大般涅槃經疏 30.16

30.16

From “Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said” below, third, clarifies differences and sameness, again with three: first, clarifying that buddhadhātu is identical to empty space; next, clarifying that it differs from empty space; third, refuting non-Buddhists who grasp empty space as buddhadhātu. Regarding sameness and difference, Sēngzhào said: “For those who delight in sameness, he speaks of sameness: though the same, it is different. For those who delight in difference, he speaks of difference: though different, it is the same.” The earlier clarification that buddhadhātu is both identical to empty space and not identical to empty space belongs to the orthodox canon of the Dharma King, possessing both sameness and non-sameness. Refuting the non-Buddhists' empty space refutes the empty space visible to worldly eyes. First, clarifying the meaning of sameness: first asking and next answering. In the answer there are three: first, clarifying that buddhadhātu is identical to empty space in not being subsumed by the three periods of time; next, clarifying that it is identical to empty space in being neither internal nor external; third, clarifying that it is identical to empty space in being without obstruction. The first text extensively clarifies that the three periods of time are non-existent in mutual relativity, hence the three periods of time cannot exist. Since the three periods of time do not exist, empty space is not subsumed by the three periods of time. The text says: “Because empty space is non-existent, it is not subsumed by the three periods of time.” What is its characteristic? Emptiness is simply non-existence, and non-existence is permanence. Buddhadhātu is existent and furthermore permanent, hence not subsumed by the three periods of time; empty space is non-existent and permanent, and likewise not subsumed by time. Question: If so, then buddhadhātu should be existent and not subsumed by time; for what reason does it say it is permanent and not of the three periods? Explanation: Buddhadhātu is not entirely existent, so it is not called existent. From “Furthermore, because empty space is non-existent, it is neither internal nor external” below, second, buddhadhātu is identical to space in being neither internal nor external. From “Just as in the world” below, third, buddhadhātu is identical to empty space in being without obstruction; this will not be subdivided further.