？瑜伽（Yoga，瑜伽行派）是彌勒菩薩（Maitreya Bodhisattva）所造，卻說不能作為確定的證據；《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）和《善戒經》（Vinaya-viniscaya-upali-pariprccha）是釋迦世尊（Śākyamuni Buddha）所宣說，卻將其看作小教。如此兇惡悖逆，誰敢與他辯論？ 然而說畢竟沒有自性就沒有發菩提心的因，以後還會有。現在問他，以後發菩提心的因是從種性產生的，還是無因而生？如果本來沒有因，心自然產生，那就不是釋迦牟尼佛的弟子。所以四卷《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）第一卷說：『大慧（Mahamati），如果說沒有種性，有三種識（three consciousnesses），三種緣（three conditions）和合而生，那麼烏龜應該長毛，沙子應該出油，你的宗義就壞了，違背了決定義。』 又如果不同意五乘無始法爾的差別，而認為都是同一如來藏（tathāgatagarbha，如來藏），最終都應當成佛。五性是新熏習而產生的，不是本來就有的，那麼世尊為什麼讓他們熏習五性，而不只是說大乘（Mahāyāna）讓他們共同熏習佛種呢？
【English Translation】 English version It even says, 'Therefore, the initial arising of the Bodhi mind is called the Bodhisattva's practice of skillful means. Bodhisattvas rely on the practice of skillful means to fulfill Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment).' Since it says, 'Therefore, the initial arising of the Bodhi mind is called the Bodhisattva's practice of skillful means, relying on the practice of skillful means to fulfill Bodhi,' why then say that only through long practice can it be called 'holding' and 'having nature'? Moreover, the Bodhisattva-bhumi (Bodhisattva Stages Sutra) says, 'If one does not have the Bodhisattva nature, even if they arouse the Bodhi mind and diligently cultivate with vigor, they will ultimately not attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.' Therefore, it should be known that having the Bodhisattva nature is not due to arousing the Bodhi mind and diligently cultivating with vigor. If it is said that only through long practice to the point of being able to uphold the precepts is one called having the lineage, then how can the sutra say that having the Bodhisattva nature is not due to arousing the Bodhi mind? Furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) says, 'A person without the lineage, because they do not have the lineage, even if they arouse the Bodhi mind and diligently cultivate with vigor, will certainly not ultimately attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.' Therefore, it should be known that even if one does not arouse the Bodhi mind and does not practice skillful means, they can still be called holding the lineage. Since it says that even without arousing the Bodhi mind, one is called holding the lineage, why bother to distinguish between earlier and later? Some say that upon seeing the texts on the five natures of the Śrāvakayāna (five natures of Śrāvakayāna), they immediately assume that the dharma-dhātu (dharma-dhātu, the realm of reality) of the three vehicles (three vehicles) is inherently different, or that there is no cause for nirvana (nirvana, cessation), and that they ultimately have no nature, considering the atyantika (atyantika, one who has severed their roots of goodness) to have no inherent lineage. They do not know that ultimately having no nature means having no cause for arousing the Bodhi mind, and that later there will still be the difference of the five vehicles, with all lineages newly acquired through cultivation. The text of the Śrāvakabhūmi (Śrāvakabhūmi, Hearer's Stage) cannot be taken as definitive proof. This statement is completely wrong. Why? The Yoga (Yoga, Yogacara school) was created by Maitreya Bodhisattva (Maitreya Bodhisattva), yet they say it cannot be taken as definitive proof; the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra) and the Vinaya-viniscaya-upali-pariprccha (Vinaya-viniscaya-upali-pariprccha) were proclaimed by Śākyamuni Buddha (Śākyamuni Buddha), yet they regard them as lesser teachings. Such wickedness and perversity, who would dare to argue with them? However, they say that ultimately having no nature means having no cause for arousing the Bodhi mind, and that later there will still be. Now I ask them, does the cause for arousing the Bodhi mind later arise from the lineage, or does it arise without a cause? If there is originally no cause and the mind arises naturally, then that is not a disciple of Śākyamuni Buddha. Therefore, the first chapter of the four-volume Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra) says, 'Mahamati (Mahamati), if you say that there is no lineage, and that the three consciousnesses (three consciousnesses) arise from the combination of three conditions (three conditions), then turtles should grow hair, and sand should produce oil, and your doctrine would be ruined, contradicting the definitive meaning.' Furthermore, if you do not agree with the beginningless inherent difference of the five vehicles, but believe that they are all the same tathāgatagarbha (tathāgatagarbha, Buddha-nature), then ultimately all should become Buddhas. If the five natures are newly acquired through cultivation and are not originally present, then why did the World-Honored One have them cultivate the five natures, and not just say that the Mahāyāna (Mahāyāna) should have them jointly cultivate the Buddha-nature?
維摩經云。彼自無瘡。勿傷之等。調御大師豈不知有正應得因故。以小乘而傷之也。若云由根性異者。即五性本有。豈唯新熏。又菩薩地經云。非因發心勤修精進。有菩薩性。故知五性皆悉本有。從本有種數數起現熏成種子名為習性。又善戒經等解定異因云。有聲聞性。以聲聞乘而般涅槃等。故知性別不由新熏。若由新熏方始有者。即應云先無聲聞性。令起聲聞乘性而依聲聞乘等。既不作是說。明非新生亦非小教。故唯新起理教相違。然大集等說熏有者。據習種說。非性種姓。若言性種姓者。是真如理。非行性者。下當顯示。略遣四迷。余可例準。
破定教時二
有義。深密前明。涅槃后說。三七日後四諦法輪。別立教時。四十年後最大法輪。因何不許更立教時。又大乘異小乘。后說大乘立教時。一乘異三乘。后說一乘。因何不許別立教時。故依深密。立初三。法華一乘為第四。涅槃佛性為第五時。此亦不然。有多過失。且轉四諦。后立教時。是佛世尊之所說。一乘第四佛性第五。經中不判是誰說。若以義別立教五時。經經說義皆有意別。只如無量壽經。勸往西方隨愿往生。即隨何凈剎。彌勒上生令生知足。或觀虛空藏。或復觀普賢等。即應教時有多。非三五時。即涅槃經或於一時在恒河岸等。既非定時
。故不可取。故說五時。非是佛教。又如法華第二信解品中。廣立三時。初云。我等居僧之首。自謂已得涅槃。初時教。又云。世尊往昔說法既久。我時在座。但念空無相。于菩薩法心無喜樂。此第二時。深自慶幸獲大善利。法王大寶不求自得。此第三時。偈頌之中三時更顯。推同深密。如何違教別立五時。故為大過。又云。無量義經為小乘中乘大乘時別。此開出中乘。合大為一。此亦非理。所以者何。是無量義經初云。自從如來得道已來四十餘年。常為眾生演說諸法。乃至不出不沒。若有聞者。或得暖頂忍世第一法四果辟支佛。發菩提心登於十地。不分三乘。又云。我起樹王詣波羅奈鹿野園中。為阿若拘鄰等五人轉四諦。亦說諸法。乃至唸唸生滅。中間於此及以處處。為諸比丘並眾菩薩。說十二緣六波羅蜜。乃至云。今復於此演說大乘無量義經。乃至唸唸生滅。不雲中間。唯為辟支佛。亦云為並眾菩薩故。后不說云。今復於此唯為菩薩。又云。善男子初說四諦。為求聲聞人。而八億諸天來下聽法發菩提心。中於處處演說甚深十二因緣為求辟支佛人。而無量眾生髮菩提心。或住聲聞。次說方等十二部經摩訶般若華嚴海空。演說菩薩歷劫修行。而百千比丘萬億人天無量眾生得須陀洹果。乃至得阿羅漢。住辟支佛因緣法中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，這種說法是不可取的。所以說五時教判，並非佛教的本意。又如《法華經·信解品》中，廣泛地設立了三時教判。最初說：『我等居於僧團之首，自認為已經證得涅槃。』這是初時教。又說：『世尊往昔說法很久，我當時在座，但心中只念空無相，對於菩薩法沒有喜樂。』這是第二時。深深地慶幸自己獲得了巨大的善利，法王的大寶不求自得。這是第三時。偈頌之中，三時教判更加明顯。推究起來，這與《深密經》相同。如何違背佛經的教義，另外設立五時教判呢？這是很大的過失。又說，《無量義經》是為小乘、中乘、大乘分別設立的。這開出了中乘，將大乘合為一體，這也是不合道理的。為什麼呢？因為《無量義經》一開始就說：『自從如來得道以來四十餘年，常為眾生演說諸法，乃至不出不沒。』如果有聽聞者，或者得到暖、頂、忍、世第一法，四果阿羅漢，辟支佛，發菩提心，登上十地，不分三乘。又說：『我從菩提樹下起身，前往波羅奈城的鹿野苑中，為阿若拘鄰等五人轉四諦法輪，也說了諸法，乃至唸唸生滅。』中間於此以及各處，為諸比丘和眾菩薩，說了十二因緣、六波羅蜜，乃至說：『現在又在這裡演說大乘《無量義經》，乃至唸唸生滅。』沒有說中間只是為辟支佛，也說是為眾菩薩的緣故。後面沒有說：『現在又在這裡只為菩薩。』又說：『善男子，最初說四諦，是爲了求聲聞果的人，而八億諸天來到人間聽法，發菩提心。中間在各處演說甚深的十二因緣，是爲了求辟支佛果的人，而無量眾生髮菩提心，或者安住于聲聞果。其次說方等十二部經、摩訶般若、華嚴、海空，演說菩薩歷劫修行，而百千比丘、萬億人天、無量眾生得到須陀洹果，乃至得到阿羅漢果，安住于辟支佛的因緣法中。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, this view is unacceptable. Hence, the assertion of the Five Periods (五時, Wǔ Shí - Five Periods of Buddha's Teachings) is not in accordance with the Buddha's teachings. Furthermore, as in the 'Faith and Understanding' chapter of the Lotus Sutra (法華經, Fǎ Huá Jīng), the Three Periods (三時, Sān Shí - Three Periods of Buddha's Teachings) are extensively established. Initially, it states: 'We dwell at the head of the Sangha (僧, Sēng - monastic community), considering ourselves to have attained Nirvana (涅槃, Niè Pán - liberation).' This is the initial period of teaching. It also states: 'The World-Honored One (世尊, Shì Zūn - Buddha) preached for a long time in the past, and we were present, but we only contemplated emptiness and signlessness, without joy in the Bodhisattva (菩薩, Pú Sà - enlightened being) Dharma.' This is the second period. They deeply rejoice in having obtained great benefit, the great treasure of the Dharma King (法王, Fǎ Wáng - Buddha) obtained without seeking. This is the third period. In the verses, the Three Periods are even more evident. Upon investigation, it aligns with the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (深密經, Shēn Mì Jīng). How can one contradict the teachings and separately establish the Five Periods? This is a great fault. Furthermore, it is said that the Infinite Meaning Sutra (無量義經, Wú Liàng Yì Jīng) is separately established for the Śrāvakayāna (小乘, Xiǎo Chéng - Hearer Vehicle), Pratyekabuddhayāna (中乘, Zhōng Chéng - Solitary Realizer Vehicle), and Mahāyāna (大乘, Dà Chéng - Great Vehicle). This introduces the Middle Vehicle and combines the Great Vehicle into one, which is also unreasonable. Why? Because the Infinite Meaning Sutra begins by saying: 'Since the Tathāgata (如來, Rú Lái - Thus Come One) attained enlightenment more than forty years ago, he has constantly expounded the Dharma (法, Fǎ - teachings) to sentient beings, even to the point of neither arising nor ceasing.' If there are those who hear it, they may attain the stages of warmth, peak, forbearance, and the highest mundane Dharma, the four fruits of Arhatship (四果, Sì Guǒ - Four Fruits of Stream-Enterer, Once-Returner, Non-Returner, and Arhat), Pratyekabuddhahood (辟支佛, Pì Zhī Fó - Solitary Buddha), generate the Bodhi mind (菩提心, Pú Tí Xīn - mind of enlightenment), and ascend the ten Bhūmis (十地, Shí Dì - Ten Stages of a Bodhisattva), without distinguishing the Three Vehicles. It also says: 'I arose from the Bodhi tree (菩提樹, Pú Tí Shù - tree of enlightenment) and went to the Deer Park (鹿野苑, Lù Yě Yuàn - Sarnath) in Varanasi (波羅奈, Bō Luó Nài), where I turned the Wheel of Dharma (法輪, Fǎ Lún - Dharma Wheel) of the Four Noble Truths (四諦, Sì Dì - Four Noble Truths) for Ajñātakauṇḍinya (阿若拘鄰, Ā Ruò Jū Lín) and the other five, and also spoke of the Dharmas, even to the point of moment-to-moment arising and ceasing.' In between, here and in various places, for the Bhikṣus (比丘, Bǐ Qiū - monks) and Bodhisattvas, I spoke of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (十二因緣, Shí Èr Yīn Yuán - Twelve Links of Dependent Origination), the Six Pāramitās (六波羅蜜, Liù Bō Luó Mì - Six Perfections), and so on, even saying: 'Now, again, here I expound the Mahāyāna Infinite Meaning Sutra, even to the point of moment-to-moment arising and ceasing.' It does not say that in between it was only for Pratyekabuddhas, but also says it was for the sake of the Bodhisattvas. Later, it does not say: 'Now, again, here only for Bodhisattvas.' It also says: 'Good men, initially, the Four Noble Truths were spoken for those seeking the Śrāvaka fruit (聲聞, Shēng Wén - Hearer), and eight hundred million devas (諸天, Zhū Tiān - gods) came down to listen to the Dharma and generate the Bodhi mind. In between, in various places, the profound Twelve Links of Dependent Origination were expounded for those seeking the Pratyekabuddha fruit, and countless sentient beings generated the Bodhi mind, or abided in the Śrāvaka fruit. Next, the Vaipulya Sutras (方等, Fāng Děng - Vaipulya Sutras), the twelve divisions of scriptures, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā (摩訶般若, Mó Hē Bō Rě - Great Wisdom Perfection), the Avataṃsaka (華嚴, Huá Yán - Flower Garland), the Sea of Emptiness, expounded the Bodhisattva's cultivation through kalpas (劫, Jié - eons), and hundreds of thousands of Bhikṣus, billions of humans and devas, and countless sentient beings attained the fruit of Stream-Enterer (須陀洹果, Xū Tuó Huán Guǒ - Srotapanna), and even attained the fruit of Arhat, abiding in the Dharma of conditions of the Pratyekabuddha.
。演說十二因緣。云爲辟支。但有發菩提心或住聲聞。無發緣覺心及證緣覺果。次說方等。乃得聲聞果。及住辟支佛因緣法中。不云爲菩薩。判云。無量義經為小乘中乘大乘時別。開出中乘。合大乘為一。以此為三時。從何準定。若云既說大教。何非大乘。若爾深密亦說大教。何云三乘。又縱為三。終無說五。亦不限定年月前後。又云。今就乘性說五時者。謂小乘大乘三乘一乘一性。此五時教后兼前義。前無兼后。然法華經立在深密后。涅槃更在法華后。說深密既在於前。如何預斷後教故。以淺深次第定為五時。第四第五時非深密教第三時攝。此亦不然。三七日後。方趣鹿園。說四諦教。始度五人。第二七日。即說十地。不起道樹。授提謂記。當得作佛。號曰齊成。如何定判最先說小。又復一乘即是大乘。勝鬘經云。聲聞緣覺乘皆入大乘。大乘者即是佛乘。是故三乘即是一乘。得一乘者得阿耨菩提。于第二時。判說大乘。一乘即大收合。在第二時。如何為第四。若云深密是說三乘時者。為通三乘藏攝名三乘教。為說有乘三名三乘教時。若許深密通三乘攝。違于正理。今古共許是大乘藏。若云說有三乘名三乘時。法華亦爾。前後俱云。為求聲聞等。若云不同。如前已非。故不可說法華一乘為第四時。涅槃亦云。於此經中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 演說十二因緣（Pratītyasamutpāda，指事物之間相互依存的鏈條）。說這是為辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，又稱獨覺佛，不依師教自己覺悟的修行者）而說的。但其中有發菩提心（Bodhi-citta，追求覺悟的心）或者安住于聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的弟子）果位的，沒有發起緣覺心以及證得緣覺果位的。接下來講說方等（Vaipulya，廣大的經典），才得到聲聞果，以及安住于辟支佛的因緣法中。沒有說是為菩薩（Bodhisattva，立志成佛的修行者）而說的。判定說，《無量義經》（Amitārtha-sūtra）是小乘（Hīnayāna，較早期的佛教流派，注重個人解脫）、中乘、大乘（Mahāyāna，後期的佛教流派，注重普度眾生）的時節差別。開出中乘，合併大乘為一。用這個作為三時判教的依據，是從哪裡確定的？如果說既然說了大教，為什麼不是大乘？如果這樣說，《深密解脫經》（Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra）也說了大教，為什麼說是三乘？又即使是三乘，始終沒有說五乘。也沒有限定年月前後。又說，現在就乘性來說五時，是指小乘、大乘、三乘、一乘、一性。這五時教義是後面的兼顧前面的，前面沒有兼顧後面的。然而《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）立在《深密解脫經》之後，《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）更在《法華經》之後。說《深密解脫經》既然在前，如何預先判斷後面的教義呢？用淺深次第來確定為五時，第四第五時不是《深密解脫經》第三時所包含的，這也是不對的。佛陀成道后三七日，才前往鹿野苑（Sārnāth），宣說四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，佛教的基本教義），開始度化五人。第二個七日，就說了十地（Daśa-bhūmi，菩薩修行的十個階段），沒有離開菩提樹（Bodhi tree），就授記提謂（Trapusa）將來成佛，佛號為齊成。如何確定判決最先說的是小乘？又一乘就是大乘。《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）說，聲聞緣覺乘都進入大乘。大乘就是佛乘。所以三乘就是一乘。得到一乘的就得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi，無上正等正覺）。在第二時，判定說的是大乘，一乘就是大乘的收合，在第二時，怎麼會是第四時呢？如果說《深密解脫經》是說三乘時，是因為通於三乘藏而稱為三乘教，還是因為說有三乘之名而稱為三乘教時？如果允許《深密解脫經》通於三乘，就違背了正理。現在和古代都公認它是大乘藏。如果說因為說有三乘之名而稱為三乘時，《法華經》也是這樣，前後都說爲了求聲聞等。如果說不同，就像前面已經說過的，是不對的。所以不可以說法華一乘為第四時。《涅槃經》也說，在這部經中
【English Translation】 English version Expounding on the Twelve Nidānas (Pratītyasamutpāda, the chain of interdependent origination). It is said that this is for Pratyekabuddhas (those who attain enlightenment independently, without a teacher). However, within it, there are those who generate Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment) or abide in the fruit of Śrāvakas (disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings), but there is no generation of the Pratyekabuddha mind or attainment of the Pratyekabuddha fruit. Next, the Vaipulya (extensive scriptures) are taught, and only then is the Śrāvaka fruit attained, and one abides in the Dharma of the Pratyekabuddha's conditions. It is not said to be for Bodhisattvas (beings who aspire to Buddhahood). It is judged that the Amitārtha-sūtra (Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings) distinguishes between the times of Hīnayāna (the earlier Buddhist tradition focusing on individual liberation), the Middle Vehicle, and Mahāyāna (the later Buddhist tradition focusing on universal liberation). The Middle Vehicle is extracted, and the Mahāyāna is combined into one. What is the basis for determining this as the Three Periods of Teaching? If it is said that since the Great Teaching is taught, why is it not Mahāyāna? If that is the case, the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (Explanation of the Profound Principles) also teaches the Great Teaching, so why is it said to be the Three Vehicles? Furthermore, even if it is the Three Vehicles, there is ultimately no mention of the Five Vehicles. There is also no limitation on the order of years and months. It is also said, 'Now, in terms of the nature of the Vehicles, the Five Periods refer to the Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna, Three Vehicles, One Vehicle, and One Nature.' The teachings of these Five Periods encompass the preceding ones, but the preceding ones do not encompass the subsequent ones. However, the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra (Lotus Sutra) is established after the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is even later than the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra. Since the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra is said to be earlier, how can it prejudge the later teachings? Determining the Five Periods based on the order of shallowness and depth, the fourth and fifth periods are not included in the third period of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. This is also incorrect. Three weeks after enlightenment, the Buddha went to Sārnāth (Deer Park) to teach the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism) and began to liberate the five people. In the second week, he taught the Ten Bhūmis (Daśa-bhūmi, the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice) without leaving the Bodhi tree, and prophesied that Trapusa would become a Buddha named Qicheng. How can it be determined that the first teaching was Hīnayāna? Furthermore, the One Vehicle is the Mahāyāna. The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (Queen Śrīmālā's Lion's Roar Sutra) says that the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles all enter the Mahāyāna. The Mahāyāna is the Buddha Vehicle. Therefore, the Three Vehicles are the One Vehicle. Those who attain the One Vehicle attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (unexcelled complete enlightenment). In the second period, it is determined that the Mahāyāna is taught, and the One Vehicle is the collection of the Mahāyāna. How can it be the fourth period? If it is said that the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra is the time when the Three Vehicles are taught, is it because it is included in the Three Vehicle Pitaka and is called the Three Vehicle Teaching, or is it because it is said to have the name of the Three Vehicles and is called the time of the Three Vehicle Teaching? If it is allowed that the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra is included in the Three Vehicles, it contradicts the correct principle. Both ancient and modern scholars recognize it as the Mahāyāna Pitaka. If it is said that it is called the time of the Three Vehicles because it is said to have the name of the Three Vehicles, the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra is also like that, both before and after saying that it is for seeking Śrāvakas, etc. If it is said to be different, as mentioned earlier, it is incorrect. Therefore, it cannot be said that the One Vehicle of the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra is the fourth period. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also says, 'In this sutra'
。或說一乘。或說三乘。又復一性即佛性。佛性即真如。勝鬘經。如來藏經。不增不減經。法界體性經。如來智印經。聖善住天子所問經。諸法無行經。文殊師利問法身經等。皆廣明如來藏佛性法身一切生有。如今者云第五時說于佛性。勝鬘經云。末利夫人信法未久。明在於前。如來藏經。準菩提流支云。佛成道后第十年說。佛性論寶性論。皆依此經及解深密無上依經。廣明佛性。不依涅槃明佛性義。如何定判于涅槃時始明一切悉有佛性。將勝鬘經等及佛性論等為第五時。若以涅槃在深密后。不得預斷為第三時者。如何自引云。或有前經密說后義。如智論說。又華嚴及在說四諦前。云何無量義經斷為第三時說。若云據義類說不據前後。深密亦爾。何獨不信。故約前後判為五時。但嬰兒慧。智者不許。又云。法華三時與深密別。此亦不爾。二經明時。義意不別。法華第二云。昔于波羅奈轉四諦法輪。今復轉最妙無上大法輪。且對權實以說二時。隱第二時。信解品偈頌云。佛亦如是。知我樂小。未曾說言汝等作佛。而說我等得諸無漏。成就小乘。聲聞弟子。此聞有教。佛敕我等。說最上道。乃至云。我等若聞凈佛國土教化眾生。都無欣樂。所以者何。一切諸法皆悉空寂。無生無滅。無大無小等。此聞空教。乃至云。我等今
日得未曾有。非先所望。而今自得。如彼窮子得無量寶等。此聞非空有教也。長行之中經文亦具。又云。深密存二滅一。法華破二滅一。以此不同者。如前已破。涅槃經亦爾。如第二明醫師喻中。初總教服乳。喻有教。次教總斷。喻說空教。後有宜不宜服。喻非空有。此對外道執皆有我。為破此有令入人空。且密說人空。義顯為小初說法有。次破法有。密說法空。涅槃會中。方為顯說。除外道執有故說空。除聲聞執空故說有。以明佛性。非妄計我故非有。有常等故非空。合第三時。何名第五。又若涅槃明有佛性。五乘根性皆趣佛果故。第五時者。何故須跋陀羅聞一切眾生皆有佛性。齊得作佛。何不發大心而取羅漢果。故如深密判。屬第三普為發趣一切乘者。為真了義。審細研尋。義更明顯。解此大綱。五門長掩。故不別門。別門對片。又云。教有五時。五門分辨。一次第有殊。二得名有異。三述益不等。四述時不同。五說法有別。言次第殊者。三乘在一乘前。佛性居一乘后。大意同前定前後失。故不重破。言得名異者。第四時教名一乘者。五乘歸佛性故。第五時教名佛性者。五性歸佛性故。此亦不爾。五乘歸一乘故。為第四時。勝鬘亦四果咸歸佛果。深密不定亦趣佛乘。應第四時。法華定性亦不歸一。應第三攝。上引
佛性多經。說同。應第五時名佛性教。何但涅槃。若云爾者。勝鬘如來藏。豈是四十年後耶。前已顯非故。言述益不等者。小乘說緣生之有法。為萬行之初基。故十輪經云。不學小乘者。無由學大乘。此說依有教積集善根。非是先發小心後方學大。此說不爾。據不定性。初令學小。即法華經門外許與三車。鹿苑證於小果。若據頓悟。即初授提謂記。說華嚴等經。咸非小乘。又依大教不得積集善根。可須依小依大。依大得福。過於小乘。何要依小。又法華學大。乃至不受余經一偈。又不得親近小乘三藏學者。既許爲了義。何故舍此而不依耶。又瑜伽等說。先學自乘方學余教。若非不定。無斯小大三一次第。若是頓悟。非先學小。此判據何。十輪經意。非開先為說小令種善根。亦非先同無性後分五性。如前顯非。言說時別者。此乃同許法華經深密前後。許亦無失。然說深密。是說三乘。法華唯存一實。此理未可。深密解脫第二云。我說聲聞緣覺菩薩一清凈道成就第一義。唯一清凈道更無第二。我意依此故說一乘。如何得言說三乘教。若言許不定迴心決定不回。即存二滅。與法華別。此亦不爾。許不定回趣。即破二滅。法華三草一地長殊。決定不記。猶存二滅。若言法華許定性趣大。違論釋經。又復經文所記聲聞。皆不定性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《佛性多經》所說的內容與此相同。應在第五時（指佛陀說法時期的第五個階段）稱為佛性教。難道僅僅是《涅槃經》才這樣說嗎？如果這樣說，《勝鬘經》中的如來藏，難道是佛陀四十年後才說的嗎？前面已經說明並非如此。說『言述益不等』，是指小乘宣說緣起之有法，作為萬行之最初基礎。所以《十輪經》說：『不學習小乘，就沒有辦法學習大乘。』這是說依據有教積集善根，不是先發小心，然後才學習大乘。這裡所說的不是這樣。根據不定性，最初讓人學習小乘，就像《法華經》中在門外答應給予三車，在鹿苑證得小果。如果根據頓悟，就是最初授記給提謂，宣說《華嚴經》等經典，都不是小乘。又依據大教不能積集善根，可能需要依據小乘或大乘。依據大乘得到的福報，超過小乘，為什麼要依據小乘呢？而且《法華經》學習大乘，甚至不接受其他經典的一句偈語。又不得親近小乘三藏學者。既然允許《法華經》是爲了義，為什麼捨棄它而不依據呢？又《瑜伽師地論》等說，先學習自己的乘，然後才學習其他教法。如果不是不定性，就沒有這種小、大、三一的次第。如果是頓悟，就不是先學習小乘。這種判斷依據是什麼呢？《十輪經》的意思，不是先為眾生宣說小乘，令其種下善根，也不是先同無性，然後分為五性。如前面所顯示的並非如此。說『言說時別』，這是共同承認《法華經》、《深密經》的前後關係，承認也沒有什麼損失。然而宣說《深密經》，是說三乘，《法華經》唯存一實。這個道理不可取。《深密解脫經》第二卷說：『我說聲聞、緣覺、菩薩，以一清凈道成就第一義，唯一清凈道，更無第二。』我的意思是依據這個，所以說一乘。怎麼能說是三乘教呢？如果說允許不定性迴心，決定不回，就存在二滅，與《法華經》不同。這也不是這樣。允許不定性回趣，就破除了二滅。《法華經》中三草一地，生長各異，決定不授記，仍然存在二滅。如果說《法華經》允許定性趣向大乘，就違背了論釋經典。而且經文所記載的聲聞，都是不定性。
【English Translation】 English version The Foxing Duo Jing (佛性多經, Sutra on the Nature of Buddha) says the same thing. It should be called the Buddha-nature teaching in the fifth period (referring to the fifth stage of the Buddha's teaching). Is it only the Nirvana Sutra that says this? If so, is the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏, Womb of the Tathagata) in the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (勝鬘經) spoken only after the Buddha's forty years? It has already been shown earlier that this is not the case. Saying 'the words and benefits are not equal' refers to the Hinayana (小乘, Lesser Vehicle) teaching the Pratītyasamutpāda (緣起, Dependent Origination) of existing dharmas as the initial foundation for all practices. Therefore, the Daśacakra Kṣitigarbha Sūtra (十輪經) says: 'Without learning the Hinayana, there is no way to learn the Mahayana (大乘, Greater Vehicle).' This means accumulating roots of goodness based on the teaching of existence, not first generating a small mind and then learning the Mahayana. What is said here is not like this. According to the indeterminate nature, initially, people are made to learn the Hinayana, just like in the Lotus Sutra (法華經), promising to give three carts outside the gate, and attaining small fruits in the Deer Park. If according to sudden enlightenment, it is like initially bestowing the prediction to Tīrthika (提謂), and expounding sutras such as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經), which are not Hinayana. Furthermore, according to the Mahayana teaching, one cannot accumulate roots of goodness; one may need to rely on the Hinayana or Mahayana. The merit obtained by relying on the Mahayana exceeds the Hinayana, so why rely on the Hinayana? Moreover, the Lotus Sutra learns the Mahayana, even not accepting a single verse from other sutras. Also, one should not associate with Hinayana Tripiṭaka (三藏, Three Baskets) scholars. Since the Lotus Sutra is allowed to be for the ultimate meaning, why abandon it and not rely on it? Furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽師地論) and others say that one should first learn one's own vehicle and then learn other teachings. If it were not for the indeterminate nature, there would be no such sequence of small, large, and three-one. If it is sudden enlightenment, one does not learn the Hinayana first. What is the basis for this judgment? The meaning of the Daśacakra Kṣitigarbha Sūtra is not to first expound the Hinayana to sentient beings to plant roots of goodness, nor to first be the same as the non-nature and then divide into five natures. As shown earlier, this is not the case. Saying 'the time of speaking is different' is to jointly acknowledge the relationship between the Lotus Sutra and the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (深密經), and there is no loss in acknowledging it. However, expounding the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra is to speak of the three vehicles, while the Lotus Sutra only preserves one reality. This reasoning is unacceptable. The second volume of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra says: 'I say that Śrāvakas (聲聞, Hearers), Pratyekabuddhas (緣覺, Solitary Realizers), and Bodhisattvas (菩薩, Enlightenment Beings) achieve the ultimate meaning with one pure path, and there is only one pure path, and no second.' My intention is to rely on this, so I say the One Vehicle. How can it be said to be the teaching of the Three Vehicles? If it is said that allowing the indeterminate nature to turn the mind and not turn back means that there are two extinctions, which is different from the Lotus Sutra. This is also not the case. Allowing the indeterminate nature to turn towards it breaks the two extinctions. In the Lotus Sutra, the three grasses and one land grow differently, and no prediction is given to the determined ones, and there are still two extinctions. If it is said that the Lotus Sutra allows the determined nature to turn towards the Mahayana, it violates the commentaries on the sutras. Moreover, the Śrāvakas recorded in the sutras are all of indeterminate nature.
。及以變化。在文具顯。良為此會對。此二類聲聞言無一不成佛。不爾。如何論釋但為利益二人恐損驚怖。不為決定。說兩譬喻。令知乘別。豈天親菩薩不解法華。末世凡夫深得經意。若云深密雖說一乘。許根性別。言唯一者。是密意說。此即會前。不會於后。以後未說。如何先會者。法華亦云已說今說當說。而於其中。此法華經最在其上。云何未說之經此得云在於上。未說許說在上。未說先會許同。此有何失。又佛三明鎮朗四智常明。會當未說之經。何失固執不許。又彼自引。或復前經密說后義。如智度論前密說后。彼既信之。前顯會後。何故不受。又復十義證法華經在深密后。一云。深密說有二滅。法華說無。此謬如前已顯。乃至第十深密許不定性一分成佛。法華全無二滅。此謬準前。言楞伽乃至無性闡提當得涅槃。此亦謬取經意。何者。楞伽無性即當時邊。非畢竟者。以後遇佛等。許得作佛故。若言彼說無性即是全無因者。菩薩起大悲。豈是全無性亦說為無性耶。又云。涅槃經說悉當成佛。此亦不爾。初約闡提說無佛性。此據行性。后說皆有。即約理性。不爾。如何前後二說。又云。須陀洹乃至羅漢皆得作佛。不解我意。又恒河七人云那含果有中生槃等。此涅槃經是顯了說。豈是全無二滅。又云。此佛性教臨涅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以及憑藉神通變化，在文字上顯現。確實是因為這個緣故才會這樣。這兩類聲聞都說沒有一個不能成佛。如果不是這樣，又該如何解釋說只是爲了利益這兩種人，恐怕他們受到損害和驚嚇，而不是爲了確定他們能成佛，才說了兩種譬喻，讓他們知道乘的差別呢？難道天親（Vasubandhu）菩薩不理解《法華經》嗎？末世的凡夫反而深刻地領會了經文的含義？如果說《深密經》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）雖然說的是一乘，但允許根性的差別，說『唯一』是密意之說，這便是會通前面的經文，而不是會通後面的經文。因為後面的經文還沒有說，怎麼能先會通呢？《法華經》也說已經說、現在說、將來要說，而在這些經文中，《法華經》是最殊勝的。怎麼能說還沒說的經文反而能說它最殊勝呢？還沒說的經文允許說它殊勝，還沒說的經文先會通也允許相同，這有什麼過失呢？而且佛具有三明（Trividyā）和四智（Caturvidha-jñāna），光明照耀，會通將來要說的經文，有什麼過失呢？為什麼一定要固執地不允許呢？而且他們自己引用，或者前面的經文秘密地說了後面的含義，就像《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）前面秘密地說了後面的含義一樣。他們既然相信這個，那麼前面的經文顯明地會通後面的經文，為什麼不能接受呢？ 而且還有十個理由可以證明《法華經》在《深密經》之後。第一，說《深密經》說了有二滅（Dvi-nirvāṇa），《法華經》說沒有。這個謬誤如同前面已經顯現的那樣。乃至第十，《深密經》允許不定性（Aniyata-gotra）的一分眾產生佛，《法華經》完全沒有二滅。這個謬誤可以參照前面。說《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）乃至無性闡提（Agotra icchantika）應當得到涅槃（Nirvāṇa），這也是錯誤地理解了經文的含義。為什麼呢？《楞伽經》說的無性只是當時的情況，不是畢竟如此，因為以後遇到佛等，允許他們成佛。如果說他們說無性就是完全沒有成佛的因，那麼菩薩生起大悲心，難道是對完全沒有佛性的人也說他們是無性嗎？而且說《涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra）說所有眾生都應當成佛，這也是不對的。最初是針對闡提說沒有佛性，這是根據行性（Caritra-gotra）來說的；後來又說所有眾生都有佛性，這是根據理性（Prakṛti-gotra）來說的。如果不是這樣，又該如何解釋前後兩種說法呢？而且說須陀洹（Srotaāpanna）乃至阿羅漢（Arhat）都能成佛，這是不理解我的意思。而且恒河七人說阿那含果（Anāgāmin）有中生般等，這部《涅槃經》是顯了地說，難道是完全沒有二滅嗎？而且說這部佛性教（Buddha-dhātu）臨近涅槃
【English Translation】 English version: And by means of transformations, it is manifested in writing. It is indeed for this reason that it is so. These two types of Śrāvakas (hearers) all say that there is not one who cannot become a Buddha. If it were not so, how could one explain that it is only for the benefit of these two types of people, fearing that they would be harmed and frightened, and not to assure them that they can become Buddhas, that two parables were spoken to let them know the difference in vehicles? Does Vasubandhu (天親) Bodhisattva not understand the Lotus Sūtra (法華經)? Are the ordinary people of the degenerate age deeply understanding the meaning of the scriptures? If it is said that although the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (深密經) speaks of the One Vehicle (Ekayāna), it allows for differences in faculties, and that 'the One' is a secret meaning, then this is harmonizing with the previous scriptures, not harmonizing with the later scriptures. Because the later scriptures have not yet spoken, how can one harmonize with them first? The Lotus Sūtra also says that it has already been spoken, is now being spoken, and will be spoken, and among these scriptures, the Lotus Sūtra is the most supreme. How can it be said that a scripture that has not yet been spoken can be said to be the most supreme? Allowing a scripture that has not yet been spoken to be said to be supreme, and allowing a scripture that has not yet been spoken to be harmonized first, what fault is there in this? Moreover, the Buddha possesses the Three Vidyās (Trividyā 三明) and the Four Wisdoms (Caturvidha-jñāna 四智), shining brightly, harmonizing with the scriptures that will be spoken in the future, what fault is there in this? Why must one stubbornly refuse to allow it? Moreover, there are ten reasons to prove that the Lotus Sūtra is after the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. First, it is said that the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra speaks of two Nirvāṇas (Dvi-nirvāṇa 二滅), while the Lotus Sūtra says there are none. This error is as has already been shown previously. Up to the tenth, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra allows a portion of beings with indeterminate nature (Aniyata-gotra 不定性) to become Buddhas, while the Lotus Sūtra completely lacks the two Nirvāṇas. This error can be referred to the previous one. Saying that the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (楞伽經) and even the Agotra icchantika (無性闡提) should attain Nirvāṇa (涅槃), this is also a mistaken understanding of the meaning of the scriptures. Why? The Agotra spoken of in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra is only the situation at that time, not ultimately so, because later, upon encountering Buddhas, etc., they are allowed to become Buddhas. If it is said that they say that Agotra is completely without the cause of becoming a Buddha, then when Bodhisattvas arise with great compassion, are they also saying that those who completely lack Buddha-nature are Agotra? Moreover, saying that the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (涅槃經) says that all beings should become Buddhas, this is also incorrect. Initially, it was said that the icchantikas do not have Buddha-nature, this is according to the Caritra-gotra (行性); later it was said that all beings have Buddha-nature, this is according to the Prakṛti-gotra (理性). If it were not so, how could one explain the two different statements before and after? Moreover, saying that Srotaāpanna (須陀洹) and even Arhats (阿羅漢) can become Buddhas, this is not understanding my meaning. Moreover, the seven people of the Ganges say that Anāgāmin (阿那含果) have intermediate existence and Parinirvāṇa, etc. This Nirvāṇa Sūtra is explicitly speaking, is it completely without the two Nirvāṇas? Moreover, saying that this Buddha-dhātu (佛性教) teaching is near Nirvāṇa
槃說正因遠果。因深果遠。極難信故。所以後說。說涅槃經。因深果遠。難信共成。云難信故最在後者。此判即謬。何者。涅槃經度須跋陀羅。豈是人勝。遺教經云。最後說法度須跋陀羅。所應度者皆已度訖。方說遺教。豈更因深果遠極難信耶。又大衍經涅槃後起。為母說法。豈更難信更顯了耶。又既明佛為報母恩涅槃復起。阿難問名。答云。名母子相見經。宣示後世等。此能詮所詮明報恩事。與前教別。應第六時。此不立時。彼云何爾。舉始括終。余謬可悉。
破定權實三
有義諸經論中亦說不同。必無兩實。定有一權。然就義別。非全虛妄。解深密存二滅而說一乘。有經說闡提畢竟無涅槃法等。斯權教也。法華除二滅而說一乘。涅槃闡提皆有佛性。斯實教也。故諸權實義例有六。一信謗罪福多小異。二所為說人勝劣異。三難解易解淺深異。四佛自會釋有無異。五權實相對前後異。六大小不同半滿異。三乘一乘五性佛性二說相對亦有六相。故知一乘佛性為實。三乘五性是權。彼說不然。六皆有失。初云五性差別起自小乘。唯一佛乘法華等。說悉當成佛分明顯了。唯在涅槃二經之中。廣說信毀罪福校量。二乘實滅一分無性。則無斯說。故知一乘佛性之教顯了復實。三乘五性教為權隱覆者。若論信謗了不了
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於《涅槃經》所說的正因遠果，因為因深果遠，極難令人相信，所以放在後面說。《涅槃經》講述的因深果遠，與難信共同構成其特點。如果說因為難信所以放在最後，這種判斷是錯誤的。為什麼呢？《涅槃經》度化了須跋陀羅（Subhadra，佛陀晚年所度的弟子），難道是人勝嗎？《遺教經》說，最後說法度化了須跋陀羅，所應度化的人都已經度化完畢，才說《遺教經》，難道更是因深果遠，極難令人相信嗎？而且《大衍經》在《涅槃經》之後出現，是為母親說法，難道更是難以置信，更加明顯嗎？又既然說明佛陀爲了報答母親的恩情，涅槃后又復活，阿難（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以記憶力超群著稱）詢問經名，佛陀回答說，名為《母子相見經》，向後世宣示等等。這能詮釋和所詮釋的都是爲了報恩的事情，與之前的教義有所區別，應該屬於第六時。這裡沒有確立時，他們又怎麼說呢？這是舉始括終，其他的錯誤可以全部瞭解。
破斥定權實的三種觀點
有一種觀點認為，諸經論中也有不同的說法，必定沒有兩個真實，一定有一個是權宜之說。然而就義理的差別而言，並非完全虛妄。《解深密經》保留二滅而說一乘，有的經說闡提（Icchantika，斷絕一切善根的人）畢竟沒有涅槃之法等等，這是權教。《法華經》去除二滅而說一乘，《涅槃經》認為闡提都有佛性，這是實教。所以諸權實義理有六種：一是信謗罪福多少不同；二是所為說法的人勝劣不同；三是難解易解淺深不同；四是佛陀自己會釋的有無不同；五是權實相對的前後不同；六是大小不同半滿不同。三乘一乘、五性佛性兩種說法相對也有六種相狀。所以知道一乘佛性是真實，三乘五性是權宜。他們的說法不對，六種說法都有缺失。最初說五性差別起源於小乘，只有一佛乘的《法華經》等，說全部都應當成佛，分明顯示了這一點。只有在《涅槃經》二經之中，廣泛地講述了信毀罪福的校量。二乘真實滅盡，一部分沒有佛性，就沒有這種說法。所以知道一乘佛性的教義顯明而真實，三乘五性的教義是權宜隱覆的。如果討論信謗了不了的問題。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the 'right cause and distant effect' spoken of in the Nirvana Sutra, because the cause is profound and the effect is far-reaching, it is extremely difficult to believe, so it is spoken of later. The Nirvana Sutra speaks of the profound cause and distant effect, which together constitute its characteristic of being difficult to believe. If it is said that because it is difficult to believe, it is placed last, this judgment is wrong. Why? The Nirvana Sutra liberated Subhadra (Subhadra, a disciple converted by the Buddha in his later years), is that considered a superior person? The Sutra of the Deathbed Teachings says that the final teaching liberated Subhadra, and all those who were to be liberated had already been liberated before the Sutra of the Deathbed Teachings was spoken. Is that even more a profound cause and distant effect, extremely difficult to believe? Moreover, the Mahayana Sutra arose after the Nirvana Sutra, teaching the Dharma to his mother, is that even more unbelievable and more obvious? Furthermore, since it is clearly stated that the Buddha, in order to repay his mother's kindness, revived after Nirvana, and Ananda (Ānanda, one of the Buddha's ten major disciples, known for his exceptional memory) asked for the name of the sutra, the Buddha replied that it was called the Sutra of the Mother and Son Meeting, proclaiming it to future generations, and so on. What this explains and what is explained are all matters of repaying kindness, which is different from the previous teachings and should belong to the sixth period. Here, no period is established, so how can they say that? This is encompassing from beginning to end, and the other errors can all be understood.
Refuting Three Views on Determining Provisional and Real Teachings
One view holds that there are also different statements in various sutras and treatises. There are definitely not two realities, and there must be one provisional teaching. However, in terms of the difference in meaning, it is not entirely false. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra retains the two extinctions while speaking of the One Vehicle. Some sutras say that Icchantikas (Icchantika, those who have severed all roots of goodness) ultimately have no Dharma of Nirvana, etc. This is a provisional teaching. The Lotus Sutra removes the two extinctions while speaking of the One Vehicle. The Nirvana Sutra believes that Icchantikas all have Buddha-nature. This is a real teaching. Therefore, there are six aspects to the principles of provisional and real teachings: first, the differences in the amount of merit and demerit from belief and slander; second, the differences in the superiority and inferiority of the people for whom the teachings are given; third, the differences in the difficulty and ease of understanding, and the depth; fourth, the differences in what the Buddha himself explains as existing or not existing; fifth, the differences in the order of provisional and real teachings; sixth, the differences in size, being partial or complete. The two statements of the Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle, and the five natures and Buddha-nature, also have six aspects relative to each other. Therefore, it is known that the One Vehicle Buddha-nature is real, and the Three Vehicles and five natures are provisional. Their statement is incorrect, and all six statements have flaws. The initial statement that the differences in the five natures originate from the Small Vehicle, and that only the Lotus Sutra of the One Buddha Vehicle, etc., says that all should attain Buddhahood, clearly showing this. Only in the two sutras of the Nirvana Sutra is the comparison of the merit and demerit of belief and slander extensively discussed. The Two Vehicles are truly extinguished, and a portion has no Buddha-nature, so there is no such statement. Therefore, it is known that the teaching of the One Vehicle Buddha-nature is clear and real, and the teaching of the Three Vehicles and five natures is provisional and concealed. If we discuss the issue of belief and slander, understanding or not understanding.
經罪福實別。深密校量即為定說。故知深密非非了義。判為權者。豈不違經。又有無量諸大乘經不多校量。豈皆權密。若爾。即勝鬘無上依楞伽如來皆不校量。應權非了。又無垢稱經云。譬如象馬𢤱戾不調。加諸楚毒乃至徹骨。然後調伏。乃至云。以如是等苦切言詞。慇勤誨喻。然後調伏趣入正法。法華為化聲聞鈍根。創令不定回趣涅槃。為除聲聞四倒。謂佛實般涅槃。說佛理性恒存。切誨令彼調伏。是下劣人。不爾。豈般涅槃前。無利根文殊等可為說涅槃。至涅槃時。始有利根迦葉。方為說實。又縱據校量次定權實。此亦難準。何者。法華涅槃皆廣校量。即定為實爲了。金剛般若文極校量信受等福。勝天王般若謗斯經者。謗諸佛母。十方無間。大地獄壞。罪報未出大般若經處處校量。由斯經故。疾得成佛。一切功德等。煩不具引。若準此等。即定為實爲了。不但自違所執。亦是違經。今不障涅槃等經爲了為真。但不得執校量準定。深密般若皆悉不許定性二乘迴心向大。並與法華校量相似。故以校量判深密等為權不了。便成過失。又深密經自以了義經校量非了義。此佛自說爲了義。然後代凡夫判為非了。應智過佛。為人勝劣失者。若云。法華云劫濁亂時。乃至云成就諸不善根故。於一佛乘方便說三。又云。所以未曾說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 經文校量罪福真實差別，以深密的方式來衡量，這可以被認為是確定的說法。因此，如果認為《深密解脫經》（Samdhinirmocana Sutra）不是究竟了義的經典，並將其判定為權宜之說，豈不是違背了經文？還有許多大乘經典並沒有過多地進行校量，難道它們都是權宜隱秘之說嗎？如果這樣，像《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）、《無上依經》（Uttaratantraśāstra）、《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）和《如來藏經》（Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra）這些經典都沒有經過校量，難道也應該被認為是權宜之說而非究竟了義嗎？ 此外，《維摩詰經》（Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra）中說：『譬如馴服桀驁不馴的大象和馬，要施加鞭打，甚至深入骨髓，然後才能調伏。』乃至說：『用這樣嚴厲的言辭，慇勤地教誨開導，然後才能調伏，進入正法。』《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）爲了教化聲聞乘（Śrāvaka）的鈍根之人，最初讓他們不確定，然後引導他們趨向涅槃（Nirvāṇa）。爲了去除聲聞乘的四種顛倒見解，說佛陀實際上並沒有般涅槃，佛性是恒常存在的，用懇切的教誨來調伏他們。難道他們是下劣之人嗎？否則，難道在佛陀般涅槃之前，沒有像文殊菩薩（Mañjuśrī）這樣根器銳利的人可以為之宣說涅槃，直到佛陀般涅槃時，才有利根的迦葉尊者（Kāśyapa）可以為之宣說實相嗎？ 而且，即使按照校量的次序來確定權宜和真實，這也難以作為標準。為什麼呢？因為《法華經》和《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）都廣泛地進行了校量，因此被確定為真實和了義的經典。《金剛般若經》（Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）極力校量信受此經的福德，勝過供養天王；而誹謗此經的人，就是誹謗諸佛之母，將墮入十方無間大地獄，罪報難以脫離。《大般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）處處進行校量，因為此經的緣故，能夠迅速成佛，獲得一切功德等等，這裡就不一一列舉了。如果按照這些標準，就應該被確定為真實和了義的經典。這不僅違背了您自己的觀點，也是違背了經文。 現在，我們並不妨礙《涅槃經》等經典被認為是了義和真實的，但不能執著于用校量來作為判定的標準。《深密解脫經》和《般若經》都不允許將定性二乘（Niyata-śrāvaka）之人轉回心向大乘，並且與《法華經》的校量相似。因此，如果用校量來判定《深密解脫經》等經典為權宜不了義，就會造成過失。《深密解脫經》自己用爲了義的經典來校量非了義的經典，這是佛陀自己說的是了義，然後後代的凡夫卻判定為非了義，難道是智慧超過了佛陀，或者人比佛陀更勝一籌嗎？ 如果說，《法華經》中說，在劫濁混亂的時候，乃至說，因為成就了各種不善根的緣故，所以在一佛乘（Ekayāna）中方便地說三乘（Triyāna）。又說，『所以未曾說』
【English Translation】 English version To measure the real differences between merit and demerit in scriptures, and to deeply and meticulously assess them, can be considered a definitive statement. Therefore, if the Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Deeply Unraveling the Thought Sutra) is deemed not to be of ultimate meaning and is judged as an expedient teaching, wouldn't that be contrary to the scriptures? Furthermore, many Mahayana sutras do not involve much measurement; are they all expedient and esoteric? If so, then sutras like the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā Sutra), the Uttaratantraśāstra (Treatise on the Sublime Continuum), the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Descent into Lanka Sutra), and the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra (Buddha-Nature Sutra), which have not been measured much, should also be considered expedient rather than of ultimate meaning? Moreover, the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (Vimalakirti Sutra) says: 'It is like taming unruly elephants and horses, where whipping is applied, even penetrating to the bone, before they can be subdued.' It goes on to say: 'With such stern words, earnestly teaching and guiding, they can then be tamed and enter the right Dharma.' The Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra), in order to teach the dull-witted of the Śrāvaka (Hearer) vehicle, initially makes them uncertain and then guides them towards Nirvāṇa (Liberation). To remove the four inverted views of the Śrāvakas, it says that the Buddha did not actually enter Parinirvāṇa (Final Liberation), and that the Buddha-nature is eternally present, using earnest teachings to tame them. Are they inferior beings? Otherwise, before the Buddha entered Parinirvāṇa, were there no sharp-witted individuals like Mañjuśrī (Manjushri Bodhisattva) to whom Nirvāṇa could be preached, and only at the time of the Buddha's Parinirvāṇa was there the sharp-witted Kāśyapa (Kasyapa) to whom the true reality could be preached? Furthermore, even if one determines expediency and truth based on the order of measurement, this is difficult to use as a standard. Why? Because both the Lotus Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra (Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra) are extensively measured, and therefore are determined to be true and of ultimate meaning. The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Diamond Sutra) greatly measures the merit of believing and accepting this sutra, which surpasses the offerings to celestial kings; and those who slander this sutra slander the mother of all Buddhas, and will fall into the uninterrupted great hells of the ten directions, from which the karmic retribution is difficult to escape. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) measures in many places that because of this sutra, one can quickly attain Buddhahood and obtain all merits, etc., which I will not list one by one here. If based on these standards, they should be determined to be true and of ultimate meaning. This not only contradicts your own views, but also contradicts the scriptures. Now, we do not hinder the Nirvana Sutra and other sutras from being considered of ultimate meaning and true, but one cannot be attached to using measurement as the standard for judgment. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra and the Prajñāpāramitā Sutra do not allow those of the Niyata-śrāvaka (Fixed Hearer) vehicle to turn their minds towards the Mahayana, and are similar to the measurement in the Lotus Sutra. Therefore, if one uses measurement to judge the Samdhinirmocana Sutra and other sutras as expedient and not of ultimate meaning, it will cause error. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra itself uses sutras of ultimate meaning to measure sutras of non-ultimate meaning; this is the Buddha himself saying it is of ultimate meaning, and then later ordinary people judge it as non-ultimate meaning. Is it that their wisdom surpasses the Buddha, or that people are superior to the Buddha? If you say that the Lotus Sutra says that in the turbulent times of the kalpa (eon), and even says that because of accomplishing various unwholesome roots, it is expedient to speak of the Three Vehicles (Triyāna) within the One Buddha Vehicle (Ekayāna). And it also says, 'Therefore, I have never spoken'
。說時未至故。又云。于諸菩薩中。正直舍方便。涅槃經云。以無利根迦葉等故。隨宜方便開示三乘。又云。如是大事斯下小人則不得聞。何等為大。所謂諸佛甚深秘藏。謂佛性。是故知。法華涅槃一乘佛性爲了為實。深密三乘一分無性。此等諸經即為權密。此不應理。若言為人勝劣以定於經權實顯密。少分可爾。準法華等經。在於后說。是為勝人。為實爲了。判深密等。是在前說。為權為密。太傷猛浪。如華嚴經及寶性論等。皆說。譬如日出先曜高山。次川澤等。如來亦爾。先為菩薩。后二乘等。成道七日說十地經。涅槃第三十一三子三田三器等。皆先勝后劣。豈以先說法未久。后皆劣人淺法耶。又臨涅槃時說遺教等。豈並勝人深法耶。又云。無量大乘在法華前為菩薩說。非劣人淺法。法華經者。論云。為聲聞人所作事故。告舍利弗。第二云。我今還欲令汝憶念本願所行道故。為諸聲聞說是大乘經。名妙法蓮華。此為聲聞。豈勝菩薩。又第二云。舍利弗彼佛出時。雖非惡世。以本願故。說三乘法。乃至彼國中。以菩薩為大寶故。是劣人。為說三乘淺權之教。又深密經等為彌勒等說。豈劣聲聞耶。若云我據人一時殊。后勝前劣。前權后實。即舍利等迴心向大等是者。即何廢人殊時別。前勝后劣。前實后權。為勝義生等
【現代漢語翻譯】 說時未至故（因為時機未成熟）。又說：『在諸菩薩中，正直捨棄方便。』《涅槃經》說：『因為沒有像迦葉（Mahākāśyapa，佛陀十大弟子之一，以頭陀行著稱）等利根之人，所以隨順根器方便開示三乘。』又說：『這樣的大事，下劣之人則不得聽聞。』什麼是大事？就是諸佛甚深秘藏，即佛性。因此可知，《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）和《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）的一乘佛性是爲了義為實義。而《深密經》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）的三乘和一分無性是權巧和隱秘。這些經不應被認為是不合理的。如果說根據人的根器勝劣來決定經的權實顯密，少部分可以這樣認為。但按照《法華經》等經，在後面說的，就是為勝人說的，是實義爲了義。而判斷《深密經》等，是在前面說的，是權巧為密義，這太傷猛浪（比喻過於武斷）。如《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）及《寶性論》（Ratnagotravibhāga）等，都說：譬如太陽出來，先照耀高山，然後是河流沼澤等。如來也是這樣，先為菩薩，后為二乘等。成道七日說《十地經》（Daśabhūmika Sūtra）。《涅槃經》第三十一品的三子、三田、三器等，都是先勝后劣。難道因為先說法不久，後面都是劣人淺法嗎？又臨涅槃時說《遺教經》（Śrāmaṇera-vinaya），難道都是為勝人說的深法嗎？又說，無量大乘在《法華經》前為菩薩說，不是為劣人說的淺法。《法華經》中，論中說：『爲了聲聞人所作的緣故，告訴舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）。』第二品說：『我現在還想讓你憶念本願所行之道，所以為諸聲聞說這部大乘經，名為妙法蓮華。』這是為聲聞說的，難道勝過菩薩嗎？又第二品說：『舍利弗，彼佛出世時，雖非惡世，以本願的緣故，說三乘法。』乃至彼國中，以菩薩為大寶的緣故，是為劣人，為他們說三乘淺權之教。又《深密經》等是為彌勒（Maitreya，未來佛）等說的，難道比劣聲聞還不如嗎？如果說我根據人一時的差別，後來勝過先前，先前是權巧，後來是真實。就像舍利弗等迴心向大乘等，那麼為什麼廢除人因時機不同而有差別，先前勝過後來的情況呢？先前是真實，後來是權巧，比如為勝義生（Śūnyatāsamādhi）等。
【English Translation】 It is because the time has not yet arrived. It is also said: 'Among all Bodhisattvas, honestly abandon expedient means.' The Nirvana Sutra says: 'Because there are no sharp-witted individuals like Mahākāśyapa (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his ascetic practices), the Three Vehicles are expediently taught according to their capacities.' It also says: 'Such a great matter cannot be heard by inferior people.' What is a great matter? It is the profound secret treasury of all Buddhas, namely, Buddha-nature. Therefore, it is known that the One Vehicle Buddha-nature of the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra (Lotus Sutra) and the Nirvana Sutra is for the ultimate meaning and for the real meaning. The Three Vehicles and the partial non-nature of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (Sandhinirmocana Sutra) are expedient and hidden. These sutras should not be considered unreasonable. If it is said that the superiority or inferiority of people determines the expedient or real, manifest or secret nature of the sutras, this is partially acceptable. However, according to sutras like the Lotus Sutra, what is said later is for superior people, for the real meaning and for the ultimate meaning. Judging the Sandhinirmocana Sutra and others, which are said earlier, as expedient and secret is too rash. For example, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Flower Garland Sutra) and the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra Shastra) say: 'Just as when the sun rises, it first illuminates the high mountains, then the rivers and marshes, etc. The Tathagata is also like this, first for Bodhisattvas, then for the Two Vehicles, etc.' The Ten Stages Sutra (Daśabhūmika Sūtra) was spoken seven days after enlightenment. The three sons, three fields, and three vessels in the thirty-first chapter of the Nirvana Sutra are all cases of first superior, then inferior. Is it because the Dharma was taught not long ago that those who came later are all inferior people and shallow Dharma? Also, when the Śrāmaṇera-vinaya (Last Teaching Sutra) was spoken at the time of Nirvana, is it all deep Dharma spoken for superior people? Furthermore, it is said that immeasurable Mahayana was spoken before the Lotus Sutra for Bodhisattvas, not shallow Dharma for inferior people. In the Lotus Sutra, the treatise says: 'Because of the cause made for the sake of the Śrāvakas (voice-hearers), he told Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom).' The second chapter says: 'Now I also want you to remember the path of your original vows, so I speak this Great Vehicle Sutra called the Wonderful Dharma Lotus for all Śrāvakas.' This is spoken for Śrāvakas, is it superior to Bodhisattvas? Also, the second chapter says: 'Śāriputra, when that Buddha appears, although it is not an evil age, because of his original vows, he speaks the Three Vehicle Dharma.' Even in that country, because Bodhisattvas are considered great treasures, it is for inferior people that he speaks the Three Vehicle shallow and expedient teachings. Moreover, the Sandhinirmocana Sutra and others are spoken for Maitreya (the future Buddha) and others, are they inferior to Śrāvakas? If it is said that I base it on the temporary differences of people, the later surpassing the former, the former being expedient and the latter being real, like Śāriputra and others turning their minds towards the Great Vehicle, then why abolish the differences of people due to different times, the former being superior to the latter? The former being real and the latter being expedient, such as for Śūnyatāsamādhi (the Samadhi of Emptiness).
。說決定性不坐道場一分無性。如何偏執法華涅槃獨為顯實。難易淺深失者。若云。準解深密經第二云。為未種善根未清凈障等。說小乘教。令修五事無上品。五事退大智慧。有此上品五事。聞大不謗。準此。小乘易解。大乘難解。涅槃二十七云。十住菩薩不知一切眾生悉有佛性。法華第二云。唯一佛乘。汝舍利弗。尚於此經以信得入。智論九十三云。阿羅漢成佛非論者知。唯佛能了。二乘實滅。一分無性。即無斯說。權淺實深。義決定也。亦不應爾。深密既為勝義生觀自在法涌彌勒等菩薩說。即是具上品五事。聞大不謗。不作余說。故決定知。是深是實。云不定性成佛定性不成。是能了。佛自說故。執為權淺。豈不相違。故為失也。無上依經說有三品眾生。一者著有。著有有二。一者背涅槃道。無涅槃性。不求涅槃。愿樂生死。二者於我法中。不生渴仰。誹謗大乘。此二種別。前是無性。后是有性。但謗大乘。佛性寶性二論皆會言不作佛。據謗者說不會無因。迷者不知。謂言是一。若是一者。佛何二說。故知一分無性之教是實顯了。同涅槃經河中常沒。常沒亦二。又七人各一。又第九云。假使一切無量眾生一時成菩提已。此諸如來亦復不見彼一闡提得成菩提。又云。如枯木。如燋種等。此即涅槃顯密之說。而說一分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人說，根據決定性的教義，有一部分眾生沒有佛性，不能成佛。那麼，為什麼偏偏執著于《法華經》和《涅槃經》，認為只有它們才顯明真實的道理呢？這其中是否存在難易和深淺的偏差呢？ 如果有人說：根據《解深密經》第二卷所說，佛陀是爲了那些沒有種下善根、沒有清凈業障的眾生，才宣說小乘教法，讓他們修習五事（戒、定、慧、解脫、解脫知見），但沒有上品。因為這五事會退失大智慧。如果具備上品五事，聽聞大乘佛法就不會誹謗。由此推斷，小乘容易理解，大乘難以理解。《涅槃經》第二十七卷說，十住菩薩尚且不知道一切眾生都具有佛性。《法華經》第二卷說，只有唯一佛乘。舍利弗，你尚且是通過相信這部經才能進入佛道。《智度論》第九十三卷說，阿羅漢成佛的道理不是一般論者所能知道的，只有佛才能徹底瞭解。二乘是證入實際的寂滅，一部分眾生沒有佛性，這些說法並非沒有根據。權巧是淺顯的，真實是深奧的，這個道理是確定的。 這種說法也是不對的。《解深密經》是為勝義生（勝義生菩薩，菩薩名）、觀自在（觀世音菩薩，菩薩名）、法涌（法涌菩薩，菩薩名）、彌勒（彌勒菩薩，菩薩名）等菩薩宣說的，他們都具備上品五事，聽聞大乘佛法不會誹謗，佛陀沒有作其他的解釋。因此可以確定，《解深密經》是深奧而真實的。如果說不定性的眾生可以成佛，定性的眾生不能成佛，這是佛陀自己說的，是能徹底瞭解的。如果執著地認為《解深密經》是權巧淺顯的，豈不是自相矛盾？所以說這是錯誤的。 《無上依經》說有三種眾生：第一種是執著于有。執著于有又分為兩種：一種是背離涅槃之道，沒有涅槃的佛性，不尋求涅槃，只願意在生死中輪迴；另一種是在我的佛法中，不生起渴求仰慕之心，誹謗大乘佛法。這兩種是有區別的。前一種是沒有佛性的，后一種是有佛性的，只是誹謗大乘佛法。《佛性論》和《寶性論》都說誹謗大乘佛法的人不能成佛，這是根據誹謗者的行為來說的，並不是說沒有成佛的因。迷惑的人不明白，認為這兩種是一樣的。如果是一樣的，佛陀為什麼要作兩種不同的說法呢？所以說，一部分眾生沒有佛性的教義是真實而顯明的，與《涅槃經》中『如同在河中經常沉沒』的說法一致。經常沉沒也有兩種情況。還有七人各有一種情況。另外，《涅槃經》第九卷說，即使一切無量眾生同時成佛，這些如來也看不到一闡提（斷善根的人）能夠成佛。又說，如同枯木，如同焦種等。這就是《涅槃經》中顯說和密說的內容，而說一部分眾生沒有佛性。
【English Translation】 English version: Someone says, according to the definitive teachings, a portion of sentient beings do not possess Buddha-nature and cannot attain Buddhahood. Then, why cling to the Lotus Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra, believing that only they reveal the true principles? Are there any discrepancies in terms of difficulty and depth? If someone says: According to the second volume of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (解深密經), the Buddha expounded the Small Vehicle teachings for those who have not planted good roots and have not purified their karmic obscurations, allowing them to cultivate the five matters (precepts, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation), but without the superior quality. Because these five matters will cause the loss of great wisdom. If one possesses the superior quality of the five matters, they will not slander the Mahayana teachings upon hearing them. From this, it can be inferred that the Small Vehicle is easy to understand, while the Mahayana is difficult to understand. The twenty-seventh volume of the Nirvana Sutra says that even the Bodhisattvas of the Ten Abodes do not know that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. The second volume of the Lotus Sutra says that there is only the One Buddha Vehicle. Shariputra (舍利弗), you are only able to enter the path of Buddhahood through believing in this sutra. The ninety-third volume of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra (智度論) says that the principle of an Arhat attaining Buddhahood is not something that ordinary theorists can understand; only the Buddha can fully comprehend it. The Two Vehicles enter actual extinction, and the statements that a portion of sentient beings do not possess Buddha-nature are not without basis. Expediency is shallow, and reality is profound; this principle is certain. This statement is also incorrect. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra was expounded for Bodhisattvas such as Sheng Yisheng (勝義生, a Bodhisattva's name), Avalokiteśvara (觀自在, a Bodhisattva's name), Fayong (法涌, a Bodhisattva's name), and Maitreya (彌勒, a Bodhisattva's name), who all possess the superior quality of the five matters and will not slander the Mahayana teachings upon hearing them. The Buddha did not provide any other explanations. Therefore, it can be determined that the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra is profound and true. If it is said that sentient beings of uncertain nature can attain Buddhahood, while those of fixed nature cannot, this is something the Buddha himself said and can be fully understood. If one stubbornly believes that the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra is expedient and shallow, wouldn't that be self-contradictory? Therefore, it is said to be incorrect. The Anuttarāśraya Sūtra (無上依經) says that there are three types of sentient beings: the first type is attached to existence. Attachment to existence is further divided into two types: one type turns away from the path of Nirvana, does not possess the Buddha-nature of Nirvana, does not seek Nirvana, and only desires to be reborn in samsara; the other type does not generate longing and admiration for my Dharma and slanders the Mahayana teachings. These two types are different. The former does not possess Buddha-nature, while the latter does, but only slanders the Mahayana teachings. The Buddha-nature Treatise (佛性論) and the Ratnagotravibhāga (寶性論) both say that those who slander the Mahayana teachings cannot attain Buddhahood. This is based on the actions of the slanderers, not that there is no cause for attaining Buddhahood. Those who are deluded do not understand and believe that these two types are the same. If they were the same, why would the Buddha make two different statements? Therefore, it is said that the teaching that a portion of sentient beings do not possess Buddha-nature is true and clear, consistent with the statement in the Nirvana Sutra that 'like constantly sinking in the river.' Constantly sinking also has two situations. There are also seven people, each with one situation. Furthermore, the ninth volume of the Nirvana Sutra says that even if all immeasurable sentient beings simultaneously attain Buddhahood, these Tathagatas will not see an Icchantika (一闡提, a person who has severed their roots of goodness) attain Buddhahood. It also says, like withered wood, like scorched seeds, etc. This is the explicit and implicit content of the Nirvana Sutra, and it speaks of a portion of sentient beings not possessing Buddha-nature.
無性之教。是權密說。故為大失。會釋有無失者。若云。其解深密會前二時。法華涅槃會前深密。無會法華一乘為方便者。又涅槃云。闡提障未來故名為無性。法華云方便說故。此皆經論自會五性三乘。無文會釋一乘佛性者。此說不然。勝鬘經云。荷四重擔。無聞非法眾生。以人天善根而成熟之等。即說四乘。又云。若如來隨彼所欲而方便說。即是大乘。無有二乘。二乘者入於一乘。一乘者即第一義乘。既言。如來隨彼所欲而方便說。即是大乘。又涅槃第三十一云。一道一味等。涅槃云。我諸弟子不解我意。唱言。如來說須陀洹乃至阿羅漢皆得佛道。並自會訖。同解深密攝大乘等言唯一乘是佛密意。亦會法華。論文明顯。涅槃無文。顯說行性一切遍故。言障未來。故名為無性。是暫時故。涅槃三十二云。我雖說言一切眾生悉有佛性。眾生不解佛如是等語。如是語者。後身菩薩尚不能解。而云。若云眾生悉有佛性。是名如來隨自意語。如來如是隨自意語。眾生云何一向作解。準此文意。若諸眾生皆有佛性。佛顯說有。如何後身菩薩不解。云何不得一向作解。以此故知。有無行性真如理遍。說一切有。此則同許佛性論五義。故說佛性。寶性論三義說遍。約如理故。又云。若無因緣觀得成者。闡提之人應有此觀。準此即許是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『無性』（沒有佛性）的教義，這是一種權巧方便的秘密說法，因此會造成很大的偏差。如果有人能夠融會貫通有和無的說法，消除這些偏差，比如他們說，《解深密經》融會了佛陀前兩個時期的說法，《法華經》和《涅槃經》融會了《解深密經》的說法，卻沒有經文能夠融會《法華經》所說的一乘（唯一成佛之道）是方便之說。而且，《涅槃經》說，斷善根者（icchantika）因為障礙未來成佛的可能性，所以被稱為『無性』。《法華經》說，這是方便之說。這些經論都各自融會了五種根性和三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的說法，卻沒有經文能夠融會解釋一乘佛性的說法。這種說法是不對的。《勝鬘經》說，如來承擔著四種重擔，對於沒有聽聞佛法的眾生，用人天善根來使他們成熟等等，這就是在說四乘。又說，如果如來隨順眾生的意願而方便說法，那就是大乘，沒有二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘），二乘最終會進入一乘，一乘就是第一義乘。既然說如來隨順眾生的意願而方便說法就是大乘，《涅槃經》第三十一卷說，只有一道一味等等。《涅槃經》還說，我的弟子不理解我的意思，宣揚說須陀洹（srota-apanna，入流果）乃至阿羅漢（arhat，無學）都能成佛。這些經文都已經自行融會貫通了，和《解深密經》、《攝大乘論》等所說的一乘是佛的秘密心意相同，也融會了《法華經》的說法。這些經文的論述非常明顯。《涅槃經》雖然沒有明確的文字，但它顯明地說一切眾生都普遍具有佛性，因為斷善根者是暫時性的，所以說他們障礙未來成佛的可能性，因此被稱為『無性』。《涅槃經》第三十二卷說，我雖然說一切眾生都有佛性，但眾生不理解佛的這些話。這些話，連後身菩薩（來世的菩薩）都不能理解。如果說眾生都有佛性，這是如來隨自己的意願所說的話，眾生怎麼能一概而論地理解呢？根據這段經文的意思，如果一切眾生都有佛性，佛明明說了有，為什麼後身菩薩不理解？為什麼不能一概而論地理解？因此可知，有和無的行性真如理是普遍存在的，所以說一切眾生都有佛性。這和《佛性論》的五種意義相同，所以才說佛性。《寶性論》的三種意義也說明了佛性的普遍性，這是從如理的角度來說的。又說，如果沒有因緣，觀想就能成功，那麼斷善根的人也應該能有這種觀想。根據這一點，就是承認斷善根的人也有佛性。
【English Translation】 English version The teaching of 'no-nature' (absence of Buddha-nature) is a provisional and secret teaching, and therefore leads to great errors. If one can reconcile the statements of existence and non-existence, eliminating these errors, for example, by saying that the Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Explanation of the Profound Secrets Sutra) reconciles the first two periods of the Buddha's teachings, and the Lotus Sutra and Nirvana Sutra reconcile the Samdhinirmocana Sutra, but there is no scripture that reconciles the Lotus Sutra's teaching of the One Vehicle (Ekayana, the only path to Buddhahood) as a provisional means. Furthermore, the Nirvana Sutra states that an icchantika (one who has severed their roots of goodness) is called 'no-nature' because they obstruct the possibility of future Buddhahood. The Lotus Sutra says that this is a provisional teaching. These sutras and treatises each reconcile the five natures and the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), but there is no scripture that reconciles and explains the Buddha-nature of the One Vehicle. This statement is incorrect. The Srimala Sutra says that the Tathagata (如來) bears four heavy burdens, and for sentient beings who have not heard the Dharma, he matures them with the roots of goodness of humans and devas (天) etc., which is to say the Four Vehicles. It also says that if the Tathagata teaches provisionally according to their desires, that is the Mahayana (大乘), there are no Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana), the Two Vehicles ultimately enter the One Vehicle, and the One Vehicle is the Supreme Vehicle. Since it is said that the Tathagata teaches provisionally according to their desires, that is the Mahayana, the thirty-first chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says that there is only one path, one taste, etc. The Nirvana Sutra also says that my disciples do not understand my meaning, and proclaim that a srota-apanna (須陀洹, stream-enterer) up to an arhat (阿羅漢, one who has attained liberation) can all attain Buddhahood. These scriptures have already reconciled themselves, and are the same as the Samdhinirmocana Sutra, Mahayanasamgraha (攝大乘論) etc., which say that the One Vehicle is the Buddha's secret intention, and also reconcile the Lotus Sutra. The arguments in these scriptures are very clear. Although the Nirvana Sutra does not have explicit words, it clearly states that all sentient beings universally possess Buddha-nature, because icchantikas are temporary, so it is said that they obstruct the possibility of future Buddhahood, and therefore are called 'no-nature'. The thirty-second chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says that although I say that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, sentient beings do not understand these words of the Buddha. These words, even future Bodhisattvas (菩薩) cannot understand. If it is said that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, this is what the Tathagata says according to his own intention, how can sentient beings understand it in a uniform way? According to the meaning of this passage, if all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, and the Buddha clearly says that they do, why do future Bodhisattvas not understand? Why can't it be understood in a uniform way? Therefore, it can be known that the Suchness (真如) principle of existence and non-existence is universal, so it is said that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature. This is the same as the five meanings of the Buddha-nature Treatise, so Buddha-nature is spoken of. The three meanings of the Ratnagotravibhaga (寶性論) also explain the universality of Buddha-nature, which is from the perspective of accordance with principle. Furthermore, it is said that if contemplation can be successful without causes and conditions, then icchantikas should also be able to have this contemplation. According to this, it is admitting that icchantikas also have Buddha-nature.
無行性。況彼自許如心本有。無漏無。既是先無。無漏無因。后從何起。故知一性一乘並經論自會。云無會釋。故為失也。權實前後失者。若云權實相對前權后實。處處有文。前實后權。窈無經說者。此亦不然。理不決定。據不定性。一類聲聞從小起大。先三后一。可前權后實。約大頓悟。始終俱大。豈可前權唯是后實。深密所判據不定性漸悟性說。又不定判深密已前諸大乘經皆悉隱密。四阿含等密說法有。除外執我。諸般若等密說皆空。除小法執。雙陳非空有。方為顯了說。即華嚴雖前說。屬第三時。遣教雖后陳。可屬第一時。以不分明說空有故。但說四諦。定無異故。如彼所判。華嚴應權。在前說故。遺教應實。在後說故。又對不定亦先說實。如法華經。所度聲聞皆先聞大后發小心。以往準今。為聲聞性先實后權。如何定判前權后實。諸佛法久。后要當說真實。依不定人。毗尼前開。涅槃后遮。大小別。深密既非小教。不是專為聲聞。如何謬判以權實。又初七日說十地。三七日後說四諦教。豈可前權說后為實。故知大失。大小半滿失者。若判小為半。是權密教。據一類說。此則可爾。並約深密瑜伽等論。為其隨轉權密教者。謬大甚乎。何者。佛自說爲了教。今判以為權密。又云。一分無性是小乘義者。準佛性論破
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無行性（沒有固定的行為模式）。況且他們自己認為如來藏（Tathāgatagarbha，一切眾生皆具的佛性）本來就存在於心中。如果沒有煩惱，就沒有無漏（Anāsrava，斷絕了輪迴的煩惱）。既然是先前沒有的，沒有煩惱的原因，那後來又從哪裡產生呢？所以說，認為一性（Eka-svabhāva，單一的自性）和一乘（Ekāyana，唯一的成佛之道）需要通過經典和論典來調和，說沒有調和解釋，這是錯誤的。關於權實（Upāya-satya，方便之真實）前後顛倒的錯誤，如果說權實是相對的，前面是權巧方便，後面是真實，雖然處處有這樣的說法，但也有經文說前面是真實，後面是權巧方便，並沒有經典這樣說。這種說法是不對的，道理不是絕對的。根據不定性（Aniyata-gotra，不確定根性），一類聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而證悟者）從小乘開始，然後進入大乘，先是三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘），后是一乘，可以說是先權后實。但如果是頓悟的大乘，始終都是大乘，怎麼能說是前面是權巧方便，只有後面才是真實呢？《深密解脫經》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）所判定的只是不定根性和漸悟根性。而且，《深密解脫經》判定在此之前的所有大乘經典都是隱秘的。四阿含經等隱秘地說法有，是爲了去除對外在自我的執著。諸般若經等隱秘地說一切皆空，是爲了去除對小乘法的執著。同時陳述非空非有，才是顯了的說法。所以，《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）雖然在前宣說，但屬於第三時教（第三個階段的教法）。《遺教經》（Śāsanāgamaparikīrtana Sūtra）雖然在後陳述，但可以屬於第一時教（第一個階段的教法），因為它沒有分明地說空有，只是說了四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，苦、集、滅、道），確定沒有差異。按照他們的判定，《華嚴經》應該是權巧方便，因為它在前宣說。《遺教經》應該是真實，因為它在後宣說。而且，對於不定根性的人，也是先說真實，如《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra），所度化的聲聞都是先聽聞大乘，然後才發小心。以往事為準，聲聞的根性是先實后權。如何能斷定是先權后實呢？諸佛的教法長久，後面一定要說真實。根據不定根性的人，《毗奈耶經》（Vinaya，戒律）前面是開許，後面是遮止，大小乘有所區別。《深密解脫經》既然不是小乘的教法，不是專門為聲聞而說的，怎麼能錯誤地判定為權實呢？而且，最初七天說十地（Daśa-bhūmi，菩薩修行的十個階段），三七天後說四諦教，難道能說前面是權巧方便，後面才是真實嗎？所以說，這是很大的錯誤。關於大小乘、半滿教的錯誤，如果判定小乘是半教，是權巧隱秘的教法，根據一類人來說，這還可以。但如果根據《深密解脫經》、《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）等論典，認為它們是隨順權巧隱秘的教法，那就大錯特錯了。為什麼呢？佛自己說是了義教（Nītārtha，究竟真實的教法），現在卻判定為權巧隱秘。又說，一部分無自性（Niḥsvabhāva，沒有獨立的自性）是小乘的意義，按照《佛性論》（Buddhatā-prakaraṇa-śāstra）來破斥。
【English Translation】 English version Non-actionality (no fixed mode of behavior). Moreover, they themselves assume that the Tathāgatagarbha (the Buddha-nature inherent in all beings) is originally present in the mind. If there are no defilements, there is no Anāsrava (freedom from the defilements of Saṃsāra). Since it was previously non-existent, without a cause for defilements, from where does it arise later? Therefore, to think that the Eka-svabhāva (single nature) and Ekāyana (the one vehicle to Buddhahood) need to be reconciled through scriptures and treatises, and to say that there is no reconciliation, is a mistake. Regarding the mistake of reversing Upāya-satya (skillful means and truth), if it is said that skillful means and truth are relative, with skillful means coming first and truth coming later, although there are such statements everywhere, there are also scriptures that say truth comes first and skillful means come later, and no scripture says otherwise. This statement is incorrect; the principle is not absolute. According to Aniyata-gotra (undetermined nature), a class of Śrāvakas (listeners who attain enlightenment) starts from the Small Vehicle and then enters the Great Vehicle, with the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) coming first and the one vehicle coming later, which can be said to be skillful means first and truth later. But if it is a sudden enlightenment of the Great Vehicle, it is always the Great Vehicle, how can it be said that the former is skillful means and only the latter is truth? The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra only determines the undetermined nature and gradual enlightenment nature. Moreover, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra judges that all Mahāyāna scriptures before it are hidden. The four Āgama Sūtras and others secretly teach existence to remove attachment to the external self. The Prajñā Sūtras and others secretly teach emptiness to remove attachment to the Small Vehicle Dharma. Simultaneously stating non-emptiness and non-existence is the clear teaching. Therefore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, although preached earlier, belongs to the third period of teaching. The Śāsanāgamaparikīrtana Sūtra, although stated later, can belong to the first period of teaching because it does not clearly state emptiness and existence, but only speaks of the catvāri āryasatyāni (Four Noble Truths: suffering, origin, cessation, path), which are definitely not different. According to their judgment, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra should be skillful means because it was preached earlier. The Śāsanāgamaparikīrtana Sūtra should be truth because it was preached later. Moreover, for people of undetermined nature, truth is also spoken first, as in the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra, where the Śrāvakas who are liberated all hear the Great Vehicle first and then develop a small mind. Based on past events, the nature of the Śrāvakas is truth first and skillful means later. How can it be determined that it is skillful means first and truth later? The Buddha's teachings are long-lasting, and the truth must be spoken later. According to people of undetermined nature, the Vinaya (discipline) is permissive at first and restrictive later, with differences between the Small and Great Vehicles. Since the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra is not a teaching of the Small Vehicle and is not specifically for Śrāvakas, how can it be wrongly judged as skillful means and truth? Moreover, the ten Daśa-bhūmis (ten stages of Bodhisattva practice) are spoken of in the first seven days, and the Four Noble Truths are taught after three seven days. Can it be said that the former is skillful means and the latter is truth? Therefore, this is a big mistake. Regarding the mistake of the Small and Great Vehicles, and the partial and complete teachings, if it is judged that the Small Vehicle is a partial teaching and a skillful and hidden teaching, this is acceptable according to one type of person. But if, according to the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, and other treatises, it is thought that they are teachings that follow skillful and hidden teachings, then it is a great mistake. Why? The Buddha himself said that it is a Nītārtha (definitive) teaching, but now it is judged to be skillful and hidden. Furthermore, to say that a part of Niḥsvabhāva (no independent self-nature) is the meaning of the Small Vehicle is refuted according to the Buddhatā-prakaraṇa-śāstra.
小乘品云。若依分別部說。一切凡聖眾生並以空為其本。皆從空出故。空是佛性。佛性者即大涅槃。依薩婆多等。則一切眾生無有性得佛性。但有修得佛性。所以瑜伽明無依有部教。佛性論破。若爾。佛性涅槃說有佛性。亦應依分別部。涅槃亦說第一義空為佛性故。瑜伽論破。若許爾者。如何定執。佛性論中說有佛性。為顯為實。屬第五時。若云佛性論中雖破無。不同分別部執有故。非瑜伽所破者。亦應瑜伽雖說一分無。不同有部執無。非佛性論所破。又佛性論分明自說分別部等有。薩婆多等無。云故明有佛性問執無性曰即知不準依大破彼小乘。瑜伽論中無久對辨。何理得知。依小立無。破小說有。又薩婆多立無性得佛性。瑜伽有則性有。無則性無。豈同有部說。皆須小。故為大失。又判瑜伽並攝論等。但釋權教。準何為定。發智六足釋小乘經。中百等論釋于般若。並論明文眾人同悉。瑜伽顯揚大莊嚴論菩提資糧論等。不許定性迴心。一分有情無行佛性。判為釋權教。非大乘經。準天愛知。非智者許。又佛性論及寶性論義意大同。寶性第一顯釋如來藏經。佛性第四引深密解脫。又明其體即是三性。依深密經。無其顯了釋涅槃語。豈唯涅槃獨明佛性。如來藏等非佛性耶。佛性論等釋第五時教。嗚呼哀哉。諸大法將並悉涅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 小乘的觀點認為，如果依照分別部的說法，一切凡夫和聖賢眾生都以空（Śūnyatā，萬法皆空的本質）為其根本，都是從空性中產生的，所以空性就是佛性（Buddha-dhātu，成佛的可能性）。佛性就是大涅槃（Mahā-nirvāṇa，究竟解脫的境界）。 而依照薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda，有部）的觀點，一切眾生並沒有先天就具有的佛性，只有通過修行才能獲得佛性。所以《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）表明不依賴有部的教義。《佛性論》對此進行了駁斥。如果這樣說，那麼《涅槃經》中說有佛性，也應該依照分別部的觀點，因為《涅槃經》也說第一義空（Paramārtha-śūnyatā，最究竟的空性）就是佛性，所以《瑜伽師地論》對此進行了駁斥。 如果允許這樣說，又如何能斷定《佛性論》中說有佛性，是爲了顯現還是爲了證實，屬於第五時教（佛教教義發展的第五個階段）呢？如果說《佛性論》中雖然駁斥了沒有佛性的觀點，但與分別部執著于有佛性的觀點不同，所以不是《瑜伽師地論》所駁斥的，那麼也應該說《瑜伽師地論》雖然說一部分眾生沒有佛性，但與有部執著于沒有佛性的觀點不同，所以不是《佛性論》所駁斥的。而且《佛性論》分明自己說分別部等認為有佛性，薩婆多部等認為沒有佛性，因此說明有佛性是爲了表明不應該依照小乘的觀點來駁斥大乘的觀點。《瑜伽師地論》中沒有長久地進行辯論，怎麼能知道是依照小乘的觀點來建立沒有佛性的觀點，駁斥小乘認為有佛性的觀點呢？ 而且薩婆多部認為沒有先天就具有的佛性，《瑜伽師地論》認為有佛性則先天就有，沒有佛性則先天就沒有，這怎麼能和有部的觀點相同呢？都必須從小乘的觀點出發，這對於大乘來說是一個很大的錯誤。而且判斷《瑜伽師地論》和《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）等只是解釋權教（Upāya，方便教法），依據什麼來確定呢？《發智論》（Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra）和《六足論》（Abhidharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra）解釋小乘經典，《中論》（Mūlamadhyamakakārikā）和《百論》（Śata-śāstra）等解釋般若（Prajñā，智慧），這些都是明確的說明，眾人都知道。《瑜伽師地論》、《顯揚聖教論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）、《大莊嚴論》（Mahā-vibhaṣā-śāstra）、《菩提資糧論》（Bodhisattvasaṃbhāraka-śāstra）等，不承認有定性（Gotra，種性）的迴心，一部分有情沒有行佛性，判斷為解釋權教，不是大乘經典，依據天愛（Devānāmpriya，對國王的尊稱）的認知，不是智者所允許的。 而且《佛性論》和《寶性論》（Ratnagotravibhāga）的意義和意圖非常相同。《寶性論》首先明顯地解釋了《如來藏經》（Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra），《佛性論》第四次引用《深密解脫經》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）來解釋。而且說明它的本體就是三性（Trisvabhāva，三種自性），依據《深密解脫經》，沒有明顯地解釋《涅槃經》的語言，難道只有《涅槃經》單獨說明佛性，《如來藏經》等不是佛性嗎？《佛性論》等解釋第五時教，唉！諸位大法將都涅槃了！
【English Translation】 English version: The Hīnayāna view states that, according to the Sautrāntika school, all ordinary and noble beings have emptiness (Śūnyatā, the essence of all dharmas being empty) as their root, and all originate from emptiness. Therefore, emptiness is the Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu, the potential for Buddhahood). Buddha-nature is the great Nirvāṇa (Mahā-nirvāṇa, the state of ultimate liberation). According to the Sarvāstivāda school, all beings do not have an inherently obtained Buddha-nature, but only a Buddha-nature that can be obtained through cultivation. Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra clarifies that it does not rely on the teachings of the Vaibhāṣika school. The Treatise on Buddha-nature refutes this. If this is the case, then the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, which speaks of Buddha-nature, should also follow the view of the Sautrāntika school, because the Nirvāṇa Sūtra also states that the ultimate emptiness (Paramārtha-śūnyatā, the most ultimate emptiness) is the Buddha-nature. Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra refutes this. If this is allowed, how can it be determined whether the statement in the Treatise on Buddha-nature that there is Buddha-nature is for manifestation or for verification, belonging to the fifth period of teaching (the fifth stage of the development of Buddhist doctrine)? If it is said that although the Treatise on Buddha-nature refutes the view of no Buddha-nature, it is different from the Sautrāntika school's attachment to the view of Buddha-nature, so it is not refuted by the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, then it should also be said that although the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that some beings do not have Buddha-nature, it is different from the Vaibhāṣika school's attachment to the view of no Buddha-nature, so it is not refuted by the Treatise on Buddha-nature. Moreover, the Treatise on Buddha-nature clearly states that the Sautrāntika school and others believe in Buddha-nature, while the Sarvāstivāda school and others do not. Therefore, it is clear that the statement of Buddha-nature is to show that one should not rely on the Hīnayāna view to refute the Mahāyāna view. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra does not engage in lengthy debates, so how can one know that it is based on the Hīnayāna view to establish the view of no Buddha-nature, refuting the Hīnayāna view of Buddha-nature? Moreover, the Sarvāstivāda school believes that there is no inherently obtained Buddha-nature, while the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra believes that if there is Buddha-nature, it is inherent, and if there is no Buddha-nature, it is inherent. How can this be the same as the view of the Vaibhāṣika school? All must start from the Hīnayāna view, which is a great mistake for Mahāyāna. Moreover, what is the basis for judging that the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, etc., only explain expedient teachings (Upāya, skillful means)? The Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra and the Abhidharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra explain the Hīnayāna scriptures, and the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the Śata-śāstra, etc., explain Prajñā (wisdom). These are clear explanations, and everyone knows them. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, the Abhidharmasamuccaya, the Mahā-vibhaṣā-śāstra, the Bodhisattvasaṃbhāraka-śāstra, etc., do not acknowledge the turning of those with fixed nature (Gotra, lineage), and judge that some sentient beings without the practice of Buddha-nature are explaining expedient teachings, not Mahāyāna scriptures. Based on the knowledge of Devānāmpriya (a title of respect for kings), it is not allowed by the wise. Moreover, the meaning and intention of the Treatise on Buddha-nature and the Ratnagotravibhāga are very similar. The Ratnagotravibhāga first clearly explains the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, and the Treatise on Buddha-nature quotes the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra for the fourth time to explain it. Moreover, it explains that its essence is the three natures (Trisvabhāva, three self-natures), based on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, without clearly explaining the language of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Is it only the Nirvāṇa Sūtra that alone explains Buddha-nature, and the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, etc., are not Buddha-nature? The Treatise on Buddha-nature, etc., explain the fifth period of teaching. Alas! All the great Dharma generals have passed into Nirvāṇa!
槃。恣自凡陵侮聖教。
破妄通經四
有云。善戒地持瑜伽等說。無種性人者。據說客性。非本性也。何以得知。經自釋云。菩薩性者。謂初發心及三十七品。何以故。菩薩發菩提心。乃是一切善法根本。是故名發。因此發心得阿耨菩提。是故名因。因初發心決定必得阿耨菩提。是故名性。此釋初發心。以三義別有三種。名習種性發心。具此三義。前位發心唯有因義。無餘二義。然經說云。若無菩薩性者。雖復發心勤修精進。終不能得阿耨菩提者。據前位說。未至種性。雖有輕微。無決定必得堪忍之力及圓滿持。名為無性。非是不與發心為因。名無種性。此同仁王瓔珞經等。此不應然。若以未至種性無決定力終圓滿持。云終不得。名為無性者。云何經云。因初發心決定必得阿耨菩提。是故名性。準此經文。即初發心名之為性。即因初心能得菩提。云不至種性名為無性。未至堪忍及圓滿持云終不得。豈不違經文。地持云。依初發心修行六度。名為菩薩行方便持。依行方便滿足菩提。是故行方便名為大菩提持。瑜伽亦同。又復后位因初方有云終不得。豈不乖反。又因前前得有後后。云何經云。是故當知。非因發心勤修精進故有菩薩性。既違經義。謬之過甚。亦不得言無不發心云無種性。經言非因發心有菩薩性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 恣意地以凡夫俗子的身份凌辱聖教，真是太過分了。
破妄通經四
有人說，《善戒經》、《地持經》、《瑜伽師地論》等經論中說的『無種性人』，是說客性，不是說本性。怎麼知道呢？經文自己解釋說，『菩薩性』是指最初發心和三十七道品。為什麼呢？菩薩發起菩提心，乃是一切善法的根本，所以叫做『發』；因為發起菩提心能得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺），所以叫做『因』；因為最初發心決定能夠得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，所以叫做『性』。這裡解釋最初發心，用三種意義來區分，有三種名稱，叫做習種性發心。具備這三種意義。前位發心只有『因』的意義，沒有其餘兩種意義。然而經文說，『如果沒有菩薩性的人，即使發起菩提心，勤奮修行精進，最終也不能得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提』，這是根據前位來說的。未達到種性位，雖然有輕微的發心，但沒有決定能夠得到、堪能忍受的力量以及圓滿的持戒，所以叫做『無性』，並非是不以發心作為因，而叫做『無種性』。這和《仁王經》、《瓔珞經》等經相同。這種說法是不對的。如果認為未達到種性位，沒有決定的力量和圓滿的持戒，就說最終不能得到，叫做『無性』，那麼，經文怎麼說『因為最初發心決定能夠得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，所以叫做『性』』呢？按照這段經文，就是說最初發心就叫做『性』，就是因為最初的發心能夠得到菩提。說不達到種性位叫做『無性』，未達到堪忍和圓滿持戒就說最終不能得到，豈不是違背了經文？《地持經》說，『依靠最初發心修行六度，叫做菩薩行方便持；依靠行方便滿足菩提，所以行方便叫做大菩提持』。《瑜伽師地論》也相同。而且后位是因為最初才有，說最終不能得到，豈不是矛盾？而且因為前前才有後後，經文怎麼說『所以應當知道，不是因為發起菩提心勤奮修行精進才有菩薩性』呢？這既違背了經義，錯誤得太過分了。也不能說沒有發起菩提心就叫做『無種性』，經文說不是因為發起菩提心才有菩薩性。
【English Translation】 English version: To arbitrarily insult the sacred teachings with the status of a common mortal is truly excessive.
Dispelling Delusions by Understanding the Sutras 4
Some say that the 'non-Gotra (seed, lineage) person' mentioned in the Śīlaskandha Sutra (善戒經), Bodhisattvabhūmi (地持經), Yogācārabhūmi (瑜伽師地論), etc., refers to acquired nature, not inherent nature. How do we know this? The sutra itself explains that 'Bodhisattva-nature' refers to the initial aspiration (初發心) and the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment (三十七道品). Why? Because a Bodhisattva's arising of Bodhicitta (菩提心, the mind of enlightenment) is the root of all wholesome dharmas, hence it is called 'arising' (發); because arising Bodhicitta leads to the attainment of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment), hence it is called 'cause' (因); because the initial aspiration is certain to lead to the attainment of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, hence it is called 'nature' (性). This explains the initial aspiration, distinguishing it with three meanings, having three names, called the aspiration of the Habitual-Gotra (習種性發心). It possesses these three meanings. The aspiration in the previous stage only has the meaning of 'cause', without the other two meanings. However, the sutra says, 'If one does not have Bodhisattva-nature, even if one arises the aspiration and diligently cultivates with vigor, one will ultimately not attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi,' this is according to the previous stage. Not having reached the Gotra stage, although there is a slight aspiration, there is no certainty of attainment, the power to endure, and complete upholding of precepts, hence it is called 'non-nature' (無性), not that it does not take aspiration as a cause, hence it is called 'non-Gotra' (無種性). This is the same as the Benevolent Kings Sutra (仁王經), Garland Sutra (瓔珞經), etc. This statement is incorrect. If one believes that not having reached the Gotra stage, lacking the power of certainty and complete upholding of precepts, one says that ultimately one cannot attain, hence it is called 'non-nature,' then how does the sutra say, 'Because the initial aspiration is certain to lead to the attainment of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, hence it is called 'nature'?' According to this sutra passage, the initial aspiration is called 'nature,' because the initial aspiration can lead to Bodhi. Saying that not reaching the Gotra stage is called 'non-nature,' and not reaching endurance and complete upholding of precepts means ultimately one cannot attain, does this not contradict the sutra passage? The Bodhisattvabhūmi says, 'Relying on the initial aspiration to cultivate the six perfections (六度), it is called the Bodhisattva's practice of skillful means (方便持); relying on the fulfillment of the practice of skillful means, one satisfies Bodhi, hence the practice of skillful means is called the great Bodhi-upholding.' The Yogācārabhūmi is the same. Furthermore, the later stage is because of the initial stage, saying that ultimately one cannot attain, is this not contradictory? Moreover, because of the preceding, there is the succeeding, how does the sutra say, 'Therefore, one should know that it is not because of arising the aspiration and diligently cultivating with vigor that one has Bodhisattva-nature?' This both contradicts the sutra meaning and is excessively erroneous. One also cannot say that not arising the aspiration is called 'non-Gotra,' the sutra says that it is not because of arising the aspiration that one has Bodhisattva-nature.
。地持論云。非種性人無種性故。雖復發心勤修精進。必不究竟阿耨菩提。是故當知。雖不發心不修行方便。猶得名為種性持。瑜伽論云。住無種性補特伽羅。無種性故。雖有發心及行加行為所依止。定不堪忍圓滿無上正等菩提。由此道理。雖未發心未修菩薩所行加行。若有種性。當知望彼而得名持。又有種性。若未發心不能速得。不得云終不能得。故瑜伽次云。又住種性補特伽羅。若不發心不修菩薩所行。雖有堪任。而不速證無上菩提。今約位分云無種性。故知為謬。又云。瑜伽論等云無性者。據客性說者。彼自立義理。心為本性。行無漏種為客性。客性自許初無。瑜伽等云無。即了義。云何判為不了。由不能知二種種性。一種性即法爾有。二習種性即法爾種。隨緣起現熏新種者。名為習性。善戒經云。性有二種。一者本性。二者客性。言本性者。陰界六入次第相續。無始無終法性自爾。是名本性。即是前云是故當知非因發心有菩薩性。地持云。雖不發心不修加行方便。猶得名為種性持。所修一切善法即為客性。瑜伽論云。從無始世展轉傳來法爾所得名性種性。若從先來修善所得。是名習姓。法性自爾即是本性故。善戒經云。非因發心有菩薩性者。由本有故。說之為主。習種新起故名為客。地持論同。彼敘異釋。廣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《地持論》中說：『非種性人因為沒有種性，即使發心勤奮修行精進，也必定不能最終證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。』因此應當知道，即使沒有發心，沒有修行方便法門，仍然可以被稱為種性持（擁有種性）。《瑜伽師地論》中說：『安住于無種性的補特伽羅（Pudgala，人），因為沒有種性，即使有發心和修行加行作為所依止，也必定不能堪忍圓滿無上正等菩提。』由此道理，即使沒有發心，沒有修菩薩所行的加行，如果具有種性，應當知道相對於那些沒有種性的人，可以被稱為種性持。又有種性的人，如果未發心，不能快速證得，但不能說最終不能證得。所以《瑜伽師地論》接著說：『又安住于種性的補特伽羅，如果不發心，不修菩薩所行，雖然有堪能性，也不能快速證得無上菩提。』現在根據位階差別說無種性，因此知道這是錯誤的。又說，《瑜伽師地論》等經論中說的無性，是根據客性來說的。他們自己立的義理是，心為本性，行無漏種為客性。客性自己承認最初是沒有的。《瑜伽師地論》等經論中說的『無』，就是了義。為什麼判斷為不了義呢？因為不能知道兩種種性。一種性是法爾本有，二習種性是法爾種，隨因緣生起顯現，熏習新的種子，這叫做習性。《善戒經》中說：『性有二種，一者本性，二者客性。』所說的本性，是陰、界、六入次第相續，無始無終，法性自然如此，這叫做本性。也就是前面說的『因此應當知道，不是因為發心才有菩薩性』。《地持論》說：『即使不發心，不修加行方便，仍然可以被稱為種性持。』所修的一切善法就是客性。《瑜伽師地論》說：『從無始世輾轉傳來，法爾所得的叫做性種性，如果從先前修善所得的，這叫做習性。』法性自然如此就是本性。《善戒經》說：『不是因為發心才有菩薩性』，是因為本有，所以說本性為主。習種是新產生的，所以叫做客性。《地持論》也是同樣的道理。他們敘述不同的解釋，非常廣泛。
【English Translation】 English version: The Bhumi-sparsha-論 (Treatise on the Ground) states: 'Those without gotra (種性, lineage/seed), lacking the gotra, even if they generate the aspiration [for enlightenment] and diligently cultivate with vigor, will certainly not ultimately attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (阿耨菩提, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment).' Therefore, it should be known that even without generating the aspiration [for enlightenment] or practicing skillful means, one can still be called a gotra-dhara (種性持, one who possesses the lineage/seed). The Yoga-acara-bhumi-shastra (瑜伽論, Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) states: 'A Pudgala (補特伽羅, individual) abiding in the state of lacking gotra, due to the absence of gotra, even if they have generated the aspiration [for enlightenment] and engage in additional practices as a support, is definitely incapable of enduring the complete and unsurpassed perfect enlightenment.' Due to this reason, even without generating the aspiration [for enlightenment] or cultivating the additional practices performed by Bodhisattvas, if one possesses gotra, it should be known that compared to those without gotra, they can be called gotra-dhara. Furthermore, if one possesses gotra but has not generated the aspiration [for enlightenment], they cannot quickly attain [enlightenment], but it cannot be said that they will ultimately be unable to attain it. Therefore, the Yoga-acara-bhumi-shastra continues: 'Moreover, a Pudgala abiding in gotra, if they do not generate the aspiration [for enlightenment] or cultivate the practices of a Bodhisattva, although they have the capacity, they will not quickly realize unsurpassed enlightenment.' The current statement about lacking gotra is based on the distinction of stages, so it is known to be erroneous. Furthermore, it is said that the 'absence of nature' mentioned in the Yoga-acara-bhumi-shastra and other texts refers to the agantuka-prakriti (客性, adventitious nature). They themselves establish the principle that the mind is the prakriti (本性, inherent nature), and the practice of undefiled seeds is the agantuka-prakriti. The agantuka-prakriti itself admits to being initially non-existent. The 'absence' mentioned in the Yoga-acara-bhumi-shastra and other texts is the definitive meaning. Why is it judged as non-definitive? It is because they cannot understand the two types of gotra. One gotra is naturally existing, and the second, the habitual gotra, is a natural seed. Arising and manifesting according to conditions, and imbuing new seeds, is called habitual nature. The Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra (善戒經, Golden Light Sutra) states: 'There are two types of nature: one is prakriti, and the other is agantuka-prakriti.' What is called prakriti is the continuous succession of the skandhas (陰, aggregates), dhatus (界, elements), and ayatana (六入, six sense bases), without beginning or end, the nature of reality is naturally so, this is called prakriti. This is what was previously said: 'Therefore, it should be known that it is not because of generating the aspiration [for enlightenment] that one has Bodhisattva nature.' The Bhumi-sparsha-論 states: 'Even without generating the aspiration [for enlightenment] or cultivating additional practices, one can still be called a gotra-dhara.' All the virtuous practices cultivated are the agantuka-prakriti. The Yoga-acara-bhumi-shastra states: 'What is naturally obtained from beginningless time is called prakriti-gotra (性種性, nature-lineage). What is obtained from previously cultivating virtue is called abhyasa-gotra (習姓, habit-lineage).' The naturalness of reality is prakriti. The Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra states: 'It is not because of generating the aspiration [for enlightenment] that one has Bodhisattva nature,' because it is inherently present, so prakriti is said to be primary. The habitual seed is newly produced, so it is called agantuka-prakriti. The Bhumi-sparsha-論 is the same. They narrate different explanations, which are extensive.
為難序。徒設劬勞。又由不了法性自爾之言。將作真如佛性。若真如言無始終。理即可爾。如何善戒經言次第相續。地持云展轉相續。瑜伽論云展轉傳來。廣引文論。是真如性唐捐其功。下當顯示。又云。解深密第二云。一向趣寂不坐道場。無餘依中諸受永盡。瑜伽論云。無餘依中唯有真如無諸作業者。依小乘說。以四十年前。未說二乘無實涅槃。舍分段身別有變易眾生無斷。深密既在於前故。許二乘趣寂實滅。此亦非理。深密自判般若等經。猶非了義。今第三時是真了義。豈肯更隨小乘教說二乘實滅。勝義生讚歎為真了義。又若非真彌勒菩薩瑜伽論中引為抉擇。可不解會釋。後代方解通經。判言彌勒捨實弘權。深為未可。又云。先說佛滅后不滅。信后不滅爲了義。先說決定。今迴心。何獨不信言決定。此不同例。唯小乘教定說佛滅。大乘經論咸許非真決定必不迴心。大乘經論通說。決定不迴心。變易非別受身。二乘一分實滅下示正中。廣為分別。又云。大菩薩藏經第五。邪定聚眾生非法器故。若使如來為彼說法。若不為說。終不堪任證於解脫。如來如實知彼有情非法器已。而便棄捨。世親釋云。惡趣名邪性定。入惡趣名邪定。涅槃名正性。定得涅槃名正定涅槃。既卻退惡趣后定出。出惡趣已非邪定聚。邪定聚時如來
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《為難序》。徒勞無功。又因為不了達法性本然之說，就將它當作真如佛性。如果說真如沒有始終，道理上或許可以這樣認為。但為何《善戒經》說次第相續，《地持經》說展轉相續，《瑜伽師地論》說展轉傳來，廣泛引用經文理論，卻使真如之性白費了功夫，下面將會闡明。又說，《解深密經》第二卷說，『一向趣向寂滅而不坐在菩提道場，在無餘依涅槃中諸受永盡。』《瑜伽師地論》說，『在無餘依涅槃中唯有真如而沒有諸作業。』這是依據小乘的說法。因為在佛陀說法的前四十年，還沒有說二乘沒有真實的涅槃，捨棄分段生死之身，別有變易生死，眾生沒有斷滅。既然《解深密經》在前，所以允許二乘趣向寂滅，真實滅度。這也是不合道理的。《解深密經》自己判斷般若等經，還不是了義。現在第三時才是真正了義。怎麼會再隨順小乘教說二乘真實滅度呢？勝義生讚歎它是真正了義。又如果不是真實的，彌勒菩薩在《瑜伽師地論》中引用它作為抉擇，難道不應該理解會釋嗎？後代才解釋貫通經文，判斷說彌勒捨棄真實而弘揚方便，實在是不可以。《為難序》又說，先說佛滅后不滅，相信後來的不滅才是了義。先前說決定，現在迴心，為何獨獨不相信說決定呢？這不同於之前的例子。只有小乘教才一定說佛滅。大乘經論都允許不是真實的決定，必定不會迴心。大乘經論普遍都說決定不迴心，變易生死不是另外受身。二乘一分真實滅度，下面會詳細闡明。又說，《大菩薩藏經》第五卷說，邪定聚的眾生因為不是法器，如果如來為他們說法，或者不為他們說法，最終都不能證得解脫。如來如實地知道這些有情不是法器，就捨棄了他們。世親解釋說，惡趣名為邪性決定，進入惡趣名為邪定，涅槃名為正性決定，得到涅槃名為正定。涅槃既然卻退惡趣后決定出離，出離惡趣后就不是邪定聚。邪定聚時如來
【English Translation】 English version: The 'Difficulty Preface'. It's a futile effort. Furthermore, due to not understanding the inherent nature of Dharma, it's taken as the Tathata (真如) [Suchness] Buddha-nature (佛性). If it's said that Tathata (真如) has no beginning or end, the reasoning might be acceptable. However, how can the Śīlaskandha-vinaya (善戒經) say 'successively continuous', the Bodhisattvabhumi (地持經) say 'mutually continuous', and the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽師地論) say 'transmitted successively', extensively quoting scriptures and treatises, yet render the nature of Tathata (真如) futile? This will be shown below. Furthermore, it's said, 'The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (解深密經), chapter two, says, 'Those who are solely inclined towards quiescence do not sit at the Bodhi tree, and in Nirupadhisesa-nirvana (無餘依) [Nirvana without remainder] all sensations are completely extinguished.' The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽師地論) says, 'In Nirupadhisesa-nirvana (無餘依) only Tathata (真如) exists, without any activities.' This is based on the teachings of the Hinayana (小乘). Because in the first forty years of the Buddha's teachings, it wasn't said that the Two Vehicles (二乘) [Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas] don't have real Nirvana (涅槃), abandoning the Skandha (分段身) [body of coarse suffering] and having a separate Samsara (變易) [body of subtle suffering], beings are not extinguished. Since the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (解深密經) came earlier, it allows the Two Vehicles (二乘) to be inclined towards quiescence and truly extinguished. This is also unreasonable. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (解深密經) itself judges the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras (般若) and other scriptures as not definitive. Now, the third turning of the wheel of Dharma is truly definitive. How could it still follow the Hinayana (小乘) teachings and say that the Two Vehicles (二乘) are truly extinguished? Sheng Yi Sheng (勝義生) praises it as truly definitive. Furthermore, if it's not real, shouldn't Maitreya Bodhisattva (彌勒菩薩) in the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽師地論) be understood and interpreted when quoting it as a determination? Later generations interpret and connect the scriptures, judging that Maitreya (彌勒) abandoned the real and promoted the expedient, which is truly unacceptable. The 'Difficulty Preface' also says, 'First it was said that the Buddha (佛) is extinguished, then it was said that he is not extinguished, believing that the later non-extinction is definitive. Previously it was said to be definite, now there is repentance, why not believe that it is said to be definite?' This is not the same example as before. Only the Hinayana (小乘) teachings definitely say that the Buddha (佛) is extinguished. The Mahayana (大乘) sutras and treatises all allow that it is not a true determination and will definitely not repent. The Mahayana (大乘) sutras and treatises universally say that there is a definite non-repentance, and Samsara (變易) is not a separate body. The Two Vehicles (二乘) partially truly extinguished will be explained in detail below. Furthermore, it's said, 'The fifth volume of the Mahābodhisattva-saṃgraha Sūtra (大菩薩藏經) says, 'Beings of the wrongly determined group are not suitable vessels for the Dharma, so whether the Tathagata (如來) preaches to them or does not preach to them, they will ultimately not be able to attain liberation. The Tathagata (如來), knowing truly that these sentient beings are not suitable vessels, abandons them.' Vasubandhu (世親) explains, 'Evil destinies are called wrongly determined by nature, entering evil destinies is called wrong determination, Nirvana (涅槃) is called rightly determined by nature, attaining Nirvana (涅槃) is called right determination. Since Nirvana (涅槃) retreats from evil destinies, it is determined to leave later, and after leaving evil destinies, it is not a wrongly determined group. When in the wrongly determined group, the Tathagata (如來)'
舍置。非邪定時菩薩化也。故知是非畢竟無性。大集第十云。為邪定者。方便演說。令壞邪定。無善子者。令種善子。無法器者。令作法器。為法器者。演說菩提。亦不應理。菩薩藏大集經二說意別。菩薩藏說。若使如來為彼說法。若不說法。終不堪任證於解脫。知非法器。而便棄捨據無種性。不得涅槃。云非法器而便棄捨。非全棄捨。亦令彼得人天樂故。若是惡趣名為邪定。佛棄捨者。云何菩薩垂形六道。豈許菩薩慈悲過佛。又若言。在惡趣邪定之時。佛便舍置。出惡趣已非邪定時。佛菩薩化。豈非滅削諸聖悲願。大集經云。為邪定者。方便演說令壞邪定。無善子者。令種善子。無法器者。令作法器。為法器者。宣說菩提。此據有性得涅槃記。由作五逆等。名邪定聚。設是有性。斷善根者。亦名邪定聚。由斷見善及五逆等。未有廣多新熏善種。云無善子。未至成就。云非法器。不爾。如何菩薩藏經邪定棄捨。大集即云。方便為說。亦不得說。言大集經中據出邪定。若出邪定便非邪定者。說為邪定者方便演說故。由不能知經論所說三聚有別。作此通經下示正中。廣為開示。又云。央掘摩羅經第二云。云何名邪定。諸佛不能化。又次下云。所言邪定謂一闡提。正定謂二乘菩薩。斷善根者名一闡提。善根續已即非一闡提。
斷時名不可治。續已可治。涅槃三十三云。一闡提人而不能救地獄之苦。名不可治。作後世種還名可治。故一切眾生皆有佛性。故不可治說近非遠。亦不應然。央掘摩經云。邪定聚佛不能化。是無種性。與涅槃經三十三別。涅槃為作後世因者。即是能化。又第十說。如白羊角等。闡提同央掘經。又一闡提非唯斷善。但將續善說為可治。此說有餘。又一闡提雖有當善。而不能救地獄之苦。未來可救。現在之世無如之何。名不可救。據定報說。若非決定地獄苦可救。不爾。如何。有于現在或生死位。及以後世續善根別。又如五逆名無間業。作已決定往惡趣受。經論又說。五逆四重悔凈滅除。不往惡趣生人天等。此由業果有定不定。于定之中。復時報別。經一向說。解亦有餘。證有佛性故。亦不可。彼由不了闡提多種故。謬通經下示正中。當爲開顯。又云。善戒經第三云。眾生調伏有其四種。一聲聞乘性得聲聞道。二緣覺乘性得緣覺道。三有佛性得佛道。四有人天性得人天樂。地持第二瑜伽三十七所說皆同。然調伏有六。一性調伏。二人調伏。性調伏說本性。至發心位。人調伏說四客性。本性說遠。一切皆欲菩提。客性說近。有四種別。故經云。性調伏者有善種子故修善法。修善法故壞二障。修善法故身心清凈。身心清凈故
若遇善友若不值遇能壞二障。如癰已熟。遇師悉得除愈等。一切眾生亦復如是。修行畢得菩提時。是名為熟。是名性調伏。既說本性調伏已。密意說一切眾生當成佛也。同法華論及十法經定性聲聞以佛性因記成佛也。二人調伏者四。如上所說。故知人調伏是近因也。有無人無性等。皆是近故。既無人天性。後有人天性。故知先無三乘性。后得三乘性。此說亦非。言性調伏總明本來法爾自性。二眾生調伏即明所調伏。故瑜伽云。所成熟補特伽羅略有四種。約生明性。有無不同。大小性別。三行調伏。明菩薩修行所有差別。謂修勝身諸根智慧等。四方便調伏。明菩薩修有三十二方便。五成熟調伏者。明能成熟者及所成熟者。六者熟印調伏。即明所成熟。已成熟者所有印相。顯如經論。煩不能引。故性調伏及人調伏非約遠近。若云性調伏即明遠性。眾生本性。二生調伏即是近性。眾生客性。一切眾生皆有本性。咸應令作佛。何故近以三乘熟之。何故穢食置於寶器。欲行大道。反示小徑。彼自無瘡。何傷之也。又說近性。為因他有。為本自成。若因他有。云何地持言。有聲聞性者。以聲聞乘而成熟之等。何故不言無聲聞性以聲聞性而成熟之等。若云據己有者。以聲聞乘而成熟之。若爾。何故復云無種性者則以善趣而成熟之。不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若遇到好的朋友，或者沒有遇到好的朋友，都能摧毀兩種障礙（二障：煩惱障和所知障）。就像癰瘡已經成熟，遇到醫生就能完全治癒一樣。一切眾生也是如此，修行完畢得到菩提（菩提：覺悟）的時候，就叫做成熟，就叫做自性調伏。既然說了本性調伏，就秘密地說明一切眾生都應當成佛。這與《法華論》和《十法經》中，將定性聲聞（定性聲聞：註定只能成為聲聞乘的修行者）以佛性之因記別成佛的說法相同。二人調伏有四種，如上面所說。所以知道人調伏是近因。有無人無性等，都是近因的緣故。既然沒有人天之性，後來又有人天之性，所以知道先前沒有三乘（三乘：聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）之性，後來才得到三乘之性。這種說法也是不對的。所說的自性調伏，是總括地說明本來如此的自性。二眾生調伏，就是說明所調伏的對象。所以《瑜伽師地論》說，所要成熟的補特伽羅（補特伽羅：個體，人）略有四種，從生來就說明自性的有無不同，大小性別不同。三行調伏，說明菩薩修行所有的差別，就是修習殊勝的身相、諸根、智慧等。四方便調伏，說明菩薩修習有三十二種方便。五成熟調伏，說明能成熟者和所成熟者。六熟印調伏，就是說明所成熟、已經成熟者的所有印相。這些在經論中都顯而易見，煩瑣不能一一引述。所以自性調伏和人調伏不是從遠近來說的。如果說自性調伏就是說明遠性，眾生的本性；二生調伏就是近性，眾生的客性。一切眾生都有本性，都應該讓他們成佛，為什麼用三乘來使他們成熟呢？為什麼把污穢的食物放在寶貴的器皿里？想要走大道，反而指示小路。他們自己沒有瘡，有什麼傷害呢？又說近性，是由於他人而有，還是本來就有的？如果是由於他人而有，為什麼《地持經》說，『有聲聞性的人，用聲聞乘來使他們成熟』等等，為什麼不說『沒有聲聞性的人，用聲聞性來使他們成熟』等等？如果說是根據自己本有的，用聲聞乘來使他們成熟。如果這樣，為什麼又說『沒有種性的人，就用善趣來使他們成熟』呢？不（應該這樣說）。
【English Translation】 English version Whether encountering good friends or not, one can destroy the two obscurations (two obscurations: afflictive obscuration and cognitive obscuration). It's like a boil that has matured; encountering a doctor, it can be completely cured. All sentient beings are also like this; when cultivation is complete and one attains Bodhi (Bodhi: enlightenment), it is called maturation, it is called self-nature taming. Since it speaks of self-nature taming, it secretly explains that all sentient beings should become Buddhas. This is the same as the statement in the Treatise on the Lotus Sutra and the Ten Dharma Sutra that fixed-nature Shravakas (fixed-nature Shravakas: practitioners destined to become Shravakas) are predicted to become Buddhas based on the cause of Buddha-nature. There are four types of taming of persons, as mentioned above. Therefore, it is known that the taming of persons is a proximate cause. Having no person, no nature, etc., are all due to being proximate causes. Since there is no nature of humans and devas, and later there is the nature of humans and devas, it is known that initially there was no nature of the Three Vehicles (Three Vehicles: Shravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle), and later one attains the nature of the Three Vehicles. This statement is also incorrect. The so-called self-nature taming generally explains the self-nature that is originally and naturally so. The second, the taming of sentient beings, explains the objects to be tamed. Therefore, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that there are roughly four types of pudgalas (pudgalas: individuals, persons) to be matured, explaining the differences in the presence or absence of self-nature from birth, and the differences in size and gender. The third, the taming of conduct, explains all the differences in the Bodhisattva's practice, namely, cultivating superior physical characteristics, faculties, wisdom, etc. The fourth, the taming of skillful means, explains that the Bodhisattva cultivates thirty-two skillful means. The fifth, maturation taming, explains the one who can mature and the one who is matured. The sixth, the maturation seal taming, explains all the signs of the one who is matured and already matured. These are all evident in the sutras and treatises; it is too tedious to cite them one by one. Therefore, self-nature taming and person taming are not spoken of in terms of distance. If it is said that self-nature taming explains the distant nature, the inherent nature of sentient beings; the second, birth taming, is the proximate nature, the adventitious nature of sentient beings. All sentient beings have inherent nature and should all be made to become Buddhas, so why use the Three Vehicles to mature them? Why put filthy food in precious vessels? Wanting to walk the great path, one instead points out a small path. They themselves have no sores, what harm is there? Furthermore, it is said that proximate nature, is it due to others or is it originally inherent? If it is due to others, why does the Bodhisattvabhumi say, 'Those who have the Shravaka nature are matured by the Shravaka Vehicle,' etc.? Why not say, 'Those who do not have the Shravaka nature are matured by the Shravaka nature,' etc.? If it is said that it is based on what one inherently has, one is matured by the Shravaka Vehicle. If so, why does it also say, 'Those who have no seed nature are matured by the good destinies'? It should not (be said that way).
言以聲聞乘性等而成熟之。若云既未有性。云何可成熟。若爾。無既不為說。何時當得有。又云。既無人天性。後有人天性。故知先無三乘性。后得三乘性。此例虛設。曾無文說先無人天種性。后令有人天種性。若許初無後今有者。即人天趣在佛後有。即應有始。又人天種性生得善感。生得善者。生即便得。豈是先無。后他令有耶。劫壞有生人天。豈佛教耶。若云。智度論云。不住涅槃者。著人天樂福中。與作涅槃因。故知無因后還有性。此亦不爾。智度論云與作涅槃因者。據無現說。非無種子。無種果生。不應理故。又云。若雖言與人天樂。即有性無性別。即所引文雲天人善而成熟者。不為定量。此亦不爾。論為定量。何以故。智論云。不住涅槃者。置人天性中。與作涅槃因。不言無種性。以人天善根而成熟之。作涅槃因。是三乘因而成熟之故。又若云不許無種果得生者。何故楞伽經云斷善根無性后得涅槃。故知無因后還有性。亦不爾。大悲菩薩亦在此中。豈無佛性名為無性。故知大悲見未成佛云無。斷善見斷云。非無種子亦不得。難云。若有涅槃因。何故著人天樂中。作涅槃因。善戒經說有三乘性三乘調伏故。此亦不爾。豈有涅槃因。皆能即成聖無暇。不成聖故置人天中。故無著般若論云。難處生者待時故。此意
說。生見在難所。待生人天。離難所已而成熟之。謬通勝鬘。準此可悉。又云。瑜伽五十二名無涅槃法。及六十七莊嚴論第一。無涅槃法者。據客性說。非本正因。本正同有。不可分人。客性有無不同。據斯性別。故優婆塞戒經第一云。以菩提有上中下。菩提非本有。此亦不可義。此說其果由因方得。云非本有。設若說因據新熏起。不障本有上中下性。不爾。如何齊有本大因。始令成三品。過如前說。又云。菩薩由發心得。名不由本性。故準知。得三乘性。名不由本性。此義不爾。名是假說無其實性。云不由性故。攝大乘論云。名義互為客。其事應尋思。非其種性。法體不別。又非無本性。由發心始得。違善戒經。非由發心有菩薩性故。若約位通。如前已非。又次引人調伏。亦如前非。又引攝論云。具障而闕因。諸佛不自在。瑜伽或就障。或就因明。二說不同。皆非本性者。據何為說。設非本性。俱空言。即能顯定。又云畢竟闡提。據寶性論云。以無量時故。名畢竟無涅槃法。涅槃經佛性論說亦爾。后定發心皆得成佛者。此等皆據時邊者說。非畢竟者。何以得知。無上依經云。有三品眾生。一者著有。復有二種。一者背涅槃道。無涅槃性。不求涅槃。愿樂生死。二者於我法中不生渴仰。誹謗大乘。阿難是等眾生非我弟
子。佛非彼師。乃至云以生死轉作。於後際落闡提網。不能自出。前是無性。后雖有性。鈍根長時謗法不信。寶性論中會此第二。非第一人。云。為迴轉謗法者。言無量時。故非第一。若不如是。何故分二。又論自云。若無因緣生如是心者。一闡提等無涅槃性。應發菩提心。不爾。不應經論之中俱作二說。若云論自會訖將此為定。莊嚴佛地亦分明說無性之人畢竟不成佛。何故不定。故知二說各據性別。經論無違。若云。涅槃經中佛亦自會。障未來故。名為無性。必當得故。名為有性者。亦不應理。此據時邊。說必當得。非畢竟者。若不如是。何故第十云。假使一切無量眾生一時成熟阿耨菩提已。此諸如來亦復不見彼一闡提得成菩提。諸佛有滅盡期。可云。此人時長故不見佛。無涅槃時。如何言不見。以此故知有畢竟無性。于莊嚴論廣作余通。徒設劬勞。又引攝論云。聖弟子言。此全無少分善根而棄捨。佛觀知有而度之者。知有微少不具因。莊嚴論說不具因。即是餘生微少善根。無此微少名畢竟無性者。此亦不爾。無微少善許後作佛。還是時邊何名畢竟。未曾起得微少善者。乃是一向行惡行。時邊所收。非畢竟無性。若云畢竟后不作佛。何故次下云。已說無性次說令入。此亦不爾。言令入者。以彼論文前說有性。后說無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 子（指佛陀的弟子）。佛陀不是他們的老師。乃至（他們）說以生死輪迴作為（常態）。在未來的時間裡，落入闡提（斷善根者）的羅網，不能自己從中解脫。前者是無性（沒有成佛的可能性），後者雖然有性（有成佛的可能性），但由於根器遲鈍，長時間誹謗佛法而不相信。寶性論中會合了這第二種人，而不是第一種人。說：『爲了迴轉誹謗佛法的人』，（需要）無量的時間，所以不是第一種人。如果不是這樣，為什麼要把他們分成兩種人呢？而且論中自己說：『如果沒有因緣產生這樣的心，那麼一闡提等人就沒有涅槃的自性，應該發起菩提心。』如果不是這樣，就不應該在經論之中都作出兩種說法。如果說論中自己已經會合完畢，並將此作為定論，那麼莊嚴佛地經也分明地說無性之人畢竟不能成佛，為什麼不定論呢？所以知道兩種說法各自根據不同的類別。經論沒有違背。如果說：『涅槃經中佛陀也自己會合，因為障礙未來，所以名為無性；必定能夠得到，所以名為有性』，也不合道理。這是根據時間方面來說，說必定能夠得到，不是畢竟（最終）的。如果不是這樣，為什麼第十卷說：『假使一切無量眾生一時成熟阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（無上正等正覺）之後，這些如來也看不見那一闡提能夠成就菩提。』諸佛有滅盡的時期，可以說這個人時間長所以佛看不見。沒有涅槃的時候，如何說看不見呢？因此知道有畢竟無性。在莊嚴論中廣泛地作出其他的解釋，只是徒勞。又引用攝大乘論說：『聖弟子說，這個人完全沒有少分的善根而捨棄。佛陀觀察知道有而度化他』，（這是）知道有微少不具足的因。莊嚴論說不具足因，就是其餘生微少的善根。沒有這微少的（善根）名為畢竟無性。這也不對。沒有微少善根，允許後來作佛，還是時間方面，怎麼能叫畢竟（無性）呢？未曾起得微少善者，乃是一向行惡行，時間方面所攝，非畢竟無性。如果說畢竟后不作佛，為什麼緊接著下面說：『已經說了無性，接著說令入（佛道）』。這也不對。說令入（佛道）的，因為那篇論文前面說有性，後面說無性。
【English Translation】 English version: Son (referring to the Buddha's disciple). The Buddha is not their teacher. Even to the point that (they) say taking the cycle of birth and death as (the norm). In the future, they fall into the net of Icchantikas (those who have severed their roots of goodness), unable to liberate themselves. The former are those without nature (no possibility of attaining Buddhahood), while the latter, although possessing nature (the possibility of attaining Buddhahood), are dull-witted and slander the Dharma for a long time without believing. The Ratnagotravibhāga Sutra (寶性論) combines this second type of person, not the first. It says: 'In order to turn around those who slander the Dharma,' (it requires) immeasurable time, so they are not the first type. If it were not so, why divide them into two types? Moreover, the treatise itself says: 'If there is no cause or condition for generating such a mind, then Icchantikas and others have no nature for Nirvana and should generate Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment).' If it is not so, then there should not be two different statements made in both the Sutras and treatises. If it is said that the treatise itself has already combined them and takes this as a definitive conclusion, then the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (莊嚴佛地經) also clearly states that those without nature ultimately cannot become Buddhas, so why not make a definitive conclusion? Therefore, it is known that the two statements are each based on different categories. The Sutras and treatises do not contradict each other. If it is said: 'In the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha also combines them himself, because they obstruct the future, they are called without nature; because they will definitely attain it, they are called with nature,' this is also unreasonable. This is based on the aspect of time, saying that they will definitely attain it, not ultimately. If it were not so, why does the tenth volume say: 'Even if all immeasurable beings simultaneously mature into Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled perfect enlightenment), these Tathagatas (如來) also do not see that one Icchantika can achieve Bodhi.' The Buddhas have a period of extinction, so it can be said that this person's time is long, so the Buddha does not see them. When there is no Nirvana, how can it be said that they are not seen? Therefore, it is known that there are those who are ultimately without nature. Making other explanations extensively in the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra is just a waste of effort. Furthermore, quoting the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝大乘論), it says: 'The noble disciple says that this person completely lacks even a small portion of good roots and is abandoned. The Buddha observes and knows that they have it and transforms them,' (this is) knowing that they have a slight, incomplete cause. The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra says that an incomplete cause is the slight good roots in other lives. Lacking this slight (good root) is called ultimately without nature. This is also incorrect. Lacking slight good roots, allowing them to become Buddhas later, is still a matter of time, so how can it be called ultimate (without nature)? Those who have never generated even a slight amount of good are those who consistently engage in evil deeds, which is included in the aspect of time, not ultimately without nature. If it is said that they will ultimately not become Buddhas later, why does it immediately say below: 'Having spoken of those without nature, then speaking of causing them to enter (the Buddhist path).' This is also incorrect. Saying to cause them to enter (the Buddhist path) is because that treatise speaks of having nature earlier and then speaks of being without nature later.
性。有無相對說。次說令入者。說有性令入。不爾。如何云若無性差別則無乘差別等。又云。攝論具障而闕因。諸佛不得自在。無性釋云。具障謂煩惱業異。異熟闕因。諸無涅槃因。具障。雖前佛不自在。后佛有自在。例闕因者。應知亦爾。彼說非理。煩惱感果。雖俱有定。即有報盡之時。報盡之時佛得自在。令使涅槃。無因之者於此位中佛不自在。不得令有。豈有自然有因之時。各于彼位佛方教化。若本無因后自然有。亦本凡夫決定自然成聖。何故假善友佛等為緣。於此至理應深可思。如不能悟。余無自在。
破行性遍
有義。理行佛性一切悉有。如大云經等。如來常住。二亦無滅。一切眾生悉有佛性為宗。此不盡理。信理性遍。是真弟子。言事性遍。經無誠文。雖言得菩提心。能信亦是。非要能得佛果菩提。方名得心。準所引文。無一切生皆成佛語。若第八體。是有漏性。無記法。非無漏因。天親攝論等皆悉不許。若言無二乘滅。據不定性。由來共許。若論定性。此不極成。涅槃經云。若云四果皆得作佛。不解我意。涅槃二十七云。一切悉有心。有心皆作佛者。如說一乘。約同體。約同體意樂。三十六云。一切善不善無記等法盡名佛性者。不善。謂煩惱等。若是不善所依真如名為佛性。此則可爾。即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『性』，有『有』和『無』相對的說法。如果進一步解釋如何引導眾生證入佛性，那就是通過宣說『有性』來引導。否則，如果說沒有『性』的差別，那麼如何解釋『乘』的差別呢？此外，《攝大乘論》中說，具備障礙而缺乏成佛之因，諸佛就不能獲得自在。無性論師解釋說，具備障礙是指煩惱和業的異熟果報，缺乏成佛之因是指沒有涅槃之因。雖然具備障礙，前佛可能不自在，但后佛可以自在。如果類比缺乏成佛之因的情況，也應該如此理解。但這種說法是不合理的。煩惱感果，雖然都是確定的，但有果報窮盡的時候。果報窮盡的時候，佛就能獲得自在，從而使眾生涅槃。而對於那些沒有成佛之因的眾生，即使到了那個時候，佛也不能讓他們獲得成佛之因，不能讓他們自在，不能讓他們成佛。難道會有自然而然產生佛性之因的時候嗎？只有到了那個時候，佛才能教化他們。如果本來沒有成佛之因，後來自然而然地產生，那麼本來是凡夫的人，也應該決定自然而然地成聖。為什麼還需要善友、佛等作為助緣呢？對於這個至理，應該深入思考。如果不能領悟，就不能獲得自在。
破斥行性遍在的觀點
有一種觀點認為，理佛性、行佛性，一切眾生都具有，如《大云經》等所說，如來常住，二乘也沒有滅盡，一切眾生都具有佛性。這種說法並不完全合理。相信理佛性遍在，才是真正的佛弟子。至於說行佛性遍在，經典中沒有明確的證據。雖然說得到菩提心，能夠相信佛性遍在，也算是得到，但並非一定要得到佛果菩提，才算是得到菩提心。按照所引用的經文，並沒有說一切眾生都能成佛。如果說第八識是有漏的、無記的法，就不是無漏的成佛之因，天親菩薩的《攝大乘論》等都不允許這種說法。如果說二乘沒有滅盡，那是根據不定性的說法，這是歷來公認的。如果說定性的二乘沒有滅盡，這種說法並不成立。《涅槃經》說，如果說四果阿羅漢都能成佛，那就是不理解我的意思。《涅槃經》第二十七卷說，一切眾生都有心，有心都能成佛，這是指一乘，是約同體、約同體意樂來說的。《涅槃經》第三十六卷說，一切善、不善、無記等法都叫做佛性，其中不善法指的是煩惱等。如果說不善法所依的真如叫做佛性，這還可以接受，也就是... English version: Regarding 'nature' (性), there are relative statements of 'existence' (有) and 'non-existence' (無). Next, explaining how to lead beings to enter, it is to lead them by speaking of 'having nature' (有性). Otherwise, how can it be said that if there is no difference in 'nature' (性), then there is no difference in 'vehicle' (乘), etc.? Also, it is said in the Saṃgraha-vyākaraṇa (攝論) that one possesses obstacles but lacks the cause, and the Buddhas cannot attain freedom. The Anabhisaṃbodhi (無性釋) explains that possessing obstacles refers to the different retributions of afflictions and karma, and lacking the cause refers to the absence of the cause for nirvāṇa. Although possessing obstacles, the previous Buddhas may not be free, but the later Buddhas can be free. If we use the example of lacking the cause, it should be understood in the same way. That explanation is unreasonable. Although the afflictions that cause results are both certain, there is a time when the retribution is exhausted. When the retribution is exhausted, the Buddha attains freedom, thus enabling beings to enter nirvāṇa. Those who lack the cause for becoming a Buddha, even in that state, the Buddha cannot make them have the cause, cannot make them free, cannot make them become Buddhas. Could there be a time when the cause of Buddhahood arises naturally? Only at that time can the Buddha teach them. If there is no cause for Buddhahood originally, and it arises naturally later, then ordinary beings should also naturally and certainly become sages. Why would they need virtuous friends, Buddhas, etc., as conditions? This ultimate truth should be deeply contemplated. If one cannot awaken, one cannot attain freedom.
Refuting the Universality of Practice-Nature (行性遍)
Some argue that the nature of principle (理佛性) and the nature of practice (行佛性), all beings possess, as stated in the Mahāmegha Sūtra (大云經), etc., that the Tathāgata (如來) is permanent, and the two vehicles (二乘) are also not extinguished, and that all beings possess Buddha-nature (佛性). This statement is not entirely reasonable. Believing in the universality of the nature of principle is to be a true disciple. As for saying that the nature of practice is universal, there is no clear evidence in the scriptures. Although it is said that one obtains the bodhicitta (菩提心), being able to believe is also considered obtaining, but it is not necessary to obtain the bodhi (菩提) of the Buddha-fruit (佛果) to be considered obtaining the bodhicitta. According to the cited texts, there is no statement that all beings can become Buddhas. If the eighth consciousness (第八識) is a defiled (有漏) and neutral (無記) dharma (法), then it is not an undefiled (無漏) cause for Buddhahood, and Vasubandhu's (天親) Saṃgraha-vyākaraṇa (攝大乘論), etc., do not allow this. If it is said that the two vehicles are not extinguished, that is according to the indeterminate nature (不定性), which has been commonly accepted. If we talk about the determinate nature (定性), this statement is not established. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra (涅槃經) says, 'If you say that the four arhats (四果) can all become Buddhas, then you do not understand my meaning.' The twenty-seventh chapter of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'All beings have mind (心), and all who have mind can become Buddhas,' this refers to the One Vehicle (一乘), and is spoken in terms of the same essence (同體) and the same intention (意樂). The thirty-sixth chapter of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'All good (善), unwholesome (不善), and neutral (無記) dharmas are called Buddha-nature,' where unwholesome dharmas refer to afflictions (煩惱), etc. If the tathatā (真如) on which unwholesome dharmas rely is called Buddha-nature, then this is acceptable, that is...
【English Translation】 Regarding 'nature' (性), there are relative statements of 'existence' (有) and 'non-existence' (無). Next, explaining how to lead beings to enter, it is to lead them by speaking of 'having nature' (有性). Otherwise, how can it be said that if there is no difference in 'nature' (性), then there is no difference in 'vehicle' (乘), etc.? Also, it is said in the Saṃgraha-vyākaraṇa (攝論) that one possesses obstacles but lacks the cause, and the Buddhas cannot attain freedom. The Anabhisaṃbodhi (無性釋) explains that possessing obstacles refers to the different retributions of afflictions and karma, and lacking the cause refers to the absence of the cause for nirvāṇa. Although possessing obstacles, the previous Buddhas may not be free, but the later Buddhas can be free. If we use the example of lacking the cause, it should be understood in the same way. That explanation is unreasonable. Although the afflictions that cause results are both certain, there is a time when the retribution is exhausted. When the retribution is exhausted, the Buddha attains freedom, thus enabling beings to enter nirvāṇa. Those who lack the cause for becoming a Buddha, even in that state, the Buddha cannot make them have the cause, cannot make them free, cannot make them become Buddhas. Could there be a time when the cause of Buddhahood arises naturally? Only at that time can the Buddha teach them. If there is no cause for Buddhahood originally, and it arises naturally later, then ordinary beings should also naturally and certainly become sages. Why would they need virtuous friends, Buddhas, etc., as conditions? This ultimate truth should be deeply contemplated. If one cannot awaken, one cannot attain freedom. Refuting the Universality of Practice-Nature (行性遍) Some argue that the nature of principle (理佛性) and the nature of practice (行佛性), all beings possess, as stated in the Mahāmegha Sūtra (大云經), etc., that the Tathāgata (如來) is permanent, and the two vehicles (二乘) are also not extinguished, and that all beings possess Buddha-nature (佛性). This statement is not entirely reasonable. Believing in the universality of the nature of principle is to be a true disciple. As for saying that the nature of practice is universal, there is no clear evidence in the scriptures. Although it is said that one obtains the bodhicitta (菩提心), being able to believe is also considered obtaining, but it is not necessary to obtain the bodhi (菩提) of the Buddha-fruit (佛果) to be considered obtaining the bodhicitta. According to the cited texts, there is no statement that all beings can become Buddhas. If the eighth consciousness (第八識) is a defiled (有漏) and neutral (無記) dharma (法), then it is not an undefiled (無漏) cause for Buddhahood, and Vasubandhu's (天親) Saṃgraha-vyākaraṇa (攝大乘論), etc., do not allow this. If it is said that the two vehicles are not extinguished, that is according to the indeterminate nature (不定性), which has been commonly accepted. If we talk about the determinate nature (定性), this statement is not established. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra (涅槃經) says, 'If you say that the four arhats (四果) can all become Buddhas, then you do not understand my meaning.' The twenty-seventh chapter of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'All beings have mind (心), and all who have mind can become Buddhas,' this refers to the One Vehicle (一乘), and is spoken in terms of the same essence (同體) and the same intention (意樂). The thirty-sixth chapter of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'All good (善), unwholesome (不善), and neutral (無記) dharmas are called Buddha-nature,' where unwholesome dharmas refer to afflictions (煩惱), etc. If the tathatā (真如) on which unwholesome dharmas rely is called Buddha-nature, then this is acceptable, that is...
以不善名為佛性。違入大乘論。彼云。汝癡無智。謂煩惱為因等。如顯示中。引煩惱若為菩提因。豈以不善為善法因。故名佛性。非正佛性。不可為證。若云。恒河中七人不離佛性水。豈非行性者。不爾。此在理佛性水。若行性遍。悉皆得出。何名七人各一。言諸法諸道若因若果悉是佛性者。據一人具七說。以第一人有非無性而求有者。亦名常沒。如佛性論所會闡提非無性者。又準此文。雖言常沒。許有出時。言一切生悉有佛性。非定一切。行證不遍故。又云。三十七云。為非佛性說于佛性。非佛性者。所謂墻壁瓦石無情之物。離如是等無情之者。是名佛性者。此亦不爾。貪瞋癡等何名佛性。若以貪等能覆佛性者。故知無性。煩惱覆真名為佛性。非必行性。何能顯行性。亦同如性遍。若云無行性何得名佛性。此亦不爾。瓦石全非。故對生簡眾生無者。且陰不論。若云據覆真故名佛性。瓦石等爾。何須簡者。此義不例。貪等是障。瓦石非障。故經說云。妙色如本住世間。智者于中得解脫。又經云。如財在異方。得言有財者。據有性者說。三十三云。非有如虛空。非無如兔角。令觀行佛性。現雖有因。而未得果。可增長故。非常有故。不如虛空。能為因故。果當得故。不如兔角。而言。說闡提無性。破虛空之常有。說闡提
有性。破兔角之常無。若言一分法爾先有。即同虛空常有。一分畢竟無。即同兔角常無。如是說者。謗三寶也。不爾。汝若以真如及心。為平等性。一切常有。即如虛空過。若云據客性見無當有者。此亦不然。無因而生。非釋迦子。又復有漏非無漏因。過已數說。觀此經意。以因中非定有果。如虛空常有。非定無果。如兔角常無。果當有故。非先有故。能為因故。非如言詮顯現得故。又云。三十三云。聲聞緣覺八萬六萬四萬二萬十千劫住處。名為涅槃。無上法主聖主住處。名大涅槃。準此二乘無實涅槃者。此亦不爾。經云。名為涅槃。不名大涅槃。云何云無。又據不定后回者。作如是說。非定性者。又云。若預流等位。定愿留身。八萬劫等及分段有餘。不應道理。何以故。涅槃十一病行中雲。有五種人。第一人者斷三結故。得須陀洹。不落地獄畜生餓鬼。人天七返。永盡諸苦入于涅槃。乃至是人未來過八萬劫。得阿耨菩提等。準此故知。非預流位分段有餘。依人天七返永盡諸苦。后八萬劫故。亦非留身。自謂為涅槃。故預流等位永盡諸苦入涅槃故者。此亦不爾。此談彼果有此功德。非要無學始得超大。若執經說人天七返永盡諸苦入于涅槃。豈不許彼得滅七生永盡諸苦耶。又若得涅槃永盡諸苦。無學得涅槃。應不受變易
。變易之身亦行苦故。雖入涅槃。言諸苦盡不廢無學受變易身。雖言預流極七返生。亦許滅七得無學果。故知此文據功能說。或據一類取無學者。理實初果亦得迴心即受變易。佛地論中有誠說故。法華有學並回心故。既許法華爲了義說。何不信受有學回心。又涅槃第十九直云。須陀洹人八萬劫。乃至辟支佛十千劫。第二十又亦直云。須陀洹人八萬劫等得阿耨菩提心。乃至辟支十千劫得菩提心。云何經說羅漢辟支。即許依文說前三果。即執不許一經所說。尚致愛憎。取捨諸文。寔為多謬。引法華及法華論言。唯一佛乘聲聞皆依佛。又佛性論入聖道已生究竟心。為破如是增上慢心。故知法華真實法教。世親菩薩為真實。何人更全將為不了者。不爾。何者。勝鬘經云。若如來隨彼所欲而方便說。解深密雲。若不知佛此密意。涅槃經。我於一時說一行一緣一乘一道等。我諸弟子不解我意。言四果等皆得作佛。攝大乘論無著自云。引攝一類。天親無性俱云隱密。釋迦無著普世親師。判為不了。世親何人將爲了義。又天親判爲了義。餘人何合將為不了。若爾解深密經佛自說爲了義。余是何人判為權密。又云。密嚴下捲雲。若解脫者眾生界滅。即壞如來一切智性。去來今佛所知之法不得平等。又若涅槃眾生滅者。誰離於苦有無餘耶。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：而且變易之身也經歷苦難。即使進入涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫生死輪迴的境界），說諸苦已盡，也不妨礙無學（Asaiksa，佛教術語，指已修習完成，無需再學的聖者）承受變易之身。雖然說預流（Srotapanna，佛教術語，指證入聖道之初果）最多七次往返生死，也允許滅除七次生死而證得無學果。因此可知此文是根據功能而說。或者根據某一類人來選取無學者。實際上初果（Srotapanna，佛教術語，指證入聖道之初果）也可以迴心（改變心意）而立即承受變易。佛地論（Buddhabhumi Sutra Sastra，佛教論書）中有明確的說明。法華經（Lotus Sutra，佛教經典）中的有學（Saiksa，佛教術語，指還在學習中的修行者）都回心。既然允許法華經是爲了義（Nitartha，佛教術語，指究竟真實之義）而說，為何不信受有學回心呢？而且涅槃經（Nirvana Sutra，佛教經典）第十九直接說，須陀洹人（Srotapanna，佛教術語，指證入聖道之初果）要經歷八萬劫（Kalpa，佛教術語，指極長的時間單位），乃至辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，佛教術語，指不依師教，自己覺悟的聖者）要經歷一萬劫。第二十又直接說，須陀洹人（Srotapanna，佛教術語，指證入聖道之初果）要經歷八萬劫等才能得到阿耨菩提心（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta，佛教術語，指無上正等正覺之心），乃至辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，佛教術語，指不依師教，自己覺悟的聖者）要經歷一萬劫才能得到菩提心。為何經中說羅漢（Arhat，佛教術語，指斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）和辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，佛教術語，指不依師教，自己覺悟的聖者），就允許依據經文說前三果，卻執著地不允許同一部經所說的內容。甚至導致愛憎，取捨經文，實在是大錯特錯。引用法華經（Lotus Sutra，佛教經典）及法華論（Lotus Sutra Sastra，佛教論書）說，唯一佛乘（Ekayana，佛教術語，指唯一的成佛之道），聲聞（Sravaka，佛教術語，指聽聞佛法而修行的弟子）都依佛。又佛性論（Buddha-nature Treatise，佛教論書）說，進入聖道后產生究竟心，是爲了破除這種增上慢心（Adhimana，佛教術語，指未證得聖果卻自以為證得的傲慢心）。可知法華經（Lotus Sutra，佛教經典）是真實的法教。世親菩薩（Vasubandhu，佛教人物，印度佛教論師）認為是真實的，還有誰會完全認為是不了義（Neyartha，佛教術語，指非究竟真實之義）呢？不然的話，什麼才是呢？勝鬘經（Srimala Sutra，佛教經典）說，如果如來（Tathagata，佛教術語，指佛的稱號之一）隨順他們的意願而方便說法。解深密經（Samdhinirmocana Sutra，佛教經典）說，如果不知道佛的這種密意。涅槃經（Nirvana Sutra，佛教經典）說，我有時說一行一緣一乘一道等，我的弟子不理解我的意思，說四果（The Four Fruits of Asceticism，佛教術語，指聲聞乘的四種果位）等都可以成佛。攝大乘論（Mahayanasamgraha，佛教論書）中無著（Asanga，佛教人物，印度佛教論師）自己說，引導攝受一類人。天親（Vasubandhu，佛教人物，印度佛教論師）和無性（Asvabhava，佛教人物，印度佛教論師）都說是隱密的。釋迦（Sakyamuni，佛教術語，指釋迦牟尼佛）、無著（Asanga，佛教人物，印度佛教論師）、普世親師（可能是指世親菩薩，Vasubandhu）都判為不了義（Neyartha，佛教術語，指非究竟真實之義），世親（Vasubandhu，佛教人物，印度佛教論師）是什麼人，竟然認為是爲了義（Nitartha，佛教術語，指究竟真實之義）？又天親（Vasubandhu，佛教人物，印度佛教論師）判爲了義（Nitartha，佛教術語，指究竟真實之義），其他人為何要認為是不了義（Neyartha，佛教術語，指非究竟真實之義）？如果這樣，解深密經（Samdhinirmocana Sutra，佛教經典）中佛自己說爲了義（Nitartha，佛教術語，指究竟真實之義），其他人又是什麼人，竟然判為權密？又說，密嚴經（Ghanavyuha Sutra，佛教經典）下卷說，如果解脫者（Liberated One）眾生界（Samsara，佛教術語，指輪迴的世界）滅盡，就破壞了如來（Tathagata，佛教術語，指佛的稱號之一）的一切智性（Sarvajnatva，佛教術語，指佛的一切智慧），過去、現在、未來的佛所知道的法就不能平等。又如果涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫生死輪迴的境界）時眾生滅盡，誰能脫離苦難而獲得無餘涅槃（Parinirvana，佛教術語，指完全的涅槃）呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, the body of transformation also experiences suffering. Even if one enters Nirvana (the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death), saying that all suffering has ceased does not preclude the Asaiksa (one who has completed learning and no longer needs to study) from undergoing a body of transformation. Although it is said that a Srotapanna (stream-enterer, the first stage of enlightenment) returns to the cycle of birth and death at most seven times, it is also permissible to extinguish those seven births and attain the fruit of Asaiksa. Therefore, it can be known that this passage speaks in terms of function. Or it selects Asaiksas based on a certain category of people. In reality, even a Srotapanna (stream-enterer, the first stage of enlightenment) can change their mind and immediately undergo transformation. There is a clear statement in the Buddhabhumi Sutra Sastra (Treatise on the Buddha-land Sutra). The Saiksas (those still in training) in the Lotus Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) all change their minds. Since it is permissible to say that the Lotus Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) is spoken for the sake of Nitartha (ultimate and true meaning), why not believe that Saiksas change their minds? Furthermore, the Nirvana Sutra (a Buddhist scripture), in its nineteenth section, directly states that a Srotapanna (stream-enterer, the first stage of enlightenment) must go through eighty thousand kalpas (an extremely long unit of time), and even a Pratyekabuddha (a self-enlightened being) must go through ten thousand kalpas. The twentieth section also directly states that a Srotapanna (stream-enterer, the first stage of enlightenment) must go through eighty thousand kalpas, etc., to attain the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta (the mind of unsurpassed, complete, and perfect enlightenment), and even a Pratyekabuddha (a self-enlightened being) must go through ten thousand kalpas to attain the Bodhi-citta (the mind of enlightenment). Why, when the sutra speaks of Arhats (liberated beings who have extinguished all afflictions) and Pratyekabuddhas (self-enlightened beings), is it permissible to rely on the text to speak of the first three fruits, but one stubbornly refuses to allow what is said in the same sutra? This even leads to love and hate, accepting and rejecting passages, which is truly a great mistake. Quoting the Lotus Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) and the Lotus Sutra Sastra (Treatise on the Lotus Sutra), it says that the Ekayana (the one Buddha vehicle) is the only path, and Sravakas (disciples who listen to the Buddha's teachings) all rely on the Buddha. Furthermore, the Buddha-nature Treatise (a Buddhist treatise) says that generating the ultimate mind after entering the holy path is to break such Adhimana (arrogance of thinking one has attained what one has not). It can be known that the Lotus Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) is a true Dharma teaching. Vasubandhu (an Indian Buddhist scholar) considers it to be true, so who else would completely consider it to be Neyartha (provisional meaning)? If not, then what is it? The Srimala Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) says that if the Tathagata (one of the titles of the Buddha) speaks expediently according to their desires. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) says that if one does not know this secret intention of the Buddha. The Nirvana Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) says that I sometimes speak of one practice, one cause, one vehicle, one path, etc., but my disciples do not understand my meaning, saying that the Four Fruits of Asceticism (the four stages of enlightenment in the Sravaka vehicle) etc. can all become Buddhas. In the Mahayanasamgraha (a Buddhist treatise), Asanga (an Indian Buddhist scholar) himself says that he guides and gathers a certain category of people. Vasubandhu (an Indian Buddhist scholar) and Asvabhava (an Indian Buddhist scholar) both say it is hidden. Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni Buddha), Asanga (an Indian Buddhist scholar), and the universally revered teacher Vasubandhu (possibly referring to Vasubandhu) are all judged to be Neyartha (provisional meaning). Who is Vasubandhu (an Indian Buddhist scholar) to consider it to be Nitartha (ultimate and true meaning)? Furthermore, if Vasubandhu (an Indian Buddhist scholar) judges it to be Nitartha (ultimate and true meaning), why should others consider it to be Neyartha (provisional meaning)? If so, in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra (a Buddhist scripture), the Buddha himself says it is Nitartha (ultimate and true meaning), so who are others to judge it as expedient and secret? Furthermore, it says that the lower volume of the Ghanavyuha Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) says that if the Liberated One's (one who has attained liberation) Samsara (the cycle of rebirth) is extinguished, then the Sarvajnatva (omniscience) of the Tathagata (one of the titles of the Buddha) is destroyed, and the Dharma known by the Buddhas of the past, present, and future cannot be equal. Furthermore, if beings are extinguished at Nirvana (the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death), who can escape suffering and attain Parinirvana (complete Nirvana)?
降魔等事皆是妄說。是故當知。諸觀行者證於解脫。其身常住。離諸有蘊滅諸習氣。譬如熱鐵投之冷水。熱勢雖除而鐵不壞者。此文意別。初言若眾生界滅即壞如來一切智性。據真如說。名眾生界故。寶性論引不增不減經云。舍利弗不離眾生界有法身。不離法身有眾生界。眾生界即法身。法身即眾生界。此二法者義一名異。諸大乘經處處有文。故不可以證二乘者無餘不滅。若云。經云。證於解脫其身常住。離眾有蘊滅諸習氣等。以為證者。此亦不爾。此說如來。若許二乘入無餘依亦如是者。與佛何殊。更須趣大。若云許二乘無餘身智都滅。違密嚴上卷。彼涅槃若滅壞。眾生有終盡。眾生若有終。是亦有初際。原有非生法。而始依眾生。無有非眾生。尚生眾生界者。此亦不爾。此據理性。或說如來。若以經說眾生有終應有初際。論眾生滅者。煩惱亦爾。煩惱即眾生。因果俱無始。豈以煩惱盡例煩惱有初。若不許或終。諸佛有煩惱。雖許煩惱斷。而說或無初。雖復身終。何妨得無始。故彼經意約理性論。又大法鼓經云。迦葉白佛言。世尊眾生般涅槃者。為有盡耶。為無盡耶佛告迦葉。眾生無有盡也。白佛。云何不盡佛言。若眾生盡者。應有減損。此修多羅則為無義。是故迦葉諸佛世尊般涅槃者悉皆常住。以是義故。諸佛世
尊般涅槃者終不磨滅。不說二乘般涅槃者亦常不壞。或生界真如無盡。又大莊嚴論第一云。餘人善根無利他故。餘人善根涅槃時盡故。菩薩善根不爾。由此為因。種性最勝。若二乘人入無餘依有善根在如何言滅。無著天親事慈尊。自復登極喜言善根滅。如何不信。又云。楞伽第二五性中雲。大慧說三乘者。為發起修行地。諸性差別非究竟地。又云。彼三種人聲聞緣覺究竟說得如來法身。經說三人。是定性二乘及不定性故者。此亦不爾。彼經初定不定性以為三乘。復說第四不定性乘。準取不定。如無性中大悲菩薩。雖亦大乘性。由悲願異。更別說三。云非究竟。據不定說。若判說三。是定二乘及不定者。定亦起大。何須別說第四乘耶。下釋四卷楞伽。準知謬。勝鬘經寶性論佛性論等文。皆準前知。世親位居伏忍。蒙贊獨為指南。慈氏身住法雲。何不孤稱逐北。偏贊凡位菩薩說教為真。抑補處慈尊談法為非了。豈非過乎。
破定顯密五
有義。法華一乘是了義說。三乘非了。問一乘為實。三乘為權。法華等是。何故深密說一為權。四為真實。答一乘有二。一密意一乘。二究竟一乘。有差別故。深密攝論等。是密意一乘。法華勝鬘等。是究竟一乘。何以得知有斯二類。以二義辨。一述異。二引兩文對顯。述異有
九。一存三破二異。二說時前後異。三說位不同異。四滅別道同異。五分同全同異。六有會無會異。七合三開一異。八為人勝劣異。九說義不同異。此不應爾。九門俱非。初存三破異者。且判深密等。存三為一故權法華等破三明一故實。此前已顯謬判教文。二說時前後異。雲華嚴深密等四十年已前說故權。法華勝鬘等是已后說故實。此亦不爾。若法華前存三明一故為密者。如深密等四十年後說。可如所判。已說小乘。有可存故。且縱為權。華嚴乃在三七前曾未說小。則未有可存。如何亦判為隱密說。若通論后位說二乘時。亦應隱密通會後一。寧不許耶。故不可以前後判定。又復自判攝論一乘並是權密。即法華等盡攝論釋。同深密等一乘非了。如何得判前權后實。三說位不同異。云。解深密等說。如乳酪如眾流位一。法一乘如至醍醐皆歸海位一者。此亦不爾。如乳等喻。且據一類不定性人從小向大者。各定根性。則不如是。若執喻說修行之者前後定爾。豈許頓悟亦由小耶。有不住則能趣大。應許酥等非從乳出。又法華論有聲聞如乳等。佛位如醍醐。豈許深密等所說一乘是聲聞位猶如乳等。又許菩薩有頓非漸。如何定判位異為權。若云深密對不定性位異為權者。以何得知為小不定判為不實。四滅別道同異。云。密意一乘道
等同故。名之為一。究竟一乘二乘無滅。至佛方有者。不爾。只有說三解脫為等。無說智德三乘共等。如何今判道等皆同然涅槃經云。一道一緣等者。約向大乘雲同一道。非說三別。所覺道同。又深密經云。相生勝義。無自性如是我皆已顯示。故於其中立一乘。非有情性無差別。說無性同。即二乘無別滅。與法華等一乘何別。五分同全同異。云。密意一乘人無我解脫身份段身同。法無我法身變易身身不同。究竟一乘此等皆同者。既判攝論等為密一乘。如何論文云法無我解脫等故性不同等。顯揚論云。即彼諸法約無差別相說故。乃至法無我平等故。若云彼不許終終法無我平等者。豈法華一乘諸聲聞等已證法無我等耶。若云許當證故者。攝論等中。亦許不定當得證故。如何為權。若云非說一切皆當同故者。法華亦爾。天親論釋不為定性。損驚怖故。若許定性此等皆同。何不為說。又楞伽云。同入八地三昧樂門者。是曾行大行。不說定性。豈許皆同。又違梁論。梁論云。前偈以了義說一乘。后偈以秘密義說一乘故。又云。複名於法如平等意。諸聲聞等人。如來於法華經中。為其授記。已得佛意。但得法如平等意。未得佛法身。若得此法如平等意。彼作是思惟。如來法如即是我法如。由如是意故說一乘。準此論釋。豈攝大乘論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為是等同的緣故，所以稱之為『一』。如果說究竟一乘和二乘不會消滅，只有成佛時才會有，那是不對的。只有說三種解脫是等同的，沒有說智慧功德三乘是共同等同的。如何現在判斷說道等同都是一樣的呢？《涅槃經》說，『一道一緣』等，是就趨向大乘而言，說是同一條道路，不是說三種道路不同，所覺悟的道是相同的。還有，《深密經》說，『相生勝義，無自性，如是，我都已經顯示了。』因此在其中建立一乘，不是說有情眾生的自性沒有差別，說無自性是相同的。如果二乘沒有差別地消滅，那和《法華經》等的一乘有什麼區別呢？五分法身是完全相同還是不同呢？《攝大乘論》說，密意一乘的人，人無我解脫，色身和分段生死身是相同的；法無我，法身和變易生死身是不同的。究竟一乘這些都相同嗎？既然判斷《攝大乘論》等是密意一乘，為什麼論文中說，因為法無我解脫等，所以自性不同等。《顯揚論》說，就是那些法，就無差別的相來說，乃至法無我是平等的。如果說他們不承認最終法無我是平等的，難道《法華經》一乘中的諸位聲聞等已經證得法無我等了嗎？如果說承認他們應當證得，那麼《攝大乘論》等中，也承認不確定他們將來會證得，那怎麼能說是權巧方便呢？如果說不是說一切都應當相同，那麼《法華經》也是這樣。天親菩薩的論釋是爲了不讓那些根性未定的人驚慌恐懼。如果承認根性已定，這些都相同，為什麼不為他們說呢？還有，《楞伽經》說，『共同進入八地三昧樂門』，這是曾經行過大乘之行的人，不是說根性已定。難道承認他們都相同嗎？這又違背了梁朝的論述。梁朝的論述說，前面的偈頌是用了義來說一乘，後面的偈頌是用秘密義來說一乘。又說，又稱對於法的如是平等之意，諸位聲聞等人，如來在《法華經》中，為他們授記，已經得到了佛的意旨，只是得到了法的如是平等之意，沒有得到佛的法身。如果得到這法的如是平等之意，他們會這樣思惟，如來的法如就是我的法如。因為這樣的意念，所以說一乘。按照這個論釋，難道《攝大乘論》
【English Translation】 English version Because of the equality, it is called 'One'. If it is said that the ultimate One Vehicle and the Two Vehicles will not perish, and only at the time of becoming a Buddha will they exist, that is not correct. It is only said that the three kinds of liberation are equal, and it is not said that the wisdom and virtue of the three vehicles are equally common. How can it be judged now that the path and so on are all the same? The Nirvana Sutra says, 'One path, one cause,' etc., which refers to the tendency towards the Mahayana, saying that it is the same path, not that the three paths are different, and the path that is realized is the same. Also, the Sandhinirmocana Sutra says, 'The dependent origination, the ultimate meaning, the absence of self-nature, thus, I have already revealed.' Therefore, the One Vehicle is established within it, not saying that the nature of sentient beings is not different, saying that the absence of self-nature is the same. If the Two Vehicles perish without difference, then what is the difference between it and the One Vehicle of the Lotus Sutra, etc.? Are the five aggregates of the Dharma body completely the same or different? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that the person of the intentional One Vehicle, the liberation from the self of persons, the physical body and the body of the cycle of birth and death are the same; the non-self of dharmas, the Dharma body and the body of transformation are different. Are these all the same in the ultimate One Vehicle? Since it is judged that the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, etc., are the intentional One Vehicle, why does the treatise say that because of the non-self of dharmas, liberation, etc., the nature is different, etc.? The Asaṅga's Compendium of Determinations says that those dharmas are spoken of in terms of the aspect of no difference, and even the non-self of dharmas is equal. If it is said that they do not admit that the ultimate non-self of dharmas is equal, have the Śrāvakas in the One Vehicle of the Lotus Sutra, etc., already realized the non-self of dharmas, etc.? If it is said that they admit that they should realize it, then in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, etc., it is also admitted that it is uncertain that they will realize it in the future, so how can it be said to be skillful means? If it is said that it is not said that everything should be the same, then the Lotus Sutra is also like this. Vasubandhu's commentary is to prevent those whose nature is not fixed from being alarmed and frightened. If it is admitted that the nature is fixed and these are all the same, why not say it for them? Also, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says, 'Entering the gate of the bliss of the eighth bhūmi together,' which refers to those who have practiced the Great Vehicle, not saying that the nature is fixed. Is it admitted that they are all the same? This also contradicts the Liang Dynasty's commentary. The Liang Dynasty's commentary says that the previous verse uses the definitive meaning to speak of the One Vehicle, and the latter verse uses the secret meaning to speak of the One Vehicle. It also says that it is also called the meaning of equality in the Dharma. The Śrāvakas, etc., in the Lotus Sutra, the Tathāgata has predicted for them, and they have already obtained the Buddha's intention, but they have only obtained the meaning of equality in the Dharma, and have not obtained the Dharma body of the Buddha. If they obtain this meaning of equality in the Dharma, they will think like this: the Tathāgata's suchness of Dharma is my suchness of Dharma. Because of this thought, the One Vehicle is spoken of. According to this commentary, is the Mahāyānasaṃgraha...
等所明一乘是權。但人無我等同法華經說。究竟一乘法無我法身等皆同耶。六有會無會異中。云密意一乘不會說三為方便。究竟一乘會說二滅為方便者。不爾。不全會三者。據有定性故。言會三者。據不定性故。定不定性。法華論楞伽經並有明說。若無定性但得作佛。何故涅槃經云不解我意。勝鬘經云。隨彼所欲而方便說等。又攝大乘正指法華經云。複次於法華大集中有諸菩薩。名同舍利弗等。深密雲。非有情性無差別攝論平等故性不同。法華論云。為二種人說。此皆會訖。如何言不會法華。由不披文。但道聽爾。七合三開一異中雲。深密會昔合三乘為一乘。一非三中之文。法華會昔開一為三乘。一是三中之佛乘者。不爾。成道七日即說大乘。法華經云。雖復說三乘。但為教菩薩。又云。雖示種種道。其實為一乘。即會一代所說三乘。更於何時所說三乘。云是開一為三乘者。又說一乘。一乘即大乘。豈解深密接彼定性二乘為大。故為不可。又解深密依三無性說乘為一。法華亦同。論釋十方佛土中唯有一乘法無二亦無三。無二者。無二乘涅槃等。乃至云聲聞辟支佛乘。非彼平等法身之體。以因果行觀不同故。梁攝論云。乘有三義。一性二行三果。性即真如。行即十度。果即四德。法華經一乘即佛之知見。論云。依四義說
。一者開即無上義。除一切智智。更無餘事。即菩提涅槃。二者示者同義。即聲聞辟支佛法身平等。法身平等者。佛性法身更無差別故。此非但亦。即攝論一乘性也。三者入者因義。為令證不退轉地。示現與無量智業故。無量智業者。即攝大乘所行十度。又攝論法華一乘若有差別。天親應解。既總會釋。準何判別。八為人勝劣異中雲。密意一乘為鈍根說。究竟一乘為利根說。梁攝論云。有諸菩薩。于大乘根性已入法空。為此說一。同涅槃經。不為鈍根為利根說者。不爾。前判攝論一乘是密。今言密者。為鈍根說。攝論一乘既判為密。如何復引與涅槃同爲利根說。豈不自相鉾楯。又法華經論云。為聲聞所依事故。經云。為諸聲聞說是大乘經授聲聞記等。豈是利根迦葉同涅槃耶。深密告勝義生等。豈是鈍根聲聞耶。又復先度利根。次後中下。涅槃法華俱在後說。豈為利根。故如來莊嚴智慧光明經云。文殊師利依彼無邊法界眾生上中下性。如來放大智日光輪普照眾生。亦復如是。初一切諸菩薩等。次辟支佛。次聲聞。次所信善根眾生。次住邪定聚眾生。此等經文豈先鈍后利耶。又言。八種一乘為引不定菩薩聲聞故。即為鈍者。亦不爾。梁攝論云。為利根。八義一乘。第一即為聲聞。第二不定菩薩。法華論云。二種聲聞如來與
【現代漢語翻譯】 一、『開』（kai）即是無上的意義，除了『一切智智』（sarvajnajnana，對一切事物和現象的徹底理解）之外，沒有其他事情。這就是『菩提』（bodhi，覺悟）和『涅槃』（nirvana，解脫）。 二、『示』（shi）與『開』（kai）意義相同，指的是『聲聞』（sravaka，通過聽聞佛法而證悟的修行者）、『辟支佛』（pratyekabuddha，獨自證悟的修行者）的『法身』（dharmakaya，佛的真理之身）是平等的。法身平等，是因為佛性和法身沒有差別。這不僅僅是『亦』（yi），也包含了《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）中的『一乘性』（ekayana-dhatu，唯一乘的性質）。 三、『入』（ru）是『因』（hetu，原因）的意義，爲了使眾生證得『不退轉地』（avaivartika-bhumi，不會退轉的境界），示現無量的智慧和事業。無量的智慧和事業，就是《攝大乘論》中所說的『十度』（paramita，十種波羅蜜）。如果《攝大乘論》和《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）中的『一乘』（ekayana，唯一乘）有所差別，天親（Vasubandhu）應該會解釋。既然總的來說是一致的，又根據什麼來判斷區別呢？ 在『八為人勝劣異』（ashta purusha uttama adhama bheda，八種人的優劣差異）中說，『密意一乘』（samdhaya ekayana，隱藏含義的唯一乘）是為鈍根的人說的，『究竟一乘』（nitartha ekayana，究竟含義的唯一乘）是為利根的人說的。梁譯《攝大乘論》說，有些菩薩在大乘的根性上已經進入了『法空』（dharma-sunyata，諸法皆空的境界），所以為他們說『一』。這與《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）相同，不是為鈍根的人說，而是為利根的人說。如果不是這樣，之前判斷《攝大乘論》的『一乘』是『密』（samdhaya，隱藏的），現在又說『密』是為鈍根的人說的。《攝大乘論》的『一乘』既然已經判斷為『密』，又如何引用與《涅槃經》相同，為利根的人說呢？這豈不是自相矛盾？ 而且，《法華經論》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra Shastra）說，是爲了『聲聞』（sravaka，通過聽聞佛法而證悟的修行者）所依止的緣故。《法華經》說，為諸聲聞說這部大乘經典，授予聲聞『記』（vyakarana，授記）等等。難道是利根的『迦葉』（Kasyapa）與《涅槃經》相同嗎？《深密解脫經》（Samdhinirmocana Sutra）告訴『勝義生』（Paramarthasamudgata）等人，難道是鈍根的聲聞嗎？而且，先度化利根的人，然後是中根和下根的人。《涅槃經》和《法華經》都在後面說，難道是為利根的人說的嗎？ 所以，《如來莊嚴智慧光明經》（Tathāgatālaṃkāra-jñānālokasūtra）說，『文殊師利』（Manjusri）根據無邊法界眾生的上中下根性，如來放出大智慧日光輪普照眾生，也是這樣。首先是一切諸菩薩等，其次是辟支佛，其次是聲聞，其次是所信善根的眾生，其次是住在邪定聚的眾生。這些經文難道是先鈍后利嗎？又說，八種一乘是爲了引導不定菩薩和聲聞的緣故，也就是為鈍根的人說的。也不是這樣。梁譯《攝大乘論》說，為利根的人說八義一乘。第一就是為聲聞，第二是不定菩薩。《法華論》說，兩種聲聞如來給予。
【English Translation】 Firstly, 'opening' (kai) means the supreme meaning. Besides 'all-knowing wisdom' (sarvajnajnana, complete understanding of all things and phenomena), there is nothing else. This is 'bodhi' (awakening) and 'nirvana' (liberation). Secondly, 'showing' (shi) has the same meaning as 'opening' (kai), referring to the 'dharma body' (dharmakaya, the body of truth of the Buddha) of 'sravakas' (those who attain enlightenment by hearing the Dharma) and 'pratyekabuddhas' (those who attain enlightenment independently) being equal. The dharma body is equal because Buddhahood and the dharma body are not different. This is not only 'yi', but also includes the 'one vehicle nature' (ekayana-dhatu, the nature of the one vehicle) in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana). Thirdly, 'entering' (ru) is the meaning of 'cause' (hetu), in order to enable sentient beings to attain the 'non-retrogressive stage' (avaivartika-bhumi, the state of non-regression), showing immeasurable wisdom and activities. Immeasurable wisdom and activities are the 'ten perfections' (paramita, ten paramitas) mentioned in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. If there is a difference between the 'one vehicle' (ekayana, the only vehicle) in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra (Lotus Sutra), Vasubandhu should explain it. Since they are generally consistent, what basis is there for judging the difference? In 'eight kinds of people, superior and inferior differences' (ashta purusha uttama adhama bheda), it is said that the 'one vehicle with hidden meaning' (samdhaya ekayana, the one vehicle with hidden meaning) is for people with dull roots, and the 'ultimate one vehicle' (nitartha ekayana, the ultimate one vehicle) is for people with sharp roots. The Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that some Bodhisattvas have already entered 'dharma emptiness' (dharma-sunyata, the state of emptiness of all dharmas) in the nature of the Mahayana, so 'one' is spoken for them. This is the same as the Nirvana Sutra, not for people with dull roots, but for people with sharp roots. If this is not the case, the previous judgment that the 'one vehicle' of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha is 'hidden' (samdhaya), and now it is said that 'hidden' is for people with dull roots. Since the 'one vehicle' of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha has been judged as 'hidden', how can it be quoted as the same as the Nirvana Sutra, speaking for people with sharp roots? Isn't this self-contradictory? Moreover, the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra Shastra (Commentary on the Lotus Sutra) says that it is for the sake of the 'sravakas' (those who attain enlightenment by hearing the Dharma) to rely on. The Lotus Sutra says that this Mahayana scripture is spoken for all sravakas, and the sravakas are given 'predictions' (vyakarana) and so on. Is it the sharp-rooted 'Kasyapa' (Kasyapa) the same as the Nirvana Sutra? The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Explanations of the Profound Secrets Sutra) tells 'Paramarthasamudgata' and others, are they sravakas with dull roots? Moreover, first those with sharp roots are saved, and then those with medium and lower roots. The Nirvana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra are both said later, are they for people with sharp roots? Therefore, the Tathāgatālaṃkāra-jñānālokasūtra (Tathagata Adornment of Wisdom Light Sutra) says that 'Manjusri' (Manjusri) according to the upper, middle and lower roots of sentient beings in the boundless dharma realm, the Tathagata releases the great wisdom sun wheel to illuminate all sentient beings, and so is the same. First, all the Bodhisattvas, etc., then the Pratyekabuddhas, then the Sravakas, then the sentient beings who believe in good roots, and then the sentient beings who live in the wrong fixed group. Are these sutra texts first dull and then sharp? It is also said that the eight kinds of one vehicle are for guiding uncertain Bodhisattvas and Sravakas, that is, for people with dull roots. This is also not the case. The Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that the eight meanings of the one vehicle are for people with sharp roots. The first is for Sravakas, and the second is for uncertain Bodhisattvas. The Lotus Sutra Shastra says that the Tathagata gives to two kinds of Sravakas.
記。謂應化聲聞。退已還發菩提心者。退已還發菩提心者。即不定性聲聞。云何得言究竟一乘為利根說。九說義不同異云。攝論一乘依十義說。法華一乘依四義說。說義不同。明知乘異者。不爾。何者。若云十四義異十權四實。顯揚六義莊嚴八義。應分權實。彼既不爾。此云何然。又法華經說。一乘體性有其四種。論云。依四義明之。攝論等明說一乘意。依八種道理說。非出乘體。故梁論云。為何義故。說二乘人同趣一乘皆得作佛。莊嚴論云。此中八意佛說一乘。又云。復有何義。以彼彼意而說一乘。偈曰。引接諸聲聞。攝住諸菩薩。於此二不定。諸佛說一乘。法華論云。為退菩提聲聞。即引接聲聞不定之者。滿慈等記即變化者。又法華論說三平等云。復示現自身他身法身平等無差別故。乃至云。以不知彼此佛性法身平等故。即謂彼人我證此法。彼人不得此。對治此故。與聲聞記。即明法平等人平等。與攝論等說一乘意。何曾有異。謬分顯密欲誘嬰兒。引文對類。智者應撿。略陳述異之非。對類煩不具顯。教既謬陳。顯密乘故。妄到實權說乘。文有不同。準此故皆說謬。
破緣正佛性執六
有義。總論佛性理事兩門。理即真如法界名因名性等。一切眾生皆悉同也。事即三十二相十力等種。一切有情有無不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 記錄。所說的應化聲聞（應化示現為聲聞的菩薩），是退轉后又重新發起菩提心的人。這些退轉后又重新發起菩提心的人，就是不定性的聲聞。怎麼能說究竟一乘（最終唯一成佛之道）是為利根之人所說呢？有人說《攝大乘論》和《法華經》所說的一乘，意義不同。《攝大乘論》的一乘是依據十種意義來說明，而《法華經》的一乘是依據四種意義來說明。既然所說的意義不同，就明顯可知乘（乘，即教法或道路）是不同的。反駁：不是這樣的。為什麼呢？如果說十四種意義不同於十權四實（十種權巧方便，四種真實），那麼《顯揚聖教論》的六種意義和《莊嚴經論》的八種意義，也應該區分權實（權巧方便和真實）。既然他們不這樣做，那麼這裡為什麼要做區分呢？而且，《法華經》說一乘的體性有四種。《攝大乘論》說，依據四種意義來闡明一乘。《攝大乘論》等明確說明一乘的意義，是依據八種道理來說明，並非是另外創造一個乘。所以梁代的論師說，爲了什麼緣故，說二乘人（聲聞乘和緣覺乘的修行者）同樣趨向一乘，都能成佛？《莊嚴經論》說，這其中有八種意義，佛陀宣說一乘。又說，還有什麼意義，用那些意義來說明一乘？偈頌說：『引導接引諸聲聞，攝受安住諸菩薩，對於這兩種不定性者，諸佛宣說一乘。』《法華論》說，爲了退轉菩提心的聲聞，也就是引導接引聲聞中不定性的人。滿慈（富樓那尊者）等的記錄，就是指變化示現的菩薩。而且，《法華論》說三種平等，說：『又示現自身、他身、法身平等沒有差別。』乃至說：『因為不知道彼此佛性法身平等。』就是說他們認為我證得了這個法，而他們卻不能證得這個法，爲了對治這種想法，所以才給予聲聞授記。這說明法平等、人平等，與《攝大乘論》等所說的一乘的意義，有什麼不同呢？錯誤地劃分顯教和密教，想要引誘嬰兒（指智慧未開的人），引用經文來對比。智者應該仔細檢查。簡略地陳述不同之處的錯誤，對比之處繁多，不能完全顯現。教義既然錯誤地陳述，就妄稱有顯密乘，錯誤地把權巧方便說成真實，所說的經文有所不同，按照這個標準，都說是錯誤的。 破斥執著緣正佛性（通過因緣才能顯現的正因佛性）的觀點（共）六點 有一種觀點，總的來說佛性有理和事兩個方面。理就是真如法界（宇宙萬法的本體），名為因、名為性等等，一切眾生都是相同的。事就是三十二相（佛的三十二種殊勝的相貌）、十力（佛的十種力量）等等，一切有情眾生有或者沒有。
【English Translation】 English version: Record. The so-called transformed Shravakas (Bodhisattvas who manifest as Shravakas) are those who have regressed and then re-aroused Bodhicitta (the aspiration for enlightenment). Those who have regressed and then re-aroused Bodhicitta are the Shravakas of uncertain nature. How can it be said that the ultimate One Vehicle (the ultimate path to Buddhahood) is taught for those of sharp faculties? Someone says that the One Vehicle mentioned in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra have different meanings. The One Vehicle in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra is explained based on ten meanings, while the One Vehicle in the Lotus Sutra is explained based on four meanings. Since the meanings are different, it is clear that the Vehicles are different. Refutation: It is not like that. Why? If it is said that the fourteen meanings are different from the ten expedient and four real (ten expedient means and four truths), then the six meanings in the Yogacarabhumi-sastra and the eight meanings in the Mahayana-sutralamkara-sastra should also distinguish between expedient and real. Since they do not do so, why should we make a distinction here? Moreover, the Lotus Sutra says that the essence of the One Vehicle has four aspects. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra says that it explains the One Vehicle based on four meanings. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra and others clearly explain the meaning of the One Vehicle based on eight principles, not by creating another Vehicle. Therefore, the Liang Dynasty commentator said, 'For what reason is it said that the practitioners of the Two Vehicles (Shravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle) all tend towards the One Vehicle and can all become Buddhas?' The Mahayana-sutralamkara-sastra says, 'Among these, there are eight meanings, and the Buddha teaches the One Vehicle.' It also says, 'What other meaning is there, using those meanings to explain the One Vehicle?' The verse says: 'Guiding and receiving all Shravakas, embracing and dwelling all Bodhisattvas, for these two uncertain ones, the Buddhas teach the One Vehicle.' The Lotus Sutra Sastra says that for the Shravakas who have regressed from Bodhicitta, it is to guide and receive those of uncertain nature among the Shravakas. The records of Purna (the Venerable Purna) and others refer to the transformed Bodhisattvas. Moreover, the Lotus Sutra Sastra speaks of the three equalities, saying: 'Also, showing the equality and non-difference of self-body, other-body, and Dharma-body.' And even says: 'Because they do not know the equality of the Buddha-nature and Dharma-body of each other.' That is, they think that I have attained this Dharma, but they cannot attain this Dharma. To counteract this idea, predictions of Buddhahood are given to the Shravakas. This shows that the Dharma is equal and people are equal, which is no different from the meaning of the One Vehicle as explained in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra and others. Erroneously dividing the exoteric and esoteric teachings, wanting to entice infants (referring to those whose wisdom is not yet developed), quoting scriptures for comparison. The wise should examine carefully. Briefly stating the errors of the differences, the comparisons are numerous and cannot be fully revealed. Since the teachings are erroneously stated, they falsely claim to have exoteric and esoteric Vehicles, mistakenly taking expedient means as reality, and the scriptures they speak of are different. According to this standard, they are all said to be wrong. Refuting the view of clinging to the 'causal and correct Buddha-nature' (the Zheng Yin Buddha-nature that can only be revealed through conditions) (total of) six points. There is a view that, in general, Buddha-nature has two aspects: principle and phenomena. Principle is the Suchness-Dharmadhatu (the essence of all phenomena in the universe), called cause, called nature, etc., which is the same for all sentient beings. Phenomena are the thirty-two marks (the thirty-two auspicious marks of the Buddha), the ten powers (the ten powers of the Buddha), etc., which all sentient beings may or may not have.
同。問若爾。三十年前猶說二乘實滅。成道十載即說如來藏經。寧以三乘五性先說為權。佛性一乘后說為實。答猶總相明。未簡持故。非為決定。涅槃經說。凡是有心皆當作佛。即簡無心。對非佛性。說于佛性。即簡瓦礫。故但有心是有情者悉有佛性。皆當作佛故。后一乘及說佛性。皆爲了義。此亦不然。若有簡持名為顯了。若無簡持即為隱密者。解深密經所說一乘極有簡持。簡去眾生根性持取三性。名之為一。簡去定性特取不定當得作佛。定是了義。故涅槃經第三十二云。於是經中。或說三乘。或說一乘。既云或說三乘。復說那含中生般等。即存二滅。勝鬘經云。是故三乘即是一乘。又云。如來隨彼所欲而方便說。即是大乘無有二乘。二乘者入於一乘。一乘者即第一義乘。既云方便。即顯四乘是真實。說同解深密。法華一向唯說一乘對聲聞人。若唯為菩薩。論云。為一向求大乘者。說雨喻令知乘異。論釋乘一依法身理。不說根性。一切無異。正同深密據理說一非根無別。又如來藏經云。一切眾生雖在諸趣。煩惱身中有如來藏。常無染污。德相備足。如我無異。乃至云。佛見眾生如來藏已。欲令開敷為說經法。除滅煩惱。顯現佛性。既云一切眾生。即簡非情訖。又云。如來藏經能大饒益。若有聞者皆成佛道。即同聞涅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：如果這樣，為什麼三十年前還說二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）是真實的寂滅，成道十年後就說《如來藏經》呢？是把先前說的三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）五性（聲聞種性、緣覺種性、菩薩種性、不定種性、無性）看作權宜之說，而把後來所說的佛性一乘看作真實之說嗎？ 答：先前所說只是總括地說明，沒有進行簡別取捨，所以不能算是最終的定論。《涅槃經》說：『凡是有心識的眾生，都應當成佛。』這就是簡別了無心識者，針對非佛性而說佛性。又簡別了瓦塊石頭等無情之物。所以只有有心識的有情眾生才具有佛性，都應當成佛。因此，後來說的一乘以及佛性，都是爲了義（究竟真實之義）。 這種說法不對。如果有所簡別取捨才算是顯了，如果沒有簡別取捨就是隱秘的話，那麼《解深密經》所說的一乘就極有簡別取捨。它簡去了眾生的根性，持取了三性（遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性），稱之為一。簡去了定性（決定不能成佛的種性），特別選取了不定性（可以通過修行而改變的種性），認為他們將來可以成佛，這才是了義。所以《涅槃經》第三十二卷說：『在這部經中，或者說三乘，或者說一乘。』既然說『或者說三乘』，又說那含（阿那含，三果羅漢）在中陰身中生般（入涅槃）等等，這就是保留了二乘的寂滅。勝鬘經說：『所以三乘即是一乘。』又說：『如來隨順他們的意願而方便解說。』這就是大乘，沒有二乘。二乘最終也歸入一乘，一乘就是第一義乘。既然說是方便，就顯示了四乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘、佛乘）是真實的，這和《解深密經》的說法相同。 《法華經》一向只說一乘，是針對聲聞根性的人說的。如果只是為菩薩而說，《瑜伽師地論》說：『為一向求大乘的人，用雨的譬喻讓他們知道乘的差別。』論典解釋乘的一，是依據法身之理，不說根性的差別，一切沒有差異，這正和《解深密經》一樣，是根據理來說一，而不是說根性沒有差別。 又如《如來藏經》說：『一切眾生雖然在各種輪迴之中，在煩惱之身中卻有如來藏，常無染污，功德相好完備具足，和我（佛）沒有差別。』乃至說：『佛見到眾生的如來藏之後，想要讓他們開敷顯現，所以為他們宣說經法，去除滅煩惱，顯現佛性。』既然說『一切眾生』，就簡別了非情之物（無情物）。又說：『《如來藏經》能夠大大饒益眾生，如果有聽聞者，都能成就佛道。』這和聽聞《涅槃經》一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Question: If that's the case, why did you say thirty years ago that the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) were truly extinguished, and then ten years after your enlightenment, you spoke of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra? Is it that the previously taught Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) and Five Natures (Śrāvaka nature, Pratyekabuddha nature, Bodhisattva nature, Indeterminate nature, No nature) were expedient teachings, while the later taught Buddha-nature One Vehicle is the ultimate truth? Answer: The previous teachings were general explanations without specific distinctions, so they cannot be considered definitive conclusions. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'All beings with minds should become Buddhas.' This distinguishes those without minds, addressing Buddha-nature in contrast to non-Buddha-nature. It also distinguishes inanimate objects like tiles and stones. Therefore, only sentient beings with minds possess Buddha-nature and should become Buddhas. Thus, the later teachings of the One Vehicle and Buddha-nature are of ultimate meaning. This is not correct. If there is distinction and selection, it is considered clear; if there is no distinction and selection, it is considered hidden. The One Vehicle taught in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra has extremely specific distinctions. It eliminates the natures of beings and upholds the three natures (Parikalpita, Paratantra, Pariniṣpanna), calling it one. It eliminates the fixed nature (those destined not to become Buddhas) and specifically selects the indeterminate nature (those who can change through practice), believing they can become Buddhas in the future. This is the ultimate meaning. Therefore, the thirty-second chapter of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'In this sutra, sometimes the Three Vehicles are taught, and sometimes the One Vehicle is taught.' Since it says 'sometimes the Three Vehicles are taught,' and also speaks of Anāgāmins (third-stage Arhats) being born in the intermediate state and attaining Parinirvāṇa, this retains the extinction of the Two Vehicles. The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra says, 'Therefore, the Three Vehicles are the One Vehicle.' It also says, 'The Tathāgata expediently teaches according to their desires.' This is the Mahāyāna, without the Two Vehicles. The Two Vehicles ultimately enter the One Vehicle, and the One Vehicle is the Supreme Vehicle. Since it is said to be expedient, it shows that the Four Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna, Buddhayāna) are real, which is the same as the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. The Lotus Sūtra consistently teaches only the One Vehicle, addressing those of Śrāvaka nature. If it were only for Bodhisattvas, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says, 'For those who single-mindedly seek the Mahāyāna, the analogy of rain is used to let them know the differences between the vehicles.' The treatise explains the oneness of the vehicle based on the principle of Dharmakāya, not speaking of the differences in nature. Everything is without difference, which is exactly like the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, which speaks of oneness based on principle, not saying that there is no difference in nature. Furthermore, the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra says, 'Although all beings are in various realms of rebirth, within their bodies of affliction is the Tathāgatagarbha, constantly unpolluted, complete with virtuous qualities and marks, no different from me (the Buddha).' It even says, 'After the Buddha sees the Tathāgatagarbha of beings, wanting them to unfold and manifest it, he teaches them the Dharma, removes and extinguishes afflictions, and reveals Buddha-nature.' Since it says 'all beings,' it distinguishes inanimate objects. It also says, 'The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra can greatly benefit beings, and if there are those who hear it, they can all attain Buddhahood.' This is the same as hearing the Nirvāṇa Sūtra.
槃經則見佛性。喻如天雷生象牙花。與涅槃說同有簡別。何非是實。
有義佛性體有二種。一理二事。理因。性者第一義空。第一義空與法身為正因。亦與報身為緣因。若體生相。亦與報身為正因。報身本體是第一義空故。此不應理。若第一義空是法身正因者。為生了。若為生因。法身是常。常非因生。涅槃十三云。若有諸法從緣生者。則知無常。是諸外道無有一法不從緣生。善男子佛性無生無滅。乃至云。非陰界入之所攝持。是故名常。第九亦云。如是光明名為智慧。智慧者即是常住。常住之法無有因緣。又云。涅槃之體非本無今有。若涅槃體本無今有者。則非無漏常住之法。涅槃非本無今有。如何因生。又高貴德王菩薩問。凡因莊嚴而得成者。悉名無常。涅槃應爾。如來為答。說因有五。一正因。二和合。三住因。四增長。五遠離。涅槃之體非如是等五因所成。法身即涅槃。如何說有因。又因果位異名殊。體常無別亦無增減。如何真如還與真如與為因耶。如來藏經廣說喻況明本具足。為障所覆。說法為因。令得開曉。亦非了因。涅槃十九云。復有二因。一作二了。三十七品波羅蜜等。望于涅槃是名了因。又三十三云。遠離果者。即是涅槃。遠離諸煩惱。一切善業。是涅槃因。因有二種。一近二遠。近即三解
脫。遠則無量世所修善法。乃至云。是故涅槃唯有了因無有生因。此約理事。菩提涅槃智斷門別不同。涅槃第二。大般涅槃智斷俱名大涅槃故。又真如理望法身位。十因四緣是。何者。攝得為正因。又復自引密嚴經云。如來清凈藏亦名無垢智。華嚴經無相智無礙智具足在於眾生身中。如來藏經云。煩惱身中有如來藏。常無染污。德相備足。如我無異。既云德相具足如我無異。如何為因。只可言教修行為因故。如來藏經云。佛見眾生如來藏已。欲令開敷為說經法。除滅煩惱。顯現佛性。故天親般若論云。於法爲了因。亦為餘生因。經云。一切諸佛從此經出。一切諸佛從此經生。有說。真如即法身體。無說真如為真如因。故成妄說。謂有說如爲了因者。果中說因名。非如即了因。若如能了。應自出染。何待余緣。然佛性論云。應得因者。以有真如。智起斷惑。真如方顯。是所應得之因由也。非是生了。若名親因。十因四因生了何攝。又佛性論云。應得者。必當可現。名為應得。豈能自顯。顯在智故。又云。若體生相亦與報身為正因。報身本體是第一義空故者。不爾。此談其體。雖說真如為法界。界者因義。亦自性義。因者非生。但為依因。故說真如為迷悟依。佛性論云。為道生依由有真如方有俗事。處處文說。又佛性論云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 再說，從久遠到無量世所修的善法，乃至說，因此涅槃只有了因，沒有生因。這是從理和事兩方面來說的。菩提（bodhi，覺悟）和涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）在智慧和斷滅方面有所不同。涅槃是第二位的，大般涅槃（Mahaparinirvana，大寂滅）的智慧和斷滅都可稱為大涅槃。此外，從真如（tathata，如實）之理來看法身（Dharmakaya，法性之身）的果位，十因四緣是什麼呢？哪一個可以被攝取為正因？ 又引用《密嚴經》說：『如來的清凈藏也稱為無垢智。』《華嚴經》說：『無相智和無礙智都具足在眾生身中。』《如來藏經》說：『煩惱身中有如來藏，常無染污，德相完備，和我沒有差別。』既然說德相完備和我沒有差別，怎麼能作為因呢？只能說教法和修行是因。因此，《如來藏經》說：『佛見到眾生的如來藏后，爲了讓它開敷，為他們宣說經法，去除煩惱，顯現佛性。』所以，天親（Vasubandhu）在《般若論》中說：『對於法來說，是爲了因，也是餘生因。』經中說：『一切諸佛從此經出，一切諸佛從此經生。』 有人說，真如就是法身體，沒有說真如是真如的因，所以是妄說。所謂有人說如是爲了因，只是在果中說因的名字，不是如就是了因。如果如能夠了悟，應該自己脫離染污，何必等待其他因緣？然而，《佛性論》說：『應得因，是因為有真如，智慧生起，斷除迷惑，真如才能顯現。』這是所應得到的因由，不是生和了。如果名為親因，那麼十因四因中，生和了又包含在哪些裡面呢？ 此外，《佛性論》說：『應得，必定可以顯現，名為應得。』難道它能自己顯現嗎？它顯現在智慧中。』又說：『如果體生相也與報身（Sambhogakaya，報償之身）為正因，報身的本體是第一義空。』不是這樣的。這是在談論它的本體。雖然說真如為法界，界有因的含義，也有自性的含義。因不是生，只是作為依因。所以說真如是迷悟的所依。佛性論說：『爲了道的生起所依，因為有真如，才有俗事。』處處經文都這樣說。此外，《佛性論》說
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, the good deeds cultivated from distant past to immeasurable eons, even to the point of saying, 'Therefore, Nirvana only has a condition for understanding (了因, liao yin) and no cause for arising (生因, sheng yin).' This is discussed from both the perspectives of principle (理, li) and phenomena (事, shi). Bodhi (菩提, bodhi, enlightenment) and Nirvana (涅槃, nirvana, extinction) differ in terms of wisdom and cessation. Nirvana is secondary; the wisdom and cessation of the Great Nirvana (大般涅槃, Mahaparinirvana, Great Extinction) can both be called Great Nirvana. Moreover, viewing the state of the Dharmakaya (法身, Dharmakaya, Dharma Body) from the principle of Suchness (真如, tathata, Suchness), what are the ten causes and four conditions? Which one can be included as the primary cause (正因, zheng yin)? Moreover, it quotes the Ghanavyuha Sutra (密嚴經) saying, 'The pure treasury of the Tathagata (如來, Tathagata, Thus Come One) is also called immaculate wisdom.' The Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經) says, 'The wisdom of no-form and unobstructed wisdom are fully present in the bodies of sentient beings.' The Tathagatagarbha Sutra (如來藏經) says, 'Within the body of afflictions is the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏, Tathagatagarbha, Womb of the Thus Come One), which is always unpolluted, complete with virtuous characteristics, and no different from me.' Since it says that the virtuous characteristics are complete and no different from me, how can it be considered a cause? It can only be said that the teachings and practice are the cause. Therefore, the Treatise on Prajna by Vasubandhu (天親, Vasubandhu) says, 'Regarding the Dharma, it is a condition for understanding and also a cause for future lives.' The sutra says, 'All Buddhas come from this sutra, all Buddhas are born from this sutra.' Some say that Suchness is the Dharmakaya itself, and do not say that Suchness is the cause of Suchness, therefore it is a false statement. The so-called saying that Suchness is a condition for understanding is merely naming the cause within the effect; it is not that Suchness is the condition for understanding. If Suchness were capable of understanding, it should free itself from defilement; why wait for other conditions? However, the Buddha-nature Treatise (佛性論) says, 'The cause to be attained is because there is Suchness, wisdom arises, afflictions are severed, and Suchness can then manifest.' This is the cause of what should be attained, not of arising or understanding. If it is called the direct cause, then among the ten causes and four conditions, which ones include arising and understanding? Furthermore, the Buddha-nature Treatise says, 'What should be attained must be able to manifest, and is called what should be attained.' Can it manifest itself? It manifests in wisdom.' It also says, 'If the essence that gives rise to form is also the primary cause for the Sambhogakaya (報身, Sambhogakaya, Reward Body), then the essence of the Sambhogakaya is the ultimate emptiness.' This is not so. This is discussing its essence. Although it is said that Suchness is the Dharmadhatu (法界, Dharmadhatu, Dharma Realm), the realm has the meaning of cause and also the meaning of self-nature. The cause is not arising, but only serves as a dependent cause. Therefore, it is said that Suchness is the basis for delusion and enlightenment. The Buddha-nature Treatise says, 'For the basis of the arising of the path, because there is Suchness, there are mundane affairs.' The sutras say this everywhere. Furthermore, the Buddha-nature Treatise says
。一有體能生有體。一有體能生無體。此即真實。若為報佛正因。即二有體能生有體。何故云一。亦同瑜伽圓成不生法故。又若以真如為正因者。何故佛性論但云。由加行故。論因圓滿及果圓滿。因圓滿者。謂福慧行。又云。圓滿因者。即加行因。不云加行因即應得因故。正因者即是福智。不爾。亦說第一義空為染法體。豈許真如與煩惱為正因。若許爾者。違涅槃經。三十三云。若有說言。一切眾生定有佛性。常樂我凈。不作不生。煩惱因緣。故不可見。當知是人謗佛法僧。明說真如不作不生煩惱因緣。非謗三寶。既許真如若體生相應為報身正因者。既體生相。應生一切法為其正因。豈簡染凈。若爾。便為大謗三寶。若云言與報身為正因者。非親生報身者。既不親生何名正因。如喻大地。大地若無。百草不生。雖依地有。不說大地為百卉正因。真如準知。
有義事性亦有二種。一正因。二緣因。涅槃二十八云。正因者眾生。緣因者謂六波羅蜜。此說報佛正因也。或說中道觀智及善五陰無明結等以為佛性。若說一切因性。三十六云。佛性不名一法。乃至不名萬法。未得阿耨菩提時。一切善不善無記法悉名佛性。此與報佛為緣生二因。彼說不然。不了緣因正因別故。若以經言正因歸眾生。即說眾生為報佛正因。六波
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：一種有形之物能夠產生另一種有形之物，一種有形之物也能夠產生無形之物。這才是真實的道理。如果說這是報身佛（報佛）的正因，那就是兩種有形之物能夠產生一種有形之物。為什麼又說是一種呢？這也是因為它們都符合瑜伽行派所說的圓成實性，是不生不滅的緣故。另外，如果以真如（Tathata，事物的真實如是之性）作為正因，為什麼《佛性論》（Fo Xing Lun）只說：『由於加行（修行努力）的緣故』，論述了因的圓滿和果的圓滿。因的圓滿，指的是福德和智慧的修行。又說：『圓滿的因，就是加行因』，沒有說加行因就是應得之因。正因就是福德和智慧。如果不是這樣，也會說第一義空（Paramartha-sunyata，終極空性）是染法的本體。難道允許真如與煩惱作為正因嗎？如果允許這樣，就違背了《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）。《涅槃經》第三十三卷說：『如果有人說，一切眾生必定具有佛性（Buddha-nature），具有常、樂、我、凈四德，不造作，不生滅，因為煩惱的因緣，所以看不見。』應當知道這個人是在誹謗佛、法、僧三寶。明確地說真如不造作，不生滅，不是煩惱的因緣，不是誹謗三寶。既然允許真如的本體生起相應的現象，作為報身的正因，既然本體生起現象，就應該生起一切法作為它的正因，難道還要區分染凈嗎？如果這樣，就成了大大地誹謗三寶。如果說言語是報身的正因，但言語不是親自產生報身的。既然不是親自產生，怎麼能稱為正因呢？比如大地，大地如果沒有，百草就不會生長。雖然百草依靠大地而有，但不能說大地是百草的正因。真如的情況也應該這樣理解。 有一種觀點認為，事物的性質也有兩種：一是正因，二是緣因。《涅槃經》第二十八卷說：『正因是眾生，緣因是六波羅蜜（Six Paramitas，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）。』這是說報身佛的正因。或者說以中道觀智（Madhyamika-jnana，中觀智慧）以及善良的五陰（Skandhas，色、受、想、行、識）和無明結（Avidya-samyojana，無明的束縛）等作為佛性。如果說一切因的性質，《涅槃經》第三十六卷說：『佛性不能稱為一種法，乃至不能稱為萬法。』在沒有證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）時，一切善、不善、無記法都稱為佛性。這與報身佛的緣生二因不同。那種觀點是不對的，因為不瞭解緣因和正因的區別。如果根據經文說正因歸於眾生，就是說眾生是報身佛的正因，六波羅蜜
【English Translation】 English version: One entity with form can generate another entity with form. One entity with form can also generate an entity without form. This is the true principle. If this is said to be the direct cause (Zheng Yin) of the Reward Body Buddha (Bao Fo), then it would mean that two entities with form can generate one entity with form. Why then is it said to be one? This is because they all conform to the Parinispanna (Yogacara school's concept of perfected nature), which is unborn and undying. Furthermore, if we take Suchness (Tathata, the true nature of things) as the direct cause, why does the 'Treatise on Buddha-Nature' (Fo Xing Lun) only say: 'Due to the cause of application (effort in practice),' discussing the perfection of cause and the perfection of effect. The perfection of cause refers to the practice of merit and wisdom. It also says: 'The perfect cause is the cause of application,' not saying that the cause of application is the cause of attainment. The direct cause is merit and wisdom. If it is not so, it would also say that the ultimate emptiness (Paramartha-sunyata) is the substance of defiled dharmas. How can we allow Suchness and afflictions to be the direct cause? If this is allowed, it would contradict the 'Nirvana Sutra' (Nirvana Sutra). The thirty-third chapter of the 'Nirvana Sutra' says: 'If someone says that all sentient beings certainly possess Buddha-nature, possessing the four virtues of permanence, bliss, self, and purity, not created, not born, because of the causes and conditions of afflictions, therefore it cannot be seen.' It should be known that this person is slandering the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). It clearly states that Suchness is not created, not born, and not the cause of afflictions, not slandering the Three Jewels. Since it is allowed that the substance of Suchness arises corresponding phenomena as the direct cause of the Reward Body, since the substance arises phenomena, it should generate all dharmas as its direct cause. Is it still necessary to distinguish between defilement and purity? If so, it would be a great slander of the Three Jewels. If it is said that speech is the direct cause of the Reward Body, but speech does not personally generate the Reward Body. Since it does not personally generate, how can it be called the direct cause? For example, the earth. If there is no earth, hundreds of plants will not grow. Although hundreds of plants rely on the earth, it cannot be said that the earth is the direct cause of hundreds of plants. The situation of Suchness should be understood in this way. One view holds that the nature of things also has two types: one is the direct cause, and the other is the contributing cause. The twenty-eighth chapter of the 'Nirvana Sutra' says: 'The direct cause is sentient beings, and the contributing cause is the Six Paramitas (Six Perfections: generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom).' This is speaking of the direct cause of the Reward Body Buddha. Or it is said that the wisdom of the Middle Way (Madhyamika-jnana) and the virtuous five aggregates (Skandhas: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) and the bonds of ignorance (Avidya-samyojana) are taken as Buddha-nature. If speaking of the nature of all causes, the thirty-sixth chapter of the 'Nirvana Sutra' says: 'Buddha-nature cannot be called one dharma, and even cannot be called ten thousand dharmas.' Before attaining Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unsurpassed perfect enlightenment), all virtuous, non-virtuous, and neutral dharmas are called Buddha-nature. This is different from the two causes of the Reward Body Buddha arising from conditions. That view is incorrect because it does not understand the difference between the contributing cause and the direct cause. If according to the sutra saying that the direct cause belongs to sentient beings, it means that sentient beings are the direct cause of the Reward Body Buddha, and the Six Paramitas
羅蜜為緣因者。未知言眾生為即取第八識。為總五陰。若取八識。第八識有漏無漏種。若取有漏。有漏非無漏正因。若取無漏此即佛性。如何但言眾生為正因。而無差別。若云漏無漏皆是正因。何須簡別者。眾生即五陰。六波羅蜜亦五陰。總正因攝。經中何故別說六度。今準經意。以本有性無漏種隱妙難知故。寄眾生說名為佛性。不爾。何故第二十六師子吼云。若一切眾生無佛性者。云何而得阿耨菩提。以正因故。故令眾生得阿耨菩提。何等正因。所謂佛性。若云即佛說心名為佛性者。余豈非耶。若爾。即違第三十文。彼云。色受想行識慈悲喜捨等併名佛性故。十二因緣亦名佛性。又三十三云。佛性不名一法。乃至善不善法名佛性故。若云雖總云佛性為佛正因意取第八者。以何為證。如何不說。又攝大乘雲。不見毒藥得為甘露等。又阿毗達磨經但云為流轉還滅依。不說為還滅正因。又但總相明善不善法為報佛緣正因。而云顯佛性同異。何曾顯佛性同異。若以有漏即為正因。此但誠異。諸有智者。誰肯與同。所餘門義準此知非。顯正因異下示正中。廣為開示。
能顯中邊慧日論卷一 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1863 能顯中邊慧日論
能顯中邊慧日論第二
淄州大云寺苾芻慧沼撰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於羅蜜（Pāramitā，波羅蜜多，意為到達彼岸）作為緣因的問題。如果認為眾生就是指第八識（Ālayavijñāna，阿賴耶識，意為藏識），或者總括五陰（Pañca-skandha，五蘊，意為構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識），那麼如果取第八識，第八識有有漏（Sāsrava，意為有煩惱的）和無漏（Anāsrava，意為無煩惱的）的種子。如果取有漏，有漏就不是無漏的正因（Hetu，因）。如果取無漏，這就是佛性（Buddha-dhātu，意為成佛的可能性）。為什麼只說眾生是正因，而沒有差別呢？如果說有漏和無漏都是正因，又何必加以區別呢？眾生即是五陰，六波羅蜜（Ṣaṭ-pāramitā，六度，意為菩薩修行的六種方法：佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）也是五陰，都屬於正因所攝。經中為什麼特別說明六度呢？現在根據經文的意思，因為本有的無漏種子隱秘難以知曉，所以借用眾生之名來說，稱之為佛性。不然，為什麼第二十六師子吼（Siṃhanāda，意為佛陀的雄獅般的吼聲，比喻佛陀的教法）中說：『如果一切眾生沒有佛性，怎麼能夠獲得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi，無上正等正覺，意為最高的智慧）？』因為有正因的緣故，所以令眾生得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。什麼是正因？就是所謂的佛性。如果說佛所說的心就叫做佛性，那麼其餘的（法）難道不是嗎？如果是這樣，就違背了第三十文。那裡說：『色、受、想、行、識、慈、悲、喜、舍等都叫做佛性。』十二因緣（Dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，意為構成生命輪迴的十二個環節）也叫做佛性。又第三十三說：『佛性不名為一法，乃至善不善法都名為佛性。』如果說雖然總說佛性是佛的正因，但實際上是指第八識，那麼以什麼為證據？為什麼不說呢？又《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）說：『不見毒藥可以變為甘露等。』又《阿毗達磨經》（Abhidharma，意為論藏，佛教哲學的系統闡述）只說是流轉還滅的依據，沒有說是還滅的正因。又只是總相地說明善不善法是報佛的緣正因，而說顯佛性的同異，何曾顯佛性的同異？如果以有漏即為正因，這只是誠實地不同。有智慧的人，誰肯與他相同？其餘的門義可以依此類推，知道其非。顯正因異下，顯示正中，廣為開示。 《能顯中邊慧日論》卷一 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1863 《能顯中邊慧日論》 《能顯中邊慧日論》第二 淄州大云寺苾芻慧沼撰
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the question of Pāramitā (羅蜜, meaning 'to reach the other shore') as the causal condition. If it is thought that 'sentient beings' refers to the eighth consciousness, Ālayavijñāna (第八識, meaning 'storehouse consciousness'), or encompasses the five skandhas (五陰, meaning 'the five aggregates that constitute individual existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness'), then if the eighth consciousness is taken, the eighth consciousness has seeds that are either Sāsrava (有漏, meaning 'with defilements') or Anāsrava (無漏, meaning 'without defilements'). If the Sāsrava is taken, the Sāsrava is not the true cause (Hetu, 因) of the Anāsrava. If the Anāsrava is taken, this is Buddha-dhātu (佛性, meaning 'the potential for Buddhahood'). Why is it only said that sentient beings are the true cause, without any distinction? If it is said that both Sāsrava and Anāsrava are true causes, then why is it necessary to differentiate them? Sentient beings are the five skandhas, and the six Pāramitās (六波羅蜜, meaning 'the six perfections practiced by Bodhisattvas: generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom') are also the five skandhas, all included within the true cause. Why does the scripture specifically explain the six perfections? Now, according to the meaning of the scripture, because the inherent Anāsrava seed is hidden and difficult to know, it is referred to as 'Buddha-dhātu' by borrowing the name of sentient beings. Otherwise, why does the twenty-sixth Siṃhanāda (師子吼, meaning 'the lion's roar of the Buddha, a metaphor for the Buddha's teachings') say: 'If all sentient beings did not have Buddha-dhātu, how could they attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提, meaning 'unsurpassed, complete, and perfect enlightenment')?' Because of the true cause, sentient beings are able to attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. What is the true cause? It is what is called Buddha-dhātu. If it is said that the mind spoken of by the Buddha is called Buddha-dhātu, then are the other (dharmas) not? If that is the case, it contradicts the thirtieth text. There it says: 'Form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness, loving-kindness, compassion, joy, equanimity, etc., are all called Buddha-dhātu.' The twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣, meaning 'the twelve factors that constitute the cycle of life and death') are also called Buddha-dhātu. Furthermore, the thirty-third says: 'Buddha-dhātu is not called one dharma; even good and non-good dharmas are called Buddha-dhātu.' If it is said that although Buddha-dhātu is generally said to be the true cause of the Buddha, it actually refers to the eighth consciousness, then what is the evidence? Why is it not said? Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝大乘論) says: 'It is not seen that poison can be transformed into nectar, etc.' Furthermore, the Abhidharma (阿毗達磨經, meaning 'the collection of treatises, systematic expositions of Buddhist philosophy') only says that it is the basis for transmigration and cessation, not that it is the true cause of cessation. Furthermore, it only generally explains that good and non-good dharmas are the causal condition for repaying the Buddha, and says that it reveals the similarities and differences of Buddha-dhātu; when has it ever revealed the similarities and differences of Buddha-dhātu? If the Sāsrava is taken as the true cause, this is merely a difference in honesty. Who among the wise would agree with him? The remaining meanings of the doors can be inferred from this, knowing their incorrectness. Below, in 'Manifesting the Difference of the True Cause,' in the middle of manifesting the truth, it is extensively revealed. Treatise on Manifesting the Middle Way, Wisdom Sun, Volume 1 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 45, No. 1863, Treatise on Manifesting the Middle Way, Wisdom Sun Treatise on Manifesting the Middle Way, Wisdom Sun, Volume 2 Composed by Bhikshu Huizhao of Dayun Temple in Zizhou
引鑒除謬章第二
標彰五性謬一 種性不同謬二 本性住性謬三 五性唯親謬四 真如為種謬五 通經法爾謬六 漏生無漏謬七 說教前後謬八 增壽非了謬九 說妄通經謬十 通釋外難謬十一
標彰五性謬一
有義若人同時異。先說實滅無性。后說不滅有性。若人異時同。先後不定。然一分無性二乘實滅。定是小乘悉有佛性二乘無滅。是大乘義。此不應然。謬前後。所以者何。若云人同時異先說實滅無性等者。此據何人說。若據菩薩。不應道理。若據聲聞。何教先後。若小乘教先實滅無性。諸大乘中亦說實滅一分無性。若大乘經定知。何經先為小說。何經先為大說。若般若深密等先為小說。般若廣明第一義空。深密廣明六度三性。般若說眾生空。深密說空。皆歸三性已。明有性。如何得言先說無性后說有性。又彼自執真如及心為正因性。豈有已前大乘及大乘師立真如及心不遍有情耶。若云據五乘性。亦彼自執五性後有非本法爾。準此。即有未成五性已前之位還是一分無性之者。前教同此。何非了義。若云后教雖有現無皆悉當有故不同前者。不爾。如涅槃經優婆塞經等云。乳中無酪。石中無金。為說因無。為果非有。若無因性后能為因。不應道理。亦應從一切能生於一切。以無因性為彼因故。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
引鑒除謬章第二
- 標明五性之謬一
- 種性不同之謬二
- 本性住性之謬三
- 五性唯親之謬四
- 真如為種之謬五
- 通經法爾之謬六
- 漏生無漏之謬七
- 說教前後之謬八
- 增壽非了之謬九
- 說妄通經之謬十
- 通釋外難之謬十一
標明五性之謬一
有人認為，眾生在同一時間可能不同，先前說確實斷滅而無佛性，後來又說不滅而有佛性。如果認為眾生在不同時間相同，那麼先後順序就不確定。然而，一部分無佛性的二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）確實斷滅，這一定是小乘的觀點。所有眾生都有佛性，二乘不會斷滅，這是大乘的觀點。這種說法是不對的，前後矛盾。為什麼這麼說呢？如果說眾生在同一時間可能不同，先前說確實斷滅而無佛性等等，這是根據什麼人說的呢？如果是根據菩薩說的，不合道理。如果是根據聲聞說的，哪種教義在前，哪種教義在後呢？如果小乘教義先說確實斷滅而無佛性，那麼許多大乘經典中也說確實斷滅一部分而無佛性。如果確定是大乘經典，那麼哪部經先說是小乘，哪部經先說是大乘呢？如果《般若經》、《深密解脫經》等先說是小乘，那麼《般若經》廣泛闡明第一義空，《深密解脫經》廣泛闡明六度三性。《般若經》說眾生是空，《深密解脫經》說空，都歸於三性，已經闡明了有佛性。怎麼能說先前說無佛性，後來又說有佛性呢？而且他們自己認為真如和心是正因性，難道以前的大乘經典和大乘論師認為真如和心不普遍存在於一切有情眾生之中嗎？如果說是根據五乘的根性，那麼他們自己認為五性是後天產生的，不是本來就有的。按照這種說法，就有在沒有成就五性之前的階段，仍然有一部分眾生沒有佛性。之前的教義和這個相同，為什麼不是究竟的教義呢？如果說後來的教義雖然現在沒有顯現，但將來都會有，所以和之前的教義不同。不是這樣的。比如《涅槃經》、《優婆塞戒經》等說，牛奶中沒有酪，石頭中沒有金，這是說因不存在，還是說果不會有？如果沒有因性，後來能夠成為因，這是不合道理的。也應該從一切事物中產生一切事物，因為沒有因性是它們的原因。
【English Translation】 English version
Chapter Two: Distinguishing and Correcting Errors
- Error 1: Manifesting the Five Natures
- Error 2: Different Lineages
- Error 3: Intrinsic Nature and Abiding Nature
- Error 4: The Five Natures are Exclusively Relatives
- Error 5: 'Tathata' (真如) [Suchness or Thusness] as Seed
- Error 6: Universally Connecting Scriptures is Naturally So
- Error 7: Defiled Arising from Undefiled
- Error 8: Teachings Before and After
- Error 9: Increasing Lifespan is Not Definitive
- Error 10: Speaking Falsely While Connecting Scriptures
- Error 11: Universally Explaining External Difficulties
Error 1: Manifesting the Five Natures
Some argue that beings can be different at the same time, initially stating the actual extinction of no 'Buddha-nature' (佛性) [Buddha-nature], and later stating non-extinction with 'Buddha-nature'. If beings are considered the same at different times, the order is uncertain. However, a portion of the 'Two Vehicles' (二乘) [Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna] without 'Buddha-nature' truly become extinct, which is definitely the view of the 'Small Vehicle' (小乘) [Hīnayāna]. All beings have 'Buddha-nature', and the 'Two Vehicles' will not become extinct, which is the view of the 'Great Vehicle' (大乘) [Mahāyāna]. This statement is incorrect and contradictory. Why is this so? If it is said that beings can be different at the same time, initially stating the actual extinction of no 'Buddha-nature', etc., according to whom is this said? If it is said according to 'Bodhisattvas' (菩薩), it is unreasonable. If it is said according to 'Śrāvakas' (聲聞), which teaching comes first and which comes later? If the 'Small Vehicle' teaching initially states the actual extinction of no 'Buddha-nature', then many 'Great Vehicle' scriptures also state the actual extinction of a portion without 'Buddha-nature'. If it is determined to be a 'Great Vehicle' scripture, then which scripture first speaks of the 'Small Vehicle' and which first speaks of the 'Great Vehicle'? If the 'Prajna Sutra' (般若經) [Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra], 'Samdhinirmocana Sutra' (深密解脫經) [Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra], etc., first speak of the 'Small Vehicle', then the 'Prajna Sutra' extensively elucidates the emptiness of the first principle, and the 'Samdhinirmocana Sutra' extensively elucidates the six perfections and three natures. The 'Prajna Sutra' says that beings are empty, and the 'Samdhinirmocana Sutra' speaks of emptiness, both returning to the three natures, already elucidating the existence of 'Buddha-nature'. How can it be said that initially there was no 'Buddha-nature' and later there was 'Buddha-nature'? Moreover, they themselves consider 'Tathata' (真如) [Suchness] and mind to be the nature of the direct cause. Did the previous 'Great Vehicle' scriptures and 'Great Vehicle' teachers believe that 'Tathata' and mind do not universally exist in all sentient beings? If it is said according to the nature of the 'Five Vehicles' (五乘), then they themselves believe that the five natures are produced later and are not naturally so. According to this statement, there is a stage before the five natures are achieved, where a portion of beings still do not have 'Buddha-nature'. The previous teachings are the same as this, so why are they not definitive teachings? If it is said that although the later teachings are not manifest now, they will all have it in the future, so they are different from the previous teachings, that is not the case. For example, the 'Nirvana Sutra' (涅槃經) [Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra], 'Upasaka Sutra' (優婆塞戒經) [Upāsaka Sīla Sūtra], etc., say that there is no cheese in milk and no gold in stone. Is this saying that the cause does not exist, or that the result will not exist? If there is no causal nature, how can it later become a cause? It should also be that everything arises from everything, because the absence of causal nature is their cause.
云無果大小因許因中無果。前後何殊。獨云前說一分無性小乘非了三乘。準妄可悉。又云。一分無性二乘實滅定是小乘。悉有佛性二乘無滅是大乘義。此不應然。謬定大小故。何者。若一分無性名為小乘。一切有性皆名大乘。即分別部皆有佛性。經部一說部總名無實滅。應皆大乘。又以小乘有說實滅及生無性。大乘亦說。爾即云隨轉。小乘亦說一切有性二乘無滅。又佛性論中。大眾部執皆有佛性即第一義空。大乘同彼。應隨轉門。又大乘中但說六識。是隨轉門。涅槃經中亦但說六。亦是隨轉。此既隨轉。一切有性應許隨轉。此既不爾。彼云何然。故知不可說同小乘皆為隨轉。如理門云。外道亦六根境識。佛法同彼。豈邪教耶。又云。大小雖別。然皆不說見道已前成熟有為真無漏已。此亦不爾。豈可不許二乘聖者回心向大。執見道前定不成熟有為無漏。又云。小乘中說。初無漏心無同類因。名剎那法。故知大小同說異生位中未成有為真無漏法者。此亦不爾。何以故。佛性論中。分別部師不信有無性。異部論中。經量部師異生位中成就聖法。瑜伽論說地獄成就三無漏根。楞伽第四無漏習氣非剎那法。攝大乘論從同類生。如何獨信薩婆多師無漏心無同類因。不信經部分別部師及瑜伽等說有無漏。然涅槃經云乳中無酪性者。為
破彼執因中有果故。彼經云。若庵摩羅子有彼樹性。云何不見立五丈之質。上下經意非唯一處同瑜伽顯揚破因中果果論。不爾。如何經云。若一切眾生無佛性者。云何而得阿耨菩提。以正因故。故令眾生得阿耨。所謂佛性。前言無佛性。無佛果性。彼云佛性為因。即是有佛因性。若云見道前總無有為無漏種者。豈不但是卒意所談不依經論。又自引文。若以一滴頗求樹汁投之乳中。即便成酪。若本有酪。何為待緣。眾生佛性亦復如是。此意如乳為因酪即為果。若已有酪。乳何待緣。眾生佛性亦復如是者。若已成佛。何假修因。既待修因。明未有佛。非是不許有佛性因。審文解意。此義即顯。復引菩薩優婆塞戒經云。三種菩提無有定性。乃至若言定有性者。是名外道者。此破如言執定有性。因中有果。同涅槃經云。非有如虛空。不說令無猶如兔角。又若如言不許有性。至見道后亦應無性。說三菩提無有定性。不簡因果故。如何是撥異生位中無無漏種。余文準此可以得知。
種性不同謬二
有義。以法界真如及第八識為佛正因。真如八識無生不有說一分無性。隨轉理門。非大乘義。故涅槃楞伽密嚴皆雙說藏識及如來藏為諸法因。涅槃復說第一義空能生善法為種子也。亦善戒經等說其本性。唯說法性不說心者。由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 爲了駁斥『因中存在果』的執著。正如《涅槃經》所說：『如果庵摩羅（Āmra，芒果）的種子具有樹的本性，為何不能立即顯現出五丈高的樹幹？』上下經文的意思並非只有一處，如同《瑜伽師地論》和《顯揚聖教論》破斥『因中果』的理論一樣。如果不是這樣，為何經中又說：『如果一切眾生沒有佛性（Buddha-dhātu），又如何能夠證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi，無上正等正覺）？』正是因為有正因的緣故，才能使眾生證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，這個正因就是佛性。前面說沒有佛性，是指沒有佛果的本性。經文說佛性是因，就是說有成佛的因性。如果說在見道（Darśana-mārga）之前，完全沒有有為（Saṃskṛta，有造作的）和無漏（Anāsrava，無煩惱的）的種子，這難道不是隨口說說，不依據經論嗎？ 又自己引用經文說：『如果用一滴頗求樹的汁液滴入牛奶中，牛奶就會變成酪。如果牛奶本身就有酪，為何還要等待因緣？眾生的佛性也是如此。』這段話的意思是，牛奶是酪的因，酪是果。如果牛奶本身就有酪，牛奶又何必等待因緣？眾生的佛性也是如此。如果已經成佛，為何還要假借修因？既然要等待修因，就說明還沒有成佛。這並非是不承認有佛性的因。仔細審閱經文，理解其中的含義，這個道理就很明顯了。 又引用《菩薩優婆塞戒經》說：『三種菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）沒有固定的自性，乃至如果說有固定的自性，這就是外道。』這是爲了破斥像你一樣執著于『固定有自性』，認為『因中存在果』的觀點。如同《涅槃經》所說：『並非說有就像虛空一樣，也不是說令其沒有就像兔角一樣。』又如果像你所說的不承認有自性，那麼即使在見道之後也應該沒有自性。經文說三種菩提沒有固定的自性，沒有區分因和果。怎麼能說是在異生位（Pṛthag-jana，凡夫位）中沒有無漏的種子呢？其餘的經文可以依此類推得知。 種性不同的第二個謬誤： 有一種觀點認為，以法界真如（Dharmadhātu-tathatā）和第八識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）作為成佛的正因。真如和第八識無生無滅，卻說其中一部分沒有自性，這是隨順於流轉的理門，並非大乘的義理。所以《涅槃經》、《楞伽經》、《密嚴經》都同時說藏識和如來藏（Tathāgatagarbha）是諸法的因。《涅槃經》又說第一義空（Paramārtha-śūnyatā）能夠產生善法作為種子。也有《善戒經》等經文說其本性。只說法性而不說心，是因為...
【English Translation】 English version: To refute the attachment to the idea that 'the effect exists in the cause.' As stated in the Nirvana Sutra: 'If the seed of the Āmra (mango) possesses the nature of the tree, why is the five-zhang (丈, a unit of length) tall trunk not immediately visible?' The meaning of the scriptures, both before and after, is not unique to this passage, just as the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and the Asaṅga's Yogācārabhūmi-saṃgraha refute the theory of 'effect in the cause.' If it were not so, why would the sutra say: 'If all sentient beings did not have Buddha-dhātu (Buddha-nature), how could they attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment)?' It is precisely because of the correct cause that sentient beings can attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, and this correct cause is Buddha-nature. The previous statement that there is no Buddha-nature refers to the absence of the nature of the fruit of Buddhahood. The scripture says that Buddha-nature is the cause, which means that there is the causal nature for becoming a Buddha. If it is said that before the path of seeing (Darśana-mārga), there are absolutely no conditioned (Saṃskṛta) and unconditioned (Anāsrava) seeds, isn't this just a casual statement that does not rely on scriptures and treatises? Furthermore, you yourself quote the scripture saying: 'If a drop of the juice of the Phala tree is added to milk, the milk will immediately turn into cheese. If the cheese already exists in the milk, why wait for conditions?' The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is also like this. The meaning of this passage is that milk is the cause of cheese, and cheese is the effect. If the cheese already exists in the milk, why does the milk need to wait for conditions? The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is also like this. If one has already become a Buddha, why pretend to cultivate the cause? Since one needs to wait for the cultivation of the cause, it shows that one has not yet become a Buddha. This does not deny the existence of the cause of Buddha-nature. Carefully examine the scripture and understand its meaning, and this principle will become clear. Furthermore, you quote the Upāsaka Precept Sutra saying: 'The three Bodhis (Bodhi, Enlightenment) do not have a fixed nature, and even if one says that they have a fixed nature, that is an outsider's view.' This is to refute those who, like you, are attached to the idea of 'fixed nature' and believe that 'the effect exists in the cause.' As the Nirvana Sutra says: 'It is not saying that existence is like empty space, nor is it saying to make it non-existent like rabbit horns.' Furthermore, if, as you say, you do not admit the existence of nature, then even after the path of seeing, there should be no nature. The scripture says that the three Bodhis do not have a fixed nature, without distinguishing between cause and effect. How can you say that there are no unconditioned seeds in the stage of ordinary beings (Pṛthag-jana)? The remaining scriptures can be understood by analogy. The second error of different natures: One view holds that Dharmadhātu-tathatā (the Suchness of the Dharmadhatu) and the eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna, storehouse consciousness) are the correct causes for becoming a Buddha. The Suchness and the eighth consciousness are neither born nor destroyed, yet it is said that a portion of them has no nature. This is in accordance with the principle of transmigration, and is not the meaning of Mahayana. Therefore, the Nirvana Sutra, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and the Ghanavyūha Sūtra all simultaneously say that the Ālaya-vijñāna and the Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-womb) are the causes of all dharmas. The Nirvana Sutra also says that Paramārtha-śūnyatā (Ultimate Emptiness) can generate good dharmas as seeds. There are also scriptures such as the Bodhisattva-śīla Sūtra that speak of its inherent nature. The reason for only speaking of Dharma-nature and not of mind is because...
理有恒沙性功德故。順即成凈。違即成染。由此修得名為密性。心即不爾。又理雖亦與染法為依能生善不善法。而無恒沙性塵勞也。此亦不然。成唯識論及余大乘。何處不許真如及心不遍有情。云一分無。是隨轉門。又若以理心為佛正因。即菩薩性。如何自引優婆塞戒經云。菩薩種性亦復如是。善業因緣發菩提心名菩薩性。豈彼理心因發心有方名菩薩性。若云但名佛性非菩薩性者。尚非菩薩性。如何名佛性。若云發心名菩薩性者。據客性說。豈彼本性不得名為菩薩性耶。又準涅槃經二十六云。有二種。一生因。二了因。能生法者是名生因。燈能了物故名了因。望果生者。生因是正。了因是緣。如理既是緣正因。下文自許生物。諸修行者在見道前。既順如修理。何不生有為無漏。即取有漏為無漏種。若如不能生。何名正因。設若許生。心何所用。如已生故。又若真如為因親生。即違涅槃及佛性論。如前已引。下亦有文。設有處說真如為種。如說塵勞之輩為如來種。豈彼種言為佛為正因。故知假說由依如起。如四大種望所造色。亦五種。名正種子者。瑜伽七義非常法為因。不悟熏習之義與種子義殊。將熏習義來。雖于種子能所熏習解熏習義。非釋種子。又佛性論第二問曰。此三性幾性無體能生有體。答曰。唯分別一性無體
能生有體。問曰。此幾性有體能生有體。答曰。唯此依他一性。問曰。此三性幾有體能生無體。答曰。真實一效能滅依他令其無體。若如為正是諸法種。何不能生言唯是依他一。又若第八體為諸法正因。亦違瑜伽攝大乘等種子之義。心體是一許親生。云何名引自果及以性決定。復又一因何能通生善不善等。若許爾者。因一論成不平等。涅槃二十二云。一切諸法異因異果。亦非一因生一切果。非一切果從一因生。以此故知。因果名別。由阿賴耶具三相義。因相之中具種種界。雖非離第八。亦不即賴耶。體用因果理應爾故。故阿毗達磨經云。諸法于識藏。識於法亦然。更互為果性。亦常名因性。又云。由攝藏諸法一切種子識故名阿賴耶。勝者我開示。以此知。藏識中有種種界。非即第八。然華嚴楞伽說心染凈能生一切者。攝用歸體。攝余從識。故不相違。又云。理心雖俱生因。多說理者。以順如成凈違如成染。心則不爾。故不說者。此亦不爾。心若不能通生染凈。可同如心既通生。如何不說。又悟識成凈。迷識成染。何義不同。多偏說理。又若說心不生恒沙相功德。真如與誰為恒沙性功德。又云。無恒沙性塵勞也者。此亦不爾。既有八萬四千諸塵勞門。翻有八萬四千諸功德門。既說恒沙功德。還有恒沙過失。若真如不遍無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能生有體。問：有幾種自性具有實體，能夠產生具有實體的法？答：只有依他起性（Paratantra-svabhava，事物由因緣和合而生起的自性）這一種。問：這三種自性中，有幾種具有實體，能夠產生沒有實體的法？答：勝義自性（Paramartha-svabhava，事物真實存在的自性）這一種能夠消滅依他起性，使其失去實體。如果真如（Tathata，事物的本性、真實如是的狀態）是諸法的根本原因，為什麼不能產生一切法？為什麼只說是依他起性這一種？又如果第八識（Alaya-vijñana，阿賴耶識，含藏一切種子識的根本識）的本體是諸法的真正原因，也違背了《瑜伽師地論》（Yogacarabhumi-sastra）和《攝大乘論》（Mahayana-samgraha）等經論中關於種子的意義。心體（Citta，心識的本體）是唯一的，允許直接產生果，為什麼又說是引導自果，並且具有自性決定的性質？而且，一個原因怎麼能夠普遍產生善和不善等不同的果？如果允許這樣，那麼一個原因的理論就成立了不平等。涅槃經二十二卷說：『一切諸法，異因異果，也不是一個原因產生一切果，也不是一切果從一個原因產生。』因此可知，原因和果的名稱是不同的。由於阿賴耶識具有三種相的意義，在因相之中具有種種界（Dhatu，構成要素），雖然不是離開第八識，也不是完全等同於阿賴耶識。本體、作用、原因和結果的道理應當是這樣的。所以《阿毗達磨經》（Abhidharma-sutra）說：『諸法存在於識藏中，識也存在於法中，互相作為果性，也常常被稱為因性。』又說：『由於攝藏諸法的一切種子識，所以名為阿賴耶。殊勝者，我開示。』由此可知，藏識（Alaya-vijñana，阿賴耶識）中有種種界，不是完全等同於第八識。然而，《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka-sutra）和《楞伽經》（Lankavatara-sutra）說心（Citta，心識）的染污和清凈能夠產生一切法，這是將作用歸於本體，將剩餘的歸於識，所以不相違背。又說：『理（真如）和心雖然都是共同產生的原因，但多說理的原因，是因為順應真如就成就清凈，違背真如就成就染污，心則不是這樣，所以不說。』這種說法也不對。如果心不能普遍產生染污和清凈，可以和真如一樣，既然真如能夠普遍產生，為什麼不說？而且，覺悟識就成就清凈，迷惑識就成就染污，有什麼不同？為什麼多偏重於說理？又如果說心不產生如恒河沙數一樣多的功德，那麼真如和誰具有如恒河沙數一樣多的功德？又說：『沒有如恒河沙數一樣多的塵勞。』這種說法也不對。既然有八萬四千種塵勞之門，反過來就有八萬四千種功德之門。既然說了恒河沙數的功德，還有恒河沙數的過失。如果真如不普遍存在，沒有……
【English Translation】 English version It can produce entities with substance. Question: How many natures with substance can produce entities with substance? Answer: Only the Paratantra-svabhava (dependent nature, the nature of things arising from causes and conditions). Question: Among these three natures, how many with substance can produce entities without substance? Answer: Only the Paramartha-svabhava (perfected nature, the true nature of things) can extinguish the Paratantra-svabhava, causing it to be without substance. If the Tathata (suchness, the true nature of things) is the seed of all dharmas, why can't it produce all dharmas? Why is it only said to be the Paratantra-svabhava? Also, if the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijñana, storehouse consciousness, the fundamental consciousness containing all seed consciousnesses) is the true cause of all dharmas, it also contradicts the meaning of seeds in texts like the Yogacarabhumi-sastra and the Mahayana-samgraha. The Citta (mind, the essence of consciousness) is one, allowing direct production of effects, so why is it said to guide its own effects and have a nature of determination? Furthermore, how can one cause universally produce good and bad effects, etc.? If this is allowed, then the theory of one cause becomes unequal. Nirvana Sutra, volume 22, says: 'All dharmas have different causes and different effects, and not one cause produces all effects, nor do all effects arise from one cause.' Therefore, it is known that the names of cause and effect are different. Because the Alaya-vijñana has the meaning of three aspects, it contains various Dhatus (elements, constituent elements) within the aspect of cause, although it is not separate from the eighth consciousness, nor is it completely identical to the Alaya-vijñana. The principles of essence, function, cause, and effect should be like this. Therefore, the Abhidharma-sutra says: 'All dharmas exist in the storehouse of consciousness, and consciousness also exists in dharmas, mutually acting as the nature of effect, and also often called the nature of cause.' It also says: 'Because it stores all the seed consciousnesses of all dharmas, it is called Alaya. The excellent one, I reveal.' From this, it is known that there are various Dhatus in the storehouse consciousness (Alaya-vijñana), not completely identical to the eighth consciousness. However, the Avatamsaka-sutra and the Lankavatara-sutra say that the defilement and purity of the Citta (mind) can produce all dharmas, which is attributing function to essence and attributing the remainder to consciousness, so there is no contradiction. It also says: 'Although both principle (Tathata) and mind are common causes, the reason for speaking more about principle is that conforming to Tathata achieves purity, and violating Tathata achieves defilement, but the mind is not like this, so it is not mentioned.' This statement is also incorrect. If the mind cannot universally produce defilement and purity, it can be like Tathata; since Tathata can universally produce, why not say so? Moreover, awakening to consciousness achieves purity, and being deluded by consciousness achieves defilement, what is the difference? Why is there more emphasis on speaking about principle? Also, if it is said that the mind does not produce merits like the sands of the Ganges River, then who does Tathata have merits like the sands of the Ganges River with? It also says: 'There are no defilements like the sands of the Ganges River.' This statement is also incorrect. Since there are eighty-four thousand gates of defilement, conversely, there are eighty-four thousand gates of merit. Since merits like the sands of the Ganges River are mentioned, there are also faults like the sands of the Ganges River. If Tathata is not universally present, there is no...
恒沙性塵勞。許真如遍。何無恒沙塵勞性。又云。如來藏性及第八識。如末尼珠隨緣出故。密嚴經下捲雲。如末尼珠置於日月光中。隨其所應各雨其物。阿賴耶識亦復如是。與習氣合。變似眾色周於世間。若無漏相應。即雨一切諸功德法者。則自所執第八識藏為佛正因。其義有失。何者。經云與無漏相應即雨功德。明第八識。非為正因。他性相應非自性故。準此即知。至初地時。第八由無漏相應。生無漏智。非是有漏親生無漏。準此經文。無漏先有不由新熏。何得說言第八為正。又此相應無漏之法亦是功德。從第八雨第八。未有無漏俱時。此如何起。不可說有無漏種生。以自不許三乘見道前有無漏法故。又云。帶迷即賴耶無常。悟理如第八常住。故密嚴經中雲何阿賴耶識。是意等諸法習氣所依。為分別心之所擾濁。若離分別即成無漏。無漏即常猶如虛空。金光明經云法身是常。應化無常。涅槃亦說。若至佛果。即非三世。又云。佛不同諸行是有為也。亦不可說非業煩惱為。故名為無為。一切無漏皆非所為。何獨說佛智名非有為耶。故唯識論三因證佛是無常者。限己見聞為妄說也者。此亦不然。若云報佛是相續常。立已成失。若凝然常。即有四失。一違教失。且報佛菩提為是本有。為是今有。若是本有。非從因生。則菩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 恒河沙數的自性本是塵勞。如果真如遍在，為何沒有恒河沙數塵勞的自性？又說，如來藏性以及第八識（阿賴耶識），就像摩尼寶珠一樣隨緣顯現。正如《密嚴經》下卷所說：『如摩尼寶珠置於日月光中，隨其所應各雨其物。阿賴耶識亦復如是，與習氣合，變似眾色周於世間。若與無漏相應，即雨一切諸功德法。』如果這樣，那麼你所執著的第八識藏就成了佛的正因，這在義理上是有缺失的。為什麼呢？經中說與無漏相應才降下功德，這說明第八識不是正因，因為它是與他性相應而不是自性。按照這個說法，到了初地菩薩時，第八識由於與無漏相應，才生出無漏智慧，而不是有漏親生無漏。按照這個經文，無漏是先有的，不是新熏習而來的，怎麼能說第八識是正因呢？而且，這種相應的無漏之法也是功德，從第八識降下第八識，沒有無漏同時存在，這如何生起呢？不能說有無漏種子生起，因為你們自己不承認三乘見道前有無漏法。又說，帶著迷惑時，賴耶識是無常的；領悟真理時，第八識是常住的。所以《密嚴經》中說：『阿賴耶識是意等諸法習氣所依，為分別心之所擾濁，若離分別即成無漏，無漏即常猶如虛空。』《金光明經》說：『法身是常，應化無常。』《涅槃經》也說，如果到了佛果，就不是三世所攝。又說，佛不同於諸行是有為法，也不可說非業煩惱所為，所以名為無為。一切無漏法都不是所為，為何只說佛智名為非有為呢？所以《唯識論》用三因證明佛是無常，是侷限於自己的見聞而妄說的。』這種說法也是不對的。如果說報身佛是相續常，這已經自相矛盾了。如果說是凝然常，就會有四種過失。一是違背教義的過失。且說報身佛的菩提是本來就有的，還是現在才有的？如果是本來就有的，就不是從因緣而生，那麼則不應...
【English Translation】 English version The nature of countless sands is inherently defiled. If Suchness (真如) is pervasive, why isn't there a nature of defilement corresponding to countless sands? Furthermore, it is said that the Tathagatagarbha-nature (如來藏性) and the eighth consciousness (第八識, Alaya-consciousness) manifest according to conditions, like a Mani jewel. As stated in the lower scroll of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra (密嚴經): 'Like a Mani jewel placed in the light of the sun and moon, it rains down various objects according to what is appropriate. The Alaya-consciousness is also like this; it combines with habitual energies (習氣), transforms into various colors, and pervades the world. If it is in accordance with the unconditioned (無漏), it rains down all meritorious dharmas.' If this is the case, then your assertion that the eighth consciousness-store is the direct cause of Buddhahood is flawed. Why? The sutra states that it is in accordance with the unconditioned that merit is rained down, indicating that the eighth consciousness is not the direct cause, as it is in accordance with otherness (他性) rather than self-nature (自性). According to this, it is known that upon reaching the first Bhumi (初地), the eighth consciousness, due to its accordance with the unconditioned, generates unconditioned wisdom, rather than the conditioned directly giving rise to the unconditioned. According to this sutra passage, the unconditioned is pre-existent and not newly acquired through habituation. How can it be said that the eighth consciousness is the direct cause? Moreover, this unconditioned dharma that is in accordance is also merit. From the eighth consciousness raining down the eighth consciousness, there is no simultaneous existence of the unconditioned. How does this arise? It cannot be said that there is a seed of the unconditioned arising, because you yourselves do not acknowledge the existence of unconditioned dharmas before the Path of Seeing (見道) in the Three Vehicles (三乘). Furthermore, it is said that when accompanied by delusion, the Alaya-consciousness is impermanent; when enlightened to the truth, the eighth consciousness is permanent. Therefore, the Samdhinirmocana Sutra states: 'The Alaya-consciousness is the basis upon which the habitual energies of the mind and other dharmas rely, and it is disturbed and defiled by the discriminating mind. If it is free from discrimination, it becomes unconditioned, and the unconditioned is permanent like space.' The Suvarnaprabhasottama Sutra (金光明經) states: 'The Dharmakaya (法身) is permanent, while the manifested body (應化) is impermanent.' The Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) also states that if one reaches Buddhahood, it is not within the three times (三世). Furthermore, it is said that the Buddha is different from all actions that are conditioned (有為), and it cannot be said that it is caused by karma and afflictions (煩惱), therefore it is called unconditioned (無為). All unconditioned dharmas are not caused, so why only say that the Buddha's wisdom is called unconditioned? Therefore, the Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi (唯識論) using three reasons to prove that the Buddha is impermanent is a false statement limited to one's own views and knowledge.' This statement is also incorrect. If it is said that the Reward Body Buddha (報佛) is continuously permanent, this is already self-contradictory. If it is said to be quiescently permanent, there will be four faults. First, the fault of contradicting the teachings. Let's say that the Bodhi of the Reward Body Buddha is either originally existent or newly existent. If it is originally existent, it is not born from causes and conditions, then it should not...
提涅槃俱但有了因。不有生因者。名何故涅槃二十六云。復有生因。謂六波羅蜜菩提等。又若是常。云何因生。涅槃第十三云。若有諸法從緣生者。則知無常。又云。以是義故。從因生法不名為常。下文云。善男子虛空非生非出。非作非造。非有為法。如來亦爾。非生非出。非作非造。非有為法。如如來性。佛性亦爾。非生非出非造非有為法者。此說真如法身。非報身也。不爾。如何報佛名修得。又維摩經從諸功德生等。又涅槃第十九云。如是光明名為智慧。智慧者即是常住。常住之法無有因緣。有多番釋常法無因。又云。涅槃之體非本無今有。若涅槃體本無今有。則非無漏常住之法。又高貴德菩薩云。凡因莊嚴而得成者。悉名無常。此大菩提莊嚴成故因修方有。名本無今有。云何是常。又云。涅槃之體非如是等五因所成。六波羅蜜等既爲了非生。或本因故常。菩提之體五因所得。六波羅蜜等既為生因。故是無常。二違理失。佛性論第二解三如來藏。三能攝為藏。云謂果地。一切過恒沙數功德。如來應得性時。攝之已盡故。若至果時方言得性者。此性便是無常。何以故。非始得故。故知本有。是故言常。此說自性法身。若是報身。豈應得因時已得圓滿。云攝已盡。準知四智心品。若因已滿不假更修因。大圓鏡智至果方
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 提問：涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫）已經有了俱有因（Sahaja-hetu，與生俱來的因），如果沒有生因（Janma-hetu，產生的因），那是什麼原因呢？《涅槃經》第二十六卷說：『還有生因，指的是六波羅蜜（Six Perfections，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）和菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）等。』如果涅槃是常（eternal），又怎麼會因生呢？《涅槃經》第十三卷說：『如果一切諸法都是從因緣而生，那麼就知道是無常（impermanent）。』又說：『因為這個緣故，從因生之法不能稱為常。』下文說：『善男子，虛空（space）非生非出，非作非造，非有為法（conditioned phenomena）。如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）也是這樣，非生非出，非作非造，非有為法。如如來性（Tathagatagarbha，如來藏），佛性（Buddha-nature）也是這樣，非生非出，非造非有為法。』這裡說的是真如法身（Dharmakaya，法身），不是報身（Sambhogakaya，報身）。如果不是這樣，為什麼報佛（reward body of Buddha）被稱為修得呢？又《維摩經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）說從諸功德生等。又《涅槃經》第十九卷說：『這樣的光明名為智慧（wisdom），智慧就是常住（permanence）。常住之法沒有因緣。』多次解釋常法沒有因。又說：『涅槃的本體不是本來沒有現在才有。』如果涅槃的本體本來沒有現在才有，那就不是無漏（untainted）常住之法。又有高貴德菩薩（High Noble Virtue Bodhisattva）說：『凡是因莊嚴而成就的，都稱為無常。』這大菩提（Great Bodhi，偉大的覺悟）因莊嚴而成就，因為修行才有，是本來沒有現在才有，怎麼能說是常呢？又說：『涅槃的本體不是像這樣等五因所成。』六波羅蜜等既然是爲了非生，或是本因所以是常。菩提的本體是五因所得，六波羅蜜等既然是生因，所以是無常。這是二種違背道理的過失。《佛性論》（Treatise on Buddha-nature）第二解說三如來藏（three aspects of the Tathagatagarbha）。三能攝為藏，說的是果地（fruition stage）。一切超過恒河沙數的功德，如來應該在得性時，就全部攝盡。如果到了果時才說得性，那麼這個性就是無常。為什麼呢？因為不是開始才得到的。所以知道是本來就有的。因此說是常。這裡說的是自性法身（Svabhavikakaya，自性法身）。如果是報身，怎麼應該在得因時就已經得到圓滿，說已經全部攝盡。準此可知四智心品（four wisdoms of mind）。如果因已經圓滿，就不需要再修因，大圓鏡智（Adarsha-jnana，大圓鏡智）到了果方才...
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Nirvana (Nirvana, a Buddhist term referring to liberation) already has Sahaja-hetu (俱有因, innate cause). If there is no Janma-hetu (生因, generative cause), what is the reason? The twenty-sixth volume of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'There are also generative causes, referring to the Six Perfections (六波羅蜜, Six Perfections: generosity, discipline, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom) and Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment), etc.' If Nirvana is eternal (常), how can it be caused? The thirteenth volume of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'If all dharmas arise from conditions, then know that they are impermanent (無常).' It also says: 'For this reason, dharmas arising from causes cannot be called eternal.' The following text says: 'Good man, space (虛空) is neither born nor produced, neither made nor created, neither conditioned phenomena (有為法). The Tathagata (如來, title of the Buddha) is also like this, neither born nor produced, neither made nor created, neither conditioned phenomena. Like the Tathagatagarbha (如來性, Tathagatagarbha), Buddha-nature (佛性) is also like this, neither born nor produced, neither created nor conditioned phenomena.' This refers to the Dharmakaya (真如法身, Dharmakaya), not the Sambhogakaya (報身, Sambhogakaya). If not, why is the reward body of Buddha (報佛) called acquired through cultivation? Also, the Vimalakirti Sutra (維摩經) says that it arises from all merits, etc. Also, the nineteenth volume of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Such light is called wisdom (智慧), and wisdom is permanence (常住).' The dharma of permanence has no causes. It explains many times that the eternal dharma has no cause. It also says: 'The essence of Nirvana is not originally non-existent and now existent.' If the essence of Nirvana were originally non-existent and now existent, then it would not be an untainted (無漏) and permanent dharma. Furthermore, the High Noble Virtue Bodhisattva (高貴德菩薩) says: 'Whatever is accomplished through adornment is called impermanent.' This Great Bodhi (大菩提, Great Bodhi) is accomplished through adornment, because it exists through cultivation, it is originally non-existent and now existent, how can it be said to be eternal? It also says: 'The essence of Nirvana is not composed of these five causes, etc.' Since the Six Perfections, etc., are for non-birth, or the original cause, therefore it is eternal. The essence of Bodhi is obtained from the five causes, since the Six Perfections, etc., are generative causes, therefore it is impermanent. These are two faults of contradicting reason. The second explanation in the Treatise on Buddha-nature (佛性論) discusses the three aspects of the Tathagatagarbha (三如來藏). The three can be gathered into the store, referring to the fruition stage (果地). All merits exceeding the sands of the Ganges River, the Tathagata should have completely gathered them when attaining the nature. If it is said that the nature is attained only at the time of fruition, then this nature is impermanent. Why? Because it is not obtained only at the beginning. Therefore, it is known to be originally existent. Therefore, it is said to be eternal. This refers to the Svabhavikakaya (自性法身, Svabhavikakaya). If it is the Sambhogakaya, how should it have already attained perfection at the time of obtaining the cause, saying that it has been completely gathered? According to this, it can be known that the four wisdoms of mind (四智心品). If the cause is already complete, there is no need to cultivate the cause further, the Adarsha-jnana (大圓鏡智, Adarsha-jnana) only reaches the fruition...
生。即是始得。故是無常。又第三云。轉依有四種相。應知。一者為生依。二滅依。乃至云。一生依者。佛無分別道相續依止。若不緣此法無分別道即不得生。既云無分別道相續依止。明不同如凝然常住。又解涅槃難中雲。非道所生。故此法必須因道得至。非道能生。是故未修時不得言無。是故無生義。立無後際故。是得無滅中際無業煩惱等。故無變易。以無生異滅等三失故說常住。菩提既是道生。未修時無。因修方得。故異涅槃。非是常住。又云。若離涅槃。無有一法是常住。故涅槃前際等無故。故知常。菩提有始有前際故。明非常住。若云報身不離涅槃故是常者。豈他受變化離涅槃耶。又梁攝論十五。六因證受用身不成自性身。此意真如為自性。報佛名受用。六因者。一由色身及行身顯現故。釋云。十入名色身。受等名行身。諸佛以真如法為身。於法身中色行不可得。應身則不爾。此義云何。一切智大定大悲等恒伽沙等如來功德。雖依法身。若顯現時不離化身。此化身以佛異一切眾生。為應身事相故。色行於應身有。於法身無。是故應身不成法身。六阿梨耶識及生起識現轉依。非道理故。釋云。阿梨耶識及生起識即是受用身。此二識轉依名法身。若自性身即是受用身。轉二識依后得何身。由此非道理故。受用身不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生，即是開始獲得。所以是無常的。另外，第三（經文）說，轉依（parinama-ashraya，轉變所依）有四種相，應當瞭解。第一是生依（utpada-ashraya，生起所依），第二是滅依（nirodha-ashraya，止滅所依），乃至說，一生依是指佛的無分別道（nirvikalpa-marga，無分別之道）相續依止。如果不緣於此法，無分別道就不能生起。既然說是無分別道相續依止，就表明它不同於凝然常住的狀態。 又在《解涅槃難》中說，（涅槃）不是道所生。因此，此法必須通過道才能達到，不是道能夠產生。所以，在未修行時，不能說它沒有。因此，無生義，是建立在沒有後際（apara-koti，未來邊際）的基礎上。是獲得無滅的中際（madhya-koti，中間邊際）沒有業煩惱等。所以沒有變易。因為沒有生、異、滅等三種過失，所以說是常住。菩提（bodhi，覺悟）既然是道所生，未修行時沒有，因為修行才獲得，所以不同於涅槃。不是常住。 又說，如果離開涅槃，沒有一法是常住的。所以涅槃的前際（purva-koti，過去邊際）等都沒有，所以知道它是常的。菩提有開始，有前際，表明它不是常住。如果說報身（sambhogakaya，受用身）不離涅槃，所以是常的，難道他受變化（的應化身）就離開涅槃了嗎？ 另外，《梁攝論》第十五卷，用六個原因證明受用身不能成為自性身（svabhavakakaya，自性身）。這裡的意思是，真如（tathata，如如）是自性身，報佛（sambhogakaya-buddha，報身佛）名為受用身。六個原因：一，由色身（rupa-kaya，色身）及行身（karma-kaya，行身）顯現的緣故。解釋說，十入（十種處）名為色身，受等名為行身。諸佛以真如法為身，在法身（dharma-kaya，法身）中，色行是不可得的。應身（nirmana-kaya，化身）則不是這樣。這個意義是什麼呢？一切智（sarvajna，一切智）、大定（maha-samadhi，大定）、大悲（maha-karuna，大悲）等恒河沙數般的如來功德，雖然依於法身，但顯現時，不離開化身。這個化身因為佛不同於一切眾生，是應身的事相，所以色行在應身中有，在法身中沒有。因此，應身不能成為法身。六，阿梨耶識（alaya-vijnana，阿賴耶識）及生起識（pravrtti-vijnana，轉識）現行轉依，沒有道理的緣故。解釋說，阿梨耶識及生起識就是受用身。這二識的轉依名為法身。如果自性身就是受用身，那麼轉變二識后得到什麼身呢？由此沒有道理，受用身不能是自性身。
【English Translation】 English version Birth is the beginning of attainment, hence it is impermanent. Furthermore, the third (text) states that the 'turning of the basis' (parinama-ashraya) has four aspects that should be understood. The first is the 'basis of arising' (utpada-ashraya), the second is the 'basis of cessation' (nirodha-ashraya), and so on. The 'basis of arising' refers to the continuous reliance on the Buddha's 'non-discriminating path' (nirvikalpa-marga). If not for this dharma, the 'non-discriminating path' cannot arise. Since it is said to be the continuous reliance on the 'non-discriminating path,' it is clearly different from a state of solidified permanence. Moreover, in 'Difficulties in Understanding Nirvana,' it is said that (Nirvana) is not produced by the path. Therefore, this dharma must be attained through the path; it is not something the path can generate. Thus, one cannot say it does not exist before cultivation. Therefore, the meaning of 'no birth' is established on the basis of having no 'posterior limit' (apara-koti). It is the attainment of 'no cessation,' with no karmic afflictions, etc., in the 'intermediate limit' (madhya-koti). Therefore, there is no change. Because there are no three faults of birth, otherness, and cessation, it is said to be permanent. Since 'bodhi' (awakening) is produced by the path, it does not exist before cultivation; it is attained through cultivation, so it is different from Nirvana. It is not permanent. It is also said that if one departs from Nirvana, there is no dharma that is permanent. Therefore, the 'prior limit' (purva-koti) of Nirvana, etc., does not exist, so it is known to be permanent. Bodhi has a beginning and a prior limit, indicating that it is not permanent. If it is said that the 'enjoyment body' (sambhogakaya) is inseparable from Nirvana, so it is permanent, then does the 'transformation body' (nirmana-kaya) of others depart from Nirvana? Furthermore, in the fifteenth chapter of the 'Treatise on the Compendium of the Mahayana' (She Lun), six reasons are used to prove that the 'enjoyment body' cannot become the 'self-nature body' (svabhavakakaya). The meaning here is that 'suchness' (tathata) is the 'self-nature body,' and the 'enjoyment Buddha' (sambhogakaya-buddha) is called the 'enjoyment body.' The six reasons are: first, because it is manifested by the 'form body' (rupa-kaya) and the 'action body' (karma-kaya). It is explained that the ten entrances are called the 'form body,' and reception, etc., are called the 'action body.' The Buddhas take 'suchness' as their body. In the 'dharma body' (dharma-kaya), form and action are unattainable. The 'emanation body' (nirmana-kaya) is not like this. What is the meaning of this? The Tathagata's merits, such as 'omniscience' (sarvajna), 'great samadhi' (maha-samadhi), 'great compassion' (maha-karuna), etc., as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, although relying on the 'dharma body,' do not depart from the 'emanation body' when manifested. This 'emanation body' is because the Buddha is different from all sentient beings, and it is the affair of the 'emanation body,' so form and action exist in the 'emanation body' but not in the 'dharma body.' Therefore, the 'emanation body' cannot become the 'dharma body.' Sixth, the 'alaya consciousness' (alaya-vijnana) and the 'arising consciousness' (pravrtti-vijnana) manifest the turning of the basis, which is unreasonable. It is explained that the 'alaya consciousness' and the 'arising consciousness' are the 'enjoyment body.' The turning of the basis of these two consciousnesses is called the 'dharma body.' If the 'self-nature body' is the 'enjoyment body,' then what body is obtained after turning the two consciousnesses? Therefore, it is unreasonable that the 'enjoyment body' cannot be the 'self-nature body.'
成自性身。若受用身即是自性身。則無大智等眾德。由不無眾德故。自性身不成受用身。然大莊嚴論第三云。大圓鏡智平等性智名法身者。以第八識持二障種。得鏡智時。舍二障種。第七恒執障平等理。離執證如。因此二智得法身故。故說二智為法身。又真如理功德所依本。二智功德所生本。故名法身。若分自性身自受用身。四智俱是自受用身。他受變化因二智起。即說二智為彼二身故。大莊嚴論第三說。觀察智成事智為化身。因二智起故。說二智為彼二身。不爾。二論俱無著造。何故莊嚴論說二智為法身。攝論不許二智為法身。又復八識因位無常。何故果位常無常別。既許常無常別。應許慮非慮心非心色非色等別。又復應化及色點等俱鏡智現。何故能變之心是常住。所變智身是無常。不得難言能變唯是心所變心色別。何廢能變心常住所變是無常。何以故。所變種各殊。能變唯心。所能所俱心智。何得常無常。又天親般若論云。分別有為體。非彼相成就。三相異體故。離彼是如來。此說法身離有為。豈報身相離有為耶。若云不離者。豈不許生。生已經停。豈不是住。既有三相。何得名常。又云。應化有來去。法佛無來去。應化有來去。明知無常。又攝大乘論云。於法身中色行不可得。明報身等色行可得。報身既色行可
得。故是無常。亦不得云雖有色行而體是常。涅槃經云。舍無常色獲得常色。受想行識亦復如是者。既許色行同真如常。同如寂靜。何故梁攝論云。若以法身為應身佛。無利益眾生事。若以應身為法身佛。無現世安樂義。以恒喧動離寂靜故。準此論意。以法身常無能利物。報身既常。豈不同如無能利物又若是常。如何難云。若以應身為法身佛。無現世安樂義。以恒喧動離寂靜故。許報身常。如何得言以恒喧動離寂靜故。又法華經論釋三身中唯法身文內云。非虛非如非異。釋云。謂離四種相有四種相者。是無常故。不言報佛亦離四相。三妄引聖教失云。若無常。何故密嚴經說同空常耶。涅槃經云。舍無常色獲得常等。復言如來有常樂我凈等耶。如前廣引。此不誠證。何以故。梁論本云。復自受用身及變化身無常故。云何諸佛以常住法為身。釋論云。若如來不永般涅槃。則如來以常住法為身。受用身及變化身不應是無常。若是無常。云何復言以常住法為身。論本答云。由應身及化身恒但依止法身故。釋云。法身為三身本。云既常住。末依于本願相續恒在故。末亦常住。論云。由應身無舍離故。由化身數現起故。如恒受樂。如恒施食。二身常住應如此知。大莊嚴論金光明經無上依經佛性論等。釋皆相似故。不同如凝湛常住。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，色（rupa，物質）、受（vedana，感受）、想（samjna，認知）、行（samskara，意志）、識（vijnana，意識）都是無常的。也不能說雖然有色行，但其本體是常。如《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）所說：『捨棄無常的色，獲得常色。受想行識也是如此。』既然允許色行與真如（tathata，如實）相同，與如（tathata，如實）寂靜相同，為何梁朝的《攝大乘論》（She Dasheng Lun）說：『如果以法身（Dharmakaya，法身）為應身佛（Nirmanakaya，應化身），就沒有利益眾生的事。如果以應身為法身佛，就沒有現世安樂的意義，因為恒常喧鬧，遠離寂靜。』按照此論的意義，以法身常住而不能利益眾生。報身（Sambhogakaya，報身）既然常住，豈不也如同法身一樣不能利益眾生？又如果報身是常住的，如何反駁說：『如果以應身為法身佛，就沒有現世安樂的意義，因為恒常喧鬧，遠離寂靜。』既然允許報身常住，如何能說因為恒常喧鬧，遠離寂靜呢？又《法華經論》（Lotus Sutra Treatise）解釋三身（Trikaya，三身）時，唯獨在法身文中說：『非虛非如非異。』解釋說：『所謂遠離四種相，有四種相，是因為無常的緣故。』沒有說報佛（Sambhogakaya Buddha，報身佛）也遠離四相。三次錯誤地引用聖教，說：『如果無常，為何《密嚴經》（Ghanavyuha Sutra）說同於虛空常住呢？』《涅槃經》說：『捨棄無常色，獲得常等。』又說如來（Tathagata，如來）有常樂我凈（Nitya, Sukha, Atman, Subha，常樂我凈）等嗎？』如前文廣泛引用，這些是不誠實的證據。為什麼呢？梁朝的《攝大乘論》說：『復自受用身（Sambhogakaya，報身）及變化身（Nirmanakaya，化身）是無常的，為何諸佛以常住法為身？』釋論說：『如果如來不永入涅槃（Parinirvana，般涅槃），那麼如來以常住法為身，受用身及變化身不應是無常。如果是無常，為何又說以常住法為身？』論本回答說：『由於應身及化身恒常依止法身的緣故。』釋論說：『法身是三身的根本，既然常住，末（應身和化身）依于根本，願力相續恒常存在，所以末也常住。』論說：『由於應身沒有舍離，由於化身屢次顯現的緣故，如同恒常受樂，如同恒常施食，二身常住應當如此理解。』《大莊嚴論》（Mahalankara Sutra）、《金光明經》（Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra）、《無上依經》（Anavatapta Sutra）、《佛性論》（Buddhatrata Sutra）等的解釋都相似，所以不同於凝湛常住。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, rupa (form), vedana (feeling), samjna (perception), samskara (volition), and vijnana (consciousness) are all impermanent. It cannot be said that although there are form and volition, their essence is permanent. As the Nirvana Sutra says, 'Abandoning impermanent form, one obtains permanent form. Feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are also like this.' Since it is allowed that form and volition are the same as tathata (suchness), the same as suchness's quiescence, why does the She Dasheng Lun of the Liang dynasty say, 'If the Dharmakaya is taken as the Nirmanakaya Buddha, there is no matter of benefiting sentient beings. If the Nirmanakaya is taken as the Dharmakaya Buddha, there is no meaning of present-day happiness, because it is constantly noisy and far from quiescence.' According to the meaning of this treatise, the Dharmakaya is permanent and cannot benefit beings. Since the Sambhogakaya is permanent, wouldn't it be like the Dharmakaya, unable to benefit beings? Furthermore, if the Sambhogakaya is permanent, how can one refute by saying, 'If the Nirmanakaya is taken as the Dharmakaya Buddha, there is no meaning of present-day happiness, because it is constantly noisy and far from quiescence.' Since it is allowed that the Sambhogakaya is permanent, how can it be said that it is constantly noisy and far from quiescence? Moreover, when the Lotus Sutra Treatise explains the Trikaya (Three Bodies), it only says in the Dharmakaya text, 'Neither unreal nor real nor different.' It explains, 'The so-called being apart from the four characteristics and having four characteristics is because of impermanence.' It does not say that the Sambhogakaya Buddha is also apart from the four characteristics. Three times it mistakenly quotes the sacred teachings, saying, 'If it is impermanent, why does the Ghanavyuha Sutra say that it is the same as the permanence of space?' The Nirvana Sutra says, 'Abandoning impermanent form, one obtains permanence, etc.' Does it also say that the Tathagata has Nitya, Sukha, Atman, Subha (eternity, bliss, self, purity), etc.?' As quoted extensively earlier, these are dishonest proofs. Why? The Liang dynasty's She Dasheng Lun says, 'Furthermore, the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya are impermanent, so how can the Buddhas take the permanent Dharma as their body?' The commentary says, 'If the Tathagata does not enter Parinirvana forever, then the Tathagata takes the permanent Dharma as his body, and the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya should not be impermanent. If they are impermanent, why does it say that they take the permanent Dharma as their body?' The treatise answers, 'Because the Nirmanakaya and Nirmanakaya constantly rely on the Dharmakaya.' The commentary says, 'The Dharmakaya is the root of the three bodies. Since it is permanent, the branches (Nirmanakaya and Nirmanakaya) rely on the root, and the power of vows continues constantly, so the branches are also permanent.' The treatise says, 'Because the Nirmanakaya does not abandon, because the Nirmanakaya appears frequently, like constantly receiving joy, like constantly giving food, the permanence of the two bodies should be understood in this way.' The explanations of the Mahalankara Sutra, Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra, Anavatapta Sutra, Buddhatrata Sutra, etc., are all similar, so they are different from solidified permanence.
亦不得言此說應身是他受用。釋云。如來自圓德及利益諸菩薩。此二事不恒相離故。又前云。若自性身即是受用身。轉二識依復得何身。乃至云。若受用身即是自性身。則無大智等眾德故。此言應身即受用身。又涅槃第十九云。又善男子以性故。生住異滅皆悉是常。然唸唸滅。不可說常。此說四相為常。又第三十三。善男子常法無住處。若有住處。即是無常。十二因緣無定住處。若有住處。十二因緣不得名常。此等皆同約所依如性。故名常。即是。攝論云。由應身化身恒依止法身故。名之為常。非自性常。密嚴等文準此應知。此乃無上調御諸大論師智解咸周。教理顯具。自無法眼。刻舫守株。狂藥入心。出此兇勃。言獲法等同違經文。抑令生滅說會中道。聖智可生。非常見常。隨邪定聚。四不悟四記失云。若依四記。以生必死故。證佛智有生必滅。亦應以無或死死不生。證佛智滅更不起。不可一向記者。說剎那分別記者。即分段身佛既無或滅還生。有生必死。非約佛者。不爾。由未善知四記之意故。此難生。解斯四記。猛難便息。何者。生者必死。一向記。不論剎那與一期。死者生耶。分別記。剎那一期俱分別。若不分別。何名分別記。今為分別。若約一期。無煩惱者死必不生。若據剎那。有或無或俱。須分別。無煩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 也不得說此應化身是他受用身。（解釋：）如來成就圓滿功德以及利益諸菩薩，這兩件事不會恒常分離。而且前面說過，如果自性身就是受用身，轉變二識所依又會得到什麼身？乃至說，如果受用身就是自性身，那麼就沒有大智慧等眾多功德。這裡說應化身就是受用身。 又《涅槃經》第十九卷說：『善男子，以自性之故，生、住、異、滅都全部是常，然而唸唸都在滅，不可說為常。』這是說四相是常。 又第三十三卷說：『善男子，常法沒有住處，如果有住處，那就是無常。十二因緣沒有固定的住處，如果有住處，十二因緣就不能稱為常。』這些都同樣是依所依如性，所以名為常。也就是《攝大乘論》所說：由於應化身恒常依止法身，所以名為常，並非自性常。』《密嚴經》等經文依此應知。這乃是無上調御諸大論師智慧通達周遍，教理明顯具備。自己沒有法眼，刻舟求劍，狂藥入心，說出這種兇猛的言論，說獲得佛法等同於違背經文，強行讓生滅之說符合中道，聖智可以產生，不是常見。隨順邪定之眾。 《四不悟四記失》中說：『如果依據四記，因為有生必定有死，就證明佛的智慧有生必有滅，也應該以無生或者死後不再生，來證明佛的智慧滅后不再生。』不可一概而論地記錄，說剎那分別記錄者，就是分段身。佛既然沒有或者滅后還生，有生必定有死，不是指佛。不是這樣的。因為沒有好好理解四記的意義，所以產生這種疑問。理解了這四記，猛烈的疑問就會平息。什麼呢？生者必定死，這是一向記，不論剎那還是一期。死者會生嗎？這是分別記，剎那和一期都要分別。如果不分別，怎麼能稱為分別記呢？現在來分別，如果說一期，沒有煩惱的人死後必定不生。如果說剎那，有或者沒有或者都有，必須分別。沒有煩惱
【English Translation】 English version Also, it should not be said that this manifested body (Nirmanakaya) is his enjoyment body (Sambhogakaya). (Explanation:) The Tathagata accomplishes perfect virtues and benefits all Bodhisattvas; these two things are not constantly separated. Moreover, it was previously said, 'If the self-nature body (Svabhavikakaya) is the enjoyment body, then what body will be obtained by transforming the two consciousnesses' basis?' And even, 'If the enjoyment body is the self-nature body, then there will be no great wisdom and other virtues.' This says that the manifested body is the enjoyment body. Furthermore, the nineteenth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Good man, because of self-nature, birth, abiding, change, and extinction are all constant, yet they are extinguished moment by moment, and cannot be said to be constant.' This says that the four characteristics (lakshanas) are constant. Also, the thirty-third chapter says: 'Good man, the constant Dharma has no dwelling place; if there is a dwelling place, then it is impermanent. The twelve links of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) have no fixed dwelling place; if there is a dwelling place, the twelve links of dependent origination cannot be called constant.' These are all similarly based on the nature of what is relied upon, so they are called constant. That is, as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Because the manifested body constantly relies on the Dharma body (Dharmakaya), it is called constant, not self-nature constant.' The Ghanavyūha Sutra and other scriptures should be understood accordingly. These are the supreme tamers, the great masters whose wisdom is thorough and complete, and whose teachings and principles are clearly present. Those who do not have the eye of the Dharma, carve a boat to find a sword, and have madness entering their minds, utter such fierce words, saying that obtaining the Dharma is the same as violating the scriptures, forcibly making the teachings of birth and death conform to the Middle Way, so that holy wisdom can arise, and it is not a common view. They follow the assembly of wrong views. The Four Non-Understandings and Four Records Errors says: 'If according to the four records, because birth necessarily has death, it proves that the Buddha's wisdom has birth and necessarily has extinction, and it should also be proven by non-birth or non-rebirth after death, that the Buddha's wisdom does not arise again after extinction.' It is not possible to record in a general way, saying that the momentary separate recorder is the segmented body. Since the Buddha does not have or is extinguished and then reborn, and birth necessarily has death, it does not refer to the Buddha. It is not like that. Because the meaning of the four records has not been well understood, this question arises. Understanding these four records, the fierce question will subside. What is it? Those who are born must die, this is a one-sided record, regardless of the moment or a lifetime. Will the dead be born? This is a separate record, the moment and a lifetime must be separated. If not separated, how can it be called a separate record? Now to separate, if speaking of a lifetime, those without afflictions will certainly not be reborn after death. If speaking of a moment, there is or is not or both, it must be separated. Without afflictions
惱中且據如來。現起之智望更生種。名為生現。起滅已不熏種。即死者不生。若據種子生現行。不妨滅。餘種起。雖無煩惱。死復生。舉一例余。二乘定性無煩惱人一期滅已必不復起。若據剎那。現起智心還熏成種。雖復現滅。新種更生。不定性人俱有剎那滅無一期滅。不捨此身更受身故。若許迴心。無學果人舍分段已更受變易。如何得言無煩惱死死不復生。論佛。即佛不死。更有何人名死不生。據有煩惱。生者皆死。死者生耶。據分段說。亦有不生。趣向三乘定入見道。不退之者三惡等身從前死已。必不更生人天。不定約剎那者。生必皆死。死者生耶。即須為分別。若業異熟心雖生不熏種。死已不復生。若從舊種論。雖死還復起。是報佛既有。生已必定有滅。不須分別。剎那一期死者生耶。則須分別。若如是知名解四記。佛自定說生者皆死。是一向記。如何今者更為分別。
本性住性謬三
有義。如來藏及識藏。一切有情皆平等有。即此名性種性。亦名本性。后熏習者。名為客性。由新熏故。五乘性別。非是本有。真如本識性平等故。一切無別。此說非理。立宗妄故。所以者何。真如法界及第八識。有情齊有。經論誠文。愚智咸許。即此名為性種性者。智者不爾。何故。若此真如及第八識名性種性。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若以『惱』（煩惱）為依據，如來現起的智慧希望能夠產生新的種子，這稱為『生現』。如果（煩惱）生起后隨即滅去，不再薰染種子，那麼就如同死者不會再生。如果依據種子產生現行，不妨礙（煩惱的）滅去，其他的種子還會生起。即使沒有煩惱，死亡后還會再生。舉一個例子，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）中已證得果位且不再改變的人，一生結束后必定不會再次生起（煩惱）。如果從剎那的角度來說，現起智慧的心還會薰染成種子，即使（智慧）現起后隨即滅去，新的種子還會產生。不定性的人既有剎那的滅，也有一期的滅，因為他們不捨棄此身而會再次受身。如果允許迴心，無學果位的人捨棄分段生死後還會接受變易生死。怎麼能說沒有煩惱的死亡，死後就不會再生呢？如果討論佛，佛是不死的，還有什麼人能被稱為死後不生呢？如果依據有煩惱來說，生者都會死亡，死者會再生嗎？如果依據分段生死來說，也有不生的，趣向三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）並確定進入見道，不退轉的人，從前死後，必定不會再生於人天或三惡道。如果不從剎那的角度來說，生必定都會死，死者會再生嗎？這就需要加以分別。如果業異熟心雖然生起，但不薰染種子，死後就不會再生。如果從舊種子的角度來說，即使死亡還會再次生起。這是報佛所具有的。既然有生，必定有滅，不需要分別。剎那一期死亡的人會再生嗎？這就需要分別。如果像這樣知名瞭解四記，佛自己已經確定地說過『生者皆死』，這是一向記，為什麼現在還要加以分別呢？
本性住性謬三
有一種觀點認為，如來藏（Tathagatagarbha）及識藏（Alayavijnana），一切有情眾生都平等具有，這就叫做『性種性』，也叫做『本性』。後天的熏習，叫做『客性』。由於新的熏習，才有五乘（人天乘、聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘、佛乘）的差別，這不是本來就有的。真如（Tathata）本識（根本識）的體性是平等的，一切沒有差別。這種說法是不合理的，因為立宗是虛妄的。為什麼呢？真如法界（Dharmadhatu）及第八識（阿賴耶識），有情眾生都具有，這是經典和論著中明確記載的，愚者和智者都認可的。如果將此稱為『性種性』，智者不會這樣認為。為什麼呢？如果真如和第八識叫做性種性，那麼...
【English Translation】 English version Based on 'Klesha' (afflictions), the wisdom that arises from the Tathagata hopes to generate new seeds, which is called 'birth-manifestation'. If (afflictions) arise and then immediately cease, no longer influencing the seeds, then it is like the dead who will not be reborn. If based on the seeds giving rise to present actions, it does not hinder the cessation (of afflictions), and other seeds will still arise. Even without afflictions, one will still be reborn after death. To give an example, those in the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) who have attained the fruit and no longer change, will definitely not arise again (with afflictions) after the end of their life. If from the perspective of a moment, the mind that arises with wisdom will still influence and form seeds, even if (wisdom) arises and then immediately ceases, new seeds will still be generated. Those of uncertain nature have both momentary cessation and a cessation of a lifetime, because they do not abandon this body and will receive another body again. If allowing for turning the mind, those in the fruit of No-More-Learning, after abandoning the Segmented Body, will still receive the Body of Transformation. How can it be said that death without afflictions means that one will not be reborn after death? If discussing the Buddha, the Buddha is immortal, who else can be called not being reborn after death? If based on having afflictions, those who are born will all die, will the dead be reborn? If based on Segmented Body, there are also those who are not born, those who are heading towards the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana) and are determined to enter the Path of Seeing, those who do not regress, after dying from the bodies of the three evil realms, will definitely not be reborn in the realms of humans or gods. If not from the perspective of a moment, those who are born will definitely all die, will the dead be reborn? This needs to be distinguished. If the mind of karmic maturation arises but does not influence the seeds, one will not be reborn after death. If from the perspective of old seeds, even if one dies, one will still arise again. This is what the Reward Body Buddha possesses. Since there is birth, there must be cessation, no need to distinguish. Will those who die in a moment or a lifetime be reborn? This needs to be distinguished. If one knows and understands the Four Records in this way, the Buddha himself has already definitively said that 'those who are born will all die', this is a one-sided record, why is it still necessary to distinguish now?
Three Errors of Intrinsic Nature and Abiding Nature
There is a view that the Tathagatagarbha (Tathagatagarbha) and the Alayavijnana (Alayavijnana) are equally possessed by all sentient beings, this is called 'nature-lineage', also called 'intrinsic nature'. Postnatal influence is called 'acquired nature'. Due to new influence, there are differences in the Five Vehicles (Human-Deva Vehicle, Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle, Buddha Vehicle), this is not originally present. The nature of Suchness (Tathata) and the Fundamental Consciousness is equal, there is no difference in everything. This statement is unreasonable because the establishment of the thesis is false. Why? The Dharmadhatu (Dharmadhatu) of Suchness and the Eighth Consciousness (Alaya Consciousness) are possessed by sentient beings, this is clearly recorded in the scriptures and treatises, and is recognized by both the foolish and the wise. If this is called 'nature-lineage', the wise will not think so. Why? If Suchness and the Eighth Consciousness are called nature-lineage, then...
切俱有。何名殊勝。由有法爾無漏種子三乘差別異於無性名為殊勝故。故善戒經第一先明善行性品。不言理性品。又云。修習聖行。行於善果菩提之道。有十法則。能攝取一切善法。瑜伽地持並皆相似。初明本性發心品。下始明習性。性種性中明習種性者。且相對明。非正明。已取以地持六度印相。云菩薩性自樂施等。瑜伽論云。又諸菩薩有六波羅蜜多種性相。由此相故等。又地持云。非種姓人無種姓故。雖復發心勤修精進。必不究竟阿耨菩提。亦不得云無習種性。即此發心勤修精進可非習性。云終不得。以此故知。要有法爾無漏種子。方名習種性。若無本性習性何生。雜集論云。雖有眾緣。無種子不生故非他作。善戒經亦云。若無菩薩性者不得菩提。亦不得云無習性者。經云。是故當知。非因發心有菩薩性此習種性因發心者如何得言非因發心有菩薩性。又地持云。若無菩薩性。雖有一切諸方便行。終不得成無上菩提。善戒經云。雖復具足如是四事。若無菩薩性。而能得成阿耨菩提者。無有是處。又佛性論第四云。五無初相應善性為法者。釋曰。無初者。以性得般若大悲禪定法身普本有故。故言無初。體用未曾相離。故言相應。此言性得。即不由熏。既即言本有。無初明非始起。不得說言此說如理。論云般若大悲禪定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一切都具備了，什麼叫做殊勝呢？由於具有法爾（dharma nature，事物本來的性質）的無漏種子，三乘（Śrāvakayāna，聲聞乘；Pratyekabuddhayāna，緣覺乘；Bodhisattvayāna，菩薩乘）的差別異於沒有自性，所以叫做殊勝。因此，《善戒經》第一篇先闡明善行性品，而不是理性品。經中又說：『修習聖行，行於善果菩提之道，有十種法則，能夠攝取一切善法。』《瑜伽師地論》和《菩薩地持經》都非常相似，最初闡明本性發心品，下面才開始闡明習性。在性種性中闡明習種性，只是相對而言，並非真正闡明。已經取了《菩薩地持經》六度（Six Pāramitās，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）的印相，說菩薩的自性是樂於佈施等等。《瑜伽師地論》說：『又諸菩薩有六波羅蜜多的種性相，由於這種種性相的緣故等等。』《菩薩地持經》說：『非種姓人因為沒有種姓的緣故，即使發心勤奮修行精進，也必定不能究竟證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi，無上正等正覺），也不能說沒有習種性。』如果說這種發心勤奮修行精進不是習性，那麼怎麼能說最終不能證得菩提呢？因此可知，必須要有法爾的無漏種子，才能稱為習種性。如果沒有本性，習性又從何而生呢？《雜集論》說：『即使有眾多因緣，沒有種子也不會產生，所以不是他力所為。』《善戒經》也說：『如果沒有菩薩性，就不能證得菩提，也不能說沒有習性。』經中說：『因此應當知道，不是因為發心才有菩薩性。』這種習種性是因為發心而產生的，怎麼能說不是因為發心才有菩薩性呢？《菩薩地持經》說：『如果沒有菩薩性，即使有一切諸方便行，最終也不能成就無上菩提。』《善戒經》說：『即使具足如此四事，如果沒有菩薩性，而能成就阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，這是不可能的。』又《佛性論》第四說：『五無初相應善性為法者。』解釋說：『無初，是因為性得的般若（Prajñā，智慧）、大悲（Mahākaruṇā，偉大的慈悲）、禪定（Dhyāna，冥想）、法身（Dharmakāya，佛的法性之身）普遍本有的緣故，所以說無初。體和用未曾分離，所以說相應。』這裡說性得，就是不由熏習。既然說是本有，無初就表明不是開始產生的。不能說這是如理的。論中說般若、大悲、禪定。
【English Translation】 English version: What is called 'superior' when everything is complete? It is called 'superior' because it possesses the naturally occurring, undefiled seeds, and the distinctions of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) differ from those without inherent nature. Therefore, the first chapter of the Śīla-saṃgraha Sūtra elucidates the 'Nature of Good Conduct' rather than the 'Nature of Reason.' It also states: 'Cultivating holy conduct, walking the path of good results and Bodhi, there are ten principles that can encompass all good dharmas.' The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and the Bodhisattvabhūmi are very similar, initially elucidating the 'Nature of the Mind of Awakening,' and then beginning to elucidate 'Habitual Nature.' Elucidating 'Habitual Nature' within 'Nature of Lineage' is only relative, not truly elucidating. The characteristics of the Six Pāramitās (Dāna, Śīla, Kṣānti, Vīrya, Dhyāna, Prajñā) from the Bodhisattvabhūmi have already been taken, stating that the nature of a Bodhisattva is to delight in giving, etc. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states: 'Furthermore, Bodhisattvas possess the characteristics of the lineage of the Six Pāramitās, and because of these characteristics, etc.' The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'Those who are not of the lineage, because they lack the lineage, even if they arouse the mind of awakening and diligently cultivate with vigor, will certainly not ultimately attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, and it cannot be said that they lack habitual nature.' If arousing the mind of awakening and diligently cultivating with vigor is not habitual nature, how can it be said that they will ultimately not attain Bodhi? Therefore, it is known that one must have naturally occurring, undefiled seeds to be called 'habitual nature.' If there is no inherent nature, how can habitual nature arise? The Abhidharmasamuccaya states: 'Even with numerous conditions, without seeds, nothing arises, so it is not created by others.' The Śīla-saṃgraha Sūtra also states: 'If one does not have Bodhisattva nature, one cannot attain Bodhi, and it cannot be said that one lacks habitual nature.' The sutra states: 'Therefore, it should be known that Bodhisattva nature does not arise because of arousing the mind of awakening.' This habitual nature arises because of arousing the mind of awakening, so how can it be said that Bodhisattva nature does not arise because of arousing the mind of awakening? The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'If one does not have Bodhisattva nature, even with all skillful means, one will ultimately not attain unsurpassed Bodhi.' The Śīla-saṃgraha Sūtra states: 'Even if one possesses these four qualities, if one does not have Bodhisattva nature, and can attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, there is no such possibility.' Furthermore, the fourth chapter of the Buddha-nature Treatise states: 'The fifth is that the good nature corresponding to the absence of beginning is the Dharma.' The explanation states: 'Absence of beginning is because the Prajñā, Mahākaruṇā, Dhyāna, and Dharmakāya obtained by nature are universally inherent, therefore it is said to be without beginning. The essence and function have never been separated, therefore it is said to be corresponding.' Here, it is said to be obtained by nature, which means it is not due to cultivation. Since it is said to be inherent, 'absence of beginning' indicates that it is not newly arisen. It cannot be said that this is in accordance with reason. The treatise speaks of Prajñā, Mahākaruṇā, Dhyāna.
法身並本有故。總但說如。與誰為並。又前說煩惱業報並無初。即許三別。今說四法並無初。如何但據理。又本無漏種不名性種性。何故善戒經名善行性品。又佛性論但許真如性無令煩惱滅。不許性有。瑜伽七十四圓成亦同第八心體。亦非性種性。性種性者。是其無漏。本有種子。第八心體既是有漏。如何得為無漏正因。故無性攝大乘第三云。未曾見有毒為甘露。阿賴耶識猶如毒藥。云何能生出世甘露清凈之心。又梁論云何佛世尊說。從他聞音及自正思惟。由此二因正見得生。釋云。此二因於正見是增上緣。今所言因是通名因。緣說緣為因。既說聞熏習為增上緣。明知正見本自有因。下言熏習為種子故出世心得生。論前會訖。下更不釋。皆令準知。非唯親現。聞名開熏習。本正見種亦名熏習。因增長故。所以地持論等亦名為因亦名增長。既此熏習非阿賴耶攝。是此能對治。明知不得以第八體為菩薩性種性名平等因。若許是無漏。則苦集對治。即不得為染法因。故梁論云。即既立為染濁對治及出世心因故。不應后說為不凈名因。若云我取識上功德者。即因法爾有無性。別本有行性。處處誠說。不知有此本有種子名性種性。妄取真如及第八識為性種性。可不慚乎。可不昧乎。無性攝論本意皆同故。故不具引。諸論皆說無漏
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為法身是本有的，所以總的來說只能說是『如』（Tathata，真如）。那麼，『並』是指與誰並列呢？而且前面說煩惱、業、報都沒有開始，這實際上承認了三者的區別。現在說四法（指四種法性，即種子性、體性、覺性、果性）都沒有開始，怎麼能只根據理來解釋呢？ 此外，本來沒有無漏的種子被稱為『性種性』（Gotra，種姓），為什麼《善戒經》中會有《善行性品》呢？而且《佛性論》只承認真如的自性，沒有使煩惱滅盡，不承認自性是存在的。《瑜伽師地論》第七十四卷中，圓成實性也與第八識（阿賴耶識，Alaya-vijnana）的心體相同，也不是性種性。所謂的性種性，是其無漏的、本有的種子。第八識的心體既然是有漏的，怎麼能作為無漏的真正原因呢？ 所以，無性《攝大乘論》第三卷說：『從未見過毒藥能變成甘露。』阿賴耶識就像毒藥一樣，怎麼能產生出世間的甘露清凈之心呢？而且梁譯本的論中說：『為什麼佛世尊說，從聽聞他人說法以及自己正確的思考，由此二因，正見才能產生。』解釋說：『這兩種因對於正見來說是增上緣（輔助條件）。』現在所說的『因』是通用的『因』，因為緣而說緣為因。既然說聽聞熏習是增上緣，就明確知道正見本來就有因。下面說熏習作為種子，所以出世間的心才能產生。論的前面已經解釋完畢，下面不再解釋，都應該知道。不僅僅是親身顯現，聽聞也叫做開熏習，本有的正見種子也叫做熏習，因為增長的緣故。所以《地持論》等也稱為因，也稱為增長。既然這種熏習不是阿賴耶識所包含的，而是這種熏習能夠對治阿賴耶識，就明確知道不能把第八識的體作為菩薩的性種性，稱為平等因。 如果允許第八識是無漏的，那麼苦和集的對治，就不能作為染法的因。所以梁譯本的論中說：『既然已經立為染濁的對治以及出世間心的因，就不應該後來又說是不凈的因。』如果說我取的是識上的功德，那麼因為法的自然規律而有無性，區別于本有的行性。處處都誠實地說，不知道有這種本有的種子叫做性種性，錯誤地認為真如和第八識是性種性，難道不慚愧嗎？難道不糊塗嗎？無性《攝大乘論》的本意都是相同的，所以不全部引用。各種論都說無漏。
【English Translation】 English version Because the Dharmakaya (法身, body of the Dharma) is inherent, it can only be generally described as 'Tathata' (如, suchness). Then, with whom is this 'together with' (並) referring to? Furthermore, it was previously stated that afflictions, karma, and retribution have no beginning, which actually acknowledges the distinction between the three. Now it is said that the four Dharmas (四法, four natures, namely seed nature, substance nature, awakening nature, and fruit nature) have no beginning, how can one only interpret it according to reason? Moreover, originally there is no un-leaked seed called 'Gotra' (性種性, lineage), why is there a 'Good Conduct Nature Chapter' (善行性品) in the 'Good Precepts Sutra' (善戒經)? Furthermore, the 'Buddha-nature Treatise' (佛性論) only acknowledges the nature of True Thusness (真如), without causing afflictions to cease, and does not acknowledge that nature exists. In the seventy-fourth volume of the 'Yoga-master's Treatise' (瑜伽師地論), the perfectly accomplished nature (圓成實性) is also the same as the mind-body of the eighth consciousness (阿賴耶識, Alaya-vijnana), and is not a Gotra. The so-called Gotra is its un-leaked, inherent seed. Since the mind-body of the eighth consciousness is leaked, how can it be the true cause of un-leakedness? Therefore, the third volume of Asanga's 'Compendium of the Great Vehicle' (攝大乘論) states: 'Never has it been seen that poison can turn into nectar.' The Alaya-vijnana is like poison, how can it produce the pure mind of transcendental nectar? Moreover, the Liang translation of the treatise says: 'Why did the World Honored One say that from hearing others speak and from one's own correct thinking, from these two causes, right view can arise?' The explanation says: 'These two causes are enhancing conditions (增上緣, auxiliary conditions) for right view.' The 'cause' now spoken of is the general 'cause', because of conditions, conditions are spoken of as causes. Since it is said that hearing and cultivation are enhancing conditions, it is clearly known that right view originally has a cause. Below it says that cultivation as a seed, so the transcendental mind can arise. The previous explanation of the treatise is complete, and no further explanation is given below, all should know. Not only is it personally manifested, hearing is also called opening cultivation, the inherent seed of right view is also called cultivation, because of the cause of growth. Therefore, the 'Ground-Maintaining Treatise' (地持論) etc. are also called cause, also called growth. Since this cultivation is not contained by the Alaya-vijnana, but this cultivation can counteract the Alaya-vijnana, it is clearly known that the body of the eighth consciousness cannot be taken as the Bodhisattva's Gotra, called the equal cause. If it is allowed that the eighth consciousness is un-leaked, then the counteraction of suffering and accumulation cannot be the cause of defiled dharmas. Therefore, the Liang translation of the treatise says: 'Since it has been established as the counteraction of defilement and the cause of the transcendental mind, it should not later be said to be the cause of impurity.' If it is said that I take the merits on the consciousness, then because of the natural law of the Dharma there is no nature, different from the inherent nature of conduct. Everywhere it is honestly said, not knowing that there is this inherent seed called Gotra, mistakenly thinking that True Thusness and the eighth consciousness are Gotra, is it not shameful? Is it not confused? The original intention of Asanga's 'Compendium of the Great Vehicle' is the same, so it is not fully quoted. All treatises say un-leaked.
種子熏習為因。不說真如第八識體為正生因。又復真如不依諸法故。寶性論云。空不依地等。又云。自性清凈心不住彼諸法。處處誠說。不能煩引。何須舉六處意定取彼真如。又云。無上依經云。如來界不可思議。一切眾生有陰入界勝相種類。內外所現。無始時節相續流來。法爾所得。準此經文。即真如界名性種性。此亦不爾。謬引經救故。準此經文。正是無始法爾行性。名陰入界勝相種類內外相續流來法爾所得。法爾所得即法爾義。此處若心意識下。令依依他處觀真如理。除斷染法。理顯智圓。同辨中邊論頌。虛妄分別有。於此二都無。此中唯有空。于彼亦有此。乃至是則契中道。不知此義。執真如界有其種類內外所現相續流來。又云。涅槃第八云。眾生佛性則不如是。雖復處在陰入界中。即不同於陰入界也者。不同前文。無上依經言。有陰入界勝相種類。內外所現相續流來。此同陰入界相。涅槃言不同陰入界相。故事理別。或約無漏與有漏別。云不同彼。不爾。如何言雖復處在陰入界中。何以故。真如遍一切。不可說言雖處在陰中。佛性之言非唯目理。六度等行皆名佛性。又云。勝天王分前後文別。前云。如來法性在有情類蘊界處中。從無始來展轉相續。煩惱不染。此亦非證。此說行性。行亦是法。法言通故。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 種子熏習作為因。不說真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）第八識體為真正的生起之因。而且真如不依賴於諸法（Dharma，宇宙間一切事物和現象）的緣故。《寶性論》（Ratnagotravibhāga）說：『空不依賴於地等。』又說：『自性清凈心不住于那些諸法。』處處誠實地說，不能煩擾牽引。何須舉出六處（六根：眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）的意來確定地取彼真如。又說，《無上依經》（Anuttarāśrayasūtra）說：『如來界（Tathāgatadhātu，如來的法界）不可思議。一切眾生有陰（Skandha，五蘊：色、受、想、行、識）、入（Āyatana，十二處：六根、六塵）、界（Dhātu，十八界：六根、六塵、六識）的殊勝之相種類，內外所現，從無始時節相續流來，自然而得。』依照此經文，就是真如界名為自性種性。這也是不對的，錯誤地引用經文來救助。依照此經文，正是無始以來自然而然的行性，名為陰、入、界的殊勝之相種類，內外相續流來自然而得。自然而得就是自然之義。此處如果心意識下，令人依靠依他處觀察真如之理，去除斷除染污之法，真理顯現智慧圓滿。如同辨中邊論的偈頌：『虛妄分別有，於此二都無。此中唯有空，于彼亦有此。』乃至『是則契中道』。不瞭解此義，執著真如界有其種類內外所現相續流來。又說，《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）第八卷說：『眾生佛性則不如是，雖復處在陰、入、界中，即不同於陰、入、界也。』這與前文《無上依經》所言『有陰、入、界殊勝之相種類，內外所現相續流來』不同。此同於陰、入、界之相，涅槃經說不同於陰、入、界之相，所以事理有別。或者以無漏與有漏來區別，說不同於彼。不是這樣的。如何說『雖復處在陰、入、界中』？因為真如遍一切，不可說『雖處在陰中』。佛性之言並非僅僅指理，六度（Paramita，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）等行都名為佛性。又說，《勝天王般若經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）分前後文有區別。前面說：『如來法性在有情類蘊、界、處中，從無始以來展轉相續，煩惱不染。』這也不是證據。此說行性，行也是法，法這個詞是通用的。如果
【English Translation】 English version Seed perfuming is taken as the cause. It does not say that the eighth consciousness-essence of True Thusness (Tathata, the true nature of things) is the actual cause of arising. Moreover, True Thusness does not rely on all Dharmas (Dharma, all things and phenomena in the universe). The Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Jewel Nature) says: 'Emptiness does not rely on earth, etc.' It also says: 'The self-nature pure mind does not abide in those Dharmas.' It is truthfully stated everywhere that it cannot be disturbed and led astray. Why is it necessary to bring up the intention of the six entrances (six sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) to definitively grasp that True Thusness? Furthermore, the Anuttarāśrayasūtra (Unsurpassed Reliance Sutra) says: 'The Tathāgatadhātu (Buddha-nature, the realm of the Tathagata) is inconceivable. All sentient beings have the excellent characteristics and categories of Skandhas (Skandha, five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), Āyatanas (Āyatana, twelve entrances: six sense organs, six sense objects), and Dhātus (Dhātu, eighteen realms: six sense organs, six sense objects, six consciousnesses), manifested internally and externally, continuously flowing from beginningless time, naturally obtained.' According to this sutra text, the realm of True Thusness is named self-nature lineage. This is also incorrect, mistakenly quoting the sutra to seek help. According to this sutra text, it is precisely the naturally occurring conduct-nature from beginningless time, named the excellent characteristics and categories of Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus, continuously flowing internally and externally, naturally obtained. Naturally obtained is the meaning of 'naturally'. Here, if under the mind-consciousness, it causes people to rely on the other-dependent nature to observe the principle of True Thusness, removing and cutting off defiled Dharmas, the truth manifests and wisdom is perfected. It is the same as the verse in the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya (Discourse on Discrimination between Middle and Extremes): 'Discrimination of the unreal exists, in these two, both do not exist. In this, only emptiness exists, in that, this also exists.' Up to 'This is in accordance with the Middle Way.' Not understanding this meaning, clinging to the idea that the realm of True Thusness has its categories continuously flowing internally and externally. Furthermore, the eighth volume of the Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) says: 'The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is not like this; although it is situated in the Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus, it is different from the Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus.' This is different from what the previous Anuttarāśrayasūtra said: 'There are excellent characteristics and categories of Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus, continuously flowing internally and externally.' This is the same as the characteristics of Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus; the Nirvana Sutra says it is different from the characteristics of Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus, so the principles are different. Or it distinguishes between the unconditioned and the conditioned, saying it is different from that. It is not like this. How can it be said 'although it is situated in the Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus'? Because True Thusness pervades everything, it cannot be said 'although it is situated in the Skandhas'. The term Buddha-nature does not only refer to principle; the practices of the six Paramitas (Paramita, giving, morality, patience, diligence, meditation, wisdom) are all called Buddha-nature. Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā Sutra) has differences between the preceding and following texts. The preceding text says: 'The Dharma-nature of the Tathagata is in the aggregates, realms, and entrances of sentient beings, continuously flowing from beginningless time, undefiled by afflictions.' This is also not evidence. This speaks of conduct-nature; conduct is also Dharma, and the word Dharma is universal. If
是理性。體性常住。何得云展轉相續。相續者非常住義。次言清凈法性為諸法本自性無本。此說真如出生諸法者為增上緣。非親因緣出生諸法。然如不生。是增上緣生。若一如生萬德。何有定異因。攝大乘莊嚴論云。諸功德從鏡智起。如既親生。何假智生。又云。佛性論云。佛日慧光令法身生隨意身長法身。即當本性。同善戒經法性自爾者。此亦非證。既說真如名為法性。即是法身。何能令生。涅槃經三十七品。波羅蜜等是名了因。自行尚名爲了。佛光豈即能生。又前自云。如雖生法。真如不生故。又云。起信論中。體大即真如體。相大即是無量性功德相。用即能生世出世善因果者。用大。有為行是如用故。能生一切者。此亦不爾。真如豈有作用。若有作用。同諸行故。如增上用諸法得生。此理可爾。不為生用。已下多文意皆證如及第八體名性種性。即名正因生因。餘六度等即為習性緣因了因。唯佛性論真如不生有餘體。攝論賴耶非出世因。大莊嚴第五云。六者無異無起。由真實性非有異體起。故如若親生諸法。有異體起。第三云。即說一切種智為佛身體。又云。轉六波羅蜜等一切善法為佛體故。諸論皆說。轉八識成四智為佛身。不說真如生。不唯第八體。準知余文。廣引煩釋皆應遮止。有義。成唯識論立五性別。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是理性（指真如的理性）。體性是恒常不變的。怎麼能說是輾轉相續呢？相續就不是恒常的意思。其次說清凈法性是諸法的根本，自性本來就沒有根本。這種說法認為真如出生諸法是增上緣（輔助條件），而不是親因緣（直接原因）。然而真如本身並不產生。是作為增上緣而產生。如果一個真如能產生萬種功德，那麼怎麼會有固定的差異原因呢？《攝大乘莊嚴論》說，諸功德從鏡智（大圓鏡智）生起，如果真如是親生的，又何必假借智慧來產生呢？又，《佛性論》說，佛的智慧之光使法身產生，隨意使法身增長。法身就是本性。如同《善戒經》所說的法性自然而然。這也不能作為證據。既然說真如名為法性，也就是法身，怎麼能使法身產生呢？《涅槃經》中的三十七道品，波羅蜜等，是名爲了因（幫助理解的原因）。自己修行尚且稱爲了，佛光難道就能產生法身嗎？而且前面自己說，真如雖然產生法，但真如本身不產生。又說，《起信論》中，體大就是真如的本體，相大就是無量性功德的相，用就是能產生世間和出世間的善因果。用大，有為的行是真如的作用，所以能產生一切。這種說法也不對。真如怎麼會有作用呢？如果有作用，就和諸行一樣了。如果作為增上用，諸法才能產生，這個道理是可以的。不作為產生的作用。以下很多文章的意思都是證明真如和第八識的本體名為性種性，也就是正因生因（根本原因），其餘的六度等就是習性緣因了因（輔助原因）。只有《佛性論》認為真如不生，有其餘的本體。《攝論》認為阿賴耶識不是出世的原因。《大莊嚴論》第五卷說，六者是無異無起，因為真實性沒有不同的本體生起。如果真如是親生諸法，就會有不同的本體生起。第三卷說，一切種智就是佛的身體。又說，轉化六波羅蜜等一切善法為佛的身體。諸論都說，轉化八識成四智為佛身，不說真如產生。不只是第八識的本體。按照這些來推斷，廣泛引用煩瑣的解釋都應該禁止。有一種觀點，《成唯識論》立五種性別，有
【English Translation】 English version It is reason (referring to the rationality of Tathata). The essence of the substance is constant and unchanging. How can it be said to be continuously transforming? Continuity does not mean constancy. Secondly, it is said that the pure Dharma-nature is the root of all Dharmas, and the self-nature originally has no root. This statement believes that the arising of all Dharmas from True Thusness is an 'Adhipati-pratyaya' (dominant condition), not a 'Hetu-pratyaya' (direct cause). However, True Thusness itself does not arise. It arises as a dominant condition. If one True Thusness can produce ten thousand virtues, then how can there be fixed causes of difference? The 'Ornament of the Compendium of the Great Vehicle' says that all virtues arise from the Mirror Wisdom (Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom). If True Thusness is the direct cause, then why borrow wisdom to produce them? Furthermore, the 'Treatise on Buddha-Nature' says that the light of the Buddha's wisdom causes the Dharmakaya to arise, freely causing the Dharmakaya to grow. The Dharmakaya is the inherent nature. Like the 'Good Precepts Sutra' which says that Dharma-nature is natural. This cannot be used as evidence either. Since it is said that True Thusness is called Dharma-nature, which is the Dharmakaya, how can it cause the Dharmakaya to arise? The thirty-seven factors of enlightenment in the 'Nirvana Sutra', such as the Paramitas, are called 'understanding causes' (causes that help understanding). Even one's own practice is called understanding, so how can the Buddha's light produce the Dharmakaya? Moreover, it was said earlier that although True Thusness produces Dharmas, True Thusness itself does not arise. It is also said that in the 'Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana', the Greatness of Essence is the essence of True Thusness, the Greatness of Attributes is the attribute of immeasurable virtues, and the Greatness of Function is the ability to produce good causes and effects in the world and beyond. The Greatness of Function, the conditioned actions are the function of True Thusness, so it can produce everything. This statement is also incorrect. How can True Thusness have function? If it has function, it is the same as all actions. If it acts as a dominant condition, then Dharmas can arise, which is reasonable. It does not act as a producing function. The meaning of many articles below is to prove that True Thusness and the essence of the eighth consciousness are called 'nature-lineage', which is the 'direct cause of arising' (fundamental cause), and the remaining Six Perfections are the 'habitual condition' and 'understanding cause' (auxiliary causes). Only the 'Treatise on Buddha-Nature' believes that True Thusness does not arise and has other essences. The 'Compendium' believes that the Alaya consciousness is not the cause of transcendence. The fifth volume of the 'Great Ornament' says that the sixth is 'no difference and no arising', because the true nature has no different essence arising. If True Thusness is the direct cause of all Dharmas, then there will be different essences arising. The third volume says that the Omniscience is the body of the Buddha. It also says that transforming the Six Perfections and all good Dharmas into the body of the Buddha. All treatises say that transforming the eight consciousnesses into the four wisdoms is the body of the Buddha, and do not say that True Thusness produces it. Not just the essence of the eighth consciousness. According to these inferences, widely quoting tedious explanations should be prohibited. One view is that the 'Treatise on Establishing Consciousness-Only' establishes five kinds of natures, there are
違理教。言違理者。一切眾生同有理心。有何別因一分眾生無無漏種。設有無漏。何因復有三乘性分。有因即非法爾。亦無因不合不同者。既執一切眾生同有理心為正因。既許理心一切平等。如何得有染凈善惡三界六道三乘性種。若有餘因。理心非本。無別因起。何合不同。若謂待緣。緣從如起。如因既一。緣亦同亦緣。從何生有種種別。若一切生同有真如。共一正因。同數論等從一因起情非情等。體是常住大等無常。又自舉喻。理若虛空。心如法空界。有漏同暗。無漏同明。暗滅明生。由於虛空及由火等親生。豈可暗中先有明性作明親因者。此亦不爾。準喻自違。理若虛空。心同空界。既說理心作物親因。即自能明。何須殊火若由殊火殊火自作明因。豈是虛空及於空界親生明也。余喻及文並皆自違應自思察。煩不能舉。又云。唯識違于正教。如善戒經性種性者。是理非事。若言是事。有何文證者。此亦不然。彼妄引文。如前略指。行性文證如前已明。又言。若本性有上中下量。違優婆塞戒經云有上中下非本性也。亦違正法華大集經等。由緣因故。無三乘性。若是無因法爾自得。即違深密有上中下非無因也者。此亦不爾。若非本性各自差別。但由緣故根性不同者。豈上中下無自正因。但緣起因。既自無種。緣何所為。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 違理教。所謂『違理』，是指一切眾生都具有相同的理性的心。那麼，為什麼有一部分眾生沒有無漏的種子呢？即使有無漏的種子，又是什麼原因導致了三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的根性差別呢？如果說有其他原因，那就不是『法爾』（自然而然）的。如果說沒有原因，那就不符合『不同』的說法。既然認為一切眾生都具有相同的理性之心作為根本原因，既然承認理性之心一切平等，那麼怎麼會有染凈、善惡、三界、六道、三乘根性的差別呢？如果說有其他原因，那麼理性之心就不是根本原因。如果沒有其他原因，又怎麼會有差別呢？如果說是依賴於外緣，那麼外緣又從哪裡產生呢？如果根本原因（真如）是相同的，外緣也是相同的，那麼外緣又怎麼會產生種種差別呢？如果一切眾生都具有相同的真如，共有一個根本原因，那就如同數論派所說，從一個原因產生有情和無情等事物。但真如的體性是常住的，而有情和無情等事物卻是無常的。 又自己舉例說，理性如同虛空，心如同法空界。有漏如同黑暗，無漏如同光明。黑暗消失，光明產生，是由於虛空以及火等直接產生。難道可以在黑暗中先有光明的本性作為光明的直接原因嗎？這種說法也是不對的。這個比喻本身就存在矛盾。理性如同虛空，心如同空界。既然說理性之心是產生事物的直接原因，那麼它就應該能夠自己發光，為什麼還需要其他的火呢？如果是由其他的火，那麼其他的火自己就是產生光的原因，又怎麼能說是虛空和空界直接產生光明的呢？其他的比喻和文句也都是自相矛盾，應該自己思考。我在這裡就不一一列舉了。 又說，『唯識』違背了正確的教義，比如《善戒經》中所說的『性種性』（本性具有的種子），是理而不是事。如果說是事，有什麼經文可以證明呢？這種說法也是不對的。他們錯誤地引用經文，就像前面略微指出的那樣。關於『行性』（行為的本性）的經文證明，前面已經說得很清楚了。 又說，如果本性有上、中、下三種差別，就違背了《優婆塞戒經》所說的『有上中下非本性』。也違背了《正法華大集經》等經典所說的，由於外緣的原因，沒有三乘的根性。如果不是由於原因，而是自然而然得到的，就違背了《深密經》所說的『有上中下非無因』。這種說法也是不對的。如果不是本性各自有差別，而是由於外緣的原因導致根性不同，那麼上、中、下三種根性難道沒有自己的根本原因嗎？如果只是外緣的原因，而自身沒有種子，那麼外緣又有什麼作用呢？
【English Translation】 English version: The Doctrine of Contradicting Reason. 'Contradicting reason' means that all sentient beings share the same rational mind. Then, why do some sentient beings lack the seed of non-outflow (anāsrava-bīja)? Even if they have the seed of non-outflow, what causes the differences in the three vehicles (triyāna) (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna)? If there is another cause, then it is not 'thusness' (tathatā) (natural and spontaneous). If there is no cause, then it does not align with the statement of 'difference'. Since it is believed that all sentient beings share the same rational mind as the fundamental cause, and since it is acknowledged that the rational mind is entirely equal, how can there be differences in defilement and purity, good and evil, the three realms (tridhātu), the six paths (ṣaṭ-gati), and the seeds of the three vehicles? If there is another cause, then the rational mind is not the fundamental cause. If there is no other cause, how can there be differences? If it is said to depend on conditions (pratyaya), where do the conditions arise from? If the fundamental cause (tathatā) is the same, and the conditions are also the same, then how can the conditions produce various differences? If all beings share the same tathatā, sharing one fundamental cause, it would be like the Sāṃkhya school's view that sentient and non-sentient things arise from one cause. However, the nature of tathatā is permanent, while sentient and non-sentient things are impermanent. Furthermore, they use the analogy that reason is like space (ākāśa), and the mind is like the realm of empty space (dhātu). Outflow is like darkness, and non-outflow is like light. The disappearance of darkness and the arising of light are due to space and the direct generation of fire, etc. Can there be a nature of light within darkness that serves as the direct cause of light? This statement is also incorrect. The analogy itself is contradictory. Reason is like space, and the mind is like the realm of space. Since it is said that the rational mind is the direct cause of things, it should be able to illuminate itself. Why is another fire needed? If it is due to another fire, then the other fire itself is the cause of light. How can it be said that space and the realm of space directly generate light? The other analogies and statements are all self-contradictory and should be contemplated upon. I will not list them all here. Furthermore, it is said that 'Yogācāra' contradicts the correct teachings, such as the 'nature-seed nature' (prakṛti-gotra) mentioned in the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, which is reason rather than matter. If it is said to be matter, what scriptural evidence is there? This statement is also incorrect. They wrongly quote the scriptures, as briefly pointed out earlier. The scriptural evidence regarding 'action-nature' (karma-prakṛti) has already been clearly stated. Furthermore, it is said that if the inherent nature has superior, middling, and inferior degrees, it contradicts the Upāsaka Sūtra, which states that 'superior, middling, and inferior are not inherent nature'. It also contradicts the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra and other scriptures, which state that due to conditions, there are no three vehicle natures. If it is not due to causes but is naturally attained, it contradicts the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, which states that 'superior, middling, and inferior are not without cause'. This statement is also incorrect. If it is not that the inherent natures are different from each other, but that the root natures are different due to conditions, then do the superior, middling, and inferior root natures not have their own fundamental causes? If it is only due to conditions, and there is no seed within oneself, then what is the purpose of the conditions?
涅槃經中。唯說涅槃從了因得。不說有為但緣因生。無種而生。違多聖教。準善戒經善行性品云。言根勝者。菩薩摩訶薩本性猛利。緣覺性中聲聞性鈍。既云本性猛利。明非由客性。又大莊嚴論第一云。由界差別者。眾生有種種界無量界。多界修多羅說。由界差別故。應知三乘種性差別。乃至無四果差別者。眾生菩提有下中上。子果相似故。若無性差別。則無果差別。同深密經有上中下是定有因緣。大集等說由緣因者。據增上說。有四緣故。不違前教言非本性也。非以性故者。意云。不唯由性。亦假增上又緣生。約非如言詮。真如所緣緣種子文下當正示。若云理心為其正因。豈可如理由緣因故成上中下。又復理心名性種性。何故不得云以性故名為菩薩既以性故。言不許行性。本有亦應不以性故言證理心非有。此既不爾。彼云何然。又自云漏生於無漏。何故不許真如無漏生於無漏。又違攝論。如前已引。又云。以乳無酪許生酪。即難酪中無乳應生酪。以酪不生乳。即不許乳生酪者。此難不爾。云乳無酪而生酪者。涅槃經意。難因中有果論。不是不許乳為酪因。細尋彼文。自當開曉。故大莊嚴第一云。複次彼有者。因體有故。非有者。果體非有故。問若爾云何名性。答功德體義故。度者出生功德義故。由此道理。是故名性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《涅槃經》中，只說涅槃是從了因（指能直接產生結果的原因）得到的，沒有說有為法（指有生滅變化的事物）只是由緣因（指輔助原因）產生，如同沒有種子卻能生長一樣，這與許多聖教相違背。根據《善戒經·善行性品》所說：『言根勝者，菩薩摩訶薩本性猛利，緣覺性中聲聞性鈍。』既然說本性猛利，就說明不是由外在因素造成的。又《大莊嚴論》第一卷說：『由界差別者，眾生有種種界無量界。多界修多羅說。由界差別故，應知三乘種性差別。』乃至沒有四果差別的原因是：眾生的菩提心有下、中、上三種，因為種子和果實相似。如果沒有本性的差別，就不會有果實的差別。如同《深密經》所說，有上、中、下是既定的因緣。而《大集經》等所說的由緣因產生，是根據增上緣（指起增強作用的條件）來說的，因為有四種緣故，不違背之前的教義，即並非本性。『非以性故』的意思是說，不只是由本性，也需要藉助增上緣和緣生。這是就非如實言詮（指不符合事物真實情況的言語表達）而言的，真如（指事物的本性）所緣緣（指認識的對象）的種子，將在下文詳細闡述。如果說理心（指通過理性認識事物的心）是其正因（指主要原因），怎麼能說理心如同緣因一樣，成就上、中、下三種呢？而且理心被稱為性種性，為什麼不能說因為本性的緣故而被稱為菩薩呢？既然因為本性的緣故，說不承認行性（指修行的本性），那麼本有（指本來就有的）也應該不因為本性的緣故而說證悟理心並非本有。既然這樣說不成立，那麼那種說法又怎麼能成立呢？又自己說煩惱是從無煩惱中產生的，為什麼不允許真如無漏（指沒有煩惱）產生於無漏呢？這又違背了《攝大乘論》，如前面已經引用的。又說：『因為牛奶中沒有酪，所以允許牛奶生出酪。』這就可以反駁說：『因為酪中沒有牛奶，所以應該能生出酪。』因為酪不能生出牛奶，所以不允許牛奶生出酪。這種反駁是不對的。說牛奶沒有酪卻能生出酪，是《涅槃經》的意思，是反駁因中有果論（指原因中已經包含結果的理論），並不是不承認牛奶是酪的原因。仔細研讀原文，自然會明白。所以《大莊嚴論》第一卷說：『複次彼有者，因體有故。非有者，果體非有故。』問：如果這樣，那怎麼稱為性呢？答：功德體義故。度者，出生功德義故。』由於這個道理，所以稱為性。
【English Translation】 English version In the Nirvana Sutra, it is only stated that Nirvana (state of perfect peace) is attained from Hetu-pratyaya (direct cause), and it is not said that Samskrta dharmas (conditioned phenomena) arise solely from Adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition), as if something could be born without a seed, which contradicts many sacred teachings. According to the Shanjie Jing (Vinaya-viniscaya-samgraha) Shanxingxing Pin (Chapter on Good Conduct): 'Those whose roots are superior, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas (great enlightened beings) are inherently sharp, while the Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddhas) are of medium nature, and the Sravakas (disciples) are dull.' Since it is said that their inherent nature is sharp, it is clear that it is not caused by external factors. Furthermore, the first volume of the Mahalankara Sutra states: 'Due to the difference in Dhatu (elements), beings have various Dhatus, countless Dhatus. The Bahudhatuka Sutra speaks of many Dhatus. Due to the difference in Dhatus, one should know the difference in the Gotra (lineage) of the Three Vehicles.' Even the reason why there is no difference in the Four Fruits is that the Bodhi (enlightenment) of beings has three levels: lower, middle, and upper, because the seed and the fruit are similar. If there were no difference in inherent nature, there would be no difference in the fruit. As the Samdhinirmocana Sutra says, having upper, middle, and lower levels is a fixed cause and condition. The Mahasamgraha Sutra and others say that what arises from Adhipati-pratyaya is based on the dominant condition, because there are four conditions, which does not contradict the previous teachings, i.e., it is not inherent nature. 'Not because of nature' means that it is not only due to nature, but also relies on Adhipati-pratyaya and Pratyaya-ja (condition-born). This is in terms of non-literal expression; the seed of Tathata (suchness) as the object of cognition will be explained in detail below. If it is said that Li-xin (mind of principle) is its direct cause, how can it be said that Li-xin is like a condition, achieving the three levels of upper, middle, and lower? Moreover, Li-xin is called Gotra (lineage) of nature, why can't it be said that because of nature, it is called a Bodhisattva? Since it is because of nature, saying that one does not acknowledge the nature of practice, then the inherently existing should also not be said that because of nature, the realization of Li-xin is not inherent. Since this is not the case, how can that be the case? Furthermore, one says that defilements arise from non-defilements, why not allow Tathata-Anasrava (undefiled suchness) to arise from non-defilements? This also contradicts the Mahayanasamgraha, as previously cited. Also, saying: 'Because there is no cheese in milk, it is allowed for milk to produce cheese.' This can be refuted by saying: 'Because there is no milk in cheese, cheese should be able to produce milk.' Because cheese cannot produce milk, it is not allowed for milk to produce cheese. This refutation is incorrect. Saying that milk can produce cheese even though there is no cheese in milk is the meaning of the Nirvana Sutra, which refutes the theory of the result existing in the cause, and does not deny that milk is the cause of cheese. Carefully examine the original text, and you will naturally understand. Therefore, the first volume of the Mahalankara Sutra states: 'Furthermore, those who have it, because the substance of the cause exists. Those who do not have it, because the substance of the result does not exist.' Question: If so, then how is it called nature? Answer: Because of the meaning of the substance of merit. The one who crosses over, because of the meaning of giving birth to merit.' Due to this principle, it is therefore called nature.
。又難云。聖無作凡之理。豈不許凡無聖性而作聖者。不爾。誰言凡無聖性而作聖。如我立宗。凡無聖性不作聖。汝立凡無聖性得作聖。何理能遮聖無凡性而作凡。又云。若難無為為其本性生無漏者。即同外道常法為因者。楞伽第二大慧為問佛自釋云。我說法空為如來藏。不同外道者。此救不同彼外道執別有實我名為如來。世尊說法空為如來藏。假名如來。不同外道。汝執無為有體常住能生一切。何異外道冥性等耶。若執體空能生一切。同無因論。又同莊老從無生有。若執常法為緣生起。復違雜集。雜集第四辨緣生相中雲。無常緣生故。釋云。此生故彼生者。顯無常緣生義。非無生法為因故。少所生法而得成立。緣生義中雲。因剎那滅果剎那生。時分等故。是因果相續不斷義。亦不得云此據有漏及客性說。彼論順逆觀中雲。應如是觀緣生起義。一切皆是緣生。唯除法處一分諸無為法。不除無漏故。又若真如能生無漏。復違彼論解因緣。又論云。因緣者。謂阿賴耶識善習氣。與有漏無漏諸法。如其次第為因緣故。非有漏第八識體為無漏因。引無量義經一切法從一法生一法者。所謂無相。大般若云。真如雖生諸法。而真如不生者。如前已辨。又云。經中我德豈即與彼外道我同者。此救亦非。諸大乘經于常樂我凈義假立四德
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：還有人詰難說，聖人沒有變成凡夫的道理。難道不允許凡夫沒有聖性而修成聖人嗎？如果不是這樣，誰會說凡夫沒有聖性而修不成聖人呢？正如我所立的宗義，凡夫沒有聖性就不能修成聖人。你所立的宗義是，凡夫沒有聖性卻能修成聖人。那麼，用什麼道理能夠阻止聖人沒有凡性而變成凡夫呢？ 還有人說，如果詰難說『無為』作為其本性而產生『無漏』，那就等同於外道以『常法』為因了。在《楞伽經》第二卷中，大慧菩薩提問，佛陀親自解釋說：『我說法空是爲了說明如來藏，這不同於外道。』這是爲了說明，佛陀所說的不同於外道執著于另外存在一個真實的『我』，並稱之為『如來』。世尊說法空是爲了說明如來藏，這只是一個假名，不同於外道。你執著于『無為』具有實體，常住不變，能夠產生一切，這與外道的『冥性』等有什麼區別呢？ 如果執著于『體空』能夠產生一切，那就等同於『無因論』，也等同於莊子、老子所說的『從無生有』。如果執著于『常法』作為緣起而產生，那就又違背了《雜集論》。《雜集論》第四卷辨析緣起相中說：『因為無常的緣起。』解釋說：『此生故彼生』，這顯示了無常緣起的意義，而不是以無生法作為原因，所以少有所生法才能成立。緣起義中說：『因剎那滅，果剎那生，時間等同，所以是因果相續不斷。』 也不能說這是根據有漏和客性而說的。那部論的順逆觀中說：『應該這樣觀察緣起義，一切都是緣生，唯獨法處的一部分無為法除外。』這並沒有排除無漏法。而且，如果真如能夠產生無漏法，那就又違背了那部論對因緣的解釋。那部論中說：『因緣，是指阿賴耶識的善習氣，與有漏、無漏諸法，按照次序作為因緣。』而不是說有漏的第八識的本體是無漏的因。 《無量義經》中引用『一切法從一法生』，這一法，就是所謂的『無相』。《大般若經》中說，『真如雖然產生諸法，但是真如不生』，這在前面已經辨析過了。還有人說：『經中所說的「我德」難道就與外道的「我」相同嗎？』這種辯解也是不對的。諸大乘經典對於常、樂、我、凈的意義，假立四德。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, it is argued: 'A saint cannot become a common person.' Then, is it not permissible for a common person without saintly nature to become a saint? If not, who would say that a common person without saintly nature cannot become a saint? Just as I establish the doctrine that a common person without saintly nature cannot become a saint, you establish that a common person without saintly nature can become a saint. What principle can prevent a saint without common nature from becoming a common person? It is also said: 'If it is argued that 'unconditioned' (無為) as its inherent nature produces 'unconditioned outflow' (無漏), then it is the same as the heretics who take 'eternal law' (常法) as the cause.' In the second volume of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Mahāmati (大慧) asked, and the Buddha himself explained: 'I speak of emptiness as the Tathāgatagarbha (如來藏), which is different from the heretics.' This is to explain that what the Buddha said is different from the heretics who cling to the existence of a separate, real 'self' (我), and call it Tathāgata (如來). The World-Honored One speaks of emptiness as the Tathāgatagarbha, which is merely a provisional name, different from the heretics. You cling to 'unconditioned' as having substance, being permanent and unchanging, and capable of producing everything. What difference is there between this and the 'primordial nature' (冥性) of the heretics? If you cling to 'emptiness of substance' (體空) as capable of producing everything, then it is the same as the 'no-cause theory' (無因論), and also the same as what Zhuangzi (莊子) and Laozi (老子) said, 'existence arises from non-existence' (從無生有). If you cling to 'eternal law' as arising from conditions, then you again contradict the Abhidharmasamuccaya (雜集論). The fourth volume of the Abhidharmasamuccaya analyzes the characteristics of dependent origination (緣起相), saying: 'Because of impermanent dependent origination.' The explanation says: 'Because this arises, that arises,' which shows the meaning of impermanent dependent origination, and not that the unarisen dharma is the cause, so that the few arisen dharmas can be established. In the meaning of dependent origination, it says: 'The cause ceases in an instant, and the effect arises in an instant, the time is the same, so it is the continuous succession of cause and effect.' It cannot be said that this is based on conditioned outflow (有漏) and adventitious nature (客性). The progressive and regressive contemplation (順逆觀) in that treatise says: 'One should contemplate the meaning of dependent origination in this way, that everything is dependently originated, except for a portion of the unconditioned dharmas in the realm of dharma (法處).' This does not exclude unconditioned outflow. Moreover, if Tathatā (真如) can produce unconditioned outflow, then it again contradicts that treatise's explanation of causes and conditions. That treatise says: 'Causes and conditions refer to the good habitual energies (善習氣) of the Ālaya-vijñāna (阿賴耶識), which are the causes and conditions for conditioned outflow and unconditioned outflow dharmas in their respective order.' It is not that the substance of the conditioned outflow eighth consciousness is the cause of unconditioned outflow. The Amitārtha Sūtra (無量義經) quotes 'all dharmas arise from one dharma,' and this one dharma is what is called 'non-form' (無相). The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (大般若經) says, 'Although Tathatā produces all dharmas, Tathatā does not arise,' which has been analyzed earlier. Someone also says: 'Is the 'virtue of self' (我德) mentioned in the sutras the same as the 'self' of the heretics?' This defense is also incorrect. The great Mahāyāna sutras provisionally establish the four virtues for the meaning of permanence (常), bliss (樂), self (我), and purity (凈).
名外道。無有常我等體。于非常我等計故。可不同外道計常法為因。或無因起。汝執常法為因。或無因起。如何有別。亦不得。云涅槃經云。本無今有。有已還無。以此為證。彼文意別。不說無因云本無今有。云異本無。從因而起。云本無今有。起已即滅云還無。若如文執言無即無因有已還滅。如何即許執報佛常住。又自問云。若常法生無常法者。何故涅槃經中。佛語外道云。汝因是常。果是無常。我因無常。果是常耶。答因有遠因近因。果有近果遠果。外道唯有常因無其常果。佛法遠因是常。近因無常。遠果是常。近果無常。此答令乖準。涅槃三十三云。一切善業是涅槃因。因有二。一近二遠。近即三解脫門。遠者無量世所修善法。若遠因常即是滅諦。但可說證不得說修。二十七云。說涅槃因名為佛性。佛性名通。非唯真如。六度等法併名佛性。二十二云。未得阿耨菩提時。佛性因故。是過去現世未來。果則不爾。有是三世。有非三世。準此文意。因即福智。果通智斷。故因通三世。果世非世。若說真如為遠因者。因亦通世非世。如何但言三世。三十三云。眾生佛性猶如虛空。非三世故。佛性常故。非三世攝。又佛自答。我因無常。果是常。因中有遠近。因通三世。今有將自凡心翻覆佛教云。遠因常無常。妄以近遠
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一個外道說：『沒有常「我」（ātman）等實體，卻執著于非常「我」等概念。』 這樣，怎麼能說你們不同於外道，以外道執著的常法作為原因，或者認為事物無因而生呢？你們也執著常法為原因，或者認為事物無因而生，這有什麼區別？ 你們也不應該引用《涅槃經》中的話，『本來沒有現在有，有了以後又歸於沒有』，來作為證據。那段經文的意思不同，不是說無因而生，而是說『異本無』，是從因而生起。說『本來沒有現在有』，是說生起之後立即滅亡，所以說『又歸於沒有』。如果按照字面意思理解，說『沒有』就是無因而生，『有了以後又歸於滅亡』，那又怎麼能允許你們執著報身佛是常住的呢？ 你們又自問自答：『如果常法能生出無常法，那麼為什麼《涅槃經》中，佛對那些外道說：『你們的原因是常，結果是無常；我的原因是無常，結果是常』呢？』 答案是：原因有遠因和近因，結果有近果和遠果。外道只有常因，沒有常果。佛法遠因是常，近因是無常；遠果是常，近果是無常。』 這種回答不符合標準。 《涅槃經》第三十三卷說：『一切善業是涅槃（nirvāṇa）的因。』 因有兩種：一是近因，二是遠因。近因是三解脫門（trini vimoksha mukha），遠因是無量世所修的善法。如果遠因是常，那就是滅諦（nirodha-satya），只能說證得，不能說修得。《涅槃經》第二十七卷說：『說涅槃因名為佛性（Buddha-dhātu）。』 佛性這個名稱是通用的，不僅僅指真如（tathātā），六度（paramita）等法都可以稱為佛性。《涅槃經》第二十二卷說：『未證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi）時，因為佛性的緣故，是過去、現在、未來。』 結果則不是這樣，有的是三世，有的不是三世。按照這段經文的意思，因就是福德和智慧，果包括智慧和斷惑，所以因貫通三世，果則有世間和非世間。如果說真如是遠因，那麼因也貫通世間和非世間，怎麼能只說是三世呢？ 《涅槃經》第三十三卷說：『眾生的佛性猶如虛空，不是三世所能包含的。』 因為佛性是常，所以不屬於三世所攝。而且佛自己回答說：『我的原因是無常，結果是常。』 原因中有遠近，因貫通三世。現在有人用自己的凡夫心來顛倒佛教的教義，說『遠因是常還是無常』，妄加分別近因和遠因。
【English Translation】 English version An outsider says: 'There is no permanent 'self' (ātman) or other entities, yet you cling to the notion of impermanent 'self' and other concepts.' How can you say that you are different from the outsiders, who take the permanent dharma as the cause, or believe that things arise without a cause? You also cling to the permanent dharma as the cause, or believe that things arise without a cause. What is the difference? You should also not quote the words in the Nirvana Sutra, 'Originally there was nothing, now there is something; after it exists, it returns to nothing,' as evidence. The meaning of that passage is different; it does not say that it arises without a cause, but that 'originally there was nothing different,' it arises from a cause. Saying 'originally there was nothing, now there is something' means that after it arises, it immediately ceases, so it is said 'it returns to nothing.' If you understand it according to the literal meaning, saying 'nothing' means arising without a cause, and 'after it exists, it returns to nothing,' then how can you allow yourselves to cling to the reward body Buddha as permanent? You also ask and answer yourselves: 'If the permanent dharma can give rise to the impermanent dharma, then why in the Nirvana Sutra did the Buddha say to those outsiders: 'Your cause is permanent, and the result is impermanent; my cause is impermanent, and the result is permanent'?' The answer is: 'There are distant causes and near causes, and there are near results and distant results. Outsiders only have permanent causes and no permanent results. In Buddhism, the distant cause is permanent, and the near cause is impermanent; the distant result is permanent, and the near result is impermanent.' This answer does not meet the standard. The thirty-third chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'All good deeds are the cause of nirvāṇa.' There are two kinds of causes: one is the near cause, and the other is the distant cause. The near cause is the three doors of liberation (trini vimoksha mukha), and the distant cause is the good deeds cultivated in countless lifetimes. If the distant cause is permanent, then that is the truth of cessation (nirodha-satya), which can only be said to be attained, not cultivated. The twenty-seventh chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Saying the cause of nirvāṇa is called Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu).' The name Buddha-nature is general, not only referring to tathātā, but also the six perfections (paramita) and other dharmas can be called Buddha-nature. The twenty-second chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Before attaining anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, because of Buddha-nature, it is past, present, and future.' The result is not like this; some are of the three times, and some are not of the three times. According to the meaning of this passage, the cause is merit and wisdom, and the result includes wisdom and the cutting off of delusions, so the cause pervades the three times, and the result is both worldly and non-worldly. If you say that tathātā is the distant cause, then the cause also pervades the worldly and non-worldly, how can you only say that it is the three times? The thirty-third chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is like space, which cannot be contained by the three times.' Because Buddha-nature is permanent, it is not included in the three times. Moreover, the Buddha himself answered: 'My cause is impermanent, and the result is permanent.' There are near and distant causes, and the cause pervades the three times. Now some people use their own ordinary minds to reverse the teachings of Buddhism, saying 'the distant cause is permanent or impermanent,' falsely distinguishing between near and distant causes.
因果相對分常無常。又復自許真如生法。何故但能遠生為遠因。因不能近生為近因。如理既常住。近不為因。遠亦非空。性體凝然遠能為因。近亦爾。以體前後無差別故。佛說生因是無常。乖佛說為常。佛有無性。違聖說有性。此乃執自智見為是。將佛菩薩為非。何異待兔角而觸妙高。拔龜毛以填渤澥。豈可得乎。寧不思乎。
五性唯新謬四
有義。五性差別皆由新熏。正法華第三云。先無三乘性后殖三乘因。名有三乘性。既云后殖。明非本有。上法華經及大集文。據習性說。非性種性者。亦不應理。且彼說真如及心為性種性。妄者如瑜伽二十一云。謂若種性自性若種性安立等。種性自性中雲。今此種性以何為體。答附在所依有如是相。六處所攝。從無始世展轉傳來法爾所得。若是真如。豈名附在所依六處所攝。又種性安立中。云何得言。種種相續種種流轉。如是種子非於六處有別異相。即于如是種類分位六處殊勝。從無始世展轉傳來法爾所得。有如是相及以言說。謂為種性種子界性。是故當言墮一相續。準此所說。菩薩地善戒地持明性種性文。皆同此。明非真如。新熏妄者。準前文。說既非真如。後言無始明本性別。若唯新熏有五性別。即見道前不許有無漏。云何下文云。云何名為安住種性補特伽羅。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因果的相對性在於常與無常。你又自稱真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）能生萬法。為何只能遠距離產生作用，作為遠因，而不能近距離產生作用，作為近因呢？如果真如是常住不變的，那麼近處不作為因，遠處也不是空無。如果其性體凝固不變，遠處能作為因，近處也應該一樣，因為本體前後沒有差別。佛說產生的原因是無常的，你卻違背佛的說法，認為是常的。佛說萬法無自性，你卻違背聖人的說法，認為有自性。這實際上是堅持自己的知見是正確的，認為佛菩薩是錯誤的。這和等待兔子撞到妙高山一樣，或者拔下烏龜的毛來填滿渤海一樣，怎麼可能成功呢？難道不應該好好想想嗎？
五性各由新熏的謬誤之四
有一種觀點認為，五種姓的差別都是由後天熏習造成的。《正法華經》第三卷說：『先前沒有三乘（Sravakayana，聲聞乘；Pratyekabuddhayana，緣覺乘；Bodhisattvayana，菩薩乘）的種性，後來種植三乘的因，才叫做有三乘的種性。』既然說是『后種植』，就說明不是本來就有的。前面的《法華經》以及《大集經》的經文，是根據習性來說的。認為不是種姓的種性，也是不合理的。而且他們說真如和心是種姓的種性，虛妄的方面，如《瑜伽師地論》第二十一卷說：『所謂的種性自性，或者種性安立等。』種性自性中說：『現在這個種性以什麼為體呢？』回答說：『附著在所依處，有這樣的相，被六處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）所攝，從無始以來輾轉相傳，自然而得。』如果是真如，怎麼能叫做附著在所依處，被六處所攝呢？又在種性安立中，怎麼能說：『種種相續，種種流轉，這樣的種子，在六處中沒有差別異相，就在這樣的種類分位中，六處殊勝，從無始以來輾轉相傳，自然而得，有這樣的相以及言說，稱之為種性種子界性。』因此應當說墮入一種相續。按照這個說法，菩薩地、善戒地、持明性種性的經文，都和這個相同，說明不是真如。後天熏習的虛妄方面，按照前面的經文，既然說不是真如，後面又說無始，說明本來的性別。如果只有後天熏習才有五種性別，那麼在見道（見道位，佛教修行的一個階段）之前就不允許有無漏（沒有煩惱）的功德，那麼下文怎麼說：『什麼叫做安住種性的補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）？』
【English Translation】 English version The relativity of cause and effect lies in permanence and impermanence. Furthermore, you claim that Tathata (the true nature of things) can generate all dharmas. Why can it only produce effects from a distance, acting as a remote cause, and not produce effects from a proximity, acting as a proximate cause? If Tathata is permanent and unchanging, then it does not act as a cause in proximity, nor is it empty at a distance. If its nature is solidified and unchanging, and it can act as a cause from a distance, it should be the same in proximity, because there is no difference in the essence before and after. The Buddha said that the cause of arising is impermanent, but you contradict the Buddha's words by claiming it is permanent. The Buddha said that all dharmas are without inherent existence (無自性), but you contradict the sage's words by claiming they have inherent existence. This is actually insisting that one's own views are correct and that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are wrong. This is like waiting for a rabbit to collide with Mount Meru (妙高), or pulling out turtle hairs to fill the Bohai Sea (渤澥). How can it be successful? Shouldn't you think about it carefully?
The fourth fallacy of the five natures arising solely from new imprints
One view holds that the differences in the five natures all arise from later conditioning. The third volume of the 'Correct Dharma Flower Sutra' says: 'Previously, there were no natures of the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), but later, the causes of the Three Vehicles were planted, and then it is called having the natures of the Three Vehicles.' Since it says 'later planted,' it indicates that it was not originally present. The previous texts of the 'Flower Sutra' and the 'Great Collection Sutra' speak according to habitual tendencies. Considering that it is not the nature of the seed nature is also unreasonable. Moreover, they say that Tathata and mind are the seed nature, the false aspect, as the twenty-first volume of the 'Yogacarabhumi-sastra' says: 'The so-called nature of the seed nature, or the establishment of the seed nature, etc.' In the nature of the seed nature, it says: 'Now, what is the substance of this seed nature?' The answer is: 'Attached to the support, it has such characteristics, encompassed by the six sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind), transmitted from beginningless time, naturally obtained.' If it is Tathata, how can it be called attached to the support, encompassed by the six sense bases? Furthermore, in the establishment of the seed nature, how can it be said: 'Various continuations, various flows, such seeds, in the six sense bases, there is no difference in appearance, in such categories and divisions, the six sense bases are superior, transmitted from beginningless time, naturally obtained, having such characteristics and expressions, called seed nature, seed realm nature.' Therefore, it should be said that it falls into one continuum. According to this statement, the texts on Bodhisattva Ground, Good Precept Ground, and Dharani Nature Seed Nature are all the same as this, indicating that it is not Tathata. The false aspect of later conditioning, according to the previous text, since it says it is not Tathata, and later it says beginningless, indicating the original gender. If there are only five genders from later conditioning, then before the Path of Seeing (見道位), it is not allowed to have unconditioned (無漏) merits, then how does the following text say: 'What is called a Pudgala (人) who abides in the seed nature?'
唯住種性而未趣入。亦未出離。謂如今有一補特伽羅。成就出世聖法種子。而未獲得親近善士聽聞正法。未于如來正覺正說法毗奈耶獲得正信。未受持凈戒。未攝受多聞。未增長惠舍。未調伏諸見。如是名為唯住種性而未趣入。請舉斯文。聲聞本性豈由新熏。豈須有部所立宗耶。菩薩地言無始法爾六處殊勝等文。準此可知。又佛性論云。無初者。以性得大悲般若禪定法身本有故。故言無初。信大悲等是四德。既云無初。明因有。復云性得。明非新熏。又魏梁唐等攝論並云。又此如理作意相應是世間心。彼正見相應是出世心。未曾有時俱生俱滅。是故此心非彼所熏。既不所熏為彼種子。不應道理。然說聞熏習為出世心因者。梁論自會是增上緣。唐論復云。此中聞熏習攝受彼種子。不相應故。又大莊嚴論云。若無性差別則無信差別。乃至云。若無性差別亦無果差別。由此四差別。是故應知種性有體。大般若善勇猛會勝鬘楞伽經善戒經地持論瑜伽論佛地論。皆說法爾性別。不言由熏。恐煩不引。所以正法華云。先無三乘性。后殖三乘因。佛種從緣起等者。皆由逢緣資熏本性方能得果。非本無因。五性新起。無因而生五性差別。非釋種子。又如寂調音天子所問經云。如貧人食是輪王毒。法華不許親近小乘。云何世尊見有平等理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 唯有安住于種性，但尚未趣入（佛道），也未出離（輪迴）。例如，現在有一個補特伽羅（pudgalā，人），他成就了出世聖法的種子，但尚未獲得親近善知識、聽聞正法的機會，未能在如來正覺的正法和毗奈耶（vinaya，戒律）中獲得正信，未受持清凈的戒律，未攝取廣博的學問，未增長智慧和佈施，未調伏各種見解。這種情況就叫做唯有安住于種性但尚未趣入。 請引用這段文字。聲聞（śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而悟道者）的本性難道是由後天的熏習產生的嗎？難道需要有部（Sarvāstivāda，一個佛教部派）所立的宗義嗎？《菩薩地》中說，無始以來法爾（自然如此）的六處殊勝等文，可以參照這個來理解。另外，《佛性論》中說：『沒有最初，因為性得（本性具有）大悲、般若（prajñā，智慧）、禪定、法身，本來就存在，所以說沒有最初。』相信大悲等是四德（常、樂、我、凈）。既然說沒有最初，就表明因是存在的。又說性得，表明不是後天熏習的。 另外，魏、梁、唐等朝代的《攝大乘論》都說：『又這種如理作意（yoniso manasikāra，如理思維）相應的是世間心，那種正見（samyag-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解）相應的是出世心，未曾有過同時生起同時滅去的情況，所以這種心不是由那種心熏習而成的。』既然不是由它熏習而成，就不能作為它的種子，這不合道理。然而，如果說聞熏習是出世心的因，梁論自己解釋說是增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，強有力的助緣）。唐論又說：『這其中，聞熏習攝取那種種子，因為它們不相應。』 另外，《大莊嚴論》中說：『如果沒有性差別，就沒有信差別。』乃至說：『如果沒有性差別，也沒有果差別。』由於這四種差別，所以應當知道種性是有實體的。《大般若經》、《善勇猛會》、《勝鬘經》、《楞伽經》、《善戒經》、《地持論》、《瑜伽師地論》、《佛地論》都說法爾的差別，不說是由熏習造成的。恐怕繁瑣，就不一一引用了。 所以，《正法華經》中說：『先前沒有三乘（triyāna，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的種性，後來才種植三乘的因，佛種從緣起』等等，都是因為遇到因緣，資助熏習本性，才能得到結果，而不是本來沒有因，五性（五種姓）是新產生的。沒有原因而產生五性差別，這不是解釋種子。又如《寂調音天子所問經》中說：『如同貧窮的人吃了轉輪王的毒藥。』《法華經》不允許親近小乘（hīnayāna，小乘佛教），為什麼世尊認為有平等的道理呢？
【English Translation】 English version Dwelling only in the lineage without entering or departing. For example, there is now a pudgala (person) who has the seed of supramundane (lokottara) holy Dharma, but has not had the opportunity to be close to good teachers and hear the correct Dharma, has not obtained right faith in the Tathagata's (Tathāgata, 'the thus-gone one', an epithet of the Buddha) right enlightenment, right Dharma, and Vinaya (monastic rules), has not upheld pure precepts, has not absorbed extensive learning, has not increased wisdom and generosity, and has not subdued various views. This situation is called dwelling only in the lineage without entering. Please cite this passage. Is the nature of the Śrāvaka (hearer, disciple) produced by later conditioning? Does it require the tenets established by the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school)? The 'Bodhisattvabhumi' (Stages of a Bodhisattva) says that the inherent (natural) excellence of the six sense bases from the beginning can be understood by referring to this. Furthermore, the 'Buddha-nature Treatise' says: 'There is no beginning because the inherent (naturally obtained) great compassion, prajñā (wisdom), samādhi (meditative absorption), and Dharmakāya (Dharma body) exist from the beginning, so it is said there is no beginning.' Believing in great compassion, etc., are the four virtues (permanence, bliss, self, purity). Since it is said there is no beginning, it indicates that the cause exists. Moreover, it is said to be naturally obtained, indicating that it is not later conditioning. Furthermore, the 'Mahāyānasaṃgraha' (Compendium of the Mahayana) translated in the Wei, Liang, and Tang dynasties all say: 'Moreover, this mind corresponding to yoniso manasikāra (reasoned attention) is the mundane mind, and that mind corresponding to samyag-dṛṣṭi (right view) is the supramundane mind. There has never been a case where they arise and cease simultaneously, so this mind is not conditioned by that mind.' Since it is not conditioned by it, it cannot be its seed, which is unreasonable. However, if it is said that hearing and conditioning is the cause of the supramundane mind, the Liang commentary itself explains that it is an adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition). The Tang commentary further says: 'In this, hearing and conditioning takes up that seed because they are not corresponding.' Furthermore, the 'Mahāvyūha Sūtra' says: 'If there is no difference in nature, there is no difference in faith.' And it goes on to say: 'If there is no difference in nature, there is also no difference in result.' Because of these four differences, it should be known that the lineage has substance. The 'Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra', 'Śūraṃgama Samādhi Sūtra', 'Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra', 'Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra', 'Śīlaskandha Sūtra', 'Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra', and 'Buddhabhūmi Sūtra' all speak of inherent differences, not caused by conditioning. Fearing prolixity, I will not cite them one by one. Therefore, the 'Saddharma-puṇḍarīka Sūtra' (Lotus Sutra) says: 'Previously there was no nature of the three yānas (vehicles: Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna), later the causes of the three yānas were planted, the Buddha-seed arises from conditions,' etc., all because of encountering conditions, assisting and conditioning the inherent nature, one can obtain the result, not that there was originally no cause and the five gotras (five lineages) are newly produced. The difference of the five gotras arising without a cause is not an explanation of the seed. Furthermore, as the 'Sāgaramati Sūtra' says: 'Like a poor person eating the poison of a Cakravartin (wheel-turning king).' The 'Lotus Sutra' does not allow closeness to the Hīnayāna (inferior vehicle), why does the World-Honored One see equality in principle?
心大性。而不教發大心令興小意。欲行大道。何爾小徑。彼自無瘡。何傷之也。熟思勿誤。故知五性法爾自有。待現緣發方果成熟故。漏無漏種各二類。一本性二習性。故瑜伽第二云。又種子體無始時來相續不絕。性雖有之。然由凈不凈業差別熏發。望數數取異熟果。說彼為新。攝大乘雲。聞等熏習無果生。非道理。涅槃二十六云。眾生佛性不名為佛。以諸功德因緣和合。得見佛性。然後得佛。汝言眾生悉有佛性。何故不見者。是義不然。何以故。因緣未和合故。以是義故。我說二因。正緣因。正因名為佛性。緣因者發菩提心。以二因緣得阿耨菩提。如石出金。佛性之因非如空常有。非如兔角無。準此須解。若云。優婆塞戒經云。若說有菩薩性。是名外道者。不爾。善戒經說。有菩薩性者以大乘成熟等。涅槃亦說悉有佛性。豈外道耶。欲明五性唯新熏。云有本性者。即外道義。欲證一切有佛性。若說無者。是小乘義。故成相反。徒引多文妄為解釋。不如依論以釋佛經。恐此文煩故略不舉。
真如為種謬五
有義瑜伽論云。諸出世間法從何種子生。若言粗重自性種子生。不應道理。答諸出世間法從真如所緣緣種子生。非彼習氣積集種子所生。西方兩釋。一護法等云。此是緣真如智以真如為所緣緣故。名真如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：心量廣大是本性。如果不教導人們發起廣大的心量，反而讓他們產生狹隘的想法，想要行走在寬廣的大道上，為何要選擇狹窄的小路呢？如果他們自己沒有傷口，為什麼要傷害他們呢？仔細思考，不要犯錯。因此可知五性（五種根性）是法爾如是的，本來就有的。等待顯現的因緣發動，才能使果實成熟。有漏和無漏的種子各有兩種：一是本性，二是習性。所以《瑜伽師地論》第二卷說：『又種子體從無始以來相續不斷。雖然本性具有，但由於清凈和不清凈的業的差別熏習發動，期望多次取得異熟果，所以說它是新的。』《攝大乘論》說：『聽聞等熏習沒有果報產生，是不合道理的。』《涅槃經》第二十六卷說：『眾生的佛性不能稱為佛，因為各種功德因緣和合，才能得見佛性，然後才能成佛。』你說眾生都有佛性，為什麼看不見呢？這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？因為因緣沒有和合的緣故。因為這個緣故，我說兩種因：正緣因和緣因。正因名為佛性，緣因是發菩提心。以這兩種因緣才能得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（無上正等正覺），就像從石頭中取出黃金一樣。佛性的因不是像虛空一樣常有，也不是像兔角一樣沒有。按照這個標準來理解。』如果有人說，《優婆塞戒經》說：『如果說有菩薩性，這就是外道。』不是這樣的。《善戒經》說：『有菩薩性是因為大乘成熟等。』《涅槃經》也說一切眾生都有佛性，難道是外道嗎？想要說明五性只是新熏習的，說有本性就是外道的觀點。想要證明一切眾生都有佛性，如果說沒有，就是小乘的觀點。所以自相矛盾。徒勞地引用很多經文，妄加解釋，不如依據論典來解釋佛經。恐怕這段文字太繁瑣，所以省略不舉。 真如為種子的謬誤 有一種觀點認為，《瑜伽師地論》說：『諸出世間法從何種子生？』如果說是從粗重自性的種子生，是不合道理的。回答是：諸出世間法是從真如所緣緣的種子生，不是從習氣積集的種子所生。』西方有兩種解釋：一是護法等人認為，這是緣于真如的智慧，以真如為所緣緣的緣故，名為真如。
【English Translation】 English version: The nature of mind is vast. But if you don't teach people to develop a vast mind, and instead let them generate narrow thoughts, wanting to walk on the broad path, why choose the narrow path? If they themselves have no wounds, why hurt them? Think carefully, don't make mistakes. Therefore, it is known that the five natures (five kinds of faculties) are inherently existent. Waiting for the manifesting conditions to arise, then the fruit can ripen. There are two types of seeds, defiled and undefiled: one is inherent nature, and the other is habitual nature. Therefore, the second volume of the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says: 'Moreover, the seed-essence has been continuously existing since beginningless time. Although the inherent nature exists, due to the difference in pure and impure karma, it is熏習(xunxi, influenced) and activated, hoping to repeatedly obtain the異熟果(yishuguo, Vipaka-phala, fruit of maturation), so it is said to be new.' The Mahayanasamgraha says: 'Hearing and other熏習(xunxi, influences) do not produce results, which is unreasonable.' The twenty-sixth volume of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'The Buddha-nature of sentient beings cannot be called Buddha, because various merits and conditions must come together to see the Buddha-nature, and then become Buddha.' You say that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, why can't they see it? This statement is incorrect. Why? Because the conditions have not come together. For this reason, I speak of two causes: the direct cause and the supporting cause. The direct cause is called Buddha-nature, and the supporting cause is generating the Bodhi mind. With these two causes, one can attain 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提(Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment), just like extracting gold from stone. The cause of Buddha-nature is not like space, which is always there, nor is it like rabbit horns, which do not exist. Understand according to this standard.' If someone says, the Upasaka Precept Sutra says: 'If you say there is Bodhisattva-nature, that is an outsider's view.' That's not the case. The Good Precept Sutra says: 'Having Bodhisattva-nature is because the Mahayana has matured, etc.' The Nirvana Sutra also says that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, is that an outsider's view? Wanting to explain that the five natures are only newly熏習(xunxi, influenced), saying that there is inherent nature is the view of outsiders. Wanting to prove that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, if you say there is none, that is the view of the Hinayana. Therefore, it is self-contradictory. Futilely quoting many scriptures and interpreting them falsely, it is better to interpret the Buddhist scriptures according to the treatises. Fearing that this passage is too cumbersome, I will omit it. The Misconception of 真如(Zhenru, Tathata, Suchness) as a Seed One view holds that the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says: 'From what seed do all supramundane dharmas arise?' If it is said that they arise from the seed of coarse and heavy self-nature, that is unreasonable. The answer is: All supramundane dharmas arise from the seed of 真如(Zhenru, Tathata, Suchness) as the object-condition, not from the seed accumulated by habitual tendencies.' There are two Western interpretations: one is that 護法(Dharmapala) and others believe that this is wisdom that is conditioned by 真如(Zhenru, Tathata, Suchness), because 真如(Zhenru, Tathata, Suchness) is the object-condition, it is called 真如(Zhenru, Tathata, Suchness).
所緣緣種子。二難陀等云。是聞熏習種子從佛正體智。各為真如所緣緣種子。此二釋非。何以故。論云。若非習氣積集種子所生者。何因緣故建立三種涅槃法種性補特伽羅。及建立不般涅槃法補特伽羅。所以者何。一切皆有真如所緣緣故。準此難意。真如皆有。無其勝劣。因何分三乘性及有無性。不合可。答家以非一切皆有智種答。難家將一切皆有真如為難。為難之法牒釋難故。同一文故。又論自為問答。不可言難家不得答意。故知答家以真如為種答。難家即云不得有無不同。故知真如能為種生。同大般若真如雖生諸法。真如不生者。此亦不爾。所以者何。若以真如為種生法。過失如前。不平等因。為妄中說云二師釋與論相違者。此亦不爾。釋不違論。何以故。答意以真如為所緣緣之能緣之智種。為出世法因。難意既以真如為所緣。既遍有能緣。亦應一切皆成。何故得立有無性別。若即真如為種能生。應但云從真如種子生出世法。何須云真如所緣緣種子生因。天親般若論云。若一切時一切處實有真如。何故有人能得有不得者。頌答云。時及處實有。而不得真如。無智以住法。餘者有智得。釋云。何故不得。彼無智以心住法。彼以不清凈故。以有智者心不住法。是故能得。準此論意。明如遍難。雙舉智障以答彼難。明知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所緣緣種子（ālambana-pratyaya-bīja，作為所緣之緣的種子）。二難陀（Nanda，佛陀的堂弟）等人說：『這是聞熏習（śruta-vāsanā，聽聞佛法所熏習）的種子，從佛的正體智（samyak-jñāna-kāya，佛陀的真實智慧）各自作為真如（tathatā，事物的真實本性）的所緣緣種子。』這兩種解釋都不對。為什麼呢？《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）說：『如果不是習氣積集種子所生的，那麼因何緣故建立三種涅槃法種性（nirvāṇa-dharma-gotra，具有三種不同涅槃根性）的補特伽羅（pudgala，個體），以及建立不般涅槃法（aparinirvāṇa-dharma，不入涅槃）的補特伽羅？』原因是什麼？因為一切都有真如作為所緣緣的緣故。按照這個詰難的意思，真如是普遍存在的，沒有優劣之分，因何要區分三乘（triyāna，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的根性和有無根性呢？這不合道理。回答者用並非一切都有智種（jñāna-bīja，智慧的種子）來回答。詰難者用一切都有真如來詰難。作為詰難的方法，是爲了駁斥解釋者的解釋。因為是同一段經文的緣故。而且，《攝大乘論》自己有問答，不能說詰難者不理解回答者的意思。所以知道回答者是用真如作為種子來回答。詰難者就說不應該有有無不同。所以知道真如能夠作為種子而生。如同《大般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）所說，真如雖然生出諸法，但真如本身不生。這種說法也不對。為什麼呢？如果用真如作為種子來生法，過失如同前面所說，是不平等的因。在妄識中說二位論師的解釋與《攝大乘論》相違背，這種說法也不對。他們的解釋不違背《攝大乘論》。為什麼呢？回答者的意思是，用真如作為所緣緣的能緣之智種，作為出世法（lokottara-dharma，超越世間的法）的因。詰難者的意思是，既然用真如作為所緣，既然普遍存在能緣，也應該一切都能成就，為何要建立有無的差別？如果直接用真如作為種子來生，應該只說從真如種子生出世法，何必說真如所緣緣種子生因？天親（Vasubandhu）的《般若論》（Prajñā-pradīpa）說：『如果一切時一切處真實存在真如，為何有人能得到，有人不能得到？』頌文回答說：『時間和處所真實存在，但不能得到真如，因為無智而住在法中，其餘有智者才能得到。』解釋說：『為何不能得到？因為他們無智，以心住在法中，因為他們不清凈的緣故。因為有智慧的人心不住在法中，所以能夠得到。』按照這部論的意義，明白地普遍詰難，同時舉出智障（jñānāvaraṇa，智慧的障礙）來回答那些詰難，明確地知道。
【English Translation】 English version The seed of ālambana-pratyaya (the seed as the condition of the object). Nanda (Buddha's cousin) and others say: 'This is the seed of śruta-vāsanā (habitual learning through hearing), from the Buddha's samyak-jñāna-kāya (true wisdom body), each as the seed of tathatā (suchness, the true nature of things) as the condition of the object.' These two explanations are incorrect. Why? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium on the Great Vehicle) says: 'If it is not born from the seed accumulated by habitual tendencies, then for what reason are three types of pudgalas (individuals) with nirvāṇa-dharma-gotra (lineage of the Dharma of Nirvana) established, and the pudgala of aparinirvāṇa-dharma (non-entering Nirvana) established?' What is the reason? Because everything has tathatā as the condition of the object. According to the meaning of this challenge, tathatā is universally present, without superiority or inferiority. Why should the three yānas (vehicles: Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) be distinguished by their nature and whether they possess that nature or not? This is unreasonable. The respondent answers by saying that not everything has jñāna-bīja (seed of wisdom). The challenger uses the fact that everything has tathatā to challenge. As a method of challenging, it is to refute the interpreter's explanation, because it is the same passage. Moreover, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha itself has questions and answers, so it cannot be said that the challenger does not understand the respondent's meaning. Therefore, it is known that the respondent uses tathatā as the seed to answer. The challenger then says that there should be no difference between existence and non-existence. Therefore, it is known that tathatā can be a seed for birth. Just as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says, although tathatā gives rise to all dharmas, tathatā itself does not arise. This statement is also incorrect. Why? If tathatā is used as a seed to generate dharmas, the fault is as mentioned before, it is an unequal cause. To say in delusion that the explanations of the two masters contradict the Mahāyānasaṃgraha is also incorrect. Their explanations do not contradict the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Why? The respondent means that the jñāna-bīja, which uses tathatā as the object-condition and is capable of perceiving, is the cause of lokottara-dharma (transcendental dharma). The challenger means that since tathatā is used as the object, and since the ability to perceive is universally present, everything should be accomplished. Why establish the difference between existence and non-existence? If tathatā is directly used as the seed to generate, it should only be said that lokottara-dharma arises from the seed of tathatā. Why say that the seed of tathatā as the object-condition generates the cause? Vasubandhu's Prajñā-pradīpa (Lamp of Wisdom) says: 'If tathatā truly exists at all times and in all places, why can some people attain it and others cannot?' The verse answers: 'Time and place truly exist, but tathatā cannot be attained because one dwells in the Dharma without wisdom; others with wisdom can attain it.' The explanation says: 'Why cannot it be attained? Because they are without wisdom and their minds dwell in the Dharma, because they are impure. Because those with wisdom do not dwell in the Dharma, they can attain it.' According to the meaning of this treatise, it clearly and universally challenges, and at the same time raises the jñānāvaraṇa (obstacle of wisdom) to answer those challenges, clearly knowing.
法爾種性無有。若不爾者。但應舉住法。何須說智耶。故瑜伽論以有畢竟障種子及法爾本有無漏種。分五性別。般若論中。以如遍難。舉智及障答。瑜伽以如遍難。偏舉障答。意顯智種有無不同。不由謗法。若由謗法立性不同。即應但立有性。無性不應分四。又復謗法大乘處處皆許悔凈。豈慈氏不知云畢竟不可斷。又復謗法造五逆業感惡道報。但煩惱障。何開所知云有畢竟所知障種子。附在所依非煩惱障種子者。于彼一分建立聲聞種性。一分建立獨覺種性。豈可二乘由為謗法名無種性。彼許二乘得無學果。即受變易迴心向大。豈可所知障畢竟不可斷。又若謗二空即大莊嚴論時邊。四中普斷諸善根。非畢竟無因者。不爾。普斷善外。更何業重為畢竟障。又若由障名不可斷。即合明舉。何故別說畢竟無因。又若真如為種親生出世間法。略有四過。一前後相違過。自前本性門中。即說無漏從有漏心生。今說真如生。定從何是。二門相違。二聖教相違過。瑜伽攝論種子義中。皆云一剎那滅者。生已無間即滅壞故。無有常法得成種子。於一切時無差別故。不可。難云。法爾種子不與能熏相應熏成。何得名種者。不爾。七義釋種子義。能熏所熏釋熏習義。又本有種由熏增長。不說熏生。說熏生者。是新熏種。三自宗相違過。違佛性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法爾種性（自然具有的種姓）是沒有的。如果不是這樣，那麼只需要說明安住之法，何必說明智慧呢？所以《瑜伽師地論》以有畢竟障種子（最終障礙的種子）以及法爾本有無漏種（自然本有的無漏種子），來區分五種性別（五種根性）。《般若論》中，以『如遍難』（像普遍的困難一樣）的方式，舉出智慧和障礙來回答。《瑜伽師地論》以『如遍難』的方式，偏重舉出障礙來回答，意在顯示智慧種子有無的不同，不是因為誹謗佛法。如果因為誹謗佛法而建立根性的不同，就應該只建立有性（有根性）和無性（無根性），不應該再分為四種。而且誹謗佛法，在大乘經典中處處都允許懺悔清凈，難道彌勒菩薩不知道，說誹謗佛法是畢竟不可斷的嗎？而且誹謗佛法，造作五逆罪業，感得惡道果報，只是煩惱障，為什麼開立所知障，說有畢竟的所知障種子，附著在所依（身體）上，而不是煩惱障的種子呢？對於他們中的一部分，建立聲聞種性，一部分建立獨覺種性，難道二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）因為誹謗佛法，就被稱為沒有種性嗎？他們允許二乘獲得無學果（阿羅漢果），並且接受變易生死，迴心向大乘，難道所知障是畢竟不可斷的嗎？又如果誹謗二空（人空和法空），即使在大莊嚴論的『時邊』（時間的邊緣），四中普斷諸善根，也不是畢竟沒有原因的。如果不是這樣，普遍斷除善根之外，還有什麼業更重，成為畢竟的障礙呢？又如果因為障礙，就說不可斷，就應該合併說明，為什麼分別說畢竟沒有原因呢？又如果真如（事物的真實本性）作為種子，親近產生出世間法，略有四個過失：一是前後相違的過失，自己前面在本性門中，就說無漏是從有漏心生的，現在說真如生，那麼必定是從哪裡生的呢？二是門相違，二是聖教相違的過失，《瑜伽師地論》、《攝大乘論》的種子義中，都說一剎那滅，因為生起之後沒有間隔就滅壞了，沒有常法可以成為種子，因為在一切時都沒有差別，所以不可以。有人反駁說，法爾種子不與能熏相應熏成，怎麼能稱為種子呢？不是這樣的，七義解釋種子義，能熏所熏解釋熏習義。而且本有種由熏習增長，不說熏習生，說熏習生，是新熏種。三是自宗相違的過失，違背了佛性（一切眾生皆有佛性）的說法。
【English Translation】 English version There is no naturally existing gotra (innate disposition). If it were not so, one should only explain the abiding dharma, why is it necessary to explain wisdom? Therefore, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra distinguishes five kinds of dispositions based on the seeds of ultimate obstructions and the naturally existing seeds of non-outflow. In the Prajnaparamita-sastra, it uses 'like universal difficulties' to answer by citing both wisdom and obstructions. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra uses 'like universal difficulties' to answer by emphasizing obstructions, intending to show that the presence or absence of wisdom seeds differs, not because of slandering the Dharma. If differences in disposition are established based on slandering the Dharma, then one should only establish 'having disposition' and 'not having disposition', and should not divide it into four. Moreover, slandering the Dharma is allowed to be repented and purified everywhere in Mahayana scriptures. Does Maitreya (the future Buddha) not know that it is ultimately impossible to sever? Furthermore, slandering the Dharma and committing the five rebellious acts result in the retribution of evil paths, but these are only afflictive obstructions. Why establish cognitive obstructions, saying that there are seeds of ultimate cognitive obstructions attached to the support (the body) and not seeds of afflictive obstructions? For a portion of them, establish the Sravaka (Hearer) gotra, and for another portion, establish the Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha) gotra. Can the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) be called without gotra because of slandering the Dharma? They allow the Two Vehicles to attain the fruit of no-more-learning (Arhatship) and accept transformation and turning their minds towards Mahayana. Is it possible that cognitive obstructions are ultimately impossible to sever? Moreover, if slandering the two emptinesses (emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena), even at the 'edge of time' in the Mahavyutpatti, universally severs all roots of goodness, it is not ultimately without cause. If it were not so, what heavier karma is there besides universally severing roots of goodness that would become an ultimate obstruction? Furthermore, if it is said to be impossible to sever because of obstructions, then it should be explained together. Why separately explain ultimately without cause? Moreover, if Suchness (the true nature of things) is the seed that directly produces supramundane dharmas, there are roughly four faults: First, the fault of contradiction between before and after. In the previous chapter on inherent nature, it was said that non-outflow arises from the mind with outflow. Now it is said that Suchness arises, so from where does it necessarily arise? Second, the fault of contradiction between teachings. In the meaning of seeds in the Yogacarabhumi-sastra and Mahayana-samgraha, it is said that it perishes in a moment, because it perishes immediately after arising. There is no permanent dharma that can become a seed, because there is no difference at all times, so it is not possible. Someone refutes, saying that the naturally existing seed does not correspond with the ability to perfume and become perfumed, so how can it be called a seed? It is not so. The seven meanings explain the meaning of seed, and the ability to perfume and the perfumed explain the meaning of perfuming. Moreover, the naturally existing seed grows through perfuming, but it is not said to be born from perfuming. Saying it is born from perfuming refers to the newly perfumed seed. Third, the fault of contradiction with one's own doctrine, contradicting the statement of Buddha-nature (all sentient beings have Buddha-nature).
論有體生無體。名許真如親生出世。即應云二有體生有體。何故說一。四進退相違過。若從有漏生無漏者。復違五十二不說粗重自相種生故。更有多過。如前已辨。所餘義準此知矣。
通經法爾謬六
有義引經。一切眾生無始時來有種種界。證法爾有五性別等。不應道理。彼說一一眾生各有種種界。如七葉樹。非說一切眾生各多差別。此言法爾。是本性故。非如性力所知種種界也。此不應理。若許一一生各有種種界。一一界相似。如七葉樹者。豈一一生皆作三乘果二十七賢聖多貪食分有無性等。若爾。云何言有聲聞性得聲聞道等。多貪之人說不凈觀等。利鈍根別等。有無相違。鈍利相違。漸頓相違。定相違。豈可一生普具成熟。又彌勒菩薩無著等師。不解經文證五性殊。皆引彼教耶。善戒經說。說共住令轉者。據不定性說。非定性者。楞伽于不定乘中說有趣大乘小即無。大般若同。又云。瑜伽但云無始有無有種性。不言法爾及本性住。非為定證者。不爾。此無始言即是法爾及本性住。何以得知。佛性論云。無初者。性得大悲等。無初即無始性得。即法爾等。又次下引種子有四。一本性住。如何得言不說本性住非為定證耶。又云。瑜伽云。種子有四。一本性住。二先習起。三可修治。謂有涅槃法。四不可修
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『有體』產生『無體』的說法，如果說『許真如』（允許真實如如）親身產生出世，那麼就應該說是『二有體』產生『有體』，為什麼只說『一』呢？這犯了四種進退相違的過失。如果說從『有漏』（有煩惱）產生『無漏』（無煩惱），又違背了五十二位菩薩階位中不說粗重煩惱的自相種子生起的說法，還有更多的過失，如同前面已經辨析的那樣。其餘的意義可以依此類推得知。
通經法爾謬六 有一種觀點引用經典，說一切眾生從無始以來就有種種界（界限、類別），以此來證明法爾（自然而然）具有五種性別等等，這是不應道理的。他們所說的是每一個眾生各自有種種界，就像七葉樹一樣，而不是說一切眾生各自具有多種差別。這裡所說的『法爾』，是因為它是本性，而不是像性力所能瞭解的種種界。這種說法是不應道理的。如果承認每一個眾生各自有種種界，每一個界都相似，就像七葉樹一樣，難道每一個眾生都會成就三乘果（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）和二十七賢聖，具有多貪食分、有性、無性等等嗎？如果這樣，怎麼能說具有聲聞性就能證得聲聞道等等，多貪之人應該修習不凈觀等等，有利根和鈍根的差別等等，有和無相互矛盾，鈍根和利根相互矛盾，漸悟和頓悟相互矛盾，定性和不定性相互矛盾？難道一個人可以普遍具備成熟的條件嗎？而且，彌勒菩薩、無著菩薩等大師，如果他們不理解經文，怎麼會引用這些教義來證明五性的差別呢？《善戒經》說，『說共住令轉者』，是根據不定性的人說的，而不是定性的人。《楞伽經》在不定乘中說，有對大乘感興趣的，對小乘就沒興趣。《大般若經》也是同樣的說法。又有人說，《瑜伽師地論》只說無始以來有無有種性，沒有說『法爾』和『本性住』，所以不能作為定性的證據。不是這樣的，這裡所說的『無始』就是『法爾』和『本性住』。為什麼這樣說呢？《佛性論》說，『無初者，性得大悲等』，『無初』就是『無始性得』，也就是『法爾』等等。而且，接下來引用種子有四種，第一種是本性住，怎麼能說沒有說本性住就不能作為定性的證據呢？又有人說，《瑜伽師地論》說，種子有四種，第一種是本性住，第二種是先習起，第三種是可以修治的，指具有涅槃法，第四種是不可修
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the statement that 'being-entity' (有體) generates 'non-being-entity' (無體), if it is said that 'Permitting True Suchness' (許真如) personally produces emergence into the world, then it should be said that 'two being-entities' generate 'being-entity'. Why is only 'one' mentioned? This commits the fault of four contradictions in advancement and retreat. If it is said that 'defiled' (有漏, with afflictions) generates 'undefiled' (無漏, without afflictions), it also contradicts the statement in the fifty-two bodhisattva stages that the self-characteristic seed of coarse afflictions does not arise. There are even more faults, as previously analyzed. The remaining meanings can be understood by analogy.
Misunderstanding the Dharma by Generalizing - Mistake Six Some argue, citing scriptures, that all sentient beings have various realms (界, categories, boundaries) from beginningless time, thereby proving that 'naturally so' (法爾) possesses five natures, etc. This is unreasonable. What they are saying is that each individual sentient being has various realms, like a seven-leaf tree, not that all sentient beings each have multiple differences. The 'naturally so' here refers to inherent nature, not the various realms that can be understood by the power of nature. This is unreasonable. If it is admitted that each individual being has various realms, and each realm is similar, like a seven-leaf tree, would each individual being then achieve the fruits of the Three Vehicles (聲聞乘, Śrāvakayāna; 緣覺乘, Pratyekabuddhayāna; 菩薩乘, Bodhisattvayāna) and the twenty-seven sages, possessing much greed for food, having nature, not having nature, etc.? If so, how can it be said that having the Śrāvaka nature allows one to attain the Śrāvaka path, etc., that those with much greed should practice the contemplation of impurity, etc., that there are differences between sharp and dull faculties, etc., that there are contradictions between having and not having, contradictions between dull and sharp, contradictions between gradual and sudden, and contradictions between fixed and unfixed? Can one person universally possess the conditions for maturity? Moreover, if Maitreya Bodhisattva (彌勒菩薩), Asaṅga (無著) and other masters did not understand the scriptures, how could they cite these teachings to prove the differences in the five natures? The Śīlācāra Sūtra says, 'Those who speak of dwelling together to transform' are referring to those with unfixed nature, not those with fixed nature. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says in the context of the unfixed vehicle that those interested in the Great Vehicle (大乘, Mahāyāna) are not interested in the Small Vehicle. The Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says the same. Furthermore, some say that the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra only says that from beginningless time there are seeds that are existent and non-existent, without mentioning 'naturally so' and 'abiding in inherent nature', so it cannot be taken as definitive proof. This is not the case. The 'beginningless' here is precisely 'naturally so' and 'abiding in inherent nature'. How is this known? The Buddha-nature Treatise says, 'Without beginning, inherently possessing great compassion, etc.' 'Without beginning' is 'inherently possessing from beginningless time', which is 'naturally so', etc. Moreover, it goes on to cite that there are four types of seeds, the first being abiding in inherent nature. How can it be said that not mentioning abiding in inherent nature means it cannot be taken as definitive proof? Furthermore, some say that the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that there are four types of seeds, the first being abiding in inherent nature, the second being arising from prior habits, the third being capable of cultivation, referring to those who possess the Dharma of Nirvana, and the fourth being incapable of cultivation.
治。謂無涅槃法。約先習種分其五性者。此亦不爾。既立本性住。二先習起。若云約先習種分其五性。只有三種。何得言四。既總先習。何言本性。又違聲聞地二十一說。並如前引。又云。瑜伽云。若般涅槃法者一切種子皆悉具足者。是具足四種。名為一切無涅槃法者。便闕三乘種者。唯有本性住。先習種子不可修治種子。闕可修治種子。名不具足者。此亦不爾。對有無別立后二種。二種相違。云何得云有四種者名為具足。復許有本性住先習種子即可修治。不爾。先習於何云不可治。又云。但由新習熟人不同。不言本性住種有無不同。及不云法爾。若云有教請示其文者。雖前數明。今更略引。即彼自引。種子有四。一本性。如何云不言本性住種。又聲聞地初種性自性種性安立。但云從無始世展轉傳來法爾所得。同善戒經言本性者。陰界六入次第相續。無始無終。法性自爾。法性自爾即法爾也。聲聞菩薩種性之中。俱云無始法爾所得。何獨不信聲聞地文。云爲小說。又梁攝論出世間凈章。初二乘正見以聞他音及自思惟為增上緣方始得生。故三乘性無始本有。佛地論云。由法爾故。無始時來一切有情有五種性。又準瑜伽及顯揚論。成立性。皆據本性。既見教文。應信順受。若唯新熏五性差別現能熏因無種何起。若無種生。
違四卷楞伽。第一云。大慧若復說無種。有種識三緣合生者。龜應生毛。沙應出油若從因生還本性別。
漏生無漏謬七
有義。攝大乘論云。如是已說入所知相。入所知相云何應知。乃至謂于大乘而起多聞聞法義已熏心心所法。相續所依。其小聞者無容得入此現觀故。準此論文。多聞熏習。同涅槃經緣因。如乳為酪正因。暖等為因。即本識為正因。彼說非理。此解初因。前後自違。何者。此云多聞熏習為緣因。本識為正因。下云。以無漏教生聞熏習。漸生無漏。非有漏中有無漏性。又云。故知阿賴耶識得與有漏作親因緣。聞熏習種亦與無漏為親因緣。前云是緣。今云親因。一相違也。又云。同瑜伽論正智從聽聞法生。此說緣因。非本性。前云聞熏習是親因。今緣說為緣因。非是本性。二相違也。準上經文。地如理心藥草種子如聞熏習起三乘法。乃至云。如世間地能生一切。要待種子為親因。方能生長。本性亦爾。待聞熏習以為因緣。聖道方生。初以地喻理心。熏習喻種子此地為緣因。種子正因。前云熏習同瑜伽說為緣因。非是本性。三相違也。又云。如地雖能生一切。要待種子以為親因。方能生長。本性亦爾。待聞熏習以為因緣。聖道方生。更以本性喻如大地不親生物。要待種子。種子為親因。本性為緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《楞伽經》第四卷說：『大慧（Mahamati，菩薩名），如果說沒有種子，而有種子識（seed consciousness）通過三種因緣和合而生，那麼烏龜應該長毛，沙子應該出油。如果從因產生，還會回到原來的本性。』
謬論七：有漏法產生無漏法
有一種觀點，《攝大乘論》說：『像這樣已經說了進入所知相（aspect of knowable）。進入所知相應該如何理解？』乃至說對於大乘佛法，要廣泛聽聞，聽聞佛法的意義后熏習心和心所法（mental factors），作為相續的所依。那些聽聞很少的人無法進入這種現觀（direct perception）。』根據這段論文，多聞熏習（hearing and learning）如同《涅槃經》中的緣因（indirect cause）。如同牛奶變為奶酪，牛奶是正因（direct cause），溫暖等是緣因。也就是說，本識（fundamental consciousness）是正因。他們的說法不合理。這種解釋最初的因，前後自相矛盾。為什麼呢？這裡說多聞熏習是緣因，本識是正因。下面又說：『用無漏的教法產生聽聞熏習，逐漸產生無漏法，不是有漏法中具有無漏的本性。』又說：『所以知道阿賴耶識（storehouse consciousness）可以與有漏法作為親因緣（proximate cause），聽聞熏習的種子也可以與無漏法作為親因緣。』前面說是緣因，現在說是親因，這是第一處矛盾。又說：『如同《瑜伽師地論》所說，正智（right knowledge）從聽聞佛法產生。』這說的是緣因，不是本性。前面說聽聞熏習是親因，現在又說是緣因，不是本性，這是第二處矛盾。根據上面的經文，地、如理作意（reasoning）、藥草種子如同聽聞熏習，產生三乘法（three vehicles）。乃至說：『如同世間的地能生長一切，但要等待種子作為親因，才能生長。本性也是這樣，要等待聽聞熏習作為因緣，聖道才能產生。』最初用土地比喻理心，熏習比喻種子，這土地是緣因，種子是正因。前面說熏習如同《瑜伽師地論》所說是緣因，不是本性，這是第三處矛盾。又說：『如同土地雖然能生長一切，但要等待種子作為親因，才能生長。本性也是這樣，要等待聽聞熏習作為因緣，聖道才能產生。』又用本性比喻大地，大地不親自產生事物，要等待種子，種子是親因，本性是緣因。
【English Translation】 English version: The fourth volume of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states: 'Mahamati (name of a Bodhisattva), if it is said that there is no seed, and that seed consciousness (vijnana) arises from the combination of three conditions, then turtles should grow hair, and sand should produce oil. If it arises from a cause, it will return to its original nature.'
Error 7: Defiled (leaking) dharmas produce undefiled (non-leaking) dharmas
One view, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Thus, the aspect of the knowable has been explained. How should the aspect of the knowable be understood?' It goes on to say that regarding the Mahayana Dharma, one should listen widely, and after hearing the meaning of the Dharma, cultivate the mind and mental factors, as the basis of continuity. Those who hear little cannot enter this direct perception. According to this text, extensive hearing and learning are like the indirect cause (condition) in the Nirvana Sutra. Just as milk becomes cheese, milk is the direct cause, and warmth etc. are the indirect causes. That is to say, the fundamental consciousness (alaya-vijnana) is the direct cause. Their statement is unreasonable. This explanation of the initial cause contradicts itself from beginning to end. Why? Here it says that extensive hearing and learning is the indirect cause, and the fundamental consciousness is the direct cause. Below it says: 'Using undefiled teachings to generate the cultivation of hearing and learning, gradually undefiled dharmas are produced, it is not that defiled dharmas possess an undefiled nature.' It also says: 'Therefore, it is known that the alaya-vijnana can be a proximate cause for defiled dharmas, and the seeds of hearing and learning can also be a proximate cause for undefiled dharmas.' Earlier it was said to be an indirect cause, now it is said to be a proximate cause, this is the first contradiction. It also says: 'As the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says, right knowledge arises from hearing the Dharma.' This speaks of an indirect cause, not the inherent nature. Earlier it was said that the cultivation of hearing and learning is a proximate cause, now it is said to be an indirect cause, not the inherent nature, this is the second contradiction. According to the above sutra text, the earth, reasoning, medicinal herb seeds are like the cultivation of hearing and learning, producing the three vehicles. It goes on to say: 'Just as the earth in the world can grow everything, but it must wait for the seed to be the proximate cause in order to grow. The inherent nature is also like this, it must wait for the cultivation of hearing and learning as a condition, then the holy path can arise.' Initially, the earth is used to illustrate the mind of reason, and cultivation is used to illustrate the seed, this earth is an indirect cause, and the seed is a direct cause. Earlier it was said that cultivation is like the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra saying it is an indirect cause, not the inherent nature, this is the third contradiction. It also says: 'Just as the earth, although it can grow everything, must wait for the seed to be the proximate cause in order to grow. The inherent nature is also like this, it must wait for the cultivation of hearing and learning as a condition, then the holy path can arise.' Again, the inherent nature is compared to the great earth, the great earth does not personally produce things, it must wait for the seed, the seed is the proximate cause, and the inherent nature is the indirect cause.
因。前云熏習。同涅槃緣因正因即佛性。今復說本性。如地翻作緣因。四相違也。又云。如地生草木。或疏緣亦作親因。此說違涅槃經。二十六云。種子等是生因。地水糞等名了因。今者說地亦作親因。五相違也。又梁攝論。從他聞音。如理思惟。望于正見。是增上緣。今說聞熏為親因緣。六相違也。攝論又云。此世間心未曾與彼出世間心俱生。識非彼所熏為彼種子。不應道理。今說為種。七相違也。又聲聞地及菩薩地及莊嚴論顯揚論等說本有種。今說唯新。八相違也。又唯新熏。成唯識論不正師義有舊新種。是其正義。決邪乖正。九相違也。又云。瑜伽論說。地獄三無漏根。從當果說。現無種子者。不爾。五十七云。三根行定不成。種子或成不成。謂般涅槃法者成熟。不般涅槃法者不成熟故。又現在存種。當果可生。現在無因。當果如何起。又後有部雖三世有。法至生相方始說得。大乘但有現在。無種說何當成。若準瑜伽五十一。解得獲成就中。初破他云。若得是諸行生因者。若從先來未得此法。此既無有生因之得。應常不生。由此亦應畢竟不得。今若現無種生因。當果當不生。應畢竟不得。豈得難他無得不生。自許無種說當果起。名為成熟。乖瑜伽之正文。十相違也。又例云酪雖不生乳。乳中無酪。為酪因。聖雖
不從凡。凡無聖種。令聖起者。今且為作相違決定例云。煙不為因。還起本煙。起非無自種。因聖不從凡。因凡生聖。雖凡生有自種。次為答云。外或無熏習。酪不熏乳。乳生酪。內法必熏生。非無漏熏無無漏。亦不可云法爾之種由新熏生。法爾道理因緣道理皆許得立。若由熏生。即因緣道理。非法爾道理。若云初無漏無因類者。何故攝大乘論云。又出世心雖未生說出世心。雖未生時。已能對治諸煩惱纏者。此同類因展轉相續。剎那勢力能為對治。外法非親因。不可例同外。若外必同內外。應具四緣等。又云。見道已前有漏生有漏。此是有漏之因生於有漏。非是以因有漏故果亦有漏。從其漏生無漏時。此是無漏之因生於無漏者。令為比量相違例云。見道已前因有漏。不許因有漏無漏生。世第一法是世間世因非生出世種。又無漏有因無漏起。無漏之因無漏名無漏。名無漏無因果不生有漏。誰之無漏種。又云。唯信外道無生有。不信涅槃轉無明為明。有漏生無漏者。亦不爾。楞伽不許無生有。何同外道有因無無明即轉變因。豈不同於雨眾說。又云。論云。唯初無漏五蘊剎那等。乃至若謂大乘無剎那者。出何經論者。前引攝論有同類因。瑜伽論本無漏種。又楞伽第四云。無漏無剎那。寧非明說。如觀渧瀝不睹玉泉。若視秋毫
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不從凡夫生起聖人。（凡：指凡夫，聖種：成聖的種子）凡夫沒有成聖的種子。如果說能讓聖人從凡夫中生起，現在就舉一個相反的例子來確定：煙不是（產生）煙的原因，卻能生起原本的煙。生起的事物不是沒有它自身的種子。（因此）聖人不是從凡夫中產生，而是凡夫能生出聖人的種子，即使凡夫的產生有它自身的種子。 接下來回答說：外道或許沒有熏習。（熏習：指通過修行或學習而產生的習慣或影響）就像奶酪不能薰染牛奶，牛奶卻能產生奶酪。但內在的佛法必定是通過熏習而產生，沒有無漏法（無漏：指沒有煩惱的清凈法）熏習而產生無漏法的道理。也不能說本有的種子是由新的熏習產生。本有的道理和因緣的道理都是可以成立的。如果是通過熏習產生，那就是因緣的道理，而不是本有的道理。如果說最初的無漏法沒有同類的因，那麼為什麼《攝大乘論》（She Dasheng Lun）中說：『又出世之心雖然還沒有生起，但可以說它已經是出世之心了。即使還沒有生起，已經能夠對治各種煩惱纏縛。』這是同類的因輾轉相續，剎那的勢力能夠作為對治。外道不是親因，不能和內外（佛法）相提並論。如果外道一定要和內外（佛法）相同，就應該具備四緣等。 又說：『見道（見道：指證悟真理的最初階段）之前，有漏（有漏：指有煩惱的世間法）生有漏。』這是有漏的因產生有漏的果。不是因為因是有漏的，所以果也是有漏的。從有漏生無漏的時候，這是無漏的因產生無漏的果。用一個比量（比量：佛教邏輯中的一種推理方式）來反駁：見道之前，因是有漏的，不允許有漏的因產生無漏的果。世第一法（世第一法：指世間最高的善法）是世間的因，不能生出世間的種子。又有無漏的因產生無漏的果，無漏的因被稱為無漏，如果無漏沒有因，果就不會從有漏中產生。誰的無漏種子會這樣呢？ 又說：『只有相信外道才會有無生有（無生有：指無中生有），不相信涅槃（涅槃：指解脫生死輪迴的境界）能將無明轉變為光明。』有漏生無漏的情況也不是這樣。《楞伽經》（Lenga Jing）不允許無生有，怎麼能和外道一樣，有因卻沒有無明，而是轉變為因呢？這豈不像雨眾說紛紜？ 又說：論中說：『只有最初的無漏五蘊剎那等。』乃至如果說大乘沒有剎那，出自哪部經論？前面引用的《攝大乘論》有同類的因。《瑜伽師地論》（Yujia Shidi Lun）的根本中有無漏的種子。而且《楞伽經》第四卷說：『無漏沒有剎那。』難道不是明確說明了嗎？就像觀察一滴水，卻看不到玉泉一樣。如果只看秋毫（秋毫：指秋天鳥獸新生的細毛，比喻極細微的事物）。
【English Translation】 English version The holy does not arise from the mundane. (Mundane: refers to ordinary beings, Holy seed: the seed of becoming a saint) The mundane does not have the seed of holiness. If it is said that a saint can arise from the mundane, let's now make a contradictory determination with an example: smoke is not the cause of (producing) smoke, but it can give rise to the original smoke. What arises is not without its own seed. (Therefore) the holy does not arise from the mundane, but the mundane can give rise to the seed of the holy, even if the arising of the mundane has its own seed. Next, the answer is: external paths may not have熏習 (xunxi) (Xunxi: refers to habits or influences produced through practice or learning). Just as cheese cannot薰染 (xunran) milk, but milk can produce cheese. But the inner Dharma must be produced through熏習 (xunxi), there is no principle of no-outflow (no-outflow: refers to pure Dharma without afflictions)熏習 (xunxi) producing no-outflow Dharma. Nor can it be said that the inherent seed is produced by new熏習 (xunxi). The inherent principle and the principle of cause and condition can both be established. If it is produced through熏習 (xunxi), then it is the principle of cause and condition, not the inherent principle. If it is said that the initial no-outflow Dharma has no similar cause, then why does the She Dasheng Lun say: 'Also, although the mind of transcending the world has not yet arisen, it can be said that it is already the mind of transcending the world. Even if it has not yet arisen, it is already able to counteract various afflictions and entanglements.' This is the continuous succession of similar causes, and the power of a moment can serve as a countermeasure. External paths are not the direct cause, and cannot be compared with internal and external (Buddha Dharma). If external paths must be the same as internal and external (Buddha Dharma), they should have the four conditions, etc. It is also said: 'Before the path of seeing (path of seeing: refers to the initial stage of realizing the truth), outflow (outflow: refers to worldly Dharma with afflictions) produces outflow.' This is the cause of outflow producing the effect of outflow. It is not because the cause is outflow that the effect is also outflow. When outflow produces no-outflow, this is the cause of no-outflow producing the effect of no-outflow. Use a pramana (pramana: a method of reasoning in Buddhist logic) to refute: before the path of seeing, the cause is outflow, it is not allowed for the cause of outflow to produce the effect of no-outflow. The highest worldly Dharma (highest worldly Dharma: refers to the highest good Dharma in the world) is the cause of the world, and cannot produce the seed of transcending the world. There is also the cause of no-outflow producing the effect of no-outflow, the cause of no-outflow is called no-outflow, if no-outflow has no cause, the effect will not be produced from outflow. Whose no-outflow seed would be like this? It is also said: 'Only those who believe in external paths will have something arising from nothing (something arising from nothing: refers to something arising from nothing), and do not believe that Nirvana (Nirvana: refers to the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death) can transform ignorance into light.' The situation of outflow producing no-outflow is also not like this. The Lenga Jing does not allow something arising from nothing, how can it be the same as external paths, having a cause but no ignorance, but transforming into a cause? Isn't this like the various opinions about rain? It is also said: The treatise says: 'Only the initial no-outflow five aggregates, etc.' Even if it is said that Mahayana does not have a moment, from which sutra or treatise does it come? The She Dasheng Lun quoted earlier has a similar cause. The root of the Yujia Shidi Lun has the seed of no-outflow. Moreover, the fourth volume of the Lenga Jing says: 'No-outflow has no moment.' Isn't it clearly stated? It's like observing a drop of water, but not seeing the jade spring. If you only look at the autumn down (autumn down: refers to the fine hair of newly born birds and animals in autumn, a metaphor for extremely subtle things).
莫見嵩岱。
能顯中邊慧日論第二 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1863 能顯中邊慧日論
能顯中邊慧日論第三
淄州大云寺沙門慧沼撰
說教前後謬八
有義。前經漸教唯說四住為三有因。后經顯了通說五住為生死本。四住不斷故受分段身。無明住在故得變易體。由斷佛說前後不同。論釋佛經不違時教。如深密已前說為前教。法華會後即為后教。不了唯說不定迴心趣寂猶存實滅。不捨三界之身。不別說受變易死。但說留行留分段身。即解深密經瑜伽論等是。法華后經定不定性皆悉迴心無二乘實滅。舍三界身則受變易。非是三界。楞伽勝鬘無上依經佛性論等是。此說不爾。所以者何。法華四十年後經有明文。楞伽等經並非已前出何聖教。且無上依經非法華后。何以得知。阇王未流國位。可有頻婆娑羅。法華經內已列阇王。列王如何無上依經猶說頻婆在會。何者。無上依經列眾中雲。頻婆娑羅以為上首。以此準知非法華后。又勝鬘經亦非四十年後。何以得知。經云。波斯匿王及末利夫人信法未久。仁王般若經內云。初年月八日即三十年初。何以得知。準經月光經云。如來已為我等。二十九年說摩訶般若。故知至說仁王經時。月光信佛已久。勝鬘經云。信佛未久。明在仁王般若已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 莫見嵩岱（人名，具體含義不詳）。
《能顯中邊慧日論》第二 大正藏第45冊 No. 1863 《能顯中邊慧日論》
《能顯中邊慧日論》第三
淄州大云寺沙門慧沼撰
說教前後謬誤之八
有一種觀點認為，之前的經典（漸教）只說四住地（四種煩惱的住處）是三有（欲有、色有、無色有）的原因。之後的經典（顯了教）則普遍認為五住地（五種煩惱的住處）是生死的根本。四住地沒有斷除，所以會承受分段生死之身。無明住地存在，所以會得到變易生死之體。因此認為佛所說的前後不同。《論》解釋佛經，認為不違背時教。例如《深密經》之前所說是前教，《法華經》之後就是后教。不瞭解這一點，就只說不定性眾生迴心趣向寂滅，仍然存在真實的滅度，不捨棄三界之身，不特別說承受變易生死，只說留下行跡，留下分段生死之身。這就是《解深密經》、《瑜伽師地論》等所說的。而《法華經》之後的經典，認為定性與不定性眾生都回心，沒有二乘的真實滅度，捨棄三界之身，就會承受變易生死，不是三界之身。《楞伽經》、《勝鬘經》、《無上依經》、《佛性論》等就是這樣說的。這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？《法華經》是四十年後的經典，有明確的文字記載。《楞伽經》等經典並非在此之前出現，又是什麼聖教呢？而且《無上依經》並非在《法華經》之後。怎麼知道呢？阿阇世王（Ajatasattu）還沒有繼承王位的時候，頻婆娑羅王（Bimbisara）還在世。《法華經》中已經列出了阿阇世王。列出了阿阇世王，為什麼《無上依經》還說頻婆娑羅王在法會中呢？因為《無上依經》列出的聽眾中說，以頻婆娑羅王為首。由此可以推斷，《無上依經》並非在《法華經》之後。另外，《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）也不是四十年後的經典。怎麼知道呢？經中說，波斯匿王（Prasenajit）和末利夫人（Mallika）信仰佛法的時間不長。《仁王般若經》中說，正月初八日就是三十年的開始。怎麼知道呢？根據《月光經》說，如來已經為我們說了二十九年的《摩訶般若》。所以知道到說《仁王經》的時候，月光（Candraprabha）信仰佛法已經很久了。《勝鬘經》說信仰佛法的時間不長，說明在《仁王般若經》之前。
【English Translation】 English version Do not see Songdai (a personal name, specific meaning unknown).
Treatise on the Wisdom-Sun That Manifests the Middle and the Extremes, Volume 2 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 45, No. 1863, Treatise on the Wisdom-Sun That Manifests the Middle and the Extremes
Treatise on the Wisdom-Sun That Manifests the Middle and the Extremes, Volume 3
Composed by Śramaṇa Huizhao of Dayun Temple in Zizhou
Eight Errors Regarding the Order of Teachings
Some argue that the earlier sutras (gradual teachings) only state that the Four Abodes (four places where afflictions reside) are the cause of the Three Realms of Existence (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). Later sutras (explicit teachings) universally state that the Five Abodes (five places where afflictions reside) are the root of birth and death. Because the Four Abodes are not severed, one receives a body subject to segmented birth and death. Because ignorance abides, one obtains a body subject to transformation birth and death. Therefore, they believe that what the Buddha said differs before and after. The 'Treatise' explains that the sutras do not contradict the teachings of the time. For example, what was said before the 'Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra' is considered the earlier teaching, and what came after the 'Lotus Sūtra' is the later teaching. Not understanding this, they only say that those of uncertain nature turn their minds towards quiescence, still possessing real extinction, not abandoning the bodies of the Three Realms, and not specifically mentioning undergoing transformation birth and death, only saying that they leave behind traces, leaving behind bodies subject to segmented birth and death. This is what the 'Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra', 'Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra', etc., say. However, the sutras after the 'Lotus Sūtra' consider that both those of definite and indefinite nature all turn their minds, and there is no real extinction for the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), abandoning the bodies of the Three Realms, and then undergoing transformation birth and death, not being bodies of the Three Realms. The 'Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra', 'Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra', 'Anuttarāśraya Sūtra', 'Buddha-nature Treatise', etc., say this. This statement is incorrect. Why? The 'Lotus Sūtra' is a sutra from forty years later, with clear textual evidence. The 'Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra' and other sutras did not appear before this; what kind of sacred teaching are they? Moreover, the 'Anuttarāśraya Sūtra' is not after the 'Lotus Sūtra'. How do we know? When King Ajatasattu (Ajātaśatru) had not yet inherited the throne, King Bimbisara (Bimbisāra) was still alive. The 'Lotus Sūtra' already lists King Ajatasattu. Having listed King Ajatasattu, why does the 'Anuttarāśraya Sūtra' still say that Bimbisara is present at the assembly? Because the 'Anuttarāśraya Sūtra' lists the audience, saying that King Bimbisara is at the head. From this, we can infer that the 'Anuttarāśraya Sūtra' is not after the 'Lotus Sūtra'. Furthermore, the 'Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra' is also not a sutra from forty years later. How do we know? The sutra says that King Prasenajit (Prasenajit) and Queen Mallika (Mallikā) have not believed in the Dharma for long. The 'Benevolent Kings Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra' says that the eighth day of the first month is the beginning of the thirtieth year. How do we know? According to the 'Moonlight Sutra', the Tathāgata has already spoken the 'Mahāprajñāpāramitā' for twenty-nine years for us. Therefore, we know that by the time the 'Benevolent Kings Sūtra' was spoken, Candraprabha (Candraprabha) had believed in the Dharma for a long time. The 'Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra' says that they have not believed in the Dharma for long, indicating that it is before the 'Benevolent Kings Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra'.
前。不爾。已二十九年聞經。如何勝鬘經中言信佛未久。準此即知非法華后。又入楞伽經準三藏菩提流支云。又依結集。初年說大集寶幢陀羅尼及楞伽海龍王。九年說鴦掘摩羅。十年說如來藏。又云。華嚴涅槃般舟鴦掘摩羅如來藏等皆自說年月。準此。楞伽非四十年後。雖下持云我于象腋涅槃大云等經已令斷肉。楞伽未必在涅槃經后。何以故。準文自說。龍宮七日始入楞伽方說斯教。豈說涅槃雙林滅已更住龍宮等耶。所指涅槃經未必即是大涅槃。若云見聞有異。何妨不是說涅槃后。若爾。何妨見聞異。準結集說即在初年。又云。大般若在法華前者。準流支說。五年即說大般若經。準智論文。乃在法華后說。何以得知。準彼畢定品中。問一切菩薩皆畢定不。論釋云。何問此。見法華中。童子聚沙皆成佛道。及明二乘作佛。故作斯問。準此。大品乃在法華后說。憑何定判是四十年前。又佛性論及寶性論不是唯釋法華后經。兩論不引涅槃法華。多依無上依楞伽深密如來藏及勝鬘經說。準問定經二論。及釋法華前教。彼定前後。既並憑虛。依彼標章。復有多過。其過者何。且云。前經雖說二乘實入涅槃。后經釋云。如化城羊鹿。楞伽經聲聞種性墮變易死。二乘無滅。非唯不定性者。不爾。楞伽說墮變易能趣大者。是不定性。何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 前。不然。已經聽經二十九年了。為何《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）中說相信佛法不久？依照這個推斷，就知道它不在《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）之後。又根據菩提流支（Bodhiruci）三藏所譯的《入楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）記載，依據結集，佛陀在初年說了《大集經》（Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra）、《寶幢陀羅尼經》（Ratnaketu Dhāraṇī Sūtra）以及《楞伽海龍王經》。第九年說了《鴦掘摩羅經》（Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra）。第十年說了《如來藏經》（Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra）。又說，《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）、《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）、《般舟三昧經》（Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra）、《鴦掘摩羅經》、《如來藏經》等都自己說明了年月。依照這個推斷，《楞伽經》並非在佛陀入滅四十年之後。即使下持說『我在《象腋經》、《涅槃大云經》等經中已經讓人斷肉』，《楞伽經》也未必在《涅槃經》之後。為什麼呢？依照經文自己所說，龍宮七日才開始進入楞伽山，才說這個教法。難道說佛陀在雙林入滅之後，又住在龍宮等地嗎？所指的《涅槃經》未必就是《大涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra）。如果說見聞有所不同，為何不能是在說《涅槃經》之後呢？如果這樣，為何見聞不同呢？依照結集所說，就在初年。又說，《大般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）在《法華經》之前，依照流支的說法，五年就說了《大般若經》。依照智者大師的論文，乃是在《法華經》之後說的。如何得知呢？依照其中《畢定品》中，問一切菩薩是否都必定成佛？論文解釋說：『為何問這個問題？見到《法華經》中，童子聚沙都能成佛，以及說明二乘也能成佛，所以才這樣問。』依照這個推斷，《大品般若經》乃是在《法華經》之後說的。憑什麼斷定是在四十年之前？又《佛性論》（Buddhatā-prakaraṇa）以及《寶性論》（Ratnagotravibhāga）不是隻解釋《法華經》之後的經典。這兩部論典不引用《涅槃經》、《法華經》，多依據《無上依經》（Anuttarāśraya Sūtra）、《楞伽經》、《深密解脫經》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）、《如來藏經》以及《勝鬘經》來說明。依照問定經、兩部論典，以及解釋《法華經》之前的教法，他們所判定的前後，既然都是憑空臆測，依照他們所標榜的章節，又有很多過失。這些過失是什麼呢？且說，之前的經典雖然說二乘實際進入涅槃，之後的經典解釋說，如同化城羊鹿。《楞伽經》說聲聞種性墮入變易生死，二乘沒有滅盡，並非只有不定性的人。不然，《楞伽經》說墮入變易生死能夠趨向大乘的人，是不定性的人嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: Before. If not, having heard the scriptures for twenty-nine years already, how can the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra say that one's faith in the Buddha is not long-standing? According to this, it is known that it is not after the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra. Furthermore, according to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra translated by the Tripiṭaka master Bodhiruci, based on the compilation, the Buddha preached the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra, the Ratnaketu Dhāraṇī Sūtra, and the Laṅkā Sea Dragon King Sūtra in the first year. In the ninth year, he preached the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra. In the tenth year, he preached the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra. It is also said that the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra, the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, etc., all state their own years. According to this, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra is not after the fortieth year after the Buddha's passing. Even if Xia Chi says, 'I have already ordered the cessation of meat-eating in scriptures such as the Elephant Axle Nirvāṇa Great Cloud Sūtra,' the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra is not necessarily after the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Why? According to the text itself, it was only after seven days in the Dragon Palace that one entered Laṅkā and preached this teaching. Could it be that after the Buddha's passing in the twin Sala trees, he resided in the Dragon Palace, etc.? The Nirvāṇa Sūtra referred to is not necessarily the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. If it is said that there are differences in what is seen and heard, why can't it be after the preaching of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra? If so, why are there differences in what is seen and heard? According to the compilation, it was in the first year. It is also said that the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra is before the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra. According to Bodhiruci, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra was preached in the fifth year. According to Zhiyi's commentary, it was preached after the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra. How is this known? According to the chapter on 'Definite Attainment,' it asks whether all Bodhisattvas are certain to attain Buddhahood. The commentary explains, 'Why ask this? Seeing in the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra that children building sandcastles all attain the Buddha Way, and clarifying that the two vehicles also attain Buddhahood, hence this question is asked.' According to this, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra was preached after the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra. On what basis is it determined to be before the fortieth year? Furthermore, the Buddhatā-prakaraṇa and the Ratnagotravibhāga do not only explain the scriptures after the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra. These two treatises do not cite the Nirvāṇa Sūtra or the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra, but rely more on the Anuttarāśraya Sūtra, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, and the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra for explanation. According to the question-and-answer scriptures, the two treatises, and the explanation of the teachings before the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra, their determination of before and after is based on conjecture. According to their proclaimed chapters, there are many faults. What are these faults? It is said that while the previous scriptures state that the two vehicles actually enter Nirvāṇa, the later scriptures explain it as being like a phantom city, sheep, or deer. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states that the Śrāvaka nature falls into the death of transformation, and the two vehicles are not extinguished, not only those of uncertain nature. If not, does the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra say that those who fall into the death of transformation and can approach the Great Vehicle are those of uncertain nature?
以得知。準第七云。大慧菩薩白佛言。世尊世尊說聲聞辟支佛入第八菩薩地寂滅樂門。乃至云。尚未能證初地之法。何況八地寂滅樂門。佛告大慧。聲聞有三種。言入八地寂滅樂門者。此是先修菩薩行者。墮聲聞地。還依本心修菩薩行。同入八地寂滅樂門。非增上慢寂滅聲聞。以彼不能入菩薩行。未曾覺知三界唯心。未曾修行菩薩諸法。未曾修行諸波羅蜜十地之行。是故決定寂滅聲聞不能證彼菩薩所行寂滅樂門。又頌云。決定諸聲聞不行菩薩行。同入八地者。是本菩薩故。準此。即是五乘之中不定乘也。法華瑜伽意皆同也。又第八云。如何佛世尊與諸大阿羅漢記等。佛答云。大慧我為曾行菩薩行。諸聲聞等依無餘涅槃即與授記。大慧我與聲聞授記。為怯弱眾生生勇猛心。大慧此世界中及余佛國。有諸眾生行菩薩行。而復樂於聲聞乘法。佛為轉彼。取大菩提。頌云。三乘及非乘。諸佛無量乘。一切記佛地。說諸煩惱斷。內身證聖智。及無餘涅槃。進怯弱眾生。是故隱覆說。準此。正同解深密說三意生身。初地已上決定趣寂。既不證菩薩所行寂滅樂門。明彼不能得意生身。而不能知故為過也。又云。不空罥索經及僧伽經說。凈居天皆發趣大。判作法華后教。未知憑何得知。有教即合。明言無證。如何抑判。又云。唯識兩師
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 可以得知。《準第七》中說，大慧菩薩（Mahamati Bodhisattva）對佛說：『世尊，世尊您說聲聞（Śrāvaka）、辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha）進入第八菩薩地（Bhūmi）的寂滅樂門（Samatha-sukha-dvāra）。』乃至說，『尚未能證得初地（Prathamā Bhūmi）的法，何況是八地的寂滅樂門。』佛告訴大慧：『聲聞有三種。所說進入八地寂滅樂門的人，是先前修行菩薩行（Bodhisattva-caryā），後來墮入聲聞地（Śrāvakabhūmi），又依循本來的心修行菩薩行，一同進入八地寂滅樂門。不是增上慢（Adhimāna）的寂滅聲聞，因為他們不能進入菩薩行，未曾覺知三界唯心（citta-mātra），未曾修行菩薩的各種法門，未曾修行諸波羅蜜（Pāramitā）和十地（Daśa-bhūmi）的修行。』因此，決定寂滅的聲聞不能證得菩薩所行的寂滅樂門。又有頌說：『決定性的諸聲聞不修行菩薩行，一同進入八地的人，是原本就是菩薩的緣故。』依據此理，這就是五乘（Pañca-yāna）之中的不定乘（Aniyata-yāna）啊。法華經（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）和瑜伽師地論（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）的意旨都相同。又，《第八》中說：『為何佛世尊（Buddha Bhagavan）與諸大阿羅漢（Arhat）授記（Vyākaraṇa）等同？』佛回答說：『大慧，我為曾經修行菩薩行，諸聲聞等依據無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa）即給予授記。大慧，我給聲聞授記，是爲了使怯弱的眾生生起勇猛心。大慧，此世界中以及其他佛國（Buddha-kṣetra），有諸眾生修行菩薩行，卻又樂於聲聞乘法，佛爲了轉變他們，而取大菩提（Mahābodhi）。』頌說：『三乘以及非乘，諸佛有無量乘，一切都授記成佛地（Buddha-bhūmi），宣說諸煩惱斷盡，內身證得聖智（ārya-jñāna），以及無餘涅槃，爲了引導怯弱的眾生，所以隱覆地宣說。』依據此理，正同於解深密經（Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra）所說的三意生身（Manomayakāya）。初地以上決定趣向寂滅，既然不證得菩薩所行的寂滅樂門，表明他們不能得到意生身，而不能知曉是他們的過失。又說，《不空罥索經》（Amoghapāśa Sūtra）和《僧伽經》（Saṃgha Sūtra）說，凈居天（Śuddhāvāsa）都發心趣向大乘，判為法華經的后教，不知憑藉什麼得知。有教法就應當明白說明證據，沒有證據，如何強行判決。又說，唯識（Vijñānavāda）兩師
【English Translation】 English version: It can be known. In the seventh section of Zhun Qi, Mahamati Bodhisattva said to the Buddha: 'World Honored One, you have said that Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas enter the Samatha-sukha-dvāra of the eighth Bodhisattva Bhūmi,' and further stated, 'They have not yet attained the Dharma of the first Bhūmi, let alone the Samatha-sukha-dvāra of the eighth Bhūmi.' The Buddha told Mahamati, 'There are three types of Śrāvakas. Those who are said to enter the Samatha-sukha-dvāra of the eighth Bhūmi are those who initially practiced the Bodhisattva-caryā, then fell into the Śrāvakabhūmi, and then, according to their original intention, practiced the Bodhisattva-caryā again, entering the Samatha-sukha-dvāra of the eighth Bhūmi together. They are not Śrāvakas with Adhimāna who are attached to quiescence, because they cannot enter the Bodhisattva-caryā, have never realized that the three realms are Citta-mātra, have never practiced the various Dharmas of Bodhisattvas, and have never practiced the Pāramitās and the Daśa-bhūmi. Therefore, Śrāvakas who are determined to be attached to quiescence cannot attain the Samatha-sukha-dvāra practiced by Bodhisattvas.' There is also a verse that says, 'Śrāvakas who are determined do not practice the Bodhisattva-caryā; those who enter the eighth Bhūmi together are originally Bodhisattvas.' According to this principle, this is the Aniyata-yāna among the Pañca-yāna. The meaning of the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra and the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra are the same. Furthermore, in the eighth section, it says, 'Why do the Buddha Bhagavan and the great Arhats receive the same Vyākaraṇa?' The Buddha replied, 'Mahamati, I have practiced the Bodhisattva-caryā, and I give Vyākaraṇa to the Śrāvakas based on their attainment of nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa. Mahamati, I give Vyākaraṇa to the Śrāvakas to inspire courage in the timid beings. Mahamati, in this world and in other Buddha-kṣetras, there are beings who practice the Bodhisattva-caryā but are fond of the Śrāvakayāna. The Buddha transforms them to attain Mahābodhi.' The verse says, 'The three Yānas and the non-Yāna, the Buddhas have immeasurable Yānas; all are predicted to attain the Buddha-bhūmi, proclaiming the end of all afflictions, realizing ārya-jñāna within oneself, and nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa. To guide the timid beings, it is spoken of in a concealed way.' According to this principle, it is the same as the three Manomayakāyas spoken of in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. Those above the first Bhūmi are determined to go towards quiescence. Since they do not attain the Samatha-sukha-dvāra practiced by Bodhisattvas, it shows that they cannot attain the Manomayakāya, and their inability to know this is their fault. It is also said that the Amoghapāśa Sūtra and the Saṃgha Sūtra say that the Śuddhāvāsa all aspire to the Mahāyāna, which is judged as the later teaching of the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra. It is not known on what basis this is known. If there is a teaching, the evidence should be clearly stated; if there is no evidence, how can it be forcibly judged? It is also said that the two masters of Vijñānavāda
所說皆不應理。故知法華會前一切聖人皆不發心。法華會後凈居亦發。唯識論師違經立義。非唯一二者。不爾。如何解深密經彼自許在法華前說。唯深密經于凈土說。說凈土相。列眾嘆德皆同佛地。佛地論釋如實義者。皆是不定種性聲聞得小果已。趣大菩提故名為大。若非迴心。不觀凈土。又攝論等十義說一乘雲為不定性。即通有學及無學聖皆許迴心。又智度論釋大品經法華兩教云。三種人有妙凈土出於三界。乃至無有煩惱之名。於是國土佛所聞法華經。具佛道。如何得說法華經一切聖人皆不發心。又云。楞伽經分明說定性寂滅有變易死。教理顯然。豈得執弘前教非后經說者。此亦不爾。準入楞伽第四云。大慧聲聞辟支佛未證法無我。未得不可思議變易生。是故我為諸聲聞故說一乘道。此云未得。更據何文云分明說決定之人得受變易。依此文意。不定性人未聞大乘。不得變易。豈許決定不能迴心得受變易。亦此經文亦有云。未離不可思議變易死。亦有云。不得離不思議變易死。亦有云。未得離不思議變易死。無分明文。作決定說。定性之人得受易。亦第二中說。墮不思議變易死故者。此說不定迴心已后墮不思議變易生死。無決定性得變易文。若又許受變易生身。如何得言如是等得入人無我乃至生心以為涅槃。凡夫受分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所說的都不合道理。因此可知在《法華經》法會之前，一切聖人都未發起菩提心。《法華經》法會之後，凈居天（Śuddhāvāsa，色界天之一，居住著不退轉的聖者）也發起了菩提心。唯識宗的論師違背佛經而立論，並非只有一兩種情況。如果不是這樣，如何解釋《解深密經》？他們自己承認此經是在《法華經》之前宣說的。只有《解深密經》中對凈土有所闡述，描述了凈土的景象，列舉了種種讚歎功德之詞，都與佛地（Buddha-bhūmi，佛的境界）相同。《佛地經論》解釋『如實義』時說，這些都是不定種性的聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而證悟的修行者），得到小乘的果位后，趣向大乘菩提（Bodhi，覺悟），所以稱為『大』。如果不是回心轉意，就不會觀想凈土。而且《攝大乘論》等經論以十種理由說明一乘（Ekāyana，唯一佛乘）是指不定性的眾生，即包括有學聖者和無學聖者，都允許回心轉意。另外，《智度論》解釋《大品般若經》和《法華經》兩部經典時說，有三種人有微妙的凈土，超出三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界），乃至沒有煩惱的名稱。在這樣的國土中，佛陀宣說了《法華經》，具備成佛之道。怎麼能說宣講《法華經》時，一切聖人都沒有發起菩提心呢？又說，《楞伽經》分明地說，定性（Gotra，具有特定根性）的眾生寂滅後會有變易生死（Vikāri-maraṇa，聖者因願力而示現的生死）。教理如此明顯，怎麼能執著于弘揚之前的教法，否定後來的經典所說呢？ 這種說法也不對。根據《入楞伽經》第四卷所說，大慧（Mahāmati，人名），聲聞和辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，緣覺）沒有證得法無我（Dharma-nairātmya，諸法無自性），沒有得到不可思議的變易生。因此，我爲了這些聲聞的緣故宣說一乘道。這裡說的是『未得』，又根據哪部經文說分明地說決定性的人能夠承受變易呢？根據這段經文的意思，不定性的人沒有聽聞大乘佛法，就不能得到變易。怎麼能允許決定性的人不能回心轉意而能承受變易呢？這部經的經文也有說，『未離不可思議變易死』，也有說，『不得離不思議變易死』，也有說，『未得離不思議變易死』，沒有分明的經文，作出決定的說法，說定性的人能夠承受變易。又在第二卷中說，『墮不思議變易死故』，這是說不定性的人回心轉意之後，墮入不可思議的變易生死，沒有決定性的人得到變易的經文。如果又允許承受變易生身，怎麼能說這些人能夠進入人無我（Pudgala-nairātmya，人無自性），乃至生起心念以為是涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅）呢？凡夫承受分段生死（Śarīra-maraṇa，凡夫的生死）。
【English Translation】 English version What is said is all unreasonable. Therefore, it is known that before the Dharma Flower Assembly (Fa Hua Hui, the assembly where the Lotus Sutra was preached), all the saints did not generate the Bodhi mind (Bodhicitta, the mind of enlightenment). After the Dharma Flower Assembly, even the Śuddhāvāsa (Pure Abodes, a realm in the Form Realm) also generated it. The Consciousness-only (Vijñānavāda) masters establish doctrines contrary to the scriptures, and it's not just one or two instances. If not, how to explain the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (Jie Shen Mi Jing, the Sutra Unveiling the Profound Meaning)? They themselves admit that this sutra was preached before the Lotus Sutra. Only the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra speaks of the Pure Land (Sukhavati, the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha), describing the appearance of the Pure Land, listing various praises of virtues, all of which are the same as the Buddha-bhūmi (Buddha-bhūmi, the realm of the Buddha). The Buddhabhūmi-śāstra (Fo Di Jing Lun, Treatise on the Buddha Land) explains the 'true nature' as referring to Śrāvakas (Śrāvaka, a disciple who hears and practices the teachings) of uncertain nature, who, after obtaining the small vehicle fruit, proceed to the Great Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment), hence they are called 'great'. If it were not for turning the mind, they would not contemplate the Pure Land. Moreover, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (She Da Cheng Lun, Compendium of the Mahayana) and other scriptures explain the One Vehicle (Ekāyana, the single vehicle to Buddhahood) with ten reasons, saying it refers to those of uncertain nature, including both learners and non-learners, all of whom are allowed to turn their minds. Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Zhi Du Lun, Great Wisdom Sutra) explains the two teachings of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Da Pin Ban Ruo Jing, Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) and the Lotus Sutra, saying that there are three kinds of people who have subtle Pure Lands, beyond the three realms (Trailokya, the realm of desire, the realm of form, and the realm of formlessness), even without the name of afflictions. In such a land, the Buddha preached the Lotus Sutra, possessing the path to Buddhahood. How can it be said that when the Lotus Sutra was preached, all the saints did not generate the Bodhi mind? It is also said that the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Leng Jia Jing, Lankavatara Sutra) clearly states that those of fixed nature (Gotra, inherent nature) have Vikāri-maraṇa (Vikāri-maraṇa, transformation death) after extinction. The doctrine is so clear, how can one cling to promoting the previous teachings and deny what the later scriptures say? This statement is also incorrect. According to the fourth volume of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Mahāmati (Mahāmati, a bodhisattva), Śrāvakas, and Pratyekabuddhas (Pratyekabuddha, a solitary Buddha) have not realized Dharma-nairātmya (Dharma-nairātmya, the selflessness of phenomena), and have not obtained inconceivable transformation birth. Therefore, I preach the One Vehicle path for the sake of these Śrāvakas. Here it says 'have not obtained', so according to which scripture does it clearly say that those of fixed nature can endure transformation? According to the meaning of this passage, those of uncertain nature, without hearing the Mahayana Dharma, cannot obtain transformation. How can it be allowed that those of fixed nature cannot turn their minds and can endure transformation? This scripture also says, 'have not departed from inconceivable transformation death', also says, 'cannot depart from inconceivable transformation death', also says, 'have not obtained departure from inconceivable transformation death', there is no clear scripture making a definitive statement that those of fixed nature can endure transformation. Also, in the second volume, it says, 'falling into inconceivable transformation death', this refers to those of uncertain nature, after turning their minds, falling into inconceivable transformation birth and death, there is no scripture saying that those of fixed nature obtain transformation. If it is also allowed to endure transformation birth, how can it be said that such people can enter into Pudgala-nairātmya (Pudgala-nairātmya, the selflessness of persons), and even generate the thought that it is Nirvāṇa (Nirvāṇa, liberation)? Ordinary beings endure Śarīra-maraṇa (Śarīra-maraṇa, physical death).
段。自知生死身。聖人受變易。豈執為涅槃。謂得有餘。即非知障知余若在故。彼自不許。謂有餘依迴心向大。要舍分段。別受變易。得三昧樂。謂為無餘故。亦如少聞得第四定。將為極果。死見前相尚趣起謗心。豈況聖人見受變易。謂為無餘耶。又準五乘文。初二乘中無入大乘語。唯第四不定乘中言。大慧彼三種人離煩惱障。熏習得清凈故。見無我。得三昧樂門故。聲聞緣覺畢竟證得如來法身。言彼三種人者。即不定乘中有三種人。非是指前初之三乘。若爾。即前須別說為第四乘。或可前三乘定不定性皆悉合說第四人。唯取不定性者。言彼三種。即前三中不定性者。若不如此。謂即前三定不定性皆許入大。違下第七第八所說。如前已引。無文顯說定性寂滅受變易死。虛言教理顯然故為過也。又問答中雲。何故二說不同。答云。如經中。未說王宮以為化佛。弘此時教。即說三十四心成佛。未說阿賴耶。弘此時教。即說滅定唯在欲色。及說種子依色心也。弘后時教。其義即改瑜伽。即弘前教。四十年後二滅非真。有阿賴耶。墮不思議變易生死。弘此時經。論亦隨教者。此亦不爾。自許華嚴是已前教。豈唯說王宮化身以為真佛。瑜伽攝論並說王宮為非真佛。三十四身成者。是小乘論文。滅定依欲色身。有部之說。種子依于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 段。自知生死之身（知道自身有生死的身體）。聖人受變易（聖人會經歷變易生死）。豈能執著于變易生死，認為這就是涅槃（解脫）呢？如果認為還有『有餘涅槃』，那就是因為還不瞭解煩惱障和所知障的殘餘。他們自己也不承認這種說法。如果認為證得有餘依涅槃的人迴心向大乘，需要捨棄分段生死，另外接受變易生死，獲得三昧之樂，就認為是無餘涅槃，這也是不對的。這就像少聞之人獲得第四禪定，就認為是最高的果位一樣。死相現前尚且會生起誹謗之心，更何況是聖人經歷變易生死，就認為是無餘涅槃呢？ 又根據五乘的說法，最初的二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）中沒有進入大乘的說法。只有第四不定乘中說：『大慧，這三種人遠離煩惱障的熏習，得到清凈，見到無我，得到三昧之樂的門徑，所以聲聞和緣覺最終證得如來法身。』這裡說的『這三種人』，指的是不定乘中的三種人，而不是指前面的初乘、二乘和三乘。如果這樣理解，那麼前面就應該特別說明這是第四乘。或者可以說，前面的三乘中，定性和不定性的人都可以合起來說是第四種人，只是特別指出不定性的人。如果不是這樣，認為前面的三種人，無論是定性還是不定性，都可以進入大乘，就違背了下面第七識和第八識所說的內容，就像前面已經引用的那樣。沒有明確的經文說定性的人寂滅後會接受變易生死。這種虛假的言論和教理顯然是錯誤的。 另外，在問答中說：『為什麼兩種說法不同呢？』回答說：『就像經中，沒有說王宮是化身佛，弘揚此時的教義，就說三十四心成佛。沒有說阿賴耶識，弘揚此時的教義，就說滅盡定只在欲界和色界，以及說種子依附於色心。』弘揚後來的教義，其含義就改變了。《瑜伽師地論》就是弘揚以前的教義，四十年後說二種滅不是真實的，有阿賴耶識，墮入不可思議的變易生死。弘揚此時的經，論也隨著教義而改變。』這種說法也是不對的。他們自己承認《華嚴經》是以前的教義，難道僅僅說王宮化身是真佛嗎？《瑜伽師地論》和《攝大乘論》都說王宮不是真佛。三十四心成佛，是小乘論文的說法。滅盡定依附於欲界和色界之身，是有部的說法。種子依附於
【English Translation】 English version: Section. Knowing the body subject to birth and death (knowing that one's own body is subject to birth and death). Sages undergo variational existence (sages experience the change of life and death). How can one cling to variational existence, thinking that this is Nirvana (liberation)? If one thinks there is still 'Nirvana with remainder', it is because one does not yet understand the remnants of the afflictive obscurations and the cognitive obscurations. They themselves do not admit this statement. If one thinks that those who attain Nirvana with remainder turn their minds towards the Mahayana, they need to abandon the sectional existence and separately accept variational existence, obtaining the bliss of Samadhi, and then think it is Nirvana without remainder, this is also incorrect. This is like a person with little learning who obtains the fourth Dhyana and thinks it is the highest fruit. When the signs of death appear, they will still give rise to slanderous thoughts, let alone a sage who experiences variational existence and thinks it is Nirvana without remainder? Furthermore, according to the five vehicles, there is no mention of entering the Mahayana in the initial two vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle). Only in the fourth, the Indeterminate Vehicle, it is said: 'Mahamati, these three types of people are free from the habitual influences of afflictive obscurations, and they become pure. They see no-self and obtain the gateway to the bliss of Samadhi, therefore Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas ultimately attain the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata.' The 'three types of people' mentioned here refer to the three types of people in the Indeterminate Vehicle, not the initial First Vehicle, Second Vehicle, and Third Vehicle mentioned earlier. If understood in this way, then it should be specifically stated earlier that this is the Fourth Vehicle. Or it can be said that among the previous three vehicles, those with both determinate and indeterminate natures can be collectively referred to as the fourth type of person, only specifically pointing out those with indeterminate natures. If it is not like this, thinking that the previous three types of people, whether determinate or indeterminate, can all enter the Mahayana, it contradicts what is said in the Seventh Consciousness and Eighth Consciousness below, as quoted earlier. There is no clear scriptural statement saying that those with determinate natures will accept variational existence after their extinction. This false statement and doctrine are clearly incorrect. In addition, in the question and answer, it is said: 'Why are the two statements different?' The answer is: 'Just like in the sutras, without saying that the royal palace is a manifested Buddha, propagating the teachings of this time, it is said that Buddhahood is attained in thirty-four minds. Without mentioning the Alaya Consciousness, propagating the teachings of this time, it is said that the Cessation Attainment is only in the Desire Realm and Form Realm, and that seeds rely on form and mind.' Propagating the later teachings, its meaning changes. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra propagates the previous teachings, saying that the two extinctions are not real after forty years, that there is Alaya Consciousness, and that one falls into inconceivable variational existence. Propagating the sutras of this time, the treatises also change with the teachings.' This statement is also incorrect. They themselves admit that the Avatamsaka Sutra is the previous teaching, so is it merely saying that the manifested body in the royal palace is the true Buddha? The Yogacarabhumi-sastra and the Mahayanasamgraha both say that the royal palace is not the true Buddha. Attaining Buddhahood in thirty-four minds is a statement from Hinayana treatises. The Cessation Attainment relies on the body of the Desire Realm and Form Realm, which is the statement of the Sarvastivada school. Seeds rely on
心色。經部師宗瑜伽。並改前宗種子依于第八識等。同楞伽等。亦說不定無實。涅槃智論顯揚佛地。俱說有變易生死。何義不同。而判瑜伽佛地論等為四十年前之教。如前已引判前後非。于同不解其同非異。強見於異故為過也。又云。瑜伽八十說二涅槃。由異熟識無有取故依轉識等不復得生。唯余清凈。無為離垢。真法界有。當楞伽經而滅諸相。不取未來境界是三昧樂。二乘謂為涅槃。此亦不爾。彼經所說前後又異。第二卷則說聲聞辟支佛畏生死妄想苦而求涅槃。不知世間涅槃無差別故。分別一切法與非法。而滅諸根。不取未來境界。妄取以為涅槃者。是二乘有學凡夫之人。執無學者滅諸根已所得無餘謂為究竟。不知阿賴耶識轉成勝無餘故。次云。是故彼愚癡人說有三乘法。而不能知唯心想滅得寂滅法。若即聖人不應。次云。是故大慧彼愚癡人於世間生死輪中。常轉不住。亦據實義。決定性人滅諸根等者。身智俱滅唯有真如。楞伽云。唯心想滅得寂滅法。寂滅法者。非三昧樂。三昧樂者。是第七卷文說。不定性迴心向大得入諸地。以本名說。同頓悟菩薩。諸地中得滅盡定。名墮三昧樂法門。何以得知。彼自問答云。佛告大慧。我今為汝分別宣說。大慧。聲聞有三種。言入八地寂滅門者。此是先修菩薩行者。墮聲聞地。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『心』（Citta，指心識）和『色』（Rūpa，指物質現象）的問題。經部師（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）宗的《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra），以及改變前宗的觀點，認為種子（Bīja，指潛在的因）依存於第八識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）等等，與《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）等相同，也說『不定無實』（aniyata-vastu，指不確定且無實體）。《涅槃智論》（Nirvāṇa-jñāna-śāstra）和《顯揚聖教論》（Abhisamayālaṃkāra），都說有『變易生死』（pariṇāma-maraṇa，指微細的生死變化）。這有什麼不同呢？卻判定《瑜伽師地論》、《佛地經論》（Buddhabhūmi Sūtra）等為四十年前的教法。如前已引用，判定前後是不對的。對於相同之處不理解其相同，卻認為不同，強行認為不同，所以是錯誤的。 又說，《瑜伽師地論》第八十卷說有二種涅槃（Nirvāṇa，指解脫）：由於異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna，指果報識）沒有執取，依靠轉識（Pravṛtti-vijñāna，指轉變的識）等不再產生。只剩下清凈、無為、離垢的真法界（Dharmadhātu，指法性）。當《楞伽經》說滅除諸相（Lakṣaṇa，指現象），不執取未來境界時，這是三昧樂（Samādhi-sukha，指禪定之樂）。二乘（Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna，指聲聞乘和緣覺乘）認為這是涅槃。但情況並非如此。《楞伽經》所說的前後也不一樣。第二卷說，聲聞和辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，指緣覺）畏懼生死妄想的痛苦而尋求涅槃，不知道世間和涅槃沒有差別，所以分別一切法與非法，而滅除諸根（Indriya，指感覺器官），不執取未來境界，錯誤地認為這是涅槃，這是二乘有學凡夫之人。執著于無學者滅除諸根后所得的無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，指無餘依涅槃）認為是究竟，不知道阿賴耶識轉成殊勝的無餘涅槃。 接著說，『因此，那些愚癡的人說有三乘法（Triyāna，指三種乘），而不能知道唯有心想滅才能得到寂滅法（Śamatha，指止息）。』如果針對聖人就不應該這樣說。接著說，『因此，大慧（Mahāmati，人名），那些愚癡的人在世間生死輪中，常常流轉不停。』這也是根據實義，決定性的人滅除諸根等，身智都滅，唯有真如（Tathātā，指真如）。《楞伽經》說，『唯有心想滅才能得到寂滅法。』寂滅法不是三昧樂。三昧樂是第七卷所說的，不定性的人迴心向大乘，得以進入諸地（Bhūmi，指菩薩的階位），以本來的名稱來說，如同頓悟的菩薩，在諸地中得到滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti，指滅盡定），名為墮入三昧樂法門。如何得知呢？《楞伽經》自己問答說：『佛告訴大慧，我現在為你分別宣說。大慧，聲聞有三種。』說進入八地寂滅門的人，這是先修菩薩行的人，墮入聲聞地。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 『Citta』 (mind) and 『Rūpa』 (form). The Sautrāntika school's Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, along with changing the views of the previous school, considers that 『Bīja』 (seeds, referring to potential causes) rely on the eighth consciousness, Ālaya-vijñāna, etc., similar to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, also stating 『aniyata-vastu』 (indefinite and unreal). The Nirvāṇa-jñāna-śāstra and Abhisamayālaṃkāra both speak of 『pariṇāma-maraṇa』 (changeable death, referring to subtle changes in life and death). What is the difference? Yet, it is judged that the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, Buddhabhūmi Sūtra, etc., are teachings from forty years ago. As previously cited, judging the order is incorrect. Failing to understand the similarities and instead insisting on differences is a mistake. Furthermore, it is said that the eightieth volume of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra speaks of two types of Nirvāṇa: because Vipāka-vijñāna (resultant consciousness) has no grasping, relying on Pravṛtti-vijñāna (evolving consciousness) etc., it no longer arises. Only pure, unconditioned, and undefiled Dharmadhātu (Dharma-realm) remains. When the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra speaks of extinguishing all Lakṣaṇa (characteristics) and not grasping future realms, this is Samādhi-sukha (the bliss of meditation). The Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna consider this to be Nirvāṇa. However, this is not the case. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra also differs in its statements. The second volume states that Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas fear the suffering of birth and death delusions and seek Nirvāṇa, not knowing that there is no difference between the world and Nirvāṇa, so they distinguish all Dharmas from non-Dharmas, and extinguish the Indriya (sense organs), not grasping future realms, mistakenly thinking this is Nirvāṇa, which is the characteristic of learners and ordinary people of the Two Vehicles. Those attached to the Arhats consider the Nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa (Nirvana without remainder) obtained after extinguishing the Indriya to be ultimate, not knowing that the Ālaya-vijñāna transforms into a superior Nirvāṇa without remainder. Then it says, 『Therefore, those foolish people say there are Triyāna (Three Vehicles), and cannot know that only by extinguishing mental thoughts can one attain Śamatha (cessation).』 It should not be said like this if it is directed to the sages. Then it says, 『Therefore, Mahāmati, those foolish people constantly revolve in the cycle of birth and death in the world.』 This is also based on the real meaning, that those of determined nature extinguish the Indriya, etc., both body and wisdom are extinguished, and only Tathātā (Suchness) remains. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says, 『Only by extinguishing mental thoughts can one attain Śamatha.』 Śamatha is not Samādhi-sukha. Samādhi-sukha is what the seventh volume speaks of, that those of undetermined nature turn their minds towards the Mahāyāna, and are able to enter the Bhūmi (Bodhisattva stages), and by their original name, like enlightened Bodhisattvas, attain Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment) in the Bhūmi, called falling into the Samādhi-sukha Dharma gate. How is it known? The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra itself asks and answers: 『The Buddha told Mahāmati, I will now explain it to you separately. Mahāmati, there are three types of Śrāvakas.』 Those who say they enter the eighth Bhūmi's gate of cessation are those who first practiced the Bodhisattva path and fell into the Śrāvaka ground.
還依本心。修菩薩行。同入八地寂滅樂門。非增上慢寂滅聲聞。若是二乘舍分段身住於三昧。名得涅槃者。何故第四卷云。須陀洹有三品。皆言入涅槃。經說第二果云。以善見禪修行相故。一來世間便斷苦盡入于涅槃。何以故。受變易身。改有行苦。豈得說云便斷苦盡入于涅槃。又復此是決定趣寂。何以得知。次下大慧問佛云。為說得決定寂滅羅漢。為發菩提。愿善根妄善根阿羅漢為化應羅漢。佛告大慧。為說得決定寂滅聲聞羅漢。非余羅漢。故知定性入無餘依唯有真如。同楞伽經而滅諸根及心想滅云入涅槃。若住三昧樂生涅槃想者。是退菩提。不定性者。顯文不解。故亦為失。又云。前後二教略有十三不同。一云。無上依經由無明住地有變易死。瑜伽論等由定愿留。此亦不爾。隱經無漏業。設論所知障。以為不同。不云由所知障同無明住地。起無漏定愿同無漏業。故亦為過。又云。楞伽滅諸根。方取變易。瑜伽留有根身者。此亦不爾。滅諸根者定入無餘。非受變易。不爾。變易豈無諸根。論留根身。是楞伽之不定。故留根身而為變易。不知所以妄云不同。第三不同。至破變易執方辨其失。四云。法華等經往他佛土。瑜伽等留身此洲。此亦不爾。法華往他佛土。據佛滅后。此界無佛。無能覺悟令發大心。以佛方便令往
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 仍然依據本來的心性，修習菩薩的行持，一同進入八地菩薩所證的寂滅快樂之門。而不是那些以增上慢為滿足的寂滅聲聞（śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而悟道的修行者）。如果說二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）修行者捨棄分段生死之身，安住在三昧（samādhi，禪定）中，就叫做得到涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅），那麼為什麼《攝大乘論》第四卷說，須陀洹（srotaāpanna，預流果）有三種品級，都說他們進入涅槃呢？經中說二果（斯陀含）說：『因為善於觀察禪定的修行相，所以一來世間就能斷盡痛苦，進入涅槃。』這是為什麼呢？因為他們還要承受變易生死之身，改變還有行苦，怎麼能說他們便斷盡痛苦，進入涅槃呢？而且，這還是決定趣向寂滅的，怎麼知道呢？接下來大慧菩薩問佛說：『是說得到決定寂滅的阿羅漢（arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者），還是發菩提心、願行善根、妄想善根的阿羅漢，還是爲了教化眾生而應化的阿羅漢？』佛告訴大慧菩薩說：『是說得到決定寂滅的聲聞阿羅漢，不是其他的阿羅漢。』由此可知，定性聲聞進入無餘依涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，沒有煩惱余習的涅槃）唯有真如（tathatā，事物的真實如是性）。如同《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）所說，滅盡諸根以及心想，就叫做進入涅槃。如果安住在三昧的快樂中，生起涅槃的想法，那就是退失菩提心。對於不定性的人來說，顯明的經文都不能理解，所以也是一種過失。還有人說，前後兩種教法略有十三種不同。一種說法是，《無上依經》認為由於無明住地（avidyā-sthiti-bhūmi，無明的住處）而有變易死，《瑜伽師地論》等認為由於定愿而留住。這也是不對的。《隱經》說的是無漏業，《瑜伽師地論》說的是所知障，以此作為不同之處。但沒有說由於所知障如同無明住地一樣，生起無漏的定愿如同無漏業一樣，所以這也是一種過失。還有人說，《楞伽經》是滅盡諸根，才接受變易生死，《瑜伽師地論》是留有根身。這也是不對的。滅盡諸根是決定進入無餘依涅槃，不是接受變易生死。不然的話，變易生死難道沒有諸根嗎？《瑜伽師地論》留有根身，是《楞伽經》的不定性，所以留有根身而接受變易生死。不知道其中的道理，就妄加評論說不同。第三種不同，到破斥變易生死執著的時候，才能辨別其中的過失。第四種說法是，《法華經》（Lotus Sūtra）等經典說往生到其他佛土，《瑜伽師地論》等說留在本洲。這也是不對的。《法華經》說往生到其他佛土，是根據佛陀滅度之後，這個世界沒有佛，沒有人能夠覺悟眾生，令眾生髮起大心。所以用佛陀的方便法門，令眾生往生到其他佛土。
【English Translation】 English version Still relying on the original mind, cultivate the practices of a Bodhisattva, and together enter the gate of the blissful quiescence attained by the eighth-ground Bodhisattvas. This is not the same as the Śrāvakas (listeners who attain enlightenment through hearing the Dharma) who are content with their arrogance and conceit in quiescence. If it is said that practitioners of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) abandon their bodies of segmented existence and abide in Samādhi (meditative absorption), and this is called attaining Nirvāṇa (cessation), then why does the fourth volume of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say that the Srotaāpanna (stream-enterer) has three grades, and all are said to enter Nirvāṇa? The Sutra says of the second fruit (Sakṛdāgāmin): 'Because of skillfully observing the characteristics of meditative practice, they come to this world once more and then extinguish suffering and enter Nirvāṇa.' Why is this? Because they still have to undergo the body of transformational existence, and changing still involves the suffering of conditioned existence. How can it be said that they then extinguish suffering and enter Nirvāṇa? Moreover, this is a definite path towards quiescence. How is this known? Next, Mahāmati Bodhisattva asks the Buddha: 'Is it speaking of the Arhats (one who has destroyed all defilements) who have attained definite quiescence, or the Arhats who have generated the Bodhi mind, vowed to cultivate good roots, or the Arhats who manifest in response to the needs of beings?' The Buddha tells Mahāmati: 'It is speaking of the Śrāvaka Arhats who have attained definite quiescence, not other Arhats.' From this, it can be known that those of fixed nature enter Nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa (Nirvāṇa without remainder) only through Suchness (Tathatā). It is like the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, which says that extinguishing the senses and thoughts is called entering Nirvāṇa. If one abides in the bliss of Samādhi and generates the thought of Nirvāṇa, that is a regression from the Bodhi mind. For those of unfixed nature, even the clear teachings are not understood, so this is also a fault. Furthermore, it is said that there are roughly thirteen differences between the earlier and later teachings. One view is that the Anuttarāśraya Sūtra considers that transformational death arises from the ground of ignorance (avidyā-sthiti-bhūmi), while the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and others consider that it is retained by the power of vows. This is also incorrect. The Hidden Sutra speaks of unwholesome karma, while the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra speaks of the obscuration of knowledge, using this as a difference. But it does not say that the obscuration of knowledge is like the ground of ignorance, giving rise to unwholesome vows like unwholesome karma, so this is also a fault. It is also said that the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra extinguishes the senses before accepting transformational existence, while the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra retains the body with senses. This is also incorrect. Extinguishing the senses is definitely entering Nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa, not accepting transformational existence. Otherwise, does transformational existence not have senses? The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra retains the body with senses, which is the unfixed nature of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, so it retains the body with senses and accepts transformational existence. Not knowing the reason for this, they falsely claim that they are different. The third difference, the fault can only be distinguished when refuting the attachment to transformational existence. The fourth view is that the Lotus Sūtra and other scriptures say to be reborn in other Buddha lands, while the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and others say to remain in this continent. This is also incorrect. The Lotus Sūtra says to be reborn in other Buddha lands, based on the fact that after the Buddha's Parinirvāṇa, there is no Buddha in this world, and no one can awaken beings and cause them to generate the great mind. Therefore, using the Buddha's skillful means, beings are reborn in other Buddha lands.
余土。瑜伽等論約現逢佛。已能趣大受變易生。留身此土。即法華經三週授記。學無學人俱在此洲。不往他土。始能趣大。此而不悟。故亦失也。又云。依涅槃經。是人未來過八萬劫住等。瑜伽論等即留此身。或餘一劫。此亦不爾。瑜伽論言或餘一劫者。佛地論釋。或餘一劫者。此中意說過於一劫。準此八萬劫亦是過一劫。過一劫言無限定故。又云。依勝鬘等。二乘大力菩薩同受意生身。瑜伽論等二乘不同大力菩薩。大力菩薩如意而生。常愿生故。二乘遠離而住。一切眾生皆不能見故者。此亦不然。且涅槃經雲鬚陀洹人八萬劫。乃至辟支佛人十千劫。住此為受變易。為住無餘依。若不受變易。舍分段已。八萬劫住后。依何法更趣大耶。若受變易八萬劫住。豈常化生。又楞伽第四云。大慧聲聞辟支佛。若離一切諸過。熏習得證法無我。爾時離於諸過三昧。無漏醉法覺已。修行出世間無漏界中一切功德。頌云。無有究竟趣。亦復不退還。得諸三昧身。無量劫不覺。譬如惛醉人。酒消然後寤。得佛無上體。是我真法身。第七亦云。大慧聲聞辟支佛。于第八菩薩地中。樂著寂滅三昧樂門。醉故不能善知唯自心見。乃至大慧諸菩薩以見三昧寂滅樂門。憶念本願。大慈悲心度眾生。知十無盡如實行智。是故不即入于涅槃。此並二乘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『余土』（涅槃后佛陀遺留的凈土）。《瑜伽師地論》等論典認為，只有現在遇到佛陀，已經能夠趨向于『大』（指佛果），接受『變易生』（指阿羅漢或菩薩死後所受的化生身）的人，才會留在娑婆世界。這與《法華經》中三週授記（指聲聞、緣覺、菩薩三乘人都得到成佛的授記）的說法一致，即聲聞乘的有學和無學之人都在這個世界，不往生到其他佛土，才能開始趨向于『大』。如果不能領悟這一點，就理解錯了佛經的含義。還有人說，依據《涅槃經》，這些人未來會經過八萬劫的時間安住於此等等。《瑜伽師地論》等論典認為，佛陀會留下此身，或者再住世一劫。這種說法也不對。《瑜伽師地論》所說的『或餘一劫』，在《佛地論》中的解釋是，『或餘一劫』的意思是超過一劫。按照這個解釋，八萬劫也是超過一劫，因為『超過一劫』並沒有限定具體的時間。還有人說，依據《勝鬘經》等經典，二乘（指聲聞乘和緣覺乘）和大力菩薩（指具有廣大威神力的菩薩）同樣接受意生身（指隨心意而生的身體）。《瑜伽師地論》等論典認為，二乘不同於大力菩薩，大力菩薩可以隨意化生，因為他們常有度化眾生的願望；而二乘則遠離生死，一切眾生都無法看見他們。這種說法也是不對的。且《涅槃經》中說，須陀洹（指聲聞乘初果）需要經過八萬劫，乃至辟支佛（指緣覺乘）需要經過十千劫，住在此世接受變易生死，爲了安住于無餘依涅槃（指沒有任何煩惱和痛苦的涅槃境界）。如果不接受變易生死，捨棄分段生死（指凡夫的生死）之後，經過八萬劫的安住，依靠什麼方法才能趨向于『大』呢？如果接受變易生死，經過八萬劫的安住，難道一直是化生嗎？此外，《楞伽經》第四卷中說，大慧（指菩薩名），聲聞和辟支佛，如果遠離一切過患，通過熏習證得法無我（指認識到一切法沒有恒常不變的自體），那時就遠離了諸過三昧（指遠離過失的禪定），在無漏的禪定中覺悟之後，修行出世間無漏境界中的一切功德。經中的偈頌說：『沒有究竟的趣向，也不會退還，得到各種三昧之身，無量劫都不會覺醒，譬如昏醉之人，酒醒之後才會醒悟，得到佛陀無上的身體，這是我的真法身。』第七卷中也說，大慧，聲聞和辟支佛，在第八地菩薩的境界中，貪戀寂滅三昧的快樂，因為沉醉於此而不能很好地瞭解唯心所現的道理。乃至大慧，諸菩薩因為見到三昧寂滅的快樂，憶念起往昔的願力，以大慈悲心來度化眾生，瞭解十種無盡的道理，如實地運用智慧，因此不立即進入涅槃。』這些都是關於二乘的論述。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding 'Residue Lands' (the pure lands left behind by the Buddha after Nirvana). The Yogacarabhumi-sastra and other treatises hold that only those who currently encounter the Buddha and are already capable of approaching the 'Great' (referring to Buddhahood), accepting 'Changeable Birth' (referring to the manifested body received after death by Arhats or Bodhisattvas), will remain in the Saha world. This aligns with the three rounds of prediction in the Lotus Sutra (referring to the prediction of Buddhahood for the Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas), namely that those in the Sravaka vehicle who are still learning and those who have completed their learning are all in this world, not being reborn in other Buddha-lands, in order to begin approaching the 'Great'. If one cannot comprehend this, then one misunderstands the meaning of the sutras. Some also say that, according to the Nirvana Sutra, these individuals will remain here for eighty thousand kalpas, etc. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra and other treatises hold that the Buddha will leave this body behind, or remain in the world for one more kalpa. This view is also incorrect. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra's statement 'or one more kalpa' is explained in the Buddhabhumi-sastra as meaning 'more than one kalpa'. According to this explanation, eighty thousand kalpas is also more than one kalpa, because 'more than one kalpa' does not specify a particular time. Some also say that, according to the Srimala Sutra and other scriptures, the Two Vehicles (referring to the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha vehicles) and powerful Bodhisattvas (referring to Bodhisattvas with great spiritual power) equally receive the mind-made body (referring to a body born according to one's mind). The Yogacarabhumi-sastra and other treatises hold that the Two Vehicles are different from powerful Bodhisattvas; powerful Bodhisattvas can manifest at will because they constantly have the desire to liberate sentient beings; while the Two Vehicles remain far from birth and death, and all sentient beings cannot see them. This view is also incorrect. Furthermore, the Nirvana Sutra states that a Stream-enterer (Srotapanna, referring to the first fruit of the Sravaka vehicle) needs to spend eighty thousand kalpas, and even a Pratyekabuddha (referring to the Pratyekabuddha vehicle) needs to spend ten thousand kalpas, dwelling in this world to undergo changeable birth and death, in order to abide in Nirvana without residue (referring to the state of Nirvana without any afflictions or suffering). If one does not accept changeable birth and death, and abandons segmented birth and death (referring to the birth and death of ordinary beings), then after dwelling for eighty thousand kalpas, what method can one rely on to approach the 'Great'? If one accepts changeable birth and death, and dwells for eighty thousand kalpas, will one always be a manifested being? Moreover, the fourth volume of the Lankavatara Sutra states, 'Mahamati (referring to the name of a Bodhisattva), Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, if they are free from all faults, through the practice of realizing the Dharma-no-self (referring to the realization that all dharmas have no permanent and unchanging self-nature), then they are free from the Samadhi of faults (referring to the samadhi free from faults), and after awakening in the non-outflow Samadhi, they cultivate all the merits in the non-outflow realm beyond the world. The verse in the sutra says: 'There is no ultimate direction, nor will they regress, they obtain various Samadhi bodies, and will not awaken for countless kalpas, like a drunken person, who only awakens after the alcohol wears off, obtaining the supreme body of the Buddha, this is my true Dharma-body.' The seventh volume also states, 'Mahamati, Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, in the realm of the eighth-ground Bodhisattva, are attached to the joy of the Samadhi of quiescence, and because they are intoxicated by it, they cannot well understand the principle of mind-only. Even Mahamati, the Bodhisattvas, because they see the joy of the Samadhi of quiescence, remember their past vows, and use great compassion to liberate sentient beings, understanding the ten inexhaustible principles, and truly applying wisdom, therefore they do not immediately enter Nirvana.' These are all discussions about the Two Vehicles.
雖受變易。利生修行不同菩薩。如何獨謂瑜伽不同。第七不同。至破變易中辨。第八第九不同。準前破。又云。瑜伽云。留身通於有學。勝鬘等經唯是無學者。此亦不爾。有學不迴心。不許受變易。既許彼迴心。何不受變易。若謂煩惱在。菩薩亦復然。若謂菩薩雖有煩惱無漏力勝何妨。有學回趣大已有勝力能。又彼自判深密前教。后唯不定迴心見道前趣大。不說聖者回心向大。非為顯了。法華后教得聖者有學亦許迴心。為顯了。今瑜伽論等亦說有。亦說有學回心。許受變易。斯有何失。勝鬘據其定受變易生說。佛地依容受受論。不爾執文。說無學受不許有學。亦應楞伽說三地上有意生身。不說二乘無學受變易身。豈可二乘及初二地總不受變易。非過謂過。故為失也。十一不同亦準前破。十二不同下破變易執中具辨。又云。涅槃等先入寂滅后發大心。瑜伽先發大心然後留身者。此亦不爾。法華經有學無學人並悉迴心。豈並無學住滅定中。謂無餘滅經多劫已方始趣大。又涅槃經云。八萬劫已至阿耨菩提心等。不言八萬劫已始發大心。不同之者妄謂為同。實同之者即為不同。準彼所論。同亦何曾同。異亦實無異。異種難思。翳目許生空華。異種尋伺唯妄分別。
增壽非了謬九
有義。前經說留壽行。瑜伽論等釋
云。增壽至大菩提。然無漏業非變易親因。不捨根身。即受變易生死。后教得無學果。舍分段身所知障為緣。新發妄無漏業。親感三界外變易生死。住三昧樂。謂無餘涅槃。非滅盡定。從此覺已。始發大心。第八雖是有漏。煩惱盡故不屬界系。名三界外。非離三界外有別眾生。然二乘種性雖有定不定殊。俱受變易。受變易已更不捨身。乃至金剛方始舍離。故佛性論云。唯有一生名為有有。若如唯識論等。不捨分段即受變易。云何名為生死。若謂剎那。即違佛性論說唯有一生。若謂命之始終。即違瑜伽增諸壽行。又言增壽。如何說死。既無有死。如何說生。又既不捨分段。瑜伽復無轉根之女人羅漢增壽。雖長女身。若為成佛。但可依經生智。凡夫不得妄有思度。此說不爾。二乘聖果迴心向大。俱容得受變易生死。勝鬘經內據決定。說不定性者得無學果。決定迴心不更復生。決受變易有學。不定雖亦迴心受變易生。不決定故。經中不說。可以勝鬘不說有學回心。即不許法華會中有學趣大。是故佛性論等同勝鬘經。且據定受。楞伽經中據其頓悟怖煩惱者。說三意生。瑜伽佛地同法華等。俱許迴心。既說迴心。即容彼受變易生死。既無文障。明有學回心得受變易。亦為正說。彼無文障。此有文說。涅槃法華並許迴心。瑜伽佛地
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 云：增壽直至證得無上菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。然而，無漏業並非變易生死的直接原因。如果不捨棄色身，就會繼續承受分段生死後的變易生死。後來，通過教法證得無學果位（Arhat果位），以捨棄分段身和所知障為因緣，新產生的虛妄無漏業，直接感受三界之外的變易生死，安住在三昧（Samadhi，禪定）的喜樂中，這被稱為無餘涅槃（Anupadhisesa-nirvana，無餘依涅槃），而非滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，滅盡定）。從這裡覺醒后，才開始發起大菩提心。第八識（Alaya-vijnana，阿賴耶識）雖然是有漏的，但因為煩惱已經斷盡，所以不屬於三界繫縛，被稱為三界之外。並非在三界之外另有其他眾生。然而，二乘（Sravaka-yana and Pratyekabuddha-yana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的種性雖然有決定和不決定的差別，但都會承受變易生死。承受變易生死後，不再捨棄色身，直到金剛喻定（Vajropama-samadhi，金剛喻定）才能舍離。所以《佛性論》說，只有一生名為『有有』。如果像《唯識論》等所說，不捨棄分段身就承受變易生死，那怎麼能稱為生死呢？如果說是剎那生滅，就違背了《佛性論》所說的只有一生。如果說是壽命的始終，就違背了《瑜伽師地論》所說的增長壽命。又說增長壽命，又怎麼能說死亡呢？既然沒有死亡，又怎麼能說出生呢？而且既然不捨棄分段身，《瑜伽師地論》中也沒有轉根的女人羅漢增長壽命的說法。即使長久保持女身，如果爲了成就佛果，也只能依據經典生起智慧，凡夫不得隨意揣測。這種說法是不對的。二乘聖者回心向大乘，都可能承受變易生死。《勝鬘經》中根據決定性的情況說，不定性的修行者證得無學果位后，決定迴心，不再重新出生，決定承受變易有學果位。不定性的修行者雖然也迴心，承受變易生死，但不決定，所以經中沒有說。不能因為《勝鬘經》沒有說有學回心，就認為《法華會》中不允許有學趣向大乘。所以《佛性論》等同於《勝鬘經》，只是根據決定承受的情況來說。而《楞伽經》中根據頓悟而害怕煩惱的人，說了三種意生身。而《瑜伽師地論》、《佛地經》等同於《法華經》等，都允許迴心。既然說了迴心，就容許他們承受變易生死。既然沒有經文障礙，就表明有學回心可以承受變易生死，這也是正確的說法。彼經沒有經文障礙，此經有經文說明。《涅槃經》、《法華經》都允許迴心。《瑜伽師地論》、《佛地經》也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said: Increasing lifespan leads to the Great Bodhi (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment). However, non-outflow (Anasrava) karma is not the direct cause of change and death (Parinami-marana). Without abandoning the root body, one immediately undergoes change and death after the life of segments (Sambhoga-kaya). Later, upon attaining the fruit of No-more-learning (Asaiksa-phala, Arhatship) through teachings, with the abandonment of the segmented body and the obstacles to knowledge (Jnana-avarana) as conditions, newly arising illusory non-outflow karma directly experiences change and death outside the Three Realms (Tri-dhatu), dwelling in the bliss of Samadhi (Samadhi, concentration), which is called Nirvana without remainder (Anupadhisesa-nirvana, Nirvana without residue), not the Cessation Attainment (Nirodha-samapatti, cessation of feeling and perception). Awakening from this, one then initiates the Great Mind (Mahacitta, great mind of enlightenment). Although the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana, storehouse consciousness) is with outflows (Sasrava), because afflictions are exhausted, it does not belong to the realm of bondage and is called outside the Three Realms. It is not that there are separate beings outside the Three Realms. However, although the natures of the Two Vehicles (Sravaka-yana and Pratyekabuddha-yana, Hearer Vehicle and Solitary Realizer Vehicle) have definite and indefinite differences, both undergo change. After undergoing change, they do not abandon the body until the Vajra-like Samadhi (Vajropama-samadhi, diamond-like concentration) is attained, and then they abandon it. Therefore, the 'Treatise on Buddha-nature' says that only one life is called 'having existence'. If, as in the 'Consciousness-only Treatise' and others, one undergoes change without abandoning the segmented body, how can it be called birth and death? If it is said to be momentary, it contradicts the 'Treatise on Buddha-nature' which says there is only one life. If it is said to be the beginning and end of life, it contradicts the 'Yoga-carabhumi-sastra' which speaks of increasing lifespan. Moreover, if lifespan is increased, how can death be spoken of? Since there is no death, how can birth be spoken of? Furthermore, since the segmented body is not abandoned, the 'Yoga-carabhumi-sastra' does not have the teaching of a woman Arhat who transforms her roots and increases her lifespan. Even if she remains in a female body for a long time, if it is for the sake of attaining Buddhahood, one can only generate wisdom based on the scriptures; ordinary people should not speculate wildly. This statement is not correct. The Two Vehicle sages who turn their minds towards the Great Vehicle (Mahayana) can both undergo change and death. The 'Srimala-devi-simhanada-sutra' speaks according to the definite case, saying that those of indefinite nature, upon attaining the fruit of No-more-learning, will definitely turn their minds and not be reborn again, definitely undergoing change in the state of learning. Although those of indefinite nature also turn their minds and undergo change, it is not definite, so it is not mentioned in the sutra. One cannot say that because the 'Srimala-devi-simhanada-sutra' does not mention those in the state of learning turning their minds, it does not allow those in the state of learning in the 'Lotus Assembly' to aspire to the Great Vehicle. Therefore, the 'Treatise on Buddha-nature' and others are the same as the 'Srimala-devi-simhanada-sutra', only speaking according to the definite case. The 'Lankavatara-sutra' speaks of the three mind-born bodies (Manomaya-kaya) according to those who suddenly awaken and fear afflictions. The 'Yoga-carabhumi-sastra' and 'Buddha-bhumi-sutra' are the same as the 'Lotus Sutra' and others, all allowing the turning of the mind. Since the turning of the mind is spoken of, it is permissible for them to undergo change and death. Since there is no textual obstacle, it is clear that those in the state of learning who turn their minds can undergo change and death, and this is also the correct teaching. That sutra has no textual obstacle, while this sutra has textual explanation. The 'Nirvana Sutra' and 'Lotus Sutra' both allow the turning of the mind. The 'Yoga-carabhumi-sastra' and 'Buddha-bhumi-sutra' are also the same.
許受變易。彼自說云。但可依經生智。凡夫不得妄有思度者。彼豈大聖。此瑜伽等並遮止耶。又括其文意。略為十一過。言舍分段身別受變易者。出何聖教。勝鬘經等並無舍分段言。瑜伽佛地論等皆言。無漏定愿以資故業。令所感身漸勝令長。顯揚十六云。依變化身得至佛位。亦不言舍分段。入大乘論亦云。住壽不依經論。自意定之。又云。所知障為緣。新發妄無漏業。別感界外變易生死者。此不應爾。若造新業為親感因。何故佛性論云。因緣生死譬如須陀洹以上但用故業不生新業。若以無漏新招生死。此喻不成。又緣起經等。聖者不造感後有業。若非是有經論。不應云有有生死。若其是有。聖者如何造後有業。又復若許造後有業。那含不應雜修禪定資下故業生五凈居。若云大小力殊。此亦不爾。身勝劣別。何不得造。又若力殊。唯應菩薩造新業感。二乘力劣不能造感。又若菩薩許新造業感變易生。即大自在宮變易之身生報業。如何十地論云。后報利益摩醯首羅智所生。故佛性論云。譬如須陀洹以上但用故業不生新業。以此故知。瑜伽唯識等云資故業為其正說。若是無漏新感者。即集諦攝。雖安立諦非安立殊。不離四諦。無處說集。是非所斷。得通無漏。是應可修。但說集諦。是其所斷有漏非修。違理求文。故為不可
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 允許接受變易生死。他們自己說，只能依據佛經產生智慧，凡夫俗子不得隨意揣測。他們難道是偉大的聖人嗎？這樣說來，《瑜伽師地論》等論著豈不是都被否定了嗎？又概括他們的文意，略有十一處過失。說捨棄分段生死之身而別受變易生死，出自哪部聖教？《勝鬘經》等經典中並沒有捨棄分段生死的說法。《瑜伽師地論》、《佛地論》等都說，無漏禪定和願力資助過去的業力，使所感得的身體逐漸殊勝增長。《顯揚聖教論》第十六卷說，依靠變化身可以達到佛的果位，也沒有說捨棄分段生死。入大乘論也說，安住壽命不依據經典論著，而是自己隨意決定。又說，以所知障為因緣，新發起的虛妄無漏業，另外感得界外的變易生死，這不應該這樣。如果造作新的業是直接感果的原因，為什麼《佛性論》說，如同須陀洹（Srotapanna，入流果）以上的人只用過去的業，不再產生新的業。如果用無漏的新業招感生死，這個比喻就不成立了。而且《緣起經》等經典說，聖者不造感後有的業。如果不是有經論依據，不應該說有有生死。如果確實有，聖者怎麼會造後有的業呢？又如果允許造後有的業，阿那含（Anagamin，不還果）就不應該雜修禪定，資助地獄的過去業力，而生到五凈居天。如果說大小乘的力量不同，這也不對。身體殊勝與否有差別，為什麼不能造業？又如果力量不同，只應該是菩薩造新業感果，二乘的力量弱小，不能造業感果。又如果菩薩允許新造業感得變易生死，那麼大自在宮（Mahesvara，欲界頂天的天主）的變易之身就是報業所生。為什麼《十地經論》說，后報利益是摩醯首羅（Mahesvara，大自在天）的智慧所生？所以《佛性論》說，譬如須陀洹以上的人只用過去的業，不再產生新的業。因此可知，《瑜伽師地論》、《唯識論》等論著說資助過去的業力是正確的說法。如果是無漏新業感果，那就是集諦所攝。雖然安立諦和非安立諦有所不同，但不離四諦。沒有地方說集諦是非所斷。得到通達無漏，是應該可以修習的。只說集諦是應該斷除的有漏法，而不是修習的法。這是違背道理而尋求文句，所以是不可取的。
【English Translation】 English version It is permissible to accept variational change. They themselves say that wisdom can only arise from relying on the sutras, and ordinary people should not speculate arbitrarily. Are they great sages? Does this mean that works like the Yogacarabhumi-sastra are all negated? Furthermore, summarizing their meaning, there are roughly eleven faults. Saying that one abandons the body of segmented existence and separately receives the existence of variational change, from which sacred teaching does this come? The Srimala Sutra and other scriptures do not have the statement of abandoning segmented existence. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra, Buddhabhumi Sutra, and others all say that undefiled concentration and vows assist past karma, causing the body that is felt to gradually become superior and grow. The Xianyang Shengjiao Lun (Asanga's Exposition of the Holy Teaching) volume sixteen says that one can attain the Buddha's position by relying on the transformation body, and it also does not say to abandon segmented existence. The Entering the Mahayana Treatise also says that abiding in life does not rely on scriptures and treatises, but is determined by one's own intention. Furthermore, it says that with the obstacle of what is known as the condition, newly arising false undefiled karma separately feels the variational change of existence beyond the realm. This should not be so. If creating new karma is the direct cause of feeling the result, why does the Buddha-nature Treatise say that, like those above Srotapanna (stream-enterer), they only use past karma and do not generate new karma. If one uses new undefiled karma to attract existence, this analogy is not established. Moreover, the Pratityasamutpada Sutra and other scriptures say that sages do not create karma that feels later existence. If it is not based on scriptures and treatises, one should not say that there is existence of existence. If it truly exists, how would sages create karma for later existence? Furthermore, if it is permissible to create karma for later existence, an Anagamin (non-returner) should not mix the practice of meditation, assisting the past karma of the lower realm, and be born in the Pure Abodes. If it is said that the power of the Great and Small Vehicles is different, this is also not correct. The superiority or inferiority of the body is different, why can't one create karma? Furthermore, if the power is different, only Bodhisattvas should create new karma to feel the result, the two vehicles have weak power and cannot create karma to feel the result. Furthermore, if Bodhisattvas are allowed to newly create karma to feel the variational change of existence, then the variational change body of the Mahesvara (Great自在) palace is born from retribution karma. Why does the Dasabhumika-sastra say that the later retribution benefit is born from the wisdom of Mahesvara (Great自在)? Therefore, the Buddha-nature Treatise says that, like those above Srotapanna (stream-enterer), they only use past karma and do not generate new karma. Because of this, it is known that the Yogacarabhumi-sastra, Vijnaptimatrata-sastra, etc., say that assisting past karma is the correct explanation. If it is undefiled new feeling, then it is included in the Samudaya Satya (truth of the origin of suffering). Although the established truth and the non-established truth are different, they do not depart from the Four Noble Truths. There is nowhere that says the Samudaya Satya is not to be severed. Attaining penetration of the undefiled is something that should be cultivated. Only the Samudaya Satya is said to be the defiled that should be severed, not the cultivated. This is seeking sentences against reason, so it is unacceptable.
。又若捨身更別受生為變易死。即違四記。無煩惱人死者不生。若云據分段說者。此亦不爾。豈彼變易非生攝耶。又約舍分段名死不生。此為分別。何須云無煩惱人死不生。如入見道舍諸難等。亦得云不生故。若云同分段生不名為舍。亦應同有漏第八不名為舍。既無死不生。應令大師隨虛妄說。又入大乘論云。問云。何住壽。答云。阿羅漢無煩惱。與八地菩薩同。善修如意足故。能隨意住世。乃至盡于生死。羅睺羅賓頭盧等盡住於世。若是舍分段。云何能隨意住。世等不信。大師之日記云。別受身。乖文立義故。亦為過。又云。無漏親感三界外生。名變易生者。此亦不爾。新無漏業可非墮界。第八有漏何非界耶。若云離系故名非界。此同舊說。何假再陳。又如煩惱能感生故。應能為系。彼許所知。實同煩惱。能發業感有漏第八。為菩提障。何非是系。以彼云無漏生。如取為緣。有漏業因而生三有。即執變易。如彼別生。既說如取等故。所知應系。無漏集收。此說不許故。不應執變易別生。如唯識等。名斷所知。雖留身住無漏定愿。資其故業。則無是過。經言如取為緣有漏業用因而生三有。少分喻耳。又入大乘論云。若汝言無煩惱者。我亦如是。若有親愛。信歸於我。當爲汝說。問云。何住壽。答曰。阿羅漢無煩惱。與
【現代漢語翻譯】 又如果捨棄此身而接受另一種生命，就是變易死（parinama-marana，指阿羅漢或菩薩捨棄粗重的分段生死身，而轉入微細的變易生死）。這就違反了四種記說（指佛陀對不同根器的眾生所作的四種不同的教導）。沒有煩惱的人死後不會再生。如果說這是根據分段生死（samsara）來說的，那也不對。難道變易生死不屬於生嗎？又如果說是捨棄分段生死才稱為死而不生，這是一種分別。何必說沒有煩惱的人死後不生呢？就像進入見道（darshana-marga）捨棄各種困難等，也可以說是不生。如果說與分段生死同類的生不稱為舍，也應該像有漏的第八識（阿賴耶識，Alaya-vijnana）不稱為舍一樣。既然沒有死而不生，豈不是讓大師（指佛陀）隨意說虛妄之語？ 又《入大乘論》（Mahayana-avatara-sutra）中說：問：『如何住壽？』答：『阿羅漢沒有煩惱，與八地菩薩相同。因為善於修習如意足（rddhi-pada，四種成就神通的基礎），所以能夠隨意住在世間，乃至窮盡生死。』羅睺羅（Rahula）、賓頭盧（Pindola）等都住在世間。如果是捨棄分段生死，怎麼能隨意住在世間等？這令人難以置信。大師的日記中說：『另外接受身體』，因為違背了經文而建立義理，所以也是一種過失。 又說：『無漏的業力親自體會三界外的生，稱為變易生』，這也是不對的。新的無漏業力可以不墮入三界，但有漏的第八識為什麼不是三界內的呢？如果說因為離開了繫縛所以不屬於三界，這與舊的說法相同，何必再陳述呢？又如煩惱能夠感生，應該能夠成為繫縛。他們認為所知障（jnana-avarana）實際上與煩惱相同，能夠引發業力，感生有漏的第八識，成為菩提的障礙，為什麼不是繫縛呢？因為他們說無漏的生，就像以取為緣，有漏的業因而生三有（指欲有、色有、無色有）。這就是執著變易生死如同另一種生。既然說了如取等，所知障應該成為繫縛，無漏的業力聚集和收攝。這種說法是不允許的，所以不應該執著變易生死是另一種生。就像《唯識》（Vijnanavada）等，稱為斷除所知障，雖然留下身體，住在無漏的禪定和願力中，資助其過去的業力，就沒有這種過失了。經中說『如取為緣，有漏業用因而生三有』，只是少部分的譬喻而已。 又《入大乘論》中說：『如果你們說沒有煩惱，我也是這樣認為。如果有人親近愛戴，相信歸順於我，我將為你們說。』問：『如何住壽？』答：『阿羅漢沒有煩惱，與...
【English Translation】 Furthermore, if abandoning this body and receiving another birth is considered 'parinama-marana' (transformation death, referring to Arhats or Bodhisattvas abandoning the coarse 'samsara' body and entering the subtle 'parinama' existence), then it contradicts the four pronouncements (referring to the Buddha's four different teachings for beings of different capacities). Those without afflictions do not get reborn after death. If it is said that this is based on 'samsara' (cyclic existence), that is also incorrect. Does 'parinama' existence not belong to birth? Also, if abandoning 'samsara' is called death without rebirth, this is a distinction. Why say that those without afflictions do not get reborn after death? Just like entering the 'darshana-marga' (path of seeing) and abandoning various difficulties, it can also be said to be non-birth. If it is said that birth of the same kind as 'samsara' is not called abandonment, it should be like the contaminated eighth consciousness ('Alaya-vijnana') not being called abandonment. Since there is no death without rebirth, wouldn't it be allowing the Master (referring to the Buddha) to speak falsehoods at will? Moreover, in the 'Mahayana-avatara-sutra': Question: 'How to abide in life?' Answer: 'Arhats have no afflictions, the same as Bodhisattvas of the eighth ground. Because they are skilled in cultivating the 'rddhi-pada' (four foundations of miraculous powers), they can abide in the world at will, even to the end of life and death.' Rahula, Pindola, etc., all abide in the world. If it is abandoning 'samsara', how can they abide in the world at will? This is unbelievable. The Master's diary says: 'Receiving another body', because it violates the scriptures and establishes meaning, it is also a fault. Also, saying: 'The uncontaminated karma personally experiences birth outside the three realms, called 'parinama' birth', this is also incorrect. New uncontaminated karma may not fall into the three realms, but why is the contaminated eighth consciousness not within the three realms? If it is said that because it is free from bondage, it does not belong to the three realms, this is the same as the old saying, why repeat it? Also, just as afflictions can cause birth, they should be able to become bondage. They believe that 'jnana-avarana' (cognitive obscuration) is actually the same as afflictions, able to trigger karma, causing the contaminated eighth consciousness, becoming an obstacle to Bodhi, why is it not bondage? Because they say uncontaminated birth, like taking as a condition, contaminated karma causes the three existences. This is clinging to 'parinama' existence as another birth. Since it is said like taking, etc., 'jnana-avarana' should become bondage, uncontaminated karma gathers and collects. This statement is not allowed, so one should not cling to 'parinama' existence as another birth. Like 'Vijnanavada', it is called cutting off 'jnana-avarana', although leaving the body, abiding in uncontaminated samadhi and vows, supporting its past karma, there is no such fault. The sutra says 'like taking as a condition, contaminated karma causes the three existences', it is only a small part of the metaphor. Also, in the 'Mahayana-avatara-sutra': 'If you say there are no afflictions, I also think so. If someone is close and loving, believes and submits to me, I will tell you.' Question: 'How to abide in life?' Answer: 'Arhats have no afflictions, the same as...
八住菩薩同善修如意具足故。能隨意住世。既言隨意住。明非別受生。亦不得言釋四十年前教。論文自引。如羅睺等。故知兼釋法華等教故。唯識解不違經論。彼違故過。又云。受變易死。住三昧樂。謂無餘涅槃。非滅盡定。從此覺已。始發大心者。據不定性。唯識無違。若言定性。此亦不爾。違楞伽等。如前已引。而不能知根性有異。總說迴心。違經及論。又法華經第二云。我等今者住最後身有餘涅槃。不云無餘。勝鬘亦同。又復自說無學回心要住滅定。謂是無餘。從此起已方能趣大。今言非滅定。前後自違背經立義。過之大也。又云。唯識論不捨分段即受變易。云何名為生死。若謂剎那。即違佛性論說唯有一生。若謂命之始終。即違瑜伽增諸壽行。增諸壽行即無有死有。既無有死。如何說生者。是亦不爾。生死名通。又如無上依經佛性論等四種生死但名生死。非據各各死已別生方名生死。若云是變易身生死法故名為生死。亦轉分段生死之法成變易故名為生死。何過不許。若舍分段受生死。何名變易。又許無漏能為新業親招生死。楞伽復說三意生身。地位各別則應更受。何名一生。故所設難唐捐其功。其過五也。又云。既不捨分段。瑜伽復無轉根之文。女人羅漢若為成佛者。此亦不爾。若以瑜伽無轉根文。即許女身
成佛者。勝鬘經佛性論無上依經亦無轉根之語。設縱捨身。二乘鈍根如何成佛。瑜伽唯識無漏等資名一為變易。變易即是轉根之義。而不能知。其過之甚。又云。如上地道。破于上地感上地道。破于下地感上地報。二乘無漏破裂分段感變易生。于理何失者。此亦不爾。上地有漏道伏下不伏上。有漏可能感報。無漏之道通斷上下。非同有漏。如何能感。又云。瑜伽論說。留根增壽。住在此洲遠離而住。余不能見。準此論文。是留壽行。非變易生死。末代論師加增穿鑿非瑜伽意者。此亦不爾。後代論師順文成理不同。彼說乖背瑜伽。瑜伽若許舍分段身別受變易。後代論師云資故業。可是增加。瑜伽不捨根身增壽者。即是變易。不同二乘有漏定愿所增壽行。非多劫故。人天同類皆可見故。又無著顯揚論中說為變化身。親光佛地論內云變易死。又入大乘論云。答云。阿羅漢無煩惱。與八住菩薩同。善修如意足故。能隨意住世。乃至盡于生死。又云。如僧祇中說。青眼如來為化菩薩故。在光音天。與諸聲聞眾無量百千億那由他劫住。如彼天中。聲聞住壽多劫。當知此世界亦有聲聞。能如是住。若要舍壽受身他處。何名住世。此界亦有等。又問云。為以此身住世。為更有餘身住。答以實身而住世者。則無其義。若變化身住壽多劫。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於成佛的問題，《勝鬘經》、《佛性論》和《無上依經》中都沒有提到『轉根』的說法。假設即使捨棄色身，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的鈍根之人如何能夠成佛呢？《瑜伽師地論》和《唯識論》中將無漏等資糧稱為『變易』，變易就是轉根的含義，而你卻不能理解，這是多麼大的過失啊！ 你又說：『如同上地之道，破除上地的業感，破除下地的業感，二乘的無漏道破除分段生死，感得變易生死，在道理上有什麼不對呢？』這也是不對的。上地的有漏道可以伏除下地的煩惱，但不能伏除上地的煩惱，有漏道可能感得果報。而無漏之道可以通斷上下，不同於有漏道，怎麼能感得果報呢？ 你又說：『《瑜伽師地論》說，留住根身，增長壽命，住在這個洲，遠離而住，其他人不能看見。』根據這段經文，這是留壽之行，不是變易生死。末代的論師們加以穿鑿附會，不是《瑜伽師地論》的本意。 這也是不對的。後代的論師們順應經文，成就道理，不同於你的說法，與《瑜伽師地論》相違背。《瑜伽師地論》如果允許捨棄分段身，另外接受變易身，後代的論師們說這是因為資糧和過去業力的緣故，是可以增加的。《瑜伽師地論》不捨棄根身而增長壽命，這就是變易生死，不同於二乘有漏的定力和願力所增長的壽命，不是因為多劫的緣故，人天同類都可以看見的緣故。 此外，無著（Asanga）的《顯揚聖教論》中說這是變化身，親光（Prajnakaragupta）的《佛地經論》中說這是變易死。還有《入大乘論》中說：『回答說，阿羅漢（Arhat）沒有煩惱，與八地菩薩相同，因為善於修習如意足（神通），所以能夠隨意住在世間，乃至窮盡生死。』又說：『如僧祇中說，青眼如來爲了化度菩薩的緣故，在光音天（Abhasvara heaven），與諸聲聞眾無量百千億那由他劫（nayuta kalpas）同住。如同彼天之中，聲聞住壽多劫，應當知道這個世界也有聲聞，能夠這樣住世。』如果要捨棄壽命，接受其他地方的身體，怎麼能叫做住世呢？這個世界也有等等。 又問：『是以這個身體住世，還是有其他的身體住世？』回答說：『以真實的身體而住世，這是沒有道理的。如果是變化身住壽多劫，』
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the attainment of Buddhahood, neither the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (Victorious Garland of the Lion's Roar Sutra), the Buddha Nature Treatise, nor the Anuttarāśraya Sūtra (Supreme Reliance Sutra) mention the term 'root transformation'. Even if one were to abandon the physical body, how could those of dull faculties in the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) attain Buddhahood? The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) and the Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi (Establishment of Consciousness-Only) refer to the uncontaminated accumulations as 'transformation' (pariṇāma), which is the meaning of root transformation, yet you fail to understand this, which is a great fault! Furthermore, you say: 'Just as the path of a higher ground destroys the karmic effects of a higher ground, and destroys the karmic effects of a lower ground, what is wrong with the uncontaminated path of the Two Vehicles destroying the segmented existence (saṃsāra) and causing the arising of transformational existence (pariṇāma-saṃsāra)?' This is also incorrect. The contaminated path of a higher ground can subdue lower afflictions but cannot subdue higher afflictions, and the contaminated path can cause karmic effects. However, the uncontaminated path can sever both higher and lower afflictions, unlike the contaminated path, so how can it cause karmic effects? Furthermore, you say: 'The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states that one can retain the root body, increase lifespan, and reside in this continent, living in seclusion, unseen by others.' According to this passage, this is an act of prolonging life, not transformational existence. Later commentators have added interpretations that are not the original intent of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. This is also incorrect. Later commentators follow the text and establish the principle, unlike your explanation, which contradicts the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. If the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra allows for the abandonment of the segmented body and the acceptance of a transformational body, later commentators say that this is due to accumulations and past karma, which can be increased. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra does not abandon the root body but increases lifespan, which is transformational existence, unlike the lifespan increased by the contaminated concentration and vows of the Two Vehicles, not because of many kalpas (aeons), and visible to humans and devas (gods) alike. Moreover, Asaṅga's Abhidharmasamuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) refers to this as a transformation body (nirmāṇakāya), and Prajñākaragupta's Buddhabhūmi Sūtra Śāstra (Commentary on the Discourse on the Buddha Land) refers to this as transformational death (pariṇāma-maraṇa). Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Mahāyāna) states: 'The answer is that Arhats (worthy ones) are without afflictions, like Bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings) of the eighth ground, and because they are skilled in cultivating the psychic powers (ṛddhi), they can dwell in the world at will, even to the end of existence.' It also states: 'As mentioned in the Saṃghāti Sūtra, the Blue-Eyed Tathāgata (Thus Come One), for the sake of transforming Bodhisattvas, dwells in the Ābhāsvara heaven (heaven of radiant light) with countless hundreds of thousands of millions of nayuta kalpas (extremely long periods of time) of Śrāvakas (hearers). Just as in that heaven, Śrāvakas dwell for many kalpas, it should be known that in this world also there are Śrāvakas who can dwell in this way.' If one were to abandon lifespan and accept a body elsewhere, how could it be called dwelling in the world? This world also has, and so on. Furthermore, the question is asked: 'Does one dwell in the world with this body, or does one dwell with another body?' The answer is: 'To dwell in the world with the real body is not reasonable. If it is a transformation body that dwells for many kalpas,'
斯有是處。若更受身。即是實身。何名變化。故知增壽轉穢本形名為變易。若如是者。依名取義。及往無違。若要捨身方受變易。何但名乖。亦違聖教。唯意不但非唯識師。無著堅意諸菩薩等。亦彼云問略。敬凡不足。陵聖有餘。又云。如三界中煩惱為緣有漏業為因生於三界。若有業煩惱未伏。定生三界。故知若有妄無漏業未斷無明住地故受變易者。此亦不爾。如初果之人。又雖有三界業煩惱未斷。未必定受三界生。方取無學即于現身亦許得故。故知地上菩薩亦爾。即于現身得至果故。若云二乘有學能伏修惑。可有不生者。菩薩亦能伏所知障。何要別生方能至果。又八地已上有無漏業。未斷無明住地。何不更受。為三意生。唯一生耶。又十三不同中第七云。法華智度論等。非三界攝。因緣非是三有業故。三界煩惱不能系故者。不爾。法華何處說變易身云非界攝。若據惑盡分段之身亦云界外。故下經云。以佛教門出三界苦。過三百旬等若論現身。八七五識及五根等並是有漏。如何非界。應知云變易出三界者。義亦同此。又從因緣生死云非界系。若約五八等。猶屬於界。雖非惑系。體隨界故。若非界攝。應是出世。是出世者。與佛何殊。若云有漏故與佛殊。既云有漏。如何非界。又復大乘處處經論辨界趣體。唯依第八。而
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此說有其道理。如果需要再次受生，那就是真實之身（實身，指由煩惱和業力所生的身），又怎麼能稱之為變化呢？所以說，增長壽命、轉變污穢的原本形體，才叫做變易（變易，指菩薩在修行過程中，不斷變化和提升自己的身心狀態）。如果像你所說，必須捨棄原有的身體才能接受變易，這不僅在名稱上不符，也違背了聖教（聖教，指佛陀的教誨）。 只有唯識師（唯識師，佛教宗派，強調一切現象皆為識所變現）才這樣認為。無著（Asanga，印度佛教瑜伽行派創始人之一）、堅意（Drdhamati，印度佛教瑜伽行派論師）等菩薩，也曾略微地問過這個問題。尊敬凡夫不足，輕慢聖人有餘。又說：『如同三界（三界，指欲界、色界、無色界）中以煩惱為緣，以有漏業（有漏業，指帶有煩惱和執著的行為）為因，而生於三界。如果業和煩惱沒有被降伏，必定會生於三界。』由此可知，如果有人認為，即使有虛妄的無漏業（無漏業，指沒有煩惱和執著的行為），但由於沒有斷除無明住地（無明住地，指根本的無明煩惱），所以會接受變易，這種說法也是不對的。如同初果（初果，指聲聞乘修行者的第一個果位，須陀洹）之人，即使還有三界的業和煩惱沒有斷除，也未必一定要受三界之生，才能證得無學果（無學果，指聲聞乘修行者的最高果位，阿羅漢），即使在現世也允許證得。所以說，地上的菩薩也是如此，即使在現世也能證得果位。 如果說二乘（二乘，指聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的有學（有學，指還在學習和修行中的人）能夠降伏修惑（修惑，指通過修行才能斷除的煩惱），所以可以不再次受生，那麼菩薩也能降伏所知障（所知障，指對真理的認知障礙），為什麼一定要再次受生才能證得果位呢？而且，八地（八地，指菩薩修行過程中的第八個階位，不動地）以上的菩薩，雖然有無漏業，但沒有斷除無明住地，為什麼不再受生，而只是三意生（三意生，指化生的一種，由意念所生）和唯一生（唯一生，指不再受其他形式的生命）呢？ 在十三種不同之處中的第七點說，《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）和《智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）等，不屬於三界所攝，因為它們的因緣不是三有的業（三有，指欲有、色有、無色有），三界的煩惱不能束縛它們。這種說法不對。《法華經》哪裡說過變易身不屬於三界所攝？如果根據斷盡煩惱的分段之身（分段之身，指由業力所感，有生老病死的身體）來說，也可以說是界外。所以下經說：『以佛教的法門，出離三界的痛苦，超過三百年』等等。如果從現身來說，八識（八識，指眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識、末那識、阿賴耶識）中的八七五識以及五根（五根，指眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根）等都是有漏的，怎麼能說不屬於三界呢？應該知道，說變易身出三界，意思也與此相同。又說從因緣生死來說，不屬於三界的束縛，如果從五八識等來說，仍然屬於三界。雖然不是被煩惱所束縛，但其本體還是隨順於三界。如果不是三界所攝，就應該是出世間（出世間，指超越三界的狀態）。如果是出世間，與佛有什麼區別？如果說因為有漏所以與佛不同，既然說是有漏，怎麼能說不屬於三界呢？而且，大乘（Mahāyāna）的處處經論都辨析界趣（界趣，指眾生所處的不同境界）的本體，唯獨依據第八識（第八識，即阿賴耶識）。
【English Translation】 English version: This view has its merits. If one needs to receive a body again, that would be a real body (Śarīra, referring to a body born from afflictions and karma), so how could it be called transformation? Therefore, increasing lifespan and transforming the defiled original form is called change (Vaipariṇāmika-kāya, referring to the constant change and improvement of one's body and mind state during the bodhisattva's practice). If, as you say, one must abandon the original body to receive transformation, this is not only inconsistent in name but also violates the holy teachings (Śāsana, referring to the teachings of the Buddha). Only the Yogācāra (Yogācāra, a Buddhist school emphasizing that all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness) believes this. Asaṅga (Asaṅga, one of the founders of the Yogācāra school of Indian Buddhism), Dṛḍhamati (Dṛḍhamati, an Indian Buddhist Yogācāra commentator), and other bodhisattvas have also briefly asked this question. Respecting ordinary people is insufficient, and belittling the saints is excessive. It is also said: 'Just as in the Three Realms (Tridhātu, referring to the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm), afflictions are the condition, and defiled karma (Sāsrava-karma, referring to actions with afflictions and attachments) is the cause, resulting in birth in the Three Realms. If karma and afflictions have not been subdued, one will definitely be born in the Three Realms.' From this, it can be known that if someone believes that even with illusory undefiled karma (Anāsrava-karma, referring to actions without afflictions and attachments), but because the abode of ignorance (Avidyā-sthāna, referring to the fundamental ignorance) has not been eradicated, one will undergo transformation, this statement is also incorrect. Like a Stream-enterer (Srotāpanna, referring to the first stage of realization in the Śrāvakayāna), even if the karma and afflictions of the Three Realms have not been eradicated, one does not necessarily have to be born in the Three Realms to attain the state of No More Learning (Aśaikṣa, referring to the highest stage of realization in the Śrāvakayāna, Arhat); it is permissible to attain it even in the present life. Therefore, bodhisattvas on the grounds are also like this; they can attain the fruit even in the present life. If it is said that the Learners (Śaikṣa, referring to those who are still learning and practicing) of the Two Vehicles (Dvayanā, referring to the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) can subdue the afflictions of cultivation (Bhāvanāheya, referring to afflictions that are eradicated through cultivation), so they may not be born again, then bodhisattvas can also subdue the obstacles to knowledge (Jñeyāvaraṇa, referring to obstacles to the realization of truth), so why must they be born again to attain the fruit? Moreover, bodhisattvas above the Eighth Ground (Acala-bhūmi, referring to the eighth stage of the bodhisattva path, the Immovable Ground), although they have undefiled karma, have not eradicated the abode of ignorance, so why are they not born again, but only through the three mind-born bodies (Manomayakāya, referring to a type of transformation body born from the mind) and the single birth (Ekajāti, referring to no longer being born in other forms of life)? In the seventh of the thirteen differences, it is said that the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) and the Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise (Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa), etc., are not included in the Three Realms because their conditions are not the karma of the three existences (Tribhava, referring to the Desire Existence, the Form Existence, and the Formless Existence), and the afflictions of the Three Realms cannot bind them. This statement is incorrect. Where does the Lotus Sutra say that the transformation body is not included in the realms? If based on the body of severance (Parinirvāṇa, referring to the body that has ended the cycle of birth and death) that has exhausted afflictions, it can also be said to be outside the realms. Therefore, the sutra below says: 'Using the Dharma gate of Buddhism, one escapes the suffering of the Three Realms, exceeding three hundred years,' etc. If speaking of the present body, the eight, seven, and five consciousnesses (Aṣṭa Vijñāna, referring to the eight consciousnesses: eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness, Manas consciousness, and Ālaya consciousness) among the eight consciousnesses, as well as the five roots (Pañcendriya, referring to the eye root, ear root, nose root, tongue root, and body root), etc., are all defiled, so how can it be said that they do not belong to the Three Realms? It should be known that saying the transformation body is outside the Three Realms has the same meaning. Also, saying that from the perspective of conditioned birth and death, it is not bound by the Three Realms, but from the perspective of the five and eight consciousnesses, it still belongs to the Three Realms. Although it is not bound by afflictions, its essence still follows the Three Realms. If it is not included in the Three Realms, it should be supramundane (Lokottara, referring to the state beyond the Three Realms). If it is supramundane, what is the difference from the Buddha? If it is said that because it is defiled, it is different from the Buddha, since it is said to be defiled, how can it be said that it does not belong to the Three Realms? Moreover, the Mahāyāna scriptures and treatises everywhere analyze the essence of the realms and destinies (Gati, referring to the different realms of existence), relying solely on the eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna, the eighth consciousness).
今不知。故亦成過。不同中第十二云。無上依經佛性論等。妄無漏業以為生死。與大菩提為其怨障。瑜伽論等由無漏定資身命住。以取菩提者。此亦不爾。若不為取無上菩提。留身久住。為斯修事。何故菩薩十地位中。受變易身。與菩提為障。又楞伽第七云。大慧菩薩以見寂靜三昧樂門。憶念本願。大慈悲心度諸眾生。知十無盡。如實行智。是故不即入于涅槃。大悲諸菩薩遠離妄分別之心等。既云慈悲為眾生知十無盡如實行智等。豈可不知猶起妄無漏業受變易生與菩提為障。若由不知起妄無漏招變易生。應如凡夫造業感果。不唯一生。由業力故。若云故意受變易身。即何為障。只由有智障礙大菩提。為取菩提。留身久住。斷此智障。若不如是。即入涅槃。然經說為難。論名怨障者。以礙大菩提故。所以須受者。為欲斷除故。如勇健人有其怨敵。求怨敵然故。非不能避逢怨被害為怨障。受變易身應知亦爾。又云。第二第三時教唯有定性二乘身智斷滅。第四第五時教二乘無實涅槃。五性皆當成佛。無斷滅也者。此亦不爾。自許楞伽為第五時教。但說退菩提心者向大。勝鬘為其了義。說一乘者。復云。隨彼意欲而方便說。法華論釋不益決定聲聞。藥草喻中論云。令知乘異。涅槃最在後陳。說皆成佛。不解我意。以此準知。瑜
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 現在我不知道。所以也成了過失。如同《中論》第十二品所說，《無上依經》、《佛性論》等，認為虛妄的無漏業是生死的根源，與大菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）是怨敵和障礙。《瑜伽師地論》等認為依靠無漏定來維持身命，以求取菩提，這種說法也不對。如果不是爲了求取無上菩提，而爲了修習佛法而長久住世，那麼為什麼菩薩在十地（Bodhisattva Bhumis，菩薩修行的十個階段）中，還要接受變易身，併成為菩提的障礙呢？ 又《楞伽經》第七卷說，大慧菩薩（Mahamati Bodhisattva）因為見到寂靜三昧（Samadhi，禪定）的快樂之門，憶念起自己的本願，以大慈悲心來度化眾生，了知十種無盡，如同實行智。所以不立即進入涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。大悲菩薩遠離虛妄分別之心等等。既然說慈悲是爲了眾生，了知十種無盡如同實行智等等，怎麼會不知道仍然會因為虛妄的無漏業而接受變易生，併成為菩提的障礙呢？如果因為不知道而生起虛妄的無漏業，招感變易生，應該像凡夫一樣造業感果，不只一生，而是因為業力的緣故。 如果說是故意接受變易身，那又有什麼障礙呢？只是因為有智慧而障礙了大菩提，爲了求取菩提，長久住世，斷除這種智慧的障礙。如果不是這樣，就應該進入涅槃。然而經中說這是很難的。論中稱為怨障，是因為它妨礙了大菩提的緣故。所以必須接受變易身的原因，是爲了斷除它。如同勇健的人有怨敵，尋求戰勝怨敵的方法。並非不能避免，而是遇到怨敵被其傷害，成為怨障。接受變易身也應該這樣理解。又說，第二、第三時教只有定性二乘的身智斷滅，第四、第五時教二乘沒有真實的涅槃，五性都應當成佛，沒有斷滅的說法，這種說法也不對。自己承認《楞伽經》是第五時教，但只說退菩提心的人會趨向大乘，《勝鬘經》是了義經典，說一乘的人，又說，隨順他們的意願而方便說法。《法華經論》解釋說對不益決定聲聞，藥草喻中論說，讓他們知道乘的差異，涅槃最後才陳述，說都能成佛，是不理解我的意思。以此推知，《瑜伽師地論》的觀點也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version Now I do not know. Therefore, it also becomes a fault. As the twelfth chapter of the Madhyamaka-karika (Treatise on the Middle Way) says, the Uttaratantra, Buddha-nature Treatise, etc., consider false, non-outflow (anāsrava) karma as the root of birth and death, and as enemies and obstacles to Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (supreme complete enlightenment). The Yogacarabhumi-sastra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice), etc., consider relying on non-outflow Samadhi (meditative concentration) to maintain life, in order to seek Bodhi (enlightenment), this statement is also incorrect. If it is not for seeking Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, but to practice the Dharma and live long in the world, then why do Bodhisattvas in the ten Bodhisattva Bhumis (stages of a Bodhisattva's practice) still accept the body of transformation (parinama-kaya), and become an obstacle to Bodhi? Furthermore, the seventh volume of the Lankavatara Sutra says that Mahamati Bodhisattva, because he saw the joyful gate of tranquil Samadhi, remembered his original vows, and used great compassion to liberate sentient beings, understanding the ten inexhaustibles, like the wisdom of actual practice. Therefore, he did not immediately enter Nirvana (liberation). Great compassionate Bodhisattvas are far from the mind of false discrimination, etc. Since it is said that compassion is for sentient beings, understanding the ten inexhaustibles like the wisdom of actual practice, etc., how could they not know that they would still accept the body of transformation due to false, non-outflow karma, and become an obstacle to Bodhi? If one generates false, non-outflow karma due to ignorance, inviting the body of transformation, one should be like ordinary people creating karma and experiencing the results, not just in one lifetime, but because of the power of karma. If it is said that one deliberately accepts the body of transformation, then what obstacle is there? It is only because of having wisdom that one obstructs Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, in order to seek Bodhi, live long in the world, and cut off this obstacle of wisdom. If it is not like this, one should enter Nirvana. However, the sutra says that this is difficult. The treatise calls it an enemy and obstacle because it hinders Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Therefore, the reason for having to accept the body of transformation is to eliminate it. Just like a brave person has enemies, seeking ways to defeat the enemies. It is not that they cannot avoid it, but that they encounter enemies and are harmed by them, becoming an obstacle. Accepting the body of transformation should also be understood in this way. Furthermore, it is said that in the second and third periods of teaching, only the body and wisdom of those of the two vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) with fixed nature are extinguished, in the fourth and fifth periods of teaching, the two vehicles do not have true Nirvana, and all five natures should become Buddhas, without the saying of extinction, this statement is also incorrect. One admits that the Lankavatara Sutra is the fifth period of teaching, but only says that those who retreat from the Bodhi mind will tend towards the Great Vehicle, the Srimala Sutra is a definitive sutra, saying that those of the One Vehicle, also say that they speak expediently according to their wishes. The Lotus Sutra Treatise explains that it does not benefit those Sravakas who are determined, in the parable of the medicinal herbs, the treatise says, let them know the differences of the vehicles, Nirvana is stated last, saying that all can become Buddhas, is not understanding my meaning. From this, it can be inferred that the view of the Yogacarabhumi-sastra is also like this.
伽深密了義大乘。楞伽涅槃咸皆符會。說教分為五時。定性悉皆成佛。無學無餘后始迴心。舍分段身別受變易。既無聖教。但彼自言。非信人誰能順受。如有相違。后當會釋。
說妄通經謬十
有義。學瑜伽者。妄通楞伽涅槃經說。一闡提成佛者。是莊嚴論時邊無性非畢竟無性者。不然。何者。且阿顛帝迦。此云畢竟。第五性收。一闡提人非定第五。五性斷善名一闡提。前四斷善名為暫時。第五斷善名為畢竟。此亦非理。所以者何。且五斷善出何經論。若準楞伽。但說五乘。不說五種斷善。若準莊嚴論。時邊中有四種性。亦不說皆斷善。若依涅槃第三十六。即說生死河中有七種人。皆說斷善。彼說五斷善。前四為暫時。第五為畢竟。憑何聖教。應為出文。又云。暫時無涅槃者。一非第五性。二非常沒。三非決定無涅槃法。四前經已說當得涅槃。楞伽經說第五性中。顯燃善根后當涅槃。第五性中唯有菩薩闡提。更無畢竟。故知莊嚴論說畢竟無性。即楞伽經中燒善根者。此亦不爾。何者。楞伽經說當得涅槃。明彼非是涅槃經中常沒之人。亦非莊嚴畢竟之者。豈經中自說當得涅槃。無著菩薩說為畢竟無涅槃者。若說燒燃一切善法。莊嚴論中名為畢竟無涅槃法。於時邊中。復更說誰為普斷諸善根。又莊嚴論畢竟無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這些是深奧且意義深遠的大乘經典，如《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）和《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra），它們的內容相互契合。佛陀的教法可以分為五個時期，所有眾生最終都能成佛。那些已證得無學果位且已入無餘涅槃的聖者，在很久以後還會回心轉意，捨棄分段生死之身，而接受變易生死之身。既然沒有聖教經典支援這種說法，那麼這僅僅是他們自己說的。不是信徒的人，誰會順從接受呢？如果（他們的說法）與（已有的經典）相違背，以後應當進行解釋。
妄談經典之謬誤十
有一種觀點認為，學習《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）的人，錯誤地引用《楞伽經》和《涅槃經》的說法，聲稱一闡提（icchantika，斷善根者）也能成佛，並認為這是《莊嚴論》（Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra）中所說的『有時邊際的無性』，而不是『畢竟無性』。這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？首先，阿顛帝迦（atyantika），意思是『畢竟』，被歸為第五種根性。一闡提人並非一定是第五種根性。五性中的斷善根者被稱為一闡提，前四種根性斷善根被稱為『暫時』，第五種根性斷善根被稱為『畢竟』。這種說法也是沒有道理的。為什麼呢？首先，五種斷善根的說法出自哪部經論？如果依據《楞伽經》，其中只說了五乘（pañca-yāna），並沒有說五種斷善根。如果依據《莊嚴論》，在『時邊』中只有四種根性，也沒有說都是斷善根。如果依據《涅槃經》第三十六品，其中說了生死之河中有七種人，都說了斷善根。他們所說的五種斷善根，前四種是暫時的，第五種是畢竟的，是依據哪部聖教經典呢？應該拿出依據的經文。他們又說，『暫時沒有涅槃』的人，一不是第五種根性，二不是永遠沉沒，三不是決定沒有涅槃之法，四是之前的經典已經說了他們將來可以獲得涅槃。《楞伽經》說，在第五種根性中，顯現並燃起善根后，將來可以獲得涅槃。第五種根性中只有菩薩和一闡提，沒有畢竟（不能成佛）的。因此，要知道《莊嚴論》所說的『畢竟無性』，就是《楞伽經》中燒燬善根的人。這種說法也是不對的。為什麼呢？《楞伽經》說了將來可以獲得涅槃，說明他們不是《涅槃經》中永遠沉沒的人，也不是《莊嚴論》中畢竟（不能成佛）的人。難道經典中自己說了將來可以獲得涅槃，無著（Asaṅga）菩薩卻說他們是畢竟沒有涅槃的人嗎？如果說燒燬一切善法，《莊嚴論》中稱之為『畢竟沒有涅槃之法』。在『時邊』中，又說誰是普斷一切善根的人呢？而且《莊嚴論》的畢竟無
【English Translation】 English version: These are profound and deeply meaningful Mahayana (Great Vehicle) scriptures, such as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra) and the Nirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra), whose contents are in agreement with each other. The Buddha's teachings can be divided into five periods, and all beings will eventually attain Buddhahood. Those who have attained the state of no-more-learning (arhatship) and have entered Parinirvana (Nirvana without remainder), will, after a long time, turn their minds back, abandon the physical body of sectional transmigration, and accept the body of transformational transmigration. Since there is no sacred scripture to support this claim, it is merely something they say themselves. Who, other than believers, would obediently accept it? If (their claims) contradict (existing scriptures), they should be explained later.
Errors in Recklessly Discussing the Scriptures - Ten
There is a view that those who study the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) mistakenly quote the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Nirvana Sutra, claiming that even an icchantika (icchantika, one who has severed their roots of goodness) can attain Buddhahood, and that this is the 'sometimes-limited absence of nature' mentioned in the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra (Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras), not the 'ultimate absence of nature'. This is incorrect. Why? First, atyantika, meaning 'ultimate', is classified as the fifth nature. An icchantika is not necessarily of the fifth nature. Among the five natures, one who has severed their roots of goodness is called an icchantika. Severing the roots of goodness in the first four natures is called 'temporary', while severing the roots of goodness in the fifth nature is called 'ultimate'. This claim is also unreasonable. Why? First, from which sutra or treatise does the claim of five types of severed roots of goodness come? If based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, it only speaks of the five vehicles (pañca-yāna), and does not mention five types of severed roots of goodness. If based on the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra, there are only four natures in 'sometimes-limited', and it does not say that all are severed roots of goodness. If based on the thirty-sixth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, it speaks of seven types of people in the river of birth and death, all of whom are said to have severed their roots of goodness. Their claim of five types of severed roots of goodness, with the first four being temporary and the fifth being ultimate, is based on which sacred scripture? They should provide the text as evidence. They also say that those who 'temporarily do not have Nirvana', one, are not of the fifth nature; two, are not eternally submerged; three, do not definitively lack the Dharma of Nirvana; and four, previous scriptures have already said that they will attain Nirvana in the future. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says that in the fifth nature, after manifesting and igniting the roots of goodness, they will attain Nirvana in the future. In the fifth nature, there are only Bodhisattvas and icchantikas; there is no ultimate (inability to attain Buddhahood). Therefore, know that the 'ultimate absence of nature' mentioned in the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra refers to those who burn their roots of goodness in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. This claim is also incorrect. Why? The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says that they will attain Nirvana in the future, indicating that they are not those who are eternally submerged in the Nirvana Sutra, nor are they those who are ultimately (unable to attain Buddhahood) in the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra. How can the scripture itself say that they will attain Nirvana in the future, while the Bodhisattva Asaṅga (Asaṅga) says that they are ultimately without Nirvana? If it is said that they burn all good Dharmas, the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra calls this 'ultimately without the Dharma of Nirvana'. In 'sometimes-limited', who is said to be the one who universally severs all roots of goodness? Moreover, the ultimate absence of the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra.
因。楞伽無性大悲。亦彼豈全無性。故知楞伽無涅槃法燒善根者。是時邊收。非是莊嚴畢竟所攝。又莊嚴說有五乘。同楞伽者。可云畢竟即彼第五。莊嚴論中但明有性無性。于有性中即說三乘。無性之中復有四種。一不同楞伽說有第四。二不同楞伽說無性乘為其第五。又諸經論所說不同。涅槃或云三種病人。或七斷善。勝鬘說四。此等非一。各據別義。非定一準。如何定判。莊嚴論中畢竟無性即彼燒燃諸善根者。又若無畢竟無性。如何涅槃第三十二云。善男子。生死河中有七種人。第一人者斷善常沒。又第九言。若得聞是大涅槃經。雖犯四禁及五無間。猶故能生菩提因緣。一闡提輩則不如是。雖得聽受是妙經典。而不能生菩提道因。準此經。五無間業雖是邪定。說能作因。即余處說救邪定。是一闡提輩。則不如是者。即余經說舍邪定者。又言舍者。不化作佛。非全舍之。令生天故。故彼前會菩薩藏經。同餘不捨。明為妄說。又復多喻。如枯木必不生。如石山不停水。如淤泥珠未能清。如燋種必不生。又云。假使一切無量眾生一時成就阿耨菩提已。此諸如來亦復不見彼一闡提得成菩提。又第七云。復有比丘。說佛密藏甚深經典。一切眾生皆有佛性。以是性故。斷無量億諸煩惱結。即得阿耨菩提。除一闡提。若以悉有佛性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因（原因）。《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）說無自性，大悲（mahākaruṇā）也是如此，難道它們就完全沒有自性嗎？所以要知道，《楞伽經》所說的沒有涅槃（nirvāṇa）之法、燒燬善根的人，是暫時被排除，並非究竟不被莊嚴所攝受。而且《莊嚴經論》（Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra）中說有五乘，與《楞伽經》相同。可以認為究竟的無自性就是那第五乘。《莊嚴經論》中只說明有自性和無自性，在有自性中就說了三乘，無自性中又有四種。一是不同於《楞伽經》說有第四種無自性，二是不同於《楞伽經》說無自性乘是第五乘。而且各經論所說不同，關於涅槃，有的說是三種病人，有的說是七種斷善根的人，《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）說是四種，這些說法不一，各自依據不同的含義，並非統一的標準，如何能確定判斷呢？《莊嚴經論》中究竟的無自性就是那些燒燃諸善根的人。 又如果不存在究竟的無自性，那麼《涅槃經》（Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra）第三十二品怎麼說：『善男子，生死河中有七種人，第一種人是斷了善根，常在其中沉沒。』又第九品說：『如果能夠聽聞《大涅槃經》，即使犯了四重禁戒以及五無間罪（pañcānantarya），仍然能夠產生菩提（bodhi）的因緣。一闡提（icchantika）之輩則不是這樣，即使聽受了這部妙典，也不能產生菩提道因。』按照這部經，五無間業雖然是邪定（mithyātvaniyata），但說能作為因，也就是其他地方所說的救濟邪定。一闡提之輩則不是這樣，也就是其他經所說的捨棄邪定的人。又說捨棄的人，不化作佛，並非完全捨棄，而是令其生天。所以之前菩薩藏經的說法，與其餘不捨棄的說法相同，明顯是妄說。而且還有很多比喻，如枯木必定不能生長，如石山不能停留水，如淤泥中的珠子不能澄清，如燒焦的種子必定不能生長。又說：『假使一切無量眾生一時成就阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi）了，諸如來（Tathāgata）也看不見那一闡提能夠成就菩提。』又第七品說：『又有比丘，說佛的密藏甚深經典，一切眾生都有佛性（Buddha-dhātu），因為這個佛性，斷除無量億的煩惱結，就能得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，除了一闡提。』如果認為一切眾生都有佛性
【English Translation】 English version Because. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says that there is no self-nature, and so does great compassion (mahākaruṇā). Is it that they have no self-nature at all? Therefore, know that what the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says about those who have no Dharma of Nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa) and burn their roots of goodness are temporarily excluded and are not ultimately included in the adornment. Moreover, the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra says that there are five vehicles, which are the same as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. It can be said that the ultimate absence of self-nature is the fifth vehicle. The Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra only explains the presence and absence of self-nature. Among those with self-nature, it speaks of the three vehicles, and among those without self-nature, there are four types. First, it differs from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in saying that there is a fourth type of absence of self-nature. Second, it differs from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra in saying that the vehicle of absence of self-nature is the fifth vehicle. Moreover, the various sutras and treatises say different things. Regarding Nirvāṇa, some say it is three types of sick people, some say it is seven types of people who have cut off their roots of goodness, and the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra says it is four types. These statements are not the same and are based on different meanings, not a unified standard. How can we make a definite judgment? In the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra, the ultimate absence of self-nature is those who burn their roots of goodness. Moreover, if there is no ultimate absence of self-nature, then how does the thirty-second chapter of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra say: 'Good man, in the river of birth and death, there are seven types of people. The first type of person is one who has cut off their roots of goodness and is constantly sinking in it.' Also, the ninth chapter says: 'If one can hear the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, even if one has committed the four grave offenses and the five heinous crimes (pañcānantarya), one can still produce the causes and conditions for Bodhi (bodhi). The icchantikas (icchantika) are not like this. Even if they hear this wonderful scripture, they cannot produce the causes for the path to Bodhi.' According to this sutra, although the five heinous crimes are wrong views (mithyātvaniyata), it is said that they can be a cause, which is what is said elsewhere about saving those with wrong views. The icchantikas are not like this, which is what other sutras say about those who abandon wrong views. It is also said that those who abandon do not transform into Buddhas, but are not completely abandoned, but are allowed to be born in the heavens. Therefore, the previous statement in the Bodhisattva Piṭaka Sūtra, which is the same as the other statements of not abandoning, is clearly a false statement. Moreover, there are many metaphors, such as a dry tree cannot grow, a stone mountain cannot hold water, a pearl in muddy water cannot be cleared, and a scorched seed cannot grow. It is also said: 'Even if all the immeasurable beings at once attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi), the Tathāgatas (Tathāgata) will not see that an icchantika can attain Bodhi.' Also, the seventh chapter says: 'There are also bhikṣus who speak of the secret and profound scriptures of the Buddha, that all beings have Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu), and because of this Buddha-nature, they can cut off countless billions of knots of affliction and attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, except for the icchantikas.' If it is thought that all beings have Buddha-nature
。必當得斷諸煩惱結。彼一闡提豈不當能而獨除耶。若云餘者。現能闡提當能說。現非當者。此亦不然。除闡提諸難處等。皆現能耶。豈墮難者。皆闡提耶。上下多文。煩不具引。若以世親佛性論會。為謗法者說無量時。非實無性。如何不信。善戒經中如來自說。非種性人。無種性故。彌勒菩薩于聲聞地及菩經地並抉擇分無著菩薩顯揚論等。皆說無性。佛地論中又復會云。雖經宣說一切有情之類皆有佛性皆當作佛。然就真如法身佛性。或就小分一切有情。方便而說。為令不定種性有情決定速趣無上正等菩提果故。攝大乘論及法華論所說一乘義皆相似。又復悉有佛性皆當作佛。即唯一乘而爲了義。何故涅槃云。說一乘一道一行一緣。乃至云不解我意。又云。于經中或說一乘。或說三乘。又解深密經云。故於其中說一乘。非有情性無差別。楞伽經中亦云隱密。若爾。既有無性。佛性論文及寶性論如何會釋。答佛地論中已為解說今更一釋。有經文說。闡提決定無涅槃性者。有多種不同。佛性論云。說闡提決定無者。會楞伽經第五無性。彼斷善者。但無現行。非無種子。總云決定無涅槃法者。是非了義說。現有清凈無漏自性心種子故。或言決定無者。但無行性。非無理性。今總相說無明非了義。故寶性論云。以彼實有清凈性故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 必能斷除一切煩惱的束縛。難道一闡提（icchantika，斷絕善根的人）就不能做到，而只有你能做到嗎？如果說其他人現在能成為一闡提，就能說出道理；如果說現在不是將來是，那也是不對的。難道除了闡提之外，所有遭遇困境的人，現在都能說出道理嗎？難道所有陷入困境的人，都是一闡提嗎？上下文中有很多類似的說法，不一一列舉了。如果按照世親（Vasubandhu）的《佛性論》來解釋，為那些誹謗佛法的人說無量的時間，實際上並非真的沒有佛性，為什麼不相信呢？《善戒經》中，如來（Tathagata）親自說，沒有種性的人，是因為沒有種性。彌勒菩薩（Maitreya Bodhisattva）在《聲聞地》、《及菩經地》以及《抉擇分》，無著菩薩（Asanga Bodhisattva）在《顯揚論》等著作中，都說沒有種性。《佛地論》中又解釋說，雖然經典宣說一切有情眾生都有佛性，將來都能成佛，但這是就真如法身佛性而言，或者就小部分一切有情而言，是方便說法，爲了讓不定種性的有情眾生，能夠快速地趨向無上正等菩提果。 《攝大乘論》和《法華論》所說的一乘（ekayana，唯一解脫之道）的意義都相似。又說一切眾生都有佛性，將來都能成佛，這就是唯一的一乘，才是究竟的意義。為什麼《涅槃經》中說，一乘、一道、一行、一緣，乃至說不理解我的意思？又說，在經典中，或者說一乘，或者說三乘（triyana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）？《解深密經》中說，所以在其中說一乘，並非有情眾生的自性沒有差別。《楞伽經》中也說是隱秘的。如果這樣，既然有無性，那麼《佛性論》和《寶性論》又該如何解釋呢？回答是，《佛地論》中已經解釋過了，現在再解釋一下。有些經文說，一闡提決定沒有涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）的自性，這有多種不同的說法。《佛性論》說，說一闡提決定沒有佛性，是會合《楞伽經》第五種無性。那些斷絕善根的人，只是沒有現行的善根，並非沒有善根的種子。總的說決定沒有涅槃之法，這是不了義的說法。因為他們現在有清凈無漏的自性心種子。或者說決定沒有，只是沒有修行的性質，並非沒有理性的認識。現在總的來說，無明是不了義的。所以《寶性論》說，因為他們實際上有清凈的自性。
【English Translation】 English version Surely, one can sever all the bonds of afflictions. Could it be that an icchantika (one who has severed their roots of goodness) is incapable, and only you are capable? If you say that others can become icchantikas and speak reason, and if you say that it is not now but will be in the future, that is also incorrect. Do all those who encounter difficulties, besides icchantikas, speak reason now? Are all those who fall into difficulties icchantikas? There are many similar statements in the texts above and below, which I will not list one by one. If we interpret according to Vasubandhu's 'Buddha-Nature Treatise', speaking for countless times to those who slander the Dharma, it is not truly without Buddha-nature. Why not believe it? In the 'Good Precepts Sutra', the Tathagata (Thus Come One) himself said that those without the nature, are without the nature. Maitreya Bodhisattva in the 'Hearer Ground', 'and Bodhisattva Sutra Ground' as well as 'Discrimination Section', and Asanga Bodhisattva in the 'Compendium of Determinations' and other works, all say that there is no nature. The 'Buddha-Land Treatise' further explains that although the scriptures proclaim that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature and will all become Buddhas, this is in terms of the true suchness Dharmakaya (Dharma body) Buddha-nature, or in terms of a small portion of all sentient beings, as a skillful means to enable sentient beings of uncertain nature to quickly move towards the supreme perfect enlightenment fruit. The meaning of the One Vehicle (ekayana, the only path to liberation) as explained in the 'Compendium of the Great Vehicle' and the 'Lotus Sutra Treatise' are similar. Furthermore, saying that all have Buddha-nature and will all become Buddhas, is precisely the One Vehicle, which is the ultimate meaning. Why does the 'Nirvana Sutra' say, 'One Vehicle, One Path, One Practice, One Condition', and even say 'do not understand my meaning'? It also says, 'In the scriptures, sometimes One Vehicle is spoken of, and sometimes Three Vehicles (triyana, Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana)?' The 'Samdhinirmocana Sutra' says, 'Therefore, the One Vehicle is spoken of therein, not that the nature of sentient beings is without difference.' The 'Lankavatara Sutra' also says it is hidden. If so, since there is no nature, how should the 'Buddha-Nature Treatise' and the 'Ratnagotravibhaga' be explained? The answer is, the 'Buddha-Land Treatise' has already explained it, and now I will explain it again. Some scriptures say that icchantikas are definitely without the nature of Nirvana (extinction), and there are many different explanations for this. The 'Buddha-Nature Treatise' says that saying icchantikas are definitely without Buddha-nature, is to reconcile with the fifth kind of no-nature in the 'Lankavatara Sutra'. Those who have severed their roots of goodness only lack the present manifestation of goodness, not the seeds of goodness. Generally speaking, to say that they definitely have no Dharma of Nirvana is a provisional statement. Because they now have the pure, undefiled seed of the self-nature mind. Or to say that they definitely do not have it, is only that they do not have the nature of practice, not that they do not have the rational understanding. Now, generally speaking, ignorance is provisional. Therefore, the 'Ratnagotravibhaga' says, because they actually have a pure nature.
。不得說言彼常畢竟無清凈性。又復二論依無上依經所會闡提。是樂有中第二非初。初者。謗解脫不唯大乘。佛性論會云。故佛說若不信大乘。名一闡提。寶性論云。為欲迴轉誹謗大乘心。若如是解。諸教無違。信一棄余。信非具足。又云。妄通涅槃說一切眾生悉有佛性。若說行性少分一切者云。此非經意。何以得知。經云。雖信佛性是眾生有。不信一切悉有佛性。名信不具足。此亦不爾。經不明說。若不信一切眾生悉有行佛性者。名信不具足。又若許悉有行性。違彼所執見道已前無無漏故。又復涅槃說。佛性者非唯一法。豈可染凈一切同有無聖凡別。約理不遮。行性不爾。又若以貪等為行性者。非善法故。違入大乘論。故論云。汝癡無智謂煩惱為佛性。以理性遍不信皆有。名信不具足。今許理遍。前通非妄。又云。凡有心者皆當作佛。及云。為非佛性說于佛性非佛性者。墻壁瓦石無情之物離如是等無情之物。是名佛性者。與一切眾生皆當作佛。文皆大同。何者。一切眾生豈說無心及以非情為眾生耶。故同一切。不為定證。況復經中自有釋一切言。理行二門應須通解。彼全不許本無漏種為三乘性。尚不為違。一切有言如何分有即為違教。瑜伽等云不遍者。說理心耶。又以智論所說五乘雲。不住涅槃者。著人天中。作涅
槃因。以為定說。此亦不爾。彼據習性。非性種。又許為證。便違涅槃一切有言。所有違文反彼妄通。準前可悉。又云。涅槃說一切眾生皆歸一道。一道者。同用佛乘為一乘也者。亦同勝鬘云二乘入一乘。一乘即大乘者。此亦不爾。彼自解云。一道一緣等四十年前。勝鬘彼判在後。如何今復說同。前後相違實為自拙。又更有過。如下破會涅槃文辨。何故一經二文相似。自情取捨強會不同。故知唯識善順諸經。眾論宏摸深可儀習。
通釋外難謬十一
有義。一通釋外難云。若唯一乘悉當作佛爲了義者。何故涅槃三十四云。或有說言。須陀洹乃至阿羅漢皆得佛道。或言不得。或有說言。犯四重禁。造五逆罪。一闡提皆有佛性。或說為無。乃至皆云。不解我意者。是迦葉問。佛為答云。我于智者不作二說等。如說闡提。障未來故。名為無性。必當得故。名為有性。楞伽經說。度分段故。名之為滅。未度變易名不滅也。由此智者知佛無二說也。此解不爾。非須陀洹等猶如闡提障未來故。名不作佛。當可得故名皆作佛。又斷善等雖名闡提。皆容悔滅。及生死續。如前已明。說必當得。非全無者。又非定效能度變易。楞伽深密瑜伽論等。說定性二乘不得作佛。不定得作佛。對大慧等。佛不二說。對定性二乘。或總相說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 槃因（涅槃的原因）。認為這是確定的說法。這也是不對的。他們是根據習性而說，不是根據本性。又允許作為證據，就違背了《涅槃經》中『一切有』的說法。所有違背經文的地方，都反駁了他們牽強的解釋。按照前面的原則可以明白。又說，《涅槃經》說一切眾生都歸於一道。一道，就是共同使用佛乘作為一乘。也如同《勝鬘經》所說二乘進入一乘，一乘就是大乘。這也是不對的。他們自己解釋說，『一道一緣』等是四十年前的說法。《勝鬘經》的判斷在後，為什麼現在又說相同呢？前後矛盾實在是自己笨拙。還有更多的過失，如下面破斥會合《涅槃經》的文字時會辨析。為什麼同一部經的兩段文字相似，卻用自己的想法取捨，牽強附會成不同的意思呢？所以知道唯識宗善於順應各種經典，眾多論典的宏偉規模，很值得傚法學習。
通釋外難的謬誤十一
有人這樣通釋外難：如果唯一佛乘都應當成佛才是了義的話，為什麼《涅槃經》第三十四卷說：『或者有人說，須陀洹（梵文Srotāpanna，入流果）乃至阿羅漢（梵文Arhat，無學）都能成佛，或者說不能。或者有人說，犯了四重禁、造了五逆罪、一闡提（梵文Icchantika，斷善根者）都有佛性，或者說沒有。』乃至都說『不瞭解我的意思』。這是迦葉（梵文Kāśyapa）的提問，佛的回答是：『我對智者不作二種說法』等等。比如說到一闡提，因為障礙未來，所以說沒有佛性；必定能夠得到，所以說有佛性。《楞伽經》說，度過分段生死，就稱為滅；未度過變易生死，就稱為不滅。因此智者知道佛沒有二種說法。』這種解釋是不對的。須陀洹等不是像一闡提那樣，因為障礙未來，所以說不能成佛；因為將來可以得到，所以說都能成佛。而且斷了善根等，雖然名為一闡提，都容許懺悔滅罪，以及生死相續，如前面已經說明的。說必定能夠得到，不是完全沒有希望的人。又不是定性二乘能夠度過變易生死。《楞伽經》、《深密經》、《瑜伽師地論》等都說定性二乘不能成佛，不定性二乘可以成佛。對於大慧（梵文Mahāmati）等，佛不作二種說法。對於定性二乘，或者總的來說。
【English Translation】 English version The cause of Nirvana (Pāli: Nibbana). Considering this a definitive statement is also incorrect. They base it on habitual tendencies, not inherent nature. Furthermore, allowing it as evidence contradicts the 'everything exists' doctrine of the Nirvana Sutra. All instances contradicting the scriptures refute their forced interpretations. The preceding principles clarify this. Furthermore, they state, 'The Nirvana Sutra says all beings return to one path. The one path is the common use of the Buddha Vehicle as the one vehicle.' This is similar to the Vimalakīrti Sutra saying the two vehicles enter the one vehicle, and the one vehicle is the Mahayana. This is also incorrect. They themselves explain that 'one path, one cause,' etc., were said forty years prior. The judgment of the Vimalakīrti Sutra came later, so how can they now say they are the same? Such contradictions reveal their own clumsiness. There are further errors, as will be analyzed below when refuting the conflation of the Nirvana Sutra's texts. Why are two passages in the same sutra similar, yet they selectively adopt and forcibly combine them into different meanings based on their own ideas? Therefore, it is known that the Consciousness-Only school skillfully aligns with various scriptures, and the grand scope of numerous treatises is worthy of emulation and study.
Eleventh Misinterpretation in Generally Explaining External Objections
Some generally explain external objections thus: 'If the One Vehicle necessarily leads to Buddhahood as the ultimate meaning, why does the thirty-fourth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra say: 'Some say that a Stream-enterer (Srotāpanna) up to an Arhat (Arhat) can attain Buddhahood, while others say they cannot. Some say that those who violate the four major precepts, commit the five heinous crimes, and Icchantikas (those who have severed their roots of goodness) all have Buddha-nature, while others say they do not.' And so on, all saying 'They do not understand my meaning.' This is Kāśyapa's question, and the Buddha's answer is: 'I do not make two statements to the wise,' etc. For example, regarding Icchantikas, because they obstruct the future, they are said to have no Buddha-nature; because they will certainly attain it, they are said to have Buddha-nature. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says that passing through the cycle of birth and death is called extinction; not passing through the cycle of transformation is called non-extinction. Therefore, the wise know that the Buddha has no two statements.' This explanation is incorrect. Stream-enterers, etc., are not like Icchantikas, obstructing the future, so they are said not to attain Buddhahood; because they can attain it in the future, they are said to all attain Buddhahood. Moreover, those who have severed their roots of goodness, though called Icchantikas, can repent and extinguish their sins, and continue in the cycle of birth and death, as explained earlier. Saying they will certainly attain it does not mean there is no hope for anyone. Furthermore, it is not that those of the fixed-nature Two Vehicles can pass through the cycle of transformation. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, etc., all say that those of the fixed-nature Two Vehicles cannot attain Buddhahood, while those of the unfixed-nature can. To Mahāmati, etc., the Buddha does not make two statements. Regarding those of the fixed-nature Two Vehicles, he speaks generally.
不得作佛。對不定二乘。或總相說皆得作佛故。梁攝論云。前頌了義。后不了義故。二乘聞之。謂佛二說故。法華經論云。此以如來先說法異今說法。異云何如來不成妄語。為斷此疑。如經舍利弗汝等當一心信解等。準此。涅槃會法華經。謂佛二說。楞伽深密無此疑故。彼對智人。佛顯了談。不作二說。若不如是。或說作佛。或說不作。云何不二。又楞伽說。定性二乘尚不能入初地。況能至八地。如前已引。準此故知。定性二乘不受變易。彼不能知。故妄釋難。二通外難。涅槃經云。我于經中告諸比丘。一乘一道一行一緣。乃至云。我諸弟子不解我意。唱言如來說須陀洹乃至阿羅漢人皆得佛道等者。此解四十年前存三說一。非四十年後無二無三破二歸一。義既不同。因何為難。何以得知。一乘一道非決定一乘。答文義及人皆不同故。法華勝鬘無此文故。義不同者。法華唯一佛乘。勝鬘二乘入大乘。一切眾生皆歸一道。一道者大乘也。涅槃所立一乘異時。說同一道。如深密一道也。一行同顯揚無差別行。到一有者。同華嚴經解脫無別。亦如出生菩提心經同至一城。謂同解脫人異者。此文告諸比丘。法華為菩薩聲聞。涅槃為迦葉菩薩。勝鬘夫人自說者此釋不爾。無文顯說一乘一道等是四十年前說。又法鼓勝鬘亦四十年前說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不得作佛（不能成佛）。針對不定性的二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）。或者總的來說，都可以成佛。所以《攝大乘論》梁譯本說：『前面的偈頌是了義的（究竟的），後面的不了義的（非究竟的）。』二乘聽了之後，認為佛說了兩種不同的說法。所以《法華經論》說：『這是因為如來先前說法和現在說法不同。』如果說法不同，如來怎麼能不算妄語呢？爲了斷除這種疑惑，如經中所說，舍利弗，你們應當一心信解等等。』根據這個，涅槃會和法華經都認為佛說了兩種不同的說法。楞伽經和深密經沒有這種疑惑，因為它們是針對有智慧的人說的，佛直接了當地談論，沒有兩種說法。如果不是這樣，一會兒說可以成佛，一會兒說不能成佛，怎麼能說是不二法門呢？而且楞伽經說，定性的二乘尚且不能進入初地（菩薩的第一個階位），更何況能到達八地（菩薩的第八個階位）。如前面已經引用的。根據這個可知，定性的二乘不能接受變易（改變）。他們不能理解，所以妄加解釋，製造困難。 二、通外難（解釋來自外部的質疑）。《涅槃經》說：『我于經中告訴各位比丘，一乘（唯一的成佛之道）、一道（唯一的道路）、一行（唯一的修行）、一緣（唯一的因緣），乃至說：『我的弟子們不理解我的意思，說如來說須陀洹（小乘初果）、乃至阿羅漢（小乘最高果位）都能成佛道等等。』這是解釋四十年前存在的三乘說一乘，而不是四十年後沒有二乘和三乘，破除二乘歸於一乘。意義既然不同，為什麼用這個來質疑呢？憑什麼得知一乘一道不是決定性的一乘呢？回答是：文義和對象都不同。法華經和勝鬘經沒有這樣的說法。意義不同在於，法華經只有一佛乘，勝鬘經說二乘可以進入大乘，一切眾生都歸於一道。一道指的是大乘。涅槃經所立的一乘是不同時期說的，同一道，如同深密經的一道。一行如同顯揚聖教論所說的無差別行。到達一有，如同華嚴經的解脫沒有差別。也如同出生菩提心經所說的同至一城。所說對像不同在於，這段經文是告訴各位比丘的，法華經是為菩薩和聲聞說的，涅槃經是為迦葉菩薩說的，勝鬘夫人是自己說的。這種解釋不對，沒有經文明確說明一乘一道等是四十年前說的。而且法鼓經和勝鬘經也是四十年前說的。
【English Translation】 English version They cannot become Buddhas. This is directed towards the uncertain Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna). Or, generally speaking, all can become Buddhas. Therefore, the Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'The previous verses are definitive (nītārtha), the latter are non-definitive (neyārtha).' The Two Vehicles, upon hearing this, think that the Buddha spoke two different teachings. Therefore, the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra says: 'This is because the Tathāgata's previous teachings and present teachings are different.' If the teachings are different, how can the Tathāgata not be considered a liar? To dispel this doubt, as the sutra says, 'Śāriputra, you should wholeheartedly believe and understand,' etc. According to this, both the Nirvana Assembly and the Lotus Sutra believe that the Buddha spoke two different teachings. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra do not have this doubt because they are addressed to wise people, and the Buddha speaks directly and clearly, without two different teachings. If this were not the case, sometimes saying one can become a Buddha, sometimes saying one cannot, how can it be said to be non-duality? Moreover, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says that even the fixed-nature Two Vehicles cannot enter the first bhūmi (the first stage of a Bodhisattva), let alone reach the eighth bhūmi (the eighth stage of a Bodhisattva). As previously quoted. According to this, it is known that the fixed-nature Two Vehicles cannot accept transformation (change). They cannot understand, so they make wild interpretations and create difficulties. 2. Answering external difficulties (explaining external criticisms). The Nirvana Sutra says: 'I told all the monks in the sutra about the One Vehicle (the only path to Buddhahood), the One Path (the only road), the One Practice (the only practice), the One Cause (the only cause), and even said: 'My disciples do not understand my meaning, saying that the Tathāgata said that a Śrotāpanna (the first fruit of the Hinayana), and even an Arhat (the highest fruit of the Hinayana), can all attain Buddhahood,' etc. This explains the existence of the Three Vehicles saying the One Vehicle forty years ago, not that there are no Two Vehicles and Three Vehicles after forty years, eliminating the Two Vehicles and returning to the One Vehicle. Since the meanings are different, why use this to question? How can it be known that the One Vehicle and the One Path are not definitively the One Vehicle? The answer is: the text, meaning, and object are all different. The Lotus Sutra and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra do not have such statements. The difference in meaning lies in the fact that the Lotus Sutra only has the One Buddha Vehicle, while the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra says that the Two Vehicles can enter the Mahayana, and all beings return to the One Path. The One Path refers to the Mahayana. The One Vehicle established by the Nirvana Sutra is spoken of at different times, the same path, like the One Path in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. The One Practice is like the non-differentiated practice mentioned in the Abhidharmasamuccaya. Reaching the One Existence is like the liberation in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, with no difference. It is also like the Bodhicittotpāda Sūtra, which says that they arrive at the same city. The difference in the object is that this passage is told to all the monks, the Lotus Sutra is spoken for Bodhisattvas and Śrāvakas, the Nirvana Sutra is spoken for Kāśyapa Bodhisattva, and Lady Śrīmālā speaks for herself. This explanation is incorrect, there is no text that explicitly states that the One Vehicle and the One Path, etc., were spoken forty years ago. Moreover, the Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā Sūtra and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra were also spoken forty years ago.
。如前已明。涅槃自云。皆歸一道。一道者大乘也。勝鬘經云。二乘入一乘。一乘即大乘。與涅槃云一乘何別。法華復云。汝等所行是菩薩道。又云。入大乘為本。豈非一道耶。勝鬘云。六處大因為大乘故。說此同一行。法華又云。如此皆為得一佛乘。一切種智故。又云。唯為一大事因緣故。豈非一緣。法華方便品告舍利弗。乃至化城品告諸比丘。乃至正說破二歸一云。又諸比丘若如來自知涅槃時到。乃至云。唯一佛乘得滅度爾。此即文義及人一切皆同。如何妄釋。又若云勝鬘經夫人自說。法華告舍利弗。涅槃無之。故不會彼。深密告勝義生。不告諸比丘故。涅槃經不會於彼。既法華中告諸比丘。涅槃既云。我于經中告諸比丘。唯此即是正會法華。論四義釋一乘中雲。二者同義。以聲聞辟支佛佛法身平等者。佛性法身更無差別故。又解三平等中雲。如來依三平等說一乘法故。以如來法身與聲聞法身無異故。與授記。又云。又依何義故。如來說三乘名為一乘。依同義故。與諸聲聞授記。同義者。以如來法身聲聞法身平等無差別故。以聲聞辟支佛異乘故。有差別。以彼非大乘故。準此。約如說乘為一。據智果等。乘即有別。又梁攝論云。后名於法如平等意。諸聲聞等人如來於法華經中為其授記。已得佛意。但得法如平等意
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 正如前面已經闡明的那樣，《涅槃經》自己也說，一切都歸於一道。這一道指的是大乘。《勝鬘經》說，二乘歸入一乘，一乘即是大乘。這與《涅槃經》所說的一乘有什麼區別呢？《法華經》又說，你們所行的是菩薩道，又說，進入大乘是根本，難道不是一道嗎？《勝鬘經》說，六處大因是爲了大乘的緣故，才說這同一行。《法華經》又說，這樣做都是爲了獲得一佛乘，一切種智的緣故。又說，唯獨爲了一個大事因緣的緣故，難道不是一緣嗎？《法華經·方便品》告訴舍利弗（Śāriputra），乃至《化城喻品》告訴各位比丘（bhikṣu），乃至正式宣說破二歸一說，又各位比丘，如果如來自知涅槃（nirvāṇa）時辰已到，乃至說，唯有佛乘才能得到滅度。這在文義和對像上完全相同，為何要妄加解釋呢？ 如果又說《勝鬘經》是勝鬘夫人（Śrīmālādevī）自己說的，《法華經》是告訴舍利弗的，《涅槃經》沒有這些，所以不能會通它們。《深密解脫經》是告訴勝義生（Paramārthotpatti）的，不是告訴各位比丘的，所以《涅槃經》不能會通它們。既然《法華經》中告訴了各位比丘，《涅槃經》也說，我在經中告訴各位比丘，這正是會通《法華經》。《攝大乘論》四義解釋一乘中說，第二是同義，因為聲聞（Śrāvaka）、辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha）、佛的法身（Dharmakāya）是平等的，佛性（Buddhatā）、法身沒有差別。又解釋三平等中說，如來（Tathāgata）依據三平等宣說一乘法，因為如來的法身與聲聞的法身沒有差異，所以給予授記。又說，又依據什麼意義，如來說三乘名為一乘？依據同義的緣故，給予各位聲聞授記。同義是指，如來的法身與聲聞的法身平等沒有差別。因為聲聞、辟支佛的乘不同，所以有差別，因為他們不是大乘的緣故。按照這個，按照如實宣說的乘來說是一，根據智果等來說，乘就有區別。又梁朝的《攝大乘論》說，後來命名為法如平等意，各位聲聞等人，如來在《法華經》中為他們授記，已經得到佛的旨意，只是得到法如平等意。
【English Translation】 English version: As previously clarified, the Nirvana Sutra itself states that all return to the One Vehicle. This One Vehicle refers to the Mahayana (Great Vehicle). The Shrimala Sutra says that the Two Vehicles enter the One Vehicle, and the One Vehicle is the Mahayana. What is the difference between this and the One Vehicle mentioned in the Nirvana Sutra? The Lotus Sutra also says, 'What you are practicing is the Bodhisattva path,' and also says, 'Entering the Mahayana is fundamental,' isn't that the One Vehicle? The Shrimala Sutra says that the six sense bases are a great cause because of the Mahayana, hence this same practice is taught. The Lotus Sutra also says, 'All this is for the sake of attaining the One Buddha Vehicle, the all-knowing wisdom.' And also says, 'Solely for the sake of one great cause and condition,' isn't that one condition? The Expedient Means Chapter of the Lotus Sutra tells Shariputra (Śāriputra), and the Parable of the Phantom City Chapter tells the bhikshus (bhikṣu), and even formally proclaims the return from two to one, saying, 'And you bhikshus, if the Tathagata (Tathāgata) knows that the time of Nirvana (nirvāṇa) has arrived,' and even says, 'Only the One Buddha Vehicle attains liberation.' This is completely the same in terms of text, meaning, and people. How can one interpret it falsely? Furthermore, if it is said that the Shrimala Sutra is spoken by Queen Shrimala (Śrīmālādevī) herself, and the Lotus Sutra is told to Shariputra, and the Nirvana Sutra does not have these, therefore they cannot be reconciled. The Sandhinirmocana Sutra is told to Paramarthotpatti (Paramārthotpatti), not to the bhikshus, therefore the Nirvana Sutra cannot reconcile with it. Since the Lotus Sutra tells the bhikshus, and the Nirvana Sutra also says, 'I tell the bhikshus in the sutra,' this is precisely reconciling with the Lotus Sutra. The Mahayana-samgraha explains the One Vehicle in terms of four meanings, saying, 'The second is the same meaning, because the Dharma-body (Dharmakāya) of the Shravaka (Śrāvaka), Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha), and Buddha are equal,' the Buddha-nature (Buddhatā) and Dharma-body have no difference. It also explains the three equalities, saying, 'The Tathagata teaches the One Vehicle Dharma based on the three equalities, because the Tathagata's Dharma-body is no different from the Shravaka's Dharma-body,' therefore predictions are given. It also says, 'And according to what meaning does the Tathagata call the Three Vehicles the One Vehicle? According to the same meaning, predictions are given to the Shravakas. The same meaning is that the Tathagata's Dharma-body and the Shravaka's Dharma-body are equal and without difference. Because the vehicles of the Shravaka and Pratyekabuddha are different, there is a difference, because they are not the Mahayana.' According to this, in terms of the vehicle as truly spoken, it is one; according to the wisdom fruit and so on, the vehicles are different. Also, the Mahayana-samgraha of the Liang dynasty says, 'Later it is named the meaning of Dharma-suchness-equality, the Tathagata in the Lotus Sutra gave predictions to the Shravakas and others, they have already attained the Buddha's intention, but only attained the meaning of Dharma-suchness-equality.'
。未得佛法身。準此。正釋法華一乘。文義同。不看經論妄為計度。又通三十五諍論云。教有三。一始終無二教。二隨機不定教。三后說決定教。此判為三。理必不爾。何者。始終無二與后決定二教何別。又復三教文憑何為判。又隨機不定彼無智耶。謂佛世尊為不定說。準涅槃經云。若有智者。我於是人終不作二說。是人亦謂我不作二說。準之。對於智者則始終不二。于無智者作不定說。又涅槃經為聲聞說半字。為菩薩說滿字。準此。亦即無智有智故應分二。分三教者。彼言非佛教。判教既妄。釋定非真。煩不具述。又通瑜伽論及佛性論破執有無。並破小乘。瑜伽論中破分別部。佛性論中破薩婆多。不雙破者。所弘教異。瑜伽釋四十年前教。于聲聞地敘有部等無性之義。破分別部。以小乘宗未合立佛性故。佛性論弘佛性論之教。依第五時一切成佛。破有部。于大乘中說佛性故。據義各別。非互相破。何以得知。答有六義。一瑜伽所破有性非大乘義。是分別部。二瑜伽能破引文非大乘經。三瑜伽能破非大乘義。四佛性論破瑜伽所立無性。名破小乘執。五佛性論破瑜伽所立無性。云同外道。六準善戒經涅槃經。瑜伽所立非大乘義者。此解不爾。何以故。若云。佛性論中破于有部論文。顯知云瑜伽教破分別部。準何得了。又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 未證得佛法身，以此為準。這是對《法華經》一乘思想的正確解釋，文義相同。不研讀經論而妄加揣測是錯誤的。另外，關於三十五種諍論，有人說教法有三種：一是始終無二教，二是隨機不定教，三是后說決定教。這種判分方法必然是不對的。為什麼呢？因為始終無二教和后說決定教有什麼區別？而且這三種教法的劃分依據是什麼？難道隨機不定教是針對沒有智慧的人說的嗎？佛世尊會為不同的人說不確定的教法嗎？根據《涅槃經》所說，『如果有智慧的人，我不會對他們說兩種不同的教法，他們也不會認為我說兩種不同的教法。』由此來看，對於有智慧的人，佛陀的教法始終如一；對於沒有智慧的人，佛陀會說不確定的教法。又《涅槃經》為聲聞乘說半字教，為菩薩乘說滿字教。由此來看，也應該根據有無智慧來區分兩種教法，所以分三種教法是錯誤的，他們的說法不是佛教的觀點。判教既然是錯誤的，那麼解釋也一定不是真實的，這裡就不詳細敘述了。另外，關於《瑜伽師地論》和《佛性論》破除執著有無的觀點，以及破除小乘的觀點。《瑜伽師地論》中破除分別部（Sautrantika），《佛性論》中破除薩婆多部（Sarvastivada）。不一起破除的原因是，所弘揚的教法不同。《瑜伽師地論》解釋的是佛陀成道后四十年前的教法，在聲聞地中敘述有部等沒有佛性的觀點，所以破除分別部，因為小乘宗沒有建立佛性的說法。《佛性論》弘揚佛性論的教法，依據第五時一切眾產生佛的觀點，破除有部，因為在大乘中宣說佛性。根據意義各有不同，所以不是互相破除。如何得知呢？回答有六個理由：一，《瑜伽師地論》所破除的有性不是大乘的意義，而是分別部的觀點。二，《瑜伽師地論》所引用的破除的經文不是大乘經典。三，《瑜伽師地論》所破除的不是大乘的意義。四，《佛性論》破除《瑜伽師地論》所立的無性，稱之為破除小乘的執著。五，《佛性論》破除《瑜伽師地論》所立的無性，說它和外道相同。六，根據《善戒經》（Śīlaskandha-vinaya）和《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra），《瑜伽師地論》所立的不是大乘的意義。這種解釋是不對的。為什麼呢？如果說，《佛性論》中破除有部的論文，明顯知道《瑜伽師地論》破除分別部，是根據什麼得出的？又
【English Translation】 English version Not having attained the Dharma body of the Buddha, take this as the standard. This is the correct explanation of the One Vehicle (Ekayana) thought of the 'Lotus Sutra' (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra), the meaning of the text is the same. It is wrong to make wild guesses without studying the scriptures and treatises. In addition, regarding the thirty-five disputes, some say that there are three types of teachings: first, the teaching that is always the same; second, the teaching that is indefinite according to circumstances; and third, the teaching that is definite later. This classification is certainly incorrect. Why? Because what is the difference between the teaching that is always the same and the teaching that is definite later? Moreover, what is the basis for dividing these three teachings? Is the indefinite teaching according to circumstances aimed at people without wisdom? Would the World Honored One Buddha give uncertain teachings to different people? According to the 'Nirvana Sutra' (Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra), 'If there are wise people, I will not give them two different teachings, and they will not think that I give two different teachings.' From this, for wise people, the Buddha's teachings are always the same; for people without wisdom, the Buddha will give uncertain teachings. Also, the 'Nirvana Sutra' speaks of the half-word teaching for the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the full-word teaching for the Bodhisattva Vehicle. From this, it should also be distinguished according to whether there is wisdom or not, so dividing into three teachings is wrong, their statement is not a Buddhist viewpoint. Since the classification of teachings is wrong, then the explanation must not be true, so I will not describe it in detail here. In addition, regarding the 'Yoga-bhumi' (Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra) and the 'Buddha-nature Treatise' (Ratnagotravibhāga), refuting the views of attachment to existence and non-existence, and refuting the views of the Hinayana. The 'Yoga-bhumi' refutes the Sautrantika (Sautrāntika), and the 'Buddha-nature Treatise' refutes the Sarvastivada (Sarvāstivāda). The reason for not refuting together is that the teachings they promote are different. The 'Yoga-bhumi' explains the teachings of the forty years after the Buddha's enlightenment, and in the Śrāvaka-bhumi it narrates the view that the Sarvastivada and others have no Buddha-nature, so it refutes the Sautrantika, because the Hinayana does not establish the theory of Buddha-nature. The 'Buddha-nature Treatise' promotes the teachings of the Buddha-nature theory, based on the view that all beings become Buddhas in the fifth period, refuting the Sarvastivada, because it proclaims Buddha-nature in the Mahayana. According to the meaning, they are different, so they do not refute each other. How do you know? The answer is six reasons: First, the existence refuted by the 'Yoga-bhumi' is not the meaning of the Mahayana, but the view of the Sautrantika. Second, the scriptures cited by the 'Yoga-bhumi' for refutation are not Mahayana scriptures. Third, what the 'Yoga-bhumi' refutes is not the meaning of the Mahayana. Fourth, the 'Buddha-nature Treatise' refutes the non-existence established by the 'Yoga-bhumi', calling it refuting the attachment of the Hinayana. Fifth, the 'Buddha-nature Treatise' refutes the non-existence established by the 'Yoga-bhumi', saying that it is the same as the heretics. Sixth, according to the 'Śīlaskandha-vinaya' and the 'Nirvana Sutra', what the 'Yoga-bhumi' establishes is not the meaning of the Mahayana. This explanation is incorrect. Why? If you say that the 'Buddha-nature Treatise' refutes the papers of the Sarvastivada, it is clear that the 'Yoga-bhumi' refutes the Sautrantika, according to what is it obtained? Also
定前後義。已明非。又以瑜伽弘已前教。小乘未合立佛性故。瑜伽破者。二論俱弘。佛在世故。未即部分。何須別破。豈薩婆多弘已前教。瑜伽順之。分別部師弘已后教。佛性論許彼俱小乘。各偏執故。俱為謗故。即涅槃經一切俱有一切俱無俱為謗故。瑜伽所明。一不同薩婆多一切無。二不同分別部一切有。何以得知。準聲聞地。六相明無及有相等。即有先有。非至忍位方有。無即畢竟無故。不同有部。有即時有。許有轉變。非一切時決定常有故。不同分別部。分別部說一切有性凡聖二性皆同於第一義空。瑜伽述有性。難非一切時有。何以得知。彼難云。無般涅槃法。又難云。如是無般涅槃法。何故不有般涅槃法界耶。又難云。如見有一地方所。於一時間無金等性。或於一時有金等性。乃至又牒難云。汝何所欲。如彼地方所。先無此種性。後有此種性。或先有此種性。后無此種性。如是先有聲聞定種性。后無此定種性等。準此設難。豈同分別部計一切有空為性耶。既計空為種性。一切時有。不應或有或無。佛性論中作斯難者。自違宗。豈成破。立瑜伽破一切有。佛性論破一切無。反覆此難。豈不成過。何者。瑜伽所破即佛性論能立之義。若一切有。瑜伽不令破之。既是瑜伽所破。佛性論中不應成立。若以瑜伽所破。為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 確定前後文的含義。已經很明顯不是這樣。而且《瑜伽師地論》弘揚的是早期的教義，因為小乘佛教還沒有統一地確立佛性。如果《瑜伽師地論》要破斥，那麼《二論》（指小乘的兩個主要論典）都在弘揚佛陀在世時的教義，當時還沒有立即進行派別劃分，何須特別破斥？難道說薩婆多部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）弘揚的是早期的教義，《瑜伽師地論》就順從它？分別部師（Vibhajyavada，分別說部）弘揚的是後期的教義，《佛性論》就承認他們都屬於小乘？因為他們各自偏執，都犯了誹謗的過失。就像《涅槃經》所說，認為一切都存在或一切都不存在，都是誹謗。而《瑜伽師地論》所闡明的，一是不同於薩婆多部所說的一切都不存在，二是不同於分別部所說的一切都存在。如何得知？根據《聲聞地》的說法，六相表明了無和有相等的狀態，即有是先前就存在的，而不是到了忍位（Ksanti，一種修行階段）才有的。無就是畢竟空無，因此不同於有部。有是暫時存在的，允許有轉變，不是一切時都決定常有的，因此不同於分別部。分別部說一切有性，凡夫和聖人的二性都等同於第一義空。而《瑜伽師地論》闡述有性，質疑它並非一切時都存在。如何得知？他們反駁說，沒有般涅槃法（Parinirvana-dharma，入滅之法）。又反駁說，既然沒有般涅槃法，為什麼沒有般涅槃法界呢？又反駁說，就像看到一個地方，在某個時間沒有金等性質，或者在某個時間有金等性質。甚至進一步反駁說，你想要什麼？就像那個地方，先前沒有這種性質，後來有了這種性質，或者先前有這種性質，後來沒有這種性質。就像先前有聲聞禪定的種性，後來沒有這種禪定的種性等等。根據這種反駁，難道和分別部認為一切有性都是空性一樣嗎？既然認為空是種性，就應該一切時都存在，不應該有時有有時無。《佛性論》中提出這種反駁，是自相矛盾，怎麼能構成破斥呢？如果建立《瑜伽師地論》破斥一切有，而《佛性論》破斥一切無，反覆進行這種反駁，難道不會造成過失嗎？為什麼呢？《瑜伽師地論》所破斥的，正是《佛性論》所要建立的意義。如果是一切有，《瑜伽師地論》不會去破斥它。既然是《瑜伽師地論》所破斥的，《佛性論》中就不應該成立。如果把《瑜伽師地論》所破斥的，作為
【English Translation】 English version Determine the meaning of the preceding and following contexts. It's already clear that it's not like that. Moreover, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (瑜伽師地論) propagates the earlier teachings, because the Hinayana (小乘) has not uniformly established the Buddha-nature (佛性). If the Yogacarabhumi-sastra is to refute, then both Treatises (二論) (referring to the two major treatises of Hinayana) are propagating the teachings of the Buddha when he was alive. At that time, there was no immediate division of sects, so why is there a need for special refutation? Could it be said that the Sarvastivada (薩婆多部, everything exists school) propagates the earlier teachings, and the Yogacarabhumi-sastra follows it? The Vibhajyavada masters (分別部師, analysts) propagate the later teachings, and the Buddha-nature Treatise (佛性論) acknowledges that they both belong to the Hinayana? Because they are each biased, they have committed the fault of slander. Just as the Nirvana Sutra says, thinking that everything exists or everything does not exist is slander. What the Yogacarabhumi-sastra clarifies is, firstly, it is different from the Sarvastivada's saying that everything does not exist, and secondly, it is different from the Vibhajyavada's saying that everything exists. How can we know this? According to the Sravakabhumi (聲聞地), the six aspects (六相) show the state of non-existence and existence being equal, that is, existence is pre-existing, not only existing when reaching the stage of Ksanti (忍位, forbearance). Non-existence is ultimately non-existent, so it is different from the Sarvastivada. Existence is temporary, allowing for transformation, not always determined to be permanent, so it is different from the Vibhajyavada. The Vibhajyavada says that all existence-nature, the two natures of ordinary people and saints, are equal to the first meaning of emptiness. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra elaborates on existence-nature, questioning that it does not exist at all times. How can we know this? They refute, saying that there is no Parinirvana-dharma (般涅槃法, the dharma of entering extinction). They also refute, saying that since there is no Parinirvana-dharma, why is there no Parinirvana-dharmadhatu? They also refute, saying that just like seeing a place, at a certain time there is no property of gold, etc., or at a certain time there is the property of gold, etc. They even further refute, saying, what do you want? Just like that place, previously there was no such property, and later there was such property, or previously there was such property, and later there was no such property. Just like previously there was the nature of Sravaka meditation, and later there was no such nature of meditation, etc. According to this refutation, is it the same as the Vibhajyavada thinking that all existence-nature is emptiness? Since emptiness is considered the nature, it should exist at all times, and should not sometimes exist and sometimes not exist. The Buddha-nature Treatise raising this kind of refutation is self-contradictory, how can it constitute a refutation? If we establish the Yogacarabhumi-sastra refuting all existence, and the Buddha-nature Treatise refuting all non-existence, repeatedly carrying out this kind of refutation, wouldn't it cause a fault? Why? What the Yogacarabhumi-sastra refutes is precisely the meaning that the Buddha-nature Treatise wants to establish. If it is all existence, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra will not refute it. Since it is what the Yogacarabhumi-sastra refutes, it should not be established in the Buddha-nature Treatise. If we take what the Yogacarabhumi-sastra refutes as
佛性論能破正義。即瑜伽能破名似非真。取瑜伽所破而為能立。亦即所立。翻合二論。俱墮過門。請善思之。二云。瑜伽能破引文非大乘經。佛性論云。佛為小乘人。說有眾生不住于性永不般涅槃。復云。阿含說佛十力中性力所知。此亦不爾。無上依經亦說有無般涅槃性。善戒經行性品亦說有無性。豈小乘經耶。阿含之名大小通稱。如何定說即小乘經攝大乘等皆云大乘阿笈摩。阿笈摩即阿含也。法華經論亦云阿含甚深。豈說小教。三云。瑜伽能破非大乘義。唯佛性論瑜伽顯揚證無性者。是有部義。佛性論云。薩婆多等說。一切眾生無有性得佛性。但有修得佛性。此亦不爾。聲聞地中明其種性述自正義。不順有宗。有宗無性得。彼種性中立性得故。亦立無即畢竟無。有即無始有。不同佛性論述有部宗。本來是無後時方有。又佛性論述有部宗義。亦少失有部。不許入見道心。苦忍已去。豈名佛性。又得聖性。非在苦忍。三乘俱在世第一法位。得聖性故。亦不許有十回向故。俱舍論中。述一切有。正宗說故。設有餘說。敘不正故。又若瑜伽聲聞地中。順有部宗六相明無。更於何處證一切有。豈欲自明種性。不據自宗。但隨小說。又抉擇重明五難六答。亦無異說。顯揚亦同。豈皆須有部耶。又自立宗云。瑜伽等釋四十年前教故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《佛性論》如果能破斥正義，那麼《瑜伽師地論》能破斥的，也只是表面上相似而非真實的。如果取《瑜伽師地論》所破斥的作為能成立的論點，那實際上就是所要成立的論點本身。這樣一來，兩部論典相互矛盾，都會陷入過失。請仔細思考這一點。 第二點，有人說《瑜伽師地論》引用的經文不是大乘經典。《佛性論》中說，佛陀為小乘根性的人說，有的眾生不會安住于自性，永遠不會般涅槃。又說，《阿含經》中說佛陀十力中包含性力所知。這種說法也不對。《無上依經》也說有無般涅槃性的說法。《善戒經·行性品》也說有無性的說法。難道這些是小乘經典嗎？ 『阿含』這個名稱，大小乘通用。怎麼能斷定它就是小乘經典呢？《攝大乘論》等都說『大乘阿笈摩』，『阿笈摩』就是『阿含』。《法華經論》也說『阿含甚深』，難道這是在說小乘教義嗎？ 第三點，有人說《瑜伽師地論》所破斥的不是大乘的意義，只有《佛性論》和《瑜伽師地論》、《顯揚聖教論》證明無自性，這是有部的觀點。《佛性論》中說，薩婆多部（一切有部）等說，一切眾生沒有生得的佛性，只有修得的佛性。這種說法也不對。《聲聞地》中闡明了種性，闡述了自身的正義，並不順從有部的觀點。有部不承認性得，因為在他們的種性中，安立的是修得，也安立了無，即畢竟無；有，即無始有。這與《佛性論》所闡述的有部宗義不同，後者認為本來是無，後來才有。 而且，《佛性論》闡述有部宗義，也略有失誤。有部不承認在入見道心，苦忍之後才能獲得佛性。難道這能稱之為佛性嗎？而且，獲得聖性，並非在苦忍之時，三乘都在世第一法位時，才能獲得聖性。有部也不承認有十回向。因此，《俱舍論》中，闡述一切有部的正宗觀點，即使有其他的說法，也是敘述不正宗的觀點。 再者，如果在《瑜伽師地論·聲聞地》中，順從有部的宗義，用六相來闡明無，那麼又在何處證明一切有呢？難道想要闡明種性，卻不依據自己的宗義，只是隨便說說？而且，《抉擇分》中重申五難六答，也沒有不同的說法。《顯揚聖教論》也相同。難道這些都需要依據有部嗎？而且，自己立宗說，《瑜伽師地論》等解釋的是佛陀四十年之前的教法。
【English Translation】 English version: If the Fo Xing Lun (Treatise on Buddha-nature) can refute the correct meaning, then what the Yoga-cara-bhumi-sastra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) can refute is only superficially similar but not truly real. If one takes what the Yoga-cara-bhumi-sastra refutes as the point to be established, then it is actually the point to be established itself. In this way, the two treatises contradict each other and will fall into error. Please think carefully about this. Secondly, some say that the scriptures quoted by the Yoga-cara-bhumi-sastra are not Mahayana scriptures. The Fo Xing Lun says that the Buddha told those of Hinayana (Small Vehicle) capacity that some beings will not abide in their nature and will never attain parinirvana (complete nirvana). It also says that the Agama Sutra says that the Buddha's ten powers include the knowledge of the power of nature. This statement is also incorrect. The Anuttara-asraya-sutra (Unsurpassed Reliance Sutra) also speaks of the existence or non-existence of parinirvana-nature. The Susila-kshetra-sutra (Good Precepts Sutra), in its chapter on nature, also speaks of the existence or non-existence of nature. Are these Hinayana scriptures? The name 'Agama' is used by both Mahayana and Hinayana. How can it be determined that it is a Hinayana scripture? The Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) and others all speak of 'Mahayana Agamas,' and 'Agama' is 'Agama.' The Lotus Sutra Treatise also says that 'Agama is very profound.' Is this speaking of Hinayana teachings? Thirdly, some say that what the Yoga-cara-bhumi-sastra refutes is not the meaning of Mahayana, and that only the Fo Xing Lun, the Yoga-cara-bhumi-sastra, and the Abhidharma-samuccaya (Compendium of Higher Knowledge) prove no-self-nature, which is the view of the Sarvastivadins (the 'All Exists' school). The Fo Xing Lun says that the Sarvastivadins and others say that all beings do not have innately attained Buddha-nature, but only acquired Buddha-nature through cultivation. This statement is also incorrect. The Sravaka-bhumi (Section on Disciples) clarifies the gotra (lineage, seed), and elaborates on its own correct meaning, and does not follow the views of the Sarvastivadins. The Sarvastivadins do not acknowledge innate attainment, because in their gotra, they establish acquired attainment, and also establish non-existence, that is, absolute non-existence; existence, that is, beginningless existence. This is different from the Sarvastivadin views elaborated in the Fo Xing Lun, which holds that it is originally non-existent and only exists later. Moreover, the Fo Xing Lun's elaboration of the Sarvastivadin views also has some errors. The Sarvastivadins do not acknowledge that Buddha-nature can be attained after entering the path of seeing, after the endurance of suffering. Can this be called Buddha-nature? Moreover, the attainment of holy nature is not at the time of the endurance of suffering; the three vehicles can only attain holy nature when they are in the position of the highest mundane dharma. The Sarvastivadins also do not acknowledge the ten parinamanas (transfer of merit). Therefore, in the Abhidharma-kosa (Treasury of Higher Knowledge), the orthodox views of the Sarvastivadins are elaborated, and even if there are other statements, they are elaborating unorthodox views. Furthermore, if in the Sravaka-bhumi of the Yoga-cara-bhumi-sastra, one follows the Sarvastivadin views and uses the six characteristics to clarify non-existence, then where else can one prove all existence? Does one want to clarify the gotra but not base it on one's own views, but just say whatever one wants? Moreover, the Viniscaya-samgraha (Collection of Decisions) reiterates the five difficulties and six answers, and there are no different statements. The Abhidharma-samuccaya is the same. Do these all need to be based on the Sarvastivadins? Moreover, one establishes one's own view by saying that the Yoga-cara-bhumi-sastra and others explain the teachings of the Buddha forty years ago.
。明一分無等。今云一分無。何成順小。數數自違。豈不心勞。六云。準菩薩善戒經涅槃經。瑜伽所立無性有情非大乘義。何以故。以阿含經性力。知種種界。證一分無性。此即性界不可轉。善戒經第五云。受學菩薩戒者。先知眾生界。然後共住為轉性界。如應說法。涅槃第三十一云。轉下作中。轉中作上等。說根不定。準此故知。性界定者是小乘義者。此亦不爾。豈大乘中無性界定。如楞伽般若。明其乘性。有定不定。無量義經云。如是觀已。而入眾生諸根性慾。性慾無量故。說法無量。入大乘論亦云。如佛所說。下根下性下發道意所愿。亦下性中發道意所愿。亦中上根上性上發道意所愿。亦上。是故諸佛中根中隨其根性。即以慈心分別教受。大莊嚴論第一亦云。若無性差別。則無信乘果差別等。大乘小乘經論並說二十七賢聖根性不同有轉不轉。故知善戒及涅槃經轉下作中等。據不定說。性界定者。據定性。又瑜伽論具寫善戒經文。豈可唯依小乘說無。又菩薩藏經明佛性力。亦知種種界。及善戒地持俱解十因。定異因中明根性定異。依何定判是小乘經。故知瑜伽善戒涅槃義同水乳。而彼不知。自妄分別。云學唯識論者不會時教。於此義中誠可更審。下見諸難。多率自情。顛倒釋文。既無憑準。繁不具舉。
能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：明說有一分眾生沒有佛性，現在又說一分眾生沒有佛性，這怎麼能說是順從小乘的觀點呢？這不是自相矛盾嗎？難道不覺得很費心勞神嗎？ 六問：按照《菩薩善戒經》、《涅槃經》和《瑜伽師地論》所立的無性有情不是大乘的義理。為什麼呢？因為根據《阿含經》的性力，知道有種種界別，證明有一分眾生沒有佛性。這就是說性界是不可轉變的。《善戒經》第五卷說：『受學菩薩戒的人，先要了解眾生的界別，然後才能共同居住，為他們轉變性界，如應說法。』《涅槃經》第三十一卷說：『轉下作中，轉中作上』等等，說明根性是不定的。根據這些，就認為說性界是定的就是小乘的義理，這種說法也是不對的。難道大乘中就沒有性界是定的嗎？如《楞伽經》、《般若經》中，都說明其乘性有定與不定。《無量義經》說：『這樣觀察之後，而進入眾生諸根的差別。』因為根性無量，所以說法也無量。《入大乘論》也說：『如佛所說，下根下性的人發道意所愿也是下等，下性中等的人發道意所愿也是中等，中上根上性的人發道意所愿也是上等。』因此，諸佛對於中根的人，也隨其根性，就以慈心分別教導。《大莊嚴論》第一卷也說：『如果沒有性別的差別，就沒有信乘果的差別等等。』大乘小乘的經論都說二十七賢聖的根性不同，有轉變和不轉變的。所以知道《善戒經》及《涅槃經》所說的轉下作中等等，是根據不定性說的。而說性界是定的，是根據定性說的。而且《瑜伽師地論》完整地抄寫了《善戒經》的經文，怎麼能只依據小乘的說法呢？還有《菩薩藏經》說明佛的性力，也知道種種界別，以及《善戒經》、《地持經》都解釋了十因，在定異因中說明根性是定異的。依據什麼判定這是小乘經呢？所以知道《瑜伽師地論》、《善戒經》、《涅槃經》的義理如同水乳交融一樣，而他們卻不知道，自己妄加分別，說學習唯識論的人不會通達時教。在這個義理中確實應該更加審慎。下面所見的各種責難，大多是憑自己的主觀臆斷，顛倒解釋經文，既然沒有憑據，繁瑣之處就不一一列舉了。 能
【English Translation】 English version: It is clearly stated that a portion of beings do not possess Buddha-nature, and now it is said that a portion of beings do not possess Buddha-nature. How can this be considered in accordance with the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) viewpoint? Isn't this self-contradictory? Doesn't it feel like a lot of mental effort? Question 6: According to the Bodhisattva Good Precepts Sutra (Bodhisattva-śīla-sūtra), the Nirvana Sutra (Nirvāṇa Sūtra), and the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, sentient beings without inherent nature are not a Mahayana (Great Vehicle) principle. Why is that? Because according to the power of nature in the Agama Sutras (Āgama Sūtras), it is known that there are various realms, proving that a portion of beings do not possess Buddha-nature. This means that the nature-realm is immutable. The fifth volume of the Good Precepts Sutra says: 'Those who receive and study the Bodhisattva precepts must first understand the realms of sentient beings, and then they can live together, transforming their nature-realms, and teach the Dharma accordingly.' The thirty-first volume of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Transforming the lower into the middle, transforming the middle into the higher,' etc., indicating that the faculties are not fixed. Based on these, to consider the statement that nature-realm is fixed as a Hinayana principle is also incorrect. Is it that there are no fixed nature-realms in Mahayana? As in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras (Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras), they all explain that the vehicle-nature has both fixed and unfixed aspects. The Infinite Meaning Sutra (Amitārtha Sūtra) says: 'After observing in this way, one enters into the differences of the various faculties of sentient beings.' Because the faculties are immeasurable, the teachings are also immeasurable. The Entering the Mahayana Treatise also says: 'As the Buddha said, those with lower faculties and lower nature, their aspiration for enlightenment is also lower; those with lower nature and middle faculties, their aspiration for enlightenment is also middle; those with middle and upper faculties and upper nature, their aspiration for enlightenment is also upper.' Therefore, the Buddhas, for those with middle faculties, also according to their nature, teach them with compassion. The first volume of the Mahāvyutpatti also says: 'If there were no differences in nature, there would be no differences in faith, vehicle, and fruit, etc.' Both Mahayana and Hinayana sutras and treatises state that the faculties of the twenty-seven virtuous sages are different, with some transforming and some not transforming. Therefore, it is known that the Good Precepts Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra's statements about transforming the lower into the middle, etc., are based on unfixed nature. And the statement that nature-realm is fixed is based on fixed nature. Moreover, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra completely copies the text of the Good Precepts Sutra, how can one rely solely on the Hinayana explanation? Furthermore, the Bodhisattva-piṭaka Sūtra explains the Buddha's power of nature, and also knows the various realms, and the Good Precepts Sutra and the Bodhisattva-bhūmi both explain the ten causes, clarifying that the nature of the faculties is fixed and different in the fixed-difference cause. Based on what is it determined that this is a Hinayana sutra? Therefore, it is known that the principles of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, the Good Precepts Sutra, and the Nirvana Sutra are like water and milk blended together, but they do not know this, and arbitrarily make distinctions, saying that those who study the Consciousness-only theory do not understand the teachings of the times. In this principle, one should indeed be more cautious. The various criticisms seen below are mostly based on their own subjective assumptions, reversing the interpretation of the scriptures. Since there is no basis, the tedious details will not be listed one by one. Able
顯中邊慧日論第三 大正藏第 45 冊 No. 1863 能顯中邊慧日論
能顯中邊慧日論第四
淄州大云寺苾芻慧沼撰
依文顯正三
明佛性不同一 有無差別二 明闡提類異三 聲聞有殊四 二死不等五 明佛三身常無常異六 雜抉擇七
明佛性不同一
依諸經論。所明佛性不過三種。一理性。二行性。三隱密性。言理性者。佛性論云。為除此執故。佛說佛性。佛性者。即是人法二空所顯真如。由真如故。無能罵所罵。通達此理。離虛妄過。涅槃第二十五。善男子佛性者。非陰界入。非本無今有。非有已還無。第八云。開示如來秘密之藏。清凈佛性常住不變。三十三云。如佛所說。眾生佛性猶如虛空。廣說非三世故。如虛空無故。非三世攝。佛性常故。非三世攝等。行性者。通有漏無漏一切萬行。若望三身。無漏為正生了。有漏為緣。疏名生了。無漏正名佛性。有漏假名。非正佛性。善戒經所明性種性及習種性。楞伽經云。阿梨耶識名空如來藏。具足熏習無漏法故。名不空如來藏。涅槃三十三云。若有說言。眾生佛性非有如虛空。非無如兔角。何以故。虛空常故。兔角無故。是故得言亦有亦無。有故破兔角。無故破虛空。二十六云。復有生因。謂六波羅蜜阿耨菩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《顯中邊慧日論》第三 大正藏第45冊 No. 1863 《能顯中邊慧日論》
《能顯中邊慧日論》第四
淄州大云寺苾芻慧沼 撰
依文顯正三
一、明佛性不同一；二、有無差別；三、明闡提（斷善根者）類異；四、聲聞（聽聞佛法者）有殊；五、二死不等；六、明佛三身常無常異；七、雜抉擇。
明佛性不同一
依諸經論所明，佛性不過三種：一、理性；二、行性；三、隱密性。 言理性者，《佛性論》云：『為除此執故，佛說佛性。佛性者，即是人法二空所顯真如。由真如故，無能罵所罵，通達此理，離虛妄過。』 《涅槃經》第二十五云：『善男子，佛性者，非陰界入，非本無今有，非有已還無。』 第八云：『開示如來秘密之藏，清凈佛性常住不變。』 第三十三云：『如佛所說，眾生佛性猶如虛空。』廣說非三世故，如虛空無故，非三世攝。佛性常故，非三世攝等。 行性者，通有漏無漏一切萬行。若望三身，無漏為正生了，有漏為緣，疏名生了。無漏正名佛性，有漏假名，非正佛性。《善戒經》所明性種性及習種性。 《楞伽經》云：『阿梨耶識（藏識）名空如來藏，具足熏習無漏法故，名不空如來藏。』 《涅槃經》第三十三云：『若有說言，眾生佛性非有如虛空，非無如兔角。何以故？虛空常故，兔角無故。是故得言亦有亦無。有故破兔角，無故破虛空。』 第二十六云：『復有生因，謂六波羅蜜（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）阿耨菩
【English Translation】 English version Treatise on Manifesting the Middle Way Through Wisdom, Section 3 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 45, No. 1863 Treatise on Manifesting the Middle Way Through Wisdom
Treatise on Manifesting the Middle Way Through Wisdom, Section 4
Composed by Bhikshu Huizhao of Dayun Temple in Zizhou
Manifesting Correct Principles According to the Text, in Three Parts
- Explaining the Non-Identity of Buddha-nature; 2. Differences in Existence and Non-existence; 3. Explaining the Differences Among Icchantikas (those who have severed their roots of goodness); 4. Distinctions Among Sravakas (listeners of the Buddha's teachings); 5. The Inequality of the Two Deaths; 6. Explaining the Permanence and Impermanence of the Three Bodies of the Buddha; 7. Miscellaneous Determinations.
Explaining the Non-Identity of Buddha-nature
According to the sutras and treatises, there are no more than three types of Buddha-nature explained: 1. Nature as principle; 2. Nature as practice; 3. Nature as hidden potential. Regarding nature as principle, the Buddha-nature Treatise says: 'To eliminate this attachment, the Buddha spoke of Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is the Suchness (Tathata) revealed by the emptiness of both persons and dharmas. Because of Suchness, there is no one who can scold or be scolded, and understanding this principle is free from false views.' The Nirvana Sutra, section 25, says: 'Good man, Buddha-nature is not the skandhas (aggregates), realms, or entrances; it is not that which was originally non-existent and now exists; it is not that which existed and then ceased to exist.' Section 8 says: 'Revealing the secret treasury of the Tathagata, the pure Buddha-nature is permanent and unchanging.' Section 33 says: 'As the Buddha said, the Buddha-nature of sentient beings is like space.' It is extensively explained that it is not within the three times because, like space, it is non-existent and therefore not included in the three times. Buddha-nature is permanent and therefore not included in the three times, and so on. Nature as practice encompasses all mundane and supramundane practices. In relation to the three bodies, the supramundane is the direct cause of manifestation, while the mundane is the indirect condition, loosely termed manifestation. The supramundane is rightly called Buddha-nature, while the mundane is nominally so, not truly Buddha-nature. This is what the Good Precepts Sutra explains as intrinsic nature and habitual nature. The Lankavatara Sutra says: 'The Alaya-consciousness (storehouse consciousness) is called the empty Tathagata-garbha (womb of the Tathagata). Because it fully contains the unconditioned dharmas through habituation, it is called the non-empty Tathagata-garbha.' The Nirvana Sutra, section 33, says: 'If someone says that the Buddha-nature of sentient beings is existent like space or non-existent like a rabbit's horn, why is this? Because space is permanent and a rabbit's horn is non-existent. Therefore, it can be said to be both existent and non-existent. Existence refutes the rabbit's horn, and non-existence refutes space.' Section 26 says: 'Furthermore, there is a cause of arising, namely the six paramitas (perfections: generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom) and Anuttara Bodhi.'
提。復有了因。謂六波羅蜜佛性。第十二云。如是佛性從善五陰乃至得阿耨菩提。寶性論等明信般若三昧大悲為三身因。菩薩凈行經及瑜伽菩薩地明七地四菩薩行。伽耶山頂經處處皆說。隱密性者。如維摩經云。塵勞之儔為如來種等。涅槃三十三云。如來未得阿耨菩提時。一切善不善無記悉名佛性。涅槃二十二云。一切無明煩惱等結悉是佛性。何以故。佛性因故。從無明行及煩惱得善五陰。又楞伽思益說。行五逆而得菩提。入大乘論第二云。我不欲令具煩惱種。生佛法芽。汝癡無智顛倒解故。謂煩惱為佛法種。以此故知。不善無記諸煩惱結非是佛種。若爾。何故說為佛種。答準金剛上味陀羅尼經云。文殊師利言。世尊云何無明是菩提。佛言。文殊師利以無無明故。說無無明。若無無明則亦無生。若無生者彼則無染。文殊師利菩提無染。以性清凈體光潔故。文殊師利我見此事故說無明。是以不二說。準此。即由斷無明故得理清凈。清凈不二故。說無明名為菩提。大莊嚴論有二頌明。一云。由離法性外。無別有諸法。是故如是說。煩惱即是菩提。釋云。如經中說無明菩提同一。此謂無明法性施設菩提名。此義是經旨趣。又頌云。于貪起正思。于貪得解脫。故說貪出貪。瞋癡出亦爾。釋云。若人于貪起正思觀察。如是知已。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：提：還有一種因，指的是六波羅蜜（六種到達彼岸的方法）即是佛性。第十二卷說：『這樣的佛性，從善的五陰（構成個體的五種要素）開始，直到獲得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（無上正等正覺）。』《寶性論》等經論闡明，信、般若（智慧）、三昧（禪定）、大悲是三身（佛的三種化身）的因。《菩薩凈行經》和《瑜伽菩薩地》闡明了七地和四種菩薩行。《伽耶山頂經》處處都在述說。關於隱秘性，如《維摩詰經》所說：『塵勞（世俗煩惱）之輩，是如來（佛）的種子。』《涅槃經》第三十三卷說：『如來未獲得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，一切善、不善、無記（非善非惡）都叫做佛性。』《涅槃經》第二十二卷說：『一切無明（對真理的迷惑）、煩惱等結縛都是佛性。』為什麼呢？因為佛性的緣故，從無明、行（行為）以及煩惱中得到善的五陰。還有，《楞伽經》、《思益經》說，行五逆（殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、破和合僧、出佛身血）也能得到菩提。《入大乘論》第二卷說：『我不希望讓具有煩惱種子的人，生出佛法的萌芽。』你愚癡無智，顛倒理解，認為煩惱是佛法的種子。因此可知，不善、無記的各種煩惱結縛不是佛的種子。如果這樣，為什麼又說它們是佛的種子呢？回答：依據《金剛上味陀羅尼經》所說，文殊師利菩薩問：『世尊，為什麼說無明是菩提呢？』佛說：『文殊師利，因為沒有無明，所以說沒有無明。如果沒有無明，也就沒有生。如果沒有生，那麼也就沒有染污。文殊師利，菩提沒有染污，因為它的本性清凈，體性光明潔凈。文殊師利，我看到這個緣故，才說無明。』這是用不二的說法。依據這個，就是因為斷除了無明，才能得到理體的清凈。清凈不二的緣故，才說無明名為菩提。《大莊嚴論》有兩首偈頌闡明，一首說：『由於離開法性之外，沒有另外的諸法，所以這樣說，煩惱就是菩提。』解釋說：『如經中所說，無明和菩提是同一的。』這是說無明法性施設菩提之名，這個意義是經的宗旨。另一首偈頌說：『對於貪慾生起正思，對於貪慾得到解脫，所以說貪慾能出離貪慾，嗔恚和愚癡的出離也是這樣。』解釋說：『如果有人對於貪慾生起正思，進行觀察，像這樣瞭解之後，
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Furthermore, there is a cause, which refers to the Six Paramitas (six perfections) as Buddha-nature. The twelfth chapter states: 'Such Buddha-nature, from the wholesome five skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute an individual) onwards, until attaining Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unsurpassed perfect enlightenment).' The Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Jewel Nature) and other scriptures clarify that faith, prajna (wisdom), samadhi (meditative absorption), and great compassion are the causes of the Trikaya (three bodies of the Buddha). The Bodhisattva-pratimoksha Sutra (Sutra on the Pure Conduct of Bodhisattvas) and the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) clarify the seven bhumis (stages) and the four Bodhisattva practices. The Gayasirsa Sutra (Sutra on the Summit of Gaya Mountain) speaks of it everywhere. Regarding the hidden nature, as the Vimalakirti Sutra says: 'The multitude of defilements are the seeds of the Tathagata (Buddha).' The Nirvana Sutra, thirty-third chapter, states: 'When the Tathagata had not yet attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, all wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral (neither wholesome nor unwholesome) are called Buddha-nature.' The Nirvana Sutra, twenty-second chapter, states: 'All ignorance (delusion about the truth), afflictions, and bonds are Buddha-nature.' Why? Because of the cause of Buddha-nature, from ignorance, action, and afflictions, one obtains the wholesome five skandhas. Furthermore, the Lankavatara Sutra (Sutra on the Descent into Lanka) and the Visesacintamani-pariprccha Sutra (Sutra on the Questions of Visesacintamani) say that by committing the five heinous crimes (killing one's father, killing one's mother, killing an Arhat, causing disunity in the Sangha, shedding the blood of a Buddha), one can attain Bodhi. The second chapter of the Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) says: 'I do not wish to allow those who possess the seeds of afflictions to produce the sprouts of the Buddha-dharma.' You are foolish and without wisdom, and you understand in a reversed way, thinking that afflictions are the seeds of the Buddha-dharma. Therefore, it is known that unwholesome, neutral, and various afflictive bonds are not the seeds of the Buddha. If so, why are they said to be the seeds of the Buddha? Answer: According to the Vajrasvadisthana-dharani Sutra (Diamond Supreme Taste Dharani Sutra), Manjushri Bodhisattva asked: 'World Honored One, why is ignorance said to be Bodhi?' The Buddha said: 'Manjushri, because there is no ignorance, it is said that there is no ignorance. If there is no ignorance, then there is also no birth. If there is no birth, then there is also no defilement. Manjushri, Bodhi has no defilement, because its nature is pure, and its essence is bright and clean. Manjushri, I see this reason, and therefore I speak of ignorance.' This is using the non-dualistic way of speaking. According to this, it is because of cutting off ignorance that one can obtain the purity of principle. Because purity is non-dualistic, it is said that ignorance is called Bodhi. The Mahavastu-avadana (Great Adornment Sutra) has two verses that clarify this. One verse says: 'Because apart from the Dharma-nature, there are no other dharmas, therefore it is said that afflictions are Bodhi.' The explanation says: 'As it is said in the sutra, ignorance and Bodhi are the same.' This means that the name of Bodhi is provisionally established on the Dharma-nature of ignorance, and this meaning is the purpose of the sutra. Another verse says: 'If one arises with right thought towards greed, one obtains liberation from greed, therefore it is said that greed can liberate from greed, and the liberation from anger and delusion is also the same.' The explanation says: 'If a person arises with right thought towards greed and observes it, and after understanding it in this way,'
于貪解脫。故說以貪出離於貪。出離瞋癡亦復如是。說為佛性。準此可解。此上三類諸經論中。或偏說一。或雙說理事。或復通明。如說真如。偏說理性。如菩薩行等偏說行性。或隨初勝。如涅槃二十二云。或說菩提信心為因。是菩提困雖復無量。若說信心則已攝盡。或就果位偏彰勝因。如說信智定悲。為佛四德三身因等。或理事雙彰。如楞伽經第七說。佛告大慧。如來之藏善不善因。故亦與六道作生死因緣。乃至依如來藏故五道生死。又云。大慧阿梨耶識名如來藏。與無明七識共俱。如大海波常不斷絕。身俱生故。此說有漏識體能覆藏名如來藏。又云。大慧如來藏識不在阿梨耶中。是故七種識有生有滅。如來藏識不生不滅。此說理也。第八又云。阿梨耶識名空如來藏。無共意轉識熏習。故名之為空。具足無漏熏習法。名為不空。此正行性。勝鬘經說有二種如來藏。空智空如來藏。若離若脫若異。一切煩惱藏。同楞伽空如來藏。世尊不空如來藏過恒沙不離不脫不異。不思議佛法。即楞伽經云。如來藏識不生不滅。及具足熏習無漏法故。名不空如來藏。乃至云。本所不得一切苦滅。唯佛得證。壞一切煩惱藏。修一切滅苦道。此一切苦滅理也。修滅苦道行也。如寶性論第四云。佛性有二。一者如地藏。二者如樹果。無始世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 從貪慾中解脫。所以說用出離貪慾來對治貪慾。出離嗔恚和愚癡也是這樣。這被稱作佛性（Buddha-nature）。根據這個原則可以理解。以上這三類經論中，或者偏重說一方面，或者同時說理和事，或者全面闡明。例如說真如（Tathata），偏重說理性。例如《菩薩行》等偏重說行性。或者隨順最初殊勝的說法，例如《涅槃經》二十二卷說，或者說菩提心（Bodhi-citta）和信心（Shraddha）是成佛的因。菩提的困境雖然有無量，如果說信心就已全部涵蓋。或者就果位偏重彰顯殊勝的因，例如說信、智、定、悲，是佛的四德和三身（Trikaya）的因等。或者理和事雙重彰顯，例如《楞伽經》第七品說，佛告訴大慧（Mahamati），如來藏（Tathagatagarbha）是善和不善的因，所以也與六道（Six realms）作為生死因緣。乃至依靠如來藏的緣故，有五道生死。又說，大慧，阿梨耶識（Alaya-vijnana）名為如來藏，與無明（Avidya）和七識共同存在，像大海的波浪一樣常常不斷絕，與身體俱生。這是說有漏識的本體能夠覆蓋和隱藏，名為如來藏。又說，大慧，如來藏識不在阿梨耶識中，所以七種識有生有滅，如來藏識不生不滅。這是說理。第八品又說，阿梨耶識名為空如來藏，沒有與意識（Vijnana）共同轉移的熏習，所以稱之為空。具足無漏熏習的法，名為不空。這正是行性。勝鬘經（Srimala Sutra）說有兩種如來藏，空智空如來藏，是遠離、脫離、不同於一切煩惱藏的。與《楞伽經》的空如來藏相同。世尊不空如來藏，多於恒河沙數，不離、不脫、不同於不可思議的佛法。就是《楞伽經》所說的，如來藏識不生不滅，並且具足熏習無漏法，所以名不空如來藏。乃至說，本來所不能得到的一切苦滅，只有佛才能證得，壞滅一切煩惱藏，修一切滅苦之道。這是一切苦滅的理，也是修滅苦的行。如《寶性論》第四品說，佛性有兩種，一是如地藏（Ksitigarbha），二是如樹果，從無始世以來。
【English Translation】 English version Deliverance from greed. Therefore, it is said that one uses detachment from greed to counter greed. The same applies to detachment from anger and delusion. This is referred to as Buddha-nature. This can be understood accordingly. Among the above three categories of sutras and treatises, some emphasize one aspect, some discuss both principle and phenomena, and some explain comprehensively. For example, when discussing Tathata (Suchness), the emphasis is on principle. For example, 'Bodhisattva Practice' and others emphasize the nature of practice. Or following the initial superior teaching, such as in the twenty-second chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, it is said that Bodhi-citta (mind of enlightenment) and Shraddha (faith) are the causes of Buddhahood. Although the difficulties of Bodhi are immeasurable, if faith is mentioned, everything is encompassed. Or, focusing on the fruition, the superior causes are emphasized, such as faith, wisdom, concentration, and compassion, which are the causes of the four virtues and Trikaya (three bodies) of the Buddha, etc. Or, both principle and phenomena are emphasized, such as in the seventh chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra, where the Buddha tells Mahamati (Great Wisdom), 'The Tathagatagarbha (Womb of the Thus Come One) is the cause of good and evil, and therefore it also serves as the cause of birth and death in the six realms (Six realms).' Furthermore, 'Relying on the Tathagatagarbha, there is the cycle of birth and death in the five paths.' It also says, 'Mahamati, the Alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness) is called the Tathagatagarbha, coexisting with ignorance (Avidya) and the seven consciousnesses, like the waves of the ocean, constantly unceasing, born together with the body.' This means that the substance of defiled consciousness can cover and conceal, and is called the Tathagatagarbha. It also says, 'Mahamati, the Tathagatagarbha-consciousness is not within the Alaya-vijnana, therefore the seven consciousnesses have birth and death, while the Tathagatagarbha-consciousness does not arise or cease.' This refers to principle. The eighth chapter also says, 'The Alaya-vijnana is called the empty Tathagatagarbha, without the defiled habit energy of the common mind-consciousness, therefore it is called empty. Possessing the undefiled habit energy of the Dharma, it is called not empty.' This is precisely the nature of practice. The Srimala Sutra (Queen Srimala's Lion's Roar Sutra) says that there are two types of Tathagatagarbha: the empty wisdom empty Tathagatagarbha, which is separate, liberated, and different from all the afflictions. It is the same as the empty Tathagatagarbha in the Lankavatara Sutra. The World-Honored One's non-empty Tathagatagarbha, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, is not separate, not liberated, and not different from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharma. That is what the Lankavatara Sutra says: 'The Tathagatagarbha-consciousness does not arise or cease, and it possesses the undefiled habit energy of the Dharma, therefore it is called the non-empty Tathagatagarbha.' Furthermore, it says, 'All suffering that was originally unattainable is extinguished, and only the Buddha can realize it, destroying all the afflictions, cultivating all the paths to the cessation of suffering.' This is the principle of the cessation of all suffering, and it is also the practice of cultivating the path to the cessation of suffering. As the Ratnagotravibhaga (Treatise on the Jewel Family Lineage) says in the fourth chapter, 'Buddha-nature has two aspects: one is like Ksitigarbha (Earth Store Bodhisattva), and the other is like the fruit of a tree, from beginningless time.'
來界。自性清凈心。修行無上道。依二種佛性。得出三種佛性。得出三種身。乃至又引頌云。無始世來性。作諸法依止。依性有諸道。及證涅槃果。下釋。所言性者。如聖者。勝鬘經云。世尊如來說如來藏者。是法界藏。乃至自性清凈。如來藏故。作諸法依止者。是故如來藏是依是持等。多依理釋。下亦依事釋云。如是以何等煩惱以何等處無。如是如實見知。名為空智。又何等諸佛法。何處具足有。如是實見知。名不空智。即釋二種如來藏。前約攝相歸性。及迷悟依釋。后約性相別明。攝大乘論等釋前經頌。依性相別及流轉還滅依說。義各不違。又佛性論顯體分。如來藏品明三如來藏。一所攝藏。下云。一切眾生決無有出如如境者。併爲如來之所攝持故。名所藏眾生為如來藏。準此即是楞伽為生死因有漏識也。二所隱覆藏。下云。如來性住道前時。為煩惱隱覆。眾生不見。故名為藏。此即勝鬘空如來藏。三能攝為藏者。謂果地一切過恒沙功德。應得性時攝之已盡。即不空藏。又三因品亦通理事。彼云。佛性體有三種。三性所攝。義應知。三種者。所謂三因。三種佛性。三因者。一應得因。二加行因。三圓滿因。真如為應得因。菩提心為加行因。菩提心及所起行為圓滿因。圓滿因。謂福慧行果圓滿。謂智斷恩德。又顯體
【現代漢語翻譯】 來界（Lái jiè）：指眾生本具的如來藏，是諸法生起的根源。自性清凈心（zì xìng qīng jìng xīn）：指如來藏的體性本來就是清凈的。修行無上道（xiū xíng wú shàng dào）：通過修行達到最高的覺悟。依二種佛性（yī èr zhǒng fó xìng）：依據兩種佛性。得出三種佛性（dé chū sān zhǒng fó xìng）：從而得出三種佛性。得出三種身（dé chū sān zhǒng shēn）：從而證得三種佛身。乃至又引頌云（nǎi zhì yòu yǐn sòng yún）：甚至還引用偈頌說：『無始世來性（wú shǐ shì lái xìng），作諸法依止（zuò zhū fǎ yī zhǐ）。依性有諸道（yī xìng yǒu zhū dào），及證涅槃果（jí zhèng niè pán guǒ）。』 下釋（xià shì）：下面的解釋。所言性者（suǒ yán xìng zhě）：所說的『性』，如聖者（rú shèng zhě），勝鬘經云（shèng mán jīng yún）：如同《勝鬘經》所說：『世尊如來說如來藏者（shì zūn rú lái shuō rú lái zàng zhě），是法界藏（shì fǎ jiè zàng），乃至自性清凈（nǎi zhì zì xìng qīng jìng），如來藏故（rú lái zàng gù）。』作諸法依止者（zuò zhū fǎ yī zhǐ zhě）：作為諸法所依賴的基礎，是故如來藏是依是持等（shì gù rú lái zàng shì yī shì chí děng）：因此如來藏是依靠、是支援等等。多依理釋（duō yī lǐ shì）：大多從理上解釋。下亦依事釋云（xià yì yī shì shì yún）：下面也從現象上解釋說：『如是以何等煩惱以何等處無（rú shì yǐ hé děng fán nǎo yǐ hé děng chù wú），如是如實見知（rú shì rú shí jiàn zhī），名為空智（míng wéi kōng zhì）。又何等諸佛法（yòu hé děng zhū fó fǎ），何處具足有（hé chù jù zú yǒu），如是實見知（rú shì shí jiàn zhī），名不空智（míng bù kōng zhì）。』 即釋二種如來藏（jí shì èr zhǒng rú lái zàng）：這就是解釋兩種如來藏。前約攝相歸性（qián yuē shè xiàng guī xìng），及迷悟依釋（jí mí wù yī shì）：前面是從攝取現象歸於自性，以及迷與悟所依賴的基礎來解釋。后約性相別明（hòu yuē xìng xiàng bié míng）：後面是從自性和現象的差別來闡明。攝大乘論等釋前經頌（shè dà chéng lùn děng shì qián jīng sòng）：《攝大乘論》等解釋前面的經文偈頌。依性相別及流轉還滅依說（yī xìng xiàng bié jí liú zhuǎn huán miè yī shuō）：依據自性與現象的差別，以及流轉與還滅所依賴的基礎來說明。義各不違（yì gè bù wéi）：意義各自不相違背。又佛性論顯體分（yòu fó xìng lùn xiǎn tǐ fēn）：《佛性論》闡明本體的部分。如來藏品明三如來藏（rú lái zàng pǐn míng sān rú lái zàng）：《如來藏品》闡明三種如來藏。一所攝藏（yī suǒ shè zàng）：第一種是所攝藏。下云（xià yún）：下面說：『一切眾生決無有出如如境者（yī qiè zhòng shēng jué wú yǒu chū rú rú jìng zhě），併爲如來之所攝持故（bìng wèi rú lái zhī suǒ shè chí gù），名所藏眾生為如來藏（míng suǒ cáng zhòng shēng wèi rú lái zàng）。』準此即是楞伽為生死因有漏識也（zhǔn cǐ jí shì léng qié wèi shēng sǐ yīn yǒu lòu shí yě）：依照這個，就是《楞伽經》所說的作為生死之因的有漏識。二所隱覆藏（èr suǒ yǐn fù zàng）：第二種是被隱覆藏。下云（xià yún）：下面說：『如來性住道前時（rú lái xìng zhù dào qián shí），為煩惱隱覆（wèi fán nǎo yǐn fù），眾生不見（zhòng shēng bù jiàn），故名為藏（gù míng wéi zàng）。』此即勝鬘空如來藏（cǐ jí shèng mán kōng rú lái zàng）：這就是《勝鬘經》所說的空如來藏。三能攝為藏者（sān néng shè wèi zàng zhě）：第三種是能攝為藏者，謂果地一切過恒沙功德（wèi guǒ dì yī qiè guò héng shā gōng dé），應得性時攝之已盡（yīng dé xìng shí shè zhī yǐ jìn）：指在果地上的一切超過恒河沙數的功德，在應該證得自性時全部攝取。即不空藏（jí bù kōng zàng）：就是不空藏。又三因品亦通理事（yòu sān yīn pǐn yì tōng lǐ shì）：《三因品》也貫通理和事。彼云（bǐ yún）：那裡說：『佛性體有三種（fó xìng tǐ yǒu sān zhǒng），三性所攝（sān xìng suǒ shè），義應知（yì yīng zhī）。三種者（sān zhǒng zhě）：三種是，所謂三因（suǒ wèi sān yīn）：所謂的三個因。三種佛性（sān zhǒng fó xìng）：三種佛性。三因者（sān yīn zhě）：三個因是，一應得因（yī yīng dé yīn）：第一是應得因。二加行因（èr jiā xíng yīn）：第二是加行因。三圓滿因（sān yuán mǎn yīn）：第三是圓滿因。真如為應得因（zhēn rú wèi yīng dé yīn）：真如是應得因。菩提心為加行因（pú tí xīn wèi jiā xíng yīn）：菩提心是加行因。菩提心及所起行為圓滿因（pú tí xīn jí suǒ qǐ xíng wèi yuán mǎn yīn）：菩提心以及由此生起的行為是圓滿因。圓滿因（yuán mǎn yīn）：圓滿因，謂福慧行果圓滿（wèi fú huì xíng guǒ yuán mǎn）：指福德、智慧、修行和果報的圓滿。謂智斷恩德（wèi zhì duàn ēn dé）：指智慧、斷除煩惱和恩德。又顯體（yòu xiǎn tǐ）：又闡明本體。
【English Translation】 Lilaijie (來界): Refers to the Tathagatagarbha inherent in all beings, which is the source of all dharmas. Zixing Qingjing Xin (自性清凈心): Refers to the nature of the Tathagatagarbha, which is inherently pure. Xiuxing Wushang Dao (修行無上道): Achieving the highest enlightenment through practice. Yi Er Zhong Foxing (依二種佛性): Based on two kinds of Buddha-nature. Dechu San Zhong Foxing (得出三種佛性): Thus deriving three kinds of Buddha-nature. Dechu San Zhong Shen (得出三種身): Thus attaining three kinds of Buddha-body. Naizhi You Yin Song Yun (乃至又引頌云): Even quoting a verse saying: 'Wushi Shilai Xing (無始世來性), Zuo Zhu Fa Yizhi (作諸法依止). Yi Xing You Zhu Dao (依性有諸道), Ji Zheng Niepan Guo (及證涅槃果).' Xia Shi (下釋): The following explanation. Suo Yan Xing Zhe (所言性者): What is meant by 'nature', such as the sage, Shengman Jing Yun (勝鬘經云): As the 'Shrimala Sutra' says: 'Shizun Rulai Shuo Rulaizang Zhe (世尊如來說如來藏者), Shi Fajie Zang (是法界藏), Naizhi Zixing Qingjing (乃至自性清凈), Rulaizang Gu (如來藏故).' Zuo Zhu Fa Yizhi Zhe (作諸法依止者): Serving as the basis upon which all dharmas rely, Shigu Rulaizang Shi Yi Shi Chi Deng (是故如來藏是依是持等): Therefore, the Tathagatagarbha is reliance, support, and so on. Duo Yi Li Shi (多依理釋): Mostly explained from the perspective of principle. Xia Yi Yi Shi Shi Yun (下亦依事釋云): The following also explains from the perspective of phenomena, saying: 'Rushi Yi He Deng Fannao Yi He Deng Chu Wu (如是以何等煩惱以何等處無), Rushi Rushi Jianzhi (如是如實見知), Ming Wei Kong Zhi (名為空智). You He Deng Zhu Fofa (又何等諸佛法), He Chu Juzu You (何處具足有), Rushi Shi Jianzhi (如是實見知), Ming Bu Kong Zhi (名不空智).' Ji Shi Er Zhong Rulaizang (即釋二種如來藏): This is the explanation of the two kinds of Tathagatagarbha. Qian Yue She Xiang Gui Xing (前約攝相歸性), Ji Mi Wu Yi Shi (及迷悟依釋): The former is explained from the perspective of taking phenomena back to nature, and the basis upon which delusion and enlightenment rely. Hou Yue Xing Xiang Bie Ming (后約性相別明): The latter is clarified from the difference between nature and phenomena. She Dacheng Lun Deng Shi Qian Jing Song (攝大乘論等釋前經頌): 'Mahayana-samgraha' and others explain the previous sutra verses. Yi Xing Xiang Bie Ji Liuzhuan Huanmie Yi Shuo (依性相別及流轉還滅依說): Explaining based on the difference between nature and phenomena, and the basis upon which transmigration and cessation rely. Yi Ge Bu Wei (義各不違): The meanings do not contradict each other. You Foxing Lun Xian Ti Fen (又佛性論顯體分): 'Buddha-nature Treatise' clarifies the part about the essence. Rulaizang Pin Ming San Rulaizang (如來藏品明三如來藏): 'Tathagatagarbha Chapter' clarifies the three kinds of Tathagatagarbha. Yi Suo She Zang (一所攝藏): The first is the contained Tathagatagarbha. Xia Yun (下云): The following says: 'Yiqie Zhongsheng Jue Wu You Chu Ruru Jing Zhe (一切眾生決無有出如如境者), Bing Wei Rulai Zhi Suo Shechi Gu (併爲如來之所攝持故), Ming Suo Cang Zhongsheng Wei Rulaizang (名所藏眾生為如來藏).' Zhun Ci Ji Shi Lengqie Wei Shengsi Yin Youlou Shi Ye (準此即是楞伽為生死因有漏識也): According to this, it is the contaminated consciousness that is the cause of birth and death as described in the 'Lankavatara Sutra'. Er Suo Yin Fu Zang (二所隱覆藏): The second is the concealed Tathagatagarbha. Xia Yun (下云): The following says: 'Rulai Xing Zhu Dao Qian Shi (如來性住道前時), Wei Fannao Yinfu (為煩惱隱覆), Zhongsheng Bu Jian (眾生不見), Gu Ming Wei Zang (故名為藏).' Ci Ji Shengman Kong Rulaizang (此即勝鬘空如來藏): This is the empty Tathagatagarbha described in the 'Shrimala Sutra'. San Neng She Wei Zang Zhe (三能攝為藏者): The third is the one that can contain as a store, Wei Guo Di Yiqie Guo Hengsha Gongde (謂果地一切過恒沙功德), Ying De Xing Shi She Zhi Yi Jin (應得性時攝之已盡): Refers to all the merits exceeding the sands of the Ganges on the ground of fruition, which are all contained when the nature should be attained. Ji Bu Kong Zang (即不空藏): That is the non-empty Tathagatagarbha. You San Yin Pin Yi Tong Li Shi (又三因品亦通理事): 'Three Causes Chapter' also connects principle and phenomena. Bi Yun (彼云): There it says: 'Foxing Ti You San Zhong (佛性體有三種), San Xing Suo She (三性所攝), Yi Ying Zhi (義應知).' San Zhong Zhe (三種者): The three are, Suowei San Yin (所謂三因): The so-called three causes. San Zhong Foxing (三種佛性): Three kinds of Buddha-nature. San Yin Zhe (三因者): The three causes are, Yi Ying De Yin (一應得因): The first is the cause to be attained. Er Jiaxing Yin (二加行因): The second is the cause of practice. San Yuanman Yin (三圓滿因): The third is the cause of perfection. Zhenru Wei Ying De Yin (真如為應得因): Suchness is the cause to be attained. Putixin Wei Jiaxing Yin (菩提心為加行因): Bodhicitta is the cause of practice. Putixin Ji Suo Qi Xing Wei Yuanman Yin (菩提心及所起行為圓滿因): Bodhicitta and the actions arising from it are the cause of perfection. Yuanman Yin (圓滿因): The cause of perfection, Wei Fu Hui Xing Guo Yuanman (謂福慧行果圓滿): Refers to the perfection of merit, wisdom, practice, and fruition. Wei Zhi Duan Ende (謂智斷恩德): Refers to wisdom, the cutting off of afflictions, and grace. You Xian Ti (又顯體): Also clarifying the essence.
分。三性品說三性及三無性。攝如來性盡。此最寬通。若涅槃第三十六。染凈因果通名佛性。故經說云。是七眾生。若善法。若不善法。若方便道。若解脫道。若次第道。若因若果。悉是佛性。是名如來隨自意語。隨前義辨。然應得因望應化身。可通生了。為依彼起。疏名生因。若準涅槃經。只名爲了。如地望芽爲了因故。由有如故。得有應化。可爲了因。若望法身。非生了攝。瑜伽論云。他性為因。非自性故。真如因果體無別故。自不能顯自。若能自顯。非煩惱覆。又體常故。非有後生。故非二因。然名應得果因者。由有如故。后必當得凈位法身故。名應得因。故佛性論云。雖未即顯。必當可現。故名應得正因。勝鬘在纏名如來藏。出纏名法身。據有性說。非無性者。當能顯故。未顯名因。顯名法身故。二論中說為因者。以在因位。即名為因。若在果位。即名為果。即因位如是果法身名為正因。非正生了。何以得知。佛性論云。初云因者有二。一佛性。二信樂。此兩法佛性。是無為信樂。是有為信樂。約性得佛性爲了因。能顯了正因正性故。信樂約加行為生因。能生起眾行故。此望法身四德。而說信樂約加行為生因。能起眾行故。此望報身。不說真如為生了故。涅槃第二十六云。眾生佛性亦二種因。正因者。謂諸眾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 分。三性品講述了三性和三無性（無自性、無生性、無所得性）。它涵蓋了如來性（Tathāgatagarbha）的全部內容，是最為寬泛和通達的。如果按照《涅槃經》第三十六品所說，染凈的因果都可以稱為佛性（Buddha-dhātu）。因此經中說：『這七種眾生，無論是善法，還是不善法，無論是方便道，還是解脫道，無論是次第道，無論是因，還是果，都全部是佛性。』這被稱為如來隨順自己意趣的說法，是根據前面的意義來辨析的。然而，應得因（niyatakāraṇa）可以被視為應化身（nirmāṇakāya）的生因（janakahetu）和了因（jñāpakahetu），因為應化身是依它而生起的。疏鈔中稱之為生因。如果按照《涅槃經》的說法，它僅僅是了因，就像土地對於萌芽來說只是了因一樣。因為有了如（tathatā），才能有應化身，所以可以作爲了因。如果從法身（dharmakāya）的角度來看，它既不是生因，也不是了因。《瑜伽師地論》說，他性（paratantra-svabhāva）是因，而不是自性（svabhāva），因為真如（tathatā）的因果在本體上沒有差別，自身不能顯現自身。如果能夠自身顯現，就不會被煩惱所覆蓋。而且本體是常住的，所以不是後來才產生的，因此不是二因。然而，之所以稱之為應得果因，是因為有了如，將來必定能夠獲得清凈的法身，所以稱為應得因。因此，《佛性論》說，雖然還沒有立即顯現，但必定可以顯現，所以稱為應得正因。勝鬘經中，在纏的如來藏（Tathāgatagarbha）被稱為如來藏，出纏的如來藏被稱為法身。這是根據有性（bhāva-svabhāva）來說的，而不是無性（abhāva-svabhāva）。因為它能夠顯現，未顯現時稱為因，顯現時稱為法身。因此，二論中說它是因，是因為它處於因位，所以稱為因；如果處於果位，就稱為果。即因位的如是果法身稱為正因，而不是正生了。如何得知呢？《佛性論》說，最初所說的因有兩種：一是佛性，二是信樂（adhimukti）。這兩種法，佛性是無為法，信樂是有為法。從自性的角度來說，佛性是爲了因，能夠顯了正因的正性。信樂從加行（prayoga）的角度來說是生因，能夠生起眾多的修行。這是從法身的四德（四種功德：常、樂、我、凈）的角度來說的，信樂從加行的角度來說是生因，能夠生起眾多的修行。這是從報身（saṃbhogakāya）的角度來說的，沒有說真如是生因和了因。 《涅槃經》第二十六品說，眾生的佛性也有兩種因：正因，指的是諸眾生
【English Translation】 English version: Section. The 'Treatise on the Three Natures' discusses the three natures (trisvabhāva) and the three non-natures (triniḥsvabhāva) [absence of inherent existence, absence of origination, absence of attainability]. It encompasses the entirety of the Tathāgatagarbha [the womb of the Buddhas], making it the most comprehensive and all-encompassing. According to the thirty-sixth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, the causes and effects of both defilement and purity can be called Buddha-dhātu [Buddha-nature]. Therefore, the sutra states: 'These seven types of beings, whether they possess good dharmas or unwholesome dharmas, whether they follow the path of skillful means or the path of liberation, whether they follow the gradual path, whether they are causes or effects, all of them are Buddha-dhātu.' This is known as the Tathagata's teaching according to his own intention, which is analyzed based on the preceding meaning. However, the 'cause of potential attainment' (niyatakāraṇa) can be regarded as both the 'generating cause' (janakahetu) and the 'manifesting cause' (jñāpakahetu) of the Nirmāṇakāya [emanation body], because the Nirmāṇakāya arises based on it. The commentary calls it the 'generating cause'. According to the Nirvana Sutra, it is only the 'manifesting cause', just as the earth is only the 'manifesting cause' for a sprout. Because of Suchness (tathatā), there can be a Nirmāṇakāya, so it can be considered a 'manifesting cause'. From the perspective of the Dharmakāya [Dharma body], it is neither a 'generating cause' nor a 'manifesting cause'. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states that 'other-nature' (paratantra-svabhāva) is the cause, not 'self-nature' (svabhāva), because the cause and effect of True Thusness (tathatā) are not different in essence; the self cannot manifest itself. If it could manifest itself, it would not be covered by afflictions. Moreover, the essence is permanent, so it is not produced later; therefore, it is not either of the two causes. However, it is called the 'cause of potential attainment' because, due to Suchness, one will inevitably attain the pure Dharmakāya in the future; therefore, it is called the 'cause of potential attainment'. Thus, the Treatise on Buddha-nature states that although it is not immediately manifest, it will certainly be able to manifest; therefore, it is called the 'cause of potential attainment'. In the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, the Tathāgatagarbha [the womb of the Buddhas] that is enshrouded is called the Tathāgatagarbha, and the Tathāgatagarbha that is free from shrouds is called the Dharmakāya. This is spoken from the perspective of 'having nature' (bhāva-svabhāva), not 'non-nature' (abhāva-svabhāva), because it is able to manifest. When it is not manifest, it is called the cause; when it is manifest, it is called the Dharmakāya. Therefore, the two treatises say that it is the cause because it is in the causal stage, so it is called the cause; if it is in the fruition stage, it is called the fruit. That is, the thusness of the fruit Dharmakāya in the causal stage is called the 'true cause', not the 'true generating cause' or 'true manifesting cause'. How is this known? The Treatise on Buddha-nature states that the cause initially mentioned has two aspects: one is Buddha-nature, and the other is faith and aspiration (adhimukti). Of these two dharmas, Buddha-nature is unconditioned (asaṃskṛta), and faith and aspiration are conditioned (saṃskṛta). From the perspective of nature, Buddha-nature is the 'manifesting cause', which can manifest the true nature of the true cause. From the perspective of effort, faith and aspiration are the 'generating cause', which can generate numerous practices. This is spoken from the perspective of the four virtues of the Dharmakāya [eternity, bliss, self, purity], and faith and aspiration are the 'generating cause' from the perspective of effort, which can generate numerous practices. This is spoken from the perspective of the Saṃbhogakāya [enjoyment body], without mentioning that True Thusness is the 'generating cause' or the 'manifesting cause'. The twenty-sixth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra states that the Buddha-nature of sentient beings also has two kinds of causes: the true cause, referring to all sentient beings.
生。此言眾生。眾生性故。名為眾生。非說五陰名為眾生。緣因者。謂六波羅蜜。義亦同此。乃至心非佛性。心是無常。佛性常故。佛性論第三云。複次總攝義應知。攝有二種。一者由因。二者由果。由因攝者。是如來性清凈有四種因。乃至言法身清凈因者。修習信樂大乘應知。或可此說報身如來。是功德法之所成故。不爾。報身豈無凈德佛智德。生因者。修習般若及禪定應知。恩德者同。修習菩薩大悲應知。亦不說真如為法身因。又涅槃二十七云。善男子我所演說涅槃因者。所謂佛性。佛性之性不生涅槃。是故我說涅槃無因。又十九云。涅槃之體非如是等五因所成。復有二因。一作二了。三十七品六波羅蜜等是名了因。又三十三云。是故涅槃唯有了因。無有生因。法身與涅槃義異體同。故知真如望於法身非生了因。若加行圓滿二即正因。於法身爲了因。于余為生因。此略明佛性不同。
有無差別二
若論理性。無二不生。如涅槃第二十六。斷善闡提亦皆具故。彼經云。若菩提心是佛性者。一闡提輩則不得名一闡提也。菩提之心亦不得名為無常。此意以菩提心非理佛性。若是理性闡提不斷。處處誠說。不勞廣引。若論行性。復有二種。謂有漏無漏。此二種性有無不定。若有漏性一切有情種子定有。現行之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生。此言眾生（Sattvas）。因為眾生的本性，所以稱為眾生。並非說五蘊（Skandha）名為眾生。緣因，指的是六波羅蜜（Six Paramitas），意義也與此相同。乃至心不是佛性，因為心是無常的，而佛性是常住的。佛性論第三說：『其次，總攝的意義應當知曉。攝有兩種，一是通過因，二是通過果。通過因來攝，是如來（Tathagata）的自性清凈有四種因。』乃至說『法身（Dharmakaya）清凈的因，應當知曉是修習信樂大乘（Mahayana）。』或許這裡說的是報身如來（Sambhogakaya Tathagata），是因為功德法所成就的緣故。如果不是這樣，報身難道沒有凈德佛智德嗎？生因，應當知曉是修習般若（Prajna）及禪定（Dhyana）。恩德相同，應當知曉是修習菩薩（Bodhisattva）的大悲心。也不說真如（Tathata）是法身的因。又《涅槃經》第二十七說：『善男子，我所演說的涅槃（Nirvana）因，就是佛性。佛性的本性不生涅槃，所以我說涅槃沒有因。』又第十九說：『涅槃的本體不是像這樣由五因所成就的。』還有兩種因，一是作因，二是了因。三十七道品、六波羅蜜等，這叫做了解因。又第三十三說：『因此，涅槃只有瞭解因，沒有生因。』法身與涅槃意義不同，本體相同。因此可知，真如對於法身來說，不是生因或瞭解因。如果加行圓滿，二者就是正因。對於法身來說是瞭解因，對於其餘來說是生因。這簡略地說明了佛性的不同之處。 有無差別二 如果討論理性，沒有二元對立，不會產生。如《涅槃經》第二十六說，斷善根的闡提（Icchantika）也全部具有佛性。該經說：『如果菩提心（Bodhi-citta）是佛性，那麼一闡提輩就不能稱為一闡提了。菩提心也不能稱為無常。』這裡的意思是菩提心不是理性的佛性。如果是理性，闡提不會斷滅，處處都有明確的說明，不必廣泛引用。如果討論行性，又有兩種，即有漏和無漏。這兩種性質的有無是不確定的。如果有漏的性質，一切有情（Sentient beings）的種子一定存在，現行的
【English Translation】 English version Birth. This refers to sentient beings (Sattvas). Because of the nature of sentient beings, they are called sentient beings. It is not said that the five aggregates (Skandha) are called sentient beings. Causal condition refers to the Six Paramitas, and the meaning is the same. Even the mind is not Buddha-nature, because the mind is impermanent, while Buddha-nature is permanent. The third chapter of the Treatise on Buddha-Nature says: 'Furthermore, the meaning of comprehensive collection should be known. There are two types of collection: one is through cause, and the other is through effect. Collection through cause means that the Tathagata's nature is pure and has four causes.' Even saying 'The cause of Dharmakaya's purity should be known as cultivating faith and joy in Mahayana.' Perhaps this refers to the Sambhogakaya Tathagata, because it is accomplished by meritorious dharmas. If not, does the Sambhogakaya not have pure virtue and Buddha wisdom? The generative cause should be known as cultivating Prajna and Dhyana. The kindness and virtue are the same, and it should be known as cultivating the great compassion of the Bodhisattva. It is also not said that Tathata is the cause of the Dharmakaya. Furthermore, the twenty-seventh chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says: 'Good man, the cause of Nirvana that I have expounded is Buddha-nature. The nature of Buddha-nature does not give rise to Nirvana, therefore I say that Nirvana has no cause.' Furthermore, the nineteenth chapter says: 'The essence of Nirvana is not accomplished by these five causes.' There are also two causes: one is the active cause, and the other is the understanding cause. The thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, the six Paramitas, etc., are called the understanding cause. Furthermore, the thirty-third chapter says: 'Therefore, Nirvana only has the understanding cause and no generative cause.' The meaning of Dharmakaya and Nirvana are different, but the essence is the same. Therefore, it can be known that Tathata is neither the generative cause nor the understanding cause for the Dharmakaya. If the preliminary practice is complete, the two are the direct cause. For the Dharmakaya, it is the understanding cause, and for the rest, it is the generative cause. This briefly explains the differences in Buddha-nature. Difference between existence and non-existence two If discussing rationality, there is no duality, and it will not arise. As the twenty-sixth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says, even those who have severed their roots of goodness, the Icchantikas, all possess Buddha-nature. The sutra says: 'If Bodhi-citta is Buddha-nature, then the Icchantikas cannot be called Icchantikas. Bodhi-citta also cannot be called impermanent.' The meaning here is that Bodhi-citta is not rational Buddha-nature. If it is rationality, the Icchantikas will not be cut off, and there are clear explanations everywhere, so there is no need to quote extensively. If discussing the nature of practice, there are two types: defiled and undefiled. The existence or non-existence of these two natures is uncertain. If it is the defiled nature, the seeds of all sentient beings must exist, and the manifest
者或成不成。若無漏者據現行說。凡夫不成。若據種子。有成不成。如瑜伽論五十七云。生那落迦八根種子現行定成就。除餘三八根現行或成或不成。種子定成三根。現行定不成。種子或成不成。謂般涅槃法者成就。不般涅槃法者不成就。此據現有。若約當說。當亦現行。何言定不定。無上依經佛性論及寶性論俱云。眾生有三。一著有。著有復二。一者背涅槃道。無涅槃性。不求涅槃。愿樂生死。梁攝大乘第十四云。若眾生無涅槃性。名因不具。諸佛於此位中。不能令彼般涅槃。神通亦無自在。無涅槃性。謂貪著生死不信樂大乘。不同作業受果決定。非此二時即可化故。無涅槃性云。於此位不得自在。即永無涅槃性。又佛性論云。由凈分為緣凈性為因故成此觀。非無因緣。若不由於此二事成觀無因緣。如闡提人無涅槃性。應得此觀。而一闡提既無此觀。故知定須因緣觀方可現。寶性論同。又寶性論三云。佛性正因於不定聚眾生能作二種業。一見世間厭苦故。二見涅槃悕寂樂故。不言邪定聚能作二業。佛性論亦同。涅槃經亦云。不能立闡提人菩提之心。喻如金剛不能得壞白羊角等。廣如前引。第九云。又佛言。善男子除一闡提其餘眾生。聞是經已悉皆能作善根因緣。法聲光明入毛孔者。必定當得阿耨菩提。既闡提人不言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 或者能夠成就，或者不能成就。如果是不存在煩惱的人，根據現在的行為來說，凡夫是不能成就的。如果是根據種子來說，有能夠成就和不能成就兩種情況。例如《瑜伽師地論》第五十七卷說：『生在那落迦（地獄）的眾生，八種根的種子和現行都是必定成就的。除了其餘三種根，它們的現行或者能夠成就，或者不能成就。』種子必定成就三種根，現行必定不能成就。種子或者能夠成就，或者不能成就，指的是具有般涅槃（完全的涅槃）之法的人能夠成就，不具有般涅槃之法的人不能成就。這是根據現有的情況來說的。如果根據將來的情況來說，將來也會有現行，為什麼說必定或不一定呢？ 《無上依經》、《佛性論》以及《寶性論》都說：眾生有三種，一是執著于有。執著于有又分為兩種：一是背離涅槃之道，沒有涅槃的性質，不尋求涅槃，願意沉溺於生死。《梁攝大乘論》第十四卷說：『如果眾生沒有涅槃的性質，就叫做因不具足。諸佛在這種情況下，也不能讓他們進入般涅槃，神通也沒有自在。』沒有涅槃的性質，指的是貪戀生死，不相信和喜愛大乘佛法。這不同於作業受果的決定性，不是在這兩個時間段就可以教化的。『沒有涅槃的性質』，指的是在這種情況下不能得到自在，也就是永遠沒有涅槃的性質。 另外，《佛性論》說：『由於清凈的部分作為緣，清凈的性質作為因，所以成就這種觀。』不是沒有因緣。如果不由於這兩件事而成就觀，就是沒有因緣。如果一闡提（斷絕一切善根的人）沒有涅槃的性質，也應該能夠得到這種觀。但是一闡提既然沒有這種觀，所以知道必定需要因緣，觀才可以顯現。《寶性論》的觀點相同。另外，《寶性論》第三卷說：『佛性的正因，對於不定聚的眾生，能夠產生兩種作用：一是看到世間的厭惡痛苦，二是看到涅槃的希望寂靜快樂。』沒有說邪定聚的眾生能夠產生這兩種作用。《佛性論》的觀點也相同。《涅槃經》也說：『不能使一闡提人產生菩提之心。』比喻如同金剛不能破壞白羊角等。詳細的內容如前面所引用。 第九卷說：『佛說：善男子，除了闡提，其餘的眾生，聽了這部經后，都能夠作為善根的因緣。法聲光明進入毛孔的人，必定能夠得到阿耨菩提（無上正等正覺）。』既然沒有說闡提人能夠得到阿耨菩提。
【English Translation】 English version: Whether it can be accomplished or not. If there are no outflows, according to the current practice, ordinary people cannot accomplish it. If based on the seed, there are those who can and cannot accomplish it. For example, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) Volume 57 says: 'Those born in Naraka (hell) have the seeds and present actions of the eight roots definitely accomplished. Except for the remaining three roots, their present actions may or may not be accomplished.' The seed definitely accomplishes three roots, and the present action definitely does not accomplish them. Whether the seed can be accomplished or not refers to those who have the parinirvana (complete Nirvana) dharma can accomplish it, and those who do not have the parinirvana dharma cannot accomplish it. This is according to the existing situation. If according to what will be said in the future, there will also be present actions in the future, so why say it is definite or indefinite? The Anuttara-tantra, Buddha-nature Treatise, and Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Jewel Nature) all say: There are three kinds of sentient beings, one is attached to existence. Attachment to existence is further divided into two: one is turning away from the path of Nirvana, without the nature of Nirvana, not seeking Nirvana, and willing to indulge in birth and death. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Great Vehicle) Volume 14 says: 'If sentient beings do not have the nature of Nirvana, it is called the cause is not complete. In this situation, the Buddhas cannot lead them to enter parinirvana, and supernatural powers have no freedom.' Not having the nature of Nirvana refers to being attached to birth and death, and not believing in and delighting in the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) Buddhism. This is different from the certainty of karma and its results, and it is not possible to transform them at these two time periods. 'Not having the nature of Nirvana' refers to not being able to obtain freedom in this situation, which means never having the nature of Nirvana. Furthermore, the Buddha-nature Treatise says: 'Because the pure part is the condition and the pure nature is the cause, this view is accomplished.' It is not without cause and condition. If the view is not accomplished due to these two things, it is without cause and condition. If an icchantika (one who has severed all roots of goodness) does not have the nature of Nirvana, they should also be able to obtain this view. But since an icchantika does not have this view, it is known that cause and condition are definitely needed for the view to manifest. The Ratnagotravibhāga has the same view. Furthermore, the Ratnagotravibhāga Volume 3 says: 'The direct cause of Buddha-nature can produce two kinds of actions in sentient beings of the indefinite group: one is seeing the world and being disgusted with suffering, and the other is seeing Nirvana and hoping for tranquility and happiness.' It does not say that sentient beings of the fixedly evil group can produce these two actions. The Buddha-nature Treatise also has the same view. The Nirvana Sutra also says: 'It is not possible to make an icchantika generate the mind of bodhi (enlightenment).' It is like a diamond cannot break a white sheep's horn, etc. The detailed content is as quoted earlier. Volume 9 says: 'The Buddha said: Good men, except for icchantikas, all other sentient beings, after hearing this sutra, can all serve as the cause and condition for good roots. Those whose pores of the skin are entered by the sound of the Dharma and the light are sure to attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unsurpassed perfect enlightenment).' Since it is not said that icchantikas can attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.
當得。明無佛性。又涅槃第三十三。明生死河有七種人中。若善男子是七種人。或有一人具七。或有七人各一。既言各一。常沒之者即是無性。不爾。與一人具七何別。善戒經地持論瑜伽菩薩地俱云。無性人無種性故等。聲聞地及抉擇分顯揚佛地論等。皆立有無性。廣如彼辨。略不具引。涅槃二十六云。善男子我雖說云一切眾生悉有佛性。眾生不解佛如是等隨自意語。善男子如是語者後身菩薩尚不能解。況於二乘其餘菩薩。又云。若言眾生悉有佛性。是名如來隨自意語。如來如是隨自意語。眾生云何一向作解。三十二云。如香山中有忍辱草。非一切牛皆能得食。佛性亦爾。是名分別答。既問佛性。不為定答。為分別答。如忍辱草有得不得。明知行性有無不同。理性如何。眾生皆入。由此道理。彌勒無著諸菩薩等。皆引經證。明諸眾生或有有性。或有無性。佛性論及寶性論。皆云闡提無涅槃性。此無行性。非無理性。釋難中雲。有清凈性。即是理性。不爾。論文前後相反。亦違多教。
明闡提類異三
準楞伽經及瑜伽等。說五乘性。第五闡提亦名無性。然此闡提合有三種。一名一闡提底迦。是樂欲義。樂生死故。二名阿闡底迦。是不樂欲義。不樂涅槃故。此二通不斷善根人。不信愚癡所覆弊故。亦通大悲菩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 當得。明明沒有佛性。又《涅槃經》第三十三卷，說明生死之河中有七種人。如果善男子是這七種人，或者有一個人具備七種，或者有七個人各具一種。既然說是各具一種，常沉沒其中的就是沒有佛性的人。不然，與一人具備七種有什麼區別？《善戒經》、《地持論》、《瑜伽菩薩地論》都說，沒有佛性的人沒有種性等等。《聲聞地》以及《抉擇分》、《顯揚》、《佛地論》等，都立有無佛性之說，詳細的論述見於這些經論，這裡就不一一引用了。《涅槃經》第二十六卷說：『善男子，我雖然說一切眾生都有佛性，但眾生不理解佛的這種隨順自己意願所說的話。』善男子，這樣的話，後身的菩薩尚且不能理解，更何況是二乘的聲聞、緣覺和其他菩薩呢？又說：『如果說眾生都有佛性，這是如來隨順自己意願所說的話。』如來這樣隨順自己意願所說的話，眾生怎麼能一概地理解呢？第三十二卷說：『如香山中有忍辱草，不是所有的牛都能吃到。佛性也是這樣。』這叫做分別回答。既然問的是佛性，不是爲了確定地回答，而是爲了分別地回答。就像忍辱草有能吃到和不能吃到的，說明行性的有無是不同的。理性如何呢？眾生都能進入。由於這個道理，彌勒、無著等菩薩，都引用經文來證明，說明眾生或者有佛性，或者沒有佛性。《佛性論》以及《寶性論》都說，一闡提沒有涅槃的性質。這是沒有行性，不是沒有理性。解釋疑問中說：『有清凈的性質，就是理性。』不然，文章前後就自相矛盾，也違背了許多經教。
闡提的類別有三種
根據《楞伽經》以及《瑜伽師地論》等，說了五乘的種性。第五種一闡提也叫做無性。然而這種一闡提合起來有三種。第一種叫做『一闡提底迦』（icchantika），是樂欲的意思，因為他們喜歡生死。第二種叫做『阿闡底迦』（acchantika），是不樂欲的意思，因為他們不喜歡涅槃。這兩種都包括不斷善根的人，因為他們被不信和愚癡所覆蓋矇蔽。也包括大悲菩薩。
【English Translation】 English version: It is appropriate. Clearly, there is no Buddha-nature. Furthermore, the thirty-third chapter of the Nirvana Sutra explains that there are seven types of people in the river of birth and death. If a virtuous man is one of these seven types, either one person possesses all seven, or seven people each possess one. Since it is said that each possesses one, those who are constantly submerged are those without Buddha-nature. Otherwise, what is the difference from one person possessing all seven? The Śīlaskandha Sutra, the Bodhisattvabhūmi, and the Yogācārabhūmi all state that those without Buddha-nature have no lineage, etc. The Śrāvakabhūmi, the Viniscaya-samgrahanī, the Yogācārabhūmi, and the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra all establish the existence or non-existence of Buddha-nature, as explained extensively therein. I will not quote them all here. The twenty-sixth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra states: 'Virtuous man, although I say that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, sentient beings do not understand the Buddha's words spoken according to his own intention.' Virtuous man, even bodhisattvas in their later lives cannot understand such words, let alone the Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and other bodhisattvas of the two vehicles. It also states: 'If it is said that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, this is the Tathāgata's (如來) words spoken according to his own intention.' How can sentient beings uniformly understand the Tathāgata's words spoken according to his own intention in this way? The thirty-second chapter states: 'Like the kṣānti (忍辱) grass in Fragrant Mountain, not all cows can eat it. Buddha-nature is also like this.' This is called a differentiated answer. Since the question is about Buddha-nature, it is not to give a definitive answer, but to give a differentiated answer. Just as there are those who can eat the kṣānti grass and those who cannot, it shows that the existence or non-existence of the nature of action (karma) is different. What about the nature of reason (li)? All sentient beings can enter it. Because of this principle, Maitreya (彌勒), Asanga (無著), and other Bodhisattvas (菩薩) all cite scriptures to prove that some sentient beings have Buddha-nature, while others do not. The Buddha-nature Treatise and the Ratnagotravibhāga both state that icchantikas (闡提) do not have the nature of Nirvana (涅槃). This is the absence of the nature of action, not the absence of the nature of reason. The explanation of difficulties states: 'Having a pure nature is the nature of reason.' Otherwise, the text would contradict itself and violate many teachings.
Clarifying the Three Categories of Icchantikas (闡提)
According to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (楞伽經) and the Yogācārabhūmi (瑜伽師地論), the five vehicles of nature are explained. The fifth, icchantika (闡提), is also called without nature. However, this icchantika collectively has three types. The first is called 'icchantika-tīrthika' (一闡提底迦), which means 'desiring,' because they desire birth and death. The second is called 'acchantika' (阿闡底迦), which means 'not desiring,' because they do not desire Nirvana (涅槃). These two include people who have not severed their roots of goodness, because they are covered and obscured by disbelief and ignorance. It also includes Bodhisattvas (菩薩) of great compassion.
薩。大智大悲所熏習故。三名阿顛底迦。名為畢竟。畢竟無涅槃性故。此無性人亦得前二名。前二久久當會成佛。后必不成。然諸經論所說不同。或隨說一。或總說三。如楞伽經。俱說前二為無性乘。經云。闡提有二。一焚燒一切善根。二作盡眾生界愿。大慧問佛。云何作佛。佛答大慧云。焚燒善根非作盡界愿。善根可續故。眾生無盡。總是有性斷善無現。因大悲無當果。名為無性。非無種子。瑜伽論中唯說第三畢竟無性。無上依經佛性論寶性論涅槃。具說三種。無上依經云。佛告阿難。世間中有三品眾生。一者著有。著有復二。一背涅槃道。無涅槃性。不求涅槃。愿樂生死。二者於我法中不生渴仰。誹謗大乘。乃至落闡提網。不能自出。前是無性。后是有性。然俱名邪定聚。然余處言化邪定聚令作佛者。是後有性。不爾。二人如何差別。寶性論中說第二著有云。于佛法中。闡提因位明非無性。佛性論云。二已隨定位。定位者。非聖非凡。進退無取。而是佛法內人。背大乘法。因此人故。佛說是言。我非彼師等。故無上依經等。初人無性。第二人者。云不能自出。于無量時。佛等為緣還能得出。涅槃第九。廣以喻明。終不能作菩提因緣。乃至云。假使一切無量眾生一時成就阿耨菩提已。此諸如來亦復不見彼一闡提得菩
【現代漢語翻譯】 薩（梵文，意為一切），由於大智大悲的熏習，因此有三種人被稱為阿顛底迦（梵文，意為斷善根者），也稱為畢竟（意為最終）。因為他們畢竟沒有涅槃的自性。這種無自性的人也得到前兩個名稱。前兩種人經過長久的時間終將成就佛果，后一種人必定不能成佛。然而，各種經典和論著所說的並不相同，或者只說其中一種，或者總說這三種。例如《楞伽經》，同時說前兩種為無性乘。經中說：『闡提（梵文，意為斷善根者）有兩種，一種是焚燒一切善根，一種是發盡度眾生界的愿。』大慧菩薩問佛：『如何才能成佛？』佛回答大慧菩薩說：『焚燒善根不是發盡度眾生界愿。』善根可以延續，而眾生沒有窮盡。總的來說，是有自性的人斷了善根，沒有現在的因，因為大悲心而沒有當來的果，稱為無性，並非沒有種子。在《瑜伽師地論》中，只說了第三種畢竟無自性。《無上依經》、《佛性論》、《寶性論》、《涅槃經》都詳細地說了這三種。《無上依經》中說：『佛告訴阿難，世間中有三種眾生。第一種是執著于有，執著于有又分為兩種，一種是背離涅槃之道，沒有涅槃的自性，不尋求涅槃，願意安樂於生死；一種是在我的佛法中不生起渴仰之心，誹謗大乘，乃至落入闡提的羅網，不能自己出來。』前一種是無性，后一種是有性，然而都稱為邪定聚。然而在其他地方說教化邪定聚使他們成佛，指的是后一種有性的人。不然，這兩種人如何區分？《寶性論》中說第二種執著于有的人，在佛法中，闡提在因位上表明並非無性。《佛性論》中說：『第二種已經隨順定位，定位的人，非聖非凡，進退無據，而是佛法內的人，背離大乘佛法。』因為這種人的緣故，佛說這樣的話：『我不是他們的老師』等等。所以《無上依經》等經中，第一種人是無性，第二種人，說『不能自己出來』，在無量的時間裡，佛等作為因緣還能出來。《涅槃經》第九卷，廣泛地用比喻來說明，最終不能作為菩提的因緣，乃至說：『假使一切無量眾生一時成就阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，這些如來也看不見那一個闡提能夠得到菩提。
【English Translation】 Sa (Sanskrit, meaning 'all'). Because of the熏習 (xunxi, influence) of great wisdom and great compassion, three types of people are called Adhyantika (Sanskrit, meaning 'those who have cut off their roots of good'), also called Bijing (meaning 'ultimately'). Because they ultimately do not have the nature of Nirvana. This person without nature also gets the first two names. The first two types of people will eventually achieve Buddhahood after a long time, but the latter type will definitely not be able to achieve Buddhahood. However, what various sutras and treatises say is not the same, either only saying one of them, or generally saying all three. For example, the 《Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra》, at the same time says that the first two are Nirguna-yana. The sutra says: 'There are two types of Icchantika (Sanskrit, meaning 'those who have cut off their roots of good'), one is to burn all good roots, and one is to make the vow to exhaust the realm of sentient beings.' Mahamati Bodhisattva asked the Buddha: 'How can one become a Buddha?' The Buddha replied to Mahamati Bodhisattva: 'Burning good roots is not making the vow to exhaust the realm of sentient beings.' Good roots can be continued, and sentient beings are endless. In general, it is a person with nature who has cut off good roots, without the present cause, because of great compassion without the future result, called Nirguna, not without seeds. In the 《Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra》, only the third type, Bijing Nirguna, is mentioned. The 《Anuttarāśrayasūtra》, 《Buddha-nature Treatise》, 《Ratnagotravibhāga》, 《Nirvana Sutra》 all describe these three types in detail. The 《Anuttarāśrayasūtra》 says: 'The Buddha told Ananda, there are three types of sentient beings in the world. The first is those who are attached to existence, and those who are attached to existence are divided into two types, one is to turn away from the path of Nirvana, without the nature of Nirvana, not seeking Nirvana, willing to be happy in birth and death; the other is not to generate thirst and longing in my Dharma, slandering the Mahayana, and even falling into the net of Icchantika, unable to get out by themselves.' The former is Nirguna, the latter is Saguna, but both are called邪定聚 (xie ding ju, assembly of wrong views). However, in other places it is said that teaching邪定聚 (xie ding ju, assembly of wrong views) to make them become Buddhas refers to the latter type of Saguna people. Otherwise, how can these two types of people be distinguished? The 《Ratnagotravibhāga》 says that the second type of people who are attached to existence, in the Buddha-dharma, the Icchantika in the causal position indicates that they are not Nirguna. The 《Buddha-nature Treatise》 says: 'The second type has already followed the 定位 (ding wei, fixed position), the 定位 (ding wei, fixed position) person, neither saintly nor ordinary, without basis for advancement or retreat, but is a person within the Buddha-dharma, turning away from the Mahayana Buddha-dharma.' Because of this type of person, the Buddha said such words: 'I am not their teacher' and so on. Therefore, in sutras such as the 《Anuttarāśrayasūtra》, the first type of person is Nirguna, the second type of person, it is said 'unable to get out by themselves', in immeasurable time, the Buddhas and others as causes and conditions can still get out. The ninth volume of the 《Nirvana Sutra》, extensively uses metaphors to illustrate, ultimately cannot be used as the cause and condition of Bodhi, and even says: 'Even if all immeasurable sentient beings achieve Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi at the same time, these Tathagatas will also not see that one Icchantika can obtain Bodhi.'
提故。第三十云。善男子生死大海亦復如是。有七種人。畏煩惱故。發意欲度。乃至廣說。第一人者斷善常沒三惡道中。第二人者雖近善友能得信心。后遇惡反斷善還沒。第三人者由近善友。雖斷善根。得名為出。堅住信慧。心無退轉。名住。第四人者斷善根故。于中沉沒。近善友故。乃至遍觀四方。四方者。四沙門果。第五人者斷善沉沒。近善友故。乃至謂辟支佛雖能自度不及眾生。是名為出。第六人者斷善沉沒。近善友得信。名之為出。到淺處已即住不去。所謂菩薩為度眾生。住觀煩惱空。第七人者斷善故沉沒。近善友得出。乃至既前進已得到彼岸。登大高山多受安樂。喻佛常住。大般涅槃三十二文大意同。然少有別。第三十云。或本有六字。一人具七。前說不定。皆發意渡生死河故。三十六說定不定。故於常沒中雲。心業重故不能得出。何故。其心不能生善法故。雖有無量諸佛出世。不聞不見。故名常沒。上無性人。又云。我雖復說一闡提等名為常沒。復有常沒。非一闡提。何者是耶。如人為有修世戒善。是名常沒。瞿伽離等名出已還沒。舍利弗等名出已不沒。須陀洹人如觀四方。斯陀含人如觀已行。阿那含人加行已覆住。三乘無學猶如神龜水陸俱行。準此配喻。與前少別。準文。七人若逢惡友。俱可斷善。名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：提故。第三十品中說：『善男子，生死大海也是如此。有七種人，因為畏懼煩惱，發願想要度過生死苦海。』乃至廣說。第一種人，斷絕善根，常常沉沒在三惡道中。第二種人，雖然接近善友，能夠得到信心，但後來遇到惡緣，反而斷絕善根，再次沉沒。第三種人，由於接近善友，即使斷絕了善根，也能被稱為『出』，能夠堅定地安住于信和慧，內心沒有退轉，這叫做『住』。第四種人，因為斷絕善根的緣故，在中途沉沒，因為接近善友的緣故，乃至能夠遍觀四方。這裡的『四方』，指的是四沙門果（Sramana-phala，沙門的四種果位，即須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果）。第五種人，斷絕善根而沉沒，因為接近善友的緣故，乃至認為辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，緣覺）雖然能夠自我解脫，但不能救度眾生，這叫做『出』。第六種人，斷絕善根而沉沒，因為接近善友而得到信心，這叫做『出』，到達淺水處就停止不前，就像菩薩（Bodhisattva，立志成佛的修行者）爲了度化眾生，安住于觀照煩惱的空性。第七種人，因為斷絕善根而沉沒，因為接近善友而得以脫離，乃至已經前進併到達彼岸，登上高山，享受安樂，比喻佛（Buddha，覺悟者）的常住。大般涅槃經第三十二品的文義大體相同，但略有差別。第三十品說，或者原本有六種人，一人具足七種。前面所說的不確定，都是因為發願要渡過生死河流的緣故。第三十六品說的是確定和不確定的情況，所以在『常常沉沒』中說，因為心業沉重，所以不能脫離。為什麼呢？因為他的心不能生起善法，即使有無量諸佛出世，也聽不到、看不到，所以叫做『常常沉沒』。上面所說的無性之人，又說：『我雖然說一闡提（Icchantika，斷滅善根的人）等叫做常常沉沒，但還有其他的常常沉沒，不是指一闡提。』那是什麼呢？比如有人修習世間的戒律和善行，這叫做常常沉沒。瞿伽離（Kokalika，人名）等叫做『出』了又沉沒。舍利弗（Sariputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一）等叫做『出』了就不再沉沒。須陀洹（Srotapanna，入流果）人就像觀望四方。斯陀含（Sakrdagamin，一來果）人就像觀望後行走。阿那含（Anagamin，不還果）人就像修行后又停止。三乘無學（指阿羅漢）就像神龜一樣，水陸都能行走。按照這個比喻來配合，與前面略有不同。按照經文的意思，七種人如果遇到惡友，都可能斷絕善根，這叫做……
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation of the previous topic. The thirtieth chapter says: 'Good man, the great ocean of birth and death is also like this. There are seven types of people who, fearing afflictions, aspire to cross over.' And so on. The first type of person severs roots of goodness and constantly sinks in the three evil realms. The second type of person, although near good friends and able to gain faith, later encounters evil influences and severs roots of goodness, sinking again. The third type of person, due to being near good friends, even if they sever roots of goodness, can be called 'out,' able to firmly abide in faith and wisdom, with no turning back in their minds; this is called 'abiding.' The fourth type of person, because of severing roots of goodness, sinks in the middle, but due to being near good friends, is able to observe the four directions. The 'four directions' here refer to the four fruits of a Sramana (Sramana-phala, the four fruits of a renunciate: Srotapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, and Arhat). The fifth type of person severs roots of goodness and sinks, but due to being near good friends, believes that a Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha, a solitary Buddha) is able to liberate themselves but cannot save sentient beings; this is called 'out.' The sixth type of person severs roots of goodness and sinks, but due to being near good friends, gains faith; this is called 'out,' reaching a shallow place and stopping there, like a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, one who aspires to Buddhahood) who, in order to liberate sentient beings, abides in contemplating the emptiness of afflictions. The seventh type of person sinks because of severing roots of goodness, but is able to escape due to being near good friends, and having advanced, reaches the other shore, ascends a high mountain, and enjoys bliss, symbolizing the Buddha's (Buddha, the awakened one) constant abiding. The meaning of the thirty-second chapter of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is largely the same, but with slight differences. The thirtieth chapter says that there may originally be six types of people, with one person possessing all seven. What was said earlier is uncertain, all because of aspiring to cross the river of birth and death. The thirty-sixth chapter speaks of certain and uncertain situations, so it says in 'constantly sinking' that because the karma of the mind is heavy, one cannot escape. Why? Because their mind cannot generate good dharmas, and even if countless Buddhas appear in the world, they cannot hear or see them, so it is called 'constantly sinking.' The above-mentioned person without nature also says: 'Although I say that an Icchantika (Icchantika, one who has severed all roots of goodness) and others are called constantly sinking, there are other constantly sinking people who are not Icchantikas.' What are they? For example, someone who cultivates worldly precepts and good deeds; this is called constantly sinking. Kokalika (Kokalika, a personal name) and others are called 'out' and then sinking again. Sariputra (Sariputra, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) and others are called 'out' and no longer sinking. A Srotapanna (Srotapanna, stream-enterer) is like observing the four directions. A Sakrdagamin (Sakrdagamin, once-returner) is like observing and then walking. An Anagamin (Anagamin, non-returner) is like practicing and then stopping. The Arhats (those who have attained liberation) of the three vehicles are like divine turtles, able to travel on both land and water. Matching this analogy, it is slightly different from before. According to the meaning of the text, if the seven types of people encounter evil friends, they can all sever roots of goodness; this is called...
為常沒。若逢善友。續善根已得渡生死河。第一人中。無性畢竟沒。有性暫時。亦名常沒。雖俱言常。有永暫別。如三種常。常言雖同。非無差別。不爾。如何前文法喻有七差別。俱常沒故。又釋。或七眾生總云常沒者言總意別。故亦無違。下復云。是七種人或有一人具七。或七人各一。準此故知。有定不定。一人具七中。言常沒者。即無上依經及寶性論等第二求有人。亦即佛性論等所會闡提無涅槃法者。見斷善故。若不有常沒及定性者等。只是一人具七。如何得有七人各一。七人各一中。常沒之者即是無性。涅槃第三十二。第一人中雲。雖非闡提。如人為有修施戒善。是名常沒者。即無上依經等著有之中第二人也。二有性闡提。即涅槃經七種斷善中。第一少分。后之六人。及楞伽經無性乘。是諸經論中所說不定。涅槃經無上依經大莊嚴論寶性論等。皆通說二。楞伽經中唯說有性。瑜伽顯揚地持善戒所說無性唯畢竟無。由此應知。涅槃第三十三云。一闡提人能生善根。生善根已相續不斷。得阿耨菩提者。此說有性。第九中說闡提之人。如枯木石山敗種龜甲。乃至一切作佛不見闡提得阿耨菩提。此說無性。余皆準知。若作斯解。經論無違。說皆有性。違多聖教。廣如前引。
聲聞有殊四
菩薩瓔珞經第十四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是永遠沉沒。如果遇到善友（指引正道的良師益友），接續善根后才能渡過生死之河。第一種人中，無性（指沒有佛性的人）是畢竟沉沒，有性（指具有佛性的人）是暫時沉沒，雖然都說『常沒』，但有永遠和暫時的區別。如同三種常（指佛性中的三種常：常樂我凈），『常』這個詞雖然相同，並非沒有差別。否則，如何解釋前文的法喻有七種差別？因為都是『常沒』的緣故。又解釋說，或許七種眾生總稱為『常沒』，是總體的意思不同，所以也沒有違背。下文又說，這七種人或者有一個人具備七種，或者七個人各有一種。根據這些可知，有定和不定。一人具備七種中，所說的『常沒』，就是《無上依經》和《寶性論》等所說的第二種求有人（指追求有果報的人），也就是《佛性論》等所說的斷滅涅槃之闡提（斷絕善根的人），因為他們斷絕了善根的緣故。如果不是有『常沒』和『定性』等，只是一人具備七種，如何能有七人各有一種？七人各有一種中，『常沒』之人就是無性（沒有佛性的人）。《涅槃經》第三十二品中，第一種人說，雖然不是闡提，如同人為有（爲了追求果報）而修佈施、持戒等善行，這種人也叫做『常沒』，就是《無上依經》等所說的執著于有的第二種人。第二種有性闡提，就是《涅槃經》七種斷善中的第一種少分（指只斷了一部分善根）。後面的六種人，以及《楞伽經》的無性乘（指沒有佛性的乘），是各種經論中所說的不定。 《涅槃經》、《無上依經》、《大莊嚴論》、《寶性論》等，都通說二種（有性和無性）。《楞伽經》中只說有性。《瑜伽師地論》、《顯揚聖教論》、《地持論》、《善戒經》所說的無性，只是畢竟沒有。由此應該知道，《涅槃經》第三十三品說，一闡提人能生善根，生善根后相續不斷，能證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（無上正等正覺），這是說有性（具有佛性）。第九品中說闡提之人，如同枯木、石山、敗種、龜甲，乃至一切作佛都不能見到闡提證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，這是說無性（沒有佛性）。其餘的都可以參照理解。如果這樣解釋，經論就沒有違背。如果說都是有性，就違背了許多聖教，詳細情況如前面所引用。《菩薩瓔珞經》第十四品中說聲聞有四種差別。
【English Translation】 English version Are eternally submerged. If they encounter good friends (virtuous teachers and companions who guide them on the right path), and continue their roots of goodness, they can cross the river of birth and death. Among the first type of people, those without nature (those without Buddha-nature) are ultimately submerged, while those with nature (those with Buddha-nature) are temporarily submerged. Although both are called 'eternally submerged,' there is a distinction between eternal and temporary. Just like the three kinds of permanence (referring to the three aspects of permanence in Buddha-nature: permanence, bliss, self, and purity), although the word 'permanence' is the same, there is still a difference. Otherwise, how can we explain the seven differences between the Dharma and the metaphor mentioned earlier? Because they are all 'eternally submerged.' Another explanation is that perhaps the seven types of beings are collectively called 'eternally submerged,' which means the overall meaning is different, so there is no contradiction. The following text also says that among these seven types of people, either one person possesses all seven, or seven people each possess one. Based on this, we can know that there are fixed and unfixed. Among the one person who possesses all seven, the 'eternally submerged' refers to the second type of person seeking existence (those who seek karmic rewards) mentioned in the Uttaratantra Shastra and the Ratnagotravibhāga, which is also the Buddha-nature Treatise's interpretation of the icchantikas (those who have severed their roots of goodness) who have extinguished Nirvana, because they have severed their roots of goodness. If there were no 'eternally submerged' and 'fixed nature,' etc., and only one person possessed all seven, how could there be seven people each possessing one? Among the seven people each possessing one, the 'eternally submerged' person is the one without nature (without Buddha-nature). In the thirty-second chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, the first type of person says that although they are not icchantikas, like people who cultivate generosity, precepts, and other good deeds for the sake of existence (seeking karmic rewards), these people are also called 'eternally submerged,' which is the second type of person who is attached to existence mentioned in the Uttaratantra Shastra, etc. The second type of icchantikas with nature is the first type of partial severance among the seven types of severance of goodness in the Nirvana Sutra (referring to only severing a portion of their roots of goodness). The latter six types of people, as well as the vehicle without nature in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (referring to the vehicle without Buddha-nature), are the unfixed ones mentioned in various sutras and treatises. The Nirvana Sutra, Uttaratantra Shastra, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Ratnagotravibhāga, etc., all generally speak of two types (with and without nature). The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra only speaks of those with nature. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, Asaṅga's Compendium of Determinations, Bodhisattvabhumi, Śīlaskandha, and Vinaya-viniścaya-upāli-paripṛcchā speak of those without nature as ultimately non-existent. From this, we should know that the thirty-third chapter of the Nirvana Sutra says that an icchantika can generate roots of goodness, and after generating roots of goodness, they can continuously cultivate them and attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (unexcelled perfect enlightenment), which is speaking of those with nature (possessing Buddha-nature). The ninth chapter says that an icchantika is like dry wood, a rocky mountain, a rotten seed, or a tortoise shell, and even if all Buddhas were to appear, they would not see an icchantika attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, which is speaking of those without nature (without Buddha-nature). The rest can be understood by analogy. If we explain it this way, the sutras and treatises will not contradict each other. If we say that they all have nature, it would contradict many sacred teachings, as detailed in the previous citations. The fourteenth chapter of the Bodhisattva-bhumi says that there are four differences among the Śrāvakas.
三道三乘品云。佛告舍利弗。菩薩三乘各有三品。辟支三乘亦有三品。聲聞三乘亦有三品。菩薩三者。有菩薩大乘。有菩薩辟支佛乘。有菩薩聲聞乘。辟支佛三乘者。有辟支菩薩大乘。有辟支佛菩薩緣覺乘。有辟支佛菩薩聲聞乘。聲聞三乘者。有聲聞大乘。有聲聞辟支佛乘。聲聞有無著乘。各指國土。佛名行愿等。此皆據化。為化三乘。諸佛菩薩各變作三乘。入大乘論及菩提資糧論說。法華經中得授記者。佛菩薩變作聲聞故。入大乘論第二云。問曰。若羅睺羅實是菩薩者。云何復言聲聞阿羅漢耶。答曰。菩薩亦名聲聞。亦名阿羅漢。何以故。令一切眾生聞阿耨菩提故名聲聞。於一切人天阿修羅。應受供養故。名為應供。菩薩為化眾生故。現作聲聞阿羅漢。問曰。諸餘聲聞亦是菩薩也。答諸餘聲聞亦有是菩薩者。如法華經中舍利弗等五百弟子。悉是菩薩。皆當作佛。一切聲聞皆是阿鞞跋致菩薩。如不退轉法輪經中廣說。若依深密解脫經第二解深密經及瑜伽論抉擇分。俱說有二。一寂滅。二趣菩提。寂滅者。亦名決定性。趣菩提者。亦名不定性。亦名退菩提心。楞伽經說有三種。故第四云。大慧菩薩白佛言。世尊說三種阿羅漢。此說何等羅漢名阿羅漢。世尊為說得決定寂滅羅漢。為發菩提愿善根。忘善根羅漢。為作應化羅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《三道三乘品》中說，佛告訴舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）：菩薩有三種乘，每種乘又分三品；辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，又稱緣覺或獨覺）有三種乘，每種乘也分三品；聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的弟子）有三種乘，每種乘也分三品。菩薩的三種乘是：有菩薩大乘（Mahāyāna，追求普度眾生的乘），有菩薩辟支佛乘，有菩薩聲聞乘。辟支佛的三種乘是：有辟支佛菩薩大乘，有辟支佛菩薩緣覺乘，有辟支佛菩薩聲聞乘。聲聞的三種乘是：有聲聞大乘，有聲聞辟支佛乘，聲聞有無著乘。各自指向不同的國土，佛名、行愿等也各不相同。這些都是根據教化而設定的，爲了教化三乘的眾生，諸佛菩薩各自變化為三種乘。這些內容在大乘論和《菩提資糧論》中都有說明。《法華經》中得到佛授記的，是因為佛菩薩變化為聲聞的緣故。《入大乘論》第二卷說：有人問，如果羅睺羅（Rāhula，佛陀的兒子）確實是菩薩，為什麼又說是聲聞阿羅漢（Arhat，已證悟的聖者）呢？回答說：菩薩也可以稱為聲聞，也可以稱為阿羅漢。為什麼呢？因為要讓一切眾生聽聞阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi，無上正等正覺），所以稱為聲聞；因為在一切人、天、阿修羅（Asura，一種神道生物）中，應當接受供養，所以稱為應供。菩薩爲了教化眾生，所以示現為聲聞阿羅漢。有人問：其他的聲聞也是菩薩嗎？回答說：其他的聲聞中也有是菩薩的，例如《法華經》中的舍利弗等五百弟子，都是菩薩，將來都會成佛。一切聲聞都是阿鞞跋致（Avaivartika，不退轉）菩薩，這些在《不退轉法輪經》中有詳細說明。如果依據《深密解脫經》、《解深密經》以及《瑜伽師地論·抉擇分》，都說有兩種：一是寂滅，二是趣菩提。寂滅也稱為決定性，趣菩提也稱為不定性，也稱為退菩提心。《楞伽經》說有三種，所以在第四卷中說：大慧菩薩（Mahāmati，一位重要的菩薩）問佛說：世尊說有三種阿羅漢，這裡說的是哪種阿羅漢才稱為阿羅漢呢？世尊解釋說，有得到決定寂滅的阿羅漢，有發菩提愿善根、忘失善根的阿羅漢，有作為應化的阿羅漢。
【English Translation】 English version: The 'Chapter on the Three Paths and Three Vehicles' states: The Buddha told Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten principal disciples, known for his wisdom): Bodhisattvas have three vehicles, each with three grades; Pratyekabuddhas (also known as solitary Buddhas or self-enlightened ones) have three vehicles, each with three grades; Śrāvakas (disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) have three vehicles, each with three grades. The three vehicles of Bodhisattvas are: the Bodhisattva Mahāyāna (the Great Vehicle, pursuing universal salvation), the Bodhisattva Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Bodhisattva Śrāvaka Vehicle. The three vehicles of Pratyekabuddhas are: the Pratyekabuddha Bodhisattva Mahāyāna, the Pratyekabuddha Bodhisattva Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Pratyekabuddha Bodhisattva Śrāvaka Vehicle. The three vehicles of Śrāvakas are: the Śrāvaka Mahāyāna, the Śrāvaka Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Śrāvaka Avyākṛta Vehicle. Each points to different Buddha-fields, and the Buddhas' names, practices, and vows are also different. These are all established according to the teachings, for the purpose of teaching beings of the three vehicles. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas each transform into three vehicles. These contents are explained in the Mahāyāna treatises and the 'Bodhisattva's Accumulation of Merit Treatise'. Those who receive predictions of Buddhahood in the 'Lotus Sūtra' do so because the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas transform into Śrāvakas. The second volume of the 'Entering the Mahāyāna Treatise' states: Someone asks, 'If Rāhula (the Buddha's son) is truly a Bodhisattva, why is he also called a Śrāvaka Arhat (an enlightened saint)?' The answer is: 'A Bodhisattva can also be called a Śrāvaka and an Arhat. Why? Because they cause all beings to hear of Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (unexcelled complete enlightenment), therefore they are called Śrāvakas; because among all humans, devas (gods), and asuras (a type of divine being), they should receive offerings, therefore they are called worthy of offerings.' Bodhisattvas manifest as Śrāvaka Arhats in order to teach beings. Someone asks: 'Are the other Śrāvakas also Bodhisattvas?' The answer is: 'Among the other Śrāvakas, some are Bodhisattvas, such as Śāriputra and the five hundred disciples in the 'Lotus Sūtra', all of whom are Bodhisattvas and will become Buddhas in the future. All Śrāvakas are Avaivartika (non-regressing) Bodhisattvas, as explained in detail in the 'Sūtra of the Wheel of Non-Regression'.' According to the 'Profound Meaning of Liberation Sūtra', the 'Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra', and the 'Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra's Chapter on Ascertainment', there are two types: one is quiescence, and the other is directed towards Bodhi. Quiescence is also called definitive, while directed towards Bodhi is also called non-definitive, and also called regressing from the Bodhi mind. The 'Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra' says there are three types, so in the fourth volume it states: Mahāmati (an important Bodhisattva) asked the Buddha, 'The World-Honored One says there are three types of Arhats. Which type of Arhat is being referred to here?' The World-Honored One explained that there are Arhats who attain definitive quiescence, Arhats who generate the roots of good merit with the Bodhi vow and then forget those roots, and Arhats who act as emanations.
漢第七亦說有三。謂先修菩薩行者。增上慢聲聞。寂滅聲聞。準此。前後同法華經論聲聞有四種。攝大乘論顯揚大莊嚴論說一乘中。並同楞伽。依法華經說有三種故。第一云。增上慢比丘等。第二云。我昔教汝志願佛道。汝今悉忘。此等即是菩提心聲聞。第三云。內秘菩薩行。外現是聲聞等。此是變化。依法華經論說有四種。論云。聲聞有四種。一者決定聲聞。二者增上慢聲聞。三退菩提心聲聞。四者應化聲聞。若緣覺人。準法華論。但說一種。楞伽第二說有二種。謂定不定性。大般若同。準雜集論等。說有二種。一謂眾出。二謂麟角。準菩薩瓔珞第十四云。辟支乘三者。如前已引。即有三種。準首楞嚴三昧第三說。文殊師利云。我念過去世照明劫。我于其中。三百六十億世。以辟支佛乘入于涅槃。乃至云。是諸眾生無處得種善根因緣。我于爾時。為教化故。自稱我身是辟支佛。菩薩如是以辟支佛乘入于涅槃而不永滅。乃至廣說化四果等。法華第二說不定性。以趣大故。第三說定性。論釋。令知種種乘異故。第七復說菩薩化作。但未見文說有增上慢緣覺。問聲聞緣覺各有多種。為一切能取無上菩提。為非一切。答非一切。何以得知。準梁攝大乘本論云。若爾聲聞緣覺非共得如此眾德相應諸佛法身。以何意故。說彼俱趣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 第七種說法也認為有三種聲聞。即先修行菩薩行的人、增上慢聲聞、寂滅聲聞。依照這個說法，前後與《法華經論》相同，聲聞有四種。《攝大乘論》、《顯揚大莊嚴論》說一乘時，都與《楞伽經》相同，因為依據《法華經》說了三種。第一種說：『增上慢比丘』等。第二種說：『我過去教導你們發願修佛道，你們現在都忘記了。』這些人就是發菩提心的聲聞。第三種說：『內心隱藏菩薩行，外表顯現是聲聞』等，這是變化示現。依據《法華經論》說有四種。論中說：『聲聞有四種：一是決定聲聞，二是增上慢聲聞，三是退菩提心聲聞，四是應化聲聞。』 如果是緣覺，依據《法華經論》，只說一種。《楞伽經》第二種說法認為有兩種，即定性與不定性。《大般若經》相同。依據《雜集論》等，說有兩種，一是大眾出家，二是麟角喻獨覺。依據《菩薩瓔珞經》第十四卷說：『辟支佛乘有三種』，如前面已經引用，即有三種。依據《首楞嚴三昧經》第三卷說，文殊師利說：『我回憶過去世照明劫，我在其中三百六十億世，以辟支佛乘進入涅槃。』乃至說：『這些眾生沒有地方可以種善根因緣，我于那時，爲了教化，自稱我的身份是辟支佛。菩薩像這樣以辟支佛乘進入涅槃而不永遠滅度。』乃至廣泛地說變化四果等。 《法華經》第二品說不定性，因為趣向大乘的緣故。第三品說定性。論的解釋是：爲了讓人知道種種乘的差異。《法華經》第七品又說菩薩化作，但沒有看到經文說有增上慢緣覺。 問：聲聞、緣覺各有多種，是否一切都能證得無上菩提？還是並非一切？ 答：並非一切。為什麼知道呢？依據梁朝的《攝大乘論》的原本說：『如果這樣，聲聞、緣覺不能共同得到如此眾多功德相應的諸佛法身。以什麼用意，說他們都趣向（佛果）呢？』
【English Translation】 English version: The seventh explanation also states that there are three types of Shravakas (Śrāvaka, 'hearer' or 'disciple'). Namely, those who initially practice the Bodhisattva path, the Shravakas with increased pride (Adhimānika Śrāvaka), and the Shravakas who attain Nirvana (Śrāvakayāna). According to this, it is consistent with the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) and its commentaries, which state that there are four types of Shravakas. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Asaṅga's Yogācārabhūmi, and Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya all speak of the One Vehicle (Ekayāna) and are consistent with the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, because they follow the Lotus Sutra in stating that there are three types. The first states: 'Arrogant Bhikshus (Bhikṣu, 'monk')' and so on. The second states: 'In the past, I taught you to aspire to the Buddha path, but now you have all forgotten.' These are the Shravakas with Bodhicitta (Bodhicitta, 'mind of enlightenment'). The third states: 'Inwardly practicing the Bodhisattva path, outwardly appearing as Shravakas,' and so on; this is transformation. According to the Lotus Sutra and its commentaries, there are four types. The commentary states: 'There are four types of Shravakas: first, the determined Shravakas; second, the Shravakas with increased pride; third, the Shravakas who regress from Bodhicitta; and fourth, the Shravakas who are emanations.' As for Pratyekabuddhas (Pratyekabuddha, 'solitary Buddha'), according to the Lotus Sutra commentaries, only one type is mentioned. The second explanation in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states that there are two types, namely, those with fixed nature and those with unfixed nature. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra is the same. According to the Abhidharmasamuccaya, there are two types: one is those who leave the community, and the other is the Rhinoceros Horn (Khaḍgaviṣāṇa) solitary realizer. According to the fourteenth chapter of the Bodhisattva-bhūmi, 'There are three types of Pratyekabuddha Vehicle,' as quoted earlier, meaning there are three types. According to the third chapter of the Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra, Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī, 'Gentle Glory') said: 'I recall in the past, during the Illumination Kalpa (Kalpa, 'aeon'), I entered Nirvana (Nirvāṇa, 'cessation') in three hundred and sixty billion lifetimes through the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle.' And further: 'These beings had no place to plant the causes and conditions for good roots. At that time, for the sake of teaching, I proclaimed myself to be a Pratyekabuddha. Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva, 'enlightenment being') thus enter Nirvana through the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle without permanent extinction,' and so on, extensively discussing the transformation into the Four Fruits (Śrāmaṇaphala) and so on. The second chapter of the Lotus Sutra speaks of unfixed nature, because of the inclination towards the Great Vehicle (Mahāyāna). The third chapter speaks of fixed nature. The commentary explains: 'To make known the differences between the various vehicles.' The seventh chapter of the Lotus Sutra again speaks of Bodhisattvas transforming, but no text has been seen that speaks of Pratyekabuddhas with increased pride. Question: Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas each have many types. Can all of them attain unsurpassed Bodhi (Bodhi, 'awakening'), or not all? Answer: Not all. How is this known? According to the original text of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha of the Liang dynasty: 'If so, Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas cannot jointly attain the Dharmakāya (Dharmakāya, 'body of dharma') of the Buddhas, which corresponds to so many virtues. With what intention is it said that they all tend towards (Buddhahood)?'
一乘與佛乘同。釋云。若諸佛無前五異。由法身五業是同。二乘人有五業異。不得法身。無五業同。如來為何義故。說二乘人同趣一乘皆得成佛。準此問詞意。不說一切皆能回趣。但為引接不定根性令速趣大故。釋論云。為顯說一乘意。是故說偈。前偈以了義說一乘。后偈以秘密義說一乘。此意前偈為引接不定性得作佛故。一乘爲了義。后偈為定性二乘不作佛故。但依真如無我解脫等故。說一正同。解深密經云。故於其中說一乘。非有情性無差別。又說。趣寂終不坐道場。唯不定性方能作佛。無性攝論文亦相似。楞伽第七云。大慧聲聞有三種。言入八地寂滅門者。此是先修菩薩行者。墮聲聞地還依本心。修菩薩行。同入八地寂滅樂門。非增上慢寂滅聲聞。第八復云。佛告大慧。我為曾行菩薩行。諸聲聞等依無餘依涅槃而與授記。大慧我與聲聞授記者。為怯弱眾生生勇猛心。大慧此世界中及余佛國。有諸眾生行菩薩行。而復樂於聲聞法。佛為轉彼取大菩提。準此經文。此國他方總不說寂滅聲聞有趣大者。入大乘論第二云。聲聞有二種。一者勤修禪定。是鈍根人。二者回向菩提能斷知障。是利根人。樂行禪定者。如寶良經說。猶如水精終不能成摩尼寶珠。聲聞修禪亦復如是。終不能成菩提果也。楞伽第四云。大慧何者斯陀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一乘與佛乘相同。《釋》中解釋說：『如果諸佛沒有前五種差異，因為法身和五業是相同的。二乘人有五業的差異，不能證得法身，沒有五業的相同。』如來是出於什麼原因，說二乘人同樣趨向一乘，都能成佛呢？按照這個問句的意思，並不是說一切眾生都能回心轉意趨向大乘，只是爲了引導那些根性不定的人，讓他們迅速趨向大乘的緣故。《釋論》中說：『爲了顯示說一乘的意義，所以說了偈頌。』前面的偈頌用了義來說一乘，後面的偈頌用秘密義來說一乘。這個意思是說，前面的偈頌是爲了引導不定性的眾生，使他們能夠成佛的緣故，一乘是了義。後面的偈頌是爲了定性的二乘不能成佛的緣故，只是依據真如、無我、解脫等，所以說一正相同。《解深密經》中說：『所以在其中說一乘，並非有情眾生的根性沒有差別。』又說：『趣向寂滅的人最終不會坐在菩提道場。』只有不定性的眾生才能成佛。《無性攝論文》也相似。《楞伽經》第七卷中說：『大慧（Mahamati），聲聞有三種。』說到進入八地寂滅門的人，這是指先前修行菩薩行的人，墮入聲聞地后，又依本心，修菩薩行，一同進入八地寂滅樂門，不是增上慢的寂滅聲聞。第八卷又說：『佛告訴大慧：我為曾經修行菩薩行的那些聲聞等，依據無餘依涅槃而為他們授記。大慧，我為聲聞授記，是爲了使怯弱的眾生生起勇猛心。大慧，在這個世界中以及其他佛國，有許多眾生修行菩薩行，卻又樂於聲聞法，佛爲了轉變他們，使他們取得大菩提。』按照這些經文，這個國土和其他佛國，總沒有說寂滅聲聞有趨向大乘的。《入大乘論》第二卷中說：『聲聞有兩種，一種是勤修禪定，是鈍根的人；另一種是迴向菩提，能斷除知障，是利根的人。』樂於修行禪定的人，如《寶良經》所說：『猶如水晶最終不能成為摩尼寶珠。聲聞修行禪定也是這樣，最終不能成就菩提果。』《楞伽經》第四卷中說：『大慧，什麼是斯陀含（Sakrdagamin）？』
【English Translation】 English version The One Vehicle (Ekayana) is the same as the Buddha Vehicle (Buddhayana). The commentary explains: 'If all Buddhas do not have the aforementioned five differences, it is because the Dharmakaya (法身) [Dharma Body] and the five karmas are the same. Those of the Two Vehicles (二乘) [Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna] have differences in the five karmas, and cannot attain the Dharmakaya, lacking the sameness of the five karmas.' For what reason did the Tathagata (如來) [Thus Come One] say that those of the Two Vehicles similarly tend towards the One Vehicle and can all attain Buddhahood? According to the meaning of this question, it does not say that all beings can turn their minds and tend towards the Great Vehicle (Mahayana), but only to guide those of uncertain faculties, causing them to quickly tend towards the Great Vehicle. The Shilun (釋論) [Commentary] says: 'In order to reveal the meaning of speaking of the One Vehicle, therefore a verse is spoken.' The previous verse speaks of the One Vehicle with definitive meaning (了義), the latter verse speaks of the One Vehicle with secret meaning (秘密義). This means that the previous verse is to guide beings of uncertain nature, enabling them to become Buddhas, the One Vehicle is of definitive meaning. The latter verse is because those of the Two Vehicles of fixed nature cannot become Buddhas, but only rely on Suchness (真如) [Tathata], non-self (無我) [Anatman], liberation (解脫) [Moksha], etc., therefore it is said that one true [vehicle] is the same. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (解深密經) [Explanation of the Profound Secrets Sutra] says: 'Therefore, within it, the One Vehicle is spoken of, it is not that the natures of sentient beings are without difference.' It also says: 'Those who tend towards quiescence will ultimately not sit at the Bodhi-mandala (菩提道場) [Enlightenment Platform].' Only beings of uncertain nature can become Buddhas. The Wuxing She Lun (無性攝論文) [Asanga's Summary of the Great Vehicle] is similar. The seventh chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra (楞伽經) [Descent to Lanka Sutra] says: 'Mahamati (大慧) [Great Wisdom], there are three kinds of Śrāvakas (聲聞) [Hearers].' Speaking of those who enter the eighth ground's gate of quiescence, this refers to those who previously cultivated the Bodhisattva path, fell into the Śrāvaka ground, and then relied on their original mind to cultivate the Bodhisattva path, together entering the eighth ground's gate of quiescence and bliss, not the Śrāvakas of quiescence with increased arrogance. The eighth chapter further says: 'The Buddha told Mahamati: I have given predictions to those Śrāvakas, etc., who formerly practiced the Bodhisattva path, based on their Nirvana (涅槃) [Extinguishment] with no remainder.' Mahamati, my giving of predictions to the Śrāvakas is to cause timid beings to generate courageous minds. Mahamati, in this world and in other Buddha lands, there are many beings who practice the Bodhisattva path, but also delight in the Śrāvaka Dharma, the Buddha transforms them to obtain Great Bodhi (菩提) [Enlightenment].' According to these sutra passages, in this country and other Buddha lands, it is never said that there are Śrāvakas of quiescence who tend towards the Great Vehicle. The second chapter of the Entering the Great Vehicle Treatise (入大乘論) says: 'There are two kinds of Śrāvakas, one is diligent in cultivating Dhyana (禪定) [Meditation], these are people of dull faculties; the other is those who dedicate towards Bodhi, able to sever the obstructions of knowledge, these are people of sharp faculties.' Those who delight in practicing Dhyana, as the Bao Liang Jing (寶良經) [Treasure Excellent Sutra] says: 'Just as crystal can never become a Mani jewel (摩尼寶珠) [Wish-fulfilling Jewel]. Śrāvakas cultivating Dhyana are also like this, ultimately unable to attain the fruit of Bodhi.' The fourth chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra says: 'Mahamati, what is a Sakrdagamin (斯陀含) [Once-Returner]?'
含果相。謂一往見色相現前生心。非虛妄分別想見。以善見禪修行相故。一往來世間。便斷苦盡。入于涅槃。此文不同住三昧樂門生涅槃想。彼有變易。生涅槃想未盡苦故。此云苦盡入于涅槃。不云生涅槃想。明是定性入無餘滅故。次下云。大慧菩薩白佛言。世尊說三種阿羅漢。此說何等羅漢名阿羅漢。乃至佛告大慧。為說得決定寂滅聲聞羅漢。非余羅漢。梁攝大乘論云。由恒差別。于無餘涅槃。不墮斷盡邊際。故釋云。二乘猶于無餘涅槃無應化二身。以不觀他利益事故。無應身故。墮斷無化身故。墮盡。菩薩于無餘涅槃恒起二身。無有邊際。乃至云。有應身故不墮斷。有化身故不墮盡。入大乘論第一云。問云。菩薩度空出于生死。云何能得勝于聲聞。答云。菩薩得世間利出世間利。度爾焰地故。雖出世間。能住世間。教化眾生。聲聞不然。悕畏生死。求速滅度。以出世間道見於法界。見於法界已到涅槃岸。菩薩不爾。涅槃經第三十二解有行無行般那含中。俱云盡壽入于涅槃。又無行般中雲。亦以有為三昧力故。盡壽則得入于涅槃。準此文說。入於三昧。化火燒身。盡其壽命。入于涅槃。若住三昧樂。謂為涅槃。云何得言以有為三昧力故盡壽則得入于涅槃。以有為三昧則涅槃故。以此故知。住滅定已。化火燒身。始得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『含果相』，指的是初次見到色相顯現時，心中生起念頭，但這並非虛妄分別的想像。這是因為通過善見禪的修行，能夠見到真實的修行景象。一旦進入來世，就能斷除所有痛苦，進入涅槃（Nirvana）。 這段文字與安住在三昧（Samadhi）之樂中而生起涅槃之想的說法不同。後者帶有變易，因為生起涅槃之想並不意味著痛苦已經完全消除。而這裡說的是『苦盡入于涅槃』，而不是『生涅槃想』，明確表明這是通過定性而進入無餘涅槃（Parinirvana），也就是完全的寂滅。 接下來，大慧菩薩（Mahamati Bodhisattva）問佛說：『世尊說有三種阿羅漢（Arhat），這裡說的是哪一種阿羅漢被稱為阿羅漢？』佛告訴大慧：『這裡說的是獲得決定寂滅的聲聞（Sravaka）阿羅漢，而不是其他的阿羅漢。』 梁朝的《攝大乘論》（Mahayana-samgraha）中說：『由於恒常的差別，在無餘涅槃中，不會墮入斷滅的邊際。』因此解釋說，二乘（Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana）在無餘涅槃中沒有應化二身，因為他們不關注他人的利益。沒有應身，所以會墮入斷滅；沒有化身，所以會墮入窮盡。菩薩（Bodhisattva）在無餘涅槃中恒常生起應化二身，沒有邊際。』 《攝大乘論》中說：『有應身，所以不會墮入斷滅；有化身，所以不會墮入窮盡。』 《入大乘論》第一卷中，有人問：『菩薩度過空性，脫離生死輪迴，為什麼能勝過聲聞？』回答說：『菩薩獲得世間利益和出世間利益，度過爾焰地。因此，雖然脫離了世間，但能安住於世間，教化眾生。聲聞則不然，他們害怕生死，尋求快速滅度。他們以出世間之道見到法界，見到法界後到達涅槃的彼岸。菩薩則不是這樣。』 《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）第三十二卷解釋有行、無行般涅槃時，都說『盡壽入于涅槃』。又在無行般涅槃中說：『也因為有為三昧的力量，盡其壽命就能進入涅槃。』 根據這段文字，進入三昧，化火焚燒身體，盡其壽命，進入涅槃。如果安住在三昧之樂中，就認為是涅槃，怎麼能說『以有為三昧力故盡壽則得入于涅槃』呢？因為以有為三昧就是涅槃。因此可知，安住在滅盡定（ Nirodha-samapatti）之後，化火焚燒身體，才能開始進入涅槃。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Containing the aspect of result' refers to initially seeing the appearance of form and generating thoughts, but this is not based on false and discriminating imagination. It is because through the practice of 'Good Seeing' meditation (善見禪), one can see the true aspects of practice. Once entering the next life, one can cut off all suffering and enter Nirvana (涅槃). This passage differs from the idea of dwelling in the joy of Samadhi (三昧) and generating the thought of Nirvana. The latter involves change, because generating the thought of Nirvana does not mean that suffering has been completely eliminated. Here, it says 'exhausting suffering and entering Nirvana,' not 'generating the thought of Nirvana,' clearly indicating that it is through fixed nature that one enters Parinirvana (無余涅槃), which is complete extinction. Next, Mahamati Bodhisattva (大慧菩薩) asked the Buddha, 'The World Honored One says there are three types of Arhats (阿羅漢). Which type of Arhat is being referred to here as an Arhat?' The Buddha told Mahamati, 'Here, it refers to the Sravaka (聲聞) Arhat who has attained determined extinction, not other Arhats.' The Mahayana-samgraha (攝大乘論) of the Liang Dynasty says, 'Due to constant difference, in Parinirvana, one does not fall into the extreme of annihilation.' Therefore, it explains that the Two Vehicles (二乘) do not have the two bodies of response and transformation in Parinirvana because they do not consider the benefit of others. Without the response body, one falls into annihilation; without the transformation body, one falls into exhaustion. Bodhisattvas (菩薩) constantly generate the two bodies of response and transformation in Parinirvana, without limit.' The Mahayana-samgraha says, 'Having the response body, one does not fall into annihilation; having the transformation body, one does not fall into exhaustion.' In the first volume of the Entering the Mahayana Treatise, someone asks, 'Bodhisattvas cross over emptiness and escape the cycle of birth and death. How can they surpass Sravakas?' The answer is, 'Bodhisattvas attain worldly benefits and supramundane benefits, crossing over the Er-yan land. Therefore, although they have escaped the world, they can dwell in the world and teach sentient beings. Sravakas are not like this; they fear birth and death and seek rapid extinction. They see the Dharma Realm with the supramundane path, and after seeing the Dharma Realm, they reach the shore of Nirvana. Bodhisattvas are not like this.' The thirty-second volume of the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經), in explaining Nirvana with and without practice, both say 'exhausting their lifespan and entering Nirvana.' It also says in Nirvana without practice, 'Also, because of the power of conditioned Samadhi, one can exhaust their lifespan and enter Nirvana.' According to this passage, entering Samadhi, transforming fire to burn the body, exhausting one's lifespan, and entering Nirvana. If dwelling in the joy of Samadhi is considered Nirvana, how can it be said 'because of the power of conditioned Samadhi, one can exhaust their lifespan and enter Nirvana'? Because conditioned Samadhi is Nirvana. Therefore, it can be known that after dwelling in Nirodha-samapatti (滅盡定), transforming fire to burn the body, one can begin to enter Nirvana.
涅槃。有行亦同。故云。亦以是故定性入無餘依不受變易。楞伽第四亦云。聲聞緣覺未證於法無我。未得離不思議變易生。準此故知。定性二乘趣無餘依不受變易生死。勝鬘等說阿羅漢辟支佛大力菩薩受變易者。是不定性。佛地論第二瑜伽第八十。皆說不定回趣得受變易。大莊嚴論第一云。四由善根無盡。何以故。非諸聲聞等善根如是明凈故。非一切人善根。攝力無畏等故。餘人善根無他利故。餘人善根涅槃時盡故。菩薩善根不爾。以此故知。不定性入無餘不能回趣。不定性者住有餘依。即回趣故。法華第二頌云。得脫三界苦惱之患。住最後身有餘涅槃。瑜伽第八十云。答唯住有餘依涅槃界中。可有此事。何以故。以無餘依涅槃界中遠離一切發起事業。一切功用皆悉止息。佛地論同。勝鬘亦云。世尊阿羅漢辟支佛觀察時。得不受後有。觀第一蘇息處涅槃地。世尊彼先所得地。不愚於法。不由於他。亦自知得有餘地必當得阿耨菩提。何以故。聲聞辟支佛乘皆入大乘。準此諸文。無說二乘入無餘依涅槃界已方能回趣。故知回趣必不定性住有餘依涅槃。但言八萬劫住涅槃等。不言無餘。此不定人所修善根是大方便。亦同菩薩善根無盡。故法華云。汝等所行是菩薩道等。又首楞嚴經第二云。諸天聞佛說如是義。悉皆涕淚而作是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。有行（有為法）也同樣如此。所以說，『也是因為這個原因，定性（已決定證果）的聲聞乘和緣覺乘入無餘依涅槃（Anupadhisesa-nirvana，無餘涅槃）后，不再承受變易生死（Vikara-marana，變易死）』。《楞伽經》第四卷也說，『聲聞乘和緣覺乘沒有證得法無我（Dharma-nairatmya，諸法無我），沒有脫離不可思議的變易生。』根據這些可知，已決定證果的二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）趣入無餘依涅槃后，不再承受變易生死。《勝鬘經》等經典所說的阿羅漢（Arhat，應供）、辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，緣覺）和大菩薩（Mahabodhisattva，摩訶薩）承受變易生死，是指未決定證果者。《佛地論》第二卷和《瑜伽師地論》第八十卷都說，未決定證果而回小向大者，能夠承受變易生死。《大莊嚴論》第一卷說，有四種原因導致善根（Kusala-mula，善之根本）不會窮盡：為什麼呢？因為諸聲聞乘等的善根不像菩薩那樣明凈；不是一切人的善根都具有攝受力、無畏力等；其他人的善根沒有利益他人的作用；其他人的善根在涅槃時就窮盡了，而菩薩的善根不是這樣。因此可知，已決定證果者進入無餘依涅槃后不能回小向大，未決定證果者住在有餘依涅槃（Sopadhisesa-nirvana，有餘涅槃），才能回小向大。 《法華經》第二卷的偈頌說，『脫離三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）苦惱的憂患，住在最後身（最後一世）的有餘涅槃。』《瑜伽師地論》第八十卷說，『回答說，只有住在有餘依涅槃界中，才可能有這種事。為什麼呢？因為在無餘依涅槃界中，遠離一切發起事業，一切功用都完全止息。』《佛地論》的說法相同。《勝鬘經》也說，『世尊，阿羅漢和辟支佛觀察時，得到不受後有（不再有後來的生命）。觀察第一蘇息處（最安穩的處所）涅槃地。世尊，他們先前所得的境界，不愚昧於法，不依賴於他人，也自己知道得到有餘地（有餘涅槃）后必定能得到阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。為什麼呢？聲聞乘和辟支佛乘最終都進入大乘（Mahayana，大乘）。』根據這些經文，沒有說二乘進入無餘依涅槃界后才能回小向大，所以可知回小向大必定是未決定證果者住在有餘依涅槃。只是說八萬劫住在涅槃等，沒有說是無餘涅槃。這些未決定證果者所修的善根是大方便，也和菩薩的善根一樣不會窮盡，所以《法華經》說，『你們所行的是菩薩道』等。另外，《首楞嚴經》第二卷說，諸天聽到佛說這樣的道理，都涕淚交流，並且這樣說
【English Translation】 English version Nirvana (Extinction). The same applies to conditioned phenomena. Therefore, it is said, 'It is also for this reason that those of fixed destiny (Niyata-gotraka, those destined for a specific path) who enter Anupadhisesa-nirvana (Nirvana without remainder) do not undergo Vikara-marana (Changeable death).' The fourth volume of the Lankavatara Sutra also states, 'Sravakas (Listeners) and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas) have not realized Dharma-nairatmya (Selflessness of phenomena), and have not attained liberation from inconceivable changeable birth.' According to this, it is known that those of fixed destiny among the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) who enter Anupadhisesa-nirvana do not undergo changeable birth and death. The Vimalakirti Sutra and others say that Arhats (Worthy Ones), Pratyekabuddhas, and Mahabodhisattvas (Great Bodhisattvas) who undergo changeable death are those of unfixed destiny. The second volume of the Yogacarabhumi-sastra and the eightieth volume both state that those of unfixed destiny who turn towards the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) can undergo changeable death. The first volume of the Mahavastu states that there are four reasons why good roots (Kusala-mula, roots of virtue) are inexhaustible: Why? Because the good roots of Sravakas and others are not as pure as those of Bodhisattvas; not everyone's good roots have the power of attraction, fearlessness, etc.; other people's good roots do not have the function of benefiting others; other people's good roots are exhausted at the time of Nirvana, but the good roots of Bodhisattvas are not like this. Therefore, it is known that those of fixed destiny who enter Anupadhisesa-nirvana cannot turn towards the Mahayana, while those of unfixed destiny dwell in Sopadhisesa-nirvana (Nirvana with remainder) and can turn towards the Mahayana. The verse in the second volume of the Lotus Sutra says, 'Having escaped the suffering and affliction of the Three Realms (Trailokya, Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm), they dwell in the final body in Sopadhisesa-nirvana.' The eightieth volume of the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says, 'The answer is that only in the realm of Sopadhisesa-nirvana can this happen. Why? Because in the realm of Anupadhisesa-nirvana, all initiating activities are far away, and all functions are completely ceased.' The Buddhahood Chapter has the same view. The Vimalakirti Sutra also says, 'World Honored One, when Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas observe, they attain non-reappearance (no longer having future lives). They observe the Nirvana ground, the first place of ease. World Honored One, they are not ignorant of the Dharma, not dependent on others, and also know that having attained the ground with remainder (Sopadhisesa-nirvana), they will surely attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment). Why? The Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana both enter the Mahayana.' According to these texts, there is no mention of the Two Vehicles being able to turn towards the Mahayana only after entering the realm of Anupadhisesa-nirvana. Therefore, it is known that turning towards the Mahayana must be done by those of unfixed destiny dwelling in Sopadhisesa-nirvana. It is only said that they dwell in Nirvana for eighty thousand kalpas, etc., but it is not said to be Anupadhisesa-nirvana. The good roots cultivated by these unfixed individuals are great skillful means, and are also inexhaustible like the good roots of Bodhisattvas. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says, 'What you practice is the Bodhisattva path,' etc. Furthermore, the second volume of the Surangama Sutra says, 'When the devas (gods) heard the Buddha speak such a meaning, they all wept and said'
言。世尊若人已入聲聞辟支佛位。永失首楞嚴三昧。又寧作五逆重罪。得聞是首楞嚴三昧。不入法位作漏盡阿羅漢。所以者何。五逆罪人聞是首楞嚴三昧。發阿耨菩提心。還得作佛。世尊漏盡阿羅漢猶如破器。永不堪任受是三昧。后廣喻況說不能受。又菩提資糧論云。如無糠米。種必不生。聲聞之人亦復如是。定不作佛。言法華經中說聲聞舍利弗等得作佛者。是佛菩薩之所化作。梁攝大乘論亦云。於法華大集中。有諸菩薩。各同舍利弗等。此菩薩得此意。佛為授記。故說一乘。複次佛化作舍利弗等聲聞。為其受記等。法華經論云。二種聲聞如來與授記。謂應化聲聞退已還發菩提心者。決定增上慢二種聲聞根未熟故。如來不與授記。菩薩與授記者。方便令發菩提心故。不定說言令發趣向心。但決定者發信大心成不愚法。亦得云發心。前言為利益二種人故。若亦作佛只是不定。何名定性。麟角喻獨覺必是定性。不得見佛。故華嚴經說。菩薩將下。先以右手放光。名嚴凈世界。獨覺之人遇斯光者。即入涅槃。不覺之者。以其神力移置他方。由此故知。麟角獨覺必是定性。定不趣大。部行之中有定不定。不定者回。定者不回。由此善順涅槃經說。若雲鬚陀洹人等皆得佛道。或言皆不得。云不解我意。故知定性不作佛。不定性作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：世尊，如果有人已經證得聲聞（Sravaka，通過聽聞佛法而證悟的修行者）或辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，無師自悟的修行者）的果位，是否就永遠失去了首楞嚴三昧（Śūraṅgama Samādhi，一種強大的禪定狀態）？那麼，為什麼犯下五逆重罪（matricide, patricide, killing an Arhat, injuring a Buddha, and creating schism in the Sangha）的人，反而能夠聽聞到首楞嚴三昧，而不證入法位，成為漏盡阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）呢？ 這是因為，犯下五逆罪的人，聽聞首楞嚴三昧后，如果發起阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心（anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi-citta，無上正等正覺之心，即成佛之心），仍然可以成佛。世尊，漏盡阿羅漢就像破損的器皿，永遠無法承受這種三昧。後面還有更廣闊的比喻，說明他們無法接受。 而且，《菩提資糧論》中說，就像沒有稻糠的米，種子必定無法生長一樣，聲聞之人也是如此，註定無法成佛。有人說，《法華經》中說聲聞舍利弗（Śāriputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）等人可以成佛，那是因為他們是佛或菩薩（Bodhisattva，發願救度一切眾生的修行者）所化現的。 梁朝的《攝大乘論》也說，在《法華大集經》中，有許多菩薩，各自化現為舍利弗等人。這些菩薩領悟了這個道理，佛才為他們授記（vyākaraṇa，預言未來成佛）。所以說一乘（ekayāna，唯一的成佛之道）。進一步說，佛化現為舍利弗等聲聞，為他們授記等等。《法華經論》中說，如來為兩種聲聞授記，即應化聲聞（爲了教化眾生而示現為聲聞的菩薩），以及退轉後重新發起菩提心的人。而對於決定性的增上慢（abhimāna，未證言證的傲慢）的兩種聲聞，因為根基尚未成熟，如來不會為他們授記。菩薩為他們授記，是爲了方便他們發起菩提心。不定地說，是爲了讓他們發起趣向之心，但決定性的人，會發起堅定的信心，成就不會愚昧於法的智慧，也可以說是發心。 前面說，爲了利益這兩種人。如果也能成佛，那只是不定性的。怎麼能說是定性呢？麟角喻獨覺（Rhinoceros-like solitary Buddha，獨自悟道的修行者）必定是定性的，無法見到佛。所以《華嚴經》中說，菩薩將要降生時，先以右手放光，名為嚴凈世界。獨覺之人遇到這種光芒，就會進入涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅，解脫）。沒有覺悟的人，則以神通力將他們移到其他地方。由此可知，麟角獨覺必定是定性的，註定不會趣向大乘（Mahāyāna，普度眾生的大乘佛教）。部行（追隨部派佛教的修行者）之中有定性不定性之分。不定性的人可以回心轉意，定性的人則不會。因此，《善順涅槃經》中說，如果說須陀洹（Srotaāpanna，入流果，小乘初果）等人都能成佛，或者說都不能成佛，那是因為不理解我的意思。所以說，定性的人不能成佛，不定性的人可以成佛。
【English Translation】 English version: 'World Honored One, if someone has already entered the stage of a Śrāvaka (one who attains enlightenment by hearing the Dharma) or Pratyekabuddha (a solitary Buddha who attains enlightenment independently), do they forever lose the Śūraṅgama Samādhi (a powerful state of meditative absorption)? Then why is it that someone who has committed the five heinous offenses (matricide, patricide, killing an Arhat, injuring a Buddha, and creating schism in the Sangha) can hear of the Śūraṅgama Samādhi without entering the Dharma position and becoming a Arhat (one who has extinguished all defilements and attained liberation)?' 'This is because, after hearing the Śūraṅgama Samādhi, if someone who has committed the five heinous offenses generates the Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi-citta (the mind of unsurpassed, complete, and perfect enlightenment, i.e., the mind to become a Buddha), they can still become a Buddha. World Honored One, an Arhat whose outflows are exhausted is like a broken vessel, forever incapable of receiving this Samādhi. Later, there are broader metaphors explaining that they cannot receive it.' 'Moreover, the Bodhisattva-saṃbhāra-śāstra says that just as rice without husks cannot sprout, so too are Śrāvakas, destined not to become Buddhas. Some say that the Lotus Sūtra says that Śrāvakas like Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) can become Buddhas, but that is because they are manifestations of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas (beings who vow to save all sentient beings).' 'The Liang Dynasty's Mahāyānasaṃgraha also says that in the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra, there are many Bodhisattvas, each manifesting as Śāriputra and others. These Bodhisattvas understand this principle, and the Buddha then bestows predictions (vyākaraṇa, predictions of future Buddhahood) upon them. Therefore, it is said to be the One Vehicle (ekayāna, the single path to Buddhahood). Furthermore, the Buddha manifests as Śāriputra and other Śrāvakas, bestowing predictions upon them, and so on. The Lotus Sūtra commentary says that the Tathāgata bestows predictions upon two types of Śrāvakas: those who are manifested Śrāvakas (Bodhisattvas who appear as Śrāvakas to teach beings), and those who have regressed and then re-arisen the Bodhi-citta. As for the two types of Śrāvakas with decisive arrogance (abhimāna, the conceit of claiming attainment without having attained it), because their roots are not yet mature, the Tathāgata does not bestow predictions upon them. Bodhisattvas bestow predictions upon them in order to facilitate the arising of the Bodhi-citta. It is said indefinitely, in order to cause them to generate the mind of inclination, but those who are decisive will generate firm faith, achieving wisdom that is not ignorant of the Dharma, and can also be said to have generated the mind.' 'Earlier, it was said that it was for the benefit of these two types of people. If they can also become Buddhas, it is only indefinite. How can it be said to be definite? The rhinoceros-like solitary Buddha (Pratyekabuddha, a solitary practitioner who attains enlightenment on their own) is certainly definite, unable to see the Buddha. Therefore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says that when a Bodhisattva is about to descend, they first emit light from their right hand, called the Pure World. Solitary Buddhas who encounter this light will enter Nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa, cessation, liberation). Those who are not enlightened will be moved to other places by their divine power. From this, it can be known that the rhinoceros-like solitary Buddha is certainly definite, destined not to incline towards the Mahāyāna (the Great Vehicle of Buddhism that aims to liberate all beings). Among those who follow the schools (followers of sectarian Buddhism), there are those who are definite and those who are indefinite. Those who are indefinite can change their minds, while those who are definite will not. Therefore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says that if it is said that Srotaāpannas (stream-enterers, the first stage of Arhatship) and others can all become Buddhas, or that they cannot all become Buddhas, it is because they do not understand my meaning. Therefore, it is said that those who are definite cannot become Buddhas, while those who are indefinite can.'
佛。瑜伽等皆說不定迴心向大。不說皆得。皆不得故。故瑜伽八十云。何因緣故。一切阿羅漢不皆迴向無上菩提。答由彼種種有差別故等。大莊嚴論云。由界差別者。眾生有種種界無量差別。如多界修多羅說。由界差別故。應知三乘種性有差別。乃至云。若無性差別。則亦無果差別等。又善戒經地持論瑜伽論釋十因中。解定異因。有性及三乘性皆悉定異。
二死不等五
一名字不等。二體性不等。三得人不等。名字不等者。一約過失不同。分段變易。準勝鬘經。如次名無常懷世間無常病世間。二約凡聖別。如次名有為生死無為生死。由有空無空別故。三約智境不同。煩惱發業所感生死名分段因。所知障無漏為緣所得生死。名不思議變易死。四約漏無漏緣別。分段生死亦名界內生死。準無上依經云。有有生死如三界內生難故。變易生亦名界外生死。佛性論云。以出三界外有三種聖人。乃至云。住無漏界。有四怨障。既云出三界外人。明彼生死名為界外。五約任業定力不同。古基法師云。無相論中。分段死名果報身。變易死名變化身。六依變易約位證不同。入楞伽經第五。名三種意生身。經云。佛告大慧。有三種意生身。何等為三。一者得三昧樂三摩拔提意生身。二者如實覺知諸法相意生身。三者種類俱生無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛。（Buddha）瑜伽（Yoga）等經典都說不一定迴心向大乘。（Mahayana）不是說所有阿羅漢（Arhat）都能迴心向大乘，也不是說所有阿羅漢都不能迴心向大乘。所以《瑜伽師地論》（Yogacarabhumi-sastra）第八十卷說：『因為什麼緣故，一切阿羅漢不都回向無上菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi）？』回答是：『由於他們種種根性有差別等。』《大莊嚴論》（Mahalamkara-sastra）說：『由於界（Dhatu）的差別。』眾生有種種界，無量差別，如多界修多羅（Sutra）所說。由於界的差別，應當知道三乘（Triyana）種性有差別。乃至說：『如果沒有性（Svabhava）的差別，也就沒有果（Phala）的差別等。』又《善戒經》（Susila-sutra）、《地持論》（Bodhisattvabhumi）和《瑜伽師地論》解釋十因中的定異因（Niyataviparinama-hetu），說有情眾生的種性和三乘的種性都是決定不同的。 二死（Dvimrtyu）不等有五種： 一、名字不等。二、體性不等。三、得人不等。名字不等是指：一、約過失不同，分為分段生死（Pariccheda-marana）和變易生死（Vikara-marana）。準照《勝鬘經》（Srimala-devi-simhanada-sutra），依次名為無常懷世間、無常病世間。二、約凡聖差別，依次名為有為生死（Samskrta-marana）和無為生死（Asamskrta-marana），由有空無空差別。三、約智境不同，煩惱發業所感的生死名為分段因，所知障（Jneyavarana）無漏為緣所得的生死，名不思議變易死。四、約漏無漏緣差別，分段生死也名界內生死（Dhatu-antar-marana）。準照《無上依經》（Anuttara-apratima-sutra）說，有有生死，如三界（Tridhatu）內生難故。變易生也名界外生死（Dhatu-bahir-marana）。《佛性論》（Buddha-dhatu-sastra）說，以出三界外有三種聖人。乃至說：『住無漏界（Anasrava-dhatu）。有四怨障。』既然說出三界外的人，表明他們的生死名為界外。五、約任業定力不同。古基法師說，《無相論》（Alaksana-sastra）中，分段死名果報身（Vipaka-kaya），變易死名變化身（Nirmana-kaya）。六、依變易約位證不同。《入楞伽經》（Lankavatara-sutra）第五品，名三種意生身（Manomaya-kaya）。經中說：『佛告大慧（Mahamati），有三種意生身。何等為三？一者得三昧樂三摩拔提意生身（Samadhi-sukha-samapattih-manomaya-kaya）。二者如實覺知諸法相意生身（Yathabhutam-vastu-lakshana-jnana-manomaya-kaya）。三者種類俱生無……』
【English Translation】 English version The Buddha. The Yoga, etc., all say that it is not certain to turn the mind towards the Mahayana. It is not said that all Arhats (Arhat) can turn their minds towards the Mahayana, nor is it said that all Arhats cannot turn their minds towards the Mahayana. Therefore, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra, Chapter 80, says: 'For what reason do not all Arhats turn towards Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi?' The answer is: 'Because of their various natures, etc., there are differences.' The Mahalamkara-sastra says: 'Due to the difference of Dhatu.' Sentient beings have various Dhatus, with countless differences, as stated in the multi-Dhatu Sutras. Due to the difference of Dhatu, it should be known that there are differences in the nature of the Three Vehicles (Triyana). Even to say: 'If there is no difference in Svabhava, then there is no difference in Phala, etc.' Also, the Susila-sutra, Bodhisattvabhumi, and Yogacarabhumi-sastra explain the Niyataviparinama-hetu among the ten causes, saying that the nature of sentient beings and the nature of the Three Vehicles are definitely different. The five inequalities of the Two Deaths (Dvimrtyu): 1. Unequal in name. 2. Unequal in nature. 3. Unequal in those who attain them. Unequal in name refers to: 1. Different in terms of faults, divided into Pariccheda-marana and Vikara-marana. According to the Srimala-devi-simhanada-sutra, they are named in order as 'impermanent world of attachment' and 'impermanent world of sickness.' 2. Different in terms of ordinary and holy, named in order as Samskrta-marana and Asamskrta-marana, due to the difference between having emptiness and not having emptiness. 3. Different in terms of wisdom and realm, the death caused by afflictions and karma is called the cause of Pariccheda-marana, and the death obtained through Jneyavarana and non-outflow as conditions is called inconceivable Vikara-marana. 4. Different in terms of outflow and non-outflow conditions, Pariccheda-marana is also called Dhatu-antar-marana. According to the Anuttara-apratima-sutra, there is death with existence, such as the difficulty of being born within the Three Realms (Tridhatu). Vikara-marana is also called Dhatu-bahir-marana. The Buddha-dhatu-sastra says that there are three types of holy people outside the Three Realms. Even to say: 'Dwelling in the Anasrava-dhatu, there are four obstacles.' Since it is said that people are outside the Three Realms, it indicates that their death is called outside the realm. 5. Different in terms of the power of karma and determination. The ancient master Jiji said that in the Alaksana-sastra, Pariccheda-marana is called Vipaka-kaya, and Vikara-marana is called Nirmana-kaya. 6. According to Vikara-marana, the positions attained are different. In the fifth chapter of the Lankavatara-sutra, it is called the three types of Manomaya-kaya. The sutra says: 'The Buddha told Mahamati, there are three types of Manomaya-kaya. What are the three? First, the Samadhi-sukha-samapattih-manomaya-kaya. Second, the Yathabhutam-vastu-lakshana-jnana-manomaya-kaya. Third, the kind of co-born without...'
作行意生身。七約性用不同。二死各分四種。分段生死名為四難。變易即名四種生死。故無上依經云。阿難於三界中有四種難。一者煩惱難。二者業難。三者生難。四者過失難。無明住地所起方便生死。如三界內煩惱難。無明住地所起因緣生死。如三界內業難。無明住地所起有有生死。如三界內生難。無明住地所起無有生死。如三界內過失難。體性不等者。分段生死以見道惑為正發業。修惑正潤。感得三界六道異熟。四蘊五蘊為分段體。體唯有漏。苦集攝故。以惑業苦俱名生死。俱生滅故。變易生死由所知障為緣起無漏有分別業。資感現身所有。故業通三天下六慾四禪。禪不動業除諸難處及五凈居。所令感身。五蘊相續。轉勝轉妙。得佛地。為變易體。體通有漏及以無漏果。唯有漏因通二故。問何故除難處。答入見道已。黃門二形女及難處得非擇滅。皆永不受故。問何故除凈居。答無回趣故。入大乘論云。如尊者拘摩羅陀所說偈言。諸趣悉變化。唯除凈居天。隨業種種轉。無處不受生。以是故知。諸菩薩常同利益。隨其受生而化導之。以方便力。但為眾生。不隨煩惱菩提業報所繫。準此文意。既云常同利益隨其受生而化導之。既除凈居。明無利益。彼自得證小乘涅槃。不似菩薩。若能回趣。何不生彼而教化之。問何故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『作行意生身』，指的是造作行為、意念而產生的身。七種約性用不同，指的是七種不同的性質和作用。二死各分四種，指的是兩種死亡各自又分為四種。分段生死名為四難，指的是分段生死又稱為四種困難。變易即名四種生死，指的是變易生死也稱為四種生死。所以《無上依經》說：『阿難（Ananda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）！在三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）中有四種困難。一是煩惱難，二是業難，三是生難，四是過失難。』 無明住地（Avidya-bhumi，根本無明的所在地）所產生的方便生死，就像三界內的煩惱難。無明住地所產生的因緣生死，就像三界內的業難。無明住地所產生的有有生死，就像三界內的生難。無明住地所產生的無有生死，就像三界內的過失難。體性不等，指的是分段生死以見道惑（Darshana-marga-klesha，見道時斷除的煩惱）為主要引發業力的原因，修惑（Bhavana-marga-klesha，修道時斷除的煩惱）為主要滋潤業力的原因，從而感得三界六道（Triloka-sadgati，三界中的六種輪迴道）的異熟果報。四蘊（Catur-skandha，色、受、想、行）或五蘊（Panca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識）為分段生死之體。其體唯有有漏（Sasrava，有煩惱的），因為被苦、集（Duhkha-samudaya，苦諦和集諦）所攝。因為惑、業、苦都稱為生死，都一起生滅。 變易生死由所知障（Jneya-avarana，對所知事物的障礙）為緣，生起無漏（Anasrava，沒有煩惱的）有分別業，資助感得現身所有。所以業通三天下六慾四禪（Kama-avacara-dhyana，欲界六天和色界四禪）。禪定不動業，去除諸難處及五凈居天（Suddhavasa，色界天的第五層天），所令感得之身，五蘊相續，轉勝轉妙，直至佛地，為變易之體。其體通有漏以及無漏果，唯有有漏因通二者。問：為什麼去除難處？答：進入見道后，黃門、二形女以及難處，都得到非擇滅（Apratisankhya-nirodha，不依靠智慧而自然滅除），永遠不再受生。 問：為什麼去除凈居天？答：因為沒有回趣。入大乘論說：如尊者拘摩羅陀（Kumaralata，一位論師）所說偈言：諸趣悉變化，唯除凈居天。隨業種種轉，無處不受生。因此可知，諸菩薩常同利益，隨其受生而化導之，以方便力，但為眾生，不隨煩惱菩提業報所繫。準此文意，既然說常同利益，隨其受生而化導之，既然去除凈居天，表明沒有利益。他們自己證得小乘涅槃（Hinayana-nirvana，小乘的涅槃境界），不像菩薩。如果能夠回趣，為什麼不生在凈居天而教化他們？問：為什麼……
【English Translation】 English version 'Making intentional mental body' refers to the body produced by intentional actions and thoughts. 'Seven agreements on the nature and function are different' refers to seven different natures and functions. 'Two deaths each divided into four types' refers to the two types of death each further divided into four types. 'Segmented birth and death is called the four difficulties' refers to segmented birth and death also being called the four difficulties. 'Transformation is called the four types of birth and death' refers to transformational birth and death also being called the four types of birth and death. Therefore, the Anuttara-tantra says: 'Ananda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples)! In the three realms (Trailokya, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm) there are four difficulties. First is the difficulty of afflictions, second is the difficulty of karma, third is the difficulty of birth, and fourth is the difficulty of faults.' The expedient birth and death arising from the ground of ignorance (Avidya-bhumi, the location of fundamental ignorance) is like the difficulty of afflictions within the three realms. The causal birth and death arising from the ground of ignorance is like the difficulty of karma within the three realms. The birth and death of existence arising from the ground of ignorance is like the difficulty of birth within the three realms. The birth and death of non-existence arising from the ground of ignorance is like the difficulty of faults within the three realms. 'The nature is unequal' refers to segmented birth and death primarily using the delusions of the path of seeing (Darshana-marga-klesha, the afflictions eliminated on the path of seeing) as the cause for initiating karma, and the delusions of the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga-klesha, the afflictions eliminated on the path of cultivation) as the cause for nourishing karma, thereby experiencing the ripened result of the six paths of the three realms (Triloka-sadgati, the six realms of reincarnation within the three realms). The four aggregates (Catur-skandha, form, feeling, perception, volition) or five aggregates (Panca-skandha, form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) are the body of segmented birth and death. Its body is only with outflows (Sasrava, with afflictions), because it is encompassed by suffering and accumulation (Duhkha-samudaya, the truths of suffering and the origin of suffering). Because delusion, karma, and suffering are all called birth and death, they all arise and cease together. Transformational birth and death arises from the obscuration of knowledge (Jneya-avarana, the obstruction to knowable things) as the condition, giving rise to uncontaminated (Anasrava, without afflictions) differentiated karma, which supports and causes the manifestation of the present body. Therefore, karma pervades the six desires and four dhyanas (Kama-avacara-dhyana, the six heavens of the desire realm and the four dhyanas of the form realm) of the three worlds. The karma of unwavering meditation removes the difficult places and the five Pure Abodes (Suddhavasa, the fifth layer of the form realm heavens), causing the body to be experienced, the five aggregates continue, becoming increasingly superior and wonderful, until the Buddha-ground, which is the body of transformation. Its body pervades contaminated and uncontaminated results, only the contaminated cause pervades both. Question: Why are the difficult places removed? Answer: After entering the path of seeing, hermaphrodites, women with two forms, and difficult places all attain cessation through non-discrimination (Apratisankhya-nirodha, natural cessation without relying on wisdom), and will never be reborn there. Question: Why are the Pure Abodes removed? Answer: Because there is no turning back. The Mahayana-samgraha says: As the Venerable Kumaralata (a commentator) said in verse: 'All realms transform, except for the Pure Abodes. Following karma's various turns, there is no place that does not receive birth.' Therefore, it is known that all Bodhisattvas constantly benefit together, guiding and transforming according to their rebirths, using expedient power, only for the sake of sentient beings, not bound by the afflictions, Bodhi, or karmic retribution. According to the meaning of this text, since it says that they constantly benefit together, guiding and transforming according to their rebirths, and since the Pure Abodes are removed, it indicates that there is no benefit. They themselves attain Hinayana Nirvana (Hinayana-nirvana, the Nirvana state of the Small Vehicle), unlike Bodhisattvas. If they could turn back, why would they not be born in the Pure Abodes and teach them? Question: Why...
除無色。答準雜集論。得聖菩薩不生無色。小乘聖者必定性故。又無五根可資勝妙為變易故。又不更生下二界故。問何故不許地上菩薩。小乘無學別受五蘊為變易身。身資故業減現身因。令有勝力。長時引果。得生佛位答二乘無學沈空故。死不更生。大力菩薩十地論云。后報利益摩醯首羅智處生故。故若許現起新無漏業招別別正感變易生死。何名后報。又入大乘論云。問云。如來以何行得斷結使而成佛耶。答曰。經中說言。佛告阿難。能修四如意足者。若住一劫。若住多劫。乃盡生死。一切諸經皆同是說。汝若云無煩惱者。我亦如是。若有親愛。信歸於我。當爲汝說。問曰。云何住壽。答曰。阿羅漢無煩惱。與八住菩薩同。善修如意足故。能隨意住世。乃至盡于生死。羅睺羅賓頭盧等盡住於世。為以此身住世。為更有餘身住。答以實身而住世者。則無其義。若變化身住壽多劫。斯有是處。亦如僧祇中說。青眼如來為化菩薩故。在光音天。與諸聲聞眾。無量百千億那由他劫住。如彼天中聲聞住壽多劫。當知此界亦有聲聞能如是住。準此論文。明說住壽。不別受生故知變易定資舊業。亦不可云此論釋四十年前教。何者。一切諸經皆同是說。亦引法華為證義故。又佛性論云。因緣生死者。如須陀洹已上。但用舊業。既言如彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 除無色界（沒有物質的禪定境界）。答：根據《阿毗達摩集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya），已證得聖位的菩薩不會生於無色界，因為小乘的聖者具有固定的性質。此外，無色界沒有五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）可以憑藉，從而無法產生殊勝的變化。而且，他們也不會再次投生到下方的欲界和色界。 問：為什麼不允許地上菩薩和小乘的阿羅漢另外接受五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）作為變化之身？這樣可以憑藉身體和資具，減少過去的業力對現在身的影響，從而產生更強大的力量，長時間地引導結果，最終證得佛位？答：因為二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的阿羅漢沉溺於空性，死後不再投生。《十地經論》（Dasabhumika-sastra）中說，大力菩薩因為后報的利益，會生於摩醯首羅天（Mahesvara），那裡是智慧的處所。如果允許現在生起新的無漏業，招感不同的正報，從而產生變化生死，那還叫什麼后報呢？ 此外，《入大乘論》（Mahayana-avatamsaka-sutra）中說：『問：如來（Tathagata）通過什麼修行斷除煩惱，最終成佛？』答：經中說：佛（Buddha）告訴阿難（Ananda），能夠修習四如意足（catvāri ṛddhipādāḥ，四種成就神通的基礎）的人，如果想住世一劫（kalpa），或者多劫，乃至窮盡生死都可以。一切經典都這樣說。如果你說沒有煩惱的人，我也一樣。如果有親近愛戴我，並信賴我的人，我將為你們解說。』問：如何住世？答：阿羅漢（Arhat）沒有煩惱，與八地菩薩相同，因為善於修習如意足，所以能夠隨意住世，乃至窮盡生死。羅睺羅（Rāhula）、賓頭盧（Pindola）等都住在世間。他們是以這個身體住世，還是以其他的身體住世？答：以實際的身體住世，這是不可能的。如果是以變化之身住世多劫，這是有可能的。就像《僧祇律》（Samghati Sutra）中說的那樣，青眼如來（Blue-Eyed Tathagata）爲了教化菩薩，在光音天（Ābhāsvara）與諸聲聞眾，住了無量百千億那由他劫。就像那個天界的聲聞住世多劫一樣，應當知道這個世界也有聲聞能夠這樣住世。根據這段經文，明確說明住世，而不是另外接受投生，所以可知變化之身必定憑藉過去的業力。也不能說這部論典解釋的是四十年前的教義，因為『一切經典都這樣說』，並且引用《法華經》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）作為證明。 此外，《佛性論》（Buddha-nature Treatise）中說：『因緣生死，就像須陀洹（Srota-apanna）以上的人，只使用過去的業力。』既然說『就像他們一樣』
【English Translation】 English version Except for the Formless Realm (arūpadhātu, the realm of formless meditations). Answer: According to the Abhidharma-samuccaya, Bodhisattvas who have attained the state of a Saint will not be born in the Formless Realm, because the Saints of the Hinayana have a fixed nature. Furthermore, the Formless Realm does not have the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) to rely on, so it is impossible to produce sublime transformations. Moreover, they will not be reborn in the lower realms of the Desire Realm (kāmadhātu) and the Form Realm (rūpadhātu). Question: Why is it not allowed for Bodhisattvas on the ground and Arhats of the Hinayana to additionally receive the five aggregates (skandha, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) as transformation bodies? In this way, they can rely on the body and resources to reduce the influence of past karma on the present body, thereby generating more powerful strength, guiding the results for a long time, and ultimately attaining Buddhahood? Answer: Because the Arhats of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are immersed in emptiness and will not be reborn after death. The Dasabhumika-sastra says that powerful Bodhisattvas, because of the benefits of later retribution, will be born in the Mahesvara heaven, which is the place of wisdom. If it is allowed to generate new un-outflowed karma now, attracting different direct retributions, thereby producing transformative birth and death, what is called later retribution? Furthermore, the Mahayana-avatamsaka-sutra says: 'Question: Through what practice does the Tathagata eliminate afflictions and attain Buddhahood?' Answer: The sutra says: The Buddha told Ananda that those who can cultivate the four bases of miraculous power (catvāri ṛddhipādāḥ, the four foundations for achieving supernatural abilities), if they want to dwell in the world for one kalpa, or many kalpas, even to the exhaustion of birth and death, they can. All the sutras say the same thing. If you say that those without afflictions are like me. If there are those who are close to me, love me, and trust me, I will explain it to you.' Question: How to dwell in the world? Answer: Arhats have no afflictions and are the same as Bodhisattvas of the eighth ground, because they are good at cultivating the bases of miraculous power, so they can dwell in the world at will, even to the exhaustion of birth and death. Rāhula, Pindola, etc., all dwell in the world. Do they dwell in the world with this body, or with other bodies? Answer: To dwell in the world with the actual body is impossible. If it is to dwell in the world for many kalpas with a transformation body, this is possible. Just as the Samghati Sutra says, the Blue-Eyed Tathagata, in order to teach Bodhisattvas, dwelt in the Ābhāsvara heaven with the assembly of Śrāvakas for countless hundreds of thousands of billions of nayutas of kalpas. Just as the Śrāvakas in that heaven dwell for many kalpas, it should be known that there are also Śrāvakas in this world who can dwell in this way. According to this passage, it is clearly stated that dwelling in the world, rather than additionally receiving rebirth, so it can be known that the transformation body must rely on past karma. It cannot be said that this treatise explains the teachings of forty years ago, because 'all the sutras say the same thing,' and the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra is cited as proof. Furthermore, the Buddha-nature Treatise says: 'Birth and death due to causes and conditions, like those above Srota-apanna, only use past karma.' Since it says 'like them'
用其舊業。明非新造。新無漏業正即能感但資故業。又涅槃三十四云。無漏無報。若許無漏親感變易。與此相違。又同瑜伽論佛地等說。既說住壽。明資故業所感第八。令長時住乃至盡生死。故是有漏。然余處說名無漏者。如成唯識云。依助緣說。今又更解。是得無漏人。因所知障起無漏業資故感身。名為無漏。非變易生體是無漏。何者。生死正體第八識是。若無漏。與佛何殊。又即是善。應不受熏。又既無漏。如何能持諸有漏識所知障種。以此故知。體是有漏三界所攝。故正法華以其五道喻五百由旬。若變易身非界系者。非五道攝。即應化城過五百由旬。何故但過三百言是無漏出三界者。是得無漏人及出三界人所受生死。名為無漏及出三界。若名無漏。即體無漏者。所知障亦應體無漏。勝鬘經云。阿羅漢辟支佛斷四種住地。無漏不盡。不得自在力。亦不作證。無漏不盡者。是即無明住地此所知障雖名無漏。實非無漏。變易亦爾。又若云出三界即變易體實是無漏出三界者。說名無為。應外生滅故。勝鬘經名為無為生死。第八既外無漏。現有生滅。體是有為。明變易生死體是有漏是界所攝。仁王般若云。於三界外無別眾生故。得人不等者。一切凡夫定性二乘及不定性未迴心者。不得變易生死。唯諸不定二乘聖者回心已去
。及頓悟菩薩初地已上。皆容得受。以有學人及七地以前有未受者。如瑜伽論佛地經論及入大乘論入楞伽經廣說應知。問何以得知。定性二乘不受變易。答入楞伽第四云。未證法無我。未得不思議變易生故。無分明說定性聲聞得受變易。第二復云。大慧何者聲聞內身證得聖相。謂無常苦空。乃至云得禪定解脫三昧道果三摩跋提。不退解脫故。離不思議熏習變易死故。內身證得生樂行法。住聲聞地故。此說定性。既云離不思議熏習變易死住涅槃。以此故知。不得變易。問云何得知。不定種性未迴心前。不受變易。答即彼前文云。離不思議熏習變易死住涅槃地。又瑜伽佛地顯揚入大乘論等。皆唯說不定迴心已去方受變易故。問不定二乘亦未證法無我。應不得變易生。答以能信證常隨入故。得變易生。不同定性。問何以得知。初地已上即得變易。答入楞伽第五說三意生身。不唯八地已上故。然入大乘論云。同八住已上菩薩。及勝鬘等云。阿羅漢辟支佛大力菩薩得者。據決定說。故並無違。發業受生不同。斷舍入位有異。此等義門廣如余辨。
明佛三身常無常異六
諸佛功德離分別絕四句。不可說言三身差別常與無常。而寄詮顯。三身功德。能所智證。心色理智。性相不同。常無常別。廣如攝論智斷殊勝中。明及
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：對於頓悟菩薩初地及以上的菩薩，都允許接受變易生死。而有學之人以及七地以前的菩薩，如果有尚未接受變易生死的，可以參考《瑜伽師地論》、《佛地經論》以及《入大乘論》、《入楞伽經》中的詳細說明。問：如何得知定性二乘不接受變易生死？答：《入楞伽經》第四卷說：『未證得法無我，未獲得不可思議的變易生，所以沒有明確說明定性聲聞能接受變易生死。』第二卷又說：『大慧（Mahamati），什麼是聲聞（Śrāvaka）以內身證得的聖相？就是無常、苦、空，乃至獲得禪定、解脫、三昧、道果、三摩跋提（Samāpatti）。因為不退轉解脫，遠離不可思議的熏習變易死，以內身證得生樂行法，安住于聲聞地。』這裡說的是定性聲聞。既然說遠離不可思議的熏習變易死，安住于涅槃（Nirvana），因此可知他們不能得到變易生死。問：如何得知不定種性的二乘，在未迴心之前，不接受變易生死？答：就是前面所說的：『遠離不可思議的熏習變易死，安住于涅槃地。』而且《瑜伽師地論》、《佛地經》、《顯揚聖教論》、《入大乘論》等，都只說不定種性迴心之後才接受變易生死。問：不定二乘也未證得法無我，應該不能得到變易生。答：因為他們能信證常隨入，所以能得到變易生，這與定性二乘不同。問：如何得知初地以上的菩薩就能得到變易生死？答：《入楞伽經》第五卷說了三意生身，並非只有八地以上的菩薩才能得到。然而《入大乘論》說，與八住以上的菩薩相同，以及《勝鬘經》等說，阿羅漢（Arhat）、辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha）、大力菩薩得到變易生死，是就決定而言，所以並沒有矛盾。發業受生不同，斷舍入位有差異，這些義理在其他地方有詳細辨析。 明佛三身常無常的差異 諸佛的功德，遠離分別，超越四句，不可用言語來說明三身的差別，常與無常。而只能藉助詮釋來顯明三身的功德。能所、智證、心色、理智、性相不同，常與無常的差別，詳細內容見《攝大乘論》的智斷殊勝品中說明。
【English Translation】 English version: For Bodhisattvas who have attained the first Bhumi (stage) of enlightenment and above, they are all allowed to receive transformation and rebirth (變易生死, bianyi shengsi, transformation and rebirth). As for those who are still learning and those Bodhisattvas before the seventh Bhumi, if there are those who have not yet received transformation and rebirth, refer to the detailed explanations in the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (瑜伽師地論, Yújiāshī dì lùn, Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice), Buddhabhumi Sutra Sastra (佛地經論, Fódì jīng lùn, Commentary on the Buddha-bhumi Sutra), as well as the Mahayanasamgraha (入大乘論, Rù dàchéng lùn, Compendium of the Mahayana) and Lankavatara Sutra (入楞伽經, Rù léngqié jīng, Sutra of the Descent into Lanka). Question: How do we know that the fixed-nature Two Vehicles (定性二乘, dìngxìng èrchéng, those destined for the Hearer or Solitary Realizer path) do not receive transformation and rebirth? Answer: The fourth volume of the Lankavatara Sutra says: 'Not yet having realized the non-self of phenomena, not yet having attained inconceivable transformation and birth, so there is no clear statement that fixed-nature Sravakas (聲聞, Śrāvaka, Hearers) can receive transformation and rebirth.' The second volume also says: 'Mahamati (大慧, Mahamati, Great Wisdom), what are the sacred characteristics attained within the body by Sravakas? They are impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and even attaining Dhyana (禪定, Chándìng, meditation), liberation, Samadhi (三昧, sānmèi, concentration), the fruit of the path, and Samapatti (三摩跋提, Sān mó bádí, perfect concentration). Because of non-regression from liberation, being apart from inconceivable karmic influence, transformation, death, and within the body attaining the Dharma of joyful practice, abiding in the Sravaka ground.' This speaks of fixed-nature Sravakas. Since it says being apart from inconceivable karmic influence, transformation, death, and abiding in Nirvana (涅槃, Nièpán, cessation), therefore it is known that they cannot attain transformation and rebirth. Question: How do we know that the unfixed-nature Two Vehicles, before turning their minds, do not receive transformation and rebirth? Answer: It is as stated earlier: 'Being apart from inconceivable karmic influence, transformation, death, and abiding in the Nirvana ground.' Moreover, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra, Buddhabhumi, Xianyang Shengjiao Lun (顯揚聖教論, Xiǎnyáng shèngjiào lùn, Exposition of the Holy Teaching), Mahayanasamgraha, etc., all only say that those of unfixed-nature receive transformation and rebirth after turning their minds. Question: The unfixed-nature Two Vehicles also have not realized the non-self of phenomena, so they should not be able to attain transformation and birth. Answer: Because they can believe and realize that they constantly enter, they can attain transformation and birth, which is different from fixed-nature. Question: How do we know that Bodhisattvas above the first Bhumi can immediately attain transformation and rebirth? Answer: The fifth volume of the Lankavatara Sutra speaks of the three Manomayakayas (意生身, yì shēng shēn, mind-made bodies), not only Bodhisattvas above the eighth Bhumi can attain them. However, the Mahayanasamgraha says that it is the same as Bodhisattvas above the eighth Abode, and the Srimala Sutra (勝鬘經, Shèngmán jīng, Queen Srimala Sutra) etc., say that Arhats (阿羅漢, Āluóhàn, Worthy Ones), Pratyekabuddhas (辟支佛, Pìzhīfó, Solitary Buddhas), and powerful Bodhisattvas attain transformation and rebirth, which is stated definitively, so there is no contradiction. The arising of karma and receiving birth are different, and the stages of cutting off and entering are different. These meanings are extensively explained elsewhere. Clarifying the Differences of Permanence and Impermanence in the Three Bodies of the Buddha The merits and virtues of all Buddhas are apart from discrimination, beyond the four statements, and the differences of the Three Bodies, permanence and impermanence, cannot be explained in words. But we can use interpretation to reveal the merits and virtues of the Three Bodies. The subject and object, wisdom and realization, mind and form, principle and wisdom, nature and characteristics are different, and the differences between permanence and impermanence are explained in detail in the chapter on the Superiority of Wisdom and Cessation in the Mahayanasamgraha.
大莊嚴論瑜伽佛地解深密經等說。煩不能引。今但略引余少文證。如楞伽經第七云。大慧白佛言。世尊如來應正遍知。為是常耶。為無常耶。佛告聖者大慧。如來應正遍知。非常非無常。何以故。二邊有過故。此遮分別。離四句故。故下云。大慧譬如虛空非常非無常。何以故。離常無常故。以不墮一異俱不俱有無非有非無常無常非常非無常。是故離於一切諸過。不得證說。乃至云。是故我遮一切凡夫。不得分別常與無常。以得真實寂靜法者。得盡分別。不生分別。第六法身品大意亦同。若寄詮顯。報佛可是無常。修因成故。自性法身體是常住。不由修生因修顯故。楞伽第七云。大慧如來非常。何以故。虛空之性亦無修行諸功德故。此意反顯報化有修行諸功德。故知無常。故第六云。大慧若如來法身非作法者。則是無身。言有修行無量功德一切行者。則是虛妄。大慧若不作者。應同兔角石女兒。以無作因亦無身故。此說報身以功德法所整合故亦名法身。又云。如來法身與五蘊不一。若言一者。應是無常。以五陰所作法身故。此說自性。法身不爾。涅槃經說。舍無常色。獲得常色。受想行識亦復如是。即是五陰。豈言不一非是作法。若報身佛非自性常。從如說常故。楞伽第七云。若言常者。同於兔馬駝驢龜蛇蠅魚等角。是
故不得言如來常。若從所證所依常故得言為常。又云。複次大慧更有餘法。依彼法故得言如來世尊是常。何以故。依內證智證常法。是故得言如來是常。大慧諸佛如來內證智法。常恒清涼不變。大慧諸佛如來應正遍知。若出於世。不出於世。法性常如是。法體常如是。準此。正名所證理常。能證智者依所證常故名為常。非自性常。亦同涅槃經說無明等常。又正同攝論大莊嚴論等。金光明經第一云。如是三身以有義故。而說于常。以有義故。說于無常。化身者。恒轉法輪。處處如如方便相續不斷絕故。是故說常。非是本故。具足大用不顯現故。說為無常。應身者。從無始來相續不斷。一切諸佛不共之法能攝持故。眾生未盡。用亦未斷盡。是故說常。非是本故。具足用不顯現故。說為無常。法身者。非是行。法無有異。異無有故。是本故。猶如虛空。是故說常。無上依經云。阿難何者無上菩提常住法。而此常住有二種法。為作因緣。一者不生不滅。二者無窮無盡。是名菩提常住法。準此二因。初是法身。后是應化。佛性論第四云。此三身者恒能生起世間利益事。故說常住。常住者依十種因緣。一因緣無邊。二眾生界無邊。三大悲無邊。四如意足無邊。五無分別智無邊。六恒在禪定無散。乃至十本性法然無生無滅。無量劫來
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，不能說如來是常。如果從所證悟的、所依止的常法來說，可以說如來是常。又說：『複次，大慧（菩薩名），還有其他法，依彼法故，可以說如來世尊是常。』為什麼呢？因為依內證智證悟常法，所以可以說如來是常。大慧，諸佛如來的內證智法，是常恒清涼不變的。大慧，諸佛如來應正遍知，無論出世還是不出世，法性常是如此，法體常是如此。』 依照這個，正名是所證之理是常，能證之智依所證之常故名為常，不是自性常。也如同《涅槃經》所說無明等是常。又正同於《攝大乘論》、《大莊嚴論》等。《金光明經》第一卷說：『如是三身以有義故，而說于常；以有義故，說于無常。』化身，恒常轉法輪，處處如如方便相續不斷絕故，所以說是常，但不是本體故；具足大用但不顯現故，說為無常。應身，從無始以來相續不斷，一切諸佛不共之法能攝持故，眾生未盡，用亦未斷盡，所以說是常，但不是本體故；具足用但不顯現故，說為無常。法身，不是行，法無有差異，差異無有故，是本體故，猶如虛空，所以說是常。 《無上依經》說：『阿難（佛陀弟子名），什麼是無上菩提常住法？而此常住有兩種法，作為因緣。一者不生不滅，二者無窮無盡。是名菩提常住法。』依照這兩種因，初是法身，后是應化身。《佛性論》第四卷說：『此三身者恒能生起世間利益事，故說常住。常住者依十種因緣。一因緣無邊，二眾生界無邊，三大悲無邊，四如意足無邊，五無分別智無邊，六恒在禪定無散，乃至十本性法然無生無滅，無量劫來。』
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tathagata (如來, 'Thus Come One') is permanent. If it is said to be permanent based on the permanence of what is realized and what is relied upon, then it can be said to be permanent. Furthermore, it is said: 'Moreover, Mahamati (大慧, name of a Bodhisattva), there are other dharmas (法, teachings/laws) based on which it can be said that the Tathagata, the World-Honored One, is permanent.' Why? Because based on the inner realization wisdom (內證智) that realizes the permanent dharma, it can be said that the Tathagata is permanent. Mahamati, the inner realization wisdom of all Buddhas and Tathagatas is constant, eternal, cool, and unchanging. Mahamati, whether the Buddhas and Tathagatas, the Perfectly Enlightened Ones, appear in the world or not, the nature of dharma is always thus, the essence of dharma is always thus.' According to this, the correct name is that the principle realized is permanent, and the wisdom that can realize is called permanent because it relies on the permanence of what is realized; it is not permanent by its own nature. It is also like the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) which says that ignorance (無明) and so on are permanent. It is also exactly the same as the Compendium of the Great Vehicle (攝大乘論), the Great Adornment Sutra (大莊嚴論), etc. The first chapter of the Golden Light Sutra (金光明經) says: 'These three bodies are said to be permanent because they have meaning; they are said to be impermanent because they have meaning.' The Transformation Body (化身) constantly turns the wheel of dharma (法輪), and everywhere the Thusness (如如) of skillful means continues without interruption, so it is said to be permanent, but it is not the original body; it fully possesses great function but does not manifest it, so it is said to be impermanent. The Reward Body (應身) has continued without interruption from beginningless time, and it can uphold all the uncommon dharmas of all Buddhas, and as long as sentient beings are not exhausted, its function will not be exhausted, so it is said to be permanent, but it is not the original body; it fully possesses function but does not manifest it, so it is said to be impermanent. The Dharma Body (法身) is not an action, the dharma has no difference, and because there is no difference, it is the original body, like space, so it is said to be permanent. The Supreme Reliance Sutra (無上依經) says: 'Ananda (阿難, name of a disciple of the Buddha), what is the supreme Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment) permanent dharma? And this permanence has two kinds of dharmas as causes and conditions. First, it is unborn and unceasing; second, it is endless and inexhaustible. This is called the Bodhi permanent dharma.' According to these two causes, the first is the Dharma Body, and the second is the Response and Transformation Body. The fourth chapter of the Treatise on Buddha-Nature (佛性論) says: 'These three bodies constantly give rise to worldly benefits, so they are said to be permanent. Permanence relies on ten kinds of causes and conditions. First, the cause and condition is boundless; second, the realm of sentient beings is boundless; third, great compassion is boundless; fourth, supernatural powers are boundless; fifth, non-discriminating wisdom is boundless; sixth, it is constantly in meditative concentration without scattering, and even the tenth, the inherent nature is naturally unborn and unceasing, for countless kalpas (劫, eons).'
捨身命財。為攝正法。正法既無邊際。無窮無盡。以無窮之因感無窮之果。即是三身故得是常。眾生不盡弘願無盡。是故化身常在世間教導眾生。無有窮盡。菩薩少分有大悲。尚能恒救眾生。不入涅槃。何況如來。眾德圓滿常在大悲。救拔恒思。豈有邊際。是故言常。世間得四神足者。尚能住壽四十小劫。豈況如來而當不住壽自在億百千劫。是故名常。乃至云性無生滅故是常者。法身非本無今有本有今無。雖行三世。非三世法。何以故。此是本有。非始今有。過三世法。是故名常。準此。所明性無生滅故是常者。唯說法身非本無今有本有今無。應化既是本無今有。復不說是性無生滅。故是常住。明有生滅相續名常。寶性論第四亦同此說十因緣常。彼頌云。世尊體常住。以修無量因。眾生界無盡。慈悲心如意。智成就相應。法中得自在。降伏諸魔怨。體寂靜故常。下六頌釋但廣略異。繁故不舉。準諸經論。皆言應化非自性常。不無生滅因緣生法。故是無常。故楞伽第七云。凡作法者皆是無常。如瓶衣車屋及疊席等。皆是作法。是故無常。準此。因修方成應化。即是作法。是本無今有。故是常。自性法身是自性常。無生無滅。非因緣法。非本無今有故。是本有故。又涅槃說。凡因生者皆是無常。常住之法即非因生。廣如前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 捨棄身命和資財，是爲了攝持正法（Dharma）。正法既然是無邊無際、無窮無盡的，以無窮的因感得無窮的果，這就是三身（Trikaya），所以說是常。眾生沒有窮盡，弘揚佛法的誓願也就沒有窮盡，因此化身（Nirmanakaya）常在世間教導眾生，沒有窮盡。菩薩即使只有少分的大悲心，尚且能夠恒常救度眾生，不入涅槃（Nirvana），更何況如來（Tathagata），眾德圓滿，常懷大悲，救拔眾生的心念恒常不斷，怎麼會有邊際呢？所以說是常。世間得到四神足的人，尚且能夠住世四十小劫，更何況如來，怎麼會不住世自在億百千劫呢？所以名為常。乃至說自性沒有生滅，所以是常，法身（Dharmakaya）不是本來沒有現在有，也不是本來有現在沒有。雖然執行於三世，卻不是三世的法。為什麼呢？因為這是本來就有的，不是開始才有，超越了三世的法，所以名為常。依照這個道理，所說明的自性沒有生滅所以是常，只是說法身不是本來沒有現在有，也不是本來有現在沒有。應身（Sambhogakaya）和化身既然是本來沒有現在有，就不說是自性沒有生滅，所以是常住。說明有生滅的相續名為常。《寶性論》第四也同樣這樣說十因緣常，那裡的頌文說：『世尊的體是常住的，因為修了無量因。眾生界沒有窮盡，慈悲心如如意寶。智慧成就相應，在法中得到自在。降伏各種魔怨，體性寂靜所以是常。』下面的六個頌只是解釋得或廣或略，繁瑣所以不引用。依照各種經論，都說應身和化身不是自性常，不是沒有生滅的因緣生法，所以是無常。所以《楞伽經》第七說：『凡是造作的法都是無常，如瓶子、衣服、車子、房屋以及疊席等，都是造作的法，所以是無常。』依照這個道理，因為修行才成就應身和化身，就是造作的法，是本來沒有現在有，所以是常。自性法身是自性常，沒有生沒有滅，不是因緣法，不是本來沒有現在有，所以是本來就有的。又《涅槃經》說：『凡是因緣所生的都是無常，常住的法就不是因緣所生。』詳細的道理如前面所說。
【English Translation】 English version Relinquishing body, life, and wealth is for embracing the True Dharma (Dharma). Since the True Dharma is boundless and endless, experiencing limitless results from limitless causes constitutes the Three Bodies (Trikaya), hence it is called permanence. As long as sentient beings are not exhausted, the vows to propagate the Dharma are inexhaustible. Therefore, the Transformation Body (Nirmanakaya) constantly teaches sentient beings in the world without end. Even a Bodhisattva with a small amount of great compassion can constantly save sentient beings without entering Nirvana (Nirvana), how much more so the Tathagata (Tathagata), who is perfect in all virtues and always has great compassion, constantly thinking of saving and delivering sentient beings? How can it have boundaries? Therefore, it is said to be permanent. Those in the world who attain the Four Supernatural Powers can still live for forty small kalpas; how much more so the Tathagata, who would not abide in the world for hundreds of thousands of kalpas at ease? Therefore, it is named permanence. Furthermore, saying that the nature has no birth or death, therefore it is permanent, the Dharma Body (Dharmakaya) is not originally non-existent and now existent, nor originally existent and now non-existent. Although it operates in the three times, it is not a Dharma of the three times. Why? Because it is originally existent, not just beginning to exist now, surpassing the Dharma of the three times, therefore it is named permanence. According to this principle, what is explained as the nature having no birth or death, therefore it is permanent, only refers to the Dharma Body not being originally non-existent and now existent, nor originally existent and now non-existent. Since the Reward Body (Sambhogakaya) and Transformation Body are originally non-existent and now existent, it is not said that their nature has no birth or death, therefore they are permanently abiding. Explaining that the continuous succession of birth and death is named permanence. The fourth chapter of the Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Jewel Nature) also says the same about the permanence of the ten causes and conditions. The verse there says: 'The body of the World Honored One is permanently abiding because it has cultivated immeasurable causes. The realm of sentient beings is inexhaustible, the compassionate heart is like a wish-fulfilling jewel. Wisdom and accomplishment are in accordance, attaining freedom in the Dharma. Subduing all demonic enemies, the nature is tranquil, therefore it is permanent.' The following six verses explain it with slight differences in breadth and detail, so they are not quoted due to their length. According to various sutras and treatises, it is said that the Reward Body and Transformation Body are not permanent by their own nature, and are not without the Dharma of birth and death arising from causes and conditions, therefore they are impermanent. Therefore, the seventh chapter of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: 'All created dharmas are impermanent, such as bottles, clothes, carts, houses, and folded mats, all of which are created dharmas, therefore they are impermanent.' According to this principle, the Reward Body and Transformation Body are accomplished through cultivation, which is a created Dharma, originally non-existent and now existent, therefore it is permanent. The Self-Nature Dharma Body is permanent by its own nature, without birth or death, not a Dharma of causes and conditions, not originally non-existent and now existent, therefore it is originally existent. Furthermore, the Nirvana Sutra says: 'All that is born from causes is impermanent, and the permanent Dharma is not born from causes.' The detailed reasoning is as previously stated.
引。問若應化身是有生滅五蘊作法。何故楞伽第七云。若言一切皆無常者。一切智一切智人一切功德亦應無常。以同一切作法相故。準此經文。雖修因得。而是常住。經文復云。又復有過。若云一切皆無常者。諸佛如來應是作法。而佛如來非是作法。準此經文。應化常性非作法故。何得說言應化無常。答準彼經文。以應化身因圓果滿更無可修。名非作法。既無勝因。果即無異。前後相似故名為常。非不由因令彼果起。故經自云。以無更說有勝因故。準此文意。不遮因生。但更無勝因可修作。令勝因同餘類故。
雜抉擇七
問若一切眾生法爾五性有差別者。何故善生優婆塞戒經第一云。若說眾生有菩薩性。是名外道。又云。三種菩提無有定性。若有定性已發聲聞緣覺心者。則不能發阿耨菩提心。乃至云。若有定性者。是名外道。何以故。諸外道等無因果故。答彼善生經遮執因中有果性等。或如言執云同外道。不遮有因。不爾則違楞伽經說五乘性相。言三菩提無有定性者。據不定性說。及遮執常云無因果故不爾。楞伽經說云。大慧我說五種乘性證法。何等為五。一者聲聞乘性證法。二者辟支佛乘性證法。三者如來乘性證法。四者不定乘性證法。五者無性乘性證法。善戒經調伏品云。有聲聞性得聲聞道等。地持
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：如果應化身是有生滅的五蘊所造作的，為什麼《楞伽經》第七卷說：『如果說一切都是無常的，那麼一切智（sarvajna，指佛陀的智慧）、一切智人（sarvajnah，指佛陀）和一切功德也應該是無常的，因為它和一切造作的事物具有相同的性質。』按照這段經文，即使是通過修行因緣而得到的，也是常住的。經文又說：『如果說一切都是無常的，那麼諸佛如來應該是造作的，但是佛如來不是造作的。』按照這段經文，應化身的常性不是造作的，怎麼能說應化身是無常的呢？答：按照《楞伽經》的經文，應化身因為因緣圓滿，果報具足，沒有可以再修的，所以稱為『非作法』。既然沒有更殊勝的因，果報也就沒有差異，前後相似，所以稱為常。但並非不是由因緣而生起果報，所以經文自己說：『因為沒有可以再說有更殊勝的因緣。』按照這段經文的意思，不是否定因緣生起，只是沒有可以再修作的更殊勝的因緣，使得殊勝的因緣和其餘的種類相同。 現代漢語譯本：雜抉擇七 現代漢語譯本：問：如果一切眾生法爾具有五種不同的根性，為什麼《善生優婆塞戒經》第一卷說：『如果說眾生具有菩薩性，這就是外道。』又說：『三種菩提（bodhi，指聲聞菩提、緣覺菩提、佛菩提）沒有固定的性質。如果具有固定的性質，已經發了聲聞緣覺心的人，就不能發起阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心。』乃至說：『如果具有固定的性質，這就是外道。』為什麼呢？因為諸外道等沒有因果的緣故。答：《善生經》是遮止執著因中本來就有果性等等的說法，或者像外道一樣執著，並不是否定有因。否則就違背了《楞伽經》所說的五乘根性的相狀。說三種菩提沒有固定的性質，是根據不固定的性質來說的，以及遮止執著常，說沒有因果的緣故。否則，《楞伽經》說：『大慧，我說五種乘性的證法。哪五種呢？一是聲聞乘性的證法，二是辟支佛乘性的證法，三是如來乘性的證法，四是不定乘性的證法，五是無性乘性的證法。』《善戒經·調伏品》說：『具有聲聞性的人得到聲聞道』等等。《地持經》
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If the manifested body (應化身, ying hua shen) is created by the impermanent five aggregates (五蘊, wu yun), why does the seventh volume of the Lankavatara Sutra (楞伽經, Lengqie Jing) say: 'If it is said that everything is impermanent, then the all-knowing wisdom (一切智, sarvajna), the all-knowing person (一切智人, sarvajnah), and all merits should also be impermanent, because it has the same nature as all created things.' According to this sutra passage, even if it is obtained through cultivating causes and conditions, it is permanent. The sutra also says: 'Furthermore, there is a fault. If it is said that everything is impermanent, then all Buddhas and Tathagatas should be created, but Buddhas and Tathagatas are not created.' According to this sutra passage, the permanence of the manifested body is not created, so how can it be said that the manifested body is impermanent? English version: Answer: According to the Lankavatara Sutra, the manifested body is called 'non-created' because the causes and conditions are complete, the fruition is full, and there is nothing more to cultivate. Since there is no more superior cause, the fruition has no difference, and it is similar before and after, so it is called permanent. But it is not that the fruition does not arise from causes and conditions, so the sutra itself says: 'Because there is no more superior cause to speak of.' According to the meaning of this passage, it does not deny the arising of causes and conditions, but there is no more superior cause that can be cultivated, so that the superior cause is the same as other categories. English version: Miscellaneous Decisions Seven English version: Question: If all sentient beings inherently have five different natures, why does the first volume of the Good Son Upasaka Sutra (善生優婆塞戒經, Shansheng Youposai Jie Jing) say: 'If it is said that sentient beings have the Bodhisattva nature, this is an outsider (外道, waidao).' It also says: 'The three Bodhis (三種菩提, san zhong puti, referring to Sravaka Bodhi, Pratyekabuddha Bodhi, and Buddha Bodhi) do not have a fixed nature. If they have a fixed nature, those who have already developed the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha mind cannot develop the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi mind.' And even says: 'If it has a fixed nature, this is an outsider.' Why? Because all outsiders do not have causes and effects. English version: Answer: The Good Son Sutra prohibits clinging to the idea that the fruition is inherently present in the cause, or clinging like outsiders, but it does not deny the existence of causes. Otherwise, it would contradict the description of the five vehicles' natures in the Lankavatara Sutra. Saying that the three Bodhis do not have a fixed nature is based on the unfixed nature, and it prohibits clinging to permanence, saying that there are no causes and effects. Otherwise, the Lankavatara Sutra says: 'Mahamati, I speak of the Dharma of realization of the five vehicles' natures. What are the five? First, the Dharma of realization of the Sravaka vehicle's nature; second, the Dharma of realization of the Pratyekabuddha vehicle's nature; third, the Dharma of realization of the Tathagata vehicle's nature; fourth, the Dharma of realization of the uncertain vehicle's nature; fifth, the Dharma of realization of the natureless vehicle.' The Good Precept Sutra, Taming Chapter (善戒經·調伏品, Shanjie Jing, Tiaofu Pin) says: 'Those with the Sravaka nature attain the Sravaka path,' etc. The Bodhisattvabhumi Sutra (地持經, Dichijing)
論清凈十因中雲。彼聲聞種性以聲聞乘而般涅槃等。無著彌勒亦說有五別。豈同外道耶。又彼自許五性新成。亦名菩薩性等。應同外道。經文不云若本有菩薩性等同外道故。問若其五性法爾先有。何故入楞伽第四云。大慧分別彼迷惑法顛倒。非顛倒者。能生二種性。何等二種。一者能生凡夫性。二者能生聖人性。大慧彼聖人性者。能生三種差別之性。所謂聲聞辟支佛佛。國土差別性故。答此言生者。由現熏習令得現起。攝大乘論云。聞等熏習無果生。非道理。不約種子本來是無今時始生。不爾凡性亦說云。生是本來無。今始起耶。問若云佛性有則本有。應如虛空常。無則恒無。應同兔角。若爾則違涅槃經說。彼云。有故破兔角。無故破虛空。如是說者不謗三寶。答涅槃經意令觀事性因緣生滅故。非常如虛空。緣生約有故。非無如兔角。不遮有情有無性別。問雖事佛性有無不同。理性遍有。若爾則許一切有情皆得成佛。何以故。佛性論等引云。故經云。若有清凈性不成佛者。無有是處。答據平等意樂。非皆成佛。又如佛性論功德品云。于善根人身中有功能。無善根人身中無功能。既于無善根人身中無功德。云何能令無行性人身中有行性。又如資糧論。據決定性云。諸益得無學果。必不作佛。如無糠米種必不生。豈一切皆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論清凈十因中說，那些聲聞種性的人通過聲聞乘而證得涅槃等等。無著（Asanga，約300-390 CE，印度瑜伽行派創始人之一）和彌勒（Maitreya，一般認為是無著的老師）也說有五種不同的種性。這難道和外道（Tirthika，指非佛教的修行者）一樣嗎？而且，他們自己認為五種自性是新近形成的，也稱為菩薩性等等，這應該和外道相同。但經文中並沒有說如果原本具有菩薩性等等就和外道相同。 問：如果這五種自性是法爾（Dharmata，事物本來的樣子）就存在的，為什麼《入楞伽經》（Lankavatara Sutra）第四品中說：『大慧（Mahamati，菩薩名），要分辨那些迷惑的法和顛倒的法。非顛倒者，能產生兩種自性。哪兩種？一是能產生凡夫的自性，二是能產生聖人的自性。大慧，那些聖人的自性，能產生三種差別的自性，即聲聞（Sravaka，聽聞佛法而悟道者）、辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha，又稱獨覺佛，無師自悟者）和佛（Buddha，覺悟者）的國土差別自性。』 答：這裡所說的『生』，是指通過現行的熏習，使之得以顯現。而《攝大乘論》（Mahayana-samgraha）中說，聽聞佛法等的熏習如果沒有結果產生，是不合道理的。這並不是說種子本來沒有，現在才開始產生。否則，凡夫的自性也可以說是『生』，是本來沒有，現在才開始產生的嗎？ 問：如果說佛性（Buddha-dhatu，成佛的可能性）存在，那麼就應該是本來就有的，應該像虛空一樣恒常存在；如果說佛性不存在，那麼就應該是恒常沒有的，應該像兔角一樣。如果是這樣，那就違背了《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）的說法。該經說：『因為有，所以破斥兔角；因為沒有，所以破斥虛空。』這樣說才不算誹謗三寶（Triratna，佛、法、僧）。 答：《涅槃經》的用意是讓人觀察事物的自性是因緣生滅的，所以不是像虛空一樣恒常不變的。因緣生滅是就『有』的層面來說的，所以不是像兔角一樣完全沒有的。這並不妨礙有情眾生具有或不具有某種自性。 問：即使佛性的有無因人而異，但從理性的角度來說，佛性是普遍存在的。如果是這樣，那就意味著一切有情眾生都能成佛。為什麼呢？因為《佛性論》（Buddha Nature Treatise）等引用經文說：『所以經中說，如果有清凈的自性而不能成佛的，是沒有這種道理的。』 答：這是就平等意樂（Samacitta，平等之心）而言，並非所有眾生都能成佛。又如《佛性論》功德品中所說：『在具有善根的人身上有這種功能，在沒有善根的人身上就沒有這種功能。』既然在沒有善根的人身上沒有功德，又怎麼能讓沒有修行自性的人具有修行的自性呢？又如《資糧論》（Essentials of the training）所說，這是就決定性而言的：『那些已經獲得無學果位（Arhat，阿羅漢）的人，必定不能成佛。』就像沒有稻糠的米種必定不能發芽一樣。難道一切眾生都能成佛嗎？
【English Translation】 English version The 'Treatise on the Ten Causes of Purity' states that those of the Sravaka (hearer) lineage attain Nirvana (liberation) through the Sravaka vehicle, and so on. Asanga (c. 300-390 CE, one of the founders of the Yogacara school) and Maitreya (generally considered Asanga's teacher) also say that there are five distinct lineages. Is this the same as the Tirthikas (non-Buddhist practitioners)? Moreover, they themselves assert that the five natures are newly formed and are also called Bodhisattva (enlightenment being) nature, etc., which should be the same as the Tirthikas. However, the sutras do not say that if one originally possesses Bodhisattva nature, etc., one is the same as the Tirthikas. Question: If these five natures are inherently (Dharmata, the way things are) existent, why does the fourth chapter of the Lankavatara Sutra (Descent to Lanka Sutra) say: 'Mahamati (name of a Bodhisattva), discriminate between those deluded dharmas (phenomena) and inverted dharmas. Those that are not inverted can produce two kinds of nature. What two kinds? One is the nature that can produce ordinary beings, and the other is the nature that can produce sages. Mahamati, those natures of sages can produce three kinds of differentiated natures, namely the differentiated natures of the lands of Sravakas (hearers who attain enlightenment by listening to the Dharma), Pratyekabuddhas (also known as solitary Buddhas, those who attain enlightenment without a teacher), and Buddhas (enlightened ones).' Answer: The word 'produce' here refers to the manifestation through present conditioning. The Mahayana-samgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana) says that it is unreasonable for the conditioning of hearing the Dharma, etc., to not produce results. This does not mean that the seed was originally non-existent and is only now beginning to be produced. Otherwise, can the nature of ordinary beings also be said to be 'produced,' that it was originally non-existent and is only now beginning to arise? Question: If it is said that Buddha-dhatu (Buddha nature, the potential for Buddhahood) exists, then it should be originally existent and should be constant like space; if it is said that Buddha nature does not exist, then it should be constantly non-existent and should be like a rabbit's horn. If this is the case, then it contradicts the Nirvana Sutra (Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra). That sutra says: 'Because there is existence, therefore refute the rabbit's horn; because there is non-existence, therefore refute space.' Saying it this way does not slander the Three Jewels (Triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). Answer: The intention of the Nirvana Sutra is to have people observe that the nature of things arises and ceases due to causes and conditions, so it is not constant like space. Arising and ceasing due to causes and conditions is in terms of 'existence,' so it is not completely non-existent like a rabbit's horn. This does not prevent sentient beings from having or not having a certain nature. Question: Even if the existence or non-existence of Buddha nature differs from person to person, from the perspective of reason, Buddha nature is universally present. If this is the case, then it means that all sentient beings can become Buddhas. Why? Because the Buddha Nature Treatise (Treatise on Buddha Nature) and others quote sutras saying: 'Therefore, the sutra says that if there is a pure nature that cannot become a Buddha, there is no such reason.' Answer: This is in terms of equal intention (Samacitta, equanimity), not all beings can become Buddhas. Furthermore, as the chapter on merit in the Buddha Nature Treatise says: 'In people with good roots, there is this function; in people without good roots, there is no such function.' Since there is no merit in people without good roots, how can people without the nature of practice have the nature of practice? Furthermore, as the Essentials of the training (Essentials of the training) says, this is in terms of definitive nature: 'Those who have already attained the fruit of Arhat (one who is free from rebirth) will definitely not become Buddhas.' Just like a grain of rice without husk will definitely not sprout. Can all sentient beings become Buddhas?
不作佛耶。故諸經論各據一義。皆不相違。問若事佛性有即本有。非新熏生。何文顯說。答瑜伽五十七云。生那落迦。三根現行。定不成就。種子或成或不成。謂般涅槃法者成就。不般涅槃法者不成就。此文據趣生說。非約化生。據現有種子。非據當來。不爾。現行當亦現起。寧說不成。大莊嚴論第一種性品中亦言。種性有體。由四種差別。一由界差別。二由信差別。三由行差別。四由果差別。乃至云若無性差別。則無信行果差別。由此四種差別故。是故應知種性有體。又瑜伽二十一云。云何種性。謂住種性補特伽羅。有種子法。由現有故。安住種性補特伽羅。若遇勝緣。便有堪任。便有勢力。于其涅槃能得能證。又云。問今此種性以何為體。答附在所依有如是相。六處所攝。從無始世展轉傳來。法爾所得。又云。如是種子非於六處有別異相。即于如是種類分位六處殊勝。從無始世展轉傳來。法爾所得。有如是相及以言說。謂為種性種子界性。菩薩地文及善戒經善行品等文。皆相似。不得異釋。云。性種性由修成性。論云。非種性人無種性故。雖復發心勤修精進。必不究竟阿耨菩提。是故當知。雖不發心不修行方便。猶得名為種性持。無上依經第一云。阿難何者是如來界。云何如來為界不可思議。阿難一切眾生有陰界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不作佛耶。所以各部經論都根據一個義理，並沒有互相違背。問：如果說佛性是本來就有的，不是新熏習產生的，有什麼經文可以明顯說明這一點呢？答：《瑜伽師地論》第五十七卷說：『生在那落迦（地獄），三根現行，禪定一定不能成就，種子或者成就或者不成就。』所說的『成就』是指會般涅槃（入滅）的法，『不成就』是指不會般涅槃的法。這段經文是根據趣生（投生）說的，不是根據化生說的；是根據現有的種子說的，不是根據將來的種子說的。如果不是這樣，現行也應當現在就生起，怎麼能說不成就呢？《大莊嚴論》第一種性品中也說：『種性是有實體的，由四種差別。一是界差別，二是信差別，三是行差別，四是果差別。』乃至說『如果沒有性差別，就沒有信行果差別。』由於這四種差別，所以應當知道種性是有實體的。又《瑜伽師地論》第二十一卷說：『什麼是種性？是指安住種性的補特伽羅（人），有種子法。由於現在有，安住種性的補特伽羅，如果遇到殊勝的因緣，便有堪能，便有勢力，對於涅槃能夠得到能夠證得。』又說：『問：現在這個種性以什麼為體？答：附在所依處有這樣的相，被六處所攝，從無始世展轉傳來，自然而然得到的。』又說：『這樣的種子不是在六處有別的異相，就是在這樣的種類分位的六處殊勝，從無始世展轉傳來，自然而然得到的。有這樣的相以及言說，稱為種性、種子、界性。』《菩薩地持經》文及《善戒經》善行品等文，都相似，不能做不同的解釋。說：『性種性由修成性。』論中說：『非種性人沒有種性，所以即使發心勤修精進，必定不能究竟阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（無上正等正覺）。』所以應當知道，即使不發心不修行方便，仍然可以稱為種性持。《無上依經》第一卷說：『阿難（佛陀弟子名），什麼是如來界？為什麼如來界不可思議？阿難，一切眾生有陰界（五陰十八界）。』
【English Translation】 English version Not becoming a Buddha. Therefore, each sutra and treatise relies on one meaning, and they do not contradict each other. Question: If the Buddha-nature is inherent and not newly cultivated, what scripture explicitly states this? Answer: The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, volume 57, says: 'Born in Naraka (hell), with the three roots active, samadhi (meditative absorption) will definitely not be achieved; the seed may or may not be achieved.' 'Achievement' refers to the Dharma (teachings) that will attain Parinirvana (complete extinction), and 'non-achievement' refers to the Dharma that will not attain Parinirvana. This passage is based on the mode of rebirth, not on transformation; it is based on existing seeds, not on future seeds. Otherwise, the present activity should also arise now; how can it be said to be unachieved? The first chapter on lineage in the Mahāsaṃghika-vinaya also says: 'Lineage has substance, due to four kinds of differences: first, the difference of realm; second, the difference of faith; third, the difference of practice; fourth, the difference of result.' It even says, 'If there is no difference in nature, there will be no difference in faith, practice, and result.' Because of these four kinds of differences, it should be known that lineage has substance. Furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, volume 21, says: 'What is lineage? It refers to a Pudgala (person) abiding in lineage, possessing seed-Dharma. Because it exists now, a Pudgala abiding in lineage, if encountering superior conditions, will have the capacity and the power to attain and realize Nirvana.' It also says: 'Question: What is the substance of this lineage now? Answer: It is attached to the support and has such characteristics, encompassed by the six sense bases, transmitted from beginningless time, naturally obtained.' It also says: 'Such a seed does not have a separate and distinct appearance in the six sense bases; it is in the superior six sense bases of such a kind and division, transmitted from beginningless time, naturally obtained. It has such characteristics and is spoken of as lineage, seed, and element.' The texts of the Bodhisattvabhūmi and the chapter on good conduct in the Śīla-saṃgraha are similar and should not be interpreted differently. It says: 'Nature-lineage is formed by cultivation.' The treatise says: 'A person without lineage has no lineage; therefore, even if they generate the aspiration and diligently cultivate with vigor, they will certainly not ultimately attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (unsurpassed perfect enlightenment).' Therefore, it should be known that even if one does not generate the aspiration or practice expedient means, one can still be called a lineage holder. The first chapter of the Anavatapta-hrada-sūtra says: 'Ananda (name of Buddha's disciple), what is the Tathagata-dhātu (the element of the Thus-gone One)? Why is the Tathagata-dhātu inconceivable? Ananda, all sentient beings have skandhas (aggregates) and dhātus (elements).'
入勝相種類。內外所現。無始時節相續流來。法爾所得。生明妙善。既云有陰入界勝相種類。內外所現。無始流來。明非如理。亦非。新生。瑜伽又云。次覆住種性者。所有諸相。謂與一切無涅槃法補特伽羅諸相相違。當知即名安住種性補特伽羅。所有諸相六相相對。廣如彼辨。又云。或有唯住種性而未趣入亦未出離。謂如有一補特伽羅。成就出世聖法種子。而未獲得親近善士聽聞正法。未于如來正覺正說法毗奈耶獲得正信。未受持凈戒。未攝受多聞。未增長慧舍。未調柔諸見。如是名為唯住種性而未趣入亦未出離。又瑜伽論第三十八解十因中。及善戒地持辨於十因。明性本有。文皆相似。繁不具引。佛性論第四云。五無初相應善性為法者。釋云。無初者。以性得般若大悲禪定法身並本有故。言無初。若是無漏從有漏生。即般若大悲禪定等因是有始法。何得無初從有漏生。何名性得。寶性論第四云。佛性有二。一者如地藏。二如樹果等。準彼文意。地藏譬真如。樹果喻般若等。故次云。依初譬喻故知有初法身。依第二譬喻知有二佛身。二種佛性俱云無始世界。未明無漏本有。不唯新生。又無漏種。若唯新生。即有漏聞熏與出世正見為親因緣。云何梁攝大乘論云。佛世尊說。從他聞音。及自正思惟。由此二因。正見得生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 入勝相種類（殊勝的表相種類）。內外所現（內在和外在所顯現的），無始時節相續流來（從無始以來就相續流傳下來的），法爾所得（自然而然獲得的），生明妙善（產生光明、微妙和善良）。既然說有陰入界勝相種類（五陰、十二入、十八界的殊勝表相種類），內外所現（內在和外在所顯現的），無始流來（從無始以來就流傳下來的），說明並非如理（並非符合真理），也並非新生（也並非新產生的）。 《瑜伽師地論》又說：『其次安住種性者（安住于種性的人），所有諸相（所有的表相），謂與一切無涅槃法補特伽羅（指一切沒有涅槃之法的補特伽羅，即眾生）諸相相違（與他們的表相相反）。當知即名安住種性補特伽羅（應當知道這就是安住于種性的補特伽羅）』。所有諸相六相相對（所有的表相都與六種表相對立），詳細的解釋如彼處所辨。又說：『或者有唯住種性而未趣入亦未出離（或者有人只是安住于種性，而沒有趣入也沒有出離），謂如有一補特伽羅（比如有一個補特伽羅），成就出世聖法種子（成就了出世間聖法的種子），而未獲得親近善士聽聞正法（卻沒有獲得親近善知識、聽聞正法的機會），未于如來正覺正說法毗奈耶獲得正信（沒有對如來的正覺、正法、毗奈耶獲得正信），未受持凈戒（沒有受持清凈的戒律），未攝受多聞（沒有攝取廣博的知識），未增長慧舍（沒有增長智慧和佈施），未調柔諸見（沒有調伏各種見解）。』像這樣就叫做唯住種性而未趣入亦未出離。 又《瑜伽師地論》第三十八卷解釋十因中（十種原因），以及《善戒經》的《地持品》辨析十因，說明自性本有（自性本來就存在）。文句都很相似，這裡就不一一引用了。《佛性論》第四卷說：『五無初相應善性為法者（五種沒有初始的相應善性作為法則），』解釋說：『無初者（沒有初始），以性得般若（因為自性獲得的般若）、大悲（大悲）、禪定（禪定）、法身（法身）並本有故（都是本來就有的），所以說沒有初始。』如果說無漏法是從有漏法產生的，那麼般若、大悲、禪定等的因就是有始之法。怎麼能說沒有初始而從有漏法產生呢？又怎麼能說是自性獲得的呢？ 《寶性論》第四卷說：『佛性有二（佛性有兩種），一者如地藏（一種像地藏菩薩），二如樹果等（一種像樹上的果實等）。』按照那裡的文意，地藏菩薩比喻真如（如來藏），樹上的果實比喻般若等。所以接著說：『依據第一個比喻，就知道有初始的法身；依據第二個比喻，就知道有二種佛身。』兩種佛性都說是無始以來就有的，並沒有說明無漏法是本來就有的，而不僅僅是新產生的。又，無漏的種子，如果僅僅是新產生的，那麼有漏的聞熏和出世間的正見就是它的親近因緣。那麼梁代的《攝大乘論》怎麼說呢？佛世尊說：『從他聞音（從他人那裡聽聞聲音），及自正思惟（以及自己正確的思考），由此二因（通過這兩種原因），正見得生（正見才能產生）。』
【English Translation】 English version Categories of Excellent Appearances. What appears internally and externally, flowing continuously from beginningless time, naturally attained, giving rise to brightness, subtlety, and goodness. Since it is said that there are categories of excellent appearances of the aggregates, entrances, and realms (Skandhas, Ayatanas, and Dhatus), appearing internally and externally, flowing from beginningless time, it indicates that they are not in accordance with reason, nor are they newly produced. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra also states: 'Next, the characteristics of those who abide in their lineage, are contrary to the characteristics of all pudgalas (individuals) without the Dharma of Nirvana. Know that this is called a pudgala abiding in their lineage.' All characteristics are in opposition to the six characteristics, as explained extensively therein. It also states: 'Or there are those who only abide in their lineage and have neither entered nor departed. For example, there is a pudgala who has the seed of supramundane holy Dharma, but has not obtained the opportunity to associate with virtuous friends and hear the correct Dharma, has not obtained correct faith in the Tathagata's perfect enlightenment, correct Dharma, and Vinaya, has not upheld pure precepts, has not embraced extensive learning, has not increased wisdom and generosity, and has not tamed various views.' Such a one is called only abiding in their lineage and has neither entered nor departed. Furthermore, in the thirty-eighth fascicle of the Yogacarabhumi-sastra, in the explanation of the ten causes, and in the Bodhicittabhumi of the Śīlaskandha, the ten causes are analyzed, clarifying that the nature is inherently existent. The texts are all similar, so they will not be quoted in full here. The fourth fascicle of the Buddha-nature Treatise states: 'The five non-initial corresponding good natures are the Dharma.' The explanation says: 'Non-initial means that because the prajna (wisdom), great compassion, dhyana (meditation), and dharmakaya (Dharma body) are obtained by nature and are inherently existent, they are said to be non-initial.' If the unconditioned Dharma arises from the conditioned Dharma, then the causes of prajna, great compassion, dhyana, etc., are Dharmas with a beginning. How can they be said to be non-initial and arise from the conditioned Dharma? How can they be said to be obtained by nature? The fourth fascicle of the Ratnagotravibhāga states: 'Buddha-nature has two aspects: one is like the Ksitigarbha (Earth Store Bodhisattva), and the other is like the fruits of trees, etc.' According to the meaning of that text, Ksitigarbha is a metaphor for Tathagatagarbha (the womb of the Tathagata), and the fruits of trees are a metaphor for prajna, etc. Therefore, it continues: 'Based on the first metaphor, we know that there is an initial dharmakaya; based on the second metaphor, we know that there are two kinds of Buddha bodies.' Both kinds of Buddha-nature are said to be beginningless, without clarifying that the unconditioned Dharma is inherently existent and not merely newly produced. Furthermore, if the unconditioned seed is merely newly produced, then the conditioned hearing and the supramundane right view are its proximate causes. Then how does the Mahāyānasaṃgraha of Liang say? The Buddha, the World-Honored One, said: 'From hearing sounds from others and from one's own correct thinking, right view arises from these two causes.'
。釋曰。清凈品以正見為上首。此正見以何法為增上緣。謂從他聞音。及自正思惟。此二因即是正見增上緣。乃至云。由此二因正見得生。此二因於正見是增上緣。今所言因是通名。即說緣為因。又論云。世間心與正思惟相應。出世凈心與正見相應。無時得共生共滅。釋曰。正思惟正修慧從四念處生。世第一法是其位。此心未證見四諦。故名世間心。已證見四諦。故名出世。離自性法。是修得法。故名凈心。正見即八聖道中之第一分。此正見與三十七品不相離。乃至云。由三十七品生。故得出世。從無始以來。世出世心不有俱生俱滅義。以性相違故。論曰。是故此世間心非開凈心所熏。既無熏習。不應得成出世種子。釋曰。思慧若為出世心所熏。可得成出世種子。既無被熏義。故出世種子義不成。準此論文。無漏種子若新熏生。由無漏俱方始得生。見道已前既無無漏。有漏如何熏成無漏。若許有漏熏無漏種。不應難他。非無漏俱不得熏種。自許非無漏俱熏無漏種故。問若見道前有漏聞熏不能生無漏。如何論云。雖復世間法成出世心。釋云。如意識。雖是世間法。能通達四諦真如。對治四諦障故。成出世心。聞熏習亦爾。雖是世間法。以因果皆是出世法故。亦成出世心。答以本無漏微隱難知。寄有漏熏習勝增上緣。顯本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：解釋說，『清凈品』以正見為首要。這正見以什麼法作為增上緣（促進和幫助的條件）呢？就是從聽聞他人言教，以及自己正確的思考。這兩種因就是正見的增上緣。乃至說，由於這兩種因，正見得以產生。這兩種因對於正見來說是增上緣。現在所說的『因』是通用的名稱，也就是把『緣』說成『因』。還有論中說，世間心與正思惟相應，出世清凈心與正見相應，沒有同時產生同時消滅的情況。解釋說，正思惟、正修慧是從四念處（觀身不凈、觀受是苦、觀心無常、觀法無我）產生的，世第一法是它的位置。這個心還沒有證悟四諦（苦、集、滅、道），所以叫做世間心。已經證悟四諦，所以叫做『出世』。離開自性法，是修習而得的法，所以叫做清凈心。正見就是八聖道（正見、正思惟、正語、正業、正命、正精進、正念、正定）中的第一部分。這正見與三十七道品（四念處、四正勤、四如意足、五根、五力、七菩提分、八正道分）不相分離。乃至說，由三十七道品產生，所以能出世。從無始以來，世間心和出世心沒有同時產生同時消滅的道理，因為它們的性質和狀態是相反的。論中說，因此這世間心不能被清凈心所熏習。既然沒有熏習，就不應該能成為出世的種子。解釋說，思慧如果被出世心所熏習，就可以成為出世的種子。既然沒有被熏習的意義，所以出世種子的意義就不能成立。按照這篇論文，無漏種子如果是新熏習而產生的，必須由無漏法同時存在才能產生。見道（證悟真理的最初階段）之前既然沒有無漏法，有漏法如何熏習成為無漏法呢？如果允許有漏法熏習無漏種子，就不應該責難他人，說不是無漏法同時存在就不能熏習種子。因為你自己也承認不是無漏法同時存在也能熏習無漏種子。問：如果見道前有漏的聽聞熏習不能產生無漏法，為什麼論中說，即使是世間法也能成就出世心呢？解釋說，比如意識，雖然是世間法，但能通達四諦真如（事物的真實本性），對治四諦的障礙，所以能成就出世心。聽聞熏習也是這樣，雖然是世間法，但因為因和果都是出世法，所以也能成就出世心。回答說，因為原本的無漏法微弱隱蔽難以察覺，所以藉助有漏熏習的殊勝增上緣，來顯現原本的無漏法。 顯本
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: The 'Purity Chapter' takes Right View as its head. What Dharma serves as the predominant condition (增上緣, zēngshàngyuán - promoting and assisting condition) for this Right View? It is hearing from others and one's own correct contemplation. These two causes are the predominant conditions for Right View. It even says that due to these two causes, Right View arises. These two causes are predominant conditions for Right View. The 'cause' mentioned now is a general term, which means 'condition' is referred to as 'cause.' Furthermore, the treatise says that the mundane mind is associated with Right Thought, and the supramundane pure mind is associated with Right View. They cannot arise and cease together at the same time. Explanation: Right Thought and Right Cultivation of Wisdom arise from the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (四念處, sìniànchù - contemplation of the impurity of the body, the suffering of feelings, the impermanence of the mind, and the non-self of phenomena). The Highest Mundane Dharma is its position. This mind has not yet realized the Four Noble Truths (四諦, sìdì - suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path), so it is called the mundane mind. Having realized the Four Noble Truths, it is called 'supramundane.' Being apart from self-nature Dharma, it is a Dharma attained through cultivation, so it is called the pure mind. Right View is the first part of the Eightfold Noble Path (八聖道, bāshèngdào - Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration). This Right View is inseparable from the Thirty-seven Limbs of Enlightenment (三十七道品, sānshíqīdàopǐn - Four Foundations of Mindfulness, Four Right Exertions, Four Bases of Power, Five Roots, Five Powers, Seven Factors of Enlightenment, Eightfold Noble Path). It even says that it arises from the Thirty-seven Limbs of Enlightenment, so it can transcend the world. Since beginningless time, the mundane and supramundane minds have not had the meaning of arising and ceasing together, because their natures and characteristics are contradictory. The treatise says, therefore, this mundane mind cannot be influenced by the pure mind. Since there is no influence, it should not be able to become a supramundane seed. Explanation: If thought and wisdom are influenced by the supramundane mind, they can become supramundane seeds. Since there is no meaning of being influenced, the meaning of supramundane seeds cannot be established. According to this treatise, if a non-outflow seed is newly influenced, it must be produced when the non-outflow Dharma exists simultaneously. Since there is no non-outflow Dharma before the Path of Seeing (見道, jiàndào - the initial stage of enlightenment), how can the outflow Dharma influence and become non-outflow Dharma? If it is allowed that the outflow Dharma influences the non-outflow seed, one should not criticize others, saying that the seed cannot be influenced without the simultaneous existence of the non-outflow Dharma. Because you yourself admit that the non-outflow seed can be influenced even without the simultaneous existence of the non-outflow Dharma. Question: If the outflow hearing and influence before the Path of Seeing cannot produce the non-outflow Dharma, why does the treatise say that even mundane Dharma can accomplish the supramundane mind? Explanation: For example, consciousness, although it is mundane Dharma, can penetrate the true suchness (真如, zhēnrú - the true nature of things) of the Four Noble Truths and counteract the obstacles of the Four Noble Truths, so it can accomplish the supramundane mind. Hearing and influence are also like this; although they are mundane Dharma, because both the cause and the effect are supramundane Dharma, they can also accomplish the supramundane mind. The answer is that because the original non-outflow Dharma is subtle, hidden, and difficult to perceive, it relies on the excellent predominant condition of outflow influence to reveal the original non-outflow Dharma. Reveal the original.
無漏種子。即此種子在熏習位。亦名聞熏習。故次論云。何以故。釋云。何以故。此法但是出世。非世間法。有四種對治故。準此。既云但是出世非世間法。明非有漏。又論云。此種子出世凈心未起時。一切上心惑對治。準此故知。見道已前有漏熏習位。已有無漏心之種子。又云。種子即是聞熏習。菩薩未知欲知根名出世凈心。此心未在之前。是聞熏習。屬聞思慧位。在聞思位中。準此故知。說有漏熏習成出世心者。據增上緣說。又廣如彼解。略更不引。問既諸有情齊有真如及第八識。如何不許為佛正因。答如自不生。亦不親為正因生法。如前已明。若許第八為佛正因。即是無漏。又復對治有漏第八。方能成佛。許第八識為佛正因。即應能治第八自識。若爾即違梁攝論云。云何一切種子果報識成不凈品因。若能作染濁對治出世凈心因。釋云。若立本識是染獨對治出世因。則不得以本識為不凈品因。不凈品即集諦及苦諦。是業煩惱種子故是集諦。乃至云。既立為染濁對治及出世心因故。不應復說為不凈品因。準此。有漏第八非佛正因。又復第八一切同有。無三乘別。即善戒地持菩薩地等明定異因。三乘性別及調伏中。三乘性別。皆不凈成。故依附此識本無漏種。是佛正因。問若不許真如為佛正因。如何佛性論說真如理為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無漏種子（anāsrava-bīja）：指的是這種種子在熏習階段，也叫做聞熏習（śruta-vāsanā）。所以《攝大乘論》中說：『為什麼呢？』解釋說：『為什麼呢？』因為這種法只是出世間的，不是世間的法，有四種對治的緣故。』依照這個說法，既然說是隻是出世間的，不是世間的法，就說明不是有漏的。而且《攝大乘論》中說：『這種子在出世凈心（lokottara-śuddha-citta）未生起時，能對治一切上心惑（adhicitta-kleśa）。』依照這個說法可知，在見道（darśana-mārga）之前，有漏的熏習階段，已經有無漏心的種子了。又說：『種子就是聞熏習。菩薩未知想要知道根的名字，就是出世凈心。』這個心未生起之前，就是聞熏習，屬於聞思慧（śruta-cintā-prajñā）的階段。在聞思位中，依照這個說法可知，說有漏熏習成就出世心，是根據增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya）來說的。更詳細的解釋在其他地方，這裡就不多引用了。 問：既然所有的有情都具有真如（tathatā）和第八識（ālaya-vijñāna），為什麼不認為它們是佛的正因（buddhatva-hetu）呢？ 答：就像自己不生，也不親自作為正因來生法一樣，前面已經說明了。如果允許第八識作為佛的正因，那就是無漏的。而且要對治有漏的第八識，才能成佛。如果允許第八識作為佛的正因，就應該能對治第八識自身。如果是這樣，就違背了《攝大乘論》所說：『為什麼一切種子果報識（sarva-bīja-vipāka-vijñāna）成為不凈品（akuśala-dharma）的因呢？』解釋說：『如果立本識（mūla-vijñāna）是染濁（saṃkleśa）的對治和出世的因，就不能以本識為不凈品的因。』不凈品就是集諦（samudaya-satya）和苦諦（duḥkha-satya），是業煩惱（karma-kleśa）的種子，所以是集諦。乃至說：『既然立為染濁的對治和出世心的因，就不應該再說是為不凈品的因。』依照這個說法，有漏的第八識不是佛的正因。而且第八識一切眾生都有，沒有三乘（triyāna）的區別。即善戒地（kuśala-śīla-bhūmi）、持菩薩地（dhāraṇī-bodhisattva-bhūmi）等，說明了定異因（samādhi-viśeṣa-hetu）。三乘的性別以及調伏中，三乘的性別，都是不凈成就的。所以依靠附在此識的本無漏種，才是佛的正因。 問：如果不允許真如作為佛的正因，為什麼《佛性論》（Buddha-dhātu-śāstra）說真如理為佛的正因呢？
【English Translation】 English version 'Anāsrava-bīja' (seed of non-outflow): This refers to the seed in the stage of 'vāsanā' (habitual tendencies), also known as 'śruta-vāsanā' (habitual tendencies of hearing). Therefore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Why is that?' The explanation says: 'Why is that?' Because this dharma is only supramundane, not mundane, because there are four types of antidotes.' According to this, since it is said to be only supramundane and not mundane, it is clear that it is not 'sāsrava' (with outflow). Moreover, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'This seed, when the 'lokottara-śuddha-citta' (supramundane pure mind) has not arisen, can counteract all 'adhicitta-kleśa' (afflictions of the higher mind).' According to this, it is known that before the 'darśana-mārga' (path of seeing), in the stage of 'sāsrava-vāsanā', there is already a seed of the 'anāsrava' mind. It also says: 'The seed is 'śruta-vāsanā'. When a Bodhisattva does not yet know and wants to know the name of the root, it is the 'lokottara-śuddha-citta'.' Before this mind arises, it is 'śruta-vāsanā', belonging to the stage of 'śruta-cintā-prajñā' (wisdom of hearing and thinking). In the stage of hearing and thinking, according to this, it is known that saying that 'sāsrava-vāsanā' accomplishes the 'lokottara-citta' is based on the 'adhipati-pratyaya' (dominant condition). A more detailed explanation is in other places, so I will not quote it here. Question: Since all sentient beings equally possess 'tathatā' (suchness) and the eighth consciousness, 'ālaya-vijñāna' (storehouse consciousness), why are they not considered the direct cause of Buddhahood ('buddhatva-hetu')? Answer: Just as it does not produce itself, nor does it directly act as the direct cause to produce the dharma, as has been explained earlier. If the eighth consciousness is allowed as the direct cause of Buddhahood, then it is 'anāsrava'. Moreover, one must counteract the 'sāsrava' eighth consciousness in order to attain Buddhahood. If the eighth consciousness is allowed as the direct cause of Buddhahood, then it should be able to counteract the eighth consciousness itself. If that is the case, it contradicts what the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Why does the 'sarva-bīja-vipāka-vijñāna' (all-seed result consciousness) become the cause of 'akuśala-dharma' (unwholesome qualities)?' The explanation says: 'If the 'mūla-vijñāna' (root consciousness) is established as the antidote to 'saṃkleśa' (defilement) and the cause of the supramundane, then the root consciousness cannot be the cause of unwholesome qualities.' Unwholesome qualities are the 'samudaya-satya' (truth of the origin of suffering) and the 'duḥkha-satya' (truth of suffering), which are the seeds of 'karma-kleśa' (afflictions of karma), so they are the 'samudaya-satya'. And so on, saying: 'Since it is established as the antidote to defilement and the cause of the supramundane mind, it should not be said to be the cause of unwholesome qualities.' According to this, the 'sāsrava' eighth consciousness is not the direct cause of Buddhahood. Moreover, all beings have the eighth consciousness, without the distinction of the 'triyāna' (three vehicles). That is, the 'kuśala-śīla-bhūmi' (ground of wholesome morality), the 'dhāraṇī-bodhisattva-bhūmi' (ground of the Bodhisattva who possesses 'dhāraṇī'), etc., explain the 'samādhi-viśeṣa-hetu' (cause of the distinction of samādhi). The gender of the three vehicles and in the taming, the gender of the three vehicles, are all accomplished by impurity. Therefore, relying on the original 'anāsrava' seed attached to this consciousness is the direct cause of Buddhahood. Question: If 'tathatā' is not allowed as the direct cause of Buddhahood, why does the Buddha-dhātu-śāstra (Treatise on the Buddha-nature) say that the principle of 'tathatā' is the direct cause of Buddhahood?
佛正因。信般若等為佛緣因。瑜伽復云從真如所緣緣種子生。答此二論文如前已會。今更重釋云。真如所緣緣種子生者。似說所緣緣為種子。真如實非所為法種。如說信般若等為四德種子。法身四德非彼所生。是常住法由彼顯故。似名為種。故梁攝論云。聞熏習但是四德道種子。四德道能成顯四德。四德本來是有。不從種子生。從因作名故稱種子。準此故知。四智心品緣彼如生似說真如。名為種子。若許真如實是種子能生有為。即違瑜伽種子七義第一無常法為因等。亦違佛性論三性中一有體能生有體文。問若有定性二乘不作佛者。違涅槃經三十六說須陀洹人斯陀含人阿那含人阿羅漢人辟支佛人悉當成佛。聞是說已不生信心。乃至云是名常沒。法華經云。聲聞若菩薩聞我所說法。乃至於一偈。皆成佛無疑等。答此說不定性聲聞四果辟支佛悉當成佛。聞而不信名為常沒等。非說一切定不定性皆當成佛。不爾。云何涅槃自云。皆得作佛。不解我意。又菩提資糧論等。豈不見涅槃經而云不作佛。問有闡提定不成佛者。云何涅槃經三十六云。若人心口異相異說言一闡提不得菩提。是人亦謗佛法僧。答準此文意。若說一闡提定不得菩提。名謗佛法僧。非遮少入。若爾復違寶性論說。云向說闡提常不入涅槃無涅槃性者。為欲迴轉誹謗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛正因：相信般若（智慧）等是成佛的緣因。《瑜伽師地論》又說，從真如（事物本來的真實面目）所緣緣的種子生起。回答：這兩個論典的說法，前面已經會通解釋過了。現在再重新解釋說，真如所緣緣的種子生起，是好像說所緣緣是種子。真如實際上不是能作為法（事物）的種子。如同說相信般若等是法身四德（常、樂、我、凈）的種子。法身的四德不是由它們所生，而是常住的法，由它們顯現出來，所以好像稱為種子。所以梁朝的《攝大乘論》說，聞熏習只是四德道的種子，四德道能夠成就和顯現四德，四德本來就存在，不是從種子生起，只是從因的作用而命名為種子。依照這個道理可知，四智心品緣彼如生，好像說真如，名為種子。如果允許真如實際上是種子，能夠生起有為法（因緣和合而生的事物），就違背了《瑜伽師地論》種子七義中第一條『無常法為因』等，也違背了《佛性論》三性中『一有體能生有體』的說法。 問：如果有決定性的二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）人不作佛，就違背了《涅槃經》第三十六卷所說，須陀洹（初果阿羅漢）人、斯陀含（二果阿羅漢）人、阿那含（三果阿羅漢）人、阿羅漢（四果阿羅漢）、辟支佛（緣覺佛）人都應當成佛。聽到這種說法后不生信心，乃至說是名為常沒（永遠沉淪）。《法華經》說，聲聞或菩薩聽到我所說的法，乃至只聽到一句偈，都必定成佛無疑等等。答：這裡說的是不定性的聲聞、四果阿羅漢、辟支佛都應當成佛，聽到而不相信的名為常沒等等，不是說一切決定性和不定性的人都應當成佛。如果不是這樣，為什麼《涅槃經》自己又說，『都得作佛，不解我意』。而且《菩提資糧論》等，難道沒有看到《涅槃經》而說不作佛嗎？問：如果有闡提（斷善根的人）決定不能成佛，為什麼《涅槃經》第三十六卷說，『如果人心口不一，表面上說一闡提不得菩提，這個人也是誹謗佛法僧』。答：依照這段經文的意思，如果說一闡提決定不能得菩提，就叫做誹謗佛法僧，不是遮止少數人證入。如果這樣，又違背了《寶性論》所說，『向說闡提常不入涅槃無涅槃性者，為欲迴轉誹謗』。
【English Translation】 English version The True Cause of Buddhahood: Believing in Prajna (wisdom) etc., is the causal condition for attaining Buddhahood. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra also states that it arises from the seed of the Alambana-pratyaya (object-condition) of Tathata (suchness, the true nature of things). Answer: These two treatises have already been reconciled as explained before. Now, to re-explain, the seed arising from the Alambana-pratyaya of Tathata is like saying that the Alambana-pratyaya is the seed. Tathata is not actually a seed for the arising of dharmas (things). It is like saying that believing in Prajna etc., are the seeds of the Four Virtues (eternity, bliss, self, purity) of the Dharmakaya (Dharma-body). The Four Virtues of the Dharmakaya are not produced by them, but are permanent dharmas manifested by them, so they are seemingly called seeds. Therefore, the She Dasheng Lun of the Liang Dynasty says that the hearing-habituation is only the seed of the path of the Four Virtues. The path of the Four Virtues can accomplish and manifest the Four Virtues. The Four Virtues are originally present, not arising from seeds, but are named seeds because of the function of the cause. According to this principle, it can be known that the Four Wisdom Mind-Products, when conditioned by Tathata, seemingly say that Tathata is called a seed. If it is allowed that Tathata is actually a seed that can produce conditioned dharmas (things arising from causes and conditions), it would violate the first of the seven meanings of seeds in the Yogacarabhumi-sastra, 'impermanent dharmas as the cause,' etc., and also violate the statement in the Three Natures of the Buddha-nature Treatise, 'one entity can produce another entity.' Question: If there are Nirvana-fixed Sravakas (voice-hearers) and Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddhas) who do not become Buddhas, it would violate what is said in the thirty-sixth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, that Srotaapannas (stream-enterers), Sakrdagamins (once-returners), Anagamins (non-returners), Arhats (worthy ones), and Pratyekabuddhas should all become Buddhas. Hearing this statement and not generating faith, even to the point of saying it is called 'eternal submersion.' The Lotus Sutra says that Sravakas or Bodhisattvas who hear the Dharma I preach, even if it is only one verse, will undoubtedly become Buddhas, etc. Answer: This refers to Nirvana-unfixed Sravakas, Arhats, and Pratyekabuddhas who should all become Buddhas. Hearing and not believing is called 'eternal submersion,' etc. It does not mean that all Nirvana-fixed and Nirvana-unfixed beings should all become Buddhas. If that were not the case, why does the Nirvana Sutra itself say, 'All can become Buddhas, but do not understand my meaning.' Moreover, the Bodhisattva-sambhara-sastra etc., have they not seen the Nirvana Sutra and yet say that they do not become Buddhas? Question: If there are Icchantikas (those who have severed their roots of goodness) who are definitely unable to become Buddhas, why does the thirty-sixth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra say, 'If a person's mind and mouth are different, and outwardly says that Icchantikas cannot attain Bodhi (enlightenment), that person is also slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.' Answer: According to the meaning of this passage, if one says that Icchantikas are definitely unable to attain Bodhi, it is called slandering the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, not preventing a few from entering. If that were the case, it would violate what is said in the Ratnagotravibhaga, 'Those who say that Icchantikas never enter Nirvana and have no Nirvana-nature, are intending to reverse slander.'
大乘心。不求大乘心故。依無量時故。如是說。以彼實有清凈性故。佛性論云。言有性者。是顯了說。言無性者。是不了說。乃至重故。佛觀一切眾生有自性清凈故。后時決定得清凈法身。準此故知。無闡提人無佛性者。亦無有情不成佛者。答此據理性平等意樂。及涅槃經常沒之中。第二雖非闡提亦名常沒。無上依等三種無涅槃法中。第二人說。楞伽第五無性乘人亦同此會。不會闡提名為常沒。七人各一。及無上依經第一無涅槃法。問若爾何故寶性佛性俱引經說。一闡提人墮邪定聚有二種身。一本性法身。二隨意身。佛日慧光照此二身。法身法者。即真如理。隨意身者。即從如理起佛光明。為憐愍闡提。闡提二身者。一為令法身得生。二為令加行得長修菩薩行故。觀得成。答此據有性闡提人說。不爾。自違前事。能品云。不定聚眾生起此二事為用。不言定聚為用。又云。是人由凈分為緣凈性為因故。成此觀。非無因緣。若不由於此二事成觀。無因緣。如闡提無涅槃性。應得此觀。與一闡提既無此觀。故知定須因緣觀。方可現無性。既不許有觀。明知無性不得作佛。又亦同涅槃第九云。大涅槃光入於一切眾生毛孔。而能作菩提因者。此義不然。何以故。世尊犯四重禁。作五逆人及一闡提。光明入身作菩提因者。如是等輩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大乘心。不尋求大乘心之故。因為依賴無量的時間之故。所以這樣說。因為那（佛性）確實具有清凈的自性之故。《佛性論》說：『說有自性者，是顯了的說法。說無自性者，是不了義的說法。』乃至（佛）重視的緣故。佛觀察一切眾生都有自性清凈的緣故，後來必定能獲得清凈的法身（Dharmakaya）。根據這個道理可知，沒有一闡提（Icchantika，斷善根者）之人沒有佛性，也沒有有情（Sattva，眾生）不能成佛。回答：這是根據理性平等和意樂，以及《涅槃經》經常沉沒之中的說法。第二種雖然不是一闡提，也名為常沒。在《無上依經》等三種沒有涅槃之法中，說的是第二種人。《楞伽經》第五種無性乘人也與此相同。不會說一闡提名為常沒，七種人各有一種情況。以及《無上依經》第一種沒有涅槃之法。 問：如果這樣，為什麼《寶性論》和《佛性論》都引用經文說，一闡提之人墮入邪定聚，有兩種身：一是本性法身，二是隨意身。佛的智慧光明照耀這兩種身。法身之法，就是真如之理。隨意身，就是從真如之理生起的佛的光明，爲了憐憫一闡提。一闡提的兩種身，一是為令法身得以產生，二是為令加行得以增長，修菩薩行之故，觀想得以成就。回答：這是根據有自性的一闡提之人說的。不然的話，就自相矛盾了。《能品》說：『不定聚的眾生，生起這兩種事作為作用。』沒有說定聚作為作用。又說：『這些人由於凈分為緣，凈性為因的緣故，成就這種觀想。』不是沒有因緣。如果不是由於這兩種事成就觀想，沒有因緣，就像一闡提沒有涅槃的自性，應該能得到這種觀想。既然一闡提沒有這種觀想，所以知道必定需要因緣觀想，才能顯現無性。既然不許有觀想，就明確知道無自性不能成佛。又與《涅槃經》第九卷所說相同：『大涅槃的光明進入一切眾生的毛孔，而能作為菩提的因』，這個說法不對。為什麼呢？世尊犯四重禁，作五逆之人以及一闡提，光明進入他們的身體作為菩提的因，像這些等等。
【English Translation】 English version Mahayana mind. It is not sought because of the Mahayana mind. It is said so because it relies on immeasurable time. It is said so because it truly has a pure nature. The Ratnagotravibhāga says: 'Saying there is nature is an explicit statement. Saying there is no nature is an implicit statement.' Even to the point of emphasis. The Buddha observes that all sentient beings have a self-nature of purity, so later they will definitely attain the pure Dharmakaya (法身, Body of Essence). According to this, it is known that there is no Icchantika (一闡提, one who has severed their roots of good) who does not have Buddha-nature, and there is no sentient being (Sattva, 有情) who cannot become a Buddha. Answer: This is based on the intention of equality in principle and inclination, and the statement in the Nirvana Sutra about constant immersion. The second, although not an Icchantika, is also called constantly immersed. In the three types of non-Nirvana Dharma in the Anavatapta Sutra and others, it refers to the second type of person. The fifth type of person in the Lankavatara Sutra, those of the non-nature vehicle, are also in the same category. It does not mean that an Icchantika is called constantly immersed; each of the seven types of people has a different situation. And the first type of non-Nirvana Dharma in the Anavatapta Sutra. Question: If so, why do both the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Buddha-nature Treatise quote scriptures saying that an Icchantika who has fallen into the wrong fixed group has two bodies: one is the essential Dharmakaya, and the other is the body of will. The light of the Buddha's wisdom shines on these two bodies. The Dharma of the Dharmakaya is the principle of Suchness (真如). The body of will is the Buddha's light arising from the principle of Suchness, out of compassion for the Icchantika. The two bodies of the Icchantika are, firstly, to enable the Dharmakaya to be born, and secondly, to enable the practice to grow, so that the contemplation of practicing the Bodhisattva path can be accomplished. Answer: This is said according to the Icchantika who has nature. Otherwise, it would contradict the previous matter. The Ability Chapter says: 'Sentient beings of the unfixed group use these two things as functions.' It does not say that the fixed group uses them as functions. It also says: 'These people accomplish this contemplation because pure division is the condition and pure nature is the cause.' It is not without cause and condition. If contemplation is not accomplished through these two things, without cause and condition, just as the Icchantika has no Nirvana nature, they should be able to attain this contemplation. Since the Icchantika does not have this contemplation, it is known that a causal condition contemplation is definitely needed to manifest non-nature. Since contemplation is not allowed, it is clearly known that non-nature cannot become a Buddha. It is also the same as what is said in the ninth volume of the Nirvana Sutra: 'The light of Great Nirvana enters the pores of all sentient beings and can act as the cause of Bodhi.' This statement is not correct. Why? The World Honored One committed the four grave offenses, committed the five rebellious acts, and was an Icchantika. If the light enters their bodies and acts as the cause of Bodhi, like these and so on.
與凈持戒修習諸善法有差別。乃至佛言。善男子除一闡提其餘眾生。聞是經已。悉皆能作菩提因緣。法聲光明入毛孔者。必定當得阿耨菩提。準此故知。佛性論等引經所說。佛日慧光照闡提身令生長者。是有性人。涅槃經說除一闡提者。是無性人。不爾。何以除不除別。又云。若得聞是大涅槃經。雖犯四禁及五無間。猶故能作菩提因緣。一闡提輩則不如是。雖得聽受是妙經典。而不能生菩提道因。又多譬喻。如枯木石山水所不住。譬如燋種雖遇甘雨終不生。又云。假使一切無量眾生一時成就阿耨菩提已。此諸如來亦復不見彼一闡提得成菩提。此乃涅槃顯了之說。如何不信有不成佛。故知經說有一闡提名為無性。而復說言當得成佛。據有種子。密意說無。諸乘差別增減不同。廣如余辨。略釋大綱。余難思準。
能顯中邊慧日論第四
寶曆十二年十二月。于平安城寓舍。以贊岐國多度郡善通寺經藏本。寫之了迴向四恩法界海 迴向無上大菩提。
東大寺西室傳法相宗沙門基辨
安永二年癸巳十月。于興福寺慈門院。以春日社本談義屋本校合。補脫文正寫誤竟。每字傍注本字者是也。
法相末學大同坊基辨
生五十六歲
本談
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 與清凈持戒修習各種善法是有區別的。乃至佛說：『善男子，除了斷善根者（Icchantika），其餘眾生，聽聞此經后，都能作為菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）的因緣。法聲光明進入毛孔的人，必定能夠證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。』由此可知，《佛性論》等引用的經文所說，佛的智慧之光照耀斷善根者的身體，使之生長，是指有佛性的人。《涅槃經》說除了斷善根者，是指沒有佛性的人。不然，為什麼有除與不除的區別呢？又說：『如果能夠聽聞《大涅槃經》，即使犯了四重禁戒以及五逆重罪，仍然能夠作為菩提的因緣。』斷善根者則不是這樣，即使聽受這部妙典，也不能生起菩提道因。還有很多譬喻，如枯木石山，水不能停留；譬如焦芽敗種，即使遇到甘霖也不會生長。又說：『假使一切無量眾生一時成就阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，諸如來也不會看見那個斷善根者能夠成就菩提。』這乃是《涅槃經》顯明的說法，為什麼不相信有不能成佛的人呢？所以可知經文說有斷善根者名為無性，而又說他們應當能夠成佛，是根據他們具有佛性種子，以密意說他們沒有佛性。諸乘的差別，增減不同，詳細的論述在其他地方。這裡只是簡略地解釋一下大綱，其餘的難題可以參照推論。
《能顯中邊慧日論》第四
寶曆十二年十二月，于平安城寓舍，以贊岐國多度郡善通寺經藏本，寫之了迴向四恩法界海，迴向無上大菩提。
東大寺西室傳法相宗沙門基辨
安永二年癸巳十月，于興福寺慈門院，以春日社本談義屋本校合，補脫文正寫誤竟。每字傍注本字者是也。
法相末學大同坊基辨
生五十六歲
本談
【English Translation】 English version There is a difference between purely upholding precepts and cultivating various virtuous dharmas. Even the Buddha said: 'Good son, except for the Icchantikas (those who have severed their roots of goodness), all other sentient beings, upon hearing this sutra, can make it a cause and condition for Bodhi (Enlightenment). Those whose pores receive the light of the Dharma's voice will surely attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment).' From this, it can be known that what the Buddha-nature Treatise and other sutras say about the Buddha's wisdom light shining on the bodies of Icchantikas, causing them to grow, refers to those who have Buddha-nature. The Nirvana Sutra's statement excluding Icchantikas refers to those who have no Buddha-nature. Otherwise, why would there be a distinction between excluding and not excluding? Furthermore, it says: 'If one can hear the Great Nirvana Sutra, even if one has violated the four major precepts and committed the five heinous offenses, one can still make it a cause and condition for Bodhi.' Icchantikas are not like this; even if they hear and receive this wonderful sutra, they cannot generate the cause for the path to Bodhi. There are also many metaphors, such as dry wood and stone mountains where water cannot stay; like scorched seeds that will not grow even if they encounter sweet rain. It also says: 'Even if all countless sentient beings simultaneously attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, the Tathagatas will still not see that Icchantika attain Bodhi.' This is the clear statement of the Nirvana Sutra, so why not believe that there are those who cannot become Buddhas? Therefore, it can be known that the sutra says there are Icchantikas who are called without nature, and yet it also says that they should be able to become Buddhas, based on their having the seed of Buddha-nature, speaking with a hidden meaning that they have no Buddha-nature. The differences between the various vehicles, with their increases and decreases, are discussed in detail elsewhere. Here, only a brief explanation of the outline is given; the remaining difficult questions can be inferred by analogy.
Commentary on Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes, Wisdom Sun, Volume Four
In the twelfth year of Baoli, December, at a temporary residence in Heian-jo (平安城), this was copied from the sutra collection of Zentsu-ji (善通寺) in Tado-gun (多度郡), Sanuki Province (贊岐國), and dedicated to the Four Graces and the Dharma Realm Sea, dedicated to Unsurpassed Great Bodhi.
Shamon Kiben (基辨) of the Hosso (法相) sect, West Room of Todai-ji (東大寺), transmitter of the Dharma
In the tenth month of the second year of Anei (安永), Mizunoto-Mi (癸巳), at the Jimon-in (慈門院) of Kofuku-ji (興福寺), this was collated with the Kasuga-sha (春日社) version and the Dangiya (談義屋) version, supplementing omissions and correcting errors. The characters annotated beside each character are the original characters.
Kiben (基辨) of the Daitai-bo (大同坊), a late learner of Hosso (法相)
Age 56
Original Talk
義屋所藏御本云。
承元二年戊辰十二月十二日申刻。于西小田原東谷寶塔院南面部屋。書寫之。愿以書寫力。上生都率天。聞法為悟解。決定證不退。
同年十二月十八日移點了。
執筆 永祐
覺范
享保八年五月中旬。以御本寫之一校了。
秀信
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 義屋所藏的御本（gobon，尊敬的佛經抄本）上記載：
承元二年戊辰十二月十二日申時（下午三點到五點）。于西小田原東谷寶塔院南面的房間。書寫此經。愿以此書寫之力，上生都率天（Tushita Heaven，彌勒菩薩居住的凈土）。聞法而悟解，決定證得不退轉。
同年十二月十八日校對完畢。
執筆：永祐
覺范
享保八年五月中旬。以御本（gobon，尊敬的佛經抄本）抄寫並校對完畢。
秀信
【English Translation】 English version: The gobon (respected Buddhist scripture manuscript) preserved in Gioku's house states:
On the 12th day of the 12th month of the year Tsuchinoe-Tatsu in the second year of Jogen, at the hour of the monkey (3 PM to 5 PM). Written in the room on the south side of the Pagoda Temple in Higashidani, Nishi-Odawara. I vow that by the power of this writing, I may be reborn in Tushita Heaven (Tushita Heaven, the pure land where Bodhisattva Maitreya resides). May I hear the Dharma and attain enlightenment, and may I be certain to attain non-regression.
Proofread and corrected on the 18th day of the 12th month of the same year.
Scribe: Eiyu
Kakuhan
Mid-May, the eighth year of Kyoho. Copied and proofread against the gobon (respected Buddhist scripture manuscript).
Hidenobu