宗鏡錄 61.5

61.5

Answer: They definitely have a darśanabhāga, because it illuminates the object before it. There is a svasaṃvittibhāga, which thoroughly illuminates the darśanabhāga; and there is also a saṃvittisvasaṃvittibhāga, because it illuminates the svasaṃvittibhāga. Regarding the nimittabhāga, the Buddhabhūmisūtraśāstra states: 'Do the mental states associated with the four wisdoms spoken of in this way possess a nimittabhāga, a darśanabhāga, and so forth? If they lack them, they should lack an object of cognition (ālambana), and they should not be called wisdom.' It answers: 'Because the untainted mental states are unobstructed, they directly illuminate the object before them; there is no manifestation resembling the characteristics of the prior object that changes in accordance with the mind. This is because untainted mind is termed signless (animitta) and non-conceptual (nirvikalpa), and because its cognizing of objects is said to be inconceivable.' Some hold: Truly, untainted mental states also have a nimittabhāga. For all minds and mental factors (caitasika), that they by nature manifest resembling an object is called cognizing (ālambana); it is not like pincers or the like moving to grasp a thing, nor like a lamp or the like extending light to illuminate an object; rather, like a bright mirror or the like, they illuminate an object by reflecting an image. Because they appear resembling the object and clearly illuminate and understand it, this is called unobstructed. Because they do not cling or conceptualize, they are called signless. Also, because they have no distinct [conceptual marks] and their wondrous function is difficult to fathom, they are called inconceivable; it is not that they do not reflect images. If one says that they are signless and therefore lack a nimittabhāga, and says that they are non-conceptual and thus must lack a darśanabhāga, then beholding neither sign nor perception, they would be like empty space or a hare's horn, and should not be called wisdom. Because they lack clinging and conceptualization, it is said that they lack characteristics of grāhaka (apprehender) and grāhya (apprehended), not that they lack the functional capacity of cognizing and illuminating by resembling an object. If the untainted mind entirely lacked a nimittabhāga, the Buddhas should not manifest various reflected images such as bodies and lands. And so forth, such distinctions are made solely according to the principles of conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya). If considered from ultimate truth (paramārtha), which transcends words and cuts off thought: since there are neither signs nor perceptions, one cannot speak of mind, mental factors, and so forth; they transcend all conceptual proliferation (prapañca) and are inconceivable. Some hold: Because non-conceptual wisdom (nirvikalpajñāna) is non-conceptual, and its object of cognition, tathatā, is not separate from its substance, it is like illuminating its own substance, having no separate nimittabhāga. If this non-conceptual [wisdom] were to transform a nimittabhāga, it would not directly realize the realm of tathatā. As for the subsequently attained wisdom (pṛṣṭhalabdhajñāna), because it involves discrimination, its cognized realm is sometimes separate from its substance; like tainted minds, it appears resembling objective signs and clearly cognizes and illuminates them, which is called cognizing the object before it. Therefore, this subsequently attained wisdom definitely possesses a nimittabhāga.