宗鏡錄 20.3

20.3

Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "The mind-nature of sentient beings is like a sharp blade. If it is only used to cut mud, nothing is made of the mud, while the blade daily suffers damage. The principle-substance is ever wondrous, yet sentient beings themselves are coarse. If one can employ it skillfully, one immediately accords with the original wonder." Furthermore, it is like water in a single vessel: its bland flavor is constant; if liquorice is added, it becomes sweet, and if coptis is introduced, it becomes bitter. The mind-water of sentient beings is just like this: when false defilements arise, one is an ordinary being; when one coincides with true emptiness, one is a sage. The nature of this mind has never undergone change or alteration. As a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says:

“Just like the pure sun and moon,
Shining brightly in empty space,
Their reflections appear in diverse waters,
Yet are not commingled with the water;
The pure Dharma-wheel of the bodhisattva,
One should know, is also like this:
Appearing in the mind-water of the world,
It is not commingled with the world.”

As the Commentary on the Avataṃsakasūtra says: "All phenomena have two aspects. The first is that which is deluded about: namely, conditioned arising is unreal, hence like an illusion; because it is formed through conditions, it is without nature. The second is that which is capable of delusion: the imagined has no entity, hence is like empty space; because it is falsely conceptualized, it is devoid of characteristics." Furthermore, because of non-awakening, they do not know it exists; because of lack of faith, they do not undertake it. They merely give rise to avidyā and vainly form inverted conceptions. It is like an immobile rope in the night suspected of being a snake, or a dark room, originally empty, feared to contain a ghost. Therefore, know that originally there is neither delusion nor awakening; vainly do rising and sinking occur. Formerly one was deluded about awakening, so it resembled delusion; now one awakens to delusion, yet it is not awakening. It is merely that internal views separate oneself, and adventitious defilements obscure [one], dividing sentiments of distance and proximity upon the substance, and establishing measures of the ordinary and the sagely within the nature. As the Viśeṣacintabrahmaparipṛcchāsūtra says: "Brahmā asked Mañjuśrī: 'How does a bhikṣu draw near to the Buddha?' He replied: 'Brahmā, if in phenomena a bhikṣu does not see any phenomenon as either near or far, this is called drawing near to the Buddha.'" The Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra says: "One who is not conscious of even a subtle characteristic of a single phenomenon can understand the Tathāgata's arising in the world. An arising that is non-arising is precisely the Buddha's arising." Thus, if one does not see a single phenomenon, one constantly sees all Buddhas; then across a thousand miles there is the same wind. If one sees a single phenomenon, one does not see all Buddhas; then facing each other they are as alien as the Hu and Yue. Therefore, know that when one turns one's back on citta and accords with objects, defilements instantly arise; when one turns one's back on objects and accords with citta, one completely illumines the dharmadhātu. Why so? Citta is that on which things depend; phenomena are that which depends. That which depends arises from that on which it depends: just as water is that on which things depend and waves are that which depends. Apart from water there are no waves; apart from citta there are no phenomena. Furthermore, citta is that which produces; phenomena are that which is produced. Just as wood can produce fire—wood is that which produces and fire is that which is produced—apart from wood there is no fire; apart from citta there are no phenomena. Therefore, know that for those who do not take citta as the Way, it is like a thousand people pushing against a gate, not one of whom manages to enter. If one understands citta and enters abruptly, it is like one person pulling the latch, thereby opening the way for all ten thousand things. Is this not what is meant by grasping the essential of the Mirror of the Source? Therefore, the wondrous nature suffers no deficiency; delusion and awakening are gained by oneself. Not a single phenomenon moves, yet turning toward or turning away are suddenly divided. As the Śūraṅgamasūtra says: "The Buddha said: 'Pūrṇa, you also asked: "Earth, water, fire, and wind are inherently consummate and completely pervade the dharmadhātu; yet I doubt why the natures of water and fire do not overwhelm and destroy each other. You also asked how empty space and the great earth can both pervade the dharmadhātu and yet not be incompatible." Pūrṇa, just as empty space in its substance is not the multitude of characteristics, yet it does not reject the manifestation of those characteristics. Why is this? Pūrṇa, that great empty space becomes bright when the sun shines; it becomes dark when clouds gather; it moves when the wind stirs; it becomes clear when the sky clears; it becomes murky when vapors condense; dust accumulating makes it hazy; clear water reflecting makes it brilliant. What do you think? Do these conditioned characteristics of distinct places arise caused by those things, or do they exist from empty space? If they are produced by those things, Pūrṇa, at the time of sunlight, since it is the sun's brightness, the worlds of the ten directions are uniformly of the sun's color; why then does one still see the round sun in the sky? If it is the brightness of empty space, empty space should shine of itself; why then, in the middle of the night or at times of clouds and mist, does no radiance arise? You should know that this brightness is neither the sun nor empty space, nor is it different from empty space and the sun. Contemplating characteristics, they are originally false, with nothing to point to—like expecting flowers in the sky to bear sky-fruit. Why cross-examine the meaning of their mutually overwhelming and destroying each other? Contemplating the nature, it is originally true, solely wondrous, enlightened, and bright. The wondrously enlightened, bright mind is primarily neither water nor fire; why do you further ask about their incompatibility? The true, wondrously enlightened brightness is also like this: if you manifest empty space, empty space appears; if earth, water, fire, and wind are each manifested, each appears. If they are simultaneously manifested, they simultaneously appear. How do they simultaneously appear? Pūrṇa, just as in a single body of water the reflection of the sun appears: two people view the sun in the water together, and walk east and west respectively; then each has a sun following the two people, one east and one west, with no fixed standard from the start. One should not pose the difficulty: "This sun is one; why does it go separately? Since each has a sun, making a pair, why did only one appear [before]?" It is shifting and false, with nothing to rely upon. Pūrṇa, you use form and emptiness to overthrow and wrest from each other within the tathāgatagarbha, yet the tathāgatagarbha accordingly becomes form and emptiness, pervading the dharmadhātu. Therefore within it, wind moves and space clears, the sun is bright and clouds are dark. Sentient beings are deluded and confused; turning their backs on awakening and according with defilement, they give rise to defilements, and worldly characteristics exist. I, by means of wondrous brightness that is unarisen and unceasing, accord with the tathāgatagarbha; and the tathāgatagarbha is solely wondrous, enlightened, and bright, completely illumining the dharmadhātu.'" Therefore, know that the wondrously enlightened, bright mind is serene and unmoving. Manifesting in accordance with karma, it accordingly becomes form and emptiness, pervading the dharmadhātu. Sentient beings turn their backs on their fundamental awakening and falsely grasp at emotional defilements; contrary [to truth], within the equal, one true awakening, they recognize the differentiated realms that appear. Following wherever manifestations occur, they arbitrarily assert right and wrong—just like determining differences within the substance of empty space. Truly this is false and inverted, with no principle to rely upon. Whenever the true teachings of the holy wisdom are set forth, they are all to shatter these inversions. If one knows that inversions are unreal, naturally there are no phenomena to be discussed. As the Avataṃsakasūtra says: "Using wisdom, enter into all Buddha-dharmas, and expound them for sentient beings so that they may eliminate inversions. Yet know that apart from sentient beings there are no inversions, and apart from inversions there are no sentient beings. Not inside inversions are there sentient beings, nor inside sentient beings are there inversions. Inversions are not sentient beings, nor are sentient beings inversions. Inversions are not internal phenomena; inversions are not external phenomena. Sentient beings are not internal phenomena; sentient beings are not external phenomena. All phenomena are false and unreal, quickly arising and quickly ceasing, devoid of stability; like dreams, like shadows, like illusions, like apparitions, they deceive and delude foolish people." As the Commentary explains: "The sūtra text has four pairs. The first three pairs look at the two mutually; the last pair distinguishes them in their very substance. Among the first three pairs, the first two concern non-separation, and the latter one concerns non-identity; this reveals that sentient beings and inversions are neither identical nor separate. Sentient beings are the persons capable of giving rise to inversions, belonging to the defiled aspect of the other-dependent [nature] (paratantra). Inversions are the falsities produced, which are the fully imagined [nature] (parikalpita). The first pair clarifies non-separation: because they grasp the real based on the apparent, apart from sentient beings there are no inversions; because the apparent arises based on grasping, apart from inversions there are no sentient beings. The second pair clarifies that they do not reside within each other, re-explaining the previous meaning. Saying that they are not separate clarifies that cause and effect mutually depend and are conditioned; there is no prior substance wherein two things reside in each other. In the cause there is no effect, hence inside inversions there are no sentient beings; if they necessarily existed, then the fully imagined would be the other-dependent. In the effect there is no cause, hence inside sentient beings there are no inversions; if one insisted they must exist, then there would be no non-inverted sentient beings. The third pair clarifies non-identity: because it does not destroy cause and effect, or the two characteristics of that which imagines and that which is imagined. From the first three pairs, one knows that sentient beings and inversions are neither one nor different, neither identical nor separate. The fourth pair distinguishes them in their very substance. The inverted mind arises only by depending on objects, hence it is not an internal phenomenon; if it were internal, it should exist without an object. Because it is calculated by emotion, it is not an external phenomenon; if it were external, the wise should not be undefiled by objects. Since it is neither internal nor external, how could it be in between? Thus its very substance is naturally empty; by what could it be contrasted with the other to clarify identity or separation? Sentient beings are also like this: sought within the aggregates, they are non-existent, hence not an internal phenomenon; apart from the aggregates they are also non-existent, hence not an external phenomenon. Since they are neither internal nor external, the intermediate is also cut off. Their fundamental nature is inherently empty; how could they give rise to inversions? By what could they be contrasted with the other to clarify that they are not identical or separate? Knowing this, one is naturally free from inversion. Expounding this to beings, inverted delusion is naturally eliminated." The reason [it says] that, through failure to comprehend that what is conditionally formed is not solid, one falsely gives rise to imagination, is why it says, 'they deceive and delude foolish people.' In reality, foolish people deceive themselves—like a monkey grasping at the moon, not the moon grasping at the monkey. Furthermore, a verse in the Madhyamakaśāstra says:

“Where there is inversion, inversion does not arise;
Where there is no inversion, inversion does not arise;
One who is inverted does not give rise to inversion;
One not inverted does not invert either.
If at the time of inverting,
Inversion does not arise either;
You may observe for yourself:
Who gives rise to inversion?”

For one who is already inverted, inversion does not arise further, because they are already inverted; one who is not inverted does not invert either, because there is no inversion; hence at the time of inverting, there is also no inversion, because there would be two faults. Now, abandon arrogance and carefully observe for yourself: who is the inverted one? Furthermore, all inversions do not arise: how can this meaning stand? Because there is no inversion, how could there be an inverted one? Because inversions are broken through various causes and conditions, one falls into non-arising. If one becomes attached to non-arising, claiming that non-arising is the true characteristic of inversion, therefore the verse says:

“How could non-arising be called inversion?”

Even untainted phenomena are not yet called the characteristic of non-arising, how much less could inversion be the characteristic of non-arising! If there is no inversion, how could there be an inverted one? Because only on account of the inverted one is there inversion.