十不二門指要鈔 1.69

1.69

答：「立門近要則妙理可通，若敻指真如，初心如何造趣？依何起觀邪？今立根塵一剎那心，本具三千即空假中，稱此觀之，即能成就十種妙法，豈但解知而已！如此方稱作者之意。若也偏指清淨真如、偏唯真心，則杜初心入路，但滋名相之境。故第一記云，本雖久遠，圓頓雖實，第一義雖理，望觀屬事。他謂圓談法性便是觀心，為害非少。今問：一念真知為已顯悟？為現在迷？若已顯悟，不須修觀，十乘觀法將何用邪？若現在迷，全體是陰。故《金錍》云，諸佛悟理，眾生在事。既其在事，何名真淨？然誰不知全體是清，其奈濁成本有！應知觀心大似澄水，若水已清何須更澄，若水未清須澄濁水。故《輔行》釋以識心為妙境云，今文妙觀觀之令成妙境，境方稱理。又解安於世諦云，以止觀安故，世諦方成不思議境。故知心雖本妙，觀未成時且名陰、入，為成妙故用觀體之。若撥棄陰心，自觀真性，正當偏指清淨真如之責，復招緣理斷九之譏。且如今欲觀心，為今剎那便具三千，為須真如體顯方具三千；若即剎那，何不便名陰心為於妙境，而須立真心邪？又大師親令觀於陰等諸境，及觀一念無明之心，何違教邪？應是宗師立名詮法未的，故自別立邪！又若謂此中一念不同止觀所觀陰等諸心者，此之十門因何重述？觀法大體、觀行可識，斯言謾設也。又中諦一實別判屬心，與總真心如何揀邪？心性二字不異而異，既言不變隨緣名心，即理之事也，隨緣不變名性，即事之理也，今欲於事顯理，故雙舉之，例此合云不變隨緣名佛，隨緣不變名性，生性亦然。應知三法俱事俱理，不同他解心則約理為通、生佛約事為別，此乃他家解心佛眾生之義。不深本教，濫用他宗，妨害既多，旨趣安在？」

Answer: "When the gate established is close and essential, wondrous principle can be penetrated. If one distantly points to true suchness, how can beginners advance toward it? On what would they base the contemplation? Now, establishing the single kṣaṇa mind of sense faculties and objects as fundamentally including the three thousand realms, identical with emptiness, provisionality, and the middle, if one contemplates in accordance with this, one can accomplish the ten kinds of wondrous dharmas—how could it be merely an intellectual understanding! Only in this way does it accord with the author's intention. If one were to point exclusively to pure true suchness and exclusively to the true mind, one would block the entry path for beginners and merely foster objects of names and marks. Therefore the First Subcommentary says: 'Although the root is ancient, although the perfect and sudden is real, although the primary truth is principle, when viewed from contemplation, it belongs to phenomena.' He claims that discoursing on dharma-nature in a perfect manner is itself contemplating the mind, causing no small harm. Now we ask: Has the single thought-moment of true awareness already been revealed and awakened, or is it currently deluded? If it has already been revealed and awakened, there is no need to cultivate contemplation; what use would the contemplation methods of the ten vehicles be? If it is currently deluded, its entire substance is the skandhas. Therefore the Jingangpi says: 'All Buddhas awaken to principle; sentient beings reside in phenomena.' Since they reside in phenomena, how can it be called truly pure? However, who does not know that the entire substance is pure? Yet how can one deny that turbidity has become innate! One should know that contemplating the mind is very much like clarifying water: if the water is already clear, what need is there to clarify it further? If the water is not yet clear, one must clarify the turbid water. Therefore the Fuxing explains taking the mind of consciousness as the wondrous object, saying: 'Contemplating it with the wondrous contemplation of the present text causes it to become the wondrous object; only then does the object accord with principle.' It also explains settling in conventional truth, saying: 'Because it is settled by cessation and contemplation, conventional truth only then becomes an inconceivable object.' Thus we know that although the mind is fundamentally wondrous, before contemplation is perfected it is provisionally named the skandhas and sensory bases; to make it wondrous, one uses contemplation to realize its essence. If one casts aside the skandha mind to contemplate the true nature directly, one precisely incurs the blame of exclusively pointing to pure true suchness, and invites the mockery of conditioning principle to cut off the nine realms. Moreover, as one now wishes to contemplate the mind, does the present kṣaṇa inherently include the three thousand realms, or must the substance of true suchness be revealed before it includes the three thousand realms? If it is the immediate kṣaṇa, why not simply name the skandha mind the wondrous object, rather than having to establish a 'true mind'? Furthermore, the Great Master himself ordered the contemplation of the various objects such as the skandhas, as well as the contemplation of the single thought-moment of the mind of ignorance; why contradict the teaching? Could it be that the ancestral master established names and expounded dharmas inaccurately, so that one had to establish them differently oneself? Furthermore, if one claims that the single thought-moment here is not the same as the various minds of the skandhas and so forth contemplated in the Zhiguan, why are these ten gates reiterated? The overall framework of contemplation methods and contemplative practice can be recognized; such words are spoken in vain. Furthermore, the single reality of the middle truth is distinctively determined as belonging to the mind; how is it to be distinguished from the comprehensive true mind? The two words 'mind' and 'nature' are not different yet are different: since it says 'remaining unchanging while according with conditions is called mind', it is phenomena identical with principle; 'according with conditions while remaining unchanging is called nature' is principle identical with phenomena. Now, wishing to reveal principle from phenomena, both are brought up together. By analogy to this, it should be said: 'Remaining unchanging while according with conditions is called Buddha; according with conditions while remaining unchanging is called nature'; the nature of sentient beings is also likewise. It should be known that the three dharmas are all phenomena and all principle, unlike his interpretation where the mind pertains to principle as general, and sentient beings and Buddhas pertain to phenomena as distinct; this is the other school's interpretation of the meaning of mind, Buddha, and sentient beings. Not plumbing our own teaching deeply and improperly adopting other traditions causes much hindrance; where is the true purport?"