宗鏡錄 84.4

84.4

答。有二義。一念念滅。二念念生。有此二故。故滅得生。恐生斷見。是故須立。今為破故是故須責。生滅雖殊。根之與識俱是自心。從根從識俱屬自性。於自性中根識互責求不可得。又心之與識。俱對於塵。以立心名。乃至根若有識。則有二妨。謂根識並。及能所並。則有生生無窮之過。若無能所。生義不成。云何言生。又無間滅方名生識。根若有識。生滅相違。故並有過。根若無識。即類無識。能生識也。又責有識性。此是縱破。有還同有。亦成並生。無還同無。同無情生。又識性作一異責。若一者。凡言性者。後方能生。識與性一。故無能所。若異者。若異識則同外境。境能生識即同他。如何計自。次破他性者。雖言心不自生。由有外塵而來發心。塵望於根。塵名為他。先責是心。則有三妨。一塵非心妨。則心不名塵。二塵非意。外同自生妨。三並生妨。塵若非心。容許塵生。塵若是心。還成心處生心。即名並生。子若生苗。則有能所。子還生子。則二子並生。有何能所。塵若非心。則與前根中無識義。同責意亦爾。故云如前破。塵有識性。例前可知。破共生者。墮自他性。名為共生。今破。若自他各各無生。和合亦無。如二砂無油。和合亦無。破無因不生亦爾。結成性相二空者。但無性計。名為性空。性既破已。但有色心內外之相。既不住於無四句中。故相亦叵得。名為相空。言不在內外中間者。內只是因。外只是緣。中間是共。常自有者。只是無因。無此計故。即無四性。此之二空。言雖前後。意不異時。復以二諦結成二空。若有性執。世而非諦。破性執已。乃名世諦。故云世諦破性。性執破已。但有名字。名之為假。假即是相。為空相故。觀於法性。觀理證真。名真諦破相。空非前後。二諦同時。為辯性相。前後說耳。又有四運心。一未運。二欲運。三正運。四運已。傅大士頌云。獨自作。問我心中何所著。推檢四運併無生。千端萬累何能縛。釋曰。未起欲起二運之心。屬未來。未來何處有心。正起一運之心。屬現在。現在不住何處有心。又屬生時。因未生已生立生時。未生已生既無生。生時亦無生。如已去未去去時。俱無去法。如中論所破。起已一運之心。屬過去。過去已謝。何處有心。所以金剛經云。過去心不可得。未來心不可得。現在心不可得。三際俱空。一心何有。以所依根本之心尚不有。能依枝末一切萬法。寧是實耶。故云千端萬累何能縛。故知但了一念空。諸塵自然破。所依既不有。能依何得生。如源盡流乾。根危葉謝。所以阿難七處執而無據。故知邪法難扶。二祖直下求而不生。可驗解空方悟。祖佛大約。只指斯宗。既不得能起之心。亦不得所生之境。心不可得故即我喪。境不可得故。即法亡。若能人法俱空。即顯一心妙理。但以心塵相對。萬法縱橫。境智一如。千差頓寂。如是方能豁悟本覺靈智真心。無住無依。遍周法界。廣百論云。經言。無有少法自性可得。唯有能造。能造即是心及心法。又云。三界唯心。如是等經。其數無量。是故諸法唯識理成。豈不決定。執一切法實唯有識者。亦成顛倒。境即無。識云何有。經言唯識者。為令觀識。捨彼外塵。既捨外塵。妄心隨息。妄心息故。證會中道。故經偈言。未達境唯心。起種種分別。達境唯心已。分別則不生。若知境唯心。便捨外塵相。從此息分別。悟平等真空。

Answer: There are two senses: first, moment-by-moment ceasing; second, moment-by-moment arising. Because these two exist, from cessation arising is attained. Fearing the arising of the nihilistic view, this must therefore be posited. Now, in order to refute it, it must therefore be interrogated. Although arising and ceasing are different, both sense-faculty and consciousness are one's own mind. Arising from faculty or arising from consciousness both belong to self-nature. Within self-nature, mutually interrogating faculty and consciousness, they cannot be found. Furthermore, mind and consciousness are both posited as 'mind' in relation to dust [objects]. If the faculty possesses consciousness, there are two flaws: namely, the co-occurrence of faculty and consciousness, and the co-occurrence of agent and object, which entails the fault of endless generation after generation. If there is no agent and object, the meaning of generation is not established; how could one speak of generation? Furthermore, only immediate cessation is called generating consciousness; if the faculty possesses consciousness, arising and ceasing are mutually contradictory, hence both entail error. If the faculty lacks consciousness, it is assimilated to that which lacks consciousness, [yet is supposed to] be able to generate consciousness. Furthermore, interrogating whether it has the nature of consciousness—this is a concessive refutation: if it is existent, it still matches existence, likewise resulting in concurrent arising; if it is non-existent, it still matches non-existence, identical to arising from insentient things. Furthermore, interrogating the nature of consciousness as one or different: if it is one, whenever one speaks of 'nature', it can only generate afterwards; since consciousness and its nature are one, there is no agent and object. If it is different, if it is different from consciousness, it is identical to external objects; if an object can generate consciousness, it is identical to other—how can it be considered self? Next, refuting other-nature: although one says that the mind does not arise from itself, but that external dust comes to stimulate the mind, dust in relation to the faculty is called 'other'. First interrogating whether this is mind, there are three flaws: first, the flaw that dust is not mind, so that mind is not called dust; second, the flaw that dust is not thought-organ, [which] externally matches self-arising; third, the flaw of concurrent arising. If dust is not mind, one may allow dust to generate [mind]; if dust is mind, it turns out that mind generates mind in the locus of mind, which is called concurrent arising. If a seed generates a sprout, then there is agent and object; if a seed again generates a seed, then two seeds arise concurrently—what agent and object could there be? If dust is not mind, then it is identical to the previous meaning in the faculty lacking consciousness, and interrogating the thought-organ is also like this; hence it is said to be refuted as before. That dust has the nature of consciousness can be understood by analogy with the above. Refuting arising from both: falling into self-nature and other-nature is called arising from both. Now it is refuted: if self and other each lack arising, their combination also lacks [arising], just as two [grains of] sand lack oil, and their combination also lacks it. Refuting uncaused arising is also like this. Concluding into the two emptinesses of nature and characteristics: merely lacking the attachment to nature is called emptiness of nature. Once nature is refuted, there are only the internal and external characteristics of form and mind; since they do not abide in the four propositions of non-existence, characteristics are also unobtainable, called emptiness of characteristics. That it is not within, without, or in between means: within is merely the cause, without is merely the condition, and in between is both; that which is constantly self-existent is merely uncaused. Because these attachments are absent, there are no four natures. As for these two emptinesses, although spoken of before and after, the meaning is not at different times. Further, through the two truths they are concluded into the two emptinesses: if there is grasping at nature, it is worldly but not a truth; once grasping at nature is refuted, it is called the conventional truth. Hence it is said that the conventional truth refutes nature. Once grasping at nature is refuted, there are only names, which are called conventional designation; designation is characteristic. In order to empty characteristics, one contemplates dharmatā; contemplating principle and realizing the real is called the ultimate truth refuting characteristics. Emptiness is not before and after; the two truths are simultaneous. It is only to distinguish nature and characteristics that they are spoken of sequentially. Furthermore, there are the four phases of mind: first, not yet moving; second, about to move; third, presently moving; fourth, having moved. Fu Dashi's verse says: / Acting alone, / I ask what is attached in my mind? / Examining the four phases, all are unarisen; / How could a thousand entanglements and ten thousand burdens bind me? / Explanation: The two phases of mind, not yet arisen and about to arise, belong to the future; where in the future is there a mind? The one phase of mind presently arising belongs to the present; since the present does not abide, where is there a mind? Moreover, it belongs to the time of arising: because of the unarisen and the already arisen, the time of arising is posited; since the unarisen and the already arisen are both without arising, the time of arising is also without arising, just as with the already gone, the not yet gone, and the time of going, all lack the dharma of going, as refuted in the Madhyamakaśāstra. The one phase of mind that has already arisen belongs to the past; since the past has already passed away, where is there a mind? Therefore the Diamond Sūtra says: 'The past mind cannot be obtained, the future mind cannot be obtained, and the present mind cannot be obtained.' Since the three periods of time are all empty, how could the one mind exist? Because the fundamental mind that is the locus of reliance does not even exist, how could all the myriad dharmas that are the branch-and-leaf reliers be real? Hence it is said: 'How could a thousand entanglements and ten thousand burdens bind me?' Thus one knows that by merely understanding that one thought is empty, the various dust objects are naturally broken down. Since that which is relied upon does not exist, how could the relier be produced? It is like the source being exhausted and the stream drying up, or the root being endangered and the leaves withering. Therefore Ānanda grasped at seven locations without foundation, from which we know that false doctrines are hard to sustain; the Second Patriarch sought [mind] directly without it arising, which proves that only by understanding emptiness does one awaken. The broad summary of patriarchs and buddhas points only to this source. Since the mind that can arise is unobtainable, the realm that is generated is also unobtainable. Because mind cannot be obtained, the self is eliminated; because the realm cannot be obtained, dharmas perish. If one can make both person and dharmas empty, the marvelous principle of the one mind is revealed. Only because mind and dust confront each other are the myriad dharmas crisscrossing; when realm and wisdom are as one, the thousand distinctions suddenly fall silent. Only in this way can one open up and awaken to the true mind of original enlightenment and spiritual wisdom, without abiding and without reliance, pervading the dharmadhātu. The Guǎng bǎilùn says: 'The sūtra says: Not the slightest dharma with self-nature can be obtained; there is only that which can construct, and that which can construct is mind and mental factors.' It also says: 'The three realms are only mind.' Sūtras such as these are limitless in number. Therefore, that all dharmas are established by the principle of consciousness-only—how could it not be certain? Grasping that all dharmas truly are only consciousness is also an inversion. Since the realm does not exist, how could consciousness exist? When the sūtra speaks of consciousness-only, it is to cause one to contemplate consciousness and abandon those external dusts. Once external dusts are abandoned, the deluded mind accordingly ceases. Because the deluded mind ceases, one realizes and meets the middle way. Hence a sūtra verse says: / Not understanding that the realm is only mind, / One generates diverse conceptualizations; / Having understood that the realm is only mind, / Conceptualizations do not arise. / If one knows that the realm is only mind, / One then abandons the characteristics of external dust; / From this, conceptualizations cease, / And one awakens to equal, true emptiness.