宗鏡錄 72.43

72.43

Answer: If one is efficacious, it is the meaning of emptiness and lack of intrinsic nature. Because of lacking intrinsic nature, it is able to bring about all phenomena. Because the meaning of emptiness exists, all phenomena can be established. Thus, one being efficacious serves as the master, and the many being inefficacious serve as the accompaniment. If the many are efficacious, then no single phenomenon possesses a substance that can stand independently; all rely on the mutual interdependence of multiple conditions to be established. Thus, the many being efficacious serve as the master, and the one being inefficacious serves as the accompaniment. For this reason, establishing an accompaniment allows them to bring each other about; self and other are mutually established. Without an accompaniment, the master is not established; lacking the self, the other is not realized. Furthermore, in terms of function: because they are mutually interdependent, they possess the aspects of efficaciousness and inefficaciousness, which are mutual containment and mutual entry. Second, in terms of substance: because they bring each other about, they possess the aspects of having substance and lacking substance; for this reason, they are mutually identical and mutually equivalent. A sūtra verse states: 'All phenomena lack activity, / Nor do they possess intrinsic substance. / Therefore all phenomena / Do not know one another.' Because it takes the other as the self, it lacks intrinsic substance; because it is established through mutual interdependence, it lacks activity. This is the meaning of inefficaciousness. Furthermore, because of this lack of knowledge and lack of intrinsic nature, conditioned origination comes to be. If a single phenomenon possessed an intrinsic substance, it would not rely on mutual dependence; if there were no mutual dependence, there would be no phenomena; if phenomena were not empty, there would be neither path nor fruition. This is the meaning of efficaciousness. Next, the ten approaches to conditioned origination refer to the power of mutual reliance in conditioned origination, meaning that one and many mutually serve as conditioned origination and are established by relying on one another; hence there are mutual identity, mutual entry, and so forth. This has two aspects: First, in terms of the function of conditions: there are efficaciousness and inefficaciousness, mutual interdependence and reliance, and complete mutual containment; hence there is mutual entry. Second, in terms of the substance of conditions: there are emptiness and non-emptiness, what produces and what is produced, and complete mutual equivalence; hence there is mutual identity. These two approaches of identity and entry further contain two meanings: First, viewed in terms of different substances, there are subtlety, concealment, and manifestation. That is, mutual containment of different substances is the meaning of subtlety; mutual equivalence of different substances possesses the meaning of concealment and manifestation. Second, possessing virtues within the identical substance, there are one, many, broad, and narrow. That is, mutual entry of the identical substance yields unobstructedness between one and many; mutual identity of the identical substance yields unobstructedness between broad and narrow. Furthermore, because differences subsume identity, there is the meaning of Indra's net. In terms of time, there is the meaning of the ten periods of time. Conditioned origination lacks intrinsic nature, hence there is the unobstructedness of nature and characteristics. Interconnection and mutual subsumption yield the meaning of master and accompaniment. The ten meanings of conditions are: 1. The meaning that all conditions are distinct: In the great conditioned origination, when all conditions are viewed in relation to each other, their substances and functions must be distinct and not jumbled together for conditioned origination to be established. If they are jumbled together, the original causal phenomenon is lost, and conditioned origination cannot be established. This means that each condition maintains its own position. A sūtra verse states: 'In the many there is no singular nature; / Nor in the one are there many.' 2. The meaning of mutual pervasion and mutual assistance: They must mutually pervade one another for conditioned origination to be established. Just as one condition pervades and corresponds to many conditions, becoming completely one with each of those many, this one is itself the many ones. This is each one possessing all. A sūtra verse states: 'Know that by means of one there is the multitude; / Know that by means of the multitude there is one.' 3. The meaning of co-presence without obstruction: Any single condition must possess the previous two, because it must abide in its own oneness before it can pervade and correspond, and only by pervading and corresponding to many conditions do the many conditions become one. Because the one does not make itself one, it is made one by the many; because the many do not make themselves many, they are made many by the one. Therefore, the single one and the multiple ones are unimpeded and free. Or, taking the entire substance to abide completely is the single one; or, taking the entire substance to pervade and correspond is the multiple ones; or both co-exist; or both are negated; or they are combined; or they are completely separated. A sūtra verse states: 'All phenomena have nothing they rely on; / They merely arise from combination.' These three approaches conclude the general explanation of the fundamental phenomena of conditioned origination. 4. The meaning of mutual entry among different substances: The forces and functions of the teachings mutually rely on and sustain each other, mutually defining and eclipsing one another; thus, each has the aspects of being completely efficacious and completely inefficacious. Because the one is efficacious, it definitely cannot coexist with the many being efficacious; therefore, there is no one that does not uphold the many. Because the many are inefficacious, they definitely cannot coexist with the one being inefficacious; therefore, there are no many that do not enter the one. The same applies to the many upholding and the one relying. 5. The meaning of mutual identity among different substances: When all conditions are viewed in relation to each other, their entire substances define and eclipse each other, having the aspects of having substance and lacking substance. Therefore, the one condition is that which can give rise to and establish, hence it has substance; the many conditions are that which is arisen and established, hence they lack substance. Because the one has substance, it definitely cannot coexist with the many having substance; because the many lack substance, they definitely cannot coexist with the one lacking substance. Therefore, there is no one that is not many, and there are no many that are not one. 6. The meaning of substance and function harmoniously fusing: First, because substance is never without function, when the entire substance becomes function, there is mutual entry but no mutual identity. Second, because function is never without substance, when the entire function becomes substance, there is only mutual identity and no mutual entry. Third, the function returning to substance does not obstruct function, and the substance that is entirely function does not lose substance; unobstructedly both are preserved, both identical and entering, freely appearing together. Fourth, the substance that is entirely function has its substance obliterated, and the function that is entirely substance has its function extinguished; neither identical nor entering, perfectly fused in a single taste. Fifth, combining the previous four propositions into the same conditioned origination, unobstructedly both are preserved. Sixth, obliterating the previous five propositions, utterly beyond duality and speech, implicitly identical to the ocean of nature. These three approaches conclude the exposition of principles within the initial approach of different substances. 7. The meaning of mutual entry within the identical substance: The multiple ones possessed by the preceding single condition have no distinct substance from that single condition, and thus it is called the identical substance. Furthermore, because this single condition responds to many conditions, mutual entry is explained first: the single condition is efficacious and can uphold the multiple ones, while the multiple ones are inefficacious and rely on that single condition. Therefore, the one can subsume the many, and the many enter the one. 8. The meaning of mutual identity within the identical substance: The multiple ones possessed by the preceding single condition also have the aspects of having substance and lacking substance, and thus are also mutually identical. Because the multiple ones lack substance and are established by the fundamental one, the many are identical to the one. Because the fundamental one has substance and can uphold the multiple ones, the complete one subsumes the many. Just as the one exists while the many are empty, so it is when the many exist while the one is empty. 9. The meaning of complete fusion without obstruction: Identical to the previous six propositions on the harmonious fusion of substance and function. These three approaches conclude the explanation of principles within the second approach of the identical substance. 10. The meaning of the consummation of identity and difference: The preceding nine approaches are combined into one great conditioned origination, causing multiple doctrinal approaches to be simultaneously complete. Because of abiding in one and pervading all, there is the approach of the freedom of broad and narrow. In terms of substance, there is mutual identity; in terms of function, there is mutual entry. Because different substances mutually contain one another, it possesses the approach of subtlety; because different substances are mutually identical, it possesses the approach of concealment and manifestation. In terms of function, mutual entry is manifestation; in terms of substance, mutual identity is concealment. Furthermore, because different substances mutually enter, entailing the aspect of the identical substance, entry possesses the approach of Indra's net. Because this great conditioned origination is the unobstructed dharmadhātu, it possesses the approach of relying on phenomena. Manifested within time, it has the approach of the ten periods of time. Interconnected and mutually subsuming, it has the approach of master and accompaniment. This approach of consummation concludes the explanation of principles within the third approach. A sūtra verse states: 'Bodhisattvas skillfully contemplate the Dharma of conditioned origination; / In a single phenomenon, they understand the multitude, / And in the multitude of phenomena, they comprehend the one.' When the opening and closing of principle and phenomena and the nature of conditions are harmoniously understood in this way, one finally reaches the inexhaustible function of the one mind. The Huayan Yanyi explains: 'Regarding conditioned origination, there are initially three approaches: 1. The approach of different substances; 2. The approach of the identical substance; 3. The approach of jointly clarifying identity and difference. The reason there are identical and different substances is that within all approaches of conditioned origination there are two meanings: First, the meaning of not relying on one another, which means possessing virtues by oneself, just as within causes not relying on conditions is such. Second, the meaning of relying on one another, just as relying on conditions is such. The former is the approach of the identical substance; the latter is the approach of different substances.' If so, why is it that in the initial approach of different substances it is said that all conditions are distinct and not jumbled together, whereas in the second approach of the identical substance it is said that they mutually pervade and correspond, only then establishing conditioned origination? The explanation states: It is only by being distinct that they can rely on conditions; it is only by pervading and corresponding that they possess virtues by themselves. The reason each of the preceding two approaches gives rise to three is: 1. Mutually relying on and upholding, due to efficaciousness and inefficaciousness; 2. Mutually defining and eclipsing, due to having substance and lacking substance; 3. Substance and function harmoniously fusing, due to having no sequence. This is the general idea of conditioned origination. Next, regarding the first approach of different substances: It is only through mutual establishment that each has substance. Regarding the second, the meaning of mutual pervasion and mutual assistance, this is the approach of the identical substance, which possesses multiple ones. Take the analogy of ten coins as conditions: in its own substance, the coin is originally one; when corresponding to two, the first one is then designated as the two-one; when corresponding to three, it is the three-one, and so on up to corresponding to ten, where it is the ten-one. Hence there are multiple ones. If this single condition did not possess multiple ones, then assistance and correspondence would not be pervasive, and conditioned origination would not be established. As for each one possessing all: since one has ten, two, three, four, and so forth also each have ten; hence it is said, 'Each one possesses all.' As in the analogy of the ten coins, among the inexhaustible distinct phenomena of the dharmadhātu, each pervades and corresponds; therefore, each one possesses the distinct phenomena of the dharmadhātu. As for the third, the meaning of co-presence without obstruction: the single one and multiple ones being unimpeded and free generally explains that desiring many, it is constantly many; desiring one, it is constantly one—hence it is called free. 1. Either the entire substance pervades and corresponds; 2. Or the entire substance completely abides; 3. Or both co-exist, meaning both abiding in itself and pervading and corresponding co-exist, and both the single one and the multiple ones also co-exist; 4. Both are negated, because by co-existing, they mutually identify with and eclipse each other: abiding in one is pervading and corresponding, not abiding in one; pervading and corresponding is abiding in one, not pervading and corresponding; 5. Or they are combined, combining the previous four propositions to form the sphere of understanding; 6. Or they are completely separated, completely separating from the previous five to form the sphere of practice. Regarding the fourth, the meaning of mutual entry among different approaches: Mutually relying on and sustaining means that because these are conditioned origination's one and many, they are not a one and many with fixed natures. If the one had a fixed nature, it would not depend on the many; if the many had a fixed nature, they would not depend on the one. Now, because the one has no fixed nature, it arises provisionally through the many; because the many have no fixed nature, they are born through the one. It is through the meaning of equality in lacking nature that conditioned origination is established. If there were a one that could be one, this would be a one with intrinsic nature; if there were many that could be many, this would be many with fixed nature. If they were many with fixed nature, the many would not depend on the one; if it were a one with fixed nature, the one would not depend on the many. Now, because of the many there is one, this one is not one by itself; because of the one there are many, these many are not many by themselves. These many are then inefficacious, and this one is not one by itself; this one is then inefficacious. The inefficacious follows the efficacious, and the one and many mutually subsume each other. Therefore, any single assembly of the Buddha is all assemblies of the Buddha; all Dharma assemblies are a single Dharma assembly. Hence, this single Dharma assembly does not move yet is constantly pervasive, is not divided yet is constantly manifold. The earlier and the later mutually establish each other; how could one not believe this? Furthermore, regarding the former one viewed against the many: on the side of upholding, the one can subsume the many; on the side of relying, the one can enter the many. As with one viewed against the many, there are relying and upholding: having reliance means that the many uphold, so that the one is established; having upholding means that the one is efficacious, serving as the reliance for the many. Speaking of complete efficacy establishes upholding above; speaking of inefficaciousness establishes reliance above. Speaking of constantly containing the many within oneself means that the one is efficacious as an upholder, being able to subsume the many; speaking of secretly entering oneself into the many means that the one is inefficacious as a relying factor, thereby entering the many. Co-presence and double negation mean that the one subsuming the many is the first proposition; the many subsuming the one is the second proposition; co-presence is the third proposition, meaning that when the one subsumes and the one enters, the many also subsume and the many enter; double negation is the fourth proposition: because the one subsumes and enters, the many subsume and enter, so the one subsuming and entering is negated; because the many subsume and enter, the one subsumes and enters, so the many subsuming and entering are negated—hence called double negation. Contrasted with the previous two distinct propositions, there are four propositions, which can also form six: 5. Both illuminating the previous four, forming the sphere of understanding; 6. Suddenly cutting off the previous five, forming the sphere of practice. Regarding the fifth, the meaning of mutual identity among different substances: On the side of what can give rise, there is substance; on the side of what is given rise to, there is no substance. Just as it is said, 'Phenomena arise from conditions; these phenomena are empty,' the intended meaning is that what is produced is empty. Emptiness is the meaning of lacking substance. If they define and eclipse each other, the condition that can give rise faces what is produced and eclipses that which is produced, causing it to lack substance. The statement that because the one has substance, it cannot coexist with the many having substance addresses an objection: 'Both one and many have the two aspects of having substance and lacking substance; why speak solely of the one having substance?' Therefore, this is now resolved by explaining: Because the meanings of existing and lacking cannot coexist simultaneously, now the one is on the side of what can give rise, and the many must be what is given rise to. If it were not so, what can produce and what is produced would not be established, and conditioned origination would also be ruined. Therefore, 'there is no one that is not many' means that this one is the many; 'there are no many that are not one' means that these many are the one.