金剛般若論會釋 2.18

2.18

解世界中有二，初、配經文，後、逐難釋。為破眾生身影像相者，前觀破色蘊色身影像，通情、非情，不名眾生，今破四蘊不通非情，故名眾生，雖標五蘊眾生之總稱，即是但解四蘊之別名。於中世界者，顯眾生世，但以名身名為眾生世者，意說世界通情、非情，今說有情，非非有情。所以然者，前說極微觀破色，即內外色皆在其中，今文更通說非有情界，觀色者便成重踏。然有情義通色、非色，唯取非色四蘊名身名為有情世界，在此觀破，即簡內色，不在此中，不然成重繁之說。前說三千大千世界即麁色也，所有微塵即細色也，極微既多，明麁色而不實；即非微塵，明細色亦不實，破麁細皆已周畢乎。故知前說三千大千世界雖亦已說四蘊眾生世間，然猶未說觀破四蘊，今明觀破，故復牒中是故單說四蘊名身，名眾生世。不念名身方便者，然由色蘊有麁有細，前說世界所有微塵，即顯麁色世界不真，復云說非微塵，方說細色亦不實。四蘊名身既無麁細，前說世界雖已總說，未明觀破，今為觀破，故經後文說非世界。不念方便雖無細因，是麁方便而可除破，名不念，而觀四蘊，現在不住，過去已滅，未來不生，亦非實有，起智功用，不執著，亦說名為不念名身方便義，此是經說即非世界也。此意但說總破四蘊性非實有，以無細四而成麁四，故論云，不復說細作方便也。是中文難，可應依此以求深妙理。依天親論，校量勝劣所由有四，此中第三喻因施福生煩惱，如界之有塵，般若不爾，故彼論云，彼珍寶等福德是煩惱因，然能成就煩惱事故，此持、說因遠離煩惱因，故說地微塵喻。此文意說，布施當來近生世福，成勝自體如彼世界，因彼世福所生煩惱亦甚眾多，如因世界而有微塵，由此世福自體，成就煩惱事，故能生煩惱所緣、相應二隨縛故，名煩惱事。此持、說近能遠離諸煩惱等，遠得菩提，故說界地微塵為喻。持、說之福體非成就煩惱事，故不生煩惱，非二縛增，不順惑故，既爾，何故經中復言，即非微塵，即非世界？彼論自云，何故如是說？彼微塵非貪等煩惱體，故名地微塵，彼世界非煩惱染因界，是故說世界。意言，外道衛世師等，說界成時，有實極微，和合生一子微，三皆實有，乃至展轉，二大地合成一世界，一世界者冥密合成，亦是實有世界；壞時分一為多，俱實有；劫空之時散在處處，無生無滅，不共和合生子微麁者，故不可見。因此耶執，斷常煩惱一切隨生，今假彼宗世界壞生時喻。又經部師執塵界非實，說假部等執極微真，薩婆多等麁細俱實，由此執故，鬪諍便起，今隨彼宗，假借為喻，如彼界壞微塵極多，因執界、塵，生惑不少。今假耶小，以喻大乘，由因施福而生煩惱，如彼世界而有微塵，非我如其有實塵界，以大乘中界若為和聚、塵為慧析，俱非實有，假和合故。即因佛喻說塵界故，如言便執有實塵界成，同彼邪小，是故雙非。彼論亦云，此明何義？彼福德是煩惱塵染因，是故說微塵，彼福德善根為近，何況此福德能成佛菩提及成丈夫相，福德中勝也？意說施財所生之福，近為煩惱因，似界有塵，此持、說福遠成正覺及丈夫相，故彼爾所恒沙界施，不如持經一句、為說。然餘本皆同，唯《能斷》及此論中，說大地極微，以大千界通假及實，及通一多，今說一實為喻，故言大地，塵方喻多。

In explaining "world-realm" there are two [parts]: first, matching the sūtra text, and next, resolving difficulties in turn. As for "in order to demolish the mental image of sentient beings' bodies": the preceding contemplation demolished the mental images of the form aggregate and physical body, which apply to both the sentient and the insentient, and thus is not called "sentient beings"; here, it demolishes the four [non-form] aggregates, which do not apply to the insentient, and thus is called "sentient beings." Although it designates the general term of "sentient beings" consisting of the five aggregates, this simply explains the particular name of the four aggregates. Among them, "world-realm" indicates the realm of sentient beings; it merely designates the mental-name body (nāmakāya) as the sentient realm, meaning that while "world-realm" generally applies to both the sentient and the insentient, here it speaks of sentient beings and not the insentient. Why is this so? The previous explanation of the contemplation of subtle atoms demolished form, wherein both internal and external forms were already included; if the present text were again to speak generally of the realm of non-sentient beings, contemplating form would become redundant. However, while the meaning of sentient beings applies to both form and non-form, here one exclusively takes the non-form four aggregates—the mental-name body—to be the realm of sentient beings, which is contemplated and demolished here; this eliminates internal form so that it is not included here, for otherwise it would become a repetitive explanation. What was previously described as the trichiliocosm is coarse form, and all the fine atoms are subtle form. Since subtle atoms are many, this shows that coarse form is not real; [stating] "are not fine atoms" shows that subtle form is also not real, so that the refutation of both the coarse and the subtle is already fully completed. Therefore, one knows that although the previous mention of the trichiliocosm also spoke of the sentient-being world of the four aggregates, it had not yet spoken of contemplating and demolishing the four aggregates; now, to clarify contemplating and demolishing them, it reiterates this, and therefore exclusively speaks of the mental-name body of the four aggregates, calling it the sentient realm. As for the "expedient means of not reflecting on the mental-name body": because the form aggregate has both coarse and subtle [aspects], the previous statement that "all the fine atoms in the world-realm" demonstrated that the coarse-form world-realm is not real, and stating further that "they are not fine atoms" then showed that subtle form is also unreal. Since the mental-name body of the four aggregates lacks coarse and subtle [divisions], although the previous mention of the world-realm spoke generally [of them], it did not clarify contemplating and demolishing them; now, in order to contemplate and demolish them, the subsequent text of the sūtra states "is not a world-realm." Although the expedient means of not reflecting lacks a subtle cause, it is a coarse expedient means that can be eliminated and demolished, which is called "not reflecting"; and contemplating that the four aggregates do not abide in the present, have already ceased in the past, and do not arise in the future, and thus are also not real existents, activating the function of wisdom and not clinging to them, is also called the meaning of "the expedient means of not reflecting on the mental-name body." This is what the sūtra refers to by "is not a world-realm." The meaning here merely speaks of generally refuting the four aggregates as lacking real existence in their nature; because there are no subtle four [aggregates] that aggregate into coarse four [aggregates], the treatise says: "It does not further speak of the expedient means of subtle action." The text here is difficult; one should rely on this to seek its profound and subtle principle. According to Vasubandhu's treatise, there are four reasons for comparing the superior and inferior. The third among them is using the analogy of afflictions arising from the merit of giving just as a realm has dust atoms, whereas prajñā is not like this. Therefore, that treatise says: "The merit of those precious jewels and the like is a cause of afflictions because it is able to bring about matters of affliction; the cause of upholding and explaining this [sūtra] is far removed from the causes of afflictions; therefore, the analogy of the fine atoms of the earth is spoken." The meaning of this text is that giving immediately generates worldly merit in the future, bringing about a superior self-entity like that world-realm, and the afflictions generated by that worldly merit are also exceedingly numerous, just as there are fine atoms because of a world-realm. Because the self-entity of this worldly merit brings about matters of affliction, it is able to generate both the objective-support and associated fetters of affliction; hence it is called "matters of affliction." Upholding and explaining this [sūtra] can immediately keep one far away from all afflictions and the like, and ultimately attain bodhi; therefore, the fine atoms of the earth in the world-realm are spoken as an analogy. The essence of the merit of upholding and explaining does not bring about matters of affliction, and thus does not generate afflictions, does not increase the two fetters, and does not conform to delusion. If so, why does the sūtra further state, "they are not fine atoms, is not a world-realm"? That treatise itself asks: "Why does it speak like this? Those fine atoms are not the entity of afflictions such as greed, and are therefore called fine atoms of the earth; that world-realm is not the realm of the cause of affliction and defilement, and therefore speaks of a world-realm." The meaning is that non-Buddhist Vaiśeṣikas and others assert that when a realm is formed, there are real subtle atoms that combine to produce a single secondary atom, all three being real existents; and so on in progression, two great earths combine to form a single world-realm, and this single world-realm is formed through dark fusion, and is also a really existent world-realm; when it disintegrates, the one divides into many, all being real existents; at the time of the cosmic void, they are dispersed in various places, neither arising nor ceasing, and do not combine together to produce secondary coarse atoms, and hence cannot be seen. Because of this deviant clinging, all afflictions of annihilationism and eternalism arise in succession. Now it borrows the analogy of the disintegration and formation of the world-realm in their school. Furthermore, the Sautrāntikas hold that atoms and realms are unreal, the Prajñaptivādins and others hold that subtle atoms are real, and the Sarvāstivādins and others hold that both coarse and subtle are real; due to such clingings, disputes arise. Now, conforming to their schools, these are borrowed as an analogy: just as when that realm disintegrates its fine atoms are exceedingly numerous, so too, due to clinging to realms and atoms, delusion arises in no small measure. Now borrowing from the deviant and the Hīnayāna to illustrate the Mahāyāna: afflictions arise on account of the merit of giving, just as there are fine atoms on account of that world-realm; it is not that our [tradition] accepts really existent atoms and realms as they do, because in the Mahāyāna, whether a realm is an aggregation or an atom is an analysis of wisdom, both are not real existents, being provisional combinations. It is precisely because the Buddha spoke of realms and atoms as an analogy that people immediately clung to the existence of real realms and atoms according to the words, becoming identical to those deviant and Hīnayāna views; therefore, both are negated. That treatise also says: "What does this clarify? That merit is the cause of the defilement of the dust of afflictions, and therefore fine atoms are spoken of; that merit and roots of goodness are immediate [causes of affliction], not to mention that this merit [of the sūtra] can accomplish the Buddha's bodhi and accomplish the marks of a great being (mahāpuruṣa), making it supreme among merits." The meaning is that the merit generated by giving wealth is an immediate cause of afflictions, resembling a realm having dust, whereas the merit of upholding and explaining this [sūtra] ultimately accomplishes proper awakening and the marks of a great being; therefore, giving as many realms as those sands of the Ganges does not compare to upholding a single verse of this sūtra and explaining it for others. However, the other versions are all the same; only the Vajracchedikā and this treatise speak of the subtle atoms of the "great earth," because the great chiliocosm applies to both provisional and real, and to both one and many; here, a single real [entity] is spoken as an analogy, and therefore it says "great earth," while "dust" then analogizes the many.