金剛仙論卷第十
「須菩提！若善男子善女人，以三千大千世界微塵」等，此一段經是斷疑分中第十六經文。所以來者，為答上疑問故也。疑云：若應佛有去來，法報二佛無去來者，此之三佛及十方諸佛，斷煩惱盡成道之時，於真如法界中，為一住處？為異住處？為合作？一切眾生真如性，為一為異？為多為少？此猶是前經中所疑問事，前論偈中作生此經之端略，興問答云「於是法界處，非一亦非異」。而此經將具釋彼疑一異多少之義故，引三千世界微塵喻經以答之也。此明碎三千世界極細微塵，為無色香味觸之塵，然今窓中因日光見者此是麁塵，析此為三百分方謂微塵，此微塵非凡夫二乘所見。復末此細塵令作無色味等塵。此微塵無色味形狀，亦無四方上下，頭數雖多而不可言一處住、異處住、合作一，以況三佛及十方諸佛亦多無量也。然此諸佛雖多，斷煩惱盡時，於真如法界中，不可說言一異，亦不可說言一處住、異處住。眾生佛性性淨解脫，據眾生雖多，而真如理中古今平等，亦不可說言一異多少。為釋此疑，故次明也。
"Subhuti! If a good man or good woman were to grind the entire universe of a thousand million worlds into fine dust..." This passage is the sixteenth section of the Scripture in the chapter resolving doubts. It appears here to answer the questions raised earlier.
The doubt was this: If the response-body Buddha comes and goes, while the Dharma-body and Reward-body Buddhas neither come nor go, then when these three Buddhas and all the Buddhas of the ten directions have completely cut off afflictions and attained enlightenment, do they dwell in one place or different places within the realm of true suchness? Do they act together? And regarding the true suchness nature of all sentient beings—is it one or many? Is it abundant or scarce?
This continues the questions from the previous section of the scripture. In the earlier verse commentary, this issue was introduced briefly as the starting point of this scripture, with the question and answer: "In this realm of Dharma, it is neither one nor different."
Now this scripture fully explains the meaning of one-and-many, same-and-different by引用 the simile of the universe ground into fine dust. It teaches that when the entire universe is ground into extremely fine particles—so fine they lack color, smell, taste, or touch—these particles are unlike the coarse dust we see floating in sunlight through a window. Even that coarse dust, when divided into three hundred parts, becomes what is called "fine dust"—particles invisible to ordinary people or lesser practitioners. Further refining these fine particles yields dust without even color, smell, or shape, with no direction—up, down, or sideways. Though countless in number, one cannot say they occupy a single place, separate places, or act as one.
This simile illustrates that the three Buddhas and all Buddhas of the ten directions are likewise immeasurable in number. Yet though these Buddhas are many, when they have fully cut off afflictions, within the realm of true suchness, one cannot say they are one or different, nor that they dwell in a single place or separate places.
Similarly, the enlightened nature of sentient beings—their intrinsically pure liberation—though sentient beings are many, within the principle of true suchness, past and present are equal, and one cannot speak of it as one or many, abundant or scarce. To resolve this doubt, this passage is presented.
「以三千世界微塵」者，此舉三千世界極細微塵也。「復以爾許微塵世界」者，此名細微塵，為世界，界之言性，故此一塵依世辨論，亦名世界，亦名微塵也。「碎為微塵」者，復碎此極細微塵為無色香味觸微塵也。「阿僧祇」者，明非但碎三千世界為微塵，亦碎阿僧祇世界以為微塵。亦得言無色味微塵不可算數故，言阿僧祇也。「須菩提！於意云何？是微塵眾寧為多不」者，明所碎世界既廣，故佛問須菩提：於汝意地，思唯籌量，謂此微塵為多不也？故須菩提解如來意，答言「彼微塵眾甚多。世尊！」此明如來向者所說彼塵眾多；雖多，以無色香味觸形狀方所、無妨無礙故，不可說一處住、異處住、合作一，以喻十方諸佛亦甚多無量。此十方諸佛，若據行者而言，一行者自作一佛；行者既多，故佛亦多也。諸佛據行者既多，不可說一；二障永盡，法身平等無有差別，不可說異。然此微塵碎為無色味之塵雖多，無有形狀故，無色味等，亦無六方故，不可說一處，喻十方諸佛斷除二鄣會真如法界時，無有形礙，亦無方所故，不可說言一處住、異處住也。須菩提解佛意故，仰答如上。眾中有人因生疑念：前既言碎微塵作虛空，無有六方形狀，復云微塵眾甚多。此二言何故相違？故言「何以故」也。即答「若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說微塵眾」，此明若使微塵眾實有六方形狀色香味觸不空者，佛則不假設說碎細微塵以為無色味微塵也。復疑云：若此微塵體空無色味是不實者，何故如來說為微塵？以如來說為微塵故，明知微塵是實不空，故言「何以故」。即答「佛說微塵眾則非微塵眾」，此明如來依世諦道中說虛妄微塵故，言佛說微塵眾也。此微塵眾虛妄不實，本來空寂，故言「則非微塵眾」。此之微塵既是虛妄，寧有實塵而可說也？「是故佛說微塵眾」者，以是故，如來上說無色香味觸無形狀之塵故，說於無塵為塵也。亦得道是故佛說非微塵眾，此因事無，以明因緣法體空也。
"By three thousand great thousand worlds reduced to atoms"—this refers to the extremely fine atoms of the three thousand great thousand worlds. "Again, as many atoms as these worlds"—this refers to these fine atoms as worlds. The term "world" (界) here indicates the nature of boundaries; thus, each atom, when discussed in relation to its surrounding conditions, can also be called a world or an atom. "Ground into atoms"—this further breaks down those extremely fine atoms into atoms devoid of color, scent, taste, or touch. "Immeasurable" (阿僧祇) makes clear that it is not only the three thousand worlds that are broken into atoms, but also immeasurable worlds are broken into atoms. One could also say that atoms without color or taste are countless, hence the term "immeasurable."
"Subhūti, what do you think? Are these many atoms numerous?"—Since the worlds broken down are vast, the Buddha asks Subhūti: In your mind, reflect and consider—are these atoms numerous or not? Subhūti, understanding the Buddha's intention, replies, "These atoms are indeed numerous, World-Honored One." This clarifies that the atoms mentioned by the Buddha are many; though numerous, because they lack color, scent, taste, touch, shape, or location, they are unobstructed and can-not be spoken of as dwelling in one place, dwelling in another place, or combining into one. This is an analogy for the many immeasurable Buddhas of the ten directions.
Regarding these Buddhas of the ten directions: if we consider practitioners, each practitioner becomes one Buddha; since practitioners are many, the Buddhas are also many. Because the Buddhas are many in relation to practitioners, they cannot be spoken of as one. Yet, since the two obstructions are forever exhausted and the Dharma-body is equal without distinction, they cannot be spoken of as different. Similarly, although these atoms, broken into odorless and tasteless dust, are many, they have no shape, no color or taste, and no six directions, so they cannot be spoken of as dwelling in one place—this illustrates that when the Buddhas of the ten directions cut off the two obstructions and merge with the realm of true thusness, they have no physical obstruction and no location, so they cannot be spoken of as dwelling in one place or another. Subhūti, understanding the Buddha's intent, replies as above.
Someone in the assembly then harbors doubt: Earlier it was said that atoms broken into space have no shape or six directions; yet now it is said that these atoms are numerous. Why do these two statements contradict each other? Hence the phrase "Why?" The answer is: "If these atoms truly existed, the Buddha would not speak of atoms as a multitude." This clarifies that if atoms truly had six directions, shape, color, scent, taste, or touch—if they were not empty—the Buddha would not have provisionally spoken of breaking fine atoms into atoms without color or taste.
A further doubt arises: If these atoms are essentially empty and without color or taste—unreal—then why does the Thus Come One speak of them as atoms? Because the Thus Come One speaks of them as atoms, one might think they are real and not empty. Hence "Why?" The answer is: "The Buddha speaks of atoms as a multitude, yet they are not atoms as a multitude." This clarifies that the Buddha, in worldly truth, speaks of illusory atoms; hence he says "atoms as a multitude." These atoms are illusory and unreal, fundamentally empty and still; hence "not atoms as a multitude." Since these atoms are illusory, how could there be real atoms to speak of? "Therefore the Buddha speaks of atoms as a multitude"—because of this, the Thus Come One, as explained above, speaks of atoms devoid of color, scent, taste, touch, and shape, thus describing non-atoms as atoms. One may also say that therefore the Buddha speaks of "not a multitude of atoms," using this nonexistence to illustrate that conditioned dharmas are empty in nature.
「世尊！如來說三千大千世界則非世界」者，向明微塵喻，據極細而言，此言三千世界，就塵為語。然復有疑：上佛說細微塵，其體不實故，所以是無。然要以細微塵成麁世界，若細微塵無實者，何故有此三千世界等麁物？然此麁世界既為細塵所成，若細塵無者，何故眼見三千世界等麁物是有？以麁物有故，明知細塵亦有也。故答「如來說三千大千世界則非世界」，明如來說假三千成一世界。若有一世界不為他成，可有世界是實；然無一世界不為他成，是故無實。以其無實故，言如來說三千世界則非世界也。然此細塵既無，明知三千麁界亦虛假不實也。「是故佛說三千世界」者，欲明若有一世界是實非虛妄者，佛則不虛說言三千世界；佛既說攬三千為一世界，故知虛假不實。
"World-Honored One! The Thus Come One speaks of the great thousand-world realm as not being a realm"—this refers back to the earlier analogy of fine dust motes, which was about the extremely subtle. Here, the mention of the three-thousand-world realm speaks of it in terms of dust. Yet there remains a doubt: above, the Buddha spoke of fine dust motes, whose substance is not real, and so they are considered nonexistent. But if these fine dust motes form the coarse world, and if they are not real, why do we see coarse things like the three-thousand-world realm? Since this coarse world is composed of fine dust, if the fine dust were nothing, why do we see with our eyes that coarse things like the three-thousand-world realm exist? Because coarse things exist, we know that fine dust must also exist. Therefore the answer is: "The Thus Come One speaks of the three-thousand great-world realm as not being a realm"—this clarifies that the Thus Come One speaks of relying on the many to form one world. If there were a single world not formed by others, then a world could be real; but there is no world that is not formed by others, and so nothing is real. Because it is not real, it is said that the Thus Come One speaks of the three-thousand-world realm as not being a realm. And since these fine dust motes are nothing, we know that the coarse three-thousand-world realm is also illusory and unreal. "Therefore the Buddha speaks of the three-thousand-world realm"—this is to clarify that if there were a single world that were real and not illusory, the Buddha would not falsely speak of a three-thousand-world realm; since the Buddha does speak of gathering the three-thousand into one world, we know it is illusory and not real.
「何以故」者，有人乘生疑念：若微塵、世界二俱不實者，如來何說微塵集故世界成、散故世界壞？以此聖言誠驗，故知微塵是實，何故言空？故云何以故也。即答「若世界實有者，則是一合相」，此言「世界」者，名微塵為世界，明何故三千世界是不實。若微塵世界是實者，四方微塵來則冥然一合，作一世界不可分別，不應有三千之名。既有三千之名，故知能成微塵世界是虛妄不實也。以此微塵虛妄不實故，即體是空。空無形狀故，往來無障，乃至鐵圍山亦不相妨礙。故理而言之，東方微塵來無障無礙，西方乃至南北上下六方微塵來皆無障無礙。此微塵既不相障礙，亦無聚集之相，泯然空無有形狀，乃至須彌山亦不可見。以此驗知，有為世界莫問麁細，皆是虛妄不實本來空寂，依世人妄情說有世界。此明因緣法體本來空也。
"Why is this?" Because some people might have doubts: If both the tiny dust particles and the world are not real, then why did the Buddha say that when dust particles gather, a world forms, and when they disperse, the world perishes? Since these sacred words are proven true, we know dust particles are real — so why call them empty? That is why the question is asked.
The answer is: "If the world were truly real, it would be a single unified form." Here, "world" refers to the dust particles that form it, explaining why the three thousand worlds are not real. If dust particles and the world were truly real, then dust particles from all directions would merge into one indistinguishable whole, forming a single world with no separate identities — there should be no name of "three thousand." Since there is the name "three thousand," we know that the dust particles forming the world are illusory and unreal.
Because these dust particles are illusory and unreal, their very essence is emptiness. Emptiness has no shape or form, so movement is unobstructed — even the Iron Ring Mountains pose no barrier. Logically speaking, dust particles from the east come without obstruction, and dust particles from the west, south, north, above, and below all come without obstruction. Since these dust particles do not obstruct each other, there is also no appearance of gathering — they dissolve into emptiness with no shape, and even Mount Sumeru cannot be seen. This verifies that all conditioned worlds, whether coarse or fine, are illusory and unreal, originally empty and still. It is only due to worldly attachments that we speak of a "world." This illustrates that the essence of dependent origination is fundamentally empty.
乘有疑難：若一合相是相實者，何故如來說合三千世界為一合相也？故答云「如來說一合相」者，依世諦名，用虛妄法中說一合相也。「則非一合相」者，究理而言，無有一世界冥然一合，不假三千成故，言則非一合相也。「佛言：須菩提：一合相者則是不可說」者，明有為虛妄不實故，無有一世界冥然一合相是實而可說，故言則是不可說也。
乘此生疑：若使世界一合相無實者，而眾生不應見，復不應用之；然今現見有此世界屋宅衣服器世間等用。既有此用，明知麁世界是實。麁世界既實，細微塵亦實，何得言麁細微塵世界皆虛妄不實也？故經答云「但凡夫之人貪著其事」也，明凡夫之人以取相顛倒因緣故，於虛事之中計以為實，非謂麁世界是性實也。然所成麁世界既不實故，明知細塵亦是虛也。「何以故」者，因前凡夫貪著其事，乘復生疑：若凡夫人顛倒在心故，取微塵世界麁細有為虛事妄謂為實者，如來無有取相顛倒之心，何說有微塵世界？如來何故復言，我見微塵及世界等。若如來說言我見所見，我我所別內外之異，又如來何故復說本有我人眾生等見，後觀我法體空故得二種無我解，方斷我人等惑，名為得道。如來既作如是說，以此驗之，明知此微塵世界麁細等法是其實有，非虛妄故空也。以有此疑故，言何以故也。佛今將答此義，故問須菩提：若人如是言「佛說我人眾生壽者見。」須菩提！於意云何？是人所說為正語不也？此明佛問須菩提，若有人以如前所疑疑，謂佛作是說：本實有我法，後觀此我法得無我法之解，遣我法二見得無我無法名為得道。此人所說當理、此正語不也。故須菩提答言「不也。世尊」，明向者疑人所說言不當理不合佛意，故云不也。「何以故？世尊！如來說我人眾生壽者見，即非我人眾生壽者見」者，釋何故此人所說言不當理是不正語也。明二乘之人謂本實有我人眾生壽者等我我所見，後觀此我所二種空故，能斷此我人等見，而云我得無我之解，以此為真解。若謂如來亦作是說，以此為真實者，此說非正說也。然諸佛如來解一切法本來空寂，尚無我法可除，況有我法二空之見可存也，故云即非我人等見也。此無我等見，於聲聞為解，於菩薩為障。今明佛說要觀我法從本來空畢竟寂滅，無有我法可空，乃至煩惱亦本來寂靜，故無煩惱可斷。不同二乘見本有我有法，今解二空方斷此惑名得道也。「是名非我見人見」等者，雙結我法二空也。二乘人見我無，得無我人等解，以為真實，故曰是名非我人見，亦得導是名我人眾生壽者見者。明如上所說而解知我之與法古今湛然本來不生，現見真如平等，證初地無生忍菩提，乃至佛果無上菩提，不同小乘取無我無法見以為真道。佛作是說，故曰是名佛說虛妄不實我人眾生等見也，明是名無我人等虛妄見也。
乘更疑問：若存有無我無法見非得道者，觀何等法、起何等心、證何等法名為得道也？故答「須菩提！菩薩發菩提心者，於一切法應如是知」等，此以初地證智為菩提心，明於何義勸人。若欲得初地以上真實道者，於麁細有為我法無我無法虛妄物中，應如是生知見信也。「如是知」者，明住前人以世間聞慧五明論智髣髴而知。「如是見」者，明住上人以出世第一義智見。「如是信」者，明前二人前並依三昧無量功德力信。此明之人以用此二智三昧故見真如佛性，除一切法上有無之患也。「如是不住法相」者，既有為虛妄無我無法中生知見信解故，便不取著也。「何以故」者，或者聞言菩薩不住法相，疑謂菩薩於世間法出世間法中悉皆不住，故言何以故也。故佛答「須菩提！所言法相法相者，如來說即非法相也」。上言「法相」者，是世間色等有為法有無之相。下言「法相」，是出世真如無為法相。「如來說即非法相」者，明如來說「即非法相」者明如來說世間有無法相，非出世間無為真如法相。出世間真如法相，即非世間有無虛妄法相也。「是名法相」者，如是非世間有為有漏法相，即是出世間真如無為法相，亦得云是名世間有無法相也。上言「不住法相」者，但不住世間有為法有無之相，非不住出世間無為法相，那得聞言不住法相便謂世間出世間有為無為法相中皆不住也？自此已上經，釋前偈中「於是法界處，非一亦非異」疑也。
「須菩提！若有菩薩以滿無量阿僧祇世界七寶用布施」者，此上有疑：上來微塵喻中明三佛不一不異。雖明三佛，准上經文唯應有二，不應有三。何者？上第六段中云釋迦牟尼非佛亦非說法者；又次前經復云化佛有去來教化眾生，供之得福。此前後相違。今疑未知應身為定是佛、為非佛也？若是佛者，供養此應佛所有福德，與二佛同、為有差降？化佛所說經法，為是正法、為非正法？若受應佛所說法，所得利益為與受持報佛所說法功德同、為復有差降也？惡心毀謗損害之者，罪復云何？故欲答應佛是佛，所說經教是正法，供養受持得福。聞前二佛，惡心毀謗得罪亦然。故引此喻，以阿僧祇世界七寶持用布施挍量，不如有人於應佛邊發菩薩心，受應佛所說般若經一四句偈，乃至為人演說，其福勝彼無量阿僧祇。上疑通疑應佛，今經中何以但言持應佛所說經福多，不云供養應佛得福多？持應佛所說經法，此法能是應佛所說，但言受持應佛所說得福無量，則知供養應佛得福亦多，故不別出供養應佛也。疑者云：若供養應佛所說經教與真佛無異者，云何此應佛處世教化說法，而得不名應佛說法也？故經問言「云何？為人演說，而不名說」，明應佛說法時，自云我從無量阿僧祇劫來廣修萬行，今方成佛果，具足相好及諸功德，而不言我是化佛。若自言我是化佛，眾生便謂是幻化人，此何等鬼神？遂不生敬信，不受其所說。心既不信，不受其教，即無所利益。以不言是化佛故，有多利益也。「是名為說」者，此應佛從真處來，而不云是應化故，供養受持所得利益，與真佛無差，是名即應佛所說是正說也。
此一段經凡以六偈來釋。初一偈，舉微塵喻，作問答意，釋前經中疑。第二偈，明微塵無色味形狀故不一不異，諸佛亦然，煩惱盡故不一不異也。第三偈上二句，明凡夫不解有為法空隨名取著也。下二句，瑣入第四偈有一偈半，通明諸佛菩薩不但得無我無法解故名為得道也。第五偈上二句，出二種菩薩能解之智。下半偈，明供養化佛與真佛無異。第六偈，明應佛所說法是其正說也。初偈云「世界作微塵」等一偈，釋經中「善男子善女人以下乃至阿僧祇世界」，若依世辨論中名此微塵為世界，非謂三千等世界也。此明破有色味微塵為無色味微塵，此微塵無色香味觸亦無方所故名微塵。「此喻示彼義」者，明借此微塵喻，釋上疑問於是法界處不一亦不異義，故云示彼義也。「微塵碎為末」者，重舉上喻碎於微塵為無色味塵，喻諸佛如來成道之時永無二障，故下句言「示現煩惱盡」也。「此明何義」者，問此一偈引喻之意，為明何義也。偈言「於是法界處，非一亦非異」者，論主引前偈論略答微塵喻所況事也。「彼諸佛如來於真如法界中」等，還解所引偈，明諸佛雖多，於真如法界中非一處住亦非異處住也。「為示此義故說世界碎微塵喻」者，釋諸佛不一處、不異處住竟，提喻來結也。「此喻示何義」者，問此微塵喻況諸佛於真如法界中非一處住異處住者，未知此喻有何相似，得以此喻示況也？即以下半偈答言「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」故。明若不碎世界，則有彼此之殊；既碎為微塵，使無此彼之𮥯。喻諸佛如來斷二障盡時，於真如法界中無彼此障礙。一處異處有如此相似，故以況之也。「此喻非聚集微塵眾」者，將作偈釋經故，先舉經中所明喻意，言微塵眾者，非實有微塵聚集名為眾也。「示現非一喻」者，為示現諸佛甚多，假設以無色味塵為微塵眾也。第二偈，釋經中「於意云何是微塵眾寧為多不是故佛說一合相」一段經也。「非聚集」者，上經言「微塵眾甚多」，似如實有微塵。此明以無色味塵為塵，非是實有微塵聚集而言微塵眾多，故言非聚集也。「故集」者，疑云：若無實微塵聚集，何故言微塵眾多？故答道言聚集者，依世諦名字假設，無集中說集，非謂實有微塵眾聚集而言多，故云故集也。「非唯是一喻」者，若實無微塵聚集，何故假設言甚多也？明以微塵微既多，況十方諸佛亦是甚多，不可說一故也。微塵既是無體，不可說言定有微塵聚集，以喻如來斷煩惱盡體無障礙，不可說言一處集，故云非唯是一喻也。「聚集處非彼」者，明微塵雖多，以體空故，聚集處無實塵可得。一處無故，亦不從異處而來，以異處無實微塵可得故，云聚集處非彼也。「非是差別喻」者，明如微塵無礙，一處聚集相不可得故，異處差別來相亦不可得；況諸佛亦然，清淨法身體既無礙，非一處住故，亦非條然異處差別。如東方阿閦等亦不可得，故云非是差別喻也。「此義云何？如微塵至無聚集物故」，釋上半偈也。「亦非異處差別至以差別不住故」，釋下半偈也。「如是諸佛如來至亦非異處住」，上解偈中喻意，此義釋合喻之意也。「如是三千世界合相喻非聚集故」者，前釋微塵不一異義，今此辨世界麁物中不一異義亦然，故云如是乃至非聚集也。「此以何義」者，問上三千世界合相喻復言非聚集故，此以何義故如是說也？
「如經」以下，舉如來成說為答也。「若實有一物聚集，如來則不說一物聚集」者，上已解微塵世界二喻并合喻竟，此文何故復來者，上雖明微塵世界虛妄不實，非一處聚集、非異處差別以況諸佛，而未解微塵世界所以是空。今正釋二法空義，明若實有一微塵物不空而聚集者，如來則不假說無塵為塵為聚集眾也。「若實有一世界」等者，此解世界空如微塵無異也。「如經」以下，舉經來結也。「但凡夫之人貪著其事」者，此文前偈中無，何故別提來者，明凡夫妄聚前境，於虛事生貪，以不實為實，成上微塵二法體空故引此釋也。「如經」以下，通舉前經結也。第三偈「但隨於音聲」上二句，釋經中但凡夫之人貪著其事。明凡夫之人既無如實之解，但有虛妄分別，隨聲取著，聞說色是可見可觸，便謂為實義亦如是可見可觸，故云但隨於音聲也。「凡夫取顛倒」者，聞說色等可見可觸，凡夫便謂色等實有可見可觸，取不實為實，故云凡夫取顛倒也。「非無二得道」，此下半偈通第四偈上三句，共釋經中「何以故？若人如是言至是名我見」等也。「非無二得道」者，明諸佛如來非是但得無我無法二空之解名為得道也。明二乘雖得此三空之解，猶為習惑覆心無明障解故不名得道。應問：若存此二空不名得道者，見何等法、以何等行能得道也？故第四句云「遠離於我法」，明要見真如平等究竟深重，解我之以法本來空寂，離於無我無法二空虛妄分別見時乃名得道也。應言「遠離無我無法見」，以偈俠故，但言離我法也。明若謂有我法可空，復自言我能得此二空之解，有此著空之心者，則障於真如菩提，不名得道。明菩薩大士解生陰法體從本以來性相空寂，非假觀無方。既無我法可空，亦無二空之見可存，名得道也。此第三偈下長行論中，唯釋下半、不釋上半。所以然者，上長行論中已釋其義，故此中不解也。「如經何以故」等，舉下半偈所釋經來，結偈中解意也。「此復何義」者，將欲釋偈，問此所引經中明於何義，乃以斯下半偈釋也。即以偈答「非無二得道，遠離於我法」故也。「此義云何」者，此偈釋經之義云何？下釋可知也。「此復何義」者，此無我無法二種見，上雖云離二見而得菩提，然問：此二見應是正解，復以何義遠離此見？故以第四偈答也。第四偈釋成前半偈。上雖云「非無二得道，遠離於我法」，而未釋所以，其義猶隱故，更作此偈上三句釋也。「見我即不見」者，明見有我而可空，道言我見無我者，此非正見究竟深解，故云見我即不見也。亦應言「見法即不見」，宜以偈俠故，單言見我，不云見法也。何故見我名為不見者？故第二句云「無實」。若無實者，何故見有？明以虛妄見故，言「無實虛妄見」也。此上二句，釋前偈「非無二得道」也。「此是微細障」者，明著有之心名為塵惑，存無之心名之為細。此存我法二空之見，無明之惑體，非四住麁或，以礙於真如勝解故，云微細障也。「見真如遠離」者此一句，釋經中菩薩發三菩提心，明此細惑要證初地解時，現見真如究竟深理，遣此虛妄分別，爾時乃盡，故言見真如遠離也。此二句釋遠離於我法也。「是故見即不見至見法亦是不見」，此釋上半偈也。「是故見即不見」，釋初句也。「無其實義，以虗妄分別」，釋第二句也。「以是無我」者，結句也。「是故如來說彼我見即是不見」者，引佛成言為證也。「以其無實至我見不見故」，論主解如來證也。「見法者亦是不見」者，偈中無文故，別提類釋也。「如經菩薩發三菩提心」以下，此為經前偈第四句，明菩薩得真如解，不存無我無法以之為正見故，復為形前存無我無法為不正見故引來也。「此復何義」者，此何故引菩薩見法相經形前二見名為不見也？即答「以見法相即不見相」，明以存得無法相見者即是不見法相也。「如彼我見即非見」者，存無我見為正見者亦非見也。「何故此二見說名不見」者，將欲釋下半偈故作問生起，問此無我無法二見應是正解，何故說為不見也？即以下半偈答「此是微細障，見真如遠離」也。「此復云何」者，問此偈中以此二見為微細障，云「見真如遠離」，此復云何也？即釋「彼見我見法，此是細障」者，結二見為障名。以不見彼二故者，釋作障義也。「是以見法以為得遠離」者，此二見，於聲聞無妨、於菩薩為患，故見真如遠離也。「又如是知」等，上已引結前偈，何故此中復牒來也？前偈中但釋得此知見信者皆離無我無法細障，猶未解知、見、信義，今將作偈釋故更舉來耳。
第五偈「二智及三昧，如是得遠離」者，此上二句釋經中菩薩發阿耨三菩提心應如是知見信等也。所以明此者，上云存二空之人有細障在心，故不名得道。明見真如者皆遠離細障，名為得道。未知何等人，能見真如、遠離細障？今辨出二種菩薩具足功德智慧，見真如深理，能離細障所明也。「二智」者，地前世智、地上第一義智，此是二智。世智者，釋經中「如是知」也。第一義智，釋經中「如是見」也。「及三昧」者，離垢等無量三昧，釋經中「如是信」也。故云二智及三昧也。「如是得遠離」者，明具智慧、三昧二種功德之人，得理究竟，能離細障也。「化身示現福」者，前經中有人生疑：化佛既不脩行斷惑、不證菩提，亦不說法，有生滅去來，非是實佛，供養之者，為有福德、為無福德也？若得福德，與供養真佛，為有差降、為無差降？惡心毀害，其罪云何？故答「化身示現福，非無無盡福」，明化佛雖不修行證果，然由真身為本，而眾生有感，聖則赴感垂應。以此應佛從真處來，與彼二佛有其一義，復不言我是化佛，故供養化佛所得功德與真佛不異。示現有福，非無無盡之福，有無量無邊功德故。經引七寶施福雖多，而不如供養化佛，亦不及受化佛所說經教得福多也。然經中但辨受持化佛所說經尚勝七寶布施之福，明知供養化佛亦勝七寶施福也。此二句，釋經中「若有發菩提心者至無量阿僧祇」也。「此義云何？示現世智至遠離彼障」，釋偈上二句也。
「是故重說勝福譬喻」者，釋下半偈。「是故」者，是上有人疑：供養應佛及受持應佛所說，為有福德、為無福德？故我引勝福德譬喻釋彼疑也。「云何為人演說而不名為說」等，何故如是說者，將欲設偈釋此經文故，提來為問。問：此經為若人演說，應名為說。何故乃云不名為說？故云何故如是說。
第六說「諸佛說法時」一偈，釋經中「云何為人演說而不名說」等經文也。經中疑云：以化佛不實故，所說經教亦應是不正說。以有此疑故，偈釋云「諸佛說法時，不言是化身」也。「說法時」者，眾生有感，無有八難，受道時也。明應佛赴眾生感，說法之時，雖化身不實，而所說言教是其正說。所以爾者，下句云「不言是化身」，明化身佛為眾生說法時，不道我是化佛。若言我是化佛，可化眾生不生敬心。既不敬信，則雖化無益，故不云我是化佛。以不言是化佛故，所說經教眾生信受，有多利益，即是正說。故下半偈云「以不如是說，是故彼說正」也。
「一切有為法，如星翳燈」等者，此一偈是第十一段經，名為不住道分。此經何故名為不住道者？明諸佛如來以出世妙智，觀九種有為即是涅槃故。不同凡夫樂著世間，復不同二乘樂住涅槃。不住此二道故，曰不住道也。此所以來者，為釋疑故也。前段微塵喻經，明諸佛如來成正覺時，斷二障盡故，於真法界中非一處住、不異處住。便生疑云：諸佛如來，為如彼微塵體空畢竟無身？為實有身也？若有身者，身應有住處，何故言非一處住、非異處住也？若有住處者，為世間中住？為涅槃中住也？若世間中住，何故前段經云如來入涅槃去？若涅槃中住，復何故言如來來在世間，常為眾生說法？為釋此疑故，引九種有為法譬喻答之。明諸佛如來有十力無畏無量功德真實妙身，此身以不住道為住處。云何不住道？謂不住世間、不住涅槃。明諸佛如來，解九種有為法體是虛偽本來空寂，悟真如平等，知世間實性即是涅槃，斷生死因盡，是故不住世間。不同凡夫不解世間有為諸法本來空寂，起取著之行，故住於世間也。既見真如平等故，解世間實性即是涅槃，世間涅槃無二無別；又具慈悲大願故，常處生死教化眾生，是故不住涅槃。不同二乘不知一切眾生皆有真如佛性平等無二故，見涅槃異世間，厭背世間、忻樂涅槃，中道取證故住於涅槃。諸佛如來以此不住道為住處，故次明也。「一切有為法如星翳燈幻」等，此一偈經是如來所說，非論主所造。「一切有為法」者，將欲引九種喻，喻九種有為法故，總舉一切有為法也。「如星翳燈」，此三喻偈，論合云「見相識」；「幻露泡」中三喻偈，論合云「器身受用」；「夢電雲」下三喻偈，論合云「過現未來」。明上六種有為，三世中轉也。前微塵喻，直說六塵境中，以明有為法體空也。此九種譬喻，據能緣內心，以明法體空。問：此九種，若明內心體空，何故亦有世界身等外無記法？答意雖通明外色等法，大意舉境明心空也。「如星」者，喻內能見心。所以內能見心喻之以星，外道凡夫多計日月星辰是常故實，亦計內心是常是實，是故就其情計以破之。明日月星辰迭相形奪遷轉不定故，所以不實，心法亦然，少分相似故，喻之如天上星宿。日未出時，處空顯現，有昭物之用。日既出已，光明悉滅，雖有不現，以大小相奪故。能見心法亦復如是，未有出世證智無漏聖解起時，妄想心法有取境之用。聖解既起，妄想心法殄滅無餘，以其不實故也。如是觀時，解能見六識本來空寂皆何等法也。二、如翳者，亦喻能見心。此第二意，何異於初？有小乘人計云：何以得知心心法是實？以其能見前境能取六塵故，是如實故，喻之如翳。以小乘人取謂翳揵闥婆城等是虛妄不實，能見六識及所見六塵是實故。如來就其所解，引以喻之，破其所執也。如人目上有翳，於虛空中妄見毛輪等色，以之為實。觀有為法心亦復如是，於色等有為虛妄法中，謂不實為實，以心倒取境故也。三、如燈者，亦喻能見心。此第三何異前二也？解云：二乘外道皆見皆知水流燈炎遷轉不亭，故就其所識以曉之，故以燈喻之內識也。如世人燃燈，要以清油淨炷及以燈爐，三法相假後方得燃。識法亦爾，要假根塵和合，因貪愛等或識法得起，有取境之用。證智起時，此識寂然無取境之用，以其即體不實虛妄故也。此能見心既不實如是，背何等法、趣何等法也？
四、如幻者，如世間幻師，幻作四兵及男女等，種種隨意自在悉見，而無真實。器世間亦如是，以諸眾生造善惡業種種不同，隨彼眾生善惡之業，感得淨穢等土亦有萬品差別。斯由業見有殊，非是實有也。如似有人以虛空為地、以地為虛空，有人以水為火用、火為水用，知何者為實？如婆羅墮婆羅門，以火為食、虛空中眠，斯即其事也。五、如露者，如草上朝露，見日則落。陰身亦然，生已即滅，念念遷謝，暫時不住，以體虛不實無常故也。六、如泡者，如因天上雨渧擊地上水則成泡沫，愚癡小兒謂流離珠，心生愛著，須臾即滅不得久立。三受亦爾，從根塵識三和後起苦樂等受，暫有不亭速於泡沫。此世界身苦樂等受不實若此，背何等法、趣何等法？
七、如夢者，前六種有為虛妄之法已謝於住，如人夢受五欲及見種種色物，寤已則無，唯可念知不可重覩，過去遷滅如夢寤不異也。八、如電者，如電光暫現理無久住。六種有為，現在峻轉疾極於電，故以為喻也。九、如雲者，如虛空中清淨無雲，以眾生不可思議業有，龍為本故，於虛空中未現雲現、現已還滅。六種有為未起之法亦復如是，由有無始阿梨耶識根本種子無明住地勳故，能令未現法現、現已即謝。以其不實故，喻之如雲。然此六種有為法，既為三世所轉，妄情謂有，其體無實，如九喻無別。若然，背何等法、趣何等法也？「應如是觀」者，九種有為如九種喻，作不實而觀。應云一切有為法如星，應作如是觀，乃至如雲，皆如是說。此有為法既不實如此，則本來寂滅。本來寂滅，則唯一真如。真如寂滅，即是涅槃。是故諸佛如來見世間即涅槃故，不同二乘厭背生死、樂住涅槃、不化眾生。見涅槃即世間故，不同凡夫眾生死而無厭，不求出世涅槃解脫之果也。
「論曰：復有疑」等，此一段長行論，論主略作疑答意，若諸佛如來常為眾生說法者，此應是住世間；復言如來入涅槃，即是住涅槃。云何上論中言不一處住不異處住也？為斷此疑故，如來即說偈喻者，此為略答疑者，申九喻來意也。此一偈經，論主凡以三行偈釋：第一偈，作問答釋疑，明不住道也；第二偈，出所觀九種有為境界；第三偈，重舉九種有為法，答難明觀之有所得也。「非有為非離」者，言「非有」者，明諸佛所得常住涅槃出世間法體，絕生滅起動、無始終之相，故非有為。若非有為者，可條然異處，不住有為法中，故言「非離」。明有為實性即是涅槃，不離有為之外更有涅槃。故下句云「諸如來涅槃」，明證大涅槃時，不住有為法中，亦不離有為法也。若不離有為則是住世間，若非有為則是住涅槃，云何言諸佛不住涅槃、不住世間也？故下半偈答云「九種有為法，妙智正觀故」，明諸佛如來得出世正觀，見有為法本來寂滅即是涅槃性，不同聲聞見世間異涅槃故厭捨有為而取涅槃。今言有為即涅槃者，是佛性妙有常住涅槃。明諸佛如來觀有為法即是性淨涅槃，既見性淨涅槃，斷二障永盡，得此妙智正觀時，能即得彼現果方便涅槃故，不捨有為而住涅槃也。「此義云何？諸佛涅槃」者，此提偈中第二句也。「非有為法亦不離有為法」者，釋偈中上句也。「何以故」者，此釋前諸佛涅槃，何故非有為法而復云不離有為法也。即釋以諸佛得涅槃，出離生死故，非有為也。「化身說法至為利益眾生故」，明諸佛以應身常在世化物故，不離有為也。此明諸佛以不住涅槃者結初句，以不住世間者結後句也。「何故諸佛示現世間行而不住有為法中」者，將釋下半偈，問前示現世間行，何故諸佛應身化物示有生老病死，而不名住有為法中也？以下半偈答「九種有為法，妙智正觀故」。雖同世間有老病死，而非有為法也。「此以何義」者，問此偈所明正觀者，作何法用而觀，得名為正觀，雖示有生死等世間行，而不名住有為法也。即釋云「如星宿」等，相對九種正觀故，明諸佛觀九種有為法虛妄不實。如觀星宿等九種法虛妄不實，便能於有為法中，以正觀力故終日示世間行，而能不住有為法也。「此九種正觀，於九種境界應知」者，出正觀之境勸人識之。第二偈上句云「見相」者，直云心見相，攝能見三盡，但為成偈故，言及於識也。此句有三，明能見心，釋經中星翳燈三喻也。「器身受用事」者，此三明所受用事，釋經中幻露泡三喻也。「過去現在法，亦觀未來世」者，明前六種有為法在三世中轉，釋經中夢電雲也。此明六種有為已謝於往名為過去，六種有為萌兆未起名未來，六種有為起於今辰念念生滅名為現在，故云三世轉也。第三偈「觀相及受用」者，言「觀相」，牒前偈中上見相識。「及受用」者，牒前偈中三「器身受用事」。「觀於三世事」者，牒前偈中後三過現未來三世法也。所以重舉此九種法者，難云：觀此九種有為法，得何等功德、成就何智？故以下半偈答云「於有為法中，得無垢自在」，明觀此九種有為法時，能得初地以上無漏無垢之果，無生之智不住道解自在功德也。
「佛說是經已至信受奉行」，此是第十二流通分經。所以次明流通者，上來說法正辨經體，信悟者眾。今將明如來說法，非但直欲通益當時，亦欲澤被遐劫故，令流通未來，使異世問津，故明也。以此中具列四眾八部及諸大菩薩故，明知序中引同聞時亦應具有，以經略故𨷂也。聞佛所說，時會所以皆大歡喜信受奉行流通此經者，凡有三義故也。一、說者清淨，明諸佛如來乃是一切智人二障永盡，具足十力四無畏十八不共法等無量功德，如證而說必當理，故曰說者清淨也。二、所說清淨，此明所說音聲章句阿含經教，從無煩惱人邊來，說同諸佛，不多不少、不增不減，與理相應，故曰所說清淨也。三、受者清淨，時會大眾一心專聽無見諍過，不言我法是、彼法非，心無疑濁，故曰清淨也。一切大眾，慶覩天尊，得深法味，除疑遣障，獲道度世，故大歡喜信受奉行也。「諸佛希有總持法」等，此一偈是論主所制第八十偈，讚歎迴向。「諸佛」者，十方三世諸佛也，明此《金剛般若波羅蜜經》是十方三世諸佛智母，三世諸佛同說此法，非獨釋迦如來，故言諸佛也。「希有」者，此非曠世所無、時時而有故，名為希有。又諸佛如來常為眾生說之，何故名為希有也？明此般若理深旨遠，唯是諸佛境界，非餘人所知故，凡夫二乘小行根小行之人所不能受，以信者難得故曰希有也。「總持法」者，明此經其文雖略，明義乃廣，旨明常住因果境智之理收羅皆盡，故曰總持法也。又復一義，一切諸大乘經其文雖廣，至於所明不出眾生、菩薩、佛、淨土。然此雖略，至於所明，亦盡斯四也，故言總持法。「不可稱量」者，明此經理深，非二乘小智所能圖度也。「深句義」者，謂此經文句及次第深義也。乘此生疑難：若此金剛般若句義次第難解非圖度境者，論主何由得解而造論解釋也？故云「從尊者聞」，明論主自云此金剛般若甚深法門義釋非自智力解，乃近從尊者胡名阿僧呿、漢云無障礙比丘邊聞，復遠從彌勒世尊邊聞，明仰推功有在，非是謬傳，故言從尊者聞也。「及廣說」者，明無障礙比丘乃是性地菩薩，多聞強記，能流通大乘、折伏外道故。彌勒世尊愍此閻浮提人，作《金剛般若經義釋》并《地持論》，齎付無障礙比丘令其流通。然彌勒世尊但作長行釋，論主天親既從無障礙比丘邊學得，復尋此經論之意，更作偈論廣興疑問以釋此經，凡有八十偈，及作長行論釋，復以此論轉教金剛仙論師等。此金剛仙轉教無盡意，無盡意復轉教聖濟，聖濟轉教菩提留支，迭相傳授以至於今始二百年許，未曾斷絕，故言及廣說也。「迴此福德施群生」者，然菩薩大士每日事興願故，論主自申己所有造論傳訓功德，不專獨善，乃迴與法界眾生，同向無上菩提心也。
金剛仙論卷第十