華嚴法界玄鏡 1.43

1.43

釋曰：此第四觀大分為二：先正釋第四、後對前三觀會釋成總。今即初也，文中三：初標名。二、謂此下，釋相。三、何以下，徵結。此中大意，但拂迹現圓。若細釋者，然色空相望乃有多義：一、融二諦義，初會色歸空，明俗即故真；二明空即色，顯真即是俗；三色空無礙，明二諦雙現；四泯絕無寄，明二諦俱泯。若約三諦，初即真諦、二即俗諦、後一即中道第一義諦。若約三觀，初即空觀；二即假觀；三四即中道觀，三即雙照明中、四即雙遮明中。雖有三觀意，明三觀融通為真空耳。二者，色空相望總有四句，取文小異。初會色歸空觀中四句，前三句明色不異空、第四句明色即是空；第二明空即色觀中四句，前三句明空不異色、第四句明空即是色；第三觀明但合前二；今第四句拂四句相，現真空相不生不滅，乃至無智亦無得，真空觀備矣。若約三觀，就《心經》意，色不異空，明俗不異真；空不異色，明真不異俗；色空相即明是中道，即上四句為空假中之三觀也。與今義同，取文小異耳。三者，色空相望總有三義：一相成義、二無礙義、三相害義，廣如第二理事無礙觀中。今文含有三：前二相即亦相成義，第三色空無礙觀正明無礙義。今第四觀即相害義，相害俱泯故。雖有此三意，俱顯於真空義耳。若別消文者，不可言即色不即色者，拂前第二明空即色觀。不可言即色者，正拂第四句；不可言不即色者，亦拂前三句。以空非空故，無可言即色不即色。又理本絕言故，約觀即心冥真極故，方成妙色觀耳。次云亦不可言即空不即空者，拂第一會色歸空觀。不可言即空，正拂第四句。不可言不即空，亦拂前三句。以色亦即非色，無可言即空不即空故，即事同理故、理本絕言故、心冥真極無心即故，方成即空觀耳。又上會色歸空無增益謗，明意即色，無損減謗。色空無礙無雙，非戲論謗。今無可相即，無相違謗。四謗既無，百非斯絕，故逈絕無寄。又云一切法皆不可者，結例總拂。言結例者，非獨色法成其三觀，並皆拂之，受想行識萬化之法皆同前色。言總拂者，總拂前三會色歸空觀等皆不可也，亦無四句可絕、三觀可拂，故不可亦不可。言此語亦不受者，若受不可說，言是則有受，有受則有念，有念者皆是心言之迹，故逈絕無寄。二邊既離，中道不存，心境兩亡，亡絕無寄，般若現矣。若生心動念皆不會理，言語道斷故言不及，心行處滅故解不到。言是謂行境者，結成上行。然有二意：一者、上是行家之境，今心與境冥、智與神會，亡言虛懷、冥心遺智，方詣茲境，明唯行能到，非解境故；二者、即上心智契合即是真行，行即是境行分齊故。三、何以下，反釋成行。

Commentary: This fourth contemplation is broadly divided into two: first, directly explaining the fourth; second, reconciling and explaining it in conjunction with the preceding three contemplations to complete the whole. The present section is the first, containing three parts in the text: first, stating the name; second, from "This means that this" downward, explaining the characteristics; third, from "Why is this?" downward, inquiring and concluding. The general intention here is merely to brush away traces and reveal perfection. If explained in detail, form and emptiness in relation to each other entail many meanings: First is the meaning of harmonizing the two truths: the first [gate], reducing form to emptiness, clarifies that the conventional is identical to the ultimate; the second, clarifying that emptiness is form, reveals that the ultimate is identical to the conventional; the third, the non-obstruction of form and emptiness, clarifies that both truths are simultaneously manifest; the fourth, total annihilation without reliance, clarifies that both truths are entirely annihilated. In terms of the three truths, the first is the ultimate truth, the second is the conventional truth, and the latter one is the middle-way primary truth. In terms of the three contemplations, the first is the contemplation of emptiness, the second is the contemplation of provisionality, and the third and fourth are the contemplation of the middle way—the third clarifies the middle by illuminating both, and the fourth clarifies the middle by negating both. Although there are three contemplations, their intention is to clarify that the three contemplations fuse into true emptiness. Second, form and emptiness in relation to each other have four propositions in total, with slight variations in the texts used: In the first contemplation of reducing form to emptiness, among its four propositions, the first three propositions clarify that form is not different from emptiness, and the fourth proposition clarifies that form is emptiness. In the second contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is form, among its four propositions, the first three propositions clarify that emptiness is not different from form, and the fourth proposition clarifies that emptiness is form. The third contemplation merely unites the preceding two. Now the fourth proposition brushes away the characteristics of the four propositions, revealing the characteristic of true emptiness: neither arising nor ceasing, up to no wisdom and no attainment; thus the contemplation of true emptiness is complete. If considered in terms of the three contemplations according to the meaning of the Heart Sūtra: "form is not different from emptiness" clarifies that the conventional is not different from the ultimate; "emptiness is not different from form" clarifies that the ultimate is not different from the conventional; and the mutual identity of form and emptiness clarifies the middle way. Thus the above four propositions constitute the three contemplations of emptiness, provisionality, and the middle. This is identical to the present meaning, with only slight differences in the texts used. Third, form and emptiness in relation to each other have three meanings in total: first, the meaning of mutual establishment; second, the meaning of non-obstruction; third, the meaning of mutual negation, as detailed in the second contemplation of the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena. The present text contains these three: the first two of mutual identity are also the meaning of mutual establishment; the third contemplation of the non-obstruction of form and emptiness directly clarifies the meaning of non-obstruction; the present fourth contemplation is precisely the meaning of mutual negation, for by mutually negating, both are entirely annihilated. Although there are these three meanings, they all reveal the meaning of true emptiness. If explaining the text separately: "cannot be called identical to form or not identical to form" brushes away the preceding second contemplation of clarifying that emptiness is form. "Cannot be called identical to form" directly brushes away the fourth proposition; "cannot be called not identical to form" also brushes away the first three propositions. Because emptiness is non-empty, there is nothing that can be called identical to form or not identical to form. Moreover, because principle fundamentally transcends speech, and in terms of contemplation the mind merges with the ultimate reality, only then is the marvelous contemplation of form achieved. Next, "nor can it be called identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness" brushes away the first contemplation of reducing form to emptiness. "Cannot be called identical to emptiness" directly brushes away the fourth proposition; "cannot be called not identical to emptiness" also brushes away the first three propositions. Because form is also non-form, there is nothing that can be called identical to emptiness or not identical to emptiness; because phenomena are identical to principle, because principle fundamentally transcends speech, and because the mind merges with the ultimate reality without any mind that identifies, only then is the contemplation of identity with emptiness achieved. Furthermore, the above reducing form to emptiness is free from the calumny of reification; clarifying that it is identical to form is free from the calumny of denigration; the non-obstruction of form and emptiness is free from the calumny of non-duality and conceptual proliferation; now, there being nothing to mutually identify is free from the calumny of mutual contradiction. Since the four calumnies are absent, the hundred negations are completely severed; hence it is utterly detached and without reliance. Moreover, "All dharmas are inadmissible" concludes by analogizing and generally brushing away. "Analogizing" means that it is not only form-dharmas that constitute their three contemplations, but they are all brushed away; the myriad transforming dharmas of feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are all identical to the preceding form. "Generally brushing away" means generally brushing away the preceding three—reducing form to emptiness and so forth—as all being inadmissible; nor are there four propositions that can be severed, or three contemplations that can be brushed away; therefore, even this inadmissibility is inadmissible. Saying "this statement is also not accepted" means that if one accepts that it is inexpressible, asserting this would mean there is an acceptance; if there is an acceptance, there is thought; and whatever has thought is a trace of mind and speech; therefore it is utterly detached and without reliance. Since the two extremes are left behind, the middle way does not remain; mind and object are both forgotten; forgotten and severed without reliance, prajñā is manifest. If one generates mind and stirs thought, one fails in every case to tally with principle; because the path of language is cut off, speech cannot reach it; because the place of mental activity is extinguished, understanding cannot arrive at it. Saying "this is called the realm of practice" concludes by establishing the practice above. This has two meanings: First, what precedes is the realm of the practitioner; now, mind and object merge, wisdom and spirit unite, speech is forgotten and the bosom is hollowed, the mind is submerged and wisdom is discarded, and only then does one reach this realm, making clear that only practice can arrive, as it is not the realm of understanding. Second, precisely the above tallying of mind and wisdom is true practice; practice is itself the boundary of the realm and practice. Third, from "Why is this?" downward, it explains by negation to establish practice.