宗鏡錄 37.7

37.7

答。雖即親聞。必假本質。是以唯識論云。展轉增上力。二識成決定。言展轉增上力者。即佛與眾生。互為增上緣。言二識成決定者。即眾生根決定。如來悲決定。謂眾生根熟。合聞法決定。如來即有悲決定。決定與眾生說法。為增上緣故。又諸師影質有無不同。應須四句分別。一唯質無影。即小乘有部等。二唯影無質。即龍軍無性。三俱句。即護法親光。四俱非。即龍猛清辯。謂彼計勝義門中。不辯教體。全撥菩提涅槃為空故。已上約四句料簡門中。質影雙通。護法為勝。然若約名句文身。解釋。詮表。皆是意言分別。凡有詮量。不出心識。乃至能說所說。並屬見聞覺知。心含善惡。諸心數等。無有一法出於心外。當知此心諸法之都。顯事合理。心可軌持。故稱曰經。豈止於心。乃至一切六塵。悉皆是經。以心遍一切處故。如法華玄義云。歷法明經者。若以經為正翻。何法是經。舊用三種。一用聲為經。如佛在金口演說。但有聲音詮辯。聽者得道。故以聲為經。大品云。從善知識所聞也。二用色為經。若佛在世。可以聲為經。今佛去世。紙墨傳持。應用為色經。大品云。從經卷中聞。三用法為經。故云修我法者。證乃自知。又塵為經。若於此土耳識利者。能於聲塵分別取悟。則聲是其經。於餘非經。若意識利者。自能研心思惟取決。法是其經。於餘非經。眼識利者。文字詮量而得道理。色是其經。於餘非經。此方用三塵而已。餘三識鈍。鼻嗅紙墨。則無所知。身觸經卷。亦不能解。舌噉文字寧別是非。若他土亦用六塵。亦偏用一塵。如淨名曰。以一食施一切。於食等者。於法亦等。於法等。於食亦等。此即偏用舌根所對為經。或有國土。以天衣觸身即得道。此偏用觸為經。或見佛光明得道。此偏用色為經。或寂滅無言。觀心得道。此偏用意為經。如眾香土。以香為佛事。此偏用香為經。他方六根識利。六塵得為經。此土三根識鈍。鼻不及驢狗鹿等。云何於香味觸等。能得通達。

Answer: Although it is directly heard, it necessarily relies upon the archetype. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'By their mutual sovereign power, the two consciousnesses become determined.' 'Mutual sovereign power' means that the Buddha and sentient beings serve as sovereign conditions (adhipatipratyaya) for each other. 'The two consciousnesses become determined' means that the faculties of sentient beings are determined, and the Tathāgata's compassion is determined. That is to say, when the faculties of sentient beings have matured, their suitability to hear the Dharma is determined; the Tathāgata then has the determination of compassion, determinately expounding the Dharma for sentient beings, acting as the sovereign condition. Furthermore, the different masters vary on the presence or absence of the reflected image and the archetype; this should be distinguished into four propositions: First, the archetype alone without the reflected image: this is the Hīnayāna Sarvāstivāda and so on. Second, the reflected image alone without the archetype: this is Nāgasena and Asvabhāva. Third, both together: this is Dharmapāla and Śīlabhadra. Fourth, neither: this is Nāgārjuna and Bhāviveka. That is to say, in their assertion regarding the gate of the ultimate truth, they do not distinguish a substance of the teaching, completely negating bodhi and nirvāṇa as empty. Among the four propositions distinguished above, Dharmapāla's approach—which admits both archetype and reflected image—is superior. However, if one considers the collection of names, phrases, and syllables, their explanation and expression are all mental verbal conceptualizations; wherever there is expression and cognition, none exceeds the mind and consciousness. Down to the speaker and what is spoken, all belong to seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing. The mind contains good and evil, the various mental factors, and so forth; not a single dharma exists outside the mind. One should know that this mind is the metropolis of all dharmas: manifesting facts and conforming with principle, the mind can serve as a model and sustain [all things], and is therefore called a 'sutra.' How could it be limited to the mind? Down to all the six sense objects, all are sutras, because the mind pervades all places. As the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra says: 'Clarifying the sutra by going through dharmas: If one translates sutra correctly, what dharma is a sutra? Traditionally three kinds are used. First, using sound as the sutra: as when the Buddha was present, expounding from his golden mouth, there was only the expression and discourse of sound, and the listeners attained the Path; therefore sound is taken as the sutra. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: "Heard from good spiritual friends." Second, using form as the sutra: when the Buddha was in the world, one could use sound as the sutra; now that the Buddha has passed into extinction, paper and ink transmit and uphold [it], and one should use form as the sutra. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: "Heard from sutra scrolls." Third, using mental objects (dharmas) as the sutra; hence it says: "Those who cultivate my Dharma know it by their own realization." Moreover, the sense objects are sutras. If in this land those with sharp ear-consciousness can distinguish sound objects and attain awakening, then sound is their sutra, while for others it is not. If their mental consciousness is sharp, they can investigate the mind and reflect to reach a decision, and mental objects are their sutra, while for others they are not. If their eye-consciousness is sharp, they cognize through written words and attain the principle, and form is their sutra, while for others it is not. This land uses only three sense objects; the remaining three consciousnesses are dull: when the nose smells paper and ink, it knows nothing; when the body touches a sutra scroll, it also cannot understand; when the tongue eats written words, how could it distinguish right from wrong? In other lands, all six sense objects are used, or a single sense object is used exclusively. As the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Giving a single meal to all: those who are equal regarding food are also equal regarding the Dharma; those who are equal regarding the Dharma are also equal regarding food." This is the exclusive use of what is encountered by the faculty of the tongue as the sutra. Or in some lands, touching heavenly robes with the body immediately brings attainment of the Path; this is the exclusive use of tactile objects as the sutra. Or seeing the Buddha's light brings attainment of the Path; this is the exclusive use of form as the sutra. Or in quiescence without words, contemplating the mind brings attainment of the Path; this is the exclusive use of mental objects as the sutra. Like the land of All Fragrances, where fragrances perform the Buddha-work; this is the exclusive use of fragrance as the sutra. In other lands, the six faculties and consciousnesses are sharp, so the six sense objects can serve as sutras. In this land, three faculties and consciousnesses are dull: the nose is inferior to that of donkeys, dogs, deer, and the like; how could it attain penetration through fragrance, taste, touch, and so forth?'