宗鏡錄 60.33

60.33

答。此即不異空之有。從緣無體故。一一緣中。無作者故。由緣無作。方得緣起。是故非有之有。為依他有。即是不動真際。建立諸法。若謂依他如言有者。即緣起有性。緣若有性。即不相藉。不相藉故。即壞依他。壞依他者。良由執有。汝恐墮空。立有。不謂不達緣所起。法無自性故。即壞緣起。便墮空無。又若依他執無者。亦二失。謂依他是無法者。即緣無所起。不得有法。即是斷也。

Answer: This is existence not different from emptiness. Arising from conditions, it is without substance, because within each single condition there is no agent. Due to conditions having no agent, conditioned arising is then possible. Therefore, existence that is non-existent is the existence of the dependent [nature]; this is establishing all dharmas without moving from the true limit. If one holds that the dependent [nature] exists literally as spoken, then conditioned arising would have an own-nature. If conditions had an own-nature, they would not depend on each other; not depending on each other, that would destroy the dependent [nature]. The destruction of the dependent [nature] is truly due to clinging to existence. You fear falling into emptiness, so you establish existence, not realizing that what arises from conditions is devoid of own-nature in dharma; thus you destroy conditioned arising and fall into empty nothingness. Furthermore, if one grasps the dependent [nature] as non-existent, there are also two faults: if the dependent [nature] is a non-existent dharma, then conditions have nothing to give rise to, and dharmas cannot exist, which is precisely annihilation.