坐禪三昧經 2.106

2.106

如是觀十二分、四諦行、四念止、四正懃、四神足、五根、五力、七覺意、八正道，其心安樂。復以此法度脫眾生，一心誓願精進求佛。是時心中思惟觀念：「我了了觀知此道，不應取證。」有二事力故未入涅槃：一者、大悲不捨眾生，二者、深知諸法實相。諸心心數法從因緣生，我今云何隨此不實？當自思惟，欲入深觀十二因緣，知因緣是何法。復更思惟，是四種緣：因緣、次第緣、緣緣、增上緣。五因為因緣，除過去現在阿羅漢最後心，餘過去現在心心數法，是次第緣。緣緣、增上緣，緣一切法。復自思惟言：「若法先因緣中有，則不應言是法因緣生；若無，亦不應言因緣中生；生有半無亦不應因緣生；云何有因緣？若法未生，若過去心心數法失，云何能作次第緣？若佛法中妙法無緣涅槃，云何為緣緣？若諸法實無性，有法不可得；若因緣果生，因此有彼，是說則不然；若因緣中各各別、若和合一處，是果不可得，云何因緣邊出果？因緣中無果故。若因緣中先無果而出者，何以不非因緣邊出果？二俱無故。果屬因緣，因緣邊出，是因緣不自在屬餘因緣，是果屬餘因緣。云何不自在？因緣能生果，是故果不從因緣有，亦不從非因緣有，則為非果。果無故，緣與非緣亦無也！」

Contemplating in this way the twelve links, the practice of the four truths, the four applications of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four bases of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of awakening, and the eightfold noble path, his mind is at ease and joyful. Furthermore, using this Dharma to liberate sentient beings, he single-mindedly vows with vīrya to seek buddhahood. At that time, in his mind he reflects and contemplates: 'Although I clearly contemplate and know this path, I should not realize it.' Through the power of two things he does not enter nirvāṇa: first, great compassion in not abandoning sentient beings; second, deeply knowing the true mark of dharmas. The mind and mental factors arise from causes and conditions; how could I now follow what is unreal? He should reflect to himself, wishing to enter the deep contemplation of the twelve causes and conditions, knowing what dharma causes and conditions are. He further reflects that there are four kinds of conditions: root condition, immediately antecedent condition, objective condition, and predominant condition. The five causes are root conditions; excluding the final mind of past and present arhats, the remaining past and present mind and mental factors are immediately antecedent conditions. The objective condition and predominant condition condition all dharmas. He further reflects to himself, saying: 'If a dharma already existed within the causes and conditions beforehand, one should not say that this dharma arises from causes and conditions; if it did not exist, neither should one say that it arises from causes and conditions; if it arises partly existing and partly non-existing, neither should it arise from causes and conditions. How could there be causes and conditions? If a dharma has not yet arisen, or if past mind and mental factors have perished, how could they serve as immediately antecedent conditions? If within the Buddha's Dharma the wondrous dharma is the unconditioned nirvāṇa, how could it be an objective condition? If all dharmas truly have no nature, an existing dharma cannot be apprehended; if the fruit of causes and conditions arises, [claiming] "because of this, that exists," such a statement is incorrect. Whether causes and conditions are separate or united together, this fruit cannot be apprehended; how could a fruit emerge from causes and conditions? For there is no fruit within causes and conditions. If a fruit did not exist beforehand within causes and conditions yet emerges, why does a fruit not emerge from non-causes and non-conditions? For in both cases it is non-existent. A fruit belongs to causes and conditions and emerges from causes and conditions; these causes and conditions lack independence and belong to other causes and conditions, so this fruit belongs to other causes and conditions. How could causes and conditions lacking independence produce a fruit? Therefore, a fruit does not exist from causes and conditions, nor does it exist from non-causes and non-conditions; thus it is a non-fruit. Because the fruit is non-existent, conditions and non-conditions are also non-existent!'"