[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) › 66 # 宗鏡錄 66 English (machine translation) 66 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [66.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.30) — 4 parts ### [66.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.1) Compiled by Yanshou, Chan Master Zhijue, Abbot of Huiri Yongming Monastery. ### [66.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.2) Now, since there is no self, there is also no person, up to sentient being, soul, the sixteen views, and so forth. As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: 'The Buddha said: "Just as it is said that name-and-form binds sentient beings, if name-and-form ceases, then there are no sentient beings. Apart from name-and-form, there are no separate sentient beings; apart from sentient beings, there is no separate name-and-form. It is both called name-and-form binding sentient beings, and called sentient beings binding name-and-form." Siṃhanāda said: "World-Honoured One, just as the eye does not see itself, a finger does not touch itself, a knife does not cut itself, and love does not receive itself, how can the Tathāgata say that name-and-form binds name-and-form? Why is this? What is called 'name-and-form' is precisely sentient beings; what is called 'sentient beings' is precisely name-and-form. If one says that name-and-form binds sentient beings, that is precisely name-and-form binding name-and-form." The Buddha said: "Good son, just as when two hands clap together, there is no other, different phenomenon that comes to join them; name and form are also like this. For this reason, I say that name-and-form binds sentient beings. If one is free from name-and-form, one attains liberation."' The commentary states: Regarding 'just as when two hands clap together, there is no other, different phenomenon': although the two hands join together, because it is merely the function of a single body, there is no other, different phenomenon. Although they are not different phenomena, if there were only one hand, the joining could not take place. Just so, although name-and-form and sentient beings are not different, sentient beings must be bound on account of name-and-form, and one must be free from name-and-form to attain liberation. The separation and conjunction, binding and liberation of all phenomena are also like this. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra says: 'Phenomena have no person, because the prior and subsequent limits are severed.' Dharma Master Zhao said: 'Heaven gives birth to the myriad things, and holds humans to be noble. That which does not change from beginning to end is called a "person". Non-Buddhists call the spirit a "person", taking it to be unchanging from beginning to end. If the prior and subsequent limits of phenomena are severed, then they are moment-by-moment renewed and different. If they are moment-by-moment renewed and different, then there is nothing that does not change. If there is nothing that does not change, then there is no person.' Since there is no person in the prior limit, no soul in the subsequent limit, and neither self nor sentient being in the intermediate limit, all worldly phenomena whatsoever are merely conceptual differentiations constructed in words of thought, establishing their names and characteristics, and entirely lack real meaning. Sentient beings do not understand; grasping at their false perceptions, they are submerged therein and unable to escape. Therefore, the Buddhas expediently taught the two kinds of emptiness—of person and of phenomena—the correct doctrine of consciousness-only, so that they can be pulled out from amid false and deceptive names and characteristics. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, if all phenomena are empty and rootless, like a dream or a phantom, where do sentient beings abide such that the bodhisattva pulls them out?" Subhūti's meaning was like a person sinking in deep mud who is pulled out. The Buddha answered: "Sentient beings merely abide in names, characteristics, false memories, thoughts, and conceptual differentiations." The Buddha's meaning was that among all phenomena, there is nothing definitively real; ordinary persons merely cling to them out of falsehood and deception. It is like someone in the dark who sees something resembling a person and, believing it to be a real person, gives rise to fear. It is also like a vicious dog approaching a well, barking at its own reflection; there is no dog in the water, only its appearance, yet it gives rise to a vicious intention and leaps into the well to its death. Sentient beings are also like this: the four great elements come together, and so it is called a "body"; conditions give rise to consciousness and come together, and so there is motion and speech. Ordinary persons give rise to the notion of a person within this, generating attachment and aversion, creating sinful karma, and falling into the three evil destinies. When bodhisattvas practice the prajñāpāramitā, out of pity for sentient beings, through various causes and conditions they teach and transform them, leading them to know empty phenomena and pulling them out, speaking thus: "These phenomena are all ultimately empty and nonexistent. Because sentient beings are inverted and false, they see what resembles existence, like an apparition, like a phantom, like a city of the Gandharvas; there is no real actuality, they only deceive and mislead human eyes."' Up to: 'The Buddha told Subhūti: "If phenomena were truly existent even to the extent of a hair's breadth, when the bodhisattva sits at the seat of awakening, he would not be able to awaken to all phenomena as empty, without characteristic, and nonexistent, attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor be able to benefit sentient beings with this teaching."' It also says: 'It is like a traveller who spent the night alone in an empty pavilion. In the night, there was a ghost who carried a corpse and placed it before him. There was another ghost who came from behind, angrily scolding the first ghost, saying: "It is my corpse! Why did you carry it here?" The first ghost said again: "It was originally my thing; I carried it here myself." The two ghosts fought over it, each grasping it with one hand. The first ghost said: "We can ask this man." The second ghost then asked: "Whose dead person is this? Who carried it here?" The man thought: "Both of these two ghosts possess great strength. Whether I speak the truth or lie, in either case I cannot escape death. I should not answer the ghost with a lie now." He then answered the second ghost: "The first ghost carried it here." The second ghost was furious, ripped off his hands and feet, and cast them on the ground. The first ghost was ashamed of this, took the corpse's parts, and mended him with them; as soon as he mended him, they adhered. His arms, hands, feet, and so forth—his whole body was replaced. Thereupon the two ghosts together ate the body of the living person that had been replaced, each wiped its mouth, and they parted and went their ways. The man thought: "The body born of my parents, I saw eaten up with my own eyes. My present body is entirely another's flesh. Do I have a body, or do I have no body?" Thinking thus, his mind fell into confusion and he did not know what to do, like a madman. When dawn broke, he followed the road away, and arrived at a country ahead. Seeing a stupa, whenever he saw monks, without discussing any other matters, he only asked whether his own body existed or did not exist. The monks asked: "What sort of person are you?" He answered: "I do not know whether I am a person or not a person either." He then related the above event to the monks in detail. The monks all said: "This man knows for himself that his own body has no self; he can easily be converted." They then said to him: "Your body from the beginning has always naturally lacked a self; it was merely due to the aggregation and gathering of the four great elements that you reckoned it to be your own body. What was your own body is no different from the present one." At that time, the monks ordained him as a śramaṇa. Cutting off afflictions completely, he attained arhatship.' For this reason, there are times when one also reckons another's body to be oneself, because there is already no self; and there are times when, regarding oneself, one takes it to be another person. Thus the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchāsūtra says: 'An old man was lying down at night, holding his two knees in his hands, and then asked: "Where did these two small children come from?" If the body had a self, how could he fail to recognize it and take them to be small children? Therefore we know that arbitrary reckonings all lack definitive reality.' It also says: 'The bodhisattva reflects thus: "Phenomena are empty, without self, and without sentient beings, yet on account of causes and conditions, there are the four great elements and the six consciousnesses. These ten phenomena each have capacity; they can generate, can initiate, and can perform actions. Just as earth generates and sustains, water can dissolve, fire can consume, wind can move and turn, and consciousness can differentiate—these ten phenomena each have their own functions. Sentient beings, being inverted, take them to be done by a person or done by a self. Just as the coming together of skin and bone gives rise to the sound of speech, the deluded call it human speech; just as when fire burns a dry bamboo grove it produces a great sound, yet herein there is no agent. Again, just as wooden puppets, phantom persons, and apparitional persons, although capable of movement, have no agent, these ten phenomena are also like this."' The Guang bai lun says: 'If one grasps that there is a self in accordance with one's own perception, is it not merely that by taking the impermanent body and so forth as conditions, one makes false differentiations and grasps them as a real self? Why is this? It is manifestly seen in the world that merely taking the body and so forth as conditions, varying in states according to conditions over time, one falsely calculates: "I am fat, I am thin; I am superior, I am inferior; I am bright, I am dull; I am suffering, I am happy." For the impermanent body and so forth, such things are possible; a permanent, real self has no such distinctions. By this inference we know that all views of self lack a real self as their objective domain; they only take the false body and so forth as their object, arising in accordance with one's own false thoughts and discerning intellect. It is like taking a rope in the dark as an object and erroneously grasping it as a snake.' A verse in the Ratnāvalī says: / 'Just as a person, relying on a clean mirror, / Is able to see the reflection of their own face; / This reflection can only be seen, / But is completely unreal. / The view of self is also like this: / It appears in reliance upon the aggregates; / When examined as it truly is, it does not exist, / Just like the face's reflection in the mirror.' / The Xianyang lun poses the question: 'If there are only aggregates and no separate self, who sees, who hears, and who can discern?' Up to the verse in reply, which says: / 'Just as light has the function of illuminating, / And apart from the light there is no different substance, / Therefore, internally and externally, / The meaning of being empty and without self is established.' / The treatise says: 'It is manifestly seen in the world that precisely regarding the substance of light, having the function of illuminating, it is called "the illuminator"; apart from the substance of light, there is no separate illuminator. In this way, the eye and so forth having the function of seeing and so on are called "the seer", up to "the discerner"; there is no separate seer and so forth. Therefore, internal and external phenomena alike have no self.' ### [66.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.3) Question: If there is truly no self, how is it that the world has defilement and purity? ### [66.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.4) Answer: The phenomena of defilement and purity arise from causes and conditions; they do not depend on a real self. Why is this? A verse says: / 'Just as external things in the world / Cause harm and benefit apart from a self, / Although internally there is no real self, / The principle of defilement and purity should be established.' / The treatise says: 'Just as external worldly things, although lacking a self, nevertheless have various calamities and misfortunes, as well as favorable benefits, successfully accomplishing activities; just so, internal phenomena, although lacking a self, have the various principles of defilement and purity established. Therefore there is no fault.' ### [66.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.5) Question: Since persons and phenomena are both empty, if there is truly no self, who experiences the primary and secondary karmic retributions of birth and death, or grows weary of suffering and seeks to proceed toward nirvāṇa, with matters such as binding and liberation, going and coming, ascending and descending? ### [66.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.6) Answer: Although there is no agent, there is action. Through the power of multiple conditions, it reaches future lifetimes in continuous succession without interruption. Solely with consciousness as the seed, there can be such functions as revulsion, seeking, and recollecting. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: 'Bodhisattva Siṃhanāda said: "World-Honoured One, the five skandhas of sentient beings are empty and have nothing at all. Who receives the teaching and cultivates the path?" The Buddha said: "Good son, all sentient beings have a mind of mindfulness, a mind of wisdom, an aspiring mind, an energetic mind, a faithful mind, and a concentrated mind. Although dharmas such as these perish from thought-moment to thought-moment, they still continue in unbroken succession through resemblance; therefore it is called cultivating the path. Furthermore, just as a lamp, although perishing thought-moment to thought-moment, nonetheless has light that dispels darkness, dharmas such as mindfulness are also like this. Just as the food of sentient beings, although perishing thought-moment to thought-moment, can still satisfy the hungry; just as superior medicine, although perishing thought-moment to thought-moment, can still cure illnesses; and just as the light of the sun and moon, although perishing thought-moment to thought-moment, can still cause grasses, trees, and forests to grow—good son, as to what you said about perishing thought-moment to thought-moment, how can there be growth? Because the mind is uninterrupted, it is called growth."' As a verse in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'Although there is no self, no maker, and no receiver, / The karma of good and evil is never lost.' \[Though\] the karmic causes of good and evil and the retributions of suffering and pleasure are lost \[to an agent\], there is no person or self capable of making or receiving them; consciousness alone upholds them, and cause and effect are not lost. As an ancient master said: 'That sentient beings perform good and evil and receive their retributions is entirely due to the citta and vijñāna of sentient beings continuing through the three periods of time, transmitted from thought-moment to thought-moment. Just as the active five skandhas of the present life take the consciousness-seed of the previous life as cause to produce the fruit of the present life, in the present life there is action that perfumes seeds to serve as the cause for the active \[skandhas\] of future lives, sequentially continuing as cause and effect. Furthermore, karmas of good and evil both arise from the citta and vijñāna. That is to say, the preceding thought-moment creates good or evil karma; then, although this one thought-moment of consciousness perishes, the succeeding thought-moment of citta and vijñāna arises. Since citta and vijñāna are transmitted without interruption, they can sustain the karma of good and evil so that it is not lost, precisely because it is held by consciousness.' The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'However, in sentient beings, body and mind continue, and through the power of defilements and karma they transmigrate through the various destinies; because they loathe suffering, they seek to proceed to nirvāṇa.' From this, it is known that there is definitely no real self; there are only the consciousnesses, which from beginningless time have perished before and arisen after in the succession of cause and effect. Due to false perfuming, the semblance of a self appears, and foolish people falsely cling to it as a self. Therefore, know that loathing suffering and seeking pleasure, abandoning this and being born in that, verifies that there is no self. If there were definitely a self possessing substance, it could not come or go, or arise and perish in accordance with conditions; because it would be definitely existent, it could not be altered. It is solely because the conscious mind is illusory and indefinite that there is the principle of entering the noble from the common, and the gate of loathing the false and seeking the true; thus, without destroying causes and conditions, it can encompass the correct principle. ### [66.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.7) The Mahālaṅkārasūtraśāstra asks: 'If there is binding, then there is unbinding. If there is no self, then there is no binding. If there is no binding, who attains liberation?' ### [66.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.8) Answer: 'Although there is no self, there are still binding and unbinding. Why is this? Because being covered by defilements, one is bound; if one cuts off defilements, one attains liberation. Therefore, although there is no self, there are still binding and unbinding.' ### [66.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.9) Question: 'If there is no self, who reaches future lifetimes?' ### [66.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.10) Answer: 'From past defilements and actions, one obtains the present body and sense faculties. From the present life, one further creates actions; by these causes and conditions, one obtains a future body and sense faculties. For example, when a grain seed combines with multiple conditions, a sprout is able to grow. Yet this seed does not actually pass into the sprout; because the seed perishes, the sprout then grows. Because the seed perishes, it is not permanent; because the sprout arises, it is not severed. The Buddha's explanation of receiving a body is also like this: although there is no self, karmic retribution is not lost.' ### [66.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.11) Question: 'If there is no self, why are things done previously remembered and not forgotten?' ### [66.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.12) Answer: 'Because there is mindful awareness associated with the mind, one can recollect events of the three periods of time without forgetting them.' ### [66.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.13) It is asked again: 'If there is no self, the past has already perished and the present mind arises; since arising and perishing are distinct, how can one remember without forgetting?' ### [66.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.14) Answer: 'In all receiving of birth, consciousness is the seed. Entering the mother's womb, moistened by the water of craving, the body-tree is able to grow. Just as a walnut seed grows according to its kind, this skandha creates karma that can induce a later skandha. Yet this prior skandha does not produce the later skandha; due to karmic conditions, one then receives the later skandha. Although reaching extinction is different, there is continuous succession without interruption. It is like an infant's illness: if medicine is given to the wet nurse, the child's affliction is cured. Although the mother is not the child, the efficacy of the medicine can reach the child. The skandhas are also like this: because there is the power of karma, one then receives the later skandha and remembers without forgetting.' ### [66.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.15) Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Question: "As for the direction toward which the mind tends, does the mind go, or does it not go? If it goes, then this \[body\] would be mindless, just like a dead person. If it does not go, how can it take an object? As the Buddha said: 'Dependent on the manas and taking dharmas as conditions, manovijñāna arises.' If the manas does not go, then there is no combination." ### [66.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.16) Answer: 'The mind does not go and does not abide, yet it can know. As it is said in the Prajñā\[pāramitāsūtra\], all dharmas are devoid of the characteristics of coming and going. How could one say that the mind has coming and going? If it had coming and going, it would fall into the view of permanence. Dharmas have no fixed characteristics; knowing that the mind does not abide is the characteristic of impermanence. When fetters have not yet been severed, \[the thought of\] "I" and "mine" may arise, reflecting in this way: "If the mind is impermanent, who knows this mind? To whom does the mind belong? Who is the master of the mind that receives suffering and pleasure? To whom do all things belong?" One then discriminates and knows that there is no separate master; merely upon the five skandhas one conceives the characteristic of a person and generates the mind of a self. Because of the mind of a self, "mine" arises. Because the mind of "mine" arises, one generates greed toward what benefits oneself, and generates anger toward what opposes oneself. Defilements such as craving are conventionally designated as "binding." If by cultivating the path one unties this binding and attains liberation, this is called nirvāṇa. There is no other dharma called nirvāṇa. It is like a person who, upon being freed from shackles, engages in frivolous debate: "These are shackles, these are legs; which one is liberation?" Such a person is absurd, seeking liberation apart from the legs and shackles. Sentient beings are also like this, seeking liberation apart from the cessation of the five skandhas. Therefore, know that where there is consciousness, there is bondage; where there is no consciousness, there is liberation. If one seeks liberation separately apart from the emptiness of the five skandhas, it is like leaving the space of this place to seek space elsewhere. Hence the Viśeṣacintabrahmaparipṛcchāsūtra says: "Foolish about the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, / Yet wishing to seek bodhi; / The skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas are precisely it— / Apart from these, there is no bodhi."' ### [66.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.17) The Huayan huiyi asks: 'If in accordance with \[the emptiness of\] the six sense faculties there is no self, who creates and who receives?' ### [66.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.18) Answer: 'When the Buddha said that performing good brings birth in heaven and committing evil brings suffering, this is merely the nature of causes and conditions; it is not that a self can perform or receive them. If one says that it is a self and not causes and conditions, why does committing evil not bring birth in heaven instead of falling into hell? Could the self love that hell and therefore receive suffering? Since the self performs evil and does not receive pleasure, know therefore that good and evil inducing retribution is solely due to causes and conditions, not a self. As the treatise says: "Due to causes and conditions one is born in heaven; due to causes and conditions one falls into hell"—this is the meaning.' ### [66.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.19) Question: 'Since you say there is no self, what induces causes and conditions? If you say there is no self and it is merely causes and conditions acting on their own, plants and trees also depend on causes and conditions; why are they not born in heaven or subjected to suffering?' ### [66.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.20) Answer: 'Although the internal and external both merely depend on causes and conditions, causes and conditions are twofold: First, sovereign karmic causes and conditions of good and evil, which only induce birth in heaven or the vipāka of hell, and so forth. Second, causally concordant karmic causes and conditions of good and evil: those born in heaven induce jeweled ground and golden flowers; those falling into hell induce forests of swords and copper pillars, and so forth. These are created by karmic causes and conditions; they are not what a self can do. How could one grasp at the existence of a self merely because retributions received are different? Therefore, the sūtra says: "There is no self, no maker, and no receiver, / Yet the karma of good and evil is not lost."' ### [66.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.21) Question: 'If one says that creating karma and receiving retribution is merely causes and conditions and not due to a self, why is it that for one who has realized selflessness, although there are causes and conditions of bad karma already created, they do not induce the reception of retribution? Since attaining selflessness means not receiving retribution, know therefore that the self creates evil karma and receives retribution, not karmic causes and conditions.' ### [66.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.22) Answer: 'Because having attained selflessness, one immediately cuts off the causes and conditions of evil karma; devoid of those causes and conditions, one does not receive retribution. It is not that whether there is a self or no self determines receiving or not receiving. Therefore, the sūtra says: "Due to causes and conditions dharmas cease," and so forth—this is what it means. When thoroughly examined in accordance with reality, a self is unattainable. Therefore, there is no self; there are only the six sense faculties. The external grasping of "mine" posits the external division as having the six sense objects; they are not genuinely what belongs to a self.' ### [66.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.23) Question: 'If you say that there is only an aggregation of form and so on, without real wealth and treasures, and that they are not what belongs to myself—then since we all equally exist, why is it that in the world some people have abundant wealth and treasures, while others are so poor as not to have a single coin?' ### [66.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.24) Answer: 'Wealth and treasures are form, arising from karmic causes. Because karma is predominant, wealth and treasures are abundant; because karma is impure, one is poor without a single thing. This existence or non-existence is caused by karma; it is not what can be done by a self. If one says that wealth and treasures are real existents and do not exist due to karmic causes and conditions, then since all sentient beings cling to having "mine," why are there differences between rich and poor? Therefore, know that they are due to karmic causes and conditions, not real possessions of a self. It is said that elders have an abundance of wealth and treasures, while hungry ghosts do not have a single hair to cover their bodies—it is karma that causes this. To refute the afflictions of seeing, hearing, and so on in between, the six consciousnesses are posited in between; the afflictions of seeing, hearing, and so on are empty and have nothing at all. If one says that seeing, hearing, and so forth are the self and not consciousness, then since deaf and blind people have a self, why can they not see and hear? Since deaf and blind people, although having a self, cannot see or hear, know therefore that seeing is consciousness, not a self. From this it is known that when investigated and analyzed in these three loci of faculties, objects, and consciousnesses, there are only dharmas, and no self or person.' ### [66.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.25) Question: 'Some say that the existence of a self arises from delusion regarding a semblance and is not a real existent. Why then do we not mistake another for oneself? Now, since we take oneself as oneself and cannot take it as another, and take another as another and cannot take it as oneself, know therefore that self and other are real existents and do not arise from conceptualization. Furthermore, if it is merely a deluded mind and not a real existent, why do we not in delusion see water as fire or see fire as water? Therefore, know that water and fire are real existents and do not arise from delusion.' ### [66.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.26) Answer: 'There are two points. First: this discriminative conception of a self arises by relying on three conditions, namely evil teachers, evil teachings, and evil reflection. Through the habitual force of long-term perfuming by these three conditions, one then conceives that as other and grasps oneself as self; this is merely posited as real existence due to conceptualization. If you say it is a real existent and not conceived as existent through perfuming, why upon first emerging from the womb does one not grasp oneself and another's body? Since upon first emerging from the womb, because perfuming has not yet occurred, one does not conceptualize self and other, know therefore that conceptualizing the existence of self and other is due to false perfuming. As it is said, discriminative self-grasping arises dependent on three conditions; and it is also said to be the perfuming of evil views, and so forth. Second: wherever one sees and grasps something as real, it must arise from delusion regarding a semblance; apart from the semblance, there is no nature that is grasped. Therefore, know that just as conceptualizing water and fire, it arises from grasping a semblance. How so? Because water and fire seem to exist, but they are only false characteristics deceiving the mind; because of not understanding the characteristics, one falsely grasps them as real existents. Why is this? The cold and heat obtained are merely tangible objects; the blue, yellow, red, and white seen are form dharmas; and the flowing characteristics and leaping flames are mental objects. Grasping water and fire as real is only seeing them falsely as mental objects. As it is said: they arise from one's own mind, creating marks for the mind, and so forth.' ### [66.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.27) Question: Since we directly verify that water and fire are merely dust particles and so forth, why is there a distinction between the characteristics of water and fire? ### [66.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.28) Answer: The six dusts are not distinct; it is merely that illusory resemblances have differences. These very resemblance-characteristics arise because of deluded clinging. Therefore, both the resemblance and the clinging arise solely from delusion, as in the analogy of the hungry ghost seeing the water of the Gaṅgā as fire, and so forth. This arises merely from one's own citta; externally it is not real existence. It is also said: whenever there is seeing self and seeing other, all are one's own deluded citta manifesting itself, like confusing east for west. Yet the deluded person's 'west' is not apart from the awakened person's 'east'; it is only because the deluded person is deluded that they do not see the awakened person's 'east'. It does not mean that at the place where the deluded one sees west, there is no east. If one were to say that at the place where the deluded one sees west there is no real east, then seeing west would be awakening, not delusion, because without the awakened person's east, there would be nothing to be deluded about. Since we know that what is called 'west' is really east, why would the person be apart from east? Know with confidence that sentient beings are not apart from the Buddha realm, and the Buddha realm is not apart from the realm of sentient beings. It is only because of delusion, blind and foolish, that right before their eyes they do not know how to see it—a profound cause for sorrow! As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: 'The non-Buddhist Śreṇika said: "Gautama, if there is no self, who sees and who hears?" The Buddha said: "Good son, internally there are the six sense-bases; externally there are the six dusts. When the internal and external unite, the six kinds of consciousness are produced. These six kinds of consciousness acquire their names from causes and conditions. Good son, it is like a single fire: because it depends on wood, it is called a wood fire; because it depends on grass, it is called a grass fire. Sentient beings' manovijñāna is also like this: depending on the eye, depending on visible form, depending on light, and depending on attention, it is named eye-consciousness. Good son, such eye-consciousness is not in the eye, nor even in the attention; when these four things unite, this consciousness is therefore produced. The manovijñāna is also like this. If it is produced due to the union of causes and conditions, the wise should not say that seeing is the self, nor even that touching is the self. Good son, therefore I say that eye-consciousness up to manovijñāna, and all dharmas, are like an illusion. How are they like an illusion? Originally nonexistent, they now exist; having existed, they return to nonexistence. In this way, the internal and external six sense-bases are designated sentient beings, self, person, and man. Apart from the internal and external sense-bases, there are no separate sentient beings, self, person, or man." He also said: "Gautama, as you have said, when the internal and external unite, who produces the sound saying, 'I act, I experience'?" The Buddha said: "Śreṇika, from craving and avidyā as causes and conditions, karma is produced. From karma, existence is produced. From existence, immeasurable mental factors are produced. When citta arises, there are vitarka and vicāra. Vitarka and vicāra move the wind \[element\]. The wind follows the citta, striking the throat, tongue, teeth, and lips. Sentient beings with inverted thoughts produce sound in speech: 'I act, I experience; I see, I hear.' Good son, it is like a bell at the top of a banner: because of wind as a condition, it produces sound. If the wind is great, the sound is great; if the wind is small, the sound is small. There is no agent."' The Śataśāstra also says: 'If the self were existent, it should be like visible form and so forth, produced from conditions; having been produced, it must certainly return to cessation, and thus it would not be permanent. If it were not produced from conditions, it should be like a rabbit's horn, lacking superior substance and function; how could it be called a self? Moreover, because it ceases from moment to moment, it is not permanent; because it continues in resemblance, it is not severed. In this way, disciples of the Buddha distance themselves from the two extremes, awakening to and entering into dependent origination, abiding in the wondrous middle principle.' ### [66.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66.29) Question: Since there is neither self nor person, why is there birth and death? ### [66.30.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.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. ### [66.30.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.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. _First 31 of 37 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66)_ ## Linked texts (1) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.66.1) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.66) · Pramāṇa