宗鏡錄 61.25

61.25

Answer: This perfect source of ours is beyond emotional intellection. How could it be like those who cling to expedient teachings, where emptiness and existence do not interfuse, substance and function are cleft in two, and principle and phenomenon become separated? If one speaks of the permanently abiding, it becomes eternalism; if one speaks of impermanence, it lapses into annihilationism. If one rejects the extremes, it becomes clinging to extremes; if one maintains the middle, it attaches to the principle of the middle. Now, in this purport of perfect interfusion, this source of unobstructedness, to speak of the permanent is the permanence of impermanence; to speak of impermanence is the impermanence of the permanent. To state emptiness is the emptiness of the non-empty; to state existence is the existence of illusory existence. To discuss an extreme is the extreme that is identical to the middle; to discuss the middle is the middle that is not merely [the middle]. To establish principle is the principle that accomplishes phenomena; to establish phenomena is the phenomena that manifest principle. Therefore, rolling up and unfurling rest with oneself, concealing and revealing are simultaneous. Speaking does not depart from non-speaking; non-speaking does not depart from speaking. The Baocang lun says: 'Permanently empty, it is not existent; permanently existent, it is not empty. The two do not depend on each other; every phrase is the source. Therefore, the sage speaks of existence following existence, and discourses on emptiness following emptiness. Emptiness does not depart from existence; existence does not depart from emptiness. Neither statement is flawed; both meanings are simultaneously penetrated. Even speaking of the self does not depart from no-self; even if there is no speaking, phenomena are also not discordant with the source.' Why is this? Because one is not turned around by words. The commentary says: 'Permanently empty, it is not existent' means that being permanently empty, it is not empty because of existence. If it were empty because of existence, it would become relative: taking the other as its substance, it would itself lack efficacy, and because it would lack autonomy, it could not be called permanent. 'Permanently existent, it is not empty' means that it is also not existent because of emptiness; thus, one empty, all is empty; one existent, all is existent. Because it is non-relative, every phrase can be the source. If emptiness and existence are like this, so are all phenomena. It can be said that there is no source that is not penetrated, no Way that is not manifested. Why discard phenomena to grasp at sensory dust, generating distinctions on one's own? To 'not be turned around by words' means that because one knows the source, there is not a single phenomenon that does not accord with the real ground, not a single dharma that does not conform to non-arising. The Ancestral Master said: 'In receiving words, you must understand the source; do not set up your own rules.' Why? If you set up rules, you fall into limitations; as soon as limitations are formed, you go against the fundamental source, merely being turned around by words. Therefore, that all sentient beings do not know the real truth is because they are all veiled by words. The Mahāratnakūṭasūtra says: 'If, amid sounds and words, one can avoid being turned around, one then accords in practice with the meaning; such a one is called an inquirer after meaning.' What is called the meaning? You should know that it is the esoteric teaching. The esoteric teaching is the very purport of the Mirror of the Source. It is known only by the Buddha's wisdom; it is not something that emotional views can comprehend. As the Suvikrāntajñānaparipṛcchā-prajñāpāramitāsūtra says: 'At that time, there was in the assembly a bodhisattva-mahāsattva named Susthitamati, who addressed King Pravaranṛpa, saying: "Did the Tathāgata bestow a prophecy of enlightenment upon the Great King?" King Pravaranṛpa answered the Bodhisattva Kuvalayamati, saying: "Good son, my prophecy was like a dream-characteristic." He asked further: "Great King, having received such a prophecy, what dharma should you attain?" He replied: "Good son, the Buddha bestowed a prophecy upon me, yet ultimately there was nothing attained." He asked further: "That which is nothing attained—what dharma is it?" He replied: "Sentient beings, lifespan, a self, a person, a nurtured soul, the aggregates, elements, and sense bases are not attained; all are completely unattained. Whether wholesome or unwholesome, defiled or pure, with outflows or without outflows, mundane or supramundane, conditioned or unconditioned, saṃsāra or nirvāṇa—all are completely unattained." He asked further: "If nothing is attained, what use is there in receiving a prophecy?" He replied: "Good son, because nothing is attained, the prophecy is attained." He asked further: "If the meaning is as the Great King states, then there are two wisdoms: first, that nothing is attained; second, that the prophecy is attained." He replied: "If there were two, there would be no prophecy. Why? The Buddha's wisdom is non-dual. The Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, bestow prophecies upon bodhisattvas with non-dual wisdom." He asked further: "If wisdom is non-dual, how can there be the bestowing of a prophecy and the receiving of a prophecy?" He replied: "Receiving a prophecy and bestowing a prophecy are non-dual in their limit." He asked further: "If their limit is non-dual, how can there be a prophecy?" He replied: "Penetrating the non-dual limit is itself the prophecy."