宗鏡錄 46.3.5

46.3.5

brought them to the market. Common fools, failing to recognize [the difference], bought the kālaka [fruits], and upon eating them, their lives ended. People of wisdom, having heard of this matter, asked this woman: 'From where did you get these fruits?' The woman pointed out the place. The people then said: 'That region has countless kālaka trees and only a single tinduka tree.' Having understood this, the people laughed and walked away. The sūtra uses this as an analogy for the pure and turbid assemblies of the saṅgha. Now it is borrowed as an analogy for internal views and external views: the two views share the same name, but have harm and lack of harm. If an external view arises, it preaches the absence of cause and effect, culminating in heretical non-existence. If an internal view arises, it still grasps what is explained in the Greater and Lesser [Vehicle] sūtras and treatises; the harm means damaging one's wholesome roots. Therefore one knows that sometimes names are identical while substances differ, so they must not be conflated; sometimes names differ while substances are identical, so they must be distinguished. Once the heretical and the correct are distinguished, jade and stone are instantly separated, preventing beginners from being confused and deeply benefiting later students. Furthermore, the Huayan yanyi states: 'The profound and wondrous [teachings] of Confucianism and Daoism in this land do not exceed the three profundities: the Book of Changes is the true profundity, Laozi is the vacuous profundity, and Zhuangzi is the discoursed profundity. Laozi's Daodejing says: "The Dao produces the One; the One produces the Two; the Two produces the Three; the Three produces the myriad things." The commentary says: "'The One' is the harmonious, tranquil qi. This means that the Dao stirs to produce the wondrous qi of harmony and tranquility; yet regarding the principle of generating things, it is not yet sufficient, so it further generates the yang qi. Yang qi cannot generate on its own, so it further generates the yin qi. By accumulating the One of harmonious qi, it is said that 'the One produces the Two.' By generating and accumulating the Two of yang qi, it is said that 'the Two produces the Three.' Yin and yang harbor conception, and the harmonious qi harmonizes them; only then are the myriad things abundantly brought to completion. Therefore it is said that 'the Three produces the myriad things.'" Just below it also says: "The myriad things shoulder the yin and embrace the yang, harmonizing them through the tranquil qi." All the above explains that the myriad things are naturally produced. The 'Great and Venerable Teacher' chapter of Zhuangzi says: "[The Dao] is prior to the Great Ultimate, yet is not high; it is beneath the six directions, yet is not deep. It was born before heaven and earth, yet does not count as long-lasting; it is elder to high antiquity, yet is not old." The commentary says: "This states that the Dao is nowhere absent. Therefore, in what is high, it is not high; in what is deep, it is not deep; in what is long-lasting, it is not long-lasting; in what is old, it is not old. It is nowhere absent, and wherever it is, it is nothing." It also says: "To know what Heaven does, and to know what humanity does..." The commentary says: "'Knowing what Heaven does' is nature (ziran)." The meaning is: wherever there is knowing and doing, all are doing by non-doing, hence they are nature. Now, concluding in judgment: if one takes nature to be the cause, this is the doctrine of annihilationism. This is Laozi's meaning: because the Dao produces the One, and the Dao is nature, he therefore takes it to be the cause; this is a false cause. Furthermore, if one maintains that the myriad things are produced naturally, this is Zhuangzi's meaning: the myriad things are natural, with nothing causing them to be so, hence called 'nature'—this is the absence of a cause. Like the blackness of a crow: this is a passage from Zhuangzi and the meaning in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. The Book of Changes says: "One yin and one yang is called the Dao. The unfathomability of yin and yang is called the divine." The explanation says: "'One' means nothingness. Neither yin nor yang is what is called the Dao. That 'one' can be nothingness is because nothingness is vacuity and non-existence; empty space cannot be differentiated, it is solely one and nothing more; therefore 'one' is taken as nothingness. If there were an object, then there would be mutual comparison of this and that, having two and three, and it could not be one. When in yin, one does not see the efficacy of being yin; when in yang, one does not see the power of being yang. Naturally there are yin and yang, and naturally there is no contrivance; this is what is meant by the Dao." Now, concluding in judgment: if one considers that the transformations of yin and yang are able to produce, this is a false cause. Furthermore, 'one' being nothingness is the absence of a cause. If one posits that the One is vacuous nothingness and nature, then all are without a cause. Then, humans being born naturally, they should constantly give birth to humans without waiting for the manifold conditions such as father and mother; bodhi being produced naturally, then all karmic retributions would not be obtained through cultivation. Furthermore, the Book of Changes says: "Tranquil and unmoving, when stimulated it then penetrates throughout all causes under Heaven." The Record of Rites says: "Human beings are born tranquil; this is the nature of Heaven. Stirred by things to move, this is the desire of the nature." Later Confucians, all because the wordings are slightly similar and without examining what was originally established beforehand and afterward, ended up wishing to blend the three teachings together. Merely seeing that their words have slight similarities, how could they know that their meanings have great differences? From this one knows: if one does not enter the correct source, how can one know that words may be identical while meanings differ? If one has not clarified one's own eye, how can one perceive that names differ while substances are identical? Therefore, those who conform to words are deluded, and those who rely on the letter are confused. Fearing that they might confuse the great purport, this is recorded and shown. For example, when non-Buddhists speak of nature as the ultimate Dao, it does not constitute an expedient means and moreover destroys the correct cause. Buddhism also speaks of nature, and though it constitutes the correct teaching, it is still an antidote of the siddhāntas and is not yet the ultimate. Taking this as one example, the rest can be known. Furthermore, even if one's view transcends the four propositions, having just emerged from the simple four propositions, there are still the compound four propositions and the plenary four propositions. First, as for the simple four propositions: (1) existence, (2) non-existence, (3) both existence and non-existence, and (4) neither existence nor non-existence. As for the compound four propositions: (1) existence-existence and existence-non-existence, (2) non-existence-existence and non-existence-non-existence, (3) both-existence-and-non-existence-existence and both-existence-and-non-existence-non-existence, and (4) neither-existence-nor-non-existence-existence and neither-existence-nor-non-existence-non-existence. They are called 'compound' because within the four propositions, they all speak of existence and non-existence. As for the plenary four propositions, it is because each within the four propositions completely possesses all four. The first proposition of existence completely possessing four means: (1) existence-existence, (2) existence-non-existence, (3) existence-both-existence-and-non-existence, and (4) existence-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. Within the second proposition of non-existence completely possessing four: (1) non-existence-existence, (2) non-existence-non-existence, (3) non-existence-both-existence-and-non-existence, and (4) non-existence-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. The third proposition of both existence and non-existence completely possessing four: (1) both-existence-and-non-existence-existence, (2) both-existence-and-non-existence-non-existence, (3) both-existence-and-non-existence-both-existence-and-non-existence, and (4) both-existence-and-non-existence-neither-existence-nor-non-existence. The fourth proposition of neither existence nor non-existence completely possessing four: (1) neither-existence-nor-non-existence-existence, (2) neither-existence-nor-non-existence-non-existence, and (3) neither-existence-nor-non-existence-both-existence-and-non-existence.