維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.17

3.17

From here on, the five phrases explain the emptiness of consciousness. The first two refute characteristics; the latter three identify with the real. Among the first two phrases, the first explains the emptiness of consciousness with reference to sense objects; the latter phrase directly explains emptiness with reference to the substance of consciousness. In the first phrase, 'the Dharma has no shaking': this directly clarifies that the principle is absent. The mind of the six consciousnesses goes back and forth grasping objects, which is called shaking. The true Dharma is eternal and unlike that; thus it is called unshakeable. 'Not relying on the six sense objects': this illustrates nonexistence by analogy. Unlike the six consciousnesses that arise in reliance on the six sense objects, it has no shaking. Alternatively: the deluded consciousness grasps objective spheres as sense objects, which blows upon the mind and is called shaking; the true mind is free from thought, and although it takes the myriad categories as objects, in objective conditioning there is nothing conditioned; therefore, it has no shaking. 'The Dharma has no going or coming': this directly clarifies that the principle is absent. The mind of the six consciousnesses transmigrates through the three times, which is called going and coming. 'Going' is the past; 'coming' is the future. The true Dharma is free from these; hence it has no going or coming. 'Constantly abiding nowhere': this explains by revealing nonexistence. The present is called abiding. If the true Dharma had ever abided in the present, then relative to that one could speak of going and coming; but the Dharma has no present abiding, so in relation to what could one speak of coming and going? These two dispel characteristics. The three below identify with the real. 'The Dharma accords with emptiness' means according with the gate of emptiness; 'follows the signless' means the gate of signlessness; 'responds to the wishless' means the gate of wishlessness. According to the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra, emptiness has three kinds: first, the emptiness of non-substance, which is the imputed nature completely lacking substance; second, the emptiness of not-such, which is the dependent nature being conditionally arisen and unreal, not being entirely nonexistent like the imputed nature; third, the emptiness of intrinsic nature, which is the consummate nature, namely that the above two natures are signless and unarisen, constituting the emptiness of intrinsic nature. Signlessness is also threefold: first, having no sign of a person; second, having no sign of dharmas; third, having no sign of the discrimination that grasps emptiness. Wishlessness is also threefold: because the three signs are empty, there are no three wishes. Being identical in one naturelessness is called according with emptiness. 'Following' and 'responding' are merely alternating expressions. By analogy, this applies universally to the myriad dharmas, all entering the three emptinesses.