金剛經疏 1.2.1

1.2.1

Next below, there should be an explanation of proceeding to the ultimate ground, unsupported prajñā, and the Tathāgata's merit. In this section, first Subhūti briefly inquires, and next the Tathāgata explains at length. Within this, there are two [parts]. First, citing the opening text:

Citing: "At that time Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Bhagavat, when a kulaputra or kuladhitā sets their mind on anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, how should they abide, and how should they subdue their mind?'" This is the initial brief inquiry. "Kulaputra" refers to a person who makes the cittotpāda. Setting the mind on anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi means generating the great mind. This serves as the basis. There are four kinds of cittotpāda: first, generating the mind of faith; second, generating the mind of understanding; third, generating the mind of practice; fourth, generating the mind of realization. The preceding three kinds of cittotpāda have been explained in the previous text; from this point on, one enters into realization. Śākyamuni replies:

Citing: "The Buddha told Subhūti: 'A kulaputra or kuladhitā who has set their mind on anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi should give rise to a mind such as this: "I must bring all sentient beings to parinirvāṇa."'" Because sentient beings cannot bring themselves to parinirvāṇa, the bodhisattva must undertake the parinirvāṇa of sentient beings. This is the great matter of the Buddha; therefore, a bodhisattva should abide in this mind. The Tathāgata explains at length: what kind of deliverance is made, and how are they delivered?

Citing: "'Yet when all sentient beings have thus been brought to parinirvāṇa, there is not a single sentient being who has truly been brought to parinirvāṇa.'" This answers subduing the mind. Within this, there are three [aspects]: first, practicing the bodhisattva practice, subduing the ātmasaṃjñā, because the mind enters into selflessness; second, in the Tathāgata ground, subduing the dharmasaṃjñā, because the mind enters into the emptiness of dharmas; third, in the ground of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, subduing abiding [in them], because the mind attains non-abiding. One realizes the emptiness of self, because the Tathāgata does not perish.

"Why is this?" raises a question. In this questioning, the text's meaning is concealed because the sense has not yet been grasped. On the basis of what matter are they not entitled to be called sentient beings?

Citing: "'If a bodhisattva has an ātmasaṃjñā, a pudgalasaṃjñā, a sattvasaṃjñā, or a jīvasaṃjñā, they are not a bodhisattva.'" This means that those who can be brought to parinirvāṇa are not real sentient beings.

"Why is this?" Because they have not yet realized the real and do not comprehend the conventional. From here on, the meaning of realization is shown.

Citing: "'Subhūti, in truth there is no dharma by which one sets their mind on anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.'" Because not a single sentient being is truly brought to parinirvāṇa. An aggregation of the eighteen dhātus is called a sentient being; within the eighteen dhātus, there is no fixed master, so one cannot say that there is a sentient being. The dharmas of the eighteen dhātus do not function singly on their own, so one cannot say that there is a real dharma that sets the mind. Stating that there are sentient beings and cittotpāda is all an expedient means, stated in accordance with convention. The various passages above differ; subduing the ātmasaṃjñā and the mind entering into the wisdom of the emptiness of self are concluded.

From here below, subduing the dharmasaṃjñā [is discussed], within which there are three passages of sūtra text. First, citing the initial text:

Citing: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Did the Tathāgata have any dharma attained in anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi in the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha or not?'" This is to show that the realization of knowledge by sages and worthies is identical. "Having any dharma attained or not" means that there is no real dharma. Is there a dharma attained, or is there no dharma attained? "No, Bhagavat." Subhūti makes this reply in order to establish the meaning of buddhahood; hence he says, "No." From here, Subhūti explains his reply, see:

Citing: "'As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said, the Buddha had no dharma attained in anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi in the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha.'" As for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi: the nature of all dharmas is unsupported; when abiding itself cannot be attained, how could it attain anything else? Furthermore, at the time of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, Śākyamuni did not yet exist; since there was no that which is attained, that which attains was also absent. When it was Śākyamuni's time, Dīpaṃkara had already passed away; that which attains was already absent, so how could that which is attained exist? It does not mean that dharmas are entirely nonexistent, but merely that there is no that which attains and that which is attained. From here, Śākyamuni briefly confirms:

Citing: "The Buddha said: 'So it is, so it is, Subhūti. In truth there is no dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.'" "In truth there is no dharma by which the Tathāgata attained bodhi" confirms what he said, because the words accord with the meaning. From here below, it discriminates, see:

Citing: "'Subhūti, if there were a dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, Dīpaṃkara Buddha would not have bestowed upon me the vyākaraṇa: "In a future age you will become a buddha named Śākyamuni."'" This is the discrimination. First the contrapositive, then the direct: this is the contrapositive. If there were a dharma by which bodhi was attained, then he should have bestowed the vyākaraṇa on that dharma; he ought not to have bestowed the vyākaraṇa upon me. "I" refers to the worldly conventional person, whose nature is ultimately unified; thus the vyākaraṇa could be bestowed upon him. Dharmas refer to grasping and retaining, not abiding from moment to moment; having no recipient of vyākaraṇa, it is called bestowing vyākaraṇa. "Śākya" is the clan name; "Śāk" means "capable," because his ancestors of old were capable of being kings, and also to clarify that in the present he is capable of transforming sentient beings, skillfully curing manifold illnesses, and bringing about their benefit. "Muni" means "the fullness of stillness," because body, speech, and mind are full of great quiescence. Śākyamuni Buddha is a transliteration of a Western sound; in Chinese it means "the capable, fully stilled, awakened one." Śākya means a capable person; because of practicing various givings, he is called a capable person. As for those in the present, because they cannot act as capable persons in giving, they are called incapable persons. From here, the direct explanation follows, see:

Citing: "'Because in truth there is no dharma by which anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi is attained, Dīpaṃkara Buddha bestowed upon me the vyākaraṇa, speaking these words: "In a future age you will become a buddha named Śākyamuni."'" This is the direct discrimination. Within the eighteen dhātus, there is none that attains the vyākaraṇa; therefore Dīpaṃkara did not grant vyākaraṇa to dharmas. Because the Buddha's words have nothing that does not accord with the [conventional] self, Dīpaṃkara bestowed the vyākaraṇa upon me, knowing that the conventional person exists and is without annihilation, and that whatever is said is completely true to reality. "You in a future age": because of impermanence, although there is destruction moment to moment, there is no loss of continuity. "Will become a buddha": because at the time of receiving the vyākaraṇa, he had not yet become one; the capacities of those to be transformed would attain the path of awakening, to be fulfilled later. "Named Śākyamuni": because the Buddha eye sees clearly without error. One must light one's own lamp, and then one will attain buddhahood; relying on another's lighting of the lamp is not possible—one must illuminate oneself. "Why is this?" raises a question.