金剛般若論會釋 2.19

2.19

問：「何天親解經塵界福德校量，無著解經界塵稱破蘊身摶聚？」答：「理有百途，何勞一轍？」天親據釋疑以明義，成勝福以述文。無著依次第以陳宗，說彼觀而彰理，初觀有異，復審無違，又二無別。天親總指，無著別釋。無著意說，如何財施之福乃為煩惱之因？經義具彰，故作是說，謂由財施感五蘊果，色通情、非情，四蘊唯情，凡夫不達，亦觀假相，一摶合中取為實有，起我、常等種種煩惱，因此生死輪轉無窮，故不巧便不得自在。今說界、塵以為譬喻，令觀施福所得果體，是便不得自在。合說界、塵以為譬喻，令觀施福所有心影像相、內外麁細色及內四蘊身皆非實有，不應於中堅執生惑輪迴生死，應得巧便獲大自在。此別陳釋，勸應起此妙理相應聞、思、修行而為觀察，世果非真，不應修作，持、說四句果福不然，應依修學。故彼論說與此無違。又二無別，天親心總說，施所生福是有漏故，為煩惱因，持、說之福是無漏故，非煩惱因；無著意說，施所生福五塵自體尚非實有，況復能為諸煩惱因？持、說不爾，二所生福是法身果，既為實有，況復能滅一切煩惱，非煩惱因，故持、說福，勝財施果。

Question: "Why did Vasubandhu explain the dust and realm in the sūtra as a comparison of merit, while Asaṅga explained the realm and dust in the sūtra as refuting the lump-aggregation of the aggregate body?" Answer: "Principles have a hundred paths; why labor over a single track?" Vasubandhu relied on resolving doubts to clarify the meaning, establishing superior merit to expound the text. Asaṅga followed the sequential order to set forth the tenets, explaining that contemplation to reveal the principle. Although their initial contemplations differ, upon careful re-examination there is no contradiction; furthermore, the two are without distinction. Vasubandhu indicated generally, while Asaṅga explained specifically. Asaṅga's intention is: how could the merit of giving wealth be a cause of affliction? The meaning of the sūtra is fully revealed, and therefore he spoke thus: namely, because giving wealth brings about the fruit of the five aggregates, where form applies to both the sentient and the insentient, and the four aggregates apply only to the sentient, ordinary persons fail to comprehend, and also contemplating provisional characteristics, grasp them as really existent within a single lumped combination, giving rise to various afflictions such as self and permanence, and thereby revolve endlessly in saṃsāra, and thus, lacking skillful means, do not attain mastery. Now realms and dust are spoken of as an analogy to cause one to contemplate that the entity of the fruit obtained from the merit of giving is precisely lacking in mastery. Collectively speaking of realms and dust as an analogy causes one to contemplate that all mental images, internal and external coarse and subtle forms, and internal bodies of the four aggregates resulting from the merit of giving are all unreal, so that one should not obstinately cling to them, give rise to delusion, and transmigrate in saṃsāra, but should attain skillful means and acquire great mastery. Setting forth this explanation specifically encourages one to give rise to hearing, contemplating, and practicing in conformity with this wondrous principle to contemplate: worldly fruits are not real and should not be cultivated; the resulting merit of upholding and explaining four lines is not like this, and one should cultivate and train in accordance with it. Therefore, that treatise's explanation does not contradict this one. Furthermore, the two are without distinction: in Vasubandhu's mind, speaking generally, the merit generated by giving is tainted, and is therefore a cause of affliction, whereas the merit of upholding and explaining is untainted, and is therefore not a cause of affliction. Asaṅga's intention is that the self-entities of the five dusts [i.e., sensory objects] resulting from giving are not even real existents, so how could they further be the cause of afflictions? Upholding and explaining are not like this: the merit generated by the two is the fruit of the dharmakāya; since it is a real existent, how much more is it able to extinguish all afflictions and is not a cause of afflictions; therefore, the merit of upholding and explaining surpasses the fruit of giving wealth.