English
English version All Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle) schools hold the view of annihilation. The annihilation of heretics returns to the Great Void (referring to a state of emptiness). The annihilation of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) returns to Nirvana (the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, referring to liberation). Therefore, the *Zhao Lun* (Essays of Sengzhao) says: 'The greatest affliction is having a body, so one must extinguish the body to return to nothingness. The most laborious thing is having wisdom, so one must sever wisdom to sink into emptiness.' It also says: 'Form is a shackle, wisdom is a mixed poison.' The *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* says: 'If the essence of mind is extinguished, it is no different from the annihilationist sophistry of heretics.' 'Taking form in its entirety as true emptiness,' therefore it says 'because it is emptiness,' this explains the next sentence. Form, etc., is originally the one mind of *Tathatā* (suchness, the origin of all things in the universe), which combines with arising and ceasing, and is called *Ālaya-vijñāna* (the eighth consciousness, storing all seeds), etc., and acts as the transformer. It transforms into the roots, body, and realm of objects (referring to the bodies of sentient beings and the environment in which they live), which are the dharmas (phenomena) referred to here as form, etc. Therefore, when we investigate these now, they have no substance and return to the emptiness of the true mind, and should not return to the emptiness of annihilation, because they were not originally transformed by annihilationist emptiness. The meaning of 'return' is explained in the text below. 'The reason is that it is true emptiness, therefore it is not annihilationist emptiness,' this summarizes the explained content. 'Therefore, it is said that because it is emptiness (true), therefore it is not emptiness (annihilation),' this summarizes the stated viewpoint, the above summarizes the next sentence, and the below summarizes the previous sentence. 'The two forms are not identical to emptiness because they are emptiness, why? Because the appearance of blue and yellow is not the principle of true emptiness, therefore it is said not identical to emptiness,' this explains the previous sentence. Because upon hearing the sutra say that form is emptiness, one does not understand that the nature of form is emptiness, and clings to the appearance of form as true emptiness, therefore it needs to be distinguished. This distinguishes ordinary people and bodhisattvas with initial aspirations, not Hinayana. Hinayana does not consider form to be identical to emptiness. 'However, blue and yellow have no substance, and all are empty (empty and non-existent), therefore it is said to be emptiness,' this is the true meaning, explaining the next sentence. Although it speaks of blue and yellow, it also includes length, etc. Blue and yellow phenomena, etc., must rely on materiality, so the three meanings of emptiness are used to break the attachment to form. First, the meaning of boundlessness, if emptiness has boundaries, then there would be form outside the realm of emptiness. Since emptiness has no boundaries, it occupies the entire ten directions, with no outside, so where else would there be form, etc.? Second, the meaning of non-destruction, various deluded ones --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
云。空虽无外。何妨色等只在空界之中。故以无坏义破之。谓若有物入于空中。则随此物大小分量。穿破于空以容其物。如橛入地中。钉锥之类入于木中。皆随橛等大小分量穿于地等。若地等不破。则不容橛等而入。救曰。如水不可穿破。而容物入水中。何妨虚空亦尔。破曰。水虽不破。然物入时。随物大小分量。排之以容其物。以水性至柔。不妨流动移转故。虚空岂同此水。被排之动转耶。三无杂义。谓惑者又云。空界无外。空体无坏。不妨万物皆在空中。以空是虚通无挂碍故。能含容故。破曰。若物在空中。空又不坏不转。其物与空应相混杂。如一团坚密之物。方亭一尺。此方尺分量之空。既不坏不转。元在本方一尺分量之处。则与此方尺之物。岂非杂耶。若言不杂。则须一去一存。若言俱存又不杂者。则一尺之分。各占五寸之地。如此转不相应也。若言俱存俱遍一尺之分。理亦不然。何者。以空与色有二相违。不应全体同遍当处。何者二违。一空是无物。色是有物。二空是虚通。色是质碍。不可方尺分中。言全是无物。复言全是有物。又不可言全是虚通。复言全是质碍。岂有此理耶。故上云青黄之相。非是真空之理。此云青黄莫不皆空也。是知虚空既无边无坏无杂。则空中必定无有色。故云即空也。 良 现代汉语译本 云（指提问者）。空虽然没有边际，为什么不妨碍色（rupa，物质现象）等存在于空界之中呢？所以用‘无坏’的道理来破斥这种观点。如果有什么东西进入空中，就会随着这个东西的大小分量，穿破空间来容纳它，就像木桩进入地中，钉子锥子之类的进入木头中一样，都是随着木桩等的大小分量穿透地面等。如果地面等不被穿破，就不能容纳木桩等进入。辩解说：就像水不能被穿破，却能容纳物体进入水中一样，为什么虚空不能这样呢？破斥说：水虽然没有被穿破，但是物体进入时，会随着物体的大小分量，排开水来容纳物体，因为水的性质非常柔顺，不妨碍流动转移。虚空难道和水一样，可以被排开而动转吗？ 三、无杂义。有人又说：空界没有边际，空体没有损坏，不妨碍万物都在空中，因为空是虚通的，没有阻碍，能够包含容纳。破斥说：如果物体在空中，空又不损坏不转移，那么物体和空应该相互混杂。就像一个坚密的东西，方方正正一尺见方，这方尺分量的空间，既不损坏不转移，原本就在这方尺分量的地方，那么这方尺的物体和空间，难道不是混杂在一起吗？如果说不混杂，那么就必须一个去掉一个留下。如果说都存在又不混杂，那么一尺的分量，各自占据五寸的地方，这样就转而不相应了。如果说都存在，都遍布一尺的分量，道理也不对。为什么呢？因为空和色有二种相违背的性质，不应该完全相同地遍布在同一个地方。哪两种相违背的性质呢？一是空是没有物体，色是有物体；二是空是虚通，色是质碍。不可能在方尺分中，说全是无物体，又说全是有物体；又不可能说全是虚通，又说全是质碍。哪有这样的道理呢？所以上面说‘青黄的相，不是真空的道理’，这里说‘青黄莫不皆空’。由此可知，虚空既然没有边际，没有损坏，没有混杂，那么空中必定没有色，所以说就是空。 良（指提问者）。
English
English version Cloud (referring to the questioner). Although space has no boundaries, why can't rupa (form, material phenomena) and other things exist within the space realm? Therefore, the principle of 'non-destruction' is used to refute this view. If something enters the space, it will, according to the size and weight of this thing, penetrate the space to accommodate it, just like a stake enters the ground, and nails and awls enter the wood, all penetrating the ground, etc., according to the size and weight of the stake, etc. If the ground, etc., is not penetrated, it cannot accommodate the stake, etc., to enter. The defense says: Just as water cannot be penetrated, but can accommodate objects entering the water, why can't space be like this? The refutation says: Although the water is not penetrated, when an object enters, it will, according to the size and weight of the object, push the water away to accommodate the object, because the nature of water is very soft and does not hinder flow and transfer. Is space the same as water, which can be pushed away and moved? Third, the meaning of non-mixture. Someone also said: The space realm has no boundaries, and the space body is not damaged, which does not prevent all things from being in the space, because space is empty and unobstructed, and can contain and accommodate. The refutation says: If an object is in the space, and the space is not damaged or transferred, then the object and the space should be mixed together. Just like a solid thing, one foot square, this square foot of space, which is neither damaged nor transferred, was originally in this square foot of space, then isn't this square foot of object and space mixed together? If you say they are not mixed, then one must be removed and one must be left. If you say they both exist and are not mixed, then one foot of weight occupies five inches each, which is not corresponding. If you say they both exist and both pervade one foot of weight, the principle is also wrong. Why? Because space and rupa have two contradictory natures, they should not completely pervade the same place. What are the two contradictory natures? One is that space has no object, and rupa has an object; the other is that space is empty and unobstructed, and rupa is material obstruction. It is impossible to say that in a square foot, it is all without objects, and also say that it is all with objects; it is also impossible to say that it is all empty and unobstructed, and also say that it is all material obstruction. How can there be such a reason? Therefore, the above says 'the appearance of blue and yellow is not the principle of true emptiness', and here it says 'blue and yellow are all empty'. From this, it can be known that since space has no boundaries, no damage, and no mixture, then there must be no rupa in the space, so it is said to be empty. Virtuous (referring to the questioner). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
以青黄无体之空非即青黄故云不即空也 举其无体之空。结非色相。明空非有。岂得明耶。 三色不即空以即空故何以故以空中无色故不即空会色无体故即是空(释也)良由会色归空空中必无色 决定而断也。般若心经云。是故空中无色。无受想行识。十二处。十八界。十二因缘。四谛等。佛顶云。云何是中。更容他物。 是故由色空(无也)故色非空(真也)也 上皆当句。 上三门以法简情讫 总结三门。 四色即是空何以故凡是色法必不异真空以诸色法必无性故 从缘有故。依他无性。即圆成故。 是故色即是空 既非灭色存色。不即不离。故即真空。空非色相。无遍计矣。依他缘起无性。无性真理即是圆成。古人云。色去不留空。空非有边住。 如色空既尔一切法亦然思之 色是法相之首。五蕴之初。故诸经凡欲说空义。皆约色说。如大般若列八十余科名数。皆将色例也。举要而示。则六道众生。及十方诸佛菩萨二乘人等。五蕴十二处十八界也。此宗染净无二相故。应云受想行识不即是断空等。其青黄等文。即云领纳等相。非是真空之理等。乃至诸佛。即云神通光明等相非是真空之理等。即不可以身相见如来也。 第二明空即色观者于中亦有四门 简情显解。标 现代汉语译本：以青色、黄色等没有实体的空，并非就是青色、黄色本身，所以说‘不即空’。这是举出其没有实体的空性，来否定色相，说明空不是有。难道这样还不能明白吗？ 三种色不是空，因为它们就是空。为什么呢？因为在空中没有色，所以说‘不即空’，领会到色没有实体，所以它就是空（这是解释）。正是因为领会到色归于空，空中必定没有色——这是决定的断言。《般若心经》说：‘是故空中无色，无受想行识，十二处，十八界，十二因缘，四谛等。’《佛顶经》说：‘云何是中，更容他物？’ 因此，由于色是空（无），所以色不是空（真）。以上都是当句解释。 以上三门已经用佛法来简别情见完毕。总结以上三门。 四、色即是空。为什么呢？凡是色法，必定不异于真空，因为一切色法必定没有自性（从因缘而生，依他而无自性，即是圆成）。 因此，色即是空。既不是灭色存空，也不是不即不离，所以说‘即真空’。空不是色相，没有遍计所执。依他缘起无自性，无自性的真理就是圆成实性。古人说：‘色去不留空，空非有边住。’ 如果色和空是这样，那么一切法也是这样，仔细思考！色是法相之首，五蕴之初。所以诸经凡是想要说空义，都以色来说明。例如《大般若经》列举八十余科名数，都用色来举例。举出要点来指示，就是六道众生，以及十方诸佛菩萨、二乘人等，五蕴、十二处、十八界。此宗认为染净没有二相，所以应该说受想行识不即是断空等。其中的青黄等文，就是说领纳等相，不是真空的道理等。乃至诸佛，就是说神通光明等相，不是真空的道理等。所以不可以身相见如来。 第二，阐明空即是色。观者在其中也有四门——简别情见，显明理解。这是标示。