宗鏡錄 60.35

60.35

答。聖說緣生以為空者。此即不異有之空也。此即不動緣生。說實相法也。若謂緣生如言空者。即無緣生。緣生無故。即無空理。無空理者。良由執空。是故汝恐墮有。立空。不謂不達無性緣生故。失性空故。還墮情中惡取空也。故清辯為成有。故破於有。護法為成空。故破於空也。如情執無。即是斷過。若說無法為依他者。無法非緣。非緣之法。即常也。乃至執非有非無。皆成斷常二患。若遍計性中計所執為有者。聖智所照。理應不空。即是常也。若妄執遍計於理無者。即失情有。故是斷也。乃至非有非無。皆具上失。上已護過。今當顯德者。真如是有義。何者。迷悟所依故。不空故。不壞故。真如是空義。隨緣故。對染故。真如是亦有亦無義。具德故。違順自在故。鎔融故。真如是非有非無義。二不二故。定取不得故。依他是有義。無性緣成故。依他是無義。緣成無性故。依他是亦有亦無義。緣成故。無性故。依他是非有非無義。隨取一不得故。遍計是有義。約情故。遍計是無義。約理故。遍計是亦有亦無義。由是所執故。遍計是非有非無義。由所執故。故知執則為斷常二患。不執成性德之門。但除妄情。非遣法也。是以不離有以談真。見有之本際。匪存無而觀法。了無之真原。則不出有無。不在有無。何取捨之干懷。斷常之所惑乎。是則三性一性。情有而即是真空。一性三性。真如而能成緣起。終日有而不有。有徹空原。終日空而不空。空該有際。自然一心無寄。萬法俱閑。境智相應。理行融即。方入宗鏡。瑩淨無瑕。照破古今。光吞萬彙矣。

Answer: When the noble ones speak of conditioned arising as empty, this is emptiness not different from existence. This is explaining the dharma of true reality without moving from conditioned arising. If one holds that conditioned arising is empty literally as spoken, then there is no conditioned arising; and because conditioned arising is non-existent, there is no principle of emptiness. The lack of the principle of emptiness is truly due to clinging to emptiness. Therefore, you fear falling into existence, so you establish emptiness, not realizing that conditioned arising is devoid of own-nature; thus losing the emptiness of nature, you fall back into the perverse grasping of emptiness within emotions. Therefore, Bhāviveka refuted existence in order to establish existence; Dharmapāla refuted emptiness in order to establish emptiness. Grasping non-existence according to emotion is the fault of annihilation. If one says that a non-existent dharma is the dependent [nature], a non-existent dharma is not a condition, and a dharma that is not a condition is permanent. And so on, clinging to neither existent nor non-existent also constitutes the two perils of annihilation and permanence. If within the imagined nature one conceives what is grasped as existent, illuminated by noble wisdom it ought in principle not to be empty, which is permanence. If one deludedly grasps the imagined as non-existent in principle, then one loses emotional existence, which is annihilation. And so on, neither existent nor non-existent possesses the above faults. The above has guarded against faults; now the virtues shall be revealed: Tathatā has the sense of existence—why? Because it is the basis of delusion and awakening, because it is not empty, and because it is indestructible. Tathatā has the sense of emptiness because it follows conditions and because it is relative to defilement. Tathatā has the sense of both existence and non-existence because it is endowed with virtues, because compliance and opposition are autonomous, and because it is thoroughly fused. Tathatā has the sense of neither existence nor non-existence because the two are non-dual, and because it cannot be determinately grasped. The dependent [nature] has the sense of existence because it is formed by conditions devoid of own-nature. The dependent [nature] has the sense of non-existence because being formed by conditions, it is devoid of own-nature. The dependent [nature] has the sense of both existence and non-existence because it is formed by conditions and because it is devoid of own-nature. The dependent [nature] has the sense of neither existence nor non-existence because whichever one [attempts to] grasp cannot be apprehended. The imagined [nature] has the sense of existence from the standpoint of emotion. The imagined [nature] has the sense of non-existence from the standpoint of principle. The imagined [nature] has the sense of both existence and non-existence because it is what is grasped. The imagined [nature] has the sense of neither existence nor non-existence because of what is grasped. Therefore, know that if one clings, they become the two perils of annihilation and permanence; if one does not cling, they become the gate to natural virtues. One merely eliminates deluded emotion, not banishing the dharmas. Therefore, one does not depart from existence to speak of the true, seeing the fundamental limit of existence; nor does one dwell in non-existence to contemplate dharmas, comprehending the true origin of non-existence. Thus one does not go beyond existence and non-existence, nor does one abide in existence and non-existence. How could grasping and rejecting disturb the mind, or annihilation and permanence perplex it? Thus, the three natures are the one nature: emotional existence is precisely true emptiness; the one nature is the three natures: tathatā can accomplish conditioned arising. All day long existent yet not existent, existence penetrates the source of emptiness; all day long empty yet not empty, emptiness encompasses the boundary of existence. Spontaneously, the one mind has nothing to rely upon, the ten thousand dharmas are all at rest, objective sphere and wisdom correspond, principle and practice are fused and identical; only then does one enter the mirror of the source, lustrous, pure, and without blemish, illuminating and piercing past and present, its light swallowing the ten thousand beings.