中觀論疏 7.11

7.11

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.