金光明經文句記 1.172

1.172

二、「法性為」下，的明此典經王體性。以文理合，中道為體，斯蓋通辨。若例諸部經體別名，此經的以法性之王為經體也。以佛遊於深廣法性，便即唱云：「是金光明，諸經之王。」豈非的指所遊法性為金光明名下之體，此體自在是諸經王？問：三種經王皆得為於大乘經體，此經之體的屬何王？答：文詮法性雖在於圓，而許三乘依此懺悔，是故大師就圓釋體、判教屬通，義當圓教入通中道以為經王也。問：《淨名玄》云「若理內三種俗諦非此經體，三種真諦是法性實相得為經體。」今云「若取文理合為經，即是三種中道。」且文理既合，則真俗俱中，是則俗諦得為經體。將非與彼義相違耶？答彼此宛順，無相違也。良以經體未始離文而文不到，即事而真方為經體。以二諦判體則屬真，三諦判之體當中道，斯乃示於心路絕處方為經體。若藏通別，當教亦云體絕言想，而皆所詮不具能詮，安得能詮合於所詮？故六種經文理不合，望於圓教實無絕理。是故大師欲彰經體示絕想門，云「文理合是三中道，為四味教所詮圓體。」談理具文，文方即理、理亦即文。文既即理，能詮自忘；理既即文，所詮叵得；能所既絕，中體斯彰。彼明理內三種真諦皆是圓中，故與今文明體不別。如《妙玄》中引《地論》金剛藏說空有不二不異不盡四句顯體，辭異意同。《釋籤》「問曰：空假如何得為經體？答云：既是不思議空假，還指空假即中，中為經體。中即空假，亦指於中。」彼之四句不出三諦，以圓融故三諦各三，是則四句句句三諦，所以得名辭異意同。句句具中，故皆為體。究論空假得為體者，由具於中，故云「還指空假即中，中為經體。」是故中諦雖具空假，空假非體，故云「中即空假，亦指於中。」問：何不但云中是經體、空假非體，於義已足。何故先明三諦各三皆得為體，復於三諦各揀空假唯取於中而為經體，豈非繁重？答：秖為單說圓義不成，作此融談方彰妙體。何者？蓋以空假是其修二，即經宗用；中是一性，即經體也。若但云中是經體者，則宗用外別有於體，體狹不周，故須三諦無非經體。若不於三各揀空假唯取中體，則不能顯體非智斷。如此辨體，不即宗用、不離宗用，思議泯淨，妙體天然。中為經體圓妙既然，以例空假宗用亦妙。以空遍三諦，此宗不狹；假遍三諦，此用彌廣。仍須三諦各揀假中顯宗是智，亦須三諦各揀空中顯用是斷，各對二明不即不離，故皆稱為不思議也。若然，豈獨體是經王，宗用亦王，名總三王、教辨四王，以一名一體一宗一用一教無非中道故也。故《玄義》云「文號經王，教攝眾典。教尚稱王，名等可見。」既法法皆中無非經體，復須簡顯名是能詮、宗是自證、用是化他、教能分別，唯有經體是所取也。收無不盡、簡無所遺，與金剛藏四句皆體，《釋籤》於四唯取於中，其意泯合。

Second, from "Taking the Dharma-nature as" downward, he precisely clarifies the essence of the king of sūtras of this scripture. Taking the union of text and principle, with the Middle Way as the essence, is a general determination. If patterned after the distinct names of the scriptural essences in the various corpora, this sūtra precisely takes the king of Dharma-nature as its scriptural essence. Because the Buddha roamed in the deep and vast Dharma-nature, he immediately proclaimed: "This Suvarṇaprabhāsa is the king of all sūtras." Does this not precisely point to the Dharma-nature in which he roamed as the essence underlying the name "Suvarṇaprabhāsa," and this essence, having mastery, is the king of all sūtras? Question: All three kinds of kings of sūtras can serve as the essence of Mahāyāna sūtras; to which king does the essence of this sūtra precisely belong? Answer: Although the text's expressing of Dharma-nature lies in the perfect, it permits the three vehicles to rely on this for repentance. Therefore, the Great Master explained the essence in terms of the perfect and classified the teaching as belonging to the shared; its meaning corresponds to the Middle Way of the perfect teaching entering the shared, serving as the king of sūtras. Question: The Profound Meaning of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: "The three kinds of conventional truths within principle are not the essence of this sūtra; the three kinds of ultimate truths are the Dharma-nature and true mark, which can serve as the essence of the sūtra." Now it is said: "If one takes the union of text and principle as the sūtra, it is the three kinds of Middle Way." Moreover, since text and principle unite, then both ultimate and conventional are the middle, and consequently the conventional truth can serve as the essence of the sūtra. Would this not contradict that meaning? Answer: That and this accord gracefully; there is no contradiction. This is truly because the scriptural essence is never apart from text, yet text does not reach it; only being identical to phenomena and yet the ultimate is the scriptural essence. If judging the essence by the two truths, it belongs to the ultimate; if judging it by the three truths, the essence corresponds to the Middle Way. This is to demonstrate that only the place where the path of the mind is cut off is the scriptural essence. In the case of the Tripiṭaka, Shared, and Separate, their respective teachings also say that the essence cuts off speech and thought, yet in all of them the expressed does not possess the expressing; how could the expressing unite with the expressed? Therefore, in the six kinds of sūtras, text and principle do not unite; viewed from the perfect teaching, they truly lack the principle that transcends. Therefore, when the Great Master wished to manifest the scriptural essence and display the gate of cutting off thought, he said: "The union of text and principle is the three kinds of Middle Way, serving as the perfect essence expressed by the teachings of the four flavors." Speaking of principle possessing text, only then is text identical to principle, and principle is also identical to text. Since text is identical to principle, the expressing is naturally forgotten; since principle is identical to text, the expressed cannot be found; expressing and expressed having both been cut off, the essence of the middle is thereby manifested. That [text] clarifies that the three kinds of ultimate truths within principle are all the perfect middle, and therefore it does not differ from the clarification of the essence in the present text. As in the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra, which cites Vajragarbha's explanation in the Daśabhūmika Śāstra of the four phrases—non-dual, not different, not exhausted, and so forth—to reveal the essence: the wording differs, but the meaning is the same. The Commentary Notes states: "Question: How can emptiness and provisionality serve as the scriptural essence? Answer: Since they are inconceivable emptiness and provisionality, it points back to emptiness and provisionality being identical to the middle, and the middle is the scriptural essence. The middle being identical to emptiness and provisionality also points to the middle." Those four phrases do not go beyond the three truths; because of perfect integration, the three truths each have three, and thus each of the four phrases is itself the three truths, which is why they are called 'differing in wording but identical in meaning.' Every phrase is endowed with the middle, and so all serve as the essence. Thoroughly examining how emptiness and provisionality can serve as the essence: it is due to their being endowed with the middle; hence it says: 'It points back to emptiness and provisionality being identical to the middle, and the middle is the scriptural essence.' Therefore, although the truth of the middle is endowed with emptiness and provisionality, emptiness and provisionality are not the essence; hence it says: 'The middle being identical to emptiness and provisionality also points to the middle.' Question: Why not simply say that the middle is the scriptural essence, and emptiness and provisionality are not the essence, which would suffice for the meaning? Why first clarify that the three truths each having three can all serve as the essence, and then again select within the three truths, rejecting emptiness and provisionality and taking only the middle as the scriptural essence? Is this not redundant and cumbersome? Answer: It is simply because merely stating it singly would fail to establish the perfect meaning; only by engaging in such integrated discourse is the marvelous essence manifested. Why is this? Because emptiness and provisionality are the two [aspects] of practice, which are the sūtra's purport and function; the middle is the single nature, which is the sūtra's essence. If one merely said that the middle is the scriptural essence, then outside the purport and function there would be a separate essence; the essence would be narrow and not all-encompassing. Therefore, it is necessary that all three truths are without exception the scriptural essence. If one did not select within the three, rejecting emptiness and provisionality and taking only the essence of the middle, one would be unable to reveal that the essence is neither wisdom nor eradication. In distinguishing the essence in this way, it is neither identical to purport and function nor separate from purport and function; speech and thought are obliterated and purified, and the marvelous essence is spontaneous. Since the middle being the scriptural essence is thus completely marvelous, by extension, the purport and function of emptiness and provisionality are also marvelous. Because emptiness pervades the three truths, this purport is not narrow; because provisionality pervades the three truths, this function is ever broader. One must still select within the three truths, rejecting provisionality and the middle to reveal that the purport is wisdom, and also select within the three truths, rejecting emptiness and the middle to reveal that the function is eradication; clarifying neither identity nor separation against both, they are therefore both called inconceivable. If so, how could the essence alone be the king of sūtras? Purport and function are also kings; the name encompasses the three kings, and the teaching distinguishes the four kings, because the one name, one essence, one purport, one function, and one teaching are none other than the Middle Way. Therefore the Profound Meaning says: 'The text is styled king of sūtras; the teaching subsumes all scriptures. If even the teaching is called king, the name and the rest can be seen.' Since every dharma is the middle and none is not the scriptural essence, one must again distinguish and reveal: the name is the expressing, the purport is self-realization, the function is transforming others, and the teaching is capable of distinguishing; only the scriptural essence is what is to be grasped. Gathering in, nothing is left unexhausted; selecting, nothing is omitted. This completely coincides with the intention of Vajragarbha's four phrases all being the essence and the Commentary Notes selecting only the middle among the four.