御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.157

2.157

Sūtra: "Subhūti, as for ordinary beings, the Tathāgata speaks of them as no ordinary beings." / Commentary: This refutes ordinary fools. Because false grasping was differentiated, lest one think that there is a real person who gives rise to grasping, he immediately refutes it. In ultimate truth there is no arising, so what ordinary [being] could there be? In conventional truth they are illusory existences and also not real; therefore they are named "no ordinary beings." This text abbreviates and lacks a concluding phrase; other editions conclude: "they are named ordinary beings." The Wei and Tang editions say: "The Tathāgata speaks of them as non-arising (fei sheng)." The commentary of that treatise explains: "Because they do not give rise to the dharmas of the noble ones, they are called 'non-arising.'" If one relies on that explanation, then "no ordinary beings" means ordinary beings who do not give rise to the noble dharmas. The Liang sūtra and this treatise both say "childish ordinary beings" (bāla-pṛthagjana). The Wei edition says "ordinary beings born of the hair-path." [Bodhi]ruci explains: "The 'hair-path' means that their capacity to receive the Dharma is small like the path of a hair's pore, which signifies foolish and small." This translator was mistaken. In Sanskrit it is *bāla*, which here means foolish. Because the two sounds are close, it was erroneously rendered as "hair" (máo). Correctly it should be *bālapṛthagjana*: *bāla* means foolish, *pṛthag* means different, and *jana* means born; altogether it means "foolish and differentiated beings." Saying "ordinary beings" (fánfū) merely accords with local custom. Question: What is the difference between this "no ordinary beings" and the earlier "sentient beings are not sentient beings"? Answer: The former refers to persons capable of having faith in the sūtra, whereas this refers to those transformed through the benefit of the Dharma. The meaning of refuting grasping is identical.