金剛般若論會釋 3.28

3.28

Next below is the sixth [topic], named in the treatise "Endowment with Mind." Here it explains the Buddha's six kinds of mental operations, culminating in the sixth, which explains the purity of the Buddha's bodily, vocal, and mental comportment, because bodily and vocal comportment are also directed by the Buddha's mind; hence the treatise collectively names it "Endowment with Mind." The treatise above divides this text further into six, assigned as before; this first explains the Buddha's merits of the three bases of mindfulness, hence named "bases of mindfulness." Vasubandhu's third subordinate doubt questions: "If what the Buddhas expound is Dharma not expounded, not apart from the dharmakāya, and likewise nonexistent, what sort of person can believe such profound Dharma and meaning?" The sūtra text has two parts: first, the question; next, the answer. In the answer, first, relying on the two truths, it answers via the two contemplations of emptiness and existence; next, it further questions and explains to establish the meaning. The treatise text has three parts: first, designating and relating to the sūtra; next, explaining the reason for its occurrence; finally, explaining the sūtra text. Explaining the reason for its occurrence says: this place reveals how the World-Honored One causes one to abide; here it explains that toward both faithful and slandering persons, the Buddha, like the World-Honored One, maintains a single, equal mindfulness. Since this is explained in terms of three persons, it is called the three bases of mindfulness. "Can there be in the future those who hear and give rise to faith?" adduces those who believe the Buddha's words; "or not?" adduces those who do not believe. These two—faith and slander—are objects that stir thought, and are therefore singled out, omitting intermediate persons, because conflicting and favorable objects exist at all places and times. Now, strictly in terms of those who hear this sūtra, it explains the treatise's reason for occurrence, which in turn explains Subhūti's question in the sūtra. Explaining the sūtra has two parts: first, explaining the Buddha's answer; next, explaining the person who wishes to believe the Dharma. If by ultimate truth one contemplates the nature and marks of sentient beings as both empty, saying "they are not sentient beings," this is the contemplation of emptiness. If there were completely no sentient beings, toward what would the Buddha give rise to equal mindfulness? According to conventional truth, nominally provisional sentient beings are not nonexistent; this is the contemplation of the provisional. In emptiness and in the provisional, there are no real conflicting or favorable ones; hence toward both faithful and slandering persons, the Buddha gives rise to a single, equal mindfulness. Next, it further questions and explains to establish the previous meaning. Asaṅga's treatise does not explain it, as it is easy to understand. The intent of the questioning is: having said that they are not sentient beings, why say "not" again? Explaining "sentient beings, sentient beings" restates the two statements of emptiness and the provisional; "are not sentient beings" is in terms of ultimate truth; "are called sentient beings" relies on conventional truth. Furthermore, the treatise next explains the person who believes the Buddha's Dharma, saying: "Such a person is most rare," revealing that expounding the ultimate truth is both unshared and congruent. The meaning of this explanation is: now, the person who wishes to believe the Buddha's words is able to bring benefit; believing the Buddha's explanation that they are not sentient beings reveals the unshared meaning in terms of ultimate truth; believing the explanation that they are not non-sentient beings reveals the congruent meaning in terms of conventional truth. Such a person is hard to match; hence it says "most rare." The various versions all lack this text. However, although the Buddha is equal toward faith and slander, now speaking of the believer is not unequal. Vasubandhu's treatise states: / "What is expounded and the expounder are profound; / It is not that none can have faith: / Non-sentient-being sentient beings, / Neither noble nor non-noble." / The first two lines directly answer the previous doubt and explain Subhūti's question; the bottom two lines explain the Tathāgata's answer. This reveals that those able to believe this sūtra are not ordinary sentient beings, hence saying "not sentient beings," up to noble sentient beings, hence saying "not non-sentient beings." Kumārajīva's version is defective, lacking this passage of text.