大毘盧遮那成佛經疏 3.13

3.13

經云「復次祕密主！以影喻解了真言能發悉地，如面緣於鏡而現面像。彼真言悉地當知如是」者，此中言影，即是《釋論》鏡中像喻。彼論云「如鏡中像，非鏡作、非面作、非執鏡者作、非自然作，亦非無因緣作。何以非鏡作？若面未到，鏡則無像故。何以非面作？無鏡則無像故。何以非執鏡者作？無鏡無面則無像故。何以非自然作者？若未有鏡、未有面則無像，像待鏡待面然後有故。亦非無因者，若無因緣，應常有、應常無；若除鏡除面，亦應自出，以是故非無因緣。當知諸法亦復如是，以我不可得故，一切因緣生法不自在故，諸法屬因緣故非自作。若自無，他亦無，故非他作。若他作，則失罪福力。亦非共作，以有二過故。亦非無因，如先世業因、今世善惡行緣，從是得苦樂。一切諸法必有因緣，以愚癡故不知耳。如少兒，見鏡中像心樂愛著，失已破鏡求索，智人笑之。失樂更求，亦復如是，亦為得道聖人所笑。」今此真言門中，以如來三密淨身為鏡，自身三密行為鏡中像，因緣有悉地生，猶如面像。若行者悉地成就時，乃至起五神通、住壽長遠、面見十方國土遊諸佛剎，皆以此喻觀察是事，從自生？他生耶？若謂他三密加持能授是果，則眾生未修行時佛亦大悲平等，何故不令成就？若謂自如說行能得是果，何因觀察三密淨鏡之身求加被耶？若共主則有二過。何以故？若謂我心為因，待彼眾緣方得成就者，即此因中先有悉地果耶？為先無耶？若先有之，眾緣則無所用。若先無之，眾緣復何所用？然是悉地成就，亦復非無因緣，故《智論》鏡像偈云「非有亦非無，亦復非有無，此語亦不受，如是名中道。」不應如彼少兒妄生取著也。如作如是觀故，行者心無所得，不生戲論故，曰應如是知。

The sūtra says: “Furthermore, Lord of Mysteries! Understand through the simile of a shadow that mantras are able to produce siddhi, just as dependent upon a mirror the reflection of a face appears. That mantra-siddhi should be known in this way.” Here, the word 'shadow' refers to the simile of an image in a mirror from the Expository Treatise. That treatise says: “As for an image in a mirror, it is not made by the mirror, nor by the face, nor by the person holding the mirror, nor does it arise spontaneously, nor does it arise without causes and conditions. Why is it not made by the mirror? Because if the face has not yet approached, the mirror has no image. Why is it not made by the face? Because without a mirror, there is no image. Why is it not made by the person holding the mirror? Because without a mirror and without a face, there is no image. Why does it not arise spontaneously? Because if there is not yet a mirror and not yet a face, there is no image; the image exists only dependent on a mirror and dependent on a face. Nor is it without cause: if it had no causes and conditions, it would either always exist or always not exist; if the mirror and face were removed, it would still appear on its own; therefore it is not without causes and conditions. One should know that all phenomena are also like this: because a self cannot be found, and because all phenomena born of causes and conditions lack intrinsic mastery, phenomena belong to causes and conditions and thus are not self-made. If they do not exist of themselves, they do not exist of another either, and therefore are not made by another. If they were made by another, the efficacy of demerit and merit would be lost. Nor are they made jointly, because of having both faults. Nor are they without cause: just as the cause of karma from past lives and the conditions of good and evil actions in this life bring about suffering and pleasure, all phenomena must have causes and conditions; it is only through delusion that people do not know this. Like a young child who, upon seeing an image in a mirror, delights in it and grasps after it, and having lost it breaks the mirror searching for it, so that wise people laugh at him; pursuing further when pleasure is lost is just like this, and is also laughed at by the sages who have attained the path.” Now, in this mantra gateway, the Tathāgata's pure body of the three mysteries is taken as the mirror, and one's own practice of the three mysteries as the image in the mirror; dependent on causes and conditions, siddhi arises, just like the image of a face. When the practitioner accomplishes siddhi, up to producing the five supernatural knowledges, abiding in life for a long span of time, and beholding face-to-face the lands of the ten directions to journey through the Buddha-realms, one should always use this simile to contemplate this matter: does it arise from oneself, or from another? If one claims that another's adhiṣṭhāna of the three mysteries can grant this fruition, then before sentient beings had practiced, the Buddha's mahākaruṇā was also impartial; why did he not cause them to accomplish it? If one claims that practicing oneself in accordance with what is taught can attain this fruition, for what reason would one contemplate the body of the pure mirror of the three mysteries to seek adhiṣṭhāna? If it were produced jointly, there would be two faults. Why? If one claims that one's own mind is the cause, and awaiting those manifold conditions it only then attains accomplishment, then within this cause is the fruition of siddhi already present beforehand, or is it absent beforehand? If it were present beforehand, the manifold conditions would be of no use. If it were absent beforehand, of what use would the manifold conditions be? Yet this accomplishment of siddhi is also not without causes and conditions; hence the mirror-image verse of the Treatise on Great Wisdom says: “Neither existent nor nonexistent, / nor both existent and nonexistent; / not even accepting such speech— / this is called the Middle Way.” One should not foolishly give rise to grasping like that young child. Because one engages in contemplation in this manner, the practitioner's mind has nothing to be attained and does not give rise to prapañca; hence it is said that one should know it in this way.