[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [念佛三昧寶王論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1967) › 3.7 # 念佛三昧寶王論 3.7 念佛三昧寶王論 3.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1967.3.7) 對曰：「無念之說，人多泣岐，不細精研，猶恐迷徑，今以理事門辯之。言理門者，真無念也。釋曰：『有之與無，即此念而本無矣！何者？佛從念生，心即是佛，如刀不自割，指不自觸，佛不自佛，心不自心。安得佛外立心，心外立佛？佛既不有，心豈有哉？無心念佛，其義明矣！』故世人謂念佛有念也，吾則謂念佛無念也。更何惑焉？又念即是空，焉得有念？非念滅空，焉得無念？念性自空，焉得生滅？又無所念心者，以無所住也，而修念佛者，而生其心也。無所念心者，從無住本也，而修念佛者，立一切法也。無所念心者，念即是空也，而修念佛者，空即是念也。不異之有，此明中道矣！雙寂曰止也，雙照曰觀也，定慧不均，非正受也。豈得三昧之名歟？今則照而常寂，無所念心矣；寂而常照，而修念佛焉。如來證寂照三摩地，念佛三昧究竟之位也。故此三昧，能生首楞嚴王、師子吼定，明矣！如《菩薩念佛三昧經》破相偈曰： > I reply: Regarding the teaching of non-thought, many people weep at the crossroads; without refined and precise investigation, one may still fear losing one's way. I shall now distinguish it by means of the gates of principle and phenomena. Speaking of the gate of principle, it is true non-thought. An explanation says: 'Both being and non-being are fundamentally non-existent in this very thought! Why is this? The Buddha arises from thought, and mind itself is the Buddha; just as a blade does not cut itself and a finger does not touch itself, the Buddha is not a buddha of itself, and the mind is not a mind of itself. How could one establish mind outside of the Buddha, or establish the Buddha outside of mind? Since the Buddha is not existent, how could the mind be existent? Buddha-mindfulness without mind—its meaning is clear!' Therefore, worldly people say that buddha-mindfulness entails thought, whereas I say that buddha-mindfulness is non-thought. What further confusion could there be? Moreover, thought is itself emptiness—how could there be thought? Emptiness is not the extinction of thought—how could there be non-thought? The nature of thought is inherently empty—how could there be arising and ceasing? Furthermore, 'a mind that has nothing to be mindful of' is due to having no place of abiding; 'yet cultivating buddha-mindfulness' is to give rise to that mind. 'A mind that has nothing to be mindful of' proceeds from the root of non-abiding; 'yet cultivating buddha-mindfulness' establishes all phenomena. 'A mind that has nothing to be mindful of' means that thought is itself empty; 'yet cultivating buddha-mindfulness' means that emptiness is itself thought. Existence that is not different \[from emptiness\]—this clarifies the Middle Way! Dual quiescence is called śamatha; dual illumination is called vipaśyanā. When calm and discernment are not balanced, it is not correct contemplation. How could it obtain the name of samādhi? Now, illuminating yet ever quiescent, it is a mind that has nothing to be mindful of; quiescent yet ever illuminating, one cultivates buddha-mindfulness. The Tathāgata's realization of the samādhi of quiescence and illumination is the ultimate stage of the buddha-mindfulness samādhi. Therefore it is clear that this samādhi can generate the King of Śūraṅgama and the Lion's Roar samādhis! As the verse on breaking through marks in the \*Bodhisattva-buddhānusmṛti-samādhi Sūtra\* says: > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1967.3.6) - [Next: 3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1967.3.8) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1967.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1967~en-mt.3.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1967.3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1967.3.7) · Pramāṇa