[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [金剛般若論會釋](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816) › 1.12 # 金剛般若論會釋 1.12 金剛般若論會釋 1.12 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.12) 准下解五種相文，從初發心，次修行布施等，乃至未入佛地，皆通此三，即勝解行位，有無分別三摩鉢底。《攝論》等文云，尋伺、實智、唯識觀等，皆在決擇分位，便與此文相違。解云，別作無相三性觀等在決擇分位，總觀無相起無分別修慧在勝解行，何妨亦得？天親菩薩明此道理，不得別作無相觀故，修行但說散布施等，三輪清淨修無相行，不說入等至；無著菩薩以總觀作無相觀等，說勝解行位，亦作無相等至。即以此理，天親菩薩住心初發，修行次生，後降心斷障，方作無相觀，斷分別故，初二聞、思伏，後方修慧斷，故答三問，前後別，文別，修行別別位故。無著菩薩以總得作無相觀，修折伏、正斷，俱名為斷，隨應位位皆運得作，故於文文皆答三問。以有二義故，二論主各各別解，各據一義，亦不相違，合二論義方是。由此順古，無著一周為利根一人，久修行者樂聞凡夫、十地及佛三位者說，天親二周為鈍根一人，初修者未聞凡夫發心、修行、斷障有疑者說，亦不相違。由不樂聞十地等行，合說二義，方周備故，經然今給審觀，天親論主作兩周說，讀者自錯，應以無著成就天親，天親義𨷂無著方解，但是捨迷。天親論頌，彌勒所說，無著菩薩豈與相違？有少不同，至經當釋。又依古釋，利根一聞即解，鈍人再聞方悟，利根初後二時而至，無著一周，天親兩周，兩論釋別，所望異故。依此釋經，全無相合違，文似重昏，乍謂兩周，據後釋經，全無重相，下自當悉，預解難知。 > According to the subsequent text explaining the five aspects, from the initial arousal of the mind, next practicing giving and so forth, up until one has not yet entered the Buddha-stage, all share in these three; that is, in the stage of practice through zealous resolve (adhimukticaryā-bhūmi), there is non-conceptualizing samāpatti. Texts such as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha state that investigative thought, subtle inspection, actual knowledge, the consciousness-only contemplation, and so on are all located in the stage of the aids to penetration (nirvedha-bhāgīya), which would then contradict this text. The explanation is: separately practicing the contemplation of signlessness and the three natures is in the stage of the aids to penetration, whereas generally contemplating signlessness to give rise to non-conceptualizing cultivated wisdom is in \[the stage of\] practice through zealous resolve—why should that not also be permissible? Bodhisattva Vasubandhu clarified this principle: because one cannot separately practice the contemplation of signlessness, his discussion of practice merely speaks of scattered giving and so forth, purifying the three wheels to cultivate signless practice, without speaking of entering samāpatti. Bodhisattva Asaṅga, on the basis that one practices the contemplation of signlessness through general contemplation, states that in the stage of practice through zealous resolve one also produces signless samāpatti. It is precisely by this principle that in Bodhisattva Vasubandhu's view, the abiding mind is first aroused, cultivation arises next, and then subduing the mind severs hindrances, only then practicing the contemplation of signlessness to sever conceptualization; hence, the first two are subdued by hearing and thinking, and only afterward severed by cultivated wisdom. Therefore, in answering the three questions, the sequence is distinct, the texts are distinct, and cultivation belongs to separate stages. Bodhisattva Asaṅga, holding that generally one can practice the contemplation of signlessness, regards both cultivation that subdues and cultivation that correctly severs as "severance", and applies them as appropriate across all the stages; thus in each passage he answers all three questions. Because there are two meanings, the two treatise masters each gave separate explanations based on one meaning, and these are not contradictory either; only by combining the meanings of both treatises does one arrive at the truth. For this reason, following ancient \[explanations\], Asaṅga's single cycle was spoken for one of sharp faculties, a practitioner of long standing who rejoices in hearing about the three stages of ordinary beings, the ten stages, and the Buddha; Vasubandhu's two cycles were spoken for one of dull faculties, a beginner who has not heard about an ordinary being's arousal of the mind, cultivation, and severing of hindrances and has doubts; these also do not contradict each other. Because they do not rejoice in hearing about practices like the ten stages, only when both meanings are spoken together are they complete and thorough. However, if one now examines carefully: when Master Vasubandhu provided two cycles of explanations, the readers themselves misunderstood; one should use Asaṅga to complete Vasubandhu, and where Vasubandhu's meaning is incomplete, only Asaṅga can explain it, which merely dispels confusion. The verses of Vasubandhu's treatise were spoken by Maitreya; how could Bodhisattva Asaṅga contradict them? Where there are slight differences, they will be explained when arriving at the sūtra. Furthermore, relying on ancient explanations, one of sharp faculties understands upon a single hearing, while a dull person awakens only upon a second hearing; for one of sharp faculties, the beginning and the end arrive at two times. Asaṅga presents one cycle and Vasubandhu presents two cycles; the two treatises explain differently because their perspectives differ. If one explains the sūtra according to this, there is no contradiction at all. The text seems redundant and obscure, appearing at first glance to be two cycles, but based on the subsequent explanation of the sūtra, there is no repetition at all; this will naturally be understood below, whereas prior explanation is difficult to grasp. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.11) - [Next: 1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.13) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816~en-mt.1.12) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.12) · Pramāṇa