金剛般若論會釋 2.19

2.19

Question: "Why did Vasubandhu explain the dust and realm in the sūtra as a comparison of merit, while Asaṅga explained the realm and dust in the sūtra as refuting the lump-aggregation of the aggregate body?" Answer: "Principles have a hundred paths; why labor over a single track?" Vasubandhu relied on resolving doubts to clarify the meaning, establishing superior merit to expound the text. Asaṅga followed the sequential order to set forth the tenets, explaining that contemplation to reveal the principle. Although their initial contemplations differ, upon careful re-examination there is no contradiction; furthermore, the two are without distinction. Vasubandhu indicated generally, while Asaṅga explained specifically. Asaṅga's intention is: how could the merit of giving wealth be a cause of affliction? The meaning of the sūtra is fully revealed, and therefore he spoke thus: namely, because giving wealth brings about the fruit of the five aggregates, where form applies to both the sentient and the insentient, and the four aggregates apply only to the sentient, ordinary persons fail to comprehend, and also contemplating provisional characteristics, grasp them as really existent within a single lumped combination, giving rise to various afflictions such as self and permanence, and thereby revolve endlessly in saṃsāra, and thus, lacking skillful means, do not attain mastery. Now realms and dust are spoken of as an analogy to cause one to contemplate that the entity of the fruit obtained from the merit of giving is precisely lacking in mastery. Collectively speaking of realms and dust as an analogy causes one to contemplate that all mental images, internal and external coarse and subtle forms, and internal bodies of the four aggregates resulting from the merit of giving are all unreal, so that one should not obstinately cling to them, give rise to delusion, and transmigrate in saṃsāra, but should attain skillful means and acquire great mastery. Setting forth this explanation specifically encourages one to give rise to hearing, contemplating, and practicing in conformity with this wondrous principle to contemplate: worldly fruits are not real and should not be cultivated; the resulting merit of upholding and explaining four lines is not like this, and one should cultivate and train in accordance with it. Therefore, that treatise's explanation does not contradict this one. Furthermore, the two are without distinction: in Vasubandhu's mind, speaking generally, the merit generated by giving is tainted, and is therefore a cause of affliction, whereas the merit of upholding and explaining is untainted, and is therefore not a cause of affliction. Asaṅga's intention is that the self-entities of the five dusts [i.e., sensory objects] resulting from giving are not even real existents, so how could they further be the cause of afflictions? Upholding and explaining are not like this: the merit generated by the two is the fruit of the dharmakāya; since it is a real existent, how much more is it able to extinguish all afflictions and is not a cause of afflictions; therefore, the merit of upholding and explaining surpasses the fruit of giving wealth.