般若波羅蜜多心經幽贊 2.43

2.43

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: