大乘義章 4.26

4.26

十一空義，出《涅槃經》。所言空者，顯理之目。理寂名空，空隨詮辨，廣略不定。或總為一，如《大品》說，名為獨空。廢詮談理，不分多門，故名為獨，非法唯空說為獨矣。或分為二，我空、法空。或分為三，空無相願。或分為四，四有兩門：一如《維摩》說，謂空無相無作無起，法無定性，名之為空。無因緣相，名為無相。無果可作，名為無作。故彼經言「唯行無作，而現受身。」因無所起，名為無起。故彼經言「雖行無起，而起善行。」二如《大品》說，謂有法空、無法空、自法空、他法空，已如上釋。或說為五，如《無量壽經》說，空、無相、無願、無作、無起。是其五也。空與無相，義同前釋。無彼妄相願求之心，說為無願。無作無起，亦如上釋。或分為七，如《大品》說，此如上釋。或分為九，如《雜心》說。或分十一，如《涅槃》說。或分十四，如《大品》說。或說十八，如《大品》說。或復說為二十二空，或復說為二十五空，如《涅槃》說。廣則無量，今據一門，且論十一，所謂內空乃至大空。此十一中，前十相空，精起法中破以明空；後一真空，真心體中性寂名空。此云何知？前之十空，猶六地中十法平等，《地持》名為妄想境界，十法平等，故知相空。其大空者，《地經》名為阿梨耶識觀，故知真空。人復說言：前十境空，後一智空。此亦有以。於妄分齊，心外有法，破之顯無，故曰境空。於真分齊，心外無法，一切諸法皆即心說，就之辨空，名為智空。復前十中，初之八空，將無破有；第九一空，用有破無；第十空空，以非有無雙破有無。與《地經》中十平等同。前八空中，初之七空明無性空，破去眾生及法自性；後一明其無相之空，破遣眾生及法之相。前七空中，初六破遣眾生之性，後一性空破遣法性。前六空中，初五約就現在觀空，後一約就過去觀空。就前五中，初之三門就事觀空，後二就法。言內空者，眾生五陰是其內法，是內法中無有我人眾生壽命常樂我淨，故名為空，未空法體。言外空者，非情之法說以為外，是外法中亦無我人眾生壽命常樂我淨，故名外空。此二別觀。內外空者，總觀向前內外諸法，無我人等，名內外空。何故前別而後總乎？釋有兩義：一隨觀難易，分為三種。始時觀內未及其外，第二觀外不及其內，故先別觀。第三觀熟，方能合觀，故後總也。問曰：諸法總知則易、別知則難，故二乘人但能總相知於苦等，不能別知；菩薩方能差別異知。方何今此先別後總？釋言：有以。法有兩種：一是同相、二是別相。空無我等，諸法齊通，名為同相。色受想等，事相各異，名為別相。於此二中，若欲尋伺以知其別，總易別難，故先觀總，後觀其別。若欲尋別以知其同，別易總難，故先別觀，後為總觀。今依後門，先別後總。此之一義，隨觀難易故分三種。二對患不同故分三種。人別有三：一者著內情多、著外情少，故先觀內。二著外情多、著內情少，故須觀外。三內外俱著，故須總觀。此前三種就事觀空，次後兩門就法明空。法有二種：一者有為、二者無為。苦無常等生滅法數，是其有為；三無為等，是其無為。有為法中，無我人等，名有為空。無為法中，無我人等，名無為空。問曰：向前內外等中離合為三。今此有為無為法中，何不如是，唯別無總？釋言：准量，理亦無傷。但今為明內外二法同是有故，合觀則難，是故第三內外總觀有為無為。有無位別，合觀則易，故無第三有無總也。此前五種，就現境界以明空義。無始空者，更無別義，但就過去觀前五空名無始空，明此諸法非今始觀方無我人，無始已來常自空也。問曰：何故唯就過去說無始空，不就未來說無終空？准量應得，但今為明過去法者起患根本，無始已來所執著處，故須觀之。過現既空，類當可知，故略不論。又三世法次第相生，過為現本、現為過末，現為當本、當為現末。現法易觀，故先就之以觀空理。現由過生，故後就本觀無始空。以本類末，義在易知。故觀過現，類知未來，不假就當觀無終空。又問：若爾，六通之中亦應如是但知過現，何用天眼知未來乎？釋言：不類。六通知事，三世事異，故須別知。空義理同，可以類知，故不別論。此前六種是眾生空。第七法空。言性空者，觀法虛假，無有自性，名為性空。前七破性，下一破相，破遣眾生及諸法相，見因緣相亦無所有。是以經言「無所有者，如人無子名之為空，非是子明無性空。又如貧人無物名空，亦非就物明無性空。如人無子，遣眾生相。如貧無物，破遣法相。」此前八空，以無遣有。第一義空，以有遣無，名前八空為第一義，彼第一義亦皆空寂，是故名為第一義空。是以經言「云何名為第一義空？是眼生時無所從來，及其滅時去無所至。推其實法了不可得，名第一義。云何名為第一義空？有業有報，不得作者，故名為空。」良以宣說因緣業報為第一義，故因緣外無別有彼第一義諦。性不可得，故名為空。此前九空，別遣有無。第十空空，存無雙遣。是以經言「是有是無，是名空空。是是非是，是名空空。」是有是無是名空空者，就詮彰理。是是非是是名空空者，拂相顯寂。言是有者，牒前第九有遣無也。言是無者，牒前第八無遣有也。是名空空，就詮彰理，謂前所牒有無法性，即是第十空空義也。雖言有無是其空空，義猶未顯，故後拂相以顯理寂。非是有無二相並立說為空空，蓋乃有無二相雙捨名空空也。義意如是。言是是者，牒前經中是有無二種是也。言非是者，遣前是有是無是也。理非有故，是有非是。理非無故，是無非是。兩是俱非，故號空空。相狀如何？因緣之法有無同體，以同體故，無法為有、有法為無。無為有故，有則非有；有為無故，無則非無。是以有無皆非自性，非自性故說為空空。此前十門是其相空，破遣情相以明空理。第十一空，就實辨空，就彼真性緣起行德說為空也。是以經言「波若波羅蜜名為大空。」波若之體，即是真實如來藏識。如來藏中統含法界恒沙佛法，恒沙佛法同一體性，互相緣集，無有一法別守自性，故說為空。法界皆空，空寧不大？是以就實說為大空。《地經》之中亦同此說。故彼文中，阿梨耶識名為大空。前十相空，即是《地經》第六地中十法平等，雖不一一名數相對，其義大同。後一真空，即彼所顯無生法體。又彼六地所得十空三昧之中，生空、法空、第一義空，即是此中前十相空；大空已後餘之七空，即是此中大空不攝。十一空義，略辨如是。

The doctrine of the eleven emptinesses comes from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. What is called "emptiness" is an appellation that reveals the principle. The quiescence of principle is termed emptiness; emptiness is explained according to pedagogical expressions, and may be extensive or brief. Sometimes it is subsumed into one: as spoken in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, it is called the solitary emptiness. Setting aside expressions to speak of the principle without dividing it into many gates, it is therefore called "solitary"; it is not that dharmas are solely empty and hence spoken of as solitary. Sometimes it is divided into two: the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas. Sometimes it is divided into three: emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness. Sometimes it is divided into four; there are two approaches to the four: First, as spoken in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, namely emptiness, signlessness, unconditionedness, and non-arising. Dharmas having no fixed nature is termed emptiness. Being without the signs of causes and conditions is termed signlessness. Having no fruit to be produced is termed unconditionedness; thus that sūtra states: "Engaging only in the unconditioned, yet manifesting the reception of a body." Causes having nowhere to arise from is termed non-arising; thus that sūtra states: "Although practicing non-arising, one yet gives rise to wholesome actions." Second, as spoken in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, namely the emptiness of existent dharmas, the emptiness of non-existent dharmas, the emptiness of self-dharmas, and the emptiness of other-dharmas, as already explained above. Sometimes it is spoken of as five: as spoken in the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, unconditionedness, and non-arising; these are the five. Emptiness and signlessness are identical in meaning to the prior explanation. Being without a mind that yearns and seeks after those deluded signs is explained as wishlessness. Unconditionedness and non-arising are also as explained above. Sometimes it is divided into seven, as spoken in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, which is as explained above. Sometimes it is divided into nine, as spoken in the Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya. Sometimes it is divided into eleven, as spoken in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Sometimes it is divided into fourteen, as spoken in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā. Sometimes eighteen are spoken of, as spoken in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā. Or again it is spoken of as twenty-two emptinesses, or again spoken of as twenty-five emptinesses, as spoken in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. In an extensive treatment they are immeasurable; now, relying on a single gate, we provisionally discuss eleven, namely internal emptiness up to great emptiness. Among these eleven, the first ten are the emptiness of characteristics, refuting them within arisen phenomena to clarify emptiness; the last one is true emptiness, where the nature being quiescent within the substance of the true mind is termed emptiness. How is this known? The previous ten emptinesses are like the ten equalities of dharmas in the sixth ground, which the Bodhisattvabhūmi calls the objective realm of conceptual discrimination; being the ten equalities of dharmas, we thus know they are the emptiness of characteristics. As for the great emptiness, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra calls it the contemplation of the ālayavijñāna; thus we know it is true emptiness. People also say: the first ten are the emptiness of objects, and the last one is the emptiness of wisdom. This also has its reason. Within the scope of delusion, dharmas exist outside the mind; refuting them reveals non-existence, hence it is called the emptiness of objects. Within the scope of truth, there are no dharmas outside the mind; all dharmas are spoken of as being identical to mind; discerning emptiness with respect to this is called the emptiness of wisdom. Furthermore, among the first ten, the initial eight emptinesses refute existence by means of non-existence; the ninth single emptiness refutes non-existence by means of existence; the tenth, the emptiness of emptiness, doubly refutes both existence and non-existence by means of neither existence nor non-existence. This is identical with the ten equalities in the Daśabhūmika. Among the first eight emptinesses, the initial seven clarify the emptiness of self-nature, refuting and eliminating the inherent natures of sentient beings and dharmas; the last one clarifies the emptiness of signlessness, refuting and dispelling the signs of sentient beings and dharmas. Among the first seven emptinesses, the initial six refute and dispel the nature of sentient beings, while the last one, the emptiness of nature, refutes and dispels the nature of dharmas. Among the first six emptinesses, the initial five contemplate emptiness with reference to the present, while the last one contemplates emptiness with reference to the past. Among the first five, the initial three gates contemplate emptiness with reference to phenomena, while the latter two are with reference to dharmas. Regarding "internal emptiness": the five aggregates of sentient beings are the internal dharmas; within these internal dharmas there is no self, person, sentient being, life-span, permanence, bliss, self, or purity; therefore it is termed empty, without yet emptying the substance of dharmas. Regarding "external emptiness": non-sentient dharmas are spoken of as external; within these external dharmas there is also no self, person, sentient being, life-span, permanence, bliss, self, or purity; therefore it is termed external emptiness. These two are separate contemplations. Regarding "internal and external emptiness": comprehensively contemplating the aforementioned internal and external dharmas as lacking a self, person, and so forth is termed internal and external emptiness. Why is it first separate and then comprehensive? The explanation has two meanings: First, it is divided into three kinds according to the difficulty and ease of contemplation. At the beginning, when contemplating the internal, one has not yet reached the external; second, when contemplating the external, one does not reach the internal; therefore, one first contemplates them separately. Third, when the contemplation has matured, one is then able to contemplate them together; therefore, the comprehensive comes later. Question: Comprehensively knowing dharmas is easy, while separately knowing them is difficult; therefore, practitioners of the two vehicles are only able to know suffering and so forth in their common characteristics, but are unable to know them distinctively; only bodhisattvas can know them differentially. Why, then, is it here first separate and then comprehensive? Explanation: There is a reason. Dharmas are of two kinds: the first is common characteristics; the second is specific characteristics. Emptiness, non-self, and so forth uniformly pervade all dharmas, and are termed common characteristics. Form, feeling, perception, and so forth have differing phenomenal characteristics, and are termed specific characteristics. Between these two, if one wishes to investigate and reflect so as to know their distinctions, the comprehensive is easy and the specific is difficult; therefore one first contemplates the comprehensive and later contemplates their distinctions. If one wishes to investigate distinctions so as to know their sameness, the specific is easy and the comprehensive is difficult; therefore one first contemplates separately and later makes a comprehensive contemplation. Here we rely on the latter gate, being first separate and then comprehensive. This single meaning is divided into three kinds according to the difficulty and ease of contemplation. Second, it is divided into three kinds according to differing afflictions. Persons are of three kinds: First, those whose attachment to the internal is strong and attachment to the external is weak; therefore they first contemplate the internal. Second, those whose attachment to the external is strong and attachment to the internal is weak; therefore they must contemplate the external. Third, those who are attached to both the internal and the external; therefore they must contemplate comprehensively. These prior three kinds contemplate emptiness with reference to phenomena; the subsequent two gates clarify emptiness with reference to dharmas. Dharmas are of two kinds: first, conditioned; second, unconditioned. The factors of arising and ceasing dharmas such as suffering and impermanence are the conditioned; the three unconditioned dharmas and so forth are the unconditioned. Within conditioned dharmas, lacking a self, person, and so forth is termed the emptiness of the conditioned. Within unconditioned dharmas, lacking a self, person, and so forth is termed the emptiness of the unconditioned. Question: In the aforementioned internal and external, separation and combination formed three. Now within these conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, why is it not like that, being only separate without a comprehensive [one]? Explanation: In terms of standard logic, there would be no harm in principle. But here, in order to clarify that both internal and external dharmas are equally existent, contemplating them together is difficult; therefore the third is the comprehensive contemplation of internal and external. Conditioned and unconditioned have distinct positions of existence and non-existence, so contemplating them together is easy; therefore there is no third comprehensive [contemplation] of existence and non-existence. These previous five kinds clarify the meaning of emptiness with reference to present objects. Emptiness from beginninglessness has no separate meaning; it is merely contemplating the previous five emptinesses with reference to the past that is called emptiness from beginninglessness, clarifying that these dharmas do not merely lack a self and person now that they are first contemplated, but from beginninglessness have always been empty in themselves. Question: Why is emptiness from beginninglessness spoken of solely with reference to the past, and emptiness without end is not spoken of with reference to the future? In terms of standard logic it should be obtainable; but here it is to clarify that past dharmas are the root from which afflictions arise, the locus to which there has been clinging from beginninglessness; therefore they must be contemplated. Past and present being already empty, the future may be known by analogy; therefore it is omitted from discussion. Furthermore, dharmas of the three times arise sequentially: the past is the root of the present, and the present is the branch of the past; the present is the root of the future, and the future is the branch of the present. Present dharmas are easy to contemplate; therefore one first relies on them to contemplate the principle of emptiness. The present arises due to the past; therefore one later relies on the root to contemplate emptiness from beginninglessness. Taking the root to infer the branch is easy to understand in meaning. Therefore, contemplating the past and present, one knows the future by analogy, without needing to contemplate emptiness without end with reference to the future. Question: If so, should it not also be that among the six superknowledges one only knows the past and present, so what use is the divine eye to know the future? Explanation: They are not analogous. The six superknowledges know phenomenal matters, and the matters of the three times are distinct; therefore they must be known separately. The principle of emptiness is identical, and can be known by analogy; therefore it is not separately discussed. These previous six kinds are the emptiness of sentient beings. The seventh is the emptiness of dharmas. Regarding the emptiness of nature: contemplating dharmas as unreal and lacking self-nature is termed the emptiness of nature. The previous seven refute nature; the subsequent one refutes signs, refuting and dispelling the signs of sentient beings and dharmas, seeing that even the signs of causes and conditions do not exist. Therefore the sūtra states: "As for non-existence: like a man without a son, it is called empty; it is not explaining the emptiness of lacking nature with respect to a son. Again, like a poor man without possessions, it is called empty; nor is this explaining the emptiness of lacking nature with respect to possessions. Like a man without a son, it dispels the signs of sentient beings. Like a poor man without possessions, it refutes and dispels the signs of dharmas." These previous eight emptinesses dispel existence by means of non-existence. Ultimate emptiness dispels non-existence by means of existence; the previous eight emptinesses are called the ultimate, and that ultimate is also entirely empty and quiescent, therefore it is termed ultimate emptiness. Therefore the sūtra states: "What is called ultimate emptiness? When this eye arises, it comes from nowhere; and when it ceases, it goes nowhere. When its real dharma is investigated, it is completely unobtainable; this is called the ultimate. What is called ultimate emptiness? There is karma and there is retribution, but an agent cannot be obtained; therefore it is termed empty." Precisely because teaching causes, conditions, karma, and retribution is the ultimate, outside of causes and conditions there is no separate ultimate truth. Its nature being unobtainable, it is therefore termed empty. These previous nine emptinesses separately dispel existence and non-existence. The tenth, the emptiness of emptiness, dispels both while preserving neither. Therefore the sūtra states: "This is existent, this is non-existent: this is named the emptiness of emptiness. This is 'this', this is 'not this': this is named the emptiness of emptiness." Saying that "This is existent, this is non-existent: this is named the emptiness of emptiness" reveals the principle with reference to expression. Saying that "This is 'this', this is 'not this': this is named the emptiness of emptiness" brushes away signs to reveal quiescence. Saying "this is existent" repeats the previous ninth, dispelling non-existence by means of existence. Saying "this is non-existent" repeats the previous eighth, dispelling existence by means of non-existence. "This is named the emptiness of emptiness" reveals the principle with reference to expression, meaning that the nature of dharmas of existence and non-existence repeated above is itself the meaning of the tenth, the emptiness of emptiness. Although saying that existence and non-existence is the emptiness of emptiness, the meaning is not yet clear; therefore it subsequently brushes away signs to reveal the quiescence of principle. It is not that the two signs of existence and non-existence are established side by side and spoken of as the emptiness of emptiness; rather, relinquishing both signs of existence and non-existence is named the emptiness of emptiness. Such is the import. Saying "this is 'this'" repeats the two kinds of "this is" in the preceding sūtra: "this is existent" and "this is non-existent". Saying "this is 'not this'" dispels the preceding "this is" of "this is existent" and "this is non-existent". Because the principle is not existent, "this is existent" is not this. Because the principle is not non-existent, "this is non-existent" is not this. Both "this is" are negated, hence it is termed the emptiness of emptiness. What are its characteristics? Conditioned dharmas share the same substance in existence and non-existence; because they share the same substance, non-existent dharmas are existent, and existent dharmas are non-existent. Because non-existence is existence, existence is non-existence; because existence is non-existence, non-existence is non-non-existence. Therefore neither existence nor non-existence has self-nature; lacking self-nature, it is spoken of as the emptiness of emptiness. These previous ten gates are the emptiness of characteristics, refuting emotional signs to clarify the principle of emptiness. The eleventh emptiness discerns emptiness with reference to reality, speaking of emptiness with reference to the causal virtues arising from that true nature. Therefore the sūtra states: "Prajñāpāramitā is named great emptiness." The substance of prajñā is the real tathāgatagarbha consciousness. The tathāgatagarbha comprehensively contains the Buddha-dharmas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in the dharmadhātu; the Buddha-dharmas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges share the same single substance and nature, mutually conditioning and gathering, with no single dharma separately maintaining its own nature; therefore it is spoken of as empty. The dharmadhātu is entirely empty—how could this emptiness not be great? Therefore, with reference to reality, it is spoken of as great emptiness. In the Daśabhūmika Sūtra it is also spoken of like this. Hence in that text, the ālayavijñāna is named great emptiness. The previous ten emptinesses of characteristics are the ten equalities of dharmas in the sixth ground of the Daśabhūmika Sūtra; although they do not correspond one-to-one in name and number, their meaning is broadly identical. The latter true emptiness is the substance of unarisen dharmas revealed therein. Furthermore, among the ten emptiness samādhis attained in that sixth ground, the emptiness of sentient beings, the emptiness of dharmas, and ultimate emptiness are the previous ten emptinesses of characteristics here; the remaining seven emptinesses after great emptiness are not subsumed under the great emptiness here. The meaning of the eleven emptinesses is briefly distinguished in this way.