金剛般若疏 1.8

1.8

Third, distinguishing division and combination. Question: Other sūtras were never spoken repeatedly; why are the recensions of prajñā limitless? Answer: Limitless Buddhist sūtras have reached the Han lands, far more than can be told, but now one only sees multiple recensions of prajñā and does not see many of other sūtras. But now, discussing why prajñā has multiple recensions: sentient beings' entry into the Way must proceed from prajñā. Why is this? All ordinary persons who have not attained the Way are so because they have that upon which they depend and cling. Prajñā specifically dismantles the attachments and dependencies of sentient beings, and therefore expounds the Dharma of non-dependence and non-clinging. Prajñā is true repentance; therefore, when the various Mahāyāna sūtras distinguish true repentance, they all depend on prajñā. As the Samantabhadra Sūtra states: 'The ocean of all karmic obstructions arises entirely from false thoughts. If one wishes to repent, sit upright and contemplate dharmatā.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra also states: 'If one hears of non-action and non-reception, the king's heavy sins will surely be eradicated.' Question: The various sūtras each expound the Dharma of non-apprehension and each eradicate heavy sins; why say solely that the eradication of sin in the various sūtras depends entirely on prajñā? Answer: Although the various Mahāyāna sūtras all alike teach non-dependence and non-apprehension, prajñā mostly presents expositions of non-dependence and non-apprehension, directly demolishing the disease of dependency and apprehension in sentient beings, which other sūtras do not. For example, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra specifically clarifies permanence and impermanence; the Lotus Sūtra clarifies the Dharma of converging the three into the one; the Avataṃsaka Sūtra extensively clarifies the causes, fruits, and virtuous practices of bodhisattvas, but does not specifically elucidate non-dependence and non-apprehension. For this reason, when the various sūtras speak of attaining the Way and eradicating sins, they must require prajñā; hence prajñā has multiple distinct recensions. Taking the essentials: sentient beings constantly have the affliction of dependency and apprehension, and for this reason the Tathāgata constantly expounded the Dharma of non-dependence and non-apprehension. As the Sūtra of the Two Nights states: 'From the night the Buddha attained the Way until the night of nirvāṇa, he constantly expounded prajñā.' How could five periods or eight recensions ever be considered many? Question: If prajñā in five periods makes five recensions, why are the eight assemblies of the Avataṃsaka not eight recensions? Since the eight assemblies are combined into one recension, why are the five periods not combined into one recension? Answer: Speaking generally, they may all be analogized to one another. That it is not so here is because in the eight assemblies of the Avataṃsaka, the meaning completes itself sequentially from first to last: as when expounding previously the ten faiths, ten abodes, ten practices, ten dedications, ten bhūmis, and the ocean of major and minor marks, this constitutes a progression from shallow to deep, with cause and effect completing each other; hence they are combined into one recension. The prajñā of the five periods is not a progression from shallow to deep or a mutual completion from first to last; therefore they are separately divided into five recensions.