宗鏡錄 79.7

79.7

答。一期根境。俗有真無。畢竟自他。皆無所得。又若定執真有俗無。則成增減二謗。但二諦雙會。圓了一心。如佛性論難云。若諸法無實性者。即與證量相違。則能所習不可得。我現見聲耳相對。所以得聞。故知不空。釋曰。是義不然。何以故。是能所及證量自性。皆不可得。自性不成。若一性不成者。多性云何成。又汝說證量云何成者。今我立證量。顯了二空。諸法空故。自性不可得。如見幻事幻物者。證量所見。不如實有。諸法亦爾。不如所見。而有所見。由體不實故不有。由證量故不無。由體無故。空義得成。以證量故。假有不失。又云。依他性相者。能執所執。增益。又損減。由解此性故。此執不生。若見真為有。則是增益。名為常見。若見俗定無。則是損減。名為斷見。唯有似塵識故。別無能所。無能所故。無增益執。由有似塵識故。無損減執。若知外塵是識而似顯現。則非無。了外相本虛如幻所作。則非有。非無則不壞俗諦。非有則不隱真諦。是以真俗融即而常異。空有雙現而恒同。方超戲論之情。始會一心之旨。如摩訶般若經云。說是般若波羅蜜品時。佛在四眾中。天人龍鬼神。緊那羅。摩睺羅伽等。於大眾前。而現神足變化。一切大眾。皆見阿閦佛。比丘僧圍遶說法。乃至爾時佛攝神足。一切大眾。不復見阿閦佛聲聞人。菩薩摩訶薩。及其國土。不與眼作對。何以故。佛攝神足故。爾時佛告阿難。如是阿難。一切法不與眼作對。法法不相見。法法不相知。如是阿難。如阿閦佛弟子。菩薩國土。不與眼作對。如是阿難。一切法不與眼作對。法法不相知。法法不相見。何以故。一切法。無知無見。無作無動。不可捉。不可思議。如幻人無受無覺。無真實。菩薩摩訶薩如是行。為行般若波羅蜜。釋曰。若行般若者。則是直了一心智性。了色無形。非眼境界。乃至達法體寂。非意所知。但是隨心暫現。還隨心滅。故云一切法無知無見。大智度論云。相不能知無相。譬如刀雖利。不能破空。無相不能知相者。有人言。內智慧無定相。外所緣法有定相。心隨緣而生。是故說無相不應知相。譬如無刀。雖有物。無刀可斫。是知若心有境無。亦不知見。若心無境有。亦不知見。若心境俱有。各無自性。各既不知。合豈成見。若心境俱無。亦不知。見有尚不知。無豈成見。則心境俱空。萬有咸寂。如是則尚無一法冥合相順。寧有根境對待而作相違者乎。如一切差別違順之境。皆是一心之量。無有障礙。亦無解脫。譬如水不洗水。火不滅火。何者。以一體故。不相陵滅。若有異法。方成對治。如今但先得旨。自合真如。故經云。法隨於如。無所隨故。若有所隨。則有能隨之別。既無所隨。亦無能隨。故則法外無如。如外無法。所以經云。如理作意。於一切法平等相應。是則具足一切佛法。華嚴疏云。以如為佛。則無境非如者。大品經答常啼云。諸法如。即是佛。金剛經云。如來者。即諸法如義。既以如為佛。一切法皆如也。何法非佛耶。若信一如。此是開悟本法。生決定解。入自在門。如華嚴論云。經云。善男子。我得自在決定解力。信眼清淨。智光照曜。普觀境界。離一切障。善巧觀察。普眼明徹。具清淨行。往詣十方一切佛國土。恭敬供養一切諸佛。此明舉本果法。令凡信樂修行。從初發心。修行慣習。十地功終。方依及此初時本樣果法也。還以法界中時不遷。智不異。慈悲不異。願行不異之所成就。以於法界大智無延促中修行故。不如情解。有修行者。莫作延促時分修學。應須善觀法界體用。莫如世情。作一剎那計。作三僧祇計。如法界中。都無脩短遠近故。以此解行。如法修行。於諸境界。善照生滅。令使執盡。而成智之大用。於自心境。莫浪攝持。但知放蕩任性坦然。習之觀照。執盡智現。生滅自無。業垢自淨。會佛境界。同如來心。佛見自會。非由捉搦。縵作別治。令心狂惑。但自明心境。見融。執業便謝。見亡執謝。一切萬法。本自無瘡。智境朗然。名為佛國也。無煩強生見執。永自沈淪。自作自殃非他能與。

Answer: For a single period, sense faculties and sense objects conventionally exist but truly are non-existent; ultimately, neither self nor other is apprehendable at all. Furthermore, if one determinately clings to the true as existing and the conventional as non-existent, one commits the two slanders of superimposition and deprecation. It is only when the two truths are jointly unified that one perfectly understands the one mind. As an objection in the *Buddha-Nature Treatise* (*Foxing lun*) states: "If all dharmas lack a real nature, this contradicts direct perception (pratyakṣa), and that which is practiced and that which practices could not be attained. I now directly see that sound and the ear confront each other, whereby hearing is obtained; hence we know [things] are not empty." The explanation says: This assertion is incorrect. Why? The intrinsic nature of that which practices, that which is practiced, and direct perception are all unattainable; intrinsic nature is not established. If a single nature is not established, how could multiple natures be established? Moreover, as for what you said about how direct perception could be established: I now establish direct perception to reveal and clarify the two emptinesses. Because all dharmas are empty, intrinsic nature cannot be attained. Just as when seeing illusory occurrences and illusory objects, what is seen by direct perception does not exist in reality; all dharmas are likewise: they do not exist as seen, and yet there is that which is seen. Because their substance is unreal, they do not exist; because of direct perception, they are not non-existent. Because their substance is non-existent, the meaning of emptiness is established; because of direct perception, nominal existence is not lost. It also says: Regarding the characteristics of the dependent nature (paratantra-lakṣaṇa), there are the superimposition and deprecation of the grasping and the grasped. Due to understanding this nature, such clinging does not arise. If one sees the true as existent, that is superimposition, called the view of permanence. If one sees the conventional as determinately non-existent, that is deprecation, called the view of annihilation. Because there is only the consciousness that resembles sense objects, there is no separate grasper or grasped. Because there is no grasper or grasped, there is no clinging of superimposition. Because there is the consciousness resembling sense objects, there is no clinging of deprecation. If one knows that external objects are consciousness appearing deceptively, they are not non-existent. If one comprehends that external characteristics are fundamentally empty like an illusion, they are not existent. Being not non-existent, the conventional truth is not destroyed; being not existent, the ultimate truth is not concealed. Therefore, the true and the conventional are fused and identical yet constantly distinct; emptiness and existence appear together yet are perpetually the same. Only then does one transcend feelings of conceptual proliferation (prapañca) and begin to accord with the purport of the one mind. As the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra* says: When this chapter on the Perfection of Wisdom was spoken, the Buddha was amidst the four assemblies, gods, humans, dragons, ghosts, spirits, kiṃnaras, mahoragas, and so forth. Before the great assembly, he manifested the transformation of psychic power. The entire great assembly saw the Buddha Akṣobhya surrounded by the saṅgha of monks preaching the Dharma... up to: At that time, the Buddha withdrew his psychic power, and the entire great assembly no longer saw the Buddha Akṣobhya, the śrāvakas, the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, or his land; they did not confront their eyes. Why? Because the Buddha had withdrawn his psychic power. At that time, the Buddha told Ānanda: "So it is, Ānanda: all dharmas do not confront the eyes; dharmas and dharmas do not see each other; dharmas and dharmas do not know each other. So it is, Ānanda: just as the disciples, bodhisattvas, and land of the Buddha Akṣobhya did not confront the eyes, so it is, Ānanda: all dharmas do not confront the eyes; dharmas and dharmas do not know each other; dharmas and dharmas do not see each other. Why? All dharmas are without knowing and without seeing, without action and without motion; they cannot be grasped and are inconceivable. Like illusory persons, they are without sensation and without perception, without reality. When a bodhisattva-mahāsattva practices thus, this is practicing the perfection of wisdom." The explanation says: One who practices prajñā directly understands the wisdom-nature of the one mind. One comprehends that form has no shape and is not an object of the eye, up to reaching that the substance of dharmas is tranquil and is not known by the mind (manas). They merely appear temporarily in accordance with citta and vanish again in accordance with citta; hence it is said that all dharmas are without knowing and without seeing. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Characteristics cannot know characteristiclessness, just as a knife, however sharp, cannot cleave empty space. That characteristiclessness cannot know characteristics means: some say that inner wisdom has no determinate characteristics, while outer conditioned dharmas have determinate characteristics, and the mind arises following conditions; therefore it is said that characteristiclessness should not know characteristics. For example, when there is no knife, even though there is an object, there is no knife to chop it." From this we know that if citta exists and objects do not, there is also no knowing or seeing. If citta does not exist and objects do, there is also no knowing or seeing. If citta and objects both exist, each lacks intrinsic nature; since each does not know, how could their combination constitute seeing? If citta and objects are both non-existent, there is also no knowing; when seeing existence is not even known, how could non-existence constitute seeing? Thus citta and objects are both empty, and the myriad existents are completely tranquil. This being so, when there is not even a single dharma secretly joining and harmonizing, how could there be faculties and objects confronting each other in mutual opposition? All diverse opposing and conforming objects are the measures of the one mind; there is neither hindrance nor liberation. For example, water does not wash water, and fire does not extinguish fire. Why? Because they are of one substance, they do not oppress or extinguish each other. Only if there were different dharmas would there be an antidote. Now, if one only first attains the purport, one will naturally accord with tathatā. Therefore the sūtra says: "Dharmas follow tathatā by having nothing to follow." If there were something followed, there would be a distinction of that which follows. Since there is nothing followed, there is also nothing that follows. Therefore, outside of dharmas there is no tathatā, and outside of tathatā there are no dharmas. Hence the sūtra says: "Proper attention (yoniśomanaskāra) corresponds equally to all dharmas; this is to be replete with all Buddha-dharmas." The *Huayan Commentary* (*Huayan shu*) says: "Taking suchness as the Buddha, there is no object that is not suchness." The *Larger Prajñāpāramitāsūtra* replies to Sadāprarudita: "The suchness of all dharmas is precisely the Buddha." The *Diamond Sūtra* says: "The Tathāgata is the meaning of the suchness of all dharmas." Since suchness is taken as the Buddha, all dharmas are suchness; what dharma is not the Buddha? If one has faith in the one suchness, this is awakening to the fundamental dharma, generating determinate understanding, and entering the gate of sovereignty. As the *Huayan Treatise* (*Huayan lun*) says: The sūtra states: "Good son, I have attained the power of sovereign and determinate understanding; the eye of faith is pure, and the light of wisdom shines brilliantly. I universally observe objects, free from all hindrances. Skillfully examining, the universal eye is clear and penetrating; endowed with pure conduct, I go to all the Buddha lands of the ten directions to revere and make offerings to all Buddhas." This shows presenting the fundamental fruit-dharma so that ordinary beings may joyfully have faith and practice it; from the initial generation of the mind, practicing and habituating, when the work of the ten stages (daśabhūmi) is finished, one only then accords with and reaches this initial, original model fruit-dharma. It is also accomplished through time not shifting, wisdom not differing, compassion not differing, and vows and practices not differing within the dharmadhātu. Because one practices within the great wisdom of the dharmadhātu without extension or brevity, unlike emotional understanding, those who practice should not engage in cultivation and study by making distinctions of extended or brief time periods. One must skillfully observe the substance and function of the dharmadhātu, and not, like worldly sentiment, reckon a single kṣaṇa or reckon three asaṃkhyeyas, because within the dharmadhātu there is entirely neither long nor short, neither far nor near. Practicing in accordance with the Dharma through this understanding and practice, one skillfully illuminates arising and ceasing across all objects, causing clingings to be exhausted so as to accomplish the great function of wisdom. Toward one's own citta and objects, do not constrain them in vain; just know how to let go, follow the nature, and be completely at ease. Habituating oneself to this contemplative illumination, when clingings are exhausted wisdom appears, arising and ceasing naturally cease, and the defilements of karma naturally become pure. One unifies with the Buddha's realm and becomes identical with the Tathāgata's mind. The Buddha-view naturally converges; it is not by grasping and holding, or casually applying other antidotes that drive the mind mad and confused. Just clearly illuminate citta and objects for oneself; when views blend, clingings and karma fade away. When views vanish and clingings fade, the myriad dharmas are fundamentally unblemished; wisdom and objects are brilliantly luminous, which is named the Buddha-land. Do not trouble yourself to forcibly generate views and clingings, sinking forever of your own accord; what you do brings your own misfortune, which cannot be given by another.