金光明經文句記 1.166

1.166

初、示三諦。一代教部有取能詮文字為經、有取所詮義理為經、有取文理合為經，故一代經不出文理合與不合。若不合者，能詮之文但是俗諦，不出三種，謂三藏實有俗、通教幻有俗、別教幻有幻有即空共俗。若所詮理但是真諦，亦唯三種，謂三藏實有滅空真、通教幻有即空真、別教不有不空真。此六之內，三種真諦體不具俗，但因三俗而得入真，俗終須滅，合義不成。若文理合者，不出三種，謂圓接通、圓接別及正圓教。此三真俗其體是中。何者？圓教本自真俗互趣，若接通別所詮真理既諸法趣，局照俗文亦諸法趣，故此三種真俗不二，名文理合，中道義成。以真即俗故，真即非真；俗即真故，俗即非俗；非真非俗言慮自忘，強名中耳。問：別教複俗幻有可是能詮之文，即空如何亦是文耶？答：文謂文相，能詮能顯之義也。義若在通教空，以忘相為所詮理。今於別教二邊俱相，乃為能顯顯於雙非，是故空有俱為文也。問：藏等七種俱名真俗，如何後三得名中道？答：豈聞真俗便無中耶？如圓當教及接通別，此三真俗既皆名為不可思議，寧非中道？如《涅槃疏》釋七二諦，於中三亦以中道為名，何獨責此？問：若取其義，別教真諦不空不有，何不名中？答：離邊之中，文理不合。初心不得，思議頓忘。若望於圓，但是複俗所詮真耳。故前文句釋經如是，對圓別云「破離明中」，良以所詮不即能詮不名中道，文字性離無非佛法方名圓教，中道如是。問：何故獨遺別接通耶？答：今以真俗對於文理，其別接通已在六內。何者？若未受接，乃當幻有詮於即空；若受接後，自屬但中局照複俗。故據法體已在前六，有何所遺？況復今文不顯標云七種二諦，但明一代取文取理。取文理合，有三俗經、有三真經、有三中經，如此明經，收於一化罄無不盡。有人秖就金光明名立九種經，專據取字以為義本。謂若取著三字能詮之文，名三種俗諦；若取著三字所詮理體，名三種真諦；若取文理合謂不偏著二邊，為三種中道。如斯說者，豈唯師心解義？無乃固違文意。前二取字作取著釋，後一取字作不偏著解，是何言歟？大師為解諸經之王，故立九種，收一代經。此經既說中道之王，故於九種而得自在，名諸經王。何緣九種但在三字？乃是金光明自為《金光明經》之王也。既闕諸經，全非統王。乖反至多，且言此二。

First, demonstrating the three truths. Across the teachings of the [Buddha's] lifetime, some take the expressing written words as the sūtra, some take the expressed principles and meanings as the sūtra, and some take the combination of text and principle as the sūtra; thus, the sūtras of a lifetime do not go beyond whether text and principle combine or do not combine. If they do not combine, the expressing text is merely conventional truth, which does not go beyond three kinds: namely, the real-existence conventional of the Tripiṭaka [teaching], the illusory-existence conventional of the Shared [teaching], and the illusory-existence-as-illusory-existence-is-empty shared-conventional of the Distinct [teaching]. If the expressed principle is merely ultimate truth, it is also only of three kinds: namely, the real-existence-extinction-emptiness ultimate of the Tripiṭaka [teaching], the illusory-existence-is-empty ultimate of the Shared [teaching], and the neither-existent-nor-empty ultimate of the Distinct [teaching]. Within these six, the substances of the three ultimate truths do not possess the conventional; they merely enter the ultimate by relying on the three conventionals, and the conventional must ultimately be extinguished, so the meaning of combination is not achieved. If text and principle combine, they do not go beyond three kinds: namely, the Perfect connecting to the Shared, the Perfect connecting to the Distinct, and the primary Perfect Teaching. The substance of these three conventionals and ultimates is the Middle. Why? The Perfect Teaching is intrinsically the mutual convergence of conventional and ultimate; if it connects to the Shared and Distinct, since the expressed ultimate principle converges with all dharmas, the text of the conventional that is specifically illuminated also converges with all dharmas; therefore, these three kinds of conventional and ultimate are non-dual, termed the combination of text and principle, and the meaning of the Middle Way is established. Because the ultimate is precisely the conventional, the ultimate is precisely non-ultimate; because the conventional is precisely the ultimate, the conventional is precisely non-conventional. Neither ultimate nor conventional, words and thoughts are naturally forgotten, and it is forcefully designated "the Middle." Question: The compound conventional of illusory existence in the Distinct Teaching may indeed be the expressing text, but how can "precisely empty" also be text? Answer: "Text" refers to textual characteristics—the meaning of being able to express and reveal. If the meaning is in the emptiness of the Shared Teaching, it takes the forgetting of characteristics as the expressed principle. Now, in the Distinct Teaching, both extremes are characteristics, which serve to reveal the negation of both; therefore, emptiness and existence are both text. Question: All seven kinds, such as the Tripiṭaka, are called conventional and ultimate; how do the latter three obtain the name Middle Way? Answer: Could it be that upon hearing "conventional and ultimate," there is no Middle? As in the Perfect Teaching proper and its connections to the Shared and Distinct, since these three conventionals and ultimates are all called inconceivable, how could they not be the Middle Way? Just as the Commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains the seven two-truths, wherein three also take the Middle Way as their name, why reprove only this? Question: In terms of its meaning, the ultimate truth of the Distinct Teaching is neither empty nor existent; why is it not called the Middle? Answer: A Middle that is separated from the extremes does not combine text and principle. The initial mind cannot attain it, nor are thought and deliberation suddenly forgotten. When viewed against the Perfect, it is merely the ultimate expressed by the compound conventional. Therefore, the earlier Textual Commentary explained the sūtra in this way, saying in contrast between the Perfect and Distinct: "Refuting separation clarifies the Middle." Truly, because the expressed is not identical to the expressing, it is not called the Middle Way; only when the nature of written words is detached and nothing is not the Buddhadharma is it called the Perfect Teaching, and the Middle Way is like this. Question: Why omit only the Distinct connecting to the Shared? Answer: Now, matching conventional and ultimate with text and principle, the Distinct connecting to the Shared is already within the six. Why? If it has not yet received the connection, it falls under illusory existence expressing "precisely empty"; if it has received the connection, it naturally belongs to the exclusive Middle specifically illuminating the compound conventional. Therefore, according to the dharma-substance, it is already in the former six; what omission is there? Furthermore, the present text does not explicitly designate seven kinds of two truths, but merely clarifies the lifetime's taking text and taking principle. In taking the combination of text and principle, there are three conventional sūtras, three ultimate sūtras, and three middle sūtras; explaining the sūtra in this way exhaustively encompasses the entirety of the teaching without remainder. Someone, based solely on the name "Suvarṇaprabhāsa," established nine kinds of sūtras, exclusively relying on the character "taking" (qu) as the root meaning. He claimed that if one grasps (quzhe) the expressing text of the three characters, they are called the three conventional truths; if one grasps the expressed substantive principle of the three characters, they are called the three ultimate truths; if one takes the combination of text and principle to mean not being one-sidedly attached to the two extremes, these are the three Middle Ways. As for such a statement, is it merely interpreting the meaning from one's own mind? Is it not obstinately defying the text's intention? To interpret the first two instances of the character "taking" as "grasping and attaching," and the latter instance of "taking" as "not being one-sidedly attached"—what kind of statement is that? In order to explain "king of all sūtras," the Great Master established the nine kinds to encompass the sūtras of the [Buddha's] entire lifetime. Since this sūtra expounds the king of the Middle Way, it attains sovereignty with respect to the nine kinds, and is named the king of all sūtras. Why would the nine kinds reside only within the three characters? That would be Suvarṇaprabhāsa being the king of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra itself. Since it lacks all sūtras, it is completely not a governing king. There are exceedingly many contradictions; let us state for now these two.