宗鏡錄 79.19

79.19

答。以唯識故。則有世俗諦。既有世俗。則有似塵識。幻相不無。以無實不可得。故稱空耳。不可起蛇足鹽香。決定斷空之見。如密嚴經偈云。瓶等眾境界。悉以心為體。非瓶似瓶現。是故說為空。世間所有色。諸天宮殿等。皆是阿賴耶。變異而可見。眾生身所有。從頭至手足。頓生及漸次。無非阿賴耶。習氣濁於心。凡愚不能了。此性非是有。亦復非是空。如人以諸物。擊破於瓶等。物體若是空。即無能所破。譬如須彌量。我見未為惡。憍慢而著空。此惡過於彼。又經云。寧可執有如須彌。不可執空如芥子。大般涅槃經云。解脫者名不空空。空空者名無所有。無所有者。即是外道尼乾子等所計解脫。而是尼乾。實無解脫。故名空空。真解脫者。則不如是。故不空空。不空空者真解脫。真解脫者。即是如來。又解脫者。名曰不空。如水酒酪酥蜜等瓶。雖無水酒酪酥蜜時。猶故得名為水等瓶。如是瓶等。不可說空。及以不空。若言空者。則不得有色香味觸。若言不空。而復無有水酒等實。解脫亦爾。不可說色。及以非色。不可說空。及以不空。若言空者。則不得有常樂我淨。若言不空。誰受是常樂我淨者。以是義故。不可說空。及以不空。空者。謂無二十五有。及諸煩惱。一切苦。一切相。一切有為行。如瓶無酪則名為空。不空者。謂真實。善色。常樂我淨。不動不變。猶如彼瓶色香味觸。故名不空。是故解脫。喻如彼瓶。彼瓶遇緣。則有破壞。解脫不爾。不可破壞。不可破壞。即真解脫。真解脫者。即是如來。

Answer: Because of consciousness-only, there is conventional truth. Since there is the conventional, there is consciousness that resembles dust [objects]; the illusory characteristics are not non-existent. Because nothing real can be apprehended, it is merely designated as empty; one must not produce views of absolute annihilating emptiness such as [looking for] a snake’s legs or the fragrance of salt. As a verse in the Ghanavyūhasūtra says:
‘Realms of objects such as jars
All have mind as their substance.
They are not jars, but appear resembling jars;
Therefore, they are spoken of as empty.
All form in the world,
The palaces of the devas and so forth,
Are all transformed by the ālayavijñāna
And become visible.
All that is in the bodies of sentient beings,
From head to hands and feet,
Whether born at once or gradually,
Is none other than the ālayavijñāna.
Vāsanās defile the mind;
The common and foolish cannot understand this.
This nature is not existent,
Nor is it empty.
Just as when a person uses objects
To strike and break a jar and the like:
If the substance of the object were empty,
There would be neither breaker nor what is broken.
Even a self-view of the magnitude of Mount Sumeru
Would not yet be considered [the worst] evil;
To be arrogant and attach to emptiness—
This evil surpasses that.’
Moreover, a sūtra says: ‘Better to cling to existence as [large as] Mount Sumeru than to cling to emptiness as [small as] a mustard seed.’ The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: ‘Liberation is called not-empty emptiness. Emptiness of emptiness is called having nothing. That which has nothing is the liberation postulated by externalists such as the Nirgranthas. Yet those Nirgranthas truly have no liberation; therefore it is called emptiness of emptiness. True liberation is not like that; therefore it is not-empty emptiness. Not-empty emptiness is true liberation; true liberation is the Tathāgata. Furthermore, liberation is called not-empty. Just as a jar for water, wine, curd, ghee, or honey, even when lacking water, wine, curd, ghee, or honey, is still called a jar for water and so forth. Such jars cannot be called empty, nor can they be called not-empty. If one calls them empty, then they could not have color, odor, taste, or touch; if one calls them not-empty, yet there is no reality of water, wine, and so forth. Liberation is also like this: it cannot be said to be form, nor non-form; it cannot be said to be empty, nor not-empty. If one calls it empty, then it could not have permanence, bliss, self, and purity; if one calls it not-empty, who is it that experiences this permanence, bliss, self, and purity? By this meaning, it cannot be called empty, nor can it be called not-empty. As for empty, it means being without the twenty-five states of existence and all kleśas, all suffering, all characteristics, and all conditioned formations; just as a jar without curd is called empty. As for not-empty, it means the real, wholesome form, permanence, bliss, self, purity, immobility, and changelessness; just like the color, odor, taste, and touch of that jar, therefore it is called not-empty. Therefore liberation is exemplified by that jar. When that jar encounters conditions, it is broken; liberation is not like that: it cannot be destroyed. That which cannot be destroyed is true liberation; true liberation is the Tathāgata.’