廣弘明集 21
English (machine translation) 21
- Language
- English
21.1
Compiled by the monk Shi Daoxuan of Ximing Temple of the Great Tang
21.2
Chapter 4: On the Meanings of the Dharma, Part 4
21.3
Crown Prince Zhaoming of the Liang's Three Letters in Reply to Dharma Master Yun Requesting a Lecture (with petitions and replies)
Zhaoming's Petition of Thanks for the Imperial Gift of a Water-Rhinoceros-Horn Ruyi Scepter
Crown Prince Zhaoming's Section Explaining the Meaning of the Two Truths
Shi Huichao of Nanjian Temple's Essay Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (six exchanges)
King Gang of Jin'an Inquiring on the Purport of the Meaning of the Two Truths (five exchanges)
Shi Huiyan of Zhaoti Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Shi Tanzong of Qixuan Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Gentleman of the Household Wang Gui Inquiring on the Purport of the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Shi Sengqian of Linggen Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Marquis of Luoping Xiao Zhengli Inquiring on the Purport of the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Marquis of Hengshan Xiao Gong Inquiring on the Purport of the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Shi Senghuai of Zhongxing Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Xiao Ying, Fourth Son of the King of Shixing, Inquiring on the Purport of the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Xiao Li, Heir Apparent to the King of Wuping, Inquiring on the Purport of the Meaning of the Two Truths (five exchanges; he was exceedingly learned, having read more than thirty thousand scrolls)
Shi Huiling of Songxi Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Xiao Ye, Fifth Son of the King of Shixing, Inquiring on the Purport of the Meaning of the Two Truths (five exchanges)
Shi Faxuan of Xinghuang Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (three exchanges)
Marquis of Chengxiang Xiao Zhi Inquiring on the Purport of the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Shi Fayun of Guangzhai Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Shi Huiling of Linggen Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (five exchanges)
Shi Huixing of Xianggong Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (three exchanges)
Shi Sengmin of Zhuangyan Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Shi Fachong of Xuanwu Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (four exchanges)
Shi Sengmin of Jianye Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (two exchanges)
Shi Jingtuo of Guangzhai Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Two Truths (five exchanges)
Crown Prince Zhaoming's Instructive Decree: One Section Explaining the Meaning of the Dharmakāya
Shi Huiyan of Zhaoti Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Dharmakāya (five exchanges)
Shi Fayun of Guangzhai Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Dharmakāya (five exchanges)
Shi Sengmin of Zhuangyan Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Dharmakāya (five exchanges)
Shi Fachong of Xuanwu Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Dharmakāya (five exchanges)
Shi Huiling of Linggen Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Dharmakāya (five exchanges)
Shi Jing'an of Lingwei Temple Inquiring on the Meaning of the Dharmakāya (five exchanges)
Petition of Thanks for the Imperial Dispatch of the Director of Documents to Observe the Lecture
Petition of Thanks for the Imperial Inquiries Regarding the Explanation of the Lecture
Petition of Thanks for the Imperial Bestowal of the Imperially Authored Commentary on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra
Petition of Thanks for the Imperial Bestowal of the Imperially Authored Commentary on the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra
Letter of the King of Jin'an to the Marquis of Guangxin Recounting the Matter of Listening to the Lecture
Letter of the King of Jin'an to the Marquis of Guangxin Further Recounting the Inner Teaching
Marquis of Guangxin Xiao Ying's Reply to the King on the Essentials of the Mind
21.4
Letter in Reply to Dharma Master Yun Requesting the Opening of a Lecture
21.5
By [Xiao] Tong, Crown Prince Zhaoming of the Liang
21.6
I have perused your recent message and know you wish for me to expound the Dharma's meaning. Now, the teaching of the Shakya is profound and concentrated, its ultimate principle deep and pure. The way of the single mark is distant and hard to fathom; the gate of non-duality is silent and without sound. Unless one has deeply penetrated the profound school and meticulously comprehended the wondrous meaning, how could a matter such as this be easily or lightly distinguished? As for propagating the correct teaching, it lies solely in benefiting living beings. As your disciple, regarding the inner meaning, I truly delight in it and cherish it myself. Yet in hooking the deep and drawing from afar, there is much that I have not understood; as for the principle of benefiting others, how could it be worth discussing? The monks have all entered the Dharma gate, and their roaming along the Way grows broader day by day. As for you, Dharma Master, there is all the more no need for words. That you say you wish to come and receive instruction from me is truly incomprehensible to me. Hoping you understand this intention, I shall not say much more. Tong bows with palms joined.
21.7
Petition by Shi Fayun
21.8
Your Highness, endowed with innate knowledge and superior intellect, penetrates the spirits with subtle meaning. Your natural, superior eloquence and wondrous discourses transcend the mundane. With every exchange, the entire assembly is enraptured; truly you cause the devas to praise your excellence and indeed make Śakra and Brahmā rain down flowers. Although in my youth I knew the right direction, in adulthood I have achieved no accomplishment. I join the ranks of those playing the reed-pipe unskillfully under this sage clarity, yet the reason my consciousness feels no shame in not withdrawing—how could it not be that I yearn to receive the profound purport? That I dare to make this request truly stems from the hope to hear the wondrous discourse! Now I have unworthily received your reply, which does not grant the assembly's request. Retreating to reflect on my rashness, I feel deep dread. My thirst and longing are real; my hunger and emptiness are no pretense. Examining my thoughts and checking my vows, I again pray to hear. I only hope the amṛta will be opened, thereby forever dispelling my base stinginess. I humbly pray that by your original fourfold great vow, you will graciously grant this triple request. With earnest devotion, I respectfully present this petition.
21.9
I have re-read your incoming letter and know that you still wish for me to expound the meaning. That I am not able to benefit others is entirely as I stated before. As for opening the amṛta, I am all the more ashamed to speak of it. If it is merely to briefly outline the doctrinal principles, there is no harm in doing so. I only feel ashamed to offer a fish's eye in place of the Dharma Master's night-shining pearl. Tong bows with palms joined.
21.10
Petition of Thanks for the Imperial Gift of a Water-Rhinoceros-Horn Ruyi Scepter
21.11
Your servant Tong submits: The Attendant to the Imperial Decrees, Bo Fozhang, conveyed the imperial decree, bestowing one water-rhinoceros-horn ruyi scepter to serve as a requisite for doctrinal discussion. The shining lustre of white jade cannot be valued beside this; the upstanding quality of coral is not precious when matched with this. As soon as the carving was complete, it was first conferred upon my mediocre self, as though I had received the hairpin of the Han emperor, or obtained the seal of Zhao Yao. Reverently relying on your majesty's divine power, I shall set it out on the lecture seat, causing the joyful arhat to sigh at casting away his bowl, and the eminent Confucian Wang Shi to break down the eloquence of the black colt. As for the jewel-handled sword decorated with a bear, Cao Pi felt ashamed at such a lavish gift; as for the light whisk of yak hair, Zhang Chang felt humbled by his former customs. This extraordinary favour has been uniquely conferred; I am overwhelmed with gratitude and joy. Unable to bear my humble feelings, I respectfully submit this petition to report. Respectfully submitted.
21.12
Instructive Decree Explaining the Meaning of the Two Truths (with questions and answers)
21.13
The principle of the Two Truths is truly deep and profound. Unless one has an open mind, there is no way to penetrate its vastness and distance. The methods of clarifying the Way do not originate from a single source; to state the essentials, they do not go beyond the sphere of objects and wisdom. Sometimes one clarifies meaning by means of the objective sphere; sometimes one reveals practice by means of wisdom. As for the Two Truths, they mean clarifying meaning with reference to the objective sphere. If one is deluded about its orientation, the three realms of existence do not cease; if one penetrates its purport, the myriad entanglements are all dispelled. As for what are called the Two Truths: the first is the ultimate truth, and the second is called the conventional truth. The ultimate truth is also called the supreme truth; the conventional truth is also called the worldly truth. 'Ultimate truth' and 'conventional truth' are established as names according to their fixed nature; 'supreme truth' and 'worldly truth' are established as designations by way of praise and deprecation. If speaking in terms of sequence, one should say first the ultimate truth, second the conventional truth. When one and two are joined, the number becomes three; not only does the number exceed two, but the names also have before and after, which is not suitable in meaning. The ultimate does not exist because of the conventional, nor is the conventional born due to the ultimate. One can properly say one ultimate and one conventional. 'Ultimate' means the real: it is equality, and there is no other dharma that can intermingle with it. 'Conventional' means gathering: this dharma is able to arise, floating, false, and constructed. 'Supreme' is a distinct praise established within the unarisen realm, stating that this dharma is most superior and most wondrous, with none able to equal it. 'Worldly' takes division as its meaning: arising, ceasing, and flowing without any abiding mark. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'What is known by people who transcend the world is called the supreme truth; what is known by worldly people is called the worldly truth.' This is textual evidence for the principle of praise and deprecation. The establishment of the names of the Two Truths has distinct differences. 'Ultimate', 'conventional', 'worldly', and so forth are spoken of with a single meaning; 'supreme truth' is spoken of with two meanings, stating that this principle's virtue is both supreme and its meaning is also supreme. Since the worldly is floating and false, it has no real meaning; therefore, only the name 'world' is established. 'Truth' has the meaning of being examined and real: the ultimate truth is examined and real as ultimate; the conventional truth is examined and real as conventional. The ultimate truth is free from existence and free from non-existence; the conventional truth is both existent and non-existent. Being both existent and non-existent is a provisional designation; being free from existence and free from non-existence is the Middle Way. The ultimate is the Middle Way, taking non-arising as its essence; since the conventional is a provisional designation, it takes arising dharmas as its essence.
21.14
Huichao of Nanjian Temple inquired: "Unreal fabrication is called conventional; transcendence of being and non-being is called ultimate. I do not yet know: is what is unreal and fabricated of one essence with the ultimate, or is it distinct?"
The imperial decree answered: "What worldly people know has arising dharmas as its essence; what world-transcending people know has non-arising as its essence. Discoursing with reference to persons, it should be stated thus. But if one discourses on the ultimate, being itself is emptiness; the conventional points to emptiness as being. Explaining according to this meaning, they cannot be distinct."
[Huichao] also inquired: "Since the ultimate and the conventional are said to be of one essence, I do not yet know: does ultimate truth also have movement and arising, or does movement and arising happen of itself without concerning ultimate truth?"
The imperial decree answered again: "The ultimate principle is quiescent, without the marks of movement and arising. The deluded consciousness of ordinary beings of itself perversely sees movement and arising."
[Huichao] also inquired: "I do not yet know: is there movement and arising that ordinary beings perversely see, or is there no movement and arising yet ordinary beings perversely see it?"
The imperial decree answered again: "If there were movement and arising, it would not be called perverse seeing. Because where there is no movement they see movement, it is therefore perverse seeing."
[Huichao] also inquired: "If dharmas have no movement and arising, then there should only be one truth."
The imperial decree answered again: "This principle is ever quiescent; this of itself is one truth. The perverse seeing of movement and arising is furthermore another truth. In accord [with this], there must be two; one cannot speak of one."
[Huichao] also inquired: "Is there perverse seeing, or is there no perverse seeing?"
The imperial decree answered again: "Speaking with reference to persons, there is this perverse seeing."
[Huichao] also inquired: "If speaking with reference to persons there is perverse seeing, then discoursing with reference to the Dharma one should not see movement."
The imperial decree answered again: "The Dharma is indeed without movement; yet this does not prevent those who are perverted from seeing its movement of themselves."
21.15
Xiao Gang, Prince of Jin'an and Governor of Danyang, inquired: "The explanation in the decree distinguishes having arising and non-arising with reference to persons. I do not yet know: are the unreal and empty and the non-arising merely of one essence, or are they distinct?"
The imperial decree answered: "What ordinary sentiments see, they see its movement and arising; what the sages see, they see its non-arising. Discoursing with reference to persons, they are indeed distinct essences. But if speaking of their mutual identity, they do not constitute difference. It is fully as explained before; I will not discourse on it at length."
[Xiao Gang] also inquired: "If the ultimate is not distinct from the conventional, and the conventional is not distinct from the ultimate, how can what conventional persons see have arising dharmas as its essence, while what sages see has non-arising as its essence?"
The imperial decree answered: "Identical to the conventional, one knows the ultimate; identical to the ultimate, one sees the conventional. Discoursing on this basis, they are of themselves non-distinct. Distinguishing views in terms of persons, there are naturally the distinctions of arising and non-arising."
[Xiao Gang] also inquired: "I do not yet know: since the essence of conventional truth is said to be illusory, how can one see this illusion within the true and real?"
The imperial decree answered: "The essence of the true and real of itself has no illusion. The deluded perversely construct it and call it existent. It does no harm to the true and real, whose essence of itself is void and profound."
[Xiao Gang] also inquired: "What the sages see, they see as not fluctuating; what ordinary beings see, they of themselves see as fluctuating. Since fluctuating and not fluctuating are different, in my foolish opinion they cannot be one."
The imperial decree answered: "I do not say that fluctuating and not fluctuating are each a distinct essence. It is precisely that ordinary beings, within what does not fluctuate, perversely see this fluctuation. Discoursing on this basis, they can be established as one."
[Xiao Gang] also inquired: "The essence of the truly quiescent is originally not fluctuating. That ordinary beings see fluctuation does not depart from the essence of the ultimate. If so, then there is only one ultimate and two truths are not established."
The imperial decree answered: "The essences are ever mutually identical; in principle they cannot be distinct. Yet ordinary beings see the unreal and empty, while sages behold the truly quiescent. With reference to those ordinary beings and sages, the names of two truths may be established."
21.16
Huiyan of Zhaoti Temple inquired: "Ordinary beings see the conventional, taking arising dharmas as its essence; sages see the ultimate, taking non-arising as its essence. I do not yet know: seeing only their difference between arising and non-arising, based on what meaning may one furthermore distinguish oneness?"
The imperial decree answered: "Ordinary beings construct being upon non-being; sages, identical to being, discern non-being. Being and non-being are mutually identical: this speaks of one essence."
[Huiyan] also inquired: "I do not yet know: since one may speak of oneness, by what is this oneness named?"
The imperial decree answered: "Precisely because being is not distinct from non-being and non-being is not distinct from being, it is named one; there is no other name."
[Huiyan] also inquired: "If non-being is not distinct from being and being is not distinct from non-being, one sees only their oneness; how are there two?"
The imperial decree answered: "Ordinary beings see being and sages see non-being. Since the two views are divided, through this they become two."
[Huiyan] also inquired: "Sages see non-being, and non-being can be called truth. Ordinary beings see being; how can it be called truth?"
The imperial decree answered: "The sages' seeing of non-being is truth for the sage. Ordinary beings truly take it to be existent; therefore, for ordinary beings it is truth."
21.17
Tanzong of Qixuan Temple inquired: "Do sages see conventional truth, or do they not see conventional truth?"
The imperial decree answered: "Sages know that ordinary people see the existence of conventional truth. If speaking of the sages themselves, they no longer see this."
[Tanzong] also inquired: "Since sages do not see conventional truth, how do they teach and transform sentient beings by means of conventional truth?"
The imperial decree answered: "Sages are without delusion and of themselves do not see conventional truth. This does not prevent sages from knowing what ordinary beings see. Therefore, bending to follow the sentiments of beings, they say there are two truths."
[Tanzong] also inquired: "Sages know ordinary beings see conventional truth: are these ordinary beings identical to it or not?"
The imperial decree answered: "These ordinary beings are themselves conventional truth; sages do not see these ordinary beings either."
[Tanzong] also inquired: "Since the sage does not see ordinary beings, how does he know that ordinary beings see conventional truth?"
The imperial decree answered: "Although the sage himself is without ordinary beings, he is also able to know that there are ordinary beings who of themselves deem it to be existent. Therefore, bending to approach their sentiments, he speaks of conventional truth for them."
21.18
Wang Gui, Attendant Gentleman of the Excellency over the Masses, inquired: "I do not yet know: since ultimate and conventional are not identical, how can the meaning of mutual identity be attained?"
The imperial decree answered: "What the sage attains of itself sees its non-being; what the ordinary person attains of itself sees its being. The seeings are of themselves not identical; this does not prevent the conventional from not extending outside the ultimate."
[Wang Gui] also inquired: "I do not yet know: since there is no difference in substance yet there are two meanings, is the meaning separated from the essence, or is the meaning identical to the essence?"
The imperial decree answered: "Not going beyond one another is named one essence; the foolish and the sage seeing differently of itself constitutes distinct meanings."
[Wang Gui] also inquired: "Do ordinary beings only see the conventional, or do they also get to see the ultimate?"
The imperial decree answered: "They only get to see the conventional; they do not get to see the ultimate."
[Wang Gui] also inquired: "Since the essences are mutually identical, how could they not behold the ultimate?"
The imperial decree answered: "If ordinary beings saw the ultimate, they should not behold the conventional. Since beholding the conventional is delusion, how could they see the ultimate?"
21.19
Sengqian of Lingen Temple inquired: "If 'supreme' takes having no peer as its meaning, this is a name of praise. The ultimate's being free from the conventional should also be a name of praise."
The imperial decree answered: "This essence itself is true; one cannot speak of praise. Since supreme-meaning truth additionally establishes a laudatory name, it is therefore praise."
[Sengqian] also inquired: "Since 'none excels me' can be called praise, my essence being identical to the true—why is that not praise?"
The imperial decree answered: "'None excels me' is why it can be called praise. My essence being identical to the true is also my being true; hence it is not praise."
[Sengqian] also inquired: "'I have no peer' is why it can be called praise. 'I am not unreal'—how can that not be praise?"
The imperial decree answered: "'Not unreal' and 'true' are names for the essence itself. It is like when a person understands a meaning, one calls it 'understanding the meaning'; it is just sufficient to designate its actual essence. How could it constitute praise?"
[Sengqian] also inquired: "Nothing can surpass this dharma: how is that not praise?"
The imperial decree answered: "Since one says 'nothing surpasses it', how could it not be praise?"
21.20
Xiao Zhengli, Marquis of Luoping, inquired: "I do not yet know: is conventional truth an arising dharma or not?"
The imperial decree answered: "The essence of conventional truth is precisely arising dharmas."
[Xiao Zhengli] also inquired: "Since the conventional is perverse seeing, how can there be arising?"
The imperial decree answered: "Perversely seeing it as existent, there is therefore arising."
[Xiao Zhengli] also inquired: "Perversely seeing it as existent, in reality there is of itself no dharma. Since in reality there is no dharma, what is said to arise?"
The imperial decree answered: "Precisely these arising dharmas are called perverse seeing; and precisely this perverse seeing is called arising dharmas."
[Xiao Zhengli] also inquired: "If it is perverse seeing, there should not be arising. If there must be arising, why is it named perverse seeing?"
The imperial decree answered: "Since it is called perverse seeing, in reality there is of itself no arising. It is only that perverse seeing takes it as existent, and there is this perverse arising."
21.21
Xiao Gong, Marquis of Hengshan, inquired: "I do not yet know: since supreme-meaning truth has the designation 'meaning', why is worldly truth alone without the name 'meaning'?"
The imperial decree answered: "Since the worldly is unreal and conventional, there is no meaning to be discerned."
[Xiao Gong] also inquired: "If there is no meaning to be discerned, why is it called truth?"
The imperial decree answered: "The ordinary and conventional truly see it; therefore the name 'truth' is established."
[Xiao Gong] also inquired: "If the ordinary and conventional seeing it as existent can receive the name 'truth', the ordinary and conventional seeing it as existent should also be able to receive the character 'meaning'."
The imperial decree answered: "The ordinary and conventional truly see it, so the name 'truth' may be established. The unreal and conventional has no meaning; how can one arbitrarily style it with 'meaning'?"
[Xiao Gong] also inquired: "Although the unreal and conventional has no real meaning, it is not without the meaning of the unreal and conventional. Since there is this unreal and conventional, how can it not receive the name 'meaning'?"
The imperial decree answered: "Precisely because it is unreal and conventional, there is no meaning to be discerned. If there were meaning to be discerned, why would it be called unreal and conventional?"
21.22
Senghuai of Zhongxing Temple inquired: "The explanation in the decree states that the ultimate does not depart from the conventional, and the conventional does not depart from the ultimate. I do not yet know: the ultimate is without marks, while the conventional has marks. Marks and marklessness being distinct, how can they share the same essence?"
The imperial decree answered: "Marks and marklessness are here not the same. But what the ordinary person sees as being is precisely what the sage sees as non-being. Discoursing on this basis, they can be non-distinct."
[Senghuai] also inquired: "Since it is one dharma, how can it be seen as two? Since the seeings are two, how could it be one dharma?"
The imperial decree answered: "The principle is indeed not two; following what beings see, there can thus be two."
[Senghuai] also inquired: "Since the seeings are two, do they not contradict each other?"
The imperial decree answered: "If dharmas were in reality two, they could contradict each other. Dharmas are ever not two; persons' seeings are of themselves two. Discoursing with reference to this, how could they conflict?"
[Senghuai] also inquired: "Since persons' seeings are two, one may speak of two persons. Since principle is one, how could there be two?"
The imperial decree answered: "Although principle is not two, with reference to persons it becomes two."
21.23
Xiao Ying, fourth son of the Prince of Shixing, inquired: "Supreme-meaning truth: is its meaning supreme, and is its virtue also supreme or not?"
The imperial decree answered: "Its meaning is already supreme, and its virtue is also supreme."
[Xiao Ying] also inquired: "Simply saying 'supreme' already subsumes virtue and meaning; why must one additionally append the character 'meaning', leading to redundancy?"
The imperial decree answered: "Simply saying 'supreme', the meaning is still obscure; seeing 'meaning' in 'supreme', its excellence can be fully expressed."
[Xiao Ying] also inquired: "If appending the character 'meaning' allows its excellence to be fully expressed, why not append the character 'virtue' so that its excellence may be fully expressed?"
The imperial decree answered: "'Supreme' is virtue; how could it wait to be appended again? But appending the character 'meaning', then virtue and meaning are doubly excellent."
[Xiao Ying] also inquired: "Simply calling it 'supreme' is sufficient to see its excellence; exclusively appending the character 'meaning' seems somewhat limiting."
The imperial decree answered: "'Supreme' expresses virtue; furthermore appending the character 'meaning', both excellences are displayed together. How could it be limiting?"
21.24
Xiao Li, Heir Apparent of Wuping, inquired: "The general decree states: 'Supreme-meaning truth and worldly truth establish their names by appraisal and depreciation; the two truths of ultimate and conventional establish their names by determining the essence.' Inquiring into the principle of ultimate truth, it is already subtly beyond words and thoughts; I do not yet know how there can be the purpose of determining an essence."
The imperial decree answered: "Speaking of its marklessness, there is neither true nor untrue; relying on names and marks, one speaks of it by determining the essence as true."
[Xiao Li] also inquired: "If ultimate truth has no essence, and now one relies on words to discern its essence, I do not yet know: ultimate truth being without marks, why not rely on words to discern marks?"
The imperial decree answered: "Relying on words to discern essence, one still fears depreciating its virtue; if one furthermore relied on words to discern marks, it would burden the void and profound."
[Xiao Li] also inquired: "Ultimate truth is profound, void, and free from verbal expression. Now since one speaks of having the true, is this not relying on words to discern marks?"
The imperial decree answered: "One borrows the existence of this name; the name itself is a mark. It does no harm to this principle being markless, void, and quiescent."
[Xiao Li] also inquired: "I do not yet know: does this relying on words to discern essence match the principle, or does it not match the principle?"
The imperial decree answered: "Speaking where there are no names, the names do not entirely match the principle."
[Xiao Li] also inquired: "If relying on words to discern names means that names do not match the principle, I do not yet know what this reliance will express."
The imperial decree answered: "Although it does not match the principle, in order to guide and receive sentient beings, one must speak through names and marks."
21.25
Huiling of Songxi Temple inquired, saying: "The ultimate truth takes non-arising as its substance, while the conventional truth takes arisen phenomena as its substance. Yet it is said that non-arising is precisely arising, and arising is precisely non-arising. Does this mutual identity occur within their substance, or does this mutual identity occur within their meaning?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "They are mutually identical within their substance; they are not mutually identical in meaning."
He further inquired: "If they are not identical in meaning, how can they be identical in substance?"
The decree replied: "Worldlings see its existence, while sages behold its non-existence. In terms of perception, differences are established; with respect to the substance, they are ever identical."
He further inquired: "If the substance is not dual, why must there be identity?"
The decree replied: "Though the substance is without distinct duality, because of conditions and perceptions there is duality. Since perceptions are dual and different, it must be clarified that the substance is identical."
He further inquired: "If it is according to the decreed explanation, is the identity truly clarified with respect to persons?"
The decree replied: "In terms of persons' perceptions, there are two, and this is why the two truths are designated as arisen. If one clarifies identity purely with respect to persons' perceptions, this also involves a great impediment."
21.26
Xiao Ye, the fifth son of the Prince of Shixing, inquired, saying: "When the ultimate truth is called 'true', is it truly true?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "It can be considered truly true."
He further inquired: "When a bodhisattva accords with the true, does he forget the conventional and forget the true, or not?"
The decree replied: "Because he forgets the conventional and forgets the true, he is said to accord with the true."
He further inquired: "If he is said to accord with the true because he forgets both the conventional and the true, when both the conventional and the true are forgotten, what can be termed truly true?"
The decree replied: "If the conventional were preserved and the true were preserved, what could be termed truly true? It is precisely because both are relinquished that it is called truly true."
He further inquired: "If forgetting both the conventional and the true is truly true, should not forgetting both the true and the conventional also be truly conventional?"
The decree replied: "Because one forgets the conventional and forgets the true, one perceives the true; as one forgets the true and forgets the conventional, one all the more perceives that it is not conventional."
He further inquired: "When a bodhisattva accords with the true, he already forgets both the conventional and the true; now calling it 'truly true' would contravene the principle."
The decree replied: "Provisionally calling it 'truly true', in the end he himself forgets the true. When both are forgotten it is designated 'true'; how could that contravene the principle?"
21.27
Faxuan of Xinghuang Temple inquired, saying: "The doctrinal purport states: 'The conventional truth is existence and is non-existence; hence it takes arisen phenomena as its substance.' I do not know: an existent phenomenon has substance and may be designated 'arisen'; non-existence is a non-existent phenomenon—how can it have the meaning of arising?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "In the conventional truth, existence and non-existence are established in mutual dependence. Since they are mutually dependent, both may be designated 'arisen'."
He further inquired: "If both phenomena, existence and non-existence, are together designated 'arisen', and the meaning of arising is unitary, then existence and non-existence would have no difference."
The decree replied: "Because both are what worldlings perceive, the meaning of arising is the same. As one is existence and the other is non-existence, how could they not be different?"
He further inquired: "If existence and non-existence are indeed distinct, there should be arising and non-arising."
The decree replied: "Since their names are established in mutual dependence, they share the single meaning of arising."
21.28
Xiao Zhi, Marquis of Chengxiang, inquired, saying: "I do not know: is the designation 'first' relative, or not?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "It is precisely relative."
He further inquired: "The ultimate is signless; to what is it relative?"
The decree replied: "Since it is called 'first', how could it not be relative?"
He further inquired: "'First' is relative. Since it is called 'first', the conventional truth is relative to the first—why is it not named 'second'? If the conventional truth is relative but not called 'second', then the ultimate truth, being relative, should likewise not be named 'first'."
The decree replied: "If calling it 'first' is relative, this is already sufficient in meaning; there is no need to speak of the conventional as 'second' for it to constitute relativity."
He further inquired: "If the designation of conventional truth is not called 'second', then the designation 'first' has nothing to which it is relative."
The decree replied: "'First' praises the true. Since it is called relative, the designation 'worldly' is relative; this may be known straightforwardly."
21.29
Fayun of Guangzhai Temple inquired, saying: "The realm known by the sage is the ultimate truth. I do not know: is the wisdom that can know it the ultimate truth, or is it the conventional truth?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "The grasper is wisdom; the grasped is the realm. When wisdom comes to merge with the realm, it may be said to be identical to the true."
He further inquired: "Is the person possessing wisdom the ultimate truth, or is he the conventional truth?"
The decree replied: "If one speaks of the person possessing wisdom, that is precisely the conventional truth."
He further inquired: "I do not know: how can a person of conventional truth possess wisdom of the ultimate truth?"
The decree replied: "Because the sage can forget the conventional, he can possess true wisdom."
He further inquired: "Since this person has merged with the unarisen, he should likewise not be called a person."
The decree replied: "Merging with the unarisen, one cannot speak of a person; provisionally speaking through names and characteristics, there is ever a person."
21.30
Huiling of Lingen Temple inquired, saying: "Does one perceive existence within the ultimate truth, or perceive existence within the conventional truth?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "Within the ultimate truth, one mistakenly perceives the existence of the conventional."
He further inquired: "Is the existence of the conventional truth real, or is it illusory?"
The decree replied: "It is an illusory existence."
He further inquired: "Does one perceive illusion, or does one perceive existence?"
The decree replied: "One perceives illusory existence."
He further inquired: "Within the absence of names and characteristics, how can one perceive existent names and characteristics?"
The decree replied: "Perceiving existent names and characteristics within the absence of names and characteristics is precisely why it is illusory existence."
He further inquired: "Delusion perceives existence within the absence of names and characteristics, just as fire is hot, but a confused person says it is cold. Can cold characteristics be found within heat? If there are names and characteristics within the signless, there should likewise be this cold within fire."
The decree replied: "Fire is ever hot of itself; one deludedly perceives that there is cold. This is the confusion of the confused, which never alters [the heat]."
21.31
Huixing of Xianggong Temple inquired, saying: "Regarding the delusion of worldlings: are they confused only regarding the true, or are they also confused regarding the conventional?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "Perceiving existence within the true is confusion regarding the true. Since they perceive that there is the conventional, it does not constitute confusion regarding the conventional."
He further inquired: "If understanding the conventional constituted understanding the true, then if one does not understand the true, how could one understand the conventional?"
The decree replied: "The true principle is open and quiescent; the deluded mind does not understand it. Although it does not understand the true, what prevents it from understanding the conventional?"
He further inquired: "This mind does not understand the true, so regarding the true it may be delusion. Since this mind understands the conventional, regarding the conventional it should not be delusion."
The decree replied: "To speak truthfully, overall it is entirely delusion. When distinguishing the myriad varieties of the conventional, they each have understanding within the conventional."
21.32
Sengmin of Zhuangyan Temple inquired, saying: "Is the understanding of emptiness attained within the thirty minds a true understanding, or is it a conventional understanding?"
The Prince's decree replied: "It can be named a semblance understanding."
He further inquired: "I do not know: is this semblance true or conventional?"
The decree replied: "Practicing contemplation of non-arising is not named conventional understanding; not having yet beheld non-arising is not named true understanding."
He further inquired: "If the wisdom that illuminates is neither true nor conventional, then the realm illuminated should likewise be neither true nor conventional. If it is neither true nor conventional, there would be three truths."
The decree replied: "Since the realm illuminated is itself non-arising, and non-arising is the true, how could there be three truths?"
He further inquired: "If the realm is the true realm, why is the wisdom not the true wisdom?"
The decree replied: "Because it has not yet beheld non-arising, it is not true wisdom. What prevents this wisdom from practicing contemplation of the true realm even while it is not yet true? How could the realm be rendered a non-true realm just because the wisdom is not yet true?"
21.33
Fachong of Xuanwu Temple inquired, saying: "The ultimate truth is without arising and without cessation; the conventional truth has arising and has cessation. In terms of their meanings, the true and conventional may be said to differ. When discussing their ontological substance, it can only be one. I do not know: does substance follow meaning, so that it may also be twofold, or not?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "Substance cannot be made to follow meaning."
He further inquired: "I do not know: if with respect to the two perceptions of worldlings and sages one may speak of two meanings, may one also speak of two substances with respect to the two perceptions of worldlings and sages?"
The decree replied: "The principle does not differ, and therefore it is called one. With respect to the two perceptions of worldlings and sages, there can be the difference of two substances."
He further inquired: "If worldlings perceive existence and sages perceive non-existence, then worldlings would perceive only conventional existence, and sages would perceive great empty space as non-existence."
The decree replied: "Great empty space is also not what sages perceive. Great empty space gets its name through mutual dependence. Since it arises from dependence, it is entirely what worldlings perceive."
He further inquired: "May the emptiness and existence perceived by worldlings be said to be one, or not?"
The decree replied: "Speaking in terms of worldlings, existence is truly distinct from non-existence. Speaking with respect to sages, non-existence is not distinct from existence."
21.34
Sengmin of Jianye Temple inquired, saying: "When conventional people understand the conventional, is it that they understand the disparities of the conventional and are therefore said to understand the conventional, or is it that they perceive the conventional as provisional and false and are therefore said to understand the conventional?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "It is simply that they perceive the disparities of the conventional and are therefore said to understand the conventional."
He further inquired: "The conventional truth is not only disparate, it is also illusory. Why do they understand disparities but not understand the illusory?"
The decree replied: "If worldlings were to understand the illusory, that would be understanding the true. It is because they do not understand the illusory that they are said to understand the conventional."
21.35
Jingtuo of Guangzhai Temple inquired, saying: "I do not know: when a sage perceives the true, does he perceive it gradually, or does he perceive it suddenly?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "He perceives it gradually."
He further inquired: "With a signless and empty mind, once this appears, the myriad signs are all stilled. I do not know: why should perceiving the true involve a gradual process?"
The Prince's decree replied, saying: "From worldling to sage, understanding has shallows and depths; the true of itself is open and quiescent, which does not prevent perception from having a gradual process."
He further inquired: "I do not know: when one attains signlessness once, are the myriad existences all forgotten, or are they not completely forgotten?"
The decree replied: "Once one attains signlessness, the myriad existences are completely forgotten."
He further inquired: "If once one attains signlessness the myriad existences are forgotten, then one could also, upon once attaining an empty mind, exhaust that true realm; one should not perceive it gradually."
The decree replied: "The Tathāgata's accord with quiescence naturally exhausts the true; sages of shallow practice ever perceive it gradually of themselves."
He further inquired: "If perceiving the true has gradations and cannot be suddenly realized, then forgetting the myriad existences should also be gradual and cannot be sudden."
The decree replied: "Because understanding has superior and inferior levels, there is gradual perception; because the emptying of mind is impartial, the myriad existences are all stilled together."
21.36
The Prince's Decreed Explanation of the Meaning of the Dharmakāya (with Questions and Answers)
21.37
The dharmakāya is open and quiescent, far removed from the realms of existence and non-existence, singularly liberated beyond causes and conditions. It cannot be known by wisdom; it cannot be cognized by consciousness. How could it be discussed and debated through designations? Yet wishing to reveal the principle, one cannot remain silent; hence, conforming to speech, there arose the designation 'dharmakāya'. In India it is called *dharma-śarīra*; in this land it is called *fashen* ('Dharma-body'). In terms of its immediate substance, it is the name of its own-nature; in terms of speech, its name is established through mutual dependence. 'Dharma' has the meaning of a standard or model; 'body' has the sense of possessing substance. The substance of the model is therefore called dharmakāya. Briefly speaking in terms of language and roughly presenting its substance: it is the eternally abiding body, it is the vajra body. Yet if one examines it closely, its principle is not like this. If it were definitely vajra, it would be a name and characteristic; if it were definitely eternally abiding, it would become a spatial location. That which is called 'eternally abiding' was originally a provisional designation; that which is called 'vajra' was originally a metaphorical expression. When discussing its true substance, its nature is identical to non-arising. Therefore it is said: 'The Buddha's body is unconditioned and does not fall into conditioned phenomena.' Thus the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: 'The Tathāgata's body is a non-body. This body is measureless and boundless, without footprints, without knowledge, without form, and ultimately pure.' Without knowledge and pure, yet it cannot be considered defiled; called 'wondrous existence', yet it is again non-existent. Free from non-existence and free from existence—this is what is called the dharmakāya.
21.38
Huiyan of Zhaoti Temple inquired, saying: "I do not know: the dharmakāya is signless and should not have substance. How can one use 'substance' to explain the meaning of 'body'?"
The Prince's decree replied: "In the absence of names and signs, there is indeed no substance to discuss; provisionally using names and signs, it is not without a wondrous substance."
He further inquired: "If provisionally using names and signs it is not without a wondrous substance, then provisionally using names and signs does not constitute signlessness."
The decree replied: "Since it is said to provisionally use names and signs, this sufficiently clarifies that the principle is truly signless."
He further inquired: "If names and signs are provisionally used while the principle is truly signless, then since the principle is signless, how can it have substance?"
The decree replied: "Provisionally speaking to provide a model for beings, how could it lack substance?"
He further inquired: "Then provisionally speaking to provide a model for beings should likewise no longer be signless."
The decree replied: "On the side of providing a model for beings, the principle is not non-signless; what is spoken of as signless originally discusses the wondrous substance."
He further inquired: "The real truth is fundamentally signless, and one should precisely use this to guide beings. How can one conceal this real truth and forcibly generate words and signs?"
The decree replied: "The real truth of signlessness is not something beginners can fathom. Therefore, to receive those of shallow understanding, one must provisionally rely on words and signs."
21.39
Fayun of Guangzhai Temple inquired, saying: "I do not know whether the permanently abiding Dharma-body is attained through the myriad practices or not?" The directive responded, saying: "Within the path of names and marks, it is attained through the myriad practices." He also inquired: "Since it is attained through the myriad practices, how can one say it is without marks? If it is necessarily without marks, how could it be attained through the myriad practices?" The directive answered: "Being without name and without mark, when was there ever an attainment? Relying on names and marks, it is provisionally said that there is attainment." He also inquired: "There truly are the myriad practices, and one truly attains the Buddha fruition. How can it be, on account of formlessness, that there is entirely no attainment?" The directive answered: "The questioner's mind abides in the view that there truly are myriad practices. I now say that the myriad practices are in themselves empty; how could there be a real fruition that can be attained?" He also inquired: "Presently there are sentient beings who cultivate the myriad practices. I do not know why this is said to be entirely non-existent." The directive answered: "What the worldly perceive, they call existent. Examining it according to the principle, there truly are no myriad practices." He also inquired: "The sūtras state that the permanently abiding is subtle existence. If it is a provisional explanation, why is it called subtle existence?" The directive answered: "Relying on names and marks, it is therefore called subtle existence. When the principle transcends names and marks, what subtlety or what existence could there be?"
21.40
Sengmin of Zhuangyan Temple inquired, saying: "I do not know: the Dharma-body transcends marks, and wisdom cannot know it; transcending marks and transcending knowledge, how can it still have the designation of 'body'?" The directive responded, saying: "Without name and without mark, what body was there ever? Provisionally named and marked in speech, it is therefore called the Dharma-body." He also inquired: "It should likewise follow that provisional names and marks speak of what is illuminated by wisdom. How can it be that it cannot be known by wisdom, nor cognized by consciousness?" The directive answered: "It may also be provisionally designated as what the wisdom eye sees." He also inquired: "If the wisdom eye can see it, then it can be known by wisdom. If wisdom cannot know it, then the wisdom eye has no seeing." The directive answered: "The wisdom eye has no seeing, nor is there any dharma that can be seen." He also inquired: "If you say there is no seeing, what Dharma-body is there?" The directive answered: "The principle transcends hearing and seeing; in truth there is no Dharma-body." He also inquired: "If there is no Dharma-body, then there is no correct awakening. Since correct awakening exists, how could the Dharma-body be non-existent?" The directive answered: "It is constantly through borrowed words that there is correct awakening. Since correct awakening depends on borrowed words, how could the Dharma-body definitely exist?"
First 40 of 61 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 廣弘明集 — Classical Chinese