宗鏡錄 69
English (machine translation) 69
- Language
- English
Contents
- 69.33 — 6 parts
69.1
Compiled by Chan Master Zhijue, Yanshou, Abbot of Huiri Yongming Monastery.
69.2
Now, the King of Awakening accords with worldly dharmas and complies with capacities and inclinations. Desiring to reveal the gate of signlessness, he first clarified the principle of having signs. Relying on expedients, he opened the real; borrowing conditioned action, he verified the unborn. This was not the expression of his fundamental intent, but merely the deployment of his hidden intention. Among the four conventional truths, he established the second, the truth of differences according to facts, expounding the teaching of the three categories, namely the skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus. Now, desiring to integrate existence into emptiness, one should first establish and later refute: one must know the cave before the nest can be overturned. Just as with the first category of the five skandhas, the origin of the four great elements, what is their meaning?
69.3
Answer: 'Skandha' (aggregate) means 'storehouse'. It is also called the 'five aggregates' (yin, concealment). 'Concealment' means 'covering', namely storing delusive seeds and covering over the true mind. The *Samuccaya* says: '"Aggregate" has the meaning of accumulation. Furthermore, carrying the burden of defilement is why they are called aggregates, like carrying a load on the shoulder.' This is the explanation according to conventional truth. If discussed according to ultimate truth, there is not a single dharma that can be accumulated, because each lacks its own essence and also lacks any function. Therefore, the *Laṅkāvatārasūtra* states: 'The Buddha told Mahāmati: "One should be skilled in the four great elements and derived matter. How is a bodhisattva skilled in the four great elements and derived matter? Mahāmati, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva trains in this way: regarding that ultimate truth, the four great elements do not arise. Toward those four great elements being unarisen, he makes such an observation. Having completed this observation, the delimitation of delusive conceptualization of name and mark is just the delimitation manifested by one's own mind. And so on, until: Mahāmati, how do those four great elements produce derived matter? Namely, the great element of delusive conceptualization of moisture produces the internal and external water elements; the great element of delusive conceptualization of capacity produces the internal and external fire elements; the great element of delusive conceptualization of fluttering movement produces the internal and external wind elements; and the great element of delusive conceptualization of solid matter produces the internal and external earth elements."' The commentary says: 'The delusive conceptualization of capacity refers to grasping the nature of the fire element as capable of ripening all things. The delusive conceptualization of solid matter refers to grasping the cuttable nature as the earth element.' Since the four great elements are already empty, the five aggregates have no master. For this reason, one first contemplates the aggregate of form as produced by the four great elements, arising mutually dependent on one another. Since there is no controller within the four great elements, who could assemble them to form matter? Observed in this way, the aggregate of form is immediately empty. Since the aggregate of form is already empty, how could the [other] four aggregates exist? Skillfully training in ultimate truth, the foremost pure mind does not abide in a single mark, and thus there are no four great elements that can arise. Therefore we know that everything is nothing other than true awakening; thus, with one awakening, all is awakened, because subsumed in the one mind, there is nothing unawakened. External dharmas originally have no names or marks; the delimitations seen are all merely the measure of mind. Illuminating with prajñā that the five aggregates are all empty: the form of a cluster of foam being already void, how could the sensation of a water bubble exist? The conception of a mirage is not real; the formations of a plantain tree are purely empty. Illusory consciousness is suddenly without support; the space element is serene and unmoving. Investigating the root of the four great elements, nature and characteristics do not even exist; how then could the branches and twigs of the six sense faculties cast a shadow? Since the view of self is not established, delusive consciousness also has nowhere to come from. There is only the one true mind, its spiritual nature standing alone. The ocean-treasury of Ganges-sands [dharmas], the limitless gates of meaning—all are gathered and point back here, the principle culminating in this. It does not go beyond a single thought: person and dharmas are both empty. As the *Sūtra on the Dharani of the Earth's Essence* (持地經) says: 'The Buddha said: "All worldlings, within the dharmas of seeing, hearing, sensing, and cognizing, grasp the aggregate of consciousness and greedily cling to it, thinking it exists. These people greedily cling to the dharmas of seeing, hearing, sensing, and cognizing, and are bound by the aggregate of consciousness. Treasuring what they know, bound by the combination of citta, manas, and vijñāna, they rush to and fro—namely, from this world to that world, from that world to this world—all because they are bound by the aggregate of consciousness. They are unable to truly know the aggregate of consciousness: that the aggregate of consciousness is false, unreal, and associated with error, arising because of the dharmas of seeing, hearing, sensing, and cognizing; within it there is no real conscious entity. If they cannot truly contemplate like this, they may generate wholesome consciousness, unwholesome consciousness, or wholesome-and-unwholesome consciousness. Such people always follow along with consciousness, not knowing where consciousness arises, not knowing the true characteristic of consciousness. Vasudhara, all bodhisattva-mahāsattvas in this regard contemplate correctly in this way: they know that the aggregate of consciousness arises from delusive consciousness, namely arising from various causes and conditions within the dharmas of seeing, hearing, sensing, and cognizing; because they produce the thought of 'dharmas' where there are no dharmas, they greedily cling to the aggregate of consciousness."' Therefore we know that the various aggregates do not go beyond the mind of the emptiness of dharmas in a single thought. Hence the *Yongjia ji* says: 'Clearly recognizing the five aggregates within a single thought: being distinctly vivid is the aggregate of consciousness; reception in the mind is the aggregate of sensation; the mind taking this principle as object is the aggregate of conception; the functioning of this principle is the aggregate of formations; defiling the true nature is the aggregate of form. As for these five aggregates, their entire substance is just a single thought; as for a single thought, its entire substance is completely the five aggregates. Distinctly seeing that within this single thought there is no controller is the wisdom of the emptiness of persons; seeing it as like an illusion or transformation is the wisdom of the emptiness of dharmas.' Therefore the *Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra* states: 'The Buddha told the Good Goddess: "The five aggregates can manifest the dharmadhātu; the dharmadhātu is just the five aggregates."'
69.4
Question: What is the meaning of 'āyatana' (sense base)?
69.5
Answer: The treatise says: 'It has the meaning of a doorway for the arising and growth of consciousness.' One should know that the meaning of 'seed' and the meaning of 'subsuming the differences of all dharmas' are also the meaning of 'āyatana'.
69.6
Question: What is the meaning of 'dhātu' (element)?
69.7
Answer: It has the meaning of establishing boundaries and divisions, because the internal, external, and intermediate are each established in opposition. The *Samuccaya* says: 'It has the meaning of the seed of all dharmas: that is, based on the seeds of all dharmas within the ālayavijñāna, they are designated as dhātu. Dhātu has the meaning of cause. Furthermore, it has the meaning of being able to uphold its own specific characteristics; it also has the meaning of being able to uphold the nature of cause and effect; and it also has the meaning of subsuming and upholding the differences of all dharmas.'
69.8
Question: For what reason are the five aggregates said to be only five?
69.9
Answer: The *Samuccaya* says: 'In order to manifest the five kinds of self-phenomena: 1. the phenomenon of the self's bodily apparatus, which is subsumed by the internal and external form aggregate; 2. the phenomenon of the self's enjoyment, which is the sensation aggregate; 3. the phenomenon of the self's discourse, which is the conception aggregate; 4. the phenomenon of the self's active fabrication of all dharmas and non-dharmas, which is the formations aggregate; 5. the phenomenon of the self's own substance on which they depend, which is the consciousness aggregate. This has the meaning of the phenomenon of the mark of self upon which the bodily apparatus and so forth depend.' Worldly sentient beings mostly grasp and cling to the consciousness aggregate as the self, and grasp and cling to the remaining aggregates as belonging to the self.
69.10
Question: What is the characteristic of the aggregate of form?
69.11
Answer: The characteristic of alteration and manifestation is the characteristic of form. This has three [aspects]: alteration and decay upon contact, meaning that when touched by hands or feet, up to mosquitoes and snakes, it immediately alters and decays; second, spatial manifestation, meaning it can be manifested by way of spatial location.
69.12
Question: What is the characteristic of the aggregate of sensation?
69.13
Answer: The characteristic of experiencing is the characteristic of sensation. Due to this sensation, one experiences the various maturation [results] obtained from pure and impure karma: if it is pure karma, one experiences pleasurable maturation; if it is impure karma, one experiences painful maturation; if it is pure-and-impure karma, one experiences neither-painful-nor-pleasurable maturation. Why is this? Through pure and impure karma, the maturation ālayavijñāna is induced, which is always associated with equanimous sensation. Only this equanimous sensation is the real substance of maturation. The two sensations of pain and pleasure are produced from maturation, and therefore are metaphorically called maturation.
69.14
Question: What is the characteristic of the aggregate of conception?
69.15
Answer: The characteristic of conceptual apprehending is the characteristic of conception. Due to this conception, one conceptualizes the various images and kinds of all dharmas, and according to the meaning of what has been seen, heard, sensed, or cognized, one gives rise to various discourses. 'Discourses' means explanatory statements.
69.16
Question: What is the characteristic of the aggregate of formations?
69.17
Answer: The characteristic of active fabrication is the characteristic of formations. Due to these formations, the mindful citta actively fabricates; that is, it drives the mind within the categories of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate.
69.18
Question: What is the characteristic of the aggregate of consciousness?
69.19
Answer: The characteristic of cognitive discernment is the characteristic of consciousness. Due to this consciousness, one discerns various objects such as forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangibles, and dharmas.
69.20
Question: For what reason are the bases only twelve?
69.21
Answer: The *Samuccaya* says: 'Only because the body and its apparatus are able to serve as the doorways of arising and growth for the six modes of future enjoyment. That is, just as the characteristics of past and present enjoyment of the six modes are upheld by the eyes and so forth, so too the characteristics of future enjoyment of the six modes take the faculties and objects as their doorways of arising and growth. The twelve bases are established solely on the basis of faculties and objects, and not on the basis of the consciousness of the six modes of enjoyment.'
69.22
Question: What is the characteristic of an āyatana (sense base)?
69.23
Answer: It should be understood like the dhātus, as appropriate. That is, the eye will see form, as well as its seeds and so forth, as should be explained according to context.
69.24
Question: For what reason are the elements only eighteen?
69.25
Answer: The *Samuccaya* says: 'Because the body, apparatus, and so forth are able to uphold the nature of past and present enjoyment of the six modes. "Body" refers to the six faculties such as the eye; "apparatus" refers to the six objects such as form; "past and present enjoyment of the six modes" refers to the six consciousnesses; "able to uphold" refers to the six faculties and six objects being able to uphold the basis and intentional object of the six consciousnesses; and the past and present six consciousnesses being able to uphold enjoyment means not relinquishing their own characteristics. One should know that eighteen are called elements (dhātu) in the sense of being able to uphold.'
69.26
Question: What is the characteristic of the eye element?
69.27
Answer: It means that the eye has seen form in the past and presently sees form, and that the seeds of this are accumulated in the maturation ālayavijñāna: this is the characteristic of the eye element. "The eye has seen form in the past" refers to being able to uphold the meaning of past enjoyment by consciousness, in order to manifest the nature of the element. "Presently sees form" refers to being able to uphold the meaning of present enjoyment by consciousness, in order to manifest the nature of the element. "And that the seeds of this are accumulated in the maturation ālayavijñāna" means that the eye-seeds are either merely accumulated in order to induce the future eye faculty, or have already matured in order to produce the present eye faculty. These two kinds are called the eye element because they are the causes for the arising of the eye. As with the characteristic of the eye element, the characteristics of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mental elements are also like this.
69.28
Question: What is the characteristic of the form element?
69.29
Answer: Various forms that the eye has seen in the past and presently sees, as well as the eye element being predominant with respect to them: this is the characteristic of the form element. "The eye element being predominant with respect to them" means that external objects arise based on the predominant condition of the material faculty. As with the characteristic of the form element, the characteristics of the elements of sound, odor, taste, tangible, and dharma are also like this.
69.30
Question: What is the characteristic of the eye-consciousness element?
69.31
Answer: Dependent on the eye and taking form as object, there is the cognition of seeming form, as well as the accumulation of its seeds in the retributive ālayavijñāna: this is the characteristic of the eye-consciousness element. As with the eye-consciousness element, the characteristics of the consciousness elements of ear, nose, tongue, body, and manas are also like this. For this reason, the ultimate truth is not existent, and the conventional truth is not non-existent. When one is deluded about them, notions of "one" and "two" arise; when one awakens to them, then nature and characteristics are unimpeded. Therefore, a past worthy said: "Conventional and ultimate are both extinguished, yet the two truths constantly persist; emptiness and existence are both gone, yet the single taste is ever manifest." As the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra states: "Regarding one who contemplates the correct Dharma, up to: how does one, by weighing mental configurations and relying on correct reasoning, reflect upon the teachings corresponding to the aggregates? It means observing in reliance upon four kinds of reasoning. What are the four? First, the reasoning of dependence. Second, the reasoning of function. Third, the reasoning of proof. Fourth, the reasoning of natural reality (dharmatā). What is called the reasoning of dependence? Briefly speaking, there are two kinds of dependence: first, dependence for arising; second, dependence for designation. As for dependence for arising: by the force of various causes and various conditions, the aggregates are arisen. The arising of these aggregates must necessarily depend on various causes and various conditions. As for dependence for designation: by collections of names, collections of phrases, and collections of syllables, the aggregates are designated. The designation of these aggregates must necessarily depend on collections of names, phrases, and syllables. These are called dependence for arising and dependence for designation regarding the aggregates. Precisely these dependences for arising and dependences for designation, which cause the aggregates to arise and be designated, are called the expedient means of reasoning and yoga; therefore, they are spoken of as the reasoning of dependence. What is called the reasoning of function? It means that once the aggregates have arisen, by virtue of their own conditions they have their own functions, each being distinct. That is, the eye can see form; the ear can hear sound; the nose can smell fragrance; the tongue can taste flavor; the body can feel tangibles; the manas can cognize phenomena. Form is the object-field of the eye, that which is traversed by the eye; up to phenomena being the object-field of the manas, that which is traversed by the manas. Or, furthermore, the remaining instances of this sort: regarding those respective phenomena, one should know that their individual functions are also like this. The reasoning and expedient means of yoga concerning these individual functions of phenomena are all called the reasoning of function. What is called the reasoning of proof? It means that all aggregates are impermanent, born of multiple conditions, suffering, empty, and without self. By means of three pramāṇas, one observes them as they truly are: namely, by the pramāṇa of supreme teaching, by the pramāṇa of direct perception (pratyakṣa), and by the pramāṇa of inference (anumāna). By these three pramāṇas, one verifies the principle: all the wise correctly grasp, establish, and substantiate in their minds that all aggregates have the nature of impermanence, the nature of being born of multiple conditions, the nature of suffering, the nature of emptiness, and the nature of no-self. Such [matters] are called the reasoning of proof. What is called the reasoning of natural reality? It means: by what causes and conditions are those aggregates of such kinds, and the receptacle worlds arranged as such? By what causes and conditions is earth characterized by solidity, water characterized by moisture, fire characterized by warmth, and wind characterized by light movement as its characteristic? By what causes and conditions are the aggregates impermanent, all phenomena without self, and nirvāṇa tranquil? By what causes and conditions does form have the characteristic of changing and deteriorating, sensation the characteristic of experiencing, perception the characteristic of apprehending, conditioned factors the characteristic of constructing, and consciousness the characteristic of cognizing? Because of those phenomena, their original nature must be so, their intrinsic nature must be so, the nature of phenomena (dharmatā) must be so. This natural reality itself is called the reasoning and expedient means of yoga. Whether it is just like this, or different from this, or not like this—all take natural reality as their basis, and all return to the reasoning of natural reality, causing the mind to abide peacefully and causing the mind to understand clearly. This is called the reasoning of natural reality. This is what is meant by observing the teachings corresponding to the aggregates in reliance upon the four kinds of reasoning." Therefore, one knows that the nature of phenomena is naturally so; all is as such. Not a single phenomenon has ever been an obstruction. Understanding it is without fault; clinging to it brings forth harm. If one merely observes in reliance upon the four kinds of reasoning—dependence, function, proof, and natural reality—then the two truths are mutually penetrative, and the one mind is unobstructed.
69.32
Question: The ten thousand phenomena are consciousness-only; this can be known by correct cognition. Moreover, it is said: "When the object-field is extinguished, consciousness ceases; mind and object-field are both dismissed." Now, observing the aggregates, sense fields, and elements, their nature and characteristics are clearly distinct as analyzed above. Why are they dismissed all at once along with the object-field?
69.33.1
Answer: The above was an analysis made according to conventional truth; they seem to exist, yet are not real, merely establishing empty names, ultimately lacking actual substance. For this reason, the Śūraṅgamasūtra subtly investigates and examines them: the aggregates, sense fields, elements, and bases are each and every one empty, neither due to causes nor due to conditions, nor of a naturalistic nature (svabhāva). "Neither due to causes" means not arising from self. "Nor due to conditions" means not arising from other. Since there are no two phenomena of self and other, with no phenomena to combine, this is not arising from both. "Nor of a naturalistic nature" means not arising without cause. Since there is no arising according to the four lemmas, from where could the aggregates exist? Furthermore, one should observe that this one thought of mind does not arise from the separation or union of sense faculty and sense dust. If one says it arises from union: for example, the mirror and the face each having an image, their union in arising should produce two images. If each lacks an image, then in union none should arise. If the mirror and face unite into one to produce the image: now they do not actually unite, and if united there would be no image. If the image arises because mirror and face are separated: each being in a separate location, there should then be an image. Now in fact it is not so. The separation and union of sense faculties and sense dust are also like this. One should know that precisely in thought there is no thought, the places where self and other arise are both empty; precisely in arising there is no arising, and when investigated through separation and union, there is no substance. The passage refuting the five aggregates states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'Suppose a person takes a kalaviṅka jar, stops up its two holes, and holding space inside it walks a thousand li to present it to another country. One should know that the aggregate of consciousness is also like this. Ānanda, such empty space did not come from that place, nor did it enter here. So, Ānanda, if it came from that place, then since empty space was stored in the original jar and taken away, there should be less space at the location of the original jar. If it entered here, upon opening the holes and inverting the jar, one should see space coming out. Therefore, you should know that the aggregate of consciousness is false and illusory, originally neither due to causes and conditions nor of a naturalistic nature.'" Explanation: This refutes the aggregate of consciousness. The jar is a metaphor for the body; space is a metaphor for consciousness. If one clings to there being a consciousness that comes and goes along with the body: when the aggregate of consciousness here ceases and goes to be born in that place, it would be like carrying empty space from here to present it to another country. If this aggregate actually ceased, it would be like there being less empty space at the location of the original jar; if that aggregate were born again, it would be like opening the holes and inverting the jar where one should see space coming out. Hence we know that empty space is unmoving, and consciousness has no going or coming. Since one aggregate is unreal, the four aggregates are also like this. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: "When a person is about to cast off life, yet their mind, manas, and consciousness immediately arise in a good destiny, this mental phenomenon actually has no going or coming, nor any place to which it arrives. It is simply that preceding and following resemble each other in succession, their appearances not differing. Such words are the secret teaching of the Tathāgata." Furthermore, the Buddha said to King Ajātaśatru: "As to what you have said, that you unjustly harmed your innocent former king: which one was your father? It was merely that regarding the five aggregates of conventionally designated sentient beings, you falsely generated the thought of 'father'. Among the twelve sense bases and eighteen elements, which one is the father? If form is the father, the four aggregates should not be; if the four aggregates are the father, form should also not be. If form and non-form combined are the father, this makes no sense. Why? Because the natures of form and non-form do not unite. Great King, ordinary sentient beings falsely generate the thought of 'father' with respect to this aggregate of form. Such an aggregate of form cannot be harmed either." Up to: King Ajātaśatru then addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honoured One, only now do I know that form is impermanent, up to consciousness is impermanent. If I had originally been able to know in this way, I would not have committed the crime." The Lokadharaparipṛcchāsūtra states: "The Buddha said: When these bodhisattvas observe in accordance with reality, they know that the aggregate of consciousness is false and unreal, from the beginningless past constantly having the mark of non-arising. They know that the non-aggregate is the aggregate of consciousness; the image aggregate is the aggregate of consciousness; the illusory aggregate is the aggregate of consciousness. For example, regarding an illusory conjured person, their consciousness is not within, nor without, nor in between; the nature of consciousness is also like this. Like the illusory nature, it is false and conditionally arisen, arising from conceptualisation and discrimination, lacking any actual reality. Like a mechanical wooden figure, consciousness is also like this: arising from inversion, it exists through the combination of false causes and conditions. How could an illusory person possess mental consciousness? Who would claim that a wooden statue has sentience? Compared to false consciousness, the analogy is identical: derived from illusory conditions, it seems to exist." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "When the sun first rises, one sees city gates, watchtowers, and palaces, with travellers going in and out. As the sun rises higher, they gradually vanish; they can only be seen with the eye, but have no reality. This is called a gandharvanagara. Suppose there is someone who has never seen a gandharvanagara before, and seeing it in the morning towards the east, thinks it to be a real pleasure and rushes towards it. As he gets closer it gradually disappears, and as the sun rises higher it vanishes. Parched with extreme thirst, he sees the shimmering heat-shimmer like wild horses and takes it to be water, running swiftly toward it. As he gets closer it vanishes. Exhausted and in dire distress, he reaches a remote mountain and narrow valley; shouting and weeping aloud, he hears an echo and thinks there are inhabitants. Seeking them to utter exhaustion, he sees nothing. Reflecting and awakening by himself, his thirsty and yearning mind ceases. A person without wisdom is also like this: in the empty aggregates, elements, and sense fields, he sees a self, 'mine', and various phenomena. Clinging with a mind of lust and anger, he runs wildly in the four directions, seeking pleasure to satisfy himself; deceived and bewildered by inverted views, he falls into extreme anguish. If by means of wisdom he knows that there is no self and no real phenomena, at that time his inverted yearnings cease." Therefore, one knows that the aggregate of form is like an eye strained by fatigue suddenly displaying the appearance of space flowers; the aggregate of sensation is like the rubbing of hands falsely producing the condition of cold or heat; the aggregate of perception is like someone mentioning sour plums and saliva naturally flowing in the mouth; the aggregate of conditioned factors is like waves upon the water which, when viewed, seem to rush along; the aggregate of consciousness is like a jar storing empty space, carried to present it to another country. These, then, are neither internal nor external, neither identical nor separate. Since combination is not established, neither does a naturalistic existence exist. If these analogies were real, then the five aggregates would not be unreal. Since both are worldly characteristics and not real, we clearly know that the aggregates and sense fields are without substance. They are merely the dharmadhātu of empty nature, the mind of the tathāgatagarbha, without beginning and without end, equally manifest. Hence the Śūraṅgamasūtra states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'Therefore the Tathāgata now explains it to you.'"
69.33.2
"The fundamental cause of the five aggregates is equally deluded conception. Your body was first produced through the conception of your parents; if your mind were not conceived, it could not come to transmit life within conception. As I have said before: when the mind conceives of a sour taste, saliva is produced in the mouth; when the mind conceives of ascending a height, the soles of the feet experience a tingling ache. The precipitous cliff is not there, and the sour object has not arrived: if your physical body were not of the same category as deluded unreality, how could saliva come forth because of talking about sourness? Therefore you should know that your present form-body is named the first deluded conception, which is solidity. As was just said, the mind conceiving of overlooking a height can make your form genuinely experience a tingling ache; because feeling arises, it can move the body of form. Your present favorable benefit and adverse harm, these two appearances driving each other, are named the second deluded conception, which is illusory clarity. Because of your thoughts and reflections, you direct your physical body. The body is not of the same category as thought; why then does your body follow what thought directs? Taking various images, the mind arises and the form grasps them, corresponding with thought: waking, it is the conceiving mind; sleeping, it becomes dreams. Thus your conceiving thoughts perturb deluded sentiments; this is named the third deluded conception, which is interpenetration. The principle of transformation does not abide; it imperceptibly shifts at every moment: nails grow and hair emerges, energy wanes and wrinkles appear on the face; day and night they replace each other, and you are never aware of it. Ānanda! If this were not you, why would your substance alter? If it were certainly your real self, why are you unaware of it? Thus your various formations, never stopping from moment to moment, are named the fourth deluded conception, which is latent obscurity. Furthermore, the essential clarity of yours, at the place where it is serene and unmoving, is called the permanent; within the body it does not go beyond seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing. If it were truly pure and real, it would not admit habituated delusion. Why did you once in past years see a strange object, and as years passed by, there was neither remembering nor forgetting, yet afterwards, when suddenly beholding that past oddity again, the memory was clear and vivid, never having been lost? Then within this essential clarity, serene and unmoving, it is perfumed moment to moment—how could it be calculated? Ānanda, you should know that this serenity is not real; it is like a rushing stream of water that looks tranquil from afar, but because the flow is so rapid, it is not seen, yet it is not that there is no flow. If it were not the source of conception, how could it receive habituated conceiving? Unless your six faculties mutually function, joining and opening, this deluded conception will never be extinguished. Therefore within your present seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing, there are subtle habituations; within the serene clarity, they are like shadowy non-entities, the fifth inverted, subtle essential conception. Ānanda, these five aggregates of clinging are accomplished by the five deluded conceptions. If you now wish to know the shallowness and depth of their causal boundaries: form and emptiness alone are the boundary of form; contact and separation alone are the boundary of feeling; remembering and forgetting alone are the boundary of conception; cessation and arising alone are the boundary of formations; serenity entering and merging into serenity returns to the boundary of consciousness. The sources of these five aggregates arise in overlapping layers: arising is caused by the existence of consciousness, while cessation is eliminated beginning with form. In principle, there is sudden awakening, and following awakening they simultaneously vanish; in phenomena, they are not suddenly eliminated, but exhausted step by step." Therefore, if one sees the five aggregates as existing, that is the world of sentient beings. If one realizes that the five aggregates are empty, that is the world of the truth of reality. If one reaches the true mark of the five aggregates, that is the world of correct wisdom of the middle way, the primary meaning. Apart from these three worlds of the five aggregates, there is not a single dharma that can be posited or established as conventional or as real; what is explained throughout the teachings of an entire lifetime offers no other skillful means than this. Awakened to this, one becomes a Buddha; deluded about this, one is an ordinary being. It is only the one mind; its expansion and contraction are not different. Why? Because one aggregate is named form, and four aggregates are named mind. Arising from the mind, it is therefore called form. Mind is the support; form is that which is supported. When that which is supported is gathered back to the support, there is only the one mind. Root and branch are fundamentally identical; substance and function are eternally joined. The great purport of the Mirror of the Source brings an end to words here. In refuting the six sense bases, the text states: "The Buddha told Ānanda, 'For example, when a person is weary, they sleep; having slept soundly, they then wake. Observing sense objects, they remember; losing memory, they forget. These are the inverted arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, which are inhaled and habituated, returning inside, not transgressing one another; this is called the mental sense faculty. Both this mind and the weariness are equally manifestations of fatigue from staring bodhi. Based on the two kinds of deluded sense objects of arising and ceasing, gathered knowing dwells within, grasping inner sense objects; seeing and hearing flow in reverse, but the flow does not reach the ground; this is called the nature of sensing and knowing. This nature of sensing and knowing, apart from these two objects of waking and sleeping, arising and ceasing, has ultimately no substance. Thus, Ānanda, you should know that such a faculty of sensing and knowing does not come from waking or sleeping, does not exist from arising or ceasing, does not issue from the sense faculty, and is not produced from emptiness. Why? If it came from waking, sleep would immediately cease along with it—what would be used for sleeping? If it necessarily existed at the time of arising, ceasing would be identical to nonexistence—who would be made to experience ceasing? If it existed from ceasing, upon arising it would be ceased and nonexistent—who would know arising? If it issued from the sense faculty, the two marks of waking and sleeping open and close according to the body; apart from these two substances, this sensing and knowing is identical to flowers in the sky, ultimately devoid of nature. If it were produced from emptiness, it would naturally be the knowing of emptiness; what would it have to do with your sense base? Therefore you should know that the mental sense base is delusive and unreal; it is fundamentally neither causes and conditions nor a spontaneous nature.'" Explanation: This refutes the mental sense base. The commentary says: "'Observing sense objects, they remember'—remembering is arising. 'Losing memory, they forget'—forgetting is ceasing. Losing and remembering are not separate from one's own mind, yet one deludedly considers them to be external objects. Therefore it says, 'These are the inverted arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing.' 'Inhaled and habituated, returning inside, not transgressing one another' means that arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing are inhaled and habituated, returning within the conscious mind, hence 'returning inside.' The preceding thought ceases and the subsequent thought arises without disorder or confusion, hence 'not transgressing one another.' Thus the sūtra says: 'The nature of mind arises and ceases just like an ape.' One should know that seeing objects arise and cease is precisely the mark of the arising and ceasing of one's own mind. Therefore it is said, 'When the mind arises, various dharmas arise.' 'Grasping inner sense objects; seeing and hearing flow in reverse, but the flow does not reach the ground; this is called the nature of sensing and knowing' means that the eyes and ears grasp external sense objects, which instantly flow into the ground of the mind; coming from the outside to the inside is called 'flowing in reverse.' The eyes and ears only take present objects as conditions; by the second moment, their conditioning cannot reach them, hence 'the flow does not reach the ground'; the mental sense faculty alone grasps them."
69.33.3
is named the nature of awareness and cognition. This nature of awareness and cognition arises due to the anterior dusts [of sense objects], and is ultimately without substance. Through false cognition and forced awareness, internal sentient beings are formed; due to the cessation of thought and the condensation of emptiness, external lands are formed. A sūtra says: 'Thoughts settled and clear form lands; knowing and awareness are sentient beings.' Deluded about the serene and tranquil One Mind, [beings] construct the internal six sense-entrances; there is no separate substance whatsoever, they are solely true emptiness. Since the entrance of the mind is empty, the preceding five entrances—the eye and so forth—are also like this. In the text refuting the twelve sense-bases, it says: 'The Buddha told Ānanda: In your mind, that which is conditioned by the three natures—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate—generates dharmas. Then are these dharmas produced by being identical to the mind, or do they have a separate location apart from the mind? Ānanda, if they are identical to the mind, then dharmas are not dust [objects]; not being what is conditioned by the mind, how could they form a sense-base? If they are apart from the mind and have a separate location, then is the intrinsic nature of dharmas knowing or non-knowing? If it is knowing, it is called mind; being different from you, it is not an object-dust, but is equivalent to the mental capacity of another; being identical to you, it is identical to your mind—how then could your mind be further doubled apart from you? If it is non-knowing, then since this dust is neither form, sound, smell, taste, separation and union, cold and warmth, nor the characteristic of empty space, where should it be known to reside? Now within form and emptiness it has no manifestation at all; it should not be that in the human realm there is yet something outside of emptiness. If it is not what is conditioned by the mind, on what basis is the sense-base established? Therefore you should know that dharmas and the mind both lack a location; thus the mind and dharmas are both false, originally neither causes and conditions nor spontaneous nature.' Explanation: This refutes the two sense-bases of the mind and dharmas. In dividing that which can mark and designating what is constructed, projecting and maintaining, establishing object and establishing mind—all are mind and dharmas. If one first refutes the root of their discriminative delusion, the preceding five sense-faculties and ten sense-bases will naturally collapse. The dharma sense-base is what is conditioned; the mind sense-base is that which conditions. Just take the dharma sense-base: is it identical to the mind, or not identical to the mind? If it is identical to the mind, then dharmas are entirely mind; the mind does not see the mind, so how could it form a sense-base? If it is apart from the mind and has a separate location, then is the intrinsic nature of dharmas with-knowing or without-knowing? If it has knowing, it is called mind and does not form a dharma. If it is without knowing, it does not belong to one's own mind, being equivalent to the mental capacity of another. Since one knows that neither of the two sense-bases has an intrinsic substance, the dharmas of the three natures—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate—and the minds of the four kinds of mind-faculties, are all of the same nature; there is no distinction between that which conditions and what is conditioned. Mind and object are both empty. Therefore a treatise says: 'All that is discriminated is merely the discrimination of one's own mind; the mind does not see the mind, and no characteristics can be apprehended.' Then the principle of signlessness manifests, the feelings of constructed existence perish, and both the name and meaning of causes, conditions, and spontaneity are utterly extinguished. By extension, the form and mind of the ten sense-bases are also like this. In the text refuting the eighteen dhātus, it says: 'The Buddha told Ānanda: As you understand, mind and dharmas serve as conditions to produce the manovijñāna. Is this consciousness produced by cause of the mind, taking the mind as its dhātu, or produced by cause of dharmas, taking dharmas as its dhātu? Ānanda, if it is produced by cause of the mind, in your mind there must be something thought of to bring forth your mind. If there are no preceding dharmas, the mind has nothing from which to arise; apart from conditions it has no form—what would the consciousness use? Furthermore, is your conscious mind, together with the various deliberations and the cognising nature, the same or different? If it is the same as the mind, it is the mind itself—how could it be what is produced? If it is different from the mind and not the same, it should have no consciousness; if it has no consciousness, how could it be produced from the mind? If it has consciousness, how could consciousness be the mind? Only sameness and difference: neither of the two natures is established—how could the dhātu be posited? If it is produced by cause of dharmas, the various worldly dharmas are not separate from the five dusts. You observe the dharmas of form, and the dharmas of sound, smell, taste, and tangibles: their characteristics are distinct and correspond to the five sense-faculties; they are not subsumed by the mind. If your consciousness is definitely produced in reliance on dharmas, you should now contemplate carefully: what is the shape of the dharma-dharmas? If separated from form and emptiness, movement and stillness, permeability and blockage, union and separation, production and cessation, going beyond these various characteristics, nothing whatsoever can be apprehended. When produced, form, emptiness, and all dharmas are equally produced; when ceasing, form, emptiness, and all dharmas equally cease. Since that which is the cause does not exist, when a consciousness is produced by that cause, what shape and characteristic does it have? If characteristics do not exist, how can the dhātu arise? Therefore you should know: mind and dharmas serving as conditions to produce the manovijñāna-dhātu—all three places do not exist. Thus the mind, dharmas, and the mind-dhātu—these three—are originally neither causes and conditions nor spontaneous nature.' Explanation: This refutes the manovijñāna-dhātu. Within the eighteen dhātus, all are established on the basis of the manovijñāna. If the root where they are established is already empty, how could the produced branches exist? Since no location can be found, nor any boundary to rely upon, phenomena deceive and principle is empty; sentiments collapse and attachments weaken. The roots and trunks of evil views are completely uprooted; the nest and den of false consciousness simultaneously collapse. The true mind alone shines brightly, completely pervading the dharmadhātu. Anguo said: 'This means that the dhātus of the five dusts—form and so forth—are objects of direct perception. When the five consciousnesses directly experience them, there are no dust-characteristics at all. In the tathāgatagarbha, the body and the receptacle[-world] appear suddenly without dust-characteristics. The sixth and seventh [consciousnesses] give rise to false thoughts, supposing that there are self and dharmas; the characteristics manifested by thought are transformations of discrimination. The transformed characteristics of discrimination can only serve as objects, but have no real function. Just as when the sun sends forth rays bearing fine dust particles, they appear red together, but are not truly red; or just as when water is clear and pure, holding thin clouds, it appears green together, but is not truly green. If one realizes the nature of the [tathāgata]garbha, one knows that the dust-objects are false.' Therefore we know that all dharmas merely arise from discrimination. Once discrimination is empty, how could names and characteristics exist? Now, the emptiness of persons is easy to comprehend, but the self of dharmas is difficult to eliminate. Failing to understand that dharmas arise following conditions, one clings to their having an intrinsic substance. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'If one clings to the substance of dharmas as existent, this is called the attachment to the self of dharmas.' For instance, people of the two vehicles practice by relying on the coarse discriminative vastu-prativikalpa-vijñāna; they only comprehend that within dharmas there is no self, but do not know that the substance of dharmas is entirely empty. Hearing that all dharmas are empty, they give rise to great dread. Hence we know that the emptiness of dharmas is the root, and the emptiness of persons is the branch. When the rope in the night is not yet understood, how could the thought of a snake be removed? While the cataracts in the eyes still remain, how could the flowers in the sky vanish? In the text refuting the natures of the seven great elements, it says: 'The Buddha told Ānanda: The nature of consciousness has no origin; it falsely issues forth due to the six kinds of sense-faculties and dusts. You now observe all the noble assembly in this gathering.'
69.33.4
[When] you look around with your eyes, their gaze encompasses everything, yet like reflections in a mirror, it makes no separate analysis. Your consciousness in their midst successively marks and designates: 'This is Mañjuśrī; this is Pūrṇa; this is Maudgalyāyana; this is Subhūti; this is Śāriputra.' Does this cognizing consciousness arise from seeing? Does it arise from appearances? Does it arise from empty space? Or does it emerge abruptly without any cause? Ānanda, if the nature of your consciousness were to arise from seeing: if there were no light or dark, nor form or void, these four definitely being absent, there would originally be no seeing of yours. When even the nature of seeing does not exist, from what could consciousness arise? If the nature of your consciousness were to arise from appearances and not from seeing, then since you would see neither light nor dark, and light and dark were not observed, there would be no form or void. When those appearances do not even exist, from what could consciousness arise? If it arose from empty space, it would be neither appearance nor seeing. Being not seeing, it would lack discernment and naturally could not know light, dark, form, or void; being not appearance, conditions would be extinguished, and seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing would have nowhere to be established. Placed between these two negatives, if it were void, it would be identical to nothingness; if it were existent, it would not be the same as physical things. Even if your consciousness were to arise, what would it seek to discern? If it emerged abruptly without any cause, why do you not distinguish the bright moon at midday? Examine this even more minutely; scrutinize it subtly and carefully. Seeing relies on your pupils; appearances are referred to the objective realm before you. What can be given shape becomes existent; what lacks shape becomes non-existent. From what do such conditions for consciousness arise? Consciousness is active while seeing is still; they are neither blended nor combined. Hearing, listening, feeling, and knowing are also like this. The conditions for consciousness cannot arise of themselves from nowhere. If this conscious mind originally comes from nowhere, you should know that the discriminating seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing are fully perfect and serene, their nature having no source of origin. Together with earth, water, fire, and wind, they are collectively called the seven elements. Their natures are truly harmonious and merged, all being the tathāgatagarbha, fundamentally without arising or ceasing. Ānanda, your mind is coarse and superficial, and fails to realize that the manifests and cognitions of seeing and hearing are fundamentally the tathāgatagarbha. You should observe this conscious mind of the six places: is it identical or different? Is it empty or existent? Is it neither identical nor different? Is it neither empty nor existent? Originally, you did not know that within the tathāgatagarbha, the nature of consciousness is luminous knowing, and the luminosity of awakening is the true consciousness, wonderfully awake, tranquil, and serene, completely pervading the dharmadhātu, containing and emitting the ten directions of emptiness—how could it have a fixed location? It manifests according to karma. Worldly people in their ignorance mistake it for causes and conditions or a spontaneous nature; these are all the discriminations and reckonings of the conscious mind. They are mere words, completely devoid of real meaning.' Explanation: This refutes the nature of the consciousness element. Carefully examining the Buddha's intent, it fundamentally accords with the unarisen. But because sentient beings are solely deluded by false consciousness, with their turbid and agitated nature they give rise to parikalpita (imaginative construction) within the source of awakening, follow defiled conditions, and submerge the pariniṣpanna (consummated nature) in the sea of consciousness. Asleep in the dream-house of the three realms, through a single awakening they still do not sober up through dust-eons. Forming phantom bodies of the four great elements, their arising and ceasing cannot be counted even by the sands of the Ganges. Now, examining this consciousness, it decidedly has no substance. Arising from conditions, all accords with the unarisen. When investigated through the four propositions, it naturally contains a subtle principle. 'Does this cognizing consciousness arise from seeing?' If there were no light, dark, form, or void, there would originally be no nature of seeing. When even the nature of seeing does not exist, from what could consciousness arise? This refutes arising from self. 'Does it arise from appearances?' If it did not arise from seeing, then it would not see dark or light. When light and dark are not observed, there is no form or void. When those appearances do not even exist, from what could consciousness arise? This refutes arising from other. Having obtained neither the nature of seeing oneself nor the contemplation of other appearances, self and other being unreal, there is no combination. Therefore it examines: 'Seeing relies on your pupils; appearances are referred to the objective realm before you. What can be given shape becomes existent; what lacks shape becomes non-existent. From what do such conditions for consciousness arise? Consciousness is active while seeing is still; they are neither blended nor combined. Hearing, listening, feeling, and knowing are also like this.' Because the active and the still conflict with each other, functionally they cannot combine. This refutes arising from both. 'Does it arise from empty space? Or does it emerge abruptly without any cause?' If it arose from empty space, it would be neither appearance nor seeing; even if your consciousness were to arise, what would it seek to discern? If it emerged abruptly without any cause, why do you not distinguish the bright moon at midday? The sun belongs to the morning light; the moon holds the yin spirit. Their times, hours, and moments have not shifted from past to present; each has its cause. Without a cause, nothing exists. This refutes uncaused arising. As soon as the four propositions are emptied, all hundred negations are completely eliminated. Then all clinging to false reckonings—internal causes and external conditions, the blending of mind and matching of realm, uncaused spontaneity, and so forth—these dust-like passions of delusion are all devoid of real meaning. The traces and shadows of mad flowers are entirely unreal; why wait for what is untrue? The words and expressions of conceptual proliferation suddenly cease, and intellectual understanding completely dissolves. Since the nature of empty space is merged, how could the substance of the six elements exist? For the earth element has no self-nature, being formed of the four disks; the water element has no self-nature, congealing and flowing without fixity; the fire element has no self-nature, lodging in various conditions; the wind element has no self-nature, displaying motion by adhering to things; the space element has no self-nature, deriving its name in contrast to form; the nature of seeing depends on conditions, existing through harmony and combination; and the nature of consciousness has no substance, being unreal just like a phantom. Furthermore, as for the fire element having no self-nature: as the Śūraṅgamasūtra says, 'The nature of fire is true emptiness.' An ancient commentary explains: 'Nature' is the nature of original awakening; 'fire' is the fire of original awakening. Both are transformations of sentient beings' minds. For example, when the mind of the sixth consciousness grows hot, the entire body becomes cramped; if it is transformed and arisen from within the eighth consciousness, it pervades and is identical to the dharmadhātu. Awakening to the nature of the dharmadhātu, all is fire transformed within my own mind. For instance, Dharma Master Chonghui of the Western Capital, during the fourth year of the Dali era, contended with Daoists in the capital and was able to enter fire without being burned; this was through seeking the power of Avalokiteśvara. How much more so for one's own realization! After attaining realization, entering even into the hells, one will not be burned. Present worldly fire manifests according to place, responding to the karma of sentient beings, greater or lesser as intended. For example, when dragons fight, they also generate fire that burns forests and marshes, down to the lightning-fire in the clouds. And when a person's lustful mind flares up, fire burns celestial shrines. All arise from the fire of the mind. Because the mind is agitated, fire arises; if only the mind does not move, one will not be burned.
First 36 of 42 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 宗鏡錄 — Classical Chinese