宗鏡錄 45.12

45.12

答。即辯知無能所。是無心也。豈渾無用。始是無心。譬如明鏡照物。豈有心耶。當知一切眾生。恒自無心。心體本來常寂。寂而常用。用而常寂。隨境鑒辯。皆是實性自爾。非是有心方始用也。只謂眾生。不了自心常寂。妄計有心。心便成境。以即心無心故。心恒是理。即理無理故。理恒是心。理恒是心故。不動心相。心恒是理故。不得心相。不得心相故。即是眾生不生。不動心相故。即是佛亦不生。以生佛俱不生故。即凡聖。常自平等法界性也。純一道清淨。更無異法。當知但有心分別作解之處。俱是虛妄。猶如夢中。若未全覺。所見纖毫亦猶是夢中事。但得無心。即同覺後絕諸境界。但有一微塵可作修證不思議解處。俱不離三界夢中所見。經云。無有少法可得。佛即授記。無生義云。不退轉天子言。此佛土未曾思惟分別於我見與不見。我亦不思惟佛土見與不見。故知諸見從有心而生。佛土無心。故不見天子。天子有心而不生念。故言不見佛土。便成不異。故知有心無心俱空。融大師云。鏡像本無心。說鏡像無心。從無心中說無心。人說有心。說人無心。從有心中說無心。有心中說無心。是末觀。無心中說無心。是本觀。眾生計有身心。說鏡像破身心。眾生著鏡像。說畢竟空破鏡像。若知鏡像畢竟空。即身心畢竟空。假名畢竟空。亦無畢竟空。若身心本無。佛道亦本無。一切法亦本無。本無亦本無。若知本無亦假名。假名佛道。佛道非天生。亦不從地出。直是空心性。照世間如日。

Answer: Discerning knowledge itself being free of subject and object is no-citta. How could it be that only being completely devoid of function is no-citta? For example, when a clear mirror reflects objects, does it have a citta? One should know that all sentient beings are constantly, naturally without citta. The substance of citta is originally always quiescent; being quiescent, it is constantly in function, and being in function, it is constantly quiescent. Reflecting and discerning in accord with objects is all the intrinsic nature acting naturally by itself; it is not that having a citta only then initiates function. It is merely that sentient beings, failing to comprehend that their own citta is constantly quiescent, falsely imagine that there is a citta, and citta then becomes an object. Because being identical with citta it is without citta, citta is constantly principle. Because being identical with principle it is without principle, principle is constantly citta. Because principle is constantly citta, it does not stir the characteristics of citta. Because citta is constantly principle, the characteristics of citta cannot be found. Because the characteristics of citta cannot be found, sentient beings do not arise. Because it does not stir the characteristics of citta, Buddhas also do not arise. Because both sentient beings and Buddhas do not arise, ordinary beings and sages are constantly the nature of the equal dharmadhātu. It is purely the single Way of purity, without any other dharma. One should know that wherever there is conceptual discrimination of the citta making interpretations, all are false, just as in a dream. If one has not fully awakened, even the slightest thing seen is still a matter within a dream. If one only attains no-citta, one is identical to having awakened, cutting off all realms of objects. As long as there is a single atom where one can construct an inconceivable understanding of practice and realization, none of it departs from what is seen within the dream of the three realms. A sūtra says: 'Because there is not the slightest dharma to be attained, the Buddha bestowed the prophecy.' The Meaning of Non-Arising says: 'The non-retrogressing deva said: "This Buddha-land has never thought or discriminated about whether it sees me or does not see me; I also do not think about whether the Buddha-land sees or does not see."' Therefore we know that all views arise from having a citta. Because the Buddha-land has no citta, it does not see the deva; the deva has a citta but does not generate thoughts, hence he says he does not see the Buddha-land—they then become non-different. Therefore we know that having a citta and having no citta are both empty. Master Rong said: 'Reflections in a mirror fundamentally have no citta. Speaking of the mirror reflection having no citta is speaking of no-citta from within no-citta. People say there is a citta; speaking of a person having no citta is speaking of no-citta from within having a citta. Speaking of no-citta from within having a citta is the derivative contemplation; speaking of no-citta from within no-citta is the fundamental contemplation. Sentient beings imagine they have a body and citta; we speak of mirror reflections to dismantle body and citta. Sentient beings cling to mirror reflections; we speak of ultimate emptiness to dismantle mirror reflections. If one knows that mirror reflections are ultimately empty, then body and citta are ultimately empty. "Ultimately empty" is a provisional name; there is also no ultimate emptiness. If body and citta are fundamentally non-existent, the Buddha Way is also fundamentally non-existent, and all dharmas are also fundamentally non-existent; fundamental non-existence is also fundamentally non-existent. If one knows that fundamental non-existence is also a provisional name, it is provisionally named the Buddha Way. The Buddha Way is not born from heaven, nor does it emerge from the earth; it is simply the empty nature of citta, illuminating the world like the sun.'