金剛般若經旨贊 2.93

2.93

經。須菩提至無空過者　贊曰。上明五種殊勝功德捨靜味。次下重釋五中。第二攝福德聚。於中唯論下三為三。初顯經滅力。次闕福德多。後何人能說。初中復二。初舉餘福德。後校量顯勝。此初也。我曾過去阿僧祇者。謂成佛前。從金剛定七時滿心然燈佛後為一僧祇。非此所論。今取已前二僧祇劫。所修供養餘持經外有所得行。以用校量故。言過去阿僧祇劫。然燈佛前然燈佛後。能無相修福惠。廣大不可校量。一剎那福實勝前故。所言八百四千等者者。此順西方倒陳其福。順此方者即那由他億萬四千八百諸佛。西方數法與此不同。亦餘諸經數各差異。但可總言然燈佛前供諸佛福不如於此不所於中強生下別二祇逢佛非佛爾故。經中隨舉顯校量故。

Sūtra: "Subhūti... [I served and made offerings to them all] without leaving any out." / Commentary: Above, the five kinds of supreme merits abandoning the taste of quiescence were clarified. Next below, the second among the five—gathering the accumulation of merit—is re-explained. Within it, only the lower three are discussed, forming three sections: first, revealing the scripture's power to eradicate [sins]; next, that the omission of merit is vast; and finally, what kind of person can preach it. The first part also has two aspects: first, citing other merits; and second, measuring them to reveal its superiority. This is the first. Regarding "In the past, across asaṃkhyeya [eons]": this refers to before achieving Buddhahood. From the diamond-like samādhi filling the mind through seven periods after Dīpaṃkara Buddha constitutes one asaṃkhyeya, which is not what is discussed here. Now taking the practices of offering accompanied by grasping (upalambha) cultivated outside of holding this scripture during the previous two asaṃkhyeya eons to make a comparison, it therefore says "in past asaṃkhyeya eons." Before Dīpaṃkara Buddha and after Dīpaṃkara Buddha, being able to cultivate merit and wisdom signlessly is vast and immeasurable; indeed, the merit of a single moment surpasses the former. As for saying "eight hundred four thousand," and so forth: this follows the Western manner of stating the merits in reverse order. Following this land, it would be nayutas, koṭis, ten-thousands, four thousand, and eight hundred Buddhas. The Western method of calculation is different from here, and the numbers in other scriptures also vary. One need only state generally that the merit of offering to Buddhas before Dīpaṃkara Buddha is inferior to this; one should not forcibly produce lower distinctions between meeting Buddhas in the two asaṃkhyeyas, for it was merely cited according to the scripture to reveal the comparison.