御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.61

2.61

經。須菩提我念過去至無空過者　演曰。上來別釋五種功德訖。自下大段重釋前第二攝福聚。於中准論分之為三。初顯經威力。次辨福德多。三何人能說。初中復二。初舉餘福德。後校量顯勝。此初也。論初標云。應知威力者成熟熾然故。多者具足勝大故。配釋此文。即是福聚威力。以彼所有福聚遠絕高勝故。此中阿僧祇劫者。乃至燃燈佛故。應知過阿僧祇者更過前故。演曰。明經威力。所有福聚遠絕高勝。言過去無數劫者。謂金剛定乃至七地滿心為一阿僧祇。逢燃燈佛。非此所論。今取燃燈佛以前。二僧祇劫所修供養除持經外以用校量故。餘本經皆有兩重僧祇。燃燈前為一重。燃燈佛後為一重故。貞觀本云。先復過先此言無量阿僧祇劫。是總言也。以有經言未逢燃燈佛。心有所得不蒙受記將入八地逢燃燈佛得無生忍。無所得心方蒙受記是故不以燃燈佛後功德校量以無相修即惠度故。以前雖有學無相時而不相續。猶有加行故功德劣。故有論言。入第八地一剎那中所有功德勝前兩劫。正同於此。又說兩劫所修供佛色相功德。不如其中持經勝福。彼順世間有為之相。還招色身故福為劣。此生三惠。斷惑證理速證法身故福為勝。然彼劣福。皆七地前八地已去。純無相修福惠通故。所逢佛數經本不同。數有大小不相違也。那由他者。准法花經即是諺數。依此方數億兆。京諺十二而數。即為極少。依花嚴經。從一百洛叉為一俱胝。俱胝俱胝為一阿庾多。阿庾多阿庾多為一那由他。而法花經以此方大數目那由他理實應依花嚴經數。然此佛數且舉一位所逢之佛。據二僧祇非唯爾所。此古釋云。通舉因位三僧祇劫以用校量。若爾即但應云我念過去無量劫等。何須別舉燃燈佛前。亦有釋云。由供養佛但是福因持經智因故不為比者。不然若但智因而非福者。何故持經。二論解為攝福德聚。故知持經福智俱生。但順無相法身故為殊勝。若爾何故頌云福不趣菩提。答。以施等有相福不趣菩提。非為持經無相不趣以福智二菩提。正行感法身故。問。餘本燃燈皆言前先。何故梁經乃言佛後。答。彼譯經主取意有殊。以在過去故名為後。如說未來名之為前。約向背說未來。向前背過去故。論云親近者供養故不空過者。常不離供養故。即以常供養釋不空過。

Sūtra: Subhūti, I recall in the past [...] none was passed over in vain. Exposition: Above, the separate explanation of the five kinds of merits has ended. From here below, this major section re-explains the previously mentioned second [topic], "gathering the accumulation of merit." In this, following the commentary, it is divided into three: first, revealing the majesty of the sūtra; next, explaining the abundance of merit; third, what kind of person is able to expound it. The first [part] again has two: first, adducing other merits; later, comparative calculation to demonstrate superiority. This is the first. At the beginning of the commentary it states: "Majesty should be known because of maturity and blazing brilliance; abundance [should be known] because of being complete, superior, and vast." Applying this to explain the present text, it is precisely the majesty of the accumulation of merit, because its accumulation of merit is far superior and exalted. Here, "asaṃkhyeya kalpas" means up to Dīpaṃkara Buddha. "Beyond asaṃkhyeya kalpas" should be known as going even beyond what was before. Exposition: Revealing the majesty of the sūtra, the accumulation of merit it possesses is far superior and exalted. Speaking of "countless kalpas in the past," this means from the vajra-samādhi up to the completion of the seventh bhūmi is one asaṃkhyeya, where Dīpaṃkara Buddha was encountered; that is not what is discussed here. Here we take what was prior to Dīpaṃkara Buddha: the offerings cultivated during the two asaṃkhyeya kalpas, excluding upholding the sūtra, are taken for comparative calculation. Therefore, other versions of the sūtra all have two tiers of asaṃkhyeyas: one tier before Dīpaṃkara, and one tier after Dīpaṃkara Buddha. The Zhenguan edition says: "previously and again exceeding the previous." Here it speaks of "immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas," which is a general statement. For there are sūtras stating that before encountering Dīpaṃkara Buddha, with an apprehending mind, one did not receive prediction; about to enter the eighth bhūmi, upon encountering Dīpaṃkara Buddha, one attained the forbearance of non-arising [dharmas], and only with an unapprehending mind did one receive prediction. For this reason, it is not compared with the merits after Dīpaṃkara Buddha, because signless cultivation is itself the perfection of wisdom. Prior to this, although there were times of training in the signless, it was not continuous, and there was still preparation (prayogamārga); thus the merit was inferior. Hence a treatise states: "The merit possessed in a single kṣaṇa upon entering the eighth bhūmi surpasses the previous two kalpas." This precisely agrees with this. Furthermore, it is said that the merit of offering to the physical forms of buddhas cultivated during the two kalpas is not as great as the superior merit of upholding the sūtra during that time. The former conforms to the signs of worldly conditioned [phenomena] and again brings about a physical form (rūpakāya); hence the merit is inferior. The latter generates the three wisdoms, severs defilements, realizes the truth, and swiftly realizes the dharmakāya; hence the merit is superior. However, that inferior merit all pertains to before the seventh bhūmi; from the eighth bhūmi onward, it is purely signless cultivation where merit and wisdom are united. The number of buddhas encountered differs among sūtra editions; the numbers may be larger or smaller without contradiction. As for nayuta, according to the Lotus Sūtra, it is a colloquial counting term. According to this land's counting, it is millions, trillions, and so on; counting by the twelve colloquial terms of the capital, it would be extremely few. According to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, from one hundred lakṣas is one koṭi; a koṭi of koṭis is an ayuta; an ayuta of ayutas is a nayuta. Yet the Lotus Sūtra uses this land's large number to designate a nayuta; in truth one should follow the numbers in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. However, this number of buddhas merely adduces the buddhas encountered at a single stage; according to the two asaṃkhyeyas, it was not merely this amount. An ancient commentary on this says: "It generally adduces the causal stages of the three asaṃkhyeya kalpas for comparative calculation." If so, it should only say "I recall in the past immeasurable kalpas," etc.; why would it need to separately mention "before Dīpaṃkara Buddha"? There is also an explanation stating: "Because offering to buddhas is merely a cause of merit, whereas upholding the sūtra is a cause of wisdom, they cannot be compared." This is not so: if it were merely a cause of wisdom and not of merit, why would the two commentaries explain upholding the sūtra as gathering the accumulation of merit? Thus we know that by upholding the sūtra, both merit and wisdom arise together; it is merely that by conforming to the signless dharmakāya, it is exceptionally superior. If so, why does the verse say: "Merit does not tend toward bodhi"? The answer is: conditioned merit such as giving does not tend toward bodhi; it is not that the signless merit of upholding the sūtra does not tend toward it, because the two bodhis of merit and wisdom, through correct practice, induce the dharmakāya. Question: Other editions, regarding Dīpaṃkara, all speak of "before" or "prior"; why does the Liang sūtra say "after the Buddha"? Answer: That translator's intention was different; because it was in the past, it was called "behind" (hou), just as speaking of the future is called "in front" (qian). This is stated in terms of facing toward or turning away: the future is facing forward, while turning away faces the past. The commentary says: "'Serving closely' means by making offerings; 'none was passed over in vain' means never departing from making offerings." Thus it explains "not passed over in vain" as constantly offering.