[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) › 34.27 # 宗鏡錄 34.27 宗鏡錄 34.27 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [34.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.34.27) 答。若惛沈厚重難可策發。掉舉猛利不可抑伏。貪嗔熾盛觸境難制者。即用前教中種種方便。隨病調伏。若煩惱微薄。慧解明利。即依本宗。一行三昧。如起信論云。若修止者。住於靜處。端身正意。不依氣息形色。乃至唯心無外境界。法句經偈云。若學諸三昧。是動非是禪。心隨境界流。云何名為定。即不起滅定。現行坐之威儀。不於三界。現攀緣之身意。然此教中。以一真心性。對染淨諸法。全揀全收。全揀者。如上所說。但剋體直指。靈知。即是心性。餘皆虛妄。故云非識非心。非境非智。乃至非性非相。非佛非眾生。離四句絕百非也。全收者。染淨諸法。無不是心。心迷故。妄起惑業。乃至四生六道雜穢國土。心悟故。從體起用。四等六度。乃至四辯六通妙身淨剎。無所不現。既是此心現諸法故。法法全即真心。如人夢所現事。事事皆人。如金作器。器器皆金。如鏡現影。影影皆鏡。故華嚴經云。知一切法。即心自性。成就慧身。不由他悟。起信論云。三界虛偽。唯心所作。離心則無六塵境界。乃至一切分別。皆分別自心。心不見心。無相可得。故云一切法如鏡中像。楞伽經云。寂滅者。名為一心。一心者。名如來藏。能遍興造一切趣生。造善造惡。受苦受樂。果與因俱。故知一切無非心也。全揀門。攝前第二破相教。全收門。攝前第一說相教。將前望此。此則逈異於前。將此望前。前則全同於此。深必該淺。淺不至深。深者直顯出真心之體。方於中揀一切收一切也。如是收揀自在。性相無礙。方能於一切悉無所住。唯此名為了義。上之三教。攝盡一代經論之所宗。三義全殊。一法無別。就三義中。第一第二空有相對。第三第一性相相對。皆迢然易見。唯第二第三破相與顯性相對。講者。禪者。俱迷為同是一宗一教。皆以破相便為真性。故今廣辯空宗性宗。有其十異。空宗唯破相。性宗唯顯性。權實有異。遮表全殊。不可以遮詮遣蕩排情破執之言。為表詮直示建立顯宗之教。又不可以逗機誘引一期權漸之說。為最。後全提見性真實之門。如上判教分宗。言約義豐。最為殊絕。初則歷然不濫。後。則一味融通。可釋群疑。能歸宗鏡。十異者。一法義真俗異者。空宗未顯真性。但以一切差別之相為法。法是俗諦。照此諸法。無為無相無生無滅為義。義是真諦。性宗以一真之性為法。空有等種種差別為義。經云。無量義者。從一法生。華嚴經云。法者知自性。義者知生滅。二心性二名異者。空宗一向目諸法。本原為性。性宗多目諸法本原為心。起信論云。一切諸法。從本已來。唯是一心。良由所說本性。不但空寂。而乃自然常知故。應目為心。三性字二體異者。空宗以諸法無性為性。性宗以虛明常住不空之體為性。性字雖同。而體異也。四真智真知異者。空宗以分別為知。無分別為智。智深知淺。性宗以能證聖理之妙慧為智。以該於理智。通於凡聖之真性為知。知通智局。華嚴經云。真如照明為性。起信論云。真如自體。真實識知。五有我無我異者。空宗以有我為妄。無我為真。性宗以無我為妄。有我為真。故涅槃經云。無我者。名為生死。我者。名為如來。六遮詮表詮異者。遮謂遣其所非。表謂顯其所是。又遮者。揀却諸餘。表者。直示當體。如諸經所說。真如妙性。每云不生不滅。不垢不淨。無因無果。無相無為。非凡非聖。非性非相等。皆是遮詮。遣非蕩跡。絕想祛情。若云知見覺照。靈鑒光明。朗朗昭昭。堂堂寂寂等。皆是表詮。若無知見等體。顯何法為性。說何法不生不滅等。必須認得現今了然而知。即是我之心性。方說此知不生不滅等。如說鹽云不淡是遮。云鹹。是表。說水云不乾。是遮。云濕。是表。空宗但遮。性宗有遮有表。今時人皆謂遮言為深。表言為淺。故唯重非心非佛。無為無相。乃至一切不可得之言。良由只以遮非之詞為妙。不欲親自證認法體。故如此也。又若實識我心。不同虛空。性自神解。非從他悟。豈藉緣生。若不對機隨世語言。於自性上尚無表示真實之詞。焉有遮非方便之說。如今實未親證見性之人。但傚依通。情傳意解。唯取言語中妙。以遮非泯絕之文。而為極則。以未見諦故。不居實地。一向託空。隨言所轉。近來尤盛。莫可遏之。若不因上代先賢。多聞廣學。深入教海。妙達禪宗。何能微細指陳。始終和會。顯出一靈之性。剔開萬法之原。是以具錄要文。同明宗鏡。七認名認體異者。謂佛法世法。一一皆有名體。且如世間稱大。不過四物。如智論云。地水火風。是四物名。堅濕煖動。是四物體。今且說水。設有人問。每聞澄之即清。混之即濁。堰之即止。決之即流。而能溉灌萬物。洗滌群穢。此是何物。（舉功能義用而問之）答云。是水（舉名答也）愚者認名謂已解。智者應更問云。何者是水（徵其體也）答云。濕即是水（剋體指也）佛法亦爾。設有人問。每聞諸經云。迷之即垢。悟之即淨。縱之即凡。修之即聖。能生世出世間一切諸法。此是何物（此舉功能義用問也）答云。是心（舉名答也）愚者認名便為已識。智者應更問。何者是心（徵其體也）答。知即是心（指其體也）此一言最親最的。餘字餘說皆疎。如云非性非相能言能語等是體。緣慮動用等是心。即何異他之所問也。以此而推。水之名體。名唯一字。餘皆義用。濕之一字。貫於清濁等萬用萬義之中。心之名體亦然。知之一字。亦貫於貪瞋慈忍善惡苦樂萬用萬義之處。直須悟得。水是名。不是水。濕是水。不是名。即清濁凝流。無義不通也。以例心是名。不是心。知是心。不是名。即真妄善惡。無義不通也。空宗相宗。為對初學及淺機。恐隨言生執故。但標名而遮其非。唯廣義用而引其意。性宗為對久學及上根。令忘言認體故。一言直示（達磨云。指一言以直示。即是知字一言。若言即心是佛。此乃四言矣）若領解不謬。親照靈知之性。方於體上照察義用。故無不通矣。八二諦三諦異者。空宗唯二諦。性宗攝一切性相及自體。總為三諦。以緣起色等諸法為俗諦。緣無自性。諸法即空為真諦。一真心體。非空非色。能空能色。為中道第一義諦。九三性空有異。空宗說有。即遍計依他。空。即圓成。性宗即三法皆具空有之義。遍計。即情有理無。依他。即相有性無。圓成。即情無理有。十佛德空有異。空宗說。佛以空為德。無有少法。是名菩提。性宗一切諸佛自體。皆有常樂我淨。十身十智。相好無盡。性自本有。不待機緣。十異歷然二門奐矣。故須先約三種佛教。證三宗禪心。然後禪教雙亡。佛心俱寂。俱寂則念念皆佛。無一念而非佛心。雙亡。即句句皆禪。無一句而非禪教。如此則自然聞泯絕無寄之說。知是破我執情。聞息妄修心之言。知是斷我習氣。執情破而真性顯。即泯絕是顯性之宗。習氣盡而佛道成。即修心是成佛之行。頓漸互顯。空有相成。若能如是圓通。則為他人說。無非妙方。聞他人說。無非妙藥。藥之與病。只在執之與通。故先德云。執則字字瘡疣。通則文文妙藥。如上依教依宗。撮略和會。挑抉宗旨之本末。開析法義之差殊。校量頓漸之異同。融即真妄之和合。對會遮表之迴互。褒貶權實之淺深。可謂卷教海之波瀾。湛然掌內。簇義天之星象。奐若目前。則頓釋群疑。豁然妙旨。若心外立法立境。起鬪諍之端倪。識上變我變人。為勝負之由漸。遂乃立空破有。賓有非空。崇教毀禪。宗禪斥教。權實兩道。常為障礙之因。性相二宗。永作怨讐之見。皆為智燈焰短。心鏡光昏。終不能入無諍之門。履一實之道矣。 > Answer: If torpor (middha) is dense and heavy so that it is difficult to rouse \[oneself\], or if restlessness (auddhatya) is fierce and sharp so that it cannot be suppressed, or if greed (rāga) and anger (dveṣa) blaze intensely and are difficult to restrain upon encountering sensory objects, then one uses the various skillful means from the preceding teachings to regulate and subdue them according to the illness. If afflictions (kleśa) are slight and thin and one's wisdom-understanding is bright and sharp, one immediately relies on this source: the one-practice samādhi. As the Awakening of Faith says: 'If one practices cessation (śamatha), one dwells in a quiet place, straightens the body and rectifies the mind, not relying on breath, forms, or colors, up to realizing only citta without external sense objects.' A verse from the Dharmapada says: 'If one studies the various samādhis, that is movement, not dhyāna; / When the citta flows following sense objects, how can it be called concentration (samādhi)?' This means not rising from the concentration of cessation (nirodhasamādhi), yet manifesting the deportments of walking and sitting; not manifesting bodily or mental clinging to conditions within the three realms. / However, in this teaching, through the one true citta-nature, with respect to all defiled and pure phenomena (dharma), there is total rejection and total inclusion. 'Total rejection' is as explained above: directly pointing strictly to its substance, numinous awareness (lingzhi) is simply the citta-nature; all the rest are false. Therefore it is said: not consciousness (vijñāna), not citta, not sensory realm, not knowledge (jñāna), up to not nature, not characteristic, not Buddha, not sentient being, transcending the four propositions and cutting off the hundred negations. 'Total inclusion' means that among all defiled and pure phenomena, none is not citta. Because citta is deluded, it falsely generates afflictions and karmas, up to the four modes of birth, the six destinies, and the defiled and impure lands. Because citta is awakened, it gives rise to function from substance: the four immeasurables, the six pāramitās, up to the four unimpeded knowledges, the six supernormal powers, the wondrous bodies, and pure lands—there is nothing it does not manifest. Since it is this citta that manifests all phenomena, each and every phenomenon is entirely identical with the true citta. It is like the events manifested in a person's dream: every event is just that person; like gold made into vessels: every vessel is gold; like a mirror manifesting reflections: every reflection is the mirror. Therefore the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Knowing that all phenomena are the self-nature of citta, one achieves the wisdom-body without relying on another's awakening.' The Awakening of Faith says: 'The three realms are false and deceptive, made only of citta. Apart from citta, there are no sense fields of the six dusts. Up to all discriminations are discriminations of one's own citta; citta does not see citta, having no characteristic that can be grasped.' Therefore it says that all phenomena are like reflections in a mirror. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: 'That which is quiescent and extinguished is called the one mind. The one mind is called the tathāgatagarbha. It can universally generate all destinies and births, creating good and creating evil, experiencing suffering and experiencing joy, the fruit accompanying the cause.' Thus we know that nothing whatsoever is not citta. / The gate of total rejection subsumes the former second teaching of refuting characteristics; the gate of total inclusion subsumes the former first teaching of explaining characteristics. Looking from the former to this, this is vastly different from the former; looking from this to the former, the former is entirely identical with this. The deep necessarily encompasses the shallow; the shallow does not reach the deep. The deep directly reveals the substance of the true citta, and only then, within it, rejects everything and includes everything. When inclusion and rejection are so unhindered, and nature and characteristics are unobstructed, only then can one abide nowhere in anything. Only this is called the definitive meaning (nītārtha). / The three teachings above subsume all that is sourced in the sūtras and treatises of a whole lifetime. The three meanings are completely different, yet the one Dharma is without distinction. Within the three meanings: the first and the second stand in contrast as emptiness and existence; the third and the first stand in contrast as nature and characteristics. Both are clearly distinct and easy to see. Only the second and the third, the refutation of characteristics in contrast with the revelation of nature, are confused by lecturers and Chan practitioners alike as being the same source and the same teaching, all taking the refutation of characteristics to be the true nature itself. / Therefore, I now broadly distinguish the Emptiness school (Kū-shū) and the Nature school (Xingzong) by their ten differences: The Emptiness school only refutes characteristics, while the Nature school only reveals the nature. Expedient and real differ; negative and affirmative are completely distinct. One must not take words of negative expression (apoha) that discard and dispel emotion and crush attachment as the teaching of affirmative expression that directly shows, establishes, and reveals the source. Nor must one take temporary, expedient, and gradual teachings that accord with capacity and offer inducements as the final, authentic gate that fully presents the seeing of nature. Dividing the teachings and distinguishing the sources as above is concise in expression yet abundant in meaning, most peerless. At first they are clearly distinct without confusion, and in the end they are uniformly integrated into a single flavor, able to resolve all doubts and return to the mirror of the source. / The ten differences: / First, the difference between dharma and meaning, ultimate and conventional: The Emptiness school has not yet revealed the true nature, but merely takes all differentiated characteristics as dharma—dharma being the conventional truth—and contemplates these phenomena as unconditioned, signless, unarisen, and unceasing as their meaning—meaning being the ultimate truth. The Nature school takes the one true nature as dharma, and various differentiations such as emptiness and existence as meaning. The sūtra says: 'Immeasurable meanings are born from one dharma.' The Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Dharma is knowing the self-nature; meaning is knowing arising and ceasing.' / Second, the difference between the two names 'citta' and 'nature': The Emptiness school consistently designates the source of all phenomena as 'nature'. The Nature school mostly designates the source of all phenomena as 'citta'. The Awakening of Faith says: 'All phenomena, from the beginning, are only the one mind.' Because the original nature expounded is not only empty and quiescent, but also spontaneously and constantly aware, it should be designated as 'citta'. / Third, the difference between the two substances of the character 'nature': The Emptiness school takes the lack of nature in all phenomena as 'nature'. The Nature school takes the empty, luminous, permanent, non-empty substance as 'nature'. Although the character 'nature' is the same, their substances differ. / Fourth, the difference between true knowledge (jñāna) and true awareness (zhi): The Emptiness school takes discrimination as awareness, and non-discrimination as knowledge; knowledge is deep, awareness is shallow. The Nature school takes the wondrous wisdom that can realize the noble principle as knowledge, and takes the true nature that encompasses both principle and knowledge and pervades both ordinary and noble as awareness; awareness is pervasive, knowledge is restricted. The Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Tathatā has illuminating awareness as its nature.' The Awakening of Faith says: 'The substance of tathatā is genuine cognitive awareness.' / Fifth, the difference between having a self and not having a self: The Emptiness school takes having a self as false and non-self as true. The Nature school takes non-self as false and having a self as true. Therefore the Nirvāṇasūtra says: 'Non-self is called saṃsāra; self is called Tathāgata.' / Sixth, the difference between negative expression (apoha) and affirmative expression: 'Negative' means expelling what is not; 'affirmative' means revealing what is. Again, 'negative' is rejecting everything else; 'affirmative' is directly showing the thing itself. For instance, when various sūtras speak of the wondrous nature of tathatā, they constantly say 'neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure, without cause and without fruit, signless and unconditioned, neither ordinary nor noble, neither nature nor characteristic', and so forth—these are all negative expressions, expelling errors and erasing traces, cutting off thoughts and eliminating passions. When they say 'knowledge and vision, awareness and illumination, numinous mirror and bright radiance, clearly distinct and luminous, stately and tranquil', and so forth—these are all affirmative expressions. If there were no substance such as knowledge and vision, what dharma would be revealed as the nature, and what dharma would be said to be unarisen and unceasing? One must recognize that which is currently, distinctly aware right now as one's own citta-nature; only then can one say that this awareness is neither arising nor ceasing. For example, to say of salt that it is 'not bland' is negative; to say it is 'salty' is affirmative. To say of water that it is 'not dry' is negative; to say it is 'wet' is affirmative. The Emptiness school only negates; the Nature school has both negation and affirmation. People nowadays all consider negative words to be deep and affirmative words to be shallow; thus they only value phrases like 'not citta, not Buddha', 'unconditioned and signless', up to 'everything is unobtainable'. This is simply because they take words that negate error as marvelous and do not wish to personally realize and recognize the substance of the Dharma. Furthermore, if one truly recognizes that one's citta is not like empty space, that its nature is spontaneously spiritual and understanding, not awakened through another, how could it depend on arising through conditions? If not responding to capacities according to worldly conventions of language, even true words of affirmation would not exist on the self-nature; how could there be skillful explanations of negating error? People nowadays who have not truly and personally verified the seeing of nature merely emulate superficial comprehension, transmitting sentiment and conceptual understanding. They only grasp the marvel in words, taking texts of negating error and extinguishing extremes as the ultimate criterion. Because they have not seen the truth, they do not abide on solid ground, leaning entirely on emptiness and turning along with words. Recently this has become particularly prevalent and cannot be halted. Were it not for former sages of previous generations who were broadly learned and well-studied, who deeply entered the ocean of teachings and marvelously grasped the Chan source, how could these fine subtleties be pointed out and stated, harmonized and integrated from beginning to end, revealing the nature of the one numinous spirit and uncovering the source of the ten thousand dharmas? Therefore, I have fully recorded essential passages so that together they illuminate the mirror of the source. / Seventh, the difference between recognizing the name and recognizing the substance: Both Buddhist dharmas and worldly dharmas each have name and substance. Take, for instance, what the world calls 'great', which is nothing more than four things. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Earth, water, fire, and wind are the names of the four things; hardness, wetness, warmth, and motion are the substances of the four things.' Now let us speak of water. Suppose someone asks: 'I always hear that settling it makes it clear, stirring it makes it turbid, damming it stops it, breaching it makes it flow, and that it can irrigate all things and wash away all filth—what thing is this?' (Asking by citing its functions, meanings, and operations.) The answer says: 'It is water.' (Answering by citing the name.) The foolish recognize the name and think they have already understood. The wise should further ask: 'What is water?' (Inquiring into its substance.) The answer says: 'Wetness is water.' (Pointing strictly to the substance.) The Buddhadharma is also like this. Suppose someone asks: 'I always hear the various sūtras say: deluded about it, it is defiled; awakened to it, it is pure; letting it loose, one is ordinary; cultivating it, one is noble; it can produce all worldly and world-transcending dharmas—what thing is this?' (Asking by citing its functions, meanings, and operations.) The answer says: 'It is citta.' (Answering by citing the name.) The foolish recognize the name and consider that they already know it. The wise should further ask: 'What is citta?' (Inquiring into its substance.) The answer says: 'Awareness is citta.' (Pointing to its substance.) This single word is closest and most accurate; all other words and explanations are distant. If one says that 'neither nature nor characteristic', 'being able to speak and utter words', etc., are the substance, and that 'cognitive deliberation and dynamic functioning' are citta, how does that differ from what the other person asked? Deducing from this: of the name and substance of water, the name is just one character, and the rest are meanings and functions; the single character 'wetness' runs through the ten thousand functions and meanings such as clarity and turbidity. The name and substance of citta are also like this: the single character 'awareness' runs through the ten thousand functions and meanings such as greed, anger, compassion, patience, good, evil, suffering, and pleasure. One must directly awaken to the fact that 'water' is the name, not water; 'wetness' is water, not the name—then whether clear or turbid, frozen or flowing, there is no meaning that is not penetrated. By analogy, 'citta' is the name, not citta; 'awareness' is citta, not the name—then whether true or false, good or evil, there is no meaning that is not penetrated. Because the Emptiness school and the Characteristic school are for beginners and those of shallow capacity, fearing they will produce attachment following words, they only mark the name and negate its errors, merely expanding upon meanings and functions to guide their intent. Because the Nature school is for long-term practitioners and those of superior faculties, to make them forget words and recognize the substance, it directly indicates with one word. (Bodhidharma said: 'Indicating with one word to directly reveal'—that is, the single character 'awareness'. If one says 'Mind is itself Buddha', this is four characters.) If one's understanding is without error and one personally illuminates the nature of numinous awareness, only then, upon the substance, does one illuminate and inspect the meanings and functions; thus nothing is not penetrated. / Eighth, the difference between two truths and three truths: The Emptiness school has only two truths. The Nature school subsumes all natures, characteristics, and self-substances, totaling three truths: taking conditionally arisen forms and other dharmas as the conventional truth; because conditions lack self-nature, all phenomena being empty is the ultimate truth; the substance of the one true citta, being neither empty nor form, yet capable of being empty and capable of being form, is the supreme ultimate truth of the middle way. / Ninth, the difference regarding emptiness and existence in the three natures: The Emptiness school says that existence is the parikalpita (imputed) and paratantra (dependent), and emptiness is the pariniṣpanna (consummated). The Nature school holds that all three dharmas possess the meanings of both emptiness and existence: parikalpita is existent in sentiment but non-existent in principle; paratantra is existent in characteristic but non-existent in nature; pariniṣpanna is non-existent in sentiment but existent in principle. / Tenth, the difference regarding emptiness and existence in the Buddha's virtues: The Emptiness school says that the Buddha takes emptiness as virtue, and that the absence of any dharma whatsoever is called bodhi. The Nature school says that the self-substance of all Buddhas has eternity, bliss, self, and purity, the ten bodies and ten knowledges, and inexhaustible major and minor marks, which are fundamentally intrinsic to its nature, not waiting upon capacities and conditions. / The ten differences being distinct, the two gates are radiant. Therefore, one must first, based on the three kinds of Buddhist teachings, verify the Chan citta of the three sources, and thereafter both Chan and teachings are forgotten, and Buddha and citta are both quiescent. When both are quiescent, thought after thought is Buddha, with not a single thought that is not the Buddha-citta; when both are forgotten, phrase after phrase is Chan, with not a single phrase that is not Chan teaching. If so, then naturally when one hears explanations of total elimination with nowhere to rely, one knows this is to crush one's clinging sentiment; when one hears words of ceasing falsity and cultivating citta, one knows this is to cut off one's habit energy. When clinging sentiment is crushed, the true nature is revealed—thus total elimination is the source that reveals the nature; when habit energy is exhausted, the Buddha path is completed—thus cultivating citta is the practice that accomplishes Buddhahood. Sudden and gradual mutually illumine; emptiness and existence mutually complete. If one can be so perfectly penetrating, then when speaking for others, nothing is not a wondrous prescription; when hearing others speak, nothing is not a wondrous medicine. The difference between medicine and illness lies only in clinging versus penetration. Thus former worthies said: 'When clung to, character by character is a festering boil; when penetrated, text by text is wondrous medicine.' / As above, relying on teachings and relying on the source, summarizing and harmonizing, picking out the root and branch of the essential source, analyzing the differences of dharma and meaning, weighing the similarities and differences of sudden and gradual, integrating the harmony of true and false, reconciling the reciprocal play of negative and affirmative, and appraising the depth of expedient and real—this may be called gathering the billows of the ocean of teachings so that they are calm within the palm, and clustering the constellations of the sky of meanings so that they are brilliant before one's eyes. Then all doubts are suddenly dispelled, and the wondrous intent is clearly open. / If one establishes dharmas and realms outside citta, giving rise to the beginnings of contention, and transforms self and other upon consciousness, serving as the gradual cause of victory and defeat, one then establishes emptiness and refutes existence, or welcomes existence and rejects emptiness; one honors the teachings and disparages Chan, or upholds Chan and dismisses the teachings. The two paths of expedient and real become constant causes of obstruction; the two schools of nature and characteristics forever produce views of enmity. All this is because the flame of the lamp of wisdom is short and the light of the mind-mirror is dim; ultimately they cannot enter the gate of non-contention nor tread the path of the one reality. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 34.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.34.26) - [Next: 34.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.34.28) - [Up: 34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.34) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.34.27) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [禪源諸詮集都序](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2015.2.2.1) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.34.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.34.27) · Pramāṇa