宗鏡錄 29.9.2

29.9.2

亦復如是。 皆悉一性。 以無性故。 又頌云。 三世一切劫。 佛剎及諸法。 諸根心心法。 一切虛妄法。 於一佛身中。 此法皆悉顯。 是故離佛心智。 無一法可得。 二總在眾生心中。 以離眾生。 無別佛德故。 此義云何。 謂佛證於眾生心中真如成佛。 亦以始覺同本覺故。 是故總在眾生心中。 從體起用。 應化身時。 即是眾生心中真如用大。 更無別佛。 三隨一聖教全唯二心。 以前二說不相離故。 謂眾生心內佛。 為佛心中眾生說法。 佛心中眾生。 聽眾生心中佛說法。 如是全收。 說聽無礙。 是謂甚深唯識道理。 四或彼聖教俱非二心。 以兩俱形奪不並顯故。 雙融二位無不泯故。 謂佛心中眾生無聽者故。 眾生心中佛無說者故。 兩俱雙辯二相盡故。 經云。 夫說法者。 無說無示。 其聽法者。 無聞無得。 又經頌云。 眾生所生不是生。 亦無流轉生死中。 又經頌云。 如來不說法。 亦不度眾生等。 是故此四於一聖教圓融無礙。 方為究竟。 華嚴演義問云。 生佛約體雖同。 相用自別。 豈得全同。 釋云。 從體起用。 用不異體。 體既眾生之體。 用豈離於眾生。 故依體起用。 即是眾生心中真如用大。 更無別佛。 若爾。 起信論中已有此義。 何以獨明華嚴為別教耶。 釋云。 起信雖明始覺本覺不二體相用三大攸同。 而是自心各各修證。 不言生佛二互全收。 是則用起信之文。 成華嚴之義。 又說聽全收。 生佛相在者。 略舉二喻。 一者。 如一明鏡。 師弟同對說聽。 以師取之。 即是師鏡。 弟子取之。 是弟子鏡。 鏡喻一心。 師弟喻生佛。 是謂弟子鏡中和尚。 為和尚鏡中弟子說法。 和尚鏡中弟子。 聽弟子鏡中和尚說法。 諸有知識。 請詳斯喻。 此喻猶恐未曉。 又如水乳和同一處。 而互為能和所和。 且順說聽。 以能和為說。 所和為聽。 且將水喻於佛。 乳喻眾生。 應言乳中之水。 和水中之乳。 水中之乳。 受乳中之水。 雖同一味。 能所宛然。 雖能所宛然。 而互相在。 相遍相攝。 思以准之。 又眾生心中佛者。 此明眾生稱性普周。 而佛不壞相在眾生心內。 言為佛心中眾生說法者。 此明佛心稱性普周。 而眾生不壞相在佛心內也。 更無別理。 但說聽之異耳。 是知一切眾生語言。 皆法輪正體。 若離眾生言說。 即佛無所說。 先德云。 若離方言。 佛則無說。 聖人無心。 以萬物心為心。 聖人無身。 亦以萬物身為身。 即知聖人無言。 亦以萬物言為言矣。 華嚴論云。 一切凡聖境界莊嚴果報。 以為教體。 此乃見境發心。 不待說故。 見惡厭之。 見善樂之。 總能起善故。 又一切法無非佛事故。 又以一切法自性清淨以為教體。 以觀察力心契自相應故。 不待說故。 又以行住坐臥四威儀以為教體。 見敬發心。 不待語故。 肇論云。 為莫之大。 故乃反於小成。 施莫之廣。 故乃歸於無名。 何謂小成。 通百千恒沙之法門。 在毛頭之心地。 何謂無名。 形教遍於三千。 無名相之可得。 故須宗說雙通。 方成師匠。 所以經偈云。 宗通自修行。 說通示未悟。 真覺大師云。 宗亦通。 說亦通。 定慧圓明不滯空。 宗通是定。 說通是慧。 則宗說兼暢定慧雙明。 二義相成。 闕一不可。 如法華經云。 定慧力莊嚴。 以此度眾生。 又昔人頌云。 說通宗不通。 如日被雲朦。 宗通說亦通。 如日處虛空。 故知。 若先了宗。 說則無過。 故法華序品偈云。 又見諸菩薩。 知法寂滅相。 各於其國土。 說法求佛道。 又凡有詮表形於言教者。 皆是明心。 不詮餘法。 或言廣大自在。 此約德相以明心。 或言寂滅無為。 此約離過以明心。 乃至或說事。 是心之事。 或說理。 是心之理。

are also like this: they are all of one nature, because they are devoid of nature. Furthermore, a verse states: 'All kalpas of the three times, / Buddha lands and all phenomena, / all sense faculties, citta, and mental factors, / and all empty and false dharmas— / within a single body of the Buddha, / these phenomena are completely revealed.' Therefore, apart from the Buddha's mind and wisdom, not a single phenomenon can be obtained. Second, they are entirely within the minds of sentient beings, because apart from sentient beings, there are no distinct Buddha-virtues. What does this mean? It means that the Buddha realizes the tathatā within the minds of sentient beings to become a Buddha, and also because initial awakening is identical with original awakening. Therefore, they are entirely within the minds of sentient beings. Arising function from substance, when [he manifests] the responsive transformation bodies, this is precisely the greatness of function of the tathatā within the minds of sentient beings; there is no other distinct Buddha. Third, following any single sacred teaching, it is entirely of both minds, because the previous two explanations are not separate from each other. That is to say: the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings expounds the Dharma for the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind; the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind listen to the Dharma expounded by the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings. Completely encompassing them in this way, expounding and listening are unobstructed; this is called the most profound principle of consciousness-only. Fourth, or that sacred teaching is neither of the two minds, because both mutually negate and do not appear together, and doubly integrating the two positions leaves neither unextinguished. That is to say, because there is no listener among the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind, and there is no expounder among the Buddhas within the minds of sentient beings; both are doubly distinguished so that both characteristics are exhausted. A sūtra says: 'He who expounds the Dharma neither expounds nor indicates; he who listens to the Dharma neither hears nor attains.' Another sūtra verse states: 'What sentient beings give birth to is not birth, / nor is there transmigration within saṃsāra.' Another sūtra verse also states: 'The Tathāgata does not expound the Dharma, / nor does he save sentient beings,' and so forth. Therefore, when these four are roundly integrated and unobstructed in a single sacred teaching, only then is it ultimate. The *Huayan yanyi* raises a question: 'Sentient beings and Buddhas may be the same with regard to substance, but their characteristics and functions are naturally distinct; how could they be completely identical?' It explains: 'Function arises from substance, and function is not different from substance. Since substance is the substance of sentient beings, how could function be separated from sentient beings? Therefore, relying on substance to arise function is precisely the greatness of function of the tathatā within the minds of sentient beings; there is no other distinct Buddha.' [Question:] 'If so, this meaning is already present in the *Awakening of Faith* (*Qixin lun*); why then uniquely explain Huayan as the distinct teaching?' It explains: 'Although the *Awakening of Faith* explains the non-duality of initial awakening and original awakening and that the three greatnesses of substance, characteristic, and function are uniformly the same, these are practiced and realized separately in their own minds; it does not say that sentient beings and Buddhas mutually and completely encompass each other. Thus, using the text of the *Awakening of Faith*, it establishes the meaning of the Huayan.' Furthermore, regarding the complete encompassing of expounding and listening and the mutual presence of sentient beings and Buddhas, two analogies are briefly cited. First: just as before a single bright mirror master and disciple together face each other, expounding and listening—if taken from the master's perspective, it is the master's mirror; if taken from the disciple's perspective, it is the disciple's mirror. The mirror illustrates the one mind; master and disciple illustrate sentient beings and Buddhas. This means that the preceptor within the disciple's mirror expounds the Dharma for the disciple within the preceptor's mirror, and the disciple within the preceptor's mirror listens to the Dharma expounded by the preceptor within the disciple's mirror. All knowledgeable persons, please examine this analogy carefully. Fearing that this analogy may still not be understood: it is also like water and milk blending together in one place, serving mutually as that which blends and that which is blended. Following the context of expounding and listening, let that which blends be expounding and that which is blended be listening; let water illustrate the Buddha and milk illustrate sentient beings. One should say that the water within the milk blends with the milk within the water, and the milk within the water receives the water within the milk. Although they are of one taste, the agent and object are clearly distinct. Although agent and object are clearly distinct, they mutually abide in each other, mutually pervade, and mutually integrate. Consider and measure by this. Furthermore, 'the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings' clarifies that sentient beings universally pervade according to their nature, while the Buddha abides within the minds of sentient beings without destroying their characteristics. Saying 'expounding the Dharma for the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind' clarifies that the Buddha's mind universally pervades according to nature, while sentient beings abide within the Buddha's mind without destroying their characteristics. There is no other principle; there is only the difference between expounding and listening. Thus it is known that the speech of all sentient beings is the true substance of the wheel of Dharma. If separated from the speech of sentient beings, the Buddha would have nothing to expound. A former master said: 'Apart from regional dialects, the Buddha has nothing to expound.' The sage has no mind of his own, taking the mind of the myriad things as his mind; the sage has no body of his own, taking the body of the myriad things as his body. Thus one knows that the sage has no words of his own, taking the words of the myriad things as his words. The *Huayan lun* says: 'The adorned fruit-retribution of all realms of ordinary beings and sages serves as the substance of the teaching.' This is giving rise to the mind upon seeing the environment, without waiting for speech: seeing evil, one is repelled by it; seeing good, one rejoices in it, and all can give rise to goodness. Furthermore, it is because there is no phenomenon that is not the Buddha's work. Moreover, it takes the purity of the self-nature of all phenomena as the substance of the teaching, because through the power of observation, the mind accords and is naturally congruent, without waiting for speech. Moreover, it takes the four deportments of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down as the substance of the teaching, because giving rise to faith and reverence upon seeing does not wait for words. The *Zhaolun* says: 'Since what it accomplishes has no equal in greatness, it in turn appears as a minor achievement; since what it bestows has no equal in breadth, it in turn reverts to the nameless.' What is called a minor achievement? Comprehending the Dharma-gates of hundreds of thousands of Gaṅgā sands within the mind-ground on the tip of a hair. What is called the nameless? The forms of the teachings pervade the three-thousandfold [world], yet neither name nor characteristic can be grasped. Therefore, one must master both the source and the discourse to become an accomplished master. Hence a sūtra verse states: 'Mastering the source is one's own cultivation; / mastering the discourse is showing it to the unawakened.' Great Master Zhenjue said: 'Mastering the source and mastering the discourse as well, / samādhi and prajñā are completely luminous without stagnating in emptiness.' Mastering the source is samādhi; mastering the discourse is prajñā. When both the source and the discourse are fully expressed, samādhi and prajñā are both luminous. The two meanings are mutually complementary; neither can be lacked. As the *Lotus Sūtra* says: 'Adorned with the power of samādhi and prajñā, / one saves sentient beings through this.' Furthermore, an ancient verse says: 'Discourse mastered but the source not mastered / is like the sun shrouded by clouds; / source mastered and discourse also mastered / is like the sun dwelling in empty space.' Thus it is known: if one first understands the source, one's discourse will be without error. Hence the verse in the introductory chapter of the *Lotus Sūtra* states: 'Also seeing all the bodhisattvas / knowing the quiescent characteristic of phenomena, / each in their own lands / expounding the Dharma to seek the Buddha path.' Furthermore, wherever there is explanation expressed through spoken teaching, it is always to clarify the mind, not to explain other phenomena. If it speaks of vastness and unhindered sovereignty, this is clarifying the mind in terms of its virtuous characteristics. If it speaks of quiescence and unconditioned nature, this is clarifying the mind in terms of separation from faults. Even down to speaking of phenomena, they are the phenomena of the mind; or speaking of principle, it is the principle of the mind.