宗鏡錄 29.9.2

29.9.2

are also like this: they are all of one nature, because they are devoid of nature. Furthermore, a verse states: 'All kalpas of the three times, / Buddha lands and all phenomena, / all sense faculties, citta, and mental factors, / and all empty and false dharmas— / within a single body of the Buddha, / these phenomena are completely revealed.' Therefore, apart from the Buddha's mind and wisdom, not a single phenomenon can be obtained. Second, they are entirely within the minds of sentient beings, because apart from sentient beings, there are no distinct Buddha-virtues. What does this mean? It means that the Buddha realizes the tathatā within the minds of sentient beings to become a Buddha, and also because initial awakening is identical with original awakening. Therefore, they are entirely within the minds of sentient beings. Arising function from substance, when [he manifests] the responsive transformation bodies, this is precisely the greatness of function of the tathatā within the minds of sentient beings; there is no other distinct Buddha. Third, following any single sacred teaching, it is entirely of both minds, because the previous two explanations are not separate from each other. That is to say: the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings expounds the Dharma for the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind; the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind listen to the Dharma expounded by the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings. Completely encompassing them in this way, expounding and listening are unobstructed; this is called the most profound principle of consciousness-only. Fourth, or that sacred teaching is neither of the two minds, because both mutually negate and do not appear together, and doubly integrating the two positions leaves neither unextinguished. That is to say, because there is no listener among the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind, and there is no expounder among the Buddhas within the minds of sentient beings; both are doubly distinguished so that both characteristics are exhausted. A sūtra says: 'He who expounds the Dharma neither expounds nor indicates; he who listens to the Dharma neither hears nor attains.' Another sūtra verse states: 'What sentient beings give birth to is not birth, / nor is there transmigration within saṃsāra.' Another sūtra verse also states: 'The Tathāgata does not expound the Dharma, / nor does he save sentient beings,' and so forth. Therefore, when these four are roundly integrated and unobstructed in a single sacred teaching, only then is it ultimate. The *Huayan yanyi* raises a question: 'Sentient beings and Buddhas may be the same with regard to substance, but their characteristics and functions are naturally distinct; how could they be completely identical?' It explains: 'Function arises from substance, and function is not different from substance. Since substance is the substance of sentient beings, how could function be separated from sentient beings? Therefore, relying on substance to arise function is precisely the greatness of function of the tathatā within the minds of sentient beings; there is no other distinct Buddha.' [Question:] 'If so, this meaning is already present in the *Awakening of Faith* (*Qixin lun*); why then uniquely explain Huayan as the distinct teaching?' It explains: 'Although the *Awakening of Faith* explains the non-duality of initial awakening and original awakening and that the three greatnesses of substance, characteristic, and function are uniformly the same, these are practiced and realized separately in their own minds; it does not say that sentient beings and Buddhas mutually and completely encompass each other. Thus, using the text of the *Awakening of Faith*, it establishes the meaning of the Huayan.' Furthermore, regarding the complete encompassing of expounding and listening and the mutual presence of sentient beings and Buddhas, two analogies are briefly cited. First: just as before a single bright mirror master and disciple together face each other, expounding and listening—if taken from the master's perspective, it is the master's mirror; if taken from the disciple's perspective, it is the disciple's mirror. The mirror illustrates the one mind; master and disciple illustrate sentient beings and Buddhas. This means that the preceptor within the disciple's mirror expounds the Dharma for the disciple within the preceptor's mirror, and the disciple within the preceptor's mirror listens to the Dharma expounded by the preceptor within the disciple's mirror. All knowledgeable persons, please examine this analogy carefully. Fearing that this analogy may still not be understood: it is also like water and milk blending together in one place, serving mutually as that which blends and that which is blended. Following the context of expounding and listening, let that which blends be expounding and that which is blended be listening; let water illustrate the Buddha and milk illustrate sentient beings. One should say that the water within the milk blends with the milk within the water, and the milk within the water receives the water within the milk. Although they are of one taste, the agent and object are clearly distinct. Although agent and object are clearly distinct, they mutually abide in each other, mutually pervade, and mutually integrate. Consider and measure by this. Furthermore, 'the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings' clarifies that sentient beings universally pervade according to their nature, while the Buddha abides within the minds of sentient beings without destroying their characteristics. Saying 'expounding the Dharma for the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind' clarifies that the Buddha's mind universally pervades according to nature, while sentient beings abide within the Buddha's mind without destroying their characteristics. There is no other principle; there is only the difference between expounding and listening. Thus it is known that the speech of all sentient beings is the true substance of the wheel of Dharma. If separated from the speech of sentient beings, the Buddha would have nothing to expound. A former master said: 'Apart from regional dialects, the Buddha has nothing to expound.' The sage has no mind of his own, taking the mind of the myriad things as his mind; the sage has no body of his own, taking the body of the myriad things as his body. Thus one knows that the sage has no words of his own, taking the words of the myriad things as his words. The *Huayan lun* says: 'The adorned fruit-retribution of all realms of ordinary beings and sages serves as the substance of the teaching.' This is giving rise to the mind upon seeing the environment, without waiting for speech: seeing evil, one is repelled by it; seeing good, one rejoices in it, and all can give rise to goodness. Furthermore, it is because there is no phenomenon that is not the Buddha's work. Moreover, it takes the purity of the self-nature of all phenomena as the substance of the teaching, because through the power of observation, the mind accords and is naturally congruent, without waiting for speech. Moreover, it takes the four deportments of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down as the substance of the teaching, because giving rise to faith and reverence upon seeing does not wait for words. The *Zhaolun* says: 'Since what it accomplishes has no equal in greatness, it in turn appears as a minor achievement; since what it bestows has no equal in breadth, it in turn reverts to the nameless.' What is called a minor achievement? Comprehending the Dharma-gates of hundreds of thousands of Gaṅgā sands within the mind-ground on the tip of a hair. What is called the nameless? The forms of the teachings pervade the three-thousandfold [world], yet neither name nor characteristic can be grasped. Therefore, one must master both the source and the discourse to become an accomplished master. Hence a sūtra verse states: 'Mastering the source is one's own cultivation; / mastering the discourse is showing it to the unawakened.' Great Master Zhenjue said: 'Mastering the source and mastering the discourse as well, / samādhi and prajñā are completely luminous without stagnating in emptiness.' Mastering the source is samādhi; mastering the discourse is prajñā. When both the source and the discourse are fully expressed, samādhi and prajñā are both luminous. The two meanings are mutually complementary; neither can be lacked. As the *Lotus Sūtra* says: 'Adorned with the power of samādhi and prajñā, / one saves sentient beings through this.' Furthermore, an ancient verse says: 'Discourse mastered but the source not mastered / is like the sun shrouded by clouds; / source mastered and discourse also mastered / is like the sun dwelling in empty space.' Thus it is known: if one first understands the source, one's discourse will be without error. Hence the verse in the introductory chapter of the *Lotus Sūtra* states: 'Also seeing all the bodhisattvas / knowing the quiescent characteristic of phenomena, / each in their own lands / expounding the Dharma to seek the Buddha path.' Furthermore, wherever there is explanation expressed through spoken teaching, it is always to clarify the mind, not to explain other phenomena. If it speaks of vastness and unhindered sovereignty, this is clarifying the mind in terms of its virtuous characteristics. If it speaks of quiescence and unconditioned nature, this is clarifying the mind in terms of separation from faults. Even down to speaking of phenomena, they are the phenomena of the mind; or speaking of principle, it is the principle of the mind.