般若波羅蜜多心經贊 1.25

1.25

一、清辨等曰，色有三種，謂所執等，空能遣性，體非三性，今言「色即是空」者，遍計所執本來無故說之為空。據實此空亦非是空，故《中論》曰，「若有不空法，則應當有空法，實無不空法，何得有空法？」後二性空，準此應知，為除有執，說彼空言。依他起性猶如幻等，從緣故空；圓成實性以不起故，如似空華，自體亦空。有解宗中更有一釋，遣前二性非圓成實，兩宗共許，離有無相，絕戲論故。

First, Bhāviveka and others say: Form is of three kinds, namely the imagined and so forth; emptiness can banish nature, and its essence is not the three natures. Now, in saying 'form is itself emptiness,' because the imagined nature is fundamentally non-existent, it is called empty. According to reality, this emptiness is also not empty; hence the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states, 'If there were a non-empty dharma, there would then be an empty dharma; but in reality there is no non-empty dharma, so how could there be an empty dharma?' The emptiness of the latter two natures should be known by analogy with this: in order to remove the attachment to existence, that word 'empty' is spoken. The dependent nature is like an illusion and so forth, being empty because of conditions; the perfected nature, because it does not arise, is like a sky-flower, and its own essence is also empty. In a school of commentators there is yet another explanation: it banishes the first two natures, but not the perfected nature, because both schools mutually accept that it is free from the characteristics of existence and non-existence and cuts off conceptual proliferation.