[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) › 46.3.3 # 宗鏡錄 46.3.3 宗鏡錄 46.3.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [46.3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.46.3.3) 處窮不悶。 貪恚心息。 安一懷抱。 以自然訓物。 作入理𠱚胤。 此其德也。 德有多種。 若言常無欲觀其妙。 無何等欲。 忽玉璧。 棄公相。 洗耳還牛。 自守高志。 此乃棄欲界之欲。 攀上勝出之妙。 即以初禪等為妙。 何以得知。 莊子云。 皇帝問道觀神氣。 見身內眾物。 以此為道。 似如通明觀中。 發得初禪之妙。 若言諸苦所因。 貪欲為本。 若離貪欲。 即得涅槃。 此無三界之欲。 此得滅止妙離之妙。 又法名無染。 若染於法。 是染涅槃。 無此染欲。 得一道微妙。 妙此諸欲。 欲妙皆無。 汝得何等。 尚不識欲界欲。 初禪妙。 況後欲妙耶。 若與權論。 乃是逗機漸引。 覆相論欲妙。 不得彰言了義而說。 但息誇企之欲。 觀自然之妙。 譣詖之行既除。 仁讓之風斯在。 此皆計有自然而行善也。 又計自然。 任運恣氣。 亦不運御從善。 亦不動役作惡。 若傷神和。 不會自然。 雖無取捨。 而是行無記。 行業未盡。 受報何疑。 若計自然作惡者。 謂萬物自然。 恣意造惡。 終歸自然。 斯乃背無欲而恣欲。 違於妙而就麁。 如莊周斥仁義。 雖防小盜。 不意大盜。 揭仁義。 以謀其國。 本以自然息欲。 乃揭自然而為惡。 此義可知也。 已上外道及內道執見。 有二。 並決真偽者。 一就所起法並決。 二就所依法並決。 一今通從外外道四句。 乃至圓四門外道見。 通韋陀。 乃至圓門三念處。 三解脫。 名數是同。 所起見罪。 繫縛無異。 譬如金鐵二鎖。 又從外道四句。 乃至圓門四見。 名雖清美。 所起煩惱。 體是污穢。 譬如玉鼠二璞。 又從外道四句。 乃至圓門四見。 雖同研鍊。 有成不成。 譬如牛驢二乳。 又從外道四句。 乃至圓門四見。 有害不害。 譬如迦羅鎮頭二果。 所計神我。 乃是縛法。 非自在我。 各執己是。 餘為妄語。 互相是非。 何關如實。 自謂真道。 翻開有路。 望得涅槃。 方沈生死。 自言諦當。 終成邪僻。 愛處生愛。 瞋處生瞋。 雖起慈悲。 愛見悲耳。 雖安塗割。 乃生滅強忍。 雖一切智。 世情推度。 雖得神通。 根本變化。 有漏變化。 所讀韋陀。 世智所說。 非陀羅尼力。 非法界流。 雖斷鈍使。 如屈步蟲。 世醫所治。 差已更發。 八十八使集海浩然。 三界生死苦輪無際。 沈著有漏。 永無出期。 皆是諸見幻偽。 豈可為真實之道也。 二約所依法異者。 一切諸見。 各依其法。 三外外道是有漏人。 發有漏法。 以有漏心。 著於著法。 著法著心。 體是諍競。 非但因時捉頭拔髮。 發諸見已。 謂是涅槃。 執成見猛毒增鬪盛。 所依之法非真。 所發之見亦偽也。 此雖邪法。 若密得意。 以邪相入正相。 如華飛葉動。 藉少因緣尚證支佛。 何況世間舊法。 然支佛雖正。 華葉終非正教。 外外密悟。 而其法門但通諸見。 非正法也。 皆由著心於著法。 因果俱鬪斷奠。 是邪法生邪見也。 若三藏四門。 是出世聖人得出世法。 體是清淨。 滅煩惱處。 非唯佛經是正法。 五百所申。 亦能得道。 妙勝定云。 佛去世後一百年。 十萬人出家。 九萬人得道。 二百年時。 十萬人出家。 一萬人得道。 當知以無著心。 不著無著法。 發心真正。 覺悟無常。 念念生滅。 朝不保夕。 志求出要。 不封門生染而起戲論。 譬如有人。 欲速見王。 受賜拜職。 從四門入。 何暇盤停諍計好醜。 知門是通途。 不須諍計。 如藥為治病。 不應分別。 速出火宅。 盡諸苦際。 真明發時。 證究竟道。 畢竟無諍。 無諍則無業。 無業則無生死。 但有道滅。 心地坦然。 因果俱無。 鬪諍俱滅。 唯有正見無邪見也。 復次四門。 雖是正法。 > Dwelling in poverty without depression, stopping the mind of greed and anger, remaining peaceful in one's embrace, instructing beings by means of spontaneity (ziran), and serving as an entryway into principle—such is its virtue. There are many kinds of virtue. If it is said, 'Always be desireless in order to observe its subtleties,' what kind of desire is absent? Disdaining jade rings, casting aside dukes and ministers, washing one's ears and leading back the ox, preserving one's own lofty aspirations—this is casting aside the desires of the desire realm and aspiring to the subtlety of ascending and transcending above; that is, taking the first dhyāna and so forth as subtle. How is this known? Zhuangzi says: 'The Yellow Emperor inquired about the Way and observed the spirit-breath, seeing all things within his body, and took this to be the Way.' This resembles developing the subtlety of the first dhyāna within the contemplation of comprehensive clarity (tongming guan). If it is said: 'The cause of all sufferings is rooted in covetous desire; if one is free from covetous desire, one attains nirvāṇa'—this is freedom from the desires of the three realms, attaining the subtlety of cessation, stopping, subtlety, and renunciation. Furthermore, phenomena are called 'undefiled'; if one is defiled by phenomena, this is being defiled by nirvāṇa. Without this defiling desire, one attains the subtlety of the Single Way. Making subtle all these desires, both desire and subtlety are entirely absent—what have you attained? You do not even understand the desires of the desire realm and the subtlety of the first dhyāna, how much less the subsequent desires and subtleties! If discussing this from the standpoint of provisional teachings, it is catering to capacities and gradually leading them, discussing desire and subtlety through veiled marks, unable to speak overtly and definitively. It merely puts to rest the desire for boasting and aspiring, observing the subtlety of spontaneity; when deceitful and flattering conduct is eliminated, the ethos of benevolence and deference remains. These are all instances of adhering to spontaneity and practicing goodness. Furthermore, adhering to spontaneity and giving free rein to impulse, neither directing oneself toward goodness nor stirring oneself to commit evil: if one harms the harmony of the spirit, one does not accord with spontaneity; although there is no grasping and rejecting, it is the performance of indeterminate \[actions\] (avyākṛta). When active karma is not exhausted, how can one doubt receiving retribution? If adhering to spontaneity leads to evil actions, claiming that all things are spontaneous and willfully committing evil because in the end it all returns to spontaneity, this is turning one's back on desirelessness to indulge in desires, violating the subtle to pursue the coarse. Just as Zhuang Zhou denounced benevolence and righteousness: although they prevent petty theft, unexpectedly the great thief seizes benevolence and righteousness to plot against his state. Originally, one was to use spontaneity to end desires, but instead one seizes spontaneity to do evil. This meaning is understandable. The adhering views of the heterodox traditions above and the inner tradition are twofold; both determine the true and the false. First, determining both with regard to the dharmas produced; second, determining both with regard to the dharmas relied upon. First, currently ranging broadly from the four propositions of the outer heterodoxies up to the heterodox views of the four gates of the perfect \[teaching\], and encompassing the Vedas up to the three stations of mindfulness and three liberations of the perfect gate: the terminology and numerical categories are identical, but the view-faults produced and the bonds incurred are no different—just like gold and iron chains. Again, from the four propositions of the heterodoxies up to the four views of the perfect gate: although the names are pure and fine, the kleśas produced are fundamentally defiled—just like the two unworked stones of jade and rat-stone. Again, from the four propositions of the heterodoxies up to the four views of the perfect gate: although all undergo smelting, there is success and failure—just like the milk of cows and donkeys. Again, from the four propositions of the heterodoxies up to the four views of the perfect gate: there is harm and non-harm—just like the kāraskara and tinduka fruits. The ātman posited by them is in fact a dharma of bondage, not an autonomous self. Each clings to its own as correct and considers others to be false speech, mutually arguing right and wrong; how does this relate to reality? They consider themselves the true path, yet turn around and open up the road of existence; hoping to attain nirvāṇa, they are just sinking into saṃsāra. They declare themselves to be accurate, yet in the end turn into perverse deviation. They generate love where there is attachment, and give rise to anger where there is repulsion. Although they give rise to compassion, it is merely the compassion of love and views. Although they endure anointing and dismemberment, it is merely the strained forbearance of arising and ceasing. Although called omniscient, it is worldly estimation. Although attaining supernatural powers, they are fundamental transformations, defiled transformations. The Vedas they read are spoken by worldly wisdom, not by the power of dhāraṇī, nor an outflow of the dharmadhātu. Although they sever the blunt proclivities, it is like an inchworm; treated by a worldly physician, once healed it breaks out again. The vast sea of the eighty-eight proclivities billows, and the suffering wheel of birth and death in the three realms is boundless. Sunk in the defiled, there is never a time of emergence. All are the illusory falsehoods of various views; how could they be the path of reality? Second, concerning the differences in the dharmas relied upon: all views each rely on their respective dharmas. The three outer heterodoxies are people with defilements (āsrava) who manifest defiled dharmas, and with a defiled mind cling to clinging-dharmas. Clinging-dharmas and clinging-minds are fundamentally contentious; not only at the time of causes do they grasp heads and pluck hairs, but having developed their views, they consider them nirvāṇa, and clinging to them forms views whose fierce poison increases strife. The dharmas relied upon are not true, and the views generated are also false. Although these are heterodox dharmas, if one secretly grasps the intent, entering the correct characteristics by means of heterodox characteristics—just as by flowers drifting and leaves fluttering, relying on a small condition one can even realize \[the fruit of\] a pratyekabuddha, how much more so with the ancient teachings of the world! Yet, although a pratyekabuddha is correct, the flowers and leaves are ultimately not the correct teaching. The outer heterodoxies have secret awakenings, but their doctrinal gates only lead to views, not the correct Dharma. All this is due to clinging minds clinging to clinging-dharmas; cause and fruit both involve contention and determination—this is heterodox dharmas generating heterodox views. If it is the four gates of the Tripiṭaka, these are the supermundane dharmas attained by supermundane noble ones, fundamentally pure, the place where kleśas are extinguished. Not only are the Buddha's sūtras the correct Dharma; what the five hundred \[arhats\] set forth can also attain the Way. The Miaoshengding jing states: 'One hundred years after the Buddha's passing, one hundred thousand people went forth, and ninety thousand attained the Way. At two hundred years, one hundred thousand people went forth, and ten thousand attained the Way.' You should know that with an unattached mind, not clinging to unattached dharmas, the initial resolve is genuine and correct, awakening to impermanence—arising and ceasing moment by moment, not guaranteeing the evening from the morning—resolutely seeking the essentials of liberation, not confining oneself to a gate to generate defilement and give rise to conceptual proliferation (prapañca). For example, if someone wishes to see the king quickly to receive rewards and appointment to office, entering through the four gates, what leisure has he to linger, dispute, and reckon fine and ugly? Knowing the gate is a thoroughfare, there is no need to dispute or calculate. Just as medicine is for curing disease and should not be differentiated, one quickly escapes the burning house to exhaust all extremes of suffering. When true illumination arises, one realizes the ultimate Way. Ultimately without contention: without contention there is no karma; without karma there is no birth and death; there is only the path and cessation; the mind-ground is calm and clear; causes and fruits are both absent; disputes and strife are both extinguished; there is only right view, with no wrong view. Furthermore, although the four gates are the correct Dharma, > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 46.3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.46.3.2) - [Next: 46.3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.46.3.4) - [Up: 46.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.46.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.46.3.3) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.46.3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.46.3.3) · Pramāṇa