仁王護國般若經疏 3.12

3.12

From "said to the Buddha" below is the second [section], clarifying observational prajñā. The text has two parts: first the question, then the answer. The gist of the question is: Since existent phenomena are not the Great Vehicle, how does one illuminate [them]? This objection arises from the preceding text, "[one does] not not see all phenomena." From "Great King, the Mahāyāna" below is the second [part], the answer. The text has two parts: first brief, then detailed. The gist of the first answer is: The seeing of the Great Vehicle is seeing that phenomena are non-phenomena, because form and other phenomena are empty. From "If phenomena are not non-phenomena" below is the second [part], elaborating the answer and explanation. The text has two parts: first directly elaborating the explanation, second clarifying that the wisdom capable of contemplating doubly illuminates both emptiness and existence. The first text has two parts: first clarifying the emptiness of phenomena and the emptiness of nature, next examining phenomena in sequence to clarify emptiness. As for the first: Saying "if phenomena are not non-phenomena" is called the emptiness of phenomena. "The nature of phenomena is empty": if their nature were originally not empty, one could not cause them to become empty. Because their nature is fundamentally empty in itself, all phenomena are empty. From "form, feeling, perception, compositional factors" below is the second [part], examining phenomena in sequence to clarify emptiness. The text has two parts: first directly clarifying, then explaining and completing the meaning of emptiness. First, emptiness is clarified with reference to six gates. The *Dà zhìdù lùn* says: "The emptiness of the five aggregates is the emptiness of retributive fruition; the emptiness of the twelve sense bases is the emptiness of experiencing; the emptiness of the eighteen elements is the emptiness of distinct natures. These three kinds are spoken because the illnesses [of beings] differ: for those who doubt mental concomitants, the five aggregates are taught; for those who doubt physical form, the twelve sense bases are taught; for those who doubt form, mind, and the like, the eighteen elements are taught." The "six great elements" are called all-pervading emptiness. The *Āgama*s state: "The six kings disputed over which was greatest. Earth said, 'I can carry'; water said, '[I can] float and moisten'; fire said, '[I can] burn and illuminate'; wind said, '[I can] generate and move'; space said, '[I can] contain'; consciousness said, 'Without me, form would perish.'" Although the [other] five are great, consciousness is primary; hence it says that the four great elements surround space, and consciousness resides within them. The four noble truths are the emptiness of objects, and conditioned arising is the emptiness of principles, and so forth. From "These phenomena" below is the second [part], explaining and completing the meaning of emptiness. The text has two parts: first with respect to the aggregate of consciousness, next by analogy to the [other] four aggregates and all phenomena. The first text has four parts: 1. stating the main thesis, 2. explaining by category, 3. questioning and examining, 4. explaining and resolving. As for the first: phenomena of form are empty because they possess five aspects. "Instantly arising, instantly enduring, instantly ceasing": the masters of the Lesser Vehicle either say that arising is before, enduring is next, and ceasing is after; or they say arising and enduring are simultaneous. Neither avoids difficulty. Why? If one says arising is before, enduring next, and ceasing after, then at the time of arising there is no enduring, because arising is prior. If there is no enduring, how can there be arising? For previously there is no enduring, and enduring belongs to this arising; if arising cannot endure, then there is no arising. If prior to enduring there is no arising, then there is also no enduring, because there is no cause. If before arising there were enduring, then arising and enduring would be simultaneous. If enduring only exists after arising has ceased, then enduring is not possessed by arising. This is the fault of positing difference. If arising and enduring are simultaneous, then cause and effect would be of one body, and birth and death would share the same characteristic; this is the error of positing oneness. Now, saying "instantly arising, instantly enduring, instantly ceasing" differs from both explanations, because the substance of all phenomena shifts and flows from moment to moment without a temporary stop; it is also that the time of arising is itself the time of enduring and the time of ceasing, like a swift flame passing over a blade's point, or a coursing steed passing a blade without stop, coming without any temporary stay. Therefore the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* says: "You right now are also arising, also aging, and also ceasing." "Instantly existent, instantly empty": the nature of form is empty in itself, not empty because form is destroyed. From "ksana by ksana" below is the second, explaining by category, clarifying that every thought-moment is empty, identical to the five above. A kṣaṇa is an extremely short time. "Why is that?" is the third, questioning and examining. The intention is: arising and ceasing are mutually contradictory; how can one say "instantly arising, instantly enduring, instantly ceasing," and so on? From "ninety ksanas" below is the fourth, explaining and resolving. Ninety small kṣaṇas make one large thought-moment; within one thought-moment, one kṣaṇa further has nine hundred arisings and ceasings; therefore at the time of arising there are already enduring and ceasing. Furthermore, ninety kṣaṇas make one thought-moment; one kṣaṇa within one thought-moment undergoes nine hundred arisings and ceasings; one thought-moment has ninety kṣaṇas, bringing together eighty-one thousand arisings and ceasings. Arising and ceasing subsume kṣaṇas, and kṣaṇas subsume a single thought-moment; thus mental phenomena cannot be apprehended. This clarifies the emptiness of mind. If one divides the various sense organs by the four great elements, the sense organs cannot be apprehended; if one divides the four great elements by the four subtle elements, the four great elements cannot be apprehended; if one divides the four subtle elements by coarse subtle elements, the four subtle elements cannot be apprehended; if one divides coarse subtle elements by atomic particles, coarse subtle elements cannot be apprehended. Reducing form down to atomic particles, and fathoming the mind to the limit of arising and ceasing—when form is exhausted and mind is fathomed, there is sudden openness without abiding. The abiding of non-abiding cannot be named; one forcibly terms it emptiness: this protects the buddha-fruit of the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. If one sees that form is the emptiness of form, and sees that mind is the emptiness of mind, without attainment and without abiding, this protects the buddha-fruit of the shared [teaching]. If one sees that the two phenomena of form and mind are both one and different, vast as the dharmadhātu, ultimate as empty space, fitting like a box and lid, this protects the buddha-fruit of the distinctive [teaching]. If one sees that the two phenomena of form and mind are originally empty and quiescent, unmoving, non-abiding, unborn, and unceasing, this protects the buddha-fruit of the perfect [teaching]. From "even form" below is the second [part], explaining by category the four aggregates and all phenomena: they too are instantly arising, instantly ceasing, instantly existent, and instantly empty.