[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [禪源諸詮集都序](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015) › 1.12.4 # 禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.4 禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.12.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.4) 總答前疑無不通徹（下隨相當文義一一脚注。 指之答此諸難。 欲見答處。 須檢注文也）七法義不同善須辨識者。 凡欲明解諸法性相。 先須辨得法義。 依法解義。 義即分明。 以義詮法。 法即顯著。 今且約世物明之。 如真金隨工匠等緣作鐶釧椀盞種種器物。 金性必不變為銅鐵。 金即是法。 不變隨緣是義。 設有人問。 說何物不變。 何物隨緣。 只合答云金也。 以喻一藏經論義理。 只是說心。 心即是法。 一切是義。 故經云。 無量義者從一法生。 然無量義統唯二種。 一不變。 二隨緣。 諸經只說此心隨迷悟緣成垢淨凡聖煩惱菩提有漏無漏等。 亦只說此心垢淨等時元來不變常自寂滅真實如如等。 設有人問。 說何法不變。 何法隨緣。 只合答云心也。 不變是性。 隨緣是相。 當知性相皆是一心上義。 今性相二宗互相非者。 良由不識真心。 每聞心字將謂只是八識。 不知八識但是真心上隨緣之義。 故馬鳴菩薩以一心為法。 以真如生滅二門為義。 論云。 依於此心顯示摩訶衍義。 心真如是體。 心生滅是相用。 只說此心不虛妄故云真。 不變易故云如。 是以論中一一云心真如心生滅。 今時禪者多不識義。 故但呼心為禪。 講者多不識法。 故但約名說義。 隨名生執難可會通。 聞心為淺聞性謂深。 或却以性為法以心為義。 故須約三宗經論相對照之法義既顯。 但歸一心自然無諍。 八心通性相名同義別者。 諸經或毀心是賊。 制令斷除。 或讚心是佛。 勸令修習。 或云善心惡心淨心垢心貪心嗔心慈心悲心。 或云託境心生。 或云心生於境。 或云寂滅為心。 或云緣慮為心。 乃至種種相違。 若不以諸宗相對顯示。 則看經者何以辨之。 為當有多種心。 為復只是一般心耶。 今且略示名體。 汎言心者。 略有四種。 梵語各別翻譯亦殊。 一紇利陀耶。 此云肉團心。 此是身中五藏心也（具如黃庭經五藏論說也）二緣慮心。 此是八識。 俱能緣慮自分境故（色是眼識境。 乃至根身種子器世界是阿賴耶識之境。 各緣一分。 故云自分）此八各有心所善惡之殊。 諸經之中。 目諸心所總名心也。 謂善心惡心等。 三質多耶。 此云集起心。 唯第八識。 積集種子生起現行故（黃庭經五藏論。 目之為神。 西國外道。 計之為我。 皆是此識）四乾栗陀耶。 此云堅實心。 亦云貞實心。 此是真心也。 然第八識無別自體。 但是真心以不覺故。 與諸妄想有和合不和合義。 和合義者。 能含染淨目為藏識。 不和合者。 體常不變目為真如。 都是如來藏。 故楞伽云。 寂滅者名為一心。 一心者即如來藏。 如來藏亦是在纏法身。 如勝鬘經說。 故知四種心本同一體。 故密嚴經云。 佛說如來藏（法身在纏之名）以為阿賴耶（藏識）惡慧不能知藏即賴耶識（有執真如與賴耶體別者。 是惡慧）如來清淨藏世間阿賴耶。 如金與指鐶展轉無差別（指鐶等喻賴耶。 金喻真如。 都名如來藏）然雖同體。 真妄義別本末亦殊。 前三是相後一是性。 依性起相蓋有因由。 會相歸性非無所以。 性相無礙都是一心。 迷之即觸面向牆。 悟之即萬法臨鏡。 若空尋文句。 或信胸襟。 於此一心性相如何了會。 九悟修頓漸似反而符者。 謂諸經論及諸禪門。 或云先因漸修功成。 豁然頓悟。 或云先須頓悟方可漸修。 或云由頓修故漸悟。 或云悟修皆漸。 或云皆頓。 或云法無頓漸頓漸在機。 如上等說。 各有意義。 言以反者。 謂既悟即成佛本無煩惱名為頓者。 即不應修斷。 何得復云漸修。 漸修即是煩惱未盡。 因行未圓。 果德未滿。 何名為頓。 頓即非漸。 漸即非頓。 故云相反。 如下對會。 即頓漸非唯不相乖。 反而乃互相資也。 十師資傳授須識藥病者。 > comprehensively answers the previous doubts, thoroughly resolving them all. (Below, following the corresponding points of meaning in the text, notes are added one by one to point them out and answer these various objections. To see where the answers are, one must examine the notes.) Seventh, 'Dharma' and 'meaning' differ, and one must distinguish them well: Whoever wishes to clearly understand the nature and phenomenal marks of all dharmas must first distinguish 'dharma' and 'meaning'. If one understands the meaning in reliance on the dharma, the meaning is clear; if one explains the dharma by means of the meaning, the dharma becomes prominent. Now, let us temporarily explain this with mundane things. Suppose true gold, according to conditions such as a craftsman, is made into bracelets, armlets, bowls, cups, and various vessels; the nature of the gold definitely does not change into copper or iron. The gold is the dharma; not changing and following conditions are the meanings. If someone asks, 'What thing is said to be unchanging? What thing follows conditions?', one should only answer, 'Gold.' This serves as an analogy for the doctrines of the entire canon of sūtras and treatises: they only speak of the mind. The mind is the dharma; everything \[else\] is its meanings. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Immeasurable meanings arise from a single dharma.' Yet immeasurable meanings are subsumed under only two kinds: first, unchanging; second, following conditions. The various sūtras only say that this mind, following the conditions of delusion and awakening, becomes defiled or pure, ordinary or holy, afflicted or awakened, contaminated or uncontaminated, and so forth. They also only say that at the very time this mind is defiled, pure, and so forth, it has originally never changed, being constantly and naturally quiescent, real, suchness, and so forth. If someone asks, 'What dharma is said to be unchanging? What dharma follows conditions?', one should only answer, 'The mind.' Unchanging is the nature; following conditions is the phenomenal mark. One should know that nature and phenomenal marks are both meanings pertaining to the one mind. The reason the two schools of the nature and of phenomenal marks currently disparage each other is entirely because they do not recognize the true mind. Whenever they hear the word 'mind', they assume it refers merely to the eight consciousnesses, not knowing that the eight consciousnesses are merely the meaning of following conditions upon the true mind. Therefore Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa took the one mind as the dharma, and the two gates of suchness and arising-and-ceasing as the meanings. The treatise says: 'In reliance on this mind the meaning of Mahāyāna is revealed.' The mind as suchness is the substance; the mind as arising and ceasing is the phenomenal marks and function. It only says that because this mind is not empty or false, it is called 'true' (tatha); because it does not change, it is called 'such' (tā). For this reason, the treatise repeatedly says 'the mind as suchness' and 'the mind as arising and ceasing'. Contemporary Chan practitioners mostly do not recognize the meanings; therefore they merely call the mind 'Chan'. Lecturers mostly do not recognize the dharma; therefore they merely explain meanings based on names. When attachments arise following names, it is difficult to reconcile and harmonize them. Hearing 'mind', they think it shallow; hearing 'nature', they call it profound. Or they conversely take nature as the dharma and mind as the meaning. Therefore, one must contrast them with the sūtras and treatises of the three schools: once the dharma and its meanings are clarified, when they simply return to the one mind, naturally there will be no dispute. Eighth, the mind pervades both nature and phenomenal marks, where the names are identical but the meanings differ: The various sūtras sometimes disparage the mind as a thief, ordering it to be eliminated; or praise the mind as Buddha, encouraging its cultivation. Sometimes they speak of wholesome minds, unwholesome minds, pure minds, defiled minds, greedy minds, angry minds, compassionate minds, and sympathetic minds; or say the mind arises relying on objects, or that objects arise from the mind; or say quiescence is the mind, or that conceptual thought is the mind, and so forth in various contradictions. If one does not contrast and reveal them through the various schools, how could a reader of the sūtras distinguish them? Does there happen to be many kinds of minds, or is there only a single kind of mind? Now I will briefly indicate their names and substances. Broadly speaking of 'mind', there are briefly four kinds, with distinct Sanskrit terms and different translations: First, hṛdaya, translated here as the physical heart (ròutuánxīn), which is the heart among the five viscera in the body (detailed as explained in the Huangting Jing and the Wuzang Lun). Second, the mind of conceptual thinking (yuánlùxīn), which refers to the eight consciousnesses, because they can each conceptually deliberate their own portion of objects (visible matter is the object of the eye consciousness, up to the physical body with sense faculties, seeds, and the container world being the object of the ālayavijñāna; each takes one portion as object, hence it is said 'its own portion'). These eight each have the distinction of wholesome and unwholesome mental factors (caitasika). In the various sūtras, all these mental factors are collectively called 'mind', referring to wholesome mind, unwholesome mind, and so forth. Third, citta, translated here as the accumulative mind (jíqǐxīn), which is solely the eighth consciousness, because it accumulates seeds and gives rise to active manifestations (the Huangting Jing and the Wuzang Lun designate it as the spirit (shén); non-Buddhist paths in the Western lands regard it as the self; all are this consciousness). Fourth, \*hṛdaya (gānlìtuóyē), translated here as the firm and solid mind, also called the genuine and solid mind, which is the true mind. However, the eighth consciousness has no separate substance of its own; it is simply the true mind, which, through lack of awakening, has the meanings of being combined and uncombined with various delusions. That which has the meaning of being combined can contain defilement and purity, and is designated as the repository consciousness (ālayavijñāna). That which is uncombined, its substance being constantly unchanging, is designated as tathatā. Both are entirely the tathāgatagarbha. Therefore the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: 'Quiescence is named the one mind; the one mind is the tathāgatagarbha.' The tathāgatagarbha is also the dharmakāya while wrapped in defilement, as spoken in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra. Thus we know that the four kinds of mind are fundamentally of the same substance. Therefore the Ghanavyūha Sūtra says: 'The Buddha taught the tathāgatagarbha (the name of the dharmakāya while wrapped in defilement) / to be the ālaya (the repository consciousness). / Those of poor wisdom cannot know / that the repository is the ālaya consciousness. (Those who hold that tathatā and ālaya are of different substances are those of poor wisdom.) / The Tathāgata's pure garbha / is the worldly ālayavijñāna; / like gold and finger rings, / there is ultimately no distinction.' (Finger rings and so forth are an analogy for the ālaya; gold is an analogy for tathatā; both are called tathāgatagarbha.) Although they are of the same substance, the meanings of truth and falsity are distinct, and the root and branch also differ. The first three are phenomenal marks; the last one is the nature. That phenomenal marks arise relying on the nature indeed has its reason; that phenomenal marks are reconciled to return to the nature is not without cause. Nature and phenomenal marks are unhindered; both are the one mind. If one is deluded about it, one bumps one's face facing a wall; if one awakens to it, the ten thousand dharmas are reflected before a mirror. If one merely searches through texts and sentences, or trusts one's own subjective mind, how could one comprehend and reconcile the nature and phenomenal marks of this one mind? Ninth, awakening and cultivation, sudden and gradual, appear opposite yet correspond: In the various sūtras, treatises, and Chan traditions, it is sometimes said that first, by gradual cultivation when the work is accomplished, one is suddenly awakened; sometimes it is said that one must first suddenly awaken and only then cultivate gradually; sometimes it is said that due to sudden cultivation one gradually awakens; sometimes it is said that both awakening and cultivation are gradual; sometimes it is said both are sudden; and sometimes it is said that the Dharma has neither sudden nor gradual, but sudden and gradual depend on spiritual capacity. Such teachings each have their significance. Speaking of being opposite: if awakening is attaining Buddhahood and inherently lacking afflictions, which is called 'sudden', then one should not cultivate to sever them; how can one further speak of gradual cultivation? Gradual cultivation means afflictions are not yet exhausted, causal practices are not yet complete, and fruitional virtues are not yet fulfilled; how could it be called 'sudden'? Sudden is not gradual; gradual is not sudden; hence they are said to be opposite. When reconciled below, sudden and gradual will not only not contradict each other, but conversely assist each other. Tenth, the transmission between master and disciple requires knowing the medicine and the illness: > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.12.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.3) - [Next: 1.12.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.5) - [Up: 1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015~en-mt.1.12.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.4.21) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.1.12.4) · Pramāṇa