金剛般若經旨贊 1.7

1.7

次下第五解經文者。於中有二。先釋題目。後釋經文。釋題有五。一解金剛。二明般若。三明波羅。四顯蜜多。五辨經字。言金剛者。有總別釋。總言金剛。顯能斷義。然斷二障。要具理智。謂若無理。智必不生。因理生智。方能斷惑。是故論言。二義相應。恐謂。能斷唯屬於智。故言二義。顯兼於理。如彼邪正二行雖殊。既俱名見故。此理智性相雖異。皆如金剛。既許所宗通於實相。不應金剛唯喻觀照。故通理智。稍近論宗。所言別者。有其三義。一者細牢。二者能斷。三者相似。如次即喻實相觀照文字般若。言細牢者。所喻實相。而為智因。不可壞故　謂此實相。其體真實。因證能生真實正智。故說實相。名為智因。非有為相之所間雜。如彼金剛非沙石等所相雜故。名之為細。又非二障所能損壞。如彼金剛其體堅硬。非物所壞。故名為牢。論以細牢義殊故各別釋。今以所喻體同故合為一。是則深契論之本意。言能斷者。謂即般若波羅蜜中。聞思修慧所斷之障。乃如金剛斷處而斷。即此觀照聞等三惠所斷之障。如彼玉石即是金剛之所斷處。而為觀照智所斷故。故說觀照。名為能斷。言相似者。謂即如彼盡金剛像。若金剛杵。兩頭則闊在中即狹。有堅勝用。若金剛神。膊𭨻即闊。在腰乃狹。有動作義。文字般若。亦復如是。前後即闊。在中乃狹。前後闊者。信行佛地中間。狹者謂淨心地。是勝所依進趣處故。此顯示不共義也。謂前二義。名金剛者。即餘般若。皆得此名。實相觀照。通諸部故。若依後義。唯在此經。文字闊狹。非餘經故。不同餘經。名不共義。是故此經。獨名金剛。言般若者。即是梵音。華言譯云無分別慧。此有二種。謂生法空。皆通加行根本後得。隨其所應。有漏無漏。然慧與智。而有通別。通謂智慧。其體無別。皆別境中慧數攝故。故說第六。名智慧度。別謂智慧。其用不一。擇法決斷。用各異故。故說十度。智與慧別。前以相從。通三五種。今據剋性飜為智慧。以能斷伏二重障故。故以金剛而為喻也。問。題稱般若。既曰所宗。何故行中。乃舉其施。答。約前引後。即檀度收。以後淨前。即智度攝五。舉其一理實皆齊。若爾應名金剛布施。答。施為萬行之初。麁而易習。智為百法之極。勝而難成。題令企敬。標般若之勝名。行引初機。舉檀那之首號。故題與行所舉有殊。皆喻金剛。無理乖返。言波羅者。此云彼岸。即是佛果菩提涅槃。由對此岸。得彼名故。即已起苦集為此岸。當起苦集名中流。六度妙行為舟船。佛菩薩等。是能度。修行人是所度者。既超生死得至菩提。故說佛果。名為彼岸。言蜜多者。離義到義。要由修習最勝施等。離出生死此岸中流。達至菩提涅槃彼岸。故說施等為離到焉。今此所說。無住六度。故深密云。施等一無染著故。無顧戀故。無罪過故。無分別故。正迴向故。由斯方得到彼岸名。所言經者。梵云素怛攬。乃目四義。謂衣綖席經。今取綖義。及取經義。如綖穿花。風不能散。以教貫義。邪不能除。如經持緯。方織物成。以教攝生。令得聖果故。以教法目乎經。若真實論。說有五義。一曰涌泉。二稱繩墨。三名結鬘。四謂出生。五號顯示。若准此方。經者常也法也逕也。古今不易故。揩定正邪故。津通物理故。佛教同之。亦無有失。總云。今此所筌。如金剛智慧。能斷二障。達到彼岸。以其教法貫穿攝持。是其凡聖常行之道。故云金剛般若波羅蜜經。

Next below, fifth, explaining the text of the sūtra: herein there are two parts. First, explaining the title; next, explaining the text of the sūtra. Explaining the title has five parts: first, explaining 'vajra'; second, clarifying 'prajñā'; third, clarifying 'pāra'; fourth, revealing 'mitā'; fifth, analyzing the word 'sūtra'. Regarding 'vajra': there are general and specific explanations. Generally speaking, 'vajra' reveals the meaning of being able to sever. Yet in severing the two hindrances, it is necessary to possess both principle and wisdom. That is, if there were no principle, wisdom would definitely not arise; when wisdom arises relying on principle, only then can it sever afflictions. Therefore the treatise says: 'The two meanings correspond.' Fearing that some would think the ability to sever belongs solely to wisdom, it says 'two meanings' to reveal that it also encompasses principle. Just as those two practices, heterodox and orthodox, although different, are both called 'views'; so too here, although the nature and characteristics of principle and wisdom are different, both are like the vajra. Since it is admitted that the central tenets extend to the true mark, it would be inappropriate for the vajra to be an analogy solely for contemplative [prajñā]; therefore, extending it to both principle and wisdom is closer to the treatise's doctrine. As for the specific, there are three meanings: first, subtle and firm; second, able to sever; third, similarity. As ordered, these are analogies respectively for true-mark, contemplative, and literary prajñā. 'Subtle and firm': that which is analogized is the true mark, which serves as the cause of wisdom and cannot be destroyed. That is, this true mark is real in substance; through realization, it can generate real, correct wisdom, and therefore the true mark is called the cause of wisdom. It is not admixed with conditioned characteristics, just as the vajra is not admixed with sand and pebbles; therefore it is called 'subtle'. Furthermore, it cannot be impaired or destroyed by the two hindrances, just as the vajra is hard in substance and cannot be destroyed by other things; therefore it is called 'firm'. Because the meanings of subtle and firm are distinct, the treatise explains them separately; now, because the substance of that which is analogized is identical, they are combined into one; this deeply accords with the treatise's original intent. 'Able to sever': this refers to the hindrances severed by the wisdoms of listening, reflection, and cultivation within prajñāpāramitā, which are severed just as the place cut by a vajra is severed. These hindrances severed by contemplative [prajñā] and the three wisdoms of listening and so forth are like jade and stone, which are precisely the places cut by a vajra; because they are severed by the wisdom of contemplation, contemplative [prajñā] is called 'able to sever'. 'Similarity': this refers to being just like the image of a vajra. If it is a vajra-pestle, the two ends are broad while the middle is narrow, possessing a firm and superior function; if it is a vajra-deity, the shoulders and arms are broad while the waist is narrow, possessing the meaning of movement. Literary prajñā is also like this: the front and back are broad, while the middle is narrow. Being broad at the front and back refers to the stages of faithful practice and buddhahood; being narrow in the middle refers to the stage of the pure mind, because it is the superior support and the place of advancement. This reveals the uncommon meaning: under the first two meanings, what is called 'vajra' applies to other prajñās as well, for the true mark and contemplation extend to all sections. If relying on the latter meaning, it is found only in this sūtra, for the breadth and narrowness of the text does not belong to other sūtras; being unlike other sūtras, it is called the uncommon meaning. Therefore this sūtra alone is named 'Vajra'. Regarding 'prajñā': this is a Sanskrit sound, translated into the language of the Hua as non-conceptual wisdom. This has two kinds: emptiness of persons and of dharmas. Both extend to the preparatory, fundamental, and subsequently attained [wisdoms], and correspond to the contaminated or uncontaminated as appropriate. However, between *hui* (prajñā/wisdom) and *zhi* (jñāna/knowledge), there are general and specific aspects: generally, *zhi* and *hui* are not different in substance, for both are subsumed under the mental factor of *prajñā* within the object-determining factors; therefore the sixth is called the perfection of *prajñā-wisdom*. Specifically, *zhi* and *hui* are not uniform in function, for discerning dharmas and making definitive determinations differ in function; therefore the ten perfections differentiate *zhi* and *hui*. Earlier, by mutual association, it was open to three or five kinds; now, according to its exact nature, it is translated as *prajñā-wisdom*, because it can sever and subdue the two heavy hindrances; therefore the vajra is used as an analogy. Question: The title mentions prajñā, which is said to be the central tenet; why, then, in the practices, does it rather bring forward giving? Answer: In terms of the earlier leading to the later, it is subsumed under the perfection of giving; in terms of the later purifying the earlier, it is subsumed under the perfection of wisdom. When one of the five is raised, in principle they are all equal. If so, should it be named 'Vajra Giving'? Answer: Giving is the beginning of the myriad practices, coarse and easy to practice; wisdom is the culmination of the hundred dharmas, supreme and difficult to achieve. The title causes one to look up with reverence, so it marks the supreme name of prajñā; the practice guides those of initial capacity, so it raises the foremost name of dāna. Therefore the title and the practice differ in what they bring forward; both are analogized to the vajra, with no contradiction in principle. Regarding 'pāra': here it is translated as 'the other shore', which is the fruit of buddhahood: bodhi and nirvāṇa. Because it is contrasted with this shore, it attains that name. That is, suffering and origination already arisen are this shore; suffering and origination about to arise are the middle of the stream; the wonderful practices of the six perfections are the raft; the buddhas, bodhisattvas, and so forth are those who take across; and the practitioners are those taken across. Having transcended saṃsāra and arrived at bodhi, the fruit of buddhahood is called the other shore. Regarding 'mitā': it has the meaning of 'departing' and the meaning of 'arriving'. It requires cultivating supreme giving and so forth to depart from this shore of saṃsāra and the middle of the stream, and arrive at the other shore of bodhi and nirvāṇa; therefore giving and so forth are said to be 'departing and arriving'. What is spoken of here are the non-abiding six perfections; hence the Saṃdhinirmocana says that giving and so forth are without taint, without longing, without fault, without conceptualization, and are correctly dedicated. Through this, they only then attain the name 'gone to the other shore'. Regarding 'sūtra': in Sanskrit it is *sūtra*, which denotes four meanings: cloth, thread, mat, and warp. Here we take the meaning of thread, and also the meaning of warp. Just as a thread strings flowers together so that the wind cannot scatter them, so the teaching strings together the meanings so that heterodoxy cannot destroy them; just as the warp holds the weft so that the fabric is woven, so the teaching gathers sentient beings to let them attain the noble fruit; therefore the teaching of Dharma is designated 'sūtra'. In the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, five meanings are explained: first, a gushing spring; second, a plumb line; third, a garland; fourth, giving birth; fifth, revealing. If according to this land [of China], *jing* means constant, standard, and path: unchanging through past and present, determining the orthodox and heterodox, and serving as a conduit for the principles of things; the Buddhist teaching accords with this, and there is no error. In summary: what is now expressed is like the vajra wisdom, able to sever the two hindrances and reach the other shore; with its doctrine stringing together and gathering [beings], it is the path constantly practiced by ordinary beings and noble ones; hence it is called the *Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*.