般若波羅蜜多心經贊 1.15

1.15

故今略述二種觀門，一者、清辨依諸《般若》及龍猛宗立一觀門，謂歷法遣相觀空門，立一切法皆悉是空，無生無滅，本來寂靜，自性涅槃。故《般若經》曰，「一切有為法，如夢、幻、泡、影，如露亦如電，應作如是觀」；又《思益經》云，「以心分別諸法皆邪，不以心分別諸法皆正」；又《中論》曰，「若有所不空，應當有空，不空尚不得，何況得於空？」又《中論》曰，「諸佛或說我，或時說非我，諸法實相中，非我非非我」。如是等文，誠證非一，是故清辨《掌珍論》曰，「真性有為空，如幻緣生故，無為無有實，不起似空華」。二者、護法依《深密》等及彌勒宗立一觀門，謂在識遮境辨空觀門，立一切法通有及無，遍計所執情有理無，依他起性因緣故有，圓成實性理有非無。故《深密》說，依所執故說一切法皆無自性；《寶積經》說，若撥諸法皆無性者，我說彼為不可治者；《瑜伽》等曰，依所執性故，契經說一切諸法皆無自性；《辨中邊論》頌，「虛妄分別有，於此二都無，此中唯有空，於彼亦有此，故說一切法，非空非不空，有無及有故，是故契中道」，如是等文，誠證非一。是故《二十唯識》等曰，「非知諸法一切種無乃得名為入法無我，然達愚夫遍計所執自性差別諸法我無，如是乃名入法無我」，敘觀如上，今當釋文。

Therefore, I will now briefly state two approaches of contemplation. First, relying on the various *Prajñā* [sūtras] and the school of Nāgārjuna, Bhāviveka establishes an approach of contemplation: namely, the approach of contemplating emptiness by going through dharmas and banishing marks, establishing that all dharmas are completely empty, without arising and without cessation, fundamentally tranquil, and intrinsically in nirvāṇa. Hence the *Prajñā Sūtra* says, "All conditioned phenomena / Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows, / Like dew and like lightning; / One should contemplate them thus." Further, the *Viśeṣacinti-brahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra* states, "Distinguishing dharmas with the mind is entirely erroneous; not distinguishing dharmas with the mind is entirely correct." Further, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states, "If there were something non-empty, there would accordingly be emptiness; if the non-empty cannot even be apprehended, how much less could emptiness be apprehended?" Again, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states, "The Buddhas sometimes speak of a self, and sometimes speak of a non-self; within the dharmatā of all dharmas, there is neither self nor non-self." Texts such as these provide many clear proofs. For this reason, Bhāviveka's *Karatalaratna* states, "Conditioned [dharmas] are empty in their true nature, because they arise from conditions, like an illusion; unconditioned [dharmas] have no real [existence], being unarisen like sky-flowers." Second, relying on the *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra* and others, and on the school of Maitreya, Dharmapāla establishes an approach of contemplation: namely, the approach of contemplating emptiness by abiding in consciousness and negating objects, establishing that all dharmas partake of both existence and non-existence—the imagined nature exists in conception but is non-existent in principle, the dependent nature exists because of causes and conditions, and the perfected nature exists in principle and is not non-existent. Hence the *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra* states that based on the imagined [nature], it is said that all dharmas lack self-nature; the *Ratnakūṭa-sūtra* states that if one repudiates all dharmas as lacking any nature, I say that person is incurable; the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* and others state that based on the imagined nature, the sūtras say all dharmas lack self-nature; and a verse in the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra* says, "Unreal distinction exists; duality is entirely non-existent in this; within this there is only emptiness, and in that there is also this; therefore all dharmas are said to be neither empty nor non-empty, because of existence, non-existence, and existence; thus it accords with the Middle Way." Texts such as these provide many clear proofs. For this reason, the *Viṃśatikā-vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* and others state, "It is not through knowing that all dharmas are non-existent in every way that one is said to enter the selflessness of dharmas; rather, it is through realizing that the self-nature and distinctions of dharmas imagined by foolish ordinary people are without a self of dharmas—only thus is it named entering the selflessness of dharmas." The accounts of contemplation are as above; now the text should be explained.