[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) › 61.25 # 宗鏡錄 61.25 宗鏡錄 61.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [61.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.61.25) 答。我此圓宗。情解不及。豈同執方便教人。空有不融通。體用兩分。理事成隔。說常住。則成常見。說無常。則歸斷滅。斥邊。則成邊執。存中。則著中理。今此圓融之旨。無礙之宗。說常。則無常之常。說無常。則常之無常。言空。則不空之空。言有。則幻有之有。談邊。則即中之邊。談中。則不但之中。立理。則成事之理。立事。則顯理之事。是以卷舒在我。隱顯同時。說不乖於無說。無說不乖於說。寶藏論云。常空不有。常有不空。兩不相待。句句皆宗。是以聖人隨有說有。隨空道空。空不乖有。有不乖空。兩語無病。二義雙通。乃至說我。亦不乖無我。乃至無說。事亦不宗。何以故。不為言語所轉也。釋曰。常空不有者。常空。則不因有而空。若因有而空。則成對待。以他為體。自無力故。不自在故。不得稱常。常有不空者。亦不因空而有。則一空一切空。一有一切有。以絕待故。乃得句句皆宗也。空有既爾。法法皆然。可謂宗無不通。道無不現。云何簡法取塵。自生差別。不為言語之所轉者。以知宗故。無一事而不隨實地。無一法而不順無生。祖師云。承言須會宗。勿自立規矩。何者。若立規矩。則落限量。纔成限量。便違本宗。但隨言語之所轉也。所以一切眾生不知真實者。皆為言語之所覆。大寶積經云。音聲語言中。若得不隨轉。於義乃隨行。是名求義者。何者名為義。應知祕密說。祕密說者。即宗鏡旨矣。唯佛智之所知。非情見之能解。如勝天王般若經云。爾時眾中有一菩薩摩訶薩。名須真胝。白勝天王言。如來為大王受記乎。勝天王答善思惟菩薩言。善男子。我受記如夢相。又問。大王。如此受記。當得何法。答曰。善男子。佛授我記。竟無所得。又問。無所得者。為是何法。答曰。不得眾生壽者我人。養育。陰界入。悉無所得。若善不善。若染若淨。若有漏。若無漏。若世間。若出世間。若有為。若無為。若生死。若涅槃。悉無所得。又問。若無所得用受記為。答曰。善男子。無所得故。則得授記。又問。若如大王所說義者。則有二智。一無所得。二得授記。答曰。若有二者。則無授記。何以故。佛智無二。諸佛世尊。以不二智。授菩薩記。又問。若智不二。云何而有授記得記。答曰。得記授記。其際不二。又問。不二際者。云何有記。答曰。通達不二際即是授記。 > Answer: This perfect source of ours is beyond emotional intellection. How could it be like those who cling to expedient teachings, where emptiness and existence do not interfuse, substance and function are cleft in two, and principle and phenomenon become separated? If one speaks of the permanently abiding, it becomes eternalism; if one speaks of impermanence, it lapses into annihilationism. If one rejects the extremes, it becomes clinging to extremes; if one maintains the middle, it attaches to the principle of the middle. Now, in this purport of perfect interfusion, this source of unobstructedness, to speak of the permanent is the permanence of impermanence; to speak of impermanence is the impermanence of the permanent. To state emptiness is the emptiness of the non-empty; to state existence is the existence of illusory existence. To discuss an extreme is the extreme that is identical to the middle; to discuss the middle is the middle that is not merely \[the middle\]. To establish principle is the principle that accomplishes phenomena; to establish phenomena is the phenomena that manifest principle. Therefore, rolling up and unfurling rest with oneself, concealing and revealing are simultaneous. Speaking does not depart from non-speaking; non-speaking does not depart from speaking. The Baocang lun says: 'Permanently empty, it is not existent; permanently existent, it is not empty. The two do not depend on each other; every phrase is the source. Therefore, the sage speaks of existence following existence, and discourses on emptiness following emptiness. Emptiness does not depart from existence; existence does not depart from emptiness. Neither statement is flawed; both meanings are simultaneously penetrated. Even speaking of the self does not depart from no-self; even if there is no speaking, phenomena are also not discordant with the source.' Why is this? Because one is not turned around by words. The commentary says: 'Permanently empty, it is not existent' means that being permanently empty, it is not empty because of existence. If it were empty because of existence, it would become relative: taking the other as its substance, it would itself lack efficacy, and because it would lack autonomy, it could not be called permanent. 'Permanently existent, it is not empty' means that it is also not existent because of emptiness; thus, one empty, all is empty; one existent, all is existent. Because it is non-relative, every phrase can be the source. If emptiness and existence are like this, so are all phenomena. It can be said that there is no source that is not penetrated, no Way that is not manifested. Why discard phenomena to grasp at sensory dust, generating distinctions on one's own? To 'not be turned around by words' means that because one knows the source, there is not a single phenomenon that does not accord with the real ground, not a single dharma that does not conform to non-arising. The Ancestral Master said: 'In receiving words, you must understand the source; do not set up your own rules.' Why? If you set up rules, you fall into limitations; as soon as limitations are formed, you go against the fundamental source, merely being turned around by words. Therefore, that all sentient beings do not know the real truth is because they are all veiled by words. The Mahāratnakūṭasūtra says: 'If, amid sounds and words, one can avoid being turned around, one then accords in practice with the meaning; such a one is called an inquirer after meaning.' What is called the meaning? You should know that it is the esoteric teaching. The esoteric teaching is the very purport of the Mirror of the Source. It is known only by the Buddha's wisdom; it is not something that emotional views can comprehend. As the Suvikrāntajñānaparipṛcchā-prajñāpāramitāsūtra says: 'At that time, there was in the assembly a bodhisattva-mahāsattva named Susthitamati, who addressed King Pravaranṛpa, saying: "Did the Tathāgata bestow a prophecy of enlightenment upon the Great King?" King Pravaranṛpa answered the Bodhisattva Kuvalayamati, saying: "Good son, my prophecy was like a dream-characteristic." He asked further: "Great King, having received such a prophecy, what dharma should you attain?" He replied: "Good son, the Buddha bestowed a prophecy upon me, yet ultimately there was nothing attained." He asked further: "That which is nothing attained—what dharma is it?" He replied: "Sentient beings, lifespan, a self, a person, a nurtured soul, the aggregates, elements, and sense bases are not attained; all are completely unattained. Whether wholesome or unwholesome, defiled or pure, with outflows or without outflows, mundane or supramundane, conditioned or unconditioned, saṃsāra or nirvāṇa—all are completely unattained." He asked further: "If nothing is attained, what use is there in receiving a prophecy?" He replied: "Good son, because nothing is attained, the prophecy is attained." He asked further: "If the meaning is as the Great King states, then there are two wisdoms: first, that nothing is attained; second, that the prophecy is attained." He replied: "If there were two, there would be no prophecy. Why? The Buddha's wisdom is non-dual. The Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, bestow prophecies upon bodhisattvas with non-dual wisdom." He asked further: "If wisdom is non-dual, how can there be the bestowing of a prophecy and the receiving of a prophecy?" He replied: "Receiving a prophecy and bestowing a prophecy are non-dual in their limit." He asked further: "If their limit is non-dual, how can there be a prophecy?" He replied: "Penetrating the non-dual limit is itself the prophecy." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 61.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.61.24) - [Next: 61.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.61.26) - [Up: 61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.61) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.61.25) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.61.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.61.25) · Pramāṇa