金剛般若疏 1.9

1.9

Fourth, clearly determining the temporal sequence of the two sūtras once more. Question: Which was spoken first, the Mahāprajñā[pāramitā Sūtra] or the Vajracchedikā Prajñā[pāramitā Sūtra]? Answer: Dharma Master Kaishan, Master Ji of Kuaiji, Master Yan of Mount Hua in Gusu, Master Daling, and others all say: as listed in the Renwang [jing], the Mahā[prajñāpāramitā] was spoken first, and next was spoken the Vajra[cchedikā]. They further verify this with two arguments. First, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Previously the bodhisattva practice had not been explained; now [the Buddha] wishes for the first time to explain the bodhisattva practice for Maitreya and others, and therefore speaks the prajñā." If the Vajracchedikā Prajñā had already been spoken before, that would mean the bodhisattva practice had already been explained, and it should not say it had not been explained. Second, at the beginning of the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra it says: "[The Tathāgata] is skillfully mindful of all bodhisattvas and skillfully entrusts all bodhisattvas." If the Mahāprajñā[pāramitā] had not yet been spoken, there would not yet have been bodhisattvas; how could there be entrusting and mindfulness? Only after the Mahā[prajñāpāramitā] had been spoken were there bodhisattvas, and thus only when the Vajracchedikā Prajñā was spoken later could mindfulness and entrustment of bodhisattvas be elucidated.

Next, someone says: the Vajra[cchedikā] was spoken first, and the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra later. How is this known? There are three arguments and three textual citations to corroborate it. The three arguments: First, "vajra" is a name signifying the shattering of marks. During the twelve years, it was termed the teaching of having marks; those who received the designations generated conceptual marks of discrimination, and their clinging attachments were difficult to dispel. When the Buddha first inaugurated this sūtra, he clarified the profound principle of signlessness to break through their mind of attachment to marks; therefore, borrowing "vajra", he forcefully used it as an analogy for the understanding of emptiness. Second, the preaching of this sūtra assembled only twelve hundred and fifty bhikṣus and so on, without broadly assembling devas, humans, and bodhisattvas; it was precisely because he was about to elucidate the extremely profound principle of emptiness to transform sentient beings attached to marks, wishing to cause his close disciples to attain awakening beforehand, thereby enabling the transmission of the teaching to be accomplished and causing the śrāvakas to assist the Buddha in propagating the transformation. Bodhisattvas are in principle close to the Buddha, but in phenomenal traces further removed; furthermore, [if the Buddha] had wished bodhisattvas to teach the śrāvakas, the latter would have looked at the other shore and drawn back; thus he first spoke this sūtra for those who constantly followed the Buddha. Third, because of contrasting with the small, there is the great. Previously he spoke this sūtra very briefly, not yet broadly elucidating the myriad practices of bodhisattvas, and so it is called small; later he expounded the Fangguang bore, and here for the first time again broadly elucidated signlessness and explained the differentiations of the myriad practices, and so it is called Mahāprajñā. Deducing from these arguments, we know that the Vajracchedikā Prajñā was spoken in the first period, and the Mahāprajñā[pāramitā] was next in the second.

Next, the textual proofs are also three: First, in the text below in this sūtra: "Subhūti asked the Buddha: 'Will there be any sentient beings who, hearing such words and phrases, will give rise to real faith?'" If [Kaishan's view were correct], the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā had already been spoken before, and immeasurable sentient beings had attained faith, awakening, and understanding, and had transmitted the teaching and expounded the Dharma. Subhūti had never had this doubt regarding the doctrinal gate of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā; only now coming to this sūtra does he again raise this question, which would be difficult to explain logically. Second, Subhūti comprehended and said: "From the past until now, with the wisdom-eye I have attained, I have never yet heard such a sūtra." If [Kaishan were correct], when the Buddha spoke the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā previously, how could [Subhūti] expound the sūtra and transmit the teaching, and how could he say he had not heard a profound sūtra? If he had heard it and not awakened, how could he have transmitted the teaching? Third, Subhūti answered the Buddha: "One should not view the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks." If [Kaishan were correct], having already heard the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā previously, how could he cling to the bodily marks as being the Buddha? If he gave rise to this clinging, he could not be said to understand emptiness. Thus we know that he was directly clinging to the former teaching of marks, and therefore called the physical body the Buddha. And as for Kaishan adducing two arguments as proof, they must now be resolved: First, as for the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa saying "prior to speaking the Mahā[prajñā], the bodhisattva practices had not been clarified," this means merely that the bodhisattva practices had not been broadly clarified; it does not mean they had not already been briefly spoken in the Vajra[cchedikā]. Second, as for saying that because the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā had not yet been spoken there were not yet bodhisattvas to be skillfully entrusted, this is not so. We now clarify that when the Buddha first attained the Way and delivered people through the three vehicles, how could there have been no bodhisattvas? Entrusting Maitreya means he was precisely such a person. Deducing from text and reason, we therefore know that the Vajracchedikā Prajñā was spoken first.

We now clarify that these two explanations cannot be definitively determined: how could words delivered according to circumstance ever be fixed? Regarding their sequence, it may be that many texts were spoken together at one time, or it may be that one text spanned many periods; when we come to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, this will be explained in further detail.