宗鏡錄 20.15

20.15

The answer states: Here, speaking of 'no Buddha' is to break the conceptualization of grasping at a Buddha; it does not say that one grasps at the characteristic of there being no Buddha. If even a Buddha that exists is not to be grasped, how much less grasping at the wrong view of there being no Buddha! Moreover, the Buddha is eternally tranquil and extinguished, devoid of characteristics of frivolous argumentation. If someone conceptually fabricates and engages in frivolous argumentation regarding the matter of eternal tranquility and extinction, that person also falls into wrong view. Departing from the two extremes of existence and non-existence and dwelling in the Middle Way—this is precisely the true mark of all phenomena. The true mark of all phenomena is precisely the Buddha. Why is that? Attaining this true mark of all phenomena is called 'attaining the Buddha'. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra* says: 'All bodhisattvas do not even attain Dharma, how much less non-Dharma! They do not even attain the Path, how much less non-Path!' It also says: 'Regarding the phenomena of birth and death, they neither arise nor fall; regarding all noble paths, they neither depart from nor cultivate them.' The commentary explains: 'Regarding the phenomena of birth and death they do not arise' because their self-nature is constantly empty, so one does not fall into the extreme of departing from them; 'they do not fall' because one does not follow the transmigration, so one does not fall into the extreme of being identical to them. 'Regarding all noble paths they do not depart' because their nature is constantly in accord, so one does not fall into the extreme of annihilation; 'they do not cultivate' because they are fully endowed with what is innately authentic, so one does not fall into the extreme of permanence. As the commentary of Qingliang says: 'Not clinging to the one or the many, able to establish all things' means that by not clinging to existence, one can establish them, which is the fusion of the ultimate and the conventional. That is to say, as for the characteristics of the conventional, illusory existence, their characteristics are originally empty in themselves; as for the principle of ultimate, true emptiness, its principle is eternally existing in itself. Existence is the existence that is empty, not permanent existence—this existence has never not been empty. Emptiness is the emptiness that is existent, not nihilistic emptiness—how has this emptiness ever not existed? The empty existence and the existent emptiness are one in substance though different in name. Because their names are different, the ultimate and the conventional are mutually distinct and clearly unmixed; because their substance is one, emptiness and existence accord with each other and are secretly non-dual. Being one and not being one are neither identical nor separate, fused and unobstructed. The bodhisattva's wisdom tallies with their source; therefore, while utterly transcending without resting on anything, they skillfully cultivate and establish. It also says: 'Truly because phenomena are insubstantial, they grasp principle, so there are no phenomena devoid of principle; because principle is real, it responds to conditions, so there is no principle obstructing phenomena. Therefore, being tranquil it constantly shines, and shining it is constantly tranquil. Hence, though engaging in knowing and seeing all day long, there is no knowing or seeing.' Furthermore, the bodhisattva's compassion and wisdom complete each other, appearing and disappearing without obstruction. Because of compassion, they constantly move in the world; because of wisdom, they are not tainted by worldly phenomena. Their harmonious interpenetration has three aspects: First, because compassion is never without wisdom, in the world they are never not detached; thus, while constantly in the world, they have never not transcended it. Second, because wisdom is never without compassion, detachment is never without the world; thus, while constantly transcending beyond the world, there is nowhere in the world they do not roam. Third, because both are fused, movement and stillness are non-dual and are only one thought-moment, which is what is called non-thought. Because non-thought is equal, there is no obstruction between the worldly and the supramundane. As the *Avataṃsakasūtra* says: 'Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas know how to skillfully expound the Dharma and manifest nirvāṇa; all the expedient means for the sake of delivering sentient beings are established by thoughts of the mind, yet they are neither inversions nor falsehoods. Why is that? Bodhisattvas thoroughly comprehend that all phenomena are equal in the three times, unmoving as suchness, and having no abiding place in the reality limit. They do not see a single sentient being that has been transformed, is being transformed, or will be transformed. They also know of themselves that there is nothing to cultivate, and that there is not the slightest phenomenon, whether arising or ceasing, that can be apprehended. Yet, relying on all phenomena, they make their vows not in vain. This is the ninth, the Abiding in Accordance with Reality.' Moreover, a verse says: 'A bodhisattva can, in a single thought-moment, / Contemplate countless Buddhas equal to sentient beings, / And furthermore, within a single tip of hair, / Fully gather all phenomena and clearly see them.' By means of this true vision, they accomplish unconditioned compassion, causing all sentient beings throughout the dharmadhātu to derive benefit upon seeing and hearing. Therefore, the sūtra says: 'Just as the sun and the moon do not form the intention of coming and going or illuminating, yet by the power of the merits of sentient beings, they naturally move back and forth, destroying all darkness.' If one enters into this mirror of the source, there is not a single phenomenon that can be grasped, because they are all of the same nature; nor is there a single phenomenon that can be discarded, because different characteristics are severed. Therefore, the sage is constantly good at saving people and so abandons no one; he is constantly good at saving things and so abandons nothing. Now, regarding what is called 'good', none is other than knowing the source, which is then the ultimate, supreme good. If saving people accomplishes compassion of the same substance, and if saving things returns to the principle of marklessness, then outside of the good there are no phenomena—what could there be to abandon?