御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.193

2.193

經。須菩提若善男子至寧為多不　演曰。下第二破名色身自在行住。以諸菩薩見佛化身有去來像執為實有前。且約真言無來去。於形相身來得自在惠行而住。離真見有去來之相。今令觀折諸佛相身五蘊無實故無所見。所見者妄謂有來去。除所見已即證於真。真無去來故。於名色得自在惠行住。今為明此故斯文起。又前明威儀實無去來。以顯法身常住不動。而未廣顯神通化用巧便自在。今令學佛觀彼五陰細末不念空無所得。發起神通所化自在故有此文。問。前第十住處色及眾生身摶取中觀破相應行。與此何別。答。前化地前令除法執自不造業及生死輪迴。今化地上令求佛地利他事中神通作用故有差別。若依彼論前明施福生染如塵以辯校量。今斷第二十六真化一異疑。謂聞前說化有去來及說法等真無。此事有二疑生。一疑真化為一為異。二疑化佛非真所說之法應不得益。論無疑詞。准釋合有為斷初疑有此文來。以見有化不了相無方疑一異說。塵界喻曉法無我悟證於真不見實相。何有一異。故於名色得自在行住與此不異。人界喻法性塵喻化身喻中塵界既非一異。法中真化亦非一異。此論據法以生智。彼論約喻以除疑。不相違也。依此論科文分為六。一無所見方便。二如所不分別即無能見。三何人無分別。四於何法不分別。五何方便不分別即何智證。六云何不分別即何行相。初一總明破折方便。後五別釋意義所由。初中有二。初明蘊非實。後約二諦辨。初中復三。初破色二破名後雙破。依彼論科大分為二。初舉喻。後須菩提若人言下法合。喻中復二。初如來以微塵喻告。後善現以世界喻領。初文即此折破色身。就中有六。一問二答三徵四釋五難六通。此初佛問。但以三千世界碎為微塵。依魏本經乃有兩重復以示許微塵世界碎為微塵阿僧祇。貞觀亦示自餘四經。皆唯一重其兩重者顯折塵多更無別義。論云。於中細末方便無所得方便。無所得如前說。此即細末方便。成唯識云。於麁色相漸次除折至不可折。假立極微梁本微塵亦名隣虛。即極微也。彼論云碎微塵喻示現何義。偈言。

[Sūtra:] "Subhūti, if a good son… would they be many?" / [Exposition:] Below is the second [section]: conduct and abiding with sovereignty in breaking down nāma-rūpa-kāya. Because bodhisattvas see the Buddha's nirmāṇakāya possessing the appearance of coming and going, they grasp it as truly existent. Previously, [the sūtra] temporarily spoke in terms of the real as having no coming or going; regarding the body of physical form, one comes to abide in the wisdom practice of sovereignty, free from the real yet seeing the mark of coming and going. Now it causes them to contemplate and reduce the marks-body of all Buddhas, [seeing] that the five skandhas are without reality, and thus there is nothing seen; what is seen is the delusion of asserting coming and going. Once what is seen is eliminated, one immediately realizes the real. Because the real has no coming or going, one attains sovereign wisdom conduct and abiding regarding nāma-rūpa. It is to clarify this that this text arises. / Furthermore, previously it clarified that deportment has no coming or going in reality, thereby revealing that the dharmakāya is eternally abiding and unmoving, but did not broadly reveal supernormal transformation and skillful sovereignty. Now it causes those learning from the Buddha to contemplate those five skandhas, reducing them to fine dust without conceptualization, empty and with nothing to be attained, initiating supernormal powers and sovereignty over what is transformed; hence this text appears. / Question: "In the previous tenth dwelling place, regarding the lump-grasping of form and the bodies of sentient beings, the contemplation broke down corresponding practice—what difference is there with this?" / Answer: "Previously it transformed those before the stages (bhūmis), causing them to eliminate dharmagrāha so that they themselves would not create karma and cycle in saṃsāra. Now it transforms those on the stages, causing them to seek the supernormal functionings within the other-benefiting activities of the Buddha-stage; hence there is a difference. / If we rely on that treatise, previously it clarified that the merit of giving generates defilement like dust to make an assessment; now it severs the twenty-sixth doubt: the doubt over whether the real and transformation are one or different. That is, hearing the previous explanation that transformation has coming and going, preaching the Dharma, and so forth, while the real lacks these things, two doubts arose: first, doubting whether the real and transformation are one or different; second, doubting that since the transformation Buddha is not the real, the Dharma he preaches should not yield benefit. The treatise has no phrasing for the doubt, but according to the explanation it should be there. This text comes to sever the first doubt. Because they see there is transformation and do not comprehend that marks are nonexistent, they then doubt oneness and difference. The metaphor of the dust motes and world-realm is spoken to illuminate the non-self of phenomena; awakening to and realizing the real, one sees no real mark—how could there be oneness or difference? Therefore, attaining sovereign conduct and abiding regarding nāma-rūpa is no different from this. The world-realm serves as a metaphor for the dharmatā, and the dust motes serve as a metaphor for the nirmāṇakāya. In the metaphor, since dust and realm are neither one nor different, so in the Dharma the real and transformation are neither one nor different. This treatise relies on the Dharma to generate wisdom; that treatise draws upon the metaphor to eliminate doubt; they do not contradict each other. / Dividing the text according to the outline of this treatise, there are six: first, the expedient of having nothing seen; second, when there is no discrimination of the object, there is no apprehending subject; third, what person is without discrimination; fourth, regarding what phenomena is one without discrimination; fifth, by what expedient is one without discrimination—that is, what wisdom realizes it; sixth, how is one without discrimination—that is, what mental characteristic. The first one generally clarifies the expedient of reducing and breaking down; the latter five distinctly explain the sources of the meaning. / Within the first, there are two: first, clarifying that the skandhas are not real; later, distinguishing in terms of the two truths. Within the first, there are again three: first, breaking down rūpa; second, breaking down nāma; later, breaking down both. / Dividing broadly according to that treatise's outline, there are two: first, proposing the metaphor; later, the application to phenomena from 'Subhūti, if a person says' downward. Within the metaphor there are again two: first, the Tathāgata addresses him with the metaphor of fine dust motes; later, Subhūti understands through the metaphor of the world. / The first text is precisely this breaking down of the rūpakāya. Within it there are six: first, question; second, answer; third, inquiry; fourth, explanation; fifth, objection; sixth, resolution. This is the first, the Buddha's question: merely breaking down the three-thousandfold world-realm into fine dust motes. According to the Wei translation of the sūtra, there is a two-fold [metaphor]: again breaking down the worlds of as many dust motes into asamkhyeya dust motes. The Zhenguan translation also shows this; the other four sūtra translations all have only a single layer. That two-fold [version] serves to show that the reduced dust motes are numerous, with no other distinct meaning. / The treatise says: 'Therein, the fine-powder expedient is the expedient of having nothing to be attained.' Having nothing to be attained is as explained before; this is precisely the fine-powder expedient. The Cheng Weishi Lun says: 'Regarding coarse forms and characteristics, one gradually reduces and breaks them down until they cannot be broken down further, provisionally establishing the paramāṇu.' In the Liang translation, 'fine dust mote' is also called 'adjacent to the void' (atyanta-sūkṣma); this is the paramāṇu. That treatise says: 'What meaning does the metaphor of reducing into fine dust motes demonstrate?' The verse says: