[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776) › 4.3 # 維摩義記 4.3 維摩義記 4.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.3) 第十七中，初「喜見曰」，標人別說。下明所說，先辨、後結。辨中初就色陰論之，後就餘陰。前色陰中，「色空二」者，反舉二相。次解有三：一、色非我所名之為空，如《毘曇》說。二、假名色中無其定性名之為空，如《成實》說。三、假名色相亦無所有名之為空，此唯在大。今此所論，義當第三。下翻此二以明不二。於此門中，二諦同體名為不二，非全破遣。「色即是空」，明有即無。云色為色，色即無色，故色即空。「非色滅空」，簡異對治事滅之空。「色性自空」，簡異將因分果之空，如陽炎水自性非水，不待塵大分為無水。色亦如是，自性空無，不待塵大分之為空，名自性空。下餘陰中亦先舉二、後明不二，文與前同。此解不二。言「於其中而通達」者，釋其入義。「是為」下結。 > In the seventeenth \[section\], first, "Xijian (Priradarśana) said" indicates the person to set up the individual statement. Below, what was said is clarified; first it explains, and then concludes. In the explanation, it first discusses it with respect to the form skandha, and afterwards with respect to the remaining skandhas. In the previous \[discussion of\] the form skandha, "Form and emptiness are two" contrarily brings up two characteristics. Next, there are three explanations: First, form is not "mine" and is called empty, as the Abhidharma explains. Second, within provisionally named form there is no determinate nature, which is called empty, as the \*Tattvasiddhi\* explains. Third, the characteristics of provisionally named form are also non-existent, which is called empty; this is found only in the Great \[Vehicle\]. What is discussed here corresponds in meaning to the third. Below, these two are reversed to clarify non-duality. In this approach, the two truths sharing the same essence is called non-duality, not a complete refutation and elimination. "Form is itself emptiness" clarifies that existence is itself non-existence. When form is said to be form, form is immediately devoid of form; therefore form is itself emptiness. "It is not that the destruction of form is emptiness" distinguishes this from the emptiness of phenomenal cessation through antidotes. "The nature of form is inherently empty" distinguishes this from the emptiness of dividing the effect from the cause, just as the water of a mirage is by its own nature not water, without waiting for particles and elements to be divided to become non-water. Form is also like this: its own nature is empty and non-existent, without waiting for particles and elements to be divided for it to be empty; this is called inherently empty. In the remaining skandhas below, it also first brings up two and afterwards clarifies non-duality, the text being identical to the preceding. This explains non-duality. The statement "Penetrating thoroughly within them" explains the meaning of entry. "This is..." below concludes. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.2) - [Next: 4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.4) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776~en-mt.4.3) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.3) · Pramāṇa