華嚴法界玄鏡 1.27

1.27

釋曰：此中文二：先釋當句、後結前三。前中亦三：初標、次釋。釋中先雙揀即離，以空中無色故色不即空，以離色無禮故空不離色。不即不離方為真空。二、揀亂意異色明空，彼執色外有空，與色為異。如前對色明空，今明空中尚無有色，何得有空與色相對？又會色無體，故說即空，豈於色外有空對色？古人云：「色去不留空，空非有邊住」也。三、良由下，結成上義。以下即空，結上不即空也。特由會色為空，安得空中有色？二上三下總結三門。

The Commentary states: Within this text there are two [parts]: first, it explains the line itself; afterwards, it concludes the preceding three. The former also has three [parts]: first, the statement; next, the explanation. Within the explanation, it first dually eliminates identity and detachment: because within emptiness there is no form, form is not identical to emptiness; because detached from form there is no principle, emptiness is not detached from form. Neither identical nor detached is precisely true emptiness. Second, it eliminates the confused thought of clarifying emptiness as different from form. They grasp that outside of form there is emptiness, which is different from form. Like the aforementioned clarifying of emptiness in opposition to form, it now clarifies that within emptiness there is not even form; how could there be an emptiness standing in opposition to form? Furthermore, reducing form to having no essence, it is therefore said to be identical to emptiness; how could there be an emptiness outside of form opposed to form? An ancient said: "When form is gone, it leaves behind no emptiness; emptiness does not dwell on the side of existence." Third, from "Truly because…" downward concludes and confirms the above meaning. By means of the lower "identical to emptiness," it concludes the upper "not identical to emptiness." Precisely because reducing form makes it emptiness, how could there be form within emptiness? The second part, from "The above three…" downward, generally concludes the three gates.