金剛般若經疏 1.6.2

1.6.2

Just as space is spoken of as a metaphor for the Buddha-nature, it is also used as a metaphor for the coarse heaviness of the two obscurations. As in the Nyāyamukha: through reasoning and wisdom, the obscurations are brought up as being difficult to sever. If [one proceeds] from [interpreting] vajra as signifying that wisdom's supreme excellence is extraordinary and beyond any metaphor, who would need to contemplate the hardness of afflictions now in order to generate contemplative practice? If so, the metaphors in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, such as that of the white ram, would not correspond; how should this be resolved? Answer: The intent of the text of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is not to explain this sūtra. Here, that metaphor is merely borrowed to elucidate the vajra: it is what is opposed and obstructed by those two things, and thus serves as a metaphor for the object of remediation; it does not mean that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra uses the vajra as a metaphor for the obscurations. The above explains that 'vajra' applies to both the severer and the severed. Below, the treatise distinguishes them separately: taking it solely in the sense of the severer, there are four meanings. As the treatise cited earlier says: '"Subtle" is because it is the cause of wisdom; "firm" is because it is indestructible.' Because the Sui dynasty observed an imperial naming taboo on the character jian ('firm'), it translated it as xi ('subtle'). But its real meaning is 'firm and dense'. 'The cause of wisdom' refers to the seeds. 'Indestructible' refers to active wisdom: when it arises, delusions are eliminated; because light and darkness cannot coexist, it is indestructible. Alternatively, it is explained: wisdom can realize tathatā, which is of the nature of a revealing cause, hence it is called 'the cause of wisdom.' Because it has no gaps and is unmixed with worldly conduct, it is called 'subtle and dense.' Moreover, because it is subtle and wondrous, and not the coarse object of the two karmas and so forth, it is also called 'subtle and dense.' When it says 'indestructible,' it reveals that the nature of the obscuration to be remediated is firm and difficult to destroy. If one relies on this explanation, the four meanings in the treatise apply to both the severer and the severed. The treatise also says: 'That which can sever is hearing, contemplation, and cultivation within the prajñāpāramitā; that which is severed is severed just as the place where a diamond cuts is severed.' Here, the diamond of wisdom can sever the two obscurations, just as jade and stone are called the 'place of cutting.' That is, it brings up that which is severed to reveal that which severs. For those who interpret the two obscurations themselves as the metaphor of the vajra, this brings up that which severs to reveal that which is severed as being like a vajra; that is, the obscurations severed by hearing, contemplation, and cultivation are severed just like the cutting point of a diamond. However, in accordance with the treatise's intent, it explains the title as 'Vajracchedikā Prajñā' (Diamond-Cutter Prajñā): because it initially states 'the diamond that can sever,' and later concludes 'this is called the diamond that can sever.' In the commentary it is also like this: first it explains 'diamond,' and then it explains 'able to sever.' This follows the Western Regions' word order. If one says 'the diamond-cutter' [nengduan jingang], it follows this [Chinese] word order; neither is contradictory. In general, the teaching of the expresser, the principle and wisdom of the expressed, and the severed obscurations are all compared to a diamond. The treatise explains the fourth meaning, saying: 'Furthermore, it is like the painted shape of a vajra: broad at the beginning and the end, and narrow in the middle. So it is in the prajñāpāramitā: the "narrow" refers to the ground of the pure mind; the "broad at the beginning and end" refers to the ground of practice in faith and the ground of the Tathāgata. This reveals the uncommon meaning.' The expansion states: according to the written prajñā of this sūtra's teaching, it explains extensively at the beginning and end, but is narrow in the middle; differing from other sūtras, this is called the 'uncommon meaning.' Therefore, this sūtra alone is named 'Vajra,' and it also differs from the other sections [of the Prajñāpāramitā]. Thus, first, it is like the painted shape of a Vajra deity: broad across the shoulders and hips, but narrow at the waist; because there is a rank of movement, it uses this metaphor to encourage progress. Second, it is like a painted vajra pestle: broad at both ends and narrow at the waist, being extremely firm and supreme; this is to make one know its profound subtlety. Question: Why explain the practice in faith and the Buddha-ground extensively, but treat the pure mind briefly? Answer: The intent of this sūtra is to cause one to generate the mind, cultivate practice, and not sever the Buddha-lineage. It extensively speaks of the fruit's virtues to encourage joyful aspiration so that one can generate the mind. Because practitioners before the grounds who are newly cultivating might regress, it extensively shows the aspects of practice to cause them to advance. From the first ground onward, because they realize it for themselves and do not regress, there is no need for extensive explanation; therefore, it is broad at the beginning and end, and brief in the middle. Furthermore, from the stage of an ordinary person one inherits the Buddha-lineage, and arriving at the Buddha-fruit, the meaning of non-interruption is accomplished. The intermediate stages can be understood, so why trouble to explain them extensively? Hence the sūtra's text and meaning differ in breadth and narrowness. Although some commentators explain the 'ground of the Tathāgata' as subsuming the ten grounds, this sūtra does not explain the characteristics of the ten grounds, but points back to all the virtues possessed by the Buddha-fruit as the 'ground of the Tathāgata.' Therefore, this explanation is made. This should be understood below. Question: The Suvikrāntavikramiparipṛcchā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: 'In the prajñāpāramitā, there is not a single dharma that can serve as a metaphor.' Why now say that wisdom is compared to a vajra? Answer: That text reveals that the excellence of wisdom surpasses all myriad dharmas, so nothing can compare to it in its entirety. Here, [a metaphor is drawn] based on a minor similarity in meaning and function, hence it is compared to a vajra; for the wise understand through metaphors. The Dharma relies on metaphors to be clarified and verified: by showing what is already seen to verify what has not yet been seen, harmonizing them into one place so that their meanings are equivalent, all correct statements are called metaphors; that is, using the evident part to clarify the unclarified part. 'Prajñā' is the Sanskrit sound; here it is translated as 'wisdom' (zhihui). In total, there are five kinds: the written, which is the teaching of the expresser; the contemplative, which is the essence of wisdom; the real mark, which is the realm of true nature, namely, the two truths of emptiness and existence, the three non-natures, and so forth; the retinue, which is the nature of the associated four aggregates and the companion five aggregates, corresponding to the two kinds of precepts: those concurrent with concentration and those concurrent with the path. However, because this name 'prajñā' is broad, there are five kinds in principle; but in terms of excellence, it takes only the real mark and contemplation, as distinguished in our school. In explaining this 'zhihui' (wisdom), first we treat them separately, then comprehensively. As for their separate characteristics: the complete Sanskrit sound should be prajñā, translated here as hui; in Sanskrit it is jñāna, translated here as zhi. Although their essence is identical—both being the specific mental factor of discernment (mati)—their functions differ, hence they obtain distinct names, because selecting dharmas and decisive judgment are two different things. This accords with the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, and so forth. The syllable jñā is the root (dhātu) for both words zhi and hui. The two syllables pra and [na] are their affixes (pratyaya): with pra aiding jñā, it is hui (prajñā); with [na] aiding jñā, it is zhi (jñāna). Therefore, the various sūtras distinguish the two perfections of zhi and hui among the ten pāramitās. The Suvikrāntavikramiparipṛcchā says: 'A bodhisattva possessing the gate of prajñā and possessing the gate of jñāna can enter the sharp and dull faculties of sentient beings, and obtains the gate of prajñā to discriminate phrases and meanings.' As for their comprehensive characteristic: because their essence is identical, hui is spoken of in place of zhi, and zhi is spoken of in place of hui, without any contradiction. Thus, the sixth [perfection] is called the perfection of zhi, and so forth. Question: The title has the name Prajñā; why then does the practice explain giving (dāna)? Answer: In terms of the former leading to the latter, it is subsumed under the perfection of giving; in terms of the latter purifying the former, it is subsumed under the perfection of wisdom. Bringing up either one, in principle and reality they correspond. Furthermore, establishing the name is based on supremacy, while cultivation is summarized; giving and wisdom are brought up separately. As for pāra, here it means 'the other shore.' Dharmas are of four kinds: principle, teaching, practice, and fruit. We take only the fruits of bodhi and nirvāṇa as the other shore. Teaching and principle span both cause and effect; practice is solely in the cause. Unarisen suffering and origin are the deep river; currently arisen origin and suffering are this shore. The six perfections are the raft, and the practitioner as a nominal person of the five aggregates is the one ferried across. As for mita (ita), it has the meanings of 'separation' and 'arriving.' Through cultivating giving and so forth,