宗鏡錄 46.3.5

46.3.5

持來詣市。 凡愚不識。 買迦羅迦。 噉已命終。 有智人輩。 聞是事已。 問是女人。 汝於何處得是果來。 女人示處。 諸人即言。 彼方多有無量迦羅迦樹。 唯有一株鎮頭迦樹。 諸人知已。 笑而捨去。 經譬僧伽藍清濁二眾。 今借以譬內見外見。 二見名同。 有害不害。 如外見發。 說無因果。 歸於邪無。 若內見起。 猶執大小經論所詮。 害謂損其善根。 故知或名同體異。 不可雷同。 或名異體同。 應須甄別。 邪正既辯。 玉石俄分。 不濫初修。 深裨後學。 又華嚴演義云。 此方儒道玄妙。 不越三玄。 周易為真玄。 老子為虛玄。 莊子為談玄。 老子道德經云。 道生一。 一生二。 二生三。 三生萬物。 注云。 一者。 沖和之氣也。 言道動出沖和妙氣。 於生物之理未足。 又生陽氣。 陽氣不能獨生。 又生陰氣。 積沖氣之一。 故云一生二。 生積陽氣之二。 故云二生三。 陰陽含孕。 沖氣調和。 然後萬物阜成。 故云三生萬物。 次下又云。 萬物負陰而抱陽。 沖氣以為和。 上來皆明萬物自然生也。 莊子宗師篇云。 在太極之先。 而不為高。 在六合之下。 而不為深。 先天地生而不為久。 長於上古而不為老。 注云。 言道之無所不在也。 故在高為無高。 在深為無深。 在久為無久。 在老為無老。 無所不在。 所在皆無也。 又云。 知天之所為。 知人之所為。 注云。 知天之所為者。 自然也。 意云。 但有知有為。 皆不為而為。 故自然也。 今斷云。 若以自然為因者。 斷義也。 即老子意。 由道生一。 道是自然。 故以為因。 是邪因也。 又若謂萬物自然而生。 即莊子意。 則萬物自然。 無使之然。 故曰自然。 即無因也。 如烏之黑。 即莊子文。 涅槃經意。 周易云。 一陰一陽謂之道。 陰陽不測謂之神。 釋云。 一謂無也。 無陰無陽。 乃謂之道。 一得為無者。 無是虛無。 虛空不可分別。 唯一而已。 故以一為無也。 若有境。 則有彼此相形。 有二有三。 不得為一故。 在陰之時。 而不見為陰之功。 在陽之時。 而不見為。 陽之力。 自然而有陰陽。 自然無所營為。 此則道之謂也。 今斷云。 若以陰陽變易能生。 即是邪因。 又一者無也。 即是無因。 若計一為虛無自然。 則皆無因也。 則人自然生。 應常生人。 不待父母等眾緣。 菩提自然生。 則一切果報。 不由修得。 又易云。 寂然不動。 感。 而遂通天下之故。 禮云。 人生而靜。 天之性也。 感物而動。 性之欲也。 後儒皆以言詞小同。 不觀前後本所建立。 致欲渾和三教。 但見言有小同。 豈知義有大異。 是知不入正宗。 焉知言同意別。 未明已眼。 寧鑒名異體同。 所以徇語者迷。 據文者惑。 恐參大旨。 故錄示之。 且如外道說自然以為至道。 不成方便。 仍壞正因。 佛教亦說自然。 雖成正教。 猶是悉檀對治。 未為究竟。 以此一例。 其餘可知。 又直饒見超四句。 始出單四句。 猶有複四句。 具足四句。 且單四句者。 一有。 二無。 三亦有亦無。 四非有非無。 複四句者。 一有有有無。 二無有無無。 三亦有亦無有。 亦有亦無無。 四非有非無有。 非有非無無。 而言複者。 四句之中。 皆說有無。 具足四句者。 四句之中。 皆具四故。 第一有句具四者。 謂一有有。 二有無。 三有亦有亦無。 四有非有非無。 第二無句中具四者。 一無有。 二無無。 三無亦有亦無。 四無非有非無。 第三亦有亦無具四者。 一亦有亦無有。 二亦有亦無無。 三亦有亦無。 亦有亦無。 四亦有亦無。 非有非無。 第四非有非無具四者。 一非有非無有。 二非有非無無。 三非有非無。 亦有亦無。

brought them to the market. Common fools, failing to recognize [the difference], bought the kālaka [fruits], and upon eating them, their lives ended. People of wisdom, having heard of this matter, asked this woman: 'From where did you get these fruits?' The woman pointed out the place. The people then said: 'That region has countless kālaka trees and only a single tinduka tree.' Having understood this, the people laughed and walked away. The sūtra uses this as an analogy for the pure and turbid assemblies of the saṅgha. Now it is borrowed as an analogy for internal views and external views: the two views share the same name, but have harm and lack of harm. If an external view arises, it preaches the absence of cause and effect, culminating in heretical non-existence. If an internal view arises, it still grasps what is explained in the Greater and Lesser [Vehicle] sūtras and treatises; the harm means damaging one's wholesome roots. Therefore one knows that sometimes names are identical while substances differ, so they must not be conflated; sometimes names differ while substances are identical, so they must be distinguished. Once the heretical and the correct are distinguished, jade and stone are instantly separated, preventing beginners from being confused and deeply benefiting later students. Furthermore, the Huayan yanyi states: 'The profound and wondrous [teachings] of Confucianism and Daoism in this land do not exceed the three profundities: the Book of Changes is the true profundity, Laozi is the vacuous profundity, and Zhuangzi is the discoursed profundity. Laozi's Daodejing says: "The Dao produces the One; the One produces the Two; the Two produces the Three; the Three produces the myriad things." The commentary says: "'The One' is the harmonious, tranquil qi. This means that the Dao stirs to produce the wondrous qi of harmony and tranquility; yet regarding the principle of generating things, it is not yet sufficient, so it further generates the yang qi. Yang qi cannot generate on its own, so it further generates the yin qi. By accumulating the One of harmonious qi, it is said that 'the One produces the Two.' By generating and accumulating the Two of yang qi, it is said that 'the Two produces the Three.' Yin and yang harbor conception, and the harmonious qi harmonizes them; only then are the myriad things abundantly brought to completion. Therefore it is said that 'the Three produces the myriad things.'" Just below it also says: "The myriad things shoulder the yin and embrace the yang, harmonizing them through the tranquil qi." All the above explains that the myriad things are naturally produced. The 'Great and Venerable Teacher' chapter of Zhuangzi says: "[The Dao] is prior to the Great Ultimate, yet is not high; it is beneath the six directions, yet is not deep. It was born before heaven and earth, yet does not count as long-lasting; it is elder to high antiquity, yet is not old." The commentary says: "This states that the Dao is nowhere absent. Therefore, in what is high, it is not high; in what is deep, it is not deep; in what is long-lasting, it is not long-lasting; in what is old, it is not old. It is nowhere absent, and wherever it is, it is nothing." It also says: "To know what Heaven does, and to know what humanity does..." The commentary says: "'Knowing what Heaven does' is nature (ziran)." The meaning is: wherever there is knowing and doing, all are doing by non-doing, hence they are nature. Now, concluding in judgment: if one takes nature to be the cause, this is the doctrine of annihilationism. This is Laozi's meaning: because the Dao produces the One, and the Dao is nature, he therefore takes it to be the cause; this is a false cause. Furthermore, if one maintains that the myriad things are produced naturally, this is Zhuangzi's meaning: the myriad things are natural, with nothing causing them to be so, hence called 'nature'—this is the absence of a cause. Like the blackness of a crow: this is a passage from Zhuangzi and the meaning in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. The Book of Changes says: "One yin and one yang is called the Dao. The unfathomability of yin and yang is called the divine." The explanation says: "'One' means nothingness. Neither yin nor yang is what is called the Dao. That 'one' can be nothingness is because nothingness is vacuity and non-existence; empty space cannot be differentiated, it is solely one and nothing more; therefore 'one' is taken as nothingness. If there were an object, then there would be mutual comparison of this and that, having two and three, and it could not be one. When in yin, one does not see the efficacy of being yin; when in yang, one does not see the power of being yang. Naturally there are yin and yang, and naturally there is no contrivance; this is what is meant by the Dao." Now, concluding in judgment: if one considers that the transformations of yin and yang are able to produce, this is a false cause. Furthermore, 'one' being nothingness is the absence of a cause. If one posits that the One is vacuous nothingness and nature, then all are without a cause. Then, humans being born naturally, they should constantly give birth to humans without waiting for the manifold conditions such as father and mother; bodhi being produced naturally, then all karmic retributions would not be obtained through cultivation. Furthermore, the Book of Changes says: "Tranquil and unmoving, when stimulated it then penetrates throughout all causes under Heaven." The Record of Rites says: "Human beings are born tranquil; this is the nature of Heaven. Stirred by things to move, this is the desire of the nature." Later Confucians, all because the wordings are slightly similar and without examining what was originally established beforehand and afterward, ended up wishing to blend the three teachings together. Merely seeing that their words have slight similarities, how could they know that their meanings have great differences? From this one knows: if one does not enter the correct source, how can one know that words may be identical while meanings differ? If one has not clarified one's own eye, how can one perceive that names differ while substances are identical? Therefore, those who conform to words are deluded, and those who rely on the letter are confused. Fearing that they might confuse the great purport, this is recorded and shown. For example, when non-Buddhists speak of nature as the ultimate Dao, it does not constitute an expedient means and moreover destroys the correct cause. Buddhism also speaks of nature, and though it constitutes the correct teaching, it is still an antidote of the siddhāntas and is not yet the ultimate. Taking this as one example, the rest can be known. Furthermore, even if one's view transcends the four propositions, having just emerged from the simple four propositions, there are still the compound four propositions and the plenary four propositions. First, as for the simple four propositions: (1) existence, (2) non-existence, (3) both existence and non-existence, and (4) neither existence nor non-existence. As for the compound four propositions: (1) existence-existence and existence-non-existence, (2) non-existence-existence and non-existence-non-existence, (3) both-existence-and-non-existence-existence and both-existence-and-non-existence-non-existence, and (4) neither-existence-nor-non-existence-existence and neither-existence-nor-non-existence-non-existence. They are called 'compound' because within the four propositions, they all speak of existence and non-existence. As for the plenary four propositions, it is because each within the four propositions completely possesses all four. The first proposition of existence completely possessing four means: (1) existence-existence, (2) existence-non-existence, (3) existence-both-existence-and-non-existence, and (4) existence-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. Within the second proposition of non-existence completely possessing four: (1) non-existence-existence, (2) non-existence-non-existence, (3) non-existence-both-existence-and-non-existence, and (4) non-existence-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. The third proposition of both existence and non-existence completely possessing four: (1) both-existence-and-non-existence-existence, (2) both-existence-and-non-existence-non-existence, (3) both-existence-and-non-existence-both-existence-and-non-existence, and (4) both-existence-and-non-existence-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. The fourth proposition of neither existence nor non-existence completely possessing four: (1) neither-existence-nor-non-existence-existence, (2) neither-existence-nor-non-existence-non-existence, and (3) neither-existence-nor-non-existence-both-existence-and-non-existence.