淨名玄論 1.55

1.55

問：於迷恒見二、於悟恒不二。於迷恒見二，六道異法身；於悟恒不二，即眾生恒是佛。答：子妙語，誠如所言。難曰：於迷恒見二，不見悟不二。於悟恒見不二，應不見迷二。答：既了悟不二，即不見迷二，是以經云「我有五眼，不見菩提」。凡夫無目，豈有所覩。問：迷不見不二，凡不覩於聖。悟不見迷二，即無聖應不接凡。將非凡聖絕交、感應便隔。答：蓋是未領不見之宗，故興絕交之難耳。上云了悟不二，則無復迷二，故不見二。若猶見二，即猶有迷二，何名為悟？雖了悟不二，見於迷恒是二，故凡聖道交、感應不絕。難曰：若不見迷二，可得異於迷。若見於迷恒是二，即應與迷同是惑。答：雖復見於迷，不如迷所見，是故不同迷。故《法華》云「不如三界，見於三界」，《華嚴》云「隨順眾生故，普入諸世間，智慧常寂然，不同世所見」。問：悟人見不二，復見於迷恒是二，此之二照，是何智耶？答：即波若與方便。般若恒照不二，見六道常是法身；方便即照於迷恒二，故眾生異佛。問：於迷恒見二，不見恒不二，可無有般若。既見恒是二，應有於方便。答：迷人不見迷，亦不見不迷，故無有二慧。見迷見不迷，皆是悟人見，是故有權實。問：悟人入不二，可得見不二。不入於二門，云何得見二？答：由悟二不二，名為悟不二。既悟二不二，名為悟不二。既悟二不二，則了不二二，是以悟人具有二慧。迷緣既不悟二不二，亦不了不二二，故無二慧，即稱為無明。如《大品》云「諸法無所有如是有，如是有無所有。是事不知，名為無明」，即其事也。問：經云「若無明轉，即變為明」，寧言眾生即是佛耶？如其是佛，復何所轉？二文相害，請為會通。答：無二橫謂二，故稱為無明。若悟橫二本無二，所以名為轉。橫二本無二，雖轉無所轉，故名為即是。義實冥符，不相害也。問：佛名為覺，若眾生即是佛，應眾生即是覺。答：覺名為悟，了悟橫二本無二，是故名為覺。橫二本無二故，眾生即是覺。又緣觀俱寂，乃為妙覺。眾生緣觀本來寂滅，故即是覺。是以經云「一切眾生即菩提相，本來寂滅，不復更滅」。《法華》云「諸法從本來，常自寂滅相」。故知眾生本來寂滅，即是佛也。又如即是佛也。一切眾生本來是如，亦本來是佛，故此經云「夫如者不二不異」，不異者，三世竪論。故《大品》云「如名為實，不虛如教，中後亦爾」。以三世雖殊，如體無改變，故云不異。不二者，此則橫論。雖有凡聖，同皆一如，名為不二，故云「彌勒亦如也，眾生亦如也」。以無二故，眾生是佛。問：既凡聖同一如，一人得見如，一切亦應見。答：雖復同一如，有悟有未悟，是故有見有不見。問：迷悟異於如，可有見有未見。迷悟既同如，亦應得同見。答：如常不異迷，迷常與如異，故迷不見如。問：雖引眾經明眾生是佛，但即是之言猶未可領。為眾生與佛俱空故，眾生是佛？為有佛有眾生，以眾生即佛故，名為即是？若無佛無眾生，寧言眾生即是佛？若有眾生有佛，復何猶即是？答：察子之情，有無二門俱非即是。所以然者，有佛有眾生，斯則有見，何猶是佛？無眾生無佛，復為無執，豈是佛耶？若能息此二見，故眾生即是佛。是以經云「寂滅是菩提相，滅諸相故」。難曰：若非有非無，亦非佛非不佛，非眾生非不眾生，何得云眾生是佛？答：良由悟非佛非不佛，所以名為佛。若見佛見，非佛乃是佛；見非佛見，何名為佛耶？問：若息佛見非佛見，即了非眾生非不眾生方是佛者，斯乃佛是佛耳。未息諸見，即名眾生。若爾，眾生非佛，何得眾生即是佛？答：不言息見方名無見。以無見名為佛，良由諸見本來無故，眾生本是佛。問：若諸見本來無故，眾生本是佛。何得復云一切眾生皆有佛性未是佛耶？答：若悟諸見本無見，即眾生本是佛，不名為佛性。但無見而起見，不見本無見故，無見隱於見，故稱為佛性，未得名性佛。問：佛性與如，為同為異？若言一者，經云「凡聖皆一如」，不言凡聖一佛性。若言異者，復何得云如即是佛？答：此義紛綸，由來久矣。今略敘之，會通異說。若不二二義，開如佛二門，如是二不二義，佛性名不二二義。以如是二不二義故，凡聖皆一如。佛性是不二二義故，不得凡聖同一佛性。問：何故爾耶？答：佛名為覺，覺是智照之名。眾生有佛性，即有於覺性，故照用不同，不可全一。《釋論》云「如無所知，是所照空境」。空無有異，故得凡聖一如。此是不二二義，故開境智不同、空有為異。若二不二義，如即佛性、佛性即如，故論云「亦名如、法性、涅槃」。涅槃豈是無知？亦非空境。若了斯二門，則異說同歸，義無違背矣。問：十方諸如來，同共一法身。為就如門、為約智用？答：北土以如為法身佛，凡聖一如故，同一法身。南方云：如是頑境，佛即是靈智，以眾德均等，故云同共一法身。詳其得失，餘科已明，今略陳之。《大品》云「如無去來，如即是佛」，此則以如為法身，凡聖同一如，故同共一法身。若云如無所知，佛名為覺，則眾德均等，故同共一法身。故各舉一門，亦無相背。問：在經何故有二說耶？答：由體如故名為如來，故用如為法身。若言佛名為覺，覺是智照，即智可軌名法，故用智為法身。是以二文各舉一義，此皆不二二義，故開二門。若二不二義，智即是如、如即是智。但照義名智、如實名如，更無二也。故《般若》云「如無去來，如即是佛。離是之外，更無有佛」。豈可以如為境、佛自是心也？問：不二二義，不得凡聖同一佛性，故無一人見佛性即一切皆見。唯凡聖同一如，若一人見如一切應並見。答：以迷悟不同，故有見有不見。問：迷悟異於如，可有見有不見。迷悟既同如，亦應得同見。答：如常不異迷，迷常與如異，故迷不見如。問：迷悟同一如，悟人既得於悟如，亦證於迷如。答：既是一如則更無二證。故證如之時，凡聖並皆如，如外無凡聖異也。問：如即是佛。了自是如，既其自佛。了他亦是如，應用他法身。答：若二不二義，以如為法身，既同共一如，亦同一法身，故無自他異。若以不二二義，眾德均等，名同一法身。即悟緣眾德，顯即用悟法身，迷緣隱未現，故未有法身，即悟緣不得用。

Question: In delusion, one constantly sees duality; in awakening, one constantly sees nonduality. When one constantly sees duality in delusion, the six destinies are distinct from the dharmakāya; when one constantly sees nonduality in awakening, sentient beings are constantly identical to the Buddha.

Answer: Excellent words, sir; it is truly as you say.

Objection: If in delusion one constantly sees duality, one does not see the awakened nonduality. If in awakening one constantly sees nonduality, one should not see the deluded duality.

Answer: Once one has realized and awakened to nonduality, one does not see the deluded duality. For this reason, the sūtra says: "I possess the five eyes, yet I do not see bodhi." Ordinary beings have no eyes; how could they behold anything?

Question: Delusion does not see nonduality, so ordinary beings do not behold the noble ones. Awakening does not see deluded duality, which means that without noble response, they would not engage with ordinary beings. Would this not mean that ordinary and noble completely sever communion, and sympathetic resonance is obstructed?

Answer: This is simply failing to grasp the central purport of "not seeing"; hence you raise this difficulty about severing communion. Above, it was said that having realized and awakened to nonduality, there is no longer deluded duality, and therefore one does not see duality. If one still saw duality, then there would still be deluded duality; how could that be called awakening? Although one has realized and awakened to nonduality, one sees that within delusion there is constantly duality; therefore, the communion of ordinary and noble paths and their sympathetic resonance do not cease.

Objection: If one does not see deluded duality, one may be distinct from delusion. If one sees that within delusion there is constantly duality, one should be deluded just like the deluded.

Answer: Although one sees delusion, it is not like what delusion sees; therefore, one is not the same as delusion. Hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "Not as the triple realm [sees it], does one see the triple realm." The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "In order to accord with sentient beings, / One universally enters all realms of the world; / Wisdom is ever tranquil, / Not the same as what the world sees."

Question: The awakened person sees nonduality and also sees that within delusion there is constantly duality. What cognitions are these two illuminations?

Answer: They are prajñā and upāya. Prajñā constantly illuminates nonduality, seeing that the six destinies are ever the dharmakāya; upāya illuminates the constant duality in delusion, so that sentient beings are distinct from the Buddha.

Question: If in delusion one constantly sees duality and does not see constant nonduality, one may lack prajñā. Since one sees constant duality, one should possess upāya.

Answer: The deluded person does not see delusion, nor do they see non-delusion; therefore, they do not have the two wisdoms. Seeing delusion and seeing non-delusion are both the seeing of an awakened person; therefore, there are the provisional and the real.

Question: The awakened person enters nonduality, so they can see nonduality. If they do not enter the gate of duality, how can they see duality?

Answer: Because of awakening to the nonduality of duality, it is called awakening to nonduality. Having awakened to the nonduality of duality, one comprehends the duality of nonduality; therefore, the awakened person fully possesses the two wisdoms. Because conditions of delusion neither awaken to the nonduality of duality nor comprehend the duality of nonduality, they lack the two wisdoms, which is termed ignorance (avidyā). As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "All dharmas are nonexistent, yet are such; being such, they are nonexistent. Not knowing this matter is called ignorance"; this is precisely what it means.

Question: The sūtra says: "If ignorance is transformed, it then becomes illumination." How can you say that sentient beings are identical to the Buddha? If they are the Buddha, what is there to transform? The two passages contradict each other; please reconcile them.

Answer: What is nondual is arbitrarily called dual; hence it is termed ignorance. If one awakens to the fact that arbitrary duality is fundamentally nondual, that is why it is called "transformation." Since arbitrary duality is fundamentally nondual, although it is transformed, nothing is transformed; hence it is called "identical." The meanings truly tally in secret and do not contradict each other.

Question: "Buddha" is defined as "awakening." If sentient beings are identical to the Buddha, then sentient beings should be identical to awakening.

Answer: Awakening is defined as realization: realizing that arbitrary duality is fundamentally nondual is why it is called awakening. Because arbitrary duality is fundamentally nondual, sentient beings are identical to awakening. Furthermore, when both condition and contemplation are tranquil, that constitutes wondrous awakening. Sentient beings' conditions and contemplations are fundamentally tranquil and extinguished, and therefore they are identical to awakening. Hence the sūtra says: "All sentient beings are the characteristic of bodhi; fundamentally tranquil and extinguished, they do not need to be extinguished again." The Lotus Sūtra says: "All dharmas from their origin / Are ever of the characteristic of tranquil extinction." Thus we know that sentient beings are fundamentally tranquil and extinguished, which is identical to the Buddha. Furthermore, suchness is identical to the Buddha. All sentient beings are fundamentally suchness and are also fundamentally the Buddha. Therefore, this sūtra says: "As for suchness, it is neither dual nor different." "Not different" is discussed vertically across the three periods of time. Hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "Suchness is called real, not unreal, like the teaching; the intermediate and subsequent are also like this." Although the three periods of time differ, the essence of suchness undergoes no alteration; hence it is said to be "not different." "Not dual" is discussed horizontally. Although there are ordinary beings and noble ones, they are all equally one suchness; this is called "not dual." Hence it says: "Maitreya is also suchness; sentient beings are also suchness." Because there is no duality, sentient beings are the Buddha.

Question: Since ordinary and noble share the same one suchness, if one person gets to see suchness, all should also see it.

Answer: Although they share the same one suchness, some are awakened and some are not yet awakened; therefore, there is seeing and not seeing.

Question: If delusion and awakening differed from suchness, there might be seeing and not yet seeing. Since delusion and awakening are both identical to suchness, they should both equally see it.

Answer: Suchness is constantly not different from delusion, but delusion is constantly different from suchness; therefore, delusion does not see suchness.

Question: Although you cite various sūtras to clarify that sentient beings are the Buddha, the phrase "identical to" cannot yet be grasped. Is it because both sentient beings and the Buddha are empty that sentient beings are the Buddha? Or is it that there is a Buddha and there are sentient beings, and because sentient beings are identical to the Buddha, it is called "identical to"? If there is no Buddha and no sentient beings, how can you say sentient beings are identical to the Buddha? If there are sentient beings and there is a Buddha, how could they be identical?

Answer: Examining your intention, neither the gate of existence nor that of nonexistence constitutes "identical to." Why is this so? If there is a Buddha and there are sentient beings, this is the view of existence; how could it be the Buddha? If there are no sentient beings and no Buddha, this is again attachment to nonexistence; how could that be the Buddha? If one can put an end to these two views, then sentient beings are identical to the Buddha. Hence the sūtra says: "Tranquil extinction is the characteristic of bodhi, because it extinguishes all characteristics."

Objection: If it is neither existent nor nonexistent, neither Buddha nor non-Buddha, neither sentient beings nor non-sentient-beings, how can it be said that sentient beings are the Buddha?

Answer: It is precisely due to awakening to neither Buddha nor non-Buddha that one is called Buddha. If one sees the view of Buddha, non-Buddha is the Buddha; if one sees the view of non-Buddha, how could that be called Buddha?

Question: If putting an end to the view of Buddha and the view of non-Buddha and comprehending neither sentient beings nor non-sentient-beings is what constitutes a Buddha, then this is merely the Buddha being the Buddha. Not having put an end to all views is called a sentient being. If so, sentient beings are not the Buddha; how can sentient beings be identical to the Buddha?

Answer: We do not say that putting an end to views is what is called "non-view." Defining non-view as Buddha is precisely because all views are fundamentally nonexistent; therefore, sentient beings are fundamentally the Buddha.

Question: If all views are fundamentally nonexistent and sentient beings are fundamentally the Buddha, why is it further said that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature but are not yet the Buddha?

Answer: If one awakens to the fact that all views are fundamentally without view, then sentient beings are fundamentally the Buddha, and it is not called Buddha-nature. But from non-view, views arise; because one does not see that there is fundamentally non-view, non-view is concealed by views; hence it is called Buddha-nature, and cannot yet be called the nature-Buddha.

Question: Are Buddha-nature and suchness the same or different? If you say they are one, the sūtra says: "Ordinary and noble are all one suchness"; it does not say that ordinary and noble are one Buddha-nature. If you say they are different, how can it be said that suchness is identical to the Buddha?

Answer: This meaning has been disputed for a long time. Now I will briefly set it forth to reconcile the divergent explanations. If by the sense of the duality of nonduality one opens the two gates of suchness and Buddha: suchness is the sense of the nonduality of duality, while Buddha-nature is termed the sense of the duality of nonduality. Because suchness is the sense of the nonduality of duality, ordinary and noble are all one suchness. Because Buddha-nature is the sense of the duality of nonduality, ordinary and noble cannot share the same single Buddha-nature.

Question: Why is this so?

Answer: "Buddha" is defined as "awakening," and awakening is the name for cognitive illumination. When sentient beings have Buddha-nature, they have the nature of awakening; thus illuminating functions differ and cannot be entirely identical. The Dazhidulun says: "Suchness is without cognition; it is the empty object that is illuminated." Emptiness has no differences, so ordinary and noble share one suchness. This is the sense of the duality of nonduality, so one opens the difference between object and cognition, and distinguishes between emptiness and existence. If it is the sense of the nonduality of duality, suchness is identical to Buddha-nature, and Buddha-nature is identical to suchness; hence the treatise says: "It is also called suchness, dharmatā, and nirvāṇa." How could nirvāṇa be without cognition? Nor is it an empty object. If one comprehends these two gates, then divergent explanations converge, and their meanings do not contradict each other.

Question: The Tathāgatas of the ten directions share the same single dharmakāya. Is this in terms of the gate of suchness, or in terms of cognitive function?

Answer: The northern masters take suchness to be the dharmakāya Buddha: because ordinary and noble are one suchness, they share the same single dharmakāya. The southern masters say: suchness is an inert object, while the Buddha is spiritual cognition; because their myriad virtues are equal, they are said to share the same single dharmakāya. Examining their merits and flaws, other sections have already clarified this; now I will briefly present it. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "Suchness has no coming or going; suchness is identical to the Buddha." This takes suchness as the dharmakāya: ordinary and noble share the same one suchness, so they share the same single dharmakāya. If one says that suchness is without cognition and "Buddha" is defined as awakening, then the myriad virtues are equal, and therefore they share the same single dharmakāya. Thus each brings forth one gate, and they do not contradict each other.

Question: Why are there two explanations in the sūtras?

Answer: Because of embodying suchness, one is called Tathāgata; hence suchness is used as the dharmakāya. If one says that "Buddha" is defined as awakening, awakening is cognitive illumination, and cognition can be a model, it is termed dharma; hence cognition is used as the dharmakāya. Therefore, the two passages each bring forth one meaning; these are both the sense of the duality of nonduality, so two gates are opened. If it is the sense of the nonduality of duality, cognition is identical to suchness, and suchness is identical to cognition. It is merely that the meaning of illumination is called cognition, and being as it truly is is called suchness; there is no second thing. Hence the Prajñāpāramitā says: "Suchness has no coming or going; suchness is identical to the Buddha. Apart from this, there is no other Buddha." How could suchness be the object while the Buddha is merely the mind?

Question: According to the sense of the duality of nonduality, ordinary and noble cannot share the same single Buddha-nature, so it is not the case that when one person sees Buddha-nature, all see it. Only ordinary and noble share the same one suchness; if one person sees suchness, all should see it together.

Answer: Because delusion and awakening differ, there is seeing and not seeing.

Question: If delusion and awakening differed from suchness, there might be seeing and not seeing. Since delusion and awakening are both identical to suchness, they should also both see it equally.

Answer: Suchness is constantly not different from delusion, but delusion is constantly different from suchness; therefore, delusion does not see suchness.

Question: Delusion and awakening share the same one suchness. Since an awakened person attains the suchness of awakening, do they also realize the suchness of delusion?

Answer: Since it is one suchness, there are no two realizations. Therefore, at the time of realizing suchness, ordinary and noble are both suchness; outside of suchness, there is no difference between ordinary and noble.

Question: Suchness is identical to the Buddha. Comprehending oneself to be suchness means one is oneself the Buddha. Comprehending that others are also suchness, should one make use of others' dharmakāya?

Answer: According to the sense of the nonduality of duality, taking suchness as the dharmakāya, since they share the same one suchness, they also share the same single dharmakāya; therefore, there is no difference between self and other. If according to the sense of the duality of nonduality, the myriad virtues being equal is called sharing the same single dharmakāya, then the myriad virtues of the conditions of awakening become manifest, and one uses the dharmakāya of awakening; in the conditions of delusion, they are concealed and have not yet appeared, so there is not yet a dharmakāya, and the conditions of awakening cannot make use of it.