宗鏡錄 46.3.1

46.3.1

Answer: For those who do not fathom the true nature of consciousness-only, erroneous attachments are exceedingly numerous. What the Mirror of the Source clarifies is precisely for this reason. As the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra states: "Furthermore, there are those who are confused and erroneous about the principle of consciousness-only: some cling to external objects as being non-existent just like consciousness; some cling to internal consciousness as being non-existent just like objects; some cling to the various consciousnesses as having distinct functions but the same substance; some cling to there being no separate mental factors apart from the mind." An ancient worthy says: "Some cling to external objects as being non-existent just like consciousness"—this refers to the Sarvāstivāda school, which, relying on the teaching of the twelve āyatanas, clings to both mind and objects as existing, claiming this to be the primary truth. The śāstra says: "Some cling to internal consciousness as being non-existent just like objects"—Explanation: this refutes Bhāviveka, who, relying on the teaching of emptiness with hidden intent, negates consciousness as also being non-existent. The śāstra says: "Some cling to the consciousnesses as having distinct functions but the same substance"—Explanation: this refers to a certain class of Mahāyāna bodhisattvas who say that the substance of the eight consciousnesses is only one, like a single water mirror producing many waves and reflections. The śāstra says: "Some cling to there being no separate mental factors apart from the mind"—Explanation: this is what is asserted by Dharmatrāta of the Sautrāntika, who, because the sūtras state that the six dhātus of a person and defilement and purity depend on the mind, holds there to be no mental factors; although there are mental factors within the skandhas, they are merely nominally posited in states upon consciousness and have no separate real existence. Great Master Ci'en, explaining Dharmapāla Bodhisattva's Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra, broadly outlines four kinds: first, Bhāviveka and the Cārvākas, who hold there are objects but no mind; second, Middle Way Mahāyāna, which holds there is mind but no objects; third, many schools of the Hīnayāna, which hold there are both objects and mind; fourth, the single school of wrong view, which holds there are neither mind nor objects. Furthermore, distinguishing by four propositions: first, having the darśanabhāga but no nimittabhāga, meaning the Sammatīya masters, who do not form a nimittabhāga when cognizing objects; second, having the nimittabhāga but no darśanabhāga, meaning the master Bhāviveka; third, having both nimittabhāga and darśanabhāga, meaning the other schools, the Mahāyāna, etc.; fourth, having neither nimittabhāga nor darśanabhāga, meaning Sthiramati and others. The Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna states: Remedying erroneous attachments—all erroneous attachments depend on the view of self; if one is free from self, then there are no erroneous attachments. This view of self is of two kinds: what are the two? The first is the view of a personal self; the second is the view of a self in dharmas. The view of a personal self is explained as five kinds with respect to ordinary persons. What are the five? First, hearing sūtras say that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is ultimately tranquil like empty space, and because of not knowing this was said to destroy attachments, they then say that empty space is the nature of the Tathāgata. How is this remedied? By clarifying that the characteristic of empty space is a delusive phenomenon, its substance unreal; because it is juxtaposed with matter, there is this visible characteristic causing the mind to arise and cease. Since all material dharmas are fundamentally the mind and there is truly no external matter, if there is no matter, there is no characteristic of empty space. That is to say, all objects exist only because of the delusive arising of the mind; if the mind is free from delusive movement, then all objects cease, and there is only the one true mind, all-pervading. This is called the Tathāgata's vast nature-wisdom, the ultimate meaning, and is not like the characteristic of empty space. Second, hearing sūtras say that the dharmas of the world are ultimately empty of substance, up to the Dharma of nirvāṇa and tathatā being also ultimately empty, fundamentally empty of themselves from the beginning and free from all characteristics, and because of not knowing this was said to destroy attachments, they then say that the nature of tathatā and nirvāṇa is merely emptiness. How is this remedied? By clarifying that the intrinsic substance of the dharmakāya of tathatā is not empty, because it is replete with immeasurable virtues of nature. Third, hearing sūtras say that the Tathāgatagarbha has neither increase nor decrease and its substance is equipped with all dharmas of virtue, and because of not understanding, they then say that the Tathāgatagarbha has distinct characteristics of material and mental dharmas. How is this remedied? Because it is spoken of only in reliance on the meaning of tathatā; because of arising and ceasing, with defiled meaning, distinctions are spoken of through manifestation. Fourth, hearing sūtras say that all defiled dharmas of worldly saṃsāra exist in dependence on the Tathāgatagarbha and all dharmas are not separate from tathatā, and because of not understanding, they say that the intrinsic substance of the Tathāgatagarbha itself possesses all dharmas of worldly saṃsāra, etc. How is this remedied? Because from the beginning, the Tathāgatagarbha has only pure virtues exceeding the sands of the Ganges, which are not separate, not cut off, and not different from the meaning of tathatā; and defiled dharmas of kleśa exceeding the sands of the Ganges exist only delusively, fundamentally lacking nature of their own, and from beginningless time have never been associated with the Tathāgatagarbha. If the substance of the Tathāgatagarbha possessed delusive dharmas, and one could cause its realization to eternally end delusion, that would be impossible. Fifth, hearing sūtras say that in dependence on the Tathāgatagarbha there is saṃsāra, and in dependence on the Tathāgatagarbha one attains nirvāṇa, and because of not understanding, they say that sentient beings have a beginning; seeing a beginning, they furthermore hold that the nirvāṇa attained by the Tathāgata has an end, and one turns back into a sentient being. How is this remedied? Because the Tathāgatagarbha has neither a prior nor a posterior limit; the characteristic of avidyā is also without beginning. If one says that outside the three realms there is a first arising of sentient beings, that is the teaching of externalist scriptures. Furthermore, the Tathāgatagarbha has no posterior limit; the nirvāṇa attained by all Buddhas is associated with it, and therefore has no posterior limit. The view of a self in dharmas: in dependence on the dull faculties of the two vehicles, the Tathāgata only taught selflessness of persons for them; because the exposition was not ultimate, they see the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas, dread saṃsāra, and falsely grasp nirvāṇa. How is this remedied? Because the intrinsic nature of the five skandhas is unarisen, there is no cessation; they are fundamentally nirvāṇa. Furthermore, as for ultimately leaving erroneous attachments, one should know that defiled dharmas and pure dharmas are all mutually dependent, having no intrinsic characteristic that can be spoken of. Therefore, from the beginning, all dharmas are neither matter nor mind, neither wisdom nor consciousness, neither existent nor non-existent, ultimately inexpressible in their characteristics. That there is verbal explanation: one should know that the Tathāgata's skillful expedients provisionally employ verbal explanations to guide sentient beings; for those who grasp their purport, it is entirely to abandon conceptual thought and return to tathatā. Because thinking upon all dharmas causes the mind to arise and cease, one does not enter real wisdom. It is simply that failing to understand correct causes and conditions, they all become externalists. What is clung to has four types: first, not knowing the karma and conditions of sentient beings, they cling to this as the Way or cling to spontaneity; second, not knowing the kalpa of emptiness induced by shared karma, they cling to it as chaotic primordial energy.