---
title: "金剛般若疏 · 第一"
description: "吉藏是隋代高僧，中国佛教三论宗的实际创立者。其所撰《金刚般若疏》是对鸠摩罗什所译《金刚经》的权威注疏。此疏秉承印度中观学派思想，系统阐释般若性空之理，破执显真，强调无住生心。吉藏以二谛、中道为纲，层层剖析经中名相与实义，为学者提供了清晰的修学指引。该疏不仅是三论宗重要文献，也是研究《金刚经》及大乘空观的核心典籍，在中国佛教思想史上具有深远影响。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcwmqtxe09j5js0489vwyc5u"
---

## 金剛般若疏卷第一

> Commentary on the Diamond Sutra, Volume 1

胡吉藏法師撰

> Composed by Master Ji Zang

玄意十重：一、序說經意；二、明部儻多少；三、辨開合；四、明前後；五、辨經宗；六、辨經題；七、明傳譯；八、明應驗；九、章段、十、正辨文。

問：佛以種種因緣說摩訶般若，今有何等義故演說是經？答：摩訶般若廣為菩薩說菩薩行，此經為諸大人略說大法。如經云「佛告須菩提：此經為發大乘者說，為最上乘者說」故。問曰：云何為諸大人略說大法？答曰：佛法無量，略說因果則總攝一切因者，所謂菩薩真實大願、真實大行。言大願者，如經菩薩住般若心中，欲遍度一切眾生，令入無餘涅槃，而實無所度。言大行者，如經菩薩不住於法而行布施等一切諸行，而無所行。若不以般若心發願，則願不成願；若不以般若心修行，則行不成行。是故菩薩欲修願行，要須般若，是名因義。所言果者，菩薩以行無所得因，故得無所得果，無所得果即是如來實相法身。如經不可以諸相得見如來，若見諸相非相，則見如來無為法身。今欲為諸大人說此因果，故說是經。復次，為現在未來一切眾生真實分別利益功德，故說此經。如經云佛滅度後後五百歲，般若中能生一念淨信，外為諸佛護念，內得無邊功德勝捨大千珍寶，亦勝捨恒沙身命。復次，為欲說第一義悉檀，故說是經。第一義悉檀者，所謂諸法實相，滅一切戲論、過一切言語，亦無所過、亦無所滅。譬如火炎，四不可觸，的無所依止。如經「不可取、不可說」，謂不可取，心行斷；不可說，言語滅，即是第一義悉檀。復次，以大悲心受請說法，故說是經。如《法華》云「於三七日中，思惟如是事：眾生諸根鈍，著樂癡所盲，我寧不說法，疾入於涅槃。爾時，梵王稽首勸請：眾生根性為上中下，願開甘露門，為演說法。」是以如來便趣鹿苑說乎四諦，乃至祇園演於般若。問曰：昔鹿苑說四諦，可為梵王；今祇園演於般若，何闕受請？答曰：梵王所請，非止小法；如來受請，本為大事。大事者，所謂般若波羅蜜是。復次，佛欲集諸法藥、癒難癒病，故說是經。所以者何？一切眾生有二種病：一者、身病，謂老病死；二者、心病，謂貪瞋癡。自有生死已來，不得般若藥故，無人能治此病。佛以般若金剛摧破二病，故說是經。復次，欲增諸菩薩念佛三昧，故說此經。一切眾生雖欲念佛，不識如來，多墮邪觀。如經以色見我，音聲求我，則墮邪道，不能見法身。法身者，以正法為身，故秤法身。故《華嚴經》云「正法性遠離，一切言語道，一切趣非趣，悉皆寂滅相。」正法性者，則是實相，斯經盛明實相，即是盛明法身，故觀身實相，觀佛亦然，為斯觀者，名為正觀；異斯觀者，名為邪觀。復次，欲顯示中道，拔二邊見，故說是經。如經發三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相。菩提心者，即是道心。道謂正道，發正道心，豈墮斷常？若墮斷常，即發斷常心，是則不名發正道心。今欲令諸菩薩發正道心、斷常觀息，故說此經。復次，欲說異法門、異念處故，故說此經。昔說善門不善門、記門無記門、常無常、苦樂等念處，今欲說非善門非不善門、非記門非無記門、非常非無常念處。如經「法尚應捨，何況非法。」復次，欲轉眾生深重鄣，故說此經；下云：應墮惡道，以受持經故，三惡道消滅，當得三菩提。如是種種因緣，竝是依經文及影龍樹《大論》故，說般若因緣。問曰：為何等位人說是經耶？答曰：有人言：般若是高位所行，我等凡夫豈預斯事？故望岸自絕。今謂不然，此人乃是無礙法中自作障礙，可不悲乎？若言般若必在高位，高位之人本自不墮惡道，何俟習行方得離耶？今經言：欲不墮惡道，不生卑賤家，欲世世人天淨土受樂，乃至究竟大般涅槃，須學般若。此意乃明應墮惡道者，行般若故不墮。故從薄地凡夫已上，乃至十地已還，皆須學般若也。復次，有婆藪盤豆弟子、金剛仙論師菩提流支之所傳述，亦說般若緣起。所以說般若者，為斷眾生十種障故。言十種障者：一、無物相障；二、有物相障；三、非有似有相障；四、謗相障；五、一有相障；六、異有相障；七、實有相障；八、異異相障；九、如名義相障；十、如義名相障。此之十障，障於般若。八部般若，一一部中皆對十障。所言無物相障者，眾生久劫已來，著我我所，多滯有病，是以如來說一切法皆畢竟空。但稟教之徒聞畢竟空，便起邪見，謂無因果，則失二諦。此之斷見，障於般若。為此障故，佛說斯經。如經「菩薩不住一切法行於布施等一切諸行」，故以萬行為因、法身為果，所以雖畢竟空，而因果無失也。所言有物相障者，前是斷見，今是常見。稟教之徒既聞菩薩行因得果，便謂因是能感、果能酬有，能行之人、所行之行，是則無見雖泯，有念還生，故名為障。為是障故，說般若治之。如經：若菩薩有我相、人相，則非菩薩，見有法相非法相，亦非菩薩。雖復行施，三事恒空，因果宛然，而未曾感應，類如空中種樹，亦同空裏織羅，豈得聞有便起常見？所言非有似有相障者，稟教之徒聞上菩薩不著有無，而便生異見：若使有無皆不可得，何得有萬用不同？故如六塵異對、四大互反，以有萬用，故知不無。問曰：云何名為非有似有？答曰：譬如陽炎，非有似有。眾生所見萬用之有，此所見有，非有似有，故秤為障。云何治之？還以喻破。譬喻如陽炎，雖復似有，而實非有；所見之有，亦本自非有。如經：一合相者，則不可說。但凡夫之人貪著其事，下夢、幻、泡、影亦是破之。言謗相障者，或者聞上第二有物相障，法體是空，次聞第三萬法用空，便謂生死、涅槃、眾生、佛性一切皆空，作此空見，便謗佛性。所以者何？今辨空者，生死虛妄，可得是空；佛性非妄，是故不空。是以經言：空者，二十五有；不空者，大般涅槃。此經下文云：亦非無相。非無相者，正明佛性非是無性相。問曰：《涅槃》可明佛性，《般若》何有此說？答曰：《涅槃》明佛性，《般若》未明佛性，此是訶梨門人作如此說。今婆藪弟子明般若、佛性，乃是眼目異名，是故般若亦明佛性。次第五第六、一有相障異有相障者，此即一異相對。斯之一異，通內外兩計、備一切諸法，如僧佉計一，世師計異，尼乾子計亦一亦異，若提子計非一非異，斯之四執皆障般若。又如學佛教之徒，或言二諦一體異體，或言相續假故一、實法滅故為異。如此定執，亦障般若。云何治之？如下文說：如來說一合相，則非一合相。亦應云如來說異散相，則非異散相。但凡夫貪著見一合相，亦凡夫貪著見異散相故，諸佛菩薩檢此一異究竟無從，名破一異。第七第八、實有相障異異相障者，此之兩障，執教執相以為一雙。言教執者，上來六章事竝皆空破除，惑者便云：如其無者，佛何故說？以佛說故，則知不無。由如色法，如其是無，不應說色；以說色故，則知非無。以執佛說，言法實有，故名為障。云何治之？如下文說：菩薩不應住色生心，不應住聲香味觸法生心。若有六塵，云何不住？以不住故，則知無六。如來雖說有六，但假名字，云何執於假名，便言實有異異相障者？惑者云：若諸法但有假名、無實體者，云何諸法各各有相？如見鵠知池，見烟知火，名為標相。頸細脣麁底平腹大是缾體相，角夅垂壺是為牛體相。既有此諸相，不應但有假名。作此執者，即名為障。云何治之？如經云：離一切相，即名諸佛。若實有相，云何可離？以其離故，則知無相。第九如名義相障、第十如義名相障。所言如名義相障者，惑者云：若諸法無有相者，云何有名？以有名故，則知有相。如以火名召火，則得火來，不得水至。以水名召水，則得水來，不亦得火至。故知有名以表於法，則法體不無。作此謂者，即秤為障。然此第九與第七障不同者，第七則執於佛教以生迷著，今則直尋相名言有物體，所以為異。云何治之？如下經云：說微塵，則非微塵，如聚微塵則成細色，如聚細色乃至成於世界。雖有世界之名而實無其體，乃至雖有微塵之名而實無其體。既無其體，焉得有名？如肇公云「名無得物之功，物無應名之實」。名無得物之功則非名，物無應名之實則非物。非名非物，名物安在？第十、如義名相障者，惑者言：若諸法無體，云何眾生受用萬法？既其受用則有萬法之體，以有萬法之體則有萬法之名。以體證名，故秤為障。云何治之？如下經說：一切有為法，如夢幻泡影。內心外境悉無所有，云何言有法體、以體證名耶？問曰：此之十障，般若治之，今為當用此釋？為當不用？答曰：若必言有惑是能障、解是能滅，還是生滅觀義，即是障也，便須破之。若言般若為能破、障為所破，為見故破？不見故破？為獨故破？為伴故破？如此檢責，即不見惑之可滅、解之可生，此即非解非惑、無生無滅。如此事了悟，始名般若也。

> Question: The Buddha preached the Great Prajñā in countless ways and for countless reasons. What is the meaning and purpose of expounding this particular sutra now? Answer: The Great Prajñā extensively explains the bodhisattva path for bodhisattvas, while this sutra gives a concise teaching on the great Dharma for great beings. As the sutra itself says, "The Buddha told Subhūti: This sutra is taught for those who aspire to the Great Vehicle, for those who follow the supreme vehicle." Question: What does it mean to "give a concise teaching on the great Dharma for great beings"? Answer: The Buddha's Dharma is immeasurable, but to summarize it briefly, cause and effect encompass everything. What we call "cause" refers to the true great vows and true great practices of bodhisattvas. "Great vows" means, as the sutra says, bodhisattvas dwell in the mind of prajñā, wishing to liberate all beings universally and lead them into the unconditioned nirvāṇa, yet in reality there is no one being liberated. "Great practices" means, as the sutra says, bodhisattvas practice all kinds of deeds such as giving, without dwelling in any phenomenon, yet without any sense of "doing." If one makes vows without the mind of prajñā, those vows are not true vows; if one practices without the mind of prajñā, those practices are not true practices. Therefore, for bodhisattvas to cultivate vows and practices, prajñā is indispensable—this is what is meant by "cause." As for "effect": because bodhisattvas practice with the cause of "gaining nothing," they attain the fruit of "gaining nothing." This fruit of gaining nothing is precisely the Tathāgata's real-mark dharmakāya. As the sutra says, "One cannot see the Tathāgata through any characteristics; if one sees that all characteristics are non-characteristics, then one sees the Tathāgata's unconditioned dharmakāya." Now, to teach this cause and effect to great beings, this sutra is expounded. Furthermore, it is taught to give real and specific benefits and merits to all beings of the present and future. As the sutra says, in the last five hundred years after the Buddha's passing, if one gives rise to a single thought of pure faith in the prajñā, externally one is protected by all Buddhas, and internally one gains boundless merit—surpassing giving away treasures of the great thousand worlds, and even surpassing giving away bodies and lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Furthermore, it is taught to set forth the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). The ultimate truth is the real mark of all phenomena, which extinguishes all conceptual proliferation and goes beyond all words. Yet it neither "goes beyond" nor "extinguishes" anything. It is like a flame—untouchable from any of the four directions, with nothing to rely on. As the sutra says, "It cannot be grasped, it cannot be spoken." "Cannot be grasped" means mental activity ceases; "cannot be spoken" means verbal expression is extinguished—this is the ultimate truth. Furthermore, the Buddha expounds this sutra out of great compassion, having been requested to teach. As the Lotus Sutra says, "For twenty-one days I pondered this matter: living beings have dull faculties, they are attached to pleasure and blinded by delusion. Better that I not teach the Dharma and quickly enter nirvāṇa. At that time, Brahmā bowed and urged: 'Living beings have higher, middle, and lower capacities—please open the gate of sweet dew and expound the Dharma for them.'" Therefore, the Tathāgata went to the Deer Park to teach the Four Noble Truths, and then to Jetavana to teach the prajñā. Question: Previously at the Deer Park, the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths for Brahmā; now at Jetavana, he teaches the prajñā—is this also in response to a request? Answer: What Brahmā requested was not limited to lesser teachings; what the Tathāgata accepted was fundamentally for the great matter. The great matter is precisely prajñā-pāramitā. Furthermore, the Buddha wishes to gather all Dharma medicines to cure the diseases that are hardest to cure, so he teaches this sutra. Why? All beings have two kinds of illness: physical illness—aging, sickness, and death; and mental illness—greed, hatred, and delusion. Since the beginning of birth and death, because beings have not obtained the medicine of prajñā, no one has been able to cure these diseases. The Buddha, with the vajra of prajñā, shatters both illnesses, and thus teaches this sutra. Furthermore, to strengthen bodhisattvas' samādhi of recollecting the Buddha, this sutra is taught. Though all beings wish to recollect the Buddha, they do not truly recognize the Tathāgata and often fall into wrong views. As the sutra says, "Seeing me through form, seeking me through sound—such people walk the wrong path and cannot see the dharmakāya." The dharmakāya takes true Dharma as its body, hence it is called the dharmakāya. The Avataṃsaka Sutra says, "The nature of true Dharma is far removed, beyond all paths of words; all realms of existence and non-existence are utterly quiescent in marks." The nature of true Dharma is the real mark, and this sutra fully illuminates the real mark—that is, fully illuminating the dharmakāya. Therefore, contemplating the real mark of the body is also how one contemplates the Buddha. This kind of contemplation is called right contemplation; anything other than this is wrong contemplation. Furthermore, to reveal the Middle Way and pull out views on the two extremes, this sutra is taught. As the sutra says, one who arouses the mind of the three enlightenments does not claim that phenomena are annihilated. The bodhi-mind is the mind of the path. The path means the right path; when one arouses the mind of the right path, how could one fall into annihilationism or eternalism? If one falls into either, one has aroused the mind of annihilation or eternity—that is not called arousing the mind of the right path. Now, to help bodhisattvas arouse the mind of the right path and put an end to views of permanence and annihilation, this sutra is taught. Furthermore, to teach a different gate of Dharma and a different foundation of mindfulness, this sutra is taught. Previously, the Buddha taught mindfulness of good and bad dharmas, of karmic and non-karmic dharmas, of permanence and impermanence, of suffering and pleasure. Now he wishes to teach a mindfulness that is neither good nor bad, neither karmic nor non-karmic, neither permanent nor impermanent. As the sutra says, "The Dharma itself should be let go of—how much more so what is not the Dharma." Furthermore, to transform beings' deep and heavy obstructions, this sutra is taught. Later in the text it says: those who would fall into evil destinies, through upholding this sutra, will have the three evil realms eliminated and will attain the three enlightenments. Such various causes and conditions are based on the sutra text and on Nāgārjuna's Great Treatise (Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra), in explaining the reasons for teaching the prajñā. Question: For which level of practitioners is this sutra taught? Answer: Some say: "Prajñā is practiced by those on high levels—how could ordinary people like us have anything to do with it?" Thus they look at the far shore and cut themselves off. But I say this is wrong—such a person creates their own obstacles in the midst of an unobstructed Dharma. Is this not deeply sad? If prajñā were only for those on high levels, then beings on high levels would already not fall into evil destinies—why would they need to practice and study to gain liberation? But this sutra says: those who wish not to fall into evil destinies, not to be born in lowly families, to enjoy bliss in heavenly and human realms, pure lands, and ultimately to reach great nirvāṇa, must study prajñā. This clearly shows that those who would fall into evil destinies, through practicing prajñā, do not fall. Therefore, from the lowest ordinary beings up to those at the tenth ground and below, all must study prajñā. Furthermore, there is the tradition of Vasubandhu's disciples and the treatise-master Bodhiruci (in the Vajra-yāna lineage) that also explains the arising of the prajñā teachings. The reason the prajñā is taught is to sever ten kinds of obstructions for living beings. What are the ten obstructions? \*\*1. The obstruction of the mark of non-existence.\*\* \*\*2. The obstruction of the mark of existence.\*\* \*\*3. The obstruction of the mark of "seeming existence though non-existent."\*\* \*\*4. The obstruction of the slander-mark.\*\* \*\*5. The obstruction of the mark of oneness.\*\* \*\*6. The obstruction of the mark of difference.\*\* \*\*7. The obstruction of the mark of real existence.\*\* \*\*8. The obstruction of the mark of difference within difference.\*\* \*\*9. The obstruction of the mark of names matching meanings.\*\* \*\*10. The obstruction of the mark of meanings matching names.\*\* These ten obstructions obstruct prajñā. In each of the eight divisions of the prajñā teachings, all ten obstructions are addressed. \*\*On the first obstruction (mark of non-existence):\*\* Beings, through countless eons, have been attached to self and what belongs to self, mired in the illness of existence. Therefore, the Tathāgata teaches that all phenomena are completely empty. But those who hear this teaching, upon hearing complete emptiness, develop the wrong view that cause and effect do not exist—thus losing the two truths. This nihilistic view obstructs prajñā. For this obstruction, the Buddha teaches this sutra. As the sutra says, "Bodhisattvas practice all practices such as giving without dwelling in any phenomenon." Thus, with all practices as the cause and the dharmakāya as the fruit, although all is completely empty, cause and effect are not lost. \*\*On the second obstruction (mark of existence):\*\* The previous was nihilism; this is eternalism. Those who hear that bodhisattvas practice causes and attain results come to believe that the cause can produce and the fruit can repay—that there is a person who practices and practices that are performed. Thus, although the view of non-existence has been eliminated, the thought of existence arises again. This is called an obstruction. For this obstruction, prajñā is taught as the remedy. As the sutra says: "If a bodhisattva has a mark of self or a mark of a person, then he is not a bodhisattva. Seeing marks of dharmas or marks of non-dharmas also means he is not a bodhisattva." Although one practices giving, the three components are always empty, and yet cause and effect are clearly present—but there was never any real "interaction" between them. This is like planting a tree in the sky, or weaving silk in the void. How can one hear of existence and immediately fall into eternalism? \*\*On the third obstruction (mark of seeming existence though non-existent):\*\* Those who hear the above—that bodhisattvas are attached to neither existence nor non-existence—develop a different view: "If both existence and non-existence are unobtainable, then how can there be the many different functions of things?" Thus, because the six sense objects differ and the four great elements oppose each other, since there are manifold functions, one concludes that things are not non-existent. Question: What does "seeming existence though non-existent" mean? Answer: It is like a mirage—it seems to exist but is actually non-existent. The existence of manifold functions that beings perceive is this kind of seeming existence, and it is therefore called an obstruction. How to remedy it? Use the same metaphor. A mirage, though it appears to exist, is really non-existent; likewise, the existence that beings perceive is originally non-existent. As the sutra says, "A composite unity is ineffable; but ordinary people are attached to it." The later similes of dreams, illusions, bubbles, and shadows also break this view. \*\*On the fourth obstruction (slander-mark):\*\* Some, having heard the second obstruction (that the nature of phenomena is empty), and then the third (that the functions of all things are empty), conclude that birth-and-death, nirvāṇa, living beings, and Buddha-nature are all empty. Holding this view of emptiness, they slander the Buddha-nature. Why? Our discussion of emptiness says: birth-and-death is illusory and can be called empty; Buddha-nature is not illusory and therefore is not empty. Thus the sutra says: "What is empty is the twenty-five realms of existence; what is not empty is the great nirvāṇa." This sutra also says below, "Nor is it non-marked." "Not non-marked" precisely clarifies that Buddha-nature is not a nature of non-existence. Question: The Nirvāṇa Sutra may clarify Buddha-nature, but how can the Prajñā Sutra have such teachings? Answer: The Nirvāṇa Sutra clarifies Buddha-nature, while the Prajñā teachings also clarify Buddha-nature—this is only a difference in names, like different words for the same eye. Some scholars say the Prajñā does not teach Buddha-nature, but that is the position of certain (Hārita) disciples. Here, in the lineage of Vasubandhu, prajñā and Buddha-nature are different names for the same reality—therefore the prajñā also illuminates Buddha-nature. \*\*On the fifth and sixth obstructions (oneness and difference):\*\* These are paired opposites of one and many. This issue of one-and-many applies to both external and internal schools and covers all phenomena. For example, the Sāṃkhya school asserts oneness, the Vaiśeṣika asserts difference, the Nirgranthas assert both one and different, and the Ājīvikas assert neither one nor different. These four positions all obstruct prajñā. Likewise, among Buddhist students, some say the two truths are one substance, some say they are different substances; some say conditioned continuity makes them one, while dharmas ceasing makes them different. Such fixed positions also obstruct prajñā. How to remedy this? As the sutra below says: "The Tathāgata speaks of a composite unity, yet it is not a composite unity." Likewise, one should say: "The Tathāgata speaks of difference-and-scattering, yet it is not difference-and-scattering." But ordinary people, attached to the composite unity, or attached to difference and scattering, are caught. Buddhas and bodhisattvas investigate this one-and-difference to its ultimate end and find it has no basis—this is called breaking one-and-many. \*\*On the seventh and eighth obstructions (real existence and difference-within-difference):\*\* These two obstructions are a pair—one is attachment to teachings, the other is attachment to marks. \*Attachment to teachings:\* In the previous six sections, all things have been broken down and shown empty. But the confused person says: "If they are non-existent, why did the Buddha speak of them? Because the Buddha spoke of them, we know they are not non-existent. For example, form—if it were non-existent, one should not speak of form; because one speaks of form, we know form is not non-existent." Thus, by clinging to the Buddha's words, they claim phenomena are truly existent. This is the obstruction. How to remedy? As the sutra below says: "Bodhisattvas should not give rise to a mind dwelling in form, nor in sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or dharmas." If the six sense objects truly existed, how could one not dwell in them? Because one does not dwell, we know the six are non-existent. Though the Tathāgata speaks of six, they are only conventional names. How can one cling to a conventional name and claim real existence? \*Attachment to marks:\* The confused person says: "If phenomena have only conventional names and no real substance, then how does each phenomenon have its own marks? For example, seeing cranes indicates a pond; seeing smoke indicates fire—these are indicative signs. A narrow neck, a wide lip, a flat bottom, and a big belly are the marks of a pot; horns and a dewlap are marks of an ox. Since these marks exist, phenomena cannot be mere names." Holding this view is called an obstruction. How to remedy? As the sutra says: "One who leaves all marks is called a Buddha." If marks truly existed, how could they be abandoned? Because they can be abandoned, we know they are markless. \*\*On the ninth obstruction (names matching meanings):\*\* The confused person says: "If phenomena have no marks, how can they have names? Because they have names, we know they have marks. For example, calling 'fire' brings fire, not water; calling 'water' brings water, not fire. Therefore, names refer to things, and things are not non-existent." This view is called an obstruction. How is this different from the seventh obstruction? The seventh was attachment to the Buddha's teachings; this one directly seeks names and marks to prove that things exist—that is the difference. How to remedy? As the sutra below says: "Speaking of atoms—they are not atoms. Accumulate atoms and they form subtle matter; accumulate subtle matter and eventually they form worlds. Though there is the name 'world,' it has no real substance; though there is the name 'atom,' it likewise has no real substance." Since there is no substance, how can a name hold? As Master Sengzhao said: "A name has no power to obtain a thing; a thing has no reality to answer to its name." Since a name has no power to obtain a thing, it is not a true name; since a thing has no reality to answer to its name, it is not a true thing. If neither name nor thing is real, where can "name" and "thing" be found? \*\*On the tenth obstruction (meanings matching names):\*\* The confused person says: "If phenomena have no substance, how do beings use all things? Because we actually use them, things must have substance. Since things have substance, they have names. Thus, substance proves name." This is called an obstruction. How to remedy? As the sutra below says: "All conditioned phenomena are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows." The inner mind and outer objects are entirely non-existent—so how can one say there is a substance of phenomena, and use substance to prove name? Question: These ten obstructions are remedied by prajñā. Should we accept this explanation or not? Answer: If one insists that there is truly delusion that obstructs and understanding that destroys, this is still a view of arising-and-ceasing—it is itself an obstruction and must be broken. If one says prajñā is what breaks and obstructions are what are broken—is it broken because of seeing, or because of not seeing? Is it broken alone, or with companions? When examined this way, one finds no obstruction to be destroyed and no understanding to be produced. This is "no understanding, no delusion, no arising, no ceasing." When this matter is truly understood, that is called prajñā.

第二、重明般若多少。問曰：般若波羅蜜凡有幾種？答曰：備探南北，遍撿經論，部數不同。第一、有二種，出《大智論》。第四十一及九十九卷云：般若有二種，一、共聲聞說；二、但為十地諸大菩薩說，下位之所不聞。今諸部般若多是共聲聞說也。第二、有三種。三種者，《釋論》第六十七卷云：般若部云般若部儻有多有少，有上中下，謂《光讚》、《放光》、《道行》也。舊云《光讚》有五百卷，此土零落，唯有十卷；或分為十二卷，有三十七品，即是上品。次《放光》為中品，《道行》為下品也。《放光》有二十卷，是古大品，道安法師所講者；今新定本有二十七卷，或為二十四卷，對小品為大品，於前三部實應是中品也。《道行》即是小品，有十卷；即有新定本，有七卷。《釋論》七十九卷云：般若義乃無邊，卷數有限，謂小品、《放光》、《光讚》。既前列餘二同前，而以小品名代道行也。故知《道行》即是小品也。第三、明四種般若者，長安叡法師《小品．序》云「斯經正文，凡有四種，多則十萬偈，少則六百偈。此之大品，猶是外國中品耳。隨宜之言，復何足計其多少？」雖習四名而不列數。有人云：當以《金剛》足前三部以為四也。然《金剛》止有三百許偈，叡公云「少則六百偈」，故知未必用《金剛》足之。次明五時般若者，出《仁王經》。初云：釋迦入大寂定，眾相謂言：「大覺世尊前已為我等大眾，二十九年說摩訶般若波羅蜜、金剛般若、天王問波若、光讚波若；今復放光，斯作何事？」既列四種於前，第五最後說《仁王護國般若》。又《大悲比丘尼本願經》末記、或在《仁王》末記云五時波若者，是佛三十年中通化三乘人也。第一、佛在王舍城說大品般若，小品從中出。第二、佛在舍衛祇洹精舍，說《金剛波若》，本有八卷，淮南零落，唯有〈格量功德〉一品別為一卷，存其本名，亦云金剛。第三、佛在祇洹說《天王問波若》，大本不來漢地，此土唯有《須真天子問波若》七卷、《法才王子問波若》三卷、《四天王問波若》一卷，竝出其中。第四、佛在王舍城說《光讚般若》，《成具》、《道行》、《廣淨》此三部從《光讚》中出。第五、佛在王舍城說護國波若。次流支三藏云：波若應有八部。第一部有十萬偈、第二部有二萬五千偈，此之二部猶在外國；第三部有二萬二千偈，即是大品；第四部有八千偈，即是小品；第五部有四千偈、第六部有二千五百偈，此之二部亦未傳漢地；第七部有六百偈，即是《文殊師利波若》；第八部三百偈，即是此《金剛波若》。又言有《光讚》、《大空》、《道行》等，流支三藏云：此皆十萬偈，波若中一品，非是別部。今以《釋論》驗之，不同流支所說。《釋論》云「波若部儻有多有少，有、上中、下」，云何言《光讚》、《道行》非是別部耶？又《大論》第百卷云「如此中波若，或有二萬二千偈，大波若有十萬偈，諸龍天宮有千億萬偈，以其壽命長遠、念力堅強故，堪聞多說。人中壽命短促、憶識力弱，止有少許文字。」若爾，豈局在五時、限現於八部耶？

> Second, clarifying the scope of Prajna. Question: How many kinds of Prajna Paramita are there? Answer: Having extensively explored the south and north, and thoroughly examined the scriptures and treatises, the number of editions varies. First, there are two kinds, as stated in the \*Great Wisdom Treatise\*. In volumes 41 and 99, it says: Prajna has two kinds: one spoken together with the Hearers, and one spoken exclusively for the great Bodhisattvas on the tenth ground, which those of lower positions cannot hear. Most of the current Prajna scriptures belong to the kind spoken together with the Hearers. Second, there are three kinds. Concerning the three kinds, volume 67 of the \*Commentary Treatise\* says: Within the Prajna category, there are more and less, upper, middle, and lower—namely, the \*Light Praise\*, the \*Radiant Release\*, and the \*Path of Practice\*. It was previously said that \*Light Praise\* had five hundred fascicles, but in this land only ten fascicles remain, or divided into twelve fascicles, containing thirty-seven chapters—this is the upper edition. Next, \*Radiant Release\* is the middle edition, and \*Path of Practice\* is the lower edition. \*Radiant Release\* has twenty fascicles—this is the ancient Greater Edition, which Dharma Master Dao An lectured on. The new standard edition today has twenty-seven fascicles, or twenty-four, and is called the Greater Edition in contrast to the Smaller Edition. Among the above three editions, it is actually the middle one. \*Path of Practice\* is the Smaller Edition, with ten fascicles; there is a new standard edition with seven fascicles. Volume 79 of the \*Commentary Treatise\* says: The meaning of Prajna is boundless, but the number of fascicles is limited—namely, the Smaller Edition, \*Radiant Release\*, and \*Light Praise\*. Since the other two are listed as before, here the name "Smaller Edition" replaces \*Path of Practice\*. Thus it is known that \*Path of Practice\* is the Smaller Edition. Third, clarifying the four kinds of Prajna: Dharma Master Rui of Chang'an, in his preface to the \*Smaller Edition\*, says, "The main text of this scripture has four kinds in all—the largest being one hundred thousand verses, the smallest being six hundred verses. This Greater Edition is still the middle edition in foreign lands. As words spoken according to circumstances, why bother counting how much or how little?" Although the four names are mentioned, the count is not listed. Some say that the \*Diamond\* should be added to the previous three to make four. However, the \*Diamond\* has only about three hundred verses, while Master Rui said "the smallest is six hundred verses," so it is known that the \*Diamond\* was not necessarily used to complete the four. Next, clarifying the five-period Prajna comes from the \*Humane King Sutra\*. It begins: Shakyamuni entered the great stillness of meditative concentration, and the assembly said to one another: "The Great Enlightened World-Honored One has already, for our great assembly, spoken the \*Mahaprajnaparamita\*, the \*Diamond Prajna\*, the \*Heavenly King's Questions on Prajna\*, and the \*Light Praise Prajna\* over the past twenty-nine years. Now he again emits light—what is he doing?" Having listed these four kinds before, the fifth and final is the \*Humane King Protecting the Nation Prajna\*. Also, the record at the end of the \*Great Compassion Bhikshuni's Original Vows Sutra\*, or the record at the end of the \*Humane King Sutra\*, says the five-period Prajna refers to the Buddha's teaching to convert practitioners of the three vehicles over thirty years. First, the Buddha spoke the Greater Edition Prajna at Rajagriha, and the Smaller Edition emerged from it. Second, at the Jetavana Monastery in Shravasti, the Buddha spoke the \*Diamond Prajna\*, originally in eight fascicles, but in Huainan it was scattered, leaving only the single fascicle on "Comparing Merits," preserved under its original name, also called \*Diamond\*. Third, at Jetavana, the Buddha spoke the \*Heavenly King's Questions on Prajna\*; the great original text did not come to China, and in this land there are only the \*Questions of the God Shakra on Prajna\* in seven fascicles, the \*Questions of Prince Dharma-Talent on Prajna\* in three fascicles, and the \*Questions of the Four Heavenly Kings on Prajna\* in one fascicle, all extracted from it. Fourth, at Rajagriha, the Buddha spoke the \*Light Praise Prajna\*, from which the \*Perfect Attainment\*, the \*Path of Practice\*, and the \*Extensive Purity\*—these three texts—emerged. Fifth, at Rajagriha, the Buddha spoke the \*Protecting the Nation Prajna\*. Next, Master Bodhiruci says: Prajna should have eight sections. The first section has one hundred thousand verses, the second has twenty-five thousand verses—these two sections remain in foreign lands. The third has twenty-two thousand verses, which is the Greater Edition. The fourth has eight thousand verses, which is the Smaller Edition. The fifth has four thousand verses, the sixth has two thousand five hundred verses—these two have not yet been transmitted to China. The seventh has six hundred verses, which is the \*Prajna of Manjushri\*. The eighth has three hundred verses, which is this \*Diamond Prajna\*. He also mentions the \*Light Praise\*, the \*Great Emptiness\*, the \*Path of Practice\*, etc. Master Bodhiruci says these are all single chapters from within the one-hundred-thousand-verse Prajna, not separate texts. Now, examining this against the \*Commentary Treatise\*, it differs from what Bodhiruci said. The \*Commentary Treatise\* says, "Within the Prajna category there are more and less—upper, middle, and lower." How can it be said that the \*Light Praise\* and the \*Path of Practice\* are not separate texts? Also, volume 100 of the \*Great Treatise\* says: "In this world, the Prajna may have twenty-two thousand verses, while the Great Prajna has one hundred thousand verses. In the palaces of dragons and devas, there are hundreds of thousands of millions of verses, because their lifespans are long and their power of mindfulness is strong, so they can bear hearing much. In the human world, lifespans are short and the power of memory is weak, so only a little text remains." If so, how could it be limited to five periods or confined to eight sections?

第三、辨開合。問：餘經曾無再說，何故波若諸部無量？答：佛經無量來漢地者，蓋不足言，但今唯見波若多部，未見餘經多耳。而今且論波若多部者，眾生入道，要由波若。所以者何？一切凡夫未得道者，皆由有所依著。波若正破眾生有所依著，故說無依著之法。波若是真實懺悔，故諸大乘經辨真實懺悔皆依般若。如《普賢經》云「一切業障海，皆從妄想生。若欲懺悔者，端坐念實相。」《大涅槃》亦云「若聞無作無受，王之重罪必得除滅。」問：諸經各說無所得法、各滅重罪，云何獨言諸經滅罪皆依波若？答：諸大乘經雖竝是無依無得；但波若多作無依無得之說，正破眾生依得之病，餘經不爾。至如《涅槃》正明常無常，《法華》明會三歸一之法，《華嚴》廣明菩薩因果德行，不正辨無依無得。為是義故，眾經說得道之與滅罪，要須波若，是以般若有多部不同。取其大要，眾生常有依得之病，是以如來常說無依得法。如《二夜經》云「佛從得道夜訖至泥洹夜，常說波若。」五時之與八部，何足為多？問：般若五時為五部，華嚴八會何故不為八部？八會既合為一部，五時何不合為一部？答：通而為論，皆得相類。今不爾者，華嚴八會，此義則前後相成，如前說十信、十住、十行、十迴向、十地及大小相海，此即淺深次第，因果相成，故得合為一部。五時般若非是淺深次第、前後相成，故各開五部。

第四、重明二經前後。問：《摩訶般若》、《金剛般若》何者前說？答云：開善法師、會稽基法師、姑蘇華山顏法師、大領師等，皆云：如《仁王》所列，前說《摩訶》，次說《金剛》。更以兩義證之：一者、《大智論》云「前未說菩薩行，今始欲為彌勒等說菩薩行，故說波若。」若前已說《金剛波若》，則是已說菩薩行，不應言未說也。二者、《金剛波若經》初云「善護念諸菩薩，善付屬諸菩薩」，未說《摩訶般若》則未有菩薩，云何付屬護念耶？今說《摩訶》竟，方有菩薩，故後說《金剛般若》始得明護念付屬菩薩也。次有人言：前說《金剛》，後說《大品》。何以知之？有三義、三文往證。三義：一、金剛是破相之名，十二年中名有相教，受字之徒生分別相，封執難祛。佛初開此經，明無相深理，破彼相著心，故假金剛，強喻空解。二者、說此經止集千二百五十比丘等，不廣集天人菩薩，正為將明甚深空理、化著相眾生，欲令親近弟子在前悟解，因此得使傳教義成，使聲聞助佛揚化。菩薩理中近佛、事迹更遠，又欲令菩薩轉教聲聞望岸而退，故前為常隨佛者說於此經。三者、形小故有大。前說此經甚略，未廣明菩薩萬行，名為小；後演《放光般若》，此始復廣明無相、解萬行差別，名為摩訶般若。以此義往推，故知《金剛般若》是第一時說，《摩訶般若》次在第二。次文證亦有三：一者、此經下文「須菩提問佛云：頗有眾生得聞如是言說章句，生實信不？」若爾，前已說《大品》，無量眾生得信悟解，轉教說法。善吉於大品教門曾無此疑；今至此經方復致問，在義難解。二者、善吉領解云：「我從昔來所得慧眼，未曾得聞如是之經。」若爾，前佛說《大品》，豈不能說經轉教，那得言不聞深經？若聞而未悟，豈能轉教？三者、善吉答佛「不應以三十二相見如來」。若爾，前已聞《大品》，云何執色相是佛？若生此執，非謂解空。故知直執昔日相教，故謂色身為佛。而開善舉兩義為證，今須釋之：一者、《大智論》云「說摩訶已前，未明菩薩行」者，此是未廣明菩薩行耳，非不已略說《金剛》。二者、云未說《大品》故未有菩薩善付屬者，此事不然。今明佛初成道以三乘度人，豈無菩薩？付屬彌勒，即是其人。以文義往推，故知前說《金剛波若》也。今明此之二釋未可專判，隨宜之言復何可定？其前後或可一時具說多部，或可一部具經多時，至《大品》中更當委釋。

第五、辨經宗。問：此經以何為宗？答：釋者不同。有人言：以無相境為宗。所以者何？明此經正遣蕩萬相，明無相理，故以無相之理為此經宗。有人言：此經以智慧為宗，自有二說：一說云慧有二種，一者、因中智慧；二者、果中智慧。今正以因中智慧為此經宗，凡有四文為證：一者、《大品》初云「欲得一切種智，當學般若。」此意言：欲得佛地智慧，當習因中智慧。二者、〈勸學品〉通勸三乘學般若。此經未說二乘作佛，而勸令學般若，證般若但在因中，非是果也。三者、《釋論》初云「為彌勒等說菩薩行，故說般若」，故知是般若因中之行，至果則轉名萬德。四者、《釋論》四十九卷云「因中名般若，菩薩成佛時轉名一切種智」，故般若不屬佛，但屬菩薩。又云「般若成佛時，轉名薩般若」，佛智窮堅極利，即是金剛薩波若。今既說波若，故知但明十地無漏，所以是因中般若為宗。有人言：從初地以上，終乎佛果皆平等，悉為經體。此則因之與果竝為經宗，即開善舊用。因慧中復有二說。有人言：但取無相實慧以為經宗。故《勝鬘經》云「金剛喻者，是第一義智」。有人言：實智、方便智悉為經宗。故《大品》二周之說，具明二慧。有人言：境之與智，合為經宗。故瑤法師云「語經宗極，則以實相為宗；明聖心，則以妙智為主。」是故境智合為經宗。問：如斯等說，何者是實？答：有人言：皆有道理，悉是佛語故。有人言：如此諸說竝悉失般若意。又有人言：唯我一解是，餘釋盡非。如莊嚴云：因名金剛，果非金剛，以因中斷惑、果地不斷。開善云：因果俱金剛，因果俱斷惑，故云佛智斷、佛菩提智斷。今明般若無一定相，如大火炎，四邊不可觸，豈得各定執？今當一一責之。若言境是波若，而今般若於汝正是智慧，云何辨於般若不以般若為宗，遂取非般若為宗。次責問：若以智慧為宗者，《大智論》云「般若深重，智慧輕薄」。今既說深重般若，何故不取深重般若為宗，而取輕薄智慧為宗？次問：若取因中智慧以為般若，是亦不然。所以者何？經中有種種說，或云因名般若、果稱薩般若，或因果悉稱般若，如《大經》三德之中有般若德，故知般若亦是果名，不應偏執。次問：若言始從初地，終至佛果，通取因果為宗者，是亦不然。《釋論》云「有人言：漏、無漏慧皆是般若。有人言：但無漏慧是般若。」龍樹無的取捨，何因緣故而汝偏執？又問：若言般若通因果者，何故《釋論》但云是因？斯則得通，復失其別。次責：若言境智合為宗者，亦應境智合為般若。於汝義中，智是正般若、境是相從般若，亦應智是正宗、境是相從宗，此與前說更復何異？次問：若言七家皆是者，此不識得失耳。如愚癡盲人，不知道路通與不通，皆言是道，故復為失也。次問：若言莊嚴為是、開善為非者，開善亦以開善為是、莊嚴為非，此亦一是非、彼亦一是非，竟誰是耶？如《大品》云「是見實，餘妄語耳。」問：山門解釋與他，為同為異？答：若求由來眾解若得，可問與今義同異；求竟不可得，將誰同異耶？能如此不同不異、不自不他，無依無得、一無所住，即是般若之玄宗也。作上解，有所依住，皆非般若宗也。今明般若無有定相，隨緣善巧，義無不通。而正般若未曾境與不境、智與不智，乃至因與不因、果與不果，方便隨緣，在因名因、在果名果，在境名境、在智名智，故果因境智必得名悉得。如肇師云「原夫能境智因果者，豈境智因果之所能？良以非境非智，能境能智；非因非果，能因能果等耳。」而今就文為論，一往方言般若非因非果，正以因果為宗。問：以何義知因果為宗？答：經及論文竝作此說。經云：發菩提心住般若，乃至無住相布施。如此大願大行，即是因義。次得如來無為法身，即是果義。論文至信者章中云「說因果深義，於彼惡世時，不空必有實」，故知明因辨果事已究竟，然後方明信受，故知因果為此經正宗耳。

第六、辨經名，更開五句一、解佛說；二、釋金剛；三、解般若；四、釋波羅蜜；五、明經。經曰金剛般若波羅蜜，釋曰：經題有二種，一者具足、二者不具足。具足應言「佛說金剛般若」，不具足但云「金剛般若」。問曰：餘經何因緣故不題佛說？答：一切諸經佛口自說，皆悉應題為佛說也。而不題者，存略故。問曰：何故此經題為佛說耶？答曰：《大智論》云「有五種人說：一者佛口自說，二者弟子說，三者諸天說，四者仙人說，五化人說。」今此經是佛口自說，非餘人說，是故題佛說也。問曰：餘經亦是佛口自說，非餘人說，何故不云佛自說？答曰：已如前說，理實應題，以存略故。復次如《大品》等經命須菩提說，非佛自說，是故不得題為佛說，但云摩訶波若，波若具兼師弟子二說。此經不爾，雖對須菩提而佛自說，非命說也。復次以理言之，應題佛說。所以者何？諸外道六師等輩亦皆說經，今恐墮邪見，欲簡異六師，故題佛說，使人信受法也。復次道不孤運、必由人弘，法雖佛師，要由佛說，法乃得弘。以是義故，題能說之人、所說之法，則於義具足也。

二、釋金剛。問曰：金剛為是譬名、為是法名？答曰：有人言：金剛是譬，如世間中金剛寶堅而且利，譬於波若體堅用利。今謂不然。所以者何？汝於法譬生二見，故謂金剛但譬而非法、波若但法而非譬，則譬礙於法，不得以譬為法；法礙於譬，不得以法為譬。復次若言借世金剛喻般若者，亦應借世智慧以譬般若。若言般若自有智慧，非世間智慧，亦應自有金剛，非世間金剛也。復次若言金剛是譬喻者，摩訶之名亦應是譬喻。若言般若廣大體是摩訶，亦應般若堅利體是金剛。問：汝今何故作如此難？答：波若名為真實之法，無所依止，不可言大、不可言小，不可言法、不可言譬，過一切語言、滅一切觀行。今非小大，歎美為大；非金剛非不金剛，歎美為金剛。非小非大，寄大以宣之；大既是法，非金剛非不金剛，寄金剛以宣之，金剛亦得是法。借金剛以目之，金剛既是譬；寄大以目之，大亦是譬。故以譬言之，一切皆是譬；以法言之，一切皆是法。復次金剛是譬，般若是法，金剛是喻，非喻為喻，所喻之理非理為理。非理為理，雖理而事；非喻為喻，雖事而理。雖理而事，故知非理；雖事而理，故知非事。是以般若未曾理事，但無名相中假名相說，故金剛為事，般若為理。此是不二二義，為眾生故，假名相說二，豈定二耶？問：云何是金剛耶？答曰：《大智論》云「外國名越闍，此言金剛」，又《華嚴經》云「斫家羅，此翻金剛圍山」，又舊相傳直云「跋闍羅」，真諦三藏云「跋闍羅侈臺履反迦居伽反」。問曰：舊翻跋闍羅為金剛，出何處文？答：《賢愚經》第二卷，波斯匿王醜女，名跋闍羅，晉言金剛。問曰：汝以金剛喻般若者，此有何義？答曰：如世間寶，金剛第一；出世間寶，般若第一。復次如金剛寶，一切世人不能秤價；般若法寶所有所生功德，一切世人不能秤量。復次如金剛寶，若置山頂及在平地，直過無礙，到金剛際，同性乃住。般若金剛亦復如是，置福山頂，若罪平地直過無礙，到諸法實相，非罪非福、非有非無，同性乃住。復次如世金剛寶照徹清淨，故羅什云：方寸金剛照數十里，物皆映現。般若亦爾，照實相水，明了清淨。復次如金剛寶，除那羅延，一切眾生不能執持；般若亦爾，除信悟無依無得大力觀人，若樂小法及著見眾生，不能信持。如經說「為發大乘者說、為發最上乘者說」，若樂小法者及著諸見，不能信持。復次譬如丈夫食小金剛，終身不銷；波若亦爾，若能了悟不可朽滅，必得作佛。復次若有眾生得金剛寶，遠離一切貧窮困苦，受諸安樂；若得般若，離生死苦，得大涅槃。復次如金剛寶所在之處，能銷惡鬼及諸蠱毒；般若亦爾，所在之處，天魔外道惡鬼不能得其便。復次如金剛寶，悉摧破一切諸物，而是金剛無有折損；般若亦爾，悉能摧破一切煩惱而無折損。復次金剛，一切諸物不能摧破；般若亦爾，一切論者及諸煩惱不能摧破。復次如金剛寶，若在日中，色則不定；般若亦爾，在大眾中亦復不定，或說名因、或說名果，在小心人中則名為小、在大心人中則名為大，在境名境、在智名智，而是般若無一定相，故偈云「般若是一法，佛說種種名，隨諸眾生力，為之立異字。」復次如金剛寶，雖有如此種種勝用，未嘗有心，自言我勝；般若亦爾，雖有無量種種功德，而未當有心，是故般若不可思議。問：金剛出何處？答：《毘婆沙》云「如從鑛出金，從金出金剛」，故知金中之精名金剛。問：金剛與天如意珠，云何同異？答：《大智論》云「帝釋手執金剛與修羅鬪，碎落閻浮提，變成如意珠」，《毘婆沙》云「金剛能破頗梨山及如意珠」，故知異也。復次，此明般若與金剛同，而是般若超絕金剛，非可譬喻。金剛是世間物；般若非世間。金剛失之則憂之、得之則喜；得般若者無憂無喜。金剛是無知之物；般若無知、無所不知，無量功德，今略說而已。復次，有人言：聲聞法中，從假名空終至羅漢，通名金剛；菩薩法中，從三十心終至佛慧，通名金剛。若別而為論，從初地以去終至佛慧，始名真金剛。所以者何？而三十心人但是學妄、未得真妄，但是伏惑、未能斷惑，相由入體，所以未得秤真金剛也，亦得相從名金剛。初地以去得於真妄解，正能斷惑，相不入體，是真金剛。舊以窮學之心喻金剛者，約開善義，伏惑既周，又無明元品之惑此最難伏，唯是窮學之心而能伏之，故至佛果起佛智斷之。以是義故，窮學之心名曰金剛。復次，有人言：窮學之心正能斷惑，故名金剛。如此等說竝言有惑之可斷、有解之能斷，以是義故名有所得。有所得故不能斷惑、無有金剛。如經中說：有所得者，不從一地至一地。復次，汝言未斷惑時有惑無解，斷惑之時有解無惑。此則惑是本有而今無、解是本無而今有，是生滅觀。如經中說諸法本有今無，又言「若諸法前有後無，諸佛菩薩則有罪過。」今所明者，知惑本不有、今亦不無，解本不無、今亦不有，是故諸法不有不無、不生不滅，非縛非解、無觀無緣，乃名般若。問曰：若如是者，云何經言「一念相應慧，斷煩惱及習」？答：若見有生滅，則不能斷；以了諸法不解不惑、非斷不斷，故煩惱斷也。問：金剛但喻般若，亦喻餘法？答：借金剛種種喻，《大經》以喻法身云金剛身，又喻三昧云金剛三昧，此喻定為金剛也；今喻智慧名金剛也。問：金剛是天上寶，是人中寶耶？答：人天具有，如轉輪王金輪，是金剛寶故，所擬皆碎。帝釋執金剛與修羅鬪，即是天上寶也。

第三、釋般若。般若是外國語，《釋論》有二文：一者、「般若，秦言智慧」，開善用之。次文云「般若深重，智慧輕薄，不可以輕薄智慧秤量深重般若」。莊嚴法師云：般若名含五義，智慧但是一條，非正翻譯。但解智慧，經論不同。《淨名經》分二字解之：知眾生心念，如應說法，起於智業；不取不捨，入一相門，起於慧業。舊釋此文云：智是有解，慧是空解，亦智是化他，慧是自行。《大品》云：道慧、道種慧，一切智、一切種智。此則智慧名通空有也。又因名慧、果秤智，如因名道慧、道種慧，果秤一切智、一切種智。又智名通因果，如三智義，聲聞一切智、菩薩道種智、佛一切種智。又慧名通因果，《法華》云「諸佛平等大慧」也。《成論》文合解智慧兩字云真慧名智，又云慧名智人。又云慧義，經中說解脫智是慧義，故智猶慧也。又《大智論》亦有二文：「般若者，秦言慧也」，又云「秦言智慧」也。問：經論何故言語或出或沒、乍合乍開，不分明一途示人，合分明得解耶？答：聖人非不能一途分明示人，而今有出沒言者，此有深意。以眾生本來有取著之心，以是因緣繫屬於魔，生死不絕，若輪常轉，不悟中道佛性，正觀般若。今若復作一途實說，則更增其依著之心，所以不定出沒，動其生死根識，令逈悟正法，故不定之說為益深矣。若學者定執經論一文以成一家之義者，皆是繫屬魔人耳。又眾生非一國土、一根性、一善知識，是故諸佛種種說法也。問：已知般若名，云何是般若體？答：地論人說，有二種般若：一、真修般若，即第八識；二、緣修般若，即第七識。成論師言：緣真諦心，忘懷絕相。以此解心為般若體。阿毘曇師云：緣四諦理，無漏慧相是般若體。此三解即世盛行，具須破洗，至《大品玄》中廣明。但即世多誦此經，今輒言其要句，冀參玄君子，領其指外。問：今以何為般若？答：若行人了悟顛倒，豁然悟解，假名般若。問：此豁然悟解，豈非心耶？答：此解悟非心非離心。問：云何非心非離心？答：既言心悟解，豈離心耶？此悟心畢竟不起有心無心，豈即心耶？問：若言心悟，還是即心；若言悟此心，不得心有無，便是離心。答：猶言即離，還是不悟。如其得悟，竟有何即離？問：既不即離，應不迷悟。答：迷故言其即離，悟故了無即離。既不即離，竟復何有迷悟耶？可取其意，勿著其言也。

第四、釋波羅蜜。波羅蜜，此云彼岸到。外國風俗法凡作一事究竟，名波羅蜜。今悟道之人雖復積功累劫，若不得般若，為行不成；若悟般若，萬行周畢，故名波羅蜜。問：既有彼岸，云何為此岸及中流耶？答：聖人直假名說彼岸，令其因此悟入，何必須作此岸、彼岸、中流耶？《大經》云「雖無此岸，而有彼岸」，即其事也。必須作者，《大智論》云「有無見為此岸，破有無見智慧為彼岸，檀為中流。」

第五、釋經。經有三種，或文為經、或理為經、或文理合為經。地論師云：三十心前人文為經；三十心，文理合為經；初地已去，用理為經。今明文理因緣，故為經，因文悟道故。以能表之，文為經也。

第七、辨傳譯。問：《大悲比丘尼本願經》末記云：金剛般若本有八卷，今唯有〈格量功德〉一品。此事云何？答：義不應爾。所以者何？此一卷經具有三人翻譯：一者、羅什法師弘始四年，於逍遙園正翻一卷。若有八卷，何不翻譯之？二者、流支三藏於此土重復翻譯，經之與論合有三卷，而經長有信者一章，論解釋始終事義既畢，初則明經緣起歸敬之義，末則表隨喜讚歎功德。若有八卷，何因緣故止解一品？三者、真諦三藏於嶺南重翻此經，文小意廣，不云有八卷。又且此經序、正、流通三分具足，何得止言一品？問：《大悲比丘尼本願經》末記又云：初說大品，小品出其中；後說光讚，道行出其中。此事云何？答：是亦不然。道行由是小品之異名。《大智論》前列光讚、放光、道行，後復列云小品、放光、光讚，故知小品即道行之異稱也。叡公《小品．序》云「此經三十章，貫之以道，故稱道行。」當知道行由是小品。

第八、明應驗。問：誦持般若，有何驗益？答：此經流行漢地二百餘年，誦者得益，不可稱記。昔在山僧誦之，空中彈指，異香滿室。又開善法師誦得延壽七年。又朱仕衡行，以大品投火，火為之滅，而經不燒。廣益無量，不可具述。

第九、釋章段。此經文約理玄釋者，鮮得其意，致使科段烟塵紛穢，遂令般若日月翳而不明。今粗列眾師以示其得失。原夫大聖屬緣吐教，意令表筌悟實，其旨則不在文字，希得意之徒領其要歸其所寄也。自北土相承，流支三藏具開經作十二分釋：一者、序分；二者、護念付屬分；三者、住分；四者、修行分；五者、法身非有為分；六者、信者分；七者、格量分；八者、顯性分；九者、利益分；十者、斷疑分；十一者、不住道分；十二者、流通分。夫大聖說法，必有由致，故有序分。將說大法，必為諸菩薩，已悟之徒則須加被，未悟之者付屬已悟，故有第二護念付屬。既護念付屬，令其住般若中，故有第三住分。雖得住立，更進修諸行，故次有第四修行分也。以修無得之因，故得無為之果，故次明法身非有為分。說此因果，必有信受之人，故次須明信者分。信持則功德無邊，故須明格量分。持說之人所以功德無邊，必由佛性，若不識於佛性，則無此功德，故有顯性分也。以依佛性所修功德利益無窮，故須明利益分也。上來一周說法，利根已悟，中下未了，更復生疑，故有第十斷疑分。疑心既除，則無所依住，故有第十一不住道分。此之大法，非止益現在，亦利益未來，故有第十二流通分也。然分雖十二，不出因果，統其始末，凡有四周：護念付屬至修行分，此則明因法身非有為分，斯則辨果益，是一周明因果也。次從信者分至于格量，此則為因，感得顯性之果，此則次周明因果也。既明佛性，依性之修行即因義，有因故得果，即利益分，謂三周明因果也。斷疑為因，不住道為果，則四周明因果也。然此之解釋盛行北地，世代相承，多歷年序，而稟學之徒莫不承信。余鑽仰累年載，意謂不然。今請問之，此十二分為出般若經文？為是婆藪論釋？今所觀經論悉無斯意，蓋是人情自穿鑿耳。渾沌之絞絡，良弊於此也。問：作此分文，有何過失，而汝非之？答：其妨甚多，不可具載。今略題數過，以示其通塞也。一者、作此分文，則不識經之通別。所以者何？至如序分則通序一經，如護念付屬等十分，此是正說中之別段。云何取經之通文，以例正說之別段？斯則失之大矣。又且汝云：從大千珍寶至捨恒沙身命，名格量分。此則未識經始終，故有斯謬耳。所以者何？此中格量凡舉內外兩施，外施則有三千之與恒沙。內施之中亦有二種：一者、直捨恒沙身施；二者、次舉日三時捨恒沙身施。此方盡格量之極。汝何故但取前三種為格量分，而不取三時捨身為格量分？是以為失。又且論云「從法身非有為分已來，竝是斷疑」，汝云何獨取須菩提重問已去為斷疑分？又且此經有兩周之說，經論竝作斯判，汝何故取前周之說以開多分、取後周之說合為一分？抑大為小，患之甚也。又流通實是大章，還依小段之例，亦所不可。其間碎分章句，爰至異言語目，於經論竝穢，至文當具顯之。復有人言：十二分開之，既其難解，取其易見，裁為六章。六章者：一、序分；二、護念付屬分；三、住分；四、修行分；五、斷疑分；六、流通分。此之分別，蓋是學之劣者，過還同前，而患復更甚。所以者何？若言後同是斷疑分，就斷疑中不復更開，附前亦是同非斷疑，不斷疑中亦應不開。不斷疑中有種種義，既開多分，斷疑之中何因緣故取為分？若爾，塗行乞食應是一分。若使塗行乞食既屬序分而不開者，護念、付屬屬正說亦應不開。又元前解之與後釋，都不識論文之大體。所以者何？論主直是釋其難文，略其易句，云何後人見論解釋，便取為科段？復有人注金剛般若開三門：從如是我聞至願樂欲聞是因緣門，謂具此因緣故得說般若。從佛告應如是降伏至見諸相非相，明般若體門。從白佛頗有眾生下，明功德門。然此解釋，義亦不盡。流通復屬何門？又復後周重說，又屬何門？有人言：開為三段：一者、序說；二者、正說；三者、流通說。大聖說法，必有由漸，故有序說；序說既竟，正宗宜開，故有正說；非唯近益當時，亦乃遠被來葉，故有流通說。今謂三說開經，於理無妨，但開善之流，不識三說起盡，故復為失。所以者何？至如序文取善吉之問，為歎請序；如來之答始屬正經，此事為謬。然一切經，若問若答，皆悉是正，云何以問為序、以答為正？《大涅槃經》時會獻供為序，純陀請受問難即以為正；此經塗行乞食以之為序，善吉發問即應是正。大品亦然，如來廣現神變以之為序，告舍利弗即以為正。斯事易明，不應濫也。又且三說無定，雖序說不妨有正，雖正說不妨有序，流通亦爾。何者？以序於正，故名為序；以正於序，故名為正。正說悟道，既得是正；序說悟道，亦得是正。今但約一往方言，故開三不同耳。就此三中，各開二段。序有二者：一、通序；二者、別序。正文有二：第一、周廣說；第二、周略說。流通有二：一、序佛說經究竟；二者、明時眾歡喜奉行。序中二段，凡有四雙：一者、通；二者、別。通以同為義，眾經六事悉同，故名通序。別以異為義，眾經各異，或父母送書、或長者獻蓋、或天雨四華、或塗行乞食，故名別序。次雙證信序、發起序者，安此六事，令人生信，故名證信序。塗行乞食，發起正經，名發起序。次雙遺教序與現前序，明如來將入泥曰，阿難心沒憂海，不能自喻。阿泥樓馳云：「汝是持佛法藏人，所應問者，須及時問。」於是阿難作於四問，最後問云：「一切經初置何等語？」佛言：「一切經初當安如是我聞。」遺言令安此六事，故名遺教序。現說經時，即有乞食等事，名現前序。次雙經前序、經後序。說經竟後方有如是六事，名經後序。說經之前，有乞食之事，名經前序。問曰：佛何因緣故，一切經初令安六事？答曰：為證信故。《大智論》云「說時、方、人，令人生信故。」復次，一切外道皆以吉法貫在經初，故《百論》云「諸師作經簡，初皆說吉。」今欲簡異外道故，故貫以六事。問曰：若安六事異外道者，外道亦言安此六事，何以簡耶？答曰：明此是般若六事，故以證信、簡異外道。般若信者，此是無依無得之信，故《大品》云「不信一切法，名為信般若。」一切法不生，故名為般若生；不信一切法，故名信般若也。

第十、正釋文。「如是我聞」。通序有六事如是者：第一、明所聞之法。問曰：佛是一切智人，無師自悟，不從他聞，何故言如是我聞？若言如是我聞，即從他聞，非一切智人也。答曰：已如前釋，此非佛自稱如是我聞，乃是勅於侍者令稱我聞。復次，此是阿難等大弟子，自稱如是我聞，如集法藏中說：阿難登高座，大迦葉問曰：「何處最初說法？」阿難合掌向涅槃方，答大迦葉云：「如是我聞，佛初在鹿苑，為五比丘說法。」是故非佛自稱。真諦三藏述婆藪釋云「阿難將誦出法藏，登無畏座，變身如佛，三十二相、八十種好。是時，大眾生三種疑：一、謂釋迦雖復前滅，今還重出，為我說法；二、謂釋迦已滅，此是他方佛來；三、謂釋迦雖滅，阿難既為佛弟子，今遂成佛，代於佛處。為有此三疑，是以阿難即便釋疑，云：『如是我聞』，明如來如是已滅，我從佛邊聞，非上三事也。」

言「如是」者，釋此一句有二十餘師，今略而不述。一者、依龍樹所解，云「如是者，佛法大海，信為能入，智為能度。如是者，即是信也。以信故言此事如是，若不信則言此事不如是。今要由信得入佛法，是故經初建言如是。」般若信者，明般若無依、無得、無戲論，畢竟清淨、真實可信，故因此信得入般若也。次婆藪盤豆釋云「如是者，謂決定義。略明二種：一、教如是；二、理如是教。」如是者，凡有數義：一者、如佛教度量，故云如是。所以者何？三世諸佛或廣說法、或處中說、或略說法。今阿難傳正法，還如佛廣略，不增不減，故云如是。二者、如是諸佛次第而說。所以者何？一切說法，凡有六事：一者、發起；二、略標宗；三、廣解釋；四、難；五、通；六、流通付屬阿難。今且次第誦持佛語，故云如是。三者、如經名字，故云如是。傳持佛經，須識經名。若不識經名，云何知義？所以者何？經之名題，總攝一經，如《大品》章雖九十，總名摩訶般若，以摩訶之名，攝九十章義。為是事故，須識經名。阿難如名誦持，故云如是。四者、因緣如是，三世諸佛說經因緣，略具四義：一者、根本有一切智，方能說經；二者、有大悲心，然後說法；三者、為報正法恩故，然後說法；四者、決定證信，有四：一知說經有時、二知說經處所、三知能說之人即是如來、四知有聽經之眾。如是時、處、聽眾、說者，如我所說，實可信受，故云如是。理如是者，言理是有，則名有見；言理是無，名為邪見；亦有亦無，是名相違見；非有非無，名愚癡見。所明之理，若墮此四中，即不名如是。今離此四謗，無所依止，故名如是。

「我聞」者，此第二、明能聞之人。我者，所以阿難自稱我者，一、欲證親從佛邊聞故，非是傳聞。所以者何？我今親從如來聞，是故稱我。二者、欲顯阿難過去世願行成就，是故稱我。阿難無量劫來修習多聞，本願力故得陀羅尼，一經於耳永無漏失，曾不再問，譬如寫水置之異器。故《法華》云「我與阿難於空王佛所同時發心，而我好精進，遂致作佛。阿難常樂多聞，故持我法藏。」又如經云「釋迦本昔為迦葉佛作沙彌，師日日限誦經千言，兼為師乞食，恐誦經不上，一心憂懼。阿難于時為長者，在路見之憂色，便問所以，故具答上事。長者仍語沙彌：『日日給食，令得安心誦經，莫復憂惱。』長者發願言：『若沙彌成佛，我當為法藏第一弟子。』」以顯宿願滿足，故稱為我。三者、以自在故，所以稱我。如《大經》云「阿難具足多聞智慧。一切眾生不能一時具領佛語；設能具領，無陀羅尼力，不能憶而不忘；雖有憶而不忘，亦不能具三慧。」於聞法中不能自在，不名為我。我者，是自在義。今阿難能一時具領佛語，亦能永持不忘。四者、具足發生三慧，於聞法中而得自在，是故稱我。問曰：佛法無我，何故稱我？答：《中論》云「諸法實相中，非我非無我，欲引導眾生，故假名說我。」是故無過。「聞」者，所以稱聞，亦具數義：一者、欲顯所聞人德。阿難所聞，不從外道，及佛弟子、仙人、化人及諸天聞，今所聞者從一切智人邊聞。二者、欲顯所聞法最勝。明佛法名句味巧妙，義理深淨。若外道法，但有語言，無有實義；若聞佛法，名為正聞。三者、所顯理最勝。佛法正道圓滿具足，無有顛倒，如理而說，名為正說；如理而聞，名為正聞。四者、行最勝，故名正聞。依正教修行，即是行中最勝，故名為正聞。五者、修行得正果，故為正聞。正果者，所謂大般涅槃。問：為用神聞？為用識聞？為用根聞？為和合聞？若用神聞，何故神用耳聞，不用眼聞？若用識聞，亦如是難。若用根聞，無有識時，空根應聞；若一一不能聞者，和合亦不能聞。以如是義，悉無有聞。答曰：今言聞者，是因緣聞。因緣聞者，是不聞聞，聞而無所聞。是以經云「其說法者，無說無示；其聽法者，無聞無得。」如來說無所說，阿難聞無所聞，如此說聽，乃可相成。

「一時」者，此第三、明說教之時。如轉輪王出世，是寶物可得之時；如如來出世，法寶可得之時，故云一時。二者、一切狂聾眾生聞如來說，得醒悟時，故云一時。又有正師時、有正教時、有正學時，故云一時。具此三時，眾生得道。《中觀論》云「真法及說者，聽者難得故」。若具此三種，則生死有邊；若不具此三種，則生死無邊。又眾生若未下信種時，不名一時。今說般若，是下信種時；若已下信種時，是正觀增長時；若正觀已增長時，是善根成就時，故云一時。又阿難一時能具足領於佛說，故云一時。又是逗一時根緣，故云一時。所以者何？諸佛說法廣略不同，今所以略說波若者，此是逗一時根緣故爾。又須知是般若一時。般若一時者，不時假言時，不一假言一。

「佛」者，此第四標說教之主。上來雖表三事，然邪正未分；第四、標佛，方顯明得失。所以者何？雖言我聞一時，未知從誰邊聞，是故今云從佛邊聞，非餘人也。然論云：婆伽婆者，能斷煩惱，有大功德，故名婆伽婆。「住」者，有二種：一者、外住；二者、內住。言外住者，凡有四種：一、王化處住，謂釋迦住在娑婆；二者、異俗住，謂住在一切僧伽藍內；三、威儀住，謂行、住、坐、臥悉名為住；四、未捨壽分住，謂如來未入涅槃。內住有四：一者、天住，住施戒等；二、梵住，住四無量心；三者、聖住，住空、無相、無願；四者、佛住，住諸法實相中。此是般若無住無不住，為眾生故，假名為住。

「舍衛國」者，此是第五、明住處。處有二種：一者、通處；二者、別處。舍衛國即是通處，祇洹精舍即是別處也。問：佛何因緣故，多住王舍城及舍衛國？答：佛前受頻婆娑羅王請，故住王舍城；次受須達多請，故住舍衛國。復次，欲報法身恩故，住王舍城；為報生身恩故，住舍衛國。所以者何？佛在王舍城摩伽陀國得道，是故為報法身恩故，住王舍城。問：佛生中天竺迦毘羅衛國，今舍衛國是東天竺國，今云何言為報生身恩故，住舍衛城？答：佛上祖本在東天竺舍衛國住，末來中天竺迦毘羅城。今從本立名，故云報生身恩故，住舍衛國也。復次，王舍城及舍衛國多人物故，佛欲於多人處教化眾生。如經說舍衛國凡有九億家，如《賢愚經》說有十八億人。復次，此二國生多智慧人及六師輩，是故佛多住此城。問：何故名舍婆提？答：有北土論師云：昔劫初有仙人兄弟二人，弟名舍婆，此云幼小；兄稱阿婆提，此云不可害。二人住此處求道，因以名之。弟略去婆、兄略去阿，二名雙取，故云舍婆提。真諦三藏云「彼國正音，應云奢羅摩死底，此云好名聞國。昔有仙人，有好名聞，在此中住，從仙人作名，故云好名聞國也。」又云「此國具足有四義：一、多寶；二、此中人多受五欲樂；三、有諸法德，此國中人多行施戒，謂之法德；四、未來得解脫果，明此國中人未來多生人天中及得解脫果。有此四義，遠聞餘國，故云好名聞國也。」從來舊翻為聞物國，此土多出好物，遠聞諸國，故名聞物國。《十二由經》云「無物不有，勝於餘處」也。問：佛住舍衛，凡得幾年？答：經云「住舍衛國得二十五年，有九億家，三億家見佛不聞法，三億家亦聞法亦見佛，三億家不見佛不聞法。」真諦三藏云「住舍衛始終得七年，住王舍城得四年。」今未詳也。問：王城舍衛前住何處？答云：佛前住王舍城，後來舍衛也。言「祇樹給孤獨園」者，此第二、名為別處。問：何因緣故，起立此祇園精舍？答：如《十二由經》、《涅槃經》、《賢愚》等經廣說。如《賢愚》第九卷云「舍衛國主波斯匿王有一大臣，名曰須達，其人居家巨富，財寶無限，好喜布施，燕濟貧窮及諸孤老。時人因為其立號，名為給孤獨。爾時，長者生七男兒，年竝長大，為其娉娶，次第至六。餘有第七兒，端正殊異，偏心愛念，當為娶妻，欲得極妙姿容端正有相之女，為兒求之。即語諸婆羅門言：『誰有好女，相貌備足，當為我行求之。』諸婆羅門便為推覓，展轉到王舍城中，有一大臣，名曰護珍，財富無量，信敬三寶。時，婆羅門到其家從乞食，彼國法施人物時，要令童女持物布施。護珍長者時有一女，儀容端正，顏色殊妙，持食出施婆羅門。婆羅門見之，心大歡喜：『我所覓者，正當是爾！』即問女言：『頗有人來求索汝未？』女答言：『未有。』更問言：『女子！汝父在不？』女答云：『在。』婆羅門語言：『可令出外，我欲見之，與共談語。』時女入內，白其父言：『外有客來，欲得相見。』其父便出。時婆羅門問訊起居安和善否？㬈涼既竟，謂長者言：『舍衛國王有一大臣，字曰須達，為國輔相。識不？』答言：『未見其人，但聞其名。』報言：『知不？是人於彼舍衛國第一富貴，汝於此間富貴亦最第一。須達有兒端正殊妙，卓犖多奇，欲取君子女，可爾不？』答言：『可爾！』時，婆羅門未得自還，仍值估客來舍衛國，即便因之寄書，逆報須達，具陳其事。須達得書歡喜，即詣波斯匿王，求請小許時，為兒娶婦。王即聽之。於是大載珍寶趣王舍城，於其路次，拯濟貧乏。至王舍城，到護珍家，為兒求妻護珍。長者歡喜迎達，安置敷具，暮宿其舍；內則搔擾，辦具飲食。須達念言：『今此長者，設何供具？欲作何等？將非欲請國王太子、長者大臣及以婚姻者乎？』便問之曰：『長者今暮躳自執營如是事務施設供具，為欲請國王、太子、大臣者乎？』答言：『不也。』又問：『欲設婚姻親戚會耶？』答言：『不也！』又問：『將何所作？』答言：『明日欲請佛及比丘僧。』於時，須達聞佛僧名，肅然毛竪，如其所得，心情悅豫。重問曰：『云何名佛？願解其義。』長者答言：『汝不聞耶？淨飯王子厥名曰悉達，其生之日，天降瑞應，天神侍衛，即行七步，唱言：「天上天下！唯我為尊！」』須達聞說如是等好事，歡喜踊躍，感念信敬，於今夜即欲見佛。於是，天為之明，便爾而去。中夜出門見天祠，即為作禮，忽忘念佛心，於是曉還，更闇，自念言：『今夜闇，若我往者，要為惡鬼猛狩之所見害，且還入城，待曉當去。』爾時，即有天空中見其欲悔，便下語言：『居士莫悔！我是汝昔善知識蜜肩婆羅門，因聞法故，得生天中。汝往見佛，得無量利益。正使今日得百車珍寶，乃至一四天下滿中珍寶，不如舉足至世尊所，所得利益過百千倍。汝去，莫悔！』須達聞天說如此語，益增敬念。於是在闇還得明曉，便爾尋路往至世尊所。佛知爾時須達來，便出外經行。是時，須達遙見世尊猶如金山，相好威容，嚴然昺著覩之心悅，不知禮法，直問世尊：『不審瞿曇起居何如？』世尊即時令就坐。是時，首陀會天遙見須達雖覩世尊，而不知禮足，諸天即化作四人行列而來到世尊所，執佛足作禮，長跪問訊，右繞三匝，却住一面。是時，須達見其如此，乃為愕然，而自念言：『恭敬之法，事應如是。』即起離坐禮敬，問訊起居，右繞三匝，却住一面。爾時，世尊即為說法：四諦微妙，苦空無常。既其聞法歡喜，即證須陀洹果。於是白佛：『唯願如來垂慈，臨傾舍衛大城中眾生，除邪就正！』世尊告曰：『出家之法，與俗有別，住止處所，應當有異。彼無精舍，云何得去？』是時，須達白佛言：『世尊！弟子能起，願見聽許。』世尊默然。須達辭往，因白佛言：『還至本國，當造精舍。不知揩法，唯願世尊使一弟子共往勅示。』世尊思惟：『舍衛城內婆羅門信邪倒見，餘人往者，必不能辦。唯舍利弗是婆羅門種，少小聰明，神通兼備，去必有益。』即便命之，共須達往。於是還到舍衛國，共舍利弗案行諸地，何處平博堪起精舍。悉皆周遍，無叶意處，唯王太子祇陀有園，其地平正，其樹欝茂，不近不遠，正得處所。時舍利弗告須達云：『今此園地，宜起精舍。若遠作者，乞食難得；近則憒鬧，妨廢行道。』須達歡喜，到太子所，向太子言：『我今欲為如來起立精舍，唯太子園地可以宜用，願欲買之。』太子笑曰：『我何所乏？此園茂盛，當用遊戲，云何欲買耶？』須達於是慇懃不已，太子聊復戲云：『卿若能以黃金布地，令間無空地，便當相與。』須達於是恭諾載金布地隨價。太子云：『我向戲言，何得便買？』須達白言：『太子之法，不應戲言；而作妄語，非謂儲君，無堪紹繼。』即共太子往詣斷事人所。時首陀會天當為佛起精舍，恐諸斷事大臣偏為太子，則便化作一人為斷事者，語太子言：『夫太子者，不應妄語而有戲笑。既已許賣，不宜中悔。』遂斷園與須達。須達歡喜，便得勅使人以象馬負金，布八十頃，須臾欲滿，唯殘有少地。須達思惟：『當出何藏金足？不多不少當得滿足。』祇陀問言：『嫌高買臺。』答曰：『自念必何金藏可足，當滿之。』祇陀念言：『佛必有大德，乃使斯人輕財乃爾。』即語云：『齊是可止！勿更出金。園屬卿，樹屬我，我自為佛造立門樓。』須達歡喜，即便歸家，當施功作。六師聞之，即往白王：『長者須達買太子園，欲為瞿曇造立精舍，聽我與彼捔試道術，其若得勝，便聽起立。』王即召長者問之：『今六師云：「卿買祇陀園，為瞿曇起立精舍？彼求共沙門弟子捔其道術，彼若得勝者，乃得起造；如其不能，不得起造。」』長者歸家，著垢膩衣，愁惱不樂。身子明日著衣持鉢至長者家，見其不樂，即問曰：『何故爾耶？』長者答曰：『起立精舍，恐不得成，是故愁耳。』身子曰：『有何事故？』答曰：『今諸六師詣王求捔道術，尊者得勝，乃聽起立。若不如彼，即不聽也。然六師輩等出家來久，素學伎術無能及者，未知尊者能與彼捔道術以不？』身子答言：『正使六師之徒滿三千世界、眾如竹林，不能動吾一毛。欲捔術，但恣聽之。』長者歡喜，更著新衣，往白王言：『六師欲捔，恣隨其意。』王即告六師，宣語國人：『却後七日，當於城外六師與沙門共捔道術。』國中十八億人。時彼國法擊鼓集眾，若擊銅鼓，十二億人集；若打銀鼓，十四億人集；若振金鼓，一切皆集。七日既滿，打鼓一切皆集，六師眾有三億人。是時，人民悉為王及六師敷坐。爾時，長者為身子施坐，時身子在一樹下寂然入定，遊諸禪門，通達無礙，作念云：『此會中大眾習邪來久，憍慢自高。此之群生，當以何德而降伏之？』思惟是已，即立誓言：『若我無數劫中慈孝父母、沙門、婆羅門者，今我入眾，令一切人為我作禮。』時六師眾已集，而身子獨未來，便白王言：『瞿曇弟子自知無術，怖畏不來。』王告長者：『汝師今在何許？』須達即至身子所，白言：『大眾已集，願來詣會。』時，身子從禪定起，整衣安詳而趣，如師子王，往詣大眾。是時，大眾及諸六師見其形容，忽然起立，如風靡草，不覺為禮。時身子便昇須達所敷之坐。六師眾中有一弟子，名勞度差，善知幻術，於大眾前呪作大樹，蔭覆於眾，眾咸謂言：『是勞度差作。』時舍利弗便以神力，作毘嵐風，吹拔樹根，倒著於地，碎若微塵。眾言：『舍利弗勝！』勞度差復呪作一池，四邊布七寶，水中生於蓮華。眾人言：『勞度差所作。』舍利弗作一六牙白象，牙上有華，華上有玉女，其象徐行蹈池、含水蹹華。眾人皆言：『舍利弗勝！』勞度差復作一山，七寶莊嚴，華菓茂盛。眾人言：『勞度差所作。』舍利弗又作金剛力士，以金剛杵打之，即便碎破。眾皆云：『舍利弗勝！』勞度差復作一龍，有十頭，於虛空中，雨種種寶，電雷振地。眾人皆言：『是勞度差作。』舍利弗作一金翅鳥王，即擘裂食之。眾人皆言：『舍利弗勝！』勞度差復作一牛王，身體肥大，峯角銳地，奔突來前。時舍利弗化作師子王，即便擊裂食之。眾人皆言：『舍利弗勝！』勞度差復變身作一夜叉鬼，形體長大，頭上火然，目赤如血，口四牙、目出火，驚懼奔走。時舍利弗復化作毘沙門王，夜叉恐怖，即欲退走，四面火起，無有去處，唯舍利弗邊清涼無火，即便屈伏頂禮，火即還滅。眾人咸言：『舍利弗勝！勞度差不如。』爾時，舍利弗身昇虛空，現十八變及八自在。時會見其神力，咸懷歡喜。舍利弗即為說法，隨其福行，各得道迹。六師弟子三億人，於舍利弗所出家學道。捔伎術竟，四眾各還所止。長者共身子還，圖精舍地，手自投繩一頭，舍利弗欣然含笑。長者問：『尊人何笑？』答云：『始欲經地，六天宮已成。』即借道眼，長者悉見。長者即問舍利弗：『六欲天何處最勝？』舍利弗云：『第四天中少欲知足，恒有一生補處菩薩來生其中。』須達言：『我正當生第四天中。』長者出斯言已，餘五宮悉滅，唯第四天宮湛然不變也。又更投繩，時舍利弗慘然憂色，則問：『尊人何故憂色？』答曰：『汝見此地中蟻子不？』答曰：『已見。』舍利弗言：『汝於過去毘波尸佛時，亦於此地為彼佛起精舍，而此蟻子在此中生，乃至今日，凡九十一劫受一種身，不得解脫。生死長遠，唯福是要，不可不勤。』是故身子慘傷，長者悲愍也。長者起精舍，用妙栴檀為香泥別房，住止千二百人，凡一百二十處，打揵槌施設，欲往請佛。復思惟：『上有國王，應當令知。若不啟白，儻有瞋恨。』往白波斯匿王：『我為佛已起精舍，願大王遣使請佛。』時王聞已，遣使詣王舍城，請佛及僧，願臨覆舍衛國。爾時，世尊與四部眾前後圍繞，放光動地，至舍衛國。漸近城邊，一切大眾持諸供具，迎待世尊。到已，放大光明，以指案，三千世界皆悉震動，伎樂不鼓自鳴，一切聾盲拘癖皆得具足。一切人民覩佛歡喜，十八億人民竝聚佛所。世尊爾時隨病為說法藥，各得道迹。」須達造精舍因緣事如是。言「祇陀」者，真諦三藏云「外國應云鳩摩羅祇陀，此云童真太子。又云祇陀者，此云戰勝。昔有兵賊，欲破舍衛，波斯匿王遂拒破賊。宮人啟云：『生於太子。』因以立名，故名戰勝。」須達多者，此云善與，父母無兒，就神乞之，夢中得兒，故名善與。彼土曾十二年中不雨，而須達巨富，賑濟貧乏，故名給孤獨長者。今言「祇樹給孤獨園」者，此是君臣兩舉，通別二名。祇陀是君名，給孤獨即是臣稱；樹是其別所，園即是通處。又祇樹是門處，故前明；園是精舍，故後舉。又祇陀是本稱，給孤是末名。真諦三藏云「須達為過去第四鳩留村馱佛已於此地起精舍，爾時此地廣四十里，佛及人壽四萬歲。須達爾時名毘沙長者，以金板布地，寶衣覆之，供養佛也。第五俱那含牟尼佛時，人及佛壽三萬歲。爾時須達名大家主長者，以銀布地，滿中乳牛之子，以為供養。爾時地廣三十里。第六迦葉佛壽及人三萬歲，須達爾時名大番悉長者，以七寶布地，地廣二十里，以為供養。第七釋迦佛及人壽百歲，地廣十里，以金布地，此處供養。彌勒出世，地還廣四十里，以七寶布地以為供養。佛及人壽八萬歲，須達爾時名儴佉王。儴佉王，此云螺王，其色白如螺也。出家得成羅漢。又須知此處是般若處、般若依果，其猶彌勒樓館，亦如法尚香城也。

## 金剛波若經義疏卷第一終