宗鏡錄 14.3.1

14.3.1

答。 一心不動。 諸法無性。 以無性故。 悉皆成佛。 華嚴經云。 佛子。 如來成正覺時。 於其身中。 普見一切眾生成正覺。 乃至普見一切眾生入涅槃。 皆同一性。 所謂無性。 無何等性。 所謂無相性。 無盡性。 無生性。 無滅性。 無我性。 無非我性。 無眾生性。 無非眾生性。 無菩提性。 無法界性。 無虛空性。 亦復無有成正覺性。 知一切法皆無性故。 得一切智。 大悲相續。 救度眾生。 佛子。 譬如虛空。 一切世界。 若成若壞。 常無增減。 何以故。 虛空無生故。 諸佛菩提。 亦復如是。 若成正覺。 不成正覺。 亦無增減。 何以故。 菩提無相無非相。 無一無種種故。 佛子。 假使有人。 能化作恒河沙等心。 一一心復化作恒河沙等佛。 皆無色無形無相。 如是盡恒河沙等劫。 無有休息。 佛子。 於汝意云何。 彼人化心。 化作如來。 凡有幾何。 如來性起。 妙德菩薩言。 如我解於仁所說義。 化與不化。 等無有別。 云何問言。 凡有幾何。 普賢菩薩言。 善哉善哉。 佛子。 如汝所說。 設一切眾生。 於一念中悉成正覺。 與不成正覺。 等無有異。 何以故。 菩提無相故。 若無有相。 則無增減。 佛子。 菩薩摩訶薩。 應如是知。 成等正覺。 同於菩提。 一相無相。 疏釋云。 所以知佛智遍者。 無一眾生不有本覺。 與佛體無殊故。 經云。 佛智潛流。 即似佛智遍他眾生。 今顯眾生自有佛智。 故云遍耳。 此有三意。 一明無一眾生不有。 則知無性者。 非眾生數。 謂草木等。 已過五性之見。 二者。 眾生在纏之因。 已具出纏之果法。 故云有如來智慧。 非但有性後方當成。 亦非理先智後。 是知涅槃。 對昔方便。 且說有性。 後學尚謂談有藏無。 況聞等有果智。 誰當信者。 三彼因中之果智。 即他佛之果智。 以圓教宗。 自他因果。 無二體故。 不爾此說眾生有果。 何名說佛智耶。 斯則玄又玄矣。 非華嚴宗。 無有斯理。 疑云。 涅槃云。 佛性者。 名為智慧。 有智慧時。 則無煩惱。 今有佛智。 那作眾生。 釋云。 謂顛倒故不證。 豈得言無。 如壯士迷於額珠。 豈是膚中無寶。 謂若先無。 離倒寧有。 既離則現。 明本不無。 如貧得珠。 非今授與。 是以涅槃。 恐不修行。 故云。 言定有者。 即為執著。 恐不信有。 故云。 若言定無。 則為妄語。 乍可執著。 不可妄語。 又如來藏等經。 說。 有九種喻。 喻如來藏。 謂如青蓮華。 在泥水中。 未出泥。 人無貴者。 又如貧女而懷聖胎。 如大價寶。 垢衣所纏。 如摩尼珠。 落在深廁。 如真金像弊衣所覆。 如菴羅樹。 華實未開。 亦如稻米在穅𥢶中。 如金在鑛。 如像在模。 皆是塵中有佛身義。 與此大同也。 又此無性理。 能成一切。 能壞一切。 則一成一切成。 一壞一切壞。 一成一切成者。 即因果交徹。 於中有二。 一明生佛不二華嚴經云。 如來成正覺時。 於其身中。 普見一切眾生成正覺等。 淨名經云。 一切眾生。 即菩提相。 即菩提相。 于何不成。 二明能所不二。 即華嚴經云。 皆同一性。 所謂無性。 淨名經云。 不行是菩提。 離意法故。 法即是所。 意即是能。 良以心境。 同一性故。 生佛亦然。 是以真心。 不守自性故。 舉體隨緣。 成諸萬法。 性即體也。 以諸法唯心所現。 各無自體。 虛假相依。 無決定性。 以無性故。 能隨異緣成立一切。 若有定性。 猶如金石。 各有堅性。 不可令易。 今此無性。 猶如於水。 遇冷成氷。 逢火便煖。 故中論偈云。 集若有定性。 先來所不斷。 於今云何斷。 道若有定性。 先來所不修。 於今云何修。

Answer: The one mind is immovable; all phenomena have no nature. Because they have no nature, all without exception attain buddhahood. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Sons of the Buddha, when the tathāgatas attain right awakening, within their bodies they universally see all sentient beings attain right awakening, and even universally see all sentient beings enter nirvāṇa, all having the same single nature—namely, having no nature. What kind of nature is absent? Namely, having no mark-nature, no exhaustible nature, no unarisen nature, no cessation-nature, no self-nature, no not-self-nature, no sentient-being-nature, no not-sentient-being-nature, no bodhi-nature, no dharmadhātu-nature, no space-nature, and likewise having no nature of attaining right awakening. Knowing that all phenomena are without nature, they obtain all-knowledge (sarvajñā), and with continuous great compassion, they rescue and deliver sentient beings. Sons of the Buddha, it is like space: whether all worlds come into being or are destroyed, it is always without increase or decrease. Why? Because space is unarisen. The bodhi of all buddhas is also like this: whether right awakening is attained or not attained, there is likewise neither increase nor decrease. Why? Because bodhi is neither with marks nor without marks, neither one nor manifold. Sons of the Buddha, suppose someone could manifest as many cittas as there are sands in the Ganges, and each citta could again manifest as many buddhas as there are sands in the Ganges, all of them without color, without form, and without marks, continuing in this way for as many kalpas as the sands in the Ganges without rest. Sons of the Buddha, what do you think? How many are there in total among the manifested cittas and manifested tathāgatas of that person?' In the Tathāgatotpattisaṃbhava [chapter], Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī said: 'As I understand the meaning of what the Venerable One has said, manifesting and not manifesting are equal and without difference. Why ask: "How many are there in total?"' Bodhisattva Samantabhadra said: 'Good indeed, good indeed! Sons of the Buddha, it is as you have said. Even if all sentient beings were to attain right awakening in a single thought-moment, it would be equal and no different from not attaining right awakening. Why? Because bodhi has no marks. If there are no marks, then there is neither increase nor decrease. Sons of the Buddha, bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should know in this way: attaining equal and right awakening is identical to bodhi, having one mark which is markless.' The commentary explains: 'The reason we know the buddha-wisdom is omnipresent is that there is no sentient being who does not possess original awakening, for their substance is not different from the buddhas. The sūtra says: "The buddha-wisdom secretly flows forth," which seems as if the buddha-wisdom pervades other sentient beings; here it reveals that sentient beings themselves possess the buddha-wisdom, hence it merely says "pervades". There are three points to this meaning: First, it clarifies that not a single sentient being lacks it, which lets us know that those "without nature" do not belong to the count of sentient beings—meaning grasses, trees, and the like—which already surpasses the view of the five natures. Second, the cause of sentient beings being bound already completely possesses the fruition-dharma of liberation from bondage; therefore it is said that they have the wisdom of the tathāgata. It is not merely that they will attain it later after having the nature, nor that the principle comes first and wisdom comes later. Thus we know that in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], in response to earlier expedients, it provisionally spoke of having the nature; later students still thought it discussed having it while hiding its absence, so how much less, upon hearing that they equally possess the fruition-wisdom, could anyone believe it? Third, that fruition-wisdom within the cause is the fruition-wisdom of other buddhas; because in the source of the Perfect Teaching, self and other, cause and fruition, have no dual substance. Were it not so, in this stating that sentient beings have the fruition, how could it be called speaking of the buddha-wisdom? This is profound upon profound; without the Huayan school, there would be no such principle.' An objection asks: 'The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "The buddha-nature is named wisdom. When there is wisdom, then there is no kleśa." Now, if they possess the buddha-wisdom, why do they become sentient beings?' The explanation says: 'Because they are inverted, they do not realize it; how could one say they lack it? Like the strong man confused about the jewel in his forehead, how could it be that there is no treasure within his flesh? If it were originally absent, how could it be present once free from inversion? Since it appears once they are free from it, this shows that it was originally not absent, like a poor person obtaining a jewel—it is not that it is only now bestowed upon them. Therefore, in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], fearing that they would not practice, it says: "To say it definitely exists is an attachment." Fearing that they would not believe it exists, it says: "If one says it definitely does not exist, that is false speech." One may provisionally attach to it, but one must not speak falsely. Furthermore, sūtras such as the Tathāgatagarbha[-sūtra] speak of nine similes to illustrate the tathāgatagarbha: like a blue lotus flower in muddy water, before it emerges from the mud, no one values it; also like a poor woman carrying a noble child in her womb; like a priceless jewel wrapped in filthy rags; like a mani jewel fallen into a deep latrine; like a pure gold statue covered with tattered garments; like an āmra tree whose flowers and fruits have not yet opened; also like unhusked rice grain within the chaff; like gold within ore; like an image within a mold—these all have the meaning of the buddha-body existing within defilement, which is largely the same as this. Furthermore, this principle of having no nature can accomplish everything and can destroy everything; thus, when one is accomplished, all are accomplished, and when one is destroyed, all are destroyed. "When one is accomplished, all are accomplished" means that cause and fruition interpenetrate completely. Within this, there are two points: First, it clarifies that sentient beings and buddhas are non-dual. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "When the tathāgatas attain right awakening, within their bodies they universally see all sentient beings attain right awakening," and so forth. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: "All sentient beings are the very mark of bodhi." Since they are the very mark of bodhi, what is not accomplished? Second, it clarifies that the subject and object are non-dual; that is, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "All have the same single nature—namely, having no nature." The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: "Non-action is bodhi, because it is free from the citta and phenomena." Phenomena are the object, and the citta is the subject. Truly because citta and objects share the same nature, so too it is with sentient beings and buddhas. Therefore, because the true mind does not abide in its own nature, its entire substance accords with conditions, accomplishing all the myriad phenomena. The nature is the substance. Because all phenomena are solely manifested by citta, each is without self-substance, dependently arisen upon illusory marks, and without a fixed nature. Because they are without nature, they can accord with various conditions to establish everything. If they had a fixed nature, it would be just like metal and stone, each having a hard nature that cannot be changed. Now, this absence of nature is just like water: meeting cold, it becomes ice; encountering fire, it becomes warm. Therefore a verse from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "If origin (samudaya) had a fixed nature, it could never have been severed before; how could it be severed now? If the path (mārga) had a fixed nature, it could never have been cultivated before; how could it be cultivated now?"'