金剛般若波羅蜜經略疏 2.46

2.46

就第四、顯行德分量，文中有五：初有四句，舉碎微塵末之數顯染盡淨，於法界中無一住相故。微塵眾者，示現非一喻故。二何以故，問答釋教興意。三復何以已下，明聖教所趣，於中展轉有五句可知。四佛言須菩提下，顯其正義。五但凡夫之人下，會其聖意，於中有八句相生可知。文言若世界及一合相實有者，如來即不說。何以故？凡夫應是、聖人應非故，餘者準之。文言一合相者，如分別見一實相也。若欲識其文意，先對文言約凡聖二位開其二相：一約眾生，見一合相即是一合相即非一合相；二約聖者，說一合相即非一合相是名一合相。依此二門取解即易。其義云何？眾生見一合相者，由依似作實塵解，即不見似塵藉於眾緣，及作時不住，故不成合相，迷見實塵，唯見一有故。是一合相者，由見實塵定有性，故是合也；即非一合相者，由見塵實即無實理，與無不異，故即非合故。佛說一合相者，佛知似塵假合而成，非有似有，故說合相。即非一合相者，此有二義非一合相：第一非彼凡夫所謂實塵一合相；第二由彼諸緣作時不住不作故，故非似合也。是名一合相者，由彼諸緣似合成塵，故非是無，名一合相也。今聖意說一合相，顯凡分別是其失明。聖人所見一合相者，是離分別順其正理，故有此二言趣入方便。其義云何？有二種方便：一由似作故離無分別，以見似有不得是無，若見是無即是分別；由似不作故離有分別，以見似無不得是有，若見是有即是分別。二由似作故離無分別，以見似有不得是無，若見是無即是分別；由似作故離有分別，今見似有非是實有，若見實有即是分別。由似不作故，離有分別，以見似無，不是實有，若見實有即是分別；由似不作故離無分別，以見似無不是實無，若見實無即是分別。此可思。何以故？由此中義與後八喻有不同故。

Regarding the fourth [part], revealing the measure of the virtues of practice, there are five [sections] in the text: First, there are four sentences citing the number of finely crushed dust motes to reveal that defilement is exhausted and purified, because within the dharmadhātu there is not a single abiding mark. The 'collection of dust motes' is presented as a metaphor for non-oneness. Second, 'Why is this?' is a question and answer explaining the intent behind the arising of the teaching. Third, from 'Furthermore, why' onward explains the purport of the holy teaching, within which there are successively five sentences that may be understood. Fourth, from 'The Buddha said, Subhūti' onward reveals its correct meaning. Fifth, from 'yet ordinary persons' onward harmonizes with the holy intent, within which there are eight mutually generating sentences that may be understood. The text says that if worlds and an integrated composite were real existents, the Tathāgata would not speak of them. Why is this? Because ordinary persons would be right and the holy ones would be wrong; the rest should be gauged accordingly. As for the text saying 'an integrated composite', it is like discriminately seeing a single real mark. If one wishes to recognize the meaning of the text, one must first open up two marks concerning the positions of ordinary persons and holy ones in relation to the words of the text: First, regarding sentient beings: seeing an integrated composite, it is an integrated composite, and it is not an integrated composite. Second, regarding holy ones: speaking of an integrated composite, it is not an integrated composite, and it is named an integrated composite. Relying on these two gates, it is easy to grasp the understanding. What is its meaning? Sentient beings seeing an integrated composite: because they rely on seeming [dust] to form an understanding of real dust, they do not see that seeming dust depends on numerous conditions and does not abide when produced; thus it does not form an integrated mark. Deludedly seeing real dust, they only see a single existence. That it 'is an integrated composite' is because they see real dust as having a definite nature; thus it is integrated. That it 'is not an integrated composite' is because they see the reality of dust as lacking real principle, being no different from nonexistence; thus it is not integrated. That the Buddha speaks of an integrated composite: the Buddha knows that seeming dust is formed by temporary combination, not existent yet seeming to exist; therefore he speaks of an integrated mark. That it 'is not an integrated composite' has two meanings: first, it is not that integrated composite of real dust alleged by those ordinary persons; second, because those various conditions do not abide and do not produce when producing, it is not a seeming integration. That it 'is named an integrated composite': because those various conditions seem to combine to form dust, it is not nonexistent; hence it is named an integrated composite. Now, the holy intent in speaking of an integrated composite reveals that ordinary discrimination is its error and blindness. The integrated composite seen by the holy ones is free from discrimination and conforms to its correct principle; therefore there are these two statements providing an expedient means of access. What is its meaning? There are two kinds of expedient means: First, because of seeming production, one is free from the discrimination of nonexistence, since seeing seeming existence, it cannot be nonexistent—if one sees it as nonexistent, that is discrimination; because of seeming non-production, one is free from the discrimination of existence, since seeing seeming nonexistence, it cannot be existent—if one sees it as existent, that is discrimination. Second, because of seeming production, one is free from the discrimination of nonexistence, since seeing seeming existence, it cannot be nonexistent—if one sees it as nonexistent, that is discrimination; because of seeming production, one is free from the discrimination of existence: now seeing seeming existence is not real existence—if one sees real existence, that is discrimination. Because of seeming non-production, one is free from the discrimination of existence, since seeing seeming nonexistence is not real existence—if one sees real existence, that is discrimination; because of seeming non-production, one is free from the discrimination of nonexistence, since seeing seeming nonexistence is not real nonexistence—if one sees real nonexistence, that is discrimination. This should be pondered. Why is this? Because the meaning here is not identical with the subsequent eight metaphors.