金剛般若論會釋 3.28

3.28

自下第六論名心具足，此中明佛六種心所作用，乃至第六明佛三業行住淨，以身、語行住亦是佛心之所運用，故論總名心具足也。上論判此文復有六，如前已配，此初明佛三念處功德，故名念處。世親第三子疑，疑云：「若言諸佛說者是無所說法，不離於法身，亦是其無有何等人能信如是甚深法義？」經文有二，初、問，次、答。答中初、先依二諦，以空有兩觀答，次、重徵釋以成義。論文有三，初、標屬經，次、解來意，後、釋經文。解來意云，此處顯示如世尊令處故，此中明佛於信、謗人，皆如世尊，一平等念，約三人說，故名三念處。頗有未來開生信者，此舉信佛語人，不者舉不信人，此信、謗二是動念境，故偏舉之，不舉中人，由違、順境一切處時有故。今且約聞此經者，說論來意故，即釋經善現問也。釋經有二，初、解佛答文，次、解佛欲信法之人，若以第一義觀眾生性相俱空，言彼非眾生，此是空觀。若一向無眾生，佛於何處起平等念？依俗諦非無虛假眾生，此是假觀。空中、假中皆無實違、順者，故佛於信、謗中人，俱起一平等念。次重徵釋以成前義。無著論不解，以易知故。其徵意云，即說彼非眾生，何故復言非也？釋「眾生、眾生」者牒空、假二說，「非眾生」者約第一義，「是名眾生」者依世俗諦。又論次解信佛法人云，是人則為第一希有者，顯示說第一義，是不共及相應。此解意云，今欲信佛語人能利益，信佛說彼非眾生，此約第一義顯不共義；信說非不眾生，此約俗諦顯相應義；此人難及，故言第一希有。諸本皆無此文，然佛雖於信、謗平等，今言信者非不平等。世親論云，「所說、說者深，非無能信者，非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖」，上兩句正答前疑，釋善現問下之兩句解如來答，此顯能信是經者非是凡夫眾生，故言非眾生，乃至聖眾生故，言非不眾生也。什本闕，無此一段文。

Next below is the sixth [topic], named in the treatise "Endowment with Mind." Here it explains the Buddha's six kinds of mental operations, culminating in the sixth, which explains the purity of the Buddha's bodily, vocal, and mental comportment, because bodily and vocal comportment are also directed by the Buddha's mind; hence the treatise collectively names it "Endowment with Mind." The treatise above divides this text further into six, assigned as before; this first explains the Buddha's merits of the three bases of mindfulness, hence named "bases of mindfulness." Vasubandhu's third subordinate doubt questions: "If what the Buddhas expound is Dharma not expounded, not apart from the dharmakāya, and likewise nonexistent, what sort of person can believe such profound Dharma and meaning?" The sūtra text has two parts: first, the question; next, the answer. In the answer, first, relying on the two truths, it answers via the two contemplations of emptiness and existence; next, it further questions and explains to establish the meaning. The treatise text has three parts: first, designating and relating to the sūtra; next, explaining the reason for its occurrence; finally, explaining the sūtra text. Explaining the reason for its occurrence says: this place reveals how the World-Honored One causes one to abide; here it explains that toward both faithful and slandering persons, the Buddha, like the World-Honored One, maintains a single, equal mindfulness. Since this is explained in terms of three persons, it is called the three bases of mindfulness. "Can there be in the future those who hear and give rise to faith?" adduces those who believe the Buddha's words; "or not?" adduces those who do not believe. These two—faith and slander—are objects that stir thought, and are therefore singled out, omitting intermediate persons, because conflicting and favorable objects exist at all places and times. Now, strictly in terms of those who hear this sūtra, it explains the treatise's reason for occurrence, which in turn explains Subhūti's question in the sūtra. Explaining the sūtra has two parts: first, explaining the Buddha's answer; next, explaining the person who wishes to believe the Dharma. If by ultimate truth one contemplates the nature and marks of sentient beings as both empty, saying "they are not sentient beings," this is the contemplation of emptiness. If there were completely no sentient beings, toward what would the Buddha give rise to equal mindfulness? According to conventional truth, nominally provisional sentient beings are not nonexistent; this is the contemplation of the provisional. In emptiness and in the provisional, there are no real conflicting or favorable ones; hence toward both faithful and slandering persons, the Buddha gives rise to a single, equal mindfulness. Next, it further questions and explains to establish the previous meaning. Asaṅga's treatise does not explain it, as it is easy to understand. The intent of the questioning is: having said that they are not sentient beings, why say "not" again? Explaining "sentient beings, sentient beings" restates the two statements of emptiness and the provisional; "are not sentient beings" is in terms of ultimate truth; "are called sentient beings" relies on conventional truth. Furthermore, the treatise next explains the person who believes the Buddha's Dharma, saying: "Such a person is most rare," revealing that expounding the ultimate truth is both unshared and congruent. The meaning of this explanation is: now, the person who wishes to believe the Buddha's words is able to bring benefit; believing the Buddha's explanation that they are not sentient beings reveals the unshared meaning in terms of ultimate truth; believing the explanation that they are not non-sentient beings reveals the congruent meaning in terms of conventional truth. Such a person is hard to match; hence it says "most rare." The various versions all lack this text. However, although the Buddha is equal toward faith and slander, now speaking of the believer is not unequal. Vasubandhu's treatise states: / "What is expounded and the expounder are profound; / It is not that none can have faith: / Non-sentient-being sentient beings, / Neither noble nor non-noble." / The first two lines directly answer the previous doubt and explain Subhūti's question; the bottom two lines explain the Tathāgata's answer. This reveals that those able to believe this sūtra are not ordinary sentient beings, hence saying "not sentient beings," up to noble sentient beings, hence saying "not non-sentient beings." Kumārajīva's version is defective, lacking this passage of text.