Notes Beside the Bamboo Window — Third Collection, Part 36
Continuing the Third Collection (三筆). A peacemaking argument between two rival schools of Buddhist doctrine — one emphasizing the essential nature underlying all phenomena, the other emphasizing the distinct particular characteristics of each phenomenon — illustrated by the analogy of a body and its organs, or a house and its beams, to show that the two are not opposed at all but simply two ways of describing a single, inseparable reality.
113. 性相 — Nature and Characteristics
A peacemaking argument between two rival schools of Buddhist doctrine — one emphasizing the essential nature underlying all phenomena, the other emphasizing the distinct particular characteristics of each phenomenon — illustrated by the analogy of a body and its organs, or a house and its beams, to show that the two views describe a single, inseparable reality rather than opposing camps to be defended.
相傳佛滅後，性相二宗學者各執所見，至分河飲水，其爭如是，孰是而孰非歟？曰：但執之則皆非，不執則皆是。性者何？相之性也。相者何？性之相也。非判然二也。譬之一身然，身為主，而有耳目口鼻、臟腑、百骸，皆身也。是身者，耳目等之身；耳目等者，身之耳目等也。譬之一室然，室為主，而有樑棟椽柱、垣壁、戶牖等，皆室也。是室者，樑棟等之室；樑棟等者，是室之樑棟等也。夫豈判然為二者哉？不惟不當爭，而亦無可爭也。或謂：「永嘉云：『入海算沙徒自困。』又曰：『摘葉尋枝我不能。』似乎是性而非相矣！」曰：永嘉無所是非也。性為本而相為末，故云：「但得本，不愁末」，未嘗言末為可廢也。是故偏言性不可，而偏言相尤不可。偏言性者，急本而緩末，猶為不可中之可；務枝葉而失根原，不可中之不可者也。
It is said that after the Buddha's passing, scholars of the Nature school and the Characteristics school each clung stubbornly to their own view, to the point that they were said to "drink from opposite banks of the same river" without ever meeting. Given such a long-standing dispute, which side is right, and which is wrong? I would say: so long as either side clings stubbornly to its own view, both are wrong; and if neither clings stubbornly, both are right. What, after all, is "nature"? It is simply the essential nature of characteristics themselves. And what is a "characteristic"? It is simply the outward manifestation of that same nature. The two were never truly separate to begin with.
Consider the analogy of a single body: the body itself is the whole, and yet it possesses ears, eyes, mouth, nose, internal organs, and every bone and limb — all of these together constitute the body. This body is nothing other than a body made up of ears, eyes, and the rest; and these ears, eyes, and the rest are nothing other than this same body's own ears, eyes, and the rest. Or consider the analogy of a single house: the house itself is the whole, and yet it possesses beams, ridgepoles, rafters, pillars, walls, and doors and windows — all of these together constitute the house. This house is nothing other than a house made up of beams, ridgepoles, and the rest; and these beams, ridgepoles, and the rest are nothing other than this same house's own beams, ridgepoles, and the rest. How, then, could the two ever be so cleanly divided into separate things? Not only should there be no dispute between them at all — there is, in truth, nothing whatsoever left to dispute.
Someone might object: "Yongjia said: 'To wade into the sea and count its grains of sand is only to exhaust oneself in vain.' And also: 'To pluck at leaves and search among branches is something I myself cannot do.' Does this not suggest that he favored nature over characteristics?" I would answer: Yongjia was not taking sides between right and wrong at all. He treats nature as the root and characteristics as the branches, which is why he says, "Once you have grasped the root, there is no need to worry over the branches" — but he never once said that the branches themselves could simply be discarded. This being so, it is wrong to speak of nature alone, and even more wrong to speak of characteristics alone. Someone who speaks of nature alone, at least prioritizing the root while merely neglecting the branches, commits an error that is still, within the category of error, the lesser one; but someone who devotes himself entirely to branches and leaves while losing the root and source altogether commits an error that is, within the category of error, the very worst kind there is.
The "Nature school" (性宗) and "Characteristics school" (相宗) represent a genuine historical divide in Chinese Buddhist scholasticism — the former associated with traditions such as Huayan and Tiantai emphasizing the underlying equality of all phenomena in their shared true nature, the latter associated with the Yogācāra-derived Faxiang (Consciousness-Only) school's detailed analysis of each phenomenon's distinct causal characteristics — and the proverbial image of scholars "drinking from opposite banks of the same river" without ever meeting captures a genuinely documented tension between these approaches in medieval Chinese Buddhist scholarship; Zhuhong's citation of Yongjia's Song of Enlightenment, already quoted in this collection's earlier entry on karmic retribution, extends his consistent method throughout this collection of resolving apparent doctrinal conflicts by showing that a frequently quoted line, read in its fuller context, never actually supported the one-sided position later readers extracted from it.