四明尊者教行錄 5.54

5.54

He answered: How far apart are Buddha and Māra? What deficiency or excess is there between the perverse and the orthodox? It is genuinely because the fundamental principle is endowed with both Māra-nature and Buddha-nature; they are one without being two, two without being not-two, manifesting according to conditions as becoming a Buddha or becoming a Māra. Since the nature is fundamentally interfused, how could the cultivation differ? Therefore, the perfect and real teaching speaks in accord with the nature: the realm of Māra is Thusness, and the realm of Buddha is Thusness; the one Thusness has no second Thusness. Hence one can say that outside of Māra there is no Buddha, and outside of Buddha there is no Māra; it is also that one Māra is all Māras, and one Buddha is all Buddhas. Both are called the dharma-realm, because both pervade universally as one substance; all may be called king, because all dharmas assemble before them. If one gives rise to notions of superiority and inferiority regarding Māra and Buddha, this is naturally perverse thought, by no means correct contemplation. Now, the phenomena of Māra are fundamentally wonderful, like the house of a wealthy man filled with the seven treasures. Yet ordinary persons, born blind, are impeded when moving about and are injured by the treasures; those of the two vehicles, suffering from fever, see them as ghosts, tigers, dragons, and snakes, and flee out of fear; gradual-practice bodhisattvas, like those seeing in the night, do not see them clearly. Only practitioners of the perfect and sudden, from the very beginning with determination, see that these are the seven treasures, and their unimpeded, sovereign use belongs solely to the Buddha; therefore Māra is the dharma-realm, and Māra is the Dharma King. On the level of the ordinary world, it is so only in principle; for beginners, it is so only in name; at the rank of the five grades, it is so in contemplative practice; at the rank of the ten faiths, it is so in resemblance; for bodhisattvas of the Dharma-body, it is so in partial realization; only the Tathāgata of wondrous enlightenment is so ultimately. Because this rank alone exhausts the phenomena and principle of the Māra-dharma down to their ultimate limits and is fully endowed with them, being able to exercise sovereign control within the realm of Māra, the meaning of 'Māra king' is accomplished. One should know that Pāpīyas being called 'Māra king' possesses the name without the reality, for he lacks the ability of sovereign control. Hence the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* says: 'Conventional truth has only names without real meaning; ultimate truth has both names and real meaning.' If this is so, that the *Brahmajāla* and *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* were truly spoken by the Māra king—what further doubt could there be? Because the Māra king and the Awakened One are one substance with different names, just as the single body of Śakra, being endowed with a thousand virtues, consequently has a thousand names: how could Indra's preaching differ from Kauśika's preaching? Now to say that it was spoken by the Māra king not only does not differ from the Buddha's preaching, but also profoundly reveals the perfect tradition. Why is this? Because the perfect is not self-perfect; rather, the biased and perverse dharmas are each and every one of them perfect. The *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* resolves the dharma of the śrāvakas and is the king of all sūtras; how could it not resolve that Māras and outsiders are the king? It is only that Māras and outsiders are easy to open up, while the Mahāyāna scriptures had already stated that śrāvakas are difficult to open up; thus the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka*, following the difficulty, specifically pointed them out. For instance, in the *Gaṇḍavyūha*, the brāhmaṇa Jayoṣmāyatana cast himself into the fire to transform people, which completely employed the practice of an outsider. The woman Vasumitrā used sexual desire to gather living beings, which completely employed the methods of Māra. If they did not deeply abide in the dharma-realm of Māras and outsiders, how could they have enabled immeasurable people to attain realization of samādhi? This is indeed 'practicing the non-way to penetrate the Buddha-way.' Furthermore, now burning the body, arms, or fingers combines the primary and auxiliary practices; relinquishing the body, life, and wealth assists both materially and doctrinally. Thus all dharmas tend toward ascetic practice, because of being the dharma-realm. Since the Lord of the Teaching is of one substance with both Māra and Buddha, the Dharma-doors fundamentally interfuse the perverse and the orthodox; this is called possessing the complete śīla. What is termed 'expedients within the substance' and the meaning of 'spoken by Māra'—how could it not be so? To hear of Māra without alarm and to be free of attachment to the Buddha like this is indeed the efficacy of having roughly examined the threefold contemplation. The previous letter stated: 'Establishing all practices, guide and accomplish them by means of this contemplation.' This has good reason.