華嚴法界玄鏡 1.22

1.22

Third, regarding eliminating shape-form and color-form, some say: "The first proposition means that the essence of shape-form is empty and not annihilatory emptiness; the second proposition means that color-form lacks essence and is inherently empty by its own nature; the third proposition means that emptiness lacks shape-form and color-form and is empty as a single essence; the fourth proposition means that form and emptiness are non-dual and both are empty of emptiness." The interpretation says: At first glance, this third meaning seems reasonable, because seeing words like 'blue' and 'yellow' in the second proposition, they took it to mean color-form; and since the first and third propositions lack the words 'blue' and 'yellow', they took them to mean shape-form, and thus made this explanation. Examined closely, there are contradictions. Why? Why do the first and third propositions not mention shape-forms such as long and short? Why does the second proposition comprehensively mention color-form? Why is shape-form eliminated from being annihilatory, while color-form cannot be eliminated from being annihilatory? Why can the second proposition say that the characteristics of blue and yellow are not identical to the principle of true emptiness, while shape-form cannot say that long, short, square, and round are not true emptiness? Therefore, the third explanation is not fitting; merely eliminating the first two is sufficient to reveal true emptiness. That the second text comprehensively states that blue and yellow are not true emptiness is because color-form clearly displays characteristics, and its characteristics are prominent. Furthermore, shape-form is provisional, whereas color-form is real; when real form is identical to emptiness, by analogy provisional shape-form is also identical to emptiness. Thus we know that all three propositions contain both shape-form and color-form, and both are identical to emptiness.