禪源諸詮集都序 1.16.3

1.16.3

"When the mind is like a straight wall, one can enter the Way"—is this not precisely the method of sitting dhyāna? Furthermore, the two scrolls of the *Dharmatrāta Dhyāna Sūtra* translated by Master Yuan of Mount Lu together with Buddhabhadra and another Indian monk fully elucidate the progressive stages and upāya for entering the gate of sitting dhyāna, which are no different in drift and purport from those under Tiantai or Xiu. Thus the Fourth Patriarch did not let his ribs touch the mat for several decades. Hence we know that the schools of the definitive and the non-definitive each depend on the depth or shallowness of understanding; one cannot determine doctrinal tenets on the basis of whether one's practice involves harmonization or non-harmonization. The partial and the perfect merely counter and cure in accordance with the ailment; there is no need to praise this one and disparage that one. (This note connects to the preceding narrative: someone raised an objection to me, asking, "Why do you encourage sitting dhyāna?" I now answer with this.) Second is the teaching that refutes phenomenal marks to reveal the nature through implicit intent. (According to the true and definitive meaning, deluded grasping is fundamentally empty, so there is nothing further to refute; all anāsrava dharmas are fundamentally the true nature, whose wondrous function following conditions never ceases, and thus they should not be refuted either. It is only because a certain class of sentient beings grasps illusory marks, which obstructs the true nature and makes profound awakening difficult to attain, that the Buddha—without distinguishing between good and evil, defiled and pure, nature and phenomenal marks—scolds and refutes them all. Because the true nature and its wondrous function are not non-existent, and yet he calls them non-existent, it is called "implicit intent." Moreover, the intent lies in revealing the nature, but the words merely refute phenomenal marks; since the intent is not manifested in the words, it is called "implicit.") It explains that since the objective realms transformed by the preceding teachings are all false and unreal, how could the transforming consciousness alone be real? This is because mind and realm mutually depend on each other, being empty yet appearing as existent. Furthermore, the mind does not arise in isolation; it arises only by relying on the realm. The realm does not arise of itself; it manifests only because of the mind. When the mind is empty, the realm fades away; when the realm is extinguished, the mind is empty. There has never been a mind without a realm, nor has there ever been a realm without a mind. Just as in a dream one sees things, appearing to have the distinction of the capable-of-seeing and the seen, yet in reality they are identically false and unreal, completely non-existent. The various consciousnesses and objective realms are also like this. This is because they all falsely rely on diverse conditions and lack self-nature (svabhāva). There has never been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions; therefore, there is no dharma that is not empty. Whatever has phenomenal marks is illusory; therefore, within emptiness there is no form, no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no eighteen realms; no twelve links of dependent origination; no four noble truths; no wisdom and no attainment; no karma and no retribution; no cultivation and no realization. Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are equally like an illusion. One takes only non-abiding in anything and freedom from grasping and attachment as the practice of the Way. The more than a thousand fascicles of the various Prajñā texts, as well as the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, *Śataka*, *Dvādaśamukha*, *Catuḥśataka*, and so on, all teach this. (The hundred fascicles of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* also teach this principle; however, its author thoroughly penetrated without attachment, and thus it subsumes the phenomenal marks of both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, seamlessly according with the final school of the single true nature.) This teaching is completely identical with the school of absolute extinction and non-reliance in the Chan tradition. Since it is identical with what was spoken by the World-Honoured One and propagated by the bodhisattvas, why is it that whenever the Chan masters of the gradual gate and students of doctrinal study hear this teaching, they slander it, saying that it negates cause and effect? The Buddha himself said: "There is no karma and no retribution"—could that be a wrong view? If you say that the Buddha had his own profound meaning in uttering these words, could it be that this statement in the Chan tradition lacks profound meaning? If you say, "I once investigated it and perceived no profound meaning," that is simply because you met people who did not understand. You may blame the person, but how could you reject the Dharma? Although the preceding teaching does not contradict the Buddha's original intent, later students who transmitted it mostly grasped the letter and lost the meaning; either each grasped a single view and negated the other, or both uncritically believed them in a muddled and unenlightened way. Therefore, bodhisattvas such as Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva relied on the teaching of refuting phenomenal marks to broadly explain the meaning of emptiness, refuting their clinging to existence so as to lead them to clearly understand true emptiness. True emptiness is an emptiness that does not contradict existence. Bodhisattvas such as Asaṅga and Vasubandhu relied on the Vijñaptimātra teaching to broadly explain names and characteristics, analyzing the differences between nature and phenomenal marks and distinguishing defilement from purity, refuting their clinging to emptiness so as to lead them to clearly understand wondrous existence. Wondrous existence is an existence that does not contradict emptiness. Although each expounded a single aspect, the entire substance was completely possessed, and therefore there is no contradiction. Question: If so, why did later treatise masters like Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla refute each other? Answer: This is in fact mutual fulfillment, not mutual refutation. Why is this? Because the faculties of later students gradually grew dull, and they mutually grasped emptiness and existence. Bhāviveka and others refuted the marks of definite existence so as to thoroughly penetrate to ultimate true emptiness; only then is their wondrous existence of dependent origination established. Dharmapāla and others refuted annihilistic, one-sided emptiness out of an intention to preserve wondrous existence; because wondrous existence is preserved, it is precisely their true emptiness of non-nature. The texts indeed refute each other, but the intent is mutual fulfillment. (The previous doubt concerning the rivalry between the Northern and Southern Chan schools is resolved here.) This is because wondrous existence and true emptiness have two meanings: First, the meaning of extreme contradiction, which means mutually destroying and completely depriving until nothing remains. Second, the meaning of extreme accordance, which means blending into a single mark, with the entire substance completely subsuming [the other]. If they did not completely deprive each other until nothing remained, there would be no means for the entire substance to completely subsume [the other]; therefore, only by being extremely contradictory are they extremely accordant. Nāgārjuna, Asaṅga, and others approached it from the gate of extreme accordance, and thus they mutually fulfilled each other. Bhāviveka, Dharmapāla, and others based themselves on the gate of extreme contradiction, and thus they mutually refuted each other. Contradiction and accordance are freely mastered; establishment and refutation are unimpeded; thus regarding all dharmas there is nothing that is not reconciled. How lamentable that later students of the scriptures and treatises of the two schools in this land reject and denounce each other no differently from bitter enemies! When will they ever attain the patience of the non-arising of dharmas (anutpattikadharmakṣānti)? The sudden and gradual Chan practitioners of today are also like this. Strive to comprehensively examine this and do not be one-sided or narrow! Question: Since the mutual refutation of the ancient sages in the Western Regions was in fact mutual fulfillment, how could the mutual rejection in this land be merely mutual jealousy? Answer: Like a person drinking water, one knows for oneself whether it is cold or warm. Each person must contemplate their own mind and examine their own thoughts. Medicine is kept to prevent disease, not for healthy people; laws are established to guard against villainy, not for virtuous men. Third is the teaching that explicitly reveals the true mind as the nature. (It directly points to one's own mind as the true nature itself. It is revealed neither with reference to phenomenal matters nor with reference to the marks of the mind; hence it is called "as the nature itself." It is not an implicit intent of upāya; hence it is called "explicitly reveals.") This teaching says that all sentient beings have an empty and quiescent true mind, which has fundamentally from the beginningless [past] been intrinsically pure by nature. (It is not that it becomes pure through severing delusion; hence it is called "pure by nature." The *Ratnagotravibhāga* says: "Purity is of two kinds: first, intrinsic purity; second, purity through separation from defilement." The *Śrīmālādevī Sūtra* says: "The intrinsically pure mind is difficult to understand; that this mind is defiled by afflictions is also difficult to understand." The commentary says: "This mind transcends the principles of the previous two schools of emptiness and existence.")