宗鏡錄 83
English (machine translation) 83
- Language
- English
83.1
Compiled by Yanshou, Chan Master Zhijue, Abbot of Huiri Yongming Temple.
83.2
Now, the true mind is the king of the single letter, the mother of prajñā. Why do the treatises say that the Buddhas constantly rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma?
83.3
Answer: In terms of the correct source, the path of citta and prajñā is cut off; but if one departs from the two truths, the gate of upāya is severed. Because the true mind is the dharma of personal realization, what words could it have? All teachings that can express it are nothing but conventional designations; therefore it is said that they rely on the two truths to teach the Dharma. A verse in the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra says: 'The meaning arisen from causes and conditions— / this meaning ceases, not arises; / extinguishing all meanings of arising and ceasing— / this meaning arises, not ceases.' The commentary explains: 'These four lines have both a general and a specific meaning. Specifically, they clarify the meaning of the two gates; generally, they reveal the dharma of the one mind. Within this one mind and two gates, all phenomena are completely subsumed. The first two blend the conventional into the ultimate, revealing the meaning of equality; the latter two blend the ultimate into the conventional, revealing the gate of differentiation. Speaking generally, the ultimate and conventional are non-dual, yet do not keep to the one. Because they are non-dual, they are the one mind; because they do not keep to the one, the entire substance becomes the two.' Furthermore, the non-dual, single real dharma of the ultimate and conventional is that to which all Buddhas return, named the tathāgatagarbha. It clarifies that limitless dharmas and all practices invariably return and enter into the tathāgatagarbha. The meanings and characteristics expressed by the boundless teachings have no other purport than the single real meaning. What is called 'real' is the nature of one's own mind; apart from this, all are illusory. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Apart from the one real mark, all the rest become the work of Māra.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Only this one phenomenon is real; the other two are not true.' In general, the central intent of the sūtras and treatises is to reveal the source and destroy attachments, singularly pointing to the mind-nature. If one thoroughly penetrates that all phenomena are the mind's own nature, that outside the mind there is no phenomenon, and that the nature encompasses everything just as empty space pervades everywhere, then all phenomena are nothing other than the real mark. Therefore we know that all meanings are merely the thought-moment of the mind. The single principle responds to all names, because there are no names outside the principle; all names are the single principle, because there is no principle outside of names. Thus it is the true name of the nameless, the true principle of the principleless. Therefore, the one mind and the two truths are fully sufficient in substance and function. Originally discussing the conventional based on the ultimate, from the one arise the many; returning to discuss the ultimate based on the conventional, from the many one converges on the one. It is like the wish-fulfilling jewel: the jewel is an analogy for the ultimate, and its function is an analogy for the conventional. The jewel is the function; the function is the jewel. They are non-dual yet dual, merely distinguished as ultimate and conventional. The Awakening of Faith clarifies the one mind and two gates: the gate of the mind as tathatā is the substance, because all phenomena are without arising and ceasing, originally serene, being only the one mind; this is called the gate of the mind as tathatā. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: 'That which is quiescent cessation is called the one mind.' The gate of the mind as arising and ceasing is the function. This substance of the one mind possesses original awakening, yet following avidyā it stirs and produces arising and ceasing; therefore, in this gate, the nature of the Tathāgata is hidden and unmanifest, named the tathāgatagarbha. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: 'The one mind is named the tathāgatagarbha.' It also says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of good and non-good.' These two gates are distinguished as two according to substance and function. If one takes the function of the whole substance, the function is not separate from the substance; if one takes the substance of the whole function, the substance is not separate from the function; returning to consider their oneness, because the nature of the one mind's defilement and purity is non-dual, the two gates of truth and falsity cannot be different; therefore it is called 'one'. This place of non-duality is the reality within all dharmas, not like empty space, and its nature is spontaneously aware; therefore it is called 'mind'. Since there are not two, how could there be one? One being non-existent, in reference to whom could it be called mind? Such a principle is beyond words and cuts off deliberation; not knowing how to express it, one forcefully designates it as the 'one mind'.
83.4
Question: The Treatise on the Great Vehicle states: 'The one is the mind; the mind is the one. There is no separate mind apart from the one, and no separate one apart from the mind. All dharmas are equal and of one taste, of one mark and markless, forming an ocean of the ground of citta of a single radiance.' Why then does it further speak of the mark of sameness and the mark of difference?
83.5
Answer: Both sameness and difference are made by the one mind. It is like the ocean surging in a thousand waves: the thousand waves are the ocean itself. Because of the differentiated nature of sentient beings, they cannot be of the same type. Because of the equal nature of the tathāgata, they cannot be of different types. Although sentient beings are differentiated, they cannot differentiate themselves. Although the tathāgata is equal, he cannot make himself identical. Because they cannot differentiate themselves, difference itself is devoid of difference. Because he cannot make himself identical, identity itself is not identity. The Commentary on the Mahāyāna states: 'Regarding the characteristic of sameness, all phenomena are solely the one tathatā. Regarding difference, the one tathatā solely produces all phenomena.' The Commentary on the Vajrasamādhi states: 'Because it is equal and of one taste, the sages cannot differentiate it. Because there are the universal and the particular, the sages cannot make it identical. Being unable to make it identical means that identity is identical to difference; being unable to differentiate it means that difference is different from identity. Furthermore, because it cannot be spoken of as different, it may be spoken of as identical; because it cannot be spoken of as identical, it may be spoken of as different. Speaking of it and not speaking of it are neither two nor distinct.' It also states: 'Those who take the meaning literally according to the profound teaching commit two kinds of errors: First, hearing the Buddha's explanation that activity and stillness are not two, they immediately claim that there is solely one real one mind, thereby rejecting the principle of the two truths. Second, hearing the Buddha's explanation of the two gates of emptiness and existence, they conceptualize that there are two dharmas without a single real one, thereby disparaging the non-dual Middle Way.' It also states: 'Because this one mind is universally the basis upon which all defiled and pure phenomena rely, it is the root of all phenomena. In the originally tranquil gate, immeasurable merit like the sands of the Ganges is fully present without deficiency. This means that all [defiled dharmas] are the gate of activity according to conditions, fully containing defiled dharmas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. However, if one considers defiled dharmas with respect to the mind-substance, they cannot pervade it universally; thus the sūtra says: "neither separated nor disjoined." If one considers the mind-substance with respect to pure dharmas, it is universally pervasive everywhere; thus the sūtra says: "among worldly phenomena it is neither separated nor disjoined." Overall, it explains that the one mind pervades both activity and stillness, serving as the basis for both defilement and purity. Individually, it reveals the gate of activity as the basis of defiled phenomena, and individually reveals the gate of stillness as the basis of pure phenomena.' This is just as the Awakening of Faith establishes the two gates of tathatā and arising-and-ceasing in the one mind. Whether folded up or unfolded, collective or particular, they are all the substance and function of the one mind, like the radiance of the sun and moon, or like the waves of rivers and streams. The true mind has no abode and is not caught in words or thought. It is only in terms of the worldly truth within the gate of following conditions that its two meanings are distinguished. Because the true mind does not abide by its fixed nature, it follows conditions and becomes differentiated, which constitutes the gate of difference. Because when following conditions it does not lose its own nature, it follows conditions yet does not change, which constitutes the gate of sameness. Although sameness and difference are established, they are always fused into a single realm. An ancient commentary states: 'That the one true mind is neither one nor different means: because the entire substance of the true mind moves, the mind is not different from arising-and-ceasing; yet because it constantly preserves its unchanging true nature, it is not one with arising-and-ceasing.' First, explaining the gate of non-difference has three meanings: First, explaining non-difference from the branches back to the root. The sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of good and non-good, capable of universally producing all destinies and births.' Another sūtra says: 'The Buddha-nature follows the stream and takes on different tastes.' Second, explaining non-difference by gathering the branches into the root. The sūtra says: 'Sentient beings are themselves tathatā.' It also says: 'The twelve links of dependent origination are themselves the Buddha-nature.' The Commentary on the Daśabhūmika says: 'The three realms are solely the one mind; this is the ultimate truth.' The former refers to the root within the branches: the root has no separate root, being solely arising-and-ceasing, with no separate dharma to be different from it. The latter refers to the branches within the root: the branches have no separate branches, being solely non-arising and non-ceasing, with no separate dharma to be different from it. Third, explaining non-difference through the equality of root and branches. A sūtra verse states: 'The profound tathāgatagarbha / is present together with the seven consciousnesses.' A treatise also says: 'The real alone cannot be established; delusion on its own cannot be accomplished.' This reveals that root and branches are fused and blended without distinction of boundaries; hence it is called non-difference. Next, in explaining the gate of non-identity: here, non-identity is not only explained without contradicting non-difference, but non-identity is actually established because of non-difference. Why? If the tathāgatagarbha, when following conditions to create arising-and-ceasing, were to lose its own non-arising and non-ceasing nature, then arising-and-ceasing could not exist. Just as when water loses its wet nature it cannot form large and small waves, so too because of non-arising and non-ceasing, arising-and-ceasing can exist. Therefore, precisely because of non-difference, there is non-identity. The Awakening of Faith explains that the tathāgatagarbha and arising-and-ceasing are combined, neither identical nor different, thereby accomplishing the defiled and pure affairs of both the worldly and transworldly realms.
83.6
Question: The treatise states: 'Regarding the characteristic of sameness, all phenomena are solely the one tathatā. Regarding the characteristic of difference, the one tathatā solely produces all phenomena.' Are these two meanings of sameness and difference inherently self-existent by dharmatā, or are they established on account of persons?
83.7
Answer: The nature of phenomena is unmoving; how could there be words of sameness or difference? Alteration proceeds from the mind, which itself gives rise to views of unity and multiplicity. As the Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna states: 'Furthermore, enlightenment and non-enlightenment have two kinds of characteristics: the first is the characteristic of sameness, and the second is the characteristic of difference. As for the characteristic of sameness: just as various earthenware vessels all share the same nature and characteristics of subtle particles, so too the various karmic illusions of the uncontaminated and of avidyā all share the nature and characteristics of tathatā. Therefore, in the sūtras, based on this meaning, it is taught that all sentient beings are originally eternally abiding and entered into nirvāṇa. The dharma of bodhi is not a characteristic that can be cultivated, nor a characteristic that can be made; it is ultimately unobtainable, and has no visible form that can be seen. Those who perceive visible forms do so merely through the karmic illusions that accord with defilement; they are not the nature of non-empty cognitive form, because the characteristics of wisdom cannot be seen. As for the characteristic of difference: just as various earthenware vessels are individually distinct, so too the uncontaminated and avidyā are distinct in their nature according to defiled illusions, and distinct in their defiled illusory actions.' The treatise commentary states: 'Right within this passage, there are two gates: the first is the gate of the characteristic of sameness, and the second is the gate of the characteristic of difference. To clarify what meaning is the gate of the characteristic of sameness established? To reveal that all phenomena are solely the one tathatā without any remaining dharma; it corresponds to the gate of tathatā. To clarify what meaning is the gate of the characteristic of difference established? To reveal that the one tathatā produces all phenomena, with individually distinct names and characteristics and different meanings and functions; it corresponds to the gate of arising-and-ceasing. Based on which sūtra is it established? It refers to the First Sūtra of Mañjuśrī's Answers. What is taught in that sūtra? It is taught in that sūtra as follows: The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī: "You have continuously travelled throughout the lands of the ten directions without rest for a long time; what extraordinary things have you seen?" Mañjuśrī answered: "For a long time, I have seen nothing else; I have seen only subtle particles." The Buddha again asked: "When you dwelt in a potter's house for a hundred years, did you not see the characteristics of various earthenware vessels?" Mañjuśrī replied: "I saw only dust, not earthenware vessels." The Buddha again asked: "Did you truly not see the various characteristics of earth, water, fire, and wind, or mountains, rivers, forests, and trees?" He replied: "I truly did not see such characteristics; I saw only subtle particles." In this manner, after the World-Honoured One had asked and Mañjuśrī had answered up to one hundred times, the Buddha asked Mañjuśrī: "Do you see subtle particles?" Mañjuśrī replied: "For a long time, I have not seen subtle particles." At that time, the World-Honoured One told Mañjuśrī: "Excellent, excellent! You are a great being, capable of awakening to the single characteristic. Being capable of awakening to the single characteristic is the signless dharma. Mañjuśrī, you, benevolent one, do not awaken in this manner: based on the gate of the single characteristic, all sentient beings are originally eternally abiding and entered into nirvāṇa. The dharma of bodhi is not a characteristic that can be cultivated, nor a characteristic that can be made; it is ultimately unobtainable, and has no visible form that can be seen. Those who perceive visible forms do so merely through the karmic illusions that accord with defilement; they are not the nature of non-empty cognitive form, because the characteristics of wisdom cannot be seen." As for the gate of the characteristic of difference, that sūtra teaches as follows: The Buddha addressed Śāriputra: "When you look upon this land, with what mind do you look?" Śāriputra replied: "I look upon this land with its mountains, rivers, forests, trees, sand, pebbles, earth, stones, sun, moon, palaces, residences, and the like—various characteristics, individually distinct in form, appearance, name, and designation." The Buddha said: "The power of your wisdom is inferior and narrow; because your mind has high and low, you perceive such differences. It is not you alone who perceives thus; all sentient beings are also like this, and so are all phenomena. The real and the deluded mutually perfumed, defilement and purity mutually dependent, merits and faults, forms, appearances, and names are individually distinct. Names and characteristics established according to the minds of ordinary persons exist, but are not real; they are all like illusions."'
83.8
Question: What is the reason for opening the one mind into the two gates of tathatā and arising-and-ceasing?
83.9
Answer: It has great function and accords deeply with both principle and phenomena. 'One mind' inspires faith in the Mahāyāna; the 'two gates' shatter attachments to wrong views. In terms of the gate of tathatā, one believes that the wondrous principle is definitive; in terms of the gate of arising-and-ceasing, one believes that karmic function is not established [as inherently real]. This can truly be called the complete integration of principle and phenomena, where the true and the worldly are unobstructed. The Commentary on the Mahāyāna states: 'The gate of the mind as tathatā has ten names: First, it is called the gate of the tathāgatagarbha, because it is free of confusion and disorder. Second, it is called the gate of non-dual equality, because it is devoid of differentiation. Third, it is called the gate of the single path of purity, because there are no divergent roads. Fourth, it is called the gate of non-arising and non-motion, because it is free from the creation of karma. Fifth, it is called the gate of non-severance and non-bondage, because there are no antidotes and obstacles. Sixth, it is called the gate of non-going and non-coming, because there is no high or low. Seventh, it is called the transworldly gate, because it lacks the four characteristics. Eighth, it is called the gate of cessation and tranquility, because it has no orientation or heading. Ninth, it is called the gate of the great universal characteristic, because it has no particular characteristics. Tenth, it is called the gate of tathatā, because it is devoid of falsehood. These are the ten. Such ten names completely subsume all dharma-stores of the buddhas, the names of the teachings of equal principle.' 'The gate of arising-and-ceasing has ten names: First, it is called the gate of the ālayavijñāna, because it holds and maintains all defiled and pure phenomena. Second, it is called the gate of the tathāgatagarbha, because it conceals the tathāgata's dharmakāya. Third, it is called the gate of initiating motion, because it continuously creates karma. Fourth, it is called the gate of having severance and bondage, because it possesses antidotes and obstacles. Fifth, it is called the gate of having going and coming, because it possesses high and low. Sixth, it is called the gate of distinct divisions of multiple characteristics, because defiled and pure phenomena exceed the sands of the Ganges. Seventh, it is called the worldly gate, because the four characteristics all turn together. Eighth, it is called the gate of saṃsāric circulation and cessation, because it is fully equipped with both birth-and-death and nirvāṇa. Ninth, it is called the gate of mutual dependence and co-establishment, because no phenomenon is established by itself. Tenth, it is called the gate of arising-and-ceasing, because it manifests the characteristic of impermanence. Such ten names completely subsume all dharma-stores of the buddhas, the names of the various distinct teachings.' Furthermore, although tathatā abides in the gate of non-arising and non-motion, it is not frozen and immobile, tranquilly severed from conditions. That would fall into the dust of stillness and give rise to nihilistic views. This, rather, accords with conditions to merge with tranquility, clarifying the real through phenomena. Therefore, conditioned arising lacks own-nature, and principle and phenomena form a single realm; conditioned arising lacks own-nature, so latency and manifestation are simultaneous. As the Ocean of Meanings states: 'Entering tathatā means that dust revolves in accordance with mind, with various meanings and tastes, forming a great conditioned origination. Although there are various kinds, there is no arising or ceasing; although there is no arising or ceasing, it never obstructs all following of conditions. Now, being free of arising and ceasing is unchanging; not obstructing all things is following conditions. Following conditions without changing: this is the meaning of tathatā.'
83.10
Question: It was said above that all sentient beings possess original enlightenment, which constantly perfumes avidyā to accomplish its pure function. Does this wondrous function of tathatā and the transforming gate of the buddhas belong to the gate of tathatā or to the gate of arising-and-ceasing?
83.11
Answer: This refers to innate enlightenment as tathatā within the gate of arising and ceasing; hence it possesses the sense of perfuming. Within the gate of tathatā, however, this sense does not exist. Because this innate enlightenment internally perfumes unenlightenment, it causes one to develop aversion [to saṃsāra] and seek [liberation], reversing the flow to accord with truth; therefore it is called 'function'. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'Through the power of future buddha-nature, an icchantika still gives rise to roots of goodness.' The 'power of buddha-nature' is precisely the power of innate enlightenment's internal perfuming completing its pure function. Extending to the eight aspects of attaining the Way and the stages and practices of the ten grounds, all are subsumed under the gate of conventional truth.
83.12
Question: Above, the two gates of the one mind—tathatā and arising and ceasing—were established. Through which gate, then, does one enter to achieve realization quickly?
83.13
Answer: One enters solely through the gate of arising and ceasing, proceeding directly to the place of awakening, realizing correct enlightenment without moving from defilement. The Awakening of Faith states: 'Furthermore, in order to cause sentient beings to enter the gate of tathatā from the gate of the mind arising and ceasing, they are made to contemplate characteristics such as form as all failing to be established. How do they fail to be established? It means analyzing coarse form gradually down to subtle dust motes, and further analyzing these subtle dust motes by spatial direction. Therefore, whether coarse or fine, all forms are merely images of discriminatory false mind, genuinely having no existence at all. Investigating the remaining aggregates gradually down to a single kṣaṇa, their distinctive characteristics are not one. Unconditioned dharmas are also like this: apart from the dharmadhātu, they ultimately cannot be found. All dharmas throughout the ten directions should be known to be completely like this. Just as a confused person takes east for west, yet the direction in fact does not change, sentient beings are also like this: because of the delusion of avidyā, they take the mind to be moving, yet it is in fact unmoved. If one knows that the moving mind is non-arising and non-ceasing, one immediately gains entry into the gate of tathatā.' As for the meaning of the two truths above, one must not exclusively interpret them as one, nor must one exclusively interpret them as two. Thus, the Chapter on the Two Truths in the Benevolent King Sūtra states: 'At that time King Prasenajit said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, within the ultimate truth is there the conventional truth or not? If one says there is not, wisdom should not be twofold. If one says there is, wisdom should not be single. How is it regarding the meaning of one and two?" The Buddha said: "Great King, in the past within the teaching of King Dragon Radiance Buddha, you already inquired about this meaning. I now have nothing to preach, and you now have nothing to hear. No-preaching and no-hearing: this is precisely named the meaning of one and the meaning of two. Now listen attentively; I shall preach it for you." At that time the World-Honoured One spoke the verses: / "The characteristicless ultimate truth: / Its substance is not made by self or other. / Causes and conditions exist like an illusion, / Neither are they made by self or other. / The dharma-nature is originally natureless; / The ultimate truth is empty like tathatā. / Whatever dharmas exist as illusory existence, / Exist through the collection of the three designations. / The truth of non-existence is genuinely non-existent; / Quiescent cessation is ultimate emptiness. / Dharmas exist through causes and conditions; / Such is the meaning of existence and non-existence. / Existence and non-existence are originally two, / Just like the two horns of an ox. / Illuminating understanding sees that they are not two; / The two truths are constantly not identical. / The understanding mind sees that they are not two; / Seeking two, they cannot be found. / It is not said that the two truths are one; / One also cannot be found. / In understanding it is always naturally one; / In truth it is always naturally two. / Comprehending this one and two, / One truly enters the ultimate truth. / Conventional truth arises through illusory transformation, / Like flowers in empty space, / Like a shadow, like a wheel of floating hairs; / Through causes and conditions it exists as illusion. / Illusions perceive illusions; / The foolish call them illusory truth. / An illusionist perceives illusory dharmas: / Both truth and illusion are completely absent. / If one comprehends such dharmas, / One understands the meaning of one and two. / Universally throughout all dharmas, / One should contemplate in this way."' Therefore, when the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra uses the metaphor of two birds wandering together, saṃsāra is both eternal and impermanent, and nirvāṇa is also like this. Being below and being above, flying together and resting together, phenomena are immediately principle, and principle is immediately phenomena. The two truths are immediately the Middle, and the Middle is immediately the two truths. It is not two and Middle, yet it is two and Middle; thus the meaning of wandering together is established. The two birds are mandarin ducks, flying together and resting together. Flying together compares to dual illumination; resting together compares to dual negation. It is also substance and function, principle and phenomena, neither identical nor separate.
83.14
Question: Why is the true truth not called the ultimate truth of the primary meaning?
83.15
Answer: 'True' merely acquires its name in contrast to 'conventional'; it is not yet the Middle Way. Furthermore, thoroughly realizing the selflessness of all dharmas is merely the true explanation; it has not yet exhausted the real nature and does not penetrate both the true and conventional. As for the Middle Way ultimate truth of the primary meaning, it is not called 'Middle' by departing from the two extremes; it is the real nature of all dharmas, universally pervading ordinary beings and sages, sentient and insentient; hence it is called 'primary'. It is also called 'unequalled'. Because no dharma can surpass it, it is called 'primary'. Because no dharma can compare to it, it is called 'unequalled'. This is not spoken in terms of superiority and inferiority, because all dharmas are immediately the one mind of tathatā. Therefore the Awakening of Faith states: 'That which is called dharma is the minds of sentient beings.' An ancient commentary says: 'Since all dharmas are non-existent, there is only mind—just as the ten thousand images are fundamentally empty, being solely a single mirror.'
83.16
Question: The wondrously luminous true mind pervades all places. Why does the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra state that buddha-nature excludes tiles and rubble?
83.17
Answer: Subject and object are different; one cannot cling to them as one. Mind and object are of one flavor; they cannot be called different. If one follows conditions from the perspective of nature, then sentient and insentient are different, and as natures they are also distinct. If one eliminates conditions to follow nature, then there is neither awareness nor non-awareness. If the two natures blend mutually, then there is nothing that is not awakening. The Avataṃsakasūtra states: 'There is no minute part of tathatā that is not awakening.' Then tathatā pervades all places, sentient and insentient. If there is no minute part that is not awakening, how could the insentient not be buddha-nature? Furthermore, the intention of the sūtra is only to eliminate the view of clinging to tiles and rubble as insentient, not to eliminate buddha-nature. Thus nature is nowhere absent, its measure surpassing empty space; how could it be eliminated? Furthermore, an ancient virtuous one said: 'Awareness-nature is principle; conscious awareness pertains to phenomena. As in the insentient, there is only awareness-nature, yet no conscious awareness—just as in water there is only fire-nature, yet no fire's illumination.' Now speaking of nature, it is based solely on the fundamental principle; who speaks of the branch tips? Furthermore, awareness-wisdom that conditions thoughts is called sentience; the intrinsic nature that does not change is called nature. The foolish are deluded about nature and give rise to sentience, so object and wisdom are not one. The wise comprehend sentience to become nature, so object and self are not two.
83.18
Question: That the ten thousand dharmas are mind-only is attested by more than one reliable proof. A verse in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: / 'Dharmas above and below in the three realms, / I say are precisely citta. / Apart from mental dharmas, / Nothing else can be found.' / If the four cardinal directions, zenith, and nadir are all one's own citta, then upon what does one abide in walking, standing, sitting, and lying down? If there is no environmental retribution in which to dwell, how is primary retribution established?
83.19
Answer: The body endowed with consciousness and the insentient land are both the internal and external four great elements, and none possess substance. Take the earth element, for example: it relies solely on the wind circle and is formed of subtle particles, fundamentally lacking intrinsic nature. It is merely the transformation of the citta of sentient beings; there is no other principle. Calm movement and cessation are all within citta—like a bird flying in the sky, never departing from the realm of space; like a fish submerged in water, how could it go beyond the water's source? A verse in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: / 'If all is mind-only, / Where does the world abide? / Upon what dharma do coming and going rely? / How are they seen in the earth? / Just as a bird in empty space / Departs relying on the wind of the mind, / Neither abiding nor observing, / Yet departs over the ground; / So it is with all sentient beings: / Moving relying on the wind of discrimination, / Coming and going within their own citta, / Like birds flying in the sky. / Seeing this vessel of requisites for life, / The Buddha preaches citta to be thus.' / Therefore, know that raising one's foot and lowering one's foot does not depart from one's own citta. If a bird leaves the sky, how could it soar? If a fish leaves the water, how could it swim and dive? Thus the Western patriarch Micitaka asked Vasumitra: 'From where did you come, and to where are you going?' He answered: 'I come from citta, and wish to go to no-place.' Furthermore, in this land, the Upādhyāya of Wuxie ceased eating for three days when approaching death and announced his passing. A student asked: 'Master, where are you going?' He answered: 'Going nowhere.' 'Why does this student not see it?' He answered: 'It is not what eyes behold.' Therefore the Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra states that the Buddha said: 'Seek bodhi right within the four great elements; do not seek elsewhere. When seeking, one does not see any things. Not seeing is precisely no-place. No-place is precisely non-abiding. Non-abiding is precisely the nature of all dharmas. If all dharmas have no nature, that is precisely the true mark. The true mark is neither eternal nor annihilated; it is named the ultimate juncture.' The Vajrasamādhisūtra states: 'The Bodhisattva Non-abiding said: "Honoured One, I come from no-origin and now arrive at the place of no-origin." The Buddha said: "Your origin is not come from, and your present arrival is also to no place. You have attained fundamental benefit that is inconceivable." ... extending to: "Form has no location; pure and nameless, it does not enter inside. The eye has no location; pure and without sight, it does not go outside. Citta has no location; pure and unsurpassed, it has no place of arising; pure and motionless, it has no conditioned distinctions; their natures are all empty and quiescent." ... extending to: "Just as that king of citta fundamentally has no abiding place, the citta of ordinary beings sees through false discrimination. The substance of tathatā fundamentally neither exists nor does not exist. The characteristics of existence and non-existence are seen solely as citta-vijñāna. Why is it without origin? Because it does not abide. If there is an origin, then there is abiding; if there is non-abiding, then there is no origin."' Clearly know that the coming and going of sentient beings in karmic destinies, and the movement and cessation of the pure realms of the sages: coming is citta coming, going is citta going, moving is citta moving, and resting is citta resting. Ultimately neither coming, going, moving, nor resting can be found, because they do not depart from the dharmadhātu. Thus not a single dharma has ever existed that is not designated by citta. Hence Mañjuśrī transformed Sudhana the youth, manifesting three thousand worlds filled with terraces and towers. Sudhana observed them, and suddenly they did not appear, the worlds being entirely empty. When he asked about the place from which the worlds come and go, Mañjuśrī answered: 'They come from where they came from, and return to where they went to.' That is, they come from within the pure dharmadhātu and return to within the pure dharmadhātu. Therefore, know that the arising of all dharmas is manifested solely by citta; arising, ceasing, coming, and going are all the tathāgatagarbha. This is indeed exhausting the traces to reach the source, seeing dharmas to clarify the source! Furthermore, as the Dharma Prince Vaiḍūryaprabha said: 'I recall in the past, after kalpas numerous as the sands of the Ganges, there was a Buddha who appeared in the world named Boundless Sound, who revealed to bodhisattvas the wondrous luminosity of innate enlightenment. He contemplated this world and the bodies of sentient beings as all being turned by the power of the wind of false conditions. At that time I contemplated the establishment of the world, contemplated the times when the world moves, contemplated the movement and rest of the body, and contemplated the movement of thoughts in the mind: all movements are not two, equal and without distinction. At that time I fully realized the nature of this flock of movements: their coming has no source, and their going has no destination. The inverted sentient beings as numerous as the dust motes of the ten directions share the same single falsity. In this way, extending to all sentient beings within a single great trichiliocosm, they are like hundreds of mosquitoes and gnats stored inside a single vessel, buzzing in chaotic noise, stirring up wild frenzy within fractions of an inch. Extending to: through observing the wind power as having no reliance, I awakened to the bodhimind, entered samādhi, and caused the Buddhas of the ten directions to transmit the one wondrous mind; this was the foremost.' Therefore, know that the flock of movements is not two, being solely one false wind. The wind relies on many conditions and fundamentally has no place of reliance. If one can attentively contemplate the wind power as having no reliance, suddenly awakening that citta-only is motionless, then the wondrous luminosity of innate enlightenment constantly illuminates the dharmadhātu. Hence it says that the Buddhas of the ten directions transmit this one wondrous mind. Since the wind power has no reliance, the ten thousand dharmas have no master: coming, they exist through conditions; going, they follow illusory emptiness. Solely the mind of innate enlightenment fundamentally has no arising or ceasing. Therefore, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra only preaches the single vehicle, opening and revealing it here. The Prajñāpāramitāsūtras only speak of non-duality, entrusting it here. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra widely illustrates the equality of buddha-nature here. The Avataṃsakasūtra manifests the inexhaustibility of the dharmadhātu here. Boundless wondrous purports together return to the mirror of the source.
83.20
Question: The Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: 'The Buddha's word takes citta as its source.' Since the one mind is established as the source, why is it also said that no-mind is the Way?
83.21
Answer: That citta is the source refers to the true citta. This citta is neither existent nor nonexistent; it is without dwelling and without support, neither arising nor ceasing. Whether there be a Buddha or no Buddha, its nature and characteristics abide eternally, serving as the nature of all myriad things, just as the substance of empty space is not anything, yet can manifest everything. It is only because sentient beings fail to understand this eternally abiding true citta, and because the true citta has no [fixed] nature, that, through unawareness, the citta of deluded consciousness arises; consequently, they lose this wondrous nature of the true citta, pursue delusions in saṃsāra, and produce ultimate differentiation within complete sameness. Unconditionally clinging to this deluded citta, which can condition sense-objects and comply with external things, they turn their backs on the Way and violate truth; therefore, [the teachings] bid them bring to rest this deluded citta of conditioning contemplation. If the deluded citta does not arise, one is able to accord with awakening; this is why it is said, 'no-mind is the Way,' and also said, 'submerging the mind unites with the Way.' Furthermore, being identical with mind is being without mind; eternally according with original awakening does not necessarily mean extinguishing the mind to obtain realization, which would on the contrary turn one's back on the Way. Yet, although being identical with mind is being without mind, neither can one intentionally give rise [to it]. This citta of deluded consciousness arises in confrontation with objects, and has no substance that can be grasped; it is like waves on the sea, continuous or intermittent following the wind. When the deluded wind of objects does not arise, the waves of discriminative consciousness are not born. The Ghanavyūhasūtra states in verse: / 'All the worlds / Are like a mirage during the heat: / With various unreal characteristics, / In nonexistence they falsely discriminate. / / Awareness arises due to that which is become aware of; / That which is become aware of depends on that which is able to be aware. / Apart from one there are not two, / Just as with light and shadow. / / There is neither mind nor object; / Pramāṇa and the prameya affair / Merely rely on the one mind, / And are discriminated thus. / / Phenomena capable of being known and objects known / Are merely falsely conceptualized reliant on mind. / If one understands that the object known is absent, / Then that which is capable of knowing does not exist.' / That the object known is absent means that there is no object; that which is capable of knowing is absent means that there is no mind. When the deluded citta and illusory objects are both empty, the single-path true citta naturally manifests. Thus one knows that merely when mind does not arise, the myriad dharmas are unproduced; no sooner does mind arise than it becomes an abiding attachment. As the Mahādharmolkādhāraṇīsūtra says: 'The Buddha said: All abiding is non-abiding; it is merely that thoughts shift forward, succeeding one another in series, so that there is arising, and so forth. If there is correct contemplation, all is non-abiding abiding.' Thus one knows that all myriad dharmas are born from thought. Wherever there is contemplation, it is all false contemplation; if there is no contemplation, that is correct contemplation. Hence it is said: 'If there is correct contemplation, all is non-abiding abiding.' Non-abiding abiding is indeed the root of the myriad dharmas.
83.22
Question: If you say that mind, like objects, is empty and utterly ungraspable, yet now when even the slightest thought arises in the mind, karmic retribution is not in vain: a single moment of wholesome mind remotely ascends to the fruit of Buddhahood, while a single moment of evil thought brings suffering for long kalpas. How could it be identical to external form and sensory dust, whose nature is neutral (avyākṛta), conventionally existent reliant on mind, and ultimately devoid of substance? If it is the mind of conditioning thoughts, then it must be existent.
83.23
Answer: This single thought of the mind also does not arise alone; it exists dependently and provisionally, and inside and outside are both empty. This mind that momentarily arises, perceiving and capable of knowing, is like what Ānanda falsely clung to as being in seven locations, which the World-Honoured One refuted one by one, showing that it resides nowhere at all. Indeed, the places of its dependence do not exceed these seven; worldly people universally cling to them, and their habituation is deep-seated and firm. Were it not for the Great Sage's meticulous investigation and inquiry, there would be no way to become free from emotional clinging and biased views. Once these seven locations are refuted, then it is absent in all places. This can be directly known right now, and there is no need to cling to it further.
As the Śūraṅgamasūtra says: The Buddha said to Ānanda: “As you have said, that which is genuinely loved and cherished is due to the mind and the eyes. If you do not recognize where the mind and the eyes are located, you will not be able to subjugate the afflictions of the dust-realm. It is like a king whose realm is invaded by bandits: when he dispatches troops to quell them, these troops must know where the bandits are. That which causes you to transmigrate is the fault of the mind and the eyes. I now ask you: where are this mind and these eyes located right now?”
Ānanda said to the Buddha: “World-Honoured One, all the ten varieties of living beings throughout the world together consider this conscious mind to reside within the body. And even when observing the Tathāgata’s blue-lotus eyes, they too are on the Buddha’s face. I now observe these floating sense-bases of the four elements, and they are merely upon my face; thus, this conscious mind truly resides within the body.”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “You are now seated here in the Tathāgata’s lecture hall, looking out at the Jeta Grove. Where is it located right now?”
“World-Honoured One, this great multi-storied, pure lecture hall is in Anāthapiṇḍada's park, and the Jeta Grove is truly outside the hall.”
“Ānanda, what do you see first right now within the hall?”
“World-Honoured One, inside the hall I first see the Tathāgata, next I observe the great assembly, and gazing outward in this manner, only then do I behold the grove and the park.”
“Ānanda, when you behold the grove and the park, by what means do you see them?”
“World-Honoured One, the doors and windows of this great lecture hall are open wide; therefore, being in the hall, I am able to gaze far and see them.”
And so forth, until the Buddha said to Ānanda: “As you have said, when your body is in the lecture hall, with the doors and windows open wide, you gaze far and see the grove and the park. Could there also be a living being who, being in this hall, does not see the Tathāgata, but sees outside the hall?”
Ānanda replied: “World-Honoured One, for one to be in the hall, not see the Tathāgata, and yet be able to see the grove and the springs—this is impossible.”
“Ānanda, you are also like this. The spiritual essence of your mind is completely clear and comprehending. If the comprehending mind presently before you truly resided within your body, then at that very moment you should first clearly perceive the inside of your body. Are there any living beings who first see inside their bodies and only later observe external objects? Even if you cannot see your heart, liver, spleen, and stomach, the growth of your nails, the lengthening of your hair, the twitching of your sinews, and the pulsing of your veins should truly be plainly discerned; how could you not know them? If you definitely do not know what is inside, how could you know what is outside? Therefore, you should know that when you say the mind that perceives and is capable of knowing dwells within the body, this is impossible.”
Ānanda bowed his head and said to the Buddha: “Having heard such Dharma sounds of the Tathāgata, I have awakened to the realization that my mind truly resides outside the body. Why is that? For example, like a lamp lit inside a room, this lamp must surely first illuminate the interior of the room, and from its doorway it only later reaches the courtyard. All living beings do not see inside their bodies, but only see outside their bodies; this is just like the light of a lamp situated outside a room, which cannot illuminate the room. This meaning must surely be clear and without doubt; it accords with the Buddha’s definitive meaning. Could it not be free of error?”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “Just now, these monks followed me through the city of Śrāvastī, begging for food from house to house, and have returned to the Jeta Grove. I have already finished the meal. Look at the monks: when one person eats, are all the others sated or not?”
Ānanda replied: “No, World-Honoured One. Why? Although these monks are arhats, their bodies and lifespans are different. How could one person cause the assembly to be full?”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “If your mind that perceives and knows truly resided outside the body, then body and mind would be external to each other, naturally having no relation to one another. Then what the mind knows, the body could not perceive; and what is perceived at the body, the mind could not know. I now show you my hand like a tula cotton blossom: when your eyes see it, does your mind make distinctions or not?”
Ānanda replied: “It is so, World-Honoured One.”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “If they mutually know, how could it be outside? Therefore, you should know that when you say the mind that perceives and is capable of knowing dwells outside the body, this is impossible.”
Ānanda said to the Buddha: “World-Honoured One, as the Buddha has said, because it does not see within, it does not reside within the body; and because the body and mind mutually know and are not separated, it is not outside the body. Now as I reflect upon it, I know it is in a certain place.”
The Buddha said: “Where is that place now?”
Ānanda said: “Since this comprehending mind does not know the interior yet can see the exterior, according to my consideration, it lies hidden within the sense-organs. It is just like someone taking a crystal bowl and covering both of his eyes with it; although there is an object covering them, it poses no obstruction, and the sense-organ makes distinctions in accordance with what it sees. Thus my mind that perceives and is capable of knowing does not see within because it resides in the sense-organ; that it clearly beholds the exterior without obstruction is because it is hidden within the sense-organ.”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “As you have said, being hidden within the sense-organ is like a crystal bowl. When that person covers his eyes with the crystal bowl and sees the mountains and rivers, does he see the crystal bowl or not?”
“He does, World-Honoured One. When that person covers his eyes with the crystal bowl, he truly sees the crystal bowl.”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “If your mind were joined with the crystal bowl, when seeing mountains and rivers, why does it not see your eyes? If it sees the eyes, then the eyes would be identical to an external object, and it could not be said to follow [the sight]. If it cannot see them, how can you say that this comprehending mind is hidden within the sense-organ like the joining of the crystal bowl? Therefore, you should know that when you say the mind that perceives and is capable of knowing is hidden within the sense-organs like the joining of a crystal bowl, this is impossible.”
Ānanda said to the Buddha: “World-Honoured One, I now reflect further in this way: the viscera and organs of living beings’ bodies are located inside, while the orifices reside on the outside. Where there are viscera, it is dark; where there are orifices, it is bright. Now as I face the Buddha, opening my eyes to see brightness is called seeing outside; closing my eyes to see darkness is called seeing inside. What is the meaning of this?”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “When you close your eyes and see darkness, is this dark realm opposite your eyes, or is it not opposite your eyes? If it is opposite your eyes, then the darkness is in front of your eyes; how could it constitute the inside? If it constitutes the inside, then when you are in a dark room without the sun, moon, or a lamp, the darkness in this room would all be your viscera and organs. If it is not opposite, how could it constitute seeing? If, apart from external seeing, an internal opposition is formed, so that closing the eyes and seeing darkness is called being inside the body, then when opening the eyes and seeing brightness, why do you not see your face? If you do not see your face, internal opposition is not established. If seeing the face were established, then this comprehending mind, along with the eye-organ, would be out in empty space; how could it be inside? If it is in empty space, it is naturally not your body; it would then follow that the Tathāgata now seeing your face is also your body! If your eyes already know, the body should not perceive; but if you stubbornly maintain that the body and the eyes both perceive, there should be two consciousnesses, which means that you in your single body would become two Buddhas! Therefore, you should know that when you say seeing darkness is called seeing inside, this is impossible.”
Ānanda said: “I have often heard the Buddha explain to the four assemblies that ‘because the mind arises, diverse dharmas arise; because dharmas arise, diverse minds arise.’ I now reflect: the very substance of this thinking is truly the nature of my mind; wherever it joins, the mind exists accordingly. It is not in the three locations of inside, outside, or in between.”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “You now say that ‘because dharmas arise, diverse dharmas arise,’ and that wherever it joins, the mind exists accordingly. If this mind has no substance, then there is nothing to join with. If, lacking substance, it could join, then there would be a nineteenth dhātu joining with a seventh dust-realm. This principle is not correct. If it has substance, then just as when you pinch your body with your hand, does the mind that knows it come out from within, or enter from without? If it comes out from within, it should again see inside the body; if it comes from without, it should first see your face.”
Ānanda said: “Seeing belongs to the eyes; the mind knows, it is not the eyes. To say that it sees is not correct.”
The Buddha said: “If the eyes can see, when you are in a room, can the door see? Then those who have already died still have eyes remaining—they should all see objects. If they see objects, how could they be called dead? Ānanda, furthermore, if your mind that perceives and is capable of knowing must have substance, does it have one substance, or does it have many substances? Now in your body, does it pervade the body, or does it not pervade the body? If it is one substance, then when you pinch one limb with your hand, all four limbs should feel it. If they all feel it, the pinch would have no specific location. If the pinch has a specific location, then your single substance naturally cannot be established. If it has many substances, then you would become many people; which substance would be you? If it pervades the body, it is the same as the previous pinch. If it does not pervade, when you touch your head and also touch your foot, the head having perception, the foot should have no sensation. But this is not so with you. Therefore, you should know that to say ‘wherever it joins, the mind exists accordingly’ is impossible.”
Ānanda said to the Buddha: “World-Honoured One, I have also heard the Buddha, when discussing the true characteristic with Mañjuśrī and other Dharma princes, say that the mind is not inside and not outside. As I reflect upon it: since nothing is seen inside, and there is no mutual knowing outside—because there is no knowledge inside, being inside is not established; and since the body and mind mutually know, being outside is not correct. Now, because they mutually know and yet there is no seeing inside, it must be in the middle.”
The Buddha said: “You say ‘the middle’; this ‘middle’ must certainly not be confused, and it cannot be without a location. Now, as you investigate the middle, where does the middle reside? Is it in a place, or is it in the body? If it is in the body, being on the edge is not the middle, and being in the center is the same as being inside. If it is in a place, does it have an indication, or does it not have an indication? If there is no indication, it is the same as non-existence; if there is an indication, then it is not fixed. Why? If someone sets up a marker to indicate the middle, when looking from the east it is west, and when looking from the south it becomes north. Since the body of the marker is confused, the mind should be disordered.”
Ānanda said: “The middle of which I speak is neither of these two kinds. As the World-Honoured One has said, ‘eye and form serving as conditions give rise to eye-consciousness.’ The eye has discrimination, and the form-dust has no awareness; consciousness arises between them, and that is where the mind resides.”
The Buddha said: “If your mind is between the sense-organ and the dust-object, does this substance of the mind partake of both, or does it not partake of both? If it partakes of both, the material and the substance would be mixed and disordered; matter is not the substance that knows, and the two would stand in opposition—how could it be the middle? If partaking of both is not established, being neither knowing nor not-knowing, it would have no essential nature; what characteristic would the middle have? Therefore, you should know that to say it must be in the middle is impossible.”
Ānanda said to the Buddha: “World-Honoured One, formerly I saw the Buddha turning the Dharma wheel together with the four great disciples Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Subhūti, Pūrṇa, and Śāriputra, always saying that the nature of the mind that perceives, knows, and discriminates is neither inside nor outside nor in the middle; it resides nowhere at all. Being without any attachment to anything is called the mind. Then would my non-attachment be called the mind or not?”
The Buddha said to Ānanda: “You say that the nature of the mind that perceives, knows, and discriminates resides nowhere at all. All the worldly objects and appearances in empty space, in water, on land, and flying in the air are called ‘everything.’ Is that to which you do not attach existent or non-existent? If it is non-existent, it is just like the horns of a hare or the hair of a tortoise; how could there be non-attachment? If there is that which is unattached, it cannot be called non-existent. Having no characteristic means non-existence; not being non-existent implies a characteristic. When a characteristic exists, there is a location; how could it be unattached? Therefore, you should know that to say ‘being without any attachment to anything is called the perceiving and knowing mind’ is impossible.”
Through such refutation as above, right now within the body of arising and ceasing, the false mind has nowhere to rely. This is known by direct perception, clearly and without doubt. This can truly be called sudden awakening to the true mind, direct comprehension of non-arising.
First 23 of 26 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 宗鏡錄 — Classical Chinese