御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.10.2

1.10.2

說一乘一道一行一緣。 乃至我諸弟子。 聞是說已。 不解我意。 唱言如來說須陀洹乃至阿羅漢。 皆得作佛。 若皆作佛。 無決定性。 是解佛意。 何須此說。 若爾如何法花經中。 唯說一乘而為究竟。 答。 如攝論中。 以十義會深密。 亦有會一乘父。 總依經論。 佛性有三。 聲聞有四。 闡提有三。 佛性三者。 一理性謂真如。 二行性謂無漏種子。 三隱密性。 即塵勞之疇。 聲聞四者。 一應化。 二退菩提心。 三增上慢。 四趣寂。 闡提三者。 一大悲。 二斷善。 三無種性。 上來兩家所引教文。 並有明說。 其釋難及會違父。 一一研究。 廣如別記。 樂廣言論勤說法者。 皆應敘之。 三云此有種性及無種性。 乃是如來祕密境界。 散在諸經。 佛不定說如何前釋欲定是非此十力中。 種種界力之所知故。 唯佛與佛。 乃能證了。 涅槃第十七云。 三乘之法。 說言一乘。 一乘之法。 隨宜說三。 乃至如來明見眾生根故。 終無虛妄。 斷罪過故。 雖無虛妄。 若知眾生因虛妄說。 得法利者。 隨宜方便。 則為說之。 是則諸佛甚深境界。 非二乘知。 准此經文。 豈可下凡謬為商略。 又彼三十四云。 善男子。 如來世尊。 為眾生故。 廣中說略。 略中說廣。 乃至云。 是故隨人隨意隨時。 故名如來知諸根力。 善男子。 我若當於如是等義。 作定說者。 則不得稱我為如來具知根力。 三十五云。 善男子。 如是諍訟。 是佛境界。 非諸聲聞緣覺所知。 若人於是生疑心者。 猶能摧壞。 無量煩惱。 如須彌山。 若於是中。 生決定者。 是名執著。 乃至善男子。 如是執著不名為善。 何以故。 不能摧壞諸疑網故。 迦葉復言世尊。 如是人者。 本自不疑。 云何說言不壞疑網。 善男子。 其不疑者。 即是疑也。 三十六云。 善男子。 我雖說言一切眾生悉有佛性。 眾生不解佛如是等隨自意語。 善男子如是語者。 後身菩薩尚不能知。 況於二乘其餘菩薩。 又復文云。 若有說言一切眾生定有佛性。 定無佛性。 是人皆名謗佛法僧。 准此等文。 推功歸佛謹述而以故於諸釋隨所愛樂。 任情取捨。 以有教理各齊均故不應於中起用。 執心強生偏見。 謂契佛言。 無有是處。 然應具敘諸家教理。 欲令學者知所在故。 問。 理有一長。 不應俱示。 開釋教藏。 須定指歸。 今但和光作不定說。 將令後學何所承稟。 答。 義有可定不可定者。 不決定義理通多解。 豈可一向要令定釋。 佛尚不定誰敢定乎。 問。 祕密難知誠如所道。 此土眾生樂聞佛性。 何故如來不作定說答。 誰言一向樂聞說有。 然諸眾生自有二類。 一聞佛性欣樂有憑。 勇猛進趣若聞無性。 無所因託。 息進求心。 二者若聞一分無性。 恐墮此流。 加功進習。 若聞皆有恃此佛性。 却生怠墮。 由對機異教不定。 明但應精勤堅集行願。 面奉金顏當自知矣。 上來解釋根性不同。 以經被者。 若依初釋。 更無異論。 五性之家。 應須料簡。 約正所被。 唯是上乘。 經云。 為發大乘者。 說故即餘經云。 為諸菩薩。 說應六波羅蜜。 令得一切種智。 若約兼。 被通諸二乘及以無性。 下列四眾及於八部。 無所簡故。 大般若云。 般若波羅蜜多。 能辯聲聞及獨覺地。 即前所引善勇猛文。 亦被二乘。 此下菩薩廣大之心。 三界四生俱令滅度。 無著菩薩問云。 何故願釋者有二。 初釋題目。 後解經文。 釋經題者。 秦魏梁本。 俱題金剛般若。 唐周兩本。 同號能斷金剛隋朝所翻。 准彼論。 後乃名金剛斷割。 前三本略。 後三具足。 舉體攝用。 但標法喻之名。 體用雙彰。 兼陳能斷之因。 廣略雖異義則無違。 初離釋。 後合釋。 梵云。 跛闍羅。

[The sūtra says:] '[The Tathāgata] speaks of the One Vehicle, the single path, the single practice, and the single object of focus.' And further: 'My disciples, upon hearing this discourse, did not understand my meaning, and proclaimed: "The Tathāgata says that from srotāpannas up to arhats, all will attain buddhahood."' If all attain buddhahood and there is no fixed lineage, then they would have understood the Buddha's meaning; why then was this discourse necessary? If so, why is it that in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra the One Vehicle alone is taught as ultimate? Answer: Just as in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha ten meanings are used to reconcile [this] with the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, there is also a reconciliation of the One Vehicle. In general, relying on the sūtras and treatises, Buddha-nature is of three kinds, śrāvakas are of four kinds, and icchantikas are of three kinds. The three kinds of Buddha-nature are: first, the nature of principle, which is tathatā; second, the nature of practice, which is untainted seeds; third, the concealed nature, which is the class of afflictive defilements. The four kinds of śrāvakas are: first, those of transformation; second, those who retreat from the bodhicitta; third, the overly arrogant; fourth, those who incline toward extinction. The three kinds of icchantikas are: first, those of great compassion; second, those who have severed good roots; third, those who lack lineage. The scriptural passages cited above by both masters contain explicit explanations. The resolution of objections and reconciliation of contradictions are investigated one by one in detail as in the separate record; those who delight in extensive debate and diligently explain the Dharma should recount them all. The third position says: That there are those with lineage and those without lineage is the Tathāgata's esoteric realm, scattered throughout the various sūtras, which the Buddha did not teach determinately. How can the previous interpretations presume to determine right and wrong? Because this is known by the power of knowing the various realms among the ten powers, only a buddha together with a buddha can realize and fully understand it. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, fascicle seventeen, says: 'Concerning the Dharma of the three vehicles, I speak of the One Vehicle; concerning the Dharma of the One Vehicle, according to suitability I speak of three.' And further: 'Because the Tathāgata clearly sees the capacities of sentient beings, he is utterly free from falsehood; because he has severed transgressions and faults. Although he is free from falsehood, if he knows that sentient beings will obtain the benefit of the Dharma through a false teaching, according with suitability and skillful means, he will then speak it for them.' This, then, is the profound realm of the buddhas, beyond the knowledge of the two vehicles. Relying on this scriptural passage, how can ordinary worldly mortals erroneously speculate? Furthermore, fascicle thirty-four of that sūtra says: 'Good sons, for the sake of sentient beings, the Tathāgata, the World-Honoured One, speaks briefly within the extensive, and speaks extensively within the brief.' And up to: 'Therefore, according to the person, according to the intention, and according to the time, it is called the Tathāgata's power of knowing the various faculties. Good sons, if I were to make a fixed statement on such meanings, I could not be called a Tathāgata endowed with the power of knowing faculties.' Fascicle thirty-five says: 'Good sons, such disputes are the realm of the Buddha, not what is known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. If someone gives rise to doubt concerning this, they can still destroy immeasurable afflictions, [lofty] as Mount Sumeru. If in this matter one gives rise to a fixed view, this is called attachment.' And up to: 'Good sons, such attachment is not called good. Why is that? Because it cannot destroy the net of doubts.' Kāśyapa said again to the World-Honoured One: 'Such a person originally had no doubt; why do you say they do not destroy the net of doubts?' 'Good sons, that which has no doubt is itself doubt.' Fascicle thirty-six says: 'Good sons, although I say that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, sentient beings do not understand such words spoken according to the Buddha's own intent. Good sons, such words cannot even be known by a bodhisattva in their final existence, much less by the two vehicles and other bodhisattvas.' Furthermore, a passage says: 'If anyone says that all sentient beings definitely have Buddha-nature, or definitely do not have Buddha-nature, such people are all called slanderers of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha.' Relying on these passages, one should attribute the merit to the Buddha and respectfully narrate it. Therefore, among the various interpretations, one may adopt or reject according to one's own inclination; because both doctrine and reasoning are equally balanced, one should not give rise to an attached mind within them, forcefully generating one-sided views and claiming they accord with the Buddha's words—this is impossible. However, one should fully recount the teachings and principles of the various traditions, desiring to let students know their foundations. Question: Principle has only one superior truth; both should not be displayed simultaneously. In explicating the treasury of teachings, one must specify a definitive conclusion. Now, merely blending the light and making indeterminate statements, what will later students have to receive and uphold? Answer: Among meanings, there are those that can be determined and those that cannot. Indeterminate meanings are open to multiple interpretations; how could one insist on requiring a fixed explanation? When even the Buddha does not make it determinate, who would dare to determine it? Question: The secret is difficult to know, truly as you have said. Sentient beings in this land delight in hearing of Buddha-nature; why did the Tathāgata not make a definitive statement? Answer: Who says they exclusively delight in hearing that it exists? Rather, sentient beings naturally fall into two classes: the first, upon hearing of Buddha-nature, rejoice and have something to rely upon, advancing vigorously; whereas if they hear of having no nature, having nothing to depend on, they cease their striving mind. The second, if they hear that one portion lacks the nature, fearing they may fall into this class, exert extra effort in practice; whereas if they hear that all possess it, relying on this Buddha-nature, they instead give rise to indolence and negligence. Because the teaching is indeterminate in response to different capacities, it is clear that one should merely be diligent, firmly gather practices and vows, and behold the golden countenance in person—then one will naturally know. The above explains the differences in lineages and faculties. As for those addressed by the sūtra: if relying on the first explanation, there is no divergent thesis. The tradition of the five natures requires critical assessment. In terms of the primary audience addressed, it is solely the Great Vehicle, for the sūtra says: 'Spoken for those who set forth on the Great Vehicle.' That is, as other sūtras say: 'For all bodhisattvas, expounding the six pāramitās, causing them to attain sarvākārajñatā.' In terms of secondary audience, it extends to all of the two vehicles as well as those without lineage, for below it lists the four assemblies and the eight classes, without exclusion. The Great Prajñāpāramitā says: 'Prajñāpāramitā can explain the stages of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.' That is, the passage on [the bodhisattva] Subikrāntasaṃpanna cited earlier also addresses the two vehicles. Below, the vast and great mind of the bodhisattva causes [beings of] the three realms and the four modes of birth all to attain nirvāṇa. Asaṅga Bodhisattva asked: Why is this vow [made]? The explanation has two parts: first, explaining the title; second, explaining the text of the sūtra. Regarding the title of the sūtra: the versions of the Qin, Wei, and Liang all have the title Vajra-prajñā. The two versions of the Tang and Zhou both have the title Vajracchedikā. The translation of the Sui dynasty, relying on that treatise, subsequently named it Vajracchedikā. The former three versions are brief; the latter three are complete. In presenting the essence to encompass the function, they merely indicate the names of the Dharma and the metaphor. In manifesting both essence and function, they additionally state the cause of cutting through. Although the extensive and the brief differ, in meaning there is no contradiction. First is the separate explanation, then the combined explanation. In Sanskrit it is *vajra*.