仁王護國般若經疏 3.10

3.10

「白佛言」下，第二問答重釋。文二：初明三般若教、二明依教發觀。今初。三般若即為三別，初中明實相般若，先問、後答。上云不觀色如，今問意者，若云是為菩薩行化十地令諸法皆空者，菩薩為化何等眾生耶？「大王法性色」下，二答。文二：一明真則無化、二明俗則有化。初文四：一境、二觀、三徵、四釋。今初。五陰是地前菩薩境，常樂我淨是地上菩薩境云云。「不住色」下，二明觀。有人言：不住色者遮住色，不住非色遮住空，不住非非色雙遮住空住有。又不住色遮住色陰，不住非色遮住四陰，不住非非色雙遮住五陰。又不住色遮住色法，不住非色遮住心法，不住非非色遮住非色非心法。又不住色不住有，不住非色不住空，不住非非色不住空空。故《淨名》云「空病亦空」。今解者，具足應云不住色、不住非色、不住亦色亦非色、不住非色非非色，此中略第三句及四句「非色」兩字也。以色即空，故不住色。以空即色，故不住非色。以色空無二而二，故不住亦色亦非色。以色空二而無二，故不住非色非非色。次例四陰。非非住，上言不住，今言非不住，只以不住為住、住無所住。《金剛》亦云「應無所住而生其心」也。「何以故」者，三徵意。云：何故言住又言不住也。「非色如」下，四釋。非色如，故不可定言住色。非非色如，故不可定言住非色也。

From "said to the Buddha" onwards is the second part, the re-explanation through questions and answers. The text has two parts: first, clarifying the teaching of the three prajñās; second, clarifying the generation of contemplation in reliance on the teaching. Now for the first. The three prajñās constitute three distinctions; the first clarifies the prajñā of dharmatā, with first a question, then an answer. Above it said "does not contemplate form as suchness"; the intention of the question now is: if it is said that this is the bodhisattva's practice of transforming the ten stages so that all dharmas are empty, what kind of sentient beings does the bodhisattva transform? From "Great King, the form of dharmatā" onwards is the second part, the answer. The text has two parts: first, clarifying that in the real there is no transformation; second, clarifying that in the conventional there is transformation. The first text has four parts: first, the realm; second, the contemplation; third, the query; fourth, the explanation. Now for the first. The five aggregates are the realm of the bodhisattva prior to the bhūmis; permanence, bliss, self, and purity are the realm of the bodhisattva on the bhūmis, and so forth. From "not abiding in form" onwards is, second, clarifying the contemplation. Some say: not abiding in form refutes abiding in form; not abiding in non-form refutes abiding in emptiness; not abiding in neither form nor non-form refutes both abiding in emptiness and abiding in existence. Again, not abiding in form refutes abiding in the form aggregate; not abiding in non-form refutes abiding in the other four aggregates; not abiding in neither form nor non-form refutes abiding in all five aggregates. Again, not abiding in form refutes abiding in physical dharmas; not abiding in non-form refutes abiding in mental dharmas; not abiding in neither form nor non-form refutes abiding in dharmas that are neither physical nor mental. Again, not abiding in form is not abiding in existence; not abiding in non-form is not abiding in emptiness; not abiding in neither form nor non-form is not abiding in the emptiness of emptiness. Hence the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: "The illness of emptiness is also empty." Our present explanation is: fully stated, it should be: not abiding in form, not abiding in non-form, not abiding in both form and non-form, and not abiding in neither form nor non-form; here, the third phrase is omitted, along with the two characters "non-form" in the fourth phrase. Because form is itself emptiness, one does not abide in form. Because emptiness is itself form, one does not abide in non-form. Because form and emptiness are non-dual and yet dual, one does not abide in both form and non-form. Because form and emptiness are dual and yet non-dual, one does not abide in neither form nor non-form. The next four aggregates follow this example. Regarding "not non-abiding": above it spoke of "not abiding"; now it speaks of "not non-abiding", which simply takes non-abiding as abiding, abiding in having nowhere to abide. The Vajracchedikā also states: "One should give rise to that mind which abides nowhere." "Why is this?" is, third, the intent of the query. It asks: why speak of abiding and then also speak of not abiding? From "It is not the suchness of form" onwards is, fourth, the explanation. It is not the suchness of form, therefore one cannot definitively speak of abiding in form. It is not the suchness of non-form, therefore one cannot definitively speak of abiding in non-form.