金剛般若經疏 1.4

1.4

三云。此有種姓及無種姓。乃是如來教密境界散在諸經。佛不定說。如何前釋欲定是非。此十力中種種界力之所知故。唯佛與佛為能知之證一一。涅槃第十七云。三乘之諸說。言一乘之法隨宜說三。乃至如來明見眾生根故。終無虛妄斷罪過故。雖無虛妄。若知眾生因虛妄說得法利者。隨宜方便則為說之。是則諸佛甚深境界非二乘知。准此經文豈可下凡謬為商略。又彼三十四云。善男子。如來世尊為眾生故。廣中說略。略中說廣乃至云。是故隨人隨意隨時故。名如來知諸根力。善男子。我若當於如是等義作定說者。則不得稱我為如來且知根力。三十五云。善男子。如來是諍訟是佛境界。非諸聲聞緣覺所知。若人於是生疑心者。猶能摧壞。無量煩惱須彌山。若於是中生決定者。是名執著。乃至善男子。如是執著不名為善。何如故。不能摧壞諸疑網故。伽葉復言。世尊如是人者本自不疑。云何說言不壞疑網。善男子。其疑者即是疑也。三十六云。善男子。我雖說言一切眾生悉有佛姓。眾生不解佛如來等隨自意語。善男子。如是語者。後身菩薩尚不能解。況於二乘其餘菩薩。又後文云。若有說言一切眾生定佛性定無佛性。是人皆名謗佛法僧。准此等又推功歸佛謹述而已。故於諸釋。隨所愛樂任情取捨。以有教理各齊均故。不應於中起朋執心。強生偏見。謂契佛言無有是處。然應是具敘諸家教理。欲令學者知所在故。問。理有一長不應俱是。開釋教藏須定指歸。今但和光作不定說將令後學何所承稟。答。義有可定不可定者。不決定義理過多解是其一向要令定釋。佛尚不定誰敢定乎。問。祕密難知。誠如所過。此土眾生樂聞佛性。何故如來不作定說。答。誰言一向樂聞說有。然諸佛眾生自有二類。一聞佛性欣樂有憑勇猛進趣。若聞無性無所因說恩迢等心。二者若聞一分無性恐墮此緣加功德進習。若聞皆有情此佛性却生怠墮。由對機異教不定。明但應精勤堅集行願面奉金顏當自知矣。

The third [view] states: This having of lineage and lacking of lineage is the secret realm of the Tathāgata's teaching, dispersed among the various sūtras, and the Buddha does not speak of it determinately. How can the previous commentators desire to determinately judge right and wrong? Because this is known by the power of knowing the various dispositions among the ten powers, only a buddha together with a buddha can know and verify each one. Fascicle seventeen of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Regarding the various explanations of the three vehicles: the Dharma of the one vehicle is expounded as three according to suitability,' down to: 'Because the Tathāgata clearly sees the capacities of sentient beings, he is ultimately free from falsity and severs faults and errors. Although free from falsity, if he knows that sentient beings will gain the benefit of the Dharma through false words, he expounds them in accordance with expediency.' These, then, are the profound realms of the buddhas, not known by the two vehicles. Relying on this scriptural passage, how can ordinary mortals mistakenly deliberate on it? Furthermore, fascicle thirty-four of that [sūtra] says: 'Good sons, the Tathāgata, the World-Honoured One, for the sake of sentient beings, expounds the brief within the extensive, and expounds the extensive within the brief,' down to: 'Therefore, [speaking] according to the person, according to the intent, and according to the time is called the Tathāgata's power of knowing the various faculties. Good sons, if I were to give a determinate explanation regarding such meanings, I could not be called a Tathāgata who possesses the power of knowing the faculties.' Fascicle thirty-five says: 'Good sons, this dispute of the Tathāgata is the realm of the buddhas, not what is known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. If someone gives rise to doubt about this, they can still destroy the Mount Sumeru of immeasurable afflictions; if someone gives rise to determination regarding it, this is called clinging,' down to: 'Good sons, such clinging is not called good. Why? Because it cannot destroy the net of doubts.' Kāśyapa said again: 'World-Honoured One, such a person fundamentally does not doubt; why say that they do not destroy the net of doubts?' 'Good sons, their doubt itself is doubt.' Fascicle thirty-six says: 'Good sons, although I say that all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature, sentient beings do not understand the words spoken in accordance with the Buddha's own intent by the buddhas, tathāgatas, and so forth. Good sons, such words cannot even be understood by bodhisattvas in their final rebirth, let alone by the two vehicles and the remaining bodhisattvas.' Furthermore, a later passage says: 'If someone says that all sentient beings definitely have the buddha-nature or definitely lack the buddha-nature, such persons are all called defamers of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha.' In accordance with these texts, we attribute the merit to the Buddha and merely record them with reverence. Therefore, regarding the various commentaries, one may accept or reject according to one's inclination, for their teachings and reasons are equally balanced; one should not give rise to partisan clinging among them and forcibly produce biased views, claiming to accord with the Buddha's word—there is no truth in that. However, one should fully recount the teachings and reasonings of the various schools, wishing to let scholars know their positions. Question: The principle has only one superiority; both should not be correct. In unravelling and explaining the treasury of teachings, one must determine where they lead. Now, merely moderating the light and making an indeterminate explanation, what will this cause later students to rely upon? Answer: Regarding meanings, there are those that can be determined and those that cannot be determined; when an indeterminate meaning has an excess of reasonings, to demand that it be determinately explained in an exclusive manner—when even the Buddha did not determine it, who would dare determine it? Question: It is secret and difficult to know, truly as you have said. Sentient beings in this land delight in hearing of the buddha-nature; why did the Tathāgata not make a determinate explanation? Answer: Who says they exclusively delight in hearing that it exists? Yet the buddhas' sentient beings naturally have two kinds: First, hearing of the buddha-nature, they rejoice that they have a basis and advance vigorously; if they were to hear that there is no lineage, having nothing to rely on, they would give up the mind of gratitude and distance. Second, if they hear that a portion lacks the lineage, fearing that they might fall into this condition, they add exertion to cultivate and practice; if they hear that all possess this buddha-nature, they instead produce indolence. Due to differences in corresponding faculties, the teachings are indeterminate. Clearly, one need only strive diligently, firmly gather practices and vows, and behold the golden countenance face-to-face—then one will naturally know it.