宗鏡錄 61.31

61.31

答。若不因教所指。何由得識自心。設不因教。發明。亦須憑教印可。若不然者。皆成自然外道。闇證禪師。直饒生而知之。亦是多生聞經熏種。或乃諸聖本願冥加。所以台教云。夫一向無生觀人。但信心益。不信外佛威加益。此墮自性癡。又一向信外佛加。不內心求益。此墮他性癡。共癡。無因癡。亦可解。自性癡人。眼見世間牽重不前者。傍力助進。云何不信。罪垢重者。佛威建立。令觀慧得益。又汝從何處得是無生內觀。從師耶。從經耶。從自悟耶。師與經。即是汝之外緣。若自悟者。必被冥加。汝不知恩。如樹木不識日月風雨等恩。經云。非內非外。而內而外。而內故。諸佛解脫。於心行中求。而外故。諸佛護念。云何不信外益也。又若論至理。無佛無眾生。豈云感應。若於佛事門中。機應非一。若無眾生機。諸佛則不應。豈可執自執他。論內論外。而生邊見耶。

Answer: 'If not for what the teachings point to, how could one come to recognize one's own mind? Even if one does not realize it through the teachings, one must still rely on the teachings for verification. If it were not so, all would become naturalistic non-Buddhists or blindly practicing meditation masters. Even if someone were born with knowledge of it, this too would be due to having heard the sūtras and perfumed the seeds across many lifetimes, or perhaps the dark assistance of the fundamental vows of the holy ones. Therefore, the Tiantai teaching says: "Those who exclusively cultivate the contemplation of non-arising only believe in the benefit of their own mind, not believing in the benefit of the majestic empowerment of external Buddhas. This falls into the delusion of self-nature. Furthermore, those who exclusively believe in the empowerment of external Buddhas and do not seek benefit within their own mind fall into the delusion of other-nature. The delusions of both and of causelessness can also be understood accordingly. As for people deluded about self-nature: when they see in the world a heavy burden that cannot be moved forward, helped forward by lateral power, why do they not believe? For those whose sinful defilements are heavy, the Buddha's majestic power establishes them, enabling their contemplative wisdom to gain benefit. Moreover, from where did you obtain this internal contemplation of non-arising? From a teacher? From sūtras? Or from self-awakening? A teacher and sūtras are your external conditions; if it was from self-awakening, you must have been aided in secret. You do not recognize kindness, just as trees do not recognize the kindness of the sun, moon, wind, and rain." A sūtra says: "It is neither internal nor external, yet internal and external. Because it is internal, the liberation of the Buddhas is sought within mental activity; because it is external, the Buddhas protect and remember [them]." How could one not believe in external benefit? Furthermore, if we discuss the ultimate principle, there is neither Buddha nor sentient being; how could there be stimulus and response? Yet within the gate of Buddha-activities, stimulus and response are not identical. If there were no stimulus from sentient beings, the Buddhas would not respond. How could one cling to self or cling to other, debating internal and external, and thereby give rise to extreme views?'