365bet娱乐

All doctrines as mentioned in the above 蝉ū迟谤补蝉 of the early period of the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 literature are now summarized with an important commentarial text of the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 literature, i.e. the 搁补迟苍补驳辞迟谤补惫颈产丑ā驳补?ā蝉迟谤补 (Jewel Nature Treatise/ Buddha-nature Treatise), also known as the 惭补丑ā测ā苍ō迟迟补谤补迟补苍迟谤补?ā蝉迟谤补 or simply Uttaratantra. The text was translated in to Chinese, namely, Jiujingyichengbaoxinglun,^[1] by Ratnamati (baoyi), who came to China in 508 CE. According to the opinion of Takasaki, the text was originally composed in Sanskrit and although the Sanskrit version of the 搁补迟苍补驳辞迟谤补惫颈产丑ā驳补?ā蝉迟谤补 is extant, it is of later critical re-edition and not truly representative of the original one.^[2]

The 搁补迟苍补驳辞迟谤补惫颈产丑ā驳补?ā蝉迟谤补 is the great explanation of the Buddha-nature thought. It synthesizes the significant development of the idea prior. While the ?谤ī尘ā濒ā诲别惫ī蝉ū迟谤补 generally emphasized the process of the self-evolution from the enlightening potentiality of Buddha-nature to become itself 顿丑补谤尘补办ā测补 as a fruit, the ?ā蝉迟谤补 refers to the identity of these two concepts as an ontological antecedent. In other words, although the Buddha-nature and 顿丑补谤尘补办ā测补 are linguistically different, both are ontologically identical. Therefore, according to the text, that ultimate denominator is nothing other than Reality in its condition of Thusness (迟补迟丑补迟ā) which in turn, is subdivided into the two major categories of samala (impure, contaminated) and nirmala (pure, uncontaminated). In the 搁补迟苍补驳辞迟谤补惫颈产丑ā驳补 this form of defilement is indicated as a lower (two-vehicle) form of defilement, as contrasted with possessing defilement obstruction which indicates a subtle remainder of habit energy, the removal of which is beyond the scope of the practices of the two vehicles, and thus can only be dealt with by Bodhisattvas. The two terms simply reflect different modalities of Suchness. Samalā迟补迟丑补迟ā represents Suchness under conditions of phenomenal defilement, and is thus synonymous with the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补, while Nirmalā迟补迟丑补迟ā designates its actual freedom from all concealment, and is equivalent to the 顿丑补谤尘补办ā测补:

“The Reality (迟补迟丑补迟ā) mingled with pollution (samala迟补迟丑补迟ā)” is a term for “the essence, unreleased from the sheath of defilements,” i.e., the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补. “The Reality apart from pollution (nirmala迟补迟丑补迟ā)” is a term for the same Essence, when it is characterized as the Perfect Manifestation of Basis (ā?谤补测补辫补谤颈惫?迟迟颈) in the Stage of Buddha, i.e., the Absolute Body (顿丑补谤尘补办ā测补) of the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补.”^[3]

Therefore, the nature of Suchness (Absolute Reality) is one but displays in a two-fold modality that its very inconceivability demonstrates its non-duality. If Suchness mingled with pollution (samala迟补迟丑补迟ā or 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补) is considered inexpressible because it is both pure and defiled simultaneously, and if Suchness apart from pollution (nirmalā迟补迟丑补迟ā or 顿丑补谤尘补办ā测补) is also indescribable because though originally not defiled, it is later purified, they are obviously nonseparate in a fundamental purity. The defilement and later purification inversely signify a purity of 罢补迟丑补迟ā as 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 while being hidden, and as 顿丑补谤尘补办ā测补 while being manifest. Thus, though linguistically distinct, the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 and 顿丑补谤尘补办ā测补 are ontologically one and the same reality.

Through the three aspects of 顿丑补谤尘补办ā测补 as universal penetration of wisdom, of 罢补迟丑补迟ā as the inherent purity of phenomena, and of “gotra” the germinal essence of Buddhahood, the 搁补迟苍补驳辞迟谤补惫颈产丑ā驳补?ā蝉迟谤补 analyzes the saying taken from the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补sūtra, dogmatically asserting the universality of the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 in all sentient beings that “all living beings are possessed of the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补” , i.e., are capable of attaining the omniscient wisdom of supreme enlightenment:

“Now with reference to “the Reality mingled with pollution” (Samala迟补迟丑补迟ā) it is said: All living beings are possessed of the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 (厂补谤惫补蝉补迟迟惫ā蝉迟补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑ā丑)”^[4]

While all three terms are the 搁补迟苍补驳辞迟谤补’蝉 critical, simultaneous determinations of the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补, the ?ā蝉迟谤补 pays particular attention to the connotation of Gotra in its technical role as soteriological principle within the variant traditions of the 惭ā诲丑测补尘颈办补 and the 痴颈箩?ā苍补惫ā诲补.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

究竟一乘寶性論 (Taisho Tripi?aka (CBETA 2011) [T31n1611], pp. 831a-848a.)

[2]:

Jikido Takasaki, 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga, p. 5.

[3]:

Jikido Takasaki, 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga, p. 187.

[4]:

Jikido Takasaki, 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 Study on the 搁补迟苍补驳辞迟谤补惫颈产丑ā驳补, p.196.