金剛般若論會釋 2.66

2.66

觀成忍中有三，初、下忍位印所取無，次、「須菩提！若有法如來得」下，明中忍位觀無能取，後、「何以故？須菩提！言如來者，即實真如」等，明上忍位印無能取。論文分二，初、標屬經，後、釋正告。正告亦三，初、解忍位；次、或言燃燈如來所法不得等下，解世第一法；後、又有經言須菩提如來正覺所學法下，釋妨難。解忍文有二，初、解中忍觀無能取；後、又何以故彼法不可說下，解上忍位印無能取，略而不解下忍初印無所取，以文為易故。天親論亦然，解中忍中有二，初、解經中「若有法得」，後、解經中「以實無法得」。初文中，初、牒文問，後、正釋意。正釋意言，若正覺可得說，如彼佛所說者，我既有勝行，我於彼時便得正覺；我於爾時既得正覺，燃燈不應與我記云當來始得，但由正覺非非少實有，不如所說，我無能得之勝行故，于時不得證大菩提，故與我記，當來始得。故天親云，「以後時授記，燃燈行非上」，於燃燈佛時，非第一菩薩行。何以故？我於彼時所修諸行，無有一法得大菩提。若我於彼佛所已證菩提，則後時諸佛悉不授我記，是故我於彼時行未成佛。此意總說，由我爾時行非第一上勝成，故說無一法能得菩提，故授我記，後時可成；若我于時有勝實行，于時即得，云何與我後時成記？故知無實能證行也。自後諸佛皆記當成，故知前時無法可得，釋實無法得。云以法不可說故等者，由我于時知彼能取行無有實體，唯有真如不可說故，順理行故，我於彼時不得正覺，記當未得。我若于時執能取行有實自性，以為可說，行背理故，非直于時不得正覺，亦不可記我當來方得。此意極深，應細尋究。

In establishing patience through contemplation, there are three parts: first, the position of lower patience confirms the absence of the grasped object; next, from 'Subhūti, if there were a dharma that the Tathāgata attained...' onwards, it explains the middle patience contemplating the absence of the grasping subject; finally, from 'Why is that? Subhūti, what is called the Tathāgata is precisely the true reality of tathatā' and so forth, it explains the upper patience confirming the absence of the grasping subject. The commentary has two parts: first, labeling and correlating to the sūtra; second, explaining the direct address. The direct address also has three parts: first, explaining the position of patience; next, from 'or saying that under Dīpaṅkara Tathāgata no dharma was attained, etc.' onwards, explaining the supreme worldly dharmas; finally, from 'further, the sūtra says: Subhūti, the dharmas learned in the Tathāgata's perfect enlightenment...' onwards, resolving objections. The text explaining patience has two parts: first, explaining middle patience contemplating the absence of the grasping subject; finally, from 'moreover, why is that dharma inexpressible...' onwards, explaining upper patience confirming the absence of the grasping subject, omitting the explanation of the initial confirmation of the absence of the grasped object in lower patience, because the text is simple. Vasubandhu's treatise is also like this. In explaining middle patience there are two parts: first, explaining 'if there were a dharma attained' in the sūtra; second, explaining 'because in reality no dharma is attained' in the sūtra. In the first passage, first, it cites the text and asks; second, it properly explains the meaning. In properly explaining the meaning, it says: if perfect enlightenment could be attained and spoken of, as spoken by that Buddha, since I possessed superior practices, I would have attained perfect enlightenment at that time; since I would have already attained perfect enlightenment at that time, Dīpaṅkara should not have conferred a prophecy upon me saying that I would only attain it in the future. It is only because perfect enlightenment is not something slightly real and existing, not like what is spoken, and because I had no superior practice capable of attaining it, that at that time I could not realize great bodhi; therefore he conferred the prophecy upon me that I would only attain it in the future. Hence Vasubandhu says: 'Because of conferring the prophecy at a later time, / the practice under Dīpaṅkara was not supreme'—at the time of Dīpaṅkara Buddha, it was not the foremost bodhisattva practice. Why? Among all the practices I cultivated at that time, there was not a single dharma that could attain great bodhi. If I had already realized bodhi in the presence of that Buddha, then the Buddhas of later times would none of them have conferred a prophecy upon me; therefore, through my practice at that time, I had not yet become a Buddha. This intention in summary says: because my practice at that time was not the foremost, supremely superior accomplishment, it is said that not a single dharma is capable of attaining bodhi; therefore he conferred the prophecy upon me that it could be accomplished at a later time. If I had possessed superior real practice at that time, I would have attained it right then; how could he have conferred upon me a prophecy of accomplishment at a later time? Hence we know that there is no real practice capable of realizing it. Since all subsequent Buddhas prophesied future accomplishment, we know that previously there was no dharma to be attained; this explains 'in reality no dharma is attained.' As for saying 'because the dharma is inexpressible,' etc.: because I knew at that time that those grasping practices have no real substantial entity, and that only tathatā is inexpressible, practicing in conformity with reality, at that time I did not attain perfect enlightenment, and it was prophesied that I had not yet attained it. If I had grasped at that time that the grasping practices possessed a real intrinsic nature and regarded them as expressible, since the practice would oppose reality, not only would I have failed to attain perfect enlightenment at that time, but he also could not have prophesied that I would only attain it in the future. This meaning is extremely profound and should be investigated with care.