金光明經文句記 6.174

6.174

二、明三昧能空行相。此經雖則結歸方等，說在般若時後。懺讚善惡皆推空導，故〈空品〉謂無量餘經已廣說空。故此經中亦譚其空，為入理門也。佛游三昧亦從空入，聲聞之人雖從空入，猶為身果所纏。如來空智明見聲聞身果性相皆空，諸佛境界亦空。如是一切無量諸法者，指上自他依果國土淨穢，推性推相不見差品。一切眾生依正境界，推求性相皆同真淨，無復其異。然推乎性相者，即空觀遣情顯理之要門也。一家明觀，諸處共論，其如講學之人亦多昧之，今家承用則依中論智論，準理準義開拓觀門，故於權教實教事觀理觀悉已明之。學者須知。且如性相二空，本是一空觀法，備遣情計故有兩番行相。是知若善修一空觀者，必遣二種執性。如《法華》止云「知法常無性」，荊谿謂應無性性、無相性。諸文為辨性相，寄前後說，故以二諦分之，乃云「四句推性不見性，是世諦破性。四句推名不見名，是真諦破相。」相破即相空也。荊谿釋云：「若有性執，世而非諦，破性執已世乃名諦，是以名為世諦破性。性執破已但有名字，名之為假。假即是相，為空相故。觀理證真，是名真諦破相。」空非前後、二諦同時，故知性執破已雖名世諦，初軫其觀即須觀真。四句推性雖不執性，其如惑存轉計其名，既不見理但名世諦，仍觀法性真理破名字相，相執破已方證其真，故名真諦破相。或初觀真諦四句推性，便了陰界色心名字無四句相，即名真諦破性破相，豈待轉觀破相方用真諦耶？若爾，推性何故云不自他共等？推相自謂不內外中間等，句法既別，顯理用觀自異。何謂祇一四句空觀破二種執耶？答：向謂寄前後說，對所破執相，故推性則謂不自他等，推相乃言不內外等。考乎觀門，豈有異途？故荊谿云：「內秖是因，外秖是緣」等。況止觀明性空觀畢，乃引《中論》「諸法不自生」等四句為證；洎明相空觀畢，亦引斯論「諸法不自生」等四句。以斯照之，應無別觀。又止觀但名一總空觀者，即二空觀也。問：《法華疏》約真俗假實明生法二空。荊谿釋云：「真諦即法空，俗諦即生空。」俗假真實，乃引玄文世諦破性、真諦破假，假破即相空、性破即性空為證。若以性相二空秖一空觀，何引人法二空對顯二諦耶？以人空時亦未法空，故性相二空。若例人法空者，應二空須異，何謂性空未顯於理、相空無別觀耶？答：小乘得人空時，容有未得法空。如云見惑若破得須陀洹果，名得生空。此則少顯真理，進破思惑方得法空。其理究顯。大乘人法境融，觀道不異，如《大品》云「色性如我性，我性如色性。」四陰如我，用觀亦然。縱有惑分麁細、執破前後，用觀必無異時。而《法華疏》約人法空名二諦者，為對所破寄分真俗，故引世諦破性名性空、真諦破相名相空為證。其如用觀委明行相，須於我人生境破性破相方得生空，復於陰界入法寄俗寄真，推此二空窮斯真理名為法空，方是用觀行相委悉。故《止觀》云「於性相中求我人知見不可得是生空，於性相中求陰界入不可得是法空。」而疏以俗諦對生空者，蓋此生空體是法執，故以俗諦顯此空相，故云俗假，假即虛妄也。法執若破，妄染究盡，方名真諦，故云真實，實即究竟也。荊谿體斯疏意，復以玄文寄世諦顯性空等義而為證也，故云真俗不二、二空俱時。問：既云二諦不二、二空俱時，顯是一理一空，又何分二諦及明二空耶？答：其實所顯理是一，能觀觀亦一，為對所破執故而分二空，顯空淺深故而寄二諦。是故性相空中，性空約理，理既未顯，但名世諦明空。空猶未盡，但名性空，仍於世法。又觀真諦破此執名之相，相若破已，理顯方名真諦，觀成方名相空，故寄二諦顯二空相。故知若曉性相二空對所破而分真俗者，則寄二諦明人法二空。準理亦然。是則人空，空未實故，乃寄俗顯，故云俗諦即生空也。法空，空既已淨，而寄真顯，故云真諦即法空也。矧又雖用生法互融之觀，而照真俗不二之境，其如眾生無始多於生境計我起執，不二之觀亦於生境先當其用，故破人執時且名生空。既法執在，復觀其法本無其執離四句相，方名法空。故大師謂始覺人空，終覺法空。然此二諦顯二空相，通圓之教行相亦同。但通用其觀止照真理，故寄俗寄真顯性顯相，明斯二空唯在真理。而圓實之教體生體法推性推相唯是中道法性，法性無生無性，名世諦破生破性。此生此性即法，法體本空，名真諦破法破相。雖寄二諦，悉用中道而顯二空。通無此觀，學者思之。然委明二空推所執能、人執隨法執亡者，具如前疏〈空品〉記文。

Second, clarifying that samādhi can empty active aspects. Although this sūtra is classified under the Vaipulya, it was preached after the Prajñā period. Confessions, praises, good, and evil all take emptiness as their guide; hence the "Chapter on Emptiness" states that countless other sūtras have already expounded emptiness extensively. Therefore, emptiness is also discussed in this sūtra as the gateway for entering into principle. The Buddha's traversing of samādhi also enters from emptiness. Although śrāvakas enter from emptiness, they are still entangled by bodily fruit. The Tathāgata's wisdom of emptiness clearly sees that the nature and marks of the śrāvaka's bodily fruit are both empty, and the realms of all Buddhas are also empty. "All such immeasurable dharmas" points above to the pure and defiled dependent results and lands of self and others: inferring their nature and inferring their marks, no gradations or differences are seen. Inferring and investigating the nature and marks of the dependent and primary realms of all sentient beings, all are equally true and pure, without any further distinction. However, inferring nature and marks is precisely the essential gateway of the contemplation of emptiness in eliminating attachments and revealing principle. Our school's exposition of contemplation is discussed together in various places; yet many lecturers and scholars are still unenlightened regarding it. Our school's heritage follows the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, opening up the gates of contemplation according to principle and meaning; hence it has fully clarified provisional teachings, real teachings, contemplation of phenomena, and contemplation of principle. Learners must know this. Moreover, like the two emptinesses of nature and marks, they are fundamentally one method of contemplation of emptiness; because they completely eliminate emotional schematizations, there are two rounds of active aspects. From this it is known that if one skillfully cultivates the single contemplation of emptiness, one will necessarily eliminate the two kinds of grasping at nature. For instance, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra merely says, "Know that dharmas are constantly devoid of nature"; Jingxi says this means having no nature of nature and no nature of marks. In order to distinguish nature and marks, the various texts speak in terms of before and after, dividing them by means of the two truths, stating: "Investigating nature through the four propositions and not finding nature is shattering nature by conventional truth. Investigating names through the four propositions and not finding names is shattering marks by ultimate truth." Shattering marks is precisely mark-emptiness. Jingxi explains: "If there is grasping at nature, it is conventional but not a truth; after shattering grasping at nature, the conventional is then called a truth; therefore it is called shattering nature by conventional truth. Once grasping at nature is shattered, there are only names, which are called provisional. Provisionality is precisely marks; in order to empty marks, one contemplates principle and realizes the ultimate—this is called shattering marks by ultimate truth." Emptiness is not sequential; the two truths are simultaneous. Thus one knows that although it is called conventional truth after grasping at nature is shattered, upon first arousing this contemplation one must immediately contemplate the ultimate. Although one does not grasp at nature when investigating nature through the four propositions, as long as delusion remains, one turns to schematize its names; since one does not see principle, it is merely called conventional truth. One must still contemplate the ultimate truth of dharmatā to shatter the marks of names; only after grasping at marks is shattered does one realize its reality; hence it is called shattering marks by ultimate truth. Or, upon first contemplating ultimate truth and investigating nature through the four propositions, one immediately realizes that the names of aggregates, realms, form, and mind are free from the marks of the four propositions—this is directly called shattering nature and shattering marks by ultimate truth; why wait for a subsequent contemplation to shatter marks before employing ultimate truth? If so, why does investigating nature say "not from self, other, both, etc.", while investigating marks says "not internal, external, intermediate, etc."? Since the syntax of the propositions differs, revealing principle and employing contemplation naturally differ. Why say that only one four-proposition contemplation of emptiness shatters two kinds of graspings? Answer: As said earlier, this is spoken in terms of before and after relative to the marks of grasping to be shattered. Therefore, investigating nature says "not from self, other, etc.", while investigating marks says "not internal, external, etc." Examining the gateway of contemplation, how could there be different paths? Thus Jingxi says: "Internal is merely cause, external is merely condition," and so forth. Furthermore, after clarifying the contemplation of nature-emptiness, the Mohe zhiguan cites the four propositions of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "Dharmas are not produced from themselves..." as verification; when clarifying the contemplation of mark-emptiness, it also cites the same treatise's four propositions, "Dharmas are not produced from themselves..." Illuminating it with this, there should be no distinct contemplation. Furthermore, what the Mohe zhiguan calls simply a single general contemplation of emptiness is precisely the contemplation of both emptinesses. Question: The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Commentary clarifies the two emptinesses of sentient beings and dharmas in terms of ultimate, conventional, provisional, and real. Jingxi explains: "Ultimate truth is precisely dharma-emptiness; conventional truth is precisely sentient-being-emptiness." For conventional provisionality and ultimate reality, he cites the Xuanyi's shattering of nature by conventional truth and shattering of provisionality by ultimate truth—provisionality shattered being mark-emptiness, nature shattered being nature-emptiness—as verification. If the two emptinesses of nature and marks are only one contemplation of emptiness, why cite the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas to correlate with the two truths? Because when person-emptiness [is attained], dharma-emptiness is not yet [attained]; thus the two emptinesses of nature and marks, if compared to person- and dharma-emptiness, should also be distinct—why say that nature-emptiness has not yet revealed principle and that mark-emptiness has no distinct contemplation? Answer: When the Hīnayāna attains person-emptiness, it may well not yet have attained dharma-emptiness. As it is said, if the delusion of views is shattered, the fruit of srotāpanna is attained, which is called attaining sentient-being-emptiness. This only slightly reveals the true principle; only upon advancing to shatter the delusion of thought does one attain dharma-emptiness. Its principle is ultimately revealed. In the Mahāyāna, the spheres of persons and dharmas interpenetrate, and the path of contemplation is not different; as the Pañcaviṃśati says: "The nature of form is like the nature of the self; the nature of the self is like the nature of form." The four aggregates are like the self; the application of contemplation is also like this. Even if delusions are divided into coarse and subtle, and the shattering of graspings has before and after, the application of contemplation is definitely not at different times. That the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Commentary designates the two truths in terms of person- and dharma-emptiness is merely to provisionally divide ultimate and conventional relative to what is shattered; hence it cites shattering nature by conventional truth as nature-emptiness, and shattering marks by ultimate truth as mark-emptiness for verification. However, when the application of contemplation thoroughly clarifies the active aspects, one must shatter nature and shatter marks with regard to the realm of self and person before attaining sentient-being-emptiness; then, provisionally applying conventional and ultimate to the dharmas of aggregates, realms, and sense fields, one investigates these two emptinesses and exhausts this true principle, which is named dharma-emptiness—only then are the active aspects of applying contemplation thorough and detailed. Hence the Mohe zhiguan says: "Seeking 'self', 'person', 'knower', and 'seer' within nature and marks and not finding them is sentient-being-emptiness; seeking aggregates, realms, and sense fields within nature and marks and not finding them is dharma-emptiness." That the commentary correlates conventional truth with sentient-being-emptiness is because the substance of this sentient-being-emptiness is grasping at dharmas; hence it reveals this aspect of emptiness by means of conventional truth, calling it conventional provisionality, provisional meaning illusory and false. When grasping at dharmas is shattered and defilement of delusion is completely exhausted, only then is it named ultimate truth; hence it is called ultimate reality, real meaning ultimate. Jingxi grasped this intent of the commentary and again used the Xuanyi's provisional presentation of conventional truth revealing nature-emptiness and the like as verification; therefore he says that ultimate and conventional are non-dual, and the two emptinesses are simultaneous. Question: Since it is said that the two truths are non-dual and the two emptinesses are simultaneous, revealing that there is one principle and one emptiness, why further divide the two truths and clarify two emptinesses? Answer: In reality, the revealed principle is one, and the contemplating contemplation is also one; it is relative to the graspings to be shattered that two emptinesses are divided, and it is to reveal the shallowness and depth of emptiness that the two truths are provisionally used. Therefore, among the emptinesses of nature and marks, nature-emptiness concerns principle: since principle is not yet revealed, it is merely called clarifying emptiness through conventional truth. Since emptiness is not yet exhaustive, it is merely called nature-emptiness, still in the realm of conventional dharmas. One further contemplates ultimate truth to shatter this mark of grasping at names; when marks are shattered and principle is revealed, only then is it called ultimate truth; when contemplation is perfected, only then is it called mark-emptiness; hence the two truths are provisionally used to reveal the aspects of the two emptinesses. Thus one knows that if one understands that the two emptinesses of nature and marks are divided into conventional and ultimate relative to what is shattered, then provisionally using the two truths to clarify the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas is likewise based on principle. Thus person-emptiness, because its emptiness is not yet real, is provisionally revealed through the conventional; hence it is said, "Conventional truth is precisely sentient-being-emptiness." Dharma-emptiness, because its emptiness is already pure, is provisionally revealed through the ultimate; hence it is said, "Ultimate truth is precisely dharma-emptiness." What is more, although one uses the contemplation in which sentient beings and dharmas interpenetrate to illuminate the realm where ultimate and conventional are non-dual, sentient beings from beginningless time mostly schematize a self and arouse grasping regarding the sphere of sentient beings; the non-dual contemplation is also applied first to the sphere of sentient beings, so upon shattering grasping at persons it is tentatively named sentient-being-emptiness. Grasping at dharmas still remaining, one again contemplates that its dharmas fundamentally lack that grasping and are free from the marks of the four propositions; only then is it named dharma-emptiness. Therefore the Great Master said that one initially awakens to person-emptiness and ultimately awakens to dharma-emptiness. However, as for these two truths revealing the aspects of the two emptinesses, the active aspects are also the same in the Shared and Perfect Teachings. But the Shared Teaching merely uses its contemplation to illuminate the ultimate principle; hence provisionally using conventional and ultimate to reveal nature and marks clarifies that these two emptinesses abide solely in the ultimate principle. In contrast, the Perfect Real Teaching embodies sentient beings and embodies dharmas, inferring nature and inferring marks as solely the dharmatā of the Middle Way. Dharmatā is non-arising and natureless—this is called shattering sentient beings and shattering nature by conventional truth. These sentient beings and this nature are precisely dharmas, and the substance of dharmas is fundamentally empty—this is called shattering dharmas and shattering marks by ultimate truth. Although provisionally using the two truths, it entirely employs the Middle Way to reveal the two emptinesses. The Shared Teaching lacks this contemplation; let scholars reflect on this. A detailed clarification of the two emptinesses—investigating the grasped and the grasper, and grasping at persons disappearing along with grasping at dharmas—is fully set forth in the previous commentary's notes on the "Chapter on Emptiness".