大乘義章 2.74

2.74

次辨攝相。彼十八空，此四空中何相所攝？經論無文，准義相攝，麁亦可知。相狀如何？法相空中攝十一空，所謂內空、外空、內外空、大空、有為空、無為空、畢竟空、無始空、散空、諸法空、有法空，以此十一齊空世法，是故攝入法相空中。問曰：第六無為空者，應是第二無法相空，何故攝入法相空中？釋言：此空但空世諦無為之法，不是理無，是故攝入法相空中。無法相空別攝三空，所謂空空、第一義空及無法空，以此三種齊空理無，是故攝入無法空中。自法空中，唯攝性空。彼性空者，明其諸法體性自空，不由觀力，故名性空。此義與彼自法空同，是故攝入自法空中。此前十五分相別攝，餘三共攝。彼法相空、無法相空共攝二空，所謂相空、無法有法空。相空之中，明其自相及同相空。自相空者，明色等空，判屬第一法相空中。同相空中，有其二種：一明世諦苦無常等同相空寂，是空攝入法相空中。二明真諦同相理空，是空攝入無法相空。就彼無法有法空中，有法空者是法相空，無法空者攝入第二無法相空。彼法相空及他法空共攝一種不可得空。若說有法自相叵得，判屬第一法相空中。若說真如法性等外，邪見所立微塵世性皆不可得，攝入第四他法空中。攝相如是。問曰：此四與十八空體性不殊，說十八空其義廣足，何勞更說此四空乎？論自釋言「聖人說法凡有四種：一先略後廣，為欲解義；二先廣後略，為易受持；三先略後略，為利根者；四先廣後廣，為鈍根者。」此就一義以分利鈍，利根之人少言能解，故為略說；鈍根之人多言方悟，故為廣說。若對多義，為利根者，先後俱廣，彼能受故；為鈍根者，先後俱略，不堪受故。彼《大品經》為易受持故，先廣說十八空竟，復說四空。自餘廣略，類此可知。四空之義，辨之麁爾。

Next, the subsumption of characteristics is explained. Among those eighteen emptinesses, which characteristics are subsumed under these four emptinesses? Sūtras and treatises have no explicit text, but by assessing the meaning of their subsumptions, they can be roughly understood. What are their aspects? Under the emptiness of the marks of dharmas, eleven emptinesses are subsumed, namely internal emptiness, external emptiness, internal-external emptiness, great emptiness, conditioned emptiness, unconditioned emptiness, ultimate emptiness, beginningless emptiness, dispersal emptiness, the emptiness of all dharmas, and the emptiness of existent dharmas. Because these eleven equally empty worldly dharmas, they are therefore subsumed within the emptiness of the marks of dharmas. Question: Should not the sixth, the emptiness of the unconditioned, be the second, the emptiness of the marks of non-existing dharmas? Why is it subsumed within the emptiness of the marks of dharmas? Explanation: This emptiness only empties the unconditioned dharmas of conventional truth, not the absence of principle; therefore it is subsumed within the emptiness of the marks of dharmas. The emptiness of the marks of non-existing dharmas separately subsumes three emptinesses, namely the emptiness of emptiness, ultimate emptiness, and the emptiness of non-existent dharmas. Because these three equally empty the absence of principle, they are therefore subsumed within the emptiness of non-existing dharmas. Within the emptiness of intrinsic dharmas, only the emptiness of nature is subsumed. That emptiness of nature clarifies that the intrinsic nature of all dharmas is empty of itself, not due to the power of contemplation; hence it is named the emptiness of nature. This meaning is identical to that of the emptiness of intrinsic dharmas, and is therefore subsumed within the emptiness of intrinsic dharmas. The preceding fifteen are separately subsumed according to their distinctive characteristics; the remaining three are jointly subsumed. The emptiness of the marks of dharmas and the emptiness of the marks of non-existing dharmas jointly subsume two emptinesses, namely the emptiness of marks and the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas. Within the emptiness of marks, it clarifies the emptiness of specific marks and common marks. As for the emptiness of specific marks, it clarifies the emptiness of form and so forth, and is determined to belong under the first, the emptiness of the marks of dharmas. Within the emptiness of common marks, there are two kinds: first, it clarifies that the common marks of conventional truth, such as suffering and impermanence, are empty and tranquil; this emptiness is subsumed under the emptiness of the marks of dharmas. Second, it clarifies the common mark of the ultimate truth, the emptiness of principle; this emptiness is subsumed under the emptiness of the marks of non-existing dharmas. Regarding that emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas: the emptiness of existent dharmas is the emptiness of the marks of dharmas, and the emptiness of non-existent dharmas is subsumed under the second, the emptiness of the marks of non-existing dharmas. The emptiness of the marks of dharmas and the emptiness of other dharmas jointly subsume one kind: unapprehendable emptiness. If one speaks of the specific marks of existent dharmas being unobtainable, this is determined to belong under the first, the emptiness of the marks of dharmas. If one speaks of the atoms and worldly nature established by wrong views outside tathatā, dharmatā, and so forth being all unobtainable, this is subsumed under the fourth, the emptiness of other dharmas. Such is the subsumption of characteristics. Question: Since these four emptinesses and the eighteen emptinesses do not differ in intrinsic nature, and explaining the eighteen emptinesses is broadly sufficient in meaning, why bother explaining these four emptinesses again? The treatise itself explains: "There are generally four kinds of teaching by the noble ones: first, concise first and detailed later, in order to make the meaning understood; second, detailed first and concise later, in order to make it easy to uphold; third, concise first and concise later, for those of sharp faculties; fourth, detailed first and detailed later, for those of dull faculties." This divides sharp and dull faculties on the basis of a single meaning: persons of sharp faculties understand through few words, and so it is concisely explained for them; persons of dull faculties awaken only through many words, and so it is extensively explained for them. If considered in relation to many meanings: for those of sharp faculties, it is detailed both before and after, because they are able to receive it; for those of dull faculties, it is concise both before and after, because they cannot bear [so much]. That Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, in order to make it easy to uphold, first fully explained the eighteen emptinesses, and then explained the four emptinesses again. The rest of the detailed and concise versions may be understood by analogy to this. The doctrine of the four emptinesses has thus been roughly explained.