御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.9

1.9

The Proponent of the Emptiness of the Ultimate says: "I too have scriptural teachings, adducing what was spoken previously in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā and elsewhere as proof." The Proponent of Accordance with Reason says: "Teachings are either explicit or inexplicit; because you contradict explicit teachings, you fall into error. That is, the Sandhinirmocana Sūtra says that during the second period, with an implicit aspect, [the Buddha] turned the wheel of the True Dharma and taught that all is empty, which was not the truly explicit meaning. It also says: 'The lack of self-nature regarding marks, arising, and the ultimate—all these I have already revealed. If one does not understand this hidden intention of the Buddha, one falls away from and ruins the right path and cannot proceed.' Since the sūtra itself says that the lack of self-nature of all phenomena is an implicit aspect and not the truly explicit meaning, your present determination that the teaching of emptiness is the foremost teaching is therefore an error." Question: "Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga both ascended to the [stage of] Pramuditā, together realized the dharma-nature, and their wisdom and vision were not different. Why, then, are there discrepancies in what their two traditions teach?" Answer: "In terms of the ultimate principle, there is equality without difference. The Buddha taught differently—either explicitly or implicitly—in accordance with the capacities of trainees. The bodhisattvas did likewise: in accordance with what the trainees were suited to hear, what they propagated differed respectively. Because [sentient beings] clung to the view of existence, the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna implicitly propagated emptiness. If the view of emptiness were to arise, it too would become an affliction; therefore it was necessary to teach both non-existence and non-emptiness, leaving behind both extremes and according with the Middle Way, as spoken in the aforementioned Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and so forth. Furthermore, the Mahāyāna teaching of markless emptiness relies on the realm of true wisdom to dispel all marks, implicitly speaking of everything as empty. The great bodhisattvas, addressing the affliction of clinging to existence, propagated this implicit teaching; it is not that they failed to realize the Middle Way. Later descendants failed to understand and broadly gave rise to contentious disputes—how could the great bodhisattvas have been in contradiction?" Above, the traditions have been explained in general: following both the Proponents of the Emptiness of the Ultimate and of Accordance with Reason, the two truths they propagate are both elucidated by this sūtra. As Guṇaprabha's treatise states, all return to the two truths, encompassing the explanations of both traditions; the wise should understand this. In specifically clarifying the central theme: because it is titled "Prajñā", that itself is the central theme. Prajñā is threefold: the real mark, contemplative insight, and the literal words. The Tripiṭaka Master of Ci'en, relying on various sūtras and treatises, added two more, namely the objective sphere and the accompanying retinue, making five kinds in all: first, the essence of prajñā; second, the mark of prajñā; third, the cause of prajñā; fourth, the objective sphere of prajñā; and fifth, the companions of prajñā. Taking the essence and what follows along with it, all are called prajñā. One opinion holds that this sūtra takes contemplative insight as its central theme, because it speaks of that which can sever. As the Great Sūtra says: among the six perfections, the perfection of prajñā is an island, a sandbank, a path, an eye, a lamp and torch, and so forth. Therefore, this [sūtra] takes only the mark of wisdom as its central theme, which is the non-conceptual fundamental and subsequently attained twofold wisdom that universally generates [insight into] the emptiness of persons and phenomena. Or, if one takes the preparatory stages, it does not contradict reason either, because the eighteen abidings comprehensively subsume the abidings prior to and upon the stages. Another opinion holds that it also takes the prajñā of the real mark as the sūtra's central theme, because it is the nature that can sever; the true principle is the foundation, and only then is wisdom generated. Furthermore, gold and jewels also serve as an analogy for the tathāgatagarbha; the sūtra extensively clarifies the markless, direct principle, and the ultimate fruit of the dharmakāya is the markless, which is the direct object of contemplation by wisdom. The answers explaining its substance vary among commentators, as set forth in the Commentary on the Sūtra on Purifying Karmic Hindrances. Question: "Why does it not take the three such as the literal words?" Answer: "Because they are not what the sūtra directly clarifies; they are secondary, while these two are fundamental. Because they are the two kinds of bodhisattva nirvāṇa; because they are the nature of the five dharmas, subsuming the three bodies; and because they are the basis of the apprehending consciousness, whether as essence or as mark, being the root of all merits." The third question is concluded.