金剛般若疏 4.2.4

4.2.4

今明二意故有此文來：一者、近生上來至此，凡有三處勸修不住、捨於住義，未知住有何失、不住有何得，勸修不住捨於住耶？ 故今最後釋其得失。 心有所得則如外無光明、內有黑暗，故不見正道； 心無所住，如外有光明、內有眼目，能見正道。 為此得失，故有上來三勸也。 依無住之教，如外有光明，得無所住觀解，如內有眼目，如此之人見正道也。 有住之失，反此可知也。 依論生起云「真如一切處，一切時常有」，何故眾生有得如、有不得如耶？ 論師云：真如即是佛性，一切凡聖眾生皆有佛性，何故聖見、凡不見耶？ 即用經文釋之。 如雖常有一色，若外有光明，內有眼目則見，無此內外則不見也。 雖常有真如佛性，心無所住則見，有所住則不見也。 顯性之言，事在斯也。 今明作此意，亦於義無失。 《大智論》云「或名如，或名實相、法性、涅槃。 」但約眾生悟迷，故有得不得； 至論佛性、涅槃，未曾得失隱顯也。 問：依論乃明見如不見如，似無次第，便是孤生此文。 答：此文即接前布施得失生，故有住布施則不見如，無住布施則便見如，故非無次第也。 但講論者不見其近，便謂孤生為顯性分耳。 講經師雖見其近文兩施之得失，不得見其因施得失，遠明皆有佛性，為有方便、無方便，故有見不見異也。 若取近遠兩義，則經論皆成也。 「須菩提！ 若當來世」下，有此一章來者，還成上捨失從得之義也。 菩薩若捨失從得者，要須受持讀誦般若故也。 問：信受門已明若生一念淨信，則為佛智見、得無量功德竟，今何故重說為佛智見、得無量功德耶？ 答：此般若經有三門明功德：一、自信門； 二、自受持讀誦，復為他說門； 三、但自受持讀誦門也。 初明一念信為佛智見、得無量功德，是自信門明功德也。 從三千七寶施至恒沙身命施，此明自行化他門明功德也。 今此章明受持讀誦自行門功德，故非重說也。 此三門攝一切般若經明功德也。 「初日分」下，第二、三時捨身格量功德也，為二：初、明格量； 第二、稱歎勸修。 格量中為二：初、正舉捨身； 第二、格量也。 異上捨身者，有二義：一者、施多，謂日三時捨身，此日初分、日中分、日後分，非是三日為三分也。 二者、時節久，謂無量千萬億劫常行捨身事也。 次格量般若，直明信心不逆其福已勝，況自受持讀誦、為他說耶？ 此則格量轉高、般若之福轉重也。 又此文所以來者，上信受門中直明信心為佛知見、得無量功德，猶未格量信心功德少多； 今欲格量信心功德少多，故有此文來也。 問：何故須格量信心功德耶？ 答：既三門明功德，則三門明格量。 上已三處格量自行化他功德門竟，謂三千布施、恒沙布施、捨身布施皆自行化他門，猶未格量信心門，故今明之也。 問：何故格量自信門功德多上自行化他功德耶？ 答：格量自信門功德尚多，自行化他則不可量，故今文云「信心不逆，其福勝彼，何況受持讀誦為他說」耶？ 故此文來有其深旨，欲講誦者當依此意也。 「須菩提！ 以要言之」下，第二、稱歎勸修。 開文為四：第一、歎法； 第二、歎人； 第三、重歎法； 第四、重歎人。 今初歎法。 前格量竟，既稱歎； 今格量竟，亦稱歎也。 「如來為發大乘者說」下，第二、歎人。 問：大乘與最上乘何異？ 答：通論不異，此種種歎耳。 別者，大包含廣博義最上高絕取，超出二乘義，廣博等即是得義，出二乘即是離義。 又大是其始義，據淺行之人，最上是其終義，據深行人也。 「如來悉知是人」者，問：前已二處明知見竟，今復明者，有何異耶？ 解云：初知見自信功德，次知見自受持讀誦功德，今知見受持復為人說得功德，故三知見異也。 「若樂小法者」，此明舉失顯得，歎此中舉二人。 「樂小法者」，此是小乘。 「著我見」者，此是外道。 此二人不能聽受。

Now it is explained that this text comes forward due to two intentions: First, proximate: from above up to this point, there are altogether three places exhorting the cultivation of non-abiding and the abandoning of the meaning of abiding; not knowing what fault abiding has and what gain non-abiding has, why are we exhorted to cultivate non-abiding and abandon abiding? Therefore, here at the end, their gains and faults are explained. If the mind has apprehension, it is like having no light outside and having darkness inside, and thus one does not see the correct path; if the mind has nothing upon which it abides, it is like having light outside and having eyes inside, being able to see the correct path. Because of these gains and faults, there are the three exhortations above. Relying on the teaching of non-abiding is like having light outside; attaining the contemplative understanding of having nothing upon which to abide is like having eyes inside; such a person sees the correct path. The fault of having an abiding can be understood by reversing this. According to the treatise's origination, it says: "Tathatā is in all places and at all times constantly present"; why is it that sentient beings sometimes attain tathatā and sometimes do not attain tathatā? The treatise master says: "Tathatā is precisely buddha-nature; all sentient beings, ordinary and noble, possess buddha-nature; why do the noble see it while the ordinary do not see it?" It is then explained using the sūtra text. Although a form is constantly present, if there is light outside and eyes inside, it is seen; without these inside and outside, it is not seen. Although there is constantly tathatā and buddha-nature, if the mind has nothing upon which it abides, it is seen; if it has an abiding, it is not seen. The words revealing the nature find their substance in this. Now it is explained that taking this meaning also does not err regarding the doctrine. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "It is called either tathatā, or dharmatā, dharmadhātu, or nirvāṇa." It is only with reference to sentient beings' awakening and delusion that there are attainment and non-attainment; coming to the ultimate discourse on buddha-nature and nirvāṇa, there has never been any gain or loss, concealment or manifestation. Question: The treatise specifically explains seeing tathatā and not seeing tathatā, which seems to lack sequence, making this text arise in isolation. Answer: This text directly follows from the preceding gains and faults of dāna; therefore, dāna with abiding does not see tathatā, while dāna without abiding directly sees tathatā, so it does not lack sequence. It is only that commentators on the treatise do not see its proximate [connection], and thus say it arises in isolation as the section revealing the nature. Although sūtra lecturers see the gains and faults of the two dānas in the proximate text, they fail to see that from the gains and faults of dāna, it distantly clarifies that all possess buddha-nature, and that because of having upāya or lacking upāya, there is the difference of seeing or not seeing. If one takes both the proximate and distant meanings, then both sūtra and treatise are fulfilled. From "Subhūti! If in future times" onward: that this single section comes forward also fulfills the preceding meaning of abandoning the fault and following the gain. If a bodhisattva abandons the fault and follows the gain, they must accept, uphold, read, and recite prajñā. Question: In the section on faith and acceptance, it has already been explained that if one produces a single thought of pure faith, one is known and seen by the Buddha's wisdom and attains immeasurable merit; why is it now restated that one is known and seen by the Buddha's wisdom and attains immeasurable merit? Answer: In this Prajñā Sūtra, there are three gateways explaining merit: first, the gateway of one's own faith; second, the gateway of oneself accepting, upholding, reading, and reciting, and again explaining it for others; third, the gateway of solely oneself accepting, upholding, reading, and reciting. The initial explanation that a single thought of faith is known and seen by the Buddha's wisdom and attains immeasurable merit is the merit explained in the gateway of one's own faith. From the dāna of the three thousand [worlds' worth of] seven treasures up to the dāna of one's body and life [countless as] the sands of the Gaṅgā, this is the merit explained in the gateway of one's own practice and transforming others. Now, this section explains the merit of the gateway of one's own practice in accepting, upholding, reading, and reciting; therefore, it is not a restatement. These three gateways encompass all the explanations of merit in the Prajñā Sūtra. From "the initial part of the day" onward, is secondly the comparative assessment of the merit of relinquishing the body at the three times, which has two parts: first, explaining the comparative assessment; second, praising and exhorting cultivation. Within the comparative assessment there are two parts: first, directly adducing the relinquishing of the body; second, the comparative assessment. As for differing from the earlier relinquishing of the body, there are two meanings: first, the generosity is great, meaning relinquishing the body three times a day, which refers to the initial part of the day, the middle part of the day, and the latter part of the day, not taking three days as three parts. Second, the duration of time is long, meaning constantly practicing the matter of relinquishing the body for immeasurable thousands of myriads of koṭis of kalpas. Next, comparatively assessing prajñā, it directly explains that if one has faithful mind without opposition, one's blessing already surpasses that, so how much more so if one personally accepts, upholds, reads, recites, and explains it for others? This means the comparative assessment turns even higher and the blessing of prajñā becomes even weightier. Moreover, the reason this text comes forward is that in the preceding section on faith and acceptance, it only directly explained that faithful mind is known and seen by the Buddha and attains immeasurable merit, but had not yet comparatively assessed whether the merit of faithful mind is little or much; now, wishing to comparatively assess whether the merit of faithful mind is little or much, this text comes forward. Question: Why is it necessary to comparatively assess the merit of faithful mind? Answer: Since there are three gateways explaining merit, there are three gateways explaining comparative assessment. Above, the gateway of merit for one's own practice and transforming others has already been comparatively assessed in three places—namely, the three-thousand dāna, the Gaṅgā-sands dāna, and the relinquishing-body dāna, which are all the gateway of one's own practice and transforming others—but the gateway of faithful mind had not yet been comparatively assessed; therefore, it is now explained. Question: Why does the comparative assessment of the merit of the gateway of one's own faith surpass the aforementioned practice of one's own practice and transforming others? Answer: Since the merit of the gateway of one's own faith in the comparative assessment is already so great, that of one's own practice and transforming others is immeasurable; therefore, the present text says: "If with a faithful mind one does not oppose it, their blessing surpasses that; how much more so accepting, upholding, reading, reciting, and explaining it for others?" Thus, this text comes forward with a profound purport; those who wish to lecture and recite it should rely on this intention. From "Subhūti! In brief" onward is secondly praising and exhorting cultivation. The text is divided into four: first, praising the Dharma; second, praising the person; third, repeatedly praising the Dharma; fourth, repeatedly praising the person. Now, the first is praising the Dharma. After the previous comparative assessment was completed, there was praise; now that this comparative assessment is completed, there is also praise. From "The Tathāgata speaks this for those who set out in the Great Vehicle" onward is secondly praising the person. Question: What is the difference between the Great Vehicle and the Supreme Vehicle? Answer: Speaking generally, they are not different; these are various praises. Distinguishing them: "great" contains the meaning of broad and vast; "supreme" is taken in the sense of lofty and peerless, surpassing the two vehicles; "broad and vast" and so forth are precisely the meaning of attainment; surpassing the two vehicles is the meaning of departure. Furthermore, "great" is the meaning of its beginning, based on people of shallow practice; "supreme" is the meaning of its end, based on people of deep practice. As for "the Tathāgata fully knows these people": Question: Since knowing and seeing have already been explained above in two places, now that it is explained again, what is the difference? The explanation says: first was knowing and seeing the merit of one's own faith; next was knowing and seeing the merit of oneself accepting, upholding, reading, and reciting; now it is knowing and seeing the merit attained by accepting, upholding, and again explaining it for others; therefore, the three knowings and seeings are different. "If there are those who take delight in lesser dharmas": this explains adducing faults to reveal gains; in praising, two types of persons are adduced here. "Those who take delight in lesser dharmas" are the Hīnayāna. "Those attached to the view of self" are the non-Buddhists. These two persons are unable to listen and receive.