大乘義章 9.61

9.61

次辨證教有可宣說不可說義。於中且就初對論之，餘類可知。然就初對修成門中，義別有三：一就證教二行相對以辨可說不可說義、二唯就證、三唯就教。證教相對，辨之云何？教行可說，證行叵論，蓋乃就其修證時語，始修之時未出名相，行外猶有名相可得，用之顯修，是故可說。得證之時，證諸法如，證外更無名相可得，知復用何表影實證，是故證行一向不說。良以可說偏在教故，《地經》說言「但說一分」。言一分者，所謂因分。此名始修教道之行，為因分也。以其修行不可說故，《地經》說言「十地如是，不可說聞。」證教二行相對如是。次唯就證以辨可說不可說義。然證望教，一向叵說。於中別論，亦有可說不可說義。義相云何？分別有五：第一可以總相玄標，名為可說。故《地經》中宣說五偈，顯示義大。又復經中說之為證。不可即相指以示人，名不可說。故《地經》云「言說不及」。此義如彼空中所有鳥跡風畫等處，可以玄談，名為可說。不可即相指以示人，名不可說。第二可以拂相顯示名為可說，不可相論名不可說。何故如是？證離名相，不可說聞。今還道證，不可說聞。言當彼法，名為說證。故金剛藏彰地難說，名顯義大。若言證法可說可聞，言乖彼法則不名說。第三可以況詮顯示名為可說。故《地經》中用彼因分所修之行，況顯果分離相真德，名喻相應。喻猶況也。不可直詮顯示彼法，名不可說。第四可以自體真法互相顯示名為可說。於中或有因果相顯，故《地經》中舉彼佛法用顯地法。或復體用互相顯示，如《地經》說。彼經之中金莊嚴具所況之法，以用顯體；摩尼光等所況之法，以體顯用。或復行法互相顯示，故《地經》中用彼真智顯示地法。是等皆是自體真法互相顯班，名為可說。不可用彼情相顯真，名不可說。第五情實相望以說。據情望實，情外有實，可以談論，名為可說。就實望情，實外無情，知復用何施名說實，故不可說。證中可說不可說義，差別如是。次就教行以辨可說不可說義。教中隨義，亦有可說不可說義。教行之中，義含真偽，偽修可陳，名為可說；真修難顯，名不可說。故《地經》中彰彼因分觀修之德，云言難說，自心知也。證教兩行，辨之云爾。

Next, we explain that realization and teaching have aspects of being explicable and being inexplicable. Therein, we first discuss it in terms of the initial antithesis; the rest can be known by analogy. However, in the gate of cultivation and completion of this initial antithesis, there are three distinct meanings: first, in distinguishing the explicable and inexplicable aspects by contrasting the two practices of realization and teaching; second, regarding realization alone; third, regarding teaching alone. How are they distinguished by contrasting realization and teaching? The practice of teaching is explicable, while the practice of realization cannot be discussed. This is spoken of merely in terms of the time of their cultivation and realization: at the time of initial cultivation, one has not yet transcended names and marks, and there are still names and marks accessible outside of the practice that can be used to manifest cultivation; therefore, it is explicable. At the time of attaining realization, one realizes the thusness of all dharmas, and outside of realization there are no further names and marks accessible, so one does not know what could be used to represent or reflect true realization; therefore, the practice of realization is utterly inexplicable. Precisely because being explicable belongs exclusively to teaching, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra states: "Only one part is spoken of." What is called "one part" is the so-called causal part. This terms the practice of initially cultivating the path of teaching the "causal part." Because the practice [of realization] is inexplicable, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra states: "The ten grounds are like this, beyond explanation and hearing." The contrast between the two practices of realization and teaching is like this. Next, we distinguish the explicable and inexplicable aspects regarding realization alone. When realization is viewed relative to teaching, it is utterly inexplicable. But when discussed individually within it, there are also aspects of being explicable and inexplicable. What are their characteristics? There are five distinctions: First, it can be mysteriously indicated through general characteristics, and is therefore termed explicable. Hence, in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, five verses are proclaimed to reveal the greatness of meaning. Furthermore, in the sūtra it is termed realization. That it cannot be directly pointed out and shown to people by adhering to marks is termed inexplicable. Hence, the Daśabhūmika Sūtra states: "It is beyond the reach of verbal explanation." This meaning is like the traces of birds in the sky or drawings in the wind: it can be mysteriously talked about, and is therefore termed explicable; it cannot be directly pointed out and shown to people by adhering to marks, and is therefore termed inexplicable. Second, that it can be revealed by sweeping away marks is termed explicable; that it cannot be discussed in terms of marks is termed inexplicable. Why is this so? Realization is free from names and marks, and is beyond explanation and hearing. Now, declaring again that realization is beyond explanation and hearing—when the words correspond to that dharma, this is termed "explaining realization." Hence, Vajragarbha's revealing that the grounds are difficult to explain is termed "revealing the greatness of meaning." If one were to say that the dharma of realization can be explained and can be heard, the words would contravene that dharma and would not be termed "explanation." Third, that it can be revealed by metaphorical explanation is termed explicable. Hence, in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, the practices cultivated in the causal part are used to metaphorically reveal the true virtues divorced from marks in the fruitional part, which is termed "accordance with metaphors." A metaphor is an analogy. That the dharma cannot be directly revealed through literal explanation is termed inexplicable. Fourth, that the true dharmas of its own essence can mutually reveal one another is termed explicable. Therein, cause and fruit may mutually reveal each other; hence, in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, those dharmas of the Buddha are cited to reveal the dharmas of the grounds. Or essence and function may mutually reveal each other, as stated in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra: in that sūtra, the dharma allegorized by gold ornaments reveals the essence by means of function; the dharma allegorized by the light of mani jewels reveals the function by means of the essence. Or practice and dharma may mutually reveal each other; hence, in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, that true knowledge is used to reveal the dharmas of the grounds. All such mutual manifestations of the true dharmas of their own essence are termed explicable. That true reality cannot be revealed by means of those conceptual marks is termed inexplicable. Fifth, it is explained by viewing sentiment and reality relative to each other. When viewing reality on the basis of sentiment, reality exists outside of sentiment, and can be discussed; thus it is termed explicable. When viewing sentiment from the perspective of reality, there is no sentiment outside of reality, and one does not know what could be used to apply names to explain reality; hence it is inexplicable. The distinctions between the explicable and inexplicable aspects within realization are like this. Next, we distinguish the explicable and inexplicable aspects regarding the practice of teaching. In teaching, depending on the meaning, there are also explicable and inexplicable aspects. Within the practice of teaching, the meaning encompasses the true and the artificial: artificial cultivation can be stated, and is therefore termed explicable; true cultivation is difficult to reveal, and is therefore termed inexplicable. Hence, in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, when manifesting the virtues of contemplative cultivation in that causal part, it states that it is difficult to explain in words and is known by one's own mind. The two practices of realization and teaching are distinguished in this way.