[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) › 2.2 # 禪源諸詮集都序 2.2 禪源諸詮集都序 2.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.2.2.1) 上之三教。 攝盡佛一代所說之經。 及諸菩薩所造之論。 細尋法義。 便見三義全殊。 一法無別。 就三義中。 第一第二空有相對。 第三第一性相相對。 皆條然易見。 唯第二第三破相與顯性相對。 講者禪者同迷。 皆謂同是一宗一教。 皆以破相便為真性。 故今廣辨空宗性宗有其十異。 一法義真俗異。 二心性二名異。 三性字二體異。 四真智真知異。 五有我無我異。 六遮詮表詮異。 七認名認體異。 八二諦三諦異。 九三性空有異。 十佛德空有異。 初法義真俗異者。 空宗緣未顯真靈之性故。 但以一切差別之相為法。 法是俗諦。 照此諸法。 無為無相。 無生無滅。 無增無減等為義。 義是真諦。 故智度論以俗諦為法無礙辯。 以真諦為義無礙辯。 性宗則以一真之性為法。 空有等種種差別為義。 故經云。 無量義者從一法生。 華嚴十地亦云。 法者知自性。 義者知生滅。 法者知真諦。 義者知俗諦。 法者知一乘。 義者知諸乘。 如是十番釋法義二無礙義。 皆以法為真諦。 以義為俗諦。 二心性二名異者。 空宗一向目諸法本源為性。 性宗多目諸法本源為心。 目為性者諸論多同。 不必敘述目為心者。 勝鬘云。 自性清淨心。 起信云。 一切法從本以來離言說名字心緣等相。 乃至唯是一心。 楞伽云。 堅實心。 良由此宗所說本性不但空寂而乃自然常知。 故應目為心也。 三性字二體異者。 空宗以諸法無性為性。 性宗以靈明常住不空之體為性。 故性字雖同。 而體異也。 四真智真知異者。 空宗以分別為知。 無分別為智。 智深知淺。 性宗以能證聖理之妙慧為智。 以該於理。 智通於凡聖之靈。 性為知。 知通智局。 上引問明品已自分別。 況十迴向品說真如云。 照明為性。 起信說。 真如自體真實識知。 五有我無我異者。 空宗以有我為妄。 無我為真。 性宗以無我為妄。 有我為真。 故涅槃經云。 無我者名為生死。 有我者名為如來。 又云。 我計無我是顛倒法。 乃至廣破二乘無常無我之見。 如春池執礫為寶。 廣讚常樂我淨而為究竟。 乃至云無我法中有真我（良由眾生迷自真我。 妄執五蘊為我。 故佛於大小乘法相及破相教中破之云無。 今於性宗直明實體。 故顯之云有也）。 六遮詮表詮異者。 遮謂遣其所非。 表謂顯其所是。 又遮者揀却諸餘。 表者直示當體。 如諸經所說真妙理性。 每云。 不生不滅。 不垢不淨。 無因無果。 無相無為。 非凡非聖。 非性非相等。 皆是遮詮（諸經論中。 每以非字非却諸法。 動即有三十五十箇非字也。 不字無字亦爾。 故云絕百非）若云知見覺。 照靈鑒光明。 朗朗昭昭。 惺惺寂寂等。 皆是表詮。 若無知見等體。 顯何法為性。 說何法不生滅等。 必須認得見今了然。 而知即是心性。 方說此知不生不滅等。 如說鹽云不淡是遮。 云鹹是表。 說水云不乾是遮。 云濕是表。 諸教每云絕百非者。 皆是遮詞直顯一真。 方為表語。 空宗之言但是遮詮。 性宗之言有遮有表。 但遮者未了。 兼表者乃的。 今時學人皆謂。 遮言為深。 表言為淺。 故唯重非心非佛。 無為無相。 乃至一切不可得之言。 良由但以遮非之詞為妙。 不欲親自證認法體。 故如此也（悟息後即任遮表臨時）七認名認體異者。 謂佛法世法一一皆有名體。 且如世間稱大不過四物。 如智論云。 地水火風是四物名。 堅濕暖動是四物體。 今且說水。 設有人問。 每聞澄之即清。 混之即濁。 堰之即止。 決之即流。 而能溉灌萬物洗滌萬穢。 此是何物（舉功能義用而問也）答云。 是水（舉名答也）愚者認名便謂已解。 智者應更問云。 何者是水（徵其體也）答云。 濕即是水（剋體指也。 此一言便定更無別字可替也。 > The three teachings above subsume all the sūtras spoken by the Buddha in his lifetime and the treatises composed by the various bodhisattvas. When one closely investigates their doctrinal principles, one readily sees that while their three meanings are completely distinct, the one Dharma is without difference. Among the three meanings: the first and the second stand in contrast as emptiness and existence; the third and the first stand in contrast as nature and phenomenal marks. Both are clearly demarcated and easy to see. It is only the second and third—refuting phenomenal marks versus revealing the nature—which stand in contrast, where both lecturers and Chan practitioners are equally deluded. Both claim they are the same single school and the same single teaching, and both regard refuting phenomenal marks as being itself the true nature. Therefore, I now broadly distinguish ten differences between the Śūnyatā school and the Tathāgatagarbha school: 1. Difference regarding the ultimate and worldly \[aspects\] of Dharma and meaning; 2. Difference regarding the two designations “mind” and “nature”; 3. Difference regarding the two substances for the word “nature”; 4. Difference regarding true wisdom and true awareness; 5. Difference regarding having a self and not having a self; 6. Difference regarding negative expression and positive expression; 7. Difference regarding recognizing the name and recognizing the substance; 8. Difference regarding the two truths and the three truths; 9. Difference regarding the emptiness and existence of the three natures; 10. Difference regarding the emptiness and existence of the Buddha's virtues. First, as for the difference regarding the ultimate and worldly \[aspects\] of Dharma and meaning: Because the Śūnyatā school has not yet revealed the true and numinous nature, it merely takes all differentiated marks as Dharma—Dharma being the worldly truth; and contemplating that these phenomena are unconditioned, markless, without arising, without cessation, without increase, without decrease, and so forth, as meaning—meaning being the ultimate truth. Hence the Dazhidulun takes the worldly truth as the unhindered eloquence regarding Dharma, and the ultimate truth as the unhindered eloquence regarding meaning. The Tathāgatagarbha school, on the other hand, takes the one true nature as Dharma, and the various distinctions such as emptiness and existence as meaning. Thus a sūtra says: “Immeasurable meanings arise from the one Dharma.” The Chapter on the Ten Grounds in the Avataṃsaka also says: “‘Dharma’ means knowing the intrinsic nature; ‘meaning’ means knowing arising and cessation. ‘Dharma’ means knowing the ultimate truth; ‘meaning’ means knowing the worldly truth. ‘Dharma’ means knowing the One Vehicle; ‘meaning’ means knowing the various vehicles.” The explanations of the two kinds of unhindered eloquence regarding Dharma and meaning in these ten iterations all take Dharma as the ultimate truth and meaning as the worldly truth. Second, as for the difference regarding the two designations “mind” and “nature”: The Śūnyatā school consistently designates the fundamental source of all phenomena as “nature”; the Tathāgatagarbha school mostly designates the fundamental source of all phenomena as “mind.” Since treatises mostly agree on designating it as “nature,” there is no need to recount them. As for designating it as “mind”: The Śrīmālā says, “The inherently pure mind”; the Awakening of Faith says, “All phenomena from the beginning are free from marks such as verbal explanation, names, and mental conditioning \[…\] up to being merely the one mind”; the Laṅkāvatāra says, “The solid mind.” It is truly because the fundamental nature explained by this school is not only empty and quiescent, but also naturally and constantly aware; therefore it ought to be designated as “mind.” Third, as for the difference regarding the two substances for the word “nature”: The Śūnyatā school takes the non-nature of all phenomena as the nature; the Tathāgatagarbha school takes the numinous, luminous, eternally abiding, and non-empty substance as the nature. Thus, although the word “nature” is the same, its substance is different. Fourth, as for the difference regarding true wisdom and true awareness: The Śūnyatā school takes conceptual differentiation as awareness and non-conceptualization as wisdom—wisdom being deep and awareness being shallow. The Tathāgatagarbha school takes the wondrous insight capable of realizing the sacred principle as wisdom, and takes the numinous nature that pervades principle and wisdom and extends throughout the ordinary and the sacred as awareness—awareness being pervasive and wisdom being limited. The citation from the “Questions of the Clarification” chapter above has already made this distinction. Furthermore, the “Ten Dedications” chapter explains tathatā saying, “Illumination is its nature”; and the Awakening of Faith says, “The substance of tathatā itself truly knows and perceives.” Fifth, as for the difference regarding having a self and not having a self: The Śūnyatā school takes having a self as delusion and not having a self as truth; the Tathāgatagarbha school takes not having a self as delusion and having a self as truth. Thus the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: “That which has no self is called saṃsāra; that which has a self is called the Tathāgata.” It also says: “Taking the non-self as self is an inverted view,” up to broadly refuting the views of impermanence and non-self held by the two vehicles, like holding pebbles to be jewels in a spring pool, and broadly praising eternity, bliss, self, and purity as the ultimate, even saying that within the dharma of non-self there is a true self. (This is truly because sentient beings are deluded about their own true self and mistakenly grasp the five aggregates as the self; therefore the Buddha, in the phenomenal-mark teachings of the Greater and Lesser Vehicles and in the teaching of refuting phenomenal marks, refuted it, saying there is none. Now, in the Tathāgatagarbha school, directly illuminating the real substance, he reveals it, saying there is one.) Sixth, as for the difference regarding negative expression and positive expression: “Negative” means dismissing what is wrong; “positive” means revealing what is right. Furthermore, negative is eliminating all else; positive is pointing directly to the substance itself. Just as the true and wondrous principle-nature explained across various sūtras is frequently stated as: unarisen and unceasing, neither defiled nor pure, without cause and without effect, markless and unconditioned, neither ordinary nor sacred, neither nature nor phenomenal marks, and so on—these are all negative expressions. (Throughout the sūtras and treatises, they frequently negate all phenomena with the word “not” (fei); often there are thirty or fifty “not” words in a single passage. The words “un-” (bu) and “non-” (wu) are also like this. Hence it is said to “cut off the hundred negations.”) If one says knowing and seeing, awareness and illumination, numinous mirror and radiant brilliance, clear and distinct, alert and quiescent, and so forth—these are all positive expressions. If there were no substance of knowing, seeing, and so forth, what phenomenon would be revealed as the nature? What phenomenon would be said to be unarisen, unceasing, and so forth? One must recognize that which is clearly apparent right now and realize that awareness is itself the cittatā; only then can one say that this awareness is unarisen, unceasing, and so forth. For instance, speaking of salt, saying “it is not bland” is negative; saying “it is salty” is positive. Speaking of water, saying “it is not dry” is negative; saying “it is wet” is positive. When the various teachings frequently say “cutting off the hundred negations,” these are all negative expressions; directly revealing the single truth is the only positive expression. The words of the Śūnyatā school are solely negative expressions; the words of the Tathāgatagarbha school have both negative and positive. Merely being negative is incomplete; combining it with the positive is precise. Contemporary students all claim that negative words are profound and positive words are shallow; hence they value solely phrases such as “neither mind nor Buddha,” “unconditioned and markless,” up to “everything is ungraspable.” This is truly because they consider merely the words dismissing error to be wondrous and do not wish to personally realize and recognize the substance of the Dharma; this is why they are like this. (After awakening, one is free to use negative or positive according to the occasion.) Seventh, as for the difference regarding recognizing the name and recognizing the substance: This means that Buddhist dharmas and worldly dharmas each possess a name and a substance. Taking worldly things as an example, those called “great” do not exceed four things. As the Zhidu lun says: earth, water, fire, and wind are the names of the four things; solidity, moisture, warmth, and motion are the substances of the four things. Now let us speak of water: Suppose someone asks: “I always hear that settling it makes it clear, stirring it makes it turbid, damming it makes it stop, and breaching it makes it flow; and that it can irrigate the myriad things and wash clean the myriad impurities. What thing is this?” (This is asking by citing its functional characteristics and applications.) The answer says: “It is water.” (This is answering by citing the name.) The foolish person recognizes the name and immediately claims to have understood. The wise person should further ask: “What is water?” (This is investigating its substance.) The answer says: “Moisture is water.” (This points decisively to the substance. With this single word, it is settled, and there is no other word that can replace it.) > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.2.2.2) 若云水波清濁凝流是水　何異他所問之詞）佛法亦爾。 設有人問。 每聞諸經云。 迷之即垢。 悟之即淨。 縱之即凡。 修之即聖。 能生世間出世間一切諸法。 此是何物（舉功能義用而問也）答云。 是心（舉名答也）愚者認名便謂已識。 智者應更問。 何者是心（徵其體也）答知即是心（指其體也。 此言最的。 餘字不如。 若云非性非相能語言運動等是心者。 何異他所問詞也）以此而推水之名體。 各唯一字。 餘皆義用。 心之名體亦然。 濕之一字貫於清濁等萬用萬義之中。 知之一字亦貫於貪嗔慈忍善惡苦樂萬用萬義之處。 今時學禪人多疑云。 達摩但說心。 荷澤何以說知。 如此疑者。 豈不似疑云比只聞井中有水。 云何今日忽覺井中濕耶。 思之思之。 直須悟得水是名不是。 濕濕是水不是名。 即清濁水波凝流。 無義不通也。 以例心是名不是知。 知是心不是名。 即真妄垢淨善惡。 無義不通也。 空宗相宗為對。 初學及淺機。 恐隨言生執。 故但標名而遮其非。 唯廣以義用而引其意。 性宗對久學及上根令忘言認體。 故一言直示（達摩云。 指一言以直示。 後人意不解尋思。 何者是一言。 若云即心是佛是一言者。 此是四言。 何為名一也）認得體已。 方於體上照察義用。 故無不通矣。 八二諦三諦異者。 空宗所說世出世間一切諸法不出二諦。 學者皆知。 不必引釋。 性宗則攝一切性相及自體總為三諦。 以緣起色等諸法為俗諦。 緣無自性諸法即空為真諦（此與空宗相宗一諦。 義無別也）一真心體。 非空非色。 能空能色。 為中道第一義諦。 其猶明鏡。 亦具三義。 鏡中影像。 不得呼青為黃。 妍媸各別。 如俗諦影無自性一一全空。 如真諦其體常明。 非空非青黃。 能空能青黃。 如第一義諦。 具如瓔珞大品本業等經所說。 故天台宗依此三諦修三止三觀。 成就三德也。 九三性空有異者。 三性謂遍計所執性（妄情於我及一切法周遍計度。 一一執為實有。 如癡孩鏡中見人面像執為有命質礙骨肉等）依地起性（此所執法。 依他眾緣相因而起。 都無自性。 唯是虛相。 如鏡中影像也）圓成實性（本覺真心始覺顯現。 圓滿成就。 真實常住。 如鏡之明）空宗云。 諸經每說有者。 即約遍計依他。 每說空者。 即是圓成實性。 三法皆無性也。 性宗即三法。 皆具空有之義。 謂遍計情有理無。 依他相有性無。 圓成情無理有。 相無性有。 十佛德空有異者。 空宗說佛以空為德。 無有少法是名菩提。 色見聲求皆行邪道。 中論云。 非陰不離陰。 此彼不相在。 如來不有陰。 何處有如來。 離一切相即名諸佛。 性宗則一切諸佛自體。 皆有常樂我淨。 十身十智真實功德。 相好通光一一無盡。 性自本有不待機緣。 十異歷然二門煥矣。 雖分教相亦勿滯情。 三教三宗是一味法。 故須先約三種佛教證三宗禪心。 然後禪教雙忘心佛俱寂。 俱寂即念念皆佛。 無一念而非佛心。 雙忘即句句皆禪。 無一句而非禪教。 如此則自然聞泯絕無寄之說。 知是破我執情。 聞息妄修心之言。 知是斷我習氣。 執情破而真性顯。 即泯絕是顯性之宗。 習氣盡而佛道成。 即修心是成佛之行。 頓漸空有既無所乖。 荷澤江西秀能豈不相契。 若能如是通達。 則為他人說無非妙方。 聞他人說無非妙藥。 藥之與病。 只在執之與通。 故先德云。 執則字字瘡疣。 通則文文妙藥。 通者了三宗不相違也。 問前云。 佛說頓教漸教。 禪開頓門漸門。 未審三種教中何頓何漸。 答法義深淺已備盡於三種。 但以世尊說時儀式不同。 有稱理頓說。 有隨機漸說。 故復名頓教漸教。 非三教外別有頓漸。 漸者為中下根即時未能信悟圓覺妙理者。 > (If one says that the water, waves, clarity, turbidity, freezing, and flowing are water, how does that differ from the other's question?) The Buddhadharma is also like this. Suppose someone asks: "I frequently hear various sūtras say: 'Confused, it is defiled; awakened, it is pure. Let loose, it is ordinary; cultivated, it is noble. It can produce all worldly and transmundane dharmas.' What thing is this?" (This is asking by raising its functions, meanings, and operations.) The answer says: "It is the mind." (This answers by raising the name.) The foolish take the name and think they already know it. The wise should further ask: "What is the mind?" (This inquires into its substance.) The answer says: "Awareness is the mind." (This points directly to its substance. This word is the most precise; other words are not as good. If one says that being neither svabhāva nor lakṣaṇa, or being able to speak and move, is the mind, how does that differ from the words of the other's question?) Deducing from this, the name and substance of water are each only one single character; all the rest are meanings and functions. The name and substance of mind are also like this. The single character "wetness" pervades the myriad functions and meanings such as clarity and turbidity; the single character "awareness" likewise pervades the myriad functions and meanings such as greed, anger, compassion, patience, good, evil, suffering, and joy. Nowadays, many students of Chan doubt, saying: "Bodhidharma only spoke of mind; why did Heze speak of awareness?" Is not one who doubts like this similar to one who doubts, saying: "Formerly I only heard there is water in the well; why today do I suddenly perceive wetness in the well?" Reflect upon this, reflect upon this! One must directly awaken to the fact that "water" is the name, not wetness, and "wetness" is the water, not the name; then, regarding clarity, turbidity, water, waves, freezing, and flowing, there is no meaning that is not understood. Analogously, "mind" is the name, not awareness, and "awareness" is the mind, not the name; then, regarding the true, the false, defilement, purity, good, and evil, there is no meaning that is not understood. The Śūnyatā school and the Lakṣaṇa school are intended for beginners and those of shallow capacity; fearing that they might give rise to attachment following the words, they only mark the name and refute its errors, extensively using only meanings and functions to guide their understanding. The Tathāgatagarbha school is for long-practicing students and those of superior faculties, causing them to forget words and recognize the substance; therefore, it directly shows it in a single word. (Bodhidharma said: "Point to a single word to directly show it." Later people did not understand the meaning and searched, wondering what this single word was. If one says that "This very mind is Buddha" is the single word, this is four words; how could it be called one?) Once the substance is recognized, one only then contemplates its meanings and functions upon that substance; therefore, nothing is not understood. Eighth, the difference between two truths and three truths: All worldly and transmundane dharmas explained by the Śūnyatā school do not go beyond two truths. Practitioners all know this; there is no need to cite and explain it. The Tathāgatagarbha school, however, subsumes all nature, lakṣaṇas, and the substance itself altogether into three truths: It takes the dependently arisen form and other dharmas as the conventional truth; it takes the lack of svabhāva in conditions, so that all dharmas are empty, as the ultimate truth (this does not differ in meaning from the single truth of the Śūnyatā school and Lakṣaṇa school); and the single true mind's substance, which is neither empty nor form, yet capable of being empty and capable of being form, is the supreme ultimate truth of the middle way. It is just like a bright mirror, which also possesses three meanings: The reflection in the mirror cannot be called yellow when it is blue, and beautiful and ugly are distinct, which is like the conventional truth; the reflection has no svabhāva and is entirely empty, which is like the ultimate truth; its substance is constantly bright, neither empty nor blue or yellow, yet capable of being empty and capable of being blue or yellow, which is like the supreme truth. This is fully explained as in the Yingluo, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, the Benye, and other sūtras. Therefore, the Tiantai school relies on these three truths to cultivate the three cessations and three contemplations, accomplishing the three virtues. Ninth, the difference regarding the emptiness and existence of the three natures: The three natures refer to the parikalpita-svabhāva (deluded emotion comprehensively conceptualizes the self and all dharmas, grasping each as truly existent; just like a foolish child seeing a human face's reflection in a mirror and grasping it as having life, obstruction, bones, and flesh); the paratantra-svabhāva (these grasped dharmas arise dependently on various other conditions and have no svabhāva at all, being merely illusory appearances, like reflections in a mirror); and the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva (the inherently enlightened true mind revealed through initial awakening, completely accomplished, true, and constantly abiding, like the clarity of the mirror). The Śūnyatā school says: Whenever the sūtras speak of existence, it is in terms of the parikalpita and paratantra; whenever they speak of emptiness, it is the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva. All three dharmas lack svabhāva. The Tathāgatagarbha school holds that all three dharmas possess the meanings of both emptiness and existence: parikalpita exists in emotion but is absent in principle; paratantra exists in lakṣaṇa but is absent in svabhāva; pariniṣpanna is absent in emotion but exists in principle, absent in lakṣaṇa but existent in svabhāva. Tenth, the difference regarding the emptiness and existence of Buddha-virtues: The Śūnyatā school explains that the Buddha takes emptiness as virtue; having not the slightest dharma is called bodhi; seeking through form or sound is practicing a heterodox path. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "Neither identical to the aggregates nor separate from the aggregates; these do not reside in each other. The Tathāgata does not possess the aggregates; where is the Tathāgata?" Being free from all lakṣaṇas is called the Buddhas. In the Tathāgatagarbha school, however, the very substance of all Buddhas possesses eternity, bliss, self, and purity, the true merits of the ten bodies and ten knowledges; the major and minor marks, spiritual powers, and radiance are each inexhaustible; they are inherent in the svabhāva itself, not awaiting faculties and conditions. The ten differences are distinctly evident, and the two approaches shine brightly. Although the doctrinal marks are distinguished, do not remain attached in emotion. The three teachings and the three schools are a single-taste Dharma. Therefore, one must first rely on the three kinds of Buddhist teachings to verify the three schools of Chan mind, and afterward, both Chan and teaching are forgotten, and mind and Buddha are both quiescent. When both are quiescent, then every thought is the Buddha, and there is not a single thought that is not the Buddha-mind. When both are forgotten, then every phrase is Chan, and there is not a single phrase that is not Chan teaching. In this way, when one hears the exposition of absolute extinction and non-reliance, one naturally knows it is refuting one's grasping emotions; when one hears the words of pacifying delusion and cultivating the mind, one knows it is severing one's habit energies. When grasping emotions are broken, the true nature is revealed; thus absolute extinction is the school that reveals the nature. When habit energies are exhausted, the Buddha path is accomplished; thus cultivating the mind is the practice that accomplishes Buddhahood. Since sudden and gradual, emptiness and existence, do not contradict one another, how could Heze, Jiangxi, Shenxiu, and Huineng fail to accord with each other? If one can comprehend in this way, then explaining for others is nothing other than a wonderful prescription, and hearing others explain is nothing other than wonderful medicine. Medicine and illness lie solely in attachment and comprehension. Therefore, the virtuous of old said: "Attached, every character is a sore and a wart; comprehending, every phrase is a wonderful medicine." One who comprehends understands that the three schools do not contradict each other. Question: Previously you said that the Buddha taught the sudden teaching and the gradual teaching, and Chan opened the sudden gate and the gradual gate. I do not yet know among the three kinds of teachings, which is sudden and which is gradual? Answer: The depths of Dharma and meanings are already completely exhausted in the three kinds. It is only because the forms and manners when the World-Honoured One spoke were not the same: there was speaking suddenly in accord with the principle, and speaking gradually in accordance with faculties; therefore they are further called sudden teaching and gradual teaching. There are no sudden and gradual teachings apart from the three teachings. The gradual is for those of medium and lower faculties who cannot immediately believe in and awaken to the wonderful principle of complete enlightenment. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.2.2.3) 且說前人天小乘乃至法相（上皆第一教也）破相（第二教也）待其根器成熟。 方為說於了義。 即法華涅槃等經是也（此及下逐機頓教合為第三教也。 其化儀頓即總攝三般。 西域此方古今諸德。 所判教為三時五時者。 但是漸教一類。 不攝華嚴經等）頓者復二。 一逐機頓。 二化儀頓。 逐機頓者。 遇凡夫上根利智。 直示真法。 聞即頓悟全同佛果。 如華嚴中初發心時即得阿耨菩提。 圓覺經中觀行成時即成佛道。 然始同前二教中行門。 慚除凡習漸顯聖德。 如風激動大海不能現像。 風若頓息則波浪漸停影像漸顯也（風喻迷情。 海喻心性。 波喻煩惱。 影喻功用。 起信論中一一配合）即華嚴一分及圓覺佛頂密嚴勝鬘如來藏之類二十餘部經是也。 遇機即說不定初後與禪門第三直顯心性宗全相同也。 二化儀頓。 謂佛初成道。 為宿世緣熟上根之流。 一時頓說性相理事。 眾生萬惑。 菩薩萬行。 賢聖地位諸佛萬德。 因該果海。 初心即得菩提。 果徹因源。 位滿猶稱菩薩。 此唯華嚴一經及十地論。 名為圓頓教。 餘皆不備。 （前敘外難云。 頓悟成佛是違經者。 余今於此通了）其中所說。 諸法是全一心之證法。 一心是全諸法之一心。 性相圓融一多自在。 故諸佛與眾生交徹。 淨土與穢土融通。 法法皆彼此互收。 塵塵悉包含世界。 相入相即無礙鎔融。 具十玄門重重無盡。 名為無障礙法界。 此上頓漸皆就佛約教而說。 若就機約悟修說者。 意又不同。 如前所敘諸家。 有云。 先因漸修功成而豁然頓悟（猶如伐木片片漸斫一時頓倒。 亦如遠詣都城。 步步漸行。 一日頓到也）有云。 因頓修而漸悟（如人學射。 頓者箭箭直注意在中的。 漸者日久方始漸親漸中。 此說運心頓修。 不言功行頓畢）有云。 因漸修而漸悟（如登九層之臺。 足履漸高。 所見漸遠。 故有人云。 欲窮千里目。 更上一層樓）等者。 皆說證悟也。 有云。 先須頓悟方可漸修者。 此約解悟也（約斷障說。 如日頓出霜露漸消。 約成德說。 如孩子生。 即頓具四肢六根。 長即漸成志氣功業）故華嚴說。 初發心時即成正覺。 然後三賢十聖次第修證。 若未悟而修非真修也（良以非真流之行無以稱真。 何有修真之行不從真起。 故彼經說。 若未聞說此法。 多劫修六度行。 畢竟不能證真也）有云。 頓悟頓修者。 此說上上智根性樂欲俱勝（根勝故悟欲勝故修）一聞千悟得大總持。 一念不生前後際斷（斷障如斬一綟絲。 萬條頓斷。 修德如染一綟絲。 萬條頓色也。 荷澤云。 見無念體不逐物生。 又云。 一念與本性相應。 便具河沙功德。 八萬四千波羅蜜門。 一時齊用也）此人三業唯獨自明了。 餘人所不見（金剛三昧經云。 空心不動具六波羅蜜。 法華亦說。 父母所生眼耳徹見三千界等也）且就事跡而言之。 如牛頭融大師之類也。 此門有二意。 若因悟而修。 即是解悟。 若因修而悟。 即是證悟。 然上皆只約今生而論。 若遠推宿世則唯漸無頓。 今頓見者。 已是多生漸熏而發現也。 有云。 法無頓漸。 頓漸在機者。 誠哉此理。 固不在言。 本只論機。 誰言法體頓漸義意有此多門。 門門有意。 非強穿鑿。 況楞伽四漸四頓（義與漸修頓悟相類）此猶不敢繁云。 比見時輩論者。 但有頓漸之言。 都不分析。 就教有化儀之頓漸。 應機之頓漸。 就人有教授方便之頓漸。 根性悟入之頓漸。 發意修行之頓漸。 於中唯云先頓悟後漸修。 似違反也。 欲絕疑者。 豈不見日光頓出霜露漸消。 孩子頓生（四肢六根即具）志氣漸立（肌膚人物業藝皆漸成也）猛風頓息波浪漸停。 明良頓成禮樂漸學（如高貴子孫。 於小時亂沒落為奴。 生來自不知貴時清父母訪得當日全身是貴人。 而行跡去就不可頓改。 > Moreover, having first expounded the vehicle of humans and devas, the Hīnayāna, and up to the phenomenal marks of dharmas (all the above being the first teaching), and the refutation of phenomenal marks (the second teaching), one waits until their capacities have matured before finally expounding the definitive meaning for them—that is, sūtras such as the Lotus and the Nirvāṇa (this and the following sudden teaching that adapts to capacity combine to form the third teaching. Its suddenness of pedagogical format comprehensively subsumes the three classes. As for the classification of teachings into three periods or five periods by ancient and modern masters of the Western Regions and this land, these are merely one category of gradual teaching and do not subsume the Avataṃsaka-sūtra and so forth). As for the sudden, there are again two kinds: first, the sudden that adapts to capacity; second, the sudden of pedagogical format. As for the sudden that adapts to capacity, when encountering ordinary beings of the highest capacity and sharpest faculties, one directly indicates the true Dharma; upon hearing it, they suddenly awaken and are entirely identical with the fruit of buddhahood, just as the Avataṃsaka states that at the moment of first generating the mind \[for bodhi\], one immediately attains anuttarā bodhi, and the Perfect Awakening Sūtra states that when the practice of contemplation is perfected, one immediately achieves the buddha path. Yet only then does one enter the gates of practice in the preceding two teachings, gradually eliminating ordinary habits and gradually revealing holy virtues, like a violent wind agitating the great ocean so that it cannot reflect images: if the wind suddenly ceases, the waves gradually subside, and the reflections gradually appear (the wind is a metaphor for deluded passions; the ocean is a metaphor for the nature of mind; the waves are a metaphor for afflictions; the reflections are a metaphor for functional qualities; they are matched one by one in the Awakening of Faith). This refers to a portion of the Avataṃsaka, as well as more than twenty sūtras such as the Perfect Awakening, the Śūraṅgama, the Ghanavyūha, the Śrīmālā, and the Tathāgatagarbha. Expounded whenever an appropriate capacity is met, without fixed order of earlier or later, it is completely identical with the third Chan school, which directly reveals the nature of mind. Second, the sudden of pedagogical format means that when the Buddha first attained the path, for those of superior faculties whose conditions from past lives had matured, he suddenly expounded all at once the nature and phenomenal marks, principle and phenomena, the myriad delusions of sentient beings, the myriad practices of bodhisattvas, the stages of the worthy and the holy, and the myriad virtues of all buddhas. The cause encompasses the ocean of fruition—upon first generating the mind, one attains bodhi; the fruition penetrates the source of the cause—even when fulfilling the stages, one is still called a bodhisattva. This belongs solely to the single Avataṃsaka-sūtra and the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, and is named the round and sudden teaching; the others are not fully equipped with it. (Earlier, I set forth an external objection saying that sudden awakening to achieve buddhahood contradicts the sūtras; I have now resolved it here.) What is expounded in it is that all dharmas are the confirmed dharmas of the complete one mind, and the one mind is the one mind of the complete array of all dharmas. Nature and phenomenal marks are interfused, and the one and the many are unobstructed. Therefore, all buddhas and sentient beings interpenetrate, pure lands and defiled lands are harmoniously integrated, every dharma mutually encompasses one another, and every dust mote contains worlds. Mutual entering and mutual identity are unobstructed and fused; equipped with the ten profound gates, layer upon layer without end, it is called the unobstructed dharmadhātu. The above sudden and gradual are expounded in reference to the Buddha's teachings. If expounded in reference to the practitioner's capacity regarding awakening and cultivation, the meaning is again different. As described earlier among the various schools, some say that first, due to the completion of gradual cultivation, one suddenly has a breakthrough awakening (just as in chopping a tree, it is hewn chip by chip gradually and falls all at once, or like traveling far to the capital city, walking step by step gradually and arriving suddenly in one day). Some say that on account of sudden cultivation, one gradually awakens (like a person learning archery: the sudden is that with each arrow one directly focuses attention on hitting the mark; the gradual is that only after a long time does one gradually get closer and gradually hit the mark; this speaks of suddenly cultivating by directing the mind, not that the practice and merit are suddenly completed). Some say that on account of gradual cultivation, one gradually awakens (like ascending a nine-storied terrace: as the feet step gradually higher, what is seen is gradually farther; hence someone said: 'Desiring to exhaust the thousand-mile view, climb yet one more flight of stairs'). These all speak of awakening through realization. Some say that one must first suddenly awaken, and only then can one gradually cultivate; this refers to awakening through understanding (in terms of severing hindrances, it is like the sun suddenly rising and the frost and dew gradually dissipating; in terms of accomplishing virtues, it is like an infant being born, who suddenly possesses four limbs and six sense faculties, but whose resolve, spirit, and accomplishments are established only gradually). Therefore the Avataṃsaka states: 'At the time of first generating the mind, one immediately realizes correct awakening'; thereafter, the three grades of the worthy and the ten ranks of the holy cultivate and realize in sequence. If one cultivates without having awakened, it is not true cultivation (simply because practices that do not flow from the real cannot correspond to the real; how could any practice of cultivating the real not arise from the real? Therefore that sūtra states that if one has not heard this Dharma expounded, even if one cultivates the six pāramitās for many kalpas, one ultimately cannot realize the real). Some speak of sudden awakening and sudden cultivation; this refers to those of the highest wisdom and faculty whose inclinations and desires are both superior (because their faculties are superior, they awaken; because their desires are superior, they cultivate). Hearing once, they understand a thousand things and attain the great dhāraṇī; not a single thought arises, and the intervals before and after are severed (severing hindrances is like cutting a skein of silk: ten thousand threads are severed at once; cultivating virtues is like dyeing a skein of silk: ten thousand threads take on color at once. Heze said: 'Seeing the substance of nirvikalpa, one does not follow objects in arising.' He also said: 'When a single thought corresponds with the original nature, one is endowed with virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges, and the eighty-four thousand pāramitā gates function together at once'). The three karmas of such a person are distinctly clear only to themselves, unseen by others (the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra says: 'With the empty mind unmoved, one possesses the six pāramitās.' The Lotus Sūtra also says: 'The eyes and ears born of parents thoroughly see the three-thousandfold world,' and so forth). In terms of actual historical deeds, it is exemplified by Master Rong of Niutou and his kind. This approach has two senses: if one cultivates on account of awakening, it is awakening through understanding; if one awakens on account of cultivation, it is awakening through realization. However, all the above are discussed only in reference to the present life; if traced back far into past lives, there is only the gradual and no sudden. What is seen suddenly today is already the manifestation of gradual perfuming over many lives. Some say that the Dharma has neither sudden nor gradual, but sudden and gradual reside in the capacity; this principle is indeed true, and naturally goes without saying. Originally, we were only discussing capacity; who said the substance of the Dharma has sudden and gradual? The import of the doctrines contains these many gates, and each gate has its point, not being a forced contrivance. Moreover, the Laṅkāvatāra's four graduals and four suddens (whose meaning is similar to gradual cultivation and sudden awakening)—I do not dare elaborate on these here. Lately I have observed contemporaries in their discussions merely having the words 'sudden' and 'gradual' without analyzing them at all. In terms of teaching, there are the sudden and gradual of pedagogical format, and the sudden and gradual of responding to capacity. In terms of persons, there are the sudden and gradual of instructional upāyas, the sudden and gradual of faculties' awakening and entry, and the sudden and gradual of generating the intention and practicing cultivation. Among these, merely saying 'first sudden awakening, then gradual cultivation' seems contradictory. For those who wish to end their doubts: do they not see the sunlight suddenly emerging and the frost and dew gradually dissipating; the infant suddenly born (the four limbs and six sense faculties immediately complete), but the resolve and spirit gradually established (the flesh, physical frame, achievements, and skills all being gradually formed); the violent wind suddenly ceasing and the waves gradually subsiding; the noble and worthy status suddenly attained, but the rites and music gradually studied (like a descendant of high nobility who, fell into ruin during childhood turmoil and became a slave, having naturally never known of nobility; when times become peaceful and the parents find him, that very day his whole person is a noble, yet his conduct, deportment, departures, and approaches cannot be changed all at once)? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.2.2.4) 故須漸學）是知頓漸之義。 甚為要矣。 然此文本意。 雖但敘禪詮緣達摩一宗。 是佛法通體。 諸家所述又各不同。 今集為一藏都成理事具足。 至於悟解修證門戶。 亦始終周圓。 故所敘之頓漸須備盡其意。 令血脈連續本末有緒。 欲見本末綸緒。 先須推窮。 此上三種頓說漸說教中所詮之法。 本從何來。 見在何處。 又須仰觀諸佛說此教意。 本為何事。 即一大藏經始終本末。 一時洞然明了也。 且推窮教法從何來者。 本從世尊一真心體流出。 展轉至於當時人之耳。 今時人之目。 其所說義。 亦只是凡聖所依。 一真心體隨緣流出。 展轉遍一切處遍一切眾生身心之中。 但各於自心靜念如理思惟。 即如是如是而顯現也（華嚴云。 如是如是思惟。 如是如是顯現也）次觀佛說經本意者。 世尊自云。 我本意唯為一大事因緣故出現於世。 一大事者。 欲令眾生開佛知見。 乃至入佛知見道故。 諸有所作常為一事。 唯以佛之知見示悟眾生。 無有餘乘若二若三。 三世十方諸佛法亦如是。 雖以無量無數方便種種因緣譬喻言詞而為眾生演說諸法。 是法皆為一佛乘故。 故我於菩提樹下初成正覺。 普見一切眾生皆成正覺。 乃至普見一切眾生皆般涅槃（華嚴妙嚴品云。 佛在摩竭提國菩提場中始成正覺。 其地堅固金剛所成。 其菩提樹高廣嚴顯。 出現品云。 如來成正覺時。 普見眾生等。 一一如文）普見一切眾生貪恚癡諸煩惱中。 有如來身智常無染污德相備足（如來藏經文也）無一眾生而不具有如來智慧。 但以妄想執著而不證得。 我欲教以聖道令其永離妄想。 自於身中得見如來廣大智慧如我無異（華嚴出現品文也。 唯改當字為欲字。 令順語勢也。 法華亦云。 我本立誓願。 欲令一切眾。 如我等無異）遂為此等眾生於菩提場。 稱於大方廣法界。 敷演萬德因華以嚴本性。 令成萬德佛果。 其有往劫與我同種善根。 曾得我於劫海中以四攝法而攝受者（亦妙嚴品文也）始見我身（頻呻三昧盧含那身）聞我所說（說上華嚴）即皆信受入如來慧。 乃至逝多林我入師子頻呻三昧。 大眾皆證法界。 除先修習學小乘者（佛在法華會說。 昔在華嚴會中。 五百聲聞如聾如盲。 不見佛境界。 不聞圓融法。 是也。 次云。 我今亦令得聞此經入於佛慧。 即直至四十年後法華會中皆得授記。 是也）及溺貪愛之水等者（亦出現品云。 如來智慧唯於二處不能為作生長利益。 所謂二乘。 墮於無為廣大深坑。 及壞善根非器眾生。 溺大邪見貪愛之水。 然亦於彼曾無厭捨。 釋曰。 即華嚴所說學小乘者。 法華會中還得授記。 及不在此會亦展轉令與授記是。 此云不厭捨也）如是眾生。 諸根鈍著。 樂癡所盲。 難可度脫。 我於三七日。 思惟如是事。 我若但為讚於佛乘。 彼即沒在苦。 毀謗不信故。 疾入於惡道。 若以小乘化。 乃至於一人。 我即墮慳貪。 此事為不可。 進退難為。 遂尋念過去佛所行方便力。 方知過去諸佛皆以小乘引誘。 然後令人究竟一乘。 故我今所得道。 亦應說三乘。 我如是思惟時。 十方佛皆現梵音慰喻我。 善哉釋迦文。 第一之導師。 得是無上法。 隨諸一切佛。 而用方便力。 我聞慰喻隨順諸佛意故。 方往波羅㮈國轉四諦法輪。 度憍陳如等五人。 漸漸諸處乃至千萬（如羊車也）亦為求緣覺說十二因緣（如鹿車也）亦為求大乘者說六波羅蜜（如牛車也。 此上皆當第一密意依性說相教。 此上三車皆是宅中。 指云在門外者。 以喻權教三乘云云）中間又為說甚深般若波羅蜜。 陶汰如上聲聞。 進趣諸小菩薩（此當第二密意破相顯性教也）漸漸見其根熟。 遂於靈鷲山開示如來知見。 普皆與授阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記（究竟一乘。 如四衢道中白牛車也。 > Therefore, one must engage in gradual learning.\] Hence we know that the meanings of sudden and gradual are exceedingly essential. Now, the original intention of this text, although it only recounts the commentaries of Chan, is because Bodhidharma's single lineage is the pervasive substance of the Buddha Dharma, yet what the various houses expound also differs respectively. Now compiling them into a single canon brings both principle and phenomena into complete fulfillment; furthermore, regarding the gateways of awakening, understanding, cultivation, and realization, it is also thoroughly comprehensive from beginning to end. Therefore, what is recounted of sudden and gradual must exhaust its full meaning, so that the bloodline is continuous and the roots and branches are well ordered. If one desires to see this coherence of roots and branches, one must first investigate thoroughly: where do the teachings expounded in these three kinds of sudden-exposition and gradual-exposition teachings originally come from? Where are they presently located? Moreover, one must look up with reverence at the intention of the Buddhas in expounding these teachings: for what purpose originally was this done? Then, the beginning and end, roots and branches, of the entirety of the great canon will instantly become clear and understood. Now, as for investigating where the doctrinal teachings come from: originally, they flow forth from the World-Honoured One's substance of the one true mind, transmitted successively until reaching the ears of people of that time, and the eyes of people of the present time. What is expounded as their meaning is also merely the substance of the one true mind upon which ordinary beings and sages rely, flowing forth in accordance with conditions, everywhere permeating all places and permeating the bodies and minds of all sentient beings. If each, in their own mind, silently reflects and ponders in accordance with principle, it becomes manifest just like this, just like this (the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: "Pondering just like this, it becomes manifest just like this"). Next, regarding the contemplation of the Buddha's original intention in expounding the sūtras: the World-Honoured One himself stated: "My original intention was solely for the sake of the one great causal matter that I appeared in the world. The 'one great matter' means desiring to cause sentient beings to open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and so forth up to causing them to enter the path of the Buddha's knowledge and vision. Whatever is done is always for this one matter, solely to demonstrate and awaken sentient beings by means of the Buddha's knowledge and vision. There are no other vehicles, neither two nor three. Such is also the Dharma of the Buddhas of the three periods of time and the ten directions. Although I expound all dharmas for sentient beings by means of immeasurable and countless upāyas, various causes and conditions, parables, and words, these dharmas are all for the sake of the one Buddha vehicle. Therefore, when I first accomplished true enlightenment beneath the bodhi tree, I universally saw all sentient beings all accomplish true enlightenment, and so forth up to universally seeing all sentient beings all attain parinirvāṇa (the 'Adornment' chapter of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: 'The Buddha first accomplished true enlightenment in the bodhimaṇḍa in Magadha. That ground was solid, formed of vajra. That bodhi tree was lofty, broad, and majestic.' The 'Manifestation' chapter states: 'When the Tathāgata accomplished true enlightenment, he universally saw sentient beings,' and so on, each as in the text); I universally saw that within the defilements of greed, anger, and ignorance of all sentient beings, there is the Tathāgata's body and wisdom, constantly undefiled and fully endowed with marks of virtue (the text of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra); there is not a single sentient being that does not possess the wisdom of the Tathāgata, yet due to false thoughts and attachments they do not realize it. I wish to teach them through the holy path so as to cause them to be forever free from false thoughts, and from within their own bodies to attain vision of the Tathāgata's vast wisdom, no different from mine (this is the text of the 'Manifestation' chapter of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, only changing the character dāng to yù to make the phrasing smooth. The Lotus Sūtra also states: 'I originally made a vow, desiring to cause all multitudes to be no different from me'). Thereupon, for the sake of such sentient beings, at the bodhimaṇḍa, matching the Great Vaipulya Dharmadhātu, I expounded the causal flowers of myriad virtues to adorn the original nature, causing them to accomplish the Buddha fruition of myriad virtues. Those who in past kalpas planted roots of goodness together with me, having previously been gathered in by me in the ocean of kalpas through the four methods of winning over (also text from the 'Adornment' chapter), when they first saw my body (the Rocana body in the yawning samādhi) and heard what I expounded (expounding the Avataṃsaka above), all faithfully accepted it and entered the Tathāgata's wisdom, and so forth until in the Jeta Grove I entered the lion-yawning samādhi, and the great assembly all realized the dharmadhātu. Excepted were those who had previously cultivated and studied the Hīnayāna (when the Buddha spoke at the Lotus assembly, he said: 'Formerly in the Avataṃsaka assembly, the five hundred śrāvakas were as if deaf and blind, not seeing the Buddha's realm and not hearing the perfect and fused Dharma.' This is it. Next, it says: 'I now also cause them to hear this sūtra and enter the Buddha's wisdom.' That is, directly after forty years, in the Lotus assembly, all received prediction; this is it) and those who were drowned in the waters of greed and attachment, and the like (also the 'Manifestation' chapter says: 'The Tathāgata's wisdom fails to produce growth and benefit only in two places: namely, those of the two vehicles who have fallen into the vast and deep pit of the unconditioned, and sentient beings who have destroyed their roots of goodness and are non-receptive vessels, drowned in the waters of great wrong views, greed, and attachment. Yet toward them he never feels weary abandonment.' Explanation: that is, those who studied the Hīnayāna as spoken of in the Avataṃsaka receive prediction again in the Lotus assembly; and for those who were not present at this assembly, they are also successively caused to receive prediction. This is what is meant by 'never feeling weary abandonment'). Sentient beings such as these have faculties that are dull and attached, blinded by their delight in ignorance, and difficult to deliver. For three times seven days I reflected upon such matters: 'If I solely praise the Buddha vehicle, they will sink into suffering; because of slander and disbelief, they will swiftly enter evil destinies. If I transform them with the Hīnayāna, even for a single person, I would fall into stinginess and greed; this matter cannot be.' Moving forward or backward being difficult, I then thought back upon the power of upāya practiced by past Buddhas, and only then realized that past Buddhas all used the Hīnayāna to entice and guide, and afterward caused people to reach the ultimate One Vehicle. 'Therefore, with the path I have now attained, I should also expound the three vehicles.' When I was reflecting thus, the Buddhas of the ten directions all appeared, and with Brahma voices consoled and praised me: 'Splendid, Śākyamuni, supreme guide! Having attained this unsurpassable Dharma, you follow all Buddhas and employ the power of upāya.' Because I heard this consolation and complied with the intention of all Buddhas, I then went to the country of Vārāṇasī to turn the Wheel of the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths, delivering the five persons such as Kauṇḍinya, and gradually in various places up to thousands and tens of thousands (like the goat cart). I also expounded the twelvefold dependent origination for those seeking to be pratyekabuddhas (like the deer cart). I also expounded the six pāramitās for those seeking the Mahāyāna (like the bullock cart. All of these above correspond to the first teaching, that relies on the nature to explain phenomenal marks through implicit intention. These three carts are all inside the house; pointing to them as being outside the gate is an analogy for the three vehicles of the provisional teachings, and so forth). In the interim, I also expounded the profound Prajñāpāramitā for them, purifying those śrāvakas mentioned above and urging forward the lesser bodhisattvas (this corresponds to the second teaching, that refutes phenomenal marks to reveal the nature through implicit intention). Gradually seeing that their faculties were mature, on Vulture Peak I finally revealed the knowledge and vision of the Tathāgata, and universally bestowed on all of them the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi (the ultimate One Vehicle, like the white bullock cart at the crossroads). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.2.2.5) 權教牛車大乘與實教白牛車一乘不同者。 三十餘本經論。 具有明文）顯示三乘法身。 平等入一乘道。 乃至我臨欲滅度。 在拘尸那城娑羅雙樹間。 作大師子吼。 顯常住法。 決定說言。 一切眾生皆有佛性。 凡是有心定當作佛。 究竟涅槃常樂我淨。 皆令安住祕密藏中（法華且收二乘。 至涅槃經方普收六道。 會權入實。 須漸次故也）即與華嚴海會師子頻呻大眾頓證。 無有別異（法華涅槃。 是漸教中之終極。 與華嚴等頓教。 深淺無異。 都為第三顯示真心即性教也）我既所應度者皆以度訖。 未得度者已為作得度因緣。 故於雙樹間入大寂滅定。 反本還源。 與十方三世一切諸佛。 常住法界常寂常照也。 評曰。 上來三紙全是於諸經中錄佛自言也。 但以抄錄之故。 不免於連續綴合之處。 或加減改換三字兩字而已。 唯敘華嚴處一行半。 是以經題顯佛意。 非佛本語也。 便請將佛此自述本意判前三種教宗。 豈得言權實一般。 豈得言始終二法。 禪宗例教。 誰謂不然。 竊欲和會。 良由此也。 誰聞此說而不除疑。 若猶執迷。 則吾不復也。 然上所引。 佛自云。 我見眾生皆成正覺。 又云。 根鈍癡盲。 語似相違。 便欲於其中次第通釋。 恐間雜佛語文相交加。 今於此後。 方始全依上代祖師馬鳴菩薩。 具明眾生一心迷悟本末始終悉令顯現。 自然見全佛之眾生。 擾擾生死。 全眾生之佛。 寂寂涅槃。 全頓悟之習氣。 念念攀緣。 全習氣之頓悟。 心心寂照。 即於佛語相違之處。 自見無所違也。 謂六道凡夫三乘賢聖根本悉是靈明清淨一法界心性覺寶光各各圓滿。 本不名諸佛。 亦不名眾生。 但以此心靈妙。 自在不守自性。 故隨迷悟之緣。 造業受報。 遂名眾生。 修道證真。 遂名諸佛。 又雖隨緣而不失自性。 故常非虛妄。 常無變異不可破壞。 唯是一心。 遂名真如。 故此一心常具真如生滅二門。 未曾暫闕。 但隨緣門中凡聖無定。 謂本來未曾覺悟。 故說煩惱無始。 若悟修證即煩惱斷盡。 故說有終。 然實無別始覺亦無不覺。 畢竟平等。 故此一心法爾有真妄二義。 二義復各二義。 故常具真如生滅二門。 各二義者。 真有不變隨緣二義。 妄有體空成事二義。 謂由真不變故妄體空為真如門。 由真隨緣故妄成事為生滅門。 以生滅即真如。 故諸經說。 無佛無眾生。 本來涅槃常寂滅相。 又以真如即生滅故。 經云。 法身流轉五道。 名曰眾生。 既知迷悟凡聖在生滅門。 今於此門具彰凡聖二相。 即真妄和合非一非異。 名為阿賴耶識。 此識在凡本來常有覺與不覺二義。 覺是三乘賢聖之本。 不覺是六道凡夫之本。 今且示凡夫本末。 總有十重（今每重以夢喻側注一一合之）一謂一切眾生雖皆有本覺真心（如一富貴人端正多智自在宅中住）二未遇善友開示。 法爾本來不覺（如宅中人睡自不知也。 論云。 依本覺故而有不覺也）三不覺故法爾念起（如睡法爾有夢。 論云。 依不覺故生三種相。 此是初一）四念起故有能見相（如夢中之想）五以有見故根身世界妄現（夢中別見有身在他鄉貧苦。 及見種種好惡事境）六不知。 此等從自念起。 執為定有。 名為法執（正夢時。 法爾必執所見物。 為實有也）七執法定故便見自他之殊。 名為我執（夢時必認他鄉貧苦身。 為己本身）八執此四大為我身故。 法爾貪愛順情諸境欲以潤我。 嗔嫌違情諸境恐損惱我。 愚癡之情種種計校（此是三毒。 如夢在他鄉所見違順等事。 亦貪嗔也）九由此故造善惡等業（夢中或偷奪打罵。 或行恩布德）。 > The distinction between the expedient teaching of the ox-cart Mahāyāna and the real teaching of the white-ox cart One Vehicle has explicit passages in more than thirty sūtras and treatises.) revealing that the dharmakāya of the three vehicles enters equally into the path of the One Vehicle. Furthermore, when I was about to enter extinction, between the twin śāla trees at the city of Kuśinagara, I roared the great lion's roar, revealed the eternally abiding Dharma, and definitively stated: 'All sentient beings possess the buddhadhātu. All who have minds will certainly become buddhas. Ultimate nirvāṇa is permanent, blissful, self, and pure.' I caused them all to abide securely within the secret treasury. (The Lotus Sūtra provisionally gathers the two vehicles; only when reaching the Nirvāṇa Sūtra does it universally gather the six destinies. Harmonizing the expedient to enter the real must be gradual.) This is no different from the sudden realization of the great assembly at the ocean-like assembly of the Avataṃsaka during the Lion's Sprint. (The Lotus and Nirvāṇa are the culmination within the gradual teachings. In depth, they do not differ from the sudden teachings such as the Avataṃsaka; all are the third teaching that explicitly reveals the true mind as the nature.) Since those I should deliver have all been delivered, and for those not yet delivered I have already created the causes and conditions for deliverance, I therefore enter the concentration of great quiescence and extinction between the twin trees, returning to the origin and source, eternally abiding in the dharmadhātu with all the buddhas of the ten directions and the three periods of time, constantly quiescent and constantly illuminating. The appraisal says: The preceding three sheets are entirely records of the Buddha's own words from the various sūtras. Only because of copying and recording, at points of continuous compilation, two or three words were inevitably added, subtracted, or changed. Only the line and a half describing the Avataṃsaka uses the sūtra title to reveal the Buddha's intent, and is not the Buddha's original words. Please take this self-stated original intent of the Buddha to judge the previous three teachings and schools. How could one say that the expedient and the real are identical? How could one say that the beginning and the end are two dharmas? When the Chan school is compared to the doctrinal teaching, who would say it is not so? My humble wish to harmonize them is truly due to this. Who, hearing this explanation, would not eliminate doubt? If one still clings to delusion, I will not respond further. However, in what was cited above, the Buddha himself said, 'I see that sentient beings all accomplish right awakening,' and also said, 'Their faculties are dull, blind, and foolish'—the words seem contradictory. If I wished to interpret and clarify them in sequence therein, I fear mixing the Buddha's words and tangling the textual marks. Now, after this, only relying entirely on the ancestral master of previous generations, the bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa, I will fully clarify the origin and culmination, beginning and end, of delusion and awakening of the one mind of sentient beings, causing them all to become manifest. Naturally, one will see that sentient beings, who are fully buddhas, are turbulent in birth and death; buddhas, who are fully sentient beings, are quiescent in nirvāṇa; habitual propensities, which are fully sudden awakening, grasp at conditions thought after thought; sudden awakening, which is fully habitual propensities, is quiescent and illuminating mind after mind. Right at the points where the Buddha's words contradict each other, one will naturally see that there is no contradiction. That is to say, the root of ordinary beings of the six destinies and sages of the three vehicles is entirely the numinous, luminous, pure, single dharmadhātu nature of mind, whose jewel-light of awakening is completely perfect in each. Originally it is not named 'buddhas', nor is it named 'sentient beings'. Yet because this mind is numinously wondrous, sovereign, and does not keep its own nature, it follows the conditions of delusion and awakening: creating karma and receiving retribution, it is thereupon named 'sentient beings'; cultivating the path and realizing truth, it is thereupon named 'buddhas'. Furthermore, although it accords with conditions, it does not lose its own nature; therefore, it is constantly non-delusory, constantly unchanging, and indestructible. It is only the one mind, and is thereupon named 'tathatā'. Therefore, this one mind constantly possesses the two gates of tathatā and production-and-extinction, never lacking either for an instant. Yet within the gate of according with conditions, ordinary and sage are indeterminate: because originally one was never awakened, affliction is said to be beginningless; if one awakens, cultivates, and realizes, then afflictions are completely severed, and so it is said to have an end. In reality, however, there is no distinct initial awakening, nor is there non-awakening; ultimately they are equal. Therefore, this one mind inherently has the two meanings of true and deluded; each of the two meanings further has two meanings; thus it constantly possesses the two gates of tathatā and production-and-extinction. As for each having two meanings: the true has the two meanings of unchanging and according with conditions; the deluded has the two meanings of empty substance and producing affairs. Because the true does not change, the deluded substance is empty, which is the gate of tathatā. Because the true accords with conditions, the deluded produces affairs, which is the gate of production-and-extinction. Since production-and-extinction is identical to tathatā, the various sūtras say: 'There are no buddhas and no sentient beings; originally nirvāṇa is the mark of constant quiescence and extinction.' Furthermore, since tathatā is identical to production-and-extinction, a sūtra says: 'The dharmakāya transmigrating through the five destinies is named sentient beings.' Having understood that delusion and awakening, ordinary and sage, reside in the gate of production-and-extinction, now within this gate I fully display the two marks of ordinary and sage: the compounding of the true and deluded, being neither one nor different, is named the ālayavijñāna. In ordinary beings, this consciousness originally and constantly has the two meanings of awakening and non-awakening. Awakening is the root of the sages of the three vehicles; non-awakening is the root of ordinary beings of the six destinies. Now, I will first demonstrate the origin and end of ordinary beings, which has ten stages in total. (Now for each stage, a dream metaphor is annotated beside it, matching each one.) First, it is said that although all sentient beings possess the true mind of original awakening (like a wealthy, noble, upright, and wise person residing sovereignly in a house), second, not having met a good friend who reveals it, they are inherently and originally unawakened (like the person in the house falling asleep without knowing it himself; the treatise says: 'relying on original awakening, non-awakening exists'); third, due to non-awakening, thoughts inherently arise (like in sleep, dreams inherently occur; the treatise says: 'relying on non-awakening, three kinds of marks are produced'; this is the first); fourth, because thoughts arise, there is the mark of a perceiver (like thinking within a dream); fifth, because of perceiving, sense faculties, body, and world falsely appear (in a dream, separately seeing oneself having a body of poverty and suffering in another land, and seeing various pleasant and unpleasant affairs and objects); sixth, not knowing that these arise from one's own thoughts, one clings to them as definitively existing, which is called attachment to dharmas (while dreaming, one inherently clings to the seen objects as real); seventh, having clung to dharmas as definitive, one then sees the distinction between self and other, which is called attachment to self (while dreaming, one must take the body of poverty and suffering in another land as one's own body); eighth, because of clinging to these four great elements as one's own body, one inherently craves objects agreeable to one's feelings wishing to nourish oneself, resents objects disagreeable to one's feelings fearing harm and annoyance to oneself, and harbors foolish sentiments of various calculations (these are the three poisons; like in a dream, regarding agreeable and disagreeable affairs seen in another land, craving and anger also arise); ninth, due to this, one creates good, bad, and other karma (in a dream, stealing, robbing, beating, scolding, or practicing kindness and bestowing virtue); > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015~en-mt.2.2.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.34.27) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.2.2) · Pramāṇa