金剛般若疏 2
English (machine translation) 2
- Language
- English
Contents
- 2.5 — 5 parts
2.1
Composed by Master Hu Jizang
2.2
"Together with a great assembly of bhikṣus": this is the sixth [item], clarifying the assembly who heard [the teaching] together. Question: For what reason are six items necessarily required? Answer: When the six items are complete, the meaning is fully satisfied. Why is this? "Thus" is the Dharma heard; "I have heard" is the person able to hear; "at one time" is the time the sūtra was spoken; "the Buddha" is the lord who proclaimed the teaching; "the Jetavana" is the place where the teaching was spoken; and now [these] are the assembly who heard [it] together, and also the persons for whom the teaching was intended. Furthermore, these can also be those who attest to the sūtra, and can also be those who listen to the sūtra. If we consider them as Śākyamuni's fellow practitioners and good friends from past lives, they are mostly those who attest to the sūtra—attesting that what the Tathāgata spoke is trustworthy, and attesting that what Ānanda heard contains no deviation; while if they are those who listen to the sūtra, they are mostly [practitioners of] actual practice. Question: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that at the beginning of bodhisattva sūtras there are śrāvaka assemblies and bodhisattva assemblies, while at the beginning of śrāvaka sūtras there are only śrāvakas and no bodhisattva assemblies. If so, now this is a Mahāyāna sūtra; why does it have a śrāvaka assembly and no bodhisattva assembly? Answer: Fully examining the Mahāyāna sūtras, there are four different categories: First, at the beginning of a Mahāyāna sūtra there is only a bodhisattva assembly and no śrāvaka assembly, as in the seven locations and eight assemblies of the Avataṃsaka. Second, at the beginning of a Mahāyāna sūtra there is only a śrāvaka assembly and no bodhisattva assembly, which is this very sūtra. Third, at the beginning of a Mahāyāna sūtra both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna assemblies are present, as in the Nirvāṇa and the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Fourth, at the beginning of a Mahāyāna sūtra neither assembly is present, as in such sūtras as the Suvarṇaprabhāsa and the Śrīmālādevī. Question: For what reason does this Mahāyāna sūtra have only a śrāvaka assembly? Answer: In truth, both assemblies are present in this sūtra. How is this known? Because the propagation section below extensively lists the assembly. The reason only the śrāvaka assembly is listed here is to show that this prajñā is an essential and concise gate. Furthermore, the fourfold assembly ought to be present, but here only the bhikṣus are listed: first, because when Śākyamuni appeared in the world, bhikṣus were the very first to enter the path; second, because both their mind and form are superior—their form is superior to those in secular life, and their mind is superior to bhikṣuṇīs; therefore, they are listed exclusively. Furthermore, these bhikṣus are the Tathāgata's inner retinue; they dwell together with the Buddha and are constantly at the Buddha's side, whereas the other three assemblies are not so. In addition, the assembly of bhikṣus can receive the correct Dharma and preach the correct Dharma to assist the Buddha in spreading transformation; therefore, they are listed exclusively. As for why bodhisattvas are not listed: because bodhisattvas are guest-arrivals, they are not listed; because śrāvakas are the old assembly, they are listed exclusively. Furthermore, it reveals that in the teaching, the deportment of the śrāvakas surpasses that of the bodhisattvas; bodhisattvas have no fixed form, transforming [beings] by going contrary to the conventional. Moreover, now the direct intent is to break the crooked and erroneous views of śrāvakas and lead them to faithfully accept prajñā; therefore, they are listed exclusively. Bodhisattvas are not like this, which is why they are not listed. As for "a great assembly of bhikṣus," in foreign languages it would be called mahā-bhikṣu-saṃgha. Mahā means "great," "superior," or "numerous." "Great" means possessing great precepts, great virtue, and great renown. "Numerous" means the number reaching 1,250 persons. "Superior" means being the most superior among all assemblies, and being able to surpass the ninety-six kinds of non-Buddhists in debate. Bhikṣu is called "mendicant" (beggar-scholar): begging food from laypersons to support the body, and begging the Dharma from the Buddhas to train the spirit. As for "saṃgha," the Futian jing (Field of Merit Sūtra) says: All who possess five pure virtues are called fields of merit: first, resolving to leave secular life and embracing the path; second, disfiguring their handsome appearance to accord with Dharma robes; third, severing dear relations forever with no partiality; fourth, casting aside body and life to amass wholesome dharmas; fifth, aspiring to seek the Mahāyāna to liberate others. As for the 1,250 persons: when the Buddha first attained the path, he first liberated the five persons; next, he liberated Uruvilvā-Kāśyapa and [then along with] Mahākāśyapa obtained five hundred persons; next, he liberated the two brothers Nadī-Kāśyapa and Gayā-Kāśyapa, who each had 250 disciples, together making one thousand persons. Next, he liberated Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana, further obtaining 250 persons, making a total of 1,255 persons. Here, merely stating the round number and taking those of renown, it speaks precisely of 1,250.
2.3
From "At that time the World-Honoured One" onward is the second [part], the specific preface. Within the specific preface it broadly opens into two: first, clarifying the Tathāgata walking on the road to beg for food; second, clarifying the Tathāgata spreading out his seat and sitting down, entering into samādhi. Within these two sections, each opens into two segments. In the first section, the two are: 1. clarifying the matter of going; 2. clarifying the matter of returning. In the latter section, the two are: 1. clarifying spreading out the seat, which is the preliminary expedient before entering concentration; 2. the phrase "and sat down," which secondly is directly entering samādhi. Question: For what reason does it first clarify begging for food and afterward entering samādhi? Answer: Because he wished to cause sentient beings to generate merit, he therefore first clarified begging for food; because he wished to cause sentient beings to generate wisdom, he entered samādhi and afterward preached the Dharma. Furthermore, it is because he first benefited householder sentient beings, and afterward universally benefited all the monastic and householder assemblies. It is also said that first benefiting the white-robed [laity] is a specific benefit—why did he beg food solely from the white-robed and not from bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs? Hence it is called specific; while afterward preaching the Dharma for the fourfold assembly is a universal benefit. Furthermore, it is because he first gave mundane benefits to sentient beings, and afterward gave supramundane benefits to sentient beings. Furthermore, it is because he first displayed himself as a field of merit to reveal that the Tathāgata is one worthy of offerings (arhat); and afterward clarified that the Buddha is a patron who bestows the dharma of prajñā upon sentient beings, which is the meaning of the Tathāgata Śākyamuni's correct and universal knowledge (samyaksaṃbuddha). Furthermore, the former is benefiting sentient beings before midday, and the latter is benefiting sentient beings after midday. Furthermore, the former is benefiting beings through bodily karma; afterward, entering samādhi is benefiting beings through mental karma; and next, preaching prajñā is benefiting beings through verbal karma. Furthermore, it is because he previously wished to cause the physical body to abide long, and afterward wished to cause the dharmakāya to abide long. Wishing to cause the physical body to abide long, begging food supports the physical body; afterward preaching prajñā benefits the dharmakāya. By having these two abidings, he causes sentient beings to attain the benefit of both bodies. Moreover, begging food shows the Tathāgata's practice of having few desires and knowing contentment; preaching the Dharma reveals the Tathāgata's subtle and wondrous understanding. Moreover, begging food clarifies the Buddha's compassion; preaching the Dharma clarifies the Buddha's wisdom. Moreover, begging food shows the physical standard for sentient beings of the final age; preaching the Dharma shows the mental standard for sentient beings of the final age, uniting to cause the minds of all sentient beings to rely on prajñā. Furthermore, it causes the disciples to beg food from laypersons to support the body, and receive prajñā from the Tathāgata to train the spirit, so that both matters are fulfilled. Moreover, begging food destroys the mind of arrogance; preaching prajñā destroys the mind of delusion. Question: The Great Sūtra reveals nirvāṇa occasioned by food; how does it differ from this sūtra? Answer: That sūtra, occasioned by food, reveals the Tathāgata's dharmakāya—the eternal body that is not a body of mixed food; this sūtra, occasioned by begging for food, clarifies the various meanings stated above. Moreover, both sūtras are also the same in that begging food first clarifies being identical to ordinary beings and the two vehicles; next preaching the Dharma clarifies that the Tathāgata cannot be seen by means of bodily marks, so the Tathāgata's body is not a food-body. The treatise says: "Because the three marks are of different substance, free from them is the Tathāgata." It is necessary to first be identical and afterward different; this is precisely to cause ordinary beings and the two vehicles to all generate the mind to seek the Buddha's body. Question: Now when preaching prajñā, for what reason is begging food clarified first? The answer says: When a consummate person moves, there is nothing unseasonable; whatever he does wholly benefits beings, so one should not seek the reason. Furthermore, it is to reveal the distant by means of the near: about to preach prajñā, he first clarified begging for food. Why is this? Mundane food and drink originally support the body and nourish physical life; the Dharma-food of prajñā supports the dharmakāya and nourishes wisdom-life. Furthermore, begging for food is the seed of the four noble ones (āryavaṃśa); prajñā is the root of all the noble ones. Furthermore, is the Way far off? Embody it and it is spiritual; therefore, food and drink are not separated from prajñā. If one can understand food to be pure, that itself is prajñā.
2.4
In the sūtra text, there are altogether five phrases: first, indicating the person who confers blessings upon beings; second, explaining the proper time for begging food; third, discerning the deportment for begging food; fourth, explaining the location for begging food; fifth, explaining the method of begging food. "At that time, the World-Honored One": this is the first, indicating the person who confers blessings upon beings. The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* says, "Possessing all the nine epithets above, he is therefore called 'the World-Honored One.'" From "at mealtime" onward is the second, explaining the time for begging food. This is an ordinary worldly affair, yet from afar it represents the dual benefit of the Buddha-Dharma, being without annoyance to either self or other. In the world, laypeople have fixed times for their meals: at dawn they are just beginning to prepare them and have not yet finished; late in the day they have already finished eating. Now is the time when the prepared food has just cooked; proceeding thither at this point can be called arriving at the proper time. Although the mind of the sage abides in the Way, his body depends on material support. Now, internally he has not the burden of hoarding, and externally he possesses the merit of conferring blessings upon beings: if begging is done at the proper time, it benefits both that one and myself; if begging misses the proper time, it vexes both self and other; hence it says "at mealtime." Because he knows the proper time, he is called a Great Dharma Master. Truly this is a faithful teaching! From "donning his robe and taking his bowl" onward is the third, explaining the adjustment of deportment. There are three kinds of robes, and they are also donned at three times. If lying down or arising in ordinary circumstances, one dons the five-strip robe, called the *antarvāsas*; here this is called the lower-grade robe, and also called the inner-worn robe. If entering the assembly for legal acts, one dons the seven-strip robe, called the *uttarāsaṅga*; here this is called the middle-grade robe. If entering a settlement to see kings and elders, one dons the *saṅghāṭī*; here this is called the great robe, and also called the principal outer robe. From nine strips upward to twenty-five strips, they are briefly classified into three grades; within each grade there are three types, combining to form nine kinds. The three of the lower grade are: nine strips, eleven strips, and thirteen strips; the three of the middle grade are: fifteen, seventeen, and nineteen strips; the three of the upper grade are: twenty-one, twenty-three, and twenty-five strips. According to the size of the body, fewer or more strips and patches were prescribed. The Buddha's body was sixteen feet tall, so he could wear twenty-five strips; people nowadays may wear only fifteen strips. In foreign lands, they are collectively called *kāṣāya*; here this is translated as "garment free from dust." If red and purple are blended together, they increase beings' lustful minds; now with the three kinds of ruined colors, greedy thoughts do not arise. Secondly, it is called the "emaciation robe": when a person who has entered the Way covers his body with this garment, his defilements fall away. Thirdly, it is called the "lotus-blossom robe": this borrows a metaphor for its name, for its substance is pure and free from defilement, resembling the lotus. Fourthly, it is called the "mingled-color robe", because three colors are interspersed to jointly make up one robe. Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha said, "The robe of red-blood color: although the five sects differ in their foreign *kāṣāya*s, they are all uniformly of red color." Question: It is commonly said that there are three kinds of ruined colors; why do you say that they are all red? Answer: The common explanation is that for a new robe one first takes blue dye, next puts it into mud, and next passes it through bark-juice, which is called *madder* (*mokuran*); hence it says "either blue, or mud, or madder." The Tripiṭaka Master said: All the people of the Central Country [of India] have no such practice. As for the three kinds of ruined colors, one uses whichever of the three colors to make a spot-mark. If there is a place with blue, one makes the mark with blue; if there is no place with blue, one uses mud for the mark; where there is no mud, one may grind iron-juice to make the mark; and taking just one color is sufficient. It is only because times and places differ and a single color is not constant that, out of concern that the monks might give rise to doubt and remorse, it was said that one may take any of the three. Although the doctrines of the eighteen schools differ, the robe-color is the same; thus the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says: "Seeing my disciples wearing red robes, they took them to be blood." It is only that the marking differs, and therefore there are differences among the various schools: the Sarvāstivāda marks visible places; the Sthaviras mark every joint; the Saṃmatīya mark only the four corners. The Tripiṭaka Master also said: In foreign lands the five schools also do not wear five different robes; but the Buddha interpreted King Prasenajit's dream and prophesied that in the degenerate age there would be evil monks who would disrupt my Dharma and divide into five schools. Because the laypeople of that land have five natures, they wear robes of five colors to signify the five kinds of supernatural wonders. Question: When the Buddha entered nirvāṇa, where were the three robes located? Answer: The accounts of the places differ. According to the *Garbha-sūtra*, "When the Buddha was about to enter nirvāṇa, he folded the three robes with his own hands and placed them in the golden coffin to line the Buddha's body." According to the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra*, when Māyā descended from Trāyastriṃśa Heaven and no longer saw the Buddha, seeing only the Buddha's *saṅghāṭī* and his staff, she sighed in grief, saying: "When my son was in the world, he wore and held these objects to deliver beings; now they are empty and without a master." Deducing from this, the three robes still exist. The Tripiṭaka Master said: The Buddha's five-strip robe is in the kingdom of Mithilā, the seven-strip robe is in the kingdom of Pañcāśī, the great robe and the staff are in the kingdom of Kashmir, and the *niṣīdana* is in the kingdom of Kapilavastu. Taking the bowl: first, it accords with the Dharma of the Buddhas of the three periods of time; second, to refute the non-Buddhists who hold their food in their hands; third, to manifest a dignified deportment that benefits beings, unlike base beggars; fourth, to demonstrate a lasting vessel of merit. The *Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra* says, "Storing up merit, demonstrating the field of merit. Donning the *kāṣāya*, demonstrating the field of merit." In the Vinaya it says: The Buddha took Ānanda to the southern mountain country; in that land there were many fertile fields, whose adjoining dikes were pleasing, so he ordered him to pattern the robe after them, signifying that one who has left household life is a field of merit for the world, able to cause the seed of a generous mind to reap an immeasurable reward. When one sows seeds in a fertile field, the harvest yields ten thousandfold; hence the strips and patches of the robe resemble the dikes and borders of fields; therefore the sūtra says "demonstrating the field of merit." *Pātra*: here this is translated as "receptacle of appropriate measure," which signifies that the person who has left household life inwardly possesses wisdom and severance, inner and outer corresponding, being a vessel fit to receive the offerings of humans and gods. When the Buddha first received the milk-rice from the two maidens, it was contained in a golden vessel more than a fathom wide; this was his eating vessel before attaining the Way. When he had completed the Way, he next received the fruits—or, some say, barley flour—offered by the elders Trapuṣa and Bhallika; at that time he did not yet have a bowl, and he reflected: The Buddhas of the three periods of time have no custom of holding food in their hands. Thereupon the Four Kings presented four bowls, and the Buddha pressed them with his hand, merging them into one bowl, yet the four layers of rim remained visible. The Tripiṭaka Master also said: The Śuddhāvāsa Devas returned the stone bowls of the past Four Kings to give to the Four Kings, and each of the Four Kings offered one to the Buddha. This bowl is now in the kingdom of Kashmir, enshrined in a stūpa. When the Semblance Dharma is destroyed, the Four Kings will again take it and deliver it to the Śuddhāvāsa Devas; the Śuddhāvāsa Devas will await Maitreya's appearance and command the Four Kings to deliver it to Maitreya. However, regarding the sizes of the bowl, there are three different grades: the upper grade holds three *prasthas* of cooked rice, one *prastha* of soup, and another half-*prastha* of other edible items; the lower grade holds one *prastha* of cooked rice, half a *prastha* of soup, and another half-*prastha* of other edible items. If it is larger than the smaller and smaller than the larger, it is a middle-grade bowl. A *prastha* is a foreign measure of six *chuan*; an upper-grade bowl holds three *dous*, able to contain two *dous* and seven *chuans* of food, requiring the top three *chuans* to be empty to demonstrate few desires; a lower-grade bowl holds one *dou* and a half, able to contain one *dou* and two *chuans* of food, requiring the top three *chuans* to be empty, thus being one *dou* and two *chuans*; between the two capacities is called a middle-grade bowl. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Explaining that there are eight kinds of bowls: disciples are not permitted to keep gold or silver bowls, out of fear that greed would arise; they are not permitted to keep wooden bowls, because they retain filth. They are only permitted to keep two kinds, namely iron and earthenware. The Buddha kept a stone bowl." Question: Has there ever been a Buddha who did not wear a *kāṣāya* and did not use a bowl? Answer: Yes. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* says: "Devarāja Buddha adopted the deportment of a white-robed layman." From "entering the great city of Śrāvastī to beg for food" onward is the fourth, explaining the location for begging food. The old commentary says: The park is twelve hundred paces from the city; or some say: four *li*. There are three ways the Tathāgata receives food: first, sitting and waiting for the mealtime, whereupon the fine delicacies arrive on their own; second, people coming from outside to invite the Buddha. Inviting the Buddha has two modes: first, the Buddha goes together with the saṅgha; second, the saṅgha goes while the Buddha does not go, sending someone to solicit the food. The reasons why he does not go are altogether five: first, to enter samādhi; second, to preach the Dharma for the devas; third, to care for sick monks; fourth, to inspect the dwellings; fifth, because he wishes to institute precepts. Third, the Tathāgata goes in person to beg for food. His manner of walking has three modes: first, flying through the empty sky; second, his feet four inches above the ground while their imprinted marks appear on the earth; third, his feet treading on lotuses, where the lotuses move while his feet do not move. The reasons why the Buddha walked on foot to beg for food, according to the *Sūtra of the Girl Mālā*, are altogether ten: first, when the Tathāgata enters the city to beg for food, sentient beings see the Buddha's thirty-two marks like Mount Sumeru, the king of mountains, and therefore generate bodhicitta, vowing to attain the Tathāgata's body; second, in the city there are the blind, deaf, and sick, down to those suffering a hundred torments who cannot come to where the Tathāgata is, and therefore the Tathāgata enters the city and emits light to shine upon them, causing their multiple sufferings to cease, whereupon they generate bodhicitta; third, for the kṣatriyas, brahmins, and noble elders who, relying on their caste, do not give rise to a mind of respect, when they see the Tathāgata's awe-inspiring virtue and stately deportment standing preeminent and distinct from the world, their arrogant minds are extinguished, and so they generate bodhicitta; fourth, women under guardianships who, having three supervisions and five hindrances, cannot see the Buddha, and also lazy people who, though living in the neighborhood of the Tathāgata, cannot go to him—the Buddha now enters the city to enable them thereby to pay homage and make inquiries, and so they generate bodhicitta; fifth, when the Tathāgata enters the city, the Four Kings and the eight classes of beings all act as his escort, each carrying flowers and incense and chanting praises in offering; when the people of the city see this, they immediately give rise to the thought: "Even the devas renounce heavenly pleasures to make offerings to the Buddha; how could we not make offerings and pay homage?" and thus generate the mind; sixth, the Tathāgata holds the bowl presented by the Four Kings, which is truly a single bowl yet with its four rims distinct; the people of the city, seeing this rare wonder, therefore generate bodhicitta; seventh, for the rich and the poor: if the rich see the Tathāgata's bowl empty, they give much; if the poor see the Tathāgata's bowl full, they give little; both give rise to joy and therefore generate bodhicitta; eighth, in the Tathāgata's bowl, hundreds of flavored foods are received without mingling, remaining as if placed in separate vessels, and when distributed freely to all the monks and sentient beings, it neither increases nor decreases; those who see it rejoice, and none fail to generate the mind; ninth, for the sake of future disciples and monks, to demonstrate the practice of begging food and establish its model, not hoarding conditioned things; tenth, the Tathāgata's body is constantly in samādhi and does not eat, yet solely for the sake of benefiting sentient beings, he manifests the practice of begging food. For these reasons, it says "entering the city to beg for food." As for "begging from door to door in that city," this fifth phrase explains the method of begging food. Some treatise masters say: In foreign lands, the noble families of the four castes all live inside the city, whereas the commoners, butchers, and the like all live outside the city. When entering the city, they each walk separately without intermingling. Now, when it says "begging in order," it means that within the city, among the four castes, without discriminating between rich and poor, he begs from them in consecutive order. Furthermore, Subhūti abandoned the poor and went to the rich, thinking that although they are now experiencing the fruit, they have no cause for the future, and he wished to make them cultivate future causes so that their karmic fruit would continue; therefore he abandoned the poor and went to the rich. Kāśyapa abandoned the rich and went to the poor, pitying their acute suffering; moreover, because they did not practice generosity in the past they are poor in this life, and if they do not practice generosity now they will again be poor in future lives, poverty succeeding poverty without any time of liberation, and therefore he abandoned the rich and went to the poor. Although these two men possessed compassion, they were not impartial, and were therefore reproved by Vimalakīrti. Now, the Tathāgata wishes to reveal the path of impartiality; therefore he begs from door to door.
2.5.1
From "returning to his original place" onward is the second [section], explaining what happened after obtaining the food. However, one must recognize the great intent of prajñā: this is going without departing, returning with nowhere to return to, receiving without taking in, and eating without consuming. Herein there are also four phrases: First, explaining his returning to his original place. Now, once the bowl is filled, he must return to his dwelling to await the noon hour. Furthermore, having gone for the sake of benefiting beings, having completed the benefit he promptly returns. As for why he is made to return as soon as the bowl is full, and not permitted to eat as soon as food is obtained, briefly there are two [reasons]: first, to make offerings to teachers and elders; second, to simultaneously aid the aged and sick. When the Tathāgata obtained food, he divided it into three portions: one portion he gave in charity to land-dwelling sentient beings; one portion he gave in charity to water-dwelling sentient beings; and one portion he ate himself, also sharing it if there were any who were old or sick. "Having finished his meal" is the second phrase, explaining the conclusion of the meal. "Put away his robes and bowl" is the third, explaining the collecting of his outward attire. "Washed his feet" is the fourth phrase, which also has five [meanings]: first, explaining the washing away of worldly defilements—walking on foot to beg for food, although [his feet] were four inches above the ground, he manifested having dust and dirt, and therefore washed them; second, manifesting reverence for prajñā, so he had to purify his body before speaking; third, to protect the monks' bedding; fourth, for the gods below to pay homage to his feet; fifth, to signify that the afflictions of sentient beings should be cleansed. Question: How many li did the Buddha walk each day? Answer: Like the rule of a wheel-turning king, he walked forty li each day. Question: Although the Sutra of the Girl Who Delights in Necklaces explains that begging for food is for the sake of ten matters, are there further meanings here? Answer: The Tripiṭaka master said: The Buddha wished to smash the greed for fame and gain and the arrogance of the evil age, where renunciants largely covet accumulation; therefore the Tathāgata himself went begging for food. Furthermore, to cease the ridicule and slander of non-Buddhists who said that the Śramaṇas, sons of the Śākya, mostly delight in clinging to pleasure, he therefore went begging. Furthermore, to reveal that the Tathāgata has few desires and knows contentment, not receiving offerings presented by humans and devas, he personally went begging. Furthermore, there are two kinds of non-Buddhists: first, those of pleasurable practice, who sit and receive offerings; second, those of ascetic practice, who beg past the proper time. The reason they go past the proper time is precisely that sometimes getting and sometimes not getting [food] serves as ascetic practice. Now the Tathāgata smashed both matters: because the Buddha himself begged, he smashed the non-Buddhists who cling to pleasure; because he begged at the proper time, he smashed the ascetic non-Buddhists. From "arranged his seat and sat down" onward is the second [part], explaining that because he was about to preach prajñā, he first entered samādhi. The text also has two [parts]: first, arranging the seat, the preliminary expedient before meditation; second, sitting down, the actual entry into samādhi. The reason he arranged the seat himself is that prajñā is called the mother of Buddhas; now wishing to revere prajñā, he therefore arranged the seat himself. Second, it accords with the training and precepts of all Buddhas: if one does not arrange one's own seat and bedding, one commits a duṣkṛta offense. Furthermore, this manifests having few desires and knowing contentment, not having others arrange it. As for "sat down," this is the second, the actual entry into samādhi. The treatise version of the sūtra additionally has "sat cross-legged"; this is because it is the most supreme among postures, causes those who see it to rejoice, brings stability and ease to the body, and makes the mind upright. The reason he entered samādhi is that for the Tathāgata, stillness and distraction are not two, and there is truly no entering or leaving; yet now he provides a model and rule for preachers of the Dharma. Now, whenever speaking profound Dharma, one must still the mind; if one does not still the mind, one will not discern the capacities and conditions [of beings], nor examine the characteristics of dharmas. Therefore, the Tathāgata first entered samādhi and only then preached the Dharma; this is clearly illuminating capacities and conditions, and clearly examining the characteristics of dharmas. The Vibhāṣā says: "Relying on the good dharma of divination manuals, it shows the marks of an intelligent person." The marks of an intelligent person are: speaking well what is spoken, practicing well what is practiced, and thinking well what is thought. Therefore the Tathāgata entered meditation and contemplated, and only then spoke. Furthermore, it is to provide a model and rule for frivolous and shallow sentient beings, for there are people who, having gained a little knowledge and view, answer immediately when others question them without thinking about it; the Tathāgata is not like this—only after contemplating for a long time does he then speak. From "At that time, the elder Subhūti" onward: if one follows Kaishan, this still belongs to the introductory section, and this text is called the preface of praise and request. I now hold that this is not so, as explained before. Subhūti properly questions, and the Tathāgata properly answers. Just as in the Avataṃsaka, where Universal Wisdom asks two hundred phrases and Samantabhadra answers with two thousand phrases, why should one cut off the questions as an introduction and sever the answers as the main body? The treatise masters of the north say: This text belongs to the section of mindfulness and entrustment among the twelve divisions. This too is not so. As explained before, Subhūti both praises and requests: the praise is indeed the mindfulness and entrustment, and the request is what initiates the four phrases. If one regards the praise as the section of mindfulness and entrustment, one ought to regard the request text as the section of asking questions. If one says that because the treatise explains mindfulness and entrustment it takes it as a section, but because it does not explain asking questions therefore asking questions is not a section, then since the treatise also does not explain the general and specific prefaces, there ought to be no introductory section. However, this is simply having failed to see the treatise author's intention in composing [the work], which is why this error arose. This was not explained because it was easy, and had to be explained because it was difficult—how could whether it is explained or not determine whether it is divided or not divided into sections? Now, from this text onward, it belongs to the second section, the proper preaching of prajñā. If one divides the sūtra by the three karmas: begging for food and so forth is the section of benefiting through bodily karma; entering samādhi is the section of benefiting through mental karma; and now is the section of benefiting through vocal karma. If one determines it by merit and wisdom: the above is the gate of generating merit in beings; now is the gate of generating wisdom in beings. Also, the above is the gate of benefiting the laity; now is the gate of universally benefiting all, fully stated as in the previous dozen pairs; nor can one exclusively make it into just the two divisions of preface and main body. Thus the intent of the sūtra is inexhaustible, and words often fall short; that the three-section [division] loses the principle, the intention is made clear here. For now I merely provisionally resort to one, calling it the explanation of preface, main body, and propagation. Regarding this proper preaching, it is opened into two cycles: the first cycle extensively expounds prajñā for those of sharp faculties; the second cycle briefly expounds prajñā for those of medium and lower faculties who have not yet awakened. Making this opening of the text may startle ordinary ears; I shall now cite facts and principles in full to prove its beginning and end. Question: How is it known that the former is one cycle and the latter is again one cycle of preaching? Answer: We should now verify it through several principles: First, the sūtra itself has the text, where Subhūti has an earlier question and a later question; the two questions are roughly similar; the Tathāgata has an earlier answer and a later answer, and the two answers resemble each other; therefore one should know it is two cycles of preaching. Furthermore, the words of the sūtra are difficult to understand, so we now take the treatise as proof. The treatise explains that after the earlier sūtra [passage] finishes answering the four questions, thereafter it gives rise to them in sequence, resolving profound doubts and hidden objections in continuous succession; it also finishes explaining the later question, gives rise to them in sequence, resolving profound doubts and hidden objections as they arrive one after another; therefore we know there are two cycles.
2.5.2
This is corroborated by both the sūtras and the treatises; how could it be an empty fabrication? Question: The compositions of the sages are profound in their principles and subtle in their phrasing; how could a single scroll of a sūtra contain the verbosity and redundancy of two cycles? Answer: Although there are said to be two cycles, their purports are each different; they are not redundant. Why is this? It is like the two cycles of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, where the former cycle explains real wisdom and the latter cycle distinguishes skillful means. The two cycles here are also different in their meaning: the former cycle purifies the objective condition, and the latter cycle exhausts the subjective contemplation. However, it is essential that the condition be purified and the contemplation be exhausted—neither conditioning nor contemplating, having nothing upon which to rely—before one can awaken to prajñā. Therefore Master Zhao said: "Dharmas have no categories of existence and non-existence; the sage has no cognition of existence and non-existence. If dharmas have no categories of existence and non-existence, then there are no categories externally; if the sage has no cognition of existence and non-existence, then there is no mind internally. With no categories externally and no mind internally, when both of these are quiescent, one then ascends to that subtlety." Master Ying said: "The myriad transformations are not without a source, but what sources them is without marks; the empty source is not without accord, but what accords with it is without mind. Therefore the ultimate person, with the wondrous wisdom of no-mind, accords with that markless empty source; this is when both internal and external are darkened together, and both condition and cognition are quiescent—how could names and categories be admitted between them?" The words of these two or three masters chime with the sūtra; "trusting and loving antiquity," how could I differ from them? Question: How do we know that the former cycle exhausts the condition and the latter cycle exhausts the contemplation? Answer: The sūtra has clear passages and the treatises have truthful statements. The earlier sūtra text simply says that although one liberates sentient beings, there are no sentient beings to be liberated, directly praising the bodhisattva's arousal of the mind of non-apprehension and, extending up to, the practice of non-apprehension relying on prajñā. And although the sūtra's intent is that both condition and contemplation are stilled, the text has not yet explicitly and clearly demolished the subject of contemplation. Therefore, those of dull faculties still say that there is a bodhisattva who skillfully liberates sentient beings and is skillfully able to practice. Hence the text of the latter cycle then stills the four minds: there is no person who arouses the mind, extending up to no practitioner. Thus, the former cycle directly encourages the arising of the four minds, while the latter cycle explains that the four minds are also stilled; how could it not be so? The treatise verse says: "Practicing in the internal mind, retaining a self as a bodhisattva—this obstructs the mind and contradicts the path of non-abiding." By this meaning, one should know that this text directly stills contemplation to the point of exhausting the subject of contemplation; the text and meaning are radiant, admitting of no doubt. These two cycles are not merely the main purport of a single sūtra; they are the ultimate destination of the Vaipulya teachings and the wondrous art of the ultimate person within the ring. Furthermore, the former cycle is the former assembly and the latter cycle is the latter assembly, as will be distinguished below. In terms of the text of the former cycle, it is divided into two sections: first, Subhūti puts the question; second, the Tathāgata answers. Within the question, it is further divided into two: first, the compiler of the sūtra introduces the demeanor of the interrogator; second, the formulation of the question itself. The initial introduction also has two parts: first, identifying the interlocutor; second, introducing the etiquette of requesting the Dharma. "At that time": this is the time when the Tathāgata bestowed his empowerment upon Subhūti, and also the time when the assembly at that moment experienced awakening; hence it says "at that time." Question: How does the meaning of bestowal in this sūtra differ from that in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra? Answer: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra possesses both verbal and mental empowerment: speaking words to command someone to explain is called verbal empowerment; bestowing wisdom and eloquence upon them is called mental empowerment. Now this sūtra only bestows wisdom and eloquence upon him, which is mental empowerment; it does not command him to explain, so there is no verbal empowerment. However, the subsequent text also contains the sense of an interlocution, but lacks an explicit command to explain; therefore it is not the same as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. "Subhūti": as for this person's original [state] and traces, the matter is difficult to fathom. The Tripiṭaka master says: originally, he was the Buddha Candana of the eastern world, casting his shadow in echo of Śākyamuni to act as a disciple to transform others, following the example of Mañjuśrī. Some sūtras say: he was a transformationally created person. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha explains that Śāriputra was a transformation person, and Subhūti is an example of the same kind. Another sūtra says: he was the son of an elder in Śrāvastī whose attainment reached the stage of Yiyan. "Yiyan" means a dharmakāya bodhisattva surpassing the stage of avaivartika. It is also said: in Śrāvastī there was a brahmin named Jūliú who had no son and prayed to a heavenly deity. The heavenly deity said, "Your family is exceedingly wealthy, and no one is worthy of being born [there]." Thereupon, seeing a person of great virtue descend, he took rebirth in that family. When the child had grown up, he had his parents invite the Buddha to return to their home, and later accompanied the Buddha back to the Jetavana, whereupon he attained the fruit of arhatship. Still other sūtras explain: in the past he was a layperson who saw a monk begging for food and receiving nothing, returning with an empty bowl; he then gave him food, and consequently for ten kalpas was constantly born in heaven, which is why his merit and virtue were incomparably deep and thick. It is also said that he was the crown prince of King Jìngyīnxiàng. Such accounts mostly come from the Za piyu jing on karmic retributions. Subhūti is translated as Shan-ye (Good Action), or as Shan-xue (Good Learner); formerly it was rendered as Shan-ji (Good and Auspicious). Shan-ji's birth differed from that of Sudhana. How so? When Sudhana was born, the seven treasures welled up, hence he was named Sudhana (Good Wealth). When Subhūti was born, the entire room was empty; his parents were bewildered and consulted a diviner. The diviner said, "Only good, only auspicious." Hence he was named Shan-ji. He is also called Kongsheng (Born of Emptiness), taking his name from the circumstances of his birth. Inwardly this person concealed the bodhisattva practice, outwardly manifesting as a śrāvaka; his status was elevated and venerable, so he is addressed as "Elder." "Then rose from his seat": second, this explains the etiquette of requesting the Dharma. Here there are five phrases: first, leaving one's seat to show reverence. The proper conduct of a disciple is to revere the person and respect the Dharma, so one cannot remain seated at ease; thus, wishing to request the path, he leaves his seat. "Bared his right shoulder": this shows the demeanor of master and disciple, indicating the sign of perpetual service. It also accords with the law of the country, hence he bares his shoulder to pay reverence. "Knelt on his right knee": this shows bending in submissive obedience, displaying the master-disciple attitude of offering no resistance. "Joined his palms toward the Buddha": this is collecting and composing one's countenance, single-mindedly receiving the path. "And addressed the Buddha, saying": the text above has presented his physical actions; this phrase presents his vocal action. "Rare, World-Honoured One!": this begins the second section, the direct questioning. Within this there are two parts: first, praising; second, inquiring. Regarding the words "Rare, World-Honoured One!", the twenty-fourth fascicle of the Madhyama Āgama says: "The great king of former times was none other than myself. From son to son, from grandson to grandson, from clan to clan, eighty-four thousand wheel-turning kings, together with shaving their hair and topknots, leaving home to go forth into the homeless state."
2.5.3
" Furthermore, the twenty-first fascicle of the Ekottarika Āgama states: "If the Tathāgata had not gone forth from the household life, he would have been a wheel-turning king for two thousand five hundred years." Now, abandoning the position of a wheel-turning king, he was able to walk on foot and beg for food for the sake of beings; therefore, it is rare. Moreover, Subhūti knows that prajñā is devoid of marks and form, with reflections, thoughts, and contemplations eliminated, and verbal discourse also extinguished; yet within the nameless and formless, for the sake of sentient beings, he speaks of names and forms, and although he produces names and words, they do not violate the nameless; therefore, it is rare. It is like the great fire at the end of a kalpa, when the world is ablaze: a person carrying a bundle of dry grass passes through the fire, and not a single leaf is burnt; therefore, it is rare. "Being well mindful of and protecting all bodhisattvas, and well entrusting all bodhisattvas" is praise. Question: For what reason is there this praise? Answer: This one phrase runs through what precedes and follows. The reason why the Tathāgata walked on foot and begged for food was precisely out of great kindness and great compassion to be mindful of, protect, and entrust all bodhisattvas. Furthermore, his present preaching of prajñā is also to be mindful of, protect, and entrust all bodhisattvas. Moreover, praising the walking on foot and begging for food above as rare is praising the Buddha's bodily karma; now, praising his being mindful of and protecting bodhisattvas is praising the Tathāgata's mental karma; and well entrusting all bodhisattvas is praising his vocal karma. Since the Tathāgata benefits beings through the three karmas, Subhūti praises all three karmas together. Question: What is meant by "well mindful of and protecting"? Answer: Desiring to make their internal virtues firm is called being mindful of and protecting; causing their external virtues to be accomplished is called well entrusting. Question: The Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, are constantly mindful of the six destinies; for what reason are they particularly mindful of bodhisattvas? Answer: Although they are constantly mindful of the six destinies, only bodhisattvas are capable of receiving prajñā, possessing the internal cause; therefore, externally, they are protected and kept in mind by the Buddhas. Question: When the Buddhas protect and keep them in mind, what benefit is there? Answer: It is just like fish roe: if the mother keeps them in mind, they develop; if she does not, they spoil. Bodhisattvas are also like this: if the Buddha protects and keeps them in mind, their roots of goodness develop; if he does not protect and keep them in mind, their roots of goodness spoil. As for entrusting, it means handing over the unexcelled Dharma-jewel to all bodhisattvas; because all bodhisattvas are skilled in asking and answering, such a Dharma-jewel will abide for a long time across immeasurable thousands of generations. The reason why both are generally called "well" is that if he were to protect, be mindful of, and entrust śrāvakas, it would not be good; now, because he protects, is mindful of, and entrusts bodhisattvas, it is called "well." It is fully detailed in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's parable of entrusting the two people, old and young. Explaining according to the treatise [the Bodhisattvabhūmi / Vasubandhu's Commentary], the treatise says: "The meaning of skilful protection should be known as endowing their bodies with joint practice." This explains "being well mindful of and protecting." "Well" is another name for "skilful"; hence it says "skilful protection, its meaning should be known." "Endowing their bodies with joint practice": being mindful of and protecting has the meaning of conferring upon them, meaning conferring upon them two kinds of power. First, conferring the power of wisdom upon them, to cause them to accomplish the Buddha-Dharma; this is conferring their own practice, hence it is called "body," where "body" means one's own body. Next, conferring the power of teaching and transforming sentient beings; this is conferring the power of transforming others, causing the assembly of those who are transformed to share the same practice with them, hence it is called "joint practice." "Not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained is called well entrusting." This half-verse explains the meaning of entrusting. The treatise says: "Being well mindful of and protecting is spoken in reliance upon bodhisattvas whose faculties are mature. Well entrusting is spoken in reliance upon bodhisattvas whose faculties are not yet mature." A bodhisattva whose faculties are mature is capable of being endowed with the two powers of self-practice and transforming others, as explained before. Now, by entrusting the bodhisattvas whose faculties are not yet mature to the bodhisattvas whose faculties are mature, it causes those who are not yet mature to become mature. "Not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained": causing them not to retrogress from the virtues already attained, and causing them to attain what has not yet been attained; hence it says "not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained." Question: How do the treatise's explanation and the old interpretation differ and agree? Answer: The treatise takes entrusting persons to persons as well entrusting; the old interpretation takes entrusting the Dharma-jewel to persons as well entrusting. Although the two statements differ, their ultimate import is one. Entrusting persons to persons ultimately causes them to awaken to the Dharma, which is the meaning of entrusting the Dharma; entrusting the Dharma to persons is ultimately for the sake of transforming persons, which is the meaning of entrusting persons. Furthermore, another meaning is that warding off the maras so that they do not get an advantage over bodhisattvas is the meaning of being mindful of and protecting; preaching the path and the Dharma to them so that they practice according to what is taught is entrusting. Question: In terms of what stages are mature and immature faculties explained? Answer: The Northern treatise masters say: A bodhisattva of mature faculties is an internal ordinary person of the lineage of practice-nature (prayoga-gotra), who is certain to proceed toward the first bhūmi; this is called mature faculties. If one is an external ordinary person, who is not yet certain to enter the first bhūmi, this is called immature. "A good son or good woman who arouses the mind set on awakening": this is the second, properly posing the questions. If we follow Dharma Master Kumārajīva's translation of the sūtra, there can only be three questions: first, asking about the mind set on awakening; second, asking how one should abide; third, asking about subduing. But in explaining these three questions, the various masters differ. The first master says: Although the questions are three, they do not go beyond vow and practice. The single question on the mind set on awakening is asking about vow; the two questions on subduing and abiding are asking about practice. The way of the bodhisattva does not go beyond the two gates of vow and practice: practice takes engaging in practice as its meaning; vow takes commitment to a future goal as its purport. If practice lacks vow, practice has nothing to guide it; if vow lacks practice, the vow will not bear fruit. They are like the two wings of a bird or the two wheels of a cart; therefore, practice engages in action according to concrete affairs, while vow aspires to what has not yet been attained. Now, explaining the meaning of practice and vow, it is indeed as stated; yet to take bodhicitta exclusively as vow is not correct. Now, taking the arousing of the mind of the correct path as bodhicitta, how could there be only an empty vow without practice? Another master says: There should be three questions: first, asking about bodhicitta is asking about the emptiness of equality; second, asking how to abide is asking about the emptiness of real dharmas; third, asking how to subdue is asking about the emptiness of provisional designations. However, the sequence of contemplation gates should proceed from the shallow to the deep; now it proceeds from the deep to the shallow, which is the teaching gate, not the practice gate. The questioner only aspires to the deep, so he asks about the deep first. We now say that this too is not so: the three emptinesses run through both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, whereas here we are properly distinguishing the practice of the bodhisattva. Moreover, the question has no words about the three emptinesses, and the Buddha's answer has no meaning of the three emptinesses. The initial answer clarifies that the bodhisattva accomplishes the vast mind, universally liberating sentient beings while there is nothing liberated; it does not mean merely clarifying the emptiness of provisional designations. If it merely clarified the emptiness of provisional designations, it should only distinguish that there are no sentient beings, with neither the meaning of liberation nor the meaning of the vast mind. Now it clarifies the great mind without liberation, and non-liberation while having the great mind; this is the meaning of liberating without liberation, and non-liberation as liberation, endowed with both types of wisdom. How could it be exclusively the emptiness of provisional designations?
First 7 of 15 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 金剛般若疏 — Classical Chinese