金剛般若論會釋 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

In the extensive explanation of the six abodes, three have been explained above; below, the fourth is explained. Combining these prior four kinds of abodes constitutes the stage of conduct through faith, which is the position of ordinary beings prior to the first great asaṃkhyeya kalpa. The main text is divided into three: first, concluding the preceding and giving rise to the subsequent, thereby opening the treatise; second, querying and enumerating the names; and third, explaining each in accordance with the enumeration. Although the different practices clarified here are varied, being free from hindrances is chief, and their names are established on the basis of what is superior. Just as when speaking of generating the mind and cultivating the pāramitā practices, although all are free from hindrances, they are named solely after their superior positions: the great bodhicitta has roots of goodness as its nature, subduing the hindrances it counters, and hence is called pāramitā, being able to sever stinginess and so forth down to delusion, so all eliminate hindrances. Generating the mind embraces the fruit of great bodhi, while the six pāramitās purely cultivate all practices, each named after what is superior. This is also like that: passing over the varied practices without stating them, these twelve hindrances arise successively and encompass four and two practices, cause and fruit, beginning and end, as should be understood below. Because the text from "in order to be free from lack of skill in means" and "lack of instruction" below combines their explanations, the initial text can be understood. In the enumeration of names, only the names of the hindrances are listed; as for which of the two hindrances these belong to, it should be understood below. In the third section, explaining each in accordance with the enumeration, it is divided into twelve.

2.3

First, within freedom from arrogance, there are two kinds: first, the arrogance of self, and second, deviant arrogance, as should also be understood below. The initial text has two parts: first, matching the four meanings; from "Elder" onward, second, explaining difficult points of meaning. The sūtra text has two parts: first, questions and answers on the four fruits to explain freedom from arrogance; second, adducing oneself as an example. The four fruits make four [sections], each having two parts: first, the question; second, the answer. This asks whether the four fruits, when directly entering contemplation, would ever conceive this thought: "have I attained the fruit or not?"—in order to clarify freedom from arrogance. In Subhūti's answer, within the *Vajracchedikā-sūtra*, both the initial fruit and the final fruit speak of "I am able to attain the fruit", which would be to have clinging, while the middle two fruits do not, summarily citing the first and last to exemplify the middle ones; the other versions only have this for the fourth fruit, exemplifying the prior three fruits. If so, when clinging is spoken of as arising even in an aśaikṣa, why would clinging not be spoken of as arising in a śaikṣa? Therefore, the *Vajracchedikā* is correct. Vasubandhu raises a doubt: "Earlier it was said that noble ones derive their name from the unconditioned, and that dharma cannot be grasped or spoken of. If so, how can a stream-enterer and the rest know by themselves, 'I have attained that fruit'?" Thus, testifying and speaking for others means that the four fruits can be grasped and spoken of—such is the intent of raising the doubt. In the earlier fascicle of this treatise it says: "In order to be free from arrogance when attaining distinction in the path of cultivation, the sūtra says..."—this is the same as that doubt. If by being unconditioned it cannot be grasped or spoken of, how can the four fruits speak of an attainment that can be stated? Since they have doubts, in the midst of non-attainment and non-speech, they suppose there is attainment and speech. "I" refers to the arrogance of self, due to its nature of haughtiness; or it is the view of self. "Attaining" refers to supposing that there are attained virtues in the midst of nothing to be attained, which is the expression of deviant arrogance. What is also spoken of in this way is all spoken of in the context of benefiting sentient beings; because the view of self and the arrogance of self serve as the root, deviant arrogance and so forth arise. Therefore, this treatise states: "If there is a characteristic of self, then there is arrogance and the like, which should be severed by a bodhisattva." This is precisely the grasping at phenomena; names of afflictions are adduced to reveal grasping at phenomena, as will only be understood below. Now, generally stating here that in order to be free from this arrogance, the sūtra speaks [of this] and so forth, the intention is to show that at the time of entering and realizing the unconditioned, none of the four fruits say "I have attained" or "I speak"; only after emerging from contemplation do they say "I can realize and attain this fruit." Furthermore, subsequent wisdom contemplates what was previously realized; what was realized is profound and wondrous, and contemplating it, one does not cling to it; contemplating the aspects of prior preparatory practices, one proceeds to proclaim them in accordance with those aspects, speaking of having attainment and realization—it is not that true wisdom directly realizing the unconditioned speaks of having attainment and realization. If the prior three fruits were to speak of attainment and realization, because they are pursued by seeds of affliction, at this time, although there are no active afflictions, because there are seeds, the two graspings would arise in pursuit; hence it says "it would precisely be having grasping at a self and so forth." If a person of the fourth fruit were to have attainment and realization, pursued solely by seeds of the cognitive hindrance, directly giving rise to the four wisdoms, [thinking] "my births are exhausted, the holy life is established", and so forth, although not active grasping, because seeds of grasping pursue them, saying "I" and so forth would mean that grasping at phenomena arises. Therefore, Vasubandhu says: "Because of having underlying afflictions, not active afflictions. Why is this? Because at the time of realization they are free from afflictions that grasp at a self and so forth; therefore, they do not have such a mind as 'I can attain the fruit,' etc." This reveals that at the time of realization, if one were to say "since I have realized it", with seeds pursuing them, active afflictions of self and so forth would arise, just as when other things arise. The treatise's word "underlying" means seeds; since at the time of realizing the four fruits they do not speak of grasping or speaking, it is clear that arrogance involving grasping should all be abandoned. Now, in order to be free from this, this text arises. As for "srotāpanna" and so forth, Kumārajīva's text differs, while the other sūtras are mostly identical. Explaining the names and severing doubts should all be understood in accordance with reason.

2.4

Matching the four meanings is divided into three: first, explaining the meaning of dependence; next, explaining the characteristics of speech and upholding; and last, explaining the ultimate truth. In the subsequent explanation of difficult points of meaning, there are three parts: first, explaining the sūtra text, showing that it is due to the fundamental characteristic of self that deviant arrogance and so forth arise; next, explaining the reason why Elder Subhūti reveals himself; and last, explaining the reason for expounding the two practices of non-strife. Within revealing himself, it explains the sūtra: why does Subhūti reveal himself as having attained foremost place in the samādhi of non-strife and the shared virtues of an arhat? It means saying he is an arhat free from desire and apart from desire. An arhat attains unconditioned virtues because of attaining freedom from desire; by being free from craving and desire, internally one realizes the unconditioned, while externally one practices non-strife; therefore, non-strife is external conduct, while realizing the unconditioned is internal virtue. However, both Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci say: "The World-Honoured One, the Buddha, said that I have attained non-strife and freedom from desire"; Paramārtha and the *Vajracchedikā* both say: "The World-Honoured One and the first three epithets said that I have attained non-strife", revealing his own freedom from desire. Furthermore, the various versions all say "samādhi of non-strife", whereas only the *Vajracchedikā* says "abiding in non-strife". Just as among the eight liberations, only the third and the eighth speak of "directly realizing with the body and fully abiding", while the other six do not, this is also like that: revealing that among all samādhis this one is supreme, and the World-Honoured One mostly abides in it himself, hence it is designated with the name "abiding"; or it means the place of meditative absorption; containing both meanings, it was therefore translated as "abiding". Using what he himself has realized, in order to generate faith, he adduces this as evidence. Vasubandhu also states that praising his own receipt of prophecy and verifying the fruit by his own person was in order to generate faith in that meaning. Why speak only of the single practice of non-strife as a virtue in which the Buddha mostly abides? Vasubandhu's treatise gives two explanations: first, to clarify superior virtues so as to give rise to joyful aspiration; second, to give rise to deep faith. This treatise has only one explanation: to generate faith. In the final explanation of the reason for expounding the two practices of non-strife: internally realizing true reality, free from grasping at what belongs to self, abiding in the principle of non-strife, without the slightest dharma attained as an arhat; externally abiding in non-strife, practicing entirely without engagement, practicing the conduct of non-strife. Because of the two kinds of non-strife in principle and practice, the sūtra repeats "non-strife, conduct of non-strife"; because of having no slight dharma and no engagement, it is termed establishing the ultimate truth. Vasubandhu says: "Relying on Subhūti, it speaks of being free from two kinds of hindrances"—first, the affliction hindrance; second, the samādhi hindrance. Being free from those two hindrances, it speaks of having no engagement; when the two hindrances manifest, there is engagement. By being free from the affliction hindrance, internally one realizes true reality and attains non-strife in principle; this virtue is shared by all arhats, so this treatise states: "and the virtues shared by arhats"—this is called the first non-strife. Being free from the samādhi hindrance and externally abiding in that concentration to act is called the second non-strife. That treatise speaks of two on the basis of being free from the two hindrances; this treatise, on the basis of attaining the two non-strifes of principle and phenomena, repeats the two concentrations; therefore, they do not contradict each other.

2.5

In the second [section], "on eliminating little learning", there are two parts: first, correlating with the sūtra to eliminate obstacles; second, pointing out what can be contemplated and known. The sūtra text has two parts: first, a question; second, an answer. Vasubandhu's treatise states that here there is a doubt: "The Tathāgata Śākyamuni in the past, abiding in the eighth stage, met Dīpaṅkara Buddha, who gave him the prediction. That Buddha had something to speak, and this Buddha had something to receive; how can it be said that dharmas cannot be grasped or spoken?" Now, the meaning of this treatise is: to say that there is grasping and speaking is due to not having met good friends and being separated from the advent of buddhas in the world, so that one does not broadly hear and understand the Dharma. Because of little learning, one says that at that time this Buddha and that Buddha had grasping and speaking. Now, in order to remove this obstacle of little learning, the subsequent sūtra text appears. The preceding fascicle was for externally not meeting good friends, so the subsequent sūtra text appeared to cause one to meet good friends; this fascicle is for internally possessing the obstacle of the knowable, where because of lacking much learning there is the obstacle of little learning, so the subsequent sūtra text is spoken to cause one to study much learning. Therefore it is said in a sūtra: "Much learning can cut off delusion; much learning can bring about joy; much learning abandons what is meaningless; much learning attains nirvāṇa." Moreover, the treatise says that the perfuming of much learning is the seed of the supramundane mind; therefore this little learning is an obstacle of the knowable. The arising of doubt pertains to both obstacles. Taking up the doubt in that treatise as arising from what preceded, and this treatise relying on one's own little learning of not meeting good friends—each looks to one sense, and they also do not contradict each other. If one meets good friends, encounters the buddhas, and widely studies much learning, one will know that in the presence of Dīpaṅkara Buddha, Śākyamuni in ultimate truth had not the slightest dharma to attain, and does not give rise to discrimination. Saying that at that time there was grasping and speaking, and giving rise to this discrimination, is due to not having met buddhas and possessing the obstacle of little learning; in order to cause one to meet good friends, abandon the obstacle of discrimination, and study much learning, the sūtra text arises. In conventional truth there is attainment and speaking; in ultimate truth there is no such thing. The two treatises and the three texts each look to one explanation. The various versions are all the same; only Bodhiruci's version says, "In the past, when in the presence of Dīpaṅkara, was there any dharma of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi attained or not?" having the sense of: "In ultimate truth, was there anything attained or not?" The origin story of this is as related in the first fascicle of the Sūtra on Past and Present Causes and Effects, where the ṛṣi Sumati had the five dreams, and so forth; the Vibhāṣā-śāstra has minor differences, which will be explained in the commentary.

2.6

In the third [section], "on eliminating cultivating the path by directing thoughts to minor mental objects", Vasubandhu raises the doubt: "Since the noble ones derive their name from the unconditioned and cannot be grasped or spoken of, why do bodhisattvas grasp the adornment of pure lands, and why does the Buddha speak of it?" This refers to the previous fascicle's wishing for a buddha's pure land, which is the practice and vow cultivated by lesser bodhisattvas. This buddha's pure land is cultivating the path by directing thoughts to minor mental objects, seeking birth in a pure land and seeking it by forming pure marks, which causes sentient beings desiring birth in the Western [Pure Land] to all make this vow. Now, to eliminate this cultivating of the path by minor thoughts, the subsequent sūtra text appears: to truly vow to be born in a pure land, one should cultivate the signless and adorn and purify one's own mind, as the marks of adorning the land are extensively spoken of in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra. Vasubandhu's doubt arises from what preceded—this fascicle's vows and bodily forms, and the previous fascicle's vow to be born and marks of adornment—and they also do not contradict each other. "Minor mental objects" means grasping bodily forms and characteristics to cultivate a pure land, which is also a grasping at phenomena; because covetous craving arises, it is also an affliction—this is the meaning of this treatise. That [doubt] arises from the previous [discussion of] the unconditioned, and thus they do not contradict each other.

2.7

The sūtra text has two parts: first, explaining the adornment of a pure land, exhorting the abandonment of adornments that are conditioned results with signs; second, exhorting the generating of the mind, causing the cultivation of the decoration of signless causes. The treatise text has two parts: first, correlating with the sūtra to exhort the abandonment of what has signs; second, setting forth discrimination to cause the cultivation of the signless. The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra says: "Arisen from superior supramundane roots of good, having vast, sovereign, pure consciousness as its mark." Vasubandhu's treatise says: / "Practicing wisdom, consciousness-only is penetrated; / In this way one grasps a buddha land. / It is not bodily form, but the supreme substance; / It is not adornment—this is the intention of adornment." / The first half of the verse explains the second text that causes the cultivation of the signless; the second half of the verse explains the first text that exhorts the abandonment of what has signs. Learning non-discriminative wisdom, with roots of good as the cause, one internally realizes the true land of the dharmakāya and dharmatā, the signless principle-land. Once the signless is perfected, the saṃbhogakāya land is complete; it cannot be known by [discriminative] wisdom, nor can it be spoken of in words. It is only externally, for the benefit of beings, that the land for the enjoyment of others and the nirmāṇakāya land are manifested. Therefore, the various pure lands have pure consciousness as their mark and superior roots of good as their cause; hence when buddhahood is attained, superior sentient beings in turn experience the pure realm. Thus Vimalakīrti says: "He who wishes to adorn a buddha land must first adorn his own mind." Beginners, not knowing this, take the five sense objects as the substance of the land, give rise to vows and seek it, cultivate the path with minor thoughts, and practice what has signs. Now, in order to remove these doubts arising in beginners, the first text arises, stating that adornment without bodily form is the supreme adornment. True adornment is cultivating signless consciousness; true wisdom then penetrates the signless, pure buddha land. Because the Buddha relies on the signless as his dwelling, to speak of "adorning the land" is an unreal expression. Vasubandhu's treatise explains that it is repeatedly indicated by means of signless and signed adornment. In the Vajracchedikā text, it both takes up both and concludes both; Bodhiruci takes up both and concludes one; Paramārtha and Kumārajīva both take up one and conclude. What is meant by "is not adornment" is that adornment with signs is not true adornment. The distinctions among pure lands are threefold or fourfold, as spoken of in the chapter.

2.8

In explaining the second text there are three parts: first, indicating that one should cultivate the signless, generating the mind without abiding anywhere; next, showing the mind that does not abide in the five sense objects, which is the cultivating of the path by minor thoughts that is to be abandoned; last, "should not abide anywhere" concludes and establishes the true mind. The other versions are all the same; only the Vajracchedikā text, among that in which one does not abide, says "not abiding in form, not abiding in non-form". The intention of the various versions is to say that those who seek cultivation taking the coarse five sense objects as the substance of the pure land do not truly adorn the land, so they merely cause them not to abide in the five sense objects. The Vajracchedikā text speaks fully of abiding in the five sense objects and abiding in what is not the five sense objects—the remaining five aggregates and so forth—so that merely giving rise to attached abiding and seeking a pure land is in all cases not true adornment; it is essential to cultivate true wisdom without attached abiding to be true adornment. Because the substance of the pure land emerges identically from internal sentient beings and the external receptacle world, not abiding in the two bodies and not abiding in completeness is this adorning of the pure land. Its doctrinal avenues are vast and cannot be stated briefly, as is extensively explained in the Commentary on the Chapter on the Pure Land and the Vimalakīrti Commentary. The Vajracchedikā says "adorning the buddha land with merit", directly indicating that the adorner lacks supreme merit, hence it adds "adorning the buddha land with merit".

2.9

In the fourth [section], "on eliminating abandoning sentient beings", Vasubandhu says: "If the noble ones derive their name from the unconditioned, why does the saṃbhogakāya buddha of experienced bliss grasp for himself the body of a Dharma King, and why does the rest of the world also grasp that he is the body of a Dharma King?" This doubt is: the saṃbhogakāya can grasp for itself the superior body and the great body, and others also grasp it as a superior and great body that can transform sentient beings, which exists and is not a noble one deriving a name from the unconditioned. If, deriving a name from the unconditioned, one does not grasp a superior and great body, then there would be no activity of the buddhas benefiting sentient beings, which would amount to the annihilation of all dharmas; since there would be no great body, one would abandon benefiting sentient beings. Now, to explain this, the subsequent text therefore states: "In order to eliminate abandoning sentient beings, the sūtra says...", and so forth. However, the Buddha has twelve kinds of skillful means: first, caring attachment with a compassionate mind; second, understanding all conditioned processes; third, rejoicing in the Buddha's wondrous wisdom; fourth, not abandoning saṃsāra; fifth, being undefiled by transmigration; sixth, blazing vigor; seventh, achieving measureless fruits with little good; eighth, gathering great roots of good with little effort; ninth, removing the resentment and affliction of those who augment the noble teaching; tenth, causing those who dwell in the middle to enter; eleventh, causing those who have entered to achieve accomplishment; twelfth, causing those who have matured to attain liberation. Therefore, buddhas and bodhisattvas do not abandon sentient beings; abandoning them is an obstacle. Furthermore, among the four obstacles, the abandoning mind of the pratyekabuddhas is the primary obstacle. Taking the noble ones as deriving their name from the unconditioned, they would lack the saṃbhogakāya buddha's superior, great body and the activity of benefiting sentient beings; hence it is called abandoning the benefit of sentient beings. Now, to eliminate this discrimination and attachment, the subsequent sūtra text appears. The previous fascicle simply said: "In order to bring sentient beings to maturity, the sūtra says...", and so forth. Although the noble ones derive their name from the unconditioned, through non-discrimination, like the king of mountains and so forth, the Buddha can also bring sentient beings to maturity. The doubt in Vasubandhu's treatise arose from what preceded: the previous fascicle explained that there is such practice, while here it refutes their attachment—each is based on one explanation, and thus they do not contradict each other. Grasping the existence of a great body is an obstacle of attachment to phenomena; abandoning sentient beings is saying that there is no great compassion.

2.10

The sūtra text has two parts: first, a question; second, an answer. The treatise also has two parts: first, indicating and correlating with the sūtra; second, explaining by question and answer. The latter text has two parts: first, explaining the question text; from "the sūtra says" onward, it explains the answer text. "What does this show?" is the question. The meaning of the question here is: the saṃbhogakāya buddha seen by bodhisattvas on the first stage sits on a hundred-petaled flower, his body matching the flower seat, while the nirmāṇakāya is unfixed; what does the metaphor spoken of here show? This speaks of the saṃbhogakāya to refute others' doubts; speaking by raising a great body, the metaphor has nothing to show, but temporarily raises a metaphor of a small measure of the saṃbhogakāya: in order to bring to maturity sentient beings of the desire realm, it temporarily raises the saṃbhogakāya. "Like Rāhu the asura king and others" includes Vemacitrin and others. A verse in the fiftieth fascicle of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: / "As the asura manifests a transformed body, / Placing his feet upon the vajra ground, / The sea water, reaching its greatest depth, comes only to half his body, / And his head is vast like Mount Sumeru." / In order to transform sentient beings of the desire realm, the Buddha's saṃbhogakāya manifests in a measure like that of Mount Sumeru. Because of non-discrimination, one should not even see its own substance, let alone the rest. In order to transform the ten stages, he manifests a great body; giving rise to wild discrimination, they see his own substance. Now the treatise explains: when the Buddha's sūtra speaks pointing to [a body] like Sumeru, who is it? Indeed, the transformed body of Rāhu the asura king is truly of the measure of Mount Sumeru; therefore the Buddha pointed to the metaphor of a transformed body. Although the measure of a transformation can be great, the humans and devas to be transformed reside in a small realm and should not see a great one, so a body like Sumeru is merely a saṃbhogakāya; here it is provisionally spoken of as a saṃbhogakāya manifested to transform humans and devas of the desire realm. In this way, by far analogy, Amitābha Buddha's body is sixty trillion nayutas of yojanas in height, which is not a nirmāṇakāya buddha seen by ordinary beings prior to the stages.

2.11

In explaining the text of the answer, there are three parts: first, explaining the Buddha's statement 'not a body'; second, explaining the statement 'that body is not a body'; third, clarifying the dharma that is revealed. In the first text, when the Tathāgata states that it is not an entity, this reveals the selflessness of phenomena. Therefore, Vasubandhu says: 'This speaks of the substance of the Buddha of experiential reward, which is like the king of Sumeru mountains, because it has the sense of a mirror image.' This means the saṃbhogakāya Buddha is like the king of Sumeru mountains, towering and remote in power, and hence is called 'great'. Just as an image in a mirror is a reflection of cognitive consciousness, it does not grasp at the mountain king's own entity [thinking] 'I am the mountain king,' because it is non-conceptual. The saṃbhogakāya Buddha is also like this: because he attains the entity of the unsurpassed Dharma King, he is called 'great', yet he does not grasp at the Dharma King's own entity [thinking] 'I am the Dharma King,' because of non-conceptuality. Those who have conceptual thought are perverse with afflictions and the like, and their minds are tainted. The Dharma King is free from tainted dharmas; because he has realized selflessness, he is free from conceptual thought. That treatise says, 'If it is thus without anything'—'without anything' means because of non-conceptuality. The intention is that the Buddha states the great body manifested by the Dharma King is not a tainted, conceptual body; this is called the 'great body', for that [conceptual] body does not benefit sentient beings. The great body manifested by the Dharma King, through realizing the unconditioned principle of the selflessness of phenomena, is non-conceptual, and therefore does not abandon the task of benefiting sentient beings. That entity is not an entity, revealing that the dharma-entity is unarisen and uncreated. Vasubandhu says: 'If it is thus, it is named "having an entity", because it is solely a pure body, because it is far removed from conditioned phenomena; by this meaning, there truly exists a substance of self, because it does not abide dependent on other conditions.' The meaning of that treatise is: the entity of that Buddha of experiential reward is solely a pure body; being thus, it is called 'having an entity'. As for what is called 'not a body', there are two kinds of body: first, it is not a dependent, tainted body, hence called 'not a body', [which refers to] the saṃbhogakāya; second, it is not a body created by bad karma, hence called 'not a body'. The former 'not a body' means it is not bound by afflictions; the latter 'not a body' means it is not a body created by bad karma. Therefore, the treatise says it is 'far removed from the conditioned'. 'Far removed from the conditioned' shows that the Buddha's saṃbhogakāya is not a body far removed from causes and conditions, for it arises from causes and conditions; this body is 'unconditioned' in the sense that, as the Abhidharma says, it is not created by bad karma. Moreover, precisely because it is not created by bad karma, it is far removed from the truly existing substance of a self that is conceptually constructed by attachment, which would spontaneously abide without depending on other conditions. The Dharma King's saṃbhogakāya is like a mirror image: it is not that [tainted] body, and is therefore the 'great body'. Since its substance is not real, how could there be any further arising or a real creator? However, now in this treatise and in the Vajracchedikā, 'body' is explained as 'substance' (entity). 'Entity' relies on the meaning of an aggregation; speaking generally, it is called 'body'. The entity is the same though the names differ. In the Vajracchedikā it says, 'Suppose a man has an endowed body, a great body'; Paramārtha's version says, 'Suppose there is a man whose substance and marks are supreme and great'; the two versions do not differ. 'Endowed body' means supreme, because he is fully endowed with the marks of a puruṣa; 'great' means the physical magnitude is great. The other versions all lack this, having 'great' but not the meaning of 'supreme'. Again, Paramārtha's version says, 'The Tathāgata states that it does not exist, and it is called having a body; this is not existing, and the body originally does not exist, therefore it is called having a body.' 'Originally does not exist' means free from tainted conceptualisation; 'later does not exist' means free from conditioned conceptualisation: the names differ but the meaning is the same. In clarifying the dharma revealed: this reveals the nature-body (svabhāvakāya), which is the dharmakāya of the principle of the selflessness of phenomena that has been realized; 'together with marks' refers to the mirror image of the saṃbhogakāya; 'distinctions' refers to the body that is solely tainted and conditioned, and the truly existent self conceptually constructed by attachment. The body is solely in the locus—not only the distinction between the two selves, the dependent and the constructed, but because the three bodies are distinct, there are these three kinds. By the inwardly realized principle of the selflessness of phenomena, the saṃbhogakāya that is manifested is free from conceptual thought; it is not a tainted, conditioned body, nor is it a body of a conceptually constructed real self, and is therefore called the 'great body'.

2.12

In the fifth [section], 'On abandoning the distraction of delighting in heterodox treatises', the preceding fascicle had the word 'complying'; due to complying with heterodox treatises, distraction arises. Here it has 'delighting', which is precisely complying; thus there is no contradiction. According to Vasubandhu's treatise, the second comparative evaluation below is divided into two: first, evaluating superiority and inferiority; second, showing the reasons for superiority and inferiority. There are four reasons for superiority and inferiority: first, clarifying that where prajñā dwells, that place is superior, and the person dwelling there is honoured, whereas the merit of giving is not so; second, revealing that prajñā is taught in common by all Buddhas, not taught by one Buddha alone, whereas the merit of giving is not so; third, using analogies such as world systems to clarify that the merit of giving is a cause tainted by afflictions, whereas prajñā is not so; fourth, clarifying that prajñā will attain the dharmakāya and also accomplish the major and minor marks, whereas the merit of giving is not so. Thus, gathering three texts of this treatise, taking the sixth, 'contemplative practice', the seventh, 'worship', together with this fifth, they are combined into one text. Because their comparative evaluation of superiority and inferiority is the same, they are united as one, whereas here, because the distinctions of contemplative practice and transmigration differ, they are unfolded into three. In the first text of this treatise, the sūtra text has nine questions and answers and so forth. The first five questions and answers evaluate superiority and inferiority, directly refuting the distraction of complying with heterodox treatises; the latter four questions and answers refute grasping at meaning according to literal words. Yet the treatise only explains the text of the fifth Buddha's declaration in the first part, along with explaining the subsequent text on grasping at meaning according to literal words. Paramārtha's translation calls it the 'Gaṅgā River' (江 jiāng); because he translated it in the south, southerners call a river (河 hé) a 'jiāng', just as north of the Yellow River people refer to waters as 'hé', while south of the Yellow River people refer to rivers as 'waters' or as 'jiāng'. Vasubandhu's treatise asks: Why is this comparative analogy not stated earlier? It is in order to gradually transform sentient beings and cause them to generate faith in the supreme, wondrous meaning; moreover, previously it had not yet been revealed by what kind of superior merit one can attain great bodhi, so this analogy is used to establish that merit; for this reason the superior analogy is stated again.

2.13

The treatise is divided into two parts: first, explaining the text that refutes the distraction of complying with heterodox treatises; second, from 'revealing this' below, explaining the refutation of grasping at meaning according to literal words. The first text is divided into three: first, listing [the points]; next, explaining them in turn; finally, explicating the teaching. In comparison, there are people in the world who comply with mundane texts and heterodox treatises, considering them profound, and thereby become distracted and do not practice the internal scriptures. Now, to refute them, it is said: even offering the seven jewels filling as many sands of the Gaṅgā River is still not equal to receiving, upholding, and explaining to others a single four-line verse from this sūtra, whereas complying with heterodox treatises gives rise to distraction. Furthermore, people of little learning mostly cultivate the merit of giving, which is called the distraction of complying with heterodox treatises; they do not cultivate and uphold this sūtra to serve as the cause of wisdom. Now, in order to eliminate this, even using the giving of as many Gaṅgā worlds as a metaphor is still not equal to upholding a single verse and explaining it to others, which is far greater. Therefore, another sūtra says: 'If one fills worlds as numerous as the sands of the Gaṅgā with precious jewels / and offers them to all Tathāgatas, / it is not equal to the giving of Dharma. / Though giving jewels is immeasurable, / it is not equal to giving a single dharma; / the merit of a single verse is already superior, / how much more so many, as discussed in the scriptures.' Now, in order to eliminate this, the subsequent text discusses distraction caused by complying with heterodox texts, which is precisely what is prohibited in the 'Comfortable Conduct' chapter of the Lotus Sūtra, not allowing the study and practice of external books and treatises. Corresponding to the six kinds of distraction, the first embraces both the cognitive obscurations and the affliction obscurations; through four causes and conditions, it reveals that the internal Dharma is superior and distinct from secular texts and treatises, as well as the merit gathered by giving. Second, regarding the comprehensible worship: Paramārtha, Bodhiruci, and Kumārajīva have only 'upholding' and 'explaining'; the Vajracchedikā has five, namely copying, reciting, upholding, explaining, and mental cultivation; this treatise has only three: first, explaining; second, conferring; third, commenting—that is, explaining without receiving and upholding. According to the preceding, there should only be, first, upholding, and second, explaining; or, among the ten Dharmic practices, five and three are stated because the reciters differ. 'Caitya' is what the Vajracchedikā calls a 'numinous shrine', and other versions call a 'stūpa shrine'. In Sanskrit it is caitya, erroneously called zhidi; stūpa has the meaning of being high and prominent, whereas caitya is a numinous shrine. This reveals that wherever it is located, that place is noble. 'Difficult to do' reveals that the practitioner's practice is in accord with the principle, and is therefore difficult to do. 'Arising of recollection' means: there is a dharmakāya Buddha, or when the saṃbhogakāya or nirmāṇakāya Buddha is absent, a similar saṃbhogakāya or nirmāṇakāya is present here and also speaks this; therefore it is worthy of respect, and disciples are also like this. The Vajracchedikā has three: first, where the Great Master dwells; second, an honoured place, because the place where this sūtra is located is precisely Jetavana Anāthapiṇḍada's monastery and the like; third, fellow practitioners of pure conduct, meaning bodhisattvas and śrāvakas who speak within it, and so forth. Explaining what the sūtra teaches, there is a distinction between explaining and conferring; other versions only have 'explaining' and lack the meaning of 'conferring'. Vasubandhu's treatise says: What is the meaning of this? 'Respect in two places, / due to practice one realizes the great reality.' First is the place where it is taught: whatever place this sūtra is taught, it causes people to generate signs of respect and wonder; second is the person who can teach: whatever person can uphold and explain it provides the causal condition for the Buddha to verify all dharmas. First, offerings by devas and others constitute the honour of the place; next, accomplishing what is rare constitutes the excellence of the person; finally, in the arising of recollection, both superiorities are explained together.

2.14

In refuting the grasping at meaning according to literal words, first it concludes the preceding part that revealed the superiority and uniqueness of the Dharma, and then it re-generates the text below. It is divided into three: first, clarifying that all Buddhas together speak this prajñā, and it is not Śākyamuni Tathāgata alone who speaks this prajñā; one must not say, according to literal words, that because our Śākyamuni Buddha spoke prajñā, he alone spoke it. What is spoken alone cannot be esteemed, whereas what is spoken in common is worthy of reverence. Next, it clarifies that not only is prajñā spoken in common by all Buddhas and not spoken by one alone, but also there is no single Buddha-dharma that is spoken by Śākyamuni alone and not spoken in common by all Buddhas; this inversely clarifies that everything spoken by all other Buddhas is spoken in common by all Buddhas, not spoken by the single Buddha Śākyamuni alone. Therefore, Vasubandhu says: What is the meaning of this? Because there is no single dharma that is spoken exclusively by the Tathāgata and not spoken by other Buddhas. Furthermore, observing this treatise, refuting the grasping at literal words differs from that explanation: it is provisionally named 'Vajra Prajñā' as a nominal designation; when the Buddha speaks of prajñā, one must not generate realistic grasping according to literal words, hence it is said 'is not'. All other dharmas have nothing taught that can be taught, and are also like this. Because the preceding principle is superior, there is no concluding phrase 'is named prajñā'. In the latter explanation, there should be a concluding phrase; the Vajracchedikā version indeed has a concluding phrase, which can be interpreted broadly, and concludes afterwards by saying that this reveals its own-characteristic, comprehensively concluding that prajñā is not prajñā, and explaining the characteristic of equality. Establishing that there is nothing spoken forms the standard for all dharmas: nothing is spoken exclusively by Śākyamuni Tathāgata. Since it says 'is not', it refutes grasping at meaning according to literal words, and therefore this dharma-gate is the ultimate truth.

2.15

Sixth, regarding the lack of skillfulness in mastery over mental image-appearances: the body and the five dust-objects, which are manifested by the mind as the objective spheres of the five aggregates, are the semblances of the mental image-appearances of mental consciousness; therefore they are called 'image-appearances'. Due to grasping the aggregate-body and the form of the five dust-objects as real existents, attachment to dharmas arises, afflictions follow upon it, evil karma is generated, and various sufferings ensue. What one does and what one contemplates are both unfree, which is called 'lacking skillfulness'. 'Lacking skillfulness' means not conforming to principle and lacking wisdom and skillful means; one is unable to realize supernormal powers and the like, and hence does not attain mastery. If one contemplates the body and the objective spheres as unreal, temporary combinations, knowing them to be image-appearances of the conscious mind, clinging and confusion do not arise, and one attains mastery in all objects and actions. To conform to correct principle is wisdom; having capacity is called 'skillfulness'. Hence the fifty-fourth [fascicle] of the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Explaining subtle atoms has five superior benefits', which explains the meaning of subtle atoms and the like taught in this sūtra. Now, in order to abandon this lack of skillfulness in attaining mastery over the body and objective spheres that are image-appearances, the following sūtra passage is presented. The preceding fascicle states: 'For the sake of breaking concordant practice in the contemplation of grasping solid mass regarding form and the bodies of sentient beings...' Here, the word 'form' indicates external forms such as the five sense-objects, which are also objects of contemplation, since they pertain to both internal and external. Although the bodies of sentient beings encompass the five aggregates, here the four aggregates are spoken of as sentient beings, because form has already been mentioned. 'Solid mass' means the characteristic of a single combination: the five aggregates combine into a single aggregated body, like a solid mass. 'Grasping' means clinging: foolish ordinary beings do not understand this body of a solid mass, grasping it as a real self, permanent, pure, blissful, and so forth; this is called a solid mass, because they grasp a solid mass. Now, speaking of the world, subtle atoms, and the like illustrates profound and marvelous principles, leading practitioners to contemplate the body and the objective spheres as subtle atoms and the like, knowing impermanence, selflessness, and the emptiness of dharmas, and to generate practices concordant with this principle—namely, practice of the emptiness of persons. Causing clinging, confusion, and the like to not arise at all, and contemplating to refute the clinging to real existence of objects so as to cause the arising of concordant hearing, thinking, and cultivating practices, the following sūtra text is presented. 'Concordant' means matching and conforming: the mind accords with the marvelous principle and is congruent with the principle. The previous fascicle brought up the object contemplated and refuted, revealing the practice capable of refuting, so as to give rise to the sūtra text. This fascicle brings up the contemplated objective sphere, to be removed by the practice of attaining mastery over the lack of skillfulness, so as to give rise to the sūtra text. Therefore, the twelve kinds listed at the beginning of the fascicle are all called hindrances, which give rise to the lack of skillfulness, attachment to dharmas, and various afflictions, encompassing both hindrances; each relies on one perspective, and they truly do not conflict. Although the practices cultivated by bodhisattvas are boundless, to discuss them in brief, they do not exceed four: first, practice of the bodhisattva's portion; second, practice of the pāramitās; third, practice of the supernormal powers; fourth, practice of maturing sentient beings. Practice of the pāramitās is the aforementioned pure abode of the pāramitās; practice of the bodhisattva's portion is desiring to attain the Buddha's body, abandoning arrogance, overcoming meager learning, abandoning minor conditions, cultivating the path, and so forth; practice of maturing sentient beings is not following distraction; practice of the supernormal powers is this refutation of unskillfulness. If there are obstacles of internal and external form and so forth, due to lack of mastery, one does not attain supernormal powers to make offerings and benefit sentient beings; although the emptiness of persons and dharmas is fully accomplished thereby, speaking in terms of predominance also presents no contradiction. Furthermore, the two kinds of provisions cultivated by bodhisattvas—merit and wisdom—subsume all practices. The next three abandonments of hindrances—namely, not possessing the provision of merit, delighting in indolence, and being unable to endure suffering—are subsumed by practice of merit, which is their antidote. The subsequent three abandonments of hindrances—namely, not possessing the provision of wisdom, not restraining oneself, and lacking instruction—are subsumed by practice of wisdom, which is their antidote. Among the twelve abandonments of hindrances, the first four practices and the last two practices are all rooted in generating the mind [for awakening]. If there is no initial generation of the mind, then the subsequent advancing in good and eradicating evil, both specific and general practices, cannot be established. Therefore, the abode of generating the mind was explained first, followed by the abode of desire for the pāramitās, and then abandoning hindrances and so forth. Although these are cultivated specifically prior to the stages, much of what is cultivated on the ten stages is also identical to what came before; hence it is not mentioned in full. Just as the Bodhisattvabhūmi and other texts explain the first stage and so forth as realizing the path, generating the mind, practicing generosity, and abandoning the hindrance of meager learning—all as explained there—here we speak tentatively based on coarse characteristics, and will make detailed discriminations below under 'lacking instruction'.

2.16

Here, the sūtra text has three parts: first, question; next, answer; finally, conclusion. The text has two divisions: first, correlating the names; second, correctly explaining the sūtra. The correct explanation of the sūtra has three parts: first, explaining the meaning of the sūtra's mention of the trichiliocosm; second, explaining the meaning of subtle atoms; third, explaining the meaning of the world. Regarding the explanation of the mention of the trichiliocosm: Why does it not speak of a single body and a single objective sphere, but instead speaks of the great trichiliocosm? Now it is explained: when someone clings to body and objective sphere, encountering an object they grasp it, meeting a dust-object they cling to it, and confusion arises wherever they touch, with no fixed limitation. Therefore the treatise says: 'They pay attention to objects without limit.' However, all bodhisattvas, from their initial generation of the mind, constantly pay attention to the worlds, cultivating consciousness-only and having compassion for sentient beings; therefore the sūtra speaks of both the trichiliocosm without decrease or increase.

2.17

In explaining subtle atoms, first is the presentation, then the explanation. Foolish ordinary beings all cling to the image-appearance of the material body as real, having the characteristic of a single combination; thus the two clingings arise. Now, in order to refute this, two skillful means are revealed. 'Fang' means cause: the coarse body of a single combination has the subtle as its cause, so not recollecting the cause as real existence is called the 'skillful means of non-recollection'. Furthermore, skillful means is the marvelous functioning of wisdom: contemplating the coarse combined body as having subtle atoms as its cause, since the coarse is unreal and a combination, one does not recollect subtle atoms as really existent; both are the function of wisdom. This is just what the Consciousness-Only [treatise] says: 'For the sake of those who cling to coarse form as real existence, the Buddha spoke of subtle atoms to make them dissect it'; this is precisely this meaning. Therefore, making it subtle as a skillful means refers to subtle atoms, because the combined coarse world has subtle atoms as its cause. Furthermore, using wisdom to dissect the coarse world into atoms is the functional efficacy of wisdom. This is what the Consciousness-Only [treatise] says: 'The yogic practitioners, by means of the wisdom of conceptualization, gradually dissect it until it cannot be dissected, and conceptually designate it as a subtle atom.' The 'skillful means of non-recollection' means not clinging to the causal atoms as real or existent. 'Recollection' has the meaning of contemplation and clinging. Although the Buddha used these subtle atoms as a provisional metaphor, fearing that there would be clingers who would take them to be taught as real existents, he said they are 'not fine dust-atoms', which is termed 'non-recollection'. Moreover, teaching bodhisattvas to employ metaphors to contemplate without generating clinging is the skillful capacity of wisdom; hence the Consciousness-Only [treatise] says: 'It does not mean that forms are real existents; subtle atoms refute their clinging.'

First 17 of 94 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

金剛般若論會釋 — Classical Chinese