宗鏡錄 61.31

61.31

Answer: 'If not for what the teachings point to, how could one come to recognize one's own mind? Even if one does not realize it through the teachings, one must still rely on the teachings for verification. If it were not so, all would become naturalistic non-Buddhists or blindly practicing meditation masters. Even if someone were born with knowledge of it, this too would be due to having heard the sūtras and perfumed the seeds across many lifetimes, or perhaps the dark assistance of the fundamental vows of the holy ones. Therefore, the Tiantai teaching says: "Those who exclusively cultivate the contemplation of non-arising only believe in the benefit of their own mind, not believing in the benefit of the majestic empowerment of external Buddhas. This falls into the delusion of self-nature. Furthermore, those who exclusively believe in the empowerment of external Buddhas and do not seek benefit within their own mind fall into the delusion of other-nature. The delusions of both and of causelessness can also be understood accordingly. As for people deluded about self-nature: when they see in the world a heavy burden that cannot be moved forward, helped forward by lateral power, why do they not believe? For those whose sinful defilements are heavy, the Buddha's majestic power establishes them, enabling their contemplative wisdom to gain benefit. Moreover, from where did you obtain this internal contemplation of non-arising? From a teacher? From sūtras? Or from self-awakening? A teacher and sūtras are your external conditions; if it was from self-awakening, you must have been aided in secret. You do not recognize kindness, just as trees do not recognize the kindness of the sun, moon, wind, and rain." A sūtra says: "It is neither internal nor external, yet internal and external. Because it is internal, the liberation of the Buddhas is sought within mental activity; because it is external, the Buddhas protect and remember [them]." How could one not believe in external benefit? Furthermore, if we discuss the ultimate principle, there is neither Buddha nor sentient being; how could there be stimulus and response? Yet within the gate of Buddha-activities, stimulus and response are not identical. If there were no stimulus from sentient beings, the Buddhas would not respond. How could one cling to self or cling to other, debating internal and external, and thereby give rise to extreme views?'