中觀論疏 7.11

7.11

長行為三：一略釋偈、二廣釋、三總結。初如文。「諸行名五陰」下，第二廣釋偈本。就文為二：第一明諸行空即作二諦觀、次明得益。初又二：前總明所觀之行空、次別觀行空。總中四義故空：一虛誑故空，此明境無實；二妄取故空，此心不實。此二依名釋是空。次一不住故空，若有住則有物，無住則無物故空；四無自體，無自體故空。後兩約義故空。初如文。「何以故」第二別觀五陰行空，即為五別。就觀色陰空為二：一正破、二總結破。正破為二：初就無常門破、次就一異門破。無常破有二：前就麁無常門破，以十時改變故無定性，故知色空。「如色念念不住」下，第二細無常門破。所以就無常義破者，無常是入空之初門、破病之要術也，明論主解無常與他異。他明無常，無有於常而有無常，故是有物不空。論主明無常者，無有於常即是無物，所以空也。又有物暫住可言暫有，以不住故則無，是故空也。

The prose section consists of three parts: first, a brief explanation of the verse; second, an extensive explanation; third, a general conclusion. The first is as in the text. From "Formations are called the five aggregates" onwards, the second part extensively explains the root verse. Within this text there are two parts: first, explaining that all formations are empty, which constitutes the contemplation of the two truths; next, explaining the attainment of benefit. The first part also has two subdivisions: first, generally explaining the emptiness of formations as the object of contemplation; next, separately contemplating the emptiness of formations. Within the general explanation, they are empty on account of four meanings: first, they are empty because they are deceptive, which explains that the objective sphere has no reality; second, they are empty because they are falsely grasped, which means that this mind is not real. These two explain emptiness according to name. Next, [third,] they are empty because they do not abide: if there were abiding, then there would be an entity; having no abiding, there is no entity, hence they are empty; fourth, they lack self-nature, and because they lack self-nature, they are empty. The latter two explain emptiness according to the meaning. The first is as in the text. From "Why is this so?", the second part separately contemplates the emptiness of formations among the five aggregates, which comprises five distinct sections. In contemplating the emptiness of the aggregate of form, there are two parts: first, the actual refutation; second, a general concluding refutation. The actual refutation has two parts: first, refuting in terms of the approach of impermanence; next, refuting in terms of the approach of identity and difference. The refutation by impermanence has two parts: first, refuting in terms of the approach of gross impermanence: because there are changes across the ten stages of life, there is no fixed nature, and thus one knows form is empty. From "Just as form does not abide from moment to moment" onwards, the second part refutes in terms of subtle impermanence. The reason it refutes in terms of the meaning of impermanence is that impermanence is the primary gateway to entering emptiness and the essential technique for refuting errors; it clarifies that the treatise master's understanding of impermanence differs from that of others. Others explain impermanence as the absence of permanence while maintaining the presence of impermanence, and therefore there is an entity and it is not empty. When the treatise master explains impermanence, the absence of permanence is precisely the absence of any entity, which is why it is empty. Furthermore, if an entity abides temporarily, one might say it exists temporarily; but because it does not abide, it does not exist, and therefore it is empty.