金剛般若疏 4.2.1

4.2.1

「爾時須菩提聞說是經」下，第二、領解釋疑。 文為二：初領解，次釋疑。 領解中為二：初、領解； 第二、佛述成。 初領解為四：第一、自領解； 第二、明他領解； 三、明自領解為易； 四、明他領解為難。 初領解又二：第一、經家序其悟解相貌； 第二、正明領解。 初序其相貌者，有四：一、標領解人； 二、明所領解法； 三、正明領解； 第四、領解相貌。 問：得解應歡喜，云何乃悲泣耶？ 答：領解相貌不同，凡有三句：一者、得解歡喜，如《法華》身子踊躍歡喜； 二者、得解悲泣，如此文； 三、得解亦歡喜亦悲泣，如善集王悲喜交集，喜則欣今悟、悲則慨昔迷，悲喜雙兼二事也。 「希有世尊」下，第二、明得解。 「我從昔來所得慧眼未曾得聞」者，古來釋經前後不同。 一家云：此經在《大品》初說，以此文為證，既云未曾聞般若，故知在前。 第二師云：此經在《大品》後說。 既在《大品》後，何得善吉云昔來未曾得聞耶？ 彼釋云：前於《大品》中雖善吉已悟，而中下根人未悟，今同其未悟，故云未曾得聞； 中下根人於今得悟，故同其得悟，故言今始得聞耳。 此事已如前明，今更開一意：上外施格量竟，如來自稱歎經，勸物受持； 今內施格量竟，善吉自稱歎經，勸物受持，是故師弟互文勸緣信悟耳。 「若復有人得聞是經」下，第二、陳他得解。 「則生實相」者，他云世諦生、真諦不生，即問：實相即是真諦，既生實相，何不生真諦耶？ 彼釋云：生實相之慧耳。 實相不可生，但慧從境作名，稱為實慧，境從慧作名，故生慧言生境耳。 今明二諦俱生不生，如義中釋，斯文即證也。 但一師有觀發中、中發觀義，此明生實相即是觀發中，正觀明了則實相現前，故名生實相。 此約迷悟為論，於迷者不現前名實相不生，悟者現前名為生實相。 令生實相既爾，佛性等例然，至論實相未曾生不生也。 「是實相者則非實相」者，他還以二諦釋此文如常彈，今依論釋簡成實相義，「是實相」者，獨佛法大乘有此實相，故云實相。 「即非實相」者，天魔外道無實相，故言非實相。 「是名實相」者，論經長有一句云「實相實相」，此句簡二乘實相有二種：一、大乘實相； 二、小乘實相。 今明是大乘實相、非二乘實相，故云實相實相。 前句簡外實相，此句簡內實相。 所以二簡者，以獨佛法有實相，及獨大乘有實相生實相之慧，方是希有耳。 「世尊我今得聞」下，第三、述自悟為易。 所以易者：一者、明過去久殖三多； 二者、現在者值佛，內因外緣具足，故信受為易也。 又就迹中為論，須菩提是大阿羅漢，如《大品》云「般若甚深，誰能信解？ 答云：正見成就人，漏盡阿羅漢能信。 」今須菩提既是羅漢，所以信解不難也。 若就本為論，須菩提內祕菩薩行，或可是往古如來示同眾迷，所以悟解為易。 「若當來世」下，第四、陳他悟為難。 所以難者，良由生在末世後五百歲故也。 叡法師云：「前五百歲得道者多，不得道者少； 後五百歲不得道者多，得道者少。 前五百歲信無生者多，不信者少； 後五百歲不信者多、信者為少。 是以前五百年名正法，後五百年名像法。 」能於像法中信，所以為難也。 又明此時眾生不久殖三多、不久值佛，無內因外緣，能於中生信，是故為難。 「何以故」下，此釋信為難意也。 若言有人能信、般若所信，則是人法之見，不名為信也，此信亦不難也。 明若不見我是能信，即是人空，即是無有人見； 不見般若是所信，即是法空，即是無法見。 「所以者何？ 我相即是非相」者，所以不取我等相者，非有我相，是故不取我相，以實無我故無所取耳，故云我相即是非相也。 又道理若實有我人之相則不可離，以道理實無我人之相，但眾生妄謂為有，故我相可離耳，故云我相即是非相也。

From "At that time Subhūti, having heard this sūtra expounded" below is the second [section]: expressing understanding and resolving doubts. The text has two parts: first, expressing understanding; next, resolving doubts. Within expressing understanding there are two parts: first, expressing understanding; second, the Buddha's approval and confirmation. The first part, expressing understanding, has four sections: first, expressing one's own understanding; second, clarifying the understanding of others; third, explaining that one's own understanding is easy; fourth, explaining that others' understanding is difficult. The first part, expressing understanding, further has two parts: first, the compiler of the sūtra prefaces the outward marks of his awakening and understanding; second, directly clarifying the expression of understanding. The initial preface of the outward marks has four aspects: first, identifying the person who expresses understanding; second, clarifying the Dharma that is understood; third, directly clarifying the expression of understanding; fourth, the outward marks of the expression of understanding. Question: Upon attaining understanding, one should rejoice; why then does he weep in sorrow? Answer: The outward marks of expressing understanding differ; there are generally three alternatives: first, attaining understanding with joy, as in the Lotus Sūtra where Śāriputra leaps up in great joy; second, attaining understanding with weeping, as in this text; third, attaining understanding with both joy and weeping, as with King Good Assembly whose joy and sorrow intermingled: joy means rejoicing in present awakening, sorrow means lamenting past delusion—combining both matters of sorrow and joy. From "Rare, World-Honoured One" below is the second [part], clarifying the attainment of understanding. Regarding "from the past until now, with the wisdom eye I have attained, I have never before heard [such a sūtra]": from ancient times, explanations of the sequence of the sūtras have differed. One master says: this sūtra was preached at the beginning of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, taking this passage as proof; since it says he had never before heard prajñā, we know it came before. A second master says: this sūtra was preached after the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. If it was after the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, how could Subhūti say that from the past until now he had never before heard it? His explanation says: previously, in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, although Subhūti had already awakened, people of middling and lower faculties had not awakened; now he identifies with their non-awakening, and thus says he had never before heard it; people of middling and lower faculties attain awakening now, so he identifies with their attaining awakening, and thus says he only now gets to hear it. This matter has already been clarified previously. Now we open another perspective: above, after the external giving was evaluated and compared, the Tathāgata personally praised the sūtra and exhorted beings to accept and uphold it; now, after the internal giving is evaluated and compared, Subhūti personally praises the sūtra and exhorted beings to accept and uphold it; therefore master and disciple mutually alternate textually to exhort conditions [for beings] to have faith and awaken. From "If, moreover, there is a person who gets to hear this sūtra" below is the second [section]: stating the attainment of understanding by others. Regarding "then gives birth to dharmatā": others say that the conventional truth is produced, while the ultimate truth is unproduced; one then asks: dharmatā is precisely the ultimate truth—since it gives birth to dharmatā, why would it not give birth to the ultimate truth? Their explanation says: it is merely giving birth to the wisdom of dharmatā. Dharmatā cannot be produced, but wisdom takes its name from its object and is called true wisdom; the object takes its name from wisdom, so producing wisdom is spoken of as producing the object. We now clarify that both of the two truths are both produced and unproduced, as explained in the theoretical analysis; this passage is precisely the proof. However, one master holds the doctrine of contemplation evoking the middle and the middle evoking contemplation: this clarifies that giving birth to dharmatā is contemplation evoking the middle; when correct contemplation is clear, then dharmatā appears before one, hence it is named "giving birth to dharmatā". This is discussed in terms of delusion and awakening: for the deluded it does not appear before them, which is called dharmatā not being produced; for the awakened it appears before them, which is called giving birth to dharmatā. Making dharmatā arise being like this, Buddha-nature and the like follow the same pattern; reaching the ultimate discourse, dharmatā has never been produced nor unproduced. Regarding "this dharmatā is then not dharmatā": others again explain this text by means of the two truths, as is routinely critiqued. We now explain, relying on the treatise, to differentiate and establish the meaning of dharmatā: "is dharmatā" means that exclusively the Buddha-Dharma's Mahāyāna possesses this dharmatā, hence it is called dharmatā. "Is then not dharmatā" means that heavenly māras and non-Buddhists lack dharmatā, hence it is called non-dharmatā. Regarding "is named dharmatā": the treatise sūtra has an extra phrase saying "dharmatā, dharmatā"; this phrase differentiates the two kinds of dharmatā of the two vehicles: first, Mahāyāna dharmatā; second, Hīnayāna dharmatā. We now clarify that it is Mahāyāna dharmatā, not the dharmatā of the two vehicles, hence it says "dharmatā, dharmatā". The preceding phrase differentiates the external dharmatā; this phrase differentiates the internal dharmatā. The reason for these two differentiations is that because exclusively the Buddha-Dharma has dharmatā, and exclusively the Mahāyāna has the wisdom that gives birth to dharmatā, it is truly rare. From "World-Honoured One, I now get to hear" below is the third [section]: stating that his own awakening was easy. The reasons it was easy: first, it clarifies that in the past he had long planted the three abundancies; second, in the present he personally met the Buddha; with internal causes and external conditions complete, his believing and accepting was easy. Furthermore, discussed from the trace, Subhūti is a great arhat, as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "Prajñā is extremely profound; who can believe and understand it? The answer says: persons who have accomplished right view, arhats who have exhausted outflows, are able to believe." Now Subhūti is already an arhat, so believing and understanding was not difficult. If discussed in terms of the fundamental, Subhūti inwardly conceals the bodhisattva practice, or perhaps was a Tathāgata of antiquity who manifested as identical to deluded beings, which is why awakening and understanding was easy. From "If in a future era" below is the fourth [section]: stating that others' awakening is difficult. The reason it is difficult is truly due to being born in the latter age, in the final five hundred years. Dharma Master Rui said: "In the first five hundred years, those who attain the Way are many, and those who do not attain the Way are few; in the latter five hundred years, those who do not attain the Way are many, and those who attain the Way are few. In the first five hundred years, those who have faith in non-arising are many, and those who do not have faith are few; in the latter five hundred years, those who do not have faith are many, and those who have faith are few. Therefore, the first five hundred years are called the true Dharma, and the latter five hundred years are called the semblance Dharma." Being able to have faith within the semblance Dharma is the reason it is difficult. Furthermore, it clarifies that sentient beings at this time have not long planted the three abundancies and have not long met the Buddha, lacking internal causes and external conditions; that they can generate faith within this is therefore difficult. From "Why is this?" below, this explains the sense in which faith is difficult. If one says there is a person who can believe and prajñā that is believed in, this is the view of persons and dharmas, and is not named faith; such faith is also not difficult. It clarifies that if one does not see oneself as the believer, this is the emptiness of persons, which is the absence of any view of a person; not seeing prajñā as that which is believed in is the emptiness of dharmas, which is the absence of any view of dharmas. Regarding "Why is this? The mark of a self is then non-mark": the reason one does not grasp the mark of a self and so forth is not that there exists a mark of a self and therefore one does not grasp it; rather, because there is truly no self, there is nothing to grasp, hence it says "the mark of a self is then non-mark." Furthermore, in principle, if there truly existed the mark of a self or a person, it could not be departed from; because in principle there is truly no mark of a self or a person, and sentient beings merely falsely take them to exist, the mark of a self can be departed from, hence it says "the mark of a self is then non-mark."