禪源諸詮集都序 2.2.1

2.2.1

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.)