宗鏡錄 79
English (machine translation) 79
- Language
- English
79.1
Compiled by Master Yanshou, Dhyāna Master Zhijue, Abbot of Huiri Yongming Monastery.
79.2
Outside the mind there are no dharmas, and outside dharmas there is no mind. If one understands in this way, that is a true good friend (kalyāṇamitra). The wondrous principle of the one mind is fully realized without doubt. Why then does one listen to and accept external good and evil friends?
79.3
Answer: They are all accomplished through the combination of sovereign conditions (adhipatipratyaya) and false discrimination. Sentiments of 'this' and 'that' arise without any reality.
79.4
The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra asks: 'Why is it that when one encounters a good friend, one hears good dharmas explained, and when one meets an evil friend, one hears evil dharmas explained? If there are no external sensory objects whatsoever, how do they speak? If they do not speak, how can one hear? If one does not hear, how is this accomplished?'
79.5
The verse answers: 'Mutually they serve as sovereign conditions; / The minds of this and that combine in conditions.' Because all sentient beings falsely discriminate, think, and recollect, 'He speaks and I hear,' while in reality there is no sensory object before one. Therefore, if one clings to internal and external, mind and sensory objects oppose each other, and one has not even entered the gate of faith, how could it be called listening to the Dharma? The Dhāraṇīśvararāja Sūtra states: 'When the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and manas have nothing flowing in and heard, that is called listening to the sūtra. If one is defiled by the sense bases (āyatana), then there is nothing heard, and one merely abides in form.' The Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī Sūtra states: 'The absence of all dharmas is named the one-syllable dhāraṇī Dharma-gate.' If one can have faith and understanding like this, the listener has nothing heard and nothing attained; only when mind and sensory objects are non-dual does one hear the sūtras spoken by the Buddha, which can be called true hearing and meeting a good friend. If one listens to the Dharma with a conditioned mind, this Dharma is also a condition and does not attain the Dharma-nature; then one flows along with sensory objects and turns following causes and conditions, all because of not understanding one's own Dharma, thereby causing internal and external conditions to divide. As a sūtra states, the Buddha said: 'Wherever this sūtra is present, there is a Buddha, no different from my abiding in the world.' Hence we know that the Buddha of one's own mind is everywhere pervasive; how could one speak of earlier or later, appearing or disappearing? If one follows different sensory objects, there is impermanence of arising and ceasing; if one sees other Buddhas, concealment and manifestation are inconstant; if one recites other sūtras, the voice is interrupted. Therefore the Patriarch said: 'Seeking a Buddha with characteristics externally does not resemble you.' Master Zhi said: 'Reciting a thousand rolls of sūtras every day, seeing the sūtra on paper, one does not recognize it.' Furthermore, an ancient virtuous one said: 'The outgoing breath does not depend on external conditions; the incoming breath does not abide in the aggregates (skandha) or realms (dhātu). Constantly turning such a sūtra is not merely hundreds of thousands of myriad rolls.' How can that compare to awakening to this true good friend, presenting itself moment to moment, naturally turning the sūtra of the inexhaustible treasury, blazing and eternally expounding?
79.6
Question: If the mind is empty and sensory objects are quiescent, the principle is truly without difference; yet confronting sense organs and dusts in the present, phenomena and marks conflict. How can it be clearly understood that sensory objects and wisdom are one and the same?
79.7
Answer: For a single period, sense faculties and sense objects conventionally exist but truly are non-existent; ultimately, neither self nor other is apprehendable at all. Furthermore, if one determinately clings to the true as existing and the conventional as non-existent, one commits the two slanders of superimposition and deprecation. It is only when the two truths are jointly unified that one perfectly understands the one mind. As an objection in the *Buddha-Nature Treatise* (*Foxing lun*) states: "If all dharmas lack a real nature, this contradicts direct perception (pratyakṣa), and that which is practiced and that which practices could not be attained. I now directly see that sound and the ear confront each other, whereby hearing is obtained; hence we know [things] are not empty." The explanation says: This assertion is incorrect. Why? The intrinsic nature of that which practices, that which is practiced, and direct perception are all unattainable; intrinsic nature is not established. If a single nature is not established, how could multiple natures be established? Moreover, as for what you said about how direct perception could be established: I now establish direct perception to reveal and clarify the two emptinesses. Because all dharmas are empty, intrinsic nature cannot be attained. Just as when seeing illusory occurrences and illusory objects, what is seen by direct perception does not exist in reality; all dharmas are likewise: they do not exist as seen, and yet there is that which is seen. Because their substance is unreal, they do not exist; because of direct perception, they are not non-existent. Because their substance is non-existent, the meaning of emptiness is established; because of direct perception, nominal existence is not lost. It also says: Regarding the characteristics of the dependent nature (paratantra-lakṣaṇa), there are the superimposition and deprecation of the grasping and the grasped. Due to understanding this nature, such clinging does not arise. If one sees the true as existent, that is superimposition, called the view of permanence. If one sees the conventional as determinately non-existent, that is deprecation, called the view of annihilation. Because there is only the consciousness that resembles sense objects, there is no separate grasper or grasped. Because there is no grasper or grasped, there is no clinging of superimposition. Because there is the consciousness resembling sense objects, there is no clinging of deprecation. If one knows that external objects are consciousness appearing deceptively, they are not non-existent. If one comprehends that external characteristics are fundamentally empty like an illusion, they are not existent. Being not non-existent, the conventional truth is not destroyed; being not existent, the ultimate truth is not concealed. Therefore, the true and the conventional are fused and identical yet constantly distinct; emptiness and existence appear together yet are perpetually the same. Only then does one transcend feelings of conceptual proliferation (prapañca) and begin to accord with the purport of the one mind. As the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra* says: When this chapter on the Perfection of Wisdom was spoken, the Buddha was amidst the four assemblies, gods, humans, dragons, ghosts, spirits, kiṃnaras, mahoragas, and so forth. Before the great assembly, he manifested the transformation of psychic power. The entire great assembly saw the Buddha Akṣobhya surrounded by the saṅgha of monks preaching the Dharma... up to: At that time, the Buddha withdrew his psychic power, and the entire great assembly no longer saw the Buddha Akṣobhya, the śrāvakas, the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, or his land; they did not confront their eyes. Why? Because the Buddha had withdrawn his psychic power. At that time, the Buddha told Ānanda: "So it is, Ānanda: all dharmas do not confront the eyes; dharmas and dharmas do not see each other; dharmas and dharmas do not know each other. So it is, Ānanda: just as the disciples, bodhisattvas, and land of the Buddha Akṣobhya did not confront the eyes, so it is, Ānanda: all dharmas do not confront the eyes; dharmas and dharmas do not know each other; dharmas and dharmas do not see each other. Why? All dharmas are without knowing and without seeing, without action and without motion; they cannot be grasped and are inconceivable. Like illusory persons, they are without sensation and without perception, without reality. When a bodhisattva-mahāsattva practices thus, this is practicing the perfection of wisdom." The explanation says: One who practices prajñā directly understands the wisdom-nature of the one mind. One comprehends that form has no shape and is not an object of the eye, up to reaching that the substance of dharmas is tranquil and is not known by the mind (manas). They merely appear temporarily in accordance with citta and vanish again in accordance with citta; hence it is said that all dharmas are without knowing and without seeing. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Characteristics cannot know characteristiclessness, just as a knife, however sharp, cannot cleave empty space. That characteristiclessness cannot know characteristics means: some say that inner wisdom has no determinate characteristics, while outer conditioned dharmas have determinate characteristics, and the mind arises following conditions; therefore it is said that characteristiclessness should not know characteristics. For example, when there is no knife, even though there is an object, there is no knife to chop it." From this we know that if citta exists and objects do not, there is also no knowing or seeing. If citta does not exist and objects do, there is also no knowing or seeing. If citta and objects both exist, each lacks intrinsic nature; since each does not know, how could their combination constitute seeing? If citta and objects are both non-existent, there is also no knowing; when seeing existence is not even known, how could non-existence constitute seeing? Thus citta and objects are both empty, and the myriad existents are completely tranquil. This being so, when there is not even a single dharma secretly joining and harmonizing, how could there be faculties and objects confronting each other in mutual opposition? All diverse opposing and conforming objects are the measures of the one mind; there is neither hindrance nor liberation. For example, water does not wash water, and fire does not extinguish fire. Why? Because they are of one substance, they do not oppress or extinguish each other. Only if there were different dharmas would there be an antidote. Now, if one only first attains the purport, one will naturally accord with tathatā. Therefore the sūtra says: "Dharmas follow tathatā by having nothing to follow." If there were something followed, there would be a distinction of that which follows. Since there is nothing followed, there is also nothing that follows. Therefore, outside of dharmas there is no tathatā, and outside of tathatā there are no dharmas. Hence the sūtra says: "Proper attention (yoniśomanaskāra) corresponds equally to all dharmas; this is to be replete with all Buddha-dharmas." The *Huayan Commentary* (*Huayan shu*) says: "Taking suchness as the Buddha, there is no object that is not suchness." The *Larger Prajñāpāramitāsūtra* replies to Sadāprarudita: "The suchness of all dharmas is precisely the Buddha." The *Diamond Sūtra* says: "The Tathāgata is the meaning of the suchness of all dharmas." Since suchness is taken as the Buddha, all dharmas are suchness; what dharma is not the Buddha? If one has faith in the one suchness, this is awakening to the fundamental dharma, generating determinate understanding, and entering the gate of sovereignty. As the *Huayan Treatise* (*Huayan lun*) says: The sūtra states: "Good son, I have attained the power of sovereign and determinate understanding; the eye of faith is pure, and the light of wisdom shines brilliantly. I universally observe objects, free from all hindrances. Skillfully examining, the universal eye is clear and penetrating; endowed with pure conduct, I go to all the Buddha lands of the ten directions to revere and make offerings to all Buddhas." This shows presenting the fundamental fruit-dharma so that ordinary beings may joyfully have faith and practice it; from the initial generation of the mind, practicing and habituating, when the work of the ten stages (daśabhūmi) is finished, one only then accords with and reaches this initial, original model fruit-dharma. It is also accomplished through time not shifting, wisdom not differing, compassion not differing, and vows and practices not differing within the dharmadhātu. Because one practices within the great wisdom of the dharmadhātu without extension or brevity, unlike emotional understanding, those who practice should not engage in cultivation and study by making distinctions of extended or brief time periods. One must skillfully observe the substance and function of the dharmadhātu, and not, like worldly sentiment, reckon a single kṣaṇa or reckon three asaṃkhyeyas, because within the dharmadhātu there is entirely neither long nor short, neither far nor near. Practicing in accordance with the Dharma through this understanding and practice, one skillfully illuminates arising and ceasing across all objects, causing clingings to be exhausted so as to accomplish the great function of wisdom. Toward one's own citta and objects, do not constrain them in vain; just know how to let go, follow the nature, and be completely at ease. Habituating oneself to this contemplative illumination, when clingings are exhausted wisdom appears, arising and ceasing naturally cease, and the defilements of karma naturally become pure. One unifies with the Buddha's realm and becomes identical with the Tathāgata's mind. The Buddha-view naturally converges; it is not by grasping and holding, or casually applying other antidotes that drive the mind mad and confused. Just clearly illuminate citta and objects for oneself; when views blend, clingings and karma fade away. When views vanish and clingings fade, the myriad dharmas are fundamentally unblemished; wisdom and objects are brilliantly luminous, which is named the Buddha-land. Do not trouble yourself to forcibly generate views and clingings, sinking forever of your own accord; what you do brings your own misfortune, which cannot be given by another.
79.8
Question: If one speaks in terms of seeing and hearing external objects, then form does not reach the eye, and the eye does not reach form; one may say it is consciousness-only (vijñaptimātra) and no characteristics can be obtained. But when drinking and eating, sense faculties and sense objects enter each other. If one says there are no characteristics, citta cannot eat citta.
79.9
Answer: Although the six faculties and six objects differ in parting and meeting, they are all transformations of consciousness-only. The nature of taste is fundamentally empty. Were it not for consciousness, who would know salty or bland? An ancient master said: "One only eats the nimittabhāga; the original substance (bimbamātra) remains as it is."
79.10
Question: When it is eaten, the substance is also destroyed; how can that be?
79.11
Answer: When that which follows is destroyed, that which is followed also ceases. It is like twenty people sharing a single tree: when one person cuts it down, what follows for the other nineteen also ceases. Furthermore, the *Mirror of the Meaning of Consciousness-Only* (*Weishi yijing*) explains: "Common fruits coexist in the same place without obstructing one another."
79.12
Question: Take a single tree, which sentient beings transform together: when one sentient being cuts it down and uses it, does he use his own transformation, or does he also use others' [transformations]? If it is only his own, then what the other people transformed should remain and not be destroyed; why is the tree no longer seen? If he also uses others', how is it called consciousness-only?
79.13
Answer: Some say: Since trees and the like are produced from seeds of common characteristics (sāmānya-lakṣaṇa), they all accord with each other and mutually augment each other. What that one sentient being himself transformed is what is directly used as the cognitive object (ālambana). What others transformed serves as an indirect condition (adhipatipratyaya) for what he himself transformed, and is also used as a distant condition. Looking at them altogether, oneself is that which is conformed to, and others are that which conforms. Because that which is conformed to is absent, that which conforms also ceases. Due to this the tree is lost, and consciousness-only is also established.
79.14
Question: How is it known that they mutually augment each other?
79.15
Answer: The *Abhidharmasamuccaya* (*Duifa lun*) says: "The common karma of sentient beings acts as an indirect condition (adhipatipratyaya)."
79.16
Question: Since it is only citta and there are no myriad dharmas, whence are the distinctions before our eyes established?
79.17
Answer: The myriad dharmas are only names; they truly have no substance or characteristics. Characteristics are established because of names, yet the appearance of characteristics is originally empty. Names are applied because of characteristics, yet names are fundamentally tranquil. Established solely through conception (saṃjñā), names and characteristics are both unreal. Inquiring back to the origin of conception, it too is only a name. Since there is no substance to conception, discrimination is empty. Therefore we know that the myriad dharmas emerge from the nameless, and myriad names are born from characteristiclessness. Names do not correspond to characteristics; characteristics do not correspond to names. With neither relying on the other, where do the myriad dharmas abide? When relative names are tranquil, the conceptions of discrimination suddenly become empty. The illusory objects merge with the true, and feelings of clinging unite with awakening. A verse in the *Ghanavyūhasūtra* says: / "Various dharmas of the world / are all merely names, / established only by conception; / apart from names there is no distinct referent." / Another verse says: / "When the cognitive consciousnesses arise, / there are no dharmas to be known; / that which is known is merely names; / worldly dharmas are all like this. / Discriminating dharmas by names, / dharmas do not correspond to names; / the nature of dharmas is like this, / not abiding in discrimination. / Because dharmas are merely names, / conception has no substance; / when conception is absent, names are also absent; / where could there be discrimination? / If one attains non-discrimination, / body and mind are perpetually tranquil, / just as when wood has been burned by fire, / it never arises again ultimately." / Another verse says: / "Like seeing a stump and taking it for a person, / or seeing a person and taking them for a stump, / the two discriminations of person and stump / exist only in names. / In the harmony of the great elements, / one discriminates them as form; / if separated from the great elements, / the nature of form does not exist."
79.18
Question: If consciousness-only is taken as the source, then is both the worldly and the transworldly only a single consciousness, and are the myriad dharmas all determinately empty?
79.19
Answer: Because of consciousness-only, there is conventional truth. Since there is the conventional, there is consciousness that resembles dust [objects]; the illusory characteristics are not non-existent. Because nothing real can be apprehended, it is merely designated as empty; one must not produce views of absolute annihilating emptiness such as [looking for] a snake’s legs or the fragrance of salt. As a verse in the Ghanavyūhasūtra says:
‘Realms of objects such as jars
All have mind as their substance.
They are not jars, but appear resembling jars;
Therefore, they are spoken of as empty.
All form in the world,
The palaces of the devas and so forth,
Are all transformed by the ālayavijñāna
And become visible.
All that is in the bodies of sentient beings,
From head to hands and feet,
Whether born at once or gradually,
Is none other than the ālayavijñāna.
Vāsanās defile the mind;
The common and foolish cannot understand this.
This nature is not existent,
Nor is it empty.
Just as when a person uses objects
To strike and break a jar and the like:
If the substance of the object were empty,
There would be neither breaker nor what is broken.
Even a self-view of the magnitude of Mount Sumeru
Would not yet be considered [the worst] evil;
To be arrogant and attach to emptiness—
This evil surpasses that.’
Moreover, a sūtra says: ‘Better to cling to existence as [large as] Mount Sumeru than to cling to emptiness as [small as] a mustard seed.’ The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: ‘Liberation is called not-empty emptiness. Emptiness of emptiness is called having nothing. That which has nothing is the liberation postulated by externalists such as the Nirgranthas. Yet those Nirgranthas truly have no liberation; therefore it is called emptiness of emptiness. True liberation is not like that; therefore it is not-empty emptiness. Not-empty emptiness is true liberation; true liberation is the Tathāgata. Furthermore, liberation is called not-empty. Just as a jar for water, wine, curd, ghee, or honey, even when lacking water, wine, curd, ghee, or honey, is still called a jar for water and so forth. Such jars cannot be called empty, nor can they be called not-empty. If one calls them empty, then they could not have color, odor, taste, or touch; if one calls them not-empty, yet there is no reality of water, wine, and so forth. Liberation is also like this: it cannot be said to be form, nor non-form; it cannot be said to be empty, nor not-empty. If one calls it empty, then it could not have permanence, bliss, self, and purity; if one calls it not-empty, who is it that experiences this permanence, bliss, self, and purity? By this meaning, it cannot be called empty, nor can it be called not-empty. As for empty, it means being without the twenty-five states of existence and all kleśas, all suffering, all characteristics, and all conditioned formations; just as a jar without curd is called empty. As for not-empty, it means the real, wholesome form, permanence, bliss, self, purity, immobility, and changelessness; just like the color, odor, taste, and touch of that jar, therefore it is called not-empty. Therefore liberation is exemplified by that jar. When that jar encounters conditions, it is broken; liberation is not like that: it cannot be destroyed. That which cannot be destroyed is true liberation; true liberation is the Tathāgata.’
79.20
Question: A sūtra says that the five skandhas are the world: one skandha is called form, and four skandhas are called mind. Why is it said that the various internal and external worlds all come forth from the mind?
79.21
Answer: The various five skandhas all arise from the mind. What appears as characteristics from the mind is designated as form. A sūtra verse says:
‘In all the worlds,
There are only name and form.
If one wishes to observe in accordance with reality,
One should only observe name and form.’
Form encompasses all the insentient lands; name encompasses all the worlds of consciousness. This is because the five skandhas are the world. If one realizes that the five skandhas are all empty, that is the supramundane. Thus we know that both mundane and supramundane arise from the mind. Why? If a mind of greed and anger arises in the mental ground, it embraces the five skandhas of the three evil destinies, and sentient beings of sin and suffering appear. If a mind cultivating the precepts and the wholesome arises in the mental ground, it embraces the five skandhas of humans and devas, and sentient beings experiencing pleasure appear. If a mind realizing personal emptiness arises in the mental ground, it embraces the undefiled five skandhas, and sentient beings who are true sages appear. If a mind establishing the great vows arises in the mental ground, it embraces the five skandhas of kindness and compassion, and sentient beings who are great beings (mahāsattvas) appear. If an impartial mind is brought forth in the mental ground, it embraces the permanently abiding five skandhas, and sentient beings of supreme veneration appear. Now, the reason we set aside the former four skandhas and only observe the consciousness skandha is that it is like felling a tree by removing its roots or moxibusting an illness by finding the acupoint: then the bitter sprouts of birth and death are cut off forever, and the deep-seated disease of kleśas does not arise. Furthermore, it is like the Vairambha wind, sweeping away all doubts completely; it is like the fire of the aeon’s end, burning away divergent attachments without remainder. Therefore, wherever ordinary beings and sages dwell together in all worlds, there is nothing that is not one’s own mind. Awakening and entering like this is called dwelling in a true araṇya, a place of correct cultivation. It does not speak of seclusion in small or large places, nor does it fall into the views of bustle and quietude. Hence an ancient worthy said: ‘Dwelling amidst the crowd, one sees no clamor; being alone, there is also no loneliness.’ Why does one see neither clamor nor quietude? Because one only realizes the one mind. As the Mahāyāna Mūlajātahṛdayabhūmidhyānasūtra says: ‘At that time, the Buddha said to Maitreya Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva: “Good man, among those who cultivate and learn, if there is just one virtue, that person should dwell in an araṇya to seek the unexcelled path. What is this one? It means observing that the root source of all kleśas is one’s own mind. Understanding this Dharma, one is capable of dwelling in an araṇya. Why is this? It is like a mad dog driven and beaten by people, which only chases the tiles and stones, not the person. In future ages, those of newly generated aspiration who dwell in an araṇya are also like this. If they see sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or dharmas, and their minds become attached in defilement, these people do not know the root of kleśas; they do not know that the five sense-objects are born from their own minds. This is called being unable to dwell properly in an araṇya. For this reason, all bodhisattva-mahāsattvas who delight in dwelling in quietude to seek the unexcelled path, when the objects of the five desires appear before them, should observe their own minds and form this thought: ‘From beginningless time down to the present day, I have transmigrated through the six destinies with no time of escape; this is all due to my own deluded mind producing confusion and delusion, and feeling greed, love, and defiled attachment toward the objects of the five desires.’ A bodhisattva such as this is called one capable of dwelling in an araṇya.”’ From this we know that if one does not awaken to one’s own mind, dwelling in distant valleys in vain to escape clamor and seek quietude—as an ancient said, throughout the world there has never been such a method. If one suddenly realizes one’s own mind, that is the true araṇya, extending to the light shining everywhere and the myriad virtues being completely perfected. If one is not clear about oneself, one transmigrates through the various destinies. As the Ritual Manual of the Letter-Wheel Yoga for the Sudden Realization of the Vairocana Dharmakāya explains regarding the contemplation of the Tathāgata’s dharmakāya: ‘First, contemplate the arousing of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva’s wondrous practices and vows; next, one should empower body and mind with the three mysteries, thereby being able to enter the great wisdom-ocean of Mañjuśrī. However, at the very beginning of cultivation, in a quiet place, collect your thoughts and pacify your mind, close your eyes and sit upright in the full lotus posture. Bring forth your mind to universally take as objects the boundless oceans of lands, closely observing all the Tathāgatas of the three times. Everywhere before each Buddha and bodhisattva, earnestly and reverently pay homage and circumambulate. Further, with clouds and oceans of various offering implements, present them to all such holy assemblies. Having made this vast offering, one should again observe one’s own mind: the mind is originally unborn, accomplished by its own nature, its light shining everywhere, just like empty space. Again, one should deeply arouse compassionate thoughts, pitying sentient beings who do not awaken to their own minds and transmigrate through the various destinies: ‘I shall universally transform and deliver them, causing them to awaken without exception.’ Again, one should observe that one’s own mind, the minds of all sentient beings, and the minds of all Buddhas originally have no difference, being of one equal characteristic, accomplishing the great bodhicitta, crystalline, pure, vast, and pervasive, round, bright, and dazzling, forming a great moon-wheel whose measure equals empty space without boundary.’ Thus we know that because the mind is boundless, it is like empty space; how could there be a beginning or an end? As a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says:
‘Mind abides in the world,
The world abides in mind;
Herein do not falsely produce
Discriminations of duality and non-duality.’
Therefore, speaking of one or speaking of two is worldly language; establishing right or establishing wrong belongs to discrimination in the mental ground. If one suddenly awakens to one’s own mind and directly enters the mirror of the source, one does not even see non-discrimination, how much less could one produce discrimination? As a sūtra verse says:
‘Fully knowing it is neither one nor two,
Neither defiled nor pure,
Nor again confused and chaotic—
All arise from one’s own ideation.’
Not only the actions and operations of worldly dharmas, but even the activities of all the sages—the root source of their arising and ceasing does not go beyond the mirror of the source. Therefore a sūtra verse says:
‘The ocean of lands has boundless wondrous adornments;
Within a single speck of dust, there are none that do not enter.
Such supernatural powers of all the Buddhas
All arise from the nature of karma.’
Such a wondrous principle is a Dharma gate of direct realization. Merely giving rise to inferential faith at first can still empty the mind; how much more so when one realizes and enters it, naturally severing remaining perplexities, where words perish and images are extinguished, consciousness is eradicated and emotional attachments dissolve! Thus the patriarch said: ‘Only by realization is it known; it is difficult to fathom.’ The Awakening of Faith says: ‘Regarding realization-based aspiration: from the stage of the pure mind up to the ultimate stage of a bodhisattva, what realm of objects is realized? It is what is called tathatā. It is in reference to that evolving consciousness that it is called a realm of objects; yet for this realizer, there is no realm of objects: only the wisdom of tathatā is called the dharmakāya.’
79.22
Question: That internal and external are mind-only is an impartial principle. Why are body and land different, such that the internal body has sentience while external objects lack consciousness?
79.23
Answer: The worlds, bodies, and lands are naturally so of themselves (dharmatā); one cannot cling to identity or difference based on the emotional views of self-nature. If one speaks of ‘naturally so of themselves’, that is ‘dharmas being as they are’. Or if one calls it ‘dharma-nature’: if it is dharma-nature, then it takes the fundamental consciousness, the body of the tathāgatagarbha, as its support, constantly and suddenly transforming to give rise to the external receptacle worlds. It does not go beyond these two: first, dharmas should be like this; second, the storehouse consciousness transforms and gives rise to them. Furthermore, through the karma of sentient beings as well as the myriad practices of bodhisattvas as causes and conditions, the worlds that appear are all the nimittabhāga of the storehouse consciousness. Within the nimittabhāga, half becomes the external receptacle [world] and is not appropriated; half becomes the internal body, appropriated as self-nature to give rise to sensations. For what reason is the tathāgatagarbha consciousness like this? Because dharmas are as they are; because they are led by the power of karma. Although the two meanings of appropriated and not appropriated are distinguished above, both lack self-nature; they entirely take the one true mind of the Buddha-dharmadhātu’s tathatā as their substance. One should know that the dependent is the direct, and the direct is the dependent; they do not go beyond the true nature of the one mind. Moreover, nature leaves nothing unencompassed: sentient and insentient, having awareness and lacking awareness, all take the nature of one’s own mind as substance. Manifesting according to conditions, they are known only when corresponding to their situations. For example, in the world when a shrine is erected for a living person whose virtuous administration has reached the people, often because of remaining love and fond remembrance after departure, a shrine hall is established for them, with a sculpted image inside to receive sacrifices in the four seasons. On the day of the sacrifice, that person feels the sensation of wine and a full stomach. It is also like the utmost filial piety of Ding Lan, who carved wood into [the likeness of] his mother and served it with reverence morning and evening, and its form showed expressions of joy and displeasure. Yet earth and wood do not change; it is only the mind that responds.
79.24
Question: Only when consciousness is established is the meaning of consciousness-only accomplished. Why are both object and consciousness discarded?
79.25
Answer: The Treatise on Manifesting Consciousness says: "Establishing vijñaptimātra is tentatively dismissing the object while retaining citta. To speak definitively: dismissing the object is for the purpose of emptying citta—this is its genuine intent. Therefore, when both object and consciousness are obliterated, that is the true nature, and the true nature is the amonavijñāna. This is why the Treatise on Consciousness is also called the Treatise on Refuting Form and Citta." The Treatise on Buddha-Nature says: "In the sūtras, the Buddha used the magician as a metaphor. The Buddha addressed Kāśyapa: 'For instance, Kāśyapa, just as a magician conjures various illusory forms, and the illusory tiger that he conjures turns around and devours the magician—in this way, Kāśyapa, a practitioner monk who engages in contemplation, whichever object he contemplates, it manifests as purely empty. Thus it truly has no existence, being empty without reality. How can he attain freedom from these two extremes? By relying on the manovijñāna, he generates vijñaptimātra-wisdom. vijñaptimātra-wisdom is the wisdom that [realizes] dust-objects lack substance. If vijñaptimātra-wisdom is perfected, it can then in turn extinguish its own fundamental manovijñāna. Why is this? Because dust-objects lack substance, the manovijñāna does not arise. Because the manovijñāna does not arise, vijñaptimātra naturally ceases. Therefore, the manovijñāna is like the magician, and vijñaptimātra-wisdom is like the illusory tiger. Because the manovijñāna can generate vijñaptimātra, when the vijñaptimātra contemplation is perfected, it can in turn extinguish the manovijñāna. Why? Because dust-objects and the rest do not exist, the manovijñāna does not arise. This is like the illusory tiger turning around and devouring the magician.' As Master Deva said in a verse: 'The manovijñāna is the root of the three realms of existence; consciousness-objects are its cause. If one sees that dust-objects lack substance, the seeds of existence naturally perish.'" The Ru Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: "Merely not grasping objects is called the extinction of consciousness; it does not actually extinguish consciousness. Why? Because objects are fundamentally empty, transformed out of consciousness; and because consciousness lacks substance, there is no need to extinguish it." Therefore, the conscious mind has no substance; it follows the presence or absence of objects. Seeing emptiness, it produces emptiness; seeing form, it produces form. When phenomena arrive, it arises; when phenomena depart, it returns to nonexistence. As Master Chuanao said: "What is conditioned by deluded thought: when placed in a location where form exists, one does not see emptiness, but only sees form; in a location where form does not exist, one sees that there is emptiness. Conditioning existence or nonexistence is also like this: when conditioning existence, one sees the existent mind arise and sees the nonexistent mind cease; when conditioning nonexistence, one sees the nonexistent mind arise and sees the existent mind cease. These are all objects conditioned by deluded thought. Furthermore, on phenomena there are no phenomena; fundamentally they are entirely citta. When thought arises, dust-objects are born; when thought is quieted, dust-objects cease." As the Awakening of Faith says: "Because all form dharmas are fundamentally citta, there is truly no external form. Yet since there is no external form, there is also no external space. If space is still nonexistent, how could form exist?" The treatise says: "If there were no form, there would be no characteristic of empty space." The commentary explains: "Fundamentally, space depends on form to be space; now since there is only citta and no form, how could there still be space?" Therefore, one knows that the myriad dharmas all exist in mutual dependence. If one enters the mirror of the source, naturally all dharmas transcend dependence and return to the fundamental true mind. Hence the treatise says: "What are called all objects arise deludedly from citta alone. If citta is free from deluded movement, then all objects cease; there is only the one true mind, which pervades everywhere."
79.26
Question: People of the world mostly cling to the idea that sentient beings have movement and activity because they possess consciousness, while insentient beings do not move or act because they lack consciousness. Yet, for instance, mallows and sunflowers turn toward the sun; plantains sprout upon hearing thunder; orange trees flourish and bloom when receiving corpses; iron moves because of the lodestone; and also, yeast ferments wine and vinegar; fire scorches mountains and forests—these are all insentient, so why do they move and act?
79.27
Answer: Sentient and insentient beings each have two meanings. As for the birth and death of sentient beings: first, it is produced by the karmic power of sentient beings; second, it naturally arises from the nature of the dharmadhātu. As for the movement and turning of insentient beings: first, it is naturally so from the different dharmatās; second, it is the operation of dharma. As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: The Buddha addressed Siṃhanāda Bodhisattva: "Good son, you say that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, and that their attaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is like the lodestone [attracting iron]—excellent, excellent! Because there is the power of the cause and condition of Buddha-nature, they attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. If one says that there is no need to cultivate the noble path, this meaning is not correct. Good son, for instance, consider a man walking in a wilderness, exhausted with thirst, who comes upon a well. The well is extremely deep; although he does not see water, he should know it must be there. This person uses skillful means to search for it, and drawing it up with a jar and rope, he then sees it. Buddha-nature is also like this: although all sentient beings possess it, they must cultivate and accumulate the undefiled noble path, and only then do they attain seeing it. … Furthermore, for instance, when sentient beings create various karmas, whether good or evil, they are neither internal nor external. Such nature of karma is neither existent nor nonexistent, nor is it originally nonexistent and now existent; it does not emerge without cause; it is not that this one creates and this one receives, nor that this one creates and that one receives, nor that that one creates and that one receives; there is no creator and no receiver. When seasons and conditions harmonize, one obtains the retribution. The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is also like this: it is also not originally nonexistent and now existent, neither internal nor external, neither existent nor nonexistent, neither this nor that, not coming from another place, not without causes and conditions, nor is it that all sentient beings do not see it. There are bodhisattvas who, when the seasons, causes, and conditions harmonize, attain seeing it. As for 'seasons', it refers to the bodhisattva mahāsattvas of the ten abodes cultivating the eightfold noble path and attaining an equanimous mind toward all sentient beings; at that time they attain seeing it, which is not called 'creating'. Good son, what you said about being like a lodestone is not correct. Why? A stone does not attract iron. Why is this? Because it has no mind or karma. Good son, because a different dharma exists, a different dharma arises; because a different dharma is absent, a different dharma ceases and is destroyed; there is no creator and no destroyer. Good son, it is just as a fierce fire cannot burn firewood; when fire emerges and firewood is destroyed, it is called 'burning firewood'. Good son, for example, mallows and sunflowers turn following the sun; such mallows and sunflowers also have no reverent mind, no consciousness, and no karma; because of the different dharmatās, they turn on their own. Good son, for example, the plantain tree grows due to thunder; this tree has no ears, no citta, manas, or vijñāna; because a different dharma exists, a different dharma grows; because a different dharma is absent, a different dharma ceases and is destroyed. Good son, like the aśoka tree, when touched by a woman, blossoms burst forth; this tree has no mind and no tactile sensation; because a different dharma exists, a different dharma arises; because a different dharma is absent, a different dharma ceases and is destroyed. Good son, like an orange tree receiving a corpse, its fruit becomes plentiful; such an orange tree has no mind and no contact; because a different dharma exists, a different dharma becomes plentiful; because a different dharma is absent, a different dharma ceases and is destroyed. Good son, like the pomegranate tree, fertilized with brick, bone, and dung, its fruit flourishes abundantly; the pomegranate tree also has no mind or contact; because a different dharma exists, a different dharma arises; because a different dharma is absent, a different dharma ceases and is destroyed. Good son, the lodestone attracting iron is also like this: because a different dharma exists, a different dharma arises; because a different dharma is absent, a different dharma ceases and is destroyed. The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is also like this; it cannot attract anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Good son, ignorance cannot attract formations, nor can formations attract consciousness; yet it can be called ignorance conditioning formations, and formations conditioning consciousness. Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the dharmadhātu constantly abides." Therefore, one knows that dharma by dharma lacks mind, and dust-object by dust-object is fundamentally quiescent. Quiescent, they constantly function; functioning, they are constantly quiescent. Dharmas lack mind yet follow conditions in forming and decaying; people lack mind yet all formations migrate and flow. Just as the plantain hears thunder and the mallow faces the sun, ignorance does not take hold of formations, and formations do not attract the conscious mind; thus, dharma and dharma do not reach one another, dharma and dharma do not know one another, dharma and dharma do not depend on one another, and dharma and dharma do not borrow from one another. They are all naturally so in their nature, because dharmas are like this. Therefore, the Vajrasamādhisūtra says: "Citta does not produce objects; objects do not produce citta. Why? Whatever objects are seen are only the seen citta." That is not reaching one another. A verse of the Avataṃsakasūtra says: "All dharmas have no activity, / Nor do they possess an intrinsic nature. / Therefore, all of them / Mutually do not know one another." That is not knowing one another. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "All dharmas arise and cease without abiding, like an illusion, like lightning; all dharmas do not depend on one another, not even abiding for a single thought-moment." That is not depending on one another. The Baozang lun says: "Fire does not depend on the sun to be hot; wind does not depend on the moon to be cool. Hard rock stays in water; the celestial drum wanders in light. Light and dark are naturally so; dry and wet share the same quarter. If things do not even borrow from one another, how much less does the Dao?" That is not borrowing from one another. For instance, fire has heat as its nature, and wind has coolness as its nature; how could they rely on other conditions? The "celestial drum" is the sun; it constantly wanders in light, illuminating the four continents. When the sun rises, it is light; when the sun sets, it is dark; these are all naturally so, having nothing to do with deliberate creation. "Hard rock stays in water": although the stone stays in water, the water does not enter the stone; though in the same place, the stone is naturally dry and the water naturally wet. Therefore, one knows that dharma by dharma manifests the source, and dust-object by dust-object transcends dependence; then it is neither causes and conditions, nor is it spontaneous nature.
79.28
Question: Since there is only the one true mind, why do the teachings also say that all dharmas are like illusions?
79.29
Answer: When one realizes that objects are the citta, how could the myriad dharmas exist? Because they arise dependent on the citta, they have no fixed substance; they are all like illusions and apparitions, ultimately quiescent. The Ratnakūṭasūtra says: 'At that time, the World-Honoured One told the illusionist: "All sentient beings and their requisites of life are illusions and apparitions—that is, because they are illusory creations of karma. The assemblies of bhikṣus are also illusions and apparitions—that is, because they are illusory creations of dharmas. My own body is also an illusion, because it is an illusory creation of wisdom. The entire great trichiliocosm is also an illusion, because it is an illusory creation shared by all sentient beings. Whatever dharmas there are, none are not illusions, because they are illusory creations of the confluence of causes and conditions."' Furthermore, the teaching generally explains ten metaphors: like an illusion, like an apparition, like a dream, like a shadow, and so forth. These are the esoteric intent of the buddhas, to shatter sentient beings' grasping of worldly characteristics as real, which gives rise to eternalism. People in the world all know that dharmas such as illusions and dreams are empty, but they do not believe that persons, dharmas, citta, and objects are also empty like illusions and dreams. Therefore, using the unreality in which they already believe, he shatters the reality in which they believe, making the reality in which they believe identical to the unreality in which they believe. Thereafter, one suddenly awakens to the true source pervading all places: inside the citta and outside the citta, there is definitely no establishment of any real dharma. The Mahālaṃkāraśāstra says: 'I once heard that in the past there was an illusionist who had faith and joy. He went to Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa to arrange a feast for the saṅgha. After the offerings were finished, he conjured a woman from citra wood who was upright and extraordinary. In front of the great assembly, he embraced this woman, kissed her, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. At that time, when the bhikṣus saw this matter, all were disgusted and enraged, saying: "This shameless man has done something filthy and obscene! Had we known he was like this, we would not have accepted his offering." Then, after performing the sexual act, the illusionist heard the bhikṣus ridiculing and rebuking him. He immediately took a knife, hacked and stabbed this woman, dismembered her limbs, gouged out her eyes, cut off her nose, and killed this woman with all kinds of cruel pain. When the bhikṣus saw this matter again, they became doubly disgusted and enraged: "If we had known you were like this, we would rather have drunk poison than accept your offering!" Thereupon, the illusionist immediately grasped the citra wood, showed it to the saṅgha, and said with palms joined: "What I made earlier was just this wood! Within that wood, what sexual desire or killing could there be? Wishing to make the saṅgha's bodies comfortable, I set out this food and drink; wishing to make the saṅgha's minds peaceful, I therefore created this illusion. May the bhikṣus listen to what I say! How could you not have heard that in the sūtras the Buddha said all dharmas are like illusions and apparitions? Now, wishing to confirm those words, I created this illusion. An illusory body such as this has neither lifespan nor life; the illusionist of consciousness turns its mechanisms, making it look and blink, bend down and look up, gaze around, walk, advance, and halt, speak or laugh. Because of this matter, one deeply knows that this body is truly without self."' A verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: / 'All the various dharmas of the world / Are completely like an illusion. / If one can know this in this way, / One's mind will not be moved. / All karmas arise from the mind; / Therefore it is said that the mind is like an illusion. / If one is free from this discrimination, / One universally extinguishes all destinies of existence. / Just as a skilled illusionist / Universally manifests all forms, / Merely causing the multitude to covet and delight in them, / Yet ultimately nothing is obtained; / The world is also like this: / All is completely like an illusion, / Without nature and without origination, / Manifesting in various ways. / Deliver all sentient beings, / Making them know that dharmas are like illusions. / Sentient beings are not different from illusions; / Understanding illusions, there are no sentient beings. / Sentient beings and lands, / Whatever dharmas there are in the three times— / All these without remainder / Are completely like an illusion. / Illusions create the forms of men and women, / As well as elephants, horses, oxen, and sheep, / Houses, pools, and springs, / Gardens, flowers, and fruits, and the like. / Illusory objects have no awareness, / Nor do they have any abiding place. / Their characteristic is ultimate quiescence; / They merely manifest following discrimination. / A bodhisattva can in this way / Universally see all worlds: / All dharmas, whether existing or non-existing, / He thoroughly comprehends as entirely like an illusion. / Sentient beings and lands / Are created by various karmas; / Entering into the limit of the illusion-like, / He has no reliance on or attachment to them. / Thus obtaining skillfulness, / Quiescent and without proliferations, / Abiding on the unhindered ground, / He universally displays great power.' Furthermore, in the "Entry into the Dharmadhātu" chapter, a boy and a girl said to Sudhana: 'Good son, we have attained the bodhisattva liberation named "abiding in illusion". Having attained this liberation, we see all worlds as abiding in illusion, because they are born of causes and conditions; all sentient beings as abiding in illusion, because they arise from karma and kleśas; all worlds as abiding in illusion, because they are conditionally produced through the mutual conditioning of avidyā, existence-craving, and so forth; all dharmas as abiding in illusion, because they are born of various illusory conditions such as the view of self; all three times as abiding in illusion, because they are born of inverted cognition such as the view of self; all sentient beings' birth, cessation, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, and distress as abiding in illusion, because they are born of false discrimination; all lands as abiding in illusion, because they are manifested by inversion of thought, inversion of mind, inversion of views, and avidyā; all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas as abiding in illusion, because they are formed by discriminations of wisdom and eradication; all bodhisattvas as abiding in illusion, because they are formed by the dharmas of all practices and vows that can tame oneself and transform sentient beings; all assemblies of bodhisattvas, transformations, taming, and all activities as abiding in illusion, because they are formed by the illusions of vows and wisdom. Good son, the intrinsic nature of the illusory sphere is inconceivable.' A verse in the Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra says: / 'The Tathāgata's dharmadhātu has no distinction; / For those of dull faculties, he speaks of distinctions. / Proclaiming one dharma to be immeasurable, / Like a great illusionist, he shows it to sentient beings.' The commentary by Qingliang explains: 'As for the forbearance of the illusion-like, it is like conjuring an elephant from a single piece of cloth. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: "Wisdom does not apprehend existence or non-existence, yet gives rise to the mind of great compassion." Because one realizes that the substance is empty, one does not destroy the distinctions of illusory characteristics. Thus, just as the elephant is born, it is the elephant dying. These two counterparts should form a fourfold proposition (catuṣkoṭi): because these two are not two, they are not different; because they are not non-two, they are not one; not one is just not different, therefore it is "neither not-one"; not different is just not one, therefore it is "nor not-different"; it also cuts off dual illumination, therefore it is "not both one and different". If one matches the two meanings on the cloth against the two meanings on the elephant to discern non-oneness and non-difference, there are briefly ten propositions. First, matching the meaning of forming an elephant on the cloth with the meaning of distinction on the elephant, they unite into one limit, called "non-different". This is taking the root to follow the branch, explaining non-difference in terms of the branch. The sūtra says: "The dharmakāya transmigrates through the five destinies, called sentient beings; the tathāgatagarbha undergoes suffering and pleasure together with causes, whether arising or ceasing," and so forth. Second, matching the meaning of abiding in its own state on the cloth with the meaning of substantial emptiness on the elephant, they unite into one limit, called "non-different". This is taking the branch to return to the root, explaining non-difference in terms of the root. The sūtra says: "All sentient beings are just suchness, never again to be extinguished," and so forth. Third, taking the root to which the gathered branch returns and the branch from which the gathered root proceeds, these two doubly fuse, unobstructedly non-different. This is non-difference through the equality of root and branch, because the passages of the former two sūtras are not separated. Fourth, taking the branch gathered back to the root and also the root gathered following the branch, these two mutually displace, and are therefore called "non-different". This is explaining non-difference through the mutual vanishing of root and branch, because true and false are equal, and difference cannot be found. Next, the four gates below explain "non-one". Fifth, taking the meaning of the cloth abiding in its own state and the meaning of distinction on the elephant, these two, root and branch, are mutually contrary and opposing, and are therefore called "non-one". The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: "The tathāgatagarbha is not within the ālaya; therefore the seven consciousnesses have arising and ceasing, while the tathāgatagarbha does not arise or cease"—this is what is meant. Sixth, the meaning of forming an elephant on the cloth and the meaning of substantial emptiness on the elephant, these two, root and branch, are mutually contrary and mutually harmful, and are therefore "non-one". The Śrīmālādevīsūtra says: "The seven consciousnesses do not transmigrate, do not undergo suffering and pleasure, and are not the cause of nirvāṇa; only the tathāgatagarbha undergoes suffering and pleasure," and so forth. Seventh, taking the initial mutual opposition and the subsequent mutual harm, these two meanings are distinct, and are therefore called "non-one". That is, mutual opposition means turning away and abandoning each other, far removed from each other; mutual harm means confronting each other and directly preying upon and harming each other. Therefore, far and near are non-one, because the passages of the former sūtras are not conflated. Eighth, by the utmost mutual harm, both vanishing yet not vanishing, and by the utmost mutual opposition, both remaining yet not remaining: not remaining and not vanishing, their meaning is "non-one". This is non-one in terms of formation and destruction, because the seven consciousnesses are empty yet existent, and tathatā is hidden yet manifest. Ninth, the above four non-ones and four non-differences are also non-one, because their meanings are not conflated. Furthermore, mutual contrary is remaining, and mutual harm is vanishing; yet on remaining there is the meaning of non-remaining, and on vanishing there is the meaning of non-vanishing. If there were only vanishing without non-vanishing, then form and emptiness would both perish, with nothing to be identical to each other. Because it does not completely vanish, although they are mutually identical, form and emptiness remain distinct. If there were only remaining without non-remaining, then form and emptiness would each have a fixed nature, unable to be identical to each other. Because there is non-remaining, although distinct they can be mutually identical, because the substance is insubstantial. Tenth, yet they are also not different, because the principle is universally pervasive and dharmas are not two. If grasped by the gate of non-difference, all gates are supremely harmonized; if grasped by the gate of non-oneness, all gates are supremely contradictory and harmful. That which is supremely contradictory yet supremely conformable is the unobstructed dharma.' He also explains: 'Separately elucidating the doctrinal principles, within this there are two: first establishing existence and non-existence, and second establishing the fourfold proposition. Regarding existence and non-existence: because within the three natures each has two meanings, all have existence and non-existence. The two of the consummate nature: first, nature-existence; second, characteristic-non-existence. The two of the dependent nature: first, condition-existence; second, characteristic-non-existence. The two of the imagined nature: first, emotion-existence; second, principle-non-existence. Now, first, in the cloth there are the two meanings of the consummate nature. The magic technique and the horse are both the two meanings of the dependent nature; the technique is the cause capable of bringing it about, arising dependent on the real, so it has function and lacks substance: having function is just condition-existence, and lacking substance is just nature-non-existence. Third, the horse is the result brought about, so it has characteristic and lacks reality: having characteristic is just condition-existence, and lacking reality is just nature-non-existence. Fourth, explaining that the dependent and the consummate are not separated, phenomena are identical to the real. Arising is a metaphor for phenomena; dying is a metaphor for the real. Phenomena vanish and principle becomes manifest, so arising is absent and dying is present. Because of unobstructedness, this brings out its cause, which is the unobstructedness of phenomenon and principle. In the fifth, from the standpoint of emotion it exists, because false views are distinct; from the standpoint of principle it does not exist, because as false conceptualization, it definitely cannot exist. Therefore, why the metaphor of illusion extensively speaks of existence and non-existence is because, when confined by deluded emotion, both existence and non-existence are lost; when the principle is free from deluded conceptualization, both existence and non-existence are true. From this we know that all dharmas in the metaphor of illusion 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 penetrate each other, and the myriad transformations harmonize together. Furthermore, within the five, each is fully endowed with the fourfold proposition to make it manifest. As for the fourfold proposition, within it there are two: first, a single tier of fourfold propositions; second, multiple tiers of fourfold propositions. In the first there are also two: first, directly demonstrating; second, eliminating faults. This is the first. First, the four of nature-existence and characteristic-non-existence: 1. Existent, because the true nature exists. 2. Empty, because it lacks all characteristics. 3. Both existent and empty, because the doctrinal gates are different. 4. Neither existent nor empty, because they mutually fuse and displace. Second, the four of function-existence and substance-non-existence: 1. Existent, because deluded regarding the real, there is function. 2. Empty, because relying on the real, there is no substance. 3. Both existent and empty, because substance and function are not destroyed. 4. Neither existent nor empty, because as the function without substance it is not existent, and as the substance identical to function it is not empty. Third, the four of characteristic-existence and reality-non-existence: 1. Existent, because phenomenal characteristics appear. 2. Empty, because formed by conditions it lacks reality. 3. Both preserved, because lack of nature does not obstruct conditional formation, and conditional formation does not obstruct lack of nature. 4. Both negated, because conditional formation is just lack of nature, hence not existent; lack of nature is just conditional formation, hence not empty. Fourth, the four of arising being non-existence and dying being existence: 1. Because the true nature is manifest. 2. Because the dependent nature is just lack of nature. 3. Because nature and characteristic are both preserved. 4. Because nature and characteristic mutually displace. Fifth, the four of emotion-existence and principle-non-existence: 1. Because the imagined false emotion can give rise to birth and death. 2. Because seeking it in terms of principle, it cannot be found. 3. Because only due to the non-existence of principle can it be identical to emotion-existence; without emotion-existence, the non-existence of principle would not be revealed. 4. Because emotion-existence is just principle-non-existence, and principle-non-existence is just emotion-existence. The above fourfold propositions are all endowed with virtue because they accord with the real. They are not like emotional conceptualization and rigid clinging, where the fourfold proposition constitutes defamation. Only the emptiness that is identical to existence is emptiness endowed with virtue; only the existence that is identical to emptiness is existence endowed with virtue. Furthermore, the emptiness that exhausts existence and the existence that exhausts emptiness are endowed with virtue. Furthermore, the four propositions illuminated simultaneously form the sphere of understanding; the four propositions vanishing simultaneously form the sphere of practice; only when words are dead and thoughts extinguished are they endowed with virtue. Therefore an ancient said: 'On the terrace of Mount Wu, one relies on clouds and rain to come and go; beside the waters of Shugu, one lodges in the spring torrent to return and depart.' Thus we know that the body of gathered foam does not exist, and the illusion-like citta is fundamentally empty. How could there be sexual emotions that accomplish real matters? It is also like Zhuang Zhou, who comprehended that the substance is insubstantial like an illusion, seeing his own body as a butterfly, and in a dream seeing his own body roaming to the ends of heaven. Therefore, ordinary worldlings, blind and lacking the eye of prajñā, falsely grasp the external sense data of men, women, and other characteristics. Like illusory transformations, they merely deceive the mind and eye; there is no real matter at all. All are the movement of the karmic-consciousness mind, giving rise to views and manifesting characteristics; the manovijñāna discriminates, forcibly establishing self and other, the distinction between self and others. If one can recognize the illusion, only then will one awaken to former errors and never again engage in fabrications regarding emptiness. Furthermore, this dharma of illusion is misunderstood by many: clinging to all dharmas being like illusions and apparitions, they then adopt the view of emptiness and non-existence, like the Fangguang non-Buddhists who establish emptiness and non-existence as their source, not knowing the true meaning. Therefore the Huayan lun says: 'Understanding the dharma of illusion is the meaning of solidity. That which is called solidity is just the meaning of eternal abiding; how could one interpret it as emptiness and non-existence?' Hence we know that this illusion is just the real; the illusion cannot be apprehended. The illusion of non-illusion is called the dharma of illusion; the seeing that cuts off views is truly called seeing the illusion.
First 29 of 38 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 宗鏡錄 — Classical Chinese