English Translation:

Collected Works of Master Yin Shun

Miao Yun Collection, Upper Compilation, Part Two: 'Expository Notes on the Ratnakūṭa Sūtra'

[Return to Main Table of Contents] [Read Next Page] [Read Previous Page]

Original Text:

印順法師佛學著作集

妙雲集上編之二『寶積經講記』

[回總目次][讀取下頁] [讀取前頁]

English Translation:

Second Echelon (戊二): Discerning the Profound Meaning

First Section (己一): Clarifying the Meaning of Emptiness

First Subsection (庚一): Emptiness of Dharmas

『Furthermore, Kāśyapa! One who engages in true contemplation does not, by means of emptiness, make all dharmas empty, but the nature of dharmas is intrinsically empty. One does not, by means of signlessness, make dharmas signless, but dharmas are intrinsically signless. One does not, by means of wishlessness, make dharmas wishless, but dharmas are intrinsically wishless. One does not, by means of non-arising, non-birth, non-grasping, and being without self-nature, make dharmas non-arising, non-grasping, and without self-nature, but dharmas are intrinsically non-arising, non-grasping, and without self-nature. One who contemplates in this way is called [one who engages in] true contemplation.』

Original Text:

戊二 抉擇深義

己一 顯了空義

庚一 法空 『復次，迦葉！真實觀者，不以空故令諸法空，但法性自空。不以無相故令法 無相，但法自無相。不以無願故令法無願，但法自無願。不以無起、無生、無取 、無性故，令法無起、無取、無性，但法自無起、無取、無性。如是觀者，是名 實觀。』

English Translation:

Although the Madhyamaka view has already been taught above, the meaning of emptiness is extremely profound, and it still requires further discernment and clarification to prevent misunderstandings among students. This is further divided into three sections. First, the meaning of emptiness is clarified. Clarification means using language and words to make the meaning of emptiness clearer. This is further explained in terms of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of self.

Original Text:

　　上來雖已經開示中觀，但空義是甚深的，還得再加抉擇顯了，以免學者 的誤會。這又分三節，先顯了空義。顯了，是以語言文字，使空義更為明了 ，這又分法空我空來說。

English Translation:

Speaking of this, we should first briefly discuss the distinctions of emptiness. When the Buddha spoke of emptiness, it always pertained to methods of practice, but there are broadly three different types [P116]: First, 'analytical emptiness' (分破空): attaining emptiness through analytical contemplation; in the sūtras, it is called 'dispersing emptiness' (散空), and the Tiantai school calls it 'analytical emptiness' (析空). For example, with material dharmas (色法), one analyzes them part by part until they can no longer be divided, at which point one reaches what is called 'neighboring-emptiness particles' (鄰虛塵), meaning one has reached the verge of emptiness. Proceeding further, the sign of emptiness (空相) will then appear. However, this is an illusory contemplation (假觀) and not a true contemplation (實觀), because such analysis, even if carried down to a ten-millionth or one-hundred-millionth part, still involves existence, still involves materiality. Second, 'contemplation of emptiness' (觀空): for example, the Yogācāra master's mastery in contemplating the mind—when contemplating blue, the sign of blue appears; when contemplating emptiness, the sign of emptiness appears. Because [the appearances] transform according to the mind, they can be known as empty. But this is not yet thorough, because when using the method of contemplating emptiness to contemplate emptiness, the contemplating mind cannot be emptied in any way. In fact, they absolutely do not permit that the mind is also empty. These two kinds of methods were indeed taught by the Buddha and can also dispel many afflictions and distortions, but they are not ultimate. The ultimate is the third, 'emptiness of self-nature' (自性空): it is not that dharmas become empty only after being deconstructed, nor is it that they become empty by transforming with the mind; emptiness is the fundamental nature of all dharmas as such. As the Āgama sūtras also say: "All conditioned phenomena (諸行) are empty: constantly empty... empty of self and what belongs to self; because their nature is intrinsically so (性自爾故)." Therefore, when the Buddha speaks of the emptiness of dharma-nature, it is not about eliminating anything through the power of contemplation, but merely, through contemplation, realizing the original face of all dharmas. It is like the ancient story of 'mistaking the reflection of a bow in a cup for a snake'; because one thought one had swallowed a snake, one became ill with worry and suspicion. Now, if one is made to realize that there was never any snake to begin with, the illness and suffering from worry and suspicion will be cured. Therefore, contemplating emptiness is to dispel delusion and attain the emptiness of the fundamental nature of all dharmas; this is the ultimate meaning of emptiness in Mahāyāna. [P117] Otherwise, sentient beings, bound by emotions and views, cannot thoroughly realize true emptiness and will eventually turn away from emptiness and return to 'existence' (有) to establish themselves and find meaning in life.

Original Text:

　　說到這裡，先應略說空的差別。佛說空，都是修行法門，但略有三類不 [P116] 同：一、『分破空』：以分析的觀法來通達空；經中名為散空，天台稱之為 析空。如色法，分分的分析起來，分析到分無可分時，名『鄰虛塵』，即到 了空的邊緣。再進，就有空相現前。但這是假觀而不是實觀，因為這樣的分 析，即使分析到千萬億分之一，也還是有，還是色。二、『觀空』：如瑜伽 師的觀心自在，觀青即青相現前，觀空即空相現前。因為隨心所轉，可知是 空的。但還不徹底，因以觀空的方法來觀空，觀心是怎麼也不能空的。事實 上，他們也決不許心也是空的。這二種法門，佛確也曾說過，也可以祛息許 多煩惱顛倒，但不能究竟，究竟的是第三『自性空』：不是分破了才空，也 不是隨心轉而空；空是一切法的本性如此。如阿含經也說：「諸行空：常空 ……我我所空；性自爾故』。所以，佛說法性空，不是以觀的力量來消滅什 麼，而只是因觀而通達一切法的本來面目。如古人『杯弓蛇影』的故事一樣 ，以為吞了蛇，所以憂疑成病。現在使他自覺到根本沒有蛇，憂疑病苦就好 了。所以，觀空是祛除錯覺，達於一切法的本性空，這才是大乘究竟空義。 [P117] 否則，眾生為情見所縛，不能徹了真空，終於又背空而回到『有』中去安身 立命。

English Translation:

Emptiness is fundamental nature emptiness (本性空), ultimate emptiness (畢竟空) that is free from all conceptual proliferations (戲論). Therefore, to speak of 'emptiness' is to perfectly reveal the Middle Way. However, to adapt to the capacities of beings, it is also spoken of as signlessness (無相) and wishlessness (無願) (anciently translated as 'non-action' 無作); together, these are called the three gates of liberation (三解脫門). Furthermore, it is often said to be non-arising (無起), non-birth (無生) (non-ceasing 無滅), non-grasping (無取), without self-nature (無性), etc., so that sentient beings may all return to the one reality. According to the definitive Mahāyāna teachings, 'emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness all take reality (實相) as their object.' Being without self-nature, thereby detaching from views, is called emptiness; detaching from signs, thereby ceasing discriminations, is called signlessness; detaching from grasping, thereby ceasing thoughts and aspirations, is called wishlessness. However, it is also permissible to speak from the perspective of predominant aspects: based on 'all dharmas are without self' (諸法無我), it is called emptiness; based on 'Nirvāṇa is quiescent' (涅槃寂靜), it is called signlessness; based on 'all conditioned things are impermanent' (諸行無常), it is called wishlessness. It can also be explained in terms of shallow and profound: by emptying everything, a sign of emptiness (空相) appears (in reality, ultimate emptiness means that even emptiness is unobtainable/unfindable/ungraspable), therefore it is called signlessness. Although one realizes that objects are signless, the mind still has attachments, so it is further called wishlessness. But these are all skillful means (方便善巧); the three gates of liberation are equal and of one suchness. 'Arising' (起) is phenomenal arising, 'birth' (生) is arising through production, which is similar to 'arising'; but 'arising' (起) might be deluded, whereas 'birth' (生) is conditioned arising (因緣生). In the original translation [of the sūtra being commented on], after 'non-birth' (無生), there were the two characters 'non-self' (無我). Comparing with other translations, this should be a superfluous addition, so it has been deleted. 'Non-grasping' (無取) means no object of grasping. 'Without nature' (無性) means without self-nature (無自性). Generally speaking, from signlessness to being without nature, [P118] all are different names for emptiness.

Original Text:

　　空，是本性空，絕一切戲論的畢竟空，所以說『空』就圓滿的顯示了中 道。但為了適應機宜，又說為無相、無願（古譯為無作），合名三解脫門。 又每說無起、無生（無滅）、無取、無性等，使眾生同歸於一實。依大乘了 義說，『空無相無願，同緣實相』。無自性以離見，名空；離相以息分別， 名無相；離取著以息思願，名無願。但也不妨約偏勝說：依『諸法無我』即 名空，依『涅槃寂靜』即名無相，依『諸行無常』即名無願。也可作淺深說 ：空一切而有空相現（其實畢竟空是空也不可得的），所以說無相。雖達境 無相，而心還有所著，所以又說無願。但這都是方便善巧，三解脫門是平等 一如的。起是現起，生是生起，與起相近；但起可能是錯亂，而生是因緣生 。本譯在無生下，還有『無我』二字。參照別譯，這應該是衍文，所以刪去 了。無取，是無所取著。無性，是沒有自性。如總相的說，從無相到無性， [P118] 都是空的異名。

English Translation:

Now, let's explain according to the text. The Buddha said: "Kāśyapa! True contemplation"—the correct contemplation of the Middle Way is like this: it is "not by the contemplative power of emptiness" (空) samādhi that one "makes the" existent nature of "all dharmas" become "empty, but" it is that "the nature of dharmas is intrinsically empty." The fundamental nature is empty; by observing with contemplative insight (觀照), one merely awakens to its original thusness. This is emptiness of fundamental nature, intrinsic emptiness, not emptiness made by another (他空); this is the true and correct contemplation of the Middle Way. From this, it can be seen that contemplation of emptiness, true contemplation, and Madhyamaka contemplation are the same. Similarly, it is "not by the power of signlessness" (無相) samādhi that dharmas are made "signless, but dharmas are intrinsically signless." Also, it is "not by the contemplative power of wishlessness" (無願) that dharmas are made "wishless, but dharmas are intrinsically wishless." Thus, what the Buddha spoke of as "non-arising, non-birth, non-grasping, and without self-nature" are all like this, originally so. To be able to "contemplate thus" the fundamental nature as empty, "this is called true contemplation," and not the gates of contemplation such as analytical emptiness, contemplation of emptiness, or other-emptiness.

Original Text:

　　現在依文來解說。佛說：「迦葉！真實觀」──中道正觀是這樣的：並 「不以空」三昧的觀力，「令諸法」的有性成「空，但」是「法性自空」。 本性是空的，以觀照去觀察，只是覺了他的本來如此而已。這是本性空，自 空，不是他空；這才是中道的真實正觀。依此可見，空觀，真實觀，中道觀 ，是一樣的。同樣的，並「不以無相」三昧力，所以諸「法無相，但法自無 相」。也「不以無願」的觀力，所以諸「法無願，但法自無願」。這樣，佛 說的「無起、無生、無取、無性」，都是這樣的本來如此。能「如是觀」本 性空，「是名實觀」，而不是分破空，觀空等他空的觀門。

English Translation:

Second Subsection (庚二): Emptiness of Self

『Furthermore, Kāśyapa! It is not because there is no person that it is called empty, but emptiness [of self] is intrinsically empty. The past is empty, the future is empty, and the present is also empty. One should rely on emptiness, not on a person.』

Original Text:

庚二 人空 『復次，迦葉！非無人故名曰為空，但空自空。前際空，後際空，中際亦空。 當依於空，莫依於人。』

English Translation:

Emptiness of person (人空) is emptiness of self (我空). The meaning of emptiness of self is the same as the emptiness of dharmas discussed above. The Buddha also said: "Kāśyapa! [P119] It is not because there is no person that it is called empty, but emptiness [of self] is intrinsically empty." This means it is not by the power of contemplating non-self (無我觀力 anātman-contemplation) that the person is eliminated and then called empty, but rather that the nature of self (我性) is fundamentally unobtainable/unfindable/ungraspable. To explain that this nature of person (self) is fundamentally unobtainable/unfindable/ungraspable, it then says: "The past is empty, the future is empty, the present is empty." 際 (jì) means boundary or period. The past period (前際) is the past, extending to the past of the past. The future period (後際) is the future, extending to the future of the future. Between the past and future is called the middle period (中際), which is the present. The person (self) undergoes the cycle of death and rebirth, from past lives to the present, and from the present life to future lives. If the person/self were truly existent, it would certainly be found within these three periods. But upon true observation, the past self is unobtainable/unfindable/ungraspable, the present self is unobtainable/unfindable/ungraspable, and the future self is also unobtainable/unfindable/ungraspable. Seeking the self in the three times, it is unobtainable/unfindable/ungraspable; thus it is evident that empty nature inherently means no-self (無我).

Original Text:

　　人空，就是我空。我空的意義，與上說的法空一樣。佛又說：「迦葉！ [P119] 非無人故名曰為空，但空自空」。這是說，並非以無我觀力，除滅了人才叫 空，而只是我性本來不可得。為了說明這人（我）性本來不可得，所以接著 說：「前際空，後際空，中際空」。際是邊際，前際是過去，一直到過去過 去。後際是未來，一直到未來未來。在過未中間，叫中際，就是現在。人（ 我），是死生流轉的，從過去世到現在，又從現生到未來世的。如人我是實 有的，那一定在這三際中。但真實的觀察起來，過去我不可得，現在我不可 得，未來我也不可得。於三世中求我不可得，可見空性是本來無我了。

English Translation:

Most Śrāvakas and some Mahāyāna scholars believe that the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas are different. Therefore, although they may realize the emptiness of self, they may not know the emptiness of dharmas, and even deny the emptiness of dharmas. However, some Śrāvakas and Mahāyāna Madhyamaka practitioners completely disagree with this misunderstanding. The emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas only differ in the object upon which the correct contemplation relies; the empty nature (性空) that is illuminated is without difference. For example, with a fire from straw and a fire from coal, regarding the straw and coal that the fire depends on, and the strength of the fire, there may be differences; but regarding the hot nature of fire and its burning function, how can one say there is a difference? Based on this, Śrāvaka teachings often speak of non-self (無我), while Mahāyāna teachings often speak of emptiness (空); these are slight differences in customary terminology, not that the empty nature itself has any difference. According to this correct view, if [P120] a Śrāvaka practitioner realizes the emptiness of self, they may not necessarily go on to contemplate the emptiness of dharmas, but they will definitely not cling to dharmas as truly existent. Because when engaged in true contemplation, however they understand non-self, they will similarly understand the emptiness of dharmas. Conversely, if one clings to dharmas as truly existent and does not believe in the emptiness of dharmas, then they have definitely not truly realized non-self, but are rather arrogant individuals (增上慢人) who merely believe themselves to have attained fruition. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra clearly states: Srotāpannas (first fruition) and Arhats will definitely believe in and understand the emptiness of dharmas. The Diamond Sūtra even more clearly states: 'If one grasps the sign of dharmas (法相), one thereby clings to a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life-span. If one grasps the sign of non-dharmas (非法相), one thereby clings to a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life-span.' This sūtra (the Ratnakūṭa) explains the emptiness of dharmas based on the emptiness of fundamental nature, and also explains the emptiness of self based on the emptiness of fundamental nature. From this, it can be seen that the correct view of Madhyamaka practitioners is a full understanding of the true meaning of Mahāyāna's correct contemplation.

Original Text:

　　多數聲聞及一分大乘學者、以為我空與法空不同，所以雖通達我空，卻 可以不知道法空，甚至否認法空的。但一分聲聞及大乘中觀者，完全不同意 這種誤解。我空及法空，只是正觀所依的對象不同，而照見的性空，並無差 別。如稻草火與煤炭火，約火所依的草及炭說，火力的強弱說，雖有不同； 而約火熱性，燒用說，怎能說有不同？依此，聲聞法多說無我，大乘法多說 空，是習用的名詞多少不同，而非性空有什麼不同。據這樣的正見來說，如 [P120] 聲聞者證得我空，他可以不再觀法空，但決不會執法實有。因為如作真實觀 時，他怎樣了解無我，就會同樣的了解法空。反之，如執法實有，不信法空 ，那他決沒有真正通達無我，而是增上慢人，自以為證果而已。所以大般若 經明說：須陀洹（初果）及阿羅漢，一定會信解法空的。金剛經更顯然說： 『若取法相，即著我人眾生壽者。若取非法相，即著我人眾生壽者』。本經 依本性空明法空，也依本性空來明人空，這可見中觀者的正見，是充分了解 大乘正觀的真義。

English Translation:

Finally, the Buddha also said: "One should rely on emptiness, not on a person." These two sentences seem very abrupt, but are in fact extremely important! The 'emptiness' here refers to empty nature (空性) (the sign of emptiness 空相, thusness 真如, etc.). The correct contemplation taught by the Buddha must be cultivated and realized by relying on this empty nature; one must absolutely not rely on a 'person' for faith, understanding, cultivation, and realization. Originally, Indian Brahmanism believed that to attain liberation, one must possess the wisdom of a true self (真我). Only by realizing the true self can one attain liberation. The distinctive teaching of Śākyamuni Buddha is the complete negation of this metaphysical theory of a true self. He consistently taught: 'Because of impermanence, there is suffering; because of suffering, there is non-self (無我); because of non-self, there is nothing belonging to a self (無我所); thus, Nirvāṇa is attained.' In other words, only by thoroughly seeing through the illusion of a true, permanent self can one attain liberation. Therefore, at the time of direct realization (現證) by Buddha's disciples, [P121] it is often said: 'Knowing the Dharma, entering the Dharma, one sees only the Dharma, not the self.' The Dharma is the true Dharma (Sublime Dharma, i.e., Dharma-nature 法性, Nirvāṇa); in the realization of awakening, one directly experiences the true Dharma, and fundamentally there is no self to be seen or obtained. Ordinary Buddhist students, not knowing what the 'self' of the non-Buddhists (外道) is like, assume that what they cultivate and realize is different from the 'self' of the non-Buddhists. Actually, the difference in cultivation and realization between Buddhism and non-Buddhist paths (non-Buddhists also have practices, religious experiences, and also believe themselves to have attained awakening and liberation) is very subtle in its explanation. For example, if one says that one has directly experienced: the true, the permanent, the pure, the blissful, the unborn and unceasing, the non-dual and non-differentiated, the inconceivable. The meanings of these phrases all make it difficult to show the difference between non-Buddhist paths and Buddhadharma. However, with such an experience, non-Buddhists will definitely say, this is the true self (or call it God). This is to say, it has a volitional nature. Therefore, they describe their own religious experience as a life-subject, absolutely subjective; or deify it as the true ruler of the universe—such as Jehovah, Brahmā, etc. But the experience of Buddha's disciples is different from that of non-Buddhists; it is 'seeing only the Dharma, not seeing a person/self.' Therefore, in conventional designations and explanations, although it is said that [reality and] wisdom are non-dual (如智不二), it is only spoken of as the nature of all dharmas, unborn and unceasing, and is not endowed with volitional characteristics; naturally, it is not called a true self, nor imagined as a creator God. When this sūtra explains that the nature of self is fundamentally empty, it specially states: 'One should rely on emptiness, not on a person/self'—this is truly of utmost importance! However, sentient beings since beginningless time have had their minds permeated by self-view (我見), so it is [P122] inevitable that even some Buddhist disciples are still [trying to] directly experience a true self, believing themselves to have reached the ultimate!

Original Text:

　　末了，佛又說：「當依於空，莫依於人」。這兩句，似乎很突然，但實 在非常重要！這裡的空，是空性（空相、真如等）。佛所開示的正觀，要依 此空性而修證，切莫依人而信解修證。原來印度的婆羅門教，以為要得解脫 ，非有真我的智慧不可。能通達真我，才能得解脫。釋迦佛的特法，就是全 盤否定了這種形而上的真我論。始終說：『無常故苦，苦故無我，無我故無 我所，則得涅槃』。換言之，非徹底照破了真常我，才能解脫。所以在佛弟 [P121] 子的現證時，每說：『知法、入法，但見於法，不見於我』。法是正法（妙 法，即法性，涅槃），在覺證中，但是體見正法，根本沒有我可見可得。一 般學佛者，不知外道的我是怎樣的，就自以為所修所證，與外道的我不同； 其實，佛與外道的修證（外道也有修行，宗教經驗，也自以為證悟得解脫的 ）不同，在說明上是很希微的。如說：體見到：真的、常的、清淨的、安樂 的、不生不滅的、無二無別的、不可思議的。這些句義，都難於顯出外道與 佛法的不同。但這樣的經驗，外道一定說，這是真我（或者說是神）。這是 說，這是有意志性的。所以把自己的宗教經驗，描寫為生命主體，絕對主觀 ；或者神化為宇宙的真宰──耶和華、梵天等。但佛弟子的體驗，與外道不 同，是『但見於法，不見於人』的。所以在世俗的安立說明中，雖說如智不 二，而但說為一切法性，不生不滅，而沒有給與意志的特性，當然也不稱為 真我，不想像為創造神了。本經在說明我性本空時，特別說到：『當依於空 ，莫依於人』，真是切要之極！不過，眾生從無始以來，我見熏心，所以也 [P122]

不免有佛弟子，還在體見真我，自以為究竟呢！

English Translation:

Second Section (己二): Dispelling Emotional and Conceptual Fabrications

First Subsection (庚一): Grasping the Sign of Perfected Reality

『If, by attaining emptiness, one then relies on emptiness, this is a regression in the Buddhadharma. Thus, Kāśyapa! It is better to give rise to a self-view piled up as high as Mount Sumeru, than to develop arrogance based on a view of emptiness. Why is this? All views are liberated through emptiness. If one gives rise to a view of emptiness [as a thing to be clung to], then it cannot be eliminated.』

Original Text:

己二 遣除情計

庚一 取圓成實相 『若以得空便依於空，是於佛法則為退墮。如是迦葉！寧起我見積若須彌，非 以空見起增上慢。所以者何？一切諸見，以空得脫，若起空見，則不可除。』

English Translation:

In the cultivation and study of the correct contemplation of the Middle Way, if one is not skillful, whether one clings to emptiness or is attached to existence, both are not in accord with the Middle Way. Therefore, the Buddha uses parables to speak—about dispelling emotional attachments by means of the three natures (三性). First, it speaks of grasping the sign of perfected reality (圓成實相).

Original Text:

　　於中道正觀的修學，如不能善巧，或執空，或著有，都是不契中道的。 所以佛舉譬喻來說──約三性以遣情執。先說取圓成實相。

English Translation:

The perfected reality (圓成實相 pariniṣpanna-svabhāva) is precisely the emptiness of dharmas (法空) (Thusness 真如, Dharma-nature 法性, etc.). In the past, there were two schools: 'the twofold emptiness is itself the truth (真)' and 'the truth is what is revealed by the twofold emptiness.' In the sūtras, the Buddha sometimes calls it emptiness (空), sometimes empty nature (空性), or the sign of emptiness (空相); therefore, from the perspective of conventional designation and speech, these are all acceptable. Emptiness has the function of detaching from emotional clinging. However, if one exclusively takes negation (遮破) as emptiness, that is incorrect, because emptiness also implies that which is revealed through negation. But the nature revealed by emptiness is absolutely free from all conceptual proliferations (戲論 prapañca), transcending relative and dependent designations. What can it be called? Although it is not inappropriate to 'use provisional terms to detach from clinging, calling it 'existence' (有),' this is ultimately in accordance with the conventional. 'Using provisional terms to detach from clinging, calling it 'emptiness' (空),' isn't this more in accordance with the ultimate truth (勝義)? Therefore, the different explanations of 'the twofold emptiness is itself the truth' and 'the truth is what is revealed by the twofold emptiness' [P123] can be explained according to the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra: For people who are complete in the five aspects,<sup>1</sup> the Buddha directly teaches the emptiness of being without self-nature (無自性空), non-arising and non-ceasing, to inspire their contemplative practice to enter into self-realization; [for them,] emptiness is in accordance with the ultimate truth. But for people who are not complete in the five aspects, to lead them to generate an understanding of emptiness, so they do not fear emptiness or cling one-sidedly to emptiness, [the Buddha] therefore accords with convention and speaks of the nature revealed by emptiness (空所顯性).

Original Text:

　　圓成實相，就是法空（真如、法性等）。古來有『二空即真』，『二空 所顯』二宗。佛在經中，或稱為空，或稱為空性，空相，所以在安立言說邊 ，這都是可以的。空以離情執為用，但如專以遮破為空，那是不對的，因為 空也意味那因遮而顯的。但空所顯性，是絕無戲論的，超越相待安立的，能 稱之為什麼呢！雖不妨『離執寄詮，稱之為有』，但到底是順於世俗的。『 寄詮離執，稱之為空』，不更順於勝義嗎？所以二空即真，及二空所顯的不 [P123] 同說明，可依解深密經來解說：為五事具足的人，佛直說無自性空，不生不 滅，策發觀行以趣入自證，空是順於勝義的。但為五事不具足的人，使他引 生空解，不致於畏空及偏執空，所以順俗而說空所顯性。

Footnotes/Annotations:

<sup>1</sup> "Complete in the five aspects" (五事具足 wǔ shì jùzú) refers to individuals possessing the necessary faculties or conditions conducive to understanding profound Dharma, such as the five spiritual faculties (pañca indriyāṇi): faith (信 śraddhā), vigor (進 vīrya), mindfulness (念 smṛti), concentration (定 samādhi), and wisdom (慧 prajñā).

English Translation:

Regardless of whether 'the twofold emptiness is itself the truth' or 'the nature revealed by emptiness,' if one grasps and clings to the perfected-reality-emptiness (圓成實空) (or empty nature 空性), then the fault is extremely great! Therefore, following on from the [teaching of] the intrinsic emptiness of self and dharmas, the Buddha said: "If, by attaining emptiness, one then relies on (clings to) emptiness, this is a regression in the Buddhadharma." 'Attaining emptiness' (得空) means there is an emptiness that can be obtained or realized. 'Relying on emptiness' (依空) here means clinging to emptiness (this is different in meaning from the 'rely on emptiness' [當依於空] in the previous passage). This means: when a practitioner is in non-discriminating contemplation (無分別觀), the signs of arising and ceasing (生滅相) cease, and a sign of emptiness (空相) appears. If one takes this as the realization of the perfected reality (圓成實相), then that is mistaken! Furthermore, for those who cultivate non-discriminating concentration (無分別定), directly detaching from all thoughts (念), a sign of emptiness (空相) appears. At that time, it is like empty space, bright and pure, tranquil and clear; one feels an ethereal emptiness (空靈), clarity (明顯), and bliss (安樂), and then grasps and clings to it. This, with regard to the Buddhadharma, not only obstructs further progress but also leads to regression. Because if one clings to such a contemplative (or meditative) state for a long time, the diligent and courageous mind will gradually be lost, and one will pass this life in a dazed and unproductive state (兀兀騰騰). Some even fail to distinguish between good and evil, and still consider themselves to have realized the sameness of Buddha and Māra!

Original Text:

　　不問是二空即真，空所顯性，如於圓成實空（或空性）而有所取著，那 過失是非常大的！所以佛承上我法自性空而說：「若以得空，便依於空，是 於佛法則為退墮」。得空，是有空可得可證。依空，是依著於空（這與上文 『但依於空』的依義不同）。這是說：行者在無分別觀中，生滅相息而空相 現。如以此為證得圓成實相，那就錯了！還有，修無分別定的，直下離一切 念，有空相現。那時，如虛空明淨，湛然皎潔；自覺得空靈，明顯，安樂， 就於中取著。這對於佛法，不但障礙了進修，而且還要退失。因為這樣的觀 （或定）境，如取著久了，勤勇心就漸漸失去，兀兀騰騰，了此一生。有的 善惡不分，還自以為佛魔一如呢！

English Translation:

The fault of clinging to the sign of emptiness (空相) is too great, so the Buddha instructed Kāśyapa, saying: 'It is "better" to give "rise to a self-view (我見), accumulated" [P124] as high "as Mount Sumeru," than "to develop arrogance based on a view of emptiness (空見)."' Not having attained, not having realized, yet believing oneself to have attained and realized, is called arrogance (增上慢). Grasping the sign of emptiness is a view of emptiness (空見), and mistakenly taking this view of emptiness as the realization of the perfected-reality-emptiness (圓成實空) is such a grave error! Such a comparison of gain and loss is not an exaggeration. Because with self-view, although one cannot attain liberation, it does not prevent one from extensively cultivating wholesome karma leading to rebirth as humans or devas. But clinging to emptiness leads to no longer being courageous in doing good, and ultimately to regression. Moreover, no matter how great the self-view is, it can still be transformed and eradicated by emptiness, leading to the self-realization of emptiness. But a view of emptiness [as a thing to be clung to] cannot [be so easily dealt with], because "all views are liberated through emptiness (空)," which means detaching from all views through the contemplation of emptiness (空觀). If one misunderstands the Buddhadharma and perversely gives "rise to a view of emptiness [as a thing to be clung to], then it cannot be eliminated." Having already clung to emptiness, one certainly cannot use emptiness again to transform and release it. Nor can one use [a view of] existence (有) to resolve the view of emptiness; existence would only further increase emotional clinging. Therefore, Nāgārjuna's Madhyamakaśāstra (中觀論), based on this, states: 'The Tathāgata teaches the Dharma of emptiness in order to enable detachment from all views. If one furthermore entertains a view of [there being] emptiness, such a person is unteachable by all Buddhas.'<sup>2</sup> Piṅgala's (青目) commentary uses an analogy: water can extinguish fire, but if fire arises within the water itself, then there is no way to extinguish it.<sup>3</sup>

Original Text:

　　執著空相的過失太大了，所以佛開示迦葉說：「寧」可生「起我見，積 [P124] 」聚得「若須彌」山那樣，也決「非以空見起增上慢」。沒有得，沒有證， 自以為得了證了，叫增上慢。取著空相是空見，而誤取空見為證得圓成實空 ，那是何等的錯誤！這樣的比較得失，並非過甚其辭。因為有了我見，雖不 能解脫，但不妨廣修人天善業。而執空是不再勇於為善，終歸於退失。而且 ，我見無論怎麼大，還可以空來化導破除，引入空的自證。空見卻不行了， 因為「一切諸見，以空得（解）脫」，也就是以空觀而離一切見。如錯會佛 法，而顛倒的生「起空見，則不可除」了。已經著空，當然不能再以空來化 導解除。也不能以有來解除空見，有只是更增長情執而已。所以龍樹中觀論 ，據此而說：『如來說空法，為離諸見故。若復見有空，諸佛所不化」。青 目釋比喻為：水能滅火，如水中又起火，就無法可滅了。

Footnotes/Annotations:

<sup>2</sup> This quote is from Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), Chapter 13, Verse 8: "The victorious ones have proclaimed emptiness as the relinquishing of all views. Those who hold emptiness as a view are said to be incurable." ( सर्वदृष्टिप्रहाणाय यः सद्धर्ममदेशयत् । अनुकम्पामुपादाय तं नमस्यामि गौतमम् ॥ śūnyatā sarvadṛṣṭīnāṃ proktā niḥsaraṇaṃ jinaiḥ yeṣāṃ tu śūnyatādṛṣtis tān asādhyān babhāṣire ||). The Chinese translation provided is slightly different but conveys the same meaning.

<sup>3</sup> Piṅgala (青目 Qīngmù) was a commentator on Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. This analogy is found in his commentary on the aforementioned verse.

English Translation:

Madhyamaka and Yogācāra masters, regarding the appearance of the sign of emptiness (空相現前), both do not permit it to be grasped or attained. When the noble ones (聖者 ārya) of the Two Vehicles realize emptiness, that is unblemished prajñā (無漏般若), directly realizing (現證) the non-discriminating Dharma-nature (無分別法性); even more so, one cannot speak of grasping or clinging. Therefore, those who [believe there is] an emptiness that can be obtained, and who cling to emptiness, are arrogant individuals (增上慢人) who are cultivating contemplation or concentration but lack skillful means (方便). [P125]

Original Text:

　　中觀與瑜伽論師，對於空相現前，都不許為可取可得的。二乘聖者證空 ，那是無漏般若，現證無分別法性，更不能說取著。所以有空可得，依著於 空的，那是修觀或修定，而沒有方便的增上慢人。 [P125]

English Translation: [Continued from previous message]

The Tathāgata again uses a parable to illustrate the fault of clinging to emptiness: "Kāśyapa! Suppose a physician administers medicine" for a patient to take. Due to the medicine's strength, it "causes the illness to be agitated"; influenced by the medicine's power, the severity of the illness is reduced, and the patient gradually recovers. Suppose those "medicines" that are continually taken remain "inside and are not" expelled. Kāśyapa! Do you think "this patient's" illness could possibly be completely cured? "差 (chài)," same as 瘥 (chài), means the illness is cured. Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: No, it won't. "If the medicine is not expelled," "their illness" not only will not get better but will instead "worsen." This is called 'the old illness is not yet cured, and the medicine itself turns into an illness.' Having said this, the Buddha then applied the parable, saying: "Thus, Kāśyapa, all views can only be extinguished by emptiness," just as all illnesses can only be cured by taking medicine. "If one gives rise to a view of emptiness [as a thing to be clung to], then it cannot be eliminated," just like medicine remaining in the body without being expelled, causing side effects and worsening the illness instead; then it becomes incurable.

Original Text: 　　如來又舉譬喻來說明著空的過失：「迦葉！譬如醫師，授藥」給病人服 下。由於藥力，「令病擾動」；受藥力影響，減殺病勢而逐漸好轉。假使不 斷服下的那些「藥」，一直「在內而不」排洩「出」來。迦葉！你以為「是 病人」的病，可能會全愈嗎？「差」，與瘥同，是病好了的意思。迦葉對佛 說：不會的。「是藥不出」來，「其病」不但不會好，反而要「轉增」的。 這就叫『舊病未愈，藥反成病』了。說到這裡，佛才合譬喻說：「如是迦葉 ，一切諸見，唯空能滅」，如一切病，唯有服藥才能治愈一樣。「若起空見 ，則不可除」，如藥留在體內不出來，起副作用，反而增病一樣，那才無藥 可治了。

English Translation: Second Subsection (庚二): Fear of the Emptiness of the Dependent Nature [P126] 『Suppose there is a person who is terrified of empty space, wailing<sup>1</sup> and beating their chest, saying these words: "I want to abandon empty space!" What do you think? Can this empty space be abandoned or left behind?』 『No, World-Honored One!』 『Thus, Kāśyapa! If someone fears the Dharma of emptiness, I say this person is crazed and has lost their mind. Why is this? They constantly function within emptiness yet are afraid of emptiness.』

Original Text: 庚二 怖依他性空 [P126] 『譬如有人怖畏虛空，悲!2筥椎胸，作如是言：我捨虛空。於意云何？是虛空者 可捨離不』？『不也，世尊』！『如是迦葉！若畏空法，我說是人狂亂失心。所 以者何？常行空中而畏於空。』 Footnotes/Annotations: <sup>1</sup> The original text has "悲!2筥椎胸". The character "筥" (jǔ) means a round bamboo basket. Based on the context and common expressions of distress, "!2筥" is likely a corruption of "號" (háo), meaning "to wail" or "cry loudly". The commentary later confirms this interpretation by stating "與號同" (same as 號).

English Translation: The sign of dependent arising (依他起相 paratantra-lakṣaṇa) is dependently arisen dharmas (因緣所生法 pratītyasamutpanna-dharma). (Yogācāra scholars, who take Mind-Only (唯識 Vijñaptimātra) as their tenet, say that dependent arising refers to mind and mental factors 心心所法 citta-caitta). "Dependently arisen dharmas, I say are ultimately empty (畢竟空 atyanta-śūnya)." This is stated in the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra (華手經 Huāshǒu jīng)<sup>2</sup> and expresses the essential meaning of Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Prajñāpāramitā. Here, one should distinguish: First, if one says that dependently arisen dharmas are empty and thereby completely negates dependently arisen dharmas, thinking them to be like turtle hair or rabbit horns, that is the deluded clinging of the Vaipulya practitioners (方廣道人)—those who advocate the emptiness of mere names (空假名論者). Second, if one says that the dharma-nature (法性) of dependent arising is empty, but the signs/characteristics of dependently arisen dharmas (緣起法相) are not empty, that is [the view of] those who advocate that mere names are not empty (假名不空論者). The former is the 'going too far' faction, the latter is the 'not going far enough' faction. The ultimate, definitive meaning of emptiness is: dependently arisen dharmas are merely designated names (假名 prajñapti), therefore they are ultimately empty; but ultimate emptiness does not obstruct dependently arisen phenomena [from appearing] like illusions (如幻 māyopama). This is the Middle Way where emptiness and existence are non-obstructing. However, from some Hīnayāna to some Mahāyāna schools (those close to the 'non-emptiness' proponents), all find that 'hearing of ultimate emptiness is like a knife stabbing the heart,' difficult to endure. Because according to the views of these substantialists (實有論者), 'the illusory must depend on the real (假必依實)'; how can one say that everything is merely a designated name, ultimately empty? If everything is merely illusory/designated, then everything is empty, which means everything is non-existent (they take emptiness to mean nothingness), then even designated names would not be possible! Since one cannot say [P127] that everything is merely a designated name, then naturally, what is established by designated names, being without self-nature (無自性), can be said to be empty; but that which is established by its own characteristics (自相安立) and exists, cannot be said to be empty. Therefore, they fear true emptiness and go against true emptiness. Or they revise the teaching of true emptiness, saying: that all dharmas are empty is not the definitive meaning (不了義 neyārtha); in reality, some things are empty, and some things are not empty. In [the view of] everything being merely designated names, everything being ultimately empty, they feel they have no ground to stand on and cannot establish any dharmas of saṃsāra or Nirvāṇa. Therefore, they insist on seeking something non-empty outside of emptiness in order to establish saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa, and in order to give rise to the aspiration to practice and proceed towards the Buddhist path. Sentient beings have always been obscured by the view of self-nature (自性見), and thus have always loved existence and hated emptiness. For these people (those not complete in the five aspects), the Buddha sometimes has no choice but to use skillful means (方便 upāya) and provisional teachings (假說), concealing emptiness and speaking of existence, in order to guide and transform them.

Original Text: 　　依他起相，就是因緣所生法（唯識學者以唯識為宗，所以說依他起是心 心所法）。『因緣所生法，我說畢竟空』，是華手經所說，而表達了般若等 大乘經的要義。這裡，應該分別：一、如說緣起法空，而徹底否定了緣起法 ，以為如龜毛兔角那樣，那是方廣道人──空假名論者的妄執。二、如說緣 起的法性空，而緣起法相不空，那是假名不空論者。前是太過派，這是不及 派。空的究竟了義是：緣起法唯是假名，所以是畢竟空；但畢竟空不礙緣起 如幻，才是空有無礙的中道。然而從小乘到一分大乘（近於不空論者），都 是『聞畢竟空，如刀傷心』，難以忍受的。因為照這些實有論者的見地，『 假必依實』，怎麼能說一切都是假名，畢竟空呢！如一切唯假，也就一切皆 空，那一切都沒有（他們是以空為沒有的）了，假名也不可能呀！既不能說 [P127] 一切唯假名，當然假名安立的，沒有自性，可以說空，而自相安立的有，不 可以說空了。所以他們怖畏真空，違逆真空。或者修正真空說：一切法空， 是不了義的；其實某些是空的，某些是不空的。在一切唯假名，一切畢竟空 中，他們就感到沒有著落，不能成立生死涅槃一切法。所以非要在空的以外 ，求到一些不空的，才能成立生死與涅槃，才能發心修行而向佛道。眾生一 向為自性見所蒙昧，也就一向是愛有惡空。佛對於這些（五事不具足的）， 有時也不得不方便假說，隱空說有，以化導他們呢！ Footnotes/Annotations: <sup>2</sup> The phrase "因緣所生法，我說畢竟空" (Dependently arisen dharmas, I say are ultimately empty) is a well-known formulation closely associated with Nāgārjuna and Madhyamaka philosophy, appearing in works like the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. While "華手經" (Huāshǒu Jīng, literally "Flower-Hand Sūtra") can sometimes refer to the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra or the Hastikakṣyā Sūtra (Elephant's Armpit Sūtra), pinpointing the exact sūtra Master Yin Shun refers to here for this specific phrasing would require further research into his works. The Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra does discuss emptiness extensively. The core idea is central to Prajñāpāramitā literature.

English Translation: For such practitioners who fear that dependently arisen dharmas are ultimately of an empty nature, and who wish to seek something non-empty outside of emptiness, the Buddha, from the standpoint of the ultimate, definitive meaning, rebukes them with a parable, saying: 'Suppose there is a person who is terrified of empty space,' wailing loudly (悲號 bēiháo, as confirmed by the commentary '與號同' - same as 號), beating their 'chest with their hands, and saying these words: I' want to 'abandon empty space,' and go to a place where there is no empty space. The Buddha asked Kāśyapa: What do you think? 'Can this empty space be abandoned or left behind?' Kāśyapa said: 'No,' it is not possible. Empty space pervades all places; it is a characteristic of material existence. Wherever there is matter, there is empty space. How can one leave empty space and go to a place where there is no empty space? Then the Buddha applied the Dharma to the parable, saying: 'Thus, [P128] Kāśyapa!' Those who hear that all dharmas are ultimately empty and are 'afraid of the Dharma of emptiness,' insisting on establishing all dharmas in something non-empty—are they not like this foolish person who wants to escape from empty space? 'I say this person'—one who cannot accept with faith and patience that all dharmas are ultimately empty, but wants to establish something non-empty—is a 'crazed and deranged' neurotic! This is a person who has been obscured by the view of self-nature (自性見) since beginningless time and lacks correct knowledge and views (正知見). Why is this said? That all dharmas are ultimately empty is the fundamental nature of all dharmas. Sentient beings since beginningless time—whether giving rise to delusion, creating karma, receiving retribution, or even giving rise to aspiration and cultivating practice—everything has always been ultimately empty. They have always 'constantly functioned within emptiness,' illusorily arising and illusorily ceasing without knowing it themselves, yet instead, they 'are afraid of emptiness' and seek to obtain non-empty dharmas. Is this not being inverted and having lost one's mind?

Original Text: 　　像這種怖畏因緣生法，畢竟性空，而想在空外別求不空的行人，佛在究 竟了義的立場，以譬喻來呵斥他們說：「譬如有人，怖畏虛空」，大聲「悲 !2筥」（與號同），以手自己「椎胸，而作是言：我」要「捨虛空」，而到沒 有虛空的所在。佛問迦葉：你覺得怎樣？「是虛空可捨離」嗎？迦葉說：「 不」可能的。虛空遍一切處，是物質存在的特性；那裡有物質，那裡就有虛 空，怎麼能離卻虛空，而到沒有虛空的所在呢！佛這才以法合譬說：「如是 [P128] 迦葉」！那些聽說一切法畢竟空，怖「畏空法」，一定要在不空中安立一切 法的，不就像這想逃避虛空的愚人嗎？「我說是人」──不能信忍一切法畢 竟空，而要安立不空的人，是「狂亂失心」的神經病者！是為無始以來，自 性見所蒙昧，而沒有正知見的人。為什麼這樣說呢？一切法畢竟空，是一切 法的本性如此。眾生無始以來，起惑也好，造業也好，受報也好，就是發心 也好，修行也好，什麼都從來就是畢竟空的。一向「常行空中」，幻生幻滅 而不自知，反「而畏於空」，要求得不空法，這不是顛倒失心嗎？