宗鏡錄 90.5.2

90.5.2

is likewise unobtainable. Seeking the body horizontally and vertically in this way, in the end it cannot be obtained; thus it is non-existent. Non-existence is also unobtainable; both existence and non-existence are also unobtainable; neither existence nor non-existence is also unobtainable. There is only a conventional name, and the conventional name constitutes the body. Such a conventional name is not internal, because it is not within the four mental aggregates; it is not external, because it is not within the aggregate of form; it is not in between, because it is not a combination of form and mind; nor does it constantly exist of itself, because it is not apart from form and mind. One should know that a name has no power to grasp an object, and an object has no reality that corresponds to a name. Since both the provisional and the real are empty, where can name and object abide? Contemplating the body in this way is contemplating its true mark. To contemplate the body is [to contemplate it as] a provisional name. Since the provisional name is like this, contemplating form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness is also like this. This is the contemplation of the path of suffering. / As for contemplating the path of afflictions: afflictions and karma are both causes of the body. Now, let us temporarily take afflictions as the cause of the body and contemplate them. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra says: 'Not destroying the cause of the body yet conforming to the single characteristic.' One should make a distinction using four propositions: Who destroys both the cause and the result of the body? Who destroys neither the cause nor the result of the body? Who destroys the result but not the cause? Who destroys the cause but not the result? What is the result of the body? It is the six parts such as the head born of father and mother. What is the cause of the body? It is the bodily, verbal, and mental karmas of greed, anger, and delusion. Now setting aside the three karmas, we contemplate greed, anger, delusion, etc. [Concerning] the four results: by the contemplative wisdom of impermanence, suffering, and emptiness, one breaks through greed, anger, and delusion; when the seeds are severed, this is called destroying the cause of the body. Not receiving future existence is called destroying the result of the body. As for worldly commoners: with fine clothing and good food, they nourish the five aggregates, indulging their minds and giving free rein to their inclinations, abandoning themselves to greed and anger, tormenting themselves and tormenting others; when one body dies and disintegrates, they again receive another body, cause and effect continuing without end. This is called destroying neither cause nor effect. Like a violator of royal law handed over to a caṇḍāla, or like enemies harming their own bodies: when the body has already decayed and the four aggregates are also extinguished, this is destroying the result; but the causes of the body—greed, anger, and delusion—become ever more blazing, submerging them in birth and death with no time of release. This is destroying the result but not the cause. By the contemplative wisdom of impermanence, severing the lower fetters of the five causes, while the bodily results of the five lower divisions are not yet exhausted—this is called destroying the cause of the body but not destroying the result of the body. These four propositions differ in their preservation and destruction, and none conforms to the single characteristic. As for conforming to the single characteristic: this refers to cultivating the Mahāyāna contemplation, contemplating a single thought-moment of the mind of greed, anger, or delusion. Does the mind arise of itself? Does it arise in response to sense objects? Does it arise from sense faculties and sense objects together? Or does it arise apart from sense faculties and sense objects? In all cases, there is no such principle. It is not from itself, not from another, not from both, and not without a cause; nor does it arise because the preceding thought has ceased; it is neither arising nor non-arising, neither ceasing nor non-ceasing. Seeking the mind horizontally and vertically in this way, it is impossible to find. When mind does not even have an origin, how could there be any talk of destruction? This is called not destroying the cause of the body yet conforming to the single characteristic. / As for contemplating the path of karma: as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra says, 'Lifting a foot and putting down a foot, there is nowhere that is not the bodhimaṇḍa, fully endowed with all buddhadharmas.' When contemplating the lifting of a foot: is it karma that lifts? Is it the agent of karma that lifts? Do karma and the agent of karma together lift? Or is it lifted apart from karma and the agent of karma? If karma lifts, it has nothing to do with the agent; if the agent lifts, it has nothing to do with karma. Since each separately does not lift, together they also do not lift. Since together they do not lift, how could there be lifting apart [from them]? Since lifting a foot is non-existent, putting down a foot is also non-existent. The contemplation of walking being like this, standing, sitting, lying down, speaking, and physical actions are also likewise. This is contemplating the true mark of the path of karma. / Second, contemplating the mind to illuminate the three consciousnesses: clearly contemplating a single thought as identical to emptiness, identical to the provisional, and identical to the middle is contemplating the mind's consciousness in terms of the three consciousnesses. What are they? The mental consciousness arises relying on conditions. In the mind itself, there is originally no such consciousness; from what condition could it arise? Furthermore, within the conditions, is there consciousness or is there no consciousness? If there is consciousness, then the condition is itself the consciousness; why call it a condition? If there is no consciousness, how could it give rise to consciousness? If the mind and conditions combine to produce it, since both are non-existent, in combination they cannot produce it; nor can it be apart [from them]. One should know that this consciousness does not reside in a single place; it arises from a multitude of conditions. 'What arises from conditions, that I explain as emptiness.' In this emptiness, one provisionally makes distinctions: this is an evil consciousness, this is a wholesome consciousness, this is a consciousness neither evil nor wholesome—delineating in various ways and arbitrarily asserting right and wrong. If consciousness were definitely empty, it could not be made provisional; if consciousness were definitely provisional, it could not be made empty. One should know that emptiness is not emptiness, the provisional is not provisional; neither empty nor provisional, both extremes are extinguished, directly manifesting the Middle Way. Within a single thought-moment of consciousness, the three contemplations are fully present. In being conscious of the three consciousnesses, one also does not grasp the three contemplations. Therefore, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: 'Do not contemplate form, do not contemplate the suchness of form, do not contemplate the nature of form... up to do not contemplate consciousness, do not contemplate the suchness of consciousness, do not contemplate the nature of consciousness.' Although one does not grasp consciousness, does not grasp the suchness of consciousness, and does not grasp the nature of consciousness, one simultaneously illuminates consciousness, the suchness of consciousness, and the nature of consciousness, clearly and without confusion. Because it illuminates the nature of consciousness, it is the amalavijñāna. Because it illuminates the suchness of consciousness, it is the ālayavijñāna. Because it both illuminates and ceases, it is the ādānavijñāna. This is called contemplating the three consciousnesses within the mind. / Third, contemplating the mind's three buddha-natures: First, the buddha-nature of the direct cause: 'Buddha' is called awakening, and 'nature' is called unawakened; that is, neither permanent nor impermanent, like a treasure of gold within the earth, which heavenly demons and non-Buddhists cannot destroy. Second, the buddha-nature of the revealing cause: the wisdom of awakening is neither permanent nor impermanent, and wisdom corresponds with principle, like a person who skillfully knows where the treasure of gold is; this wisdom cannot be destroyed. Third, the buddha-nature of the conditioning cause: all things are neither permanent nor impermanent, and meritorious wholesome roots assist awakening and knowledge to disclose and reveal the direct nature, like weeding away impurities to excavate the gold treasure. Contemplating the mind as identical to the middle is the buddha-nature of the direct cause; as identical to emptiness is the buddha-nature of the revealing cause; as identical to the provisional is the buddha-nature of the conditioning cause. Furthermore, 'buddha' is the wisdom of awakening, and 'nature' is the ultimate principle. Being able to illuminate the ultimate principle with the wisdom of awakening, wisdom and object correspond to each other; spoken of together, they are named buddha-nature. Now, contemplating the mind of the five aggregates accords with the true mark of the five aggregates, which is named the buddha-nature of the direct cause. Contemplating the true mark of provisional names