御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.8.2

1.8.2

Earlier and later are spoken of merely in mutual association according to category of meaning. If it were not so, would the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* and others, being expounded first of all, be the initial period, and the *Sūtra of the Buddha's Bequeathed Teaching*, being the very last, be the third period? Question: If that is so, why does the *Lotus Sūtra* speak only of two periods, saying: 'Formerly in Vārāṇasī I turned the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths,' down to 'Now I turn again the most wondrous, unsurpassed, great wheel of the Dharma'? Answer: That [sūtra] contrasts the Great with the Small, concealing the second period and mentioning only the earlier and later; in reality, there are indeed three periods. Now, as this sūtra accords with those whose natures are suddenly aroused, no period is established in general terms. But in terms of gradual capacities, it is subsumed under the second period. For the teaching of the first period spoke only of existence; this [sūtra] does not speak only of existence, hence it is not of that period. If it were the third period, which explicitly teaches both emptiness and existence universally for those setting out upon all vehicles—this sūtra states below: 'Only for those who set out upon the supreme vehicle.' Therefore it belongs to the second period. Furthermore, Asaṅga explains: 'Not being startled, not being terrified,' and so on in terms of the three non-natures. Yet the three non-natures are the Buddha's intentional speech declaring that all phenomena are empty. Question: Although the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* speaks of three periods, its text does not state that the teaching of the second period is the Prajñāpāramitā and so forth; based on what can this be known? Answer: That very sūtra says, 'Only for those who set out to cultivate the Great Vehicle,' and this sūtra likewise says, 'The Tathāgata speaks it for those who set out upon the Great Vehicle, speaks it for those of the supreme vehicle,' and so forth; their passages are precisely identical. If it were not so, what other sūtra would there be that turns [the wheel] with covert characteristics only for those who set out to cultivate the Great Vehicle? Moreover, the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* has passages in several places where, after the Tathāgata has finished speaking, the devas joyfully praise him, all saying: 'We now see the World-Honoured One turn the wheel of the Dharma for the second time,' and so forth. Question: According to the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*, the second period turns [the wheel] with covert characteristics; if so, is this sūtra not of definitive meaning? Furthermore, according to this sūtra, the merit of upholding, explaining, and cultivating it is measureless and inconceivable, whereas the *Saṃdhinirmocana*, taking it as non-definitive, [regards] all the merit of upholding, explaining, reciting, and chanting it as like water in an ox's footprint compared to the great ocean water, the superior and inferior being vastly apart. Since that is so, this merit should be narrow and inferior. Answer: Master Henan explains: Definitiveness of meaning is distinguished on the basis of the vehicle, not in terms of the overt and the covert. Furthermore, that [sūtra] pertains to the covert approach with respect to gradual enlightenment, whereas this [sūtra] is explicit with respect to sudden enlightenment. In addition, it fully expounds the cultivation of the five stages; how could it be merely empty? The exposition states: In the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*, the statement that the second period is covert, and so forth, is because it was spoken largely in a distributed manner in accordance with gradual enlightenment, largely concealing characteristics to say that all are empty. In truth and reality, Prajñā also possesses the meaning of existence. How is this known? According to the commentaries of these two treatises, the passages of the sūtra are all understood in terms of the Middle Way, apart from emptiness and apart from existence, not exclusively empty. This will be made clear below. Furthermore, according to the Tang *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* and the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, both cite Prajñā to prove that the three natures encompass both existence and non-existence, and are not exclusively empty. How much more so when it is said that all Buddhas are born from this sūtra, and that the ultimate dharmakāya is free from all marks—how could it not be of definitive meaning? As for the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* comparing merits and finding superior and inferior: if one mostly grasps emptiness as definitive, then the merit of upholding, explaining, and so on is inferior; but if one understands emptiness and existence as free from marks and upholds it in accord with truth, one's merit is identical to that of the *Saṃdhinirmocana*. On this point of meaning, one should examine and reflect carefully. Fifth, subsumption under assemblies: The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* was expounded relying generally upon four places and sixteen assemblies. As for the four places: first, Vulture Peak in Rājagṛha; second, Anāthapiṇḍada's park in Śrāvastī; third, the Palace of the Maṇi Jewel Repository in the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven; fourth, beside the White Heron Pond in the Bamboo Grove of Rājagṛha. Of its sixteen assemblies, the first five sections have no distinct names, but are designated merely by their section headings. The sixth is the Most Excellent Heavenly King Section; the seventh is the Mañjuśrī Section; the eighth is the Nāgaśrī Section; these three sections take their names from the invokers. The names of the subsequent eight sections are established according to what is signified: namely, the ninth is the Vajracchedikā Section, the tenth is the Prajñānaya Section, and the subsequent six sections take their section titles from the six perfections in this way. This sūtra is subsumed under the ninth section. Among the four places, it was spoken in Anāthapiṇḍada's park. According to the Sanskrit text, it consists of three hundred verses; in the great corpus of the sūtra, it is fascicle 577. However, the ancients said there were eight divisions of Prajñā: the Large Division, the Small Division, the *Fangguang*, the *Guangzan*, the *Daoxing*, the *Sheng tianwang*, the *Wenshu*, and the *Vajra*. Because each was a different translation and the expanded text had not yet been seen, they spoke of eight divisions. Now, this is not so. If measured by volume, the six-hundred-fascicle sūtra is just one division; if according to sections, there are sixteen. Moreover, the eight divisions were mostly retranslations: for instance, the *Fangguang* and *Guangzan* merge into the Large Division, and the *Daoxing banruo* is precisely the Small Division. Therefore, speaking of eight divisions cannot be relied upon. This [sūtra] was expounded among the various sections and places: it is indeed the key to Prajñā, the pivotal axis of the great scripture. Its phrases are interwoven, its conceits subtle and refined. It encompasses the ultimate and the conventional, gathers the practices and stages; where there is conceit, it is dispelled, and no attachment is left unpurged. It is the utmost in breaking marks and cutting off emotional attachments to cultivate the mind, the supreme means to eliminate disasters and terminate adversity, and to gather blessings. For this reason, more than twenty masters in the Western Regions composed treatises upon it, and those who propagated it in this land are beyond counting. Even if one were to exhaust kalpas in praise and crush one's body to uphold it, how could that ever repay its inconceivable power or requite its boundless grace? Subsumption has been completed above. As for explaining the central doctrine: first generally and then specifically. For now, distinguishing the central doctrine in general: Ancient worthies of this land comprehensively subsumed all teachings to establish four doctrines. First, the doctrine establishing intrinsic nature: establishing that the five aggregates, realms, and bases possess substantial reality, as in the *Vibhāṣā*, *Abhidharmahṛdaya*, Kātyāyana's treatise (*Jñānaprasthāna*), and so forth. Second, the doctrine refuting intrinsic nature: refuting all real intrinsic nature in those three categories, and stating that all phenomena possess only marks, as in the *Satyasiddhi-śāstra* and so forth. Third, the doctrine refuting marks: stating that all phenomena are not only devoid of intrinsic nature, but their marks are also non-existent, as in the Prajñā [texts] and so forth. Fourth, the doctrine revealing the real: clarifying the genuine principle of all phenomena, according to what is appropriate, whether empty or existent, as in the *Avataṃsaka*, *Mahāparinirvāṇa*, and so forth. According to their classification, this sūtra is included under the doctrine refuting marks. However, establishing four doctrines does not exhaust the canon: for instance, the Ekavyāvahārika school holds that mundane and supramundane [things] are mere conventional designations and possess neither intrinsic nature nor marks; the Prajñaptivāda school establishes that the aggregates are real, whereas among the bases and realms...