宗鏡錄 8.5

Answer: If they had an intrinsic nature, not a single phenomenon would be established. Because they lack intrinsic nature, all conditions are established together. Within the lack of intrinsic nature, both existence and non-existence are unobtainable; how then could it lead to the views of annihilationism or eternalism? As the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra says: 'All bodhisattva-mahāsattvas are extremely rare. Practicing the profound prajñāpāramitā, they contemplate the two emptynesses. Although they know that all phenomena are entirely like a dream, like an echo, like an image, like a shadow, like a mirage, like an illusion, like a phantom, all not truly existent, having no intrinsic nature as their nature, and their own characteristics are all empty, yet they can establish the distinctions of all phenomena, such as good and non-good, all without confusion.' It also says: 'Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, the Buddha states that all phenomena have no intrinsic nature as their intrinsic nature. If all phenomena have no intrinsic nature as their intrinsic nature, who is defiled and who is purified? Who is bound and who is liberated? Because people do not comprehend defilement and purification, and bondage and liberation, they break the precepts, break right view, break deportment, and break pure livelihood; they will fall into the hells, animals, and ghost realms, undergoing all manner of severe suffering." Up to where the Buddha said: "Subhūti, excellent, excellent! So it is, so it is. Just as you say, all phenomena take the lack of intrinsic nature as their intrinsic nature. Within intrinsic nature, both having an intrinsic nature and lacking an intrinsic nature are unobtainable. One should not grasp at either existence or non-existence here."' Therefore we know that one can neither grasp at existence nor grasp at non-existence, because within intrinsic nature, there is neither existence nor non-existence. The teachings spoken regarding existence and non-existence are all skillful means to break attachment and enter into the Dharma. Hence an earlier master of virtue said: 'Using the unobtainable as an expedient means has two aspects: First, by using the unobtainable, it guides what was previously accompanied by characteristics, so that wading into existence one is not confused by emptiness; this serves as an expedient means for entering existence. Second, one borrows the unobtainable to enter existence without holding onto the unobtainable; thus the unobtainable itself is also an expedient means; this serves as an expedient means for entering emptiness. For this reason, with no-attainment, characteristics are empty; with no-maker, the person is empty; with no limit, the nature is empty. When these three characteristics are exhausted, the principle of the dharmadhātu manifests.' Thus the bodhisattva does not destroy emptiness yet is constantly existent—the phenomena of defilement and purification are distinct; and does not obstruct existence yet is constantly empty—the path of the one reality is ever-manifest. Illumining both in this way, one only then enters what is profound. As the Prajñāpradīpaśāstra says: 'When I speak of negating the entry into existence, it is negating that there is an inherent substance; it is not stating that there is no substance. As a verse in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: / Existence and non-existence are both extremes, / Up to wherever the mind proceeds. / When that mental proceeding has ceased, / It is called the cessation of the true mind.' The commentary says: 'In this way, one does not cling to an existing substance, nor does one cling to a non-existing substance. If a phenomenon had no substance, then there would not be a single thing that could be made. Also, as a verse says: / Refuting existence, one speaks of non-existence, / Because one does not grasp at non-existence. / Just as refuting blue is "not blue", / One does not wish to say it is white.' The commentary says: 'These two kinds of views are called unwholesome. Therefore, one who possesses wisdom, wishing to still conceptual proliferation and attain the bliss of remainderless [nirvāṇa], must refute these two kinds of evil views. Furthermore, how is this so? Whether subsumed by the three realms or transcendent of the world, whether wholesome, unwholesome, neutral, and so forth, like the seeds of worldly truth and all that is undertaken: if they had an inherent substance in the ultimate truth, then rousing diligent expedients and committing wholesome and unwholesome actions—all these karma-actions—would be empty and without fruit. Why is this? Because they would already exist beforehand. For example, just as a vase, cloth, and so forth already existed beforehand. In this way, the happy would always be happy, and the suffering would always be suffering. Like painted figures on a wall, their shapes, sizes, and deportments would have unchanging characteristics. All sentient beings would also be like this. Furthermore, if they lacked an inherent substance, then those [actions] subsumed by the three realms or transcendent of the world, wholesome and unwholesome phenomena, rousing diligent expedients would be empty and without fruit, because they would not exist. In this way, the world would fall into annihilationism. For example, it is like grinding and polishing a hare's horn to make it sharp—in the end, it can never be attained. Therefore, the verse says: / Those of inferior wisdom see phenomena / As either existent or non-existent and so forth; / Those persons do not see / The ultimate truth that ceases views.' Furthermore, as in the Ratnarāśisūtra, the Buddha told Kāśyapa: 'Existence is one extreme; non-existence is one extreme. In this way, that internal earth element and the external earth element are both without duality. All Buddha-tathāgatas realize and know this with true wisdom, attaining complete awakening to the non-dual single characteristic, which is called characteristiclessness.' Therefore, an earlier master of virtue said: 'What the various schools propound mostly says that only the intrinsic nature is empty, but phenomena are not empty. For example, the Faxiang school only holds that the parikalpita is non-existent, not that the paratantra is non-existent. Those who mistakenly study the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the like without grasping the intent also say: "Phenomena lack an intrinsic nature, therefore they are said to be empty"—in which case the present characteristics would not be empty. Now, since there is no intrinsic nature, they exist through dependent origination; the existent substance is immediately empty. Arising through conditions without intrinsic nature, they are therefore empty; empty, yet constantly existent. Only when they mutually interpenetrate are they true emptiness and wondrous existence. Therefore, their words are largely the same, but their purports differ.' Moreover, regarding the teaching of conditioned origination, there are two aspects: First, characteristiclessness like space, which completely sweeps away everything so that nothing exists; this is the emptiness of characteristics. Second, lack of intrinsic nature like an illusion, whereby karmic fruits are never lost; this is the emptiness of nature. Because characteristics are empty, the myriad phenomena are hollow in substance and entirely unobtainable. Because nature is empty, the path of karma is not destroyed and cause and effect are distinct. Only through these two emptynesses of nature and characteristics is the principle of true emptiness established. Thus, it is not the limits of beginning, middle, and end, yet beginning and end are distinct; there is no person who can act, yet retribution is not lost. Therefore we know that the principle of no intrinsic nature is established, the Dharma-eye completely illumines, and not a single phenomenon has a real root or origin. Now, citing further evidence to broadly clarify this, completing the Mirror of the Source: As for the two truths of ultimate and conventional, all phenomena do not go beyond emptiness and existence. The phenomena of emptiness and existence both arise from conditions. Phenomena that arise from conditions fundamentally lack inherent substance; manifesting based on citta, they are entirely without intrinsic nature. Arising through conditions, they are therefore without intrinsic nature; being without intrinsic nature, they therefore arise through conditions. Through these two gates of conditions and nature, the myriad phenomena are uniformly equal. Therefore, the Huayan commentary broadly explains: 'Because they arise from conditions, they exist—this is the meaning of existence; because they lack intrinsic nature, they are empty.'

is the meaning of emptiness. The two meanings are the reasons for emptiness and existence. That is, 'because of having no nature, it exists' is the reason for existence; 'because of arising from conditions, it is empty' is the reason for emptiness. The reason is precisely causes and conditions. That is, why is it that having no nature can establish the meaning of emptiness? Because it arises from conditions, therefore it has no nature; hence arising from conditions is the reason for natureless emptiness. Why is it that arising from conditions can constitute the meaning of existence? Purely because it has no fixed nature, it only then comes to form illusory existence from conditions; therefore having no nature is the reason for existence. Hence a verse in the Madhyamakaśāstra says: 'If someone does not know emptiness, does not know the causes and conditions of emptiness, and does not know the meaning of emptiness, they therefore create afflictions for themselves, like being unskillful in magical spells or unskillful in grasping a poisonous snake.' If one looks at these four phrases collectively in relation to emptiness and existence, they are all called 'reasons'. Therefore it is said: 'Because of arising from conditions, it is called existence; because of arising from conditions, it is called emptiness. Because of having no nature, it is called existence; because of having no nature, it is called emptiness.' Truly, all dharmas must arise from conditions. Because they exist from conditions, they must lack self-nature. Because they have no nature, they therefore arise from conditions. Conditioned existence and naturelessness are never two different dharmas. Yet, with regard to illusory existence, the myriad kinds are distinct; therefore it is called conventional truth. Because having no nature is of one single flavor, it is called ultimate truth. Furthermore, as to why, among the four phrases, only the third phrase was cited to provide proof: it is because 'due to having no nature, it exists' is a principle difficult to make clear. If one were to provide complete proofs: First, regarding 'arising from conditions, therefore it exists': The Lotus Sūtra says: 'They exist only through causes and conditions; they are spoken of as arising from inversion.' The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'Through causes and conditions all dharmas arise.' A verse in the Madhyamakaśāstra says: 'There has never been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions,' and so forth—these are all the meaning of 'existence due to causes and conditions.' Second, regarding 'arising from conditions, therefore it is empty': A sūtra says: 'What is born of causes and conditions has no birth.' A verse in a śāstra says: 'If a dharma arises from conditions, then it lacks self-nature. If it lacks self-nature, how can this dharma exist?' Furthermore, a verse says: 'Because the meaning of emptiness exists, all dharmas can be established.' Because in the preceding chapters of that treatise, existence was refuted through emptiness, the Hīnayāna posed an objection to the Bodhisattva, saying: 'If all dharmas are without arising and without cessation, then the dharmas of the Four Noble Truths would not exist.' The Bodhisattva replied conversely, saying: 'If all were not empty, being without arising and without cessation, then the dharmas of the Four Noble Truths would not exist.' That is to say, the Hīnayāna held that because of emptiness there are no Four Truths, while the Bodhisattva held that because of non-emptiness one would lose the Four Truths. If there is the meaning of emptiness, only then are the Four Truths established. Therefore the verse says: 'Because the meaning of emptiness exists, all dharmas can be established. If there were no meaning of emptiness, everything would not be established.' Furthermore, the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra says: 'If dharmas were not empty, then there would be neither path nor fruition.' This is precisely 'due to having no nature, it exists.' The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'Mañjuśrī asked further: "Saṃsāra is terrifying. Upon what should a bodhisattva rely?" Vimalakīrti said: "A bodhisattva amidst the fears of saṃsāra should rely on the power of the Tathāgata's merit." Mañjuśrī asked further: "If a bodhisattva wishes to rely on the power of the Tathāgata's merit, where should he abide?" He replied: "One who wishes to rely on the power of the Tathāgata's merit should abide in liberating all sentient beings." He asked further: "Wishing to liberate sentient beings, what should be eliminated?" He replied: "Wishing to liberate sentient beings, one eliminates their kleśas." He asked further: "Wishing to eliminate kleśas, what practice should be undertaken?" He replied: "Right mindfulness should be practiced." He asked further: "How does one practice right mindfulness?" He replied: "One should practice non-arising and non-cessation." He asked further: "What dharma does not arise, and what dharma does not cease?" He replied: "Unwholesome dharmas do not arise, and wholesome dharmas do not cease." He asked further: "What is the root of the wholesome and unwholesome?" He replied: "The body is the root." He asked further: "What is the root of the body?" He replied: "Craving and desire are the root." He asked further: "What is the root of craving and desire?" He replied: "False discrimination is the root." He asked further: "What is the root of false discrimination?" He replied: "Inverted notions are the root." He asked further: "What is the root of inverted notions?" He replied: "Non-abiding is the root." He asked further: "What is the root of non-abiding?" He replied: "Non-abiding has no root. Mañjuśrī, from this root of non-abiding all dharmas are established."' Master Sengrui explained: 'Non-abiding is another name for the real mark. The real mark is another name for the emptiness of nature. Therefore, from having no nature, all dharmas exist.' Furthermore, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'Mañjuśrī said: "Householder, how should a sick bodhisattva subdue his mind?" Vimalakīrti said: "A sick bodhisattva should think: 'Now this illness of mine has all arisen from the false discrimination, inversion, and kleśas of previous lives; there is no real dharma, so who is it that experiences illness?' Why is this? Because the four great elements combine, it is provisionally named a 'body.' The four great elements have no master, and the body is also without self. Furthermore, that this illness arises is entirely due to grasping at a self; therefore, toward the self, one should not generate attachment. Having known the root of illness, one immediately eliminates the notion of a self and the notion of sentient beings, and should give rise to the notion of dharmas. One should think: 'It is merely that numerous dharmas combine to form this body. When it arises, only dharmas arise; when it ceases, only dharmas cease. Furthermore, these dharmas do not know one another; when arising, they do not say, "I arise," and when ceasing, they do not say, "I cease."' That sick bodhisattva, in order to extinguish the notion of dharmas, should think: 'This notion of dharmas is also an inversion. Inversion is a great calamity; I should abandon it.' How does one abandon it? One abandons the self and what belongs to the self. How does one abandon the self and what belongs to the self? That is, one abandons the two dharmas. How does one abandon the two dharmas? That is, by not being mindful of internal and external dharmas, and practicing equality. What is equality? It is that self is equal and nirvāṇa is equal. Why is this? Self and nirvāṇa—both of these are empty. Why are they empty? They are empty merely because of names. Since these two dharmas have no determinate nature, when one attains this equality, there is no other illness, only the illness of emptiness; and the illness of emptiness is also empty."' 'Because of having no nature and arising from conditions, it is empty'—this takes up both kinds of emptiness from the previous four phrases together.

These two kinds of emptiness are both free from the view of annihilationism. That is, if things are definitively existent, one is attached to eternalism; if they are definitively non-existent, one is attached to annihilationism. Now, being empty because of conditioned arising is not definitive non-existence. Being empty because of naturelessness is also not definitive non-existence. Definitive non-existence means that there is absolutely nothing at all, like tortoise hair or rabbit horns. Now, because things merely arise from conditions and lack intrinsic nature, they are not definitively non-existent. As for existence due to naturelessness and conditioned arising, this also cites both kinds of existence among the previous four phrases; neither is the view of eternalism. The "existence" of the view of eternalism is an existence of definitive nature. Now, existing from conditions is not existence of a definitive nature; much less, existing on account of naturelessness—how could that be definitive existence? Arising from conditions without nature is like an illusory person; it is not that there is no illusory person, but because the illusion is not real, it is also called illusory existence, and is also named wondrous existence. Because it takes non-existence as existence, it is called wondrous existence. Furthermore, illusory existence is precisely the existence of non-existence. As the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "All phenomena have nothing whatsoever; yet they exist like this. Therefore, being neither existent nor non-existent is called the Middle Way." This is the meaning of illusory existence. True emptiness is the emptiness of non-emptiness, meaning that non-emptiness and emptiness are unobstructed with each other; therefore, being neither empty nor non-empty is called the Middle Way. This is the meaning of true emptiness. A sūtra states: "Empty and non-empty are ineffable; this is called true emptiness." A verse of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: "Even phenomena lacking intrinsic nature do not exist, / because all phenomena are empty." A verse from the Uttara Sūtra states: "Alas, truly virtuous one, / you do not know the meaning of actual emptiness: / form has no intrinsic nature— / is it not just like emptiness? / If emptiness itself had emptiness, / it would not contain the various forms; / because emptiness is not empty of itself, / the various forms arise from it." Furthermore, first is the meaning of mutual annulment between emptiness and existence. Now, the first is that true emptiness must completely exhaust illusory existence; this is the gate of true principle sublating phenomena. Because phenomena are formed by grasping principle, all phenomenal characteristics are completely exhausted, leaving only the one true principle manifest in equality. For apart from true principle, not the slightest phenomenon can be found. It is like water overcoming waves: none of the waves fail to be exhausted. The Prajñā Sūtra states: "Therefore, within emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness," and so forth. Second is the meaning of mutual production between emptiness and existence: true emptiness must establish illusory existence; this is the gate of phenomena being established based on principle. That is, phenomena have no separate substance; they necessarily depend on true principle to be established. Because all conditioned arisings lack intrinsic nature, it is due to the principle of naturelessness that phenomena can be formed. It is like waves being established by grasping water. It is also based on the tathāgatagarbha that all phenomena can exist. The Dharmapada Sūtra states: "The bodhisattva establishes things blazingly within ultimate emptiness." Third is the meaning of mutual contradiction between emptiness and existence: illusory existence must conceal true emptiness; this is the gate of phenomena being able to conceal principle. That is, true principle accords with conditions and can form phenomenal dharmas. However, since these phenomenal dharmas contradict principle, they cause phenomena to be manifest and principle to be hidden. For apart from phenomena, there is no principle. It is like waves overcoming water: water is completely concealed. This means that within form there is no characteristic of emptiness. Fourth is the meaning of mutual non-obstruction between emptiness and existence: illusory existence must not obstruct true emptiness; this is the gate of phenomena being able to manifest principle. That is, because phenomena grasp principle, phenomena are illusory while principle is real. Since phenomena are illusory, the principle that is the entirety of phenomena stands out fully revealed. It is like the insubstantiality of wave characteristics causing the water to be revealed. A verse of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: "If a phenomenon arises from conditions, / it lacks intrinsic nature." However, these four meanings are precisely the four meanings mentioned earlier, such as "empty because of conditioned arising." First, true emptiness must completely exhaust illusory existence—this is the meaning of "empty because of naturelessness." Second, true emptiness must establish illusory existence—this is the meaning of "existent because of naturelessness." Third, illusory existence must conceal true emptiness—this is the meaning of "existent because of conditioned arising." Fourth, illusory existence must not obstruct true emptiness—this is the meaning of "empty because of conditioned arising." The previous four generally clarified the reasons for emptiness and existence; the present four directly explain the characteristics of emptiness and existence. However, these two—emptiness and existence—are two and yet non-dual. One must understand that the four meanings have different names in the two contexts. First, true emptiness must completely exhaust illusory existence—this is the meaning of emptiness on true emptiness. Second, true emptiness must establish illusory existence—this is the meaning of non-emptiness on true emptiness. Third, illusory existence must conceal true emptiness—this is the meaning of existence on illusory existence. Fourth, illusory existence must not obstruct true emptiness—this is the meaning of non-existence on illusory existence. Furthermore, one must know that existence and non-existence, emptiness and non-emptiness, each have two meanings. First, the two meanings on existence: one is the meaning of not destroying the characteristic of existence; second is the meaning of warding off annihilation. Thus existence is designated as "not non-existent." Second, the two meanings on non-existence: one is the meaning of being free from the characteristic of existence; second is the meaning of being precisely empty. Third, the two meanings on emptiness: one is the meaning of not destroying nature; second is the meaning of warding off definitive existence. Hence emptiness is designated as "not non-empty." Fourth, the two meanings on non-emptiness: one is the meaning of being free from the characteristic of emptiness; second is the meaning of being precisely existent. Having understood the names and meanings, when harmonized and integrated there are five layers, forming five kinds of Middle Way. First, existence and non-existence being non-dual to form one illusory existence: this is the self-integration of the two meanings on existence. It takes the meaning of not destroying characteristics on existence and the meaning of being free from the characteristic of existence on non-existence, thus combining them into one illusory existence; this is the Middle Way of conventional truth. Second, emptiness and non-emptiness being non-dual to form one true emptiness: this is the self-integration of the two meanings on emptiness. It takes the meaning of not destroying nature on emptiness and the meaning of being free from the characteristic of emptiness on non-emptiness, thus combining them into one true emptiness; this is the Middle Way of ultimate truth. The former is the Middle Way of characteristics being identical to signlessness; this one is the Middle Way of nature being identical to naturelessness; it is also the meaning of preservation and negation being non-dual. Third, non-emptiness and existence being non-dual to form one illusory existence: the preceding pair was the self-integration of emptiness and existence respectively; this next pair is the interlacing and combining of the four meanings of emptiness and existence. Now, this third pair takes the meaning of non-emptiness on true emptiness and the meaning of existence on illusory existence. The two meanings accord with each other, demonstrating non-duality. That is, on non-emptiness it takes the meaning of being precisely existent, and on existence it takes the meaning of warding off annihilation; thus they jointly form illusory existence, being neither empty nor non-existent—the Middle Way of unimpeded preservation and negation. Fourth, emptiness and non-existence being non-dual to form one true emptiness: this fourth pair takes the meaning of emptiness on true emptiness.

the meaning of 'non-existence' on illusory existence. These two meanings accord with each other, illuminating their non-duality. However, this is the meaning of negating definite existence upon emptiness, while upon non-existence it is precisely the meaning of emptiness. Therefore, the two meanings accord with each other, constituting true emptiness, which is the Middle Way of neither existence nor non-emptiness, unobstructed in preservation and elimination. The third [perspective] preserves the conventional and eliminates the ultimate; this one preserves the ultimate and eliminates the conventional. Furthermore, the third is emptiness penetrating existence, while this one is existence penetrating emptiness; both represent the mutual penetration of the two truths. Fifth, 'illusory existence and true emptiness are non-dual, forming a single-flavor dharmadhātu': this fifth combines the preceding four in total, rendering them non-dual. However, the respective combinations and mutual penetrations above do not go beyond true emptiness and illusory existence; therefore, they are now combined into a single-flavor dharmadhātu, serving as the Middle Way wherein both truths are thoroughly integrated. Although the third and fourth integrate the two truths, they integrate emptiness and existence separately. Now, this non-obstruction of emptiness and existence is precisely the non-obstruction of neither emptiness nor existence; mentioning one completely embraces [the other]. If one assimilates the ultimate to the conventional, there is only illusory existence. If one integrates the conventional to assimilate to the ultimate, there is only true emptiness. Emptiness and existence being non-dual constitutes the Middle Way of dual illumination. Neither emptiness nor existence being non-dual constitutes the Middle Way of dual negation. Negation and illumination are simultaneous; preservation and elimination are unobstructed. Therefore it is said: 'Free from characteristics and free from nature, unobstructed and unhindered—the Dharma-gate of non-conceptualization.' Taking illusory existence as characteristic and true emptiness as nature; further, both emptiness and existence are characteristics, while neither emptiness nor existence is nature; further, distinct manifestations are characteristics, while total integration is nature. Now, in mutual appropriation and dual integration, all are transcended. The unconditioned Dharma is explained solely in terms of wisdom; only non-conceptual wisdom can exhaust its source. Its lack of obstruction pervades both object and wisdom: that is, the fivefold [structure] above is mostly explained in terms of objects, but when citta and wisdom accord with it, it constitutes the five contemplations. As the five objects are integrated, the five contemplations are also integrated. By using thoroughly integrated wisdom to accord with the unobstructed object, citta and object become unobstructed: within citta there are inexhaustible objects, and upon objects there is an unobstructed citta. Therefore, one must forget words before one can accord with this principle; it is entirely the profound characteristic of dependent origination. Therefore, one should know that if one comprehends the non-obstruction of emptiness and existence, the integration of ultimate and conventional, the source of naturelessness, and the principle of dependent origination, it is like divine transformation, without fixed location or boundary: though situated in the narrow, it is ever vast; though dwelling in the deep, it is ever shallow; sometimes below yet constantly above; freely wandering in the center yet immediately at the edge. Sentient beings constantly dwell in the Buddha's body; nirvāṇa rests solely upon saṃsāra. It can be called an inconceivable wondrous purport, not knowable by emotional reckoning. Therefore it is said: 'The ocean of nature is fathomless, wherein all virtues abound and broaden; dependent origination cannot be measured, and through it multiple gates are completely unobstructed.' There is none that does not rotate the myriad differences—the forms of folding and unfolding follow wisdom; fusing into one limit, the dynamics of opening and closing attend citta. Illumination does not miss the proper juncture: though diverse, it constantly accords; function does not contradict substance: though of one flavor, it constantly penetrates. It is also said: 'That is to say, without destroying its minute measure, a dust mote pervades the ten directions, universally gathering all things, which are manifested within it. This is because measure is non-measure, and non-measure is measure.' Furthermore, dwelling in the domain of seeing and hearing, it is beyond the reach of seeing and hearing; situated at the juncture of thinking and deliberating, it cannot be fathomed by thinking and deliberating. All this is because the inconceivable substance is itself unattainable; thus, thought is beyond thought. A sūtra says: 'What is thought cannot be thought; this is called difficult to conceive.' The Gate of True Emptiness in the Dharmadhātu Contemplations states: 'First, "matter is emptiness": because the entire substance of matter is completely true emptiness, it is not an annihilationist emptiness. Matter and the like are originally the one mind of tathatā, which, combining with arising and ceasing, is called the ālayavijñāna, able to transform and give rise to the sense-faculties with the body and the receptacle world; these are precisely the dharmas such as matter elucidated here. Therefore, when we now investigate it, it entirely lacks any substance of its own. Thus, its entire substance reverts to the emptiness of the true mind, and should not revert to the emptiness of annihilation, because it is originally not transformed by annihilationist emptiness. Annihilationist emptiness is void, vacant, and extinguished, lacking knowing and lacking function, unable to manifest the myriad dharmas—like the empty space outside a mirror, not like the emptiness inside a mirror, where material forms are vividly clear yet unattainable when sought, which is called emptiness. Furthermore, whatever is a material dharma is definitely not different from true emptiness, because all material dharmas definitely lack nature. Therefore, matter is emptiness. It is neither destroying matter to grasp emptiness, nor seeking emptiness apart from matter; nor is it the emptiness of shapes and visible forms, nor is it the emptiness apart from shapes and forms that lacks substance: it is precisely true emptiness. If it is not identical to material characteristics, it lacks the imaginary (parikalpita); not being separate from having no substance, it is the other-dependent (paratantra) origination; and the true principle of naturelessness in dependent origination is precisely the consummate (pariniṣpanna). Second, elucidating "emptiness is matter": true emptiness is definitely not different from matter, hence it is said that emptiness is matter. Why? Whatever is true emptiness is definitely not different from matter, because it is the principle of dharmas being without self, not an annihilation. Therefore, emptiness is matter. If one seeks the principle of emptiness apart from phenomena, it becomes annihilation. Now, right within phenomena, we elucidate the principle of true emptiness that is without self and without nature; apart from phenomena, how could there be a principle? Because tathatā does not abide by its own nature, it accords with conditions to form all phenomenal dharmas; thus, taking up emptiness completely forms matter, and taking up principle completely forms phenomena. Furthermore, when tathatā precisely accords with conditions, it does not lose its own nature; thus, taking up matter completely forms emptiness, and taking up phenomena completely forms principle. Third, "matter and emptiness are unobstructed": that is to say, the entire substance of matter is completely the emptiness that exhausts matter, so when matter is exhausted, emptiness appears; the entire substance of emptiness is not different from the matter that completely exhausts emptiness, so being immediately emptiness and immediately matter, emptiness is not concealed. Therefore, when looking at matter, one never fails to see emptiness; when contemplating emptiness, there is none that does not see matter. Unobstructed and unhindered, they are a single-flavor dharma. Just as taking up the myriad waves is entirely the one water, and taking up the one water is entirely the myriad waves: waves and water do not obstruct each other while being simultaneous, and the water's substance stands forth completely revealed. This is like being immediately emptiness and immediately matter, while emptiness is not concealed.' The Baozang lun states: 'Emptiness that can be emptified is not true emptiness; matter that can be materialized is not true matter. True matter has no shape; true emptiness has no name. The nameless is the father of names; the formless is the mother of matter. It serves as the root and source of the myriad things, and acts as the great ancestor of heaven and earth.' The Zhao lun states: 'Original non-being, true characteristic, dharma-nature, nature.'

[‘The convergence of conditions is empty’] is of single import. Why? All phenomena arise through the convergence of conditions. If they arise through the convergence of conditions, then prior to arising they do not exist. If prior to arising they do not exist, then when conditions disperse they perish. Were they truly existent, what is existent would never perish. Inferring from this, we know that although they are present now, their nature is ever inherently empty. Because their nature is ever inherently empty, it is called the emptiness of nature. Such is the nature of phenomena, and therefore it is called the real mark. The real mark is naturally non-existent; it is not made non-existent by deduction, and so it is called fundamental non-existence. When it is said to be ‘neither existent nor non-existent’, it is simply not existent as in the views of existence and permanence, nor non-existent as in the false views of annihilation. If one takes existence as existent, one takes non-existence as non-existent; but since existence is already not existent, there is no non-existence either. One who observes phenomena without positing non-existence can indeed be said to know the real mark of phenomena. Even [the practitioners of] the three vehicles equally contemplate the emptiness of nature and attain the Way. The emptiness of nature is the real mark of all phenomena. Seeing the real mark of phenomena is therefore right contemplation; if it differs from this, it is false contemplation. Were the two vehicles not to see this principle, they would be inverted. Therefore, the three vehicles' contemplation of phenomena does not differ; there is only a difference according to whether their minds are great or small. Furthermore, the Treatise on Non-Absolute Emptiness states: ‘Supreme voidness and non-arising are the wondrous import of the profound mirror of prajñā, the ultimate source of existing things. Unless one is sagely, enlightened, and singularly penetrating, how could one attune one's spirit between existence and non-existence? Therefore, the sage extends his spiritual mind into the boundless, so that bounds cannot obstruct him; he exhausts ears and eyes in looking and listening, so that sights and sounds cannot constrain him. How could this be other than because he identifies with the inherent voidness of the myriad things, so that things cannot encumber his spiritual illumination? Therefore, the sage mounts the true mind to follow principle smoothly, and thus there is nothing obstructed that does not pass through. He examines the single pneuma to contemplate transformations, and thus wherever he meets them he accords with ease. Because there is nothing obstructed that does not pass through, he can blend the mixed into purity. Because wherever he meets them he accords with ease, he is unified as he touches things. In this way, though the myriad images differ, they cannot differentiate themselves. Because they cannot differentiate themselves, we know that images are not real images. Since images are not real images, though they are images, they are not images. Hence, things and self share the same root; right and wrong are of a single pneuma. Subtle, minute, profound, and hidden, this can hardly be exhausted by worldly sentiments. Therefore, we know that if one mounts the true mind to realize things, what thing will not return? If one equalizes the single pneuma to contemplate the seasons, what season will not join? When no season does not join, one knows that non-arising is touched in every circumstance. When no thing does not return, one sees the inherent voidness of the nature of things. If one relies on sentiment in illumination, how could one exhaust its profound purport? If one does not awaken to the source, it is difficult to escape the traces of views.’ As Layman Pang's verse says: ‘Formerly, when dwelling in existence, / I was constantly deceived by people of existence: / Generating all kinds of discriminations, / Seeing and hearing much right and wrong. / Later, sitting in non-existence, / I was again deceived by people of non-existence: / Single-mindedly sitting and watching the mind, / Murky and knowing nothing. / Both existence and non-existence are clingings; / Where is the unconditioned? / Existence and non-existence share a single substance; / All marks are entirely cast off. / Because the mind is like empty space, / Empty space has nothing to rely upon. / If one discusses the markless principle, / Only the Father King knows it.’ Therefore, we know that if one seeks the ultimate truth of the phenomena of existence and non-existence, it is realized only through the mind. If one has not returned to the mind, everything becomes an obstacle, turning into permanence or annihilation, becoming right or wrong. The moment one enters this source, they naturally blend and merge. That is, one first clarifies where they arise, knowing that they are generated from one's own mind. Since they are generated from the mind, the myriad phenomena arising from conditions are all without substantial nature. There is certainly no phenomenon outside the mind that can serve as a condition for the mind; all are generated from one's own mind and in turn serve as marks for the mind. Simply discussing emptiness and existence fully clarifies all phenomena. Why? Because emptiness and existence encompass all phenomena. These two gates of emptiness and existence are also the two gates of principle and phenomena, the two gates of nature and characteristics, the two gates of substance and function, the two gates of the ultimate and the conventional, and so on up to general and particular, identical and different, integration and disintegration, principle and valid cognition, provisional and real, rolling up and unfolding, primary and secondary, cultivation and nature, negating and illuminating. They support each other and subsume each other, affirm each other and deny each other, pervade each other and establish each other, harm each other and displace each other, identify with each other and reside in each other, conceal each other and oppose each other. Each and every one is like this, each mutually harmonious and unobstructed. Now, through the gate of the one mind's absence of nature, they are all gathered up at once: both names and meanings are transcended, both realm and contemplation are merged, the purport is tallied with and words are forgotten, and all return to the Mirror of the Source. Therefore, one must clarify the differences in cognitive characteristics, names, and meanings before one can achieve mutual pervasion through their substantial nature. If one does not first unfold horizontally and vertically, how could one roll up and subsume them into a single gate afterward? Hence the Contemplation of Returning to the Source states: ‘Functions are divided with respect to substance, not lacking an momentum of differentiation; phenomena manifest relying upon principle, naturally possessing the form of a single boundary.’ Analyzing finely as above and broadly illuminating the two gates of emptiness and existence can truly be called obtaining the root cause of the myriad phenomena and exhausting the arising and cessation of all conditions. These two phenomena of existence and non-existence are that whence delusion and inversion arise. The ninety-six kinds of heterodox teachers arose on account of this; the sharp afflictions of the sixty-two views were generated from this. Even bodhisattvas have not yet exhausted their source; how could ordinary beings fathom their purport? Therefore, the Ratnagotravibhāga states that bodhisattvas whose minds are confused about emptiness still have three doubts regarding this true emptiness and wondrous existence: first, they suspect that emptiness obliterates matter, grasping at the emptiness of annihilation; second, they suspect that emptiness is different from matter, grasping at an emptiness outside of matter; third, they suspect that emptiness is an entity, grasping at emptiness as existence. Thus, in the Avataṃsakasūtra, Sudhana served various Buddhas and had already realized Dharma-gates, yet among phenomena he still conceived existence where there was none. If we speak of ultimate and complete transcendence, it belongs solely to great bodhisattvas. As a verse in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: ‘The two views of existence and non-existence / Are extinguished without remainder; / The real mark of all phenomena / Was spoken by the Buddha.’ The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: ‘The two views of existence and non-existence have no residual habit-energy left.’ Another verse says: ‘He explains the Dharma as neither existent nor non-existent, / Through causes and conditions all phenomena arise.’ Why? If the capacity of the time and the conditions lead to clinging to existence, he speaks the gate of emptiness; if the capacity of the time and the conditions lead to attachment to emptiness, he then expounds the teaching of existence. Because it refutes existence, emptiness is not retained; because it remedies emptiness, existence is not established. Therefore, existence is spoken of without being existent, and emptiness is stated without being empty, or both are extinguished and both flow forth.