大般涅槃經集解 53.50

53.50

案僧亮曰：欲明脩空之為益，故假難以顯之也。僧宗曰：一切諸法性自空者，承前言為難。前言以善識空，能為難忍。今問識空之旨，設二難也。若性自空，空則無見；若性不空，雖脩何益？僧亮曰：時眾於此空理恒生怖畏心，未能頓忘，故德王因此仍設二難，去物執有之心也。佛上言脩空三昧，無復瞋喜。今將開兩關，故先定言一切諸法，為當體性自空？為萬法不空，菩薩脩定之智，強使作空耶？仍結初難云：若性自空，何須脩空耶？第二難云：若性自不空，云何脩空令其空耶？

Sengliang states: Wishing to clarify the benefit of cultivating emptiness, he sets up an objection to reveal it. Sengzong states: 'All dharmas are inherently empty by nature' follows the previous words to pose an objection. The previous statement said that by skillfully knowing emptiness, one can perform what is difficult to endure. Now, asking about the purport of knowing emptiness, he sets up two objections. If they are inherently empty by nature, then being empty, there is no seeing; if they are not empty by nature, although one cultivates it, what benefit is there? Sengliang states: The assembly at that time constantly generated a mind of fear toward this principle of emptiness, being unable to suddenly forget it; therefore Dewang accordingly sets up two objections to eliminate beings' clinging to existence. The Buddha said above that cultivating the samādhi of emptiness leaves no more anger or joy. Now, about to open two barriers, he first determines: are all dharmas inherently empty in their essential nature, or are the myriad dharmas not empty, and the bodhisattva's wisdom cultivating concentration forcefully makes them empty? He then concludes the first objection, saying: 'If they are inherently empty by nature, why is it necessary to cultivate emptiness?' The second objection says: 'If they are inherently not empty by nature, how could cultivating emptiness cause them to be empty?'