金剛般若疏 2.5.3

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?