宗鏡錄 83.17

83.17

答。能所不同。不可執一。心境一味。不可稱異。若以性從緣。則情非情異。為性亦殊。若泯緣從性。則非覺不覺。若二性互融。則無非覺悟。華嚴經云。真如無少分非覺悟者。則真如遍一切有情無情之處。若無少分非覺悟者。豈無情非佛性乎。又經意但除執瓦礫無情之見。非除佛性。則性無不在。量出虛空。寧可除乎。又古德云。覺性是理。覺了屬事。如無情中。但有覺性。而無覺了。如水中但有火性。亦無火照。今言性者。但據理本。誰論枝末。又覺智緣慮名情。自性不改名性。愚人迷性生情。故境智不一。智者了情成性。故物我無二。

Answer: Subject and object are different; one cannot cling to them as one. Mind and object are of one flavor; they cannot be called different. If one follows conditions from the perspective of nature, then sentient and insentient are different, and as natures they are also distinct. If one eliminates conditions to follow nature, then there is neither awareness nor non-awareness. If the two natures blend mutually, then there is nothing that is not awakening. The Avataṃsakasūtra states: 'There is no minute part of tathatā that is not awakening.' Then tathatā pervades all places, sentient and insentient. If there is no minute part that is not awakening, how could the insentient not be buddha-nature? Furthermore, the intention of the sūtra is only to eliminate the view of clinging to tiles and rubble as insentient, not to eliminate buddha-nature. Thus nature is nowhere absent, its measure surpassing empty space; how could it be eliminated? Furthermore, an ancient virtuous one said: 'Awareness-nature is principle; conscious awareness pertains to phenomena. As in the insentient, there is only awareness-nature, yet no conscious awareness—just as in water there is only fire-nature, yet no fire's illumination.' Now speaking of nature, it is based solely on the fundamental principle; who speaks of the branch tips? Furthermore, awareness-wisdom that conditions thoughts is called sentience; the intrinsic nature that does not change is called nature. The foolish are deluded about nature and give rise to sentience, so object and wisdom are not one. The wise comprehend sentience to become nature, so object and self are not two.