金剛般若論會釋 1.80

1.80

「正法欲滅時」者，謂修行漸滅時，此釋有時。善現總問未來難信，世尊別答修行欲滅於經有信，翻顯已前理多信者，有教、有行、有得果證，名為正法；有教有行，不得果證，名為像法；有教無餘行，名為末法。然依《大乘大集經》中，以五百歲為配，初五百年解脫堅固，第二五百年禪定堅固，第三五百年多聞堅固，第四五百年福德堅固，第五五百年鬪諍堅固。小乘不依五百為配，如《記正法住經》及傳并《摩訶摩耶經》等，佛所記事但以一百、二百而為配故。今依大乘，故此經言「後五百歲」，以五百歲為分配故。佛之法教，正、像、末等皆名正法，非是初時有證解脫名正法也。時尚解脫，況無信者？故不為答。佛初記別正法一千年，像法一千年，末法一萬年，由度女人，滅減正法唯五百年。於中兩說，一云、正法，今者但五百年，由度女人，減五百年歲，雖說八敬不減正法，由彼不行，正法還滅。故經有說，及薩婆多等宗皆唯正法，俱五百年。若依彼義，此中正法欲滅之時者，謂修行漸滅時，非是前時，初五百歲有解脫故，行盛興故，亦非後時行已無故。今說修行漸欲滅時，即是第三五百年時，此於像法一千年中，後五百年行方漸滅，當此惡時，尚有於經當生實相，況以前位而無信者？自此已後，時遠人澆，少有生信，故經不說。故《能斷》云，「後時、後分、後五百歲，正法將滅時分轉時」，後時者，初五百年；後分者，第二五百年；後五百歲者，第三五百年，即行正法將滅時也。第二說云，正法一千年，若不說八敬，全無行者，正法欲滅，既有行者，正法依定，大眾部等皆作此說。若依彼說，即是第四五百年時，名為修行漸欲滅時，於此惡時，尚生實相，況以前位而無信者？已後惡時少有生信，故經不說。其《能斷》云後時者，顯佛滅後，非但佛在位；言後分者，明非正法一千年內，即證果時；言後五百年者，於其像法一千年內行欲滅時，非初五百年行盛興時。此後分四，一、後時，初五百年；二、後分，次五百年；三、後五百歲，第三五百年；四、正法將滅時分轉時，第四五百年，即行正法後將滅時。由有二解，經文不同。流支、羅什，總奄合說當來末世，不識三後之深義，故真諦經云，「現時及未來世」，以此為誤矣，不問勝時，問惡時故。又云，「於未來世後五十歲」，以一當十，五百即五十，亦不相違，算家有此差別門故。

Regarding "at the time when the True Dharma is about to perish": this refers to the time when practice gradually perishes; this explains the existence of the time. Subhūti asked in general about the difficulty of faith in the future, and the World-Honoured One answered in particular that when practice is about to perish, there will still be faith in the sutra, which inversely demonstrates that before that time, reasonably, there were many who had faith. Having teaching, having practice, and having the realization of the fruit is called the True Dharma; having teaching and having practice, but not obtaining the realization of the fruit, is called the Semblance Dharma; having teaching but lacking the rest of practice is called the Final Dharma. However, relying on the Mahāvaipulya Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra, periods of five hundred years are correlated: in the first five hundred years, liberation is solid; in the second five hundred years, meditative concentration is solid; in the third five hundred years, much learning is solid; in the fourth five hundred years, merit is solid; in the fifth five hundred years, strife and contention are solid. The Hīnayāna does not correlate by five-hundred-year periods; as in the Sutra on the Prediction of the Abiding of the True Dharma, the transmissions, and the Mahāmāyā-sūtra, the events recorded by the Buddha are correlated only by one hundred or two hundred years. Here, relying on the Mahāyāna, this sutra therefore speaks of the "final five-hundred-year period," because the division is made by five-hundred-year periods. In the Buddha's Dharma teachings, the True, the Semblance, and the Final periods are all called the True Dharma; it is not that only the initial time when there is realization of liberation is called the True Dharma. At that time there is still liberation, so how could there be no one with faith? Therefore, he does not answer regarding it. The Buddha initially predicted one thousand years of the True Dharma, one thousand years of the Semblance Dharma, and ten thousand years of the Final Dharma; through the deliverance of women, the True Dharma was reduced by five hundred years. Within this there are two explanations. One says: The True Dharma at present lasts only five hundred years; through the deliverance of women, five hundred years were deducted; although the eight weighty dharmas were taught so that the True Dharma would not decrease, because they were not practiced, the True Dharma still perished. Therefore, sutras have stated this, and schools such as the Sarvāstivāda all maintain that the True Dharma lasts only five hundred years. If one relies on their meaning, the "time when the True Dharma is about to perish" here refers to the time when practice gradually perishes; it is not the earlier time, because in the first five hundred years there is liberation and practice flourishes, nor is it the later time, because practice is already non-existent. Now, speaking of the time when practice is gradually about to perish, this is precisely the third five-hundred-year period. In this one-thousand-year period of the Semblance Dharma, it is in the latter five hundred years that practice only then gradually perishes. In such an evil time, there will still be those who generate true notions regarding the sutra—how much more so could there be no one with faith in the earlier stages? From this time onward, the time is distant and people are degraded, so few generate faith; therefore the sutra does not speak of it. Thus the Vajracchedikā says: "In the subsequent time, the subsequent period, the final five hundred years, when the time of the impending destruction of the True Dharma turns." The "subsequent time" is the first five hundred years; the "subsequent period" is the second five hundred years; the "final five hundred years" is the third five hundred years, which is precisely the time when the practice of the True Dharma is about to perish. The second explanation says: The True Dharma lasts one thousand years; if the eight weighty dharmas had not been taught, there would be no practitioners at all and the True Dharma would be about to perish; since there are practitioners, the True Dharma is established as fixed—the Mahāsāṃghika and others all make this claim. If one relies on their explanation, this is precisely the fourth five-hundred-year period, which is called the time when practice is gradually about to perish. In this evil time, they still generate true notions—how much more so could there be no one with faith in the earlier stages? In the evil times thereafter, few generate faith, so the sutra does not speak of them. As for the Vajracchedikā saying "subsequent time": this indicates after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, not only the period when the Buddha was in the world. Saying "subsequent period": this clarifies that it is not within the one thousand years of the True Dharma, which is the time of realizing the fruit. Saying "final five hundred years": this refers to the time when practice is about to perish within the one thousand years of the Semblance Dharma, not the initial five hundred years when practice flourishes. Here, "subsequent" is divided into four: first, the subsequent time, the first five hundred years; second, the subsequent period, the next five hundred years; third, the final five hundred years, the third five hundred years; fourth, when the time of the impending destruction of the True Dharma turns, the fourth five hundred years, which is precisely the time when the practice of the True Dharma is subsequently about to perish. Because there are two explanations, the sutra texts differ. Bodhiruci and Kumārajīva collectively and summarily spoke of "the future final period," failing to recognize the profound meaning of the three "subsequents." Therefore, Paramārtha's sutra text says "the present time and the future period," which takes this as an error, because it does not ask about the superior times, but asks about the evil times. It also says, "in the final fifty years of the future period"; taking one as equivalent to ten, five hundred is fifty, which is also not contradictory, because reckoning masters have this different method.