大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 68.19

68.19

疏「第一空者彼名空空」者，此當第十。遠公云：「是有是無，就詮辨理。是有牒前第一義空，以有破無，故言是有。是無牒前八空，以前八空中以無破有，故曰是無。就此有無以說空義，故曰空空。」「是是非是是是名空空」者，破詮顯理。前句雖復就詮辨理，非留彼詮，故復破云：是向有、是向無、是兩、俱非是，方名空空，非留有無說為空空。是義云何？已如上辨。因緣諸法有無同體故，說無為有、說有為無。無為有故，有即非有；有即無故，無即非無。非有非無，故曰空空。三「十地菩薩」下，就人顯勝。四「如是」下，寄對顯異。毘曇論中說聲聞人先觀五陰非我我所，直名為空；後觀前智，亦復非是我及我所，故曰空空。《成實論》中，先觀生法空無自性，空無自性直名為空；後觀前智亦空無性，故曰空空。今此所論，離有無相，故曰不同。上來十空與《地論》十法平等互出，其義相似，彼中初一總相明空、餘九是別。別中，初七以無破有，同此初八。彼中第八以有破無，同此第九。彼中後一以雙非破有無，同此空空也。釋曰：上皆遠公之意，以十一空會十平等。今將十一空以會十空，義則全別。然此十空，由前平等加行而成，故二處多同，互證皆得。然遠公釋義於理無乖，消於經文乃成曲巧。又有為無為唯屬生空，義成太局。又總取前有無釋於空空，亦經無我攝。今疏釋空空，而文中五：初牒名對經。二「謂前空」下，略釋。三「故彼經」下，引經。四「謂是非」下，釋經。「亦當體空」者，釋經「是是非是是是名空空義」，謂非但有無，是非亦爾。謂空有兩亡為是，計是即是，故名是是，即上空字。而不礙雙存，故此是是即非是是，即下空字，故言空空。斯則是即非故非是，非即是故非非，故疏云「是非亦當體空耳」。五「如是空空」下，歎勝。上即科疏，下即釋也。然經有二句，今疏經前略釋，是經上句意。經云「是有是無是名空空」者，意云：即空是有，即有是無，故云是有是無。無既是有，則無非無矣，故云空空。既即有是空，則空亦非空，故云空空。正同十平等中有無不二，故平等也。由不二故雙存，由非不二故雙奪，故今疏云「若有若無本來自空」，以有即無，故有空矣；空即有故；是空空矣。是以遣空總有二義：一以重空遣空，如《淨名》云「唯有空病，空病亦空。」《中論》云「諸佛說空法，為離於有見；若復見有空，諸佛所不化。」二以有遣空。謂空即是有，故非空也。故經云「色即是空，非色滅空。」故空非空也。是則不異有之空，則空非空；不異空之有，則有非有。今正取空非空義，由空非空即是有非有義。又空故非有，重言空故非空。又空故不礙空，重言空故不礙有。非空非有、能空能有，雙融互泯自在無礙。是故十地通達少分，豈是二乘之所能知？故言第一。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The foremost emptiness is there named emptiness-of-emptiness," this corresponds to the tenth [emptiness]. Master Huiyuan says: "'Being existent and being non-existent' discerns principle through expression. 'Being existent' takes up the aforementioned emptiness of the ultimate truth, using existence to demolish non-existence, hence it says 'being existent'. 'Being non-existent' takes up the aforementioned first eight emptinesses, since among those first eight emptinesses, non-existence was used to demolish existence, hence it says 'being non-existent'. It is through this existence and non-existence that the meaning of emptiness is expounded, hence it is called 'emptiness-of-emptiness'." As for "'it being right, it not being right, this is named emptiness-of-emptiness'," this demolishes the expression to reveal the principle. Although the previous clause discerned principle through expression, it did not retain that expression; therefore, it further demolishes it, saying: whether it is the aforesaid existence, the aforesaid non-existence, both, or neither, only then is it named emptiness-of-emptiness, not retaining existence and non-existence to declare them emptiness-of-emptiness. What does this mean? It has already been discerned above. Because conditioned phenomena share one and the same essence in their existence and non-existence, non-existence is said to be existence, and existence is said to be non-existence. Because non-existence is existence, existence is precisely non-existence; because existence is non-existence, non-existence is precisely non-non-existence. Being neither existent nor non-existent, it is therefore called emptiness-of-emptiness. Third, from "the bodhisattvas of the tenth ground" downward, the superiority is revealed in terms of persons. Fourth, from "such as" downward, the distinction is revealed through juxtaposition. In the Abhidharma treatises, it is said that śrāvakas first contemplate that the five aggregates are not the self or what belongs to the self, which is directly called emptiness; later they contemplate the former cognition as also not being the self or what belongs to the self, hence it is called emptiness-of-emptiness. In the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, one first contemplates that sentient beings and phenomena are empty of self-nature, and their being empty of self-nature is directly called emptiness; later one contemplates the former cognition as also being empty and without self-nature, hence it is called emptiness-of-emptiness. What is discussed here is free from the characteristics of existence and non-existence, hence it is stated to be different. The ten emptinesses above and the ten equalities of dharmas in the *Daśabhūmika-śāstra* are alternately set forth, and their meanings are similar: in the latter, the first one explains emptiness in general characteristics, while the remaining nine are specific. Among the specific ones, the first seven demolish existence with non-existence, identical to the first eight here. The eighth there demolishes non-existence with existence, identical to the ninth here. The last one there demolishes both existence and non-existence through a double negation, identical to emptiness-of-emptiness here. Explanation: All of the above was Master Huiyuan's intent, harmonising the eleven emptinesses with the ten equalities. Now, if we take the eleven emptinesses to harmonise with the ten emptinesses, the meaning is entirely different. However, these ten emptinesses are perfected through the preparatory practices of the aforementioned equalities, so the two places are mostly identical and may corroborate each other. Master Huiyuan's explanation of the meaning does not contradict principle, yet when applied to deciphering the sūtra text, it becomes contrived. Furthermore, making conditioned and unconditioned belong solely to the emptiness of sentient beings makes the meaning too narrow. Also, broadly taking the previous existence and non-existence to explain emptiness-of-emptiness is likewise not subsumed under the sūtra's [teaching of] non-self. Now, the commentary explains emptiness-of-emptiness in five parts: First, it takes up the names and aligns them with the sūtra. Second, from "referring to the previous emptiness" downward, it explains briefly. Third, from "hence that sūtra" downward, it cites the sūtra. Fourth, from "referring to right and wrong" downward, it explains the sūtra. As for "also fundamentally empty in essence," this explains the sūtra's meaning of "it being right, it not being right, this is named emptiness-of-emptiness," meaning that not only are existence and non-existence so, but affirmation and negation are also like this. Emptiness and existence both perishing is considered 'right'; conceiving of this right as right, it is therefore named 'right-right', which is the former word 'emptiness'. Yet this does not obstruct both coexisting; hence this 'right-right' is precisely 'not-right-right', which is the latter word 'emptiness', and thus it says 'emptiness-of-emptiness'. Thus, right being non-right is therefore not right; non-right being right is therefore not non-right. Hence the commentary says: "Affirmation and negation are also fundamentally empty in essence." Fifth, from "such emptiness-of-emptiness" downward, it praises its supremacy. The above outlines the commentary, and below explains it. Now, the sūtra has two clauses. The brief explanation prior to the sūtra in the present commentary represents the intent of the sūtra's first clause. When the sūtra says, "Being existent and being non-existent is named emptiness-of-emptiness," the meaning is: emptiness itself is existence, and existence itself is non-existence, hence it says "being existent and being non-existent." Since non-existence is already existence, then non-existence is not non-existence, hence it is called emptiness-of-emptiness. Since existence itself is already emptiness, then emptiness is also not emptiness, hence it is called emptiness-of-emptiness. This directly accords with the non-duality of existence and non-existence among the ten equalities, and thus there is equality. Because of non-duality, both are maintained; because of non-non-duality, both are negated. Therefore, the present commentary says: "Whether existent or non-existent, they are originally and naturally empty." Because existence itself is non-existence, existence is empty; because emptiness itself is existence, this is emptiness-of-emptiness. Therefore, discarding emptiness generally has two meanings: First, using an additional emptiness to discard emptiness, as the *Vimalakīrti* says, "There is only the sickness of emptiness, and the sickness of emptiness is also empty"; and the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says, "The Buddhas have declared the teaching of emptiness to depart from views of existence; if one again sees emptiness as existing, the Buddhas cannot convert them." Second, using existence to discard emptiness. This means that emptiness itself is existence, hence it is not empty. Therefore, the sūtra says: "Form is precisely emptiness; it is not that the extinction of form is emptiness." Therefore, emptiness is not empty. Thus, an emptiness that is not different from existence means emptiness is not empty; an existence that is not different from emptiness means existence is not existent. Now we precisely take the meaning that emptiness is not empty, because emptiness being not empty is precisely the meaning that existence is not existent. Furthermore, because of emptiness, there is non-existence; because emptiness is repeated, there is non-emptiness. Moreover, because of emptiness, it does not obstruct emptiness; because emptiness is repeated, it does not obstruct existence. Neither empty nor existent, capable of being empty and capable of being existent, both fusion and mutual elimination are sovereign and unimpeded. Therefore, the tenth ground penetrates a minor portion of it; how could this be known by the two vehicles? Hence it is called foremost.