宗鏡錄 80.9

80.9

Answer: The mind is fundamentally a transformation, its principle inconceivable. Manifesting mind from mind is like a transformation giving rise to a transformation. The Buddhabhūmisūtraśāstra says: "Transformations of mind are only two: first, corresponding to one's own body, meaning transformatively manifesting various minds and images of mental factors upon one's own mind; second, corresponding to other bodies, meaning causing other minds to also manifest various minds and images of mental factors. These are all objective aspects (nimittabhāga) appearing like subjective aspects (darśanabhāga). Another view holds: meditative power can enable one's own mind to understand phenomena beyond its own sphere, which is called transforming one's own mind; by conferring blessings upon sentient beings, enabling the ignorant to understand deep and subtle phenomena, and enabling those who have lost mindfulness to attain correct mindfulness, this is called transforming another's mind. However, the mind has no transformation, because it has no shape or material quality. As the treatise says: 'Because the mind has no form, it cannot be transformed.' It also says that transformed bodies have no mind or mental factors. This is said with reference to the meditative power of the two vehicles and ordinary beings; their meditative power is inferior and cannot transformatively manifest formless and immaterial phenomena. The inconceivable meditative absorption of all Buddhas and bodhisattvas can transformatively manifest all of them. Were it not so, how could the Tathāgata manifest greed, anger, and the like? How could śrāvakas and animals know the Tathāgata's mind? Why do the sūtras speak of transforming immeasurable kinds of beings, causing them all to have minds? Why does this treatise speak of various transformed mental karma? Why do the sūtras say that there is mind dependent on another? It is only that transformed forms share the function of real forms, while transformed sense faculties and minds merely have their characteristics appear without sharing their real function. Furthermore, that statement was made in reference to inferior kinds. If so, why not transform insentient things to make the characteristics of mind appear? Insentient things are already the nimittabhāga of mind and the like; how could one cause them to have the characteristics of mind appear again? If the characteristics of mind appeared, they would be named sentient beings, and would not be subsumed under the insentient. Therefore, transformed minds are spoken of as only two kinds: first, one's own body; second, transforming another's body, and so on."