宗鏡錄 41.5

41.5

答言。不以見聞覺知法。不以得。不以證。於一切法無相無示。名為修道。華嚴疏云。頓教者。總不說法相。唯辯真性。無有八識差別之相者。釋云。八識心王尚無差別。況心所變。豈當有耶。心生則種種法生。心滅則種種法滅。故起信論云。一切諸法。唯依妄念而有差別。若離心念。則無一切境界之相。是故一切法從本已來。離言說相。離名字相。離心緣相。畢竟平等。無有變異。唯是一心。故名真如。以一切言說。假名無實。但隨妄念。不可得故。所以疏云。一切所有。唯是妄想。一切法界。唯是絕言。故起信論云。言真如者。亦無有相。謂言說之極。因言遣言。此真如體。無有可遣。以一切法悉皆真故。亦無可立。以一切法皆同如故。當知一切法。不可說不可念。故名真如。以一切法性皆離言故。亦通四種法界。皆不可說。名無得物之功。物無當名之實。理本無言故。事理交徹。不可作事理說。事事相即。不可作一多說。如楞伽。雖明五法。名。相。妄想。正智。如如。五皆空寂。何者。謂迷如以成名相。妄想是生。悟名相之本如。妄便稱智。則無名相妄想。唯如智矣。智因如立。智體亦空。如假智明。本來常寂。故並空矣。況八識約事。皆緣生性空。因有我法。說二無我。我尚叵得。無我寧存。故中論偈云。諸佛或說我。或說於無我。諸法實相中。無我無非我。故雙遣也。疏云。訶教勸離。毀相泯心者。訶教者。謂以心傳心。不在文字故。勸離者。令離法。法雖無量。不出色心。離心心如。離色色如。故令皆離。則契心體離念矣。毀相約境。凡所有相。皆是虛妄故。泯心約智。了境相空。假稱為智。相既不有。智豈有真。心境兩亡。則皆泯絕。心無心相。即是安心。故說生心即妄。不生即佛。言生心者。非但生於餘心。縱生菩提涅槃。觀心見性。亦曰生心。並為妄想。念相都寂。方曰不生。寂照現前。豈不名佛。故達磨碑云。心有也。曠劫而滯凡夫。心無也。剎那而登正覺。言心無者。非了心空。不生於了耳。

The answer states: 'Not by means of things seen, heard, sensed, or known; not by means of attainment; not by means of realization. To be without characteristics and without indication regarding all phenomena is called cultivating the path.' The Huayan Commentary states: 'As for the sudden teaching, it does not explain the characteristics of phenomena at all; it only discriminates the true nature. There are no differentiated characteristics of the eight consciousnesses.' The explanation states: 'The mind-kings of the eight consciousnesses are already without differentiation; how much less could what is transformed by the mind exist? When the mind arises, diverse phenomena arise; when the mind ceases, diverse phenomena cease.' Therefore the Awakening of Faith states: 'All phenomena exist with differentiations only relying on deluded thoughts. If one is free from thoughts of the mind, then there are no characteristics of any perceptual objects. For this reason, all phenomena from the beginning are free from the characteristics of verbal expression, free from the characteristics of names and letters, and free from the characteristics of mental conditioning; they are ultimately equal, without alteration, and are only the one mind. Therefore it is named tathatā. Because all verbal expressions are provisional names without reality, merely following deluded thoughts, they cannot be grasped.' Therefore the commentary states: 'Everything that exists is only vain conceptualization; all dharmadhātus are solely beyond words.' Hence the Awakening of Faith states: 'What is called tathatā also has no characteristics. It is the culmination of verbal expression, using words to dispense with words. This substance of tathatā has nothing that can be dispensed with, because all phenomena are entirely true; nor is there anything that can be established, because all phenomena are identically thus. One should know that all phenomena can neither be spoken of nor thought of; hence they are named tathatā. Because all phenomenal natures are free from words, this also applies to the four kinds of dharmadhātu, which are all unspeakable. Names have no power to grasp things; things have no reality matching names. Because principle is fundamentally wordless, and phenomenon and principle interpenetrate, they cannot be spoken of as phenomenon and principle. Phenomena are mutually identical, so they cannot be spoken of as one or many. Just as in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, although it clarifies the five dharmas—names, characteristics, vain conceptualization, correct wisdom, and suchness—all five are empty and tranquil. Why? Because when one is confused about suchness, names and characteristics are formed, and vain conceptualization arises. When one awakens to the original suchness of names and characteristics, delusion is called wisdom. Then there are no names, characteristics, or vain conceptualization, but only suchness and wisdom. Wisdom is established due to suchness, and the substance of wisdom is also empty. Suchness is revealed through wisdom, and is fundamentally ever-tranquil. Hence both are empty. How much more so the eight consciousnesses, which, in terms of phenomena, are all produced from conditions and empty by nature! Because there are self and phenomena, two kinds of selflessness are spoken of. Even a self cannot be grasped; how could selflessness remain? Therefore a verse from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: / 'The Buddhas have spoken of a self, / and they have also spoken of non-self. / In the true characteristic of all phenomena, / there is neither self nor non-self.' / Thus both are dismissed. The commentary states: 'Reproving the teachings to urge detachment; destroying characteristics to extinguish the mind.' 'Reproving the teachings' means transmitting mind with mind, because it does not depend on written words. 'Urging detachment' means causing one to be detached from dharmas. Although dharmas are immeasurable, they do not go beyond form and mind. When detached from mind, the mind is thus; when detached from form, form is thus. Hence causing detachment from all allows one to tally with the substance of mind and be free from thought. 'Destroying characteristics' concerns objects, because 'wherever there are characteristics, all are illusory.' 'Extinguishing the mind' concerns wisdom: realizing that the characteristics of objects are empty is provisionally called wisdom. Since characteristics do not exist, how could wisdom be real? When both mind and objects are forgotten, then both are extinguished. When the mind is free of mental characteristics, that is pacifying the mind. Therefore it is said that arising of mind is delusion, and non-arising is the Buddha. As for speaking of 'arising of mind': it is not only arising toward other minds; even if one gives rise to bodhi and nirvāṇa, observing the mind and seeing the nature, this too is called 'arising of mind', and all are vain conceptualization. Only when the characteristics of thought are completely tranquil is it called 'non-arising'. When tranquil illumination is present before one, how could it not be called the Buddha? Therefore Bodhidharma's stele inscription states: 'If the mind exists, one lingers as an ordinary person for vast kalpas; if the mind does not exist, one ascends to right enlightenment in an instant.' Saying that 'the mind does not exist' does not mean realizing the mind is empty, but simply not giving rise to realization.