坐禪三昧經 2.93

2.93

答曰：「汝言不與法相應。何以故？言無法，云何復言二俱顛倒？一切空無所有，是為實不顛倒。若我破有常著無常，我法應破而不實，我有常顛倒，破故觀無常。何以故？無常力能破有常，如毒能破餘毒，如藥除病，藥亦俱去，當知藥妙能除病故。若藥不去，後藥為病，此亦如是！若無常法著，應當破，不實故。我不受無常法，云何破？佛言：『苦是四真諦中言實苦，誰能使樂？苦因是實因，誰能令非因？苦盡是實盡，誰能令不盡？盡道是實道，誰能令非道？如日或可令冷，月或可令熱，風可令不動，是四真諦終不可動轉。』汝於《摩訶衍》中不能了，但著言聲。《摩訶衍》中諸法實相，實相不可破、無有作者。若可破可作，此非摩訶衍。如月初生，一日二日其生時甚微細，有明眼人能見，指示不見者。此不見人但視其指，而迷於月。明者語言：『癡人！何以但視我指？指為月緣，指非彼月。』汝亦如是！言音非實相，但假言表實理。汝更著言聲，闇於實相。」

Answer: "Your words do not correspond with the Dharma. Why is this? If you say that no dharmas exist, why do you then say that both are inversions? That all things are empty and without anything existing is the reality that is not inverted. If I were to refute permanence and cling to impermanence, my teaching would be refutable and untrue. I had the inversion of permanence, and in order to refute it, I contemplated impermanence. Why is this? Because the power of impermanence can refute permanence, just as poison can counteract other poisons, and just as medicine removes an illness and the medicine also departs along with it; one should know that the medicine is wondrous because it can remove the illness. If the medicine does not depart, later on the medicine itself becomes the illness; this is just like that! If one clings to the dharma of impermanence, it should indeed be refuted, because it is not real. But I do not grasp at the dharma of impermanence, so how could it be refuted? The Buddha said: 'Among the four noble truths, duḥkha is called truly duḥkha—who could make it pleasant? The cause of duḥkha is a true cause—who could make it a non-cause? The cessation of duḥkha is a true cessation—who could make it non-cessation? The path to cessation is a true path—who could make it a non-path? Just as the sun might perhaps be made cold, the moon might perhaps be made hot, and the wind might be made motionless, these four noble truths can never be moved or changed.' In the Mahāyāna, you have failed to understand, merely clinging to the sound of words. In the Mahāyāna, the true mark of dharmas—the true mark cannot be refuted and has no maker. If it could be refuted or made, it would not be the Mahāyāna. It is like the newly born moon: on the first and second days, its emergence is extremely subtle; a person with clear eyes can see it and points it out to someone who cannot see it. This person who cannot see it merely looks at the finger and misses the moon. The clear-sighted person says: 'Foolish man! Why do you merely look at my finger? The finger is a condition for [seeing] the moon; the finger is not that moon.' You are just like this! The sound of words is not the true mark; it merely uses conventional words to express the real principle. You, moreover, cling to the sound of words, remaining blind to the true mark."