金剛般若論會釋 1.78

1.78

文分為三，初、配經文，次、釋問文，後、釋答文。欲得言說法身者，顯經來意，須菩提聞法深妙實相難知，佛在可然，信者極眾，時、機、病、行驗勝可知，佛無已後頗能信不？時、機、病、行皆非勝故。須菩提欲得此教言說法身現在、當來俱流行世故，問來世惡世惡生能信不？望佛答有，難末代尚能深信，況乎今者何故不信？故言欲得言說法身，此文來也。初文有二，初、配經，後、釋難。釋難中，「修多羅句說」者，謂所有義，句為能詮，七句說是所說之義理也，即流支、真諦、羅什等云章句，是明義句所明理，此中名說。《能斷經》云，「色經典句」，色是類義，所詮義類，非但問此《金剛般若》，《大般若》等咸在問中，故言色類。經典句者，能詮教也，此義色類能詮經句，當來惡世能生信不？此有二意，初、明不信所因，後、正興問。不信所因有二，一、時惡，二、經深。時惡惡生，經深實相，於此經句頗生信解為實相不？為正興問。故真諦經名為「真實相」，此及《能斷》云「生實想不？」經言稱正理，名為真實，於此經中，頗生真實想解以不。想者，取像之能信心，取信以為真實之像貌已不？羅什云，「生實信不？」名異意同。釋問文中，須菩提以惡代惡生、經義深妙無能信者，故為此問。

The text is divided into three: first, matching the sūtra text; next, explaining the question's text; finally, explaining the answer's text. 'Desiring to obtain the verbal dharmakāya' reveals the intention behind the sūtra's introduction: Subhūti heard that the Dharma is profound and wondrous and the real mark is difficult to comprehend. While the Buddha is present, this may well be so, and those who have faith are extremely numerous; testing the superiority of the time, capacity, afflictions, and practice, it can be known. But after the Buddha is no longer present, could anyone possibly believe? For the time, capacity, afflictions, and practice will all be inferior. Subhūti wished that this teaching of the verbal dharmakāya would circulate in the world both in the present and in the future; therefore, he asked whether evil beings in the future evil age could believe. Looking forward to the Buddha's answer that there are, he pressed: if even in the final era they can still have deep faith, how much more so at present—why would they not believe? Therefore it is said that 'desiring to obtain the verbal dharmakāya'—this text comes from this. The first section has two parts: first, matching the sūtra; second, explaining the difficulty. In explaining the difficulty, 'the sūtra's phrase and exposition' refers to all the meanings: 'phrase' is the expressive vehicle, and the 'exposition of the seven topics' is the doctrine and principle expressed; that is, what Bodhiruci, Paramārtha, Kumārajīva, and others call 'sentences and phrases' (*padavyañjana*) is the principle made clear by the phrases of meaning, which here is called 'exposition'. The *Vajracchedikā* says 'classes of scripture phrases': 'classes' means categories, the categories of meaning expressed; not only is this *Vajracchedikā* asked about, but the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā* and others are all included in the question, hence it says 'classes'. 'Scripture phrases' are the expressive teachings. Concerning these categories of meaning and expressive sūtra phrases, can faith arise in the future evil age? Here there are two intentions: first, clarifying the cause of disbelief; second, formally raising the question. The cause of disbelief is twofold: first, the evil of the times; second, the profundity of the scripture. The times being evil, beings are evil; the scripture being profound, it concerns the real mark: toward these phrases of the sūtra, could they possibly generate faithful understanding of them as the real mark or not? This is formally raising the question. Thus Paramārtha's sūtra calls it the 'true mark', while this and the *Vajracchedikā* say 'generate true notions or not?' When the sūtra accords with correct principle, it is called 'true'; in this sūtra, could they possibly give rise to a true notion and understanding or not? A 'notion' is the faithful mind that grasps an image—has it grasped faith as the image of reality or not? Kumārajīva says, 'give rise to true faith or not?' The names differ, but the meaning is the same. In explaining the text of the question, Subhūti, taking evil beings in an evil age and the profound wonder of the scripture's meaning as reasons that no one could believe, therefore raised this question.