[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [釋摩訶衍論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668) › 2.38 # 釋摩訶衍論 2.38 釋摩訶衍論 2.38 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.2.38) 論曰：言說有五。云何為五？一者相言說、二者夢言說、三者妄執言說、四者無始言說、五者如義言說。楞伽契經中作如是說：大慧！相言說者，所謂執著色等諸相而生。大慧！夢言說者，念本受用虛妄境界依境界夢，覺已知依虛妄境界不實而生。大慧！執著言說者，念本所聞所作業而生。大慧！無始言說者，從無始來執著戲論，煩惱種子熏習而生。金剛三昧契經中作如是說：舍利弗言：「一切萬法皆悉言文，言文之相即非為義，如實之義不可言說。今者如來云何說法？」佛言：「我說法者，以汝眾生在生說故，說不可說，是故說之。我所說者，義語非文。眾生說者，文語非義。非義語者皆悉空無，空無之言無言於義，不言義者皆是妄語。如義語者實空不空、空實不實，離於二相中間不中，不中之法離於三相，不見處所如如如說故。」如是五中，前四言說虛妄說故不能談真，後一言說如實說故得談真理。馬鳴菩薩據前四故，作如是說。離言說相，名有二種。云何為二？一者字字名、二者字影名。楞伽契經中作如是說：大慧！復次名身者，所謂諸字從名字差別，從阿字乃至呵字，名為名身。道品契經中作如是說：鏡中共說名為影名故。字有二種。云何為二？一者依聲字、二者依空字。楞伽契經中作如是說：大慧！復次字身者，謂聲長短、音韻高下，名為字身。大海契經中作如是說：佛告文殊師利言：「汝所前問，云何名為虛空輪字者，譬如虛空中飛鳥，踰明耀時出十種和聲，虛空輪字應如是觀故。」如是二中各初一種，不能詮表甚深真理，各後一種得詮真理故。今據前門作如是說。離名字相，心量有十。云何為十？一者眼識心、二者耳識心、三者鼻識心、四者舌識心、五者身識心、六者意識心、七者末那識心、八者阿梨耶識心、九者多一識心、十者一一識心。如是十中，初九種心不緣真理，後一種心得緣真理而為境界。今據前九作如是說。離心緣相，本有契經中作如是說：甚深真理非餘境界，唯自所依緣為境界故。畢竟平等無有變異不可破壞者，顯示三離之功德故，謂一切差別以四種妄言說而為根本而轉。一切外道九種變論十種異執，唯以名字為本而轉。一切煩惱破障、一切所知壞障，唯以心品為依轉故。而真體中離三相故，滿三德耳。唯是一心故名真如者，總結體真如。以一切言說假名無實但隨妄念不可得故者，顯示三離之因緣故。謂以一切言說無實、一切假名無實、一切心識但隨妄念不可得故，不可言說真實理中不離三相故，虛假之相、如實之法極相違故。言真如者亦無有相者，第二轉言，遣執著之過。謂愚眾生作如是執，遠離三相、圓滿三德體真如理，雖無假相而有實相，自然常住決定實有。由如是計，墮於常邊無出離時。是故為遣如是見故，言言真如者亦無有相。謂言說之極因言遣言者，直示真如無相之因緣，謂諸言說極於真如更莫超過。既絕言說，豈得有相無言，故得因言遣言而已。於是能遣，如如如說；所遣四種，虛妄言說。大本維摩詰契經中作如是說：爾時文殊師利菩薩摩訶薩語鳩那阿筏陀多言：「我等諸大眾皆悉各各隨所自樂，宣說八千一種向不二門。如宜維摩詰為我等大眾，離言說言說說、非不二不二，除遣假說之垢。」於是維摩詰默然無所說。爾時文殊讚維摩言：「善哉善哉！居士！如言說如，如耳聽如。善哉善哉！斯乃真實不二法門。斯乃真實不二法體故。」已說直詮真體門，次說解釋名字門。此真如體無有可遣，以一切法悉皆真故者，約真釋名；亦無可立，以一切法皆同如故者，約如釋名。此文為明何義？所謂顯示無有斷證智故。此義云何？謂斷道起必因治障，不能自起。而真體中，無有染法而可除遣故，無有能治之斷道。所以者何？以無有一一法而非真體故。復次若有障智隨心高下，應可建立一切位地。而如體中無有分位而可建立故，無有能立之方便。所以者何？以無有一一法而非如體故。當知一切法不可說不可念故名為真如者，總結所上說故。 > The treatise states: There are five kinds of speech. What are the five? The first is speech based on characteristics; the second is speech based on dreams; the third is speech based on false grasping; the fourth is speech based on beginninglessness; the fifth is speech in accord with reality. It is said in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra: “Mahāmati! Speech based on characteristics arises from attachment to various characteristics such as form. Mahāmati! Speech based on dreams arises from recollecting one's past experience of unreal sense-objects, relying on the dream of sense-objects, and after awakening, knowing and relying on the unreality of unreal sense-objects. Mahāmati! Speech based on attachment arises from recollecting deeds done and things heard in the past. Mahāmati! Speech based on beginninglessness arises from the habituation of the seeds of defilement through attachment to prapañca from beginningless time.” In the Vajrasamādhi-sūtra it is said: Śāriputra said, “All myriad dharmas are words and texts; the characteristics of words and texts are not their reality, and the real reality cannot be spoken. How then does the Tathāgata preach the Dharma now?” The Buddha said, “My preaching of the Dharma is because you sentient beings abide in birth and speak; I speak of the unspeakable, and for this reason I speak it. What I speak is speech of meaning, not text. What sentient beings speak is speech of text, not meaning. Speech that is not of meaning is entirely empty and non-existent; empty and non-existent speech has no speech concerning meaning, and what does not speak of meaning is all false speech. Speech in accord with meaning is truly empty and not empty, empty and real and not real; it is free from the two characteristics, and in the middle it does not abide in the middle. Dharma that is not in the middle is free from the three characteristics; it perceives no location, for it speaks of suchness as it truly is.” Among these five, because the first four kinds of speech are false speech, they cannot discourse upon truth; because the latter one kind of speech is speech in accord with reality, it can discourse upon the true principle. Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa, relying on the first four, spoke in this way. As for being free from the characteristics of words, names are of two kinds. What are the two? The first is the name of syllable by syllable; the second is the name of the reflection of syllables. It is said in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra: “Mahāmati! Furthermore, the collection of names (nāmakāya) refers to various syllables differentiated by names, from the letter A up to the letter Ha; these are called the collection of names.” It is said in the Bodhipakṣa-sūtra: “Speaking together within a mirror is called a reflected name.” Syllables are of two kinds. What are the two? The first is syllables dependent on sound; the second is syllables dependent on space. It is said in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra: “Mahāmati! Furthermore, the collection of syllables (vyañjanakāya) refers to the length of sound and the pitch of the tone; this is called the collection of syllables.” In the Mahāsamudra-sūtra it is said: The Buddha told Mañjuśrī, “As to what you asked before, what is meant by the syllables of the wheel of space: for example, when a flying bird in space surpasses the blazing light, it emits ten kinds of harmonious sounds; the syllables of the wheel of space should be viewed in this way.” Among these two \[pairs\], each former one cannot express the profound true principle, while each latter one can express the true principle. Now, relying on the former gate, it is spoken in this way. Being free from the characteristics of mental objects: mental measures are ten. What are the ten? The first is the mind of eye-consciousness; the second is the mind of ear-consciousness; the third is the mind of nose-consciousness; the fourth is the mind of tongue-consciousness; the fifth is the mind of body-consciousness; the sixth is the mind of mental consciousness; the seventh is the mind of manas-consciousness; the eighth is the mind of ālayavijñāna; the ninth is the mind of the consciousness of the many-as-one; the tenth is the mind of the consciousness of one-by-one. Among these ten, the first nine kinds of mind do not cognize the true principle as an object; the latter one kind of mind is able to cognize the true principle as its objective realm. Now, relying on the first nine, it is spoken in this way. Being free from the characteristics of mental objects: it is said in the Mūla-bhūta-sūtra: “The profound true principle is not an objective realm of anything else; it only takes that on which it relies as its objective realm.” As for “ultimately equal, without alteration, and indestructible,” this is to show the merits of the three freedoms: namely, all differentiations revolve with the four kinds of false speech as their root; all nine kinds of altered doctrines and ten kinds of divergent attachments of non-Buddhists revolve solely with names as their root; and all breaking obstructions of affliction and all destroying obstructions of the cognizable revolve solely in reliance on the categories of mind. Yet within the true essence, being free from the three characteristics, the three virtues are fully perfected. As for “it is solely the one mind, therefore it is called tathatā,” this concludes the essence of tathatā. As for “because all speech is conventional names and without reality, merely following false thoughts, it cannot be apprehended,” this shows the causes and conditions of the three freedoms: namely, because all speech is without reality, all conventional names are without reality, and all conscious minds merely follow false thoughts and cannot be apprehended, within the ineffable real principle they are not apart from the three characteristics, for unreal characteristics and the Dharma as it is are extremely contrary to each other. As for “what is called tathatā also has no characteristics,” this is the second turn of phrase to dispel the error of attachment: namely, foolish sentient beings form such an attachment that the principle of the essence of tathatā—far removed from the three characteristics and replete with the three virtues—although having no provisional characteristics, has real characteristics, naturally permanent and definitely real. Due to such reckoning, they fall into the extreme of permanence with no time of escape. Therefore, in order to dispel such a view, it is said that what is called tathatā also has no characteristics. As for “the ultimate limit of speech dispels speech by means of speech,” this directly demonstrates the causes and conditions of the characterlessness of tathatā: namely, all speech culminates in tathatā and cannot go beyond it. Since it cuts off speech, how could it have characteristics without words? Hence, it only dispels speech by means of speech. In this way, that which can dispel is speech as suchness as it truly is; that which is dispelled is the four kinds of false speech. It is said in the Great Text of the Vimalakīrti-sūtra: At that time, Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva said to Guṇa-avadata: “All of us in the great assembly have each spoken, according to our own inclination, of the eight thousand and one ways toward the gate of non-duality. As appropriate, let Vimalakīrti, for the sake of our great assembly, speak the speech that is free from speech, non-non-dual non-duality, and remove the defilement of provisional speech.” Thereupon Vimalakīrti was silent and said nothing. At that time Mañjuśrī praised Vimalakīrti, saying: “Excellent, excellent, O householder! Speak of suchness as suchness; listen to suchness as the ear. Excellent, excellent! This is truly the Dharma gate of non-duality. This is truly the Dharma body of non-duality.” Having explained the gate that directly expresses the true essence, next is to explain the gate that explains the names. As for “within this essence of tathatā there is nothing to be dispelled, because all dharmas are completely true,” this explains the name with respect to “true”; as for “neither is there anything to be established, because all dharmas are equally such,” this explains the name with respect to “suchness.” What meaning is this text intended to clarify? It shows that there is no wisdom of severance and realization. What does this mean? It means that the arising of the path of severance must be caused by remedying obstructions; it cannot arise on its own. Yet within the true essence, there are no defiled dharmas that could be dispelled; therefore, there is no path of severance that can remedy them. Why is this? Because there is not a single dharma that is not the true essence. Furthermore, if there were obstructions and wisdom that varied with the high and low of the mind, one could establish all stages and grounds. But within the essence of suchness there are no distinct stages that can be established; therefore, there is no expedient means that can establish them. Why is this? Because there is not a single dharma that is not the essence of suchness. As for “one should know that because all dharmas cannot be spoken and cannot be thought, they are named tathatā,” this concludes what was said above. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.2.37) - [Next: 2.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.2.39) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668~en-mt.2.38) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.2.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.2.38) · Pramāṇa