宗鏡錄 66.30.1

66.30.1

Answer: It is only that birth is empty birth, and death is empty death; ultimately there is no self or person to be found. As a sūtra says: 'All worldly dharmas are only causes and fruits without a person. It is merely that depending on empty dharmas, empty dharmas are produced again.' Thus we know that within the fruit of sentient beings, there are only names and enumerations. Since names and enumerations are fundamentally empty, how could the myriad dharmas exist? As the Dharmatāśāstra says: 'When enumerations are exhausted, all existents are empty; when names are discarded, the myriad images come to an end of themselves.' Contemplating on this basis, this is indeed the ferry and path of mutual comprehension, the mysterious road for returning the spirit. Therefore, objective realms are established dependent on names; when names are hollow, objective realms are empty. Existence arises from enumeration; when enumeration is hollow, existence is tranquil. The place where names and enumerations arise is entirely one's own citta. If citta does not arise, how could the myriad dharmas exist? Therefore, a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'All worldly dharmas merely take citta as master; following understanding, they grasp various characteristics, inverted and not in accordance with reality.' If one can contemplate them in accordance with reality, one will see the nature of one's own citta; this may be called the ferry and path of mutual comprehension, the mysterious road for returning the spirit. Furthermore, in the Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, Zhiyi extensively explains that the nature of the six great elements is without self. As the sūtra says: 'This body has no self, being like the earth.' This precisely explains selflessness in terms of the earth element. Here, two explanations are routinely made: first, as an explanation refuting outsiders; second, clarifying the meaning in terms of internal contemplation. As for the first, refuting outsiders: the outsiders claim, 'If one says that the body has no conscious self, how could it carry light loads and bear heavy burdens?' The insider refutes them, saying, 'The earth can also bear mountains and peaks; can it have a conscious self?' Next, as for the explanation in terms of internal contemplation: the Abhidharma explains that sentient beings are provisional designations and the earth element is a real dharma; the Tattvasiddhi explains that the earth element is also a provisional designation and the four subtle atoms are real dharmas. Now it is explained that although there is this distinction between provisional and real, both are equally subsumed under the contemplative approach to the practice of selflessness under the truth of suffering. Just as earth is composed of the four subtle atoms: if one subtle atom were the master, the other three would also be masters; if one is not the master, the other three are also not masters. One should know that there is no master. If the internal earth composed of the four subtle atoms has no master, then the external earth composed of the four subtle atoms also has no master. If internal and external earth have no master, how could what is composed of these three things have a master? If there is no master, that is precisely selflessness; hence it says that this body has no master, being like the earth. Furthermore, the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara says: 'The earth element: earth has no solid nature.' If earth were existent, would it exist through its own nature, through other-nature, through both natures, or through causeless nature? Clinging to any one nature among the four kinds is an existence-view. If one asserts that this matter is real and the rest is false speech, 'real' means hard, it means nature, and it means master. If one examines the four natures and cannot find them, and takes this seeing of earth as nonexistent to be real and the rest as false speech, 'real' means hard, it means nature, and it means master. If one sees earth as both existent and nonexistent, taking this to be real and the rest as false speech, 'real' means hard, it means nature, and it means master. If one sees earth as neither existent nor nonexistent, taking this to be real and the rest as false speech, 'real' means nature and it means master. If one has any clinging toward these four propositions, that is nature, reality, hardness, and master. The Diamond Prajñā Sūtra says: 'If the citta of these sentient beings grasps characteristics, it attaches to self, person, sentient being, and soul. If it grasps the characteristic of dharmas, it also attaches to self, person, sentient being, and soul. If it grasps the characteristic of non-dharmas, it also attaches to self, person, sentient being, and soul.' If one does not grasp the four propositions, that is contemplating that earth has no hard nature. If it has no hard reality, then it has no master and no self; hence it is said that this body has no master, just like the earth. The sūtra says: 'This body has no self, being like fire.' This also has two explanations. As for the first, the explanation refuting outsiders: outsiders claim there is a conscious self. How is this known? Seeing that the body can run east and west and produce sounds, they know there is a conscious self. The insider refutes them, saying: 'Relying on the single dharma of fire, we refute both of their claims. Why is that? When fire burns wild grass, it can also move east and west freely; is it also a self? Moreover, when it catches bamboo and wood, it produces various sounds; does it also have a conscious self?' Next, as for the explanation in terms of internal contemplation: fire is composed of two subtle atoms and has no fixed nature. Being without nature, there is no fire. Now, the body is composed of name-and-form; the body has no fixed nature. If the body has no fixed nature, then there is no self. Furthermore, the various warmth in this body is fire. If external fire has no self, internal fire also has no self. Furthermore, the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara says: 'The fire element: the nature of fire is produced from causes and conditions.' If it is produced from conditions, it has no intrinsic nature. Having no reality, there is no self. Refuting its nature and the four propositions can be understood by analogy with the earth element. The sūtra says: 'This body has no life-span, being like the wind.' This is also explained by refuting outsiders and through internal contemplation. As for refuting outsiders: outsiders claim there is a soul with a life-span. How is this known? 'If there were no soul with a life-span, how could there be inhalation and exhalation, continuous and uninterrupted?' The insider refutes them, saying: 'Inhalation and exhalation are merely characteristics of wind. If external wind has no life-span, how could internal wind be a soul with a life-span?' Next, as for the explanation through internal contemplation: the characteristics of wind strike each other, and so it is light, vacuous, unhindered, moving through space without obstruction; what life-span does it have? The Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra says: 'Inhalation and exhalation are called life-span.' If one contemplates this inhalation and exhalation, entering there is no accumulation, exiting there is no dispersal, coming there is no journeying, going there is no stepping; like the wind in empty space, it cannot be found when sought. Since wind is not a life-span, how could breath be a life-span? Furthermore, the Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara says: 'The nature of wind is unobstructed.' Now, contemplating wind through the four propositions: if one says it has a nature and has birth, and the four propositions can be apprehended, that is an obstructed characteristic, and one cannot enter the Path. If one contemplates wind through the four propositions and wind cannot be apprehended, that is unobstructedness. Because of unobstructedness, one enters the limit of reality. Contemplating the three things of the body, breath is not life-span, just like wind; hence it is said that this body has no life-span, being like the wind. The sūtra says: 'This body has no person, being like water.' This refutes the person in terms of the water element.