金剛般若論會釋 2.43

2.43

Within the section on the antidotes to the causal conditions of the suffering caused by beings' contrariness, the third part, refuting clinging according to conventional speech, contains two sections: first, the purpose of its occurrence, and second, the direct explanation of the text. Phenomena as grasped do not exist, which is termed 'having no reality'; phenomena not as grasped are not non-existent, which is termed 'not being void'. Because designateable phenomena are non-existent, they are 'without reality'; because phenomena cannot be spoken of as existing, they are 'not empty'. Vasubandhu summarized: 'Regarding the phenomena spoken of by the Buddhas, this teaching cannot attain that ultimate phenomenon, yet because it conforms to the reality...'; the first two lines explain 'without reality', while the latter line explains 'not void'. Since the taught doctrine cannot grasp that realised Dharma—just as according to the spoken sound heard, there is no such actual entity—therefore it is 'without reality'. Since there is a taught doctrine that accords with and conforms to that realised Dharma, it is therefore 'not void'. Following both Bodhiruci and Paramārtha, both versions state that the realised and the taught phenomena are without reality and without voidness. Kumārajīva only says 'the phenomena attained'; the Vajracchedikā states, 'the phenomena realised, spoken, and contemplated'. Inner wisdom possesses attainment, and external speech possesses proclamation; hence it speaks of attainment and speech. Vasubandhu explains according to this: 'If so, why does one speak of the phenomena attained and spoken of by the Tathāgata? Because they are spoken according to words and phrases.' The meaning is: because the phenomenon is attained inwardly, it is expressed outwardly relying on words and phrases. Although this is so, its taught doctrine, in relation to the attained phenomenon, is without reality and without voidness, because it is not as speech suggests, yet it is capable of conforming to attainment. Vasubandhu further asks: 'Why did the previous passage state that the Tathāgata speaks truly, yet now it says again that it is without reality and without falsehood?' The verse states: 'Grasping realization according to the sounds heard—this is spoken as an antidote.' The meaning is: if one hears the vocal instruction and straightaway takes it as realization, this matter being incorrect, to counteract it the text further states 'it is not real'. Because it can be attained in conformity, what was previously called 'true speech' is precisely what is subsequently 'not void'; there is no contradiction. Kumārajīva's text is concise, the Vajracchedikā text is extensive, and this commentary's text is intermediate; the meaning of the three texts is identical.