觀音玄義記 2.37

2.37

問：《摩訶止觀》破見思假，節節皆明性相二空。不思議境中，約法性無明檢四性過。荊溪云：「本自二空為性德境，推檢二空為修德境。」是則思議及不思議，各須性相二空之觀。今文何故頓乖諸說，乃以二空分對兩處？答：通別二惑同障中道，委論觀法皆須二空，今既略談，名有存沒。通惑破處雖具二空，小人得之住涅槃相，是故且沒相空之名。若破別惑，從勝而說但存空相，而於其中含二空義。何者？以觀四種境智名字，不住四句亦不不住，四句屬性、不住屬相。既了四種境智之名，無說無聞，不起分別、不作思量，豈於別理猶計性實？今分二空破通別惑，且順諸論教道之說，小但人空、大得二空，先人後法。良由今文未論觀法，且寄次第示妙境智也。

Question: In the Mohe zhiguan, when refuting the provisionality of views and thoughts, the two emptinesses of nature and characteristics are clarified at every step. Within the inconceivable object, the error of the four natures is examined in terms of dharmatā and ignorance. Jingxi said: "Originally having the two emptinesses of oneself is the object of inherent virtue; examining the two emptinesses is the object of cultivated virtue." If so, the conceivable and the inconceivable each require the contemplation of the two emptinesses of nature and characteristics. Why does the present text suddenly depart from these explanations and divide the two emptinesses between the two places? Answer: The shared and distinct delusions equally obstruct the Middle Way, and a detailed discussion of the contemplation method requires both emptinesses. Now, since it speaks in brief, names are either preserved or omitted. Where the shared delusion is broken, although the two emptinesses are fully present, persons of the small vehicle attain this and abide in the mark of nirvāṇa; therefore, the name "emptiness of characteristics" is provisionally omitted. When breaking the distinct delusion, speaking from the superior, only the emptiness of characteristics is preserved, but within it the meaning of the two emptinesses is contained. Why? Because when contemplating the names of the four kinds of object and wisdom, one does not abide in the four phrases, nor does one not abide: the four phrases belong to nature, and non-abiding belongs to characteristics. Once one understands the names of the four kinds of object and wisdom to be without speaking and without hearing, neither giving rise to discrimination nor making conceptualizations, how could one still grasp at a real nature with respect to the distinct principle? Now, dividing the two emptinesses to break the shared and distinct delusions provisionally accords with the explanations of the teaching path in the various treatises: the small vehicle only attains the emptiness of persons, while the great vehicle attains both emptinesses, first of persons and then of dharmas. This is truly because the present text does not yet discuss the contemplation method, and merely provisionally relies on the sequence to show the marvelous object and wisdom.