般若波羅蜜多心經贊 1.27

1.27

二、依護法釋四句者，色有三種，謂三性色；空亦有三，體即三性。是故無著菩薩《辨中邊》曰，空有三種，一、無性空，性非有故；二、異性空，與妄所執自性異故；三、自性空，二空所顯為自性故。依遍計色對空四句有其三種，一、所執色對所執空以辨四句，隨情所執根、境等，色不異所執本無之空，是故說為色即是空，本無之空隨情即有，故言空即是色，此是同性相即。標宗二句，準上應知。二、所執色對依他空以辨四句，附託依他、所執實色不異依他無實之空，是故說言色即是空，而彼妄情於彼空處執有實色，故言空即是色。標宗二句，準應可知。此是異性相即。三、所執色對圓成實以辨四句，於圓成性執為實色不異圓成自性之空，於自性空執為實色，故言色即是空、空即是色。標宗二句，準應可知。此如依他，異體相即。依他起色對異性空有其四句，謂緣生色不異依他異性之空，然此空性是質礙故，是故說為色即是空、空即是色，此是同性相即。標宗二句，準應可知。又釋依他緣生之色對二性空有二四句，對異性故不異前釋，對自性空亦有四句，謂緣生色用如為體，然彼空性不異依他。故《成唯識》作如是說，「故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性」。又《中邊》云，「此中唯有空，於彼亦有此」，由斯道理，依他、圓成互不相離，是故說言色即是空、空即是色。非緣生空故說相即，不爾，應成違宗失故，此是異性相即。標宗二句，準應可知。圓成實性對自性空有其四句，謂圓成實是依他起，色實性故，名之為色；我法二空之所顯故，說圓成空；由此道理，是故說言色即是空、空即是色，此是同性相即。標宗二句，準應可知。

Second, explaining the four phrases according to Dharmapāla: Form is of three kinds, namely the forms of the three natures; emptiness is also of three kinds, their essences being the three natures. Therefore, Bodhisattva Asaṅga says in the Madhyāntavibhāga: "There are three kinds of emptiness: first, emptiness of non-nature, because its nature does not exist; second, emptiness of different nature, because it is different from the falsely conceptualized self-nature; third, emptiness of self-nature, because what is revealed by the two kinds of emptiness is its self-nature." Correlating the form of the parikalpita with emptiness in the four phrases, there are three types: First, discerning the four phrases by correlating imagined form with imagined emptiness: the form of the faculties, objects, and so forth imagined according to sentiment is not different from the fundamentally non-existent emptiness of what is imagined; therefore, it is said that 'form is emptiness'. The fundamentally non-existent emptiness exists according to sentiment; therefore, it is said that 'emptiness is form'. This is identity within the same nature. The two phrases establishing the tenet should be understood by analogy with the above. Second, discerning the four phrases by correlating imagined form with paratantra emptiness: relying on the paratantra, the imagined real form is not different from the emptiness devoid of real existence of the paratantra; therefore, it is said that 'form is emptiness'. And that false sentiment clings to real form in that place of emptiness; therefore, it is said that 'emptiness is form'. The two phrases establishing the tenet should be understood by analogy. This is identity across different natures. Third, discerning the four phrases by correlating imagined form with the pariniṣpanna: clinging to real form upon the pariniṣpanna nature is not different from the emptiness of the self-nature of the pariniṣpanna; clinging to real form upon the emptiness of self-nature, it is therefore said that 'form is emptiness' and 'emptiness is form'. The two phrases establishing the tenet should be understood by analogy. This, like the paratantra, is identity across different essences. Correlating the form of the paratantra with the emptiness of different nature, there are four phrases: form born of conditions is not different from the emptiness of the paratantra's different nature; yet because this empty nature has the quality of material obstruction, it is therefore said that 'form is emptiness' and 'emptiness is form'. This is identity within the same nature. The two phrases establishing the tenet should be understood by analogy. Another explanation correlates the form of the paratantra born of conditions with the emptiness of two natures, giving two sets of four phrases: correlating with the different nature is no different from the preceding explanation; correlating with the emptiness of self-nature also has four phrases: form born of conditions takes suchness as its essence, yet that empty nature is not different from the paratantra. Thus the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: "Therefore this and the paratantra are neither different nor non-different, like the nature of impermanence and so forth." And the Madhyāntavibhāga says: "Herein there is only emptiness, and therein this also exists." By this principle, paratantra and pariniṣpanna are mutually inseparable; therefore it is said that 'form is emptiness' and 'emptiness is form'. It is not said that they are identical because of the emptiness of conditioned arising; if it were not so, it would incur the fault of contradicting one's own tenet. This is identity across different natures. The two phrases establishing the tenet should be understood by analogy. Correlating the pariniṣpanna nature with the emptiness of self-nature has its four phrases: the pariniṣpanna is the real nature of paratantra form, and is therefore called form; because it is revealed by the two kinds of emptiness of self and dharmas, the pariniṣpanna is said to be empty; by this principle, it is therefore said that 'form is emptiness' and 'emptiness is form'. This is identity within the same nature. The two phrases establishing the tenet should be understood by analogy.