宗鏡錄 66.30.2

66.30.2

[This] is also explained in terms of refuting outsiders and inner contemplation. First, explaining the refutation of outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize that there is a spirit, which is the person. How is this known? If there were no spirit within the body, how could it benevolently moisten what is below, or accommodate and follow the inclinations of things? The insider refutes them, saying: 'I see that water can moisten downward and conform to the square or round shape of vessels. If water has no spirit and no person, yet you can benevolently moisten and comply with things, [then you] likewise have no spirit and no person.' Now explaining it in terms of inner contemplation: water is composed of three subtle particles and has no fixed nature. Being without nature, there is no water. The three phenomena form the body, and it has no fixed nature. Being without nature, there is no body. Being without a body, there is no person. Therefore, it is said that this body has no person, being like water. Another explanation is: just like a small child seeing a reflection in water and claiming there is a person inside the water, [who] enters the water seeking the person and ultimately cannot find one; ordinary people give rise to the view of self within the three phenomena, claiming that the body is a person. When one deeply contemplates the three phenomena, one does not see any bodily characteristic, which means there is no person. Furthermore, as the *Sūtra on Invoking Avalokiteśvara* says, the nature of water does not abide; if it abides, it is because ponds and pools are square or round, and obstructing it causes it to abide—it is not that water has an abiding nature. Now examining the person, it is also like this: depending on various dharmas, one obtains the name 'person', but there is no fixed nature. If one examines water through the four tetralemmas, having a nature and having attachment constitutes the meaning of abiding; if one examines water through the four tetralemmas, having no nature and having no attachment constitutes non-abiding. Because it is non-abiding, one enters the true limit of suchness. The sūtra says: 'This body is not real; the four great elements are its home.' This is a general refutation of the self in terms of the four great elements, teaching the practice of non-self. If explained as refuting outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize that if there were no truly existent spiritual self within the body, now one presently sees the six sense organs abiding dependent on the body, so one knows that there is truly a spiritual self. The insider refutes them, saying: 'One presently sees the six sense organs abiding dependent on the four great elements; there is no separate self or spirit upon which they depend.' If explained in terms of inner contemplation: the name 'body' is one; a single body should not abide across four selves. If a single great element is the self's abode, the other three great elements should lack the nominally designated body. If each has one, then there would be four bodies. Whether identical or separate, examining the body within the four great elements via the four tetralemmas, it cannot be found; therefore, one knows that the body has no reality. If one cannot find the reality of the body, then the view of the body is broken; when the view of the body is broken, the view of self and the sixteen views are all broken. The sūtra says: 'This body is empty, free from self and what belongs to self.' This is the second: refuting in terms of the space element, teaching the practice of non-self. If explained as refuting outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize that there is what belongs to the self. If there were no spiritual self, how could there be possessions? If lands and persons are real possessions, and one sees they are real, one should know that the self is also real. The insider refutes them, saying: 'If so, what belongs to the self is empty, and the self should also be empty. As with the space element within the body, the space element and all external space are what belongs to the self. Because what belongs to the self is empty, the self is also empty.' If explained in terms of inner contemplation: this directly refutes the view of the body in terms of the space element. Because the form derived from the four great elements encloses empty space, it is nominally designated as a body; apart from space, there is no body. If external and internal space are not called a body, now examining the body in terms of the space element, it cannot be found, and thus the view of the body is broken. When the view of the body is broken, one is free from self and what belongs to the self. The sūtra says: 'This body is devoid of sentience, like grass, trees, tiles, and gravel.' This is the third: examining the consciousness element to refute the self; thus it teaches the practice of non-self. If explained as refuting outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize, 'If there were no spirit within the body, how could one know the sequence of the four seasons and similar matters?' The insider refutes them, saying: 'Just as grass, trees, tiles, and gravel also shift and change over time in accordance with the climate of yin and yang, seeming to have knowing yet not possessing the knowing of a spirit, so too, though the body has knowing, like grass, trees, tiles, and gravel it has no knowing of a spirit.' Furthermore, the outsiders hypothesize that there is a spirit inside the body, and the spirit causes knowing to know it. The insider refutes them, saying: 'If the spirit causes knowing to know, who then causes the spirit? If knowing ultimately has no causer, why would the spirit need to be caused? If there is no causer of the spirit, then there is no knower; and if there is no knower, it is just like grass, trees, tiles, and gravel.' If in terms of inner contemplation, it directly contemplates the consciousness element. Why is this? The three phenomena form the body; life-faculty and warmth are devoid of knowing, and knowing is merely consciousness. If one claims that consciousness can know: past consciousness has already ceased, and because it has ceased, it cannot know; present consciousness does not abide for an instant, having no moment of pausing, and thus also cannot know; future consciousness does not yet exist, and how could a non-existent consciousness have knowing? Seeking consciousness across the three times, knowing cannot be found; apart from the three times, there is no separate knowing. Therefore, it is said that this body is devoid of sentience, like grass, trees, tiles, and gravel. The sūtra says: 'This body is without action, turned by the force of wind.' Next, in terms of the motion of wind, it assists in refuting that consciousness has action, teaching the practice of non-self. If explained as refuting outsiders: the outsiders hypothesize that because there is a spiritual self inside the body, it can undertake and execute actions and perform all deeds. The insider refutes them, saying: 'This is not done by a spirit; whatever the body does is all turned by the force of wind.' If explained in terms of inner contemplation of mind: when the deluded mental thought moves, inside the body, depending on wind, there are various actions performed. Therefore, the *Mahāsaṃnipātasūtra* says: 'There is wind that can go upward, and wind that can go downward. If the mind thinks upward, the wind pulls upward following the mind; if the mind thinks downward, the wind pulls downward following the mind. Movements and operations are all wind turning in accordance with the mind, performing all deeds.' If the wind channels do not flow freely, the hands and feet do not function properly; though the mind has thoughts, there is no way for movement to occur. For example, when a person pulls the mechanisms, the shadow puppet performs various movements; if the puppet strings snap, the hand has nothing to pull. One should know that all are actions depending on wind. Now, contemplating this wind-dependence: it does not arise from itself, nor does it arise from another. If it is without arising, it is empty. It cannot even exist on its own, making it impossible for the three phenomena to form a body. Who is the agent? Explanation: In general, outsiders who hypothesize and insiders who grasp at a self both give rise to attachment within the six elements of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness, as well as within the three phenomena of consciousness, warmth, and breath inside the body. Now, contemplating within the six elements and three phenomena, it is solely the one element of consciousness that the world mostly clings to firmly as the real self.