釋禪波羅蜜次第法門 3.33

3.33

Third, explaining the cultivation of 'stopping through realizing reality': Through correct wisdom, one realizes that all dharmas of cause and effect in the three realms—all aggregates, bases, and elements, the three poisons, the ninety-eight proclivities, and the twelve links of dependent origination—are completely empty and tranquil. As it is said in the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*: 'Form itself is empty; it is not that form is destroyed to become empty; the nature of form is of itself empty. Emptiness is itself form; form is itself emptiness. Apart from form there is no emptiness; apart from emptiness there is no form. Sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness, and all other dharmas are also like this.' Why is this? Now, seeing presently that the inherent nature of dharmas such as the aggregates, bases, and elements does not exist, how could they give rise to all such inverted notions as a self, a person, a sentient being, or a lifespan? How is it known to be empty? If all afflictions, karmas, and actions arisen in the past are the causes, and in the present taking hold of the physical components of the parents is the condition, the harmonious convergence of causes and conditions produces the retributive effect; and because there is a retributive effect, there are all dharmas such as the aggregates, bases, and elements—then what kind of dharma is this karma, such that it can act as the cause for the retributive effect, the aggregates, and the bases? If one says that the past wholesome mind is itself the karma, the past mind and mental factors that performed good have already perished and ceased; how could they act as the cause for the present retributive effect and dharmas such as the aggregates and bases? If one says that the mind is not the cause of karma, but rather the mind creates karma and karma comes following the mind, then since the mind changes and perishes, karma should also change and perish following the mind. If karma changes and perishes, how could it induce the retributive effect and dharmas such as the aggregates and bases in the present lifetime? If karma changes and perishes, one should know that karma does not arrive at the present. Why is that? Because karma does not come. If karma does not come and yet one receives retribution, this retribution is not called a retribution. Why is that? Because if there is no karma, then the retribution has nothing to recompense. If one says that although the past mind has perished and ceased, the subsequent mind arises in succession, so karma can come following the mind, then it should also be that although the past karma has perished and ceased, subsequent karma arises in succession, and thus can arrive at the present. If that were so, then there would be a great fault. Why is that? At times, a past wholesome mind perishes and an unwholesome mind arises in succession; now it should also be that past wholesome karma perishes and subsequent unwholesome karma arises in succession, in which case only unwholesome karma would be seen arriving at the present. If so, it should induce an unwholesome retribution; how could it induce a wholesome effect? If one says that karma comes without following the mind, this karma should have its own retribution, received apart from the mind. Yet in reality this is not so.