御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.226

2.226

Sūtra: Subhūti, if someone, filled with, up to: takes them and gives them in charity. Exposition: Next, it clarifies uncorrupted practice and abiding. In this there are also two parts: first, uncorrupted teaching of the Dharma; second, uncorrupted saṃsāric transmigration. This is the first. Previously, when words were complete, one did not grasp verbal expressions; the signified nature and meaning belong with names, clarifying both ultimate and conventional, clarifying that what is grasped does not exist. Now this passage clarifies not grasping the teaching of the Dharma. To grasp the teaching of the Dharma is to have attachment to dharmas, and attachment to dharmas is defilement. This is to cause that apprehending mind not to be defiled by that entity, and also not to seek offerings, faith, respect, and so on. Furthermore, saying 'uncorrupted'—the previously established great beneficial Dharma generally clarified the gift of the Dharma but had not yet clarified being uncorrupted; now this clarifies it, so it is different from before. The text is divided into two: first, weighing and explaining its superiority; second, directly clarifying uncorruptedness. The preceding text also has two parts: first, raising the merit of giving; later, directly weighing it. That treatise is meant to eliminate the twenty-seventh doubt regarding the immeasurable merit of nirmāṇa-teachings. The doubt asks: 'Previously it was said that the nirmāṇakāya has coming and going, so it is not the true Buddha; also, a previous verse stated that it is not a teacher of the Dharma. Since it is so, does upholding and reciting the sūtras spoken by a nirmāṇa Buddha have no merit?' To sever this doubt, this text exists, clarifying that although the nirmāṇa is an apparition, upholding and reciting the sūtras and teachings it speaks is not without endless merit; hence it weighs it again with an analogy. Although the treatise does not recount the origin of the doubt, based on the verse and commentary one should know it is certainly so. Therefore the verse says: