金剛般若疏 3.3

3.3

「須菩提！於意云何？若人滿三千大千世界七寶布施」下，此是第三、格量顯勝，稱嘆勸修門。若以福慧而判，上來就智慧門說般若已，今以功德門說般若。般若未曾福慧，為眾生故，作福慧名說也。又上來就無依無得說波若，今就稱歎門說波若。又上來明波若體，今明波若用，以能受持生無邊功德，是故用也。就此門中開為三別：第一、舉外施格量；第二、舉內施格量；第三、舉釋迦往因格量。就舉外施格量中更開為二：第一、正舉外施格量；第二、釋成格量優劣之意。就正格量中復開為二：第一、正舉二種財施格量稱嘆；第二、辨於經名。就初亦開為二：第一、正舉二施格量，受持波若一四句偈；第二、稱歎波若，在處處貴、在人人尊。就第一、舉二施格量四句，開為二別：第一、舉三千世界七寶布施格量四句；第二、舉恒沙界七寶布施格量四句。就初章中復開二別：第一、正舉財施格量；第二、釋成格量之義。今即是初。問：何因緣故，有此文來？答：此文來意，凡有近遠。所言遠者，如向數義。所言近者，論生起云：若諸法實相不可取說、文字則是可取可說，受持應無功德。為釋此疑，明文字雖是可取可說，因此文字得悟波若，則是因說悟無說，是以受持者其福無邊，故格量也。就文為二：第一、正舉財施；第二、格量波若。舉財施中自開為二：第一、佛問；第二、善吉答。開為二別：初正答，次簡擇答。正答如文。阿泥樓馱以一食施，九十一劫常受安樂，況今大千妙寶以用布施，其福不多？問：實有以大千妙寶布施以不？答：亦得言實有，亦得言假說。言實有者，轉輪聖王領四天下，能以四天下滿中妙寶以用布施；大梵天王主領大千世界，能以大千妙寶布施，故知得是實有。言假設者，若無此事，假說言有，亦不及受持波若。佛欲令人尊重波若故，雖無事，假說明也。「何以故？是福德即非福德」者，此下第二簡擇答。有人言：福德即是世諦，即非福德即真諦，明此福德虛假即真，是名福德多者，世諦故說多也。一切諸法不出二諦，故就二諦明之。今謂此釋似無次第，今乃是釋福德多之義，何因緣故明二諦也？復有人言：此是福德非福德，非福德福德此是波若福德。但波若中有財施法施，波若財施法施實無優劣，但受財施人一生富樂，未能未來滅惡道之苦；受法施人能滅三惡道報，未來生天人好家乃至作佛，是故財施不及法施。今謂約受人，其實如此，但此中約能施人格之耳，不約受人格之，故不同此釋也。但施不同，有得財施不及無得法施，此是互對。自有無得財施勝有得法施，自有無得財法勝有得財法。問：無得財施何如？無得法施、有得財施亦作此問。答：財法不二，則無得財施與無得法施無有優劣，但無優劣優劣義，則法施為勝、財施為劣也。有得法施亦勝有得財施，大格如此也。今依論釋，論云「福不趣菩提」，此簡布施之福雖多，此是有漏福德，即非福德者，非無漏無所得福德也。是名福德者，論經重言「福德福德」，此意略判福德凡有二種：一者、有漏福德；二者、無漏福德。是故重言福德福德。問：善吉但應答佛明布施福多，何因緣故，忽簡福德、漏與無漏？答：善吉領解佛意，佛意欲明布施之福雖多，而是有漏，是故答佛如我所解。布施福多者，此是有漏之福多耳，非無漏也。「佛言」下，第二、正舉財施格量法施。就中有二：初、明持經勝於布施；第二、釋勝所以。今即是初。問：云何名為四句偈耶？有人言：此經下文兩四句偈，即是其事。今謂此人得經語，不得經意。若取下偈為四句偈者，自經初已來，便應非偈，受持之者，便無功德。又當佛說經時，至此中未有後兩偈，云何逆格量耶？有人言：一切大乘經四句要偈，如雪山之四句等，即是其事。是亦不然。今正論波若，不涉餘經。有人言：凡是言說成就一義者，此即是偈，故偈名為竭義，取其竭盡則名為偈。今謂亦不然。經乃明四句偈，今云其義竭盡，何必的論四句？自有一句於義亦盡。若是別偈，則句定言不定；若是通偈，則言定句不定。別偈句定言不定者，要須四句故句定，或五言、四、七、六等，故言不定也。通偈言定者，要滿三十二字也。句不定者，三十二字或一、三、四句不定也。今既云四句，則是別偈，云何以通釋耶？有人言：三十二字名為一偈。是亦不然，乃是外國數經法耳，非關四句偈也。有人言：凡是經論能顯道者，悉名為偈。此亦不然，今的云四句偈，云何乃通取顯道之言？顯道何必四句耶？有人言：假名四句，如一假有，不可定有定無、亦有亦無、非有非無，亦得言假有即不有，乃至假有未曾有無，故此假四句即名為偈。今謂上來亦無此說，乃是通方之論耳。有人言：上不可取不可說、非法非非法，即是一四句偈。今謂是亦不然。若唯此是偈，餘應非偈。有人言：前答善吉四句問，即是四句偈也。是亦不然。前乃是答於四句，豈關偈耶？今世俗中以四句為一偈，佛隨世俗亦以四句為一偈，明此乃是舉少況多之言耳。然一四句斯言最少，若能受持一四句其福無邊，況復一段、一章、一品、一部耶？故須得經意，勿著語言也。「何以故」下，此第二釋勝所以。至人極法從是經生，是故持經，其福為勝。論云「二能趣菩提」，即是受持四句及演說四句也。「所謂佛法即非佛法」者，有人言：此是遣執，向明出生極果人法，恐物著故，須遣即空。今謂不然。前明即非福德，亦應恐生物著，故須遣也。有人言：佛法非佛法，如中假之流。是亦不然，恐是玉巵無璫也。今依論釋，成上持經福多之義。偈云「唯獨諸佛法，福成第一體」。所言佛法者，唯佛是無上菩提之法也。即非佛法者，自佛以外，二乘菩薩無有此法，故云即非佛法也。以佛獨有故，此法第一。今持經福能生第一之法，是故持經之福其福最勝。

From "Subhūti, what do you think? If a person filled three thousand great thousandfold worlds with the seven jewels and gave them as dāna" downward: this is the third [section], the portal of comparing measures to demonstrate superiority, praising and extolling, and exhorting practice. If distinguished in terms of merit and wisdom: previously prajñā was explained from the approach of wisdom; now prajñā is explained from the approach of virtue. Prajñā itself has never been either merit or wisdom, yet for the sake of sentient beings it is explained under the names of merit and wisdom. Furthermore, previously prajñā was explained in terms of non-reliance and non-attainment; now prajñā is explained in terms of praise and extolment. Furthermore, previously the essence of prajñā was clarified; now the function of prajñā is clarified, because its ability to generate boundless virtue when accepted and upheld is precisely its function. Within this approach it opens into three distinctions: first, adducing external dāna to compare measures; second, adducing internal dāna to compare measures; third, adducing Śākyamuni's past causes to compare measures. Within adducing external dāna to compare measures, it further opens into two: first, directly adducing external dāna to compare measures; second, explaining the intent of the superiority and inferiority of the compared measures. Within directly comparing measures, it again opens into two: first, directly adducing two kinds of material dāna to compare measures and extol; second, distinguishing the title of the sūtra. In the first, it also opens into two: first, directly adducing two kinds of dāna to compare measures against accepting and upholding a single four-line verse of prajñā; second, praising and extolling prajñā as honored in every place and revered in every person. Within the first, adducing two kinds of dāna to compare measures against a four-line verse, it opens into two distinctions: first, adducing dāna of the seven jewels filling three thousand worlds to compare measures against a four-line verse; second, adducing dāna of the seven jewels filling worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges to compare measures against a four-line verse. In the first chapter it again opens into two distinctions: first, directly adducing material dāna to compare measures; second, explaining the meaning of the comparison of measures. Now it is the first. Question: For what reason does this text follow? Answer: The intent of this text's coming has both distant and proximate [reasons]. What is called distant is like the several meanings just mentioned. What is called proximate is that the commentary's sequential arising states: "If the dharmatā of all phenomena cannot be grasped or spoken of, while letters can be grasped and spoken of, then accepting and upholding [them] should be without virtue." To resolve this doubt, it clarifies that although letters can be grasped and spoken of, through these letters one comes to awaken to prajñā; this is awakening to the unspoken by means of what is spoken. Therefore the merit of one who accepts and upholds it is boundless; hence the comparison of measures. The text divides into two: first, directly adducing material dāna; second, comparing measures against prajñā. Within adducing material dāna, it naturally opens into two: first, the Buddha's question; second, Subhūti's answer. [The answer] opens into two distinctions: first, directly answering; next, discerning in the answer. The direct answer is as in the text. Aniruddha gave a single meal in dāna and constantly enjoyed peace and happiness for ninety-one kalpas; how much more so when dāna is made with the wondrous jewels of a great thousandfold [world]—how could its merit not be abundant? Question: Is there really [anyone who] gives the wondrous jewels of a great thousandfold [world] in dāna, or not? Answer: One may say it is real, and one may also say it is a hypothetical statement. Speaking of it as real: a wheel-turning sage king presides over the four continents and is able to make dāna with the wondrous jewels filling the four continents; the Great Brahmā King rules over the great thousandfold world and is able to make dāna with the wondrous jewels of the great thousandfold [world]; thus we know it can be real. Speaking of it as a hypothesis: if there is no such occurrence, speaking hypothetically as if it existed, it still does not equal accepting and upholding prajñā. Because the Buddha wishes to lead people to revere prajñā, even though there is no such occurrence, he explains it hypothetically. "Why is this? This merit is not merit": from this downward is the second, discerning in the answer. Some say: merit is worldly truth, and "not merit" is ultimate truth; clarifying that this merit is illusory and false, which is identical to the real; "is called merit that is abundant" means that it is called abundant because of worldly truth. All dharmas do not go beyond the two truths, so it is clarified in terms of the two truths. We now consider that this explanation seems to lack sequence; here it is an explanation of the meaning of merit being abundant—for what reason would it clarify the two truths? Others say: this is merit, not merit; the non-merit merit is the merit of prajñā. However, within prajñā there are material dāna and Dharma dāna. In prajñā, material dāna and Dharma dāna in reality have no superiority or inferiority; but the person who receives material dāna enjoys wealth and happiness for a single lifetime, yet cannot eradicate the suffering of the bad destinies in the future; the person who receives Dharma dāna is able to eradicate the retribution of the three bad destinies, and in the future be born in good families among gods and humans, even attaining Buddhahood. Therefore material dāna does not equal Dharma dāna. We now consider that regarding the recipient, it is indeed so, but here the measure is compared regarding the person who is capable of giving, not compared regarding the recipient; hence it is not the same as this explanation. It is simply that the dānas are different: material dāna with apprehension does not equal Dharma dāna with non-apprehension; this is a mutual contrast. There is naturally material dāna with non-apprehension that surpasses Dharma dāna with apprehension, and there are naturally material and Dharma [dāna] with non-apprehension that surpass material and Dharma [dāna] with apprehension. Question: What about material dāna with non-apprehension? The same question is asked regarding Dharma dāna with non-apprehension and material dāna with apprehension. Answer: When matter and Dharma are non-dual, then material dāna with non-apprehension and Dharma dāna with non-apprehension have no superiority or inferiority; yet within the meaning of superiority and inferiority without superiority or inferiority, Dharma dāna is superior and material dāna is inferior. Dharma dāna with apprehension also surpasses material dāna with apprehension; such is the general standard. Now, relying on the commentary's explanation, the commentary states: "Merit does not tend toward bodhi." This distinguishes that although the merit of dāna is abundant, it is defiled merit. "That is, not merit" means it is not undefiled merit of non-apprehension. "Is called merit": the commentary's sūtra text repeats the words "merit, merit." The intention is briefly to distinguish that merit generally has two kinds: first, defiled merit; second, undefiled merit. Therefore it repeats the words "merit, merit." Question: Subhūti should only have answered the Buddha by clarifying that the merit of dāna is abundant; for what reason does he suddenly distinguish merit between defiled and undefiled? Answer: Subhūti understood the Buddha's intent: the Buddha's intent was to clarify that although the merit of dāna is abundant, it is defiled; therefore he answered the Buddha, "According to what I understand, when the merit of dāna is abundant, this is only that defiled merit is abundant, not undefiled." From "The Buddha said" downward: second, directly adducing material dāna to compare measures against Dharma dāna. Within this there are two: first, clarifying that upholding the sūtra surpasses dāna; second, explaining why it is superior. Now it is the first. Question: What is called a four-line verse? Some say: the two four-line verses later in this sūtra are precisely this matter. We now consider that this person grasps the words of the sūtra but does not grasp the intent of the sūtra. If one takes the later verses as the four-line verses, then from the beginning of the sūtra up to here would not be verses, and those who accept and uphold it would have no merit. Moreover, when the Buddha spoke the sūtra, by this point the later two verses did not yet exist; how could he retroactively compare measures? Some say: the essential four-line verses of all Mahāyāna sūtras, like the four lines of the Snowy Mountains and so on, are precisely this matter. This is also not so. Here we are directly discussing prajñā, not involving other sūtras. Some say: whatever speech accomplishes a single meaning is a verse; hence a verse (gāthā) is called "exhausting the meaning," taking the exhaustion [of meaning] to be called a verse. We now consider that this also is not so. The sūtra specifically clarifies a four-line verse; now to say that its meaning is exhausted, why must it strictly be four lines? A single line naturally can also exhaust the meaning. If it is a distinct verse (gāthā), then the lines are fixed and the syllables are unfixed; if it is a general verse, then the syllables are fixed and the lines are unfixed. As for distinct verses having fixed lines and unfixed syllables: they must require four lines, hence the lines are fixed, while having five syllables, four, seven, six, and so forth, hence the syllables are unfixed. As for general verses having fixed syllables: they must fulfill thirty-two syllables. Their lines being unfixed means that thirty-two syllables may be unfixed as one, three, or four lines. Now, since it says "four lines," it is a distinct verse; how could one explain it with the general? Some say: thirty-two syllables are called a verse (śloka). This is also not so; that is merely the method of counting sūtras in foreign countries, not concerning a four-line verse. Some say: whatever in sūtras and treatises can reveal the Way is all called a verse. This is also not so. Now it strictly says "a four-line verse"; how could one broadly take words that reveal the Way? Why must revealing the Way be four lines? Some say: the four lines of nominal designation, such as a single nominal existence being neither definitively existent nor definitively non-existent, neither both existent and non-existent nor neither existent nor non-existent; one may also say that nominal existence is precisely non-existence, up to nominal existence having never been existent or non-existent; hence these four lines of nominal designation are called a verse. We now consider that previously there was no such explanation either; this is merely a broad-ranging discourse. Some say: the previous "cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken, neither dharma nor non-dharma" is a single four-line verse. We now consider this also is not so. If only this were the verse, the rest would not be verses. Some say: the previous answer to Subhūti's four-line question is the four-line verse. This is also not so. The previous was an answer to four lines; what does it have to do with a verse? Now in conventional usage four lines are taken as one verse, and the Buddha, following conventional usage, also took four lines as one verse, clarifying that this is merely a statement adducing the lesser to illustrate the greater. Since a single four-line [verse] is the very least in words, if one can accept and uphold a single four-line [verse], its merit is boundless; how much more so a passage, a chapter, a fascicle, or the whole work? Therefore one must grasp the intent of the sūtra and not cling to the words. From "Why is this?" downward: this is the second, explaining why it is superior. The supreme person and the ultimate dharma are born from this sūtra; therefore when upholding the sūtra, its merit is superior. The commentary states: "Two are able to tend toward bodhi," which are accepting and upholding the four lines and expounding the four lines. As for "the so-called Buddha-dharmas are not Buddha-dharmas": some say that this dispels attachment; having just clarified the person and dharma of generating the ultimate fruition, fearing that beings would cling, it must be dispelled as empty. We now consider this is not so. Previously, when clarifying "is not merit," one should also have feared generating attachment in beings, and so it had to be dispelled. Some say: "Buddha-dharmas are not Buddha-dharmas" is of the type of middle and nominal designation. This is also not so; it is feared to be like a jade cup without a base. Now, relying on the commentary's explanation, it establishes the meaning above of the abundance of merit from upholding the sūtra. The verse says: "Only the Buddha-dharmas alone / Have merit that accomplishes the supreme essence." What are called Buddha-dharmas are the dharmas of unexcelled bodhi belonging only to the Buddha. "That is, not Buddha-dharmas" means that aside from the Buddha, the two vehicles and bodhisattvas do not possess this dharma; hence it says "that is, not Buddha-dharmas." Because the Buddha alone possesses it, this dharma is supreme. Now the merit of upholding the sūtra can generate the supreme dharma; therefore the merit of upholding the sūtra is the most superior.