御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.147

2.147

准彼釋意上之二句明四種勝。下之兩句由四勝故非喻所喻。一者數勝。如經百分不及一。乃至算數譬喻所不能及。故以數無限齊故攝得餘數。應知。演曰。由無漏福無盡法故數亦無限。論以譬喻等數文同。所以合舉理實譬喻非數勝攝。此乃百千萬億等數不及。是為數勝也。二者力勝。如經不及一歌羅分故。流支釋云。梵音歌羅。如折一毛以為百分。一分分一歌羅。此我翻為力勝。新論名勢勝。勢即力義。以無漏善斷。或證理非有漏善力所比並故云力勝。三者無似勝。論指如經數不能及。以此福德不可數故。演曰。准此數字應上聲呼。故新論云。由品類別言此福類元不比數。前之福類如貴賤人不相比數故。梁本經說為品類。此言無似即品類勝。四者因勝。論云。因果不相似。以此因果勝彼因果故。如經乃至憂波尼沙陀分不及一故。梵云鄔波尼殺曇。義譯為因。舉因攝果。施因能招三界果報。因果俱劣。經福出世因果俱勝故言因勝。論云因果不相似。此因果勝彼因果故。問。力類及因此三種勝。何故經中皆言不及一耶。答。謂以初百千等數數彼勢力品類及因以為多分施福勢等。不如持經一分勢等也。論釋譬喻文易可知。梁本經云。窮於算數乃至威力品類相應譬喻所不能及言。相應者謂因果也。

According to the intent of that explanation, the upper two lines clarify the four kinds of superiority; the lower two lines state that because of these four superiorities, it cannot be illustrated by analogy. First is superiority in number: as the sūtra says, “does not equal one hundredth part,” up to “calculation and analogy cannot reach.” Because the number is without limit, it gathers and includes other numbers, as should be known. Exposition: Because undefiled merit is an inexhaustible dharma, its number is also limitless. Because the treatise treats “analogy” and the like as identical in text with numbers, it cites them together; in truth, analogy is not subsumed under superiority in number. This refers to numbers such as hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, and kotis being unable to reach it; this is superiority in number. Second is superiority in power: as the sūtra says, “it does not equal one kalā part.” [Bodhi]ruci explains: The Sanskrit sound kalā is like splitting a hair into a hundred parts; one part is one kalā. Here I translate it as superiority in power. The new treatise calls it superiority in potency (sthāma); potency means power. Because undefiled goodness severs delusions and realizes principle, it cannot be matched by the power of defiled goodness; therefore it is called superiority in power. Third is superiority in incomparability: the treatise points to the sūtra’s “calculation cannot reach,” because this merit cannot be counted. Exposition: According to this, the character for “number/count” (shu) should be read in the falling tone (shù/shǔ). Thus the new treatise says: “Due to differences in kind, it says this class of merit originally cannot be compared or counted; just as noble and base persons are not compared or counted together.” The Liang translation of the sūtra calls it “class” (pǐnlèi); here saying “incomparable” means superiority in class. Fourth is superiority in cause: the treatise says, “Cause and fruit are dissimilar, because this cause and fruit surpass that cause and fruit.” As the sūtra says, “even up to not equaling one upaniṣad part.” The Sanskrit says upaniṣad, translated by meaning as cause. Mentioning the cause gathers the fruit. The cause of giving can bring about retribution in the three realms; cause and fruit are both inferior. The sūtra's merit is supramundane, and cause and fruit are both superior; therefore it is called superiority in cause. The treatise says: “Cause and fruit are dissimilar, because this cause and fruit surpass that cause and fruit.” Question: Regarding power, class, and cause—these three kinds of superiority—why does the sūtra in each case say “does not equal one”? Answer: It means taking the initial numbers like hundred and thousand to count those powers, classes, and causes into multiple parts, and the power and the like of the merit of giving does not equal a single part of the power and the like of upholding the sūtra. The treatise’s explanation of analogy is easily known from the text. The Liang translation of the sūtra says: “Exhausting calculation, and even power, class, and corresponding analogy cannot reach it.” Saying “corresponding” refers to cause and fruit.