金剛般若經挾註 1.1.2

1.1.2

[does he who] realizes the non-characteristic emptiness of a person and self, at the time of realizing the fruit, have such a thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? A sakṛdāgāmin is named 'once-returning', yet in reality there is no returning; this is called a sakṛdāgāmin." (Having exhausted the destinies of devas and humans, he obtains a single returning life. Here 'returning' clarifies the fruit attained. He does not grasp at the characteristic of the fruit; hence there is truly no returning. If he saw the fruit of once-returning, that would give rise to egoistic conceit, and he would not be a sakṛdāgāmin.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Can an anāgāmin form this thought: 'I have attained the fruit of an anāgāmin'?" (Having entirely cut off mental afflictions of the desire realm, he does not return again. At the time of realizing the fruit, does he have this thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? An anāgāmin is named 'non-returning', yet in reality there is no non-returning; therefore he is called an anāgāmin." (Realizing the absence of person and self, he does not return again; thus he is called 'non-returning'. Both person and dharmas are empty, without characteristics of grasping or abiding; therefore in reality there is no coming. This is the anāgāmin, which possesses this meaning.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Can an arhat form this thought: 'I have attained the path of an arhat'?" (Practicing wisdom, he cuts off afflictions. At the time of realizing the fruit, does he have this thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? In reality there is no dharma named an arhat." (Because he cuts off afflictions, he is named an arhat. The nature of afflictions is empty; in cutting them off there is nothing to be cut off. Realizing there is nothing to be cut off, how could there further be a distinct arhat?) "Bhagavat, if an arhat were to form this thought, 'I have attained the path of an arhat', that would be clinging to a self, a person, a sentient being, and a soul." (If he grasps at the characteristic of the fruit, he presumes there is a self. Not forgetting characteristics with regard to the self, all grasping at characteristics incurs retribution; all afflictions arise. Grasping at characteristics and undergoing rebirth, how could he be named an arhat?) "Bhagavat, the Buddha has declared that among humans I have attained araṇā-samādhi and am foremost, that I am the foremost arhat free from desire." (Subhūti delights in forest practice, has attained the concentration of samādhi, and has deeply entered contemplation without conflict or dispute. Among all humans, he is the most transcendent; thus he is called foremost. The afflictions of the three realms, which bind through attachment chasing after sense objects, are called desire. Having completely abandoned these, he is likewise called foremost.) "I do not form this thought: 'I am an arhat free from desire.'" (At that time I never gave rise to the thought, saying: 'There is desire to be abandoned; there is a fruit to be attained.') "Bhagavat, if I were to form this thought, 'I have attained the path of an arhat', the Bhagavat would not say that Subhūti is a forest-dweller." (If I gave rise to the thought, reckoning an attainment of the fruit and achieving the path free from desire, that would become clinging to a self and would conflict with non-disputing practice. Then the Bhagavat would not have said that I am a forest-dweller.) "Because Subhūti in reality has no practice, he is named 'Subhūti who is a forest-dweller'." (Being without practice in the midst of practice is to comprehend the characteristic of emptiness.) The Buddha addressed Subhūti, "What do you think? When the Tathāgata was formerly with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, did he attain anything with regard to the Dharma?" (About to clarify that bodhisattvas likewise awaken to emptiness, he therefore turns to ask: 'Formerly when I was a bodhisattva, at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, I received the vyākaraṇa of bodhi; at that time, did I see that there was a dharma of bodhi to be attained?') "[No,] Bhagavat. When the Tathāgata was formerly with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, with regard to the Dharma he in reality attained nothing." (Awakening to the empty nature of dharmas, he attained anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti and diligently practiced prajñā; the supreme fruit is called bodhi. Deeply entering correct contemplation, all Buddhas confer vyākaraṇa based on this.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Does a bodhisattva adorn Buddha-fields?" (When a bodhisattva cultivates the practices of a pure land, does he see that there is a pure land to be adorned?) "No, Bhagavat. Why is this? The adornment of Buddha-fields is no adornment; this is called adornment." (The myriad practices are impermanent, ultimately empty and quiescent. There is also cultivation, which is conventionally designated 'adornment'. Lands are originally empty, without characteristics of adornment. Being able to understand signlessness is precisely adornment through this; therefore it is called adornment.) "Therefore, Subhūti, a bodhisattva mahāsattva should thus give rise to a pure mind: they should not give rise to a mind abiding in rūpa; they should not give rise to a mind abiding in śabda, gandha, rasa, spraṣṭavya, or dharmas." (Therefore, cultivators do not grasp at the characteristics of adornment. They should thus give rise to an ultimately empty and quiescent mind. Because this mind is pure, it does not abide in rūpa or in śabda, gandha, and the rest. If with respect to these dharmas one gives rise to a mind, then it is not a fruit realized by a pure mind; because it is not the ultimate fruit, one should not do so.) "They should give rise to their mind without abiding anywhere." (Knowing that the characteristics of rūpa are empty, the mind abides nowhere; therefore, in non-abiding they give rise to a pure mind. Although having the provisional name of 'giving rise to a mind', there is no characteristic of an abiding mind. The correct contemplation of non-abiding, with its illumination of wisdom clear and serene—this is precisely abiding in prajñā through non-abiding dharmas.) "Subhūti, suppose there were a person whose body was like Mount Sumeru, king [of mountains]. What do you think? Would that body be large?" (The characteristics of the body are empty. Even if like Mount Sumeru, though having the name 'large', none have real substance. One should not give rise to a mind that grasps at characteristics, taking it to be a large body. To refute the previous mind that grasped at rūpa, he therefore raises the question of a large body.) Subhūti said, "Extremely large, Bhagavat. Why is this? The Buddha has explained that it is not a body; this is called a large body." (Observing Mount Tai, wood and stone share the same mound, combining numerous materials, provisionally named 'large'. Originally lacking intrinsic nature, how could it be definitively large? Therefore the Buddha said it is not a body; this is called a large body. One should not give rise to a mind to grasp at bodily characteristics, just as rūpa, śabda, and the rest cannot be grasped.) "Subhūti, as many grains of sand as there are in the Gaṅgā River, if there were as many Gaṅgā Rivers as these grains of sand, what do you think? Would the sand in all those Gaṅgā Rivers be numerous?" (Using the sand of one Gaṅgā River to count rivers, the sand in those rivers is also like that. Would such a number be great?) Subhūti said, "Extremely numerous, Bhagavat. Those Gaṅgā Rivers alone would be innumerably many, how much more so their sand!" (If the rivers numbered by the sand are already innumerable, how much more so their sand!)