[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [華嚴法界玄鏡](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1883) › 1.37 # 華嚴法界玄鏡 1.37 華嚴法界玄鏡 1.37 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1883.1.37) 釋曰：就文亦二：先釋此句、後結上三句。前中亦三：初標。釋中雙揀即離，可知。但前約空中無色揀，此約能依非所依揀。次下當知，然正反前，應云色中無空，故今不云爾者，空中無色，有理有文。色中無空，文理俱絕。以空中無色，由事即理，理絕相故，色必有空。無空之色非實故，故不反上，別就能所依以釋其義。二、揀亂意者，唯取下句必與能依為所依，故揀於異空之色，對前異色明空。三、良由下，結，以一所依，雙結不即不離。意云：既是所依之空，必非能依之色，故云不即色。二既是色之所依，非餘所依，故不離色也。結離亂意者，既必與能依之色而為所依，明色非空外，對前空非色外也。二上三句下，總結三門，義如前說。 > The Commentary states: Regarding the text, there are also two \[parts\]: first, it explains this line; afterwards, it concludes the above three lines. The former also has three \[parts\]: first, the statement. In the explanation, the dual elimination of identity and detachment can be understood. However, previously it was eliminated in terms of there being no form within emptiness, whereas here it is eliminated in terms of the supporting not being the supported. It should be understood below. But if strictly inverting the previous, one ought to say that there is no emptiness within form; the reason it is not stated this way now is that there being no form within emptiness possesses both principle and textual basis, whereas there being no emptiness within form is utterly devoid of both text and principle. Because there is no form within emptiness, since phenomena are identical to principle and principle transcends characteristics, form must have emptiness. Since form devoid of emptiness is not real, it does not invert the above, but separately explains its meaning in terms of the supporting and the supported. Second, regarding eliminating confused thoughts: taking only the lower clause—that it must serve as the supported for the supporting—it eliminates form as different from emptiness, corresponding to the previous clarifying of emptiness as different from form. Third, from "Truly because…" downward is the conclusion: by means of the single supported, it dually concludes non-identity and non-detachment. The meaning is: since it is the emptiness that is the supported, it must not be the form that is the supporting, hence it says "not identical to form." Second, since it is the supported of form and not the supported of anything else, it is not detached from form. Concluding the elimination of confused thoughts: since it must serve as the supported for the form that is the supporting, it clarifies that form is not outside of emptiness, corresponding to the previous "emptiness is not outside of form." The second part, from "The above three lines…" downward, generally concludes the three gates, whose meaning is as previously explained. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1883.1.36) - [Next: 1.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1883.1.38) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1883.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1883~en-mt.1.37) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [註華嚴法界觀門](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1884.1.80) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1883.1.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1883.1.37) · Pramāṇa