金剛般若論會釋 1.99

1.99

「由說法由故」下，釋妨難，謂有難言：「何故經言，佛所說法不可取、說，不言佛所證、知、見、覺等法皆不可取、說耶？」今釋之云，由外說法深妙難量，知內得覺，唯於說法安立第一義。依《能斷經》，乃云「如來所證、所說、所思惟法」，便無此妨。諸本唯言「佛所說法」，更無餘故。若依《能斷》，諸義具足，所證身也，所說語也，所思意也，三業所履之法，皆不可取、說。此中論文，應言由說法等外三業勝知內得菩提，以於三業，說法利生最為勝故，論中偏說。天親論云，「何故唯言說不言證？有言說者，即成證義故，若不證者，即不能說」故，以外說法，悉知內證，如入無量義處三昧方說法《法華》，即內有證故，能外說法，互相表故，正與此同。於中，「不可取」者，謂正聞時，此在聽者，不可說者；謂演說時，此在說者。夫說法者，無說無示，夫聽法者，無聞無得故，法皆不可若取、若說。「非法」者，分別性，分別性謂遍計所執，體性都無，虛妄所執。「法」謂真理，彼非真理，故名「非法」，故說「非法」名分別性。「非非法」者，法無我故，法無我性道理是有，即非虛妄有，即名「非非法」，虛妄所執名「非法」故。天親論云，「『說法不二取，無說離言相』者，聽者不取法、不取非法，說者亦不說法、非法故。何以故？彼法非法、非非法」，依真如義說故，此名安立，非法者，一切法無體故，遍計所執都無體故，非非法者，彼真如無我相實有故。

From "Due to the reason of preaching the Dharma" onward, the objection is resolved. That is, someone objects: "Why does the sūtra say that the Dharma preached by the Buddha can neither be grasped nor expressed, and does not say that the dharmas realized, known, seen, and awakened to by the Buddha can neither be grasped nor expressed?" Now it is explained by saying: Because the outward preaching of the Dharma is profound, subtle, and immeasurable, one knows the inward attainment of awakening; [hence] the ultimate truth is established solely in terms of preaching the Dharma. If one relies on the *Vajracchedikā*, which actually says "the dharmas realized, preached, and contemplated by the Tathāgata," then this objection does not arise, [whereas] the various [other] editions solely say "the Dharma preached by the Buddha" and have nothing else. If one relies on the *Vajracchedikā*, all the meanings are complete: what is realized is body, what is preached is speech, and what is contemplated is mind—the dharmas traversed by the three karmas can all neither be grasped nor expressed. In the text of this treatise, it should say that through the superiority of the external three karmas such as preaching the Dharma, one knows the inward attainment of bodhi. Because among the three karmas, preaching the Dharma to benefit sentient beings is the most supreme, it is spoken of exclusively in the treatise. Vasubandhu's treatise says: "Why does it only speak of preaching and not of realization? Because where there is verbal expression, the meaning of realization is established thereby; if one did not realize, one would be unable to preach." Therefore, from the outward preaching of the Dharma, all inward realization is known; just as entering the samādhi of the locus of immeasurable meanings, one only then preaches the *Lotus Sūtra*—that is, because there is inward realization, one is able to preach the Dharma outwardly, as they mutually indicate each other; this precisely agrees with this. In this context, "cannot be grasped" refers to the time of hearing properly, which pertains to the listener; "cannot be expressed" refers to the time of expounding, which pertains to the speaker. For the one who preaches the Dharma, there is nothing preached and nothing displayed; for the one who hears the Dharma, there is nothing heard and nothing obtained. Therefore, dharmas can neither be grasped nor expressed. "Non-dharma" refers to the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva); the imagined nature means what is grasped by conceptual construction, whose substantial nature is completely non-existent, being falsely constructed. "Dharma" means the true principle; that is not the true principle, and is therefore called "non-dharma"; hence "non-dharma" is said to be the imagined nature. "Not non-dharma" refers to the selflessness of phenomena; the principle of the nature of the selflessness of phenomena exists, meaning it is not a false existence, and is thus called "not non-dharma," because what is falsely constructed is called "non-dharma." Vasubandhu's treatise says: "'Preaching the Dharma is free from the two graspings, without preaching and apart from the characteristic of words' means that the listener neither grasps dharma nor grasps non-dharma, and the speaker likewise neither preaches dharma nor non-dharma. Why is this? Because that dharma is neither dharma nor non-dharma." It is spoken relying on the meaning of tathatā; this is called the establishment [of truth]. "Non-dharma" is because all dharmas lack substantial entity, since what is grasped by conceptual construction completely lacks substantial entity. "Not non-dharma" is because that characteristic of selflessness of tathatā truly exists.