宗鏡錄 65

English (machine translation) 65

Language: English

65.9 — 4 parts

65.1

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

65.2

Now, as for the views of subject and object, mind and objects are clearly distinct. How are the knowledge and vision of the sages to be distinguished?

Answer: It illuminates both existence and emptiness, abiding neither internally nor externally. Like a valley echoing a sound while entirely beyond deliberation, or like a mirror reflecting images without any intention, it is wondrously clear, perfectly luminous, tranquil yet constantly illuminating. Therefore it is said to remain always in right mindfulness, which is also termed right knowledge. It is neither having thought and having knowledge, nor is it devoid of thought and devoid of knowledge. Both existence and non-existence are concepts; both are not right knowledge. Only when there is illumination without thought is it called right knowledge. If there were solely no thought, tranquility would lose illumination. If there were only the illumination of substance, illumination would lose tranquility. Both are termed un-right; what is right consists in their dual operation. The Huanyuan ji states: 'The sage employs the mind in two ways. First, not seeing that all things are empty, he only sees emptiness and does not see any things. Second, seeing that all things are themselves empty, he clearly sees all existence without abiding in existence, and clearly sees all emptiness without abiding in emptiness. Illuminating both existence and non-existence, distinctions are distinct, yet there is no movement of thought. Just like a clear mirror observing forms and images, all appear within it. The employment of the mind is also like this: attaining its wondrous nature, it gives rise to illumination, illuminating and seeing everything, clearly knowing that there is nothing known, and clearly seeing that there is no grasper who sees. Having no grasper does not discard constant seeing. Since the seeing-nature is constant, it is without a single interruption, distinctly and thoroughly illuminating the ten directions, pure and free from blemish, internally and externally perfectly luminous, vastly pervading the dharmadhātu. It is also called the unobstructed eye of Vairocana, perfecting the ten directions and illuminating all buddha-lands; this is precisely its meaning.' Therefore, when an adept sees and hears, he does not fall into subject and object. It is neither an existent seeing nor a non-existent seeing; he merely does not give rise to the two characteristics, always harmonizing with true emptiness. For this reason, form is completely the eye: one constantly sees form, yet there is no object of cognition. The eye is completely form: one constantly proclaims seeing, yet there is no self. Because form is the realm of the object of cognition, and the eye is the faculty of the subject of cognition, now that it is precisely the eye, there is no object of cognition. Furthermore, the eye is that through which I can see; now that it is completely form, at the very moment of seeing, it is not I. Thus form and citta are non-dual; subject and object are not distinct. Hence master Sengying's verse says: 'The nature of dharmas does not stand beside the true; sages and worthies have no divergent paths.' Thus the Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra states: 'The Lamp of Wisdom Samādhi is simply the lack of two characteristics in all dharmas.' Having no two characteristics means neither resting in existence and non-existence nor stepping outside of existence and non-existence. Now, regarding existence and non-existence, because they are grasped by deluded sentiment, both existence and non-existence are lost. In principle, free from deluded reckoning, both existence and non-existence are true. Hence one knows that all dharmas are neither real nor unreal, neither empty nor existent. If there were no existence, non-existence could not be established; if there were no non-existence, existence could not be established. Existence and non-existence thoroughly interpenetrate; the myriad transformations are equally harmonized. Furthermore, with regard to the realm of seeing and hearing directly realized by the sage, there are four kinds. Hence the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'With respect to the Buddha's wondrous realization, there are four kinds of hearing: first, hearing non-hearing; second, not hearing non-hearing; third, hearing and not hearing; fourth, hearing hearing.' The Tiantai teaching explains: 'Upon first entering the path of realization, the path of cultivation suddenly falls away and there is nothing that can exist; this is called non-hearing. The true illumination opens wide and there is nothing it does not illuminate; this is precisely hearing. Thus it is called hearing non-hearing. Realizing such a Great Parinirvāṇa, there is no characteristic of hearing; thus it is called not hearing non-hearing. Realizing that arising afflictions have been extinguished is called hearing and not hearing. Tranquil yet constantly illuminating, responding according to whatever prompts it, is called hearing hearing. The first phrase realizes wisdom. The second phrase realizes principle. The third phrase realizes cessation. The fourth phrase realizes response. Whether matter or principle, wisdom or cessation, self or other, within the initial realization of wisdom, all are fully complete without defect. This single wondrous realization exhausts the ocean of nirvāṇa. Furthermore, hearing non-hearing is realizing the revealing cause. Hearing and not hearing is realizing the contributing cause. Not hearing non-hearing is realizing the direct cause. Hearing hearing is realizing the realm of objects. As for explaining the four kinds of arising—arising arising, arising non-arising, non-arising arising, and non-arising non-arising—they are also equivalent to the meanings of the four kinds of hearing: first, arising arising is dharmas arisen from conditions; second, arising non-arising is "I proclaim it to be emptiness"; third, non-arising arising is "it is also called conventional designation"; fourth, non-arising non-arising is "it is also called the meaning of the Middle Way." If one can comprehend the non-arising of these four arisings, only then will one reach the realm of the sage's seeing and hearing.' Therefore, by neither grasping nor rejecting, one reaches the source of the one path; by being neither existent nor empty, one sees the reality of all dharmas. As the Zhaolun states: 'Now, the existence of the mind is due to its possessing existence. Existence does not inherently exist of itself; hence the sage's mind does not exist. Existence does not have an existence of its own; hence existence lacks existence. Because existence lacks existence, there is no non-existence. Since non-existence is non-existent, the sage's mind is neither existent nor non-existent. Because it is neither existent nor non-existent, its spirit is empty. Why so? Existence and non-existence are the reflections and echoes of the mind; words and symbols are what reflections and echoes grasp at. Once existence and non-existence are discarded, the mind is devoid of reflections and echoes. Once reflections and echoes have vanished, words and symbols cannot fathom it. When words and symbols cannot fathom it, the Way is cut off from all categories. Because the Way is cut off from all categories, it can exhaust the spiritual and fathom all numbers. Exhausting the spiritual and fathoming all numbers is called the wondrous consummation. The Way of wondrous consummation is rooted in having no reliance. Now, having no reliance resides in profound silence; because of this profound silence, we designate it with emptiness. Wondrous consummation resides in fathoming numbers; because of fathoming numbers, it responds through numbers. Because it responds through numbers, its motion converges with affairs. Because we designate it with emptiness, the Way transcends outside names. Because the Way transcends outside names, we consequently call it non-existent. Because its motion converges with affairs, we consequently call it existent. Calling it existent is in response to conditioned phenomena; we merely force it to be termed thus. How could it inherently be so? Thus the sūtra states: "The sage's wisdom is without knowledge, yet there is nothing it does not know; it is without action, yet there is nothing it does not do." Could this unconditioned, tranquil Way be called existent as existence, non-existent as non-existence, moving so as to contradict stillness, or still so as to discard function? Yet contemporary debaters mostly fix principles based on words, seek the great boundless realm by scrutinizing corners, harbor prior conceptions to designate the profound, and cling to what they grasp as necessarily correct. Hence, hearing that the sage has knowledge, they say he possesses a mind; hearing that the sage lacks knowledge, they say he is equivalent to empty space. The realms of existence and non-existence are where extreme views abide; how could this be the middle path devoid of duality? Why so? Although the myriad things are diverse, their nature is fundamentally ever one. They cannot be objectified as things, yet they are not non-things. If one objectifies things as things, names and characteristics are variously set forth; if one does not objectify things as things, then things are immediately true. Therefore, the sage neither objectifies things as things, nor does he take things as non-things. Not objectifying things as things, things are not existent; not taking things as non-things, things are not non-existent. Being non-existent, they are not grasped; being non-empty, they are not rejected. Because they are not rejected, their wondrous presence is true; because they are not grasped, names and characteristics have no basis. When names and characteristics have no basis, it is not having knowledge; when wondrous presence is true, it is not lacking knowledge. Therefore the sūtra states: "Prajñā neither grasps nor rejects all dharmas; it is neither with knowledge nor without knowledge." This lies outside grasping at conditions and is a realm where the mind is cut off. To wish to cross-examine it through existence and non-existence—is this not far from the mark?' Explanation: Speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence are the reflections and echoes of the mind; how could they correspond to reality? If one can exhaust the source of that spiritual wisdom and fathom the exterior of mental factors, then one can wonderfully consummate its Way. Spontaneously, the true citta has no reliance and belongs neither to existence nor to non-existence. Because it is not existent, we designate it with emptiness; because it is not non-existent, it responds through numbers. Yet these are still forced words; the sage's wisdom has no mind toward this or that. Therefore it says: 'The sage neither objectifies things as things, nor does he take things as non-things.' As for 'not objectifying things as things, hence names and characteristics have no basis': because he does not grasp all dharmas and no dharma confronts deluded sentiment, names and characteristics have no basis to arise. As for 'not taking things as non-things, hence wondrous presence is true': because he does not reject all dharmas, there is no dharma that can be rejected, and he sees the true nature of all dharmas as serenely ever-abiding and their wondrous substance as constantly true. How could this real, profound prajñā be scrutinized and determined through words, or measured according to conceptual thought, or reached by speaking of existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence? Therefore it says: 'This lies outside grasping at conditions and is a realm where the mind is cut off. To wish to cross-examine it through existence and non-existence—is this not far from the mark?' When one wondrously realizes it, it will naturally be clearly understood.

65.4

Question: How are this knowledge and vision of the Buddha revealed, demonstrated, awakened to, and entered?

65.5

Answer: If explained in terms of the teachings, the Tiantai Textual Commentary matches them to the four ranks of the perfect teaching: 'opening' is the ten abodes; 'demonstrating' is the ten practices; 'awakening' is the ten dedications; 'entering' is the ten grounds. The Huayan Record explains the general meaning, saying: It means opening up and removing the afflictive obstacles, demonstrating the true principle, causing one to awaken to the emptiness of substance, and witnessing and entering the substance of the citta. If explained by the Northern and Southern schools of Chan, the Northern School says: The function of jñāna is 'knowing'; the function of prajñā is 'seeing'. When the citta does not arise, it is named jñāna; jñāna can know the five sense faculties. When it is immovable, it is named prajñā; prajñā can see. This is the Buddha's knowing and seeing. The citta being immovable is 'opening'; opening means opening the expedient door. Rūpa being immovable is 'demonstrating'; demonstrating means demonstrating the real characteristic. 'Awakening' is false thoughts not arising. 'Entering' is the ten thousand objects ever quiescent. The Southern School says: The Buddha-jñāna of sentient beings is obstructed by delusion and not seen. Merely attaining non-thought is the original self-nature's quiescence, which is 'opening'. Upon the quiescent substance, there is naturally original jñāna; using original jñāna to be able to see the original self-nature's quiescence is called 'demonstrating'. Once having received direction, one immediately sees the original nature, that buddhas and sentient beings are originally not different; this is 'awakening'. After awakening, amid all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, whether buddhas exist or not, one constantly sees the original nature, naturally knowing that false thoughts have no nature, naturally realizing noble jñāna. Therefore, for bodhisattvas, what was known by prior sages is transmitted in succession; this is the meaning of 'entering'. The Sāgara-nāgarāja-paripṛcchā-sūtra says: 'The citta does not abide internally, nor does it wander externally; vijñāna has nowhere to abide, crossing over all who have fallen into inversions. … Even unto seeing dharmas as quiescent and observing dharmas as silent; dharmas are silent and quiet, without conduct and without locus; dharmas are tranquil, without anything accomplished. Universally observing dharmas, all are already like this. One who observes like this—this is the observation of dharmas. When the observation of dharmas is like this, one does not see where dharmas tend. If there are those who see dharmas yet do not observe, they do not bring about observation by seeing dharmas. Without seeking and without understanding, without knowing and without seeing—this is seeing dharmas.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Not apprehending dharmas, not knowing and not seeing, nor distinguishing whether it is male or female.' Furthermore, an ancient said: 'Neither seeing nor hearing; no-seeing and no-hearing is true seeing and hearing.' Master Zhao also said: 'Closing off wisdom and blocking hearing, alone realizing in the dark.' Like this, silently tallying and quiescent knowing both penetrate the mirror of the source. Therefore the Śūraṅgamasūtra says: 'The Buddha told Ānanda: I ask you again: people of the world say, "I can see." What is called seeing, and what is called not seeing? Ānanda said: People of the world, relying on the light of the sun, moon, and lamps, see various forms, and term this seeing. If, on the other hand, there were none of these three kinds of illumination, then they could not see. [The Buddha said:] Ānanda, if when there is no illumination it is called not seeing, then one should not see darkness. If one inevitably sees darkness, this is merely an absence of light; how is it an absence of seeing? Ānanda, if in the darkness, because one does not see light it is called not seeing, now in the light, because one does not see the characteristic of darkness it should also be called not seeing. If so, both characteristics would be called not seeing. If the two characteristics mutually displace each other, it is not that your seeing-nature is temporarily absent within them. Thus you should know: both are called seeing; how is it not seeing? Therefore, Ānanda, you should know now: when seeing light, seeing is not light; when seeing darkness, seeing is not darkness; when seeing obstruction-free, seeing is not obstruction-free; when seeing obstructed, seeing is not obstructed. These four meanings being established, you should further know: when seeing seeing, seeing is not seeing; seeing is still separate from seeing, and seeing cannot reach it. How could one speak again of causes and conditions, nature as it is, or composite characteristics?'

65.6

Question: When sages see the wondrous rūpa of the real characteristic, does the deluded mind still see it or not?

65.7

Answer: It only sees the unreal; it does not see the reality of the unreal. It is like seeing a tree stump as a thief: it does not see the stump. It is also like the single principle of true emptiness being seen and turning into the two truths: if known by worldly people, it is called the conventional truth; if known by supramundane people, it is called the supreme truth. The locus of what is known is not necessarily far apart; the objects they know each appear from the citta. Like a cataract-affected eye seeing a bright pearl as having flaws, while a clean eye observes it as pure, lustrous, and without blemish. Excellence and ugliness are only differences in their own seeing; the pearl's substance is one and the same from beginning to end.

65.8

Question: When sentient beings do not see real rūpa, does whatever they see still constitute falsity or not?

65.9.1

Answer: Although it is unreal, it also does not constitute falsity. Just like seeing a tree stump as a thief: where is there any thief? Because it has no substance. A verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'If one can comprehend incorrect dharmas / as real and not inverted, / knowing that falsity is originally true itself, / seeing the Buddha is then pure.' The Awakening of Faith says: 'Although there is a defiled citta, it is constantly permanent and unchanging.' The Venerable Fazang said: 'The different views of sentient beings are not false; therefore from being ordinary people they aspire to seek the Buddha-ground. If the different views were false, one would never proceed from being an ordinary person to the true Buddha-ground. Why is this? The realm of sentient beings is just the realm of buddhas; the realm of buddhas is just the realm of sentient beings. Therefore proceeding from an ordinary person to enter sainthood, and manifesting from sainthood as an ordinary person—the names differ, but the single substance is immovable.' However, this Record of the Mirror of the Source discusses only the one reality, just as the Lotus Sūtra takes the real characteristic as its substance. Although this single word 'real' universally encompasses the ten thousand dharmas because it is their substance and nature, when discussing its source comprehensively, one does not separate the true from the spurious. But if discussing it in terms of views, understanding, jñāna, and realization, one must distinguish superior from inferior, because feelings harbor grasping and rejection, and jñāna has shallows and depths. The Profound Meaning of the Lotus says: 'The correct substance is mysterious and transcendent, hard to know at first glance. Moreover, the names of the heterodox and lesser confuse the correct and great, like fish eyes mixed among bright pearls. Therefore one must eliminate the spurious, which consists of six aspects: first, elimination with respect to the ordinary; second, elimination with respect to outsiders; third, elimination with respect to the lesser; fourth, elimination with respect to the partial; fifth, elimination with respect to metaphors; sixth, elimination with respect to awakening. First, elimination with respect to the ordinary: the commentary says: When worldly texts also speak of "the real," it refers to protecting the state and ordering the family that is called real. When outsiders also speak of "the real," it is heterodox knowledge and perverse understanding that they call real. When the Small Vehicle speaks of "the real," it is weary of suffering and seeking rest, taking the partial truth as real. All such things have only the name "real" without its meaning. Why is this? Worldly sorcery, illusions, and magic arts are also called real, but are mostly seductive methods of ghosts and spirits. When this method enters the citta, one becomes bewildered, drunk, and deranged, boasting of oneself as good and fine, claiming to surpass what is true and real, standing out and stirring up the crowd, displaying extraordinary characteristics: holding excrement in a skull and, before many people, opening the mouth wide to swallow it; or eating raw fish and foul meat in repulsive ways; or going naked in ragged clothes, scorning rules and standards; or coming and going straight on, neither asking nor answering, using all kinds of deception and seduction to lure the unwise into faith and defiled attachment; having fallen into it, seeking liberation is impossible. Internally it sickens and harms their bodies; externally it executes their families and exterminates their clans, extending calamity to relatives and neighbors. In the present life they suffer many miseries, and in the future they suffer the prolonged night of torment in hell, obstructing the Path life after life with no period of liberation. This is what is currently seen in the world; what reality can be spoken of? It is subsumed under dull latencies and discourse born of craving. As for the classics of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, methods of governance and rites, military and medical methods, astronomy and geography, the eight trigrams and five phases, worldly canonical texts: using filial piety to govern the family, loyalty to govern the state, each treating their relatives as relatives, each treating their children as children, respecting superiors and loving inferiors, benevolence and righteousness, deference and yielding, giving peace to the common people and establishing the state. If these methods are lost, the strong oppress the weak, all under heaven is thrown into turmoil, the people have nothing to rely on for life, birds have no leisure to perch, and beasts have no leisure to crouch. If one relies on these methods, all under heaven is at peace, and cattle and horses head inward. One should know that these methods are called real because of cherishing the people and governing the state. The Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra says: Śakra Devānām Indra's various superior treatises are of this meaning. They are merely the intention of the ten virtues. Cultivating the ten virtues accords above with the mind of heaven, all the devas rejoice, and seeking the retribution of heaven, this method is superior; hence they are called superior treatises. Furthermore, the Great Brahmā King's exposition of the treatise on leaving desire is cultivating dhyāna to leave the mire of desire; this is also subsumed under discourse born of craving. In the world there are also occult arts: ingesting elixirs for longevity, refining the body and changing one's appearance, becoming flying immortals or vanishing from sight, claiming that these medicinal formulas are secret, essential, and real. This too is subsumed under discourse born of craving and dull latencies. Second, elimination with respect to outsiders: these are the texts of the heterodox outsiders. If one ingests medicine to seek knowledge, becoming clever, sharp, and clear-sighted in investigating principles, claiming that this medicinal formula is superior and real: the power of medicine gives slight knowledge, unable to perceive far; at the touch of medicine it is lost, and when the medicine wears off it is lost; it too is not real. If like Zhuangzi and Laozi here, of non-action and desirelessness, natural, vacant, and quiet, ceasing all boasting immortals, abandoning the world and cutting off knowledge, etc., this is simply nothingness. What they harbor does not even step outside the simple four views; how could it pertain to the noble Dharma? Even if they were to step outside the simple four views, they would still fall into the complex four views, walking within the net of views, not the path of liberation. As for the foreign master of debate, he accepted a wager, issued an open call, and composed five hundred brilliant challenges. One said: 'Did Gautama teach one ultimate path or many ultimate paths?' The Buddha said: 'Only one ultimate path.' The master of debate said: 'The various teachers each teach an ultimate path.' The Buddha pointed to Śiraskapāla: 'Do you know that man?' The master of debate said: 'I know him; among those of the ultimate path, he is foremost.' The Buddha said: 'If he had attained the ultimate path, why did he abandon his own path to become my disciple?' The master of debate was immediately awakened, praising that within the Buddha's Dharma, there is uniquely one ultimate path. Also, as Dīrghanakha said: 'All treatises can be refuted, all words can be overturned; contemplating the real characteristic of dharmas, for a long time I have not found a single dharma that can enter the citta.' The commentary says: Dīrghanakha grasped the view that 'neither exists,' and also says: he also posited the view that it is 'inexpressible.' Such classes are of hundreds of thousands of kinds, false and frivolous discourse, revolving in delusion; their net of views is vast and their heterodox knowledge overflowing, giving rise to attachment upon encountering objects. Or at times they fold and double: existence and non-existence as existence, no existence as non-existence, and so on up to having neither-existence-nor-non-existence as existence, and no neither-existence-nor-non-existence as non-existence. Across hundreds and thousands of folds, all are inverted views, the various extremes of birth and death, not the true and real. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: 'Bound by the cangue of ignorance, tied to the pillar of birth and death, circling around the twenty-five states of existence, unable to attain liberation'—this is just this meaning. Third, elimination with respect to the lesser: within the Śrāvaka-dharma, they also speak of being free from existence and free from non-existence.

65.9.2

…is called the noble middle path. The Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra states: 'The śramaṇa Kauṇḍinya was the very first to attain true knowledge and vision.' However, the Hīnayāna does not activate great compassion, does not rescue sentient beings, has flimsy power of merit, does not seek to become a Buddha, and does not deeply probe the true mark; hence their wisdom is inferior and weak. Although they speak of departing from existence and departing from non-existence and call it the noble middle path, they merely take the true truth on the side of the two views of annihilation and permanence to be the middle path. Outflow-free wisdom is called 'vision', and realization of the dharma of nirvāṇa is called 'knowledge'. Although they sever the views and thoughts and eliminate and extinguish the shared portion, they dwell in a thatched hut; it is not the ultimate principle. In contrast to the prior extreme of existence that is saṃsāra, there is the extreme of non-existence that is nirvāṇa; both can be broken and ruined, and because it is not the true path, it is not named the true mark. Fourth, differentiation with regard to one-sidedness: regarding the various Mahāyāna sūtras that are shared with the persons of the scriptures of the two vehicles and carry provisional expositions, since their names are the same, their meanings must be distinguished. As stated in the Mahāyāna[-śāstra]: 'The persons of the three vehicles together sever the kleśas by means of the ineffable path.' The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'The true mark of all dharmas is jointly attained by the three persons.' Although the persons of the two vehicles jointly receive the ineffable path, they seek for themselves to escape suffering, lack the mind of great compassion, and stop when they attain emptiness; dull-rooted bodhisattvas are also like this. Sharp-rooted bodhisattvas have a mind of great compassion: for the sake of beings, they deeply seek the true mark. For those with the shared true mark, their wisdom is like the light of a firefly, and therefore it is not real; for those with the unshared true mark, their wisdom is like sunlight, and therefore it is real. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'The emptiness of supreme meaning is called wisdom.' The two vehicles have only emptiness; their emptiness lacks wisdom. Bodhisattvas attain not-only-emptiness, which is middle-path wisdom. This very wisdom is tranquil yet constantly illuminates. The two vehicles only attain its tranquility and do not attain tranquility-and-illumination, so it is not the true mark. Bodhisattvas attain tranquility and also attain tranquility-and-illumination; this is the true mark. Seeing non-emptiness also has multiple kinds. First, seeing non-emptiness, one severs the saṃyojanas sequentially, proceeding from shallow to deep: this is a semblance of reality, not the correct reality. Second, seeing non-emptiness, it is replete with all dharmas: at the initial portal of the syllable A, one immediately understands all meanings; it is simultaneously middle, provisional, and empty; neither one nor different, neither three nor one. The two vehicles have only one 'is-ness'; the distinct teaching has only two 'is-nesses'; the complete [teaching] fully possesses the three 'is-nesses'. The three 'is-nesses' are the true mark of reality. The Commentary states: 'What is the true mark? It means that a bodhisattva enters into the one mark and knows the immeasurable marks, and the immeasurable marks again enter into the one mark.' The two vehicles only enter into the one mark and cannot know the immeasurable marks. Although the distinct teaching enters into the one mark and again enters into the immeasurable marks, it cannot further enter into the one mark. Sharp-rooted bodhisattvas, being empty, thus enter into the one mark; being provisional, thus know the immeasurable marks; being middle, further enter into the one mark. Bodhisattvas such as these deeply seek the great ocean of the perfection of wisdom: the one mind is identical to the three; this is the substance of the true mark of reality. The Avataṃsaka is not shared with the two vehicles and only concerns bodhisattvas; yet attaining the three wisdoms sequentially is also not the correct reality; attaining them non-sequentially is the correct reality. If in the Vaipulya the four persons attain the three wisdoms, three persons are false and one person is real. In the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā, the three wisdoms spoken of belong to three persons: the former two do not seek deeply, being shallow and not real; the latter one person deeply seeks the three wisdoms of the one mind, and therefore it is real. This sūtra states: 'You are truly my sons; there are no longer four or three persons. Seeking throughout the ten directions, there are no other vehicles—only the wisdom of the one true mark, which decisively resolves the śrāvaka dharmas and speaks only of the unsurpassed path.' It is purely the substance of the one reality. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'As for the one real truth, there is neither existence nor non-existence; because existence and non-existence are not two, it is named the one real truth. Furthermore, the one real truth is named freedom from falsehood. Furthermore, the one real truth is free from inversion. Furthermore, the one real truth is not spoken by Māra. Furthermore, the one real truth is named permanence, bliss, self, and purity. In permanence, bliss, self, and purity, there is no difference among empty, provisional, and middle; if there were difference, they would be two, and because they are two, it would not be the one real truth. The one real truth is simultaneously empty, provisional, and middle; because it is without difference and not two, it is named the one real truth. If there were the three differences, it would be false; a dharma of falsehood is not named the one real truth. Because there are no three differences, it is the one real truth. If there were difference, it would be inversion; when inversion is not yet broken, it is not the one real truth. Because there are no three differences, there is no inversion; because there is no inversion, it is named the one real truth. That which has differences is not named the ekayāna. When the three dharmas are not different, completely and perfectly fulfilled, it is named the ekayāna. This vehicle is high and vast, adorned with many jewels; hence it is named the one real truth. Although Māra does not realize distinct emptiness and provisionality, he can speak of distinct emptiness and provisionality. If empty, provisional, and middle are not different, Māra cannot speak of them; that which Māra cannot speak of is named the one real truth. If empty, provisional, and middle are different, it is named inversion; if they are not different, it is named non-inversion. Because of non-inversion, there is no kleśa; because there is no kleśa, it is named purity. Where there is no kleśa, there is no karma; because there is no karma, it is named self. Because there is no karma, there is no retribution; because there is no retribution, it is named bliss. Where there is no retribution, there is no saṃsāra; where there is no saṃsāra, it is named permanence. Permanence, bliss, self, and purity are named the one real truth. The one real truth is precisely the true mark. The true mark is the correct substance of the sūtra. Such a true mark is simultaneously empty, provisional, and middle. Because it is empty, it breaks all attachment-theories of ordinary people and all view-theories of non-Buddhists. Because it is provisional, it breaks the small reality of the four gates of the tripiṭaka, and breaks the small reality jointly seen by the three persons. Because it is middle, it breaks the sequential and one-sided reality. There are no longer the dharmas of the causal and fruitional four truths of the inversions, the small, the one-sided, and so forth, nor are there the names of the Triple Gem of the small, the one-sided, and so forth. There are solely the causal and fruitional four truths and Triple Gem of the true mark, distinctly and fully present; they are also replete with the causal and fruitional four truths and Triple Gem of all expedient means. Why is this? Because the true mark is the ocean of the dharmadhātu. Only these three truths are the true mark of reality. Furthermore, opening up the reality of the sequential is precisely the complete reality, because the path of realization is identical.'

65.9.3

Furthermore, it reveals that the reality attained in common by the three persons, when sought deeply, reaches all the way to the bottom. Furthermore, it reveals the three realities of the Tripiṭaka, definitively clarifying the śrāvaka Dharma. Furthermore, it reveals reality in the discussions of the various views, because one cultivates the factors leading to bodhi without wavering in the face of views. Furthermore, it reveals reality in the discussions of the various attachments, because the realm of Māra is itself the realm of the Buddha. Practising non-paths, one penetrates the Buddha path. Among all phenomena, there is throughout a tranquil nature; this is illuminating reality by transcending duality, which is the substance of the sūtra. Fifth, selection by analogy. Now, taking three similes, we precisely reveal the false and the true, and concurrently illuminate the meanings of opening and closing, refuting and harmonising, and so forth. First, the simile of the three beasts crossing the river. All enter the water together, yet the three beasts differ in strength, and the river water has both a bottom and a bank. The hare and the horse are weak in strength: though they reach the other bank, they float shallowly and do not go deep, nor do they reach the bottom; the great elephant is strong in strength, reaching both the bottom and the bank. The three beasts illustrate the three persons; the water illustrates identical-to-emptiness; the bottom illustrates non-emptiness. The wisdom of the two vehicles is slight and cannot seek deeply, illustrated by the hare and horse; the wisdom of the bodhisattva is deep, illustrated by the great elephant. The soft water illustrates emptiness: together they see emptiness, but do not see non-emptiness; the bottom illustrates the real mark, reached solely by the bodhisattva. The wise see both emptiness and non-emptiness. Reaching it is also of two kinds: the small elephant reaches only the mud at the bottom; the great elephant reaches deep down to the solid ground. Although the wisdom of the distinct [teaching] sees non-emptiness, its successive differentiation is not true reality; the non-emptiness of the perfect [teaching] exhaustively reveals the true reality. Such an analogy not only screens out and refutes the two vehicles of the hare and horse as not real, but also screens out the non-emptiness of the small elephant as not real, taking the non-emptiness of the great elephant as the substance of this sūtra. This is selecting in this manner in terms of that which is shared within emptiness as the true truth. Second, the simile of the crystal and the wish-fulfilling jewel. The two jewels resemble each other, their forms and kinds seem identical; yet the crystal is merely empty and cannot rain down jewels, whereas the wish-fulfilling jewel can indeed rain down jewels. The crystal lacking jewels is used to illustrate partial emptiness; the wish-fulfilling jewel's ability to rain them down is used to illustrate the middle way. This screens out the false and reveals the true in terms of combining existence and non-existence into the conventional. The substance of the present sūtra is identical to the wish-fulfilling jewel. Furthermore, to draw an analogy with only one wish-fulfilling jewel: one who obtains the jewel without knowing its power and function merely possesses the jewel; the wise person who obtains it makes great gains. When the two vehicles attain emptiness, they realise emptiness and rest; when the bodhisattva attains emptiness, through skilful means he brings benefit and universally delivers all. This screens out the gain and loss in terms of the true truth containing the middle. The present sūtra takes the wise person obtaining the wish-fulfilling jewel as its sūtra substance. Third, the simile of gold in ore. An ignorant person lacks knowledge: looking at it, he calls it stone, throws it into filth, and takes no notice of it at all. A merchant obtains it, smelts out its gold, and merely guards and prizes it. A goldsmith obtains it and fashions all kinds of hairpins, bracelets, rings, and earrings. An immortal obtains it, refines it into the golden elixir, flies through the sky and enters the earth, touches the sun and moon, and transforms freely. The ignorant person illustrates all ordinary beings: though endowed with the real mark, they do not know how to cultivate it. The merchant illustrates the two vehicles: they only cut off the ore of kleśas, preserve the gold of identical-to-emptiness, and do nothing further. The goldsmith illustrates the bodhisattva of the distinct teaching: skilful in expedient means, knowing emptiness to be non-empty, coming forth into the conventional to transform beings, adorning buddha-lands, and accomplishing sentient beings. The immortal illustrates the bodhisattva of the perfect teaching: phenomena themselves are the truth; at the moment of first giving rise to the mind [of bodhi], he immediately accomplishes right awakening, attains one body and immeasurable bodies, and responds universally to all. The present sūtra takes only the real mark of the golden elixir as its substance. As an analogy based on identity: from beginning to end, all alike are gold; ordinary beings and the perfect teaching are alike the real mark. As an analogy based on difference: first the stone differs from the gold; next the gold differs from the vessels; the vessels differ from the elixir. The colour of the elixir is pure and translucent, like clear oil, soft and exquisitely fine—how could it be the same as rings and bracelets? Their forms differ and their colours are distinct, so they are not of one kind. This screens out the gain and loss in terms of granting and taking away, refuting and harmonising. In citing these three similes: the first illustrates the capacity of faculties, which has shallowness and depth—the shallow attain its emptiness, the deep attain its conventionality and further attain its middle. The next illustrates the three mentalities: the first mentality merely escapes suffering, does not aspire to seek the Buddha path, and rests upon seeing the truth; the second mentality proceeds by successive stages and cannot cultivate in a perfect manner; the latter is vast and great, seeking everywhere throughout the dharmadhātu. The third illustrates the three expedient means: the expedient means of the two vehicles are few, guarding the gold and remaining still; the expedient means of the distinct teaching are weaker, yet able to adorn and conduct affairs; the expedient means of the perfect teaching are deep, hence able to swallow clouds and take in the Milky Way. Now, illuminating the substance of the real mark of this sūtra: like the great elephant reaching the bottom, firm and indestructible, to illustrate the wonder of its substance; like the perfect jewel universally raining [treasures], to illustrate the wonder of its function; like the skilful wisdom becoming an immortal, to illustrate the wonder of its source. These three similes are precisely the three virtues; neither vertical nor horizontal, they are called the Mahāyāna. Within the Mahāyāna, it specifically points to the true nature as the substance of the sūtra. Sixth, selection by awakening. The true marks of phenomena are truly as stated above; yet if practice has not yet tallied with principle, how can it be called truth? Laboriously making four explanations only engenders confusion by chasing words. Hearing of flour, one calls it soft; hearing of snow, one calls it cold; hearing of a shell, one calls it hard; hearing of a crane, one calls it moving—in the end, one can never see the true colour of milk. Roaming at night with a darkened mind, how could one see the truth? Calling out and begging for food brings no reason for satiety. Clinging to oneself as true and others as false, this existing and that not, right and wrong arising mutually, further increases the flux: how could this be called truth? If one wishes to see the truth, shame and repentance must be distinguished. If one repents with utmost earnestness, the capacity stimulates the buddhas; dhyāna and wisdom unfold, the observing mind becomes clear and pure, and faith and understanding are empty and harmonised. At that time, it is still called seeing a stump in the dark, vague and unclear: man, wood, insect, dust are not yet distinct. If one can patiently endure and love of phenomena does not arise, avidyā is completely broken open: like a bright mirror motionless, or pure water without ripples, the colours and forms of fish and stones are naturally clear of their own accord. The pure mind is constantly unified: such an exalted and wonderful person can then see prajñā. When the golden scalpel removes the eye-film, one finger, two fingers, three fingers become distinct. At that time, seeing forms, speaking of existence is correct, and speaking of non-existence is also correct. What is meant by existence? Distinct form corresponds to the eye; genuine principle matches wisdom: this is called existence.

65.9.4

What is meant by non-existence? The absence of marks of hardness, coldness, softness, and motion is called non-existence. A treatise states: 'Everything is real; everything is unreal; both real and unreal; neither real nor unreal—all such are called the real mark of all phenomena.' As Śāriputra said: 'Abiding securely in real wisdom, I shall surely become a buddha, revered by devas and humans; only at that time may it be said that [defilements] are forever extinguished without remainder.' This is called the truly seeing substance. Therefore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'The eight thousand śrāvakas saw the Tathāgata-nature in the Lotus Sūtra, like the autumn harvest and winter storage, with nothing further to be done.' Clarifying 'nothing to be done' in terms of principle: this is the ultimate principle. 'Nothing to be done' in terms of teaching: having heard this teaching, one hears no other. 'Nothing to be done' in terms of practice: having cultivated this practice, one no longer changes tracks. Briefly stated, such various senses of 'nothing to be done' mean that, following the wonderful awakening of wisdom, one is able to see the sūtra substance. One should, with the sense of following the wonderful awakening of wisdom, traverse the various objective realms of truth: at every juncture there are the various distinctions of following emotion, following emotion and wisdom, and following wisdom. Screening out the remaining emotional conceptions, one takes only following wisdom to clearly see the sūtra substance.

65.10

Question: According to the correct principle of Vijñaptimātra, self and phenomena are fundamentally empty. From what do sentient beings' delusional clinging to the two minds of self and phenomena arise?

65.11

Answer: They arise from the sixth and seventh vijñānas taking consciousness as an object. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra states: "Because all cittas and caittas are dependently arisen (paratantra), they are also like magical illusions and are not truly existent. In order to dispel the erroneous attachment that there are real objects outside cittas and caittas, we say there is consciousness only. If one clings to vijñaptimātra as truly existent, it is like clinging to external objects and is also a clinging to dharmas. Furthermore, clinging to dharmas is generally of two kinds: the first is innate (sahaja), and the second is conceptually differentiated (vikalpita). Innate clinging to dharmas, by the power of internal causes through beginningless perfuming, is constantly co-present with the body; without relying on heterodox teachings or perverse differentiation, it operates spontaneously, and is therefore called innate. This has two kinds: the first is constantly continuous, located in the seventh vijñāna, taking the eighth vijñāna as object, giving rise to an image of its own citta, and clinging to it as a real dharma. The second is intermittent, located in the sixth vijñāna, taking as object the characteristics of the aggregates, bases, and elements transformed by consciousness, either collectively or individually, giving rise to an image of its own citta, and clinging to it as a real dharma. Because these two clingings to dharmas are subtle, they are difficult to sever; only by repeatedly cultivating the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas across the subsequent ten bhūmis can they be eliminated. Conceptually differentiated clinging to dharmas is also due to the power of present external conditions; it is not co-present with the body, but must await heterodox teachings and perverse differentiations before arising, and is therefore called conceptually differentiated. It exists solely in the sixth manovijñāna and also has two kinds: the first takes as object the characteristics of the aggregates, bases, and elements expounded in heterodox teachings, gives rise to an image of its own citta, conceptually discriminates, and clings to it as a real dharma; the second takes as object characteristics such as the primordial nature (prakṛti) expounded by heterodox teachers, gives rise to an image of its own citta, conceptually discriminates, and clings to it as a real dharma. Because these two clingings to dharmas are coarse, they are easily severed; upon entering the first bhūmi, contemplating all dharmas as the tathatā of dharma-emptiness, one can eliminate them. As for all such clingings to dharmas described: dharmas outside one's own citta may exist or not exist, but dharmas within one's own citta all exist. Therefore, clinging to dharmas always takes as object the semblances of dharmas manifested by one's own citta, clinging to them as real existents. Yet, because the characteristics of these semblances of dharmas arise from conditions, they exist like magical illusions; whereas the real dharmas that are clung to, being falsely conceptualized, definitely do not exist. Therefore the World-Honoured One said: 'Maitreya, you should know that the objects taken by all consciousnesses are manifestations of consciousness only; their dependently arisen nature is like a magical illusion and the like.' Thus, the ātman and dharmas apart from consciousness clung to by non-Buddhists and the other vehicles are not truly existent. Therefore, cittas and caittas definitely do not use external dharmas such as form as the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya), because the conditioning function must rely on a real substance." The commentary states: "As for 'if one clings to vijñaptimātra as truly existent, it is like clinging to external objects and is also a clinging to dharmas'—for this reason, one should merely dispel those objects outside citta as non-existent like hare's horns, while the citta capable of apprehending them exists like a magical illusion; thus there is a slight difference, but this does not mean that citta is called a real existent." Furthermore, those who cling to an ātman and cling to dharmas outside citta are of two kinds: first, like the non-Buddhists and others, who cling that apart from citta and so forth there is a separate entity that is permanent and one, naming it ātman. This is purely imagined (parikalpita), and its substance is entirely non-existent. Second, the fundamental entity (mūladravya) that serves as the distant objective condition (dūra-ālambanapratyaya), which the cognitive citta cannot directly grasp, is also called outside citta. This is dependently arisen (paratantra), and its substance does exist.

First 14 of 32 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

宗鏡錄 — Classical Chinese