金剛般若論會釋 1.55

1.55

問：「無著、天親共遣慈氏，內稱昆季，外號師資，俱釋經文，並為人範，何因弟制兩周，別酬先問？兄分三段，總答前徵，成依地而漸修？或釋疑而顯起玄宗，便異粗梗概，以為言識義殘文故，不可而言，𭿺盾以為師義，師文固不可而言也。既而𭿺盾，前哲如何華蕚，後賢願辨指南，以駿未悟；為辨指歸，以駿來悟。」答：「為謀日積久，應彼道同，入室歲盈，信成風靡。此中三問，第一問，弟制兩周者，是先德之迷宗；兄分三段者，乃今修之悟旨。無著稟偈於彌勒，天親受旨於賢兄，何得兄說一周、弟分兩遍？天親亦一周而說解者，自迷云爾。有別解，已如前釋。又第二問，弟別酬先問、兄總答前徵者，弟隨文增以制答，兄逐義具而酬問；又兄隨利根以釋文，弟逐鈍品而解義；又弟逐初學以申宗，兄隨久修陳旨；由此不同，不相違也。又第三問，兄依地而漸修、弟釋疑而顯起者，聽者但隨信定，即說進善滅惡之門；聞者有疑生，即逐他情以陳妙道；兄隨前義，依地漸修；弟遂後說，釋疑顯起。又兄但依宗以釋義，弟乃假說以明生文，二製狀似不同，理實非相𭿺盾，大同小異，應釋二文，如下當說。」

Question: 'Asaṅga and Vasubandhu were both sent by Maitreya; inwardly known as brothers, outwardly acclaimed as master and disciple. Both explained the sūtra text and both served as models for people. For what reason did the younger brother compose two cycles to separately respond to the earlier questions, while the elder brother divided it into three sections to comprehensively answer the preceding interrogation, establishing gradual cultivation based on the stages? Or did one resolve doubts to reveal the profound doctrine, thus differing from a coarse outline, considering that because of the broken text where words understand the meaning, it cannot be expressed, taking contradiction as the master's doctrine—the master's text certainly cannot be expressed. Since they are contradictory, how did former sages harmonize like flowers and calyx? May later worthies distinguish the compass to enlighten the unawakened; distinguish the objective to enlighten future [practitioners].' Answer: 'Their planning was accumulated over long days; they responded to the same path. Years filled their entering the inner chamber; their influence spread like the wind. Here concerning the three questions: for the first question, that the younger brother composed two cycles is the previous virtuous masters' delusion regarding the doctrine; that the elder brother divided into three sections is the awakened import of the present cultivation. Asaṅga received the verses from Maitreya, and Vasubandhu received the purport from his worthy elder brother; how could the elder brother speak of one cycle while the younger brother divided it into two rounds? That Vasubandhu also explained it in a single cycle was simply his own confusion, so it is said. There are other explanations, as already explained before. Again, for the second question, that the younger brother separately responded to the earlier questions while the elder brother comprehensively answered the preceding interrogation: the younger brother formulated his answers following the textual increments, while the elder brother replied to the questions following the complete meaning; furthermore, the elder brother explained the text according to sharp faculties, while the younger brother interpreted the meaning following dull capacities; furthermore, the younger brother stated the doctrine following beginners, while the elder brother expounded the purport following long-term cultivators; because of these differences, they are not contradictory. Again, for the third question, that the elder brother cultivated gradually based on the stages while the younger brother resolved doubts and revealed [the doctrine]: if the listeners merely follow faith and certitude, he then expounds the gate of advancing in good and eradicating evil; if doubts arise in the hearers, he then sets forth the wondrous path following their dispositions. The elder brother followed the former meaning, cultivating gradually according to the stages; the younger brother then spoke according to the latter, resolving doubts and revealing [the doctrine]. Furthermore, the elder brother merely explained the meaning based on the doctrine, while the younger brother used hypothetical expositions to clarify the arising text. The two compositions appear different in form, but in principle are truly not contradictory; being largely the same with minor differences, the two texts should be explained as will be stated below.'