金剛般若疏 4.2.3

4.2.3

若心有住則乖正道，豈是道心耶？ 菩提是正道，今發道心，故名菩提心耳。 「若心有住則為非住」者，若心有住則是住顛倒，則為非住不住般若也。 如《大經》「不住一切法，即是住般若，不信一切法，是名信般若。 」生義亦爾。 「是故佛說菩薩心不應住」下，前明勸無住發菩提心，今勸無住修菩薩行，如善財之言也。 問：經初已明發心修行，今何得更說？ 答：前明建廣大等四心名發心，就不住義以明修行； 今此中通就不住，即明發心之與修行。 故前離明，今是合辨也。 但舉布施者，布施居六度之初，又檀義攝六也。 如論偈云云。 「須菩提！ 菩薩為利益一切眾生」者，前既明無住發心、無住修行，人便謂既無所住，何故發心？ 何故修行耶？ 即釋曰：為利眾生故，發心修行也。 又無住修行方能利眾生耳，有所住修行不能自利利人也。 「如來說一切諸相」下，此為成上修行及為眾生。 既言修行，便有行可修，既言利益眾生，有眾生可利，便是人法見耳。 故今明如來說一切相則非一切相，故雖修萬行，無行可修； 雖利眾生，實無眾生可利。 又引佛誠言，勸菩薩如說修行。 佛說眾生與法皆不可得，菩薩亦須如此而學也。 「須菩提！ 如來是真語者」下，此文來有近遠。 遠意成前內外二施格量義。 何者？ 前明雖捨內外二施，終不及持經四句。 人聞此生疑：諸法實相絕言，云何名字文句能表實相，而受持四句頓有如此福耶？ 故今釋云：實相雖絕言，言是無言因，因言故得表無言，故受持此言功德無量。 問：此乃釋言能表道，云何是釋五語文耶？ 答：以言必能表道故佛言是實，由能表道故受持福多。 近意者，上引佛說一切諸相則是非相，說一切眾生則非眾生，勸菩薩如說而行，今重釋所以須信佛說者，良由佛語不虛故也。 「真語者」，依真諦說也。 「實語者」，依世諦說也。 所以舉二語者，為如來常依二諦說法故也。 「如語者」，如十方三世諸佛依二諦說法，此上同諸佛也。 「不誑語者」，佛不誑眾生，如《大經》言「何緣當誑如子想者令墮地獄」也。 「不異語者」，為釋疑故來。 人疑：若不誑眾生，何得一佛作種種異說，初三後一乃至今常昔無常耶？ 故釋云：雖有諸說，為成一道，所以不異。 如經云「智者終不謂我二語，我於是人亦不二語。 」《法華》云「雖說種種乘，皆為一乘也。 」次依論釋，唯有四語，故偈云「實智及小乘，說摩訶衍法，記於三世事，是名四種語。 」實智即真語，謂說佛菩提也； 及小乘說四諦即實語。 說摩訶衍法為菩提，即是如語也。 記三世事，合後二為不異語也。 此四語含小大、理事、因果，真語是果也，如語是因； 此二是大，實語為小； 記三世是事也，三語是理。 「須菩提！ 如來所得法」者，有此文來者，上來至此，凡有三文引佛語勸信：初引如來說一切相則非相，說一切眾生則非眾生，此勸菩薩捨人法見，令信無所住教。 次引五語證佛語不虛，勸菩薩信佛說無所住教也。 今第三引佛所證得法，復勸信無所住教，以佛親依無所住教證得菩提，故菩薩須信無所住教門也。 論經長有一句，謂「如來所得法，如來所說法」，如來所得法，釋已如向也。 「如來所說無實無虛」者，上來三過勸信語，但恐鈍根守語而住，故今明佛語非實非虛，以正道絕言，若守言則失道，故言則非實，非不因言表道，故言則非虛，指月之譬即其事也。 斯乃貫一化之意，豈一章經耶？ 「須菩提！ 如人入闇」下，依流支十二分，前格量分竟，今是顯性分。 今三種彈之：一者、顯性分經論無文，故所以不用。 二者、若就布施以明得失判顯性分者，前明忍辱修行亦應是分也。 三者、內外格量中各有二格，今內格中止一章竟，餘有一格量在，何得合取後格量為顯性分耶？

If the mind has an abiding, it deviates from the correct path—how could it be the mind directed to the path? Bodhi is the correct path; here, arousing the mind directed to the path is precisely called "bodhicitta." As for "if the mind has an abiding, that is non-abiding": if the mind has an abiding, it abides in inversion, which is non-abiding—it does not abide in prajñā. As the Great Sūtra states: "Not abiding in any dharma is abiding in prajñā; not placing faith in any dharma is called having faith in prajñā." The meaning regarding arousing [the mind] is also like this. Below, from "Therefore, the Buddha says that the bodhisattva's mind should not abide...", earlier he explained exhorting the arousal of bodhicitta without abiding, and now he exhorts practicing the bodhisattva deeds without abiding, like the words of Sudhana. Question: At the beginning of the sūtra, arousing the mind and practicing were already explained; why is it explained again here? Answer: Earlier, establishing the four minds, such as the vast mind, was called arousing the mind, and practice was explained in terms of the meaning of non-abiding; now, here, it generally draws on non-abiding to explain both arousing the mind and practicing together. Thus, earlier they were explained separately, whereas now they are distinguished together. As for only mentioning dāna: dāna stands at the head of the six pāramitās, and furthermore, the meaning of dāna subsumes all six, as the verse of the treatise states. As for "Subhūti, a bodhisattva, to benefit all sentient beings...": since earlier he explained arousing the mind without abiding and practicing without abiding, people might say: since there is nothing to abide in, why arouse the mind? Why practice? It is immediately explained: for the sake of benefiting sentient beings, one arouses the mind and practices. Furthermore, only practice without abiding can truly benefit sentient beings; practice with abiding can benefit neither oneself nor others. Below, from "The Tathāgata says that all lakṣaṇas...", this is to accomplish the aforementioned practice and [benefiting] sentient beings. When one speaks of practice, there would be practice to be cultivated; when one speaks of benefiting sentient beings, there would be sentient beings to be benefited—which would simply be the views of persons and dharmas. Therefore, it is now explained that what the Tathāgata speaks of as all lakṣaṇas are precisely not all lakṣaṇas; thus, though one cultivates the myriad practices, there is no practice to be cultivated; though one benefits sentient beings, there are in truth no sentient beings to be benefited. Furthermore, it cites the Buddha's true words to exhort the bodhisattva to practice as spoken. The Buddha said that sentient beings and dharmas are both unapprehendable; the bodhisattva must also train in this way. Below, from "Subhūti, the Tathāgata speaks truth...", this text has both a proximate and a distant purpose. The distant intention is to accomplish the meaning of the comparative evaluation of the two kinds of giving, internal and external, discussed earlier. How so? Earlier it was explained that although one gives away both internal and external gifts, in the end it does not equal upholding four lines of this sūtra. Hearing this, people harboured doubts: "The dharmatā of all dharmas is beyond words; how could names, words, and sentences express dharmatā, such that upholding four lines suddenly brings such merit?" Therefore, it is now explained: although dharmatā is beyond words, words are the cause for wordlessness; because of words, one can express wordlessness; therefore, the merit of upholding these words is immeasurable. Question: This explains how words can express the path; how is it an explanation of the passage on the five types of speech? Answer: Because words can certainly express the path, the Buddha's words are true; because they can express the path, the merit of upholding them is great. As for the proximate intention: above, it cited the Buddha's words that "all lakṣaṇas are precisely non-lakṣaṇas" and that "all sentient beings are precisely non-sentient-beings," exhorting the bodhisattva to practice as spoken; now, it re-explains why one must believe what the Buddha says, which is precisely because the Buddha's words are not false. "Speaker of truth" (bhūtavādin) means speaking in accord with the ultimate truth. "Speaker of the real" (satyavādin) means speaking in accord with the conventional truth. The reason two kinds of speech are cited is that the Tathāgata always preaches the Dharma based on the two truths. "Speaker of thusness" (tathāvādin) means that, like the Buddhas of the ten directions and the three times who preach the Dharma based on the two truths, this accords with the Buddhas above. "Speaker of non-deception" means that the Buddha does not deceive sentient beings, as the Great Sūtra says: "For what reason would I deceive those I regard as my children and cause them to fall into hell?" "Speaker of non-difference" comes in order to resolve doubts. People doubt: "If he does not deceive sentient beings, how is it that a single Buddha gives various different teachings—first the three [vehicles] and later the one [vehicle], or even permanence now and impermanence formerly?" Therefore, it is explained: although there are various teachings, they serve to accomplish the single path, and are therefore not different. As the sūtra says: "The wise will never say that I have two kinds of speech; toward such people, neither do I speak doubly." The Lotus Sūtra says: "Though I preach various vehicles, they are all for the sake of the one vehicle." Next, according to the explanation of the treatise, there are only four kinds of speech; hence the verse says: "Real wisdom and the Hīnayāna, / preaching the Mahāyāna Dharma, / and prophesying matters of the three times— / these are called the four kinds of speech." "Real wisdom" is "speaking truth," referring to speaking of the Buddha's bodhi; "and the Hīnayāna" speaking of the four truths is "speaking the real." Preaching the Mahāyāna Dharma as bodhi is precisely "speaking of thusness." Prophesying matters of the three times combines the latter two into "speaking without difference." These four kinds of speech encompass Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, principle and phenomena, cause and effect: speaking truth is the effect, and speaking of thusness is the cause; these two are Mahāyāna, while speaking the real is Hīnayāna; prophesying the three times is phenomena, and the [other] three speeches are principle. As for "Subhūti, the Dharma attained by the Tathāgata...": regarding why this passage appears, from the above down to here, there are three passages in all citing the Buddha's words to exhort faith: first, citing that the Tathāgata speaks of all lakṣaṇas as non-lakṣaṇas and speaks of all sentient beings as non-sentient-beings, which exhorts the bodhisattva to abandon the views of persons and dharmas and causes him to believe in the teaching of non-abiding. Next, citing the five speeches proves that the Buddha's words are not false, exhorting the bodhisattva to believe the teaching of non-abiding spoken by the Buddha. Now, the third cites the Dharma realized and attained by the Buddha, again exhorting faith in the teaching of non-abiding; because the Buddha personally relied on the teaching of non-abiding to realize and attain bodhi, the bodhisattva must believe in the doctrine of non-abiding. In the treatise text, there is an extra phrase: "the Dharma attained by the Tathāgata, the Dharma spoken by the Tathāgata." "The Dharma attained by the Tathāgata" has already been explained as above. As for "what the Tathāgata speaks is neither real nor false": above, he exhorted faith in words three times, but fearing that those of dull faculties would grasp at words and abide in them, he now explains that the Buddha's words are neither real nor false. Because the correct path is beyond words, if one grasps at words one loses the path, so words are not real; yet it is not that words do not express the path, so words are not false; the analogy of pointing to the moon is precisely this matter. This runs through the intention of his entire lifetime of teaching; how could it be confined to a single chapter of the sūtra? Below, from "Subhūti, just as a person entering darkness...", according to Bodhiruci's twelve sections, the preceding section on comparative evaluation is finished, and this is now the section on revealing the nature. I now critique this in three ways: First, the section on revealing the nature has no textual basis in the sūtra or treatise; therefore it is not used. Second, if one determines the section on revealing the nature by taking dāna to clarify gain and loss, the earlier explanation of cultivating the practice of patience should also be a section. Third, within the internal and external comparative evaluations, there are two comparisons in each; now, within the internal comparison, only one chapter is finished, and one comparative evaluation still remains; how could one combine and take the latter comparative evaluation as the section on revealing the nature?