法華玄論 1.31

1.31

答：《法花》盛開三軌以空為高座，廣明四模以空為安樂。子不信之，即事為驗。又《大經》云「佛性者名第一義空」，佛性是三世諸佛之根本也。又云「迦毘羅城空，大般涅槃空。」大涅槃是諸佛之極果也。又花嚴云「如來覺諸法，如幻如虛空。菩薩清涼月，遊於畢竟空。」此明佛菩薩所悟皆空。又云「遊心法界如虛空，是人乃知佛行處。」此明以了空故入佛境界。斯乃方等之格言、至人之妙悟，子不受之，故知深信者寡。今言空者，不見空與不空，如是五句皆無所得，不知何以目之，強名空耳。《大經》所呵者，呵二乘斷見；《釋論》所斥，外道邪空耳。可謂乳色雖同、甘毒為異，子未別之，不應相渾也。又今明無所得義。若有空可得是有所得，何名無得？乃至有無得可得，猶是有得，何名無得？又今以無所得故無所不得，不動等覺建立諸法，說斯為空耳。若以凡夫所解空之與有、亦有亦空、非有非空，皆是戲論，不應用此。以講佛經一乘義後，當廣說也。又佛說教者，令心同教，不令教同心。心以存相為根、教以無得為主，若心同教，教既無得即心無所得，乃名說教。若教同心，心既存相即教成住著，但迷倒心終不弘教，故呵迦旃延云「無以生滅心行說實相法」。若以生滅心說實相，實相成生滅；若實相心說生滅，則生滅成實相，故聞說生滅皆入實相門。但弘經之人多以教同心，不能令心同教，故信者難。此豈虛哉？又弘經者必多留難，憙生退心，故信者難得也。

Answer: The Lotus Sūtra grandly opens the three tracks, taking emptiness as the high seat; it broadly explains the four models, taking emptiness as peaceful and joyful practice. If you do not believe it, the text itself serves as proof. Furthermore, the Great Sūtra says, 'Buddha-nature is named ultimate emptiness'; Buddha-nature is the root of the Buddhas of the three periods of time. It also says, 'The city of Kapilavastu is empty; mahāparinirvāṇa is empty.' Mahānirvāṇa is the ultimate fruit of all Buddhas. Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka says, 'The Tathāgata awakens to all dharmas as like an illusion, like space. The pure, cool moon of the bodhisattva wanders in ultimate emptiness.' This illuminates that what Buddhas and bodhisattvas awaken to is entirely empty. It also says, 'Wandering with the mind in the dharmadhātu as in space, such a person then knows where the Buddha travels.' This illuminates that through understanding emptiness, one enters the Buddha's realm. These are the maxims of the Vaipulya, the subtle awakening of the supreme beings. You do not accept them; hence we know that those with deep faith are few.
Now when we speak of emptiness, one sees neither empty nor not empty; in this way, across the five propositions, nothing is attained. Not knowing how to designate it, we arbitrarily name it 'empty'. What the Great Sūtra rebuked was the nihilistic view of the two vehicles; what the Commentary refuted was the perverse emptiness of non-Buddhists. It can be said that although the color of milk is the same, sweetness and poison are different; you have not distinguished them and should not conflate them.
Furthermore, we now clarify the meaning of having nothing to attain. If there is emptiness to be attained, this is having an attainment; how could it be called 'non-attainment'? Up to having non-attainment to be attained, it is still having an attainment; how could it be called 'non-attainment'? Furthermore, because there is now nothing to attain, there is nothing that is not attained; without moving from equal awakening, one establishes all dharmas—this is spoken of as 'emptiness'. If one relies on the ordinary person's understanding of emptiness and existence, both existence and emptiness, neither existence nor emptiness, these are all frivolous conceptual proliferation; one should not employ this. After lecturing on the meaning of the One Vehicle in the Buddha's sūtras, this will be broadly explained.
Furthermore, when the Buddha expounded the teachings, he caused minds to conform to the teachings, not the teachings to conform to minds. The mind takes the preservation of marks as its root; the teachings take non-attainment as their master. If the mind conforms to the teachings, then since the teachings have nothing to attain, the mind has nothing to attain; this is called expounding the teachings. If the teachings conform to the mind, then since the mind preserves marks, the teachings become abiding attachment; with merely a deluded and inverted mind, one will never propagate the teachings. Therefore he rebuked Kātyāyana, saying, 'Do not use a mind of arising and ceasing to expound the Dharma of the true mark.' If one expounds the true mark with a mind of arising and ceasing, the true mark becomes arising and ceasing; if one expounds arising and ceasing with the mind of the true mark, then arising and ceasing becomes the true mark, so that hearing arising and ceasing expounded, all enter the gate of the true mark. However, people who propagate the sūtra mostly make the teachings conform to their minds and cannot make their minds conform to the teachings; therefore those who have faith are rare. Could this be false? Furthermore, those who propagate the sūtra are bound to encounter many obstacles and easily produce a mind of regression; therefore those with faith are difficult to find.