注維摩詰經 3.129

3.129

[Kumāra]jīva says: Originally, emptiness was spoken of in order to dispel existence, not that existence is removed while emptiness is retained. If existence is removed while emptiness is retained, that is not what is meant by emptiness; only when both dharmas are entirely exhausted is it the meaning of emptiness.

[Seng]zhao says: The Hīnayāna contemplates that dharmas are conditioned arisings lacking a true master inside as the meaning of emptiness. Although it can contemplate emptiness, it is unable to completely obliterate emptiness; hence it is not definitive. The Mahāyāna, when in existence, is not existent, and when in emptiness, is not empty; there is no principle it does not exhaust, which is why it is the definitive meaning of emptiness.

[Dao]sheng says: Deluded people all take all dharmas as possessions of the self. Since the principle is suffering, affairs do not obey oneself; if they do not obey oneself, they are not what one can preserve; if what is preserved is not the self, that [possession] must definitely not exist. Existence is indeed existence, yet is said to be non-existence; non-existence is indeed non-existence, so how could it exist? This complete exhaustion of both non-existence and non-non-existence is therefore the meaning of emptiness.