[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) › 66.30.1 # 宗鏡錄 66.30.1 宗鏡錄 66.30.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [66.30.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.66.30.1) 答。 但生是空生。 死是空死。 畢竟無有我人可得。 如經云。 一切世間法。 唯因果無人。 但是依空法。 還生於空法。 是知眾生果中。 但有名數。 名數本空。 萬法何有。 如法性論云。 數盡則群有皆虛。 名廢則萬像自畢。 因茲以觀。 斯乃會通之津徑。 反神之玄路。 是以境因名立。 名虛則境空。 有從數生。 數虛則有寂。 名數起處。 皆是自心。 心若不生。 萬法何有。 所以華嚴經頌云。 世間一切法。 但以心為主。 隨解取眾相。 顛倒不如實。 若能如實觀之。 則見自心之性。 可謂會通之津徑。 反神之玄路矣。 又淨名疏。 智者廣釋六大性無我。 如經云。 是身無我。 為如地。 此正約地種明無我也。 今例作兩釋。 一作破外人解。 二約內觀明義。 一破外人者。 外人計云。 若言身無神我。 那得能擔輕負重。 內人破言。 地亦能荷負山嶽。 可有神我耶。 次約內觀解者。 若毘曇明。 眾生是假名。 地大是實法。 成論明。 地大亦是假名。 四微是實法。 今明雖復假實之殊。 同是苦諦下無我行觀門所攝。 如地是四微所成。 若一微是主。 三亦是主。 若一非主。 三亦非主。 當知無主。 若內地四微所成無主者。 外地四微所成。 亦無有主也。 若內外地無主者。 此三事所成。 何得有主。 若無主。 即是無我。 故云此身無主。 為如地也。 又請觀音經云。 地大。 地無堅性。 地若是有者。 為自性有。 他性有。 共性有。 無因性有。 四種中隨計一性。 即是有見。 若謂是事實。 餘妄語。 實即是剛義。 是性。 是主義也。 若檢四性不得。 此為見地是無。 是事實。 餘妄語。 實即是剛。 是性。 是主。 若見地亦有亦無。 是事實。 餘妄語。 實即是剛。 是性。 是主。 若見地是非有非無。 是事實。 餘妄語。 實即是性。 是主。 若於此四句有所計執者。 即是性實。 是剛。 是主。 金剛般若經云。 是諸眾生。 若心取相。 則著我人眾生壽者。 若取法相。 亦著我人眾生壽者。 若取非法相。 亦著我人眾生壽者也。 若不取四句。 則是觀地無剛性。 若無剛實。 則無主無我。 故說是身無主。 猶如地也。 經云。 是身無我。 為如火。 亦作兩釋。 一作破外人解者。 外人計有神我。 云何知耶。 見身能東西馳走。 及出音聲。 故知有神我也。 內人破曰。 約火一法。 破其兩計。 所以者何。 火燒野草。 亦能東西自在。 亦是我也。 又燒著竹木。 出諸音聲。 亦是有神我也。 次約內觀釋者。 火為二微所成。 無有定性。 無性。 即是無火也。 今身為名色所成。 身無定性。 若身無定性。 即無我也。 復次此身中諸煖即是火。 若外火無我。 內火亦無我也。 又請觀音經云。 火大。 火性從因緣生。 若從緣生。 即無自性。 無實。 即無我。 破性。 及四句。 類地可知。 經云。 是身無壽。 為如風。 亦作破內外觀釋。 破外人者。 外人計有壽者。 云何知耶。 若無壽者。 何得有出入息。 相續不斷。 內人破曰。 出入息者。 但風相。 外風無壽者。 內風豈是壽者也。 次內觀解者。 風相觸擊。 故輕虛自在。 遊中無礙。 有何壽命。 大集云。 出入息者。 名為壽命。 若觀此出入息。 入無積聚。 出無分散。 來無經遊。 去無履涉。 如空中風求不可得。 風既非壽。 息亦何得是壽也。 又請觀音經云。 風性無礙。 今以四句觀風。 若言有性有生。 四句可得者。 即是礙相。 不得入道。 若四句觀風。 風不可得。 即是無礙。 無礙故。 即是入如實之際。 觀身三事。 息非壽命。 如風。 故說是身無壽。 為如風也。 經云。 是身無人。 為如水。 此約水種破人。 > Answer: It is only that birth is empty birth, and death is empty death; ultimately there is no self or person to be found. As a sūtra says: 'All worldly dharmas are only causes and fruits without a person. It is merely that depending on empty dharmas, empty dharmas are produced again.' Thus we know that within the fruit of sentient beings, there are only names and enumerations. Since names and enumerations are fundamentally empty, how could the myriad dharmas exist? As the Dharmatāśāstra says: 'When enumerations are exhausted, all existents are empty; when names are discarded, the myriad images come to an end of themselves.' Contemplating on this basis, this is indeed the ferry and path of mutual comprehension, the mysterious road for returning the spirit. Therefore, objective realms are established dependent on names; when names are hollow, objective realms are empty. Existence arises from enumeration; when enumeration is hollow, existence is tranquil. The place where names and enumerations arise is entirely one's own citta. If citta does not arise, how could the myriad dharmas exist? Therefore, a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'All worldly dharmas merely take citta as master; following understanding, they grasp various characteristics, inverted and not in accordance with reality.' If one can contemplate them in accordance with reality, one will see the nature of one's own citta; this may be called the ferry and path of mutual comprehension, the mysterious road for returning the spirit. Furthermore, in the Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, Zhiyi extensively explains that the nature of the six great elements is without self. As the sūtra says: 'This body has no self, being like the earth.' This precisely explains selflessness in terms of the earth element. Here, two explanations are routinely made: first, as an explanation refuting outsiders; second, clarifying the meaning in terms of internal contemplation. As for the first, refuting outsiders: the outsiders claim, 'If one says that the body has no conscious self, how could it carry light loads and bear heavy burdens?' The insider refutes them, saying, 'The earth can also bear mountains and peaks; can it have a conscious self?' Next, as for the explanation in terms of internal contemplation: the Abhidharma explains that sentient beings are provisional designations and the earth element is a real dharma; the Tattvasiddhi explains that the earth element is also a provisional designation and the four subtle atoms are real dharmas. Now it is explained that although there is this distinction between provisional and real, both are equally subsumed under the contemplative approach to the practice of selflessness under the truth of suffering. Just as earth is composed of the four subtle atoms: if one subtle atom were the master, the other three would also be masters; if one is not the master, the other three are also not masters. One should know that there is no master. If the internal earth composed of the four subtle atoms has no master, then the external earth composed of the four subtle atoms also has no master. If internal and external earth have no master, how could what is composed of these three things have a master? If there is no master, that is precisely selflessness; hence it says that this body has no master, being like the earth. Furthermore, the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara says: 'The earth element: earth has no solid nature.' If earth were existent, would it exist through its own nature, through other-nature, through both natures, or through causeless nature? Clinging to any one nature among the four kinds is an existence-view. If one asserts that this matter is real and the rest is false speech, 'real' means hard, it means nature, and it means master. If one examines the four natures and cannot find them, and takes this seeing of earth as nonexistent to be real and the rest as false speech, 'real' means hard, it means nature, and it means master. If one sees earth as both existent and nonexistent, taking this to be real and the rest as false speech, 'real' means hard, it means nature, and it means master. If one sees earth as neither existent nor nonexistent, taking this to be real and the rest as false speech, 'real' means nature and it means master. If one has any clinging toward these four propositions, that is nature, reality, hardness, and master. The Diamond Prajñā Sūtra says: 'If the citta of these sentient beings grasps characteristics, it attaches to self, person, sentient being, and soul. If it grasps the characteristic of dharmas, it also attaches to self, person, sentient being, and soul. If it grasps the characteristic of non-dharmas, it also attaches to self, person, sentient being, and soul.' If one does not grasp the four propositions, that is contemplating that earth has no hard nature. If it has no hard reality, then it has no master and no self; hence it is said that this body has no master, just like the earth. The sūtra says: 'This body has no self, being like fire.' This also has two explanations. As for the first, the explanation refuting outsiders: outsiders claim there is a conscious self. How is this known? Seeing that the body can run east and west and produce sounds, they know there is a conscious self. The insider refutes them, saying: 'Relying on the single dharma of fire, we refute both of their claims. Why is that? When fire burns wild grass, it can also move east and west freely; is it also a self? Moreover, when it catches bamboo and wood, it produces various sounds; does it also have a conscious self?' Next, as for the explanation in terms of internal contemplation: fire is composed of two subtle atoms and has no fixed nature. Being without nature, there is no fire. Now, the body is composed of name-and-form; the body has no fixed nature. If the body has no fixed nature, then there is no self. Furthermore, the various warmth in this body is fire. If external fire has no self, internal fire also has no self. Furthermore, the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara says: 'The fire element: the nature of fire is produced from causes and conditions.' If it is produced from conditions, it has no intrinsic nature. Having no reality, there is no self. Refuting its nature and the four propositions can be understood by analogy with the earth element. The sūtra says: 'This body has no life-span, being like the wind.' This is also explained by refuting outsiders and through internal contemplation. As for refuting outsiders: outsiders claim there is a soul with a life-span. How is this known? 'If there were no soul with a life-span, how could there be inhalation and exhalation, continuous and uninterrupted?' The insider refutes them, saying: 'Inhalation and exhalation are merely characteristics of wind. If external wind has no life-span, how could internal wind be a soul with a life-span?' Next, as for the explanation through internal contemplation: the characteristics of wind strike each other, and so it is light, vacuous, unhindered, moving through space without obstruction; what life-span does it have? The Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra says: 'Inhalation and exhalation are called life-span.' If one contemplates this inhalation and exhalation, entering there is no accumulation, exiting there is no dispersal, coming there is no journeying, going there is no stepping; like the wind in empty space, it cannot be found when sought. Since wind is not a life-span, how could breath be a life-span? Furthermore, the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara says: 'The nature of wind is unobstructed.' Now, contemplating wind through the four propositions: if one says it has a nature and has birth, and the four propositions can be apprehended, that is an obstructed characteristic, and one cannot enter the Path. If one contemplates wind through the four propositions and wind cannot be apprehended, that is unobstructedness. Because of unobstructedness, one enters the limit of reality. Contemplating the three things of the body, breath is not life-span, just like wind; hence it is said that this body has no life-span, being like the wind. The sūtra says: 'This body has no person, being like water.' This refutes the person in terms of the water element. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 66.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.66.29) - [Next: 66.30.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.66.30.2) - [Up: 66.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.66.30) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.30.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.66.30.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.66.30.1) · Pramāṇa