金剛般若論會釋 3.4

3.4

Below, the explanation of leaving conceit: the sūtra text has three [parts]: first, clarifying that arousing the conceit of ‘I liberate’ is not being named a bodhisattva; next, revealing that all phenomena are without actuality to remove the grasping at liberation; later, citing the Buddha's words as proof to conclude the above. The treatise explanation has two [parts]: first, indicating the question and correlating it to the sūtra; next, properly explaining the meaning. In properly explaining the meaning, there are two [parts]: first, explaining that grasping at the conceit of ‘I liberate’ in the sūtra is not being named a bodhisattva. Paramārtha, the *Vajracchedikā*, and this treatise all state: “If a bodhisattva has this thought”; only Kumārajīva's and the Wei versions lack the word “bodhisattva,” because it was mistakenly inserted into the preceding ratification text; its meaning is readily understood. Not explaining the second sūtra text of teaching the removal of the grasping at liberation: as explained in the first and sixth [chapters] of the *Large Prajñāpāramitā*, “a bodhisattva” is merely a name, and names are also empty; therefore it says: “there is truly no phenomenon named a bodhisattva.” If not a single phenomenon is a bodhisattva who can liberate, then one does not see any phenomenon that can act with conceit; hence it says that there is no phenomenon named a bodhisattva. In the *Vajracchedikā* version, repeating the word “sentient beings” refers to the two sentient beings: the one who can liberate and the one who is liberated. In the third [part], citing the Buddha's words as proof: first, indicating the correlating sūtra text; next, explaining by antithesis to complete the above, such as “if a bodhisattva has the notion of a sentient being.” Saying “in order to reveal this” in the correlation means that in order to reveal that immediately preceding [point], “there is truly no phenomenon named a bodhisattva,” the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, personally cited the previous explanation to establish the present meaning. Having examined the Wei version, it appears as if Subhūti cited the Buddha's previous words; examining the other versions thoroughly, they are all the Buddha's words. The *Vajracchedikā* is the correct [one]; taking this as the basis, there are slight differences, which should have been explained earlier.