般若心經 段五 色空相即
「色即是空」這句話人人會背，可一細想就卡：桌子明明敲得響，怎麼說它就是空？難道要等它壞成灰，才算空嗎？這一段把這層誤會輕輕揭開——空掉的，從來不是眼前這現起的色，是你心裡硬給它安上的那層「實實在在、自己撐住自己」。古人有個極好的比方：害了眼病的人看見空中有花，那花要等謝了才算空嗎？不必，它自始就沒真開過。你眼前的世界也一樣，不必毀掉一分一毫，只要看破那層「實有」，當體就是空。所以佛緊接著回頭說「空即是色」——莫又跑去色外另找一個乾淨的空，那真空從不離開這活生生的色。末了一句「受、想、行、識，亦復如是」，把這把鑰匙一下配到全部身心上：照見五蘊皆空，不是教你把感受念頭都壓成死寂，是不再把它們當成捏得住的實心物去抓——空的是那份抓，不是那份活。色仍在，執已遣；這就是般若度苦的下手處。
「色即是空」("form is itself emptiness") is a line everyone can recite, yet think it through and you stall: the table plainly sounds when you knock it — how can it be said to just be empty? Must we wait until it crumbles to ash before it counts as empty? This passage lifts that misunderstanding gently aside — what is emptied was never the present arising form before you, but the layer you forcibly fastened onto it: "solid, self-standing, holding itself up." The ancients had a superb image: a person with a diseased eye sees flowers in empty space (翳花, the sky-flower seen by a diseased eye) — must those flowers wait until they wither before they are empty? No: they never truly bloomed at all. The world before you is the same: it need not be destroyed by a hair's breadth — only see through that layer of "real existence," and in its very substance it is empty. This is why the Buddha at once turns back and adds「空即是色」("emptiness is itself form"): do not now run off to find some clean emptiness outside form — that true emptiness never departs from this living, present form. And the closing line,「受、想、行、識，亦復如是」("feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise so"), fits this one key at once to the whole of body and mind: to see the five aggregates as empty is not to teach you to press feeling and thought into dead stillness, but to stop grasping at them as holdable, solid things — what is empty is the grasping, not the aliveness. Form still stands, grasping is negated; this is where Prajñā's crossing-beyond-suffering takes hold.
舍利子！色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是。
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
經曰：
舍利子！色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是。
白話改寫：
舍利子啊！我們看得見、摸得著的種種物質形色，與那空、那無自性，並不是兩回事——形色不在空之外，空也不在形色之外。不只是不相離而已：這形色當下就是空，這空也當下就是形色。
不單是「色」這一樣如此。受（種種感受）、想（種種認取）、行（種種造作的心念）、識（種種了別），這四樣，也都和「色」一個樣——樣樣不異於空，樣樣當下即是空。
The sūtra says:
舍利子！色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是。
Plain rewrite:
Śāriputra! The various material shapes and forms that we can see and touch are not one thing while emptiness — that absence of own-nature — is another. They are not two separate things: form does not stand outside of emptiness, and emptiness does not stand outside of form. And it is not merely that they are inseparable: this very form, just as it is, is emptiness, and this very emptiness, just as it is, is form.
Nor is it only "form" that is so. Feeling (the various sensations), perception (the various takings-up), formations (the various stirrings of mind that shape and construct), and consciousness (the various discernings) — these four are exactly the same as form: each one is not different from emptiness, each one, just as it is, is itself emptiness.
一個尋常人聽了會卡住的地方
「色即是空」這四個字，幾乎人人會背。可是真按字面想下去，立刻卡住：桌子明明在這裡，手敲得響、撞了會痛——怎麼說它「就是空」？難道要等它壞了、爛了、化成灰，才算空嗎？
古人也卡在這裡。窺基把這一關說得很白：有一種人「執要色無位方始有空」——非得等這個色不見了、消滅了，才肯承認有個「空」。問題是，這樣的空，是把東西毀掉換來的空；那佛何必說「色即是空」，直接說「色滅了是空」不就好了？
關鍵就在這個「即」字。心經不是說色滅掉變空，是說色當下、原樣就是空。要把這個「即」字讀通，得先把「空」聽對——而這正是唯識這面鏡子能照亮的地方。
空的不是色本身，是你加在色上的那一層「實有」
唯識看一個「色」，分三層看（這叫三性）：
- 你心裡認定它是「外頭一個結結實實、獨立自存的東西」——這一層，叫遍計所執。這一層是你分別心安上去的，本來就沒有。
- 它其實是眾緣湊合、剎那剎那變現出來的影像，宛然可見、可說——這一層，叫依他起。
- 而它那湊合變現、了無自性的真實底子——這一層，叫圓成實。
心經說「色即是空」，空掉的是哪一層？圓測答得斬截：「遍計所執本來無故說之為空。」——空的是你硬安上去的那層「實有」，不是把眼前這現起的色、連同它無自性的真底子，一併抹成烏有。所以他特別點明：依護法一宗，「三種蘊中但遣所執以辨空性」——只遣掉遍計那一層。色沒有被取消，被取消的是你對它的誤認。
這樣，「即」字就通了：不必等色壞滅，因為要空的那層「實有」本來就沒有過；它從一開始就是空的。色當下即空，是因為它從來不曾真有過你以為的那種「實有」。
一個翳眼看花的譬喻
窺基怕人還不解，給了一個極好的喻——翳花：
如翳見花，自性非有，豈要花滅，彼始成空？
眼睛害了翳病的人，會看見空中有花。那花要等到它「謝了」才算是空的嗎？不必——它自性本無，當下就是空花，根本沒有一朵真花可謝。
你眼前的桌子也是這樣。你以為的那個「實實在在、自己撐住自己的桌子」，就像翳眼裡的空花——它那層「實有」自始非有，不待桌子壞滅，當體即空。看破的人，不是等東西毀了才見空，是當下在這現起的色上，就見到它本來無實。這就是「色即是空」。
反過來：空也不離色，空也即是色
心經沒有停在「色即是空」。它四句連說：色不異空、空不異色、色即是空、空即是色。為什麼要回頭再說「空即是色」？
因為怕人從一個坑跌進另一個坑：聽說色是空的，就以為要另找一個「色之外、乾乾淨淨的空」去安住。窺基把這也破了：有人「執世俗所取色外別有真空」——以為真空是離開形色、另在一處的東西。不是的。那真空（圓成實）不在色之外，就在這現起的依他色上、就在它無自性處顯。所以「空不異色」「空即是色」：真空從不離開當下這活生生的色。
圓測引《辨中邊論》把這層說得最圓——色有三性之色，空有三性之體，色與空在三性上一一相即，所以才能「色即是空、空即是色」來回都通，不是兩個東西勉強畫等號。
不只是「色」——受想行識,五蘊一樣
經接著一句「受、想、行、識，亦復如是」，把這把鑰匙一下子配到全部五蘊上。你的感受、你的認取、你心裡的造作、你的種種了別——沒有一樣不是這個道理：你加在它們上頭的那層「實有」，本來就空；而它們現起的作用，並不因此消失。
這一點要緊，最能安人心：照見五蘊皆空，不是教你把感受、念頭都壓死成一片死寂。感受還照樣感受，念頭還照樣起落，只是不再把它們當成一個個實心的、捏得住的東西去抓。空的是那份「抓」，不是那份「活」。
唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語
要說清楚：不是唯識的三性、二空之學從心經流出，也不是心經要靠唯識才成立。是同一件「遣其所執、存其依圓」的實相——心經用般若的話講作「色不異空、色即是空」，辯中邊論、三十頌用唯識的技術語講作「遍計所執自性無所有、圓成於依他遠離前性」。一句是經語，一句是論語，照見的是同一樁事。
拿這面鏡子回頭看那句人人會背的「色即是空」，就不再是一句玄虛的口頭禪了：它是說，你眼前這分明的世界，不必毀掉一分一毫，只要看破你硬加上去的那層「實有」，當體就是清涼的空——色仍在，而執已遣；這就是般若度苦的下手處。
The place where an ordinary listener gets stuck
The four words「色即是空」("form is itself emptiness") are something almost everyone can recite. But take them at face value and you stall at once: the table is plainly right here — knock it and it sounds, bump it and it hurts — how can it be said to "just be empty"? Must we wait until it breaks, rots, crumbles to ash before it counts as empty?
The ancients stalled here too. Kuiji put the difficulty plainly: there is a kind of person who「執要色無位方始有空」— who clings to the idea that "only once this form is gone, destroyed, is there any 'emptiness.'" But the trouble is, such an emptiness is one bought by demolishing the thing; in that case, why would the Buddha say「色即是空」("form is itself emptiness") rather than simply「色滅了是空」("once form perishes, it is empty")?
Everything turns on that word「即」("is itself / right now"). The Heart Sūtra is not saying that form perishes and becomes emptiness; it is saying that form, right now, just as it is, is emptiness. To read that「即」through, one must first hear「空」("emptiness") rightly — and this is exactly where the mirror of Yogācāra throws light.
What is empty is not form itself, but the layer of "real existence" you add onto form
Yogācāra looks at any "form" in three layers (this is the three natures):
- The layer where your mind has fixed it as "a solid, independent, self-standing thing out there" — this is called the wholly-imagined nature (遍計所執, parikalpita). This layer is something your discriminating mind has fastened on; it never existed in the first place.
- It is in fact an image conjured up by the meeting of many conditions, shifting moment to moment, vividly visible and speakable — this layer is called the other-dependent nature (依他起, paratantra).
- And its true ground — that conjured, condition-met arising utterly without own-nature — this layer is called the perfectly-accomplished nature (圓成實, pariniṣpanna).
When the Heart Sūtra says「色即是空」, which layer is emptied? Woncheuk answers without hedging:「遍計所執本來無故說之為空」— "the wholly-imagined is, from the outset, nonexistent, and therefore is called empty." What is emptied is the layer of "real existence" you forcibly fastened on, not the present arising form together with its own-nature-less true ground, both wiped into nothing. So he marks it pointedly: following Dharmapāla's school,「三種蘊中但遣所執以辨空性」— "within the three [-natured] aggregates, only the grasped-at is negated in order to discern the nature of emptiness." Only the wholly-imagined layer is removed. Form is not cancelled; what is cancelled is your misperception of it.
With this, the「即」reads through: there is no need to wait for form to perish, because the layer of "real existence" that was to be emptied never existed at all; from the very beginning it was empty. Form is, right now, empty — because it never truly had the kind of "real existence" you supposed.
A simile: an eye seeing flowers through cataract
Fearing one might still not grasp it, Kuiji gives a superb image — the sky-flower (翳花):
如翳見花，自性非有，豈要花滅，彼始成空？
A person whose eye is afflicted with cataract sees flowers in empty space (the sky-flower seen by a diseased eye). Must those flowers wait until they "wither" before they count as empty? No need — their own-being is from the outset nonexistent; they are right now empty flowers, with no real flower there to wither at all.
The table before you is just the same. The "solid, self-supporting table" you take it to be is like the flower in the cataract-stricken eye — its layer of "real existence" was never there to begin with, and need not wait for the table to break: it is, in its very substance, empty. One who sees through this does not wait for the thing to be destroyed before seeing emptiness; right here, upon this present arising form, one sees that it was never substantial. This is「色即是空」.
In reverse: emptiness too is not apart from form, emptiness too is itself form
The Heart Sūtra does not stop at「色即是空」. It speaks four phrases in a row:「色不異空、空不異色、色即是空、空即是色」("form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form, form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form"). Why turn back and add「空即是色」("emptiness is itself form")?
Because there is the danger of falling out of one pit into another: having heard that form is empty, one supposes one must go off and find some "clean emptiness lying outside form" to dwell in. Kuiji breaks this too: some「執世俗所取色外別有真空」— "cling to a true emptiness lying apart from the conventionally grasped form" — supposing true emptiness to be a thing standing elsewhere, away from shape and form. It is not. That true emptiness (the perfectly-accomplished nature) is not outside form; it is disclosed right upon this present, other-dependent form, right where it has no own-nature. So「空不異色」("emptiness is not different from form"),「空即是色」("emptiness is itself form"): true emptiness never departs from this living, present form.
Woncheuk, citing the Madhyāntavibhāga (辯中邊論), states this layer most fully: form has the form of the three natures, emptiness has the substance of the three natures, and form and emptiness are mutually identical, one to one, upon the three natures — which is why「色即是空、空即是色」runs through in both directions, not two things forced into an equation.
Not only "form" — feeling, perception, formations, consciousness, the five aggregates alike
The sūtra next adds「受、想、行、識，亦復如是」("feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise so"), fitting this same key at once to all five aggregates. Your feelings, your takings-up, the constructings of your mind, your manifold discernings — not one of them falls outside this principle: the layer of "real existence" you add onto them is, from the outset, empty; and their present functioning does not thereby vanish.
This point matters most, and is most consoling: to see the five aggregates as empty is not to teach you to crush feeling and thought into dead stillness. Feeling still feels as before, thoughts still rise and fall, only one no longer grasps at them as so many solid, holdable things. What is empty is the "grasping," not the "aliveness."
The mirror of Yogācāra: one and the same reality, in the language of sūtra and the language of treatise
Let it be stated plainly: it is not that Yogācāra's learning of the three natures and two emptinesses flows out of the Heart Sūtra, nor that the Heart Sūtra needs Yogācāra to stand. It is one and the same reality of "negating what is grasped, preserving the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished (遣其所執、存其依圓)" — which the Heart Sūtra states in the language of Prajñā as「色不異空、色即是空」, and which the Madhyāntavibhāga and the Triṃśikā state in the technical language of Yogācāra as「遍計所執自性無所有、圓成於依他遠離前性」("the wholly-imagined nature has nothing whatever of own-being; the perfectly-accomplished is, in the other-dependent, free of the prior nature"). One is the language of the sūtra, one the language of the treatise; what they disclose is one and the same matter.
Take this mirror and look back at that everyone-can-recite line,「色即是空」, and it is no longer an empty catchphrase: it says that this vivid world before you need not be destroyed by a hair's breadth — only see through the layer of "real existence" you forcibly added, and in its very substance it is the cool relief of emptiness; form still stands, while grasping is negated. This is where Prajñā's crossing-beyond-suffering takes hold.
考據Apparatus
一 · 科判定位
圓測《贊》判此句屬次分「辨所觀境」之首，於「舍利子」下廣明空義；其釋「色即是空」立清辨（執空撥有）·護法（立有撥空）二菩薩宗，而以護法為正〔T1711 0544a19〕。窺基《幽贊》於此破二執、顯二空，先「色不異空」破法執所計色外別有真空，次「色即是空」破愚夫執色滅方空〔T1710 0536c06–c14〕。法藏《略疏》以性起會通，旁參。
本段轄玄奘本「舍利子！色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是」〔T0251 0848c07–08〕。
二 · 異譯對勘
| 譯本 | 本段 verbatim | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| 玄奘 T0251（底本） | 舍利子！色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是。 | 0848c07–08 |
| 鳩摩羅什 T0250 | 〔舍利弗！色空故無惱壞相，受空故無受相，想空故無知相，行空故無作相，識空故無覺相。〕…非色異空，非空異色。色即是空，空即是色。受、想、行、識亦如是。 | 0847c11–15 |
| 法月 T0252（廣本·重譯） | 色性是空，空性是色。色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。受、想、行、識亦復如是。 | 0849a28–b01 |
| 般若共利言 T0253（廣本） | 舍利子！色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。受、想、行、識亦復如是。 | 0849c06 |
| 智慧輪 T0254（廣本） | 色空，空性見色。色不異空，空不異色。是色即空，是空即色。受、想、行、識亦復如是。 | 0850a20–22 |
| 法成 T0255（廣本） | 色即是空，空即是色。色不異空，空不異色。如是受、想、行、識亦復皆空。 | 0850c04–05 |
| 施護 T0257（廣本·宋） | 即色是空，即空是色；色無異於空，空無異於色。受、想、行、識，亦復如是。 | 0852b20 |
異文所繫：(甲) 玄奘「色不異空，空不異色」（先非異）→「色即是空，空即是色」（後相即）；羅什倒作「非色異空，非空異色」，且本段前獨綴「色空故無惱壞相…識空故無覺相」一節（以五蘊各別之相釋空）。(乙) 施護「即色是空，即空是色」先相即、後「色無異於空」非異，序與玄奘互倒，又以「無異於」代「不異」。(丙) 廣本（般若共利言）核心與玄奘幾同，唯框含序分流通分。四蘊「亦復如是」諸本一致。(丁) 餘三廣本此段亦全：法月獨以「色性是空，空性是色」領起（並比照於「識」展之：識性是空，空性是識…）；智慧輪作「色空，空性見色」「是色即空，是空即色」；法成序同施護（先「色即是空」後「色不異空」），末作「如是受、想、行、識亦復皆空」。
三 · 唯識義之經據（眼）
此段立色空相即之唯識讀：所遣者唯遍計所執色，所存者依他起幻色與圓成實真空——即三性、三無性之雙運。
- 「色不異空」＝圓成（真空）不離依他（幻色）：破「色外別有真空」之計。窺基：「破執世俗所取色外別有真空…依勝義，色不異空」〔T1710 0536c11〕。→ 對位 辯中邊論「空亂意」之遣、三十頌圓成「於依他常遠離前性」。
- 「色即是空」＝遣遍計，存依他：破「要色滅方有空」之愚夫執。圓測：「遍計所執本來無故說之為空；據實此空亦非是空」〔T1711 0545b10〕。→ 對位 三十頌遍計所執「此遍計所執自性無所有」。
- 護法四句（圓測）：「色有三種，謂三性色；空亦有三，體即三性」，引《辨中邊》空三種（無性空·異性空·自性空）成「色空相即」之四句〔T1711 0545c08〕。→ 論本即辯中邊論。
- 「受想行識亦復如是」＝四蘊例同，五蘊俱通三性、俱遣遍計（圓測「五蘊有其三種…依護法宗但遣所執以辨空性」〔T1711 0544b28·0544c10〕）。
四 · 諸家異釋（古德·標宗）
窺基《幽贊》（慈恩·唯識）
- 色不異空：「破執世俗所取色外別有真空…故依勝義，色不異空」〔T1710 0536c11〕。
- 色即是空：「破愚夫執要色無位方始有空…如翳見花，自性非有，豈要花滅，彼始成空？」〔T1710 0536c19〕。
圓測《贊》（西明·唯識）
- 二宗立義：「清辨菩薩執空撥有，令除有執；護法菩薩立有撥空，令除空執」〔T1711 0544a19〕。
- 遍計釋：「今言『色即是空』者，遍計所執本來無故說之為空。據實此空亦非是空」〔T1711 0545b10〕。
- 護法四句：「色有三種，謂三性色；空亦有三，體即三性…《辨中邊》曰空有三種：一無性空、二異性空、三自性空」〔T1711 0545c08〕。
二疏同以「但遣遍計、存依圓」讀「色即是空」，不以色空為一向斷無——古德唯識讀法之共處。
五 · 術語
| 漢 | 古德所傳梵/義 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| 舍利子 | 圓測「梵音奢利富多羅，或云舍利弗多羅…舊翻身子者，謬也」；窺基「梵云舍利，唐曰春鶖」（Śāriputra） | T1711 0545a02 / T1710 0536b28 |
| 色（蘊） | 古德傳義不傳音；唯識謂變礙/質礙之色，通三性（rūpa，發音輔助） | T1711 0544b28 |
| 空 | 古德傳義；此段「空」＝三無性所顯（非斷無）（śūnya/śūnyatā，發音輔助） | T1710 0535b14 |
六 · 譬喻·修辭
翳花喻（窺基）：「如翳見花，自性非有，豈要花滅，彼始成空？」〔T1710 0536c19〕
- 喻體：翳目所見之空花。
- 喻依：遍計所執之實色。
- 所顯義：空花自性本無，不待花謝方空；遍計色亦本性即空，不待色滅方說即空——故曰「色即是空」，非「色滅乃空」。
七 · 互讀
- 大般若經（最密 verbatim 平行）：T05n0220a 卷4〈相應品第三〉「色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受想行識…是諸法空相」〔0022b03〕。次證 T07n0220c 卷402〈觀照品第三〉「色不離空，空不離色，色即是空，空即是色」〔0011c03〕。
- 唯識六部：辯中邊論（空三種·三性蘊·空相，護法四句之論本）· 三十頌（遍計所執性·圓成於依他遠離前性）· 成唯識論（三性三無性）。
- 金剛經姊妹：「莊嚴佛土即非莊嚴」之即非三性讀，與「色即是空」同一遣遍計存依圓之式（穩定徵引·已封 32 分）。
八 · 校本定位
底本 玄奘 T08n0251〔0848c07–08〕。異譯：羅什 T0250〔0847c11–15〕· 法月 T0252〔0849a28–b01〕· 般若共利言 T0253〔0849c06〕· 智慧輪 T0254〔0850a20–22〕· 法成 T0255〔0850c04–05〕· 施護 T0257〔0852b20〕。古德：窺基 T33n1710〔0536b24–0537c15〕· 圓測 T33n1711〔0544a19–0545c20〕· 法藏 T33n1712（旁）。互讀：T05n0220a〔0022b03〕· T07n0220c〔0011c03〕。
This layer carries only source texts (sūtra · ancient masters · the Sanskrit they transmitted · the科判 outline). Fully 漢; only Romanized Sanskrit (as transmitted by the ancient masters · pronunciation aid), canon numbers, and dates may enter. Canonical 漢 quotations are frozen verbatim with English given alongside; English never replaces the 漢.
I · Placement (科判定位)
Woncheuk's《贊》assigns this passage to the head of the second division "discerning the object observed" (辨所觀境), where, under "Śāriputra (舍利子)," the meaning of emptiness is set out at length. In glossing「色即是空」he frames the two bodhisattva positions — Bhāviveka (clinging to emptiness and dismissing existence, 執空撥有) and Dharmapāla (establishing existence and dismissing emptiness, 立有撥空) — and takes Dharmapāla's as orthodox〔T1711 0544a19〕. Kuiji's《幽贊》here breaks the two clingings and reveals the two emptinesses (破二執、顯二空): first「色不異空」breaks the dharma-clinging that supposes a true emptiness lying apart from form, then「色即是空」breaks the foolish supposition that form must perish before there is emptiness〔T1710 0536c06–c14〕. Fazang's《略疏》harmonizes through nature-origination (性起會通); consulted in passing.
This passage governs Xuanzang's text:「舍利子！色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是」— "Śāriputra! Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form; form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form; and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise so."〔T0251 0848c07–08〕.
II · Variant Collation (異譯對勘)
| Recension | This passage verbatim | Locus |
|---|---|---|
| Xuanzang T0251 (base text) | 舍利子！色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受、想、行、識，亦復如是。 — "Śāriputra! Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form; form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form; feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise so." | 0848c07–08 |
| Kumārajīva T0250 | 〔舍利弗！色空故無惱壞相，受空故無受相，想空故無知相，行空故無作相，識空故無覺相。〕…非色異空，非空異色。色即是空，空即是色。受、想、行、識亦如是。 — "[Śāriputra! Because form is empty there is no mark of vexation-and-decay; because feeling is empty, no mark of feeling; … no mark of awareness.] … Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form. Form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form. Feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise." | 0847c11–15 |
| Dharmacandra / Fayue T0252 (long recension · re-translation) | 色性是空，空性是色。色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。受、想、行、識亦復如是。 — "Form's nature is emptiness, emptiness's nature is form. Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form. Form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form. Feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise so." | 0849a28–b01 |
| Prajñā & Liyan T0253 (long recension) | 舍利子！色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。受、想、行、識亦復如是。 — "Śāriputra! Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form. Form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form. Feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise so." | 0849c06 |
| Prajñācakra / Zhihuilun T0254 (long recension) | 色空，空性見色。色不異空，空不異色。是色即空，是空即色。受、想、行、識亦復如是。 — "Form is empty; in the nature of emptiness, form is seen. Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form. This form is itself emptiness, this emptiness is itself form. Feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise so." | 0850a20–22 |
| Facheng T0255 (long recension) | 色即是空，空即是色。色不異空，空不異色。如是受、想、行、識亦復皆空。 — "Form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form. Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form. Just so, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise all empty." | 0850c04–05 |
| Dānapāla / Shihu T0257 (long recension · Song) | 即色是空，即空是色；色無異於空，空無異於色。受、想、行、識，亦復如是。 — "Form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form; form is in no way different from emptiness, emptiness is in no way different from form. Feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise so." | 0852b20 |
What the variants turn on: (a) Xuanzang reads「色不異空，空不異色」(not-different first) → 「色即是空，空即是色」(mutual-identity after); Kumārajīva inverts to「非色異空，非空異色」(form-is-not-other-than-emptiness), and uniquely prefixes the passage with「色空故無惱壞相…識空故無覺相」, glossing emptiness through the distinct mark of each of the five aggregates. (b) Dānapāla reads「即色是空，即空是色」(mutual-identity first), then「色無異於空」(not-different after) — the order inverted against Xuanzang — and substitutes「無異於」(in no way different from) for「不異」(not different from). (c) The long recension (Prajñā & Liyan) is near-identical to Xuanzang at the core, differing only by its enclosing prologue and transmission sections. The「亦復如是」(likewise so) of the four further aggregates is uniform across all recensions. (d) The remaining three long recensions carry the passage in full too: Fayue alone opens with「色性是空，空性是色」(form's nature is emptiness…) and mirrors it onto「識」(consciousness); Zhihuilun reads「色空，空性見色」…「是色即空，是空即色」; Facheng orders as Dānapāla does (「色即是空」before「色不異空」) and closes「如是受、想、行、識亦復皆空」(likewise all empty).
III · Yogācāra Doctrinal Basis (唯識義之經據 · the eye)
This passage establishes the Yogācāra reading of the mutual identity of form and emptiness (色空相即): what is negated is only the wholly-imagined (遍計所執) form; what is preserved is the other-dependent (依他起) illusory form and the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實) true emptiness — the dual operation of the three natures (trisvabhāva) and the three non-natures (niḥsvabhāvatā).
- 「色不異空」=the perfectly-accomplished (true emptiness) is not apart from the other-dependent (illusory form): it breaks the supposition that "a true emptiness exists apart from form." Kuiji:「破執世俗所取色外別有真空…依勝義，色不異空」— "it breaks the clinging that, beyond the conventionally grasped form, a separate true emptiness exists … in the ultimate sense, form is not different from emptiness"〔T1710 0536c11〕. → Corresponds to the Madhyāntavibhāga's negation of "the unsettled mind of emptiness (空亂意)," and to the Triṃśikā's perfectly-accomplished nature being "in the other-dependent, ever free of the prior nature (於依他常遠離前性)."
- 「色即是空」=negates the wholly-imagined, preserves the other-dependent (遣遍計，存依他): it breaks the foolish clinging that "form must perish before there is emptiness." Woncheuk:「遍計所執本來無故說之為空；據實此空亦非是空」— "the wholly-imagined is from the outset nonexistent, and so is called emptiness; strictly, this emptiness too is not [a substantial] emptiness"〔T1711 0545b10〕. → Corresponds to the Triṃśikā on the wholly-imagined nature:「此遍計所執自性無所有」("this wholly-imagined nature has nothing whatever of own-being").
- Dharmapāla's four phrases (護法四句) (per Woncheuk):「色有三種，謂三性色；空亦有三，體即三性」— "form is of three kinds, namely the form of the three natures; emptiness too is of three, its substance being the three natures," drawing on the Madhyāntavibhāga's three emptinesses (the emptiness of non-being 無性空 · of difference 異性空 · of own-being 自性空) to form the four phrases of "the mutual identity of form and emptiness"〔T1711 0545c08〕. → The treatise-source is the Madhyāntavibhāga.
- 「受想行識亦復如是」=the four further aggregates are treated alike; all five aggregates run through the three natures and all have the wholly-imagined negated (Woncheuk:「五蘊有其三種…依護法宗但遣所執以辨空性」— "the five aggregates have their three kinds … following Dharmapāla's school, only the grasped-at is negated in order to discern the nature of emptiness"〔T1711 0544b28·0544c10〕).
IV · Ancient-Master Readings (諸家異釋 · marking the positions)
Kuiji《幽贊》(Cien · Yogācāra)
- 色不異空：「破執世俗所取色外別有真空…故依勝義，色不異空」— "it breaks the clinging that, beyond the conventionally grasped form, a separate true emptiness exists … hence in the ultimate sense, form is not different from emptiness"〔T1710 0536c11〕.
- 色即是空：「破愚夫執要色無位方始有空…如翳見花，自性非有，豈要花滅，彼始成空？」— "it breaks the fool's clinging that emptiness arises only once form is in no place … like the flower seen by a diseased eye (翳花, the sky-flower seen by a diseased eye): its own-being is non-existent — why must the flower perish before it becomes empty?"〔T1710 0536c19〕.
Woncheuk《贊》(Ximing · Yogācāra)
- The two positions established:「清辨菩薩執空撥有，令除有執；護法菩薩立有撥空，令除空執」— "Bhāviveka clings to emptiness and dismisses existence, so as to remove the clinging to existence; Dharmapāla establishes existence and dismisses emptiness, so as to remove the clinging to emptiness"〔T1711 0544a19〕.
- The wholly-imagined glossed:「今言『色即是空』者，遍計所執本來無故說之為空。據實此空亦非是空」— "when it now says 'form is itself emptiness,' it is because the wholly-imagined is from the outset nonexistent that it is called emptiness; strictly, this emptiness too is not [a substantial] emptiness"〔T1711 0545b10〕.
- Dharmapāla's four phrases:「色有三種，謂三性色；空亦有三，體即三性…《辨中邊》曰空有三種：一無性空、二異性空、三自性空」— "form is of three kinds, namely the form of the three natures; emptiness too is of three, its substance being the three natures … the Madhyāntavibhāga says emptiness is of three kinds: first the emptiness of non-being, second the emptiness of difference, third the emptiness of own-being"〔T1711 0545c08〕.
The two commentaries alike read「色即是空」as "negating only the wholly-imagined while preserving the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished (但遣遍計、存依圓)," not as reducing form-and-emptiness to a flat annihilation — the common ground of the ancient masters' Yogācāra reading.
V · Terminology (術語)
| 漢 | Sanskrit transmitted by the ancient masters / sense | Locus |
|---|---|---|
| 舍利子 | Woncheuk:「梵音奢利富多羅，或云舍利弗多羅…舊翻身子者，謬也」("the Sanskrit sound is 奢利富多羅, or 舍利弗多羅 … the old rendering 'Son of the Body' is mistaken"); Kuiji:「梵云舍利，唐曰春鶖」("Sanskrit 舍利, in Tang 'spring egret'") (Śāriputra) | T1711 0545a02 / T1710 0536b28 |
| 色 (aggregate) | The ancient masters transmit the sense, not the sound; in Yogācāra, the form of mutability/resistance (變礙/質礙), running through the three natures (rūpa, pronunciation aid) | T1711 0544b28 |
| 空 | The ancient masters transmit the sense; here "空" = that which the three non-natures reveal (not bare annihilation) (śūnya/śūnyatā, pronunciation aid) | T1710 0535b14 |
VI · Simile · Rhetoric (譬喻·修辭)
The sky-flower simile (翳花喻) (Kuiji):「如翳見花，自性非有，豈要花滅，彼始成空？」— "like the flower seen by a diseased eye (the sky-flower seen by a diseased eye): its own-being is non-existent — why must the flower perish before it becomes empty?"〔T1710 0536c19〕
- Vehicle (喻體): the sky-flower seen by an eye afflicted with cataract.
- Tenor (喻依): the substantial form of the wholly-imagined (遍計所執).
- Sense disclosed: the sky-flower's own-being is from the outset nonexistent; it need not wither before being empty. The wholly-imagined form is likewise empty in its very nature, and need not perish before being called "itself emptiness" — hence「色即是空」("form is itself emptiness"), not "form is empty [only] once destroyed (色滅乃空)."
VII · Cross-Reading (互讀)
- Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (closest verbatim parallel): T05n0220a, fascicle 4,〈相應品第三〉:「色不異空，空不異色，色即是空，空即是色；受想行識…是諸法空相」〔0022b03〕. A secondary witness: T07n0220c, fascicle 402,〈觀照品第三〉:「色不離空，空不離色，色即是空，空即是色」("form is not apart from emptiness, emptiness is not apart from form; form is itself emptiness, emptiness is itself form")〔0011c03〕.
- The six Yogācāra treatises: the Madhyāntavibhāga (辯中邊論 — the three emptinesses · the aggregates under the three natures · the mark of emptiness; the treatise-source of Dharmapāla's four phrases) · the Triṃśikā (三十頌 — the wholly-imagined nature · the perfectly-accomplished "in the other-dependent, free of the prior nature") · the Cheng Weishi Lun (成唯識論 — the three natures and three non-natures).
- Diamond Sūtra sister-passage:「莊嚴佛土即非莊嚴」("to adorn a buddha-land is itself not adornment"), the "is-itself-not (即非)" reading through the three natures, shares one and the same pattern of "negating the wholly-imagined while preserving the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished" with「色即是空」(a stable citation · sealed, the 32 sections).
VIII · Witnesses (校本定位)
Base text: Xuanzang T08n0251〔0848c07–08〕. Variants: Kumārajīva T0250〔0847c11–15〕· Dharmacandra T0252〔0849a28–b01〕· Prajñā & Liyan T0253〔0849c06〕· Prajñācakra T0254〔0850a20–22〕· Facheng T0255〔0850c04–05〕· Dānapāla T0257〔0852b20〕. Ancient masters: Kuiji T33n1710〔0536b24–0537c15〕· Woncheuk T33n1711〔0544a19–0545c20〕· Fazang T33n1712 (in passing). Cross-reading: T05n0220a〔0022b03〕· T07n0220c〔0011c03〕.