宗鏡錄 32.19

32.19

Answer: If there were tathatā outside jñāna, it could be that which is realised; if there were jñāna outside tathatā, it could be that which realises. Now, outside jñāna there is no tathatā, and outside tathatā there is no jñāna. What dharma would you take to be combination or non-combination? As the sūtra states: The Buddha told Ānanda, “Although you previously awakened to original awareness, wondrous and bright, whose nature is neither cause and condition nor natural spontaneity, you are still not clear that such awareness is fundamentally neither born of combination nor non-combination. Ānanda, I now ask you again concerning external objects: you still harbour doubts of your own based on the nature of various causes and conditions formed by the combination of vain imaginings of all worldly realms, thinking that the citta realising bodhi arises from combination. Then, as for your present wondrously pure essence of seeing, does it combine with brightness, does it combine with darkness, does it combine with open passage, or does it combine with obstruction? If it combines with brightness, consider your viewing of brightness: when brightness is present, where does it blend with seeing? Can the characteristic of seeing be distinguished? What form does it blend into? If it is not seeing, how does one see brightness? If it is seeing itself, how does one see seeing? If seeing is necessarily complete, where does it combine with brightness? If brightness is complete, it should not combine with seeing. Seeing must be distinct from brightness; if they blend, they lose the names of 'seeing' and 'bright'. Blending and losing the nature of brightness, 'combining with brightness' makes no sense. The same applies to darkness, open passage, and all obstructions. Furthermore, Ānanda, does your present wondrously pure essence of seeing unite with brightness, unite with darkness, unite with open passage, or unite with obstruction? If it unites with brightness, then when darkness arrives and the characteristic of brightness has already ceased, this seeing does not unite with darkness; how then does it see darkness? If when seeing darkness it does not unite with darkness, and unites with brightness, it should not see brightness. Since it does not see brightness, how could it unite with brightness and clearly know brightness, not darkness? The same applies to darkness, open passage, and all obstructions.” Ānanda addressed the Buddha, saying: “World-Honoured One, as I consider it, is this source of wondrous awareness not combined with the various conditioned dust-objects and the thoughts of the citta?” The Buddha said, “You now say again that awareness is not combined. I ask you again: if this wondrous essence of seeing is not combined, is it not combined with brightness, not combined with darkness, not combined with open passage, or not combined with obstruction? If it is not combined with brightness, there must be a boundary between seeing and brightness. Look carefully: where is brightness, and where is seeing? Between seeing and brightness, where is the boundary? Ānanda, if within the limit of brightness there is certainly no seeing, they do not contact each other; one would not know of oneself where the characteristic of brightness is, so how could a boundary be established? The same applies to darkness, open passage, and all obstructions. Furthermore, if the wondrous essence of seeing does not unite, does it not unite with brightness, not unite with darkness, not unite with open passage, or not unite with obstruction? If it does not unite with brightness, then the natures and characteristics of seeing and brightness are contrary and incompatible, like the ear and brightness having no contact at all. If seeing does not even know where the characteristic of brightness is, how can you discern the principle of uniting or not uniting? The same applies to darkness, open passage, and all obstructions.” …and further, the Buddha told Pūrṇa, “Although you have eliminated doubt, the remaining delusions are not yet exhausted. I now ask you again using present worldly matters. Have you not heard that in the city of Śrāvastī, Yajñadatta suddenly one morning looked in a mirror at his face, loved the head in the mirror whose eyebrows and eyes could be seen, and was angered with his own head because he could not see his face and eyes, taking it for an evil spirit and running about wildly for no reason? What do you think: for what cause did this man run about wildly without reason?” Pūrṇa said, “That man's mind was deranged; there was no other cause.” The Buddha said, “Wondrous awareness is bright and round, fundamentally round, bright, and wondrous. Since it is called delusion, how could it have a cause? If it had a cause, how could it be called delusion? From various vain imaginings, they mutually cause one another; accumulating delusion upon delusion through dust-like kalpas, even though the Buddha illuminates it, they still cannot return. Such a cause of delusion exists of itself due to delusion; when one recognises that delusion has no cause, delusion has nowhere to rely. Since it does not even arise, what could there be to cease? One who attains bodhi is like an awake person speaking of things in a dream: even if his citta is refined and bright, by what cause or condition could he obtain the objects in the dream? How much less so when without cause there is fundamentally nothing at all! Just as that Yajñadatta in the city: what cause or condition did he have to be afraid of his head and run? When the madness suddenly rested, the head was not obtained from outside; and even before the madness rested, what had been lost? Pūrṇa, such is the nature of delusion; where could its cause lie? You simply do not follow the three continuous sequences of worldly karma, fruits, and sentient beings; because the three conditions are cut off, the three causes do not arise. Then the Yajñadatta in your citta—his mad nature will rest of itself. Resting is bodhi. The supremely pure and bright citta fundamentally pervades the dharmadhātu; it is not obtained from others, so why rely on laborious and arduous practice and realisation?” …and further, the Buddha told Ānanda, “Just as with Yajñadatta in the city, if the causes and conditions of his mad nature can be eliminated, then the non-mad nature will naturally emerge. The principle of causes, conditions, and natural spontaneity is exhausted in this. Ānanda, Yajñadatta's head was naturally spontaneous to begin with; it was so of itself, and there was nothing 'so' that was not 'self'. By what cause and condition did he fear his head and run about wildly? If a naturally spontaneous head became mad through causes and conditions, why did it not naturally be lost through causes and conditions? The fundamental head was not lost; the madness and fear arose falsely, without ever changing. Why rely on causes and conditions? If the fundamental madness was naturally spontaneous, fundamentally having madness and fear, where did the madness hide before he became mad? If non-madness is naturally spontaneous and the head is fundamentally without falsity, why did he run about wildly? If one awakens to the fundamental head and recognises the wild running, then cause, condition, and natural spontaneity are all frivolous discourse. Therefore I say: when the three conditions are cut off, that is the bodhi-citta. When the bodhi-citta arises, the arising-and-ceasing citta ceases. This is merely arising and ceasing; when ceasing and arising are both exhausted, this is the effortless path. If there were natural spontaneity, it would thus be clear that the naturally spontaneous citta arises and the arising-and-ceasing citta ceases; this too would be arising and ceasing. That which is free from arising and ceasing is called natural spontaneity. Just as when various worldly characteristics blend into a single substance, it is called the nature of combination; that which is not combination is called the original nature. The original is not 'so', and combination is not 'combining'. When both combination and spontaneity are transcended, and transcending and combining are both negated, only this phrase is called the dharma free from frivolous discourse. Bodhi and nirvāṇa are still far away.” The commentary says: As for “if one awakens to the fundamental head and recognises the wild running, then cause, condition, and natural spontaneity are all frivolous discourse”: if one truly illuminates and awakens to the fundamental head, the single spiritual true nature is neither moving nor still, neither gained nor lost, neither arising nor ceasing, neither combining nor separating. Then one knows that from beginningless time, wandering forlornly in the three realms and running wildly through the six destinies, being confused and inverted, being false and empty—all are formed from emotional thought and stirred by the consciousness-mind. Then one knows that the true nature of original awareness is neither cause nor condition, nor is it natural spontaneity, nor is it not natural spontaneity, nor is it combining, nor is it uniting, nor is it not combining and uniting; all [such notions] become frivolous discourse, all falling into perverse thinking. Furthermore, how could the non-abiding true mind preserve nominal characteristics or a location? If one wishes to use the consciousness-mind to calculate, or sentences and meanings to measure, in order to seek the real, it is like tethering the wind or chasing shadows—could this be logically so? Therefore the ancestral master said: “Neither natural spontaneity nor cause and condition, / it is the wonder within wonder, the mystery within mystery. / The myriad phenomena appear within the light; / seeking it, one sees no root or source.” The analysis above is for those who do not recognise their fundamental head and do not realise they are running wildly, leading them to leave propositions, end negations, and cut off the paths of words and thought. Only this begins to remove worldly differentiating frivolous discourse. In the great path of one's own seeing-nature, this is still far off. One must personally reach it without waiting for further words. It is like a mirror reflecting a face: mind and eye must directly correspond. Like a person drinking water, only then can one know for oneself whether it is cold or warm. Therefore it is said: “Only through realisation is it known; it is difficult to fathom.” Those who have not reached it are in vain wildly confused of themselves.