注維摩詰經 5.76

5.76

[Kumāra]jīva says: If the nature of dharmas is inherently empty, then they should be inherently empty as they are. Why would the worthy and noble ones still use empty wisdom to empty dharmas? [Seng]zhao says: The former 'empty' refers to the emptiness of dharmas, while the latter 'empty' refers to the emptiness of wisdom. If the inherent nature of all dharmas is inherently empty, why rely on the emptiness of wisdom before they are empty? [Dao]sheng says: If principle is indeed empty, why use empty wisdom before it is empty? There is an empty wisdom that attains understanding, and this emptiness is what is brought about by wisdom. It is not that principle is inherently so; how can one say that principle is empty just because it is empty only after empty wisdom?