---
title: "金剛般若疏 · 第四"
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/cmcwmquiw09kmjs04ws11k5ba"
---

## 金剛般若疏卷第四

> Commentary on the Diamond Sutra, Volume 4

胡吉藏法師撰

> Composed by Master Ji Zang

「爾時須菩提聞說是經」下，第二、領解釋疑。文為二：初領解，次釋疑。領解中為二：初、領解；第二、佛述成。初領解為四：第一、自領解；第二、明他領解；三、明自領解為易；四、明他領解為難。初領解又二：第一、經家序其悟解相貌；第二、正明領解。初序其相貌者，有四：一、標領解人；二、明所領解法；三、正明領解；第四、領解相貌。問：得解應歡喜，云何乃悲泣耶？答：領解相貌不同，凡有三句：一者、得解歡喜，如《法華》身子踊躍歡喜；二者、得解悲泣，如此文；三、得解亦歡喜亦悲泣，如善集王悲喜交集，喜則欣今悟、悲則慨昔迷，悲喜雙兼二事也。「希有世尊」下，第二、明得解。「我從昔來所得慧眼未曾得聞」者，古來釋經前後不同。一家云：此經在《大品》初說，以此文為證，既云未曾聞般若，故知在前。第二師云：此經在《大品》後說。既在《大品》後，何得善吉云昔來未曾得聞耶？彼釋云：前於《大品》中雖善吉已悟，而中下根人未悟，今同其未悟，故云未曾得聞；中下根人於今得悟，故同其得悟，故言今始得聞耳。此事已如前明，今更開一意：上外施格量竟，如來自稱歎經，勸物受持；今內施格量竟，善吉自稱歎經，勸物受持，是故師弟互文勸緣信悟耳。「若復有人得聞是經」下，第二、陳他得解。「則生實相」者，他云世諦生、真諦不生，即問：實相即是真諦，既生實相，何不生真諦耶？彼釋云：生實相之慧耳。實相不可生，但慧從境作名，稱為實慧，境從慧作名，故生慧言生境耳。今明二諦俱生不生，如義中釋，斯文即證也。但一師有觀發中、中發觀義，此明生實相即是觀發中，正觀明了則實相現前，故名生實相。此約迷悟為論，於迷者不現前名實相不生，悟者現前名為生實相。令生實相既爾，佛性等例然，至論實相未曾生不生也。「是實相者則非實相」者，他還以二諦釋此文如常彈，今依論釋簡成實相義，「是實相」者，獨佛法大乘有此實相，故云實相。「即非實相」者，天魔外道無實相，故言非實相。「是名實相」者，論經長有一句云「實相實相」，此句簡二乘實相有二種：一、大乘實相；二、小乘實相。今明是大乘實相、非二乘實相，故云實相實相。前句簡外實相，此句簡內實相。所以二簡者，以獨佛法有實相，及獨大乘有實相生實相之慧，方是希有耳。「世尊我今得聞」下，第三、述自悟為易。所以易者：一者、明過去久殖三多；二者、現在者值佛，內因外緣具足，故信受為易也。又就迹中為論，須菩提是大阿羅漢，如《大品》云「般若甚深，誰能信解？答云：正見成就人，漏盡阿羅漢能信。」今須菩提既是羅漢，所以信解不難也。若就本為論，須菩提內祕菩薩行，或可是往古如來示同眾迷，所以悟解為易。「若當來世」下，第四、陳他悟為難。所以難者，良由生在末世後五百歲故也。叡法師云：「前五百歲得道者多，不得道者少；後五百歲不得道者多，得道者少。前五百歲信無生者多，不信者少；後五百歲不信者多、信者為少。是以前五百年名正法，後五百年名像法。」能於像法中信，所以為難也。又明此時眾生不久殖三多、不久值佛，無內因外緣，能於中生信，是故為難。「何以故」下，此釋信為難意也。若言有人能信、般若所信，則是人法之見，不名為信也，此信亦不難也。明若不見我是能信，即是人空，即是無有人見；不見般若是所信，即是法空，即是無法見。「所以者何？我相即是非相」者，所以不取我等相者，非有我相，是故不取我相，以實無我故無所取耳，故云我相即是非相也。又道理若實有我人之相則不可離，以道理實無我人之相，但眾生妄謂為有，故我相可離耳，故云我相即是非相也。《大品》云「眾生所著，若有一毫末之可有，則不可離，以所著處無如毛髮許有可離也。」他云所謂之我見是無耳，能謂之心是有，此不無也。如所謂陽炎是無，能謂之心是有。今明能謂之心，如所謂不異也。若依論釋者，此明人、法兩空。前云無我人相，此是人空；今云我相即是非相，此則明法空。問：若言此明法空，應云法相即是非法相，何云我相即是非相耶？答：無我有二種：一者、人無我；二、法無我。今法無我也。「何以故？離一切諸相則名諸佛」者，此重釋無相所以也。若有諸相，佛應見之；以離一切諸相名為諸佛故，則知諸法無此相也。問：佛何故離一切相耶？答：有一切相則是有所得，無一切相則是無所得。有所得故，是生死凡夫；無所得名為涅槃，名為諸佛也。「佛告須菩提」下，第二、佛述成。前領解有四章，今但述第四、陳他悟難。明無始以來習有所得久，昔日又稟小乘有所得教，忽聞般若無人無法，多生怖畏；是故今明能不怖畏，此則為難。所言「不驚不怖」者，一往怛愕謂之為驚，內心怯弱名之為畏，一向深惡前事稱之為怖也。「如來說第一波羅蜜」者，他云般若是六度中第一，故言第一則非第一者，真諦遣第一也。「是名第一」者，世諦假名說第一也。依論解，此般若一經勝餘修多羅，故名此經為第一波羅蜜。「非第一波羅蜜」者，餘修多羅非第一。「是名第一」，還結此經為第一也。所以有此文來者，是近遠二義：近者成上希有之言，以此經第一故，信此經方是希有耳。此經若非第一，信之不足稱為希有也。遠成上者，上來所明內外二施不及持經四句者，由此經是諸經中之第一法也。「須菩提！忍辱」下，第二、釋疑念也。問：何因緣故，次般若明忍辱耶？依六度數，前後並非次第，今有何次第生此文耶？答：開善解云：三門說般若，前就體、名，二門說竟，今次第三功用門說，明般若功用無窮，能生諸佛，能示世間能斷煩惱。又攝用、導用、忘用諸用非一，今此明忘懷忍辱之用者，以得此用故，則逢苦不憂、值樂不喜，其功最要，故偏明之。又解云：忍與般若俱是慧，與慧同體，故共明也。今明無方之意，不妨此義；若依論意，釋疑故來。眾所以疑者，遠從前捨身命格量生上云捨身施不及持經四句。所以不及者，為捨身是有所得顛倒苦因，還得有所得苦果，故不及持經。眾即疑：佛昔來種種苦行，亦應是顛倒之因，應得顛倒之果，不得菩提也。故今釋云：佛昔行苦行，此是無生忍心，雖復捨身而不苦惱，非但無苦而還更有樂。故論偈云「苦樂有慈悲，如是苦行果」，以修無所得忍故得菩提也，故云「如來說忍辱波羅蜜」也。「非忍辱」者，非是有得捨身忍辱也。又非忍辱者，此無所得忍不可稱量也。故論云「彼忍辱岸難量」也。「何以故？我於爾時無我相」者，此二義故來：一者、反釋無瞋義，若有我相則應生瞋；以無我相故，令誰瞋耶？復瞋者誰耶？二者、明無忍義，即是不忍不瞋為忍波羅蜜。若有能忍之人則應生瞋，今尚不見能忍之人，何由有他起瞋之者？此是跨節釋也。「歌利王」者，引事證因緣。歌利王即是陳如本身，昔曾害仙人，仙人發願：「汝今無罪害我，我得道時要前度汝。」如出《毘婆娑》文。「是故須菩提！菩薩應離一切相」下，所以有此文者，為成前忍辱義。新發意菩薩既聞歷世修忍得於菩提，彼既見有身心或生退轉，如身子六十劫行菩薩行，後因捨眼遂退成聲聞。故今勸云：欲不退菩提心者，應離一切相發三菩提心也。問：從上來三處明不住，何異？釋云：初不住為成檀度義，勸行無得施也。次不住為成淨土因義，若心有住則心有穢，心穢故則土穢；以心無所住故心淨，心淨故土淨也。今明不住為成菩提心，勸不住發心。若心有住則乖正道，豈是道心耶？菩提是正道，今發道心，故名菩提心耳。「若心有住則為非住」者，若心有住則是住顛倒，則為非住不住般若也。如《大經》「不住一切法，即是住般若，不信一切法，是名信般若。」生義亦爾。「是故佛說菩薩心不應住」下，前明勸無住發菩提心，今勸無住修菩薩行，如善財之言也。問：經初已明發心修行，今何得更說？答：前明建廣大等四心名發心，就不住義以明修行；今此中通就不住，即明發心之與修行。故前離明，今是合辨也。但舉布施者，布施居六度之初，又檀義攝六也。如論偈云云。「須菩提！菩薩為利益一切眾生」者，前既明無住發心、無住修行，人便謂既無所住，何故發心？何故修行耶？即釋曰：為利眾生故，發心修行也。又無住修行方能利眾生耳，有所住修行不能自利利人也。「如來說一切諸相」下，此為成上修行及為眾生。既言修行，便有行可修，既言利益眾生，有眾生可利，便是人法見耳。故今明如來說一切相則非一切相，故雖修萬行，無行可修；雖利眾生，實無眾生可利。又引佛誠言，勸菩薩如說修行。佛說眾生與法皆不可得，菩薩亦須如此而學也。「須菩提！如來是真語者」下，此文來有近遠。遠意成前內外二施格量義。何者？前明雖捨內外二施，終不及持經四句。人聞此生疑：諸法實相絕言，云何名字文句能表實相，而受持四句頓有如此福耶？故今釋云：實相雖絕言，言是無言因，因言故得表無言，故受持此言功德無量。問：此乃釋言能表道，云何是釋五語文耶？答：以言必能表道故佛言是實，由能表道故受持福多。近意者，上引佛說一切諸相則是非相，說一切眾生則非眾生，勸菩薩如說而行，今重釋所以須信佛說者，良由佛語不虛故也。「真語者」，依真諦說也。「實語者」，依世諦說也。所以舉二語者，為如來常依二諦說法故也。「如語者」，如十方三世諸佛依二諦說法，此上同諸佛也。「不誑語者」，佛不誑眾生，如《大經》言「何緣當誑如子想者令墮地獄」也。「不異語者」，為釋疑故來。人疑：若不誑眾生，何得一佛作種種異說，初三後一乃至今常昔無常耶？故釋云：雖有諸說，為成一道，所以不異。如經云「智者終不謂我二語，我於是人亦不二語。」《法華》云「雖說種種乘，皆為一乘也。」次依論釋，唯有四語，故偈云「實智及小乘，說摩訶衍法，記於三世事，是名四種語。」實智即真語，謂說佛菩提也；及小乘說四諦即實語。說摩訶衍法為菩提，即是如語也。記三世事，合後二為不異語也。此四語含小大、理事、因果，真語是果也，如語是因；此二是大，實語為小；記三世是事也，三語是理。「須菩提！如來所得法」者，有此文來者，上來至此，凡有三文引佛語勸信：初引如來說一切相則非相，說一切眾生則非眾生，此勸菩薩捨人法見，令信無所住教。次引五語證佛語不虛，勸菩薩信佛說無所住教也。今第三引佛所證得法，復勸信無所住教，以佛親依無所住教證得菩提，故菩薩須信無所住教門也。論經長有一句，謂「如來所得法，如來所說法」，如來所得法，釋已如向也。「如來所說無實無虛」者，上來三過勸信語，但恐鈍根守語而住，故今明佛語非實非虛，以正道絕言，若守言則失道，故言則非實，非不因言表道，故言則非虛，指月之譬即其事也。斯乃貫一化之意，豈一章經耶？「須菩提！如人入闇」下，依流支十二分，前格量分竟，今是顯性分。今三種彈之：一者、顯性分經論無文，故所以不用。二者、若就布施以明得失判顯性分者，前明忍辱修行亦應是分也。三者、內外格量中各有二格，今內格中止一章竟，餘有一格量在，何得合取後格量為顯性分耶？今明二意故有此文來：一者、近生上來至此，凡有三處勸修不住、捨於住義，未知住有何失、不住有何得，勸修不住捨於住耶？故今最後釋其得失。心有所得則如外無光明、內有黑暗，故不見正道；心無所住，如外有光明、內有眼目，能見正道。為此得失，故有上來三勸也。依無住之教，如外有光明，得無所住觀解，如內有眼目，如此之人見正道也。有住之失，反此可知也。依論生起云「真如一切處，一切時常有」，何故眾生有得如、有不得如耶？論師云：真如即是佛性，一切凡聖眾生皆有佛性，何故聖見、凡不見耶？即用經文釋之。如雖常有一色，若外有光明，內有眼目則見，無此內外則不見也。雖常有真如佛性，心無所住則見，有所住則不見也。顯性之言，事在斯也。今明作此意，亦於義無失。《大智論》云「或名如，或名實相、法性、涅槃。」但約眾生悟迷，故有得不得；至論佛性、涅槃，未曾得失隱顯也。問：依論乃明見如不見如，似無次第，便是孤生此文。答：此文即接前布施得失生，故有住布施則不見如，無住布施則便見如，故非無次第也。但講論者不見其近，便謂孤生為顯性分耳。講經師雖見其近文兩施之得失，不得見其因施得失，遠明皆有佛性，為有方便、無方便，故有見不見異也。若取近遠兩義，則經論皆成也。「須菩提！若當來世」下，有此一章來者，還成上捨失從得之義也。菩薩若捨失從得者，要須受持讀誦般若故也。問：信受門已明若生一念淨信，則為佛智見、得無量功德竟，今何故重說為佛智見、得無量功德耶？答：此般若經有三門明功德：一、自信門；二、自受持讀誦，復為他說門；三、但自受持讀誦門也。初明一念信為佛智見、得無量功德，是自信門明功德也。從三千七寶施至恒沙身命施，此明自行化他門明功德也。今此章明受持讀誦自行門功德，故非重說也。此三門攝一切般若經明功德也。「初日分」下，第二、三時捨身格量功德也，為二：初、明格量；第二、稱歎勸修。格量中為二：初、正舉捨身；第二、格量也。異上捨身者，有二義：一者、施多，謂日三時捨身，此日初分、日中分、日後分，非是三日為三分也。二者、時節久，謂無量千萬億劫常行捨身事也。次格量般若，直明信心不逆其福已勝，況自受持讀誦、為他說耶？此則格量轉高、般若之福轉重也。又此文所以來者，上信受門中直明信心為佛知見、得無量功德，猶未格量信心功德少多；今欲格量信心功德少多，故有此文來也。問：何故須格量信心功德耶？答：既三門明功德，則三門明格量。上已三處格量自行化他功德門竟，謂三千布施、恒沙布施、捨身布施皆自行化他門，猶未格量信心門，故今明之也。問：何故格量自信門功德多上自行化他功德耶？答：格量自信門功德尚多，自行化他則不可量，故今文云「信心不逆，其福勝彼，何況受持讀誦為他說」耶？故此文來有其深旨，欲講誦者當依此意也。「須菩提！以要言之」下，第二、稱歎勸修。開文為四：第一、歎法；第二、歎人；第三、重歎法；第四、重歎人。今初歎法。前格量竟，既稱歎；今格量竟，亦稱歎也。「如來為發大乘者說」下，第二、歎人。問：大乘與最上乘何異？答：通論不異，此種種歎耳。別者，大包含廣博義最上高絕取，超出二乘義，廣博等即是得義，出二乘即是離義。又大是其始義，據淺行之人，最上是其終義，據深行人也。「如來悉知是人」者，問：前已二處明知見竟，今復明者，有何異耶？解云：初知見自信功德，次知見自受持讀誦功德，今知見受持復為人說得功德，故三知見異也。「若樂小法者」，此明舉失顯得，歎此中舉二人。「樂小法者」，此是小乘。「著我見」者，此是外道。此二人不能聽受。小乘之人所以不能聽受者，以是有所得故不信無得。又此經明如來法身常住，小乘人謂佛無常、畢竟滅，故不信。故《大智論》云「五百歲五百部聞大乘法說畢竟空，如刀傷心。」叡法師《喻疑論》云「外國三十六國皆小乘學，不信大乘。」問：小乘亦明空，大乘亦明空，小乘人何意不信大耶？答：《大論》云「空有二種：一者、但空；二者、不但空。小乘唯得但空，不得不但空。」此經明不但空，故不信空也。又小乘人但得生空，不得法空。《大智論》云「佛滅後分為二分：一、信眾生空，不信法空；二、俱信二空。」今此經具明二空，故小乘人不信也。外道著我見不信，則易知也。「須菩提在在處處」下，第三、重歎法。問：此歎法與初何異？答：初直歎經法，今歎法所在之處，故異也。問：上已歎經在處則處貴，猶如塔廟竟，今何故復歎如塔耶？答：前略歎，今廣歎。前直云如塔廟，故是略；今云種種供養，故是廣。前略歎人，今廣歎人；前略歎處，今廣歎處也。又前歎經所在處則處貴也；今歎非但經所在處處貴，即持此經人行住坐臥之處皆如塔廟，皆應恭敬供養。如《法華》云「持法華經人所在方面，皆應為作禮」也。論意作此釋，勿不信也。「復次，須菩提！若善男子、善女人受持此經，若為人輕賤」下，此是第四重歎人。問：今歎人與前何異？答：上就得門歎，今就離門歎。何以知之？前文云持經得無邊功德；今言持經離於惡道，此即是金剛能摧諸患難。次意釋疑故來，自上以來竝明持經之人無邊功德；今那見持經之人有諸障礙，所謂疾病、遭官橫、得打罵不如意事耶？為釋此疑，故明此人先世罪業應墮八難，以持經力故現世輕受也。「我念過去」下，第三、舉釋迦往因格量。前內外兩施具舉現世也；今明往因，此就過去世格量現在世。前就所化功德格量，今就能化功德格量，如此格量方盡格量之極也。問：何意舉能化所化功德格量皆不及持經耶？答：此終是有所得功德，不及持經。問：何以得知皆是舉有所得功德格量耶？答：經論皆有證，論釋初三千施云「二能趣菩提，福不趣菩提」。所言二者，即是自能受持、復為他說，此二能趣菩提也。施福是有漏，有所得不能趣菩提也。經證者，此取然燈佛前，爾前是有所得，故未得無生，故知取有所得施也。又一意所以舉釋迦往因格量者，三門明功德，上來已格量兩門功德竟，未格量自受持讀誦功德；今歎格自受持讀誦功德，故有此文也。問：格自受持讀誦，何故功德轉重耶？答：自受持讀誦其福尚重，具自行化他豈可稱量耶？此是顯功德之重，故格自行。講誦者須細看經，不爾不覺也。問：三門明功德格量三門何異耶？答云：自行化他門，則功德即格量，從三千至恒沙身命是也。自信門、自受持門，此二門前明功德後格量，故文有開合之異也。問：三門明功德何異耶？答：即是三品。但生信心為下品，受持讀誦不為他說為中品，次受持復為他說為上品。又前是自行，後一具自他也。

> At that time, Subhuti heard this sutra. The second section explains his understanding and resolves doubts. The text has two parts: first, expressing understanding; second, resolving doubts. In expressing understanding, there are two: first, expressing understanding itself; second, the Buddha's confirmation. The initial expression of understanding has four parts: first, expressing his own understanding; second, expressing others' understanding; third, clarifying that his own understanding is easy; fourth, clarifying that others' understanding is difficult. The initial expression of understanding has two further parts: first, the narrative records his realization; second, he formally states his understanding. The narrative of his realization has four aspects: first, identifying who understands; second, clarifying what is understood; third, formally expressing the understanding; fourth, describing the manner of understanding. Question: If one gains understanding, one should rejoice—why then does he weep? Answer: The manner of understanding differs, with three possibilities: first, understanding brings joy, like Shariputra in the Lotus Sutra leaping with joy; second, understanding brings tears of sorrow, as here; third, understanding brings both joy and sorrow, as King Shanjixiang who felt joy and grief together—joy for present awakening, grief for past confusion, combining both emotions. "Rare, World-Honored One" begins the second part, expressing his understanding. "From the past, the wisdom eye I obtained has never heard such a teaching"—ancient interpreters differed on the sutra's placement. One school says this sutra was taught early in the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, citing this passage: since it says "never heard of prajna," it must have come first. A second teacher says this sutra came after the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. If so, how could Subhuti say he had never heard it before? That teacher explains: although Subhuti himself had awakened earlier in the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, those of middle and lower faculties had not yet awakened. Now he identifies with their lack of awakening, saying he had never heard it; and since those of middle and lower faculties now awaken, he identifies with their awakening, saying he now hears it for the first time. This matter was already explained earlier; now we open another meaning. After the comparisons with external giving concluded, the Thus Come One praised the sutra, urging people to uphold it. Now after the comparison with internal giving concludes, Subhuti himself praises the sutra, urging people to uphold it. Thus teacher and disciple alternate in encouraging faith and understanding. "If someone hears this sutra" begins the second section, expressing others' understanding. "Then realizes true marks"—one school says that true marks arise in worldly truth but not in ultimate truth. The question arises: true marks is ultimate truth; if one realizes true marks, why not realize ultimate truth? That school explains: it is the wisdom that realizes true marks. True marks themselves cannot arise, but wisdom takes its name from its object, called true wisdom. The object takes its name from wisdom, so speaking of wisdom arising is called the object arising. Now we clarify that both truths neither arise nor do not arise, as explained in the section on meaning—this passage confirms it. Another school holds that contemplation triggers the middle and the middle triggers contemplation. This means realizing true marks is contemplation triggering the middle—when right contemplation is clear, true marks appear before one, hence called realizing true marks. This is discussed in terms of delusion and awakening: for the deluded, it does not appear and is called true marks not arising; for the awakened, it appears and is called realizing true marks. Since realizing true marks is so, Buddha nature and so forth are likewise. Ultimately, true marks has never been about arising or not arising. "These true marks are then no true marks"—this phrase is explained by others through the two truths as usual. Now following the treatise, we clarify the meaning of true marks concisely. "These true marks" means only the Buddha's Great Vehicle has these true marks, so they are called true marks. "Then no true marks" means heavenly demons and outsiders have no true marks, so the text says no true marks. "This is called true marks"—the treatise version has an extra phrase, "true marks, true marks," which distinguishes two kinds of true marks regarding the lesser vehicle: first, Great Vehicle true marks; second, small vehicle true marks. Here we clarify it is Great Vehicle true marks, not small vehicle true marks, hence "true marks, true marks." The first phrase distinguishes external true marks; this phrase distinguishes internal true marks. Two distinctions are made because only the Buddha's teaching has true marks, and only the Great Vehicle has true marks and the wisdom that realizes them—this is what is truly rare. "World-Honored One, I now have heard" begins the third section, describing his own awakening as easy. It is easy because: first, he planted the three transcendences long in the past; second, now he encounters the Buddha, having both inner causes and outer conditions complete, so faith and acceptance come easily. Also, from the perspective of the manifestation, Subhuti is a great Arhat. As the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says: "Prajna is extremely profound—who can believe and understand it? Answer: Those accomplished in right views, and Arhats with outflows extinguished, can believe." Since Subhuti is an Arhat, his faith and understanding are not difficult. From the perspective of the original nature, Subhuti inwardly conceals bodhisattva practice, or may be a past Thus Come One who manifested shared confusion—thus his awakening is easy. "If in future ages" begins the fourth section, describing others' awakening as difficult. It is difficult because they are born in the latter five hundred years. Master Rui said: "In the first five hundred years, many attained the Way and few did not; in the latter five hundred years, many did not attain the Way and few did. In the first five hundred years, many believed in birthlessness and few did not; in the latter five hundred years, many did not believe and few did. Thus the first five hundred years is called the Proper Dharma age, and the latter five hundred years the Semblance Dharma age." Being able to believe in the Semblance Dharma age is therefore difficult. This also clarifies that beings at that time have not long planted the three transcendences, have not long encountered the Buddha, and lack inner causes and outer conditions—yet can still generate faith, which is why it is difficult. "Why so?" explains this meaning of difficulty in believing. If one says there is a person who can believe and a prajna that is believed, then this is the view of a person and a dharma, and does not count as faith—and this kind of faith would not be difficult. It clarifies that if one does not see oneself as the believer, that is person-emptiness, meaning no view of a person; if one does not see prajna as the object believed, that is dharma-emptiness, meaning no view of dharmas. "Therefore, why? The mark of self is then no mark"—the reason for not taking up the mark of self and so forth is that there is no mark of self, therefore one does not take up the mark of self. Because there is truly no self, there is nothing to take up—hence "the mark of self is then no mark." Also, by principle, if there truly were marks of self and persons, they could not be abandoned. Because by principle there truly are no marks of self and persons, but beings falsely conceive them as existing, the mark of self can be abandoned—hence the text says "the mark of self is then no mark." The Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra says: "What beings cling to, if there were even a hair's breadth of existence, could not be abandoned; but because the object of clinging has not even a hair's breadth of existence, it can be abandoned." Others say the self-view that is the object is non-existent, but the mind that perceives it exists—this is not non-existent. As with a mirage that is non-existent, the mind that perceives it exists. Now we clarify that the perceiving mind is not different from the perceived. According to the treatise, this clarifies both person-emptiness and dharma-emptiness. Earlier it said no self or person marks—this is person-emptiness. Now it says the mark of self is then no mark—this clarifies dharma-emptiness. Question: If this clarifies dharma-emptiness, it should say "the mark of dharma is then no mark"—why does it say "the mark of self is then no mark"? Answer: Selflessness has two kinds: first, person-selflessness; second, dharma-selflessness. Here it is dharma-selflessness. "Why so? One who is free from all marks is called a Buddha"—this re-explains why one is markless. If there were marks, the Buddha would see them. Because freedom from all marks is called being a Buddha, we know that all dharmas lack these marks. Question: Why is the Buddha free from all marks? Answer: Having all marks means having attainment; being free from all marks means having no attainment. With attainment, one is an ordinary being in birth and death; without attainment is called nirvana, called being a Buddha. "The Buddha told Subhuti" begins the second part, the Buddha's confirmation. The earlier expression of understanding had four chapters, but here only the fourth—others' awakening being difficult—is confirmed. It clarifies that from beginningless time, beings have long been habituated to attainment, and previously received the Lesser Vehicle's teachings of attainment. Suddenly hearing prajna—no self, no dharmas—they mostly give rise to fear. Therefore, this clarifies that one who can avoid fear is truly rare. What is meant by "not alarmed, not terrified, not frightened"? Starting in astonishment is called alarm; inner weakness is called fear; deep aversion to what came before is called fright. "The Thus Come One speaks of the first perfection"—one school says prajna is first among the six perfections, so "first." "Then not first" means ultimate truth negates "first." "This is called first" means worldly truth provisionally names it first. According to the treatise, this prajna sutra surpasses other sutras, hence this sutra is called the first perfection. "Not the first perfection" means other sutras are not first. "This is called first" again concludes this sutra is first. This passage appears for two reasons, one proximate and one distant: Proximate—to confirm the earlier statement about rarity. Because this sutra is first, believing it is indeed rare. If this sutra were not first, believing it would not merit being called rare. Distant—to confirm what came before: the earlier claim that internal and external giving do not match upholding four verses of this sutra is because this sutra is the foremost dharma among all sutras. "Subhuti! Patience" begins the second section, resolving doubts. Question: Why is patience explained after prajna? According to the numerical order of the six perfections, this is not sequential—what sequence produces this passage? Answer: The Kaishen school explains: prajna is explained through three gates. The first two gates—essence and name—have been covered. Now the third gate, function, is explained: prajna's function is boundless, capable of giving rise to Buddhas, revealing the world, and cutting off afflictions. It also includes embracing function, guiding function, forgetting function, and various functions. This passage specifically explains the function of forgetting and patience because with this function, one is not distressed by suffering nor delighted by pleasure—it is the most essential function, so it is singled out. Another explanation: patience and prajna are both wisdom, sharing the same essence, so they are explained together. Now we clarify that the doctrine of non-fixity is compatible with this meaning. According to the treatise, this passage arises to resolve doubts. The doubt stems from the earlier comparison of sacrificing body and life, where it said giving up the body does not match upholding four verses. The reason it falls short is that giving up the body involves attainment, which is a distressed cause producing distressed fruits—thus it falls short of upholding the sutra. People then doubt: the Buddha's many ascetic practices in the past would also be causes of delusion, producing deluded results, and he would not attain bodhi. Therefore, this explains: the Buddha's past ascetic practices were done with the mind of birthless patience. Although he gave up his body, he was not distressed—not only without suffering, but with joy. Therefore the treatise's verse says: "Suffering and joy have compassion; such is the fruit of ascetic practice." Because he cultivated patience without attainment, he attained bodhi. Hence the text says "the Thus Come One speaks of the patience perfection." "Not patience" means it is not the patience of giving up the body with attainment. Also, "not patience" means this patience without attainment cannot be measured—hence the treatise says "the shore of that patience is hard to measure." "Why so? At that time I had no mark of self"—this comes for two reasons: First, to refute the meaning of non-anger—if there were a mark of self, anger would arise; since there is no mark of self, who is there to be angry? And who is the one who gets angry? Second, to clarify the meaning of non-patience—that is, neither enduring nor being angry is the patience perfection. If there were a person who endures, then anger could arise. Since one does not even see a person who endures, how could there be another who inspires anger? This is an interlocking explanation. "King Kali" cites the story as a causal evidence. King Kali is the former body of Ajnata Kaundinya, who once harmed a sage. The sage vowed: "You harm me without guilt; when I attain the Way, I will liberate you first." This appears in the Vibhasha. "Therefore, Subhuti! A bodhisattva should be free from all marks"—this passage appears to complete the earlier meaning of patience. Newly inspired bodhisattvas, hearing that patience practiced over many lifetimes leads to bodhi, may see body and mind as real and retreat—as Shariputra practiced the bodhisattva path for sixty eons, then retreated to the Lesser Vehicle after giving up his eye. Therefore this advises: those who do not wish to regress from the bodhi mind should be free from all marks and arouse the unsurpassed bodhi mind. Question: Throughout the text, the doctrine of non-abiding appears in three places—how do they differ? Answer: The first non-abiding completes the meaning of giving, encouraging giving without attainment. The second non-abiding completes the cause of the pure land—if the mind abides, the mind is defiled; a defiled mind means a defiled land. Because the mind does not abide, the mind is pure; a pure mind means a pure land. The present non-abiding completes the bodhi mind, encouraging one to arouse the mind without abiding. If the mind abides, it violates the right path—how could that be a path-mind? Bodhi is the right path; now arousing the path-mind is called the bodhi mind. "If the mind abides, then it is non-abiding"—if the mind abides, it abides in delusion, which is non-abiding, not abiding in prajna. As the Great Nirvana Sutra says: "Not abiding in any dharma is abiding in prajna; not believing in any dharma is called believing in prajna." The meaning of arising is likewise. "Therefore the Buddha said the bodhisattva's mind should not abide"—the earlier passage encouraged non-abiding in arousing the bodhi mind; now it encourages non-abiding in cultivating bodhisattva practice, as Sudhana's words express. Question: The beginning of the sutra already explained arousing the mind and cultivating practice—why say it again? Answer: Earlier, establishing the four vast minds was called arousing the mind, and practice was explained in terms of non-abiding; here, non-abiding is explained comprehensively, covering both arousing the mind and practice. Thus earlier it was separate explanation; now it is combined. Giving alone is mentioned because giving is first among the six perfections, and the perfection of giving encompasses all six, as the treatise's verse says. "Subhuti! The bodhisattva, for the benefit of all beings"—since earlier it clarified non-abiding in arousing the mind and non-abiding in practice, one might ask: if there is nothing to abide in, why arouse the mind? Why practice? This explains: it is for the benefit of beings that one arouses the mind and practices. Also, only non-abiding practice can benefit beings; practice with abiding cannot benefit oneself or others. "The Thus Come One speaks of all marks"—this completes the earlier practice and benefiting beings. If one speaks of practice, there is a practice to cultivate; if one speaks of benefiting beings, there are beings to benefit—this becomes views of person and dharma. Therefore, this clarifies that the Thus Come One speaks of all marks as no marks, so although one cultivates the myriad practices, there is no practice to cultivate; although one benefits beings, there are truly no beings to benefit. It also cites the Buddha's truthful words, encouraging bodhisattvas to practice accordingly. The Buddha says beings and dharmas are both unobtainable; bodhisattvas must likewise learn this. "Subhuti! The Thus Come One is a speaker of truth"—this passage has both proximate and distant significance. Distant—to complete the earlier comparison of internal and external giving. How so? Earlier it said that even giving up internal and external gifts ultimately does not match upholding four verses. Hearing this, people doubt: since true marks transcend words, how can names and phrases express true marks? And how can upholding four verses have such blessings? Therefore this explains: although true marks transcend words, words are the cause of wordlessness. Through words, one can express what is wordless. Hence upholding these words has immeasurable merit. Question: This explains that words can express the path—how does it explain the passage on the five kinds of speech? Answer: Because words necessarily can express the path, the Buddha's speech is true. Because they express the path, upholding them brings great merit. Proximate—above, the Buddha was cited saying all marks are no marks, and all beings are no beings, urging bodhisattvas to practice accordingly. Now re-explaining why one must trust the Buddha's words: because the Buddha's speech is not false. "Speaker of truth"—speaks according to ultimate truth. "Speaker of reality"—speaks according to worldly truth. These two kinds of speech are mentioned because the Thus Come One always teaches according to the two truths. "Speaker of suchness"—as all Buddhas of the ten directions and three times teach according to the two truths; this aligns with all Buddhas. "Speaker of no deception"—the Buddha does not deceive beings. As the Great Nirvana Sutra says: "Why would one who regards beings as children deceive them into falling into hell?" "Speaker of no divergence"—this comes to resolve doubt. People wonder: if the Buddha does not deceive beings, how can one Buddha give various differing teachings—first three, then one, now eternal, previously impermanent? This explains: although there are various teachings, they are all for the sake of one path, hence no divergence. As the sutra says: "The wise never say I speak two truths; I also do not speak two truths to such people." The Lotus Sutra says: "Although various vehicles are taught, they are all for the one vehicle." Next, according to the treatise, there are only four kinds of speech. The verse says: "True wisdom and the small vehicle, speaking the Mahayana dharma, recording the affairs of three times—these are called the four kinds of speech." True wisdom is the speech of truth, meaning speaking of Buddha bodhi. And the small vehicle's four truths is the speech of reality. Speaking the Mahayana dharma for bodhi is the speech of suchness. Recording the affairs of three times combines the latter two into the speech of no divergence. These four kinds of speech encompass small and great, principle and phenomenon, cause and effect: the speech of truth is the fruit; the speech of suchness is the cause; these two are great; the speech of reality is small; recording the three times is phenomenon; the three speeches are principle. "Subhuti! The dharma attained by the Thus Come One"—this passage appears because, from the start up to here, there have been three passages citing the Buddha's words to encourage faith: First, citing the Thus Come One's statement that all marks are no marks, and all beings are no beings—this encourages bodhisattvas to abandon views of person and dharma and to trust the teaching of non-abiding. Second, citing the five kinds of speech as evidence that the Buddha's words are not false, encouraging bodhisattvas to trust the Buddha's teaching of non-abiding. Third, now citing the dharma directly realized by the Thus Come One, again encouraging faith in the non-abiding teaching, because the Buddha himself realized bodhi by relying on the non-abiding teaching. Therefore bodhisattvas must trust the gate of non-abiding. The treatise version has an extra phrase: "the dharma attained by the Thus Come One, the dharma spoken by the Thus Come One." The dharma attained by the Thus Come One was explained above. "What is spoken by the Thus Come One is neither real nor unreal"—above, three times faith was encouraged in the spoken words. Fearing that dull faculties might cling to the words and abide, this clarifies that the Buddha's words are neither real nor unreal. Because the right path transcends words, clinging to words loses the path—hence words are not real. Yet it is not that words do not express the path—hence words are not unreal. The simile of the finger pointing at the moon illustrates this. This pervades the entire intention of one teaching—how could it be a single chapter? "Subhuti! Like a person entering darkness"—according to Bodhiruci's twelve divisions, the earlier comparison section has ended; now begins the section revealing the nature. Three objections are raised: First, the revelation of nature section has no basis in sutra or treatise, so it is rejected. Second, if the section is determined by clarifying gain and loss in giving, then the earlier patience and practice sections should equally be such divisions. Third, within the internal and external comparisons, each has two comparisons. Here, within the internal comparison, only one chapter has ended; one more comparison remains. How could one combine the final comparison as the revelation of nature section? Now we clarify that this passage appears for two reasons: First, proximate—throughout the preceding text, there have been three places advising the practice of non-abiding and abandoning abiding. But one does not yet know what loss abiding brings, or what gain non-abiding brings. Why advise practicing non-abiding and abandoning abiding? Therefore, this final passage explains the gain and loss. If the mind has attainment, it is like having no light outside and darkness within—thus one does not see the right path. If the mind has no abiding, it is like having light outside and eyes within—one can see the right path. Because of this gain and loss, the three earlier exhortations were given. Relying on the teaching of non-abiding is like having light outside; attaining the contemplation of non-abiding is like having eyes inside. Such a person sees the right path. The loss of abiding is the opposite, as can be understood. According to the treatise's structure: "True suchness is everywhere, always present." Why do some beings attain suchness and others not? The treatise master says: True suchness is Buddha nature. All beings, ordinary and noble, have Buddha nature. Why do noble ones see it and ordinary ones not? This is explained by the sutra: although suchness is constantly present like a single form, if there is light outside and eyes inside, one sees; without these, one does not. Although suchness and Buddha nature are constantly present, if the mind does not abide, one sees; if it abides, one does not. The revelation of nature lies precisely here. Now we clarify that this meaning is not contrary to the teaching. The Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom says: "It is called suchness, true marks, dharma nature, or nirvana." It is only due to beings' awakening or delusion that there is attainment or non-attainment. Ultimately, Buddha nature and nirvana have never been about gain, loss, hidden, or manifest. Question: According to the treatise, clarifying seeing or not seeing suchness seems disconnected, making this passage appear abruptly. Answer: This passage directly follows the gain and loss of giving. If one gives with abiding, one does not see suchness; if one gives without abiding, one sees suchness—so it is not disconnected. But those who lecture on the treatise, not seeing its proximate connection, claim it is isolated and call it the revelation of nature section. Those who lecture on the sutra, though they see the proximate gain and loss in two kinds of giving, cannot see that through the gain and loss of giving, it distantly clarifies that all have Buddha nature, and that with or without skillful means there is seeing or not seeing. If both proximate and distant meanings are taken, both sutra and treatise are fulfilled. "Subhuti! If in future ages" — this chapter appears to complete the earlier meaning of abandoning loss and following gain. If bodhisattvas abandon loss and follow gain, they must receive, uphold, recite, and study prajna. Question: In the faith-receiving gate, it was already clarified that if one gives rise to a single thought of pure faith, one is seen by the Buddha's wisdom and gains immeasurable merit. Why is this merit of Buddha's wisdom-seeing and immeasurable merit stated again? Answer: This prajna sutra explains merit through three gates: First, the gate of personal faith. Second, the gate of personally receiving, upholding, and reciting, and also explaining it for others. Third, the gate of only personally receiving, upholding, and reciting. The initial clarification that a single thought of faith is seen by Buddha's wisdom and gains immeasurable merit belongs to the gate of personal faith. From the giving of the seven treasures of three thousand worlds to giving body and life like Ganges sands—these clarify the gate of self-practice and teaching others. Now this chapter clarifies the merit of the gate of personally receiving, upholding, and reciting—so it is not a repetition. These three gates encompass all the merit described in the prajna sutras. "At the first division of the day" begins the second section—the comparison of giving body and life at three times. It has two parts: first, the comparison itself; second, praise and encouragement to practice. The comparison has two parts: first, the actual giving of body; second, the comparison. It differs from the earlier giving of body in two ways: First, more giving—body is given at three times daily: early, midday, and late. This is not three days divided into three parts. Second, longer duration—giving body continuously for immeasurable thousands of billions of eons. Next, the comparison with prajna: simply having faith without opposition already surpasses that merit—let alone personally receiving, upholding, reciting, and explaining for others. The comparison escalates, and prajna's merit grows heavier. Also, this passage appears because in the earlier faith-receiving gate, pure faith was clarified as seen by Buddha's wisdom and gaining immeasurable merit, but the amount of merit from faith was not yet compared. Now, to compare the merit of faith, this passage appears. Question: Why must faith's merit be compared? Answer: Since merit is explained through three gates, comparison is likewise through three gates. Above, three comparisons of the gate of self-practice and teaching others were completed—the giving of three thousand worlds' treasures, Ganges-sands treasures, and giving of body all belong to the gate of self-practice and teaching others. The gate of faith has not yet been compared, so it is clarified now. Question: Why is the merit of the gate of personal faith greater than that of self-practice and teaching others? Answer: The merit of the gate of personal faith, when compared, is still greater—let alone self-practice and teaching others, which are immeasurable. Hence this passage says: "With faith not opposing, its merit surpasses that—how much more so receiving, upholding, and reciting, and explaining for others." Thus this passage has profound meaning. Those who lecture and recite should follow this intention. "Subhuti! In brief" begins the second part—praise and encouragement to practice. The text opens with four parts: first, praising the Dharma; second, praising the person; third, re-praising the Dharma; fourth, re-praising the person. Now the first praises the Dharma. After the earlier comparison, there was praise; now after this comparison, praise again. "The Thus Come One speaks for those who arouse the Great Vehicle" begins the second part—praising the person. Question: How do the Great Vehicle and the Supreme Vehicle differ? Answer: Generally, they do not differ; this is just various kinds of praise. Particularly, "great" has the meaning of vast inclusiveness; "supreme" has the meaning of lofty excellence, transcending the two vehicles. Vast inclusiveness is the meaning of attainment; transcending the two vehicles is the meaning of abandonment. Also, "great" indicates the beginning, for those with shallow practice; "supreme" indicates the end, for those with deep practice. "The Thus Come One fully knows this person"—Question: Above, in two places, seeing and knowing were already clarified. What difference is there now? Explanation: The first seeing and knowing concerns the merit of personal faith; the next concerns the merit of personally receiving, upholding, and reciting; now the seeing and knowing covers receiving, upholding, reciting, and also explaining for others. Thus the three kinds of seeing and knowing differ. "Those who delight in lesser dharmas"—this exemplifies loss to show gain, praising by contrasting. It cites two kinds of people: Those delighting in lesser dharmas are followers of the small vehicle. Those attached to the view of self are outsiders. These two cannot listen and accept. Why can't small vehicle followers listen and accept? Because they have attainment and thus do not believe in non-attainment. Also, this sutra clarifies that the Thus Come One's dharma body is eternal, but small vehicle followers say the Buddha is impermanent and finally extinguished—therefore they do not believe. Hence the Great Treatise says: "In the later five hundred years, five hundred schools, hearing the Mahayana teaching of ultimate emptiness, felt as if their hearts were pierced by knives." Master Rui's Treatise on Resolving Doubts says: "Thirty-six countries abroad are all small vehicle learners who do not believe in the Great Vehicle." Question: The small vehicle also teaches emptiness; the Great Vehicle also teaches emptiness. Why don't small vehicle followers believe the Great Vehicle? Answer: The Great Treatise says: "Emptiness has two kinds: mere emptiness, and not-mere emptiness. Small vehicle followers attain only mere emptiness, not not-mere emptiness." This sutra teaches not-mere emptiness, so they do not believe in emptiness. Also, small vehicle followers attain only emptiness of persons, not emptiness of dharmas. The Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom says: "After the Buddha's extinction, there were two divisions: one believed in the emptiness of beings but not dharmas; the other believed in both kinds of emptiness." This sutra fully teaches the two emptinesses, so small vehicle followers do not believe. That outsiders attached to self-view do not believe is easy to understand. "Subhuti! In every place" begins the third part—re-praising the Dharma. Question: How does this praise of Dharma differ from the first? Answer: The first directly praised the sutra-dharma; this praises the places where the Dharma resides—thus different. Question: Above, it was already praised that where the sutra resides, the place is honored, like a stupa or shrine. Why praise it again as like a stupa? Answer: Earlier was brief praise; now is extensive praise. Earlier just said "like stupa or shrine"—that was brief. Now it says "various offerings"—that is extensive. Earlier, praise of the person was brief; now it is extensive. Earlier, praise of the place was brief; now it is extensive. Also, earlier it praised that where the sutra resides, the place is honored; now it clarifies that not only is the place where the sutra resides honored, but wherever the person who upholds this sutra walks, stands, sits, or lies, it is like a stupa or shrine, deserving respect and offerings. As the Lotus Sutra says: "Wherever those who uphold the Lotus Sutra are, in all directions, one should make obeisance." The treatise's intent is this explanation—do not disbelieve it. "Moreover, Subhuti! If a good man or good woman receives and upholds this sutra, and is despised by others" begins the fourth part—re-praising the person. Question: How does this praise of the person differ from the earlier one? Answer: Earlier praised from the side of attainment; this praises from the side of abandonment. How is this known? The earlier passage said upholding the sutra gains boundless merit; now it says upholding the sutra leaves the evil paths—this is the diamond that can crush all disasters and difficulties. Second meaning: resolving doubt. From the beginning, the text has explained that those who uphold the sutra gain boundless merit. Now why do we see those who uphold the sutra encountering obstacles—illness, official persecution, beating, abuse, adversity? To resolve this doubt, it clarifies that this person's past evil deeds would have caused falling into the eight difficulties, but due to the power of upholding the sutra, they now receive only light retribution in this life. "I recall the past" begins the third section—citing Shakyamuni's past causes for comparison. Earlier, internal and external giving were both cited in the present life. Now citing past causes compares the present life with past lives. Earlier, comparison was made with the merit of those being taught; now with the merit of the teacher. Such comparisons exhaust the ultimate of comparison. Question: Why does comparing the merit of teacher and taught both fall short of upholding the sutra? Answer: Ultimately, this is merit with attainment, which falls short of upholding the sutra. Question: How do we know these are all merit with attainment used for comparison? Answer: Both sutra and treatise give evidence. The treatise, explaining the first comparison of three thousand worlds' giving, says: "Two can go toward bodhi; the merit of giving does not." The two are: personally being able to receive and uphold, and explaining for others. These two can go toward bodhi. The merit of giving is contaminated, with attainment, and cannot go toward bodhi. Scriptural evidence: this takes the time before Dipamkara Buddha. Before that time, there was attainment, so birthlessness was not yet attained—hence we know the giving compared involves attainment. Another meaning for citing Shakyamuni's past causes for comparison: merit is explained through three gates. Above, two gates of merit were already compared; the gate of personally receiving, upholding, and reciting was not yet compared. Now, praising and comparing the merit of personally receiving, upholding, and reciting, this passage appears. Question: Why does the merit of personally receiving, upholding, and reciting become even heavier? Answer: The merit of personally receiving, upholding, and reciting is already heavy—how could the full self-practice and teaching others be measurable? This is to demonstrate the heaviness of merit, so personal practice is compared. Those who lecture and recite must examine the sutra carefully; otherwise, they will not notice. Question: How do the three gates of merit and their three comparisons differ? Answer: For the gate of self-practice and teaching others, the merit is immediately compared—from three thousand worlds to Ganges-sands giving of body and life. For the gates of personal faith and personal receiving and upholding, in these two gates the merit is explained first and compared later—hence the text shows differences of opening and combining. Question: How do the three gates of merit differ? Answer: They are three grades. Merely generating faith is the lower grade; receiving, upholding, and reciting without explaining for others is the middle grade; receiving, upholding, and reciting while explaining for others is the upper grade. Also, the former is self-practice; the latter includes both self and others.

「須菩提！善男子善女人」下，大章第二。前第一、明格量；今明格量所不能格量，會不格量所及。若其更格則人不信，故云不思議也。「爾時須菩提白佛」下，二周說法中，此是第二。依論師十二分，此是第十斷疑。今所不用，何故爾耶？論云「從如來非有為分下，皆是斷生疑」，何得言此中始是斷疑？復有人言：上來始答住問、降伏心問，今次答菩提心問。今明前具答四問竟，云何於此始答菩提心問耶？又前答後答無異，云何前非答菩提心，今始是答耶？其人見近不見遠也。次有人言：前明因空，今明果空。彼謂修行等是因，前辨修行空故是因，空菩提是果；今云實無菩提可得故是果空。此亦不然。上已具說因果深義竟，何得上言因空此亦是果空？今明此是第二周說。何以知耶？以前後四問皆同、佛答亦同，故知是二周說也。問：二周說何異？答：前廣說，今略說。前為前會眾說，後為後會眾說。故《大智論》解無生品云「問曰：前已說般若竟，今何得更說？答云：前為前來眾說，後為後來眾說也。如清涼池前來者飲竟而去，後來者更飲也。」問：《大經》云「為後來眾生以偈頌說」，今何故不作偈耶？答：說法多體，不可一勢。自有前會長行後來者偈，自有二俱偈、二俱長行，如《大智論》說，即是證也。問：今何故不作偈耶？答：諸般若多不作偈，以偈安字有限，於深義不能曲盡也。次明還是一會而有二周說。初周為利根人說，鈍根未悟，更為後周說也。問：前說後說無異，云何前說為利根人，後說為鈍根人耶？答：大意乃同，其中轉易形勢，故鈍根聞之仍得了悟。如一種義作此語說之不解，更作異門釋之則悟。猶如一米作一種食不能食，更作異食則能食也。雖是近事，斯乃聖人制作之大體也。「般若是一法，佛說種種名，隨諸眾生力，為之立異字。」即其證也。次意：前周盡緣，後周盡觀。前周盡緣者，正教菩薩無所得發心，破有所得發心，乃至無所得修行，破有所得修行，故是盡緣也。今此章明無有發菩提心人，亦無有修行人，故是盡觀也。論云「於內心修行，存我為菩薩，此即障於心，違於不住道。」斯經論之作，豈空稱哉？盡緣故無緣，盡觀故無觀，無緣無觀，不知何以目之，歎美強名正觀；正觀即是般若，即是金剛也。又前周正明觀行，後周除觀主。故《大智論》釋習應品云「問曰：前已明生法二空，今何故復辨生空？答：前為破生法二病，明生法二空，今為破觀空人也。」若無論經有十五章，有論經凡有十六章，有長信受一章經也。問：前周說既開三門：一、般若體門；二、信受門；三、功德門。今後周為後會，亦得如此以不？答：依論經亦得如此。初即般若體門，信受即第二門，三千世界須彌山七寶聚去是功德門也。今觀形勢小異於上，故不開三門，但依十五章鉤鎖相生，故釋疑解難以為次第也。初章為二：前問、次答。若約後會為論，則問意同前。昔來未依般若，不成發心修行，故今請問發心修行之義也。若約空觀為論，則前問成發心修行，後問請佛泯發心泯修行故也。問：前為成發心修行，後泯發心修行，將不相違耶？答：終為成一意耳。由泯發心，乃成發心耳；若見有發心，不成發心耳。故前來成發心即是泯發心，今泯發心即是發心也。佛答中為二：初、牒問，明發心即是緣盡義。從何以故實無發心者，明盡觀也。問：佛答與上何異？答：上但盡緣，今緣觀俱盡，即是異也。又上是廣答，具答四問；今是略答，但答發心。發心既爾，三問例然，為顯後周是略說故也。又意初發心尚緣觀俱息，況復修行等猶存有所得耶？「於意云何？如來於然燈佛所」下，第二章來者，論生起云「若無發心菩薩，今那得有受記菩薩耶？既有受記之人，必有發心之者，以受記是果、發心是因，何容有果而無因耶？」此終是歷破有所得我人見耳。前已破發心人見，今破受記人見也。就文有八菩提，開為二：初五菩提，引昔時了悟無受記菩薩以釋疑；次有三菩提，引現在佛果得菩提以釋疑。初中為三：一、佛問；二、須菩提答；三、佛述成。初、二如文。第三、佛述釋中有三菩提句，開為四意：一、直述理實無相，故無所得也；二、從「若有法」下，此是反釋，若有所得則不得記也。三、「以實無有法」下，順釋，以無所得故乃得記耳。「何以故」下，第四、釋無所得故得記之義也。言何以故無所得乃得記耶？釋云：如來者即諸法如義，以體如故名如來，亦體如故名得記，如中豈有法可得耶？若有得則不體如，不體如不名如來，亦不得受記也。「若有人言」下，第二、引現在得果時以釋疑也。疑云：無得受記之菩薩，今寧有得菩提之佛耶？以實有佛果得菩提，則實有菩薩得受記及發心也。此終是歷法破有所得我人見耳。故經云「菩提心見、受記見、佛見、菩提見、斷見、常見等，猶是一例義耳。」「實無佛得菩提」者，初發菩提心及受記時，尚了悟無所得，況至佛時猶有我人得菩提耶？如來所得三菩提無實無虛者，上破有見，今破無見也。明佛得三菩提，無所得為得，何故不得耶？肇師云「玄道在乎絕域，不得以得之」，即其義也。「無實無虛」者，前各彈有無見，此雙結非有非無也。無有有得之得故言無實，非無無得之得故言非虛，論意爾也。「是故如來說一切法皆是佛法」者，此成上非實非無義，虛非有耳。以體一切諸法如故名為如來，故一切法如即是如來，故云一切皆是佛法也。「即非一切法」者，一切顛倒之法，此非如來所證，故云則非一切法也。以一切如是如來故非無，一切顛倒非如來故非有，故成上非有無也。此猶是《大經》有所無無所有義耳。以無所有名大涅槃，故是如來也。有所無是顛倒生死，故非如來也。「是名一切法」者，還結一切諸法如也。問：上兩句已足，何用下更結耶？答：初句直明一切法是如來；次下兩句簡其有無，初句明無一切顛倒，次句明有一切法如也。問：上明然燈佛，與今何異？答：上為成不可取不可說義來也，今為成菩薩無義故來也。又上是略明義，此下八菩提是廣明義也。依論釋佛答中，論偈云「以後時受記，然燈行非上」，論師釋云「有四時然燈、四時受記，謂習種、性種、道種及初地。前然燈是習種時也，今此是性種、道種二時然燈。此中但是名字受記，未得真無生記，故云無有法得菩提。若此時已得真無生記者，後一然燈不更與受記也。」今謂此釋無所出，論直云「以後時受記，然燈行非上」，此言自難解，亦無四時受記、四時然燈也。又設有此義，於文義相皆不順，故於今無取也。

> "Subhuti, good men and good women" — this begins the second major section. The first section clarified the measure of merit; this section now speaks of what cannot be measured by any measure, beyond all comparison. If one were to try to measure it further, people would not believe it, hence it is called "inconceivable." "At that time, Subhuti said to the Buddha" — this is the second round of teachings. According to the treatise masters' twelve divisions, this is the tenth, resolving doubts. We do not adopt that scheme here. Why? The treatise says, "From the section on the Tathāgata being unconditioned onward, all is about resolving arising doubts." So how can one say doubts are only resolved starting here? Some say: earlier, the questions on abiding and calming the mind were answered; now, for the first time, the question on the aspiration for enlightenment is answered. But we have already seen that all four questions were fully answered earlier. How could this be the first time the bodhi-mind question is answered? Moreover, the earlier and later answers are no different — so why would the earlier not count as answering the bodhi-mind question, and only this one count? That person sees what is near but not what is far. Others say: earlier, the emptiness of causes was explained; now, the emptiness of results. They think cultivation and practice are causes, and that the earlier explanation of their emptiness was the emptiness of causes; bodhi is the result, and now the statement "there is truly no bodhi to be attained" is the emptiness of results. But this is also incorrect. The profound meaning of cause and result has already been fully explained above. How can one say the earlier part was only about the emptiness of causes and this is about the emptiness of results? We state: this is the second round of teachings. How do we know? Because the four questions are the same as before, and the Buddha's answers are the same — therefore it is a second round. Question: How does the second round differ from the first? Answer: The first was an extensive explanation; this is a condensed one. The first was for the assembly that had come earlier; the second is for those who came later. Thus the \*Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom\*, in explaining the chapter on non-arising, says: "Question: The Perfection of Wisdom was already explained earlier. Why explain it again? Answer: The earlier explanation was for those who had come before; this one is for those who come later. It is like a cool lake — those who came first drink and leave, and those who come later drink as well." Question: The \*Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra\* says, "For later beings, teach with verses." Why then are verses not used here? Answer: Teaching has many forms; it is not confined to one style. Sometimes the earlier assembly gets prose and later ones get verse; sometimes both get verse, or both prose. As the \*Great Treatise\* states — this is the proof. Question: Then why no verses here? Answer: The Perfection of Wisdom sūtras generally do not use verses, because verses limit the number of characters and cannot fully express such profound meaning. Next: it is also possible that it is one and the same assembly, but with two rounds of teaching. The first round was for those of sharp faculties; those of duller faculties did not awaken, so a second round was given for them. Question: If the earlier and later teachings are the same, how can one say the first is for the sharp and the second for the dull? Answer: The essential meaning is the same, but the presentation shifts and changes, so that the duller ones, hearing it again, can understand. It is like teaching one idea in one way — if not understood, one presents it through a different approach, and then it is grasped. It is like one grain of rice cooked in one way — if one cannot eat it, cooking it differently may make it edible. Though this is a simple analogy, it reflects the great principle of how sages compose their teachings. "The Perfection of Wisdom is one dharma; the Buddha speaks it under many names. According to the capacities of beings, he establishes different designations." This is the evidence. Another interpretation: the first round exhausts objects; the second round exhausts the contemplating mind. Exhausting objects means: the Buddha teaches bodhisattvas to arouse the mind without attainment, breaking the notion of a mind with attainment — likewise for practice. This is exhausting objects. This chapter now shows that there is no person who arouses the bodhi-mind, and no person who practices — this is exhausting the contemplating mind. The treatise says: "Inwardly practicing with the thought 'I am a bodhisattva' — this obstructs the mind and violates the non-abiding path." Such sūtra and treatise passages — are they empty words? Because objects are exhausted, there is no object; because the mind is exhausted, there is no mind. With neither object nor mind, one does not know what to call it — so it is praised, provisionally named "right contemplation." Right contemplation is precisely the Perfection of Wisdom, precisely the diamond. Furthermore, the first round clarifies the practice of contemplation; the second round removes the one who contemplates. Thus the \*Great Treatise\*, in explaining the chapter on "practicing in accord," says: "Question: The emptiness of both dharmas and persons was already explained earlier. Why explain the emptiness of persons again? Answer: Earlier, the two illnesses of person and dharma were broken by showing their emptiness. Now, the one who contemplates emptiness is itself broken." Without the treatise, the sūtra has fifteen chapters; with the treatise, sixteen, adding the chapter on faithful acceptance. Question: The first round opened three gates: the gate of the Perfection of Wisdom's essence, the gate of faithful acceptance, and the gate of merit. Can the second round, for the later assembly, also be structured this way? Answer: According to the treatise version, yes. The first is the essence gate; faithful acceptance is the second; and from "three thousand worlds, Mount Sumeru, seven treasures" onward is the merit gate. But observing the present structure, it differs somewhat from the above, so we do not open three gates. Instead, we follow the fifteen chapters as they chain together, taking the resolution of doubts and difficulties as the sequence. The first chapter has two parts: first the question, then the answer. If we consider the later assembly, the intent of the question is the same as before. In the past, without relying on the Perfection of Wisdom, one could not truly form the aspiration or practice. Hence the question now asks about the true meaning of arousing the mind and practicing. If we consider it from the standpoint of emptiness contemplation, the first question seeks to establish the mind and practice; the later question asks the Buddha to dissolve both the mind and the practice. Question: If the first establishes and the second dissolves, are they not contradictory? Answer: Ultimately they serve one single meaning. It is precisely by dissolving the mind that the mind is established. If one sees a mind to be aroused, then it is not truly aroused. So the earlier establishment of the mind is already its dissolution, and the present dissolution is precisely its establishment. The Buddha's answer has two parts: first, he takes up the question, showing that arousing the mind is precisely the meaning of exhausting objects. From "why? because there is truly no one who arouses the mind," he shows the exhaustion of contemplation. Question: How does this answer differ from the earlier one? Answer: The earlier one only exhausted objects; this one exhausts both objects and contemplation — this is the difference. Also, the earlier was an extensive answer covering all four questions; this is a brief answer, only on arousing the mind. Since the mind is thus, the other three questions are likewise — showing that the second round is condensed. Also, if even the first arousal of the mind involves the cessation of both objects and contemplation, how much more so would practice and so forth still retain any notion of attainment? "With regard to your thought — when the Tathāgata was with Dīpaṃkara Buddha" — this is the second chapter. The treatise explains its arising: "If there is no bodhisattva who arouses the mind, how can there be a bodhisattva who receives a prophecy? Since there is one who receives the prophecy, there must be one who aroused the mind. The prophecy is the result, the mind is the cause — how can there be a result without a cause?" This too is but the progressive dismantling of views of self and person based on attainment. Earlier, the view of the one who arouses the mind was broken. Now, the view of the one who receives the prophecy is broken. In the text, there are eight mentions of bodhi, divided into two: first, five mentions of bodhi, citing past understanding that there was no bodhisattva who received the prophecy, to resolve the doubt; then three mentions of bodhi, citing the present attainment of buddhahood, to resolve the doubt. The first part has three sections: one, the Buddha's question; two, Subhuti's answer; three, the Buddha's confirmation. The first two are as written. In the third, the Buddha's confirmation includes three mentions of bodhi, opened into four meanings: One: directly stating the principle — there is truly no mark, hence nothing attained. Two: from "if there were a dharma" onward, this is the contrary explanation — if there were attainment, there would be no prophecy. Three: "because there is truly no dharma" onward — the positive explanation — precisely because of no attainment, one receives the prophecy. "Why?" — this is the fourth: explaining why no attainment leads to the prophecy. The meaning: why is it that without attainment one is prophesied? The explanation: "Tathāgata" means "the suchness of all dharmas." Because one embodies suchness, one is called Tathāgata. Likewise, because one embodies suchness, one receives the prophecy. In suchness, how could there be any dharma to attain? If there were attainment, one would not embody suchness; not embodying suchness, one could not be called Tathāgata, nor receive the prophecy. "If someone should say" — this begins the second part: citing the present attainment of the fruit to resolve the doubt. The doubt is: If there is no bodhisattva who receives the prophecy, is there then a Buddha who attains bodhi? If there truly is a Buddha who attains bodhi, then there truly are bodhisattvas who arouse the mind and receive prophecies. This again is only a step-by-step dismantling of the view of self based on attainment. Thus the sūtra's terms — "view of the bodhi-mind, view of prophecy, view of Buddha, view of bodhi, view of extinction, view of permanence" — are all of the same class. "Truly no Buddha attains bodhi" — when one first arouses the mind and receives the prophecy, one already understands there is nothing attained. How much less, at the time of buddhahood, would there be a self or person attaining bodhi? "This which the Tathāgata has attained — neither real nor unreal" — above, the view of existence was broken; now the view of nonexistence is broken. It shows that the Buddha's attainment of bodhi is a non-attaining attainment. Why is it not an attainment? Master Sengzhao said, "The mysterious way lies beyond all reach; it cannot be grasped by grasping." This is the meaning. "Neither real nor unreal" — the earlier phrases individually struck at the views of existence and nonexistence; this pair jointly concludes that it is neither existence nor nonexistence. Because there is no attainment-with-attainment, it is called "not real." Because there is not no attainment-without-attainment, it is called "not unreal." This is the intent of the treatise. "Therefore the Tathāgata says, 'All dharmas are the Buddha-dharma'" — this completes the meaning of "neither real nor unreal, neither existent nor nonexistent." Because one embodies the suchness of all dharmas, one is called Tathāgata. Therefore, the suchness of all dharmas is the Tathāgata. Hence, "all are the Buddha-dharma." "Not all dharmas" — all inverted, deluded dharmas are not what the Tathāgata has realized — hence "not all dharmas." Because all dharmas' suchness is the Tathāgata, it is not nonexistent. Because all inverted dharmas are not the Tathāgata, it is not existent. This completes the meaning of neither existence nor nonexistence. This is the same as the \*Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra\*'s meaning of "having what is not had" and "having nothing." "Having nothing" is called Great Nirvāṇa, hence it is the Tathāgata. "Having what is not had" is inverted birth-and-death, hence not the Tathāgata. "This is called all dharmas" — this returns to conclude the suchness of all dharmas. Question: The first two phrases were already sufficient. Why the further conclusion? Answer: The first phrase directly states that all dharmas are the Tathāgata. The next two phrases distinguish existence and nonexistence: the first says there is no inversion; the second says there is the suchness of all dharmas. Question: What is the difference between the earlier mention of Dīpaṃkara and this one? Answer: Earlier, it came to establish the meaning of "not to be grasped, not to be spoken." Here, it comes to establish that bodhisattvas have no self. Also, earlier was a brief statement of the meaning; the eight mentions of bodhi below are the expanded statement. According to the treatise's explanation of the Buddha's answer, the verse says: "Because of the later prophecy, the Dīpaṃkara practice is not supreme." The treatise masters explain: there are four times of Dīpaṃkara and four times of prophecy — the stages of habitual seed, nature seed, path seed, and the first ground. The earlier Dīpaṃkara was the habitual seed stage; this one is the nature seed and path seed stages. Here it is only a nominal prophecy, not yet the true unarisen prophecy — hence "there is no dharma through which bodhi is attained." If one had already received the true unarisen prophecy at this point, the later Dīpaṃkara would not give another prophecy. We say this interpretation has no basis. The treatise simply says, "Because of the later prophecy, the Dīpaṃkara practice is not supreme" — this itself is hard to interpret, and there is no mention of four prophecies or four Dīpaṃkaras. Even if such a meaning existed, it does not fit either the letter or the sense of the text, so we do not adopt it here.

「譬如人身長大」下，第三章經論無生起觀。此文舉山王譬法身，成上菩提非有非無義耳。法身無一切患故非有，具一切功德故非無，然菩提既非有無，故法身亦非有無也。文有二：初、佛舉大身為問，如文；次、「須菩提答云：如來說人身長大」者，論云「佛以真如為身，二義故名大：一者、遍一切處；二者、具一切功德。」問：法身云何遍一切處耶？答：《華嚴》云「無盡平等妙法界，皆悉充滿如來身。」如來身未曾大小、遍與不遍，為眾生歎美為大耳。「即非大身」者，無一切患累故也。論云「遠離煩惱障及智障」，故云非身也。「是名大身」者，具一切功德也。初句直明大身耳，次句無患累故非有，次句明有眾德故非無也。問：與上明山王何異？答：前為前會，後為後會。又上為成無取說義來，今為成菩提非有無義來也。上明報佛，今明法身佛也。上，惑者謂初得佛時言有菩提可取，故是報佛，今直明法身體非有無，故是法身也。

> For the passage beginning with "For example, if a person's body were large," the third chapter of the treatise does not give rise to the contemplation of birth. This passage uses the metaphor of the mountain king to illustrate the Dharmakaya, completing the meaning that supreme enlightenment is neither existent nor non-existent. The Dharmakaya, being free from all afflictions, is not existent; being endowed with all virtues, it is not non-existent. Since enlightenment is neither existent nor non-existent, the Dharmakaya is likewise neither existent nor non-existent. This passage has two parts: first, the Buddha raises the question of the large body, as in the text; second, Subhuti answers, saying, "The Tathagata speaks of the body as large." The treatise says, "The Buddha takes suchness as his body, and it is called large for two reasons: first, it pervades all places; second, it is endowed with all virtues." Question: How does the Dharmakaya pervade all places? Answer: The Avatamsaka Sutra says, "The endless, equal, wonderful Dharma realm is completely filled by the Tathagata's body." The Tathagata's body has never been large or small, pervasive or non-pervasive; it is only for the sake of praising it to sentient beings that it is called large. "It is not a large body" means it is free from all afflictions and hindrances. The treatise says, "Being free from the affliction barrier and the cognitive barrier," hence it is called not a body. "This is called a large body" means it is endowed with all virtues. The first phrase directly clarifies the large body; the second phrase, being free from afflictions, means it is not existent; the third phrase, being endowed with all virtues, means it is not non-existent. Question: How does this differ from the earlier mention of the mountain king? Answer: The earlier one pertains to the first assembly, the later one to the later assembly. Furthermore, the earlier passage was for the purpose of establishing the meaning of non-attainment, while this one is for establishing the meaning that enlightenment is neither existent nor non-existent. The earlier passage clarifies the reward body, while this one clarifies the Dharmakaya. In the earlier passage, it was for those who mistakenly thought that upon first attaining Buddhahood, there was enlightenment to be attained, hence it was the reward body; now it directly clarifies that the Dharmakaya is neither existent nor non-existent, hence it is the Dharmakaya.

「菩薩亦如是」下，此第四章經來者，論生起云「若上來明無發心菩薩、受記菩薩，又無諸佛得無上菩提；若因果皆不可得者，眾生亦不應入涅槃，亦無淨佛土事，菩薩何故欲成就眾生令入涅槃、修淨土行耶？此終是有所得心歷法生疑故。」歷法破未竟，故生此章。「菩薩亦如是」者，此是成就眾生菩薩、淨佛土菩薩也，亦如上發心受記菩薩不可得，故云亦如是也。是亦上求菩提法身有無不可得故，求菩薩有無亦不可得，故云亦如是也。此中三句經：一、破成就眾生菩薩；二、破淨佛土菩薩；三、結正菩薩之義。問：上已二處明滅度眾生，與今何異？答：經初且明滅度眾生，為答菩提心故來；次第二周初答泯菩提心故來，今為破成就眾生菩薩義故來也。問：上已明淨土，與今何異？答：上為成無取無說之義，今為明無淨土之菩薩，故異也。「若菩薩通達無我法」者，此第三句結正菩薩之名。此文意有近有遠。近者從第二周初已來，云無發菩提心菩薩、無受記菩薩，乃至今明無成就眾生、淨佛土菩薩。人聞生疑：若爾，應都無菩薩也。故釋云：由了悟無菩薩故始是菩薩耳，見有菩薩則非菩薩也。遠即貫於一經，此經始終皆明無菩薩破我人之見。若能了悟無菩薩，方是菩薩；見有菩薩，見有則是凡夫我見，非菩薩也。問：了悟無菩薩者，此是知無有我；二乘亦悟無我，何故不名菩薩？答：論云「悟二種無我，故名菩薩。聲聞但悟人無我，故不名菩薩也。」又菩薩知我無我不二，故名菩薩；二乘見我無我異，是二見之人，非菩薩也。

「五眼」下，第五章經。文來有二：一者、近生，還從上四章生。前來四章竝不見菩薩，時會即疑：若如來云無所見者，則應無眼；若有眼，何故不見？故舉五眼答：今言不見者，非無眼故不見，五眼見宛然而無所見。如《淨名》阿那律章云「有佛世尊得真天眼，常見諸法不以二相。」《大品》復云「我五眼尚不見諸法，況凡夫無目而言得菩提耶？」二者、遠生，經初已來皆明無得無見，故有今文。又上破有見故云無見，今破無見故有見，未曾見不見也。五眼義別須釋，今且示數意。然五眼具得，約五人有五，謂：人有肉眼、天有天眼、二乘見四諦有慧眼、菩薩照三乘根性說三乘法有法眼、佛有佛眼。次約二人：因人四眼、果人一眼。因人四眼，如《仁王經》歎菩薩得四眼；五通果人一眼，即佛有佛眼也。次明一人具足五眼，即是佛。問：何故具足五眼？答：此是無差別差別用。舉障內境約佛智故名肉眼，舉障外境目佛智故名天眼，約二慧境名慧眼。《無量壽經》言「慧眼見真境，見真境名慧眼」。《大品．往生品》中云「慧眼無法不見」，又云「而無所見」。《大智論》言「具總相慧、別相慧名眼」，故知慧眼具二慧也。法眼可知，四眼不了，佛眼具了故名佛眼；亦見佛性故名佛眼也。「須菩提！恒河中有沙」者，此章為成五眼。依論師生起，明五眼既少而境多，何得以少眼知多境？境既多，眼亦應多，而今眼少何能盡知多境？為此疑故，今明眼雖少而能遍知一切境也。論既無文，今明亦復無妨也。但知前既辨五眼，今出所照之境也。問：前舉恒河、今明恒河，何異耶？答：前為成格量四句偈，故舉恒河；今為五眼所照境，故舉恒河也。問：境既多，何獨云知心？答：有二意：一者、廣略，前明能照之眼廣，故具明五眼；今辨所照之境略，故止言心也。二者、心無形觸最難知，今舉其難知尚知，易可明也。「如來說諸心」者，明如來見一切眾生心唯在顛倒中行也。「則為非心」，不在正觀中行也。「是名為心」者，結顛倒心也。三世心來者，釋成顛倒心義。何故名顛倒心耶？以三世求心不可得，而眾生見有心，此是無而謂有，故名顛倒也。「須菩提！滿三千世界七寶」者，文來為釋疑。上言佛知眾生心皆顛倒，則顛倒心所作布施等眾行皆是顛倒。若爾，應無佛因；既無佛因，應無佛果。故釋此疑，明無所得心布施等則是佛因，既有佛因則有佛果。問曰：何由有不顛倒？為從顛倒得不顛倒、為從不顛倒得不顛倒？二俱有過。若從顛倒生不顛倒，則倒為不倒因；若從不顛倒生不顛倒，則不顛倒便無因。答。《大品．三慧品》佛答此問，「不從有得生無得，不從無得生無得，得無得平等故是無所得」，即其事也。問：前已明三千世界七寶，與今何異？答：前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因也。「若福德有實」，此便釋疑。疑云：上亦三千七寶，今亦爾，何故是佛因耶？故釋云：若福德有實，此明有得福德。「以福德無故」，此明無得福德，故是佛因也。

「須菩提！於意云何？佛可以具足色身」下，第六章經。上來至此三處明色身，何異？答：初為明相好身異法身，相好身有三相，法身無三相也。次文為成兩因優劣義，二身兩果既優劣，二身兩因亦應優劣，成格量經義故來。今文為破二身一異見故來，上兩處明二身異，尋語之流即云有相好身與法身異，如從來本迹異、三佛異義，故此章經破一異見。論有二偈，上半云「法身畢竟體，非彼相好身」，此即破其二身一見，明相好身有相好、法身無相好，二身有異，何得一耶？次偈上半云「不離於法身，此二非不佛」，此破異見，何處離相好有別法身耶？故云此二非不佛也。問：二身定一定異、非一非異耶？答：諸法無有定相，而具有三句。昔日明相好身亦生滅、五分法身亦生滅，故二身同生滅則是一義。次此經上來兩處開二身之異，相好身有生滅、法身無為無生滅，此是異義。今此一章雙破一異，故佛具有三種方便。問：昔何故說一方便，乃至今何故說不一不異？答：昔為破常見故，明佛二身皆生滅無常，故二身是一，小乘人便作一解，故經初開二身生不生異，時會便云小乘二身是一、大乘二身是異，故今具破一異。得意者，三俱會道利物；不達者，皆是顛倒戲論也。破二身一異見既爾，破法身有色無色亦然。論云「此亦無亦有法身絕相，不可言有相好；離相好無別法身，不可言法身無相好也。」所言「具足色身」者，唯佛一人盡形相之美，故言具足；餘人乃至輪王，相不明了，故不具足也。「如來說具足即非具足」者，破一見，明色身非法身，何得為一？「是名具足」，此破異見，何處離相好別有法身也？「可以諸相見不」下，意與前同，但身總相別相為異耳。

「於意云何？如來有所說法不」下，此第七章來者，此破法身有說法疑。疑云：若具足色身非法身者，云何言如來有所說法耶？故佛破云：「須菩提！汝勿言如來法身有所說。若言如來法身有所說，則謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說也。」何以故說此一句破法身無說疑？若言法身不說、相好身說，此亦不然。上明不可離相好身別有法身，便謂法身無相好，亦不可離相好身說別有法身說，而謂法身無說。問：何以知經文如此？答：論偈云「如佛法亦然」，故舉佛例法也。「無法可說是名說法」者，此更破疑人聞法身有說，便言有法可說。故今釋云：雖復說法，無法可說，假名說法耳。論次此章後長有信受一章經。問：上信、今信何異？答：上明信，信因果深義；今明信，信上如來雖說無所說也。問：何等人能信此法耶？答：論偈云「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖。」此人非凡夫眾生，故言非眾生；而是聖體眾生，故言眾生也。非眾生故非聖，是聖體眾生故非不聖也。問：若言凡夫不信不可為凡，聖人能信不須為聖，今說此經竟為何人耶？答：觀此論意，具足顛倒有所得凡夫不能了，此是習無所得觀眾生則能信。此眾生望有所得人，故非眾生；未具足了悟，故非不眾生也。

「於意云何」下，第八章經論生起，　從上第二章經生。上第二章經云佛無菩提可得者，今云何有階級位行耶？如謂從十信至十住，從十住至十行，從十行至十迴向、十地等，既有進行階級，則佛果應有所得也。近文生者，相好論身業，無所說辨口業，今得菩提明意業。佛既無所說，應無所得；今實有所得，應實有所說也。問：初周中已明佛無所說、無得菩提，與今何異？答：前後兩會利鈍兩緣，此二義通貫十五章也。但今文與上有開合之別及來意不同。來意不同，上明釋迦是化佛，破實說之疑；今明不可言法身有說、不可言無說，破法身有說、法身無說之義疑。上明無得菩提，破實得之疑；今明無得，破舉因行階級證果實得疑也。又上云如來有所說耶？有菩提可得耶？此得說合論。今則開得說為二章經：前章經明無所說，此章明無所得也。文三：初、佛牒疑情反問善吉，次、善吉奉答明佛無少法得菩提。若有一豪之得則不得道，以畢竟無得爾乃得道耳。以得果實無一法可得，行因實無一行可行，無所得故始得果，無所行故乃是行因也。次佛述四義釋無上菩提，初即述以無所得故名無上也。二、以體悟法界平等義，故名無上菩提。以無我無人故得菩提者，第三義，彼菩提體無二種我，名無上也。上之二義就得門釋無上菩提；今就離門釋，謂菩提體有我人則非無上，以體無有我人故名無上菩提也。「修一切善法」者，上三門就果釋無上，此第四義就因門釋無上，以有無上方便修一切眾行滿足，故是無上；餘菩薩修因行不滿，故非無上也。「如來說善法則非善法」者，簡上修善法義，今明是無所得善法耳。得非是有所善法，故云「則非善法」。「是名善法」者，還結取無所得善法也。

「三千世界須彌七寶」下，此第九章。問：前周已舉內外兩施明格量竟，今何故更說？答：上已明前後說為兩會之眾，不應問也。又上來明般若體門及信受門竟，今說經是功德門也。又依論生起，從上修一切善法得菩提文生。若言修善法得菩提者，受持此經章句不得菩提。何以故？薩婆多等諸部人云名字句是無記法故也。為破此疑，故重舉也，明名字句雖是無記，能表實相，故受持四句功德無邊。又汝法中言是無記，我法中明此是般若名字句，豈是無記？故受持四句勝大千廣施也。問：等是破無疑，何故不舉恒沙七寶及舉恒沙身命耶？答：三千寶是最初格，故舉初章耳。又為後會人須漸次格，不得頓格超說恒沙。又今三千財與上為異，上但明三千財不及持經四句，今明百分不及一等也。依論，經有四種勝：一者云百分不及一乃至百千分不及一，此是數勝，持經福不可數也。二者、歌羅分不及一，此是力用勝，明經力用勝七寶施力用；三者、優婆尼沙陀分不及一，此云不相似數勝，此是數中微細之數，乃至持經少許福德數，無有與此數相似，故云數勝。四者、因果勝，此經因果勝餘因果也。「須菩提！於意云何」下，第十章經來者，論云「從上菩提無高下生，無高則諸佛不高，佛非能度。若無有下，則眾生非下，不下度眾生。而佛是能度故佛為高，眾生是所度故眾生為下，不應無高下也。」又從上為他說四句生者，時會既聞為他說四句功德無邊，便謂有眾生可為，故今破之也。前文止於疑念，次「何以故」，釋止疑念所以，明實無眾生可度，汝不應念佛度眾生也。「若有眾生如來度者」，此是反釋，若見有眾生可度，佛則有取我之過也。以眾生見眾生、眾生名眾生，不能自度，何能度眾生？佛亦見眾生，佛亦名眾生，不能自度，何能度眾生？佛若見眾生，佛能度眾生，眾生亦見眾生，眾生應能度佛。有如是大過故，佛不應見有眾生也。「如來說有我者，則非有我」，又釋疑，疑云：若無眾生可度，佛口中何故自稱我耶？如云我本行菩薩道等，故知有我。答云：如來隨俗說有我耳，實無有我可說。而凡夫之人以為有我者，更疑：若無我者，何故世間皆云我來我去、我生我死等耶？即釋云：此是凡夫人於無我中橫計有我耳，故云凡夫以為有我也。「凡夫者，如來說非凡夫」，論經具足云「須菩提！凡夫生者，如來說非生，是名毛道凡夫生。」所以有此語來者，上既云凡夫之人以為有我，故今釋凡夫義也。所以言凡夫生如來說非生者，以不生聖觀故名非生，生凡夫顛倒心故是名凡夫生也。問：論經何故云毛道凡夫耶？答：愚癡不解一毛端聖法故也。數人別有凡夫法、凡夫性，凡夫性是非色非心不相應行無記法也。凡夫法通五陰、通三性也。成論義無別凡夫性法，但無無漏聖法，故名凡夫法耳。

「可以三十二相觀如來不」下，此第十一章經。上已三章來各有其義，今復來者，上第三章中雖破如來法身有相無相一異等見，但耳眼之徒多言三十二相是佛，即更復生疑：以修三十二相業等故得三十二相身，有三十二相身即有法身，故知法身應有相好。為破此疑，故有此章來。又初周兩過明相好，後周亦兩過明相好，二會之信亦不可失。又近接前章總明正法平等無有高下；次章明無眾生可度，釋無下義。今了三十二相非佛，釋無高義。此一章經凡五句：一、佛牒疑情問；二、須菩提同迷答；三、佛舉輪王竝破；四、須菩提悟解；五、佛說偈呵之。問：《觀佛三昧經》云「若觀佛色聲皆滅重罪」，今云何見色聞聲行邪道耶？答：若得般若方便用，見色聞聲亦是佛，非色聲亦是佛，乃至非非色聲亦是佛。若不得般若方便，用五句皆非佛。故觀般若偈云「若人見般若，是則得解脫；若不見般若，是亦得解脫。若人見般若，是則為繫縛；若不見般若，亦為繫縛也。」

「汝若作是念」下，第十二章經來者，論生起云「若言不以色相好見法身者，則修相好業不得菩提。若爾，應無福德之因、福德之果。為破此疑故，明汝勿言無福因及福果。」佛有二種莊嚴：福因得相好果，此是福莊嚴；修智慧因得智慧果，是慧莊嚴。如來具有福慧二莊嚴，何故無相好果耶？汝若作是念，發菩提心，說諸法斷滅。又疑：菩薩得無生忍、出世間智慧，爾時捨肉身、受法身，則應無復福德因福德果。為破此疑故，明菩薩得無生忍，得妙智慧妙福德，豈失福德因果墮斷滅中耶？問：此中云發菩提心，何故釋云得無生忍耶？答：初得無生忍，亦名初發心也。又此中明從初發心不習斷滅觀，亦不起常觀，後心皆爾，故初後不二，如云「發心、畢竟二不別」也。前明佛果非有相非無相，今明因非斷非常，可謂因果皆是正觀、皆離斷常。問：若爾，因果何異？答：明晦不同，故開因果耳。「以滿恒河沙世界七寶布施」者，問：上已恒沙格竟，何故重說？答：前周從三千至恒沙，後周亦爾，兩會之義不失也。又來意異，前為格量持經四句，今為格量菩薩無我忍也。此是人法無我，故名無我忍也。「不受福德」者，不受有所得福德故此菩薩勝前菩薩，前菩薩受有得福德故不及後菩薩也。次、問答料簡不受之義。問：菩薩既作福德，云何不貪著耶？答：菩薩以無受心作故不生貪心，多非作福德，然復不貪也。

「若有人言：如來若來若去」下，第十三章來者，論生起云「菩薩既不受福德，則不受世間人王。天王云何往來六道利益眾生耶？故今釋云：菩薩雖不受世間果，而化身往來六道，作人王天王利益眾生，法身常住則無有去來。勿見化身去來利物，便言法身亦有去來；勿見法身無去來，謂生身亦無去來。」此中正明化身有去來，破法身有去來疑，故云「若言如來法身有去來者，不解法身之義也。」問：若化身有來去、法身無來去，還是從來義耳。答：此是不二二義，故開二身無去來。去來是化身，去來無去來是法身，皆是為物作此名字耳。至論正般若，未曾二不二、去來不去來也。

「須菩提！以三千世界碎為微塵」下，第十四章經。前已明微塵，今復明，何異？釋：有同有異。有同者，同取為譬喻，異者來意各別。前舉有微塵譬有所得布施，成格量優劣義故來。明有得布施，此是塵染因，還得塵染果，故不及持經四句。今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑，如世界碎末為塵，不可言一處住，以其各散故；亦非異處，既無聚云何散耶？十方佛法身不可一處住、不可異處住，以不可一處住，非是混成一法身；不可異處住，故不可各各有法身。故論偈云「於是法界處，非一亦不異。」此破由來兩解，或言十方佛混成一法身，或言各各有法身義也。問：何故舉微塵喻破法身一異疑耶？答：如微塵散滅故不可說一異處，如是十方佛煩惱盡故不可說法身一異處住，故論偈云「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」也。問：何因緣故，破法身一異疑耶？答：上明化身有來去、法身無有來去。法身無來去，故時會生疑：十方佛法身同為無來去，為成一法身同處住？為各各有法身異處住耶？又上來廣破二身一異之見，令識正果；今破微塵世界聚散之見，令識依果，故令了悟不依不正畢竟空義，故有此文來也。此中前牒彼疑，而頓舉三千世界微塵者，欲明十方一切佛法身同異義也。答云甚多者，十方諸佛多也。「說微塵」者，舉微塵為喻也。假名微塵無所有，故云「非微塵」也。「是名微塵」者，還結正假名義也。「世界一合相」者，若微塵、世界相對，微塵喻十方法身不一，世界喻十方法身不異。但論意用微塵通喻不一異，世界偏喻不一也。問：前微塵通喻不一異，何故舉世界別喻不一耶？答：人聞十方法身皆無來去大小，應是一也。以多有一疑，故偏破一也。一合相者，合眾塵成世界也。一合相不可說者，聖人了合無所合，如〈破合品〉「是法不自合，異法亦不合。合法及合時，合者亦皆無。」故無有合。但凡夫見有世界，故起貪著心，言有世界耳。「若人言佛說我見」者，此文近接前生，明凡夫貪著其事生也。凡夫貪著由於我見，我見既無，貪著何由有耶？又遠釋一經，上來處處歎無我無人，但凡夫顛倒起我見人見耳。時會便疑：佛說凡夫起我見，故知有我見可起；若無我見，佛不應說凡夫起我見。此是一疑也。又二乘人云：先有我見故斷我見，故得無我智，是名得道。此是二疑。破初疑云：若人言說我見，便有我見可說者，則不解佛所說義。佛欲明我見是無故說我見耳，非說我見便有我見可說也。故《中論》最後偈云「一切諸法空，世間常等見，何處於何時？誰起是諸見？」故非但正見不可得，邪見亦不可得，故知道門未曾邪正。此經將竟。上破昔有所得正見不可得，今破其邪見亦無得，顯正般若未曾邪正也。即是答二乘人，亦不得言先有我見，斷我見故得無我智。今乃明我本來畢竟不可得，何所斷故言無我耶？「應如是知」者，上明我見本來不可得，今明法見亦本來不可得，故舉我列法，故云應如是知、見、信解，不生法相也。「所言法相者，則非法相」者，亦如我義。佛說我既非我，說法相亦非法相也。問：如是知、見、信解，何異耶？答：論偈云「二智及三昧，知是世諦智」，見是第一義諦智。信解者，是二智所依三昧，依三昧故發生二智也。問：何故明二智？答：菩薩了人法空，具足二智也。又始行菩薩未得無生，了悟淺名世諦智。深行菩薩得無生忍，了悟二空，名第一義諦智。三昧通是二人智所依也。

「若人以滿無量」下，此第十五章經。上「如來者無所從來」，總明二身；微塵譬喻，別料簡法身。今此一章經，別料簡化身。疑云：化佛既有去來，供養化佛、持化佛所說，何如真佛耶？故今明若能於化佛所發心受持化佛四句偈者，功德勝無量阿僧祇世界七寶施。「云何為人演說」，釋為他說義，明上來數勸為人說法。今經之欲竟，示說法之方，當如如而說。下「如」字則是如法性之如，勸行者當如法性如而說，勿生心動念也。下偈即明說法之辭，亦如十喻之說，故居士經云「說法者無說無示，譬如幻士為幻人說法。」什法師云「十喻以喻空，空必持此喻。借言以會意，意盡無會處，既得出長羅，住此無所住」也。若依論經明之，經曰「云何為人演說」而不名說，是名為說。此釋化佛說法義。化佛說法，不自稱是化；若自稱是化，則眾生不生信敬，故言不名為說。是名為說者，直化佛說法也。一切有為法偈來者，更釋疑。疑云：諸佛常為眾生說法，何故復入涅槃？故明諸佛如來不住涅槃、不住有為，以諸佛為利眾生化身說法，故不住涅槃；觀有為如夢幻，故不住世間也。論經廣有九喻，云「一切有為法，如星、翳、燈、幻、露、泡、夢、電、雲」。一者、如星，日未出有用，日出則無用。未有正觀日出，則妄心有用；正觀日出，則妄想不可得。第二、翳喻，如眼有翳，故見空有毛輪，故可得翳；慧眼故無六塵，妄見六塵也。第三、如燈，還喻能見識法，如有油、炷、器，三法合故有燈，根、塵及貪受故有識生。燈和合有無所有法，亦和合有無所有，燈念念滅，識亦爾也。第四、如幻喻，如幻師作種種物而無實；眾生業幻故，見種種國土亦無實也。第五、露喻，露少時住，身亦爾。第六泡喻，如天雨渧成泡，小兒謂之即為珠，心生貪著；眾生三受亦爾，從根塵識生，亦不實也。第七、夢喻過去法，如昨夜夢見有，了悟則無也。八者、如電喻，纔現即滅，現在法亦爾。第九、雲喻，空中淨，忽然雲生，即時便滅；未來法亦爾，忽然而起，即時散滅也。委曲須講釋，今略示耳。

第三、流通，如文意云云。

## 金剛般若經義疏卷第四畢