金剛般若論會釋 2.66

2.66

In establishing patience through contemplation, there are three parts: first, the position of lower patience confirms the absence of the grasped object; next, from 'Subhūti, if there were a dharma that the Tathāgata attained...' onwards, it explains the middle patience contemplating the absence of the grasping subject; finally, from 'Why is that? Subhūti, what is called the Tathāgata is precisely the true reality of tathatā' and so forth, it explains the upper patience confirming the absence of the grasping subject. The commentary has two parts: first, labeling and correlating to the sūtra; second, explaining the direct address. The direct address also has three parts: first, explaining the position of patience; next, from 'or saying that under Dīpaṅkara Tathāgata no dharma was attained, etc.' onwards, explaining the supreme worldly dharmas; finally, from 'further, the sūtra says: Subhūti, the dharmas learned in the Tathāgata's perfect enlightenment...' onwards, resolving objections. The text explaining patience has two parts: first, explaining middle patience contemplating the absence of the grasping subject; finally, from 'moreover, why is that dharma inexpressible...' onwards, explaining upper patience confirming the absence of the grasping subject, omitting the explanation of the initial confirmation of the absence of the grasped object in lower patience, because the text is simple. Vasubandhu's treatise is also like this. In explaining middle patience there are two parts: first, explaining 'if there were a dharma attained' in the sūtra; second, explaining 'because in reality no dharma is attained' in the sūtra. In the first passage, first, it cites the text and asks; second, it properly explains the meaning. In properly explaining the meaning, it says: if perfect enlightenment could be attained and spoken of, as spoken by that Buddha, since I possessed superior practices, I would have attained perfect enlightenment at that time; since I would have already attained perfect enlightenment at that time, Dīpaṅkara should not have conferred a prophecy upon me saying that I would only attain it in the future. It is only because perfect enlightenment is not something slightly real and existing, not like what is spoken, and because I had no superior practice capable of attaining it, that at that time I could not realize great bodhi; therefore he conferred the prophecy upon me that I would only attain it in the future. Hence Vasubandhu says: 'Because of conferring the prophecy at a later time, / the practice under Dīpaṅkara was not supreme'—at the time of Dīpaṅkara Buddha, it was not the foremost bodhisattva practice. Why? Among all the practices I cultivated at that time, there was not a single dharma that could attain great bodhi. If I had already realized bodhi in the presence of that Buddha, then the Buddhas of later times would none of them have conferred a prophecy upon me; therefore, through my practice at that time, I had not yet become a Buddha. This intention in summary says: because my practice at that time was not the foremost, supremely superior accomplishment, it is said that not a single dharma is capable of attaining bodhi; therefore he conferred the prophecy upon me that it could be accomplished at a later time. If I had possessed superior real practice at that time, I would have attained it right then; how could he have conferred upon me a prophecy of accomplishment at a later time? Hence we know that there is no real practice capable of realizing it. Since all subsequent Buddhas prophesied future accomplishment, we know that previously there was no dharma to be attained; this explains 'in reality no dharma is attained.' As for saying 'because the dharma is inexpressible,' etc.: because I knew at that time that those grasping practices have no real substantial entity, and that only tathatā is inexpressible, practicing in conformity with reality, at that time I did not attain perfect enlightenment, and it was prophesied that I had not yet attained it. If I had grasped at that time that the grasping practices possessed a real intrinsic nature and regarded them as expressible, since the practice would oppose reality, not only would I have failed to attain perfect enlightenment at that time, but he also could not have prophesied that I would only attain it in the future. This meaning is extremely profound and should be investigated with care.