宗鏡錄 8.5.2

8.5.2

是空義。 二義是空有所以。 謂無性故有。 是有所以。 緣生故空。 是空所以。 所以即是因緣。 謂何以無性。 得成空義。 由從緣生。 所以無性。 是故緣生。 是無性空之所以也。 何以緣生。 得為有義。 特由無定性故。 方始從緣而成幻有。 是故無性。 是有所以。 故中論偈云。 若人不知空。 不知空因緣。 不知於空義。 是故自生惱。 如不善呪術。 不善捉毒蛇。 若將四句總望空有。 則皆名所以。 故云緣生故名有。 緣生故名空。 無性故名有。 無性故名空。 良以諸法。 起必從緣。 從緣有故。 必無自性。 由無性故。 所以從緣。 緣有性無。 更無二法。 而約幻有萬類差殊。 故名俗諦。 無性一味。 故名真諦。 又所以四句。 唯第三句引證成者。 無性故有。 理難顯故。 若具證者。 一緣生故有者。 法華經云。 但以因緣有。 從顛倒生。 故說。 淨名經云。 以因緣故諸法生。 中論偈云。 未曾有一法。 不從因緣生等。 皆因緣故有義也。 二緣生故空者。 經云。 因緣所生無有生。 論偈云。 若法從緣生。 是則無自性。 若無自性者。 云何有是法。 又偈云。 以有空義故。 一切法得成者。 由前論中。 諸品以空遣有。 小乘便為菩薩立過云。 若一切法。 無生無滅者。 如是則無有四聖諦之法。 菩薩反答云。 若一切不空。 無生無滅者。 如是則無有四聖諦之法。 謂小乘以空。 故無四諦。 菩薩以不空故。 則失四諦。 若有空義。 四諦方成。 故偈云。 以有空義故。 一切法得成。 若無空義者。 一切則不成。 又般若經云。 若諸法不空。 則無道無果。 即無性故有也。 淨名經云。 文殊師利又問。 生死有畏。 菩薩當何所依。 維摩詰言。 菩薩於生死畏中。 當依如來功德之力。 文殊師利又問。 菩薩欲依如來功德之力。 當於何住。 答曰。 欲依如來功德力者。 當住度脫一切眾生。 又問。 欲度眾生。 當何所除。 答曰。 欲度眾生。 除其煩惱。 又問。 欲除煩惱。 當何所行。 答曰。 當行正念。 又問。 云何行於正念。 答曰。 當行不生不滅。 又問。 何法不生。 何法不滅。 答曰。 不善法不生。 善法不滅。 又問。 善不善孰為本。 答曰。 身為本。 又問。 身孰為本。 答曰。 欲貪為本。 又問。 欲貪孰為本。 答曰。 虛妄分別為本。 又問。 虛妄分別孰為本。 答曰。 顛倒想為本。 又問。 顛倒想孰為本。 答曰。 無住為本。 又問。 無住孰為本。 答曰。 無住則無本。 文殊師利。 從無住本。 立一切法。 叡公釋云。 無住。 即實相異名。 實相。 即性空異名。 故從無性。 有一切法。 又淨名經云。 文殊師利言。 居士。 有疾菩薩。 云何調伏其心。 維摩詰言。 有疾菩薩。 應作是念。 今我此病。 皆從前世妄想顛倒。 諸煩惱生。 無有實法。 誰受病者。 所以者何。 四大合故。 假名為身。 四大無主。 身亦無我。 又此病起。 皆由著我。 是故於我。 不應生著。 既知病本。 即除我想及眾生想。 當起法想。 應作是念。 但以眾法合成此身。 起唯法起。 滅唯法滅。 又此法者。 各不相知。 起時不言我起。 滅時不言我滅。 彼有疾菩薩。 為滅法想。 當作是念。 此法想者。 亦是顛倒。 顛倒者。 是即大患。 我應離之。 云何為離。 離我我所。 云何離我我所。 謂離二法。 云何離二法。 謂不念內外諸法。 行於平等。 云何平等。 謂我等涅槃等。 所以者何。 我及涅槃。 是二皆空。 以何為空。 但以名字故空。 如此二法。 無決定性。 得是平等。 無有餘病。 唯有空病。 空病亦空。 無性緣生故空者。 雙牒前四句中。 兩種空也。

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.