金剛般若疏 4.5

4.5

「菩薩亦如是」下，此第四章經來者，論生起云「若上來明無發心菩薩、受記菩薩，又無諸佛得無上菩提；若因果皆不可得者，眾生亦不應入涅槃，亦無淨佛土事，菩薩何故欲成就眾生令入涅槃、修淨土行耶？此終是有所得心歷法生疑故。」歷法破未竟，故生此章。「菩薩亦如是」者，此是成就眾生菩薩、淨佛土菩薩也，亦如上發心受記菩薩不可得，故云亦如是也。是亦上求菩提法身有無不可得故，求菩薩有無亦不可得，故云亦如是也。此中三句經：一、破成就眾生菩薩；二、破淨佛土菩薩；三、結正菩薩之義。問：上已二處明滅度眾生，與今何異？答：經初且明滅度眾生，為答菩提心故來；次第二周初答泯菩提心故來，今為破成就眾生菩薩義故來也。問：上已明淨土，與今何異？答：上為成無取無說之義，今為明無淨土之菩薩，故異也。「若菩薩通達無我法」者，此第三句結正菩薩之名。此文意有近有遠。近者從第二周初已來，云無發菩提心菩薩、無受記菩薩，乃至今明無成就眾生、淨佛土菩薩。人聞生疑：若爾，應都無菩薩也。故釋云：由了悟無菩薩故始是菩薩耳，見有菩薩則非菩薩也。遠即貫於一經，此經始終皆明無菩薩破我人之見。若能了悟無菩薩，方是菩薩；見有菩薩，見有則是凡夫我見，非菩薩也。問：了悟無菩薩者，此是知無有我；二乘亦悟無我，何故不名菩薩？答：論云「悟二種無我，故名菩薩。聲聞但悟人無我，故不名菩薩也。」又菩薩知我無我不二，故名菩薩；二乘見我無我異，是二見之人，非菩薩也。

From "A bodhisattva is also like this" onwards is the arrival of the fourth chapter of the sūtra text. The treatise introduces its arising by stating: "If the preceding passages have explained that there are no bodhisattvas who generate the mind and no bodhisattvas who receive prophecy, and furthermore that there are no Buddhas who attain unexcelled bodhi; and if both cause and effect are unobtainable, then sentient beings should also not enter nirvāṇa, nor should there be the matter of purifying Buddha-lands. Why, then, would a bodhisattva wish to bring sentient beings to completion to cause them to enter nirvāṇa, and cultivate the practices of the pure land? This, in the end, is because a mind with apprehension generates doubts across dharmas." Because the refutation of dharmas has not yet ended, this chapter arises. "A bodhisattva is also like this": this refers to the bodhisattva who brings sentient beings to completion and the bodhisattva who purifies Buddha-lands; just as the bodhisattvas who generate the mind and receive prophecy described above are unobtainable, so it says "is also like this". Furthermore, because seeking the existence or non-existence of bodhi and the dharmakāya above was unobtainable, seeking the existence or non-existence of a bodhisattva is also unobtainable, which is why it says "is also like this". Within this there are three sūtra phrases: first, refuting the bodhisattva who brings sentient beings to completion; second, refuting the bodhisattva who purifies Buddha-lands; third, concluding with the correct meaning of a bodhisattva. Question: The extinction and deliverance of sentient beings was already explained in two places above; how does it differ from the present passage? Answer: At the beginning of the sūtra, the extinction and deliverance of sentient beings was first explained to answer regarding bodhi-mind; next, at the beginning of the second cycle, it was presented to eliminate the bodhi-mind; now, it is presented to refute the notion of a bodhisattva who brings sentient beings to completion. Question: Pure lands were already explained above; how does it differ from the present passage? Answer: The earlier passage was to establish the meaning of non-grasping and non-preaching; the present passage is to clarify that there is no bodhisattva of a pure land, hence they differ. "If a bodhisattva thoroughly penetrates the dharma of non-self": this third phrase concludes with the correct designation of a bodhisattva. The import of this text has both a proximate and a distal meaning. The proximate meaning is that from the beginning of the second cycle onwards, it has been said that there are no bodhisattvas who generate bodhicitta, no bodhisattvas who receive prophecy, up to the present explanation that there are no bodhisattvas who bring sentient beings to completion or purify Buddha-lands. Hearing this, people develop doubts: if so, there should be no bodhisattvas at all. Therefore, it is explained: it is precisely by realizing that there is no bodhisattva that one is truly a bodhisattva; seeing that there is a bodhisattva means one is not a bodhisattva. The distal meaning runs through the entire sūtra: from beginning to end, this sūtra consistently clarifies that there is no bodhisattva in order to shatter the views of self and person. If one can realize that there is no bodhisattva, only then is one a bodhisattva; if one sees that there is a bodhisattva, seeing that there is one is simply the ordinary person's view of self, not a bodhisattva. Question: As for realizing that there is no bodhisattva, this is knowing that there is no self; the two vehicles also realize non-self, so why are they not called bodhisattvas? Answer: The treatise states: "One who realizes the twofold non-self is called a bodhisattva. Śrāvakas only realize the non-self of persons, and therefore are not called bodhisattvas." Furthermore, a bodhisattva knows that self and non-self are non-dual, and is therefore called a bodhisattva; the two vehicles see self and non-self as distinct, being persons of dualistic views, and are not bodhisattvas.