肇論疏 1.77

1.77

第二、解釋二論之意也。豈謂滌除萬物杜塞視聽下，滌除是洗蕩也。《老子》云：滌除玄覽能無疵乎。今借此語用也。杜猶是塞也。寂寥者，《老子》云：寂兮寥兮，獨立而不改。釋者云：無聲曰寂，無色曰寥，此意言非謂斷空始為真諦也。誠以即物順通故物莫之逆者，誠，信也。即萬物之有為空，故云順通，順通故無阻逆也。即偽即真故性莫之易者，即俗諦之偽、真諦之真，非謂改變俗諦別明真諦也。性莫之易故雖無而有者，即有是空，雖空猶是有也。物莫之逆故雖有而無者，即萬物順通性空，當知雖有而是空也。雖有而無所謂非有下，雖有而是無，當知非定有。下句反此也。如此則非無物也物非真也者，非無物也，明非無也；物非真也，明非有也。亦可直云非是無物，但物非真有之物耳。物非真物於何而可物者，既云非真，何處有此物乎？

Second, explaining the intention of the two treatises. "Could it mean washing away the ten thousand things and blocking sight and hearing…" below: "washing away" (滌除) means scouring clean. Laozi says: "Can you wash and cleanse your profound contemplation so that it is free of blemishes?" Here this phrase is borrowed for use. "Shut" (杜) also means block. As for "solitary and vast" (寂寥), Laozi says: "Solitary and vast, standing alone without altering." Commentators say: "Soundless is called solitary (ji); colourless is called vast (liao)." The intention here is to say that it is not that nihilistic emptiness is taken to be the ultimate truth. "Truly, because by conforming to things one accords and penetrates, nothing opposes it": "truly" (誠) means certainly. Identifying the existence of the ten thousand things as empty, hence it says "accords and penetrates"; because it accords and penetrates, there is no obstruction or opposition. "Because provisional is identical to true, its nature cannot be altered": identifying the falsity of the conventional truth with the truth of the ultimate truth, it does not mean changing the conventional truth to separately illuminate the ultimate truth. "Because its nature cannot be altered, though non-existent it exists": identifying existence as emptiness, though empty it is still existent. "Because nothing opposes it, though existent it is non-existent": identifying the ten thousand things as according and penetrating the emptiness of nature, one should know that though existent, it is empty. "Though existent it is non-existent, this is what is called 'non-existence'" below: though existent it is non-existent, one should know it is not definitively existent. The next line is the converse of this. "In this way, it is not that there are no things; things are not real": "not that there are no things" clarifies non-non-existence; "things are not real" clarifies non-existence. One may also simply say: it is not that things do not exist, but merely that things are not really existent things. "If things are not real things, in what respect can they be treated as things?": since they are said to be not real, where could such things exist?