宗鏡錄 6.10

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.'