宗鏡錄 61.27

61.27

答曰。住我際得授記。住眾生際。壽命際人際得授記。又問。我際當於何求。答曰。當於如來解脫際求。又問。如來解脫際。復於何求。答曰。當於無明有愛際求。又問。無明有愛。當於何求。答曰。當於畢竟不生際求。又問。畢竟不生際。當於何求。答曰。當於無知際求。又問。無知者。為無所知。云何於此際求。答曰。若有所知求不可得。以無知故。於此際求。又問。此際無言。云何可求。答曰。以言語斷。是故可求。又問。云何言語斷。答曰。諸法依義不依語。又問。云何依義。答曰。不見義相。又問。云何不見。答曰。不生分別。義是可依。我為能依。無此二事。故名通達。又問。若不見義。此何所求。答曰。不見不取。故名為求。又問。若法可求即是有求。答曰。不爾。夫求法者。是無所求。何以故。若是可求則為非法。又問。何者是法。答曰。法無文字。亦離言語。又問。離文言中。何者是法。答曰。文言性離。心行處滅。是名為法。一切諸法。皆不可說。其不可說。亦不可說。善男子。若有所說。即是虛妄。中無實法。又問。諸佛菩薩。常有言說。皆虛妄乎。答曰。諸佛菩薩。從始至終。不說一字。云何虛妄。又問。若有所說。云何過咎。答曰。謂言語過。又問。言語何咎。答曰。謂思量過。又問。何法無咎。答曰。無說有說。不見二相。是即無咎。又問。過何為本。答曰。能執為本。又問。執何為本。答曰。著心為本。又問。著何為本。答曰。虛妄分別。又問。虛妄分別。以何為本。答曰。攀緣為本。又問。何所攀緣。答曰。緣色聲香味觸法。又問。云何不緣。答曰。若離愛取。則無所緣。以是義故。如來常說諸法平等。是以法平等故。說無差別。此方說法。十剎皆然。即一處遍一切處故。所以同證同宣。互為主伴。如華嚴指歸問云。如忉利天說十住時。既遍虛空。未知夜摩天等處。亦說十住不。設爾何失。二俱有過。若彼不說。則說處不遍。若彼亦說。何故經中唯言。忉利說十住法門。夜摩說十行等。答。此說十住。忉利天處。盡遍十方一切塵道。是故夜摩等處。皆有忉利。即於如此遍夜摩等忉利天處。說十住法。是故忉利無不普遍。仍非夜摩。夜摩等處說十行等。皆亦遍於忉利等處。仍非忉利。當知餘位亦爾。若約十住與十行等。金位相攝。即彼此互無。各遍法界。若約諸位相資。即此彼互有。同遍法界。

He replied: 'Abiding in the limit of the self, I received the prophecy; abiding in the limit of sentient beings, the limit of lifespan, and the limit of a person, I received the prophecy.' He asked further: 'Where should the limit of the self be sought?' He replied: 'It should be sought in the Tathāgata's limit of liberation.' He asked further: 'Where, again, should the Tathāgata's limit of liberation be sought?' He replied: 'It should be sought in the limit of ignorance and craving for existence.' He asked further: 'Where should ignorance and craving for existence be sought?' He replied: 'They should be sought in the limit of ultimate non-arising.' He asked further: 'Where should the limit of ultimate non-arising be sought?' He replied: 'It should be sought in the limit of unknowing.' He asked further: 'Is unknowing the absence of knowing? How can it be sought in this limit?' He replied: 'If there were something known, seeking could not be accomplished. Because of unknowing, it is sought in this limit.' He asked further: 'This limit is wordless; how can it be sought?' He replied: 'Because words are cut off, it can therefore be sought.' He asked further: 'How are words cut off?' He replied: 'All dharmas rely on meaning, not on words.' He asked further: 'How does one rely on meaning?' He replied: 'By not perceiving the characteristic of meaning.' He asked further: 'How does one not perceive it?' He replied: 'By not generating discrimination. Meaning is that which is relied upon; the self is that which relies. Where these two do not exist, it is named penetration.' He asked further: 'If one does not perceive meaning, what is sought here?' He replied: 'Not perceiving and not grasping is therefore named seeking.' He asked further: 'If a dharma can be sought, that is having seeking.' He replied: 'It is not so. One who seeks the Dharma is one who has nothing to seek. Why? If it could be sought, it would be non-Dharma.' He asked further: 'What is the Dharma?' He replied: 'The Dharma has no letters and is also free from words.' He asked further: 'Amid being free from words and letters, what is the Dharma?' He replied: 'The nature of words and letters is transcendence; the paths of mental activity are extinguished: this is named the Dharma. All dharmas are ineffable, and their being ineffable is also ineffable. Good son, if there is something spoken, it is false; within it there is no real dharma.' He asked further: 'The Buddhas and bodhisattvas constantly have discourses; are these all false?' He replied: 'The Buddhas and bodhisattvas, from beginning to end, do not speak a single word. How could it be false?' He asked further: 'If there is something spoken, what fault is there?' He replied: 'It is called the fault of words.' He asked further: 'What fault do words have?' He replied: 'It is called the fault of deliberation.' He asked further: 'What dharma has no fault?' He replied: 'Non-speaking and speaking, without perceiving the two characteristics—this is faultless.' He asked further: 'What is the root of fault?' He replied: 'Grasping is the root.' He asked further: 'What is the root of grasping?' He replied: 'The mind of attachment is the root.' He asked further: 'What is the root of attachment?' He replied: 'False discrimination.' He asked further: 'What is the root of false discrimination?' He replied: 'Cognitive conditioning is the root.' He asked further: 'What does it condition?' He replied: 'It conditions forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and dharmas.' He asked further: 'How does one not condition them?' He replied: 'If one is free from craving and grasping, there is nothing conditioned. For this reason, the Tathāgata constantly says that all dharmas are equal.' Thus, because dharmas are equal, there is no difference in what is taught. The preaching of the Dharma in this land is likewise in the ten Buddha-fields; that is, because one place pervades all places, they simultaneously testify and simultaneously expound, mutually acting as principal and companion. As asked in the Huayan zhigui: 'When the ten abodes are expounded in the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, since this pervades empty space, is the teaching of the ten abodes also expounded in places such as the Yāma Heaven? If it were, what error would there be? Both options have errors: if it is not expounded there, the places of preaching would not be all-pervading; if it is also expounded there, why does the sūtra only say that Trāyastriṃśa expounds the teaching of the ten abodes, and Yāma expounds the ten practices, and so on?' Answer: 'This preaching of the ten abodes in the realm of Trāyastriṃśa Heaven completely pervades all realms of dust in the ten directions. Therefore, places such as Yāma all contain Trāyastriṃśa. Precisely in such realms of Trāyastriṃśa Heaven that pervade Yāma and the rest, the teaching of the ten abodes is expounded. Therefore, Trāyastriṃśa is everywhere all-pervading, yet it is still not Yāma. When places such as Yāma expound the ten practices and so on, they also entirely pervade Trāyastriṃśa and other realms, yet they are still not Trāyastriṃśa. One should know that the remaining stages are also like this. In terms of the mutual subsumption of the stages of the ten abodes and the ten practices, they are mutually non-existent to each other, each pervading the dharmadhātu. In terms of the stages mutually assisting each other, they are mutually existent with each other, jointly pervading the dharmadhātu.'