金剛般若疏 1.18

1.18

Ninth, explaining the sections. The text of this sūtra is concise and its principle profound; those who explain it rarely grasp its meaning, causing the sectional divisions to become as turbulent as smoke and dust, which has ultimately obscured the sun and moon of prajñā so that it does not shine brightly. Now I shall roughly list the various masters' views to show their strengths and weaknesses. In general, when the Great Sage produced the teachings in accordance with conditions, his intention was to use the trap [of words] to bring realization of reality; the essential meaning does not lie in the letters, and one hopes that those who grasp the meaning will take up its essential source and return to that to which it points. In the tradition transmitted in the northern lands, the Tripiṭaka [master] Bodhiruci fully divided the sūtra into twelve sections for explanation: first, the Introductory Section; second, the Section on Mindful Protection and Entrustment; third, the Section on Abiding; fourth, the Section on Cultivation; fifth, the Section on the Dharmakāya Not Being Conditioned; sixth, the Section on the Faithful; seventh, the Section on Comparative Evaluation; eighth, the Section on Revealing the Nature; ninth, the Section on Benefits; tenth, the Section on Severing Doubts; eleventh, the Section on the Path of Non-abiding; twelfth, the Section on Dissemination. When the Great Sage expounds the Dharma, there must be a cause and occasion, hence there is the Introductory Section. As he is about to expound the great Dharma, it must be for the sake of the bodhisattvas; those who have already awakened require empowerment, and those who have not yet awakened are entrusted to those who have already awakened; hence second there is Mindful Protection and Entrustment. Having provided mindful protection and entrustment, he causes them to abide in prajñā; hence third there is the Section on Abiding. Although they have attained stability, they must further advance in cultivating all practices; hence fourth there is next the Section on Cultivation. Because they cultivate the cause of non-attainment, they attain the unconditioned fruit; hence next is clarified the Section on the Dharmakāya Not Being Conditioned. In expounding this cause and fruit, there must be people who have faith and receive it; hence next must be clarified the Section on the Faithful. In faithfully upholding it, the merit is boundless; hence the Section on Comparative Evaluation must be clarified. The reason why the merit of the person who upholds and expounds it is boundless must be due to the Buddha-nature; if one does not recognize the Buddha-nature, there is no such merit; hence there is the Section on Revealing the Nature. Because the merit cultivated in reliance on the Buddha-nature has inexhaustible benefits, the Section on Benefits must be clarified. In the preceding single round of expounding the Dharma, those of sharp faculties have already awakened, but those of middling and lower faculties have not yet understood and give rise to doubts anew; hence tenth there is the Section on Severing Doubts. Once the doubting mind is eliminated, there is nowhere to rely or abide; hence eleventh there is the Section on the Path of Non-abiding. This great Dharma does not merely benefit the present, but also benefits the future; hence twelfth there is the Section on Dissemination. Although there are twelve sections, they do not go beyond cause and fruit; summarizing from beginning to end, there are altogether four cycles: from Mindful Protection and Entrustment to the Section on Cultivation, this clarifies the cause; the Section on the Dharmakāya Not Being Conditioned, this discerns the fruit—this is one cycle clarifying cause and fruit. Next, from the Section on the Faithful to Comparative Evaluation, this constitutes the cause, which evokes the fruit of revealing the nature—this is the next cycle clarifying cause and fruit. Having clarified the Buddha-nature, cultivation in reliance on the nature is the meaning of cause, and because there is a cause one attains the fruit, which is the Section on Benefits—this is the third cycle clarifying cause and fruit. Severing doubts is the cause, and the path of non-abiding is the fruit—this is the fourth cycle clarifying cause and fruit. However, this explanation was widely popular in the northern lands and handed down generation after generation over many years, and among students none failed to accept it in faith. I have scrutinized and contemplated it for many years, and in my view it is not so. Let me now ask: do these twelve sections come from the text of the Prajñā Sūtra, or are they from Vasubandhu's treatise? What we see now in the sūtra and treatise contains no such intention whatsoever; it is merely the contrived speculation of human contrivance. The muddled entanglement of primeval chaos is truly afflicted by this. Question: What fault is there in making these divisions that you reject it? Answer: Its impediments are exceedingly many, beyond recording in full. Now I shall briefly state several faults to show its valid and invalid points. First, in making these divisions, one fails to recognize the general and specific parts of the sūtra. Why so? The Introductory Section serves as the general preface to the entire sūtra, whereas the ten sections such as Mindful Protection and Entrustment are specific divisions within the main teaching. How can one take the general text of a sūtra as parallel to the specific divisions of the main teaching? This is a great error. Furthermore, you say: from the jewels of the great thousandfold world to relinquishing bodily life equal to the sands of the Ganges, this is called the Section on Comparative Evaluation. This stems from failing to recognize the beginning and end of the sūtra, hence this error arises. Why is this? The comparative evaluation here generally adduces two kinds of giving: external and internal. External giving includes that of the three thousand[fold world] and the sands of the Ganges. Internal giving also has two kinds: first, directly giving by relinquishing bodies equal to the sands of the Ganges; second, next adducing the giving of relinquishing bodies equal to the sands of the Ganges at three times of the day. Only here does it reach the utmost of comparative evaluation. Why do you take only the former three kinds as the Section on Comparative Evaluation, and not take relinquishing the body at the three times of the day as the Section on Comparative Evaluation? This is why it is an error. Furthermore, the treatise states: 'From the Section on the Dharmakāya Not Being Conditioned onward, all of it severs doubts.' Why do you take solely from Subhūti's asking again onward as the Section on Severing Doubts? Furthermore, this sūtra has an exposition of two cycles; both the sūtra and the treatise make this determination. Why do you take the exposition of the earlier cycle to divide into many sections, and take the exposition of the later cycle to collapse into a single section? Suppressing the large to make it small is an extreme defect. Moreover, Dissemination is truly a major section, yet to make it follow the pattern of a minor division is likewise unacceptable. The fragmented divisions of phrases and lines therein, extending to disparate terms and headings, defile both sūtra and treatise; when we arrive at the text, I shall demonstrate this in full. Another person says: since dividing it into twelve sections is difficult to understand, one should take what is easily seen and cut it into six chapters. The six chapters are: 1. Introductory Section; 2. Section on Mindful Protection and Entrustment; 3. Section on Abiding; 4. Section on Cultivation; 5. Section on Severing Doubts; 6. Section on Dissemination. This division is merely from an inferior student; the faults remain the same as before, and the defects are even worse. Why is this? If one says that the latter part is collectively the Section on Severing Doubts and does not divide it further within severing doubts, then following the earlier part which is also collectively not severing doubts, within what is not severing doubts one should likewise not make divisions. Within what is not severing doubts there are various meanings, and since one divides it into many sections, for what reason within severing doubts does one take it as [only one] section? If that were so, traveling the road to beg for food should be a single section. If traveling the road to beg for food belongs to the introductory section and is not divided, then mindful protection and entrustment, belonging to the main teaching, should likewise not be divided. Moreover, neither the former explanation nor the latter interpretation understands the overall structure of the treatise text. Why is this? The author of the treatise simply explained its difficult passages and omitted its easy phrases; how could later people, seeing the treatise's explanations, immediately take them as sectional divisions? Another person, in commenting on the Diamond Prajñā, established three gates: from 'Thus have I heard' to 'we wish and desire to hear' is the Gate of Causes and Conditions, meaning that possessing these causes and conditions allows prajñā to be expounded. From the Buddha telling him, 'One should thus subdue...' to 'seeing all marks as non-marks' clarifies the Gate of the Essence of Prajñā. From [Subhūti] addressing the Buddha, 'Could there be sentient beings...' downward clarifies the Gate of Merits. However, this interpretation also does not exhaust the meaning. To which gate would Dissemination belong? Furthermore, to which gate would the repetition in the later cycle belong? Someone says: it is divided into three sections: first, the Introductory Exposition; second, the Main Exposition; third, the Dissemination Exposition. When the Great Sage expounds the Dharma, there must be an origin and progression, hence there is the Introductory Exposition; the Introductory Exposition being concluded, the main principle should be opened, hence there is the Main Exposition; not only does it directly benefit the present time, but it also reaches far to future generations, hence there is the Dissemination Exposition. I now consider that dividing the sūtra into three expositions presents no hindrance in principle, but the likes of Kaishan do not understand the beginning and end of the three expositions, which is again an error. Why is this? When it comes to the introductory text, taking Subhūti's question as the preface of praise and request, and the Tathāgata's answer as the beginning of the main sūtra, this is mistaken. In all sūtras, whether question or answer, both are entirely the main teaching; how can one take the question as introduction and the answer as the main teaching? In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the assembly presenting offerings is the introduction, and Cunda's request and questioning are taken as the main teaching; in this sūtra, traveling the road to beg for food is taken as the introduction, and Subhūti raising the question should immediately be the main teaching. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā is likewise: the Tathāgata's extensive manifestation of supernatural transformations is taken as the introduction, and addressing Śāriputra is taken as the main teaching. This matter is easy to understand and should not be confused. Furthermore, the three expositions are not fixed: although it is an introductory exposition, it does not prevent there being main teaching; although it is a main exposition, it does not prevent there being introduction; dissemination is likewise. Why? Because it introduces the main teaching, it is called introduction; because it is the main teaching relative to the introduction, it is called the main teaching. If awakening to the Path occurs in the main exposition, it can be the main teaching; if awakening to the Path occurs in the introductory exposition, it can also be the main teaching. Here, we merely speak provisionally from one perspective, hence dividing it into three differently. Within these three, each is divided into two sections. The introduction has two: first, the general introduction; second, the specific introduction. The main text has two: the first cycle, extensive exposition; the second cycle, brief exposition. Dissemination has two: first, setting forth that the Buddha has concluded expounding the sūtra; second, clarifying that the assembly rejoiced and practiced accordingly. In the two sections of the introduction, there are four pairs in all: first, general and specific. 'General' has the meaning of commonality: the six items across all sūtras are completely identical, hence it is called the general introduction. 'Specific' has the meaning of difference: across all sūtras they are each different, whether parents sending a letter, an elder offering a parasol, the gods raining four kinds of flowers, or traveling the road to beg for food; hence it is called the specific introduction. Next is the pair of the Introduction of Attestation of Faith and the Initiating Introduction: establishing these six items causes people to generate faith, hence it is called the Introduction of Attestation of Faith. Traveling the road to beg for food initiates the main sūtra, hence it is called the Initiating Introduction. Next is the pair of the Testamentary Teaching Introduction and the Present Introduction: clarifying that when the Tathāgata was about to enter nirvāṇa, Ānanda's mind was submerged in an ocean of grief and could not comfort himself. Aniruddha said: 'You are the keeper of the Buddha's treasury of Dharma; what ought to be asked must be asked in time.' Thereupon Ānanda posed four questions, the last of which was: 'What words should be placed at the beginning of all sūtras?' The Buddha said: 'At the beginning of all sūtras, one should place: "Thus have I heard..."' His testamentary words instructed that these six items be established, hence it is called the Testamentary Teaching Introduction. At the time of currently expounding the sūtra, there were events such as begging for food, hence it is called the Present Introduction. Next is the pair of the Pre-Sūtra Introduction and the Post-Sūtra Introduction: only after the expounding of the sūtra was concluded were there such six items, hence it is called the Post-Sūtra Introduction. Prior to expounding the sūtra, there was the matter of begging for food, hence it is called the Pre-Sūtra Introduction. Question: For what reason did the Buddha order that the six items be placed at the beginning of all sūtras? Answer: To attest faith. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Expounding the time, place, and persons causes people to give rise to faith.' Furthermore, all non-Buddhists string auspicious formulas at the beginning of their treatises; hence the Śataśāstra states: 'When various teachers compose scriptures and tablets, at the beginning all speak of the auspicious.' Now, wishing to distinguish from non-Buddhists, [sūtras] are strung with the six items. Question: If establishing the six items distinguishes from non-Buddhists, but non-Buddhists also claim to establish these six items, how does one distinguish them? Answer: Clarifying that these are the six items of prajñā serves to attest faith and distinguish from non-Buddhists. The faith of prajñā is faith of non-reliance and non-attainment; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā states: 'Not having faith in all dharmas is called having faith in prajñā.' Because all dharmas do not arise, it is called the arising of prajñā; because one does not have faith in all dharmas, it is called having faith in prajñā.