御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.147

2.147

According to the intent of that explanation, the upper two lines clarify the four kinds of superiority; the lower two lines state that because of these four superiorities, it cannot be illustrated by analogy. First is superiority in number: as the sūtra says, “does not equal one hundredth part,” up to “calculation and analogy cannot reach.” Because the number is without limit, it gathers and includes other numbers, as should be known. Exposition: Because undefiled merit is an inexhaustible dharma, its number is also limitless. Because the treatise treats “analogy” and the like as identical in text with numbers, it cites them together; in truth, analogy is not subsumed under superiority in number. This refers to numbers such as hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, and kotis being unable to reach it; this is superiority in number. Second is superiority in power: as the sūtra says, “it does not equal one kalā part.” [Bodhi]ruci explains: The Sanskrit sound kalā is like splitting a hair into a hundred parts; one part is one kalā. Here I translate it as superiority in power. The new treatise calls it superiority in potency (sthāma); potency means power. Because undefiled goodness severs delusions and realizes principle, it cannot be matched by the power of defiled goodness; therefore it is called superiority in power. Third is superiority in incomparability: the treatise points to the sūtra’s “calculation cannot reach,” because this merit cannot be counted. Exposition: According to this, the character for “number/count” (shu) should be read in the falling tone (shù/shǔ). Thus the new treatise says: “Due to differences in kind, it says this class of merit originally cannot be compared or counted; just as noble and base persons are not compared or counted together.” The Liang translation of the sūtra calls it “class” (pǐnlèi); here saying “incomparable” means superiority in class. Fourth is superiority in cause: the treatise says, “Cause and fruit are dissimilar, because this cause and fruit surpass that cause and fruit.” As the sūtra says, “even up to not equaling one upaniṣad part.” The Sanskrit says upaniṣad, translated by meaning as cause. Mentioning the cause gathers the fruit. The cause of giving can bring about retribution in the three realms; cause and fruit are both inferior. The sūtra's merit is supramundane, and cause and fruit are both superior; therefore it is called superiority in cause. The treatise says: “Cause and fruit are dissimilar, because this cause and fruit surpass that cause and fruit.” Question: Regarding power, class, and cause—these three kinds of superiority—why does the sūtra in each case say “does not equal one”? Answer: It means taking the initial numbers like hundred and thousand to count those powers, classes, and causes into multiple parts, and the power and the like of the merit of giving does not equal a single part of the power and the like of upholding the sūtra. The treatise’s explanation of analogy is easily known from the text. The Liang translation of the sūtra says: “Exhausting calculation, and even power, class, and corresponding analogy cannot reach it.” Saying “corresponding” refers to cause and fruit.