宗鏡錄 6.24

6.24

Answer: "That it is the mind's own nature" is an affirmative explication (vidhi). Because all phenomena lack inherent nature, [this lack] is the real nature of one's mind. "The nature is also not a nature" is a negative explication (pratiṣedha). If one can transcend the textual explications of negation and affirmation and extinguish the emotional clinging to identity and difference, only then is it seeing the nature with one's own eyes fully bright and clear. Now, if one wishes to awaken to one's own mind suddenly and open up the Buddha's knowledge and vision, one must simply comprehend that one's own nature pervades all places. Whatever is seen or heard appears from the mind. Outside of the mind, not the slightest thread-like phenomenon possesses substantial nature. Each does not know the other; each does not reach the other. Why is this? Because it is the one Dharma; there is no phenomenon that can know another or reach another. If there were two dharmas, they would interact with one another. [This is] because one knows that whether ordinary or holy, whether objective realm or wisdom, all share the same single nature—the so-called lack of nature. This principle of lacking nature is the source of attaining the Way, the starting point of equality, and the reason why emptiness is taught. Once comprehended, one immediately becomes a Buddha without falling into [gradual] effort. As a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: / "The nature of phenomena is originally empty and quiescent; / There is nothing to grasp and nothing to see. / The emptiness of nature is itself the Buddha; / It cannot be conceived." / If one does not immediately have faith in this and gives rise to thoughts pursuing things afar, it is like a foolish person trying to avoid open space, or like someone who has lost his head running around madly. Master Rong said: "Discriminating between ordinary and holy, kleśas flourish ever more; calculating and comparing contraries to the constant, seeking the real turns one's back on the correct." The Baocang lun says: "Painstakingly scrutinizing and making diligent effort, one vainly stirs up dreamlike thoughts; anxiously seeking outwardly, one turns further away from the profound path." For this reason, the Buddhas of the ten directions have right mindfulness in this regard, entering the source of the real nature; hence, they can open the door of great equal wisdom and become the uninvited friends of sentient beings. Therefore, the chapter "Inquiry of the Clear" (Wenming pin) states: At that time, Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva asked Bodhisattva Juexou: "Son of the Buddha, the mind-nature is one. Why is it seen that there are various distinctions? That is to say, going to good destinies or evil destinies, the faculties being complete or deficient, receiving births that are identical or different, being handsome or ugly, and suffering and joy being dissimilar? Karma does not know mind, and mind does not know karma. Feeling does not know retribution, and retribution does not know feeling. Mind does not know feeling, and feeling does not know mind. Cause does not know condition, and condition does not know cause. Wisdom does not know the objective realm, and the objective realm does not know wisdom." At that time, Bodhisattva Juexou answered with verses, saying: / "You now ask concerning this meaning / In order to awaken the confused multitude. / According to their nature, I shall answer; / Only you, benevolent one, should listen attentively. / All phenomena have no functioning, / Nor do they possess substantial nature. / Therefore, all of them / Each do not know the other. / Just as the water in a river, / In rushing torrents, races in competition, / Yet each does not know the other; / All phenomena are also like this. / Just as a great mass of fire, / Whose fierce flames burst forth simultaneously, / Yet each does not know the other; / All phenomena are also like this. / Again, just as a sustained wind arises, / Encountering things, it blows upon them all, / Yet each does not know the other; / All phenomena are also like this. / Again, just as the numerous earth elements, / Depend on and abide in one another by turns, / Yet each does not know the other; / All phenomena are also like this. / Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body, / Mind, intellect, and all sense faculties, / By these, there is constant transmigration, / Yet there is no one who can turn them. / The dharmatā is originally unarisen, / Yet it is manifested as having arising. / Within this, there is nothing capable of manifesting, / Nor is there any object that is manifested. / Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body, / Mind, intellect, and all sense faculties, / Are all empty and without nature; / The deluded mind discriminates and posists them. / Observing them in accordance with the principle, / All are entirely without nature. / The Dharma-eye is inconceivable; / This seeing is not inverted. / Whether real or unreal, / Whether deluded or not deluded, / Mundane or supramundane, / There are only provisional nominal designations." / The commentary explains: "The question means: Clarifying that the mind-nature is one, why is it seen that there are various classes of retribution? If nature differs in accordance with phenomena, then the ultimate truth is lost. If phenomena are one in accordance with nature, then the conventional truth is destroyed. Suppose they rescue this by saying: 'The differences in the classes of retribution naturally arise from karma and the like perfuming consciousness and manifesting in transformation, having nothing to do with the mind-nature; therefore, there is no contradiction.' To refute this rescue, he further poses the difficulty: 'Karma does not know mind,' and so forth. That is, mind and karma mutually rely upon each other, and each lacks an inherent nature. When an inherent nature is already absent, how could they know each other and produce phenomena? Since, apart from the real nature, each lacks an independent standing, this clarifies that all these arise relying upon the mind-nature. Since the mind-nature is one, phenomena should not be many. Since phenomenal dharmas are many, the nature should not be one. This is the objection based on the contradiction between root and branch. Following the intention of this question, apart from the tathāgatagarbha, the eight consciousnesses' perfuming and perfumed are not admitted to have a separate substance capable of producing phenomena. Only the tathāgatagarbha is that upon which production depends. Mañjuśrī wished to reveal the principle of the definitive teaching; therefore, he made the mind-nature the basis of the difficulty, desiring Juexou to show production by means of the dharmatā, to answer decisively, and to have the ocean-wide assembly bear witness together. 'The mind-nature is one' means that because it is the nature of the mind, it is the tathāgatagarbha. Moreover, because the mind is itself the nature, it is the intrinsically pure mind. Furthermore, the nature of the deluded mind, being the nature of no-nature, is the empty tathāgatagarbha. The nature of the true mind, being the nature of real nature, is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha. Because they are all equal and non-dual, it is said to be 'one'. Furthermore, the nature of the deluded mind constitutes the nature of mind; the deluded mind is characteristic, because nature and characteristic are not identical. The nature of the true mind is because the true mind is itself the nature. It is also said: The previous two [explanations of] the nature of mind separately clarify the two garabhas. The previous two natures each possess both garabhas. Merely being covered by delusion, it is named tathāgatagarbha. Speaking directly of the substance of the garbha, it is the mind of self-nature. Therefore, this intrinsically pure true mind, not being combined with delusion, is named the empty garbha; possessing virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges, it is named the non-empty garbha. Previously, identity and difference were clarified; here, emptiness and existence are clarified; hence it is presented again. The statement 'all are equal and non-dual' means: the above two [pairs of] identity and difference are not identical. Because of the 'nature of the mind', they are not identical. Because 'the mind is itself the nature', they are not separate. Neither identical nor separate is the nature of the mind. In the latter two, the reality that is itself empty is the non-empty; the emptiness that is itself reality is the empty garbha. The non-duality of emptiness and existence is the nature of the mind. However, the nature of the non-duality of emptiness and existence is itself the nature that is neither identical nor separate; therefore, it is simply called 'one'. Moreover, not only is the original nature one, but when I closely examine current phenomena, they do not know one another. Since there are various [phenomena], on what basis do they not know one another? Since they do not know one another, who directs their variety? Observing each and every one, one does not know the reason for their variety. Since they do not know one another, are they one nature, or are they various? Furthermore, the objection has two meanings: First, in terms of the fundamental consciousness (mūlavijñāna): Karma is that which relies, and mind is that upon which it relies. Apart from that which is relied upon, there is no relying [agent]; hence karma does not know mind. Apart from that which relies, there is no that which is relied upon; hence mind does not know karma. Since each lacks substance and function, they cannot mutually accomplish each other. Since each does not know the other, who produces the varieties? Second, in terms of the sixth consciousness: Karma is what is created, and mind is the creator. Both are rapidly extinguished. When arising, it does not say 'I arise'; when ceasing, it does not say 'I cease.' How could they have substance and mutually accomplish each other to produce varieties? Furthermore, in terms of the objection regarding the mutual opposition and perception of objective realm and wisdom being empty and non-existent: An objective realm is transformed by mind, so the objective realm does not know mind. Mind arises relying on the objective realm, so mind does not know the objective realm. Because there is no mind outside the objective realm that can grasp an objective realm outside the mind, mind and objective realm are unreal and do not know each other. That 'karma does not know mind, and mind does not know karma' has two [meanings]: First, in terms of the fundamental consciousness: Karma is a mental factor (caitta), and therefore relies on the mind. Mind is the eighth consciousness as the fundamental support. This is: apart from that which is relied upon, there is no that which relies. Why? Without the king of mind upon which to rely, there is no relying karma. Now, relying on mind there is karma; karma arises from conditions, and therefore lacks inherent nature, unable to know mind. If apart from that which relies there is no that which is relied upon: apart from the relying karma, then the mind is not that which is relied upon. Now, because of karma, it becomes that which is relied upon; that which is relied upon lacks nature, and therefore cannot know karma. This means that each is formed from conditions, empty of nature and without substance, mutually reliant and without efficacy; hence it is said to have no function. Therefore the sūtra says: Because they lack substance and function, they do not know each other. Second, in terms of the sixth consciousness: 'Karma is what is created, and mind is the creator' means that the sixth consciousness is named mind, spoken from the general characteristic of accumulation. That is, the sixth consciousness's ignorance of clinging to a person, being confused about the true meaning and the principle of ripening (vipāka), by associating with wholesome or unwholesome volition (cetanā), creates offenses and the like. Through the three actions—meritorious, non-meritorious, and immovable—it perfumes the ālayavijñāna, capable of inducing the various retribution characteristics such as agreeable and disagreeable in the five destinies. The meaning of not knowing each other, generally speaking, is in all cases in terms of lacking substance and function. Specifically speaking, the gates of function differ. This function roughly has two gates: First, the gate of impermanence. The sūtra says: 'Both are rapidly extinguished.' The 'Disciples' chapter of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'All dharmas are like illusions, like lightning; dharmas do not await one another, not even abiding for a single thought-moment.' Because all dharmas are seen delusively, both mind and karma are empty. A verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: / 'All retributions arise following karma; / Like dreams, they are not real. / Thought-moment by thought-moment, they are constantly destroyed, / Just as it was before, so it is after.' / Therefore, through impermanence, they cannot know each other. Second, the gate of non-self. That is, when arising it does not say 'I arise,' and when ceasing it does not say 'I cease.' In terms of the non-self of dharmas (dharmanairātmya), it clarifies not knowing each other. 'Feeling does not know retribution, and retribution does not know feeling': Feeling is the cause capable of experiencing, and retribution is the retribution that is experienced; that is, the seeds of nominal designation. As the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'Furthermore, the continuation of saṃsāra is due to various vāsanās. However, the various vāsanās generally comprise three kinds: first, nominal vāsanā (nāmavāsanā); second, self-clinging vāsanā (ātmagrāhavāsanā); third, existence-constituent vāsanā (bhavāṅgavāsanā). Nominal vāsanā refers to the distinct direct seeds of conditioned dharmas. Nominal designation has two kinds: first, nominal designations that express meaning, namely the distinct sounds that can express meaning; second, nominal designations that reveal the objective realm, namely the mind and mental factors capable of apprehending the objective realm. Seeds perfumed and formed in accordance with the two kinds of nominal designation serve as the distinct primary causes (hetupratyaya) of conditioned dharmas.' Explanation: 'Distinct direct seeds' means because the seeds of the three natures differ. 'Sounds capable of expressing meaning' excludes sounds without expression, because they are not names. A name is an inflected variation upon sound; it is solely of an indeterminate nature (avyākṛta) and cannot perfume to form seeds of matter, mind, and the like. Yet, relying on names, seeds are aroused, so they are established as nominal seeds. 'Nominal designations that reveal the objective realm' refers to the darśanabhāga of the seven consciousnesses and the like, not the mind of nimittabhāga. The mind of nimittabhāga cannot reveal the objective realm. These darśanabhāga and the like are not truly nominal designations; just as spoken names reveal the expressed meaning, so these mind and mental factors can reveal the apprehended objective realm, resembling those names that can express meaning. In accordance with both kinds of nominal designation, all perfume to form seeds. The treatise says: 'Third, existence-constituent vāsanā refers to the karma seeds that invite ripening in the three realms. Existence-constituents have two kinds: first, contaminated wholesome [karma], which is karma capable of inviting desirable fruits; second, unwholesome [karma], which is karma capable of inviting undesirable fruits. Seeds perfumed and formed in accordance with the two existence-constituents cause the distinctions of wholesome and evil destinies in ripening fruits.' Therefore, the treatise verse says: / 'Due to the vāsanās of various karmas / Together with the vāsanās of the two graspings, / When the previous ripening is exhausted, / Other ripenings are further generated.' / This karma capable of drawing is the vāsanās of various karmas. These nominal seeds are the vāsanās of the two graspings. That it is 'drawn by karma' means they operate together. The direct production of the substance of the fruit is due to nominal designation. If there were no karma seeds, suffering and joy would not be invited, just as seeds without a field will never produce sprouts. Therefore, when these nominal designations are drawn and aroused by karma, only then does one receive the future fruit of ripening, the retribution of suffering and joy. Hence the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Karma is the field, and consciousness is the seed.' The above various questions and difficulties concerning the meaning of not knowing each other are concluded. Now, the answer is explained through the gate of the mutual conditionality of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). The first line [of verse] shows that cause and condition mutually depend on each other, both lacking efficacy. The next line shows that result-dharmas contain unreality, and therefore have no substantial nature. For this reason, delusive dependent origination roughly has three meanings: First, because they mutually rely on each other and each lacks substance and function, they do not know each other. Second, because relying on this lack of knowing and lack of nature, dependent origination occurs. Third, because these delusive dharmas each possess nothing, they cause the true principle of naturelessness to be constantly manifest. Moreover, the fruit arises from the cause, so the fruit has no substantial nature; the cause is established through the fruit, so the cause has no substantial nature. If the cause has no substantial nature, how could it have the function of inducing a fruit? If the fruit has no substantial nature, how could it have the ability to repay a cause? Furthermore, because they mutually depend on each other, they are devoid of efficacy. Because they take the other as self, they lack substance. Therefore, both substance and function are absent. For this reason, all phenomena each do not know the other. Now, first, the four great elements are used as an analogy: 1. Relying on water, there is continuous flow. 2. Relying on fire, there is the arising and ceasing of flames. 3. Relying on wind, there is motion. 4. Relying on earth, there is sustaining. In the Dharma, the four are: 1. Relying on the true, delusion continues. 2. Relying on the true, delusion arises and ceases. 3. Delusive function arises relying on the true. 4. Delusion is sustained by the true. However, these dharmas and analogies each have three meanings: 1. solely in terms of that which relies; 2. relying on that which is relied upon; 3. solely that which is relied upon. Now, in the first analogy, 'solely in terms of that which relies' is the flow. However, this continuous flow has ten meanings of not knowing each other and yet forming a continuous flow: 1. The prior flow does not flow by itself; it flows because it is pushed by the subsequent flow; thus the prior flow has no inherent nature, and therefore does not know the subsequent. 2. Although the subsequent flow pushes the prior flow, it does not reach the prior flow, and also does not know it. 3. The subsequent flow does not flow by itself; it flows because it is pulled by the prior flow; thus the subsequent flow has no inherent nature, and therefore cannot know the prior. 4. Although the prior flow pulls the subsequent, it does not reach the subsequent, and therefore also does not know it. 5. That which is capable of pushing and that which is pulled are non-dual, and therefore do not know each other. 6. That which is capable of pulling and that which is pushed are non-dual, and therefore do not know each other. 7. That which is capable of pushing and that which is pushed are also non-dual, and therefore do not know each other. 8. That which is capable of pulling and that which is pulled are also non-dual, and therefore do not know each other. 9. That which is capable of pushing and that which is capable of pulling cannot exist simultaneously, and therefore do not know each other. 10. That which is pushed and that which is pulled also cannot exist simultaneously, and therefore do not know each other. Thus, the prior and subsequent mutually do not reach each other, and each lacks an inherent nature. Only through such lack of knowing and lack of nature is there continuous flow; thus, without flowing, it flows. Master Zhao said: 'The great rivers race in their currents and yet do not flow'—this is precisely its meaning. Second, 'relying on that which is relied upon' means: the prior flow and subsequent flow each rely on water; all lack self-substance and cannot know each other. Yet, without destroying the characteristic of flowing, it is said that water flows. Third, 'solely that which is relied upon' means: since the flow is completely non-existent, there is only water; prior water and subsequent water have no dual nature, and therefore have nothing to know each other. Thus, originally there is no flow, yet flow is spoken of. In the Dharma, the second group of three meanings: 1. The flow exemplifies the delusive dharmas that are capable of relying. 2. Delusion is established relying on the true. 3. When delusion is exhausted, there is only the true. In the first, delusive dependently originated dharmas seem to mutually depend on each other, yet each cannot reach the other, and all lack inherent nature; hence, lacking nature and lacking knowing, they are existent and yet not existent. Second, 'relying on that which is relied upon' means: these delusive dharmas are each inherently void; containing the true, they are only then established. How could they have substance and function capable of mutually knowing and mutually accomplishing each other? Precisely through this lack of knowing and lack of accomplishment, containing the true, they therefore exist; thus, they are non-existent and yet existent. Third, 'solely that which is relied upon' means: the delusive dharmas capable of relying are entirely devoid of substance and function; there is only the true mind, distinctly manifesting. Since there is neither this nor that, how could there be mutual knowing? Precisely through this meaning, delusive dharmas exist—that is, the non-existent is taken as existent. Further, it is said that the true nature is hidden—taking the non-hidden as hidden. Furthermore, regarding prior and subsequent, there are two kinds: 1. the prior and subsequent of arising and ceasing; 2. the prior and subsequent of this and that. The prior and subsequent of arising and ceasing means: the prior ceases and the subsequent arises, mutually pulling and pushing. This is vertical explanation, like youth and old age; this means this flowing water arises and ceases moment by moment—the prior moment ceases, and the subsequent moment arises. The prior and subsequent of this and that is horizontal explanation, just like two people walking together on a narrow path: the person behind pushes the one ahead, and the person ahead pulls the one behind. Each part of water has prior and subsequent, down to the minute droplet, there is a prior droplet and a subsequent droplet; hence, gathering many forms a continuous flow; thus, it is without nature. The Hīnayāna also speaks of arising and ceasing right in its place, without allowing transition from here to another place, but it merely does not understand the meaning of natureless dependent origination.