瑜伽師地論略纂 5.73

5.73

「當知空性略有四種」下，總釋空性差別。《顯揚》第二說云：空有二種，一、所知；二、智。所知者，謂眾生及法遍計所執性中，此二無性及彼所餘無我有性。於諸法中所執性無，即是無我性有；無我性有，即是所執性無。即以此中有及非有無二之性名所知空。　空智者，謂緣彼境如實了知。彼論意說：所執法、有情空，及真如空性，俱名所知空。觀彼無時，見此有故，證此有時，見彼空故，有空無二，俱名境空。此說空行所證所空，能觀彼心即名空智。　此中所言謂於遠離有情、命者等，即所觀中，所空空境；心住一緣，即彼空智。此依三乘通所觀空，但言遠離有情、命者等。唯說人空，不說法故；唯說所空，不說所證空。彼說無二，有無雙彰，此說所無，不辨真有，故不相違。

Beginning with "It should be known that emptiness is briefly of four kinds," this generally explains the distinctions of emptiness. Fascicle 2 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā explains: "Emptiness is of two kinds: first, the knowable; second, knowledge." As for the knowable, it refers to: within the imagined nature of sentient beings and phenomena, the non-existence of these two natures, and the existence of the non-self nature that remains beyond them. The non-existence of the imagined nature in all phenomena is precisely the existence of the non-self nature; the existence of the non-self nature is precisely the non-existence of the imagined nature. It is precisely this non-dual nature of existence within this and non-existence that is called the emptiness that is knowable. As for the knowledge of emptiness, it refers to knowing that object in accord with reality. The meaning of that treatise is: the emptiness of the imagined phenomena and sentient beings, as well as the empty nature of suchness, are both called the emptiness that is knowable. Because when observing the non-existence of the former, one sees the existence of the latter, and when realizing the existence of the latter, one sees the emptiness of the former, both existence and emptiness are non-dual, and are both called the emptiness of the object. This explains what is realized and what is emptied by the practice of emptiness; the mind capable of observing them is precisely called the knowledge of emptiness. What is stated here refers to being free from sentient beings, life-principles, and so forth, which is the empty object that is emptied within what is observed; the mind resting on one focus is precisely that knowledge of emptiness. This relies on the emptiness commonly observed across the three vehicles, merely stating freedom from sentient beings, life-principles, and so forth. It speaks only of the emptiness of persons and does not speak of phenomena; it speaks only of what is emptied and does not speak of the emptiness that is realized. That treatise speaks of non-duality, jointly revealing both existence and non-existence; this treatise speaks of what is non-existent without discerning true existence; therefore, they do not contradict each other.