Chinese
决定无有定性二乘及无性者。涅槃经第二十七云。师子吼者。是决定说一切众生悉有佛性。又云。一切众生悉皆有心。凡有心者悉皆当得阿耨菩提。是故我说一切众生悉有佛性。又第三十七云。为非佛性说于佛性。非佛性者。所谓墙壁瓦石无情之物。离如是等无情之物。是名佛性。准此经文。非是准理。有情五蕴不被简故亦非少分。离无情物是佛性故。岂可为作非佛性说。于佛性之中有非佛性。如说离有为法说于无为。无为之中有为耶。又涅槃云。一切众生皆有三定。谓上中下。上者佛性。中者初禅。下者大地。中定非是少分。故知如上定亦是一切同一文故。既云是定故非准理。说首楞严定为佛性故。法华经云。一大事因缘出现世。于欲令众生开佛知见使得清净等。又云。十方佛土中唯有一乘位。无二亦无三。除佛方便说。但以假名字引导于众生。佛性论云。二空真如名应得因以应得佛果故名应得知故。有理性者定有行果。理既一切皆有行果故非少分。若谓法华二乘无灭悉当成佛。此说不同。定二乘非是定性者。不然不定亦成佛教起初转法轮令说与等说。若同何为殷勤三请许说增上慢人起诳惊怖舍利弗等疑佛为魔。良由今昔悬殊有斯疑访故。经云所以未曾说说时未生故。令正是其时决定说大乘故知合说非先说也。 二云。种姓有五。一声闻姓。二缘觉姓。三如来姓。四不定性。五无种性。问。云何得知有无种姓。答。四卷八卷二楞伽经皆云。大悲菩萨一阐提人毕竟不成觉。若皆有姓众生即应有成佛尽。如何大悲毕竟不作。又胜鬘经云。离善知识无闻非法众生以人天善根而成熟之。善戒经云。无种姓人无种姓故。虽复发心勤行精进。终不能得无菩提。地持瑜伽亦同此说。又涅槃经三种病人第三。若遇不遇良医决定不差。若是有姓如何不差。又恒河七人第一当设七人各一即无种姓。大庄严论第一说阐提有二种。一时边二毕竟时边有四。一者一向行恶。二者普断诸善法。三者无解脱分善根。四者善根不具足。毕竟无涅槃法者。无因故彼无般涅槃姓。谓但求生死不乐但涅槃。然有释云。毕竟者。一约所断善兼生得善断三世因尽名为毕竟无涅槃性。二约时以有钝根长时流转不能生名为毕竟无涅槃法。不言尽未来际决定无性名为毕竟。此释不然。诸断善根但断生得非方便善。又伏现行非无种子。如何无因。又与时边普断善法应无差别。又断善根大小经论俱是利根非钝根者。毕竟之与尽未来际文别义同。若不尔者。究竟如虚空应非遍法界。又瑜伽论第六十七更有五难六答。广成无姓此应舍叙。 上来无姓。次成定姓。依大般若五百 现代汉语译本 二、关于种姓，共有五种：一是声闻种姓（Śrāvakayāna-gotra，指适合成为阿罗汉的根性），二是缘觉种姓（Pratyekabuddhayāna-gotra，指适合成为辟支佛的根性），三是如来种姓（Tathāgata-gotra，指适合成为佛陀的根性），四是不定种姓（Aniyata-gotra，指根性不确定者），五是无种姓（Agotraka，指没有解脱根性者）。 问：如何得知有无种姓之分？ 答：四卷本和八卷本的《楞伽经》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）都说，大悲菩萨（Mahākaruṇā-bodhisattva）和一阐提（Icchantika，断灭善根者）最终不能成觉。如果一切众生都有佛性，就应该都能成佛，为何大悲菩萨最终不能成觉？又《胜鬘经》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）说，远离善知识（Kalyāṇa-mitra），没有听闻正法的众生，只能以人天善根而成熟。善戒经（Śīla Saṃgraha Sūtra）说，无种姓的人因为没有种姓，即使发心勤奋修行，最终也不能证得菩提（Bodhi，觉悟）。《瑜伽师地论·地持品》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）也持相同观点。又《涅槃经》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）中提到三种病人，第三种病人无论遇到良医与否，都无法痊愈。如果众生都有佛性，为何会有无法痊愈的情况？又恒河（Gaṅgā）七人中，如果假设七人各有一种，那就必然存在无种姓之人。《大庄严论》（Mahālaṅkāra-śāstra）第一卷说，一阐提有两种：一是时边一阐提（Sāmāntika-icchantika，暂时的断善根者），二是毕竟一阐提（Atyantika-icchantika，永久的断善根者）。时边一阐提有四种情况：一是只行恶事，二是普遍断绝一切善法，三是没有解脱的善根，四是善根不具足。而毕竟没有涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂灭）之法的人，是因为没有涅槃的因，他们只求生死轮回，不乐于涅槃。然而，有一种解释说，‘毕竟’是指：一是就所断的善根而言，包括生得的善根和断灭的三世因，称为毕竟无涅槃性。二是就时间而言，因为有钝根，长期流转生死，不能生起涅槃之法，称为毕竟无涅槃法。但不能说尽未来际都决定没有佛性，这才能称为‘毕竟’。这种解释是不对的。因为断灭善根只是断灭生得的善根，而不是方便善根。而且伏藏和现行的善根并非没有种子，怎么能说是没有因呢？又与时边一阐提普遍断绝善法的情况应该没有差别。而且断灭善根在大小乘经论中都是利根之人，而不是钝根之人。‘毕竟’与‘尽未来际’在文字上不同，但意义相同。如果不是这样，那么究竟如同虚空，就不应该遍及法界。又《瑜伽师地论》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）第六十七卷还有五难六答，详细阐述了无种姓的问题，这里应该省略不叙述。 上面讨论了无种姓的问题，接下来讨论成就决定种姓的问题。依据《大般若经》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）五百……
English
English version II. There are five types of Gotra (種姓, lineage or potential): 1. Śrāvakayāna-gotra (声闻姓, the lineage of Hearers), 2. Pratyekabuddhayāna-gotra (缘觉姓, the lineage of Solitary Buddhas), 3. Tathāgata-gotra (如来姓, the lineage of Tathāgatas), 4. Aniyata-gotra (不定性, the undetermined lineage), and 5. Agotraka (无种姓, the absence of lineage). Question: How do we know there are those who lack the Gotra? Answer: Both the four-fascicle and eight-fascicle versions of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (楞伽经) state that the Mahākaruṇā-bodhisattva (大悲菩萨, Bodhisattva of Great Compassion) and the Icchantika (一阐提, one who has severed their roots of goodness) ultimately cannot attain enlightenment. If all beings possessed the Gotra, then all should be able to attain Buddhahood. Why is it that the Mahākaruṇā-bodhisattva ultimately cannot achieve it? Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (胜鬘经) states that beings who are separated from Kalyāṇa-mitra (善知识, virtuous friends) and have not heard the Dharma can only mature through the roots of goodness of humans and devas. The Śīla Saṃgraha Sūtra (善戒经) states that those without the Gotra, because they lack the Gotra, even if they generate the aspiration and diligently practice, ultimately cannot attain Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment). The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽师地论) also holds the same view. Moreover, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra (涅槃经) mentions three types of patients, the third of whom will definitely not recover, regardless of whether they encounter a good doctor or not. If all beings possessed the Gotra, why would there be those who cannot recover? Furthermore, among the seven people on the Gaṅgā (恒河), if we assume that each of the seven possesses one, then there must be those who lack the Gotra. The Mahālaṅkāra-śāstra (大庄严论) states that there are two types of Icchantikas: 1. Sāmāntika-icchantika (时边, temporary), and 2. Atyantika-icchantika (毕竟, ultimate). The Sāmāntika-icchantika has four conditions: 1. only engaging in evil deeds, 2. universally severing all good dharmas, 3. lacking the roots of goodness for liberation, and 4. lacking complete roots of goodness. Those who ultimately lack the Dharma of Nirvāṇa (涅槃, cessation) do so because they lack the cause; they only seek Saṃsāra (生死, cycle of rebirth) and do not delight in Nirvāṇa. However, there is an interpretation that 'ultimate' refers to: 1. in terms of the severed goodness, including the innate goodness and the severed causes of the three times, it is called ultimately lacking the nature of Nirvāṇa. 2. in terms of time, because they have dull faculties and transmigrate for a long time, they cannot generate the Dharma of Nirvāṇa, and this is called ultimately lacking the Dharma of Nirvāṇa. It cannot be said that they definitely lack the nature for the entirety of the future, and this is called 'ultimate'. This interpretation is incorrect. Because severing the roots of goodness only severs the innate goodness, not the skillful means of goodness. Moreover, latent and manifest goodness are not without seeds; how can it be said that there is no cause? Furthermore, there should be no difference between universally severing good dharmas and the Sāmāntika-icchantika. Moreover, severing the roots of goodness in both the Greater and Lesser Vehicle scriptures refers to those with sharp faculties, not those with dull faculties. The words 'ultimate' and 'for the entirety of the future' have different wording but the same meaning. If this were not the case, then ultimate reality, like space, should not pervade the Dharma realm. Furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽师地论), in its sixty-seventh fascicle, has five difficulties and six answers, extensively explaining the absence of the Gotra, which should be omitted here. The above discussed the absence of the Gotra. Next, we will discuss the attainment of the determined Gotra. According to the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (大般若经) five hundred... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
九十三。善勇猛请言。唯愿世尊。哀慜我等。为具宣说如来境智。若有情类于声闻乘姓。决定者闻此法已速能证得自无谛地。于独觉乘姓决定者。闻此法已速依自乘而得出离。乃至云。若有情类虽未已入正性离生而于三乘姓不定者。闻此法已速发无上正等觉心。既决定外别说不定。明知别有决定声闻。又瑜伽七十六。解深密第二。皆说一向趣寂声闻。华严第四十说定性缘觉。大经第一亦尔。涅槃第三十无我相经中。为诸比丘说一乘道。一行一缘乃至我诸弟子。闻我是说已不解我意唱言。如来说须陀洹乃至罗汉皆得作佛。若皆作佛无决定姓。是解佛意。何须此说。若尔如何法华经中。唯说一乘而为究竟。答。如摄论中。以十义会。深密亦有会一乘文。总依经论。佛性有三。声闻有四。阐提有三。佛性三者。一理性谓真如。二行性谓无漏种子。三隐密姓即庆庆劳之时。声闻四者。一应化。二退菩提心。三增上慢。四趣寂。阐提三者。一大乘。二断善。三无种性。上来两家颂引教文并有明说。其五释难及会违文一一研究广如别记。乐广言论勤说法者。皆应叙之。 三云。此有种姓及无种姓。乃是如来教密境界散在诸经。佛不定说。如何前释欲定是非。此十力中种种界力之所知故。唯佛与佛为能知之证一一。涅槃第十七 现代汉语译本 九十三。善勇猛（Bhadrasūra）请言：‘唯愿世尊（Bhagavān），哀悯我等，为我们详细宣说如来（Tathāgata）的境智。如果有些有情众生，属于声闻乘（Śrāvakayāna）的种姓已决定者，听闻此法后，能迅速证得自无谛地。对于属于独觉乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna）种姓已决定者，听闻此法后，能迅速依靠自己的乘而得出离。’乃至说：‘如果有些有情众生，虽然尚未进入正性离生（正性决定），但对于三乘（Triyāna）的种姓尚未确定者，听闻此法后，能迅速发起无上正等觉（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi）之心。’既然已经明确区分了决定和不定，显然存在着决定性的声闻。又如《瑜伽师地论》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）第七十六卷、《解深密经》（Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra）第二卷，都说了一向趣寂的声闻。《华严经》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）第四十卷说了定性缘觉（Pratyekabuddha）。《大般涅槃经》（Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra）第一卷也是如此。《涅槃经》第三十卷《无我相经》中，为众比丘（bhikṣu）说一乘道（Ekāyana）。‘一行一缘，乃至我的弟子们，听我说后，不理解我的意思，就说如来说须陀洹（Srotaāpanna）乃至阿罗汉（Arhat）都能成佛。如果都能成佛，就没有决定性的种姓。’这是理解佛意的。何须这样说呢？如果这样，为何《法华经》（Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra）中，只说一乘才是究竟呢？答：如《摄大乘论》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）中，用十种意义来会通。《解深密经》中也有会通一乘的文句。总的来说，依据经论，佛性（Buddha-dhātu）有三种，声闻有四种，阐提（Icchantika）有三种。佛性三种：一是理性，指真如（Tathātā）；二是行性，指无漏种子；三是隐密姓，即庆庆劳之时。声闻四种：一是应化，二是退菩提心，三是增上慢，四是趣寂。阐提三种：一是大乘，二是断善，三是无种性。以上两家的颂文和引用的经文都有明确说明。关于五种释难以及会通矛盾之处，详细研究可见于其他记录。喜欢广为言论、勤于说法的人，都应该叙述这些内容。 三云：‘此有种姓及无种姓，乃是如来教密境界，散在诸经，佛不定说，如何前**定是非。’此十力（Daśabala）中种种界力之所知故，唯佛与佛为能知之证一一。《涅槃经》第十七卷。
English
English version 93. Bhadrasūra (善勇猛) requested: 'May the World-Honored One (Bhagavān), have compassion on us and explain in detail the realm of wisdom of the Tathāgata (如来). If there are sentient beings whose Śrāvakayāna (声闻乘) lineage is determined, they can quickly attain the state of selflessness upon hearing this Dharma. For those whose Pratyekabuddhayāna (独觉乘) lineage is determined, they can quickly attain liberation by relying on their own vehicle upon hearing this Dharma.' And so on, it says: 'If there are sentient beings who have not yet entered the stage of being fixed on the right path (正性决定), but whose lineage for the Three Vehicles (Triyāna 三乘) is undetermined, they can quickly generate the mind of Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (无上正等觉) upon hearing this Dharma.' Since the distinction between determined and undetermined has been clearly made, it is evident that there are definitively Śrāvakas. Furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽师地论) Volume 76 and the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (解深密经) Volume 2 both speak of Śrāvakas who are solely inclined towards tranquility. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra (华严经) Volume 40 speaks of Pratyekabuddhas (缘觉) with a fixed nature. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (大般涅槃经) Volume 1 is also the same. In the Nirvāṇa Sūtra (涅槃经), Volume 30, the 'Sūtra on the Absence of Self' (无我相经), the Buddha speaks of the One Vehicle Path (Ekāyana 一乘道) to the Bhikṣus (比丘). 'One practice, one condition, and even my disciples, upon hearing my words, misunderstand my meaning and say that the Tathāgata says that Srotaāpannas (须陀洹) and even Arhats (阿罗汉) can all become Buddhas. If everyone can become a Buddha, then there is no determined lineage.' This is understanding the Buddha's intention. Why is it necessary to say this? If so, why does the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra (法华经) only speak of the One Vehicle as the ultimate? Answer: As in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (摄大乘论), it is reconciled with ten meanings. There are also passages in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra that reconcile the One Vehicle. In general, according to the scriptures and treatises, there are three types of Buddha-dhātu (佛性), four types of Śrāvakas, and three types of Icchantikas (阐提). The three types of Buddha-dhātu are: first, the rational nature, referring to Tathātā (真如); second, the active nature, referring to the seeds of non-outflow; and third, the hidden nature, which is the time of continuous labor. The four types of Śrāvakas are: first, those who appear through transformation; second, those who retreat from the Bodhi mind; third, those with increased arrogance; and fourth, those who are inclined towards tranquility. The three types of Icchantikas are: first, the Mahāyāna; second, those who sever goodness; and third, those without lineage. The verses and quoted scriptures from the above two schools both have clear explanations. Detailed research on the five types of explanations and the reconciliation of contradictions can be found in other records. Those who enjoy extensive discourse and diligently preach the Dharma should narrate these contents. Someone says: 'The existence and non-existence of lineage are the secret realms of the Tathāgata's teachings, scattered throughout the scriptures. The Buddha does not speak definitively. How can you definitively determine right and wrong?' This is because the knowledge of the various realm powers within the Ten Powers (Daśabala 十力) is known only by Buddhas to Buddhas as proof. Nirvāṇa Sūtra, Volume 17. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------