宗鏡錄 8.7

8.7

Answer: "When the sūtra speaks of 'maintaining the mind like empty space,' it is merely to maintain the mind so that it does not arise; hence it says 'like empty space.' It is not that it is identical to emptiness. The sūtra says: 'like empty space.' The sūtra states: 'If consciousness rests in dual phenomena, there is pleasure; if consciousness rests in the non-dual reality-limit of phenomena, there is no pleasure.' The reality-limit is the dharmatā; empty consciousness is the wonderful spirit. Hence know that within the reality-limit, the wonderful spirit is contained. The 'Nature Arising' chapter of the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra* employs ten kinds of similes to clarify that the dharmakāya Buddha has a mind. The Great Master said: 'Although there is a wonderful spirit, the nature of the spirit does not arise, and is of one substance with Suchness. Just as ice is still water and of one substance with water, water also has the nature of ice. If it did not have the nature of ice, then when cold congeals, ice would not appear. Within Suchness there is also the wonderful spirit; their nature is identical. When Suchness is pure it appears; when impure it cannot be seen again. Furthermore, just as the master's surname is Fu: the Fu surname cannot be found inside the body, cannot be found outside the body, and cannot be found in between. You should know that the Fu surname is empty, but not the emptiness of annihilative emptiness; because within the Fu surname all men and women are contained, we say that the emptiness of nature is different from empty space. Buddha-nature is empty; the dharmakāya of all buddhas is not empty.' The Great Master cited the sūtra: 'The physical characteristics of a woman's body are nowhere present and nowhere absent.' That they are 'nowhere present and nowhere absent' is spoken by the Buddha. The explanation states: 'The physical characteristics of a woman's body are identical to Suchness; hence it is said they are nowhere present. The nature of Suchness is truly permanent, and its substance contains the myriad characteristics; hence it is said they are nowhere absent. "Containing" means containing the characteristics of male and female, forms, sounds, and so forth.' The *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* clarifies the bodhisattva's mindfulness of the Dharma: 'Good sons, only this true Dharma has no season. It is seen by the Dharma-eye, not seen by the fleshly eye; it does not arise and does not emerge, does not abide and does not perish, has no beginning and no end, is without darkness and without number'—this directly clarifies the substance of Suchness—'It is neither saṃyojana nor karma, severs saṃyojanas and severs karma, and yet is also karma; it is not male, severs maleness, and yet is also male; it is not existent, severs existence, and yet is also existent; it is not an āyatana, severs āyatanas, and yet is also an āyatana... up to the dwelling places where all buddhas roam, constantly unchanging—this is called the bodhisattva's mindfulness of the Dharma.' As above, the two gates of emptiness and existence, in broadly expanding their meaning and function, then speak of preservation and elimination, opening and closing. If one is refuting emotional attachments, one then speaks of identity and divergence, existence and non-existence. Supposing that when one sees the nature and realizes comprehension, both wisdom and understanding are entirely cut off. As the *Contemplation on the Quenching and Severing without Reliance* states: 'This contemplated true emptiness cannot be said to be identical to form or not identical to form, nor can it be said to be identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness. Everything is inadmissible, and inadmissibility is also inadmissible; even this utterance is not accepted. Remote, cut off, and without reliance, it is beyond the reach of words and unattainable by understanding. This is called the realm of practice. Why? Because giving rise to mind and stirring thoughts directly goes against the substance of phenomena and loses right mindfulness.' Up to: 'If one does not thoroughly comprehend the preceding understanding, there is no way to step forward and achieve this practice. If one does not understand this practice-dharma and cut off the preceding understanding, there is no way to achieve its correct understanding. If one clings to understanding and does not let go, there is no way to enter this correct practice. Therefore, practice is accomplished through understanding, and when practice arises, understanding is cut off.' An ancient commentary says: 'If emptiness were identical to form, the noble would, like the ordinary, see delusive form, and the ordinary would, like the noble, see true emptiness; moreover, there would be no two truths. If emptiness were not identical to form, seeing emptiness outside of form would provide no way to accomplish noble wisdom; moreover, ordinary and noble would be forever separate, because the noble would not be attained from the ordinary. Furthermore, if form were identical to emptiness, the ordinary being's deluded seeing of form should, like noble wisdom, see emptiness; moreover, the two truths would also be lost. If form were not identical to emptiness, ordinary beings seeing form should not be deluded; moreover, the form seen would be forever separated from true emptiness, and they would never become noble ones.' 'Giving rise to mind and stirring thoughts directly goes against the substance of phenomena and loses right mindfulness' means: the principle-nature of true emptiness is originally so. It is merely because of delusion that one stirs thoughts and grasps at characteristics. Although one engages in analytical refutation, sorting out emotions to reveal understanding, now that emotions are forgotten and wisdom is quenched, there is only the original reality—how could any newly arisen category of understanding remain? If there are categories of understanding, that is stirring thoughts; stirring thoughts gives rise to mind, and therefore loses right mindfulness. Right mindfulness is knowing without thought. If there were altogether no knowing, how could it constitute right mindfulness? Furthermore, understanding is meant to dispel emotions, and explanation is caused by refuting attachments. If emotions vanish and attachments are destroyed, how could explanation and understanding remain? The true nature is clear and distinct, quiescent, with neither preservation nor elimination. Therefore, if one speaks of identity or non-identity, all fall into right and wrong; if one catches a fleeting glimpse of existence or non-existence, that is not right mindfulness. Hence it is said: 'No sooner is there right and wrong than one is confusedly lost to the mind.'"