宗鏡錄 6

English (machine translation) 6

Language: English

6.1

Compiled by Yanshou, Chan Master Zhijue, Abbot of Huiri Yongming Monastery.

Now, the original intention of the Mirror of the Source is merely to discuss its Way. Setting forth texts and meanings is for broadly sheltering all capacities; sharing this pointer, there is ultimately no other purport. One must not rely on the letter and lose its central aim. If one awakens to its Way, one can carry on the succession and transmit the robe. For example, someone asked Venerable Nanquan: "Under Huangmei there were five hundred people. Why did only Postulant Lu obtain the robe and bowl?" The master said: "Only because four hundred and ninety-nine people all understood the Buddha Dharma; only Postulant Lu alone did not understand the Buddha Dharma, but merely understood its Way. Therefore, he obtained the robe and bowl."

6.3

Question: Just how is the Way understood?

6.4

Answer: As our Original Teacher said: "The dharma obtained by the Tathāgata at the place of the Way is neither dharma nor non-dharma. In this dharma, wisdom cannot walk, eyes cannot see, and there is no place to proceed. Prajñā cannot penetrate it, clarity cannot comprehend it, and questions have no answers." Moreover, an ancient said: "This matter seems empty yet is not empty, seems to exist yet does not exist; faintly, it is constantly seen, but seeking its location is impossible." Therefore, if it were definitely empty, it would fall into the view of annihilation; if it were truly existing, it would fall into ordinary sentiment; if it had a location, it would become an object. Thus we know this matter is not measured by the mind, nor known by wisdom. As Venerable Xiangyan's verse says:
"Deliberating before and after,
Arranging middle and sides;
Not grasping a single dharma,
Drowning in a deep spring.
None of it is like this:
Me and mine appear before me.
Students of the ten directions,
How do you practice Chan?"
If the Way is like this, how could it be understood? Therefore, an ancient said: "One must directly have a marvelous understanding; only then will one get it." This is an understanding of non-understanding, marvelously tallying with it. Thus the verse on awakening to the Way by a former sage says:
"The minds of existence and non-existence, coming and going, are eternally stilled;
Inside, outside, and the middle are entirely non-existent.
If you wish to see the Tathāgata's true Buddha place,
Just watch the stone sheep give birth to a colt."
After reaching such marvelous comprehension, even the Way does not remain; how could one further discuss knowledge and understanding, the false thoughts of understanding or not understanding? As an ancient worthy's verse says:
"I urge you in studying the Way not to greedily seek;
When citta-less in the myriad affairs, you tally with the Way.
Only when citta-less do you realize the citta-less Way;
Having realized the citta-less, the Way also ceases."
The late Venerable Dongshan's verse says:
"Even this is not it;
How much less Zhang the Third or Li the Fourth?
True emptiness and non-emptiness,
When brought forth, do not resemble it.
Distinctly as before one's eyes,
Not allowing a hair's breadth of deliberation."
Just as it says that "even this is not it," how much less any other wild faculties and erroneous understandings! Therefore, a sūtra says: "Mind is not bound to the Way, nor does it form karma." Even the Way is not bound to it; things below this can be known. Entering into the Mirror of the Source, one will naturally unite with it.

6.5

Question: The substance of awakening does not shift, yet conventional designations differ. Since ordinary persons and sages are equal, why do sentient beings not awaken and know? If one says they are not deluded, why do the teachings say that there are delusion and awakening?

6.6

Answer: It is simply that because of the original enlightenment of the true citta, non-enlightenment arises; because of non-enlightenment, initial enlightenment is accomplished. It is like stumbling due to the ground and becoming lost due to direction, yet also rising due to the ground and becoming oriented due to direction. Thus, although one is awakened at the time of enlightenment, the locus of enlightenment is eternally empty; although non-enlightenment resembles delusion, at the time of delusion it is originally tranquil. Therefore, delusion and enlightenment are of one limit, while thoughts and conceptualizations divide themselves. Because there is a false and deluded mind, false and deluded medicine is in turn applied. A sūtra says: 'The Buddha said: "I preach the three vehicles and the twelve divisions of the teaching like an empty fist deceiving a small child. Not knowing this matter is called avidyā."' The Patriarch's verse says: 'All the Tathāgata's teachings / Are to eliminate all my mind. / Since I have no mind at all, / What need is there for any teachings?' Therefore we know that if one's own eyes are opened, true clarity spontaneously shines forth; the diseases of views concerning delusion and enlightenment that were to be cured having perished, the provisional and real medicinal teachings that can cure them are spontaneously discarded. Now, those who awaken to this Dharma do not rely on another's wisdom or strange techniques. Some see it directly, like opening a storehouse to take jewels or splitting open an oyster to obtain a pearl: the light radiates from their breast, and its reflection encompasses the dharmadhātu. As a sūtra verse says: 'Just as a person obtaining a treasure store / Forever leaves behind the suffering of poverty, / A bodhisattva obtaining the Buddha-Dharma / Leaves behind defilement, with a mind pure.' As for those who do not awaken, they produce obstacles for themselves. Therefore the Tongxin lun says: 'The true and constant does not change, yet those who fixate on arising and ceasing shift themselves. The ultimate principle is perfectly interfused, yet clinging to square forms and rules causes obstruction.' These all constitute being deluded about one's own nature and merely pursuing derivative comprehension. One must have one's own eyes completely clear, not being turned about by others. As Master Rong's verse says: 'A blind dog barks at a clump of reeds; / A blind man cries out: "Thief! Tiger!" / Following sounds brings about confusion, / Truly because the eyes cannot see.' When one attains the opening of the citta to illuminate the principle, all views are extinguished: one does not see Buddhist teachings as right, nor does one see worldly phenomena as wrong, because within one's own nature the path of speech and thought is cut off. As it is said, 'Having nothing that is right is bodhi; one should not place the Buddha's bodhi on the side of having that which is right.' Now, one need only not place it anywhere, and its substance is spontaneously empty and profound, like a lapis lazuli vessel which, wherever it may be, never loses its nature. If one recognizes this matter, it is also like this: whatever forms of ordinary or noble, superior or inferior, may be reflected within it, its nature does not move. Those who do not understand this matter change along with the forms before them, discriminating the fine and the ugly, and thus giving rise to joy and grief. Therefore the Patriarch said: 'Following the flow, recognize the nature: / There is neither joy nor sorrow.' The Awakening of Faith says: 'The gate of the arising and ceasing of the citta means that based on the tathāgatagarbha there is the activity of the arising and ceasing mind. The non-arising-and-ceasing and the arising-and-ceasing are combined, being neither one nor different; it is named the ālayavijñāna. It has two meanings: namely, being able to embrace all phenomena, and being able to produce all phenomena. Furthermore, it has two meanings: the first is the meaning of enlightenment, and the second is the meaning of non-enlightenment. As for the meaning of enlightenment, it refers to the nature of the mind's supreme truth being free from the characteristics of all false thoughts. Because it is free from the characteristics of all false thoughts, it is equal to the realm of empty space, with nowhere it does not pervade; the dharmadhātu is of one characteristic, which is the equal dharmakāya of all tathāgatas. Based on this dharmakāya, all tathāgatas are said to be original enlightenment. It is established as original enlightenment relative to initial enlightenment. However, at the time of initial enlightenment, it is precisely original enlightenment—no separate enlightenment arises. Establishing initial enlightenment means: based on original enlightenment there is non-enlightenment; based on non-enlightenment, initial enlightenment is said to exist. Furthermore, because one awakens to the source of the mind, it is called ultimate enlightenment; because one does not awaken to the source of the mind, it is not ultimate enlightenment... even up to: because there is a conceptualizing mind, one can know names and meanings, and true enlightenment is explained for its sake. If there were no mind of non-enlightenment, there would be no self-characteristic of true enlightenment that could be stated.' The commentary explains: 'If it follows defilement and follows the flow to become non-enlightenment, then it embraces worldly phenomena. If it is the unchanging original enlightenment and the initial enlightenment that turns back against the flow, then it embraces world-transcending phenomena.' The subcommentary explains: 'In discussing the embracing of phenomena within the two enlightenments of original and initial: what is embraced by original enlightenment is the meaning of the light of great wisdom, the meaning of universally illuminating the dharmadhātu, the meaning of true and real cognition, and so forth. What is embraced by initial enlightenment is the three clear knowledges and eight liberations, the five eyes and six supernormal knowledges, the ten powers and four fearlessnesses, the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha, and so forth. Yet this is identical in reality, and different only when spoken of conceptually.' Therefore the commentary says: 'In the gate of arising and ceasing, following the flow is non-enlightenment and turning back against the flow is initial enlightenment; in terms of conceptual function, they differ in the phenomena they embrace. In the gate of tathatā, however, there is fusion and containment, and defilement and purity are not distinct. That is, fusing them with the single principle of tathatā makes defilement to be non-defilement and purity to be non-purity; defilement is precisely purity, profoundly of one taste; therefore they are not distinct.' As the treatise says: 'All phenomena from the beginningless past are free from the characteristic of speech, free from the characteristic of names, free from the characteristic of mental objects; they are ultimately equal, without alteration, and indestructible. They are solely the one mind, hence named tathatā.' Thus we know that following the conditions of enlightenment and non-enlightenment, defilement and purity seemingly arise; yet what arises from conditions has no nature, and defilement and purity are both empty. It also says: 'Free from the characteristic of speech—how could it be discussed in words? Free from the characteristic of mental objects—how could it be measured by the mind?' Truly it is said that the path of mind and speech is cut off, and it accords only with realization. Furthermore, all speech arises from vitarka and vicāra; it arises through the combination of common characteristics. Discrimination arises due to the manovijñāna; it arises through calculation and inference. In brief, teachings and contemplations arise in succession entirely because of non-enlightenment. If there were no mind of non-enlightenment, no self-characteristic of any phenomenon could be stated, except as an expedient gate to instruct and ultimately point to the wordless Way. Therefore the treatise says: 'If one is free from the mind of non-enlightenment, there is no self-characteristic of true enlightenment that could be stated.' Because enlightenment is stated in opposition to non-enlightenment, they operate as common characteristics; if there were no non-enlightenment, enlightenment would have no self-characteristic—just as a single palm does not clap. One can see this by reflecting on it. The same applies even to all defiled and pure phenomena: they all exist in mutual dependence, and ultimately have no self-substance that could be stated. Just as how could there be short apart from long, or how could there be low apart from high? If one enters the mirror of the source, they are naturally beyond all opposition.

6.7

Again, the subcommentary asks: 'Arising-and-ceasing and tathatā each embrace all phenomena. May we know whether the meaning of embracing is different or identical?'

6.8

Answer: They are different. Why? In the gate of arising and ceasing, it is called inclusive subsumption (gaishe). In the gate of tathatā, it is called fused subsumption (rongshe). Because of inclusive subsumption, both defilement and purity are present. Because of fused subsumption, both defilement and purity are extinguished. Because both are extinguished, they are of one taste and undivided. Because both are present, they are distinctly differentiated.

The Moheyan lun (Treatise on the Great Vehicle) states: "These two awakenings have two gates: first, the gate of summarily explaining the establishment of innate awakening; second, the gate of summarily explaining the establishment of initial awakening. Within the gate of innate awakening, there are two gates: first, the gate of pure innate awakening; second, the gate of defiled-pure innate awakening. Within the gate of initial awakening, there are also two gates: first, the gate of pure initial awakening; second, the gate of defiled-pure initial awakening. What is called pure innate awakening? The inherently existent dharmakāya, from beginningless time, is fully and completely endowed with virtues exceeding the sands of the Ganges, being ever luminous and pure. What is called defiled-pure innate awakening? The inherently pure mind is perfumed by avidyā, transmigrating through birth and death without cessation. What is called pure initial awakening? The undefiled innate wisdom transcends all immeasurable avidyā, not being perfumed by any avidyā. What is called defiled-pure initial awakening? Prajñā is perfumed by avidyā and unable to transcend it. All such awakenings are retinue of wisdom. What principle do they realize to serve as their substance? That is, the principle of the nature's tathatā, and the principle of empty space. These two principles each have two kinds. What are the two kinds of tathatā? First, pure tathatā; second, defiled-pure tathatā. The principle of empty space is likewise. What is called pure tathatā? The tathatā realized by the two kinds of pure awakening, because it is free from perfuming. What is called defiled-pure tathatā? The tathatā realized by the two defiled-pure awakenings, because it is not free from perfuming. The principle of empty space is likewise. For what reason is it provisionally termed innate awakening? What are the distinctions of the words and referents, and what are their characteristics?"

A verse says:
"Innate awakening each has ten [aspects];
Although their substance is the same, words and referents
Are each distinct,
Meaning 'root', 'luminosity', and so forth."

The treatise says: "Innate awakening each has ten [aspects]. What are the ten 'innate' (ben)? First, the word and referent 'root' (gen): the inherently existent dharmakāya can skillfully uphold all virtues, just like the root of a tree can skillfully uphold all branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits, neither deteriorating nor perishing. Second, the word and referent 'original' (ben): the inherently existent dharmakāya naturally exists by its nature from beginningless time, not originating newly from a beginning. Third, the word and referent 'distant' (yuan): when the inherently existent dharmakāya possesses virtues, it is layered and enduringly remote, having no boundaries. Fourth, the word and referent 'self' (zi): the inherently existent dharmakāya constitutes the self by itself, not constituted as the self by another. Fifth, the word and referent 'substance' (ti): the inherently existent dharmakāya serves as the support for all branching virtues. Sixth, the word and referent 'nature' (xing): the inherently existent dharmakāya is ever established in its non-turning meaning. Seventh, the word and referent 'abiding' (zhu): the inherently existent dharmakāya abides in non-abiding, having neither coming nor going. Eighth, the word and referent 'constant' (chang): the inherently existent dharmakāya is determinately the reality-limit (bhūtakoṭi), without transmigration. Ninth, the word and referent 'firm' (jian): the inherently existent dharmakāya is far removed from the characteristics of wind, being firm and unmoving like a vajra. Tenth, the word and referent 'total' (zong): the inherently existent dharmakāya is vast, perfect, and all-pervading, serving as the common substance. These are called the ten.

What are the ten 'awakenings'? First, the word and referent 'mirror' (jing): all-knowledge (sarvajñatā) wisdom is pure and clear, free from defiling encumbrances. Second, the word and referent 'opening' (kai): sarvajñatā wisdom is thoroughly unobstructed and clearly manifest. Third, the word and referent 'one' (yi): sarvajñatā wisdom is uniquely honored and peerless, without comparison. Fourth, the word and referent 'separation' (li): sarvajñatā wisdom is inherently liberated, transcending all manner of bonds. Fifth, the word and referent 'fullness' (man): sarvajñatā wisdom inherently possesses immeasurable varied virtues, lacking nothing. Sixth, the word and referent 'illumination' (zhao): sarvajñatā wisdom emits great light, everywhere illuminating all immeasurable objects. Seventh, the word and referent 'scrutiny' (cha): sarvajñatā wisdom is ever distinct, free from confusion. Eighth, the word and referent 'manifestation' (xian): within the pure substance of sarvajñatā wisdom, the pure retinue is fully manifest before it. Ninth, the word and referent 'knowing' (zhi): sarvajñatā wisdom leaves no phenomenon unexhausted. Tenth, the word and referent 'awakening' (jue): all the virtues of sarvajñatā wisdom consist solely of awakening-illumination, with no single phenomenon that is not awakened. These are called the ten.

Such ten meanings of the words of innate awakening depend solely upon the single inherently existent dharmakāya; their distinctions are explained according to sense, but according to their own substance, there is no difference whatsoever. Among the two kinds of innate awakening spoken of here, which innate awakening is this? It refers to pure innate awakening, not defiled-pure innate awakening. What are the distinctions of the words and referents of defiled-pure innate awakening, and what are their characteristics?"

A verse says:
"Within defiled-pure innate awakening,
Each may also have ten meanings;
In the ten referents explained before,
Each possesses separation from its nature."

The treatise says: "Within this innate awakening, each may also have ten. Why is this? Because among the previous ten meanings, each possesses the meaning of not maintaining its own nature. The correlation of words and referents should be understood in accord with the above. Are these two awakenings identical or different? Because the identical is not identical, and the different is not different, by this meaning, they are either identical or different, or neither identical nor different. Therefore, they are both affirmed and both denied, that is all.

For what reason is it provisionally termed initial awakening? What are the distinctions of words and referents, and what are their characteristics?"

A verse says:
"From beginningless time,
There is no time of delusion;
Today one first awakens,
Therefore it is named initial awakening."

The treatise says: "From beginningless time, the prajñā of initial awakening has no time of delusion; yet at the time without delusion, today one first awakens; hence it is called initial awakening. If this initial awakening were delusion first and awakening later, it would not be initial awakening. But at the time without delusion, the principle is ever manifest and now ever original; therefore it is initial awakening. Among the two initial awakenings, which initial awakening is this initial awakening? It refers to pure awakening, not defiled-pure awakening. What are the distinctions of words and referents of defiled-pure initial awakening, and what are their characteristics?"

A verse says:
"Because the wisdom of pure initial awakening
Does not maintain its own nature,
It can receive defiled perfuming;
Therefore it is named defiled-pure awakening."

"Although there is no time of delusion, because it does not maintain its own nature, it can receive defiled perfuming and transmigrate according to conditions. By this meaning, it is called defiled-pure initial awakening.

For what reason is it provisionally termed tathatā? What are the distinctions of words and referents, and what are their characteristics?"

A verse says:
"The principle substance of the nature's tathatā
Is equally and identically one;
Because it has no multiple characteristics,
It is therefore named tathatā."

The treatise says: "The principle of the nature's tathatā is equal and identical. Although of one characteristic, it also has neither a single characteristic nor multiple characteristics. Because it has no single characteristic, it is far removed from the condition of identity; because it has no multiple characteristics, it is far removed from the condition of difference. By this meaning, it is named tathatā. Such tathatā is directly and internally realized by the two kinds of pure wisdom. Furthermore, tathatā each has ten meanings: first, the word and referent 'true' (zhen) of root, up to tenth, the word and referent 'true' of total. These ten 'trues' and the ten innate meanings are concomitant and coexist, not abandoning each other; therefore they are indicated under the same name, that is all. What are the ten 'thus' (ru)? First, the word and referent 'thus' of mirror, up to tenth, the word and referent 'thus' of awakening. Because these ten meanings of awakening are concomitant and coexist, not abandoning each other, they are indicated under the same name, that is all. Why is this? The ten kinds of true principles are the upāya of the virtues of the inherently existent dharmakāya; the ten principles of tathatā are the upāya of awakening of sarvajñatā wisdom. For this reason, with repeated phrasing, it is indicated in this way. Among the two kinds of tathatā spoken of here, which tathatā is this? It refers to pure tathatā, not defiled-pure tathatā. What are the distinctions of words and referents of defiled-pure tathatā, and what are their characteristics?"

A verse says:
"Because the principle of pure tathatā
Does not maintain its own nature,
It can receive defiled perfuming;
It is named defiled-pure tathatā."

The treatise says: "Pure tathatā, from beginningless time, is equal and identical, inherently pure, unborn and unceasing, without coming or going, and having no dwelling place. Yet because the nature of the principle of tathatā does not maintain its own nature, it stirs and turns according to conditions; therefore it is named defiled-pure tathatā. Such tathatā is directly and internally realized by the two defiled-pure wisdoms, being concomitant and coexistent, not abandoning each other. Meanings such as these should be understood by analogy with what was explained above.

For what reason is it provisionally termed empty space? What are the distinctions of words and referents, and what are their characteristics? Empty space has ten meanings. Although its substance is the same, its meanings and referents are each distinct—namely, unimpededness and other referents."

The treatise says: "The principle of the nature's empty space has ten meanings: first, the meaning of unobstructedness, because it is unobstructed among all material phenomena; second, the meaning of omnipresence, because there is nowhere it does not reach; third, the meaning of equality, because it makes no selections; fourth, the meaning of vastness, because it has no boundaries; fifth, the meaning of signlessness, because it is cut off from material signs; sixth, the meaning of purity, because it is free from defiling encumbrances; seventh, the meaning of immobility, because it is devoid of formation and destruction; eighth, the meaning of having emptiness, because it extinguishes finite measures; ninth, the meaning of emptiness of emptiness, because it is free from attachment to emptiness; tenth, the meaning of unattainability, because it cannot be grasped. These are called the ten. Such ten referents differ in meaning and function, but according to their substance, there is no difference whatsoever. This principle of empty space is directly and internally realized by the two kinds of pure wisdom, being concomitant and coexistent, not abandoning each other. Among the two kinds of empty space, which empty space is this? It refers to pure empty space, not defiled-pure empty space. What are the distinctions of words and referents of defiled-pure empty space, and what are their characteristics?"

A verse says:
"Because the principle of pure empty space
Does not maintain its own nature,
It can receive perfuming;
It is named defiled-pure empty space."

The treatise says: "Pure empty space is endowed with the ten virtues, possessing neither defiled characteristics nor pure characteristics. Yet because the nature of empty space does not maintain its own nature, it can receive defiled and pure perfuming and transmigrate according to conditions; therefore it is named defiled-pure empty space."

Furthermore, the Commentary on the Awakening of Faith (Qixin lun shu) states: "'Innate awakening' is called 'innate' in contrast to 'initial'. The words 'free from thought' mean being free from delusive thoughts, revealing that there is no non-awakening. 'Equal to empty space, etc.' means not only that there is no darkness of non-awakening, but also that there is the meaning of great wisdom-light, and so forth. Empty space has two meanings that serve as an analogy for innate awakening: first, the meaning of omnipresence, meaning that horizontally it pervades the three times and vertically it penetrates ordinary beings and sages; hence it is said to have nowhere it does not pervade. Second, the meaning of non-distinction, meaning that whether in bondage or emerging from hindrances, its nature is ever non-dual; hence the dharmadhātu has a single characteristic. Intending to clarify that when the meaning of awakening emerges from bondage its characteristics are manifest, it says, 'it is just the equal dharmakāya of the Tathāgata.' Since the awakening of the dharmakāya is a principle not newly achieved, it says, 'depending on this dharmakāya, it is called innate awakening.' The Mahāyānasaṃgrahopanibandhana of Asvabhāva states: 'Stainless and unobstructed wisdom is called the dharmakāya.' The Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra calls the great round mirror wisdom the dharmakāya, and so on; all are this meaning.

'Why is this?' is an interrogation regarding the establishment of the name, having two intents of interrogation: one says, 'Above, in opening the section, it simply stated the meaning of awakening; why now, in concluding, is it named innate awakening?' The second says, 'Since it is termed innate awakening here, why does the treatise simply state awakening?' This is an interrogation concerning the advance and retreat [of terminology]. The explanation states: 'In contrast to initial [awakening], it is called innate,' which answers the first intent. 'Because initial [awakening] is identical to innate [awakening],' when reaching the source of the mind, initial awakening is identical to innate awakening, without two characteristics; therefore the treatise only says 'awakening', which answers the second intent. Truly, because innate awakening follows defilement, it gives rise to initial awakening; only awaiting this initial awakening is it named innate awakening. Hence it says, 'innate awakening is spoken of in contrast to initial awakening.' However, this initial awakening is what is produced by innate awakening; only when it returns to accord with the source of the mind, fusing into one single substance, is it named initial awakening. Therefore it says, 'because initial awakening is identical to innate [awakening].'"

6.9

Question: If initial enlightenment is different from original enlightenment, then it does not constitute 'initial.' If initial enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment, then there is no difference of an initial enlightenment. How then can one speak of naming 'original' in contrast to 'initial'?

6.10

Answer: Here, within the aspect of arising and ceasing, in terms of the meaning of conforming to defilement and in contrast to original non-enlightenment, one speaks of initial enlightenment. Yet when initial enlightenment truly reaches the source of the mind, the conditions of defilement having already been exhausted, initial and original are not distinct; they are equal and beyond words—this is subsumed under the aspect of tathatā. Therefore, the designation of 'original enlightenment' is within the aspect of arising and ceasing, not the aspect of tathatā.

As for the second, 'initial enlightenment,' this restates the name. The statement 'depending on original enlightenment, there is non-enlightenment' clarifies the origin from which initial enlightenment arises. That is to say, this substance of mind, following the condition of avidyā, moves and produces false thoughts; yet through the internal perfuming power of original enlightenment, there gradually comes to be subtle enlightenment, revulsion and seeking, culminating in ultimate realization, which returns to be identical with original enlightenment. Hence it is said: 'depending on original enlightenment.' Thus, depending on original enlightenment there is non-enlightenment, and depending on non-enlightenment there is initial enlightenment.

The treatise states: 'When original enlightenment conforms to defilement, it produces the pure characteristic of wisdom'—this is precisely this initial enlightenment.

The general import here clarifies: original enlightenment becomes non-enlightenment; non-enlightenment becomes initial enlightenment; initial enlightenment is identical to original enlightenment. Because it is identical to original enlightenment, there is no non-enlightenment. Because there is no non-enlightenment, there is no original enlightenment. Because there is no original enlightenment, it is utterly equal, transcending words and cutting off conceptual thought. Therefore, the Buddha-fruit is perfectly fused and clear of all dependence. When even the distinction between initial and original does not exist, how could there be the difference of the three kāyas? It is only appearing in accordance with the minds of beings that the functions of the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya are spoken of.

Furthermore, now in terms of tathatā, it is original enlightenment; avidyā is non-enlightenment. Tathatā has two meanings: first, unchanging; second, according with conditions. Avidyā also has two meanings: first, having no substance, it is empty; second, having function, it accomplishes phenomena. This tathatā that accords with conditions and this avidyā that accomplishes phenomena each have two meanings: first, opposing oneself and conforming to the other; second, opposing the other and conforming to oneself.

Within avidyā, first, opposing oneself and conforming to the other has two [aspects]: first, it can, by contrast, explicate and indicate the nature's virtues; second, it can know names and meanings and accomplish pure function. Opposing the other and conforming to oneself also has two [aspects]: first, it veils the true principle; second, it accomplishes the deluded mind.

Within tathatā, opposing the other and conforming to oneself has two [aspects]: first, overturning and contrasting with false defilement to manifest its own virtues; second, internally perfuming avidyā to give rise to pure function. Opposing oneself and conforming to the other also has two [aspects]: first, concealing its own true substance; second, manifesting false dharmas.

From the meaning of contrasting and indicating within avidyā and the meaning of overturning falsity and manifesting virtues within tathatā, original enlightenment comes to be. Again, from the meaning of being able to know names and meanings within avidyā and the meaning of internal perfuming within tathatā, initial enlightenment comes to be. Again, from the meaning of veiling truth within avidyā and the meaning of concealing substance within tathatā, fundamental non-enlightenment comes to be. Again, from the meaning of accomplishing falsity within avidyā and the meaning of manifesting falsity within tathatā, branch non-enlightenment comes to be. If enlightenment and non-enlightenment are fused and totally subsumed, they reside solely in the single aspect of arising and ceasing.

The aspect of tathatā is spoken of in terms of the substance cutting off characteristics. The aspect of original enlightenment is spoken of in terms of the virtues of the nature. The meaning of the great light of wisdom and so forth is called 'enlightenment.' 'Original' is the meaning of the nature. 'Enlightenment' is the mind of wisdom.

The Commentary explains: 'Unchanging within the true, and substance-empty within the false, constitute the aspect of tathatā. According with conditions within the true, and accomplishing phenomena within the false, constitute the aspect of arising and ceasing.' Down to: all determinate dharmas and characteristics of pure conditions belong to the two enlightenments; all determinate dharmas and characteristics of defiled conditions belong to the two non-enlightenments. Furthermore, within them, the substance of pure dharmas belongs to original enlightenment, and the function of pure dharmas belongs to initial enlightenment. Furthermore, the substance of defiled dharmas belongs to fundamental non-enlightenment, and the characteristics of defiled dharmas belong to branch non-enlightenment. Furthermore, initial enlightenment is the branch and is not separate from the root of original enlightenment. The treatise states: 'Initial enlightenment is identical with original enlightenment.' It also states: 'Yet in truth there is no difference of initial enlightenment,' down to: 'because equally they are the same one enlightenment.' Branch non-enlightenment is not separate from fundamental non-enlightenment. The treatise states: 'One should know that avidyā can give rise to all defiled dharmas, because all defiled dharmas are characteristics of non-enlightenment.'

However, these two enlightenments are merely the difference between substance and function; the two non-enlightenments of root and branch are merely the difference between coarse and subtle. How could there be function apart from substance, or coarse apart from subtle?

Furthermore, sentient beings' fundamental delusion has two kinds: First, delusion regarding dharmas, meaning the ground of avidyā veils and covers the substance of dharma. What is called 'dharma' refers to the mind of sentient beings, which is termed the obstructed thought. Therefore, this avidyā is the beginning of delusion regarding the true, the root of false confusion. Second, delusion regarding principles, which pervades the defilements of the four abodes. Due to the aforementioned ignorance, it veils and covers the meaning of dependent origination and selflessness, falsely establishing dharmas. The dharmas about which one is deluded have internal and external: Arrogance and wrong views rely on internal delusion, falsely establishing self and dharmas, elevating oneself and looking down upon things. Attachment and wrong views rely on external delusion, falsely taking what is one's own and external realms, and thereby giving rise to greed and attachment. Like a thirsty deer chasing a mirage or a foolish monkey grasping at the moon, they arbitrarily conceptualize what does not exist and fruitlessly enter the wheel of suffering. All this stems from delusion of one's own mind; it is not the fault of another.

Du Zhenglun said: 'The statement that the mind is the Tathāgata pushes the sacred ground too high; the saying that the body is bodhi separates one from the ordinary run of beings. They do not realize that measureless virtues exist only within the inch-square heart, and the auspicious marks, fully present, do not go beyond the aggregates and sense-realms.'

Also, a stele inscription says: 'The dharmatā is equal; real wisdom is empty and open. I am identical to what is different; others are different from what is identical. Not destroying existence, not grasping emptiness. The Way is not outside the mind; the Buddha is within the mind.'

6.11

Question: The deluded mind of non-enlightenment originally has no self-substance. Now having awakened, when the deluded mind arises, there is no initial characteristic; thus it completely becomes true enlightenment. Is this characteristic of true enlightenment also dismissed along with the deluded, or is it established throughout from beginning to end?

6.12

Answer: The true is spoken of because of the deluded; the true has no self-characteristic. The deluded arises from the true; the substance of the deluded is originally empty. Since the deluded returns to emptiness, the true is also not established.

The Awakening of Faith states: 'The meaning of non-enlightenment: because from beginningless time one does not truly know the oneness of the dharma of tathatā, the non-enlightened mind arises and there are false thoughts; they have no real characteristic of their own and are not separate from original enlightenment. Just like a disoriented person: relying on the directions, he becomes disoriented, but disorientation has no self-characteristic and is not separate from the directions. Sentient beings are also like this: relying on enlightenment, there is non-enlightenment, and false thoughts arise in confusion. Yet that non-enlightenment itself has no real characteristic and is not separate from original enlightenment. Again, in dependence upon non-enlightenment, true enlightenment is spoken of; since non-enlightenment does not exist, true enlightenment is also dismissed.'

This clarifies that the name 'true enlightenment' depends on false thoughts. If one is separate from non-enlightenment, there is no self-characteristic of true enlightenment that can be spoken of. This clarifies that the true enlightenment spoken of necessarily depends on non-enlightenment. If they are not interdependent, there is neither self nor other. Being existent in dependence on the other, it also has no self-characteristic. Since self-characteristic does not exist, how could there be a characteristic of the other? This reveals the meaning of the non-apprehendability of all dharmas. The treatise states: 'One should know that all defiled dharmas and pure dharmas are interdependent and have no self-characteristic that can be spoken of.'

The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'If conventional truth had reality to the extent of a hair's breadth, then ultimate truth should also have reality'—this is what it means.

Also, a verse states:
'When the Buddha sat at the place of awakening,
He did not apprehend the reality of a single dharma.
Like an empty fist deceiving a small child,
He entices and liberates all.'

Furthermore, whenever truth and falsity are established, they are all subsumed within the teaching method of speaking in accordance with the intent of others. If someone頓 sees the nature, who would debate such matters? Nowadays, those who do not directly awaken to the one mind are all corrupt and crooked; those who seek the Buddha-fruit externally are not correct. As the poem of Master Hanshan says:
'A manly fellow of great stature
Must not act rashly in what he does.
Directly holding an iron-stone mind,
Take the straight road to bodhi.
There is no need to travel crooked paths;
Traveling them only brings more bitter toil.
No need to seek the Buddha-fruit;
Just recognize the master, the mind-king.'

From this we know that if one sees that there is a dharma to seek or a path to practice, one loses the meaning of the mind-king's own source. If one directly enters the Mirror of the Source, all affairs cease; ordinary and sacred sentiments are exhausted, at ease in wondrous eternity. Giving rise to thoughts apart from this all becomes weariness and suffering. Therefore Mahāsattva Fu's verse says:
'The eastern mountain floats upon the water;
The western mountain walks without ceasing.
The Northern Dipper descends to Jambudvīpa:
This is the place of true liberation.
Walking the road is easy;
The road is easy, yet people do not know it.
At midnight the sun shines bright;
Not awakening, one is utterly exhausted.'

Also, Reverend Dongshan's verse on awakening to the Way says:
'Formerly seeking breakthrough on each and every thing,
Only because hitherto I did not know the source.
Now seeing it, there is entirely nothing the matter;
Only now do I know that the myriad dharmas are originally empty.'

6.13

Question: The ultimate truth is not erroneous, and original enlightenment is not empty. How can they be dismissed simultaneously along with the deluded?

6.14

Answer: Enlightenment is established based on delusion; truth is indicated by speaking of falsity. These all adapt to the capacities [of beings] and each has no self-substance. In terms of the conventional, they exist; relying on ultimate truth, they are non-existent. One merely removes interdependent names; one does not extinguish the single spiritual nature. The nature solely transcends duality, whereas phenomena have antidotes. Dismissing and sweeping away is to break attachments; establishing is to eliminate the view of annihilation. Asceticism subdues externalists; spiritual penetrations transform the foolish. Samādhi subdues heavenly māras; contemplation of emptiness dispels the bond of characteristics. Seeing suffering and abandoning origination is for those of excessive pride; realizing cessation and cultivating truth are for those who engage in conceptual elaboration. All are provisional wisdom, guiding into this source. Then not a single dharma can be raised, not a single dharma can be dismissed. The four māras cannot diminish it; great enlightenment cannot increase it. Reversing the mind, principles completely dissolve; realizing the intent, names and words naturally cease.

6.15

Question: Since it is said that the true mind leaves no traces, and its principle goes beyond existence and non-existence, why is the purport of non-arising and signlessness spoken of extensively in the teachings?

6.16

Answer: The gate of the one mind is subtle and hard to fathom; its virtues are fully complete, and principle and phenomena are perfectly unobstructed. Conceptual knowledge rarely exhausts it, and discrimination cannot reach it. It is designated as 'signless,' yet in truth there is no dharma that can match the name of signlessness; it is called 'non-arising,' yet there is also no dharma by which to manifest the principle of non-arising.

The Bodhicittotpādaśāstra states: 'A bodhisattva contemplates all good and not good, self and not-self, real and unreal, empty and not-empty, conventional truth and ultimate truth, right concentration and wrong concentration, conditioned and unconditioned, defiled and undefiled, dark dharmas and bright dharmas, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, as being like the nature of the dharmadhātu, of one characteristic which is signless. Herein, no dharma can be named signless, nor is there any dharma that constitutes signlessness. This is called the seal of all dharmas, the indestructible seal. Within this seal, there is also no characteristic of a seal. This is called true wisdom.'

The explanation says: 'The seal of all dharmas' means using this mind-seal to seal all dharmas, definitively establishing reality. 'The indestructible seal' means that all dharmas of existence, non-existence, internal, external, and so forth cannot destroy it. 'Within this seal, there is also no characteristic of a seal' means that the myriad dharmas are all empty, and there is also nothing that is sealed. Since the dharmas sealed do not exist, the wisdom that can seal is also not existent. Understanding thus is called true wisdom.

An ancient worthy said: 'Consider this dharma: it is the original source of sentient beings and the realization of all Buddhas. It transcends all principles and departs from all characteristics. It cannot be sought and obtained through spoken words, conceptual knowledge, existence, non-existence, concealment, or manifestation. One merely has mind and mind sealing each other, seal and seal tallying together, bringing about self-realization, radiance, and experiential fruition, and that is all.'

6.17

Question: Setting up the mind as the source, what is taken as its aim?

6.18

Answer: It takes attaining the fruit through faith and practice as its aim. Therefore, one first establishes the great source, and afterwards it serves as the ultimate destination. Thus it is said: that which discourse values is called the source; that to which the source returns is called the aim. Thereupon one is able to sever deep doubt, arouse complete faith, give rise to correct understanding, accomplish true practice, consummate bodhi, and ultimately realize the eternal fruit. Furthermore, the nature of vijñaptimātra completely subsumes the four phenomena of teaching, principle, practice, and fruit. That which the citta can express is the teaching; that which is expressed by the citta is the principle; that which the citta can accomplish is the practice; and that which is accomplished by the citta is the fruit. Dharma Master Fazang, relying on the Avataṃsakasūtra, established cause and fruit, dependent arising, and the true dharmadhātu of principle as the source and aim. His explanation states: 'The cause and fruit of the dharmadhātu are mutually fused and both transcended; nature and characteristic are completely unified, unobstructed, and sovereign. There are ten doors of meaning: First, because they are free from characteristics, cause and fruit are not different from the dharmadhātu; that is, cause and fruit are non-cause and fruit. Here, characteristics are the source, and freedom from characteristics is the aim; or freedom from characteristics is the source, and the vanishing of cause and fruit is the aim. The following nine are to be inferred accordingly. Second, because it is free from nature, the dharmadhātu is not different from cause and fruit; that is, the dharmadhātu is non-dharmadhātu. Third, because freedom from nature does not obliterate nature, when the dharmadhātu is identical with cause and fruit, the dharmadhātu is distinctly present; thus, non-dharmadhātu is taken as the dharmadhātu. Fourth, because freedom from characteristics does not destroy characteristics, when cause and fruit are identical with the dharmadhātu, cause and fruit are clearly evident; thus, non-cause and fruit are taken as cause and fruit. Fifth, because freedom from characteristics is not different from freedom from nature, cause and fruit and the dharmadhātu are both vanished and mutually fused, far transcending words and thoughts. Sixth, because they are not destroyed, not different, and not obliterated, cause and fruit and the dharmadhātu both persist, brilliantly visible before one. Seventh, because persisting and vanishing in the fifth and sixth are again not different, the wondrous Dharma that transcends seeing and hearing is never without constant access to seeing and hearing, and the profound meaning that cuts off thought and deliberation has never obstructed words and thoughts. Eighth, because the nature of the dharmadhātu is fused and indivisible, the cause and fruit that are identical with the dharmadhātu each simultaneously completely subsume the dharmadhātu, without failing to exhaust it. Ninth, when cause and fruit each completely subsume the dharmadhātu, cause and fruit, following the dharmadhātu, each mutually appear within cause and fruit. Therefore, within the Buddha there are bodhisattvas, and within Samantabhadra there is the Buddha. Tenth, the two stages of cause and fruit, each following differentiated phenomena, never fail to encompass and subsume the dharmadhātu. Thus, every single phenomenon, every single practice, every single stage, and every single virtue each completely subsumes the ocean of the multi-layered doors of all phenomena like the inexhaustible net of Indra. This is called the inexhaustible source and aim of the Huayan.' Taking the true teaching of the Huayan, it completely subsumes all the sūtras; marking out the inexhaustible, complete source, it can encompass the myriad phenomena. It can be called all-pervading and unobstructed, sovereign, and thoroughly fused. Only then does it reveal that our citta can accomplish the mirror of the source.

6.19

Question: Taking citta as the source is the orthodox lineage of the Chan school. But 'citta' is a name; what does it take as its substance?

6.20

Answer: In recent times, scholars nowadays mostly cling to the text and turn their backs on the purport; they are blind to the substance and acknowledge [only] the name. How could one who acknowledges the name while forgetting the substance ever fathom the real ground? How could one who follows the text while missing the purport ever accord with the source of the Way? Thus, 'citta' is the name, and it takes awareness as its substance. This is numinous awareness; by nature it possesses spiritual understanding of itself. It is not like deluded consciousness, which relies on conditions, depends on objects, and knows through mental application. Nor is it like the vast emptiness of space, which is sheer annihilation without awareness. Therefore, the Zhao lun says: 'Prajñā being without knowledge means that it has no knowledge that grasps at characteristics.' Ordinary people all say that prajñā is wisdom, and wisdom implies knowing. If there is knowing, then there is grasping; if there is grasping, then one does not accord with the unproduced. Now it is explained that the true wisdom of prajñā is without characteristics and without conditions; although it illuminates the ultimate truth, it does not grasp at characteristics. Therefore it is said to be without knowledge. Thus a sūtra says: 'The sage's mind is without knowledge, yet there is nothing it does not know.' Another sūtra says: 'True prajñā is pure like empty space; it is without knowledge and without vision, without action and without conditions.' This means that awareness is of itself without knowledge; how could it wait for reflective illumination before becoming free of knowledge? This very nature of awareness is of itself without knowledge; it does not wait to be forgotten. Because this true awareness does not fall into the realms of existence or non-existence, the Buddhas have their secret teachings, and the ancestral masters have their source transmitted in silence and conferred in secret. It is only personally realized and matched; it cannot be expressed by verbal formulations. If one understands the source, it is clearly known and not obscured, quiescent and constantly aware. Brilliantly filling the eyes with radiance, what need is there for the display of supernatural powers? Dazzlingly penetrating every dust-mote, why labor over the expounding of wondrous eloquence? For those who have not attained it, expedient gates are opened to enable them, relying on this awareness, to exhaust every hidden depth.

First 20 of 27 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

宗鏡錄 — Classical Chinese