御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.17

2.17

經。須菩提菩薩至應如是布施　演曰。第二對除眾生相違苦因緣。雖復發心不住流轉。若為眾生相違之時。便起勞倦不能濟度。而生退轉故為除此。問。准此應言流轉苦因緣對治等。或應言流轉苦不忍因緣對治等。如何論言流轉苦忍因緣對治。乃至乏受用苦忍因緣對治等。以忍非所治故。又論第二云。顯示對治眾生相違苦忍。即似以忍為所對治其義如何。答。論總說。此為對治不忍因緣故。非以忍為所對治。然總相言此忍因緣之中而為對治。謂於此忍種種因緣而不能忍故對除之。文分有二。初正對除以令信受。後遣執著。初中復二。初總標對除。後別釋所以。此初也。論云。既為一切眾生而行於捨。云何於彼應生嗔也。捨即布施。菩薩發心及行施等。本為眾生既為利樂。應當如是不住眾生相違苦想。不生瞋恚而行布施。彼論疑云。云何為利眾生修行。而不名住於眾生事。疑意修行利生應住生想。如何不住。偈云。

Sūtra: Subhūti, a bodhisattva [...] should give like this. / Commentary: Second, countering and eliminating the causes and conditions of the suffering of contradiction by sentient beings. Although one has generated the mind and does not dwell in saṃsāra, when contradicted by sentient beings, one becomes weary, unable to rescue them, and gives rise to regression. Therefore, this is to eliminate that. Question: According to this, one should say 'the antidote to the causes and conditions of the suffering of saṃsāra,' or 'the antidote to the causes and conditions of non-endurance of the suffering of saṃsāra'; why does the treatise say 'the antidote to the causes and conditions of enduring the suffering of saṃsāra,' and even 'the antidote to the causes and conditions of enduring the suffering of the lack of requisites for enjoyment,' given that patience is not what is countered? Furthermore, the treatise's second part says: 'Revealing the patience countering the suffering of contradiction by sentient beings,' which seems to treat patience as what is countered; what is its meaning? Answer: The treatise speaks generally: this is to counter the causes and conditions of non-endurance, not that patience is what is countered. Rather, in a general formulation, it means countering within the causes and conditions of this patience; that is, because one cannot endure in the face of these various causes and conditions of patience, one counters and eliminates [that inability]. The text is divided into two: first, directly countering and eliminating to bring about faith and acceptance; second, removing attachment. The first further has two parts: first, a general statement of countering and eliminating; second, a specific explanation of the reasons. This is the first. The treatise states: 'Since one practices renunciation for the sake of all sentient beings, how could anger arise toward them?' Renunciation is giving. A bodhisattva's generating the mind, practicing giving, and so forth are originally for the sake of sentient beings; since they are for their benefit and joy, one should thus not dwell on the conception of the suffering of contradiction by sentient beings, but practice giving without giving rise to anger. That treatise raises a doubt: 'How can one cultivate practice for the benefit of sentient beings without it being called dwelling in the affairs of sentient beings?' The meaning of the doubt is: if one cultivates practice to benefit sentient beings, one should dwell on the conception of sentient beings; how can one not dwell? The verse says: