大方廣佛華嚴經疏 35.11

35.11

Fourth, abstaining from false speech. Violating what one conceives and going against one's own mind is termed false. Under the particulars, it is divided into two: first, abandoning through the antidote; second, from "even down to" onward, abandoning in fruition and act. Now, the first, the antidote, is itself abandoning the cause. Why is the cause not explained separately? Because of two senses. First, because of the absence of external objects: meaning there are no external objects such as knives, staves, wives, and wealth, and thus there is no cause of receiving and accumulating. Second, because of the absence of a distinct cause: meaning merely using deception of others, the intending thought is itself the cause of false speech, and there is no separate greed and so forth to serve as a distinct cause. A distinct cause is an arising cause; therefore, abandoning that deceiving mind itself constitutes true speech, and true speech is precisely the antidote to the deceiving mind. Hence abandoning through the antidote is itself abandoning the cause, unlike the three [actions] of the body. The three bodily actions each possess the three abandonments; the four vocal actions have only two, and the three mental actions have only one. In the text, to speak of "true speech" is because it conforms to the mental conception; meaning even if one genuinely did not see, yet the mind conceives seeing and one says one saw, this is also called true speech. "Genuine speech" means thoroughly and well reflecting in accord with the reality of the matter, meaning that because thought and the matter are similar, one speaks to match it. If one only matches the matter but does not match the mind, it is also called false speech; hence "well reflecting" is added. Speaking of "timely speech," the treatise says: "Speaking knowing the time, without giving rise to matters of decline and affliction for one's own body or another's body." Meaning although the mind and the matter are real, yet altering the time of seeing might cause decline and affliction to oneself or another. Now the bodhisattva, seeing in the morning, says morning; seeing in the evening, says evening; hence it is called knowing the time. The Jin sūtra calls it "conforming," which also carries the meaning of following the time. Second, in abandoning in fruition and act, the subtle is also used to illustrate the coarse: [falsehood] in a dream is subtle, and an intentional violation is coarse. Here, "concealing words" refers to what the Śāstra Sūtra calls not giving rise to concealing views or withstanding views. The Vibhāṣā says: "False speech that conceals the appearance is called concealing view; false speech that conceals the mind is called withstanding view." Meaning having actually seen the matter, the mind conceives seeing it, but says one did not see it; this is concealing the appearance of the matter one saw, and is the opposite of genuine speech. If one did not actually see it, but a conception of seeing arises in the mind, and one deceitfully says one did not see it, though true to the matter, it contradicts what was seen; this is called withstanding view, because one withstands and rejects what one saw; this is the opposite of true speech. Seeing with the eye in a dream is only a vision of cognitive awareness.