---
title: "大品經義疏 · 三慧品第七十"
description: "大品經義疏由隋唐高僧吉藏撰寫，是對《大品般若經》的重要註釋著作。吉藏是三論宗的創始人，以中觀思想聞名，該疏融合了龍樹中觀學說與中國佛教特色，系統闡釋般若空性思想。內容涵蓋經文逐句解析、名相辨析及修行實踐指導，展現了隋唐佛教義學的嚴密邏輯。作為中國佛教史上關鍵的般若經典疏解，它不僅推動了三論宗的發展，也為後世研究大乘空觀提供了權威依據，在漢傳佛教思想史中佔有重要地位。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcxdoh450458k404bjye7tpv"
---

### 三慧品第七十

> Chapter 70: Three Kinds of Wisdom

第一、明方便慧體，秤歎勸修已竟。今第二、明修方便因行，為二：初、三慧品將欲辨於因行，先明修行之軌模；第二、道樹以去，正明修行。經及論無三慧名，直云行、生、修般若耳。若以般若為慧，於義得也。三慧有二：聞、思、修三，此多就無階級、階級為論耳。行、生、修三慧，多就階級、無階級為論，故經云：從初發心至坐道場，應行、修也。但法師及論釋不同。一言：三十心為行，初地得無生為生慧。生是本無，今有前未得，無生今始得，故為生慧也。修慧二解：一云：初地既為生，二地去屬修慧。故地論初地為見道，二地屬修道。二解：初地至六地為生，七地去為修也。論云：有人言：乾慧地為行，得無生為得無生，以後用禪波羅蜜薰修為修慧也。有人言：梁武解初地具行、生、修，但義說三也。然論中直出階級解，而不將之父直明無階級，此意明具階級、無階級三義也。

> First, clarifying the essence of skillful means and the wisdom body, and praising and encouraging practice, is now complete. Now, in the second part, we clarify the practice of skillful means as a causal path, in two sections: First, the chapter on the three kinds of wisdom, preparing to explain the causal practice by first laying out the model or framework for cultivation. Second, from the Bodhi tree onward, directly explaining the practice itself. The scriptures and treatises do not use the term "three kinds of wisdom," but simply say "practice," "arising," and "cultivating" wisdom. If we take wisdom itself as understanding, this is acceptable in meaning. The three kinds of wisdom are of two types: hearing, reflecting, and cultivating—these are often discussed in terms of having stages or no stages. The wisdom of practice, arising, and cultivation is more often discussed in terms of stages and no stages together. Thus, the scriptures say: from the first stirring of the aspiration for enlightenment to sitting at the Bodhi tree, one should practice and cultivate. However, the Dharma masters and treatises differ in their explanations. One view says: the thirty minds (stages of development) constitute practice, and the first ground (the initial realization) attaining non-arising is "arising wisdom." Here, "arising" means what was originally absent now comes into being—what was not yet attained before is now attained as non-arising, hence it is called "arising wisdom." Two explanations exist for "cultivating wisdom": One says that the first ground, being "arising," belongs to the path of seeing, while the second ground onward belongs to the path of cultivation, and thus to "cultivating wisdom." The second explanation says: from the first to the sixth ground is "arising," and from the seventh ground onward is "cultivation." The treatise says: Some say that the stage of dry wisdom constitutes practice, and attaining non-arising constitutes the attainment of non-arising. After that, using the perfection of meditative concentration to temper one's practice constitutes cultivating wisdom. Others cite Emperor Wu of Liang's explanation that the first ground fully embodies practice, arising, and cultivation, but these are distinguished only conceptually. However, the treatise itself simply presents the view of stages without explicitly linking it to the view of no stages—this implies that all three meanings—stages, no stages, and both together—should be understood.

品三：一、明三慧三慧；二、明三起；三、明般若。初為二周：一者、略明三慧；二、廣明三慧。略中為三：一、明三慧體；二、明修三慧時節；三、明修三慧之方。初中，先問，次知。問來者，上品歎般若功德，故言善知一切法。聽者愛敬般若，故須菩提為之發問也。佛答三界，三答初行中四句。言初有兩句，明菩薩深悟五陰，即是涅槃寂滅。次兩句，既深悟五陰寂滅，即知諸有五陰是虗妄。如此而了，名般若也。又解云：前兩句是第一義，後兩句是世俗二諦，故是行般若也。如虗空生者，答第二生問。數論及外道，虗空或是常，或是無常法，今不借此為喻。般若中明空不有不無常，如涅槃相。今明菩薩觀一切法，亦如虗空不有不無，不常不無常等，則般若觀生，故云如虗空生也。然虗空無生無不生，假說生，般若亦爾也。前就五陰寂滅明行義，今約虗空者，此據六種門也。品淨此六種，令不可得，是行生義也。修一切懷者，答第三修問。論云：菩薩得般若已，入深禪定。以般若力故，觀禪及禪定所緣皆不可得，不見散靜能緣所緣，故名懷一切，為修般若也。

> \*\*Chapter Three\*\* \*\*Part One: The Three Wisdoms\*\* This chapter has three main sections: first, clarifying the three wisdoms; second, clarifying the three origins; third, clarifying Prajñā (perfect wisdom). The first section is divided into two parts: first, a brief explanation of the three wisdoms; second, an expanded explanation of the three wisdoms. The brief explanation has three parts: first, clarifying the essence of the three wisdoms; second, clarifying the time for cultivating the three wisdoms; third, clarifying the methods for cultivating the three wisdoms. In the first part, there is first a question, then an answer. The question arises because in the previous chapter, the merits of Prajñā were praised, saying that one who is skilled knows all dharmas. The listeners, inspired by love and respect for Prajñā, prompted Subhuti to ask this question. The Buddha's answer covers the three realms. In the first section of the answer, there are four statements. The first two statements clarify that a bodhisattva deeply realizes that the five aggregates are themselves Nirvana — tranquil and still. The next two statements, having deeply realized the tranquility of the five aggregates, recognize that all existence, composed of the five aggregates, is illusory. Understanding in this way is called Prajñā. Another interpretation says: the first two statements refer to ultimate truth, and the latter two statements refer to conventional truth. Thus, this dual understanding constitutes the practice of Prajñā. "Like space being born" answers the second question about birth. In the schools of Sāṃkhya and Vaśeṣika, as well as among non-Buddhists, space is either considered eternal or non-eternal. Here, the text does not borrow such views as metaphors. In Prajñā, it is explained that emptiness is neither existence nor non-existence, neither eternal nor non-eternal, just like the nature of Nirvana. Now, the bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas as being like space — neither existent nor non-existent, neither permanent nor impermanent in any fixed sense. This is how Prajñā views arising — thus it is said "like space being born." However, space itself neither truly arises nor truly perishes; its "arising" is merely a conventional expression. The same applies to Prajñā. Previously, the practice of Prajñā was discussed in terms of the five aggregates being tranquil. Now, the metaphor of space is used, which refers to the six types of objects (the six sense bases). Purifying these six types so that they become ungraspable is the meaning of "practicing arising." "Cultivating the abandonment of everything" answers the third question about cultivation. The commentary states: the bodhisattva, having attained Prajñā, enters deep meditation. Through the power of Prajñā, he discerns that meditation and the objects meditated upon are all ungraspable. He perceives neither scatteredness nor stillness, neither subject nor object. This is called "abandoning everything" — the true cultivation of Prajñā.

須菩提白佛應歲時下，第二、明修三慧時節。時眾云一切法必有時節，故須菩提為問也。佛答初發意坐道場者，此是無始無終義，故說始終也。問：從初發意至坐道場應行萬行，何故言行般若？答：論解方便品云有人言不必具修餘行，得佛但聞般若即作佛，如師子皷音世界，是中人但聞無生無相便得悟無生也，何有人行施戒等事？既行般若，故今但問般若也。又須菩提上偏問般若不淨、答般若三世，又以般若心行萬行，萬行皆為般若，攝般若萬行故偏說得佛時轉名薩婆若，故三慧之名但至道場也。

> Subhuti addressed the Buddha at that time. Second, it clarifies the timing of cultivating the three kinds of wisdom. The assembly understood that all phenomena have their proper timing, so Subhuti raised this question. The Buddha answered that from the first arising of the aspiration to awakening to sitting at the seat of enlightenment—this expresses the meaning of no beginning and no end, thus the discourse on beginning and end. Question: From the first arousal of bodhicitta to sitting at the seat of enlightenment, one should practice the myriad practices. Why does the text speak only of practicing prajñā wisdom? Answer: The commentary on the Skillful Means chapter explains that some say one need not cultivate all other practices sequentially—by merely hearing of prajñā, one attains Buddhahood. For example, in the world of the Lion's Drum Sound, people there, upon merely hearing of birthlessness and signlessness, awaken to the unborn nature. How much less would they need to practice giving, precepts, and other such deeds? Since one already practices prajñā, only prajñā is asked about here. Furthermore, Subhuti previously asked specifically whether prajñā was impure, and the Buddha answered regarding prajñā across the three times. Moreover, when the mind of prajñā permeates the myriad practices, all practices become prajñā itself. Because prajñā encompasses all practices, it is said that at the moment of attaining Buddhahood, it is then called sarvajñā (all-knowing wisdom). Thus, the name of the three wisdoms extends only up to the seat of enlightenment.

白佛次第：次心下，第三、明修三慧方法。不令餘念得入者，遮一切有所得念，隨起破之不令入也。心心數法不行者，小乘人罵此言也。凡厥心數不行，聖願四處：一者、凡得無想定心不得，無相天擇心行不行，此因果心不行也。聖人得有餘，入滅定時心不行，入無餘時心亦不行，菩薩云何得心心常不行耶？論主答云：此小乘法作此說也。大乘法與小乘異，故明菩薩一切心心不行也。然明餘心不入此禪，一切有所得心不行。今明心數不行，只菩薩行般若，心雖行實無所行。叡公釋淨名經云：菩薩以法身為身，雖處而非三界；妙慧為心，雖緣而常寂滅也。

> The Buddha spoke sequentially: Next, the third point explains the methods for cultivating the three kinds of wisdom. "Not allowing other thoughts to enter" means blocking all thoughts that grasp at attainment—whenever such thoughts arise, they are broken apart and not permitted in. "Mental factors do not function" is a phrase used by followers of the Lesser Vehicle to criticize this teaching. Generally speaking, when mental factors cease, the holy ones rely on four states: First, when one attains the concentration of non-thought, the mind does not function; when one chooses the heavens of the Formless Realm, mental activity does not operate—this refers to the cessation of mind in both cause and effect. Sages who attain the state of remainder cease mental functioning when entering the concentration of cessation; when they enter the state of no remainder, the mind also ceases. How then can a bodhisattva's mind be constantly inactive? The commentator answers: This is how the Lesser Vehicle describes it. The Great Vehicle differs from the Lesser Vehicle, so it is explained that a bodhisattva's mind—with all its mental factors—does not function. Yet it is also said that other thoughts do not enter this meditative state, and all thoughts grasping at attainment cease. Now, when we say mental factors do not function, this means the bodhisattva practices prajñā—though the mind functions, it truly has nothing it does. Master Rui, in explaining the \*Vimalakīrti Sūtra\*, said: "A bodhisattva takes the Dharma body as his body; though dwelling in the world, he is not of the three realms. He takes wondrous wisdom as his mind; though it engages with conditions, it remains always in tranquil cessation."

自修般若得薩婆若下，第二、同廣明三慧，即三：初、明修；次、行。上明行生修，今明修生行者，既始終具足三慧故無深淺，所以論之令無前後也。二者、文勢故，前明修慧，上明心心數法不得，故問言：既不行，今修般若得薩婆若不耶？佛答：修是心，常修習心心法也。不行，云何有修而薩婆若耶？修尚不得，何況不修耶？又言：真諦理則無修，世諦有觀心故言修。此二俱過，故言亦不可得也。此破四句得義也。然此上明修慧，今修不修四句皆淺，則知行生亦然也。後問云何當得者，亦破得已想，故今問得也。佛答如如想者，汝解如有四句得不？即如實際者，須菩提不解如故，以其證實際為喻。實際有四句，後不解實際得薩婆若，故如法性。問：須菩提應解實際，云何不解？答：乃解其實際，不解薩婆若如實際也。問：常云如法性實際，今云何必實際法耶？答：是法性例人性，故迴之在後也。又約小乘人為論，彼云學道為如，無學道證實際，證實際竟後方通達無量法性，故法性在後也。我性可得不者，答云：初果人尚不見我，況羅漢耶？問：我畢竟不可得，則無我是橫計，今得菩提亦橫計不？答：有所得，得亦橫計也。今得是無所得，取我無所有為少分喻也。菩薩應學色下，第二、明行慧。就文為五：初、明無所行是行般若；第二、無得行；第三、無為無作行；第四、不住行；第五、假名行。今是初不起行。業有無者，上生滅是生滅是無相門，今不起有無業是無作門，下自相空是空行也。不起業有無者，有即三有業也。凡夫外道離般若正觀，以邪見心欲滅三有業也，此是起無業也。大略而言，凡厥有無心皆是有見業也。

> Practicing prajñā oneself to attain sarvajñā: next, the second part broadly explains the three kinds of wisdom, which consists of three sections: first, cultivation; second, practice. Above it says practice gives rise to cultivation; here it says cultivation gives rise to practice. Since beginning and end are both complete with the three wisdoms, there is no depth or shallowness, so it is discussed to show there is no before or after. Second, because of the textual flow, above it explains cultivated wisdom. Above it states that mind and mental factors are not obtainable, so the question arises: if one does not practice, can one still cultivate prajñā and attain sarvajñā? The Buddha answers: cultivating this mind means constantly training the mind and its factors. If there is no practice, how can there be cultivation and thus sarvajñā? If cultivation is still not obtainable, how much less so without cultivation? Furthermore, it is said: in the truth of ultimate meaning there is no cultivation; in worldly truth there is observing the mind, so it is called cultivation. Both of these are faults, so it is said to be unobtainable as well. This refutes the four propositions regarding attainment. However, above it explains cultivated wisdom; now the four propositions of cultivating or not cultivating are all shallow, so it is understood that practice giving rise to cultivation is likewise so. The later question "How will one attain it?" also breaks the notion of attainment, so now it asks about attainment. The Buddha answers "Thus, thus, and Suchness": do you understand whether Suchness can be obtained through four propositions? It is like actual reality—Subhuti does not understand Suchness, so his realization of actual reality is used as a simile. Actual reality has four propositions; afterwards, not understanding that actual reality attains sarvajñā, it is thus like Dharma-nature. Question: Subhuti should understand actual reality—why is it said he does not? Answer: He understands actual reality itself, but he does not understand that sarvajñā is like actual reality. Question: It is often said "Thusness, Dharma-nature, actual reality"; why here must actual reality come first? Answer: Dharma-nature is compared to human nature, so it is placed afterwards. Also, speaking from the standpoint of lesser vehicle practitioners, they say the path of learning is Thusness, the path of no-learning realizes actual reality; only after realizing actual reality does one then penetrate the innumerable Dharma-natures, so Dharma-nature comes after. "Is my nature obtainable?"—the answer is: even a first-stage fruit practitioner does not see a self, how much less an arhat? Question: Since a self is ultimately unobtainable, then no-self is a false conceptualization; is attaining enlightenment now also a false conceptualization? Answer: With something attained, attainment is also false conceptualization. Now this attainment is without anything obtained, taking the non-existence of self as a partial simile. "A bodhisattva should learn forms"—next, the second part explains the wisdom of practice. The text is divided into five: first, not engaging in any practice is practicing prajñā; second, practice without attainment; third, practice of non-action and non-creation; fourth, practice of non-abiding; fifth, practice of conventional names. Now this is the first, the practice of not arising. Regarding the existence or non-existence of karma: above, arising and ceasing are the signless gate; now, not arising karma of existence or non-existence is the non-creation gate; below, self-nature emptiness is the practice of emptiness. "Not arising karma of existence or non-existence": existence means the karma of the three realms. Ordinary people and non-Buddhists, apart from the right view of prajñā, with wrong views wish to extinguish the karma of the three realms—this is the arising of non-existence karma. Generally speaking, any thought of existence or non-existence is karma born of views of existence.

初發心云何行下，第二、明無所得行。問：二竟無一者，不行是行，初心迷悶，若有行為，行則性屬，今云何耶？佛答：今發心則學無所得，無所得者淨一切有無諸見。故一師云：發心之學無生滅觀，就無生心修萬行，不如他云有中修萬行，然後以空導之，故今及之。前并當有所得心盡畢竟空，然後只修萬行也。若留一豪有所得心，則不成脩行，此行還成有所得也。白佛：徒有所得中無所得者，正問得無得愛際義，若從無所得得無所得，此無所得正則是自然無所得。菩薩發心應先行有所得，後入無所得，此句常住佛義，不可從常得常、從佛得佛，亦不可無常反作常常，若可作則常作無常。佛答：俱不可也。汝見得無得二，故作問也。若見得無得二，還是有得，如前二法是有所得也。今若不見得無得，始是無所得也。他得無得平等，始是無得。今還問：為從平等得平等？為從不平等以得平等？答：若有此問，還同前答，汝見等不等二，終是不等也。佛意明約眾生迷悟，強詺作得無得也，何曾有得無得定性耶？若通理實有有所得，終不可悟無所得，良由空謂為有得也，何有得之所有耶？

> Question: Regarding the initial resolve, how should one practice? Second, this clarifies the practice of non-attainment. Question: If ultimately there are no two—then not practicing is the practice. A beginner would be confused. If there is practice, then practice has a nature. How should this be understood? The Buddha answers: Now, when one makes the resolve, one learns non-attainment. Non-attainment purifies all views of existence and non-existence. Thus one master says: The study of making the resolve is the contemplation of no arising and no ceasing. Cultivating myriad practices within the mind of no arising—this is not like others who say one cultivates myriad practices within existence and then later guides them with emptiness. Hence this teaching addresses that. Previously, one exhausted all mind of attainment into ultimate emptiness, and only then cultivated myriad practices. If even a trace of a mind of attainment remains, then the practice is not accomplished, and this practice itself becomes one of attainment. The questioner says: "Attaining non-attainment within attainment" truly asks about the boundary between gaining and losing. If from non-attainment one attains non-attainment, then this non-attainment is simply natural non-attainment. A bodhisattva making the resolve should first practice with attainment and later enter non-attainment. This statement concerns the eternal meaning of Buddhahood. One cannot attain the eternal from the eternal, nor attain Buddhahood from Buddhahood. Nor can impermanence itself be turned into eternity. If it could be made, then eternity would become impermanence. The Buddha answers: Neither is possible. You see gaining and non-gaining as two, and therefore ask this question. If you see gaining and non-gaining as two, this is still having attainment, just as the previous two dharmas are cases of attainment. Now, if you do not see gaining and non-gaining as separate, only then is it truly non-attainment. Others hold that once gaining and non-gaining are equal, that is non-attainment. Now one might further ask: Does one attain equality from equality, or attain equality from inequality? Answer: If you have such a question, it returns to the previous reply. You see equality and inequality as two, and in the end this is inequality. The Buddha's intent is to show that based on sentient beings' confusion or awakening, we provisionally label it as "attainment" or "non-attainment." How could there ever be fixed natures of attainment or non-attainment? If one understands that even so-called attainment is ultimately empty, one can never awaken to non-attainment. It is precisely because emptiness is mistaken as having attainment—what is there that could truly be attained?

白佛：為何事故行般若下，第三、無為無作行般若也。初問答，正明無所為無所作故行般若也。白佛：云何分三？前者問意，既無為無作，何分別有三乘耶？佛答中，初印成其問，明無為無作中無有分別三乘，有所為有所作中自分別耳。何以故凡夫愚人下，此呵善不應生疑。凡夫人未得道，著五陰亦著空，故可生疑云不應分別三乘也。汝已得道，空有俱不著，何故此疑耶？我以五眼不得菩提者，此更釋凡夫生疑所以也。我有五眼故不見菩提，又我是得菩提人，不見菩提可得，凡夫未得菩提，言有菩提可得，凡夫未得菩提可得，故大可恠也。問：慧眼見真諦故可見菩提，菩提世諦佛智，云何言五眼不見？若言真諦遣五眼起不見者，是亦不然，若遣五眼則無五眼，今正對凡夫無五眼明有五眼，云何遣五眼耶？此於常義大不可解。今明五眼不見者，不見凡夫所見菩提，凡夫所見菩提皆是總謂，何處有此菩提可見，而凡夫想謂言有此菩提可見，而凡夫想謂言有菩提可見也。又今見菩提而見無所見，故云不見也。

> The Buddha was asked: "For what reason does one practice the Perfection of Wisdom?" Third, this is the practice of the Perfection of Wisdom through non-action and non-doing. The initial question and answer clarify that one practices the Perfection of Wisdom precisely because there is nothing to attain and nothing to do. The question then asks: "Why are there three divisions?" Earlier, the questioner's intent was: if there is truly nothing to do and nothing to attain, then why are there distinctions among the three vehicles? In the Buddha's answer, he first confirms the question, stating that within non-action and non-doing there are no distinctions among the three vehicles. It is only within the realm of deliberate action and striving that such distinctions naturally arise. Then, regarding why ordinary beings are mentioned—this is a rebuke, saying that one who is wise should not have such doubts. Ordinary people who have not yet attained the path are attached to the five aggregates and also attached to Emptiness itself, so it is understandable that they might doubt whether the three vehicles should be distinguished at all. But you, who have already attained the path, are attached to neither existence nor Emptiness—so why do you still harbor this doubt? When it is said that "with the five eyes I do not see Enlightenment," this further explains why ordinary beings might have doubts. I possess the five eyes, yet I do not see Enlightenment anywhere. Moreover, I am one who has attained Enlightenment, and even I see nothing that can be grasped as Enlightenment. Ordinary beings, who have not attained Enlightenment, insist that Enlightenment exists as something to be obtained. So it is truly remarkable that they would cling to this idea. Someone might ask: "The wisdom eye sees ultimate truth, so it should be able to see Enlightenment. Enlightenment belongs to conventional truth as the Buddha's wisdom—so how can it be said that the five eyes do not see it?" And if one argues that ultimate truth dispels the five eyes so that they cannot see, that is also incorrect. If the five eyes were dispelled, then there would be no five eyes at all. But here, the five eyes are precisely what ordinary beings lack, and now they are said to exist—so how could they be dispelled? This seems very difficult to reconcile with the usual understanding. Now, when we say the five eyes do not see, it means they do not see Enlightenment as ordinary beings imagine it. The Enlightenment that ordinary beings conceive of is nothing but a mental projection—where could such an Enlightenment actually be found for anyone to see? Yet ordinary beings, through their deluded thinking, assume that such an Enlightenment exists and is visible. Furthermore, when one truly sees Enlightenment, one sees it without any sense of seeing—that is why it is said that one "does not see."

譬如他人下，第四、不住行般若也。舉化來者，釋佛無所住故得通，即明菩薩無所住故行般若也。因必化，廣明化事也。須扇多是無本有迹句，四句易明也。又有本長迹短、本短迹長，此即其事也。須扇多無本有迹，釋迦有本無迹。三、本迹一時者，如釋迦受純陀，化身受餘人也。本迹俱無，只此本迹即不本迹，即第四句也。本短迹長，即須扇陀是也。本長迹短者，如釋迦或一時應現，即是本長迹短，故云即其事，只須扇多等是也。問：若言我禮化佛得真佛福，亦應毀化佛得真佛罪。論主答云：若惡心毀化佛身，血為之出，亦得逆罪。問：若爾，律中何故明毀化人無罪？答：律中為結戒、為護佛法，隨世俗故作此說也。人見煞化牛羊等不深責，是故無罪。煞真作心不異者，得罪一等也。

> 第四，安住于无所执着而修行般若。举出化佛的例子，是为了解释佛因为无所执着而能通达自在，也由此说明菩萨因无所执着而修行般若。因必有果，广泛阐明化现之事。须扇多是"无本有迹"的语句，"四句"容易理解。又有"本长迹短""本短迹长"的情况，就是这种事。须扇多是"无本有迹"，释迦牟尼佛是"有本无迹"。第三，"本迹一时间"的情况，如同释迦牟尼佛接受纯陀的供养，化身则接受其他人的供养。本迹都无，只是这个本迹本身就不属于本迹，这就属于第四句。"本短迹长"，就是指须扇多这样的例子。"本长迹短"，如同释迦牟尼佛有时在某处应现，就是"本长迹短"，所以说这就是这种事，只需以须扇多等作为例子即可。问：如果说礼敬化佛能得到真佛的福报，那么也应当说毁谤化佛会得到真佛的罪过。论主回答说：如果以恶心毁坏化佛的身体，致使流血，也同样会得到五逆之罪。问：如果是这样，戒律中为何阐明毁坏化身的人没有罪？回答说：戒律中是出于结戒的考虑、为了护持佛法，随顺世俗而作此说法。人们看到杀害化现的牛羊等并不深刻指责，所以没有罪。但如果杀害真正的生命，心意没有差别，那么所得之罪是同等程度的。

是諸法實相不應懷者，第五、假名行也。此如可然品隨俗語無過，佛菩薩雖知諸法無所有，隨俗假名說也。著有亦著空者，此釋疑也。恐言既隨俗假名說，則佛菩薩應著假名，故釋云假名。若著假名者，空亦應著空也。空不著空，名豈著名耶？

爾時須菩提下，第三、明三智。為二：初、明智優劣；次、明斷不明。今是初須菩提問，從上佛答中行菩薩道得一切種智生，是故明若先定佛說一切種智也。一切種智謂知內外者，外即六塵、內即六根，二乘知此十二入苦空無常無我也。不能用一切種一切道者，不能以定為有，故言無一切種也。不能一切道度眾生也。道種智是菩薩智者，菩薩以四道度眾生，謂人天乘為福樂及三乘道，二乘及人天但為眾生，佛道自為之人也。第二、明斷。但明若二乘斷不明菩薩斷者，小乘中不明菩薩有斷，今依小乘中作問，故佛但答二乘斷也。又無生忍菩薩斷煩惱與二乘略同，如二智斷是菩薩無生忍中說也。問：菩薩智與二乘異，經云何同？答云云。論云即時有差別斷已無差別者，佛與二乘智有利鈍故斷時有差別，斷後俱無正使故斷後無別也。凡夫愚人為之得罪者，論凡夫見聞二乘人習相，如見身子瞋習、畢陵伽罵恒水習，便言聖人有瞋慢故成罪也。此中先明無為差別，據所悟無為無異，無為即實相也。後明無為中有諸聖不同，據能悟之智也。道斷結說後際者，聖斷結盡故得無餘，無餘即後際也。

第三釋般若。文為四：第一明般若能彼岸故名般若波羅蜜，第二明般若功能生善滅惡無，第三明般若能成諸觀義，第四明不耶義非義兩捨明般若。初中為三：第一就智行以明波羅蜜，第二復次就果德明波羅蜜，第三有復次就境以明波羅蜜。就境中有二：先兩，後次就二諦以辨，後一復次就一實以明也。問：上已明三慧三智，今何故更問波若？答：上離波若為三慧，今合三慧為波若。又上但明波若，今釋波羅蜜，故一品具釋般若波羅蜜也。第一度者，聲聞下度、緣覺中度、菩薩第一度也。能生一切樂說辨下，第二滅惡生善。用無常義下，第三成諸觀也。般若非常非無常具常無常用，若非般若無常則無常見，今捨常不著無常，故是般若無常也。義非義下，第四兩捨也。無為般若者，般若非有為非無為、為無為具足，先明般若非常非無常，次文明般若無常，今文明般若常，故無一定相而具一切義也。無為二種：一者實相般若為果地，般若是無為也。說智及智處皆名般若，實相是無為般若，觀照文字是有為般若也。以實相為因觀照為果，亦得觀照為因實相名果，以修解觀照方知如法性實際，由觀照了法性法性為果，須尋經文陳因果等義也。

## 大品義疏卷第九