華嚴法界玄鏡 1.31

1.31

釋曰：此總標也。然此四門總相，但翻上四，亦前三句以法揀情，第四句正顯法理。就揀情中，翻前色空，義則大同，取文小異。亦標語則同，釋義有別。今先總揀，亦有三義：一揀即離、二揀亂意、三揀形顯。今初、第一句明真空不離前色，第二句明真空非即色相，第三句明真空雙非即色離色。第二、揀三亂意者，第一句明斷空非是實色；第二句明相有非真空，即揀相有；第三句明所依非能依，即揀能依。其第三義揀形顯者，有云：第一句明非斷空不礙形色，第二句明自性空不礙顯色，第三句明一體空俱不礙形顯，第四句明俱空空不礙二空色。解曰：前會色歸空觀，第三揀義既違正理。今雖列之，以對前文，亦不取也。次正釋文，四句亦各有三，後二復加有二。

The Commentary states: This is the general statement. However, the general characteristics of these four gates merely invert the above four; likewise, the first three lines eliminate attachments by means of the Dharma, and the fourth line directly reveals the principle of the Dharma. In terms of eliminating attachments, by inverting the previous form and emptiness, the meaning is largely the same, with slight differences in the phrasing drawn upon. The phrasing of the statements is the same, but the explained meanings have distinctions. Now, first, in generally eliminating, there are also three meanings: first, eliminating identity and detachment; second, eliminating confused thoughts; third, eliminating shape and colour. Now, first: the first line clarifies that true emptiness is not detached from the preceding form; the second line clarifies that true emptiness is not identical to the characteristics of form; the third line clarifies that true emptiness is dually neither identical to form nor detached from form. Second, regarding the elimination of the three confused thoughts: the first line clarifies that annihilatory emptiness is not actual form; the second line clarifies that the existence of characteristics is not true emptiness, which eliminates the existence of characteristics; the third line clarifies that the supported is not the supporting, which eliminates the supporting. As for the third meaning, eliminating shape and colour, some say: the first line clarifies that non-annihilatory emptiness does not obstruct shape-form; the second line clarifies that emptiness of self-nature does not obstruct colour-form; the third line clarifies that single-essence emptiness does not obstruct either shape or colour; the fourth line clarifies that emptiness of both emptinesses does not obstruct the two empty forms. The explanation says: Since the third meaning of elimination in the previous contemplation of reducing form to emptiness violated the correct principle, although it is listed here to correspond with the preceding text, it is also not accepted. Next is the proper explanation of the text: the four lines also each have three [parts], and the latter two additionally have two.