金剛般若疏 4.2.5

4.2.5

小乘之人所以不能聽受者，以是有所得故不信無得。 又此經明如來法身常住，小乘人謂佛無常、畢竟滅，故不信。 故《大智論》云「五百歲五百部聞大乘法說畢竟空，如刀傷心。 」叡法師《喻疑論》云「外國三十六國皆小乘學，不信大乘。 」問：小乘亦明空，大乘亦明空，小乘人何意不信大耶？ 答：《大論》云「空有二種：一者、但空； 二者、不但空。 小乘唯得但空，不得不但空。 」此經明不但空，故不信空也。 又小乘人但得生空，不得法空。 《大智論》云「佛滅後分為二分：一、信眾生空，不信法空； 二、俱信二空。 」今此經具明二空，故小乘人不信也。 外道著我見不信，則易知也。 「須菩提在在處處」下，第三、重歎法。 問：此歎法與初何異？ 答：初直歎經法，今歎法所在之處，故異也。 問：上已歎經在處則處貴，猶如塔廟竟，今何故復歎如塔耶？ 答：前略歎，今廣歎。 前直云如塔廟，故是略； 今云種種供養，故是廣。 前略歎人，今廣歎人； 前略歎處，今廣歎處也。 又前歎經所在處則處貴也； 今歎非但經所在處處貴，即持此經人行住坐臥之處皆如塔廟，皆應恭敬供養。 如《法華》云「持法華經人所在方面，皆應為作禮」也。 論意作此釋，勿不信也。 「復次，須菩提！ 若善男子、善女人受持此經，若為人輕賤」下，此是第四重歎人。 問：今歎人與前何異？ 答：上就得門歎，今就離門歎。 何以知之？ 前文云持經得無邊功德； 今言持經離於惡道，此即是金剛能摧諸患難。 次意釋疑故來，自上以來竝明持經之人無邊功德； 今那見持經之人有諸障礙，所謂疾病、遭官橫、得打罵不如意事耶？ 為釋此疑，故明此人先世罪業應墮八難，以持經力故現世輕受也。 「我念過去」下，第三、舉釋迦往因格量。 前內外兩施具舉現世也； 今明往因，此就過去世格量現在世。 前就所化功德格量，今就能化功德格量，如此格量方盡格量之極也。 問：何意舉能化所化功德格量皆不及持經耶？ 答：此終是有所得功德，不及持經。 問：何以得知皆是舉有所得功德格量耶？ 答：經論皆有證，論釋初三千施云「二能趣菩提，福不趣菩提」。 所言二者，即是自能受持、復為他說，此二能趣菩提也。 施福是有漏，有所得不能趣菩提也。 經證者，此取然燈佛前，爾前是有所得，故未得無生，故知取有所得施也。 又一意所以舉釋迦往因格量者，三門明功德，上來已格量兩門功德竟，未格量自受持讀誦功德； 今歎格自受持讀誦功德，故有此文也。 問：格自受持讀誦，何故功德轉重耶？ 答：自受持讀誦其福尚重，具自行化他豈可稱量耶？ 此是顯功德之重，故格自行。 講誦者須細看經，不爾不覺也。 問：三門明功德格量三門何異耶？ 答云：自行化他門，則功德即格量，從三千至恒沙身命是也。 自信門、自受持門，此二門前明功德後格量，故文有開合之異也。 問：三門明功德何異耶？ 答：即是三品。 但生信心為下品，受持讀誦不為他說為中品，次受持復為他說為上品。 又前是自行，後一具自他也。

The reason persons of the Hģnayāna are unable to listen to and accept [this sţtra] is that, because they have apprehension, they do not believe in non-apprehension. Furthermore, this sţtra clarifies that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is permanently abiding; persons of the Hģnayāna claim that the Buddha is impermanent and ultimately extinguished, and therefore they do not believe. Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeőa says: "In the five hundred years, when the five hundred sects heard the Mahāyāna teachings explaining ultimate emptiness, it was like a knife wounding their hearts." Master Sengrui's Yu yi lun states: "In foreign countries, all thirty-six states study the Hģnayāna and do not believe in the Mahāyāna." Question: The Hģnayāna also clarifies emptiness, and the Mahāyāna also clarifies emptiness; why do persons of the Hģnayāna not believe in the Mahāyāna? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeőa states: "There are two kinds of emptiness: first, mere emptiness; second, not-mere emptiness. The Hģnayāna only attains mere emptiness and does not attain not-mere emptiness." Since this sţtra clarifies not-mere emptiness, they do not believe in [this] emptiness. Furthermore, persons of the Hģnayāna only attain the emptiness of sentient beings and do not attain the emptiness of dharmas. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeőa states: "After the Buddha's extinction, they divided into two groups: first, those who believe in the emptiness of sentient beings but do not believe in the emptiness of dharmas; second, those who believe in both emptinesses together." Now this sţtra fully clarifies the twofold emptiness, so persons of the Hģnayāna do not believe it. That non-Buddhists cling to the view of self and do not believe is easily understood. Next, from "Subhţti, wherever this sţtra is" onwards, is the third part: reiterating praise of the Dharma. Question: How is this praise of the Dharma different from the initial one? Answer: The initial one directly praised the sţtra's Dharma, while this one praises the place where the Dharma resides; hence they are different. Question: Above, it already praised that wherever the sţtra resides, that place is precious, just like a stţpa or shrine; why now praise it again as being like a stţpa? Answer: The former was a brief praise, while this is an extensive praise. The former directly said "like a stţpa or shrine", so it was brief; now it says "various kinds of offerings", so it is extensive. The former briefly praised the person, while now it extensively praises the person; the former briefly praised the place, while now it extensively praises the place. Furthermore, the former praised that wherever the sţtra resides, the place is precious; now it praises that not only is the place where the sţtra resides precious, but the places where a person who upholds this sţtra walks, stands, sits, or lies down are all like stţpas and shrines, and all should be revered and made offerings to. As the Lotus Sţtra says: "In whichever direction the person who upholds the Lotus Sţtra resides, all should pay homage to them." The commentary's intention makes this explanation; do not disbelieve it. Next, from "Furthermore, Subhţti, if a good man or good woman upholds this sţtra and is despised by others" onwards, is the fourth part: reiterating praise of the person. Question: How is this praise of the person different from the former? Answer: Above, the praise was in terms of the gateway of attainment; now, it is in terms of the gateway of liberation. How is this known? The previous text said that upholding the sţtra attains boundless merit; now it says that upholding the sţtra brings liberation from evil destinies—this is precisely the vajra's ability to destroy all adversities and hardships. The next intention for its occurrence is to resolve doubts: from above onwards, it has consistently clarified the boundless merit of a person who upholds the sţtra; why then do we see persons who uphold the sţtra having various hindrances, namely illness, suffering official misfortune, and meeting with being beaten, reviled, and other unpleasant matters? In order to resolve this doubt, it clarifies that this person's sinful karma from past lives should have caused them to fall into the eight difficulties, but due to the power of upholding the sţtra, they experience it lightly in the present life. Next, from "I recall in the past" onwards, is the third part: citing Śākyamuni's past causes to make a comparative evaluation. The previous internal and external givings both cited the present life; now it clarifies past causes, evaluating the present life in terms of past lives. Previously it evaluated in terms of the merit of those who are transformed; now it evaluates in terms of the merit of the one who transforms—only evaluating like this reaches the utmost limit of comparative evaluation. Question: Why is it that the merits of both the transformer and the transformed are cited in comparative evaluation, yet neither equals upholding the sţtra? Answer: These are ultimately merits with apprehension, and do not equal upholding the sţtra. Question: How is it known that these are all comparative evaluations of merits with apprehension? Answer: Both the sţtra and treatise have proof. The treatise's explanation of the initial giving of three thousand worlds states: "Two are able to approach bodhi; merit does not approach bodhi." The "two" referred to are being able oneself to uphold it and also explaining it for others; these two can approach bodhi. The merit of giving has outflows; having apprehension, it cannot approach bodhi. As for proof from the sţtra, this takes [the time] before Dīpaṃkara Buddha: before that was with apprehension, so he had not yet attained non-arising; hence we know it takes giving with apprehension. Moreover, another intention for citing Śākyamuni's past causes to make a comparative evaluation is that merit is clarified through three gateways: above, it has already finished evaluating the merits of two gateways, but had not yet evaluated the merit of personally upholding, reading, and reciting; now, to praise and evaluate the merit of personally upholding, reading, and reciting, this passage appears. Question: In evaluating personal upholding, reading, and reciting, why does the merit become increasingly weighty? Answer: The blessing of personally upholding, reading, and reciting is already so weighty; how much more so when possessing both one's own practice and transforming others—how could it be measured? This is to reveal the weightiness of the merit, so it evaluates one's own practice. Lecturers and reciters must examine the sţtra closely; otherwise they will not realize this. Question: In clarifying merit through three gateways, how do the three gateways of comparative evaluation differ? It is answered: In the gateway of one's own practice and transforming others, the merit is itself the comparative evaluation—from the three thousand worlds to physical bodies and lives numerous as the sands of the Ganges, this is it. In the gateway of one's own faith and the gateway of one's own upholding, these two gateways first clarify the merit and afterwards make the comparative evaluation; hence the texts differ in being separate or combined. Question: How do the merits clarified through the three gateways differ? Answer: They are precisely the three grades. Merely generating faithful resolve is the lower grade; upholding, reading, and reciting without explaining for others is the middling grade; next, upholding and also explaining for others is the upper grade. Furthermore, the former two are one's own practice, while the latter one possesses both self and other.