宗鏡錄 91.5

91.5

答。諸佛見有眾生。俱是緣生幻有。不知謂實有我。所以造業受報。枉有輪迴。此由無實我。感諸佛慈悲。若實有我。非是妄有者。諸佛何故妄救眾生。以我實有。不可救故。今為救者。定知無我。妄計有也。故知眾生不離佛果。迷不覺知。華嚴經頌云。佛身非是化。亦復非非化。於無化法中。示有變化形。古釋云。此則依真起化。真化各有二義。初真中二者。一不變義。雖化而常湛然。則佛身非是化也。二隨緣義。謂不守自性。無不現時。則亦復非非化也。化中二者。一無體即空義。謂攬緣無性故。則於無化法中也。二從緣幻有義。則示有變化形也。以隨緣幻有。不異不變體空。是故現化紛然。未甞不寂。真性湛然。未曾不化。若不達此理。自尚未度。焉能化他。又以無緣慈。如石吸鐵。豈分能所之化。以同體悲。猶若虛空。誰見自他之身。故先德云。窮源莫二執迹多端。謂若據本以討源。則千途無異轍。若三江之浩渺。並源出於岷山也。乃窮源莫二若執迹多端。則據末以適本。不知多端是應迹耳。故光明覺品頌云。一身為無量。無量復為一。了知諸世間。現形遍一切。此身無所從。亦無所積聚。眾生分別故。見佛種種身。即其義也。但是一法身。義分二三四五乃至十身。且如說五身者。叡公維摩疏釋云。所謂法性生身。亦言功德法身。變化法身。實相法身。虛空法身。詳而辯之。一法身也。何者。言其生。則本之法性。故曰法性生身。推其因。則是功德所成。故言功德法身。就其應。則無感不形。則是變化法身。稱其大。則彌綸虛空。所謂虛空法身。語其妙。則無相無為。故曰實相法身。故知一體不動。名逐緣分矣。故云同時異處。決是多身。而是一身全現。故非多矣。其猶一月。一剎那中百川齊現。皆即一即多。又普現故非一。一月故非多。如智幢菩薩偈云。譬如淨滿月。普現一切水。影像雖無量。本月未曾二。是也。又經頌云。如來清淨妙法身。一切三界無倫疋。以出世間言語道。其性非有非無故。雖無所依無不往。雖無不至而不去。如空中劃夢所見。當於佛體如是觀。由非真非應。非一非多故。不可作真應一多等思也。故光明覺品頌云。佛見無生超戲論。非是蘊處差別法。故難思也。又云。皆是自他相作之身。能所共成之化。自他相作者。如華嚴經云。此菩薩能隨眾生心之所樂。能以自身。作國土身。眾生身。業報身。聲聞身。緣覺身。菩薩身。如來身。法身。智身。虛空身。此即自作他也。又隨眾生心之所樂。能以眾生身作自身。即他作自也。能所共成者。若無所化之機。則無能化之跡。又若無所應之身。亦無能感之事。自他能所。非一非異。緣起相由。成茲密旨。然緣起相由者。皆是自心為緣。終無心外法。能與心為緣。所以古德云。十方諸佛。皆我本師海印頓現。且法華分身。有多淨土。如來。何不指己淨土。而令別往彌陀妙喜。思之。故知賢首彌陀等佛。皆本師矣。復何怪哉。言賢首者。即壽量品中。過百萬阿僧祇剎。最後勝蓮華世界之如來也。經中偈云。或見蓮華勝妙剎。賢首如來住其中。若此不是歎本師者。說他如來在他國土。為何用耶。且如總持教中。亦說三十七尊。皆遮那一佛所現。謂毘盧遮那如來。內心證自受用。成於五智。從四智流出四如來。謂大圓鏡智。流出東方阿閦如來。平等性智。流出南方寶生如來。妙觀察智。流出西方無量壽如來。成所作智。流出北方不空成就如來。法界清淨智。即自當毘盧遮那如來。

Answer: That the buddhas see there are sentient beings is entirely [seeing them as] dependently arisen, illusory existences. Sentient beings, unaware [of this], claim that there is a real self; therefore they create karma and receive retribution, vainly undergoing saṃsāra. It is because there is no real self that this evokes the buddhas' loving-kindness and compassion. If there were a real self and it were not an illusory existence, why would the buddhas mistakenly save sentient beings? For if a self really existed, it could not be saved. That they now save them is because they definitely know there is no self, and that [sentient beings] mistakenly calculate that there is. Therefore, know that sentient beings are not separate from the fruit of buddhahood, but are deluded and unaware. A verse of the Avataṃsakasūtra says: / "The Buddha's body is not a transformation, / Nor is it non-transformation; / Within the dharma that is without transformation, / He manifests the appearance of transformation." / An ancient commentary explains: "This is relying on the true to arise as transformation. The true and transformation each have two meanings. First, the two in the true are: 1. The meaning of unchangingness: although transformed, it is constantly serene; thus 'the Buddha's body is not a transformation.' 2. The meaning of according with conditions: meaning that it does not abide in its own nature and there is no time it does not manifest; thus 'nor is it non-transformation.' The two in transformation are: 1. The meaning of being empty without substance: meaning that by gathering conditions it has no nature; thus 'within the dharma that is without transformation.' 2. The meaning of illusory existence born from conditions: thus 'he manifests the appearance of transformation.' Because illusory existence that accords with conditions is not different from the empty substance that is unchanging, therefore its manifested transformations are multitudinous yet have never not been quiescent; its true nature is serene yet has never not been transforming. If one does not penetrate this principle, one has not yet liberated oneself—how could one transform others? Furthermore, with unconditioned loving-kindness, like a lodestone attracting iron, how could there be a distinction between the active agent and the passive recipient of transformation? With compassion of identical substance, like empty space, who sees bodies of self and other? Therefore a prior worthy said: 'Exhausting the source admits no duality; grasping at traces brings many extremes.' This means that if one relies on the fundamental to investigate the source, then a thousand paths have no different tracks, just as the vast expanse of the Three Rivers all have their source arising from Mount Min. This is 'exhausting the source admits no duality.' If 'grasping at traces brings many extremes,' then one relies on the branches to seek the root, unaware that the many extremes are merely responding traces. Therefore the verse in the Chapter on Awakening by Light says: / 'One body becomes immeasurable, / Immeasurable [bodies] again become one; / Thoroughly understanding all worlds, / He manifests forms everywhere throughout all. / This body comes from nowhere, / Nor is it accumulated anywhere; / It is because sentient beings make discriminations / That they see the Buddha's various bodies.' / This is precisely its meaning. It is merely the one dharmakāya, yet conceptually divided into two, three, four, five, and even up to ten bodies. Now, as for the explanation of five bodies, Master Rui's commentary on the Vimalakīrti explains: 'Namely, the body born of dharmatā, also called the merit dharmakāya, the transformation dharmakāya, the true-aspect dharmakāya, and the space dharmakāya. When scrutinized and distinguished, they are the one dharmakāya. Why? Speaking of its birth, it is rooted in dharmatā, hence called the body born of dharmatā. Tracing its cause, it is accomplished by merit, hence called the merit dharmakāya. Considering its response, there is no stimulus without manifestation, which is the transformation dharmakāya. Praising its vastness, it encompasses empty space, which is the space dharmakāya. Expressing its subtlety, it is formless and unconditioned, hence called the true-aspect dharmakāya.' Therefore know that the one substance is unmoved, and names are distinguished according to conditions. Thus it is said: at the same time in different places, it is certainly multiple bodies; yet it is the full manifestation of the single body, and therefore not multiple. It is like the single moon: in a single kṣaṇa it appears simultaneously in a hundred rivers, all being both one and many. Moreover, because it appears everywhere it is not one; because it is a single moon it is not many. As Bodhisattva Jñānaketu's verse says: / 'Like the pure, full moon, / Universally appearing in all waters: / Although the reflected images are immeasurable, / The original moon was never two.' / This is it. Furthermore, a sūtra verse says: / 'The Tathāgata's pure, subtle dharmakāya / Has no equal in all the three realms, / Because it transcends the path of worldly speech, / And its nature is neither existent nor non-existent. / Although having nothing upon which to rely, there is nowhere it does not go; / Although there is nowhere it does not reach, it does not depart. / Like a line drawn in space or what is seen in a dream: / One should view the Buddha's substance in this way.' / Because it is neither true nor responding, neither one nor many, one must not conceptualize it as true, responding, one, or many. Therefore the verse in the Chapter on Awakening by Light says: / 'The Buddha's vision is unborn and transcends conceptual proliferation; / It is not the differentiated phenomena of aggregates or sense-bases.' / Hence it is difficult to conceive. It also says: 'All are bodies in which self and other make one another, transformations mutually accomplished by the active and the passive.' As for 'self and other making one another,' as the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'This bodhisattva can, in accordance with the inclinations of sentient beings' minds, use their own body to make the body of a realm, the body of sentient beings, the body of karmic retribution, the body of a śrāvaka, the body of a pratyekabuddha, the body of a bodhisattva, the body of a tathāgata, the dharmakāya, the wisdom-body, and the space-body.' This is the self making the other. Furthermore, in accordance with the inclinations of sentient beings' minds, they can use the bodies of sentient beings to make their own body; this is the other making the self. As for 'mutually accomplished by the active and passive': if there were no capacity of the converted (passive), there would be no traces of the converter (active). Furthermore, if there were no responding body, there would also be no event of evoking a stimulus. Self and other, active and passive, are neither one nor different; dependent origination relying on each other accomplishes this esoteric purport. However, this mutual reliance in dependent origination is entirely conditioned by one's own mind; there is never any dharma outside the mind that can serve as a condition for the mind. Therefore an ancient worthy said: 'The buddhas of the ten directions are all suddenly manifested from our fundamental teacher's sāgaramudrā.' Moreover, when dividing bodies in the Lotus Sūtra, there were many pure lands; why did the Tathāgata not point to his own pure land, but instead directed [sentient beings] to go elsewhere to Amitābha or Abhirati? Think about this! Therefore know that buddhas such as Bhadraśrī and Amitābha are all our fundamental teacher. What is strange about this? 'Bhadraśrī' refers to the Tathāgata of the Utmost Lotus World, beyond a hundred myriad asaṃkhyeya lands, in the Chapter on the Measure of Life. A verse in the sūtra says: / 'Or they see the supremely wonderful Lotus Land, / With Bhadraśrī Tathāgata dwelling therein.' / If this were not praising our fundamental teacher, what would be the purpose of speaking of another tathāgata in another land? Furthermore, in the Dhāraṇī teaching, it is also said that the thirty-seven deities are all manifested by the single Buddha Vairocana. That is to say, Vairocana Tathāgata within his mind realizes his own enjoyment, completing the five wisdoms, and from four wisdoms emanate four tathāgatas. That is, the great round mirror wisdom emanates Akṣobhya Tathāgata of the east; the wisdom of equality emanates Ratnasaṃbhava Tathāgata of the south; the wonderful discerning wisdom emanates Amitāyus Tathāgata of the west; the wisdom of accomplishing actions emanates Amoghasiddhi Tathāgata of the north; and the pure wisdom of the dharmadhātu is Vairocana Tathāgata himself.