[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) › 1.73 # 金剛般若論會釋 1.73 金剛般若論會釋 1.73 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.73](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.73) 即由上來所說義故，諸人不悟，謂天親論乖無著說，應審觀察，此會同意，實不相違。故天親云，「自此已下一切脩多羅，示現斷生疑心」，故知彼論依因前說初學疑起，生下經文，以破彼疑；此論依於初學希後非真實功德，而修於行者，為破彼慢，生下經文，不相違也。又彼論依利根初學多生前疑，故說下經；此論依於鈍根初學多生後慢，故說下經。又彼論中，依文相增，前後三文以答三問，故別作道理，以生下經，說破疑起；今此論中，依義具足，文文之中，皆答三問，故非異道理，以生下經，說為除慢，實不相違。又彼依破不定煩惱初學者疑，以生下經；此依初學斷決定煩惱增上慢故，以生下經。上來四義且依同義，以會二論。依異義者，復有四義。此論依為樂廣聞者，故說三地，從凡至佛，皆具說之，文文具答，生慢起文；彼論依為樂略聞者，別答三問，後皆斷疑。又此論依為利根之人一聞即悟，故說三地，一周說經，文文具答，生慢起文，次第不同；彼論依為鈍根之人再聞方解者，故兩周說，別答三問，餘皆破疑。又此論依為初來利根一周而說，故說生慢；彼論依為後來鈍根兩周而說，故說破疑。又理出百途，何勞一徹？破執、生慢，各各不同，一會之中，樂有廣略，根有利鈍，聞有單重，理有多徹，種種別故，兩論解異。不爾，無著受偈於彌勒，下付天親，命其造釋，無著豈乖於慈氏，天親苟異於賢兄者乎？無著論初歸敬偈言，「智者所說教及義，聞已轉為我等說」，故知聞已為我說者，即是慈氏所說偈。天親論中所釋偈，是彌勒作故，天親頌云，「大智通達教我等，頂禮無比功德身」，正與此論敘敬皆同，應會如前解三問中及攝住處，總應說此。以此和會下諸經文，應當決了。 > It is precisely due to what has been explained above that people, failing to understand, consider Vasubandhu's treatise to conflict with Asaṅga's exposition. One should examine this carefully; when reconciling them under a single purport, there is truly no contradiction. Thus Vasubandhu states, "From this point onward, all the sūtra \[passages\] manifest the severing of doubts that have arisen." Hence we know that his treatise relies on the arising of doubt in initial practitioners due to the previous explanation to introduce the subsequent sūtra text in order to break that doubt; whereas this treatise relies on initial practitioners who, yearning for what in the future is not genuine merit, cultivate practice, to introduce the subsequent sūtra text in order to shatter their arrogance—\[the two\] do not contradict each other. Furthermore, his treatise relies on sharp-rooted beginners mostly generating the former doubt, and thus explains the subsequent sūtra; this treatise relies on dull-rooted beginners mostly generating the latter arrogance, and thus explains the subsequent sūtra. Moreover, in his treatise, relying on the increase of textual aspects, three preceding and succeeding passages are used to answer the three questions, thus establishing a distinct principle to introduce the subsequent sūtra and speaking of breaking the arising of doubt; in the present treatise, relying on the completeness of the meaning, each and every passage answers the three questions, so it does not introduce the subsequent sūtra through an extraneous principle, but speaks of eliminating arrogance, truly without contradiction. Moreover, his \[treatise\] relies on breaking the doubts of beginners with unfixed afflictions to introduce the subsequent sūtra; this \[treatise\] relies on beginners severing the determined affliction of haughtiness to introduce the subsequent sūtra. The preceding four points reconcile the two treatises according to their shared purport. According to their differences, there are four further points. This treatise relies on those who delight in detailed exposition, and so expounds the three stages, fully presenting them from ordinary beings up to the Buddha, with each passage answering in full, introducing the text on the arising of arrogance; his treatise relies on those who delight in concise exposition, separately answering the three questions, and subsequently severing doubts in each case. Furthermore, this treatise relies on persons of sharp faculties who awaken upon a single hearing, and so expounds the three stages, delivering the sūtra in a single round, with each passage answering in full, introducing the text on the arising of arrogance with a distinct sequence; his treatise relies on persons of dull faculties who understand only upon hearing twice, and so expounds it in two rounds, separately answering the three questions, with the rest breaking doubts. Furthermore, this treatise is spoken in a single round for sharp-rooted ones who arrived early, and therefore speaks of the arising of arrogance; his treatise is spoken in two rounds for dull-rooted ones who arrived later, and therefore speaks of breaking doubt. Furthermore, principles emerge through a hundred paths—why insist that they must penetrate uniformly? Shattering attachments and the arising of arrogance are each different: within a single assembly, inclinations vary between broad and concise, faculties between sharp and dull, hearing between single and repeated, and principles penetrate through multiple ways; because of such varied differences, the two treatises explain differently. Were it not so, Asaṅga received the verses from Maitreya and transmitted them below to Vasubandhu, commissioning him to compose the commentary—how could Asaṅga conflict with Maitreya, or Vasubandhu willfully diverge from his worthy elder brother? At the beginning of Asaṅga's treatise, the verse of refuge states, "The doctrine and meaning spoken by the Wise One, / Having heard, was in turn spoken for our sake." Thus we know that "having heard, was spoken for our sake" refers to the verses spoken by Maitreya. The verses explained in Vasubandhu's treatise were composed by Maitreya, which is why Vasubandhu's verse says, "He of great wisdom who thoroughly comprehended and taught us— / I bow my head to his body of peerless merit." This exactly accords with the homage related in this treatise. This overarching explanation should be given just as in the earlier explanation of the three questions and the subsuming of the abodes. Reconciling the subsequent passages of the sūtra with this, one ought to be completely clear. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.72](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.72) - [Next: 1.74](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.74) - [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.1.73) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.73](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.73) · Pramāṇa