十不二門指要鈔 1.59

1.59

答：「此師秖因將此一念約理釋之，致與一家文義相違。且違文者，一、違玄文。彼判心法定在因、佛法定在果，眾生法一往通因果，二往則局因。他執心法是真性，故乃自立云，心非因果。又礙定在因句，復自立云，約能造諸法故判為因，佛定在果者，乃由研修覺了究盡為果。今問：既將因果分判法相，何得因果却不相對？果若從覺，因須指迷，何得自立理能造事而為因邪？既不相對，何名分判？又違《華嚴》心造之義，彼經如來林菩薩說偈云：『心如工畫師，造種種五陰，一切世間中，無法而不造。如心佛亦爾，如佛眾生然，心佛及眾生，是三無差別。』《輔行》釋云，心造有二種，一者約理，造即是具，二者約事，即三世變。造等心法既有二造，經以心例於佛，復以佛例於生，故云『如心佛亦爾，如佛眾生然』，是則三法各具二造方無差別，故荊谿云，不解今文如何銷偈『心造一切三無差別』？何忽獨云心造諸法得名因邪？據他所釋，心法是理，唯論能具能造，生佛是事，唯有所具所造，則心造之義尚虧，無差之文永失矣。又若約能造釋因，則三法皆定在因，以皆有二造故。此文應今家立義綱格，若迷此者，一家教旨皆翻倒也，焉將此解定教文之欠剩邪！

Answer: "This master simply interprets this single thought-moment in terms of principle, which leads to conflict with the texts and doctrines of our tradition. First, as for contradicting the texts: (1) It contradicts the Xuanwen. That text determines that the dharma of the mind is fixed to the cause, and the dharma of the Buddha is fixed to the effect; the dharma of sentient beings generally pertains to both cause and effect, but in a specific sense is restricted to the cause. Because the other [master] clings to the dharma of the mind as true nature, he independently asserts that the mind is neither cause nor effect. Furthermore, being obstructed by the phrase 'fixed to the cause', he again independently asserts that, in terms of its ability to create all dharmas, it is determined as cause, whereas the Buddha being fixed to the effect means that by cultivating, training, awakening, and fully comprehending to the utmost, it constitutes the effect. Now we ask: Since you use cause and effect to demarcate dharma-characteristics, how can cause and effect not be correlated with each other? If the effect derives from awakening, the cause must point to delusion; how can you independently assert that principle's ability to create phenomena serves as the cause? Since they are not correlated, how can it be called a demarcation? Furthermore, it contradicts the meaning of mind-creation in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. In that sūtra, the Bodhisattva Forest of Tathāgatas spoke a gāthā, saying: 'The mind is like a skilled painter, creating the various five skandhas; among all worldly realms, there is no dharma it does not create. As is the mind, so also is the Buddha; as is the Buddha, so are sentient beings. The mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without difference.' The Fuxing explains: 'There are two kinds of mind-creation: first, in terms of principle, creation is inherent inclusion; second, in terms of phenomena, it is transformation across the three periods of time.' Since the dharma of mind possesses both kinds of creation, the sūtra models the Buddha on the mind, and again models sentient beings on the Buddha, therefore saying: 'As is the mind, so also is the Buddha; as is the Buddha, so are sentient beings.' Thus, only when each of the three dharmas possesses both creations are they without difference. Therefore Jingxi says: 'Without understanding the present text, how can one explain the verse "Mind creates everything; the three are without difference"?' Why suddenly state only that the mind's creating all dharmas receives the name of cause? According to his interpretation, the dharma of the mind is principle, discussing only the capacity to include and create, while sentient beings and Buddhas are phenomena, having only what is included and created; thus the meaning of mind-creation is deficient, and the text on 'without difference' is permanently lost. Moreover, if cause is interpreted in terms of the ability to create, then all three dharmas would be fixed to the cause, because all possess the two creations. This text is the guiding framework for the doctrines established by our tradition; if one is confused about this, the doctrinal tenets of our entire tradition are overturned. How can such an interpretation be used to judge whether the doctrinal texts are deficient or redundant?