金剛三昧經論 3.19

3.19

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.