御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.143

2.143

According to the explanation, the upper two lines answer in accordance with the other’s position: although it is indeterminate, it can nevertheless serve as the cause of that great bodhi, because without the expounded Dharma one cannot attain great bodhi. The lower two lines answer based on one’s own position: “Your Hīnayāna teaching dharma may be indeterminate, but my Mahāyāna nature is wholesome; therefore a single Dharma jewel surpasses measureless treasures.” Causing one to know that the teaching’s goodness serves as the cause of bodhi and accomplishes great benefit is also the same as this. This text divides into two: first, provisionally establishing the benefit of the Dharma; second, the instruction establishing the ultimate truth. The first divides into three: first, bringing up the inferior; next, clarifying the superior; and later, the comparative evaluation. The intention clarifies that since upholding the sūtra yields superior merit, one should take this Dharma to benefit sentient beings. This is the first. Question: Why is it that in the fourfold comparative evaluations prior to the stages, giving up bodies and lives and so forth are used as comparisons in such vast numbers, whereas here it mentions only the Mount Sumerus of the three-thousandfold [world], which is actually inferior in comparison? What is the reason? Answer: There are three explanations. One says: It is mentioned in such amount in accordance with the beings to be transformed. Those prior to the stages are difficult to transform; if superior merit were not brought up as a comparative evaluation, it would be difficult for them to generate the mind that aspires to uphold and study it. Those on the stages have superior faculties; hearing little, they awaken immediately and know the sūtra’s merit is superior, thus practicing the gift of Dharma; therefore it is not the same. The second says: The superior and inferior are brought up throughout the text before and after to reveal that the merit of the sūtra cannot be compared to that worldly merit. Thus that verse says: “All worldly dharmas / cannot be taken as an analogy.” The comparative evaluations further below should all be understood accordingly. The third says: Continuing from the prior comparative evaluation that did not divide, the sūtra’s merit is taken as multiple parts; because here the sūtra’s merit is divided, there is also neither superiority nor inferiority with the preceding text.