宗鏡錄 12.3

12.3

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.'