宗鏡錄 60.5

60.5

答。由二義故。無異也。一以彼所執。執似為實。故無異法。二若離所執。似無起故。真中隨緣亦爾。以無所執。無隨緣故。又。以三性。各有二義不相。違故無異性。且如圓成。雖復隨緣成於染淨。而恒不失自性清淨。只由不失自性清淨故。能隨緣成染淨也。猶如明鏡現於染淨。而恒不失鏡之明淨。只由不失鏡明淨故。方能現染淨之相。以現染淨。知鏡明淨。以鏡明淨。知現染淨。是故二義。唯是一性。雖現淨法。不增鏡明。雖現染法。不污鏡淨。非直不污。亦乃由此反現鏡之明淨。真如亦爾。非直不動性淨成於染淨。亦乃由成染淨方現性淨。非直不壞染淨明於性淨。亦乃由性淨故方成染淨。是故二義。全體相收。一性無二。豈相違也。由依他無性。得成似有。由成似有。是故無性。此即無性即因緣。因緣即無性。是不二法門也。所執性中。雖復當情稱執現有。然於道理畢竟是無。以於無處橫計有故。如於杌橫計有鬼。今既橫計。明知理無。是故無二唯一性也。

Answer: Because of two senses, they are not different. First, because what is grasped by that [imagination] grasps the apparent as real, there are no different dharmas. Second, if one is separated from what is grasped, the apparent would not arise; and within the true, following conditions is also like this, because without what is grasped, there would be no following of conditions. Furthermore, because the three natures each have two senses that do not contradict one another, there are no different natures. For instance, although the consummate [nature] follows conditions to form defilement and purity, it constantly does not lose its intrinsically pure nature. Simply because it does not lose its intrinsically pure nature, it can follow conditions to form defilement and purity. It is just like a bright mirror manifesting defilement and purity while constantly not losing the mirror's brightness and purity. Simply because it does not lose the mirror's brightness and purity, it is then able to manifest the characteristics of defilement and purity. Through manifesting defilement and purity, one knows the mirror is bright and pure; through the mirror being bright and pure, one knows it manifests defilement and purity. Therefore, the two senses are only one nature. Although manifesting pure dharmas, it does not increase the mirror's brightness; although manifesting defiled dharmas, it does not defile the mirror's purity. Not only does it not defile it, but on the contrary, it is also due to this that the brightness and purity of the mirror are manifested. Tathatā is also like this: not only does its unmoving, pure nature form defilement and purity, but it is also due to the formation of defilement and purity that its pure nature is manifested. Not only does it not destroy defilement and purity to illuminate the pure nature, but it is also due to the pure nature that defilement and purity are formed. Therefore, the two senses fully encompass one another; the one nature is without duality—how could they contradict one another? Through the dependent [nature] lacking own-nature, it can form the apparent existent; through forming the apparent existent, it is therefore without own-nature. This means that lack of own-nature is precisely conditioned arising, and conditioned arising is precisely lack of own-nature; this is the non-dual Dharma-gate. Within the imagined nature, although it appears as existent according to emotional clinging, in terms of principle it is ultimately non-existent, because in a place of nothingness, existence is falsely imputed. It is like falsely imputing a ghost upon a stump. Now, since it is a false imputation, one clearly knows it is non-existent in principle. Therefore, there are not two; there is only one nature.