不可說破 It Knows But Will Not Say
須臾,擡起頭來,對地藏道:「怪名雖有,但不可當面說破,又不能助力擒他。」地藏道:「當面說出便怎麼?」諦聽道:「當面說出,恐妖精惡發,搔擾寶殿,致令陰府不安。」又問:「何為不能助力擒拿?」须臾,擡起头来,对地藏道:「怪名虽有,但不可当面说破,又不能助力擒他。」地藏道:「当面说出便怎么?」谛听道:「当面说出,恐妖精恶发,搔扰宝殿,致令阴府不安。」又问:「何为不能助力擒拿?」
逐句解 Line by line
In a moment it raised its head and said to Kṣitigarbha: "The monster's name I do have — but it may not be spoken out to his face, and neither can I lend strength to seize him."
The chapter's hinge: somebody finally knows. 怪名雖有 — the monster's name I do have — concedes the knowledge in four characters and then withholds it. 當面 takes dāng, to his face.
Kṣitigarbha said: "What would come of speaking it out to his face?"
便怎麼, and what then? — the everyday way of asking. The Bodhisattva asks the reader's question.
Diting said: "If it were spoken out to his face, I fear the fiend would turn violent, would harry this hall, and bring the courts of the shades to disquiet."
惡發 is anger bursting out, turning violent. The objection is entirely practical: 致令陰府不安, it would put the courts of the shades in an uproar. Naming him would wreck the premises.
He asked further: "And why can you lend no strength to seize him?"
何為 takes wèi, asking for what reason — against the wéi that means "is taken for" and governs 非有為有 in the Buddha's discourse a few passages on.
This is the hinge of the chapter. For the first time, somebody knows. Diting has the answer, states plainly that it has the answer, and declines to give it — and the reason it gives is not mystical but practical: the hall would be wrecked and the underworld thrown into disorder.
The refusal is more interesting than a failure would have been. Four courts could not tell; the fifth can tell and will not, because knowledge you cannot act on is worse than useless. Diting's two objections are really one. It cannot name the fiend because it cannot then hold him, and naming without holding would only provoke him.
There is a quiet structural point being made here too. The chapter has treated identification as the whole problem. Diting separates identification from enforcement and shows that the first is worth nothing without the second. That distinction is what sends the case to the one authority who has both.