金光明經玄義 2.10

2.10

Next is contemplating the mind to clarify the three kinds of buddha-nature. As for Suvarṇaprabhāsa: contemplating a single thought-moment of mind as it arises as simultaneously empty, conventional, and middle is seeing the three kinds of buddha-nature. How so? The mind arises from conditions, therefore it is empty; arbitrarily positing that mind exists, therefore it is conventional; not going beyond the dharmatā, therefore it is middle. This explanation has already been clarified; passages from sūtras are further cited as proof. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "What is the root of illness? It is called cognitive grasping. What is cognitive grasping? It is grasping the three realms." This proves its conventionality. "What is quelling cognitive grasping? It means the mind has nothing to attain." This proves it is empty. "My illness and the illness of sentient beings are neither real nor existent." This proves it is middle. The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: "Mind, buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without differentiation." This proves that contemplating the mind is itself the three kinds of buddha-nature. Furthermore, the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra says: "My mind is suchness; the Buddha's mind is suchness. The Buddha's mind is suchness; my mind is suchness. I do not see my mind as the Buddha's mind, nor do I see the Buddha's mind as my mind, yet I see the Buddha Amitābha." Analogies such as seeing an image in lapis lazuli, dreaming of food when hungry, dreaming of sexual intercourse, and contemplating the radiance of bones, are all passages proving simultaneous emptiness, conventionality, and the middle. When reading this sūtra text, one must be attentive. If one reads them entirely as suchness, this is emptiness. Showing so many churning minds, this is conventionality. Seeing Amitābha, this is the middle. Furthermore, as for "my mind is suchness, the Buddha's mind is suchness": because there is the difference of distinguishing "I", "Buddha", and "suchness", this is conventionality. From "not seeing my mind as the Buddha's mind" onward, this is emptiness. "Yet seeing Amitābha", this is the middle. Furthermore, taking the analogy of dreaming of food: dreaming of food not sating hunger exemplifies emptiness; dreaming of food of a hundred flavours exemplifies conventionality; all not going beyond the dharmatā exemplifies the middle. The other analogies are of this kind. Furthermore, it is explained: "my mind" and "the Buddha's mind" are conventional designations; conventional designations distinguish the difference between myself and the Buddha. "My mind is suchness; the Buddha's mind is suchness": ordinary beings and sages are both empty. Not grasping my mind and not grasping the Buddha's mind—how could my mind become the Buddha's mind, or the Buddha's mind become my mind? This is the extinguishing of the conventional. Not grasping my mind's suchness and not grasping the Buddha's mind's suchness—how could my mind's suchness become the Buddha's mind's suchness? This is the extinguishing of emptiness. This is doubly extinguishing emptiness and conventionality to properly reveal the middle way. "Yet seeing Amitābha" is doubly illuminating the two truths. Always seeing the Buddha, how could the rest not be seen? This is again a passage proving that contemplating the mind is simultaneously empty, conventional, and middle. Contemplating the mind as middle is the direct-cause buddha-nature; as empty, it is the revealing-cause buddha-nature; as conventional, it is the conditional-cause buddha-nature. This is contemplating the mind's three kinds of buddha-nature. The six identities of stages of Suvarṇaprabhāsa are as explained before. Furthermore, "Buddha" means awakening wisdom; "nature" means the ultimate principle. Being able to illuminate the ultimate principle with awakening wisdom, when objective realm and wisdom correspond to each other, they are spoken of together as "buddha-nature". Now, contemplating the five aggregates, corresponding to the real mark of the five aggregates is called the direct-cause buddha-nature. Contemplating conventional designations, corresponding to the real mark of conventional designations is called the revealing-cause buddha-nature. Contemplating the mental factors, corresponding to the real mark of mental factors is called the conditional-cause buddha-nature. Therefore the sūtra says: "Buddha-nature is neither identical to the six phenomena nor separate from the six phenomena." This is what it means. Because one contemplates the real mark of the five aggregates, it is called gold (suvarṇa); because one contemplates the real mark of conventional designations, it is called light (prabhāsa); because one contemplates the real mark of the mental factors, it is called radiance (uttama). The six identities of stages can be understood upon reflection as before. Because this is very fine, it is appended here at the end.