宗鏡錄 41.7

41.7

答云。若欲了心。無心可了。無了之了。是為真了。華嚴經頌云。一切法不生。一切法不滅。若能如是解。諸佛常現前。言如是解者。如不生。解而無解相。非謂空解於不生耳。疏云。無佛無不佛無生無不生者。重拂前迹。為迷眾生言即心即佛。既無眾生。何曾有佛。故經偈云。平等真法界。無佛無眾生。執佛言無佛。非謂是無佛。故云無不佛矣。則遣之又遣之。若少有所得。皆是妄想。故佛藏經云。於法少有所得。則與佛諍者。與佛諍者。皆入邪道。非我弟子。又只詺無佛以為真佛。故言無不佛耳。故經頌云。性空即是佛。不可得思量。若有生心。生心是妄。故說不生。佛尚不有。何有無生。作無生解。還被無生之所纏縛。故云無不生矣。又一切法不生。則般若生。故云無不生矣。則生與不生。反覆相違。亦反覆相成。唯亡言者可與道合。虛懷者可與理通矣。若亡言則止止不須說。豈強起言端乎。若虛懷則我法妙難思。寧妄生知解乎。又夫入宗鏡。法爾亡言。非智所知。唯信所及。如讚般若偈云。若人見般若。論義心皆絕。猶如日出時。朝露一時失。故祖師云。論即不義。義即不論。若欲論義。終非義論。昔梁武帝。於華林園重雲殿。集四部眾。自講三慧般若經。時傅大士在會。太子遣問。大士何不論義。答曰。皇帝菩薩所說。非長非短。非廣非狹。非有邊。非無邊。如如正理。復有何言。劉中丞又問。大士何不往復。眾所願聞。答曰。日月停景。四時和適。又中天竺有出家外道馬鳴。世智辯才。善通言論。唱言。若諸比丘。能與我論義者。可打揵搥。如其不能。不足公鳴揵搥受人供養。時長老脇到彼國言。但鳴揵搥設彼來者。吾自對之。即鳴揵搥。外道即問。今日何故打此木耶。答言。北方有長老沙門。來鳴揵搥。外道問言。欲論義耶。答言。然。於是廣備論場。大眾雲集乃至。長老脇言。吾既年邁。故從遠來。又先在此坐。理應先語。外道言亦可爾耳。現汝所說。吾盡當破。長老脇即言。當今天下泰平。大王長壽。國土豐樂。無諸災患。外道默然。不知所言。論法。無對。即墮負處。伏為弟子。剃除鬚髮。度為沙彌。受具足戒。又有學人請忠國師和尚立義。師云。立了也。學人罔措。被師喝出。非公境界。故知若入宗鏡。玄鑒豁然。如臨鏡中。自見面像。見即便見。更俟發言耶。所以月上女經云。時舍利弗復問女言。眾生界者。復有幾許。其女報言。如彼過去未來現在諸佛境界。舍利弗言。若如此者。汝說何事。是何解釋。其女報言。依尊者問。我還依答。時舍利弗復問女言。我問何義。其女答言。問文字也。舍利弗言。彼文字滅。無有足跡。其女答言。尊者舍利弗。如是滅相。一切法中。如有問者。如有答者。二俱滅相。不可得也。華手經云。佛告跋陀婆羅。善哉善哉。如汝所說。如來道場所得法者。是法非法。亦非非法。我於此。智不能行。目不能見。無有行處。慧所不通。明不能了。問無有答。於此法中。無受無取。無垢無淨。若我說是自所得法。若以行相行是法者。則皆迷悶。佛藏經云。佛言。舍利弗。於聖法中計得寂滅。皆墮邪見。何況言說。何況說者。如是空法。以何可說。舍利弗。佛何以故。說諸語言皆名為邪。不能通達一切法者。是則皆為言說所覆。是故如來知諸語言皆為是邪。乃至少有言語不得其實。舍利弗。諸佛阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。皆無想無念。何以故。如來於法。不得體性。亦不得念。大法炬陀羅尼經云。佛告毘舍佉。應當先為說彼六波羅蜜。次第修已。然後為說空解脫門。若為眾生說此空法。或有得聞。或有思惟。或能證者。是亦不應。但有言說。何以故。如是空法。不可惟以心想知故。若彼空法。但以心想能證知者。一切眾生未修道時。亦應即是阿羅漢也。毘舍佉。彼空法者。亦不可說相貌形體。若可說者。則是作相。若有作相。則有願求。若有願求則是三世。何以故。毘舍佉。無相法中。一切三世皆不可得。所以者何。過去未來現在等事。皆寂滅故。云何起願。復次應觀是色。作無相想。云何觀色作無相想。當知此色。生滅輪轉。念念不停。毘舍佉。如是色相。不可眼見。當知彼是心識境界。唯意所知。是故不可以眼得見。毘舍佉。一切眾生。所有心意。不可言說。唯佛智知。雖可慮知。而不可見。念念不住。猶如幻化。云何可取而可得見。如是毘舍佉。不可以彼眾生心識。取心真相。既不可取。云何可說。何以故。以愛憎事違平等故。毘舍佉。若欲滅除愛憎想者。當勤精進。觀一切法悉皆空寂。無有取著。

[The Master] replied: "If you wish to comprehend the mind, there is no mind that can be comprehended. Comprehension without comprehension is true comprehension." A verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says:
"All dharmas are unborn; / all dharmas are unceasing. / If one can understand in this way, / the buddhas will constantly appear before them."
What is meant by "understand in this way" is being like the unborn—understanding without the characteristic of understanding; it does not mean merely an empty understanding of the unborn. The commentary says: "'No Buddha, no non-Buddha; no arising, no non-arising' wipes away the previous traces once again. For the sake of confused sentient beings, it was said that 'mind itself is Buddha.' Since there are no sentient beings, when has there ever been a Buddha? Therefore, a sūtra verse says:
'In the equal and true dharmadhātu, / there is no Buddha and there are no sentient beings.'
To grasp at 'Buddha' warrants saying 'there is no Buddha'; this does not mean that there is no Buddha, and therefore it says 'no non-Buddha.' Thus one negates and negates again. If there is the slightest thing attained, it is entirely vain conceptualization. Hence the Buddhapiṭakasūtra says: 'To have the slightest attainment regarding dharmas is to contend with the Buddha. Those who contend with the Buddha all enter heterodox paths and are not my disciples.' Furthermore, it is simply designating the absence of a Buddha as the true Buddha, and therefore it says 'no non-Buddha.' Thus a sūtra verse says:
'The emptiness of nature is itself the Buddha; / it cannot be conceived.'
If there is an arising mind, that arising mind is delusion, and therefore it is called unborn. When even a Buddha does not exist, how could there be non-arising? To formulate an understanding of non-arising is to be bound again by non-arising, and therefore it says 'no non-arising.' Furthermore, when all dharmas do not arise, then prajñā arises; therefore it says 'no non-arising.' Thus arising and non-arising conflict with each other repeatedly, and also repeatedly establish each other. Only one who discards words can accord with the Way; only one who empties the mind can penetrate the principle. If one discards words, then 'Stop, stop! There is no need to speak'—how could one forcibly initiate discourse? If one empties the mind, then 'My Dharma is subtle and difficult to conceive'—how could one vainly generate intellectual understanding? Moreover, entering the mirror of the source, things are naturally beyond words; it is not known by intellect, but only reached through faith. As a verse in praise of prajñā says:
'If a person sees prajñā, / all discursive disputation ceases, / just as when the sun comes up, / the morning dew vanishes all at once.'
Therefore an ancestral master said: 'Disputation is not the meaning; the meaning is not disputation. If you wish to dispute the meaning, in the end it is not meaningful disputation.' Formerly, Emperor Wu of Liang gathered the fourfold assembly at the Chongyun Hall in Hualin Garden to personally lecture on the Tri-Prajñā Sūtra. At that time, Mahāsattva Fu was in the assembly. The crown prince sent someone to ask him, 'Why does the Mahāsattva not dispute the meaning?' He replied, 'What the Bodhisattva-Emperor expounds is neither long nor short, neither wide nor narrow, neither bounded nor boundless. In the correct principle of suchness, what further words could there be?' Vice Censor-in-Chief Liu asked again, 'Why does the Mahāsattva not engage in exchange? The assembly wishes to hear it.' He replied, 'The sun and moon pause their light; the four seasons harmonize.' Furthermore, in Central India there was an ordained non-Buddhist, Aśvaghoṣa, endowed with worldly wisdom and eloquence, who was well-versed in debate. He proclaimed: 'If any monk can debate with me, let him strike the gaṇḍī. If they cannot, they are not worthy to sound the gaṇḍī in public and receive the offerings of others.' At that time, Elder Pārśva arrived in that country and said, 'Just sound the gaṇḍī; should he come, I will answer him myself.' They sounded the gaṇḍī, and the non-Buddhist asked, 'Why strike this wood today?' The reply was: 'An elder śramaṇa has come from the north and struck the gaṇḍī.' The non-Buddhist asked, 'Does he wish to debate?' The reply was: 'Yes.' Thereupon, they extensively prepared the debate arena, and the great assembly gathered like clouds. Elder Pārśva said, 'Since I am advanced in age and have come from afar, and was also seated here first, by principle I should speak first.' The non-Buddhist said, 'That is acceptable. Whatever you say, I will refute it all.' Elder Pārśva then said, 'At present, the world is at peace, the great king enjoys long life, the country is abundant and joyful, and free from all calamities.' The non-Buddhist fell silent, not knowing what to say. By the rules of debate, failing to respond means suffering defeat. He submitted and became a disciple, shaved his hair and beard, was ordained as a śrāmaṇera, and received the full precepts. Furthermore, a student asked Venerable National Teacher Huizhong to establish a thesis. The Master said, 'I have already established it.' The student was at a loss and was shouted out by the Master: 'This is not your realm!' Thus we know that if one enters the mirror of the source, the profound reflection is unobstructed, just as looking into a mirror and seeing one's own face: seeing is just seeing, why wait to utter words? Therefore the Candrottarādārikāvyākaraṇasūtra says: 'Then Śāriputra asked the girl again: "How many beings are there in the realm of sentient beings?" The girl replied: "It is like the realm of the buddhas of the past, future, and present." Śāriputra said: "If so, what are you saying? What kind of explanation is this?" The girl replied: "Depending on the Venerable One's question, I have answered accordingly." Śāriputra then asked the girl again: "What meaning did I ask about?" The girl replied: "You asked about words." Śāriputra said: "Those words have ceased; there is no trace left." The girl replied: "Venerable Śāriputra, such a characteristic of cessation is found throughout all dharmas: as if there were a questioner and as if there were an answerer, both are characteristics of cessation and cannot be apprehended."' The Kuśalamūlasaṃparigrahasūtra says: 'The Buddha told Bhadrapāla: "Good, good! It is as you have said: the Dharma attained by the Tathāgata at the site of enlightenment is neither dharma nor non-dharma. In this, my intellect cannot operate, my eyes cannot see; there is no place to tread, wisdom cannot penetrate, and illumination cannot comprehend. There is no answer to any question. In this Dharma, there is no accepting and no grasping, no defilement and no purity. If I were to say this is the Dharma attained by myself, or if one practices this Dharma through active marks, all would be bewildered."' The Buddhapiṭakasūtra says: 'The Buddha said: "Śāriputra, to reckon that one attains tranquility within the noble Dharma is entirely falling into wrong views, let alone words and speech, let alone the speaker! How could such an empty Dharma be spoken of? Śāriputra, why does the Buddha say that all linguistic expressions are called wrong? Those who cannot penetrate all dharmas are all veiled by words and speech. Therefore the Tathāgata knows that all linguistic expressions are wrong, such that even the slightest word fails to capture its true reality. Śāriputra, the anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi of all buddhas is completely free of conception and thought. Why? Because the Tathāgata, with regard to dharmas, apprehends no intrinsic nature and apprehends no thought."' The Mahādharmanidānasūtra says: 'The Buddha told Viśākha: "One should first expound the six pāramitās to them, and only after they have cultivated them in sequence should one expound the gate of emptiness-liberation. If one expounds this empty Dharma for sentient beings, some may hear it, some may reflect on it, and some may realize it; yet this too should not be mere words. Why? Because such an empty Dharma cannot be known merely through mental conception. If that empty Dharma could be realized and known merely through mental conception, then all sentient beings, before cultivating the Way, would already be arhats. Viśākha, that empty Dharma also cannot be described in terms of characteristics, forms, or shapes. If it could be described, it would be an active characteristic. If there is an active characteristic, there will be wishing and seeking. If there is wishing and seeking, there are the three periods of time. Why? Viśākha, in the signless Dharma, none of the three periods of time can be apprehended. Why is this? Because matters of the past, future, and present are all tranquil and extinguished. How could a wish arise? Furthermore, one should contemplate this form and form the conception of signlessness. How does one contemplate form and form the conception of signlessness? One should know that this form revolves in arising and ceasing, never stopping from thought-moment to thought-moment. Viśākha, such characteristics of form cannot be seen with the eyes. You should know that they are the realm of the mental consciousness, known only to the mind; therefore, they cannot be seen with the eyes. Viśākha, all the minds and thoughts of sentient beings cannot be spoken of; they are known only by the Buddha's wisdom. Although they may be contemplated and known, they cannot be seen. They do not abide from thought-moment to thought-moment, just like an illusion. How could they be grasped and seen? Thus, Viśākha, one cannot use that sentient mind and consciousness to grasp the true characteristic of the mind. Since it cannot be grasped, how could it be spoken of? Why? Because matters of love and hate run contrary to equality. Viśākha, if one wishes to eradicate conceptions of love and hate, one should strive with vigor to contemplate all dharmas as completely empty and tranquil, without any grasping or attachment."