[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) › 45.2.1 # 宗鏡錄 45.2.1 宗鏡錄 45.2.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [45.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.45.2.1) 夫已上是引台教明定慧二法安心。 次依華嚴宗釋。 華嚴經云。 於眼根中入正定。 於色塵中從定出。 示現色性不思議。 一切天人莫能知。 於色塵中入正定。 於眼起定心不亂。 說眼無生無有起。 性空寂滅無所作。 疏釋云。 定慧雖多。 不出二種。 一事。 二理。 制之一處。 無事不辦。 事定門也。 能觀心性。 契理不動。 理定門也。 明達法相。 事觀也。 善了無生。 理觀也。 諸經論中。 或單說事定。 或但明理定。 二觀亦然。 或敵體事理。 止觀相對。 或以事觀。 對於理定。 如起信論云。 止一切相。 乃至心不可得為止。 而觀因緣生滅為觀。 或以理觀。 對於事定。 此經云。 一心不動入諸禪。 了境無生名般若是也。 或俱通二。 此經云。 禪定持心常一緣。 智慧了境同三昧是也。 或二俱泯。 非定非散。 或即觀之定。 但名為定。 如觀心性名上定是也。 或即定之觀。 但名為觀。 如以無分別智觀名般若是也。 或說雙運。 謂即寂之照是也。 所以局見之者。 隨矚一文。 互相非撥。 偏修之者。 隨入一門。 皆有剋證。 然非圓暢。 今此經文。 巧顯無礙。 略分五對。 第一對。 根境無礙。 謂觀根入定。 應從根出。 而從境出者。 為顯根境。 唯是一心。 緣起無二理性融通。 是故根入境出耳。 境入根出亦然。 第二對。 理事二定無礙。 謂分別事相。 應入事定。 而入理定。 欲觀性空。 應入理定。 而入事定。 以契即事之理而不動故。 入理即是入事。 制心即理之事。 而一緣故。 入事即是入理。 而經文但云。 入正定。 不言事理。 及乎出觀。 境中即云分別色相。 斯事觀也。 根中即云性空寂者。 理觀也。 亦合將根事對於境理。 以辯無礙。 第三對。 事理二觀無礙。 謂欲分別事相。 應從事觀起。 而反從理觀起。 以所觀之境。 既真俗雙融。 法界不二故。 分別事智。 即是無生之智。 二觀唯是一心故。 亦應將境事理。 對根事理以辯無礙。 第四出入無礙。 以起定即是入定故。 起定而心不亂。 若以事理相望。 應成四句。 謂事入事起。 事入理起。 理入理起。 理入事起。 若以根境相望。 又成四句。 謂根事入。 境事起等。 一一思之。 皆有所由。 又或以理觀對於事止。 謂契理妄息也。 或事觀對於理寂。 謂無念知境也。 或事觀對於事寂。 謂觀於一境。 心不動搖也。 或理觀對於理寂。 亡心照極也。 如百門義海云。 明出入定者。 謂見塵性空。 十方一切真實之理。 名為入定也。 然此見塵無性空理空時。 乃是十方之空也。 何以故。 由十方之心。 見於一塵。 是故全以十方為塵。 定亦不礙事相宛然。 是故起與定俱。 等虛空界。 但以一多融通。 同異無礙。 是故一入多起。 多入一起。 差別入一際起。 一際入差別起。 皆悉同時一際成立。 無有別異。 當知定即起。 起即定。 一與一切。 同時成立。 出入無礙也。 第五對。 二利體用無礙。 謂於深根起。 定心不亂。 是體也。 自利也。 而不礙理。 舒於廣境。 是用也。 人天不能知。 利他也。 良以。 體用無二故。 自利即是利他。 此上十義。 同為一聚法界緣起。 相即自在。 菩薩善達。 作用無礙。 又經且約根境相對。 亦應境境相對。 謂色塵入正受。 聲香三昧起。 復應根根相對。 謂眼根入正受。 耳根三昧起等。 云色性難思等者。 即色等總持。 是色。 陀羅尼自在佛等。 亦應云。 分別眼性難思。 有眼陀羅尼自在佛等。 又眼中云。 性空寂滅。 即眼之度門。 眼等本淨。 亦應云。 色等度門。 色等本淨。 不唯取相為染。 無心為淨而已也。 又以智論三觀束之。 分別色相等。 是假名觀也。 > Now, the above cited the Tiantai teachings to explain settling the mind through the two dharmas of concentration and wisdom. Next, \[this is\] explained in accordance with the Huayan school. The \*Avataṃsaka-sūtra\* says: > “Entering correct concentration in the eye faculty, > One emerges from concentration in visible forms, > Displaying the inconceivable nature of forms, > Which none among gods and humans can comprehend. > Entering correct concentration in visible forms, > One rises from concentration in the eye without a disturbed mind, > Stating that the eye is unborn and does not arise, > Its nature being empty, extinguished, and free from activity.” > The commentary explains: “Although concentrations and wisdoms are manifold, they do not exceed two kinds: first, phenomenal; second, noumenal. When one confines \[the mind\] to a single point, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished—this is the gate of phenomenal concentration. Being able to contemplate the citta-nature, matching the noumenon without wavering—this is the gate of noumenal concentration. Clearly comprehending the characteristics of phenomena is phenomenal contemplation. Skillfully understanding the unarisen is noumenal contemplation. In the various sūtras and treatises, sometimes phenomenal concentration alone is taught, or sometimes only noumenal concentration is clarified. The two contemplations are also like this. Or, with phenomenon and noumenon each standing as an opposing entity, śamatha and vipaśyanā face one another. Or, phenomenal contemplation is paired with noumenal concentration; as the \*Awakening of Faith\* says, ‘calming all characteristics, up to the mind being unobtainable, is śamatha, while contemplating arising and ceasing through causes and conditions is vipaśyanā.’ Or, noumenal contemplation is paired with phenomenal concentration; as this sūtra says, ‘with the one mind unmoving, entering the various dhyānas, while comprehending that objects are unarisen is called prajñā.’ Or, both pervade the two; as this sūtra says, ‘dhyāna-concentration holds the mind constantly to a single object, while wisdom comprehends that objects are identical to samādhi.’ Or, both are eradicated together, being neither concentrated nor distracted. Or, concentration is identical to contemplation, but is simply named concentration; as contemplating the citta-nature is called the supreme concentration. Or, contemplation is identical to concentration, but is simply named contemplation; as contemplating with non-conceptual wisdom is called prajñā. Or, the dual functioning is explained, which refers to illumination that is identical to quiescence. Therefore, those of narrow view, following whichever single passage they look upon, mutually negate each other; while those who practice one-sidedly, whichever single gate they enter, all achieve realization, yet it is not perfectly unobstructed. Now, this sūtra text skillfully reveals non-obstruction, briefly divided into five pairs. > First pair: non-obstruction of faculty and object. That is, contemplating the faculty to enter concentration, one ought to emerge from the faculty, yet one emerges from the object. This is to reveal that faculty and object are solely the one mind; dependent origination is non-dual, and the noumenal nature is thoroughly interpenetrating. Therefore, one enters in the faculty and emerges in the object. Entering in the object and emerging in the faculty is also like this. > Second pair: non-obstruction of the two concentrations of phenomenon and noumenon. That is, to distinguish phenomenal characteristics, one ought to enter phenomenal concentration, yet one enters noumenal concentration; wishing to contemplate emptiness of nature, one ought to enter noumenal concentration, yet one enters phenomenal concentration. Because matching the noumenon that is identical to phenomena is unmoving, entering the noumenon is precisely entering phenomena. Because holding the mind on a phenomenon that is identical to noumenon is a single object, entering phenomena is precisely entering the noumenon. Yet the sūtra text merely says ‘enters correct concentration,’ without speaking of phenomenon or noumenon. And when emerging into contemplation, within the object it immediately speaks of distinguishing the characteristics of form—this is phenomenal contemplation. Within the faculty it immediately speaks of the nature being empty and quiescent—this is noumenal contemplation. One should also pair the phenomenon of the faculty with the noumenon of the object to discern non-obstruction. > Third pair: non-obstruction of the two contemplations of phenomenon and noumenon. That is, wishing to distinguish phenomenal characteristics, one ought to arise from phenomenal contemplation, yet conversely arises from noumenal contemplation. Because the object contemplated has both the conventional and ultimate fused together and the dharmadhātu is non-dual, the wisdom distinguishing phenomena is precisely the wisdom of the unarisen, and the two contemplations are solely the one mind. One should also pair the phenomenon and noumenon of the object with the phenomenon and noumenon of the faculty to discern non-obstruction. > Fourth \[pair\]: non-obstruction of emerging and entering. Because rising from concentration is precisely entering concentration, one rises from concentration and the mind is not disturbed. If phenomenon and noumenon are considered in relation to one another, they should form four propositions: entering in phenomena and rising in phenomena; entering in phenomena and rising in noumenon; entering in noumenon and rising in noumenon; entering in noumenon and rising in phenomena. If faculty and object are considered in relation to one another, they also form four propositions: entering in the phenomenon of the faculty and rising in the phenomenon of the object, and so forth. If one considers each one, all have their reasons. Moreover, sometimes noumenal contemplation is paired with phenomenal calming, meaning that matching the noumenon, delusion ceases. Or, phenomenal contemplation is paired with noumenal quiescence, meaning that without thought one knows the object. Or, phenomenal contemplation is paired with phenomenal quiescence, meaning that contemplating a single object, the mind does not waver. Or, noumenal contemplation is paired with noumenal quiescence, meaning forgetting the mind and illuminating the ultimate. As the \*Sea of Meanings of the Hundred Gates\* says: ‘Explaining the emergence from and entering into concentration: seeing that the nature of a dust-mote is empty, the true and real noumenon of all the ten directions, is called entering concentration. However, when this emptiness of the natureless and empty noumenon of the seen dust-mote is empty, it is then the emptiness of the ten directions. Why? Because by means of the mind of the ten directions, one sees a single dust-mote. Therefore, the ten directions in their entirety constitute the dust-mote. Concentration also does not obstruct phenomenal characteristics from appearing clearly. Therefore, rising is simultaneous with concentration, equal to the realm of empty space. Merely through the fusion of the one and the many, identity and difference are unobstructed. Therefore, one enters in one and rises in many; enters in many and rises in one; enters in distinction and rises in the single limit; enters in the single limit and rises in distinction. All are simultaneously established at a single limit, without being distinct. One should know that concentration is precisely rising, and rising is precisely concentration; the one and the all are simultaneously established, and entering and emerging are unobstructed.’ > Fifth pair: non-obstruction of the substance and function of the two benefits. That is, rising in the deep faculty, the concentrated mind is not disturbed—this is the substance and one’s own benefit. Yet not obstructing the noumenon, extending into broad objects—this is the function. That humans and gods cannot know it—this is benefiting others. Truly, because substance and function are non-dual, benefiting oneself is precisely benefiting others. These ten meanings above together form a single assemblage of the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu, mutually identical and unimpeded. Bodhisattvas skillfully comprehend them, their functions being unobstructed. > Furthermore, the sūtra provisionally relates faculty and object to each other; one should also relate object to object, meaning entering correct reception in visible forms and rising in the samādhi of sound or fragrance. One should further relate faculty to faculty, meaning entering correct reception in the eye faculty and rising in the samādhi of the ear faculty, and so forth. That it says ‘the nature of form is difficult to conceive’ and so forth refers to the dhāraṇī of form and so on—this is the Form Dhāraṇī-Sovereign Buddha, and so on. One should also say: ‘Distinguishing that the nature of the eye is difficult to conceive, there is the Eye Dhāraṇī-Sovereign Buddha,’ and so on. Furthermore, in the eye it says ‘its nature is empty and extinguished,’ which is precisely the gate of transcendence of the eye; the eye and so on are fundamentally pure. One should also say: ‘the gates of transcendence of form and so on; form and so on are fundamentally pure.’ It is not merely that grasping characteristics is defilement and having no mind is purity. Furthermore, summarizing them by means of the three contemplations of the \*\[Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\] Śāstra\*: distinguishing the characteristics of forms and so forth is the contemplation of provisional designation.” > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 45.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.45.1) - [Next: 45.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.45.2.2) - [Up: 45.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.45.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.45.2.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.45.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.45.2.1) · Pramāṇa