金剛般若疏 2.8

2.8

From “Subhūti, a bodhisattva should only abide in accordance with what has been taught” onward, this third section concludes with an exhortation. What is called “abiding in accordance with what has been taught” means that, following the teaching of non-apprehension presented above, one must abide in accordance with this and cultivate practice in accordance with this. From “Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of bodily marks?” onward, according to Kaishan, this adduces equitable emptiness to answer the question on bodhicitta. I maintain now that this is incorrect on two points: First, there is the fault of inverted order. One must first generate bodhicitta and only then practice the bodhisattva conduct; how could it be that having just finished explaining bodhisattva conduct, one would only now distinguish generating bodhicitta? Second, the text here says: “Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of bodily marks?” If it were equitable emptiness, then there would no longer be any Tathāgata, so how could it be called “seeing the Buddha”? I now set forth five points to introduce this section: First, if one relies on the commentary's explanation, from the above down to here the four questions have been fully answered; from here onward, the second section resolves arising doubts. Answering the four questions is the concise exposition of prajñā; resolving arising doubts is the extensive exposition of prajñā. Hence the commentary states, “From here on, throughout all the sūtras, it is to resolve arising doubts”; thus we know that expounding the sūtra is throughout for the sake of resolving arising doubts. If one divides the sections according to cause and effect, the preceding answers to the four questions distinguished the cause of non-apprehension; this subsequent second section explains the fruit of the unconditioned dharmakāya. If one cultivates an apprehending cause, one will still obtain an apprehending fruit; hence the Great Scripture says, “Apprehension is termed ignorance; apprehension is termed the twenty-five realms of existence.” Now, through the cause of non-apprehension, one obtains the fruit of the unconditioned dharmakāya. Hence the Great Scripture says, “Non-apprehension is termed wisdom; non-apprehension is termed great nirvāṇa.” Furthermore, the initial section of the sūtra explained generating bodhicitta, the next section explained cultivating bodhisattva conduct, and this present section distinguishes attaining the Buddha path; these three follow a sequential order, and therefore the meaning of this scripture is essential. Furthermore, it completes the meaning of bodhicitta above: generating bodhicitta means seeking the Buddha path above and delivering sentient beings below. Having already distinguished the marks of sentient beings, one delivers where there is nothing to be delivered. Now, seeking the Buddha path above, one must recognize the dharmakāya, which is seeking where there is nothing to be sought. If one does not recognize sentient beings, one cannot deliver sentient beings; if one does not recognize the dharmakāya, one cannot seek the Buddha path above. If one generates the mind to seek the Buddha with apprehension, just as Vimalakīrti scolded, one should be made to abandon views of bodhi; rather, generating bodhicitta while abandoning views of the Buddha is precisely what allows one to see the Buddha. Furthermore, distinguishing the deliverance of sentient beings above was distinguishing the emptiness of sentient beings; next, distinguishing the cultivation of myriad practices was distinguishing the emptiness of all dharmas of the six sense objects. Both these persons and dharmas are the ultimate emptiness of the worldly. Now, explaining that the Tathāgata cannot be seen through marks is the emptiness of all Buddhas. Therefore, when sentient beings have nothing of their own, they are not sentient beings; when all Buddhas have nothing of their own, they are precisely not Buddhas. Thus there are neither sentient beings nor Buddhas, neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa, and sentient beings and the Buddha are fundamentally non-dual. However, to dismantle the two views, we speak of non-duality; once the two have ceased, non-duality is also eliminated. Hence the Avataṃsaka says, “Not clinging to non-dual dharmas, because there is neither one nor two.” If one can awaken in this way so that all views ultimately do not arise, only then is it vajra, which is called prajñā. Within this text, it is divided into three parts: first, the Tathāgata brings forth the doubts of the assembly to question Subhūti; second, Subhūti resolves the doubts in reply to the Tathāgata; third, the Tathāgata confirms his statement, concluding upon what is gained and lost. This is the first part. As for the doubt: above, it was said that the bodhisattva practices the non-abiding in marks; at the time of the complete cause, the assembly harboured doubts: “If the cause is non-abiding, the fruit should be unconditioned. Now we see that the fruit is conditioned; how could the cause be non-abiding?” Why is this? The followers of the Hīnayāna say: “The physical body of Śākyamuni fully possesses the three marks: first being born in the royal palace is the meaning of arising; next staying in the world for eighty years is the meaning of abiding; entering extinction in the twin Śāla trees is the meaning of extinction. Now that the fruit fully possesses these three marks, how can it be said that the cause is non-abiding?” Therefore, the Buddha brought forth the assembly's doubt to question Subhūti: “Can one see the Tathāgata's dharmakāya through the body possessing the three marks?” From “Subhūti said: ‘No, World-Honoured One’” onward, this is the second part, where Subhūti resolves the assembly's doubt before the Buddha. Question: The Buddha should have resolved it himself; why did he have Subhūti resolve it? Answer: Wishing to demonstrate that there was someone who had attained understanding, he had Subhūti resolve it. Furthermore, Subhūti was a person of the Hīnayāna; wishing now to guide the followers of the Hīnayāna so that they would believe that the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned, he had Subhūti resolve it. It is also like a mother bird guiding her fledglings; Subhūti is likewise, wishing to guide the śrāvakas to share in his understanding. Subhūti is a śrāvaka, yet he already knows that the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned; I too am a śrāvaka, and I must also know that the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned, not characterized by the three marks. Furthermore, Subhūti wished to guide the bodhisattvas to seek the Tathāgata's dharmakāya. Why is this? If even people of the Hīnayāna know that the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned, how could bodhisattvas say that the Buddha is conditioned? Question: The Nirvāṇa Sūtra may distinguish the Buddha as unconditioned, but how could there be such an explanation in the Prajñā Sūtra? Answer: It must be people of the five periods of teaching who raise this question. Now the Prajñā-śāstra directly refutes this question; hence the verse says, “Because the three marks have a different essence, separate from them is the Tathāgata.” How could it be that within the Prajñā teaching, the Buddha is conditioned? Furthermore, now we distinguish that the correct Dharma of prajñā is precisely the dharmakāya; prajñā is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, which is precisely the dharmakāya. It is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, but in contrast to the bodies of ordinary people and the two vehicles being conditioned, it is praised as being unconditioned. Nor is it like the masters of the northern treatises, who say that the Tathāgata's body is definitively unconditioned; both the conditioned and the unconditioned are the functioning of prajñā. “The Tathāgata cannot be seen by means of bodily marks” means that the Tathāgata's unconditioned dharmakāya cannot be seen through the three marks of arising, abiding, and extinction. “Why is this? What the Tathāgata has expounded as bodily marks”: the assembly again doubted: “If the three marks are not the Tathāgata, why did the Tathāgata previously expound that there are three marks? Previously expounding that he was born in the house of King Śuddhodana was expounding the mark of arising; that he would enter nirvāṇa after three months was the mark of extinction; and staying in the world for eighty years was the mark of abiding.” Therefore, it explains, “What the Tathāgata has expounded as the three marks is not bodily marks.” Saying that they are not bodily marks means that they are not the unconditioned marks of the dharmakāya. This is an expedient means of non-arising arising, which is the physical body, and therefore has the three marks. If it is the expedient means of arising non-arising, that is the dharmakāya, which lacks the three marks. From “The Buddha told Subhūti” onward, this is the third part, where the Tathāgata confirms his statement, concluding upon what is gained and lost. Why was it necessary to confirm his statement? The assembly feared that what Subhūti understood might not be free from error; therefore, the Tathāgata confirmed his understanding. Within this text, there are two clauses: The first clause explains what is lost: All nominal marks exist merely due to conceptualization and are entirely false; how could only conceptualizing arising, abiding, and extinction not be false? From “If one sees that all marks of dharmas are non-marks” onward, the second clause explains what is gained: If one sees that all marks are not the marks of the dharmakāya, that is precisely seeing the dharmakāya. Hence the Avataṃsaka says, “All dharmas do not arise; all dharmas do not cease. If one can contemplate in this way, the Buddhas are constantly present.”