[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › 8.5.5 # 宗鏡錄 8.5.5 宗鏡錄 8.5.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.8.5.5) 空緣會。 一義耳。 何則。 一切諸法。 緣會而生。 緣會而生。 則未生無有。 未生無有。 緣離則滅。 如其真有。 有則無滅。 以此而推。 故知雖今現有。 有而性常自空。 性常自空。 故謂之性空。 法性如是。 故曰實相。 實相自無。 非推之使無。 故名本無。 言不有不無者。 不如有見常見之有。 邪見斷見之無耳。 若以有為有。 則以無為無。 有既不有。 則無無也。 夫不存無以觀法者。 可謂識法實相矣。 乃至三乘。 等觀性空而得道也。 性空者。 諸法實相也。 見法實相。 故為正觀。 若其異者。 便為邪觀。 設二乘不見此理。 則顛倒也。 是以三乘觀法無異。 但心有大小為差耳。 又不真空論云。 夫至虛無生者。 蓋是般若玄鑒之妙趣。 有物之宗極者也。 自非聖明特達。 何能契神於有無之間哉。 是以聖人通神心於無窮。 窮所不能滯。 極耳目於視聽。 聲色所不能制者。 豈不以其即萬物之自虛。 故物不能累其神明者也。 是以聖人乘真心以理順。 則無滯而不通。 審一氣以觀化。 故所遇而順適。 無滯而不通故。 能混雜致淳。 所遇而順適故。 則觸物而一。 如此則萬像雖殊。 而不能自異。 不能自異故。 知像非真像。 像非真像。 則雖像而非像。 然則物我同根。 是非一氣。 潛微幽隱。 殆非群情之所盡。 故知若乘真心而體物。 則何物而不歸。 齊一氣以觀時。 則何時而不會。 何時而不會。 則知觸境之無生。 何物而不歸。 則見物性之自虛矣。 若任情所照。 曷能盡其幽旨乎。 若不悟宗。 難逃見跡。 如龐居士偈云。 昔日在有時。 常被有人欺。 種種生分別。 見聞多是非。 後向無中坐。 又被無人欺。 一向看心坐。 冥冥無所知。 有無俱是執。 何處是無為。 有無同一體。 諸相盡皆離。 心同虛空故。 虛空無所依。 若論無相理。 唯有父王知。 故知有無諸法。 欲求究竟。 唯心方證。 若未歸心。 盡成障礙。 為常為斷。 成是成非。 纔入此宗。 自然融即。 謂先明其起處。 知自心生。 既從心生。 則萬法從緣。 皆無體性。 必無心外法。 能與心為緣。 悉是自心生。 還與心為相。 但論空有。 則廣明諸法。 何者。 以空有管一切法故。 此空有二門。 亦是理事二門。 亦是性相二門。 亦是體用二門。 亦是真俗二門。 乃至總別同異。 成壞理量。 權實卷舒。 正助修性遮照等。 或相資相攝。 相是相非。 相遍相成。 相害相奪。 相即相在。 相覆相違。 一一如是。 各各融通。 今以一心無性之門。 一時收盡。 名義雙絕。 境觀俱融。 契旨忘言。 咸歸宗鏡。 是以須明行相名義差別。 方能以體性融通。 若不先橫竪鋪舒。 後。 何以一門卷攝。 故還原觀云。 用就體分。 非無差別之勢。 事依理現。 自有一際之形。 如上微細剖析。 廣照空有二門。 可謂得萬法之根由。 窮諸緣之起盡。 此有無二法。 迷倒所由。 九十六種之邪師。 因茲而起。 六十二見之利使。 從此而生。 菩薩尚未盡其原。 凡夫安能究其旨。 所以寶性論云。 空亂意菩薩。 於此真空妙有。 猶有三疑。 一疑空滅色。 取斷滅空。 二疑空異色。 取色外空。 三疑空是物。 取空為有。 故華嚴經中。 善財歷事諸佛。 已證法門。 尚猶於諸法中。 無而計有。 若究竟遠離。 唯大菩薩之人。 大智度論偈云。 有無二見。 滅無餘。 諸法實相佛所說。 淨名經云。 有無二見。 無復餘習。 又偈云。 說法不有亦不無。 以因緣故諸法生。 何者。 若時機因緣執有。 則說空門。 若時機因緣著空。 遂談有教。 為破有。 故不存空。 因治空。 故不立有。 故說有而不有。 言空而不空。 或雙亡而雙流。 > \[‘The convergence of conditions is empty’\] 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. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.8.5.4) - [Next: 8.5.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.8.5.6) - [Up: 8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.8.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.8.5.5) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [註華嚴經題法界觀門頌](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1885.1.236) — Classical Chinese - [肇論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1858.1.8) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.8.5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.8.5.5) · Pramāṇa