金剛般若疏 2.7

2.7

就此章經開為三段：第一、正明無住相以修行；第二、明得無所得果；第三、結勸。就初為二：第一、正答修行問；第二、答降伏心問。此即第一。言「無所住行布施」者，即如《大品》開宗不住法、住般若，無所捨，具足檀。然此中既云不住六塵，亦即不住六根六識，但文略故，偏明不住六塵耳。《大品．問住品》明不住一切法，故是住般若。今言不住六塵，六塵攝法盡矣。然菩薩身、口、意業一切所為，行住坐、臥，乃至舉動施為產業之事，皆是無依無得。今偏言不住行施，豈非略舉一以例諸耶？若依論經，便有三種：一者、不著自身，故行布施。若著自身，則惜外物，故不行施；今不著自身，則不惜外物，故能行施也。二者、無所住一句，即是不著報恩。報恩者，謂供養恭敬等也。三者、不住色聲香味觸法布施，即是不著果報。果報者，謂人天樂等。菩薩若著報恩及以果報，則捨遠佛道，是故不著報恩及以果報也。「須菩提！菩薩應如是布施」下，若依論意，即是答第四、降心問。然要須修行，故有所得心乃降伏耳。故次修行，後明降伏也。以菩薩不見三事故行布施，名為降伏。言三事者，謂施者、受者、財物等。以不見財物故，得諸法空；不見施者、受者故，得眾生空。以得此二空，即是降伏人法見也。然論作此意，正以修無所得行，即是降伏有所得心，故兩問相成、兩答相成也。問：初章經親有降伏言，何故不答降伏問，今始答之耶？有釋云：先但明眾生空，未明法空，故生、法二空未具得，不得稱降伏。今具得生法二空，始是降伏名也。又前始明是菩提心、未明菩薩行，故降義未成；今願行俱成，降伏義始顯也。「若菩薩不住相布施」下，此第二明修無所住因，得無所得果。所以有此文來者，有二義：一者、即是舉果勸修，良以修無住因、得福無邊，是故勸修無住相布施也。二者、即是釋疑。疑者云：有住布施，可有福德；無住布施，應無福德。是故釋云：有所得施，功德則少；無所得施，其福無邊。問：今持戒行道、書經造佛，功德可多，云何以無住心而作福與十力空等？此言極成過差也。答：覆面之舌，言豈虛哉？子若不信，今當略述。夫福德因扶理而生，故釋善以扶理為義。以無所住蓋是扶理之極，福豈不多？以此而思，煥然可解也。故一切有所得心，積劫種種修行，持戒、坐禪，皆是乖道，故福不多。今無得施，與道相應故福多，故爾前一切功德不及五華施福多也。就此文開為三別：第一、法說；第二、譬說；第三、合譬。法說如文。「東方虛空」下，第二、譬說。就中有兩：初舉東方虛空為喻；次舉九方虛空為喻。各有問答，如文尋之。問：何因緣故，借虛空為喻？答：凡有二義：一者、虛空無相無為，無住相施無依無得，是故假此為喻；二者、虛空包含廣大，無住相施果報亦大，故假喻也。「須菩提！無住相布施亦如是」下，第三合譬，如文可尋。

Regarding this chapter of the sūtra, it is divided into three sections: first, directly explaining non-abiding in marks in order to cultivate practice; second, explaining the attainment of the fruit of non-apprehension; third, concluding with an exhortation. In the first, there are two parts: first, directly answering the question on cultivating practice; second, answering the question on subduing the mind. This is the first. As for the statement "should practice dāna without abiding in anything," this is like the opening thesis of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: not abiding in dharmas, abiding in prajñā, having nothing to relinquish, and fulfilling dāna. However, since here it speaks of not abiding in the six sense objects, it also means not abiding in the six sense faculties and the six consciousnesses; but because the text is abbreviated, it specifically explains not abiding in the six sense objects alone. The "Chapter on Asking About Abiding" in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra explains not abiding in all dharmas, which is therefore abiding in prajñā. Now, saying "not abiding in the six sense objects" completely subsumes all dharmas. Furthermore, as for all that a bodhisattva does in the actions of body, speech, and mind—walking, standing, sitting, lying down, and even initiating activities and engaging in livelihood—all are free from reliance and free from apprehension. Now, specifically speaking of practicing dāna without abiding, is this not merely presenting one instance to serve as an example for all? If we rely on the commentary sūtra, then there are three aspects: First, not being attached to one's own body, one therefore practices dāna. If one is attached to one's own body, one will begrudge external things, and therefore not practice dāna; now, not being attached to one's own body, one does not begrudge external things, and therefore can practice dāna. Second, the single phrase "not abiding in anything" means not being attached to recompense. Recompense refers to offerings, veneration, and the like. Third, practicing dāna without abiding in sights, sounds, scents, tastes, touchables, and mental dharmas means not being attached to karmic fruition. Karmic fruition refers to the pleasures of humans and devas, and the like. If a bodhisattva is attached to recompense and karmic fruition, they abandon and distance themselves from the Buddha path; therefore, they are not attached to recompense and karmic fruition. From "Subhūti! A bodhisattva should practice dāna in this way" downward: if we rely on the commentary's intention, this answers the fourth question, on subduing the mind. However, it is essential to cultivate practice, and thus the mind of apprehension is subdued. Therefore, after cultivating practice, subduing is subsequently explained. Because the bodhisattva does not see the three things when practicing dāna, it is called "subduing." As for the "three things," they refer to the giver, the recipient, and the material gift. Because they do not see the material gift, they attain the emptiness of all dharmas; because they do not see the giver and the recipient, they attain the emptiness of sentient beings. Because they attain these twofold emptinesses, this is precisely subduing the views of person and dharmas. However, the commentary adopts this idea precisely because cultivating the practice of non-apprehension is itself subduing the mind of apprehension; hence the two questions support each other, and the two answers support each other. Question: The first chapter of the sūtra explicitly contains the word "subdue"; why does it not answer the question on subduing, but only begins to answer it now? Some explain: Earlier, it only explained the emptiness of sentient beings and had not yet explained the emptiness of dharmas; thus, as the twofold emptiness of persons and dharmas was not fully attained, it could not be called "subduing." Now, fully attaining the twofold emptiness of persons and dharmas, only now does it deserve the name "subduing." Furthermore, earlier it only first explained bodhicitta and had not yet explained bodhisattva practice; thus the meaning of subduing was not yet accomplished. Now that vows and practice are both accomplished, the meaning of subduing is first revealed. From "If a bodhisattva practices dāna without abiding in marks" downward: this is the second [section], explaining that cultivating the cause of non-abiding attains the fruit of non-apprehension. Why does this text come here? There are two meanings: First, it cites the fruit to exhort cultivation; truly because by cultivating the cause of non-abiding one attains boundless merit, one is therefore exhorted to cultivate dāna that does not abide in marks. Second, it resolves doubts. A doubter says: "Dāna with abiding may have merit; dāna without abiding should have no merit." Therefore it explains: "Dāna with apprehension has little merit; dāna without apprehension has boundless merit." Question: Now, keeping the precepts, practicing the Path, copying sūtras, and making Buddha images can produce much merit; how can performing merit with a non-abiding mind be equal to the emptiness of the ten powers? This statement is an extreme discrepancy! Answer: How could the tongue that covers the face speak falsely? If you do not believe it, I shall now briefly explain. Merit arises by according with the principle; therefore, "goodness" is explained as meaning accordance with the principle. Since non-abiding is the utmost accordance with the principle, how could the merit not be immense? If you reflect on this, it will become brightly clear. Therefore, for all minds of apprehension, accumulating various practices over kalpas—keeping precepts, sitting in meditation—all deviate from the Path, and so their merit is not great. Now, dāna of non-apprehension accords with the Path, so its merit is great; thus all previous merit cannot equal the great merit of offering five flowers. Regarding this text, it is divided into three parts: first, explanation through Dharma; second, explanation through metaphor; third, application of the metaphor. The explanation through Dharma is as in the text. From "space in the eastern direction" downward is the second part, explanation through metaphor. In this there are two: first, citing space in the eastern direction as an analogy; next, citing space in the nine directions as an analogy. Each has questions and answers, which should be sought in the text. Question: For what reason is space borrowed as an analogy? Answer: There are two meanings in general: First, space is markless and unconditioned, and dāna without abiding in marks is free from reliance and free from apprehension; therefore this is borrowed as an analogy. Second, space is all-encompassing and vast, and the karmic fruition of dāna without abiding in marks is also vast; therefore it is borrowed as an analogy. From "Subhūti! Dāna without abiding in marks is also like this" downward is the third part, application of the metaphor, which can be sought in the text.