御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.129

2.129

Sūtra: Subhūti, what is called expounding the Dharma... is called expounding the Dharma. Exposition: Fifth, completing the explanation of the remaining discourse on expounding the Dharma. Explaining it according to that commentary [by Asaṅga]: because of the two differences in what is expounded, it repeats "expounding the Dharma." "There being no dharma that can be expounded" is because in the ultimate truth there is no dharma that can be expounded, and in the conventional truth there are no truly existent dharmas. Having no fixed marks of name and meaning, it pertains to dharmas; there being no dharma that can be expounded apart from tathatā. The two treatises explain the meaning of this passage accordingly. "Is called expounding the Dharma" means that it conventionally exists as an exposition. In this treatise, from here below, it explains the mind's endowment [with qualities], which is the sixth section. Within it, there are six parts: first, the stations of mindfulness; second, correct awakening; third, the establishment of dharmas of great benefit; fourth, the assimilation of the dharmakāya; fifth, not abiding in saṃsāra or nirvāṇa; sixth, purity in practice and abiding. However, this sūtra lacks the passage on the station of mindfulness, while other recensions all have it. The Wei [translation] says: "At that time the venerable Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One, will there perhaps be sentient beings in future ages who, hearing this Dharma expounded, will give rise to faithful minds?' The Buddha said: 'Subhūti, they are neither sentient beings nor non-sentient beings. Why is that? Subhūti, as for "sentient beings, sentient beings," the Tathāgata has spoken of them as non-sentient beings; this is called sentient beings.'" The treatise says: "Here, among the multitude, it reveals what is like the World-Honoured One's station of mindfulness." "They are non-sentient beings" is because of the paramārtha; "they are not non-sentient beings" is because of the conventional truth. Exposition: This shows that sentient beings are the object of the Buddha's compassion, and are therefore called a "station of mindfulness." It is like the three stations of mindfulness established with respect to sentient beings. When the Buddha constantly takes sentient beings as an objective support, relying on the principle of the two truths, they are neither existent nor non-existent. Exhorting all bodhisattvas to contemplate in this way as well, it therefore says: "like the World-Honoured One's station of mindfulness." Question: Here Subhūti asks whether there are sentient beings who give rise to a faithful mind. The answer should be about existence or non-existence; why does it say "non-sentient beings" and so forth? At first glance, the question and answer seem not to correspond. Answer: According to the passage in [the section on] leaving indolence, it says: "Sentient beings in the last five hundred years who faithfully uphold it—such persons are most rare." Here it should also be stated like that. Because it was already stated before, now it merely reveals "non-sentient beings" in terms of the ultimate truth, which is the non-shared meaning. Furthermore, in terms of the conventional truth, "they are not non-sentient beings," which is the corresponding meaning. Therefore, the treatise says: "This passage is as previously stated," pointing to what was stated in [the section on] leaving indolence. It thus reveals that those who can be like the Buddha's station of mindfulness will faithfully accept this sūtra. Question: In the section on "desiring speech," it also explains those in future ages who can have faith; in [the section on] leaving indolence, it also explains it; and now here it speaks of it again. What is the difference between these three passages? Answer: The first reveals the dharmakāya of verbal expression; the next exhorts the arousal of vigor; this one causes them to seek the Buddha-ground. Thus there are differences. If relying on that commentary [by Asaṅga], it first refutes the doubt concerning the eight [reasons why the Buddha] does not preach the Dharma; next, it evaluates the supremacy of the sūtra to resolve firmly its profound meaning; finally, it refutes the doubt about there being no person capable of faith. Therefore, this passage is for severing the eighteenth doubt: "What person can have faith?" The commentary says: "There is further doubt: 'If it is said that what all Buddhas expound is that no dharma is expounded and is not apart from the dharmakāya, then is there also no person whatsoever who can believe in such a profound dharmadhātu?' The verse says: