宗鏡錄 32.17

32.17

答。此性若是因緣為體者。今推以何法為因。何法為緣。應須礭定真實體性。如經云。阿難言。必此妙見性非自然。我今發明是因緣性。心猶未明。諮詢如來。是義云何。合因緣性。佛言。汝言因緣。吾復問汝。汝今因見。見性現前。此見為復因明有見。因暗有見。因空有見。因塞有見。阿難。若因明有。應不見暗。如因暗有。應不見明。如是乃至因空因塞。同於明暗。復次阿難。此見又復緣明有見。緣暗有見。緣空有見。緣塞有見。阿難。若緣。空有。應不見塞。若緣塞有。應不見空。如是乃至緣明緣暗。同於空塞。當知如是精覺妙明。非因非緣。亦非自然。非不自然。無非不非。無是非是。離一切相。即一切法。汝今云何於中措心。以諸世間戲論名相而得分別。如以手掌撮摩虛空。只益自勞。虛空云何隨汝執捉。阿難白佛言。世尊。必妙覺性非因非緣。世尊。云何常與比丘。宣說。見性其四種緣。所謂因空因明。因心因眼。是義云何。佛告阿難。我說世間諸因緣相。非第一義。阿難。吾復問汝。諸世間人說我能見。云何名見。云何不見。阿難言。世人因於日月燈光。見種種相。名之為見。若復無此三種光明。則不能見。阿難。若無明時名不見者。應不見暗。若必見暗。此但無明。云何無見。阿難。若在暗時。不見明故。名為不見。今在明時。不見暗相。還名不見。如是二相。俱名不見。若復二相自相陵奪。非汝見性於中暫無。如是則知。二俱名見。云何不見。是故阿難。汝今當知。見明之時。見非是明。見暗之時。見非是暗。見空之時。見非是空。見塞之時。見非是塞。四義成就。汝復應知。見見之時。見非是見。見猶離見。見不能及。云何復說因緣自然。及和合相。汝等聲聞狹劣無識。不能通達清淨實相。吾今誨汝。當善思惟。無得疲怠妙菩提路。故知說因緣自然。皆屬世間言論。談有無真俗。悉是分別識心。當見性之時。豈留觀聽。在發明之際。焉落言思。

Answer: If this nature has cause and condition as its substance, we must now inquire what dharma serves as the cause and what dharma serves as the condition. One must definitively determine its true nature of substance. As the sūtra states: Ānanda said, “If this wondrous seeing-nature is not natural spontaneity, I now understand that it is of the nature of cause and condition. My citta is not yet clear, and I consult the Tathāgata: what is the meaning of this? How does it accord with the nature of cause and condition?” The Buddha said, “You speak of cause and condition. I ask you again: you now have seeing through the presence of the seeing-nature before you. Does this seeing exist because of brightness, because of darkness, because of space, or because of obstruction? Ānanda, if it exists because of brightness, you should not see darkness; if it exists because of darkness, you should not see brightness. So too for its being caused by space and obstruction, exactly as with brightness and darkness. Furthermore, Ānanda, does this seeing have seeing conditioned by brightness, conditioned by darkness, conditioned by space, or conditioned by obstruction? Ānanda, if it exists conditioned by space, you should not see obstruction; if it exists conditioned by obstruction, you should not see space. So too for its being conditioned by brightness and darkness, exactly as with space and obstruction. You should know that this refined awareness, wondrous and bright, is neither cause nor condition, nor is it natural spontaneity, nor is it not natural spontaneity; there is neither non-existent nor not non-existent, neither is nor is not. It is free from all characteristics and is identical to all dharmas. How can you now set your citta upon it and attempt to differentiate it through the nominal characteristics of worldly frivolous discourse? It is like rubbing empty space with the palm of your hand: you only wear yourself out. How could empty space yield to your grasp?” Ānanda addressed the Buddha, saying: “World-Honoured One, if the wondrous nature of awareness is neither cause nor condition, why does the World-Honoured One constantly proclaim to the bhikṣus that the seeing-nature has its four kinds of conditions—namely, conditioned by space, conditioned by brightness, conditioned by the citta, and conditioned by the eye? What is the meaning of this?” The Buddha told Ānanda, “When I speak of worldly characteristics of cause and condition, it is not the primary truth. Ānanda, I ask you again: people of the world say, ‘I can see.’ What is called seeing, and what is called not seeing?” Ānanda said, “People of the world see various characteristics because of the light of the sun, moon, and lamps, and this is called seeing. If these three kinds of illumination are absent, then they cannot see.” [The Buddha said,] “Ānanda, if the time when brightness is absent is called not seeing, then one should not see darkness. If one must see darkness, this is merely the absence of brightness; how is it an absence of seeing? Ānanda, if when in darkness one does not see brightness, this is called not seeing, then now when in brightness one does not see the characteristic of darkness, this too should be called not seeing. Thus both characteristics are called not seeing. If these two characteristics mutually usurp each other, it is not that your seeing-nature temporarily ceases to exist between them. Hence you should know that both are called seeing; how is it not seeing? Therefore, Ānanda, you should know now that when seeing brightness, the seeing is not the brightness; when seeing darkness, the seeing is not the darkness; when seeing space, the seeing is not the space; when seeing obstruction, the seeing is not the obstruction. These four meanings having been established, you should further know that when seeing seeing, the seeing is not the [seen] seeing: seeing is still apart from [the seen] seeing, and seeing cannot reach it. Why then do you still speak of cause and condition, natural spontaneity, and the characteristics of combination? You śrāvakas are narrow, inferior, and without discernment, unable to penetrate the pure true characteristic. I instruct you now: you should reflect well, and do not become weary on the wondrous path of bodhi.” Therefore we know that speaking of cause and condition and natural spontaneity all belongs to worldly discourse, and discussing existence and non-existence, the real and the conventional, is entirely the discriminating consciousness-mind. At the time of the seeing-nature, how could looking and listening remain? At the juncture of illumination, how could it fall into speech and thought?