金剛般若論會釋 3.61

3.61

Next below, third, the Buddha ratifies it, and also encourages those practicing the Bodhisattva Vehicle: in accordance with the preceding [point that] the view of a self is no view, one should also know, see, and resolve with faith that all dharmas are non-dharmas in this manner. Within this, first, there is ratification; second, refuting the grasping that pursues names. Regarding "a bodhisattva who gives rise to the mind": Paramārtha, the Vajracchedikā, and this treatise all bring up the person who generates practice as a bodhisattva. Hence the treatise says: "Those who generate practice in the Bodhisattva Vehicle"—this reveals which person does not conceptualise, answering the second question from before. Saying "those who practice the Bodhisattva Vehicle" means they should refrain from conceptualisation in this manner. Regarding "with respect to all dharmas": this reveals which dharmas one does not conceptualise, meaning that one does not conceptualise with respect to all dharmas, not merely the view of a self and so forth. Regarding "should know, see, and resolve with faith in this manner": this answers the fourth [question], "which expedient means". Now, based on the treatise explaining non-conceptualising in accordance with reality, it further says that precisely this observation serves as the expedient means of entry; hence we know that the expedient means connects with the preceding three meanings. Regarding "know, see, and resolve with faith": the sūtra has three, but the treatise determines them as two, namely the trainings in concentration and wisdom, which are mind and cognition. At the time of cultivating the two, the untainted precepts that accompany them also constitute the training in moral discipline; since there is no distinct stage of cultivation for them, they are omitted and not mentioned. If so, how do they form the three phrases "know", "see", and "resolve with faith"? The treatise says: "knowing, seeing, and resolute faith within non-conceptualisation"—the meaning is that when cultivating non-conceptualisation, concentration and wisdom cultivated separately constitute two, while cultivated together to enter contemplation they constitute one; hence there are three phrases. First, saying "should know in this manner": this teaches that when cultivating concentration one should know that all dharmas are non-dharmas. The treatise says, "if it is cognition, it is the cognition of a person cultivating non-conceptualisation; relying on śamatha, it is the time of cultivating concentration, termed the division of calming." This means that when a person cultivating non-conceptualisation cultivates various concentrations and, relying on concentration, gives rise to the divine eye and so forth to contemplate dharmas of various times, they should know that the concentrated mind, the concentrated sphere, and the knowable dharmas are all non-dharmas, just as the view of a self before is no view; hence it says "should know in this manner". Regarding "should see in this manner": the treatise says, "relying on vipaśyanā", contemplation penetrates both principle and phenomena. This means that when a bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas with wisdom, they should also clearly see that all dharmas are non-dharmas, just as the view of a self before is no view; hence it says "should [see] in this manner". Because contemplating dharmas with wisdom is distinct and clear, unlike concentration and cognition, it is termed "seeing". These two reside in the preparatory stage, where concentration and wisdom increase respectively and the two cultivated are not yet cultivated equally; hence regarding "should resolve with faith in this manner": holding both minds of concentration and wisdom together, it is the understanding when properly entering true contemplation. The treatise says: "These two, relying on samādhi, therefore constitute resolute faith." At that time, one correctly understands that all dharmas are non-dharmas; this is the understanding at the time of verified faith, so the sūtra calls it "resolving with faith". The treatise considers it superior to the understanding at the previous times of knowing and seeing, so it calls it "resolute faith". Hence Asanga's brother [i.e., Asvabhāva] in his Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: it refers to giving rise to resolute faith in concord with internal realization of the dharmadhātu. What is resolute faith? The treatise says: "Because of mastery in samādhi"—this is based on entering true contemplation where it operates free from grasping at marks, hence it is termed mastery; being superior to the previous understanding that grasps at marks, it is termed resolute faith. It also says, "understanding the internal cognitive image taken as an objective support is termed resolute faith"—this is based on entering conventional contemplation where one understands that dharmas internal to consciousness are like reflected images and so forth; hence it is termed resolute faith. The treatise cites the sūtra to conclude: "having known and understood in this manner, yet not abiding in the notion of dharmas"—when searching through various editions, none have this concluding text; only this treatise cites the sūtra as having this one phrase, concluding the preceding three phrases and concluding the preceding three meanings. Deducing the momentum of its text, its presence is without problem. "Yet not abiding in the notion of dharmas": this clarifies that when obtaining this resolute faith, one has no notions of abiding or attachment toward all dharmas, just as one abides in the notion of no view with respect to the view of a self; hence the Vajracchedikā says, "as not abiding in the marks of dharmas". Kumārajīva's version says "not giving rise to the notion of dharmas", which means not giving rise to grasping and attachment, yet it lacks the word "as". This not abiding in notions directly reveals non-conceptualisation, because the preceding knowing and seeing are preparatory practices. Or alternatively, the three—knowing, seeing, and resolute faith—are all subsumed under expedient means, and only truly not abiding in dharmas begins to be the two cognitions of fundamental and subsequently attained; therefore the treatise cites the sūtra and concludes with the explanation: "having known and understood in this manner, yet not abiding in the notion of dharmas"—this directly reveals non-conceptualisation. Vasubandhu's treatise explains the three phrases, saying: "The two cognitions and samādhi / are thus freed from [views]." This means that mundane and supramundane cognitions, as the treatise states, are knowing and seeing; because both rely on samādhi, they are termed resolute faith; because they can subdue and sever views of a self and of dharmas, they are termed being freed from [views].