[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › 80.19 # 宗鏡錄 80.19 宗鏡錄 80.19 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [80.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.80.19) 答。在心稱佛性。在境稱法性。從緣雖別。能所似分。約性本同。一體無異。如瓶貯醍醐。隨諸器而不等。猶水分江海。逐流處而得名。一味真心。亦復如是。凡聖境智。一際無差。所以法王經云。一切眾生。一心佛性平等。等諸法故。只為真心不守自性。隨緣轉動。於轉動處。立其異名。古德云。譬如珠。向月出水。向日出火。一珠未曾異。而得水火之名。以珠體是一。能應二緣。且如月為水緣時。月中未曾無火性。日為火緣時。日中未曾無水性。何以故。二性相冥故。但緣水火。事有優劣。故使二性。冥伏不現。各從自體。得水火名。非全無性。真如一心。亦復如是。在有情中名佛性。在無情中名法性。一如未曾異。而得法佛之名。以真如體一能應二緣。且如有情正為佛緣時。有情未曾無法性。無情正為法緣時。無情未曾無佛性。何以故。二性相冥故。但猶色心。事有優劣故。二性冥伏不現。各從自體。得法佛名。非全無性。清涼記云。法性即佛性者。故經云。知一切法。即心自性。若以心性為佛性者。無法非心性。則不隔內外。而體非內外。內外屬相。性不同相。何有內外。然迷一性。而變成外。外既唯心。何有非佛。所變無實。故說牆壁。言無佛性。以性說相。無非性矣。如煙因火。煙即是火。而煙欝火。依性起相。相翳於性。而相即性。如水成波。波即是水。境因心變。境不異心。心若有性。境寧非有。況心與。境皆即真性。真性不二心境豈乖。若以性從相。不妨內外。若以外境而例於心。令有覺知。修行作佛。即是邪見外道之法。故須常照。不即不離。不一不異。無所惑矣。故知佛性。非內非外。隨物迷悟。強說昇沈。又今為遮妄執一切無情有佛性義。就計此義。自有淺深。一謂精神化為土木金石。梟獍負塊。以成於子。情變非情。非情變情。斯為邪見。不異外道眾生。計生草木有命。故不可也。若說無情同一性故。則稍近宗。亦須得意。彼本立意。約於真如自體遍故。真實之性無有二故。涅槃經說。第一義空。為佛性故。一切法中有安樂性。攝境從心。無非心故。色性智性。體無二故。如是等文。諸經具有。今謂此釋。太即太過。失情無情。壞於性相。若以涅槃第一義空。該通心境。涅槃可以簡於瓦礫。言無性耶。今直顯正義。謂性與相。非一非異。情與非情。亦非一異。故應釋言。以性從緣。則情與非情異。一如涅槃簡去牆壁瓦礫等故。二無覺不覺者。真性之中。無心境故。三無非覺悟。以無情性。融覺性故。 > Answer: In the citta it is called the buddha-nature; in the objective sphere it is called the dharma-nature. Though they differ in following conditions, and grasper and grasped seem distinct, when considered in terms of their nature they are fundamentally identical: one substance without difference. Just as ghee stored in a bottle varies according to the vessel, or like water divided into rivers and oceans takes its name following the place to which it flows, so too is the single-taste true citta: the ordinary and the holy, the objective sphere and cognitive wisdom, are of one limit, without distinction. Therefore, the Fawang jing says: 'All sentient beings' one-mind buddha-nature is equal, because it is equal to all dharmas.' It is solely because the true citta does not keep to its own nature that it turns and moves according to conditions; at the point where it turns and moves, distinct names are established. An ancient worthy said: 'For example, it is like a jewel: turned toward the moon, it produces water; turned toward the sun, it produces fire. The single jewel has never differed, yet it obtains the names of water and fire. Because the jewel's substance is one, it can respond to two conditions. Moreover, when the moon serves as the condition for water, the nature of fire has never been absent within the moon; when the sun serves as the condition for fire, the nature of water has never been absent within the sun. Why is this? Because the two natures are secretly merged with each other. It is only that with respect to the conditions of water and fire there is superiority and inferiority in phenomenal facts; thus the two natures are secretly concealed and do not appear, and following their respective self-substances they obtain the names of water and fire, without being completely devoid of the nature. The tathatā one-mind is also like this: among sentient beings it is called the buddha-nature, and among insentient things it is called the dharma-nature. The one tathatā has never differed, yet it obtains the names of dharma and buddha. Because the substance of tathatā is one, it can respond to two conditions. Moreover, when sentient beings precisely serve as the condition for buddhahood, sentient beings have never lacked the dharma-nature; when insentient things precisely serve as the condition for dharmas, insentient things have never lacked the buddha-nature. Why is this? Because the two natures are secretly merged with each other. It is only because, as with form and citta, there is superiority and inferiority in phenomenal facts, that the two natures are secretly concealed and do not appear, and following their respective self-substances they obtain the names of dharma and buddha, without being completely devoid of the nature.' The Qingliang ji says: 'Regarding "the dharma-nature is precisely the buddha-nature", therefore the sūtra says: "Know that all dharmas are precisely the citta's own nature." If one takes the citta's nature to be the buddha-nature, there is no dharma that is not the citta's nature; then inner and outer are not separated, yet the substance is neither inner nor outer. "Inner" and "outer" belong to characteristics; the nature is not identical with characteristics, so how could there be inner and outer? However, deluded about the one nature, one transforms it into the outer. Since the outer is solely citta, how could it fail to be buddha? What is transformed has no reality; therefore it is said of walls and fences that they lack the buddha-nature. When explaining characteristics through nature, there are none that are not the nature. Just as smoke depends on fire, smoke is precisely fire, yet smoke obscures fire; characteristics arise based on nature, characteristics obscure the nature, yet characteristics are precisely the nature. Just as water becomes waves, waves are precisely water. The objective sphere is transformed depending on citta; the objective sphere is not different from citta. If the citta has the nature, how could the objective sphere not have it? What is more, both citta and the objective sphere are precisely the true nature; the true nature is non-dual, so how could citta and the objective sphere be opposed? If one subordinates the nature to characteristics, that does not preclude inner and outer. If one analogizes the outer objective sphere to citta, making it have awareness and perception, and engage in cultivation to become a buddha, that is the teaching of heterodox views and non-Buddhists. Therefore one must constantly illuminate: neither identical nor separate, neither one nor different, so that there is nothing about which to be deluded.' Hence we know that the buddha-nature is neither inner nor outer; following beings' delusion or awakening, ascent and descent are forcibly spoken of. Furthermore, now, in order to refute the false attachment to the idea that all insentient things possess the buddha-nature: examining this calculated view, it naturally has depths and shallows. First, it is claimed that spirit transforms into earth, wood, metal, and stone, or that owls and muntjacs carry clods of earth to form their offspring—sentient transforming into insentient, and insentient transforming into sentient. This is a heterodox view, no different from non-Buddhist sentient beings calculating that growing grasses and trees possess life; therefore it is unacceptable. If one says that insentient things share the same one nature, this is somewhat closer to the source, yet one must also grasp its meaning. Their fundamental intention was established based on the omnipresence of the self-substance of tathatā, because the real nature has no duality; because the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states that the supreme truth of emptiness is the buddha-nature; because within all dharmas there is a peaceful and blissful nature; because gathering the objective sphere into citta, there is nothing that is not citta; and because the nature of form and the nature of wisdom are of one substance without duality. Passages such as these are found throughout the various sūtras. Now I say: this explanation is too immediate and goes too far; it loses sentient and insentient, and ruins both nature and characteristics. If one uses the supreme truth of emptiness of the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] to encompass both citta and the objective sphere, could the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] exclude rubble and say it lacks the nature? Now I directly reveal the correct doctrine, saying: nature and characteristics are neither one nor different; the sentient and the insentient are also neither one nor different. Therefore one should explain it thus: Subordinating the nature to conditions, then the sentient and the insentient are different—first, just as the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] excludes walls, fences, tiles, and rubble; second, there is neither awakening nor non-awakening, because within the true nature there is neither citta nor objective sphere; third, there is nothing that is not awakening, because the insentient nature is fused with the nature of awakening. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 80.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.80.18) - [Next: 80.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.80.20) - [Up: 80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.80) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.80.19) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.80.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.80.19) · Pramāṇa