---
title: "金剛三昧經論 · 總持品"
description: "元曉是新羅時期高僧，其所著《金剛三昧經論》是對《金剛三昧經》的權威註釋。該論產生於七世紀東亞佛教興盛期，融合了唯識與如來藏思想，闡述一心本源、真如覺性及修行證果之理。其內容系統深刻，影響了中韓佛教義學發展，尤其對華嚴與禪宗有重要啟發，被視為大乘佛教的重要論典，在佛教思想史上佔有崇高地位。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcwd0a2j091xic04inuarov4"
---

### 總持品

> Chapter on Dhāraṇī

論曰：此中決前諸品中疑，總持要義而不忘失，故從所為名曰〈總持〉。又地藏菩薩已得文義陀羅尼故，總持諸品所有文義，及憶大眾起疑之處，次第發問善決諸疑，故從能問名曰〈總持〉。

> \[This text is a Chinese Buddhist commentary, not a sutra. Direct translation with explanation would better serve the reader's understanding.\] "The Treatise says: This chapter resolves the doubts that arose in the previous chapters. It holds all the essential meanings without forgetting anything, so it is named 'Dhāraṇī' (Total Retention). Furthermore, Bodhisattva Kṣitigarbha has already attained the dhāraṇī of texts and meanings, so he retains all the texts and meanings of the chapters. He also remembers the places where the assembly raised doubts, and asks questions one by one to properly resolve those doubts. Therefore, it is named 'Dhāraṇī' after the one who could question."

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩從眾中起，至于佛前合掌胡跪而白佛言：「尊者！我觀大眾心有疑事猶未得決，今者如來欲為除疑，我今為眾隨疑所問，願佛慈悲垂哀聽許。」佛言：「菩薩摩訶薩！汝能如是救度眾生，是大悲愍不可思議。汝當廣問，為汝宣說。」

> The sutra says: At that time, the Bodhisattva Earth Store (Ksitigarbha) rose from amidst the assembly, went before the Buddha, pressed his palms together, knelt on one knee, and said to the Buddha: “Venerable One! I see that in this great assembly, people’s hearts still hold doubts that have not been resolved. Now the Thus-Come One (Tathagata) wishes to remove these doubts. For the sake of all beings, I now ask regarding these doubts. Please, out of compassion, grant me your merciful permission.” The Buddha replied: “Great Bodhisattva, that you are able to save and liberate beings in this way is an act of great compassion that is inconceivable. Ask broadly, and I will declare it for you.”

論曰：正說之內大分有二，別明觀行竟在於前，此下第二總決諸疑。就文有四：初請、次許、三決、四領。此問與答是請及許。此能請者名地藏者，是人已得同體大悲，生長一切眾生善根，猶如大地生諸草木；以陀羅尼持諸功德，惠施一切而無窮盡，如大寶藏珍寶無盡，由是二義名為地藏。今此品中決諸疑惑生諸信解，出諸決斷之寶以施求法之眾，義當其名，故能請問。

> A Treatise Says: The main body of the correct teaching is divided into two parts. The first part specifically explained the practice of observation, which has already been covered above. Now, the second part addresses all remaining doubts. The text is structured into four sections: first, the request; second, the permission; third, the resolution; and fourth, the acceptance. The questions and answers in this passage represent the request and permission. The one making the request is known as Kṣitigarbha. This person has attained the universal compassion of shared essence, nurturing the roots of virtue in all beings just as the earth nourishes all plants. Through dhāraṇī, he upholds all merits and virtues, bestowing them on all without end, like a great treasury whose jewels are inexhaustible. Because of these two meanings, he is called Kṣitigarbha. In this chapter, he resolves all doubts and generates faith and understanding, bringing forth the jewel of decisive clarification to bestow upon those seeking the Dharma. His actions properly align with his name, and this is why he is able to ask his questions.

經曰　地藏菩薩言：「一切諸法云何不緣生？」爾時如來欲宣此義而說偈言：「若法緣所生，離緣可無法；云何法性無，而緣可生法？」

> The sutra says: Earth Treasury Bodhisattva asked, "Why do all dharmas not arise from conditions?" The Thus Come One then wished to proclaim this meaning and spoke a verse: "If dharmas are produced by conditions, apart from conditions no dharma can exist; how then could there be no dharma-nature, yet conditions produce dharmas?"

論曰：此下第三正決諸疑。於中有二：一者六品六疑却次而決、二者一品三疑順次而遣。初中亦二：一者別決、二者總定。初別決中別決六疑，從後向前漸却而決。今此問答決〈如來藏品〉中起疑。彼言「因緣無不生，不生故不滅」，於中執有能生因緣，而疑其果何不緣生，故乘彼疑以問緣生。如來一頌正決是疑，於中上半定彼本執、下半乘彼破其緣生。此意正立緣不生法，望無法故如望兔角，由是比量彼疑決矣。

> \*\*Question:\*\* Since "Causes and conditions do not produce anything," and "not being produced, nothing ceases," why is the result said to arise from conditions? \*\*Response:\*\* If causes and conditions did produce something, It would depend on what they produce. But like a rabbit's horn (an impossibility), So too is a result from conditions.

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩言：「法若無生，云何說法法從心生？」於是尊者而說偈言：「是心所生法，是法能所取，如醉眼空華，是法然非彼。」

> The sutra says: At that time, Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva asked, “If phenomena are inherently unborn, then why is it said that phenomena arise from the mind?” To this, the Venerable One spoke in verse: “The mind gives rise to what we call phenomena, Yet these phenomena are objects the mind perceives— Like flowers seen in space by drunken eyes, They’re not the reality they seem to be.”

論曰：此下第二決〈真性空品〉中起疑。彼言「我說法者，以汝眾生，在生說故，是故說之。」依此疑云：若依彼文佛有說法，其所說法從佛心生，云何而言法無生耶？為遣此疑即有二重：一者直遣、二者重決。此即直遣。言是心所生法是法能所取者，今汝所計心所生法，直是妄心能取所取，如醉酒眼所見空華。是法然非彼者，是汝所計心所生法，如彼空華；是法亦然，非彼所說法，同汝所計生。此意正明汝所計法空無所有，是所取故，猶如空華；我所說法離言絕慮，所取能取皆不可言。

> This section addresses a doubt arising from the previous text. The text says: "I speak the Dharma because you beings are living in the world of birth, therefore I teach." Based on this, one might ask: If the Buddha truly speaks the Dharma, and that Dharma arises from the Buddha's mind, then how can it be said that the Dharma is uncreated? To resolve this doubt, there are two explanations: first, a direct response; second, a further clarification. This is the direct response. It says: "What arises from mind is the Dharma of subject and object." What you now conceive as Dharma arising from mind is merely your deluded mind’s subject and object—like flowers seen in the sky by drunken eyes. "This Dharma is not that"—the Dharma you conceive as arising from mind is just like those sky-flowers. So too, this Dharma you speak of is not the Dharma I teach; it is the same as what you mistakenly grasp as real. The meaning is clear: The Dharma you conceive is empty and has no reality because it is an object of grasping, like flowers in the sky. But the Dharma I teach transcends words and thought; both the grasping subject and the grasped object are inexpressible.

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩言：「法若如是，法即無待。無待之法，法應自成。」於是尊者而說偈言：「法本無有無，自他亦復爾，不始亦不終，成敗即不住。」

> The sutra says: At that time, Earth Treasure Bodhisattva spoke, saying: "If the Dharma is like this, then the Dharma has no dependence. That which has no dependence should arise of itself." Then the Venerable One spoke these verses: "The Dharma originally has neither existence nor non-existence, Neither self nor other, Neither beginning nor end— Success and failure simply do not abide."

論曰：此是第二重決。於中有二：先難、後決。是難意云：若佛所說言教之法非所取故，不如空華畢竟無者，是即此法應自然成，以無待故猶如真如。為決此難故說是偈，是偈意言：我所說法絕名言故，本無有無自他始終，若成若敗即不得住，云何得言自然成耶？是顯彼因有相違過，謂法無成敗，以無待故，如無所取，又如真如。由是道理彼難不成，難不成故所疑決矣。

> Treatise: This is the second level of resolution. It has two parts: first the objection, then the resolution. The meaning of the objection is: If the verbal teachings of the Buddha are not objects of grasping, and are thus not ultimately nonexistent like flowers in the sky, then these teachings should come into being naturally, since they depend on nothing, just like suchness itself. To resolve this objection, the verse was spoken. Its meaning is: The teachings I proclaim transcend all verbal expression; originally they have no existence or non-existence, no self or other, no beginning or end. If they were subject to success or failure, they would not remain. How then can one say they come into being naturally? This reveals a flaw in the opponent’s reasoning: phenomena have neither success nor failure because they depend on nothing, just like that which is not grasped, and just like suchness itself. Thus the objection fails. Since the objection fails, the doubt is resolved.

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩言：「一切諸法相即本涅槃，涅槃及空相亦如是無是等法，是法應如佛言無如是法、是法是如。」

> The sutra says: At that time, Earth Store Bodhisattva said: "The nature of all phenomena is itself Nirvana. Nirvana and emptiness are likewise without any such characteristics. These dharmas should be understood as the Buddha declared: there is no such dharma; this dharma is Suchness."

論曰：此下第三決〈入實際品〉中起疑。彼言「大力菩薩言：『眾生心相相亦如來，眾生之心應無別境。』佛言：『如是眾生之心實無別境。何以故？心本淨故、理無穢故。』」有依是文作是念言：本淨之心正是如理，本來清淨自性涅槃。若使涅槃亦空無者，應是邪無，不為如理。為遣是疑，故說皆如。就文有四：先問、次許、三領、四述。初問意言：若以空義，一切諸法相即是本來清淨涅槃。復融涅槃及其空相，即無涅槃及空差別，是一味法，是法應如。反彼所執，故作是問。第二答中許如所問。

> “Now we come to the third section of the Treatise, which resolves the doubt raised in the Chapter on Entering the Nature of Reality. There it says: ‘The Great Strength Bodhisattva asked: “Since the characteristics of the mind of sentient beings are themselves the Tathāgata, the minds of sentient beings should have no different realms.” The Buddha replied: “Indeed, the minds of sentient beings have no different realms. Why? Because the mind is originally pure, and its principle is without defilement.”’ Based on this passage, someone might think: ‘The originally pure mind is exactly the principle of reality. It is originally pure, with a self-nature of Nirvāṇa. If even Nirvāṇa were empty and nonexistent, that would be an erroneous emptiness, not the principle of reality.’ To dispel this doubt, the Treatise says that everything is thusness. This passage is divided into four sections: first, the question; second, the permission; third, the understanding; fourth, the elaboration. The intent of the initial question is: ‘If, from the perspective of emptiness, all phenomena are originally pure—that is, Nirvāṇa—and if we further dissolve \[the concept of\] Nirvāṇa along with its empty appearance, then there is no distinction between Nirvāṇa and emptiness. Everything is one single flavor, and that flavor should be thusness. To counter the attachment of the questioner, this question is posed.’ The second section, the answer, gives permission in accordance with the question.

經曰　地藏菩薩言：「不可思議。如是如相非共不共，意取業取即皆空寂，空寂心法俱不俱取亦應寂滅。」

> The Sutra says: Earth Treasury Bodhisattva stated: "Inconceivable. Suchness is neither shared nor unshared. Intention and karma are both empty and still. The mind and its conditions, whether taken together or separately, should also be calmed and dissolved."

論曰：此是第三領解，為遣伏難。有聞前說作是難言：本來涅槃既是一如，若融涅槃及其空相是第二如，如是二如為共不共？若言共者即非如理，有二並故；若不共者即不更空，唯一如故。為遣是難，故言非共不共。非共者，無二如故；非不共者，有雙遣故。所遣雖雙，遣處無二，故彼所難皆不應理。意取業取即皆空寂者，是顯雙遣，遣處無二。言意取者，所謂涅槃，緣寂滅心之所取故。言業取者，即是生死，諸煩惱業之所取故。此二皆空，空寂無二。空寂心法俱不俱取亦應寂滅者，明一心法亦不守一，生死涅槃空寂無二，無二之處是一心法，依一心法有二種門。然俱取二門即不得心，二非一故；若廢二門不俱而取亦不得心，無非心故。由是義故無二心法，俱不俱取亦應寂滅。

> Treatise says: This is the third layer of understanding, meant to resolve hidden objections. Some hear the previous explanation and raise this difficulty: "Since original nirvana is already a single suchness, if we then merge nirvana with its empty form as a second suchness, are these two suchnesses shared or not shared? If shared, that contradicts suchness-reason, because there would be two existences side by side. If not shared, then there is no further emptiness, because there is only one suchness." To resolve this difficulty, we say: neither shared nor not shared. "Not shared" means there are no two suchnesses. "Not shared" does not mean not shared—there is a dual negation. Although what is negated is dual, the place of negation has no duality. Thus those objections are all invalid. "Mind-object and karma-object are both empty and still" reveals this dual negation where the place of negation is non-dual. "Mind-object" refers to nirvana, which is the object grasped by the mind that contemplates cessation. "Karma-object" refers to samsara, which is the object grasped by afflictions and karma. Both of these are empty—empty and still, with no duality. "When both the empty-still mind and its objects are taken or not taken, they should also be stilled" means: even the one-mind dharma does not cling to oneness. Samsara and nirvana are empty-still and non-dual. That non-dual place is the one-mind dharma, and based on this one-mind dharma, there are two gates. However, if you take both gates together, you cannot obtain mind—because the two are not one. If you abandon both gates and take neither, you also cannot obtain mind—because there is nothing non-mind. For this reason, the non-dual mind-dharma, whether taken or not taken, should also be stilled.

經曰　於是尊者而說偈言：「一切空寂法，是法寂不空，彼心不空時，是得心不有。」

> The scripture says: Then the Venerable spoke this verse: "All phenomena are empty and still, Yet this stillness is not mere emptiness. When the mind is not empty, Then the mind does not truly exist."

論曰：此是第四如來述成。一切空寂法者，生死涅槃一切空寂之法。是法寂不空者，無二之心法，非都無法故。雖非無法而不是有，是故解心不空之時，是時得知心之不有。所以前說俱不俱取皆應寂滅者，不違道理也。

> Commentary: This is the fourth section where the Tathāgata elaborates and confirms. "All empty and tranquil dharmas" refers to the ultimate nature of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—all phenomena are fundamentally empty and still. "These dharmas are tranquil yet not empty” means the mind that perceives non-duality is not utterly non-existent; it is not that there is no Dharma at all. Yet, although it is not non-existent, it is not existent either. Therefore, when we realize that the understanding mind is not empty, at that moment we also recognize that the mind is not truly existent. Hence, the earlier statement that both grasping and non-grasping should be calmed and dissolved does not contradict the principle.

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩言：「是法非三諦，色空心亦滅，是法本滅時，是法應是滅。」於是尊者而說偈言：「法本無自性，由彼之所生，不於如是處，而有彼如是。」

> At that time, the Bodhisattva Kṣitigarbha said: "This Dharma is not of the three truths. Form is empty, and the mind also ceases. When this Dharma originally ceases, this Dharma should be seen as cessation." Then the Venerable One spoke these verses: "Dharma has no inherent self-nature; it arises from conditions. In such a state, there is no such thing."

論曰：此是第四決〈本覺利品〉中起疑。彼言「無住菩薩言：『一切境空、一切身空、一切識空，覺亦應空。』佛言：『可一覺者，不毀不壞決定性，非空非不空、無空不空。』」依此述文，於彼生疑云：若是一心亦不是有故寂滅者，何故前說一覺不壞故不同彼色心之空？今乘是疑故作是問。是法非三諦者，即前頌說「是一心法非色心空故非三諦」。然三諦門略有三種：一者色諦、心諦、第一義諦；二者有諦、無諦、中道第一義諦；三者如此品中後文所說。今此問意且依初門。色空心亦滅者，是法既非三諦攝故，色相本空，心亦寂滅。是色心法本寂滅時，是一心法應同寂滅。即前偈言「心不有」故。是即前說不同空者，徒為虛談，如是疑也。頌中對此明其不同。法本無自性者，色心之法本無自性。由彼之所生者，由彼本覺之心所生。所生色心是差別相，彼本覺心離相離性。不於如是差別之處而有如彼離相一覺，是故空此色心差別相時不得同遣離相一覺。由是道理，前非虛說。

> Commentary: This passage addresses a doubt arising from the fourth section, the "Chapter on Intrinsic Awakening and Qualities." There, the Bodhisattva Abiding-in-Nonattachment says, "All realms are empty, all bodies are empty, all consciousness is empty, so awakening should also be empty." The Buddha replies, "The one awakening is indestructible and of definitive nature—it is neither empty nor non-empty, and there is no 'emptiness' or 'non-emptiness.'" Based on this, a doubt arises: Since the One Mind is also not existent and thus still and extinct, why did the Buddha earlier say that the one awakening is indestructible and therefore not like the emptiness of form and mind? This question stems from that doubt. The line "this dharma is not of the three truths" means, as the previous verse stated, "the One Mind dharma is not empty as form and mind are, so it is not included in the three truths." The three truths generally have three interpretations: First, the truth of form, the truth of mind, and the truth of ultimate meaning. Second, the truth of existence, the truth of non-existence, and the middle-way ultimate truth. Third, the version explained later in this chapter. The present question adopts the first interpretation. "Form is empty, and mind also ceases" means that since this dharma is not covered by the three truths, both the essential emptiness of form and the still extinction of mind are the case. When form and mind are inherently still and extinct, the One Mind dharma should likewise be still and extinct—this corresponds to the earlier verse "the mind does not exist." If so, the earlier statement that it is not like emptiness becomes a mere empty claim. This is the doubt. The verse clarifies why they are different. "Dharmas are originally without self-nature" means that the dharmas of form and mind have no intrinsic nature from the start. "Because they are produced by that" refers to their being produced by the intrinsic awakened mind. The produced form and mind are marked by differentiation, while that intrinsic awakened mind is free from both marks and nature. Therefore, when one empties the differentiated marks of form and mind, one cannot simultaneously eliminate the mark-free one awakening. For this reason, the earlier statement was not an empty claim.

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩言：「一切諸法無生無滅，云何不一？」於是尊者而說偈言：「法住處無在，相數空故無，名說二與法，是即能所取。」

> The sutra says: At that time, Earth Store Bodhisattva said: “All dharmas neither arise nor cease; how then are they not one?” Then the Venerable One spoke this verse: “The abode of dharmas has no location; Their characteristics and numbers are empty, thus non-existent. Naming, saying, and the duality of dharma— These are simply the grasped and the grasper.”

論曰：此是第五決〈無生行品〉中起疑。彼言「緣起非生、緣謝非滅，在無有處不見所住，決定性故。是決定性不一不異。」有依彼文而起疑云：色心等法無生無滅，即是平等決定實性，是即橫無色心之差、縱無生滅之別。無差無別，應是一味。不異可爾，云何不一？頌中對此顯不一義。法住處無在者，諸法之住及所住處皆無所有故。相數空故無者，色心等相、一異等數悉空故無也。相數既無，那得有一？又無色故即無心相，既非異者，如何是一？而有名說之二及有所說法者，是即能取妄心所取，非如實義有一二等。言名說者，名是詮用，意識所取。說是語聲，耳識所了。若言是一，即有此二，於中亦有所詮之法。如是等數妄心所取，非彼實義。有如是數，云何於中存一味耶？

> The Treatise says: This is the fifth instance where doubt arises in the chapter “The Practice of No-Birth.” It states that “dependent arising is not birth, dependent cessation is not annihilation. In the place of non-existence, no abiding is seen, because things have a fixed nature. And this fixed nature is neither one nor different.” Based on that passage, some raise the doubt: If phenomena like form and mind are neither born nor annihilated, they are equal in their fixed, true nature. Horizontally, there is no distinction between form and mind; vertically, there is no difference between birth and annihilation. Without distinction or difference, everything should be of a single flavor. It’s acceptable that they are not different, but why are they not one? The verse clarifies the meaning of “not one” in response. “\[In the Dharma, the abiding place is nowhere\]”: both the abiding of all phenomena and their abiding place are utterly nonexistent. “\[Aspects and numbers are empty, therefore nothing exists\]”: aspects such as form and mind, and numbers such as oneness and difference, are all empty, so nothing exists. Since aspects and numbers do not exist, how could there be oneness? Furthermore, since there is no form, there is no aspect of mind. If they are not “different,” then how can they be “one”? “Yet there are names and expressions spoken, and the Dharma that is spoken about”: this refers to the deluded mind that grasps objects, not the true reality—which has no such notions as oneness or duality. “Names” are the function of designation, grasped by the conceptual mind. “Expressions” are the sounds of speech, perceived by the ear-consciousness. If one insists on oneness, then these two—names and expressions—would exist, and within them there would also be the Dharma that is expressed. All such enumerations are grasped by the deluded mind, not the true meaning. Since such enumerations exist, how can one claim a single flavor?

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩言：「一切諸法相，不住於二岸，亦不住中流，心識亦如是。云何諸境界，從識之所生？若識能有生，是識亦從生。云何無生識，能生有所生？」於是尊者而說偈言：「所生能生二，是二能所緣，俱本名自無，取有空華幻。識生於未時，境不是時生。於境生未時，是時識亦滅。彼即本俱無，亦不有無有。無生識亦無，云何境從有？」

> The sutra states: At that time, Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva said: "All phenomena do not abide on either shore, nor do they dwell in the middle stream. The mind and consciousness are also like this. How then do all objects arise from consciousness? If consciousness can give rise to something, then consciousness itself must also be produced. How can an unborn consciousness produce anything that is born?" Then the Venerable One spoke this verse: "Producer and produced are two, These two are subject and object in relation. Their own nature is originally non-existent; To grasp them is like seeing flowers in empty space. Consciousness arises before an object, But the object does not arise at that time. At the very moment when the object arises, Consciousness itself is already extinguished. Then both are originally non-existent; There is neither existence nor non-existence. When unborn consciousness is also absent, How can objects arise from it?"

論曰：此是第六決〈無相法品〉中起疑。彼言「云何生滅慮知相？佛言：『理無可不。若有可不即生諸念，千思萬慮是生滅相。』」今依後說還疑彼文。若識能生可不之境，境相還生諸念之識，即是心識有生有滅，云何而言不住二岸？若諸心識無生無滅，云何諸識能生境界？乘如是疑，發如是問。不住二岸者，無生無滅故。不住中流者，而不是一故。心識既爾無生無滅，云何可不境界從識之所生耶？若識能生境、識亦從境生，云何無生識能生有所生？為遣此疑，故說三頌。三頌之文即判為二：初之一頌示其道理、後之二頌破相生執。初中言是二能所緣者，謂汝所計識是能生、境是所生，直是妄取。能緣所緣俱是本來但名無自，若取為有，如取空華及取幻象以為實有，是故不異無生無滅。破中言識生於未時境不是時生者，明識能生未有之時，所生境界于時不生也。於境生未時是時識亦滅者，明境能生未有之時，其所生識于時亦滅。滅者寂滅，謂本來無也。彼即本俱無亦不有無有者，彼二能生本來俱無，既無能生亦不令有故曰不有，不令有故後時無生故言無有也。無生識亦無者，既無生義，何得有識？識無有故，境不從有。此中即有二種比量：一、識不生，無能生故，如望燋種。二、境不起，無所從故，如從龜毛。上來六分別決疑竟。

> Discussion: This is the sixth section, addressing the doubts arising from the "No-Aspect Dharma" chapter. That passage asks, "What is meant by the 'perceiving mind' of arising and ceasing? The Buddha said: 'There is inherently no should or shouldn’t. If there were should or shouldn’t, then various thoughts would arise. The thousand thoughts and ten thousand considerations are characteristics of arising and ceasing.'" Now, based on later explanations, we still question that passage: If consciousness can produce a world of should and shouldn’t, and the appearances of that world in turn give rise to thoughts and consciousness, then mind-consciousness arises and ceases. How can it be said to "not dwell on either shore"? If all mind-consciousness is neither arising nor ceasing, how can it produce appearances? Prompted by such doubts, this inquiry arises. "Not dwelling on either shore" means there is no arising or ceasing. "Not dwelling in the middle stream" means it is not a single entity. Since mind-consciousness is thus neither arising nor ceasing, how can the appearances of should or shouldn’t be produced by consciousness? If consciousness can produce appearances, and consciousness itself also arises from appearances, how can non-arising consciousness produce that which arises? To resolve this doubt, three verses are spoken. The meaning of these three verses is divided into two: the first verse conveys the principle, and the latter two refute the attachment to the notion of production. In the first verse, "These two are subject and object" means that what you consider as consciousness being the producer and appearances as the product is simply false grasping. Subject and object are both originally merely names without inherent existence. If you grasp them as real—like grasping an illusory flower in the sky or a magically conjured elephant as truly existent—then they are no different from that which neither arises nor ceases. In the refutation, it says: "When consciousness arises, at that time the appearance does not arise" clarifies that at the moment consciousness could come into being, the appearances it would produce do not arise. "At the time when the appearance could arise, consciousness also ceases" means that when an appearance could come into being, the consciousness producing it also ceases. This "ceasing" is quiescence, meaning it is originally non-existent. "Both are originally non-existent, and there is no existence of non-existence" means that the two producers—consciousness and appearances—are originally both non-existent. Since there is no producer, it also does not bring about existence. Thus, "no existence" is said, and since it does not bring about existence, there is no arising later, hence "non-existence." "Non-arising consciousness is also non-existent" means that since there is no production, how can there be consciousness? Because consciousness is non-existent, appearances do not arise from it. Here, there are two forms of reasoning: First, consciousness does not arise, because there is no producer, like expecting a burnt seed to sprout. Second, appearances do not originate, because there is no source, like expecting a turtle’s hair to yield wool. Thus, the six-part discrimination of doubts is complete.

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩言：「法相如是內外俱空，境智二眾本來寂滅，如來所說實相真空，如是之法即非集也。」

> At that time, Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha said: “Thus are the marks of reality—both inner and outer are empty. The two assemblies of objects and wisdom are originally still and extinct. The true reality and ultimate emptiness spoken by the Tathagata—such a dharma is not ‘accumulation.’”

論曰：此下第二總定所說。總定六決非病是藥。於中有二：先定非病、後定是藥。初中亦二：審問、定許。問中言法相如是者，總領前說六分法相。言內外者，識內境外故。言二眾者，境智眾多故。言非集者，非集生死雜染患故，非如惡取空還集諸患故。

> Commentary: The following section provides a comprehensive analysis of what has been taught. It establishes that the six aspects are definitely not a disease but rather a remedy. This is divided into two parts: first, confirming they are not a disease; second, confirming they are a remedy. The first part also has two steps: questioning and confirmation. In the questioning, the phrase "the characteristics of phenomena are thus" refers to summarizing the six aspects of phenomena mentioned earlier. "Internal and external" refers to the internal consciousness and external objects. "Two groups" refers to the numerous objects and consciousnesses. "Not a collection" means they do not accumulate the afflictions of samsara and are not like the mistaken concept of emptiness, which would still contribute to such afflictions.

經曰　佛言：「如是。如實之法無色無住，非所集非能集、非義非大，一本科法深功德聚。」

> The sutra says: The Buddha spoke: "Thus it is. The true nature of reality has no form and no fixed abode. It is neither that which gathers nor that which is gathered. It is neither meaning nor greatness. This single fundamental Dharma is a profound accumulation of virtue."

論曰：此是如來定許。言無色者，不生著有之病故。無住者，亦離惡取空患故。非所集者，苦諦空故。非能集者，集諦空故。非義者，離陰界等差別義故。非大者，離地水等能造相故。一本科法者，是一本覺，以是為根，能生諸行及諸功德故。然科有二種：一者雜染之科，謂諸本識，義如上說；二者純淨之科，謂一本覺，如此文說。彼本識中積集一切雜染種子；此本覺中唯有甚深性功德聚，離相離性故名為深，過恒沙數故名為聚。

> Thus is it taught: This is what the Thus-Come One has definitively affirmed. When we speak of "formless," it is to avoid the disease of attachment to existence. When we speak of "unattached," it also avoids the affliction of mistakenly clinging to emptiness. That which is "not accumulated" refers to the truth of suffering being empty. That which is "not capable of accumulating" refers to the truth of origination being empty. "Not having meaning" means it is free from distinctions such as aggregates, realms, and sense-bases. "Not being great" means it is free from the characteristics of the primary elements like earth and water. What is called the "single root of the Dharma" refers to the single inherent awakening. This serves as the root, from which all practices and all virtues arise. However, there are two kinds of roots: 1. The root of the defiled—this refers to the fundamental consciousness, as described above. 2. The root of the pure—this refers to the single inherent awakening, as described in this passage. In that fundamental consciousness, all defiled seeds are gathered. In this inherent awakening, there is only a collection of profound virtuous qualities. It is called "profound" because it is free from characteristics and free from nature. It is called "a collection" because it surpasses the number of grains of sand in the Ganges.

經曰　地藏菩薩言：「不可思議不思議聚，七五不生、八六寂滅、九相空無，有空無有、無空無有。如尊所說法義皆空，入空無行不失諸業，無我我所，能所身見內外結使悉皆寂靜，故願亦息。如是理觀慧定真如，尊者常說寔如空法，即良藥也。」

> The sutra says: Bodhisattva Kṣitigarbha said, “An inconceivable and indescribable gathering: the seven and five do not arise; the eight and six are quiescent; the nine marks are empty and nonexistent. There is existence within emptiness, and yet there is no existence; there is no emptiness, and yet emptiness exists. As the Honored One has taught, the meaning of all teachings is emptiness. Entering emptiness does not lose any karma; there is no self and no possession of self, no doer and no deed. The bonds of self-view within and without, and all inner and outer fetters, are utterly still. Therefore, even desires cease. Such is the true insight of principle, the wisdom and stillness of true thusness. The Honored One always declares that this is truly like the Dharma of emptiness—this is the excellent medicine.”

論曰：此下第二審定是藥。於中亦二：先菩薩審問。問中有三：一者領前深功德聚、二者乘顯深入理觀、三者審問良藥勝德。初中亦三，總標、別顯、後還總結。不思議聚者，總標離相離性功德。別顯之中，先明離相、後顯離性。初中言七五不生者，合明二種末識之空，恒行識中第七是末，不恒行中五識為末故。八六寂滅者，合明二種本識之寂，恒行識中第八是本，不恒行中第六為本故。次顯離性。九相空無者，第九識相亦不守性故。有空無有者，重成離相，八識有相之法空無所有故。無空無有者，重成離性，九識無相之性空無所有故。一心如是離相離性，即是無量功德之聚，如是名為不思議聚。如尊所說法義皆空者，第三總結離相離性也。次明理觀，於中有二：別明、總結。別明之中即有三句。入空無行不失諸業者，是空三昧。謂理觀入空而無能所之行，雖無能所，不失六度等業故。次明無相三昧。無我我所能所身見者，是離屬見諸煩惱相，離我我所相能見所見相故。內外結使悉皆寂靜者，是離屬愛諸結使相，內門諸結、外門諸使三界煩惱諸相空故。如是名為無相三昧。故願亦息者，是明無願三昧。由三界法皆寂靜故，願求之心自然永息，如是名為無願三昧也。如是理觀慧定真如者，是總結句。如前三種皆是理觀，止觀無偏能所無二故。尊者常說寔如空法即良藥也者，第三審問。如是空法具諸功德治諸結使，是故應即為良藥耶？

經曰　佛言：「如是。何以故？空故。空性無生，心常無生，空性無滅，心常無滅；空性無住，心亦無住；空性無為，心亦無為。空無出入，離諸得失，陰界入等皆悉亦無；心如不著亦復如是。菩薩！我說諸空，破諸有故。」

> The sutra says: The Buddha said, "That is correct. Why? Because it is emptiness. The nature of emptiness does not arise, so the mind is always free from arising. The nature of emptiness does not cease, so the mind is always free from ceasing. The nature of emptiness does not abide, so the mind also does not abide. The nature of emptiness is unconditioned, so the mind is also unconditioned. Emptiness has no coming or going, and transcends all gain and loss. The aggregates, sense fields, and elements are all likewise non-existent. When the mind does not cling, it is exactly the same. "Bodhisattva, I speak of all kinds of emptiness in order to break attachment to existence."

論曰：此是如來定許。於中有三：一者總許。言空故者所以為良藥者，只由空故有即生病故。空性已下，第二別許。於中有二：先明服空藥故，離流轉之果患；後顯服空藥故，治取著之因病。初中言空性無生心常無生者，入空之心同空無生故；又隨無滅心常無滅。生滅正是無常之義，故翻彼二名為常也。心亦無住者，非但無初後相，亦無中間住相，此是別明離三相也。心亦無為者，總顯離彼三有為相，是明服空離無常病。次明亦離取著之病。無出入者，無有出觀入觀之異。離得失者，亦離得新失古之相。心如不著亦如是者，能觀之心亦如空理，不取出入得失之相，不著陰界入等之法，是明服空離取著病也。我說諸空破諸有故者，第三結定。就實而言空理無二，而說五三等諸空者，為破諸人著有病故，隨病眾多說空亦爾。又復理實非空不空，但為破有強說為空，非空言下存空性也。以是二意結諸空教。

經曰　地藏菩薩言：「尊者！知有非實如陽焰水，知實非無如火性王，如是觀者是人智耶？」

> The sutra says: Earth Store Bodhisattva asked, "Venerable One! If one knows that existence is not real, like a mirage of water, and knows that true reality is not nothing, like the nature of fire—would such a person be considered wise?"

論曰：六品六疑却次而決，別決總定竟在於前。此下第二，一品三疑順次而遣。於中有三：謂〈如來藏〉一品之中復起三疑，次第遣故。第一疑者，謂彼梵行長者頌言「若說法有一，如焰水迷倒」，又言「若見於法無，如盲無日倒」。有依彼說而生疑云：長者俗人，如是判說，為妄見耶？為真智耶？作如是疑，不肯信受。為遣彼疑，舉彼事問。焰水之喻，如前已說。知實非無者，能知一實義性非無，彼說計無實者，如盲無日倒故。是知長者知實非無，非無之義如火性王，謂如木中有火大性，分析求之不得火相，而實不無木中火性，鑽而求之火必現故。一心亦爾，分析諸相不得心性，而實不無諸法中心，修道求之一心顯故。如是火性相隱勢大如似國主，故名王也。長者如是離二邊觀，是人智耶？如是問也。

經曰　佛言：「如是。何以故？是人真觀，觀一寂滅，相與不相等以空取，以修空故不失見佛，以見佛故不順三流。」

論曰：此下如來決疑。於中有二：直決、釋決。言如是者，決是人智。何以故下，釋其是智。於中有二：略釋、廣演。初中言觀一寂滅者，觀一心法寂滅義故。相與不相等以空取者，觀有相俗與無相真等不存故、融為一故，如是修空正順佛心故，常見佛身。未曾失時，故言不失見佛。以常見佛彌增空觀，空觀增進違逆諸有，故言不順三流。三流具攝三界煩惱，謂欲流、有流及無明流。是謂三流，義如常說。

經曰　「於大乘中三解脫道一體無性，以其無性故空，空故無相，無相故無作，無作故無求，無求故無願，以是業故淨心，以心淨故見佛，以見佛故當生淨土。菩薩！於是深法三化勤修、慧定圓成，即超三界。」

論曰：此是第二廣演。於中有二：先明三解脫道勝利、後顯三化勤修勝利。初中言一體無性者，對彼小乘三解脫門別體有性故，顯大乘菩薩觀行一體。觀心證無性時，隨義假說立三解脫，約其忘體性義立空解脫，忘即體相義門立無相解脫，忘即體用義門立無作解脫亦名無願解脫。為顯唯一無分別觀，於一切法體性相用，無所不遣、無所不融，是故建立三解脫門。以是業故淨心者，以忘一切體相用故，能淨出觀涉俗之心離諸染著，離染著心能見報佛，見報佛故得生淨土，是為三解脫道勝利也。於是深法三化勤修者，謂於空法勤修三空。何者？空相亦空是一化修，空空亦空是二化修，所空亦空是三化修，義如前說故不別論。三化勤修即達一心，達一心故慧定圓成，圓成之地即超三界，是為三化勤修勝利也。

經曰　地藏菩薩言：「如來所說無生無滅即是無常。滅是生滅，生滅滅已，寂滅為常，常故不斷。是不斷法，離諸三界動不動法，於有為法如避火坑，依何等法而自呵責入彼一門？」

論曰：此下遣其〈如來藏品〉之第二疑。彼言「了見識為常，是識常寂滅，寂滅亦寂滅。」有依彼文而生疑云：如是常住之寂滅法，雖可欣樂而是希夷。眾生之心麁淺難調，如何調心得趣彼門？乘如是疑，作如是問。問中有二：初舉果遠、後問入因。初中言無生無滅即是無常者，即領前言是識常寂滅，本來寂滅故。是無生無滅，而本非常，故是無常也。滅是生滅生滅滅已寂滅為常者，即領前言寂滅亦寂滅。又言了見識為常。於有為法已下，第二正問趣入彼門方便。前雖有說方便正觀，而略說故，更請廣說。

經曰　佛言：「菩薩！於三大事呵責其心，於三大諦而入其行。」地藏菩薩言：「云何三事而責其心？云何三諦而入一行？」佛言：「三事者，一謂因、二謂果、三謂識。如是三事從本空無，非我真我，云何於是而生愛染？觀是三事為繫所飄飄流苦海，以如是事常自呵責。三諦者，一謂菩提之道是平等諦，非不等諦；二謂大覺正智得諦，非邪智得諦；三謂慧定無異行入諦，非雜行入諦。以是三諦而修佛道，是人於是法，無不得正覺。得正覺智流大極慈，己他俱利，成佛菩提。」

論曰：是文有四，初問、次答、三請、四說。說中有二：先說呵厭方便、後示趣入方便。初中言因者，五戒十善之因。果者，人天富樂之果。識者，能持因果即是本識。眾生計此為自內我，而是性空，故非是我。無我之理方是真我，故於非我不應愛染。觀是三事為繫所飄者，謂由四繫障理定心，令是三事飄流苦海故。何等名為四繫？如《對法論．諦品》中云「繫有四種，謂貪欲身繫、瞋恚身繫、戒禁取身繫、此實執取身繫。以能障礙定意性身故名為繫。所以者何？由此能障定心自性之身故名為繫，非障色身。何以故？能為四種心亂因故。謂由貪愛財物等為因令心散亂，於鬪諍事不正行為因令心散亂，於難行戒禁苦惱為因令心散亂，不如正理推求境界為因令心散亂。由彼依止各別見故，於所知境不如正理種種推度妄生執著，謂唯此真餘並愚妄。由此為因令心散動。於何散動？謂於定心如實智見故。」以如是事常自呵責者，呵責能飄四繫，而厭所流三事故。已說呵厭方便，云何趣入方便？所謂審諦於三諦故。一謂菩提之道是平等諦非不等諦者，謂佛所證性淨菩提無不通泰，故名為道。一切有情皆同此性無一不歸，是究竟道，故言平等非不平等，是即對治二乘別趣也。二謂大覺正智得諦非邪智得諦者，謂一切智大覺之果唯證平等正智所得，非緣冥諦大有等境邪智所得，是即對治諸外道執也。三謂慧定無異行入諦非雜行入諦者，謂得正智入平等時，慧定圓融無別行相，方是真入於平等諦。非如世間分別之心，王數別體定慧異行，如是雜行非真入故。是即對治世間觀行未證謂證增上慢者。如是三種通名諦者，審諦之觀所觀境故。遍治如是三種異執，乃能正修於一佛道，故言以是三諦而修佛道。次顯修道所得之果。是人於是法無不得正覺者，是顯自利智德之果，於是三法而修佛道，無有不獲正覺果故。得正覺智流大極慈者，是顯利他恩德之果，普流大極無緣之慈，遍周法界無不利故。己他俱利成佛菩提者，總結前二，二利圓滿成等覺故。

經曰　地藏菩薩言：「尊者！如是之法即無因緣，若無緣法因即不起，云何不動法入如來？」

論曰：此下遣彼〈如來藏品〉第三之疑。如彼品頌末言「轉所取能取入於如來藏」，有依此說而疑彼云：此中菩提之道平等之諦即是如來藏，不待因緣力，云何彼轉能所之因而能得入如來藏法？有作是疑，故乘彼問。即無因緣者，由平等故不從因緣，又平等故即無餘緣，餘緣無故因不能起，云何於彼無起動法，而用因緣得入如來？若用因力之所入者，即待因緣，非不動故。

經曰　爾時如來欲宣此義而說偈言：　「一切諸法相，性空無不動，是法於是時，不於是時起。法無有異時，不於異時起，法無動不動，性空故寂滅。性空寂滅時，是法是時現，離相故寂住，寂住故不緣。」

論曰：此下如來正決所疑，宣其平等不動而有得入之義。八行頌中即有二分：前三略說、後五廣宣。略中有二：前三頌明不動之義、後一頌顯得入之義。初中有三，謂標、釋、結，謂初二句標不動義，次有四句釋不動義。是法於是時不於是時起者，是時者謂此世，此世者是現在，現在之時永無暫住，細除已未即無中間，如除光陰無中間處，故於是時不得有起。法無有異時不於異時起者，言異時者所謂過未，未來未有故無起義，過去已無亦無起義，由是道理法無起動。既無生起之動，亦無恒住不動故。言法無動不動性空故寂滅，是二句者結不動義。次有一頌明得入義。性空寂滅時者，了見性空寂滅之時，不動之法是時顯現，顯現於心故言得入。如是上半明得入義。然此顯法離一切相，離諸相故寂靜而住，住寂靜故恒不從緣，是故雖有入，不廢離緣義。如是下半顯離緣義也。

經曰　「是諸緣起法，是法緣不生，因緣生滅無，生滅性空寂。緣性能所緣，是緣本緣起，故法起非緣，緣無起亦爾。因緣所生法，是法是因緣，因緣生滅相，彼即無生滅。」

論曰：此下第二廣宣。於中有二：是前三頌廣不動義、其後二頌宣得入義。初中亦二，謂前二頌推本無得以顯不動、後之一頌逐末無得以顯不動。初中有三，謂標、釋、結。初言是諸緣起法是法緣不生者，標諸果法其緣不生。次有四句釋不生義。因緣生滅無者，明諸因緣生滅不住，故無生果之功能也。生滅性空寂者，以不住故即無生滅，性空寂故亦不生果。緣性能所緣者，因緣種子冥伏名性，增上緣根能對境界故名能緣，所緣境界根所對故名為所緣，次第緣法滅故不論。如是種子性緣并其能所二緣，皆是本緣之所起故，故言是緣本緣起。是即其本，諸緣亦同前說，生滅性空故無生用。由是三義緣無生義。故法起非緣者，結果法起非緣所生。緣無起亦爾者，結緣無起亦同其果。次有一頌，逐末無得以顯不動。因緣所生法是法是因緣者，明諸果法亦為因緣，望後生法而作緣故。是諸果法既為因緣，即同前說生滅性空，故言因緣生滅相彼即無生滅。前略說時直顯果空故，今廣時就因緣說，欲顯諸法因果不動即是平等菩提之道，非此法外別求菩提。是謂此偈之大意也。如肇法師言：「道遠乎哉？觸事而真。聖遠乎哉？體之即神矣。」

經曰　「彼如真實相，本不於出沒，諸法於是時，自生於出沒。是故極淨本，本不因眾力，即於後得處，得得於本得。」

論曰：此二頌是宣得入義。於中有三：一者一頌對諸有動顯如不動；二者二句明不動本不待眾緣；三者二句明離緣法有得入義。後得處者，謂道後處。前略說中言寂滅時，即是此言後得之處。既是寂滅，何有處時？但離時處，故寄之時處耳。得得於本得者，始覺究竟故名為得，是能得故。始覺究竟還同本覺，以之故言得於本得。上來第三決疑分竟。

經曰　爾時地藏菩薩聞佛所說心地快然，時諸眾等無有疑者，知眾心已而說偈言：　「我知眾心疑，所以殷固問。如來大慈善，分別無有餘。是諸二眾等，皆悉得明了。我今於了處，普化諸眾生，如佛之大悲，不捨於本願，故於一子地，而住於煩惱。」

論曰：此是第四領解。此三頌中即有二分：前一頌半結前決疑之利、後一頌半申後普化之行。一子地者，初地已上已證一切眾生平等，視諸眾生如視一子，是名清淨增上意樂，寄喻表心名一子地。而住於煩惱者，菩薩雖得諸法平等，而以方便力不捨煩惱。若捨一切煩惱隨眠，便入涅槃，違本願故。如《瑜伽論》三摩呬多決擇中云「滅盡等至當言無漏，由與煩惱不相應故，非相應故、無所緣故，非諸煩惱之所生故。是出世間一切異生不能行故，唯除已入遠地菩薩。菩薩雖能起出世法令現在前，然由方便善巧力故不捨煩惱。」案云：此中言不捨者，非究竟捨如羅漢等，故曰不捨；非全不捨，故言不捨。於中委悉，如二障章說。由不捨故言住煩惱，由是不入涅槃、普化十方界故。此一卷經有三分中，第二正說竟在於前也。

經曰　爾時如來而告眾言：「是菩薩者不可思議，恒以大悲拔眾生苦。若有眾生持是經法、持是菩薩名，即不墮於惡趣，一切障難皆悉除滅。若有眾生無餘雜念專念是經，如法修習，爾時菩薩常作化身而為說法，擁護是人終不暫捨，令是人等速得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」

論曰：此下第三名流通分。於中有六：一者讚人流通、二者勸眾流通、三者立名流通、四者受持流通、五者懺悔流通、六者奉行流通。此即第一讚人流通，讚能流通是經。菩薩四種勝德：一者大悲普化一切功德、二者別益持是經者功德、三者化身說法功德、四者令得極果功德。

經曰　「汝等菩薩若化眾生，皆令修習如是大乘決定了義。」

論曰：此是第二勸眾流通。決定了義者，為顯最深最極，不可以加矣。

經曰　爾時阿難從座而起，前白佛言：「如來所說大乘福聚決定斷結無生覺利不可思議。如是之法名為何經？受持是經得幾所福？願佛慈悲為我宣說。」

論曰：此下第三立名流通，先問、後答。問中亦二：先領、後問。領中即顯是經四種勝能：一能令持者得無量福，如經「大乘福聚」故；二能令持者永斷諸結，如經「決定斷結」故；三者所詮之旨是本覺利，如經「無生覺利」故；四者能詮之教難可思量，如經「不可思議」故。次問中問二事：先問經名，為知經要故；後問持福，求福持經故。

經曰　佛言：「善男子！是經名者，不可思議過去諸佛之所護念能入如來一切智海。若有眾生持是經者，即於一切經中無所希求，是經典法總持眾法，攝諸經要，是諸經法法之繫宗。是經名者，名攝大乘經，又名金剛三昧，又名無量義宗。」

論曰：此下答中有二，如其次第答二問故。初中亦二：先讚名義、後正立名。初中亦二：先總歎名、後別顯義。能入已下，是別顯義，即顯三義。能入如來智海乃至無所希求者，是顯金剛三昧之名之義。無法不壞無理不窮，由是令入如來智海，過是更無所希望故。是經典法總持眾法攝諸經要者，是顯攝大乘經之名之義。是諸經法法之繫宗者，是顯無量義宗之名之義。是二名義有何差別者？前明廣攝眾經之義，後顯眾經所宗之極。次立三名，於中委悉者，文前二門中已廣說也。

經曰　「若有人受持是經典者，即名受持百千諸佛如是功德，譬如虛空無有邊際不可思議，我所囑累唯是經典。」

論曰：此是答第二問。於中即顯四種勝德：一者持佛勝德，是經能攝諸佛心故，如經「受持百千諸佛」故；二者廣大勝德，如經「無有邊際」故；三者甚深勝德，如經「不可思議」故；四者無比勝德，如經「唯是經典」故。

經曰　阿難言：「云何心行？云何人者受持是經？」佛言：「善男子！受持是經者，是人心無得失，常修梵行，若於戲論常樂淨心，入於聚落心常在定，若處居家不著三有。」

論曰：此下第四受持流通，於中有二：一者正明受持、二者往復重顯。初中亦二：先問、後答。問中有二：先問受持經者心行、後問受持經者福利。答中次第答此二問。初中即明五種心行：一心無得失者，不觀他人之長短故；二常修梵行者，內修離相之淨行故；三常樂靜心者，在動不動故；四心常在定者，入散不散故；五不著三有者，居染不染故。

經曰　「是人現世有五種福：一者眾所尊敬、二者身不橫夭、三者辯答邪論、四者樂度眾生、五者能入聖道。如是人者受持是經。」

論曰：此是答第二問，隨前五行得此五福。眾所尊敬者，由其不觀眾之長短故。身不橫夭者，由其常修離相行故。辯答邪論者，樂靜心故。樂度眾生者，入散常定故。能入聖道者，不著三有故。

經曰　阿難言：「如彼人者度諸眾生，得受供不？」佛言：「如是人者能為眾生作大福田，常行大智權實俱演，是四依僧，於諸供養乃至頭目髓腦亦皆得受，何況衣食而不得受？善男子！如是人者是汝知識、是汝橋梁，何況凡夫而不供養？」

論曰：此下往復重顯。於中有二：先明福田之體、後顯生福之能。此即初也。四依僧者，第一依是具煩惱性，位在地前；其餘三依位在地上，如《涅槃經》之所廣說。

經曰　阿難言：「於彼人所受持是經、供養是人，得幾所福？」佛言：「若復有人持以滿城金銀而以布施，不如於是人所受持是經一四句偈、供養是人。」

論曰：此是第二明持經者能生多福。以滿城金銀施不持經者，所得之福不如一餐一衣供養持此一四句偈之所得福故。

經曰　「善男子！令諸眾生持是經者，心常在定不失本心。若失本心即當懺悔，懺悔之法是為清涼。」

論曰：此下第五懺悔流通。於中有二：先讚懺悔功德、二者往復重顯。初中言清涼者，滅不善因沈濁故清，離生死果熱惱故涼。

經曰　阿難言：「懺悔先罪，不入於過去也。」佛言：「如是。猶如暗室，若遇明燈，暗即滅矣。善男子！無說悔先所有諸罪，而以為說入於過去。」

論曰：此下第二往復重顯。於中即有二番問答：初番顯其懺悔道理、後番顯其懺悔行法。此中問意言懺悔先罪名懺悔者，先罪不入於過去耶？若先非今故入過去者，云何於無罪而有懺悔耶？答中言如是者，如是先罪不入過去故，不於無而有懺悔。所以然者？先所作罪熏於本識，種子恒流在於現在，由是道理未入過去。且今懺悔能治生時，令彼罪種不流現在。如燈生時室暗方滅。罪種不至於今現故，是時方說令入過去。而無說悔先所有罪者，先所有者非悔所及，不能令彼非先有故；但其先有令不至現，不至現者由悔所為。此與斷結之義異者，彼約生滅道故，令未生者不至現在；此就相續道故，令先有者不至現在。又斷結者永斷種子，悔先罪者損伏種子增強之用不至現在，故約此義說入過去也。

經曰　阿難言：「云何名為懺悔？」佛言：「依此經教入真實觀，一入觀時諸罪悉滅，離諸惡趣當生淨土，速成阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」

論曰：此是第二懺悔行法。答中有二：先明行法、後示勝利。初中言依此經教入真實觀者，謂依金剛三昧教旨，破諸法相名入真實，此是地前相似真觀。一入觀時諸罪悉滅者，一切罪障從妄想生，今破諸相入真實觀，頓破一切妄想境界，所以諸罪一時悉滅。次顯勝利，即有二句。離諸惡趣當生淨土者，是明華報。速成阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，是示果報。

經曰　佛說是經已，爾時阿難及諸菩薩、四部大眾皆大歡喜，心得決定，頂禮佛足，歡喜奉行。

論曰：此是第六奉行流通。於中四句。皆大歡喜者，聞法歡喜故。心得決定者，離諸疑惑故。頂禮佛足者，重法敬人故。歡喜奉行者，行時轉喜故。

甚深且微金剛教，今承仰信略記述，願此善根遍法界，普利一切無遺缺。

## 金剛三昧經論卷下

伏為寶祚無疆、儲闈凝慶，氛塵永寢、朝野昇平，晉陽公福海等濬、壽岳齊高。次願孀親洎及佛奴變呻為謳嚮年有永，鏤板印施。重念此經出自虬宮，發起因於疾病，更願普及法界含生，生生不聞疾病之音，不處胞胎常遊諸佛淨妙國土爾。甲辰八月初五日優婆塞鄭晏誌。