入楞伽心玄義 1.54

1.54

初者，於緣起性，此土南北諸師各執空有，不足為會。但西域清辨論主，依《般若》等經、習龍猛等宗，造《般若燈》及《掌珍》等論，確立比量辨依他空。護法等論師，依《深密》等經、習無著等宗，造《唯識》等論，亦立比量顯依他不空。後代學人智光、戒賢繼其宗致，傳芳不絕。今謂不爾，前龍樹《中觀》，無著親釋；提婆《百論》，世親注解。以龍樹所辨明有不異空，無著所說明空不異有，是以二士相契冥合為一，非直理無違諍，亦乃仰稱龍樹為阿闍梨。後代論師為時澆慧薄，聞空謂斷因果、聞有謂隔真空，是以清辨破違空之有，令蕩盡歸空，方顯即空之有因果不失；護法等破滅有之空，令因果確立，方顯即有之空真性不隱。此二士各破一邊、共顯中道，此乃相成非相破也。若不爾者，無著、世親何不破於龍猛等論，而還造釋讚述彼空？後人不達其旨，隨言執取各互相違，非直俱不見理，更增鬪諍，得謗人法罪。何者？謂怖空恐斷，勵力立有。不了幻有是不異空之有故，是故乖空則失於有、失於有者良為取有。既失空失有而謂立有，此是情有非是法有，豈非具謗真空幻有。以己所見情有之法稱為佛說，是亦謗佛。異有立空，當知亦爾。真空必不異有，立滅色之斷空謂為真空，此是不了，惡取空故。性中不了真空，稱為佛說，是故亦為人法雙謗。或有說言：依他有故非無、遍計空故非有，將為中道者，此乃語是非有非無，見乃是有是無。二見常存將為中道，亦謗人法。或說：斷無名為非有，無有可對名曰非無。此亦語是非有非無，見是斷滅空見。或說：緣成似有故非無，無實體故非有。此亦語是非有非無，見乃唯是假有之見。此竝唯改其語而不破其見，莫若緣成幻有舉體蕩盡即有非有也，攬蕩盡真空以為幻有即空非空也。以即空之有即是即有之空，泯然一味中道俱離，以有即空即是空即有故，是故非有不墮於空見、非無不墮於有見，是則二見雙盡。然無二法體，如〈不二法門品〉盛明此事，緣起空有應如是知。

First: regarding the nature of dependent origination, the various masters of the north and south in this land each clung to emptiness or existence, which is not worthy of synthesis. But in the Western Regions, the treatise master Bhāviveka, relying on the Prajñāpāramitā and other sūtras and studying the school of Nāgārjuna and others, composed the Prajñāpradīpa, the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā/Hastaratna, and other treatises, firmly establishing inferences to argue that paratantra is empty. Treatise masters such as Dharmapāla, relying on the Saṃdhinirmocana and other sūtras and studying the school of Asaṅga and others, composed the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and other treatises, also establishing inferences to show that paratantra is not empty. Later students such as Jñānaprabha and Śīlabhadra continued their lineages, transmitting their renown without cease. Now I say this is not so. Previously, Nāgārjuna's Madhyamakaśāstra was personally commented upon by Asaṅga; Āryadeva's Śataśāstra was annotated by Vasubandhu. Because Nāgārjuna clarified that existence is not different from emptiness, and Asaṅga explained that emptiness is not different from existence, the two masters were in harmony, secretly merging into one. Not only was there no dispute in principle, but [Asaṅga] also respectfully addressed Nāgārjuna as his ācārya. Because treatise masters of later generations lived in a degenerate time with shallow wisdom, hearing of emptiness they thought it severed cause and effect, and hearing of existence they thought it obstructed true emptiness. Therefore Bhāviveka refuted existence that contradicts emptiness, sweeping it away completely to return to emptiness, thereby revealing that existence which is identical with emptiness does not lose cause and effect; Dharmapāla and others refuted emptiness that destroys existence, firmly establishing cause and effect, thereby revealing that the true nature of emptiness which is identical with existence is not concealed. These two masters each refuted one extreme and together revealed the Middle Way; this is mutual completion, not mutual refutation. If it were not so, why did Asaṅga and Vasubandhu not refute the treatises of Nāgārjuna and others, but instead composed commentaries praising that emptiness? Later people failed to understand their purport, clinging according to the words and mutually conflicting; not only did neither see the principle, but they further increased contention, incurring the offense of slandering persons and the Dharma. How so? Fearing emptiness and dreading severance, they strenuously established existence. Failing to understand that illusory existence is an existence not different from emptiness, therefore, contradicting emptiness, they lose existence; and those who lose existence do so precisely because they grasp at existence. Having lost both emptiness and existence yet claiming to establish existence, this is an existence of conceptual feeling, not the existence of dharmas; how does this not fully slander both true emptiness and illusory existence? Designating the dharma of existence of conceptual feeling seen by oneself as the Buddha's preaching—this is also slandering the Buddha. Establishing emptiness apart from existence should be known to be likewise. True emptiness is necessarily not different from existence; establishing an annihilating emptiness that destroys form and calling it true emptiness—this is a failure to understand, clinging erroneously to emptiness. Failing to understand true emptiness within nature yet calling it the Buddha's preaching—therefore this also slanders both persons and the Dharma. Some say: 'Because paratantra exists, it is not non-existent; because parikalpita is empty, it is not existent,' taking this to be the Middle Way. Here, while the words speak of neither existence nor non-existence, the view is still of existence and non-existence. Perpetuating the two views and taking it to be the Middle Way also slanders persons and the Dharma. Some say: 'Severed non-existence is called non-existence, and the lack of existence that can be opposed to it is called non-non-existence.' Here too the words speak of neither existence nor non-existence, but the view is the annihilating view of emptiness. Some say: 'Because it is formed by conditions and has apparent existence, it is not non-existent; because it lacks real substance, it is not existent.' Here too the words speak of neither existence nor non-existence, but the view is merely the view of nominal existence. All these merely change their words without destroying their views; none compares to conditions forming illusory existence, its entire substance being completely swept away so that existence itself is non-existence, and taking the swept-away true emptiness as illusory existence so that emptiness itself is non-emptiness. Because existence identical with emptiness is precisely emptiness identical with existence, obliteration into a single flavor departs from both in the Middle Way. Because existence being identical with emptiness is precisely emptiness being identical with existence, non-existence does not fall into the view of emptiness, and non-non-existence does not fall into the view of existence; thus the two views are both exhausted. Yet there are no two substances of dharmas, as the 'Chapter on the Gate of Non-Duality' extensively clarifies; the emptiness and existence of dependent origination should be understood in this way.