二諦義 3.11

3.11

問：經中何意多前明色即空、後明空即色耶？解云：如向聖人了色即空，但於凡空即色耳。何以知然？如《中論》「一切法性空，世間顛倒謂有」，此即於凡空即色也。次舉譬顯之。如空華，為眼病故見空華、說華空，無華可即空，但眼病故空，空即華。空即華，華不動空；差故華即空，空不動華。色空亦爾，悟故色即空、迷故空即色。悟故如是有無所有，迷故無所有如是有。迷故如是有，不動無所有；悟故無所有，不動如是有。迷故空即色，色不動空；悟故色即空，空不動色。迷故謂空為色，何曾有色可動空？悟故色即空，何曾有色可異空？色空既如此，論何物即與不即？四句皆淨也。如此排前難逈去，難不能著。他所以著難者，彼有色有空，以色即空故著前難。今明色畢竟空，將何物即空耶？為眾生見色故，言色即空也。

Question: Why is it that in the sūtras it is mostly first clarified that form is itself empty, and only afterward that emptiness is itself form? The explanation states: Just as above, the sage realizes that form is itself empty, while merely from the perspective of the ordinary person is emptiness itself form. How do we know this is so? As in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: "All phenomena are empty of nature; the world in its inversion deems them to exist"—this is precisely that from the perspective of the ordinary person emptiness is itself form. Next, an analogy is raised to make it clear. Like flowers in the sky: because of an eye disease, one sees flowers in the sky and speaks of the flowers being empty; there are no flowers that could be identified with emptiness, but solely because of the eye disease they are empty, and emptiness is itself the flowers. When emptiness is itself the flowers, the flowers do not perturb emptiness; when [the disease] is cured, the flowers are themselves empty, and emptiness does not perturb the flowers. Form and emptiness are also like this: because of awakening, form is itself empty; because of delusion, emptiness is itself form. Because of awakening, that which exists thus has nothing that exists; because of delusion, that which has nothing exists thus. When because of delusion it exists thus, it does not perturb having nothing; when because of awakening it has nothing, it does not perturb existing thus. Because of delusion, emptiness is itself form, and form does not perturb emptiness; because of awakening, form is itself empty, and emptiness does not perturb form. Because of delusion, one takes emptiness to be form—how was there ever any form that could perturb emptiness? Because of awakening, form is itself empty—how was there ever any form that could be different from emptiness? Since form and emptiness are like this, what identity or non-identity could be discussed? The four propositions are all purified. Pushing away the previous objections far off in this way, the objections cannot stick. The reason others were subject to objections was that they posited existence and emptiness, and by identifying form with emptiness they fell into the previous objections. We now clarify that form is ultimately empty; with what could it be identified with emptiness? Because sentient beings perceive form, it is said that form is itself empty.