金剛經疏 1.2.3

1.2.3

These four purities subsume all purities. This is the first question. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the fleshly eye." This is [Subhūti's] reply in accordance with conventional truth. That the Tathāgata possesses the fleshly eye and sees where there is no obstruction—this is seeing with the fleshly eye. What is spoken of here as seeing is not correct seeing; it is because the sixth consciousness generates discrimination. The sixth consciousness is the mind. The Lotus Sūtra says: "To those who should be saved by various kinds of bodies, he immediately manifests various kinds of bodies and preaches the Dharma for them." Below this is the second question: whether the Tathāgata possesses the divine eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the divine eye or not?'" There are two aspects, detailed in the commentary. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the divine eye.'" This is the second reply. The fourth dhyāna refers to the Five Pure Abodes. The divine eye also takes the lump of flesh as its physical basis; emitting light, it sees forms. The Lotus Sūtra says that if one can uphold, read, and recite it, one will see forms beyond obstructions; this is called seeing in the present world. From here is the third question: whether he possesses the wisdom eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the wisdom eye or not?'" This is the third inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the wisdom eye.'" This is the third reply. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra says: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each attain understanding according to their kind." Observing and deciding is called wisdom (hui). It is likened to the great mirror-like wisdom (ādarśajñāna): all the various [things] are seen. From here below is the fourth question: whether he possesses the Dharma eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the Dharma eye or not?'" This is the fourth inquiry out of reverence. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the Dharma eye.'" This is the fourth reply. "Eye" has the meaning of a gushing spring; it confirms and delivers all, hence it is called a gushing spring. The spring water does not discriminate; all sentient beings discriminate the spring water by themselves. It is likened to seawater in a tray, placed in a tray; seawater in a bowl, placed in a bowl. The seawater is uniformly of one kind, but the vessels have differences and are not the same; the water is uniformly of one kind. From here below is the fifth question: whether he possesses the Buddha eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the Buddha eye or not?'" This is the fifth question. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the Buddha eye.'" This is the fifth reply. The preceding passages all contain refutations and establishments; why does this passage not refute? Because this passage is the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), it does not refute. From here below, the explanation of the purity of wisdom has three parts. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? As to all the sands in the Gaṅgā, does the Buddha speak of them as sand?'" From here below, Subhūti replies. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata speaks of them as sand.'" […] This is the third question: how much sand is in the Gaṅgā? To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? If there were as many Gaṅgā rivers as the sands in the Gaṅgā, and there were as many Buddha-worlds as the sands in all those Gaṅgā rivers, would they indeed be many?'" […] From here is the fourth reply. Look at the quotation: "'Extremely many, Bhagavat.'" […] Here Subhūti asks, and Śākyamuni replies. Look at the quotation: "The Buddha told Subhūti: 'All the sentient beings in that many lands have diverse minds'"—because their varieties are difficult to calculate, they are called "diverse". From here below reveals the ability to know. To quote: "'The Tathāgata fully knows them.'" This reveals the ability to know. Below this are two interrogations and two explanations. What kind of mental conceptions do they produce? "Why is this?" is the first interrogation. From here below, Śākyamuni distinguishes and explains, knowing whether sentient beings' minds exist or not. To quote: "'The minds spoken of by the Tathāgata are all not minds; therefore they are called minds.'" Grasping with minds of greed, anger, and wrong views, those who commit sins and those who arouse [them]—not excluding those without faith, but setting them aside because of erroneous characteristics and upside-down views. "Why is that?" is the second interrogation. For the second explanation, look at the quotation: "'Subhūti, the past mind cannot be apprehended, the present mind cannot be apprehended, and the future mind cannot be apprehended.'" Among the three minds, which mind commits sins? The past mind has already passed, the future mind has not yet arrived, and the present mind does not abide; why must one cling to each and every false arising? The third part, praising [those who] eradicate defilement and produce the characteristics of faith, has three sections. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? If someone filled the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ with the seven treasures and used them in giving, would this person on this basis gain many blessings?'" From here, Subhūti relates his reply. Look at the quotation: "'Even so, Bhagavat. This person, by this reason, would obtain extremely many blessings.'" This is the second [part], relating the reply. In what way are they many? To quote: "'Subhūti, if blessings had real existence, the Tathāgata would not say that one obtains many blessings. Because blessings do not exist, the Tathāgata says that one obtains many blessings.'" This explains and establishes it. When the three things are not empty: seeing the petitioner, seeing the wealth, and seeing one's own giving—this is the three things not being empty. When their substance is empty: not seeing the petitioner, not seeing the wealth, and not seeing one's own giving—this is the three things being empty in substance. From here, on the eye and wisdom, there are two questions and answers. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the complete physical body?'" It is an inquiry out of reverence. For the reply, look at the quotation: "'No, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the complete physical body.'" The physical body is not the Tathāgata. "Why is this?" is to clarify the meaning. From here, clarify it. Look. To quote: "'The Tathāgata's complete physical body is not a complete physical body; therefore it is called a complete physical body'"—because the body is incomplete, causing the body to be deficient. The second: whether the Tathāgata can [be seen] by the various marks or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of the completeness of all marks?'" This is the second question. The Tathāgata cannot be seen by the various marks: "'No, Bhagavat.'"