二諦義 3.12

3.12

Question: Earlier it was said: "Deluded, one sees that there is form; awakened, form is itself empty, just as with flowers in the sky, due to disease one sees flowers, and when cured the flowers are empty." This is merely the meaning of dream-like, insubstantial flowers in the sky; how can it be used? The explanation states: Because they hold to existence, existence is refuted by means of flowers in the sky; if there were no such existence, how could there still be emptiness? Hence the treatise says: "If there were no existence, how could there be non-existence?" Therefore, if there is no existence, there is no emptiness, and the five alternatives are all purified. Hence Master Shi (Kumārajīva) said: "The ten analogies are used to awaken to emptiness, and emptiness necessarily relies on these analogies. Words are borrowed to meet the meaning; when the meaning is exhausted, there is no place to be met. Having escaped the long snare, one abides here in non-abiding." Furthermore, there is existence from the perspective of the ordinary person and emptiness from the perspective of the sage; but non-existence is existence from the perspective of the ordinary person, so existence is the flower of existence; non-emptiness is emptiness from the perspective of the sage, so emptiness is the flower of emptiness. Existence being a flower, there is no existence that exists; emptiness being a flower, there is no emptiness that is empty. In this way, the two truths in their three stages are all flowers in the sky, all having nothing that exists. Next, we explain according to the sūtra. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states: "Form is itself empty; emptiness is not called form." Heretofore people have not understood these words. Now we clarify: this then strikes both views of oneness and difference at once. How so? "Form is itself empty" refutes the views of ordinary persons, the two vehicles, and the like. They consider form to be different from emptiness, and that only by breaking down form does one obtain emptiness; therefore, it refutes them by saying that form is itself empty. "Emptiness is not called form" refutes the view of identity. When it was explained just prior that form is itself empty, they immediately formed an understanding of identity; therefore, it refutes them by saying that emptiness is not called form. If there were form, one could say that form is itself empty; since there is no form, how could one say that form is itself empty? This is borrowing oneness to eliminate difference, and borrowing difference to eliminate oneness; borrowing existence to refute non-existence, and borrowing non-existence to refute existence. These statements of identity and non-identity are all for sentient beings, used as the remedial siddhānta among the four siddhāntas. Such intentions are all spoken in this way in accord with sentient beings. If it is prajñā, form is unobstructed: form is itself empty and emptiness is itself form; permanence is itself impermanence and impermanence is itself permanence; emptiness functions as existence, and existence functions as emptiness; permanence functions as impermanence, and impermanence functions as permanence; one thought-moment is immeasurable kalpas, and immeasurable kalpas are one thought-moment; the three times function as one time, and one time functions as the three times, and so forth. Without coming and without accumulation, yet manifesting the affairs of all kalpas—for this reason, form is itself empty and empty is itself form.