仁王經疏 2.423

2.423

釋曰：自下第三有兩偈半，辨世諦虛，結成上義。於中有三：初之一偈總顯世虛、次有一偈顯能所化虛、後有半偈結觀歸人。就初偈中，初之一句顯世諦法虛如幻起、後有三句舉喻顯法。喻有三種：一者空華、二者樹影、三者第三手（或有本云「三首」者，謬之也）。然釋此喻，諸說不同。有說：空華有相無體，喻分別性。樹影託質而起，喻依他性。第三手，相性並無，譬真實性。是安立故，遂是世諦；由因緣故，妄執為有。一云：三喻喻一切法空，故《大品》等顯十喻，以說諸法無不皆空。一云：三喻顯所執空，故《解深密》云「由所執性，立三無性。」會《般若》云一切諸法無自性者，依相無自性性說，故知不遣依他亦是空。具如別章。

Explanation: From here down is the third part: there are two and a half verses distinguishing the unreality of conventional truth and concluding the preceding meaning. Within this there are three parts: first, one verse generally reveals the unreality of the conventional; next, one verse reveals the unreality of that which transforms and that which is transformed; thereafter, half a verse concludes the contemplation by returning to the person. Within the first verse: the first line reveals that conventional phenomena are unreal, arising like an illusion; the following three lines adduce metaphors to reveal the doctrine. There are three kinds of metaphors: first, flowers in the sky; second, the shadow of a tree; third, a third hand (some editions say "three heads," which is erroneous). However, in explaining these metaphors, various explanations differ. Some say: flowers in the sky have marks but no substantial entity, illustrating the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva); the shadow of a tree arises relying on a physical basis, illustrating the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva); a third hand has neither mark nor nature, illustrating the consummate nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva). Because it is an established designation, it is consequently conventional truth; due to causes and conditions, it is falsely grasped as existent. One says: the three metaphors illustrate the emptiness of all phenomena, just as the Large Prajñāpāramitā and other texts set forth ten metaphors to teach that all phenomena are without exception empty. One says: the three metaphors reveal the emptiness of what is grasped, just as the Saṃdhinirmocana says: "Based on the imagined nature, the three non-natures are established." Reconciling this with the Prajñā statement that all phenomena are without self-nature, this is spoken relying on the non-nature of characteristics; hence we know that it does not dispense with the dependent nature as also being empty. This is fully explained in a separate chapter.