金剛般若疏 2.5

English (machine translation) 2.5

Language: English

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?

2.5.4

Next, replying to the question on abiding is also not substantial emptiness. If it were substantial emptiness, one should explain that there are no dharmas and no cultivation. Now it explains that one relies on and abides in nothing across all dharmas while cultivating the ten thousand practices such as dāna—how could it be one-sidedly substantial emptiness? Now, relying on the treatise and sūtra, altogether there are four questions: the first asks, "How should one bring forth the bodhicitta?"; the second asks, "How should one abide?"; the third asks, "How should one cultivate [the practices]?"; the fourth asks, "How should one subdue [one's thoughts]?" Why are there these four questions? Generally, to be a bodhisattva one must bring forth the bodhicitta; hence the first question asks about bringing forth the mind. If one does not bring forth the mind by relying on prajñā, one abides in inversion and does not abide in prajñā. Now, bringing forth the mind by relying on prajñā, one abides in prajñā and does not abide in inversion; hence the next question asks about abiding in the bodhicitta. Having attained abiding and establishment, one cultivates the ten thousand practices; hence the next question asks about cultivation. By cultivating non-apprehending practice, the inverted mind of apprehension is analysed and subdued, not arising; hence the next question asks about subduing. "The Buddha said: 'Excellent!'"—from here down is the second [part], the Tathāgata answering the questions. It opens into two sections: first, the circumstances of answering the questions; second, the direct answer. The circumstances of answering the questions again opens into two: first, praising his eulogy and request; second, promising to respond to his questions. Now, as for the Buddha praising Subhūti, it is truly because Subhūti's praise was timely and his question was aligned with the Way; therefore the Buddha praised him. Furthermore, Subhūti is a person of the śrāvakas, yet now he is able to ask about bodhisattva matters; this is rare, and therefore he praises him again. Furthermore, the assembly at the time feared that the bodhisattva path was deep while the wisdom of the Hīnayāna was shallow, so the questions might be deviant or mistaken; therefore he certifies and praises him, causing the assembly to revere the person and esteem the Dharma. From "Listen closely now" down is the second sentence, promising to answer his questions. Within the text there are two parts: first, the direct admonition and assent; next, receiving the instruction and wishing to hear it. These two are easy to understand, all laid out as in the text. From "The Buddha told Subhūti" down is the second [section], the Tathāgata's direct answer. Within the direct answer, if judged according to the treatise, it should open into two sections to respond to his four questions. Next, from "What do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by bodily marks?" down to the end of the sūtra is all the severing of doubts. Therefore the author of the treatise evaluates this section, saying: "From here down, throughout all the sūtra, doubts that arise are severed." Responding to the four questions earlier is called the brief explanation of prajñā; severing the many doubts later is the extensive explanation. Now, drawing upon the treatise's intention and following the layout of the sūtra, it is divided into three sections: first, the approach explaining the essence of prajñā; second, the approach explaining faithful reception; third, the approach explaining comparative merit. Explaining these three: since it is called the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, it first explains the essence of prajñā; having finished explaining the essence of prajñā, there must be persons who faithfully receive it, so next it explains the approach of faithful reception; if one faithfully upholds it, one obtains inexhaustible blessings, so next it explains the approach of comparative merit. Furthermore, earlier explaining prajñā in terms of cause and effect is the approach of the Dharma; next, explaining prajñā in terms of the approach of faithful reception is the approach of persons; later, explaining prajñā in terms of the approach of merit explains that when persons practice the Dharma, they therefore obtain merit. Within the former approach there are two: first, answering his four questions, which explains the approach of the cause; second, severing the many doubts, which next distinguishes the approach of the fruit. The cause is without reliance and non-abiding; the fruit is without lakṣaṇas and unconditioned. Prajñā has never been cause and effect; for the sake of sentient beings, it is spoken of under the names of cause and effect. Within answering his four questions in explaining the approach of the cause, there are only two chapters of sūtra text. Traditionally, the old commentators explained that the first chapter of the sūtra does not answer the approach of the bodhicitta, but rather answers the question on subduing the mind; the next chapter of the sūtra answers his question on abiding; later, adducing the Buddha's fruit answers the question on the bodhicitta. The treatise masters of the Northern regions said: "The first answers his question on abiding, not the question on the bodhicitta." I now say that none of this is correct. If you say that universally delivering the four kinds of births here is not answering the question on the bodhicitta, then by what dharma do you designate the bodhicitta? Furthermore, in the second cycle below, Subhūti again raises three questions, and the Buddha answers that one who brings forth the bodhicitta should give rise to such a mind: "I must cause all sentient beings to enter nirvāṇa, yet there is no one who enters nirvāṇa." This directly repeats the question on the bodhicitta and explains it; how can you say it does not answer the bodhicitta? We now clarify that although the sūtra has two chapters, together they respond to the four questions: the first chapter of the sūtra answers the question on abiding, which is itself answering the question on the bodhicitta; the next chapter of the sūtra answers the question on cultivation, which is itself answering the question on subduing the mind. Question: How does answering his question on abiding mean answering [the question on] the bodhicitta? Explanation: Because of bringing forth the bodhicitta, one is able to abide in the Mahāyāna Dharma. If one does not bring forth the bodhicitta, one does not abide in the Mahāyāna. Therefore the treatise says: "Abiding in the profound mind of benefiting, the merits of this vehicle are perfected." Within the text of the first sūtra [passage], it again opens into two: first, broadly exhorting the bodhisattva to bring forth the bodhicitta in address to Subhūti; second, directly clarifying the meaning of bringing forth the mind. The first is as in the text. Question: Now it directly distinguishes the bodhicitta; why does it say "one should thus subdue their mind"? Answer: Because of bringing forth the one bodhicitta, the minds of ordinary beings and the two vehicles do not arise, which is itself subduing. First, it explains universally delivering sentient beings; thus it differs from the minds of the two vehicles and subdues the two vehicles. Later, it explains delivering without anything delivered; this subdues the minds of ordinary beings. Subduing the two vehicles is using the other to subdue the self; subduing the minds of ordinary beings is using non-existence to subdue existence. Furthermore, subduing the two vehicles can also be using existence to subdue non-existence: the two vehicles lack the compassionate mind, while the bodhisattva has the compassionate mind; hence it uses existence to subdue non-existence, and again uses non-existence to subdue existence, as explained earlier. Furthermore, clarifying great kindness and great compassion here subdues the defilements of greed and anger; hence it is called subduing. Furthermore, although the bodhisattva delivers sentient beings, in reality there are no sentient beings to be delivered; this is subduing the view of sentient beings. Furthermore, if a bodhisattva says there are sentient beings to be delivered, this is eternalism; if they say there are no sentient beings to be delivered, this falls into annihilationism. Now, although delivering sentient beings, in reality there is nothing delivered, thus subduing eternalism; although there is nothing delivered, one constantly delivers sentient beings, thus subduing annihilationism. From "As for all classes of sentient beings" down is the second [part], directly clarifying bringing forth the bodhicitta. The verse of the treatise says: "Vast, supreme, constant, / and the mind is not inverted; / abiding in the profound mind of benefiting, / the merits of this vehicle are perfected." Therefore, the four minds are used to explain this sūtra text. The four minds are: first, the vast mind; second, the supreme mind; third, the constant mind; fourth, the non-inverted mind. Question: For what reason are the four minds established? Answer: Generally, to be a bodhisattva differs from ordinary beings and the two vehicles, who train themselves and deliver themselves. Saying here that one universally delivers the three realms and six destinies is called the vast mind.

2.5.5

Although universally delivering sentient beings, if one universally gives sentient beings the happiness of humans and gods, it is called the lower mind; if one universally gives sentient beings the happiness of the two vehicles, it is called the middling mind; now, universally giving sentient beings the happiness of great nirvāṇa is called the supreme mind. Although the bodhisattva universally gives sentient beings the happiness of great nirvāṇa, at times they may take rest: the path of saṃsāra is long, and the natures of sentient beings are manifold—how could one universally deliver them and cause them to attain constant happiness? Therefore, toward saṃsāra they give rise to a mind of weariness and disgust. Now it clarifies that the limit of saṃsāra is like space, and the limit of the nature of sentient beings is also like space; within this there is no coming and going in saṃsāra, nor are there any who are liberated. Therefore, the bodhisattva is able to constantly deliver sentient beings, instructing without weariness; this is called the constant mind. Although delivering sentient beings, one does not see any sentient beings that can be delivered; this is called the bodhisattva's non-inverted mind. Because one establishes these four minds, abides in the bodhisattva path, and attains great benefit, the treatise says: "Abiding in the profound mind of benefiting." Therefore, when one establishes these four minds, the bodhicitta is perfected; hence the treatise says: "The merits of this vehicle are perfected." Although there are four minds, they do not go beyond compassion and prajñā: the first three are the mind of compassion, and the last one is the mind of prajñā; the former is merit, and the latter is wisdom; the former is also skillful means, and the latter is called real wisdom. Therefore, in bringing forth the mind, one is endowed with blessings and wisdom, and is also endowed with the two wisdoms. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Bringing forth the mind and the ultimate [attainment] are not two or different." If compared with Kaishan's position, the emptiness of nominal designation is merely the empty mind, attaining only one of the four, and between the two wisdoms it attains only the purport of real wisdom. Question: Why is it called the vast mind? Answer: From "all classes of sentient beings" down to "neither with thought nor without thought", it universally gathers sentient beings; this is called the vast mind. Here there are two sentences: "all classes of sentient beings" universally gathers sentient beings. From "if egg-born" down, there are three sentences that separately gather sentient beings. The first sentence gathers sentient beings through one approach, namely the approach of the single [category of] birth; the second gathers sentient beings through the two approaches of with-form and formless: the desire and form realms are called with-form, and the single formless realm is called formless. The third gathers sentient beings through three approaches: "without thought" is the Heaven of Thoughtlessness in the fourth dhyāna of the form realm; "neither with thought nor without thought" is the final heaven of the formless realm; the single phrase "with thought" excludes the above two places and pervades the three realms. Question: Why not gather sentient beings through the six destinies? Answer: The six destinies do not gather the intermediate existence (antarābhava), whereas the four kinds of births gather everything; hence [it is used]. "I will cause them all to enter anupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa"—from here down is the second, clarifying the supreme mind. Saying "without remainder" (anupadhiśeṣa) here is not the ash-body and extinguished-wisdom of Hīnayāna anupadhiśeṣa; this means there is no burden that is not exhausted, with no further remaining burdens, and there is no virtue that is not perfected, with no further remaining virtues; hence it is called "without remainder". Question: This is the doctrinal purport of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]; how can it explain the text of Prajñā? Answer: One who poses this question follows the doctrinal purport of the five periods, not the statements of the sūtras and treatises. The Prajñā Treatise says: "This sūtra directly distinguishes the unconditioned dharmakāya." What difference is there between this and the Mahāparinirvāṇa? "Having thus delivered immeasurable and boundless sentient beings"—from here down is the third, named the constant mind. Question: The Prajñā Treatise says: "Not seeing sentient beings as different from the bodhisattva, and never departing from this mind, is named the constant mind." What is the meaning of this? Answer: Now, in speaking of the constant mind, there can be two meanings: first, never departing from the mind of correct contemplation is named the constant mind; that is the intention of the treatise that one does not see sentient beings as different from the bodhisattva, and does not see the bodhisattva as different from sentient beings, so that both sentient beings and the bodhisattva are ultimately pure—constantly practicing this contemplation is named the constant mind. Second, through the mind of correct contemplation, one constantly delivers sentient beings without ceasing or resting; this is named the constant mind. Why is this? From "If a bodhisattva has the mark of a self" down is the fourth, clarifying the non-inverted mind. Although constantly delivering sentient beings, there are no sentient beings that can be delivered; this is named non-inverted. If one sees that there are sentient beings, this is the view of self. An ordinary being cannot even deliver themselves; how could they deliver others?

Linked texts (1)

金剛般若疏 — Classical Chinese