宗鏡錄 69.33.1

69.33.1

Answer: The above was an analysis made according to conventional truth; they seem to exist, yet are not real, merely establishing empty names, ultimately lacking actual substance. For this reason, the Śūraṅgamasūtra subtly investigates and examines them: the aggregates, sense fields, elements, and bases are each and every one empty, neither due to causes nor due to conditions, nor of a naturalistic nature (svabhāva). "Neither due to causes" means not arising from self. "Nor due to conditions" means not arising from other. Since there are no two phenomena of self and other, with no phenomena to combine, this is not arising from both. "Nor of a naturalistic nature" means not arising without cause. Since there is no arising according to the four lemmas, from where could the aggregates exist? Furthermore, one should observe that this one thought of mind does not arise from the separation or union of sense faculty and sense dust. If one says it arises from union: for example, the mirror and the face each having an image, their union in arising should produce two images. If each lacks an image, then in union none should arise. If the mirror and face unite into one to produce the image: now they do not actually unite, and if united there would be no image. If the image arises because mirror and face are separated: each being in a separate location, there should then be an image. Now in fact it is not so. The separation and union of sense faculties and sense dust are also like this. One should know that precisely in thought there is no thought, the places where self and other arise are both empty; precisely in arising there is no arising, and when investigated through separation and union, there is no substance. The passage refuting the five aggregates states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'Suppose a person takes a kalaviṅka jar, stops up its two holes, and holding space inside it walks a thousand li to present it to another country. One should know that the aggregate of consciousness is also like this. Ānanda, such empty space did not come from that place, nor did it enter here. So, Ānanda, if it came from that place, then since empty space was stored in the original jar and taken away, there should be less space at the location of the original jar. If it entered here, upon opening the holes and inverting the jar, one should see space coming out. Therefore, you should know that the aggregate of consciousness is false and illusory, originally neither due to causes and conditions nor of a naturalistic nature.'" Explanation: This refutes the aggregate of consciousness. The jar is a metaphor for the body; space is a metaphor for consciousness. If one clings to there being a consciousness that comes and goes along with the body: when the aggregate of consciousness here ceases and goes to be born in that place, it would be like carrying empty space from here to present it to another country. If this aggregate actually ceased, it would be like there being less empty space at the location of the original jar; if that aggregate were born again, it would be like opening the holes and inverting the jar where one should see space coming out. Hence we know that empty space is unmoving, and consciousness has no going or coming. Since one aggregate is unreal, the four aggregates are also like this. The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: "When a person is about to cast off life, yet their mind, manas, and consciousness immediately arise in a good destiny, this mental phenomenon actually has no going or coming, nor any place to which it arrives. It is simply that preceding and following resemble each other in succession, their appearances not differing. Such words are the secret teaching of the Tathāgata." Furthermore, the Buddha said to King Ajātaśatru: "As to what you have said, that you unjustly harmed your innocent former king: which one was your father? It was merely that regarding the five aggregates of conventionally designated sentient beings, you falsely generated the thought of 'father'. Among the twelve sense bases and eighteen elements, which one is the father? If form is the father, the four aggregates should not be; if the four aggregates are the father, form should also not be. If form and non-form combined are the father, this makes no sense. Why? Because the natures of form and non-form do not unite. Great King, ordinary sentient beings falsely generate the thought of 'father' with respect to this aggregate of form. Such an aggregate of form cannot be harmed either." Up to: King Ajātaśatru then addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honoured One, only now do I know that form is impermanent, up to consciousness is impermanent. If I had originally been able to know in this way, I would not have committed the crime." The Lokadharaparipṛcchāsūtra states: "The Buddha said: When these bodhisattvas observe in accordance with reality, they know that the aggregate of consciousness is false and unreal, from the beginningless past constantly having the mark of non-arising. They know that the non-aggregate is the aggregate of consciousness; the image aggregate is the aggregate of consciousness; the illusory aggregate is the aggregate of consciousness. For example, regarding an illusory conjured person, their consciousness is not within, nor without, nor in between; the nature of consciousness is also like this. Like the illusory nature, it is false and conditionally arisen, arising from conceptualisation and discrimination, lacking any actual reality. Like a mechanical wooden figure, consciousness is also like this: arising from inversion, it exists through the combination of false causes and conditions. How could an illusory person possess mental consciousness? Who would claim that a wooden statue has sentience? Compared to false consciousness, the analogy is identical: derived from illusory conditions, it seems to exist." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "When the sun first rises, one sees city gates, watchtowers, and palaces, with travellers going in and out. As the sun rises higher, they gradually vanish; they can only be seen with the eye, but have no reality. This is called a gandharvanagara. Suppose there is someone who has never seen a gandharvanagara before, and seeing it in the morning towards the east, thinks it to be a real pleasure and rushes towards it. As he gets closer it gradually disappears, and as the sun rises higher it vanishes. Parched with extreme thirst, he sees the shimmering heat-shimmer like wild horses and takes it to be water, running swiftly toward it. As he gets closer it vanishes. Exhausted and in dire distress, he reaches a remote mountain and narrow valley; shouting and weeping aloud, he hears an echo and thinks there are inhabitants. Seeking them to utter exhaustion, he sees nothing. Reflecting and awakening by himself, his thirsty and yearning mind ceases. A person without wisdom is also like this: in the empty aggregates, elements, and sense fields, he sees a self, 'mine', and various phenomena. Clinging with a mind of lust and anger, he runs wildly in the four directions, seeking pleasure to satisfy himself; deceived and bewildered by inverted views, he falls into extreme anguish. If by means of wisdom he knows that there is no self and no real phenomena, at that time his inverted yearnings cease." Therefore, one knows that the aggregate of form is like an eye strained by fatigue suddenly displaying the appearance of space flowers; the aggregate of sensation is like the rubbing of hands falsely producing the condition of cold or heat; the aggregate of perception is like someone mentioning sour plums and saliva naturally flowing in the mouth; the aggregate of conditioned factors is like waves upon the water which, when viewed, seem to rush along; the aggregate of consciousness is like a jar storing empty space, carried to present it to another country. These, then, are neither internal nor external, neither identical nor separate. Since combination is not established, neither does a naturalistic existence exist. If these analogies were real, then the five aggregates would not be unreal. Since both are worldly characteristics and not real, we clearly know that the aggregates and sense fields are without substance. They are merely the dharmadhātu of empty nature, the mind of the tathāgatagarbha, without beginning and without end, equally manifest. Hence the Śūraṅgamasūtra states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'Therefore the Tathāgata now explains it to you.'"