仁王護國般若經疏 3.16

3.16

From "Great King, this sūtra" onwards is the third [section], praising the prajñā of written words. The text has five [parts]: first, clarifying that many buddhas jointly preach it; second, presenting analogies; third, measuring [merit]; fourth, presenting comparisons; fifth, clarifying the characteristics of faith and understanding. Now this is the first. The Commentary states: "A single graph is called a graph (akṣara); two graphs are called a name (nāma). Two graphs that are not combined cannot constitute a name; only if they are spoken in combination do they become a name. Four graphs and so forth are named a phrase (pada); that which is explained beneath a phrase is named an expression (vyañjana)." From "in the Gaṅgā" onwards is the second, presenting analogies. A billion Mount Sumerus, a billion suns and moons, iron enclosing mountains, and great oceans constitute a great chiliocosm. Like the sands in the river, where each grain of sand is a world, filling them with the seven precious jewels to bestow upon sentient beings, as well as attaining the four fruits. Herein there is the intention of the two gifts of material wealth and Dharma, but the text appears implicit, and so forth. From "is not equal to" onwards is the third, measuring [merit]. A single thought of faith arising in an undefiled mind surpasses the previous two gifts. "How much more so understanding a single phrase" is the fourth, presenting a comparison. Faith merely does not slander; understanding is able to benefit others; thus faith is shallow and understanding is deep. This is said with respect to those of dull faculties. If it is as the Lotus Sūtra says, "Even you, Śāriputra, were able to gain entry into this sūtra through faith," this is precisely faith being understanding, spoken with respect to those of sharp faculties. From "phrases and non-phrases" onwards is the fifth, clarifying the characteristics of faith and understanding. The text has three [parts]: first, clarifying that the words are empty; second, clarifying that both words and meaning are empty; third, clarifying that both persons and dharmas are empty. Now this is the first. "Phrase" is existence; "non-phrase" is non-existence; "neither-phrase-nor-non-phrase" is neither existence nor non-existence. Neither existence [means] it is not the preceding existent phrase; neither non-existence [means] it is not the preceding non-existent phrase. Furthermore, a phrase is precisely written words; a non-phrase is the nature of written words being detached [from them]; neither-phrase-nor-non-phrase is not the preceding views of written words and detachment from nature, and so forth. "Prajñā is not a phrase, and a phrase is not prajñā" is the second, clarifying that both words and meaning are empty. Prajñā not being a phrase is the emptiness of meaning; a phrase not being prajñā is the emptiness of words. Because being precisely words it is not prajñā, and being precisely prajñā it is not words; apart from words there is no prajñā, and apart from prajñā there are no words; within words there is no prajñā, and within prajñā there are no words; seeking each in the other like this cannot be attained, therefore they are inherently empty. Furthermore, words and prajñā—sought in self, other, both, or apart from them—cannot be attained; therefore they are empty. From "Prajñā is also not a bodhisattva" onwards is the third, clarifying that both persons and dharmas are empty. In the text, it should also clarify the emptiness of persons, but it is merely because the text is abbreviated. This divides into two: first, discerning the emptiness of dharmas in terms of causal stages; second, discerning the emptiness of dharmas in terms of the fruition stage. The first text has three [parts]: now this is the first, stating the premise. Prajñā is a dharma; a bodhisattva is a person. Seeking a bodhisattva within prajñā cannot be attained; this is precisely the emptiness of dharmas. "Why is this?" is the second, raising the question. From "the ten bhūmis" onwards is the third, explaining. If in terms of the shared teaching, it explains the beginning, abiding, and end of the ten bhūmis traversed in common by the three vehicles. If in terms of the distinctive teaching, it clarifies the beginning, abiding, and end of the bodhisattva's ten bhūmis. From "nor is it sarvajña" onwards is the second, discerning the emptiness of dharmas in terms of the fruit. In Sanskrit it is sarvajña, translated here as sarvākārajñatā; sarvākārajñatā is precisely the buddha fruit. The buddha fruit is also empty; hence it says "nor is it sarvajña". Mahāyāna is the vehicle; since the person who rides is already empty, the dharma that is ridden is also empty, and so forth.