禪源諸詮集都序 1.12.4

1.12.4

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: