宗鏡錄 14.3.4

14.3.4

…is completely and fully replete. The Huayan Treatise says: 'If one sees the nature even slightly, one also attains the Buddha Vehicle. It is like a single hair's-tip drop in the great ocean, or even many drops: in each and every drop, one attains the great ocean. In this way, within the five positions of the bodhisattva, within each and every position of the ten stations and the ten stages, there is the buddha-fruit. It is like that single hair's-tip drop of ocean water: not departing from the buddha-nature, all practices are attained. Relying on that buddha-nature, there is advancement in cultivation.' As in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, it directly uses the complete buddha-fruit of immovable wisdom and so forth—the ten wisdoms of the Tathāgata—to reveal faith and cultivation for ordinary people. It is like an ordinary person who suddenly ascends to the precious throne: holding the kingship in person, he knows all his ministers and all the various classes beneath him, fully encompassing all. The Dharma-doors and bodhisattva practices in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra are also like this: from the initial arising of the mind, the beginning of the ten abodes, one suddenly sees such a Tathāgata dharmakāya and buddha-nature, the unconditioned fruit of wisdom, and universally practices all the myriad deeds of Samantabhadra; according with conditions without obstruction, all are unconditioned. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'The buddha-nature is not a conditioned phenomenon; it is merely covered by adventitious defilements (kleśa).' Therefore, now from the initial position of the ten abodes, through the substance of unconditioned samādhi corresponding to the real, the adventitious defilements entirely lack an essential nature, being solely the real substance and function, free of greed, anger, and delusion; operating naturally, it is just the Buddha. Therefore, corresponding in a single thought, in a single thought one achieves buddhahood; corresponding for a single day, in a single day one achieves buddhahood. Why should one require numerous kalpas, cultivating gradually? Amassing cultivation over many kalpas and reaching the fruit after three asaṃkhyeyas—when the mind conditions itself to kalpa-measures, how can the hindrance of views cease? The Dharma-doors of all buddhas are fundamentally not subsumed by time; calculating time and establishing kalpas is not the Buddha Vehicle. Moreover, the sūtra says: 'To attend upon and make offerings to all the buddhas appearing in the world through kalpas as numerous as dust motes in seas of worlds' clarifies that wisdom free of effort is all-pervading: there is no dharma that is not buddha, and buddha is itself dharma. The empty space of the ten directions is without gap or lack; the point of a needle and the tip of a hair are nothing that is not all dharmas and all buddhas. If there is merely a dust mote of mind discerning right and wrong, defiled and pure, none of this is seeing the Buddha: seal it with the eye of wisdom! It also says: 'Universally bringing forth buddhas as numerous as the dust motes of buddha-lands' means that wisdom is full and practice is pervasive, for there is nothing that is not buddha. 'Serving them all' means that sages and ordinary beings share the same substance, and there is not one that is not buddha. Dharma is empty and without interval; viewing it with the universal eye, penetrating both mind and object, there is nothing that is not buddha. Wisdom follows all practices, because all are buddha. Seeing in this way, discussed in terms of phenomena, it is indeed truly so; discussed as an expression of the Dharma, everything is entirely real, for it is buddha. If there is a single dharma or a single thing that is not seen as buddha, one should know that this person has wrong views, not right views. Then subject and object, right and wrong, and various views arise in contention, and one cannot enter this realm of the wisdom-eye of Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī. Therefore, if disparate thoughts and mixed mental acts arise continuously, one is called a sentient being; then subject and object arise mutually, and right and wrong contend with each other, which is just wrong view. If one understands that delusional thoughts are formless and that external objects are naturally empty, then all dust motes of the lands are nothing other than right enlightenment. Therefore the Treatise on the Explanation of the Mahāyāna says: 'The initial arising of a single thought is without an initial characteristic' means that when the mind arises, there is no initial characteristic that can be known; and speaking of 'knowing the initial characteristic' means being without thought, which dispels doubts and causes superior understanding to arise. That is to say, there are sentient beings who have this doubt: 'At the culmination of the path of liberation, when one converges with original enlightenment, is the subtle, initial arising known to exist, or is it known not to exist? If it is known to exist, the culmination of the path of liberation should not be without thought. Why is this? Because one knows there is an initial thought, and the initial thought exists. If it is known not to exist, the culmination of the path of liberation should not be able to exist. Why is this? Since there is no initial thought, in reliance on what thought's absence is liberation established to exist?' Because of such doubts, it now resolves this by saying: 'The characteristic that is known has from the beginning been empty and non-existent in its self-nature; the wisdom that knows has from the beginning had no time of arising. Since there is neither a characteristic that is apprehended nor a wisdom that apprehends, how could one say that there is a subtle initial characteristic that can be known by wisdom? And as for speaking of knowing the initial characteristic, it is to demonstrate the principle of thoughtlessness. Why is this? Although the principle of dharmatā has no initial arising characteristic to be known, nor an initial enlightenment wisdom that knows, it can comprehend that the absence of a characteristic to be known, the absence of a wisdom that knows, and the absence of any apprehension whatsoever are not completely empty non-existence. Therefore, relying for now on this principle, it speaks in this way: