金剛般若疏 4.12

4.12

From "If you give rise to this thought" onward is the arrival of the twelfth chapter of the sūtra. The commentary's contextual arising states: "If one says that one does not see the dharmakāya by means of bodily marks, then cultivating the karma of the marks does not attain bodhi. If so, there would be no cause of merit and no fruit of merit. To refute this doubt, it explains: You must not say there is no cause of merit and fruit of merit." A Buddha has two kinds of adornment: through the cause of merit one attains the fruit of the major marks—this is the adornment of merit; through cultivating the cause of wisdom one attains the fruit of wisdom—this is the adornment of wisdom. The Tathāgata fully possesses both adornments of merit and wisdom; why would there be no fruit of the major marks? "If you give rise to this thought, [that one who] generates the bodhicitta speaks of all dharmas as annihilated..." There is also the doubt: When a bodhisattva attains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and supramundane wisdom, at that time he abandons the physical body and receives the dharmakāya, and so there should no longer be a cause of merit and fruit of merit. To refute this doubt, it explains that when a bodhisattva attains the acceptance of non-arising, he attains wondrous wisdom and wondrous merit; how could he lose the cause and fruit of merit and fall into annihilation? Question: Here it says "generating the bodhicitta"; why is it interpreted as attaining the acceptance of non-arising? Answer: Initially attaining the acceptance of non-arising is also called initial generation of the mind. Furthermore, this passage explains that from the initial generation of the mind, one does not practice the contemplation of annihilation, nor does one give rise to the contemplation of permanence; subsequent minds are all likewise. Therefore, the beginning and the end are not two, just as it is said: "Initial resolve and ultimate [realization] are not two or different." Previously it was explained that the Buddha-fruit is neither endowed with marks nor devoid of marks; now it is explained that the cause is neither annihilated nor eternal; it can be said that cause and fruit are both correct contemplation, and both are free from annihilation and eternity. Question: If so, what is the difference between cause and fruit? Answer: Clarity and obscurity differ, so cause and fruit are distinguished. As for "giving dāna of the seven treasures filling worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges": Question: Above, the comparative evaluation with the sands of the Ganges was already completed; why is it spoken again? Answer: In the first cycle it went from the trichiliocosm to the sands of the Ganges, and in the second cycle it is also like this; the meaning of both assemblies is not lost. Furthermore, the reason for its appearance differs: previously it was to evaluate upholding four lines of the sūtra, whereas now it is to evaluate the bodhisattva's acceptance of selflessness. This is the selflessness of persons and dharmas, hence it is called the acceptance of selflessness. As for "does not accept merit": because he does not accept merit that involves apprehension, this bodhisattva surpasses the former bodhisattva; the former bodhisattva accepts merit that involves apprehension, and so does not equal the latter bodhisattva. Next, question and answer analyze the meaning of non-acceptance. Question: Since the bodhisattva produces merit, why is he not attached to it? Answer: Because the bodhisattva produces it with a mind free of acceptance, he does not give rise to a mind of greed; it is mostly not a matter of not producing merit, yet he is not greedy for it.