出三藏記集 8.14

8.14

機事未形。六畫得其悔吝。玄象既運。九章測其盈虛。斯則鬼神不能隱其情狀。陰陽不能遁其變通。至如摩訶般若波羅蜜者。洞達無底。虛豁無邊。心行處滅。言語道斷。不可以數術求。不可以意識知。非三明所能照。非四辯所能論。此乃菩薩之正行。道場之直路。還源之真法。出要之上首。本來不然。畢竟空寂。寄大不能顯其博。名慧不能庶其用。假度不能機其通。借岸不能窮其實。若談一相。事絕百非。補處默然。等覺息行。始廼可謂無德而稱以無名相作名相說。導涉求之意。開新發之眼。故有般若之字彼岸之號。頃者。學徒罕有尊重。或時聞聽不得經味。帝釋誠言信而有徵。此實賢眾之百慮。菩薩之魔事。故唱愈高和愈寡。知愈希道愈貴。致使正經沈匱於世。寔由虛己情少懷疑者多。虛己少則是我之見深。懷疑多則橫構之慮繁。然則雖繁慮紛紜不出四種。一謂此經非是究竟。多引涅槃以為碩訣。二謂此經未是會三。咸誦法華以為盛難。三謂此經三乘通教。所說般若即聲聞法。四謂此經是階級行。於漸教中第二時說。舊義如斯。廼無是非。較略四意粗言所懷。涅槃是顯其果德。般若是明其因行。顯果則以常住佛性為本。明因則以無生中道為宗。以世諦言說。是涅槃是般若。以第一義諦言說。豈可復得談其優劣。法華會三以歸一。則三遣而一存。一存未免乎相。故以萬善為乘體。般若即三而不三。則三遣而一亡。然無法之可得。故以無生為乘體。無生絕於戲論。竟何三之可會。所謂百花異色共成一陰。萬法殊相同入般若。言三乘通教多執二文。今復開五意以增所疑。一聲聞若智若斷皆是菩薩無生法忍。二三乘學道宜聞般若。三三乘同學般若俱成菩提。四二乘欲住欲證不離是忍。五羅漢辟支從般若生。於此五義不善分別。堅著三乘教同一門。遂令朱紫共色珉玉等價。若明察此說深求經旨。連環既解弄丸自息。謂第二時是亦不然。人心不同皆如其面。根性差別復過於此。非可局以一教。限以五時。般若無生非去來相。豈以數量拘。寧可以次第求。始於道樹終於雙林。初中後時常說智慧。復何可得名為漸教。釋論言。須菩提聞法華經中說於佛所作少功德乃至戲笑漸漸必當作佛。又聞阿鞞跋致品中有退不退。又復聞聲聞人皆當作佛。是故今問為畢定為不畢定。以此而言。去之彌遠。夫學出離非求語言應定觀道以正宗致三乘不分依何義說。相與無相有如水火二性相違。豈得共貫。雖一切聖人以無為法。三乘入空其行各異。聲聞以壞緣觀觀生滅空。緣覺以因緣觀觀法性空。菩薩以無生觀觀畢竟空。此則淄澠殊味涇渭分流。非可以口勝。非可以力爭。欲及弱喪去斯何適。值大寶而不取。遇深經而不求。亦何異窮子反走於宅中。獨姥揜目於道上。此廼惑行之常性。迷途之恒心。但好龍而觀畫。愛象而翫跡。荊山可為流慟法水。所以大悲經譬兔馬論喻鹿犀。俱以一象配成三獸。用度河以測境。因圍箭以驗智。格得空之淺深。量相心之厚薄。懸鏡在前。無待耳識。離婁既睇。豈勞相者。若無不思誼之理。豈有不思誼之事。放瑞光於三千。集寄蓮於十方。變金色於大地。嚴華臺於虛空。表舌相之不虛。證般若之真實。所以龍樹道安童壽慧遠。咸以大權應世。或以殆庶救時。莫不伏膺上法如說修行。況於細人可離斯哉。此經東漸二百五十有八歲。始於魏甘露五年至自于闐。叔蘭開源彌天導江。鳩摩羅什澍以甘泉。三譯五校。可謂詳矣。龍樹菩薩著大智論。訓解斯經。義旨周備。此實如意之寶藏。智慧之滄海。但其文遠曠。每怯近情。朕以聽覽餘日集名僧二十人。與天保寺法寵等。詳其去取。雲根寺慧令等。兼以筆功採釋論以注經本。略其多解取其要釋。此外或捃關河舊義。或依先達故語。時復間出以相顯發。若章門未開義勢深重。則參懷同事廣其所見。使質而不簡文而不繁。庶令學者有過半之思。講般若經者多說五時。一往聽受似有條理。重更研求多不相符。唯仁王般若具書名部。世既以為疑經。今則置而不論。僧叡小品序云。斯經正文凡有四種。是佛異時適化之說。多有十萬偈。少者六百偈。略出四種而不列名。釋論言。般若部黨有多有少。光讚放光道行。止舉三名復不滿四。此土別有一卷。謂為金剛般若。欲以配數。可得為五。既不具得經名。復不悉時之前後。若以臆斷易致譏嫌。此非議要請俟多聞。今注大品自有五段。非彼所言五時般若。勸說以不住標其始。命說以無教通其道。願說以無得顯其行。信說以甚深美其法。廣說以不盡要其終。中品所以累教。末章所以三屬。義備後釋不復詳言。設迺時曠正教處無法名。猶且苦辛草澤經歷嶮遠。翹心逿聽澍意希夷。冀遲玄應想像空聲。輕生以重半偈。賣身以尊一言。甘渫血而不疑。欣出髓而無悋。況復龍宮神珠寶臺金鍱。難得之貨難聞之法。遍布塔寺充刃目前。豈可不伏心受持虛懷鑽仰。使佛種相續菩提不斷。知恩反復更無他道。方以雪山疋以香城。寧得同日語其優劣。率書所得。懼增來過。明達後進。幸依法行。

Before an event takes form, the six lines [of the hexagram] reveal its remorse and humiliation; once the celestial signs move, the nine chapters calculate their waxing and waning. Thus ghosts and spirits cannot conceal their true conditions, and yin and yang cannot hide their changes and transmutations. As for the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, however, it is thoroughly penetrating without bottom, vast and open without limit. The path of mental action is extinguished; the way of language is cut off. It cannot be sought by numbers and techniques; it cannot be known by conceptual consciousness. It is not what the three knowledges can illumine, nor what the four analytical knowledges can debate. This is the correct practice of bodhisattvas, the direct route to the place of awakening (bodhimaṇḍa), the true Dharma for returning to the source, and the foremost essential for departure [from saṃsāra]. Originally it is not so, being ultimately empty and tranquil. To apply the word 'great' cannot fully reveal its breadth; to name it 'wisdom' cannot adequately cover its function; to call it 'crossing over' cannot seize its efficacy; to borrow [the term] 'shore' cannot exhaust its reality. If one speaks of the single characteristic, it transcends the hundred negations. Bodhisattvas in the position of one life away from buddhahood (eka-jāti-pratibaddha) are silent, and those of equal awakening (samyaksambodhi) cease their activity. Only then can it be called having no virtue that can be praised, using nominal characteristics where there are none to speak of nominal characteristics, in order to guide the intentions of seekers and open the eyes of the newly resolved. Hence there is the term prajñā and the designation 'other shore'. Lately, students have rarely revered it, or when they hear it, they do not obtain the sūtra's flavour. Śakra's truthful words are indeed verified. This is truly the hundred anxieties of the assembly of the worthy and the demonic affairs (mārakarman) of bodhisattvas. Therefore, the higher the song, the fewer who join in harmony; the rarer the knowledge, the more precious the Way. This has caused the orthodox sūtra to sink into neglect and deficiency in the world. It is truly because those who empty their minds are few, while those who harbour doubts are many. When few empty their minds, the view of 'self' is deep; when many harbour doubts, the anxieties of fabricated constructs are numerous. Even though the manifold anxieties are chaotic, they do not exceed four types: First, it is said that this sūtra is not definitive, frequently citing the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] as the decisive verdict. Second, it is said that this sūtra does not yet converge the three [vehicles], all reciting the Lotus [Sūtra] to raise grand challenges. Third, it is said that this sūtra is the shared teaching of the three vehicles, and that the prajñā it expounds is merely the śrāvaka Dharma. Fourth, it is said that this sūtra belongs to graduated practice, expounded at the second period within the gradual teaching. Such are the old interpretations, which lack correctness. Let me briefly compare these four points and roughly state my view. The Nirvāṇa reveals the fruit's virtue, while prajñā clarifies the cause's practice. Revealing the fruit takes the eternal Buddha-nature as the root; clarifying the cause takes the unborn Middle Way as the principle. Speaking in terms of conventional truth, there is nirvāṇa and there is prajñā; speaking in terms of ultimate truth, how could one still speak of their superiority or inferiority? The Lotus Sūtra converges the three to return to the one; thus the three are discarded while the one remains. When the one remains, it is not yet free of characteristics; hence it takes the myriad good deeds as the vehicle's substance. Prajñā identifies with the three yet is not three; thus the three are discarded and the one also disappears. Since there is no phenomenon to be attained, it takes the unborn as the vehicle's substance. The unborn cuts off proliferative discourse (prapañca); in the end, what three are there to be converged? This is what is meant by 'a hundred flowers of differing colours together form a single shade; ten thousand phenomena of diverse characteristics together enter into prajñā.' Those who claim it is the shared teaching of the three vehicles mostly cling to two passages. Now I shall open five meanings to increase their doubts: First, whether it is the knowledge or the abandonment of the śrāvakas, all are the bodhisattva's acquiescence in the non-arising of phenomena (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti). Second, those of the three vehicles studying the Way should hear prajñā. Third, those of the three vehicles jointly studying prajñā all attain bodhi. Fourth, those of the two vehicles wishing to abide or wishing to realize do not depart from this acquiescence. Fifth, arhats and pratyekabuddhas are born from prajñā. Failing to properly distinguish these five meanings, they adamantly cling to the view that the three vehicles' teachings share the same gate, thereby causing vermilion and purple to share the same colour, and inferior stone and jade to be priced equally. If one clearly examines these statements and deeply seeks the sūtra's meaning, once the linked rings are untied, juggling the pellets will naturally cease. To say it belongs to the second period is also not so. People's minds are different, just as their faces; the differences in their faculties and natures surpass even this. They cannot be restricted to a single teaching or limited to five periods. The unborn prajñā is devoid of the characteristics of coming and going; how could it be constrained by quantity, or how could it be sought in sequential stages? From the tree of awakening to the twin śāla trees, at the beginning, middle, and end, wisdom was constantly preached; how then could it be called a gradual teaching? The Commentary (Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) states: Subhūti heard that in the Lotus Sūtra it is said that performing a little merit before the Buddha, even in jest, will gradually lead to becoming a Buddha without fail; he also heard that in the chapter on Avaivartika there is retrogressing and non-retrogressing; and he furthermore heard that all śrāvaka persons will become Buddhas. Therefore he now asks whether it is definitively fixed or not definitively fixed. Judging from this, they are even further removed. Now, in studying liberation, one does not seek words; one should determine the path of contemplation to rectify the principle. If the three vehicles are not distinguished, on what meaning could it be spoken? Characteristics and characteristiclessness are like fire and water, their two natures contrary; how could they be joined in a single thread? Although all noble ones rely on unconditioned phenomena, when the three vehicles enter emptiness, their practices differ: śrāvakas, through the contemplation of disintegrating conditions, contemplate the emptiness of arising and ceasing; pratyekabuddhas, through the contemplation of causes and conditions, contemplate the emptiness of dharmatā; bodhisattvas, through the contemplation of the unborn, contemplate ultimate emptiness. This is just like the different tastes of the Zi and Mian rivers, or the divided currents of the Jing and Wei rivers; it cannot be won by mouth, nor contended for by strength. If one wishes to overtake the bewildered and lost, where else should one go from here? If one encounters a great treasure but does not take it, or meets a profound sūtra but does not seek it, how is it different from the impoverished son fleeing backward into his own home, or the blind old woman covering her eyes on the road? This is indeed the habitual nature of deluded conduct, the constant state of mind of those lost on the way. They only love dragons by viewing paintings, and cherish elephants by playing with their footprints. At Mount Jing one may well shed tears of grief, [longing for] the waters of the Dharma. Therefore the Mahākāruṇika-sūtra uses the analogy of the hare and horse, and the treatises use the metaphor of the deer and rhinoceros, both pairing them with a single elephant to form three beasts: using the crossing of the river to measure the water's depth, and relying on surrounding arrows to verify wisdom, to gauge the depth of attaining emptiness and measure the thickness of the mind attached to characteristics. When a mirror is suspended in front, there is no need for auditory consciousness; once Li Lou has gazed, why trouble a physiognomist? If there were no inconceivable principle, how could there be inconceivable phenomena? Radiating auspicious light across the three-thousandfold [world], gathering transported lotuses from the ten directions, turning the great earth to golden colour, adorning the flower dais in empty space, manifesting the tongue characteristic's non-falsity, and verifying the reality of prajñā. This is why Nāgārjuna, Shi Dao'an, Kumārajīva, and Huiyuan all responded to the world with great expedients, or rescued their age by nearing the sage's realm; none of them failed to submit to the supreme Dharma and practice as taught. How much less should ordinary people depart from this! It has been two hundred and fifty-eight years since this sūtra spread eastward, beginning in the fifth year of the Ganlu era of the Wei dynasty when it arrived from Khotan. Zhu Shulan opened the source; Shi Dao'an guided the river; Kumārajīva showered it with sweet springs. With three translations and five collations, it may well be called thorough. Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna composed the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, explicating this sūtra with complete and comprehensive meanings. This is truly a wish-fulfilling jewel treasury, a vast ocean of wisdom. But its text is vast and expansive, which constantly intimidates mundane minds. In my leisure days from hearing governance, I gathered twenty eminent monks, including Fachong of Tianbao Monastery, to examine what to adopt and what to reject; and together with Huiling and others of Yungen Monastery, they applied scribal effort to draw upon the commentary to annotate the root sūtra, omitting redundant explanations and taking the essential comments. Besides this, they sometimes gleaned the old interpretations of Guanhe (Chang'an), or relied on the past words of earlier masters, occasionally inserting them to illuminate one another. If the chapter's divisions were not yet clear or the doctrinal drift was profound and weightier, they conferred with colleagues to broaden their views, making it plain without being terse, ornate without being repetitive, so that scholars might achieve more than half the insight. Those who lecture on the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra often speak of five periods. At first hearing, it seems orderly, but when re-examined closely, most points do not agree. Only the Humane King Prajñā Sūtra fully records the names and divisions; but since the world already regards it as a dubious sūtra, I now set it aside without discussion. Sengrui's preface to the Small Perfection states: 'The authentic text of this sūtra has four versions in all, which are the Buddha's expositions suited to conversions at different times: the longest has one hundred thousand verses, and the shortest has six hundred verses.' It briefly outlines the four versions without listing their names. The Commentary states: 'The sections of prajñā have more and fewer.' The Guangzan, Fangguang, and Daoxing cite only three titles, not completing four. In this land there is another separate single fascicle called the Diamond Prajñā; if one wishes to match the number, it can make five. Since we do not possess all the sūtra titles, nor do we know the chronological sequence of their times, making subjective judgments would easily invite censure. This is not the essential matter for discussion; let us await those of broad learning. The present commentary on the Large Perfection naturally has five sections, which are not the so-called 'five periods of prajñā': Exhorting the preaching uses non-abiding to mark the beginning; Commanding the preaching uses having no teaching to open the path; Vowing to preach uses non-attainment to manifest the practice; Believing the preaching uses profound depth to praise the Dharma; Extensive preaching uses inexhaustibility to conclude the essentials. This is why the middle chapters repeat the instructions, and why the final chapter entrusts it thrice. The meaning is fully provided in the later commentary, so I shall not elaborate. Even if times were long without the true teaching and places lacked the name of the Dharma, one would still endure bitter hardship in grassy marshes, traversing perilous and distant lands, raising one's heart to listen afar, focusing the mind on the subtle and silent, hoping for a profound response and imagining the voice of emptiness, regarding life lightly to esteem half a verse, selling one's body to venerate a single phrase, gladly shedding blood without doubt, and joyfully extracting marrow without begrudging. How much more so when the divine pearl of the dragon palace, the jewel terrace, and the gold plates—such hard-to-obtain treasures and hard-to-hear Dharmas—are spread throughout stupas and temples, filling one's view right before one's eyes! How could one not submit one's mind to receive and uphold it, emptying one's heart to delve into and look up to it, so that the seed of Buddhahood continues and bodhi is unbroken? To repay kindness in full, there is no other way. Comparing it to the Snowy Mountains or matching it with Gandhavatī, how could one speak of their superiority or inferiority in the same breath? Writing down what has been attained, I fear increasing future errors. May the wise and eminent of later generations fortunately practice in accordance with the Dharma.