法華玄論 1.31

1.31

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.