"Avalokite'svara-bodhisattva"　　 has　　 completed

　　   Enlightenment? Regarding  this problem, I deal  with

　　   the   theories   of  Mahaakaru.na-bodhisattvas,  the

　　   Avalokite'svara, Samantabhadra  and  Munju'si   from

　　   PPHV and Saddharmapu.ndariika's commentary (法华玄赞

　　   )etc....Therefore  it can be said that Kuei-chi  has

　　   the theories of "mahaakaru.na-bodhisattva".  In this

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.394

　　   case, the only  "mahaakaruna-bodhi-satttr"a may  not

　　   belong  to the  "aatyantika", and  only " atyantika"

　　   also cannot represent the fifth Nature, the "agotra"

　　   of "icchantika".

　　　　  The  Third  Problem  is that, if Kuei-chi  holds

　　   that "agotra" is only the "atyantaagotra"  (毕竟无种

　　   姓 ), why does  he in PPHV, not  only  explain  that

　　   both  8th and 7th vij~naanas  are good  natures, but

　　   also　　 select　　 the　　 "buddhagotra"　　 and

　　   "tathaagata-garbha"  for  the  explantions   of  the

　　   nature of "chien-hsiang-cheng-hsing" (遣相证性) ? To

　　   this problem, I frist  make a comparative  table for

　　   undersanding   that  both  8th  Vij~naanas   and 7th

　　   Vij~naana have good natures in PPHV.

　　　　  Next compare  the meanings  of two famous gotras

　　   of  "prakrtistha"  and  "samudaaniita",  quoted from

　　   YCBH  in the  texts  of PPHV, VMS, and  VMSVy.  From

　　   which I find that Kuei-chi  in PPHV permits the pure

　　   biija of "prak.rtistha"  to dwell in muulavij~naana.

　　   And this theory, perhaps, can prove tha Kuei-chi  in

　　   PPHV　　 does　　 not　　 hold　　 the　　 Indian

　　   "atyantaaparinirvaa.na-dharma",  therefore   I would

　　   consider   it  a  problem  for  Kuei-chi   puts  the

　　   "aatyantika" as the Fifth Nature in PPHV.

　　　　  In  the  end  of  this conclution, I  offer  the

　　   following  two  keys  for  us  to  solve  the  above

　　   problems:

　　   (1) The"aatyantika"can connect with either  "agotra"

　　　　  or "gotra".  The first term "aatyantikaagotra" (

　　　　  毕竟无种姓  ) ,  representing   the third   name