宗鏡錄 72.39

72.39

答。夫佛道正法。皆從緣生。故云心法四緣生。色法二緣起。若執不從緣生者。皆非正法。悉屬外道自然邪見。且心之一法。若無第一因緣者。無有親生現行果之義。則諸法不成立。若無第二等無間緣者。則無開導引後生義。無有相續。全成間斷。若無第三所緣緣者。則心無所慮處。不能牽心用。心無所託。乃心境俱成斷滅。若無第四增上緣者。雖具前三緣。若無增上。即成障礙。法亦不生。四緣具足。方成心法。若能明了世間因緣所生之法。方乃見無生之旨。以即生法達無生故。且生法尚不知正因。云何能了無生妙理。所以華嚴鈔云。緣起深義。佛教所宗。自古諸德。多云。三教之宗。儒則宗於五常。道宗自然。佛宗因緣。然老子雖云道生一。一生二。二生三。三生萬物。似有因緣。而非正因緣。言道生一者。道即虛無自然故。彼又云。人法地。地法天。天法道。道法自然。謂虛通曰道。即自然而然。是雖有因緣。亦成自然之義耳。佛法雖有無師智。自然智。而是常住真理。要假緣顯。則亦因緣矣。故教說三世。修因契果。非無善因惡因故。楞伽經。大慧白佛。佛說常不思議。彼諸外道。亦有常不思議。何以異耶。佛言。彼諸外道。無有常不思議。以無因故。我說常不思議有因。因於內證。豈得同耶。是則真常。亦因緣顯。淨名經云。說法不有亦不無。以因緣故。諸法生。法華經云。諸佛兩足尊。知法常無性。佛種從緣起。是故說一乘。又經云。一切諸法。因緣為本。中論云。未曾有一法。不從因緣生。是故一切法。無不是空者。則真空中道。亦因緣矣。若爾。涅槃經云。我觀諸行。悉皆無常。云何知耶。以因緣故。若一切法從緣生者。則知無常。是諸外道。無有一法不從緣生。是故無常。則外道有因緣矣。釋曰。此明外道在因緣內。執於緣相以為常住。是故。破之。言無常耳。今明教詮因緣妙理。具常無常。豈得同耶。況復宗者。從多分說。所以因緣是所宗。不應致疑。故知唯是一心緣起法門。以法無自性。隨心所現。所現之法。全是自心。終無心外法。能與心為緣。所以本末相收。皆歸宗鏡。何者。內即是本。外即是末。以唯心義。則內收外。託境生心。則末亦收內。若以法性為本。法性融通。緣起相由。則塵包大身。毛容剎土。故合為一大緣起也。故知有智慧無多聞。有多聞無智慧。俱不達實相。聞慧具足。真見心原。又經云。若欲學般若。應學一切法。以色無邊故。般若無邊。又經云。若欲了達因緣。等無間緣。所緣緣。增上緣者。應當學般若。智論釋云。不破四緣之義。唯破四緣之執。如水中之月。不破所見。只破所取。故知但有能取執情。則非幻而成幻法。若成無所得慧。則非幻尚自不生。執喪情虛。萬法無咎。般若真性。何所滯乎。如大涅槃經云。菩薩善知諸緣。菩薩摩訶薩。不見色相。不見色緣。不見色體。不見色生。不見色滅。不見一相。不見異相。不見見者。不見相貌。不見受者。何以故。了因緣故。如色。一切法亦如是。又前十因四緣等義。是約法相宗說。略明行相。今依法性宗自在無礙法門。說明其體性。據華嚴法界緣起無盡宗。亦有因門六義。緣起十義。今且釋因門六義者。一空。有力。不待緣。是剎那滅義。由剎那滅故。即無自體。是空也。由此滅故。果法得生。是有力也。然此謝滅。非由緣。力故不待緣。二空。有力。待緣。是俱有義。由俱有故。方有即顯。是不有。空義也。俱故能成有。是有力也。俱故非散。是待緣也。三空。無力。待緣。是待緣義。由無自性故。是空也。因不生緣生故。是無力也。四有。有力。不待緣。是決定義。由自類不改故。是有義。然自不改而生果故。果有力義。然此不改。非由緣力。故不待緣。五有。有力。待緣。引自果義。由引現自果。是有義。雖得緣方生。然不生緣果。是有力義。即由此故。是待緣義。六有。無力。待緣。恒隨轉義。由隨他。故無力。是故待緣。正因對緣。唯有三義。一因。有力。不待緣。全能生故。不雜緣力故。二因。有力。侍緣。相資發故。三因。無力。待緣。全不作故。用緣故。又由上三義。因中各有空有二義。二門各三。唯有六故。不增減也。何故不立第四句無力不待緣義者。以彼非因義。故不立。

Answer: The true Dharma of the Buddha-path is in all cases produced from conditions. Therefore it is said that mental dharmas are produced from four conditions, while physical dharmas arise from two conditions. If one clings to their not being produced from conditions, none of this is the true Dharma; all of it belongs to the mistaken views of non-Buddhist naturalism. Furthermore, as for the single dharma of the mind: if there were no first condition, the direct cause, there would be no sense of directly producing the manifest fruit, and thus the various dharmas would not be established. If there were no second condition, the immediately preceding condition, there would be no sense of clearing the way and leading to subsequent production, and there would be no continuity, becoming completely discontinuous. If there were no third condition, the objective condition, the mind would have no object of thought, could not pull forth the function of the mind, and the mind would have nowhere to rely, so both mind and object would result in complete annihilation. If there were no fourth condition, the sovereign condition, although possessing the preceding three conditions, without the sovereign condition there would be an obstruction, and the dharma would also not be produced. Only when the four conditions are complete is a mental dharma formed. If one can clearly understand the dharmas produced from conditions in the world, only then will one perceive the import of non-arising, because by means of the very dharmas that arise, one penetrates non-arising. If one does not even know the correct causes of arising dharmas, how could one comprehend the subtle principle of non-arising? Therefore, the Huayan Commentary says: 'The profound meaning of dependent origination is the source of the Buddha's teaching.' From antiquity, the various masters have mostly said: 'As for the sources of the three teachings, Confucianism takes as its source the five constants, Daoism takes as its source the natural (ziran), and Buddhism takes as its source causes and conditions.' Now, although Laozi said, 'The Dao produced the one, the one produced the two, the two produced the three, and the three produced the myriad things,' this seems to have causes and conditions, but it is not the true causes and conditions. Speaking of 'the Dao produced the one': because the Dao is empty nothingness and the natural, he also said, 'Man models himself on Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Dao, and the Dao models itself on the natural.' That which is vacuous and penetrating is called the Dao, which is naturally so. This, although it has causes and conditions, also results in the meaning of the natural. Although in the Buddha's Dharma there is unprompted wisdom and spontaneous wisdom, these are the permanent true principle, which must depend on conditions to be revealed; thus it is also causes and conditions. Therefore the teaching speaks of the three time periods, cultivating causes and tallying with results, because it is not without good causes and bad causes. In the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: 'The Buddha speaks of the permanent and inconceivable; those non-Buddhists also have the permanent and inconceivable. How do they differ?' The Buddha said: 'Those non-Buddhists do not have the permanent and inconceivable, because it is causeless. I say that the permanent and inconceivable has a cause, because it is caused by internal realization. How could they be the same?' Thus, the truly permanent is also revealed by causes and conditions. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'The expounded Dharma is neither existent nor non-existent; through causes and conditions, all dharmas are produced.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'The Buddhas, the most honored among two-legged beings, know that dharmas are permanently devoid of nature. The Buddha-seed arises from conditions; therefore they teach the One Vehicle.' Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'All dharmas take causes and conditions as their root.' The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'There has never been a single dharma that is not produced from causes and conditions; therefore, of all dharmas, there is none that is not empty.' Thus, the true emptiness of the Middle Way is also causes and conditions. If so, the Nirvāṇasūtra says: 'I contemplate all conditioned formations as being entirely impermanent. How is this known? Through causes and conditions. If all dharmas are produced from conditions, one knows they are impermanent. For these non-Buddhists, there is not a single dharma that is not produced from conditions; therefore they are impermanent.' Thus the non-Buddhists have causes and conditions. The explanation says: this clarifies that non-Buddhists, within causes and conditions, cling to the characteristics of conditions as being permanently abiding. Therefore, in order to refute them, it says they are impermanent. Now it is explained that the teachings express the subtle principle of causes and conditions as possessing both permanence and impermanence; how could they be the same? What is more, a source is spoken of from the predominant perspective; therefore, that causes and conditions are what is sourced should not be doubted. Thus we know that it is purely the Dharma gate of the dependent origination of the one mind, because dharmas lack self-nature and manifest according to the mind. The dharmas that manifest are entirely one's own mind; ultimately there is no dharma outside the mind that can serve as a condition for the mind. Therefore root and branch contain each other, both returning to the mirror of the source. How so? The internal is the root, and the external is the branch. By the meaning of mind-only, the internal contains the external; by relying on objects to produce the mind, the branch also contains the internal. If one takes the dharma-nature as the root, the dharma-nature is harmoniously penetrating and the aspects of dependent origination mutually depend, so that a speck of dust encloses a great body, and a hair-tip accommodates Buddha-lands. Therefore they combine into one great dependent origination. Thus we know that having wisdom without extensive learning, or having extensive learning without wisdom, both fail to reach the true characteristic. When learning and wisdom are complete, one truly sees the source of the mind. Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'If one wishes to learn prajñā, one should learn all dharmas, because since form is boundless, prajñā is boundless.' Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'If one wishes to fully comprehend direct causes, immediately preceding conditions, objective conditions, and sovereign conditions, one should learn prajñā.' The commentary in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'It does not refute the meaning of the four conditions; it only refutes grasping onto the four conditions. Like the moon in the water, it does not refute what is seen, but only refutes what is grasped.' Thus we know that if there is only the grasping sentiment of a grasper, what is non-illusory becomes an illusory dharma. If one accomplishes wisdom without attainment, then even the non-illusory itself is not produced. When grasping is destroyed and sentiments are emptied, the myriad dharmas are without fault; what could obstruct the true nature of prajñā? As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: 'Bodhisattvas skillfully know conditions. Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas do not see the characteristic of form, do not see the condition of form, do not see the substance of form, do not see the arising of form, do not see the cessation of form, do not see a single characteristic, do not see different characteristics, do not see the seer, do not see appearances, and do not see the experiencer. Why? Because they understand causes and conditions. As with form, so it is with all dharmas.' Furthermore, the previous meanings of the ten causes, four conditions, and so forth were spoken from the perspective of the Dharma-characteristic school, briefly clarifying the operational characteristics. Now, relying on the unrestricted and unimpeded Dharma gate of the Dharma-nature school, their substance and nature are explained. According to the inexhaustible source of the dharmadhātu's dependent origination in the Huayan, there are also the six meanings of the causal aspect and the ten meanings of dependent origination. Now, to first explain the six meanings of the causal aspect: 1. Empty, potent, and not waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of momentary cessation. Because of momentary cessation, it lacks self-substance; this is 'empty.' Because of this cessation, the fruit dharma can be produced; this is 'potent.' However, this ceasing is not due to conditions, but by its own power; hence 'not waiting on conditions.' 2. Empty, potent, and waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of simultaneous existence. Because of simultaneous existence, the moment it exists, it is revealed, which is not-having; this is the meaning of 'empty.' Because of being simultaneous, it can accomplish existence; this is 'potent.' Because of being simultaneous, it is not scattered; this is 'waiting on conditions.' 3. Empty, impotent, and waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of waiting on conditions. Because of lacking self-nature, it is 'empty.' Because the cause does not produce and conditions produce, it is 'impotent.' 4. Existent, potent, and not waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of determinate. Because its own category does not alter, this is the meaning of 'existent.' However, without itself altering, it produces the fruit; hence the meaning of the fruit being 'potent.' Yet this non-alteration is not due to the power of conditions; hence 'not waiting on conditions.' 5. Existent, potent, and waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of leading to its own fruit. Because it leads to and manifests its own fruit, this is the meaning of 'existent.' Although it requires conditions to be produced, it does not produce the fruit of conditions; this is the meaning of 'potent.' Precisely because of this, it is the meaning of 'waiting on conditions.' 6. Existent, impotent, and waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of constantly following and turning. Because it follows others, it is impotent; therefore it 'waits on conditions.' When the direct cause faces conditions, there are only three meanings: First, the cause is potent and does not wait on conditions, because it can produce entirely, not mixed with the power of conditions. Second, the cause is potent and waits on conditions, because they mutually assist and initiate each other. Third, the cause is impotent and waits on conditions, because it does not act at all, using conditions. Furthermore, due to the above three meanings, within the cause there are each the two meanings of empty and existent. The two aspects each have three, so there are only six; they neither increase nor decrease. Why is a fourth phrase, 'impotent and not waiting on conditions,' not established? Because that is not the meaning of a cause, it is not established.