[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) › 85.17 # 宗鏡錄 85.17 宗鏡錄 85.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [85.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.85.17) 答。夫言破相者。是未入唯識。去其妄執。雖言破相。實無所破。既無所破之有。亦無能破之空。情執若消。空有俱寂。前塵無定。破立隨心。迷真之妄不生。對妄之真亦絕。大智度論云。種種取相。皆為虛妄。如玻瓈珠隨前色變。自無定色。諸法亦如是。無有定相。隨心為異。若常無常等相。如以瞋心。見此人為弊。若瞋心休。自婬欲心生。見此人還復為好。若以憍慢心生。見此人以為卑賤。聞其有德。還生敬心。如是等有理而憎愛。無理。而憎愛。皆是虛妄憶想。若除虛誑。亦無空相。無相相。無作相。無所破故。尚不宗無相之理。豈存破立之門。以成壞去取。皆自心故。若直了心。自然絕觀。如楞伽經偈云。一切無涅槃。無有涅槃佛。無有佛涅槃。遠離覺所覺。若有若無有。是二悉俱離。牟尼寂靜觀。是則遠離生。是名為不取。今世後世淨。有二偈半。大雲解云。初一偈。了今一如。謂此約無願觀以顯圓成。無涅槃佛。故無願矣。初句。謂色心等一切法中無得涅槃。以一切法本如故。若得涅槃。是斷常見。滅法是斷。證得是常。次句。既無涅槃。云何有佛。故經云。見斷煩惱而得成佛。此則名為壞佛法者。煩惱與佛性寂靜故。第四句中。所覺如故。無有涅槃。能覺如故。無有得佛。離覺所覺。混同一如。 > Answer: Speaking of refuting characteristics is for those who have not yet entered vijñaptimātra, to remove their delusive attachments. Though one speaks of refuting characteristics, in truth there is nothing to be refuted. Since there is no existence to be refuted, there is also no emptiness capable of refuting it. When emotional attachment dissolves, emptiness and existence are both quiescent. External objects are not fixed; refutation and establishment follow citta. The delusion that obscures truth does not arise, and the truth that contrasts with delusion is also ended. The \*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\* says: "Grasping various characteristics is entirely false, just like a crystal jewel changes according to the color before it, having no fixed color of its own. All phenomena are also like this: they have no fixed characteristics, but differ in accordance with citta. As for characteristics such as permanent or impermanent: if with an angry mind, one sees this person as vile; if the angry mind ceases and lustful mind naturally arises, one sees this person again as good; if with an arrogant mind arising, one considers this person lowly and base; yet hearing that they have virtue, one again gives rise to respect. Such loving and hating with reason, or loving and hating without reason, are all false imaginings. If falsehood is eliminated, there is also no sign of emptiness, sign of signlessness, or sign of wishlessness, because there is nothing to be refuted." Since one does not even take the principle of signlessness as the source, how could one preserve a gate of refutation and establishment? This is because completion, destruction, rejecting, and grasping all stem from one's own citta. If one directly understands citta, contemplation naturally ends. As the verses in the \*Laṅkāvatārasūtra\* say: / In everything there is no nirvāṇa, / nor is there a nirvāṇa-Buddha, / nor is there a Buddha's nirvāṇa; / it is far removed from the perceiving and the perceived. / Whether existence or non-existence, / both of these are completely transcended. / The silent and tranquil contemplation of the Muni / is thereby far removed from arising; / this is called non-grasping, / pure in the present world and future worlds. / There are two and a half verses. Dayun explains: "The first verse completely understands present oneness-as-such; this refers to revealing the consummate nature through the contemplation of wishlessness. Because there is no nirvāṇa-Buddha, there is therefore no wish. The first line means that among all phenomena such as form and citta, there is no attainment of nirvāṇa, because all phenomena are fundamentally such. If one attains nirvāṇa, that is the view of annihilation or permanence: the extinction of phenomena is annihilation, while realization and attainment is permanence. In the second line, since there is no nirvāṇa, how could there be a Buddha? Therefore the sūtra says: 'Seeing the severing of kleśas to attain Buddhahood is called destroying the Buddhadharma,' because kleśas and Buddha-nature are quiescent. In the fourth line, because the perceived is such, there is no nirvāṇa; because the perceiver is such, there is no attaining of Buddhahood. Leaving behind the perceiver and the perceived, they blend into one single suchness." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 85.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.85.16) - [Next: 85.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.85.18) - [Up: 85](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.85) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.85.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.85.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.85.17) · Pramāṇa