華嚴經明法品內立三寶章 2.42

2.42

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.