[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) › 65.3 # 宗鏡錄 65.3 宗鏡錄 65.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [65.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.65.3) 答。雙照有空。不住內外。似谷答聲而絕慮。如鏡鑒像而無心。妙湛圓明。寂而常照。故云常在正念。亦名正知。非是有念有知。亦非無念無知。有無皆想。俱非正知。但無念而照。名曰正知。若唯無念。寂而失照。若但照體。照而失寂。並稱不正。正在雙行。還原集云。聖人有二種用心。一不見一切物皆空。唯見於空。不見一切物。二見一切物即空。了了見一切有。不住於有。了了見一切空。不住於空。雙照有無。分別宛然。而無念動。猶如明鏡。覩其色像。一切皆於中現。用心亦爾。得其妙性起照。照見一切。了了知無所知。了了見無能見。無能。不廢常見。見性。既常。無一間斷。分明徹照十方。淨無瑕穢。內外圓明。廓周法界。亦名毘盧遮那無障礙眼。圓滿十方。照見一切佛剎。即此義也。所以達人見聞。不落能所。既非是有見。亦非無見。但不生二相。常合真空。是以全色為眼。常見色而無緣。全眼為色。恒稱見而非我。以色是所緣之境。眼是能緣之根。今即是眼。故無緣也。又眼是我能見。今全為色。正見之時。即非我也。則色心無二能所非殊。所以影公頌云。法性不並真。聖賢無異道。故大集經云。慧燈三昧者。即是諸法無二相也。無二相者。不在有無。不出有無。夫有無者。以惑情所執。有無皆失。理。無惑計。有無皆真。是知諸法。非實非虛。非空非有。若無於有。不成於無。若無於無。不成於有。有無交徹。萬化齊融。又約聖人親證見聞之境。有其四種。所以大涅槃經云。約佛妙證。有四種聞。一不聞。聞二不聞不聞。三聞不聞。四聞聞。台教釋云。初入證道。修道忽謝。無所可有。名為不聞。真明豁開。無所不照。即是於聞。故名不聞。聞證得如是大般涅槃。無有聞相。故名不聞不聞。證起惑滅。名聞不聞。寂而常照。隨扣則應。名曰聞聞。初句證智。次句證理。第三句證斷。第四句證應。若事若理。智斷自他。於初智證之中。具足無缺。此一妙證。盡涅槃海。復次不聞聞。是證了因。聞不聞。是證緣因。不聞不聞。是證正因。聞聞。是證境界。乃至明四種。生生。生不生。不生生。不生不生。亦同四種聞義。一生生。是因緣所生法。二生不生。是我說即是空。三不生生。是亦名為假名。四不生不生。是亦名中道義。若能了此四生之無生。方達聖人見聞之境。是以不取不捨。達一道之原。非有非空。見諸法之實。如肇論云。且夫心之有也。以其有有。有自不有。故聖心不有。有不有有。故有無有。有無有故。則無無。無。無故。聖心不有不無。不有不無故。其神乃虛。何者。夫有也。無也。心之影響也。言也。象也。影響之所攀緣也。有無既廢。則心無影響。影響既淪。則言象莫測。言象莫測。則道絕群方。道絕群方。故能窮靈極數。窮靈極數。乃曰妙盡。妙盡之道。本乎無寄。夫無寄在乎冥寂。冥寂故。虛以謂之。妙盡在乎極數。極數故。數以應之。數以應之。故動與事會。虛以謂之。故道超名外。道超名外。因謂之無。動與事會。因謂之有。謂之有者。應夫有為。強謂之然耳。彼何然哉。故經云。聖智無知。而無所不知。無為而無所不為。此無相寂然之道。豈曰有而為有。無而為無。動而乖靜。靜而廢用耶。而今之談者。多即言以定旨。尋大方而徵隅。懷前識以標玄。存所存之必當。是以聞聖有知。謂之有心。聞聖無知。謂等大虛。有無之境。邊見所存。豈是處中莫二之道乎。何者。萬物雖殊。然性本常一。不可而物。然非不物。可物於物。則名相異陳。不物於物。則物而即真。是以聖人不物於物。不非物於物。不物於物。物非有也。不非物於物。物非無也。非有所以不取。非無所以不捨。不捨故。妙存則真。不取故。名相靡因。名相靡因。非有知也。妙存即真。非無知也。故經云。般若於諸法。無取無捨。無知無不知。此攀緣之外。絕心之域。而欲以有無詰者。不亦遠乎。釋曰。夫說有說無。是心之影響。豈當真實乎。若能窮其靈智之原。極乎心數之表。則可妙盡其道矣。自然真心無寄。不屬有無。不以有。故虛以謂之。不以無。故數以應之。然此猶是強言。則聖智無心於彼此。故云聖人不物於物。不非物於物。不物於物。故名相靡因者。以不取諸法。無法當情。則名相無因得起。不非物於物。故妙存即真者。以不捨諸法故。無法可捨。則見諸法之實性。湛然常住。妙體恒真。此真實甚深般若。豈在即言審定。隨意思量。說有說無。非有非無之所能及。故云此攀緣之外。絕心之域。而欲以有無詰者。不亦遠乎。應當妙證之時。自然明了。 > Answer: It illuminates both existence and emptiness, abiding neither internally nor externally. Like a valley echoing a sound while entirely beyond deliberation, or like a mirror reflecting images without any intention, it is wondrously clear, perfectly luminous, tranquil yet constantly illuminating. Therefore it is said to remain always in right mindfulness, which is also termed right knowledge. It is neither having thought and having knowledge, nor is it devoid of thought and devoid of knowledge. Both existence and non-existence are concepts; both are not right knowledge. Only when there is illumination without thought is it called right knowledge. If there were solely no thought, tranquility would lose illumination. If there were only the illumination of substance, illumination would lose tranquility. Both are termed un-right; what is right consists in their dual operation. The Huanyuan ji states: 'The sage employs the mind in two ways. First, not seeing that all things are empty, he only sees emptiness and does not see any things. Second, seeing that all things are themselves empty, he clearly sees all existence without abiding in existence, and clearly sees all emptiness without abiding in emptiness. Illuminating both existence and non-existence, distinctions are distinct, yet there is no movement of thought. Just like a clear mirror observing forms and images, all appear within it. The employment of the mind is also like this: attaining its wondrous nature, it gives rise to illumination, illuminating and seeing everything, clearly knowing that there is nothing known, and clearly seeing that there is no grasper who sees. Having no grasper does not discard constant seeing. Since the seeing-nature is constant, it is without a single interruption, distinctly and thoroughly illuminating the ten directions, pure and free from blemish, internally and externally perfectly luminous, vastly pervading the dharmadhātu. It is also called the unobstructed eye of Vairocana, perfecting the ten directions and illuminating all buddha-lands; this is precisely its meaning.' Therefore, when an adept sees and hears, he does not fall into subject and object. It is neither an existent seeing nor a non-existent seeing; he merely does not give rise to the two characteristics, always harmonizing with true emptiness. For this reason, form is completely the eye: one constantly sees form, yet there is no object of cognition. The eye is completely form: one constantly proclaims seeing, yet there is no self. Because form is the realm of the object of cognition, and the eye is the faculty of the subject of cognition, now that it is precisely the eye, there is no object of cognition. Furthermore, the eye is that through which I can see; now that it is completely form, at the very moment of seeing, it is not I. Thus form and citta are non-dual; subject and object are not distinct. Hence master Sengying's verse says: 'The nature of dharmas does not stand beside the true; sages and worthies have no divergent paths.' Thus the Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra states: 'The Lamp of Wisdom Samādhi is simply the lack of two characteristics in all dharmas.' Having no two characteristics means neither resting in existence and non-existence nor stepping outside of existence and non-existence. Now, regarding existence and non-existence, because they are grasped by deluded sentiment, both existence and non-existence are lost. In principle, free from deluded reckoning, both existence and non-existence are true. Hence one knows that all dharmas are neither real nor unreal, neither empty nor existent. If there were no existence, non-existence could not be established; if there were no non-existence, existence could not be established. Existence and non-existence thoroughly interpenetrate; the myriad transformations are equally harmonized. Furthermore, with regard to the realm of seeing and hearing directly realized by the sage, there are four kinds. Hence the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'With respect to the Buddha's wondrous realization, there are four kinds of hearing: first, hearing non-hearing; second, not hearing non-hearing; third, hearing and not hearing; fourth, hearing hearing.' The Tiantai teaching explains: 'Upon first entering the path of realization, the path of cultivation suddenly falls away and there is nothing that can exist; this is called non-hearing. The true illumination opens wide and there is nothing it does not illuminate; this is precisely hearing. Thus it is called hearing non-hearing. Realizing such a Great Parinirvāṇa, there is no characteristic of hearing; thus it is called not hearing non-hearing. Realizing that arising afflictions have been extinguished is called hearing and not hearing. Tranquil yet constantly illuminating, responding according to whatever prompts it, is called hearing hearing. The first phrase realizes wisdom. The second phrase realizes principle. The third phrase realizes cessation. The fourth phrase realizes response. Whether matter or principle, wisdom or cessation, self or other, within the initial realization of wisdom, all are fully complete without defect. This single wondrous realization exhausts the ocean of nirvāṇa. Furthermore, hearing non-hearing is realizing the revealing cause. Hearing and not hearing is realizing the contributing cause. Not hearing non-hearing is realizing the direct cause. Hearing hearing is realizing the realm of objects. As for explaining the four kinds of arising—arising arising, arising non-arising, non-arising arising, and non-arising non-arising—they are also equivalent to the meanings of the four kinds of hearing: first, arising arising is dharmas arisen from conditions; second, arising non-arising is "I proclaim it to be emptiness"; third, non-arising arising is "it is also called conventional designation"; fourth, non-arising non-arising is "it is also called the meaning of the Middle Way." If one can comprehend the non-arising of these four arisings, only then will one reach the realm of the sage's seeing and hearing.' Therefore, by neither grasping nor rejecting, one reaches the source of the one path; by being neither existent nor empty, one sees the reality of all dharmas. As the Zhaolun states: 'Now, the existence of the mind is due to its possessing existence. Existence does not inherently exist of itself; hence the sage's mind does not exist. Existence does not have an existence of its own; hence existence lacks existence. Because existence lacks existence, there is no non-existence. Since non-existence is non-existent, the sage's mind is neither existent nor non-existent. Because it is neither existent nor non-existent, its spirit is empty. Why so? Existence and non-existence are the reflections and echoes of the mind; words and symbols are what reflections and echoes grasp at. Once existence and non-existence are discarded, the mind is devoid of reflections and echoes. Once reflections and echoes have vanished, words and symbols cannot fathom it. When words and symbols cannot fathom it, the Way is cut off from all categories. Because the Way is cut off from all categories, it can exhaust the spiritual and fathom all numbers. Exhausting the spiritual and fathoming all numbers is called the wondrous consummation. The Way of wondrous consummation is rooted in having no reliance. Now, having no reliance resides in profound silence; because of this profound silence, we designate it with emptiness. Wondrous consummation resides in fathoming numbers; because of fathoming numbers, it responds through numbers. Because it responds through numbers, its motion converges with affairs. Because we designate it with emptiness, the Way transcends outside names. Because the Way transcends outside names, we consequently call it non-existent. Because its motion converges with affairs, we consequently call it existent. Calling it existent is in response to conditioned phenomena; we merely force it to be termed thus. How could it inherently be so? Thus the sūtra states: "The sage's wisdom is without knowledge, yet there is nothing it does not know; it is without action, yet there is nothing it does not do." Could this unconditioned, tranquil Way be called existent as existence, non-existent as non-existence, moving so as to contradict stillness, or still so as to discard function? Yet contemporary debaters mostly fix principles based on words, seek the great boundless realm by scrutinizing corners, harbor prior conceptions to designate the profound, and cling to what they grasp as necessarily correct. Hence, hearing that the sage has knowledge, they say he possesses a mind; hearing that the sage lacks knowledge, they say he is equivalent to empty space. The realms of existence and non-existence are where extreme views abide; how could this be the middle path devoid of duality? Why so? Although the myriad things are diverse, their nature is fundamentally ever one. They cannot be objectified as things, yet they are not non-things. If one objectifies things as things, names and characteristics are variously set forth; if one does not objectify things as things, then things are immediately true. Therefore, the sage neither objectifies things as things, nor does he take things as non-things. Not objectifying things as things, things are not existent; not taking things as non-things, things are not non-existent. Being non-existent, they are not grasped; being non-empty, they are not rejected. Because they are not rejected, their wondrous presence is true; because they are not grasped, names and characteristics have no basis. When names and characteristics have no basis, it is not having knowledge; when wondrous presence is true, it is not lacking knowledge. Therefore the sūtra states: "Prajñā neither grasps nor rejects all dharmas; it is neither with knowledge nor without knowledge." This lies outside grasping at conditions and is a realm where the mind is cut off. To wish to cross-examine it through existence and non-existence—is this not far from the mark?' Explanation: Speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence are the reflections and echoes of the mind; how could they correspond to reality? If one can exhaust the source of that spiritual wisdom and fathom the exterior of mental factors, then one can wonderfully consummate its Way. Spontaneously, the true citta has no reliance and belongs neither to existence nor to non-existence. Because it is not existent, we designate it with emptiness; because it is not non-existent, it responds through numbers. Yet these are still forced words; the sage's wisdom has no mind toward this or that. Therefore it says: 'The sage neither objectifies things as things, nor does he take things as non-things.' As for 'not objectifying things as things, hence names and characteristics have no basis': because he does not grasp all dharmas and no dharma confronts deluded sentiment, names and characteristics have no basis to arise. As for 'not taking things as non-things, hence wondrous presence is true': because he does not reject all dharmas, there is no dharma that can be rejected, and he sees the true nature of all dharmas as serenely ever-abiding and their wondrous substance as constantly true. How could this real, profound prajñā be scrutinized and determined through words, or measured according to conceptual thought, or reached by speaking of existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence? Therefore it says: 'This lies outside grasping at conditions and is a realm where the mind is cut off. To wish to cross-examine it through existence and non-existence—is this not far from the mark?' When one wondrously realizes it, it will naturally be clearly understood. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 65.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.65.2) - [Next: 65.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.65.4) - [Up: 65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.65) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.65.3) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [大般涅槃經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1767.20.17) — Classical Chinese - [肇論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.49) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.65.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.65.3) · Pramāṇa