宗鏡錄 6.24

6.24

答。即心自性。此是表詮。由一切法無性故。即我心之實性。性亦非性者。此是遮詮。若能超遮表之文詮。泯即離之情執。方為見性己眼圓明。如今若要頓悟自心。開佛知見。但了自性遍一切處。凡有見聞。皆從心現。心外無有一毫氂法而有體性。各各不相知。各各不相到。何者。以是一法故。無法可相知相到。若有二法。即相往來。以知若凡若聖。若境若智。皆同一性。所謂無性。此無性之旨。是得道之宗。作平等之端由。為說空之所以。了便成佛。不落功夫。如華嚴經頌云。法性本空寂。無取亦無見。性空即是佛。不可得思量。若不直下信此。起念馳求。如癡人避空。似失頭狂走。融大師云。分別凡聖。煩惱轉盛。計校乖常求真背正。寶藏論云。察察精勤。徒興夢慮。惶惶外覓。轉失玄路。是以十方諸佛。正念於此。入實性原。故能開平等大慧之門。作眾生不請之友。所以問明品云。爾時文殊師利菩薩。問覺首菩薩言。佛子。心性是一。云何見有種種差別。所謂往善趣惡趣。諸根滿缺。受生同異。端正醜陋。苦樂不同。業不知心。心不知業。受不知報。報不知受。心不知受。受不知心。因不知緣。緣不知因。智不知境。境不知智。時覺首菩薩以偈答曰。仁今問是義。為曉悟群蒙。我如其性。答。唯仁應諦聽。諸法無作用。亦無有體性。是故彼一切。各各不相知。譬如河中水。湍流競奔逝。各各不相知。諸法亦如是。亦如大火聚。猛焰同時發。各各不相知。諸法亦如是。又如長風起。遇物咸鼓扇。各各不相知。諸法亦如是。又如眾地界。展轉因依住。各各不相知。諸法亦如是。眼耳鼻舌身。心意諸情根。以此常流轉。而無能轉者。法性本無生。示現而有生。是中無能現。亦無所現物。眼耳鼻舌身。心意諸情根。一切空無性。妄心分別有。如理而觀察。一切皆無性。法眼不思議。此見非顛倒。若實若不實。若妄若非妄。世間出世間。但有假言說。疏釋云。問。意謂明心性是一。云何見有報類種種。若性隨事異。則失真諦。若事隨性一則壞俗諦。設彼救言。報類差別。自由業等。熏識變現。不關心性故。無相違者。為遮此救。故重難云業不知心等。謂心業互依。各無自性。自性尚無。何能相知而生諸法。既離真性。各無自立。明此皆依心性而起。心性既一事應不多。事法既多。性應非一。此是本末相違難。准此問意。離如來藏。不許八識能所熏等。別有自體能生諸法。唯如來藏。是所依生。文殊欲顯實教之理。故以心性而為難本。欲令覺首。以法性示生。決定而答。海會同證。心性是一者。謂心之性故。是如來藏也。又心即性故。是自性清淨心也。又妄心之性。無性之性。空如來藏也。真心之性。實性之性故。不空如來藏也。皆平等無二。故云一也。又妄心之性。成心之性。妄心是相。以性相不同故。真心之性。真心即性故。又云。前二心之性。別明二藏。前之二性。皆具二藏。但為妄覆。名如來藏。直語藏體。即自性心。故此自性清淨真心。不與妄合。為名空藏。具恒沙德名不空藏。前明即離。此明空有。故重出也。言皆平等無二者。上二即離不同。由心之性。故不即。由心即性。故不離。不即不離。為心之性。後二即空之實。為不空。即實之空。為空藏。空有不二為心之性。然空有無二之性。即是不即不離之性。故但云一也。又非但本性是一。我細推現事。各不相知。既有種種。何緣不相知。既不相知。誰教種種。一一觀察。未知種種之所由也。既不相知。為是一性。為是種種。又難有二意。一約本識。謂業是能依。心是所依。離所無能。故業不知心。離能無所。故心不知業。以各無體用。不能相成。既各不相知。誰生種種。二約第六識。業是所造。心是能造。並皆速滅。起時不言我起。滅時不言我滅。何能有體。而得相生成種種耶。又約境智相對相見虛無難。謂境是心變。境不知心。心託境生。心不知境。以無境外心。能取心外境。是故心境虛妄。不相知也。業不知心。心不知業者。有二。一約本識者。業是心所。故依於心。心是第八為根本依。即離所無能。何者。無所依心王。無能依業。今依心有業。業從緣生。故無自性。不能知心。若離能無所者。離能依業。則心非所依。今由業成所。所依無性。故不能知業。謂各從緣成。性空無體。相依無力。故云無用。所以經云。無體用故。故不相知。二約第六識。業是所造。心是能造者。即以第六識名心。從於積集通相說故。謂第六識人執無明。迷真實義異熟理故。以善不善相應。思造罪等。以罪福不動等三行。熏阿賴耶識。能感五趣愛非愛等。種種報相。互不相知義。通相而言。皆約無體用故。別相而言。用門不同。此用略有二門。一無常門。經云。並皆速滅。淨名弟子品云。一切法如幻如電。諸法不相待。乃至一念。不住。諸法皆妄見故。則心業皆空。華嚴經頌云。眾報隨業生。如夢不真實。念念常滅壞。如前後亦爾。故由無常。不能相知。二無我門。即起時不言我起。滅時不言我滅。約法無我。明不相知。受不知報。報不知受者。受是能受之因。報是所受之報。即名言種。如唯識論云。復次生死相續。由諸習氣。然諸習氣。總有三種。一名言習氣。二我執習氣。三有支習氣。名言習氣者。謂有為法。各別親種。名言有二。一表義名言。即能詮義。音聲差別。二顯境名言。即能了境。心心所法。隨二名言所熏成種。作有為法各別因緣。釋曰。言各別親種者。三性種異故。能詮義聲者。簡無詮聲。彼非名故。名是聲上屈曲。唯無記性。不能熏成色心等種。然因名起種。立名言種。顯境名言。即七識見分等心。非相分心。相分心者。不能顯境故。此見分等。實非名言。如言說名。顯所詮義。此心心所。能顯所了境。如似彼名。能詮義故。隨二名言。皆熏成種。論云。三有支習氣。謂招三界異熟業種。有支有二。一有漏善。即能招可愛果業。二諸不善。即能招非愛果業。隨二有支所熏成種。令異熟果善惡趣別。故論頌云。由諸業習氣。二取習氣俱。前異熟既滅。更生餘異熟。此能引業。即諸業習氣。此名言種。即二取習氣。言為業所引者。即彼俱義。親辦果體。即由名言。若無業種。不招苦樂。如種無田。終不生芽。故此名言由業引起。方受當來異熟之果。苦樂之報。故華嚴經云。業為田。識為種也。已上種種問難。不相知義竟。今答以緣起相由門。釋者。初句因緣相假。互皆無力。次句果法含虛。故無體性。是以虛妄緣起。略有三義。一由互相依各無體用。故不相知。二由依此無知無性。方有緣起。三由此妄法。各無所有故。令無性真理。恒常顯現。又果從因生。果無體性。因由果立。因無體性。因無體性。何有感果之用。果無體性。豈有酬因之能。又互相待。故無力也。以他為自。故無體也。是故體用俱無。所以一切法。各各不相知也。今初以四大為喻。一依水有流注。二依火焰起滅。三依風有動作。四依地有任持。法中四者。一依真妄相續。二依真妄起滅。三妄用依真起。四妄為真所持。然此法喻。一一各有三義。一唯就能依。二依所依。三唯所依。今初喻中。唯就能依者。流也。然此流注。有十義。不相知而成流注。一前流不自流。由後流排故流。則前流無自性。故不知後。二後流雖排前流。而不到於前流。亦不相知。三後流不自流。由前流引故流。則後流無自性。故不能知。前四前流雖引後而不至後。故亦不相知。五能排與所引無二故不相知。六能引與所排無二故不相知。七能排與所排亦無二故不相知。八能引與所引亦無二故不相知。九能排與能引不得俱。故不相知。十所排與所引亦不得俱。故不相知。是則前後互不相至各無自性。只由如此無知無性。方有流注。則不流而流也。肇公云。江河競注而不流。即其義也。二依所依者。謂前流後流。各皆依水。悉無自體。不能相知。然不壞流相。故說水流。三唯所依者。流既總無。但唯是水。前水後水。無二性故。無可相知。是則本無有流。而說流也。二法中三義者。一流喻能依妄法。二妄依真立。三妄盡唯真。初中妄緣起法。似互相籍。各不能相到。悉無自性。故無性無知。是則有而非有也。二依所依者。謂此妄法。各各自虛。含真方立。何有體用能相知相成。即由此無知無成。含真故有。是則非有而為有也。三唯所依者。謂能依妄法逈無體用。唯有真心。挺然顯現。既無彼此。何有相知。正由此義。妄法有。即非有為有。復說真性隱。以非隱為隱。又前後有二。一生滅前後。二此彼前後。生滅前後者。謂前滅後生。互相引排。此即竪說。如壯與老。謂此流水。剎那生滅。前剎那滅。後剎那生。此彼前後者。此即橫說。猶如二人。同行狹徑。後人排前。前人引後。分分之水。皆有前後。乃至毫滴。有前毫滴。後毫滴。故聚多成流。注。則無性矣。小乘亦說當處生滅。無容從此轉至餘方。而不知無性緣起之義耳。

Answer: "That it is the mind's own nature" is an affirmative explication (vidhi). Because all phenomena lack inherent nature, [this lack] is the real nature of one's mind. "The nature is also not a nature" is a negative explication (pratiṣedha). If one can transcend the textual explications of negation and affirmation and extinguish the emotional clinging to identity and difference, only then is it seeing the nature with one's own eyes fully bright and clear. Now, if one wishes to awaken to one's own mind suddenly and open up the Buddha's knowledge and vision, one must simply comprehend that one's own nature pervades all places. Whatever is seen or heard appears from the mind. Outside of the mind, not the slightest thread-like phenomenon possesses substantial nature. Each does not know the other; each does not reach the other. Why is this? Because it is the one Dharma; there is no phenomenon that can know another or reach another. If there were two dharmas, they would interact with one another. [This is] because one knows that whether ordinary or holy, whether objective realm or wisdom, all share the same single nature—the so-called lack of nature. This principle of lacking nature is the source of attaining the Way, the starting point of equality, and the reason why emptiness is taught. Once comprehended, one immediately becomes a Buddha without falling into [gradual] effort. As a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: / "The nature of phenomena is originally empty and quiescent; / There is nothing to grasp and nothing to see. / The emptiness of nature is itself the Buddha; / It cannot be conceived." / If one does not immediately have faith in this and gives rise to thoughts pursuing things afar, it is like a foolish person trying to avoid open space, or like someone who has lost his head running around madly. Master Rong said: "Discriminating between ordinary and holy, kleśas flourish ever more; calculating and comparing contraries to the constant, seeking the real turns one's back on the correct." The Baocang lun says: "Painstakingly scrutinizing and making diligent effort, one vainly stirs up dreamlike thoughts; anxiously seeking outwardly, one turns further away from the profound path." For this reason, the Buddhas of the ten directions have right mindfulness in this regard, entering the source of the real nature; hence, they can open the door of great equal wisdom and become the uninvited friends of sentient beings. Therefore, the chapter "Inquiry of the Clear" (Wenming pin) states: At that time, Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva asked Bodhisattva Juexou: "Son of the Buddha, the mind-nature is one. Why is it seen that there are various distinctions? That is to say, going to good destinies or evil destinies, the faculties being complete or deficient, receiving births that are identical or different, being handsome or ugly, and suffering and joy being dissimilar? Karma does not know mind, and mind does not know karma. Feeling does not know retribution, and retribution does not know feeling. Mind does not know feeling, and feeling does not know mind. Cause does not know condition, and condition does not know cause. Wisdom does not know the objective realm, and the objective realm does not know wisdom." At that time, Bodhisattva Juexou answered with verses, saying: / "You now ask concerning this meaning / In order to awaken the confused multitude. / According to their nature, I shall answer; / Only you, benevolent one, should listen attentively. / All phenomena have no functioning, / Nor do they possess substantial nature. / Therefore, all of them / Each do not know the other. / Just as the water in a river, / In rushing torrents, races in competition, / Yet each does not know the other; / All phenomena are also like this. / Just as a great mass of fire, / Whose fierce flames burst forth simultaneously, / Yet each does not know the other; / All phenomena are also like this. / Again, just as a sustained wind arises, / Encountering things, it blows upon them all, / Yet each does not know the other; / All phenomena are also like this. / Again, just as the numerous earth elements, / Depend on and abide in one another by turns, / Yet each does not know the other; / All phenomena are also like this. / Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body, / Mind, intellect, and all sense faculties, / By these, there is constant transmigration, / Yet there is no one who can turn them. / The dharmatā is originally unarisen, / Yet it is manifested as having arising. / Within this, there is nothing capable of manifesting, / Nor is there any object that is manifested. / Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body, / Mind, intellect, and all sense faculties, / Are all empty and without nature; / The deluded mind discriminates and posists them. / Observing them in accordance with the principle, / All are entirely without nature. / The Dharma-eye is inconceivable; / This seeing is not inverted. / Whether real or unreal, / Whether deluded or not deluded, / Mundane or supramundane, / There are only provisional nominal designations." / The commentary explains: "The question means: Clarifying that the mind-nature is one, why is it seen that there are various classes of retribution? If nature differs in accordance with phenomena, then the ultimate truth is lost. If phenomena are one in accordance with nature, then the conventional truth is destroyed. Suppose they rescue this by saying: 'The differences in the classes of retribution naturally arise from karma and the like perfuming consciousness and manifesting in transformation, having nothing to do with the mind-nature; therefore, there is no contradiction.' To refute this rescue, he further poses the difficulty: 'Karma does not know mind,' and so forth. That is, mind and karma mutually rely upon each other, and each lacks an inherent nature. When an inherent nature is already absent, how could they know each other and produce phenomena? Since, apart from the real nature, each lacks an independent standing, this clarifies that all these arise relying upon the mind-nature. Since the mind-nature is one, phenomena should not be many. Since phenomenal dharmas are many, the nature should not be one. This is the objection based on the contradiction between root and branch. Following the intention of this question, apart from the tathāgatagarbha, the eight consciousnesses' perfuming and perfumed are not admitted to have a separate substance capable of producing phenomena. Only the tathāgatagarbha is that upon which production depends. Mañjuśrī wished to reveal the principle of the definitive teaching; therefore, he made the mind-nature the basis of the difficulty, desiring Juexou to show production by means of the dharmatā, to answer decisively, and to have the ocean-wide assembly bear witness together. 'The mind-nature is one' means that because it is the nature of the mind, it is the tathāgatagarbha. Moreover, because the mind is itself the nature, it is the intrinsically pure mind. Furthermore, the nature of the deluded mind, being the nature of no-nature, is the empty tathāgatagarbha. The nature of the true mind, being the nature of real nature, is the non-empty tathāgatagarbha. Because they are all equal and non-dual, it is said to be 'one'. Furthermore, the nature of the deluded mind constitutes the nature of mind; the deluded mind is characteristic, because nature and characteristic are not identical. The nature of the true mind is because the true mind is itself the nature. It is also said: The previous two [explanations of] the nature of mind separately clarify the two garabhas. The previous two natures each possess both garabhas. Merely being covered by delusion, it is named tathāgatagarbha. Speaking directly of the substance of the garbha, it is the mind of self-nature. Therefore, this intrinsically pure true mind, not being combined with delusion, is named the empty garbha; possessing virtues numerous as the sands of the Ganges, it is named the non-empty garbha. Previously, identity and difference were clarified; here, emptiness and existence are clarified; hence it is presented again. The statement 'all are equal and non-dual' means: the above two [pairs of] identity and difference are not identical. Because of the 'nature of the mind', they are not identical. Because 'the mind is itself the nature', they are not separate. Neither identical nor separate is the nature of the mind. In the latter two, the reality that is itself empty is the non-empty; the emptiness that is itself reality is the empty garbha. The non-duality of emptiness and existence is the nature of the mind. However, the nature of the non-duality of emptiness and existence is itself the nature that is neither identical nor separate; therefore, it is simply called 'one'. Moreover, not only is the original nature one, but when I closely examine current phenomena, they do not know one another. Since there are various [phenomena], on what basis do they not know one another? Since they do not know one another, who directs their variety? Observing each and every one, one does not know the reason for their variety. Since they do not know one another, are they one nature, or are they various? Furthermore, the objection has two meanings: First, in terms of the fundamental consciousness (mūlavijñāna): Karma is that which relies, and mind is that upon which it relies. Apart from that which is relied upon, there is no relying [agent]; hence karma does not know mind. Apart from that which relies, there is no that which is relied upon; hence mind does not know karma. Since each lacks substance and function, they cannot mutually accomplish each other. Since each does not know the other, who produces the varieties? Second, in terms of the sixth consciousness: Karma is what is created, and mind is the creator. Both are rapidly extinguished. When arising, it does not say 'I arise'; when ceasing, it does not say 'I cease.' How could they have substance and mutually accomplish each other to produce varieties? Furthermore, in terms of the objection regarding the mutual opposition and perception of objective realm and wisdom being empty and non-existent: An objective realm is transformed by mind, so the objective realm does not know mind. Mind arises relying on the objective realm, so mind does not know the objective realm. Because there is no mind outside the objective realm that can grasp an objective realm outside the mind, mind and objective realm are unreal and do not know each other. That 'karma does not know mind, and mind does not know karma' has two [meanings]: First, in terms of the fundamental consciousness: Karma is a mental factor (caitta), and therefore relies on the mind. Mind is the eighth consciousness as the fundamental support. This is: apart from that which is relied upon, there is no that which relies. Why? Without the king of mind upon which to rely, there is no relying karma. Now, relying on mind there is karma; karma arises from conditions, and therefore lacks inherent nature, unable to know mind. If apart from that which relies there is no that which is relied upon: apart from the relying karma, then the mind is not that which is relied upon. Now, because of karma, it becomes that which is relied upon; that which is relied upon lacks nature, and therefore cannot know karma. This means that each is formed from conditions, empty of nature and without substance, mutually reliant and without efficacy; hence it is said to have no function. Therefore the sūtra says: Because they lack substance and function, they do not know each other. Second, in terms of the sixth consciousness: 'Karma is what is created, and mind is the creator' means that the sixth consciousness is named mind, spoken from the general characteristic of accumulation. That is, the sixth consciousness's ignorance of clinging to a person, being confused about the true meaning and the principle of ripening (vipāka), by associating with wholesome or unwholesome volition (cetanā), creates offenses and the like. Through the three actions—meritorious, non-meritorious, and immovable—it perfumes the ālayavijñāna, capable of inducing the various retribution characteristics such as agreeable and disagreeable in the five destinies. The meaning of not knowing each other, generally speaking, is in all cases in terms of lacking substance and function. Specifically speaking, the gates of function differ. This function roughly has two gates: First, the gate of impermanence. The sūtra says: 'Both are rapidly extinguished.' The 'Disciples' chapter of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'All dharmas are like illusions, like lightning; dharmas do not await one another, not even abiding for a single thought-moment.' Because all dharmas are seen delusively, both mind and karma are empty. A verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: / 'All retributions arise following karma; / Like dreams, they are not real. / Thought-moment by thought-moment, they are constantly destroyed, / Just as it was before, so it is after.' / Therefore, through impermanence, they cannot know each other. Second, the gate of non-self. That is, when arising it does not say 'I arise,' and when ceasing it does not say 'I cease.' In terms of the non-self of dharmas (dharmanairātmya), it clarifies not knowing each other. 'Feeling does not know retribution, and retribution does not know feeling': Feeling is the cause capable of experiencing, and retribution is the retribution that is experienced; that is, the seeds of nominal designation. As the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'Furthermore, the continuation of saṃsāra is due to various vāsanās. However, the various vāsanās generally comprise three kinds: first, nominal vāsanā (nāmavāsanā); second, self-clinging vāsanā (ātmagrāhavāsanā); third, existence-constituent vāsanā (bhavāṅgavāsanā). Nominal vāsanā refers to the distinct direct seeds of conditioned dharmas. Nominal designation has two kinds: first, nominal designations that express meaning, namely the distinct sounds that can express meaning; second, nominal designations that reveal the objective realm, namely the mind and mental factors capable of apprehending the objective realm. Seeds perfumed and formed in accordance with the two kinds of nominal designation serve as the distinct primary causes (hetupratyaya) of conditioned dharmas.' Explanation: 'Distinct direct seeds' means because the seeds of the three natures differ. 'Sounds capable of expressing meaning' excludes sounds without expression, because they are not names. A name is an inflected variation upon sound; it is solely of an indeterminate nature (avyākṛta) and cannot perfume to form seeds of matter, mind, and the like. Yet, relying on names, seeds are aroused, so they are established as nominal seeds. 'Nominal designations that reveal the objective realm' refers to the darśanabhāga of the seven consciousnesses and the like, not the mind of nimittabhāga. The mind of nimittabhāga cannot reveal the objective realm. These darśanabhāga and the like are not truly nominal designations; just as spoken names reveal the expressed meaning, so these mind and mental factors can reveal the apprehended objective realm, resembling those names that can express meaning. In accordance with both kinds of nominal designation, all perfume to form seeds. The treatise says: 'Third, existence-constituent vāsanā refers to the karma seeds that invite ripening in the three realms. Existence-constituents have two kinds: first, contaminated wholesome [karma], which is karma capable of inviting desirable fruits; second, unwholesome [karma], which is karma capable of inviting undesirable fruits. Seeds perfumed and formed in accordance with the two existence-constituents cause the distinctions of wholesome and evil destinies in ripening fruits.' Therefore, the treatise verse says: / 'Due to the vāsanās of various karmas / Together with the vāsanās of the two graspings, / When the previous ripening is exhausted, / Other ripenings are further generated.' / This karma capable of drawing is the vāsanās of various karmas. These nominal seeds are the vāsanās of the two graspings. That it is 'drawn by karma' means they operate together. The direct production of the substance of the fruit is due to nominal designation. If there were no karma seeds, suffering and joy would not be invited, just as seeds without a field will never produce sprouts. Therefore, when these nominal designations are drawn and aroused by karma, only then does one receive the future fruit of ripening, the retribution of suffering and joy. Hence the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Karma is the field, and consciousness is the seed.' The above various questions and difficulties concerning the meaning of not knowing each other are concluded. Now, the answer is explained through the gate of the mutual conditionality of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). The first line [of verse] shows that cause and condition mutually depend on each other, both lacking efficacy. The next line shows that result-dharmas contain unreality, and therefore have no substantial nature. For this reason, delusive dependent origination roughly has three meanings: First, because they mutually rely on each other and each lacks substance and function, they do not know each other. Second, because relying on this lack of knowing and lack of nature, dependent origination occurs. Third, because these delusive dharmas each possess nothing, they cause the true principle of naturelessness to be constantly manifest. Moreover, the fruit arises from the cause, so the fruit has no substantial nature; the cause is established through the fruit, so the cause has no substantial nature. If the cause has no substantial nature, how could it have the function of inducing a fruit? If the fruit has no substantial nature, how could it have the ability to repay a cause? Furthermore, because they mutually depend on each other, they are devoid of efficacy. Because they take the other as self, they lack substance. Therefore, both substance and function are absent. For this reason, all phenomena each do not know the other. Now, first, the four great elements are used as an analogy: 1. Relying on water, there is continuous flow. 2. Relying on fire, there is the arising and ceasing of flames. 3. Relying on wind, there is motion. 4. Relying on earth, there is sustaining. In the Dharma, the four are: 1. Relying on the true, delusion continues. 2. Relying on the true, delusion arises and ceases. 3. Delusive function arises relying on the true. 4. Delusion is sustained by the true. However, these dharmas and analogies each have three meanings: 1. solely in terms of that which relies; 2. relying on that which is relied upon; 3. solely that which is relied upon. Now, in the first analogy, 'solely in terms of that which relies' is the flow. However, this continuous flow has ten meanings of not knowing each other and yet forming a continuous flow: 1. The prior flow does not flow by itself; it flows because it is pushed by the subsequent flow; thus the prior flow has no inherent nature, and therefore does not know the subsequent. 2. Although the subsequent flow pushes the prior flow, it does not reach the prior flow, and also does not know it. 3. The subsequent flow does not flow by itself; it flows because it is pulled by the prior flow; thus the subsequent flow has no inherent nature, and therefore cannot know the prior. 4. Although the prior flow pulls the subsequent, it does not reach the subsequent, and therefore also does not know it. 5. That which is capable of pushing and that which is pulled are non-dual, and therefore do not know each other. 6. That which is capable of pulling and that which is pushed are non-dual, and therefore do not know each other. 7. That which is capable of pushing and that which is pushed are also non-dual, and therefore do not know each other. 8. That which is capable of pulling and that which is pulled are also non-dual, and therefore do not know each other. 9. That which is capable of pushing and that which is capable of pulling cannot exist simultaneously, and therefore do not know each other. 10. That which is pushed and that which is pulled also cannot exist simultaneously, and therefore do not know each other. Thus, the prior and subsequent mutually do not reach each other, and each lacks an inherent nature. Only through such lack of knowing and lack of nature is there continuous flow; thus, without flowing, it flows. Master Zhao said: 'The great rivers race in their currents and yet do not flow'—this is precisely its meaning. Second, 'relying on that which is relied upon' means: the prior flow and subsequent flow each rely on water; all lack self-substance and cannot know each other. Yet, without destroying the characteristic of flowing, it is said that water flows. Third, 'solely that which is relied upon' means: since the flow is completely non-existent, there is only water; prior water and subsequent water have no dual nature, and therefore have nothing to know each other. Thus, originally there is no flow, yet flow is spoken of. In the Dharma, the second group of three meanings: 1. The flow exemplifies the delusive dharmas that are capable of relying. 2. Delusion is established relying on the true. 3. When delusion is exhausted, there is only the true. In the first, delusive dependently originated dharmas seem to mutually depend on each other, yet each cannot reach the other, and all lack inherent nature; hence, lacking nature and lacking knowing, they are existent and yet not existent. Second, 'relying on that which is relied upon' means: these delusive dharmas are each inherently void; containing the true, they are only then established. How could they have substance and function capable of mutually knowing and mutually accomplishing each other? Precisely through this lack of knowing and lack of accomplishment, containing the true, they therefore exist; thus, they are non-existent and yet existent. Third, 'solely that which is relied upon' means: the delusive dharmas capable of relying are entirely devoid of substance and function; there is only the true mind, distinctly manifesting. Since there is neither this nor that, how could there be mutual knowing? Precisely through this meaning, delusive dharmas exist—that is, the non-existent is taken as existent. Further, it is said that the true nature is hidden—taking the non-hidden as hidden. Furthermore, regarding prior and subsequent, there are two kinds: 1. the prior and subsequent of arising and ceasing; 2. the prior and subsequent of this and that. The prior and subsequent of arising and ceasing means: the prior ceases and the subsequent arises, mutually pulling and pushing. This is vertical explanation, like youth and old age; this means this flowing water arises and ceases moment by moment—the prior moment ceases, and the subsequent moment arises. The prior and subsequent of this and that is horizontal explanation, just like two people walking together on a narrow path: the person behind pushes the one ahead, and the person ahead pulls the one behind. Each part of water has prior and subsequent, down to the minute droplet, there is a prior droplet and a subsequent droplet; hence, gathering many forms a continuous flow; thus, it is without nature. The Hīnayāna also speaks of arising and ceasing right in its place, without allowing transition from here to another place, but it merely does not understand the meaning of natureless dependent origination.