金剛般若疏 2.5.3

2.5.3

」又《增一阿含》第二十一卷云「若如來不出家者，當二千五百歲作轉輪王。 」今捨轉輪王位，遂能為物塗行乞食，故為希有。 又善吉知般若無相無貌，念想觀除、言語亦滅，而無名相中為眾生故作名相說，雖作名字而不傷無名，故為希有。 譬如劫盡大火，世界洞然，有人擔一束乾草而從火中過，不燒一葉，故為希有。 「善護念諸菩薩，善付屬諸菩薩」者，歎也。 問：何因緣故，有此歎耶？ 答：此一言貫於前後。 如來所以塗行乞食者，正為大慈大悲護念付屬諸菩薩故也。 又今說般若者，亦為護念付屬諸菩薩故也。 又歎上塗行乞食以為希有，則歎佛身業； 今歎護念菩薩，是歎如來意業； 善付屬諸菩薩，即是歎口業。 如來既三業利物，故善吉竝歎三業。 問：云何名為善護念耶？ 答：欲使其內德堅固，名為護念； 令其外德成就，名為善付囑。 問：諸佛如來常念六道，何因緣故偏念菩薩？ 答：雖常念六道，但菩薩堪受般若，有其內因，是故外為諸佛護念。 問：諸佛護念，有何利益？ 答：猶如魚子，母念則成，不念則壞。 菩薩亦爾，佛若護念，善根則成； 若不護念，善根則壞。 付囑者，以無上法寶付諸菩薩，以諸菩薩善能問答，如是法寶則得久住無量千世。 所以通稱為善者，若護念付囑聲聞則不善； 今以護念付囑菩薩，故名為善。 具如《大經》付囑老少二人譬也。 依論解釋，論曰「巧護義應知，加彼身同行」者，此釋善護念也。 善是巧之異名，故云巧護，義應知也。 加彼身同行者，護念即是加與之義，謂加與二力：一者、加其智慧力，令成就佛法故。 此即是加其自行，故名為身，身即自身也。 次加其教化眾生力，即是加其化他力，令受化之徒與其行同，故云同行也。 「不退得未得，是名善付囑」者，此之半偈，釋付囑義。 論云「善護念者，依根熟菩薩說。 善付囑者，依根未熟菩薩說。 」根熟菩薩則堪加與自行、化他二種之力，以如前明。 今以根未熟菩薩付囑根熟菩薩，令其未熟得熟也。 不退得未得者，已得功德令其不退，所未得者而令得之，故云不退得未得也。 問：論釋之與舊解云何同異？ 答：論以人付囑於人，名善付囑； 舊釋以法寶付囑於人，名善付囑。 兩言雖異，會歸終一。 以人付囑人，終令得悟法，即是付囑法義； 以法付囑人，終為化人義，即是付囑人也。 又一義防遏眾魔，不令得菩薩便，為護念義； 為說道法，令如說修行，為付囑也。 問：根熟與未熟，約何位耶？ 答：北地論師云：根熟菩薩即是內凡習種性之人，必能趣於初地，名為根熟。 若是外凡，未能必入於初地，名為未熟。 「善男子善女人發菩提心」者，此第二、正發問。 若依羅什法師翻經，唯可三問：一問菩提心、二問云何應住、三問降伏。 但解此三問，眾師不同。 第一師云：問雖有三，不出願之與行； 菩提心一問，即是問願； 降伏住二問，即是問行。 菩薩之道，不出願行二門：行以涉行為義，願以要期為旨。 行若無願，行則無所御； 願若無行，願則不果。 其猶鳥之二翼、車之兩輪，故行以即事涉行，願以懸求未得。 今明行願之義，實如所說，若偏以菩提心為願，此事未然。 今以發正道心名菩提心，豈得空有其願而無行耶？ 復有師云：應為三問：一問菩提心，即問平等空； 二問云何住，問實法空； 三問云何降伏，問假名空。 然觀門次第，應從淺至深，今乃從深至淺，此是說門，非是行門。 問者唯慕其深，前問深也。 今謂此亦不然，三空乃通貫大小，今正辨菩薩之行。 又且問無三空之辭，佛答無三空之意。 初答乃明菩薩成廣大心，遍度眾生而無所度，非謂但明假名空也。 若但明假名空，即應但辨無眾生，亦無度義，亦無廣大心義。 今乃明大心而無度，無度而大心，此乃是無度度義、度無度義，二慧具足，云何偏是假名空？

" Furthermore, the twenty-first fascicle of the Ekottarika Āgama states: "If the Tathāgata had not gone forth from the household life, he would have been a wheel-turning king for two thousand five hundred years." Now, abandoning the position of a wheel-turning king, he was able to walk on foot and beg for food for the sake of beings; therefore, it is rare. Moreover, Subhūti knows that prajñā is devoid of marks and form, with reflections, thoughts, and contemplations eliminated, and verbal discourse also extinguished; yet within the nameless and formless, for the sake of sentient beings, he speaks of names and forms, and although he produces names and words, they do not violate the nameless; therefore, it is rare. It is like the great fire at the end of a kalpa, when the world is ablaze: a person carrying a bundle of dry grass passes through the fire, and not a single leaf is burnt; therefore, it is rare. "Being well mindful of and protecting all bodhisattvas, and well entrusting all bodhisattvas" is praise. Question: For what reason is there this praise? Answer: This one phrase runs through what precedes and follows. The reason why the Tathāgata walked on foot and begged for food was precisely out of great kindness and great compassion to be mindful of, protect, and entrust all bodhisattvas. Furthermore, his present preaching of prajñā is also to be mindful of, protect, and entrust all bodhisattvas. Moreover, praising the walking on foot and begging for food above as rare is praising the Buddha's bodily karma; now, praising his being mindful of and protecting bodhisattvas is praising the Tathāgata's mental karma; and well entrusting all bodhisattvas is praising his vocal karma. Since the Tathāgata benefits beings through the three karmas, Subhūti praises all three karmas together. Question: What is meant by "well mindful of and protecting"? Answer: Desiring to make their internal virtues firm is called being mindful of and protecting; causing their external virtues to be accomplished is called well entrusting. Question: The Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, are constantly mindful of the six destinies; for what reason are they particularly mindful of bodhisattvas? Answer: Although they are constantly mindful of the six destinies, only bodhisattvas are capable of receiving prajñā, possessing the internal cause; therefore, externally, they are protected and kept in mind by the Buddhas. Question: When the Buddhas protect and keep them in mind, what benefit is there? Answer: It is just like fish roe: if the mother keeps them in mind, they develop; if she does not, they spoil. Bodhisattvas are also like this: if the Buddha protects and keeps them in mind, their roots of goodness develop; if he does not protect and keep them in mind, their roots of goodness spoil. As for entrusting, it means handing over the unexcelled Dharma-jewel to all bodhisattvas; because all bodhisattvas are skilled in asking and answering, such a Dharma-jewel will abide for a long time across immeasurable thousands of generations. The reason why both are generally called "well" is that if he were to protect, be mindful of, and entrust śrāvakas, it would not be good; now, because he protects, is mindful of, and entrusts bodhisattvas, it is called "well." It is fully detailed in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's parable of entrusting the two people, old and young. Explaining according to the treatise [the Bodhisattvabhūmi / Vasubandhu's Commentary], the treatise says: "The meaning of skilful protection should be known as endowing their bodies with joint practice." This explains "being well mindful of and protecting." "Well" is another name for "skilful"; hence it says "skilful protection, its meaning should be known." "Endowing their bodies with joint practice": being mindful of and protecting has the meaning of conferring upon them, meaning conferring upon them two kinds of power. First, conferring the power of wisdom upon them, to cause them to accomplish the Buddha-Dharma; this is conferring their own practice, hence it is called "body," where "body" means one's own body. Next, conferring the power of teaching and transforming sentient beings; this is conferring the power of transforming others, causing the assembly of those who are transformed to share the same practice with them, hence it is called "joint practice." "Not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained is called well entrusting." This half-verse explains the meaning of entrusting. The treatise says: "Being well mindful of and protecting is spoken in reliance upon bodhisattvas whose faculties are mature. Well entrusting is spoken in reliance upon bodhisattvas whose faculties are not yet mature." A bodhisattva whose faculties are mature is capable of being endowed with the two powers of self-practice and transforming others, as explained before. Now, by entrusting the bodhisattvas whose faculties are not yet mature to the bodhisattvas whose faculties are mature, it causes those who are not yet mature to become mature. "Not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained": causing them not to retrogress from the virtues already attained, and causing them to attain what has not yet been attained; hence it says "not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained." Question: How do the treatise's explanation and the old interpretation differ and agree? Answer: The treatise takes entrusting persons to persons as well entrusting; the old interpretation takes entrusting the Dharma-jewel to persons as well entrusting. Although the two statements differ, their ultimate import is one. Entrusting persons to persons ultimately causes them to awaken to the Dharma, which is the meaning of entrusting the Dharma; entrusting the Dharma to persons is ultimately for the sake of transforming persons, which is the meaning of entrusting persons. Furthermore, another meaning is that warding off the maras so that they do not get an advantage over bodhisattvas is the meaning of being mindful of and protecting; preaching the path and the Dharma to them so that they practice according to what is taught is entrusting. Question: In terms of what stages are mature and immature faculties explained? Answer: The Northern treatise masters say: A bodhisattva of mature faculties is an internal ordinary person of the lineage of practice-nature (prayoga-gotra), who is certain to proceed toward the first bhūmi; this is called mature faculties. If one is an external ordinary person, who is not yet certain to enter the first bhūmi, this is called immature. "A good son or good woman who arouses the mind set on awakening": this is the second, properly posing the questions. If we follow Dharma Master Kumārajīva's translation of the sūtra, there can only be three questions: first, asking about the mind set on awakening; second, asking how one should abide; third, asking about subduing. But in explaining these three questions, the various masters differ. The first master says: Although the questions are three, they do not go beyond vow and practice. The single question on the mind set on awakening is asking about vow; the two questions on subduing and abiding are asking about practice. The way of the bodhisattva does not go beyond the two gates of vow and practice: practice takes engaging in practice as its meaning; vow takes commitment to a future goal as its purport. If practice lacks vow, practice has nothing to guide it; if vow lacks practice, the vow will not bear fruit. They are like the two wings of a bird or the two wheels of a cart; therefore, practice engages in action according to concrete affairs, while vow aspires to what has not yet been attained. Now, explaining the meaning of practice and vow, it is indeed as stated; yet to take bodhicitta exclusively as vow is not correct. Now, taking the arousing of the mind of the correct path as bodhicitta, how could there be only an empty vow without practice? Another master says: There should be three questions: first, asking about bodhicitta is asking about the emptiness of equality; second, asking how to abide is asking about the emptiness of real dharmas; third, asking how to subdue is asking about the emptiness of provisional designations. However, the sequence of contemplation gates should proceed from the shallow to the deep; now it proceeds from the deep to the shallow, which is the teaching gate, not the practice gate. The questioner only aspires to the deep, so he asks about the deep first. We now say that this too is not so: the three emptinesses run through both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, whereas here we are properly distinguishing the practice of the bodhisattva. Moreover, the question has no words about the three emptinesses, and the Buddha's answer has no meaning of the three emptinesses. The initial answer clarifies that the bodhisattva accomplishes the vast mind, universally liberating sentient beings while there is nothing liberated; it does not mean merely clarifying the emptiness of provisional designations. If it merely clarified the emptiness of provisional designations, it should only distinguish that there are no sentient beings, with neither the meaning of liberation nor the meaning of the vast mind. Now it clarifies the great mind without liberation, and non-liberation while having the great mind; this is the meaning of liberating without liberation, and non-liberation as liberation, endowed with both types of wisdom. How could it be exclusively the emptiness of provisional designations?