宗鏡錄 100.17

100.17

Answer: This is the gate of secret essentials, the Dharma that is difficult to believe. Becoming ever deeper and ever subtler, it is difficult to understand and difficult to know. All harbor doubtful thoughts; all dwell in the ground of delusion. Now, doubt has hesitation regarding the principles of the truths as its nature, and its function is the ability to obstruct wholesome factors. Therefore, there are many kinds of doubt, which briefly explained comprise three: first, doubting oneself, saying that one cannot enter the principle; second, doubting the teacher, saying that he cannot teach well; third, doubting the Dharma, saying of what one studies, 'Does it cause transcendence, or does it not cause transcendence?' Furthermore, it is like a sick person who doubts himself, doubts the doctor, and doubts the medicine: in the end, his sickness is not cured. If one possesses the former three doubts, one will ultimately never be able to enter with decisive faith. Now, what is recorded in this Mirror of the Source entirely consists of straightforwardly setting aside expedient means and speaking only of the unsurpassed path. Hearing any single dharma, it completely accords with the perfect source; it can truly sever deep doubts and accomplish great faith. As the Qingliang Commentary says: 'When hearing of emptiness, do not doubt it as annihilation; it is emptiness identical with phenomena, not an annihilating extinction. When hearing of existence, do not doubt it as permanence; it is not existence with a fixed nature, for it exists from conditions. When hearing of both being affirmed, do not doubt them as two parts; it merely illumines both truths simultaneously, for they lack two substances. When hearing of both being negated, do not doubt it as baseless; it merely wards off faults to make one unattached. Furthermore, when hearing of emptiness, do not doubt it as existence, for it is the emptiness that is identical with existence. When hearing of existence, do not doubt it as emptiness, for it is the existence that is identical with emptiness. When hearing of both being affirmed, do not doubt them as both being negated, for it is precisely non-existence and non-emptiness that constitute existence and emptiness. When hearing of both being negated, do not doubt them as both being affirmed, for it is precisely existence and emptiness that only then constitute non-existence and non-emptiness.' Therefore, know that when one clearly understands the one mind, the host of doubts is abruptly severed. Then existence cannot be existence, emptiness cannot be emptiness, the ordinary cannot be ordinary, and the noble cannot be noble. How could one ever be deluded by worldly words of right and wrong? As the Fo zang jing says: 'The Buddha addressed Śāriputra: "Is the king of mountains, Sumeru, high and great or not?" "High and great, World-Honoured One." "Śāriputra, if throughout the four continents it rained large stones everywhere, all like Sumeru, and someone caught these stones with their hand without dropping even one the size of a mustard seed, what do you think? Would that be rare or not?" "Rare, World-Honoured One." "Śāriputra, that the Tathāgata explains all dharmas as unarisen and unceasing, markless and unconditioned, and enables people to believe and understand them, is doubly rare. Śāriputra, suppose someone placed all sentient beings in his left hand and with his right hand lifted up the trichiliocosm with its mountains, rivers, grasses, and trees, and was able to make all these sentient beings rejoice with one mind, without their intentions differing: what do you think? Would that be rare or not?" "Rare, World-Honoured One." "Śāriputra, that the Tathāgata explains all dharmas as unarisen and unceasing, markless and unconditioned, and enables people to believe and understand them, is doubly rare." The reason why the text of this Mirror of the Source cites so broadly from beginning to end is simply that this mind is profound and abstruse, hence difficult to believe, and secret, hence difficult to know. Even the great wisdom of bodhisattvas still requires the reinforcement of the Buddha's power; how much less could the shallow and inferior be able to know it? As the Baoyu jing says: 'The Buddha said: "How do bodhisattvas deeply believe in the secrecy of the Tathāgata's mental karma? If bodhisattvas hear of the secrecy of the Tathāgata's mind—namely, that all the Dharma-meanings delightful to the Tathāgata's intention rely upon the mind and abide relying on the mind—none of all the bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or sentient beings can know them, except through the empowerment of the Tathāgata."' Therefore, although citations precede and verifications follow, with extensive text and manifold meanings, within every word it benefits the faculties, and in every hearing it startles the ears and eyes anew. Why grow weary of repeating explanations and give rise to this arrogant mind? Thus our original teacher said: 'Walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, I constantly speak the wondrous Dharma.' He also said: 'Between the night I attained the path and the night of nirvāṇa, during these two nights I constantly spoke prajñā.' Therefore, faculties have much ripeness and unripeness; faith has depths and shallows. What was not firm through previous hearing and perfuming is only entered through later hearing and perfuming. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'It is like shaking a tree to gather fruit: the ripe ones fall first; if they are not yet ripe, one must shake it again later. It is also like catching fish: what the first net does not exhaust, the later net then catches.' It also says: 'Furthermore, the characteristic of this prajñāpāramitā is extremely deep, difficult to understand, and difficult to know. The Buddha knows the minds of sentient beings: their faculties have sharpness and dullness. Those of dull faculties have little wisdom; for their sake he explains it repeatedly. If they are of sharp faculties, with one or two explanations they awaken, and there is no need for varied explanations. It is like a swift horse that runs at a single whip, while a sluggish horse goes only after many whips. Due to such various causes and conditions, there is no fault in repeating explanations in the sūtras.'