般若波羅蜜多心經幽贊 2.43

2.43

勝空者言，依世俗諦，許色等有，可有生等；依勝義諦，色等本空，如何空中更有生等？故生滅等空相皆無。如應者言，遍計所執及依他上自然生法本性空無，法性色等體即空理，皆無如彼二乘等執生等位別，故說空相不生滅等。又若有執有為遷流定有生滅，無為在纏、出纏位別實有垢淨，未證真位及證真已有為、無為互有增減，如是定執皆所執故，體相都無，寧如彼執有為生滅、無為垢淨、通二增減？如見陽焰執為實水，此水本空，何有生等？非無陽焰似水生等。又設難言，若攝歸性，依他色等皆即空如，彼有生滅，此亦應爾。今義答言，如太空中色雖生滅，而空相無，如是依他雖有生滅，真空不爾。復有難言，若一切法皆即真空，空相遍在貪等垢染、信等淨中，如應垢淨。今義答言，如太空中有色染淨，空相不爾，如是諸法雖有垢淨，而空相無。故有頌言：

The adherents of Paramārtha-śūnya say: Relying on conventional truth, one accepts that form and the like exist, and there can be production and so forth; relying on ultimate truth, form and the like are originally empty, so how could there still be production and so forth within emptiness? Hence, marks of emptiness such as production and destruction are completely absent. The adherents of the Appropriate School say: The parikalpita and the naturally produced phenomena upon the paratantra are fundamentally empty and non-existent; the dharmatā-form and so forth are in substance the principle of emptiness; none have the distinct states of production and so forth as grasped by those of the two vehicles and others. Therefore, it is said that the mark of emptiness is unproduced, undestroyed, and so forth. Furthermore, if one clings to the view that saṃskṛta flux definitely has production and destruction, that asaṃskṛta has real defilement and purification according to the distinct states of being entangled or released, or that saṃskṛta and asaṃskṛta mutually increase or decrease before and after realising the state of truth—such fixed clingings are all parikalpita, and their substance and marks are completely absent. How could there be, as they cling, saṃskṛta production and destruction, asaṃskṛta defilement and purification, and the increase and decrease common to both? Just as when seeing a mirage, one clings to it as real water: this water is fundamentally empty, so how could it have production and so forth? Yet this does not mean the mirage resembling the production of water does not exist. Moreover, a challenge is raised: 'If they are subsumed into the nature [of suchness], paratantra form and the rest are all identical with empty suchness; since the former have production and destruction, the latter should also be like that.' The present teaching replies: 'Just as in space, although form is produced and destroyed, the mark of space is absent; so, although paratantra has production and destruction, true emptiness is not like that.' Another challenge is raised: 'If all phenomena are identical with true emptiness, the mark of emptiness pervades both the defilement of greed and so forth and the purity of faith and so forth, so it should be defiled and purified accordingly.' The present teaching replies: 'Just as in space there are defiled and pure forms, but the mark of space is not like that; so, although phenomena have defilement and purification, the mark of emptiness does not.' Hence, a verse says: