起信論疏筆削記 16.9

16.9

二、釋。論　對色故有者，與色法相對待故。離色所顯，故名為空；若無色顯，空不得有。可見相者，以是空一顯色故，有色處則見無空，無色處則見有空，有時無時亦爾。令心生滅者，有時則見有心生、見無心滅；無時則見無心生、見有心滅。既能引心生滅，豈若法身？若是法身，不合令心生滅。疏　相待者，釋前對色故有也。妄念緣者，釋前是可見相。非法身者，法身異此，無有無處。無有無時，亦無一相可得，尚不可以智知，豈容妄念所緣？今既妄念所及，故非法身。論　若無色下，正顯體無也。以能顯之色尚不可得，所顯之空理應是虛。《楞嚴》亦云：空性無形，因色顯發。又云：色相既無，誰明空質？疏文可知。

2. Explanation. The treatise: 'Exists in opposition to form': because it stands in mutual dependence with material dharmas. Being manifested apart from form, it is therefore called emptiness; if there were no form to manifest it, emptiness could not exist. 'Perceptible marks': because it is empty, an explicit color-form; where there is form, one sees the absence of emptiness, and where there is no form, one sees the presence of emptiness; the same applies to its presence and absence at different times. 'Causes the mind to arise and cease': when it is present, the mind that sees existence arises and the mind that sees non-existence ceases; when it is absent, the mind that sees non-existence arises and the mind that sees existence ceases. Since it can induce the mind to arise and cease, how could it be like the dharmakāya? If it were the dharmakāya, it should not cause the mind to arise and cease. The commentary: 'Mutual dependence' explains the preceding 'exists in opposition to form'. 'Cognized by delusive thought' explains the preceding 'perceptible marks'. 'Not the dharmakāya': the dharmakāya is different from this; it has no place of presence or absence. Having no time of presence or absence, not a single mark can be obtained; it cannot even be known by wisdom, so how could it be an object cognized by delusive thought? Now, since it falls within the reach of delusive thought, it is not the dharmakāya. The treatise: 'If without form, etc.' directly reveals the non-existence of its essence. Since the form that is able to manifest it cannot even be obtained, the emptiness that is manifested should reasonably be unreal. The Śūraṅgama-sūtra also says: 'The nature of emptiness has no form; it is manifested through form.' And again: 'Since the marks of form are non-existent, who can clarify the substance of emptiness?' The text of the commentary is self-evident.