宗鏡錄 41.7

41.7

[The Master] replied: "If you wish to comprehend the mind, there is no mind that can be comprehended. Comprehension without comprehension is true comprehension." A verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says:
"All dharmas are unborn; / all dharmas are unceasing. / If one can understand in this way, / the buddhas will constantly appear before them."
What is meant by "understand in this way" is being like the unborn—understanding without the characteristic of understanding; it does not mean merely an empty understanding of the unborn. The commentary says: "'No Buddha, no non-Buddha; no arising, no non-arising' wipes away the previous traces once again. For the sake of confused sentient beings, it was said that 'mind itself is Buddha.' Since there are no sentient beings, when has there ever been a Buddha? Therefore, a sūtra verse says:
'In the equal and true dharmadhātu, / there is no Buddha and there are no sentient beings.'
To grasp at 'Buddha' warrants saying 'there is no Buddha'; this does not mean that there is no Buddha, and therefore it says 'no non-Buddha.' Thus one negates and negates again. If there is the slightest thing attained, it is entirely vain conceptualization. Hence the Buddhapiṭakasūtra says: 'To have the slightest attainment regarding dharmas is to contend with the Buddha. Those who contend with the Buddha all enter heterodox paths and are not my disciples.' Furthermore, it is simply designating the absence of a Buddha as the true Buddha, and therefore it says 'no non-Buddha.' Thus a sūtra verse says:
'The emptiness of nature is itself the Buddha; / it cannot be conceived.'
If there is an arising mind, that arising mind is delusion, and therefore it is called unborn. When even a Buddha does not exist, how could there be non-arising? To formulate an understanding of non-arising is to be bound again by non-arising, and therefore it says 'no non-arising.' Furthermore, when all dharmas do not arise, then prajñā arises; therefore it says 'no non-arising.' Thus arising and non-arising conflict with each other repeatedly, and also repeatedly establish each other. Only one who discards words can accord with the Way; only one who empties the mind can penetrate the principle. If one discards words, then 'Stop, stop! There is no need to speak'—how could one forcibly initiate discourse? If one empties the mind, then 'My Dharma is subtle and difficult to conceive'—how could one vainly generate intellectual understanding? Moreover, entering the mirror of the source, things are naturally beyond words; it is not known by intellect, but only reached through faith. As a verse in praise of prajñā says:
'If a person sees prajñā, / all discursive disputation ceases, / just as when the sun comes up, / the morning dew vanishes all at once.'
Therefore an ancestral master said: 'Disputation is not the meaning; the meaning is not disputation. If you wish to dispute the meaning, in the end it is not meaningful disputation.' Formerly, Emperor Wu of Liang gathered the fourfold assembly at the Chongyun Hall in Hualin Garden to personally lecture on the Tri-Prajñā Sūtra. At that time, Mahāsattva Fu was in the assembly. The crown prince sent someone to ask him, 'Why does the Mahāsattva not dispute the meaning?' He replied, 'What the Bodhisattva-Emperor expounds is neither long nor short, neither wide nor narrow, neither bounded nor boundless. In the correct principle of suchness, what further words could there be?' Vice Censor-in-Chief Liu asked again, 'Why does the Mahāsattva not engage in exchange? The assembly wishes to hear it.' He replied, 'The sun and moon pause their light; the four seasons harmonize.' Furthermore, in Central India there was an ordained non-Buddhist, Aśvaghoṣa, endowed with worldly wisdom and eloquence, who was well-versed in debate. He proclaimed: 'If any monk can debate with me, let him strike the gaṇḍī. If they cannot, they are not worthy to sound the gaṇḍī in public and receive the offerings of others.' At that time, Elder Pārśva arrived in that country and said, 'Just sound the gaṇḍī; should he come, I will answer him myself.' They sounded the gaṇḍī, and the non-Buddhist asked, 'Why strike this wood today?' The reply was: 'An elder śramaṇa has come from the north and struck the gaṇḍī.' The non-Buddhist asked, 'Does he wish to debate?' The reply was: 'Yes.' Thereupon, they extensively prepared the debate arena, and the great assembly gathered like clouds. Elder Pārśva said, 'Since I am advanced in age and have come from afar, and was also seated here first, by principle I should speak first.' The non-Buddhist said, 'That is acceptable. Whatever you say, I will refute it all.' Elder Pārśva then said, 'At present, the world is at peace, the great king enjoys long life, the country is abundant and joyful, and free from all calamities.' The non-Buddhist fell silent, not knowing what to say. By the rules of debate, failing to respond means suffering defeat. He submitted and became a disciple, shaved his hair and beard, was ordained as a śrāmaṇera, and received the full precepts. Furthermore, a student asked Venerable National Teacher Huizhong to establish a thesis. The Master said, 'I have already established it.' The student was at a loss and was shouted out by the Master: 'This is not your realm!' Thus we know that if one enters the mirror of the source, the profound reflection is unobstructed, just as looking into a mirror and seeing one's own face: seeing is just seeing, why wait to utter words? Therefore the Candrottarādārikāvyākaraṇasūtra says: 'Then Śāriputra asked the girl again: "How many beings are there in the realm of sentient beings?" The girl replied: "It is like the realm of the buddhas of the past, future, and present." Śāriputra said: "If so, what are you saying? What kind of explanation is this?" The girl replied: "Depending on the Venerable One's question, I have answered accordingly." Śāriputra then asked the girl again: "What meaning did I ask about?" The girl replied: "You asked about words." Śāriputra said: "Those words have ceased; there is no trace left." The girl replied: "Venerable Śāriputra, such a characteristic of cessation is found throughout all dharmas: as if there were a questioner and as if there were an answerer, both are characteristics of cessation and cannot be apprehended."' The Kuśalamūlasaṃparigrahasūtra says: 'The Buddha told Bhadrapāla: "Good, good! It is as you have said: the Dharma attained by the Tathāgata at the site of enlightenment is neither dharma nor non-dharma. In this, my intellect cannot operate, my eyes cannot see; there is no place to tread, wisdom cannot penetrate, and illumination cannot comprehend. There is no answer to any question. In this Dharma, there is no accepting and no grasping, no defilement and no purity. If I were to say this is the Dharma attained by myself, or if one practices this Dharma through active marks, all would be bewildered."' The Buddhapiṭakasūtra says: 'The Buddha said: "Śāriputra, to reckon that one attains tranquility within the noble Dharma is entirely falling into wrong views, let alone words and speech, let alone the speaker! How could such an empty Dharma be spoken of? Śāriputra, why does the Buddha say that all linguistic expressions are called wrong? Those who cannot penetrate all dharmas are all veiled by words and speech. Therefore the Tathāgata knows that all linguistic expressions are wrong, such that even the slightest word fails to capture its true reality. Śāriputra, the anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi of all buddhas is completely free of conception and thought. Why? Because the Tathāgata, with regard to dharmas, apprehends no intrinsic nature and apprehends no thought."' The Mahādharmanidānasūtra says: 'The Buddha told Viśākha: "One should first expound the six pāramitās to them, and only after they have cultivated them in sequence should one expound the gate of emptiness-liberation. If one expounds this empty Dharma for sentient beings, some may hear it, some may reflect on it, and some may realize it; yet this too should not be mere words. Why? Because such an empty Dharma cannot be known merely through mental conception. If that empty Dharma could be realized and known merely through mental conception, then all sentient beings, before cultivating the Way, would already be arhats. Viśākha, that empty Dharma also cannot be described in terms of characteristics, forms, or shapes. If it could be described, it would be an active characteristic. If there is an active characteristic, there will be wishing and seeking. If there is wishing and seeking, there are the three periods of time. Why? Viśākha, in the signless Dharma, none of the three periods of time can be apprehended. Why is this? Because matters of the past, future, and present are all tranquil and extinguished. How could a wish arise? Furthermore, one should contemplate this form and form the conception of signlessness. How does one contemplate form and form the conception of signlessness? One should know that this form revolves in arising and ceasing, never stopping from thought-moment to thought-moment. Viśākha, such characteristics of form cannot be seen with the eyes. You should know that they are the realm of the mental consciousness, known only to the mind; therefore, they cannot be seen with the eyes. Viśākha, all the minds and thoughts of sentient beings cannot be spoken of; they are known only by the Buddha's wisdom. Although they may be contemplated and known, they cannot be seen. They do not abide from thought-moment to thought-moment, just like an illusion. How could they be grasped and seen? Thus, Viśākha, one cannot use that sentient mind and consciousness to grasp the true characteristic of the mind. Since it cannot be grasped, how could it be spoken of? Why? Because matters of love and hate run contrary to equality. Viśākha, if one wishes to eradicate conceptions of love and hate, one should strive with vigor to contemplate all dharmas as completely empty and tranquil, without any grasping or attachment."