御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.9

1.9

勝空者曰。我亦有教引前所說。大般若等為證成。故應理者曰。教有顯了及不了義違顯了教故汝為過。謂深密經。說第二時。以隱密相。轉正法輪。說一切空。非真了義。又云。相生勝義無自性如是我皆已顯示。若不知佛此密意失壞正道不能往經既自說。諸法無性。是隱密相。非真了義。今判說空。為第一說。是故為過。問曰。龍猛。無著俱登極喜。同證法性。智見不殊。因何二宗所說有異。答。據其至理平等無差。佛對根宜。顯密異說。菩薩亦爾。對根宜聞。所弘各異。由著有見。龍猛菩薩。密弘於空空見若生。亦成其病故。須雙說非有非空。遠離二邊。契會中道。如向瑜伽釋論等說。又復大乘無相空教。依真智境。遣一切相。密說皆空。諸大菩薩。對著有病。弘斯密教。非於中道。而不證悟。末葉不悟。廣興乖諍。豈大菩薩有所相違。上通辯宗。隨其勝空。及應理者。所弘二諦。並此經明。如功德論。咸歸二諦。通二宗解。智者當悉。別明宗者。題名般若故即為宗般若有三。實相觀照。及與文字。慈恩三藏。依諸經論更加二種。謂即境界。及以眷屬。通有五種。一般若性。二般若相。三般若因。四般若境。五般若伴。剋性相從。俱名般若。有義此經觀照為宗。說能斷故。如大經說。六度之中。其般若度為洲。為渚。為道。為目。為燈炬等。故此唯以惠相為宗。即無分別本後二智通生法空。或取加行。亦不違理由十八住。通攝地前地上住故有義。亦以實相般若。為經所宗。能斷性故。真理為本。智方生故。金寶亦喻如來藏故經中廣明無相直理法身極果是無相。智正所觀故。答辯如體。諸釋不同。如淨業障經疏述。問。何故不取文字等三。答。非經正明彼是末故。此二本故。菩薩涅槃二種故。即五法性。攝三身故。能緣所依若性若相。功德本故。第三問訖。

The Proponent of the Emptiness of the Ultimate says: "I too have scriptural teachings, adducing what was spoken previously in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā and elsewhere as proof." The Proponent of Accordance with Reason says: "Teachings are either explicit or inexplicit; because you contradict explicit teachings, you fall into error. That is, the Sandhinirmocana Sūtra says that during the second period, with an implicit aspect, [the Buddha] turned the wheel of the True Dharma and taught that all is empty, which was not the truly explicit meaning. It also says: 'The lack of self-nature regarding marks, arising, and the ultimate—all these I have already revealed. If one does not understand this hidden intention of the Buddha, one falls away from and ruins the right path and cannot proceed.' Since the sūtra itself says that the lack of self-nature of all phenomena is an implicit aspect and not the truly explicit meaning, your present determination that the teaching of emptiness is the foremost teaching is therefore an error." Question: "Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga both ascended to the [stage of] Pramuditā, together realized the dharma-nature, and their wisdom and vision were not different. Why, then, are there discrepancies in what their two traditions teach?" Answer: "In terms of the ultimate principle, there is equality without difference. The Buddha taught differently—either explicitly or implicitly—in accordance with the capacities of trainees. The bodhisattvas did likewise: in accordance with what the trainees were suited to hear, what they propagated differed respectively. Because [sentient beings] clung to the view of existence, the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna implicitly propagated emptiness. If the view of emptiness were to arise, it too would become an affliction; therefore it was necessary to teach both non-existence and non-emptiness, leaving behind both extremes and according with the Middle Way, as spoken in the aforementioned Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and so forth. Furthermore, the Mahāyāna teaching of markless emptiness relies on the realm of true wisdom to dispel all marks, implicitly speaking of everything as empty. The great bodhisattvas, addressing the affliction of clinging to existence, propagated this implicit teaching; it is not that they failed to realize the Middle Way. Later descendants failed to understand and broadly gave rise to contentious disputes—how could the great bodhisattvas have been in contradiction?" Above, the traditions have been explained in general: following both the Proponents of the Emptiness of the Ultimate and of Accordance with Reason, the two truths they propagate are both elucidated by this sūtra. As Guṇaprabha's treatise states, all return to the two truths, encompassing the explanations of both traditions; the wise should understand this. In specifically clarifying the central theme: because it is titled "Prajñā", that itself is the central theme. Prajñā is threefold: the real mark, contemplative insight, and the literal words. The Tripiṭaka Master of Ci'en, relying on various sūtras and treatises, added two more, namely the objective sphere and the accompanying retinue, making five kinds in all: first, the essence of prajñā; second, the mark of prajñā; third, the cause of prajñā; fourth, the objective sphere of prajñā; and fifth, the companions of prajñā. Taking the essence and what follows along with it, all are called prajñā. One opinion holds that this sūtra takes contemplative insight as its central theme, because it speaks of that which can sever. As the Great Sūtra says: among the six perfections, the perfection of prajñā is an island, a sandbank, a path, an eye, a lamp and torch, and so forth. Therefore, this [sūtra] takes only the mark of wisdom as its central theme, which is the non-conceptual fundamental and subsequently attained twofold wisdom that universally generates [insight into] the emptiness of persons and phenomena. Or, if one takes the preparatory stages, it does not contradict reason either, because the eighteen abidings comprehensively subsume the abidings prior to and upon the stages. Another opinion holds that it also takes the prajñā of the real mark as the sūtra's central theme, because it is the nature that can sever; the true principle is the foundation, and only then is wisdom generated. Furthermore, gold and jewels also serve as an analogy for the tathāgatagarbha; the sūtra extensively clarifies the markless, direct principle, and the ultimate fruit of the dharmakāya is the markless, which is the direct object of contemplation by wisdom. The answers explaining its substance vary among commentators, as set forth in the Commentary on the Sūtra on Purifying Karmic Hindrances. Question: "Why does it not take the three such as the literal words?" Answer: "Because they are not what the sūtra directly clarifies; they are secondary, while these two are fundamental. Because they are the two kinds of bodhisattva nirvāṇa; because they are the nature of the five dharmas, subsuming the three bodies; and because they are the basis of the apprehending consciousness, whether as essence or as mark, being the root of all merits." The third question is concluded.