止觀輔行傳弘決 5.61.3

5.61.3

」言集散者，散所集故，名性相二空，是則諸菩薩等皆學此二空，得是二空具十八空。 「性相俱空」等者，總結示於總別空相也。 此中言總，但指二空名之為總，以此二空遍空一切，故名為總。 若望初文，此總仍別，以於四句句句破故。 若一句得入亦具二空，非必四句方名二空。 文言四者，為轉計者極至無因，故云破四名性相空耳。 此中總者，望下六十四句復名為總。 「故中論」等者，前引此文證四俱性，性並須破，破已名空，即是性空。 此中引者，證無自性乃至無無因性，亦復無名，名為二空。 故云「用觀與中論同」。 「若根檢」下，具二空故，即具十八。 此內外等並是所空，空十八事得十八名。 若歷一一空，皆識能所，銷之可見。 《法界次第》中亦略銷釋，意甚分明。 以此望彼，言雖小異，意亦大同。 問：從有法至無法有法空，既對三句，何故不空非有非無句耶？ 答：前畢竟空破不生不滅，即是破第四句也，故下文無。 問：前之六空已明二空，須更說次七空空耶？ 答：以向性相重歷諸法，故更明七。 問：內至畢竟破諸法盡，何須後五？ 答：《大論》云「十三破盡，後五重說耳。 」此十八空，《大論》三十四廣釋相狀。 又九十二云「是十八空，性亦自空。 」即是能空亦復皆空。 《大經》十一空及二十空，亦何出此十八空耶？ 《楞伽》但列七空：一者相空，分析自他共不生故。 二者自性空，空於諸法自性不生故。 三者無行空，陰本涅槃故。 四者行空，陰入和合離我我所故。 五者不可得空，諸法妄計無可說故。 六者第一義空，自證聖智離過習故。 七者彼彼空，空中最下無復彼此。 亦是合十八為七空耳。 然彼經意與《大論》不無小異，故知《楞伽》七空多在藏通，以自證中云離過習故。 從容取之，稍通圓別，如《大品》十八亦通三教。 次明相續，比因成說，亦應可見，然須細銷以出相狀。 此中云「墮斷常」者，即定有定無也。 於相待中，先辨相待與二假異。 初「若不得」下，明異之由，由計有心待無心故。 「因成」下，正明異相。 指相續中為別滅者，別在有情心所滅故，異於虛空在生滅故，異於擇滅是有為故，於非擇中又不與彼闕緣義同。 於所緣處心生滅故，故但與彼生滅義同。 唯對此滅後念心生，名為相續。 若相待中言對通者，三無為法通是無生，無生之名義同於滅。 對彼三滅知我有心。 言「雖不併是」者，謂三無為雖不併是生滅之滅而得是無生者，三無為法同是無生故也。 生滅之滅義似無生，彼三無為是無生故，無生是滅，故對滅知生。 言「虛空」等者，舉一例二。 「上既」下，借於開善因兼之名，以釋相待。 初牒開善舊解者，舊是開善寺藏法師所立，因上兼此，故云「因兼」。 上但二重，今至第三，故曰「過之」。 「又因兼」下，今解異舊。 上因成中及相續中惑雖未破，緣無生解，以此無生對意根生，即相待中因成相也。 因上假心來續相待，即相待中相續相也。 因上至此，故名為因。 此具上二，故名為兼。 是則釋因大意同舊，兼與過之與舊釋殊。 開善但以共起名兼，不云具二。 上惑不除復起此惑，是故名兼。 不云通滅，名為過之。 「釋既」下，結斥。 雖用他名義與彼異，但借舊名顯相待義，即以今義還破於彼。 「今檢」下，正釋。 「如是四」下，結成二空十八空等。 上文闕於慧眼言者，略也。 又亦應云一切智等，文無者略。 「非但」下，例破諸見。 而此見惑由見理故破有見，見理之時單中餘三，復具絕言，一切俱破。 「是名」下，結也。 止觀能顯光揚，並由見破，故教門光顯。 但破於見尚是光揚，況破諸思、塵沙、無明。 況一心破，具如前說。 但前約圓門，此寄破見，得意何別，妙旨如初。 於此有見，亦名總修。 「若不悟」下，對於信法六十四番，復名為別。

Regarding the words "aggregation and dispersion": because they disperse what has aggregated, they are termed the two emptineses of nature and characteristic. Thus, all bodhisattvas and others study these two emptineses, and by attaining these two emptineses they are endowed with the eighteen emptineses. Regarding "both nature and characteristic are empty," etc.: this concludes by generally demonstrating the characteristics of emptiness in both general and specific ways. Here, when "general" is mentioned, it simply points to the two emptineses and designates them as general; because these two emptineses universally empty everything, they are termed general. Looking back at the beginning of the text, this "general" is still specific, because refutation is carried out phrase by phrase across the four phrases. If one attains entry through a single phrase, it is also endowed with the two emptineses; it is not necessarily through all four phrases that they are termed the two emptineses. The text speaks of four because, for those whose attachments shift even to [the view of] causelessness, it says that refuting the four is termed the emptiness of nature and characteristic. What is general here is again termed general when viewed in relation to the sixty-four phrases below. Regarding "Therefore the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā," etc.: earlier this text was cited to verify that the four all possess inherent nature, and that inherent nature must universally be refuted; once refuted it is termed emptiness, which is inherent-nature emptiness. What is cited here verifies that there is no self-nature, up to there being no causeless nature, nor is there even any name; this is termed the two emptineses. Hence it says, "The application of contemplation is the same as in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā." Regarding "If examining the sense-faculties," etc.: because one is endowed with the two emptineses, one is thereby endowed with the eighteen [emptineses]. The internal, external, and so forth are all what is emptied; emptying eighteen things yields eighteen names. If one goes through them one by one, all are known as the grasper and the grasped, and explaining them will make this visible. The Fajie cidi also briefly explains this, and its meaning is extremely clear. Comparing this with that, although the words differ slightly, the meaning is largely the same. Question: Since from "emptiness of existent dharmas" to "emptiness of nonexistent and existent dharmas" corresponds to three phrases, why is the phrase "neither existent nor nonexistent" not emptied? Answer: The preceding "ultimate emptiness" refutes "neither arising nor ceasing," which is precisely the refutation of the fourth phrase; hence it is absent from the text below. Question: Since the preceding six emptineses have already clarified the two emptineses, why must the subsequent seven emptineses be explained? Answer: Because they re-examine the various dharmas through nature and characteristic, the seven are further clarified. Question: Since from "internal" to "ultimate" all dharmas are exhausted in refutation, why are the latter five needed? Answer: The Dazhidulun states: "The thirteen exhaust the refutation; the latter five merely restate it." These eighteen emptineses are extensively explained in their characteristics in fascicle 34 of the Dazhidulun. Furthermore, fascicle 92 states: "These eighteen emptineses are themselves also empty in nature." That is, that which can empty is also entirely empty. How could the eleven emptineses and twenty emptineses of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra go beyond these eighteen emptineses? The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra lists only seven emptineses: first, emptiness of characteristics, because self, other, and shared are analysed as non-arising; second, emptiness of self-nature, because all dharmas are empty and non-arising in self-nature; third, emptiness of non-activity, because the aggregates are originally nirvāṇa; fourth, emptiness of activity, because the conjunction of aggregates and sense-fields is free from self and what belongs to self; fifth, emptiness of the unattainable, because false conceptualisations of all dharmas are ineffable; sixth, emptiness of the ultimate truth, because the self-realised noble knowledge is free from faults and habit-energies; seventh, emptiness of relativity (itaretara-śūnyatā), which is the lowest among emptineses, leaving no further "this" or "that." This is also combining the eighteen into seven emptineses. However, the intent of that sūtra is not without slight differences from the Dazhidulun; hence we know that the seven emptineses of the Laṅkāvatāra mostly reside in the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings, because under self-realisation it speaks of being free from faults and habit-energies. Taking it flexibly, it slightly connects to the perfect and distinctive teachings, just as the eighteen of the Dapin also connect to the three teachings. Next, explaining continuity: compared with explanation by causal formation, it should also be visible; however, it must be finely analysed to bring out its characteristics. What is termed here "falling into annihilationism or eternalism" means precisely fixed existence and fixed non-existence. In mutual dependence, first distinguish the difference between mutual dependence and the other two provisionalities. First, from "If not attaining" downward, clarifies the reason for the difference, which is due to conceiving an existent mind as depending on a nonexistent mind. From "Causal formation" downward, directly clarifies the distinct characteristics. Pointing to what is in continuity as a distinct cessation means it is specifically the cessation of sentient beings' mental factors; it differs from empty space because it resides in arising and ceasing; it differs from analytical cessation because it is conditioned; and within non-analytical cessation, it is not identical with the meaning of lacking conditions. Because in the cognitive sphere the mind arises and ceases, it is identical only with the meaning of arising and ceasing. It is only in contrast to this cessation that the subsequent thought-moment of mind arises, which is termed continuity. When speaking of corresponding universally in mutual dependence, the three unconditioned dharmas are universally non-arising, and the designation "non-arising" is identical in meaning to cessation. In contrast to those three cessations, one knows that one has a mind. Regarding "Although they are not all concurrently": this means that although the three unconditioned are not all concurrently the cessation of arising and ceasing, yet they can be non-arising, because the three unconditioned dharmas are equally non-arising. The cessation of arising and ceasing is similar in meaning to non-arising; because those three unconditioned are non-arising, and non-arising is cessation, one therefore knows arising in contrast to cessation. Regarding "Empty space," etc.: raising one example serves for the other two. From "The above has already" downward, borrows the term "causal combination" from Kaishan to explain mutual dependence. First, citing the old interpretation of Kaishan: the old is that established by Dharma Master Zang of Kaishan Monastery; relying on the above while combining this, it is thus called "causal combination." The above has only two tiers, and now reaching the third, it is therefore said to "surpass them." From "Furthermore, causal combination" downward, the present interpretation differs from the old. Although in causal formation and continuity above the delusions have not yet been refuted, understanding is conditioned on non-arising; taking this non-arising in contrast to the arising of the mental sense-faculty is precisely the characteristic of causal formation within mutual dependence. Relying on the above provisional mind to continue into mutual dependence is precisely the characteristic of continuity within mutual dependence. Relying on the above to reach this point is therefore called "causal." Because this is endowed with the above two, it is therefore called "combination." Thus the general meaning of explaining "causal" agrees with the old, but "combination" and "surpassing them" differ from the old interpretation. Kaishan merely takes arising together as "combination," without saying that it is endowed with both. When the delusions above are not eliminated and this delusion arises again, it is therefore called "combination." Not mentioning universal cessation is called "surpassing them." From "Since the interpretation" downward, concludes with a reprimand. Although using another's terms, the meaning differs from his; merely borrowing the old terms to reveal the meaning of mutual dependence, one then uses the present meaning to turn back and refute him. From "Now examining" downward, directly explains. From "Such four" downward, concludes by establishing the two emptineses, eighteen emptineses, and so forth. The fact that the above text lacks the mention of the "wisdom eye" is an abbreviation. Furthermore, it should also mention all-knowledge and so forth; that the text lacks them is an abbreviation. From "Not only" downward, refutes the various views by analogy. And because this view-delusion sees the principle, it refutes the view of existence; at the time of seeing the principle, the remaining three within the single [views], and further possessing the cessation of speech, are all refuted together. From "This is named" downward, concludes. That calming and contemplation can manifest and shine forth is entirely due to the refutation of views; hence the doctrinal gate shines brightly. Merely refuting views is already illuminating, not to mention refuting the various thought-delusions, dust-and-sand delusions, and ignorance! Not to mention refuting in a single mind, fully as explained before! It is only that the former was based on the perfect gate, whereas this is lodged in refuting views; when the idea is grasped, what difference is there? The wondrous purport is as in the beginning. Regarding this view of existence, it is also called general cultivation. From "If not awakening" downward, in contrast to the sixty-four turns of faith and Dharma, it is again called specific.