宗鏡錄 92.3

92.3

答。聖雖知見。常了物虛。如同幻生。無有執著。如大涅槃經云。迦葉菩薩白佛言。世尊。若以因此煩惱之想生於倒想。一切聖人實有倒想。而無煩惱。是義云何。佛言。善男子。云何聖人而有倒想。迦葉菩薩言。世尊。一切聖人。牛作牛想。亦說是牛。馬作馬想。亦說是馬。男女大小。舍宅車乘。去來亦爾。是名倒想。善男子。一切凡夫。有二種想。一者世流。布想。二者著想。一切聖人唯有世流布想。無有著想。一切凡夫惡覺觀故。於世流布生於著想。一切聖人善覺觀故。於世流布不生著想。是故凡夫。名為倒想。聖人雖知。不名倒想。又以境本自空。何須壞相。以心靈自照。豈假緣生。不同凡夫能所情執知見。故肇論云。夫有所知。則有所不知。以聖心無知。故無所不知。不知之知。乃曰一切知。故經云。聖心無知。無所不知。信矣。是以聖人虛其心而實其照。終日知而未甞知也。如止水鑒影。豈立能所之心。則境智俱空。何有覺知之想。楞伽經云。佛告大慧。為世間以彼惑亂。諸聖亦現。而非顛倒。大慧。如春時焰火輪垂髮。乾闥婆城。幻夢鏡像。世間顛倒。非明智也。然非不現。釋曰。上七喻者。明境即是一而見有殊。然聖人用彼惑亂之境。一同凡現色等諸塵。以聖人無念著故。而非顛倒。然聖人非不見彼惑亂法。見時正同水月鏡像。龍樹菩薩云。日光著塵。微風吹之曠野中轉。名之為焰愚夫見云。謂之野馬。渴人見之。以為流水。業報亦爾。煩惱日光。熱諸行塵。邪憶念風。於生死曠野中。吹之令轉。妄見為人為鬼。為男為女。渴愛染著。耽湎無已。不近聖法。無由識之。夫火日外朗。水鏡內照。光在上為影。光在下為像。像以明傳。而像現於水。形以日映。而光隔為影。二物雖虛。而所待妄有。妄有雖空。而狂惑見之。見之以不狂。則形與影一。像與形同。世法亦爾。眾緣所起。起者之有。與所起之緣。俱為空物。無一異也。而人以虛妄風病顛倒故。不應見而見。不應聞而聞。若得大慧之明。則風狂心息。無此見也。又般若無知者。不同木石。不是有知者。非同情想。古德云。佛見無我。不是無知。但是不知知。不見見。以知是不知知故。即無心而不知。見是不見見故。無色而不見。無色而不見故。由不見見也。無心而不知故。以不知知也。如淨名經云。所見色與盲等者。崇福疏云。譬如五指塗空。空無像現。不以空無像現。便言指不塗空。豈以五指塗空。便欲令空中像現。事亦不然。不妨熾然塗空。空中元無像現。豈以眼根見色。便令如盲。豈以眼根如盲。而便都無所見。不妨滿眼見色。了色本自性空。雖然見色之時。元來與盲無異。但息自分別心。非除法也。法本自空。無所除也。又所聞聲與響等者。豈是不聞。但一切聲。皆如谷響。無執受分別也。所以滿眼見色。滿耳聞聲。不隨不壞。了聲色之正性故。何者。若隨聲色之門。即墮凡夫之執。分別妍醜之相。深著愛憎。領受毀讚之音。妄生欣厭。若壞聲色之相。即同小乘之心。則有三過。一色等性空。無可壞故。若壞方空。非本空故。二由空即真。同法性故。若壞方真。事在理外故。三由即空。不待壞故。壞則斷滅。是以如來五眼。洞照無遺。豈同凡夫生盲。二乘眇目都無見耶。但不隨不壞。離二見之邊邪。非有非空。契一心之中理。則逢緣無礙。觸境無生矣。是以萬物本虛。從心見實。因想念而執無執有。墮惑亂之門。以取著而成幻成狂。受雜染之報。若能反照唯心。大智。鑒窮實相真原。則幻夢頓惺。影像俱寂。然後以不二相。洞見十方。用一心門。統收萬彙。則見無所見。眾相參天。聞無所聞。群音揭地。如此了達。心虛境空。則入大總持門。紹佛乘種性。楞伽經云。謂覺自心現量。外性非性。不妄想相。起佛乘種性。若迷外法。以心取心。則成業幻之門。續眾生種性。首楞嚴經偈云。自心取自心。非幻成幻法。不取無非幻。非幻尚不生。幻法從何立。故知一切染淨諸法。皆從取生。是以云。取我是垢。不取我是淨。若無能取所取之心。亦無是幻非幻之法。非幻實法。尚乃不生。幻起虛蹤。憑何建立。又如心外見法。盡成相待。以無體無力。緣假相依故。所以楞伽經偈云。以有故有無。以無故有有。若無不應受。若有不應想。若開方便。或說有治無。說無破有。即無所礙。如十地毘婆沙論偈云。若用有與無。亦遮亦應聽。雖言心不。著是則無有過。若約正宗。則有無雙泯。故大智度論云。佛有不言無。無不言有。但說諸法實相。譬如日光。不作高下。平等一照。佛亦如是。非令有作無。非令無作有。是知若迷大旨。則見有無。如涅槃論云。無名曰。有無之數。誠已法無不該。理無不統。然其所統俗諦而矣。經曰。真諦何也。涅槃道是。俗諦何耶。有無法是。何者。有者有於無。無者無於有。有無所以稱有。無有所以稱無。然則有生於無。無生於有。離有無無。離無無有。有無相生。其猶高下相傾。有高必有下。有下必有高矣。然則有無雖殊。俱未免于有。此乃言像之所以形。是非之所以生。豈足以統夫幽極。而擬夫神道者乎。是以論稱出有無者。良以有無之數。止乎六境之內。六境之內。非涅槃之宅故。借出以祛之耳。庶希道之流。髣髴幽途。託情絕域。得意忘言。體其非有非無耳。豈曰有無之外。別有妙道而可稱哉。經曰。三無為者。蓋是群生紛擾。生于篤患。篤患之尤。莫先於有。絕有之稱。莫先於無。故借無以明其非有。明其非有。非謂無也。有名曰。論旨云涅槃既不出有無。又不在有無。不在有無。則不可於有無得之矣。不出有無。則不可離有無求之矣。求之無所。便應都無。然復不無其道。其道不無。則幽途可尋。所以千聖同轍。未甞虛返者也。其道既存。而曰不出不在。必有異旨。可得聞乎。無名曰。夫言由名起。名以相生。相因可相。無相無名。無名無說。無說無聞。經云。涅槃非法非非法。無聞無說。非心所知。吾何敢言之。而子欲聞之耶。雖然。善吉有言。眾若能以無心而受。無聽而聽者。吾當以無言言之。庶述其道亦可以言。淨名曰。不離煩惱而得涅槃。天女曰。不出魔界而入佛界。然則玄道在於妙悟。妙悟在於即真。即真則有無齊觀。有無齊觀。則彼己莫二。所以天地與我同根。萬物與我一體。同我則非復有無。異我則乖於會通。所以不出不在。而道存乎其間矣。何者。夫至人虛心冥照。理無不統。懷六合於胸中。而靈鑒有餘。鏡萬像於方寸。而其神常虛。至能拔玄根於未始。即群動以靜心。恬澹淵默。妙契自然。所以處有不有。居無不無。居無不無。故不無於無。處有不有。故不有於有。故能不出有無。而不在有無者也。然則法無有無之相。聖無有無之知。聖無有無之知。則無心於內。法無有無之相。則無數於外。於外無數。於內無心。此彼寂滅。物我冥一。怕爾無眹。乃曰涅槃。涅槃若此。圖度絕矣。豈容責之於有無之內。又可徵之於有無之外耶。釋曰。玄道在於妙悟。妙悟在於即真者。夫幽玄之道。無名無相。淺近之情知莫及。麁浮之意解難量。唯當妙悟之時。方省斯旨。得其旨故。實不思議。心境融通。如同神變。指法界於掌內。收萬像於目前。如鏡照空含。一時平現。既無前後。亦絕中間。妙旨煥然。言思絕矣。可謂妙悟。可謂即真。則有無齊觀。彼己莫二。不出不在。其道在茲乎。

Answer: Although the sage perceives and knows, he constantly realizes that things are empty; like an illusory creation, there is no clinging. As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: Kāśyapa Bodhisattva said to the Buddha, "World-Honoured One, if based on this thought of kleśa, inverted thoughts arise, all sages truly have inverted thoughts and yet are without kleśa—what is the meaning of this?" The Buddha said, "Good son, how could a sage have inverted thoughts?" Kāśyapa Bodhisattva said, "World-Honoured One, with all sages, when [seeing] an ox they think it is an ox and also say it is an ox; when [seeing] a horse they think it is a horse and also say it is a horse; the same applies to male, female, great, small, houses, vehicles, going and coming. These are called inverted thoughts." [The Buddha said:] "Good son, all ordinary people have two kinds of thoughts: the first is worldly conventional thought, and the second is clinging thought. All sages have only worldly conventional thought, and have no clinging thought. Because all ordinary people have unwholesome vitarka and vicāra, they generate clinging thoughts toward worldly conventions. Because all sages have wholesome vitarka and vicāra, they do not generate clinging thoughts toward worldly conventions. Therefore ordinary people are called having inverted thoughts; although the sage knows, it is not called inverted thought."

Moreover, since the objective realm is fundamentally empty of itself, what need is there to destroy characteristics? Since the numinous mind illuminates of itself, how could it depend on conditioned arising? It is not like the ordinary person's emotional clinging to subject and object in knowing and seeing. Therefore the Zhao lun says: "Whenever there is something known, there is something not known. Because the sage's mind has no knowledge, there is nothing it does not know. The knowing of not-knowing is called omniscience. Thus a sūtra says: 'The sage's mind has no knowledge, yet there is nothing it does not know.' How true this is!" Therefore the sage empties his mind and makes his illumination real, knowing all day long yet never [conventionally] knowing. Like still water reflecting an image, how could it establish a mind of subject and object? Then objective realm and wisdom are both empty; how could there be thoughts of perception and knowing?

The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: "The Buddha told Mahāmati: 'Because the worldly takes that delusion as real, the sages also appear [there], yet they are not inverted. Mahāmati, it is like a spring mirage, a fire-wheel, dangling hairs, a gandharvanagara, an illusion, a dream, or an image in a mirror: the worldly is inverted, not having clear wisdom; yet they are not non-apparent.'"

Explanation: The above seven similes clarify that the objective realm is one, but the views differ. Yet the sages use that delusive realm, appearing as form and the other dusts identically with ordinary beings; because the sages have no thought of clinging, they are not inverted. However, the sages do not fail to see those delusive dharmas; when seeing them, they are just like the moon in the water or an image in a mirror.

Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva said: "Sunlight touches dust, and a gentle breeze blows it, turning it in the open wilderness; it is called a mirage. When foolish people see it, they call it wild horses; when thirsty people see it, they take it to be flowing water. Karmic retributions are also like this: the sunlight of kleśas heats the dust of the saṃskāras; the wind of false mindfulness blows it in the wilderness of saṃsāra, causing it to turn; they falsely see it as humans, ghosts, men, or women. Craving and clinging, endlessly addicted and submerged, if one does not draw near to the holy Dharma, there is no way to recognize it.

Fire and the sun shine brightly on the outside; water and mirrors illuminate on the inside. Light being above makes a shadow; light being below makes an image. An image is transmitted by clarity, and the image appears in the water; a form is illuminated by the sun, and the light being blocked makes a shadow. Although these two things are empty, that which is depended upon falsely exists. Although false existence is empty, mad delusion sees it. If one sees it with an un-maddened [mind], then the form and the shadow are one, and the image and the form are the same. Worldly dharmas are also like this: arisen from conditions, the existence of that which arises and the conditions from which it arises are both empty things, without oneness or difference. Yet people, because of the invertedness of the wind-disease of falsehood, see what should not be seen and hear what should not be heard. If one attains the illumination of great wisdom, then the mad wind of the mind ceases, and there is no such seeing."

Moreover, the "prajñā has no knowledge" is not like wood and stone; "it is not possessing knowledge" is not the same as emotional thoughts. An ancient worthy said: "The Buddha's seeing of non-self is not lack of knowing; it is merely not-knowing knowing and not-seeing seeing. Because knowing is not-knowing knowing, there is no mind that does not know; because seeing is not-seeing seeing, there is no form that is not seen. Because there is no form that is not seen, it is due to not-seeing seeing; because there is no mind that does not know, it is by means of not-knowing knowing."

As the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra says: "The form seen is equal to [what is seen by] the blind." The Congfu commentary says: "For example, it is like five fingers painting in empty space: in empty space no image appears. One cannot, because no image appears in space, say that the fingers did not paint in space; nor can one, because the five fingers painted in space, wish to make an image appear in space. The matter is not so. There is no hindrance to blazing painting in space, yet originally no image appears in space. How could the eye faculty seeing form make one become like the blind? How could the eye faculty being like the blind mean that there is nothing seen at all? There is no hindrance to seeing forms with the eyes full, while realizing that form is originally empty in its own-nature. Although at the time of seeing form, it is originally no different from being blind, one merely calms one's own discriminative mind; it is not the removal of dharmas. Dharmas are originally empty in themselves; there is nothing to remove."

Furthermore, "the sound heard is equal to an echo": how could this mean not hearing? It is just that all sounds are like echoes in a valley, without grasping or discrimination. Therefore, seeing forms with the eyes full and hearing sounds with the ears full, neither following nor destroying them, is because one realizes the true nature of sounds and forms. Why is that? If one follows the gate of sounds and forms, one falls into the clinging of ordinary people, discriminating characteristics of beauty and ugliness, deeply clinging to love and hate, receiving the sounds of slander and praise, and falsely giving rise to joy and revulsion. If one destroys the characteristics of sounds and forms, it is identical to the mind of the Hīnayāna, which entails three faults: First, since the nature of form and the rest is empty, there is nothing that can be destroyed; if it is empty only when destroyed, it is not fundamentally empty. Second, because emptiness is precisely the real, identical to the dharmatā; if it is real only when destroyed, phenomena would lie outside principle. Third, because it is immediately empty, it does not wait to be destroyed; if destroyed, it is annihilationism. Therefore, the Tathāgata's five eyes illuminate penetratingly without omission; how could it be like the congenital blindness of ordinary people or the one-eyed blindness of the two vehicles who see nothing at all? Merely neither following nor destroying, one leaves the extremes and deviations of the two views; neither existing nor empty, one accords with the middle principle of the one mind. Then, meeting conditions, there is no hindrance; encountering objects, there is no arising.

Therefore, the ten thousand things are fundamentally empty; from the mind they are seen as real. Depending on thoughts and reflections, one clings to non-existence or clings to existence, falling into the gate of delusion and confusion; through grasping and clinging, one forms illusions and madness, receiving the retributions of miscellaneous defilement. If one can reflect back on mind-only, and great wisdom exhaustively mirrors the true source of the real mark, then the dream of illusion is suddenly awakened from, and reflections and images are all stilled. Thereafter, with the mark of non-duality, one penetratingly sees the ten directions; using the gate of the one mind, one unifies and gathers the ten thousand kinds. Then seeing has nothing seen, while all characteristics tower to the heavens; hearing has nothing heard, while all sounds shake the earth. When one comprehends like this, the mind is vacant and the objective realm is empty; then one enters the gate of the great dhāraṇī and inherits the gotra of the Buddha Vehicle.

The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: "Realizing the self-mind's pratyakṣa, that external natures are non-natures, without falsely conceptualizing characteristics, one gives rise to the gotra of the Buddha Vehicle." If one is deluded about external dharmas and takes mind with mind, then this becomes the gate of karmic illusion, continuing the gotra of sentient beings.

A verse in the Śūraṅgamasūtra says:
"When the self-mind grasps the self-mind,
That which is not an illusion becomes an illusory dharma.
If one does not grasp, there is no non-illusion;
When even non-illusion does not arise,
From where can illusory dharmas be established?"
Therefore we know that all defiled and pure dharmas are produced from grasping. Hence it is said: "Grasping a self is defilement; not grasping a self is purity." If there is no mind of grasper and grasped, there are also no dharmas that are illusion or non-illusion. When real dharmas that are non-illusion do not even arise, on what can the illusory arising of empty traces be established?

Furthermore, seeing dharmas outside the mind all become relative, because having no substance and no power, they are provisionally interdependent on conditions. Therefore a verse in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra says:
"Because of existence, there is non-existence;
Because of non-existence, there is existence.
If there is non-existence, one should not receive it;
If there is existence, one should not conceptualize it."
If opening up expedients, sometimes one speaks of existence to cure non-existence, and speaks of non-existence to destroy existence, then there is no hindrance. As a verse in the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā-śāstra says:
"If one employs existence and non-existence,
One may both refute and accept them;
Although speaking of them, if the mind does not cling,
Then there is no fault."
If according to the genuine source, both existence and non-existence are dissolved. Therefore the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "The Buddha does not speak of non-existence regarding what exists, nor does he speak of existence regarding what is non-existent; he merely speaks of the real mark of all dharmas. For example, the sunlight does not create high and low, but illuminates equally as one. The Buddha is also like this: he does not make existence become non-existence, nor make non-existence become existence."

From this we know that if one is deluded about the great purport, one sees existence and non-existence. As the Niepan lun says:
"The Nameless One said: 'The categories of existence and non-existence truly leave no dharma uncovered and no principle un-unified. Yet what they unify is merely conventional truth.' A sūtra says: 'What is ultimate truth? It is the path of nirvāṇa. What is conventional truth? It is the dharmas of existence and non-existence.' Why? That which exists, exists in relation to non-existence; that which is non-existent, is non-existent in relation to existence. Existence is called 'existence' because of non-existence; non-existence is called 'non-existence' because of existence. Thus existence is born from non-existence, and non-existence is born from existence. Apart from existence there is no non-existence, and apart from non-existence there is no existence. Existence and non-existence mutually generate each other, just as high and low incline toward each other: where there is high, there must be low; where there is low, there must be high. Thus, although existence and non-existence differ, neither escapes existence. This is that by which words and images are formed, and right and wrong are produced. How could they suffice to unify the profound ultimate or approximate the spiritual Way? Therefore, when the treatise speaks of 'transcending existence and non-existence', it is truly because the categories of existence and non-existence stop within the six sense objects. Within the six sense objects is not the dwelling place of nirvāṇa; hence it borrows 'transcending' to dispel them. It is hoped that those who seek the Way may glimpse the profound path, place their feelings in the transcendent realm, attain the meaning and forget the words, and realize that it is neither existence nor non-existence. How could it mean that outside of existence and non-existence there is another marvelous Way that can be designated? A sūtra says: 'As for the three unconditioned [dharmas], because sentient beings are agitated and troubled, arising from severe afflictions; among severe afflictions, none is prior to existence. To extinguish the designation of existence, none is prior to non-existence. Therefore, non-existence is borrowed to clarify that it is not-existence; clarifying that it is not-existence does not mean non-existence.'

The One with a Name said: 'The treatise's purport states that since nirvāṇa neither transcends existence and non-existence, nor is it within existence and non-existence: not being within existence and non-existence, it cannot be found in existence and non-existence; not transcending existence and non-existence, it cannot be sought apart from existence and non-existence. Seeking it nowhere, it should simply be non-existent. Yet, its Way is not non-existent. Since its Way is not non-existent, the profound path can be pursued; this is why a thousand sages have followed the same track and never returned in vain. Since its Way exists, yet you say it neither transcends nor is within, there must be a different meaning. May I hear it?'

The Nameless One said: 'Words arise from names, and names are generated by characteristics. Characteristics depend on what can be characterized; without characteristics there are no names. Without names there is no exposition; without exposition there is no hearing. A sūtra says: "Nirvāṇa is neither dharma nor non-dharma; without hearing and without exposition, it is not what the mind can know." How could I dare speak of it, and how could you wish to hear it? Even so, Subhūti had a saying: "If the assembly can receive with no-mind and hear with non-hearing, I shall speak of it with wordlessness." In setting forth its Way, it may perhaps also be spoken of. Vimalakīrti said: "Without departing from kleśas, one attains nirvāṇa." The devī said: "Without departing from Māra's realm, one enters the Buddha realm." Thus the profound Way lies in marvelous awakening; marvelous awakening lies in being immediately real. Being immediately real, existence and non-existence are viewed equally; viewing existence and non-existence equally, other and self are not two. Therefore heaven and earth share the same root with me; the ten thousand things are of one substance with me. Being identical with me, they are no longer existence or non-existence; being different from me, they violate comprehensive understanding. Therefore it neither transcends nor is within, and the Way abides in between them. Why? The consummate person empties his mind and darkly illuminates, leaving no principle un-unified. Embracing the six directions within his breast, his numinous mirror has room to spare; mirroring the ten thousand images in his square-inch [heart], his spirit remains ever empty. He can even pull up the profound root at the beginningless, and calming the mind in the midst of manifold movements, tranquil and profoundly silent, marvelously accords with spontaneity. Therefore, dwelling in existence, he is not existent; abiding in non-existence, he is not non-existent. Abiding in non-existence, he is not non-existent, hence he is not non-existent toward non-existence; dwelling in existence, he is not existent, hence he is not existent toward existence. Therefore he is able to neither transcend existence and non-existence nor be within existence and non-existence.

Thus dharmas have no characteristics of existence or non-existence, and the sage has no knowledge of existence or non-existence. When the sage has no knowledge of existence or non-existence, he has no mind on the inside; when dharmas have no characteristics of existence or non-existence, there are no categories on the outside. Without categories on the outside and without mind on the inside, this and that are stilled and extinguished, and things and self are darkly united. Tranquil and without omen, this is called nirvāṇa. When nirvāṇa is like this, conceptual calculation is cut off. How could one seek it within existence and non-existence, or search for it outside of existence and non-existence?'

Explanation: As for 'the profound Way lies in marvelous awakening; marvelous awakening lies in being immediately real': The profound and mysterious Way is without name and without characteristic; shallow and proximate emotional knowledge cannot reach it, and coarse and floating intellectual understanding can hardly measure it. Only at the time of marvelous awakening does one awaken to this purport. Having attained its purport, it is truly inconceivable: mind and objective realm blend and penetrate, just like spiritual transformations. Pointing to the dharmadhātu in one's palm, gathering the ten thousand images before one's eyes; like a mirror reflecting empty space containing [all], appearing simultaneously and equally; having neither before nor after, and cutting off any middle. The marvelous purport is brilliant; words and thoughts are cut off! This can be called marvelous awakening, this can be called being immediately real. Then existence and non-existence are viewed equally, other and self are not two; neither transcending nor within—does not its Way lie right here?