[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) › [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733) › 11.66 # 華嚴經探玄記 11.66 華嚴經探玄記 11.66 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [11.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.11.66) 第四離妄語中，初句總、後別。別中二：初對治離、二果行離。以對治離即是因離，如初殺中因有二，謂內外。後盜婬中單舉外因，謂資財不足及妻色不足，其內因貪等更不重舉。今妄語中既無外因、內復無別故，論云「無外事復無異因故。」是故誑他之思心是妄語因，離此即實語成，實語即是謂離，故不別說。對治三中，初常實語者，不違自心，隨想語故。二諦語者，審諦思量如事而語故。三隨時語者，離過語也，自有發語心事俱實。而言不合時，自惱惱他，菩薩不爾，善知時語也。二果行離中亦二，舉細況麁可知。論中覆見忍見者，依《大婆娑論》，覆相妄語名為覆見，覆心妄語名為忍見。謂本見前事實生見想，誑言不見，此覆己所見，名為覆見。又實不見前事，妄生見想，誑言不見，於事雖實，於見有違，故名忍見，此忍己見故。 > Fourth, in "abstaining from false speech", the initial phrase is general and the subsequent phrases are specific. Within the specific there are two: first, abandonment through antidote; second, abandonment of the fruit-actions. Abandonment through antidote is itself abandonment of the cause. Just as in the initial precept on killing, causes are of two kinds, internal and external. Then in stealing and sexual misconduct, only external causes are cited, namely insufficiency of wealth and material sustenance, and insufficiency of the beauty of a wife, whereas the internal causes such as greed are not cited again. Now in false speech, since there is no external cause and internally there is no separate cause, the treatise says: "Because there is no external matter and no distinct cause." Therefore, the mental volition to deceive others is the cause of false speech; abandoning this, truthful speech is established. Since truthful speech is precisely this abandonment, it is not stated separately. Within the three antidotes: First, "always speaking truth" means not contradicting one's own mind, speaking in accordance with one's perceptions. Second, "speaking real truth" means investigating and deliberating thoroughly, and speaking in accordance with facts. Third, "speaking timely words" means words free from fault. Naturally, there are instances where the initiating mind and the fact are both true, yet the words are untimely, bringing distress to oneself and to others; the bodhisattva is not like this, but skillfully knows the time to speak. Second, in abandonment of the fruit-actions there are also two, presenting the subtle to illustrate the coarse, as is known. In the treatise, regarding "concealing what is seen" and "tolerating what is seen": relying on the Mahāvibhāṣā, false speech that conceals the appearance is called concealing what is seen, while false speech that conceals the mind is called tolerating what is seen. That is, originally seeing the matter before oneself and genuinely generating the notion of seeing it, yet deceptively saying one did not see it—this conceals what one has seen, and is called concealing what is seen. Further, genuinely not seeing the matter before oneself, yet falsely generating the notion of seeing it, and deceptively saying one did not see it—although true regarding the matter, it contradicts one's perception; hence it is called tolerating what is seen, because it bears with \[the deception of\] one's own perception. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 11.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.11.65) - [Next: 11.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.11.67) - [Up: 11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.11) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733~en-mt.11.66) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.11.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.11.66) · Pramāṇa