十不二門指要鈔 1.59

1.59

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?