金剛經纂要刊定記 1.18

1.18

「且初意者，只如此經是空無相宗，有以法相行位廣列而釋，此則不符聖旨，失於宗故。故序云：『或配入名相著事乖宗。』有人聞是空宗便作一味無相道理解釋，此亦不符聖旨。以宗雖無相、義乃千端，既以一味解釋，此則迷於末也。故序云：『或但云一真望源迷派。』前則乖宗不迷派，此則迷派不乖宗，互有得失俱未圓暢。復有縱於僻見以之注釋，宗派俱失不足評量。故序云：『其餘胸談臆注，不足論矣。』然其諸說雖各有舛的，以未兼暢故，皆判云不符聖旨也。今製此疏，不添法相免乖於宗，隨文釋之不迷於派，離前二過宛乎得中，此則超然獨符聖旨。然今疏內皆用聖言，故序云：『故今所述不攻異端，疏是論文乳非城內。』況二菩薩師補處尊，補處如來師釋迦佛，展轉推本佛佛相承，降及無著、天親更無異說，故知此疏便是佛言，謗此疏者即同謗佛也。故序云：『且天親、無著師補處尊，後學何疑，或添或棄。』

"Regarding the first intention: this sūtra belongs to the school of emptiness and signlessness, yet some have explained it by broadly laying out the doctrinal characteristics, practices, and stages; this fails to accord with the sage's intention because it loses the school's central purport. Thus the preface states: 'Some match it to terminology, clinging to phenomena and deviating from the school.' Some, hearing that it is the school of emptiness, explain it exclusively as a single flavor of signless principle; this also fails to accord with the sage's intention. For although the school is signless, its meanings are manifold; if one explains it exclusively with a single flavor, one is confused about the branches. Thus the preface states: 'Some merely speak of the One Reality, gazing at the source but losing the streams.' The former deviated from the school without being confused about the streams; the latter was confused about the streams without deviating from the school. Each had merits and shortcomings, and neither was complete or thorough. Furthermore, there are those who indulge in eccentric views to annotate and explain it; having lost both the school and its branches, they are not worthy of evaluation. Thus the preface states: 'As for the rest, who speak from their own minds and annotate from imagination, they are not worth discussing.' Although their various explanations each have their errors, because they were not completely thorough, all are judged not to accord with the sage's intention. Now, in composing this commentary, we do not add doctrinal characteristics, avoiding deviation from the school; we explain following the text, not becoming confused about the streams. Leaving behind the previous two errors, it truly attains the middle; thus it stands out alone as according with the sage's intention. Moreover, within this commentary, the words of the sages are used throughout. Thus the preface states: 'Therefore what is now set forth does not attack heterodoxies; the commentary is based on treatise literature, like milk that does not come from within the city walls.' What is more, the two bodhisattvas had the Successor as their master, and the Successor Tathāgata had the Buddha Śākyamuni as his master; tracing the source step by step, buddha inherits from buddha, down to Asaṅga and Vasubandhu with no divergent teachings. Therefore we know that this commentary is itself the words of the Buddha; one who slanders this commentary is the same as one who slanders the Buddha. Thus the preface states: 'Furthermore, Vasubandhu and Asaṅga had the Successor as their master; what doubt should later students have, adding to it or discarding it?'