宗鏡錄 35.8

35.8

答曰。前觀雖照二諦。破用不等。次觀亦照二諦。破用平等。既不見中道。但是異時平等。第三觀者。得見中道。雙照二諦。即是一時平等也。若修觀心。還用前二觀雙亡雙照之方便也。雙亡方便者。初觀知俗非俗。即是俗空。次觀知真非真。即是真空。非真非俗。即是中道。因是二空觀。入中道第一義諦觀。今明一心三觀者。一明所觀不思議之境者。即是一念無明心。因緣所生十法界以為境也。此心神微妙。一念具一切三世諸心諸法。譬眠法覆心。一念之內。夢見一切諸心諸事。若正眠夢之時。謂經無量。如法華經。說夢見初發心。乃至成佛無量諸事。比其覺時。反觀。只是一念眠心也。心譬自性清淨心。眠法覆心。譬於無明。無量夢事。譬恒沙無知。覆一切恒沙佛法。夢事不實善惡憂喜。譬見思惑覆真空也。若不細尋夢譬。不思議之疑終無決理。故諸大乘經多說十喻。但諸法師。不圓取譬。意止偏得虛偽空邊。不見譬無量無明法性邊也。故三諦之境義不成也。二明能觀者。若觀此一念無明之心。非空非假。一切諸法亦非空非假。而能知心空假。即照一切法空假。是即一心三觀。圓照三諦之理。不斷癡愛。起諸明脫。若水澄清。珠相自現。此即觀行即也。三明證成者。若證一心三觀。即是一心三智五眼也。若得六根清淨。名相似證。即十信位也。若發真無漏。名分證真實。即此是初住也。經云。一念知一切法是道場。成就一切智故。大品經云。有菩薩從初發心。即坐道場。當知是菩薩為如佛也。智度論云。三智其實一心中得。佛。欲分別為人說。令易解故。所以次第說耳。又總明三種三觀。一者別相三觀。二者通相三觀。三者一心三觀。一別相三觀者。歷別觀三諦。若從假入空。但得觀真。尚不得觀俗。豈得觀中道也。若從空入假。但得觀俗。尚未得觀中道。若入中道正觀。方得雙照二諦。三通相三觀者。則異於此。從假入空。非但知俗假是空。真諦中道亦通是空也。若從空入假。非但知俗假是假。真空中道亦通是假。若入中道正觀。非但知中道是中。俗真通是中也。是則一空一切空。無假無中。而不空。一假一切假。無中無空。而不假。一中一切中。無假無空。而不中。但以一觀當名。解心無不通也。三一心三觀者。知一念心不可得不可說。而能圓觀三諦也。即淨名經云。一念知一切法是道場。成就一切智故。是以在境。為一諦而三諦。在心為一觀而三觀。在果為一智而三智。如一圓珠。珠相喻有。珠徹淨喻空。圓明喻中。三無前後。此喻一諦而三諦。若以明鏡照之。珠上。三義一時頓現。即喻一觀而三觀。若就鏡中觀珠。珠之與鏡非一非異。則喻心境二而不二。為真覺也。妙觀者。觀一念心為所緣境。返觀此心。從何處來。去至何所。淨若虛空。名空觀。觀境歷歷分明。名假觀。雖歷歷分明。而性常自空。而境觀歷然。名中觀。即三而一。即一而三。語默行住。不生不滅。不常不斷。不一不異。不來不去。不有不無。不住不著。不垢不淨。不愛不取。不虛不實。不縛不脫。皆不生不滅之異名。義無別也。即空不住空。即假不住假。即中不住中。是名中。何以故。為即空。空有何可住。即假。幻化影。復何可住。二邊既無可住。豈有中可住。故曰三諦無住。是名為中。當須如此。空中無空只勿空。假中無假只勿假。中中無中只勿中。當如是照。照中無照只勿照。若見如是理。即見萬物而自虛也。此三觀者。是不思議境。若闕一觀。境智不成。故云不思議。備收一切法。一切雖多。十法界收盡。既其鎔融。一則具十成百法界。一界又具十如。一如又具三種世間。謂五陰。眾生。國土。千如則有三千世間。名不思議假。此假即空即中。若無中。攝理不遍。若無十界。收事不盡。若無十如。因果不具。若無三種世間。依正不足。故知實相。悉總諸法。重重無盡。融融無礙。猶如帝網。名不思議境也。凡聖同有此理。故云己之三千。遍彼三千。彼彼三千。互遍亦爾。故得依正終日炳然。無所分別。法界洞朗。為顯此境。故云觀不思議境也。如三觀頌云。空觀如性不可得。假觀相含法界。邊中觀體等理無二。即一而三常宛然。又空觀。了諸法無自性故。二假觀。此空處具諸法故。三中觀。空假無別體故。唯一真心故。以空是心之性。即是真空。非是但空。以假是心之相。即是妙假。非是偏假。性相分三而非三。真心冥一而非一。非一而三觀宛然。非三而一心不動。又即一而三相不同。如鏡體一有光明影像差別之相。即三而一體無異。如影像光明。俱同一鏡。又古釋三觀義云。一念心起。起無起相。徹底唯空。三際寂然。了不可得。無見聞覺知相。無眼耳鼻舌身意相。空觀也。一念心起。有三千世間相。國土世間一千。山河大地日月星辰是也。五陰世間一千。染淨一切色心是也。眾生世間一千。六凡四聖假質是也。一念心起。三千性相一時起。一念心滅。三千性相一時滅也。念外無一毫法可得。法外無一毫念可得也。此心性圓明。一而能多。小而能大。染而能淨。因而能果。有而能無。故一一色。一一香。一一念。介爾有心。即具三千也。一處見多。多處見一。一念即多劫。多劫即一念。重重互現。喻天帝珠網。此假觀也。一念心起。起而無起。三際寂然。無起而起。三千性相。非空非假。雙照空假。此中觀也。說即有三名字。照時不作三一解。只念念見自心性。任運非三非一。亦不用破除身心。亦不要安立境觀。念想斷處。一切時中任運心常三觀也。人無圓機。自謂我是凡穢。我多煩惱。我智慧劣。我是生死人。此乃瞖眼見空華。空實無華也。圓人觀明。觸事全同古佛。非分同也。何以故。法性圓理。三德三身。只是一念。不可分故。此圓理亦無次位。為人未能任運常觀。觀有斷續。我性未破。破而未盡故。分六即四十二位。點空接引令至無修耳。或謂凡人但有佛法身性。未有報化德用。此乃別教中解。圓觀惑業苦三本自無性。全是三德。三德本無住處。住惑業苦中。三身三道。悉是假名。畢竟空中。了不可得。無惡可捨。無道可證。纔見有一毫理可依泊者。便是妄境牽生心。三觀不明也。學人嫌惡貪瞋癡。作意斷除。殊不知此嫌惡心自是惑也。若纔覺起。即照此起處。自無性不可取捨。三觀明也。若別作對治。別作真如實相解。別作佛菩薩想。別運身心遍法界想。並非圓意。圓人即念無念耳。若謂能覺知識別者是心。此是心苗。非心性也。故云動是法王苗。寂是法王根。心性者。三觀明時是也。三觀明時。不見有情無情。佛與眾生。若罪若福。在我觀內。在我觀外。在我觀中。皆不可也。若不明三觀。妄情計佛性在身中。計遍草木上。經中喚作遍計所執性。外道所宗。四教所不攝。況圓人解乎。夫中觀難明。圓解微妙。凡言中者。有二種中。一但中。二圓中。如首楞嚴經明八還義。若析前塵。見無還處。見性獨妙。但中也。見與見緣。元是菩提。妙淨明體。云何於中有是非是。此圓中也。又空假即中。但中也。中即空假。不但中也。即是圓中。如藏通二教。是但空。即析色體塵。歸徹底自性之空。如別圓二教。是不可得空。具中道佛性不空之理。傅大士頌云。獨自精。其實離聲名。三觀一心融萬品。荊棘叢林何處生。釋曰。若能內觀返照獨精自心。何言詮所及。故云其實離聲名。了此一念心。起處不可得。是名空觀。即於空處。見緣生法。似有現顯。故云一切法。是一切法。非於無性無像。而有得有像。是名假觀。求空不得空。尋假不得假。非空非假。全是一心。是名中觀。念念具三觀之法。塵塵成佛智之門。故云三觀一心融萬品。則煩惱荊棘。五陰叢林。生死根株。我慢原阜。更從何處而起。故云荊棘叢林何處生。普賢觀云。止觀十門者。一心行稱理。攝散名止。二止不滯寂。不礙觀事。三由理事交徹而必俱。遂使止觀無礙而雙運。四理事形奪而俱盡。故止觀兩亡而絕寄。五絕理事無礙之境。與泯止觀無礙之心。二而不二。故不礙心境而一味。不二而二故。不壞一味而心境。六由即理之事。收一切法故。即止之觀。亦見一切。七由此事即是彼事故。令止觀見此心即是彼心。八由前中六則一多相入而非一。七則一多相是而非異。此二不二同一法界。止觀無二之智。頓見即入二門。同一法界而無散動。九由事則重重無盡。止觀亦普眼齊照。十即此普門之智為主故。頓照普門法界時。必攝一切為伴。無盡無盡。

The commentary of Tiantai answers: "Although the former contemplation illuminates the two truths, its refuting and functioning are unequal. The next contemplation also illuminates the two truths, and its refuting and functioning are equal; yet since it does not see the Middle Way, it is merely equal at different times. As for the third contemplation, it attains vision of the Middle Way and simultaneously illuminates the two truths, which is equality at one and the same time. If one cultivates the mind of contemplation, one still employs the expedients of double negation and double illumination of the previous two contemplations. As for the expedient of double negation: the initial contemplation knows the conventional to be non-conventional, which is the emptiness of the conventional; the next contemplation knows the ultimate to be non-ultimate, which is the emptiness of the ultimate. Being neither ultimate nor conventional is the Middle Way. Through these two emptiness contemplations, one enters the contemplation of the Middle Way as the supreme truth. Now, to elucidate the threefold contemplation in one mind: First, elucidating the inconceivable object to be contemplated: it is the single thought-moment of the mind of ignorance, taking the ten dharmadhātus arisen from causes and conditions as its object. This mind is wondrous and subtle; a single thought-moment possesses all the minds and phenomena of the three periods of time. For example, when the factor of sleep covers the mind, within a single thought-moment one dreams and sees all minds and all matters. When one is directly in the midst of sleeping and dreaming, one supposes that an immeasurable time has elapsed—as the Lotus Sūtra describes, dreaming of generating the initial resolve up to immeasurable matters of attaining buddhahood; yet when compared with the time of awakening and looking back, it is merely a single thought-moment of the sleeping mind. The mind is compared to the intrinsically pure mind; the factor of sleep covering the mind is compared to ignorance; the immeasurable dream matters are compared to the nescience numerous as the sands of the Ganges, which covers all the Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges; and the unreality of the dream matters, with their good, evil, sorrow, and joy, is compared to the afflictions of view and thought covering ultimate emptiness. If one does not closely investigate the dream analogy, doubts regarding the inconceivable will ultimately never be resolved. Therefore, the Mahāyāna sūtras often speak of the ten analogies. However, the Dharma masters do not adopt the analogies comprehensively; their intention stops with grasping exclusively the side of falsity and emptiness, failing to see the side of the analogy representing immeasurable ignorance and the dharma-nature. Hence, the meaning of the object as the threefold truth is not established. Second, elucidating that which contemplates: If one contemplates this single thought-moment of the mind of ignorance as neither empty nor provisional, all phenomena are likewise neither empty nor provisional. Yet being able to know the mind as empty and provisional, one immediately illuminates all phenomena as empty and provisional. This is the threefold contemplation in one mind, roundly illuminating the principle of the threefold truth. Without severing delusion and attachment, one gives rise to luminously clear liberations. As when water becomes clear and still, the form of the gem naturally reveals itself; this is the stage of identity in contemplative practice. Third, elucidating realization and accomplishment: If one realizes the threefold contemplation in one mind, this is the three wisdoms and the five eyes in one mind. If one attains the purification of the six sense faculties, it is called the realization of resemblance, which is the stage of the ten faiths. If one brings forth genuine uncontaminated [wisdom], it is called the partial realization of reality, which is the first abode. The sūtra says: 'Knowing in a single thought-moment that all phenomena are the bodhimaṇḍa, because of accomplishing the all-inclusive wisdom.' The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'There are bodhisattvas who, from the initial resolve, immediately sit upon the bodhimaṇḍa; one should know that such bodhisattvas are like the Buddha.' The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'The three wisdoms are in truth attained in one mind; because the Buddha wished to explain them distinctly for people so that they might easily understand, he expounded them in sequence.' Furthermore, generally elucidating the three kinds of threefold contemplation: The first is the threefold contemplation of distinct characteristics; the second is the threefold contemplation of shared characteristics; the third is the threefold contemplation in one mind. 1. As for the threefold contemplation of distinct characteristics: One contemplates the threefold truth successively. If one enters emptiness from the provisional, one only attains contemplation of the ultimate and does not yet attain contemplation of the conventional—how could one attain contemplation of the Middle Way? If one enters the provisional from emptiness, one only attains contemplation of the conventional and does not yet attain contemplation of the Middle Way. Only if one enters the correct contemplation of the Middle Way does one then simultaneously illuminate the two truths. 2. The threefold contemplation of shared characteristics is different from this: When entering emptiness from the provisional, not only does one know that the conventional provisional is empty, but the ultimate truth and the Middle Way are also universally empty. When entering the provisional from emptiness, not only does one know that the conventional provisional is provisional, but ultimate emptiness and the Middle Way are also universally provisional. If one enters the correct contemplation of the Middle Way, not only does one know that the Middle Way is middle, but the conventional and the ultimate are also universally middle. Thus, one empty is all empty—there is neither provisional nor middle that is not empty; one provisional is all provisional—there is neither middle nor empty that is not provisional; one middle is all middle—there is neither provisional nor empty that is not middle. Merely designated by the name of a single contemplation, the understanding mind is unobstructed in all. 3. As for the threefold contemplation in one mind: Knowing that a single thought-moment of the mind is unobtainable and ineffable, one can roundly contemplate the threefold truth. That is what the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'Knowing in a single thought-moment that all phenomena are the bodhimaṇḍa, because of accomplishing the all-inclusive wisdom.' Therefore, in the object, it is one truth and yet three truths; in the mind, it is one contemplation and yet three contemplations; in the fruition, it is one wisdom and yet three wisdoms. Like a round gem: the form of the gem is compared to existence, the thorough clarity of the gem is compared to emptiness, and its round brightness is compared to the middle; the three have no before or after. This is an analogy for one truth being three truths. If one illuminates it with a clear mirror, the three meanings on the gem appear simultaneously all at once; this is an analogy for one contemplation being three contemplations. If one regards the gem within the mirror, the gem and the mirror are neither one nor different; this is an analogy for mind and object being two and yet non-dual, being genuine awakening. As for the wondrous contemplation: One contemplates a single thought-moment of the mind as the objective support. Looking back into this mind: Whence did it come? Whither does it go? Pure as empty space—this is called the contemplation of emptiness. Contemplating the object vividly distinct—this is called the contemplation of the provisional. Although vividly distinct, its nature is constantly inherently empty, yet object and contemplation remain distinct—this is called the contemplation of the Middle. The three are the one; the one is the three. Whether in speech, silence, moving, or staying: neither arising nor ceasing, neither eternal nor annihilated, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going, neither existing nor non-existing, neither abiding nor clinging, neither defiled nor pure, neither craving nor grasping, neither unreal nor real, neither bound nor liberated—all are different names for neither arising nor ceasing, without difference in meaning. Being empty, one does not abide in emptiness; being provisional, one does not abide in the provisional; being middle, one does not abide in the middle—this is called the middle. Why is this? Because being empty, what emptiness is there to abide in? Being provisional, what illusory phantom is there to abide in? Since neither of the two extremes can be abided in, how could there be a middle to abide in? Therefore it is said: the threefold truth has no abiding; this is called the middle. It must be thus: In emptiness there is no emptiness—just do not make it empty; in the provisional there is no provisional—just do not make it provisional; in the middle there is no middle—just do not make it middle. One should illuminate in this manner: In illumination there is no illumination—just do not illuminate. If one sees such a principle, one immediately sees that the myriad things are naturally empty. These three contemplations are the inconceivable object. If one contemplation is lacking, object and wisdom are not accomplished; therefore it is called inconceivable. It comprehensively gathers all phenomena. Although 'all' is vast, the ten dharmadhātus gather them completely. Since they are inter-fused, one possesses ten, forming one hundred dharmadhātus; each realm further possesses the ten suchnesses; each suchness further possesses the three kinds of worlds—namely the five aggregates, sentient beings, and the lands. A thousand suchnesses then have three thousand worlds, which is called the inconceivable provisional. This provisional is identical to emptiness and identical to the middle. If there were no middle, it would not pervade principle. If there were no ten realms, it would not exhaust phenomena. If there were no ten suchnesses, causes and effects would not be complete. If there were no three kinds of worlds, dependent and proper [retributions] would be insufficient. Therefore one knows that the true characteristic completely unifies all phenomena, layer upon layer without end, harmonious and unobstructed, just like Indra's net; this is called the inconceivable object. Ordinary beings and sages alike possess this principle; therefore it is said that one's own three thousand pervades their three thousand, and each of their three thousand mutually pervades likewise. Therefore, dependent and proper [retributions] are brilliantly clear throughout the entire day without differentiation, and the dharmadhātu is penetratingly bright. To reveal this object, it is said: 'Contemplating the inconceivable object.' As the 'Verse on the Threefold Contemplation' says: 'The contemplation of emptiness is like the nature, unobtainable; / The contemplation of the provisional has forms containing the dharmadhātu. / The contemplation of the middle has the substance equal, the principle without duality; / Identical with the one, the three are constantly distinct.' Furthermore: The contemplation of emptiness understands all phenomena to lack intrinsic nature. Second, the contemplation of the provisional: within this emptiness, all phenomena are present. Third, the contemplation of the middle: emptiness and the provisional have no distinct substance, being solely the one true mind. Because emptiness is the nature of the mind, it is genuine emptiness, not mere emptiness. Because the provisional is the characteristic of the mind, it is wondrous provisionality, not one-sided provisionality. Nature and characteristic are divided into three yet are not three; the true mind is darkly unified as one yet is not one. Not being one, the three contemplations are distinct; not being three, the one mind is unmoving. Furthermore, being identical with the one, the three characteristics are not the same, just as the substance of a mirror is one, yet has the differentiated characteristics of brightness and reflected images; being identical with the three, the one substance has no difference, just as reflected images and brightness are together the same single mirror. Furthermore, an ancient interpretation of the meaning of the threefold contemplation says: When a single thought-moment arises in the mind, its arising has no characteristic of arising; it is thoroughly only empty, the three times are tranquil, it is completely unobtainable, without characteristics of seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognizing, and without characteristics of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind—this is the contemplation of emptiness. When a single thought-moment arises in the mind, it possesses the characteristics of the three thousand worlds: the world of lands is one thousand, which is the mountains, rivers, great earth, sun, moon, stars, and constellations; the world of the five aggregates is one thousand, which is all defiled and pure forms and minds; the world of sentient beings is one thousand, which is the provisional entities of the six ordinary and four noble [realms]. When a single thought-moment arises in the mind, the three thousand natures and characteristics arise simultaneously; when a single thought-moment in the mind ceases, the three thousand natures and characteristics cease simultaneously. Outside thought, not a single hair of a phenomenon can be obtained; outside phenomena, not a single hair of a thought can be obtained. This nature of the mind is roundly bright: being one, it can be many; being small, it can be large; being defiled, it can be pure; being cause, it can be fruit; being existent, it can be non-existent. Therefore, every single form, every single fragrance, every single thought-moment—as soon as there is a mind, it possesses the three thousand. In one place one sees many; in many places one sees one. A single thought-moment is many kalpas; many kalpas are a single thought-moment. Mutually appearing layer upon layer, like the pearl net of the Lord of Heaven—this is the contemplation of the provisional. When a single thought-moment arises in the mind, arising yet non-arising, the three times are tranquil; non-arising yet arising, the three thousand natures and characteristics are neither empty nor provisional, simultaneously illuminating emptiness and the provisional—this is the contemplation of the Middle. In explanation there are three names, but when illuminating one does not form an understanding of three or one; one simply moment by moment sees one's own mind-nature, which spontaneously is neither three nor one. Nor does one need to destroy body and mind; nor does one need to establish object and contemplation. At the point where thoughts and concepts are severed, at all times the mind spontaneously and constantly abides in the threefold contemplation. When people lack the capacity for the round [teaching], they say of themselves: 'I am ordinary and defiled; I have many afflictions; my wisdom is inferior; I am a person of birth and death.' This is like a cataract-afflicted eye seeing flowers in the sky, when in reality the sky has no flowers. The person of the round [teaching] has clear contemplation, and in engaging all matters is entirely identical to the ancient Buddhas, not partially identical. Why is this? Because the round principle of the dharma-nature, the three virtues, and the three bodies are merely a single thought-moment, which cannot be divided. This round principle also has no hierarchical stages; yet because people cannot yet spontaneously and constantly contemplate—their contemplation having interruption and continuation, and the self-nature being unbroken or broken but not exhausted—six identities and forty-two stages are distinguished, pointing to emptiness to guide them so that they may reach non-cultivation. Some say that ordinary people only possess the Buddha's dharmakāya nature, but not yet the virtuous functions of the reward and transformation [bodies]; this is an understanding within the Distinct Teaching. The round contemplation regards the three of affliction, karma, and suffering as fundamentally having no nature, being entirely the three virtues. The three virtues fundamentally have no abiding place, abiding within affliction, karma, and suffering. The three bodies and the three paths are all provisional designations; in ultimate emptiness, they are completely unobtainable. There is no evil to abandon, and no Path to realize. As soon as one sees even a single hair of principle upon which to rely, that is a deluded object pulling forth an arising mind, and the threefold contemplation is not clear. Practitioners detest greed, anger, and delusion, intentionally cutting them off; they do not realize that this detesting mind is itself delusion. If as soon as it is perceived to arise, one illuminates the place of this arising as naturally devoid of nature and beyond grasping and abandoning, the threefold contemplation is clear. If one separately applies antidotes, separately makes an understanding of tathatā and the true characteristic, separately forms thoughts of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, or separately imagines moving body and mind to pervade the dharmadhātu, none of this is the round intent. The person of the round [teaching] finds no-thought in the very thought. If one says that that which can perceive, cognize, recognize, and discern is the mind, this is the sprout of the mind, not the mind-nature. Therefore it is said: 'Movement is the sprout of the Dharma King; stillness is the root of the Dharma King.' The mind-nature is when the threefold contemplation is clear. When the threefold contemplation is clear, one does not see sentient and insentient, Buddhas and sentient beings, sin and merit—[thinking of them as] inside my contemplation, outside my contemplation, or within my contemplation are all impermissible. If one does not understand the threefold contemplation, one's deluded feelings falsely impute that Buddha-nature is inside the body, or impute that it pervades grass and trees; this is called in the sūtras the 'imputed nature' (parikalpitasvabhāva), the doctrine of non-Buddhists, not subsumed under the four teachings—how much less could it be the understanding of a person of the round [teaching]! The contemplation of the Middle is difficult to illuminate, and the round understanding is wondrous and subtle. Whenever one speaks of 'the Middle', there are two kinds of the Middle: first, the mere Middle; second, the round Middle. As when the Śūraṅgamasūtra explains the meaning of the eight returns: if one analyzes external objects, seeing has no place of return, and the nature of seeing is uniquely wondrous—this is the mere Middle. 'Seeing and the conditions of seeing are originally bodhi, the wondrous, pure, and bright substance; how could there be right and wrong within it?'—this is the round Middle. Furthermore, emptiness and the provisional being identical to the Middle is the mere Middle; the Middle being identical to emptiness and the provisional is not merely the Middle, but is the round Middle. For example, the two teachings of the Tripiṭaka and the Shared are 'mere emptiness', which analyzes form and embodies dust, returning to emptiness of intrinsic nature through and through; the two teachings of the Distinct and the Round are 'unobtainable emptiness', possessing the principle of the Middle Way Buddha-nature which is not empty. The verse of Mahāsattva Fu says: 'Solitary, intrinsically refined, / In truth detached from voice and name. / The threefold contemplation in one mind fuses the myriad kinds; / Whence could the thicket of thorns arise?' Commentary: If one can internally contemplate and reflect back, uniquely refining one's own mind, what words and explanations could reach it? Therefore it says: 'In truth detached from voice and name.' Comprehending that the arising place of this single thought-moment is unobtainable is called the contemplation of emptiness. Right at the place of emptiness, seeing conditionally arisen phenomena appearing as if existent—therefore it says: 'All phenomena are all phenomena; it is not that within naturelessness and formlessness there is obtaining and form'—this is called the contemplation of the provisional. Seeking emptiness, one does not find emptiness; pursuing the provisional, one does not find the provisional; neither empty nor provisional, it is entirely the one mind—this is called the contemplation of the Middle. Moment by moment possessing the dharma of the threefold contemplation, dust by dust becoming the gate of the Buddha's wisdom; therefore it says: 'The threefold contemplation in one mind fuses the myriad kinds.' Then the thorns of affliction, the thickets of the five aggregates, the roots of birth and death, and the mounds of self-pride—whence could they arise again? Therefore it says: 'Whence could the thicket of thorns arise?' The Contemplation of Samantabhadra states: As for the ten gates of calm and insight: 1. Mind and practice conform to principle, and gathering dispersion is called calm. 2. Calm does not stagnate in quiescence, and does not obstruct the contemplation of phenomena. 3. Because principle and phenomena interpenetrate and must coexist, calm and insight are operated simultaneously without obstruction. 4. Principle and phenomena mutually displace and are both exhausted; thus calm and insight are both negated and transcend reliance. 5. Severing the object of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena and extinguishing the mind of the non-obstruction of calm and insight are two and yet non-dual; hence, without obstructing mind and object, they are of one taste; they are non-dual and yet two, hence without destroying the one taste, they are mind and object. 6. Because phenomena that are identical with principle gather all dharmas, the insight identical with calm also sees all. 7. Because this phenomenon is that phenomenon, calm and insight are caused to see this mind as that mind. 8. From the previous [gates], the sixth means the one and the many enter each other yet are not one, and the seventh means the one and the many are identical yet not different; these two are non-dual, being the same single dharmadhātu; the non-dual wisdom of calm and insight suddenly sees the two gates of identity and entry as the same single dharmadhātu without dispersion or movement. 9. Because phenomena are layer upon layer without end, calm and insight also simultaneously illuminate with the universal eye. 10. Because this wisdom of the universal gate is the master, when it suddenly illuminates the dharmadhātu of the universal gate, it necessarily gathers all as companions, inexhaustible and endless."