宗鏡錄 70.13

70.13

答。一為遣境故立識。何者。若不因識。何以立境。若不顯識。何以遣境。二為以有妄想心故。能知名義。何者。若無妄則不能顯真。若無真則不能破惑。故知破立在我。染淨由心。三無性論云。今為成就此依他性故。說成立道理。此性不但以言說為體。何以故。言說必有所依故。若不依亂識品類。名言得立。無有是處。若不爾。所依品類既無有。所說名言則不得立。若爾。則無二性。無二性故。則無惑品。無惑品故。則有二過。一不由功用。自然解脫。二則生死涅槃。不可顯現。由無此二過。失故。是故應知。決有依他性。有此性故。世諦立。若不立世諦。亦不得真諦。何者。以了俗無性故。即成真諦。若擬無二諦。是惡取邪空。非善通正理。又若無真諦之本。何以垂俗諦之跡。本迹雖殊。不思議一。如法華玄義。廣釋本迹為六本者。理本。即是實相一究竟道。迹者。除諸法實相。其餘種種。皆名為迹。又理之與事。皆名為本。說理說事。皆名教迹也。又理事之教皆為本。稟教修行名為迹。如人依處。則有行迹。尋迹得處也。又行能證體。體為本。依體起用。用為迹。又實得體用名為本。權施體用名為迹。又今日所顯者為本。先來已說者為迹。約此六義。以明本迹也。一又約理事明本迹者。從無住本。立一切法。無住之理。即是本時實相真諦也。一切法。即是本時森羅俗諦也。由實相真本。垂於俗迹。尋於俗迹。即顯真本。本迹雖殊。不思議一。故經云。觀一切法空。如實相。但以因緣有。從顛倒生。二理教明本迹者。即是本時所照二諦。俱不可說故。皆名本也。昔佛方便說之。即是二諦之教。教名為迹。若無二諦之本。則無二種之教。若無教迹。豈顯諦本。本迹雖殊。不思議一也。經偈云。是法不可示。言詞相寂滅。以方便力故。為五比丘說。三約教行為本迹者。最初稟昔佛之教以為本。則有修因致果之行。由教詮理而得起行。由行會教而得顯理。本迹雖殊。不思議一也。經偈云。諸法從本來。常自寂滅相。佛子行道已。來世得作佛。四約體用明本迹者。由昔最初修行契理。證於法身為本。初得法身本故。即體起應身之用。由於應身。得顯法身。本迹雖殊。不思議一也。經云。吾從成佛已來。甚大久遠。若斯。但以方便教化眾生。作如此說。五約權實明本迹者。實者。最初久遠。實得法應二身。皆名為本。中間數數唱生唱滅。種種施權法應二身。故名為迹。非初得法應之本。則無中間法應之迹。由迹顯本。本迹雖殊。不思議一也。經云。是我方便。諸佛亦然。六約今已論本迹者。前來諸教已說理事。乃至權實者。皆是迹也。今經所說久遠理事。乃至權實者。皆名為本。非今所明久遠之本。無以垂於已說之迹。非已說迹。豈顯今本。本迹雖殊。不思議一也。經偈云。諸佛法久後。要當說真實。

Answer: First, consciousness is established in order to dispel sense-objects. Why? If not for consciousness, how could sense-objects be established? If consciousness were not revealed, how could sense-objects be dispelled? Second, because there is the false conceptualizing citta, one is able to know names and meanings. Why? If there were no falsehood, the true could not be revealed; if there were no truth, delusion could not be broken. Hence we know that refutation and establishment reside in us, and defilement and purity depend on citta. Third, the *Wuxing lun* states: 'Now, in order to establish this other-dependent nature, the reasoning for its establishment is explained. This nature does not have verbal expression alone as its substance. Why? Because verbal expression must have that upon which it relies. It is impossible that nominal designations could be established without relying on the classes of disordered consciousness. If it were not so, since the classes relied upon would not exist, the verbal designations expressed could not be established. If so, then the two natures would not exist; because the two natures would not exist, the category of delusion would not exist; because the category of delusion would not exist, two faults would ensue: first, spontaneous liberation without exertion; second, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa could not be manifested. Because it is free from these two faults, therefore one should know that the other-dependent nature definitely exists.' Because this nature exists, the conventional truth is established. If the conventional truth were not established, one would also not attain the ultimate truth. Why? Because understanding that the conventional has no nature is itself the accomplishment of the ultimate truth. If one attempts to deny the two truths, this is the evil grasp of perverse emptiness, not a skillful comprehension of the correct principle. Moreover, if not for the origin of the ultimate truth, how could the traces of the conventional truth be cast forth? Though the origin and traces are distinct, they are inconceivably one. As explained at length in the *Fahua xuanyi*, the origin and traces are sixfold. As for the origin: the origin of principle is the single ultimate path of the true characteristic. The traces are everything else aside from the true characteristic of all phenomena; all of these are called traces. Furthermore, both principle and phenomena are called the origin; speaking of principle and speaking of phenomena are both called the traces of teaching. Furthermore, the teaching of principle and phenomena is the origin; receiving the teaching and cultivating practice are called the traces. Just as when a person relies on a place, there are footprints, and by following the footprints one finds the place. Furthermore, practice is able to realize the substance: the substance is the origin; giving rise to function based on the substance: function is the traces. Furthermore, truly obtaining substance and function is called the origin; provisionally displaying substance and function is called the traces. Furthermore, what is revealed today is the origin; what was previously spoken is the traces. It is with reference to these six meanings that origin and traces are clarified. First, clarifying origin and traces with reference to principle and phenomena: from the basis of non-abiding, all phenomena are established. The principle of non-abiding is the true characteristic, the ultimate truth of the original time. All phenomena are the manifold conventional truth of the original time. Because of the true origin of the true characteristic, the conventional traces are cast forth; following the conventional traces, the true origin is revealed. Though origin and traces are distinct, they are inconceivably one. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Observe that all phenomena are empty like the true characteristic; they exist only through causes and conditions, arising from inversion.' Second, clarifying origin and traces with reference to principle and teaching: the two truths illuminated at the original time are both ineffable, and therefore are both called the origin. When the ancient Buddha spoke them by expedient means, these were the teachings of the two truths, and the teachings are called traces. If not for the origin of the two truths, there would not be the two kinds of teachings; if not for the traces of teaching, how could the origin of the truths be revealed? Though origin and traces are distinct, they are inconceivably one. A verse in a sūtra says: 'This Dharma cannot be shown; the characteristics of words are extinguished. Through the power of expedient means, it was spoken for the five bhikṣus.' Third, taking teaching and practice as origin and traces: originally receiving the ancient Buddha's teaching as the origin, there is then the practice of cultivating the cause to achieve the fruit. Through teaching explaining principle, practice can arise; through practice converging with teaching, principle can be revealed. Though origin and traces are distinct, they are inconceivably one. A verse in a sūtra says: 'All phenomena from the beginning are constantly of the characteristic of quiet cessation. When the Buddha's sons have practiced the path, in future worlds they will become Buddhas.' Fourth, clarifying origin and traces with reference to substance and function: through originally practicing in the past and tallying with principle, realizing the dharmakāya is the origin. Because one first obtained the origin of the dharmakāya, based on the substance one gives rise to the function of the nirmāṇakāya. Because of the nirmāṇakāya, the dharmakāya can be revealed. Though origin and traces are distinct, they are inconceivably one. A sūtra says: 'Since I attained Buddhahood, it has been extremely long and distant like this; it is only by expedient means to teach and transform sentient beings that I speak in this manner.' Fifth, clarifying origin and traces with reference to provisional and real: as for the real, originally in the distant past, truly obtaining the two bodies of dharma and nirmāṇa are both called the origin. In the interim, repeatedly proclaiming birth and proclaiming cessation, variously displaying the provisional two bodies of dharma and nirmāṇa, are therefore called traces. If not for the origin of first obtaining the dharma and nirmāṇa, there would not be the interim traces of dharma and nirmāṇa. Through the traces the origin is revealed. Though origin and traces are distinct, they are inconceivably one. A sūtra says: 'This is my expedient means; so it is with all Buddhas.' Sixth, discussing origin and traces with reference to the present and the past: the principle and phenomena, up to the provisional and real, that have already been spoken in the previous teachings are all traces. The ancient principle and phenomena, up to the provisional and real, spoken in the present sūtra are all called the origin. If not for the ancient origin clarified at present, there would be no way to cast forth the traces already spoken; if not for the traces already spoken, how could the present origin be revealed? Though origin and traces are distinct, they are inconceivably one. A verse in a sūtra says: 'After a long time, the Buddhas must surely preach the reality.'