宗鏡錄 7.2

7.2

夫水喻真心者。以水有十義。同真性故。一水體澄清。喻自性清淨心。二得泥成濁。喻淨心不染而染。三雖濁不失淨性。喻淨心染而不染。四若泥澄淨現。喻真心惑盡性現。五遇冷成氷。而有硬用。喻如來藏與無明合。成本識用。六雖成硬用。而不失濡性。喻即事恒真。七煖融成濡。喻本識還淨。八隨風波動。不改靜性。喻如來藏隨無明風。波浪起滅而不變自不生滅性。九隨地高下排引流注。而不動自性。喻真心隨緣流注。而性常湛然。十隨器方圓。而不失自性。喻真性普遍諸有為法。而不失自性。又書云。上德若水。方圓任器。曲直隨形故。如小乘俱舍論。亦說諸有為法。有剎那盡。何以知有。後有盡故。既後有盡。知前有滅。故論云。若此處生。即此處滅。無容從此轉至餘方。若此生此滅。不至餘方。同不遷義。而有法體是生是滅。故非大乘。大乘之法。緣生無性。生即不生。滅即不滅。故遷即不遷。則其理懸隔。又中論疏云。常無常門者。常即人天位定。故無往來。無常即六趣各盡一形。亦無往來。又常即凝然不動。無常念念變異。令誰往來。則常無常法。俱不相到。皆無往來。肇論云。夫人之所謂動者。以昔物不至今。故曰動而非靜。我之所謂靜者。亦以昔物不至今。故曰靜而非動。動而非靜。以其不來。靜而非動。以其不去。然則所造未甞異。所見未甞同。逆之所謂塞。順之所謂通。苟得其道。復何滯哉。傷夫。人情之惑久矣。目對真而莫覺。既知往物之不來。而謂今物而可往。往物既不來。今物何可往。何則。求向物於向。於向未甞無。責向物於今。於今未甞有。於今未甞有。以明物不來。於向未甞無。故知物不去。覆而求今。今亦不往。是謂昔物自在昔。不從今以至昔。今物自在今。不從昔以至今。故仲尼曰。回也見新。交臂非故。如此則物不相往來明矣。既無往返之微朕。又何物而可動乎。釋曰。回也見新。交臂非故者。孔子謂顏回曰。吾與汝。終身交一臂已謝。豈待白首然後變乎。意明物物常自新。念念不相到。交臂之頃。尚不相待。已失前人。豈容至老而後變耶。又前念已故。後念恒新。終日相見。恒是新人。故云見新。如此新人。見之只如交臂之頃。早是後念新人。非前念時也。故云非故耳。若前念已古。後念已新。新不至古。古不待新。前後不相至。故不遷也。又雖兩人初相見。只如舉手交臂之頃。早已往矣。此取速疾也。故云。昔物自在昔。今物自在今。如紅顏自在童子之身。白首自處老年之體。所以云。人則謂少壯同體。百齡一質。徒知年往。不覺形隨。是以梵志出家。白首而歸。隣人見之曰。昔人尚存乎。梵志曰。吾猶昔人。非昔人也。隣人皆愕然非其言。所謂有力者負之而趨。昧者不覺。其斯之謂歟。吾猶昔人者。猶者。似也。吾雖此身似於昔人。然童顏自在於昔。今衰老之相。自在於今。則非昔人也。故云。徒知年往。不覺形隨。世人雖知歲月在於往古。豈覺當時之貌。亦隨年在於昔時。則童子不至老年。老年不至童子。剎那不相知。念念不相待。豈得少壯同體。百齡一質耶。又年往形亦往。此是遷義。即此遷中有不遷也。往年在往時。往形在往日。是謂不遷。而人乃謂往日之人。遷至今日。是謂惑矣。又昔自在昔。何須遷至今。今自在今。何須遷至昔。故論云。是以言往不必往。古今常存。以其不動。稱去不必去。謂不從今至古。以其不來。經中言遷。未必即遷。以古在古。以今在今故也。所以言無常者。防人之常執。言常住者。防人之斷執。言雖乖而理不異。語雖反而真不遷。不可隨方便有無之言。迷一心不遷之性。又解云。如梵志白首而歸。隣人謂少壯同體。故云昔人尚存乎。所謂有力者。則三藏等事。無常冥運。力負夜趨。交臂恒新。念念捨故。而常見昧之。謂是固矣。隣人不覺。此之謂歟。又有力者。即無常之大力也。世間未有一法。不被無常吞。故云。然則莊生之所以藏山。仲尼之所以臨川。斯皆感往者之難留。豈曰排今而可往。莊子本意。說不住之法。念念恒新。物物各住。各住相因而不相到。即不遷也。於惑者。則為無常不住。新新生滅。而謂之遷。若智者。則了性空無知。念念無生。謂之不遷。莊子有三藏。謂藏山於澤。藏舟於壑。藏天下於天下。謂之固者。不然也。然無常夜半負之而趨。昧者不覺也。三藏者。藏人於屋。藏物於器。此小藏也。藏舟於壑。藏山於澤。此大藏也。藏天下於天下。此無所藏。然大小雖異。藏皆得宜。猶念念遷流。新新移改。是知變化之道。無處可逃也。夫藏天下於天下者。豈藏之哉。蓋無所藏也。孔子在川上曰。逝者如斯夫。不捨晝夜。逝者往也。浩浩迅流。未曾暫住。晝夜常然。亦歎世人之不覺。故云。斯皆感往者之難留。豈曰排今而可往。此莊孔俱歎逝往難留。皆說無常去也。豈可推今日物到昔日乎。若今日不到昔。即今日自在今。昔日自在昔。則今昔顯然。俱不遷也。故云。何者。人則求古於今。謂其不住。吾則求今於古。知其不去。今若至古。古應有今。古若至今。今應有古。今而無古。以知不來。古而無今。以知不去。若古不至今。今不至古。事各性住。有何物而可去來。大涅槃經云。人命不停。過於山水。夫無常有二。一者敗壞無常。二者念念無常。人只知壞滅無常。而不覺念念無常。論云。若動而靜。似去而留。經說無常速疾。猶似流動。據理雖則無常。前後不相往來。故如靜也。雖則念念謝往。古今各性而住。當處自寂。故如留也。又。雖說古今各性而住。當處自寂。而宛然念念不住。前後相續也。則非常非斷。非動非靜。見物性之原也。

Now, water is used as an analogy for the true citta because water possesses ten meanings that correspond to the true nature. First, the substance of water is pure and clear, illustrating the intrinsically pure mind. Second, acquiring mud, it becomes turbid, illustrating how the pure mind is defiled without being defiled. Third, though turbid, it does not lose its pure nature, illustrating how the pure mind is defiled yet undefiled. Fourth, when the mud settles, its clarity appears, illustrating how when the delusions of the true citta are exhausted, its nature appears. Fifth, encountering cold, it turns to ice and acquires a hard function, illustrating how the tathāgatagarbha combines with avidyā to form the functions of the fundamental consciousness. Sixth, though it acquires a hard function, it does not lose its moist nature, illustrating that phenomena are constantly the real. Seventh, warmth melts it into moisture, illustrating the fundamental consciousness returning to purity. Eighth, following the wind, waves surge, yet its tranquil nature does not change, illustrating how the tathāgatagarbha follows the wind of avidyā: waves arise and cease, yet its own nature of non-arising and non-ceasing remains invariant. Ninth, following the high and low of the terrain, it is channeled and flows, yet its own nature is not moved, illustrating how the true citta follows conditions in its flow, while its nature is eternally serene. Tenth, it conforms to the square or round shape of vessels without losing its own nature, illustrating how the true nature is omnipresent in all conditioned phenomena without losing its own nature. Moreover, an ancient book says: "Highest virtue is like water; it conforms to square or round as the vessel dictates, bending or straightening along with the shape." As the Hīnayāna Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya also states that all conditioned phenomena have momentary exhaustion: how do we know they have it? Because subsequent existences are exhausted. Since subsequent existences are exhausted, we know that prior existences have perished. Hence the treatise says: "If it arises in this place, it perishes in this very place; it is impossible for it to transition from here to another location." If arising here and perishing here without reaching another location, this aligns with the meaning of non-movement; yet there is a real substance of phenomena that arises and perishes, and so it is not Mahāyāna. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, arising from conditions is devoid of nature: arising is non-arising, perishing is non-perishing; hence movement is itself non-movement, so the principle is worlds apart. Furthermore, the Commentary on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: "Regarding the gate of permanence and impermanence: permanence means the stations of humans and gods are fixed, so there is no going and coming; impermanence means each of the six destinies exhausts a single bodily form, so there is also no going and coming. Furthermore, permanence is motionless and undisturbed, while impermanence changes from thought to thought—who then could be caused to go and come? Thus the phenomena of permanence and impermanence alike do not reach each other; neither has any going and coming." Zhao's Treatise states: "What people call movement is because former things do not arrive at the present; therefore they say movement and not stillness. What I call stillness is also because former things do not arrive at the present; therefore I say stillness and not movement. Movement and not stillness is because they do not arrive; stillness and not movement is because they do not depart. Thus, what is arrived at has never differed, yet what is seen has never been the same. Opposing it is what is called blocked; according with it is what is called penetrating. If one truly grasps its principle, what obstruction could there be? Alas! The delusion of human sentiment has lasted long; facing the real with their eyes, they fail to awaken. Knowing already that past things do not come, they yet claim that present things can go. Since past things do not come, how could present things go? Why is this? Seek past things in the past, and in the past they were never absent; seek past things in the present, and in the present they have never existed. Having never existed in the present shows that things do not come; having never been absent in the past shows that things do not depart. Conversely seeking the present, the present also does not go. This means former things abide of themselves in the past and do not reach the past from the present; present things abide of themselves in the present and do not arrive at the present from the past. Thus Zhongni (Confucius) said: 'Yan Hui perceives the new; as shoulders pass, it is no longer the old.' Thus it is clear that things do not go and come to one another. Since there is not the slightest sign of coming and going, what thing could possibly move?" Commentary: "'Yan Hui perceives the new; as shoulders pass, it is no longer the old' means that Confucius said to Yan Hui: 'Between me and you, in the span of passing shoulders through our whole lives, it has already passed away; how could one wait for white hair and only then change?' The meaning clarifies that each thing is constantly new of itself, and thought to thought they do not reach each other. In the brief moment of passing shoulders, they do not even wait for one another; the former person is already lost—how could one allow that change happens only upon reaching old age? Furthermore, the former thought is already old, and the subsequent thought is constantly new. Meeting all day long, one is constantly seeing a new person; hence it says 'perceives the new.' Such a new person, seen only in the brief moment of passing shoulders, is already the new person of the subsequent thought, not of the time of the former thought. Hence it is said to be 'no longer the old.' If the former thought is already old and the subsequent thought is already new, the new does not arrive at the old, and the old does not await the new; before and after do not reach each other, and so there is no movement. Furthermore, even when two people first meet, in just the brief moment of raising a hand and passing shoulders, it has already passed away; this captures the rapid speed. Hence it is said: 'Former things abide of themselves in the past; present things abide of themselves in the present.' Just as a youthful complexion abides of itself in the body of a youth, while white hair resides of itself in the physical frame of old age. Therefore it says: 'People consider youth and old age to be the same body, a single frame across a hundred years; they merely know that years pass, unaware that physical form follows.' Therefore, when the brahmacārin left home and returned with white hair, his neighbors saw him and asked: 'Is that former person still alive?' The brahmacārin said: 'I resemble the former person, but am not the former person.' The neighbors were all astonished and rejected his words. As is said, 'The strong one carries it on his back and runs off, while the benighted are unaware'—does it not refer to this? 'I resemble the former person': 'resemble' means to be similar. Although my body here is similar to the former person, the youthful complexion abided of itself in the past, and the signs of decline and old age abide of themselves in the present; thus I am not the former person. Hence it says: 'They merely know that years pass, unaware that physical form follows.' Although worldly people know that the months and years belong to the past, how do they realize that the appearance of that time also remained in the past along with the years? Thus youth does not reach old age, and old age does not reach youth; moment to moment they do not know each other, and thought to thought they do not wait for one another. How could youth and prime be the same body, a single frame across a hundred years? Furthermore, the passing of years and the passing of physical form is the meaning of movement; within this very movement is non-movement. Past years reside in past times; past forms reside in past days—this is called non-movement. Yet people claim that the person of past days has moved to the present day; this is called delusion. Furthermore, the past abides of itself in the past, so why must it move to the present? The present abides of itself in the present, so why must it move to the past? Thus the treatise says: 'Therefore, saying they pass does not necessarily mean they pass: past and present constantly abide, because they do not move. Calling it departure does not necessarily mean they depart: it means not arriving at the past from the present, because they do not come.' When the sūtras speak of movement, it is not necessarily moving, because the past resides in the past and the present resides in the present. The reason impermanence is spoken of is to guard against people's clinging to permanence; the reason eternal abiding is spoken of is to guard against people's clinging to annihilation. Although the words differ, the principle is not distinct; though the expressions are contrary, the real does not move. One must not follow the words of expedient existence and nonexistence and become confused about the non-moving nature of the one mind. Another explanation states: like the brahmacārin returning with white hair, whose neighbors considered youth and old age to be the same body and therefore asked, 'Is that former person still alive?' What is called 'the strong one' refers to the three hidings and such matters: impermanence moves secretly, carrying them on its back by force in the dark night; as shoulders pass, things are constantly new, abandoning the old from thought to thought; yet the view of permanence obscures it, deeming it to be fixed. The neighbors were unaware—does it not refer to this? Furthermore, the 'strong one' is the great power of impermanence. In the world there is not a single phenomenon that is not swallowed by impermanence. Thus it says: 'Therefore, Zhuangzi's hiding of the mountain and Zhongni's standing beside the river were both moved by the difficulty of retaining what has passed away; how could they say that present things can be pushed into the past?' Zhuangzi's original intent was to expound the teaching of non-abiding: thought to thought is constantly new; each thing abides individually. Abiding individually, they are mutually dependent yet do not reach each other; this is non-movement. To the confused, it is impermanent and non-abiding, arising and perishing anew with every thought, and they call it movement. If one is wise, one understands that nature is empty and devoid of cognition, and from thought to thought there is no arising; this is called non-movement. Zhuangzi speaks of three hidings: hiding a mountain in a marsh, hiding a boat in a ravine, and hiding the world in the world. To call this 'secure' is not so, for impermanence carries it on its back at midnight and runs off, while the benighted are unaware. As for the three hidings: hiding a person in a house and hiding an object in a vessel—this is the small hiding. Hiding a boat in a ravine and hiding a mountain in a marsh—this is the great hiding. Hiding the world in the world—this is having nowhere to hide. Although large and small differ, each hiding is suitable; yet from thought to thought they flow and shift, altering anew at every moment. From this we know that in the way of transformation, there is nowhere to escape. Now, as for hiding the world in the world: how could it be hidden? It simply means having nowhere to hide. Confucius, standing beside the river, said: 'What passes away is like this, never ceasing day or night!' What passes away departs: surging rapidly, it has never paused for an instant, constant through day and night. This too was a lament over the unawareness of worldly people. Hence it says: 'They were both moved by the difficulty of retaining what has passed away; how could they say that present things can be pushed into the past?' Both Zhuangzi and Confucius lamented the passing away as difficult to retain; both spoke of impermanence departing. How could one push today's things to yesterday? If today does not reach yesterday, then today abides of itself in the present, and yesterday abided of itself in the past; then present and past are distinct, and neither moves. Hence it says: 'Why? People seek the past in the present and claim it does not abide; I seek the present in the past and know that it does not depart. If the present reached the past, the past should have the present; if the past reached the present, the present should have the past. Since the present lacks the past, we know it does not come; since the past lacks the present, we know it does not depart.' If the past does not reach the present and the present does not reach the past, each phenomenon abides in its nature; what thing could there be that comes and goes? The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'Human life does not stop, flowing faster than mountain streams.' Now, impermanence has two aspects: first, the impermanence of decay and destruction; second, the impermanence of moment to moment. People only know the impermanence of destruction and perishing, but are unaware of the impermanence of moment to moment. The treatise states: 'It seems moving yet still, resembling departure yet remaining.' The sūtras state that impermanence is swift, resembling flowing movement; yet according to principle, though it is impermanent, before and after do not come and go to each other, so it is like stillness. Though thoughts pass away from moment to moment, past and present abide in their respective natures and are quiet of themselves in their very place, so it is like remaining. Furthermore, though it is said that past and present abide in their respective natures and are quiet of themselves in their very place, yet manifestly from thought to thought they do not abide, continuing before and after. Thus it is neither permanent nor annihilated, neither moving nor still; one perceives the source of the nature of things.