宗鏡錄 79.19

79.19

Answer: Because of consciousness-only, there is conventional truth. Since there is the conventional, there is consciousness that resembles dust [objects]; the illusory characteristics are not non-existent. Because nothing real can be apprehended, it is merely designated as empty; one must not produce views of absolute annihilating emptiness such as [looking for] a snake’s legs or the fragrance of salt. As a verse in the Ghanavyūhasūtra says:
‘Realms of objects such as jars
All have mind as their substance.
They are not jars, but appear resembling jars;
Therefore, they are spoken of as empty.
All form in the world,
The palaces of the devas and so forth,
Are all transformed by the ālayavijñāna
And become visible.
All that is in the bodies of sentient beings,
From head to hands and feet,
Whether born at once or gradually,
Is none other than the ālayavijñāna.
Vāsanās defile the mind;
The common and foolish cannot understand this.
This nature is not existent,
Nor is it empty.
Just as when a person uses objects
To strike and break a jar and the like:
If the substance of the object were empty,
There would be neither breaker nor what is broken.
Even a self-view of the magnitude of Mount Sumeru
Would not yet be considered [the worst] evil;
To be arrogant and attach to emptiness—
This evil surpasses that.’
Moreover, a sūtra says: ‘Better to cling to existence as [large as] Mount Sumeru than to cling to emptiness as [small as] a mustard seed.’ The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra says: ‘Liberation is called not-empty emptiness. Emptiness of emptiness is called having nothing. That which has nothing is the liberation postulated by externalists such as the Nirgranthas. Yet those Nirgranthas truly have no liberation; therefore it is called emptiness of emptiness. True liberation is not like that; therefore it is not-empty emptiness. Not-empty emptiness is true liberation; true liberation is the Tathāgata. Furthermore, liberation is called not-empty. Just as a jar for water, wine, curd, ghee, or honey, even when lacking water, wine, curd, ghee, or honey, is still called a jar for water and so forth. Such jars cannot be called empty, nor can they be called not-empty. If one calls them empty, then they could not have color, odor, taste, or touch; if one calls them not-empty, yet there is no reality of water, wine, and so forth. Liberation is also like this: it cannot be said to be form, nor non-form; it cannot be said to be empty, nor not-empty. If one calls it empty, then it could not have permanence, bliss, self, and purity; if one calls it not-empty, who is it that experiences this permanence, bliss, self, and purity? By this meaning, it cannot be called empty, nor can it be called not-empty. As for empty, it means being without the twenty-five states of existence and all kleśas, all suffering, all characteristics, and all conditioned formations; just as a jar without curd is called empty. As for not-empty, it means the real, wholesome form, permanence, bliss, self, purity, immobility, and changelessness; just like the color, odor, taste, and touch of that jar, therefore it is called not-empty. Therefore liberation is exemplified by that jar. When that jar encounters conditions, it is broken; liberation is not like that: it cannot be destroyed. That which cannot be destroyed is true liberation; true liberation is the Tathāgata.’