金光明最勝王經疏 4.412

4.412

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.