金剛般若論會釋 1.12

1.12

According to the subsequent text explaining the five aspects, from the initial arousal of the mind, next practicing giving and so forth, up until one has not yet entered the Buddha-stage, all share in these three; that is, in the stage of practice through zealous resolve (adhimukticaryā-bhūmi), there is non-conceptualizing samāpatti. Texts such as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha state that investigative thought, subtle inspection, actual knowledge, the consciousness-only contemplation, and so on are all located in the stage of the aids to penetration (nirvedha-bhāgīya), which would then contradict this text. The explanation is: separately practicing the contemplation of signlessness and the three natures is in the stage of the aids to penetration, whereas generally contemplating signlessness to give rise to non-conceptualizing cultivated wisdom is in [the stage of] practice through zealous resolve—why should that not also be permissible? Bodhisattva Vasubandhu clarified this principle: because one cannot separately practice the contemplation of signlessness, his discussion of practice merely speaks of scattered giving and so forth, purifying the three wheels to cultivate signless practice, without speaking of entering samāpatti. Bodhisattva Asaṅga, on the basis that one practices the contemplation of signlessness through general contemplation, states that in the stage of practice through zealous resolve one also produces signless samāpatti. It is precisely by this principle that in Bodhisattva Vasubandhu's view, the abiding mind is first aroused, cultivation arises next, and then subduing the mind severs hindrances, only then practicing the contemplation of signlessness to sever conceptualization; hence, the first two are subdued by hearing and thinking, and only afterward severed by cultivated wisdom. Therefore, in answering the three questions, the sequence is distinct, the texts are distinct, and cultivation belongs to separate stages. Bodhisattva Asaṅga, holding that generally one can practice the contemplation of signlessness, regards both cultivation that subdues and cultivation that correctly severs as "severance", and applies them as appropriate across all the stages; thus in each passage he answers all three questions. Because there are two meanings, the two treatise masters each gave separate explanations based on one meaning, and these are not contradictory either; only by combining the meanings of both treatises does one arrive at the truth. For this reason, following ancient [explanations], Asaṅga's single cycle was spoken for one of sharp faculties, a practitioner of long standing who rejoices in hearing about the three stages of ordinary beings, the ten stages, and the Buddha; Vasubandhu's two cycles were spoken for one of dull faculties, a beginner who has not heard about an ordinary being's arousal of the mind, cultivation, and severing of hindrances and has doubts; these also do not contradict each other. Because they do not rejoice in hearing about practices like the ten stages, only when both meanings are spoken together are they complete and thorough. However, if one now examines carefully: when Master Vasubandhu provided two cycles of explanations, the readers themselves misunderstood; one should use Asaṅga to complete Vasubandhu, and where Vasubandhu's meaning is incomplete, only Asaṅga can explain it, which merely dispels confusion. The verses of Vasubandhu's treatise were spoken by Maitreya; how could Bodhisattva Asaṅga contradict them? Where there are slight differences, they will be explained when arriving at the sūtra. Furthermore, relying on ancient explanations, one of sharp faculties understands upon a single hearing, while a dull person awakens only upon a second hearing; for one of sharp faculties, the beginning and the end arrive at two times. Asaṅga presents one cycle and Vasubandhu presents two cycles; the two treatises explain differently because their perspectives differ. If one explains the sūtra according to this, there is no contradiction at all. The text seems redundant and obscure, appearing at first glance to be two cycles, but based on the subsequent explanation of the sūtra, there is no repetition at all; this will naturally be understood below, whereas prior explanation is difficult to grasp.