華嚴經明法品內立三寶章 2.42

2.42

問：真空與斷空何別？答：略有四別：一、約境，謂真空不異色等，名法理空也；斷空在色等外，及滅色方為空，名為斷滅空也。二、約心，謂真空聖智所得，比證等不同也；斷空情謂所得，世人所知也。三、約德用，謂觀達真空，必伏滅煩惱，令成王行，入位得果；若緣念斷空，成斷滅見，增長邪趣，入外道位，顛墜惡趣。經云「寧起有見如須彌，不起空見如芥子。」論云「若復見於空，諸佛所不化」等。又真空即色故，不可斷空取，是故真空不思議也；斷空不爾，反上知之。四、約對辨異者，問：色等既即是真空，斷空何獨不真耶？答：若斷空亦即空，而實無差別，但為濫取空名，是故揀之耳。略作四句：一、色與斷空不相即，以俱是所執故，如見人畜等。二、斷空即空與色即空二空不別，以無二相故。三、色真空與斷空不相即，以情理異故。又斷空空與色不相即，亦情理別故。四、即空之色與即真之斷得相即，以從詮說理故、就法融通故。如此二門具斯四句，餘一切法相望皆亦如是，准思。故經云「諸法即貪」者，以即空之諸法，還即彼即空之貪耳。問：如貪法既即空，瞋等亦即空，未知瞋等空為即是貪空、為猶在貪外？答：全是內而外宛然，全是外而內亦爾，以圓融故、無限分故、無障礙故。問：為如堂內空與房內空，此二空無分限故、一味同故，云堂空即房空，而實堂內空不是房中攝，為如此不？答：不也。此是世法，非可同彼。若如彼言，房空不移而全在堂內，堂中亦爾，非是彼此相通，故說無二。但以彼空元來是此空，故名無二也，既非世法難申說也。會意思之，或客可見耳。

Question: What is the difference between true emptiness and nihilistic emptiness? Answer: Briefly, there are four distinctions: 1. In terms of the objective realm: true emptiness is not different from form and so forth, and is called the emptiness of the principle of phenomena; nihilistic emptiness lies outside form and so forth, or is an emptiness only upon the annihilation of form, and is called annihilatory emptiness. 2. In terms of the mind: true emptiness is attained by noble wisdom, differing in inference and realization; nihilistic emptiness is attained by deluded sentiment, known by worldly people. 3. In terms of virtue and function: contemplating and penetrating true emptiness inevitably subdues and eradicates afflictions, brings about supreme practice, and allows entry into spiritual stages and attainment of the fruit; if one conditions one's thought on nihilistic emptiness, it becomes the view of annihilation, augments evil destinies, causes entry into the stages of tīrthikas, and brings downfall into bad destinies. A sūtra says: 'Better to give rise to a view of existence as large as Mount Sumeru than to give rise to a view of emptiness as small as a mustard seed.' A treatise says: 'If one again perceives emptiness, the Buddhas cannot transform him,' and so forth. Moreover, because true emptiness is identical to form, it cannot be grasped through nihilistic emptiness; therefore, true emptiness is inconceivable. Nihilistic emptiness is not so, which should be understood by inverting the above. 4. In terms of distinguishing difference through pairing: Question: Since form and so forth are identical to true emptiness, why alone is nihilistic emptiness not true? Answer: If nihilistic emptiness were also identical to emptiness, there would actually be no difference; it is only because it arbitrarily borrows the name of emptiness that it is distinguished here. We briefly formulate four propositions: 1. Form and nihilistic emptiness are not mutually identical, because both are objects of attachment, like seeing humans, animals, and so forth. 2. The emptiness that is identical with nihilistic emptiness and the emptiness that is identical with form are not different, because they are devoid of dual characteristics. 3. The true emptiness of form and nihilistic emptiness are not mutually identical, because sentiment and principle are different. Furthermore, the emptiness of nihilistic emptiness and form are not mutually identical, also because sentiment and principle are distinct. 4. Form as identical to emptiness and annihilation as identical to truth can be mutually identical, because principle is explained in dependence on verbal designation, and because things are harmonized in terms of phenomena. Just as these two gates possess these four propositions, all other phenomena are likewise when viewed mutually, which should be understood accordingly. Therefore, when the sūtra states that 'all phenomena are identical to greed,' it is because all phenomena, being identical to emptiness, are also identical to that greed which is identical to emptiness. Question: Since the phenomenon of greed is identical to emptiness, and anger and the like are also identical to emptiness, is the emptiness of anger and the like identical to the emptiness of greed, or is it still outside greed? Answer: It is entirely internal while remaining distinctly external; it is entirely external while being likewise internal, because of perfect interpenetration, because of lack of limitation, and because of unobstructedness. Question: Is it like the space inside a hall and the space inside a room, where because these two spaces have no limits and share a single taste, one says that the hall's space is identical to the room's space, whereas in reality the space in the hall is not contained within the room—is it like this? Answer: No. That is a worldly phenomenon and cannot be equated with this. According to that analogy, the room's space, without moving, is entirely within the hall, and the hall's is likewise; it is not that each penetrates the other and is thus called non-dual. Rather, it is because that space was originally this space that it is called non-dual. Since it is not a worldly phenomenon, it is difficult to explain. Comprehend its meaning and reflect upon it, and perhaps it may be perceived.