[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) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › 32.19 # 宗鏡錄 32.19 宗鏡錄 32.19 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [32.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.32.19) 答。若智外有真如。則可為所證。真如外有智。則可為能證。今智外無如。如外無智。欲將何法以為和合非和合耶。如經云。佛告阿難。汝雖先悟本覺妙明。性非因緣。非自然性。而猶未明如是覺。元非和合生。及不和合。阿難。吾今復以前塵問汝。汝今猶以一切世間。妄想和合諸因緣性。而自疑惑。證菩提心和合起者。則汝今者。妙淨見精。為與明和。為與暗和。為與通和。為與塞和。若明和者。且汝觀明。當明現前。何處雜見。見相可辯。雜何形像。若非見者。云何見明。若即見者。云何見見。必見圓滿。何處和明。若明圓滿。不合見和。見必異明。雜則失彼性明名字。雜失明性。和明非義。彼暗與通。及諸群塞。亦復如是。復次阿難。又汝今者。妙淨見精。為與明合。為與暗合。為與通合。為與塞合。若明合者。至於暗時明相已滅。此見即不與諸暗合。云何見暗。若見暗時。不與暗合。與明合者。應非見明。既不見明。云何明合。了明非暗。彼暗與通。及諸群塞。亦復如是。阿難白佛言。世尊。如我思惟。此妙覺元。與諸緣塵及心念慮。非和合耶。佛言。汝今又言覺非和合。吾復問汝。此妙見精非和合者。為非明和。為非暗和。為非通和。為非塞和。若非明和。則見與明必有邊畔。汝且諦觀。何處是明。何處是見。在見在明。自何為畔。阿難。若明際中必無見者。則不相及。自不知其明相所在。畔云何成。彼暗與通。及諸群塞。亦復如是。又妙見精非和合者。為非明合。為非暗合。為非通合。為非塞合。若非明合。則見與明。性相乖角。如耳與明。了不相觸。見且不知明相所在。云何甄明合非合理。彼暗與通。及諸群塞。亦復如是。乃至佛告富樓那。汝雖除疑。餘惑未盡。吾以世間現前諸事。今復問汝。汝豈不聞。室羅城中演若達多。忽於晨朝。以鏡照面。愛鏡中頭。眉目可見。瞋責己頭。不見面目。以為魑魅。無狀狂走。於意云何。此人何因無故狂走。富樓那言。是人心狂。更無他故。佛言。妙覺明圓。本圓明妙。既稱為妄。云何有因。若有所因。云何名妄。自諸妄想展轉相因。從迷積迷以歷塵劫。雖佛發明。猶不能返。如是迷因。因迷自有。識迷無因。妄無所依。尚無有生。欲何為滅。得菩提者。如寤時人說夢中事。心縱精明。欲何因緣取夢中物。況復無因本無所有。如彼城中演若達多。豈有因緣。自怖頭走。忽然狂歇。頭非外得。縱未歇狂。亦何遺失。富樓那。妄性如是。因何為在。汝但不隨分別世間業果眾生三種相續。三緣斷故。三因不生。則汝心中演若達多。狂性自歇。歇即菩提。勝淨明心本周法界。不從人得。何藉劬勞肯綮修證。乃至佛告阿難。即如城中演若達多。狂性因緣。若得滅除。則不狂性自然而出。因緣自然。理窮於是。阿難。演若達多。頭本自然。本自其然。無然非自。何因緣故。怖頭狂走。若自然頭因緣故狂。何不自然因緣故失。本頭不失。狂怖妄出。曾無變易。何藉因緣。本狂自然。本有狂怖。未狂之際。狂何所潛。不狂自然。頭本無妄。何為狂走。若悟本頭。識知狂走。因緣自然。俱為戲論。是故我言。三緣斷故。即菩提心。菩提心生。生滅心滅。此但生滅。滅生俱盡。無功用道。若有自然。如是則明。自然心生。生滅心滅。此亦生滅。無生滅者。名為自然。猶如世間諸相雜和成一體者。名和合性。非和合者。稱本然性。本然非然。和合非合。合然俱離。離合俱非。此句方名無戲論法。菩提涅槃。尚在遙遠。釋曰。若悟本頭識知狂走。因緣。自然俱為戲論者。若實發明。悟了本頭。一靈真性。非動非靜。非得非失。非生非滅。非合非離。則知無始已來。三界伶俜。六趣狂走。是迷是倒。是妄是虛。皆是情想結成。識心鼓動。則知本覺真性。非因非緣。亦非自然。非不自然。非和非合。非不和合。盡成戲論。悉墮邪思。且無住真心。豈存名相及與處所。若欲以識心圖度。句義詮量。而求真實者。如繫風捕影。理可然乎。所以祖師云。非自然。非因緣。妙中之妙。玄中玄。森羅萬像光中現。尋之不見有根原。如上剖析。此為未識本頭。不知狂走之人。令離句絕非。言思道斷。此方始除世間分別戲論之法。於自見性大道之中。尚猶賒遠。應須親到。不俟更言。似鏡照容。直須心眼相似。如人飲水。方能冷煖自知。故云唯證乃知難可測。未到之者徒自狂迷。 > Answer: If there were tathatā outside jñāna, it could be that which is realised; if there were jñāna outside tathatā, it could be that which realises. Now, outside jñāna there is no tathatā, and outside tathatā there is no jñāna. What dharma would you take to be combination or non-combination? As the sūtra states: The Buddha told Ānanda, “Although you previously awakened to original awareness, wondrous and bright, whose nature is neither cause and condition nor natural spontaneity, you are still not clear that such awareness is fundamentally neither born of combination nor non-combination. Ānanda, I now ask you again concerning external objects: you still harbour doubts of your own based on the nature of various causes and conditions formed by the combination of vain imaginings of all worldly realms, thinking that the citta realising bodhi arises from combination. Then, as for your present wondrously pure essence of seeing, does it combine with brightness, does it combine with darkness, does it combine with open passage, or does it combine with obstruction? If it combines with brightness, consider your viewing of brightness: when brightness is present, where does it blend with seeing? Can the characteristic of seeing be distinguished? What form does it blend into? If it is not seeing, how does one see brightness? If it is seeing itself, how does one see seeing? If seeing is necessarily complete, where does it combine with brightness? If brightness is complete, it should not combine with seeing. Seeing must be distinct from brightness; if they blend, they lose the names of 'seeing' and 'bright'. Blending and losing the nature of brightness, 'combining with brightness' makes no sense. The same applies to darkness, open passage, and all obstructions. Furthermore, Ānanda, does your present wondrously pure essence of seeing unite with brightness, unite with darkness, unite with open passage, or unite with obstruction? If it unites with brightness, then when darkness arrives and the characteristic of brightness has already ceased, this seeing does not unite with darkness; how then does it see darkness? If when seeing darkness it does not unite with darkness, and unites with brightness, it should not see brightness. Since it does not see brightness, how could it unite with brightness and clearly know brightness, not darkness? The same applies to darkness, open passage, and all obstructions.” Ānanda addressed the Buddha, saying: “World-Honoured One, as I consider it, is this source of wondrous awareness not combined with the various conditioned dust-objects and the thoughts of the citta?” The Buddha said, “You now say again that awareness is not combined. I ask you again: if this wondrous essence of seeing is not combined, is it not combined with brightness, not combined with darkness, not combined with open passage, or not combined with obstruction? If it is not combined with brightness, there must be a boundary between seeing and brightness. Look carefully: where is brightness, and where is seeing? Between seeing and brightness, where is the boundary? Ānanda, if within the limit of brightness there is certainly no seeing, they do not contact each other; one would not know of oneself where the characteristic of brightness is, so how could a boundary be established? The same applies to darkness, open passage, and all obstructions. Furthermore, if the wondrous essence of seeing does not unite, does it not unite with brightness, not unite with darkness, not unite with open passage, or not unite with obstruction? If it does not unite with brightness, then the natures and characteristics of seeing and brightness are contrary and incompatible, like the ear and brightness having no contact at all. If seeing does not even know where the characteristic of brightness is, how can you discern the principle of uniting or not uniting? The same applies to darkness, open passage, and all obstructions.” …and further, the Buddha told Pūrṇa, “Although you have eliminated doubt, the remaining delusions are not yet exhausted. I now ask you again using present worldly matters. Have you not heard that in the city of Śrāvastī, Yajñadatta suddenly one morning looked in a mirror at his face, loved the head in the mirror whose eyebrows and eyes could be seen, and was angered with his own head because he could not see his face and eyes, taking it for an evil spirit and running about wildly for no reason? What do you think: for what cause did this man run about wildly without reason?” Pūrṇa said, “That man's mind was deranged; there was no other cause.” The Buddha said, “Wondrous awareness is bright and round, fundamentally round, bright, and wondrous. Since it is called delusion, how could it have a cause? If it had a cause, how could it be called delusion? From various vain imaginings, they mutually cause one another; accumulating delusion upon delusion through dust-like kalpas, even though the Buddha illuminates it, they still cannot return. Such a cause of delusion exists of itself due to delusion; when one recognises that delusion has no cause, delusion has nowhere to rely. Since it does not even arise, what could there be to cease? One who attains bodhi is like an awake person speaking of things in a dream: even if his citta is refined and bright, by what cause or condition could he obtain the objects in the dream? How much less so when without cause there is fundamentally nothing at all! Just as that Yajñadatta in the city: what cause or condition did he have to be afraid of his head and run? When the madness suddenly rested, the head was not obtained from outside; and even before the madness rested, what had been lost? Pūrṇa, such is the nature of delusion; where could its cause lie? You simply do not follow the three continuous sequences of worldly karma, fruits, and sentient beings; because the three conditions are cut off, the three causes do not arise. Then the Yajñadatta in your citta—his mad nature will rest of itself. Resting is bodhi. The supremely pure and bright citta fundamentally pervades the dharmadhātu; it is not obtained from others, so why rely on laborious and arduous practice and realisation?” …and further, the Buddha told Ānanda, “Just as with Yajñadatta in the city, if the causes and conditions of his mad nature can be eliminated, then the non-mad nature will naturally emerge. The principle of causes, conditions, and natural spontaneity is exhausted in this. Ānanda, Yajñadatta's head was naturally spontaneous to begin with; it was so of itself, and there was nothing 'so' that was not 'self'. By what cause and condition did he fear his head and run about wildly? If a naturally spontaneous head became mad through causes and conditions, why did it not naturally be lost through causes and conditions? The fundamental head was not lost; the madness and fear arose falsely, without ever changing. Why rely on causes and conditions? If the fundamental madness was naturally spontaneous, fundamentally having madness and fear, where did the madness hide before he became mad? If non-madness is naturally spontaneous and the head is fundamentally without falsity, why did he run about wildly? If one awakens to the fundamental head and recognises the wild running, then cause, condition, and natural spontaneity are all frivolous discourse. Therefore I say: when the three conditions are cut off, that is the bodhi-citta. When the bodhi-citta arises, the arising-and-ceasing citta ceases. This is merely arising and ceasing; when ceasing and arising are both exhausted, this is the effortless path. If there were natural spontaneity, it would thus be clear that the naturally spontaneous citta arises and the arising-and-ceasing citta ceases; this too would be arising and ceasing. That which is free from arising and ceasing is called natural spontaneity. Just as when various worldly characteristics blend into a single substance, it is called the nature of combination; that which is not combination is called the original nature. The original is not 'so', and combination is not 'combining'. When both combination and spontaneity are transcended, and transcending and combining are both negated, only this phrase is called the dharma free from frivolous discourse. Bodhi and nirvāṇa are still far away.” The commentary says: As for “if one awakens to the fundamental head and recognises the wild running, then cause, condition, and natural spontaneity are all frivolous discourse”: if one truly illuminates and awakens to the fundamental head, the single spiritual true nature is neither moving nor still, neither gained nor lost, neither arising nor ceasing, neither combining nor separating. Then one knows that from beginningless time, wandering forlornly in the three realms and running wildly through the six destinies, being confused and inverted, being false and empty—all are formed from emotional thought and stirred by the consciousness-mind. Then one knows that the true nature of original awareness is neither cause nor condition, nor is it natural spontaneity, nor is it not natural spontaneity, nor is it combining, nor is it uniting, nor is it not combining and uniting; all \[such notions\] become frivolous discourse, all falling into perverse thinking. Furthermore, how could the non-abiding true mind preserve nominal characteristics or a location? If one wishes to use the consciousness-mind to calculate, or sentences and meanings to measure, in order to seek the real, it is like tethering the wind or chasing shadows—could this be logically so? Therefore the ancestral master said: “Neither natural spontaneity nor cause and condition, / it is the wonder within wonder, the mystery within mystery. / The myriad phenomena appear within the light; / seeking it, one sees no root or source.” The analysis above is for those who do not recognise their fundamental head and do not realise they are running wildly, leading them to leave propositions, end negations, and cut off the paths of words and thought. Only this begins to remove worldly differentiating frivolous discourse. In the great path of one's own seeing-nature, this is still far off. One must personally reach it without waiting for further words. It is like a mirror reflecting a face: mind and eye must directly correspond. Like a person drinking water, only then can one know for oneself whether it is cold or warm. Therefore it is said: “Only through realisation is it known; it is difficult to fathom.” Those who have not reached it are in vain wildly confused of themselves. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 32.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.32.18) - [Next: 32.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.32.20) - [Up: 32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.32) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.32.19) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.32.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.32.19) · Pramāṇa