金剛三昧經論 3.19

3.19

論曰：是第二答。於中有二：先是佛說之由、後顯文義之異。初中言以汝眾生在生說故者，汝謂身子，眾生即是一切凡夫。說於無為即在法體，說於有為即生法相。如是在生之說，不可說於實義。我異彼說，是故說之，是為佛說言教之由。次顯文義不同相中，先標二章、後釋二章。標中言義語非文者，語當實義故，非直空文故。文語非義者，語止空文故，不關實義故。第二釋中，先釋、後章。言皆悉空無者，直有空文而無實義故，是釋文語也。無言於義者，無詮談於如實之義故，是釋非義也。下總結言皆是妄語者，雖非違想而違義故。猶如不見言見、見言不見等語。如義已下，次釋前章。於中有二：正釋、重顯。初中亦二：先釋非文、後釋義語。釋非文者，謂非空無，非空文故，非無義故。釋義語者，義合語故，語如義故。初釋中言實空不空者，謂說真如實相亦空，如前說言空相亦空故。言實空而不亡其實相之理，故言不空，雖非有實而非無實故。空實不實者，謂說真空之理是實故言空實，而不存其真空之理故言不實，雖非無空而非有空故。離於二相中間不中者，不空之語離於空相，不實之語離於實相，故言離於二相。然空實二相之間不存非二之中，故言中間不中。既離二邊亦不墮中，故言離於三相。心言行處不過三相，然此佛語遠離三相，即於其中心言路絕，故言不見處所。如是妙契絕言之義，所以不同無義之文，此釋非文也。如如如說者，是釋義語。上一如是契當，下二如是義理。如前遠離三相之語，契當如如義理而說，所以佛說乃是義語，不同凡語之非義也。如無已下，第二重顯，先顯非文、後顯義語。初中言如無無有，無有於無者，謂真如理雖非是有，而如本無令無其有，謂令無有法於無法中。所以然者？如本非有，無於何有而墮無耶？是故合於實空不空之語也。如無有無，有無於有者，謂真如理雖非是無，而如本無令有其無，謂令有無法於有法中。所以然者？如本非無，有於何無而墮有耶？是故合於空實不實之語。有無不在者，如無有無，故有不在；如無無有，故無不在。二既不在，何得有中？即合離於三相之語。如義既爾合於義語，是故佛語實非空文，如是重顯非文釋也。佛說名言如是當理，故後得智帶如是名。思惟真如即得親觀真如理體，故在四句之中俱句也。第二重顯義語中言說不在故不在於如者，佛語既說有無不在故不在有無，於真如理，有不在者不有如故、無不在者不無如故，則當不有如、不無如而說，故言如不有如不無如說。是故前言如如如說，如是重顯義語之釋。六分之中第三分竟。

The Commentary says: This is the second [section], the reply. Within it there are two parts: first, the reason for the Buddha's preaching; second, the demonstration of the difference between text and meaning. In the first part, where it says "Because you, sentient beings, preach within production," "you" refers to Śāriputra, and "sentient beings" refers to all ordinary worldlings. Preaching on the unconditioned is situated in the substance of phenomena; preaching on the conditioned produces the characteristics of phenomena. Such preaching within production cannot speak the real meaning. I am different from their preaching; therefore I preach it—this is the reason for the Buddha's preaching of the teachings. Next, in demonstrating the characteristics of the difference between text and meaning, [the sūtra] first sets out the two propositions and then explains the two propositions. In setting them out, where it says "Meaningful discourse is not text," it is because the discourse corresponds to the real meaning, not being merely empty text. Where it says "Textual discourse is not meaning," it is because the discourse stops at empty text, having no connection to the real meaning. In the second part, the explanation, it first explains the latter proposition. Where it says "are all utterly empty and non-existent," it is because there is only empty text and no real meaning; this explains textual discourse. Where it says "empty and non-existent speech speaks nothing of meaning," it is because it expresses nothing of the meaning that is in accordance with reality; this explains "not meaning." Below, concluding generally, it says "is all false speech," because although it may not contradict conceptual thought, it contradicts the meaning—just like the statements of saying one sees when not seeing, or saying one does not see when seeing. From "Those that are in accordance with the meaning" onward, it next explains the former proposition. Within this there are two parts: the main explanation and the reiteration. Within the first there are also two parts: first explaining "not text" and second explaining "meaningful discourse." Explaining "not text" means that it is not empty and non-existent, because it is not empty text and not devoid of meaning. Explaining "meaningful discourse" means that the meaning accords with the speech, and the speech is like the meaning. In the first explanation, where it says "truly empty and yet not empty," it means that it states that the real mark of true thusness is also empty, just as previously stated that the mark of emptiness is also empty. To say it is "truly empty" does not abolish the principle of its real mark, so it is said to be "not empty"; for although it is not existent as real, neither is it non-existent as real. Where it says "empty reality and yet not real," it means that stating the principle of true emptiness is real is why it is called "empty reality," yet not preserving the principle of true emptiness is why it is called "not real"; for although it is not without emptiness, neither is it having emptiness. Where it says "Apart from the two characteristics, the interval is not intermediate," the speech of "not empty" is apart from the characteristic of emptiness, and the speech of "not real" is apart from the characteristic of reality; hence it says "apart from the two characteristics." Yet between the two characteristics of emptiness and reality, it does not preserve an intermediate that is not the two; hence it says "the interval is not intermediate." Having departed from the two extremes and also not falling into the middle, it is therefore said to be "apart from the three characteristics." The domain of mental speech does not exceed the three characteristics; but this speech of the Buddha is far removed from the three characteristics, so that within it the path of mind and speech is cut off; hence it says "no location is seen." Being wondrously tallying with the meaning that cuts off speech in this way is why it is not like the meaningless text; this explains "not text." Where it says "Just as thusness is spoken in accordance with thusness," this explains "meaningful discourse." The first "thus" is tallying with; the latter two "thusnesses" are the meaningful principle. As spoken above in speech far removed from the three characteristics, it tallies with the principle of thusness in its preaching; therefore the Buddha's preaching is indeed meaningful discourse, not like the meaninglessness of ordinary speech. From "Just as the non-existence of non-existence" onward, the second part reiterates, first reiterating "not text" and next reiterating "meaningful discourse." In the first, where it says "Just as the non-existence of non-existence does not exist, there is no existing in non-existence," it means that although the principle of true thusness is not existent, yet according to fundamental non-existence it causes its existence to be non-existent, which means causing existent dharmas to be non-existent within non-existent dharmas. Why is this so? Thusness is fundamentally not existent; what existence is it devoid of, such that it would fall into non-existence? Therefore, this matches the words "truly empty and yet not empty." Where it says "Just as the non-existence of existence does not not exist, there is no non-existing in existence," it means that although the principle of true thusness is not non-existent, yet according to fundamental non-existence it causes its non-existence to exist, which means causing non-existent dharmas to exist within existent dharmas. Why is this so? Thusness is fundamentally not non-existent; what non-existence does it have, such that it would fall into existence? Therefore, this matches the words "empty reality and yet not real." Where it says "Existence and non-existence do not reside," just as non-existence has no existence, existence does not reside; just as non-existence has no non-existence, non-existence does not reside. Since the two do not reside, how could there be a middle? This precisely matches the statement "apart from the three characteristics." Since the meaning of thusness is like this, it matches meaningful discourse; therefore the Buddha's words are truly not empty text. In this way it reiterates the explanation of "not text." Because the nominal expressions spoken by the Buddha correspond to principle in this way, subsequently attained cognition takes up such nominal expressions. By contemplating true thusness, one is able to directly observe the principle-substance of true thusness; therefore, among the four propositions, it is the proposition of "both." In the second part reiterating meaningful discourse, where it says "Because the preaching does not reside, it does not reside in thusness," since the Buddha's words state that existence and non-existence do not reside, they do not reside in existence or non-existence; with respect to the principle of true thusness, that existence does not reside means it does not have thusness, and that non-existence does not reside means it is not without thusness. Thus it is spoken in accord with neither having thusness nor being without thusness; hence it says, "Just as it does not have thusness, it is not spoken as being without thusness." Therefore it was said earlier, "Just as thusness is spoken in accordance with thusness." In this way it reiterates the explanation of meaningful discourse. Of the six divisions, the third division is finished.