金剛般若論會釋 1.11

1.11

故下論解經名中，能斷者，般若波羅蜜中，聞、思、修所斷，如金剛斷處而斷故，由此聞、思皆折伏名能斷。又在修位學勝慧時，最初證得心平等性，次後證得明心正直性，最後證得心無功用住性，故為三問。經云，第一顯前攝道，攝彼彼行故；第二顯成熟道，勝修慧位故；第三顯不失道，不過故，正解此同。又初是加行道，次是無間、解脫道，後是勝進道，但在因中，非佛位有。信行地中，三皆有漏；八地已前，初地已後，通有、無漏；八地已上純是無漏，無勉勵加行，有任運加行故，無別發勝進，即於一念外，行身、語亦無放逸，故此具三。或一剎那真俗並用，剎那剎那皆具三種，任運欣趣內平等觀、外起化故。然天親論中，初住心深念眾生，次修行菩提心，後降伏厭離有為。又此三問，初、恩德因，次、智德因，後、斷德因，即是化身、報身、法身因。亦逆次第，斷惡，修善，度脫眾生，此初名攝道，攝受眾生故；次成熟道，修佛法故；次不失道，離惡盡故。乍觀此論，以聞、思、修解，初二似有別；不離修慧位，有此三種，故不相違。然依《菩薩地》，初答有三持，謂諸菩薩自乘種姓，為第一堪任性持，以此為依，堪證大菩提故；最初發心，為第二行加行持，以此為依，行於能證大菩提行，皆圓滿故；所修一切菩提分等一切萬行，為第三所圓滿大菩提持。故無種姓不名為持，其有種姓，雖未發心，望彼為勝。若依天親論，別答三問，前後文別。由初能持故，可起菩提心，有初住問；由有第二能持故，別起行，有第二修行問；由有第三能持故，得大菩提，有第三伏心問。或天親文與此無別，文中一一皆有三答，據文顯相，且就偏說。別配經文，不遮一一文皆具三故，前所解三佛因緣不爾，便與二論相違，三持義別，不次此配文。又初二問能治道，第三問斷所障故，但三問不增不減。羅什二問，住中合故。

Therefore, in the lower treatise's explanation of the sūtra's title: "Vajracchedikā" refers to what is severed by hearing, thinking, and cultivating within the prajñāpāramitā, because it severs just as a diamond severs at the point of severance; hence, both hearing and thinking, as subduing [afflictions], are termed "vajracchedikā". Furthermore, when studying superior wisdom in the stage of cultivation, one first realizes the equality of mind, next realizes the clarity and rectitude of mind, and finally realizes the state of mind abiding without effort; hence the three questions are posed. The sūtra states: the first reveals the preceding embracing path, because it embraces those respective practices; the second reveals the path of maturation, because it is the stage of superior cultivated wisdom; the third reveals the path of non-loss, because it does not transgress. The correct explanation is the same as this. Furthermore, the first is the preparatory path; the next is the path of immediate succession and the path of liberation; the last is the path of superior progress. These exist only in the causal [stages], not in the stage of buddhahood. In the stage of practice through faith, all three are tainted; prior to the eighth stage and after the first stage, they include both tainted and untainted; from the eighth stage onward, they are purely untainted, lacking deliberate preparatory practice because they have spontaneous preparatory practice, and without separately initiating superior progress, within a single moment, bodily and verbal actions are also without negligence, so that they possess all three. Alternatively, within a single instant, the ultimate and the conventional are operated simultaneously, moment after moment possessing all three kinds, because one spontaneously aspires toward the inner contemplation of equality while externally producing transformations. However, in Vasubandhu's treatise, the abiding mind first deeply attends to sentient beings, next cultivates the bodhicitta, and then subdues and renounces conditioned phenomena. Moreover, among these three questions, the first is the cause of the virtue of benevolence, the second is the cause of the virtue of wisdom, and the third is the cause of the virtue of abandonment, which are precisely the causes of the nirmāṇakāya, the saṃbhogakāya, and the dharmakāya. In reverse order, they also mean severing evil, cultivating good, and liberating sentient beings. Here the first is called the embracing path, because it embraces sentient beings; the next is the path of maturation, because it cultivates the Buddha-dharmas; the next is the path of non-loss, because evil is completely eliminated. At first glance at this treatise, since it explains them in terms of hearing, thinking, and cultivating, the first two seem distinct; yet they are not separated from the stage of cultivated wisdom and possess these three kinds, so there is no contradiction. However, relying on the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the first answer contains three kinds of sustainment (dhāraṇa): the bodhisattvas' lineage of their own vehicle is the first sustainment of capability, relying on which one is capable of realizing great bodhi; the initial arousal of the mind is the second sustainment of engaging in preparatory practice, relying on which one practices the conduct capable of realizing great bodhi so that all are perfected; all myriad practices such as the factors of bodhi cultivated are the third sustainment of perfecting great bodhi. Hence, one without lineage is not called a "sustainment"; one who possesses the lineage, even if the mind has not yet been aroused, is superior when viewed against such a one. If one relies on Vasubandhu's treatise, it answers the three questions separately, and the texts before and after are distinct. Because the first is capable of sustainment, one can arouse bodhicitta—hence the question on initial abiding; because the second is capable of sustainment, one separately initiates practice—hence the second question on cultivation; because the third is capable of sustainment, one attains great bodhi—hence the third question on subduing the mind. Alternatively, Vasubandhu's text is not different from this: each part of the text contains all three answers, and based on the explicit characteristics in the text, it temporarily speaks from one perspective. Separately matching the sūtra passages does not preclude each and every passage from possessing all three. If the earlier explanation of the causes and conditions of the three bodies of the Buddha were not so, it would contradict the two treatises; the meanings of the three sustainments are distinct and are not matched to the passages in this sequence. Furthermore, the first two questions concern the path of antidotes, while the third question concerns severing what obscures; thus there are only three questions, neither more nor less. Kumārajīva has two questions because he combined them within "abiding".