金剛般若疏 4.2.5

4.2.5

The reason persons of the Hģnayāna are unable to listen to and accept [this sţtra] is that, because they have apprehension, they do not believe in non-apprehension. Furthermore, this sţtra clarifies that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is permanently abiding; persons of the Hģnayāna claim that the Buddha is impermanent and ultimately extinguished, and therefore they do not believe. Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeőa says: "In the five hundred years, when the five hundred sects heard the Mahāyāna teachings explaining ultimate emptiness, it was like a knife wounding their hearts." Master Sengrui's Yu yi lun states: "In foreign countries, all thirty-six states study the Hģnayāna and do not believe in the Mahāyāna." Question: The Hģnayāna also clarifies emptiness, and the Mahāyāna also clarifies emptiness; why do persons of the Hģnayāna not believe in the Mahāyāna? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeőa states: "There are two kinds of emptiness: first, mere emptiness; second, not-mere emptiness. The Hģnayāna only attains mere emptiness and does not attain not-mere emptiness." Since this sţtra clarifies not-mere emptiness, they do not believe in [this] emptiness. Furthermore, persons of the Hģnayāna only attain the emptiness of sentient beings and do not attain the emptiness of dharmas. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeőa states: "After the Buddha's extinction, they divided into two groups: first, those who believe in the emptiness of sentient beings but do not believe in the emptiness of dharmas; second, those who believe in both emptinesses together." Now this sţtra fully clarifies the twofold emptiness, so persons of the Hģnayāna do not believe it. That non-Buddhists cling to the view of self and do not believe is easily understood. Next, from "Subhţti, wherever this sţtra is" onwards, is the third part: reiterating praise of the Dharma. Question: How is this praise of the Dharma different from the initial one? Answer: The initial one directly praised the sţtra's Dharma, while this one praises the place where the Dharma resides; hence they are different. Question: Above, it already praised that wherever the sţtra resides, that place is precious, just like a stţpa or shrine; why now praise it again as being like a stţpa? Answer: The former was a brief praise, while this is an extensive praise. The former directly said "like a stţpa or shrine", so it was brief; now it says "various kinds of offerings", so it is extensive. The former briefly praised the person, while now it extensively praises the person; the former briefly praised the place, while now it extensively praises the place. Furthermore, the former praised that wherever the sţtra resides, the place is precious; now it praises that not only is the place where the sţtra resides precious, but the places where a person who upholds this sţtra walks, stands, sits, or lies down are all like stţpas and shrines, and all should be revered and made offerings to. As the Lotus Sţtra says: "In whichever direction the person who upholds the Lotus Sţtra resides, all should pay homage to them." The commentary's intention makes this explanation; do not disbelieve it. Next, from "Furthermore, Subhţti, if a good man or good woman upholds this sţtra and is despised by others" onwards, is the fourth part: reiterating praise of the person. Question: How is this praise of the person different from the former? Answer: Above, the praise was in terms of the gateway of attainment; now, it is in terms of the gateway of liberation. How is this known? The previous text said that upholding the sţtra attains boundless merit; now it says that upholding the sţtra brings liberation from evil destinies—this is precisely the vajra's ability to destroy all adversities and hardships. The next intention for its occurrence is to resolve doubts: from above onwards, it has consistently clarified the boundless merit of a person who upholds the sţtra; why then do we see persons who uphold the sţtra having various hindrances, namely illness, suffering official misfortune, and meeting with being beaten, reviled, and other unpleasant matters? In order to resolve this doubt, it clarifies that this person's sinful karma from past lives should have caused them to fall into the eight difficulties, but due to the power of upholding the sţtra, they experience it lightly in the present life. Next, from "I recall in the past" onwards, is the third part: citing Śākyamuni's past causes to make a comparative evaluation. The previous internal and external givings both cited the present life; now it clarifies past causes, evaluating the present life in terms of past lives. Previously it evaluated in terms of the merit of those who are transformed; now it evaluates in terms of the merit of the one who transforms—only evaluating like this reaches the utmost limit of comparative evaluation. Question: Why is it that the merits of both the transformer and the transformed are cited in comparative evaluation, yet neither equals upholding the sţtra? Answer: These are ultimately merits with apprehension, and do not equal upholding the sţtra. Question: How is it known that these are all comparative evaluations of merits with apprehension? Answer: Both the sţtra and treatise have proof. The treatise's explanation of the initial giving of three thousand worlds states: "Two are able to approach bodhi; merit does not approach bodhi." The "two" referred to are being able oneself to uphold it and also explaining it for others; these two can approach bodhi. The merit of giving has outflows; having apprehension, it cannot approach bodhi. As for proof from the sţtra, this takes [the time] before Dīpaṃkara Buddha: before that was with apprehension, so he had not yet attained non-arising; hence we know it takes giving with apprehension. Moreover, another intention for citing Śākyamuni's past causes to make a comparative evaluation is that merit is clarified through three gateways: above, it has already finished evaluating the merits of two gateways, but had not yet evaluated the merit of personally upholding, reading, and reciting; now, to praise and evaluate the merit of personally upholding, reading, and reciting, this passage appears. Question: In evaluating personal upholding, reading, and reciting, why does the merit become increasingly weighty? Answer: The blessing of personally upholding, reading, and reciting is already so weighty; how much more so when possessing both one's own practice and transforming others—how could it be measured? This is to reveal the weightiness of the merit, so it evaluates one's own practice. Lecturers and reciters must examine the sţtra closely; otherwise they will not realize this. Question: In clarifying merit through three gateways, how do the three gateways of comparative evaluation differ? It is answered: In the gateway of one's own practice and transforming others, the merit is itself the comparative evaluation—from the three thousand worlds to physical bodies and lives numerous as the sands of the Ganges, this is it. In the gateway of one's own faith and the gateway of one's own upholding, these two gateways first clarify the merit and afterwards make the comparative evaluation; hence the texts differ in being separate or combined. Question: How do the merits clarified through the three gateways differ? Answer: They are precisely the three grades. Merely generating faithful resolve is the lower grade; upholding, reading, and reciting without explaining for others is the middling grade; next, upholding and also explaining for others is the upper grade. Furthermore, the former two are one's own practice, while the latter one possesses both self and other.