般若心經略疏連珠記 2.34

2.34

經「以」下，第四、明所得。此經大科有五：初則斷疑以生信，次則顯理令正解，三則起行而斷惑，四明所得以顯果，五乃歎法以讚德。是則當機稟教依修剋證，一道始終，豈可但將所離一科斷除眾生情計？經家說示行者，令解理中無此便謂說空，抑歸權始。不觀此科二轉依果，無得而大得當機獲益耶？然此所得，若通論般若雖有權實，皆為三人所得。故經云「若有情類於聲聞乘性決定者，聞此法已，速能證得自無漏地。乃至於無上乘性決定者，聞此法已，速證無上正等菩提」等。又疏主曰：「般若亦為二乘，良以《法華》之前未經破會，通說三乘法，具獲三乘益。今經雖唯說大，兼斷彼疑與其進也。」於中二：初、牒前起後，二：初、唱經，二、判釋。「言以」下，牒經科釋也。前云無智亦無得，故今躡為因行，由是而得果。如是則前明所離是斷惑，今明所得是證果也。清涼曰：「無所得即般若相。由得般若無得智慧故方得也，故引《大品》無得而得。」《大品》又云「以無所得而為方便。」祖曰：「若不住事理、生死涅槃，則事理無礙之方便也。」疏主曰：「由觀真空方成諸行，是故十度等行皆由空成、菩提等果皆由空立，是故從此真空無住建立諸法。又令諸法得相即相入、無障無礙等，並是此門之大用也。」又無得者，要須足跡不存、蕩然淨掃，方云無得。清涼曰：「非但相有性無而已。謂諸宗計多有此說，但空自性、不空於法。如法相宗但無遍計，非無依他。設學三論不得意者，亦云法無自性故說為空，則令相不空矣。今無性緣生故有，有體即空；緣生無性故空，空而常有，要互交徹方是真空妙有。其言大同而旨有異，政觀以來尚不達此。」

From the sūtra’s “Because of…” downwards is the fourth [major section], clarifying what is attained. This sūtra has five major headings: first, severing doubts to give rise to faith; second, revealing the principle to cause right understanding; third, giving rise to practice to sever delusions; fourth, clarifying what is attained to reveal the fruit; fifth, praising the Dharma to laud its virtues. Thus, the capable practitioner receives the teaching, relies on it in cultivation, and decisively attains realization: a single path from beginning to end. How could one merely take the single heading of what is relinquished to eliminate the emotional fabrications of sentient beings? The compiler of the sūtra revealed to practitioners that understanding that the principle lacks these [dharmas] is merely called speaking of emptiness, thereby subordinating it to the provisional and initial [teachings]. How could one fail to observe that this heading of the fruit of the two transformations of the basis—having no attainment and thereby greatly attaining—benefits the capable practitioner? However, regarding what is attained here, if we speak generally of prajñā, although it has provisional and real [aspects], it is attained by three kinds of persons. Thus a sūtra states: “If there are sentient beings of determined nature in the Śrāvaka Vehicle, upon hearing this Dharma they will quickly be able to realize their own undefiled stage… up to: those of determined nature in the Unsurpassed Vehicle, upon hearing this Dharma, will quickly realize unsurpassed, right, and complete bodhi,” and so forth. Furthermore, the commentator stated: “Prajñā is also for the two vehicles; truly, because prior to the Lotus Sūtra there was not yet the breaking down and integration, it comprehensively taught the Dharma of the three vehicles, fully obtaining the benefits of the three vehicles. Although the present sūtra speaks only of the Great [Vehicle], it concurrently severs their doubts and grants them progress.” Within this there are two parts: first, taking up the preceding to introduce what follows, which has two: first, citing the sūtra; second, determining the interpretation. From “The word ‘because’…” downwards, taking up the sūtra to outline and explain it. Previously it stated that there is neither cognition nor attainment; now it tracks this as the causal practice, through which the fruit is attained. In this way, what was clarified previously as what is relinquished is the severing of delusions, and what is clarified now as what is attained is the realization of the fruit. Qingliang stated: “Non-attainment is the mark of prajñā. It is because one attains the wisdom of non-attainment of prajñā that one only then attains; hence it cites the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā: ‘attaining through non-attainment’.” The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā also states, “Taking non-attainment as the expedient means.” The Patriarch stated: “If one does not abide in phenomena or principle, saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, it is the expedient means of the non-obstruction between phenomena and principle.” The commentator stated: “It is by contemplating true emptiness that all practices are accomplished; therefore practices such as the ten pāramitās are all accomplished through emptiness, and fruits such as bodhi are all established through emptiness. Therefore, from this non-abiding of true emptiness, all dharmas are established. Furthermore, causing all dharmas to become mutually identical and mutually entering, unhindered and unobstructed, are all the great functions of this gateway.” Moreover, regarding non-attainment, it is essential that no footprints remain and all is sweepingly and purely cleared away before it can be called non-attainment. Qingliang stated: “It is not merely that marks exist while the nature is non-existent. Many doctrines of various schools hold this view, merely emptying intrinsic nature while not emptying dharmas. For instance, the Faxiang school holds only that the conceptualized does not exist, not that the dependent nature does not exist. Even students of the Sanlun school who fail to grasp the import say that dharmas are called empty because they lack intrinsic nature, which leaves marks unemptied. Now, because there is no nature, pratītyasamutpāda arises, hence existence—the substance of existence is itself empty; because pratītyasamutpāda is without nature, it is empty—empty yet constantly existing. Only when the two mutually penetrate are they true emptiness and wondrous existence. Their words are largely the same, but their purports differ; since the Zhenguan era, this has still not been understood.”