般若心經略疏連珠記 1.10

1.10

「良以」下，三、中道以顯妙。清涼曰：「意明此中空有皆是中道。然幻有真空雖通三性，諸祖釋義多就依他以敘諸宗立義不同、諸教淺深逈異。而宣政之來奧義湮微，遂令駕說之流多抑深經以為權淺。」今當先敘諸家所宗空有令晝然在前，後銷疏文。初言幻有者，亦名緣有、妙有、假有、似有。《宗致》曰：「此大乘內於緣生法二宗盛諍。一法相宗，說此緣生決定不空，以有因緣之所生故，猶如幻事不可言無。若言空者應非緣生，如兔角等。又云三論但破小乘外道遍計實我實法，不破大乘依他起性，以是幻有非過失故。若此亦破，則是斷滅惡趣空攝，非正法故。既是深過，明知緣生決定不無。《攝論》、《瑜伽》、《深密經》等決定說有，不可違故。此乃始教相宗說，此幻有不許即空也。二空宗說，此緣生法決定是空，以從緣生必無自性，猶如幻事不可言有。若言有者則不從緣，不從緣故則非緣起之法也。又云設使《瑜伽》等論所立依他，三論亦破，以諸緣生無不空故。若此不破，見不亡故、理非盡故。此是始教空宗說。此幻有不得言有，若言其有，則是病眼愚夫所取，法執未盡也。三法性宗，說此幻有從緣無性，如幻化人，非無幻化人，幻化人非真，故云幻有。亦名妙有，以非有為有，故名妙有。又曰以即空之色為妙色，由了無色而現色，故成妙色。又曰即空之有方為具德之有。又曰幻有義者，是則非有非不有，名為幻有。又云不墮一邊為俗諦中道等。此乃法性宗約空有相即，以顯幻有義也。」次言真空者，一法相宗，約彼遍計所執密意，說言諸法自性皆空，翻彼小乘而空六識。依、圓是有，不得即空，遍計是空，但是空無，亦曰真空。二空宗說，心境俱空平等一味。圭峯曰：「以諸法無性即名真理，如幻花無體即是太虛。」又引《門論》云「『大分深義，所謂空也。』假名及中道，但就空說。」清涼曰：「三論宗云：妄說為有，真諦故空。依計是俗，俗故是有；圓成是真，真故是空。從緣生法決無自性，故曰真空。若言有者，即是法執。」智光、竺汰、康朗諸師之所宗也。汰法師《本無論》曰「非有有即無，非無無即無」故曰真空。所以肇公作《不真空論》，《演義》釋其題曰「此中真空非是對妙有之真空，此真空是所破病，彼謂真諦一向無物為真空故。肇公以『不』不之，云不一向是無物，故曰不真空。」又曰「此但得三論一分空義耳。」草堂曰：「彼且不立真，何況於妄。以真諦為真空也。」三法性宗所說真空。鎮國曰：「即色之空方曰真空，亦稱妙有。又曰要皆即有之空，方為具德之空。」又曰「非空之空為具德耳。」此即法性宗所顯中道之真空也。

From "Truly because" onward is the third [section]: revealing the wondrous by means of the Middle Way. Qingliang said: "The intention is to clarify that both emptiness and existence here are the Middle Way. However, although illusory existence and true emptiness pertain to the three natures, when ancestral masters explained their meanings, they mostly relied on the paratantra to recount how the various schools formulated their tenets differently, and how the various teachings differed profoundly. Yet since the Xuanhe and Zhenghe eras, the profound meanings have faded into obscurity, causing those who spout empty talk to demean deep sūtras as provisional and shallow." Now I shall first set forth the emptiness and existence upheld by the various schools so that they are clearly apparent before us, and afterwards explain the text of the commentary. First, what is called "illusory existence" is also termed "pratītyasamutpanna existence," "wondrous existence," "provisional existence," and "apparent existence." The Zongzhi states: "Within this Mahāyāna, there is heated debate between two schools regarding pratītyasamutpanna dharmas. First, the Faxiang School states that this pratītyasamutpāda is definitely not empty; because it is produced by causes and conditions, just like an illusion, it cannot be called non-existent. If one were to call it empty, it would not be pratītyasamutpanna, like rabbit horns and the like. Furthermore, they say that the Sanlun only refutes the real self and real dharmas of the parikalpita posited by Hīnayāna and non-Buddhists, but does not refute the paratantra nature of the Mahāyāna, because illusory existence is not an error. If this too were refuted, it would fall into annihilationism and the emptiness of the evil destinies, and would not be the true Dharma. Since this would be a grave fault, one clearly knows that pratītyasamutpāda is definitely not non-existent. The Saṃgraha, the Yogācārabhūmi, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, and others definitely teach that it is existent and cannot be contradicted. This is what the Faxiang School of the Initial Teaching states: it does not allow this illusory existence to be identical with emptiness. Second, the Emptiness School states that this pratītyasamutpanna dharma is definitely empty; because it is produced from conditions, it must be devoid of intrinsic nature (niḥsvabhāva); just like an illusion, it cannot be called existent. If one were to call it existent, it would not arise from conditions; not arising from conditions, it would not be a pratītyasamutpanna dharma. Furthermore, they say that even if the paratantra posited by treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi were considered, the Sanlun also refutes it, because all pratītyasamutpāda is invariably empty. If this were not refuted, views would not be eradicated and principle would not be fully realized. This is what the Emptiness School of the Initial Teaching states: this illusory existence cannot be called existent; if one were to call it existent, it would be apprehended by foolish people with diseased eyes, and attachment to dharmas would not yet be exhausted. Third, the Dharmatā School states that this illusory existence is produced from conditions and lacks intrinsic nature, like an illusory phantom person; it is not that there is no phantom person, but the phantom person is not real, hence it is called illusory existence. It is also called wondrous existence: because it takes non-existence as existence, it is named wondrous existence. Furthermore, it says: taking form that is identical with emptiness as wondrous form, form manifests because one understands that there is no form; thus it constitutes wondrous form. Furthermore, it says: only the existence that is identical with emptiness is an existence endowed with virtue. Furthermore, it says: as for the meaning of illusory existence, it is neither existent nor non-existent; hence it is named illusory existence. Furthermore, it says: not falling to one side is the Middle Way of conventional truth, and so forth. This is the Dharmatā School revealing the meaning of illusory existence by virtue of the mutual identity of emptiness and existence." Next, regarding true emptiness: First, the Faxiang School, by virtue of the esoteric intention regarding what is grasped by the parikalpita, states that the intrinsic nature of all dharmas is empty, overturning the Hīnayāna to empty the six consciousnesses. The paratantra and pariniṣpanna are existent and cannot be directly empty; the parikalpita is empty, but it is merely empty non-existence; it is also termed true emptiness. Second, the Emptiness School states that mind and objects are both empty, equal and of one taste. Guifeng said: "Because all dharmas lack intrinsic nature, they are called true principle; just as illusory flowers have no substance, they are simply empty space." He also cited the Twelve Gate Treatise: "'The great and profound meaning is what is called emptiness.' Provisional names and the Middle Way are explained solely in terms of emptiness." Qingliang said: "The Sanlun School states: existence is falsely posited; because of ultimate truth, it is empty. Paratantra and parikalpita are conventional; because they are conventional, they are existent. Pariniṣpanna is ultimate; because it is ultimate, it is empty. Dharmas produced from conditions definitely have no intrinsic nature; therefore, it is called true emptiness. If one says they are existent, that is an attachment to dharmas." This is what Masters Zhiguang, Zhu Daoji, Kang Senglang, and others took as their tenet. Master Daoji's Treatise on Fundamental Non-Existence states: "What is not existent, though existent, is non-existent; what is not non-existent, though non-existent, is non-existent." Therefore, it is called true emptiness. That is why Master Sengzhao composed the Treatise on Emptiness of the Non-Absolute (Buzhenkong lun); the Commentary on the Meaning explains its title: "The true emptiness here is not the true emptiness that is opposed to wondrous existence; this true emptiness is the illness to be refuted, because they held that ultimate truth is utterly without things and regarded that as true emptiness. Master Sengzhao negated it with 'non-', stating that it is not utterly without things; hence it is called 'the non-true emptiness.'" It also says: "This merely captures a one-sided meaning of emptiness of the Sanlun." Caotang said: "They do not even establish the true, how much less the delusive! They take ultimate truth as true emptiness." Third is the true emptiness taught by the Dharmatā School. Zhenguo said: "Only the emptiness that is identical with form is called true emptiness, and it is also termed wondrous existence. Furthermore, it must be the emptiness identical with existence to be an emptiness endowed with virtue." It also says: "Only the emptiness that is not empty is endowed with virtue." This is the true emptiness of the Middle Way revealed by the Dharmatā School.