維摩經略疏 4.48

4.48

「法無」下，二、別明體法三空，破其用折三空之失。即為三：初四番明衍門生空破折生空、次八番明體法法空破折法法空、三七番并六句明平等空破三藏平等空。須略分別三空不同。三藏三空者，彼教明五陰成人，即陰離陰求人不得，名眾生空。折五陰空，名為法空。故《阿含》云「誰老死？是老死二俱邪見。」無誰老死名眾生空，無是老死名為法空。依毘曇門但明生空，成論空門具明三空。有師解平等空云：若有人法不名平等，無人法殊即是平等，平等即空名平等空。今研此語，若其平等即平等空者，亦應生法即生法空。若直生法非生法空，要破生法名生法空者，亦要破平等方名平等空。若止作二空平等屬法，法語通漫無所不收。故《大論》云「法無上涅槃」，是故涅槃空猶是法空。雖復二三皆是折假名為拙度，破拙用巧為說體空。今以譬顯折體之殊，如實拳指、鏡像拳指，具如《玄義》。智人體知鏡像無拳無指無空，不須破折方知無空。此之三法但有名字，名字之法不在內外中間亦不自有，是字不住亦不不住，言語道斷無說無示。法相如是豈可說乎？若三藏三空，前二是方便，平等空方始是真。若衍教三空即真入中，若通教三空同得見真。上根利智雖稟通教，見空不空，即見佛性。今淨名用體破折，故言不當如仁者所說。

From "Dharma is without..." downward, second, [the text] specifically explains the three emptinesses by embodying dharmas, refuting his error of employing the three emptinesses through deconstructive analysis. This has three parts: first, four iterations explain the emptiness of sentient beings in the Mahāyāna teaching, refuting the emptiness of sentient beings through deconstructive analysis; next, eight iterations explain the emptiness of dharmas by embodying dharmas, refuting the emptiness of dharmas through deconstructive analysis; third, seven iterations together with six phrases explain equal emptiness, refuting the equal emptiness of the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. One must briefly differentiate the divergence among the three emptinesses. As for the three emptinesses of the Tripiṭaka, that teaching explains that the five aggregates constitute a person; seeking a person either within the aggregates or apart from the aggregates, none can be found—this is called the emptiness of sentient beings. Deconstructing the five aggregates into emptiness is called the emptiness of dharmas. Therefore the Āgamas state: "'Who is it that grows old and dies?' and 'It is this that grows old and dies'—both are wrong views." The absence of "who grows old and dies" is called the emptiness of sentient beings; the absence of "this grows old and dies" is called the emptiness of dharmas. Relying on the Abhidharma approach, only the emptiness of sentient beings is explained; the emptiness approach of the Tattvasiddhi explains all three emptinesses completely. There is a master who explains equal emptiness, saying: "If there are persons and dharmas, it is not called equal; the absence of distinction between person and dharma is precisely equality; equality being empty is called equal emptiness." Now, examining this statement: if equality is itself equal emptiness, then sentient beings and dharmas should likewise themselves be the emptiness of sentient beings and dharmas. If simply sentient beings and dharmas are not the emptiness of sentient beings and dharmas, and one must deconstruct sentient beings and dharmas before calling it the emptiness of sentient beings and dharmas, then one must likewise deconstruct equality before it can be called equal emptiness. If one merely posits two emptinesses, equality pertains to dharmas, for the term "dharma" is all-encompassing, leaving nothing unincluded. Therefore the Dàzhìdù lùn states: "Among dharmas, nirvāṇa is unexcelled"; hence the emptiness of nirvāṇa is still the emptiness of dharmas. Although both two and three [emptinesses are posited], all deconstruct nominal designations, which is called clumsy crossing; refuting the clumsy and employing the skilful, one explains embodying emptiness. Now, illustrating the difference between deconstruction and embodiment through an analogy: like an actual fist and fingers versus a fist and fingers in a mirror reflection, it is fully set out in the Profound Meaning. A wise person embodies the knowledge that the mirror reflection is without fist, without fingers, and without emptiness; one does not need to deconstruct it before knowing there is no emptiness. These three dharmas are merely nominal designations; dharmas of nominal designation are neither inside, outside, nor in between, nor do they exist of themselves; these names neither abide nor do not abide; the path of language is cut off, beyond explanation and beyond demonstration. Such being the nature of dharmas, how could it be spoken of? In the case of the three emptinesses of the Tripiṭaka, the former two are expedient means, and only equal emptiness begins to be real. In the case of the three emptinesses of the Mahāyāna teaching, one embodies the real and enters the Middle; in the case of the three emptinesses of the Shared Teaching, all equally attain the vision of the real. Those of superior faculties and sharp wisdom, though receiving the Shared Teaching, see that emptiness is not empty and immediately see the buddha-nature. Here Vimalakīrti uses embodiment to refute deconstruction; hence he says, "You should not speak as the benevolent one has spoken."