金剛般若論會釋 1.9

1.9

二發起行相者，發起了於行，謂般若行解，即慧體名相，以無相故，非是相狀，如十六行慧勝得名，三問皆因慧行相，佛所正答，是慧行相。今為問起，名發起於行相，能起佛說慧行相故。或此三問皆問所修行之體狀，名為行相，於中修慧雖標總稱，而得自名，別名修行。若依前解，雖諸福智、有無為等皆所修諸法，慧為般若之體，獨得其名，若依後解，唯在有為，無為非行，便成大過，以問有為行，無為自證，亦無有失。以此理微，前解有典據，文有三，初、指文，次、釋三，後、結。第二文有二，初、總顯，後、別解。

Second, 'arousing the mental activity': 'arousing' means to clearly comprehend the practice, which refers to the practice and understanding of prajñā; that is, the essence of wisdom is called 'characteristic' (ākāra); because it is signless (animitta), it is not a physical characteristic; just as wisdom is preeminent in the sixteen aspects and thereby obtains its name, the three questions are all based on the aspect of wisdom. What the Buddha directly answers is the aspect of wisdom. Now, being formulated as questions, it is called 'arousing the aspect of practice', because it can arouse the Buddha's explanation of the aspect of wisdom. Or, these three questions all ask about the essence and appearance of the practice cultivated, which is termed 'mental activity' (ākāra); among them, cultivating wisdom, although bearing the general designation, obtains its own name, distinctively termed 'cultivation'. If one relies on the former explanation, although all merit and wisdom, conditioned and unconditioned, and so forth, are all dharmas to be cultivated, wisdom is the essence of prajñā and solely obtains the name. If one relies on the latter explanation, it lies solely in the conditioned, and the unconditioned would not be practice, which would become a major flaw; however, since it asks about conditioned practice while the unconditioned is self-realized, there is also no error. Because this principle is subtle, the former explanation has textual authority. The text has three parts: first, pointing to the text; next, explaining the three; finally, concluding. The second text has two parts: first, a general revelation; later, a specific explanation.