大般涅槃經疏 23.13

23.13

「光明」下，第二番論義。還從鹽譬生問，為二：一問觀空是倒。何者？本來不空而修空見空，是於不空見空，寧非顛倒？例如實常而見無常、無常見常，皆是顛倒。亦有譬、合，還轉鹽譬來此為譬。二問空既是無，為何所見？若有可見即非是空，若無可見不應言見。佛答兩問，為二章：答初為三：一總標、二廣釋、三重結。初總標中有法、譬、合。佛答意云：見不空法能令其空，而非顛倒。但就理論無非空者，而於眾生乃是不空，只滅其謂情，故云能令不空作空，是故非倒。「善男子貪是有性」下，第二廣釋，又二：先廣釋非空作空、後廣釋非是顛倒。初文云非空者，於緣是有。又二：一明貪欲於其是有、次明色性於其是有。若不是有，云何貪著？今言非空使空者，此法皆空。「以是義故」下，第二廣釋非倒，又二：初標非倒。「一切凡夫」下，正是廣釋，又二：一不生貪相故非倒、次見佛性故非倒。問：入初地時已能見空，此文云住九地者見法有性，其義云何？解云：約二忍明義。初地至十地是無生忍，唯佛地是寂滅忍。今約二忍，九地望佛寂滅，則見法有性，雖比於佛非究竟空，亦分有空。故《華嚴》云「七地菩薩能入寂滅」，寂滅即空，赴緣異說不應迷執。「諸佛菩薩」下，第三重結。佛亦有時說有說無，當知為緣，故今皆說以為空也。「善男子汝言見空」下，第二答後難，又二：先牒問；「善男子」下，第二正答。正答又二：初正答、次引昔證。初文者，以無見為見，例如般若無知無所不知。「是故我」下，廣引昔證如文。

From "Guāngmíng" downwards is the second round of doctrinal debate. It again raises questions based on the salt metaphor, divided into two: first, questioning whether contemplating emptiness is inverted. Why? If things are originally not empty and one cultivates emptiness and sees emptiness, this is seeing emptiness in what is not empty—how could this not be an inversion? This is like seeing impermanence in what is truly permanent, or seeing permanence in what is impermanent; both are inversions. There are also a metaphor and a correlation, turning the salt metaphor around to serve as the metaphor here. Second, questioning: since emptiness is non-existence, what is there to be seen? If there is something that can be seen, then it is not emptiness; if there is nothing that can be seen, one should not speak of "seeing." The Buddha answers the two questions in two sections. The answer to the first has three parts: first, a general statement; second, an extensive explanation; third, a reiterative conclusion. In the initial general statement, there are doctrine, metaphor, and correlation. The purport of the Buddha's answer says: seeing phenomena that are not empty and being able to make them empty is not an inversion. But speaking in terms of principle, there is nothing that is not empty; yet to sentient beings, they are indeed not empty. It merely extinguishes their conceptualized attachments; hence it says "being able to make what is not empty into emptiness," and therefore it is not an inversion. From "Good man, greed has the nature of existence" downwards is the second part, the extensive explanation, which again has two parts: first, extensively explaining making what is not empty into emptiness; second, extensively explaining that this is not an inversion. In the first text, "what is not empty" means that in relation to conditions, it exists. This also has two parts: first, clarifying that covetous desire exists for them; next, clarifying that the nature of form exists for them. If it were not existent, how could there be greedy attachment? Now saying that what is not empty is made empty means that these phenomena are all empty. From "For this reason" downwards is the second part, extensively explaining that it is not an inversion, which also has two parts: first, stating that it is not an inversion. From "All ordinary persons" downwards is the actual extensive explanation, which again has two parts: first, because marks of greed do not arise, it is not an inversion; next, because one sees the buddhadhātu, it is not an inversion. Question: When entering the first bhūmi, one is already able to see emptiness. Why does this text say that those dwelling in the ninth bhūmi see phenomena as having existence? Explanation: The meaning is clarified in terms of the two tolerances (kṣānti). From the first bhūmi to the tenth bhūmi is the tolerance of non-arising (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti); only the Buddha-bhūmi is the tolerance of complete cessation (vyupaśama-kṣānti). Now, in terms of these two tolerances, when the ninth bhūmi is viewed against the Buddha's complete cessation, one still sees phenomena as having existence. Although compared to the Buddha it is not ultimate emptiness, it also possesses a portion of emptiness. Therefore the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "A bodhisattva of the seventh bhūmi can enter complete cessation." Complete cessation is precisely emptiness; differing explanations are given according to conditions, so one should not be deluded or attached. From "All buddhas and bodhisattvas" downwards is the third part, the reiterative conclusion. The Buddha also sometimes speaks of existence and sometimes of non-existence; one should know that this is for the sake of conditions, and therefore he now explains them all as being empty. From "Good man, regarding what you said about seeing emptiness" downwards is the second part, answering the latter objection, which also has two parts: first, reiterating the question; from "Good man" downwards is the second part, the direct answer. The direct answer also has two parts: first, the direct answer; next, citing past evidence. In the first text, taking non-seeing as seeing is, for example, like prajñā having no knowing and yet having nothing it does not know. From "Therefore I..." downwards extensively cites past evidence as in the text.