金剛般若論會釋 1.55

1.55

Question: 'Asaṅga and Vasubandhu were both sent by Maitreya; inwardly known as brothers, outwardly acclaimed as master and disciple. Both explained the sūtra text and both served as models for people. For what reason did the younger brother compose two cycles to separately respond to the earlier questions, while the elder brother divided it into three sections to comprehensively answer the preceding interrogation, establishing gradual cultivation based on the stages? Or did one resolve doubts to reveal the profound doctrine, thus differing from a coarse outline, considering that because of the broken text where words understand the meaning, it cannot be expressed, taking contradiction as the master's doctrine—the master's text certainly cannot be expressed. Since they are contradictory, how did former sages harmonize like flowers and calyx? May later worthies distinguish the compass to enlighten the unawakened; distinguish the objective to enlighten future [practitioners].' Answer: 'Their planning was accumulated over long days; they responded to the same path. Years filled their entering the inner chamber; their influence spread like the wind. Here concerning the three questions: for the first question, that the younger brother composed two cycles is the previous virtuous masters' delusion regarding the doctrine; that the elder brother divided into three sections is the awakened import of the present cultivation. Asaṅga received the verses from Maitreya, and Vasubandhu received the purport from his worthy elder brother; how could the elder brother speak of one cycle while the younger brother divided it into two rounds? That Vasubandhu also explained it in a single cycle was simply his own confusion, so it is said. There are other explanations, as already explained before. Again, for the second question, that the younger brother separately responded to the earlier questions while the elder brother comprehensively answered the preceding interrogation: the younger brother formulated his answers following the textual increments, while the elder brother replied to the questions following the complete meaning; furthermore, the elder brother explained the text according to sharp faculties, while the younger brother interpreted the meaning following dull capacities; furthermore, the younger brother stated the doctrine following beginners, while the elder brother expounded the purport following long-term cultivators; because of these differences, they are not contradictory. Again, for the third question, that the elder brother cultivated gradually based on the stages while the younger brother resolved doubts and revealed [the doctrine]: if the listeners merely follow faith and certitude, he then expounds the gate of advancing in good and eradicating evil; if doubts arise in the hearers, he then sets forth the wondrous path following their dispositions. The elder brother followed the former meaning, cultivating gradually according to the stages; the younger brother then spoke according to the latter, resolving doubts and revealing [the doctrine]. Furthermore, the elder brother merely explained the meaning based on the doctrine, while the younger brother used hypothetical expositions to clarify the arising text. The two compositions appear different in form, but in principle are truly not contradictory; being largely the same with minor differences, the two texts should be explained as will be stated below.'