金剛般若疏 1.8

1.8

第三、辨開合。問：餘經曾無再說，何故波若諸部無量？答：佛經無量來漢地者，蓋不足言，但今唯見波若多部，未見餘經多耳。而今且論波若多部者，眾生入道，要由波若。所以者何？一切凡夫未得道者，皆由有所依著。波若正破眾生有所依著，故說無依著之法。波若是真實懺悔，故諸大乘經辨真實懺悔皆依般若。如《普賢經》云「一切業障海，皆從妄想生。若欲懺悔者，端坐念實相。」《大涅槃》亦云「若聞無作無受，王之重罪必得除滅。」問：諸經各說無所得法、各滅重罪，云何獨言諸經滅罪皆依波若？答：諸大乘經雖竝是無依無得；但波若多作無依無得之說，正破眾生依得之病，餘經不爾。至如《涅槃》正明常無常，《法華》明會三歸一之法，《華嚴》廣明菩薩因果德行，不正辨無依無得。為是義故，眾經說得道之與滅罪，要須波若，是以般若有多部不同。取其大要，眾生常有依得之病，是以如來常說無依得法。如《二夜經》云「佛從得道夜訖至泥洹夜，常說波若。」五時之與八部，何足為多？問：般若五時為五部，華嚴八會何故不為八部？八會既合為一部，五時何不合為一部？答：通而為論，皆得相類。今不爾者，華嚴八會，此義則前後相成，如前說十信、十住、十行、十迴向、十地及大小相海，此即淺深次第，因果相成，故得合為一部。五時般若非是淺深次第、前後相成，故各開五部。

Third, distinguishing division and combination. Question: Other sūtras were never spoken repeatedly; why are the recensions of prajñā limitless? Answer: Limitless Buddhist sūtras have reached the Han lands, far more than can be told, but now one only sees multiple recensions of prajñā and does not see many of other sūtras. But now, discussing why prajñā has multiple recensions: sentient beings' entry into the Way must proceed from prajñā. Why is this? All ordinary persons who have not attained the Way are so because they have that upon which they depend and cling. Prajñā specifically dismantles the attachments and dependencies of sentient beings, and therefore expounds the Dharma of non-dependence and non-clinging. Prajñā is true repentance; therefore, when the various Mahāyāna sūtras distinguish true repentance, they all depend on prajñā. As the Samantabhadra Sūtra states: 'The ocean of all karmic obstructions arises entirely from false thoughts. If one wishes to repent, sit upright and contemplate dharmatā.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra also states: 'If one hears of non-action and non-reception, the king's heavy sins will surely be eradicated.' Question: The various sūtras each expound the Dharma of non-apprehension and each eradicate heavy sins; why say solely that the eradication of sin in the various sūtras depends entirely on prajñā? Answer: Although the various Mahāyāna sūtras all alike teach non-dependence and non-apprehension, prajñā mostly presents expositions of non-dependence and non-apprehension, directly demolishing the disease of dependency and apprehension in sentient beings, which other sūtras do not. For example, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra specifically clarifies permanence and impermanence; the Lotus Sūtra clarifies the Dharma of converging the three into the one; the Avataṃsaka Sūtra extensively clarifies the causes, fruits, and virtuous practices of bodhisattvas, but does not specifically elucidate non-dependence and non-apprehension. For this reason, when the various sūtras speak of attaining the Way and eradicating sins, they must require prajñā; hence prajñā has multiple distinct recensions. Taking the essentials: sentient beings constantly have the affliction of dependency and apprehension, and for this reason the Tathāgata constantly expounded the Dharma of non-dependence and non-apprehension. As the Sūtra of the Two Nights states: 'From the night the Buddha attained the Way until the night of nirvāṇa, he constantly expounded prajñā.' How could five periods or eight recensions ever be considered many? Question: If prajñā in five periods makes five recensions, why are the eight assemblies of the Avataṃsaka not eight recensions? Since the eight assemblies are combined into one recension, why are the five periods not combined into one recension? Answer: Speaking generally, they may all be analogized to one another. That it is not so here is because in the eight assemblies of the Avataṃsaka, the meaning completes itself sequentially from first to last: as when expounding previously the ten faiths, ten abodes, ten practices, ten dedications, ten bhūmis, and the ocean of major and minor marks, this constitutes a progression from shallow to deep, with cause and effect completing each other; hence they are combined into one recension. The prajñā of the five periods is not a progression from shallow to deep or a mutual completion from first to last; therefore they are separately divided into five recensions.