大般涅槃經疏 25.9

25.9

From 'The buddhadhātu is neither internal nor external' onward is the second major section in this chapter. Previously it was explained in terms of the buddhadhātu; here it is explained in terms of the middle way. The text has three parts: first, briefly setting forth the middle way; second, extensively refuting one-sided attachments; third, concluding with praise of the buddhadhātu. First, setting forth the middle way has three phrases. In the first phrase, 'neither internal nor external', an old explanation says: 'It is not definitively inside the bodies of sentient beings, hence it says neither internal; nor is it separate from sentient beings, for this very conscious spirit attains buddhahood, hence it says neither external.' Master Guān's explanation says: 'Because it is not inside the bodies of sentient beings, it says neither internal; nor is it outside the bodies of sentient beings, hence it says neither external.' Now, neither is correct: the old explanation makes choices like an inchworm, and the next explanation is like a bird stripped of both wings. Why is this? Sentient beings' five aggregates are dharmas produced by causes and conditions, which are immediately empty; not existing in the conventional truth, they are therefore 'not external'. These dharmas are immediately provisional; not existing in the ultimate truth, they are therefore 'not internal'. These dharmas are immediately the middle; therefore, they do not simultaneously reside in the two truths. These dharmas pervade all places, so they do not uniquely abide in the truth of the middle way. These dharmas are inconceivable, neither vertical nor horizontal, neither combined nor separate; how could a one-sided statement express them? An earlier passage says that the all-awakened is called the buddhadhātu. The various masters speak one-sidedly; not being the all-awakened, it is then not the buddhadhātu, and cannot be called the middle way. Complete with the three dots [of the letter i], it is called the all-awakened, which is named the buddhadhātu, and only then is it the middle way. Simply through 'immediately empty, hence not external, not abiding in conventional truth'—relying solely on this meaning—one naturally refutes what the various masters say. Setting forth the second phrase: 'Although it is neither internal nor external, it is not lost or destroyed.' This in turn establishes the above meaning. The old [view] says: 'Because it is not external, it is not lost; because it is not internal, it is not destroyed. If it were definitively external, it would scatter and be lost east and west; if it were definitively internal, it would be foul and decayed like a dead body; hence it says neither lost nor destroyed.' Master Guān says: 'Originally having no completion, it is therefore not destroyed; originally having no acquisition, it is therefore not lost.' Now I clarify: the two masters failed to establish the explanation of the first phrase, and their interpretation of the latter phrase has no footing. This phrase explains and establishes the preceding 'neither internal nor external', and being furthermore immediately the middle, it is therefore said to be 'not destroyed'; being furthermore doubly illuminating, it is therefore said to be 'not lost'. Setting forth the third phrase: 'Therefore it is said that sentient beings all possess it.' Master Guān says: 'Although neither internal nor external, nor existent or non-existent, it is provisionally named as existent.' Now, explaining it in mutual connection with the preceding 'not lost and not destroyed', it pervades all places and is therefore called 'all possess it'.