金剛般若疏 4.6

4.6

「五眼」下，第五章經。文來有二：一者、近生，還從上四章生。前來四章竝不見菩薩，時會即疑：若如來云無所見者，則應無眼；若有眼，何故不見？故舉五眼答：今言不見者，非無眼故不見，五眼見宛然而無所見。如《淨名》阿那律章云「有佛世尊得真天眼，常見諸法不以二相。」《大品》復云「我五眼尚不見諸法，況凡夫無目而言得菩提耶？」二者、遠生，經初已來皆明無得無見，故有今文。又上破有見故云無見，今破無見故有見，未曾見不見也。五眼義別須釋，今且示數意。然五眼具得，約五人有五，謂：人有肉眼、天有天眼、二乘見四諦有慧眼、菩薩照三乘根性說三乘法有法眼、佛有佛眼。次約二人：因人四眼、果人一眼。因人四眼，如《仁王經》歎菩薩得四眼；五通果人一眼，即佛有佛眼也。次明一人具足五眼，即是佛。問：何故具足五眼？答：此是無差別差別用。舉障內境約佛智故名肉眼，舉障外境目佛智故名天眼，約二慧境名慧眼。《無量壽經》言「慧眼見真境，見真境名慧眼」。《大品．往生品》中云「慧眼無法不見」，又云「而無所見」。《大智論》言「具總相慧、別相慧名眼」，故知慧眼具二慧也。法眼可知，四眼不了，佛眼具了故名佛眼；亦見佛性故名佛眼也。「須菩提！恒河中有沙」者，此章為成五眼。依論師生起，明五眼既少而境多，何得以少眼知多境？境既多，眼亦應多，而今眼少何能盡知多境？為此疑故，今明眼雖少而能遍知一切境也。論既無文，今明亦復無妨也。但知前既辨五眼，今出所照之境也。問：前舉恒河、今明恒河，何異耶？答：前為成格量四句偈，故舉恒河；今為五眼所照境，故舉恒河也。問：境既多，何獨云知心？答：有二意：一者、廣略，前明能照之眼廣，故具明五眼；今辨所照之境略，故止言心也。二者、心無形觸最難知，今舉其難知尚知，易可明也。「如來說諸心」者，明如來見一切眾生心唯在顛倒中行也。「則為非心」，不在正觀中行也。「是名為心」者，結顛倒心也。三世心來者，釋成顛倒心義。何故名顛倒心耶？以三世求心不可得，而眾生見有心，此是無而謂有，故名顛倒也。「須菩提！滿三千世界七寶」者，文來為釋疑。上言佛知眾生心皆顛倒，則顛倒心所作布施等眾行皆是顛倒。若爾，應無佛因；既無佛因，應無佛果。故釋此疑，明無所得心布施等則是佛因，既有佛因則有佛果。問曰：何由有不顛倒？為從顛倒得不顛倒、為從不顛倒得不顛倒？二俱有過。若從顛倒生不顛倒，則倒為不倒因；若從不顛倒生不顛倒，則不顛倒便無因。答。《大品．三慧品》佛答此問，「不從有得生無得，不從無得生無得，得無得平等故是無所得」，即其事也。問：前已明三千世界七寶，與今何異？答：前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因也。「若福德有實」，此便釋疑。疑云：上亦三千七寶，今亦爾，何故是佛因耶？故釋云：若福德有實，此明有得福德。「以福德無故」，此明無得福德，故是佛因也。

From "the five eyes" onwards is the fifth chapter of the sūtra text. Its textual arrival has two aspects: first, proximate arising, which again arises from the four preceding chapters. In the four preceding chapters, none saw a bodhisattva, so the assembly at that time doubted: if the Tathāgata says that there is nothing seen, he should have no eyes; if he has eyes, why does he not see? Therefore, the five eyes are adduced in reply: now saying that he does not see does not mean he does not see because he lacks eyes; the five eyes see vividly, yet there is nothing seen. As the Chapter on Aniruddha in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra states: "There is a Buddha, the World-Honoured One, who has attained the true divine eye, constantly seeing all dharmas without dual marks." The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra also states: "Even with my five eyes I do not see dharmas, how much less could an ordinary person without eyes claim to attain bodhi?" Second, distal arising: from the beginning of the sūtra onward, it has consistently clarified non-apprehension and non-seeing, hence the present text. Furthermore, the earlier passage refuted the view of existence and thus spoke of non-seeing; the present passage refutes the view of non-existence and thus speaks of seeing, though there has never been seeing or non-seeing. The meaning of the five eyes must be explained separately; here, their numerical import is briefly indicated. The five eyes can be fully categorized according to five kinds of beings having five: humans have the physical eye; devas have the divine eye; the two vehicles, seeing the four truths, have the wisdom eye; bodhisattvas, illuminating the capacities of the three vehicles to preach the teachings of the three vehicles, have the dharma eye; and the Buddha has the Buddha eye. Next, in terms of two persons: the person in the causal stage has four eyes, and the person in the fruition stage has one eye. The causal person has four eyes, as praised in the Humane King Sūtra that bodhisattvas attain four eyes; the fruition person possessing the five superknowledges has one eye, namely the Buddha possessing the Buddha eye. Next, clarifying that one person completely possesses the five eyes: this is the Buddha. Question: Why are the five eyes fully possessed? Answer: This is the differentiated function of the non-differentiated. Adducing the realm within obstructions in reference to the Buddha's wisdom is called the physical eye; adducing the realm beyond obstructions to designate the Buddha's wisdom is called the divine eye; and in reference to the realm of the two wisdoms, it is called the wisdom eye. The Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra states: "The wisdom eye sees the true realm; seeing the true realm is called the wisdom eye." In the Chapter on Rebirth of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra it is said: "The wisdom eye does not leave any dharma unseen," and also: "yet there is nothing seen." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "Possessing wisdom of general marks and wisdom of specific marks is called an eye," so we know that the wisdom eye possesses the two wisdoms. The dharma eye can be understood; where the four eyes are incomplete, the Buddha eye completely understands, hence it is called the Buddha eye; also, seeing the Buddha-nature is called the Buddha eye. "Subhūti! If there were sands in the Ganges River": this chapter serves to establish the five eyes. According to the treatise master's account of its arising, it clarifies that since the five eyes are few and their objects are many, how could few eyes know many objects? Since the objects are many, the eyes should also be many, but how could few eyes completely know many objects? Because of this doubt, it now clarifies that although the eyes are few, they can completely know all objects. Though the treatise contains no such text, the present explanation presents no difficulty either. One need only know that having earlier distinguished the five eyes, it now presents the objects illuminated by them. Question: Earlier the Ganges River was adduced, and now the Ganges River is explained; what is the difference? Answer: Earlier it was adduced to establish the comparison of the four-line verse, while now the Ganges River is adduced as the object illuminated by the five eyes. Question: Since the objects are many, why does it uniquely speak of knowing minds? Answer: There are two meanings: first, extensive and concise: earlier, the illuminating eyes were explained extensively, fully describing the five eyes; now, the illuminated objects are distinguished concisely, stopping at the mention of mind. Second, mind is formless and intangible, being the most difficult to know; now, adducing what is difficult to know as being known, what is easy can be readily understood. "The Tathāgata speaks of all minds": this clarifies that the Tathāgata sees that the minds of all sentient beings operate solely within inverted views. "Are no minds": they do not operate in correct contemplation. "Are called minds": this concludes the inverted mind. The arrival of the minds of the three periods of time explains and establishes the meaning of the inverted mind. Why is it called an inverted mind? Because seeking the mind throughout the three periods of time is unobtainable, yet sentient beings see that there is a mind; this is regarding what is non-existent as existent, and is therefore called inverted. "Subhūti! If someone filled a three-thousandfold world system with the seven treasures": this text arrives to resolve doubt. Above it was said that the Buddha knows that the minds of sentient beings are all inverted; thus, the manifold practices such as dāna performed with an inverted mind are all inverted. If so, there should be no cause of Buddhahood; and having no cause of Buddhahood, there should be no fruit of Buddhahood. Therefore, resolving this doubt, it clarifies that dāna and so forth performed with a mind of non-apprehension are indeed the cause of Buddhahood, and having the cause of Buddhahood, there is the fruit of Buddhahood. Question: From what source does non-inversion arise? Does one attain non-inversion from inversion, or does one attain non-inversion from non-inversion? Both alternatives have faults. If non-inversion is produced from inversion, then inversion would be the cause of non-inversion; if non-inversion is produced from non-inversion, then non-inversion would lack a cause. Answer: In the Chapter on the Three Wisdoms of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the Buddha answered this question: "Non-apprehension is not produced from apprehension, nor is non-apprehension produced from non-apprehension; because apprehension and non-apprehension are equal, it is non-apprehension." This is precisely that case. Question: Earlier the seven treasures of the three-thousandfold world system were already explained; how does it differ from the present passage? Answer: The earlier seven treasures were for comparing the four-line verse, whereas the present seven treasures serve to establish the cause of Buddhahood. "If merit and virtue were real": this immediately resolves a doubt. The doubt asks: earlier there were also the seven treasures of the three-thousandfold world system, and now it is the same; why is it the cause of Buddhahood? Hence it is explained: if merit and virtue were real, this clarifies merit and virtue with apprehension. "Because merit and virtue are non-existent": this clarifies merit and virtue without apprehension, which is therefore the cause of Buddhahood.