御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.8.2

1.8.2

後先但以義類。 相從而說。 若不爾者。 花嚴經等最初宣說。 豈即初時。 遺教最後第三時。 問。 若爾何故法花經。 唯說二時。 彼云昔於波羅奈。 轉四諦法輪。 乃至今復輪最妙無上大法輪。 答。 彼以大小相對。 隱第二時但說前後。 實即三時。 今者此經隨頓發性。 總不立時。 若約漸根。 第二時攝。 以初時教。 唯說於有。 此不唯有。 故非彼時。 若第三時顯說空有。 普為發趣一切乘者。 此經下云。 唯為發趣最上乘者故。 第二時又無著釋。 不驚不怖等。 約三無性。 然三無性。 是佛密意說諸法空。 問。 解深密經雖說三時。 文中不說第二時教。 是般若等。 准何得知。 答。 即彼經云。 唯為發趣修大乘者。 此經亦云。 如來為發大乘說。 為最上乘者說等。 其文正同。 若不爾者。 更有何經。 唯為發趣修大乘者。 隱密相轉。 況大般若數處有文。 如來說已。 諸天喜讚。 皆云。 我今見世尊第二轉法輪等。 問。 准深密經說。 第二時隱密相轉。 若爾此經非了義耶。 又准此經。 持說修行。 其福無量。 不可思議。 而解深密以不了義。 持說讀誦所有功德。 如牛跡中水。 比大海水等。 勝劣懸殊。 既爾此福即應狹劣。 答。 河南法師釋云據乘以辨名為了義。 非約顯密。 又彼約漸悟當隱密門。 此約頓悟。 即成顯了。 又復具說五位。 修習豈唯空也。 演曰。 深密經中。 說第二時。 隱密等者。 以隨漸悟多分布而說。 以多覆相說皆空故。 理實般若。 亦以有義何以知者。 准此二論釋。 經文中皆約中道。 離空離有。 非一向空。 至下當悉。 又准唐攝論。 辨中邊論。 皆引般若證。 彼三性通有及無。 非一向空。 況說諸佛從此經生究竟法身。 離一切相。 寧非了義。 而深密經。 校量福德。 有勝劣者。 若隨多分執空為了。 而持說等功德為劣。 若解空有離相。 契真而受持者。 與彼深密福德是同。 於此義中。 當審思察。 五歸會者。 大般若經。 總依四處十六會說。 言四處者。 一王舍城鷲峯山。 二室羅筏給孤獨園。 三他化天宮摩尼寶藏殿。 四王舍城竹林園白鷺池側。 其十六會初之五分。 更無別名。 但以標其分目。 第六最勝天王分。 第七曼殊室利分。 第八那伽室利分。 此之三分從請主為名。 下八分名隨所詮立。 謂第九能斷金剛分。 第十般若理趣分。 及後六分如此六度以題分名。 此經即是第九分攝。 四處之中。 給孤園說。 准據梵本。 有三百頌。 大經部中第五百七十七卷也。 然古說有八部般若。 謂大品。 小品。 放光。 光贊。 道行。 勝天王。 文殊。 金剛。 由各異譯。 未見廣本。 故云八部今即不然。 若約部帙六百卷經唯是部。 若依部分乃有十六。 況復八部多是重譯。 如放光。 光贊合入大品。 道行般若即是小品。 故言八部未可為依此在諸分處中而說。 蓋般若之鈴鍵。 大經之開軸。 文句盤錯。 意象精微。 包真俗攝行位。 有慢斯遣無執不除。 破相忌情修心之極。 鎖災極厄攝福之最。 是以西方造論二十餘家。 此地弘宣不可稱數。 雖窮劫讚美。 碎身護持。 豈是荷難思之力。 報莫大之恩歟。 上攝歸訖。 明宗旨者。 先通後別且通辯宗。 此方先德總攝諸教以立四宗。 一立性宗。 安立五蘊界處有體。 如婆沙雜心迦延論等。 二破性宗。 破彼三科所有實性。 而言諸法但有於相。 如成實論等。 三破相宗。 言一切法非但性。 無相亦非有。 如般若等。 四顯實宗。 明一切法真實道理。 隨其所應。 若空若有。 如花嚴涅槃等。 准彼所判。 此經即是破相宗收。 然立四宗攝藏非盡。 如一說部。 世出世間但有言說。 都無性相。 其說假部。 立蘊是實處界門中。

Earlier and later are spoken of merely in mutual association according to category of meaning. If it were not so, would the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* and others, being expounded first of all, be the initial period, and the *Sūtra of the Buddha's Bequeathed Teaching*, being the very last, be the third period? Question: If that is so, why does the *Lotus Sūtra* speak only of two periods, saying: 'Formerly in Vārāṇasī I turned the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths,' down to 'Now I turn again the most wondrous, unsurpassed, great wheel of the Dharma'? Answer: That [sūtra] contrasts the Great with the Small, concealing the second period and mentioning only the earlier and later; in reality, there are indeed three periods. Now, as this sūtra accords with those whose natures are suddenly aroused, no period is established in general terms. But in terms of gradual capacities, it is subsumed under the second period. For the teaching of the first period spoke only of existence; this [sūtra] does not speak only of existence, hence it is not of that period. If it were the third period, which explicitly teaches both emptiness and existence universally for those setting out upon all vehicles—this sūtra states below: 'Only for those who set out upon the supreme vehicle.' Therefore it belongs to the second period. Furthermore, Asaṅga explains: 'Not being startled, not being terrified,' and so on in terms of the three non-natures. Yet the three non-natures are the Buddha's intentional speech declaring that all phenomena are empty. Question: Although the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* speaks of three periods, its text does not state that the teaching of the second period is the Prajñāpāramitā and so forth; based on what can this be known? Answer: That very sūtra says, 'Only for those who set out to cultivate the Great Vehicle,' and this sūtra likewise says, 'The Tathāgata speaks it for those who set out upon the Great Vehicle, speaks it for those of the supreme vehicle,' and so forth; their passages are precisely identical. If it were not so, what other sūtra would there be that turns [the wheel] with covert characteristics only for those who set out to cultivate the Great Vehicle? Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* has passages in several places where, after the Tathāgata has finished speaking, the devas joyfully praise him, all saying: 'We now see the World-Honoured One turn the wheel of the Dharma for the second time,' and so forth. Question: According to the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*, the second period turns [the wheel] with covert characteristics; if so, is this sūtra not of definitive meaning? Furthermore, according to this sūtra, the merit of upholding, explaining, and cultivating it is measureless and inconceivable, whereas the *Saṃdhinirmocana*, taking it as non-definitive, [regards] all the merit of upholding, explaining, reciting, and chanting it as like water in an ox's footprint compared to the great ocean water, the superior and inferior being vastly apart. Since that is so, this merit should be narrow and inferior. Answer: Master Henan explains: Definitiveness of meaning is distinguished on the basis of the vehicle, not in terms of the overt and the covert. Furthermore, that [sūtra] pertains to the covert approach with respect to gradual enlightenment, whereas this [sūtra] is explicit with respect to sudden enlightenment. In addition, it fully expounds the cultivation of the five stages; how could it be merely empty? The exposition states: In the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*, the statement that the second period is covert, and so forth, is because it was spoken largely in a distributed manner in accordance with gradual enlightenment, largely concealing characteristics to say that all are empty. In truth and reality, Prajñā also possesses the meaning of existence. How is this known? According to the commentaries of these two treatises, the passages of the sūtra are all understood in terms of the Middle Way, apart from emptiness and apart from existence, not exclusively empty. This will be made clear below. Furthermore, according to the Tang *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* and the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, both cite Prajñā to prove that the three natures encompass both existence and non-existence, and are not exclusively empty. How much more so when it is said that all Buddhas are born from this sūtra, and that the ultimate dharmakāya is free from all marks—how could it not be of definitive meaning? As for the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* comparing merits and finding superior and inferior: if one mostly grasps emptiness as definitive, then the merit of upholding, explaining, and so on is inferior; but if one understands emptiness and existence as free from marks and upholds it in accord with truth, one's merit is identical to that of the *Saṃdhinirmocana*. On this point of meaning, one should examine and reflect carefully. Fifth, subsumption under assemblies: The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* was expounded relying generally upon four places and sixteen assemblies. As for the four places: first, Vulture Peak in Rājagṛha; second, Anāthapiṇḍada's park in Śrāvastī; third, the Palace of the Maṇi Jewel Repository in the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven; fourth, beside the White Heron Pond in the Bamboo Grove of Rājagṛha. Of its sixteen assemblies, the first five sections have no distinct names, but are designated merely by their section headings. The sixth is the Most Excellent Heavenly King Section; the seventh is the Mañjuśrī Section; the eighth is the Nāgaśrī Section; these three sections take their names from the invokers. The names of the subsequent eight sections are established according to what is signified: namely, the ninth is the Vajracchedikā Section, the tenth is the Prajñānaya Section, and the subsequent six sections take their section titles from the six perfections in this way. This sūtra is subsumed under the ninth section. Among the four places, it was spoken in Anāthapiṇḍada's park. According to the Sanskrit text, it consists of three hundred verses; in the great corpus of the sūtra, it is fascicle 577. However, the ancients said there were eight divisions of Prajñā: the Large Division, the Small Division, the *Fangguang*, the *Guangzan*, the *Daoxing*, the *Sheng tianwang*, the *Wenshu*, and the *Vajra*. Because each was a different translation and the expanded text had not yet been seen, they spoke of eight divisions. Now, this is not so. If measured by volume, the six-hundred-fascicle sūtra is just one division; if according to sections, there are sixteen. Moreover, the eight divisions were mostly retranslations: for instance, the *Fangguang* and *Guangzan* merge into the Large Division, and the *Daoxing banruo* is precisely the Small Division. Therefore, speaking of eight divisions cannot be relied upon. This [sūtra] was expounded among the various sections and places: it is indeed the key to Prajñā, the pivotal axis of the great scripture. Its phrases are interwoven, its conceits subtle and refined. It encompasses the ultimate and the conventional, gathers the practices and stages; where there is conceit, it is dispelled, and no attachment is left unpurged. It is the utmost in breaking marks and cutting off emotional attachments to cultivate the mind, the supreme means to eliminate disasters and terminate adversity, and to gather blessings. For this reason, more than twenty masters in the Western Regions composed treatises upon it, and those who propagated it in this land are beyond counting. Even if one were to exhaust kalpas in praise and crush one's body to uphold it, how could that ever repay its inconceivable power or requite its boundless grace? Subsumption has been completed above. As for explaining the central doctrine: first generally and then specifically. For now, distinguishing the central doctrine in general: Ancient worthies of this land comprehensively subsumed all teachings to establish four doctrines. First, the doctrine establishing intrinsic nature: establishing that the five aggregates, realms, and bases possess substantial reality, as in the *Vibhāṣā*, *Abhidharmahṛdaya*, Kātyāyana's treatise (*Jñānaprasthāna*), and so forth. Second, the doctrine refuting intrinsic nature: refuting all real intrinsic nature in those three categories, and stating that all phenomena possess only marks, as in the *Satyasiddhi-śāstra* and so forth. Third, the doctrine refuting marks: stating that all phenomena are not only devoid of intrinsic nature, but their marks are also non-existent, as in the Prajñā [texts] and so forth. Fourth, the doctrine revealing the real: clarifying the genuine principle of all phenomena, according to what is appropriate, whether empty or existent, as in the *Avataṃsaka*, *Mahāparinirvāṇa*, and so forth. According to their classification, this sūtra is included under the doctrine refuting marks. However, establishing four doctrines does not exhaust the canon: for instance, the Ekavyāvahārika school holds that mundane and supramundane [things] are mere conventional designations and possess neither intrinsic nature nor marks; the Prajñaptivāda school establishes that the aggregates are real, whereas among the bases and realms...