大乘義章 4.49

4.49

第一辨相。十八空義，出《大品經》。法性虛寂，故名為空。此空乃是法界門中一門之義。門別雖異，妙旨虛融，義無不在。無不在故，無法非空。是以經中或說色空，乃至宣說一切法空。良以諸法無不空故，隨詮辨異，廣略難定。是以經中或說一二乃至眾多。所言一者，癈詮論空。空如一味，一味之空妙絕眾相，故名為一。故《大品》中說為獨空，獨者猶是不二之謂。經中或復說空為二，所謂生空及與法空。或說為三，謂空、無相及與無作。問曰：空門可名為空，無相無作云何名空？龍樹釋言「此三種體一，隨行分異。行者觀空無相可取，是時空門轉名無相。觀無相中作起叵得，是時無相轉名無作。名雖變改，其體不殊，是故此三俱皆是空。如一智慧，或名念處、或名正道、或名覺支、或名為力、或名無畏、或名無礙，此亦如是。」經中或復說空為四，如《大品》說，一法相空、二無法空、三自法空、四他法空。此義如前四空章中具廣分別。或說為五，謂五陰空。或分為六，所謂五陰及眾生空。又如《大品．習應品》中說空為七，所謂性空、相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空。此七猶是十八空中後之七也。以何義故偏說此七？論自釋言「廣有十八，略為七空。其猶道品，廣則具有三十七品，略唯七覺。此亦如是，以此七種多利眾生，故偏說之。」論其體相，與十八中後七相似。又如《地經》說空為十，所謂信空、性空、第一義空、第一空、大空、合空、起空、如實不分別空、不捨空、得離不離空。此如《地論》具廣分別。又六地說十平等，亦是十空。如《涅槃》中說十一空。此之十一，如前章中具廣解釋。又如《大品．嘆淨品》中說十三空，所謂內空、外空、內外空、空空、大空、第一義空、有為空、無為空、畢竟空、無始空、散空、性空、相空。然猶是十八空中初十三空，若更解釋，不異於彼。問曰：何故十八空中偏說此等，不論餘五？論自釋言「此十三空，破法周盡，故偏說之。餘有五空，總相說空，更無別法，是故不論。」又如《大品．六度相攝品》中說十四空，前十三空上，更加一種一切法空，即是十四。此一切空，攝十八中後之五空，通名一切。問曰：何故說此十四，不說十八？論自釋言「十四空中一切法空，攝法周盡。設有餘空，皆入其中，是故但說此之十四。」經中或復但說十八，所謂內空、外空、內外空、空空、大空、第一義空、有為空、無為空、畢竟空、無始空、散空、性空、自相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空。名字如是。然此十八，隨詮差別，非是觀入淺深次第。言內空者，如論釋言「眼等六入，名之為內。是內法中，無我我所及無眼等，故名為空。」言外空者，如論釋言「色等六入，名之為外。是外法中，無我我所及無色等，故名為空。」內外空者，總觀向前十二入法，無我我所及無彼法，名內外空。又內外等，如念處說。何故？前別而後總矣。此義如前十一空具廣分別。言空空者，如論釋言「以空破空，故言空空。」破何等空？依如論辨，破前三空，故說空空。不如《涅槃》，有無雙遣為空空也。又釋：破餘十七空，故名為空空。有相之法可須空破，空是理法，何須破乎？論自釋言「如人服藥為破諸病，是病破已藥亦應出。若藥不去，藥復是患。行者如是，先以空義對治煩惱。若復著空，空復是患，故須破之。」言大空者，如論釋言「聲聞法中，宣說法空以為大空。摩訶衍中，說十方空以為大空。破十方界，廣多無邊，名之為大。破彼大方，故名大空。」問曰：外道宣說有方，佛法不爾。今此云何說有十方，破以為空？龍樹釋言「聲聞法中，雖不宣說三千界外，更有十方無邊世界。大乘法中，隨順世諦，三千界外更有十方無邊世界，就真諦。破以為空。何者是乎？謂因四大和合之中分別彼此，故說有方；第一義中四大本無，依何說方？是故名空。」問曰：若使第一義中無彼方故名大空者，第一義空應名大空。論自釋言「第一義諦，理實是大。初得名故，餘不名大。」問曰：何故宣說大空破於諸方？論言「為破大邪見故。如諸外道計有定方，實而不空，故須說空破彼定見。又為除彼有無邊見，故說方空。如修慈者，緣十方界而修慈心。彼於十方，若謂有盡，墮有邊見；若謂無盡，墮無邊見。以是二見，即失慈心。故說方空，除彼二見，令慈不壞。」問曰：何故《涅槃經》中說波若空以為大空，《十地經》中說真識空以為大空，彼《大品》中說十方空以為大空？釋言：《涅槃》十一空中，相實俱論。彼前十空，是其相空；後一大空，是其真空。真智體中備含法界，法界皆如，故名大空。《地經》亦爾，初說生空、法空、第一義空，是其相空；梨耶識空，是其真空。梨耶識中統含法界，法界皆如，故名為大。彼《大品》中十八空者，並是相空，非是真空。以非真故，不得就實說為大空，但破大方名為大空。良以十八非真空故，龍樹說為小智慧門；波若體寂是真空故，龍樹說為大智慧門。大智門者，即是《涅槃》所說大空。以十八空破相之理，故名為小；真照波若契實離相，故名大矣。云何名為第一義空？如論釋言「諸法實相，是第一義。實相亦空，名第一義空。」何者實相？諸法之實，所謂空理。空是一切諸法之實，實之體狀故名實相。實相既是諸法之實，云何可空？論自釋言「實不可著，故說為空。以說諸法為實相故，諸法之外無別實相自性可得，故曰空耳。」又說涅槃為第一義，是涅槃空名第一義空。有為空者，陰界諸入十二緣等，因緣集起，故曰有為。所言空者，論釋有二：一有為中無我我所，及離常相，故名為空。二者有為因緣法相，不可得故，名之為空。就初門中離我我所，生空所攝。離常相者，亦是生空亦是法空。故論釋言「若說我常，是常空者，則入生空。若說陰常，是常空者，則入法空。」第二門中無因緣相，一向是其法空所收，不同《涅槃》就彼有為唯明生空。無為空者，得法實相，離生住滅，契證涅槃，名無為法。實相法中亦無無為自相可得，名無為空。問曰：若說無為空者，與邪見人謗無涅槃有何差別？論自釋言「彼邪見人，不信涅槃，然後生心謗無涅槃。無為空者，但破定取涅槃之相，故名為空，不同邪見。」然此空者破法體相，不同《涅槃》十一空中就無為法明無我人說為空也。畢竟空者，如論釋言「以有為空及無為空，破畢竟無有遺餘，名畢竟空。譬如羅漢永盡諸漏，名畢竟淨，此空亦爾。」無始空者，法起非今，名為無始。無始法空，名無始空。何故不說有始空乎？論自釋言「有始大惑。說有始故，最初之身則無因緣。是故菩薩先捨是過，觀法無始。觀無始時，有始已捨，是故不須說有始空。但於所觀無始法中，取相未捨，故今宣說無始法空。」言散空者，如論釋言「散名別離。如似五陰和合為人，若分五陰離張破散，人不可得，故名為空。」如是一切。言性空者，如論釋言「一切諸法，性自空故，名為性空。如世間水，體無熱性，雖假大熱暫時為熱，者停還冷。諸法必是，雖假眾緣和合似有，若離眾緣性不可得，故知諸法體性是空。」問曰：前說畢竟空者即是性空，今此何故重說性空？論自釋言「今性空者，破諸法性。如彼水中無其熱性，不無水相。畢竟空者，破諸法相，乃至因緣法相亦無。又性空者，菩薩所行。畢竟空者，是佛所行。」自相空者，諸相有二：一者同相，亦名總相；二者別相，亦名異相。苦無常等，是其同相；色香味等，是其別相。此二皆空，名自相空。性相何別而分二空？論言無別，但名異耳。又性據體，相是外狀。如似比丘受持禁戒是比丘性，剃髮染衣是比丘相。又如梵志自受己法，以之為性；頂有周羅，執三岐杖以之為相。亦如火大，熱以為性，赤色為相。如是一切性相別故，分為二空。問曰：直說相空便足，何須宣說自相空乎？為明諸法自體相空，故說自耳。諸法空者，陰界入等名為諸法，是諸法中相別種種，一切皆空，名諸法空。問曰：若說諸法空者，是義不然。一切諸法各有自相，云何言空？答曰：諸法自相不定，故說為空。不可得空者，生死涅槃一切諸法，性相寂滅，求不可得，故名為空。於中有三：一者於彼陰界入中，求我叵得，名之為空。二者於彼諸因緣中，求法自性不可得故，名之為空，如五指中求拳叵得。三求法因緣亦不可得，名之為空。問曰：為小智故求法不得？為實無故求法不得？論自釋言「法實無故，求不可得。」然此空者，與畢竟空及自相空有何差別，而復說之？論言「有人聞說上空，心生怖畏。是故今說，因緣之中求不可得，故說為空。」無法空者，如論釋言「諸法滅已，名為無法。是無自性，亦不可得，故名為空。」有法空者，諸法但從因緣而有，有即非有，故名為空。無法有法空者，有人執取有無二法，求不可得，故說無法有法空也。此前二空別破有無，今此總破。又前二空破所取法，今此破於能取之情。又如論釋「有法空者，破法生住。無法空者，破法滅時。今此無法有法空者，前後通破。」又如論釋「觀現在法及無為法，一切皆空，名有法空。觀於過去未來法空，名無法空，以現無故。觀三世法及無為法一切皆空，名為無法有法空也。」若廣分別，數別無量。

First, distinguishing the characteristics. The doctrine of the eighteen kinds of emptiness originates from the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Because dharmatā is open and quiescent, it is termed "emptiness." This emptiness is precisely the meaning of one portal among the portals of the dharmadhātu. Although the portals differ, their subtle principle is open and interfused, and its meaning is nowhere absent. Because it is nowhere absent, no dharma is non-empty. For this reason, the scriptures sometimes speak of the emptiness of form, up to expounding the emptiness of all dharmas. Truly, because all dharmas are without exception empty, when differentiating their characteristics according to verbal expression, an extensive or concise [enumeration] is difficult to fix. For this reason, the scriptures sometimes speak of one or two, up to many [kinds of emptiness]. As for speaking of one: this discusses emptiness setting aside verbal designations. Emptiness is like a single taste; the emptiness of a single taste subtly transcends all characteristics, and therefore it is called "one." Hence in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā it is spoken of as "solitary emptiness" (kevala-śūnyatā); "solitary" still means "non-dual." In the scriptures, emptiness is also spoken of as two, namely the emptiness of sentient beings and the emptiness of dharmas. Or it is spoken of as three, namely emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness. Question: The portal of emptiness may properly be called "empty"; how can signlessness and wishlessness be called "empty"? Nāgārjuna explains: "These three kinds are one in substance, differing only according to the practitioner's practice. When the practitioner contemplates emptiness and finds no characteristics that can be grasped, at that time the portal of emptiness shifts to being called 'signlessness.' When contemplating that within signlessness no arising of action can be apprehended, at that time signlessness shifts to being called 'wishlessness.' Although the names change, their substance is not different; therefore, all three are equally emptiness. Just as a single wisdom may be called an application of mindfulness, or a correct path, or a factor of awakening, or a power, or a fearlessness, or an unhindered knowledge—this is likewise so." In the scriptures, emptiness is also spoken of as four, as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states: first, the emptiness of dharma-characteristics; second, the emptiness of non-existent dharmas; third, the emptiness of self-dharmas; fourth, the emptiness of other-dharmas. This meaning has already been extensively differentiated in the preceding chapter on the four kinds of emptiness. Or it is spoken of as five, meaning the emptiness of the five aggregates. Or it is divided into six, namely the emptiness of the five aggregates and of sentient beings. Again, as in the "Practicing in Accordance" chapter of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, emptiness is spoken of as seven, namely nature-emptiness, characteristic-emptiness, emptiness of all dharmas, unapprehendable emptiness, non-existent-dharma emptiness, existent-dharma emptiness, and non-existent-and-existent-dharma emptiness. These seven are simply the final seven among the eighteen kinds of emptiness. For what reason are these seven alone spoken of? The treatise itself explains: "Extensively there are eighteen; concisely they make seven kinds of emptiness. It is like the factors of the path: extensively there are thirty-seven factors, while concisely there are only the seven factors of awakening. This is likewise so: because these seven kinds greatly benefit sentient beings, they are specifically expounded." Considering their essential characteristics, they are similar to the final seven of the eighteen. Again, as the Daśabhūmika Sūtra speaks of emptiness as ten, namely faith emptiness, nature emptiness, ultimate emptiness, primary emptiness, great emptiness, conjunction emptiness, arising emptiness, emptiness of non-discrimination according with reality, non-abandonment emptiness, and emptiness of attaining detachment and non-detachment. This is extensively differentiated in the Daśabhūmikā-śāstra. Furthermore, the ten equalities spoken of on the sixth ground are also ten kinds of emptiness. As in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, eleven kinds of emptiness are expounded. These eleven have already been extensively explained in the preceding chapter. Again, as in the "Praising Purity" chapter of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, thirteen kinds of emptiness are expounded, namely internal emptiness, external emptiness, internal-and-external emptiness, emptiness of emptiness, great emptiness, ultimate emptiness, conditioned emptiness, unconditioned emptiness, ultimate emptiness (atyanta-śūnyatā), beginningless emptiness, dispersal emptiness, nature-emptiness, and characteristic-emptiness. These, however, are still the first thirteen of the eighteen kinds of emptiness; if one were to explain them further, they would not differ from those. Question: For what reason, among the eighteen kinds of emptiness, are only these expounded while the remaining five are not discussed? The treatise itself explains: "Because these thirteen kinds of emptiness exhaustively refute dharmas, they are specifically expounded. The remaining five kinds of emptiness speak of emptiness in terms of general characteristics and have no further distinct dharmas; therefore they are not discussed." Again, as in the "Mutual Inclusion of the Six Pāramitās" chapter of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, fourteen kinds of emptiness are expounded: upon the preceding thirteen kinds of emptiness, one more is added, namely the emptiness of all dharmas, making fourteen. This emptiness of all dharmas subsumes the final five kinds of emptiness among the eighteen, being generally designated "all." Question: For what reason are these fourteen expounded, and not the eighteen? The treatise itself explains: "In the fourteen kinds of emptiness, the emptiness of all dharmas subsumes dharmas exhaustively. Even if there were other kinds of emptiness, they would all enter into it; therefore only these fourteen are expounded." In the scriptures, sometimes only eighteen are expounded, namely internal emptiness, external emptiness, internal-and-external emptiness, emptiness of emptiness, great emptiness, ultimate emptiness, conditioned emptiness, unconditioned emptiness, ultimate emptiness (atyanta-śūnyatā), beginningless emptiness, dispersal emptiness, nature-emptiness, self-characteristic emptiness, emptiness of all dharmas, unapprehendable emptiness, non-existent-dharma emptiness, existent-dharma emptiness, and non-existent-and-existent-dharma emptiness. The names are as such. However, these eighteen are distinctions made in accordance with verbal expression; they do not represent an order of shallow to deep in contemplative entry. As for "internal emptiness," as the treatise explains: "The six internal sense-bases, such as the eye, are called internal. Within these internal dharmas, there is no self or belonging to a self, nor are there eye [bases] and so forth; therefore it is called empty." As for "external emptiness," as the treatise explains: "The six external sense-bases, such as visible forms, are called external. Within these external dharmas, there is no self or belonging to a self, nor are there forms and so forth; therefore it is called empty." As for "internal-and-external emptiness," it refers to contemplating generally the previously mentioned twelve sense-bases as having no self or belonging to a self, nor those dharmas themselves; hence it is called internal-and-external emptiness. Furthermore, internal, external, and so forth are as expounded in the applications of mindfulness. Why? The specific comes first and the general follows. This meaning has already been extensively differentiated in the preceding [section on] the eleven kinds of emptiness. As for "emptiness of emptiness," as the treatise explains: "Refuting emptiness by means of emptiness, it is therefore called emptiness of emptiness." What kind of emptiness is refuted? According to the explanation of the treatise, it refutes the preceding three kinds of emptiness, and is therefore called emptiness of emptiness. It is not like the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which takes the dual dismissal of existence and non-existence as the emptiness of emptiness. Another explanation states: it refutes the remaining seventeen kinds of emptiness, and is therefore called emptiness of emptiness. Dharmas possessing characteristics may indeed require refutation by emptiness; but emptiness is the dharma of principle—why must it be refuted? The treatise itself explains: "Just as a person takes medicine to eliminate diseases, once the diseases are eliminated, the medicine should also be expelled. If the medicine does not leave, the medicine itself becomes an ailment. The practitioner is likewise: one first uses the meaning of emptiness to remedy defilements. If one again clings to emptiness, emptiness itself becomes an ailment; therefore it must be refuted." As for "great emptiness," as the treatise explains: "In the Hīnayāna Dharma, expounding the emptiness of dharmas is considered great emptiness. In the Mahāyāna, expounding the emptiness of the ten directions is considered great emptiness. Refuting the realms of the ten directions, which are vast and boundless, is termed 'great.' Because it refutes those great directions, it is called great emptiness." Question: Non-Buddhist traditions expound that directions exist, but the Buddha-Dharma does not. Now how can it be said here that the ten directions exist and are refuted as empty? Nāgārjuna explains: "In the Hīnayāna Dharma, although it is not expounded that outside the trichiliocosm there are further boundless worlds of the ten directions, in the Mahāyāna Dharma, in conformity with worldly truth, outside the trichiliocosm there are further boundless worlds of the ten directions; and with respect to ultimate truth, they are refuted as empty. What are they? That is, because one distinguishes between 'this' and 'that' within the combination of the four great elements, directions are said to exist; but in ultimate truth, the four great elements are fundamentally non-existent—based on what could directions be asserted? Therefore it is called empty." Question: If the absence of those directions in the ultimate truth is why it is called great emptiness, then ultimate emptiness ought to be called great emptiness. The treatise itself explains: "The ultimate truth in its principle is truly great. But because [ultimate emptiness] receives its name first, the rest are not called great." Question: For what reason is great emptiness expounded to refute the directions? The treatise states: "In order to refute great wrong views. Just as various non-Buddhists postulate fixed directions that are real and not empty, it is necessary to expound emptiness to refute those fixed views. Furthermore, in order to eliminate their views of finiteness and infiniteness, the emptiness of directions is expounded. For instance, when one cultivates loving-kindness, one takes the realms of the ten directions as cognitive object to cultivate the mind of loving-kindness. If regarding the ten directions one thinks they have an end, one falls into the view of finiteness; if one thinks they have no end, one falls into the view of infiniteness. Because of these two views, one immediately loses the mind of loving-kindness. Therefore the emptiness of directions is expounded to eliminate these two views and keep loving-kindness from being destroyed." Question: For what reason does the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra expound the emptiness of prajñā as great emptiness, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra expound the emptiness of true consciousness as great emptiness, while the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā expounds the emptiness of the ten directions as great emptiness? Explanation: In the eleven kinds of emptiness of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, both phenomenal characteristics and reality are discussed together. Its preceding ten kinds of emptiness are characteristic-emptiness; its final one, great emptiness, is true emptiness. The substance of true wisdom fully contains the dharmadhātu, and the dharmadhātu is entirely suchness; therefore it is called great emptiness. The Daśabhūmika Sūtra is also like this: initially it expounds the emptiness of sentient beings, the emptiness of dharmas, and ultimate emptiness, which are characteristic-emptiness; the emptiness of the ālayavijñāna is true emptiness. The ālayavijñāna comprehensively contains the dharmadhātu, and the dharmadhātu is entirely suchness; therefore it is called great. The eighteen kinds of emptiness in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā are all characteristic-emptiness, not true emptiness. Because they are not the true, they cannot be spoken of as great emptiness with reference to reality; it is merely that refuting the great directions is called great emptiness. Truly because the eighteen are not true emptiness, Nāgārjuna explains them as the gate of lesser wisdom; because the essence of prajñā is quiescent and is true emptiness, Nāgārjuna explains it as the gate of great wisdom. The gate of great wisdom is precisely the great emptiness expounded in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. Because the eighteen kinds of emptiness are the principle of refuting characteristics, they are called lesser; because the true illumination of prajñā accords with reality and transcends characteristics, it is called great. What is meant by "ultimate emptiness"? As the treatise explains: "The true characteristic of all dharmas is the ultimate. The true characteristic is also empty, which is called ultimate emptiness." What is the true characteristic? The reality of all dharmas is namely the principle of emptiness. Emptiness is the reality of all dharmas, and the form of this reality is therefore called the true characteristic. Since the true characteristic is the reality of all dharmas, how can it be empty? The treatise itself explains: "Because reality must not be attached to, it is spoken of as empty. Because all dharmas are spoken of as the true characteristic, outside of all dharmas no separate self-nature of the true characteristic can be apprehended; therefore it is called empty." Furthermore, nirvāṇa is spoken of as the ultimate; the emptiness of this nirvāṇa is called ultimate emptiness. As for "conditioned emptiness": the aggregates, realms, sense-bases, twelve links of dependent origination, and so forth, because they assemble and arise through causes and conditions, are called conditioned. As for what is called empty, the treatise's explanation has two points: First, within the conditioned there is no self or belonging to a self, and it is free from the characteristic of permanence; therefore it is called empty. Second, the characteristics of conditioned dharmas of causes and conditions cannot be apprehended; therefore they are called empty. In the first approach, being free from self and belonging to a self is subsumed under the emptiness of sentient beings. Being free from the characteristic of permanence is both the emptiness of sentient beings and the emptiness of dharmas. Hence the treatise explains: "If one says the self is permanent, this permanence-emptiness enters the emptiness of sentient beings. If one says the aggregates are permanent, this permanence-emptiness enters the emptiness of dharmas." In the second approach, the absence of characteristics of causes and conditions is exclusively subsumed under the emptiness of dharmas, unlike the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which with regard to the conditioned clarifies only the emptiness of sentient beings. As for "unconditioned emptiness": attaining the true characteristic of dharmas, being free from arising, abiding, and ceasing, and realizing nirvāṇa is called unconditioned dharmas. Within the dharma of the true characteristic, no self-characteristic of the unconditioned can be apprehended either; this is called unconditioned emptiness. Question: If one speaks of unconditioned emptiness, what difference is there between this and a person with wrong views slandering [the truth by saying] that nirvāṇa does not exist? The treatise itself explains: "That person with wrong views does not believe in nirvāṇa, and subsequently gives rise to a mind that slanders [the truth by saying] that nirvāṇa does not exist. Unconditioned emptiness merely refutes the characteristic of definitively grasping nirvāṇa, and is therefore called empty; it is not the same as wrong views." However, this emptiness refutes the substance and characteristics of dharmas, unlike the eleven kinds of emptiness in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra which, with regard to unconditioned dharmas, clarify the absence of a self and a person and declare them empty. As for "ultimate emptiness" (atyanta-śūnyatā), as the treatise explains: "Using conditioned emptiness and unconditioned emptiness to refute [dharmas] until ultimately nothing remains is called ultimate emptiness. Just as an arhat forever exhausts all taints, which is called ultimate purity, this emptiness is likewise." As for "beginningless emptiness": that the arising of dharmas is not from the present is called beginningless. The emptiness of beginningless dharmas is called beginningless emptiness. Why is the emptiness of having a beginning not expounded? The treatise itself explains: "Having a beginning is a great delusion. Because one speaks of having a beginning, the very first body would be without causes and conditions. Therefore the bodhisattva first abandons this fault and contemplates dharmas as beginningless. When contemplating beginninglessness, having a beginning has already been abandoned; therefore there is no need to expound the emptiness of having a beginning. It is only that within the contemplated beginningless dharmas, the grasping of characteristics has not yet been abandoned; hence the emptiness of beginningless dharmas is expounded now." As for "dispersal emptiness," as the treatise explains: "Dispersal means separation. Just as when the five aggregates combine they make a person, if the five aggregates are divided, separated, broken, and dispersed, a person cannot be apprehended; therefore it is called empty." Everything is like this. As for "nature-emptiness," as the treatise explains: "Because all dharmas are by nature empty of themselves, it is called nature-emptiness. Just as water in the world has in its substance no heat-nature, though it temporarily becomes hot dependent upon intense heat, once that stops it returns to being cold. All dharmas are necessarily like this: although depending on numerous conditions they combine and seem to exist, if separated from the numerous conditions their nature cannot be apprehended; hence one knows that the substance and nature of all dharmas are empty." Question: Earlier it was said that ultimate emptiness is precisely nature-emptiness; why is nature-emptiness reiterated here? The treatise itself explains: "Nature-emptiness now refutes the nature of dharmas. Just as within that water there is no heat-nature, yet it is not without the characteristic of water. Ultimate emptiness refutes the characteristics of dharmas, up to the non-existence even of the characteristics of dharmas of causes and conditions. Furthermore, nature-emptiness is practiced by bodhisattvas; ultimate emptiness is practiced by Buddhas." As for "self-characteristic emptiness," characteristics are of two kinds: first, shared characteristics, also called general characteristics; second, specific characteristics, also called distinct characteristics. Suffering, impermanence, and so forth are shared characteristics; form, odor, taste, and so forth are specific characteristics. Both of these are empty, which is called self-characteristic emptiness. What difference is there between nature and characteristic that they are divided into two kinds of emptiness? The treatise states that there is no difference, only different names. Furthermore, nature pertains to the substance, while characteristic is the external form. Just as a monk's upholding the prohibitive precepts is the nature of a monk, while shaving the head and wearing dyed robes is the characteristic of a monk. Or again, as a brāhmaṇa receiving his own dharma takes that as his nature, while having a topknot (cūḍā) on the crown of his head and holding a three-pronged staff is taken as his characteristic. It is also like the fire element: taking heat as its nature, and red color as its characteristic. Everything being like this, because nature and characteristic differ, they are divided into two kinds of emptiness. Question: Simply speaking of characteristic-emptiness would suffice; why must one expound self-characteristic emptiness? In order to clarify that the self-substance and characteristics of all dharmas are empty, 'self' is therefore spoken of. As for "emptiness of all dharmas": the aggregates, realms, sense-bases, and so forth are called all dharmas; within these dharmas their various characteristic distinctions are all empty, which is called the emptiness of all dharmas. Question: If one speaks of the emptiness of all dharmas, this meaning is incorrect. Since all dharmas each have their own self-characteristics, how can they be said to be empty? Answer: The self-characteristics of all dharmas are indeterminate; therefore they are spoken of as empty. As for "unapprehendable emptiness": in all dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, nature and characteristics are quiescent, and when sought they cannot be apprehended; therefore they are called empty. Herein there are three aspects: First, within those aggregates, realms, and sense-bases, when seeking a self it cannot be apprehended, which is called empty. Second, within those causes and conditions, because the self-nature of dharmas cannot be apprehended when sought, it is called empty, just as among five fingers a fist cannot be apprehended when sought. Third, the causes and conditions of dharmas cannot be apprehended when sought either, which is called empty. Question: Is it because of lesser wisdom that dharmas cannot be apprehended when sought, or is it because they are truly non-existent that they cannot be apprehended when sought? The treatise itself explains: "Because dharmas are truly non-existent, they cannot be apprehended when sought." However, what difference does this emptiness have from ultimate emptiness and self-characteristic emptiness that it is expounded again? The treatise states: "Some people, hearing the above kinds of emptiness expounded, give rise to fear in their minds. Therefore it is now expounded that when sought within causes and conditions they cannot be apprehended, and therefore it is called empty." As for "non-existent-dharma emptiness," as the treatise explains: "When dharmas have ceased, they are called non-existent dharmas. The self-nature of this non-existence also cannot be apprehended; therefore it is called empty." As for "existent-dharma emptiness": dharmas exist only from causes and conditions; existence is immediately non-existence, and therefore it is called empty. As for "non-existent-and-existent-dharma emptiness": some people grasp at the two dharmas of non-existence and existence, but when sought they cannot be apprehended; therefore non-existent-and-existent-dharma emptiness is expounded. The preceding two kinds of emptiness individually refute existence and non-existence; this one refutes them together. Furthermore, the preceding two kinds of emptiness refute grasped dharmas, while this one refutes the grasping sentiment. Again, as the treatise explains: "Existent-dharma emptiness refutes the arising and abiding of dharmas. Non-existent-dharma emptiness refutes the time of dharmas' cessation. Now this non-existent-and-existent-dharma emptiness refutes both the before and the after comprehensively." Again, as the treatise explains: "Contemplating present dharmas and unconditioned dharmas as all empty is called existent-dharma emptiness. Contemplating past and future dharmas as empty is called non-existent-dharma emptiness, because they do not exist at present. Contemplating dharmas of the three times and unconditioned dharmas as all empty is called non-existent-and-existent-dharma emptiness." If one were to differentiate them extensively, the numerical distinctions would be limitless.