金剛般若疏 1.9

1.9

第四、重明二經前後。問：《摩訶般若》、《金剛般若》何者前說？答云：開善法師、會稽基法師、姑蘇華山顏法師、大領師等，皆云：如《仁王》所列，前說《摩訶》，次說《金剛》。更以兩義證之：一者、《大智論》云「前未說菩薩行，今始欲為彌勒等說菩薩行，故說波若。」若前已說《金剛波若》，則是已說菩薩行，不應言未說也。二者、《金剛波若經》初云「善護念諸菩薩，善付屬諸菩薩」，未說《摩訶般若》則未有菩薩，云何付屬護念耶？今說《摩訶》竟，方有菩薩，故後說《金剛般若》始得明護念付屬菩薩也。次有人言：前說《金剛》，後說《大品》。何以知之？有三義、三文往證。三義：一、金剛是破相之名，十二年中名有相教，受字之徒生分別相，封執難祛。佛初開此經，明無相深理，破彼相著心，故假金剛，強喻空解。二者、說此經止集千二百五十比丘等，不廣集天人菩薩，正為將明甚深空理、化著相眾生，欲令親近弟子在前悟解，因此得使傳教義成，使聲聞助佛揚化。菩薩理中近佛、事迹更遠，又欲令菩薩轉教聲聞望岸而退，故前為常隨佛者說於此經。三者、形小故有大。前說此經甚略，未廣明菩薩萬行，名為小；後演《放光般若》，此始復廣明無相、解萬行差別，名為摩訶般若。以此義往推，故知《金剛般若》是第一時說，《摩訶般若》次在第二。次文證亦有三：一者、此經下文「須菩提問佛云：頗有眾生得聞如是言說章句，生實信不？」若爾，前已說《大品》，無量眾生得信悟解，轉教說法。善吉於大品教門曾無此疑；今至此經方復致問，在義難解。二者、善吉領解云：「我從昔來所得慧眼，未曾得聞如是之經。」若爾，前佛說《大品》，豈不能說經轉教，那得言不聞深經？若聞而未悟，豈能轉教？三者、善吉答佛「不應以三十二相見如來」。若爾，前已聞《大品》，云何執色相是佛？若生此執，非謂解空。故知直執昔日相教，故謂色身為佛。而開善舉兩義為證，今須釋之：一者、《大智論》云「說摩訶已前，未明菩薩行」者，此是未廣明菩薩行耳，非不已略說《金剛》。二者、云未說《大品》故未有菩薩善付屬者，此事不然。今明佛初成道以三乘度人，豈無菩薩？付屬彌勒，即是其人。以文義往推，故知前說《金剛波若》也。今明此之二釋未可專判，隨宜之言復何可定？其前後或可一時具說多部，或可一部具經多時，至《大品》中更當委釋。

Fourth, clearly determining the temporal sequence of the two sūtras once more. Question: Which was spoken first, the Mahāprajñā[pāramitā Sūtra] or the Vajracchedikā Prajñā[pāramitā Sūtra]? Answer: Dharma Master Kaishan, Master Ji of Kuaiji, Master Yan of Mount Hua in Gusu, Master Daling, and others all say: as listed in the Renwang [jing], the Mahā[prajñāpāramitā] was spoken first, and next was spoken the Vajra[cchedikā]. They further verify this with two arguments. First, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Previously the bodhisattva practice had not been explained; now [the Buddha] wishes for the first time to explain the bodhisattva practice for Maitreya and others, and therefore speaks the prajñā." If the Vajracchedikā Prajñā had already been spoken before, that would mean the bodhisattva practice had already been explained, and it should not say it had not been explained. Second, at the beginning of the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra it says: "[The Tathāgata] is skillfully mindful of all bodhisattvas and skillfully entrusts all bodhisattvas." If the Mahāprajñā[pāramitā] had not yet been spoken, there would not yet have been bodhisattvas; how could there be entrusting and mindfulness? Only after the Mahā[prajñāpāramitā] had been spoken were there bodhisattvas, and thus only when the Vajracchedikā Prajñā was spoken later could mindfulness and entrustment of bodhisattvas be elucidated.

Next, someone says: the Vajra[cchedikā] was spoken first, and the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra later. How is this known? There are three arguments and three textual citations to corroborate it. The three arguments: First, "vajra" is a name signifying the shattering of marks. During the twelve years, it was termed the teaching of having marks; those who received the designations generated conceptual marks of discrimination, and their clinging attachments were difficult to dispel. When the Buddha first inaugurated this sūtra, he clarified the profound principle of signlessness to break through their mind of attachment to marks; therefore, borrowing "vajra", he forcefully used it as an analogy for the understanding of emptiness. Second, the preaching of this sūtra assembled only twelve hundred and fifty bhikṣus and so on, without broadly assembling devas, humans, and bodhisattvas; it was precisely because he was about to elucidate the extremely profound principle of emptiness to transform sentient beings attached to marks, wishing to cause his close disciples to attain awakening beforehand, thereby enabling the transmission of the teaching to be accomplished and causing the śrāvakas to assist the Buddha in propagating the transformation. Bodhisattvas are in principle close to the Buddha, but in phenomenal traces further removed; furthermore, [if the Buddha] had wished bodhisattvas to teach the śrāvakas, the latter would have looked at the other shore and drawn back; thus he first spoke this sūtra for those who constantly followed the Buddha. Third, because of contrasting with the small, there is the great. Previously he spoke this sūtra very briefly, not yet broadly elucidating the myriad practices of bodhisattvas, and so it is called small; later he expounded the Fangguang bore, and here for the first time again broadly elucidated signlessness and explained the differentiations of the myriad practices, and so it is called Mahāprajñā. Deducing from these arguments, we know that the Vajracchedikā Prajñā was spoken in the first period, and the Mahāprajñā[pāramitā] was next in the second.

Next, the textual proofs are also three: First, in the text below in this sūtra: "Subhūti asked the Buddha: 'Will there be any sentient beings who, hearing such words and phrases, will give rise to real faith?'" If [Kaishan's view were correct], the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā had already been spoken before, and immeasurable sentient beings had attained faith, awakening, and understanding, and had transmitted the teaching and expounded the Dharma. Subhūti had never had this doubt regarding the doctrinal gate of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā; only now coming to this sūtra does he again raise this question, which would be difficult to explain logically. Second, Subhūti comprehended and said: "From the past until now, with the wisdom-eye I have attained, I have never yet heard such a sūtra." If [Kaishan were correct], when the Buddha spoke the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā previously, how could [Subhūti] expound the sūtra and transmit the teaching, and how could he say he had not heard a profound sūtra? If he had heard it and not awakened, how could he have transmitted the teaching? Third, Subhūti answered the Buddha: "One should not view the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks." If [Kaishan were correct], having already heard the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā previously, how could he cling to the bodily marks as being the Buddha? If he gave rise to this clinging, he could not be said to understand emptiness. Thus we know that he was directly clinging to the former teaching of marks, and therefore called the physical body the Buddha. And as for Kaishan adducing two arguments as proof, they must now be resolved: First, as for the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa saying "prior to speaking the Mahā[prajñā], the bodhisattva practices had not been clarified," this means merely that the bodhisattva practices had not been broadly clarified; it does not mean they had not already been briefly spoken in the Vajra[cchedikā]. Second, as for saying that because the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā had not yet been spoken there were not yet bodhisattvas to be skillfully entrusted, this is not so. We now clarify that when the Buddha first attained the Way and delivered people through the three vehicles, how could there have been no bodhisattvas? Entrusting Maitreya means he was precisely such a person. Deducing from text and reason, we therefore know that the Vajracchedikā Prajñā was spoken first.

We now clarify that these two explanations cannot be definitively determined: how could words delivered according to circumstance ever be fixed? Regarding their sequence, it may be that many texts were spoken together at one time, or it may be that one text spanned many periods; when we come to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, this will be explained in further detail.