御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.17

2.17

Sūtra: Subhūti, a bodhisattva [...] should give like this. / Commentary: Second, countering and eliminating the causes and conditions of the suffering of contradiction by sentient beings. Although one has generated the mind and does not dwell in saṃsāra, when contradicted by sentient beings, one becomes weary, unable to rescue them, and gives rise to regression. Therefore, this is to eliminate that. Question: According to this, one should say 'the antidote to the causes and conditions of the suffering of saṃsāra,' or 'the antidote to the causes and conditions of non-endurance of the suffering of saṃsāra'; why does the treatise say 'the antidote to the causes and conditions of enduring the suffering of saṃsāra,' and even 'the antidote to the causes and conditions of enduring the suffering of the lack of requisites for enjoyment,' given that patience is not what is countered? Furthermore, the treatise's second part says: 'Revealing the patience countering the suffering of contradiction by sentient beings,' which seems to treat patience as what is countered; what is its meaning? Answer: The treatise speaks generally: this is to counter the causes and conditions of non-endurance, not that patience is what is countered. Rather, in a general formulation, it means countering within the causes and conditions of this patience; that is, because one cannot endure in the face of these various causes and conditions of patience, one counters and eliminates [that inability]. The text is divided into two: first, directly countering and eliminating to bring about faith and acceptance; second, removing attachment. The first further has two parts: first, a general statement of countering and eliminating; second, a specific explanation of the reasons. This is the first. The treatise states: 'Since one practices renunciation for the sake of all sentient beings, how could anger arise toward them?' Renunciation is giving. A bodhisattva's generating the mind, practicing giving, and so forth are originally for the sake of sentient beings; since they are for their benefit and joy, one should thus not dwell on the conception of the suffering of contradiction by sentient beings, but practice giving without giving rise to anger. That treatise raises a doubt: 'How can one cultivate practice for the benefit of sentient beings without it being called dwelling in the affairs of sentient beings?' The meaning of the doubt is: if one cultivates practice to benefit sentient beings, one should dwell on the conception of sentient beings; how can one not dwell? The verse says: