物不遷論第一
Chapter 1: Things Do Not Move
夫生死交謝，寒暑迭遷，有物流動。人之常情。余則謂之不然。何者？《放光》云：「法無去來，無動轉者。」尋夫不動之作，豈釋動以求靜？必求靜於諸動。必求靜於諸動，故雖動而常靜；不釋動以求靜，故雖靜而不離動。然則動靜未始異，而惑者不同，緣使真言滯於競辯，宗途屈於好異。所以靜躁之極，未易言也。何者？夫談真則逆俗，順俗則違真。違真故迷性而莫返，逆俗故言淡而無味。緣使中人未分於存亡，下士撫掌而弗顧，近而不可知者，其唯物性乎！然不能自已，聊復寄心於動靜之際，豈曰必然！試論之曰：
Life and death trade places, cold and heat cycle in succession; things flow and change—this is common human experience. But I say this is not so. Why? The *Light Emitting Prajna* says: "Dharmas neither come nor go, neither move nor change." Examine this teaching of non-motion: does it mean we must abandon movement to seek stillness? No—it teaches that stillness must be sought within movement itself. Because stillness is sought within movement, the moving is always still; because stillness is not sought by abandoning movement, stillness never leaves movement. Thus, movement and stillness are not ultimately separate—it is only the confused who see them as different. This causes true words to stagnate in debate, and the essential path to be distorted by a fondness for novelty. Indeed, the ultimate nature of stillness and agitation is not easy to speak of. Why? Speak of the truth and you go against common views; follow common views and you betray the truth. Betray the truth, and people lose their nature with no return; go against common views, and your words are bland and tasteless. This causes people of average ability to remain uncertain about what exists and what perishes, while those of lesser ability clap their hands and turn away. What is nearer yet more unknowable than the very nature of things? Yet I cannot help myself—I temporarily set my mind on the border between movement and stillness, not claiming this to be the final word. Let me tentatively discuss it:
《道行》云：「諸法本無所從來，去亦無所至。」《中觀》云：「觀方知彼去，去者不至方。」斯皆即動而求靜，以知物不遷，明矣。夫人之所謂動者，以昔物不至今，故曰動而非靜。我之所謂靜者，亦以昔物不至今，故曰靜而非動。動而非靜，以其不來；靜而非動。以其不去。然則所造未嘗異，所見未嘗同。逆之所謂塞，順之所謂通。苟得其道，復何滯哉！傷夫！人情之惑也久矣，目對真而莫覺。既知往物而不來，而謂今物而可往。往物既不來，今物何所往？何則？求向物於向，於向未甞無；責向物於今，於今未甞有。於今未嘗有，以明物不來；於向未甞無，故知物不去。覆而求今，今亦不往。是謂昔物自在昔，不從今以至昔；今物自在今，不從昔以至今。故仲尼曰：「回也見新，交臂非故。」如此，則物不相往來，明矣。既無往返之微朕，有何物而可動乎？然則旋嵐偃嶽而常靜，江河兢注而不流，野馬飄鼓而不動，日月歷天而不周。復何怪哉！噫！聖人有言曰：「人命逝速，速於川流。」是以聲聞悟非常以成道，緣覺覺緣離以即真。苟萬動而非化，豈尋化以階道？覆尋聖言，微隱難測。若動而靜，似去而留。可以神會，難以事求。是以言去不必去，閑人之常想；稱住不必住，釋人之所謂往耳。豈曰去而可遣、住而可留也。故《成具》云：「菩薩處計常之中，而演非常之教。」《摩訶衍論》云：「諸法不動，無去來處。」斯皆導達群方，兩言一會，豈曰文殊而乖其致哉？是以言常而不住，稱去而不遷。不遷，故雖往而常靜；不住，故雖靜而常往。雖靜而常往，故往而弗遷；雖往而常靜，故靜而弗留矣。然則莊生之所以藏山，仲尼之所以臨川，斯皆感往者之難留，豈曰排今而可往？是以觀聖人心者，不同人之所見，得也。何者？人則謂少壯同體、百齡一質，徒知年往，不覺形隨。是以梵志出家，白首而歸。隣人見之曰：「昔人尚存乎？」梵志曰：「吾猶昔人，非昔人也。」隣人皆愕然，非其言也。所謂有力者負之而趨，昧者不覺。其斯之謂歟！是以如來因群情之所滯，則方言以辯惑，乘莫二之真心，吐不一之殊教，乖而不可異者，其唯聖言乎！故談真有不遷之稱，導俗有流動之說。雖復千途異唱，會歸同致矣。而徵文者聞不遷，則謂昔物不至今；聆流動者，而謂今物可至昔。既曰古今，而欲遷之者，何也？是以言往不必往，古今常存，以其不動；稱去不必去，謂不從今至古，以其不來。不來，故不馳騁於古今；不動，故各性住於一世。然則群籍殊文、百家異說，苟得其會，豈殊文之能惑哉？是以人之所謂住，我則言其去；人之所謂去，我則言其住。然則去住雖殊，其致一也。故經云：「正言似反。誰當信者？」斯言有由矣。何者？人則求古於今，謂其不住。吾則求今於古，知其不去。今若至古，古應有今；古若至今，今應有古。今而無古，以知不來；古而無今，以知不去。若古不至今，今亦不至古，事各性住於一世，有何物而可去來？然則四象風馳、璇璣電捲，得意毫微，雖速而不轉。是以如來，功流萬世而常存，道通百劫而彌固。成山假就於始簣，修途託至於初步，果以功業不可朽故也。功業不可朽，故雖在昔而不化，不化故不遷。不遷故，則湛然明矣。故經云：「三災彌綸而行業湛然。」信其言也。何者？果不俱因，因因而果。因因而果，因不昔滅；果不俱因，因不來今。不滅不來，則不遷之致明矣！復何惑於去留，踟蹰於動靜之間哉？然則乾坤倒覆，無謂不靜；洪流滔天，無謂其動。苟能契神於即物，斯不遠而可知矣！
The *Daoxing Sutra* says: "All things fundamentally come from nowhere, and go nowhere." The *Madhyamaka Shastra* says: "When we observe directions, we know that the one who goes does not reach the place." Both of these demonstrate that within motion, stillness is found, making it clear that things do not move. What people call "motion" is based on the idea that past things do not reach the present—so they say it is moving, not still. What I call "stillness" is also based on the idea that past things do not reach the present—so I say it is still, not moving. They say it is moving, not still, because the past does not come to the present; I say it is still, not moving, because the past does not leave its own time. Thus, the objects we encounter are not essentially different, yet our perceptions differ. Against the current, it seems blocked; with the current, it seems flowing freely. If one grasps the principle, what obstacles remain? How sad that human confusion has persisted for so long—facing truth directly, yet unaware! Having understood that past things do not come to the present, they still think present things can go to the future. Since past things do not come to the present, where can present things go? Why is this? If we seek past things in the past, they are not absent there; if we demand past things in the present, they are not found here. Not found here shows that past things do not come to the present; not absent there shows that past things do not leave their own time. Applying the same reasoning to the present, present things also do not go to the future. So the past exists in the past, not coming from the present; the present exists in the present, not coming from the past. Hence Confucius said, "Hui sees everything as new, even in a brief moment things are no longer the same." This clarifies that things do not move from one time to another. Since there is not even the slightest trace of movement, what thing can actually move? Yet the whirlwind can topple mountains yet is always still, rivers can surge yet do not flow, dust motes can dance yet do not move, the sun and moon can traverse the sky yet do not orbit. How strange! Ah, the sage said: "Human life passes swiftly, swifter than a flowing river." Thus, the *sravaka* awakens to impermanence and attains enlightenment; the *pratyekabuddha* realizes the cessation of conditions and reaches truth. If all things are in motion yet not transforming, can one seek transformation as the path? Reflecting further on the sage's words, they are subtle and hard to fathom. When motion is stillness, departure seems like staying. This can be grasped by spirit, not by seeking in phenomena. Therefore, mentioning "going" does not mean real going—it clarifies people's habitual thoughts; saying "abiding" does not mean real abiding—it explains people's notion of "going." How could it mean that going is truly traveling and abiding is truly staying? Thus, the *Chengju Sutra* says: "Bodhisattvas dwell amidst the view of permanence yet proclaim the teaching of impermanence." The *Mahayana Shastra* says: "All things are unmoving; they have no coming or going." These all guide sentient beings in various ways, yet the two statements converge. How could we say they are contradictory merely because the words differ? So, speaking of permanence does not mean things are fixed; speaking of going does not mean they move. Not moving, though going, they are always still; not fixed, though still, they are always going. Though always going while still, going is not moving; though always still while going, stillness is not stagnant. So Zhuangzi's metaphor of hiding the mountain, and Confucius's sigh by the river—these express regret over the difficulty of retaining the past, not an assertion that the present can go to the future. Thus, observing the mind of a sage differs from ordinary people's perception; it is an attainment. Why? People think youth and old age are the same body, that a hundred years form a single substance, only knowing that years pass without realizing the body changes too. Hence, when a brahmin returned home as a white-haired elder after leaving as a youth, his neighbor asked, "Are you still the same person?" The brahmin replied, "I am like that person but not that person." The neighbors were all shocked, unable to accept his words. This is what is meant by: "A powerful force carries it away, but the deluded do not notice." Isn't that precisely the case? Therefore, the Tathagata, based on the attachments of ordinary beings, uses skillful words to clarify confusion, employing a single non-dual true mind to express diverse teachings that differ yet cannot be separated—such are the words of the sage! Hence, when discussing truth, there is the teaching of "non-movement"; when guiding common people, there is the teaching of "flowing." Though countless paths and voices sing different tunes, they all converge on the same goal. But when text-bound scholars hear "non-movement," they think past things do not reach the present; when they hear "flowing," they think present things can reach the past. Since we already have past and present, why try to make things move between them? Therefore, saying "go" does not mean things truly go—past and present always exist because things do not move; saying "leave" does not mean things truly leave—they do not come from present to past because they do not come. Not coming, they do not race between past and present; not moving, each thing abides in its own time. Thus, though scriptures have different words and schools have diverse theories, if one grasps the key, how can different words confuse? So, what people call "staying," I call "going"; what people call "going," I call "staying." Though "going" and "staying" differ, their meaning is the same. Hence the sutra says: "Correct words seem contradictory—who would believe them?" This saying has its reason. Why? People seek the past in the present, saying it does not abide. I seek the present in the past, knowing it does not leave. If the present could reach the past, the past would contain the present; if the past could reach the present, the present would contain the past. Since the present has no past, we know it does not come; since the past has no present, we know it does not go. If the past does not reach the present, and the present does not reach the past, each thing abides naturally in its own time—what thing can come or go? Thus, though the four seasons race like wind and the stars spin like lightning, if one grasps the subtle truth, even as they speed, they do not change. Hence the Tathagata's merit flows through myriad ages and remains constant, and the Way penetrates hundreds of kalpas and grows ever firm. A mountain is formed by gathering the first basket of earth; a long journey begins with the first step—because the karmic work cannot be destroyed. Since it cannot be destroyed, even in the past it does not vanish; not vanishing, it does not move. Not moving, it is clearly tranquil. So the sutra says: "Though the three calamities pervade, karmic activities remain steadfast." Truly, this is correct. Why? The result does not exist simultaneously with the cause, but the cause produces the result. Since the cause produces the result, the cause is not destroyed in the past; since the result does not exist simultaneously with the cause, the cause does not come to the present. Neither destroyed nor coming—this makes the meaning of non-movement clear! Why then be confused about leaving or staying, or hesitate between motion and stillness? So, even if heaven and earth turned upside down, do not call it restless; even if great floods rose to the sky, do not call it moving. If one can unite the spirit with things as they are, this truth is not far off but can be known!
物不遷論(終)
Things Do Not Move(End)