宗鏡錄 37.3

37.3

Answer: For now, relying first on past masters, capacity and response are explained jointly, and the archetype (bimbadhātu) and the reflection (pratibimbadhātu) are both clarified. The Buddha said: 'From [the night of my] radiance until [the final rest at] the Crane Forest, I have not spoken a single word, nor have you heard one.' This was spoken by the Buddha with esoteric intent. It is based on the original true substance of the Dharma, which transcends verbal explanation; thus not a single word was spoken—that is, the characteristic of quiescence and cessation of all phenomena cannot be declared in words. Furthermore, it is simply that the Buddha did not speak a single word of any dharma outside the mind. As for the substance of the teaching, Dharmapāla said: Since the Tathāgata actually manifested his body and actually expounded the Dharma, the primary and secondary components of sound, names, phrases, and syllables, as universally used by the speaker and the listener, constitute the substance of the teaching. That the substance of the teaching encompasses both the defiled and undefiled, the reflected image and the archetype, is appropriate. When the hearers' faculties have matured, they are stimulated and respond: on the Tathāgata's consciousness, characteristics of text and meaning arise. Through the conditioning power of his original vows of compassion, the Buddha then expounds the Dharma of the three vehicles for sentient beings. All the sound, names, phrases, and syllables are the primary undefiled archetypal teaching. But when sentient beings of the three vehicles and five natures listen to the Dharma before the Buddha, they are unable to hear it directly; they transform their own nimittabhāga and cognize it. All those sounds, names, phrases, and syllables take in both the defiled and undefiled, which are the secondary reflected-image teaching. Thus the archetypal teaching is the root, because it can manifest the reflected image; the reflected-image teaching is the branch, because it exists depending on the archetype. Due to this, the archetypal teaching is taken as the primary substance of the teaching, and the reflected-image teaching is taken as the secondary substance of the teaching. Bodhisattva Asvabhāva objected, saying: 'Our school takes only the reflected nimittabhāga on the consciousness of sentient beings as the substance of the teaching, which does not contradict consciousness-only. If you, Dharmapāla, take the Buddha's archetypal sound, names, phrases, and syllables as the substance of the teaching, then there are dharmas outside the mind—how could consciousness-only be established?' Dharmapāla replied: 'The doctrine of consciousness-only is based on the direct nimittabhāga. When sentient beings listen, they transform and give rise to a nimittabhāga and cognize it; they do not take another's archetype to be their own nature. Yet that other archetype—the Buddha or bodhisattva—is also established as consciousness-only; therefore there is no contradiction.'