金剛般若疏 3.4.1

3.4.1

From “Subhūti, what do you think? Can a srotāpanna think like this?” onward, this is the second [section]: explaining the meaning of the comparative appraisal. Within this section, there are two major divisions: first, adducing the causes and fruits of the Hīnayāna to explain the meaning of the comparative appraisal; second, adducing the causes and fruits of the Mahāyāna to explain the meaning of the comparative appraisal. In each of these two sections, there are two divisions. The two in the first section are: first, adducing the causes of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative appraisal; second, adducing the fruits of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative appraisal. Here is the first.

Question: Why are the meanings of the Great and Small Vehicles adduced to establish the comparative appraisal?
Answer: The preceding section stated: what the Tathāgata has spoken cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken, up to all worthy and noble ones being differentiated through their awakening to the unconditioned dharmatā. Now, the import of these words is to illuminate the meaning of awakening to the dharmatā as non-reliance and non-apprehension; because of awakening to non-reliance and non-apprehension, there necessarily are the differences among the worthy and noble ones of the Great and Small Vehicles. The doubter says: If dharmas cannot be grasped, cannot be spoken, and are non-reliance and non-apprehension, how is it that the Hīnayāna obtains the four fruits and the Mahāyāna realizes and attains buddhahood? Since both the Great and Small Vehicles involve realization and attainment, one knows it is not non-reliance and non-apprehension; since both the Great and Small Vehicles are said to have realization and attainment, one knows it is not the meaning of being unspeakable. Now, in order to resolve this doubt, it is clarified that although the Great and Small Vehicles have realization and attainment, in reality there is nothing attained; although there is something spoken, in reality there is nothing spoken. Therefore, one should know that it is without grasping and without speaking, without reliance and without apprehension. Hence, the Great and Small Vehicles are adduced to explain the aforementioned [teachings] of being ungraspable and unspeakable, up to all being differentiated through the unconditioned dharma.

Question: How does this establish the comparative appraisal above?
Answer: If dharmas were graspable, speakable, reliant, and apprehended, then accepting and upholding them would have no merit; it is precisely because prajñā is without grasping and without speaking that, when one accepts and upholds it, its blessings are boundless.

Question: The text below in this sūtra says, “[This sūtra] is spoken for those of the Great Vehicle; if one delights in inferior teachings, one cannot hear and accept it.” The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: “Prajñā is the teaching of bodhisattvas; it does not belong to the two vehicles.” Why now do you cite the Hīnayāna to corroborate and establish this?
Answer: This is adducing the lesser to illustrate the greater, clarifying that if even practitioners of the Hīnayāna awaken to non-reliance, non-apprehension, non-grasping, and non-speaking, how could bodhisattvas not have faith in the teaching of non-apprehension? Just as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra cites Śreṇika as proof: when listeners heard that all dharmas are ultimately empty, they did not believe or accept it; thus it cited Śreṇika, a person of the Hīnayāna, who still had faith in the emptiness of dharmas—how could practitioners of the Mahāyāna now, in the teaching of signlessness, not have faith in emptiness? Furthermore, what is present here are the three vehicles of non-apprehension, which are the skillful means and function of prajñā; these are the great and the small, not the small of apprehension. Furthermore, [the Buddha] wishes to guide those who study the Hīnayāna to enter the Great Teaching; even if one wishes to practice the Hīnayāna, one must also study this teaching. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: “Devaputras! If you wish to abide in the fruit of a srotāpanna, you must also not depart from this forbearance.”

Question: If so, then this teaching is common to the three vehicles?
Answer: Just as there are three grades of those who contemplate the middle way: through contemplation with inferior wisdom, one attains śrāvaka bodhi; through contemplation with middling wisdom, one attains pratyekabuddha bodhi; through contemplation with superior wisdom, one attains buddha bodhi.

Question: Why are four fruits established in the śrāvaka teaching, while ten bhūmis are opened in the bodhisattva teaching?
The master said: One must now open this path, as this path has long been blocked. Now we clarify that unimpeded and universal adaptability fully captures the skillful means of the sage: wishing to rescue and guide sentient beings, the Great and Small are opened according to their faculties and dispositions. However, when speaking ultimately of the gate of the Path, it has never been great or small; that it is now made into great and small is entirely an expedient of opening the great and the small in response to faculties and conditions. Yet the difference between the great and the small is due to there being both common and distinct aspects. If discussed generally, both the great and the small can be called bhūmis, and both the great and the small can be called fruits. Thus, in the ten bhūmis shared by the three vehicles, the bhūmi of the eight people and the bhūmi of seeing are the fruit of a srotāpanna; the bhūmi of attenuation is the fruit of a sakṛdāgāmin; the bhūmi of freedom from desire is the fruit of an anāgāmin; the bhūmi of what has been accomplished is the fruit of an arhat; and in the bodhisattva teaching, the bhūmi of what has been accomplished belongs to the buddha bhūmi. From this, one knows that both the great and the small can be called bhūmis. And that both the great and the small are called fruits: since the Hīnayāna is called the four fruits, the bodhisattva's ten bhūmis are also called the ten fruits; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, “Dharmas with existence are the bodhisattva's path; dharmas without existence are the bodhisattva's fruit.”

If discussed according to their distinctions, the opening of the great and the small differs: their fruits and bhūmis are distinct; the Hīnayāna is termed cause and fruit, whereas the bodhisattva is termed the ten bhūmis. The reason the bodhisattva is termed 'bhūmi' (ground) is that it supremely upholds and is vast and universal, able to give birth and bring to completion; because it possesses these numerous meanings, it is given the name 'bhūmi'. The śrāvaka lacks these various meanings, hence it is not called a bhūmi. The person of the śrāvaka reviles old age, sickness, and death, and wishes to enter the remainderless [nirvāṇa], hence they sever and eliminate afflictions; frequently realizing rest and respite to fulfill the longing of their heart, they are given the designation 'fruit'. The bodhisattva does not have these matters, hence it is not called a fruit. Yet there is also the sense of their mutual application, and the matter is always universally applicable. How is this known? For instance, all three kinds are vehicles, all three kinds are paths, all three kinds are bhūmis, and all three kinds are noble ones; so how could 'bhūmi' not be universally applicable? Thus one knows that one meaning is merely cited according to context.

Question: According to the Hīnayāna doctrine, afflictions are only explained as [severed by] seeing the truths and [severed by] cultivation. Since the initial fruit is established upon severing the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms, severing the afflictions of cultivation should likewise establish only one fruit. If so, there should only be two fruits; how can there be four fruits? If severing the afflictions of cultivation in the three realms establishes three fruits, then [severing] the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms should also establish three fruits. Furthermore, if determined according to realms: since there are three realms, severing the afflictions of the three realms should have three fruits; why does severing the afflictions of the desire realm establish two fruits, while severing the afflictions of the upper two realms establishes one fruit? If determined according to calm and distraction: the desire realm is already a distracted realm, so severing the afflictions of the desire realm should establish one fruit; the upper two realms are already calm realms, so severing the afflictions of the two realms should also establish one fruit. For what reason now are causes and fruits not established according to these meanings?
Answer: These are provisional designations established through the Tathāgata's skillful means, without fixed lakṣaṇas; discussed generally, it is fully as questioned. But that it is not so now is because severing the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms brings one out beyond the three lower destinies to become a noble one; hence the person of the initial fruit is established. The dust of the evil destinies having settled and the eighty-eight heads of the serpent having died, with respect to severing the afflictions of cultivation in the three realms three further fruits are established: severing the afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm establishes two fruits, and severing the afflictions of cultivation in the upper two realms establishes the arhat. Why is this? The desire realm is a realm of suffering and difficulty; since this is difficult to cross over, severing the afflictions of the desire realm establishes two fruits. The upper two realms are not realms of suffering and difficulty, and already have the foundation of liberation, so their afflictions are easily severed; hence severing the afflictions of the upper two realms establishes the fruit of an arhat.