金剛般若疏 3.4.3

3.4.3

"Foremost among humans": there are altogether three kinds of being foremost. First is being foremost among persons. Second is being foremost in abandonment: this refers to abandoning two kinds of obstacles, namely, abandoning the affliction obstacle and abandoning the absorption obstacle. Third is being foremost in virtue: this is attaining the absorption of non-disputation, as well as the knowledge that severs the affliction obstacle and the knowledge that severs the absorption obstacle. Question: For what reasons and conditions does one cultivate the absorption of non-disputation? Answer: There are altogether three meanings. First, formerly hearing the Buddha explain that this absorption has various merits, one had faith in one's heart and vowed to attain it; now having become an arhat, one cultivates this absorption, and due to the former cause, one becomes practiced in it and attains it. Second, while an ordinary person, one gave rise to disputation against many sentient beings and thus suffered retribution; now having attained the stage beyond training (aśaikṣa), one looks back, remembering former sorrows and regrets, and therefore cultivates this absorption. Third, wishing to cause many persons to obtain retribution in the present life, one further cultivates it. Having attained this absorption, one first applies skillful means to safeguard the minds of others so that not a single sentient being gives rise to disputation toward oneself, and only then does one manifest one's body; hence it is called "non-disputation". Question: By what skillful means does one cultivate this absorption? Answer: First, within the dispersed mind, one makes a vow. In accordance with that aspiration of mind, one sets a near or far limit—perhaps a land, a village, people, or places—vowing to see all their appearances, clan names, and personal names, and to know what their minds tend toward. Having made this vow, one enters the penetrative absorption (nirvedha-bhāgīya samādhi); just as previously vowed, everything is clearly distinct. Having completed this matter, one returns to the dispersed mind and recollects what was seen in absorption, just as what was seen in a dream is remembered upon waking. By this means, one can prevent evil and generate good without vexing others; hence it is called "non-disputation". Non-disputation and the knowledge of aspiration complement each other, as explained before. Question: Why is it called "non-disputation"? Answer: Some say that benevolence (maitrī) is non-disputation, because on account of benevolence one does not dispute with beings. Some say that the fourth dhyāna is called non-disputation, because this absorption is free from the three disasters and avoids the four feelings. Some say that understanding emptiness is the absorption of non-disputation. Some say that it is precisely the knowledge of non-disputation that constitutes the absorption of non-disputation. Now, we explain in accordance with the treatise (*Upadeśa*). The treatise says: "Relying on Subhūti, he was far removed from two kinds of obstacles: by severing afflictions, he attained arhatship; by severing absorption obstacles, he attained the absorption of non-disputation." Hence we know that this is a distinct methodological absorption; it is neither an understanding of emptiness, nor the fourth dhyāna, nor benevolence. Question: The text says "desire-free arhat"; what desire is abandoned? Answer: It is not the desire of afflictions that is abandoned; rather, it is that Subhūti loved cultivating the practices of the araṇya, keeping far away from the realms of the five desires and five sense objects; this is called "desire-free". "Araṇya" is translated here as "free of business"; that is, wandering at ease and unrestrained, not bound by mundane encumbrances. The locations of the four passages are easy to recognize and need not be cited. "The Buddha said to Subhūti: 'In the past, when the Tathāgata was with Dīpaṃkara Buddha...'" onward is the second chapter, adducing Mahāyāna causes and fruits to explain and establish the preceding meaning. In the text, there are two parts: first, adducing Mahāyāna causes to explain and establish the preceding meaning; second, adducing Mahāyāna fruits to explain and establish the preceding meaning. Within adducing Mahāyāna causes, it divides into two: first, adducing the reception of prediction (vyākaraṇa); second, clarifying the adornment of lands. Here is the first. The reason this text occurs is that it arises from the preceding statement that the Dharma spoken by the Tathāgata cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken. If one says that dharmas cannot be grasped, then formerly as the Bodhisattva Māṇava, he should not have received prediction; if formerly as the Bodhisattva Māṇava he did indeed receive prediction, then dharmas would be graspable. If one says that dharmas cannot be spoken, then Dīpaṃkara Buddha should not have bestowed the prediction upon him. Since he bestowed the prediction upon Śākyamuni: "In a future age, you will attain Buddhahood," then it would be speakable. Because the assembly at that time harboured this doubt, the Buddha brought up the assembly's doubt to ask Subhūti, saying: "Did the Tathāgata attain bodhi through any dharma when with Dīpaṃkara Buddha?" Subhūti answered: "When with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, there was truly nothing attained." This meaning clarifies that one does not see a person who is capable of attaining, nor is there any prediction that can be attained, fully as recorded in the chapter on Maitreya in the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa*; only such non-attainment and non-non-attainment is called obtaining the reception of prediction—this attainment is truly non-apprehension. Masters of the north say that there are altogether four times of receiving prediction: first, receiving prediction not face-to-face at the lineage of habituation; second, receiving prediction also not face-to-face at the lineage of the path; third, receiving prediction face-to-face at the first bhūmi; fourth, receiving prediction face-to-face upon the great forbearance of non-arising at the eighth bhūmi. The text here clarifies that because Śākyamuni was still a bodhisattva of the lineage of habituation, he had not yet attained the prediction of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas at the first bhūmi or above. Now the Buddha asks Subhūti: "Did I at that time already realize the sambodhi of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhūmi? Or even realize the sambodhi of the permanent, present fruit after the vajra-[like samādhi]?" Subhūti answered: "The Tathāgata at that time had not yet attained the sambodhi of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhūmi, nor had he attained the permanent sambodhi after the vajra." We now maintain that the treatise has no such meaning, nor have we seen it stated in the sūtras; if inferred according to the principle, it is theoretically unacceptable. What is clarified here is simply the meaning of non-reliance and non-apprehension, refuting doubts about having reliance and apprehension, and establishing the preceding sense of being ungraspable and unspeakable; how could one interpret it in terms of the shallowness or depth of stages of practice? Thus in meaning it is not so. However, sūtras are not without the explanation of the three levels of sages and ten levels of āryas, and the *Śūraṅgamasūtra* also contains a passage on four kinds of predictions, but that is not the primary intent here. "'What do you think? Does he adorn Buddha lands or not?'" onward is the second part, which next distinguishes the adornment of lands to explain and establish the preceding meaning. The intention of its arrival is the same as before: if all dharmas cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken, how does a bodhisattva undertake the practice of purifying Buddha lands? To resolve this doubt, this text arrives. Question: Since causal practices are immeasurable, why was receiving prediction distinguished first, and now the adornment of lands clarified? Answer: Receiving prediction is the bodhisattva's own practice, while adorning lands is the practice of converting others. Because one awakens oneself to non-arising, the Buddha bestows the prediction: this is one's own practice. The categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's Buddha land; hence the practice of adorning lands is the practice of converting others. Although the portals of practice are many, they do not exceed these two; therefore it is clarified. Moreover, discussing the attainment of prediction earlier was the direct retribution (the person), while discussing the adornment of lands now is the dependent retribution (the environment). Furthermore, after attaining non-arising, the bodhisattva has no other business than maturing sentient beings and purifying Buddha lands. Next, the arriving text of the second phrase also has two parts: first, question; second, answer. The intent of the question is clear. Within the answer, there are two: first, directly clarifying the reality and falsity of adorning lands; second, exhorting the cultivation of causes for the pure land. Here is the first.