御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.124

2.124

Sūtra: Subhūti, [...] do not give rise to this thought. The Exposition says: The fifth [topic] is the complete endowment of speech. Previously, clarifying marks and characteristics dealt with seeking the Buddha's bodily karma, relying on the body to preach the Dharma; next it clarifies verbal karma. Having abandoned attachment in seeking the body, one also extinguishes the signifiers when learning speech; hence this passage appears. That treatise resolves the seventeenth doubt: that the Buddha has something preached. The doubt says: "If the Tathāgata's physical body, marks, and characteristics cannot be seen, why is it said that the Tathāgata preaches the Dharma?" The Exposition says: Seeing the Buddha preaching the Dharma through emotional attachment, one assumes there are preached dharmas and meanings apart from the tathatā. Just as the marks and characteristics that are now heard and taken as objective supports cannot be seen apart from the dharmakāya; if so, the words and meanings preached cannot be heard apart from the dharmakāya. Since the marks of words and meanings are presently audible, it is clear that there is something preached—hence this doubt arises. The meaning of the reply is: marks and characteristics are not separate from tathatā, conventionally seen, but in the ultimate there is no seeing; words and meanings are not separate from tathatā, conventionally preached, but in the ultimate there is no preaching. Thus it severs the doubt by reference to non-preaching. That [treatise] refutes the doubt by reference to non-preaching; this [treatise] eliminates attachment based on seeking higher. Question: How does this differ from the earlier "Does the Tathāgata have any Dharma preached?" Answer: In this treatise, earlier it clarified for those before the bhūmis the lack of attainable preaching based on the dharmakāya of wisdom-marks; here it seeks the Buddha's speech higher for those on the bhūmis, seeking free from attachment. In that treatise, earlier the doubt arose regarding the speaker, and hence the treatise answered: "The nirmāṇakāya is not the true Buddha, nor is it the speaker of Dharma," and so forth. Here the doubt concerns the Dharma preached, and hence the treatise answered: "The two distinctions in what is preached are not separate from the dharmadhātu," and so forth. The text is divided into five gates: prohibition, challenge, explanation, and confirmation. These are the first two. First it says "do not say" and again says "do not give rise to this thought"; the wording seems repetitive. Examining the meaning, it is not so: by comparison with other recensions, the former is the phrasing of a question: "Do not" must be "can it be": "Could you think that the Tathāgata forms this thought: 'I should have some Dharma preached'?" The intent of the question in this treatise is: "Do you think that within the ultimate or conventional truth I have real preaching?" The intent of the question in that treatise is: "Do I have Dharma preached apart from tathatā?" "Do not give rise to this thought" is the second part, prohibiting the mind: because in the ultimate there is no preaching, in conventional truth it is nominal preaching, and apart from tathatā there is no dharma, he prohibits them from forming the thought that there is real preaching.