宗鏡錄 5.5

5.5

答。今宗鏡所論。非是法相立有。亦非破相歸空。但約性宗圓教。以明正理。即以真如不變。不礙隨緣。是其圓義。若法相宗。一向說有真有妄。若破相宗。一向說非真非妄。此二門各著一邊。俱可思議。今此圓宗。前空有二門俱存。又不違礙。此乃不可思議。若定說有無二門。皆可思議。今以不染而染。則不變隨緣。染而不染。則隨緣不變。實不可以有無思。亦不可為真妄惑。斯乃不思議之宗趣。非情識之所知。今假設文義對治。只為破其邪執。若情虛則智絕。病差則藥消。能窮始末之由。方洞圓常之旨。故復禮法師問天下學士真妄偈云。真法性本淨。妄念何由起。從真有妄生。此妄安可止。無初即無末。有終應有始。無始而無終。長懷懵茲理。願為開玄妙。析之出生死。澄觀和尚答云。迷真妄念生。悟真妄則止。能迷非所迷。安得全相似。從來未曾悟。故說妄無始。知妄本自真。方是恒常理。分別心未亡。何由出生死。宗密禪師釋云。大乘經教。統唯三宗。一法相宗。二破相宗。三法性宗。今此問。是法性宗中。齧鏃關節。不問二宗。若法相宗。所說一切。有漏妄法。無漏淨法。無始時來。各有種子。在阿賴耶識中。遇緣熏習。即各從自性起。都不關真如。誰言從真生妄也。彼說真如。一向無為寂滅。無起無止。不可難他。從真有妄生也。若破相宗一向說凡聖。染淨。一切皆空。本無所有。設見一法過涅槃者。亦如幻夢。彼且本不立真。何況於妄。故不難云從。真有妄也。唯疑法性宗。以此宗經論。言依真起妄者。如云法身流轉五道。如來藏受苦樂等。言悟妄即真者。如云初發心時。即成阿耨菩提。知妄本自真。見佛即清淨等。又言凡聖混融者。如云一切眾生。本來成正覺。般涅槃。毘盧遮那身中。具足六道眾生等。真妄相即。雖說煩惱菩提。無有始終。又說煩惱終盡。方名妙覺。華嚴起信等經論。首末之文。義宗有礙。自語相違。擬欲揀之。不可取一捨一。欲合之。又難會。俱用之。又相違。試問天下學士。有達者即知真入道。若諸師所答悉迷問意。皆約泯相歸理而說。都不識他所問。從真起妄之由。修妄證真之理。然迷真起妄。蓋有因由。息妄歸真。非無所以。復禮法師。豈不知真妄俱寂。理事皆如。如寂之中。何有問答。然有二門。義理易辯。即無違妨。一者。一向說有妄可斷。有真可證。二者。一向說非真非妄。無凡無聖。此二門。皆可思議。故勝鬘經云。眾生自性清淨心。無煩惱所染。不染而染。染而不染。皆云難可了知。復禮正問此義。諸師所答但說無垢染耳。唯觀和尚所答。約真如不變。不礙隨緣。方為契當。今宗密試答曰。本淨本不覺。由斯妄念起。知真妄即空。知空妄即止。止處名有終。迷時號無始。因緣如幻夢。何終復何始。此是眾生原。窮之出生死。又人多謂真能生妄。故疑妄不窮盡。為決此理。重答前偈。不是真生妄。妄迷真而起。知妄本自真。知真妄即止。妄止似終末。悟來似初始。迷悟性皆空。性空無終始。生死由此迷。達此出生死。又約始終。有四句分別。一。有始無終。即是始覺。二有終無始。即是無明。三無終無始。謂實際。四有始有終。是一期生死。又釋云。無始而有終。長懷懵斯理者。即法相事。而例難之。今云。有妄即真。則同無終始。若分別說。應有四句。真理則無終無始。妄念則無始有終。真智則無終有始。𧢍起妄念。有終有始。若約圓融。同無終始。既無終始。亦復無有無終無始。唯亡言絕想。可會斯玄。詳上答意。深合圓宗。於隨緣門。初即迷真起妄。後乃悟妄即真。於迷悟中。似分終始。約不變門。妄自本空。誰論前後。真俗無性。凡聖但名。譬如迷繩作蛇。疑杌為鬼。真諦非有。世諦非無。二諦相成。不墮邪見。是以俗諦不得不有。有常自空。真諦不得不空。空恒徹有。今時學者。多迷空有二門。盡成偏見。唯尚一切不立。拂迹歸空。於相違差別義中。全無智眼。既不辯惑。何以釋疑。故云涅槃心易曉。差別智難明。若能空有門中。雙遮雙照。真俗諦內。不即不離。方可弘法為人。紹隆覺位。

Answer: What is now discussed in the Mirror of the Source is neither the establishment of existence by the Characteristics school nor the reduction to emptiness by the Refutation of Characteristics school. It only elucidates the correct principle in terms of the Perfect Teaching of the Nature school: namely, that tathatā is unchanging without obstructing its following of conditions—this is its perfect meaning. If one looks to the Characteristics school, it exclusively teaches that there is the real and there is the delusive. If one looks to the Refutation of Characteristics school, it exclusively teaches that there is neither the real nor the delusive. These two gates each adhere to one side, and both are conceivable. Now this Perfect school preserves both of the previous two gates of emptiness and existence, yet they do not obstruct each other. This is precisely inconceivable. If one definitively maintains the two gates of existence and non-existence, both are conceivable. Now, because it is defiled while undefiled, it is unchanging while following conditions; because it is undefiled while defiled, it follows conditions while unchanging. Truly, it cannot be conceived through existence and non-existence, nor can one be confused by the real and the delusive. This is the inconceivable essential tenet, which cannot be known by emotional consciousness. The provisional establishment of textual meanings as remedies here is solely to shatter heterodox attachments. If emotional fabrications are evacuated, then [discursive] intellect is severed; when the illness is cured, the medicine disappears. Only when one can penetrate the origins of beginning and end can one fathom the import of the perfect and eternal. Therefore, Dharma Master Fuli asked scholars throughout the realm in a verse on the real and the delusive: / 'The nature of true dharmas is fundamentally pure; / Whence do delusive thoughts arise? / If from the real there arises the delusive, / How can this delusion ever be stopped? / Having no beginning entails having no end; / Having an end, there ought to be a beginning. / Beginningless and yet endless— / I long harbor bewilderment at this principle. / I pray you open the profound and subtle, / And analyze it to transcend birth and death.' / The Preceptor Chengguan answered: / 'Bewildered about the real, delusive thoughts arise; / Awakening to the real, the delusive ceases. / That which is bewildered is not that which is bewildered about; / How could they be entirely alike? / Never having awakened from the beginningless past, / Delusion is therefore said to have no beginning. / Knowing delusion to be fundamentally the real itself— / Only this is the eternal principle. / So long as the discriminating mind is not extinguished, / By what means could one transcend birth and death?' / Chan Master Zongmi explained: 'The Mahāyāna scriptures and teachings are subsumed under just three schools: first, the Characteristics school; second, the Refutation of Characteristics school; and third, the Nature school. Now this question touches the critical crux within the Nature school; it does not question the other two schools. In the Characteristics school, all defiled, delusive dharmas with outflows and pure dharmas without outflows have each possessed seeds in the ālayavijñāna from beginningless time. When meeting conditions and undergoing perfuming, each arises from its own nature; none of this concerns tathatā. Who would say that delusion arises from the real? That school states that tathatā is exclusively unconditioned and quiescent, without arising or ceasing; one cannot challenge them with [the idea that] delusion arises from the real. If one turns to the Refutation of Characteristics school, it exclusively teaches that ordinary beings and sages, defilement and purity, are all completely empty and fundamentally non-existent. Even if one were to see a dharma that surpassed nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion or a dream. They do not fundamentally establish the real in the first place, let alone delusion! Hence one does not challenge them saying that delusion comes from the real. Doubts pertain only to the Nature school, because the scriptures and treatises of this school state that delusion arises reliant upon the real—as when it is said that the dharmakāya transmutes through the five destinies, and the tathāgatagarbha undergoes suffering and pleasure, etc. It also states that awakening to delusion is itself the real—as when it is said that at the moment of first generating the mind [for bodhi], one immediately achieves anuttara-bodhi, and that knowing delusion to be fundamentally the real itself, seeing the Buddha is itself purity, etc. It also states that ordinary beings and sages are intermingled and fused—as when it is said that all sentient beings have originally achieved correct awakening and entered parinirvāṇa, and that within the body of Vairocana the sentient beings of the six destinies are fully present, etc. The real and the delusive are mutually identical: although it is said that kleśa and bodhi have neither beginning nor end, it is also said that only when kleśas are completely exhausted is it called wondrous awakening. The passages from beginning to end in scriptures and treatises such as the Avataṃsaka and the Awakening of Faith present obstacles in their theoretical tenets and contradict themselves. Intending to choose between them, one cannot accept one and reject the other; wishing to unite them, they are hard to harmonize; employing both, they contradict each other. I challenge the scholars under heaven: if there be one who has penetrated this, he will know the real and enter the Path. The answers given by various masters all missed the intent of the question, for they all spoke in terms of eliminating characteristics to return to principle, failing to understand his question about the cause of delusion arising from the real and the principle of cultivating through delusion to realize the real. Yet delusion arising from bewilderment about the real indeed has a cause; the cessation of delusion and return to the real is not without reason. How could Dharma Master Fuli not know that the real and the delusive are both quiescent, and that principle and phenomena are both tathatā? Within that tathatā and quiescence, what question and answer could there be? Yet there are two gates whose doctrine and principle are easily distinguished, and thus there is no contradiction or obstacle: First, to exclusively state that there is delusion to be severed and the real to be realized. Second, to exclusively state that there is neither the real nor the delusive, neither ordinary beings nor sages. These two gates are both conceivable. Thus the Śrīmālādevīsūtra says: "The intrinsically pure mind of sentient beings is not defiled by kleśas; defiled yet undefiled, undefiled yet defiled—both are said to be difficult to comprehend." Fuli was asking about precisely this meaning, whereas the answers of the various masters merely stated that there is no defilement. Only the answer of Preceptor Guan, based on tathatā being unchanging without obstructing its following of conditions, was truly appropriate. Now Zongmi attempts to answer: / "Fundamentally pure and fundamentally unaware, / Delusive thoughts arise from this. / Knowing the real, delusion is immediately empty; / Knowing emptiness, delusion immediately ceases. / The place of cessation is called having an end; / The time of bewilderment is designated beginningless. / Causes and conditions are like illusions and dreams; / What end and what beginning could there be? / This is the source of sentient beings; / Fathoming it, one transcends birth and death." / Furthermore, because many people say that the real can generate delusion, they suspect that delusion cannot be exhausted. To resolve this principle, I answer the previous verse again: / "It is not that the real generates delusion; / Delusion arises through bewilderment about the real. / Knowing delusion to be fundamentally the real itself, / Knowing the real, delusion immediately ceases. / The cessation of delusion seems like a final end; / The dawning of awakening seems like an initial beginning. / The natures of both bewilderment and awakening are empty; / Being empty in nature, there is neither end nor beginning. / Birth and death stem from this bewilderment; / Penetrating this, one transcends birth and death." / Moreover, in terms of beginning and end, there is a four-phrase differentiation: 1. Having a beginning but no end, which is initial awakening. 2. Having an end but no beginning, which is avidyā. 3. Having neither end nor beginning, which refers to the reality limit. 4. Having both a beginning and an end, which is a single period of birth and death. It is further explained: One who says "beginningless and yet having an end, I long harbor bewilderment at this principle" raises a challenge by taking an example from the phenomena of the Characteristics school. Now it is said: delusion being identical to the real, it is likewise without end or beginning. If differentiated, there should be four phrases: True principle has neither end nor beginning. Delusive thoughts have an end but no beginning. True wisdom has no end but a beginning. Suddenly arisen delusive thoughts have both an end and a beginning. If considered in terms of perfect interfusion, they are identically without end or beginning. Since there is neither end nor beginning, there is also no non-existence of end and beginning. Only by abandoning words and severing thoughts can one harmonize with this profound mystery.' Examining the meaning of the above answers, they accord deeply with the Perfect school. In the gate of following conditions: at first, delusion arises from bewilderment about the real; later, one awakens to delusion as being identical to the real. Within bewilderment and awakening, beginning and end seem to be distinguished. In terms of the gate of being unchanging: delusion is fundamentally empty of itself, so who speaks of before and after? The ultimate and the conventional are without intrinsic nature; ordinary beings and sages are mere names. It is like mistaking a rope for a snake or suspecting a stump to be a ghost. The ultimate truth is not existent, and the conventional truth is not non-existent. The two truths complete each other, and one does not fall into heterodox views. Therefore, the conventional truth cannot but exist, yet existence is constantly of itself empty; the ultimate truth cannot but be empty, yet emptiness constantly penetrates existence. Scholars of today are mostly confused about the two gates of emptiness and existence, entirely falling into biased views; they only esteem not establishing anything, sweeping away traces to return to emptiness, and possess no eye of wisdom regarding the mutually opposing and differentiated meanings. If they cannot distinguish confusion, how can they resolve doubts? Thus it is said: 'The mind of nirvāṇa is easy to comprehend, but discriminating wisdom is difficult to clarify.' If one can both negate and illuminate within the gates of emptiness and existence, and neither identify nor separate within the ultimate and conventional truths, only then can one propagate the Dharma for others and carry forward the position of awakening.