金剛般若疏 2.5.2

2.5.2

斯乃經論兩證，豈虛搆哉？ 問曰：聖人制作，理致玄遠、辭即巧妙，豈當一軸之經遂有二周煩長？ 答曰：雖曰兩周，其旨各異，非煩長也。 所以者何？ 類如《大品》兩周，前周明於實慧，後周辨於善權。 今之兩周在義亦異，前周則淨於緣，後周則盡於觀。 然要須緣淨觀盡，不緣不觀、無所依止，方能悟於般若。 故肇公云「法無有無之數，聖無有無之智。 法無有無之數，則無數於外； 聖無有無之智，則無心於內。 於外無數，於內無心，彼已寂滅，乃階其妙。 」影公云「萬化非無宗，宗之者無相； 虛宗非無契，契之者無心。 故至人以無心之妙慧，契彼無相之虛宗，此則內外兩冥，緣智俱寂，豈容名數於其間哉？ 」斯二三子，言與經會，信而好古，餘豈異哉？ 問：何以得知前周盡緣，後周盡觀耶？ 答：經有明文，論有誠說。 前經直云雖度眾生，而無眾生可度，正歎菩薩依般若作無所得發心，乃至無所得修行。 而經意雖復緣觀俱息，但文未正顯灼破於觀主，故鈍根之徒由言，有於菩薩巧度眾生，巧能修行，故後周經文方息四心，無發心人乃至修行者。 然前周正勸生四心，後周明四心亦息，豈不然乎？ 論偈云「於內心修行，存我為菩薩，此則障於心，違於不住道。 」以是義故，當知此文正息觀至盡於觀主，文義昺然，無所疑也。 此之二周，非止是一經之大意，乃是方等之旨歸、至人環中之妙術也。 又前周為前會，後周為後會，下當更辨。 就前周文，科為二別：一、善吉致問； 二、如來答。 就問之中復開為二：一者、經家序能問之人儀容； 二者、發言正問。 初序中又二：一者、標對揚之主； 二、序請法之儀。 「爾時」者，此是如來加與善吉之時，亦是時會發悟之時，故云爾時。 問：此經加與義，與《大品》何異？ 答：《大品》則具口意二加：發言命說，稱為口加； 與其智慧辨才，名為意加。 今此經但其與智慧辯才，為意加； 不命之令說，無有口加也。 然下文亦有對揚之義，但無炳然命說，故與《大品》不同。 「須菩提」者，此人本迹，其事難知。 三藏云：是本東方世界青龍陀佛，影嚮能仁，為弟子化，其猶文殊之例也。 或有經云：此是化人。 《攝大乘論》明身子是化人，善吉猶為其例。 又經云：是舍衛國長者之子，位登遺顏。 言遺顏者，法身菩薩過阿鞞之位也。 復云：是舍衛國內有婆羅門，名曰鳩留，其人無子，祈天神。 天神云：「汝家大富，無堪生者。 」因見一大德天下，詫生其家。 兒既長大，令父母請佛還家，後送佛反於祇洹，即得羅漢果。 復有經說：昔為白衣人，見沙門乞食不得，空鉢而反，因以食與之，後得十劫常生天中，故其人福德深厚無比。 又言是淨音嚮王太子。 如此等說，多出福報雜譬喻經。 須菩提者，翻為善業，亦言善學，舊云善吉。 善吉與善財生異。 何者？ 善財生時，七寶踊現，故名善財。 須菩提生時，舉室皆空，父母疑怪，請問相師。 相師云：「唯善唯吉。 」故名善吉。 又云空生，即從生時受稱。 其人內祕菩薩行，外現聲聞，位高可崇，故呼為長老也。 「即從坐起」下，第二、明請法之儀。 此中凡有五句：一、避席修敬。 弟子儀法既尊人重法，不可晏然而坐，故將欲請道，所以避席。 「偏袒右肩」者，既表師弟之儀，則示永有驅策之相。 又是隨從國法，故修敬袒肩。 「右膝著地」者，此明屈曲伏從，示師弟無有違拒之貌。 「合掌向佛」者，此是斂肅容貌，專心受道也。 「而白佛言」者，上來經家序其身業，此之一句序其口業也。 「希有世尊」者，此下第二、正明發問。 就此為兩：第一、稱歎； 第二、請問。 言希有世尊者，《中阿含》二十四卷云「昔時大王者，我身是也。 我從子至子、從孫至孫、從族至族，八萬四千轉輪王，并前剃除髻髮、捨家趣非家。

This is corroborated by both the sūtras and the treatises; how could it be an empty fabrication? Question: The compositions of the sages are profound in their principles and subtle in their phrasing; how could a single scroll of a sūtra contain the verbosity and redundancy of two cycles? Answer: Although there are said to be two cycles, their purports are each different; they are not redundant. Why is this? It is like the two cycles of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, where the former cycle explains real wisdom and the latter cycle distinguishes skillful means. The two cycles here are also different in their meaning: the former cycle purifies the objective condition, and the latter cycle exhausts the subjective contemplation. However, it is essential that the condition be purified and the contemplation be exhausted—neither conditioning nor contemplating, having nothing upon which to rely—before one can awaken to prajñā. Therefore Master Zhao said: "Dharmas have no categories of existence and non-existence; the sage has no cognition of existence and non-existence. If dharmas have no categories of existence and non-existence, then there are no categories externally; if the sage has no cognition of existence and non-existence, then there is no mind internally. With no categories externally and no mind internally, when both of these are quiescent, one then ascends to that subtlety." Master Ying said: "The myriad transformations are not without a source, but what sources them is without marks; the empty source is not without accord, but what accords with it is without mind. Therefore the ultimate person, with the wondrous wisdom of no-mind, accords with that markless empty source; this is when both internal and external are darkened together, and both condition and cognition are quiescent—how could names and categories be admitted between them?" The words of these two or three masters chime with the sūtra; "trusting and loving antiquity," how could I differ from them? Question: How do we know that the former cycle exhausts the condition and the latter cycle exhausts the contemplation? Answer: The sūtra has clear passages and the treatises have truthful statements. The earlier sūtra text simply says that although one liberates sentient beings, there are no sentient beings to be liberated, directly praising the bodhisattva's arousal of the mind of non-apprehension and, extending up to, the practice of non-apprehension relying on prajñā. And although the sūtra's intent is that both condition and contemplation are stilled, the text has not yet explicitly and clearly demolished the subject of contemplation. Therefore, those of dull faculties still say that there is a bodhisattva who skillfully liberates sentient beings and is skillfully able to practice. Hence the text of the latter cycle then stills the four minds: there is no person who arouses the mind, extending up to no practitioner. Thus, the former cycle directly encourages the arising of the four minds, while the latter cycle explains that the four minds are also stilled; how could it not be so? The treatise verse says: "Practicing in the internal mind, retaining a self as a bodhisattva—this obstructs the mind and contradicts the path of non-abiding." By this meaning, one should know that this text directly stills contemplation to the point of exhausting the subject of contemplation; the text and meaning are radiant, admitting of no doubt. These two cycles are not merely the main purport of a single sūtra; they are the ultimate destination of the Vaipulya teachings and the wondrous art of the ultimate person within the ring. Furthermore, the former cycle is the former assembly and the latter cycle is the latter assembly, as will be distinguished below. In terms of the text of the former cycle, it is divided into two sections: first, Subhūti puts the question; second, the Tathāgata answers. Within the question, it is further divided into two: first, the compiler of the sūtra introduces the demeanor of the interrogator; second, the formulation of the question itself. The initial introduction also has two parts: first, identifying the interlocutor; second, introducing the etiquette of requesting the Dharma. "At that time": this is the time when the Tathāgata bestowed his empowerment upon Subhūti, and also the time when the assembly at that moment experienced awakening; hence it says "at that time." Question: How does the meaning of bestowal in this sūtra differ from that in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra? Answer: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra possesses both verbal and mental empowerment: speaking words to command someone to explain is called verbal empowerment; bestowing wisdom and eloquence upon them is called mental empowerment. Now this sūtra only bestows wisdom and eloquence upon him, which is mental empowerment; it does not command him to explain, so there is no verbal empowerment. However, the subsequent text also contains the sense of an interlocution, but lacks an explicit command to explain; therefore it is not the same as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. "Subhūti": as for this person's original [state] and traces, the matter is difficult to fathom. The Tripiṭaka master says: originally, he was the Buddha Candana of the eastern world, casting his shadow in echo of Śākyamuni to act as a disciple to transform others, following the example of Mañjuśrī. Some sūtras say: he was a transformationally created person. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha explains that Śāriputra was a transformation person, and Subhūti is an example of the same kind. Another sūtra says: he was the son of an elder in Śrāvastī whose attainment reached the stage of Yiyan. "Yiyan" means a dharmakāya bodhisattva surpassing the stage of avaivartika. It is also said: in Śrāvastī there was a brahmin named Jūliú who had no son and prayed to a heavenly deity. The heavenly deity said, "Your family is exceedingly wealthy, and no one is worthy of being born [there]." Thereupon, seeing a person of great virtue descend, he took rebirth in that family. When the child had grown up, he had his parents invite the Buddha to return to their home, and later accompanied the Buddha back to the Jetavana, whereupon he attained the fruit of arhatship. Still other sūtras explain: in the past he was a layperson who saw a monk begging for food and receiving nothing, returning with an empty bowl; he then gave him food, and consequently for ten kalpas was constantly born in heaven, which is why his merit and virtue were incomparably deep and thick. It is also said that he was the crown prince of King Jìngyīnxiàng. Such accounts mostly come from the Za piyu jing on karmic retributions. Subhūti is translated as Shan-ye (Good Action), or as Shan-xue (Good Learner); formerly it was rendered as Shan-ji (Good and Auspicious). Shan-ji's birth differed from that of Sudhana. How so? When Sudhana was born, the seven treasures welled up, hence he was named Sudhana (Good Wealth). When Subhūti was born, the entire room was empty; his parents were bewildered and consulted a diviner. The diviner said, "Only good, only auspicious." Hence he was named Shan-ji. He is also called Kongsheng (Born of Emptiness), taking his name from the circumstances of his birth. Inwardly this person concealed the bodhisattva practice, outwardly manifesting as a śrāvaka; his status was elevated and venerable, so he is addressed as "Elder." "Then rose from his seat": second, this explains the etiquette of requesting the Dharma. Here there are five phrases: first, leaving one's seat to show reverence. The proper conduct of a disciple is to revere the person and respect the Dharma, so one cannot remain seated at ease; thus, wishing to request the path, he leaves his seat. "Bared his right shoulder": this shows the demeanor of master and disciple, indicating the sign of perpetual service. It also accords with the law of the country, hence he bares his shoulder to pay reverence. "Knelt on his right knee": this shows bending in submissive obedience, displaying the master-disciple attitude of offering no resistance. "Joined his palms toward the Buddha": this is collecting and composing one's countenance, single-mindedly receiving the path. "And addressed the Buddha, saying": the text above has presented his physical actions; this phrase presents his vocal action. "Rare, World-Honoured One!": this begins the second section, the direct questioning. Within this there are two parts: first, praising; second, inquiring. Regarding the words "Rare, World-Honoured One!", the twenty-fourth fascicle of the Madhyama Āgama says: "The great king of former times was none other than myself. From son to son, from grandson to grandson, from clan to clan, eighty-four thousand wheel-turning kings, together with shaving their hair and topknots, leaving home to go forth into the homeless state."