仁王經疏 1.8

1.8

問：此無相輪，三性中遣何等，此三無性中依何無性？解云：西方諸師分成兩釋。一者清辨，其遣三性以立為空，即說空理以為無相，具如《掌珍》。二者護法，但遣所執以為無相，如《深密》等。三無性中，清辨、護法皆依三種無自性，亦以為無相。由斯真諦、慈恩三藏各依一宗。真諦三藏，如其次第，具遣三性，立三無性：一遣分別性，立分別無相性；二遣依他，立依他無生性；三遣真實性，立真實無性性。於一真如，遣三性故，立三無性，具如《三無性論》。是故真諦大同清辨，而差別者，清辨菩薩立而無當。真諦師意存三無性，非安立諦。二慈恩三藏，但遣所執，不遣二性，情有理無、理有情無二義別故。又三無性，如其次第，即說三性為三無性，故《三十唯識》言「即依此三性，立彼三無性。」具如《成唯識》、《深密經》等。是故清辨、護法二菩薩，各依自宗以釋此經。

Question: In this wheel of signlessness, which among the three natures is negated, and which among the three lack of natures is it based upon? As an explanation: Western masters are divided into two interpretations. First, Bhāviveka: he negates the three natures to establish emptiness, directly stating that the principle of emptiness is signlessness, fully as in the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā / Tarkajvālā (Zhangzhen). Second, Dharmapāla: he negates only the imagined nature as signlessness, as in the Saṃdhinirmocana and so forth. Among the three lacks of nature, both Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla rely on the three kinds of lack of self-nature and also consider them to be signlessness. Because of this, Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha and Tripiṭaka Master Cien each relied on one school. Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha, according to their order, completely negates the three natures and establishes the three lacks of nature: first, negating the conceptualized nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), he establishes the signless nature of conceptualization; second, negating the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), he establishes the unproduced nature of dependence; third, negating the consummate nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva), he establishes the natureless nature of the real. Negating the three natures in regard to the one tathatā, he establishes the three lacks of nature, fully as in the Sanwuxing lun. Therefore, Paramārtha is largely the same as Bhāviveka; however, the distinction is that Bodhisattva Bhāviveka establishes without positing, whereas Master Paramārtha's intention resides in the three lacks of nature as non-posited truth. Second, Tripiṭaka Master Cien negates only the imagined nature and does not negate the [other] two natures, because the two meanings—existing conceptually but non-existent in principle, and existing in principle but non-existent conceptually—are distinct. Furthermore, regarding the three lacks of nature, according to their order, the three natures are directly spoken of as the three lacks of nature; thus the Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā says: 'Relying directly on these three natures, those three lacks of nature are established.' It is fully as in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, and so forth. Therefore, the two bodhisattvas Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla each relied on their own school to explain this sūtra.