[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [金光明最勝王經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1788) › 4.412 # 金光明最勝王經疏 4.412 金光明最勝王經疏 4.412 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.412](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1788.4.412) 贊曰：第三釋。此約不離不即答。初云謂於五蘊能現法界，法界即是五蘊。此不離義。謂於者，指斥標舉發端之義。即於五蘊能現法界，法界即現五蘊。此有二。一云：依遍計所執相無自性、及所顯空性、故說五蘊能現法界、法界即是五蘊故。《般若心經》云「色即是空、空即是色，受想行識亦復如是。」空性即如，故《解深密經》及《瑜伽論》云「於第二時唯為發趣修大乘者，於一切法無生無滅本來寂靜自性涅槃，以隱密相轉正法輪。」《十八空論》亦云「故知分別無相依他無生名真實性。真實體無，無體故無相，無相故無生，無生故無滅，無滅故寂靜，寂靜故名自性涅槃。」《辨中邊論》亦云「無二謂無所取能取，有無謂有二取之無性。」此意所能取無，即所取五蘊及能取心俱遍計故體無，無之性體即是如，故云五蘊能現法界。法界是五蘊性亦名五蘊，故云法界即五蘊真如。由此道理，遍計所執五蘊體無亦不可說。二無之性，體非積聚，名非五蘊。性離言故，亦不可說。此除遍計，以證真而修行說。二云：依他中唯有圓成，圓成中唯有依他。云五蘊能現法界，法界即是五蘊，約不離義云是五蘊。故《中邊論》云「即虛妄分別中有空性故，及空性中有虛妄分別故，是即契中道。」空性即法界，雖云不離，不可言一異。若此法界與五蘊一，亦不可說。若此法性非五蘊者，此意說異，亦不可說。俱是遍計，無自性故、不可說故。《中邊》云「若異應成法性異法，便違聖說，如苦等性。若一應非淨智境亦非共相，此即顯空如與虛妄分別。依此離一異相，云不可說。」或復二性俱非言境，名不可說，故《成唯識論》云「真謂自性，假智及詮俱非境故。既非言說，又非決定一向一異，故非生死涅槃別，所以云平等。」雖別言五蘊，意約三身令求修行，即五修中依止自在修也。然約不一異釋，順《中邊》、《十八空論》，依此經文即通二解。然依重詰，為通釋文，即不一異為勝。前徵、後詰，依影顯說，即通說勝。 > Commentary: Third, the explanation. This answers in terms of non-separation and non-identity. First, it says: 'That is to say, the five aggregates can manifest the dharmadhātu, and the dharmadhātu is the five aggregates.' This is the meaning of non-separation. 'That is to say' points out and introduces the theme. Precisely in the five aggregates can the dharmadhātu manifest, and the dharmadhātu precisely manifests the five aggregates. Here there are two \[interpretations\]. The first says: based on the lack of self-nature of the imagined characteristic (parikalpita-lakṣaṇa) and the emptiness revealed by it, it is said that the five aggregates can manifest the dharmadhātu and the dharmadhātu is the five aggregates. The Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya says: 'Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness are also like this.' The nature of emptiness is tathatā; therefore the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the Yogācārabhūmi say: 'At the second period, solely for those who set out to cultivate the Mahāyāna, with a concealed intention the wheel of the saddharma was turned with respect to all dharmas being non-arising, non-ceasing, originally tranquil, and naturally in nirvāṇa.' The Aṣṭādaśaśūnyatā-śāstra also says: 'Therefore one knows that the imagined lacks characteristics and the dependent lacks arising, which is called the perfected nature. The perfected has no entity; because it has no entity, it has no characteristics; because it has no characteristics, it has no arising; because it has no arising, it has no cessation; because it has no cessation, it is tranquil; because it is tranquil, it is called natural nirvāṇa.' The Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra also says: 'Non-duality means the absence of the grasped and the grasper; existence and non-existence mean the existence of the non-nature of the two graspings.' This means that the absence of the grasped and the grasper means that the grasped five aggregates and the grasping mind are both imagined, so their entities do not exist; the entity of the nature of non-existence is precisely tathatā, and so it is said that the five aggregates can manifest the dharmadhātu. The dharmadhātu is the nature of the five aggregates, so it is also called the five aggregates; thus it is said that the dharmadhātu is the tathatā of the five aggregates. Due to this principle, the imagined five aggregates, lacking entity, are also inexpressible. The nature of the two non-existences, its entity not being an accumulation, is named 'not the five aggregates'. Because this nature is beyond words, it is also inexpressible. This explains practice based on eliminating the imagined to realize the real. The second says: within the dependent there is only the perfected, and within the perfected there is only the dependent. Saying that the five aggregates can manifest the dharmadhātu and the dharmadhātu is the five aggregates refers to their non-separation in saying it is the five aggregates. Therefore the Madhyāntavibhāga says: 'Precisely because there is emptiness within false discrimination, and because there is false discrimination within emptiness, this accords with the middle way.' Emptiness is the dharmadhātu; although they are said to be non-separate, one cannot speak of oneness or difference. If this dharmadhātu were identical to the five aggregates, it would also be inexpressible. If this nature of dharmas were not the five aggregates—which means different—it would also be inexpressible. Both being imagined, they lack self-nature and are inexpressible. The Madhyāntavibhāga says: 'If different, the nature of dharmas would be different from dharmas, which would contradict the noble teaching, like the nature of suffering, etc. If identical, it would not be the object of pure wisdom nor a universal characteristic; this demonstrates the emptiness, tathatā, and false discrimination. Based on this freedom from the characteristics of oneness and difference, it is said to be inexpressible.' Or again, both natures are not objects of language, so they are called inexpressible; therefore the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra says: 'The real means the intrinsic nature; provisional wisdom and expressions are both not its object.' Since it is beyond verbal expression and also not definitely, unalterably identical or different, there is no distinction between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, which is why it is called equality. Although it mentions the five aggregates in particular, the intention is to lead one to practice with regard to the three bodies, which is the cultivation of mastery over the support among the five cultivations. Now, explaining it in terms of neither identical nor different accords with the Madhyāntavibhāga and the Aṣṭādaśaśūnyatā-śāstra; relying on this sūtra text, it accommodates both explanations. However, relying on the subsequent cross-examination to thoroughly explain the text, neither-identity-nor-difference is superior. In terms of the preceding inquiry and the subsequent cross-examination implicitly illuminating each other, the comprehensive explanation is superior. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.411](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1788.4.411) - [Next: 4.413](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1788.4.413) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1788.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1788~en-mt.4.412) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.7.51) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1788.4.412](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1788.4.412) · Pramāṇa