宗鏡錄 12

English (machine translation) 12

Language: English

12.1

Compiled by Yanshou, Chan Master Zhijue, Abbot of Huiri Yongming Temple.

12.2

Now, as there is only the Dharma of the one mind, why does the teaching extensively establish names?

Answer: The designations of the Tathāgata differ across the ten directions. The single dharma of prajñā is spoken of under diverse names, and liberation is likewise given many names. Therefore, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra* states: 'The names of all dharmas are merely subsumed as guests. In the ten directions and the three times, they come from nowhere, go nowhere, and abide nowhere. Within all dharmas there are no names, and within names there are no dharmas. They are neither joined nor dispersed, but are merely provisional designations. Why is this? Because all dharmas and their names are both empty of intrinsic nature.'

The *Mahāvaipulya Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra* states: 'At that time the Buddha addressed the Bodhisattva Dhāraṇīśvararāja: "Good son, the ultimate truth means that there are no dharmas. If there are no dharmas, how can one speak of emptiness? Dharmas without names are spoken of by means of names. Such names also have no abiding place, and the dharmas under those names are likewise so."' Hence, dharmas are born from the mind, and names are established based on dharmas. The mind that produces them has no location, and the dharmas produced are also like this. Thus mind and objects are both empty, neither possessing a location.

A treatise states: 'The mind is able to make names for all dharmas. If there were no mind, there would be no names whatsoever.' One should know that mundane and supramundane names all arise from the mind. Because the mind accords with conditions, it establishes designations in response to things. In brief, there are five meanings by which provisional names are established: first, based on meaning; second, according with conditions; third, relying on the conventional; fourth, caused by time; fifth, determined by function.

What is 'based on meaning'? The *Anantanirdeśasūtra* states: 'The immeasurable meanings are born from a single dharma.' Thus we know names are established due to meaning, and meaning is revealed through names.

What is 'according with conditions'? The *Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra* states: 'Its taste is pure and authentic, resting on the Snow Mountains; according to where it flows, it acquires various names.' 'According to where it flows' means that according to defiled or pure conditions, it acquires the titles of ordinary being or noble one.

What is 'relying on the conventional'? A sūtra says: 'A single dharma has many names, yet in the real dharma there are none; because it does not forfeit the nature of dharmas, it is circulated in the world.'

What is 'caused by time'? The *Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra* states: 'Buddha-nature differs according to the seasons and periods, being described as pure or impure.' How so? When amid defilements it is called a sentient being; when dwelling in purity it is named the Buddhas.

What is 'determined by function'? Just as dharmas are established through the mind and receive names according to the dharmas, so when residing in the noble it is termed real, and when dwelling in the ordinary it is called conventional. It is like crafting vessels from gold: they receive names according to the vessel; on the finger it is called a ring, and adorning the arm it is named a bracelet. Thus the one mind remains unmoved, yet grasping at different titles causes the ten thousand dharmas to appear disparate; true gold does not change, yet acknowledging different names makes a thousand vessels seem unequal. If one knows that every dharma is entirely crafted by mind, and every vessel is completely formed of gold, then names and characteristics cannot interfere, and how could 'right' and 'wrong' bewilder?

Furthermore, just as a round vessel and a square vessel have different names, and raw gold and refined gold have different designations, when one traces back to the source and investigates the substance, the ten thousand dharmas are all empty; there are merely intentional words with differences of name and meaning. In movement, they are the eight consciousnesses; when congealed, they are the one mind. Grasping the purport and forgetting the conditions, wherever one encounters anything there is no place to alight.

As the *Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra* states: 'The Buddha said: "Good son, all the good deeds of the Tathāgata are entirely for the sake of taming sentient beings. It is just like a king of physicians whose medicinal formulas are all for curing the suffering of all illnesses. Good son, for the sake of lands, for the sake of seasons and times, for the sake of foreign languages, for the sake of people, and for the sake of various faculties, the Tathāgata, the World-Honoured One, makes two kinds of explanations regarding a single dharma: for a single named dharma he speaks immeasurable names; for a single meaning he speaks immeasurable names; and for immeasurable meanings he speaks immeasurable names.

"What is 'for a single name speaking immeasurable names'? It is like nirvāṇa: it is called nirvāṇa, it is also called non-arising, non-emergence, non-action, unconditioned, refuge, cave and dwelling, liberation, brightness, lamp-light, the other shore, fearlessness, non-regression, peaceful abode, tranquility, signlessness, non-duality, single practice, cool and refreshing, darkness-free, unhindered, non-contentious, unturbid, vast, nectar (amṛta), and auspicious. This is called making immeasurable names for a single name.

"What is 'for a single meaning speaking immeasurable names'? It is like Śakra: he is called Śakra, he is also called Kauśika, Vāsava, Purandara, Maghavan, Indra, Thousand-Eyed, Husband of Śacī, Vajra, Jewel Crest, and Jewel Banner. This is called speaking immeasurable names for a single meaning.

"What is 'for immeasurable meanings speaking immeasurable names'? For example, the Buddha is named Tathāgata, with distinct meaning and distinct name; he is also named Arhat, with distinct meaning and distinct name; he is also named Samyaksaṃbuddha, with distinct meaning and distinct name; he is also named Boatman, Guide, Fully Awakened One, One endowed with Knowledge and Conduct, Great Lion King, Śramaṇa, Brāhmaṇa, Tranquil One, Giver, One Arrived at the Other Shore, Great Physician King, Great Elephant, Great Dragon King, Bestower of Sight, Great Champion, Great Fearless One, Heap of Jewels, Caravan Leader, One Who Has Attained Liberation, Great Man, Teacher of Gods and Humans, Great Puṇḍarīka, Solitary and Incomparable One, Great Field of Merit, Ocean of Great Wisdom, Signless, and One Endowed with the Eight Knowledges. All such meanings are distinct and the names are distinct. Good son, this is called speaking immeasurable names for immeasurable meanings.

"Furthermore, there is speaking immeasurable names for a single meaning: namely, as with the skandhas, they are called skandhas, they are also called inversions, they are also called truths, they are also called the four stations of mindfulness, they are also called the four nutriments, they are also called the four stations of consciousness, they are also called existence, they are also called path, they are also called time, they are also called sentient beings, they are also called world, they are also called ultimate truth, they are also called the three cultivations—namely body, precepts, and mind—they are also called cause and effect, they are also called kleśas, they are also called liberation, they are also called the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅgapratītyasamutpāda), they are also called śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, they are also called hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and devas, and they are also called past, present, and future. This is called speaking immeasurable names for a single meaning.

"Good son, for the sake of sentient beings, the Tathāgata, the World-Honoured One, speaks the brief within the extensive, and speaks the extensive within the brief; he speaks the ultimate truth as conventional truth, and speaks conventional truth as ultimate truth.

"What is speaking the brief within the extensive? It is like telling the monks: 'I now expound the twelve links of dependent origination.' What are the twelve links of dependent origination? They are simply cause and effect.

"What is speaking the extensive within the brief? It is like telling the monks: 'I now expound suffering, origin, cessation, and path. Suffering means immeasurable sufferings; origin means immeasurable kleśas; cessation means immeasurable liberations; path means immeasurable expedients.'

"What is speaking the ultimate truth as conventional truth? It is like telling the monks: 'This body of mine now has aging, sickness, and death.'

"What is speaking conventional truth as ultimate truth? It is like telling Kauṇḍinya: 'Because you have attained the Dharma, you are named Ājñātakauṇḍinya.' Therefore, it accords with persons, accords with intentions, and accords with times; hence the Tathāgata is said to know the power of the various faculties.

"Good son, if I were to make fixed assertions regarding such meanings, I could not be called a Tathāgata who fully knows the power of faculties. Good son, a person of wisdom should know that what a fragrant elephant can bear is not what a donkey can sustain. The practices of all sentient beings are immeasurable; therefore the Tathāgata preaches immeasurable dharmas in diverse ways for them. Why is this? Because sentient beings have manifold kleśas. If the Tathāgata were to preach only a single practice, he would not be called a Tathāgata fully endowed with the achievement of knowing the power of the faculties."

Therefore, we know that dharmas are fundamentally devoid of names and are established through mind. Thus the Great Sage accords with conventional truth, adaptively complying with what is appropriate to capacities; the extensive and the brief are not the same, and the one and the many are not fixed. He takes what has speech and brings it back to what is without speech; he uses what has names to lead into the nameless, ultimately causing all to arrive at the tranquil and extinct ground of the fundamental mind. Hence a sūtra says: 'The Buddha told Śāriputra: "Take care not to preach Dharma extensively to those of sharp faculties, nor preach Dharma briefly to those of dull faculties."'

Furthermore, names are established based on substances, and substances are produced following names. If the substance is empty, the name has nowhere to apply; if the name is vacuous, the substance has nowhere to arise. Name and substance are mutually tranquil; the ten thousand dharmas are unproduced. There is only the one true mind, and nothing else exists.

The *Yongjia ji* states: 'Therefore, the substance cannot be distinguished without the name, and the name cannot be applied without the substance. To speak of substance necessarily relies on its name; to talk of name necessarily depends on its substance. Now, applying a name outside of substance merely names its lack of substance; how could there be a substance corresponding to that name? It is like applying a name to a hare's lack of horns: this merely names its hornlessness; how could there be horns corresponding to that name? If a name is applied where there is no substance, the name has no real name. If the name has no real name, then that which is named has nothing to be named. Since that which is named does not exist, that which names also does not exist. Why is this? Setting up a name was originally to name its substance; without substance, what corresponds to its name? Stating a substance was originally to correspond to its name; without a name, what corresponds to its substance? When that which corresponds has nothing to correspond to, it is not a substance; when that which names has nothing to name, it is not a name. In this way, how is it merely that substance is fundamentally vacuous? The name is also intrinsically tranquil.

'Yet, that an absent substance corresponds to a name has always been like this. How does a name have a corresponding substance? A substance does not name itself; it relies on another's name to name my substance. A name is not established by itself; it relies on another's substance to apply my name. If the substance has not yet taken shape, what does the name name? If the name has not yet been established, what clarifies the substance? Yet, although clarifying substance relies on its name, it is not that without being named there is no substance. Setting up a name must depend on its substance; without substance, the name fundamentally does not exist. Thus, substance is not produced from name; name is produced from substance. Now, when we explain that substance precedes name and name follows substance, this sets up a name to name its substance; hence we know substance is the source of the name. Thus, while the origin of a name conditionally arises from substance, upon what does the primal inception of substance depend?

'Substance does not shape itself; it relies on the confluence of conditions to form a substance. Conditions do not convene themselves; they convene through the substance to form conditions. If the substance has not yet taken shape, what do the conditions convene? If conditions have not yet convened, what shape does substance take? When substance takes shape, it takes shape through the convening of conditions; when conditions convene, they convene through substance taking shape. Since substance takes shape through convening, it is clear that taking shape has no separate convening; since taking shape has no separate convening, convening is fundamentally nonexistent. Since conditions convene to take shape, it is clear that convening has no separate taking shape; since convening has no separate taking shape, taking shape is fundamentally nonexistent.

'Therefore, the ten thousand dharmas arise from conditions and have no intrinsic substance. A substance devoid of an intrinsic self is therefore called empty of nature. Since its nature is empty, although conditions convene, it is not existent; since conditions have convened, although its nature is empty, it is not nonexistent. Therefore, the existence of converging conditions is an existence that is not existent; the nonexistence of an empty nature is a nonexistence that is not nonexistent. Why is this? Convening means emptiness of nature, hence it is said not to be existent; emptiness means convening of conditions, hence it is said not to be nonexistent. Now, saying "neither existent nor nonexistent" does not mean there is a separate nonexistence apart from existence, nor a separate existence apart from nonexistence. In this way, it is made clear that because dharmas are neither existent nor nonexistent, they are named "neither existent nor nonexistent"; it is not that "neither existent nor nonexistent" is itself non-existent or non-nonexistent. In this way, how is it merely that the path of speech is cut off? The place where the mind functions is also extinguished. Thus, since name and substance are both empty, words and thoughts naturally cease; this may be called the vanishing of all traces of mental workings, leaving the true mind alone luminously clear.'

12.4

Question: If, according to the wondrous principle of mind-only, all things are without names, then while the designation 'sentient being' may be a provisional contrivance, how could the names of the buddhas be posited in vain?

12.5

Answer: The sage is established in relation to the ordinary; the sage is originally nameless. The true is revealed through the conventional; the true is fundamentally unestablished. Both arise in mutual dependence upon worldly words and letters. Words and letters are themselves empty, and emptiness also has nothing to adhere to. If it is a person of superior capacity, why would they rely on names and characteristics to illuminate it? Confronting objects, with every thought they know the source; encountering conditions, with every thought they accord with the Way. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'As the sūtra explains, the buddha-realm of Lion's Thunder is adorned with jewel trees. These trees constantly emit immeasurable voices of the Dharma, namely, that all phenomena are ultimately empty, non-arising and non-ceasing, and so forth. When the people of that land are born, they immediately hear this Dharma voice, and so they do not give rise to evil thoughts and attain the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas.' At such a time, where are there the names of the Three Jewels? Merely by comprehending the principle of non-arising, spontaneously the Three Jewels are of one essence and ever-present in the world. If one grasps at differentiated names, one loses the principle of the true and eternal. If one merely comprehends that all dharmas are without self-nature, then in all places buddhas appear in the world, and there is not a single dharma that is not the source. As a previous master said: 'That buddhas appear in the world means that now the Tathāgata's appearance entirely takes the lack of nature in dust motes, the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu, and bodhi and nirvāṇa as the Tathāgata's body. This body pervades the three worlds. Therefore, in all realms, all sentient beings, all things, all dependent origination, all karmic retributions, and all dust motes and hairs, bodhi and nirvāṇa and so forth are each manifested as a buddha appearing in the world. If in one place one does not comprehend this, then one does not become a buddha, nor does [a buddha] appear. Why is this? Because that place not comprehended remains avidyā; therefore one does not become a buddha, nor does [a buddha] appear.' Therefore, when the buddhas appear in the world, knowing the capacity and knowing the time, they condescend for those of lesser faculties, manifesting birth in a kalpa of decrease, enticing with an empty fist and warning with yellow leaves. For persons of the highest capacity, the buddhas neither appear nor disappear. Hence the sūtra says: 'Whether there is a buddha or no buddha, the nature and characteristics abide constantly.' A verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'As is the mind, so are the buddhas; as are the buddhas, so are sentient beings. Mind, buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without differentiation.' It is merely one dharma; the names differ, but the principle is the same. What is this? When one awakens to this unreliant, unstaying, non-relative, inconceivable mind in its unmoving state, entering the beginning of the ten faiths, it is called the Buddha of Unmoving Wisdom. When one does not awaken to this non-relative true mind, and failing to maintain its self-nature it differentiates in accordance with conditions, it is called the dharmakāya transmigrating in the five destinies, designated as 'sentient beings.' There are only the designations of delusion and awakening, which are never apart from the substance of the one mind. What other dharma is there to make differentiated names of ordinary and sacred? As the Mañjuśrīprajñāpāramitāsūtra says: 'The Buddha said: "Is the Buddha-Dharma supreme?" Mañjuśrī replied: "There is not a single dharma as small as a fine dust mote that can be called supreme."' Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'As when the World-Honoured One preached this Dharma, there was no bodhisattva who attained these samādhis and gateways of dhāraṇī, nor were there the words, phrases, and meanings spoken by those buddhas, up to not speaking a single word or phrase, with no person listening, no person understanding, and no person becoming a buddha. If such teachings as these are true words, then in the future Latter Age, after five hundred years, this sūtra and Dharma gateway will be propagated in Jambudvīpa, circulating everywhere, blazing and unextinguished. These are true words.'

12.6

Question: Since all workings have vanished without a trace and the true mind alone shines clearly, why is it taught in the scriptures that 'this is the dharma of an ordinary person, and this is the dharma of a sage'?

12.7

Answer: Because all dharmas are dependently arisen and without nature, the dharma of an ordinary person cannot be apprehended, and the dharma of a sage cannot be apprehended. Because they are without nature and dependently arisen, the true and the conventional are not conflated. As it is said: all is the one, identical in having no nature; the one is all, causes and effects distinct. Although they are distinct, they do not lose the principle of non-nature; although they are without nature, they do not destroy the way of dependent origination. Furthermore, although one merely comprehends the one mind, one understands each and every dharma distinctly without delusion. As the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'The bodhisattva mahāsattva knows that all dharmas are of the same nature, namely, without nature, without various natures, without immeasurable natures, without countable natures, without weighable natures, without form and without characteristics; whether one or many, none can be apprehended. Yet he definitively understands: this is the dharma of the buddhas, this is the dharma of bodhisattvas, this is the dharma of pratyekabuddhas, this is the dharma of śrāvakas, this is the dharma of ordinary persons, this is good dharma, this is unwholesome dharma, this is worldly dharma, this is transworldly dharma, this is faulty dharma, this is faultless dharma, this is contaminated dharma, this is uncontaminated dharma, up to this is conditioned dharma, this is unconditioned dharma. This is the seventh, the True Abiding.'

12.8

Question: How can the dharma of the one mind entirely pervade, contain, bring forth, and fully possess all dharmas?

12.9

Answer: The mind is wondrous and boundless, its ultimate principle profound and remote. Seeking it in the three times, it cannot be found; examining it through the two truths, it cannot be known. Without image and without name, its depth and breadth cannot be measured. Unreliant and unstaying, its traces cannot be observed. Entering into the spaceless, its smallness cannot be spoken of; encompassing the outside of heaven's vault, its depth cannot be described. The ultimate Way is empty and profound—who can make it exist? The subtle spirit never falls away—who can make it non-existent? Its traces divide throughout the dharmadhātu without being many; its nature unites with true emptiness without being [one]. Its substance condenses into a single Way without being static; its function pervades the myriad things without toil. It is like the cintāmaṇi, the supreme celestial jewel, shaped like a mustard seed, having great function: pure and wondrous five desires, the seven treasures in abundance; they are neither stored inside nor entered from outside, without planning beforehand or afterwards, without choosing much or little, without making coarse or fine, matching the mind's wish for abundance or scarcity, raining down copiously without adding or exhausting, giving endless benefit and relief. If even material form can be like this, how much more so the wondrous spirit of the mind—how could it not possess all dharmas? Hence the sūtra says: 'The Buddha said: All śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas share this single wondrous, pure path, and all share this single ultimate purity; there is no second. Relying on this, I spoke with hidden intention, saying that there is only the ekayāna... up to: For example, space pervades all places and is everywhere of one flavor, not obstructing any actions performed. Just so, World-Honoured One, relying on these dharmas being all without self-nature and all of one flavor, it does not obstruct any undertakings practiced by all śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and great beings.' Master Hanshan's poem says: 'My home is here, called Cold Mountain; / Perched among mountain cliffs, apart from noise and bustle. / When vanishing, the myriad images leave no trace; / When unfolding, it flows throughout the great chiliocosm. / Rays of light leap and shine, illuminating the mind-ground; / Not a single dharma appears before it. / Only then do I know the single treasure of the maṇi: / Its wondrous function is inexhaustible, everywhere complete.' The Huanyuan guan says: 'The contemplation of non-thought manifesting the light of concentration means: the jewel of the wheel-turning king with the svastika on the pure jewel net in the teaching of the ekayāna. The substance of this jewel is bright and clear, illuminating the ten directions simultaneously. Accomplishing things without thought, whatever is wished for is fulfilled. Although manifesting wondrous efficacy, its mind has no deliberative thought. If a person enters this gateway of great, wondrous śamatha and vipaśyanā, they will be free from deliberative thought and accomplish things spontaneously, like that jewel illuminating near and far alike, distinctly manifesting, completely clear like open space, unobstructed by the dust, fog, smoke, and clouds of the two vehicles and heterodox paths.' The Qingliang commentary says: 'It is like the palace of the single sun, its thousand rays shining together; whichever single dharma is brought up, there are immeasurable gateways. Yet there are two meanings: first, in terms of similar characteristics: like the single gateway of impermanence, there are birth, old age, sickness, and death; gathering and dispersing, meeting and parting; gain and loss, formation and decay; the three disasters and the four characteristics; the external receptacle and the internal body; the moment and the lifetime; arising, ceasing, and transforming; defilement, purity, concealing, and revealing—all are gateways of impermanence; the others are also like this. Second, with respect to nature-integration, it is inexhaustible: meaning that the Dharma-nature is tranquil, and though free from all characteristics, the characteristic of having no characteristics does not obstruct manifold flourishing. Therefore, based on the substance, it universally manifests, like the moon entering a hundred rivers: tracing the moon of the reflections, the substance of the moon is not divided; the function is none other than the substance, and its function fills the dharmadhātu. Substance and function interpenetrate, and are therefore inconceivable.'

12.10

The Fuxing ji asks: 'Since the one mind already possesses the causes and effects of the ten dharmadhātus, merely contemplating the mind should suffice; why is it necessary to contemplate possession?'

12.11

Answer: The contemplation gateway of our tradition eternally differs from all other theories. That which completely subsumes all causes and effects—whether ordinary or sacred—of the ten directions and the three times is precisely due to contemplating possession. Possession is the provisional; the provisional is emptiness and the middle. Although the nature-principle possesses them, if one does not contemplate it and merely speaks of contemplating the mind, it does not accord with the principle. When did the Hīnayāna ever fail to contemplate the mind? It is simply deluded about the one mind possessing all dharmas.

12.12

Question: If one does not contemplate possession, to which teaching does it belong?

12.13

Answer: In the doctrinal path of the Distinct Teaching, from the initial mind onwards, it only says that the ten realms arise successively, and that their cessation is also successive; hence it does not contemplate immanence. Or, if one relies on the Common Teaching, it is identical with emptiness, yet merely the principle. Or, if one relies on the Tripiṭaka [Teaching], it is quiescent and extinguished, true emptiness. For people such as these, what need is there to contemplate immanence? Why so? The Tripiṭaka and Common [Teachings] only say that the citta produces the six realms; their contemplation has skillful and crude [forms], and identity or divergence are not the same. Therefore, these two teachings do not need to contemplate immanence. They do not yet know immanence, let alone emptiness and the middle. If it were not so, how could it be said that 'the initial aspiration and final realization are non-different'? Having achieved correct awakening, how could [the Buddha] manifest bodies and lands in the ten realms? Furthermore, even if practitioners know that the internal citta contains the three thousand phenomena, they do not know that I pervade those three thousand, and that each and every one of those three thousand mutually pervades in the same manner. If one accords with mundane sentiments and gives rise to internal and external views, one should contemplate the substance of the principle, which originally lacks the four natures: 'Citta, Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without distinction.' One who can know this roughly recognizes the citta. The Huayan Treatise says: 'With the seal of the great wisdom of the one mind, it seals the beginningless three times altogether in a single moment; the boundless phenomena are completely pervaded by the seal of wisdom. Because wisdom is equal to all Buddhas; because wisdom is equal to the citta of sentient beings; because wisdom is equal to all phenomena; because wisdom has neither middle nor extremes, exterior nor interior, nor the length, shortness, proximity, or distance of the three times. Because wisdom surpasses the measure of empty space. Just as worldly empty space has no comprehension, while the empty space of non-conceptual wisdom in a single thought can discern dharmas that surpass empty space and the like.' Therefore, a verse of the sūtra says: 'All empty space may still be measured, / but the dharmas spoken by the Buddhas are ineffable.' Another verse says: 'Universal Radiant Wisdom is equal to empty space; / empty space is merely empty, while wisdom is sovereign.' Therefore, the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings says: 'Immeasurable meanings arise from a single dharma.' Thus one knows that a single dharma can produce immeasurable meanings, namely the one mind. That each and every dharma produces immeasurable meanings is because the citta pervades all phenomena, and each and every dharma is nothing other than the citta. Using the concise to stand for the comprehensive, we know that the concise citta can contain myriad phenomena. Passing through all teachings—whether objective realm or wisdom, whether person or dharma, interpreting according to various events—each and every one is turned toward the citta to form contemplation, and contemplative wisdom becomes ever more fulfilled, like the ocean swallowing streams, or like fuel augmenting fire. Because of failing to penetrate deeply, they take it to be partial or small; because of failing to contemplate attentively, they abide in existence or abide in emptiness. Therefore, when śrāvakas beheld this great matter, they despised themselves as incapable, either weeping so that their cries shook the great thousandfold world, or saying, 'Being together in the same one Dharma, yet we did not obtain this matter.' When bodhisattvas heard this marvelous purport, they repented their former errors, some saying, 'From immeasurable kalpas, we have drifted about due to [the view of] non-self,' or saying, 'Prior to our taking refuge, we were all people of wrong views.' Mistakes such as those above are all due to not penetrating their own citta as vast, all-merging, able to encompass and able to pervade. Why is it able to encompass and pervade? Because it is devoid of characteristics. Just as great empty space is devoid of characteristics, it does not obstruct the manifestation of all characteristics, and can contain the pure and defiled lands of the ten directions. Therefore, an ancient said: 'Now, the myriad transformations are not without a source, but that which takes them as source is devoid of characteristics; the empty characteristics are not without accord, but that which accords with them is without mind. Inside and outside are both eclipsed; conditions and wisdom are both quiescent.' Therefore, if one can embody the Way like this, ten million things will correspond, and one can be called a person within the true Dharma, a true disciple of the Buddha. If one runs contrary to this purport and falsely gives rise to having a mind, all fall into corrupt cultivation and do not enter the mirror of the source. As an ancient worthy's song says: 'Only for the sake of no-mind does one study the unlearnable; / this is also true cultivation in non-cultivation. / If a person does not know such a place, / they cannot be called a monk.' Venerable Dongshan said: 'Where does my family originally abide? / In a realm where the bird's path is devoid of people. / If you go forth as a disciple of Śākya, / being able to walk this path corresponds to ten thousand forms.' Therefore, the First Patriarch, the Great Master, said: 'If wherever there is activity it is the place of non-activity, and dharmas are non-active, then one sees the Buddha. If one sees characteristics, then in all places one sees ghosts. Why so? If in acting there is no actor and dharmas are non-active, then both person and dharma are empty; awakening to this, one achieves Buddhahood. If one is deluded about non-active dharmas, then illusory characteristics appear before one.' Therefore, the sūtra says: 'Whatever has characteristics is entirely illusory.' Like what is seen in a burning fever, how could they not be ghosts? Therefore, an ancient worthy said: 'The myriad phenomena are boundless, but they take the single characteristic-free as their source.' It is also said: 'If recitation completes eighteen thousand times, in every instance one enters the samādhi of the characteristic-free.' It is also called 'the characteristic-free bodhimaṇḍa', 'the characteristic-free dharma gate', and so forth. Therefore, if one awakens to the true from the mirror of the source, it saves mental effort the most. The Huayan Sūtra says: 'With little expedient means, one quickly attains bodhi.' An ancient worthy said: 'Though one's learning is not extensive, one may equal the superior sages'—this is precisely the meaning. Furthermore, this one mind, entirely because of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena, is able to possess such pervasion and containment. As the Contemplation of the Non-Obstruction of Principle and Phenomena states: 'When principle and phenomena merge, existing and perishing, conforming and opposing, generally there are ten gates: First, the gate of principle pervading phenomena: this means that the pervading principle has no divisions or limits in its nature, while the pervaded phenomena have differences in parts and positions; in each and every phenomenon, the principle is entirely pervading, not partially pervading. Why is this? Because that true principle cannot be divided. Therefore, each and every fine speck of dust encompasses boundless true principle, completely and fully without exception. Second, the gate of phenomena pervading principle: this means that the pervading phenomena have divisions and limits, while the pervaded principle must have no divisions or limits; these phenomena with divisions and limits are completely identical, not partially identical, with the principle devoid of divisions and limits. Why is this? Because phenomena have no substance, but are just like the principle. Therefore, without destroying a single dust speck, it pervades the dharmadhātu. As with a single dust speck, all phenomena are also like this; reflect upon this. Furthermore, first, because the nature of principle is not only without division, it is in all places, yet its entire substance is within the one; second, because it is not only divided, it is constantly within the one, yet completely in all places. First, because a phenomenon is not only divided, it is constantly here yet forever in other realms; second, because it is not only without division, it pervades all places without moving from its original position. Furthermore, first, because the nature of principle is not only without division, it is not outside a single phenomenon; second, because it is not only divided, it is not inside a single phenomenon. First, because a phenomenon is not only divided, it is constantly in this place yet has no location; second, because it is not only without division, it is constantly in other places yet has no location. Therefore, having no location and having no non-location, yet being here and being there, is without obstruction. This gate of complete pervasion transcends sentiment and departs from views; no worldly analogy can illustrate it. Just as an entire great ocean is within a single wave, yet the ocean is not small; just as a single small wave encompasses the great ocean, yet the wave is not large; simultaneously it completely pervades all waves, yet the ocean is not distinct; at the same time, each wave encompasses the great ocean, yet the waves are not one. Furthermore, when the great ocean completely pervades a single wave, it does not hinder its entire substance from completely pervading all waves; when a single wave completely encompasses the great ocean, all waves also each completely encompass it without mutual obstruction; reflect upon this.' Explanation says: Taking the ocean as the true principle and the waves as phenomena to illustrate the mutual pervasion of principle and phenomena without being one or different: then the ocean situated in a wave is not small, because their wet nature is identical without difference in breadth or narrowness; the wave encompassing the ocean is not large, because without destroying its characteristics, the one and the many are completely encompassed.

12.14

Question: Since the principle completely pervades a single dust speck, why is it not small? Since it is not small like the dust speck, how can it be said that its entire substance pervades a single dust speck? A single dust speck completely encompasses the nature of principle; why is it not large? If it is not broad and large like the principle, how can it completely pervade the nature of principle? This becomes a contradiction, and the meaning is mutually conflicting.

12.15

Answer: Principle and phenomena viewed in relation to each other are each neither one nor different; therefore, they completely subsume [each other] without destroying their original state. First, principle viewed in relation to phenomena has four propositions: 1. Because the true principle is not different from phenomena, the entire substance of the true principle is within phenomena. 2. Because the true principle is not one with phenomena, the substance and nature of the true principle are forever boundless. 3. Because non-oneness is identical with non-difference, the boundless nature of principle is entirely within a single dust speck. 4. Because non-difference is identical with non-oneness, the nature of principle of a single dust speck has no divisions or limits. Next, phenomena viewed in relation to principle also have four propositions: 1. Because phenomena are not different from principle, they completely encompass the nature of principle. 2. Because phenomena are not one with principle, they do not destroy a single dust speck. 3. Because non-oneness is identical with non-difference, a single small dust speck encompasses the boundless nature of principle. 4. Because non-difference is identical with non-oneness, a single dust speck encompasses the boundless nature of principle, yet the dust speck is not large. Reflect upon this.

12.16

Question: When the boundless nature of principle completely pervades a single dust speck, are there the nature of principle or no nature of principle in other external phenomenon-locations? If there is principle outside the dust speck, then it is not the entire substance that pervades a single dust speck. If there is no principle outside the dust speck, then it does not completely pervade all phenomena. The meaning is very much in conflict.

12.17

Answer: Because the single nature of principle is interfused, and because multiple phenomena are unimpeded, it can be entirely inside and entirely outside, without hindrance or impediment. Each has four propositions. First, regarding the four propositions on principle: 1. When the entire substance of the nature of principle is within all phenomena, this does not impede its entire substance being at the location of a single dust mote; therefore, being outside is being inside. 2. When its entire substance is within a single dust mote, this does not impede its entire substance being at the locations of other phenomena; therefore, being inside is being outside. 3. Because the non-dual nature is respectively entirely within all things, it is therefore both inside and outside. 4. Because the non-dual nature is not identical to all things, it is therefore neither inside nor outside. The first three propositions clarify non-difference from all phenomena; this one proposition clarifies non-identity with all phenomena. Truly, because it is neither one nor different, inside and outside are unimpeded. Next, regarding the four propositions on phenomena: 1. When a single dust mote completely encompasses principle, this does not impede all phenomena from also completely encompassing [it]; therefore, being inside is being outside. 2. When each of all phenomena encompasses the nature of principle, this does not impede a single dust mote from also completely encompassing [it]; therefore, being outside is being inside. 3. Because all phenomena simultaneously each encompass [it], it is entirely inside and also entirely outside, without obstacle or impediment. 4. Because all phenomenal things are each not destroyed, when viewed relative to one another, they are neither inside nor outside. Reflect upon this. Explanation: Regarding principle, being in the one is taken as inside, and being in the many is taken as outside. Regarding phenomena, the one is also taken as inside, and the many is taken as outside. Why is this so? The one and the many, inside and outside, mutually pervade and are mutually present without impediment, solely because the one mind is completely interfused. It is conveyed by relying on principle and phenomena to make it manifest. Taking the aspect of the tranquility of substance, it is designated as principle; taking the aspect of the movement of function, it is designated as phenomena. Because principle is the nature of citta, and phenomena are the characteristics of citta, and both nature and characteristics are citta, everything is unimpeded. As stated above, the distinct phenomena with boundless differentiations and limits are interfused solely through the single nature of principle, so that naturally the large and the small contain each other, and the one and the many are immediately integrated. It is like casting statues of the ten dharmadhātus in gold: if melted, there are no different characteristics, as they harmonize and merge into just a single gold. Taking the nature of principle as the great furnace and melting the myriad phenomena as the great smelting, it dissolves and harmonizes the myriad phenomena, converging together into the one reality. Third, the gate of phenomena established in reliance on principle: this means that phenomena have no distinct substance, and must depend on true principle to be established. Because all conditioned arisings lack self-nature, it is due to the principle of self-naturelessness that phenomena come to be established. It is like waves needing to depend on water in order to be established; know that the existence of all phenomena in dependence on the tathāgatagarbha is also like this. Reflect upon this. Fourth, the gate of phenomena being able to reveal principle: this means that because phenomena gather principle, phenomena are empty and principle is real. Because phenomena are empty, the principle within the entirety of phenomena stands out prominently and is revealed. Just as the characteristics of waves are empty, causing the substance of water to be revealed, know that the principle here is also like this. Reflect upon this. Fifth, the gate of principle subduing phenomena: this means that since phenomena are formed by gathering principle, phenomenal characteristics are completely obliterated, and only the one true principle is equally revealed, because apart from true principle, not the slightest phenomenon can be found. It is like water subduing waves so that none of the waves fail to be obliterated; here water preserves itself and destroys the waves completely. Sixth, the gate of phenomena being able to conceal principle: this means that true principle follows conditions to form all phenomena; however, since these phenomena completely encompass principle, phenomena are made prominent while principle is not manifested. It is like water becoming waves: movement is manifest while tranquility is concealed. A sūtra says: 'The dharmakāya transmigrates through the five destinies and is called sentient beings.' Thus, when sentient beings are manifest, the dharmakāya is not manifest. Seventh, the gate of true principle being identical to phenomena: this means that whatever is true principle is definitely not outside phenomena, because it is the principle of the selflessness of dharmas. Phenomena must rely on principle; because principle is empty and devoid of substance, this principle in its entire substance is entirely phenomena—only then is it true principle. It is like water being identical to waves: moving, yet not separate from wetness. Eighth, the gate of phenomena being identical to principle: this means that conditioned phenomena definitely lack self-nature; their entire substance being identical to the real, it is said that sentient beings are identical to suchness, without waiting to be extinguished. It is like the moving characteristic of waves: its entire substance is identical to water, without difference. Ninth, the gate of true principle not being phenomena: this means that the principle that is identical to phenomena is nevertheless not phenomena, because true and delusive are different, real is not empty, and that which is relied upon is not that which relies. It is like the water identical to waves not being waves, because movement and wetness are different. Tenth, the gate of phenomena not being principle: this means that phenomena that are entirely principle are always not principle, because nature and characteristics are different, and that which relies is not that which is relied upon. Therefore, though the entire substance is completely principle, phenomenal characteristics remain distinct. It is like waves that are entirely water: waves are always not water, because the meaning of movement is not wetness. The Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Just as form and non-form, / These two are not one.' It also says: 'Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, / Their discriminations are each different.' Explanation: Regarding the unhindered reversal and conformity of principle and phenomena: when viewed relative to one another, each has four meanings. Among the four meanings, two meanings are contrary and two meanings are accordant. That is, establishing phenomena in reliance on principle, and true principle being identical to phenomena, are accordant. Subduing phenomena with principle, and true principle not being phenomena, are contrary. Phenomena being able to reveal principle, and phenomena being identical to principle, are accordant. Phenomena being able to conceal principle, and phenomena not being principle, are contrary. Establishing when wishing to establish, and destroying when wishing to destroy, is called unhindered. Establishing does not impede destroying, destroying does not impede establishing, revealing does not impede concealing, and concealing does not impede revealing; hence it is called unimpeded. At the very moment of establishment there is destruction, etc.; hence it is called simultaneous. The five pairs have neither precedence nor succession; hence they are said to arise頓 (suddenly). Furthermore, among the four pairs above, why does viewing phenomena from the perspective of principle only speak of 'establishing' and so on, but not 'revealing' and so on; while viewing principle from the perspective of phenomena only speaks of 'revealing' and so on, but not 'establishing' and so on? There is a profound reason. Why? Phenomena arise from principle, so it can be granted that they are 'established'; principle is not newly existent, so it can only be said to be 'revealed'. Phenomena, once established, must be extinguished, so one can speak of 'destroying'; true principle is eternal, so one can only speak of 'concealing'. As for 'identical' versus 'one', and 'apart' versus 'different', their general drift is the same, but subtle analysis shows difference. Principle has no form or characteristic, so it can only be identical to phenomena; but phenomena have myriad differences, so it is said to be obscurely unified with principle. Principle transcends all characteristics, so it is said to be apart from phenomena; phenomena have differences, so they are said to be different from principle. The above distinctions of meaning have these differences. If they are brought together, they should form the five pairs of unimpeded meanings: 1. The pair of mutual pervasion; 2. The pair of mutual establishment; 3. The pair of mutual detriment; 4. The pair of mutual identity; 5. The pair of mutual non-identity. Among the five, the first four clarify that phenomena and principle are not separate; the last one clarifies that phenomena and principle are not identical. Furthermore, within the five pairs, there are three meanings in total: the pair of establishment and revelation is the meaning of phenomena and principle mutually creating; the two pairs of subduing/concealing and non-identity are the meaning of phenomena and principle being mutually contradictory; the two pairs of mutual pervasion and mutual identity are the meaning of phenomena and principle not impeding each other. Moreover, from the second, mutual creating, arises the fourth, mutual identity; from mutual identity arises mutual pervasion; from the third, mutual contradiction, arises the fifth, non-identity. Furthermore, if there were no non-identity, there would be nothing to mutually pervade. Therefore it is said that true emptiness and wondrous existence each have four meanings. Viewing phenomena from principle is the four meanings of true emptiness: 1. Nullifying oneself to establish the other, which is the gate of establishing phenomena in reliance on principle; 2. Eliminating the other to reveal oneself, which is the gate of true principle subduing phenomena; 3. Both self and other being preserved, which is the gate of true principle not being phenomena; 4. Both self and other being eliminated, which is the gate of true principle being identical to phenomena. Because of their identity, they mutually eliminate each other. Furthermore, the first and third are the gate of principle pervading phenomena: because it preserves itself, its entire substance becomes the other, and thus pervades the other. Next, viewing principle from phenomena is the four meanings of wondrous existence: 1. Revealing the other while exhausting oneself, which is the gate of phenomena being able to reveal principle; 2. Revealing oneself while concealing the other, which is the gate of phenomena being able to conceal principle; 3. Both self and other being preserved, which is the gate of phenomena not being principle; 4. Both self and other being eliminated, which is the gate of phenomena being identical to principle. Furthermore, the first and third are the gate of phenomena pervading principle: because it preserves itself, it can reveal the other, and thus pervades the other. Therefore, speaking in terms of emptiness and existence, preservation and destruction are unimpeded, and true emptiness is unhindered in concealing and revealing. As for 'principle and phenomena interfused': 'melting' (róng) is smelting, referring to the meaning of initial dissolution; 'interfusion' (róng) is harmonization, referring to the meaning of final completion. Melting phenomena with principle, phenomena and principle interfuse. Contemplating this in the mind is named this contemplation. Contemplating phenomena corresponds to the conventional; contemplating principle corresponds to the ultimate. Now contemplating the unimpededness of principle and phenomena is the contemplation of the supreme meaning of the Middle Way; naturally, compassion and wisdom guide each other, accomplishing non-abiding practice. Furthermore, the ten gates of principle and phenomena are divided generally into five pairs: 1. Principle and phenomena mutually pervading; 2. Principle and phenomena mutually establishing; 3. Principle and phenomena mutually detrimental; 4. Principle and phenomena mutually identical; 5. Principle and phenomena mutually non-identical. Principle is the true principle of nature-emptiness, the single characteristic that is characterless. Phenomena are the defiled and pure mental states and objects, mutually serving as conditioned arising; the timeframes of arising and ceasing, and the appearances of this and that, cannot be fully recounted. The two gates of mutual pervasion are complete pervasion and complete identity; because principle cannot be divided, a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Dharma-nature pervades all places, / All sentient beings and lands; / Throughout the three times, present without remainder, / Yet no form or characteristic can be found.' The first three lines are complete pervasion; the final line is indivisibility. Regarding the two gates of mutual establishment: phenomena established in reliance on principle is like waves forming due to water, or like forms established in reliance on space; tathatā does not abide by its self-nature, but is able to follow myriad conditions. Phenomena being able to reveal principle is like reflections manifesting the brightness of a mirror, or consciousness and wisdom manifesting the original nature. A verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Completely understanding that all dharmas / Have no self-nature whatsoever; / Understanding all dharmas in this way, / One immediately sees Rocana.' Regarding the two gates of mutual detriment: subduing phenomena with principle is like water subduing waves; phenomena being able to conceal principle is like smoke smothering fire. Regarding the two gates of mutual identity: true principle being identical to phenomena is like water not being apart from ice; if it were merely emptiness external to phenomena, it would not be identical to phenomena. Now dharmas are immediately the principle of selflessness; apart from phenomena, how could there be principle? Phenomena being identical to principle means conditioned arising lacks self-nature, and all sentient beings are also suchness. Regarding the two gates of mutual non-identity: that which can and that which is have difference, true and delusive are not the same; thus in understanding, it is always single, and in the truths, it is always dual. Mutual identity means non-duality; mutual non-identity means non-oneness. Because of non-oneness, conventional truth is not destroyed; because of non-duality, ultimate truth is not concealed. This principle of the nature-emptiness of the ultimate truth is empty yet not empty; these phenomena of illusory existence of the conventional truth exist yet do not exist. Existence that does not exist: existence does not impede emptiness. Emptiness that is not empty: emptiness does not cut off existence. Neither relies upon the other, yet they mutually establish each other. If one fixates within the mind that a single dharma exists, one falls into permanence; if one grasps outside the mind that dharmas do not exist, one sinks into annihilation. Both become nets of views and do not enter the complete source. The above complete interfusion with respect to the unimpededness of principle and phenomena is concluded.

First 17 of 20 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

宗鏡錄 — Classical Chinese