注維摩詰經 5.74

5.74

什曰：無以無物故空，以國土性空即是畢竟空，故空也。肇曰：夫有由心生，心因有起。是非之城妄想所存，故有無殊論紛然交競者也。若能空虛其懷、冥心真境，妙存環中有無一觀者，雖復智周萬物未始為有、幽鑑無照未始為無，故能齊天地為一旨而不乖其實、鏡群有以玄通而物我俱一，物我俱一故智無照功、不乖其實故物物自同。故經曰「聖智無知，以虛空為相。諸法無為，與之齊量」也。故以空智而空於有者，即有而自空矣，豈假屏除然後為空乎？上空智空，下空法空也。直明法空無以取定，故內引真智、外證法空也。生曰：上空是空慧空也，下空是前理空也。言要當以空慧然後空耳，若不以空慧終不空也。豈可以我謂為不空哉？

[Kumāra]jīva says: It is not that they are empty because of the absence of things; because the nature of the lands is empty, which is ultimate emptiness, they are therefore empty. [Seng]zhao says: Being arises from the mind, and the mind is produced by being. The fortress of right and wrong is where false discrimination resides, which is why disparate theories of being and non-being contend in confusion. If one can empty one's heart, merge the mind with the true realm, wondrously abide at the pivot of the ring, and view being and non-being as one—then although wisdom encompasses the ten thousand things, it never takes them as being; though profound reflection lacks illumination, it never takes them as non-being. Thus one can equate Heaven and Earth into a single purport without contravening their reality, and mirror all existing things through dark penetration so that object and self are both one. Because object and self are both one, wisdom has no function of illumination; because it does not contravene their reality, things are naturally identical with one another. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Noble wisdom is non-knowing, taking empty space as its characteristic; all dharmas are unconditioned, being commensurate with it.' Thus, when one empties being through the wisdom of emptiness, being is spontaneously empty of itself; how could it depend on clearing things away before becoming empty? The former 'empty' refers to the emptiness of wisdom, while the latter 'empty' refers to the emptiness of dharmas. Merely clarifying the emptiness of dharmas provides no basis for certainty; hence he inwardly cites true wisdom and outwardly confirms the emptiness of dharmas. [Dao]sheng says: The former 'empty' is the emptiness of empty wisdom; the latter 'empty' is the emptiness of the preceding principle. This means it must be through empty wisdom that things are then empty; if not through empty wisdom, they will never be empty. How could one assert that they are not empty based on self-conception?