般若心經略疏連珠記 2.34

2.34

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.”