能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經論釋

This scripture—in text, phrases, meaning, and sequence—

Those in the world without illuminating wisdom cannot understand.

I bow to that master who instructed us,

Whose body arose from boundless merit.

Endowed with virtues such as these, he is worthy of reverence;

I wholeheartedly uphold the traces of his far-reaching teaching,

Clearly understand the course of the Right Dharma,

And aspire in my heart to benefit all sentient beings universally.

– The scripture states: “Able to confer the most excellent benefit.” This refers to bodhisattvas who have matured. “Able to give the most excellent entrustment.” This refers to bodhisattvas who have not yet matured. What is the most excellent benefit for bodhisattvas? And what is the most excellent entrustment? In answer to these questions, the verse states:

The excellent benefit, one should know,

Concerns oneself and one’s retinue.

Regarding what is attained and not yet attained, non-retrogression

Is the most excellent entrustment.

This means that benefit is produced within the bodhisattva’s own person, and the bodhisattva is also enabled to benefit the relatives and friends presently around him; this is called the most excellent benefit. Causing the Buddha-Dharma to be gathered and matured within oneself is to benefit oneself. Also causing other sentient beings who can presently receive transformation and guidance to attain accomplishment is to enable one’s associates to obtain benefit. It should be understood thus.

Regarding all virtues presently attained and not yet attained, one can establish for them the cause of non-retrogression by entrusting them wholeheartedly to a good spiritual friend. This is called entrusting them with the excellent entrustment. Here, non-retrogression from what has been attained means causing them not to abandon the Mahayana. Non-retrogression regarding what has not yet been attained means causing them to advance ever further toward excellence in the Mahayana.

How should sentient beings who have aroused the mind directed toward the bodhisattva vehicle abide? To answer this question, the verse states:

In the mind that is vast, supreme,

Ultimate, and not inverted,

Abide in the intention to benefit;

Then the virtues of this vehicle are complete.

What meaning does this reveal? If a bodhisattva forms these four beneficial intentions, beginning with abiding in the arousal of the aspiration, then that bodhisattva possesses the intentions of the Mahayana and can be called complete in merit.

What are the four beneficial intentions? They are:

1. Vast.

2. Supreme.

3. Ultimate.

4. Not inverted.

– The scripture states: “Sentient beings who have aroused the mind directed toward the bodhisattva vehicle should give rise to this thought,” and so forth at length, down to “all such beings.” This reveals the vast beneficial intention.

+ “I shall cause them all to enter nirvana without remainder and attain liberation.” This reveals the supreme beneficial intention.

+ “Although immeasurable beings are liberated in this manner,” and so forth, down to “one is not called a bodhisattva.” This reveals the ultimate beneficial intention.

What does this mean? It demonstrates that all existing beings are embraced as being identical with the bodhisattva. One’s own body is therefore nothing but quiescence. One’s own body is not different from sentient beings. If one distinguishes them and thinks that sentient beings exist apart and are not oneself, one is not called a bodhisattva. If one embraces them as one’s own substance, one ultimately never abandons them. Therefore, this is called the ultimate intention.

+ “If a bodhisattva has the notion of a self, the notion of a sentient being, the notion of a living being, or the notion of one who further seeks rebirth, that person is not called a bodhisattva.” This reveals the beneficial intention that is not inverted. These notions of a self and so forth arise in reliance upon the view of a real body. To cause them to be correctly abandoned is to be free from inversion; therefore, the following section will explain this.

Sentient beings who have aroused the mind directed toward the bodhisattva vehicle should practice in this manner.

– The scripture states: “A bodhisattva should practice giving without abiding in anything,” and so forth at length. Why does the single term “giving” here encompass all six pāramitās? The verse answers:

All six perfections are called giving

Because of wealth, Dharma, and fearlessness.

Among them, one, two, and three

Are called the practice of non-abiding.

This shows that all six perfections possess the characteristic of giving. The nature of giving consists of material gifts, the gift of Dharma, and the gift of fearlessness. Material giving encompasses one perfection: the pāramitā of giving.

The gift of fearlessness encompasses two: the pāramitās of moral discipline and patience. Whether among those without hostility, through moral discipline, or in a place of hostility, through patience, one remains fearless. The gift of Dharma encompasses three: diligence, concentration, and wisdom.

By entirely forgetting weariness through diligence, understanding another’s mind through concentration, and then teaching the Dharma as it truly is through wisdom, one gives the Dharma. This is the sphere of practice of a great bodhisattva. Thus, the single term “giving” encompasses all six perfections.

– The scripture states: “A bodhisattva practices giving without abiding in anything,” and so forth. What is the nature of non-abiding here? The verse states:

Regarding oneself, recompense of kindness,

And karmic reward, one grasps at none.

+ “Not abiding in anything” reveals non-attachment to oneself.

+ “Not abiding in any circumstance while practicing giving” reveals non-attachment to recompense of kindness, gain, or reverence. Seeking repayment and hoping for circumstances of benefit can take many forms. Therefore, it is said that one should practice giving without generating attachment according to circumstances.

+ “Not abiding in form and so forth” means not being attached to karmic reward.

Question: Why should one practice giving with such non-abiding?

The verse states:

It is to abandon non-arising

And to abandon other practices.

Because attachment to oneself prevents one from practicing giving, one should abandon the mind in which giving does not arise. Therefore, do not cling to yourself, but swiftly practice giving. Because one hopes for repayment and seeks reward, one thereby relinquishes the nature of the fruit of perfect awakening. Since one practices generosity for other purposes, one should abandon those other aims in giving.

The following section will discuss subduing the mind. How is this done? The verse states:

Subduing occurs within the three spheres;

Regarding characteristics, the mind eliminates them.

All doubts that subsequently arise,

As they follow worldly convention, are completely dispelled.

– The scripture states: “A bodhisattva should practice giving in this manner,” and so forth, down to “one should not be attached even to the notion of characteristics.” This reveals the thing given, the beings who receive it, and the giver.

In all three respects, the conceptual mind that grasps is eliminated.

Next, the benefit of giving is explained. Someone might object: “If one is free from all characteristics regarding giving and so forth, can one still obtain merit and benefit?” To answer this objection, the scripture says that the merit produced is exceedingly great.

Question: Why does the explanation of practice come afterward? Why does it not first clarify the meritorious benefit of subduing the mind and only then begin the explanation?

Answer: This shows that only a person who is not attached to characteristics and notions can practice unattached giving.

From this point onward, the entire remaining scriptural text is intended to eliminate subsequent doubts. Here, such a doubt arises:

Question: If one practices giving without being connected to dharmas, how can one practice generosity to seek the excellent fruit of perfect awakening?

To answer this doubt, the scripture states: “What do you think, Venerable One? Can the Tathāgata be contemplated by means of excellent characteristics?” and so forth at length. The verse states:

If produced through combination,

Wondrous marks are not excellent marks.

The three characteristics shift and change;

Where they are absent, there is the Tathāgata.

If one supposes that the Tathāgata is produced by causes and conditions such as giving, one sees the Tathāgata as possessing excellent marks obtained within conditioned characteristics. Yet, in comparison with the Tathāgata’s nature of true suchness, those excellent marks do not exist. Therefore, one should not contemplate the Tathāgata by means of characteristics. Because that Dharma-body is not manifested through composite production, the text next says: “Why? Because the Tathāgata teaches that those excellent characteristics change according to the three characteristics.” Therefore, excellent characteristics are not excellent characteristics.

The meaning here is that the substance of the three characteristics shifts and changes. Therefore, Subhūti! All existing excellent characteristics are deceptive. Consequently, one should contemplate the Tathāgata by means of excellent characteristics that are not characteristics.

This shows that dharmas born from causes are false and therefore empty. That is, the Tathāgata is entirely without those three kinds of characteristics. Being free from characteristics, he takes signlessness as his characteristic.

If, in that domain, the changing natures of abiding and cessation do not arise, one can clearly know that this reveals that the Tathāgata is not the conditioned and fabricated nature produced by causes and conditions. Thus the nature of the Tathāgata has been clearly explained. Although one practices giving for the fruit of Buddhahood, one is not attached to the dharma of giving.

Thus the doubt is eliminated. Subhūti then gives rise to another doubt: If one practices giving with such non-abiding, the cause is exceedingly profound. It is further said that the Tathāgata has an unconditioned nature; thus, the result is also extremely profound.

How, in the final age, can there be people with faith who will prevent that karmic fruit from being abandoned? To eliminate this doubt, the verse states:

When the cause and result are profound

And are taught in that evil age,

This itself is beneficial

Through three qualities and other bodhisattvas.

If, in the final age, there are bodhisattvas complete in moral discipline, virtue, and wisdom, then the Dharma is taught through them and its beneficial result is not false. The verse states:

Before the Buddhas of former times,

They upheld the training in moral discipline

And also planted roots of goodness;

Thus they are called complete in discipline and virtue.

– The scripture states: “But those bodhisattvas did not make offerings to only one Buddha, nor did they plant roots of goodness before only one Buddha.” This reveals that, at the dwelling places of former Buddhas, they reverently attended and served them while maintaining moral discipline and also planted roots of goodness. In that sequence, these are completeness in discipline and completeness in virtue. Next, a person complete in wisdom is explained. The verse states:

Able to eliminate the notion of self

And also the notions of dharmas,

Such a person is called complete in wisdom;

Two groups of four become eight.

This reveals that there are four notions of self and four notions of dharmas, making eight notions. The verse states:

An individual substance, continuity arising,

Abiding until the end of the lifespan,

And then seeking another destination:

The notions are of these four kinds.

The four notions of self are:

1. The notion of a self.

2. The notion of a sentient being.

3. The notion of a living being.

4. The notion of one who further seeks rebirth.

These four are not identical. Regarding a sentient being composed of the five skandhas, to perceive each as individually arising and ceasing is the notion of a self. To perceive continuity arising is the notion of a sentient being. To perceive existence lasting as long as the lifespan is the notion of a living being. After the life faculty has ceased, to seek another existence is the notion of one who further seeks rebirth. Regarding the four notions of dharmas, the verse states:

They all should neither be nonexistent;

If existent, they cannot be expressed.

This sets forth their basis:

The notions of dharmas are of four kinds.

The four notions of dharmas are:

1. The notion of dharmas.

2. The notion of non-dharmas.

3. The notion of existence.

4. The notion of nonexistence.

This means that the grasper and the grasped—all dharmas—are empty; therefore, the notion of dharmas does not arise, which is the notion of non-dharmas. They are not existent dharmas but lack intrinsic nature. Since their nature does not exist, this is not a notion of non-dharmas.

That is, they are not existent, and their existence is not the nature of existence. They are not what words express; therefore, this is not the notion of existence. Yet, because they are the cause of verbal expression, this is not the notion of nonexistence.

Through the power of conception, although they are not revealed by words, they are regarded as verbal expressions. Thus there are eight distinct meanings. Because the eight notions of self and dharmas have been extinguished, such a person is called complete in wisdom.

What is the intention of this meaning? It is spoken only with reference to completeness in wisdom, not to completeness in discipline and virtue. Why?

Answer: It is to reveal distinctions concerning notions of true existence. Therefore, it is stated thus. The verse says:

Through the power of that faithful understanding,

Faith gives rise to a notion of truth.

One does not grasp according to the words,

But grasps them as correct teaching.

Therefore, it is said that, in a later age, this is called a person capable of hearing this scripture and generating single-minded faith. Because such a person is complete in wisdom, that person does not grasp according to verbal teaching. Also, because that person accords with wisdom of the ultimate meaning, the teaching is regarded as correct and is called a notion of truth.

For this reason, it is subsequently said that one should not grasp it as Dharma, nor should one grasp it as non-Dharma. One should not take it as Dharma according to the words, yet neither should one immediately regard it as non-Dharma. Because it can accord with wisdom of the ultimate meaning, it is regarded as correct teaching.

Thus the scripture asks: “Upon hearing this scripture taught, will they give rise to true faith?”

– The scripture states: “Subhūti! The Tathāgata has fully seen and known those people,” and so forth. What meaning does this reveal? The verse states:

The Buddha knows the incomparable result;

It is known through vow-born wisdom.

Regarding the existing karmic results of those complete in discipline and so forth, the Buddha does not know them by comparison, but directly comprehends them through the immediate cognition of vow-born wisdom. If “seen” were not stated, one might suppose that they are known through comparison. If “known” were not stated, one might fear that they are seen merely by the physical eye and so forth. Therefore, both “seen” and “known” are stated. Why does the Blessed One say this? The verse states:

To prevent their own proclamation

For the sake of gain and reverence.

Those complete in discipline might proclaim their own virtues to seek gain and reverence. They then think: “The Tathāgata has already clearly seen me from afar; therefore, I should not speak of myself.”

– The scripture states: “Subhūti! Those sentient beings will produce and accumulate immeasurable aggregates of merit.” What meaning does this express? It means that those aggregates of merit will arise and, moreover, that such merit will continue and perfume the mind without interruption.

The statement that there is attachment to a self and so forth means that the nature of latent tendencies exists, not that active grasping is presently occurring.

– The scripture states: “Therefore, with hidden intent the Tathāgata proclaimed the Dharma gate likened to a raft. Sentient beings possessing wisdom should abandon even the Dharma, how much more what is not Dharma.” What is the hidden intent here? The verse states:

Realization does not abide in dharmas;

They are merely conducive to it.

Just as that raft is abandoned,

This is the hidden intent, one should know.

This means that dharmas such as scriptures are not the abiding place of higher realization. Once realization has been attained, those dharmas should be abandoned, just as one abandons a raft upon reaching the other shore. Because they conduce to higher realization, they must be accepted and maintained, just as one must rely upon the raft before reaching the other shore. This is called the hidden intent.

Because one and the same raft is both taken up and abandoned, the intent is called hidden. Teachings from elsewhere that do not accord with the Dharma-principle of realization should be abandoned. The next section therefore eliminates another doubt. The preceding text states: “One should not contemplate the Tathāgata by means of excellent characteristics, because the Tathāgata’s nature is revealed through the unconditioned.” If so, why is it also said that Tathāgata Śākyamuni attained unsurpassed perfect awakening and was then able to proclaim the existing Dharma teaching? According to this reasoning, that Tathāgata neither attained perfect awakening nor taught the Dharma. In answer to this doubt, the verse states:

The transformation-body is not the true Buddha,

Nor is there a person who teaches the Dharma.

There are three Buddhas:

1. The Dharma-body Buddha.

2. The enjoyment-body Buddha.

3. The transformation-body Buddha.

The name Buddha Śākyamuni refers to the transformation-body. Fundamentally, this body neither realizes awakening nor teaches the Dharma to liberate beings. The text states: “Why? Because the Dharma taught by the Buddha,” and so forth. To prevent the wholesale denial of every instance of Dharma teaching, it is said:

The transformation-body is not the true Buddha,

Nor is there a person who teaches the Dharma.

Yet this does not mean that absolutely nothing exists. The verse states:

In teaching Dharma, neither duality is grasped;

What is taught transcends verbal exposition.

These two—Dharma-nature and non-Dharma-nature—can neither be heard by the ear nor spoken in words. Therefore, one should know that they are neither Dharma nor non-Dharma. This is stated according to the principle of true suchness. “Not that Dharma” means that Dharma-nature is unconditioned. Moreover, it is not non-Dharma. Because those dharmas lack intrinsic nature, their substance exists. Why does the text speak only of the Dharma that is taught and not of the person who realizes it?

Answer: By speaking only of what is taught, the meaning of the one who realizes is revealed, because without awakening there can be no object of exposition.

– The scripture states: “Because all noble ones are revealed through the unconditioned.” This explains the cause of that Dharma. Because all noble ones are manifested through the pure Dharma of true suchness, they are said to be revealed by the unconditioned. Therefore, noble ones in turn teach the unconditioned Dharma. Regarding all existing matters, words cannot express them. This indicates that there is nothing that can be grasped. The intrinsic nature of those dharmas is not the domain in which verbal expression operates, revealing that this is the nature beyond verbal expression. Why is no distinction made here? Why does the text speak generally of noble ones and not only of Buddhas?

Answer: It reveals that all noble ones are manifested through pure true suchness. According to what is appropriate, some possess partial purity and others complete purity; therefore, there is no fault. What does the subsequent discussion of different merit seek to reveal?

Answer: Although the true nature of Dharma can neither be grasped nor expressed, it nevertheless brings benefit. The verse states:

Receiving it oneself and teaching it to others

Together yield merit and are not without benefit.

Why does the scripture state: “Blessed One! This aggregate of merit is not an aggregate of merit; therefore, the Tathāgata calls it an aggregate of merit, an aggregate of merit”? The verse states:

Merit does not sustain bodhi;

Those two should both be maintained.

This says that merit cannot bear and sustain bodhi. Two things can accept and uphold bodhi. Such is the meaning of the verse. What are the two? Receiving it oneself and teaching it to others.

– The scripture states: “Having personally received it, one teaches it to others.” It is not yet clear what meaning these words intend to express. The word “aggregate” has two meanings:

1. Accumulation.

2. Bearing a burden.

Just as the shoulder can bear a burden, the shoulder is therefore called an aggregate. According to this principle, accumulated merit is called an aggregate of merit. Because it cannot receive and uphold bodhi, it is said to be “not an aggregate”; that is, it does not possess the meaning of a shoulder that bears a burden, although it does possess the meaning of accumulation. Those two are causes of bodhi; therefore, the merit is exceedingly great.

Question: Why can those two receive and uphold bodhi? To reveal this meaning, the scripture states: “Why? Subhūti! Because the unsurpassed bodhi of the Tathāgatas arises from this scripture.” Why is bodhi said to “emerge,” while the Buddhas are said to be “born”? The verse states:

Attaining the cause of intrinsic nature;

Its other aspects are produced.

Bodhi means the Dharma-body. This is unconditioned in nature and is therefore called intrinsic nature. Consequently, those two are causes for attaining that intrinsic nature, not causes that produce it. In relation to the transformation-body and enjoyment-body distinct from it, however, they are productive causes. Because of this close relationship, they can uphold bodhi; therefore, they produce extremely great merit. To reveal that meaning, the scripture states, “Why?” and so forth. That is, why can this cause establish it? The verse states:

Therefore, it is precisely the Buddha-Dharma

That can establish the most excellent merit.

The statement that “the Tathāgata teaches it is not Buddha-Dharma” reveals that the Dharma which is awakened to can be realized only by a Buddha. Because its nature is uncommon, it is therefore supreme. It is the causal nature of the most excellent merit and consequently brings forth extremely great merit.

The meaning is that it is a proximate cause capable of producing excellent merit. Earlier, the scripture stated that noble ones are not revealed by compounded fabrication, because the Dharma realized by those noble ones can neither be grasped nor expressed. Noble ones such as stream-enterers and others all attain their own fruits.

Why, then, is it affirmed here that these fruits do not have a nature that can be grasped? When their objects of attainment are taught, why are those objects said to be inexpressible? To eliminate this doubt, the following passage arises and clearly establishes the principle that there is neither anything grasped nor anything attained.

The verse states:

One does not grasp one’s own fruit;

It can neither be grasped nor spoken.

Because noble ones are revealed by the nature of the unconditioned, with regard to the six objects there is not the slightest dharma that they can attain. Since there is nothing that can be entered, one is called a stream-enterer; likewise, up to the arhat, there is no dharma, for all are identical in the substance of the unconditioned Dharma. It is impossible to grasp this and regard it as a noble one.

Regarding their own fruits, they neither grasp nor proclaim them. If a noble one were to think, “I have attained the fruit,” then there would be attachments to a self and so forth. This means that latent afflictions would exist, not that they would be actively manifest.

It is not the case that, when directly realizing insight, such a person possesses attachments to a self and so forth and calls this “my attainment.” Why, then, does Subhūti himself say that he attained arhatship? It is to enable some sentient beings to know that he personally realized it. Moreover, when he says that he attained the abiding in non-contention, this reveals that his person is associated with excellent virtues and causes others to give rise to supreme faith and reverence.

With what profound intent is it said that Subhūti abides nowhere, even though he has said, “I attained the abiding in non-contention; I attained the abiding in non-contention”? The verse states:

Liberated from the two obstructions,

Subhūti is said to be free from contention.

There are two kinds of obstruction:

1. The obstruction of afflictions.

2. The obstruction of meditative concentration.

Because he is liberated from these obstructions, he does not abide in either of them. Therefore, the statement is repeated. Speaking twice of the nature of non-contention means that contention is entirely absent.

Next another doubt arises: Long ago, while dwelling in the presence of Buddha Dīpaṃkara, the Blessed One could grasp the existing Dharma, and that Buddha also explained the essentials of Dharma to others. Given this, how can it be affirmed that there is neither grasping nor exposition? To answer this objection, it is said: “There was truly no Dharma that the Tathāgata grasped.” What does this mean? The verse states:

In the presence of Buddha Dīpaṃkara,

It is said that no realized Dharma was grasped.

This says that, while dwelling in the presence of Buddha Dīpaṃkara, the Blessed One did not use words to grasp the Dharma realized there. The verse states:

Thus, realization of Dharma is established

Where there is neither grasping nor exposition.

If it is said that all noble ones are revealed by the unconditioned, then that Dharma is neither something grasped nor something expressed. Why, then, do bodhisattvas undertake the purification and adornment of Buddha lands? Moreover, why does the enjoyment-body regard itself as a Dharma king, while the world also regards it as a Dharma king? To eliminate this doubt, the following passage arises. Its meaning is expressed in the verse:

With wisdom in motion, there is only the nature of consciousness;

No Buddha land is grasped.

In truth, there is no purified and adorned Buddha land that can be grasped, apart from what flows forth from the pure wisdom of the Buddhas and is manifested by consciousness alone. Thus, nothing can be apprehended. If one says that real material form exists and has a nature that can be grasped, and that “I shall accomplish an adorned and purified land,” this is indeed false speech. The Tathāgata says that such a land is not purified and adorned; therefore, it is called a purified and adorned land. What does this mean? The verse states:

Because it is formless, it is supremely excellent;

Being unadorned, its nature is called adorned.

“Adornment” here has two meanings:

1. Form and appearance.

2. Excellent characteristics.

Here, “supremely excellent” is spoken in the ultimate sense. Since it is without material form, an adorned Buddha land is not an adornment; because that land is not truly adorned, it is said to be supreme. Because excellent dharmas accumulate there, it is called supreme.

If one grasps a Buddha land as having excellent material features and adornments and says, “I shall accomplish that land,” one has a mind that abides in and clings to objects such as form. To prevent this view and attachment, the passage concerning non-abiding is given. Another doubt then arises: Why does the Buddha’s enjoyment-body regard itself as having received an entrustment, while others also regard it in this way?

To answer this objection, the enjoyment-body is compared to Mount Sumeru. What meaning does this passage reveal? The verse states:

Like Mount Sumeru,

The enjoyment-body does not grasp.

Mount Sumeru, king of mountains, possesses the nature of a great and excellent sovereign and is therefore called Sumeru. Yet it does not itself conceive of possessing the nature of a king of mountains, because a mountain’s nature makes no distinctions. The Buddha’s enjoyment-body is likewise.

It is endowed with the nature of a Dharma king because it has attained the nature of a great and excellent sovereign, and is therefore called great and excellent. Yet it does not itself grasp the nature of Dharma king and think, “I am the Dharma king,” because it is without discrimination. Why can it be said to be without discrimination?

To reveal this meaning, the text states: “The Tathāgata says it is not a body.” Because that body does not exist in that manner, it is said to have a body. What does this mean? The verse states:

Its nature is not contaminated,

Nor is it produced by causes.

The nature of the enjoyment-body is not contaminated. Therefore, it is not an existent body. When it is said to have a body, this clearly means that its completely pure intrinsic substance exists. Nor is it produced by causes. Therefore, it has a body that does not arise in dependence upon other causes and conditions. Why, after a simile was already given in the earlier explanation of the nature of merit, is another simile now stated? The verse says:

To reveal numerous distinctions

And also to establish excellence,

Because the earlier and later merits differ,

Another simile is given.

Previously, the three-thousand-great-thousand world system was used as a simile to reveal the abundance of merit. Now innumerable three-thousand-great-thousand world systems are mentioned to show that the matter is even more extensive.

Why was this simile not given earlier? Because the inclinations of those being transformed differ. First little, then much—this is the intent. The distinct merit discussed earlier did not clearly identify an establishing cause and therefore lacked the function of bearing and upholding bodhi. Now, to reveal the characteristics of the cause capable of establishing it, another simile is given according to the matter being discussed.

END OF FASCICLE ONE