御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.203

2.203

經。世尊如來所說至是名世界　演曰。下破名身如前文。釋言世界者。亦是為明眾生世故。彼論自下善現以世界喻領。於中有二。初善現說喻。後如來釋成。前文有四。一標二徵三破實四存假。此初標也。前說微塵喻以化對真辨非一異。今說世界喻以真對化辨非一異。言三千大千世界者。謂總聚世界積微所成言即非世界者。以彼所成無實體故。言是名世界者。結成如來假說相也。故彼論云。如是三千世界一合相喻。非聚集故。新論亦云。此即兼述三千大千世界不是聚性及是聚性其喻亦同。演曰。由所成無體。望彼極微非一非異。即喻真如。望彼化身非一異耳。問。准彼論世界喻法身。此論此文世界乃是名身所攝。而經前文以三千界折為微塵。豈以心法折為色耶。答。不爾。前世界者器及眾生總在其內。謂取其中根塵色蘊而破折之。此文世界唯是名身。其下雙破名色之中云。若世界實有。則是一合相。亦是名色兩種總名世界總相為破色及名相實。

Sūtra: 'World-Honoured One, what the Tathāgata speaks of ... is called a world.' The Exposition states: Below, the name-body is refuted as in the preceding text. Explaining the word 'world', it is also to clarify the realm of sentient beings. In that treatise, below this, Subhūti grasps [the meaning] by using the world as a metaphor. In this there are two parts: first Subhūti states the metaphor, and then the Tathāgata explains and confirms it. The preceding text has four parts: first, positing; second, inquiring; third, refuting reality; and fourth, preserving the conventional. This is the first, positing. The earlier metaphor of fine dust contrasted the transformation body with the ultimate truth to distinguish non-oneness and non-difference. Now the metaphor of the world contrasts the ultimate truth with the transformation body to distinguish non-oneness and non-difference. Saying 'three-thousand great-thousand worlds' refers to the aggregate world formed by accumulating particles. Saying 'is not a world' is because what is thus formed lacks substantial reality. Saying 'is called a world' concludes the Tathāgata's conventional designation. Therefore that treatise states: 'Such a metaphor of the unitary composite of the three-thousand worlds is because it is not an aggregation.' The New Treatise also states: 'This also co-describes the three-thousand great-thousand worlds as not possessing the nature of an aggregation and as possessing the nature of an aggregation; its metaphor is likewise the same.' The Exposition states: Because what is formed lacks reality, relative to those subtlest particles it is neither one nor different. That is, it illustrates that tathatā, relative to that transformation body, is neither one nor different. Question: According to that treatise, the world illustrates the dharmakāya; in this treatise and this passage, the world is subsumed under the name-body. Yet the earlier text of the sūtra breaks down the three-thousand worlds into fine dust; could mental dharmas be broken down into form? Answer: It is not so. The earlier 'world' included both the receptacle and sentient beings together within it, meaning one takes the faculties, sense-data, and the aggregate of form within it to break them down. In this passage, 'world' is only the name-body. Below, in the dual refutation of name and form, it says: 'If a world were real, it would be a unitary composite.' This also takes both name and form together as the world's general characteristic, in order to refute the reality of form and of the characteristics of names.