大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 68.19

68.19

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.