宗鏡錄 46.3.8

46.3.8

As the Dafa jing jing states: 'If bodhisattvas grasp meanings according to words and do not properly examine dharmas in accordance with the correct principle, they give rise to twenty-eight improper views. What is termed the initial "view of characteristics" means hearing what is taught in Mahāyāna sūtras—that all dharmas are without self-nature, unarisen and unceasing, originally tranquil, and of the nature of nirvāṇa, etc.—and failing to understand the hidden intent, merely following the literal meaning of these words, they give rise to the resolute conviction that all dharmas taught by the Buddha are definitively without self-nature, definitively unarisen, and so forth. Clinging to such characteristics of lacking nature is termed the view of characteristics. When they cling to such characteristics of lacking nature, they immediately slander the three self-natures—namely, the imaginary nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), and the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva). One should know that if they slander these three natures, they repudiate all dharmas, including the two truths of the ultimate and conventional. Therefore, the two views of existence and non-existence are the root of all views. If one can sever all views, one naturally accords with the mirror of the source.' The Huashou jing states: 'At that time the World-Honoured One addressed Śāriputra: "What is meant by right view? Śāriputra, right view neither elevates nor debases, but views all dharmas equally... Furthermore, right view is the absence of all views. Why? Whatever is viewed is entirely wrong view. Having no views whatsoever is itself right view."' The Fozang jing states: 'The Buddha said: "All views arise dependent on falsehood. Śāriputra, if one forms the thought, 'This is right view,' that person has wrong view. Śāriputra, within the noble Dharma, the roots of all views are severed and eradicated, and all paths of language are cut off entirely. Just as in empty space a hand meets no obstruction, so should the dharmas of all śramaṇas be."' It also says: 'The Buddha said: "Śāriputra, the anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi of all Buddhas has only one meaning, which is called detachment. What is detachment? It is detachment from all desires and all views. Desire is avidyā, and view is recollected thought. Why? All dharmas take recollected thought as their root. Whatever conception one holds is precisely a view; a view is precisely erroneous. Therefore, if one can be free of views, one immediately becomes a Buddha, bowed to by the ten directions and taken as refuge by all living beings."' As the Madhyamakaśāstra states: 'The great sage lord Gautama, / Out of compassion, taught this Dharma / To sever entirely all views; / I now bow my head in veneration.' Moreover, concerning being far removed from the two extremes and dwelling in the middle way, explained in terms of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, four types are briefly cited to equalize all: first, defilement and purity, in terms of kleśa; second, bondage and liberation, applying to both kleśa and karma; third, existence and non-existence, applying to both phenomena and principle; fourth, identity and difference, in terms of citta and object. Why are there these four? It is said that upon attaining bodhi, once subtle thoughts and deluded kleśas have already been completely removed, the dharmakāya manifests and wisdom is purely clean. If one forms this view, one has not yet escaped the extremes. Therefore the sūtra states: 'If someone sees the Perfectly Awakened One / As liberated, free from all outflows, / And unattached to any world, / This is not the eye that witnesses the path.' Now one realizes that the substance and nature of kleśas are fundamentally empty, and again there is nothing to purify; thus one is free from the two extremes. Furthermore, defilement and purity interpenetrate, and hence there is no abiding attachment; this is called being free from extremes. Regarding bondage and liberation: formerly one was bound by kleśa and karma, transmigrating boundlessly; now, regarding bodhi, one considers oneself released in liberation. If one forms this view, one is dwelling in an extreme. The bodhisattva's wisdom understands that fundamentally there is no bondage; from what could there be release? With neither bondage nor release, there is neither suffering nor joy; thus one attains freedom [from extremes]. Regarding existence and non-existence applying to phenomena and principle: if formerly one considered kleśas existent and now understands kleśas to be empty, or formerly considered the mind empty and now knows it as subtle existence; or again, true bliss is originally possessed yet lost without knowing, while deluded suffering is originally empty yet acquired without noticing—and only today does one begin to know that what is empty is deluded suffering and what exists is nirvāṇa—if one understands in this way, one has not yet left behind the extremes. Furthermore, that kleśas, karma, and suffering were originally existent and are now non-existent, or that bodhi and the Buddha-body were originally non-existent and are now existent, etc., are all dharmas existing within the three times. Because the nature of bodhi does not belong to the three times, existence and non-existence within the three times are entirely subsumed under the extremes. True wisdom tallies with principle and cuts off the three times; therefore, it is free from the two extremes of existence and non-existence, and so forth. Identity and difference have two aspects: first, if citta and object are not understood, they are two; when they harmonize, they are one—this also constitutes an extreme. Second, sentient beings and Buddhas are different; now understanding them to be of one nature is also called an extreme. Now, perfect awakening realizes that herein there is no duality, nor is there non-duality. If one sees correctly and abides in accordance with principle, one is free from this extreme. Now, once there is accordance with bodhi, everything is totally tranquil; therefore it is said to be 'far removed'. Chan Master Yijing said: 'Yogācāra holds the ultimate as existent and the conventional as non-existent, taking the three natures as the root. Madhyamaka holds the ultimate as non-existent and the conventional as existent, truly prioritizing the two truths. The great source of Prajñā encompasses both of these meanings. This caused the Dao in the eastern lands to divide into north and south, and in the western regions the teachings to be split between existence and emptiness.' As stated above, either ordinary beings cling to existence and attach to emptiness, their emotional views not being unified—the grasping of the four inversions and eight errors, the ignorance of the five slanders and two views; or the noble and wise judge teachings and differentiate sources, their intellectual understandings also differing—the paths of the three periods and eight teachings, the categories of the five natures and ten schools. Not yet revealing the complete text, they have gains and losses. If one enters the mirror of the source, right understanding is distinct and clear; substance and function contain each other, citta and object interrelate. Emptiness is endowed with virtues and penetrates the outer edge of all existence; phenomena are unobstructed and are fully within the single principle. Furthermore, if one ultimately wishes to avoid the erroneous views of the extremes of annihilation and permanence, one must clarify the doctrine of the six characteristics of the Huayan. Then one can allow dharmas to function freely, naturally forgetting subject and object, moving and staying still along with conditions, without destroying existence and non-existence, possessing the great dhāraṇī, and ultimately being without fault. This doctrine of the six characteristics explains worldly dharmas as sovereign and unobstructed, directly revealing the principle of non-discrimination in dependent origination. If one sees correctly, one attains the gate of the dhāraṇī of wisdom and does not fall into various views. One must not discard one to take another, nor establish both or extinguish both. Although totally simultaneous, their manifold arising is not existent; even though each possesses differences,