金剛般若疏 2.8

2.8

「須菩提！菩薩但應如所教住」下，此第三章結勸也。所言如所教住者，如上來無所得之教，應須依此而住、依此而修行也。「須菩提！於意云何？可以身相見如來不」下，若依開善，舉平等空，答菩提心問。今謂二義不然：一者、有顛倒過。要先發菩提心，然後行菩薩行；豈得前明菩薩行竟，今始辨發菩提心耶？二者、此中文云可以身相見如來不？若是平等空，則無復如來，何名見佛耶？今作五義，生起此章：一者、若依論釋，自上已來答四問竟，從此下第二章斷生疑心，答於四問，即是略說般若。若斷生疑心，則是廣說般若，故論云「自下一切修多羅中斷生疑心」，故知說經皆是斷生疑故也。若依因果分門，上來酬於四問，即是辨無所得因；此下第二、明無為法身之果。若行有所得因，還得有所得果，故《大經》云「有所得者，名曰無明；有所得者，名二十五有。」今無所得因故，得無為法身之果。故《大經》云「無所得者，名為智慧；無所得者，名大涅槃。」又初章經明發菩提心，次章經明修菩薩行，今一章經辨得於佛道，此三即是次第，是故斯經其義要也。又成上菩提心義，發菩提心、下度眾生，上求佛道、下度眾生。已辨眾生之相，故度無所度。今上求佛道故，須識法身，即是求無所求。若不識眾生，則不能度眾生；若不識法身，則不能上求佛道也。若有所得，發心求佛，如淨名所呵，即欲令其捨菩提見；而是發菩提心，捨於佛見，乃見佛耳。亦上辨度眾生，即辨眾生空；次辨修萬行，則辨六塵諸法空。此人之與法，竝是世間畢竟空。今明不可以諸相得見如來，即是諸佛空。故眾生無所有，則非眾生；諸佛無所有，是即非佛。故非眾生非佛，非生死非涅槃，故眾生與佛本來不二。然為破二見，故云不二。在二既息，不二亦除，故《華嚴》云「不著不二法，以無一二故」也。若能如此而悟一切諸見畢竟不起，始是金剛，稱為般若。就此文中開為三意：第一、如來騰眾疑，以問善吉；二、善吉對如來以釋疑；第三、如來印述，結成得失。此即是初。所言疑者，上云菩薩行無住相，圓因時眾生疑。因若無住，果應無為；今見果是有為，云何因是無住？所以者何？小乘人言：釋迦之身體具有三相：初生王宮，即是生義；次八十年住世，即是住義；雙林入滅，即是滅義也。今果既具此三相，豈得言因是無所住耶？是故佛騰眾疑，以問善吉：可以身有三相，見如來法身不耶？「須菩提言：不也，世尊」下，此第二、善吉對佛釋時會之疑。問：佛應自釋，何故令善吉釋？答：欲示有得解之人，故令善吉釋。又善吉是小乘人，今欲引接小乘人，令信如來身是無為，故令善吉釋也。又如雀母引子，善吉亦爾，欲引聲聞，令同其所解。善吉是聲聞，既知如來身是無為；我亦是聲聞，亦須知如來身是無為，不為三相所相也。又善吉欲引菩薩令求如來法身。所以者何？小乘之人尚知如來身是無為，云何菩薩言佛是有為？問：涅槃經可辨佛是無為，般若經云何有於此說？答：蓋是五時教人作此問耳。今《般若論》中正破此問，故偈云「三相異體故，離彼是如來」，豈得般若教中，佛是有為？又今辨般若正法即是法身，般若非為非無為，即是法身。非為非無為，但為對凡夫、二乘身是有為，故歎美作無為耳。亦不同北土論師，謂如來身定是無為，為與無為竝是般若功用也。「不可以身相見如來」者，不可以生、住、滅三相見如來無為法身也。「何以故？如來所說身相」者，時會復疑：若言三相非如來者，何故如來昔說有三相耶？昔說生在淨飯王家，即是說有生相；却後三月當入涅槃，即是滅相；八十年住世，即是住相。是故釋云「如來所說有三相者，即非身相」。言非身相者，非是法身無為相也。此是無生生方便，即是生身，故有三相。若生無生方便，即是法身，無三相也。「佛告須菩提」下，此第三、如來述成，結其得失。所以須述成者，時會恐善吉所解未能不謬，是故如來述成其解。就此文中，凡有兩句：初句明失。凡有名相，皆是憶想而有，悉是虛妄，豈但計生住滅非虛妄耶？「若見諸法相非相」下，第二句明得。若見一切諸相非法身相，即是見法身。故《華嚴》云「一切法不生，一切法不滅。」若能如此觀，諸佛常現前也。

From “Subhūti, a bodhisattva should only abide in accordance with what has been taught” onward, this third section concludes with an exhortation. What is called “abiding in accordance with what has been taught” means that, following the teaching of non-apprehension presented above, one must abide in accordance with this and cultivate practice in accordance with this. From “Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of bodily marks?” onward, according to Kaishan, this adduces equitable emptiness to answer the question on bodhicitta. I maintain now that this is incorrect on two points: First, there is the fault of inverted order. One must first generate bodhicitta and only then practice the bodhisattva conduct; how could it be that having just finished explaining bodhisattva conduct, one would only now distinguish generating bodhicitta? Second, the text here says: “Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of bodily marks?” If it were equitable emptiness, then there would no longer be any Tathāgata, so how could it be called “seeing the Buddha”? I now set forth five points to introduce this section: First, if one relies on the commentary's explanation, from the above down to here the four questions have been fully answered; from here onward, the second section resolves arising doubts. Answering the four questions is the concise exposition of prajñā; resolving arising doubts is the extensive exposition of prajñā. Hence the commentary states, “From here on, throughout all the sūtras, it is to resolve arising doubts”; thus we know that expounding the sūtra is throughout for the sake of resolving arising doubts. If one divides the sections according to cause and effect, the preceding answers to the four questions distinguished the cause of non-apprehension; this subsequent second section explains the fruit of the unconditioned dharmakāya. If one cultivates an apprehending cause, one will still obtain an apprehending fruit; hence the Great Scripture says, “Apprehension is termed ignorance; apprehension is termed the twenty-five realms of existence.” Now, through the cause of non-apprehension, one obtains the fruit of the unconditioned dharmakāya. Hence the Great Scripture says, “Non-apprehension is termed wisdom; non-apprehension is termed great nirvāṇa.” Furthermore, the initial section of the sūtra explained generating bodhicitta, the next section explained cultivating bodhisattva conduct, and this present section distinguishes attaining the Buddha path; these three follow a sequential order, and therefore the meaning of this scripture is essential. Furthermore, it completes the meaning of bodhicitta above: generating bodhicitta means seeking the Buddha path above and delivering sentient beings below. Having already distinguished the marks of sentient beings, one delivers where there is nothing to be delivered. Now, seeking the Buddha path above, one must recognize the dharmakāya, which is seeking where there is nothing to be sought. If one does not recognize sentient beings, one cannot deliver sentient beings; if one does not recognize the dharmakāya, one cannot seek the Buddha path above. If one generates the mind to seek the Buddha with apprehension, just as Vimalakīrti scolded, one should be made to abandon views of bodhi; rather, generating bodhicitta while abandoning views of the Buddha is precisely what allows one to see the Buddha. Furthermore, distinguishing the deliverance of sentient beings above was distinguishing the emptiness of sentient beings; next, distinguishing the cultivation of myriad practices was distinguishing the emptiness of all dharmas of the six sense objects. Both these persons and dharmas are the ultimate emptiness of the worldly. Now, explaining that the Tathāgata cannot be seen through marks is the emptiness of all Buddhas. Therefore, when sentient beings have nothing of their own, they are not sentient beings; when all Buddhas have nothing of their own, they are precisely not Buddhas. Thus there are neither sentient beings nor Buddhas, neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa, and sentient beings and the Buddha are fundamentally non-dual. However, to dismantle the two views, we speak of non-duality; once the two have ceased, non-duality is also eliminated. Hence the Avataṃsaka says, “Not clinging to non-dual dharmas, because there is neither one nor two.” If one can awaken in this way so that all views ultimately do not arise, only then is it vajra, which is called prajñā. Within this text, it is divided into three parts: first, the Tathāgata brings forth the doubts of the assembly to question Subhūti; second, Subhūti resolves the doubts in reply to the Tathāgata; third, the Tathāgata confirms his statement, concluding upon what is gained and lost. This is the first part. As for the doubt: above, it was said that the bodhisattva practices the non-abiding in marks; at the time of the complete cause, the assembly harboured doubts: “If the cause is non-abiding, the fruit should be unconditioned. Now we see that the fruit is conditioned; how could the cause be non-abiding?” Why is this? The followers of the Hīnayāna say: “The physical body of Śākyamuni fully possesses the three marks: first being born in the royal palace is the meaning of arising; next staying in the world for eighty years is the meaning of abiding; entering extinction in the twin Śāla trees is the meaning of extinction. Now that the fruit fully possesses these three marks, how can it be said that the cause is non-abiding?” Therefore, the Buddha brought forth the assembly's doubt to question Subhūti: “Can one see the Tathāgata's dharmakāya through the body possessing the three marks?” From “Subhūti said: ‘No, World-Honoured One’” onward, this is the second part, where Subhūti resolves the assembly's doubt before the Buddha. Question: The Buddha should have resolved it himself; why did he have Subhūti resolve it? Answer: Wishing to demonstrate that there was someone who had attained understanding, he had Subhūti resolve it. Furthermore, Subhūti was a person of the Hīnayāna; wishing now to guide the followers of the Hīnayāna so that they would believe that the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned, he had Subhūti resolve it. It is also like a mother bird guiding her fledglings; Subhūti is likewise, wishing to guide the śrāvakas to share in his understanding. Subhūti is a śrāvaka, yet he already knows that the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned; I too am a śrāvaka, and I must also know that the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned, not characterized by the three marks. Furthermore, Subhūti wished to guide the bodhisattvas to seek the Tathāgata's dharmakāya. Why is this? If even people of the Hīnayāna know that the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned, how could bodhisattvas say that the Buddha is conditioned? Question: The Nirvāṇa Sūtra may distinguish the Buddha as unconditioned, but how could there be such an explanation in the Prajñā Sūtra? Answer: It must be people of the five periods of teaching who raise this question. Now the Prajñā-śāstra directly refutes this question; hence the verse says, “Because the three marks have a different essence, separate from them is the Tathāgata.” How could it be that within the Prajñā teaching, the Buddha is conditioned? Furthermore, now we distinguish that the correct Dharma of prajñā is precisely the dharmakāya; prajñā is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, which is precisely the dharmakāya. It is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, but in contrast to the bodies of ordinary people and the two vehicles being conditioned, it is praised as being unconditioned. Nor is it like the masters of the northern treatises, who say that the Tathāgata's body is definitively unconditioned; both the conditioned and the unconditioned are the functioning of prajñā. “The Tathāgata cannot be seen by means of bodily marks” means that the Tathāgata's unconditioned dharmakāya cannot be seen through the three marks of arising, abiding, and extinction. “Why is this? What the Tathāgata has expounded as bodily marks”: the assembly again doubted: “If the three marks are not the Tathāgata, why did the Tathāgata previously expound that there are three marks? Previously expounding that he was born in the house of King Śuddhodana was expounding the mark of arising; that he would enter nirvāṇa after three months was the mark of extinction; and staying in the world for eighty years was the mark of abiding.” Therefore, it explains, “What the Tathāgata has expounded as the three marks is not bodily marks.” Saying that they are not bodily marks means that they are not the unconditioned marks of the dharmakāya. This is an expedient means of non-arising arising, which is the physical body, and therefore has the three marks. If it is the expedient means of arising non-arising, that is the dharmakāya, which lacks the three marks. From “The Buddha told Subhūti” onward, this is the third part, where the Tathāgata confirms his statement, concluding upon what is gained and lost. Why was it necessary to confirm his statement? The assembly feared that what Subhūti understood might not be free from error; therefore, the Tathāgata confirmed his understanding. Within this text, there are two clauses: The first clause explains what is lost: All nominal marks exist merely due to conceptualization and are entirely false; how could only conceptualizing arising, abiding, and extinction not be false? From “If one sees that all marks of dharmas are non-marks” onward, the second clause explains what is gained: If one sees that all marks are not the marks of the dharmakāya, that is precisely seeing the dharmakāya. Hence the Avataṃsaka says, “All dharmas do not arise; all dharmas do not cease. If one can contemplate in this way, the Buddhas are constantly present.”