[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › 29.9 # 宗鏡錄 29.9 宗鏡錄 29.9 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [29.9.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.29.9.1) 答。 諸佛無有色聲功德。 唯有如如及如如智獨存。 凡有見聞。 皆是眾生自心影像。 則說唯心說。 聽唯心聽。 離心之外。 何處有法。 如思益經云。 梵天言。 何故說不聽法者。 乃為聽經。 文殊言。 眼耳鼻舌身意不漏。 是聽法也。 所以者何。 於內六入。 不漏色聲香味觸法。 乃為聽經。 乃至梵天問。 得忍菩薩。 汝等豈不聽是經耶。 答。 如我等聽。 以不聽為聽。 古德云。 如來演出八辯洪音。 聞者託起自心所現。 如依狀貌。 變起毫端。 本質已無。 影像如在。 群賢結集。 自隨見聞。 依所聞見。 結集自語。 良以。 離自心原。 無有外境。 離境亦無內心可得。 諸傳法者。 非授與他。 但為勝緣。 令自得法。 自解未起。 無以悟他。 自解不從他來。 他解寧非自起。 是故結集及傳授者。 皆得影像。 不得本質。 無有自心得他境故。 是知結集。 乃是自心所變之經。 至傳授者。 傳授自心所變之法。 得影非質。 思而可知。 若能常善分別自心所現。 能知一切外性非性。 此人知見。 可與佛同。 所說之法。 與佛無異。 悟入自覺聖智樂故。 寶性論偈云。 天妙法鼓聲。 依自業而有。 諸佛說法者。 眾生自業聞。 如妙聲遠離。 功用處身心。 令一切眾生。 離怖得寂靜。 佛聲亦如是。 離功用身心。 令一切眾生。 得證寂滅道。 又偈云。 譬如虛空中。 雨八功德水。 到鹹等住處。 生種種異味。 如來慈悲雲。 雨八聖道水。 到眾生心處。 生種種解味。 釋曰。 如天鼓聲。 應諸天所知之量。 猶龍王雨。 隨世間能感之緣。 證自法而不同。 成異味而有別。 法亦如是。 隨見差殊。 於一乘而開出諸乘。 從一法而分成多法。 華嚴探玄記云。 緣起唯心門者。 此上一切差別教法。 無不皆是唯心所顯。 是故俱以唯識為體。 然有二義。 一本影相對。 二說聽全收。 初中通辯諸教。 總有四句。 一唯本無影。 如小乘教。 以無唯識義故。 達摩多羅等諸論師。 多立此義。 二亦本亦影。 如大乘始教。 眾生心外佛有微妙色聲等法。 由聞者善根增上緣力。 擊佛利他種子為因。 於佛智上。 文義相生。 為本性相教。 由佛此教增上緣力。 擊聞法者有流善根種子。 聞者識上文義相生。 為影像相教。 三十唯識論頌云。 展轉增上力。 二識成決定。 護法論師等。 悉立此義。 三唯影無本。 如大乘終教。 離眾生心。 佛果無有色身音聲。 事相功德。 唯有如如及如如智。 大悲大願。 為增上緣。 彼所化根熟眾生。 心中顯佛色聲說法。 是故聖教。 唯是眾生心中影像。 故經偈云。 一切諸如來。 無有說佛法。 隨其所應化。 而為演說法。 又偈云。 如來法身不思議。 無色無相無倫匹。 示現色像為眾生。 十方受化靡不見。 如是非一。 龍軍。 堅慧。 諸論師等。 並立此義。 四非本非影。 如頓教中。 非直心外無佛色等。 眾生心內所顯之佛。 亦當相空。 以唯是識。 無別影故。 色等性離。 無所有故。 一切無言。 無言亦無故。 是故聖教。 即是無教之教。 如經頌云。 如來不出世。 亦無有涅槃。 又密嚴經。 明佛常在法界。 無出世等。 龍樹等宗。 多立此義。 此有四說。 總為一教。 圓融無礙。 皆不相妨。 以各聖教從淺至深。 攝眾生故。 思之可見。 第二說聽全收者。 亦四句。 一離佛心外無所化眾生。 況所說教。 是故唯是佛心所顯。 此義云何。 謂諸眾生無別自體。 攬如來藏以成眾生。 然此如來藏。 即是智證為自體。 是故眾生舉體。 總在佛智心中。 經頌云。 諸佛悉了知。 一切從心轉。 又云。 如來菩提身中。 悉見一切眾生發菩提心成等正覺。 乃至見一切眾生皆已寂滅。 > Answer: The Buddhas have no qualities of form or sound; only tathatā and the wisdom of tathatā exist uniquely. Whatever seeing and hearing there may be are all images of sentient beings' own citta. Thus expounding is expounding only by citta, and listening is listening only by citta. Outside citta, where is there any dharma? As the Siyi jing says: "Brahmā said: 'Why is it said that one who does not listen to the Dharma is \[truly\] listening to the sūtra?' Mañjuśrī said: 'When eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and manas do not leak, that is listening to the Dharma. Why is this? When at the inner six entries, form, sound, scent, taste, tangibles, and dharmas do not leak, only then is it listening to the sūtra.' And further, Brahmā asked: 'Bodhisattvas who have attained kṣānti, do you not listen to this sūtra?' The answer: 'As we listen, we take not listening as listening.'" A worthy of old said: "The Tathāgata emits the vast sound of the eight eloquence-types; the listener relies on and gives rise to what appears from their own citta. Just as relying on a shape and appearance, it is transformed at the tip of a fine hair; the intrinsic substance is already absent, yet the reflected image is as if present. The assembly of the worthy compiles \[the teachings\], each following their own seeing and hearing; relying on what was heard and seen, they compile their own words. Truly because, apart from the source of one's own citta, there is no external object, and apart from the object, no internal citta can be found. Those who transmit the Dharma do not bestow it upon another; they merely serve as an excellent condition, causing them to attain the Dharma for themselves. If self-understanding has not arisen, there is no way to awaken another. If self-understanding does not come from another, how could another's understanding not arise from oneself? Therefore, both the compilers and the transmitters all obtain reflected images and do not obtain the intrinsic substance, because one's own citta cannot grasp another's object. Thus we know that compilation is the sūtra transformed by one's own citta, and arriving at transmitters, they transmit the Dharma transformed by their own citta. They obtain the image, not the substance; through contemplation, this can be known. If one can constantly and skillfully distinguish what is manifested by one's own citta, and can know that all external natures are without nature, this person's knowledge and vision can be the same as the Buddha's, and the Dharma they expound will be no different from the Buddha's, because they have awakened and entered the joy of the noble wisdom of self-realization." A verse from the Ratnagotravibhāga says: "The sound of the wonderful heavenly Dharma drum / arises depending on one's own karma. / The Buddhas' expounding of the Dharma / is heard by sentient beings through their own karma. / Just as the wonderful sound is free from / physical and mental effort, / causing all sentient beings / to leave fear and attain tranquility, / the Buddha's voice is also like this: / free from physical and mental effort, / causing all sentient beings / to attain the realization of the path of quiescence." Another verse says: "Just as in empty space / water of eight qualities rains down, / and reaching places where salt and so forth abide, / it produces various different tastes, / the Tathāgata's cloud of compassion / rains down the water of the eightfold noble path; / reaching the place of sentient beings' minds, / it produces various tastes of understanding." The explanation states: Just as the sound of the heavenly drum corresponds to the capacity of what the devas know, like the rain of the dragon king following the evocative conditions of the world, realizing their own dharma they are not identical, and becoming different tastes there are distinctions; the Dharma is also like this: following the divergence of views, from the One Vehicle various vehicles are opened out, and from the one Dharma it is divided into many dharmas. The Huayan tanxuan ji says: "Regarding the gate of dependent origination being mind-only: all these above differentiated teaching dharmas are without exception manifested only by citta; therefore, all take vijñaptimātra as substance. However, there are two meanings: first, the contrast of intrinsic substance and reflected image; second, the complete subsumption of expounding and listening. In the first, broadly discerning the various teachings, there are altogether four propositions. First: intrinsic substance only, without reflected image. As in the Hīnayāna teaching, because it lacks the meaning of vijñaptimātra; treatises masters such as Dharmatrāta mostly establish this meaning. Second: both intrinsic substance and reflected image. As in the initial teaching of the Mahāyāna, outside sentient beings' minds the Buddha possesses subtle and marvelous dharmas of form, sound, and so on; by the power of the predominant condition of the listener's wholesome roots, striking the Buddha's seeds of benefiting others as cause, on the Buddha's wisdom text and meaning mutually arise, serving as the teaching of intrinsic nature and characteristics. By the power of the predominant condition of this teaching of the Buddha, striking the seeds of the tainted wholesome roots of the listener of the Dharma, on the listener's consciousness text and meaning mutually arise, serving as the teaching of the characteristics of reflected images. A verse from the Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā says: 'Through mutual predominant power, / the two consciousnesses become determined.' Master Dharmapāla and others all establish this meaning. Third: reflected image only, without intrinsic substance. As in the final teaching of the Mahāyāna, apart from sentient beings' minds, the Buddha fruit has no physical body, voice, or phenomenal qualities; there are only tathatā and the wisdom of tathatā, with great compassion and great vows serving as predominant conditions. In the minds of those transformed sentient beings whose faculties have ripened, the Buddha's form and sound expounding the Dharma are manifested. Therefore, the sacred teaching is solely reflected images within sentient beings' minds. Hence a sūtra verse says: 'All Tathāgatas / do not expound the Buddha-Dharma; / according with those who should be transformed, / they expound the Dharma for them.' Another verse says: 'The Tathāgata's dharmakāya is inconceivable, / formless, signless, and peerless; / manifesting physical images for sentient beings, / in the ten directions those who receive transformation all behold it.' Teachings like this are not solitary. Treatise masters such as Nāgasena and Sthiramati both establish this meaning. Fourth: neither intrinsic substance nor reflected image. As in the sudden teaching, not only is there no Buddha-form and so forth outside the mind, the Buddha manifested within sentient beings' minds is also empty in its very characteristics. Because it is consciousness only, there is no distinct reflected image; because form and so forth are free from nature, they are non-existent; because all is ineffable, the ineffable is also non-existent. Therefore, the sacred teaching is the teaching of non-teaching. As a sūtra verse says: 'The Tathāgata does not appear in the world, / nor does he undergo nirvāṇa.' Furthermore, the Ghanavyūhasūtra clarifies that the Buddha constantly abides in the dharmadhātu, without appearing in the world, and so on. The school of Nāgārjuna and others mostly establishes this meaning. These four explanations are gathered into one teaching; they are perfectly fused without obstruction and do not impede one another, because each sacred teaching gathers sentient beings from the shallow to the deep. Through reflection, this can be seen. Second, as for the complete subsumption of expounding and listening, there are also four propositions. First: apart from the Buddha's mind, there are no sentient beings to be transformed, much less the teaching expounded; therefore, it is manifested solely by the Buddha's mind. What is the meaning of this? It means that sentient beings have no separate intrinsic substance of their own; grasping the tathāgatagarbha, they constitute sentient beings. However, this tathāgatagarbha takes wisdom-realization as its intrinsic substance. Therefore, the entirety of sentient beings is altogether within the citta of the Buddha's wisdom. A sūtra verse says: 'The Buddhas all completely know / that everything turns from citta.' It also says: 'Within the Tathāgata's body of bodhi, / he sees all sentient beings generating the bodhi-mind and accomplishing equal, perfect enlightenment, / up to seeing that all sentient beings have already entered quiescence.'" > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [29.9.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.29.9.2) 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. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [29.9.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.29.9.3) 故云千經萬論。 皆是言心。 豈止宗鏡耶。 如法華經云。 為一大事因緣故出現於世。 凡言大者。 莫越於心。 於五大之中虛空最大。 尚為心之所含。 故首楞嚴經云。 空生大覺中。 如海一漚發。 又云。 寂照含虛空。 此大非對數量稱大。 又非形待稱大。 故云一大事。 又此一非一。 如法句經頌云。 森羅及萬像。 一法之所印。 一亦不為一。 為欲破諸數。 是知諸佛出世。 祖師西來。 皆明斯旨。 非為別事矣。 起信鈔云。 一心該於萬有。 萬有不出一心者。 此但意在出體。 不在收於萬法。 恐存物外之見。 故總該之。 然諸教中。 皆說萬法一心。 而淺深有異。 今約五教。 略而辯之。 一愚人法聲聞教。 假說一心。 謂世出世間染淨等法。 皆由心造業之所感故。 若推徵。 則一心之義不成。 以立前境。 故云假說。 二大乘權教。 明異熟賴耶以為一心。 三界萬法唯識變故。 三終教。 說如來藏以為一心。 識境諸法皆如夢故。 四頓教。 泯絕染淨以說一心。 為破諸數假名故。 五圓教。 總該萬有以為一心。 事理本末無別異故。 如上所說。 前淺後深。 淺不至深。 深必該淺。 所以宗鏡雖備引五教一心證明。 唯指歸圓教一心。 總攝前故。 又如鈔云。 一心為如來所說法之根本者。 蓋緣如來依此一心而成就故。 是則信解行證。 皆依此心。 從微至著。 未甞離此。 若離於心得成佛者。 無有是處。 離此有說者。 皆外道教也。 所以起信論云。 所言法者。 謂眾生心。 是心則攝一切世間出世間法。 依於此心。 顯示摩訶衍義。 疏釋云。 辯法功能。 以其此心體相無礙。 染淨同依。 隨流返流。 唯轉此心。 是故惹隨染成於不覺。 則攝世間法。 若不變之本覺。 及返流之始覺。 則攝出世間法。 此猶約生滅門中辯。 若約真如門者。 則鎔融含攝。 染淨不殊。 如上所指。 盡理無過。 然一切染淨之法。 法無自立。 唯心所轉。 是知因心成法。 法豈非心。 所依既全是心。 能依何得有異。 以能依從所依起故。 如波從水起。 器自金成。 本末皆同。 體用無際。 法苑義林云。 遍詳諸教。 所說一切唯識。 不過五種。 一境唯識。 阿毘達磨經頌云。 鬼傍生人天。 各隨其所應。 等事心異故。 許義非真實。 如是等文。 但說唯識所觀境者。 皆境唯識。 二教唯識。 由自心執著等頌。 皆教唯識。 三理唯識。 三十頌云。 是諸識轉變。 分別所分別。 由此彼皆無。 故一切唯識。 如是成立唯識道理。 皆理唯識。 四行唯識。 菩薩於定位等頌。 四種尋思如實等。 皆行唯識。 五果唯識。 佛地經言。 大圓鏡智。 諸處境識皆於中現。 又如來功德莊嚴經頌云。 如來無垢識。 是淨無漏界。 解脫一切障。 圓鏡智相應。 如是諸說。 唯識得果。 皆果唯識。 此中所說境教理行果等。 五種唯識。 總攝一切唯識皆盡。 然諸教中就義隨機。 於境唯識種種異說。 或依所執以辯唯識。 楞伽經頌云。 由自心執著。 心似外境現。 以彼境非有。 是故說唯心。 但依執心虛妄現故。 或依有漏以明唯識。 華嚴經云。 三界唯心。 就於世間說唯識故。 或依所執及隨有為。 以辯唯識。 三十頌云。 由假說我法。 有種種相轉。 彼依識所變。 依識自體起。 或依有情以辯唯識。 無垢稱經云。 心清淨故。 有情清淨。 心雜染故。 有情雜染。 或依一切無有諸法。 以辯唯識。 解深密經云。 諸識所緣。 唯識所現。 或隨指事以辯唯識。 阿毘達磨論。 引契經頌云。 鬼傍生人天。 各隨其所應。 隨指一事辯唯識故。 如是等說無量教門。 類攝諸教理義盡者。 唯第五教。 總說一切為唯識故。 乃至辯名離合會釋者。 離者別也。 > Therefore it is said that the thousands of sūtras and ten thousands of treatises all speak of citta. How could it be limited to this Mirror of the Source alone? As the Lotus Sūtra says: "It is for the sake of the one great causal condition that \[the Buddhas\] appear in the world." Whenever "great" is spoken of, nothing exceeds citta. Among the five great elements, space is the greatest, yet it is still contained within citta. Thus the Śūraṅgamasūtra says: "Space arises within the great awakening like a single bubble breaking out on the ocean." It also says: "Quiet illumination encompasses empty space." This "great" is not termed great in contrast to quantity, nor is it termed great in relational comparison. Therefore it is called the "one great matter." Furthermore, this "one" is not \[a numerical\] one. As a verse in the Dharmapada says: / "The myriad phenomena and ten thousand forms / Are imprinted by the one Dharma. / The one is also not a one; / It is in order to shatter all numbers." / From this one knows that the appearance of the Buddhas in the world and the ancestral masters' coming from the West were all to illuminate this principle, not for any other matter. The Commentary on the Awakening of Faith says: "That the one mind subsumes the myriad existents and the myriad existents do not go beyond the one mind is intended merely to reveal the substance, not to encompass the myriad phenomena. Fearing that there might remain a view of \[things existing\] outside phenomena, it therefore universally subsumes them." However, in the various teachings, all speak of the myriad phenomena as the one mind, yet with differences of depth and shallowness. Now, according to the five teachings, we briefly analyze them: First, the Dharma for fools, the Śrāvaka Teaching, provisionally speaks of the one mind, meaning that both mundane and supramundane, defiled and pure phenomena, are all induced by the karma created by citta. If one investigates and examines it, the meaning of the one mind is not established; because it posits objective spheres before it, it is called "provisional speech." Second, the Mahāyāna Provisional Teaching elucidates the vipākālayavijñāna as the one mind, because the myriad phenomena of the three realms are transformations of vijñāna alone. Third, the Final Teaching speaks of the tathāgatagarbha as the one mind, because the phenomena of consciousness and objective spheres are all like a dream. Fourth, the Sudden Teaching obliterates defilement and purity to speak of the one mind, in order to shatter all numbers and provisional designations. Fifth, the Perfect Teaching universally subsumes the myriad existents as the one mind, because phenomenon and principle, root and branch, have no distinction. As explained above, the earlier are shallow and the later are deep. The shallow does not reach the deep, but the deep necessarily subsumes the shallow. Therefore, although the Mirror of the Source comprehensively cites the one mind across the five teachings as proof, it points ultimately to the one mind of the Perfect Teaching, because it comprehensively integrates what precedes it. Furthermore, as the Commentary says: "The one mind is the root of the Dharma spoken by the Tathāgata, because it is by relying on this one mind that the Tathāgata accomplishes \[enlightenment\]." Thus, faith, understanding, practice, and realization all rely on this citta. From the subtle to the manifest, it has never departed from this. If it were possible to attain Buddhahood apart from citta, there is no such possibility. Whatever is taught apart from this is all the teaching of outsiders. Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: "That which is called 'Dharma' refers to the citta of sentient beings. This citta subsumes all mundane and supramundane dharmas. Relying on this citta, the meaning of Mahāyāna is revealed." The subcommentary explains: "Analyzing the function of the Dharma: Because the substance and characteristics of this citta are unhindered, defilement and purity rely on it alike. Going along with the flow or returning against the flow is solely the turning of this citta. Therefore, if it is drawn along by defilement to become non-awakening, it then subsumes mundane dharmas; if it is the unchanging original awakening and the initial awakening that returns against the flow, it then subsumes supramundane dharmas." This is still analyzed in terms of the gate of arising and ceasing. If it is considered in terms of the gate of tathatā, then it blends and encompasses, and defilement and purity are not distinct. What was indicated above exhausts the principle without fault. Yet regarding all defiled and pure dharmas, dharmas have no independent standing of their own; they are solely turned by citta. Hence we know that dharmas are formed because of citta—how could dharmas not be citta? Since that which is relied upon is entirely citta, how could that which relies be different? For that which relies arises from that which is relied upon. Just as waves arise from water and vessels are formed from gold, root and branch are both identical, and substance and function are boundless. The Fayuan yilin \[zhang\] says: "Thoroughly examining the various teachings, all vijñaptimātra spoken of does not exceed five kinds: First, vijñaptimātra of the objective sphere. A verse of the Abhidharmasūtra says: / 'Pretas, animals, humans, and devas, / Each according to what is appropriate to them, / Have different minds regarding the same matter; / Therefore it is admitted that the object is not real.' / Passages such as this, which only speak of the objective sphere contemplated by vijñaptimātra, are all vijñaptimātra of the objective sphere. Second, vijñaptimātra of teaching: verses such as 'Owing to the clinging of one's own citta' are all vijñaptimātra of teaching. Third, vijñaptimātra of principle: the Triṃśikā says: / 'These consciousnesses transform; / Discriminating and that which is discriminated, / Because of this, both are non-existent; / Therefore, all is vijñaptimātra.' / In this way establishing the principle of vijñaptimātra is vijñaptimātra of principle. Fourth, vijñaptimātra of practice: verses such as 'Bodhisattvas in the fixed state' and the four kinds of thorough search into things as they truly are are all vijñaptimātra of practice. Fifth, vijñaptimātra of fruit: the Buddhabhūmisūtra says: 'In the great round mirror wisdom, the consciousnesses of all sense-bases and objective spheres are all manifested therein.' Also, a verse of the Tathāgataguṇālaṃkārasūtra says: / 'The immaculate consciousness of the Tathāgata / Is the pure, uncontaminated realm, / Liberated from all obstructions, / Associated with the round mirror wisdom.' / Teachings such as these, concerning the attainment of the fruit through vijñaptimātra, are all vijñaptimātra of fruit. The five kinds of vijñaptimātra spoken of here—objective sphere, teaching, principle, practice, and fruit—comprehensively encompass all vijñaptimātra without remainder. However, in the various teachings, according to the meaning and in adaptation to capacities, there are various different explanations regarding vijñaptimātra of the objective sphere: Some elucidate vijñaptimātra by relying on what is clung to: a verse in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: / 'Owing to the clinging of one's own citta, / Citta appears like external objective spheres; / Since those objective spheres do not exist, / Therefore it is said to be citta-alone.' / This is solely relying on the clinging citta to explain false appearance. Some illuminate vijñaptimātra by relying on the contaminated: the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'The three realms are citta-alone,' which speaks of vijñaptimātra with respect to the mundane world. Some elucidate vijñaptimātra by relying on what is clung to and according with the conditioned: the Triṃśikā says: / 'Due to the provisional designation of self and dharmas, / Various characteristics transform; / They rely on the transformation of vijñāna, / And arise relying on the self-substance of vijñāna.' / Some elucidate vijñaptimātra by relying on sentient beings: the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra says: 'Because the mind is pure, sentient beings are pure; because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled.' Some elucidate vijñaptimātra by relying on all dharmas being non-existent: the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra says: 'The cognitive objects of the consciousnesses are solely the manifestations of vijñāna.' Some elucidate vijñaptimātra according to pointing to particular matters: the Abhidharma treatise cites a scriptural verse: / 'Pretas, animals, humans, and devas, / Each according to what is appropriate to them' / —which elucidates vijñaptimātra by pointing to a single matter. For such innumerable gates of teaching, that which categorizes and subsumes the principles and meanings of all the teachings completely is only the fifth teaching, because it universally explains that all things are vijñaptimātra. Moving on to analyzing the terms by separation, combination, and integrated explanation: 'separation' means distinction. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [29.9.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.29.9.4) 合者同也。 諸經論各各別說諸觀等名。 今合解云。 但是唯識之差別義。 非體異也。 一名有三十二類。 華嚴等經中遮境唯識。 名為唯心。 辯中邊論。 遮邊執路。 名為中道。 般若經中明簡擇性。 名為般若。 法華經中明究竟運載。 名曰一乘。 此之四名。 通能所觀。 若約真俗境觀者。 正智唯真。 加行後得。 並通真俗。 若言證者。 後得唯俗。 勝鬘經中。 遮餘虛妄。 名一實諦。 顯法根本。 亦名一依。 由空而證。 又是空性。 亦名為空。 彰異出纏。 顯攝佛德。 佛從中出。 名如來藏。 明體不染貞實法性。 名自性清淨心。 功德自體。 亦名法身。 能出四乘。 能入二乘。 亦名一乘。 與法華一乘別。 無垢稱經。 遮理有差別。 名不二法門。 大慧經中。 表無起盡。 亦名不生不滅。 涅槃經中。 彰法身因。 多名佛性。 離縛解脫。 亦名涅槃。 楞伽經中。 表離言說。 名不思議。 瑜伽等中。 顯不可施設。 名非安立。 攝大乘等。 顯此遍常等。 名圓成實。 對法論等。 明非妄倒。 名曰真如。 此之十五類名。 唯所觀理。 唯真智境。 恐文繁廣。 略舉爾所。 非更無也。 謂諸法界。 法性。 不虛妄性。 不變異性。 平等性。 離生性。 法定。 法住。 法位。 真際。 虛空界。 無我。 勝義不思議界等。 乃至瑜伽論中。 施設非施設淺深異故。 名為安立非安立諦。 即勝鬘經有作四聖諦。 無作四聖諦。 涅槃經中。 亦名勝義世俗二諦。 乃至解深密等。 顯一切法有無事理種類差別。 名為三性。 顯三俱無遍計所執。 亦名三無性。 又瑜伽等中。 明離繫之方便。 亦名三解脫門。 表印深理。 名三無生忍。 大智度論。 顯示差別。 名四悉檀。 諸論以後觀細。 亦名四如實智。 仁王經中位別印可。 亦名五忍。 如是一切。 雖異名說。 皆是此中唯識境智差別名也。 又或說因果體。 俱一識作用。 成多。 一類菩薩義。 或因果俱說二。 決擇分中有心地說。 謂本識及轉識。 或唯因說三。 辯中邊論頌云。 識生變似義。 有情我及了。 或因果俱說三。 三十唯識論云。 謂異熟思量。 及了別境識。 多異熟性。 故偏說之。 阿陀那名。 理通果。 或唯果說。 四佛地經等。 說四智品。 或因果俱說（此處闕第五義。 諸本皆無）六隨順小乘經中說六識。 或因果俱說七。 諸教說七心界。 或因果俱說八。 謂八識。 或因果合說九。 楞伽經第九頌云。 八九種種識。 如水中諸波。 此依無相論同性經中。 彼取真如為第九識。 真一俗八二合說故。 今取淨位第八本識。 以為第九。 染淨本識各別論故。 所依本故。 第九復名阿末羅識故。 第八染淨別說。 以為九也。 如是所說。 諸識差別。 一往而論。 依成唯識論云。 八識自性。 不可言定異。 因果性故。 無定性故。 如水波故。 亦非定一。 行相所依緣。 相應異故。 起滅異故。 熏習異故。 楞伽經頌云。 心意識八種。 俗故相有別。 真故相無別。 相所相無故。 如是一切識類差別。 名為唯識。 此幻性識。 若加行觀。 唯共非自。 若後得觀。 自相觀。 一一依他。 各各證故。 如上所引。 是知諸佛所證。 菩薩所修。 若教若理。 若因若果。 若行若位。 乃至世間出世間。 一切萬法。 無有纖毫一法不是心者。 宗鏡大旨。 見聞信向之者。 如寶印所印。 明鏡所照。 可永絕纖疑矣。 但一切毛道異生。 或居不定聚者。 習性易染。 猶如白絲。 如孟子云。 人性猶湍水。 決東則東。 決西則西。 猶如尺蠖。 食黃而身黃。 食蒼而身蒼。 且八識藏中。 十法界種子具有。 隨所聞法。 即發起現行。 若聞宗鏡之文。 即熏起佛乘種子。 > "Unifying" means making identical. The various sūtras and treatises each separately speak of various names for contemplation and so forth; now, unifying and explaining them, \[we say that\] they are merely differentiated aspects of vijñaptimātra, not different in substance. The first name comprises thirty-two classes. In sūtras such as the Buddhāvataṃsaka, rejecting the objective realm and upholding only consciousness is called "citta-only." The Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra, rejecting extreme biased attachments to pathways, calls it the "middle way." The Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, elucidating the nature of discernment, call it "prajñā." The Lotus Sūtra, elucidating the ultimate conveyance, calls it the "single vehicle" (ekayāna). These four names apply both to that which contemplates and to that which is contemplated. In terms of the ultimate and conventional objective realms and their contemplations, correct knowledge is solely the ultimate; preparatory application and post-attainment apply to both ultimate and conventional; in terms of realization, post-attainment is solely conventional. In the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra, rejecting other unrealities is called the "single real truth" (ekasatya); revealing the root of dharmas is also called the "single reliance" (ekaśaraṇa); realizing through emptiness, and being the very nature of emptiness, it is also called "emptiness"; displaying freedom beyond the defilements, revealing the inclusion of the Buddha's virtues, and that the Buddha emerges from within it, it is called the "tathāgatagarbha"; elucidating that the substance is undefiled and the true, solid dharma-nature, it is called the "naturally pure mind"; the substance of merits is also called the "dharmakāya"; being able to produce the four vehicles and being able to enter the two vehicles, it is also called the "single vehicle"—distinct from the single vehicle of the Lotus Sūtra. In the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, rejecting distinctions in principle is called the "Dharma gate of non-duality." In the Mahāmatirāja-sūtra, expressing the absence of arising and ending, it is also called "neither arising nor ceasing." In the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, showing the cause of the dharmakāya, it is mostly called "Buddha-nature"; being liberated from bonds, it is also called "nirvāṇa." In the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, expressing transcendence of speech, it is called "inconceivable." In the Yogācārabhūmi and so forth, showing it cannot be posited, it is called "non-established." In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and so forth, showing it to be all-pervading, permanent, and so forth, it is called "consummated reality" (pariniṣpanna). In the Abhidharmasamuccaya and so forth, explaining it is not erroneous or inverted, it is called "tathatā." These fifteen classes of names are solely the principle contemplated, solely the domain of true knowledge. Fearing the text would become overly voluminous, I have merely mentioned this many; it is not that there are no more. That is, the various dharmadhātus, dharma-nature, non-erroneous nature, unalterable nature, nature of equality, nature free from birth, dharma-stability, dharma-abiding, dharma-status, true limit (bhūtakoṭi), realm of space, non-self, inconceivable ultimate realm, and so forth; down to the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra where, because of the depth or shallowness of positing and non-positing, they are called established and non-established truths; namely the active four noble truths and inactive four noble truths in the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra; in the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, they are also called the two truths of the ultimate and the conventional; down to the Saṃdhinirmocana and so forth, where showing the classifications and distinctions of existence and non-existence, phenomena and principle of all dharmas, it is called the "three natures"; showing that all three are without imagined nature (parikalpita), it is also called the "three non-natures." Again, in the Yogācārabhūmi and so forth, elucidating the expedient means of liberation from bonds, they are also called the "three gates of liberation." Expressing the sealing of profound principle, they are called the "three acquiescences in the non-arising of dharmas" (anutpattikadharmakṣānti). In the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, demonstrating distinctions, they are called the "four siddhāntas." Because subsequent contemplation is subtle in various treatises, they are also called the "four real knowledges." Differentiating stages and confirming them in the Renwang jing, they are also called the "five acquiescences." All of these, although spoken with different names, are all different names for the realm and knowledge of consciousness-only here. Moreover, some say cause and effect substance are both one consciousness whose functions become manifold—this is the doctrine of one group of bodhisattvas. Or both cause and effect are spoken of as two: as stated in the section on stages with mind in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, namely the root consciousness and the evolving consciousness. Or only cause is spoken of as three: as the verse in the Madhyāntavibhāga says, "Consciousness arises and transforms into the likeness of objects, sentient beings, self, and awareness." Or both cause and effect are spoken of as three: the Triṃśikā says, "Namely, maturation (vipāka), cogitation (manana), and the consciousness that perceives sense-objects." Because it is largely of the nature of maturation, it is especially spoken of thus; the name ādāna in principle pervades the fruit. Or only fruit is spoken of as four: the Buddhabhūmisūtra and so forth speak of the four divisions of knowledge. Or both cause and effect are spoken of as \[five\]—(the fifth meaning is missing here, absent in all editions)—six: following the Hīnayāna sūtras, six consciousnesses are spoken of. Or both cause and effect are spoken of as seven: various teachings speak of seven mind-elements. Or both cause and effect are spoken of as eight: namely, the eight consciousnesses. Or cause and effect combined are spoken of as nine: the verse in the ninth \[fascicle\] of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra says, "The eight and nine various consciousnesses are like the waves on water." This is based on the \*Lakṣaṇāśūnyatā-śāstra\* and the Samatā-sūtra, where they take tathatā to be the ninth consciousness; because the one ultimate and the eight conventional are spoken of in combination. Now we take the eighth root-consciousness in its pure stage to be the ninth, because the defiled and pure root-consciousnesses are discussed separately, because it is the fundamental basis, and because the ninth is again named amalavijñāna; thus defiled and pure are spoken of separately in the eighth, making nine. Such distinctions of the various consciousnesses discussed above are from a preliminary perspective. According to the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra: "The self-nature of the eight consciousnesses cannot be said to be definitely different, because they are of the nature of cause and effect, because they lack a fixed nature, and because they are like water and waves. Nor are they definitely one, because their mental operations, bases, and objective conditions are different, because their arising and ceasing are different, and because their perfumings are different." A verse in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra says, "The eight kinds—citta, manas, and consciousnesses—their marks are differentiated conventionally; ultimately, their marks are not differentiated, because mark and marked do not exist." All such classifications and distinctions of consciousness are named vijñaptimātra. If this illusory-natured consciousness is contemplated in preparatory application, it is solely universal and not specific; if contemplated in post-attainment, it is contemplation of specific marks, because each dependent \[arising\] is individually realized. As cited above, it is known that whether it be teachings or principle, causes or effects, practices or stages, down to the mundane and supramundane, all myriad dharmas realized by all Buddhas and cultivated by bodhisattvas—there is not the slightest dharma that is not citta. Those who see, hear, believe, and aspire toward the great import of the Mirror of the Source are as if imprinted by a precious seal or illuminated by a bright mirror; slight doubts can be severed forever. But all hairy-path ordinary beings, or those dwelling in the indeterminate group, have habituated natures easily defiled, just like white silk. As Mencius said: "Human nature is like swirling water; open a channel to the east and it flows east, open one to the west and it flows west." It is also like an inchworm: eating yellow its body becomes yellow, eating green its body becomes green. Furthermore, within the storehouse of the eight consciousnesses, the seeds of the ten dharmadhātus are fully possessed; in accordance with whatever dharma is heard, active manifestations immediately arise. If one hears the text of the Mirror of the Source, it immediately perfumes and arouses the seeds of the Buddha vehicle. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [29.9.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.29.9.5) 然須染神入心。 窮源見性。 不俟耳入口出。 但記浮言。 如荀卿子云。 君子之學。 入乎神。 著乎心。 布乎四支。 動靜皆可為法。 小人之學。 入乎耳。 出乎口。 口耳之間則四寸耳。 何足美七尺之軀者也。 > "Yet one must dye one's spirit and internalize it into the mind, fathom the source and see the nature; do not wait for it to enter the ears and come out of the mouth, merely memorizing superficial words. As Xunzi said: 'The learning of the gentleman enters through his spirit, becomes fixed in his heart, spreads through his four limbs, and manifests as an exemplar in his movement and rest. The learning of the petty person enters through his ears and exits from his mouth; between mouth and ears is merely four inches—how could it suffice to beautify a seven-foot body?'" > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.29.9.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [大乘法苑義林章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.46) — Classical Chinese - [大方廣佛華嚴經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.avatamsaka*zh-buddhabhadra.35.46) — Classical Chinese - [究竟一乘寶性論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.ratnagotravibhaga*zh-ratnamati.1.95) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.29.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.29.9) · Pramāṇa