[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) › [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt) › 5.5 # 宗鏡錄 5.5 English (machine translation) 5.5 - **Language:** English ### [5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.5.5) Answer: What is now discussed in the Mirror of the Source is neither the establishment of existence by the Characteristics school nor the reduction to emptiness by the Refutation of Characteristics school. It only elucidates the correct principle in terms of the Perfect Teaching of the Nature school: namely, that tathatā is unchanging without obstructing its following of conditions—this is its perfect meaning. If one looks to the Characteristics school, it exclusively teaches that there is the real and there is the delusive. If one looks to the Refutation of Characteristics school, it exclusively teaches that there is neither the real nor the delusive. These two gates each adhere to one side, and both are conceivable. Now this Perfect school preserves both of the previous two gates of emptiness and existence, yet they do not obstruct each other. This is precisely inconceivable. If one definitively maintains the two gates of existence and non-existence, both are conceivable. Now, because it is defiled while undefiled, it is unchanging while following conditions; because it is undefiled while defiled, it follows conditions while unchanging. Truly, it cannot be conceived through existence and non-existence, nor can one be confused by the real and the delusive. This is the inconceivable essential tenet, which cannot be known by emotional consciousness. The provisional establishment of textual meanings as remedies here is solely to shatter heterodox attachments. If emotional fabrications are evacuated, then \[discursive\] intellect is severed; when the illness is cured, the medicine disappears. Only when one can penetrate the origins of beginning and end can one fathom the import of the perfect and eternal. Therefore, Dharma Master Fuli asked scholars throughout the realm in a verse on the real and the delusive: / 'The nature of true dharmas is fundamentally pure; / Whence do delusive thoughts arise? / If from the real there arises the delusive, / How can this delusion ever be stopped? / Having no beginning entails having no end; / Having an end, there ought to be a beginning. / Beginningless and yet endless— / I long harbor bewilderment at this principle. / I pray you open the profound and subtle, / And analyze it to transcend birth and death.' / The Preceptor Chengguan answered: / 'Bewildered about the real, delusive thoughts arise; / Awakening to the real, the delusive ceases. / That which is bewildered is not that which is bewildered about; / How could they be entirely alike? / Never having awakened from the beginningless past, / Delusion is therefore said to have no beginning. / Knowing delusion to be fundamentally the real itself— / Only this is the eternal principle. / So long as the discriminating mind is not extinguished, / By what means could one transcend birth and death?' / Chan Master Zongmi explained: 'The Mahāyāna scriptures and teachings are subsumed under just three schools: first, the Characteristics school; second, the Refutation of Characteristics school; and third, the Nature school. Now this question touches the critical crux within the Nature school; it does not question the other two schools. In the Characteristics school, all defiled, delusive dharmas with outflows and pure dharmas without outflows have each possessed seeds in the ālayavijñāna from beginningless time. When meeting conditions and undergoing perfuming, each arises from its own nature; none of this concerns tathatā. Who would say that delusion arises from the real? That school states that tathatā is exclusively unconditioned and quiescent, without arising or ceasing; one cannot challenge them with \[the idea that\] delusion arises from the real. If one turns to the Refutation of Characteristics school, it exclusively teaches that ordinary beings and sages, defilement and purity, are all completely empty and fundamentally non-existent. Even if one were to see a dharma that surpassed nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion or a dream. They do not fundamentally establish the real in the first place, let alone delusion! Hence one does not challenge them saying that delusion comes from the real. Doubts pertain only to the Nature school, because the scriptures and treatises of this school state that delusion arises reliant upon the real—as when it is said that the dharmakāya transmutes through the five destinies, and the tathāgatagarbha undergoes suffering and pleasure, etc. It also states that awakening to delusion is itself the real—as when it is said that at the moment of first generating the mind \[for bodhi\], one immediately achieves anuttara-bodhi, and that knowing delusion to be fundamentally the real itself, seeing the Buddha is itself purity, etc. It also states that ordinary beings and sages are intermingled and fused—as when it is said that all sentient beings have originally achieved correct awakening and entered parinirvāṇa, and that within the body of Vairocana the sentient beings of the six destinies are fully present, etc. The real and the delusive are mutually identical: although it is said that kleśa and bodhi have neither beginning nor end, it is also said that only when kleśas are completely exhausted is it called wondrous awakening. The passages from beginning to end in scriptures and treatises such as the Avataṃsaka and the Awakening of Faith present obstacles in their theoretical tenets and contradict themselves. Intending to choose between them, one cannot accept one and reject the other; wishing to unite them, they are hard to harmonize; employing both, they contradict each other. I challenge the scholars under heaven: if there be one who has penetrated this, he will know the real and enter the Path. The answers given by various masters all missed the intent of the question, for they all spoke in terms of eliminating characteristics to return to principle, failing to understand his question about the cause of delusion arising from the real and the principle of cultivating through delusion to realize the real. Yet delusion arising from bewilderment about the real indeed has a cause; the cessation of delusion and return to the real is not without reason. How could Dharma Master Fuli not know that the real and the delusive are both quiescent, and that principle and phenomena are both tathatā? Within that tathatā and quiescence, what question and answer could there be? Yet there are two gates whose doctrine and principle are easily distinguished, and thus there is no contradiction or obstacle: First, to exclusively state that there is delusion to be severed and the real to be realized. Second, to exclusively state that there is neither the real nor the delusive, neither ordinary beings nor sages. These two gates are both conceivable. Thus the Śrīmālādevīsūtra says: "The intrinsically pure mind of sentient beings is not defiled by kleśas; defiled yet undefiled, undefiled yet defiled—both are said to be difficult to comprehend." Fuli was asking about precisely this meaning, whereas the answers of the various masters merely stated that there is no defilement. Only the answer of Preceptor Guan, based on tathatā being unchanging without obstructing its following of conditions, was truly appropriate. Now Zongmi attempts to answer: / "Fundamentally pure and fundamentally unaware, / Delusive thoughts arise from this. / Knowing the real, delusion is immediately empty; / Knowing emptiness, delusion immediately ceases. / The place of cessation is called having an end; / The time of bewilderment is designated beginningless. / Causes and conditions are like illusions and dreams; / What end and what beginning could there be? / This is the source of sentient beings; / Fathoming it, one transcends birth and death." / Furthermore, because many people say that the real can generate delusion, they suspect that delusion cannot be exhausted. To resolve this principle, I answer the previous verse again: / "It is not that the real generates delusion; / Delusion arises through bewilderment about the real. / Knowing delusion to be fundamentally the real itself, / Knowing the real, delusion immediately ceases. / The cessation of delusion seems like a final end; / The dawning of awakening seems like an initial beginning. / The natures of both bewilderment and awakening are empty; / Being empty in nature, there is neither end nor beginning. / Birth and death stem from this bewilderment; / Penetrating this, one transcends birth and death." / Moreover, in terms of beginning and end, there is a four-phrase differentiation: 1. Having a beginning but no end, which is initial awakening. 2. Having an end but no beginning, which is avidyā. 3. Having neither end nor beginning, which refers to the reality limit. 4. Having both a beginning and an end, which is a single period of birth and death. It is further explained: One who says "beginningless and yet having an end, I long harbor bewilderment at this principle" raises a challenge by taking an example from the phenomena of the Characteristics school. Now it is said: delusion being identical to the real, it is likewise without end or beginning. If differentiated, there should be four phrases: True principle has neither end nor beginning. Delusive thoughts have an end but no beginning. True wisdom has no end but a beginning. Suddenly arisen delusive thoughts have both an end and a beginning. If considered in terms of perfect interfusion, they are identically without end or beginning. Since there is neither end nor beginning, there is also no non-existence of end and beginning. Only by abandoning words and severing thoughts can one harmonize with this profound mystery.' Examining the meaning of the above answers, they accord deeply with the Perfect school. In the gate of following conditions: at first, delusion arises from bewilderment about the real; later, one awakens to delusion as being identical to the real. Within bewilderment and awakening, beginning and end seem to be distinguished. In terms of the gate of being unchanging: delusion is fundamentally empty of itself, so who speaks of before and after? The ultimate and the conventional are without intrinsic nature; ordinary beings and sages are mere names. It is like mistaking a rope for a snake or suspecting a stump to be a ghost. The ultimate truth is not existent, and the conventional truth is not non-existent. The two truths complete each other, and one does not fall into heterodox views. Therefore, the conventional truth cannot but exist, yet existence is constantly of itself empty; the ultimate truth cannot but be empty, yet emptiness constantly penetrates existence. Scholars of today are mostly confused about the two gates of emptiness and existence, entirely falling into biased views; they only esteem not establishing anything, sweeping away traces to return to emptiness, and possess no eye of wisdom regarding the mutually opposing and differentiated meanings. If they cannot distinguish confusion, how can they resolve doubts? Thus it is said: 'The mind of nirvāṇa is easy to comprehend, but discriminating wisdom is difficult to clarify.' If one can both negate and illuminate within the gates of emptiness and existence, and neither identify nor separate within the ultimate and conventional truths, only then can one propagate the Dharma for others and carry forward the position of awakening. - [Previous: 5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.5.4) - [Next: 5.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.5.6) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.5) ## Linked texts (1) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.5.5) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.5.5) · Pramāṇa