宗鏡錄 45.2.3

45.2.3

出現世間。 淨名經云。 除去所有。 唯置一床。 即是除妄心之有。 外境本空。 以心有法有。 心空境空。 故起信論云。 是故當知。 一切世間境界之相。 皆依眾生無明妄念而得建立。 如鏡中像。 無體可得。 唯從虛妄分別心轉。 心生則種種法生。 心滅則種種法滅故。 是以但得無心。 境自不現。 既無對待。 逆順何生。 以逆境故。 生瞋惱強賊干懷。 以順境故。 牽愛情華箭入體。 能令心動。 故稱不安。 今若無心。 坦然無事。 則萬機頓赴而不撓其神。 千難殊對而不干其慮。 所以阿難執有。 而無據。 七處茫然。 二祖體無。 而自安。 言下成道。 若不直了無心之旨。 雖然對治折伏。 其不安之相。 常現在前。 若了無心。 觸途無滯。 絕一塵而作對。 何勞遣蕩之功。 無一念而生情。 不假忘緣之力。 又無心約教有二。 一者澄湛令無。 二者當體是無。 澄湛令無者。 則是攝念安禪。 蠲消覺觀。 虛襟靜慮。 漸至微細。 當體是無者。 則直了無生。 以一念起處不可得故。 經云。 一念初起。 無有初相。 是真護念。 寶藏論云。 夫離者無身。 微者無心。 無身故大身。 無心故大心。 大心故。 則智周萬物。 大身故。 則應備無窮。 是以執身為身者。 則失其大應。 執心為心者。 則失其大智。 故千經萬論。 莫不說離身心。 破於執著。 乃入真實。 譬如金師。 銷鑛取金。 方為器用。 若有身者。 則有身礙。 有身礙故。 則法身隱於形㲉之中。 若有心者。 則有心礙。 有心礙故。 則真智隱於念慮之中。 故大道不通。 妙理沈隱。 六神內亂。 六境外緣。 晝夜惶惶。 無有止息矣。 夫不觀其心者。 而不見其微。 不觀其身者。 而不見其離。 若不見其離微者。 則失其道要。 故經云。 佛說非身。 是名大身。 心亦如是。 此謂破權歸實。 會假歸真。 譬如金師。 銷鑛取金。 方為器用。 滅相混融。 以通大冶。 大冶者。 謂大道。 此大道冶中。 造化無窮。 流出萬宗。 若成若壞。 體無增減。 故經云。 有佛無佛。 性相常住。 所言混融相者。 但為愚夫。 著相畏無相也。 所以說相者。 為彼外道。 著於無相畏有相。 所以說中道者。 欲令有相無相不二也。 此皆破執除疑。 言非盡理。 若復有人。 了相無相。 平等不二無取無捨無彼無此。 亦無中間。 則不假聖人言說。 理自通也。 如上所述。 皆為有心成障。 若乃無心。 自然合道。 即是離其妄心。 真心不動。 如釋摩訶衍論云。 離心緣相者。 心量有十。 一者眼識心。 二者耳識心。 三者鼻識心。 四者舌識心。 五者身識心。 六者意識心。 七者末那識心。 八者阿賴耶識心。 九者多一識心。 十者一一識心。 如是十中。 初九種心。 不緣真理。 後一種心。 得緣真理。 而為境界。 今據前九作如是說。 離心緣相。 本有契經中。 作如是說。 甚深真體。 非餘境界。 唯自所依緣為境界故。 楞伽經云。 非心之心量。 我說為心量者。 謂以非心量。 為遣心量。 若以非心量為是。 斯即心量。 今謂非心量即不思議之心量者。 不礙心量故。 如華嚴經云。 菩薩住是不思議。 即非心量。 於中思議不可盡。 即之心量。 以二相即奪故。 思與非思俱寂滅。 又云。 於非心處示生於心者。 人多誤解。 情作非情。 非情作情。 若執於非心處示生於心。 是非情為情者。 既言示生。 非真無情為有情矣。 大寶積經云。 佛言。 文殊。 汝入不思議三昧耶。 文殊師利言。 不也世尊。 我即不思議。 不見有心能思議者。 云何而言。 入不思議三昧。 我初發心。 欲入是定。 而今思惟。 實無心相而入三昧。 如人學射。 久習則巧。

appear in the world. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: 'He removed everything, leaving only a single bed.' This signifies removing the existence of the deluded mind; external objects are fundamentally empty. Because when citta exists dharmas exist, and when citta is empty objects are empty, the Awakening of Faith says: 'Therefore, one should know that all characteristic marks of realms in the world are established relying on sentient beings' avidyā and deluded thoughts. Like reflections in a mirror, they have no obtain-able substance; they transform solely from the falsely conceptualising citta. Because when citta arises, various dharmas arise; when citta ceases, various dharmas cease.' Therefore, if one only attains no-citta, objects will naturally not appear. Since there is no duality, how could adversity or favourability arise? Due to adverse conditions, dveṣa and vexations arise like powerful thieves invading the bosom; due to favourable conditions, arrows of attachment and desire shoot into the body. These can agitate the citta, which is why it is called 'unsettled.' Now if there is no-citta, being untroubled and free of concerns, the myriad activities will instantly arrive without disturbing one's spirit, and a thousand difficulties will confront one without intruding upon one's thoughts. Thus Ānanda grasped at existence without basis, ending in bewilderment in the seven places; the Second Patriarch realised non-existence and was naturally at peace, attaining the Way at a single word. If one does not directly comprehend the purport of no-citta, then although one applies antidotes and subdues [the mind], the characteristics of being unsettled will constantly appear before one. If one comprehends no-citta, one is unobstructed wherever one goes: eliminating even a single speck of dust to stand as an opposite, what need is there for the effort of casting away and clearing out? Not a single thought generating emotional attachment, there is no reliance on the power of forgetting conditions. Furthermore, in terms of teaching, no-citta has two aspects: first, settling into clarity to render it non-existent; second, being fundamentally non-existent in its very substance. 'Settling into clarity to render it non-existent' means restraining thoughts and resting in dhyāna, eliminating vitarka and vicāra, emptying the bosom and quieting thoughts, gradually arriving at the subtle. 'Being fundamentally non-existent in its very substance' means directly comprehending non-arising, because the point where a single thought arises cannot be found. A sūtra says: 'When a single thought first arises, it has no initial characteristic—this is true mindful protection.' The Baocang lun states: 'Now, one who is detached has no body; one who is subtle has no citta. Because one has no body, one has a great body; because one has no citta, one has a great citta. Because of the great citta, wisdom encompasses the myriad things; because of the great body, responsive manifestations are boundlessly complete. Therefore, those who grasp the body as a body lose its great responsiveness; those who grasp the citta as citta lose its great wisdom. Hence across the thousands of sūtras and ten thousand treatises, none fail to speak of detaching from body and citta and breaking attachments, only then entering the real. For example, a goldsmith smelts the ore to extract the gold, only then fashioning it into vessels. If one has a body, there are bodily obstructions; because there are bodily obstructions, the dharmakāya is hidden within the physical husk. If one has a citta, there are mental obstructions; because there are mental obstructions, true wisdom is hidden within thoughts and reflections. Thus the Great Way is blocked, the wondrous principle sinks into concealment, the six spirits are internally disordered, and the six external objects are conditioned, causing anxiety day and night without cessation. Now, those who do not observe their citta do not see its subtlety; those who do not observe their body do not see its detachment. If one does not see their detachment and subtlety, one loses the essentials of the Way. Therefore a sūtra says: "The Buddha taught that no body is called the great body"; the citta is also like this.' This is called breaking the provisional to return to the real, converging the artificial to return to the true. Just as a goldsmith smelts the ore to extract gold before it becomes a vessel, destroying characteristics and blending them together to enter the great furnace—the 'great furnace' refers to the Great Way. Within this furnace of the Great Way, transformation is inexhaustible, pouring forth the myriad sources; whether forming or decaying, its substance neither increases nor decreases. Hence a sūtra says: 'Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics permanently abide.' What is called 'blending characteristics' is only for ordinary fools who cling to characteristics and fear the unconditioned. The reason characteristics are taught is for those non-Buddhists who cling to the absence of characteristics and fear existence. The reason the Middle Way is taught is to make existence of characteristics and absence of characteristics non-dual. These all break attachments and remove doubts; the words do not exhaust the principle. If there is a person who comprehends that characteristics and the absence of characteristics are equal and non-dual, without grasping or discarding, without that or this, and without an intermediate, then without relying on the words of sages, the principle naturally penetrates. As described above, having a citta forms an obstruction. If one is without citta, one naturally accords with the Way—that is, leaving behind the deluded mind, the true citta remains unmoving. As the Shi moheyan lun states: 'Regarding "detaching from the characteristics of mental conditioning": the measures of citta are ten. First, the eye-consciousness citta; second, the ear-consciousness citta; third, the nose-consciousness citta; fourth, the tongue-consciousness citta; fifth, the body-consciousness citta; sixth, the manovijñāna citta; seventh, the manas citta; eighth, the ālayavijñāna citta; ninth, the multiple-and-one-consciousness citta; tenth, the each-and-every-consciousness citta. Among these ten, the first nine kinds of citta do not condition the true principle; the latter one citta is able to condition the true principle and take it as its sphere. Now, based on the first nine, it is stated thus: "detaching from the characteristics of mental conditioning." In original sūtras it is stated thus: "The profound true substance is not the sphere of anything else; it takes only what it relies upon and conditions as its sphere."' The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: 'What is not a measure of citta, I call a measure of citta.' This means that by using 'non-measure of citta,' one dispels the measure of citta. If one takes 'non-measure of citta' to be correct, this itself is a measure of citta. Now, saying that 'non-measure of citta is itself the inconceivable measure of citta' is because it does not obstruct the measure of citta. As the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'The bodhisattva abides in this inconceivable'—this is the non-measure of citta; 'in it, conceivability cannot be exhausted'—this is the measure of citta. Because the two characteristics mutually identify and cancel each other out, conceiving and non-conceiving are both quiescent. It also says: 'Showing the arising of citta where there is no citta.' Many people misunderstand this, taking the sentient to be insentient, and the insentient to be sentient. If one clings to 'showing the arising of citta where there is no citta' as meaning the insentient becomes sentient, since it says 'showing arising,' it is not that what is truly insentient becomes sentient. The Mahāratnakūṭasūtra says: 'The Buddha said: "Mañjuśrī, do you enter the inconceivable samādhi?" Mañjuśrī said: "No, World-Honoured One. I am myself inconceivable, and I do not see any citta capable of conceiving; how could one say that I enter the inconceivable samādhi? When I first generated the mind, I wished to enter this concentration, but now as I reflect, there is truly no characteristic of citta that enters samādhi. Like a person learning archery: with long practice, he becomes skilled.