宗鏡錄 46.3.8

46.3.8

如大法鏡經云。 若諸菩薩。 隨言取義。 不如正理思擇法故。 便生二十八不正見。 謂初相見者。 謂聞大乘經中。 所說。 一切諸法。 皆無自性。 無生無滅。 本來寂靜。 自性涅槃等言。 不善密意。 但隨此言義。 便生勝解。 謂佛所說一切諸法。 定無自性。 定無生等。 執著如是無性等相。 是名相見。 彼執著。 如是無性等相。 時便謗三自性。 謂遍計所執自性。 依他起自性。 圓成實自性等。 是知若謗此三性。 則撥真俗二諦等一切法。 所以有無二見。 為諸見本。 若能斷於諸見。 自然以宗鏡相應。 華手經云。 爾時世尊。 告舍利弗。 所言正見。 為何謂也。 舍利弗。 其正見者。 無高無下。 等觀諸法。 乃至又正見者。 無一切見。 何以故。 諸有所見。 皆是邪見。 無一切見。 即是正見。 佛藏經云。 佛言。 一切諸見。 皆從虛妄緣起。 舍利弗。 若作是念。 此是正見。 是人即是邪見。 舍利弗。 於聖法中。 拔斷一切諸見根本。 悉斷一切諸語言道。 如虛空中。 手無觸礙。 諸沙門法。 皆應如是。 又云。 佛言。 舍利弗。 諸佛阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。 唯是一義。 所謂離也。 何等為離。 離諸欲諸見。 欲者即是無明。 見者即是憶念。 何以故。 一切諸法。 憶念為本。 所有念想。 即為是見。 見即是邪。 是以若能離見。 即成諸佛。 十方稽首。 萬類歸依。 如中觀論云。 瞿曇大聖主。 憐愍說是法。 悉斷一切見。 我今稽首禮。 又夫遠離二邊。 住於中道者。 約華嚴經釋。 略舉四種以等一切。 一者染淨。 約惑。 二者縛脫。 通惑業。 三者有無。 通事理。 四者一異。 約心境。 何以有此。 謂成菩提。 既離細念妄惑盡。 已。 顯現法身智慧純淨。 若為此見。 未免是邊。 故經云。 若有見正覺。 解脫離諸漏。 不著一切世。 此非證道眼。 今了於惑。 體性本空。 復無所淨。 故離二邊。 又染淨交徹。 故無住著。 是曰離邊。 縛脫者。 謂昔常被惑業繫縛。 流轉無窮。 今謂菩提。 釋然解脫。 若為此見。 即是住邊。 菩薩智了本自無縛。 於何有解。 無縛無解。 則無苦樂。 故得離耳。 有無通事理者。 若昔謂惑有。 今了惑空。 昔謂心空。 今知妙有。 又真樂本有。 失而不知。 妄苦本空。 得而不覺。 今日始知空者妄苦。 有者涅槃。 若如是知。 並未離邊。 又煩惱業苦。 本有今無。 菩提佛身。 本無今有等。 皆三世有法。 菩提之性。 不屬三世故。 三世有無。 皆是邊攝。 真智契理。 絕於三世。 故離有無之二邊等。 一異有二。 一者。 心境不了則二。 契合則一。 亦成於邊。 二者。 生佛有異。 今了一性。 亦名為邊。 今正覺了此中無有二。 亦不有無二。 若善見者。 如理安住。 故離此邊。 今一契菩提。 一切都寂。 故云遠離。 義淨禪師云。 瑜伽則真有俗無。 以三性為本。 中觀乃真無俗有。 實二諦為先。 般若大宗。 含斯兩意。 致使東夏則道分南北。 西方乃義隔有空。 如上所說。 或諸凡夫執有著空。 情見非一。 四倒八邪之執。 五謗二見之愚。 或諸賢聖判教分宗。 智解亦別。 三時八教之道。 五性十宗之科。 未顯圓文。 或得或失。 若入宗鏡。 正解分明。 體用相含。 心境交涉。 空具德而徹萬有之表。 事無礙而全一理之中。 又若究竟欲免斷常邊邪之見。 須明華嚴六相義門。 則能任法施為。 自亡能所。 隨緣動寂。 不壞有無。 具大總持。 究竟無過矣。 此六相義。 是辯世間法。 自在無礙。 正顯緣起無分別理。 若善見者。 得智總持門。 不墮諸見。 不可廢一取一雙立雙亡。 雖總同時。 繁興不有。 縱各具別。

As the Dafa jing jing states: 'If bodhisattvas grasp meanings according to words and do not properly examine dharmas in accordance with the correct principle, they give rise to twenty-eight improper views. What is termed the initial "view of characteristics" means hearing what is taught in Mahāyāna sūtras—that all dharmas are without self-nature, unarisen and unceasing, originally tranquil, and of the nature of nirvāṇa, etc.—and failing to understand the hidden intent, merely following the literal meaning of these words, they give rise to the resolute conviction that all dharmas taught by the Buddha are definitively without self-nature, definitively unarisen, and so forth. Clinging to such characteristics of lacking nature is termed the view of characteristics. When they cling to such characteristics of lacking nature, they immediately slander the three self-natures—namely, the imaginary nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), and the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva). One should know that if they slander these three natures, they repudiate all dharmas, including the two truths of the ultimate and conventional. Therefore, the two views of existence and non-existence are the root of all views. If one can sever all views, one naturally accords with the mirror of the source.' The Huashou jing states: 'At that time the World-Honoured One addressed Śāriputra: "What is meant by right view? Śāriputra, right view neither elevates nor debases, but views all dharmas equally... Furthermore, right view is the absence of all views. Why? Whatever is viewed is entirely wrong view. Having no views whatsoever is itself right view."' The Fozang jing states: 'The Buddha said: "All views arise dependent on falsehood. Śāriputra, if one forms the thought, 'This is right view,' that person has wrong view. Śāriputra, within the noble Dharma, the roots of all views are severed and eradicated, and all paths of language are cut off entirely. Just as in empty space a hand meets no obstruction, so should the dharmas of all śramaṇas be."' It also says: 'The Buddha said: "Śāriputra, the anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi of all Buddhas has only one meaning, which is called detachment. What is detachment? It is detachment from all desires and all views. Desire is avidyā, and view is recollected thought. Why? All dharmas take recollected thought as their root. Whatever conception one holds is precisely a view; a view is precisely erroneous. Therefore, if one can be free of views, one immediately becomes a Buddha, bowed to by the ten directions and taken as refuge by all living beings."' As the Madhyamakaśāstra states: 'The great sage lord Gautama, / Out of compassion, taught this Dharma / To sever entirely all views; / I now bow my head in veneration.' Moreover, concerning being far removed from the two extremes and dwelling in the middle way, explained in terms of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, four types are briefly cited to equalize all: first, defilement and purity, in terms of kleśa; second, bondage and liberation, applying to both kleśa and karma; third, existence and non-existence, applying to both phenomena and principle; fourth, identity and difference, in terms of citta and object. Why are there these four? It is said that upon attaining bodhi, once subtle thoughts and deluded kleśas have already been completely removed, the dharmakāya manifests and wisdom is purely clean. If one forms this view, one has not yet escaped the extremes. Therefore the sūtra states: 'If someone sees the Perfectly Awakened One / As liberated, free from all outflows, / And unattached to any world, / This is not the eye that witnesses the path.' Now one realizes that the substance and nature of kleśas are fundamentally empty, and again there is nothing to purify; thus one is free from the two extremes. Furthermore, defilement and purity interpenetrate, and hence there is no abiding attachment; this is called being free from extremes. Regarding bondage and liberation: formerly one was bound by kleśa and karma, transmigrating boundlessly; now, regarding bodhi, one considers oneself released in liberation. If one forms this view, one is dwelling in an extreme. The bodhisattva's wisdom understands that fundamentally there is no bondage; from what could there be release? With neither bondage nor release, there is neither suffering nor joy; thus one attains freedom [from extremes]. Regarding existence and non-existence applying to phenomena and principle: if formerly one considered kleśas existent and now understands kleśas to be empty, or formerly considered the mind empty and now knows it as subtle existence; or again, true bliss is originally possessed yet lost without knowing, while deluded suffering is originally empty yet acquired without noticing—and only today does one begin to know that what is empty is deluded suffering and what exists is nirvāṇa—if one understands in this way, one has not yet left behind the extremes. Furthermore, that kleśas, karma, and suffering were originally existent and are now non-existent, or that bodhi and the Buddha-body were originally non-existent and are now existent, etc., are all dharmas existing within the three times. Because the nature of bodhi does not belong to the three times, existence and non-existence within the three times are entirely subsumed under the extremes. True wisdom tallies with principle and cuts off the three times; therefore, it is free from the two extremes of existence and non-existence, and so forth. Identity and difference have two aspects: first, if citta and object are not understood, they are two; when they harmonize, they are one—this also constitutes an extreme. Second, sentient beings and Buddhas are different; now understanding them to be of one nature is also called an extreme. Now, perfect awakening realizes that herein there is no duality, nor is there non-duality. If one sees correctly and abides in accordance with principle, one is free from this extreme. Now, once there is accordance with bodhi, everything is totally tranquil; therefore it is said to be 'far removed'. Chan Master Yijing said: 'Yogācāra holds the ultimate as existent and the conventional as non-existent, taking the three natures as the root. Madhyamaka holds the ultimate as non-existent and the conventional as existent, truly prioritizing the two truths. The great source of Prajñā encompasses both of these meanings. This caused the Dao in the eastern lands to divide into north and south, and in the western regions the teachings to be split between existence and emptiness.' As stated above, either ordinary beings cling to existence and attach to emptiness, their emotional views not being unified—the grasping of the four inversions and eight errors, the ignorance of the five slanders and two views; or the noble and wise judge teachings and differentiate sources, their intellectual understandings also differing—the paths of the three periods and eight teachings, the categories of the five natures and ten schools. Not yet revealing the complete text, they have gains and losses. If one enters the mirror of the source, right understanding is distinct and clear; substance and function contain each other, citta and object interrelate. Emptiness is endowed with virtues and penetrates the outer edge of all existence; phenomena are unobstructed and are fully within the single principle. Furthermore, if one ultimately wishes to avoid the erroneous views of the extremes of annihilation and permanence, one must clarify the doctrine of the six characteristics of the Huayan. Then one can allow dharmas to function freely, naturally forgetting subject and object, moving and staying still along with conditions, without destroying existence and non-existence, possessing the great dhāraṇī, and ultimately being without fault. This doctrine of the six characteristics explains worldly dharmas as sovereign and unobstructed, directly revealing the principle of non-discrimination in dependent origination. If one sees correctly, one attains the gate of the dhāraṇī of wisdom and does not fall into various views. One must not discard one to take another, nor establish both or extinguish both. Although totally simultaneous, their manifold arising is not existent; even though each possesses differences,