宗鏡錄 65.3

65.3

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.