金剛般若疏 3.4.3

3.4.3

「人中最為第一」者，凡有三種第一：一者、人第一。 二者、離第一，謂離二種障：一、離煩惱障； 二、離定障也。 三者、德第一，即得無諍定及斷煩惱障智、斷定障智。 問：何因緣修無諍三昧？ 答：凡有三義：一者、昔聞佛說此三昧有種種功德，心信願得，今成羅漢故修此定，由昔因故，便習得也。 二者、在凡夫時，於多眾生起諍，故受苦報。 今得無學，還憶昔憂悔，故修此定。 三者、欲令多人得現果報，故復修之。 得此定已，前作方便守護他心，無一眾生於我起諍，然後現身，故名無諍。 問：以何方便法修此定耶？ 答：前散心中發願，隨其心願，要期近遠，或一土一村人物處所，悉願見其形相、姓族名字及知其心所趣向。 發此願已，入達分三昧，如昔所願，皆悉分明。 此事已還出散心，憶念定中所見，如夢中所見覺已還憶。 以是義故，能遮惡生善，不煩惱他，故名無諍。 無諍與願智相成，如前說也。 問：云何名為無諍？ 答：有人言：以慈心為無諍，以慈心故，不與物諍。 有人言：第四禪名無諍，以此定離三災，免四受故也。 有人言：空解為無諍定。 有人言：即以無諍智為無諍定。 今依論釋。 論云「依彼善吉者，遠離二種障，斷煩惱故得羅漢，斷三昧鄣得無諍定。 」故知此別是方法定，非是空解，亦非四禪，亦非慈心也。 問：文云「離欲羅漢」，離何欲耶？ 答：非是離煩惱之欲，乃是善吉好修阿蘭若行，遠離五欲五塵之境，名為離欲。 阿蘭若者，此云無事，即是優遊任放，不為塵累所拘。 四段文處易知，不須出也。 「佛告須菩提：如來昔在然燈佛所」下，是第二章，舉大乘因果釋成上義。 就文為兩：第一、舉大乘因釋成前義； 第二、舉大乘果釋成前義。 就舉大乘因中，開為二別：第一、舉受記； 第二、明嚴土。 今即初。 所以有此文來者，從上如來所說法不可取、不可說文生。 若言諸法不可取者，昔為儒童菩薩應不得記； 若昔為儒童菩薩遂得記者，則諸法可取。 若言諸法不可說者，然燈佛不應為其授記。 既為釋迦授記：「汝於來世當得作佛。 」則是可說。 以時會有於此疑故，佛騰眾疑問於善吉，故云「如來於然燈佛所有法得菩提不？ 」善吉答云：「於然燈佛所實無所得。 」此意明不見人是能得、無有記之可得，具如《淨名．彌勒章》記，如是無得無不得乃名得受記，此得實無所得也。 北人云：凡有四時受記：一是習種性不現前受記； 二是道種性亦不現前受記； 三是初地現前受記； 四是八地大無生忍現前受記。 此中文明釋迦由是習種性菩薩，未得初地已上無生法忍記。 今佛問善吉云：「我於爾時已證初地無生法忍三菩提耶？ 乃至金剛已後常住現果證三菩提耶？ 」善吉答云：「如來爾時未得初地無生法忍三菩提，亦未得金剛後常住三菩提。 」今謂論無此義，又未見經說，若就義推，於理不可。 此中乃明無依無得之義，破有依有得之疑，成上不可取、不可說意，云何乃作行位淺深解釋？ 故於義不然。 但經中不無三賢十聖之說，《首楞嚴經》亦有四種受記之文，非此中正意也。 「於意云何？ 莊嚴佛土不」下，此第二、次辨嚴土釋成上義。 來意同前。 若言諸法不可取、不可說，云何菩薩取淨佛土行？ 為釋此疑，故有此文來也。 問：因行無量，何故前辨受記，今明嚴土？ 答：受記是菩薩自行，嚴土是化他行，自悟無生故佛授記。 是自行眾生之類是菩薩佛土，故嚴土之行則是化他行，行門雖多不出此二，是故明也。 又前論得記則是正果，今論嚴土則依果。 又菩薩得無生已後更無餘事，唯成就眾生、淨佛國土故。 次第二句來文亦有二：一、問； 二、答。 問意可知。 就答中有二：第一、正明嚴土之真偽； 第二、勸修淨土因。 今即是初。

"Foremost among humans": there are altogether three kinds of being foremost. First is being foremost among persons. Second is being foremost in abandonment: this refers to abandoning two kinds of obstacles, namely, abandoning the affliction obstacle and abandoning the absorption obstacle. Third is being foremost in virtue: this is attaining the absorption of non-disputation, as well as the knowledge that severs the affliction obstacle and the knowledge that severs the absorption obstacle. Question: For what reasons and conditions does one cultivate the absorption of non-disputation? Answer: There are altogether three meanings. First, formerly hearing the Buddha explain that this absorption has various merits, one had faith in one's heart and vowed to attain it; now having become an arhat, one cultivates this absorption, and due to the former cause, one becomes practiced in it and attains it. Second, while an ordinary person, one gave rise to disputation against many sentient beings and thus suffered retribution; now having attained the stage beyond training (aśaikṣa), one looks back, remembering former sorrows and regrets, and therefore cultivates this absorption. Third, wishing to cause many persons to obtain retribution in the present life, one further cultivates it. Having attained this absorption, one first applies skillful means to safeguard the minds of others so that not a single sentient being gives rise to disputation toward oneself, and only then does one manifest one's body; hence it is called "non-disputation". Question: By what skillful means does one cultivate this absorption? Answer: First, within the dispersed mind, one makes a vow. In accordance with that aspiration of mind, one sets a near or far limit—perhaps a land, a village, people, or places—vowing to see all their appearances, clan names, and personal names, and to know what their minds tend toward. Having made this vow, one enters the penetrative absorption (nirvedha-bhāgīya samādhi); just as previously vowed, everything is clearly distinct. Having completed this matter, one returns to the dispersed mind and recollects what was seen in absorption, just as what was seen in a dream is remembered upon waking. By this means, one can prevent evil and generate good without vexing others; hence it is called "non-disputation". Non-disputation and the knowledge of aspiration complement each other, as explained before. Question: Why is it called "non-disputation"? Answer: Some say that benevolence (maitrī) is non-disputation, because on account of benevolence one does not dispute with beings. Some say that the fourth dhyāna is called non-disputation, because this absorption is free from the three disasters and avoids the four feelings. Some say that understanding emptiness is the absorption of non-disputation. Some say that it is precisely the knowledge of non-disputation that constitutes the absorption of non-disputation. Now, we explain in accordance with the treatise (*Upadeśa*). The treatise says: "Relying on Subhūti, he was far removed from two kinds of obstacles: by severing afflictions, he attained arhatship; by severing absorption obstacles, he attained the absorption of non-disputation." Hence we know that this is a distinct methodological absorption; it is neither an understanding of emptiness, nor the fourth dhyāna, nor benevolence. Question: The text says "desire-free arhat"; what desire is abandoned? Answer: It is not the desire of afflictions that is abandoned; rather, it is that Subhūti loved cultivating the practices of the araṇya, keeping far away from the realms of the five desires and five sense objects; this is called "desire-free". "Araṇya" is translated here as "free of business"; that is, wandering at ease and unrestrained, not bound by mundane encumbrances. The locations of the four passages are easy to recognize and need not be cited. "The Buddha said to Subhūti: 'In the past, when the Tathāgata was with Dīpaṃkara Buddha...'" onward is the second chapter, adducing Mahāyāna causes and fruits to explain and establish the preceding meaning. In the text, there are two parts: first, adducing Mahāyāna causes to explain and establish the preceding meaning; second, adducing Mahāyāna fruits to explain and establish the preceding meaning. Within adducing Mahāyāna causes, it divides into two: first, adducing the reception of prediction (vyākaraṇa); second, clarifying the adornment of lands. Here is the first. The reason this text occurs is that it arises from the preceding statement that the Dharma spoken by the Tathāgata cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken. If one says that dharmas cannot be grasped, then formerly as the Bodhisattva Māṇava, he should not have received prediction; if formerly as the Bodhisattva Māṇava he did indeed receive prediction, then dharmas would be graspable. If one says that dharmas cannot be spoken, then Dīpaṃkara Buddha should not have bestowed the prediction upon him. Since he bestowed the prediction upon Śākyamuni: "In a future age, you will attain Buddhahood," then it would be speakable. Because the assembly at that time harboured this doubt, the Buddha brought up the assembly's doubt to ask Subhūti, saying: "Did the Tathāgata attain bodhi through any dharma when with Dīpaṃkara Buddha?" Subhūti answered: "When with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, there was truly nothing attained." This meaning clarifies that one does not see a person who is capable of attaining, nor is there any prediction that can be attained, fully as recorded in the chapter on Maitreya in the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa*; only such non-attainment and non-non-attainment is called obtaining the reception of prediction—this attainment is truly non-apprehension. Masters of the north say that there are altogether four times of receiving prediction: first, receiving prediction not face-to-face at the lineage of habituation; second, receiving prediction also not face-to-face at the lineage of the path; third, receiving prediction face-to-face at the first bhūmi; fourth, receiving prediction face-to-face upon the great forbearance of non-arising at the eighth bhūmi. The text here clarifies that because Śākyamuni was still a bodhisattva of the lineage of habituation, he had not yet attained the prediction of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas at the first bhūmi or above. Now the Buddha asks Subhūti: "Did I at that time already realize the sambodhi of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhūmi? Or even realize the sambodhi of the permanent, present fruit after the vajra-[like samādhi]?" Subhūti answered: "The Tathāgata at that time had not yet attained the sambodhi of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhūmi, nor had he attained the permanent sambodhi after the vajra." We now maintain that the treatise has no such meaning, nor have we seen it stated in the sūtras; if inferred according to the principle, it is theoretically unacceptable. What is clarified here is simply the meaning of non-reliance and non-apprehension, refuting doubts about having reliance and apprehension, and establishing the preceding sense of being ungraspable and unspeakable; how could one interpret it in terms of the shallowness or depth of stages of practice? Thus in meaning it is not so. However, sūtras are not without the explanation of the three levels of sages and ten levels of āryas, and the *Śūraṅgamasūtra* also contains a passage on four kinds of predictions, but that is not the primary intent here. "'What do you think? Does he adorn Buddha lands or not?'" onward is the second part, which next distinguishes the adornment of lands to explain and establish the preceding meaning. The intention of its arrival is the same as before: if all dharmas cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken, how does a bodhisattva undertake the practice of purifying Buddha lands? To resolve this doubt, this text arrives. Question: Since causal practices are immeasurable, why was receiving prediction distinguished first, and now the adornment of lands clarified? Answer: Receiving prediction is the bodhisattva's own practice, while adorning lands is the practice of converting others. Because one awakens oneself to non-arising, the Buddha bestows the prediction: this is one's own practice. The categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's Buddha land; hence the practice of adorning lands is the practice of converting others. Although the portals of practice are many, they do not exceed these two; therefore it is clarified. Moreover, discussing the attainment of prediction earlier was the direct retribution (the person), while discussing the adornment of lands now is the dependent retribution (the environment). Furthermore, after attaining non-arising, the bodhisattva has no other business than maturing sentient beings and purifying Buddha lands. Next, the arriving text of the second phrase also has two parts: first, question; second, answer. The intent of the question is clear. Within the answer, there are two: first, directly clarifying the reality and falsity of adorning lands; second, exhorting the cultivation of causes for the pure land. Here is the first.