般若心經略疏連珠記 1.41

1.41

「何以」下，二、顯意。「何以」者，假問令說也。「謂顯」等者，滅惑要須開解，開解在於顯談；祝詛志期生福，障除然後福生。經談二分，依修而福慧等嚴，故云顯了等也。夫灌頂大悲，滌業之辭甚顯；首稜如意，雪罪之文頗明。孤山乃謂顯祕之與機心好異，引直說為神呪，判情迷作祕宣，遂使教闕淺深、人無利鈍。且郢書燕說，誰曰不空？獻替鳳毛，豈稱祕密？況乃全抄本疏，雜以浮辭謾誇，十疏通經是亦浪名。江表鈔《盂蘭》而服《義疏》，斯經乃欺心，中邊皆甜、實難其味。

From "Why?" down, second, revealing the intent. "Why?" is a hypothetical question to prompt the exposition. Regarding "It means that the explicit" and so forth: to eliminate delusions, one must open understanding; opening understanding lies in explicit discourse. In incantations, the intent aspires to generate merit; once hindrances are removed, merit is then generated. The sūtra speaks of two divisions, so that by cultivating accordingly, merit and wisdom are equally adorned; hence it says "explicit" and so forth. Indeed, in the Great Compassion of the Abhiṣeka, the words for cleansing karma are exceedingly explicit; in the Śūraṅgama and Cintāmaṇi, the text for wiping away sins is quite manifest. Gushan claimed that the explicit and esoteric vary according to the inclinations of the faculties, citing direct discourse as divine dhāraṇīs and categorising emotional delusions as esoteric declarations, thereby causing the teaching to lack shallow and profound, and persons to lack sharp and dull. Yet when the letter from Ying is explained in Yan, who can say it is not vain? Presenting and replacing phoenix feathers, how could this be called esoteric? Moreover, plagiarising the entire original commentary and mixing in superficial words, he vainly boasts that 'ten commentaries comprehend the sūtra,' which is also an empty reputation. South of the Yangtze they copy the Yulanpen and submit to the Yishu; this sūtra is deceitful at heart—sweet at both center and edge, its flavor is truly difficult [to stomach].