金光明經文句 4.9.2

4.9.2

"Good woman" refers to the deity of the bodhi tree. When the Buddhas preach the Dharma, they must have someone to address; drawing upon one to instruct the multitude, he therefore addresses this person. Furthermore, the capacities and conditions of the assembly at that time were appropriately centered on the good woman: if she heard him address her, her past goodness would arise. Moreover, male deities represent expedient means and female deities represent the perfection of wisdom; wishing to expound the perfection of wisdom in order to destroy foolish attachment, he therefore addresses a female deity. Furthermore, the Buddha attained the Way under the tree of awakening; wishing to speak of this Way, he therefore addresses the tree deity. This expresses the four siddhāntas; addressing her is not without causal conditions. "Should contemplate": by exhorting one person, an example is made for all. All bodhisattvas must cultivate the perfection of wisdom; there are no bodhisattvas who do not proceed by this, and hence it is said, "should contemplate." "All dharmas" points to the aforementioned objects of the two emptinesses—the four truths and the twelve links of dependent origination, whether provisional or actual. Although the terms are brief, they encompass all dharmas; hence it is said, "all dharmas." "In this way" directly clarifies the total contemplation. "In this way" has three meanings: in accordance with phenomenon, in accordance with principle, and in accordance with that which is neither phenomenon nor principle. "In accordance with phenomenon" is like the overflow of impurities in the provisional mental representations of the auxiliary path. "In accordance with principle" is like the absence of dharmas in the two emptinesses of sentient beings and dharmas. "In accordance with that which is neither phenomenon nor principle" is like the dharmatā and the Dharma-body. Furthermore, phenomena are immediately identical to principle, and identical to that which is neither phenomenon nor principle. That which is neither phenomenon nor principle is also immediately identical to principle and immediately identical to phenomena. Principle is immediately identical to phenomena and immediately identical to that which is neither phenomenon nor principle. The three dharmas are neither one nor different; hence it is said, "in this way." The three dharmas are also both one and different; hence it is said, "all dharmas." "Where is there a person?": this points out the contemplation of principle. "Where": if there is a person in the locus of form, then the four aggregates are not needed; if there is no person in the locus of form, then in the four loci there is also no person. In all five loci there is absolutely no person; hence it is said, "Where is there a person?" Furthermore, since there is no person in the locus of the fruit, there is also no person in the locus of the causes of ignorance and volitional formations. When cause and fruit are combined, there is also no person; when separated from cause and separated from fruit, there is also no person; hence it is said, "Where is there a person?" Since a person does not exist, sentient beings, the sixteen views of a knower, and so forth all do not exist; hence it says, "as well as sentient beings." "Originally by nature empty and tranquil": this points out the contemplation of that which is neither phenomenon nor principle. In original nature there are no phenomena, nor is there emptiness. Emptiness originally empties phenomena; since there are no phenomena, what is there for emptiness to empty? Because there are no phenomena, phenomena are tranquil; because there is no emptiness, emptiness is tranquil. The original nature is like this; it is not merely so beginning now. Hence it is said, "originally by nature empty and tranquil." "Existing due to ignorance": this points out the contemplation of phenomena. If it is empty and doubly empty, how could there be these phenomena? Since there are phenomena, there is emptiness; since there is emptiness, there is that which is neither phenomenon nor principle: these three kinds all exist due to ignorance. Because there is the delusion of ignorance, there are volitional formations; when there are volitional formations, there are sentient beings and dharmas. Since there are sentient beings and dharmas, there is the contemplation of auxiliary phenomena; as the auxiliary arrives to support the primary, there is the contemplation of the principle of emptiness; as the primary and the auxiliary manifest the source, there is the contemplation of that which is neither phenomenon nor principle. Not knowing these things is called ignorance. The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: "From foolishness there is craving, and thus my illness arises; because illness arises, there is the application of medicine." This is precisely the meaning. If one knows that ignorance is originally by nature empty and tranquil, then there is not even ignorance—how could there be phenomenon, principle, or neither phenomenon nor principle? Because it is ultimately pure, it is called the wisdom of emptiness. However, the view of self is deep and heavy, forming a great obstacle to studying the Way. What ordinary beings do is always accompanied by the self: I walk, I stay, sitting, lying down, and speaking are never separated from the self; I practice giving and morality, up to I practice wisdom. If one grasps the deceased body of another and conceives of a self, this self is coarse and dull; if one clings to the dust of dharmas and conceives of a self, this self is subtle and sharp. Like clinging to a single dharma, claiming "I know, I understand," one generates a self with regard to dharmas; clinging to any single phrase as true and regarding the rest as false speech—this is the extreme view. Taking what is not the Way to be the Way—this is the attachment to rules and rituals. Taking what is not principle to be principle—this is the attachment to views. Taking what is improper to be proper—this is wrong view. Regarding oneself as right and despising others—this is arrogance. Denying it is anger; praising it is craving; refuting it is doubt; failing to understand it is foolishness. The ten entangling afflictions take the self as their root; unknowingly they increase day and night. Even if one possesses worldly knowledge, eloquence, and intelligence like Dīrghanakha or the iron-plated belly, whose refutations make stones split, make trees break, make waters dry up, and make fires extinguish, one remains ever further from the Way. Even if one follows dhyāna to the realm of Brahmā or to the peak of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the mind of self always remains; about to leave, it returns again. If such ordinary heretics do not even possess the stage of warmth, how could they destroy the self? Expounding this self in detail, there are twenty kinds of view of identity, namely: positing five by identifying with the aggregates, positing five by being apart from the aggregates, five aggregates being within the self, and five selves being within the aggregates—these make twenty. If one aggregate is the self, the remaining aggregates are not the self; if they are combined to be the self, then there would be five selves. This meaning is incorrect. If apart from the aggregates there is a self, since it is apart from the aggregates, whose self would this self be? This meaning is incorrect. If within the aggregates there is a self, then the aggregates would contain the self, like a vessel containing fruit or a room lodging a person. This meaning is incorrect. If within the self there are the aggregates, then the aggregates would be inside the self. This meaning is incorrect. This is the refutation of the twenty kinds of view of identity; this is explained in terms of external objects. Yet in the internal mind one still posits the existence of a self; one should again turn the contemplation inward: there is a self identical to wisdom, there is a self apart from wisdom, there is wisdom within the self, or there is a self within wisdom. All these meanings are incorrect; this again refutes twenty kinds of view of identity. Combining the inner and outer counts makes forty kinds of view of identity; this is called the emptiness of the sentient being. The Abhidharma says: "The view of self is an equal and co-arising cause. When the view of self arises, it has not yet moved body and speech; only when thinking arises on the basis of the view of self do body and speech move." When the view of self has been severed, one awakens to the emptiness of the sentient being. The Tattvasiddhi explains that the mind with the view of self is itself thinking, and is able to move body and speech. When the view of self has been severed, one immediately awakens to the emptiness of the sentient being and also awakens to the emptiness of dharmas. The Mahāyāna explains that the view of self already includes all dharmas; how could it not include thinking? To awaken to the emptiness of the sentient being is precisely to awaken to the emptiness of actual dharmas. The refutation of the twenty kinds of view of identity universally applies to the above three phrases. If one approaches principle through phenomena: where is there a person? Identical to the aggregates, apart from the aggregates, within the aggregates there is no person, within the person there are no aggregates—the twenty kinds of views are refuted; hence it is said, "Where is there a person?" As for the wisdom that contemplates: is wisdom identical to a person? Is there a person apart from wisdom? Is there wisdom within the person? Is there a person within wisdom? These assumptions are also refuted; hence it is said, "Where is there a person?" If one practices the contemplation that original nature is empty and tranquil, being neither phenomenon nor principle: original nature is empty and tranquil; originally there is neither being identical to nor apart from the aggregates. Since aggregate, person, person, aggregate do not exist, such assumptions are refuted; hence it is said, "Where is there a person?" The original nature of the wisdom that contemplates is also tranquil; hence it is said, "Where is there a person?"