宗鏡錄 7.4.3

7.4.3

故名為法性。 又性以不變為義。 即此可軌。 亦名為法。 此則性即法。 故名為法性。 此二義。 並約不變釋也。 又即一切法各無性。 故名為法性。 即隨緣之性。 法即性也。 本無生者。 本有二義。 一約不變。 本謂原本。 本來不生。 隨緣故生。 二約隨緣。 有此法來。 本自不生。 非待滅無。 即示現生時本不生。 故云是中無能現。 亦無所現物。 則妄心分別。 情計謂有。 然有即不有。 故云一切空無性。 常有常空。 是即萬物之自虛。 豈待宰割以求通哉。 又約相待相奪。 釋不相知。 言相待者。 業無識種。 不親辦體。 識無業種。 不招苦樂。 既互相待。 則各無自性。 言相奪者。 以業奪因。 唯由業招。 故因如虛空。 以因奪緣。 則唯心為體。 故業如虛空。 互奪獨立。 亦不能相知。 互奪兩亡。 無可相知。 又以無生。 故不相知。 以緣奪因。 故不自生。 以因奪緣。 故不他生。 因緣合辯。 相待無性。 故不共生。 互奪雙亡。 無因豈生。 以此不生。 類於不知。 居然易了。 即以因為。 自以緣為他。 合此為共。 離此為無因。 互有尚不相知。 互無豈能相知耳。 故知諸法相待。 皆無自性。 如中論相待門說。 不空既破。 空法亦亡。 偈云。 若有不真法。 即應有真法。 實無不真法。 何得有真法。 亦如因垢說淨。 垢性本無。 淨相何有。 此相待一門。 盡破諸法。 以諸法皆是相待而有。 未曾有一法。 而能獨立者。 故因緣無性論云。 阿難調達。 並為世尊之弟。 羅睺善星。 同是如來之胤。 而阿難常親給侍。 調達每興害逆。 羅睺則護珠莫犯。 善星則破器難收。 以此而觀。 諒可知矣。 若云各有自性。 不可遷貿者。 此殊不然。 至如鷹化為鳩。 本心頓盡。 橘變成枳。 前味永消。 故知有情無情。 各無定性。 但隨心變。 唯逐業生。 遂有從凡入聖之門。 轉惡為善之事。 大般若經云。 謂證諸法無性為性。 究竟圓滿。 方名為佛。 故知建立三寶。 成佛事門。 皆從無性因緣。 而得興顯。 所以首楞嚴三昧經云。 爾時長老摩訶迦葉白佛言。 世尊。 我謂文殊師利法王子。 曾於先世。 已作佛事。 現坐道場。 轉於法輪。 示諸眾生。 入大滅度。 佛言。 如是如是。 乃至迦葉。 汝今且觀首楞嚴三昧勢力。 諸大菩薩以是力故。 示現入胎。 初生出家。 詣菩提樹。 坐於道場。 轉妙法輪。 入般涅槃。 分布舍利。 而亦不捨菩薩之法。 於般涅槃不畢竟滅。 爾時長老摩訶迦葉。 語文殊師利言。 仁者。 乃能施作如此希有難事。 示現眾生。 文殊師利言。 迦葉。 於意云何。 是耆闍崛山。 誰之所造。 是世界者。 亦從何出。 迦葉答言。 文殊師利。 一切世界。 水沫所成。 亦從眾生不可思議業因緣出。 文殊師利言。 一切諸法。 亦從不可思議業因緣有。 我於是事。 無有功力。 所以者何。 一切諸法。 皆屬因緣。 無有主故。 隨意所成。 若能解此。 所為不難。 釋曰。 若了一切法。 悉屬因緣。 皆無自性。 但是心生。 則凡有施為。 何假功力。 以無性之理。 法爾之門。 隨緣卷舒。 自在無礙。 華嚴經頌云。 如其心性而觀察。 畢竟推求不可得。 一切諸法無有餘。 悉入於如無體性。 又頌云。 譬如真如本自性。 其中未曾有一法。 不得自性是真性。 以如是業而迴向。 華嚴論云。 一切眾生迷根本智。 而有世間苦樂法者。 為智無性故。 隨緣不覺。 苦樂業生。 為智無性故。 為苦所纏。 方能自覺根本無性。 眾緣無性。 萬法自寂。 若不覺苦時。 以無性故。 總不自知有性無性。 如人因地而倒。 因地而起。 一切眾生。 因自心根本智而倒。 亦因而起。

Therefore it is called dharmatā. Furthermore, 'nature' has the meaning of being unvarying; being that which can serve as a standard (guǐ), it is also called 'dharma'. In this case, nature is dharma, so it is called 'dharmatā'. Both of these meanings are explained in terms of being unvarying. Furthermore, since all phenomena (dharma) lack their own nature, it is called dharmatā. That is, the nature that conforms to conditions: dharma is nature. As for 'originally unproduced', 'originally' has two senses. First, in terms of being unvarying: 'original' means the primary origin; it is originally unproduced, yet produced because it accords with conditions. Second, in terms of according with conditions: ever since this dharma arose, it is fundamentally of itself unproduced, not waiting for cessation to become non-existent. That is, when manifested as arising, it is fundamentally unproduced. Therefore it is said: 'Herein there is no agent that manifests, nor is there any object manifested.' Then, through the discrimination of the false mind, affective reckoning deems it to exist. However, existence is non-existence; therefore it is said: 'All is empty and without nature.' It is constantly existing and constantly empty. This is precisely the self-emptiness of all things—how could one wait for cutting and dissection to achieve penetration? Furthermore, in terms of mutual dependence and mutual negation, 'not knowing one another' is explained. As for 'mutual dependence': without the seed of consciousness, karma cannot directly produce the substance; without the seed of karma, consciousness cannot incur suffering or pleasure. Since they depend on each other, they each lack an intrinsic nature. As for 'mutual negation': when karma negates the cause, [the result] is incurred solely by karma, so the cause is like empty space; when the cause negates the condition, citta alone constitutes the substance, so karma is like empty space. Negating each other and standing independently, they cannot know each other either; when they negate each other and both perish, there is nothing that can know. Furthermore, by being unproduced, they do not know each other. Because conditions negate the cause, it is not produced from itself; because the cause negates conditions, it is not produced from another. When cause and conditions are examined together, being mutually dependent they lack nature, so they are not produced from both. When they negate each other and both perish, how could it be produced without a cause? By taking this non-production as analogous to unknowing, it is obviously easy to understand: taking the cause as self, the condition as other, their combination as both, and departing from these as without cause. When they mutually exist, they still do not know each other; when they mutually do not exist, how could they know each other? Therefore we know that all phenomena are mutually dependent and all lack intrinsic nature. As stated in the 'Examination of Mutual Dependence' in the Madhyamakaśāstra, when the non-empty is refuted, empty phenomena also perish. The verse says: / 'If there were any unreal dharma, / Then there would be a real dharma. / In reality, there is no unreal dharma; / How could there be a real dharma?' / It is also like speaking of purity because of defilement: the nature of defilement is fundamentally non-existent; how could the characteristic of purity exist? This single approach of mutual dependence completely refutes all phenomena, because all phenomena exist dependently; never has there been a single dharma that could stand independently. Therefore the *Hetupratyayanirātmaśāstra* says: 'Ānanda and Devadatta were both the World-Honoured One's cousins; Rāhula and Sunakkhatta were likewise both descendants of the Tathāgata. Yet Ānanda constantly served him closely, whereas Devadatta repeatedly caused harm and rebellion; Rāhula protected the jewel and never violated it, while Sunakkhatta was like a broken vessel that could not be restored. Viewing it from this, it may surely be known.' If one says that each has an intrinsic nature that cannot be transformed or exchanged, this is completely wrong. As when a hawk turns into a dove, its original mind completely vanishes; when a mandarin orange becomes a bitter orange, its former taste is gone forever. Therefore we know that both sentient and insentient things lack a fixed nature; they only transform in accordance with the mind and arise solely following karma. Consequently, there is the gate of entering the noble from the ordinary, and the matter of transforming evil into good. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra* says: 'Realising that the lack of nature of all phenomena is their nature, being completely and ultimately fulfilled—only this is called Buddha.' Therefore we know that the establishment of the Three Jewels and the gates of performing Buddha-deeds all arise and become manifest from causes and conditions devoid of intrinsic nature. For this reason, the *Śūraṅgamasamādhisūtra* says: 'At that time, the Elder Mahākāśyapa addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honoured One, I think that the Youth Mañjuśrī in past ages already performed Buddha-deeds, manifested sitting at the bodhimanda, turned the wheel of Dharma, and showed all sentient beings entering great parinirvāṇa." The Buddha said: "So it is, so it is. […] Even to, Kāśyapa, you should now observe the power of the śūraṅgamasamādhi: by virtue of this power, all great bodhisattvas manifest entering the womb, initial birth, leaving home, going to the bodhi tree, sitting at the bodhimanda, turning the wondrous wheel of Dharma, entering parinirvāṇa, and distributing relics, yet without relinquishing the dharmas of a bodhisattva, not being utterly extinguished in parinirvāṇa." At that time, the Elder Mahākāśyapa spoke to Mañjuśrī, saying: "Virtuous one, you are able to perform such rare and difficult feats, manifesting them to sentient beings!" Mañjuśrī said: "Kāśyapa, what do you think? By whom was this Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain made? From where did this world emerge?" Kāśyapa answered, saying: "Mañjuśrī, all worlds are formed of water foam, and also emerge from sentient beings' inconceivable karma, causes, and conditions." Mañjuśrī said: "All phenomena likewise exist from inconceivable karma, causes, and conditions. I have no effort or capacity in this matter. Why is that? All phenomena belong to causes and conditions and have no master; they are accomplished in accordance with thought. If one can understand this, what one does is not difficult."' Explanation: If one understands that all phenomena belong to causes and conditions, all lack intrinsic nature, and are merely produced from citta, then in whatever is done, how could one rely on effort? By the principle of non-nature and the gate of naturally suchness, rolling up and expanding according to conditions, one is self-mastered and unhindered. A verse of the *Avataṃsakasūtra* says: / 'Contemplating according to their mind-nature, / Searching thoroughly to the end, it cannot be found. / All phenomena without remainder / All enter into Suchness without substantial nature.' / Another verse says: / 'Just like the original nature of tathatā, / Wherein not a single dharma has ever existed, / Not attaining an intrinsic nature is the true nature: / With such action one dedicates [merit].' / The *Avataṃsaśāstra* says: 'All sentient beings are confused about fundamental wisdom and therefore have worldly dharmas of suffering and pleasure; because wisdom has no nature of its own, according with conditions without awareness, karma of suffering and pleasure arises. Because wisdom has no nature of its own, being entangled by suffering, they are only then able to awaken for themselves to the fundamental absence of nature: many conditions lack nature, and all phenomena are naturally quiescent. When not aware of suffering, because of the absence of nature, they altogether do not know for themselves whether there is a nature or no nature. Just as a person falls because of the ground and rises because of the ground, all sentient beings fall because of the fundamental wisdom of their own minds, and likewise rise because of it.'