十不二門指要鈔 1.105

1.105

答：「修觀行者外境未亡已來，見有他佛，故《起信論》云『以依轉識故說為境界』，則知過在於我，何關佛邪！然且置所定之文，試論能定之義，還合一家教宗不？秖如他於諭迷顯正決中，指色心門為外境者，豈可內境離色心門邪？又解外觀成相豁同真淨文，云同者似也，乃似其分真即六根淨也，豈外觀功能止齊相似？又解內觀，先了外色心一念無念，謂外境亡，唯內體三千即空假中，謂內體顯，既全不約解行分文，先了之言乃是牒前外觀，內體已下方觀於內，是則六根淨後方修內觀，則識陰十乘初心絕分。又若謂外境亡時內體必顯者，則唯有外觀不須觀內，又成內觀初心後心皆不修也。此等相違，請當宗匠者觀之，還可將此見解定教文之是非乎？或須云終日炳然，有何損益而苦諍之？境觀乖失而全不知，況依正本融、迷情彊隔，觀成情遣且云不見，塵去鑑淨、現像非磨，故云終自炳然。此則自勝於日，他莫知之。」

Answer: "Before the practitioner of contemplation practice has eliminated external objects, he sees that there are other Buddhas; hence the Awakening of Faith says, 'Because of depending on the evolving consciousness, it is spoken of as an objective realm.' Thus we know the fault lies with oneself, so what does it have to do with the Buddha? However, let us temporarily set aside the established text and test the discussion of the meaning that establishes it: does it still accord with the doctrinal tenets of our school or not? Just as in his Resolving Doubts to Instruct the Deluded and Reveal the Correct, where he points to the gate of form and mind as external objects—could the internal object be separated from the gate of form and mind? Moreover, in explaining the text on the completion of the external contemplation 'opening up clearly and alike entirely true and pure', he says that 'alike' (tong) means 'resembling' (si), namely resembling its partial reality, which is the purity of the six sense faculties; could the function of external contemplation only equal resemblance [enlightenment]? Furthermore, in explaining internal contemplation, 'first comprehending external form and mind to be a single thought devoid of thought' is taken by him to mean the external object is eliminated, and 'only the internal substance's three thousand is namely empty, provisional, and middle' is taken to mean the internal substance is revealed; thus completely failing to divide the text according to understanding and practice, the words 'first comprehending' are merely a restatement of the previous external contemplation, and only after 'internal substance' does he contemplate the internal—this means only after the purity of the six sense faculties does one cultivate internal contemplation, which would mean that beginners would have no share in the ten vehicles for the consciousness-skandha! Moreover, if one claims that when external objects are eliminated the internal substance is necessarily revealed, then there would only be external contemplation without needing to contemplate the internal, which in turn means internal contemplation is cultivated neither in the initial mind nor in the subsequent mind. Such contradictions—I ask those who are masters of our school to examine them: can one really use this view to determine the right and wrong of the doctrinal texts? Or one must say 'distinctly luminous through and through (zhongri bingran)'; what harm or benefit is there that one should bitterly contend over it? They are completely unaware that their object and contemplation are erroneous; how much more so since environmental and primary rewards are originally fused, yet deluded sentiments forcibly separate them: when contemplation is accomplished and sentiments are dispelled, one temporarily says 'they are not seen', but when dust is gone and the mirror is clear, the appearing images are not wiped away, hence it says 'it remains distinctly luminous after all (zhongzi bingran)'. This is inherently superior to the sun (ri), but others do not know it."