御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.67

2.67

Explanation of the meaning: When a bodhisattva practices within his own body and gives rise to such a mind: 'I abide in the Mahāyāna,' and so forth, having this conceptualization obstructs the practice of bodhi. It also says: What kind of mind is obstructed? The verse says: Because it goes against the non-abiding path. Near-at-hand, it goes against the stage of summit; far off, it goes against the first bhūmi. The non-abiding path [is obstructed] precisely because at the stage of heat one still retains an ego-mind, giving rise to such conceit that obstructs entry into the noble path; therefore it is now refuted. Hence the commentary specifically points to: "In truth there is no dharma called a bodhisattva generating anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi," and so on. This text directly refutes "I am able to do so," which agrees with this commentary. However, that text briefly lacks a separate doubt-raising text. Namely, there might be a doubt: "Previously it was said that a bodhisattva abides nowhere in practicing giving and so forth. If so, then there should be no abiding in anything; why was it initially said: 'How should one abide, how should one practice, how should one subdue?'" To sever this doubt, the three questions and answers are raised again. For although abiding was mentioned, it did not say "I abide"; this text exists precisely to sever the eleventh doubt concerning practice without abiding. Question: Looking at the questions and answers in the sūtra below, they are identical to the previous text. Since this is so, it should be an exposition in two cycles; why did you say earlier that it is not two cycles? Answer: Although the text seems redundant, the intended remedies have completely different meanings. For instance, according to this commentary, the three questions apply generally to both ordinary and noble stages, and the answers do likewise. The texts both have "no [dharma]"; it is not called redundant because the intentions are different. Furthermore, just as at the stage of the ten practices, one largely performs superior practices, and consequently agitation arises: "I am able to do so"; therefore, about to enter the ten dedications, one first removes that conceit, and for his sake it is said that cultivating the path brings superiority without conceit, causing him to advance and enter; causing him to attain the stage of heat, conceit arises again, so he is caused to eliminate it and advance to enter the summit. From this we know only that the question at the beginning of the sūtra was for someone who had not yet entered the Buddha-Dharma and had prior conceit, thinking "I am able to abide and act thus"; hence the initial question and answer encouraged the generation of a superior mind, first teaching the signless to cause him to set out. Now, about to enter the noble [path], he has attained the superior path, and this conceit arises again; being about to transform from ordinary, since the obstacle is heavy, the question is raised again to cause him to sever it and advance in cultivation. The initial question in that commentary removed conceit regarding those who are delivered, as well as the view that those who are delivered do not have joy equal to one's own and are not constantly saved. The present question removes the mind of "I am able to deliver." Moreover, previously one did not abide in what was abided in, what was cultivated, or what was subdued; now one does not abide in the apprehender of abiding, the apprehender of cultivating, or the apprehender of subduing. Thus, the text seems redundant, but the meaning is completely different. If you maintain that that commentary judges it as two cycles, why does the sūtra text only have an answer to "abiding" and lacks "cultivating" and "subduing"? In the place of the answer, furthermore, according to both commentaries, they only ask why this single passage of the sūtra is spoken again, and answer: "In order to eliminate [conceit such as] 'I am able to abide and cultivate,'" and the two commentaries are similar. If from here to the end of the sūtra were the second cycle, then there should be a general introduction setting forth the purpose of the second cycle; why does it only ask about this single passage? Therefore, the sūtra text is not an exposition in two cycles. The text is divided into two: first the question, later the answer. This is the question. The commentary says: "A bodhisattva about to enter the path of realization sees that he has obtained a superior stage and further thinks: 'I abide thus, I practice thus, I subdue my mind thus, I deliver sentient beings.'" Following this, it should ask: "How is one able to deliver sentient beings?" If opened separately, three are for one's own benefit and one is for benefiting others. If spoken together, the three kinds all encompass both benefits. The sūtra speaks together, while the commentary opens them separately. The meaning of the question here is: Since the bodhisattva's three minds of abiding, cultivating, and subduing are able to be like this, does he form the cultivation of "I am able to abide," and so forth, or does he not form the cultivation of "I am able to abide," and so forth? Because he resides at the stage of heat, the two apprehensions still remain; now, to cause him to eliminate them, this question is raised. That commentary has the same intention.