宗鏡錄 65.5

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?'