宗鏡錄 37.3

37.3

答。今且先約古德。機應合說。質影雙明。佛言。自從光耀。終至鶴林。不說一字。汝亦不聞。此是佛密意說。約本真法體。離言詮故。不說一字。即諸法寂滅相。不可以言宣。又但是佛不說心外一字法。教體者。護法云。如來既實現身。實說法者。即通用說者聽者。正兼聲名句文而為教體。教體通有漏無漏影像本質。即是合宜。聞者。根性已熟。遂感激。如來識上。有文義相生。佛以慈悲本願緣力。即為眾生說三乘法。所有聲名句文。是正無漏本質教。若是三乘五性眾生。佛邊聽法。不能親聞。自變相分而緣。所有聲名句文。即取有漏無漏。是影像兼教。即以質教為本。能現影像故。影像教為末。依質有故。由此取本質教。為正教體。影像教為兼教體。無性菩薩難云。我宗但取眾生識上影像相分為教體者。即不違唯識。汝護法。若取佛本質聲名句文為教體者。即是心外有法。何成唯識。護法答。唯識之宗。約親相分。眾生聽時。變起相分而緣。非取他質以為自性。然他本質。即佛菩薩。亦成唯識。故不相違。

Answer: For now, relying first on past masters, capacity and response are explained jointly, and the archetype (bimbadhātu) and the reflection (pratibimbadhātu) are both clarified. The Buddha said: 'From [the night of my] radiance until [the final rest at] the Crane Forest, I have not spoken a single word, nor have you heard one.' This was spoken by the Buddha with esoteric intent. It is based on the original true substance of the Dharma, which transcends verbal explanation; thus not a single word was spoken—that is, the characteristic of quiescence and cessation of all phenomena cannot be declared in words. Furthermore, it is simply that the Buddha did not speak a single word of any dharma outside the mind. As for the substance of the teaching, Dharmapāla said: Since the Tathāgata actually manifested his body and actually expounded the Dharma, the primary and secondary components of sound, names, phrases, and syllables, as universally used by the speaker and the listener, constitute the substance of the teaching. That the substance of the teaching encompasses both the defiled and undefiled, the reflected image and the archetype, is appropriate. When the hearers' faculties have matured, they are stimulated and respond: on the Tathāgata's consciousness, characteristics of text and meaning arise. Through the conditioning power of his original vows of compassion, the Buddha then expounds the Dharma of the three vehicles for sentient beings. All the sound, names, phrases, and syllables are the primary undefiled archetypal teaching. But when sentient beings of the three vehicles and five natures listen to the Dharma before the Buddha, they are unable to hear it directly; they transform their own nimittabhāga and cognize it. All those sounds, names, phrases, and syllables take in both the defiled and undefiled, which are the secondary reflected-image teaching. Thus the archetypal teaching is the root, because it can manifest the reflected image; the reflected-image teaching is the branch, because it exists depending on the archetype. Due to this, the archetypal teaching is taken as the primary substance of the teaching, and the reflected-image teaching is taken as the secondary substance of the teaching. Bodhisattva Asvabhāva objected, saying: 'Our school takes only the reflected nimittabhāga on the consciousness of sentient beings as the substance of the teaching, which does not contradict consciousness-only. If you, Dharmapāla, take the Buddha's archetypal sound, names, phrases, and syllables as the substance of the teaching, then there are dharmas outside the mind—how could consciousness-only be established?' Dharmapāla replied: 'The doctrine of consciousness-only is based on the direct nimittabhāga. When sentient beings listen, they transform and give rise to a nimittabhāga and cognize it; they do not take another's archetype to be their own nature. Yet that other archetype—the Buddha or bodhisattva—is also established as consciousness-only; therefore there is no contradiction.'