宗鏡錄 80.19

80.19

Answer: In the citta it is called the buddha-nature; in the objective sphere it is called the dharma-nature. Though they differ in following conditions, and grasper and grasped seem distinct, when considered in terms of their nature they are fundamentally identical: one substance without difference. Just as ghee stored in a bottle varies according to the vessel, or like water divided into rivers and oceans takes its name following the place to which it flows, so too is the single-taste true citta: the ordinary and the holy, the objective sphere and cognitive wisdom, are of one limit, without distinction. Therefore, the Fawang jing says: 'All sentient beings' one-mind buddha-nature is equal, because it is equal to all dharmas.' It is solely because the true citta does not keep to its own nature that it turns and moves according to conditions; at the point where it turns and moves, distinct names are established. An ancient worthy said: 'For example, it is like a jewel: turned toward the moon, it produces water; turned toward the sun, it produces fire. The single jewel has never differed, yet it obtains the names of water and fire. Because the jewel's substance is one, it can respond to two conditions. Moreover, when the moon serves as the condition for water, the nature of fire has never been absent within the moon; when the sun serves as the condition for fire, the nature of water has never been absent within the sun. Why is this? Because the two natures are secretly merged with each other. It is only that with respect to the conditions of water and fire there is superiority and inferiority in phenomenal facts; thus the two natures are secretly concealed and do not appear, and following their respective self-substances they obtain the names of water and fire, without being completely devoid of the nature. The tathatā one-mind is also like this: among sentient beings it is called the buddha-nature, and among insentient things it is called the dharma-nature. The one tathatā has never differed, yet it obtains the names of dharma and buddha. Because the substance of tathatā is one, it can respond to two conditions. Moreover, when sentient beings precisely serve as the condition for buddhahood, sentient beings have never lacked the dharma-nature; when insentient things precisely serve as the condition for dharmas, insentient things have never lacked the buddha-nature. Why is this? Because the two natures are secretly merged with each other. It is only because, as with form and citta, there is superiority and inferiority in phenomenal facts, that the two natures are secretly concealed and do not appear, and following their respective self-substances they obtain the names of dharma and buddha, without being completely devoid of the nature.' The Qingliang ji says: 'Regarding "the dharma-nature is precisely the buddha-nature", therefore the sūtra says: "Know that all dharmas are precisely the citta's own nature." If one takes the citta's nature to be the buddha-nature, there is no dharma that is not the citta's nature; then inner and outer are not separated, yet the substance is neither inner nor outer. "Inner" and "outer" belong to characteristics; the nature is not identical with characteristics, so how could there be inner and outer? However, deluded about the one nature, one transforms it into the outer. Since the outer is solely citta, how could it fail to be buddha? What is transformed has no reality; therefore it is said of walls and fences that they lack the buddha-nature. When explaining characteristics through nature, there are none that are not the nature. Just as smoke depends on fire, smoke is precisely fire, yet smoke obscures fire; characteristics arise based on nature, characteristics obscure the nature, yet characteristics are precisely the nature. Just as water becomes waves, waves are precisely water. The objective sphere is transformed depending on citta; the objective sphere is not different from citta. If the citta has the nature, how could the objective sphere not have it? What is more, both citta and the objective sphere are precisely the true nature; the true nature is non-dual, so how could citta and the objective sphere be opposed? If one subordinates the nature to characteristics, that does not preclude inner and outer. If one analogizes the outer objective sphere to citta, making it have awareness and perception, and engage in cultivation to become a buddha, that is the teaching of heterodox views and non-Buddhists. Therefore one must constantly illuminate: neither identical nor separate, neither one nor different, so that there is nothing about which to be deluded.' Hence we know that the buddha-nature is neither inner nor outer; following beings' delusion or awakening, ascent and descent are forcibly spoken of. Furthermore, now, in order to refute the false attachment to the idea that all insentient things possess the buddha-nature: examining this calculated view, it naturally has depths and shallows. First, it is claimed that spirit transforms into earth, wood, metal, and stone, or that owls and muntjacs carry clods of earth to form their offspring—sentient transforming into insentient, and insentient transforming into sentient. This is a heterodox view, no different from non-Buddhist sentient beings calculating that growing grasses and trees possess life; therefore it is unacceptable. If one says that insentient things share the same one nature, this is somewhat closer to the source, yet one must also grasp its meaning. Their fundamental intention was established based on the omnipresence of the self-substance of tathatā, because the real nature has no duality; because the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states that the supreme truth of emptiness is the buddha-nature; because within all dharmas there is a peaceful and blissful nature; because gathering the objective sphere into citta, there is nothing that is not citta; and because the nature of form and the nature of wisdom are of one substance without duality. Passages such as these are found throughout the various sūtras. Now I say: this explanation is too immediate and goes too far; it loses sentient and insentient, and ruins both nature and characteristics. If one uses the supreme truth of emptiness of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to encompass both citta and the objective sphere, could the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] exclude rubble and say it lacks the nature? Now I directly reveal the correct doctrine, saying: nature and characteristics are neither one nor different; the sentient and the insentient are also neither one nor different. Therefore one should explain it thus: Subordinating the nature to conditions, then the sentient and the insentient are different—first, just as the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] excludes walls, fences, tiles, and rubble; second, there is neither awakening nor non-awakening, because within the true nature there is neither citta nor objective sphere; third, there is nothing that is not awakening, because the insentient nature is fused with the nature of awakening.