《佛性》永平道元禪師 (英譯) (1)
釋迦牟尼佛言：「一切眾生，悉有佛性；如來常住，無有變異。」此乃吾等大師釋尊獅子吼之轉法輪，亦是一切諸佛、一切祖師之頂顛眼睛也。參學以來，已二千一百九十年，正嫡才五十代(至先師天童淨河尚)。西天二十八代，代代住持，東地二十三世，世世住持；十方諸佛，共皆住持。釋尊所道之：「一切眾生，悉有佛性」，其宗旨如何？此即「是什麼物恁麼來」之道轉法輪也，或云眾生，或云有情，或云群生，或云群類。悉有之言，即眾生也，群有也；即悉有者，佛性也。悉有之一悉，謂之眾生。正當恁麼時，眾生之內外，即是佛性也之悉有也。非唯單傳之皮肉骨髓，蓋因汝得吾皮肉骨髓之故。
佛法中的佛性，相當於奧義書中的「梵」，是創造一切真如，包括識大真如(即是一切眾生覺識的基礎)與無情真如(地水火風空五大所創造的物、境)。釋尊說：「一切眾生，悉有佛性」(道元禪師於此，佛性代表有覺智的識大創造的有情白淨識)，這句話的意思，就是六祖慧能問南岳懷讓的話：「是什麼物恁麼來？」的深意。因為不管是眾生、有情、群生、群類，舉凡存有的，都是因佛性而有。所以也可說凡「有」(有情識)，即是眾生也，群有也；亦即凡「有」，即是佛性也。眾生也是「有」當下的全然。在這全然地當下，眾生的內外，也即是全然的佛性，即無主客、內外的差異(無我相、無人相)。所以說佛法的單傳，並非落入分別的皮肉骨髓(指肉體報身)，而是有情識的法報化三身的全然傳承。
The Buddha Śākyamuni said, “All living beings in their
entirety have the buddha nature. The tathāgata always dwell
in the nature, without any change.”1 Though it is said
that this is turning the dharma wheel of “the lion’s roar” of the Great Master, Śākyamuni, the Honored One,
it is the pate and the eyes of all the buddhas, all the ancestral masters.2 Its study has come down for
two thousand, one hundred ninety years (to this, the second year of the
Japanese [era] Ninji, eighth heavenly stem, second terrestrial branch), through
merely fifty generations of correct descent (to my former master, the Reverend
Jing of Tiantong): through twenty-eight generations in the Western Heavens (the western Sindh), it has been maintained in generation
after generation; through twenty-three ages in the Eastern Earth (China), it has been maintained in age after age. The
buddhas and ancestors of the ten directions have all maintained it.3What is the essential point
of the World Honored One’s saying, “All living beings in their entirety have the buddha nature”? It is turning the dharma
wheel of the saying, “what is it that comes like this?” One speaks of “living beings,” or “sentient beings,” or “the multitude of beings,” or “the multitude of types.” The term “entirety of being” refers to “living beings,” “the multitude of beings.” That is, the “entirety of being” is the buddha nature; “one entirety” of the “entirety of being” is called “living beings.” At this very moment, the
interior and exterior of living beings is the “entirety of being” of the buddha nature. This
is not only the “skin, flesh, bones, and marrow (means: Dependent origination-Dharmas
and unfounded-Dharmas)” singly transmitted; for “you have got my skin, flesh, bones,
and marrow. (means: including truth-Dharma, entirely
Daharma, and Buddha nature)”4
當知今之佛性悉有之有，非有無之有。悉有者，佛語也，佛舌也。佛祖眼睛也，衲僧鼻孔也。悉有之言，更非始有，非本有，非妙有等，何況緣有、妄有哉？(悉有)不關心、境、性、相等。然則，眾生悉有之依正，全不在業增上力，不在妄緣起，不在法爾，不在神通修證。若眾生之悉有乃為業增上力及緣起、法爾等，諸聖之證道及諸佛之菩提、佛祖之眼睛亦應為業增上力及緣起法爾。非然也，盡界皆無客塵，直下更無第二人，蓋因「直截根源人未識，茫茫業識幾時休」之故也。非妄緣起之有，蓋因「遍界不曾藏」之故。所言「遍界不曾藏」者，非謂滿界是也。遍界我有者，外道之邪見也。非本有之有者，因亙古亙今故；非始起之有者，因不受一塵故。非條條有者，因合取故。非無始有之有者，因「是什麼物恁麼來」故。非始起有之有者，因吾常心是道故。當知於悉有中，眾生快便難逢也。如此會取悉有，悉有即透體脫落也。
應該知道這所謂的悉「有」的「有」，不是有無之有。因為「有」，即是眾生，即是佛性。所以「悉有」者，可以說是佛性的識大創造的有情識，是佛語、佛舌、佛祖眼睛、衲僧鼻孔(意指佛法之根本，即有情識)。悉「有」也不可說是始有，本有，妙有，緣有、妄有等。而「悉有」是無關於心、境、性、相等，「悉有」就是佛性全然的現成。而眾生有情識是依佛性識大(悉「有」)創造而來的，故也不是經業增上力，不經妄緣起，不在法爾，不經神通修證。因為如果眾生的有情識(悉「有」)是因業增上力及緣起、法爾等，那麼諸聖之證道及諸佛之菩提、佛祖之眼睛亦應為業增上力及緣起法爾。這樣就落入修證分兩頭，有主客、時間、空間的分別，而非當下的全然(即落入眾生相、壽者相)。然而，在一元性境是「盡界皆無客塵，直下更無第二人」的全然，這是因為「有」，是業識(阿賴耶識)的異熟種子所展現的現成。所以道元引用悟境的禪詩，「直截根源人未識，茫茫業識幾時休」。也不是虛妄緣起之有，因為這業識是「遍界不曾藏」。但所說「遍界不曾藏」的業識，並非表示是一圓滿的實相「我」(指未染污的白淨識)。把遍界(指外緣的無情真如法)當成「我」有，是外道的邪見。這業識「有」，不是本有之有者，因為從古至今因業力串流變化著。業識「有」，也不是始起之有者，因為「有」是現成，不需另一法塵才現(即業力非法塵)。業識「有」，也不是條條(有各個成分)有者，因為這「有」是合取的一體。業識「有」，不是無始有之有者，因為「有」是現起的，是「是什麼物恁麼來」(指佛性創造的識性)的。業識「有」，不是始起有之有者，因為「有」就是佛性(指有情覺識)，就是眾生，就是吾人的平常心。應當知道在「悉有」中，眾生當即現成，不更需造作也。這樣認知「悉有」，「悉有」就全然展現了。
We should realize that the
being that is here made the “entirety of being” by the buddha nature is not the being
of being and non-being. The “entirety of being” is the word of the buddha, the tongue
of the buddha, the eyes of the buddhas and ancestors, the nose of the
patch-robed monk (an adage, means: the nature of
Dharma). Furthermore, the term “entirety of being” is not initial being, not
original being, not marvelous being; how much less is it conditioned being or
deluded being. It has nothing to do with the likes of mind and object, nature
and thought etc.. Therefore, the circumstantial
and primary [recompense] of the “entirety of being” of living beings is not by
any means the generative power of karma, not deluded conditioned origination,
not of its own accord, not the practice and verification of spiritual powers.
Were the “entirety
of being” of
living beings generated by karma, or conditioned origination, or of its own
accord, the verification of the way of the nobles as well as the bodhi of the
buddhas and the eyes of the buddhas and ancestors would also be the generative
power of karma, conditioned origination, and of its own accord. And Buddhist doctrine is
not the case.5 In all the realms,
there is no “adventitious
dust” at
all; right here, there is no second person beyond this. For “the root source is directly
cut,” but
people have not noticed; “the busy, busy karmic consciousness,” when will it rest? It is
not the being of deluded conditioned origination; for “throughout the realms, it (truth-Dharma, nature of Dharma) has never been
hidden.” To say
that “throughout
the realms, it has never been hidden” is not necessarily to say that what
fills the realms is being: [the notion] that throughout the realms is my being
is a false view of the alien paths. It is not the being of original being; for
it is “throughout
the past and throughout the present.” It is not the being of initial
arising; for “it does
not admit a single mote of dust.” It is not the being of individual
instances; for it is comprehensive. It is not the being of beginningless being;
for “what is
it that comes like this?” It is not the being of initially arising being; for “my usual mind is the way.” We should realize that,
within the “entirety
of being,” living
beings are “hard
conveniently to meet.” When the understanding of the “entirety of being” is like this, the “entirety of being” passes through the body
and sloughs it off.6
聞及佛性之言，學者多邪計其如先尼外道之我。此因不逢人，不逢自己，不見師之故也。誤以風火動著之心意識為佛性之覺知覺了。誰言佛性有覺知覺了？雖覺者知者為諸佛，然佛性非覺知覺了。況言諸佛為覺者知者之覺知，非以汝等所云之邪解為覺知，非以風火之動靜為覺知，唯一個、兩個之佛面祖面，是覺知也。
很多學者談到「佛性」，就認為是有「我」的外道見解。這是因為這些做學問的人，把佛法當做外在的東西研究，沒有真正的碰(證)到人(法)、自己(本來面目)，也沒有參解明師的指導。誤以為落入物質性頭腦二元(動靜、能所)的心意識的慮知為佛性的覺知，因為頭腦的慮知會有主客、內外、時間前後、空間距離的二元運作。誰說佛性是有「覺知覺了」？雖然我們說對法當下是覺者知者稱為諸佛(覺知法的差別相)，但佛性不是有覺知覺了(佛性就是法的現成，所以沒有法的分別相)。何況諸佛為覺者、知者的覺知，並非一般人所說的邪見知解，也不是物質性頭腦的心意識的慮知，是少數佛、祖師能在法當下面見本來面目的，才是覺者的覺知。
Many scholars, hearing the
term “buddha
nature,” have
falsely reckoned that it is like the “I” in the alien path of Śreṇika.
This is because they have not experienced a
person (Dharma), they have not experienced themselves (Dependent origination-Dharmas), they have not seen a
teacher. They have foolishly thought that the mind, mentation, and
consciousness moved by wind and fire (means: material,
corporeal, belong to duality) is the knowing and comprehending of the
buddha nature. Who said that the buddha nature has knowing and comprehending?
While perceivers and knowers may be buddhas, the buddha nature is not knowing
and comprehending. Much less does the perceiving and knowing with which one
refers to the buddhas as perceivers and knowers represent the perceiving and
knowing in the false understandings you talk on about, the perceiving and
knowing of the motion and rest of wind and fire. Just one or two faces of the
buddhas and faces of the ancestors (experienced the
nature of Dharma) — this is perceiving and knowing.7
往昔古老先德，或往還於西天，或化道於人天，自漢唐至宋朝，如稻麻竹葦(之眾)，多以風火之動著為佛性之覺知，實為可悲！因學道轉疏，故有今日之誤失。今佛道之晚學初心，不應如是。設若學習覺知，然覺知非是動著；設若學習動著，動著即非恁麼。若有會取真個之動著，應當覺知覺了。佛之與性，達彼達此也。佛性必為悉有也，以有悉有為佛性故。悉有非百染碎，悉有非一條鐵。以拈拳頭故，亦非大小。既言佛性，不應與諸聖齊肩，不應(另立一佛性)與佛性齊肩(並論)。
自從漢唐到宋朝，許多先德在教化佛法時，多把物質性頭腦的心意識的慮知當成佛性的覺知，實為可悲！是因這段時間以來，佛法教化漸有疏漏，學道於是有所偏差的，才有今日之誤失。但今日學習佛道的初學或晚學，不應該再有此誤認。假使要學習一元運作的覺知，但這覺知不是二元思慮(動著、能所)的運作；如果要依從頭腦的慮知去學習，但這二元頭腦的慮知又不是一元運作的當下(恁麼)。如果真的當下會取能知、所知，就會證知一元境的覺知覺了。這即是佛(法)與性(道)，全然的一元境。所以佛性必然為全然的「有」，因為全然的「有」法即是佛性的現成。要知道「悉有」是全然的，不是由百染雜碎組成的一一相；但「悉有」也不是無隙縫一條鐵般的一相，而是有差別相的一元境，是『類之弗齊，混則知處』的。「悉有」是如拳頭的現成，但不可再落入大小、方圓等二元的思維。既然說佛性就是法的現成，就不應說可以修證成聖成佛，這樣修證就成兩頭(從有「不是佛性的法」與修成「佛性的法」)。也就是不應另立一佛性與佛性齊肩並論。
There
have frequently been ancient elders and prior worthies who have gone to the
Western Heavens and back or have converted and guided humans and gods; from the
Han and Tang through the court of the Song, they are like “rice,
flax, bamboo, and reeds. (adge, means: multitudinous)”
It is pitiful that many of them have thought that the movements of wind and
fire are the knowing and perceiving of the buddha nature. It is because they
are estranged from the study of the way that they make this mistake. Beginners
and latecomers should not be like this. We may study perceiving and knowing,
but perceiving and knowing are not movements (means: interaction
of the subject of being and the object of Dharma); we may study
movements, but movements are not like thus (action of
nature of Dharma). If one has an understanding of true movement (action of nature of Dharma), one will understand true
perceiving and comprehending; with “buddha”
and “nature,”
to master that one is to master this one. The buddha nature is always the “entirety
of being”; for the “entirety
of being” is the buddha nature. The “entirety
of being” is not “a
hundred pieces (means: can be discriminated to
multi-things)”; the “entirety
of being” is not “one
strip of iron (means: no diversity).”
Since it is “raising a fist,”
it is not large or small (because the nature of Dharma is monism).
Given that we are calling it “buddha nature,”
it should not be of equal stature with the nobles; it should not be made of
equal stature with the buddha nature (means: It should not separate the being-nature
from the Dharma-nature.).8
有一類人以為佛性有如草木之種子。法雨潤濕時，芽莖生長，枝葉花果茂盛，果實更孕懷種子。如此之見解，乃凡夫之情量也。設若如是見解，須當參究種子及花果皆為條條之赤心也。果裏有種子，種子雖不可見，卻生根莖等。雖不可集取，卻能長為枝條大圍。此非內外之論，乃亙古亙今之不虛也。然則，設使全任凡夫之見解，根莖枝葉皆當同生同死，同是悉有之佛性。
有一些人把佛性說成是像草木的種籽。認為在法雨潤濕時，佛性種籽就芽莖生長，長枝葉果實後，再孕育有佛性種籽。這種見解，只是凡夫之依凡情思量的結果。如果落入這種見解，應當參究這種籽、花、果、根、莖等各異，也都是法的現成，是悉有的當下。果實裏有種籽，但種籽卻不可見，雖不可見卻可生出根莖等。這根莖不依集取的生長，也能長成粗大的枝條。此非有內外(佛性之內有佛性)差異的說法，而是從古至今的事實。然而如果依凡夫的這些見解，這根莖枝葉都是因種子的悉有佛性所成，所以也應當要同生同死，不應該佛性之內有佛性(而有不同生死)。
There is one group that
thinks that the buddha nature is like the seed of grasses and trees. When the
rain of the dharma continually waters it, it sprouts and grows, the branches,
leaves, flowers, and fruits flourish, and the fruits contain further seeds. To
hold this kind of opinion is the sentiment of commoners. Even if one holds this
kind of view, one should study that both the seeds and the flowers and fruits
are “the
bare mind in each instance. (means: they also are the
presentation of nature of Buddha.)” Within the fruit is the seed; though
the seed cannot be seen, it generates the roots and trunks and the rest. Though
not assembled, that they become the many twigs, branches, and great span is not
a issue of inside or outside, and is not empty in past or present. Therefore,
even if one accepts the opinion of commoners, the root, trunk, branches, and
leaves are all born together, die together, and are the buddha nature that is
the “entirety
of being”
together.9
佛言：「欲知佛性義，當觀時節因緣。時節若至，佛性現前。」今云「欲知佛性義」者，非但言知也，亦言欲行、欲證、欲說、欲忘等也。彼之說、行、證、亡、錯、不錯等，悉皆為時節因緣也。欲觀時節之因緣，當以時節之因緣觀之，當以拂子、拄杖相觀之。如以有漏智、無漏智、本覺、始覺、無覺、正覺者，不得觀之。
釋尊說：「想證知佛性的意義，應當觀察『時節因緣』(即一元境識心緣起法相的當下)。時節到了，佛性展現時就證知。」這裡所說「欲知佛性義」者，不但是說想知道，也包括想依行、想證到、想訴說、想忘卻等。而這說、行、證、亡、錯、不錯等的當下，就是『時節因緣』。所以想觀察『時節因緣』(一元境當下)，就應當以法的當下(時節)的因緣相觀察，法如以拂子相、拄杖相現成，就應當以此因緣相觀察。但如果不是這樣，反而以有漏智、無漏智、本覺、始覺、無覺、正覺觀察，就不得當下『時節因緣』。
The Buddha said, “If you wish to know the
meaning of the buddha nature, you should observe the conditions of the time (means: the movement of Dharma showing the nature of Buddha).
If the time arrives, the buddha nature appears.”10This “if you wish to know the
meaning of the buddha nature” is not just about knowing: it means also “if you wish to practice it,” “if you wish to verify it,” “if you wish to preach it,” and “if you wish to forget it.” That preaching,
practicing, verifying, forgetting, mistaking, and not mistaking are, all of
them, “the
conditions of the time.” In “observing the conditions of the time,” one observes using the
conditions of the time; one mutually observes using the whisk, the staff, and
so on. They cannot be observed using in addition the wisdoms of “contaminated wisdom,” “uncontaminated wisdom,” “original awakening,” “initial awakening,” “non-awakening,” “right awakening,” and the like.11
所云「當觀」者，不關乎能觀、所觀，不應準與正觀、邪觀等準之，是為當觀也。以是當觀故，即是不自觀也，不他觀也。時節因緣聻也，超越因緣也。佛性聻也，脫體佛性也，佛佛聻也，性性聻也。
所謂的「當觀」，無關於能觀、所觀、正觀、邪觀等，是法無分別的當下為當觀。所以當觀，即不落入有自他分別相。『時節因緣』(一元境當下)呢，即是超越法因緣(分別)相的當下(無分別相)。『佛性』呢，即是脫落葛藤的佛性當下，即是佛佛呢(當下)，性性呢(當下)。
[The meaning
of] “should
observe” has
nothing to do with the observer or what is observed (means: the movement of “should observe”can not be separate the observer from what is observed. It is one
dimention.);
it should not be guaged by such [notions] as right observation or false
observation: it is “should observe.” Because it is “should observe,” it is not one’s own observing, it is not
another’s observing.
It is the very “conditions
of the time”
themselves; it transcends conditions. It is the very buddha nature itself; it
is the buddha nature with body cast off. It is each buddha himself; it is each
nature itself.12
古今之凡夫往往誤認「時節若至」之言為以待佛性將來先前之時節，如是修行之，自然逢遇佛性現前之時節；時節若未至，即便參師問法，即便功夫辦道，(佛性)不會現前。恁麼見取，徒還紅塵，空守雲漢。如此之輩，恐乃天然外道之流類。所云「欲知佛性義」者，即「當知佛性義」之謂也。所云「當觀時節因緣」者，即「當知時節因緣」之謂也。欲知所謂佛性者，即當知時節因緣是也。所謂「時節若至」者，即「時節既至，何有疑著之處」之謂也。若疑著時節，還我佛性來。當知所謂「時節若至」，即十二時中不空過也。「若至」者，即「既至」也。時節若至者，佛性不至也。然則時節已至，此即佛性之現前也，或即其理自彰也。大凡皆未有時節不至之時節，未有佛性不現前之佛性也。
古今許多修行人往往誤認「時節若至」，是有等待佛性現前的時程(即落入有壽者相的二元運作)，依此修行自然會有逢遇佛性現前的時節；而「時節若未至」，即便參師問法，即便下功夫修道，佛性不會現前。依這種方式修行一元境當下的『時節因緣』，只是徒然落入二元運作的紅塵，空守著這物質的銀河大千世界。這些人恐怕是天然外道的一類。所謂「欲知佛性義」，即是「當知佛性義」。所謂「當觀時節因緣」，即是「當知時節因緣」。所以欲知所謂『佛性』，即是當知『時節因緣』。故所謂「時節若至」，即是「時節既至，何有疑著之處」當下。這佛性現前的當下，如果還懷疑，那把佛性還來，看看還有沒有法的當下可以現前。所以應當知道所謂「時節若至」，即是十二時中不曾空過(一直都在)。「若至」，即是「既至」。當說時節若至，即謂佛性為現前。然則說時節已至，此即是說佛性現前，或即是說其理自彰。但法是不會有時節不至的時候，也不會有佛性不現前的法。
A bunch in the past
and present have frequently thought the words “if the time arrives” mean that one awaits a
time later when the buddha nature might appear. “Continuing to practice in this way,” they say, “one encounters the time
when the buddha nature appears naturally; if the time does not arrive, even
though one visits a teacher and asks about the dharma, even though one makes
concentrated effort to pursue the way, it will not appear.” Taking such a view, they
return in vain to “the red dust,” they stare vacantly at the milky way. Types like this are
doubtless followers of the alien path of “the naturalists.”13
What is called “if you wish to know the
meaning of the buddha nature” is saying, for example, “you should know the meaning of the
buddha nature.” To say
“you should observe the
conditions of the time” is to say “you should know the conditions of the time.” If you wish to know what
is called “the
buddha nature,” you
should know it is precisely “the conditions of the time.” To say, “if the time arrives,” means “the time has already
arrived; what is there to doubt?” Let doubting the time be as it may, “return the buddha nature to
me.” We
should realize that “if the time arrives” is “not passing the twelve times in vain.” “If it arrives” is like saying “it has arrived.” If it were “if the time arrives,” the buddha nature would
not arrive; therefore, since the time has already arrived, this is the
appearance of the buddha nature (means: Dharma and nature of Buddha is showing simultaneously.). Or “its principle is self
evident.” In
sum, there has never been a time when the time does not arrive, nor a buddha
nature that does not appear.14
第十二祖馬鳴尊者為十三祖示說佛性海，云：「山河大地皆依建立，三昧六通由茲發現。」然則此山河大地皆為佛性海也。所云「皆依建立」者，謂建立之正當恁麼時，即乃山河大地也。既云「皆依建立」，當知佛性海之形相即如是也，無須更關乎內外中間也。既是恁麼，見山河者，即見佛性也，見佛性者即見驢腮馬嘴也。「皆依」者，即會取不會取之為全依也、依全也。「三昧六通由茲發現」者，當知諸三昧之發現未發現，同為皆依佛性也。全六通之由茲不由茲，皆為皆依佛性也。六神通者，非但阿笈摩教所云之六神通也。所云六者，意謂前三三後三三，是六神通波羅蜜也。然則切勿參究六神通為「明明百草頭，明明佛祖意」也。如被六神通所滯累，乃罣礙於佛性海之朝宗也。
第十二祖馬鳴尊者為十三祖演說『佛性海』：「山河大地皆依建立，三昧六通由茲發現。」這是說此山河大地皆為佛性海。所說的「皆依建立」，是謂建立的當下，即是以山河大地現成。既然說「皆依建立」，就應當知道佛性海即是以山河大地為形相的全然關係，無法更分別內外中間有差別。既然是全然的關係，見證山河者，即是見證佛性，見證佛性者即見證驢腮馬嘴(指一切萬法，也是佛性現成)。「皆依」的意思，即是不管願意不願意都全依、依全。而說「三昧六通由茲發現」，當知諸三昧的發生現前與否，也是同依佛性而有。所說的『六神通』，非但指阿笈摩教(部派佛教)所說的六神通。所說的六，意謂前三三後三三(即凡聖一同、性相一體)，也是六神通波羅蜜。然則切勿把六神通(法的功德用)當做為「明明百草頭，明明佛祖意」的聖體境界(即把體用、性相分開為二者的二元性錯誤)。如果被六神通力所迷惑，則會對佛性海的宗旨認知有誤導。(佛教一般認為有情（即一切有情識的生物）才具有佛性，天台宗湛然大師據《大乘起信論》所說「真如緣起」，而認為山川、草木、大地、牆壁、瓦石等無情亦具佛性。)
The Twelfth Ancestor, the
Venerable Aśvaghoṣa, in teaching the ocean of
the buddha nature to the Thirteenth Ancestor, said, The mountains, rivers, and
the earth Are all constructed dependent upon it; Samādhi and the six powers Appear from here.15
Therefore, these “mountains, rivers, and the
earth” are
all “the
ocean of the buddha nature.” To say that they “are all constructed dependent upon it” means that the very time
they are constructed is the “mountains, rivers, and the earth.” Since it is said that they
“are all constructed
dependent upon it,” we should realize that such is the shape of “the ocean of buddha nature”; it has nothing beyond
this to do with inside, outside or in between. If such is the case, to see the
mountains and rivers is to see the buddha nature; to see the buddha nature is
to see “an ass’ jaw and a horse’s mouth. (means: all the Dependent origination-Dharmas)” “All . . . dependent,” we understand (means: Dependent origination-Dharmas
and unfounded-Dharmas) — and we do not understand (means: truth-Dharmas)— as “wholly dependent,” as “dependent on the whole.”16
“Samādhi and the six powers
appear from here”: we should realize that “the appearance” and the non-appearance of
the samādhis are equally “all dependent” on the buddha nature; the “from here” and the not “from here” of the whole of the six
powers are both “all dependent” on the buddha nature. The six spiritual powers are not just
the six spiritual powers spoken of in the teachings of the Āgamas: “six” means that “the former three and three,
the latter three and three (adage, means: including deluded
man and wise sage man)” are the pāramitā of the six spiritual
powers. Therefore, do not investigate the six spiritual powers as being “clear and bright, the
hundred grasses; clear and bright, the intention of the buddhas and ancestors. (means: the status of wise
sage or Buddha)” Even
if they are constricted by the six spiritual powers, they are obstructions in
the flow to the source in the ocean of the buddha nature (means: six spiritual powers is also the Dependent origination-Dharma of the
nature of Buddha.).17
參考資料：
(1) 《正法眼藏》
道原 著 ， 何燕生 譯註， 宗教文化出版社
(2) 《Shōbōgenzō》
http://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/intro.html
沒有留言:
張貼留言