淨名玄論 3.20

3.20

次、明真境不思議。俗境則一無量不可思議，真境則無量一不思議。故《中論》云「諸法實相者，心行言語斷，無生亦無滅，寂滅如涅槃。」問：二乘亦會實相，云何言實相不可思議耶？答：以此責由來，舊宗亦成難解。既三乘同會真境、皆絕四句，二乘與菩薩所行是同，云何菩薩不思議耶？今明二乘與菩薩不同，略有六義，故有思議不思議。一者二乘但得生空、不得法空，故可思議。菩薩具得二空，故不思議。二者二乘亦不具得生空。所以然者，於我無我不二，是無我義。二乘見我無我二，云何得無我耶？三者利根二乘設得法空，蓋是折法明空。菩薩法空，自性空、自相空，即空為有、即有為空。故二乘法空可思議，菩薩法空不思議。四者《釋論》云「二乘得但空，故可思議。菩薩得不可得空，故不思議。」五者二乘得小空，如毛孔空。菩薩得空廣遍，如十方空。問：空何有大小耶？答：二乘不能別相一一知諸法空，但總相知十二入空，故名為小。菩薩能別相知一切法，謂麁細大小淺深，然後知其是空，故空廣大。又二乘但得三界內人法空，故約有明空，空義即短。菩薩知三界內人外人法皆空，故約有明空，空義即長。故二乘得小分空，猶如兔馬。菩薩具得多空，猶如香象。故空有多小也。六者明二乘但得生死空，不見大涅槃妙有體絕萬相故空，何況知涅槃妙有即空，故二乘空可思議。菩薩空不可思議。問：若爾，二乘與菩薩不同觀實相，何得《法華》云同入法性、《涅槃》云同觀中道耶？答：古舊辨三乘同觀，或云三乘異觀，二說紛綸。今略陳之，三乘有同觀、有異觀。以其同見於空，故言同觀；有得二空、不得二空，如上六義，則不同觀。同與不同，各有其義，不應偏執。問：真境唯一不思議，亦得有多不思議？答：實相無二，但約教有淺深，如上入不二法門三階之說。

Next, explaining the inconceivability of the real object. While the conventional object is the inconceivability of the one and the immeasurable, the real object is the inconceivability of the immeasurable and the one. Thus the Madhyamaka-śāstra states: "The dharmatā of all phenomena is where the activities of the mind and the paths of speech are severed; it is without arising and without cessation, quiescent like nirvāṇa." Question: The two vehicles also realize dharmatā; why do you say that dharmatā is inconceivable? Answer: Since this objection was raised in the past, ancient traditions have also found it difficult to resolve. If the three vehicles equally realize the real object and all transcend the catuṣkoṭi, and what the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas practice is the same, why is only the bodhisattva considered inconceivable? We now explain that the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas differ in six summary respects; hence there is the conceivable and the inconceivable. First, the two vehicles only attain the emptiness of persons and do not attain the emptiness of dharmas; hence it is conceivable. The bodhisattva fully attains both emptinesses; hence it is inconceivable. Second, the two vehicles also do not fully attain the emptiness of persons. Why is this so? Nonduality regarding self and nonself is the true meaning of nonself. The two vehicles view self and nonself as dual; how could they attain nonself? Third, even if sharp-rooted practitioners of the two vehicles attain the emptiness of dharmas, it is merely by analyzing dharmas to explain emptiness. The bodhisattva's emptiness of dharmas is inherent emptiness and specific-characteristic emptiness: emptiness is immediately existence, and existence is immediately emptiness. Hence the emptiness of dharmas of the two vehicles is conceivable, while that of the bodhisattva is inconceivable. Fourth, the Dazhidulun states: "The two vehicles attain mere emptiness, hence it is conceivable. The bodhisattva attains unobtainable emptiness, hence it is inconceivable." Fifth, the two vehicles attain a minor emptiness, like the emptiness inside a pore. The bodhisattva attains an emptiness that is vast and all-pervading, like the emptiness of the ten directions. Question: How can emptiness have size? Answer: The two vehicles cannot know the emptiness of all dharmas in their specific characteristics one by one, but only know the emptiness of the twelve sense bases in general characteristics; hence it is called minor. The bodhisattva can know all dharmas in their specific characteristics—namely coarse and fine, large and small, shallow and deep—and only then knows them to be empty; hence their emptiness is vast and great. Furthermore, the two vehicles only attain the emptiness of persons and dharmas within the three realms; hence, explaining emptiness in terms of existence, the scope of emptiness is brief. The bodhisattva knows that the persons and dharmas within the three realms as well as those outside the three realms are all empty; hence, explaining emptiness in terms of existence, the scope of emptiness is extensive. Therefore, the two vehicles attain a small portion of emptiness, like a hare or a horse [crossing a river]. The bodhisattva fully attains extensive emptiness, like a fragrant elephant. Thus emptiness has great and small [scopes]. Sixth, the two vehicles only attain the emptiness of saṃsāra and do not see that the wondrous existence of great nirvāṇa has an essence transcending all characteristics and is therefore empty—how much less do they know that the wondrous existence of nirvāṇa is itself empty! Hence the emptiness of the two vehicles is conceivable, while the emptiness of the bodhisattva is inconceivable. Question: If so, and the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas do not contemplate dharmatā in the same way, how can the Lotus Sūtra say that they equally enter the dharmatā, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra say that they equally contemplate the madhyamā pratipad? Answer: When the ancients distinguished the three vehicles' contemplation, some said they contemplate identically, while others said they contemplate differently; the two views were tangled in controversy. We now state briefly: the three vehicles have both identical contemplation and different contemplation. Because they equally see emptiness, it is said that they contemplate identically; because some attain both emptinesses while others do not—as in the six points above—they do not contemplate identically. Identity and difference each have their own meaning; one should not cling one-sidedly. Question: Is the real object only a single inconceivability, or can it also have multiple inconceivabilities? Answer: Dharmatā is without duality, but in terms of the teachings there are shallow and deep levels, as in the aforementioned explanation of the three stages of entering the Dharma gate of nonduality.