大般涅槃經集解 38.52

38.52

案僧亮曰：內情名內，以二種空觀也。一互空，如牛中無馬、我無他法，名為空也。二相待名空，無外故無內。何者？父母是外，亦不自外，因內故外也。內中無故，外不可得；外不可得，故無內也。眾生壽命常樂我淨，七法橫計亦名為外。《大品》云「二諦無眾生」，知眾生等是橫計也。雖有性者，七法橫故可無耳。佛性不橫，故須明也。內法外法是別也，因別有總，空亦同上。不在二空者，內外二空不在相待空也。但說二者，別中既無，總中可知也。僧宗曰：十一空，乃此經一時之教也。自《大品》諸經乃有十八空，當知空無多少，以遣惑有廣狹，故教門不同耳。就十一門中，前五空遣六諦家病也。《百論》中言：外道計有一總有之法，與一切法合。今前五空遣其總心，言內中無外、外中無內，有為無為亦如是，豈有總法與法合耶？第六無始，遣二十五諦家之計也。上五空迷果，此冥諦迷因也。人情謂遣向橫計方有空生，今言不待遣橫，但其體性自空也。無所有空者，向雖言性空，何以辨耶？今以智撿，都無所有，驗所以空也。第一義空者，夫有是生著之處，向借無以遣有。此無於有，其理則勝，是為第一，讚歎以受名也。空空者，物情生執，謂遣有會空理極於此，執之為勝，復為病也。言本為遣有故說空，豈有空可得耶？大空者，前已遣境，今復遣智，境智雙忘始為大也。內法中無外法故，豈有一總有遍一切處耶？未得為性，已得為三寶也。非內非外者，以眾生有為、佛性無為故也。無為故言非內也，不離眾生而有性故言非外也。內外空者，上二空，心弱不能並觀，今心力轉勝，故能雙觀也。八地之心豈有強弱？示空門有次第耳。唯有佛性不在二空者，雙觀二法雖復內外之異，然有是同。而如來佛性三寶非有法，雖復雙觀，而內外不攝此四法也。今至雙觀時，不言無父母，但言無三寶等者，以父母始終不離內外，故不復說；而三寶非內外，故說也。寶亮曰：此第六段。於初地果上更進修十一空，乃至得十地果。亦如聖行中得初住竟，更修二十五三昧，乃至十地。此十一空義解者不同。有人作互無解者，恐此非初地所觀也。今之所釋，謂此十一空皆是趣道之近門，取極果之要途也。前九空是九人，各自捉一空以入道，乃至九地。所以者何？明前九空曾自不辨有深淺之異，至第十第十一乃辨也。故知各自逐其先所修習、所好樂便者而入道也。今論若得初一空時，餘者理然悉得。但逐其所習為有，是為前有四空更相證成，其次二空將後以證前，又一空將假來證實，餘悉當位辨義也。如觀內空時，若見悉空者，知內觀成就；不爾則不成也。觀內空，謂直觀己五陰為內。若見自五陰，亦見外怨親中人悉空時，知內空成也。除常樂我之外，財物皆空。何故爾？果頭諸法，非內五陰亦非外五陰，是以除也。又一解：作內觀時，佛等四法、財物等悉屬外，非我正觀故也。佛性非內非外者，正因性是避苦求樂之解。用尋此解，用無時不有。雖在五陰中，然五陰可斷除，而此解不可失，終至成佛。是以錄此始終之常用、無興廢之法為正因，故作內外觀也。此內法中是我正觀故，所以料簡也。常住不變者，非是湛然常，但此解未曾不有，故言常也。外空者，亦如是無有。內法者，有人直觀外空，亦不見有內五陰異外法時，得知外觀成也。此中亦爾，佛四法及與正因性亦復料簡也。內外空者，此人發家內外雙觀，法不過內外，雙觀盡空，無所證成也。唯有如來法僧佛性不在內外二空者，還簡出也。本觀生死內外二法耳，三寶等非生死法故簡也。智秀曰：此下答第二問，列空名并釋觀法。先列空名。空有十一者，是一方之化法也。尋空無十一，緣遣物病，逐法為別，有十一耳。次釋觀法。以外道人計一大我遍一切處，與有分為一也。用初五空，以互無之理，明內外法不得相有，以破物執。初觀內法即是己身，推尋此身無外諸法，謂內為空。復除佛性者，緣佛性雖繫眾生，然不定於內外，故隨宜除之。觀內法云無壽命者，無外眾生命也。觀有為空云無壽命者，即是當果住命也。觀無為空云無我者，此捉有為五陰，法體無自在力，名為無我。蓋非第一義空無我也。觀無始空，破外道人計八萬劫始，是其所不知處，謂為冥諦，以之為常。今觀此中諸法流動無常，此是正破其執。故樂淨等諸句相隨，并觀之耳。此中云壽命者，故是當果常命也。觀性空，此破計萬法皆有性病。觀無所有空，此破計有無為法，為得繩所繫者之病也。尋萬有不有，假計為空；自有眾生尋名妄執，聞說法空，謂有此空法。第十次觀空空，破其此病，云是有者，是所執空也；是無者，明此空是無也。既聞空於此空，復謂此觀為是，次復破之云是。是者，出其所是也；非是者，明所是亦無也。第九第一義空，正觀無生理。第十一大空，觀此能觀之智，體不可得。此二空並是無生理，其餘九空悉是隨事破病，故說非無生理。

Sengliang comments: The internal mental sphere is called 'internal'. It is contemplated through two kinds of emptiness. First, mutual emptiness (anyonyābhāva): just as there is no horse in a cow, or self lacks other dharmas, this is called emptiness. Second, emptiness termed through mutual relativity: because there is no external, there is no internal. Why is this? Parents are external, but they are not inherently external; they are external because of the internal. Because they do not exist within the internal, the external cannot be found; because the external cannot be found, there is no internal. Sentient beings, life-span, permanence, bliss, self, and purity—the false imputation of these seven dharmas is also called external. The Pañcaviṃśati states, 'Within the two truths there are no sentient beings,' by which we know that sentient beings and the like are false imputations. Although there is nature, because these seven dharmas are arbitrary imputations, they can be non-existent. Buddhadhātu is not an arbitrary imputation, so it must be clarified. Internal dharmas and external dharmas are particulars; dependent on the particulars there is a universal, and its emptiness is also the same as above. 'Not in the two emptinesses' means that the two emptinesses of internal and external are not within relative emptiness. In speaking only of the two: since they do not exist within the particulars, it is known that they are not within the universal. Sengzong says: The eleven emptinesses are merely the provisional teaching of this sūtra at this time. In the Pañcaviṃśati and other sūtras there are eighteen emptinesses. One should know that emptiness has no greater or lesser number; it is only because dispelling delusion has breadth and narrowness that the teaching approaches differ. Among the eleven approaches, the first five emptinesses dispel the errors of the school of the six categories (Vaiśeṣika). In the Śataśāstra it is said: Non-Buddhists impute that there is a single universal existing entity (sattā) conjoined with all dharmas. Now the first five emptinesses dispel this belief in a universal entity, stating that within the internal there is no external, and within the external there is no internal; conditioned and unconditioned are also like this. How could there be a universal dharma conjoined with dharmas? The sixth, beginningless [emptiness], dispels the imputation of the school of the twenty-five principles (Sāṃkhya). The preceding five emptinesses concern confusion regarding the fruit; this primordial principle (pradhāna) concerns confusion regarding the cause. Human sentiments think that emptiness only arises once the aforementioned arbitrary imputations have been dispelled; now it is said that it does not depend on dispelling arbitrary imputations, but its essential nature is inherently empty. As for the emptiness of non-possession: although nature-emptiness was mentioned earlier, how is it discerned? Now, examining it with wisdom, there is absolutely nothing possessed, verifying why it is empty. As for the emptiness of the ultimate truth: existence is a place where attachment arises; previously non-existence was borrowed to dispel existence. This non-existence with respect to existence is superior in principle; it is the ultimate, and its name is received through praise. As for the emptiness of emptiness: grasping arises in human minds, thinking that dispelling existence and merging with emptiness is the utmost principle, grasping it as superior, which turns into an illness again. It says that emptiness was originally spoken to dispel existence; how could there be an emptiness to be attained? As for great emptiness: previously the objective field was dispelled; now wisdom is also dispelled; when both the objective field and wisdom are forgotten, only then is it 'great'. Because there are no external dharmas within internal dharmas, how could there be a single universal existence pervading all places? When not yet attained, it is the nature; when already attained, it is the Three Jewels. 'Neither internal nor external' is because sentient beings are conditioned and the buddhadhātu is unconditioned. Because it is unconditioned, it is said to be 'not internal'; because the nature does not exist apart from sentient beings, it is said to be 'not external'. As for internal and external emptiness: in the above two emptinesses, the mind was weak and could not contemplate both together; now the power of the mind has become superior, so it can contemplate both. How could the mind on the eighth stage have strength and weakness? It merely shows that the approaches to emptiness have a progression. 'Only the buddhadhātu is not in the two emptinesses': although the two dharmas, when contemplated together, still have the distinction of internal and external, they are identical in being existent. But the Tathāgata, buddhadhātu, and the Three Jewels are not existent dharmas; although contemplated together, the internal and external do not encompass these four dharmas. Now when reaching the simultaneous contemplation, it does not say that there are no parents, but only that there are no Three Jewels and the like; this is because parents never leave the internal and external from beginning to end, so they are not mentioned again, while the Three Jewels are neither internal nor external, so they are mentioned. Baoliang says: This is the sixth section. Advancing further on the fruit of the first bhūmi to cultivate the eleven emptinesses, up to attaining the fruit of the tenth bhūmi. It is also like completing the first abhimukhi in holy conduct and further cultivating the twenty-five samādhis, up to the tenth bhūmi. Those who interpret the meaning of these eleven emptinesses differ. Some interpret it as mutual non-existence, but I fear this is not what is contemplated on the first bhūmi. My present explanation is that these eleven emptinesses are all proximate gateways to approaching the Path, essential routes to seizing the ultimate fruit. The first nine emptinesses belong to nine types of people, each seizing one emptiness to enter the Path, up to the ninth bhūmi. Why is this? It clarifies that the first nine emptinesses do not themselves discern differences in depth; only when reaching the tenth and eleventh are they discerned. Therefore one knows that each follows what they previously cultivated, took pleasure in, and found convenient to enter the Path. Now, discussing it: if one attains the first emptiness, in principle all the rest are attained. It is merely according to what they practiced that they exist; thus the preceding four emptinesses mutually verify one another, the next two emptinesses use the latter to verify the former, another emptiness uses the provisional to verify the real, and the rest all discern their meanings according to their respective stages. For instance, when contemplating internal emptiness, if one sees that all is empty, one knows that the internal contemplation is perfected; otherwise it is not perfected. Contemplating internal emptiness means directly contemplating one's own five aggregates as internal. When one sees one's own five aggregates and also sees external enemies, relatives, and neutral persons as entirely empty, one knows that internal emptiness is perfected. Apart from permanence, bliss, and self, material wealth is entirely empty. Why is this? The dharmas of the fruition state are neither the internal five aggregates nor the external five aggregates, so they are excluded. Another explanation: when performing internal contemplation, the four dharmas of the Buddha and the like, as well as material wealth and so forth, all belong to the external and are not my primary contemplation. As for the buddhadhātu being neither internal nor external: the nature of the direct cause is the understanding that avoids suffering and seeks bliss. When one follows this understanding, its function is never non-existent. Although it is within the five aggregates, the five aggregates can be eradicated, whereas this understanding cannot be lost and ultimately reaches buddhahood. Therefore, recording this constant function from beginning to end, this dharma without rising or falling, as the direct cause, one makes the internal and external contemplation. Because it is my primary contemplation within internal dharmas, it is distinguished and excluded. 'Permanently abiding and unchanging': it is not a tranquil permanence, but simply that this understanding has never failed to exist; thus it is called permanent. As for external emptiness: it is also like this, non-existent. As for internal dharmas: when someone directly contemplates external emptiness and also does not see the internal five aggregates as different from external dharmas, one knows that the external contemplation is perfected. Here it is also like this: the four dharmas of the Buddha and the nature of the direct cause are also distinguished and excluded. As for internal and external emptiness: this person sets out by contemplating both internal and external simultaneously; dharmas do not exceed internal and external; contemplating both as completely empty, there is nothing verified and perfected. 'Only the Tathāgata, the Dharma, the Saṅgha, and buddhadhātu are not within the two emptinesses of internal and external': these are again distinguished and excluded. Originally, one was merely contemplating the two dharmas of internal and external saṃsāra; the Three Jewels and the like are not saṃsāric dharmas, so they are excluded. Zhixiu says: Below this answers the second question, listing the names of the emptinesses and explaining the methods of contemplation. First, listing the names of the emptinesses: there are eleven emptinesses, which is the teaching method of one region. In truth, emptiness does not have eleven; because of dispelling beings' illnesses and distinguishing according to dharmas, there are eleven. Next, explaining the method of contemplation: because non-Buddhists impute a single great self pervading all places, identical with the portions of existence, the first five emptinesses are used, through the principle of mutual non-existence, to clarify that internal and external dharmas cannot possess one another, in order to shatter beings' attachments. First, contemplating internal dharmas: this is one's own body; investigating this body, it lacks all external dharmas, meaning the internal is empty. Further excluding the buddhadhātu: because although the buddhadhātu is tied to sentient beings, it is not fixed as internal or external, so it is excluded as appropriate. Contemplating internal dharmas as lacking life-span means lacking the life-span of external sentient beings. Contemplating conditioned emptiness as lacking life-span means the abiding life of the future fruit. Contemplating unconditioned emptiness as lacking self: this takes the conditioned five aggregates, whose dharma-substance lacks sovereign power, as non-self; this is not the non-self of the ultimate truth's emptiness. Contemplating beginningless emptiness shatters the non-Buddhists' imputation of a beginning eighty thousand kalpas ago, which is what they do not know, calling it the primordial principle (pradhāna) and taking it as permanent. Now, contemplating that all dharmas within this are in flux and impermanent directly shatters their attachment; therefore, bliss, purity, and the other phrases follow and are contemplated together. What is called 'life-span' here is still the permanent life of the future fruit. Contemplating nature-emptiness: this shatters the illness of imputing that all dharmas have an inherent nature. Contemplating the emptiness of non-possession: this shatters the illness of imputing that there are unconditioned dharmas bound by the cord of attainment (prāpti). Inquiring into the ten thousand existents, they do not exist; they are provisionally imputed as empty. There are sentient beings who follow names and falsely grasp: hearing it said that dharmas are empty, they think that this dharma of emptiness exists. Tenth, next contemplating the emptiness of emptiness shatters this illness of theirs. Saying 'this is existent' means the emptiness that was grasped; 'this is non-existent' clarifies that this emptiness is non-existent. Having heard that this emptiness is emptied, they again think this contemplation is right; next it is shattered again, saying 'this is right'. 'This is right' presents what they take as right; 'not right' clarifies that what is taken as right is also non-existent. Ninth, the emptiness of the ultimate truth directly contemplates the principle of non-arising. Eleventh, great emptiness contemplates that the substance of this wisdom capable of contemplating cannot be attained. These two emptinesses are both the principle of non-arising; the remaining nine emptinesses all shatter illnesses according to specific circumstances, so they are said not to be the principle of non-arising.