宗鏡錄 8.5.1

8.5.1

答。 若有性故。 一法不成。 以無性故。 諸緣並立。 於無性中。 有無俱不可得。 豈成斷常之見耶。 如大般若經云。 諸菩薩摩訶薩。 甚為希有。 行深般若波羅蜜多。 觀察二空。 雖知諸法。 一切如夢。 如響。 如像。 如光影。 如陽焰如幻。 如化。 皆非實有。 無性為性。 自相皆空。 而能安立善非善等。 諸法差別。 皆無雜亂。 又云。 善現白佛言。 世尊。 佛說一切法。 皆以無性為其自性。 若一切法。 皆以無性為自性者。 誰染誰淨。 誰縛誰解。 彼於染淨。 及於縛解。 不了知故。 破戒。 破見。 破威儀。 破淨命。 當墮地獄。 傍生。 鬼趣。 受諸劇苦。 乃至佛言。 善現。 善哉善哉。 如是如是。 如汝所說。 於一切法。 皆以無性為自性。 於自性中。 有性無性俱不可得。 不應於此執有無性。 故知既不可執有。 亦不可執無。 以自性中。 無有無故。 所說有無之法。 皆是破執入法之方便。 故先德云。 用無所得為方便者。 有二。 一以無所得。 導前隨相。 則涉有不迷於空。 為入有方便。 二假無得以入有。 不存無得。 即無得亦是方便。 此為入空之方便。 是以無得相空。 無作人空。 無際性空。 此三相盡。 法界理現。 故菩薩不壞空而常有。 染淨之法宛然。 不礙有而常空。 一真之道恒現。 如是雙照。 方入甚深。 如般若燈論云。 我說遮入有者。 遮有自體。 不說無體。 如楞伽經中偈曰。 有無俱是邊。 乃至心所行。 彼心行滅已。 名為正心滅。 釋曰。 如是不著有體。 不著無體。 若法無體。 則無一可作故。 又如偈曰。 遮有言非有。 不取非有故。 如遮青非青。 不欲說為白。 釋曰。 此二種見。 名為不善。 是故有智慧者。 欲息戲論得無餘樂者。 應須遮此二種惡見。 此復云何。 若三界所攝。 若出世間。 若善不善。 及無記等。 如世諦種。 諸所營作。 彼於第一義中。 若有自體者。 起勤方便。 作善不善。 此諸作業。 應空無果。 何以故。 以先有故。 譬如先有若瓶衣等。 如是樂者常樂。 苦者常苦。 如壁上彩畫。 形量威儀。 相貌不變。 一切眾生。 亦應如是。 復次若無自體者。 彼三界所攝。 若出世間。 善不善法。 起勤方便。 則空無果。 以無有故。 如是世間。 則墮斷滅。 譬如磨瑩兔角。 令其銛利。 終不可得。 是故偈曰。 少慧見諸法。 若有若無等。 彼人則不見。 滅見第一義。 復次如寶聚經中。 佛告迦葉。 有者是一邊。 無者是一邊。 如是等彼內地界。 及外地界。 皆無二義。 諸佛如來。 實慧證知。 得成正覺。 無二一相。 所謂無相。 是以先德云。 謂諸宗計。 多說但空自性。 不空於法。 如法相宗。 但無遍計。 非無依他。 誤學中論等不得意者。 亦云法無自性。 故說為空。 則今相不空矣。 今既無性。 緣生故有。 有體即空。 緣生無性故空。 空而常有。 要互交徹。 方是真空妙有。 故其言大同。 而旨有異。 又約緣起法。 有二。 一無相如空。 則蕩盡無有。 是相空。 二無自性如幻。 則業果恒不失。 即性空。 以相空。 故萬法體虛。 了無所得。 以性空。 故不壞業道。 因果歷然。 以此性相二空。 方立真空之理。 是則非初中後際。 終始宛然。 無能造作人。 報應非失。 故知無性理成。 法眼圓照。 更無一法。 有實根由。 今更引證廣明。 成就宗鏡。 夫真俗二諦。 一切諸法。 不出空有。 空有之法。 皆從緣生。 緣生之法。 本無自體。 依心所現。 悉皆無性。 以緣生。 故無性。 以無性。 故緣生。 以此緣性二門。 萬法一際平等。 是以華嚴記廣釋云。 謂緣生故有。 是有義。 無性故空。

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.'