金剛般若疏 4.6

4.6

From "the five eyes" onwards is the fifth chapter of the sūtra text. Its textual arrival has two aspects: first, proximate arising, which again arises from the four preceding chapters. In the four preceding chapters, none saw a bodhisattva, so the assembly at that time doubted: if the Tathāgata says that there is nothing seen, he should have no eyes; if he has eyes, why does he not see? Therefore, the five eyes are adduced in reply: now saying that he does not see does not mean he does not see because he lacks eyes; the five eyes see vividly, yet there is nothing seen. As the Chapter on Aniruddha in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra states: "There is a Buddha, the World-Honoured One, who has attained the true divine eye, constantly seeing all dharmas without dual marks." The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra also states: "Even with my five eyes I do not see dharmas, how much less could an ordinary person without eyes claim to attain bodhi?" Second, distal arising: from the beginning of the sūtra onward, it has consistently clarified non-apprehension and non-seeing, hence the present text. Furthermore, the earlier passage refuted the view of existence and thus spoke of non-seeing; the present passage refutes the view of non-existence and thus speaks of seeing, though there has never been seeing or non-seeing. The meaning of the five eyes must be explained separately; here, their numerical import is briefly indicated. The five eyes can be fully categorized according to five kinds of beings having five: humans have the physical eye; devas have the divine eye; the two vehicles, seeing the four truths, have the wisdom eye; bodhisattvas, illuminating the capacities of the three vehicles to preach the teachings of the three vehicles, have the dharma eye; and the Buddha has the Buddha eye. Next, in terms of two persons: the person in the causal stage has four eyes, and the person in the fruition stage has one eye. The causal person has four eyes, as praised in the Humane King Sūtra that bodhisattvas attain four eyes; the fruition person possessing the five superknowledges has one eye, namely the Buddha possessing the Buddha eye. Next, clarifying that one person completely possesses the five eyes: this is the Buddha. Question: Why are the five eyes fully possessed? Answer: This is the differentiated function of the non-differentiated. Adducing the realm within obstructions in reference to the Buddha's wisdom is called the physical eye; adducing the realm beyond obstructions to designate the Buddha's wisdom is called the divine eye; and in reference to the realm of the two wisdoms, it is called the wisdom eye. The Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra states: "The wisdom eye sees the true realm; seeing the true realm is called the wisdom eye." In the Chapter on Rebirth of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra it is said: "The wisdom eye does not leave any dharma unseen," and also: "yet there is nothing seen." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: "Possessing wisdom of general marks and wisdom of specific marks is called an eye," so we know that the wisdom eye possesses the two wisdoms. The dharma eye can be understood; where the four eyes are incomplete, the Buddha eye completely understands, hence it is called the Buddha eye; also, seeing the Buddha-nature is called the Buddha eye. "Subhūti! If there were sands in the Ganges River": this chapter serves to establish the five eyes. According to the treatise master's account of its arising, it clarifies that since the five eyes are few and their objects are many, how could few eyes know many objects? Since the objects are many, the eyes should also be many, but how could few eyes completely know many objects? Because of this doubt, it now clarifies that although the eyes are few, they can completely know all objects. Though the treatise contains no such text, the present explanation presents no difficulty either. One need only know that having earlier distinguished the five eyes, it now presents the objects illuminated by them. Question: Earlier the Ganges River was adduced, and now the Ganges River is explained; what is the difference? Answer: Earlier it was adduced to establish the comparison of the four-line verse, while now the Ganges River is adduced as the object illuminated by the five eyes. Question: Since the objects are many, why does it uniquely speak of knowing minds? Answer: There are two meanings: first, extensive and concise: earlier, the illuminating eyes were explained extensively, fully describing the five eyes; now, the illuminated objects are distinguished concisely, stopping at the mention of mind. Second, mind is formless and intangible, being the most difficult to know; now, adducing what is difficult to know as being known, what is easy can be readily understood. "The Tathāgata speaks of all minds": this clarifies that the Tathāgata sees that the minds of all sentient beings operate solely within inverted views. "Are no minds": they do not operate in correct contemplation. "Are called minds": this concludes the inverted mind. The arrival of the minds of the three periods of time explains and establishes the meaning of the inverted mind. Why is it called an inverted mind? Because seeking the mind throughout the three periods of time is unobtainable, yet sentient beings see that there is a mind; this is regarding what is non-existent as existent, and is therefore called inverted. "Subhūti! If someone filled a three-thousandfold world system with the seven treasures": this text arrives to resolve doubt. Above it was said that the Buddha knows that the minds of sentient beings are all inverted; thus, the manifold practices such as dāna performed with an inverted mind are all inverted. If so, there should be no cause of Buddhahood; and having no cause of Buddhahood, there should be no fruit of Buddhahood. Therefore, resolving this doubt, it clarifies that dāna and so forth performed with a mind of non-apprehension are indeed the cause of Buddhahood, and having the cause of Buddhahood, there is the fruit of Buddhahood. Question: From what source does non-inversion arise? Does one attain non-inversion from inversion, or does one attain non-inversion from non-inversion? Both alternatives have faults. If non-inversion is produced from inversion, then inversion would be the cause of non-inversion; if non-inversion is produced from non-inversion, then non-inversion would lack a cause. Answer: In the Chapter on the Three Wisdoms of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the Buddha answered this question: "Non-apprehension is not produced from apprehension, nor is non-apprehension produced from non-apprehension; because apprehension and non-apprehension are equal, it is non-apprehension." This is precisely that case. Question: Earlier the seven treasures of the three-thousandfold world system were already explained; how does it differ from the present passage? Answer: The earlier seven treasures were for comparing the four-line verse, whereas the present seven treasures serve to establish the cause of Buddhahood. "If merit and virtue were real": this immediately resolves a doubt. The doubt asks: earlier there were also the seven treasures of the three-thousandfold world system, and now it is the same; why is it the cause of Buddhahood? Hence it is explained: if merit and virtue were real, this clarifies merit and virtue with apprehension. "Because merit and virtue are non-existent": this clarifies merit and virtue without apprehension, which is therefore the cause of Buddhahood.