楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 3.196

3.196

Here the Tathāgata recounts to Mahāmati the brāhmaṇa's questions and the Buddha's answers. However, his questions seized upon two or three of the Buddha's doctrines as points of inquiry, yet the Buddha answered all of them as worldly philosophy. This is based on what [the brāhmaṇa] knew: whenever the mental consciousness flows and clings in accordance with sensory dust, regardless of heterodox or orthodox, it is all worldly philosophy. In this way he made it impossible for him to frame an argument, thereby stopping him. His arguments having been exhausted, he then requested [to hear about] what is not worldly philosophy. The Tathāgata said, 'There is, but it is not what you possess.' In saying 'neither a non-doctrine' up to 'adorned with metaphorical adornments'—saying 'neither/not' throughout—it means it is different from his doctrines; although [the Buddha] subtly initiated it, he still did not yet explain the reality to him. When [the brāhmaṇa] asked a second time, saying, 'What is neither a non-doctrine nor neither speaking [nor not speaking]?' [the Buddha] again rebuffed him, saying, 'It is not what you can know.' Because [the tīrthikas] falsely conceptualize and cling to external dharmas, not only are they unable to have faithful entry, but it is also feared that they would generate interpretations following the words and increase their faults of views; hence he made it difficult for him. Thereafter [the Buddha] told him: 'It means that false conceptualization does not arise.' He caused him to comprehend that existence and nonexistence are nothing but what appears from one's own mind; then false conceptualization does not arise, and by not receiving external dust, false conceptualization ceases forever—this is what is not worldly philosophy. Only then does one know that the Buddhas of the three periods originally do not give a single dharma to people; they merely cause false conceptualization not to arise, whereupon the naturally authentic, wondrous nature returns from not far away. Having expounded the correct doctrine, he again refuted his errors: from 'to explain that consciousness briefly: whether coming or going' down to 'whether grasping at causes,' all are those external attachments of the deluded consciousness. His doctrines having been bent, [the brāhmaṇa] felt ashamed and retreated, not even having leisure to take leave, and thought over his own mastery. Furthermore, his saying 'transcends what is within my mastery' represents the tīrthika's words of self-reflection upon withdrawing; because he sought within himself for what the Buddha had taught and could not find it, he only then knew that it transcended what was within his own mastery, and spoke of 'non-arising, signlessness,' and so forth. Observing what he grasped, it is also sufficient to see that he had attained something.