金剛般若疏 2.5.1

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.