大般涅槃經疏 30.16

30.16

「迦葉菩薩言」下，第三明異同，又三：初明佛性同虛空、次明異虛空、三破外道執虛空佛性。言同異者，肇云「為好同者說同，雖同而異；為好異者說異，雖異而同。」前明佛性有同虛空、不同虛空，此乃法王正典，有同不同。破外道虛空者，此乃破世性眼所見之虛空。初明同義，先問、次答。答中有三：先明佛性同虛空非三世攝、次明同虛空非內非外、三明同虛空無罣閡。初文廣明三世相待是無，故不得有三世。三世既無，虛空即不為三世所攝，文云「虛空無故，非三世攝。」其相如何？空只是無，無即是常。佛性是有而復是常，故三世所不攝；虛空是無而常，亦非世攝。問：若爾，即應佛性是有，不為世攝。何因云常非三世耶？解云：佛性不全有，故不云有。「又虛空無故非內外」下，第二佛性同空非內非外。「如世間中」下，第三佛性同虛空無罣閡，不復細開。

From “Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said” below, third, clarifies differences and sameness, again with three: first, clarifying that buddhadhātu is identical to empty space; next, clarifying that it differs from empty space; third, refuting non-Buddhists who grasp empty space as buddhadhātu. Regarding sameness and difference, Sēngzhào said: “For those who delight in sameness, he speaks of sameness: though the same, it is different. For those who delight in difference, he speaks of difference: though different, it is the same.” The earlier clarification that buddhadhātu is both identical to empty space and not identical to empty space belongs to the orthodox canon of the Dharma King, possessing both sameness and non-sameness. Refuting the non-Buddhists' empty space refutes the empty space visible to worldly eyes. First, clarifying the meaning of sameness: first asking and next answering. In the answer there are three: first, clarifying that buddhadhātu is identical to empty space in not being subsumed by the three periods of time; next, clarifying that it is identical to empty space in being neither internal nor external; third, clarifying that it is identical to empty space in being without obstruction. The first text extensively clarifies that the three periods of time are non-existent in mutual relativity, hence the three periods of time cannot exist. Since the three periods of time do not exist, empty space is not subsumed by the three periods of time. The text says: “Because empty space is non-existent, it is not subsumed by the three periods of time.” What is its characteristic? Emptiness is simply non-existence, and non-existence is permanence. Buddhadhātu is existent and furthermore permanent, hence not subsumed by the three periods of time; empty space is non-existent and permanent, and likewise not subsumed by time. Question: If so, then buddhadhātu should be existent and not subsumed by time; for what reason does it say it is permanent and not of the three periods? Explanation: Buddhadhātu is not entirely existent, so it is not called existent. From “Furthermore, because empty space is non-existent, it is neither internal nor external” below, second, buddhadhātu is identical to space in being neither internal nor external. From “Just as in the world” below, third, buddhadhātu is identical to empty space in being without obstruction; this will not be subdivided further.