宗鏡錄 72.39

72.39

Answer: The true Dharma of the Buddha-path is in all cases produced from conditions. Therefore it is said that mental dharmas are produced from four conditions, while physical dharmas arise from two conditions. If one clings to their not being produced from conditions, none of this is the true Dharma; all of it belongs to the mistaken views of non-Buddhist naturalism. Furthermore, as for the single dharma of the mind: if there were no first condition, the direct cause, there would be no sense of directly producing the manifest fruit, and thus the various dharmas would not be established. If there were no second condition, the immediately preceding condition, there would be no sense of clearing the way and leading to subsequent production, and there would be no continuity, becoming completely discontinuous. If there were no third condition, the objective condition, the mind would have no object of thought, could not pull forth the function of the mind, and the mind would have nowhere to rely, so both mind and object would result in complete annihilation. If there were no fourth condition, the sovereign condition, although possessing the preceding three conditions, without the sovereign condition there would be an obstruction, and the dharma would also not be produced. Only when the four conditions are complete is a mental dharma formed. If one can clearly understand the dharmas produced from conditions in the world, only then will one perceive the import of non-arising, because by means of the very dharmas that arise, one penetrates non-arising. If one does not even know the correct causes of arising dharmas, how could one comprehend the subtle principle of non-arising? Therefore, the Huayan Commentary says: 'The profound meaning of dependent origination is the source of the Buddha's teaching.' From antiquity, the various masters have mostly said: 'As for the sources of the three teachings, Confucianism takes as its source the five constants, Daoism takes as its source the natural (ziran), and Buddhism takes as its source causes and conditions.' Now, although Laozi said, 'The Dao produced the one, the one produced the two, the two produced the three, and the three produced the myriad things,' this seems to have causes and conditions, but it is not the true causes and conditions. Speaking of 'the Dao produced the one': because the Dao is empty nothingness and the natural, he also said, 'Man models himself on Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Dao, and the Dao models itself on the natural.' That which is vacuous and penetrating is called the Dao, which is naturally so. This, although it has causes and conditions, also results in the meaning of the natural. Although in the Buddha's Dharma there is unprompted wisdom and spontaneous wisdom, these are the permanent true principle, which must depend on conditions to be revealed; thus it is also causes and conditions. Therefore the teaching speaks of the three time periods, cultivating causes and tallying with results, because it is not without good causes and bad causes. In the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: 'The Buddha speaks of the permanent and inconceivable; those non-Buddhists also have the permanent and inconceivable. How do they differ?' The Buddha said: 'Those non-Buddhists do not have the permanent and inconceivable, because it is causeless. I say that the permanent and inconceivable has a cause, because it is caused by internal realization. How could they be the same?' Thus, the truly permanent is also revealed by causes and conditions. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'The expounded Dharma is neither existent nor non-existent; through causes and conditions, all dharmas are produced.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'The Buddhas, the most honored among two-legged beings, know that dharmas are permanently devoid of nature. The Buddha-seed arises from conditions; therefore they teach the One Vehicle.' Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'All dharmas take causes and conditions as their root.' The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'There has never been a single dharma that is not produced from causes and conditions; therefore, of all dharmas, there is none that is not empty.' Thus, the true emptiness of the Middle Way is also causes and conditions. If so, the Nirvāṇasūtra says: 'I contemplate all conditioned formations as being entirely impermanent. How is this known? Through causes and conditions. If all dharmas are produced from conditions, one knows they are impermanent. For these non-Buddhists, there is not a single dharma that is not produced from conditions; therefore they are impermanent.' Thus the non-Buddhists have causes and conditions. The explanation says: this clarifies that non-Buddhists, within causes and conditions, cling to the characteristics of conditions as being permanently abiding. Therefore, in order to refute them, it says they are impermanent. Now it is explained that the teachings express the subtle principle of causes and conditions as possessing both permanence and impermanence; how could they be the same? What is more, a source is spoken of from the predominant perspective; therefore, that causes and conditions are what is sourced should not be doubted. Thus we know that it is purely the Dharma gate of the dependent origination of the one mind, because dharmas lack self-nature and manifest according to the mind. The dharmas that manifest are entirely one's own mind; ultimately there is no dharma outside the mind that can serve as a condition for the mind. Therefore root and branch contain each other, both returning to the mirror of the source. How so? The internal is the root, and the external is the branch. By the meaning of mind-only, the internal contains the external; by relying on objects to produce the mind, the branch also contains the internal. If one takes the dharma-nature as the root, the dharma-nature is harmoniously penetrating and the aspects of dependent origination mutually depend, so that a speck of dust encloses a great body, and a hair-tip accommodates Buddha-lands. Therefore they combine into one great dependent origination. Thus we know that having wisdom without extensive learning, or having extensive learning without wisdom, both fail to reach the true characteristic. When learning and wisdom are complete, one truly sees the source of the mind. Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'If one wishes to learn prajñā, one should learn all dharmas, because since form is boundless, prajñā is boundless.' Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'If one wishes to fully comprehend direct causes, immediately preceding conditions, objective conditions, and sovereign conditions, one should learn prajñā.' The commentary in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'It does not refute the meaning of the four conditions; it only refutes grasping onto the four conditions. Like the moon in the water, it does not refute what is seen, but only refutes what is grasped.' Thus we know that if there is only the grasping sentiment of a grasper, what is non-illusory becomes an illusory dharma. If one accomplishes wisdom without attainment, then even the non-illusory itself is not produced. When grasping is destroyed and sentiments are emptied, the myriad dharmas are without fault; what could obstruct the true nature of prajñā? As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: 'Bodhisattvas skillfully know conditions. Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas do not see the characteristic of form, do not see the condition of form, do not see the substance of form, do not see the arising of form, do not see the cessation of form, do not see a single characteristic, do not see different characteristics, do not see the seer, do not see appearances, and do not see the experiencer. Why? Because they understand causes and conditions. As with form, so it is with all dharmas.' Furthermore, the previous meanings of the ten causes, four conditions, and so forth were spoken from the perspective of the Dharma-characteristic school, briefly clarifying the operational characteristics. Now, relying on the unrestricted and unimpeded Dharma gate of the Dharma-nature school, their substance and nature are explained. According to the inexhaustible source of the dharmadhātu's dependent origination in the Huayan, there are also the six meanings of the causal aspect and the ten meanings of dependent origination. Now, to first explain the six meanings of the causal aspect: 1. Empty, potent, and not waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of momentary cessation. Because of momentary cessation, it lacks self-substance; this is 'empty.' Because of this cessation, the fruit dharma can be produced; this is 'potent.' However, this ceasing is not due to conditions, but by its own power; hence 'not waiting on conditions.' 2. Empty, potent, and waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of simultaneous existence. Because of simultaneous existence, the moment it exists, it is revealed, which is not-having; this is the meaning of 'empty.' Because of being simultaneous, it can accomplish existence; this is 'potent.' Because of being simultaneous, it is not scattered; this is 'waiting on conditions.' 3. Empty, impotent, and waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of waiting on conditions. Because of lacking self-nature, it is 'empty.' Because the cause does not produce and conditions produce, it is 'impotent.' 4. Existent, potent, and not waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of determinate. Because its own category does not alter, this is the meaning of 'existent.' However, without itself altering, it produces the fruit; hence the meaning of the fruit being 'potent.' Yet this non-alteration is not due to the power of conditions; hence 'not waiting on conditions.' 5. Existent, potent, and waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of leading to its own fruit. Because it leads to and manifests its own fruit, this is the meaning of 'existent.' Although it requires conditions to be produced, it does not produce the fruit of conditions; this is the meaning of 'potent.' Precisely because of this, it is the meaning of 'waiting on conditions.' 6. Existent, impotent, and waiting on conditions: this is the meaning of constantly following and turning. Because it follows others, it is impotent; therefore it 'waits on conditions.' When the direct cause faces conditions, there are only three meanings: First, the cause is potent and does not wait on conditions, because it can produce entirely, not mixed with the power of conditions. Second, the cause is potent and waits on conditions, because they mutually assist and initiate each other. Third, the cause is impotent and waits on conditions, because it does not act at all, using conditions. Furthermore, due to the above three meanings, within the cause there are each the two meanings of empty and existent. The two aspects each have three, so there are only six; they neither increase nor decrease. Why is a fourth phrase, 'impotent and not waiting on conditions,' not established? Because that is not the meaning of a cause, it is not established.