宗鏡錄 3.7

3.7

答。前已云。諸佛方便。不斷今時。密布深慈。不令孤棄。已明達者。終不發言。只為因疑故。問因問故答。此是本師。於楞伽會上。為十方諸大菩薩。來求法者。親說此二通。一宗通。二說通。宗通為菩薩。說通為童蒙。祖佛俯為初機童蒙。少垂開示。此約說通。只為從他覓法。隨語生解。恐執方便為真實。迷於宗通。是以分開二通之義。宗通者。謂緣自得勝進相。遠離言說文字妄想。乃至緣自覺趣光明輝發。若親到自覺地。光明發時。得云如人飲水。冷暖自知。如群盲眼開。分明照境。驗象真體。終不摸其尾牙。見乳正色。豈在談其鵠雪。當此具眼人前。若更說示。則不得稱知時名為大法師。實見月人。終不觀指。親到家者。自息問程。唯證相應。不俟言說。終不執指為月。亦不離指見月。如大涅槃經云。譬如有王。告一大臣。汝牽一象。以示盲者。爾時大臣。受王勅已。多集眾盲。以象示之。時彼眾盲。各以手觸。大臣即還。而白王言。臣已示竟。爾時大王。即喚眾盲。各各問言。汝見象耶。眾盲各言。我已得見。王言。象為何類。其觸牙者。即言。象形。如蘆菔根。其觸耳者。言象如箕。其觸頭者。言象如石。其觸鼻者。言象如杵。其觸脚者。言象如木臼。其觸脊者。言象如床。其觸腹者。言象如瓮。其觸尾者。言象如繩。善男子。如彼眾盲。不說象體。亦非不說。若是眾相。悉非象者。離是之外。更無別象。善男子。王喻如來應正遍知。臣喻方等大涅槃經。象喻佛性。盲喻一切無明眾生。是諸眾生聞佛說已。或作是言。色是佛性。何以故。是色雖滅。次第相續。是故獲得無上如來三十二相如來常色。如來色者。常不斷故。是說色名為佛性。譬如真金。質雖遷變。色常不異。或時作釧作盤。然其黃色初無改易。眾生佛性。亦復如是。質雖無常。而色是常。以是故。說色為佛性。乃至說受想行識等為佛性。又有說言。離陰有我。我是佛性。如彼盲人。各各說象。雖不得實。非不說象。說佛性者。亦復如是。非即六法。不離六法。善男子。是故我說眾生佛性。非色不離色。乃至非我不離我。善男子。有諸外道。雖說有我。而實無我。眾生我者。即是五陰。離陰之外。更無別我。善男子。譬如莖葉鬚臺。合為蓮華。離是之外。更無別華。又佛言。善男子。是諸外道。癡如小兒。無慧方便。不能了達。常與無常。苦與樂。淨不淨。我無我。壽命非壽命。眾生非眾生。實非實。有非有。於佛法中。取少許分。虛妄計有。常樂我淨。而實不知常樂我淨。如生盲人。不識乳色。便問他言。乳色何似。他人答言。色白如貝。盲人復問。是乳色者。如貝䩕耶。答言不也。復問。貝色為何似耶。答言。猶稻米粖。盲人復問。乳色柔軟。如稻米粖耶。稻米粖者。復何所似。答言。猶如雨雪。盲人復言。彼稻米粖冷如雪耶。雪復何似。答言。猶如白鵠。是生盲人。雖聞如是四種譬喻。終不能得識乳真色。是諸外道。亦復如是。終不能識常樂我淨。善男子。以是義故。我佛法中。有真實諦。非於外道。夫真實諦者。宗鏡所歸。未聞悟時。不信解者。所有說法。及自修行。皆成生滅折伏之門。不入無生究竟之道。如菴提遮女經云。爾時文殊師利。又問曰。頗有明知生而不生相。為生所留者不。答曰有。雖自明見。其力未充。而為生所留者是也。又問曰。頗有無知不識生性。而畢竟不為生所留者不。答曰無。所以者何。若不見生性。雖因調伏。少得安處。其不安之相。常為對治。若能見生性者。雖在不安之處。而安相常現前。若不如是知者。雖有種種勝辯談說。甚深典籍。而即是生滅心。說彼實相密要之言。如盲辯色。因他語故。說得青黃赤白黑。而不能自見色之正相。今不能見諸法者。亦復如是。但今為生所生。為死所死者。而有所說者。乃於其人。即無生死之義耶。若為常無常所繫者。亦復如是。當知大得空者亦不自得空。故說有空義耶。故知能了萬法無生之性。是為得道。大般若經云。佛言。善現。以一切法空無所有。皆不自在。虛誑不堅。故一切法。無生無起。無知無見。復次善現。一切法性。無所依止。無所繫屬。由此因緣。無生無起。無知無見。華嚴經云。如實法印。印諸業門。得法無生。住佛所住。觀無生性。印諸境界。諸佛護念。發心迴向。與諸法性。相應迴向。入無作法。成就所作方便。是以不了唯心之旨。未入宗鏡之人。向無生中。起貪癡之垢。於真空內。著境界之緣。以為對治。成其輪轉。若能返照。心境俱寂。如諸法無行經云。若菩薩見貪欲際。即是真際。見瞋恚際。即是真際。見愚癡際。即是真際。則能畢滅業障之罪。乃至凡夫愚人。不知諸法畢竟滅相故。自見其身。亦見他人。以是見故。便起身口意業。乃至不見佛。不見法。不見僧。是則不見一切法。若不見一切法。於諸法中。則不生疑。不生疑故。則不受一切法。不受一切法故。則自寂滅。不思議佛境界經云。爾時世尊。復語文殊師利菩薩言。童子。汝能了知如來所住平等法不。文殊師利菩薩言。世尊。我已了知。佛言。童子。何者是如來所住平等法。文殊師利菩薩言。世尊。一切凡夫。起貪瞋癡處。是如來所住平等法。佛言。童子。云何一切凡夫。起貪瞋癡處。是如來所住平等法。文殊師利菩薩言。世尊。一切凡夫。於空無相無願法中。起貪瞋癡。是故一切凡夫。起貪瞋癡處。即是如來所住平等法。佛言。童子。空豈是有法。而言於中。有貪瞋癡。文殊師利菩薩言。世尊。空是有。是故貪瞋癡亦是有。佛言。童子。空云何有。貪瞋癡。復云何有。文殊師利菩薩言。世尊。空以言說故有。貪瞋癡。亦以言說故有。如佛說。比丘有。無生無起。無作無為。非諸行法。此無生無起。無作無為非諸行法。非不有。若不有者。則於生起作為諸行之法。應無出離。以有。故言出離耳。此亦如是。若無有空。則於貪瞋癡。無有出離。以有。故說離貪等諸煩惱耳。中觀論偈云。從法不生法。亦不生非法。從非法不生。法。及於非法。直釋偈意。法即是有。如色心等。非法是無。如兔角等。若從法生法。如母生子。法生非法。如人生石女兒。從非法生法。如兔角生人。從非法生非法者。如龜毛生兔角。故般若假名論云。復有念言。若如來但證無所得者。佛法即一非是無邊。是故經言。如來說一切法。皆是佛法。佛法謂何。即無所得。未曾一法。有可得性。是故一切。無非佛法。云何一切。皆無所得。經云。一切法者。即非一切法。云何非耶。無生性故。若無生即無性。云何名一切法。於無性中。假言說故。一切法無有性者。即是眾生如來藏性。龐居士偈云。劫火燃天天不熱。嵐風吹動不聞聲。百川競注海不溢。五嶽名山不見形。澄清靜慮無蹤跡。千途盡總入無生。故知諸法從意成形。千途因心有像。一念澄寂。萬境曠然。元同不二之門。盡入無生之旨。所以傅大士行路難云。君不見。諸法但假空施設。寂靜無門為法門。一切法中心為主。余今不復得心原。究撿心原既不得。當知諸法併無根。又無生有二。如通心論云。一法性無生。妙理言法。至虛言性。本來自爾。名曰無生。二緣起無生。夫境由心現。故不從他生。心籍境起。故不自生。心境各異。故不共生。相因而有。故不無因生。亦云。一理無生。圓成實性。本不生故。二事無生。緣生之相。即無生故。止觀云。若釋金剛經。即轉無生意。度入不住門中。種種不住。不住色布施。不住聲香等布施。雖諸法不住。以無住法住般若中。即是入空。以無住法住世諦。即是入假。以無住法住實相。即是入中。此無住慧。即是金剛。三昧。能破盤石沙礫。徹至本際。又如釋迦牟尼入大寂定金剛三昧。天親無著論。開善廣解。詎出無生無住之意。若得此意。千經萬論。豁矣無疑。此是學觀之初章。思議之根本。釋異之妙慧。入道之指歸。綱骨曠大。事理具足。一解千從。法門自在。故知一切諸法。皆從無生性空而有。有而非有。不離俗而常真。非有而有。不離真而恒俗。則幻有立而無生顯。空有歷然。兩相泯而雙事存。真俗宛爾。斯則無生而無不生。不住二邊矣。如古德頌云。無生終不住。萬像徒流布。若作無生解。還被無生固。

Answer: It was already stated above: The skillful means of all buddhas are never interrupted in the present age; they secretly dispense deep compassion and do not let [sentient beings] be abandoned. Those who have already understood clearly never utter a word; it is only because of doubt that there is a question, and because of a question that there is an answer. This was personally spoken by our fundamental teacher at the Laṅkāvatāra assembly to the great bodhisattvas from the ten directions who had come seeking the Dharma: these two penetrations, first, penetration of the source, and second, penetration of speech. Penetration of the source is for bodhisattvas; penetration of speech is for beginners. The ancestral buddhas condescended to grant a little instruction for the beginner with initial capacity; this refers to the penetration of speech. Just because [such people] seek the Dharma from others and generate understanding according to words, there was fear that they would grasp skillful means as reality and become confused about penetration of the source. For this reason the meanings of the two penetrations were divided and distinguished. 'Penetration of the source' means: 'depending on oneself, one attains characteristics of superior advancement, far leaving behind speech, writing, and vain conceptualization,' and so on, up to 'depending on one's own awakened realm, radiance brightly emanates.' If one personally arrives at the ground of self-awakening, when radiance emanates, one may say: 'It is like a person drinking water: they know for themselves whether it is cold or warm.' It is like the blind opening their eyes and clearly illuminating the environment: verifying the elephant's true body, they never stroke its tail or tusk; seeing the proper color of milk, how could it depend on discussing a crane or snow? In front of this person with eyes, if one were further to preach and show it, one could not be called one who knows the proper time and is termed a great Dharma master. A person who truly sees the moon never looks at the finger; one who has personally arrived home naturally ceases to ask the way. Only when realization accords [with it] does it not wait upon words. One never grasps the finger as the moon, nor does one see the moon apart from the finger. As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'For instance, there was a king who addressed a minister: "Lead an elephant and show it to the blind." Thereupon the minister, having received the king's order, gathered many blind people and showed them the elephant. At that time, those blind people each touched it with their hands. The minister then returned and reported to the king: "I have finished showing it." At that time the great king summoned the blind people and asked each of them: "Did you see the elephant?" The blind people each said: "We have seen it." The king said: "What kind of thing is an elephant?" The one who touched the tusk said: "The shape of an elephant is like a radish root." The one who touched the ear said: "An elephant is like a winnowing basket." The one who touched the head said: "An elephant is like a rock." The one who touched the trunk said: "An elephant is like a pestle." The one who touched the leg said: "An elephant is like a wooden mortar." The one who touched the back said: "An elephant is like a bed." The one who touched the belly said: "An elephant is like a jar." The one who touched the tail said: "An elephant is like a rope." Good sons, just like those blind people: they did not speak of the elephant's substance, yet nor did they not speak of it. If these various characteristics were all not the elephant, yet apart from these, there is no other elephant. Good sons, the king is an analogy for the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyaksaṃbuddha. The minister is an analogy for the Vaipulya Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra. The elephant is an analogy for the buddha-nature. The blind are an analogy for all sentient beings with ignorance. Having heard the Buddha's preaching, these sentient beings might make this statement: "Form is the buddha-nature. Why? Although this form perishes, it continues in succession. Therefore, one attains the supreme Tathāgata's thirty-two characteristics, the Tathāgata's permanent form. Because the Tathāgata's form is permanent and uninterrupted, this form is called the buddha-nature. For example, true gold: though its substance changes, its color is always invariant. At times it is made into a bracelet or a plate, yet its yellow color is never altered from the beginning. Sentient beings' buddha-nature is also like this: though its substance is impermanent, its color is permanent. Therefore, form is spoken of as the buddha-nature." And so on, up to speaking of sensation, conception, volitional formations, and consciousness as the buddha-nature. Furthermore, some say: "Apart from the aggregates, there is a self; the self is the buddha-nature." Like those blind people each describing the elephant, although they do not attain the truth, nor do they fail to speak of the elephant. Those who speak of the buddha-nature are also like this: it is not identical to the six dharmas, nor is it apart from the six dharmas. Good sons, therefore I say that sentient beings' buddha-nature is neither form nor apart from form, and so on, up to neither self nor apart from self. Good sons, there are non-Buddhists who, although they speak of having a self, in reality have no self. The "self" of sentient beings is simply the five aggregates; apart from the aggregates, there is no other self. Good sons, for example, stem, leaves, filaments, and receptacle unite to form a lotus flower; apart from these, there is no other flower.' Furthermore, the Buddha said: 'Good sons, these non-Buddhists are as foolish as small children; lacking the skillful means of wisdom, they cannot comprehend permanence and impermanence, suffering and bliss, purity and impurity, self and non-self, lifespan and non-lifespan, sentient beings and non-sentient beings, real and non-real, existence and non-existence. Grasping a small fraction from within the Buddha's Dharma, they falsely imagine the existence of permanence, bliss, self, and purity, yet in reality do not know permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Like a person born blind who does not know the color of milk and asks another: "What is the color of milk like?" The other person answers: "Its color is white like a seashell." The blind person asks again: "Is this color of milk like a seashell sound?" The answer is: "No." He asks again: "What is the color of a seashell like?" The answer is: "It is like rice powder." The blind person asks again: "Is the color of milk soft like rice powder? What is rice powder like?" The answer is: "It is like falling snow." The blind person says again: "Is that rice powder cold like snow? What is snow like?" The answer is: "It is like a white crane." Although this person born blind hears these four analogies, in the end he cannot know the true color of milk. These non-Buddhists are also like this; in the end they cannot know permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Good sons, by this meaning, within my Buddha's Dharma there is the real truth, not among the non-Buddhists.' Now, the real truth is that to which the mirror of the source returns. When one has not yet heard and awakened, and does not faithfully understand it, whatever exposition of Dharma one gives and one's own practice all turn into gates of arising and ceasing and of subduing; they do not enter the ultimate path of non-arising. As the Āmrapālīsūtra states: 'At that time Mañjuśrī asked again: "Is there anyone who clearly knows the characteristic of arising yet non-arising, who is nevertheless detained by arising?" The answer was: "There is. Although they clearly see it themselves, their power is not yet sufficient, and they are detained by arising; this is such a one." He asked again: "Is there anyone who is ignorant and does not recognize the nature of arising, yet is ultimately not detained by arising?" The answer was: "No. Why? If one does not see the nature of arising, although through subduing one slightly attains a peaceful place, that characteristic of non-peace is constantly an object of antidote. If one can see the nature of arising, although one is in a non-peaceful place, the characteristic of peace constantly manifests before one. If one does not know in this way, although one has various superior debates and discussions of profound scriptures, it is just with a mind of arising and ceasing that one speaks those secret and essential words of the true mark. Like a blind person distinguishing colors: based on others' words, they can speak of blue, yellow, red, white, and black, but cannot themselves see the proper mark of color. Those today who cannot see phenomena are also like this. But if those who are now subject to the arising of arising and the death of dying make statements, does it mean that for such a person there is no meaning of birth and death? If one is bound by permanence and impermanence, it is also like this. One should know: can one who greatly attains emptiness not personally attain emptiness, so that an idea of emptiness is spoken of?" Therefore we know that being able to comprehend the non-arising nature of the ten thousand dharmas is attaining the Way. The Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra states: 'The Buddha said: "Subhūti, because all dharmas are empty and non-existent, all are not self-determined, and are false and unstable, all dharmas are without arising and without origination, without knowing and without seeing. Furthermore, Subhūti, the nature of all dharmas has nothing to rely upon and nothing to which it is tied. Due to these causes and conditions, they are without arising and without origination, without knowing and without seeing."' The Avataṃsakasūtra states: 'With the seal of true reality, one seals all gates of karma, attains the non-arising of dharmas, and abides where the buddhas abide. Contemplating the nature of non-arising, one seals all realms. Protected and remembered by all buddhas, one generates the mind of dedication; in accord with all dharmatā, one dedicates, entering unconditioned dharmas and accomplishing the skillful means of what is to be done.' Therefore, those who do not understand the purport of mind-only and have not entered the mirror of the source give rise to the defilement of greed and delusion toward non-arising, and cling to environmental conditions within true emptiness; taking them as antidotes, they bring about their transmigration. If they can reflect inward, citta and environment are both tranquil. As the Sarvadharmāpravṛttinirdeśasūtra states: 'If a bodhisattva sees the limit of greed, that itself is the limit of reality; if they see the limit of anger, that itself is the limit of reality; if they see the limit of delusion, that itself is the limit of reality—then they can completely extinguish the sins of karmic hindrances.' And so on, up to: 'Worldly fools, because they do not know the ultimately ceased characteristic of all dharmas, see their own bodies and also see other people. Due to this seeing, they then give rise to karma of body, speech, and mind.' And so on, up to: 'Not seeing the Buddha, not seeing the Dharma, not seeing the Saṅgha—this is not seeing any dharma. If one does not see any dharma, then among dharmas one gives rise to no doubt. Because one gives rise to no doubt, one does not grasp any dharma. Because one does not grasp any dharma, one naturally enters tranquility.' The Acintyabuddhaviṣayanirdeśasūtra states: 'At that time the World-Honoured One addressed the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī again: "Youth, can you comprehend the equal Dharma in which the Tathāgata abides?" The Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī said: "World-Honoured One, I have already comprehended it." The Buddha said: "Youth, what is the equal Dharma in which the Tathāgata abides?" The Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī said: "World-Honoured One, the place where all ordinary people give rise to greed, anger, and delusion is the equal Dharma in which the Tathāgata abides." The Buddha said: "Youth, how is the place where all ordinary people give rise to greed, anger, and delusion the equal Dharma in which the Tathāgata abides?" The Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī said: "World-Honoured One, all ordinary people give rise to greed, anger, and delusion within dharmas that are empty, markless, and wishless. Therefore, the place where all ordinary people give rise to greed, anger, and delusion is the equal Dharma in which the Tathāgata abides." The Buddha said: "Youth, is emptiness an existing dharma, such that you say greed, anger, and delusion exist within it?" The Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī said: "World-Honoured One, emptiness exists; therefore greed, anger, and delusion also exist." The Buddha said: "Youth, how does emptiness exist? How, further, do greed, anger, and delusion exist?" The Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī said: "World-Honoured One, emptiness exists by virtue of conventional speech; greed, anger, and delusion also exist by virtue of conventional speech. As the Buddha said: 'Monks, there is the unarisen, the unoriginated, the unmade, the unconditioned, which is not an active conditioned dharma. This unarisen, unoriginated, unmade, unconditioned, which is not an active conditioned dharma, is not non-existent. If it were non-existent, then from the dharmas that arise, originate, are made, and are active formations, there would be no escape. Because it exists, escape is spoken of.' This is also like that: if emptiness did not exist, then from greed, anger, and delusion there would be no escape. Because it exists, detachment from the afflictions of greed and the like is spoken of."' A verse of the Madhyamakaśāstra says: 'From a existent dharma, an existent dharma does not arise, nor does a non-existent dharma arise; from a non-existent dharma, an existent dharma does not arise, nor does a non-existent dharma arise.' Directly explaining the meaning of the verse: an existent dharma is existence, like form, citta, and so on; a non-existent dharma is non-existence, like a rabbit's horns and so on. If an existent dharma arose from an existent dharma, it would be like a mother giving birth to a child; if an existent dharma produced a non-existent dharma, it would be like a person giving birth to a barren woman's child; if a non-existent dharma produced an existent dharma, it would be like a rabbit's horns producing a person; if a non-existent dharma produced a non-existent dharma, it would be like turtle hair producing a rabbit's horns. Therefore the Prajñāprajñaptiśāstra states: 'Furthermore, there is the thought: "If the Tathāgata only realized that nothing is to be attained, the Buddha's Dharma would be single and not boundless." Therefore the sūtra states: "The Tathāgata says that all dharmas are the Buddha's Dharma." What is meant by the Buddha's Dharma? It is simply that nothing is to be attained; never has a single dharma had an attainable nature. Therefore, there is nothing that is not the Buddha's Dharma. How is it that all are completely unobtainable? The sūtra says: "All dharmas are simply not all dharmas." Why are they not? Because of the nature of non-arising. If there is no arising, then there is no nature; why are they called all dharmas? Because within naturelessness, conventional speech is provisionally established. That all dharmas have no nature is simply sentient beings' tathāgatagarbha nature.' Layman Pang's verse says: 'The kalpa fire burns the heavens, yet the heavens are not hot; / The fierce wind blows, yet no sound is heard. / A hundred streams contend to pour into the sea, yet the sea does not overflow; / The five sacred peaks and famous mountains show no form. / Clear and tranquil contemplation leaves no trace; / A thousand paths all together enter non-arising.' Therefore we know that all dharmas take form from intention, and a thousand paths have appearance due to mind. In a single thought of clear tranquility, the ten thousand realms are vast and open; originally identical to the gate of non-duality, all enter the principle of non-arising. Therefore Mahāsattva Fu's 'Hard Journey' says: 'Do you not see / All dharmas are merely provisionally set up in emptiness; / Quietude without a gate is the Dharma gate. / Among all dharmas, mind is the master; / I now no longer find the source of the mind. / Since investigating and searching yields no source of mind, / You should know that all dharmas are entirely without root.' Furthermore, non-arising has two aspects, as the Tongxin lun states: 'First, the non-arising of the dharmatā. The wondrous principle is called "dharma"; the utmost emptiness is called "nature"; being originally so of itself is called "non-arising." Second, the non-arising of dependent origination. Since the environment appears from the mind, it does not arise from other; since the mind arises relying on the environment, it does not arise from self; since mind and environment are distinct, they do not arise together; since they exist due to mutual condition, they do not arise without cause.' It is also said: 'First, non-arising in principle: because the perfected nature is originally unarisen. Second, non-arising in phenomena: because the characteristics of conditioned arising are themselves non-arising.' The Zhiguan states: 'If one interprets the Diamond Sūtra, one shifts the meaning of non-arising and carries it into the gate of non-abiding: various non-abidings, not abiding in form when giving, not abiding in sound, fragrance, and so on when giving. Although dharmas do not abide, abiding in prajñā through the dharma of non-abiding is entering emptiness; abiding in worldly truth through the dharma of non-abiding is entering the provisional; abiding in the true mark through the dharma of non-abiding is entering the middle. This wisdom of non-abiding is itself the vajra samādhi, which can shatter bedrock and gravel and penetrate to the fundamental limit. Furthermore, as Śākyamuni entered the great tranquil meditation and vajra samādhi, and the treatises of Vasubandhu and Asaṅga and the extensive explanations of Kaishan [Zhizang]: how could they go beyond the meaning of non-arising and non-abiding?' If one attains this meaning, across a thousand sūtras and ten thousand treatises, one will be clearly free of doubt. This is the initial chapter of studying contemplation, the foundation of thinking and deliberation, the wondrous wisdom for resolving divergences, and the guiding destination for entering the Way. Its essential framework is vast, complete with phenomena and principle; with one understanding, a thousand follow, and one is at ease in the Dharma gates. Therefore we know that all dharmas exist from non-arising and nature-emptiness: existing yet not existing, not departing from the conventional yet constantly true; non-existing yet existing, not departing from the true yet constantly conventional. Then illusory existence is established and non-arising is revealed, with emptiness and existence distinct; both marks are obliterated and both affairs remain, with the true and conventional distinct and vivid. This, then, is non-arising yet with nothing unarisen, not abiding in the two extremes. As an ancient worthy's verse says: 'Non-arising ultimately does not abide, / The ten thousand images drift in vain. / If one forms an understanding of non-arising, / One is still bound fast by non-arising.'