金剛般若論會釋 1.89

1.89

結對治言是諸菩薩於彼皆不轉者，釋經二執皆說無言，隨應人、法取說，無非義故。天親論中解四法執，與此差別，初二有、空與此相似，後二金剛頌云，「一切空無物」，釋云，「有所取、能取，一切法無故，言無法想，以無物故」，遍計所執執有能取、所取體性，名為「法相」；今說空無，名「無法相」。頌云「實有」，釋云，「彼法無我空，實有故，言亦非無法相」，真如圓成體性實有，彼撥為無，名「無法相」；今說為有，性非全無，故言亦「非無法相」。頌云「不可說」，釋云，「彼空無物，而此不可說有無故，言無相」，即此勝義諦性離言說，非空、不空，執為有空，名之為相，今雙非彼，故言無相，顯此真理不可說為有、空相故。頌云，「依言詞而說，是法相四種」，釋云，「依言詞而說故，言亦非無相」，顯勝義諦因空所顯，亦名為空；談體實有，亦名不空；非全無體，故言亦非無相。總結四句，顯除四謗，初句除增益謗，第二句除損減謗，第三句除相違謗，第四句除戲論謗，唯依行相通，而依起人，故與此別。由是文等，龍猛、無著師宗不同，各應准立。

In concluding the antidotes by saying, "all these bodhisattvas do not operate with respect to any of them," it explains the sūtra's statement of "absence" regarding both grasps, for according to the grasps of persons and phenomena they are spoken of as absent, which is not without meaning. In Vasubandhu's treatise, the explanation of the four grasps of phenomena differs from this: the first two, existence and emptiness, are similar to this; for the latter two, the Vajra verse says: "All is empty and without entity." The commentary says: "Because there are grasper and grasped, and all phenomena are absent, it says 'no notion of phenomena,' because of being without entity." The imagined nature grasps the existence of an intrinsic nature of grasper and grasped, which is called the "mark of phenomena"; now it is said to be empty and absent, which is called "no mark of phenomena." The verse says: "Truly existent." The commentary says: "That emptiness of selflessness of phenomena is truly existent, hence it says 'nor is there a mark of non-phenomena.'" The perfect nature of tathatā is truly existent; if one denies it as non-existent, that is called a "mark of non-phenomena"; now it is stated as existent, its nature not being entirely non-existent, hence it says "nor is there a mark of non-phenomena." The verse says: "Inexpressible." The commentary says: "That emptiness is without entity, yet it cannot be expressed as existent or non-existent, hence it says 'no mark.'" This very ultimate truth nature transcends verbal expression, being neither empty nor non-empty; grasping it as existent or empty is called a mark; now both are negated, hence it says "no mark," revealing that this true reality cannot be expressed as a mark of existence or emptiness. The verse says: "Spoken of in dependence on verbal terms, these are the four kinds of marks of phenomena." The commentary says: "Because it is spoken of in dependence on verbal terms, it says 'nor is there no mark,'" revealing that the ultimate truth, because it is revealed by emptiness, is also called empty; in terms of its real entity, it is also called non-empty; it is not completely without entity, hence it says "nor is there no mark." Summarizing the four phrases, they reveal the elimination of the four slanderous views: the first line eliminates the slander of exaggeration; the second line eliminates the slander of deprecation; the third line eliminates the slander of contradiction; and the fourth line eliminates the slander of proliferation. It is applied solely according to the mode of operation, whereas here it is based on the persons who give rise to it, hence it differs from this. Due to texts such as these, the traditions of the masters Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga are not identical, and each should be established accordingly.