宗鏡錄 66.30.2

66.30.2

亦作破外人內觀解。 初明破外人者。 外人計有神。 即是人。 云何知耶。 若身中無神。 何能慈恩潤下。 曲隨物情也。 內人破曰。 我見水能下潤。 隨器方圓。 水無神無人者。 而汝能恩潤順物。 亦無神無人也。 今明內觀解者。 水為三微所成。 無有定性。 無性即無水。 三事成身。 無有定性。 無性即無身。 無身即無人。 故說是身無人。 為如水也。 又解。 如小兒水中見影。 謂言水裏有人。 入水求人。 終不可得。 凡夫三事中生身見。 謂身是人。 深觀三事。 不見身相。 即無人也。 又如請觀音經云。 水性不住。 以其住者。 池沼方圓。 礙之即住。 非水有住性也。 今檢人亦如是。 隨諸法。 得人。 名。 無定性。 若四句檢水。 有性有著。 即是住義。 若檢水四句。 無性無著。 即是無住。 無住故。 入如實際。 經云。 是身不實。 四大為家。 此是總約四大破我。 說無我行也。 若作破外人解。 外人計云。 若身中無實有神我者。 今現見六情依身而住。 故知實有神我也。 內人破曰。 現見六情依四大住。 無別我神之所依也。 若約內觀解者。 身名是一。 一身不應在四我住。 若一大我住。 三大應無假名身。 若各有者。 即有四身。 若即若離四句。 約四大中檢身不得。 故知身無有實。 若不得身實即身見破。 身見破。 即我見十六知見皆破也。 經云。 是身為空。 離我我所者。 此是第二約空種破。 說無我行也。 若作破外人解。 外人計有我所。 若無神我。 何得所有。 國土人物是實。 所。 若見實。 當知我亦是實。 內人破曰。 若爾。 所是空。 我亦應空。 如身中空種。 空種及一切外空。 是所。 所空故。 我亦空也。 若約內觀解者。 即是正約空種破身見也。 四大造色圍虛空故。 假名為身。 離空即無身。 若外內空不名身。 今約空種檢身不可得。 即身見破。 身見破。 即離我我所也。 經云。 是身無知。 如草木瓦礫者。 此是第三檢識種破我。 是知說無我行也。 若作破外人解。 外人計云。 若身中無神。 那得知四時氣序等事也。 內人破曰。 如草木瓦礫。 亦猶陰陽氣候逐時轉變。 似有所知。 而非神知者。 令身雖有知。 如草木瓦礫。 無神知也。 又外人計身內有神。 神使知知之。 內人破曰。 若神使知知。 復誰使神。 知。 遂無使。 神何須使。 若無神使。 即無知者。 無知者。 即如草木瓦礫也。 若約內觀。 的觀識種。 所以者何。 三事成身。 命煖無知。 知只是識。 若謂識能知者。 過去識已滅。 滅故不能知。 現在識剎那不住。 無暫停時。 亦不得知。 未來識未有。 未有之識。 豈得有知。 三世求識。 知不可得。 離三世無別有知。 故說此身無知。 如草木瓦礫也。 經云。 是身無作。 風力所轉。 次約風動。 助成。 破識有作。 說無我行也。 若作破外人解。 外人計身內有神我故。 能執作施為。 作一切事。 內人破曰。 此非神作。 身有所作。 皆風力轉也。 若約內觀心解。 妄念心動。 身內。 依風得有種種所作。 故大集經云。 有風能上。 有風能下。 心若念上。 風隨心牽起。 心若念下。 風隨心牽下。 運轉所作。 皆是風隨心轉。 作一切事。 若風道不通。 手脚不遂。 心雖有念。 即舉動無從。 譬如人牽關棙即影技種種所作捩繩若斷。 手無所牽。 當知皆是依風之所作也。 今觀此依風。 不自生。 亦不他生。 若無生。 即是空。 尚不能自有。 令三事成身不可得。 誰是作也。 釋曰。 夫外計內執我者。 皆於地水火風空識六大種中。 及身內識煖息三事等起執。 今觀六大三事內。 唯是識之一大。 世多堅執以為實我。

[This] is also explained in terms of refuting outsiders and inner contemplation. First, explaining the refutation of outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize that there is a spirit, which is the person. How is this known? If there were no spirit within the body, how could it benevolently moisten what is below, or accommodate and follow the inclinations of things? The insider refutes them, saying: 'I see that water can moisten downward and conform to the square or round shape of vessels. If water has no spirit and no person, yet you can benevolently moisten and comply with things, [then you] likewise have no spirit and no person.' Now explaining it in terms of inner contemplation: water is composed of three subtle particles and has no fixed nature. Being without nature, there is no water. The three phenomena form the body, and it has no fixed nature. Being without nature, there is no body. Being without a body, there is no person. Therefore, it is said that this body has no person, being like water. Another explanation is: just like a small child seeing a reflection in water and claiming there is a person inside the water, [who] enters the water seeking the person and ultimately cannot find one; ordinary people give rise to the view of self within the three phenomena, claiming that the body is a person. When one deeply contemplates the three phenomena, one does not see any bodily characteristic, which means there is no person. Furthermore, as the *Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara* says, the nature of water does not abide; if it abides, it is because ponds and pools are square or round, and obstructing it causes it to abide—it is not that water has an abiding nature. Now examining the person, it is also like this: depending on various dharmas, one obtains the name 'person', but there is no fixed nature. If one examines water through the four tetralemmas, having a nature and having attachment constitutes the meaning of abiding; if one examines water through the four tetralemmas, having no nature and having no attachment constitutes non-abiding. Because it is non-abiding, one enters the true limit of suchness. The sūtra says: 'This body is not real; the four great elements are its home.' This is a general refutation of the self in terms of the four great elements, teaching the practice of non-self. If explained as refuting outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize that if there were no truly existent spiritual self within the body, now one presently sees the six sense organs abiding dependent on the body, so one knows that there is truly a spiritual self. The insider refutes them, saying: 'One presently sees the six sense organs abiding dependent on the four great elements; there is no separate self or spirit upon which they depend.' If explained in terms of inner contemplation: the name 'body' is one; a single body should not abide across four selves. If a single great element is the self's abode, the other three great elements should lack the nominally designated body. If each has one, then there would be four bodies. Whether identical or separate, examining the body within the four great elements via the four tetralemmas, it cannot be found; therefore, one knows that the body has no reality. If one cannot find the reality of the body, then the view of the body is broken; when the view of the body is broken, the view of self and the sixteen views are all broken. The sūtra says: 'This body is empty, free from self and what belongs to self.' This is the second: refuting in terms of the space element, teaching the practice of non-self. If explained as refuting outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize that there is what belongs to the self. If there were no spiritual self, how could there be possessions? If lands and persons are real possessions, and one sees they are real, one should know that the self is also real. The insider refutes them, saying: 'If so, what belongs to the self is empty, and the self should also be empty. As with the space element within the body, the space element and all external space are what belongs to the self. Because what belongs to the self is empty, the self is also empty.' If explained in terms of inner contemplation: this directly refutes the view of the body in terms of the space element. Because the form derived from the four great elements encloses empty space, it is nominally designated as a body; apart from space, there is no body. If external and internal space are not called a body, now examining the body in terms of the space element, it cannot be found, and thus the view of the body is broken. When the view of the body is broken, one is free from self and what belongs to the self. The sūtra says: 'This body is devoid of sentience, like grass, trees, tiles, and gravel.' This is the third: examining the consciousness element to refute the self; thus it teaches the practice of non-self. If explained as refuting outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize, 'If there were no spirit within the body, how could one know the sequence of the four seasons and similar matters?' The insider refutes them, saying: 'Just as grass, trees, tiles, and gravel also shift and change over time in accordance with the climate of yin and yang, seeming to have knowing yet not possessing the knowing of a spirit, so too, though the body has knowing, like grass, trees, tiles, and gravel it has no knowing of a spirit.' Furthermore, the outsiders hypothesize that there is a spirit inside the body, and the spirit causes knowing to know it. The insider refutes them, saying: 'If the spirit causes knowing to know, who then causes the spirit? If knowing ultimately has no causer, why would the spirit need to be caused? If there is no causer of the spirit, then there is no knower; and if there is no knower, it is just like grass, trees, tiles, and gravel.' If in terms of inner contemplation, it directly contemplates the consciousness element. Why is this? The three phenomena form the body; life-faculty and warmth are devoid of knowing, and knowing is merely consciousness. If one claims that consciousness can know: past consciousness has already ceased, and because it has ceased, it cannot know; present consciousness does not abide for an instant, having no moment of pausing, and thus also cannot know; future consciousness does not yet exist, and how could a non-existent consciousness have knowing? Seeking consciousness across the three times, knowing cannot be found; apart from the three times, there is no separate knowing. Therefore, it is said that this body is devoid of sentience, like grass, trees, tiles, and gravel. The sūtra says: 'This body is without action, turned by the force of wind.' Next, in terms of the motion of wind, it assists in refuting that consciousness has action, teaching the practice of non-self. If explained as refuting outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize that because there is a spiritual self inside the body, it can undertake and execute actions and perform all deeds. The insider refutes them, saying: 'This is not done by a spirit; whatever the body does is all turned by the force of wind.' If explained in terms of inner contemplation of mind: when the deluded mental thought moves, inside the body, depending on wind, there are various actions performed. Therefore, the *Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra* says: 'There is wind that can go upward, and wind that can go downward. If the mind thinks upward, the wind pulls upward following the mind; if the mind thinks downward, the wind pulls downward following the mind. Movements and operations are all wind turning in accordance with the mind, performing all deeds.' If the wind channels do not flow freely, the hands and feet do not function properly; though the mind has thoughts, there is no way for movement to occur. For example, when a person pulls the mechanisms, the shadow puppet performs various movements; if the puppet strings snap, the hand has nothing to pull. One should know that all are actions depending on wind. Now, contemplating this wind-dependence: it does not arise from itself, nor does it arise from another. If it is without arising, it is empty. It cannot even exist on its own, making it impossible for the three phenomena to form a body. Who is the agent? Explanation: In general, outsiders who hypothesize and insiders who grasp at a self both give rise to attachment within the six elements of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness, as well as within the three phenomena of consciousness, warmth, and breath inside the body. Now, contemplating within the six elements and three phenomena, it is solely the one element of consciousness that the world mostly clings to firmly as the real self.