T25n1512_金剛仙論

大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

No. 1512 [cf. Nos. 1511, 1513, 1514]

金剛仙論卷第一

《金剛般若波羅蜜》者，總括八部之大宗，契眾經之綱要。其所明也，唯論常果佛性及十地因。因滿性顯則有感應應世，故說八部《般若》，以十種義，釋對治十。其第一部十萬偈(《大品》是)，第二部二萬五千偈(《放光》是)，第三部一萬八千偈(《光贊》是)，第四部八千偈(《道行》是)，第五部四十千偈(《小品》是)，第六部二千五百偈(《天王問》是)，第七部六百偈(《文殊》是)，第八部三百偈(即此《金剛般若》是)。

此是八部之名。前之七部遣相未盡，但稱「般若」；此第八部遣相最盡，故別立「金剛」之名也。初第一部，如來成道五年在王舍城說。次五部，亦王舍城說。第七、第八部，舍婆提城說。此《金剛般若》，唯須菩提蒙加設問、如來答也。

十障者：一者無物相障。如般若中說，有為無為一切諸法乃至涅槃空。眾生不解，起于斷見，謂一切法無。此障對治，佛告須菩提：「有菩薩摩訶薩，行檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜。」如是等。此經中對治者，謂第三分，經云「菩薩不住於事行於佈施」

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《金剛般若波羅蜜》（Vajra Prajna Paramita）是總括八部般若經典的大宗，契合所有經典的總綱要領。它所闡明的內容，唯獨是常果佛性以及十地之因。因行圓滿，佛性顯現，就會有感應而應化於世，所以宣說八部《般若》，用十種義理，來解釋對治十種障礙。其中第一部是十萬偈（《大品般若經》是），第二部是二萬五千偈（《放光般若經》是），第三部是一萬八千偈（《光贊般若經》是），第四部是八千偈（《道行般若經》是），第五部是四萬偈（《小品般若經》是），第六部是二千五百偈（《天王問般若經》是），第七部是六百偈（《文殊般若經》是），第八部是三百偈（就是這部《金剛般若經》）。

以上是八部《般若》的名稱。前七部遣除執著還不夠徹底，所以只稱為『般若』；這第八部遣除執著最為徹底，所以特別立名為『金剛』。最初的第一部，如來（Tathagata）成道五年後在王舍城（Rajagrha）宣說。其次的五部，也是在王舍城宣說。第七部和第八部，是在舍婆提城（Sravasti）宣說。這部《金剛般若經》，只有須菩提（Subhuti）蒙受佛陀加持而提問，如來回答。

十種障礙是：第一種是無物相障。如《般若經》中所說，有為法、無為法一切諸法乃至涅槃（Nirvana）皆是空。眾生不理解，產生斷滅見，認為一切法皆無。爲了對治這種障礙，佛告誡須菩提：『有菩薩摩訶薩（Bodhisattva-Mahasattva），行檀波羅蜜（Dana Paramita）乃至般若波羅蜜（Prajna Paramita）。』等等。這部經中對治的方法，是在第三分，經中說『菩薩不住於事而行佈施』。

【English Translation】 English version The 'Vajra Prajna Paramita' (Diamond Wisdom Perfection) encompasses the great essence of the eight sections of Prajna (Wisdom) scriptures, aligning with the key principles of all sutras. What it elucidates is solely the Buddha-nature as the constant result and the causes of the ten Bhumis (stages of the Bodhisattva path). When the causes are fulfilled and the nature manifests, there will be responses and transformations in the world. Therefore, the eight sections of the 'Prajna' are expounded, using ten meanings to explain the remedies for ten obstacles. The first section consists of 100,000 verses (which is the 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra'), the second section consists of 25,000 verses (which is the 'Fangguang Prajna Sutra'), the third section consists of 18,000 verses (which is the 'Guangzan Prajna Sutra'), the fourth section consists of 8,000 verses (which is the 'Daoxing Prajna Sutra'), the fifth section consists of 40,000 verses (which is the 'Xiaopin Prajna Sutra'), the sixth section consists of 2,500 verses (which is the 'Heavenly King's Questions Prajna Sutra'), the seventh section consists of 600 verses (which is the 'Manjushri Prajna Sutra'), and the eighth section consists of 300 verses (which is this 'Vajra Prajna Sutra').

These are the names of the eight sections of the 'Prajna'. The previous seven sections have not completely eliminated attachment to appearances, so they are simply called 'Prajna'; this eighth section eliminates attachment to appearances most thoroughly, so it is specifically named 'Vajra' (Diamond). The very first section was spoken by the Tathagata (Thus Come One) five years after his enlightenment in Rajagrha (Royal City). The next five sections were also spoken in Rajagrha. The seventh and eighth sections were spoken in Sravasti (City of Abundance). This 'Vajra Prajna Sutra' is solely about Subhuti (Good Disciple) receiving the Buddha's blessing to ask questions, and the Tathagata answering.

The ten obstacles are: The first is the obstacle of non-existence of phenomena. As stated in the 'Prajna Sutra', conditioned phenomena, unconditioned phenomena, all dharmas, and even Nirvana (Extinction) are empty. Sentient beings do not understand this, giving rise to nihilistic views, believing that all dharmas do not exist. To remedy this obstacle, the Buddha told Subhuti: 'There are Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas (Great Beings), practicing Dana Paramita (Perfection of Giving) and even Prajna Paramita (Perfection of Wisdom).' and so on. The remedy in this sutra is in the third section, where the sutra says 'Bodhisattvas practice giving without dwelling on things'.

---

等，此遣斷見也。

二者有物相障。眾生聞如來說有菩薩行六波羅蜜，眾生計著起于常見，便謂一切法有。此障對治，佛告須菩提：「菩薩不見我為菩薩及諸波羅蜜。」如是等。此經中對治者，謂修行分，經說「若菩薩起眾生相人相則非菩薩」，此遣常見也。

三者非有似有障者，如來說色等諸法是有，若是有者不應復更說言諸法空也。此障對治，佛告舍利弗：「色等諸法體相空，如陽炎，非有似有。」如是等。此經中對治者，謂但凡夫之人貪著其事等，遣實有見也。此第三何異第一？上第一總明有為無，以一切法空；此第三偏明有為法空。但疑者云：若諸法空者，何故可見而有用？以為異也。

四者謗相障。上聞如來說色等諸法體相空如陽炎非有似有，眾生不解便起謗意，謂佛性涅槃無為之法亦同有為諸法性空無體之無，若爾則無修行得果之者。此彰對治，佛告舍利弗：「非空空。」如是等。此經中對治者，謂第六諸法空分中亦非無法相等，遣空見也。此第四障何異第一、第二？第一明有為無為一切諸法空，第三偏明有為法空；此第四唯明無為之法妙有之體無萬相故空，不同有為之法無性故空。以此為異也。

五者一有相障。聞如來說色是空，而眾生起心不異空更有色。此障對治，佛告舍

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：等等，這是爲了遣除斷見（認為一切事物死後斷滅的錯誤見解）。

二者，有實物之相的障礙。眾生聽到如來說有菩薩修行六波羅蜜（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧），就執著於此，產生常見（認為一切事物恒常存在的錯誤見解），便認為一切法都是實有的。爲了對治這種障礙，佛告訴須菩提：『菩薩不見我為菩薩以及諸波羅蜜。』等等。這部經中的對治方法，指的是修行部分，經中說：『若菩薩生起眾生相、人相，那就不是菩薩』，這是爲了遣除常見。

三者，非有似有的障礙。如來說色等諸法是存在的，如果真是存在，就不應該再說諸法是空性的。爲了對治這種障礙，佛告訴舍利弗：『色等諸法的體性和現象是空性的，就像陽焰（海市蜃樓），並非真實存在，但看起來好像存在。』等等。這部經中的對治方法，指的是凡夫之人貪著於事物等等，是爲了遣除認為事物是真實存在的見解。這第三種障礙和第一種障礙有什麼不同？上面第一種總的說明有為法和無為法都是空性的，因為一切法都是空性的；這第三種偏重說明有為法是空性的。只是疑惑的人會說：如果諸法是空性的，為什麼可以被看見而且有用？以此作為區別。

四者，謗法的障礙。上面聽到如來說色等諸法的體性和現象是空性的，就像陽焰，並非真實存在但看起來好像存在，眾生不理解，就產生誹謗之意，認為佛性、涅槃（寂滅）、無為法（不依賴因緣而存在的法）也和有為諸法（依賴因緣而存在的法）一樣，本性是空性的，沒有實體，如果是這樣，就沒有修行而能證得果位的人了。爲了彰顯對治，佛告訴舍利弗：『非空空。』等等。這部經中的對治方法，指的是第六諸法空分中，也並非沒有法相等等，是爲了遣除空見（執著于空性的錯誤見解）。這第四種障礙和第一、第二種障礙有什麼不同？第一種說明有為法和無為法一切諸法都是空性的，第三種偏重說明有為法是空性的；這第四種只是說明無為法微妙存在的本體，因為沒有萬象所以是空性的，不同於有為法因為沒有自性所以是空性的。以此作為區別。

五者，一有相的障礙。聽到如來說色是空性的，而眾生生起的心念是，空性之外還有色。

【English Translation】 English version: These are to eliminate the view of annihilation (thinking that everything ceases to exist after death).

Secondly, there is the obstacle of tangible appearances. When sentient beings hear the Tathagata speak of Bodhisattvas practicing the Six Paramitas (generosity, discipline, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom), they cling to this, giving rise to the view of permanence (thinking that everything is eternally existent), and thus believe that all dharmas are real. To counteract this obstacle, the Buddha told Subhuti: 'Bodhisattvas do not see themselves as Bodhisattvas or the Paramitas.' and so on. The counteractive method in this sutra refers to the practice section, where the sutra says: 'If a Bodhisattva gives rise to the appearance of sentient beings or the appearance of self, then they are not a Bodhisattva.' This is to eliminate the view of permanence.

Thirdly, there is the obstacle of seeming existence but not truly existing. The Tathagata says that phenomena such as form are existent, but if they truly exist, then it should not be said again that all dharmas are empty. To counteract this obstacle, the Buddha told Shariputra: 'The essence and appearance of dharmas such as form are empty, like a mirage, not truly existent but appearing to exist.' and so on. The counteractive method in this sutra refers to ordinary people clinging to things, etc., to eliminate the view that things are truly existent. How does this third obstacle differ from the first? The first generally explains that conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are empty because all dharmas are empty; this third specifically explains that conditioned phenomena are empty. Those who doubt may say: If all dharmas are empty, why can they be seen and used? This is the difference.

Fourthly, there is the obstacle of slandering the Dharma. Having heard the Tathagata say that the essence and appearance of dharmas such as form are empty, like a mirage, not truly existent but appearing to exist, sentient beings, not understanding, give rise to the intention of slander, thinking that Buddha-nature, Nirvana (extinction), and unconditioned dharmas (dharmas that do not depend on conditions) are the same as conditioned dharmas (dharmas that depend on conditions), their nature is empty, and they have no substance. If this is the case, then there is no one who can attain the fruit of practice. To manifest the counteraction, the Buddha told Shariputra: 'Not empty emptiness.' and so on. The counteractive method in this sutra refers to the sixth section on the emptiness of all dharmas, which also states that there are aspects of phenomena, etc., to eliminate the view of emptiness (clinging to the mistaken view of emptiness). How does this fourth obstacle differ from the first and second? The first explains that all dharmas, conditioned and unconditioned, are empty; the third specifically explains that conditioned dharmas are empty; this fourth only explains that the subtle existence of unconditioned dharmas is empty because it lacks myriad forms, unlike conditioned dharmas, which are empty because they lack inherent nature. This is the difference.

Fifthly, there is the obstacle of singular existence. Having heard the Tathagata say that form is empty, sentient beings give rise to the thought that there is form apart from emptiness.

---

利弗：「空者非色。」如是等。此經中對治者，謂「一合相者即是不可說」等，遣即見也。

六者異有相障。如來上說空者非色，眾生不解，謂異色別有空。此障對治，佛告舍利弗：「不離空更有色。色即是空，空即是色。」如是等。此經中對治者，謂「是故佛說一切法無我、無人、無眾生」等，遣異見也。

七者實有相障。聞如來上說萬法虛空體是空者，何故佛說色等諸法是有？此障對治，佛告舍利弗：「色等諸法但有名用。」如是等。此經中對治者，謂「如來說微塵即非微塵，世界即非世界」等，遣報教見。此第七何異上第一、第三、第四？此中明空不異於上，但難言方法。若是空者，如來何故說有？以此為異也。

八者異異相障。聞如來說色等諸法體相空但有名用，眾生心色等諸法若是空者，不應有生住滅；若實有生住滅，則非是空。此障對治，佛告舍利弗：「諸法不生不住不滅、不凈不染。」如是等。此經中對治者，謂量分中第七分說「何以故？離一切諸法即名諸佛如來」等，此遣有相見。

九者如名義相障。如來說色等諸法可見可觸，眾生起心：如名，義亦如是可見可觸。此障對治，佛告舍利弗：「諸法有名假施設」如是等。此經中對治者，謂「實無有法名為菩薩」等，此遣依名

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 利弗（Śāriputra）：『空性不是色蘊。』等等。此經中對治的方法是，說『一合相（ekībhūta）即是不可說』等等，以此來去除執著于實在的見解。

六者，異有相障。如來（Tathāgata）前面說空性不是色蘊，眾生不理解，認為在色蘊之外另有空性。爲了對治這種障礙，佛告訴舍利弗（Śāriputra）：『不離空性更有色蘊。色蘊即是空性，空性即是色蘊。』等等。此經中對治的方法是，說『是故佛說一切法無我（anātman）、無人（apudgala）、無眾生（sattva）』等等，以此來去除執著於差異的見解。

七者，實有相障。聽到如來（Tathāgata）前面說萬法虛空，本體是空性，（眾生會問）為什麼佛又說色蘊等諸法是存在的？爲了對治這種障礙，佛告訴舍利弗（Śāriputra）：『色蘊等諸法只是有名和作用。』等等。此經中對治的方法是，說『如來說微塵（paramāṇu）即非微塵，世界（loka）即非世界』等等，以此來去除執著于實在的見解。這第七種障礙和上面的第一、第三、第四種有什麼不同？此中說明的空性與上面並無不同，只是難以用語言表達。如果是空性，如來（Tathāgata）為什麼又說存在？以此為不同之處。

八者，異異相障。聽到如來說色蘊等諸法的本體和現象是空性，只是有名和作用，眾生心想：色蘊等諸法如果是空性，不應該有生住滅；如果確實有生住滅，那就不是空性。爲了對治這種障礙，佛告訴舍利弗（Śāriputra）：『諸法不生不住不滅、不凈不染。』等等。此經中對治的方法是，在量分中第七分說『何以故？離一切諸法即名諸佛如來（Tathāgata）』等等，以此來去除執著于存在的見解。

九者，如名義相障。如來說色蘊等諸法可見可觸，眾生起心：如同名稱一樣，意義也應該是可見可觸的。爲了對治這種障礙，佛告訴舍利弗（Śāriputra）：『諸法有名，只是假施設。』等等。此經中對治的方法是，說『實無有法名為菩薩（Bodhisattva）』等等，以此來去除依附於名稱的見解。

【English Translation】 English version Śāriputra: 'Emptiness is not form.' and so on. The countermeasure in this sutra is to say 'The one aggregate (ekībhūta) is inexpressible,' etc., dispelling the view of substantiality.

Sixth, the obstacle of different existence. The Tathāgata (Tathāgata) previously said that emptiness is not form, but sentient beings do not understand, thinking that there is emptiness separate from form. To counteract this obstacle, the Buddha told Śāriputra (Śāriputra): 'Form is not apart from emptiness. Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.' and so on. The countermeasure in this sutra is to say 'Therefore, the Buddha said that all dharmas are without self (anātman), without person (apudgala), and without sentient beings (sattva),' etc., dispelling the view of difference.

Seventh, the obstacle of real existence. Hearing the Tathāgata (Tathāgata) previously say that the substance of all dharmas is emptiness, (sentient beings ask) why does the Buddha say that form and other dharmas exist? To counteract this obstacle, the Buddha told Śāriputra (Śāriputra): 'Form and other dharmas are only names and functions.' and so on. The countermeasure in this sutra is to say 'The Tathāgata says that a particle (paramāṇu) is not a particle, and a world (loka) is not a world,' etc., dispelling the view of clinging to reality. How does this seventh obstacle differ from the first, third, and fourth above? The emptiness explained here is no different from the above, but it is difficult to express in words. If it is emptiness, why does the Tathāgata (Tathāgata) say that it exists? This is the difference.

Eighth, the obstacle of different non-existence. Hearing the Tathāgata say that the substance and phenomena of form and other dharmas are emptiness, only names and functions, sentient beings think: if form and other dharmas are emptiness, there should be no arising, abiding, and ceasing; if there is indeed arising, abiding, and ceasing, then it is not emptiness. To counteract this obstacle, the Buddha told Śāriputra (Śāriputra): 'Dharmas do not arise, do not abide, do not cease, are not pure, and are not defiled.' and so on. The countermeasure in this sutra is to say in the seventh part of the section on measure, 'Why? To be apart from all dharmas is called the Buddhas, the Tathāgatas (Tathāgata),' etc., dispelling the view of clinging to existence.

Ninth, the obstacle of name and meaning. The Tathāgata says that form and other dharmas are visible and tangible, and sentient beings think: just like the name, the meaning should also be visible and tangible. To counteract this obstacle, the Buddha told Śāriputra (Śāriputra): 'Dharmas have names, which are only provisional designations.' and so on. The countermeasure in this sutra is to say 'In reality, there is no dharma called Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva),' etc., dispelling the view of clinging to names.

---

報義見。

十者如義名相障。如來上說色等法寂靜空但有名假設。設若如是，眾生起心：如義，名亦如是，有義故有名。若無義者，云何有名？此障對治，佛告須菩提：「菩薩不見一切名。以不見一切名故，不著一切義」如是等。此經中對治者，謂第十一分中「一切有為法，如星醫燈幻」等，此遣依義執名見。

對此十障故，說八部《般若》，究竟一切智滿足。此十何故名障？已一一或體皆能礙於實解，故通名為障也。

言「金剛」者，從譬喻為名，取其堅實之義，如世間金剛。有二義：一其體堅實能破萬物；二則萬物不能壞於金剛。明此果頭無為法身金剛般若及十地智惠。亦有二義：一能摧魔怨敵壞諸煩惱；二者諸魔煩惱不能俎壞。故名金剛。又凡夫二乘於此理教不能解入，故亦名金剛也。

「般若」者，乃是西國正音，此魏播云慧明。此金剛無相極理，體是西實。智慧能照達理原、了諸法相、顯明常住佛果，故曰般若也。

「波羅蜜」者，魏云到彼岸。明此經所詮之理是常住法身彼岸之體，能令眾生度生死河到涅槃彼岸，故名波羅蜜也。

「經」者，舊人相傳訓之曰常。依西國正本，云修多羅。若播其名者，外國云修多羅，此方播之為本。此明理、教皆有本義。理為本者，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 報義見。

十者如義名相障。如來上面說色等法是寂靜空性的，只是有名相的假設。如果這樣，眾生就會產生這樣的想法：『如義』，名相也是這樣，因為有義理所以有名相。如果沒有義理，怎麼會有名相呢？這種障礙的對治方法，佛告訴須菩提：『菩薩不見一切名。因為不見一切名，所以不執著一切義』等等。這部經中對治的方法，是指第十一分中『一切有為法，如星、翳、燈、幻』等，這是爲了遣除依義執名之見。

爲了對治這十種障礙，所以說了八部《般若》，究竟一切智慧得以圓滿。這十種為什麼叫障礙呢？因為它們每一個或者整體都能妨礙對實相的理解，所以統稱為障礙。

說到『金剛』（vajra），是從譬喻來命名的，取其堅固真實的含義，就像世間的金剛一樣。有兩種含義：一是它的本體堅固真實，能破除萬物；二是萬物不能損壞金剛。說明這果地的無為法身、金剛般若（Vajra Prajna）以及十地（Bhumi）的智慧。也有兩種含義：一是能摧毀魔怨敵，壞滅各種煩惱；二是各種魔和煩惱不能摧毀它。所以名叫金剛。另外，凡夫和二乘（Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha）對於這個理和教義不能理解和進入，所以也叫金剛。

『般若』（Prajna）是西國（印度）的正確發音，在魏國翻譯為慧明。這金剛無相的極理，本體是真實不虛的。智慧能夠照亮通達理之本源，瞭解諸法實相，顯明常住的佛果，所以叫做般若。

『波羅蜜』（Paramita）在魏國翻譯為到彼岸。說明這部經所詮釋的道理是常住法身的彼岸之體，能夠讓眾生度過生死之河到達涅槃（Nirvana）的彼岸，所以名叫波羅蜜。

『經』（Sutra），舊時的人相傳解釋為常。按照西國的正本，叫做修多羅（Sutra）。如果傳播它的名字，外國叫做修多羅，我們這裡傳播為本。這說明理和教義都有根本的意義。理作為根本，

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the View of Meaning.

The tenth is the obstruction of names and forms based on meaning. The Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) previously stated that phenomena such as form are quiescent and empty, merely hypothetical names. If this is the case, beings may think: 'Like meaning,' names are also like that; because there is meaning, there is a name. If there is no meaning, how can there be a name? To counteract this obstruction, the Buddha told Subhuti (須菩提): 'Bodhisattvas (菩薩, Enlightenment Being) do not see all names. Because they do not see all names, they do not cling to all meanings,' and so on. The counteracting method in this Sutra refers to the eleventh section, 'All conditioned dharmas (法, teachings) are like stars, illusions, lamps, phantoms,' etc. This dispels the view of clinging to names based on meaning.

To counteract these ten obstructions, the eight sections of the Prajna (般若, wisdom) are spoken, ultimately fulfilling all wisdom. Why are these ten called obstructions? Because each one, or all together, can hinder the true understanding, so they are collectively called obstructions.

The term 'Vajra' (金剛, diamond) is named from a metaphor, taking its meaning of firmness and solidity, like a diamond in the world. It has two meanings: first, its substance is firm and solid, capable of breaking all things; second, all things cannot destroy the Vajra. It clarifies the unconditioned Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma Body) of the fruition, the Vajra Prajna and the wisdom of the ten Bhumis (地, levels). It also has two meanings: first, it can destroy demonic enemies and eradicate all afflictions; second, all demons and afflictions cannot destroy it. Therefore, it is called Vajra. Furthermore, ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles (二乘, Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) cannot understand and enter this principle and teaching, so it is also called Vajra.

'Prajna' is the correct pronunciation from the Western Country (India); in the Wei dynasty, it was translated as 'Wisdom and Clarity.' This ultimate principle of the Vajra without form is inherently true. Wisdom can illuminate and penetrate the source of the principle, understand the characteristics of all dharmas, and reveal the permanent Buddha-fruit, so it is called Prajna.

'Paramita' (波羅蜜) was translated as 'to the other shore' in the Wei dynasty. It clarifies that the principle explained in this Sutra is the permanent Dharmakaya, the essence of the other shore, which can enable beings to cross the river of birth and death and reach the other shore of Nirvana (涅槃), so it is called Paramita.

'Sutra' (經) is traditionally explained as 'constant' by people of old. According to the correct original from the Western Country, it is called Sutra (修多羅). If its name is propagated, it is called Sutra in foreign countries, and here it is propagated as the root. This clarifies that both principle and teaching have a fundamental meaning. The principle as the root,

---

明所詮證法無為之理，能與十二部經言教為本，故名理為本也。教為本者，明尋此言教能得證法，故名言教與證法為本。故以教為本也。故今言經者，非播名也。但此中人，義以經字顯修多羅處，故言經也。

「論」者，如來滅度后之中，有高行大士號曰婆藪槃豆，魏雲天親。此人實是大權菩薩，現形通化，遍見如來一代所說大小乘教意。以此《金剛般若經》文句甚略、義富遠博，世人不能解此深遠妙義，為眾生故作義釋之為論也。

所以論初設此二偈者，然論主天親將欲作論釋此金剛般若深遠妙義，若不㯹顯法體置於論初、遠馮佛僧在於經首者，則何以作論解釋此經深遠之義？然如來滅后，聲聞菩薩諸大論師，凡欲有所制遠解佛正經者，莫不皆先歸敬三寶，假靈威然後作論。二偈之興大意在此也。

就此二偈之中分為二段：初有一偈半六句，明致敬三寶；後半偈二句，釋成致敬之意。就初六句中，前一句，明此金剛般若理教深妙，即是法寶之體。第二句，明上法門理教既深，世間愚人不能解悟，即是出不解之人。第三句，明諸佛菩薩俱能通達，此顯佛僧二寶，即是出能解之者。第四句，以諸佛菩薩能通達此理，故教導我等宜修吏教，此障吏敬之或。第五、第六二句，重釋致敬之意也。下半偈兩句

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所闡釋的證法無為之理，能夠以十二部經的言教為根本，所以將此理稱為根本。以教為根本，是指明白尋著這些言教能夠證得佛法，所以說言教與證法互為根本。因此說以教為根本。所以現在說的『經』，並非只是宣揚名聲。只是這裡的人，爲了通過『經』字來顯明修多羅（Sūtra）之處，所以才說『經』。 『論』，是指如來（Tathāgata）滅度之後，有一位具有高尚品行的大士，名叫婆藪槃豆（Vasubandhu），在魏譯中稱為天親。此人實際上是大權菩薩，顯現身形來通達教化，普遍瞭解如來一代所說的大小乘教義。因為這部《金剛般若經》（Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra）文句非常簡略，但義理卻豐富深遠，世人不能理解這深遠微妙的含義，所以爲了眾生的緣故，他作義釋，這就是『論』。 之所以在論的開頭設定這兩首偈頌，是因為論主天親將要作論來解釋這部《金剛般若經》深遠微妙的含義，如果不首先顯明法體置於論的開頭，遠依佛僧置於經的首位，那麼又憑什麼來作論解釋這部經的深遠含義呢？然而如來滅度之後，聲聞（Śrāvaka）、菩薩（Bodhisattva）以及各位大論師，凡是要有所著述來闡釋佛的正經，沒有不先歸敬三寶，憑藉其靈威然後才開始作論的。這兩首偈頌的興起，大意就在這裡。 就這兩首偈頌之中，分為兩段：前有一偈半共六句，說明致敬三寶；後半偈共兩句，解釋成就致敬的意義。就前六句中，第一句，說明這部《金剛般若經》的理教深妙，就是法寶的本體。第二句，說明上面的法門理教既然深奧，世間的愚人不能理解領悟，這就是指出不能理解的人。第三句，說明諸佛菩薩都能夠通達，這顯示了佛僧二寶，就是指出能夠理解的人。第四句，因為諸佛菩薩能夠通達這個道理，所以教導我們應當修習吏教，這是爲了阻止吏敬的產生。第五、第六兩句，再次解釋致敬的意義。下半偈兩句

【English Translation】 English version: The principle of Dharma-as-non-action (證法無為之理) that is elucidated can take the teachings of the twelve divisions of scriptures (十二部經) as its foundation, hence this principle is called the foundation. Taking the teachings as the foundation means that by seeking these teachings, one can attain the Dharma (證法), hence it is said that the teachings and the Dharma are mutually the foundation. Therefore, it is said to take the teachings as the foundation. So, when we speak of 『Sūtra』 (經) now, it is not merely to propagate fame. It is just that people here use the word 『Sūtra』 to highlight the place of the Sūtra (修多羅) , hence they say 『Sūtra』. 『Treatise』 (論) refers to a great being (大士) of high conduct after the passing away of the Tathāgata (如來), named Vasubandhu (婆藪槃豆), translated as Tianqin (天親) in the Wei dynasty. This person is actually a Bodhisattva (菩薩) of great power, manifesting to communicate and transform, universally understanding the meaning of the teachings of the Great and Small Vehicles (大小乘) spoken by the Tathāgata in his lifetime. Because the text of this 『Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra』 (金剛般若經) is very brief, but the meaning is rich and profound, and people in the world cannot understand this profound and subtle meaning, he made an explanatory commentary for the sake of sentient beings, which is the 『Treatise』. The reason for setting up these two verses at the beginning of the treatise is that the author of the treatise, Vasubandhu, is about to write a treatise to explain the profound and subtle meaning of this 『Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra』. If he does not first reveal the essence of the Dharma (法體) at the beginning of the treatise, and rely on the Buddha (佛) and Sangha (僧) at the beginning of the Sūtra, then how can he write a treatise to explain the profound meaning of this Sūtra? However, after the passing away of the Tathāgata, Śrāvakas (聲聞), Bodhisattvas, and great commentators, whenever they want to write something to explain the Buddha's correct Sūtras, they all first take refuge in the Three Jewels (三寶), relying on their spiritual power before starting to write the treatise. The main idea behind the rise of these two verses lies here. Within these two verses, they are divided into two sections: the first one and a half verses, six lines in total, explain paying homage to the Three Jewels; the latter half verse, two lines in total, explains the meaning of accomplishing the homage. In the first six lines, the first line explains that the principle and teachings of this 『Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra』 are profound and subtle, which is the essence of the Dharma Jewel (法寶). The second line explains that since the principle and teachings of the above Dharma are profound, the foolish people in the world cannot understand and realize them, which points out those who cannot understand. The third line explains that all Buddhas (佛) and Bodhisattvas are able to understand, which reveals the Buddha and Sangha Jewels, which points out those who are able to understand. The fourth line explains that because all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are able to understand this principle, they teach us that we should study official teachings, which is to prevent the occurrence of official respect. The fifth and sixth lines re-explain the meaning of paying homage. The last half verse, two lines

---

，偏釋菩薩有可敬之德也。

「法」者，以軌則為能。又法名自體不失己相。何者是法家自體相而言不失？明此金剛般若甚深妙法能防生死非法，不令眾生墮三惡道，能令眾生得人天二乘果，乃能令眾生十地行滿終得佛果至極之樂，故名為法也。「門」者，明此金剛般若理之與教皆能津通行人遠詣佛果，故名為門也。「句」者，即此金剛般若能詮之教也。「義」者，是所詮證理。明此般若理教深妙，非諸凡夫二乘心心意識之所能解，乃是如來八部之終、隱覆之說。所以得知，如下經云「如來說眾生即非眾生」等，此即是句義。理教難解，故言句義也。「及次第」者，明此法門十二段分數次第。從此一段至此一段生起法用，或時次第、或時超越，所以難知。下經文「云何住」者，生下住分。「云何修行？云何降伏其心」，生下如實修行分。此即是次第之意難識，故言及次第也。

「世間不解離明慧」者，上句雖明般若，理教難，法體未知，不解者誰？是以第二句明世間愚人不能解。世間者，眾生世間也。不能解者，此凡夫之人未得聞思修等法出世間勝解斷除惑障永盡生死，故不能窮達理原悟此深法也。應問：世間愚人何故不解？即答云：以離明慧。離明慧者，前愚人未得初地已上真無漏解斷除癡闇，故言離

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：偏釋菩薩具有值得尊敬的德行。

『法』的含義在於其具有規範作用。此外，法也指自體不喪失自身特性。那麼，什麼是法家自體相而言不喪失的特性呢？明確地說，這種金剛般若甚深微妙之法能夠防止生死輪迴的非法狀態，不讓眾生墮入三惡道，能夠使眾生獲得人天二乘的果位，乃至能夠使眾生圓滿十地之行，最終獲得佛果的至極之樂，因此稱為『法』。『門』的含義在於，這種金剛般若的理與教都能引導修行者通達，最終到達佛果，因此稱為『門』。『句』指的是這種金剛般若能夠詮釋的教義。『義』指的是所詮釋和證悟的真理。說明這種般若的理與教深奧微妙，不是凡夫二乘的心、心所和意識所能理解的，而是如來為八部眾所說的終極、隱秘之說。如何得知呢？如下經文所說『如來說眾生即非眾生』等，這就是句義。理教難以理解，所以說是句義。『及次第』說明這種法門十二個段落的順序。從這一段到那一段產生法的作用，有時按照順序，有時超越順序，所以難以理解。下經文『云何住』引出下面的住分。『云何修行？云何降伏其心』引出下面的如實修行分。這就是次第的含義難以認識，所以說是『及次第』。

『世間不解離明慧』，上一句雖然說明了般若，但理教深奧，法的本體未知，不理解的是誰呢？因此第二句說明世間愚人不能理解。世間指的是眾生世間。不能理解的原因是，這些凡夫之人沒有獲得聞、思、修等出世間的殊勝理解，斷除迷惑障礙，永遠了斷生死，因此不能窮盡理之本源，領悟這種深奧的法。應該問：世間愚人為什麼不理解呢？回答說：因為遠離明慧。遠離明慧指的是，前面的愚人沒有獲得初地以上的真實無漏智慧，斷除愚癡黑暗，所以說是遠離。

【English Translation】 English version: It partially explains that Bodhisattvas have virtues worthy of respect.

『Dharma』 means that it has a regulatory function. In addition, Dharma also refers to the self-nature not losing its own characteristics. So, what is the characteristic of the Dharma family's self-nature that is not lost? To be clear, this profound and subtle Dharma of the Vajra Prajna can prevent the illegal state of birth and death, and prevent sentient beings from falling into the three evil realms. It can enable sentient beings to obtain the fruits of humans and gods, and even enable sentient beings to complete the practice of the ten grounds, and finally obtain the ultimate bliss of Buddhahood, so it is called 『Dharma』. 『Gate』 means that both the principle and teachings of this Vajra Prajna can guide practitioners to reach the fruit of Buddhahood, so it is called 『Gate』. 『Sentence』 refers to the teachings that this Vajra Prajna can interpret. 『Meaning』 refers to the truth that is interpreted and realized. It explains that the principle and teachings of this Prajna are profound and subtle, and cannot be understood by the minds, mental states, and consciousness of ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles. Rather, it is the ultimate and secret teaching spoken by the Tathagata to the eight divisions. How do we know this? As the following scriptures say, 『The Tathagata says that sentient beings are not sentient beings,』 etc., this is the meaning of the sentence. The principle and teachings are difficult to understand, so it is said to be the meaning of the sentence. 『And the order』 explains the sequence of the twelve sections of this Dharma gate. From this section to that section, the function of the Dharma arises, sometimes in order, sometimes beyond order, so it is difficult to understand. The following scripture 『How to abide』 introduces the following abiding section. 『How to cultivate? How to subdue the mind』 introduces the following section on practicing accordingly. This is the meaning of the order that is difficult to recognize, so it is said to be 『and the order』.

『The world does not understand being apart from wisdom,』 although the previous sentence explained Prajna, the principle and teachings are profound, and the essence of the Dharma is unknown. Who is it that does not understand? Therefore, the second sentence explains that foolish people in the world cannot understand. The world refers to the world of sentient beings. The reason for not understanding is that these ordinary people have not obtained the superior understanding of transcending the world through hearing, thinking, and cultivating, and have not eradicated the obstacles of delusion and permanently ended birth and death. Therefore, they cannot exhaust the origin of the principle and comprehend this profound Dharma. One should ask: Why do foolish people in the world not understand? The answer is: because they are apart from wisdom. Being apart from wisdom means that the foolish people mentioned earlier have not obtained the true, non-outflow wisdom above the first ground, and have not eradicated ignorance and darkness, so it is said to be apart from.

---

明慧，以離此出世間明慧故，不能解此般若深法也。

「大智通達教我等」者，上句雖明不解之人，猶未影能解之者，是以第三句明諸佛菩薩俱秉妙解能達斯理，此即並出佛僧二寶也。大智通達者，諸佛如來二障永盡、種智圓滿，照窮此法門理教斯盡，更無勝者，故言大智通達也。若據菩薩而論，亦漸除惑障，分有種智，片悟同佛，解此法門句義次第所以，亦得云大智通達也。第二意若此般若理教甚深難解者，論主何由得解作論解釋？故答大智通達教我等也。教我等者，此明論主自云諸佛菩薩有大方便，於己所得無名相理作名相說，訓導於我並餘論師及一切眾生，故得解此般若深義、作論解釋，功由大聖，非我自力能解，故言教我等也。

「歸命無量功德身」者，上雖辨所敬人法，未論致敬之意，是以第四顯吏敬之。或此金剛般若甚深法門，乃是諸佛之母，能出生現果常住涅槃體偏無量功德，故所以歸命。又諸佛菩薩各有十力、四無所畏等無量大功德聚，能以前理教導於我，有莫大之恩，故亦言歸命。此一句應遍在上第三句下，皆言歸命也。

「應當敬彼如是等」者，此下兩句重釋第四句致敬之意。上雖云歸命，猶未展敬仰之心，將欲更重以三業致敬故，以總舉前所敬人法來，故應當敬我如是等也

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『明慧，以離此出世間明慧故，不能解此般若（prajna，智慧）深法也。』——因為這種明慧脫離了出世間的智慧，所以無法理解這甚深的般若之法。

『大智通達教我等』者，上句雖明不解之人，猶未影能解之者，是以第三句明諸佛菩薩俱秉妙解能達斯理，此即並出佛僧二寶也。——『具有大智慧通達的人教導我們』，上一句雖然說明了不能理解的人，但還沒有提及能夠理解的人，因此第三句說明諸佛菩薩都具有精妙的理解力，能夠通達這個道理，這同時顯現了佛寶和僧寶。大智通達者，諸佛如來二障（煩惱障和所知障）永盡、種智（sarvajna，一切種智）圓滿，照窮此法門理教斯盡，更無勝者，故言大智通達也。——具有大智慧通達的人，是指諸佛如來，他們的二障永遠斷盡，一切種智圓滿，能夠徹底照見這個法門的道理和教義，沒有比他們更殊勝的了，所以說具有大智慧通達。若據菩薩而論，亦漸除惑障，分有種智，片悟同佛，解此法門句義次第所以，亦得云大智通達也。——如果從菩薩的角度來說，他們也逐漸去除迷惑和障礙，部分具有種智，對佛的領悟有片面的相同，理解這個法門的句義次第，也可以說具有大智慧通達。第二意若此般若理教甚深難解者，論主何由得解作論解釋？故答大智通達教我等也。——第二層意思是，如果這個般若的道理和教義非常深奧難以理解，那麼論主是如何理解並著書解釋的呢？所以回答說，是大智慧通達的人教導我們。教我等者，此明論主自云諸佛菩薩有大方便，於己所得無名相理作名相說，訓導於我並餘論師及一切眾生，故得解此般若深義、作論解釋，功由大聖，非我自力能解，故言教我等也。——『教導我們』，這說明論主自己說，諸佛菩薩具有很大的方便，對於自己所領悟的沒有名相的道理，用名相來解說，教導我和其他的論師以及一切眾生，因此才能夠理解這甚深的般若之義，並著書解釋，這都是聖人的功勞，不是我自己的力量能夠理解的，所以說教導我們。

『歸命無量功德身』者，上雖辨所敬人法，未論致敬之意，是以第四顯吏敬之。——『歸命于具有無量功德之身』，上面雖然辨別了所尊敬的人和法，但沒有論述致敬的意義，因此第四句顯明瞭致敬的意義。或此金剛般若甚深法門，乃是諸佛之母，能出生現果常住涅槃（nirvana，涅槃）體偏無量功德，故所以歸命。——或許這個金剛般若甚深的法門，是諸佛之母，能夠出生顯現果報、常住涅槃的本體，具有無量的功德，所以要歸命。又諸佛菩薩各有十力、四無所畏等無量大功德聚，能以前理教導於我，有莫大之恩，故亦言歸命。——而且諸佛菩薩各自具有十力、四無所畏等無量的大功德聚集，能夠用前面的道理教導我，有莫大的恩情，所以也說歸命。此一句應遍在上第三句下，皆言歸命也。——這一句應該普遍地放在上面第三句的下面，都說歸命。

『應當敬彼如是等』者，此下兩句重釋第四句致敬之意。——『應當尊敬他們』，下面兩句重新解釋第四句致敬的意義。上雖云歸命，猶未展敬仰之心，將欲更重以三業致敬故，以總舉前所敬人法來，故應當敬我如是等也。——上面雖然說了歸命，但還沒有表達敬仰之心，將要更加以身口意三業來致敬，所以總舉前面所尊敬的人和法，所以應當尊敬他們。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Minghui, because it is separated from the wisdom of transcending the world, cannot understand this profound Dharma of Prajna (wisdom).』—Because this kind of wisdom is separated from the wisdom of transcending the world, it cannot understand this profound Prajna Dharma.

『Those with great wisdom and understanding teach us,』 the previous sentence clarified those who do not understand, but did not mention those who can understand. Therefore, the third sentence clarifies that all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas possess wonderful understanding and can comprehend this principle, which simultaneously reveals the Two Jewels of Buddha and Sangha. Those with great wisdom and understanding refer to the Buddhas and Tathagatas, whose two obstacles (afflictive and cognitive) are forever exhausted, and whose Sarvajna (all-knowing wisdom) is complete, illuminating and exhausting the principles and teachings of this Dharma gate, with no one more superior. Therefore, it is said that they possess great wisdom and understanding. If considering Bodhisattvas, they also gradually remove delusions and obstacles, partially possess Sarvajna, and have a partial understanding similar to the Buddha. They understand the meaning and order of the sentences of this Dharma gate, so it can also be said that they possess great wisdom and understanding. The second meaning is, if the principles and teachings of this Prajna are very profound and difficult to understand, how did the author understand and write a treatise to explain them? Therefore, the answer is that those with great wisdom and understanding teach us. 『Teach us』 means that the author himself says that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have great skillful means, using names and forms to explain the principles without names and forms that they have realized, teaching me and other commentators and all sentient beings. Therefore, they can understand the profound meaning of this Prajna and write treatises to explain it. This is all due to the merit of the sages, not my own ability to understand. Therefore, it is said that they teach us.

『Take refuge in the body of immeasurable merit,』 the above distinguished the people and Dharma to be revered, but did not discuss the meaning of paying respect. Therefore, the fourth sentence clarifies the meaning of paying respect. Perhaps this profound Dharma gate of the Diamond Prajna is the mother of all Buddhas, capable of giving birth to the manifested result, the permanent Nirvana (Nirvana) body, and possessing immeasurable merit. Therefore, we take refuge in it. Moreover, all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas each possess the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and other immeasurable great accumulations of merit, capable of teaching me with the aforementioned principles, having immense kindness. Therefore, it is also said to take refuge. This sentence should be universally placed below the third sentence above, all saying to take refuge.

『We should respect them,』 the following two sentences re-explain the meaning of paying respect in the fourth sentence. Although the above said to take refuge, it has not yet expressed the heart of reverence. We will further pay respect with the three karmas of body, speech, and mind. Therefore, we generally mention the people and Dharma to be revered, so we should respect them.

---

。

「頭面禮足而頂戴」者，上雖云致敬，未出致敬之所以，此句正辨恭敬之事也。頭者一形之重，足者身之所輕，今以己所尊，禮彼佛僧之早，此乃方顯處敬之至也，故言頭面禮足而頂戴。亦應言意業尊重、口業讚歎，但以偈使故略也。此一句亦遍在上三寶之下，皆言頂禮也。

「以能荷佛難勝事者」，此兩句半偈別釋菩薩有可敬之德。論主此中假設疑意云：諸佛如來具三達明解鑒盡萬法，超學地之表，無能過者，可名大智，理合致敬。菩薩既位居學地，處不足之境，理解未圓、斷惑不盡，何得名為大智，敬同佛也？故偈釋言以能荷佛難勝事。何者是佛家難勝事而云菩薩荷負也？今明佛家難勝事者，即此般若理教宗深致遠，非是凡夫二乘圖度之境，故不堪受持流通益物。然菩薩大士獨秉妙解負斯重任，于如來滅後像正法中受持洪化、繼軌先聖。此即是荷負佛難勝事，故功齊諸佛，故得名為大智通達，致敬同佛也。此明菩薩有二種：一者初地已上菩薩，已積行僧祇，現見理原，斷除煩惱，自證而說，故能荷負受持流通益物。二者地前信地菩薩，亦積行來久，一大僧祇欲滿不滿，雖未現見理原，以能彷彿見理相似解，深伏煩惱，故亦能荷負受持流通益物也。

「攝受眾生利益故」者，今言菩薩在像正

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『頭面禮足而頂戴』，上面雖然說了致敬，但沒有說明致敬的原因，這句正是辨明恭敬這件事。頭是一身中最尊重的，足是身上最輕賤的，現在用自己所尊重的，禮敬佛僧的足，這才能充分顯示出恭敬的至極，所以說頭面禮足而頂戴。也應該說意業尊重、口業讚歎，但因為偈頌的緣故省略了。這一句也普遍適用於上面的三寶，都說頂禮。 『以能荷佛難勝事者』，這兩句半偈頌分別解釋了菩薩有值得尊敬的德行。論主在這裡假設疑問說：諸佛如來具備三達明，瞭解通透萬法，超越了修學的階段，沒有人能超過他們，可以稱為大智，理應致敬。菩薩既然位居修學階段，處於不足的境地，理解未圓滿、斷除煩惱不徹底，怎麼能稱為大智，和佛一樣受到尊敬呢？所以偈頌解釋說以能荷佛難勝事。什麼是佛家的難勝事而說菩薩承擔呢？現在說明佛家的難勝事，就是這般若的理教宗深遠，不是凡夫二乘所能揣度的境界，所以不能受持流通利益眾生。然而菩薩大士獨自秉持妙解，承擔這重任，在如來滅度后的像法和正法時期，受持弘揚教化，繼承先聖的軌跡。這就是承擔佛的難勝事，所以功德等同諸佛，所以能被稱為大智通達，致敬如同佛一樣。這裡說明菩薩有兩種：一種是初地以上的菩薩，已經積累了僧祇的修行，現見理之本原，斷除煩惱，自己證悟而宣說，所以能夠承擔受持流通利益眾生。另一種是地前信地的菩薩，也積累修行很久了，一大僧祇將滿未滿，雖然沒有現見理之本原，但能夠彷彿見到理的相似解，深深地降伏煩惱，所以也能夠承擔受持流通利益眾生。 『攝受眾生利益故』，現在說菩薩在像法和正法時期

【English Translation】 English version: 『Bowing the head and face to the feet and reverently placing them on the head,』 while the above mentions reverence, it does not explain the reason for it. This sentence precisely clarifies the matter of reverence. The head is the most important part of the body, and the feet are the least. Now, using what one values most to pay respect to the feet of the Buddha and Sangha, this fully demonstrates the utmost reverence. Therefore, it is said, 『Bowing the head and face to the feet and reverently placing them on the head.』 It should also be said that mental actions are respectful and verbal actions are praising, but this is omitted due to the verse form. This sentence also universally applies to the Three Jewels mentioned above, all referring to paying homage. 『Because they can bear the Buddha's difficult and supreme affairs,』 these two and a half verses separately explain that Bodhisattvas have virtues worthy of respect. The author here poses a question: The Buddhas and Tathagatas possess the three kinds of clear knowledge (三達明) and thoroughly understand all dharmas (萬法), surpassing the stage of learning. No one can exceed them, and they can be called great wisdom (大智), so they should be revered. Since Bodhisattvas are in the stage of learning and in a state of incompleteness, their understanding is not complete, and their afflictions are not completely eliminated, how can they be called great wisdom and receive the same respect as the Buddha? Therefore, the verse explains, 『Because they can bear the Buddha's difficult and supreme affairs.』 What are the difficult and supreme affairs of the Buddha's teachings that Bodhisattvas bear? Now, it is explained that the difficult and supreme affairs of the Buddha's teachings are the profound and far-reaching principles and teachings of Prajna (般若), which are not within the realm of ordinary people and the Two Vehicles (二乘) to comprehend. Therefore, they cannot uphold, propagate, and benefit beings. However, great Bodhisattvas alone uphold the wonderful understanding and bear this heavy responsibility, upholding and propagating the teachings in the Image Dharma (像法) and Correct Dharma (正法) periods after the Tathagata's Nirvana (滅度), continuing the path of the former sages. This is bearing the Buddha's difficult and supreme affairs, so their merit is equal to that of the Buddhas, and they can be called great wisdom and understanding, receiving the same respect as the Buddha. This explains that there are two types of Bodhisattvas: one is the Bodhisattvas of the first ground (初地) and above, who have accumulated kalpas (僧祇) of practice, directly see the origin of principle, eliminate afflictions, and speak from their own realization, so they can bear, uphold, propagate, and benefit beings. The other is the Bodhisattvas of the faith ground (信地) before the grounds, who have also accumulated practice for a long time, with one great kalpa nearly complete. Although they have not directly seen the origin of principle, they can vaguely see a similar understanding of principle and deeply subdue afflictions, so they can also bear, uphold, propagate, and benefit beings. 『To gather and receive sentient beings for their benefit,』 now speaking of Bodhisattvas in the Image Dharma and Correct Dharma periods

---

流通般若勝法，為當自為悕于名利？為當爲利於物？故偈下句言攝受眾生利益故，明菩薩大士于佛滅后流通此經，乃為曠兼群生、等潤含識。故以法錄物令從己化，使獲出世無上菩提無盡之福。此明不為自利，故言攝受眾生利益故也。

此前二偈，是論主歸敬三寶，申己造論之意也。如是已下訖于經末，正辨經體。序、正、流通義如常辨。于中隨義曲分，凡有十二段，始從序分終訖流通，即其事也。十二段解名生起，如下次第廣釋釋可知也。

然十二段中，所以初明序分者，然如來將欲說法故，以威神冥加召集有緣為興發之由，故名為序。然諸經明序義次第發起，皆先放光動地召集有緣，廣作由致然後方說。此經所以異於眾經者，以如來說法序義凡有多種：一、放光動地召集有緣廣現瑞相，然後說法。二、不放光動地廣現瑞相，如來知眾生機感，自然說法不待請問。三眾中有怯弱眾生，內心懷疑不放問佛，是故如來自唱：「我是一切智人，汝何故不問於我？汝若問我，我當爲汝說法。」四、如來威神冥加，與其智力令其說法。五、諸菩薩在余處說法竟，至如來所印其所說。六、有人生疑發問，如來為說。七、如來直以己相貌為說法之序。今此經序即是第四如來威神冥加，故說此為序也。如十萬偈般若，如

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：流通般若殊勝之法，是爲了追求個人名利嗎？還是爲了利益眾生呢？所以偈語的下句說『攝受眾生利益故』，說明菩薩大士在佛陀滅度后流通此經，是爲了廣泛地利益所有眾生，平等地滋潤一切有情識的生命。因此用佛法來引導眾生，使他們跟隨佛法而改變，從而獲得出世間無上菩提的無盡福報。這說明不是爲了自身利益，所以說『攝受眾生利益故』。

前面的兩首偈語，是論主歸敬三寶，表明自己造論的意圖。從『如是』以下直到經文結尾，正式闡述經文的體裁。序分、正宗分、流通分的含義如常解釋。其中根據意義靈活劃分，總共有十二段，從序分開始到流通分結束，就是這些內容。十二段的解釋名稱和生起，將在下面的次第中詳細解釋。

然而在十二段中，為什麼首先闡明序分呢？因為如來將要說法，所以用威神之力暗中加持，召集有緣眾生，作為引發說法的緣由，所以稱為序分。一般的經典闡明序分的意義，都是先放光動地，召集有緣眾生，廣泛地顯現各種瑞相，然後才開始說法。這部經與其他的經典不同，因為如來說法時的序分有多種：一、放光動地，召集有緣眾生，廣泛地顯現瑞相，然後說法。二、不放光動地，廣泛地顯現瑞相，如來知道眾生的根機和感應，自然而然地說法，不需要等待請問。三、眾生中有怯弱的人，內心懷疑不敢問佛，所以如來自己說：『我是一切智人，你們為什麼不問我？你們如果問我，我應當為你們說法。』四、如來用威神之力暗中加持，給予他們智慧的力量，讓他們說法。五、諸位菩薩在其他地方說法完畢，來到如來處印證他們所說。六、有人產生疑問而發問，如來為他們說法。七、如來直接用自己的相貌作為說法的序分。現在這部經的序分就是第四種，如來用威神之力暗中加持，所以說這是序分。例如十萬偈的《般若經》，例如

【English Translation】 English version: Is the circulation of the supreme Dharma of Prajna (wisdom) for the sake of personal fame and gain? Or is it for the benefit of sentient beings? Therefore, the last line of the verse says 'For the sake of embracing and benefiting sentient beings,' clarifying that Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas (great beings) circulate this Sutra after the Parinirvana (passing away) of the Buddha, in order to broadly benefit all beings and equally nourish all conscious life. Therefore, they use the Dharma to guide beings, causing them to transform according to the Dharma, thereby obtaining the endless blessings of unsurpassed Bodhi (enlightenment) beyond the world. This clarifies that it is not for self-benefit, hence the saying 'For the sake of embracing and benefiting sentient beings.'

The preceding two verses are the treatise master's homage to the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), expressing his intention to compose the treatise. From 'Thus' onwards until the end of the Sutra, it formally elucidates the structure of the Sutra. The meanings of the introduction, main body, and conclusion are explained as usual. Among them, according to the meaning, it is flexibly divided into twelve sections, starting from the introduction and ending with the conclusion, which are these contents. The explanation of the names and arising of the twelve sections will be explained in detail in the following order.

However, among the twelve sections, why is the introduction explained first? Because the Tathagata (Buddha) is about to expound the Dharma, so he secretly blesses with his majestic power, summoning those with affinity as the cause for initiating the Dharma, hence it is called the introduction. Generally, Sutras clarify the meaning of the introduction by first emitting light and shaking the earth, summoning those with affinity, and extensively displaying various auspicious signs, and then beginning to expound the Dharma. This Sutra differs from other Sutras because the Tathagata has various types of introductions when expounding the Dharma: One, emitting light and shaking the earth, summoning those with affinity, extensively displaying auspicious signs, and then expounding the Dharma. Two, not emitting light and shaking the earth, extensively displaying auspicious signs, the Tathagata knows the faculties and responses of sentient beings, and naturally expounds the Dharma without waiting for questions. Three, among the beings, there are timid ones who are doubtful and dare not ask the Buddha, so the Tathagata himself says: 'I am the all-knowing one, why do you not ask me? If you ask me, I shall expound the Dharma for you.' Four, the Tathagata secretly blesses with his majestic power, giving them the power of wisdom, allowing them to expound the Dharma. Five, the Bodhisattvas finish expounding the Dharma in other places and come to the Tathagata to confirm what they have said. Six, someone has doubts and asks questions, and the Tathagata expounds the Dharma for them. Seven, the Tathagata directly uses his own appearance as the introduction to the Dharma. Now, the introduction of this Sutra is the fourth type, the Tathagata secretly blesses with his majestic power, so it is said to be the introduction. For example, the Prajna (wisdom) Sutra of ten thousand verses, for example

---

來具足以三業加須菩提；如大品、八千偈般若等，此六部中但以口意二業加須菩提；此金剛般若唯以意加，不具身口也。若此經意加故說，何故經文不辨其事？以如來說八部般若，勢分相續不斷不絕故，更不別明也。

經初五句，眾經通序：一、如是；二、我聞；三、一時；四、婆伽婆；五、住處也。所以一切經初置斯五句者，有三種義：一、為證成經理不虛，末代生信。二、為表異外道，以阿憂為吉。三、為息于諍論，表己推宗有在也。等證生信，所以先明。

「如是」者，欲使人識經達旨，明金剛般若理教正如是我之所說，與佛昔說不異故，初明如是也。雖云今說般若理教與佛昔說不異，而未知聞者是誰；若無聞者，未必可信。是以第二次言「我聞」，此明聞之有人，非為傳聽，所以可信也。須菩提雖云我聞，然說必有時。若說無時節，亦未必可信，故第三次明一時也。雖出說經時節，然說必有人。未知說者是誰，若是天魔外道餘人說者，未必可信，故第四次明能說之人是佛婆伽婆，所說故所以可信也。雖云此般若理教是佛之所說，未知如來在何處說。若說無方所，亦未必可信，是故第五次明說經之處在舍婆提城給孤獨園也。

五句中何故初名「如是」者？若依世辨釋名，如是之義乃有多途，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：用身、口、意三業來加持須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的十大弟子之一，解空第一）；像《大品般若經》、《八千偈般若經》等，這六部經中只用口和意二業來加持須菩提；這部《金剛般若經》只用意業加持，不包括身和口。如果這部經因為意業加持的緣故而說，為什麼經文中不說明這件事？因為如來說八部般若，其勢頭、分際相續不斷絕，所以不再另外說明。

經文開頭的五句，是所有經的通用序言：一、如是；二、我聞；三、一時；四、婆伽婆（Bhagavan，世尊）；五、住處。一切經文開頭放置這五句，有三種意義：一、爲了證明經文的道理不虛假，使末法時代的人產生信心。二、爲了表明與外道的不同，外道以阿憂為吉祥。三、爲了止息爭論，表明自己所推崇的宗派有所依據。爲了證明並使人產生信心，所以首先要說明。

『如是』，是爲了使人認識經文，通達宗旨，明白《金剛般若經》的道理和教義正如我所說，與佛過去所說沒有不同，所以一開始就說明『如是』。雖然說現在所說的般若道理和教義與佛過去所說沒有不同，但不知道聽者是誰；如果沒有聽者，未必可信。因此第二次說『我聞』，這表明聽的人存在，不是傳聽，所以可信。須菩提雖然說我聞，但說法必定有時。如果說法沒有時間，也未必可信，所以第三次說明一時。雖然說出了說經的時間，但說法必定有人。不知道說者是誰，如果是天魔外道其他人說的，未必可信，所以第四次說明能說之人是佛婆伽婆，所說所以可信。雖然說這部般若道理和教義是佛所說，但不知道如來在何處說。如果說法沒有地點，也未必可信，所以第五次說明說經的地點在舍婆提城（Sravasti）給孤獨園（Jetavana Anathapindika-arama）。

五句中為什麼首先說『如是』？如果按照世俗的辨析來解釋名稱，『如是』的意義有很多種途徑。

【English Translation】 English version: To bless Subhuti (Subhuti, one of the ten major disciples of the Buddha, foremost in understanding emptiness) with the three karmas of body, speech, and mind; like the 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra', the 'Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra', etc., these six sutras only bless Subhuti with the two karmas of speech and mind; this 'Diamond Sutra' only blesses with the karma of mind, not including body and speech. If this sutra is spoken because of the blessing of the karma of mind, why doesn't the text explain this matter? Because the Tathagata (Tathagata, 'Thus Gone One', an epithet of the Buddha) speaks of the eight Prajnas, their momentum and divisions continue uninterrupted, so there is no separate explanation.

The first five sentences of the sutra are the common preface to all sutras: 1. Thus I have heard; 2. I heard; 3. At one time; 4. Bhagavan (Bhagavan, 'Blessed One', an epithet of the Buddha); 5. The place of residence. There are three meanings for placing these five sentences at the beginning of all sutras: 1. To prove that the principles of the sutra are not false, so that people in the Dharma-ending Age will have faith. 2. To show the difference from external paths, which consider 'A-yu' as auspicious. 3. To stop disputes, indicating that the sect that one advocates has a basis. In order to prove and generate faith, it is necessary to explain it first.

'Thus I have heard' is to enable people to recognize the sutra, understand its purpose, and understand that the principles and teachings of the 'Diamond Sutra' are just as I have said, and are no different from what the Buddha said in the past, so it is explained as 'Thus I have heard' at the beginning. Although it is said that the Prajna principles and teachings now spoken are no different from what the Buddha said in the past, it is not known who the listener is; if there is no listener, it may not be credible. Therefore, the second time it is said 'I heard', which indicates that there is someone who heard it, not a transmission, so it is credible. Although Subhuti said 'I heard', there must be a time for speaking. If there is no time for speaking, it may not be credible, so the third time it is explained as 'at one time'. Although the time of speaking the sutra is given, there must be someone who speaks it. It is not known who the speaker is, and if it is spoken by demons, external paths, or other people, it may not be credible, so the fourth time it is explained that the speaker is the Buddha Bhagavan, so what is said is credible. Although it is said that this Prajna principle and teaching is spoken by the Buddha, it is not known where the Tathagata spoke it. If there is no place for speaking, it may not be credible, so the fifth time it is explained that the place of speaking the sutra is in the Jetavana Anathapindika-arama in Sravasti (Sravasti, an ancient city in India).

Why is 'Thus I have heard' said first among the five sentences? If we explain the name according to worldly analysis, the meaning of 'Thus I have heard' has many ways.

---

略而言之凡有四種：一者發心如是；二者教他；三者譬喻；四者決定。發心如是者，自念：「我當如是發菩提心修諸善行」等，是名發心如是也。教他如是者，教前人言：「汝當如是發菩提心修諸善行」等也。譬喻如是者，又威德熾盛如日光明，智慧深廣猶如大海，面貌端政喻如滿月，勇健雄猛如師子王，是名譬喻如是也。決定如是者，我如是見聞等，是名決定如是也。今言如是者，但取第四決定如是，明須菩提自云我親從如來聞此金剛般若理之與教，我之所說如佛所說，不多不少不飾不謬，決定如是，無有傳聞之失，故曰如是也。

「我聞」者，如是之義聞必有人，故次云我聞。此中誰自稱我而言我聞？解者多道：須菩提言我與千二百五十比丘同聞此經，故曰我聞。然理通而言亦得通。阿難云我聞別義則非也。三種阿難，大小中乘傳持三乘法藏，其義可知也。何以得知？須菩提云我聞，非餘人也。凡有二義驗知也：一以經文下校量分中須菩提問「當何名此經？我等云何奉持」，以此文來驗，故知今言我聞者是須菩提。雖復當時須菩提有如是問，后時言我聞者，何必是須菩提也？復更以何文驗知是須菩提云我聞也？昔如來滅后，凡有三時結集法藏。初在王舍城因陀羅窟中，五百比丘結集法藏，舍利弗等諸羅漢比

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：總的來說，有四種『如是』：第一種是發心如是；第二種是教他；第三種是譬喻；第四種是決定。發心如是，是指自己心中想：『我應當這樣發起菩提心，修習各種善行』等等，這叫做發心如是。教他如是，是指教導別人說：『你應當這樣發起菩提心，修習各種善行』等等。譬喻如是，是指（某人）的威德熾盛如同太陽的光明，智慧深廣猶如大海，面貌端正如同滿月，勇健雄猛如同獅子王，這叫做譬喻如是。決定如是，是指『我這樣見聞』等等，這叫做決定如是。現在所說的『如是』，只取第四種『決定如是』，說明須菩提自己說他親自從如來那裡聽聞了這《金剛般若》的道理和教誨，我所說的就像佛所說的，不多不少，不加修飾，沒有謬誤，確定就是這樣，沒有傳聞的錯誤，所以說『如是』。 『我聞』，『如是』的意義是聽聞必定有人，所以接著說『我聞』。這裡是誰自稱『我』而說『我聞』呢？解釋的人大多說：是須菩提說我和一千二百五十位比丘一同聽聞這部經，所以說『我聞』。然而從道理上來說，也可以通。阿難說『我聞』有別的意義，那就不是這樣了。三種阿難，大小乘分別傳持三乘的法藏，其中的意義是可以知道的。怎麼知道是須菩提說的呢？須菩提說『我聞』，不是其他人。總共有兩種方法可以驗證：第一種方法是用經文下面的校量分中，須菩提問『應當叫這部經什麼名字？我們應當如何奉持』，用這段經文來驗證，所以知道現在說『我聞』的是須菩提。即使當時須菩提有這樣的提問，後來再說『我聞』，又何必一定是須菩提呢？再用什麼經文來驗證是須菩提說『我聞』呢？過去如來滅度后，總共有三次結集法藏。第一次是在王舍城因陀羅窟中，五百位比丘結集法藏，舍利弗等各位阿羅漢比丘...

【English Translation】 English version: Generally speaking, there are four kinds of 'Thus': first, 'Thus' in aspiration; second, teaching others; third, metaphor; and fourth, determination. 'Thus' in aspiration refers to thinking to oneself: 'I should thus generate the Bodhi mind and cultivate various good deeds,' etc. This is called 'Thus' in aspiration. 'Teaching others thus' refers to teaching others by saying: 'You should thus generate the Bodhi mind and cultivate various good deeds,' etc. 'Metaphor thus' refers to (someone) whose majestic virtue is as blazing as the sunlight, whose wisdom is as deep and vast as the ocean, whose appearance is as dignified as the full moon, and whose courage and strength are as fierce as the lion king. This is called 'Metaphor thus'. 'Determination thus' refers to 'I have thus seen and heard,' etc. This is called 'Determination thus'. The 'Thus' mentioned now only refers to the fourth kind, 'Determination thus', indicating that Subhuti (one of the principal disciples of the Buddha) himself said that he personally heard the principles and teachings of the Diamond Prajna (Diamond Sutra) from the Tathagata (another name for the Buddha); what I say is just as the Buddha said, no more, no less, without embellishment, and without error. It is definitely so, without any errors of hearsay, therefore it is said 'Thus'. 'I Heard': The meaning of 'Thus' is that hearing must involve someone, so it follows with 'I Heard'. Who is claiming 'I' here and saying 'I Heard'? Most interpreters say: Subhuti said that he and twelve hundred and fifty Bhikkhus (monks) together heard this Sutra, so he said 'I Heard'. However, logically speaking, it can also be understood in a general sense. If Ananda (another principal disciple of the Buddha) said 'I Heard' with a different meaning, then it is not the same. The three Ananda, of the Small, Great, and Middle Vehicles, respectively transmitted and upheld the Dharma treasury of the three vehicles, the meaning of which can be understood. How do we know it is Subhuti who said it? Subhuti said 'I Heard', not someone else. There are two ways to verify this: the first way is to use the section on measuring merit in the Sutra below, where Subhuti asks, 'What should this Sutra be called? How should we uphold it?' Using this passage to verify, we know that the one saying 'I Heard' now is Subhuti. Even if Subhuti had such a question at that time, why must it necessarily be Subhuti who says 'I Heard' later? What other passage can be used to verify that it is Subhuti who said 'I Heard'? In the past, after the Tathagata passed away, there were three compilations of the Dharma treasury. The first time was in the Indra Cave in Rajagriha (an ancient city in India), where five hundred Bhikkhus compiled the Dharma treasury, with Shariputra (another principal disciple of the Buddha) and other Arhats (enlightened beings)...

---

丘各自稱言：某甲經如是我聞佛在某處說。后時為惡國王壞滅佛法，自此以後復有七百比丘重結集法藏，皆云某甲經我從某甲比丘邊聞，不云我從佛聞。此之再集，並是小乘之人結集法藏。又復如來在鐵圍山外不至余世界二界中間，無量諸佛共集於彼，說佛話經訖，欲結集大乘法藏，復召集徒眾，羅漢有八十億那由他，菩薩眾有無量無邊恒河沙不可思議，皆集於彼。當於爾時，菩薩聲聞皆云如是我聞如來在某處說某甲經。須菩提云金剛般若經如是我聞佛在舍婆提城說，故知今言我聞者是須菩提也。

「一時」者，既曰我聞，說必有時，故次云一時。然時有多種，或有一念時、有日夜時、有百年時、有一劫時、有春秋冬夏時。今言一時者，非此等時，正是如來說此金剛般若經時。雖言一時，不云某年某月某日說，故不知何時也。如《大華嚴．世間凈眼品》，如來即成道日，在寂滅道場說；〈十地品〉，第二七日，在他化自在天中說；如十萬偈般若，如來成道五年說。經有成文。餘七部般若但云一時，皆不知何年說也。《如來藏經》，佛成道十年說。如《大集．寶幢品》，佛成道一年，王舍城迦蘭陀竹園說。〈陀羅尼自在王品〉，成道十六年，在欲色二界中間說。經有明文者即便可知，經無明文者即不可知也。然說

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 丘各自稱說：某甲（某人）經是『如是我聞』，佛陀在某處宣說。後來有邪惡的國王摧毀佛法，此後又有七百比丘重新結集法藏，都說是某甲經是從某甲比丘處聽聞，而不是從佛陀處聽聞。這次重新結集，都是小乘之人結集法藏。而且如來在鐵圍山外，不到達其他世界兩個世界中間，無量諸佛共同聚集在那裡，說完佛話經后，想要結集大乘法藏，又召集徒眾，羅漢有八十億那由他（古印度數字單位），菩薩眾有無量無邊恒河沙不可思議，都聚集在那裡。當時，菩薩聲聞都說是『如是我聞，如來在某處說某甲經』。須菩提（佛陀十大弟子之一，解空第一）說《金剛般若經》是『如是我聞，佛在舍婆提城（古印度城市）說』，所以知道現在說『我聞』的人是須菩提。

『一時』，既然說了『我聞』，說明說法必有時間，所以接著說『一時』。然而時間有多種，或者有一念時、有日夜時、有百年時、有一劫時、有春秋冬夏時。現在說的『一時』，不是這些時間，正是如來說這部《金剛般若經》的時間。雖然說『一時』，沒有說某年某月某日說，所以不知道是什麼時候。《大華嚴．世間凈眼品》中，如來在成道當天，在寂滅道場宣說；〈十地品〉中，成道后第二個七天，在他化自在天（欲界頂層天）中宣說；如十萬偈般若，如來成道五年後宣說。這些經文有明確記載。其餘七部般若都只說『一時』，都不知道是哪一年說的。《如來藏經》，佛陀成道十年後宣說。如《大集．寶幢品》，佛陀成道一年後，在王舍城（古印度城市）迦蘭陀竹園宣說。〈陀羅尼自在王品〉，成道十六年後，在欲界色界兩個世界中間宣說。經文有明確記載的就可以知道，經文沒有明確記載的就無法知道。然而說法

【English Translation】 English version The Bhikkhus (Buddhist monks) each claimed: 『So-and-so Sutra (a Buddhist scripture) is what I have heard, the Buddha spoke at such-and-such place.』 Later, an evil king destroyed the Buddha's Dharma (teachings), and after that, seven hundred Bhikkhus re-assembled the Dharma treasury, all saying that so-and-so Sutra was heard from so-and-so Bhikkhu, not heard from the Buddha. This re-assembly was all done by people of the Hinayana (small vehicle) assembling the Dharma treasury. Moreover, the Tathagata (Buddha) was outside the Iron Mountain Range, not reaching other worlds between the two realms, and countless Buddhas gathered there, and after speaking the Buddha's words Sutra, wanting to assemble the Mahayana (great vehicle) Dharma treasury, they summoned the disciples again, with eighty billion nayutas (ancient Indian numerical unit) of Arhats (enlightened beings), and countless, boundless, Ganges river sands of inconceivable Bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings), all gathered there. At that time, the Bodhisattvas and Sravakas (disciples) all said, 『Thus I have heard, the Tathagata spoke so-and-so Sutra at such-and-such place.』 Subhuti (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, foremost in understanding emptiness) said that the Diamond Prajna Sutra is 『Thus I have heard, the Buddha spoke in the city of Shravasti (ancient Indian city),』 so it is known that the one who now says 『I have heard』 is Subhuti.

『At one time,』 since it is said 『I have heard,』 it means that the speaking must have a time, so it follows with 『at one time.』 However, there are many kinds of time, such as a moment of thought, a day and night, a hundred years, a kalpa (an aeon), or the seasons of spring, autumn, winter, and summer. The 『at one time』 now spoken of is not these times, but precisely the time when the Tathagata spoke this Diamond Prajna Sutra. Although it says 『at one time,』 it does not say which year, month, or day it was spoken, so it is not known when it was. In the Great Avatamsaka Sutra, Chapter on the Pure Eye of the World, the Tathagata spoke on the day of enlightenment, in the Nirvana Bodhimanda (place of enlightenment); in the Tenth Bhumi Chapter, on the second seventh day after enlightenment, in the Paranirmitavasavartin Heaven (the highest heaven of the desire realm); such as the Prajna in ten thousand verses, the Tathagata spoke five years after enlightenment. These Sutras have clear records. The remaining seven Prajna Sutras only say 『at one time,』 and it is not known in which year they were spoken. The Tathagatagarbha Sutra was spoken ten years after the Buddha's enlightenment. Such as in the Great Collection Sutra, Chapter on the Jeweled Banner, the Buddha spoke one year after enlightenment, in the Kalanda Bamboo Grove in Rajagriha (ancient Indian city). The Dharani Free King Chapter was spoken sixteen years after enlightenment, between the desire realm and the form realm. Those Sutras with clear records can be known, and those without clear records cannot be known. However, the speaking

---

此經時雖不知幾年，足知中后時說。何以得知？經云「食時著衣持缽入城乞食，得食還園食訖，諸比丘方集說此經」，故知中后說也。相傳云：如來一代成道乃至涅槃，恒說《摩訶般若》、《華嚴》、《大集》未曾斷絕。此《金剛般若》八部之中是最後說也，須菩提直道我聞一時，不云幾年，是故但言一時也。上雖云如是般若理教我聞一時，未知從誰邊聞。若餘人邊聞，則不可信。今言我從佛聞，明知是如來所說，所以可信故。

次言「婆伽婆」。然此名乃是西國正音，魏無正名相播，故仍存胡本。義釋云能破煩惱，或云具足功德智慧，亦言有大名稱天人歸敬，亦云能降伏天摩制諸外道。如是等義乃眾多，非可具論，且云斯四耳。依西國正本，一切經首皆言婆伽婆。此方經初多雲佛在，時有安婆伽婆，亦有並存二名者。此第四明能說人也。

前雖云從佛邊聞，未知如來於何處說。若無方所，則不可信，故次云「在舍婆提城」也。然如來法身妙絕形相，常在聖行梵行中住。故下經言「諸佛以不住道為處」，如是身者豈有頑域方處？而言在舍婆提者，明諸佛應現正欲赴眾生感。眾生既有方所，故聖亦同之。又欲令未來眾生知如來在此處說金剛般若，生敬重心，或時禮拜、或復讚歎、或時起塔、香華供養尊重，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：雖然不知道這部經是什麼時候說的，但可以肯定是在中期或後期說的。為什麼這麼說呢？經中說：『吃飯的時候，穿好衣服，拿著缽進入城裡乞食，得到食物后回到園中吃完，眾比丘才聚集起來宣說這部經』，因此可以知道是在中期或後期說的。相傳，如來一代成道乃至涅槃，一直宣說《摩訶般若》（Mahaprajnaparamita，偉大的智慧）、《華嚴》（Avatamsaka Sutra，花環經）、《大集》（Mahasamnipata Sutra，偉大的集會經），從未間斷。這部《金剛般若》（Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra，金剛般若波羅蜜多經）在八部般若之中是最後說的。須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）直接說『我聞一時』，沒有說幾年，所以只說一時。上面雖然說『如是般若理教我聞一時』，但不知道是從誰那裡聽來的。如果是從其他人那裡聽來的，就不可信。現在說『我從佛聞』，明確知道是如來說的，所以可以相信。 接著說『婆伽婆』（Bhagavan，世尊）。這個名稱是西國的正音，魏國沒有對應的名稱可以傳播，所以仍然保留胡本。解釋其含義為能破除煩惱，或者說具足功德智慧，也說有大名稱，天人和人都歸敬，也說能降伏天魔，制服各種外道。像這樣的含義有很多，不能全部論述，暫且說這四種。按照西國的正本，一切經的首句都說『婆伽婆』。這邊的經文開頭大多說『佛在』，有時安上『婆伽婆』，也有兩個名稱並存的。這第四個說明了能說法的人。 前面雖然說從佛那裡聽來的，但不知道如來在什麼地方說的。如果沒有地點，就不可信，所以接著說『在舍婆提城』（Sravasti，古印度城市）。然而，如來的法身妙絕形相，常住在聖行梵行中。所以下經說『諸佛以不住道為處』，像這樣的身軀怎麼會有固定的地域方所呢？說在舍婆提城，是說明諸佛應現，正是爲了應眾生的感應。眾生既然有方所，所以聖人也和他們一樣。又想讓未來的眾生知道如來在這裡說了《金剛般若》，生起恭敬心，或者禮拜，或者讚歎，或者建塔，用香花供養尊重。

【English Translation】 English version: Although the exact year this sutra was spoken is unknown, it is certain that it was spoken in the middle or later period. How can we know this? The sutra says, 'At mealtime, they would put on their robes, carry their bowls, and enter the city to beg for food. After obtaining food, they would return to the garden, finish eating, and then the Bhikkhus (monks) would gather to expound this sutra.' Therefore, it is known that it was spoken in the middle or later period. It is traditionally said that from the time the Tathagata (Buddha) attained enlightenment until his Nirvana (death), he constantly expounded the 'Mahaprajnaparamita' (Great Perfection of Wisdom), the 'Avatamsaka Sutra' (Flower Garland Sutra), and the 'Mahasamnipata Sutra' (Great Collection Sutra) without interruption. This 'Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra' (Diamond Sutra) is the last of the eight Prajna (wisdom) sections to be spoken. Subhuti (a disciple of the Buddha) directly stated, 'I heard at one time,' without mentioning any specific year, so it is only said to be at one time. Although it was mentioned above, 'Thus, the principle and teachings of Prajna (wisdom) I heard at one time,' it is unknown from whom it was heard. If it were heard from someone else, it would not be credible. Now, it is said, 'I heard from the Buddha,' clearly indicating that it was spoken by the Tathagata (Buddha), and therefore it is credible. Next, it says 'Bhagavan' (Blessed One, Lord). This name is the correct pronunciation from the Western lands, but the Wei dynasty (Chinese dynasty) did not have a corresponding name to propagate it, so the original foreign version was retained. The meaning is explained as being able to destroy afflictions, or as possessing complete merit and wisdom. It is also said to have a great name, revered by gods and humans, and to be able to subdue the heavenly demons and control various heretics. There are many such meanings, which cannot all be discussed in detail, so let's just mention these four. According to the correct version from the Western lands, all sutras begin with 'Bhagavan'. Sutras here (China) often begin with 'The Buddha was at...', sometimes adding 'Bhagavan', and sometimes using both names together. This fourth point clarifies the speaker. Although it was mentioned earlier that it was heard from the Buddha, it is unknown where the Tathagata (Buddha) spoke it. If there were no location, it would not be credible, so it next says 'in the city of Sravasti' (an ancient Indian city). However, the Dharmakaya (body of truth) of the Tathagata (Buddha) is wonderfully beyond form and appearance, and always dwells in the holy conduct and pure conduct. Therefore, the following sutra says, 'All Buddhas take non-abiding as their dwelling place.' How could such a body have a fixed region or location? Saying that it was in the city of Sravasti (an ancient Indian city) clarifies that the Buddhas appear in response to the feelings of sentient beings. Since sentient beings have locations, the sages are the same as them. Furthermore, it is intended to let future sentient beings know that the Tathagata (Buddha) spoke the 'Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra' (Diamond Sutra) here, giving rise to a respectful heart, perhaps bowing, perhaps praising, perhaps building a stupa (a mound-like or hemispherical structure containing relics), offering incense and flowers with respect.

---

器世間生功德故。此舍婆提城者，昔劫初有仙兄弟二人，弟名舍婆，魏云幼小；兄阿婆提，魏云不可害。此二人住彼處求道，即因為名。弟略去婆，兄略去阿，二名雙存，故曰舍婆提城，亦言舍衛城。如因拘尸那仙人，名拘尸那城；因迦毗羅仙人，名迦毗羅衛城。此皆因人為名也。唯阿逾阇城因事為名，魏云不可除伏城也。

「祇樹給孤獨園」者，上雖云在舍婆提城，其處猶寬，是以第二指其別處也。祇者，外國音，其國太子名祇陀鳩摩羅。祇陀者魏播云太子，鳩摩羅者魏播云童子。樹者此方之名也。此園先屬太子，須達長者后時以黃金布地買得此園，廣集貧窮孤老於中養濟，又復于中造立精舍，時人因名給孤獨園。雙舉兩主，並置胡漢之名，故曰祇樹給孤獨園也。

「與大比丘眾」者，前雖云我聞，主知與誰同聞，故列同聞之人皆是羅漢眾也。「千二百五十人」者，舉現在大數也。若作六句，此同聞人應是第六句。若作五句，則我聞中攝也。依下流通分中具列菩薩，四眾八部聞經歡喜，何故此中但云千二百五十比丘，而不具列諸眾者？出以此經其義雖廣而其文至略，故此序分中不廣辨同聞之人，但出大比丘之數，常隨徒眾后則具列也。余經皆列名嘆德辨數在先，所以此經𨷂不列名、不嘆德者，亦以文略

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為器世間產生功德的緣故。這個舍婆提城（Śrāvastī，意為『聞者歡喜』之城），在過去劫初的時候，有仙人兄弟二人，弟弟名叫舍婆（Śrava），翻譯成漢語是『幼小』；哥哥名叫阿婆提（Apavāta），翻譯成漢語是『不可害』。這兩人住在那個地方修行求道，就因此而得名。弟弟的名字省略了『婆』字，哥哥的名字省略了『阿』字，兩個名字都保留了下來，所以叫做舍婆提城，也叫做舍衛城。就像因為拘尸那（Kuśināra）仙人的緣故，叫做拘尸那城；因為迦毗羅（Kapilavastu）仙人的緣故，叫做迦毗羅衛城。這些都是因為人而得名。只有阿逾阇城（Ayodhyā）是因為事情而得名，翻譯成漢語是『不可除伏城』。 『祇樹給孤獨園』（Jetavanārāthapiṇḍada-ārāma）這個地方，上面雖然說是在舍婆提城，但是那個地方仍然很寬廣，所以第二句就指明了它的具體位置。『祇』（Jeta）是外國的音譯，他們國家的太子名叫祇陀鳩摩羅（Jeta Kumāra）。『祇陀』翻譯成漢語是『太子』，『鳩摩羅』翻譯成漢語是『童子』。『樹』是這個地方的名字。這個園林先前屬於太子，須達長者（Sudatta），後來用黃金鋪滿地面買下了這個園林，廣泛地聚集貧窮孤獨年老的人在這裡供養救濟，又在這裡建造了精舍，當時的人因此稱它為給孤獨園（Anāthapiṇḍada-ārāma）。同時提到了兩位主人，並且並列了音譯和漢語的名字，所以叫做祇樹給孤獨園。 『與大比丘眾』，前面雖然說『我聞』，主要是要知道和誰一起聽聞，所以列出了一起聽聞的人，他們都是阿羅漢眾。『千二百五十人』，是舉出一個現在的約數。如果按照六句經文的結構，這些一起聽聞的人應該屬於第六句。如果按照五句經文的結構，那麼就包含在『我聞』之中了。根據後面流通分中詳細列出的菩薩，四眾八部聽聞佛經后歡喜的情況，為什麼這裡只說『千二百五十比丘』，而不詳細列出各種聽眾呢？這是因為這部經的意義雖然廣博，但是它的文字卻非常簡略，所以在這序分中沒有詳細地辨別一起聽聞的人，只是列出了大比丘的數量，經常跟隨的徒眾在後面會詳細列出。其他的經典都先列出名字、讚歎功德、辨明數量，而這部經卻不列出名字、不讚嘆功德，也是因為文字簡略的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: It is because the realm of vessels (Bhājana-loka) generates merit. This city of Śrāvastī (meaning 'city where those who hear are delighted'), in the beginning of a past kalpa (aeon), there were two immortal brothers. The younger brother was named Śrava (meaning 'young' in Chinese translation), and the elder brother was named Apavāta (meaning 'invincible' in Chinese translation). These two lived there practicing the Way, and thus the place was named after them. The younger brother's name omitted 'va', and the elder brother's name omitted 'A', retaining both names, hence it is called the city of Śrāvastī, also known as the city of Śrāvastī. Similarly, because of the immortal Kuśināra, it is called the city of Kuśināra; because of the immortal Kapilavastu, it is called the city of Kapilavastu. These are all named after people. Only the city of Ayodhyā is named after an event, translated into Chinese as 'city that cannot be subdued'. The 'Jetavana-anāthapiṇḍada-ārāma', although mentioned above as being in the city of Śrāvastī, the area is still vast, so the second phrase specifies its particular location. 'Jeta' is a foreign transliteration; the prince of that country was named Jeta Kumāra. 'Jeta' is translated into Chinese as 'prince', and 'Kumāra' is translated into Chinese as 'child'. 'Vana' (tree) is the name of this place. This garden originally belonged to the prince. Later, the elder Sudatta bought this garden by covering the ground with gold, widely gathering the poor, orphaned, and elderly to support and provide for them. He also built a vihāra (monastery) there, and people at that time called it Anāthapiṇḍada-ārāma (the garden of the supporter of the orphans and the destitute). Mentioning both owners and placing the transliterated and Chinese names side by side, hence it is called Jetavana-anāthapiṇḍada-ārāma. The phrase 'with a great assembly of bhikṣus (monks)' indicates that although it was said earlier 'Thus I have heard', it is important to know with whom it was heard. Therefore, those who heard together are listed, and they are all arhats (worthy ones). 'Twelve hundred and fifty' is an approximate number of those present. If structured as six lines, these who heard together should belong to the sixth line. If structured as five lines, then it is included in 'Thus I have heard'. According to the detailed listing of bodhisattvas, the four assemblies, and the eight classes of beings rejoicing after hearing the sutra in the distribution section below, why does it only say 'twelve hundred and fifty bhikṣus' here, without listing all the various assemblies? This is because although the meaning of this sutra is vast, its text is very concise. Therefore, in this introduction section, the people who heard together are not extensively distinguished, but only the number of great bhikṣus is given. The disciples who regularly follow will be listed in detail later. Other sutras first list names, praise virtues, and clarify numbers, but this sutra does not list names or praise virtues, also because of the conciseness of the text.

---

故也。大比丘者，義乃多種，今但取斷煩惱盡得羅漢者以之為大比丘。此中不取白四羯磨等九種比丘，故曰大也。比丘者，外國正音，此方義釋或云乞士、或云破惡、或云怖魔，無正名相播，故仍存西本也。

「爾時世尊食時」者，日中前時，表沙門少欲，食必有時也。

「著衣持缽」者，表出家人知足之相，唯三衣缽更無餘長，出入隨身猶如飛鳥不捨二翼，去住隨意情無繫戀也。

「入舍婆提大城」者，傳云祇園在此城東，從外而入也。大城者，此城寬博縱廣十二由旬，居民凡有十八億家，故曰大城也。如來所以入城者，為乞食故也。然如來法身金剛之體不假食而立，所言如來乞食者，如來現行乞食有多種利益，是故如來入城乞食。若具辨乞食利益乃有多種，經中但云二十，今且論其十種：一者如來入城乞食，眾生見如來三十二相八十種好，妙相莊嚴如須彌山王，發菩提心求如來身。二者聾盲喑痾諸苦眾生見如來，暫時止苦發菩提心。三者諸豪貴長者自恃種性生於我慢，見如來威德嚴儀挺特異世，憍慢心息發菩提心。四為守護女人有三鑒：在家為父母所護，出嫁為夫主所護，老時為子所護，及懈怠者不能見佛，見如來入城，情懷歡喜發菩提心。五為釋梵四王、天龍八部導從如來，各各以天香華伎

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是的。『大比丘』（Mahābhikṣu）這個詞，含義有很多種，現在只取斷除煩惱、證得阿羅漢果位的比丘作為『大比丘』的解釋。這裡不包括通過白四羯磨等九種方式成為比丘的人，所以稱為『大』。 『比丘』（Bhikṣu）是外國的正確發音，在本地的義譯中，有的說是『乞士』，有的說是『破惡』，有的說是『怖魔』，沒有統一的名稱流傳，所以仍然保留了梵文的原本發音。

『爾時世尊食時』，指的是日中之前的時間，表明沙門（Śrāmaṇa）少欲知足，吃飯一定有固定的時間。

『著衣持缽』，表明出家人知足常樂的樣子，只有三衣一缽，沒有多餘的東西，出入隨身，就像飛鳥不離雙翼，來去隨意，心中沒有牽掛。

『入舍婆提大城』（Śrāvastī），傳說祇園精舍（Jetavana）在這座城市的東邊，（佛陀）從外面進入城市。『大城』，指的是這座城市寬廣博大，縱橫十二由旬（Yojana），居民共有十八億戶，所以稱為『大城』。如來進入城市的原因，是爲了乞食。然而，如來的法身是金剛之體，不需要食物也能存在，所說的如來乞食，是如來示現乞食有多種利益，所以如來進入城市乞食。如果詳細說明乞食的利益，有很多種，經中只說了二十種，現在先說其中的十種： 一、如來進入城市乞食，眾生見到如來三十二相八十種好，美妙的相貌莊嚴如同須彌山王（Sumeru），發起菩提心，希望得到如來一樣的身相。 二、聾啞盲人等受苦的眾生見到如來，暫時停止痛苦，發起菩提心。 三、那些自恃種姓高貴的豪門貴族和長者，因為我慢心，見到如來威德莊嚴，與衆不同，憍慢心平息，發起菩提心。 四、爲了守護女人有三重保護：在家時有父母守護，出嫁後有丈夫守護，年老時有兒子守護，以及懈怠的人不能見到佛，見到如來進入城市，心情歡喜，發起菩提心。 五、爲了釋梵四王（Śakra, Brahmā, Lokapālas）、天龍八部（Nāga and other supernatural beings）引導跟隨如來，各自用天上的香花伎樂

【English Translation】 English version: Yes. The term 'Mahābhikṣu' (Great Bhikṣu) has various meanings, but here it refers specifically to a Bhikṣu who has eradicated afflictions and attained Arhatship. This excludes the nine types of Bhikshus ordained through procedures like the white four karmas, hence the term 'Great'. 'Bhikṣu' is the correct foreign pronunciation. In local translations, it is sometimes rendered as 'beggar,' 'destroyer of evil,' or 'fearful to demons.' Due to the lack of a standardized name, the original Sanskrit term is retained.

'At that time, the World Honored One's mealtime' refers to the time before noon, indicating the Śrāmaṇa's (ascetic) contentment with little and the adherence to a fixed time for meals.

'Wearing robes and carrying a bowl' signifies the contentment of a renunciant, possessing only three robes and a bowl, carrying them at all times like a bird never abandoning its wings, freely going and staying without attachment.

'Entering the great city of Śrāvastī,' tradition says that Jetavana Monastery is located east of this city, (the Buddha) entering from the outside. 'Great city' refers to the city's vastness, spanning twelve Yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of distance) in length and breadth, with a population of eighteen billion households, hence the term 'Great city.' The reason for the Tathāgata's (another name for Buddha) entry into the city is for alms. However, the Tathāgata's Dharma body is of diamond essence and does not require food for sustenance. The Tathāgata's act of begging for alms demonstrates various benefits, which is why the Tathāgata enters the city for alms. If the benefits of begging for alms were to be fully explained, there would be many, but the scriptures mention only twenty. Here, we will discuss ten of them: 1. When the Tathāgata enters the city for alms, sentient beings see the Tathāgata's thirty-two major marks and eighty minor characteristics, the wondrous appearance as majestic as Mount Sumeru (the central world-mountain), and generate Bodhicitta (the aspiration for enlightenment), desiring to attain a body like the Tathāgata's. 2. Deaf, mute, blind, and suffering beings, upon seeing the Tathāgata, temporarily cease their suffering and generate Bodhicitta. 3. Arrogant nobles and elders who rely on their high birth, upon seeing the Tathāgata's majestic and dignified demeanor, distinct from the world, have their arrogance subdued and generate Bodhicitta. 4. To protect women who have triple protection: protected by parents at home, by husband after marriage, and by sons in old age, and those who are lazy and cannot see the Buddha, upon seeing the Tathāgata entering the city, feel joy and generate Bodhicitta. 5. For Śakra (King of Gods), Brahmā (Creator God), the Four Lokapālas (Guardian Kings), Nāgas (serpent deities) and other supernatural beings to guide and follow the Tathāgata, each offering heavenly incense, flowers, and music.

---

樂讚歎供養如來，此中諸人見即生念：「諸天尚舍天樂供養如來，我等何以不爾？」便學諸天神祇廣設供養髮菩提心。六如來入城乞食，四天王各奉一缽，如來受已合四缽為一。佛現如此不思議事，見者歡喜發菩提心。七為貧富二人施食。然富人饒食，欲多施如來，便見如來缽空，故得多施。貪者食少，懼不敢施，便見如來缽滿，故得少施。令各稱意，都此希有之事，故發菩提心。八為如來缽中盛百味飲食，皆不雜亂如異器盛；施一切眾僧及諸眾生，食之不增不減，見者歡喜發菩提心。九為未來弟子為俗人譏呵云：「汝師如來尚不乞食，汝何故乞食？」是故如來現行乞食也。十者如來金剛之體身內不空，又常在三昧，其實不食，唯有諸天知如來不食，為化眾生入城乞食。現行乞食有此多益，故入城乞食也。

「于其城中次第乞食」者，西國法四性住城內，屠兒魁膾居城外，若入城時搖鈴為拭，各自別行不相雜合。今言次第者，城內四姓中不捨貧從富，又不棄賤從貴，故云次第乞食。若爾佛于眾生則心不平等也？此明如來心非不等，但隨國法故也。然如來亦入下賤家乞食，如來設至下賤家者不令人見，若剎利、婆羅門等見則便譏呵云：「沙門不清凈人，乃從下賤人乞食。」遂不生敬重。若諸貴不生敬重，則佛法不

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 讚歎和供養如來，這裡的人們看到後會想：『諸天尚且捨棄天樂來供養如來，我們為什麼不這樣做呢？』於是便學習諸天神祇，廣設供養，發起菩提心。六位如來入城乞食，四大天王各自奉獻一個缽，如來接受后將四個缽合為一個。佛顯現如此不可思議之事，見者歡喜，發起菩提心。為貧窮和富裕的兩個人施食。富人食物充足，想要多施捨給如來，便看到如來的缽是空的，所以能夠多施捨。貪婪的人食物很少，害怕不敢施捨，便看到如來的缽是滿的，所以只能少施捨。讓每個人都稱心如意，都是這種稀有的事情，所以發起菩提心。如來的缽中盛滿百味飲食，但都不會混雜，就像用不同的器皿盛放一樣；施捨給一切眾僧以及所有眾生，食物吃了也不會增多或減少，見到的人歡喜，發起菩提心。爲了未來的弟子，避免被世俗之人譏諷說：『你們的老師如來尚且不乞食，你們為什麼還要乞食？』所以如來才示現乞食。如來金剛之體，身內並非空虛，而且常常處於三昧之中，實際上並不需要飲食，只有諸天知道如來不食，爲了教化眾生才入城乞食。示現乞食有這麼多的益處，所以才入城乞食。 『在城中次第乞食』，西國的法律是四種姓住在城內，屠夫和劊子手住在城外，如果進入城內時會搖鈴作為標誌，各自 अलग 行走，不會混雜在一起。現在說次第乞食，是指在城內四種姓中，不捨棄貧窮的人而只選擇富人，也不拋棄低賤的人而只選擇高貴的人，所以說是次第乞食。如果這樣，佛陀對於眾生豈不是心不平等嗎？這裡說明如來的心並非不平等，只是隨順國家的法律罷了。然而如來也會進入家乞食，如來如果到家乞食，不會讓人看見，如果剎帝利、婆羅門等看見了，就會譏諷說：『沙門是不清凈的人，竟然從**人那裡乞食。』於是就不生起敬重之心。如果各位貴族不生起敬重之心，那麼佛法就不能...

【English Translation】 English version Praising and making offerings to the Tathagata, the people here will think upon seeing this: 'Even the devas (gods) are giving up their celestial music to make offerings to the Tathagata, why shouldn't we?' Then they will learn from the devas and deities, extensively making offerings and generating the Bodhi mind (mind of enlightenment). Six Tathagatas (Buddhas) enter the city to beg for food, and the Four Heavenly Kings each offer a bowl. The Tathagata receives them and combines the four bowls into one. The Buddha manifests such an inconceivable event, and those who see it rejoice and generate the Bodhi mind. For the poor and the rich to give food. The rich have plenty of food and want to give more to the Tathagata, so they see that the Tathagata's bowl is empty, so they can give more. The greedy have little food and are afraid to give, so they see that the Tathagata's bowl is full, so they can only give less. Making everyone satisfied, all these are rare events, so they generate the Bodhi mind. The Tathagata's bowl is filled with hundreds of flavors of food, but they are not mixed, as if they were placed in different containers; giving to all the Sangha (monastic community) and all sentient beings, the food does not increase or decrease when eaten, and those who see it rejoice and generate the Bodhi mind. For the future disciples, to avoid being ridiculed by worldly people saying: 'Your teacher, the Tathagata, does not even beg for food, why do you beg for food?' Therefore, the Tathagata manifests begging for food. The Tathagata's adamantine body is not empty inside, and is always in Samadhi (meditative state), so he does not actually need food. Only the devas know that the Tathagata does not eat, but enters the city to beg for food in order to teach sentient beings. Manifesting begging for food has so many benefits, so he enters the city to beg for food. 'Begging for food in the city in order', the law of the Western countries is that the four castes live in the city, and the butchers and executioners live outside the city. If they enter the city, they will ring a bell as a sign, and each will walk separately and not mix together. Now, saying 'in order' means that among the four castes in the city, one does not abandon the poor and only choose the rich, nor does one abandon the lowly and only choose the noble, so it is called begging for food in order. If so, is the Buddha's mind not equal towards sentient beings? This explains that the Tathagata's mind is not unequal, but simply follows the laws of the country. However, the Tathagata also enters the 's house to beg for food. If the Tathagata goes to the 's house to beg for food, he will not let people see it. If the Kshatriyas (warrior caste), Brahmins (priest caste), etc. see it, they will ridicule him, saying: 'The Shramana (ascetic) is an impure person, and actually begs for food from the **.' Then they will not generate respect. If the nobles do not generate respect, then the Buddha's teachings will not...

---

立故。西國沙門多不從屠兒旃陀羅而行乞食，又亦不到惡象惡馬惡狗等家而乞食也。唯有如來一人得次第乞食，其餘比丘一向不得次第乞食也。

「還至本處」者，乞食得已，還至祇園也。

「飯食訖」者，如來不食現食，所缽分為三分，一分置草葉上施陸地眾生，一分置水中施水中眾生，一分自食。然如來其實不食，唯有諸天知如來不食現食也。

「收衣缽」者，疊僧伽梨，洗缽已著常處也。

「洗足已」者，然如來腳足猶如蓮華塵水不著。諸佛常法受步行法，然如來行地，離地四指足不躡地，下生蓮華承如來足，豈有塵垢？而言洗足，示出家人威儀嚴凈有可敬之相也。

「如常敷坐」者，此非是人天八部所造、弟子所敷，亦非如來念故方有，明諸佛如來殖因深厚，自然報有七寶堂閣眾寶妙坐，不假施設，故云如常敷坐。佛欲坐則有，去已則無也。結跏趺坐者，四威儀中坐威儀勝，若行住者則多疲惓，久而無患又隨順三昧，見者歡喜皆發菩意也。

「端身而住」者，此明如來身業。表明如來離威儀濁，有三昧相儼然不動，如鑄金像、如木索人也。

「正念不動」者，此明如來意業。專心一境得勝三昧，更無移躁故不動也。正念既是心法。何以可知？然正念雖是心法，冥

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『立故』。西國的沙門（shamen，出家人）大多不從屠夫旃陀羅（zhantuluo，古印度社會中從事低下職業的人）那裡乞食，也不會到有兇惡的象、馬、狗等人家裡乞食。只有如來（rulai，佛的稱號）一人可以次第乞食，其餘比丘（biqiu，出家受具足戒的男子）一概不得次第乞食。

『還至本處』，是指乞食完畢后，返回祇園（qiyuan，佛教寺院）。

『飯食訖』，如來不食用現成的食物，將缽里的食物分為三份，一份放在草葉上施給陸地上的眾生，一份放在水中施給水中的眾生，一份自己食用。然而如來實際上並不食用，只有諸天（zhutian，天神）知道如來不食用現成的食物。

『收衣缽』，是指疊好僧伽梨（sengqieli，袈裟），洗凈缽後放在通常放置的地方。

『洗足已』，如來的腳猶如蓮花一般，不沾染塵水。諸佛通常奉行步行的法則，然而如來行走時，腳離地面四指高，不踩在地上，地面會生出蓮花承托如來的腳，怎麼會有塵垢呢？說洗腳，是爲了顯示出家人的威儀莊嚴清凈，有令人尊敬的相貌。

『如常敷坐』，這並非是人天八部（rentianbabu，佛教中的八類護法神）所造，也不是弟子們鋪設的，也不是如來意念所致才有的。說明諸佛如來種植的善因深厚，自然感得七寶堂閣和眾寶妙座的果報，不需要人為的設施，所以說『如常敷坐』。佛想坐的時候它就出現，離開后它就消失。結跏趺坐（jiejiaduzuozuo，佛教修行的一種坐姿），四種威儀中坐的威儀最為殊勝，如果行走站立，則容易疲倦，長久坐著沒有患病，又隨順三昧（sanmei，禪定），見到的人歡喜，都發起菩提心。

『端身而住』，這是說明如來的身業。表明如來遠離威儀的污濁，有三昧的相貌，儼然不動，如同用金鑄造的雕像，如同用木頭做成的傀儡。

『正念不動』，這是說明如來的意業。專心於一個境界，得到殊勝的三昧，不再有轉移躁動，所以不動。正念既然是心法，如何得知？雖然正念是心法，冥

【English Translation】 English version: 『Li Gu (立故)』 [Established Reason]. The Shramanas (沙門, renunciants) of the Western countries mostly do not beg for food from butchers, Chandalas (旃陀羅, outcastes in ancient Indian society), nor do they go to the houses of fierce elephants, horses, or dogs to beg for food. Only the Tathagata (如來, the title of a Buddha) alone can beg for food in an orderly manner; other Bhikkhus (比丘, fully ordained monks) are not allowed to beg for food in an orderly manner.

『Huan Zhi Ben Chu (還至本處)』 [Returning to the Original Place] means returning to Jetavana (祇園, a Buddhist monastery) after begging for food.

『Fan Shi Qi (飯食訖)』 [Meal Finished] means that the Tathagata does not eat prepared food. He divides the food in his bowl into three portions: one portion is placed on grass leaves to give to the beings on land, one portion is placed in the water to give to the beings in the water, and one portion is for himself. However, the Tathagata does not actually eat it; only the Devas (諸天, gods) know that the Tathagata does not eat prepared food.

『Shou Yi Bo (收衣缽)』 [Putting Away Robe and Bowl] means folding the Sanghati (僧伽梨, monastic robe) and washing the bowl before placing it in its usual place.

『Xi Zu Yi (洗足已)』 [Washing Feet Finished] means that the Tathagata』s feet are like lotuses, untouched by dust and water. The Buddhas usually practice walking, but when the Tathagata walks, his feet are four fingers above the ground, not touching the ground. Lotuses grow beneath to support the Tathagata』s feet. How could there be dust? Saying 『washing feet』 is to show the dignified, solemn, and pure appearance of a renunciant, which is worthy of respect.

『Ru Chang Fu Zuo (如常敷坐)』 [As Usual Spreading the Seat] means that this is not made by the eight classes of gods and humans (人天八部, eight types of protective deities in Buddhism), nor is it spread by the disciples, nor does it appear because of the Tathagata』s thought. It shows that the Buddhas and Tathagatas have planted deep roots of good karma, and naturally receive the reward of seven-jeweled halls and pavilions and wonderful seats of many treasures, without the need for artificial arrangements. Therefore, it is said 『as usual spreading the seat.』 It appears when the Buddha wants to sit, and disappears after he leaves. Sitting in the lotus position (結跏趺坐, a meditative posture in Buddhism) is the most excellent of the four kinds of deportment. If one walks or stands, one is easily tired. Sitting for a long time is free from illness, and it accords with Samadhi (三昧, meditative absorption). Those who see it rejoice and all generate Bodhicitta (菩提心, the mind of enlightenment).

『Duan Shen Er Zhu (端身而住)』 [Upright Body Abiding] explains the Tathagata』s bodily karma. It shows that the Tathagata is free from the turbidity of deportment, has the appearance of Samadhi, and remains still, like a golden statue or a wooden puppet.

『Zheng Nian Bu Dong (正念不動)』 [Right Mindfulness Unmoving] explains the Tathagata』s mental karma. Focusing the mind on one object, one attains supreme Samadhi, and there is no more shifting or restlessness, so one is unmoving. Since right mindfulness is a mental dharma, how can it be known? Although right mindfulness is a mental dharma, it is subtle

---

漠難惻，以形靜驗心足知有定。如得定比丘，或一日不動、或七日不動。以身不動故，明知內心有定。自此前其序分。

「爾時諸比丘」以下訖「善付囑諸菩薩」，此是第二段經，名為善護念分也。此所以名善護念者，須菩提既得如來冥加之力，將欲稟如來。此冥加力故親對如來，為諸菩薩說金剛般若，欲問地上三種事發起下經故。初首嘆言「希有世尊！如來善護念善付屬諸菩薩」，此明如來善能教化根熟未熟二種菩薩，令世間解滿，速入性地及初地大乘法中故。次明此第二分也。

「諸比丘」者，此猶是如來常隨徒眾千二百五十比丘。而所以言「來詣佛所」者，此諸比丘常法各在四面，離佛住處或一百二百步外，隨己所宜如法行道，不得近佛。若近佛者，則多妨丙，是故遠住。如來乞食自持衣缽不將弟子，又諸比丘各自乞食不隨如來。如來常法，食后為四眾八部如應說法，是故如來威力冥加，令諸比丘來詣佛所也。若如來不以意力加者，則諸比丘無由得來也。

「爾時惠命須菩提恭敬而立，白佛言希有世尊」者，一切聲聞菩薩于如來前凡欲有所發問，若不蒙佛加被則不敢發問。然須菩提若實是聲聞，則要假佛加方能發問；設是方便菩薩權為聲聞，亦假如來加被方能問也。如來向來始欲集眾而未有

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 漠難惻（Mònáncè），通過身體的靜止來驗證內心，足以知道他有禪定。例如，如果得到禪定的比丘，或者一天不動，或者七天不動。因為身體不動，就明顯知道內心有禪定。這之前是序分。 從『爾時諸比丘』以下到『善付囑諸菩薩』，這是第二段經文，名為善護念分。之所以稱為善護念，是因為須菩提（Subhuti）已經得到如來暗中加持的力量，將要稟告如來。因為這暗中加持的力量，所以親自面對如來，為諸菩薩（Bodhisattva）宣說金剛般若，想要詢問地上三種事，從而發起下面的經文。首先讚歎說『希有世尊！如來善護念善付屬諸菩薩』，這說明如來善於教化根器成熟和未成熟的兩種菩薩，使世間解脫圓滿，迅速進入性地以及初地大乘佛法之中。其次說明這第二部分。 『諸比丘』，這仍然是如來經常跟隨的徒眾，一千二百五十比丘（Bhikkhu）。之所以說『來詣佛所』，是因為這些比丘通常各自在四面，遠離佛的住處或者一百步二百步之外，按照自己的情況如法修行，不得靠近佛。如果靠近佛，就會多有妨礙，所以遠離居住。如來乞食自己拿著衣缽，不帶領弟子，而且諸比丘各自乞食，不跟隨如來。如來的通常做法是，飯後為四眾八部如應說法，所以如來用威力暗中加持，讓諸比丘來到佛的住所。如果如來不用意念加持，那麼諸比丘就沒有辦法來到這裡。 『爾時惠命須菩提恭敬而立，白佛言希有世尊』，一切聲聞（Śrāvaka）菩薩在如來面前，凡是想要有所發問，如果不蒙受佛的加持，就不敢發問。然而須菩提如果確實是聲聞，就要藉助佛的加持才能發問；假設是方便菩薩，權且作為聲聞，也要假如來加持才能發問。如來先前開始想要聚集大眾，但還沒有...

【English Translation】 English version Mònáncè (Mònáncè), one can verify the mind through the stillness of the body, which is sufficient to know that one has samadhi. For example, if a Bhikkhu (Bhikkhu) attains samadhi, he may remain motionless for a day or seven days. Because the body is motionless, it is clear that the mind has samadhi. This is the prologue before this point. From 'At that time, the Bhikkhus' to 'well entrusted to all Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva)', this is the second section of the sutra, called the 'Section on Skillful Protection and Mindfulness'. The reason it is called 'Skillful Protection and Mindfulness' is that Subhuti (Subhuti) has already received the power of the Tathagata's (Tathagata) secret blessing and is about to report to the Tathagata. Because of this secret blessing, he personally faces the Tathagata to expound the Diamond Prajna to all Bodhisattvas, intending to inquire about the three matters on the ground, thus initiating the following sutra. First, he exclaims, 'Rare is the World Honored One! The Tathagata is skilled in protecting and mindful, well entrusting all Bodhisattvas,' which indicates that the Tathagata is skilled in teaching both Bodhisattvas with mature and immature roots, enabling the world to attain complete liberation and quickly enter the stage of self-nature and the first ground of Mahayana Dharma. Secondly, it explains this second section. 'The Bhikkhus' refers to the Tathagata's constant followers, the one thousand two hundred and fifty Bhikkhus (Bhikkhu). The reason it says 'came to the Buddha's place' is that these Bhikkhus usually reside in all four directions, away from the Buddha's residence by one hundred or two hundred paces, practicing the Dharma according to their own circumstances, and are not allowed to approach the Buddha. If they approach the Buddha, there will be many disturbances, so they reside far away. The Tathagata begs for food and carries his own robes and bowl, without leading disciples, and the Bhikkhus beg for food separately, without following the Tathagata. The Tathagata's usual practice is to expound the Dharma to the four assemblies and eight divisions after meals, so the Tathagata secretly blesses them with his power, causing the Bhikkhus to come to the Buddha's place. If the Tathagata does not bless them with his intention, then the Bhikkhus would have no way to come here. 'At that time, the wise Subhuti stood up respectfully and said to the Buddha, 'Rare is the World Honored One!' All Śrāvakas (Śrāvaka) and Bodhisattvas before the Tathagata, whenever they wish to ask a question, dare not ask unless they receive the Buddha's blessing. However, if Subhuti is indeed a Śrāvaka, he must rely on the Buddha's blessing to ask a question; supposing he is an expedient Bodhisattva, temporarily acting as a Śrāvaka, he must also rely on the Tathagata's blessing to ask a question. The Tathagata had previously begun to gather the assembly, but had not yet...

---

所說，須菩提有何因緣，于大眾中便嘆如來言「希有世尊！如來善護念善付屬諸菩薩」者，以須菩提先得如來冥加力故，智惠辨才與佛無異，將異諸菩薩說金剛般若波羅蜜經，欲問如來地上三種事發起下經，是故嘆言希有世尊也。此言希有者，非謂以時時有故為希有也。此音希有，乃云爲增，亦言為能，亦可云善也。此明如來快能護念付囑二種菩薩，應根授藥不差機會，不令失受道之時，故曰希有也。

「如來、應、正遍知」者，略嘆三號也。

「善護念諸菩薩、善付屬諸菩薩」者，泛論菩薩有二種：一者初地以上出世間菩薩；二者地前世間菩薩。地前菩薩復有二種：一者外凡；二者內凡。就內凡菩薩復有二種：一根熟；二者根未熟。今言善護念者，嘆如來善護地前姓種解行根熟菩薩。善付屬者，嘆付屬習種性中根未熟菩薩。此二種菩薩所以言護念付屬者，若如來不護念付屬者，此菩薩起心發行所觀境界容有錯謬退失，不能決定入于性地，乃至或時逕劫住世不能速入初地，故須如來護念付屬也。根熟者，性種解行中，觀三種二諦、二種無我，一大僧祇欲滿不滿，欲證彷彿見理，無生法忍光明已現在前分中，具足功德智惠二種莊嚴等，八萬四千諸波羅蜜決定能證。初地永不退失，故名根熟，而未得名為初地

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）在大眾中讚歎如來（Tathagata，佛陀的稱號）說『希有世尊！如來善護念善付屬諸菩薩』的原因，是因為須菩提先前得到如來的加持力，智慧和辯才與佛陀沒有差別，他將要為不同根器的菩薩宣講《金剛般若波羅蜜經》（Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra），想要請問如來關於地上三種菩薩的事情，從而引出下文的經義，所以讚歎說『希有世尊』。這裡說的『希有』，不是指因為時常有而覺得稀有。這裡的『希有』，可以理解為『增』，也可以理解為『能』，也可以理解為『善』。這是說明如來非常善於護念和付囑兩種菩薩，能夠根據他們的根器給予相應的教導，不差分毫，不讓他們錯過接受佛法教導的時機，所以說『希有』。

『如來、應、正遍知』，是簡略地讚歎佛陀的三種稱號。

『善護念諸菩薩、善付屬諸菩薩』，是泛泛地談論菩薩有兩種：一種是初地（Bhumi，菩薩果位的階段）以上的出世間菩薩；另一種是初地之前的世間菩薩。初地之前的菩薩又分為兩種：一種是外凡；另一種是內凡。就內凡菩薩又分為兩種：一種是根已成熟；另一種是根未成熟。現在說的『善護念』，是讚歎如來善於護念初地之前的，具有佛性的、種性的、理解和行為都已成熟的菩薩。『善付屬』，是讚歎如來善於付囑那些在習種性中根未成熟的菩薩。這兩種菩薩之所以要說護念和付囑，是因為如果如來不護念和付囑他們，這些菩薩在發起修行時，所觀的境界可能會出現錯謬和退失，不能夠堅定地進入到性地（菩薩所證悟的真實境界），甚至有時經過很長時間都不能快速進入初地，所以需要如來的護念和付囑。根已成熟的菩薩，在佛性、種性、理解和行為中，能夠觀照三種二諦（兩種真理）、兩種無我（沒有永恒不變的自我），一大阿僧祇劫（Asankhyeya Kalpa，極長的時間單位）將滿未滿，想要證得彷彿見到真理的境界，無生法忍（Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti，對事物不生不滅的深刻理解）的光明已經現在眼前，具足功德和智慧兩種莊嚴等，八萬四千種波羅蜜（Paramita，到達彼岸的方法）決定能夠證得。一旦進入初地就永遠不會退失，所以叫做根已成熟，但還沒有得到初地的名號。

【English Translation】 English version: The reason why Subhuti (a disciple of the Buddha) praised the Tathagata (an epithet of the Buddha) in the assembly, saying, 'Rare is the World-Honored One! The Tathagata is skilled in protecting and entrusting the Bodhisattvas,' is because Subhuti had previously received the power of the Tathagata's blessing. His wisdom and eloquence were no different from the Buddha's. He was about to expound the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra (Diamond Sutra) to Bodhisattvas of different capacities, and he wanted to ask the Tathagata about the three kinds of Bodhisattvas on the ground (stages of Bodhisattva development), thus leading to the meaning of the following sutra. Therefore, he praised, 'Rare is the World-Honored One!' The 'rare' mentioned here does not mean that it is considered rare because it happens frequently. The 'rare' here can be understood as 'increase,' 'ability,' or 'good.' This explains that the Tathagata is very skilled in protecting and entrusting two kinds of Bodhisattvas, able to give corresponding teachings according to their capacities, without any error, and not letting them miss the opportunity to receive the Buddha's teachings. Therefore, it is said to be 'rare.'

'Tathagata, Arhat, Samyak-sambuddha' is a brief praise of the three titles of the Buddha.

'Skilled in protecting the Bodhisattvas, skilled in entrusting the Bodhisattvas' is a general discussion of the two kinds of Bodhisattvas: one is the Bodhisattva beyond the world above the first Bhumi (stage of Bodhisattva), and the other is the Bodhisattva in the world before the first Bhumi. Bodhisattvas before the first Bhumi are further divided into two types: one is the outer ordinary, and the other is the inner ordinary. The inner ordinary Bodhisattvas are further divided into two types: one is with mature roots, and the other is with immature roots. Now, 'skilled in protecting' praises the Tathagata's skill in protecting Bodhisattvas before the first Bhumi who have mature Buddha-nature, seed-nature, understanding, and practice. 'Skilled in entrusting' praises the Tathagata's skill in entrusting those Bodhisattvas with immature roots in the learning-nature. The reason why these two kinds of Bodhisattvas are said to be protected and entrusted is that if the Tathagata does not protect and entrust them, the realm observed by these Bodhisattvas when they initiate practice may have errors and losses, and they cannot firmly enter the nature-ground (the true realm enlightened by Bodhisattvas), and even sometimes they cannot quickly enter the first Bhumi after a long time. Therefore, they need the Tathagata's protection and entrustment. Bodhisattvas with mature roots, in Buddha-nature, seed-nature, understanding, and practice, can contemplate the three kinds of two truths (two kinds of truth), two kinds of no-self (no permanent self), and one great Asankhyeya Kalpa (extremely long period of time) is about to be full or not full, wanting to attain the realm of seemingly seeing the truth, the light of Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti (deep understanding of the non-birth and non-death of things) is already present, possessing the two kinds of adornments of merit and wisdom, and the eighty-four thousand Paramitas (methods to reach the other shore) can definitely be attained. Once entering the first Bhumi, they will never regress, so it is called mature roots, but they have not yet obtained the name of the first Bhumi.

---

已上證無生法忍大力菩薩也。根未熟者，習種性中。然此習種性人亦有二種：一者一往決定；二者不定。不定者雖習世間聞思修等功德智惠諸波羅蜜行，未能決定入于性地乃至初地，容有進退故，名此退人，為根未熟也。如七種發菩提心人，前三種人多是不退，后四種人或退不退，若遇諸佛菩薩善知識則不退轉，若不遇善知識，退菩提心，轉入外凡二乘之地。此是習種性人有退不退。或云性種菩薩猶退墮地獄，《樂莊嚴經》中道「性地菩薩決定不退」，是以《寶鬘論》中有人問龍樹菩薩云：《地持經》中道「性地菩薩退墮阿鼻地獄」，此義云何？龍樹菩薩答言：《地持經》雖云「性地菩薩墮于地獄」，我不敢作如是說。何以故？《不增不減經》中明性地菩薩畢竟不墮地獄。又《樂莊嚴經》中說「性地菩薩若一時殺閻浮提眾生，雖有此罪猶不墮地獄。若四天下乃至三千大千世界眾生，亦不墮地獄。何以故？此人曠劫修行、多供諸佛，功德智惠善根純熟。雖造重罪，以福德力大故，罪即消滅不墮地獄。如大熱鐵𨫼，以一渧水投之於上即自消滅」。以此驗知，性地菩薩不墮地獄。若爾者，二經相違云何會通？解云：《地持經》中道言入者，催怖地前菩薩，令其生懼，速證初地，非謂實入阿鼻地獄。如《十地經》中七勸，勸八

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以上所說的是已經證得無生法忍（Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti，對事物不生不滅的深刻理解）的大力菩薩。而根器尚未成熟的菩薩，則處於習種性（Gotra，菩薩種性）的階段。然而，這習種性的人又分為兩種：一種是一往決定，即一旦進入就不會退轉；另一種是不定，即雖然學習世間的聞、思、修等功德智慧以及諸波羅蜜（Pāramitā，到達彼岸的方法）行，但未能決定進入性地（Prakṛti-bhūmi，真實自性之地）乃至初地（Prathamā-bhūmi，菩薩十地中的第一地），容許有進步和退步的可能性，因此稱這種會退轉的人為根器未成熟。例如，七種發菩提心（Bodhi-citta，覺悟之心）的人中，前三種人大多不會退轉，后四種人則可能退轉也可能不退轉。如果遇到諸佛菩薩善知識（Kalyāṇa-mitra，良師益友），就不會退轉；如果沒有遇到善知識，就會退失菩提心，轉入外凡（Bāhya-pṛthag-jana，尚未入道的凡夫）或二乘（Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的境界。這就是習種性的人有退轉和不退轉的情況。 或者有人說，性種菩薩（Prakṛti-gotra-bodhisattva，具有菩薩種性的菩薩）仍然會墮入地獄。《樂莊嚴經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）中說『性地菩薩決定不會退轉』。因此，《寶鬘論》（Ratnāvalī）中有人問龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna）說：《地持經》（Bodhisattvabhūmi Sūtra）中說『性地菩薩會墮入阿鼻地獄（Avīci，無間地獄）』，這是什麼意思？龍樹菩薩回答說：《地持經》雖然說『性地菩薩會墮入地獄』，我不敢這樣說。為什麼呢？《不增不減經》（Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa Sūtra）中明確說明性地菩薩最終不會墮入地獄。而且，《樂莊嚴經》中說『性地菩薩即使一時殺害閻浮提（Jambudvīpa，我們所居住的南贍部洲）的所有眾生，雖然有這樣的罪過，仍然不會墮入地獄。即使殺害四天下（Caturdvīpaka，四大部洲）乃至三千大千世界（Trisāhasra-mahāsāhasra-lokadhātu，一個巨大的宇宙）的所有眾生，也不會墮入地獄。為什麼呢？因為這個人經過曠劫（Asaṃkhyeya-kalpa，極長的時間）的修行、多次供養諸佛，功德智慧善根純熟。雖然造下重罪，但因為福德力量強大，罪業立即消滅，不會墮入地獄。就像一大塊燒紅的鐵，滴一滴水在上面，立即就會消失』。由此可以驗證，性地菩薩不會墮入地獄。 如果這樣，兩部經的說法相互矛盾，應該如何會通呢？解釋說：《地持經》中所說的『墮入』，是爲了恐嚇催促地前菩薩（Bhūmi-pūrva-bodhisattva，尚未進入初地的菩薩），讓他們產生恐懼，迅速證入初地，並非說真的墮入阿鼻地獄。如同《十地經》（Daśabhūmika Sūtra）中的七種勸告，勸說第八地菩薩。

【English Translation】 English version: The above refers to the great Bodhisattvas who have already attained Anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti (忍, the forbearance of the non-arising of phenomena). Those whose roots are not yet mature are in the stage of Gotra (種性, lineage or potentiality). However, these people of Gotra are of two types: one is irreversibly determined; the other is undetermined. The undetermined, although practicing worldly merits and wisdom such as hearing, thinking, and meditating, as well as the practices of the various Pāramitās (波羅蜜, perfections), are not yet determined to enter the Prakṛti-bhūmi (性地, the ground of nature) or even the Prathamā-bhūmi (初地, the first ground), and may advance or regress. Therefore, these regressing people are called those whose roots are not yet mature. For example, among the seven types of people who generate Bodhi-citta (菩提心, the mind of enlightenment), the first three types are mostly irreversible, while the latter four types may or may not regress. If they encounter Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Kalyāṇa-mitras (善知識, virtuous friends), they will not regress; if they do not encounter virtuous friends, they will lose their Bodhi-citta and turn to the realms of Bāhya-pṛthag-jana (外凡, ordinary people outside the path) or the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna (二乘, the vehicles of hearers and solitary realizers). This is the situation of Gotra people who may regress or not. Or some say that Prakṛti-gotra-bodhisattvas (性種菩薩, Bodhisattvas of the nature lineage) still fall into hell. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (樂莊嚴經) says, 'Bodhisattvas of the Prakṛti-bhūmi are definitely irreversible.' Therefore, in the Ratnāvalī (寶鬘論), someone asked Nāgārjuna (龍樹菩薩), 'The Bodhisattvabhūmi Sūtra (地持經) says that Bodhisattvas of the Prakṛti-bhūmi fall into Avīci (阿鼻地獄, the hell of incessant suffering). What does this mean?' Nāgārjuna replied, 'Although the Bodhisattvabhūmi Sūtra says that Bodhisattvas of the Prakṛti-bhūmi fall into hell, I dare not say so. Why? The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa Sūtra (不增不減經) clearly states that Bodhisattvas of the Prakṛti-bhūmi ultimately do not fall into hell. Moreover, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says, 'Even if a Bodhisattva of the Prakṛti-bhūmi kills all beings in Jambudvīpa (閻浮提, the continent where we live) at one time, although there is such a sin, they still do not fall into hell. Even if they kill all beings in the Caturdvīpaka (四天下, the four continents) or even the Trisāhasra-mahāsāhasra-lokadhātu (三千大千世界, a great chiliocosm), they do not fall into hell. Why? Because this person has practiced for countless kalpas (曠劫, eons), made offerings to many Buddhas, and their merits, wisdom, and roots of goodness are fully matured. Although they commit heavy sins, because their power of merit is great, the sins are immediately extinguished and they do not fall into hell. It is like a large piece of red-hot iron; if you drop a drop of water on it, it will immediately disappear.' From this, we can verify that Bodhisattvas of the Prakṛti-bhūmi do not fall into hell. If so, how can we reconcile the contradictory statements of the two sutras? The explanation is that the 'falling' mentioned in the Bodhisattvabhūmi Sūtra is to frighten and urge the Bhūmi-pūrva-bodhisattvas (地前菩薩, Bodhisattvas before the first ground), causing them to generate fear and quickly attain the first ground, not that they actually fall into Avīci. It is like the seven exhortations in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra (十地經), exhorting the Bodhisattvas of the eighth ground.

---

地菩薩言「汝莫樂住寂滅定」，然八地菩薩既位出功用、永絕識務，唸唸無生、運運自進，豈有樂住寂滅假勸方進也？欲令速入九地十地乃至佛地，是故如勸，非謂實樂住寂滅。何以知然？故經言「亦莫舍此忍門」，明知非實樂住也。此亦如是，實不墮地獄。言其墮者，欲令速證初地，非謂實墮也。故知性種以上一向不退也。所以言善護念者，唯依根熟菩薩，善付屬但依根未熟者。明諸佛雖有自在之力，但能度于有緣眾生，不度無緣。何者是有緣？如《海龍王經》說「諸佛從因地來，以四攝六度等法所攝於佛有緣者，如來自度故」。就根熟眾生，明其護念。不為如來四攝等法所攝者，于佛無緣，付囑諸菩薩有緣善知識，念于聞思修等，已得行中不退，未得行中其于上上證法勝進不失。然如來非不善護念根未熟者，亦非不善付囑根熟之人，但出經者意不能煩文，且上舉一邊也。

論曰「善護念者，依根熟菩薩說」等者，論主先分處二種菩薩也。又言「云何善護念善付屬」者，將偈解釋，故假設此問。問：如來以何等心行、作何方法、與何念力名護念力，名護念付屬二種菩薩？是故即以偈答「巧護義應知」。然此論主凡作八十行偈，以釋此經。前之二偈，論主將欲造論，先明歸敬三寶、申己造論之意。自下有七十七

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：地藏菩薩說：『你不要貪戀安住在寂滅定中』，然而八地菩薩既然已經超越了有功用行，永遠斷絕了意識活動，唸唸無生，自然而然地前進，哪裡會有貪戀安住在寂滅中，還需要勸勉才能前進的情況呢？（地藏菩薩）是想讓他們迅速進入九地、十地乃至佛地，所以才像勸勉一樣，並非說他們真的貪戀安住在寂滅中。為什麼知道是這樣呢？所以經中說：『也不要捨棄這個忍門』，明顯知道他們並非真的貪戀安住。這裡也是一樣，實際上不會墮入地獄。說他們會墮入地獄，是想讓他們迅速證得初地，並非說他們真的會墮入地獄。所以知道從性種以上的菩薩一直都不會退轉。之所以說善於護念，只是針對根器成熟的菩薩，善於付囑只是針對根器尚未成熟的人。說明諸佛雖然有自在的力量，但只能度化與佛有緣的眾生，不能度化沒有緣分的。什麼是有緣呢？如《海龍王經》所說：『諸佛從因地而來，用四攝（佈施、愛語、利行、同事）六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）等法所攝受的與佛有緣的人，如來自己度化他們』。就根器成熟的眾生，說明護念。不被如來的四攝等法所攝受的人，與佛沒有緣分，（佛）就付囑給諸菩薩和有緣的善知識，讓他們憶念聞、思、修等，已經在修行中得到不退轉，還沒有得到不退轉的，讓他們在證法上不斷進步而不失退轉。然而如來並非不善於護念根器尚未成熟的人，也並非不善於付囑根器成熟的人，只是寫經的人不想煩瑣，所以只舉了一方面。

論中說：『善於護念，是依據根器成熟的菩薩說的』等等，論主首先區分了兩種菩薩。又說：『如何善於護念、善於付囑』，是爲了解釋偈頌，所以假設了這個問題。問：如來以什麼樣的心行、用什麼樣的方法、用什麼樣的念力，稱為護念力，稱為護念和付囑這兩種菩薩？所以就用偈頌回答：『巧妙護念義應知』。然而這位論主總共寫了八十行偈頌，來解釋這部經。前面的兩首偈頌，論主將要造論，先說明歸敬三寶、表明自己造論的意圖。從下面開始有七十七

【English Translation】 English version: The Bodhisattva of the Earth said, 'You should not delight in dwelling in the Samadhi of Cessation.' However, since the Bodhisattvas of the Eighth Ground have already transcended functional activities, permanently severed cognitive operations, with thoughts arising without origination and naturally progressing, how could there be delight in dwelling in cessation, requiring exhortation to advance? (The Bodhisattva of the Earth) wants them to quickly enter the Ninth Ground, Tenth Ground, and even the Buddha Ground, so it is like an exhortation, not saying that they truly delight in dwelling in cessation. How do we know this is so? Therefore, the sutra says, 'Also, do not abandon this gate of forbearance,' clearly knowing that they do not truly delight in dwelling. This is also the same; they do not actually fall into hell. Saying that they will fall is to make them quickly attain the First Ground, not saying that they will actually fall. Therefore, it is known that those above the nature-seed (性種) always do not regress. The reason for saying 'skillfully protect and remember' is only for Bodhisattvas with mature roots; skillful entrustment is only for those with immature roots. It explains that although the Buddhas have the power of freedom, they can only liberate sentient beings with affinity and not those without affinity. What is affinity? As the Hai Long Wang Jing (海龍王經, Sutra of the Dragon King of the Sea) says, 'The Buddhas come from the causal ground, using the Four Embracing Dharmas (四攝, catuḥ-saṃgrahavastu: generosity, kind speech, beneficial action, and cooperation) and the Six Perfections (六度, ṣaṭ-pāramitā: generosity, morality, patience, vigor, meditation, and wisdom) to embrace those who have affinity with the Buddha; the Tathagata liberates them himself.' Regarding sentient beings with mature roots, it explains protection and remembrance. Those who are not embraced by the Tathagata's Four Embracing Dharmas have no affinity with the Buddha, (the Buddha) entrusts them to the Bodhisattvas and virtuous friends with affinity, so that they remember hearing, thinking, and cultivating, and have already attained non-regression in practice, and those who have not yet attained non-regression, so that they continuously advance in the Dharma of superior attainment without losing regression. However, the Tathagata is not unskilled in protecting and remembering those with immature roots, nor is he unskilled in entrusting those with mature roots, but the one who wrote the sutra did not want to be verbose, so he only mentioned one aspect.

The treatise says, 'Skillful protection and remembrance is spoken of based on Bodhisattvas with mature roots,' etc. The author of the treatise first distinguishes between two types of Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, saying 'How to skillfully protect and remember, skillfully entrust' is to explain the verses, so this question is assumed. Question: With what kind of mental activity, using what kind of method, and with what kind of power of mindfulness does the Tathagata call it the power of protection and remembrance, and call it protection and entrustment of these two types of Bodhisattvas? Therefore, it is answered with the verse, 'The meaning of skillful protection should be known.' However, this author of the treatise wrote a total of eighty lines of verses to explain this sutra. In the first two verses, the author of the treatise, intending to compose the treatise, first explains his reverence for the Three Jewels (三寶, triratna) and states his intention to compose the treatise. From below, there are seventy-seven.

---

行偈，正釋經文。最後一偈，作論既竟，讚歎迴向也。此巧護一偈明何等義？正釋前經中希有等經。然此希有，嘆如來快能念付囑二種菩薩，故名為巧，即以此巧護為希有故，以此巧釋希有也。「護」者，通釋善護念付屬。此偈應云善護念付屬，但以偈俠故單舉護也。義應知者，理正如此，勸問者令知也。

然此一句釋善護念付囑已竟，第二句所以復言「加彼身同行」者，此為釋上經中疑難。難云：此經不應如是說，應言善護念諸眾生、善付屬諸眾生。所以然者，明如來慈悲平等被物無私，應遍念六道不遺凡聖。若言護念一切眾生，則義通凡聖；直云護念菩薩，但攝修行之人，則統收不盡。何故不云善護念諸眾生，但云護念諸菩薩也？故答「加彼身同行」。言護念諸菩薩者，即是護念一切眾生。加持彼身者，如來以智惠力加二種菩薩身，令入性地，乃至初地證智也。若爾，還復前疑：猶是如來唯護念菩薩，不護念眾生。故下二字云同行也。同行者，即是菩薩以四攝六度攝取一切眾生，以為伴侶、以為眷屬也。若爾，菩薩也修萬行，而眾生未修，云何言同行也？答：意欲明大士睹真如佛性，于平等理中得相似解，亦得相似一體悲心，故不見眾生異於我身、我異眾生，我身修行即一切眾生修行。此明菩薩與眾生同，

非異眾生同於菩薩，故云加彼身同行也。明諸佛加菩薩化眾生迭傳相攝，即拘瑣法門也。此一句，理而言之，通釋二種菩薩；別而言之，唯釋善護念也。

「不退得未得」者，釋經善付囑。得者，已前修行也；未得者，所未修行也。不退者，欲令習種性人于向已得行中堅固不失、未得行中令勝進不退，故付善知識也。

「是名善付屬」者，結句，應言是名善護念、是名善付囑，以偈俠故略也。

「云何加彼身同行」者？論主提偈中第二句，依下答分為二問：一問云何加彼身？二問云何為同行也？下答亦有二：「謂于菩薩身中與智惠力，令成就佛法」者，答第一加彼身。明菩薩蒙佛加故，得勝智力，亦成就初地佛法也。「又彼菩薩攝取眾生與教化力等」者，答第二同行。明菩薩以佛加故，得教化力，能利益眾生，即是同行也。「云何不退得未得」者，問偈中第三句，云何為得？主得中不退也。故答「謂于得未得功德中懼其退失，欲令習種菩薩於二行中固解不退，故付智者。又得不退乃至付屬應知」者，雖云得未得中不退，未知何等法中不退，故出「謂大乘法中不退、大乘法中勝進也，不捨大乘」者，令不捨因中菩提心慈悲無量等行，及果頭無為法身大乘法也。

金剛仙論卷第一 大正藏第 2

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非異眾生等同於菩薩，所以說諸佛加持他們，與他們同行。這說明諸佛加持菩薩，菩薩化度眾生，兩者互相傳遞攝受，這就是拘瑣法門（Dharmaparyāya，佛法要門）。從理上來說，這句話可以通用於解釋兩種菩薩；但從具體來說，它只解釋了善護念（Su-raksha，好好地守護憶念）。 『不退得未得』，這是解釋經文中的善付囑（Su-pratishthita，善於安置）。『得』，指的是之前已經修行的功德；『未得』，指的是尚未修行的功德。『不退』，是希望讓習種性（Gotra，具有某種習性的）的人，對於已經獲得的修行能夠堅固不失，對於尚未獲得的修行能夠更加精進而不退轉，所以要託付給善知識（Kalyāṇa-mitra，良師益友）。 『是名善付屬』，這是總結句，應該說『是名善護念，是名善付囑』，因為偈頌的緣故而省略了。 『云何加彼身同行』？論主提出偈頌中的第二句，根據下面的回答分為兩個問題：一是問『云何加彼身』？二是問『云何為同行也』？下面的回答也有兩個：『謂于菩薩身中與智惠力，令成就佛法』，這是回答第一個問題，加彼身。說明菩薩蒙受佛的加持，得到殊勝的智慧力量，也成就了初地（Prathama-bhūmi，菩薩修行階位的第一層）的佛法。『又彼菩薩攝取眾生與教化力等』，這是回答第二個問題，同行。說明菩薩因為佛的加持，得到教化的力量，能夠利益眾生，這就是同行。『云何不退得未得』？這是問偈頌中的第三句，云何為得？在得中如何不退？所以回答說『謂于得未得功德中懼其退失，欲令習種菩薩於二行中固解不退，故付智者。又得不退乃至付屬應知』，雖然說在得未得中不退，但不知道在什麼法中不退，所以提出『謂大乘法中不退、大乘法中勝進也，不捨大乘』，使他們不捨棄因地中的菩提心（Bodhi-citta，覺悟之心）、慈悲（Karuṇā，慈愛和憐憫）無量等行，以及果地上的無為法身（Asamskrta-dharma-kāya，不生不滅的法身）大乘法。 金剛仙論卷第一 大正藏第 2

【English Translation】 English version Non-different sentient beings are the same as Bodhisattvas, hence it is said that the Buddhas bless them and walk with them. This explains that the Buddhas bless the Bodhisattvas, and the Bodhisattvas transform sentient beings, both transmitting and embracing each other, which is the Dharmaparyāya (a method of Dharma). In terms of principle, this sentence can be used to explain both types of Bodhisattvas; but specifically, it only explains Su-raksha (good protection and mindfulness). 'Non-regression in what is attained and not yet attained,' this explains the Su-pratishthita (well-established) in the sutra. 'Attained' refers to the merits already cultivated; 'not yet attained' refers to the merits not yet cultivated. 'Non-regression' is to enable those of Gotra (lineage, nature) to firmly maintain what they have already attained and to advance without regression in what they have not yet attained, therefore entrusting them to Kalyāṇa-mitra (spiritual friend). 'This is called Su-pratishthita,' this is the concluding sentence, it should be said 'This is called Su-raksha, this is called Su-pratishthita,' which is abbreviated because of the verse. 『How do they bless them and walk with them?』 The commentator raises the second sentence in the verse, and divides the answer below into two questions: one asks 'How do they bless them?' and the other asks 'How do they walk with them?' The answer below also has two parts: 'That is, in the body of the Bodhisattva, they give the power of wisdom, enabling them to accomplish the Buddha-dharma,' which answers the first question, blessing them. It explains that the Bodhisattva, receiving the blessing of the Buddha, obtains superior wisdom and also accomplishes the Buddha-dharma of the Prathama-bhūmi (first ground). 'Also, that Bodhisattva embraces sentient beings and gives the power of teaching, etc.,' which answers the second question, walking with them. It explains that the Bodhisattva, because of the Buddha's blessing, obtains the power of teaching, which can benefit sentient beings, which is walking with them. 'How is there non-regression in what is attained and not yet attained?' This asks the third sentence in the verse, how is it attained? How is there non-regression in what is attained? Therefore, the answer is 'That is, fearing the loss of merit in what is attained and not yet attained, wanting to enable the Bodhisattvas of Gotra to firmly understand and not regress in the two practices, therefore entrusting them to the wise. Also, it should be known that non-regression and even entrustment are in what is attained and not yet attained,' although it says non-regression in what is attained and not yet attained, it is not known in what Dharma there is non-regression, therefore it is stated 'That is, non-regression in the Mahāyāna Dharma, and advancement in the Mahāyāna Dharma, not abandoning the Mahāyāna,' so that they do not abandon the Bodhi-citta (mind of enlightenment), Karuṇā (compassion), immeasurable practices, etc., in the cause, and the Asamskrta-dharma-kāya (unconditioned Dharma-body) Mahāyāna Dharma in the result. Treatise of the Golden Immortal, Volume 1 Taisho Tripitaka No. 2

---

5 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第二

「世尊！云何菩薩于大乘中發阿耨菩提心乃至則不名菩薩」，此第三段經，名為住分，亦名我心。所以名為住者，欲明菩薩既道登初地，現見真如法無我理，永斷四住習氣及無明粗品，出二十五有分段生死、離五怖畏。爾時過凡夫地、入菩薩位，生在佛家，種性尊貴無可譏嫌，具足廣等四種深心，畢竟利益一切眾生，則能決定安住菩薩初地。所言住者，以不住道解為住。云何不住？謂觀有為虛偽、斷生死因盡，故不住世間。現見真如平等，得大慈悲願力成就，故不住涅槃。以此不住為住，故云住也。所以複名我心者，明初地菩薩既證聖位，現見真如平等之理，由會此理，解知我之所有真如佛性無為法身、眾生所有真如佛性無為法身亦復如是，一體平等無二無差別。於此理中，不自見我是菩薩修行之人有真如法身、彼是眾生不修行者無真如法身，解知一切眾生即是我身，然凡聖雖異而真如平等，故云我心亦得。云何？一體悲心成就，彼此無二，故曰我心，此以解真如自在我為我心故。《十地經》云「於一切眾生起我心」也。此住分經文所以來者，上第二段中既明如來善護念地前二種菩薩，與其智力令證初地，然上既明地前相似無漏能入之行，未出

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《金剛仙論》卷第二

『世尊！云何菩薩于大乘中發阿耨菩提心（anuttara-bodhicitta，無上菩提心）乃至則不名菩薩』，此第三段經，名為住分，亦名我心。所以名為住者，欲明菩薩既道登初地，現見真如法無我理，永斷四住習氣及無明粗品，出二十五有分段生死、離五怖畏。爾時過凡夫地、入菩薩位，生在佛家，種性尊貴無可譏嫌，具足廣等四種深心，畢竟利益一切眾生，則能決定安住菩薩初地。所言住者，以不住道解為住。云何不住？謂觀有為虛偽、斷生死因盡，故不住世間。現見真如平等，得大慈悲願力成就，故不住涅槃（nirvana）。以此不住為住，故云住也。所以複名我心者，明初地菩薩既證聖位，現見真如平等之理，由會此理，解知我之所有真如佛性無為法身、眾生所有真如佛性無為法身亦復如是，一體平等無二無差別。於此理中，不自見我是菩薩修行之人有真如法身、彼是眾生不修行者無真如法身，解知一切眾生即是我身，然凡聖雖異而真如平等，故云我心亦得。云何？一體悲心成就，彼此無二，故曰我心，此以解真如自在我為我心故。《十地經》云『於一切眾生起我心』也。此住分經文所以來者，上第二段中既明如來善護念地前二種菩薩，與其智力令證初地，然上既明地前相似無漏能入之行，未出

【English Translation】 English version: Vajrasena Commentary, Volume 2

'World Honored One! How does a Bodhisattva, having generated the Anuttara-bodhicitta (supreme enlightenment mind) within the Mahayana (Great Vehicle), then not be called a Bodhisattva?' This third section of the sutra is called the 'Dwelling Section,' and is also called 'My Mind.' The reason it is called 'Dwelling' is to clarify that once a Bodhisattva has ascended to the first Bhumi (stage), directly perceiving the truth of suchness, the principle of the non-self of Dharma, permanently severing the habitual tendencies of the four abodes and the coarse aspects of ignorance, transcending the segmented birth and death of the twenty-five realms of existence, and departing from the five fears. At that time, they surpass the stage of ordinary beings, enter the position of a Bodhisattva, are born into the Buddha's family, possess a noble lineage without reproach, fully endowed with the four profound minds of vastness and equality, ultimately benefiting all sentient beings, and are then able to decisively dwell in the first Bhumi of a Bodhisattva. The term 'dwelling' is understood as dwelling in the path of non-dwelling. How is it non-dwelling? It means observing conditioned phenomena as false and unreal, severing the causes of birth and death completely, therefore not dwelling in the world. Directly perceiving the equality of suchness, attaining the accomplishment of great compassion and vows, therefore not dwelling in Nirvana (liberation). Because this non-dwelling is taken as dwelling, it is called 'dwelling.' The reason it is also called 'My Mind' is to clarify that once a Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi has realized the holy position, directly perceiving the principle of the equality of suchness, by understanding this principle, they understand that the unconditioned Dharmakaya (Dharma body) of the Buddha-nature of suchness that I possess, and the unconditioned Dharmakaya of the Buddha-nature of suchness that sentient beings possess, are also thus, one in essence, equal, without duality or difference. Within this principle, one does not see oneself as a Bodhisattva, a practitioner who possesses the Dharmakaya of suchness, and others as sentient beings, non-practitioners who do not possess the Dharmakaya of suchness, understanding that all sentient beings are one's own body. Although ordinary beings and sages are different, suchness is equal, therefore it is also called 'My Mind.' How so? The compassion of one essence is accomplished, without duality between self and others, therefore it is called 'My Mind,' this is because understanding the self-mastery of suchness is taken as 'My Mind.' The Ten Bhumi Sutra says, 'Generate the mind of self towards all sentient beings.' The reason this 'Dwelling Section' of the sutra comes about is that in the second section above, it was clarified that the Tathagata (Thus Come One) well protects and remembers the two types of Bodhisattvas before the Bhumis, giving them wisdom and strength to realize the first Bhumi. However, the above only clarified the similar non-outflow practices before the Bhumis that can lead to entry, without...

---

證地之行，是故第三次正辨入初地已上真如無漏行也。問：菩薩爾時以何等心、觀何境界、修何等行、證何等法而得住于初地大乘法中？住初地時有何相貌也？明菩薩爾時僧祇行滿，具足四種深心、六度行成，現見真如證無生法忍，過凡夫地入菩薩位，生在佛家。有如是心行相貌則得住于初地，名為大力菩薩。是故次明第三住分也。

此一段經中須菩提有總別二問。云何菩薩于大乘中發阿耨三菩提心者，此問中總句。然泛明大乘有二種：一者因中大乘，謂十地六波羅蜜，明十地菩薩乘六波羅蜜趣于極果，故曰因大乘也。二者果頭大乘，謂無為法身佛果是也。今言于大乘中者，是因大乘，亦得義通因果也。大乘之義乃有無量，且略辨四種：一者體大，明大乘之體苞含萬德出生五乘因果，故名體大也。二者大人所乘，明菩薩大士乘此地行趣于佛果也。三者大人所證，明唯諸佛如來窮會此法也。四者能成大義，明諸佛既證常果復能化益眾生有大恩義。故曰能成大義也。具此四義，故名大乘也。

「發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」者，菩提亦有二種：一者因菩提，謂十地萬行也。二者果菩提，無為法身是也。通此因果二種，以為無上菩提也。今所言菩提心者，即是初地僧祇行滿，現見真如所證無生法忍，以此為菩提心

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是關於證得初地（菩薩十地之首）之行的描述，因此第三次正式辨明入于初地及以上菩薩的真如無漏之行。須菩提問：菩薩在那個時候以什麼樣的心、觀察什麼樣的境界、修行什麼樣的行為、證得什麼樣的法，才能夠安住于初地大乘佛法之中？安住于初地的時候又有什麼樣的相貌呢？經文闡明菩薩在那個時候經歷了一個阿僧祇劫的修行圓滿，具足四種深心、六度波羅蜜（Dharmapāramitā）的修行成就，親眼見到真如（Tathātā），證得無生法忍（Anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti），超越凡夫的境界進入菩薩的位次，生在佛的家族。具有這樣的心行相貌，才能夠安住于初地，被稱為大力菩薩。因此接下來闡明第三住分。 在這一段經文中，須菩提（Subhūti）有總括性和分別性的兩種提問。『云何菩薩于大乘中發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者』，這是提問中的總括性語句。然而，泛泛地說明大乘（Mahāyāna）有兩種：一種是因中大乘，指的是十地（Bhūmi）和六波羅蜜（Ṣaṭpāramitā），說明十地菩薩憑藉六波羅蜜趨向于最終的果位，所以說是因大乘。另一種是果頭大乘，指的是無為法身（Asaṃskṛta-dharma-kāya）佛果。現在所說的『于大乘中』，指的是因大乘，也可以在意義上貫通因果。大乘的意義有無量種，這裡簡略地辨析四種：一是體大，說明大乘的本體包含萬德，出生五乘的因果，所以名為體大。二是大人所乘，說明菩薩大士乘坐這種地行趨向于佛果。三是大人所證，說明只有諸佛如來才能徹底領會這種法。四是能成大義，說明諸佛既然證得常果，又能化益眾生，有很大的恩德和意義。所以說能成大義。具備這四種意義，所以名為大乘。 『發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心』，菩提（Bodhi）也有兩種：一種是因菩提，指的是十地萬行。一種是果菩提，無為法身。貫通這因果兩種，作為無上菩提。現在所說的菩提心，就是初地阿僧祇劫修行圓滿，親眼見到真如所證得的無生法忍，以此作為菩提心。

【English Translation】 English version: This describes the practice of attaining the Ground of Certitude (the first of the ten Bodhisattva grounds), hence the third formal clarification of entering the non-outflow practice of the True Thusness (Tathātā) of Bodhisattvas on the first ground and above. Subhūti asks: With what kind of mind, observing what kind of realm, practicing what kind of conduct, and realizing what kind of Dharma, does a Bodhisattva abide in the Mahāyāna Dharma of the first ground at that time? What are the characteristics of abiding in the first ground? The text clarifies that at that time, the Bodhisattva's practice of one asaṃkhya kalpa is complete, possessing four kinds of profound minds, the practice of the six pāramitās (Dharmapāramitā) is accomplished, directly seeing the True Thusness (Tathātā), realizing the Anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti (non-origination of phenomena), transcending the realm of ordinary beings and entering the position of a Bodhisattva, born into the family of the Buddha. Having such mind and conduct, one can abide in the first ground, and is called a Great Strength Bodhisattva. Therefore, the third Abode Division is explained next. In this section of the sutra, Subhūti has two questions, one general and one specific. 'How does a Bodhisattva generate the Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi-citta in the Mahāyāna?' This is the general statement in the question. However, generally speaking, there are two kinds of Mahāyāna: one is the Mahāyāna in the cause, referring to the ten grounds (Bhūmi) and the six pāramitās (Ṣaṭpāramitā), explaining that the Bodhisattvas of the ten grounds approach the ultimate fruit by means of the six pāramitās, hence it is called the Mahāyāna of the cause. The other is the Mahāyāna at the head of the fruit, referring to the unconditioned Dharma-body (Asaṃskṛta-dharma-kāya), the fruit of Buddhahood. The phrase 'in the Mahāyāna' now refers to the Mahāyāna of the cause, and can also connect the cause and effect in meaning. The meaning of Mahāyāna is immeasurable, but here we briefly distinguish four kinds: first, the greatness of the substance, explaining that the substance of the Mahāyāna contains myriad virtues and gives birth to the causes and effects of the five vehicles, hence it is called the greatness of the substance. Second, that which is ridden by great beings, explaining that the great Bodhisattvas ride this ground practice towards the fruit of Buddhahood. Third, that which is realized by great beings, explaining that only the Buddhas and Tathāgatas can thoroughly understand this Dharma. Fourth, that which can accomplish great meaning, explaining that since the Buddhas have realized the constant fruit, they can also transform and benefit sentient beings, having great kindness and meaning. Therefore, it is said to be able to accomplish great meaning. Possessing these four meanings, it is called Mahāyāna. 'Generating the Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi-citta', Bodhi also has two kinds: one is the Bodhi of the cause, referring to the myriad practices of the ten grounds. The other is the Bodhi of the fruit, the unconditioned Dharma-body. Connecting these two, cause and effect, as unsurpassed Bodhi. The Bodhicitta now spoken of is the completion of the practice of one asaṃkhya kalpa on the first ground, the Anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti realized by directly seeing the True Thusness, taking this as the Bodhicitta.

---

也；隨分證用無為法身，即是果菩提也。發者，亦言產生、證得也。阿之言無，耨多羅言上，名為無上，亦云最勝、最上。三之言正，藐言遍知。正者真如智，即一切智也。遍智者有中一切種智也。又言三者亦是正也，菩提言道。此是如來果頭無上最勝正遍知，離斷常二邊、知中道正理，初地菩薩證會此道，故言發阿耨三菩提心也。亦有解言：三藐者正也，明聲聞道不正、佛菩薩道正，此明不同聲聞。后三言遍也，明緣覺之人觀境起行不能周遍，諸佛菩薩能遍觀萬境廣修萬行，此明不同緣覺也。

「云何住」等。此三問中別句：一、云何住者，即起此住分經也。二、云何修行，三、云何降伏其心者，此二問即起下第四如實修行分也。如來所以贊言「善哉善哉須菩提」者，上第二段中，須菩提雖嘆如來希有善護念付囑地前根熟未熟二種菩薩，復發初地以上總別四種問，然大眾意謂須菩提乃是聲聞之人，向前所嘆如來善護念付屬二種菩薩，及聞初地已上行，此乃諸佛菩薩境界，非其所知。懼其此言未必契當於理、稱可聖心。有此疑念，今將明須菩提得如來冥加力故，說當於理，所嘆所問合其聖心，真實不虛非為謬說，是故如來贊以善哉，佛去時眾疑心也。

「佛告須菩提：菩薩生如是心」以下一段經文，答初

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『也』，隨分證悟並運用無為法身，這就是果菩提（Buddha-bodhi，佛的智慧）的體現。『發』，也指產生、證得。『阿』的意思是『無』，『耨多羅』的意思是『上』，合起來名為『無上』，也稱為『最勝』、『最上』。『三』的意思是『正』，『藐』的意思是『遍知』。『正』指的是真如智，也就是一切智。『遍知』指的是有中一切種智。也有說法認為，『三』也是『正』的意思，『菩提』的意思是『道』。這是如來果位上的無上最勝正遍知，遠離斷常二邊，了知中道正理。初地菩薩證悟體會此道，所以說『發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心』。也有解釋說：『三藐』是『正』的意思，表明聲聞道不正，佛菩薩道才是正道，這表明與聲聞不同。後面的『三』是『遍』的意思，表明緣覺之人觀察境界而修行不能周遍，諸佛菩薩能夠普遍觀察萬境，廣泛修習萬行，這表明與緣覺不同。 『云何住』等。這三個問題中，每一句都是一個獨立的問題：一、『云何住』，即是發起此住分經的緣由。二、『云何修行』，三、『云何降伏其心』，這兩個問題即是發起下文第四部分『如實修行分』的緣由。如來之所以讚歎『善哉善哉須菩提（Subhuti，須菩提)』，是因為在上文第二段中，須菩提雖然讚歎如來以稀有的方式善於護念和付囑地前根熟和未熟兩種菩薩，又提出了初地以上總別四種問題，但是大眾認為須菩提是聲聞之人，他讚歎如來善於護念和付屬兩種菩薩，以及聽聞初地以上的修行，這些都是諸佛菩薩的境界，不是他所能瞭解的。擔心他的話未必符合道理，稱合聖心。因為有這樣的疑慮，現在要說明須菩提得到如來的冥加之力，所以說的話符合道理，所讚歎和所提問的都符合聖心，真實不虛，不是謬論，所以如來讚歎『善哉』，這是佛陀離開時大眾的疑慮。 『佛告須菩提：菩薩生如是心』以下一段經文，是回答第一個問題。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Also;' to partially realize and utilize the unconditioned Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, the body of the Dharma), this is the manifestation of the Fruition Bodhi (Buddha-bodhi, the wisdom of the Buddha). 'Arising' also refers to generating and attaining. 'A' means 'no,' 'Anuttara' means 'supreme,' combined they are called 'unsurpassed,' also known as 'most excellent,' 'most supreme.' 'Sam' means 'right,' 'yak' means 'omniscience.' 'Right' refers to Suchness-wisdom, which is all-knowing wisdom. 'Omniscience' refers to all kinds of wisdom within existence. Some say that 'Sam' also means 'right,' and 'Bodhi' means 'path.' This is the unsurpassed, most excellent, right, and all-knowing wisdom at the fruition stage of the Tathagata (Tathagata, Thus Come One), which is far from the two extremes of permanence and annihilation, and knows the right principle of the Middle Way. Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva, an enlightened being) of the first Bhumi (Bhumi, stage) realize and experience this path, so it is said 'arise the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment mind).』 Some also explain: 'Samyak' means 'right,' indicating that the Sravaka (Sravaka, a disciple of Buddha) path is not right, while the Buddha-Bodhisattva path is the right path, indicating a difference from the Sravakas. The later 'Sam' means 'omnipresent,' indicating that Pratyekabuddhas (Pratyekabuddhas, solitary Buddhas) observe realms and practice but cannot be all-encompassing, while all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can universally observe all realms and extensively cultivate all practices, indicating a difference from the Pratyekabuddhas. 'How to abide,' etc. In these three questions, each sentence is an independent question: First, 'How to abide,' which is the reason for initiating this section of the Sutra. Second, 'How to practice,' and third, 'How to subdue the mind,' these two questions are the reasons for initiating the fourth section below, 'Practicing in Accordance with the Truth.' The reason why the Tathagata praised 'Excellent, excellent, Subhuti (Subhuti, one of the principal disciples of Buddha)' is that in the second section above, although Subhuti praised the Tathagata for skillfully protecting and entrusting the two kinds of Bodhisattvas before the Bhumis, those with mature and immature roots, and also raised four kinds of general and specific questions above the first Bhumi, the assembly thought that Subhuti was a Sravaka, and his praise of the Tathagata for skillfully protecting and entrusting the two kinds of Bodhisattvas, and hearing about the practice above the first Bhumi, were all realms of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which he could not understand. They worried that his words might not be in accordance with reason and in accordance with the holy mind. Because of this doubt, it is now explained that Subhuti received the power of the Tathagata's invisible blessing, so his words are in accordance with reason, and what he praised and asked are in accordance with the holy mind, true and not false, not a fallacy, so the Tathagata praised 'Excellent,' which was the doubt of the assembly when the Buddha left. 'The Buddha told Subhuti: Bodhisattvas generate such a mind,' the following passage of scripture is the answer to the first question.

---

問云何住也。就此答初問中，明菩薩具足四種深心故住于初地。大乘法中生如是心者，初地菩薩緣三種眾生決定證得四種深心也。所有一切眾生所攝者等，論云廣心。所以名廣心者，明初地菩薩現見佛性平等之理，得一體慈悲，故能化度虛空法界一切眾生，情無限局，故曰廣心也。然此心所化眾生，有總別二週經文。

「所有一切眾生」者，謂先總明虛空法界一切眾生也。「眾生所攝」者，明此所化者唯化有心眾生，不化攝無情之物也。此下別明廣心所攝眾生有三種差別。化生等四生，名生依止差別也。有色無色等六，名粗細差別也。所有眾生界眾生所攝者，二乘意生身差別，亦名憍慢差別也。此第三別明二乘人既道出三界，前二生不攝，所以別明也。然二乘人有二種：一者發菩提心聲聞，如《法華》中舍利弗等受記作佛者是；二者寂滅聲聞，斷三界惑盡，出分段生死，生究竟想、起憍慢心、入寂滅定，逕千萬億劫於此定中，而不免變易生死微細行苦。后時定力既盡從禪定出，更無所依故，還覓善知識，發菩提心求無上道故。菩薩於此憍慢眾生亦興悲救度，故須明也。亦得云十一種眾生，生依止中有四、粗細中有六、意生身有一，合有十一也。

「我皆令入無餘涅槃而滅度」者，論云第一心也。前雖云廣

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：如何安住（于初地）？ 就此回答第一個問題，說明菩薩具足四種深心，所以能安住于初地。在大乘佛法中生起這樣心念的人，初地菩薩緣於三種眾生，必定證得四種深心。『所有一切眾生所攝者等』，論中稱為『廣心』。之所以稱為『廣心』，是因為說明初地菩薩現見佛性平等的道理，得到一體的慈悲，所以能夠化度虛空法界一切眾生，情感沒有限局，所以叫做『廣心』。然而此心所化度的眾生，有總說和別說兩種周遍經文。 『所有一切眾生』，是說先總括說明虛空法界一切眾生。『眾生所攝』，是說明這裡所化度的，只是化度有心識的眾生，不化度沒有情感的事物。以下分別說明廣心所攝的眾生有三種差別。化生等四生，稱為『生依止差別』。有色無色等六種，稱為『粗細差別』。『所有眾生界眾生所攝者』，是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）意生身的差別，也稱為『憍慢差別』。這第三種是分別說明二乘人既然已經脫離三界，前面的兩種生不包括他們，所以特別說明。然而二乘人有兩種：一種是發菩提心的聲聞，如《法華經》（Saddharma puṇḍarīka sūtra）中的舍利弗（Śāriputra）等被授記作佛的人；另一種是寂滅聲聞，斷盡三界迷惑，脫離分段生死，產生究竟的想法，生起憍慢心，進入寂滅定，經過千萬億劫於此定中，卻不能免除變易生死的微細行苦。之後，當定力耗盡，從禪定中出來，再也沒有所依靠，所以又去尋找善知識，發菩提心求無上道。菩薩對於這些憍慢眾生也興起悲心救度，所以需要說明。也可以說有十一種眾生，生依止中有四種，粗細中有六種，意生身有一種，合起來有十一種。 『我皆令入無餘涅槃而滅度』，論中稱為『第一心』。前面雖然說廣心

【English Translation】 English version Question: How does one abide (in the first Bhumi)? In response to the first question, it is explained that Bodhisattvas abide in the first Bhumi because they possess four profound minds. Those who generate such thoughts in the Mahayana Dharma, the Bodhisattvas of the first Bhumi, through their connection with three types of beings, will definitely attain the four profound minds. 'All beings included, etc.,' are referred to as 'Vast Mind' in the treatise. The reason it is called 'Vast Mind' is to explain that the Bodhisattvas of the first Bhumi directly perceive the principle of the equality of Buddha-nature, attain the compassion of oneness, and therefore can transform and liberate all beings in the Dharma-realm of emptiness, with unlimited emotions, hence it is called 'Vast Mind'. However, the beings transformed by this mind have two types of comprehensive and specific scriptural passages. 'All beings' refers to the general explanation of all beings in the Dharma-realm of emptiness. 'Beings included' clarifies that those transformed here are only sentient beings, not inanimate objects. The following separately explains that the beings included in the Vast Mind have three types of differences. The four births, such as transformation birth, are called 'Differences in the Basis of Birth'. The six, such as those with form and without form, are called 'Differences in Coarseness and Subtlety'. 'Those included in the realm of all beings' refers to the difference of the mind-born bodies of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), also called 'Differences in Arrogance'. This third point separately explains that since the people of the Two Vehicles have already transcended the Three Realms, the previous two types of birth do not include them, so it is specifically explained. However, there are two types of people in the Two Vehicles: one is the Śrāvakas who have generated the Bodhi-mind, such as Śāriputra in the Saddharma puṇḍarīka sūtra (Lotus Sutra), who were predicted to become Buddhas; the other is the Śrāvakas of extinction, who have exhausted the delusions of the Three Realms, escaped the segmented birth and death, generated the thought of ultimate attainment, arose arrogance, and entered the Samadhi of extinction, spending countless eons in this Samadhi, yet they cannot avoid the subtle suffering of the changing birth and death. Later, when the power of Samadhi is exhausted, they emerge from meditation and have nothing to rely on, so they seek good teachers again, generate the Bodhi-mind, and seek the unsurpassed path. Bodhisattvas also arise compassion to save these arrogant beings, so it needs to be explained. It can also be said that there are eleven types of beings: four in the basis of birth, six in coarseness and subtlety, and one in the mind-born body, totaling eleven. 'I will lead them all to enter Nirvana without remainder and be extinguished' is called 'First Mind' in the treatise. Although it was previously said that the Vast Mind

---

度濕生等一切眾生，未知化此眾生與何等樂？是以第二次明唯以常住佛果無餘涅槃第一之樂與此眾生，不以二乘中道所證灰身涅槃而以與之，況人天樂，故曰第一心也。此言「無餘」者，有二種：一、二障永盡；二、萬德圓滿。備此二義，故曰無餘，非謂以小乘身智亡處為無餘也。「涅槃」者，此幡云寂滅也。

「如是滅度無量無邊眾生，實無眾生得滅度」者，論云常心也。常有二種：一、就佛性法身凝然常住彼此平等以明常。然佛性法身雖復平等，若就行者而言，一法身上有三種名：或覆法身全不凈者，名為眾生；修行斷惑半凈半不凈，名為菩薩；十地行滿斷惑障盡具足清凈者，名之為佛。若據真如等有法身，彼此無二，故曰一體常心也。二、就得慈悲一體常心，眾生如自己身，常現在前心不捨離，故名常心。具此二義，故名常心也。依此，論釋一體悲義道「初地菩薩得一子地」者，猶非盡理之言。何以得知？如有女人，唯有一子，愛之甚重，常言：「寧愍我身不愍我子。」王即使人以大火炎此女人。此女人患熱，推子遮火，護惜己身故。知言一子地者，非盡理之言，故引事來證此一體悲義也。然此眾生所以護惜己身者，以無量世來計著虛妄我見習久故爾。如經中說，有人造五逆罪，逕五大劫在阿鼻地獄。償

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：度化濕生等一切眾生，（佛）未知用何種快樂來化度這些眾生？因此第二次說明，唯有以常住佛果的無餘涅槃（指徹底的寂滅，沒有任何煩惱殘餘）這種第一等的快樂給予這些眾生，而不是用二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）中道所證的灰身涅槃（指肉身消滅，精神也隨之消散的涅槃境界）來給予他們，更何況是人天之樂，所以說是第一心（指菩提心，即追求無上智慧的心）。這裡說的『無餘』，有兩種含義：一、二障（煩惱障和所知障）永遠斷盡；二、萬德（指各種功德）圓滿具備。具備這兩種含義，所以說是無餘，不是說以小乘（聲聞乘）的身智滅亡之處作為無餘。『涅槃』，在這裡的幡（指佛幡，一種佛教法器）中被解釋為寂滅。 『如是滅度無量無邊眾生，實無眾生得滅度』，論中解釋為常心（指永恒不變的心）。常有兩種含義：一、就佛性法身（指佛的真身，是永恒不變的）凝然常住，彼此平等來說明常。然而佛性法身雖然平等，如果就修行者而言，同一法身上有三種名稱：或者被覆蓋法身完全不凈的人，稱為眾生；修行斷惑半凈半不凈的人，稱為菩薩；十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）行滿斷惑障盡具足清凈的人，稱之為佛。如果根據真如（指事物的本性）等有法身，彼此沒有差別，所以說是一體常心。二、就得到慈悲一體常心來說，眾生如同自己的身體，常常現在眼前，心不捨離，所以名叫常心。具備這兩種含義，所以名叫常心。依據這個，論中解釋一體悲義說道『初地菩薩得一子地』，還不是完全透徹的說法。憑什麼知道呢？如有女人，只有一子，愛之甚重，常說：『寧願憐憫我的身體也不憐憫我的兒子。』國王就派人以大火燒這個女人。這個女人害怕熱，推開兒子遮擋火焰，保護愛惜自己的身體。所以知道說一子地，不是完全透徹的說法，所以引用這件事來證明這個一體悲義。然而這些眾生之所以保護愛惜自己的身體，是因為無量世以來計著虛妄的我見，習氣太久了。如經中所說，有人造五逆罪（指殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、出佛身血、破和合僧），經過五大劫在阿鼻地獄（指八大地獄中最苦的）。償

【English Translation】 English version: To deliver all sentient beings, such as those born from moisture, what kind of joy does the Buddha use to transform these beings? Therefore, it is explained for the second time that only the supreme joy of the permanent Buddha-fruit's Nirvāṇa without residue (meaning complete extinction, with no remaining afflictions) is given to these beings, and not the Nirvāṇa of the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) attained through the Middle Way, where the body is reduced to ashes (referring to a state of Nirvāṇa where the physical body is destroyed and the spirit dissipates), let alone the joys of humans and gods. Therefore, it is called the first mind (referring to Bodhicitta, the mind that seeks supreme wisdom). The term 'without residue' here has two meanings: first, the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations) are permanently exhausted; second, all virtues (referring to various merits) are fully complete. Possessing these two meanings, it is called 'without residue,' not referring to the place where the body and wisdom of the Small Vehicle (Śrāvakayāna) are extinguished as 'without residue.' 'Nirvāṇa,' in this banner (referring to a Buddhist banner, a type of Buddhist ritual implement), is explained as extinction. 'Having delivered immeasurable and boundless sentient beings in this way, in reality, no sentient being is delivered,' the treatise explains as the constant mind (referring to the eternal and unchanging mind). 'Constant' has two meanings: first, it explains 'constant' in terms of the Buddha-nature Dharmakāya (referring to the Buddha's true body, which is eternal and unchanging) being still and permanently abiding, equal to each other. However, although the Buddha-nature Dharmakāya is equal, if speaking in terms of practitioners, there are three names for the same Dharmakāya: those whose Dharmakāya is covered and completely impure are called sentient beings; those who cultivate and sever afflictions, being half pure and half impure, are called Bodhisattvas; those who have completed the ten stages (the ten stages of Bodhisattva practice), severed afflictions and obscurations, and are fully pure, are called Buddhas. If based on Tathatā (referring to the true nature of things) and other Dharmakāyas, there is no difference between them, so it is said to be the one-body constant mind. Second, in terms of attaining the compassionate one-body constant mind, sentient beings are like one's own body, constantly present before the eyes, and the mind does not abandon them, so it is called the constant mind. Possessing these two meanings, it is called the constant mind. Based on this, the treatise explains the meaning of one-body compassion, saying 'the Bodhisattva of the first ground attains the position of one child,' which is not a completely thorough statement. How do we know this? If there is a woman who has only one child, loves him very much, and often says, 'I would rather pity my own body than pity my son.' The king then sends someone to burn this woman with a great fire. This woman, fearing the heat, pushes away her son to block the flames, protecting and cherishing her own body. Therefore, we know that saying 'the position of one child' is not a completely thorough statement, so this event is cited to prove this meaning of one-body compassion. However, the reason why these sentient beings protect and cherish their own bodies is because they have been attached to the false view of self for countless lifetimes, and the habit is too ingrained. As it is said in the sutra, someone who commits the five heinous crimes (killing one's father, killing one's mother, killing an Arhat, shedding the blood of a Buddha, and disrupting the Sangha) spends five great kalpas in Avīci hell (referring to the most painful of the eight great hells). Atoning

---

罪將畢，有人謂曰：「汝明日得出地獄。然雖復得出，而汝此身於即斷滅。」罪人聞之，即答云：「我寧更爾許劫在地獄中，不用出已斷滅。」以此眾生從無始世來，貪著妄我故護惜己身，非實有我也。此菩薩亦復如是，從一大阿僧祇來習此慈悲，證初地時於一切眾生得一體心成，冥然一體，不見二相二差別，故曰一體。以此為常心也。此常心者，亦得二心：一、真如自在我；二、一體悲心分也。

「如是滅度無量無邊眾生」者，牒前菩薩所化眾生令入涅槃者來也。

「實無眾生得滅度者」，明菩薩雖度向無量眾生令入涅槃，而於真如平等理中不見我是菩薩有真如佛性，亦不見彼是眾生異於我身無真如佛性而可度者，以真如平等理中泯然一觀彼此無二，故曰實無眾生得滅度也。又此菩薩得一體悲成故，取一切眾生如自己身，冥然一體，不見彼此之異，故曰實無眾生得滅度者。

「何以故？若菩薩有眾生相即非菩薩」者，此釋前實無眾生得滅度者。云何釋？明菩薩既廣化法界眾生令入涅槃，而復言實無眾生得滅度者。何以故如此二言相違也？今將明菩薩由證此真如平等及一體悲成，絕分別之心，不見彼是眾生、我為菩薩而起心度之令得解脫，故言實無眾生得滅度者，非於妄想世諦緣用明道中亦無眾生

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 罪業將盡時，有人對他說：『你明天可以離開地獄。然而即使你能夠出去，你的這個身體也會立刻斷滅。』罪人聽了，立即回答說：『我寧願再在地獄中待這麼多個劫，也不願意出去后就斷滅。』因為眾生從無始以來，貪戀虛妄的『我』，所以愛護自己的身體，但這並非真實存在的『我』啊。這位菩薩也是如此，從一大阿僧祇劫以來修習慈悲，證得初地時，對於一切眾生得到一體之心，渾然一體，不見兩種相狀兩種差別，所以說是一體。這是作為常心。 這個常心，也包含兩種心：一、真如自在的我；二、一體悲心的部分。

『如是滅度無量無邊眾生』，是承接前面菩薩所教化的眾生，使他們進入涅槃。

『實無眾生得滅度者』，說明菩薩雖然度化無量眾生進入涅槃，但在真如平等的道理中，不見『我是菩薩』，具有真如佛性，也不見『他們是眾生』，異於我身，沒有真如佛性而可以被度化。因為在真如平等的道理中，泯然一體，彼此沒有差別，所以說『實無眾生得滅度』。而且這位菩薩因為得到一體悲心成就，把一切眾生看作自己的身體，渾然一體，不見彼此的差異，所以說『實無眾生得滅度者』。

『何以故？若菩薩有眾生相即非菩薩』，這是解釋前面『實無眾生得滅度者』。如何解釋呢？說明菩薩既然廣泛教化法界眾生進入涅槃，卻又說『實無眾生得滅度者』。為什麼會這樣，這兩種說法不是互相矛盾嗎？現在要說明菩薩由於證得真如平等以及一體悲心成就，斷絕了分別之心，不見『他們是眾生』、『我為菩薩』，而生起度化之心，使他們得到解脫，所以說『實無眾生得滅度者』，並非在妄想世俗諦的緣起作用中，也沒有眾生。

【English Translation】 English version When the karmic debt was about to be exhausted, someone said to him: 'You will be able to leave hell tomorrow. However, even if you are able to leave, this body of yours will immediately be annihilated.' Upon hearing this, the condemned man immediately replied: 'I would rather remain in hell for that many more kalpas than to leave only to be annihilated.' This is because sentient beings, from beginningless time, are greedy for the illusory 'self', and therefore cherish their own bodies, but this is not a truly existing 'self'. This Bodhisattva is also like this, cultivating loving-kindness and compassion from a great asamkhya (阿僧祇，innumerable) kalpas, and upon attaining the first Bhumi (地，ground/level), he attains a mind of oneness with all sentient beings, becoming completely one, seeing no two forms or two distinctions, therefore it is said to be one. This is taken as the constant mind. This constant mind also contains two aspects: 1. The True Thusness (真如，suchness) and self-mastery; 2. The aspect of the compassion of oneness.

'Thus, liberating immeasurable and boundless sentient beings' refers to the sentient beings previously transformed by the Bodhisattva, causing them to enter Nirvana (涅槃，liberation).

'In reality, there are no sentient beings who attain liberation' clarifies that although the Bodhisattva liberates immeasurable sentient beings, causing them to enter Nirvana, in the principle of True Thusness and equality, he does not see 'I am a Bodhisattva' possessing True Thusness Buddha-nature, nor does he see 'they are sentient beings' different from my body, lacking True Thusness Buddha-nature and capable of being liberated. Because in the principle of True Thusness and equality, there is a unified view, without any distinction between self and others, therefore it is said 'In reality, there are no sentient beings who attain liberation'. Furthermore, because this Bodhisattva has attained the accomplishment of the compassion of oneness, he regards all sentient beings as his own body, completely one, seeing no difference between self and others, therefore it is said 'In reality, there are no sentient beings who attain liberation'.

'Why is this? If a Bodhisattva has the appearance of sentient beings, then he is not a Bodhisattva' explains the previous statement 'In reality, there are no sentient beings who attain liberation'. How is it explained? It clarifies that since the Bodhisattva extensively transforms sentient beings in the Dharma Realm (法界，Dharma Realm), causing them to enter Nirvana, yet it is said 'In reality, there are no sentient beings who attain liberation'. Why is this, are these two statements not contradictory? Now it will be explained that because the Bodhisattva has realized the equality of True Thusness and the accomplishment of the compassion of oneness, he has severed the mind of discrimination, not seeing 'they are sentient beings', 'I am a Bodhisattva', and generating the mind of liberating them, causing them to attain liberation, therefore it is said 'In reality, there are no sentient beings who attain liberation', it is not that in the arising and functioning of the illusory worldly truth, there are also no sentient beings.

---

可度者，故此二言不相違也。

「若菩薩有眾生想即非菩薩」者，明若菩薩起心分別，謂離真如佛性平等利外，別有定實眾生異於己身而可度者，故有眾生等想，此未是初地解真如平等真我菩薩，故曰即非菩薩。此舉有眾生相、不生不分別相者非菩薩故，明得我心無眾生相者，此以是非相形答也。何以故知？如《首楞嚴經》中堅意菩薩白佛：「菩薩住何地中得首楞嚴三昧？」佛告堅意菩薩：「非初地中得，乃至非九地中得。」若爾竟何地得也？故答于第十地中得。又云「若不得首楞嚴三昧者，則不名菩薩」。若爾，九地已下豈可一向非菩薩也？即答亦得如分力得此三昧。然此言即非菩薩者，明九地已還雖是菩薩，而不得名為第十地中具足得首楞嚴三昧菩薩，然非不分得此三昧也。《寶仿論》中有人問龍樹菩薩：「菩薩從何地來得首楞嚴三昧？」答：「初地中得，乃至第十地中得。」又云「菩薩不得此三昧者，則不名為菩薩。」以是文驗，足知九地已前亦名得此三昧，但遂勝處彰名，故云不得首楞嚴三昧者不名菩薩也。如《涅槃經》云「十地菩薩眼見佛性，九地已還名為聞見。」然九地已下亦分有眼見，但以下形上，云九地為聞見，非是全不眼見。何以得知？又即云「唯佛一人眼見佛性，十地已下皆名聞見」。以

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『可度者，故此二言不相違也』的意思是，因為有可以被度化的對象，所以這兩種說法並不矛盾。

『若菩薩有眾生想即非菩薩』的意思是，如果菩薩心中生起分別念，認為在真如佛性（Tathata-Buddha-nature）的平等利益之外，還存在著與自身不同的、可以被度化的、真實存在的眾生，因此產生了眾生之相，那麼這位菩薩還沒有達到初地（first Bhumi），沒有證悟真如平等真我，所以說『即非菩薩』。這裡舉出有眾生相、不生不分別相的菩薩不是真正的菩薩，是爲了說明得到我心而沒有眾生相的才是真菩薩。這是用『是』與『非』相對比的方式來回答的。為什麼這樣說呢？例如，《首楞嚴經》（Śūraṅgama Sūtra）中，堅意菩薩（Dṛḍhamati Bodhisattva）問佛：『菩薩住在哪個階位才能獲得首楞嚴三昧（Śūraṅgama Samādhi）？』佛告訴堅意菩薩：『不是在初地獲得，乃至不是在九地獲得。』如果這樣，究竟在哪個階位獲得呢？』所以回答說在第十地（tenth Bhumi）獲得。經中又說『如果不能獲得首楞嚴三昧，就不能稱為菩薩』。如果這樣，九地以下的菩薩難道就完全不能稱為菩薩了嗎？』因此回答說也可以像分得力量一樣獲得這種三昧。然而這裡說『即非菩薩』，是說明九地以下的菩薩雖然是菩薩，但不能稱為在第十地中圓滿獲得首楞嚴三昧的菩薩，但並非完全沒有分得這種三昧。《寶仿論》（Ratnāvalī）中有人問龍樹菩薩（Nāgārjuna）：『菩薩從哪個階位開始獲得首楞嚴三昧？』回答說：『從初地開始獲得，乃至第十地獲得。』又說『菩薩不能獲得這種三昧，就不能稱為菩薩。』根據這些經文可以知道，九地以前也可以稱為獲得這種三昧，只是爲了突出殊勝之處才這樣說，所以說不能獲得首楞嚴三昧的不能稱為菩薩。例如，《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）中說『十地菩薩用眼睛看見佛性（Buddha-nature），九地以下的菩薩稱為聽聞看見。』然而九地以下的菩薩也分有眼見，只是以下襯托上，說九地菩薩是聽聞看見，並非完全沒有眼見。為什麼可以這樣認為呢？經中又說『只有佛一人用眼睛看見佛性，十地以下的菩薩都稱為聽聞看見』。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Those who can be delivered, therefore these two statements do not contradict each other' means that because there are objects that can be delivered, these two statements are not contradictory.

'If a Bodhisattva has the thought of sentient beings, then he is not a Bodhisattva' means that if a Bodhisattva gives rise to discriminating thoughts, thinking that apart from the equal benefits of the Tathata-Buddha-nature, there are real sentient beings different from himself who can be delivered, and thus produces the appearance of sentient beings, then this Bodhisattva has not yet reached the first Bhumi, has not realized the true Suchness, equality, and true self, so it is said 'then he is not a Bodhisattva'. Here, the example of a Bodhisattva with the appearance of sentient beings and without the appearance of non-arising and non-discrimination is given to show that a true Bodhisattva is one who obtains the mind of self without the appearance of sentient beings. This is answered by comparing 'is' and 'is not'. Why is this so? For example, in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Dṛḍhamati Bodhisattva asked the Buddha: 'In which stage does a Bodhisattva dwell to obtain the Śūraṅgama Samādhi?' The Buddha told Dṛḍhamati Bodhisattva: 'It is not obtained in the first Bhumi, and even not in the ninth Bhumi.' If so, in which stage is it obtained?' So the answer is that it is obtained in the tenth Bhumi. The sutra also says 'If one cannot obtain the Śūraṅgama Samādhi, then one cannot be called a Bodhisattva'. If so, can Bodhisattvas below the ninth Bhumi not be called Bodhisattvas at all?' Therefore, the answer is that one can also obtain this Samādhi like obtaining a fraction of power. However, the statement 'then he is not a Bodhisattva' here means that although Bodhisattvas below the ninth Bhumi are Bodhisattvas, they cannot be called Bodhisattvas who have fully obtained the Śūraṅgama Samādhi in the tenth Bhumi, but it is not that they have not obtained a fraction of this Samādhi. In the Ratnāvalī, someone asked Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva: 'From which stage does a Bodhisattva begin to obtain the Śūraṅgama Samādhi?' The answer is: 'From the first Bhumi to the tenth Bhumi.' It also says 'If a Bodhisattva cannot obtain this Samādhi, then he cannot be called a Bodhisattva.' Based on these texts, it can be known that one can also be called to have obtained this Samādhi before the ninth Bhumi, but it is only said to highlight the superior aspect, so it is said that one who cannot obtain the Śūraṅgama Samādhi cannot be called a Bodhisattva. For example, in the Nirvana Sutra, it is said that 'Bodhisattvas of the tenth Bhumi see the Buddha-nature with their eyes, and Bodhisattvas below the ninth Bhumi are called to hear and see.' However, Bodhisattvas below the ninth Bhumi also have a fraction of seeing with their eyes, but the lower is used to set off the higher, saying that Bodhisattvas of the ninth Bhumi hear and see, not that they do not see with their eyes at all. Why can this be considered so? The sutra also says 'Only the Buddha alone sees the Buddha-nature with his eyes, and Bodhisattvas below the tenth Bhumi are all called to hear and see.'

---

此驗知，亦得言初地以上眼見佛性，地前凡夫名為聞見。此皆就人有上下迭相形奪優劣中語，非稱實之談。故今道則非菩薩者，則非初地解真如平等菩薩也。

「何以故非乃至不名菩薩」，此論釋云不顛倒心。何故明此？眾生有人生疑：菩薩住初地時，云何於一切眾生得我心者？此以何義故名為我心？如外道凡夫以顛倒見故，于眾生五陰無我法中橫計神我，未知此菩薩我心者何異外道凡夫橫計神我，故言何以故也。為除此疑故，佛將欲答菩薩起於我心者非是橫神我，故言何以故也。為除此疑故，佛將欲答菩薩起於我心者非是橫計顛倒之我，故言非也。泛明我有二種：一者一切眾生真如佛性一體平等自在之我；二者于眾生五陰中橫計即離等神我顛倒心也。然菩薩得真如平等自在我解故便住初地，故此非橫計顛倒我也。應直作此答，何故乃云有眾生相等不名菩薩答也？將以未得二種無我平等解者，有眾生等相，非菩薩故。明知得二種無我平等解者，無眾生相，是名菩薩。以未得者非故，形得者為是，此轉答也。若菩薩有眾生相至壽者相等者，此明若菩薩猶有我人等相，則不名住初地已上解真如平等得無我菩薩，故云則不名菩薩也。

論曰「云何菩薩大乘中住」等，此是論主將釋前經，故設此論生起也。大乘中

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這種驗證認知，也可以說初地（初地菩薩）以上的菩薩以眼見佛性，而初地之前的凡夫只能說是聽聞佛性。這些都是就人們之間高下相互比較、爭奪優劣而言，並非真實的描述。所以現在說『則非菩薩者』，就是說不是證悟真如平等（Tathata-samata）的初地菩薩。 『何以故非乃至不名菩薩』，此處的論述解釋為『不顛倒心』。為何要闡明這一點？因為有些眾生會產生疑問：菩薩住在初地時，為何會對一切眾生生起『我心』？這裡的『我心』是什麼意思？如同外道凡夫以顛倒見，在眾生五陰（Panca-skandha）無我的法中，橫加臆測一個『神我』，不知道這位菩薩的『我心』與外道凡夫橫加臆測的『神我』有什麼不同，所以才問『何以故也』。爲了消除這個疑問，佛將要回答菩薩生起的『我心』並非橫加臆測的『神我』，所以說『何以故也』。爲了消除這個疑問，佛將要回答菩薩生起的『我心』並非橫加臆測的顛倒之『我』，所以說『非也』。泛泛地說，『我』有兩種：一種是一切眾生真如佛性一體平等的自在之『我』；另一種是在眾生五陰中橫加臆測的，即脫離五陰等的神我顛倒心。然而菩薩證悟真如平等自在之『我』，因此安住于初地，所以這並非橫加臆測的顛倒之『我』。本應直接這樣回答，為何卻說『有眾生相等不名菩薩』呢？這是因為未證得二種無我平等解的人，有眾生等相，所以不是菩薩。這表明證得二種無我平等解的人，沒有眾生相，這才是菩薩。因為未證得者不是菩薩，所以襯托出證得者是菩薩，這是一種反向的回答。如果菩薩有眾生相乃至壽者相等，這說明如果菩薩還有我人等相，那麼就不能說是安住于初地以上，證悟真如平等，獲得無我的菩薩，所以說『則不名菩薩也』。 論中說『云何菩薩大乘中住』等，這是論主將要解釋前面的經文，所以設立這個論題來引發討論。大乘中

【English Translation】 English version: This verification and knowledge can also be said that Bodhisattvas above the first Bhumi (Bhumis are levels of Bodhisattva realization) see the Buddha-nature with their eyes, while ordinary beings before the first Bhumi are said to hear and perceive it. All these are spoken in the context of people comparing each other's merits and demerits, and are not factual descriptions. Therefore, saying 'then not a Bodhisattva' means not a Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi who has realized the equality of Suchness (Tathata-samata). 'Why not, even not called a Bodhisattva,' this treatise explains as 'non-inverted mind.' Why is this clarified? Because some sentient beings may have doubts: When a Bodhisattva dwells in the first Bhumi, how can they have a 'mind of self' towards all sentient beings? What does 'mind of self' mean here? Like non-Buddhist outsiders and ordinary people who, with inverted views, arbitrarily speculate a 'divine self' within the five aggregates (Panca-skandha) of sentient beings, which are without self, they do not know how this Bodhisattva's 'mind of self' differs from the 'divine self' arbitrarily speculated by non-Buddhist outsiders and ordinary people, hence the question 'Why is it so?' To dispel this doubt, the Buddha is about to answer that the 'mind of self' that a Bodhisattva arises is not an arbitrarily speculated 'divine self,' hence 'Why is it so?' To dispel this doubt, the Buddha is about to answer that the 'mind of self' that a Bodhisattva arises is not an arbitrarily speculated inverted 'self,' hence 'It is not.' Generally speaking, there are two kinds of 'self': one is the self of equality and freedom of the Tathagata-dhatu (Buddha-nature) of all sentient beings; the other is the inverted mind of arbitrarily speculating a divine self that is separate from the five aggregates of sentient beings. However, a Bodhisattva realizes the self of equality and freedom of Suchness, and therefore dwells in the first Bhumi, so this is not an arbitrarily speculated inverted 'self.' It should have been answered directly like this, but why say 'having the appearance of sentient beings, they are not called Bodhisattvas'? This is because those who have not attained the understanding of the equality of the two kinds of non-self have the appearance of sentient beings, so they are not Bodhisattvas. This shows that those who have attained the understanding of the equality of the two kinds of non-self do not have the appearance of sentient beings, and these are called Bodhisattvas. Because those who have not attained it are not Bodhisattvas, it sets off those who have attained it as Bodhisattvas, which is a reverse answer. If a Bodhisattva has the appearance of sentient beings, even the appearance of a life-span, this indicates that if a Bodhisattva still has the appearance of self, others, etc., then they cannot be said to dwell above the first Bhumi, realize the equality of Suchness, and attain the non-self Bodhisattva, hence 'then they are not called Bodhisattvas.' The treatise says 'How does a Bodhisattva dwell in the Mahayana,' etc. This is the treatise master setting up this discussion to initiate the explanation of the previous sutra. In the Mahayana

---

住者，取經中問答所明之義為此一段經名也。「問」者，須菩提問。「答」者，如來答也。「示現此義」者，明此經辨具足四種深心永大乘中住義也。此一段經雖科為四句，論以一偈釋盡。初廣心者，別釋卵生等三種眾生，明菩薩發心教化卵生等色無色等盡眾生界，情無限局，故名廣心也。「大」者，與廣義一名異，但為成偈故所以並置也。「第一」者，釋經中「我皆令入無餘涅槃而滅度之」，明菩薩乃以常住涅槃至極之樂度于眾生，不以聲聞緣覺中道所證而滅度之，況人天等樂，故名第一心也。「常」者，釋前經中「實無眾生得滅度者」。常有二種：一明初地菩薩會真如佛性常住之理，然此常理妙有湛然古今一定，無有凡聖彼此之異。於此真如一體平等理中，何得見有眾生異於己身而得滅度者？故言常心。二明菩薩得一體慈悲平等之解，我所修善根即是眾生善根，教化眾生如我自身，恒無休息，故名常心也。「其心不顛倒」者，釋經中「若菩薩起眾生相等則不名菩薩」者，明道言我心者非妄計神我顛倒心也。「利益深心住」者，此是疾轉，義通前四種心，下皆云利益深心住。此言深心者，緣真如深理起此四心，故曰深。又復深起悲心亦名深也。今言住者，具上四心故，初地大乘法中決定住也。「此乘功德滿」者，明

初地菩薩具前四心故，初地僧祇大乘功德分中滿足，非究竟滿也。

「此偈說何等義」者，論主作偈釋義訖竟，復以長行論來釋，故先假設問其一偈所釋之意說何等義也。既有此問，即答云「若菩薩有四種深利益心」。「此是菩薩大乘住處」訖末，明此下答意有二：初、辨以有四種深心故，此菩薩能住初地大乘中。二、從「何等為四種心」以下至末，廣別提四心，各舉經結之也。「若菩薩有四種心」者，牒偈中上二句四種心也。「深利益菩提心乃至大乘住處住」者，釋偈中第三句也。「何以故？此深心功德滿足」者，舉偈中第四句，以功德滿足故，釋成前第三句云何此四種心得住于初地大乘中也，明具四種功德滿足故得住初地大乘中也。「是故四種深利益攝取心生」等者，結總釋四心也。是故者，是四種深心滿足故，便近攝取初地、遠生佛果也。「何等為四種心」者，將欲以一句經結一種心，故問出四種心也。「一廣」等，數出四心也。「云何廣心利益？如經」等，自下別提偈中四種心各為問，各以一段經結之，更不委釋，即指經為解，依論可知也。但第三常心其義猶隱，故論主偏作問云「此義云何」。雖此一段明於常心，猶未可解，不知此常心之義云何也。「菩薩取一切眾生猶如我身」者，答于常心義，明菩

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 初地菩薩因為具備前面所說的四種心，所以在初地這個階段，他的僧祇大乘功德分是滿足的，但不是究竟圓滿。

『這首偈頌說了什麼意義』，論主用偈頌解釋完意義后，又用長行文來解釋，所以先假設提問，這一個偈頌所解釋的意義是什麼。既然有這個提問，就回答說『如果菩薩有四種深刻利益眾生的心』。從『這是菩薩大乘的住處』到最後，說明下面的回答有兩個意思：第一，說明因為有四種深刻的心，所以這位菩薩能夠安住于初地的大乘境界中。第二，從『什麼是四種心』以下到最後，廣泛地分別提出四種心，各自引用經文來總結。『如果菩薩有四種心』，這是呼應偈頌中前兩句所說的四種心。『深刻利益菩提心乃至安住于大乘住處』，這是解釋偈頌中的第三句。『為什麼呢？因為這種深刻的心功德圓滿』，這是引用偈頌中的第四句，因為功德圓滿，所以解釋併成就了前面的第三句，說明這四種心如何能夠安住于初地的大乘境界中，說明具備四種功德圓滿，所以能夠安住于初地的大乘境界中。『因此，四種深刻利益攝取的心產生』等等，這是總結解釋四種心。『是故』，是因為這四種深刻的心圓滿，所以能夠接近攝取初地，長遠地產生佛果。『什麼是四種心』，這是將要用一句經文來總結一種心，所以提問說四種心。『一廣』等等，這是列舉出四種心。『什麼是廣心利益？如經』等等，從這裡開始分別提出偈頌中的四種心，各自作為一個問題，各自用一段經文來總結，不再詳細解釋，直接引用經文作為解釋，根據論著就可以理解。但是第三種常心，它的意義仍然隱晦，所以論主特別提問說『這個意義是什麼』。雖然這一段闡明了常心，仍然難以理解，不知道這個常心的意義是什麼。『菩薩看待一切眾生就像看待自己一樣』，這是回答常心的意義，說明菩

【English Translation】 English version Because a Bodhisattva of the first ground possesses the aforementioned four minds, their accumulation of merit within the Samgha-Mahayana on the first ground is fulfilled, though not ultimately complete.

Regarding 'What meaning does this verse convey?', after the author of the treatise explains the meaning with a verse, they further explain it with prose. Therefore, they first pose the hypothetical question: what meaning does this single verse explain? Since this question is posed, the answer is: 'If a Bodhisattva has four kinds of profoundly beneficial minds.' From 'This is the dwelling place of the Bodhisattva's Mahayana' to the end, it clarifies that the following answer has two meanings: first, it explains that because of having four kinds of profound minds, this Bodhisattva can dwell in the Mahayana of the first ground. Second, from 'What are the four kinds of minds?' to the end, it extensively and separately presents the four minds, each concluding with a sutra. 'If a Bodhisattva has four kinds of minds,' this echoes the four kinds of minds mentioned in the first two lines of the verse. 'Profoundly beneficial Bodhi mind, even dwelling in the dwelling place of the Mahayana,' this explains the third line of the verse. 'Why? Because the merit of this profound mind is complete,' this quotes the fourth line of the verse. Because the merit is complete, it explains and accomplishes the preceding third line, clarifying how these four kinds of minds can dwell in the Mahayana of the first ground, explaining that possessing the completeness of the four kinds of merit allows one to dwell in the Mahayana of the first ground. 'Therefore, the four kinds of profoundly beneficial minds of embracing arise,' etc., this is a summary explanation of the four minds. 'Therefore' means that because these four kinds of profound minds are complete, one can closely embrace the first ground and distantly generate the fruit of Buddhahood. 'What are the four kinds of minds?' This is because one is about to conclude each kind of mind with a line from a sutra, so one asks about the four kinds of minds. 'One broad,' etc., this enumerates the four minds. 'What is the benefit of the broad mind? As the sutra says,' etc., from here onwards, each of the four kinds of minds in the verse is presented separately as a question, each concluded with a passage from a sutra. There is no further detailed explanation; the sutra is directly cited as the explanation, and it can be understood according to the treatise. However, the meaning of the third, constant mind, is still obscure, so the author of the treatise specifically asks, 'What is the meaning of this?' Although this section clarifies the constant mind, it is still difficult to understand; one does not know what the meaning of this constant mind is. 'The Bodhisattva regards all sentient beings as if they were their own body,' this answers the meaning of the constant mind, explaining that the Bo

---

薩得一體心成，是故取一切眾生如我身，不見眾生異於我也。「以此義故」者，以此菩薩取眾生猶如我身義故也。令眾生得涅槃滅度之者，即是我身涅槃故，異菩薩身外無別眾生得滅度也。「若菩薩于眾生起眾生相，不生我想」等，猶是經中舉非形是也。

論曰「自此以下說菩薩如大乘中住修行」者，此是論主牒前住分生后修行分也。「如大乘中住」者，牒第三住分也。「修行」者，處分，生后大段第四如實修行也。此正應直處分，如實修行分，何故通牒住分來者？明菩薩雖得四種深心住于初地，猶行未究竟，故須臾進修二地以上諸行，故通牒前第三分生起第四分也。

「複次須菩提！不住於事行於佈施」等一段經，名為第四如實修行分也。云何名為如實修行？明二地已上修道菩薩，既會真如平等、現見佛性、得一體慈悲故，能以無分別不取相心，而不為三事亦不見三事相，行八萬四千諸波羅蜜，故名如實修行也。此經所以來者，前第三段中已明菩薩現見真如具足四種深利益心，則能永斷四住、出分段生死、離五怖畏，生在佛家，住于初地大乘法中。然雖一大僧祇行滿證初地無生見道之解，並觀三種二諦平等照萬有，猶地行未圓、一切種智未滿，觀境未周、斷惑未盡、大光明未具足，必須重修萬行，增習

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 薩得一體心成，因此要將一切眾生視如己身，不見眾生與我有所不同。（『以此義故』）的意思是，菩薩因為將眾生視如己身之義的緣故。令眾生得到涅槃滅度的，就如同我自身涅槃一樣，在菩薩身外沒有其他眾生可以得到滅度。（『若菩薩于眾生起眾生相，不生我想』等），這仍然是經文中舉例說明並非實情。

論曰：『自此以下說菩薩如大乘中住修行』，這是論主承接前面的住分，引出後面的修行分。（『如大乘中住』）是承接第三住分。（『修行』）是處分，引出後面大段的第四如實修行。這裡本應直接處分如實修行分，為何要連帶提及住分呢？這是爲了說明菩薩雖然得到四種深心，安住于初地，但修行尚未究竟，所以必須繼續進修二地以上的各種修行，因此連帶提及前面的第三分，以引出第四分。

（『複次須菩提！不住於事行於佈施』等）這一段經文，稱為第四如實修行分。什麼叫做如實修行呢？說明二地以上的修道菩薩，既然已經領會真如平等、現見佛性、得到一體慈悲，因此能夠以無分別、不取相的心，不為三事所動，也不見三事之相，修行八萬四千種波羅蜜，所以叫做如實修行。這段經文的來由是，前面第三段中已經說明菩薩現見真如，具足四種深利益心，就能永遠斷除四住、脫離分段生死、遠離五種怖畏，生在佛家，安住于初地大乘法中。然而，即使經過一大阿僧祇劫的修行圓滿，證得初地無生見道的理解，並且觀察三種二諦平等照耀萬有，但地上的修行尚未圓滿，一切種智尚未完備，觀察的境界尚未周全，斷除的迷惑尚未窮盡，大光明尚未具足，必須重新修行萬行，增加修習。

【English Translation】 English version: Because the mind of the Satva (sentient being) becomes one, all sentient beings are taken as one's own body, and no difference is seen between sentient beings and oneself. 'Because of this meaning' means that the Bodhisattva (enlightenment being) takes sentient beings as one's own body because of this meaning. To enable sentient beings to attain Nirvana (liberation) and extinction is like one's own Nirvana. There are no other sentient beings outside the Bodhisattva's body who can attain extinction. '(If a Bodhisattva arises with the appearance of sentient beings and does not give rise to the thought of self)' etc., this is still an example in the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) to illustrate what is not the case.

The Shastra (treatise) says: 'From here onwards, it speaks of the Bodhisattva dwelling and practicing in the Mahayana (Great Vehicle).' This is the author of the treatise connecting the previous dwelling section to introduce the subsequent practice section. 'Dwelling in the Mahayana' connects to the third dwelling section. 'Practice' is the disposition, introducing the fourth section of truly practicing accordingly in the later major section. Here, one should directly dispose of the section of truly practicing accordingly. Why mention the dwelling section as well? This is to clarify that although the Bodhisattva has attained the four profound minds and dwells in the first Bhumi (stage), the practice is not yet complete. Therefore, one must continue to cultivate the practices of the second Bhumi and above. Hence, the previous third section is mentioned to introduce the fourth section.

'(Furthermore, Subhuti (one of the principal disciples of Buddha)! Not dwelling in things, practicing giving)' and this section of the Sutra is called the fourth section of truly practicing accordingly. What is called truly practicing accordingly? It explains that the Bodhisattvas who cultivate the path in the second Bhumi and above, having understood Tathata (suchness) equality, directly seeing the Buddha-nature (enlightened nature), and attaining the compassion of oneness, are able to practice the eighty-four thousand Paramitas (perfections) with a mind of non-discrimination and non-attachment, without being moved by the three things, nor seeing the appearance of the three things. Therefore, it is called truly practicing accordingly. The reason for this Sutra is that the previous third section has already explained that the Bodhisattva, directly seeing Tathata and possessing the four profound beneficial minds, can forever cut off the four abodes, escape from the Samsara (cycle of rebirth), be free from the five fears, be born into the Buddha's family, and dwell in the first Bhumi of the Mahayana Dharma. However, even after completing the practice of one great Asankhya (incalculable number) Kalpa (aeon), attaining the understanding of the non-origination of the first Bhumi, and observing the three kinds of two truths equally illuminating all things, the practice on the Bhumi is not yet complete, the all-knowing wisdom is not yet perfect, the observed realm is not yet comprehensive, the delusions to be cut off are not yet exhausted, and the great light is not yet complete. One must re-cultivate the myriad practices and increase the learning.

---

見道備精眾德，更逕二大阿僧祇行滿或盡，方能進趣證於佛果。是故菩薩若能始從二地終於遠行，以不取心行諸波羅蜜，遣功用相盡，乃得證於八地已上無功用位，備修十地，得一切種智，是故第四次辨如實修行分也。就此經中，始未具明三道。何者是？前之住分，局在初地，即是見道；此如實修行分，二地已上至於七地，即是修道；下斷疑分中言違于不住道者，即是八地至十地，無功用道也。

「不住於事行於佈施」者，論云「不著自身事」者，自五陰事也。以菩薩離不活畏，故不著自身。所以教不著自身者，若著于身，則有二種過：一、畏身不活，一向不施；二、說使佈施著相心求，不成彼岸義也。

「無所住」者，論云「不著」。「報恩報恩」者，謂供養、恭敬。供養有三：一、奉施：二、恭敬：三、尊重。恭敬亦有三也：一、給侍；二、迎送；三、禮拜也。菩薩得一體心成，故常作心念：「我應供養一切眾生，云何乃求他人供養？」是故不著報恩也。「不住色」等者，論云「不著果報」，此明菩薩為求無上菩提行於佈施，不為三界人天中色聲等五欲果報，故云不著果報也。此三句答于問中雲何修行也。以能如是不住三事行於佈施，方得名為如實修行也。

有人乘此生疑：凡人所以行佈施者

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：見道圓滿，具備各種功德，再經歷兩大阿僧祇劫的修行圓滿或者將盡時，才能進一步趨向證得佛果。因此，菩薩如果能夠從二地開始，到遠行地結束，以不執取的心來修行諸波羅蜜（paramita，意為到彼岸），使功用之相完全消失，才能證得八地以上的無功用位，完備地修習十地，獲得一切種智（sarvajnana，意為對一切事物本質的徹底理解），所以第四次辨明如實修行分。就這部經來說，開始和結尾並沒有完全闡明三道。哪三道呢？前面的住分，侷限在初地，就是見道；這個如實修行分，從二地以上到七地，就是修道；下面斷疑分中說的違背不住道的人，就是八地到十地，無功用道。 『不住於事行於佈施』，論中說『不執著自身之事』，就是指五陰（skandha，意為構成個體經驗的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）之事。因為菩薩遠離了不活畏（指對生存的恐懼），所以不執著自身。之所以教導不要執著自身，如果執著于自身，就會有兩種過失：一是害怕身體不能存活，一直不佈施；二是說即使佈施，也會執著于相，心懷求報，不能成就到彼岸的意義。 『無所住』，論中說『不執著』。『報恩報恩』，是指供養、恭敬。供養有三種：一是奉獻施捨；二是恭敬；三是尊重。恭敬也有三種：一是侍奉；二是迎接護送；三是禮拜。菩薩得到一體之心成就，所以常常這樣想：『我應該供養一切眾生，怎麼能求他人供養呢？』所以不執著報恩。『不住色』等等，論中說『不執著果報』，這說明菩薩爲了求無上菩提（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，意為無上正等正覺）而行佈施，不是爲了三界人天中的色聲等五欲果報，所以說不執著果報。這三句回答了問中『如何修行』的問題。因為能夠這樣不住於三事而行佈施，才能稱得上是如實修行。 有人因此產生疑問：凡人之所以行佈施，

【English Translation】 English version: Having perfected the Path of Seeing and possessing all virtues, one can only further advance towards attaining Buddhahood after completing or nearing the completion of two great asamkhya kalpas (asamkhya kalpa, meaning countless eons). Therefore, if a Bodhisattva can begin from the Second Bhumi (Second Ground) and end at the Distant Going Bhumi, practicing the Paramitas (paramita, meaning perfections or 'to the other shore') with a non-attaching mind, and completely eliminate the appearance of effort, they can attain the state of non-effort from the Eighth Bhumi onwards, fully cultivate the Ten Bhumis, and attain Sarvajñana (sarvajnana, meaning all-knowing wisdom). Therefore, this fourth section distinguishes the aspect of true practice. In this sutra, the beginning and end do not fully clarify the Three Paths. What are they? The preceding section on abiding is limited to the First Bhumi, which is the Path of Seeing; this section on true practice, from the Second Bhumi upwards to the Seventh Bhumi, is the Path of Cultivation; and the statement in the following section on severing doubts about those who deviate from the Path of Non-Abiding refers to the Eighth Bhumi to the Tenth Bhumi, the Path of Non-Effort. 『Not abiding in things, practicing giving,』 the treatise says, 『Not attached to one's own affairs,』 which refers to the affairs of the five skandhas (skandha, meaning aggregates, the five components of a being: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). Because the Bodhisattva is free from the fear of not surviving, they are not attached to themselves. The reason for teaching not to be attached to oneself is that if one is attached to oneself, there will be two faults: first, fearing that the body will not survive, one will never give; second, even if one gives, one will be attached to appearances, seeking reward in their mind, and will not achieve the meaning of reaching the other shore. 『Without any abiding,』 the treatise says, 『Not attached.』 『Repaying kindness, repaying kindness,』 refers to making offerings and showing reverence. There are three kinds of offerings: first, giving; second, reverence; third, respect. There are also three kinds of reverence: first, serving; second, welcoming and sending off; third, prostrating. The Bodhisattva attains the accomplishment of the mind of oneness, so they constantly think: 『I should make offerings to all sentient beings, how can I seek offerings from others?』 Therefore, they are not attached to repaying kindness. 『Not abiding in form,』 etc., the treatise says, 『Not attached to karmic rewards,』 this explains that the Bodhisattva practices giving in order to seek Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi (anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, meaning unsurpassed perfect enlightenment), not for the karmic rewards of form, sound, etc., the five desires in the realms of humans and devas, so it is said that they are not attached to karmic rewards. These three sentences answer the question of 『how to practice』 in the question. Because one can practice giving in this way, without abiding in these three things, one can be called a true practitioner. Someone may raise a doubt based on this: The reason why ordinary people practice giving is

---

，為自身、報恩、果報。若菩薩不為自身、報恩、果報者，云何而得行於佈施？復佈施之行雲何得成？有如此疑故，佛答須菩提「應如是佈施」，此明雖不為三事，以此菩薩為求佛果，復得一體慈悲愍一切眾生故，所以能施。此是無相佈施，故彼岸義成，故言應如是佈施。「應如是佈施」者，應如上不為三事行無相佈施也。

雖言不著三事行無相佈施，未知菩薩觀何境界調伏其心，能如是不著三事行於佈施？故下云「不住于相想」。此經答上問中雲何降伏其心，釋成前云何修行中不著三事，明所以能于自身、報恩、果報不著而修佈施等行者。明此菩薩由證真如平等得勝三昧，柔伏其心，便不見我是施者、彼是受者。既會平等，不見彼此施主福田二相差別之異，不見財物但是我許非餘人物，而用施前眾生。又亦于平等理中，不見有菩提果報可求。明菩薩于真如理中得勝三昧，於此事中降伏其心，得柔軟自在故，能不著三事而行佈施。此三種事有二種：一、外；二、內。一不住相者，謂受者、財物二種外相也。不住想者，謂施者內心想也。若能如是不取內外法相，以無分別，能降伏心而行佈施，故成上不著自身等三事佈施行也。云何而言若不住自身等相何得佈施？不施之行雲何得成也？明真如平等理中不見三事而行

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了自身、報恩、果報。如果菩薩不爲了自身、報恩、果報，又怎麼能夠進行佈施呢？佈施的行為又怎麼能夠成就呢？因為有這樣的疑問，佛陀回答須菩提『應當這樣佈施』，這說明雖然不爲了這三件事，但因為菩薩爲了求得佛果，並且獲得一體的慈悲憐憫一切眾生，所以能夠佈施。這是無相佈施，所以彼岸的意義才能成就，所以說應當這樣佈施。『應當這樣佈施』的意思是，應當像上面所說的不爲了這三件事而進行無相佈施。

雖然說不執著於三件事而進行無相佈施，但不知道菩薩觀察什麼樣的境界來調伏自己的心，才能夠這樣不執著於三件事而進行佈施？所以下面說『不住于相想』。這段經文回答了前面所問的如何降伏其心，解釋了前面所說的如何在修行中不執著於三件事，說明了為什麼能夠對於自身、報恩、果報不執著而修行佈施等行為。說明這位菩薩由於證悟了真如平等而獲得殊勝的三昧（Samadhi，一種高度集中的冥想狀態），柔和調伏了自己的心，便看不到我是施者、他是受者。既然領會了平等，就看不到彼此施主和福田兩種相的差別，看不到財物只是我的而不是其他人的，而用來佈施給眾生。而且在平等的道理中，也看不到有菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）果報可以求。說明菩薩在真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）的道理中獲得殊勝的三昧，在這件事中降伏了自己的心，獲得柔軟自在，所以能夠不執著於三件事而進行佈施。這三種事有兩種：一是外在的；二是內在的。不住相，指的是受者、財物兩種外在的相。不住想，指的是施者內心的想法。如果能夠這樣不取內外法相，以無分別心，能夠降伏自己的心而進行佈施，就成就了上面所說的不執著自身等三件事的佈施行為。怎麼能說如果不執著自身等相，又怎麼能夠佈施呢？不佈施的行為又怎麼能夠成就呢？說明在真如平等的道理中看不到三件事而進行佈施。

【English Translation】 English version: For oneself, to repay kindness, and for karmic retribution. If a Bodhisattva does not act for oneself, to repay kindness, or for karmic retribution, how can they practice giving? And how can the act of giving be accomplished? Because of such doubts, the Buddha answers Subhuti (one of the principal disciples of the Buddha) 'One should give in this way,' which explains that although not for these three things, because the Bodhisattva seeks Buddhahood (the state of complete enlightenment) and attains the compassion to have pity on all beings, they are able to give. This is giving without characteristics, so the meaning of the other shore (Nirvana) is accomplished, hence the saying 'One should give in this way.' 'One should give in this way' means one should practice giving without characteristics as mentioned above, not for these three things.

Although it is said to practice giving without characteristics without attachment to the three things, it is not known what realm the Bodhisattva observes to subdue their mind, so that they can practice giving without attachment to the three things. Therefore, it is said below 'Not dwelling in appearances or thoughts.' This passage answers the previous question of how to subdue the mind, explaining the previous statement of how not to be attached to the three things in practice, clarifying why one can practice giving and other actions without attachment to oneself, repaying kindness, or karmic retribution. It explains that this Bodhisattva, by realizing the equality of Suchness (Tathata, the true nature of reality) and attaining the supreme Samadhi (a state of meditative consciousness), gently subdues their mind, and thus does not see 'I am the giver, and they are the receiver.' Since they understand equality, they do not see the difference between the giver and the field of merit, nor do they see that the wealth is only mine and not others', and use it to give to sentient beings. Moreover, in the principle of equality, they do not see any Bodhi (enlightenment) fruit to be sought. It explains that the Bodhisattva attains the supreme Samadhi in the principle of Suchness, subduing their mind in this matter, gaining gentleness and freedom, so they can practice giving without attachment to the three things. These three things are of two kinds: one is external, and the other is internal. 'Not dwelling in appearances' refers to the two external appearances of the receiver and the wealth. 'Not dwelling in thoughts' refers to the giver's inner thoughts. If one can thus not grasp the appearances of internal and external dharmas (teachings, phenomena), with non-discrimination, and can subdue their mind and practice giving, then the above-mentioned act of giving without attachment to oneself and the three things is accomplished. How can it be said that if one does not dwell on appearances such as oneself, how can one give? How can the act of not giving be accomplished? It explains that in the principle of Suchness and equality, one does not see the three things and practices giving.

---

佈施者，乃真成無相檀，非謂性空中不見也。

因何不著果報？更生一疑：若不著果報行佈施者，無上菩提亦是果報，云何為佛菩提行於佈施而不名著果報也？此中未答，指下第五段，彼處明法身菩提是無為相。設使為此菩提行佈施者，不名取相，故遙以此為答也。「何以故？若不住相佈施，其福德聚不可思量」者，此乃為釋。前疑者云：若不見施者、受者、財物三種相者，未知此為有心故言不見，為無心故而云不見也？若無心者，此何異郁單越人，彼處人無我所心，他來取物者劫無心吝惜。以無施心故，雖舍佈施無福。此亦如是，若無心分別，不成彼岸行也。若不見三事行佈施者，此施為有福德？為無福德也？故答不住相佈施，其福德聚多，不可思量。明此佈施得平等真如一體心成故，但於此三事中不生取著，名為不住，非無真如平等知慧解心而行佈施，此明有心，非是無心也。若取相佈施，是有漏因，但感三界有為果報，其福有盡故少。不見三事行佈施者，不取相是無漏之因，乃遠招佛果、不感三有果報，故無相福德轉多不可思量。此明無相心佈施得佛果無量功德聚，故非無心無福也。故以此一。「何以故」等，雙釋二疑也。然此雖法說云福德不可思量，義猶未顯，故復別虛空譬喻證成福德多也。然既行不

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：行佈施的人，才是真正成就了無相的佈施，而不是說在自性空性中什麼都看不見。

為什麼不執著于果報？這裡又產生一個疑問：如果不執著于果報而行佈施，那麼無上菩提也是一種果報，為什麼諸佛爲了證得菩提而行佈施，卻不稱為執著于果報呢？這個問題在這裡沒有直接回答，而是指向下文第五段，那裡闡明法身菩提是無為之相。假設爲了證得這種菩提而行佈施，就不稱為取相，所以遙遙地用那裡的內容來回答這個問題。『何以故？若不住相佈施，其福德聚不可思量』，這是爲了解釋前面的疑問。前面的疑問是：如果不見施者、受者、財物這三種相，不知道這是因為有心而說不見，還是因為無心而說不見呢？如果是無心，這和郁單越（Uttaratra，北俱盧洲）的人有什麼區別？那裡的人沒有『我所』之心，別人來拿取東西，他們也不會吝惜。因為沒有佈施的心，所以即使捨棄財物也沒有福德。這裡也是如此，如果沒有心的分別，就不能成就到彼岸的修行。如果不見這三件事而行佈施，這種佈施是有福德，還是沒有福德呢？所以回答說不住相佈施，其福德聚集很多，不可思量。說明這種佈施是得到了平等真如一體的心才成就的，只是對於這三件事不生起執著，稱為不住相，而不是沒有真如平等的智慧和理解之心而行佈施，這說明是有心的，不是無心的。如果取相佈施，是有漏的因，只能感得三界有為的果報，其福德有窮盡所以少。不見這三件事而行佈施，是不取相的無漏之因，能長遠地招感佛果，不感三有的果報，所以無相的福德越來越多，不可思量。這說明以無相心佈施能得到佛果的無量功德聚集，所以不是無心無福。所以用這一句『何以故』等，同時解釋了兩個疑問。然而這裡雖然用法理來說福德不可思量，但意義還不明顯，所以又用虛空的譬喻來證明福德之多。既然行不

【English Translation】 English version: A giver is one who truly accomplishes the formless dāna (佈施，giving or almsgiving), not that nothing is seen in the nature of emptiness.

Why not be attached to the retribution of karma? Another doubt arises: If one practices dāna without being attached to the retribution, then Anuttarā-samyak-sambodhi (無上菩提， unsurpassed complete enlightenment) is also a retribution. Why do Buddhas practice dāna for Bodhi (菩提，enlightenment) without being called attached to retribution? This is not answered here, but pointed to the fifth section below, where it clarifies that Dharmakāya Bodhi (法身菩提，Dharma body enlightenment) is the aspect of non-action. Supposing one practices dāna for this Bodhi, it is not called grasping at form, so it is remotely used to answer this question. 『Why? If one gives without dwelling in form, the accumulation of merit is immeasurable,』 this is to explain the previous doubt. The previous doubt is: If one does not see the three aspects of giver, receiver, and object, it is not known whether this 『not seeing』 is said because of having a mind or because of not having a mind? If it is without a mind, how is this different from the people of Uttaratra (郁單越，North Kurus)? The people there have no sense of 『mine,』 and they are not stingy when others come to take things. Because they have no mind of giving, even if they give away things, they have no merit. It is the same here; if there is no mental discrimination, the practice of reaching the other shore cannot be accomplished. If one practices dāna without seeing these three things, is this dāna meritorious or not meritorious? Therefore, it is answered that giving without dwelling in form, the accumulation of merit is great and immeasurable. It explains that this dāna is accomplished by obtaining the mind of equality, Suchness, and oneness, but one does not generate attachment to these three things, which is called non-dwelling. It is not that one practices dāna without the wisdom and understanding of Suchness and equality; this explains that it is with a mind, not without a mind. If one gives with attachment to form, it is a conditioned cause, which can only result in the conditioned retribution of the three realms, and the merit is finite and therefore small. If one practices dāna without seeing these three things, it is the unconditioned cause of non-attachment, which can remotely attract the fruit of Buddhahood and does not result in the retribution of the three existences, so the formless merit increases and is immeasurable. This explains that giving with a formless mind can obtain the immeasurable accumulation of merit of Buddhahood, so it is not without a mind and without merit. Therefore, this one, 『Why?』 etc., explains both doubts simultaneously. However, although it is said in the Dharma that the merit is immeasurable, the meaning is still not clear, so the analogy of space is used to prove the abundance of merit. Since the practice is not

---

取相因，必得無為法身大功德聚；此云功德，非凡夫二乘下情圖度，故云不可思量。此因中說果，亦得道十地因行亦不可思量。所以須說十方虛空者，恐人謂東方世界虛空不可思量，余方世界虛空是可思量。復為彰施福多故，亦得云一一法門中功德不可思量，如十方虛空也。然如來雖如是廣釋菩薩不住相佈施之義，其福德聚如十方虛空不可思量，而大眾疑心猶故不盡，復云：未知此之佈施波羅蜜行，為畢竟成得大菩提無量功德？為不成就也？為除此疑，是故佛答「但應如是行於佈施」。此明應如我上來所教，不住三事、不見三事，調伏其心行於佈施，必得無為法身大功德聚，但信我語勿復生疑。

又復一解：疑雲，若不取相行佈施者，然亦不應為佛菩提行於佈施；若為佛菩提行於佈施者，雖舍世間有為法中著，還於出世間法中取著，云何而言不住相佈施得福多如虛空也？故佛答「但應如是行於佈施」，明雖為佛菩提而行佈施，然佛答菩提無為、法身非有為相故，為無為佛菩提行於佈施，非取相也。然下長行，論中更不別釋此疑，即指第五段中如來非有為相答也。

此一段經，凡以三行偈釋：初一偈真釋何故此經六度之中獨明檀度之疑；第二偈釋經中不住於事等三種修行；第三偈釋經中不住于相想等盡經也

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：

執著于相而行佈施，必定會獲得無為法身（Wuwei Fashen，指不生不滅的法性之身）的大功德聚集。這裡所說的功德，不是凡夫和二乘（指聲聞和緣覺）這些層次較低的人所能理解和估量的，所以說『不可思量』。這是從因上來說果，也可以理解為十地菩薩的因行也是不可思量的。之所以要說十方虛空，是恐怕有人認為只有東方世界的虛空不可思量，而其他方位的虛空是可以思量的。同時，也是爲了彰顯佈施的福德之多，也可以說每一個法門中的功德都不可思量，就像十方虛空一樣。然而，如來雖然如此廣泛地解釋菩薩不住相佈施的意義，說明其福德聚集如十方虛空般不可思量，但大眾的疑慮仍然沒有完全消除，又問：『不知道這種佈施波羅蜜（Bushi Boluomi，指佈施到彼岸）的修行，最終是否能夠成就大菩提（Da Puti，指無上智慧）的無量功德？還是不能成就呢？』爲了消除這種疑慮，所以佛回答說：『但應如是行於佈施』。這表明應當按照我上面所教導的，不住於三事、不見三事，調伏自己的心而行佈施，必定會獲得無為法身的大功德聚集，只要相信我的話，不要再生疑慮。

又有一種解釋：有人懷疑，如果不執著于相而行佈施，那麼也不應該爲了佛菩提（Fo Puti，指成佛的智慧）而行佈施；如果爲了佛菩提而行佈施，雖然捨棄了世間有為法（Youwei Fa，指有生滅變化的法）中的執著，卻又在出世間法（Chushijian Fa，指超越世間的法）中產生執著，怎麼能說不住相佈施所得的福德多如虛空呢？所以佛回答說：『但應如是行於佈施』，表明雖然是爲了佛菩提而行佈施，但佛的菩提是無為的，法身不是有為的相，所以爲了無為的佛菩提而行佈施，就不是執著于相。然而，下面的長行文中不再單獨解釋這個疑問，而是直接指向第五段中如來非有為相的回答。

這一段經文，總共用三行偈頌來解釋：第一偈頌真正解釋了為什麼這部經在六度（Liu Du，指佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）之中只闡明佈施；第二偈頌解釋了經文中不住於事等三種修行；第三偈頌解釋了經文中不住于相想等內容，貫穿整部經文。

【English Translation】 English version:

By clinging to appearances when giving, one will surely obtain the great accumulation of merit of the Wuwei Fashen (無為法身, Dharma body of non-action). The merit mentioned here is not something that ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles (聲聞 and 緣覺, Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) at lower levels can comprehend or estimate, so it is said to be 'inconceivable'. This speaks of the result from the cause, and it can also be understood that the causal practice of the Bodhisattvas of the Ten Grounds is also inconceivable. The reason for mentioning the ten directions of empty space is to prevent people from thinking that only the empty space of the Eastern world is inconceivable, while the empty space of other directions is conceivable. At the same time, it is also to highlight the abundance of blessings from giving, and it can also be said that the merit in each Dharma gate is inconceivable, just like the ten directions of empty space. However, although the Tathagata has extensively explained the meaning of a Bodhisattva's giving without attachment to appearances, illustrating that the accumulation of merit is as inconceivable as the ten directions of empty space, the doubts of the assembly have not been completely dispelled, and they ask again: 'We do not know whether this practice of Dana Paramita (佈施波羅蜜, Perfection of Giving) will ultimately achieve the immeasurable merit of Da Puti (大菩提, Great Enlightenment), or not?' To dispel this doubt, the Buddha answers: 'Thus, one should practice giving.' This indicates that one should practice giving according to what I have taught above, without dwelling on the three aspects, without seeing the three aspects, and subduing one's mind, and one will surely obtain the great accumulation of merit of the Wuwei Fashen. Just believe my words and do not give rise to further doubts.

Another explanation: Some doubt that if one does not cling to appearances when giving, then one should also not give for the sake of Fo Puti (佛菩提, Buddha's Enlightenment); if one gives for the sake of Fo Puti, although one has abandoned attachment to the conditioned Dharmas (Youwei Fa, 有為法, conditioned dharmas) of the world, one still generates attachment to the unconditioned Dharmas (Chushijian Fa, 出世間法, transcendental dharmas), how can it be said that giving without attachment to appearances results in merit as vast as empty space? Therefore, the Buddha answers: 'Thus, one should practice giving,' indicating that although one gives for the sake of Fo Puti, the Buddha's Bodhi is unconditioned, and the Dharma body is not a conditioned appearance, so giving for the sake of the unconditioned Fo Puti is not clinging to appearances. However, the following prose does not separately explain this doubt, but directly points to the answer in the fifth section that the Tathagata is not a conditioned appearance.

This section of the sutra is explained by a total of three lines of verses: the first verse truly explains why this sutra only elucidates giving among the Six Paramitas (Liu Du, 六度, Six Perfections); the second verse explains the three kinds of practice in the sutra, such as not dwelling on things; the third verse explains the content of the sutra, such as not dwelling on appearances and thoughts, throughout the entire sutra.

---

。初偈云釋疑。何者是疑？疑雲：如來前七部般若中及以余經，皆具說六波羅蜜以攝萬行，此中何故單明檀波羅蜜，不說餘五也？若有此疑，還應有問，以此經多不作問答故，論主隨順經意亦不作問答，故宜答言「檀義攝於六」。既有此答，即知有問，故不作問也。此偈言「檀義攝於六」者，此明如來說法有二種：一者總相法門、二者別相法門。此即是總相法門也。明以一檀之義攝取餘五，以此五中皆有檀義，故得相攝。是故此經單說一檀之名以通收於六，故不明餘五也。雖言檀義攝六，未知此六云何皆有檀義，故下句行出雲「資生無畏法」。「資生」者，謂以珍寶飲食衣服財帛等資生之具惠施於人，故名為檀也。「無畏」者，攝戒、忍二波羅蜜亦名為檀。由持戒故，不報外惡；以有羼提波羅蜜故，能忍加毀。即以此二能施前人無畏，故名為無畏檀也。「法」者，攝精進等后三波羅蜜有于檀義。以此後三波羅蜜故，便能以勝法施人，故說此三說在法施檀，義釋在長行論中也。

又復一解：云何菩薩佈施攝尸波羅蜜？菩薩佈施時，受時不如法，修行菩薩爾時其心清凈不生慊恨，是故佈施攝尸波羅蜜。云何菩薩佈施攝忍辱波羅蜜？菩薩佈施時，受者瞋恚打罵，菩薩爾時忍不生瞋，是故佈施攝羼提波羅蜜。云何菩薩布

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：初偈解釋疑問。什麼是疑問？疑問是：如來在之前的七部《般若經》中以及其他經典中，都詳細地講述了以六波羅蜜（Six Pāramitās，六種到達彼岸的方法：佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）來涵蓋所有修行，為什麼這部經中只單獨說明檀波羅蜜（Dāna-pāramitā，佈施波羅蜜），而不說其餘五種呢？如果存在這種疑問，那麼應該有提問，因為這部經大多沒有問答，所以論主順應經文的意思也沒有作問答，因此應該回答說『佈施的意義涵蓋了六種』。既然有這個回答，就知道存在提問，所以沒有寫出提問。這句偈語說『佈施的意義涵蓋了六種』，這是說明如來說法有兩種：一種是總相法門，一種是別相法門。這便是總相法門。說明用一種佈施的意義來涵蓋其餘五種，因為這五種中都包含佈施的意義，所以能夠互相涵蓋。因此這部經只說一種佈施的名稱來普遍地包含六種，所以沒有說明其餘五種。雖然說佈施的意義涵蓋六種，但不知道這六種是如何都包含佈施的意義，所以下一句經文解釋說『資生無畏法』。「資生」是指用珍寶、飲食、衣服、財物等生活所需的物品施捨給他人，所以稱為佈施。「無畏」包含持戒、忍辱兩種波羅蜜，也稱為佈施。因為持戒的緣故，不報復外界的惡行；因為有忍辱波羅蜜的緣故，能夠忍受加害和譭謗。即用這兩種行為給予他人無畏，所以稱為無畏佈施。「法」包含精進等后三種波羅蜜，具有佈施的意義。因為這后三種波羅蜜的緣故，便能夠用殊勝的佛法施予他人，所以說這三種包含在法施佈施中，意義解釋在長行論中。

又一種解釋：菩薩的佈施如何涵蓋尸波羅蜜（Śīla-pāramitā，持戒波羅蜜）？菩薩在佈施時，接受者不如法，修行的菩薩此時內心清凈，不產生怨恨，因此佈施涵蓋持戒波羅蜜。菩薩的佈施如何涵蓋忍辱波羅蜜（Kṣānti-pāramitā，忍辱波羅蜜）？菩薩在佈施時，接受者嗔怒打罵，菩薩此時忍耐不生嗔恨，因此佈施涵蓋忍辱波羅蜜。菩薩的佈施如何涵蓋

【English Translation】 English version: The initial verse explains the doubts. What is the doubt? The doubt is: In the previous seven Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras (般若經, Perfection of Wisdom Sutras) and other scriptures, the Tathāgata (如來, Thus Come One) has elaborately explained that the Six Pāramitās (六波羅蜜, six perfections: generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom) encompass all practices. Why does this sutra only explain Dāna-pāramitā (檀波羅蜜, the perfection of generosity) and not mention the other five? If there is such a doubt, there should be a question, but because this sutra mostly does not have questions and answers, the commentator, following the meaning of the sutra, also does not provide questions and answers. Therefore, the answer should be 'The meaning of generosity encompasses the six.' Since there is this answer, it is known that there is a question, so the question is not written out. The verse says 'The meaning of generosity encompasses the six,' which means that the Tathāgata's teaching has two types: one is the general characteristic Dharma gate, and the other is the specific characteristic Dharma gate. This is the general characteristic Dharma gate. It explains that the meaning of one generosity encompasses the other five because the five all contain the meaning of generosity, so they can encompass each other. Therefore, this sutra only mentions the name of one generosity to universally include the six, so it does not explain the other five. Although it says that the meaning of generosity encompasses the six, it is not known how these six all contain the meaning of generosity, so the next verse explains 'Providing necessities, fearlessness, and Dharma.' 'Providing necessities' refers to giving away precious treasures, food, clothing, wealth, and other necessities to people, so it is called generosity. 'Fearlessness' includes the two Pāramitās of morality and patience, and is also called generosity. Because of upholding morality, one does not retaliate against external evils; because of having the perfection of patience, one can endure harm and slander. That is, using these two actions to give others fearlessness, so it is called fearlessness generosity. 'Dharma' includes the latter three Pāramitās such as diligence, and has the meaning of generosity. Because of these latter three Pāramitās, one can bestow the supreme Dharma upon others, so it is said that these three are included in Dharma generosity, and the meaning is explained in the prose commentary.

Another explanation: How does a Bodhisattva's (菩薩, enlightenment being) generosity encompass Śīla-pāramitā (尸波羅蜜, the perfection of morality)? When a Bodhisattva is giving, if the recipient is not in accordance with the Dharma, the practicing Bodhisattva's mind is pure at this time and does not generate resentment, therefore generosity encompasses the perfection of morality. How does a Bodhisattva's generosity encompass Kṣānti-pāramitā (忍辱波羅蜜, the perfection of patience)? When a Bodhisattva is giving, if the recipient is angry and scolds, the Bodhisattva endures at this time and does not generate anger, therefore generosity encompasses the perfection of patience. How does a Bodhisattva's generosity encompass

---

施攝精進波羅蜜？菩薩佈施時，受者瞋恚慊物少惡，毀罵菩薩，菩薩轉轉精進勤行佈施不休不息，是故佈施攝毗梨耶波羅蜜。云何菩薩佈施攝禪波羅蜜？菩薩佈施時，不求人天二乘果報，但求無上菩提，故佈施攝禪波蜜。云何菩薩佈施攝般若波羅蜜？菩薩佈施時，不見施者、受者、財物，是故佈施攝般若波羅蜜也。此中「一二三」者，前句明其六檀之體，此句還出上六檀之數。一若資生檀也，二者或忍二度無畏檀也，三者攝法中精進等后三檀也。此中非但唯檀波羅蜜攝於餘六，下五度皆迭互有攝六之義也。「名為修行住」者結句，明以此一檀攝六波羅蜜，故得名為二地已上修道菩薩如實行住也。何故唯一檀波羅蜜名說六波羅蜜，乃至相義亦現此中？有一問答，釋偈中初句，以一檀波羅蜜攝六之義也。「一切波羅蜜檀相義」者，自下論主將欲解第二句，六波羅蜜皆有檀義，故還牒前句也。「謂資生、無畏、法等應知」者，正出第二句，明資生、無畏、法攝，以六波羅蜜皆有檀義勸人知也。「此義云何」以下，一一別釋句三攝六皆有檀義也。「于已作未作惡不生怖畏」者，此解戒、忍二度作無畏檀義。已作者，前人已曾誹謗菩薩言：「汝是破戒毀禁行惡之人，非持戒人。」故云已作惡。未作惡者，前人雖起噁心欲誹謗菩薩

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如何以佈施來攝持精進波羅蜜（Vīrya-pāramitā，精進到彼岸）？菩薩在佈施時，如果接受佈施的人心懷瞋恚，嫌棄財物稀少低劣，甚至譭謗辱罵菩薩，菩薩反而更加精進勤勉地行佈施，不停止也不鬆懈。因此，佈施能攝持精進波羅蜜。 如何以佈施來攝持禪波羅蜜（Dhyāna-pāramitā，禪定到彼岸）？菩薩在佈施時，不求人天果報，也不求聲聞、緣覺二乘的果報，只求無上菩提（Anuttarā-bodhi，無上覺悟），所以佈施能攝持禪波羅蜜。 如何以佈施來攝持般若波羅蜜（Prajñā-pāramitā，智慧到彼岸）？菩薩在佈施時，不見有能佈施的人、接受佈施的人以及所佈施的財物，因此，佈施能攝持般若波羅蜜。這裡所說的『一二三』，前一句說明了六種佈施的體性，這一句則指出了前面所說的六種佈施的數量。『一』指的是資生布施，『二』指的是或者忍辱、或者無畏佈施，『三』指的是在攝法佈施中，精進等後面的三種佈施。這裡不僅僅是佈施波羅蜜能攝持其餘五種波羅蜜，後面的五度也各自具有相互攝持六度的意義。『名為修行住』是總結句，說明以這一個佈施能攝持六波羅蜜，因此才能被稱為二地以上的修道菩薩如實地安住于修行中。為什麼唯獨佈施波羅蜜能詮釋六波羅蜜，乃至其相狀和意義也顯現在其中呢？下面有一段問答，解釋偈頌中的第一句，說明以一個佈施波羅蜜攝持六度的意義。『一切波羅蜜檀相義』，從這裡開始，論主將要解釋第二句，六波羅蜜都具有佈施的意義，所以再次提到了前一句。『謂資生、無畏、法等應知』，這是正式地闡述第二句，說明資生、無畏、法佈施等，以六波羅蜜都具有佈施的意義來勸人瞭解。『此義云何』以下，一一分別解釋這三句，說明攝持六度都具有佈施的意義。『于已作未作惡不生怖畏』，這是解釋持戒、忍辱二度具有無畏佈施的意義。『已作者』，指之前有人誹謗菩薩說：『你是破戒毀犯禁律、行為惡劣的人，不是持戒的人。』所以說是『已作惡』。『未作惡者』，指之前有人雖然生起噁心想要誹謗菩薩

【English Translation】 English version: How does giving encompass Vīrya-pāramitā (Perfection of Diligence)? When a Bodhisattva is giving, if the recipient is filled with anger, despises the gifts as meager and inferior, or even slanders and insults the Bodhisattva, the Bodhisattva instead becomes even more diligent and tireless in giving. Therefore, giving encompasses Vīrya-pāramitā. How does giving encompass Dhyāna-pāramitā (Perfection of Meditation)? When a Bodhisattva is giving, they do not seek rewards in the realms of gods or humans, nor do they seek the fruits of the two vehicles of Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, but only seek Anuttarā-bodhi (Unsurpassed Enlightenment). Therefore, giving encompasses Dhyāna-pāramitā. How does giving encompass Prajñā-pāramitā (Perfection of Wisdom)? When a Bodhisattva is giving, they do not see a giver, a recipient, or the gifts being given. Therefore, giving encompasses Prajñā-pāramitā. The 『one, two, three』 mentioned here, the previous sentence explains the nature of the six kinds of giving, and this sentence points out the number of the six kinds of giving mentioned earlier. 『One』 refers to giving of necessities, 『two』 refers to either forbearance or fearlessness giving, and 『three』 refers to the latter three kinds of giving, such as diligence, within the giving of Dharma. It is not only that Dāna-pāramitā encompasses the other five pāramitās, but the latter five perfections each have the meaning of mutually encompassing the six perfections. 『Called abiding in practice』 is the concluding sentence, explaining that with this one giving encompassing the six pāramitās, one can be called a Bodhisattva on the second Bhumi (stage) or above, who truly abides in practice. Why is it that only Dāna-pāramitā is said to explain the six pāramitās, and even its characteristics and meanings are manifested within it? There is a question and answer below, explaining the first sentence in the verse, illustrating the meaning of one Dāna-pāramitā encompassing the six perfections. 『The characteristics and meanings of all pāramitā giving』, from here onwards, the commentator will explain the second sentence, that all six pāramitās have the meaning of giving, so the previous sentence is mentioned again. 『Namely, necessities, fearlessness, Dharma, etc., should be known』, this is formally explaining the second sentence, illustrating that necessities, fearlessness, Dharma giving, etc., use the meaning of giving in all six pāramitās to encourage people to understand. 『What is the meaning of this?』 and below, each sentence is explained separately, illustrating that encompassing the six perfections all have the meaning of giving. 『Not generating fear towards evil already done or not yet done』, this explains that Śīla (morality) and Kṣānti (patience) have the meaning of fearlessness giving. 『Evil already done』 refers to someone previously slandering the Bodhisattva, saying: 『You are a person who breaks precepts, violates prohibitions, and acts evilly, not a person who upholds precepts.』 Therefore, it is said 『evil already done』. 『Evil not yet done』 refers to someone previously generating an evil intention to slander the Bodhisattva.

---

，猶未誹謗，故言未作惡。又云已作惡者，眾生已曾加毀打罵菩薩，名為已作惡。未作惡者，眾生始起心，猶未打罵，故未作惡也。「不生怖畏」者，明菩薩於此二種已作、未作惡人若加報者，則令前人恐懼。以菩薩持戒、忍辱故不報其惡，便施前人無畏。此解戒、忍二波羅蜜有檀義，故言不生怖畏也。「法檀波羅蜜不疲惓」者，明菩薩以有精進波羅蜜故日夜精勤求五明論智，為一切眾生說法教化無有休息也。「善知心」者，禪波羅蜜此云思惟，以得禪波羅蜜故獲他心智，眾生三乘根性利鈍不同、欲樂厚薄有貪心離貪心等，稱機說法；或應與念而得度者，如禪默眾生等是；或有乃是斷命而得度者，如佛昔作仙預國王殺五百婆羅門等；或有應說顛倒法門者，為說顛倒法門，如持戒之人應因破戒而得度者，教破戒等是也。以因禪定故善識根機。故名禪波羅蜜為善知心也。「如實說法故」者，以般若波羅蜜故，善解二諦法藥，稱於法相如實為眾生說法也。此三解精進般若等有法施檀義也。「此即是菩薩摩訶薩修行住」者，近結別釋三檀攝六，以為二地已上如實修行住也。如向說三種檀攝六至是名修行住者，此句遠結總別釋一波羅蜜攝六之義，皆為修道菩薩修行住義也。

「云何菩薩不住於事行於佈施」等者，此論主將

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『尚未誹謗，所以說未作惡。』又說『已作惡者』，是指眾生已經譭謗、毆打、辱罵菩薩，這叫做『已作惡』。『未作惡者』，是指眾生剛開始生起惡意，但尚未實施毆打辱罵，所以說『未作惡』。『不生怖畏』，說明菩薩對於這兩種已作惡和未作惡的人，即使他們加以報復，也不會使前人生起恐懼。因為菩薩持有戒律和忍辱，所以不報復他們的惡行，從而給予前人無畏的佈施。這種解釋戒律和忍辱兩種波羅蜜包含了財施的意義，所以說『不生怖畏』。『法檀波羅蜜不疲倦』，說明菩薩因為具有精進波羅蜜，所以日夜精勤地尋求五明（聲明、工巧明、醫方明、因明、內明）的智慧，為一切眾生說法教化，沒有休息。『善知心』，禪波羅蜜，這裡稱為思惟，因為得到禪波羅蜜的緣故，獲得了他心智，能夠了解眾生三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的根性利鈍不同、欲樂厚薄，有貪心或離貪心等等，從而根據他們的根機說法；或者應該給予唸佛而得度的人，比如禪默的眾生等等；或者有的人需要斷命才能得度，比如佛陀過去作為仙人時，預先殺死五百婆羅門等等；或者有的人應該說顛倒的法門，就為他們說顛倒的法門，比如持戒的人應該因為破戒而得度，就教導他們破戒等等。因為禪定的緣故，能夠善於識別眾生的根機。所以稱禪波羅蜜為『善知心』。『如實說法故』，因為般若波羅蜜的緣故，能夠善於理解二諦（世俗諦、勝義諦）的法藥，根據法的實相，如實地為眾生說法。這三種解釋精進、般若等包含了法施的意義。『此即是菩薩摩訶薩修行住』，總結前面分別解釋的三種佈施包含六度，作為二地（離垢地）以上的如實修行之所。如同前面所說的三種佈施包含六度，直到『是名修行住』，這句話總結了前面分別解釋的一個波羅蜜包含六度的意義，都是爲了修道菩薩的修行之所。 『云何菩薩不住於事行於佈施』等等，這裡論主將

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not yet slandered, therefore it is said not to have done evil.' Furthermore, 'having done evil' refers to sentient beings having already slandered, beaten, and reviled the Bodhisattva, which is called 'having done evil.' 'Not having done evil' refers to sentient beings just beginning to generate malicious intent, but not yet implementing beating and reviling, therefore it is said 'not having done evil.' 'Not generating fear' clarifies that the Bodhisattva, towards these two types of people who have done evil and not done evil, even if they retaliate, will not cause the former person to generate fear. Because the Bodhisattva holds precepts and practices forbearance, they do not retaliate their evil deeds, thereby bestowing fearlessness upon the former person. This explanation of the two Paramitas of precepts and forbearance includes the meaning of Dana (giving), therefore it is said 'not generating fear.' 'Dharma Dana Paramita without weariness' clarifies that the Bodhisattva, because they possess the Paramita of diligence, diligently seek the wisdom of the Five Vidyas (Śabdavidyā (grammar), Śilpakarmasthānavidyā (arts and crafts), Cikitsāvidyā (medicine), Hetuvidyā (logic), Adhyātmavidyā (inner knowledge)) day and night, teaching and transforming all sentient beings without rest. 'Knowing the mind well,' Dhyana Paramita, here called contemplation, because of obtaining the Dhyana Paramita, one obtains the knowledge of others' minds, being able to understand the different sharpness and dullness of the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna (hearer vehicle), Pratyekabuddhayāna (solitary buddha vehicle), Bodhisattvayāna (bodhisattva vehicle)) of sentient beings' faculties, the thickness and thinness of their desires, whether they have greed or are free from greed, and accordingly teach the Dharma according to their faculties; or those who should be delivered by giving them mindfulness, such as silent meditators, etc.; or some who need to have their lives ended to be delivered, such as when the Buddha in the past, as an immortal, preemptively killed five hundred Brahmins, etc.; or some who should be told inverted Dharma, one tells them inverted Dharma, such as those who hold precepts should be delivered by breaking precepts, one teaches them to break precepts, etc. Because of Dhyana (meditation), one is able to skillfully recognize sentient beings' faculties. Therefore, Dhyana Paramita is called 'knowing the mind well.' 'Because of speaking the truth as it is,' because of Prajna Paramita (wisdom), one is able to skillfully understand the Dharma medicine of the Two Truths (Saṃvṛtisatya (conventional truth), Paramārthasatya (ultimate truth)), according to the true nature of Dharma, truthfully speaking Dharma for sentient beings. These three explanations of diligence, Prajna, etc., include the meaning of Dharma Dana (dharma giving). 'This is the Bodhisattva Mahasattva's practice and dwelling,' summarizes the previous separate explanations of the three types of giving including the six perfections, as the true practice and dwelling place of the second Bhumi (Vimalābhūmi (stainless ground)) and above. Just like the previously mentioned three types of giving including the six perfections, up to 'this is called practice and dwelling,' this sentence summarizes the meaning of the previously separate explanations of one Paramita including the six perfections, all for the practice and dwelling place of Bodhisattvas practicing the path. 'How does the Bodhisattva not dwell in things and practice giving,' etc., here the treatise master will

---

欲作第二偈正釋經中不住三事，故舉此經文來問，故云云何也。第二偈釋經中不住於事等三種修行經文。「自身及報恩，果報斯不著」，應云自身不著、報恩不著、果報不著，但以偈狹，先具列三事，后云不著也。「自身」者，釋經中不住於事行於佈施，明菩薩證初地解時已離五怖畏，無有不活之畏，故能不著自身而行佈施也。「報恩」者，釋經中無所住行於佈施，明菩薩行佈施于不為供養恭敬衣服飲食種種恩惠之報也。「果報」者，釋經中不住色佈施等。世人佈施為求未來人天中五欲果報，今明菩薩佈施不為人天中色聲等報，乃為遠求佛果故。此三句下皆云不著，故曰「斯」也。下半偈二句，還釋上二句。「護存己不施」者，釋初句中自身。若存著己身，畏身不活吝財不施。遮此著心，故言護存己不施也。「防求于異事」者，釋上報恩、果報。又雖佈施，若為世間報恩、果報，即是求於世間有為異事，不求出世無為佛菩提。為遮此事，故云防求異事也。

「不住於事」者，論中提經也。「謂不著自身」者，直以偈論屬經也。「無所住，謂不著報恩乃至如經無所住」者，此亦經論相屬，並釋出報恩事，復以經結之也。「不住色等，謂不著果報」者，亦是經論相屬。「何故如是不住行佈施」者，問上二句中不住三

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在要作第二首偈頌，來正式解釋經文中『不住』的三件事，所以先引用這段經文來提問，因此說『云何也』。第二首偈頌解釋經文中『不住於事』等三種修行的經文。『自身及報恩，果報斯不著』，應該說自身不著、報恩不著、果報不著，但因為偈頌篇幅有限，先全部列出這三件事，然後在後面說『不著』。『自身』，是解釋經文中『不住於事行於佈施』，說明菩薩證得初地解脫時，已經脫離了五種怖畏，沒有不能生存的畏懼，所以能夠不執著自身而行佈施。『報恩』，是解釋經文中『無所住行於佈施』，說明菩薩行佈施不是爲了求得供養、恭敬、衣服、飲食等種種恩惠的回報。『果報』，是解釋經文中『不住色佈施』等。世人佈施是爲了求未來在人天道中享受五欲的果報，現在說明菩薩佈施不是爲了人天道中的色聲等回報，而是爲了長遠地求得佛果。這三句話的後面都說『不著』，所以用『斯』字來概括。下半偈的兩句，反過來解釋上面的兩句。『護存己不施』，是解釋第一句中的『自身』。如果執著于自身，害怕自己不能生存，吝惜錢財而不佈施。爲了遮止這種執著心，所以說『護存己不施』。『防求于異事』，是解釋上面的『報恩』、『果報』。又即使佈施，如果爲了世間的報恩、果報，那就是追求世間有為的異事，而不是追求出世間無為的佛菩提。爲了防止這件事，所以說『防求異事』。 『不住於事』，論中提到了經文。『謂不著自身』，直接用偈頌的論述來對應經文。『無所住，謂不著報恩乃至如經無所住』，這也是經文和論述相互對應，並且解釋了報恩這件事，又用經文來總結。『不住色等，謂不著果報』，這也是經文和論述相互對應。『何故如是不住行佈施』，是提問上面兩句中不住的三件事。

【English Translation】 English version: Now, the second verse is to be composed to formally explain the three matters of 'non-abiding' in the scripture. Therefore, this passage is cited to inquire, hence the saying 'yun he ye (what is it)'. The second verse explains the scriptural passage of the three practices such as 'non-abiding in things'. 'Self and repaying kindness, karmic retribution, these are not attached to', it should be said that self is not attached, repaying kindness is not attached, karmic retribution is not attached, but because the verse is limited in length, all three matters are listed first, and then it is said 'not attached'. 'Self' explains 'non-abiding in things, practicing giving' in the scripture, clarifying that when a Bodhisattva attains the first Bhumi (stage of enlightenment), they have already left the five fears, and there is no fear of not being able to survive, so they can practice giving without being attached to themselves. 'Repaying kindness' explains 'dwelling nowhere, practicing giving' in the scripture, clarifying that a Bodhisattva practices giving not to seek rewards of offerings, respect, clothing, food, and various kinds of kindness. 'Karmic retribution' explains 'non-abiding in form, giving' and so on in the scripture. Worldly people give in order to seek the karmic retribution of enjoying the five desires in the human and celestial realms in the future. Now it is clarified that a Bodhisattva gives not for the sake of rewards such as form and sound in the human and celestial realms, but to seek Buddhahood in the distant future. All three sentences end with 'not attached', so the word 'si (these)' is used to summarize. 'Non-abiding in things', the treatise mentions the scripture. 'Meaning not being attached to oneself', directly uses the treatise of the verse to correspond to the scripture. 'Dwelling nowhere, meaning not being attached to repaying kindness, even as the scripture dwells nowhere', this is also the scripture and treatise corresponding to each other, and it explains the matter of repaying kindness, and concludes with the scripture. 'Non-abiding in form, etc., meaning not being attached to karmic retribution', this is also the scripture and treatise corresponding to each other. 'Why is it that one practices giving in this way without abiding?', is asking about the three matters of non-abiding in the above two sentences.

---

事所由，提下半偈為答，然後就偈中次第釋不住三事之所以也。

第三偈「調伏彼事中」者，釋經中應如是佈施不住于相想也。菩薩既證真如之解得理中定，能除惑障得喜樂意，心得柔軟自在猶如良馬，亦如真金無取三事相剛礦，故云調伏也。「彼事中」者，雖云調伏，未知於何處調伏？明菩薩得佛性真如平等，解一切眾生即是我身故，不見我是能施、前人是受施者，又復不見財物唯是我許非前人物，以我財物施與前人。於此施、受、財物三法中調伏故，言彼事中也。上雖云三事中調伏，未知云何調伏？故次第二句「遠離取相心」也。於三事之中不生取著，故言遠離也。此上半偈，唯釋不住于相想經。第三句通釋上下生疑也。「及斷種種疑」者，此種種疑，即上經中三種疑。又亦通生下第五第六疑中斷疑經文，故云及斷種種疑也。「亦防產生心」者，次前句釋上下其義已竟，所以復作此一句者，但為偈故還重指出上疑。若不取三事相，云何佈施？若不見三事而行佈施者，為有心？為無心？若無心者，為有福德？為無福德？若有福德，為多為少？波羅蜜行，為成不成？此是生疑也。遮此疑心令使不起，故云亦防生心也。「成」者，即答佈施行成，有多福德。釋云前疑斯一句中合有疑答也。又解上生疑，若菩薩不住

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 事情的緣由，提出下半偈作為回答，然後就偈中的次第解釋不住於三事的原因。

第三偈『調伏彼事中』，解釋經中應當這樣佈施而不執著于相的觀念。菩薩既然證悟了真如的理解，獲得了理中的定力，能夠去除迷惑和障礙，獲得喜悅和快樂，心變得柔軟自在，就像良馬一樣，也像真金一樣沒有執取三事之相的剛強礦物，所以說調伏。『彼事中』，雖然說調伏，但不知道在何處調伏？說明菩薩獲得了佛性的真如平等，理解一切眾生就是自身，所以不見『我』是能施者，『前人』是受施者，又不見財物只是『我』的，不是『前人』的，用『我』的財物施與『前人』。在這施者、受者、財物三種法中調伏，所以說『彼事中』。上面雖然說在三事中調伏，但不知道如何調伏？所以緊接著第二句『遠離取相心』。對於三事之中不產生執著，所以說遠離。這上半偈，只是解釋不住于相的觀念的經文。第三句總括解釋上下產生的疑問。『及斷種種疑』，這種種疑問，就是上面經文中的三種疑問。又總括了下面第五、第六疑中斷的經文，所以說『及斷種種疑』。『亦防產生心』，在前面的句子解釋了上下經文的含義之後，之所以又寫這一句，只是爲了偈頌的緣故，再次指出上面的疑問。如果不執取三事之相，如何佈施？如果不見三事而行佈施，是有心還是無心？如果無心，是有福德還是沒有福德？如果有福德，是多還是少？波羅蜜（Pāramitā，到彼岸）的修行，是成就還是不成就？這是產生的疑問。遮止這種疑心，使它不產生，所以說『亦防生心』。『成』，就是回答佈施的行為是成就的，有很多福德。解釋說前面的疑問在這句中包含了疑問的回答。又解釋上面產生的疑問，如果菩薩不住

English version: The reason for the matter is to present the latter half of the verse as an answer, and then explain the reason for not dwelling on the three things in the order of the verse.

The third verse, 'Subduing in those matters,' explains that one should give alms in this way in the sutra without being attached to the concept of form. Since the Bodhisattva has realized the understanding of Suchness (Tathātā) and attained Samadhi (Dhyāna) in principle, he can remove delusion and obstacles, attain joy and happiness, and his mind becomes soft and free like a good horse, and like true gold, he does not grasp the rigid minerals of the three aspects, so it is called subduing. 'In those matters,' although it says subduing, where is the subduing done? It explains that the Bodhisattva has attained the equality of Suchness of Buddha-nature, and understands that all sentient beings are himself, so he does not see 'I' as the giver and 'the person in front' as the receiver, nor does he see that wealth is only 'mine' and not 'the person in front's,' and gives 'my' wealth to 'the person in front.' Subduing in these three dharmas of giver, receiver, and wealth, therefore it is said 'in those matters.' Although it says subduing in the three matters above, how to subdue is not known? Therefore, the second sentence 'Away from the mind of grasping' follows. Not generating attachment to the three matters, therefore it is said to be away. This first half of the verse only explains the sutra of not dwelling on the concept of form. The third sentence generally explains the doubts arising above and below. 'And cutting off all kinds of doubts,' these various doubts are the three kinds of doubts in the sutra above. It also encompasses the interrupted sutra text of the fifth and sixth doubts below, so it is said 'and cutting off all kinds of doubts.' 'Also preventing the arising of mind,' after the previous sentence has explained the meaning of the sutra text above and below, the reason for writing this sentence again is only for the sake of the verse, and it points out the above doubts again. If one does not grasp the aspects of the three things, how does one give alms? If one gives alms without seeing the three things, is it with mind or without mind? If without mind, is there merit or no merit? If there is merit, is it much or little? Is the practice of Pāramitā (to the other shore) accomplished or not accomplished? This is the arising of doubt. Preventing this mind of doubt from arising, therefore it is said 'also preventing the arising of mind.' 'Accomplished' is the answer that the act of giving alms is accomplished and has much merit. It explains that the previous doubt contains the answer to the doubt in this sentence. It also explains the doubts arising above, if the Bodhisattva does not dwell

【English Translation】 The reason for the matter is to present the latter half of the verse as an answer, and then explain the reason for not dwelling on the three things in the order of the verse.

The third verse, 'Subduing in those matters,' explains that one should give alms in this way in the sutra without being attached to the concept of form. Since the Bodhisattva (Enlightenment Being) has realized the understanding of Suchness (Tathātā) and attained Samadhi (Dhyāna) in principle, he can remove delusion and obstacles, attain joy and happiness, and his mind becomes soft and free like a good horse, and like true gold, he does not grasp the rigid minerals of the three aspects, so it is called subduing. 'In those matters,' although it says subduing, where is the subduing done? It explains that the Bodhisattva has attained the equality of Suchness of Buddha-nature, and understands that all sentient beings are himself, so he does not see 'I' as the giver and 'the person in front' as the receiver, nor does he see that wealth is only 'mine' and not 'the person in front's,' and gives 'my' wealth to 'the person in front.' Subduing in these three dharmas of giver, receiver, and wealth, therefore it is said 'in those matters.' Although it says subduing in the three matters above, how to subdue is not known? Therefore, the second sentence 'Away from the mind of grasping' follows. Not generating attachment to the three matters, therefore it is said to be away. This first half of the verse only explains the sutra of not dwelling on the concept of form. The third sentence generally explains the doubts arising above and below. 'And cutting off all kinds of doubts,' these various doubts are the three kinds of doubts in the sutra above. It also encompasses the interrupted sutra text of the fifth and sixth doubts below, so it is said 'and cutting off all kinds of doubts.' 'Also preventing the arising of mind,' after the previous sentence has explained the meaning of the sutra text above and below, the reason for writing this sentence again is only for the sake of the verse, and it points out the above doubts again. If one does not grasp the aspects of the three things, how does one give alms? If one gives alms without seeing the three things, is it with mind or without mind? If without mind, is there merit or no merit? If there is merit, is it much or little? Is the practice of Pāramitā (to the other shore) accomplished or not accomplished? This is the arising of doubt. Preventing this mind of doubt from arising, therefore it is said 'also preventing the arising of mind.' 'Accomplished' is the answer that the act of giving alms is accomplished and has much merit. It explains that the previous doubt contains the answer to the doubt in this sentence. It also explains the doubts arising above, if the Bodhisattva does not dwell

---

三事相，復不見三事，為有心有福？為無心無福？彼岸功德成以不成？遮前人如此疑心，故言亦防產生心也。

「此文說何義」者，問上不住于相想經文中為說何等義也？故答「所謂不見施物受者及施者」，此列經中所明事，即指上半偈為解，復舉經來結可知也。「次說佈施利益」者，將以下半偈釋菩薩不住相佈施，以下經故作此一句，生起下疑答之意，如論可知也。

「何故說修行后，次顯佈施利益」者，此中論主設難云：佈施之行正是其因，所得利益乃是其果。夫說法之來，應先說果在前，然後勸修其因，此是聖人說法之常式，何故今者先說因於前，後方說其果也？故答「以得降伏心故，后說佈施利益」。明若此菩薩未修行時，須先說果以示之，勸修因行。今明此二地以上菩薩已能現真如，降伏其心不著三事，佈施等行久已成就。既有此因，直須次第為說因所得果也。「此義云何」等者，故釋前問答之意也。

「自此以下一切修多羅示現斷生疑心」等，此一段論生起下經。凡作二意：初、斷生疑心，以前通生起第五段以下訖末經中疑也。「云何生疑」以下，次第別生疑意。然疑答之意如后，就經中生起，若以經答時，會須作疑，故不二處具作生疑意也。「須菩提！于意云何？可以相成就見如來

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：三事之相（施者、受者、施物），又不見這三事，是有心而有福呢？還是無心而無福呢？到達彼岸的功德能夠成就嗎？爲了消除前人的這種疑慮，所以說也要防止產生執著之心。

『此文說何義』，是問上面『不住于相』的經文中說了什麼意義？所以回答『所謂不見施物受者及施者』，這裡列舉了經中所闡明的事，即指上半偈來解釋，又引用經文來總結，可知其意。『次說佈施利益』，是將以下半偈解釋菩薩不住相佈施，因為下面有經文，所以先說這句話，產生下面的疑問並解答，如論中所說。

『何故說修行后，次顯佈施利益』，這裡論主設問：佈施的行為正是其因，所得的利益乃是其果。按照說法的慣例，應該先說果在前，然後勸人修行其因，這是聖人說法的通常方式，為什麼現在先說因在前，然後才說其果呢？所以回答『以得降伏心故，后說佈施利益』。說明如果這位菩薩未修行時，需要先說果來向他展示，勸他修行因行。現在說明這位二地以上的菩薩已經能夠顯現真如，降伏其心不執著於三事，佈施等行為早已成就。既然有了這個因，就應該依次為他說因所得的果。『此義云何』等，是解釋前面問答的意義。

『自此以下一切修多羅示現斷生疑心』等，這一段論述引出下面的經文。總共有兩個意思：第一，斷除產生的疑心，以前面貫穿到第五段以下直到結尾的經文中的疑問。『云何生疑』以下，依次分別產生疑問。然而疑問和解答的意思在後面，就經文中產生，如果用經文回答時，需要提出疑問，所以不在兩處都詳細地說明產生疑問的意思。『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）！于意云何？可以相成就見如來（Tathagata，如來）？』

【English Translation】 English version: The characteristics of the three aspects (the giver, the receiver, and the gift), and yet not seeing these three aspects, is it with mind and with merit, or without mind and without merit? Can the merit of reaching the other shore be accomplished? To dispel such doubts of predecessors, it is said that one should also guard against generating attachment.

'What is the meaning of this passage?' asks what meaning is explained in the above sutra passage of 'not dwelling in appearances'? Therefore, the answer is 'So-called not seeing the object of giving, the receiver, and the giver.' This lists the matters clarified in the sutra, referring to the first half of the verse for explanation, and then quoting the sutra to conclude, which shows its meaning. 'Next, speaking of the benefits of giving' is to explain the Bodhisattva's (Bodhisattva，a person who is on the path to Buddhahood) giving without attachment to appearances with the following half of the verse. Because there is a sutra below, this sentence is said first, generating the following question and answering it, as discussed in the treatise.

'Why is the benefit of giving shown after speaking of practice?' Here, the treatise master raises a question: The act of giving is precisely the cause, and the benefit obtained is the result. According to the convention of teaching, the result should be stated first, and then people should be encouraged to cultivate the cause. This is the usual way of teaching by sages. Why is the cause stated first now, and then the result is spoken of? Therefore, the answer is 'Because the mind has been subdued, the benefit of giving is spoken of later.' It explains that if this Bodhisattva has not practiced, the result needs to be stated first to show it to him, encouraging him to cultivate the cause. Now it explains that this Bodhisattva above the second ground is already able to manifest Suchness (Tathata，the true nature of reality), subduing his mind and not being attached to the three aspects, and the acts of giving and so on have long been accomplished. Since there is this cause, the result obtained from the cause should be explained to him in order. 'What is the meaning of this?' and so on, is to explain the meaning of the previous question and answer.

'From here onwards, all sutras show the cutting off of arising doubts,' etc. This paragraph of the treatise introduces the following sutra. There are two general meanings: First, to cut off arising doubts, with the previous passage running through to the fifth paragraph below until the end of the sutra. 'How do doubts arise?' Below, doubts are generated separately in order. However, the meaning of the questions and answers is later, arising from the sutra. If answering with the sutra, it is necessary to raise questions, so the meaning of generating doubts is not explained in detail in both places. 'Subhuti (Subhuti，Buddha's disciple)! What do you think? Can the Tathagata (Tathagata，the one who has thus come) be seen by the accomplishment of characteristics?'

---

不」者，此段經第五，名如來非有為相分。何故此名非有為相者？明法身如來古今湛然萬德圓滿，體是無為，永絕生住滅等有為三相，故曰如來非有為相也。次、何次第起者，上第四段中明菩薩以不取相心行於佈施，此辨無相之因。疑雲：若有無相之因，還應得無相之果。然今現見釋迦如來，始生、中住、終滅。果頭既有此三相，以果驗因，明知因亦應是有相，故知無有無相之因也。那得上言不取相行於佈施，能得果頭無為法身無量福德也？為斷此疑，故佛應答「須菩提！莫作是念」。汝言果頭如來有生住滅有為三相者，是方便身隨感故有，非是無為法身。然無為法身，古今湛然萬德圓滿，體絕三相，故非有為。汝云何以方便身有三相故，謂即是無為法身名三相也？此中應作問答，所以不作問答者，此經始末多不問答。然須菩提既是法身菩薩現為聲聞，又得如來冥如力故，善解如來意，故佛直問「須菩提！于意云何？以相成就見如來不」，明可以生住滅等有為三相成就，見果頭無為法身如來不也。故須菩提解如來意，即答「不可以相成就見如來」者，此明法佛如來無為法身，體無三相，故不可以有為三相而見也。又有二乘凡夫，即執丈六如來二種涅槃以為無為亦是常住無為者，謂釋迦如來從發心已來，三大阿僧祇劫修

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『不』字開始的這段經文是第五段，名為『如來非有為相分』。為什麼叫做『非有為相』呢？這是爲了說明法身如來（Dharmakaya Tathagata）自古至今清凈湛然，具備圓滿的萬種功德，其本體是無為法（Asamskrta），永遠斷絕生、住、滅等有為三相，所以說『如來非有為相』。接下來，為什麼要這樣安排次第呢？因為上面第四段中說明菩薩以不執著于相的心來行佈施，這是辨明無相之因。有人可能會疑惑：如果存在無相之因，那麼應該得到無相之果。然而現在我們親眼看到釋迦如來（Sakyamuni Tathagata），有始生、中住、終滅。既然果位上存在這三種相，那麼以果來驗證因，可以知道因也應該是有相的，所以知道不存在無相之因。那麼怎麼能說不執著于相的佈施，能夠得到果位上的無為法身和無量福德呢？爲了斷除這種疑惑，所以佛回答『須菩提（Subhuti）！莫作是念』。你說果位上的如來有生住滅的有為三相，這是應眾生感應而示現的方便之身，不是無為法身。而無為法身，自古至今清凈湛然，具備圓滿的萬種功德，其本體斷絕了三種相，所以不是有為法。你為什麼因為方便之身有三種相，就說這就是無為法身，並稱之為三相呢？這裡本來應該有問答，但是沒有設定問答，因為這部經從頭到尾很多地方都沒有問答。然而須菩提既是法身菩薩，現在示現為聲聞，又得到如來的加持，能夠很好地理解如來的意思，所以佛直接問『須菩提！于意云何？以相成就見如來不』，這是在問，可以通過生住滅等有為三相成就，見到果位上的無為法身如來嗎？所以須菩提理解如來的意思，立即回答『不可以相成就見如來』，這是說明法佛如來的無為法身，其本體沒有三種相，所以不可以通過有為的三種相來見。還有一些二乘凡夫，執著于丈六金身如來的兩種涅槃，認為無為也是常住無為，他們認為釋迦如來從發心以來，經過三大阿僧祇劫的修行

【English Translation】 English version: The section beginning with 『not』 is the fifth section of this sutra, named 『Tathagata is not of the nature of conditioned phenomena』. Why is it called 『not of the nature of conditioned phenomena』? It is to clarify that the Dharmakaya Tathagata (法身如來) is eternally pure and complete with myriad virtues, its essence is unconditioned (無為), and it is forever free from the three conditioned characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Therefore, it is said 『Tathagata is not of the nature of conditioned phenomena』. Next, why is this the order? Because the fourth section above explains that Bodhisattvas practice giving with a mind that does not grasp at appearances, which clarifies the cause of non-appearance. One might doubt: if there is a cause of non-appearance, then one should attain the fruit of non-appearance. However, we now see Sakyamuni Tathagata (釋迦如來) with arising, abiding, and ceasing. Since these three characteristics exist in the fruition, verifying the cause from the fruit, we know that the cause should also have characteristics, so we know that there is no cause of non-appearance. How can it be said that giving without grasping at appearances can attain the unconditioned Dharmakaya and immeasurable merit in the fruition? To dispel this doubt, the Buddha answers, 『Subhuti (須菩提)! Do not think in this way.』 You say that the Tathagata in the fruition has the three conditioned characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing, but this is a provisional body manifested in response to sentient beings, not the unconditioned Dharmakaya. The unconditioned Dharmakaya is eternally pure and complete with myriad virtues, its essence is free from the three characteristics, so it is not conditioned. Why do you say that because the provisional body has three characteristics, it is the unconditioned Dharmakaya and call it the three characteristics? There should be a question and answer here, but there isn't, because many parts of this sutra do not have questions and answers. However, Subhuti is both a Dharmakaya Bodhisattva and now manifests as a Sravaka, and he also has the power of the Tathagata's blessing, so he can understand the Tathagata's meaning well. Therefore, the Buddha directly asks, 『Subhuti! What do you think? Can you see the Tathagata by the accomplishment of characteristics?』 This is asking whether one can see the unconditioned Dharmakaya Tathagata in the fruition through the accomplishment of the three conditioned characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Therefore, Subhuti understands the Tathagata's meaning and immediately answers, 『One cannot see the Tathagata by the accomplishment of characteristics.』 This clarifies that the unconditioned Dharmakaya of the Dharma-Buddha Tathagata has no three characteristics in its essence, so it cannot be seen through the three conditioned characteristics. There are also some practitioners of the Two Vehicles and ordinary people who cling to the two kinds of Nirvana of the sixteen-foot-tall Tathagata, thinking that unconditioned is also permanent and unconditioned. They think that Sakyamuni Tathagata, from the time of his initial aspiration, practiced for three great Asankhyeya kalpas

---

十地行滿，菩提樹下證正覺時，始降伏天魔及斷煩惱魔，身智猶存，此名有餘涅槃；不為煩惱所為，故名無為。無餘涅槃者，身智盡時，不為生住滅等三相所為，故曰無為。有此二義，故名丈六為無為法身。名常住者，明丈六如來一入涅槃，更不還來二十五有，故名丈六為常也。

自此以下訖經，廣解三佛一異之義。今此段中唯明法佛者，就別相中論從此以下明報應二佛。經文歷然自廣明之。此中乘生疑念：應佛既有三相，非無為法身佛者，此丈六身為當是佛？為非佛也？又亦疑：報佛妙色無量相好莊嚴身既非法身，為是有為、為是無為也？為是有漏、為是無漏？為是常耶、為無常也？又復報佛依報凈土，為是有為法、為是無為法？為當三界所攝、為非三界攝也？有如此疑。下經當自一一別釋可知。「何以故」者，因前不可以相成就見如來，乘生疑難：若法身如來無三相者，何以故如來自說我三大阿僧祇劫修道，最後身生於釋種白凈王家，六年苦行，道場成佛，八十餘年處世說法，自云我身無常卻後三月當般涅槃，于雙林滅度？故云何以故。經答言「如來所說相即非相」。云何所說相即非相？明從王宮生至雙林滅相，此是應身方便之相，非即此相是法身無為相也。此應佛隨眾生感見故有，無其實狀。論其體也，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：十地（菩薩修行十個階段）行滿，在菩提樹下證得正覺時，才降伏天魔以及斷除煩惱魔，此時身智仍然存在，這稱為有餘涅槃；因為不再受煩惱所驅使，所以稱為無為。無餘涅槃是指，身智都已滅盡時，不再受生、住、滅等三種現象所影響，所以稱為無為。因為有這兩種含義，所以稱丈六金身（佛像的一種常見形式）為無為法身。稱之為常住，是說明丈六如來一旦進入涅槃，便不再返回二十五有（佛教宇宙觀中的二十五種存在形式），所以稱丈六金身為常。

從這裡以下直到經文結束，廣泛地解釋了三佛（法身佛、報身佛、應身佛）一異的含義。現在這段經文中只闡明法身佛，就別相（區別相）中討論，從這裡以下闡明報身佛和應身佛。經文清晰地自行廣泛闡明。這裡聽眾產生疑問：應身佛既然有三相（生、住、滅），不是無為法身佛，那麼這丈六金身應當是佛嗎？還是不是佛呢？又懷疑：報身佛的妙色和無量相好莊嚴之身既然不是法身，那麼是有為法還是無為法呢？是有漏法還是無漏法呢？是常還是無常呢？還有報身佛所依的依報凈土，是有為法還是無為法呢？是屬於三界（欲界、色界、無色界）所攝，還是不屬於三界所攝呢？有這樣的疑問。下面的經文會一一分別解釋，可以知曉。「何以故」是因為前面說不可以憑藉相成就來見如來，聽眾產生疑問：如果法身如來沒有三相，那麼為什麼如來自稱我三大阿僧祇劫（極長的時間單位）修道，最後身出生在釋迦（釋迦族）的白凈王家，六年苦行，在菩提道場成佛，八十多年在世間說法，自稱我的身體是無常的，卻在三個月后將入涅槃，在雙林（兩棵娑羅樹）下滅度？所以問為什麼。經文回答說「如來所說相即非相」。 什麼是所說相即非相？說明從王宮出生到雙林滅度的相，這是應身佛爲了方便教化而顯現的相，並非這個相就是法身無為相。這個應身佛是隨著眾生的感應而顯現的，沒有真實不變的體性。論及其本體，

【English Translation】 English version: When the Ten Grounds (ten stages of Bodhisattva practice) are fulfilled, and enlightenment is attained under the Bodhi tree, then the heavenly demons are subdued and the afflictions are severed. At this time, the body and wisdom still exist, which is called Nirvana with remainder; because it is no longer driven by afflictions, it is called unconditioned (Wuwei). Nirvana without remainder refers to when the body and wisdom are completely extinguished, and it is no longer affected by the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing, so it is called unconditioned. Because of these two meanings, the sixteen-foot golden body (a common form of Buddha statue) is called the unconditioned Dharmakaya (Dharma body). It is called permanent because it clarifies that once the sixteen-foot Tathagata (another name for Buddha) enters Nirvana, he will never return to the twenty-five realms of existence (twenty-five forms of existence in Buddhist cosmology), so the sixteen-foot golden body is called permanent.

From here until the end of the sutra, the meaning of the oneness and difference of the three Buddhas (Dharmakaya Buddha, Sambhogakaya Buddha, Nirmanakaya Buddha) is extensively explained. Now, this section only clarifies the Dharmakaya Buddha, and discusses the Sambhogakaya Buddha and Nirmanakaya Buddha in terms of their distinct characteristics. The sutra clearly explains this extensively itself. Here, the audience raises a question: Since the Nirmanakaya Buddha has three characteristics (birth, abiding, and death) and is not the unconditioned Dharmakaya Buddha, then should this sixteen-foot golden body be a Buddha? Or is it not a Buddha? Also, they doubt: Since the Sambhogakaya Buddha's wonderful color and immeasurable auspicious marks and adorned body are not the Dharmakaya, then are they conditioned (Youwei) or unconditioned? Are they defiled (with outflows) or undefiled (without outflows)? Are they permanent or impermanent? Furthermore, is the Pure Land that the Sambhogakaya Buddha relies on a conditioned dharma or an unconditioned dharma? Is it included in the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm), or is it not included in the Three Realms? There are such doubts. The following sutra will explain them one by one, and it will be known. 'Why is that?' is because it was said earlier that the Tathagata cannot be seen by relying on the accomplishment of characteristics, and the audience raises a question: If the Dharmakaya Tathagata does not have three characteristics, then why does the Tathagata himself say that I cultivated the path for three great Asamkhya kalpas (extremely long units of time), and in my last life was born into the Shakya (Shakya clan) family of King Suddhodana, practiced asceticism for six years, attained Buddhahood at the Bodhi field, and taught the Dharma in the world for more than eighty years, claiming that my body is impermanent, but will enter Nirvana in three months, and pass away under the twin Sala trees? So they ask why. The sutra answers, 'The characteristics spoken of by the Tathagata are not characteristics.' What does it mean that the characteristics spoken of are not characteristics? It clarifies that the characteristics from birth in the royal palace to passing away under the twin Sala trees are the characteristics manifested by the Nirmanakaya Buddha for the convenience of teaching, and these characteristics are not the unconditioned characteristics of the Dharmakaya. This Nirmanakaya Buddha manifests according to the responses of sentient beings, and does not have a real and unchanging nature. In terms of its essence,

---

則唯一法性寂滅湛然，亦無四大色香等相也。「佛告須菩提：凡所有相皆是妄語」者，此泛論世間心心意識虛妄分別。應佛所有為三相所成者，皆是虛妄不實。亦得云凡所有果頭報佛萬功德相別相義邊，非古今一定虛空法身，故言凡所有相皆是妄語也。「若見諸相非相，即非妄語」者，若見有為三相非是無為法身相者，非是虛妄也。若爾有人疑：如來正可無有為三相，諸佛果頭萬德相者可是無也。答「如是諸相非相，則見如來」。如是知有為三相非無為法身相者，此人能見真實法身如來也。此明法身如來有真如解脫相，而不同生住滅等有為三相也。

此一段經，以一偈論釋。「分別有為體」者，明諸小菩薩二乘之人起心意識虛妄分別，謂有為三相所成者即是第一法身如來，更無別無為法身。道無為法身者，雖指虛空以為法身，而不可見，明知無有無為法身也。此一句將欲釋疑，先舉惑者之計，故言分別有為體也。第二句云「防彼成就得」。防者，遮前人計，勿取三相所成者是第一法身如來也，故言防彼成就得。此一句釋經中「于意云何」以下至「不可以相成就得見如來」以前經也。「三相異體故」者，此一句釋經中「何以故？如來所說相即非相」至「是妄語」，明應佛三相及報佛萬功德相異法身如來體，以法身

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：則唯一法性寂滅湛然，也沒有四大（地、水、火、風）色香等相。「佛告須菩提：凡所有相皆是妄語」這句話，是泛泛而論世間心心意識的虛妄分別。應化佛所有由生、住、滅三相所成就的，都是虛妄不實的。也可以說，凡所有果報佛的萬種功德相，都是相對而言的，並非亙古不變的虛空法身，所以說『凡所有相皆是妄語』。「若見諸相非相，即非妄語」這句話的意思是，如果見到有為的生、住、滅三相，並非無為法身的真如實相，那就不是虛妄的。如果有人懷疑：如來難道可以沒有有為的生、住、滅三相嗎？諸佛果報身的萬德之相難道可以沒有嗎？回答說：「如是諸相非相，則見如來」。像這樣知道有為的生、住、滅三相不是無為法身的真如實相，這個人就能見到真實的法身如來。這說明法身如來具有真如解脫之相，而不同於生、住、滅等有為的三相。

這一段經文，用一首偈語來解釋。「分別有為體」的意思是，說明諸小菩薩、二乘之人，生起心意識的虛妄分別，認為由有為的生、住、滅三相所成就的就是第一法身如來，再沒有其他的無為法身。說道無為法身，雖然指虛空作為法身，但卻不可見，明確知道沒有無為法身。這一句將要解釋疑惑，先舉出迷惑者的想法，所以說『分別有為體』。第二句說『防彼成就得』。『防』是遮止前面人的想法，不要認為由生、住、滅三相所成就的就是第一法身如來，所以說『防彼成就得』。這一句解釋經文中的『于意云何』以下，到『不可以相成就得見如來』以前的經文。「三相異體故」的意思是，這一句解釋經文中的『何以故？如來所說相即非相』到『是妄語』，說明應化佛的三相以及報身佛的萬種功德相，與法身如來的本體不同，因為法身

【English Translation】 English version: The only Dharma-nature is tranquil and still, without the characteristics of the four elements (earth, water, fire, wind), form, or scent. The statement 'The Buddha told Subhuti: All forms are false speech' generally discusses the false discriminations of worldly mind, consciousness, and ideation. All manifestations of the Transformation Body Buddha, which are composed of the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing, are false and unreal. It can also be said that all the myriad merits of the Reward Body Buddha are relative and not the eternal and unchanging Dharma-body of emptiness. Therefore, it is said, 'All forms are false speech.' The statement 'If one sees all forms as non-forms, then it is not false speech' means that if one sees the three characteristics of conditioned existence as not being the true nature of the unconditioned Dharma-body, then it is not false. If someone doubts: Can the Tathagata truly be without the three characteristics of conditioned existence? Can the myriad virtues of the Reward Body Buddha truly be absent? The answer is, 'Such forms are non-forms, then one sees the Tathagata.' If one knows that the three characteristics of conditioned existence are not the true nature of the unconditioned Dharma-body, then this person can see the true Dharma-body Tathagata. This explains that the Dharma-body Tathagata possesses the characteristics of true suchness and liberation, and is different from the three characteristics of conditioned existence such as arising, abiding, and ceasing.

This section of the sutra is explained with a verse. 'Discriminating conditioned existence as the essence' means that lesser Bodhisattvas and those of the Two Vehicles give rise to false discriminations of mind, consciousness, and ideation, believing that what is composed of the three characteristics of conditioned existence is the first Dharma-body Tathagata, and that there is no other unconditioned Dharma-body. Speaking of the unconditioned Dharma-body, although it points to emptiness as the Dharma-body, it is invisible, clearly indicating that there is no unconditioned Dharma-body. This sentence intends to resolve doubts by first presenting the ideas of those who are confused, hence the saying 'Discriminating conditioned existence as the essence.' The second line says 'Preventing them from attaining accomplishment.' 'Preventing' means stopping the previous person's idea, not to think that what is composed of the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing is the first Dharma-body Tathagata, hence the saying 'Preventing them from attaining accomplishment.' This sentence explains the sutra from 'What do you think?' down to 'One cannot see the Tathagata through the attainment of form.' 'The three characteristics are different in essence' means that this sentence explains the sutra from 'Why? The form spoken of by the Tathagata is not form' to 'It is false speech,' explaining that the three characteristics of the Transformation Body Buddha and the myriad merits of the Reward Body Buddha are different from the essence of the Dharma-body Tathagata, because the Dharma-body

---

如來別相義邊離於三相及報佛佛萬相故也。「離彼是如來」者，此句釋經中「若見諸相非相」以下經文，明無為法身湛然常住古今一定，體相寂滅，自性離三相等相，非斷故離也。

「此義云何」者，一偈釋經之義意云何也。自下答釋云何之意也。答「分別有為體」等三句，指出偈中上句惑者計情也。為防彼相成就得如來身者，提偈中第二句，遮上計情，即釋經中「不以相成就得見如來」，故引經也。「何以故」者，何以故遮言不可以應佛三相見法身如來也，故釋云如來名無為法身故，明此法身體無三相故是無為，故不可以相見也。「如經」等者，並引經偈來證也。「彼相成就即非相成就」者，釋于經偈也。「彼相成就」者，明應佛三相也。「即非相成就」，此應佛三相即非無為法身相成就也。此經偈明法身無有為相，故得為證也。「何以故」者，復欲將舉下偈釋于下經問：何以故應佛三相成就非是法身相成就，故云何以故也。「三相異如來體故」者，還舉前偈為解。上已將此偈證所以，此中復牽為解者，以此一句通釋兩處經文，是故中重提偈來釋下經也。此句顯有為虛妄故者，此是論主屬當凡所有相等經之與論也。偈言「離彼是如來」者，此偈何故別提者，上通牽證義，未別釋經文，故更提此偈來釋。「若見

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如來別相的意義在於，它超越了三相（應身佛的三十二相、八十隨形好等）以及報佛（報身佛）和佛的萬種表相。『離彼是如來』這句話，是用來解釋經文中的『若見諸相非相』等部分，闡明無為法身湛然常住，亙古不變，其本體和表相都是寂滅的，自性遠離三相等表相，並非斷滅所以才說是『離』。 『此義云何』的意思是，用一首偈來解釋經文的意義是什麼。下面開始回答解釋『云何』的含義。回答『分別有為體』等三句，指出偈中上句是迷惑者的計度之情。爲了防止有人認為成就那些表相就能得到如來身，所以提出偈中的第二句，遮止上述的計度之情，也就是解釋經文中的『不以相成就得見如來』，所以引用了經文。『何以故』的意思是，為什麼遮止說不能用應身佛的三相來見法身如來呢？所以解釋說，如來名為無為法身，說明這個法身本體沒有三相，所以是無為的，因此不能用表相來觀察。『如經』等，是並列引用經文和偈頌來證明。『彼相成就即非相成就』，是解釋經中的偈頌。『彼相成就』，指的是應身佛的三相。『即非相成就』，指的是應身佛的三相併不是無為法身的成就。這句經文和偈頌說明法身沒有有為相，所以可以作為證明。『何以故』，是再次想要用下面的偈頌來解釋下面的經文，問：為什麼應身佛的三相成就不是法身相的成就，所以說『何以故』。『三相異如來體故』，還是引用前面的偈頌來解釋。上面已經用這個偈頌來證明原因，這裡又牽引過來解釋，是因為這一句話可以貫通解釋兩處的經文，所以在這裡又重新提出偈頌來解釋下面的經文。『此句顯有為虛妄故』，這是論主將『凡所有相皆是虛妄』的經文與論相結合。偈頌說『離彼是如來』，這句偈頌為什麼單獨提出來呢？因為上面只是貫通牽引來證明意義，沒有分別解釋經文，所以再次提出這句偈頌來解釋『若見』。

【English Translation】 English version The meaning of the distinctive characteristics of the Tathagata (Rulai) lies in its transcendence of the three characteristics (the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks of the Nirmanakaya Buddha), as well as the Sambhogakaya Buddha and the myriad appearances of the Buddhas. The phrase 'Being apart from them is the Tathagata' is used to explain the section of the scripture 'If one sees all forms as non-forms,' elucidating that the unconditioned Dharmakaya is serene and eternally abiding, unchanging from ancient times, its essence and appearance are both quiescent, and its self-nature is apart from characteristics such as the three marks; it is not annihilation, hence the term 'apart'. 'What is the meaning of this?' refers to what is the meaning of explaining the scripture with a verse. The following begins to answer and explain the meaning of 'what'. The answer 'Distinguishing conditioned entities' and the following three phrases point out that the first phrase in the verse is the emotional calculation of the deluded. To prevent someone from thinking that achieving those characteristics can attain the body of the Tathagata, the second phrase in the verse is presented to stop the aforementioned emotional calculation, which is to explain the scripture 'One cannot see the Tathagata by achieving characteristics,' hence the scripture is quoted. 'Why is that?' means why is it prevented to say that one cannot see the Dharmakaya Tathagata with the three marks of the Response Body Buddha? Therefore, it is explained that the Tathagata is named the unconditioned Dharmakaya, indicating that this Dharmakaya's essence does not have the three marks, so it is unconditioned, and therefore cannot be observed with characteristics. 'As the scripture' etc., is to quote the scripture and verse in parallel to prove it. 'Achieving those characteristics is not achieving non-characteristics' is to explain the verse in the scripture. 'Achieving those characteristics' refers to the three marks of the Response Body Buddha. 'Is not achieving non-characteristics' refers to the fact that the three marks of the Response Body Buddha are not the achievement of the unconditioned Dharmakaya. This scripture and verse explain that the Dharmakaya does not have conditioned characteristics, so it can be used as proof. 'Why is that?' is to once again use the following verse to explain the following scripture, asking: why is the achievement of the three marks of the Response Body Buddha not the achievement of the Dharmakaya's characteristics, hence the saying 'Why is that?'. 'Because the three marks are different from the Tathagata's essence' still quotes the previous verse to explain. The above has already used this verse to prove the reason, and here it is drawn over again to explain, because this sentence can explain the scriptures in two places in a comprehensive way, so the verse is re-proposed here to explain the following scripture. 'This sentence shows that conditioned things are false' is the master of the treatise combining the scripture 'All forms are false' with the treatise. The verse says 'Being apart from them is the Tathagata', why is this verse brought up separately? Because the above was only a comprehensive drawing to prove the meaning, without separately explaining the scripture, so this verse is proposed again to explain 'If one sees'.

---

諸相非相」等以下結也。「此句明如來體非有為故」者，此論主屬當若見諸相非相等經論也。「菩薩如是知如來」已下，以經釋疑竟，結釋疑答之意也。

金剛仙論卷第二 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第三

自此以下，尊者須菩提生疑致問。

「須菩提白佛言：頗有眾生，未來世於此修多羅生實相」等者，自此以下有二段經，是大段第六，名為我空法空分也，此亦名住放辨才段。所以名我空法空者，就對計我四句，明無我四句以釋我空。明能信菩薩，于眾生五陰中，解從本以來無定實神我、眾生、壽命等四以之為我，又無定實五陰因緣以為我所。以不見定性我所可以除蕩，故名我空。法空者，就對法中四句以明法空。上我空，直見生陰定性我無定性，所猶未空生陰因緣法體。今明此生陰非直無有定實神我，其體生滅因緣虛妄，本來寂靜乃至假名亦無，故名法空。又知佛性真如古今一定體無方相，亦名法空也。

亦名任放辨才段，所以名任放辨才者，明諸佛菩薩得不妄陀羅尼自在辨才，故能隨問而答超越解釋，前後任意義不相違，故曰任放辨才。就此段中有任放辨才義故，名任放辨才段也。

亦得名有能信者分，以此段中明三種人能信此經

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『諸相非相』等以下是總結。『此句明如來體非有為故』，這句話說明論主的觀點符合『若見諸相非相』等經論。『菩薩如是知如來』以下，用經文解釋疑惑完畢，總結解釋疑惑的意義。

金剛仙論卷第二 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第三

自此以下，尊者須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）產生疑惑並提問。

『須菩提白佛言：頗有眾生，未來世於此修多羅（Sutra，經）生實相』等，自此以下有兩段經文，是大段的第六部分，名為我空法空分。此部分也叫做住放辨才段。之所以叫做我空法空，是因為針對計我四句，闡明無我四句來解釋我空。說明能夠相信的菩薩，在眾生的五陰（Skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）中，理解到從根本上來說沒有固定的真實神我、眾生、壽命等四種概念作為『我』，也沒有固定的真實五陰因緣作為『我所』。因為看不到固定不變的『我所』，所以可以去除盪滌，因此叫做我空。法空，是針對法中的四句來闡明法空。上面的我空，直接看到生陰的定性，『我』沒有定性，但『所』還沒有空掉生陰的因緣法體。現在說明這個生陰不僅沒有固定的真實神我，它的本體生滅因緣虛妄，本來寂靜乃至假名也沒有，所以叫做法空。又知道佛性真如（Tathata，如實、真如）古今一定，本體沒有方相，也叫做法空。

也叫做任放辨才段，之所以叫做任放辨才，是因為說明諸佛菩薩得到不妄陀羅尼（Dharani，總持，一種咒語或真言）自在辨才，所以能夠隨著提問而回答，超越解釋，前後任意義不相違背，所以說任放辨才。因為此段中有任放辨才的意義，所以叫做任放辨才段。

也可以叫做有能信者分，因為此段中說明三種人能夠相信此經。

【English Translation】 English version: The phrase 'all forms are non-forms' and the following are the conclusion. 'This sentence clarifies that the Tathagata's (如來，another name for Buddha) body is not conditioned,' which means the author's view aligns with sutras and treatises such as 'if one sees all forms as non-forms.' 'Bodhisattvas (菩薩，enlightenment beings) thus know the Tathagata' and the following uses sutras to complete the explanation of doubts, summarizing the meaning of resolving doubts.

Kimnarasimha's Treatise, Volume 2 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 25 No. 1512 Kimnarasimha's Treatise

Kimnarasimha's Treatise, Volume 3

From here onwards, the venerable Subhuti (須菩提，Buddha's disciple) raises doubts and asks questions.

'Subhuti said to the Buddha: Are there beings in the future who will generate true understanding of reality in this Sutra (修多羅，scripture)?' From here onwards, there are two sections of scripture, which are the sixth part of the large section, called the section on the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharma. This part is also called the section on abiding, releasing, and eloquence. The reason it is called the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharma is because it addresses the four statements about clinging to self, clarifying the four statements about non-self to explain the emptiness of self. It explains that bodhisattvas who are able to believe understand, within the five skandhas (五陰，the five aggregates that constitute individual existence, namely form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) of sentient beings, that from the very beginning there is no fixed, real self, sentient being, lifespan, etc., as 'self,' and there are no fixed, real five skandha conditions as 'what belongs to self.' Because one does not see a fixed, unchanging 'what belongs to self,' it can be removed and cleansed, therefore it is called the emptiness of self. The emptiness of dharma addresses the four statements about dharma to clarify the emptiness of dharma. The emptiness of self above directly sees the fixed nature of the arising skandha, 'self' has no fixed nature, but 'what belongs to self' has not yet emptied the causal dharma body of the arising skandha. Now it explains that this arising skandha not only has no fixed, real self, but its essence of arising, ceasing, and causal conditions is illusory, originally quiescent, and even the nominal is non-existent, therefore it is called the emptiness of dharma. Furthermore, knowing that the Buddha-nature Tathata (真如，suchness, thusness) is constant throughout the past and present, and its essence has no direction or form, is also called the emptiness of dharma.

It is also called the section on freely releasing eloquence. The reason it is called freely releasing eloquence is because it explains that all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have obtained the unobstructed dharani (陀羅尼，a type of mantra or incantation) and unhindered eloquence, so they are able to answer questions as they are asked, transcend explanations, and the meaning before and after does not contradict each other, therefore it is called freely releasing eloquence. Because this section has the meaning of freely releasing eloquence, it is called the section on freely releasing eloquence.

It can also be called the section on those who are able to believe, because this section explains that three types of people are able to believe in this sutra.

---

故也。此經以何次第起？上第四段中，明不住相行於佈施，說因深義。第五段中，辨如來非有為相，說果深義。有人生疑：如來說法非直為利現坐大眾，乃亦被益未來像法眾生。然現坐大眾親睹如來，復是久行大士，善根淳厚智慧深妙，是人於此深經可容生信，未來世眾生善根微薄智慧鮮少，於此因果深經不能生信。若爾，則為如來空說無益，云何如來得言不空說法也？若空說無益，如來則非一切智人。如是因果二種甚深修多羅，未來末世為當有人能信、為無人能信也？有如此疑故。須菩提騰大眾疑意，故白佛言：于如來滅后惡世之中，頗有眾生能信此經以之為實相不也。佛下答：有人能信，明於未來惡世有持戒、修福德、智慧者三人，能信此經生於實相，故次明也。

應問：能信之人乃有其三，何故單以我法二空㯹第六段名者？明持戒、修福德二人，在於地前，仰習二空，聞中生信；有智慧人，乃是初地以上，現見我法二空，證中生信。然前之二人雖未現證，以其亦同觀二空，彷彿見理，故俱列為能信之人。今明雖有三人能信，但逐三人所觀勝境為名，故曰我空法空分也。然今將欲道有人能信，故先遮言莫作是說，明未來惡世中有人能信此經，不應問言頗有人能生信不也。

須菩提既聞如來遮言莫作是

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是的。這部經以什麼次第開始？上面第四段中，闡明不住相地進行佈施，講述了因的深刻含義。第五段中，辨析如來並非具有有為之相，講述了果的深刻含義。有人產生疑問：如來說法不僅僅是爲了利益在座的大眾，也是爲了利益未來像法時代的眾生。然而，現在在座的大眾親眼見到如來，而且是長期修行的菩薩，善根深厚，智慧深妙，這些人對於這部深刻的經典或許能夠生起信心。未來世的眾生善根微薄，智慧淺薄，對於這因果深刻的經典不能生起信心。如果這樣，那麼如來豈不是白說而沒有益處？如來怎麼能說不空說法呢？如果白說沒有益處，如來就不是一切智人。像這樣因果兩種甚深的修多羅（sūtra，經），未來末世會有能夠相信的人嗎？還是沒有人能夠相信呢？因為有這樣的疑問。 須菩提（Subhūti，佛陀的弟子）爲了消除大眾的疑慮，所以問佛說：在如來滅度后的惡世之中，是否還有眾生能夠相信這部經，並把它當作實相呢？佛在下面回答：有人能夠相信，說明在未來的惡世中，有持戒、修福德、有智慧的三種人，能夠相信這部經，並生起實相，所以接下來進行闡明。 應該問：能夠相信的人有三種，為什麼單單以『我法二空』（ātma-dharma-śūnyatā，人空和法空）作為第六段的名稱呢？說明持戒、修福德這兩種人，在地前（菩薩十地之前），仰慕學習二空，聽聞後生起信心；有智慧的人，是初地（菩薩初地，歡喜地）以上，親眼見到我法二空，在證悟中生起信心。然而，前面的兩種人雖然沒有親身證悟，但因為他們也同樣觀修二空，彷彿見到了真理，所以都列為能夠相信的人。現在說明雖然有三種人能夠相信，但根據三種人所觀的殊勝境界來命名，所以說『我空法空分』。然而，現在將要說有人能夠相信，所以先遮止說『莫作是說』，說明未來惡世中有人能夠相信這部經，不應該問『是否有人能夠生起信心』。 須菩提（Subhūti，佛陀的弟子）既然聽聞如來遮止說『莫作是說』

【English Translation】 English version: Yes. In what order does this sutra begin? In the fourth section above, it clarifies the practice of giving without attachment, explaining the profound meaning of cause. In the fifth section, it distinguishes that the Tathagata (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha) does not possess conditioned characteristics, explaining the profound meaning of effect. Some people have doubts: The Tathagata's (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha) teaching is not only for the benefit of the present assembly, but also for the benefit of future beings in the Dharma-image age. However, the present assembly has personally seen the Tathagata (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha), and they are also Bodhisattvas who have practiced for a long time, with deep roots of goodness and profound wisdom. These people may be able to generate faith in this profound sutra. Future beings have shallow roots of goodness and little wisdom, and they may not be able to generate faith in this profound sutra of cause and effect. If so, then wouldn't the Tathagata (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha) be speaking in vain without benefit? How can the Tathagata (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha) say that he does not teach emptiness? If speaking in vain is of no benefit, then the Tathagata (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha) is not an omniscient being. Will there be people in the future degenerate age who can believe in these two kinds of profound sutras (sūtra，經) of cause and effect? Or will there be no one who can believe? Because of such doubts, Subhūti (須菩提，Buddha's disciple), in order to dispel the doubts of the assembly, asked the Buddha: In the evil age after the Tathagata's (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha) extinction, will there still be beings who can believe in this sutra and regard it as the true reality? The Buddha answers below: There are people who can believe, indicating that in the future evil age, there will be three kinds of people who uphold the precepts, cultivate blessings, and have wisdom, who can believe in this sutra and generate true reality, so it is explained next. It should be asked: There are three kinds of people who can believe, why is the sixth section named solely after 'selflessness and dharma-emptiness' (ātma-dharma-śūnyatā，人空和法空)? It explains that the two kinds of people who uphold the precepts and cultivate blessings are before the ground (before the ten grounds of a Bodhisattva), admiring and learning the two emptinesses, and generating faith upon hearing them; the person with wisdom is above the first ground (the first ground of a Bodhisattva, the Joyful Ground), personally seeing the selflessness and dharma-emptiness, and generating faith in enlightenment. However, although the previous two kinds of people have not personally realized it, because they also contemplate the two emptinesses, and seem to see the truth, they are all listed as people who can believe. Now it is explained that although there are three kinds of people who can believe, the name is based on the supreme realm contemplated by the three kinds of people, so it is called 'selflessness and dharma-emptiness section'. However, now that it is about to be said that there are people who can believe, it is first prevented by saying 'do not say this', indicating that in the future evil age, there are people who can believe in this sutra, and it should not be asked 'whether there are people who can generate faith'. Since Subhūti (須菩提，Buddha's disciple) heard the Tathagata (如來，one of the titles of a Buddha) prevent him by saying 'do not say this'

---

說，即復生疑：我今不解佛意，為當一向無人能信，直止我令默？為有人能信而止我令諦聽也？故佛答有言，有者明有人能信也。雖云有人能信，未知何等人能信故，即云未來世有菩薩能信。又此菩薩有何等德行、觀何境界，故能信此經也？故次云有持戒、修福德、智慧也，此總明三種人有能信之德。所以名「持戒」者，明此人已久供諸佛，曾聞此《金剛般若》及以余大乘經，于中生信受持讀誦如說修行，知一切眾生皆有佛性，發菩提心、慎教修行者，乃名真實究竟持戒，非唯持律儀戒者為持戒也。「福德」者，明此菩薩于諸佛所，廣以珍財奉施，修波羅蜜行，名福德也。此之二人，在於地前，聞中仰信。「智慧」者，明此人已僧祇行滿，道登初地，現見我法二空，自證而信，名有智慧也。明此三人於斯經能生實相之信也。此言「實相」者，明彼三種人，能信上不取相行是無相之因實能感無為法法身，亦信無為法身是無相之果真實不虛，能生實相之解，故言以此為實也。然上雖總出三人能信之德，明前二種人在於地前聞中生信，有智慧人地上證信。然此前二人若在地前，此人為曾供養諸佛、發菩提心已修行未故信，為當未修行來而能信此經也？若曾供養諸佛、久修行來者、為當供養幾許佛來也？故佛告須菩提，當知彼

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： （須菩提）說，這又讓人產生疑問：我現在不理解佛的真意，是因為一直以來沒有人能夠相信，所以才阻止我發問？還是因為有人能夠相信，所以才阻止我詳細詢問呢？所以佛回答說『有』，這個『有』字表明有人能夠相信。雖然說有人能夠相信，但不知道是什麼樣的人能夠相信，所以（佛）說未來世有菩薩能夠相信。那麼這些菩薩有什麼樣的德行，觀察什麼樣的境界，所以能夠相信這部經呢？所以接著說有持戒、修福德、智慧的人，這裡總共說明了三種人具有能夠相信這部經的德行。之所以稱為『持戒』，是因為這些人已經長期供養諸佛，曾經聽聞過這部《金剛般若》（Vajra Prajna，金剛智慧）以及其他大乘經典，從中產生信心，受持讀誦，按照經文所說的去修行，知道一切眾生都具有佛性，發菩提心，謹慎教導修行的人，才稱為真實究竟的持戒，不是僅僅持守律儀戒的人就稱為持戒。『福德』，是指這些菩薩在諸佛那裡，廣泛地用珍貴的財物供養佈施，修習波羅蜜（Paramita，到彼岸）行，稱為福德。這兩種人，在地前（菩薩十地之前），通過聽聞而仰信。『智慧』，是指這些人已經僧祇（Asankhya，無數）行圓滿，證道登入初地，親眼見到我空法空（人無我，法無我），通過自身的證悟而相信，稱為有智慧。說明這三種人對於這部經能夠產生實相的信心。這裡說的『實相』，是指這三種人，能夠相信上文所說的『不取相』的修行是無相之因，確實能夠感得無為法法身（Dharmakaya，法身），也相信無為法身是無相之果，真實不虛，能夠產生實相的理解，所以說以此為實。然而，上面雖然總的列出了三種人能夠相信這部經的德行，說明前兩種人在地前通過聽聞而生信，有智慧的人在地上通過證悟而信。然而，這前兩種人如果在地上之前，這個人是因為曾經供養諸佛、發菩提心已經修行過所以相信，還是因為沒有修行過就能相信這部經呢？如果曾經供養諸佛、長期修行過的人，那麼是供養了多少佛才達到這種程度呢？所以佛告訴須菩提（Subhuti，空生），應當知道他們。

【English Translation】 English version: （Subhuti）said, this again gives rise to doubt: I now do not understand the Buddha's true meaning. Is it because no one has ever been able to believe, so you prevent me from asking? Or is it because someone can believe, so you prevent me from inquiring in detail? Therefore, the Buddha answered 'yes,' this 'yes' indicates that someone can believe. Although it is said that someone can believe, it is not known what kind of person can believe, so (the Buddha) said that in the future there will be Bodhisattvas who can believe. Then what kind of virtues do these Bodhisattvas have, and what kind of realms do they observe, so that they can believe this Sutra? Therefore, it is then said that there are those who uphold the precepts, cultivate merits, and have wisdom. Here, it is generally explained that three kinds of people have the virtue of being able to believe this Sutra. The reason for being called 'upholding the precepts' is that these people have long offered to all Buddhas, have heard this Vajra Prajna (Vajra Prajna, Diamond Wisdom) and other Mahayana Sutras, and from them have generated faith, received, upheld, recited, and practiced according to what the Sutras say, knowing that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, generating Bodhicitta (Bodhicitta, the mind of enlightenment), and carefully teaching those who practice, are called truly and ultimately upholding the precepts, not just those who uphold the Vinaya precepts are called upholding the precepts. 'Merit' refers to these Bodhisattvas who, in the presence of all Buddhas, widely offer and give with precious wealth, cultivating the Paramita (Paramita, to the other shore) practice, are called merit. These two kinds of people, before the Bhumis (the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's path), believe through hearing. 'Wisdom' refers to these people who have completed Asankhya (Asankhya, countless) practices, attained the first Bhumi, personally see the emptiness of self and the emptiness of Dharma (the absence of self, the absence of phenomena), and believe through their own realization, are called having wisdom. It is explained that these three kinds of people can generate true faith in this Sutra. The 'true nature' mentioned here refers to these three kinds of people who can believe that the 'non-attachment to form' practice mentioned above is the cause of non-form, and can indeed sense the unconditioned Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, Dharma body), and also believe that the unconditioned Dharmakaya is the result of non-form, truly and not falsely, and can generate an understanding of true nature, so it is said that this is the truth. However, although the virtues of the three kinds of people who can believe this Sutra are generally listed above, it is explained that the first two kinds of people generate faith through hearing before the Bhumis, and people with wisdom believe through realization on the Bhumis. However, if these first two kinds of people are before the Bhumis, is it because they have offered to all Buddhas, generated Bodhicitta, and have already practiced, so they believe, or is it because they have not practiced that they can believe this Sutra? If they have offered to all Buddhas and have practiced for a long time, then how many Buddhas have they offered to reach this level? Therefore, the Buddha told Subhuti (Subhuti, Emptiness Born), you should know that they.

---

菩薩非於一佛二三四五佛所供養種善根來也。然就三人之中，先別明前二人非近修行來具能信之德也。此經正直爾泛明斯二人能信之德，不可定指在習種性、性種、道種性中，以其義通上下故也。「一二三四五佛所修供養」者，此別出持戒人，明彼菩薩能信此經，如此經如說修行稱可聖心，名為第一供養，非謂香華等為供養也。又「非一二三四五佛所種善根」者，廣以衣服珍寶財物等奉施諸佛，修波羅蜜行，名為有福德人也。「于無量諸佛所，修行供養種善根」者，直云非一二三四五佛所修行供養種善根，未知幾許佛所？今者明此人已於無量百千萬乃至不可說不可說諸佛所，持戒修福德來，非是近行之人能生信也。「乃至一念能生凈信」者，此並明二人久供養諸佛殖因來遠，於此深經能生信心。此是聞中彷彿信，非證信也。然此一念信決定不退，無有疑濁，尚得名為凈信，況多時也。上如來雖答此二種人曾供諸佛能信此經，然大眾猶有疑心言：何故此人供養諸佛乃多，而唯言生一念信，此則太少。若爾，未知此二人，為決定能信此經、為不能信？故佛答「如來悉知見是諸眾生」，明如來自云我是一切種智人，凡有所說，此了了知終不虛說，汝等應信我語勿生疑也。今言「悉知」者，以現智知；「悉見」者，以佛眼見也

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 菩薩不是僅僅在一尊、兩尊、三尊、四尊、五尊佛那裡供養、種植善根而來的。現在就這三種人之中，先特別說明前面兩種人不是近期修行就能具備能信之德的。這部經文只是概括地說明這兩種人能信之德，不可確定地指他們是在習種性、性種性、道種性之中，因為它的意義貫通上下。『一二三四五佛所修供養』，這是特別指出持戒之人，說明這些菩薩能信此經，如此經所說如法修行，符合聖人的心意，這稱為第一供養，不是說用香、花等作為供養。另外，『非一二三四五佛所種善根』，這是廣泛地用衣服、珍寶、財物等奉獻給諸佛，修習波羅蜜（Paramita）行，稱為有福德之人。『于無量諸佛所，修行供養種善根』，只是說不是在一尊、兩尊、三尊、四尊、五尊佛那裡修行供養、種植善根，不知道是在多少佛那裡？現在說明這些人已經在無量百千萬乃至不可說不可說的諸佛那裡，持戒修福德而來，不是近期修行之人能生起信心的。『乃至一念能生凈信』，這並說明這兩種人長久供養諸佛，種植因緣深遠，對於這部深奧的經能生起信心。這只是聽聞中彷彿相信，不是證信。然而這一念信決定不會退轉，沒有疑惑混濁，尚且可以稱為凈信，何況是長時間的信呢。上面如來雖然回答這兩種人曾經供養諸佛，能信此經，但是大眾仍然有疑心說：為什麼這些人供養諸佛如此之多，而只說生起一念信，這太少了。如果這樣，不知道這兩種人，是決定能信此經，還是不能信？所以佛回答『如來悉知見是諸眾生』，說明如來自稱我是一切種智人，凡是我所說的，我都完全瞭解，終究不會虛假，你們應該相信我的話，不要產生懷疑。現在說『悉知』，是用現智知道；『悉見』，是用佛眼見到。

【English Translation】 English version Bodhisattvas do not come from merely offering and planting good roots at one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas. Now, among these three types of people, it should first be specifically clarified that the first two types do not possess the virtue of being able to believe due to recent practice. This sutra broadly explains the virtue of faith in these two types of people, and it cannot be definitively said that they belong to the stage of 'learning nature' (習種性), 'nature' (性種), or 'path nature' (道種性), because its meaning encompasses both higher and lower levels. 'Offering at one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas' (一二三四五佛所修供養) specifically refers to those who uphold the precepts, clarifying that these Bodhisattvas can believe in this sutra. Practicing according to the teachings of this sutra, in accordance with the mind of the sages, is called the foremost offering; it does not mean that incense, flowers, and the like are offerings. Furthermore, 'not planting good roots at one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas' (非一二三四五佛所種善根) broadly refers to offering clothes, treasures, wealth, and other items to the Buddhas, cultivating the Paramita (波羅蜜) practices, and being called people with merit and virtue. 'At immeasurable Buddhas, cultivating offerings and planting good roots' (于無量諸佛所，修行供養種善根) simply states that it is not cultivating offerings and planting good roots at one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas. How many Buddhas is unknown? Now it is clarified that these people have already upheld precepts and cultivated merit and virtue at immeasurable hundreds of thousands, even unspeakable and unspeakable Buddhas; they are not people of recent practice who can generate faith. 'Even generating pure faith in a single thought' (乃至一念能生凈信) explains that these two types of people have long offered to the Buddhas, planting deep causes, and can generate faith in this profound sutra. This is merely a vague belief from hearing, not a confirmed belief. However, this single thought of faith will definitely not regress, and without doubt or turbidity, it can still be called pure faith, let alone faith over a long period of time. Although the Tathagata (如來) above answered that these two types of people have offered to the Buddhas and can believe in this sutra, the assembly still has doubts, saying: Why have these people offered to so many Buddhas, but it is only said that they generate a single thought of faith? This is too little. If so, it is not known whether these two types of people can definitely believe in this sutra or not? Therefore, the Buddha answers, 'The Tathagata knows and sees all these beings' (如來悉知見是諸眾生), clarifying that the Tathagata calls himself a person of all-knowing wisdom. Whatever I say, I fully understand, and it will never be false. You should believe my words and not have doubts. Now, 'knows all' (悉知) means knowing with present wisdom; 'sees all' (悉見) means seeing with the Buddha eye.

---

。知之與見，乃理通三種人。今始明前二人，未明第三人。何故？此中已明者，是任放辨才，前後隨意明也。然諸佛菩薩得自在陀羅尼故，說則當理，前後隨意，超越說法而文義俱順，不失次第亦不相違背，不同凡夫二乘要次第誦，設越誦則失也。亦得言但知見前二人，不論第三人也。何以得知？義該三人。下論釋時解三種人竟，然後方釋悉知悉見，故知任放辨才者前後隨意也。

「生如是無量福德聚」等者，上雖明二種人具持戒、福德二行，故能信上二種深經，乃至生一念凈信，未知此人以此能信功德，于未來世為有所得、為無所得也。故答言「生如是無量福德聚，取如是無量福德」也。此明能信之人未來世更得多福，非無所得也。生福德者，明二種菩薩能信之心，近與初地作因，遠則畢竟能與無上佛果作其勝因，故云生福德聚也。取無量福德者，明此福德者非但唯能作因而已，復藉此信心能決定修行，顯出法界身，證於佛果無量福德，故云取也。

「何以故？須菩提！是諸菩薩無復我相」等者，此別明第三有智慧人能信此經也。「何以故」者，上已別明前二人有持戒、修福德能信之行，未別明第三人有能信之德。今疑者問意：未知上第三有智慧人，復有何義、有何行、何所解、何所證，故名有智慧人

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：知與見，是通達三種人所證之理。現在已經闡明了前兩種人，但尚未闡明第三種人。為什麼呢？因為這裡已經闡明的是能夠自由運用辯才，前後隨意闡明道理的人。然而，諸佛菩薩因為證得了自在陀羅尼（Dharani，總持），所以說法時能夠契合真理，前後隨意，超越固定的說法方式，但文辭和義理都順暢，不失次第，也不互相違背，這與凡夫和二乘人（聲聞、緣覺）必須按照次第誦讀不同，如果超越次第誦讀就會出錯。也可以說只是知見前兩種人，不討論第三種人。憑什麼知道是這樣呢？因為義理涵蓋了三種人。下文在解釋時會闡明三種人，然後才解釋悉知悉見，所以知道能夠自由運用辯才的人可以前後隨意闡明道理。 『生如是無量福德聚』等等，上面雖然闡明了兩種人具備持戒、福德兩種修行，所以能夠相信上面兩種甚深經典，乃至生起一念清凈的信心，但還不知道這個人憑藉這種能夠生起信心的功德，在未來世是有所得還是無所得。所以回答說『生如是無量福德聚，取如是無量福德』。這說明能夠生起信心的人在未來世會獲得更多的福報，並非沒有所得。『生福德』，說明兩種菩薩能夠生起信心的心，近則可以作為初地（菩薩十地之第一地）的因，遠則畢竟能夠作為無上佛果的殊勝之因，所以說『生福德聚』。『取無量福德』，說明這種福德不僅僅能夠作為因，而且憑藉這種信心能夠堅定地修行，顯現出法界身，證得佛果的無量福德，所以說『取』。 『何以故？須菩提！（Subhuti，解空第一的弟子）是諸菩薩無復我相』等等，這是分別闡明第三種有智慧的人能夠相信這部經。『何以故』，上面已經分別闡明了前兩種人有持戒、修福德能夠生起信心的修行，但沒有分別闡明第三種人有能夠生起信心的功德。現在提問者的意思是：不知道上面所說的第三種有智慧的人，還有什麼意義、有什麼修行、有什麼理解、有什麼證悟，所以才被稱為有智慧的人。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Knowing and seeing' means understanding the principle realized by the three types of people. Now, the first two types have been clarified, but the third type has not yet been clarified. Why? Because what has been clarified here is the ability to freely use eloquence, explaining the principles at will, in any order. However, because all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have attained the Dharani (總持, the power of retaining all teachings), their teachings are in accordance with the truth, in any order, transcending fixed ways of speaking, but the words and meanings are smooth, without losing order, and without contradicting each other. This is different from ordinary people and the two vehicles (聲聞, Śrāvaka and 緣覺, Pratyekabuddha), who must recite in order; if they recite out of order, they will make mistakes. It can also be said that only the first two types of people are known and seen, and the third type is not discussed. How do we know this? Because the meaning encompasses all three types of people. The following discussion will clarify the three types of people, and then explain 'knowing all' and 'seeing all,' so we know that those who can freely use eloquence can explain the principles at will, in any order. 'Generating such immeasurable accumulations of merit,' etc. Although it has been clarified above that the two types of people possess the two practices of upholding precepts and cultivating merit, so they can believe in the above two profound sutras, and even generate a single thought of pure faith, it is not yet known whether this person, by virtue of this merit of being able to believe, will have something to gain or nothing to gain in future lives. Therefore, the answer is 'Generating such immeasurable accumulations of merit, taking such immeasurable merit.' This explains that those who can generate faith will gain more blessings in future lives, not that they will gain nothing. 'Generating merit' explains that the mind of the two types of Bodhisattvas that can generate faith can be the cause of the first ground (菩薩十地之第一地, the first of the ten Bhumi of a Bodhisattva) in the near future, and ultimately can be the superior cause of the unsurpassed Buddhahood, so it is said 'generating accumulations of merit.' 'Taking immeasurable merit' explains that this merit is not only able to be a cause, but also by virtue of this faith, one can firmly cultivate, manifest the Dharmadhatu body, and realize the immeasurable merit of Buddhahood, so it is said 'taking'. 'Why? Subhuti! (須菩提, foremost disciple in understanding emptiness) These Bodhisattvas have no more self-image,' etc. This separately clarifies that the third type of wise person can believe in this sutra. 'Why?' Above, it has been separately clarified that the first two types of people have the practice of upholding precepts and cultivating merit, which enables them to generate faith, but it has not been separately clarified that the third type of person has the merit of being able to generate faith. The questioner's intention is: it is not known what meaning, what practice, what understanding, and what realization the above-mentioned third type of wise person has, so they are called wise people.

---

能信此經。有如是問，故言何以故也。今欲出第三人能信之行，故答言「是諸菩薩無復我相」等，明此人以得初地已上，我空法空之解自證而信，故名有智慧人能信此經；不同前二人，從他聞法、依教生信也。

「是諸菩薩無復我相」等者，此四，論釋云我空，依四種所治我相，說四種能治無我相也。「無復我相」者，對治我相也。外道凡夫計，謂有一神我，與五陰一、與五陰異、不一不異，若無我者，何由能府視眴、行來進止、覺苦覺樂，以此知有我也。以對此計，故言無我相，明眾生五陰因緣法中無有定實神我及以我所，故曰無我相也。「無眾生相」者，有外道橫計，眾生所以不斷不絕相續住世者，以有神我眾生故也。為對治此計，故言無眾生相，明唯有虛假生陰相續生滅，不由有神我不斷不滅，故言無眾生相也。「無人相」者，對治人相。有外道橫計，所以有一報之命不斷絕者，由有神我，故命有長短之限、差品不同。為對治此計，故言無人相。此經云「無人相」者，下論中名為「命相」，明此命所以有長短者，以眾生業有厚薄故命有修促，不由於我。而菩薩解虛假之命悉皆空寂，不見有神我之命，故云無人相也。

「無壽者相」，對治壽者相也。有外道橫計，以有神我故，死此生彼，逕由六道受

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 能夠相信這部經書。如果有人這樣發問，所以說『何以故也』（為什麼呢）。現在想要說明第三種人能夠相信此經的行為，所以回答說『是諸菩薩無復我相』等等，說明這種人已經證得初地以上的境界，通過對『我空』和『法空』的理解，自己證悟而生信，所以稱為有智慧的人能夠相信這部經書；不同於前面兩種人，是從聽聞他人說法、依據教義而生信。

『是諸菩薩無復我相』等等，這四種『相』，在論釋中說是『我空』，依據四種所要對治的『我相』，說明四種能夠對治『無我相』的方法。『無復我相』，是對治『我相』。外道凡夫認為，存在一個神我，與五陰相同、與五陰相異、非一非異，如果沒有『我』，又怎麼能夠觀看、眨眼、行走、前進、停止、感覺痛苦、感覺快樂呢？因此知道有『我』的存在。爲了對治這種觀點，所以說『無我相』，說明眾生的五陰因緣法中沒有固定實在的神我和我所，所以說『無我相』。『無眾生相』，有些外道錯誤地認為，眾生之所以能夠不斷絕地相續存在於世間，是因為有神我的存在。爲了對治這種觀點，所以說『無眾生相』，說明只有虛假的生陰相續生滅，不是因為有神我不斷不滅，所以說『無眾生相』。『無人相』，是對治『人相』。有些外道錯誤地認為，之所以有一期生命的延續不斷絕，是因為有神我的存在，所以生命的長度有限制、差別不同。爲了對治這種觀點，所以說『無人相』。這部經書所說的『無人相』，在下文的論述中稱為『命相』，說明生命的長度之所以有長短，是因為眾生的業力有厚薄的差別，所以壽命有長短，不是因為有『我』。而菩薩理解虛假的生命都是空寂的，不見有神我的生命，所以說『無人相』。

『無壽者相』，是對治『壽者相』。有些外道錯誤地認為，因為有神我的存在，所以死後會轉生到其他地方，經歷六道輪迴。

【English Translation】 English version: Those who can believe in this sutra. If there is such a question, hence the saying 'What is the reason?' Now, wanting to explain the conduct of the third type of person who can believe in this sutra, the answer is 'These Bodhisattvas are without the perception of a self,' etc., explaining that this person has already attained the stage above the first ground (初地), and through the understanding of 'self-emptiness' (我空) and 'dharma-emptiness' (法空), they personally realize and generate faith, hence they are called wise people who can believe in this sutra; different from the previous two types of people, who generate faith from hearing others preach the Dharma and relying on the teachings.

'These Bodhisattvas are without the perception of a self,' etc. These four 'perceptions' (相), in the commentary, are said to be 'self-emptiness,' based on the four types of 'self-perceptions' (我相) to be counteracted, explaining the four methods that can counteract the 'perception of no-self' (無我相). 'Without the perception of a self' (無復我相) is to counteract the 'perception of a self' (我相). Heretical non-Buddhists and ordinary people believe that there is a divine self (神我) that is the same as the five aggregates (五陰), different from the five aggregates, neither the same nor different. If there is no 'self,' how can one see, blink, walk, advance, stop, feel pain, and feel pleasure? Therefore, they know that there is a 'self.' To counteract this view, it is said 'without the perception of a self,' explaining that in the Dharma of the five aggregates and conditions of sentient beings, there is no fixed and real divine self or what belongs to the self, hence it is said 'without the perception of a self.' 'Without the perception of sentient beings' (無眾生相): some heretics wrongly believe that the reason why sentient beings can continuously exist in the world without interruption is because there is a divine self. To counteract this view, it is said 'without the perception of sentient beings,' explaining that there is only the false arising and ceasing of the aggregates of birth, not because there is a divine self that does not cease, hence it is said 'without the perception of sentient beings.' 'Without the perception of a person' (無人相) is to counteract the 'perception of a person' (人相). Some heretics wrongly believe that the reason why there is a continuous lifespan in one's karmic retribution is because there is a divine self, so the length of life has limitations and different qualities. To counteract this view, it is said 'without the perception of a person.' The 'perception of no person' mentioned in this sutra is called 'perception of life' (命相) in the following discussion, explaining that the reason why the length of life varies is because the karma of sentient beings has differences in thickness, so the lifespan has long and short durations, not because of the 'self.' And Bodhisattvas understand that false lives are all empty and still, and do not see the life of a divine self, hence it is said 'without the perception of a person.'

'Without the perception of a life-span' (無壽者相) is to counteract the 'perception of a life-span' (壽者相). Some heretics wrongly believe that because there is a divine self, after death, one will be reborn elsewhere, passing through the six realms of existence (六道).

---

生。若無我者，誰受諸趣之報？對治此計，故云無壽者相，明神我是常，何由六道受生？然今所以有生死者，皆由有無神我而但假名行者，乘善惡等業，逕諸趣受報。若有我者，無受生義。菩薩解眾生五陰虛妄不實無有神我壽者，以不見此相，故云無壽者相也。然依世辨論，我與眾生有一百種名，不可一一具說，且對四種虛妄我相辨此四法，以明無我空也。

「須菩提！是諸菩薩無法相」等者，此四，論釋云「法空」，依四種所治之法相故，說四種能治之法。「無法相」者，對治法相也。何者是法相？凡夫人於十二入中，見有能取可取不同，故計謂實有。對治此心，故言無法相，明十二入能取六識、可取六塵悉皆空寂本來不生故。《大品經》云「無有一法出法性者，乃至涅槃我亦說言如幻如化」。「亦非無法相」者，對治非法相。疑者聞十二入一切法空，便謂真如佛性無為之法亦皆性空故空，同虛空、龜毛、兔角等無為。對治此疑故，答云亦非無，明相今言一切法空者，有為之法無體相故空，然真如佛性法萬德圓滿，體是妙有湛然常住，非是空法，直以體無萬相故說為空。不同前有為諸法性空之無，又亦不同兔角等無，故言亦非無法相也。

「無相」者，對治于相。疑者聞真如是有體相不空，便謂還同色

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：生。如果沒有『我』（ātman）存在，那麼是誰在承受輪迴（saṃsāra）中各個趣（gati，生命形式）的果報呢？爲了對治這種錯誤的見解，所以說『無壽者相』，表明認為神我（ātman）是常存不變的觀點是錯誤的，因為如果是常存不變的，又怎麼會在六道（ṣaḍ-gati）中受生呢？然而，現在之所以有生死輪迴，都是因為執著于有或無神我，而實際上只是假名安立的行者，憑藉善惡等業，經歷各個趣而承受果報。如果真有一個『我』存在，那就沒有受生的道理了。菩薩瞭解眾生的五陰（pañca-skandha）是虛妄不實的，沒有神我或壽者，因為菩薩不見這些相，所以說『無壽者相』。然而，依據世俗的辨論，『我』與眾生有一百種名稱，不能一一詳細說明，姑且針對四種虛妄的『我相』來辨析這四法，以闡明無我的空性。 『須菩提！是諸菩薩無法相』等，這四句，論釋中說為『法空』，是依據四種所要對治的法相，而說四種能對治的法。『無法相』，是對治執著于『法相』的。什麼是『法相』呢？凡夫在十二入（dvādaśa-āyatana）中，見到有能取和可取之分，因此認為它們是真實存在的。爲了對治這種心，所以說『無法相』，表明十二入中的能取六識（ṣaḍ-vijñāna）和可取六塵（ṣaḍ-viṣaya）都是空寂的，本來就不存在。《大品經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）中說：『沒有一法超出法性的，乃至涅槃（nirvāṇa），我也說如同幻化』。『亦非無法相』，是對治執著于『非法相』。有人懷疑，聽到十二入一切法空，就認為真如（tathatā）、佛性（Buddha-dhātu）等無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma）也都是性空，如同虛空、龜毛、兔角等不存在。爲了對治這種懷疑，所以回答說『亦非無』，表明現在說一切法空，是指有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma）沒有自體相，所以是空。然而，真如佛性法萬德圓滿，其體是妙有，湛然常住，不是空法，只是因為其體沒有萬相，所以說為空。這不同於前面有為諸法的性空之無，也不同於兔角等根本不存在的無，所以說『亦非無法相』。 『無相』，是對治執著于『有相』。有人懷疑，聽到真如是有體相不空的，就認為它還同色

【English Translation】 English version: If there is no 'ātman' (self), who receives the retribution of the various 'gatis' (realms of existence) in 'saṃsāra' (cyclic existence)? To counter this view, it is said 'no perception of a life-span,' clarifying that the notion of an eternal, unchanging 'ātman' is incorrect, because if it were eternal and unchanging, how could it be reborn in the six 'ṣaḍ-gati' (six realms)? However, the reason there is birth and death now is because of clinging to the existence or non-existence of an 'ātman,' while in reality, it is merely a nominally designated practitioner who, through good and bad 'karma' (actions), experiences the various 'gatis' and receives retribution. If there truly were an 'ātman,' there would be no meaning to rebirth. Bodhisattvas understand that the five 'pañca-skandha' (aggregates) of sentient beings are illusory and unreal, without an 'ātman' or a life-span, because Bodhisattvas do not see these characteristics, hence the saying 'no perception of a life-span.' However, according to worldly discourse, there are a hundred names for 'ātman' and sentient beings, which cannot all be explained in detail. For now, let us analyze these four 'dharmas' (teachings) in relation to the four illusory perceptions of 'ātman' to clarify the emptiness of self. 『Subhuti! These Bodhisattvas have no perception of dharma,』 etc. These four sentences are explained in the commentaries as 'emptiness of dharma,' based on the four types of perceptions of dharma to be countered, and thus speaking of the four types of dharma that can counter them. 'No perception of dharma' counters the clinging to 'perception of dharma.' What is 'perception of dharma'? Ordinary beings, in the twelve 'dvādaśa-āyatana' (sense bases), see a distinction between that which can grasp and that which can be grasped, and therefore believe them to be truly existent. To counter this mind, it is said 'no perception of dharma,' clarifying that the six 'ṣaḍ-vijñāna' (consciousnesses) that grasp and the six 'ṣaḍ-viṣaya' (sense objects) that are grasped in the twelve 'āyatanas' are all empty and still, originally non-existent. The 'Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra' (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says: 'There is no dharma that goes beyond the nature of dharma, and even 'nirvāṇa' (liberation), I say is like an illusion or a transformation.' 'Also not no perception of dharma' counters the clinging to 'no perception of dharma.' Some doubt, hearing that all dharmas in the twelve 'āyatanas' are empty, and then think that 'tathatā' (suchness), 'Buddha-dhātu' (Buddha-nature), and other 'asaṃskṛta-dharma' (unconditioned dharmas) are also empty in nature, like empty space, turtle hair, rabbit horns, etc., which do not exist. To counter this doubt, it is answered 'also not no,' clarifying that saying all dharmas are empty now refers to 'saṃskṛta-dharma' (conditioned dharmas) having no intrinsic characteristics, therefore being empty. However, the dharma of 'tathatā' and 'Buddha-dhātu' is complete with myriad virtues, its essence is wondrous existence, clear and constantly abiding, not an empty dharma, but because its essence has no myriad characteristics, it is said to be empty. This is different from the emptiness of the previously mentioned conditioned dharmas, and also different from the non-existence of rabbit horns, etc., so it is said 'also not no perception of dharma.' 『No perception of characteristics』 counters the clinging to 『having characteristics.』 Some doubt, hearing that 'tathatā' has an essence and is not empty, and then think that it is still the same as form

---

等有為之有。又云：若有，應同色香味觸有為之有；若無，應同性空兔角等無，此名為相。對此疑故，答云無相，明真如法體妙有妙無。語真妙雖有，不同前色等法有；雖無，不同兔角等無，故云無相也。此就理教別義邊明真如證法一向不可以有無名相而說也。此第三何異第一？上第一明有為無為一切法空，此第三唯明真如法體雙絕有無二相，以此為異也。「亦非無相」者，對治無相。何者是無相？疑者聞真證法並絕有無二相，便謂真如證法一向絕於言相，不復可藉詮得聞、假教悟理，此名無相。為對此疑，故答亦非無相，明真如證法雖無名相可說，非不尋此名相言教會於真如無名相理，明由證此真如無為法故還說無為法，亦非無相，此明就理教一義邊，真如非不有相，可藉聲聞假教會也。此第四何異第二？上之第二明真如法體雖空無萬相而體是妙有，今此第四明真如法體絕字等有有為萬相，而由詮悟理、因證有說，如此本末相推理無條然，故得言即真如證法中有名字聲教可說，以此為異也。然此我法二空，下偈論中釋之也。

又「何以故？須菩提！是諸菩薩若取法相則爲著我」等者，此第二何以故所以來者，聞上法空中第四句言亦非無相，還取證法同於名相，疑雲：若此菩薩有智慧人，已得彼我法二空之解、

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『等有為之有』，又說：『如果說有，應該和色、香、味、觸等有為法的有相同；如果說無，應該和自性空、兔角等無相同，這叫做相。』因為對此產生疑惑，所以回答『無相』，闡明真如法體的微妙之有和微妙之無。說真如微妙雖有，不同於前面的色等法的有；雖無，不同於兔角等的無，所以說『無相』。這是就理和教的差別意義方面，說明真如證法一向不可以用有無名相來說明。這第三句和第一句有什麼不同？上面第一句說明有為、無為一切法空，這第三句只說明真如法體雙重斷絕有無二相，以此為不同。『亦非無相』，是爲了對治『無相』的執著。什麼是『無相』？疑惑的人聽到真如證法斷絕有無二相，就認為真如證法一向斷絕言語相狀，不再可以通過言語教法來領悟真理，這叫做『無相』。爲了對治這種疑惑，所以回答『亦非無相』，闡明真如證法雖然沒有名相可以說，並非不能通過這些名相言語教法來領會真如無名相的道理，說明由於證悟這真如無為法，所以才說無為法，也並非『無相』，這是就理和教同一意義方面，說明真如並非沒有相，可以通過聲聞教法來領會。這第四句和第二句有什麼不同？上面的第二句說明真如法體雖然空無萬相，但本體是妙有，現在這第四句說明真如法體斷絕文字等有為萬相，但可以通過言語領悟真理，因為證悟而有說法，這樣本末相互推理，沒有條理上的隔閡，所以可以說在真如證法中有名字聲教可以宣說，以此為不同。然而這我法二空，在下面的偈頌中會解釋。 又『何以故？須菩提！是諸菩薩若取法相則爲著我』等，這第二句『何以故』是為什麼而來？聽到上面法空中第四句說『亦非無相』，還執取證法等同於名相，疑惑說：如果這些菩薩是有智慧的人，已經得到了彼我法二空的理解。

【English Translation】 English version: 'The existence of conditioned things is like the existence of conditioned things.' It also says: 'If it exists, it should be the same as the existence of conditioned things like form, smell, taste, and touch; if it does not exist, it should be the same as the non-existence of self-nature emptiness, rabbit horns, etc. This is called a characteristic.' Because of this doubt, the answer is 'no characteristic,' clarifying the wonderful existence and wonderful non-existence of the true suchness dharma body. Although true suchness is said to be wonderfully existent, it is not the same as the existence of the aforementioned dharmas like form; although it is said to be non-existent, it is not the same as the non-existence of rabbit horns, etc., therefore it is said to be 'no characteristic.' This is from the perspective of the difference between principle and teaching, explaining that the true suchness realization dharma cannot be described by existence or non-existence, names, or characteristics. How does this third statement differ from the first? The first statement above clarifies that all dharmas, conditioned and unconditioned, are empty; this third statement only clarifies that the true suchness dharma body doubly cuts off the two characteristics of existence and non-existence, and this is the difference. 'Also, not no characteristic' is to counteract the attachment to 'no characteristic.' What is 'no characteristic'? Those who doubt, upon hearing that the true suchness realization dharma cuts off the two characteristics of existence and non-existence, then believe that the true suchness realization dharma always cuts off verbal characteristics, and can no longer be understood through verbal teachings. This is called 'no characteristic.' To counteract this doubt, the answer is 'also, not no characteristic,' clarifying that although the true suchness realization dharma has no names or characteristics that can be spoken of, it is not that one cannot understand the principle of true suchness without names or characteristics through these names, words, and teachings. It clarifies that because of realizing this true suchness unconditioned dharma, one then speaks of the unconditioned dharma, and it is also 'not no characteristic.' This is from the perspective of the unity of principle and teaching, clarifying that true suchness is not without characteristics, and can be understood through the teachings of the Shravakas. How does this fourth statement differ from the second? The second statement above clarifies that although the true suchness dharma body is empty of all characteristics, its essence is wonderful existence; now this fourth statement clarifies that the true suchness dharma body cuts off the conditioned myriad characteristics such as words, but one can understand the principle through words, and because of realization, there is speech. In this way, the beginning and the end mutually infer, and there is no separation in the principles, so it can be said that in the true suchness realization dharma, there are names, sounds, and teachings that can be spoken of, and this is the difference. However, the emptiness of self and dharma will be explained in the verses below. Furthermore, 'Why? Subhuti! If these Bodhisattvas grasp the characteristic of dharma, they are attached to self,' etc. Why does this second 'Why?' come about? Upon hearing the fourth statement in the emptiness of dharma above, 'also, not no characteristic,' they still grasp the realization dharma as being the same as names and characteristics, and doubt, saying: If these Bodhisattvas are wise people who have already attained the understanding of the emptiness of self and dharma...

---

斷我法上或者，何故猶起心謂此證法同於名相，復言我有智慧能觀我法二空、我能修行斷煩惱、我能教化眾生。若爾，此菩薩則斷滅我相等或不盡。有如此疑，故言何以故也。又能解何以故者作難，或者聞法空中第四句釋言，真如雖無名相，非不因此真如證法有于言說，此音聲言教還詮證智，復藉此言教得彼證智。若爾，真如證法中便有名相，何以故言真如無名相不同有無也？故答是諸菩薩若取法則爲著我人等也，明初地菩薩雖得我法二空之解，但斷初地所斷一品粗惑，猶有二地以上四住根本無明住地善法封著微分別心功用煩惱，故言則爲著我人等，非謂猶有四住粗惑取證法有名相也。上已云是菩薩無相，復云無法相；此已明菩薩得我法二空之解，此中復言「若取法相則爲著我人眾生壽」者，此之二文所以相違也。今者明斯之二文雖似相違，而其理冥順。云何相順？前明初地菩薩得我法二空能治之解，言無我相等者，但明初地所斷四住粗惑，猶有二地以上修道中善法煩惱無明細闇根本之惑，如《十地經》中言「我能知法入定、能化眾生」等，猶有微惑未盡。所以知然，下論釋云「但有無明，使無現行粗煩惱」，以此知也。「若取法相」者，明此菩薩雖得我法二空之解故起分別，由我有智慧能解我法二空，此微分別是我

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果（菩薩）斷除了對『我』和『法』的執著，為什麼還會生起這樣的念頭：『我所證悟的法與名相相同』，並且說『我有智慧能夠觀察我法二空（指對『我』和『法』的空性認知），我能夠修行斷除煩惱，我能夠教化眾生』？如果這樣，這位菩薩對於『我』的斷滅是否徹底？因為有這樣的疑問，所以說『何以故也』（為什麼呢）。 或者有人這樣解釋『何以故』的疑問：有人聽聞佛法中關於空性的第四句解釋說，真如（指事物的真實本性）雖然沒有名相，但並非不能通過真如的證悟來說明佛法，這些音聲言教可以詮釋證悟的智慧，並且可以藉助這些言教獲得證悟的智慧。如果這樣，真如的證悟中就有了名相，為什麼又說真如沒有名相，與有和無都不同呢？ 所以回答說，這些菩薩如果執取法則，就會執著於我、人等。說明初地菩薩雖然證得了我法二空的理解，但只是斷除了初地所斷的一品粗惑，還有二地以上的四住地根本無明（指四種根本煩惱的無明）以及對善法的執著，還有微細分別心的功用煩惱，所以說『則爲著我人等』，並非說還有四住地的粗惑，執取證法有名相。 前面已經說了這位菩薩沒有相，又說沒有法相；這裡已經說明菩薩證得了我法二空的理解，這裡又說『若取法相則爲著我人眾生壽』，這兩段文字為什麼相互矛盾呢？現在說明這兩段文字雖然看似矛盾，但其道理卻暗中相合。如何相合呢？前面說明初地菩薩證得了我法二空能夠對治的理解，說沒有我相等，只是說明初地所斷的四住地粗惑，還有二地以上修道中的善法煩惱以及無明細微的根本之惑，如同《十地經》（Dashabhumika Sutra）中所說『我能知法入定、能化眾生』等，還有細微的迷惑沒有斷盡。 為什麼知道是這樣呢？下面的論述解釋說『但有無明，使無現行粗煩惱』，通過這個可以知道。『若取法相』，說明這位菩薩雖然證得了我法二空的理解，因此生起分別，因為我有智慧能夠理解我法二空，這種微細的分別是『我』。

【English Translation】 English version: If (a Bodhisattva) has severed doubts about 'self' and 'dharma' (phenomena), why does he still give rise to thoughts such as, 'The dharma I have realized is the same as names and forms,' and say, 'I have the wisdom to observe the emptiness of self and dharma (referring to the realization of the emptiness of 'self' and 'dharma'), I can cultivate to sever afflictions, and I can teach sentient beings'? If so, is this Bodhisattva's severance of 'self' complete or not? Because of such doubts, it is said, 'What is the reason?' Or someone might explain the doubt of 'What is the reason?' in this way: Someone hears the fourth line of the explanation of emptiness in the Dharma, saying that although Suchness (Tathata - the true nature of things) has no names and forms, it is not that the Dharma cannot be explained through the realization of Suchness. These verbal teachings can interpret the wisdom of realization, and one can obtain the wisdom of realization through these teachings. If so, there are names and forms in the realization of Suchness, so why is it said that Suchness has no names and forms, and is different from both existence and non-existence? Therefore, the answer is that if these Bodhisattvas cling to the Dharma, they will be attached to self, others, etc. It explains that although a Bodhisattva of the first ground (Bhumi) has attained the understanding of the emptiness of self and dharma, he has only severed the one coarse affliction that is severed in the first ground. There are still the fundamental ignorance (Avidya) of the four abodes (four fundamental afflictions) above the second ground, as well as attachment to good dharmas, and the afflictions of subtle discriminating mind. Therefore, it is said, 'Then they are attached to self, others, etc.,' not that there are still coarse afflictions of the four abodes, clinging to the Dharma with names and forms. It has already been said that this Bodhisattva has no form, and also that there is no dharma-form; here it has already been explained that the Bodhisattva has attained the understanding of the emptiness of self and dharma, and here it is said again, 'If one clings to dharma-form, then one is attached to self, others, sentient beings, and lifespan.' Why are these two passages contradictory? Now it is explained that although these two passages seem contradictory, their principles are secretly in harmony. How are they in harmony? The previous explanation is that the Bodhisattva of the first ground has attained the understanding of the emptiness of self and dharma that can be treated, saying that there is no self-nature, etc., only explaining the coarse afflictions of the four abodes that are severed in the first ground. There are still the afflictions of good dharmas in the path of cultivation above the second ground, as well as the subtle fundamental afflictions of ignorance, such as what is said in the Dashabhumika Sutra (Ten Stages Sutra), 'I can know the Dharma and enter Samadhi, and I can transform sentient beings,' etc., there are still subtle delusions that have not been exhausted. How do we know this is the case? The following discussion explains, 'There is only ignorance, causing no current coarse afflictions,' through which we can know this. 'If one clings to dharma-form,' it explains that although this Bodhisattva has attained the understanding of the emptiness of self and dharma, he therefore gives rise to discrimination, because I have the wisdom to understand the emptiness of self and dharma, this subtle discrimination is 'self'.

---

見家根本，從粗為言，故云「著我人」等，此釋前我空也。

若有法相者，亦分別言，我有智慧故能解二種法空。此釋前法空，亦得言先釋法空也。然此二所以不定者，明同是善法中取著，更無別境，故前後皆無妨也。若依次第，應先釋我空、后釋法空，次第二明法空故棄釋法空，複方釋我空也。

又此「若取法相」二句，經中列之在先；「不應取法非不取法」者，依經列之在後。及下論釋在二句之前。何以故然？此第三經文為釋，須明三人有生信差別，義便故釋在先也。此前二句所以覆在「悉知悉見」后釋者，為證成前二人能信之行，然後方釋前之二句也。

「何以故」者，此是第三何以故也。疑者聞前法空中第三第四句釋，疑雲：證法雖無名相，非不可依言辭而說，故言亦非無相，便執言若前證法可以名句詮說，此能詮名句則是證智中有。若爾，證法便是有相，那得上言真如證法體無名相？然如來言自不定，我謂為有，如來說無，我適謂無、如來複為我說有。何以故？不為我定說，故言何以故也。為遣此執，故答言不應取法非不取法，此明中道之理不可定說有無，若定說有無恐墮二邊，若墮二邊則著我人眾生等相，故不得定說也。「不應取法」者，明雖藉詮而說，而亦理非名相，不應取聲教為

【現代漢語翻譯】 見家根本，從粗為言，故云『著我人』等，此釋前我空也。（從根本上認識『家』，是從粗淺的層面來說的，所以說『執著於我、人』等等，這是解釋前面的『我空』。） 若有法相者，亦分別言，我有智慧故能解二種法空。此釋前法空，亦得言先釋法空也。然此二所以不定者，明同是善法中取著，更無別境，故前後皆無妨也。若依次第，應先釋我空、后釋法空，次第二明法空故棄釋法空，複方釋我空也。（如果有人執著于『法相』，也會分別說，『我有智慧，所以能理解兩種法空』。這是解釋前面的『法空』，也可以說是先解釋『法空』。然而這兩種解釋的順序不確定，說明都是在善法中產生執著，沒有其他的境界，所以先後順序沒有妨礙。如果按照次第，應該先解釋『我空』，后解釋『法空』，因為先要說明『法空』，所以先捨棄解釋『法空』，然後再解釋『我空』。） 又此『若取法相』二句，經中列之在先；『不應取法非不取法』者，依經列之在後。及下論釋在二句之前。何以故然？此第三經文為釋，須明三人有生信差別，義便故釋在先也。此前二句所以覆在『悉知悉見』后釋者，為證成前二人能信之行，然後方釋前之二句也。（而且，『若取法相』這兩句話，在經文中排列在前面；『不應取法非不取法』這句話，依據經文排列在後面。以及下面的論述在兩句話之前。為什麼這樣呢？這第三段經文是爲了解釋，需要說明三個人產生信仰的差別，爲了方便理解，所以先解釋。前面兩句話之所以在『悉知悉見』之後解釋，是爲了證明前面兩個人能夠信仰的行為，然後才解釋前面的兩句話。） 『何以故』者，此是第三何以故也。疑者聞前法空中第三第四句釋，疑雲：證法雖無名相，非不可依言辭而說，故言亦非無相，便執言若前證法可以名句詮說，此能詮名句則是證智中有。若爾，證法便是有相，那得上言真如證法體無名相？然如來言自不定，我謂為有，如來說無，我適謂無、如來複為我說有。何以故？不為我定說，故言何以故也。為遣此執，故答言不應取法非不取法，此明中道之理不可定說有無，若定說有無恐墮二邊，若墮二邊則著我人眾生等相，故不得定說也。『不應取法』者，明雖藉詮而說，而亦理非名相，不應取聲教為（『何以故』，這是第三個『何以故』。疑惑的人聽到前面法空中第三句和第四句的解釋，疑惑地說：『證悟的法雖然沒有名相，但並非不能依靠言辭來說明，所以言辭也不是沒有相的。』於是就執著地說，如果前面證悟的法可以用名句來詮釋，那麼這個能詮釋的名句就是證悟的智慧中所包含的。如果這樣，證悟的法就是有相的，那怎麼能說真如證法的本體沒有名相呢？然而如來說的話自己都不確定，我認為有，如來說沒有，我剛認為沒有，如來又為我說有。為什麼呢？不為我確定地說，所以說『何以故』。爲了消除這種執著，所以回答說『不應取法非不取法』，這說明中道的道理不能確定地說有或無，如果確定地說有或無，恐怕會落入兩邊，如果落入兩邊，就會執著於我、人、眾生等相，所以不能確定地說。『不應取法』，說明雖然藉助詮釋來說明，但道理並非名相，不應該把聲教當作）

【English Translation】 English version: Seeing the root of 'home' (見家根本), it is spoken from a coarse perspective, hence the saying 'attached to self and others' (著我人) etc. This explains the preceding emptiness of self (我空). English version: If someone has attachment to the characteristics of dharmas (法相), they will also make distinctions and say, 'I have wisdom, therefore I can understand the two kinds of emptiness of dharmas' (二種法空). This explains the preceding emptiness of dharmas (法空), and it can also be said that it explains the emptiness of dharmas first. However, the reason why these two are not fixed is to clarify that both are attachments arising from good dharmas (善法), without any other realm. Therefore, the order does not matter. If following the order, one should first explain the emptiness of self (我空), then explain the emptiness of dharmas (法空), and then explain the emptiness of dharmas a second time. Therefore, one abandons explaining the emptiness of dharmas and then explains the emptiness of self. English version: Furthermore, these two sentences, 'If one grasps the characteristics of dharmas' (若取法相), are listed first in the sutra; 'One should not grasp dharmas, nor not grasp dharmas' (不應取法非不取法), are listed later according to the sutra. And the commentary below precedes these two sentences. Why is this so? This third passage of the sutra is for explanation, and it is necessary to clarify the differences in faith arising in the three people. It is convenient to explain it first. The reason why the preceding two sentences are explained after 'fully knowing and fully seeing' (悉知悉見) is to prove the practice of faith of the preceding two people, and then explain the preceding two sentences. English version: 'What is the reason?' (何以故) This is the third 'What is the reason?' The doubter, hearing the explanation of the third and fourth sentences in the preceding emptiness of dharmas (法空), doubts and says: 'Although the dharma of enlightenment (證法) has no name or form, it is not impossible to explain it through words. Therefore, words are not without characteristics.' Then they stubbornly say that if the preceding dharma of enlightenment can be explained by names and phrases, then these explanatory names and phrases are contained within the wisdom of enlightenment (證智). If so, the dharma of enlightenment has characteristics. How can one say that the essence of Suchness (真如) and the dharma of enlightenment has no name or form? However, the words of the Tathagata (如來) are not fixed. I say it exists, and the Tathagata says it does not. I just said it does not exist, and the Tathagata again says it exists for me. What is the reason? It is not definitively said for me, hence the saying 'What is the reason?' To dispel this attachment, the answer is 'One should not grasp dharmas, nor not grasp dharmas.' This clarifies that the principle of the Middle Way (中道) cannot be definitively said to exist or not exist. If one definitively says it exists or does not exist, one fears falling into the two extremes. If one falls into the two extremes, one will be attached to the characteristics of self, others, sentient beings (我人眾生) etc. Therefore, one cannot definitively say. 'One should not grasp dharmas' (不應取法) clarifies that although it is explained through interpretation, the principle is not name or form. One should not take the teachings as

---

證法謂是有相也。「非不取法」者，聞言不應取法，便證法一向無名相，不可假教而說。若無名相不可假教說者，則復謂音聲言教令非是法，棄其能詮之義。為遣此疑，故言非不取法。此明無言之旨，非不可寄名相而說、藉詮而悟，言教非是一向非法，故言非不取法也。所以不得定說有無者，明此法亦有無義復有有義，而真如法體雖是妙有，而無名無相，故不得定說為有，恐人取同名相有。然此真如雖無名相而不得定說為無，恐人取同兔角等無也。「以是義故」者，雙釋二句。以是不應取聲教，即是真如證法無名相理故；以是非不藉言教而會證法，言教名相非是一向非法，不得舍義故。「如來常說筏喻法門」者，如人乘船亦舍亦取，下論委釋，故不具辨也。「是法應舍」者，此合前筏喻也。又余經或云「法尚應舍，何況非法」。依小乘經，言法尚應舍者，明小乘羅漢入無餘涅槃時，八正道十智三三昧等無漏善法尚尚應舍，何況十惡等非法而不捨也。又《楞伽經》中「法尚應舍，何況非法」者，色等諸法是有猶尚應舍，何況龜毛兔角名字等法虛妄無實而不捨也。又余經亦同此經云「是法應舍，非舍法故」。「是法應舍」者，明雖尋詮會旨得理，法須亡詮，故應舍教，成上不應取法也。「非舍法」者，明始行發菩提心乃至

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 證法是指有相的（指可以被感知和描述）。「非不取法」的意思是，聽到言語教法，不應該執著于言語本身，就認為佛法一概沒有名稱和相狀，不能借助教導來闡述。如果認為佛法沒有名稱和相狀，不能借助教導來闡述，那就又會認為音聲言教不是佛法，拋棄了它能詮釋真理的作用。爲了消除這種疑惑，所以說『非不取法』。這說明了超越言語的宗旨，並非不能借助名稱和相狀來闡述，憑藉詮釋來領悟。言語教導並非一概都是非法，所以說『非不取法』。之所以不能斷定說是有還是沒有，是因為這個法既有『無』的含義，又有『有』的含義。真如法體雖然是微妙的存在，但沒有名稱和相狀，所以不能斷定說是『有』，以免人們把它當成同於世俗名相的『有』。然而，這個真如雖然沒有名稱和相狀，但也不能斷定說是『無』，以免人們把它當成同於兔角等虛無的『無』。「以是義故」是用來解釋前面兩句話的。因為不應該執著于聲教，這正是真如證法沒有名稱和相狀的道理；因為不是不借助言教來領會證法，言教名相併非一概都是非法，不能捨棄其意義。「如來常說筏喻法門」的意思是，如同人乘船，既要利用它，也要捨棄它。下面的論述會詳細解釋，所以這裡不詳細說明。「是法應舍」是總結前面的筏喻。另外，其他經典或者說『法尚應舍，何況非法』。依據小乘經典，說『法尚應舍』，是說小乘阿羅漢進入無餘涅槃時，八正道（Aṣṭāṅgamārga）十智（Daśa-jñāna）三三昧（Tri-samādhi）等無漏善法尚且應該捨棄，何況十惡等非法而不捨棄呢？另外，《楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）中『法尚應舍，何況非法』，是說色等諸法是有為法，尚且應該捨棄，何況龜毛兔角等名字等虛妄不實的法而不捨棄呢？另外，其他經典也和這部經一樣說『是法應舍，非舍法故』。「是法應舍」是說，雖然通過言語詮釋領會了宗旨和道理，但法需要忘卻言語，所以應該捨棄教法，成就上面所說的『不應取法』。「非舍法」是說，從最初發起菩提心（Bodhi-citta）直到...

【English Translation】 English version 'Proving the Dharma' means it has characteristics (referring to being perceptible and describable). 'Not rejecting the Dharma' means that upon hearing verbal teachings, one should not cling to the words themselves and conclude that the Dharma has no names or forms and cannot be explained through teachings. If one believes that the Dharma has no names or forms and cannot be explained through teachings, then one would again consider verbal teachings not to be the Dharma, abandoning their function of explaining the truth. To dispel this doubt, it is said, 'Not rejecting the Dharma.' This clarifies the principle of transcending words, not that it cannot be explained through names and forms, or comprehended through interpretation. Verbal teachings are not entirely non-Dharma, so it is said, 'Not rejecting the Dharma.' The reason why one cannot definitively say it is existent or non-existent is that this Dharma has both the meaning of 'non-existence' and the meaning of 'existence.' Although the essence of True Thusness (Tathatā) is a subtle existence, it has no name or form, so one cannot definitively say it is 'existent,' lest people mistake it for an 'existence' similar to worldly names and forms. However, although this True Thusness has no name or form, one cannot definitively say it is 'non-existent,' lest people mistake it for a 'non-existence' similar to a rabbit's horn. 'Therefore' is used to explain the previous two sentences. Because one should not cling to verbal teachings, this is precisely the reason why True Thusness proving the Dharma has no name or form; because it is not that one does not rely on verbal teachings to comprehend the Dharma, verbal names and forms are not entirely non-Dharma, and one cannot abandon their meaning. 'The Tathāgata often speaks of the raft parable' means that just as a person uses a raft, one must both utilize it and discard it. The following discussion will explain this in detail, so it will not be elaborated here. 'This Dharma should be discarded' summarizes the previous raft parable. Furthermore, other scriptures say, 'Even the Dharma should be discarded, how much more so the non-Dharma.' According to the Hinayana scriptures, 'Even the Dharma should be discarded' means that when a Hinayana Arhat (Arhat) enters Nirvana without remainder, even the unconditioned virtuous Dharmas such as the Eightfold Path (Aṣṭāṅgamārga), the Ten Wisdoms (Daśa-jñāna), and the Three Samadhis (Tri-samādhi) should be discarded, how much more so the non-Dharmas such as the ten evils? Furthermore, in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, 'Even the Dharma should be discarded, how much more so the non-Dharma' means that conditioned Dharmas such as form should be discarded, how much more so the unreal and unsubstantial Dharmas such as the names of tortoise hair and rabbit horns? Furthermore, other scriptures also say the same as this scripture, 'This Dharma should be discarded, not discarding the Dharma.' 'This Dharma should be discarded' means that although one comprehends the meaning and principle through verbal explanation, the Dharma needs to forget the words, so one should discard the teachings, fulfilling what was said above, 'One should not cling to the Dharma.' 'Not discarding the Dharma' means that from the initial arising of Bodhicitta (Bodhi-citta) until...

---

成佛，莫不皆因教悟理藉詮會旨，須此言教不得全舍，故言非舍法故，成上非不取法也。

「論曰此義云何」者，論主問斯一段經來意云何也。「向依」以下說因深果深者，將序生疑之意，牒前第四、第五段經出生疑之處。「若爾」以下至「非舍法故」，正作疑答法用，如經初次第生起中解釋可知也。「此義云何」者，向未難牒前經設疑，即通舉此一段經答疑問之意，猶未廣釋。論主今欲設偈廣解，故問此經答疑問之意云何也。此一段經，凡以八行偈釋。初一偈釋經中須菩提問如來答，明未來惡世時有三種人，具三種德，故能信此經。第二偈別釋前二人殖因來久，故有能信之德。第三偈欲釋第三智慧人有能信之德，故復總舉我法二空能治所治，為下別釋作論本。第四偈正釋四種我空。第五偈正釋四種法空。第六偈為答，但應明第三人，不須明前二人疑難，故復總舉來釋，明前三人能信有差別俱足信人，故須明三人也。第七偈釋悉知悉見。第八偈釋筏喻也。初一偈，上一句釋須菩提問，后三句釋如來答須菩提未來世有菩薩信乃至以此為實也。「說因果深義」者，釋前一經中聞說如是修多羅，雙舉第四、第五因果經文來作問也。疑問意：云何如來所說因果無相二種深義，於後末世人不能生信？云何如來常自道言：我

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：成就佛果，沒有不是因為教導開悟真理，憑藉詮釋領會宗旨的。必須要有這些言語教導，不能完全捨棄，所以說不是捨棄佛法的緣故，成就了上面所說的不是不接受佛法。

『論曰此義云何』，論主提問這一段經文的來意是什麼呢？『向依』以下解釋因深果深，將要開始說明產生疑惑的用意，引用前面第四、第五段經文產生疑惑的地方。『若爾』以下直到『非舍法故』，正式作為疑問解答的方法，如同經文最初次第生起中的解釋一樣可以明白。『此義云何』，先前沒有詳細解釋，引用前面的經文設立疑問，總括這一段經文回答疑問的用意，還沒有廣泛解釋。論主現在想要用偈頌廣泛解釋，所以提問這段經文回答疑問的用意是什麼。這一段經文，總共用八行偈頌來解釋。第一偈頌解釋經文中須菩提提問如來回答，說明未來惡世時有三種人，具備三種德行，所以能夠相信這部經。第二偈頌分別解釋前面兩種人種植善因由來已久，所以有能夠相信的德行。第三偈頌想要解釋第三種有智慧的人有能夠相信的德行，所以再次總括我法二空能夠治理所治理的，為下面的分別解釋作為論述的根本。第四偈頌正式解釋四種我空。第五偈頌正式解釋四種法空。第六偈頌是爲了回答，但應該說明第三種人，不需要說明前面兩種人的疑問，所以再次總括來解釋，說明前面三種人能夠相信，有差別但都具備相信的條件，所以需要說明這三種人。第七偈頌解釋悉知悉見（完全知曉完全看見）。第八偈頌解釋筏喻（用木筏作比喻）。第一偈頌，上一句解釋須菩提的提問，后三句解釋如來回答須菩提未來世有菩薩相信乃至以此為真實。『說因果深義』，解釋前面一經中聽到說如此修多羅（Sutra，經），同時舉出第四、第五因果經文來作為提問。疑問的用意：為什麼如來說的因果無相兩種深奧的含義，在後世末法時代人們不能產生信心？為什麼如來常常自己說：我

【English Translation】 English version: Achieving Buddhahood invariably stems from being taught and enlightened to the truth, relying on interpretation to comprehend the essence. These verbal teachings are essential and cannot be entirely discarded. Hence, it is said that it is not abandoning the Dharma (law), thus accomplishing what was mentioned above, which is not rejecting the Dharma.

'論曰此義云何' (The Treatise says, what is the meaning of this?) refers to the author of the treatise questioning the intention behind this passage of scripture. '向依' (Relying on) and the following explain the profound cause and profound effect, intending to introduce the purpose of generating doubt, citing the places in the preceding fourth and fifth sections of the scripture where doubt arises. '若爾' (If so) down to '非舍法故' (not abandoning the Dharma) is formally used as a method of answering doubts, as can be understood from the explanation in the initial sequential arising in the scripture. '此義云何' (What is the meaning of this?) Previously, without detailed explanation, it cited the preceding scripture to raise doubts, summarizing the intention of this passage of scripture to answer doubts, without yet providing a broad explanation. The author of the treatise now intends to broadly explain using verses, so he asks what the intention of this scripture is in answering doubts. This passage of scripture is explained using a total of eight lines of verses. The first verse explains Subhuti's question and the Tathagata's (如來) answer in the scripture, explaining that in the future evil age there will be three types of people who possess three types of virtues, so they can believe in this scripture. The second verse separately explains that the first two types of people have planted good causes for a long time, so they have the virtue of being able to believe. The third verse intends to explain that the third type of wise person has the virtue of being able to believe, so it again summarizes the emptiness of both self and Dharma (我法二空), which can govern what is governed, as the basis for the following separate explanations. The fourth verse formally explains the four types of self-emptiness. The fifth verse formally explains the four types of Dharma-emptiness. The sixth verse is for answering, but it should explain the third type of person, without needing to explain the doubts of the first two types of people, so it again summarizes to explain, explaining that the first three types of people can believe, with differences but all possessing the conditions for belief, so it is necessary to explain these three types of people. The seventh verse explains '悉知悉見' (knowing all and seeing all). The eighth verse explains the raft analogy. The first verse, the first sentence explains Subhuti's question, and the last three sentences explain the Tathagata's answer to Subhuti that in the future world there will be Bodhisattvas (菩薩) who believe and even take this as truth. '說因果深義' (Speaking of the profound meaning of cause and effect) explains that in the preceding scripture, upon hearing such a Sutra (修多羅), the fourth and fifth cause-and-effect scriptures are simultaneously cited as a question. The intention of the question: Why is it that the two profound meanings of cause and effect without characteristics spoken by the Tathagata, people in the future degenerate age cannot generate faith? Why does the Tathagata often say himself: I

---

是一切智人，善知眾生機根，稱機說法，說必有益，終不虛也。故偈答言「于彼惡世時，不空以有實」，正釋經中佛答須菩提未來世有菩薩摩訶薩，明雖復惡世信者難得，有人能信，非為空說。何者是能信之人？下句指云「菩薩三德備」。此句正釋經中有持戒修福德智慧者，此總出三種人能信之德，故知不空說也。

第二偈別釋前二種人能信之德，從「佛告須菩提：非於一佛二佛乃至能生一念凈信」也。「修戒於過去，及種諸善根」者，此二句指出持戒、修福德二種人，明此人曾供諸佛、聞大乘經生信不謗，能發菩提心、如說修行，名為持戒。廣以內外珍財奉施諸佛及一切眾生，修波羅蜜行，名種諸善根，正釋經中「非於一佛二佛三四五佛所修行供養而種善根」也。問：若此人已供養諸佛，為當供養幾許佛來？故以下半偈答云「戒具于諸佛，亦說功德滿」，正釋經中「已於無量百千萬諸佛所修行供養而種善根」，明此二人非但於一二三四五佛所修行種善根，乃于無量佛所修行供養，久積勝因方能於此經中生凈信也。此下半偈重明上二人，所以復來，以經中有兩重故，論主學經再舉也。「如經」已下訖「種諸善根」，此是論主以偈釋經已竟，通舉兩段經結偈。此經文以下至「功德具足故」者，論主以經中解不能廣

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 佛是一切智人（sarvajna，全知者），善於瞭解眾生的根器，根據他們的根器說法，所說的法必定有益處，絕不會是空談。因此，用偈語回答說：『在那惡劣的時代，（說法）不是空洞的而是有實際意義的』，這正是解釋經中佛陀回答須菩提（Subhuti）未來世有菩薩摩訶薩（bodhisattva-mahāsattva，大菩薩）時所說的話，表明即使在惡劣的時代，信者難以獲得，但如果有人能夠相信，就不是空說。什麼樣的人是能夠相信的人呢？下一句指出是『具備菩薩三德』的人。這句話正是解釋經中具有持戒、修福德、智慧的人，這裡總括了這三種人能夠相信的德行，所以知道（佛陀的說法）不是空說。

第二個偈語分別解釋了前面兩種人能夠相信的德行，從『佛告須菩提：非於一佛二佛乃至能生一念凈信』開始。『修戒於過去，及種諸善根』這兩句指出了持戒、修福德這兩種人，表明這些人曾經供養諸佛、聽聞大乘經典，生起信心而不誹謗，能夠發起菩提心、如所說的那樣修行，這叫做持戒。廣泛地用內外珍貴的財物奉獻給諸佛以及一切眾生，修習波羅蜜（pāramitā，到彼岸）行，這叫做種植各種善根，正是解釋經中『非於一佛二佛三四五佛所修行供養而種善根』。問：如果這個人已經供養諸佛，那麼他供養了多少佛呢？因此，用下面的半個偈語回答說：『戒具于諸佛，亦說功德滿』，這正是解釋經中『已於無量百千萬諸佛所修行供養而種善根』，表明這兩種人不僅僅是在一二三四五佛那裡修行種植善根，而是在無量佛那裡修行供養，長期積累殊勝的因緣，才能在這部經中生起清凈的信心。下面的半個偈語再次說明了上面兩種人，之所以再次說明，是因為經中有兩重含義，論主學習經典時再次提出來。『如經』以下直到『種諸善根』，這是論主用偈語解釋經典已經完畢，總括兩段經文來結束偈語。這段經文以下直到『功德具足故』，是論主認為經中的解釋不夠廣泛。

【English Translation】 English version: The Buddha is the Sarvajna (all-knowing one), skilled in understanding the faculties of beings, teaching according to their capacities, and the teachings are sure to be beneficial and never in vain. Therefore, the verse answers, 'In that evil age, (the teaching) is not empty but has substance,' which precisely explains the Buddha's answer in the sutra to Subhuti that in the future there will be Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas, indicating that even in an evil age, believers are hard to find, but if someone can believe, it is not an empty saying. Who are those who can believe? The next line points out those who 'possess the three virtues of a Bodhisattva.' This sentence precisely explains those in the sutra who possess morality, cultivate merit, and have wisdom, summarizing the virtues of these three types of people who can believe, so it is known that (the Buddha's teaching) is not empty.

The second verse separately explains the virtues of the first two types of people who can believe, starting from 'The Buddha told Subhuti: Not from one Buddha, two Buddhas, can one generate a single thought of pure faith.' 'Cultivating precepts in the past, and planting various good roots' these two lines point out the two types of people who uphold precepts and cultivate merit, indicating that these people have offered to Buddhas, heard the Mahayana sutras, generated faith without slandering, and are able to generate Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment) and practice as taught, which is called upholding precepts. Generously offering internal and external precious wealth to all Buddhas and all beings, practicing the Paramita (perfection) path, is called planting various good roots, which precisely explains 'Not from one Buddha, two Buddhas, three, four, or five Buddhas have they cultivated offerings and planted good roots.' Question: If this person has already made offerings to Buddhas, how many Buddhas have they made offerings to? Therefore, the following half-verse answers, 'Precepts are complete in all Buddhas, and it is said that merits are full,' which precisely explains 'Already in immeasurable hundreds of thousands of Buddhas have they cultivated offerings and planted good roots,' indicating that these two types of people have not only cultivated and planted good roots in one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas, but have cultivated offerings in immeasurable Buddhas, accumulating superior causes for a long time, so that they can generate pure faith in this sutra. The following half-verse restates the above two types of people, the reason for restating is because there are two layers of meaning in the sutra, which the commentator brings up again when studying the sutra. 'As in the sutra' down to 'planting various good roots,' this is the commentator's explanation of the sutra with verses completed, summarizing the two sections of the sutra to conclude the verses. This sutra text down to 'because merits are complete,' is the commentator's opinion that the explanation in the sutra is not extensive enough.

---

釋，故略申經偈所明之義也。

第三偈以下有三偈，釋經中第三有智慧人。依經中次第，應釋「悉知悉見」等經文，但此知見等義通，前後隨意，此乃依任放辨才，故經文先列、論中后釋也。「彼壽者」，乃舉我相中四種，所以單言壽者，此中雖並明四計，莫不同計於我，且舉一名，餘三可知。「及法」者，此舉法相中四種，亦且舉法相中一名也。應言法相，但以五言偈俠，直言及法也。此一句，總舉八種所治法也。「遠離於取相」者，正釋經「是諸菩薩無我相乃至亦非無相」我空法空二段經文，明得此八種勝解能治前八種取相之惑，故言遠離於取相也。「亦說知彼相」者，明所以牒我法二空能治所治法來者，將欲更廣釋第三有智慧人義，故言亦說知彼智慧人義不斷相也；復非但智慧人不斷相，亦說知前二人不斷相也。「依八八義別」者，依八種所治，有八種能治之義。此一偈與下我空法空二偈為本，不別釋經文也。「此義云何」也者，聞此一偈義意云何也，故答「復說般若義不斷故」。此文先解第三句，然後復設問云說何等義，問此說般若義不斷者義云何，後方舉上二句能治所治略釋能治所治之義也。雖略釋能治所治，猶未列其數，故提偈第四句結出其數也。「此復云何」以下，能治所治迭互相屬對也。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是對經文偈頌所闡明的意義的簡要解釋。

從第三個偈頌開始，有三個偈頌，解釋經文中的第三種有智慧的人。按照經文中的順序，應該解釋『悉知悉見』（完全知曉完全看見）等經文，但這種知見等的意義是共通的，前後可以隨意安排。這裡是根據自由發揮的辯才，所以經文先列出，論中后解釋。『彼壽者』（那些有壽命者），是舉例說明我相（認為有『我』的表象）中的四種情況，所以只說有壽命者，這裡雖然一起說明四種計較，但都同樣計較於『我』，而且舉出一個名稱，其餘三種就可以知道了。『及法』（以及法），這是舉例說明法相（認為有『法』的表象）中的四種情況，也只是舉例說明法相中的一個名稱。應該說法相，但因為五言偈的限制，直接說『及法』。這一句，總括了八種所要對治的法。『遠離於取相』（遠離執取表象），正是解釋經文中『是諸菩薩無我相乃至亦非無相』（這些菩薩沒有『我』的表象，甚至也沒有『沒有表象』的表象）中我空法空兩段經文，說明領悟這八種殊勝的理解，能夠對治前面八種執取表象的迷惑，所以說遠離執取表象。『亦說知彼相』（也說知道那些表象），說明之所以重複我空法空能夠對治所要對治的法的原因，是將要更廣泛地解釋第三種有智慧的人的意義，所以說也說知道那些智慧的人的意義沒有斷絕。而且不僅僅是智慧的人沒有斷絕，也說知道前面兩種人沒有斷絕。『依八八義別』（依據八種所要對治的，有八種能對治的意義），依據八種所要對治的，有八種能夠對治的意義。這一個偈頌與下面的我空法空兩個偈頌為根本，不另外解釋經文。『此義云何』（這意義是什麼）的意思是，聽聞這一個偈頌的意義是什麼，所以回答『復說般若義不斷故』（再次說般若的意義沒有斷絕）。這段文字先解釋第三句，然後又設問說說了什麼意義，問這種說般若的意義沒有斷絕的意義是什麼，之後才舉出上面兩句能夠對治所要對治的，簡要解釋能夠對治所要對治的意義。雖然簡要解釋了能夠對治所要對治的，但還沒有列出其數量，所以提出偈頌的第四句，總結出其數量。『此復云何』（這又是什麼）以下，能夠對治的和所要對治的交替互相對應。

【English Translation】 English version: This is a brief explanation of the meaning elucidated by the verses in the scripture.

Starting from the third verse, there are three verses explaining the third type of wise person in the scripture. According to the order in the scripture, one should explain the passages such as '悉知悉見' (sī zhī xī jiàn - completely knowing and completely seeing), but the meaning of this knowing and seeing is common, and the order can be arranged arbitrarily. This is based on the eloquence of free expression, so the scripture lists it first, and the treatise explains it later. '彼壽者' (bǐ shòu zhě - those with lifespan), is an example illustrating the four situations in 我相 (wǒ xiàng - the appearance of 'self'), so it only speaks of those with lifespan. Although it explains the four attachments together, they all attach to the 'self', and by giving one name, the other three can be known. '及法' (jí fǎ - and dharma), this is an example illustrating the four situations in 法相 (fǎ xiàng - the appearance of 'dharma'), and it only gives one name in the appearance of dharma. It should say 法相, but because of the limitation of the five-character verse, it directly says '及法'. This sentence summarizes the eight types of dharma to be counteracted. '遠離於取相' (yuǎn lí yú qǔ xiàng - being far away from grasping appearances), is precisely explaining the two passages of 我空法空 (wǒ kōng fǎ kōng - emptiness of self and emptiness of dharma) in the scripture '是諸菩薩無我相乃至亦非無相' (shì zhū pú sà wú wǒ xiàng nǎi zhì yì fēi wú xiàng - these Bodhisattvas have no appearance of 'self', and even not the appearance of 'no appearance'), explaining that realizing these eight kinds of superior understanding can counteract the delusions of grasping appearances, so it says being far away from grasping appearances. '亦說知彼相' (yì shuō zhī bǐ xiàng - also saying knowing those appearances), explains the reason why repeating the emptiness of self and emptiness of dharma can counteract the dharma to be counteracted, is that it is going to explain the meaning of the third type of wise person more broadly, so it says also saying knowing that the meaning of those wise people is not cut off. And not only is the wise person not cut off, but it also says knowing that the previous two types of people are not cut off. '依八八義別' (yī bā bā yì bié - based on the eight types to be counteracted, there are eight types of meanings that can counteract), based on the eight types to be counteracted, there are eight types of meanings that can counteract. This verse and the following two verses of emptiness of self and emptiness of dharma are the foundation, and do not explain the scripture separately. '此義云何' (cǐ yì yún hé - what is the meaning of this) means, what is the meaning of hearing this verse, so the answer is '復說般若義不斷故' (fù shuō bō rě yì bù duàn gù - again saying that the meaning of Prajna is not cut off). This passage first explains the third sentence, and then asks what meaning is said, asking what is the meaning of saying that the meaning of Prajna is not cut off, and then it gives the above two sentences that can counteract the dharma to be counteracted, briefly explaining the meaning of being able to counteract the dharma to be counteracted. Although it briefly explains what can counteract what is to be counteracted, it has not yet listed its number, so it proposes the fourth sentence of the verse, summarizing its number. '此復云何' (cǐ fù yún hé - what is this again) below, what can counteract and what is to be counteracted alternate and correspond to each other.

---

「此義復云何」者，論主生下第四偈故設此問。前偈雖總解四種壽者相，還總解四種義，今一一別釋者，義意復云何？故答「差別相續體」，此一偈釋前經中無復我相等四句也。「差別」者，明我相也。「相續」者，眾生相也。「不斷至命住」者，人相也。「復趣于異道」者，壽者相也。「是我相四種」者，四種我相也。此一偈唯舉所治四法也。「此義云何」以下，初列我中四種名，次解四種計我義，然後舉經中四種能治無我解來對四種計心。

「云何及法」者，前偈以釋壽者等四句，今次釋法中句，故重舉前論本偈上句下兩字來作問，生起后偈，故言云何及法，故即以偈答。此第五偈釋經中「無法相」等四句也。「一切空無相」者，正釋經中是諸菩薩無法相，明外人計眾生五陰法、十二入六塵可取能取一切法是實有，此名法相。對治此計故，言一切空也。「空」者，此十二入有為諸法，本來不生無體相故空；無為之法，佛性涅槃無萬相故空也。應問何故空？即答以無物故。「無物」者，空無色等物也。「實有」者，正釋經中「亦非無法相」。聞言有為無為一切法空，疑者謂涅槃佛性無為之法亦同有為無體之空，此名非法相。對治此計故，答言實有，明佛性涅槃體是妙有，以無萬相故空，勿得聞諸法空便謂

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『此義復云何』，論主爲了引出第四個偈頌而提出這個問題。之前的偈頌雖然總體解釋了四種壽者相，但也總體解釋了四種義，現在一一分別解釋，這其中的意義又是什麼呢？所以回答『差別相續體』，這一個偈頌解釋了之前經文中的『無復我相』等四句。『差別』，是說明我相。『相續』，是說明眾生相。『不斷至命住』，是說明人相。『復趣于異道』，是說明壽者相。『是我相四種』，是說這四種我相。這一個偈頌僅僅列舉了所要對治的四種法。『此義云何』以下，首先列出我中四種名稱，其次解釋四種計度我義，然後舉出經文中的四種能夠對治無我的解釋，來對應四種計度心。 『云何及法』，之前的偈頌已經解釋了壽者等四句，現在接著解釋法中的句子，所以重新舉出之前論本偈頌的上句的后兩個字來作為提問，從而引出後面的偈頌，所以說『云何及法』，因此就用偈頌來回答。這第五個偈頌解釋了經文中的『無法相』等四句。『一切空無相』，正是解釋經文中的『是諸菩薩無法相』，說明外道計度眾生的五陰法（Panca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素）、十二入（Dvadasayatana，感覺的十二個來源）、六塵（Sadayatana，六種感覺對像）可以執取，能執取的一切法是真實存在的，這叫做『法相』。爲了對治這種計度，所以說一切都是空。『空』，是指這十二入的有為諸法，本來不生，沒有本體和形象，所以是空；無為之法，佛性（Buddha-dhatu，佛的本性）涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）沒有萬象，所以是空。應該問為什麼是空？就回答因為沒有實物。『無物』，是指空無色等實物。『實有』，正是解釋經文中的『亦非無法相』。聽到說有為無為一切法空，懷疑的人認為涅槃佛性無為之法也和有為法一樣，是無本體的空，這叫做『非法相』。爲了對治這種計度，回答說『實有』，說明佛性涅槃的本體是妙有，因為沒有萬象所以是空，不要因為聽到諸法空就認為

【English Translation】 English version 『What is the meaning of this again?』 The author of the treatise poses this question to introduce the fourth verse. Although the previous verse generally explained the four characteristics of a 『jiva』 (one who possesses life), it also generally explained the four meanings. Now, what is the meaning of explaining them individually? Therefore, the answer is 『the nature of difference and continuity.』 This one verse explains the four phrases in the previous sutra, such as 『no longer having the characteristic of self.』 『Difference』 clarifies the characteristic of self. 『Continuity』 clarifies the characteristic of beings. 『Unceasing until life dwells』 clarifies the characteristic of a person. 『Again proceeding to a different path』 clarifies the characteristic of a 『jiva』. 『These are the four characteristics of self』 refers to these four characteristics of self. This one verse only lists the four dharmas to be treated. From 『What is the meaning of this』 onwards, it first lists the four names within the self, then explains the four ways of conceiving the self, and then cites the four ways of treating non-self from the sutra to correspond to the four ways of conceiving the mind. 『How and dharma?』 The previous verse explained the four phrases such as 『jiva』. Now, it continues to explain the phrases within dharma, so it re-cites the last two words of the first line of the previous verse of the treatise as a question, thereby introducing the subsequent verse. Therefore, it says 『How and dharma?』 Thus, it answers with a verse. This fifth verse explains the four phrases in the sutra, such as 『no dharma characteristic.』 『Everything is empty and without characteristics』 directly explains 『these Bodhisattvas have no dharma characteristic』 in the sutra, clarifying that outsiders conceive that the five skandhas (Panca-skandha, the five aggregates that constitute an individual), the twelve ayatanas (Dvadasayatana, the twelve sources of sensation), and the six dusts (Sadayatana, the six sense objects) of beings can be grasped, and that all dharmas that can be grasped are truly existent. This is called 『dharma characteristic.』 To counter this conception, it says that everything is empty. 『Empty』 refers to the conditioned dharmas of these twelve ayatanas, which are originally unborn and have no substance or form, so they are empty. The unconditioned dharmas, the Buddha-dhatu (Buddha-dhatu, the nature of the Buddha) and Nirvana (Nirvana, liberation), have no myriad forms, so they are empty. One should ask why they are empty? The answer is because there are no things. 『No things』 refers to things such as empty form. 『Truly existent』 directly explains 『also not no dharma characteristic』 in the sutra. Hearing that all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, doubters think that the unconditioned dharmas of Nirvana and Buddha-dhatu are the same as conditioned dharmas, which are empty without substance. This is called 『non-dharma characteristic.』 To counter this conception, it answers 『truly existent,』 clarifying that the substance of Buddha-dhatu and Nirvana is wondrous existence, and because it has no myriad forms, it is empty. Do not think that because you hear that all dharmas are empty

---

涅槃佛性同於有為之法虛妄分別無體故空，故言實有也。「不可說」者，正釋經中無相。聞言萬法皆空，疑者便謂真如無為法同有為諸法無性之空，亦同龜毛兔角之無，故答言實有。既聞真如實有，疑者計謂真如同色香味觸有為之有，聞無謂真如同色兔角等無。此二種計名之為相，對治此計故，答言不可說。此言不可說者，明真如法體妙有妙無，而不同世諦色香之有、性空等無，雙遣有無二種計情故，言不可說也。

「依言辭而說」者，正釋經中「亦非無相」。聞言不可說，疑者便謂真如一向不可說。若爾真如令不可說者，云何依經教發心、憑詮修行而得佛果也？此名為非相。對治此計故，答依言辭而說，明真如雖體絕言相，非不假于聲教而得此理，故言依言辭而說也。

「是法相四種」者，舉所治四種相，結前三句中能治四種無法相也。而此一偈通舉能治所治法也。「何者是四種」等者，上偈第四句中雖云「是法相四種」，猶未出其名，今列出四名也。「此義云何」者，前偈中上三句並長行四種名列所治，而問此能治所治其義意云何也。「有能取可取至以無物故」，此解初對法相無法相能治所治也。「彼法無我空實有故」，言亦非無法相，此解第二對非法相亦非無法相能治所治也。然云「彼法」者，彼

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）佛性（Buddha-nature）與有為法（conditioned dharmas）相同，虛妄分別（false discrimination）沒有自體，所以是空（emptiness），因此說它是『實有』（truly existent）。『不可說』（ineffable）的意思，正是解釋經文中的『無相』（without characteristics）。聽到萬法皆空（all dharmas are empty），懷疑的人就認為真如（Tathata，suchness）無為法（unconditioned dharma）與有為諸法（conditioned dharmas）的無自性空（emptiness of self-nature）相同，也與龜毛兔角（tortoise hair and rabbit horns，比喻不存在的事物）的『無』相同，所以回答說它是『實有』。既然聽到真如是『實有』，懷疑的人就認為真如與色香味觸（form, sound, smell, taste, and touch）等有為法的『有』相同，聽到『無』就認為真如與色、兔角等的『無』相同。這兩種計度（conceptualization）稱為『相』（characteristics），爲了對治這種計度，所以回答說『不可說』。這裡說『不可說』，是說明真如法體（the essence of Tathata）是妙有（wonderful existence）也是妙無（wonderful non-existence），而不同於世俗諦（conventional truth）的色香之『有』、自性空（emptiness of self-nature）的『無』，同時遣除『有』和『無』兩種計度，所以說『不可說』。 『依言辭而說』（dependent on words to explain）的意思，正是解釋經文中的『亦非無相』（also not without characteristics）。聽到『不可說』，懷疑的人就認為真如一概都『不可說』。如果這樣，真如如果『不可說』，那麼如何依靠經教（scriptural teachings）發心（generate the aspiration for enlightenment）、憑藉詮釋（explanation）修行（practice）而證得佛果（Buddhahood）呢？這稱為『非相』（non-characteristic）。爲了對治這種計度，所以回答『依言辭而說』，說明真如雖然本體超越言語相狀（characteristics of language），但並非不借助聲教（verbal teachings）而能證得這個道理，所以說『依言辭而說』。 『是法相四種』（these are the four characteristics of dharma）的意思，是舉出所要對治的四種『相』，總結前面三句中能對治四種『無法相』（characteristics of non-existence）。而這一偈頌（verse）總括了能對治和所對治的法（dharma）。『何者是四種』（what are the four）等，是說前面偈頌第四句中雖然說『是法相四種』，但還沒有說出它們的名字，現在列出這四個名字。『此義云何』（what is the meaning of this）的意思，是說前面偈頌中前三句以及長行（prose）列出了四種名字以及所要對治的，而問這能對治和所對治的意義是什麼。『有能取可取至以無物故』（there is the grasper and the grasped, until there is nothing），這是解釋最初的對『法相』（characteristic of dharma）和『無法相』（characteristic of non-dharma）的能對治和所對治。『彼法無我空實有故』（that dharma is without self, empty, and truly existent），是說『亦非無法相』（also not a characteristic of non-dharma），這是解釋第二種對『非法相』（non-characteristic of dharma）和『亦非無法相』（also not a characteristic of non-dharma）的能對治和所對治。然而說『彼法』（that dharma），那個

【English Translation】 English version: Nirvana (Nirvana, extinction) Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) is the same as conditioned dharmas (conditioned dharmas), false discrimination (false discrimination) has no self-nature, so it is emptiness (emptiness), therefore it is said to be 'truly existent' (truly existent). The meaning of 'ineffable' (ineffable) is precisely to explain the 'without characteristics' (without characteristics) in the scriptures. Hearing that all dharmas are empty (all dharmas are empty), those who doubt think that Tathata (Tathata, suchness) unconditioned dharma (unconditioned dharma) is the same as the emptiness of self-nature (emptiness of self-nature) of conditioned dharmas (conditioned dharmas), and also the same as the 'non-existence' of tortoise hair and rabbit horns (tortoise hair and rabbit horns, a metaphor for non-existent things), so the answer is that it is 'truly existent'. Since hearing that Tathata is 'truly existent', those who doubt think that Tathata is the same as the 'existence' of conditioned dharmas such as form, sound, smell, taste, and touch (form, sound, smell, taste, and touch), and hearing 'non-existence' they think that Tathata is the same as the 'non-existence' of form, rabbit horns, etc. These two kinds of conceptualization (conceptualization) are called 'characteristics' (characteristics), and to counteract this conceptualization, the answer is 'ineffable'. Saying 'ineffable' here is to explain that the essence of Tathata (the essence of Tathata) is wonderful existence (wonderful existence) and also wonderful non-existence (wonderful non-existence), and it is different from the 'existence' of conventional truth (conventional truth) of form and smell, and the 'non-existence' of emptiness of self-nature (emptiness of self-nature), and at the same time eliminates the two kinds of conceptualization of 'existence' and 'non-existence', so it is said to be 'ineffable'. The meaning of 'dependent on words to explain' (dependent on words to explain) is precisely to explain the 'also not without characteristics' (also not without characteristics) in the scriptures. Hearing 'ineffable', those who doubt think that Tathata is always 'ineffable'. If so, if Tathata is 'ineffable', then how can one generate the aspiration for enlightenment (generate the aspiration for enlightenment) by relying on scriptural teachings (scriptural teachings), and attain Buddhahood (Buddhahood) by relying on explanation (explanation) and practice (practice)? This is called 'non-characteristic' (non-characteristic). To counteract this conceptualization, the answer is 'dependent on words to explain', explaining that although the essence of Tathata transcends the characteristics of language (characteristics of language), it is not possible to attain this principle without the help of verbal teachings (verbal teachings), so it is said to be 'dependent on words to explain'. The meaning of 'these are the four characteristics of dharma' (these are the four characteristics of dharma) is to list the four 'characteristics' to be counteracted, summarizing the four 'characteristics of non-existence' (characteristics of non-existence) that can counteract in the previous three sentences. And this verse (verse) summarizes the dharma (dharma) that can counteract and the dharma that is counteracted. 'What are the four' (what are the four), etc., means that although the fourth sentence of the previous verse said 'these are the four characteristics of dharma', it has not yet said their names, and now lists these four names. The meaning of 'what is the meaning of this' (what is the meaning of this) is that the first three sentences of the previous verse and the prose (prose) listed the four names and what to counteract, and asked what is the meaning of this that can counteract and what is counteracted. 'There is the grasper and the grasped, until there is nothing' (there is the grasper and the grasped, until there is nothing), this is to explain the initial counteraction of 'characteristic of dharma' (characteristic of dharma) and 'characteristic of non-dharma' (characteristic of non-dharma). 'That dharma is without self, empty, and truly existent' (that dharma is without self, empty, and truly existent), is to say 'also not a characteristic of non-dharma' (also not a characteristic of non-dharma), this is to explain the second counteraction of 'non-characteristic of dharma' (non-characteristic of dharma) and 'also not a characteristic of non-dharma' (also not a characteristic of non-dharma). However, saying 'that dharma' (that dharma), that

---

真如證法也。「無我空」者，明彼真如法體，非但空於我法，亦復空于無我無法也。「實有」者，恐或者聞言真如證法雙絕有無名無我空，便謂證法一向空寂，故云實有非無體空也。「彼空無物而此不可說有無故言無相」者，此解第三對相無相能治所治也。「依言辭而說至依言相說」，此解第四對非相亦非無相能治所治也。「依八種差別義離八種相」者，此既別釋義我法二空竟，並舉能治所治雙結二空也。

「是故說有智慧」者，上問第三人復有何德行故能信此經，今既明此人能解我空法空，經論中具釋意，所以舉智慧來通結其能信之德也。如經「無法相」等，別結法空中四也。「有智慧便足」者，難云：若此第三人具二空之解能現信者，此人則為最勝。若然，但說有智慧人則足，何須復明持戒、修福德二種人也？答云「為生實相差別義故」。將欲便論主釋其示現生實相差別所以故，問「云何示現」？然即偈答「彼人依信心，恭敬生實相」。所以復明此一偈者，前長行論云，有智慧人證二空之解，決定能信此經，不隨他教。若爾，此第三人則為最勝，唯應明此有智慧人，何須復說持戒功德二種人也？故設此偈，明信有多種、義通三人，非唯有智慧者，由他前二人以持戒、修福德仰信為因故，能得地上我法二空無

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本

真如證法也。『無我空』（Anatta-sunyata，指沒有自我的空性）者，闡明彼真如法體，不僅空於我法，也空于無我無法。『實有』者，恐怕有人聽聞真如證法雙重超越有無，名為空無我，便認為證法一向空寂，所以說實有，並非沒有本體的空性。『彼空無物而此不可說有無故言無相』者，這是解釋第三對：有相和無相，能被調伏的和所要調伏的。『依言辭而說至依言相說』，這是解釋第四對：非有相和非無相，能被調伏的和所要調伏的。『依八種差別義離八種相』者，這既分別解釋了我空和法空兩種空性，並舉出能調伏的和所要調伏的，雙重總結了這兩種空性。 『是故說有智慧』者，上面問第三種人還有什麼德行，所以能信受此經，現在既然闡明了此人能理解我空和法空，經論中詳細解釋了意義，所以舉出智慧來總括他能信受的德行。如經中所說『無法相』等，分別總結了法空中的四種情況。『有智慧便足』者，有人提問說：如果這第三種人具備了對兩種空性的理解，能夠展現信心，那麼這個人就是最殊勝的。如果是這樣，只說有智慧的人就足夠了，為什麼還要說明持戒、修福德這兩種人呢？回答說：『爲了產生實相的差別義』。將要辯論主解釋他示現產生實相的差別的原因，所以問『如何示現』？然後用偈頌回答『彼人依信心，恭敬生實相』。所以又闡明這一偈頌的原因是，前面長行論中說，有智慧的人證悟了兩種空性的理解，一定能信受此經，不隨從其他教導。如果這樣，這第三種人就是最殊勝的，只應該說明這種有智慧的人，為什麼還要說持戒功德這兩種人呢？所以設立這個偈頌，闡明信心有多種，意義貫通三種人，不僅僅是有智慧的人，由於他前面的兩種人以持戒、修福德的仰信為因，所以能得到地上我法兩種空性。

【English Translation】 English version

『Verifying Truth as Such.』 『Selflessness-Emptiness』 (Anatta-sunyata, referring to the emptiness of no self) explains that the substance of Suchness is not only empty of self and dharma, but also empty of non-self and non-dharma. 『Truly Existent』 is stated because some might hear that verifying Truth as Such transcends both existence and non-existence, named as emptiness and selflessness, and then assume that verifying Truth is always empty and still. Therefore, it is said to be truly existent, not an emptiness without substance. 『That emptiness is without things, and this cannot be said to exist or not exist, therefore it is called formlessness』 explains the third pair: form and formlessness, what can be subdued and what needs to be subdued. 『Relying on words to speak, up to relying on the aspect of words』 explains the fourth pair: neither form nor non-form, what can be subdued and what needs to be subdued. 『Relying on eight kinds of differentiated meanings, departing from eight kinds of forms』 separately explains the two emptinesses of self and dharma, and cites both what can be subdued and what needs to be subdued, doubly concluding these two emptinesses. 『Therefore, it is said to have wisdom』 refers to the previous question about what virtues the third type of person possesses that enable them to believe in this sutra. Now that it has been clarified that this person can understand the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharma, and the meaning has been explained in detail in the sutras and treatises, wisdom is cited to encompass the virtues that enable them to believe. As the sutra says, 『without the aspect of dharma,』 etc., separately concluding the four situations within the emptiness of dharma. 『Having wisdom is sufficient』 raises the question: If this third type of person possesses the understanding of the two emptinesses and can manifest faith, then this person is the most excellent. If so, it is sufficient to only speak of the person with wisdom, why is it necessary to explain the two types of people who uphold precepts and cultivate merit? The answer is: 『For the sake of generating the differentiated meaning of true reality.』 The debater will explain the reason for manifesting the differentiation of generating true reality, so he asks, 『How is it manifested?』 Then he answers with a verse, 『That person relies on faith, respectfully generating true reality.』 The reason for further clarifying this verse is that the previous long treatise said that a person with wisdom who has realized the understanding of the two emptinesses will definitely believe in this sutra and will not follow other teachings. If so, this third type of person is the most excellent, and only this type of person with wisdom should be explained, why is it necessary to speak of the two types of people who uphold precepts and cultivate merit? Therefore, this verse is established to clarify that there are many kinds of faith, and the meaning connects all three types of people, not just the person with wisdom. Because the previous two types of people take the faith of upholding precepts and cultivating merit as the cause, they can attain the two emptinesses of self and dharma on the ground.

---

漏智慧故，須明前二人，不得單明智慧人也。是故下長行論云「不但說般若」也。「彼人依信心」者，釋持戒、修福德二種人，是地前菩薩，未能現見現原，從佛聞法憑信生解故，言依信心也。「恭敬生實相」者，明此二人恭敬如來，隨慎佛語能信此經，以之為實相也，故復超舉前經來也。

「聞說如是修多羅能生凈信」者，結成須明前二種人，非唯獨明智慧足也。「聞聲不正取」者，此下半偈復明第三有智慧人。依如前疑，正應但明上二種人有差別信，何故復舉有智慧者？有二意：一為以智慧者是證信之人，上二人是其聞信；二為乘釋經中「不應取法非不取法」故來也。「聞聲不正取」者，明有智慧人得二空解，故聞音聲言教不取，即同所詮證義無名相理，故下論釋云「又智慧者不如聲取義」也。「正說如是取」者，雖不取聲教同於證義，然所詮之理非不藉聲教而得，非是一向非法故。下論云「隨順第一義智正說如是取」也。言說家果所謂義也，因能隨果，故云隨慎也。「此義云何」者，此一偈所明之義云何也。而下釋分為二：「彼人有持戒功德乃至不但說般若」，釋上半偈，明上二人恭敬如來，憑聖經教能生凈信。雖不同第三證而生信，亦能于經生決定解，故超舉上凈信經來結也。「又有智慧」以下，釋下

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為要避免遺漏智慧，所以必須闡明前面提到的兩種人（持戒者和修福德者），不能只闡明有智慧的人。因此，下面的長行文（散文形式的經文）中說『不單單說般若（prajna，智慧）』。『彼人依信心』，解釋的是持戒、修福德這兩種人，他們是十地之前的菩薩，未能親眼見到實相，從佛那裡聽聞佛法，憑藉信心產生理解，所以說依靠信心。『恭敬生實相』，說明這兩種人恭敬如來，謹慎地對待佛的教誨，能夠相信這部經，把它當作實相，所以再次引用前面的經文。 『聞說如是修多羅（sutra，經）能生凈信』，總結說必須闡明前面兩種人，不能只闡明智慧充足的人。『聞聲不正取』，這下面的半偈（偈頌的一半）再次闡明第三種人，即有智慧的人。依照前面的疑問，本來應該只闡明上面兩種人有差別之信，為什麼又要舉出有智慧的人呢？有兩個用意：一是認為有智慧的人是證信之人，上面兩種人是聞信；二是承接解釋經中的『不應取法非不取法』而來的。『聞聲不正取』，說明有智慧的人證得了二空（人空和法空）之解，所以聽聞音聲言教不執取，與所詮釋的證悟之義相同，都是沒有名相的真理，所以下面的論釋說『又智慧者不如聲取義』。『正說如是取』，雖然不執取聲教，與證悟之義相同，然而所詮釋的道理並非不借助聲教而得，並非完全否定聲教。下面的論中說『隨順第一義智正說如是取』。言說家所說的果就是義，因為因能夠隨順果，所以說是隨順。『此義云何』，這一偈所闡明的意義是什麼呢？下面的解釋分為兩部分：『彼人有持戒功德乃至不但說般若』，解釋上半偈，說明上面兩種人恭敬如來，憑藉聖經教義能夠產生清凈的信心。雖然不同於第三種人通過證悟而生信，也能對經產生決定的理解，所以引用上面的清凈信心經文來總結。『又有智慧』以下，解釋下半偈。

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the potential omission of wisdom, it is necessary to clarify the aforementioned two types of people (those who uphold precepts and those who cultivate merit), and not solely focus on those with wisdom. Therefore, the following prose section of the scripture states, 'Not only is prajna (wisdom) discussed.' 'Those people rely on faith' explains the two types of individuals who uphold precepts and cultivate merit. These are Bodhisattvas before the tenth Bhumi (stage), who have not directly witnessed reality. They hear the Dharma from the Buddha and generate understanding through faith, hence the statement 'rely on faith.' 'Reverence generates true reality' clarifies that these two types of people revere the Tathagata (如來，another name for Buddha), carefully heed the Buddha's teachings, and are able to believe in this sutra (經，scripture), regarding it as true reality. Therefore, the previous sutra is referenced again. 'Hearing the sutra spoken thus can generate pure faith' concludes that it is necessary to clarify the aforementioned two types of people, and not solely focus on those with sufficient wisdom. 'Hearing the sound, do not grasp' This subsequent half-verse further clarifies the third type of person, namely those with wisdom. Based on the previous question, it would seem appropriate to only clarify that the above two types of people possess differentiated faith. Why then is the person with wisdom also mentioned? There are two reasons: first, to consider the person with wisdom as one who has verified faith, while the above two have heard and believed; second, to continue the explanation of the sutra's statement 'One should not grasp the Dharma, nor not grasp the Dharma.' 'Hearing the sound, do not grasp' clarifies that the person with wisdom has attained understanding of the two emptinesses (emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena), and therefore does not grasp onto the sound of teachings, being identical to the meaning of enlightenment, which is a truth without names or forms. Therefore, the commentary below states, 'Furthermore, the wise do not grasp the meaning through sound.' 'Rightly speaking, grasp thus' Although one does not grasp onto the sound of teachings, being identical to the meaning of enlightenment, the principle being explained is not obtained without the aid of sound teachings, and is not a complete negation of sound teachings. The commentary below states, 'In accordance with the wisdom of the ultimate truth, rightly speaking, grasp thus.' The result spoken of by those who speak of words is meaning, because the cause can accord with the result, it is said to be in accordance. 'What is this meaning?' What is the meaning clarified by this verse? The explanation below is divided into two parts: 'Those people have the merit of upholding precepts, up to not only speaking of prajna' explains the first half-verse, clarifying that the above two types of people revere the Tathagata and can generate pure faith through reliance on the teachings of the sacred scriptures. Although different from the third type of person who generates faith through enlightenment, they can also generate a definite understanding of the sutra, and therefore the above sutra on pure faith is referenced to conclude. 'Furthermore, those with wisdom' and below, explains the second half-verse.

---

半偈，明第三智慧人，不如聲取證，現中生信，勝於前二。復越釋下第三「何以故不應取法」等也。「故次言須菩提不應取法」者，如前下半偈所釋也。如經次第，此經文次應在若取法相有法相則爲著我眾生等后，今所以在此釋者，為欲證有智慧人能不如聲取義，以便故越釋之。是故論云「次言」者，義中次第，非經中次也。

「又經復言須菩提如來悉知悉見」者，上來諸偈皆先作偈釋，舉經結之。此中何故先列經於前，後方作偈論而釋？以上超釋后兩段經，此猶未解，所以先舉也。然此論主解義多途，或先舉后釋、或先釋后結，而此依闡陀論法也。此所以超釋后二經文，今方在此釋「悉知悉見」者，前明三種信人勢相屬著，以此知見是任放辨才、義通三人，列三人訖，明知見義顯故方釋之。「此明何義」者，論主欲釋如來悉知悉見是諸眾生義故，問此悉知悉見明何等義。即以偈答云「佛非見果知」。此一偈，正釋經中「如來悉知悉見是諸眾生」。「佛非見果知」者，明如來以現智了了知此人決定能信名為持戒，非見有威儀相貌者謂為能信名持戒人。如此假相知者，此為藉相比知，今明佛非以此相貇解，故云佛非見果知也。應問：若非比智知者，云何知？答曰「愿智力現見」。「愿智」者，如來百四十不共法中

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：半偈（指《金剛經》中的半首偈頌），表明第三種有智慧的人，不如通過聲音去理解佛法，而是在現實中生起信心，勝過前兩種人。這又超越了下文解釋的第三點，即『為什麼不應該執著於法』等內容。『所以接著說須菩提不應該執著於法』，就像前面下半偈所解釋的那樣。按照經文的順序，這段經文應該在『若取法相即著我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相』之後，現在之所以在這裡解釋，是爲了證明有智慧的人能夠不通過聲音去理解佛法的意義，所以才跳躍式地解釋它。因此，論中說『接著說』，是指義理上的順序，而不是經文中的順序。 『又經復言須菩提如來悉知悉見』，前面所有的偈頌都是先作偈頌解釋，然後引用經文來總結。這裡為什麼先把經文列在前面，然後再作偈頌來解釋呢？因為前面跳躍式地解釋了後面的兩段經文，這裡還沒有理解，所以先引用經文。然而，這位論主的解義方式有很多種，或者先引用后解釋，或者先解釋后總結，而這裡是依照闡陀論的法則。之所以跳躍式地解釋後面的兩段經文，現在才在這裡解釋『悉知悉見』，是因為前面說明了三種信人的狀態和執著，用這種知見來判斷，是任其發揮辨才，義理貫通三人，列出三人之後，說明知見的意義顯現，所以才解釋它。『此明何義』，論主想要解釋如來悉知悉見是諸眾生義，所以問這個悉知悉見說明了什麼意義。就用偈頌回答說『佛非見果知』。這一偈頌，正是解釋經中的『如來悉知悉見是諸眾生』。『佛非見果知』，說明如來用現智清楚地知道這個人決定能夠相信佛法，這叫做持戒，而不是看到有威儀相貌的人就認為他能夠相信佛法，就認為他是持戒的人。像這樣通過外在表象來了解，這是通過比較來了解，現在說明佛不是用這種外在表象來了解，所以說佛非見果知。應該問：如果不是用比較的智慧來了解，那用什麼來了解？回答說『愿智力現見』。『愿智』，是如來一百四十不共法中

【English Translation】 English version: The half-gatha (referring to the half-verse in the Diamond Sutra) clarifies that the third type of wise person is superior to the first two, not by understanding the Dharma through sound, but by generating faith in reality. This also transcends the third point explained below, namely, 'Why one should not be attached to the Dharma,' etc. 'Therefore, it is then said that Subhuti should not be attached to the Dharma,' as explained in the preceding half-gatha. According to the order of the sutra text, this passage should follow 'If one takes the mark of Dharma, one is attached to the marks of self, person, sentient being, and lifespan,' but the reason it is explained here is to prove that a wise person can understand the meaning of the Dharma without relying on sound, and therefore it is explained in a skipping manner. Therefore, the treatise says 'then said,' referring to the order of meaning, not the order in the sutra. 'Moreover, the sutra again says, Subhuti, the Tathagata knows and sees all.' All the preceding gathas were first explained with gathas, and then the sutra was quoted to conclude. Why is the sutra text listed first here, and then the gatha is composed to explain it? Because the preceding skipping explanation of the two passages of the sutra has not yet been understood, the sutra text is quoted first. However, this treatise master has many ways of explaining the meaning, either quoting first and then explaining, or explaining first and then concluding, and here it follows the rules of the Samatha treatise. The reason for skipping the explanation of the latter two passages of the sutra, and only now explaining 'knows and sees all' here, is because the preceding explanation clarified the states and attachments of the three types of faithful people. Using this knowledge and vision to judge, one can let their eloquence flow freely, and the meaning penetrates all three types of people. After listing the three types of people, the meaning of knowledge and vision is clarified, and therefore it is explained. 'What meaning does this clarify?' The treatise master wants to explain that the Tathagata's knowing and seeing all is the meaning of all sentient beings, so he asks what meaning this knowing and seeing all clarifies. He answers with the gatha 'The Buddha does not know by seeing the result.' This gatha is precisely an explanation of 'The Tathagata knows and sees all is all sentient beings' in the sutra. 'The Buddha does not know by seeing the result' clarifies that the Tathagata clearly knows with present wisdom that this person will definitely be able to believe in the Dharma, which is called upholding the precepts, rather than seeing someone with dignified appearance and thinking that he can believe in the Dharma, and thinking that he is a person who upholds the precepts. Understanding through external appearances like this is understanding through comparison. Now it is clarified that the Buddha does not understand through this kind of external appearance, so it is said that the Buddha does not know by seeing the result. One should ask: If it is not understood by comparative wisdom, then how is it understood? The answer is 'Manifested by the power of the wisdom of vows.' 'Wisdom of vows' is among the one hundred and forty unshared dharmas of the Tathagata.

---

愿智力，亦云自在力也，非同小乘發願後方有智也。「求供養恭敬，彼人不能說」者，上半偈明引佛為證成前二種能信人也，此下半偈出破戒不信之實不持戒，為利養故詐言持戒者，彼人不能自說我是持戒有功德能信之人，以如來力加也。

「此義云何」以下一段長行論，凡有二意：從初至「不能自說」已前，釋上一偈。「又是諸菩薩」以下，釋偈外兩處經也。就初釋偈中復有二意：從「持戒」等至「以有二語」，釋上半偈「彼持戒等人至愿智力現見」故，釋前半偈中知見之義。「如來悉知便足」以下至「以有二語故」，論主設不須並明知見二法之難，即答須並明知見二法之義也。「何故如是說」者，論主設問何故作此不須知見之問，答須知見之說故。云何故如是說也，即答以有二語故，明知有現智知、有比智知，有佛眼見、肉眼等見，以有此二語不同故，設此問答，欲使人識如來云知見者是現智知佛眼見，非比智知肉眼見也。

「又何故如來如是說」以下，明知見中第二意，釋下半偈。「又何故如來如是說」者，論主設問云：如來唯知二人有信，明於知之與見為當更余意也。故即引下半偈答，明如來不但知見此二人有能信之德，若有人實不信此經、實不持戒，為求供養恭敬，詐言持戒有信者，如來亦知

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『愿智力』，也稱為自在力，不同於小乘在發願后才產生智慧。『求供養恭敬，彼人不能說』，上半偈說明引用佛陀來證明前兩種能信之人。下半偈揭示了破戒不信之人的真相，他們不持戒，爲了利益供養而假裝持戒。這樣的人不能自己說『我是持戒有功德能信之人』，因為這是如來（Tathagata）的力量加持。

『此義云何』以下一段長行論，總共有兩個意思：從開始到『不能自說』之前，解釋上一偈。『又是諸菩薩』以下，解釋偈外的兩處經文。在最初解釋偈文中有兩個意思：從『持戒』等到『以有二語』，解釋上半偈『彼持戒等人至愿智力現見』，因此解釋前半偈中知見的含義。『如來悉知便足』以下到『以有二語故』，論主假設不必同時說明知見二法之難，然後回答必須同時說明知見二法的意義。『何故如是說』，論主假設提問為什麼要做這種不必知見的提問，回答說要知道知見的說法。『云何故如是說也』，即回答因為有二語的緣故，表明有現智知、有比智知，有佛眼見、肉眼等見，因為有這兩種說法不同，所以提出這個問答，想要使人認識到如來說的知見是現智知、佛眼見，不是比智知、肉眼見。

『又何故如來如是說』以下，說明知見中的第二個意思，解釋下半偈。『又何故如來如是說』，論主假設提問說：如來只知道兩個人有信心，說明在知和見之外是否還有其他含義。因此引用下半偈回答，表明如來不僅知道這兩人有能信的德行，如果有人實際上不相信這部經、實際上不持戒，爲了尋求供養恭敬，假裝持戒有信心，如來也知道。

【English Translation】 English version: 'The power of aspirational wisdom,' also known as the power of sovereignty, is different from the Theravada tradition where wisdom arises only after making a vow. 'Seeking offerings and reverence, that person cannot say,' the first half of the verse explains that the Buddha (Buddha) is cited as evidence to prove the first two types of people who can believe. The second half of the verse reveals the truth about those who break precepts and do not believe; they do not uphold the precepts and pretend to uphold them for the sake of profit and offerings. Such a person cannot say, 'I am a person who upholds the precepts, has merit, and can believe,' because it is due to the power of the Tathagata (Tathagata).

The long passage following 'What is the meaning of this?' has two meanings in total: from the beginning to before 'cannot say,' it explains the previous verse. From 'Moreover, these Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattvas)' onwards, it explains the two passages outside the verse. In the initial explanation of the verse, there are two meanings: from 'upholding precepts' to 'because there are two statements,' it explains the first half of the verse, 'those who uphold precepts, etc., until the power of aspirational wisdom is directly seen,' thus explaining the meaning of knowledge and vision in the first half of the verse. From 'The Tathagata knows everything is sufficient' to 'because there are two statements,' the commentator assumes that it is not necessary to explain the difficulty of simultaneously clarifying the two dharmas of knowledge and vision, and then answers that it is necessary to simultaneously explain the meaning of the two dharmas of knowledge and vision. 'Why is it said in this way?' the commentator assumes the question of why to ask this question that does not require knowledge and vision, and answers that it is to know the statement of knowledge and vision. 'Why is it said in this way?' that is, answering because there are two statements, indicating that there is direct knowledge and wisdom, comparative knowledge and wisdom, Buddha-eye seeing, and physical eye seeing, etc. Because there are these two different statements, this question and answer are raised, wanting to make people recognize that the knowledge and vision spoken of by the Tathagata is direct knowledge and wisdom, Buddha-eye seeing, not comparative knowledge and wisdom, physical eye seeing.

Following 'Moreover, why does the Tathagata say it in this way?' explains the second meaning in knowledge and vision, explaining the second half of the verse. 'Moreover, why does the Tathagata say it in this way?' the commentator assumes the question, saying: The Tathagata only knows that two people have faith, indicating whether there is any other meaning besides knowledge and vision. Therefore, the second half of the verse is cited to answer, indicating that the Tathagata not only knows that these two people have the virtue of being able to believe, but if someone actually does not believe in this sutra, actually does not uphold the precepts, and pretends to uphold the precepts and have faith in order to seek offerings and reverence, the Tathagata also knows.

---

見故。明下以論釋「求供養」等半偈也。「是諸菩薩生無量福德聚取無量福德」者，「生」者此明前二人能信之福決定能作菩提因故，云能生因也。「取」者論釋云「勛修自體果義」者，明此一念信心非但能與佛果作決定因義，由此一念信心為因，復能修行斷惑顯出法身無上佛果也，明此前二人決定能修行取佛果也。

「又何以故？須菩提！若取法相爲著我」等者，此一段經在我法二空經文之後，所以解在於此，余經文其經在下而在前釋者，明余經共成有智慧人我法二空之解，義勢相屬，引之前釋此經文，乃明二地已上修道中所斷之惑，在下義便，故遺之於此也。「但有無明使」者，此是功用之惑、善法煩惱，釋經中「若取法相則爲著我」等二句經也。「無現行粗煩惱」者，無三界四住我見等粗惑故，言無現行粗煩惱，以示無我我見。四住煩惱以我者為本，六十二見亦因而有，談其無本足知亦無餘惑也。「彼不住隨順」一偈，釋經中筏喻，成上不應取法非不取法，此經論俱次先舉后釋。「彼」者，彼於十二部經，言教法也。「不住」者，彼經教法不住無名相證法中，正釋經中「是法應舍」，明所詮之理絕於名相言教法故也。即有難云：所詮證理絕於言教名相者，能詮之教便一向非為法也。偈即答云「隨順」，雖

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此可見。下面將論述並解釋『求供養』等半首偈頌。「是諸菩薩生無量福德聚取無量福德」中，「生」是指明前面這兩種人能夠信受的福德，必定能夠作為菩提的因，所以說能夠產生因。「取」是指論釋所說的『勛修自體果義』，表明這一念信心，不僅能夠與佛果作為決定的因，而且憑藉這一念信心為因，又能修行斷除迷惑，顯現出法身無上的佛果，表明前面這兩種人必定能夠修行並取得佛果。

『又何以故？須菩提！若取法相爲著我』等，這段經文在『我法二空』的經文之後，所以解釋放在這裡。其餘經文，經文在下而解釋在前，表明其餘經文共同成就了有智慧的人對『我法二空』的理解，意義和氣勢相互關聯，所以引用之前的解釋來解釋這段經文，是爲了說明二地（菩薩修行階位）以上修道中所斷除的迷惑，放在後面意義更方便，所以把它留在這裡。『但有無明使』，這是功用之惑、善法煩惱，解釋經文中的『若取法相則爲著我』等兩句經文。『無現行粗煩惱』，沒有三界四住我見等粗重的迷惑，所以說沒有現行的粗重煩惱，以此來顯示沒有我、沒有我見。四住煩惱以『我』為根本，六十二見也因此而產生，談到沒有根本，就足以知道也沒有其餘的迷惑。『彼不住隨順』一偈，解釋經文中的筏喻，成就了上面所說的『不應取法，非不取法』，這段經文和論述都是先提出，后解釋。「彼」是指十二部經，言教法。「不住」是指經教法不住在無名相的證法中，正是解釋經文中的『是法應舍』，表明所詮釋的道理超越了名相言教法。即有人提出疑問：所詮釋的證悟之理超越了言教名相，那麼能詮釋的教法豈不是一概都不是法了？偈頌回答說『隨順』，雖然

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it can be seen. The following will discuss and explain the half-verse such as 'seeking offerings'. In 'These Bodhisattvas generate immeasurable accumulations of merit and take immeasurable merit', 'generate' means that the merit of these two types of people who can believe is certain to be the cause of Bodhi, so it is said that it can generate the cause. 'Take' refers to the 'meritorious cultivation of the fruit meaning of the self' mentioned in the commentary, indicating that this one thought of faith can not only be the decisive cause of Buddhahood, but also, with this one thought of faith as the cause, one can cultivate to cut off delusions and manifest the Dharma body's supreme Buddhahood, indicating that these two types of people will definitely be able to cultivate and attain Buddhahood.

'Furthermore, why? Subhuti! If one grasps the characteristic of Dharma, one is attached to self', etc. This passage of scripture is after the scripture of 'twofold emptiness of self and Dharma', so the explanation is placed here. The remaining scriptures, the scripture is below and the explanation is in front, indicating that the remaining scriptures jointly accomplish the understanding of 'twofold emptiness of self and Dharma' by wise people. The meaning and momentum are related to each other, so quoting the previous explanation to explain this passage of scripture is to explain the delusions that are cut off in the cultivation of the path above the second ground (stage of Bodhisattva practice). It is more convenient to put it later, so it is left here. 'But there is ignorance', this is the delusion of function, the affliction of good Dharma, explaining the two sentences of scripture 'If one grasps the characteristic of Dharma, one is attached to self', etc. 'No currently active coarse afflictions', there are no coarse delusions such as the view of self in the three realms and the four abodes, so it is said that there are no currently active coarse afflictions, in order to show that there is no self, no view of self. The four abodes of afflictions take 'self' as the root, and the sixty-two views also arise from this. Talking about the absence of the root is enough to know that there are no other delusions. The verse 'They do not abide in accordance' explains the raft metaphor in the scripture, accomplishing what was said above 'one should not grasp Dharma, not not grasp Dharma'. This scripture and commentary both first present and then explain. 'They' refers to the twelve divisions of scriptures, the Dharma of words and teachings. 'Do not abide' means that the Dharma of scriptures and teachings does not abide in the Dharma of realization without names and characteristics, which is precisely explaining the scripture 'This Dharma should be abandoned', indicating that the principle being explained transcends the Dharma of names, characteristics, words, and teachings. Someone immediately raises the question: If the principle of realization being explained transcends the names and characteristics of words and teachings, then wouldn't the teachings that can explain be all not Dharma? The verse answers 'in accordance', although

---

能詮之教非即是所證法，非不因於能詮得證法故，言隨順也。此二字釋經中「非舍法故」，由教得理，不全舍也。「於法中證智」者，釋上句「彼不住」也。直言不住，未知於何處不住，故出于所證智中音聲言教法不住也。「如人舍船筏」，釋經中筏喻也。「法中義亦」者，合喻也。此應云如人取船筏，法中義亦然。所以偏云舍者，以偈狹故也。

「此義云何」以下至「以得證智舍法故」，釋偈上句中「彼不住」。第二句「於法中證智」，明能詮教法非證法故，不取教法為證，即引筏喻來怗成也。「隨慎」者以下，釋偈初句中「隨慎」二字，明言教雖非即所證法，非不隨慎於法故，取言教為法，不得全舍。所以復引取筏喻，怗結也。「自此以下」等，論主生下我空法空第二段經文。從初至「非有為相得名」，將出生異疑之處故，牒前第五段經來也。「若如是」以下，作生疑法用，正出疑體也。廣釋如經中生起無異也。

「佛告須菩提：于意云何？如來得三菩提也」者，此經猶屬我空法空段，成上有能信人也。以何次第起？上第五段中言，不可以相成就見如來者，明不可以三相所成丈六應見法佛如來，以法身如來無生住滅非有為相故。有人乘此更生疑：若釋迦如來，從王宮生，六年苦行，修道成佛，四十五

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：能詮之教（能夠表達教義的教法）並非就是所證之法（所證悟的真理），但也不是不通過能詮之教才能證得正法，所以說是隨順的。這兩句話解釋了經文中的『非舍法故』，因為通過教法可以領悟真理，所以不能完全捨棄教法。『於法中證智』，是解釋上一句『彼不住』。直接說不住，不知道在何處不住，所以說在所證悟的智慧中，音聲言教之法是不住的。『如人舍船筏』，是解釋經文中的船筏的比喻。『法中義亦』，是總結比喻。這裡應該說『如人取船筏，法中義亦然』。之所以偏說捨棄，是因為偈頌的篇幅有限。

『此義云何』以下至『以得證智舍法故』，解釋偈頌上句中的『彼不住』。第二句『於法中證智』，說明能詮的教法不是所證悟的法，所以不把教法當作證悟，就引用船筏的比喻來貼合完成。『隨慎』以下，解釋偈頌初句中的『隨慎』二字，說明言教雖然不是所證悟的法，但也不是不隨順於法，所以把言教當作法，不能完全捨棄。所以再次引用取船筏的比喻，來總結。『自此以下』等，論主引出下面我空法空第二段經文。從開始到『非有為相得名』，因為將要出現不同的疑問，所以引用前面第五段經文。『若如是』以下，作為產生疑問的方法，正式提出疑問。詳細解釋如同經文中產生和沒有差異一樣。

『佛告須菩提：于意云何？如來得三菩提也』，這段經文仍然屬於我空法空的部分，成就了上面有能信的人。以什麼次第開始？上面第五段中說，不可以相成就來見如來，說明不可以用三十二相所成就的丈六應身來見法佛如來，因為法身如來沒有生住滅，不是有為之相。

【English Translation】 English version: The teaching that can express the doctrine (the teaching that can express the truth) is not exactly the Dharma that is realized (the truth that is realized), but it is not that the Dharma cannot be realized without the teaching that can express the doctrine, so it is said to be in accordance with it. These two sentences explain 'not abandoning the Dharma' in the sutra, because truth can be understood through teaching, so teaching cannot be completely abandoned. 'Realizing wisdom in the Dharma' explains the previous sentence 'he does not abide'. Directly saying 'does not abide' does not know where it does not abide, so it is said that in the wisdom that is realized, the Dharma of sound and verbal teaching does not abide. 'Like a person abandoning a raft' explains the metaphor of the raft in the sutra. 'The meaning in the Dharma is also' summarizes the metaphor. Here it should be said 'like a person taking a raft, the meaning in the Dharma is also like that'. The reason why it is said to abandon is because the length of the verse is limited.

'What is the meaning of this' to 'because one obtains the wisdom of realization and abandons the Dharma' explains 'he does not abide' in the first sentence of the verse. The second sentence 'realizing wisdom in the Dharma' explains that the teaching that can express the doctrine is not the Dharma that is realized, so the teaching is not regarded as realization, and the metaphor of the raft is used to fit it together. 'Carefully following' explains the two words 'carefully following' in the first sentence of the verse, explaining that although verbal teaching is not the Dharma that is realized, it is not that it does not carefully follow the Dharma, so verbal teaching is regarded as the Dharma and cannot be completely abandoned. Therefore, the metaphor of taking a raft is used again to summarize.

'From here onwards' etc., the commentator introduces the second section of the sutra on the emptiness of self and the emptiness of Dharma. From the beginning to 'obtaining the name from the non-conditioned aspect', because different questions are about to arise, the fifth section of the previous sutra is quoted. 'If it is like this' onwards, it is used as a method of raising questions, and the question is formally raised. The detailed explanation is the same as the arising and non-difference in the sutra.

'The Buddha told Subhuti: What do you think? The Tathagata obtained Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi', this section of the sutra still belongs to the part on the emptiness of self and the emptiness of Dharma, accomplishing that there are people who can believe above. In what order does it begin? In the fifth section above, it is said that the Tathagata cannot be seen by accomplishing the marks, explaining that the Dharma Buddha Tathagata cannot be seen by the thirty-two marks, because the Dharma body Tathagata has no birth, dwelling, or extinction, and is not a conditioned aspect.

---

年住世說法，后入涅槃。有此三相非是佛者，今此三相所成丈六如來，為當是佛、為一向非佛？若是佛者，不應言不可以相成就見如來；若非是佛，不應言我發菩提心修苦行道場成佛轉法輪。此釋迦如來為實發菩提心修苦行道場成佛有所證有所說？為不發菩提心不修苦行不成道無所證無所說也？有如此疑，故次答意明釋迦如來非法身佛，非不是應化佛。化佛以眾生感見故有，無實眾生體，亦無四大，無心意識，不從修成故，非是實佛。既非實佛，然不發菩提心修苦行道場成佛實有所證，既無實證亦不說法。為斷此前疑，故次明此段經也。前第五段中已別相法身佛，今此經中亦別相中明應佛也。「須菩提于意云何」者，明須菩提懷疑在心即應有問，如來亦應有答。以此經文略義隱，多不作問答故，直問須菩提于意云何也，欲使須菩提稟如來冥加力故，自答此義也。須菩提解佛意故即答，世尊無有定法如來得三菩提也，明應佛以眾生感見故有，道理而言無有定法。應化如來有實行者，發心修行斷煩惱證於菩提故。云「無定法如來得三菩提」，非謂一向無菩提可證亦無實修行證菩提人也。「亦無定法如來可說」者，凡以有證故有說、無證故無說，然應佛既不證果亦不因證而說也。「何以故」者，有人聞言應佛如來不修道證果

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 佛陀在世說法多年，之後入涅槃（nirvana，指脫離輪迴的狀態）。如果具備這三種表象就不是佛，那麼現在這三種表象所成就的丈六金身如來，到底是佛，還是一直都不是佛呢？如果是佛，就不應該說不能通過外貌成就來見到如來；如果不是佛，就不應該說我發菩提心（bodhicitta，指爲了一切眾生而追求覺悟的心）修行苦行道場成佛轉法輪（dharma wheel，指佛法的傳播）。這位釋迦如來（Sakyamuni，佛教的創始人）是真的發菩提心修行苦行道場成佛有所證有所說嗎？還是不發菩提心不修苦行不成道無所證無所說呢？因為有這樣的疑惑，所以接下來回答的意思是說明釋迦如來不是法身佛（Dharmakaya Buddha，指佛的真理之身），但也不是應化佛（Nirmanakaya Buddha，指佛爲了教化眾生而顯現的化身）。應化佛因為眾生的感應而顯現，沒有真實的眾生之體，也沒有地水火風四大（catvari-mahabutani，構成物質世界的四種基本元素），沒有心意識，不是通過修行成就的，所以不是真正的佛。既然不是真正的佛，那麼不發菩提心修行苦行道場成佛，實際上也沒有什麼證悟，既然沒有真實的證悟，也就沒有說法。爲了斷除之前的疑惑，所以接下來闡明這段經文。前面第五段中已經區分了相法身佛，現在這段經文中也區分了相中明應佛。『須菩提于意云何』，說明須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以解空第一著稱）心中有懷疑，就應該有提問，如來也應該有回答。因為這段經文簡略含義隱晦，大多沒有作問答，所以直接問須菩提于意云何，想要讓須菩提憑藉如來的冥加力，自己回答這個含義。須菩提理解佛的含義，所以回答說，世尊沒有一定的法如來得到三菩提（tri-bodhi，指三種覺悟：正覺、等覺、無上正等覺），說明應佛因為眾生的感應而顯現，從道理上來說沒有一定的法。應化如來有實際的修行者，發心修行斷煩惱證於菩提。說『無定法如來得三菩提』，不是說一直沒有菩提可以證悟，也沒有真正修行證菩提的人。『亦無定法如來可說』，凡是因為有證悟所以有說法，沒有證悟所以沒有說法，然而應佛既然沒有證果，也不是因為證悟而說法。『何以故』，有人聽到應佛如來不修道證果 English version: The Buddha lived in the world and taught the Dharma for many years before entering Nirvana (the state of liberation from the cycle of rebirth). If one possesses these three characteristics, they are not a Buddha. So, is the sixteen-foot-tall Tathagata (another name for Buddha) formed by these three characteristics a Buddha or not? If they are a Buddha, it should not be said that one cannot see the Tathagata through physical appearances. If they are not a Buddha, it should not be said that 'I generated Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment for the sake of all beings), practiced asceticism in the Bodhimanda (the place of enlightenment), attained Buddhahood, and turned the Dharma wheel (the propagation of Buddhist teachings).' Did this Sakyamuni (the founder of Buddhism) truly generate Bodhicitta, practice asceticism in the Bodhimanda, attain Buddhahood, and have something to realize and something to say? Or did they not generate Bodhicitta, not practice asceticism, not attain enlightenment, and have nothing to realize and nothing to say? Because of this doubt, the following answer explains that Sakyamuni is not a Dharmakaya Buddha (the Truth Body of the Buddha), but is not not a Nirmanakaya Buddha (the Emanation Body of the Buddha). The Nirmanakaya Buddha appears because of the sentient beings' perception, without a real sentient being's body, without the four great elements (catvari-mahabutani, the four basic elements that constitute the material world), without mind and consciousness, and is not attained through practice, so they are not a real Buddha. Since they are not a real Buddha, then not generating Bodhicitta, practicing asceticism in the Bodhimanda, and attaining Buddhahood, there is actually nothing to realize. Since there is no real realization, there is also no Dharma to teach. To dispel the previous doubt, this passage of scripture is explained. In the previous fifth section, the Dharmakaya Buddha with characteristics was distinguished. Now, in this scripture, the Nirmanakaya Buddha is also distinguished within the characteristics. 'Subhuti, what do you think?' indicates that Subhuti (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his understanding of emptiness) has doubts in his mind, so there should be a question, and the Tathagata should also have an answer. Because this scripture is brief and its meaning is obscure, and there are not many questions and answers, the Buddha directly asks Subhuti what he thinks, wanting Subhuti to rely on the Tathagata's power to answer this meaning himself. Subhuti understands the Buddha's meaning, so he answers, 'World Honored One, there is no fixed Dharma by which the Tathagata attains Tri-Bodhi (the three types of enlightenment: Samyak-sambodhi, Anubodhi, and Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi),' explaining that the Nirmanakaya Buddha appears because of the sentient beings' perception, and logically speaking, there is no fixed Dharma. The Nirmanakaya Tathagata has actual practitioners who generate the mind, practice, cut off afflictions, and attain Bodhi. Saying 'there is no fixed Dharma by which the Tathagata attains Tri-Bodhi' does not mean that there is no Bodhi to be attained or that there is no real practitioner who attains Bodhi. 'Also, there is no fixed Dharma that the Tathagata can speak' means that because there is realization, there is Dharma to speak; because there is no realization, there is no Dharma to speak. However, since the Nirmanakaya Buddha has not attained the fruit, they do not speak Dharma because of realization. 'Why?' Someone hears that the Nirmanakaya Tathagata does not practice the path and attain the fruit.

【English Translation】 The Buddha lived in the world and taught the Dharma for many years before entering Nirvana (the state of liberation from the cycle of rebirth). If one possesses these three characteristics, they are not a Buddha. So, is the sixteen-foot-tall Tathagata (another name for Buddha) formed by these three characteristics a Buddha or not? If they are a Buddha, it should not be said that one cannot see the Tathagata through physical appearances. If they are not a Buddha, it should not be said that 'I generated Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment for the sake of all beings), practiced asceticism in the Bodhimanda (the place of enlightenment), attained Buddhahood, and turned the Dharma wheel (the propagation of Buddhist teachings).' Did this Sakyamuni (the founder of Buddhism) truly generate Bodhicitta, practice asceticism in the Bodhimanda, attain Buddhahood, and have something to realize and something to say? Or did they not generate Bodhicitta, not practice asceticism, not attain enlightenment, and have nothing to realize and nothing to say? Because of this doubt, the following answer explains that Sakyamuni is not a Dharmakaya Buddha (the Truth Body of the Buddha), but is not not a Nirmanakaya Buddha (the Emanation Body of the Buddha). The Nirmanakaya Buddha appears because of the sentient beings' perception, without a real sentient being's body, without the four great elements (catvari-mahabutani, the four basic elements that constitute the material world), without mind and consciousness, and is not attained through practice, so they are not a real Buddha. Since they are not a real Buddha, then not generating Bodhicitta, practicing asceticism in the Bodhimanda, and attaining Buddhahood, there is actually nothing to realize. Since there is no real realization, there is also no Dharma to teach. To dispel the previous doubt, this passage of scripture is explained. In the previous fifth section, the Dharmakaya Buddha with characteristics was distinguished. Now, in this scripture, the Nirmanakaya Buddha is also distinguished within the characteristics. 'Subhuti, what do you think?' indicates that Subhuti (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his understanding of emptiness) has doubts in his mind, so there should be a question, and the Tathagata should also have an answer. Because this scripture is brief and its meaning is obscure, and there are not many questions and answers, the Buddha directly asks Subhuti what he thinks, wanting Subhuti to rely on the Tathagata's power to answer this meaning himself. Subhuti understands the Buddha's meaning, so he answers, 'World Honored One, there is no fixed Dharma by which the Tathagata attains Tri-Bodhi (the three types of enlightenment: Samyak-sambodhi, Anubodhi, and Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi),' explaining that the Nirmanakaya Buddha appears because of the sentient beings' perception, and logically speaking, there is no fixed Dharma. The Nirmanakaya Tathagata has actual practitioners who generate the mind, practice, cut off afflictions, and attain Bodhi. Saying 'there is no fixed Dharma by which the Tathagata attains Tri-Bodhi' does not mean that there is no Bodhi to be attained or that there is no real practitioner who attains Bodhi. 'Also, there is no fixed Dharma that the Tathagata can speak' means that because there is realization, there is Dharma to speak; because there is no realization, there is no Dharma to speak. However, since the Nirmanakaya Buddha has not attained the fruit, they do not speak Dharma because of realization. 'Why?' Someone hears that the Nirmanakaya Tathagata does not practice the path and attain the fruit.

---

復不說法，更生疑謗，謂一向無菩提，亦無菩薩修道證果作佛，亦令不說法。若無佛無法者，何以故釋迦如來云：我三阿僧祇修行滿足，證大菩提、轉法輪。便有證有說，云何而言如來不得三菩提亦不說法也？又若一向無佛無法者，云何諸菩薩發菩提心、修諸苦行求于佛果？有如此疑問，故言何以故也。即答云「如來所說法」，答意明如來實有證說。但上言不證說者，此明應化佛不證不說。今言「如來所說法」者，明釋佛如來非不有實行者發心修行斷惑證果有所說法也，那得以應佛不實證說，便謂報佛亦一向不證不說也。若報佛說法者，法佛為說法以不？此中應有是疑，而此中不答，下斷疑分中當釋法佛有說不說。或者聞言實有證說者，乘更生疑：若報佛如來實有證說者，則所證之法體是名相可取說，云何上言真如證法體無名相，言語道斷、心行處滅，不可取說也？故經答「皆不可取不可說」也。此答意言報佛說法者，依世諦名相道中得言有行者修行證果為人說法，若據真如理中泯然一相無有修得亦無證說也。「不可取不可說」者，明真如證法體非名相，不為耳識所得，故言不可取。非音聲性，難以言辨，故言不可說也。「非法」者，明上證法體非名相不可取說故，聲教非證法，成上不可取不可說也。「非非法」者，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果（有人）不再宣講佛法，就會更加產生懷疑和誹謗，認為一直以來都沒有菩提（覺悟），也沒有菩薩修行證果成佛，也導致（其他人）不宣講佛法。如果沒有佛，沒有佛法，那麼為什麼釋迦如來說：『我經過三大阿僧祇劫的修行圓滿，證得大菩提，轉法輪。』既然有證悟有說法，為什麼說如來沒有證得三菩提，也沒有說法呢？而且如果一直以來沒有佛，沒有佛法，那麼為什麼諸位菩薩要發菩提心，修各種苦行來追求佛果呢？因為有這樣的疑問，所以說『何以故也』（為什麼呢）。回答說『如來所說法』，回答的意思是說如來確實有證悟和說法。但上面說不證悟不說法，這是說應化佛不證悟不說法。現在說『如來所說法』，是說釋迦如來並非沒有實際修行者發心修行斷除迷惑證得果位而有所說法，怎麼能因為應化佛不實際證悟說法，就認為報身佛也一直不證悟不說法呢？如果報身佛說法，那麼法身佛說法還是不說法呢？這裡應該有這樣的疑問，但這裡不回答，在下面的斷疑部分會解釋法身佛有說不說。或者有人聽到確實有證悟和說法，反而更加產生懷疑：如果報身佛如來確實有證悟和說法，那麼所證悟的法體是名相可以取用和述說的，為什麼上面說真如證悟的法體沒有名相，言語的道路斷絕，心識活動的處所滅盡，不可以取用和述說呢？所以經文回答『皆不可取不可說』。這個回答的意思是說報身佛說法，依據世俗諦名相的道路中可以說有修行者修行證果為人說法，如果依據真如理體中泯然一相，沒有修得也沒有證說。『不可取不可說』，是說真如證悟的法體不是名相，不被耳識所獲得，所以說不可取。不是音聲的性質，難以用言語來辨別，所以說不可說。『非法』，是說上面證悟的法體不是名相，不可以取用和述說，所以聲教不是證悟的法，成就了上面所說的不可取不可說。『非非法』，是說 English version: If (someone) no longer expounds the Dharma, it will further generate doubt and slander, believing that there has never been Bodhi (enlightenment), nor Bodhisattvas practicing to attain Buddhahood, also causing (others) not to expound the Dharma. If there is no Buddha, no Dharma, then why does Shakyamuni Buddha say: 'I have fulfilled my practice over three great Asamkhya kalpas, attained great Bodhi, and turned the Dharma wheel.' Since there is enlightenment and teaching, why say that the Tathagata has not attained the Three Bodhisattvas, nor expounded the Dharma? And if there has never been a Buddha, no Dharma, then why do all the Bodhisattvas generate the Bodhi mind, cultivate various ascetic practices to seek the fruit of Buddhahood? Because of such doubts, it is said 'What is the reason?' The answer is 'The Dharma spoken by the Tathagata,' the meaning of the answer is that the Tathagata truly has enlightenment and teaching. But the above says not enlightened and not teaching, this means that the manifested Buddha is not enlightened and not teaching. Now saying 'The Dharma spoken by the Tathagata,' is saying that Shakyamuni Buddha is not without actual practitioners generating the mind to cultivate, severing delusions, attaining the fruit, and having something to teach, how can one say that because the manifested Buddha does not actually enlighten and teach, that the Reward Body Buddha also never enlightens and teaches? If the Reward Body Buddha teaches the Dharma, then does the Dharma Body Buddha teach the Dharma or not? There should be such doubts here, but it is not answered here, in the section on resolving doubts below, it will be explained whether the Dharma Body Buddha has teaching or not. Or someone hears that there is indeed enlightenment and teaching, but instead generates more doubts: If the Reward Body Buddha Tathagata truly has enlightenment and teaching, then the Dharma body that is enlightened is a name and form that can be taken and spoken of, why does the above say that the Dharma body of True Thusness that is enlightened has no name and form, the path of language is cut off, the place of activity of consciousness is extinguished, and it cannot be taken and spoken of? Therefore, the sutra answers 'All are not to be taken and not to be spoken of.' The meaning of this answer is that the Reward Body Buddha teaches the Dharma, according to the path of conventional truth of names and forms, it can be said that there are practitioners who cultivate and attain the fruit to teach the Dharma to others, if according to the principle of True Thusness, there is a single unified aspect, there is no cultivation and no enlightenment. 'Not to be taken and not to be spoken of,' is saying that the Dharma body of True Thusness that is enlightened is not a name and form, it is not obtained by the ear consciousness, therefore it is said not to be taken. It is not the nature of sound, it is difficult to distinguish with language, therefore it is said not to be spoken of. 'Not Dharma,' is saying that the Dharma body of enlightenment above is not a name and form, it cannot be taken and spoken of, therefore the teaching of sound is not the Dharma of enlightenment, accomplishing what was said above, not to be taken and not to be spoken of. 'Not not Dharma,' is saying

【English Translation】 English version: If (someone) no longer expounds the Dharma, it will further generate doubt and slander, believing that there has never been Bodhi (enlightenment), nor Bodhisattvas practicing to attain Buddhahood, also causing (others) not to expound the Dharma. If there is no Buddha, no Dharma, then why does Shakyamuni Buddha say: 'I have fulfilled my practice over three great Asamkhya kalpas, attained great Bodhi, and turned the Dharma wheel.' Since there is enlightenment and teaching, why say that the Tathagata has not attained the Three Bodhisattvas, nor expounded the Dharma? And if there has never been a Buddha, no Dharma, then why do all the Bodhisattvas generate the Bodhi mind, cultivate various ascetic practices to seek the fruit of Buddhahood? Because of such doubts, it is said 'What is the reason?' The answer is 'The Dharma spoken by the Tathagata,' the meaning of the answer is that the Tathagata truly has enlightenment and teaching. But the above says not enlightened and not teaching, this means that the manifested Buddha is not enlightened and not teaching. Now saying 'The Dharma spoken by the Tathagata,' is saying that Shakyamuni Buddha is not without actual practitioners generating the mind to cultivate, severing delusions, attaining the fruit, and having something to teach, how can one say that because the manifested Buddha does not actually enlighten and teach, that the Reward Body Buddha also never enlightens and teaches? If the Reward Body Buddha teaches the Dharma, then does the Dharma Body Buddha teach the Dharma or not? There should be such doubts here, but it is not answered here, in the section on resolving doubts below, it will be explained whether the Dharma Body Buddha has teaching or not. Or someone hears that there is indeed enlightenment and teaching, but instead generates more doubts: If the Reward Body Buddha Tathagata truly has enlightenment and teaching, then the Dharma body that is enlightened is a name and form that can be taken and spoken of, why does the above say that the Dharma body of True Thusness that is enlightened has no name and form, the path of language is cut off, the place of activity of consciousness is extinguished, and it cannot be taken and spoken of? Therefore, the sutra answers 'All are not to be taken and not to be spoken of.' The meaning of this answer is that the Reward Body Buddha teaches the Dharma, according to the path of conventional truth of names and forms, it can be said that there are practitioners who cultivate and attain the fruit to teach the Dharma to others, if according to the principle of True Thusness, there is a single unified aspect, there is no cultivation and no enlightenment. 'Not to be taken and not to be spoken of,' is saying that the Dharma body of True Thusness that is enlightened is not a name and form, it is not obtained by the ear consciousness, therefore it is said not to be taken. It is not the nature of sound, it is difficult to distinguish with language, therefore it is said not to be spoken of. 'Not Dharma,' is saying that the Dharma body of enlightenment above is not a name and form, it cannot be taken and spoken of, therefore the teaching of sound is not the Dharma of enlightenment, accomplishing what was said above, not to be taken and not to be spoken of. 'Not not Dharma,' is saying

---

若前證智法，非音聲性故，不可取說者，則能詮經教條然離於所詮之理亦爾，經教則一向非法。為釋此疑，故言「非非法」也，明能詮經教雖非即證法，非不由教得理故，不得云全一向非法亦是法，成上來所說法也。「何以故？一切聖人皆以無為法得名」者，何故明此上言非非法者？明能詮之教雖非證法，要因證能說；藉教得證，明知言教是法，非是一向非法，故引此一切聖人以釋成此義。「何以故」者，此言教何故是法、非是非法，以是初地以上一切聖人證真如無為法，還說無為法故，知是法、非是非法也。「皆以無為法得名」者，謂真如法名無為也，明初地菩薩並觀三種二諦，就現得二空故，斷除五住習氣無明、離心意識，名為見道，乃至十地皆分有對治除斷。此明由見真如正理能斷煩惱，故曰聖人無為法得名也。

「論曰以是義故」者，論主未嘗有釋，何得直云以是義故？此即指前經文，如來設問，須菩提仰答：如來無有定法，如來有得有說。如前經中二聖問答相解，我亦如是解此經意，更不別釋，即指經為解，故云「以是義故，釋迦牟尼佛非佛亦非說法」者也。「此義云何」者，此一段經，一行論釋義意云何也，故即偈答云「應化非真佛」。此一偈，釋前一段經。「應化非真佛」者，正釋經中「無有定

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若先前的證智之法（通過證悟獲得的智慧），因為它不是音聲的性質，所以不能被用來講述，那麼能表達經教的文字，如果完全脫離了所要表達的真理，也會是同樣的情況，那麼經教就完全是非法了。爲了解釋這個疑惑，所以說『非非法』，說明能表達的經教雖然不是證悟的法本身，但不是不能通過經教而獲得真理，所以不能說它完全是非法，它也是法，成就了上面所說的法義。『何以故？一切聖人皆以無為法得名』，為什麼說明上面所說的『非非法』呢？說明能表達的經教雖然不是證悟的法，但需要依靠證悟才能說；憑藉經教才能獲得證悟，說明言教是法，不是完全的非法，所以引用『一切聖人』來解釋成就這個意義。『何以故』，這個言教為什麼是法、不是『非非法』，因為是初地以上的聖人證悟了真如無為法，然後又說無為法，所以知道它是法、不是『非非法』。『皆以無為法得名』，指的是真如法名為無為，說明初地菩薩同時觀察三種二諦，就現在證得了二空，所以斷除了五住地的習氣無明、離開了心意識，名為見道，乃至十地都分階段地用對治來斷除。這說明通過見到真如的正理能夠斷除煩惱，所以說聖人以無為法得名。 『論曰以是義故』，論主沒有進行解釋，怎麼能直接說『以是義故』呢？這裡指的是前面的經文，如來提問，須菩提回答：如來沒有固定的法，如來有獲得也有宣說。像前面經文中兩位聖人的問答相互解釋一樣，我也這樣解釋這部經的意義，不再另外解釋，就是指經文來解釋，所以說『以是義故，釋迦牟尼佛非佛亦非說法』。『此義云何』，這一段經文，一行論解釋的意義是什麼呢？所以用偈頌回答說『應化非真佛』。這一偈頌，解釋前面一段經文。『應化非真佛』，正是解釋經中的『無有定

【English Translation】 English version If the preceding Dharma of wisdom attained through realization (Zhengzhi, 證智), because it is not of the nature of sound, cannot be used to speak, then the words that express the teachings of the scriptures, if completely separated from the truth they are meant to convey, would be the same. Then the scriptures would be entirely non-Dharma. To resolve this doubt, it is said 'neither non-Dharma nor not non-Dharma,' clarifying that although the scriptures that express the teachings are not the Dharma of realization itself, it is not that truth cannot be attained through the scriptures. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are entirely non-Dharma; they are also Dharma, thus accomplishing the Dharma meaning spoken of above. 'Why? All sages are named by the Unconditioned Dharma (Wuwei fa, 無為法),' why clarify the 'neither non-Dharma nor not non-Dharma' mentioned above? It clarifies that although the teachings that express are not the Dharma of realization, it is necessary to rely on realization to be able to speak; by relying on the teachings, one can attain realization, clarifying that verbal teachings are Dharma, not entirely non-Dharma. Therefore, 'all sages' are cited to explain and accomplish this meaning. 'Why?' Why are these verbal teachings Dharma, not 'neither non-Dharma nor not non-Dharma'? Because it is that sages above the first Bhumi (初地) realize the True Thusness Unconditioned Dharma (Zhenru wuwei fa, 真如無為法), and then speak of the Unconditioned Dharma, so it is known that it is Dharma, not 'neither non-Dharma nor not non-Dharma.' 'All are named by the Unconditioned Dharma' refers to the True Thusness Dharma being named Unconditioned, clarifying that Bodhisattvas of the first Bhumi simultaneously observe the three kinds of Two Truths (Erti, 二諦), and in the present, they attain the two emptinesses (Erkong, 二空), therefore cutting off the habitual ignorance of the five dwellings (Wuzhu di, 五住地), and leaving behind mind and consciousness, which is called the Path of Seeing (Jian dao, 見道), and even up to the tenth Bhumi, they gradually use antidotes to eliminate and cut off. This clarifies that by seeing the correct principle of True Thusness, one can cut off afflictions, so it is said that sages are named by the Unconditioned Dharma. 'The Treatise says, 'Therefore, because of this meaning,' the author of the treatise has not made an explanation, how can it be directly said 'Therefore, because of this meaning'? This refers to the preceding sutra text, where the Tathagata asks a question, and Subhuti answers: The Tathagata has no fixed Dharma, the Tathagata has attainment and also speaks. Just as the questions and answers of the two sages in the previous sutra explain each other, I also explain the meaning of this sutra in this way, and will not explain it separately, that is, I use the sutra text to explain, so it is said 'Therefore, because of this meaning, Shakyamuni Buddha is neither Buddha nor speaks Dharma.' 'What is this meaning?' What is the meaning of this section of the sutra, as explained by the Yixing Commentary? Therefore, it is answered with a verse: 'The manifested body is not the true Buddha.' This verse explains the preceding section of the sutra. 'The manifested body is not the true Buddha' is precisely explaining the 'no fixed' in the sutra.

---

法如來得三菩提」也，明釋迦如來從感故有八相成道。言佛者，是應化佛。「非真佛」者，非是法、報二種真佛也。「亦非說法者」，此釋經中「無有定法如來可說」也。上云應佛不證菩提，此句云應佛既不證菩提亦不說也。「說法不二取」者，說法二字釋經中「何以故？如來所說法」，明報佛如來實證菩提、實說法也。「不二取」者，釋經中「皆不可取不可說」也。云何不二取？聽者不取所說言教以為證法，亦不取言教以為一向非法；而說者亦不取聲教以為證法，不取聲教以為一向非法，故云不二取也。「無說離言相」者，釋經中「非法非非法」，還釋成上不二取。非法者，云名相言教非真如證法也，明此證法從本際來自性清凈體絕名相故，不應以所詮證法同於聲教，故云無說離言相。此還成上非非法，明言教是法、非是非法。若證法無名相、言教非是法者，便應一向絕於言說，不復可假教而說、尋詮可會。有如此難故，正應答言「不離言相」，但以偈俠直云「離言相」，明要假言證得於無言也。「此義云何」乃至「亦非說法者故」，通釋偈中上二句。于中有二意：從初至「無有定法如來可說」，此出二句所明義意，雖並舉三佛來，意欲但取應佛。明釋迦如來既是應佛，故不實證三菩提亦不說法，即舉經結之也。「

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『法如來得三菩提』（Dharma Tathagata attains Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi，指法身如來證得無上正等正覺），說明釋迦如來（Sakyamuni Tathagata）從感應的緣故示現八相成道（eight aspects of enlightenment）。所說的『佛』，是指應化佛（Nirmanakaya Buddha，應身佛）。『非真佛』，不是指法身（Dharmakaya）和報身（Sambhogakaya）這兩種真佛。『亦非說法者』，這是解釋經中的『無有定法如來可說』（no fixed Dharma that can be expounded by the Tathagata）。上面說應身佛不證菩提，這句說應身佛既不證菩提也不說法。『說法不二取』，『說法』二字解釋經中的『何以故？如來所說法』（Why? Because what the Tathagata has spoken），說明報身如來（Sambhogakaya Tathagata）確實證得菩提，確實說法。『不二取』，解釋經中的『皆不可取不可說』（all are ungraspable and unspeakable）。怎樣才是不二取呢？聽者不把所說的言教當作證法的本身，也不把言教看作完全非法；而說法者也不把聲教（sound of teaching）當作證法的本身，也不把聲教看作完全非法，所以說不二取。『無說離言相』，解釋經中的『非法非非法』（neither Dharma nor non-Dharma），反過來解釋上面的不二取。『非法』，是說名相言教不是真如證法（true suchness realization），說明這種證法從本際（original source）來自性清凈體（self-nature pure essence），超越名相，所以不應該把所詮釋的證法等同於聲教，所以說無說離言相。這反過來成就上面的非非法，說明言教是法，不是非法。如果證法沒有名相，言教不是法，那就應該完全斷絕言說，不再可以通過教法來說明，通過詮釋來領會。因為有這樣的疑問，所以應該回答說『不離言相』，只是用偈語簡略地說『離言相』，說明要藉助言語來證得無言的境界。『此義云何』乃至『亦非說法者故』，總的解釋偈語中的上面兩句。其中有兩層意思：從開始到『無有定法如來可說』，這是說明這兩句所要表達的意義，雖然同時提到了三佛（Trikaya，三身），但意圖只是取應身佛。說明釋迦如來既然是應身佛，所以不實際證得三菩提，也不說法，就引用經文來總結。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Dharma Tathagata attains Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi』 explains that Sakyamuni Tathagata manifests the eight aspects of enlightenment due to responsiveness. The 『Buddha』 mentioned refers to the Nirmanakaya Buddha (Transformation Body Buddha). 『Not the true Buddha』 means not the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body) and Sambhogakaya (Enjoyment Body), which are the two true Buddhas. 『Also not a speaker of Dharma』 explains the sutra』s statement 『no fixed Dharma that can be expounded by the Tathagata.』 The above states that the Nirmanakaya Buddha does not attain Bodhi; this sentence says that the Nirmanakaya Buddha neither attains Bodhi nor speaks Dharma. 『Speaking Dharma without dualistic grasping,』 the words 『speaking Dharma』 explain the sutra』s statement 『Why? Because what the Tathagata has spoken,』 clarifying that the Sambhogakaya Tathagata truly attains Bodhi and truly speaks Dharma. 『Without dualistic grasping』 explains the sutra』s statement 『all are ungraspable and unspeakable.』 How is it without dualistic grasping? The listener does not take the spoken teachings as the Dharma itself, nor does he regard the teachings as entirely non-Dharma; and the speaker does not take the sound of teaching as the Dharma itself, nor does he regard the sound of teaching as entirely non-Dharma, hence it is called without dualistic grasping. 『No speaking, apart from verbal characteristics』 explains the sutra』s statement 『neither Dharma nor non-Dharma,』 which in turn explains the above 『without dualistic grasping.』 『Non-Dharma』 means that nominal teachings are not true suchness realization, explaining that this realization comes from the original source, the self-nature pure essence, transcending nominal characteristics, so the explained realization should not be equated with the sound of teaching, hence it is called no speaking, apart from verbal characteristics. This in turn completes the above 『neither non-Dharma,』 explaining that teachings are Dharma, not non-Dharma. If realization has no nominal characteristics and teachings are not Dharma, then speech should be completely cut off, and it would no longer be possible to explain through teachings or comprehend through interpretation. Because of such doubts, the answer should be 『not apart from verbal characteristics,』 but the verse briefly says 『apart from verbal characteristics,』 explaining that one must use words to attain the state of no words. 『What is the meaning of this』 up to 『also not a speaker of Dharma』 generally explains the above two sentences in the verse. There are two meanings in it: from the beginning to 『no fixed Dharma that can be expounded by the Tathagata,』 this explains the meaning expressed by these two sentences, although the Trikaya (Three Bodies) are mentioned together, the intention is only to take the Nirmanakaya Buddha. Explaining that since Sakyamuni Tathagata is the Nirmanakaya Buddha, he does not actually attain Bodhi or speak Dharma, and the sutra is quoted to conclude.

---

若爾」以下至「亦非說法者故」，聞上釋言如來不得菩提亦不說法，論主便執經中「如來所說法」等假興難意，即引疑者之難以答其難，明遮人謗，故云「報佛有證說非論應佛有證說」也。復引偈來結，明應佛無實說也。「說法不二取，無說離言相」者，乃至「無我相實有」故，此提偈中下二句次第釋之，聽者說者皆不二取，釋偈中第三句也。「何以故」者，將釋偈中第四句，故問何以故。上聽說二人于所說法中皆不二取也，即釋言彼法非法、非非法。然此依次第，應釋「無說離言相」，但此句本為釋經中非非法，故引此經文釋於何以故聞即當解偈也。

「依何義說」者，問此所說法言非非法者，依何義說也。即答依真如義說。言「依真如義說」者，明如來證真如法，還為眾生說彼真如法，而此佛教非法非非法也。「非法者，一切法無體相故」者，「一切法」謂十二部經聲教法也。「無體相」者，此言教法中無所證智體相也。「非非法者，彼真如無我相實有故」者，明此真如法體雖雙絕有無名為無我，而體備萬德妙有湛然故名為實有。而如來依此法故有于言說，此言說還詮真如法故，言教是法故云非非法也。自此已前釋偈已竟，從此以下將釋偈所不攝經故，先問上經中雲，若依真如有說者，何故唯言如來所說法

，不言如來所證法也？即答云「有言說者即成證義」等，明若不證者不能說故，明知今道如來所說法者，已知有證也。「如經」以下，即提所未釋經來結成。結成竟，然後次第釋此經文也。「此句明何義」者，問此一句經明何等義，得結成上有言說者已知證義也。即答「彼法是說因故」，明聖人由證真如故方有言說，故引此經證成上有說則有證也。「何以故」者，彼真如無為法何以故得作言說家因？即云「一切聖人依真如清凈得名」，明初地以上聖人皆證真如無為法故，斷除二障得聖人之名，即結云「以無為法得名故」也。「以此義故」者，以此聖人無為法得名義故，彼聖人還說無為法，是故得成證法是言說因也。「復以何義」者，作難云：若聖人證無為法，還說無為法者，是則真如證法有于名相，便應可取可說。復以何義故，云何真如證法無名無相不可取說也？即答云「彼聖人所證法，不可如是說，何況如是取」，明彼證法體非聲性故，尚不可以言說，何況以耳識往取，故云不可如是說，何況如是取也。

故即釋言「何以故？彼法遠離言語相，非可說事故」，明雖彼聖人證無為法、還說無為法，而此無為法離言語故，不可取說也。「何故不但言佛，乃說一切聖人」者，論主假設難云：若一切聖人以無為法得名

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：難道不是說如來所證的法是不可言說的嗎？如果回答說『有言說就意味著已經證得了真義』等等，這表明如果未曾證得，就無法言說。由此可知，現在所說的如來所說的法，就已經知道是已經證得了的。『如經』以下，就是提出之前未解釋的經文來總結。總結完畢后，然後依次解釋此經文。『此句明何義』，是問這一句經文說明了什麼意義，從而總結出上面所說的有言說就意味著已經證得了真義。回答說『彼法是說因故』，表明聖人因為證得了真如，所以才能夠言說，所以引用此經來證明上面所說的有言說就意味著已經證得了真義。『何以故』，是問那真如無為法為什麼能夠成為言說的原因？回答說『一切聖人依真如清凈得名』，表明初地以上的聖人都證得了真如無為法，所以斷除了二障，得到了聖人的名號，於是總結說『以無為法得名故』。『以此義故』，因為聖人以無為法得名的緣故，所以聖人所說的還是無為法，因此可以得出證法是言說的原因。『復以何義』，提出疑問說：如果聖人證得了無為法，並且還說無為法，那麼真如證法就應該有名相，就應該可以執取和言說。那麼又是因為什麼緣故，說真如證法是無名無相，不可執取和言說的呢？回答說『彼聖人所證法，不可如是說，何況如是取』，表明所證之法的本體並非聲音的性質，所以尚且不能用言語來表達，更何況用耳識去執取，所以說不可這樣說，更何況這樣去執取。

所以接著解釋說『何以故？彼法遠離言語相，非可說事故』，表明即使聖人證得了無為法、並且還說無為法，但是這無為法遠離言語，所以不可執取和言說。『何故不但言佛，乃說一切聖人』，論主假設提問說：如果一切聖人以無為法得名

【English Translation】 English version: Isn't it said that the Dharma (法) realized by the Tathagata (如來, one of the titles of a Buddha) is inexpressible? If one answers, 'To speak of it implies realization,' etc., it shows that if one has not realized it, one cannot speak of it. From this, we know that the Dharma spoken by the Tathagata now is known to be realized. 'As the Sutra (經) says' below, it brings up the previously uninterpreted Sutra to conclude. After concluding, it then explains this Sutra text in order. 'What meaning does this sentence clarify?' asks what meaning this sentence of the Sutra clarifies, thereby concluding that speaking implies realization, as mentioned above. The answer is, 'That Dharma is the cause of speech,' indicating that sages (聖人) can speak because they have realized Suchness (真如, ultimate reality), so this Sutra is quoted to prove that speaking implies realization, as mentioned above. 'Why is that?' asks why that unconditioned Dharma of Suchness can be the cause of speech. The answer is, 'All sages are named based on the purity of Suchness,' indicating that sages above the first Bhumi (初地, the first of the ten stages on the Bodhisattva path) have all realized the unconditioned Dharma of Suchness, so they have cut off the two obscurations (二障) and obtained the name of sage, thus concluding, 'Because they are named based on the unconditioned Dharma.' 'Because of this meaning' means that because of the meaning that sages are named based on the unconditioned Dharma, the sages still speak of the unconditioned Dharma, so it can be concluded that realizing the Dharma is the cause of speech. 'Again, by what meaning?' raises the question: If sages realize the unconditioned Dharma and also speak of the unconditioned Dharma, then the realized Dharma of Suchness should have names and forms, and should be able to be grasped and spoken of. Then, for what reason is it said that the realized Dharma of Suchness is without name and form, and cannot be grasped or spoken of? The answer is, 'That Dharma realized by the sages cannot be spoken of in that way, let alone grasped in that way,' indicating that the essence of the realized Dharma is not of the nature of sound, so it cannot even be expressed in words, let alone grasped by ear-consciousness, so it is said that it cannot be spoken of in that way, let alone grasped in that way.

Therefore, it is explained, 'Why is that? That Dharma is far from the characteristics of language, and cannot be spoken of,' indicating that even though sages realize the unconditioned Dharma and also speak of the unconditioned Dharma, this unconditioned Dharma is far from language, so it cannot be grasped or spoken of. 'Why not only say Buddha (佛), but also say all sages?' The commentator raises a hypothetical question: If all sages are named based on the unconditioned Dharma

---

者，唯佛一人會無為理盡，可以無為法得名；初地以上聖人見理未窮，不應以無為法得名，何故乃說一切聖人皆以無為法得名也，即答「以一切聖人依真如清凈得名故」，明初地以上聖人皆現見真如處同，故得名為聖，是故不唯言佛也。

乘即難云：若初地以上一切聖人，皆現會真如名為聖者，佛與菩薩有何異也？故答「如是具足清凈如分清凈」，明如來萬德圓滿、見真如理窮、二障永盡，故名佛為聖人，具足清凈也。

初地以上十地以還，雖復見勝理未圓、斷惑不盡，非不如分如力見理除惑，勝分解成故，名菩薩為聖人，如分清凈也。若然，佛與菩薩便優劣不同，那得難言若初地以上一切聖人皆以無為法得名者，佛與菩薩有何異也？

金剛仙論卷第三竟 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第四

「須菩提！于意云何？若滿三千七寶佈施」以下，此中有九段經文，名為第七具足功德挍量分。云何名挍量分者？明以三千七寶佈施得福雖多，取相心施是有漏因，但招三界人天有為果報；不如受持此經一四句偈，乃與無上佛果具足功德作無漏勝因。如此比挍優劣上下勝如不同故，名具足功德挍量分也。有何次第起者？此有疑故也。此疑從何處生？從前第六段

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人問，只有佛才能完全領會無為的道理，可以因無為法而得名。初地（Bhumi，菩薩修行階位的第一階段）以上的聖人見理尚未窮盡，不應該因無為法而得名。為什麼說一切聖人都因無為法而得名呢？回答說：『因為一切聖人依真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）清凈而得名。』說明初地以上的聖人，在現見真如之處是相同的，所以得名為聖，因此不只是佛才能如此。

提問者進一步發難：如果初地以上的一切聖人，都因現會真如而得名，那麼佛與菩薩（Bodhisattva，為救度眾生而發願成佛的人）有什麼區別呢？回答說：『如是具足清凈如分清凈』，說明如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號之一）萬德圓滿，見真如之理窮盡，二障（煩惱障和所知障）永遠斷盡，所以佛被稱為聖人，是具足清凈。

初地以上到十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）的菩薩，雖然見勝理尚未圓滿，斷惑尚未窮盡，但並非不如分如力地見理除惑，勝解（殊勝的理解）逐漸成就，所以菩薩被稱為聖人，是如分清凈。如果這樣，佛與菩薩便有優劣不同，那怎麼能反問說，如果初地以上的一切聖人都因無為法而得名，佛與菩薩有什麼區別呢？

《金剛仙論》卷第三 完 《大正藏》第25冊 No. 1512 《金剛仙論》

《金剛仙論》卷第四

『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子之一）！于意云何？若滿三千七寶佈施』以下，這段經文共有九段，名為第七具足功德校量分。為什麼叫校量分呢？說明用充滿三千大千世界的七寶（Seven Treasures，佛教中珍貴的七種寶物）佈施，得到的福報雖然很多，但取相心施是有漏因，只能招感三界（Three Realms，欲界、色界、無色界）人天的有為果報；不如受持此經中的一句四句偈（Gatha，用詩歌形式表達的經文），能與無上佛果的具足功德，作為無漏的殊勝之因。如此比較優劣上下勝如的不同，所以叫做具足功德校量分。為什麼會有這樣的次第產生呢？因為這裡有疑問。這個疑問從何處產生呢？從前面的第六段經文。

【English Translation】 English version: Someone asks: Only the Buddha fully comprehends the principle of non-action (Wuwei), and can be named after the Dharma of non-action. Saints above the first Bhumi (the first stage of Bodhisattva's practice) have not exhausted the understanding of the principle, and should not be named after the Dharma of non-action. Why is it said that all saints are named after the Dharma of non-action? The answer is: 'Because all saints are named after the purity of Tathata (the true nature of things).' This explains that saints above the first Bhumi are the same in seeing Tathata, so they are named saints, and therefore it is not only the Buddha who is like this.

The questioner further challenges: If all saints above the first Bhumi are named saints because they manifest and meet Tathata, then what is the difference between the Buddha and the Bodhisattva (a person who vows to become a Buddha to save all beings)? The answer is: 'Such is complete purity as partial purity,' explaining that the Tathagata (one of the titles of the Buddha) has perfect merits, exhausts the principle of seeing Tathata, and permanently eliminates the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations), so the Buddha is called a saint, which is complete purity.

Bodhisattvas from the first Bhumi up to the tenth Bhumi (the ten stages of Bodhisattva's practice), although they have not yet perfected the understanding of the superior principle and have not exhausted the elimination of delusions, are not inferior in seeing the principle and eliminating delusions according to their ability, and the superior understanding (superior understanding) is gradually achieved, so Bodhisattvas are called saints, which is partial purity. If so, the Buddha and the Bodhisattva have different advantages and disadvantages, so how can one ask, if all saints above the first Bhumi are named after the Dharma of non-action, what is the difference between the Buddha and the Bodhisattva?

End of Volume 3 of the Jin Gang Xian Lun Taisho Tripitaka Volume 25 No. 1512 Jin Gang Xian Lun

Volume 4 of the Jin Gang Xian Lun

『Subhuti (one of the Buddha's disciples)! What do you think? If one fills three thousand great thousand worlds with the seven treasures (precious materials in Buddhism) for almsgiving』 and so on, this section of scripture has nine paragraphs, called the seventh section of measuring complete merits. Why is it called the section of measuring? It explains that although the merit obtained by giving alms with the seven treasures (Seven Treasures) filling three thousand great thousand worlds is great, giving with the mind of attachment is a cause with outflows, which can only attract the conditioned results of humans and gods in the Three Realms (Three Realms); it is not as good as receiving and upholding a four-line verse (Gatha) in this scripture, which can be the superior cause without outflows for the complete merits of the supreme Buddha fruit. Comparing the differences between superior and inferior, high and low, and victory in this way, it is called the section of measuring complete merits. Why does this order arise? Because there is doubt here. Where does this doubt arise from? From the previous sixth section of scripture.

---

中如來所說法皆不可取說中生。第二疑雲何生？若所證法非是名相、不可取說，所說經教是名相可取可說者，則證說二法名相、無名相條然有異。若爾，尋此言教不能得證。若不能得證者，受持讀誦此所說經教應無福德。若無福德者，則因義不成。若因義不成，則為空說，無有利益。若無利益，則無修道得果。云何余經中言如來不空說法也。若然，受持此能詮言教，為有福德、為無福德？有此疑也，故引三千世界等經文答之。答意云受持此經一四句偈所得功德勝前七寶施福。所以然者，明此一偈經教雖證法中無，而由得證故、方能說法故，此言教乃證中一分。要尋此言教，解無為法身、發聞思修慧等，然後得證。明知一偈經教能與佛果證法作因，勝七寶施福，故次明此挍量分也。

「三千大千世界」者，百億須彌、百億四天下、百億日月，上至有頂、下至風輪，名此為三千大千世界也。「滿中七寶持用佈施得福多不」者，如來將欲以受持經教一四句偈挍量勝如故，先引七寶施福以問須菩提得福多不也。「甚多。婆伽婆！甚多。修伽陀」者，今須菩提將明施者用寶既多得福亦多，敬答于佛，故仰並如來二號也。「婆伽婆」者，西國正音，義翻云一切種智人。「修伽陀」者，漢翻善逝。略舉二德答佛施福多也。「何

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果認為如來說法的內容都不可理解，那麼第二個疑問就產生了：如果所證悟的佛法不是名相，不可言說，而所說的經教卻是名相，可以理解和言說的，那麼證悟的佛法和所說的經教，一個沒有名相，一個有名相，截然不同。如果是這樣，那麼通過這些言教就不能證悟佛法。如果不能證悟佛法，那麼受持讀誦這些經教應該就沒有福德。如果沒有福德，那麼因果關係就不成立。如果因果關係不成立，那麼就成了空說，沒有任何利益。如果沒有利益，那麼就無法通過修行證得果位。那麼為什麼其他經典中說如來說法不是空說呢？如果這樣，受持這些能表達佛法的言教，是有福德還是沒有福德呢？因為有這個疑問，所以引用三千世界等經文來回答。回答的意思是，受持這部經中的一句四句偈所得到的功德，勝過用充滿三千大千世界的七寶來佈施所得到的福德。之所以這樣，是因為這句偈語雖然在所證悟的佛法中沒有，但是因為證悟了佛法才能說法，所以這句偈語是證悟佛法的一部分。要通過這些言教，理解無為法身，發起聞思修的智慧等等，然後才能證悟佛法。由此可知，一句偈語能夠作為證得佛果的因，勝過七寶佈施的福德，所以接下來就說明這個校量分。 『三千大千世界』，指的是百億須彌山、百億四天下、百億日月，上至有頂天、下至風輪，這被稱為三千大千世界。『滿中七寶持用佈施得福多不』，如來想要用受持經教一句四句偈的功德來比較勝過七寶佈施的功德，所以先用七寶佈施的福德來問須菩提，得到的福德多不多。『甚多。婆伽婆（Bhagavan，一切種智人）！甚多。修伽陀（Sugata，善逝）』，現在須菩提想要說明佈施的人用寶物很多，得到的福德也很多，所以恭敬地回答佛，所以仰慕並稱呼如來的兩個稱號。『婆伽婆（Bhagavan）』，是西國的正確發音，翻譯成漢語是『一切種智人』。『修伽陀（Sugata）』，漢譯為『善逝』。這裡簡略地舉出兩個德號來回答佛，說明佈施的福德很多。

【English Translation】 English version: If it is thought that all the teachings of the Tathagata are incomprehensible, then the second doubt arises: If the Dharma realized is not a matter of names and forms, and cannot be spoken of, while the scriptures taught are matters of names and forms, and can be understood and spoken of, then the Dharma realized and the scriptures taught are distinctly different, one without names and forms, and the other with names and forms. If this is the case, then one cannot realize the Dharma through these teachings. If one cannot realize the Dharma, then reciting and upholding these scriptures should not bring merit. If there is no merit, then the causal relationship is not established. If the causal relationship is not established, then it becomes empty talk, without any benefit. If there is no benefit, then one cannot attain the fruit of enlightenment through practice. So why do other scriptures say that the Tathagata's teachings are not empty talk? If so, is there merit or no merit in upholding these teachings that can express the Dharma? Because of this doubt, the scriptures such as the Three Thousand Worlds are quoted to answer. The meaning of the answer is that the merit gained from upholding a four-line verse in this scripture surpasses the merit gained from giving offerings of the seven treasures filling the three thousand great thousand worlds. The reason for this is that although this verse is not in the Dharma realized, it is because one has realized the Dharma that one can teach, so this verse is a part of the realization of the Dharma. One must understand the unconditioned Dharmakaya, develop the wisdom of hearing, thinking, and practicing, etc., through these teachings, and then one can realize the Dharma. From this, it can be known that a four-line verse can be the cause of attaining Buddhahood, surpassing the merit of giving offerings of the seven treasures, so next, this section on comparison is explained. 『Three Thousand Great Thousand Worlds』 refers to one hundred billion Mount Sumerus, one hundred billion four continents, and one hundred billion suns and moons, from the highest heaven to the wheel of wind, this is called the Three Thousand Great Thousand Worlds. 『Would one gain much merit by filling them with the seven treasures and using them for giving?』 The Tathagata wanted to compare the merit of upholding a four-line verse of the scriptures to surpass the merit of giving offerings of the seven treasures, so he first used the merit of giving offerings of the seven treasures to ask Subhuti whether the merit gained was much or not. 『Very much. Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the one with all-knowing wisdom)! Very much. Sugata (Sugata, the Well-Gone One)!』 Now Subhuti wants to explain that the person giving offerings uses many treasures, and the merit gained is also much, so he respectfully answers the Buddha, so he reveres and calls the Buddha by two titles. 『Bhagavan (Bhagavan)』 is the correct pronunciation in the Western country, and translated into Chinese it is 『the one with all-knowing wisdom』. 『Sugata (Sugata)』 is translated into Chinese as 『the Well-Gone One』. Here, two virtues are briefly mentioned to answer the Buddha, explaining that the merit of giving offerings is much.

---

以故」者，問如來何以故，明此三千七寶佈施得福甚多譬喻，故云何以故也。即答「是福德聚即非福德聚」，上言七寶佈施得福甚多，今復云是福德聚即非福德聚，此二言何故前後相違？似須菩提失冥加力，謂此福甚多而似答不契。今須菩提申己不失冥加之力；又亦非說多不當理，我得冥加力故，玄知下如來以七寶施福雖多，是有漏福德不能遠趣佛果故，挍量不及持經四句偈得出世無為法身無漏福多故，此採取下挍量之意也。「是福德聚」者，是七寶佈施福德聚也。「非福德聚」者，明此福雖多，是取相因，但感人天有漏果報，非是得出世間無漏福德聚也。「是故如來說福德聚福德聚」者，前既明七寶佈施非福德聚者，恐人謂今無福名非福德。以如此義故，引如來說有二種福德聚：一是有漏福德聚，二是無漏福德聚。有漏若非福德者，但應有一，不應說二，是故當知有世間福，但非出世福耳，故知不得聞非福德謂全無漏也。從「佛言」以下至「七寶佈施」，將欲挍量故，還牒上譬喻來也。「若復有人於此經中」至「不可數」者，明有人受持此經四句偈福，能得無為法身無量福德，勝前七寶施福不可算數也。此言「一四句偈」者，莫問偈及長行，但使表法身理足者以為一四句偈，不取說因緣事等經文為一四句偈也。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『以故』，是須菩提問如來『何以故』，來闡明用三千大千世界的七寶做佈施，所得的福德非常多的這個譬喻，所以問『何以故』。如來回答『是福德聚，即非福德聚』，前面說用七寶佈施所得福德非常多，現在又說這是福德聚，但又不是福德聚，這兩種說法為什麼前後矛盾呢？好像是須菩提失去了佛的加持力，認為七寶佈施的福德很多，但如來的回答似乎不合邏輯。現在須菩提表明自己沒有失去佛的加持力；而且也不是說如來說的多不合理，我因為得到佛的加持力，所以明白如來說用七寶佈施的福德雖然多，但這是有漏的福德，不能使人達到佛果，所以比不上受持經中的四句偈，因為四句偈能使人得到出世間的無為法身，得到無漏的福德，這裡是採取比較的意思。『是福德聚』，是指七寶佈施的福德聚。『非福德聚』，是說明這種福德雖然多，但因為是執著于相而產生的，所以只能感得人天道的有漏果報，不是能使人得到出世間無漏福德的福德聚。『是故如來說福德聚福德聚』，前面已經說明七寶佈施不是福德聚，恐怕有人認為這樣說就等於說七寶佈施沒有福德。因為這個原因，所以引用如來說有兩種福德聚：一種是有漏福德聚，一種是無漏福德聚。如果說有漏的不是福德，那就應該只有一種福德，不應該說兩種，所以應當知道有世間的福德，但不是出世間的福德，所以要知道不能因為聽到『非福德』就認為完全沒有福德。從『佛言』以下到『七寶佈施』，是將要進行比較，所以又重複上面的譬喻。『若復有人於此經中』到『不可數』，是說明如果有人受持這部經中的四句偈，所得到的無為法身的無量福德，勝過前面用七寶佈施的福德，是不可計算的。這裡說『一四句偈』，不論是偈頌還是長行，只要能表達法身之理的，就可以算作一四句偈，不把說因緣故事等的經文算作一四句偈。

【English Translation】 English version 『Therefore』 refers to Subhuti asking the Tathagata 『Why is that so?』 to clarify the analogy of giving with the seven treasures of the three thousand great thousand worlds, the merit obtained is very much, so he asks 『Why is that so?』 The Tathagata answers 『It is a collection of merit, yet it is not a collection of merit.』 Earlier it was said that the merit obtained from giving with the seven treasures is very much, but now it is said that it is a collection of merit, yet it is not a collection of merit. Why are these two statements contradictory? It seems that Subhuti has lost the Buddha's blessing power, thinking that the merit of giving with the seven treasures is very much, but the Tathagata's answer seems illogical. Now Subhuti states that he has not lost the Buddha's blessing power; and it is not that the Tathagata's words are unreasonable, because I have received the Buddha's blessing power, so I understand that the Tathagata said that although the merit of giving with the seven treasures is much, it is defiled merit, which cannot lead people to Buddhahood, so it is not comparable to upholding the four-line verse in the scripture, because the four-line verse can enable people to obtain the unconditioned Dharmakaya of transcendence, and obtain undefiled merit. Here, it takes the meaning of comparison. 『It is a collection of merit』 refers to the collection of merit from giving with the seven treasures. 『It is not a collection of merit』 explains that although this merit is much, it is produced by attachment to form, so it can only result in the defiled karmic rewards of the human and heavenly realms, not a collection of merit that can enable people to obtain undefiled merit of transcendence. 『Therefore, the Tathagata says a collection of merit, a collection of merit.』 Earlier it was explained that giving with the seven treasures is not a collection of merit, fearing that people would think that this means that giving with the seven treasures has no merit. For this reason, the Tathagata is quoted as saying that there are two kinds of merit collections: one is the defiled merit collection, and the other is the undefiled merit collection. If defiled merit is not merit, then there should only be one kind of merit, not two, so it should be known that there is worldly merit, but it is not transcendent merit, so it should be known that one cannot think that there is no merit at all because one hears 『not merit.』 From 『The Buddha said』 to 『giving with the seven treasures,』 it is going to make a comparison, so it repeats the above analogy. 『If someone in this scripture』 to 『innumerable』 explains that if someone upholds the four-line verse in this scripture, the immeasurable merit of the unconditioned Dharmakaya obtained is greater than the merit of giving with the seven treasures, which is incalculable. Here, 『one four-line verse』 means that whether it is a verse or a prose passage, as long as it can express the principle of the Dharmakaya, it can be counted as one four-line verse, and the scripture text that tells the story of causes and conditions is not counted as one four-line verse.

---

「何以故？須菩提！一切諸佛菩提皆從此經出，諸佛如來皆從此經生」者，此釋前挍量中疑。「何以故」者，有人疑雲：何故七寶佈施是其了因，其功甚多，得福乃少？受持一偈亦是了因，其功甚少，得福乃多。故云何以故也。答意明前佈施是取相之福，唯獲三界報，不能得三種佛菩提；受持此經，獲不取相福，能得三種佛菩提，是故受持一偈之福勝七寶施福。所以然者，以此一偈經教，用功雖少得福乃多，能出生佛果故。受持此經生聞乃至能得十地證智，終與法身作其了因，與報、應二佛以為生因故，所以勝也。此言「阿耨菩提」者，即無為法身無上正遍知正道也，明此法身古今一定湛然常住，體非作法。受持此經教，但能作其了因，不能作生因，故言皆從此經出。「一切諸佛如來皆從此經生」者，有受持此經言教，能與報佛如來以為生因。以此報佛要因受持此經，發菩提心，始從習種終於解行，修世間功德智慧，逕一大阿僧祇行道證初地，名為見道。逕三阿僧祇，十地行滿金剛心謝，即本有之性顯時有二種莊嚴，用此酬往因，故名為報因。受持經教依而修行，報得佛果，用義說了為生，故言從此經生，非如世間法辨體為生也。若報佛為生因，所生為當是有為、為是無為？若是有為，則應無常，故下經引須彌山

王喻釋也。若應佛藉經教從生因生者，應是實佛。若是實佛，何故上經云「無有定法應佛如來得三菩提」也。若定非實佛，供養此佛為有福德、為無福德？此疑下微塵喻，經未當釋也。既有報佛，必有應佛影像之用，故應佛亦言從此經生也。既聞法佛從此經出，報應二佛從此經生，有人乘即生疑雲：七寶施福用功乃多，得福亦應是多。受持一偈經教，用功甚少，得福亦應是少。而所以言受持此經一四句偈出生三種佛菩提，勝七寶施福。若然，此三種佛菩提，為決定從此經出、從此經生，勝七寶施福？為不決定？有此疑念也。又云：此三種佛甚深法界若從此經出、從此經生，體是有者，我等應見應知。然此我今不知不見故，當知是無。若爾，云何道法佛從此經出、報應二佛從此經生也？知如來說此三佛其義甚深，乃云從一偈言教經生，為有人能信、為無人能信？此謂為疑也。故佛答須菩提「所謂佛法佛法者即非佛法」，明諸佛如來證三種佛菩提法故說此經教，還詮彼三種佛菩提。是故若受持此經，即是受持三佛菩提，故得為因。此三佛果頭甚深法界雖從此一偈經出生，而正可是佛家所得法，非凡夫二乘下人境界故。不知不解而生疑雲：此三種佛，為決定從此經出生？為不決定？如此勸信也。而此經所以重言「佛法佛法」

者，牒前經法佛從此經出、報佛應佛從此經生也，故云佛法佛法也。有言佛法佛法者，明此三種佛菩提法唯是佛家法，故重云佛法佛法也。「即非佛法」者，明即此佛所得法，非余凡夫二乘所得，以彼二乘非佛法故，即云非佛法也。然此佛法非二乘境界，是故不見不得也。亦可福德多少之義，唯佛境界，非餘人境界也。亦應言是名佛法，明唯是如來果頭佛法。故但應生信，勿復疑也。

「論曰：此勝福德譬喻，示現何義」者，論主將欲以偈釋此經故，先問于與喻挍量之意示現何義也。即答「法雖不可取不可說，而不空故」。疑者謂若法不可取說者，受持此經教應無福德。今論主申此經來意，為欲釋疑，明持經有福，挍量勝七寶施福，非為空也。

此一段經凡二偈論釋。初偈作問答意，釋經中「三千世界七寶乃至無量不可數」等挍量經文。第二偈釋「何以故？須菩提！一切諸佛皆從此經出乃至即非佛法」也。

「受持法」者，釋經中「受持一四句偈」也。「及說」者，釋經中「為他人說」也。「不空于福德」者，釋經中「其福勝彼無量不可數」也。此偈上之二句經文在下，所以論主釋之在先；此偈后之二句經文在上，所以釋在後也。論主相上疑意，以此「受持法及說」二句經雖在後，義乃在前，故引

之初釋；下二句經雖在先，義勢在後，故列在後解也。雖言相上疑意，其義云何也？上云證法不同名相，不可取不可說。惑者便謂：受持經教空無利益。故以喻挍量，明持經有福不空。以義勢在前，故先釋也。

「福不趣菩提」者，釋經中「三千七寶佈施」初福德聚，明此有漏福德聚體是取相，故不能趣菩提也。「二能趣菩提」者，明受持經教及為人說是不取相福，能趣佛菩提也。

「何故說言世尊是福德聚」等者，將欲釋此一偈，先舉下半偈所釋經來也。「偈言」以下，提下半偈來，與經相屬當。「此義云何」以下，然後設問，通釋此經偈也。然偈中上二句猶故未釋，何故超提下半偈來屬當所釋經者？但上二句為釋挍量之意，以此意在前，故先作偈上二句釋下挍量經文，今長行論中欲從經初次第釋之故，所以先提「世尊是福德聚」等經，超用下半偈屬當釋之也。「何者為二」者，將欲釋上半偈故問，第四句「二能趣菩提」者為二也。即出其二云「一者受持；二者演說」。此就自他、內外為二，即舉所釋經來結也。「何故名福德聚」者，問此七寶施福及持經福，何故皆名為聚也。即答「聚義有二種」。「一者積聚義」者，通解七寶施福持經之福等皆有積聚義，故俱得名為聚也。「二者進趣義」者，明此二

【現代漢語翻譯】 之初解釋；下面兩句經文雖然在前面，但意義和作用在後面，所以放在後面解釋。雖然說相互比較懷疑，但它的意義是什麼呢？上面說證悟的法與名相不同，不可執取不可言說。迷惑的人就認為：受持經教空無利益。所以用比喻來衡量，說明持經是有福德而不空的。因為意義和作用在前面，所以先解釋。

『福不趣菩提』，解釋經中『三千七寶佈施』最初的福德聚集，說明這種有漏的福德聚集的本體是取相，所以不能趨向菩提。『二能趣菩提』，說明受持經教以及為人演說是沒有取相的福德，能夠趨向佛的菩提。

『何故說言世尊是福德聚』等，將要解釋這一偈頌，先舉出下半偈所解釋的經文。『偈言』以下，提出下半偈，與經文相互對應。『此義云何』以下，然後設問，通盤解釋這句經文和偈頌。然而偈頌中上面兩句還沒有解釋，為什麼跳過上面兩句而提出下半偈來對應所要解釋的經文呢？只是因為上面兩句是解釋比較衡量的意思，因為這個意思在前面，所以先用偈頌上面兩句來解釋下面的衡量經文，現在長行論中想要從經文的開頭依次解釋，所以先提出『世尊是福德聚』等經文，跳過上面兩句來對應解釋。『何者為二』，將要解釋上半偈所以發問，第四句『二能趣菩提』就是二。即說出這二者是『一者受持；二者演說』。這是就自他、內外來說的二，即舉出所解釋的經文來總結。『何故名福德聚』，問這七寶佈施的福德和持經的福德，為什麼都叫做聚呢？即回答說『聚的意義有兩種』。『一者積聚義』，通盤解釋七寶佈施的福德和持經的福德等都有積聚的意義，所以都可以叫做聚。『二者進趣義』，說明這二者

【English Translation】 English version: This is the initial explanation; although the following two sentences of the sutra come earlier, their meaning and function come later, so they are explained later. Although it speaks of mutual comparison and doubt, what is its meaning? The above says that the Dharma realized is different from names and forms, and cannot be grasped or spoken of. Those who are confused then think: receiving and upholding the teachings of the sutras is without benefit. Therefore, use metaphors to measure and illustrate that upholding the sutras has blessings and is not empty. Because the meaning and function are in the front, it is explained first.

'Blessings do not lead to Bodhi' explains the initial accumulation of merit in the sutra 'giving of three thousand great thousands of worlds filled with the seven treasures', clarifying that the substance of this conditioned accumulation of merit is grasping at characteristics, so it cannot lead to Bodhi. 'The second can lead to Bodhi' clarifies that receiving, upholding, and expounding the sutras for others is merit without grasping at characteristics, and can lead to the Bodhi of the Buddha.

'Why is it said that the World Honored One is an accumulation of merit?' etc., intending to explain this verse, first citing the sutra explained by the second half of the verse. 'The verse says' below, presenting the second half of the verse, corresponding to the sutra. 'What is the meaning of this?' below, then posing a question, comprehensively explaining this sutra and verse. However, the first two lines of the verse have not yet been explained, why skip the first two lines and present the second half of the verse to correspond to the sutra to be explained? It is only because the first two lines are to explain the meaning of comparison and measurement, because this meaning is in the front, so first use the first two lines of the verse to explain the following sutra text of measurement, now the long commentary wants to explain it sequentially from the beginning of the sutra, so first present the sutra 'The World Honored One is an accumulation of merit' etc., skipping the first two lines to correspond to the explanation. 'Which are the two?' asking in order to explain the first half of the verse, the fourth line 'The second can lead to Bodhi' is the two. That is, it says that the two are 'first, receiving and upholding; second, expounding'. This is the two in terms of self and others, internal and external, that is, citing the sutra being explained to conclude. 'Why is it called an accumulation of merit?' asking why the merit of giving the seven treasures and the merit of upholding the sutras are both called accumulations? That is, answering 'The meaning of accumulation has two kinds'. 'First, the meaning of accumulation' generally explains that the merit of giving the seven treasures and the merit of upholding the sutras, etc., all have the meaning of accumulation, so they can all be called accumulations. 'Second, the meaning of advancing towards' clarifies that these two

---

種福德雖有聚義，而有進趣、不進趣異。七寶施福唯有聚義而不能進趣，明持經之福有積聚義復有進趣義也。「如人擔重說名為聚」者，此遍喻持經之福，是聚而有進趣義也。「如是彼福德聚」等者，此解聚而不進趣者，明七寶施福得人天因果，有積聚之義故名為聚，但不能感得菩提故，名為非福德聚也。「此二能趣大菩提」者，此解受持演說能遠得菩提，是聚而有進趣義也。「是故於彼福德聚中此福為勝」者，論主以偈及長行釋此經竟，結受持經福勝七寶佈施福也。「云何此二能得大菩提」者，論主將欲作第二偈釋于下經故，拘鎖問上偈中二能趣菩提，此受持演說一偈經教於菩提有何因義也。「如經」以下，即引經答有因義也。雖舉此經于菩提有其因義，而未釋作因義之所以，故復牒「云何說諸佛菩提」等經為問，以偈解釋也。

「于實名了因」者，此第二偈釋經中「一切諸佛阿耨菩提皆從此經出」，明受持此經與法佛爲了因，非作生因也，故但言「于實名了因」也。「實」者，明無為法身古今湛然，體絕有為虛偽顛倒，故曰為實也。「亦為餘生因」者，釋經中「諸佛如來皆從此經生」，明此經不但能與法化爲了因，亦與報應二佛以為生因。明報佛為萬行所克，酬于往因，用義如起。豎此用義，得說了為生，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 種福德雖然有積聚的意義，但有進步和不進步的區別。用七寶佈施的福德只有積聚的意義而不能進步，明白地受持經文的福德既有積聚的意義又有進步的意義。「如人擔重說名為聚」是指，這普遍比喻受持經文的福德，是積聚而且有進步的意義。「如是彼福德聚」等是指，這是解釋積聚而不進步的情況，說明用七寶佈施的福德得到人天道的因果，有積聚的意義所以叫做積聚，但不能感得菩提（bodhi，覺悟），所以叫做非福德聚。「此二能趣大菩提」是指，這是解釋受持演說經文能長遠地獲得菩提，是積聚而且有進步的意義。「是故於彼福德聚中此福為勝」是指，論主用偈頌和長行解釋這部經完畢，總結受持經文的福德勝過用七寶佈施的福德。「云何此二能得大菩提」是指，論主將要作第二個偈頌來解釋下面的經文，所以拘泥地提問上面偈頌中「二能趣菩提」，這受持演說一偈經教對於菩提有什麼因的意義呢？「如經」以下，就是引用經文回答有因的意義。雖然舉出這部經對於菩提有它的因的意義，但沒有解釋作為因的意義的原因，所以又重複「云何說諸佛菩提」等經作為提問，用偈頌來解釋。 「于實名了因」是指，這第二個偈頌解釋經文中「一切諸佛阿耨菩提（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）皆從此經出」，說明受持這部經與法佛（Dharma Buddha，法身佛）是爲了因，不是作生因，所以只說「于實名了因」。「實」是指，說明無為法身（Dharmakaya，法身）古今都是湛然不變的，本體斷絕有為的虛偽顛倒，所以叫做實。「亦為餘生因」是指，解釋經文中「諸佛如來皆從此經生」，說明這部經不但能與法化爲了因，也與報應二佛（Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya Buddhas，報身佛和應身佛）作為生因。說明報佛為萬行所成就，酬報往昔的因，用義就像豎立起來一樣。豎立這個用義，就能夠說成是生。

【English Translation】 English version: Although accumulating merits (Puṇya) has the meaning of gathering, there are differences in progressing and not progressing. The merit of giving with the seven treasures only has the meaning of gathering but cannot progress. Clearly upholding and reciting the scriptures has both the meaning of accumulation and the meaning of progress. 'Like a person carrying a heavy load, it is called gathering' refers to this universally metaphorizing the merit of upholding and reciting the scriptures, which is accumulating and has the meaning of progress. 'Such is that accumulation of merit' etc. refers to this explaining the situation of accumulating without progressing, clarifying that the merit of giving with the seven treasures obtains the cause and effect of humans and devas (gods), having the meaning of accumulation, so it is called accumulation, but it cannot bring about Bodhi (enlightenment), so it is called a non-accumulation of merit. 'These two can lead to great Bodhi' refers to this explaining that upholding and expounding the scriptures can remotely obtain Bodhi, which is accumulating and has the meaning of progress. 'Therefore, among those accumulations of merit, this merit is superior' refers to the treatise master concluding, after explaining this scripture with verses and prose, that the merit of upholding and reciting the scriptures is superior to the merit of giving with the seven treasures. 'How can these two attain great Bodhi' refers to the treatise master intending to compose a second verse to explain the following scripture, so he stubbornly asks about the 'two that can lead to Bodhi' in the above verse, what causal meaning does this verse of scripture teaching of upholding and expounding have for Bodhi? 'As the scripture says' below, it is quoting the scripture to answer that there is a causal meaning. Although this scripture is cited as having its causal meaning for Bodhi, the reason for the meaning of acting as a cause is not explained, so it is repeated 'How do the Buddhas speak of Bodhi' etc. as a question, and explained with a verse. 'In reality, it is called the manifesting cause' refers to this second verse explaining the scripture 'All Buddhas' Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled complete enlightenment) come from this scripture', clarifying that upholding this scripture and the Dharma Buddha (Dharmakaya Buddha) is for the manifesting cause, not the creating cause, so it is only said 'In reality, it is called the manifesting cause'. 'Reality' refers to clarifying that the unconditioned Dharmakaya (Dharma body) is always serene and unchanging from ancient times to the present, its essence is free from conditioned falsehood and inversion, so it is called reality. 'Also, it is a cause for other births' refers to explaining the scripture 'All Buddhas and Tathagatas are born from this scripture', clarifying that this scripture can not only be the manifesting cause for the Dharma transformation, but also be the creating cause for the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya Buddhas (Reward Body and Manifestation Body Buddhas). It explains that the Reward Body is accomplished by myriad practices, rewarding past causes, the meaning is like erecting something. Erecting this meaning, it can be said to be birth.

---

故言亦為餘生因。所以復與應佛為生因者，明應從真有，理條然故，亦得言生也。

「唯獨諸佛法佛法」者，釋經中「佛法者即非佛法」也。「唯獨諸佛法」者，唯是諸佛所得，非余凡夫二乘所能得也。第四句「福成第一體」者，結句，明福者受持經福也。「第一體」者，成前生了二因所得法報及應三種無上佛果第一體故，非凡夫二乘所得法也。受持此經，能得三種佛菩提，則有福德，便為因義，成不空說法。那得道言，若不可取說則為空說無益也。「此義云何」以下長行，論作二意來釋向所引一段經。從初至「皆從此經生」故，釋上半偈，解經中「從此經出、從此經生」等也。「菩提者名無為法身，彼體寶無為」者，釋偈上句中「于實」二字，將欲解受持演說於法身爲了因故，先明法身體非作法名無為也。「是故於彼法身，此二能作了因也，不作生因」者，明受持經福不能辨法身體，不作生因，但能顯出法身故，作了因也。「餘者受報相好」，佛應化佛等假受持演說此經故，辨得二佛之用故，結於此為生因也。「以能作菩提因，是故名因」者，通解作生、了因義也。「顯彼福德中此福勝」者，解竟，結其勝義也。「如經」以下，舉所釋經來結也。

「云何成此義」以下，此是論中第二意，釋偈中下二句

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此說（受持演說此經）也是餘生（應化佛）的因。之所以又說（受持演說此經）是應佛（應化佛）的生因，是因為應佛是從真如實相中顯現的，理路條暢自然，所以也可以說是生。 『唯獨諸佛法佛法』，是解釋經中『佛法者即非佛法』的意思。『唯獨諸佛法』，是指只有諸佛才能證得，不是其餘凡夫二乘所能證得的。第四句『福成第一體』，是總結，說明福是指受持此經的福德。『第一體』，是指成就前面所說的生、了二因所得到的法身、報身以及應化三種無上佛果的第一體性，不是凡夫二乘所能得到的。受持此經，能夠得到三種佛菩提，就有福德，便是作為因的意義，成就了不空說法。哪裡能說，如果不可取、不可說，那就是空說，沒有益處呢？『此義云何』以下的長行文，論主用兩種意思來解釋前面所引用的那一段經文。從開始到『皆從此經生』，是解釋上半偈，解釋經中『從此經出、從此經生』等等。 『菩提者名無為法身，彼體寶無為』，是解釋偈頌上句中的『于實』二字，將要解釋受持演說對於法身是了因的緣故，先說明法身體性不是造作之法，名為無為。『是故於彼法身，此二能作了因也，不作生因』，是說明受持經的福德不能辨明法身體性，不作為生因，但能顯現出法身，所以作爲了因。『餘者受報相好』，佛的應化佛等假借受持演說此經的緣故，辨明得到二佛的作用的緣故，總結於此作為生因。『以能作菩提因，是故名因』，是通解作為生因、了因的意義。『顯彼福德中此福勝』，是解釋完畢，總結它的殊勝意義。『如經』以下，是舉出所解釋的經文來總結。 『云何成此義』以下，這是論中的第二種意思，解釋偈頌中的下兩句。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is said that (upholding and expounding this sutra) is also the cause of the remaining lives (Nirmanakaya Buddha). The reason why it is also said that (upholding and expounding this sutra) is the generating cause of the Response Body Buddha (Nirmanakaya Buddha) is because the Response Body Buddha manifests from the true reality, and the reasoning is clear and natural, so it can also be said to be generated. 『The Dharma of all Buddhas alone』 explains the meaning of 『What is called Buddha-dharma is not Buddha-dharma』 in the sutra. 『The Dharma of all Buddhas alone』 refers to what only the Buddhas can attain, not what ordinary people and the two vehicles can attain. The fourth line, 『Blessings accomplish the supreme essence,』 is a conclusion, explaining that blessings refer to the merit of upholding this sutra. 『Supreme essence』 refers to the supreme essence of the Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Nirmanakaya, the three unsurpassed Buddha fruits obtained from the aforementioned generating and enabling causes, which cannot be attained by ordinary people and the two vehicles. Upholding this sutra enables one to attain the three kinds of Buddha-bodhi, which brings blessings and thus serves as the meaning of a cause, accomplishing non-empty teaching. How can it be said that if it cannot be grasped or spoken, it is empty talk and of no benefit? The prose section from 『What is the meaning of this?』 onwards, the treatise uses two meanings to explain the previously quoted passage of scripture. From the beginning to 『all arise from this sutra,』 it explains the first half of the verse, explaining 『arise from this sutra, born from this sutra,』 etc. 『Bodhi is called the unconditioned Dharmakaya, its essence is precious and unconditioned,』 explains the words 『in reality』 in the first line of the verse. Intending to explain that upholding and expounding is an enabling cause for the Dharmakaya, it first clarifies that the nature of the Dharmakaya is not a created dharma, and is called unconditioned. 『Therefore, for that Dharmakaya, these two can act as enabling causes, not generating causes,』 explains that the merit of upholding the sutra cannot discern the nature of the Dharmakaya, and does not act as a generating cause, but can reveal the Dharmakaya, so it acts as an enabling cause. 『The rest receive the rewarded marks and characteristics,』 because the Nirmanakaya Buddha, etc., provisionally uphold and expound this sutra, discerning the function of the two Buddhas, it concludes that this is a generating cause. 『Because it can act as a cause for Bodhi, it is called a cause,』 is a general explanation of the meaning of acting as a generating and enabling cause. 『Among those blessings, this blessing is supreme,』 is the conclusion after the explanation, summarizing its supreme meaning. 『As the sutra says』 below, it cites the sutra that has been explained to conclude. 『How is this meaning accomplished?』 below, this is the second meaning in the treatise, explaining the last two lines of the verse.

---

，復解經中「佛法佛法」等也。「云何成此義」者，還提上經中疑問之意。問云：何受持此一偈經教，能為三佛生了因義，我能生信，故言云何成此義也。故即提偈答「唯獨諸佛法，福成第一體」，明三種佛菩提，從此一偈經出生作二因之義，是佛境界，非汝所知故，但應生信也。「須菩提！所謂佛法」者等至「第一不共義」，復舉下半偈所釋經來略解其經中義，提偈來結也。「以能作第一法因」者，以此持經之福與三種佛菩提第一法作因也。「是故彼福中此福為勝」者，論主以偈及長行論釋此一段經竟，通結持經有福勝七寶施福，故不空說也。

「須菩提！于意云何？須陀洹能作是念：我得果不」者等，此挍量分中第二段經文。所以來者，此有疑故也。此疑亦從第六段如來所說法不可取不可說聖人無為法得名中生第三疑。云何生疑？若一切聖人無為法得名是法不可取說者，須陀洹等亦是聖人，為是無為法得名、為當有為法得名？若有為法得名，則不應言離分段生死；若無為得名，此無為為可取可說、為不可取不可說？若不可取不可說，與上諸佛菩薩所得無為，為一、為異？無為若異者，不應名聖；無為若一，應無有異。又須陀洹等證四沙門果，云何言不可取？復向人說我得沙門果，云何言不可說？若爾，證法

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：再次解釋經文中的『佛法佛法』等詞語。『云何成此義』（如何成就此義）是指再次提出前面經文中的疑問。提問說：如何受持這一偈經教，能夠成為三佛產生的根本原因？我能夠產生信心，所以說『如何成就此義』。因此直接引用偈語回答『唯獨諸佛法，福成第一體』（只有諸佛之法，福德成就第一本體），闡明三種佛菩提，從此一偈經中出生，作為兩種原因的意義，這是佛的境界，不是你所能知道的，所以你應該產生信心。『須菩提！所謂佛法』等直到『第一不共義』（第一不共之義），再次引用下半偈所解釋的經文來簡要解釋其中的意義，引用偈語來總結。『以能作第一法因』（以能作為第一法因）是指，以此持經的福德與三種佛菩提的第一法作為原因。『是故彼福中此福為勝』（所以那些福德中，此福德最為殊勝）是論主用偈語和長行論來解釋這段經文完畢，總的結論是，持經的福德勝過用七寶佈施的福德，所以不是空說的。 『須菩提！于意云何？須陀洹能作是念：我得果不』（須菩提！你的意思如何？須陀洹會這樣想：我證得果位了嗎）等，這是較量分中的第二段經文。之所以這樣說，是因為這裡有疑問。這個疑問也是從第六段如來說法不可取不可說聖人無為法得名中產生的第三個疑問。如何產生疑問？如果一切聖人無為法得名是法不可取說，那麼須陀洹等也是聖人，是用無為法得名，還是用有為法得名？如果用有為法得名，那麼就不應該說離開分段生死；如果用無為法得名，這個無為是可取可說，還是不可取不可說？如果不可取不可說，與上面諸佛菩薩所得的無為，是一樣還是不同？無為如果不同，就不應該稱為聖；無為如果一樣，應該沒有差異。而且須陀洹等證得四沙門果，怎麼說不可取？又向人說我證得沙門果，怎麼說不可說？如果這樣，證法

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, it explains the 『Buddha-dharma, Buddha-dharma』 etc. in the sutra. 『How is this meaning accomplished?』 refers to re-raising the question from the previous sutra. It asks: How can upholding this verse of the sutra teaching become the causal condition for the arising of the three Buddhas? I can generate faith, hence the question 『How is this meaning accomplished?』 Therefore, it directly answers with the verse 『Only the dharmas of all Buddhas, merit becomes the supreme entity,』 clarifying that the three kinds of Bodhi of the Buddhas arise from this one verse of the sutra, serving as the meaning of two causes. This is the realm of the Buddha, not something you can know, so you should simply generate faith. 『Subhuti! What is called Buddha-dharma』 up to 『the supreme unique meaning,』 again quotes the latter half of the verse to briefly explain the meaning within the sutra, using the verse to conclude. 『Because it can be the cause of the supreme dharma』 means that the merit of upholding this sutra serves as the cause for the supreme dharma of the three kinds of Buddha-Bodhi. 『Therefore, among those merits, this merit is the most excellent』 is the commentator's conclusion after explaining this section of the sutra with the verse and the prose commentary, generally concluding that the merit of upholding the sutra surpasses the merit of giving with the seven treasures, so it is not spoken in vain. 『Subhuti! What do you think? Would a Stream-enterer have this thought: Have I attained the fruit?』 etc., this is the second section of scripture in the Discrimination of Merit section. The reason for this is that there is doubt here. This doubt also arises from the third doubt in the sixth section, where the Tathagata's teachings are said to be unattainable and unspeakable, and the unconditioned dharma of the sage is named. How does the doubt arise? If the naming of the unconditioned dharma of all sages is that the dharma is unattainable and unspeakable, then the Stream-enterer etc. are also sages. Is the naming done with unconditioned dharma, or with conditioned dharma? If the naming is done with conditioned dharma, then it should not be said to be free from the segmented cycle of birth and death; if the naming is done with unconditioned dharma, is this unconditioned attainable and speakable, or unattainable and unspeakable? If it is unattainable and unspeakable, is it the same as or different from the unconditioned attained by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas above? If the unconditioned is different, it should not be called a sage; if the unconditioned is the same, there should be no difference. Moreover, the Stream-enterer etc. attain the four fruits of the Shramana, how can it be said to be unattainable? And they say to others, 『I have attained the fruit of the Shramana,』 how can it be said to be unspeakable? If so, the dharma attained

---

便應是可取可說，云何言證法不可取說？有如此疑故，答意明此四沙門果亦是不可取不可說，故經言「實無有法名須陀洹，乃至實無法名羅漢」等。此四人當證果時，不見有一法可證為果，名須陀洹乃至羅漢故，此四沙門果亦不可取說也。此所以言「實無有法名須陀洹」等者，為答有可取說疑，故偏論之。若泛解此四沙門果，亦得言可取說、亦得言不可取說，亦得言有為、亦得言無為。四沙門果無漏智慧，體是無常不免生滅，是其有為，故亦得云有為也。以解生陰無定性，能斷三結煩惱，無處無為之果不受三塗報，乃至羅漢斷四住惑，不受三界報，此是無為樂故，亦得言無為。此二乘之人無我正理及滅結無為，故名為聖；未得因緣真如二種法空，未能盡無明變易生死究竟無為，故不如佛菩薩也。既所證有深淺不同，則條然有別，何得無為名同，便以二乘臨佛菩薩也。此以聖無為名一故，須此經料簡便異也。此四沙門果言可取者，取無為果也。可說者，如己所證，依虛妄名字向餘人說也。言不可取者，證四沙門果時，得無我空解故，于眾生五陰法中無有一法名為須陀洹等。又復不取者，不取色等六塵境界也。不可說者，明所證法但可以心知，非可以言及，故言不可說也。四果人但緣生空證果，尚不可取說，況諸佛菩薩乃

以真如清凈得名而可取說也。為除此疑，次來也。「于意云何？須陀洹能作是念：我得須陀洹果不」者，如來問須菩提，于汝意云何，須陀洹等既得無我之解，斷身見戒取疑證聖果時，猶能作念分別我能得須陀洹果不？故須菩提答言不也，即釋云何以故不也，以實無有法名須陀洹，明須陀洹等於證果時得無我之解，于假名眾生及五陰法泯然一空無所分別，乃至六塵亦空。於此眾生五陰內法中，不見一法定實可名須陀洹等，於六塵境界中亦不見一法是可取故，不作是念我得須陀洹等果也。從「須陀洹乃至無有一法名為羅漢」，通舉四果，明不可取說以釋前疑，類義可知也。因問阿羅漢不作是念言我得羅漢，生於疑難：若羅漢證果時不生念言我得果者，何故羅漢猶作云我得羅漢也？故答「世尊！若羅漢作是念：我得羅漢。則爲著我人」等也。答意明前言「我不作念得羅漢」者，謂證羅漢果時斷四住惑盡，故不作念我能得果。此阿羅漢猶有習氣無明之惑未斷故，后更作念言我能得果，非謂有四住我人壽者等我見也。然依此經，但偏論羅漢所未除習，或不論前三果所未斷或。依下論釋則通辨前三人，明前二人始斷我常二到，未斷二到故有行煩惱。后之二人，樂凈亦除故無行煩惱，唯有無明習氣也。

「世尊！我得無諍三

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以真如清凈的體性而得名，卻又可以執取談論嗎？爲了消除這個疑問，接下來佛陀發問。『于意云何？須陀洹（梵文Srotāpanna，入流果）能作是念：我得須陀洹果不？』如來問須菩提，在你的意思看來如何？須陀洹等既然證得了無我的理解，斷除了身見、戒禁取見、疑，證得了聖果的時候，還能生起念頭，分別說我能得到須陀洹果嗎？所以須菩提回答說：『不也』。接著解釋說：為什麼不能呢？因為實際上沒有一種法可以稱為須陀洹，說明須陀洹等在證果的時候，得到了無我的理解，對於假名眾生以及五陰法，完全泯滅空寂，沒有什麼可以分別的，乃至六塵也是空寂的。在這眾生五陰的內法中，不見有一種法是真實可以稱為須陀洹等的，在六塵境界中，也不見有一種法是可以執取的，所以不會生起念頭說我得到了須陀洹等果。從『須陀洹乃至無有一法名為羅漢（梵文Arhat，阿羅漢）』，總括了四果，說明不可執取言說，以此來解釋前面的疑問，類似的道理可以理解。因為提問阿羅漢不會生起念頭說我得到了阿羅漢，產生了疑問：如果阿羅漢證果的時候不生起念頭說我得到了果，為什麼阿羅漢還會說我得到了阿羅漢呢？所以回答說：『世尊！若羅漢作是念：我得羅漢。則爲著我人』等。回答的意思是說，前面說『我不作念得羅漢』，是指證得阿羅漢果的時候，斷盡了四住煩惱，所以不會生起念頭說我能得到果。這個阿羅漢還有習氣無明的迷惑沒有斷盡，所以後來又生起念頭說我能得到果，不是說有四住煩惱的我見、人見、壽者見等。然而依據這部經，只是偏重論述阿羅漢所沒有去除的習氣，或者不論述前三果所沒有斷除的惑。依據下文的論述解釋，則普遍辨析前三果，說明前二果開始斷除我見和常見兩種顛倒，沒有斷除另外兩種顛倒，所以有行煩惱。后二果，樂見和凈見也除掉了，所以沒有行煩惱，只有無明習氣。 『世尊！我得無諍三昧（梵文Arana Samadhi，無諍三昧）』

【English Translation】 English version: Can it be named and spoken of based on the purity of True Thusness? To dispel this doubt, the following question arises. 'What do you think? Can a Srotāpanna (stream-enterer) have the thought: 'I have attained the fruit of Srotāpanna'?' The Tathagata asks Subhuti, what do you think? Since Srotāpannas and others have attained the understanding of no-self, and have cut off the view of self, adherence to precepts, and doubt, when they attain the holy fruit, can they still have the thought and make the distinction that 'I can attain the fruit of Srotāpanna?' Therefore, Subhuti answers, 'No.' Then it is explained, why not? Because in reality, there is no dharma that can be called Srotāpanna, clarifying that when Srotāpannas and others attain the fruit, they attain the understanding of no-self, and for the falsely named beings and the five skandhas, they are completely extinguished and empty, without any distinctions, and even the six sense objects are also empty. Within the inner dharma of these beings and the five skandhas, there is not a single dharma that can be truly called Srotāpanna, and within the realm of the six sense objects, there is not a single dharma that can be grasped, so they do not have the thought that 'I have attained the fruit of Srotāpanna.' From 'Srotāpanna to there is not a single dharma called Arhat (worthy one),' it encompasses the four fruits, clarifying that it cannot be grasped and spoken of, to explain the previous doubt, and similar principles can be understood. Because of the question that an Arhat does not have the thought that 'I have attained Arhat,' a doubt arises: If an Arhat does not have the thought that 'I have attained the fruit' when attaining the fruit, why does the Arhat still say that 'I have attained Arhat?' Therefore, the answer is: 'World Honored One! If an Arhat has the thought: 'I have attained Arhat,' then it would be attached to self and others,' etc. The meaning of the answer is that the previous statement 'I do not have the thought of attaining Arhat' refers to when attaining the fruit of Arhat, the four abodes of affliction are completely cut off, so there is no thought that 'I can attain the fruit.' This Arhat still has the residual habit of ignorance and delusion that has not been completely cut off, so later they have the thought that 'I can attain the fruit,' not that there are the views of self, others, lifespan, etc., of the four abodes of affliction. However, according to this sutra, it only focuses on discussing the residual habits that the Arhat has not removed, or does not discuss the delusions that the previous three fruits have not cut off. According to the commentary below, it universally analyzes the previous three fruits, clarifying that the previous two fruits begin to cut off the two inversions of self and permanence, and have not cut off the other two inversions, so there are afflictions of action. The latter two fruits have also removed the views of pleasure and purity, so there are no afflictions of action, only the residual habits of ignorance. 'World Honored One! I have attained the Arana Samadhi (samadhi of non-contention).'

---

昧等第一」等者，如來常說惡事發露、善法覆藏，此中須菩提何故自云「佛說我得無諍三昧第一」也？然須菩提將欲引己所得，不作是念：我得無諍三昧離欲阿羅漢證，成第四果。不取之義有同不同。明其餘羅漢言我不作念者，無四住粗，或猶未斷習我。今須菩提言不作念者，習我亦無，以善伏故非為永斷。所以道此，欲使人生信，如須菩提實證此法也。然須菩提言不作念者，恒作心防護，令習氣我不起也。又復須菩提是法身菩薩現為聲聞，永無習氣故，不作念我得羅漢也。「佛說我得無諍三昧最為第一」者，此三昧所以名無諍三昧者，以須菩提能善作心防護習氣，自於眾生不起貪瞋癡心，復不命眾生於已起貪瞋癡心。故經中須菩提自云「若有人嫌我坐者，我當終日立不移處。若有人嫌我立者，我當終日坐」等。故須菩提至於行乞，每以定心觀察眾生，前人於我不起障者便入聚落，若起障者則止不行乞。明須菩提於四威儀中常自善防護習氣令使不起，以得此三昧不與人競，此煩惱障分盡故，名得無諍三昧也。

如舍利弗等其餘羅漢，不能善防習氣故與物競。與物競故，無有無諍三昧。若爾，有人生難：如來塵習皆盡，何故猶為孫陀梨等之所謗毀？豈有習氣未盡也？答意如來非以有習氣故為人所謗，有二義故。如

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：關於『無諍三昧第一』等問題，如來佛經常說要揭露惡事，隱藏善法，那麼這裡須菩提為什麼自稱『佛說我得無諍三昧第一』呢？實際上，須菩提想要引述自己所證得的境界，但他並沒有這樣想：我證得了無諍三昧，是離欲的阿羅漢，成就了第四果。『不取』的含義有相同和不同之處。說明其他的阿羅漢說『我不作念』，是因為他們沒有四住地的粗重煩惱，或者還沒有斷除習氣中的『我』。現在須菩提說『不作念』，是指連習氣中的『我』也沒有了，因為他善於調伏，但並非永遠斷除。之所以這樣說，是爲了使人生起信心，相信須菩提確實證得了這種法。然而，須菩提說『不作念』，是指他經常用心防護，使習氣中的『我』不生起。而且，須菩提是法身菩薩，示現為聲聞，永遠沒有習氣，所以他不會認為『我得到了阿羅漢果』。『佛說我得無諍三昧最為第一』，這個三昧之所以被稱為無諍三昧，是因為須菩提能夠很好地用心防護習氣，自己不對眾生生起貪嗔癡的心，也不使眾生對自己生起貪嗔癡的心。所以經中須菩提自己說：『如果有人嫌我坐著，我就整天站著不動。如果有人嫌我站著，我就整天坐著』等等。因此，須菩提在行乞時，總是以定心觀察眾生，如果前面的人不對我生起障礙，就進入村落，如果生起障礙，就停止不行乞。說明須菩提在行住坐臥四種威儀中，經常善於防護習氣，使它不生起，因為他得到了這種三昧，不與人爭鬥，這種煩惱障已經部分消除，所以被稱為得到了無諍三昧。 像舍利弗（Sariputra）等其他的阿羅漢，不能很好地防護習氣，所以會與外物爭鬥。因為與外物爭鬥，所以沒有無諍三昧。如果這樣，有人會產生疑問：如來佛的塵沙惑和習氣都已斷盡，為什麼還會被孫陀梨（Sundari）等人誹謗譭謗？難道還有習氣沒有斷盡嗎？回答是，如來佛不是因為有習氣才被人誹謗，而是因為有兩個原因。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the question of 'being foremost in the Samadhi of Non-Contention,' the Tathagata (如來，another name for the Buddha) often says to reveal evil deeds and conceal good deeds. So why does Subhuti (須菩提, one of the principal disciples of the Buddha) here claim, 'The Buddha said I have attained the Samadhi of Non-Contention as the foremost'? In reality, Subhuti wants to refer to the state he has attained, but he doesn't think like this: 'I have attained the Samadhi of Non-Contention, I am an Arhat (阿羅漢, one who is worthy) free from desires, and I have achieved the fourth fruit.' The meaning of 'non-grasping' has similarities and differences. Explaining that other Arhats say 'I do not make such a thought' is because they do not have the gross afflictions of the four abodes, or they have not yet severed the habitual 'self.' Now, when Subhuti says 'I do not make such a thought,' it means that even the habitual 'self' is gone, because he is skilled in subduing it, but it is not permanently severed. The reason for saying this is to inspire faith in people, to believe that Subhuti has indeed attained this Dharma (法, the teachings of the Buddha). However, when Subhuti says 'I do not make such a thought,' it means that he constantly protects his mind, preventing the habitual 'self' from arising. Moreover, Subhuti is a Dharmakaya (法身, the body of the Dharma) Bodhisattva (菩薩, an enlightened being) appearing as a Sravaka (聲聞, a disciple who attains enlightenment by hearing the teachings), and he never has habitual tendencies, so he does not think, 'I have attained Arhatship.' 'The Buddha said I have attained the Samadhi of Non-Contention as the most foremost,' the reason this Samadhi is called the Samadhi of Non-Contention is because Subhuti is able to skillfully protect his mind from habitual tendencies, he himself does not generate greed, anger, or delusion towards sentient beings, nor does he cause sentient beings to generate greed, anger, or delusion towards himself. Therefore, in the Sutra (經, a scripture), Subhuti himself says, 'If someone dislikes me sitting, I will stand still all day long. If someone dislikes me standing, I will sit still all day long,' and so on. Therefore, when Subhuti goes begging for alms, he always observes sentient beings with a concentrated mind. If the person in front of him does not generate obstacles for him, he enters the village; if they generate obstacles, he stops and does not beg for alms. This explains that Subhuti is always skilled in protecting himself from habitual tendencies in the four postures of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, preventing them from arising, because he has attained this Samadhi, he does not contend with others, and this affliction obstacle is partially eliminated, so it is called attaining the Samadhi of Non-Contention. Like Sariputra (舍利弗, one of the principal disciples of the Buddha) and other Arhats, they cannot skillfully protect themselves from habitual tendencies, so they contend with external things. Because they contend with external things, they do not have the Samadhi of Non-Contention. If so, someone might raise a question: The Tathagata's dust-like afflictions and habitual tendencies are all exhausted, so why is he still slandered and defamed by Sundari (孫陀梨, a woman who falsely accused the Buddha) and others? Could it be that there are still habitual tendencies that have not been exhausted? The answer is that the Tathagata is not slandered because he has habitual tendencies, but because of two reasons.

---

來知眾生根機故聽人謗：一、因此譭謗度彼眾生；二、欲為顯佛功德故也。然如來五百大弟子皆得三昧，乃多少不同而各得第一之名。如舍利弗得十千三昧智慧第一，目連亦得十千三昧而神足第一。須菩提得六萬三昧，于弟子中無諍三昧最為第一，故如來於大眾中每嘆其德。須菩提既得六萬三昧等種種功德，何故唯嘆此一？以此三昧六萬三昧功德中勝，故偏嘆也。

「世尊說我是離欲羅漢」等，此嘆空行第一。離何等欲？五塵境界名之為欲。此明前境為欲，非謂貪慾煩惱名之為欲，以貪等煩惱久已斷盡。明須菩提善得五塵境空，雖緣五塵而此欲境不能閡其心。為譴此三昧障分盡，於己所得三昧隨分自在，故云離欲也。

「以須菩提實無所行」者，明須菩提離二障故，不作念取我無諍三昧第一、我是離欲羅漢，故言實無所行也。「而名須菩提無諍無諍行」者，此雙牒前「無諍三昧、離欲羅漢」二句經來，明須菩提以無心念我無諍三昧第一、我為羅漢，乃至習氣不行故離二種障，並立二無諍名也。

何者二種障？一是煩惱障，二是三昧障。而須菩提善得空行故，當所除無知分盡，清凈所得三昧明審，所未得者則不能知、已得者如實而知，無有錯謬，此無知之或不能拘閡擁塞其心，故名無三昧障也。煩惱

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如來知道眾生的根器，所以聽任他人誹謗：一、因此（如來）可以通過（被）譭謗來度化那些眾生；二、想要藉此來彰顯佛的功德。然而如來的五百大弟子都得到了三昧（Samadhi，一種精神集中狀態），只是多少不同，各自得到第一的美名。例如舍利弗（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）得到十千三昧，智慧第一；目連（Maudgalyayana，佛陀十大弟子之一，以神通著稱）也得到十千三昧，神通第一。須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀十大弟子之一，以解空第一著稱）得到六萬三昧，在弟子中無諍三昧最為第一，所以如來在大眾中常常讚歎他的德行。須菩提既然得到六萬三昧等種種功德，為什麼只讚歎這一個（無諍三昧）呢？因為這個三昧在六萬三昧的功德中最為殊勝，所以偏偏讚歎它。 『世尊說我是離欲羅漢』等，這是讚歎須菩提的空行第一。離開什麼樣的欲呢？五塵境界（色、聲、香、味、觸）名為欲。這裡說明前境是欲，不是說貪慾煩惱名為欲，因為貪等煩惱早就斷盡了。說明須菩提善於領悟五塵境空，雖然接觸五塵，但是這些欲境不能阻礙他的心。爲了去除這種三昧的障礙，對於自己所得到的三昧隨分自在，所以說離欲。 『以須菩提實無所行』，說明須菩提因為遠離二障的緣故，不作意去想『我的無諍三昧第一』、『我是離欲羅漢』，所以說『實無所行』。『而名須菩提無諍無諍行』，這是雙重引用前面『無諍三昧、離欲羅漢』兩句經文，說明須菩提因為沒有心念『我的無諍三昧第一』、『我為羅漢』，乃至習氣不行，所以遠離兩種障礙，並因此建立兩種無諍之名。 什麼是兩種障礙呢？一是煩惱障，二是三昧障。而須菩提善於領悟空行，所以應當去除的無知部分已經去除乾淨，清凈所得的三昧明晰審慎，對於未得到的則不能知，已得到的如實而知，沒有錯謬，這種無知不能拘禁擁塞他的心，所以名為無三昧障。煩惱

【English Translation】 English version: Knowing the faculties of sentient beings, the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One, an epithet of the Buddha) allows others to slander: First, through this slander, he can liberate those sentient beings; second, he wants to reveal the merits of the Buddha. However, the five hundred great disciples of the Tathagata all attained Samadhi (三昧, a state of meditative consciousness), but to varying degrees, and each obtained the first name in their respective fields. For example, Sariputra (舍利弗, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) obtained ten thousand Samadhis and was the first in wisdom; Maudgalyayana (目連, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his supernatural powers) also obtained ten thousand Samadhis and was the first in supernatural powers. Subhuti (須菩提, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his understanding of emptiness) obtained sixty thousand Samadhis, and among the disciples, his Samadhi of Non-Contention was the foremost, so the Tathagata often praised his virtue in the assembly. Since Subhuti obtained sixty thousand Samadhis and various other merits, why only praise this one (Samadhi of Non-Contention)? Because this Samadhi is the most excellent among the merits of the sixty thousand Samadhis, so it is particularly praised. 『The World Honored One said that I am an Arhat (羅漢, enlightened being) free from desire,』 etc., this praises Subhuti's practice of emptiness as the foremost. What kind of desire is being left behind? The realm of the five sense objects (五塵境界, form, sound, smell, taste, and touch) is called desire. This explains that the external realm is desire, not that greed and afflictions are called desire, because greed and other afflictions have long been completely eradicated. It explains that Subhuti is skilled in understanding the emptiness of the five sense objects, and although he is in contact with the five sense objects, these realms of desire cannot obstruct his mind. In order to remove this obstacle of Samadhi, he is at ease with the Samadhi he has attained, so it is said that he is free from desire. 『Because Subhuti truly has no action,』 this explains that Subhuti, because he is free from the two obscurations, does not intentionally think 『My Samadhi of Non-Contention is the foremost,』 『I am an Arhat free from desire,』 so it is said that 『he truly has no action.』 『And is named Subhuti Non-Contention Non-Contention Practice,』 this is a double reference to the previous two phrases 『Samadhi of Non-Contention, Arhat free from desire』 from the sutra, explaining that Subhuti, because he has no thought of 『My Samadhi of Non-Contention is the foremost,』 『I am an Arhat,』 and even his habitual tendencies do not arise, he is free from the two kinds of obscurations, and therefore two names of Non-Contention are established. What are the two kinds of obscurations? One is the obscuration of afflictions (煩惱障), and the other is the obscuration of Samadhi (三昧障). And because Subhuti is skilled in understanding the practice of emptiness, the portion of ignorance that should be removed has been completely removed, the Samadhi obtained in purity is clear and discerning, he cannot know what has not been obtained, and he knows what has been obtained as it truly is, without error, this ignorance cannot restrain and obstruct his mind, so it is called no obscuration of Samadhi. Afflictions

---

障者，謂貪瞋癡等習氣煩惱。明須菩提得無我空解，先斷四住執性惑盡，復善防護心，自於眾生不起貪瞋癡習，亦令眾生於己身上不起貪慾等煩惱。不為此粗細二惑拘閡其心故，無煩惱障；以善伏習氣故，離煩惱障，故能識人心、不與物諍。以善達前境空故離三昧障，不為境界擁塞其心、不與境違，故云無諍無諍行也。其餘羅漢不能善達五塵體空，故所得三昧中多有錯謬。如目連記其日當雨，爾時天竟不雨。以彼聲聞人智慧微淺觀心不徹，為前境所閡故，當分所得三昧中不清凈故有三昧障，又復不善防習氣故有煩惱障。以有此三段無二無諍行也。然聲聞人非但所得三昧不清凈，有設使作神通變化雖百千萬，但能令一心一作，不能令多心多作。然菩薩則不爾，菩薩之人解五塵虛妄本來空寂，復能現見真如平等之理，故萬境不能擁閡其心，所得神通隨意自在，遍周法界多心異作。聲聞非但一心一作，而所知復近不達久遠。如有一人至祇洹精舍求欲出家。爾時五百羅漢俱時入定觀此人根機，時出定已語其人言：「汝過無善根。設令入道，會不證果，故汝不得出家。」此人煩惱便欲出去，至精舍門邊渧泣。值如來從外而至，見此人即問：「汝何故渧泣？」彼人白佛：「我欲出家，諸比丘不聽，故渧哭欲去耳。」佛知此人雖近無

善根，曾過去久遠有善，今欲得道。佛即告言：「善來比丘。」即成羅漢，衣缽具足。雖得羅漢，以新出家故，不解比丘威儀。如來將欲使其現神通力令諸弟子見而問之故，教言：「汝洗缽盂莫著地上。」亦不教置其缽床上若草葉上等。此比丘洗訖置虛空中，以神通力故而缽住空不墮。諸比丘見已怪問：「此何比丘神力乃爾？」佛即答言：「曏者白衣求欲出家，汝等皆言無善根者，此人是也。」諸比丘既聞此已，深生慚愧。故知小乘羅漢所得三昧不但錯謬，設令善得亦不知遠事也。

「論曰：向說聖人至不可說」等，牒前第六段中生疑處經來也。「若須陀洹等至云何成不可說」，舉四果來作難，難辭不異經中生起也。「自下經文為斷此疑」以下，指前經中作釋疑意，成不可取說義也。此一段經設一偈論釋盡耶？偈上二句通釋四果經文，下二句偏釋須菩提獨得無諍三昧以下經文也。

「不可取及說」者，明行者證四果時，以離身見或等故，于眾生五陰中及以六塵不見一法，名之為果。亦無心念我能得果，故不可取。既無一定法可證為果，亦無證法兆狀可說示人，故言不可取及說也。「何以故然」下，第二句云自果不取故也。此亦應言四果是可說，但為成上不可取說義故，𨷂不論也。「依彼善吉」者，正[番

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 善根，過去很久以前就種下了善因，現在想要得道。佛陀就告訴他說：『善來比丘（好的，歡迎你來做比丘）。』他立刻就成了阿羅漢，袈裟和缽都自然具備。雖然成了阿羅漢，因為是新出家，所以不瞭解比丘的威儀。如來想要讓他顯現神通力，讓弟子們看到並詢問，所以教導他說：『你洗完缽盂不要放在地上。』也沒有教他把缽放在床上或者草葉上等地方。這位比丘洗完后把缽放在虛空中，因為有神通力，所以缽停留在空中沒有掉下來。眾比丘看到後感到奇怪，問道：『這位比丘的神力怎麼這麼大？』佛陀就回答說：『之前那個白衣（指在家的人）來求出家，你們都說他沒有善根，就是這個人。』眾比丘聽了這些話后，深感慚愧。所以知道小乘阿羅漢所得到的禪定不僅有錯謬，即使善於得到禪定，也不知道長遠的事情。 『論曰：向說聖人至不可說』等，這是重複前面第六段中產生疑問的地方的經文。『若須陀洹（入流果）等至云何成不可說』，這是舉出四果來發難，發難的措辭和經文中產生疑問的地方一樣。『自下經文為斷此疑』以下，指的是前面經文中解釋疑問的意思，成就不可取說的意義。這一段經文用一個偈頌來解釋完畢嗎？偈頌的前兩句是通用的，用來解釋四果的經文，后兩句是專門用來解釋須菩提（解空第一）獨得無諍三昧（無諍三昧）以下的經文。 『不可取及說』，說明修行者證得四果的時候，因為遠離了身見等等，所以在眾生的五陰（色、受、想、行、識）中以及六塵（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）中，看不到一個法，這叫做果。也沒有心念說我能夠得到果，所以不可取。既然沒有一定的法可以證明是果，也沒有證明法的徵兆可以告訴別人，所以說不可取及說。『何以故然』下，第二句說因為自己不執取果。這裡也應該說四果是可以說的，但是爲了成就上面不可取說的意義，所以暫時不論。『依彼善吉（須菩提的尊稱）』，這是正...

【English Translation】 English version Good roots: In the distant past, he had accumulated good deeds, and now he desired to attain enlightenment. The Buddha then said to him, 'Welcome, Bhikkhu (monk).' He immediately became an Arhat, complete with robes and bowl. Although he had become an Arhat, being newly ordained, he did not understand the proper conduct of a Bhikkhu. The Tathagata (Buddha), wishing to reveal his supernatural powers so that the disciples could see and inquire, instructed him, 'After washing your bowl, do not place it on the ground.' He also did not instruct him to place the bowl on the bed or on grass, etc. After washing, this Bhikkhu placed the bowl in the empty space, and because of his supernatural power, the bowl remained suspended in the air without falling. Upon seeing this, the Bhikkhus were astonished and asked, 'How can this Bhikkhu have such great supernatural power?' The Buddha replied, 'The white-robed (layperson) who previously sought ordination, whom you all said had no good roots, is this person.' Upon hearing this, the Bhikkhus felt deeply ashamed. Therefore, it is known that the Samadhi (state of meditative consciousness) attained by Hinayana (small vehicle) Arhats is not only flawed, but even if they skillfully attain Samadhi, they do not understand long-term matters. 'The Treatise says: 'Previously, it was said that the sage is beyond description,' etc., this reiterates the passage from the sixth section where doubts arose. 'If Srotapanna (stream-enterer) etc., how can it be indescribable?' This raises the four fruits as a challenge, the wording of the challenge being the same as where the doubts arose in the sutra. 'From the following sutra text onwards, this doubt is resolved,' etc., this refers to the meaning of resolving doubts in the previous sutra, establishing the meaning of being ungraspable and unspeakable. Does this section of the sutra use a single verse to completely explain it? The first two lines of the verse are general, used to explain the sutra text on the four fruits, and the last two lines are specifically used to explain the sutra text following Subhuti (foremost in understanding emptiness) uniquely attaining the Arana Samadhi (non-contention samadhi). 'Ungraspable and unspeakable' means that when a practitioner attains the four fruits, because they are free from self-view, etc., they do not see a single dharma (phenomenon) in the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) of sentient beings and the six sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma), this is called a fruit. There is also no thought of 'I am able to attain the fruit,' therefore it is ungraspable. Since there is no fixed dharma that can be proven to be a fruit, and there are no signs of proving the dharma that can be shown to others, it is said to be ungraspable and unspeakable. 'Why is this so?' Below, the second line says it is because one does not grasp the fruit itself. It should also be said here that the four fruits are speakable, but in order to establish the meaning of being ungraspable and unspeakable above, it is temporarily not discussed. 'Relying on that Subhuti (honorific title for Subhuti),' this is precisely...

---

*及]須菩提名。「說離二種障」者，明須菩提得無諍三昧及離欲空行，故離二障也。

「此義云何」以下一段論，凡有二意：從初至「我能得果」，釋偈中二句，解經中四果經文也。「以聖人無為法得名至名羅漢」，解四果人證無為法得名為聖故。「須陀洹乃至羅漢」，釋上疑，成不可取說也。「然聖人非不取無為法，以取自果」，明此四果聖人雖當證時不取以成不可取說，然出證后還自謂得此無為果，亦有可取說義也。

「若聖人起心我能得果，則爲著我人」等者，此義云何？即釋云「以有使煩惱非現行煩惱」。「使煩惱」者，習氣、無明二煩惱也。「非現煩惱」者，后二果人無有示相不示相畜妻為世事粗惑行煩惱也。四果之中，前二果在家，須陀洹、斯陀含雖斷示相我，故有不示相我；猶畜妻婦行於世事，故有行煩惱；復有無明習氣故，亦有使煩惱。后二果無有示相不示相、不行世事故、無行煩惱；有無明及習故，有使煩惱也。今言無煩惱者，此偏釋那含、羅漢也，亦應通云前二果也有使煩惱、有行煩惱，但論主好略，唯辨后之二人也。

「何以故？彼于證時離取我等煩惱」者，何故明此中論主欲顯此義？假疑難：若在家二果猶有行煩惱者，何故言須陀洹等二果離取我見等或而名聖人也？故

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以及]須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以解空第一著稱）的名義。「說離二種障」是指須菩提證得了無諍三昧（Arana Samadhi，一種止息爭論的禪定）以及遠離了對慾望的空性修行，因此他遠離了兩種障礙。 「此義云何」以下的一段論述，大致包含兩種含義：從開頭到「我能得果」，解釋了偈語中的兩句，並解釋了經文中的四果（Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arhat，聲聞乘修行的四個階段）的含義。 「以聖人無為法得名至名羅漢」，解釋了四果之人證得無為法（Asamskrta-dharma，不生不滅的真理）而得名為聖人的原因。 「須陀洹乃至羅漢」，解釋了之前的疑問，成就了不可取說的觀點。 「然聖人非不取無為法，以取自果」，闡明了這四果聖人雖然在證悟時不執取，從而成就了不可取說的觀點，但在證悟之後，他們仍然認為自己獲得了這種無為果，因此也有可取說的含義。 「若聖人起心我能得果，則爲著我人」等，這是什麼意思呢？ 解釋說：「因為有使煩惱（anusaya-klesa，潛在的煩惱），而不是現行煩惱（pariyuṭṭhāna-kilesa，顯現的煩惱）」。 「使煩惱」指的是習氣（vasana，長期熏習形成的習性）和無明（avidya，對事物真相的無知）這兩種煩惱。 「非現煩惱」指的是后二果之人沒有表現出示相或不示相，也沒有娶妻生子，從事世俗事務的粗重迷惑和行為煩惱。 在四果之中，前二果是在家人，須陀洹（Sotapanna，入流果）和斯陀含（Sakadagami，一來果）雖然斷除了示相的我見，但仍然存在不示相的我見；他們仍然娶妻生子，從事世俗事務，因此存在行為煩惱；並且由於仍然存在無明習氣，因此也存在使煩惱。 后二果之人沒有示相或不示相，不從事世俗事務，因此沒有行為煩惱；但由於存在無明和習氣，因此存在使煩惱。 現在說沒有煩惱，這只是偏重於解釋阿那含（Anagami，不還果）和阿羅漢（Arhat，無學果）的情況，也應該普遍地說前二果之人也有使煩惱和行為煩惱，但論主喜歡簡略，只辨析了后二果的情況。 「何以故？彼于證時離取我等煩惱」是什麼意思呢？ 為什麼論主要在此處闡明這個道理？ 這是假設一個疑問：如果在家二果仍然存在行為煩惱，那麼為什麼說須陀洹等二果遠離了取我見等煩惱，因而被稱為聖人呢？

【English Translation】 English version: And] Subhuti (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for being foremost in understanding emptiness). 'Speaking of being free from the two kinds of obstacles' means that Subhuti attained the Arana Samadhi (a meditative state of cessation of disputes) and the practice of emptiness that is free from desire, thus he is free from the two obstacles. The section from 'What is the meaning of this?' roughly contains two meanings: from the beginning to 'I can attain the fruit,' it explains the two lines in the verse and the meaning of the four fruits (Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arhat, the four stages of practice in the Sravaka vehicle) in the sutra. 'Attaining the name of a saint through the unconditioned dharma of the saint, up to the name Arhat,' explains why those who attain the four fruits are called saints because they have attained the unconditioned dharma (Asamskrta-dharma, the uncreated and unceasing truth). 'Sotapanna up to Arhat,' explains the previous doubt and establishes the view of non-grasping. 'However, the saints do not not grasp the unconditioned dharma, because they grasp their own fruit,' clarifies that although these saints of the four fruits do not grasp at the time of enlightenment, thus establishing the view of non-grasping, after enlightenment, they still think that they have attained this unconditioned fruit, so there is also the meaning of grasping. 'If a saint has the thought 'I can attain the fruit,' then they are attached to self and others,' etc. What does this mean? It is explained as: 'Because there are anusaya-klesa (latent afflictions), not pariyuṭṭhāna-kilesa (manifest afflictions).' 'Anusaya-klesa' refers to the two afflictions of vasana (habitual tendencies formed through long-term conditioning) and avidya (ignorance of the true nature of things). 'Non-manifest afflictions' refers to the fact that the latter two fruits do not show signs of showing or not showing, nor do they marry and have children, engaging in the gross delusions and behavioral afflictions of worldly affairs. Among the four fruits, the first two fruits are householders, Sotapanna (Stream-enterer) and Sakadagami (Once-returner), although they have cut off the self-view of showing signs, they still have the self-view of not showing signs; they still marry and have children, engaging in worldly affairs, so there are behavioral afflictions; and because there are still avidya and vasana, there are also anusaya-klesa. The latter two fruits do not show signs of showing or not showing, and do not engage in worldly affairs, so there are no behavioral afflictions; but because there are avidya and vasana, there are anusaya-klesa. Now, saying that there are no afflictions only emphasizes the explanation of Anagami (Non-returner) and Arhat (Liberated being), and it should also be generally said that the first two fruits also have anusaya-klesa and behavioral afflictions, but the commentator prefers brevity and only analyzes the situation of the latter two. What does 'Why? Because they are free from grasping at self and other afflictions at the time of enlightenment' mean? Why does the commentator want to clarify this principle here? This is assuming a question: If the two fruits who are householders still have behavioral afflictions, then why is it said that the two fruits such as Sotapanna are free from grasping at self-view and other afflictions, and therefore called saints?

---

云「何以故」也。即答「彼于證時離取我等煩惱」，此明前之二人當證果時，得無我之解，除身見等示相之惑，無取果之心，名為聖人。所以有現行煩惱者，出證更起不示相我見等或、行於世事，故有行煩惱也。「是故無如是心我能得果」者，結前二果人證時不取之義也。故經中說「有一比丘得須陀洹，自唱言：淫慾煩惱焚燒我心。遂即休道還家行世法。」以此驗知，前之二人有行煩惱也。

「何故須菩提自嘆身得受記」以下，此段第二，意釋下半偈，解「無諍三昧」等經文故先設問。如來常說惡事發覆、善法覆藏，何故須菩提眾中自嘆身得受記？故釋云「以自身證果」，明此無諍三昧唯須菩提得、餘人不得，顯己功德故也。

「為于彼義中生信心故」者，此答前疑難。疑意云：有人生念，如來雖道須菩提得無諍三昧是離欲羅漢，不知為得不得？以何驗之，知須菩提得？生疑不信故，須菩提于大眾中嘆云「世尊說我得無諍三昧」，拂去眾疑，令其生信，成上「不作是念我能得果」。須菩提得故，不作念也。

又解云：須菩提何故顯己功德？故答「為于彼義中生信心故」，明須菩提以己所得勝法，勸餘二乘令生信故也。

「何故唯說無諍行」者，問云：須菩提所得三昧乃有六萬，何故唯嘆無諍

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：云：『什麼緣故呢？』即回答說：『他們在於證果的時候，遠離了執取我等煩惱。』這說明前面的兩個人，在證得果位的時候，得到了無我的理解，消除了身見等執著于表象的迷惑，沒有執取果位的心，可以稱為聖人。之所以有現行的煩惱，是因為證果之後又生起了不執著于表象的我見等迷惑，或者行於世俗之事，所以有現行的煩惱。『因此沒有這樣的心念，認為我能夠得到果位』，這是總結前面兩種果位的人在證果的時候不執取的意義。所以經中說：『有一個比丘證得了須陀洹（Srotapanna，入流果），自己唱言：淫慾煩惱焚燒我的心。』於是就停止修行還家，行世俗之法。』以此驗證得知，前面的兩個人有現行的煩惱。 『為什麼須菩提（Subhuti）自己讚歎自身得到授記』以下，這段是第二部分，意在解釋下半偈，解釋『無諍三昧（Arana Samadhi，無諍定）』等經文，所以先提出問題。如來（Tathagata）常常說惡事要揭露，善法要隱藏，為什麼須菩提在眾人之中自己讚歎自身得到授記？所以解釋說：『以自身證果』，說明這無諍三昧只有須菩提得到，其他人沒有得到，是爲了彰顯自己的功德。 『爲了對於那個意義中生起信心』，這是回答前面的疑問。疑問的意思是：有人產生念頭，如來雖然說須菩提得到無諍三昧是離欲的阿羅漢（Arhat，應供），不知道是得到了還是沒有得到？用什麼來驗證，知道須菩提得到了？因為產生懷疑不相信，所以須菩提在大眾之中讚歎說：『世尊（Bhagavan）說我得到無諍三昧』，拂去眾人的疑惑，讓他們生起信心，成就上面所說的『不作是念我能得果』。須菩提得到了，所以不產生這樣的念頭。 又解釋說：須菩提為什麼彰顯自己的功德？所以回答說：『爲了對於那個意義中生起信心』，說明須菩提用自己所得到的殊勝之法，勸導其餘的二乘（Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）人令他們生起信心。 『為什麼只說無諍行』，問：須菩提所得到的三昧有六萬種，為什麼只讚歎無諍？

【English Translation】 English version: The question is, 'What is the reason for this?' The answer is, 'They are free from the afflictions of grasping at self, etc., when they attain enlightenment.' This clarifies that the two individuals mentioned earlier, upon attaining the fruit of enlightenment, gained an understanding of non-self, eliminated the delusions of attachment to appearances such as the view of self, and had no mind of grasping at the fruit. They can be called sages. The reason why there are present afflictions is that after attaining enlightenment, they give rise to delusions such as the view of self that does not adhere to appearances, or they engage in worldly affairs, hence the presence of afflictions. 'Therefore, there is no such thought as, 'I can attain the fruit,'' which summarizes the meaning that the two types of enlightened individuals do not grasp at the time of attaining enlightenment. Therefore, the sutra says, 'There was a Bhikshu (monk) who attained Srotapanna (stream-enterer), and he proclaimed, 'The afflictions of lust are burning my heart.' Then he ceased practicing and returned home to engage in worldly affairs.' From this, we can verify that the two individuals mentioned earlier have present afflictions. 'Why did Subhuti (Subhuti) praise himself for receiving a prophecy?' This second section intends to explain the latter half of the verse, explaining the sutra passages such as 'Arana Samadhi (Non-Contention Samadhi),' so it first poses a question. The Tathagata (Tathagata) often says that evil deeds should be revealed and good deeds should be concealed. Why did Subhuti praise himself in the assembly for receiving a prophecy? Therefore, the explanation is, 'By attaining the fruit himself,' indicating that only Subhuti attained this Arana Samadhi, and no one else did, in order to manifest his own merits. 'In order to generate faith in that meaning,' this answers the previous doubt. The meaning of the doubt is: Someone may have the thought that although the Tathagata said that Subhuti attained Arana Samadhi and is an Arhat (Arhat) free from desire, it is not known whether he attained it or not. How can we verify that Subhuti attained it? Because of doubt and disbelief, Subhuti praised in the assembly, 'The Bhagavan (Bhagavan) said that I attained Arana Samadhi,' dispelling the doubts of the assembly and causing them to generate faith, fulfilling the above statement, 'Not having the thought that I can attain the fruit.' Because Subhuti attained it, he does not have such a thought. Another explanation is: Why did Subhuti manifest his own merits? Therefore, the answer is, 'In order to generate faith in that meaning,' indicating that Subhuti used the superior Dharma he had attained to encourage the other Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana (Two Vehicles) practitioners to generate faith. 'Why only speak of non-contention practice?' The question is: Subhuti attained 60,000 Samadhis, why only praise non-contention?

---

三昧者而不嘆余德也？故答「有二義故」也。一「為明勝功德」，明聲聞法中無諍三昧是最勝功德第一之法，獨須菩提得，餘者不得。設得不如，故偏嘆之。二「為生深信」故，欲使余羅漢未得之流，於此三昧生決定信求證此法，故曰深信也。

「何故言以須菩提至說離二種障故」，此舉經設問以偈來答也。「二種障者至故言無所行」，出偈中須菩提所離二障之名，釋經中實無所行也。

「以是義故說名二種諍」者以下，雙釋二諍、二無諍名。「以是義故」者，此一句通釋諍、無諍二句。若不善護人心，為五欲境所閡，故有二種。以是有二障義故，與人物違境故，說為二種諍名也。「離彼二種障故名無所行」者，明須菩提善防人心、不為欲境所雍，故離二障。以是離二障義故，說名二種無諍行也。

「佛告須菩提：如來昔在燃燈佛所受記」者，此第七挍量分中第三段文說。此何以來？由前第六大分中明如來所說法皆不可取不可說，疑：云何如來昔為菩薩時，于燃燈佛所受記作佛者，便是證法可取可說。若爾者，是證法有名相可取可說，云何言證法名相不可取說也？疑謂菩薩于爾時已得無生忍記故。為斷此疑，答云：燃燈時言語授記，未得證智，故彼言語可取說也。及后證時絕於名相，那得以言語授

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：為什麼修習三昧的人不讚嘆其他的功德呢？所以回答說『因為有兩個原因』。一是『爲了闡明殊勝的功德』，說明在聲聞法中，無諍三昧是最殊勝、功德第一的法，只有須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以解空第一著稱）才能得到，其他人得不到。即使得到，也不如須菩提，所以偏偏讚歎他。二是『爲了生起深刻的信心』，想要讓其他尚未證得此三昧的阿羅漢，對此三昧生起堅定的信心，求證此法，所以說是深刻的信心。 『為什麼說須菩提乃至說遠離兩種障礙的緣故』，這是引用經文設問，用偈頌來回答。『兩種障礙乃至說無所行』，這是說偈頌中須菩提所遠離的兩種障礙的名稱，解釋經文中的『實在沒有什麼行為』。 『因為這個緣故說名為兩種諍』以下，分別解釋兩種諍、兩種無諍的名稱。『因為這個緣故』，這一句總括解釋諍、無諍兩句。如果不能好好守護人心，被五欲之境所阻礙，所以有這兩種諍。因為有這兩種障礙的緣故，與人物、環境相違背的緣故，所以說為兩種諍的名稱。『遠離那兩種障礙的緣故名為無所行』，說明須菩提善於防守人心，不被慾望之境所壅塞，所以遠離兩種障礙。因為這個遠離兩種障礙的緣故，說名為兩種無諍行。 『佛告訴須菩提：如來過去在燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha，過去佛之一）處接受授記』，這是第七較量分中的第三段文字。為什麼會提到這個？因為前面第六大分中說明如來說的一切法都不可執取、不可言說，有人會疑惑：為什麼如來過去作為菩薩時，在燃燈佛處接受授記說將來會成佛，這豈不是證明佛法是可以執取、可以言說的？如果是這樣，那麼證明佛法有名相可以執取、可以言說，為什麼又說證明佛法名相不可執取、不可言說呢？疑惑在於菩薩在當時已經得到了無生法忍的授記。爲了斷除這個疑惑，回答說：在燃燈佛時用言語授記，還沒有得到證智，所以那些言語是可以執取、可以言說的。等到後來證悟時，就超越了名相，怎麼能用言語授記呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Why doesn't one who practices Samadhi praise other virtues? Therefore, the answer is 'because of two reasons.' First, 'to clarify the supreme merit,' explaining that in the Sravaka (Śrāvaka, a disciple of Buddha) Dharma, the Samadhi of Non-Contention is the most supreme and the foremost Dharma of merit, which only Subhuti (Subhuti, one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for understanding emptiness) can attain, and others cannot. Even if they attain it, it is not as good as Subhuti's, so he is particularly praised. Second, 'to generate deep faith,' wanting to make other Arhats (Arhat, one who has attained Nirvana) who have not yet attained this Samadhi, generate firm faith in this Samadhi and seek to attain this Dharma, so it is said to be deep faith. 'Why is it said that Subhuti even speaks of being apart from the two kinds of obstacles?' This is quoting the sutra to ask a question, and answering with a verse. 'The two kinds of obstacles even say there is nothing to do,' this is stating the names of the two obstacles that Subhuti has distanced himself from in the verse, explaining the 'truly there is no action' in the sutra. 'Because of this reason, it is said to be two kinds of contention' below, separately explaining the names of the two kinds of contention and the two kinds of non-contention. 'Because of this reason,' this sentence generally explains the sentences of contention and non-contention. If one cannot properly guard one's mind and is hindered by the realm of the five desires, then there are these two kinds of contention. Because there are these two kinds of obstacles, and because of conflicting with people and environments, it is said to be the name of two kinds of contention. 'Being apart from those two kinds of obstacles is called no action,' explaining that Subhuti is good at guarding his mind and is not blocked by the realm of desires, so he is apart from the two kinds of obstacles. Because of this reason of being apart from the two kinds of obstacles, it is said to be the practice of two kinds of non-contention. 'The Buddha told Subhuti: The Tathagata (Tathagata, 'the thus-gone one', an epithet of the Buddha) in the past received a prediction at Dipamkara Buddha's (Dipamkara Buddha, one of the past Buddhas) place,' this is the third section of text in the seventh comparison division. Why is this mentioned? Because the previous sixth great division explained that all the Dharmas spoken by the Tathagata are not to be grasped or spoken of, some may doubt: Why did the Tathagata, when he was a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, one who seeks enlightenment) in the past, receive a prediction at Dipamkara Buddha's place saying that he would become a Buddha in the future, doesn't this prove that the Dharma can be grasped and spoken of? If so, then proving that the Dharma has names and forms that can be grasped and spoken of, why is it said that proving the Dharma's names and forms cannot be grasped or spoken of? The doubt lies in the Bodhisattva having already received the prediction of non-origination forbearance at that time. To dispel this doubt, the answer is: At the time of Dipamkara Buddha, the prediction was given in words, and enlightenment had not yet been attained, so those words could be grasped and spoken of. When enlightenment is later attained, it transcends names and forms, how can it be predicted in words?

---

記難證法同名相可取說也！為斷此疑，明如來昔在燃燈佛所得菩提不，釋此是應佛如來。若是應佛者，則不修證果，何故乃引燃燈佛所授記實菩薩證成此義？然應佛雖復不實，終不道言我是應化，以由真有應據本而談故，引燃燈佛時實行菩薩為證也。此明非無菩薩，以未有所證，故言實無所得，成上不可取說義也。如來爾時猶是地前習種性中凡夫菩薩不現前授記，唯有言語，未有證法，故可取說，然復非不有實證菩薩。但難家據地前未證為問，故就問處答之。然實證菩薩者，下經中言「通達無我無我法，離二無我者，是名真是菩薩菩薩」指此為正答也。

此言「燃燈」者，凡有四種三時授記：一是習種性中；二性種性中不現前授記；三是初地中現前授記；四在佛地中無生忍授記。今言「燃燈記」者，釋迦爾時猶是習種性菩薩，未得初地以上無生忍證法也。今明如來問須菩提：汝謂我爾時已證初地無生菩提記也？須菩提解答：如來在燃燈所言語受記，未得初地無生記也，故云燃燈所實無所得也。如《婆伽羅經》說「我昔在習種性時，于星宿劫中供養七十億那由他佛，一一佛住世逕六十億那由他劫，而彼佛皆不與我受記。」何以故？以未得無生忍地故。

「論曰：復有疑」，論主將欲設偈釋此分第三經文故，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：

難證的法與同名相是否可以被言說呢？爲了斷除這個疑惑，說明如來過去在燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha，過去佛之一，為釋迦牟尼佛授記）處是否得到了菩提（Bodhi，覺悟），解釋這裡所說的應佛如來（應化身佛）。如果是應佛，那麼就不需要修證果位，為什麼還要引用燃燈佛所授記的真實菩薩來證明這個道理呢？然而，應佛雖然不是真實的，但終究不會說『我是應化』，因為真實的存在是根據根本而說的，所以引用燃燈佛時的實行菩薩作為證明。這說明並非沒有菩薩，而是因為還沒有所證悟，所以說『實無所得』，成就了上面『不可取說』的意義。如來當時還是地前習種性（處於修行最初階段的凡夫菩薩）中的凡夫菩薩，沒有當面授記，只有言語，還沒有證得法，所以可以被言說，然而並非沒有真實證悟的菩薩。但是提問者根據地前未證悟的情況來提問，所以就著提問的地方回答。然而，真實證悟的菩薩，在下面的經文中說『通達無我無我法，離開二種無我的人，這才是真正的菩薩』，指的就是這個作為正確的回答。

這裡說的『燃燈』，總共有四種三時授記：一是習種性中；二是性種性中不當面授記；三是初地中當面授記；四是在佛地中無生忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti，對法不生不滅的證悟）授記。現在說的『燃燈記』，是說釋迦牟尼佛當時還是習種性菩薩，還沒有得到初地以上的無生忍證法。現在說明如來問須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以解空第一著稱）：你認為我當時已經證得初地無生菩提的授記了嗎？須菩提解答：如來在燃燈佛那裡只是言語上的授記，還沒有得到初地的無生記，所以說在燃燈佛那裡實際上沒有得到什麼。如《婆伽羅經》（Bhagala Sutra）所說『我過去在習種性時，在星宿劫中供養了七十億那由他佛，每一尊佛住世經歷了六十億那由他劫，而那些佛都沒有給我授記。』為什麼呢？因為沒有得到無生忍地。

『論曰：復有疑』，論主將要設立偈頌來解釋此分第三經文，

【English Translation】 English version:

Can the Dharma (law, teaching) that is difficult to prove and the corresponding names and characteristics be spoken of? To dispel this doubt, it clarifies whether the Tathagata (Tathagata, 'Thus Gone One', an epithet of the Buddha) obtained Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment) from Dipamkara Buddha (Dipamkara Buddha, one of the past Buddhas who predicted Shakyamuni Buddha's future Buddhahood). It explains that this refers to the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha (Nirmanakaya, the emanation body of the Buddha). If it is a Nirmāṇakāya Buddha, then there is no need to cultivate and attain fruition. Why then is the prediction of the real Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, an enlightened being who postpones their own nirvana to help others) by Dipamkara Buddha cited to prove this point? However, although the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha is not real, it would never say 'I am an emanation,' because the real existence is spoken of based on the fundamental. Therefore, the practicing Bodhisattva at the time of Dipamkara Buddha is cited as proof. This clarifies that it is not that there are no Bodhisattvas, but because there is nothing yet attained, it is said 'actually nothing was obtained,' thus accomplishing the meaning of 'cannot be spoken of' above. At that time, the Tathagata was still an ordinary Bodhisattva in the stage of habitual nature (a beginner Bodhisattva before reaching the first Bhumi), without a face-to-face prediction, only words, and had not yet attained the Dharma, so it could be spoken of. However, it is not that there were no Bodhisattvas with real attainment. But the questioner asked based on the unproven state before reaching the Bhumis, so the answer addresses the point of the question. However, regarding the Bodhisattvas with real attainment, the sutra below says, 'Those who understand the non-self and the non-self of phenomena, and are free from the two kinds of non-self, are called true Bodhisattvas,' referring to this as the correct answer.

The term 'Dipamkara' refers to the four types of predictions given at three times: first, in the stage of habitual nature; second, in the stage of nature without a face-to-face prediction; third, in the first Bhumi (Bhumis, stages of the Bodhisattva path) with a face-to-face prediction; and fourth, in the Buddha Bhumi with the prediction of Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti, the acceptance that phenomena are neither created nor destroyed). The 'Dipamkara prediction' refers to the fact that Shakyamuni Buddha was still a Bodhisattva in the stage of habitual nature at that time, and had not yet attained the Dharma of Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti above the first Bhumi. Now it clarifies that the Tathagata asked Subhuti (Subhuti, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his understanding of emptiness): Do you think that I had already attained the prediction of Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti of the first Bhumi at that time? Subhuti answered: The Tathagata only received a verbal prediction from Dipamkara Buddha, and had not yet attained the Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti of the first Bhumi, so it is said that actually nothing was obtained from Dipamkara Buddha. As the Bhagala Sutra (Bhagala Sutra) says, 'In the past, when I was in the stage of habitual nature, I made offerings to seventy billion nayutas (nayutas, a large number) of Buddhas during the Kalpa (Kalpa, an aeon) of constellations. Each Buddha lived for sixty billion nayutas of Kalpas, but none of those Buddhas gave me a prediction.' Why? Because I had not attained the ground of Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti.

'The Treatise says: There is further doubt,' the author of the treatise is about to establish a verse to explain the third section of this sutra,

---

序上不可取說中第四疑意。先舉疑者，謬引過去佛所有取說，來難今說證法便同可取說也。為斷此疑，以下論主取經答，意明菩薩於過去佛所未得證法，成不可取說，答有取說疑。「如經」者，總舉釋疑經結也。「何故如是說」者，疑者引燃燈佛來作可取說難，還應答以不可取說意，何故乃雲實無所得阿耨三菩提，作此不正答也？

「佛于燃燈語」一偈，釋此一段經也。此言「佛」者，今釋迦佛也。「于燃燈語」者，于彼燃燈佛時，唯言語受記也。「不取理實智」者，明當受記時，未得無生忍證法實智也。「以是真實義」者，有二種：一者成上第六段中不可取說，二者成上非法也。云何成上不可取說？前言證法絕名相故不可取說，難言乃引昔燃燈佛時授記為難，答者意明本燃燈授記唯有言語，言語是音聲之性故可取說，非是證法可取可說，故得成上不可取說也。二者若證法猶是無名相不可取說者，還覆上第二疑言教一向非法故，答意明證法雖無言，得證故能說，尋此言說還能得證，故言教是法，非是非法也。故言「以是真實義，成彼無取說」也。以是言語授記不得證智真實義故，猶得成彼證智不可取說也。二者直以證智之體無有名相故亦不可取，說真實義，故下句云「成彼無取說」也。

「此義云何」以

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 序言中關於『不可取說』的第四個疑點，源於有人錯誤地引用過去佛（指過去的諸佛）的所有『取說』（可以被執取的言說），來質疑現在的說法，認為證悟之法也同樣是可以被執取的。爲了消除這個疑慮，下面論主引用經文來回答，意在說明菩薩在過去佛那裡尚未獲得證悟之法，因此是『不可取說』，以此迴應『有取說』的質疑。「如經」二字，是總結解釋疑慮的經文。「何故如是說」的意思是，質疑者引用燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）的例子來作為『可取說』的論據，反過來應該用『不可取說』的道理來回答，為什麼反而說『實際上沒有獲得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）』，做出這種不正確的回答呢？

『佛于燃燈語』一偈，解釋了這段經文。這裡的『佛』，指的是現在的釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）。『于燃燈語』，指的是在燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）那裡，僅僅是語言上的授記。「不取理實智」說明在接受授記的時候，還沒有獲得無生法忍（anutpattika-dharma-ksanti，對諸法不生不滅的證悟）的證悟之法和真實的智慧。「以是真實義」有兩種含義：一是成就了前面第六段中的『不可取說』，二是成就了前面的『非法』。如何成就『不可取說』呢？前面說證悟之法超越了名相，所以是『不可取說』，質疑者卻引用過去燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）授記的例子來反駁。回答者的意思是，燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）的授記僅僅是語言上的，語言是聲音的性質，所以是可以被執取的，而不是證悟之法可以被執取和言說的，因此成就了前面的『不可取說』。二是如果證悟之法仍然是無名相的『不可取說』，那麼就又回到了前面第二個疑點，即言教完全是非法的。回答者的意思是，證悟之法雖然沒有語言，但是因為獲得了證悟，所以能夠說，通過這些言說還能獲得證悟，所以言教是法，而不是非法。所以說『以是真實義，成彼無取說』。因為這種語言上的授記沒有獲得證悟智慧的真實意義，所以仍然能夠成就那種證悟智慧的『不可取說』。二是直接以證悟智慧的本體沒有名相，所以也是不可取、說的真實意義，所以下一句說『成彼無取說』。

『此義云何』以

【English Translation】 English version The fourth doubt in the introduction regarding 'non-graspable speech' arises from the erroneous citation of all 'graspable speech' (utterances that can be clung to) of past Buddhas (referring to previous Buddhas) to challenge the current teaching, arguing that the Dharma of enlightenment is also equally graspable. To dispel this doubt, the following is the treatise master's response, quoting scriptures, intending to clarify that Bodhisattvas have not yet attained the Dharma of enlightenment from past Buddhas, hence it is 'non-graspable speech,' responding to the doubt of 'graspable speech.' The phrase 'as the scripture' summarizes the scriptures that explain the doubt. 'Why is it said in this way?' means that the questioner cites the example of Dipamkara Buddha (Dipamkara Buddha) as an argument for 'graspable speech,' and should be answered with the principle of 'non-graspable speech' in return. Why instead say 'actually did not attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment),' giving this incorrect answer?

The verse 'The Buddha spoke to Dipamkara' explains this passage of scripture. The 'Buddha' here refers to the current Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha). 'Spoke to Dipamkara' refers to the fact that at Dipamkara Buddha (Dipamkara Buddha), there was only verbal prediction. 'Does not grasp the true wisdom of principle' clarifies that at the time of receiving the prediction, one had not yet attained the Dharma of enlightenment and the true wisdom of no-birth forbearance (anutpattika-dharma-ksanti, the realization of the non-arising and non-ceasing of all dharmas). 'With this true meaning' has two meanings: first, it accomplishes the 'non-graspable speech' in the preceding sixth section, and second, it accomplishes the preceding 'non-dharma.' How does it accomplish 'non-graspable speech'? The previous statement said that the Dharma of enlightenment transcends names and forms, so it is 'non-graspable speech,' but the questioner cited the example of Dipamkara Buddha's (Dipamkara Buddha) prediction in the past to refute it. The answerer means that Dipamkara Buddha's (Dipamkara Buddha) prediction was only verbal, and language is the nature of sound, so it can be grasped, but the Dharma of enlightenment cannot be grasped and spoken, thus accomplishing the preceding 'non-graspable speech.' Second, if the Dharma of enlightenment is still the nameless and formless 'non-graspable speech,' then it returns to the second doubt, that is, verbal teachings are completely non-dharma. The answerer means that although the Dharma of enlightenment has no language, it can be spoken because enlightenment has been attained, and enlightenment can still be attained through these verbal teachings, so verbal teachings are Dharma, not non-dharma. Therefore, it is said 'With this true meaning, accomplish that non-graspable speech.' Because this verbal prediction does not obtain the true meaning of enlightened wisdom, it can still accomplish that 'non-graspable speech' of enlightened wisdom. Second, directly because the essence of enlightened wisdom has no names and forms, it is also the true meaning of non-graspable and unspeakable, so the next sentence says 'accomplish that non-graspable speech.'

'What is the meaning of this' with

---

下長行，論有二意：從初至「無取說故」，釋上半偈及經釋竟，以下半偈來結也。「又若聖人」以下，此是第二論主序疑者意，生下凈土山王喻經也。從「聖人」至「不可說」，舉上第六段中經文也。「云何諸菩薩取凈佛國土」者，此一疑別生下凈土經也。「云何受樂報佛」以下二疑，別生下山王喻經也。

「佛告須菩提：若菩薩作是言我莊嚴佛土」者，此挍量分中第四經文。何以故起？由第六段中皆不可取說生第五疑。上疑雲：若聖人無為法得名，是法不可取說者，諸佛菩薩所得依報凈土，為是世諦、為是第一義也？若是第一義者，可是不可取說；若是有為世諦者，則是可取可說也。

疑者言：此凈土若是有為者，諸菩薩既取此凈土，云何言不可取說？若使依報凈土是有為者，聖人猶受有報，云何言聖人無為法得名不可取說也？此疑謂出世凈土同於有為土也。故下經中佛答言，凈土有二種：一是地前，有為形相七寶莊嚴，三界所攝；二是地上，出世間凈土第一義莊嚴，非三界所攝。以初地以上聖人報出三界土也，汝那得以世間凈土難於出世間凈土？此真凈土不同於世間凈土可取說也。此近答第六段不可取說疑，亦遠答第五段中疑也。

「譬如有人身如須彌山王」者，猶釋第六段不可取說中疑。若

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：下文是長行，討論有兩個要點：從開始到『無取說故』，解釋了上半偈頌以及經文的解釋完畢，以下半偈頌來作總結。『又若聖人』以下，這是第二位論主爲了消除疑惑而提出的，引出了下文關於凈土和須彌山王的比喻的經文。從『聖人』到『不可說』，引用了上面第六段中的經文。『云何諸菩薩取凈佛國土』，這個疑問特別引出了下文關於凈土的經文。『云何受樂報佛』以下的兩個疑問，特別引出了下文關於須彌山王的比喻的經文。", "", "『佛告須菩提：若菩薩作是言我莊嚴佛土』，這是較量功德分中的第四段經文。為什麼會提出這個問題呢？因為第六段中所有內容都不可執取和言說，由此產生了第五個疑問。之前的疑問是：如果聖人因無為法而得名，那麼諸佛菩薩所獲得的依報凈土，是屬於世俗諦還是第一義諦呢？如果是第一義諦，那麼當然是不可執取和言說的；如果是有為的世俗諦，那麼就是可以執取和言說的。", "", "提出疑問的人說：這個凈土如果是有為的，那麼諸菩薩既然取了這凈土，為什麼說不可執取和言說呢？如果依報凈土是有為的，聖人仍然接受有為的果報，為什麼說聖人因無為法而得名，是不可執取和言說的呢？這個疑問認為出世間的凈土等同於有為的世間土。因此，下文的經文中佛陀回答說，凈土有兩種：一種是初地之前的，具有有為的形相，以七寶莊嚴，屬於三界所管轄；另一種是初地以上的，是出世間的凈土，以第一義諦莊嚴，不屬於三界所管轄。因為初地以上的聖人的果報是超出三界的凈土，你為什麼能用世間的凈土來質疑出世間的凈土呢？這真正的凈土不同於世間的凈土，是不可執取和言說的。這既是直接回答了第六段中不可執取和言說的疑問，也是間接回答了第五段中的疑問。", "", "『譬如有人身如須彌山王（Sumeru）』，仍然是爲了解釋第六段中不可執取和言說的疑問。" ], "english_translations": [ "English version: The following is a long passage, discussing two main points: from the beginning to 'wu qu shuo gu' (無取說故, meaning 'because there is nothing to grasp or speak of'), it explains the first half of the gatha (偈頌, verse) and the explanation of the sutra (經, scripture) is completed, and the second half of the gatha is used to conclude. From 'you ruo sheng ren' (又若聖人, meaning 'moreover, if a sage') onwards, this is the second commentator raising doubts to dispel them, leading to the following sutra about the analogy of the Pure Land and Mount Sumeru (須彌山, Sumeru). From 'sheng ren' (聖人, sage) to 'bu ke shuo' (不可說, unspeakable), it quotes the scripture from the sixth section above. 'Yun he zhu pusa qu jing fo guo tu' (云何諸菩薩取凈佛國土, meaning 'how do the Bodhisattvas take hold of the pure Buddha lands?'), this question specifically leads to the following sutra about the Pure Land. The two questions from 'yun he shou le bao fo' (云何受樂報佛, meaning 'how does the Buddha receive joyful retribution?') onwards, specifically lead to the following sutra about the analogy of Mount Sumeru.", "", "'Fo gao Xuputi: ruo pusa zuo shi yan wo zhuangyan fo tu' (佛告須菩提：若菩薩作是言我莊嚴佛土, meaning 'The Buddha told Subhuti: If a Bodhisattva says, \'I adorn Buddha lands\''), this is the fourth scripture passage in the section on comparing merits. Why is this question raised? Because everything in the sixth section is ungraspable and unspeakable, which gives rise to the fifth doubt. The previous doubt was: if a sage is named because of unconditioned dharma (法, dharma), then the dependent reward Pure Land obtained by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, does it belong to conventional truth or ultimate truth? If it is ultimate truth, then of course it is ungraspable and unspeakable; if it is conditioned conventional truth, then it is graspable and speakable.", "", "The questioner says: if this Pure Land is conditioned, then since the Bodhisattvas have taken this Pure Land, why is it said to be ungraspable and unspeakable? If the dependent reward Pure Land is conditioned, and the sage still receives conditioned retribution, then why is it said that the sage is named because of unconditioned dharma, which is ungraspable and unspeakable? This doubt considers the Pure Land beyond the world to be the same as the conditioned worldly land. Therefore, in the following scripture, the Buddha answers that there are two types of Pure Land: one is before the first ground (初地, first bhumi), with conditioned forms, adorned with the seven treasures, and governed by the three realms; the other is above the first ground, which is the Pure Land beyond the world, adorned with ultimate truth, and not governed by the three realms. Because the retribution of the sages above the first ground is the Pure Land beyond the three realms, how can you use the worldly Pure Land to question the Pure Land beyond the world? This true Pure Land is different from the worldly Pure Land, and is ungraspable and unspeakable. This directly answers the doubt about being ungraspable and unspeakable in the sixth section, and also indirectly answers the doubt in the fifth section.", "", "'Pi ru you ren shen ru Sumeru shan wang' (譬如有人身如須彌山王, meaning 'For example, if a person's body is like Mount Sumeru'), this is still to explain the doubt about being ungraspable and unspeakable in the sixth section." ] }

---

聖人無為法得名，是法不可取說者，報佛如來十地行滿，華臺受報佛職，得無量功德，自謂我是法王，復取莊嚴凈土。若如是，則證法可取說。若是可取說者，此報佛是有為所攝也。若有為攝者，則是無常。若無常者，則漏不盡。漏若不盡，不名為佛也。若是無為，與法佛為一、為異？如其一者，法佛無色相，報佛亦應無色相。若與法身異，此之報佛則從生因生。若生因生，則本無今有、已有還無，則是無常。云何言聖人無為法得名不可取說也？

又論中生起言「云何余世間復取彼是法王身」者，此是因第六段不可取說中生第七疑。疑雲：十方諸佛及余世間，亦言某甲世界某甲菩薩十地行滿受報佛職，亦道彼是法王。若報佛可為他取說者，云何言無為法得名不可取說也？故佛引須彌山王喻以答此疑，明報佛體是無為不可取說，非是有為可取說也。所以然者，以佛修行斷惑因緣，即本有之性現用名為報佛。既有報佛正果，便有依報真實凈土自在之用故，是無為非有為，亦非條然故常也。上所以說報佛如來從生因生者，望報用義邊是其始有故，義中說了為生，非報佛體從生因生是無常也。此近答第七段中疑，亦遠答第五段中疑，故次明也。

「若菩薩言我莊嚴佛國土。彼菩薩不實語」。此是地前菩薩取相行，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：聖人因為無為法而得名，這種法是不可執取和言說的。如果說報佛（報身佛，指通過修行獲得的果報之身）如來十地修行圓滿，在華臺接受果報佛的職位，得到無量功德，並且自稱『我是法王』，又去莊嚴清凈佛土。如果像這樣，那麼所證得的法就是可以執取和言說的。如果（所證的）是可以執取和言說的，那麼這個報佛就是有為法所包含的。如果是被有為法所包含，那就是無常的。如果是無常的，那麼煩惱就沒有斷盡。如果煩惱沒有斷盡，就不能稱為佛。如果是無為法，那麼與法佛（法身佛，指佛的真如法性之身）是一還是異？如果是一，法佛沒有色相，報佛也應該沒有色相。如果與法身不同，那麼這個報佛就是從生因所生。如果是從生因所生，那就是本來沒有現在有，已經有了還會消失，那就是無常。怎麼能說聖人因為無為法而得名，是不可執取和言說的呢？ 又，論中生起這樣的言論：『為什麼其他世間又執取他是法王之身？』這是因為第六段『不可執取和言說』而產生的第七個疑問。疑問是：十方諸佛以及其他世間，也說某個世界某個菩薩十地修行圓滿，接受果報佛的職位，也說他是法王。如果報佛可以被他人執取和言說，怎麼能說無為法得名是不可執取和言說的呢？所以佛用須彌山王的比喻來回答這個疑問，說明報佛的本體是無為的，不可執取和言說，不是有為的可以執取和言說的。之所以這樣，是因為佛通過修行斷除迷惑的因緣，原本就有的自性顯現作用，就叫做報佛。既然有了報佛的正果，便有了依報（指佛土）真實清凈自在的作用，所以是無為的，不是有為的，也不是固定不變的。上面所說的報佛如來是從生因所生，是就報身的作用而言，是說它有一個開始，所以從意義上說是『生』，而不是說報佛的本體是從生因所生，是無常的。這是就近回答第七段中的疑問，也從遠處回答了第五段中的疑問，所以接下來進行說明。 『如果菩薩說我莊嚴佛國土，這位菩薩就是在說不真實的話。』這是地前菩薩取相修行。

【English Translation】 English version: The sage is named by the unconditioned (Wuwei) Dharma, and this Dharma is not to be grasped or spoken of. If the Reward Body Buddha (Baofo, the Buddha's body of fruition attained through practice) has completed the Ten Bhumis (ten stages of Bodhisattva development), receives the position of Reward Body Buddha on a lotus platform, obtains immeasurable merits, and proclaims 'I am the Dharma King,' and then proceeds to adorn the pure Buddha-land. If it is like this, then the Dharma attained is graspable and speakable. If it (the Dharma attained) is graspable and speakable, then this Reward Body Buddha is included within the conditioned (Youwei). If included within the conditioned, then it is impermanent (Wuchang). If it is impermanent, then defilements (Lou) are not completely exhausted. If defilements are not exhausted, then one is not called a Buddha. If it is unconditioned, is it one with or different from the Dharma Body Buddha (Fashenfo, the Dharmakaya Buddha, representing the Buddha's true nature)? If they are one, the Dharma Body Buddha has no form, and the Reward Body Buddha should also have no form. If it is different from the Dharma Body, then this Reward Body Buddha arises from a cause of birth. If it arises from a cause of birth, then it is originally non-existent but now exists, and having existed, it will cease to exist again, which is impermanent. How can it be said that the sage is named by the unconditioned Dharma, which is not to be grasped or spoken of? Furthermore, the treatise raises the statement: 'Why do other worlds again grasp him as the body of the Dharma King?' This is the seventh doubt arising from the sixth section, 'Not to be grasped or spoken of.' The doubt is: Buddhas of the ten directions and other worlds also say that a certain Bodhisattva in a certain world has completed the Ten Bhumis, received the position of Reward Body Buddha, and also say that he is the Dharma King. If the Reward Body Buddha can be grasped and spoken of by others, how can it be said that the unconditioned Dharma is named as not to be grasped or spoken of? Therefore, the Buddha uses the analogy of Mount Sumeru to answer this doubt, clarifying that the essence of the Reward Body Buddha is unconditioned, not to be grasped or spoken of, and not conditioned to be grasped or spoken of. The reason for this is that the Buddha, through the causes and conditions of practice and severing afflictions, manifests the inherent nature, which is called the Reward Body Buddha. Since there is the right fruition of the Reward Body Buddha, there is the dependent fruition (referring to the Buddha-land) of true, pure, and unhindered function. Therefore, it is unconditioned, not conditioned, and not fixedly constant. The above statement that the Reward Body Buddha comes from a cause of birth refers to the aspect of the Reward Body's function, saying that it has a beginning, so in meaning, it is said to be 'born,' but it does not mean that the essence of the Reward Body Buddha comes from a cause of birth and is impermanent. This is a near answer to the doubt in the seventh section and also a distant answer to the doubt in the fifth section, so it is explained next. 'If a Bodhisattva says, 'I adorn the Buddha-land,' that Bodhisattva is speaking untruthfully.' This refers to the practice of a Bodhisattva before the Ten Bhumis who is attached to forms.

---

但得有為莊嚴眾寶、無石沙荊棘之穢以為真凈土，不知別有出世真凈土。但以己所得為真實凈土也，謂同蓮華藏世界等，更無別真實無為凈土，故言不實語也。

「何以故」者，即生疑也。難云：若形相莊嚴非真凈土者，何以故如來說我所得凈土勝相莊嚴如自在天宮，我凈土中眾生無慾如梵似天也？又何故教眾生言：我修凈土因時，平治道路除去荊棘運高就下等，以為凈土因，得此凈土之報。尋如來誠言，此凈土似有形狀。既有形相，則三界所攝、便可取說，云何言凈土非形相莊嚴不可取說，若取形相莊嚴則不實語？故云何以故也。

故佛答言「如來所說莊嚴佛土者」，將欲誘進始學故以近況遠，故說我所得凈土如自在天宮等也。又隨世間說，世人以此形相七寶琳瑯者為凈土故，佛隨俗說是凈土，非謂第一義諦真實凈土，故云如來說莊嚴佛土也，然非不是世間有為有漏形相莊嚴也。「則非莊嚴」者，此隨世俗說以為凈土，非出世間第一義諦真實凈土，故云則非也。「是名莊嚴佛土」者，如是非形相莊嚴者，即是真實第一義莊嚴也。亦得云形相莊嚴非莊嚴者，是名非莊嚴也。

然此言「凈土」者，正是諸佛依報真實智慧第一義土，此土以真如法性為體，即蓮華藏世界。此之凈土與真報佛，語體則同、

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果只認為用各種寶物莊嚴、沒有石頭沙礫荊棘等污穢的地方才是真正的凈土，卻不知道還有出世間的真正凈土，只把自身所證得的境界當作真實的凈土，認為與蓮華藏世界等同，此外再沒有其他真實無為的凈土，這就是不真實的說法。

『何以故』，這是產生疑問。難問道：如果形相莊嚴不是真正的凈土，為什麼如來說我所證得的凈土勝妙莊嚴如同自在天宮，我的凈土中的眾生沒有慾望如同梵天一樣？又為什麼教導眾生說：我修凈土的因地時，平整道路、除去荊棘、將高處填平、將低處墊高等，作為凈土的因，才能得到這種凈土的果報。考察如來的誠實之言，這凈土似乎是有形狀的。既然有形相，就被三界所攝，就可以被取著和談論，為什麼說凈土不是形相莊嚴，不可取著和談論，如果取著形相莊嚴就是不真實的說法？所以說『何以故』呢？

所以佛回答說：『如來說莊嚴佛土』，是爲了引導初學者，所以用近處的情況來比喻遠處，所以說我所證得的凈土如同自在天宮等。又是隨順世間的說法，世人認為用各種珍寶裝飾的地方是凈土，所以佛隨順世俗的說法，說那是凈土，而不是第一義諦的真實凈土，所以說如來說莊嚴佛土。然而並非不是世間有為有漏的形相莊嚴。『則非莊嚴』，這是隨順世俗的說法認為是凈土，不是出世間第一義諦的真實凈土，所以說『則非』。『是名莊嚴佛土』，像這樣不是形相莊嚴的，就是真實第一義的莊嚴。也可以說形相莊嚴不是莊嚴，這叫做非莊嚴。

然而這裡所說的『凈土』，正是諸佛依報的真實智慧第一義土，此土以真如法性為體，就是蓮華藏世界。這凈土與真報佛，在本體上是相同的。

【English Translation】 English version: If one only considers a place adorned with various treasures, free from the impurities of stones, sand, thorns, etc., as the true Pure Land, without knowing that there is also a transcendent true Pure Land, and only regards one's own attained state as the real Pure Land, thinking it is the same as the Lotus Treasury World (Lian Hua Zang Shi Jie), and that there is no other true, unconditioned Pure Land, then this is an untrue statement.

'Why is this so?' (He Yi Gu) indicates a doubt arising. The question is: If form and adornment are not the true Pure Land, why does the Tathagata (Ru Lai) say that the sublime adornments of the Pure Land I have attained are like the Palace of the Free Heaven (Zi Zai Tian Gong), and that the beings in my Pure Land are without desire, like Brahma (Fan Tian)? Furthermore, why teach sentient beings to say: When I cultivated the cause of the Pure Land, I leveled roads, removed thorns, filled in high places, and raised low places, etc., as the cause of the Pure Land, in order to obtain the reward of this Pure Land. Examining the Tathagata's sincere words, this Pure Land seems to have form. Since it has form, it is encompassed by the Three Realms (San Jie), and can be grasped and discussed. Why say that the Pure Land is not form and adornment, and cannot be grasped and discussed, and that if one grasps form and adornment, it is an untrue statement? Therefore, 'Why is this so?' is asked.

Therefore, the Buddha (Fo) answers, 'The Pure Land adorned by the Tathagata' (Ru Lai Suo Shuo Zhuang Yan Fo Tu) is to guide beginners, so the near is used to illustrate the far. Therefore, it is said that the Pure Land I have attained is like the Palace of the Free Heaven, etc. It also follows worldly conventions. Worldly people consider a place adorned with various treasures as the Pure Land, so the Buddha follows worldly conventions and says that it is the Pure Land, but it is not the true Pure Land of the First Principle (Di Yi Yi Di). Therefore, it is said that the Pure Land adorned by the Tathagata is not the worldly conditioned and defiled form and adornment. 'Then it is not adornment' (Ze Fei Zhuang Yan) follows worldly conventions and considers it the Pure Land, but it is not the transcendent true Pure Land of the First Principle, so it is said 'then it is not'. 'It is called the adorned Pure Land' (Shi Ming Zhuang Yan Fo Tu) means that what is not form and adornment is the true adornment of the First Principle. It can also be said that form and adornment are not adornment, and this is called non-adornment.

However, the 'Pure Land' (Jing Tu) mentioned here is precisely the true wisdom of the retribution body (Yi Bao) of all Buddhas, the Land of the First Principle. This land takes Suchness (Zhen Ru) and Dharma-nature (Fa Xing) as its essence, which is the Lotus Treasury World. This Pure Land and the true retribution Buddha (Zhen Bao Fo) are the same in essence.

---

言用則異也。此土如來從發心以來，所修萬行功德智慧二種莊嚴出世無漏勝因所克故。《十地經》云「過一切世間境界，出世間善根所生」也。不為地前取相漏因所得，體非有為，形相莊嚴所攝故。《大智度論》云「諸佛凈土，不為欲色無色三界所攝。」云何言此真凈土不為三界所攝？解云：不在地故非欲界攝，不在空故非色界攝，體是色故非無色界攝。雖三界不攝，而與之同處，然不相妨閡。設三災起時世界焚燒，而彼凈土湛然不變。故《法華》云「眾生見劫盡大火所燒時，我此土安穩天人常充滿」。此即真常凈土，故三災不毀也。又諸佛凈土平等清凈無二無別故。《十地經》云「一佛土一切佛土，一切佛土一佛土」也。今解此凈土云凈穢同處者，異於昔來所辨一質異見之義。所以爾者，原凈穢二土本無異處，非如娑婆、安樂二土既殊條然有別也。若然，何故有石沙銅鐵七寶琳瑯到伏等界無量差別？或有眾生以虛空為地、地為虛空，如斯不同，皆是眾生業之垢凈、智有明昧故所見萬差，非土有異。猶如恒河流水，有諸餓鬼共往趣飲，或見流火、或見膿血、或見灰炭、或見枯涸、或見鬼神守護不令得前，斯皆眾生罪業因緣故，於此一河所感各異，故見不同，非謂水一而見有殊也。如《維摩》說「螺髻、身子所見不同」

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 言語的運用則各有不同。我們這個世界的如來（Tathagata），從發菩提心（Bodhicitta）以來，所修的萬行功德和智慧兩種莊嚴，是由出世間無漏的殊勝因緣所成就的。《十地經》（Dashabhumika Sutra）說：『超越一切世間境界，由出世間的善根所生。』不為十地之前的取相漏因所得，本體不是有為法（Samskrta），不受形相莊嚴所侷限。《大智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra）說：『諸佛的凈土，不為欲界（Kamadhatu）、色界（Rupadhatu）、無色界（Arupadhatu）三界所攝。』為什麼說這個真凈土不為三界所攝呢？解釋說：不在地上，所以不屬於欲界；不在空中，所以不屬於色界；本體是色，所以不屬於無色界。雖然不為三界所攝，卻與三界同處，互不妨礙。即使發生三災（Traidhatuka）時，世界被焚燒，而那個凈土依然湛然不變。所以《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）說：『眾生看見劫盡時被大火焚燒，我這個國土安穩，天人常常充滿。』這就是真常凈土，所以不會被三災所毀壞。而且諸佛的凈土平等清凈，沒有二種差別。《十地經》說：『一個佛土就是一切佛土，一切佛土就是一個佛土。』現在解釋這個凈土，說凈土和穢土同處，不同於以往所辨別的一質異見的意義。之所以這樣說，是因為原本凈土和穢土並沒有不同的地方，不像娑婆世界（Sahaloka）和安樂世界（Sukhavati）那樣截然不同。如果這樣，為什麼會有石沙銅鐵、七寶琳瑯、到伏等世界無量的差別呢？或者有的眾生以虛空為地，以地為虛空，像這樣的不同，都是因為眾生的業的垢凈、智慧有明昧，所以所見到的景象千差萬別，不是土地本身有差異。猶如恒河（Ganges）的流水，有許多餓鬼（Preta）一同前去飲用，有的看見流火，有的看見膿血，有的看見灰炭，有的看見枯涸，有的看見鬼神守護不讓他們靠近，這些都是眾生罪業因緣的緣故，對於同一條河流所感受到的各不相同，所以見到的景象不同，不是說水本身是一樣的，而見到的景象卻有差別。正如《維摩經》（Vimalakirti Sutra）所說，螺髻梵王（Cudamani）和舍利弗（Sariputra）所見到的景象不同。

【English Translation】 English version The application of language differs. The Tathagata (如來) of this world, from the time of generating Bodhicitta (發菩提心), has cultivated myriad practices, merits, and wisdom, the two kinds of adornments, which are achieved by the unsurpassed cause of being free from outflows in transcending the world. The Dashabhumika Sutra (《十地經》) says: 'Surpassing all worldly realms, born from the roots of goodness that transcend the world.' It is not attained by the causes of outflows that grasp at appearances before the ten grounds, its essence is not conditioned (Samskrta 有為), and it is not confined by the adornments of form. The Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra (《大智度論》) says: 'The pure lands of all Buddhas are not encompassed by the three realms of desire (Kamadhatu 欲界), form (Rupadhatu 色界), and formlessness (Arupadhatu 無色界).' Why is it said that this true pure land is not encompassed by the three realms? The explanation is: it is not on the ground, so it does not belong to the desire realm; it is not in the sky, so it does not belong to the form realm; its essence is form, so it does not belong to the formless realm. Although it is not encompassed by the three realms, it coexists with them without hindering each other. Even when the three disasters (Traidhatuka 三災) arise and the world is burned, that pure land remains serene and unchanged. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra (《法華經》) says: 'When beings see the end of the kalpa and the world is burned by a great fire, my land is secure and filled with gods and humans.' This is the true and constant pure land, so it will not be destroyed by the three disasters. Moreover, the pure lands of all Buddhas are equal, pure, without duality or difference. The Dashabhumika Sutra says: 'One Buddha land is all Buddha lands, and all Buddha lands are one Buddha land.' Now, explaining this pure land, it is said that the pure and impure lands coexist, which is different from the meaning of 'one substance, different views' that was previously distinguished. The reason for this is that originally, the pure and impure lands have no different places, unlike the Saha world (Sahaloka 娑婆世界) and the Sukhavati (安樂世界) which are distinctly different. If so, why are there countless differences in the worlds of stone, sand, copper, iron, seven treasures, and so on? Or some beings see emptiness as earth, and earth as emptiness. Such differences are all because of the purity or impurity of beings' karma and the clarity or obscurity of their wisdom, so what they see varies greatly, not because the land itself is different. It is like the flowing water of the Ganges (Ganges 恒河), where many hungry ghosts (Preta 餓鬼) go to drink together. Some see flowing fire, some see pus and blood, some see ashes and charcoal, some see dryness, some see ghosts guarding and preventing them from approaching. These are all due to the karmic causes of beings' sins, so their perceptions of the same river are different, so what they see is different, not that the water itself is the same, but what they see is different. As the Vimalakirti Sutra (《維摩經》) says, what Cudamani (螺髻梵王) and Sariputra (舍利弗) saw were different.

---

。如「二天共食，飯色有異」，此亦同也。故知處一土差，就見不同，非為一質而有異睹，其理焰然也。「是故須菩提菩薩應如是生清凈心等」者，此經教勸新發意菩薩取真凈土之方。「是故」者，以是行地前取相之行，唯得世間有為形相莊嚴凈土，非是出世第一義莊嚴凈土義故。諸菩薩摩訶薩要須修行初地已上不取相波羅蜜行，乃可得於出世間無為真凈土地，勿以取相之心所得世間有為形相之土以為真實凈土，故言應如是生清凈心也。「應如是生清凈心」者，應如上第四段於三事中不取著心也。「而無所住」者，謂不著自身、不乞住也色等著異，不著三界人天五欲果報。「應無所住」者，謂不著報恩。此三即是前三事也(此明如來所得第一義土滿足清凈初地以上分中清凈也)。

金剛仙論卷第四 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第五

魏天平二年菩提流支三藏於洛陽譯

「譬如有人身如須彌山王」者，此舉大身喻之，報佛同彼山王映象譬相似義也。又此山勝出余山，名為王也。「有人」者，即說報佛為人也。亦得言有人者，世間人也。如王者，引喻況之，明世間人身大如須彌山，報佛亦然。十地行滿金剛心后，顯性本有名法佛，萬德智惠圓滿名報佛，于

眾聖中王名為大身，體是無為常住而不同有為身，故借之為喻也。「須菩提！于意云何？是身為大不」者，明如來既引山王喻報佛身竟，問須菩提報佛身為大不也。須菩提解，即答「甚大。世尊！」明報佛萬德圓滿，眾聖中王，分同於山王故，曰甚大也。疑者聞報佛名為大身如山王，便謂報佛因山王有為形相之身，若形相身則是無常生滅之身。有此義故，答「佛說非身是名大身」。答意明報佛大身不同世間有為形相之身，其體湛然，無有有為有漏心意意識虛妄分別相也。以山王報佛分有相似故，引之為喻；語其實者，條然天絕，故言非身。而有無量功德智慧，湛然常住最高大身，是名大身。亦得云「彼身非身是名大身」者，此釋彼報佛大身為非大身，以非有為有漏相之身，是名大身。即顯本有之性現用，名報佛。妙相湛然，有無方大用，是名報佛真實大身也。

「論曰：此義如是應知」，指凈土報佛之義，如經說佛與須菩提問答應知，論主未曾有釋。云何言應知？明須菩提疑有在心未彰于口。即以偈答云「智習唯識通」，此一偈釋「若菩提作是言我莊嚴佛國土乃至而生其心」。「智」者，真實智，凈土以智慧為體。然此凈土所以以智慧為體者，明如來果頭依正兩報，語體則一法性，論在用遍則身土兩別，故依正

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：眾聖中的王者名為大身（Mahākāya，指佛的報身），其本體是無為法，恒常存在，不同於有為之身，所以借用山王來比喻。「須菩提！你認為怎麼樣？這個身體大不大？」這是說，如來已經用山王來比喻報身之後，問須菩提報身是否廣大。須菩提理解了，就回答說：「非常大，世尊！」說明報身具有萬種功德，圓滿無缺，是眾聖中的王者，部分與山王相似，所以說非常大。有人懷疑，聽到報身名為大身，像山王一樣，就認為報身是因山王有為的形相之身，如果是有形相之身，那就是無常生滅之身。因為有這種理解，所以佛回答說：「佛說非身，是名大身。」回答的意思是說，報身的大身不同於世間有為的形相之身，其本體清澈湛然，沒有有為有漏的心意意識虛妄分別之相。因為山王與報身有部分相似之處，所以用山王來比喻；說到它的真實情況，則是絕對超絕，所以說『非身』。而具有無量的功德智慧，清澈湛然，恒常存在，是最高大的身，這叫做大身。也可以說『彼身非身，是名大身』，這是解釋報身的大身不是大身，因為它不是有為有漏之相的身，所以叫做大身。這就能顯現出本有的自性顯現作用，叫做報身。微妙的相好清澈湛然，具有無邊廣大的作用，這叫做報身真實的廣大之身。 論曰：此義如是應知」，指的是凈土報身的意義，就像經中所說佛與須菩提的問答應該瞭解，論主沒有做過解釋。為什麼說應該瞭解呢？說明須菩提心中有疑惑，但沒有說出口。所以用偈頌回答說：「智習唯識通」，這一句偈頌解釋了「若菩薩作是言我莊嚴佛國土乃至而生其心」。「智」指的是真實智慧，凈土以智慧為本體。然而這個凈土之所以以智慧為本體，說明如來果地的依報和正報，就本體而言是一法性，就作用而言則身土有別，所以依報和正報...

【English Translation】 English version: The king among all sages is named Mahākāya (the Reward Body of the Buddha), whose essence is non-conditioned (Asamskrta), eternally abiding, and different from conditioned bodies. Therefore, it is used as a metaphor with Mountain King. 'Subhuti! What do you think? Is this body great?' This means that after the Tathagata has used Mountain King as a metaphor for the Reward Body, he asks Subhuti whether the Reward Body is great or not. Subhuti understands and answers, 'Very great, World Honored One!' This illustrates that the Reward Body possesses myriad virtues, is perfectly complete, and is the king among all sages, partially similar to Mountain King, hence it is said to be very great. Some may doubt, hearing that the Reward Body is named Mahākāya, like Mountain King, and think that the Reward Body is a conditioned body with the form of Mountain King. If it is a body with form, then it is an impermanent body subject to birth and death. Because of this understanding, the Buddha answers, 'The Buddha says it is not a body, therefore it is named Mahākāya.' The meaning of the answer is that the Mahākāya of the Reward Body is different from the conditioned body with form in the world. Its essence is clear and serene, without the appearance of conditioned and defiled mind, intention, consciousness, or false discrimination. Because Mountain King has some similarities with the Reward Body, it is used as a metaphor; speaking of its true nature, it is absolutely transcendent, hence it is said 'not a body'. Yet it possesses immeasurable merits and wisdom, clear and serene, eternally abiding, and is the greatest body, this is called Mahākāya. It can also be said 'That body is not a body, therefore it is named Mahākāya', this explains that the Mahākāya of the Reward Body is not a great body, because it is not a body with conditioned and defiled appearances, therefore it is called Mahākāya. This reveals the manifestation of the inherent nature, called the Reward Body. The subtle appearance is clear and serene, possessing boundless and vast functions, this is called the true and great body of the Reward Body. The treatise says: 'This meaning should be understood as such', referring to the meaning of the Pure Land Reward Body, just as the Buddha's questions and answers with Subhuti in the sutra should be understood, which the treatise master has not explained. Why is it said that it should be understood? It indicates that Subhuti has doubts in his heart but has not expressed them. Therefore, it is answered with a verse: 'Wisdom, practice, and only consciousness are understood'. This verse explains 'If a Bodhisattva says, I adorn the Buddha land, and so on, and gives rise to that thought'. 'Wisdom' refers to true wisdom, the Pure Land takes wisdom as its essence. However, the reason why this Pure Land takes wisdom as its essence is that the dependent and principal rewards of the Tathagata's fruition, in terms of essence, are of one Dharma-nature, but in terms of function, the body and land are different, therefore the dependent and principal rewards...

---

雖殊，莫不以智慧為體也。「習」者，后智訪於前智，名之為習。習前心為因，因能感后解，不不異而轉精勝名習因，能顯真性無壅名通。「通」者，謂第八佛性識無壅，名之為通也。故偈言「智習唯識通」者，第八阿梨耶識，通明十地菩薩無漏真解佛果智慧方能通遠，見此凈土，得此土用故。下句勸云「如是取凈土」。上問凈土之義云何？如今明凈土因行體相，義正如是。如是行、如是取，非顛倒、非妄取也，故曰如是取凈土也。

「非行第一體」，「非形」者，此真凈土，非有為形相也。「第一體」者，此凈土若非有為形相者，則應一向無形相同于虛空耶？今明此土雖非有為形相之形，非無出世無為之形，真諦莊嚴凈土第一體也。「非嚴」者，即上句非世間形相莊嚴。后「莊嚴」者，即第一義諦莊嚴也。此句應言「非莊嚴莊嚴」，但以偈狹，直云非嚴也。意者取凈土之義，意正如是也。「此義云何」者，問此一偈釋凈土之義云何也。

即釋「諸佛無有莊嚴國土事至不實說」，釋偈中上二句，亦解經初「若菩薩作是言至不實語」也。「諸佛無有莊嚴國土事」者，明如來無有世間形相莊嚴國土事也。「諸佛如來真實智慧習識通達」者，明如來所得莊嚴佛土，唯是出世間智慧第一義莊嚴之用也。此二句正出

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 雖然各不相同，但無不以智慧為本體。「習」指的是後來的智慧向前面的智慧請教，這被稱為「習」。學習以前的心為因，這個因能夠感應到後來的理解，不異變而逐漸精進殊勝，這稱為「習因」，能夠顯現真性而沒有阻礙，這稱為「通」。「通」指的是第八阿梨耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna，藏識），沒有阻礙，這稱為「通」。所以偈語說「智習唯識通」，第八阿梨耶識，通達明瞭十地菩薩（Bodhisattva-bhūmi，菩薩修行的十個階段）的無漏真解，佛果智慧才能通達深遠，見到這片凈土，得到這片凈土的作用。下一句勸導說「如是取凈土」。上面問凈土的意義是什麼？現在說明凈土的因行體相，意義正是這樣。這樣修行、這樣取捨，不是顛倒、不是虛妄取捨，所以說「如是取凈土」。 「非行第一體」，「非形」指的是，這真正的凈土，不是有為的形相。「第一體」指的是，這凈土如果不是有為的形相，那麼就應該完全沒有形相，等同於虛空嗎？現在說明這凈土雖然不是有為形相的形，但並非沒有出世無為的形，是真諦莊嚴的凈土第一體。「非嚴」指的是，就是上面一句說的不是世間形相的莊嚴。後面的「莊嚴」指的是，就是第一義諦的莊嚴。這句應該說「非莊嚴莊嚴」，但因為偈語字數有限，直接說「非嚴」了。意思是說，取凈土的意義，意義正是這樣。「此義云何」指的是，問這一偈語解釋凈土的意義是什麼。 接下來解釋「諸佛無有莊嚴國土事至不實說」，解釋偈語中的前兩句，也解釋了經文開頭「若菩薩作是言至不實語」。「諸佛無有莊嚴國土事」指的是，說明如來（Tathāgata，佛的稱號）沒有用世間形相來莊嚴國土的事情。「諸佛如來真實智慧習識通達」指的是，說明如來所得到的莊嚴佛土，唯獨是出世間智慧第一義的莊嚴作用。這兩句正是說明。

【English Translation】 English version: Although different, all take wisdom as their essence. '習' (xí, practice) refers to later wisdom consulting earlier wisdom, which is called '習' (xí, practice). Learning from the previous mind is the cause, and this cause can sense the later understanding. Without changing and gradually becoming more refined and superior, this is called '習因' (xí yīn, the cause of practice), which can manifest the true nature without obstruction, and this is called '通' (tōng, penetration). '通' (tōng, penetration) refers to the eighth Ālaya-vijñāna (藏識, storehouse consciousness), without obstruction, which is called '通' (tōng, penetration). Therefore, the verse says '智習唯識通' (zhì xí wéi shí tōng, wisdom, practice, only consciousness, penetration). The eighth Ālaya-vijñāna, thoroughly understanding the non-outflow true understanding of the ten Bhūmis of Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva-bhūmi, 菩薩修行的十個階段), only the wisdom of the Buddha-fruit can penetrate far and wide, seeing this Pure Land and obtaining the function of this Pure Land. The next sentence advises, '如是取凈土' (rú shì qǔ jìng tǔ, thus take the Pure Land). Above, it was asked what is the meaning of Pure Land? Now, explaining the cause, practice, essence, and characteristics of the Pure Land, the meaning is exactly like this. Practicing in this way, taking in this way, not inverted, not falsely taken, therefore it is said '如是取凈土' (rú shì qǔ jìng tǔ, thus take the Pure Land). '非行第一體' (fēi xíng dì yī tǐ, not form, the first essence), '非形' (fēi xíng, not form) refers to, this true Pure Land is not a conditioned form. '第一體' (dì yī tǐ, the first essence) refers to, if this Pure Land is not a conditioned form, then should it be completely without form, equal to emptiness? Now, explaining that although this Pure Land is not the form of conditioned form, it is not without the form of unconditioned transcendence, it is the first essence of the Pure Land adorned with the true meaning. '非嚴' (fēi yán, not adornment) refers to, that is, the previous sentence said not the adornment of worldly forms. The later '莊嚴' (zhuāng yán, adornment) refers to, that is, the adornment of the first meaning truth. This sentence should say '非莊嚴莊嚴' (fēi zhuāng yán zhuāng yán, not adornment, adornment), but because the verse is limited in words, it directly says '非嚴' (fēi yán, not adornment). The meaning is that the meaning of taking the Pure Land is exactly like this. '此義云何' (cǐ yì yún hé, what is the meaning of this) refers to, asking what is the meaning of this verse explaining the Pure Land. Next, explaining '諸佛無有莊嚴國土事至不實說' (zhū fó wú yǒu zhuāng yán guó tǔ shì zhì bù shí shuō, all Buddhas do not have the matter of adorning the country, to the point of untrue speech), explaining the first two sentences in the verse, and also explaining the beginning of the sutra '若菩薩作是言至不實語' (ruò pú sà zuò shì yán zhì bù shí yǔ, if a Bodhisattva speaks in this way, to the point of untrue speech). '諸佛無有莊嚴國土事' (zhū fó wú yǒu zhuāng yán guó tǔ shì, all Buddhas do not have the matter of adorning the country) refers to, explaining that the Tathāgata (如來, Tathāgata, the title of Buddha) does not have the matter of adorning the country with worldly forms. '諸佛如來真實智慧習識通達' (zhū fó rú lái zhēn shí zhì huì xí shí tōng dá, all Buddhas and Tathāgatas have true wisdom, practice, consciousness, and penetration) refers to, explaining that the adorned Buddha-land obtained by the Tathāgata is solely the function of the adornment of the first meaning of transcendent wisdom. These two sentences are precisely explaining.

---

凈土體也。「是故彼土不可取」者，結前經初釋疑之意。「是故」者，此諸佛凈土，非有為形相，是真實智慧第一義相，故不可取。何得疑雲，菩薩所莊嚴佛土謂可取可說，不應以無為法得名也。「若人取彼國土形相」等者，既明此凈土體是第一義諦，非有為形相故。若人取此凈土同有為形相者，是不實說也。「如經」等者，舉下釋疑經來，成上取有為形相為真凈土者是不實說，故引此經來也。而此經明有為形相莊嚴者非真凈土，故不應所為即真凈土。「何故如是說」者，將以下半偈釋此前經故，先作問生起，問此經所明言莊嚴佛土，復言即非莊嚴，何故作如是相違之說也？即以偈答言「非形第一體，非莊嚴莊嚴意」也。「莊嚴有二種」者，釋出偈中二種莊嚴也。「又非莊嚴」等者，上以經偈相屬，出二種莊嚴名竟，方次第解釋也。「又非莊嚴至故非莊嚴」者，釋經中如來說「莊嚴佛土即非莊嚴」，解偈中非形非莊嚴，即是二種名中「一者形相」也。「如是無莊嚴至成就莊嚴故」，釋經中「是名莊嚴」，解偈中第一體莊嚴意，二種莊嚴中「二者第一義相」也。「若人分別佛國土至而生其心」，此下將欲釋應如是生清凈心等不住三事經故，舉住三事人不得真凈土也。若有人起心分別，謂佛國土是有為形相，而修住三事取

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這就是所謂的凈土體。「是故彼土不可取」一句，總結了前面經文，最初是爲了消除疑惑。「是故」的意思是，這些諸佛的凈土，不是有為的形相，而是真實智慧的第一義相，所以不可執取。怎麼能懷疑說，菩薩所莊嚴的佛土是可以執取、可以言說的，不應該用無為法來命名呢？「若人取彼國土形相」等句，既然說明了此凈土的本體是第一義諦，不是有為的形相。如果有人把這個凈土理解成和有為形相一樣，那就是不真實的說法。「如經」等句，引用下面的經文來解釋疑惑，說明把執取有為形相當作真正的凈土是不真實的說法，所以引用此經。而此經說明有為形相莊嚴的不是真正的凈土，所以不應該把有為形相莊嚴的當作真正的凈土。「何故如是說」一句，將用下面的半偈來解釋前面的經文，先提出問題，引發思考，問此經所說明的莊嚴佛土，又說不是莊嚴，為什麼作出這樣相互矛盾的說法呢？然後用偈語回答說「非形第一體，非莊嚴莊嚴意」。「莊嚴有二種」一句，解釋偈語中的兩種莊嚴。「又非莊嚴」等句，上面用經文和偈語相互關聯，說出兩種莊嚴的名稱后，才依次解釋。「又非莊嚴至故非莊嚴」一句，解釋經文中如來說「莊嚴佛土即非莊嚴」，解釋偈語中非形非莊嚴，就是兩種名稱中的「一者形相」。「如是無莊嚴至成就莊嚴故」，解釋經文中「是名莊嚴」，解釋偈語中第一體莊嚴意，是兩種莊嚴中的「二者第一義相」。「若人分別佛國土至而生其心」，下面將要解釋應如是生清凈心等不住三事經，所以舉出執著三事的人不能得到真正的凈土。如果有人起心分別，認為佛的國土是有為的形相，而修習執著三事

【English Translation】 English version: This is the so-called Pure Land substance. The phrase 'Therefore, that land cannot be grasped' summarizes the previous scriptures and initially aims to dispel doubts. 'Therefore' means that these Pure Lands of all Buddhas are not conditioned forms but the true wisdom of the ultimate reality, so they cannot be grasped. How can one doubt that the Buddha lands adorned by Bodhisattvas can be grasped and spoken of, and should not be named by unconditioned Dharma? The phrase 'If someone grasps the form of that land' and so on, since it explains that the essence of this Pure Land is the ultimate truth, not a conditioned form. If someone understands this Pure Land to be the same as a conditioned form, then that is an untrue statement. The phrase 'As the scripture says' and so on, quotes the following scripture to explain the doubts, stating that taking the grasping of conditioned forms as the true Pure Land is an untrue statement, so this scripture is quoted. And this scripture explains that what is adorned by conditioned forms is not the true Pure Land, so one should not take what is adorned by conditioned forms as the true Pure Land. The phrase 'Why is it said like this' will use the following half-verse to explain the previous scripture, first raising a question to provoke thought, asking why the scripture explains the adorned Buddha land, and then says it is not adorned, why make such contradictory statements? Then answer with a verse saying 'Not form, the first substance, not adornment, the meaning of adornment'. The phrase 'There are two kinds of adornment' explains the two kinds of adornment in the verse. The phrase 'Also not adornment' and so on, above uses the scripture and verse to correlate with each other, after stating the names of the two kinds of adornment, then explains them in order. The phrase 'Also not adornment, therefore not adornment' explains that the scripture says 'Adorned Buddha land is not adorned', explaining the verse not form, not adornment, which is 'one is form'. 'Such unadornment achieves adornment' explains that the scripture says 'This is called adornment', explaining the meaning of the first substance adornment in the verse, which is 'two is the ultimate reality'. 'If someone distinguishes the Buddha land and gives rise to that mind', below will explain that one should give rise to a pure mind and not dwell on the three things, so it is mentioned that those who cling to the three things cannot obtain the true Pure Land. If someone gives rise to a mind of distinction, thinking that the Buddha's land is a conditioned form, and cultivates clinging to the three things.

---

著行，自謂我如是取得真凈土者，此人非修真凈土因也。為遮此故，以下正出欲修凈土因者，應不住三事故。以經結之，可知也。前言受樂報佛者，將欲作第二偈釋山王喻經故，還牒上二疑，舉報佛山王少分相似，生起下偈也。「此義云何」者，此云法喻少分相似答疑之義云何也。即以偈答「如山王無取」等。此一偈釋經中「譬如有人至是名大身」，答后二疑也。「如山王」者，如須彌山王，十山中最，故名為王。「無取」者，須彌山王是無記物故，無心自取言我是山王勝餘九山，故言如王無取也。「受報亦復然」者，此一句合山王喻。應言「受樂報佛亦復然」，以偈狹故略也，明受樂報佛得十力四無畏等無量功德，於法中自在，勝於眾聖，故名為王。以無取相分別心故，亦不念言我是法王，故言受報亦復然也。此中論主設一難：山王無心故，所以不取我是山王；報佛有心，何故不取我是法王也？故下半偈答言「遠離於諸漏，及有為法故」。「遠離諸漏」者，明報佛二障永盡，絕於分別、離於有漏取相之因。

「及有為法」者，明非但離取相之因，亦離取相有為之果也。以取相分別永盡，故不取己為法王，非謂同須彌山王無心故不取也。此明報佛既體離有為生死因果故取，以湛然常住不為三相所為故曰無為，亦

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果有人執著于修行，自認為這樣就能獲得真正的凈土，那麼這個人實際上並沒有在修習通往真凈土的因。爲了避免這種情況，下面將闡述真正想要修習凈土之因的人，應當不執著於三種事物。用經文結尾，就可以明白這個道理。前面提到享受果報的佛，是爲了作第二首偈頌來解釋山王的比喻，所以再次提起之前的兩個疑問，指出佛和山王只有少部分相似之處，從而引出下面的偈頌。「此義云何」的意思是，這種用比喻來說明少部分相似之處，從而解答疑問的意義是什麼呢？就是用偈頌來回答「如山王無取」等。這一個偈頌解釋了經文中的「譬如有人至是名大身」，回答了後面的兩個疑問。「如山王」是指像須彌山王一樣，在十座山中最為殊勝，所以被稱為王。「無取」是指須彌山王是無記之物，沒有心去自己宣稱『我是山王，勝過其他九座山』，所以說如山王無取。「受報亦復然」這一句是把山王的比喻合在一起。應該說『享受果報的佛也是這樣』，因為偈頌的字數有限所以省略了。說明享受果報的佛獲得了十力、四無畏等無量功德，在佛法中自在，勝過所有聖人，所以被稱為王。因為沒有執取相的分辨心，所以也不會想『我是法王』，所以說受報亦復然。這裡論主提出了一個疑問：山王沒有心，所以不會執取自己是山王；報佛有心，為什麼不執取自己是法王呢？所以下半偈回答說「遠離於諸漏，及有為法故」。「遠離諸漏」是說報佛的兩種障礙永遠斷盡，斷絕了分別，遠離了有漏的執取相之因。 「及有為法」是說，不僅遠離了執取相的因，也遠離了執取相的有為之果。因為執取相的分辨永遠斷盡，所以不執取自己為法王，並不是說像須彌山王一樣因為沒有心所以不執取。這裡說明報佛既然本體上遠離了有為生死的因果，所以才不執取，因為湛然常住，不被生、住、滅三相所影響，所以稱為無為，也

【English Translation】 English version: If someone clings to practice, thinking that they can attain true Pure Land in this way, then this person is not actually cultivating the cause that leads to true Pure Land. To prevent this, the following will explain that those who truly want to cultivate the cause of Pure Land should not be attached to three things. This can be understood by the ending of the sutra. The previous mention of the Buddha who enjoys the reward is to compose the second verse to explain the analogy of Mountain King, so it raises the previous two doubts again, pointing out that the Buddha and Mountain King only have a few similarities, thus leading to the following verse. 'What does this mean' means, what is the meaning of using analogy to explain a few similarities, so as to answer the doubts? It is to answer with the verse 'Like Mountain King without grasping' and so on. This one verse explains 'For example, someone reaches this and is called a great body' in the sutra, answering the latter two doubts. 'Like Mountain King' refers to Mount Sumeru, which is the most superior among the ten mountains, so it is called King. 'Without grasping' means that Mount Sumeru is an inanimate object, without the mind to claim 'I am the Mountain King, superior to the other nine mountains', so it is said like Mountain King without grasping. 'Enjoying the reward is also like this' This sentence combines the analogy of Mountain King. It should be said 'The Buddha who enjoys the reward is also like this', because the number of words in the verse is limited, so it is omitted. It explains that the Buddha who enjoys the reward has obtained immeasurable merits such as the Ten Powers and Four Fearlessnesses, is at ease in the Dharma, and is superior to all sages, so he is called King. Because there is no discriminating mind of grasping appearances, he will not think 'I am the Dharma King', so it is said that enjoying the reward is also like this. Here, the commentator raises a question: Mountain King has no mind, so he will not grasp himself as Mountain King; the Reward Buddha has a mind, why doesn't he grasp himself as Dharma King? So the second half of the verse answers 'Far away from all outflows, and conditioned dharmas'. 'Far away from all outflows' means that the two obstacles of the Reward Buddha are forever exhausted, severing discrimination and being far away from the cause of grasping appearances with outflows. 'And conditioned dharmas' means that not only is the cause of grasping appearances far away, but also the conditioned result of grasping appearances is far away. Because the discrimination of grasping appearances is forever exhausted, he does not grasp himself as Dharma King, not because he has no mind like Mount Sumeru, so he does not grasp. This explains that since the Reward Buddha's essence is far away from the cause and effect of conditioned birth and death, he does not grasp, because he is serene and constant, and is not affected by the three marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing, so it is called unconditioned, and also

---

名無漏也。「此義云何」等一段長行論，從初至「以無分別故」，釋上半偈山王、報佛法喻有相似之義竟也。「如經」已下，舉釋疑經來，結成報佛、山王無分別義也。下便作問，還問此經，然後一一別釋。「何故如是說」者，問：此經中言「佛說非身名大身」，何故作此二說不定也？即以下半偈答「遠離於諸漏，及有為法故」也。「彼受樂報佛體離於諸漏」者，此文釋偈，明報佛離於二障諸漏，無取相分別心，故不取己為法王也。「若如是即無有物」者，若報佛體如是離二障諸漏，即無有為萬相及虛妄我相之物也。故下句云以遠離有為法故，此釋經「佛說非身」也。「若如是即名有物」者，若報佛體如是具二種莊嚴，即有無為萬德真我之物，亦得若如是無有虛妄我相者即是真實報身物也，故下句云「以唯有清凈身故」。此釋經「是名大身」也。「以是義故實有我體」者，以是無有物之物，唯有清凈身義，故實有報佛常住妙身具八自在真我之體也。「以不依他緣住」者，明報佛真我之體不從因緣而有也。

「佛告須菩提：如恒河中所有沙數」者，此挍量分中第五經文，明外物佈施挍量中第二譬喻。此第二喻所以來者，前雖已釋云受持此經一偈功德，勝三千世界七寶佈施之福挍量已竟，而乘復生疑：如來上雖廣釋

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：名『無漏』（沒有煩惱）。『此義云何』等一段長行論，從開始到『以無分別故』，解釋了上半偈中『山王』（山中之王，比喻佛的莊嚴）和『報佛法』（報身的佛所說的法）的比喻有相似之處。『如經』以下，引用《釋疑經》來，總結報佛和山王沒有分別的意義。下面就開始提問，反過來問這部經，然後一一分別解釋。『何故如是說』，問：這部經中說『佛說非身名大身』，為什麼會作出這兩種不確定的說法呢？接著用下半偈回答『遠離於諸漏，及有為法故』。『彼受樂報佛體離於諸漏』，這段文字解釋偈頌，說明報佛遠離二障（煩惱障和所知障）的各種煩惱，沒有執著于外相分別的心，所以不認為自己是法王。『若如是即無有物』，如果報佛的本體像這樣遠離二障的各種煩惱，就沒有有為的萬象以及虛妄的我相之物。所以下一句說『以遠離有為法故』，這是解釋經文中的『佛說非身』。『若如是即名有物』，如果報佛的本體像這樣具有兩種莊嚴，就有無為的萬德真我之物，也可以說是像這樣沒有虛妄的我相，就是真實的報身之物，所以下一句說『以唯有清凈身故』。這是解釋經文中的『是名大身』。『以是義故實有我體』，因為這種沒有物之物，只有清凈身的意義，所以確實有報佛常住的妙身，具有八自在（能夠隨意變現）的真我之體。『以不依他緣住』，說明報佛的真我之體不是從因緣而產生的。 『佛告須菩提：如恒河中所有沙數』，這是較量分中的第五段經文，說明外物佈施較量中的第二個譬喻。這個第二個譬喻的由來是，前面雖然已經解釋說受持這部經的一個偈頌的功德，勝過用三千世界七寶佈施的福報的較量已經結束，但是須菩提又產生了疑問：如來上面雖然廣泛地解釋了

【English Translation】 English version: It is named 'Anasrava' (without outflows/defilements). The long prose section from 'What is the meaning of this?' to 'because of non-discrimination' explains that the analogy of 'Mountain King' (king of mountains, symbolizing the Buddha's majesty) and 'Reward Buddha Dharma' (the Dharma spoken by the Reward Body Buddha) in the first half of the verse have similar meanings. From 'As the Sutra says' onwards, the Shiyi Jing (Sutra of Resolving Doubts) is cited to conclude that there is no difference between the Reward Body Buddha and the Mountain King. Then a question is posed, turning back to question this sutra, and then each is explained separately. 'Why is it said like this?' asks: In this sutra, it is said 'The Buddha said that non-body is called great body,' why are these two uncertain statements made? Then the second half of the verse answers 'Because of being far from all outflows and conditioned dharmas.' 'That the Reward Body Buddha enjoys bliss is apart from all outflows' This passage explains the verse, clarifying that the Reward Body Buddha is apart from the two obstacles (afflictive and cognitive) and all outflows, without a mind attached to appearances and discrimination, so it does not consider itself the Dharma King. 'If it is so, then there is no thing' If the Reward Body Buddha's essence is thus apart from the two obstacles and all outflows, then there are no conditioned phenomena or objects of illusory self. Therefore, the next sentence says 'because of being far from conditioned dharmas,' which explains 'The Buddha said that non-body' in the sutra. 'If it is so, then it is called a thing' If the Reward Body Buddha's essence is thus endowed with two kinds of adornments, then there is the unconditioned true self of myriad virtues, and it can also be said that being without an illusory self in this way is the real Reward Body thing, so the next sentence says 'because it only has a pure body.' This explains 'It is called great body' in the sutra. 'Because of this meaning, there is truly a self-essence' Because of this thing that is without a thing, only having the meaning of a pure body, there is truly the Reward Body Buddha's permanent and wonderful body, possessing the true self of eight freedoms (being able to manifest at will). 'Because it does not rely on other conditions to abide' clarifies that the Reward Body Buddha's true self-essence does not arise from causes and conditions. 'The Buddha told Subhuti: As the number of sands in the Ganges River' This is the fifth passage in the Chapter on Comparison, clarifying the second analogy in the comparison of material giving. The reason for this second analogy is that although it has already been explained that the merit of upholding one verse of this sutra surpasses the comparison of the merit of giving the seven treasures of the three thousand worlds, Subhuti again has doubts: Although the Tathagata has extensively explained above

---

持經福多，勝於七寶佈施，成上不可取說；然多義有差，亦或有過無量以之為多，又等中少勝亦名為多。未知此為過二千三千少勝故多？為是過無量恒河沙世界不可窮盡故多也？若少勝故多，則僅勝此三千七寶施福，有其限齊，非是無窮無盡深勝福也。為除此疑故，佛答意明持經之福非但勝三千七寶施福，設以無量恒河沙世界滿中七寶持用佈施，猶不如受持讀誦此經一四句偈功德，何況不勝三千世界佈施少許之福，故引此恒沙譬喻以釋彼疑。云何釋疑？今云多者，明無量故多，非少勝故多也。又復受持一偈，其文難少用功不多，乃與無上佛果作其勝因。七寶等施，雖復物廣功多，此取相之業，但感世間有為果報，故不如也。然此前三千七寶佈施，但言持用佈施，不出施何等人；今此無量恒河七寶佈施，明施諸佛如來，物既是多，得福亦勝，猶不及持一偈之福，況三千珍寶佈施物少。又不辯前由取得福德何得是多，故轉顯挍量勝也。「恒河沙」者，從清涼池出，入于東海，長八萬四千由旬，廣四十里。或有廣十里處，以從沙山中過故。有流沙色白，水亦同白色，狀如乳，出河即清。此河極深，若象馬車乘入者皆沒。此河中沙，一切凡夫二乘不能算計知其頭數，唯有諸佛知之了了，初地以上菩薩亦能數知頭數多少，性地菩

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 持經的福德，勝過用七寶（金、銀、琉璃、硨磲、瑪瑙、珍珠、琥珀）佈施，成就的功德是無法估量和言說的。然而，『多』這個概念有差異，或許超過無量的數量才能稱之為『多』，或者在同等之中稍微勝出也稱為『多』。不知道這裡所說的『多』，是超過二千三千這種少量勝出的『多』呢？還是超過無量恒河沙世界那樣不可窮盡的『多』呢？如果只是少量勝出的『多』，那麼僅僅是勝過用三千大千世界七寶佈施的福德，有其限度，不是無窮無盡深遠的福德。 爲了消除這個疑問，佛陀回答明確指出，受持經典的福德不僅僅勝過三千大千世界七寶佈施的福德，即使是用無量恒河沙世界裝滿七寶用來佈施，仍然不如受持讀誦此經中的一句四句偈的功德，更何況勝過三千大千世界佈施少量七寶的福德呢？所以引用恒河沙這個比喻來解釋這個疑問。如何解釋這個疑問呢？現在說『多』，是說明其無量無邊，所以是『多』，而不是少量勝出的『多』。 而且，受持一句偈，其文字很少，用的功夫也不多，卻能與無上的佛果結下殊勝的因緣。用七寶等佈施，雖然財物廣博，功德也多，但這屬於著相的行業，只能感得世間有為的果報，所以不如受持經文的功德。然而，前面所說的三千大千世界七寶佈施，只是說用七寶佈施，沒有說明是佈施給什麼樣的人；現在這裡說的無量恒河沙七寶佈施，明確說明是佈施給諸佛如來，財物既多，得到的福德也殊勝，仍然比不上受持一句偈的福德，更何況三千大千世界珍寶佈施的財物很少。 而且，前面沒有辨明通過佈施取得的福德為什麼是『多』，所以轉而顯示校量受持經文的殊勝。『恒河沙』，從清涼池流出，流入東海，長八萬四千由旬（古印度長度單位），寬四十里。有的地方寬十里，因為從沙山中流過。河中的流沙顏色是白色，水也呈現同樣的白色，形狀像乳汁，流出河后就變得清澈。這條河非常深，如果大象、馬車進入都會被淹沒。這條河中的沙子，一切凡夫和二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）都無法計算出其數量，只有諸佛才能完全知曉，初地以上的菩薩也能數清其數量多少，性地菩

【English Translation】 English version The merit of upholding a Sutra surpasses the merit of giving with the seven treasures (gold, silver, lapis lazuli, tridacna, agate, pearl, amber), achieving immeasurable and inexpressible merit. However, the concept of 'much' varies; perhaps exceeding immeasurable quantities can be called 'much,' or even a slight superiority among equals is called 'much.' It is unknown whether the 'much' here refers to the 'much' of a slight superiority like two or three thousand, or the 'much' of immeasurable Ganges river sand worlds that cannot be exhausted. If it is only the 'much' of a slight superiority, then it only surpasses the merit of giving with the seven treasures of the three thousand great thousand worlds, having its limits, and is not an infinitely deep and superior merit. To eliminate this doubt, the Buddha's answer clearly points out that the merit of upholding a Sutra not only surpasses the merit of giving with the seven treasures of the three thousand great thousand worlds, but even if immeasurable Ganges river sand worlds were filled with the seven treasures and used for giving, it would still not be as good as the merit of receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting a four-line verse from this Sutra, let alone surpassing the merit of giving a small amount of the seven treasures in the three thousand worlds. Therefore, the analogy of the Ganges river sand is used to explain this doubt. How to explain this doubt? Now, saying 'much' is to explain its immeasurability, so it is 'much,' not the 'much' of a slight superiority. Moreover, upholding a single verse, its words are few and the effort expended is not much, yet it can form a superior cause with the unsurpassed Buddha fruit. Giving with the seven treasures, although the wealth is vast and the merit is great, this belongs to the activity of clinging to appearances, and can only result in conditioned worldly rewards, so it is not as good as the merit of upholding the Sutra. However, the previously mentioned giving with the seven treasures of the three thousand great thousand worlds only said giving with the seven treasures, without specifying to whom it was given; now, the immeasurable Ganges river sand seven treasures giving clearly states that it is given to all Buddhas and Tathagatas, the wealth is abundant, and the merit obtained is also superior, yet it is still not comparable to the merit of upholding a single verse, let alone the small amount of wealth given in the three thousand great thousand worlds. Moreover, it was not clarified why the merit obtained through giving is 'much,' so it turns to show the superiority of measuring and comparing upholding the Sutra. 'Ganges river sand' comes from the Qingliang Pond and flows into the Eastern Sea, with a length of 84,000 yojanas (ancient Indian unit of length) and a width of 40 li. Some places are 10 li wide because it flows through sandy mountains. The quicksand in the river is white, and the water also appears white, shaped like milk, and becomes clear after flowing out of the river. This river is extremely deep, and if elephants or carriages enter, they will be submerged. The sand in this river, all ordinary people and the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) cannot calculate its quantity, only all Buddhas can fully know it, and Bodhisattvas above the first ground can also count its quantity, the nature ground Bodhi

---

薩雖不能數知，以一大阿僧祇劫來不妄語故，不假思惟發言。即者。此河中沙既如是，故引之為喻。又天竺國人皆見此河故，諸經多引之為喻也。此河中沙，一沙為一河，爾許恒河中沙等三千大千世界滿中七寶以施諸佛，猶不如受持一偈之福也。

「論曰：前已說多福德譬喻，何故此中復說」者，釋云前說三千七寶佈施挍量，不如持經一四句偈，此中何故復說恒河沙譬也。有如此問故，偈答「說多義差別」。「說多義差別」者，論主作偈，釋前疑問，欲明多名。雖曰乃有限無限異，故重以斯喻，譬此無限佈施異於三千之福，故云說多義差別也。「亦成勝挍量」者，前雖以三千譬喻挍量不如持一偈之福，猶未顯勝挍量義成。今復以恒沙譬喻挍量持經之福，明無量恒沙七寶施福雖多，是取相福，得世間果報，終必有盡。明持經之福乃得無上佛果無盡之報，方顯持經福勝，故持一四句偈功德勝前二種佈施之福。聞說此已，復生疑雲：然此經理既深重如此，未知為但受持此經一偈之功勝前二種施福，為更有勝事也？挍量之義為足未足？故答意明非但持經得福無量，若有人能但尊重說此經處，及恭敬供養能說之人，亦得功德無量無邊，勝前三千恒沙二種施福，故勸供養。以此說經二處勝能捨財二處，由貴持經人說經處，故

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 即使是薩雖（菩薩的名稱），也不能完全知曉，因為一大阿僧祇劫（極長的時間單位）以來都不說謊，所以不用思考就能說出真話。之所以用恒河的沙子來比喻，是因為恒河的沙子數量眾多。而且天竺國（古代印度）的人都見過這條河，所以很多佛經都用它來做比喻。如果用恒河中的每一粒沙子代表一條恒河，像這麼多恒河中的沙子一樣多的三千大千世界（佛教宇宙觀中的一個單位）都裝滿七寶（七種珍寶）來佈施給諸佛，也比不上受持一個偈（佛經中的詩句）的福報。

論曰：前面已經說了很多福德的譬喻，為什麼這裡還要再說呢？解釋說，前面說用三千大千世界的七寶佈施來衡量，不如受持佛經中的一個四句偈，這裡為什麼又要說恒河沙的比喻呢？因為有這樣的疑問，所以用偈來回答『說多義差別』。『說多義差別』的意思是，論主（著論者）作偈，解釋前面的疑問，想要說明『多』這個概念。雖然說有有限和無限的差別，所以再次用這個比喻，譬如這種無限的佈施不同於三千大千世界的福報，所以說『說多義差別』。『亦成勝挍量』的意思是，前面雖然用三千大千世界來譬喻衡量不如受持一個偈的福報，但還沒有完全顯現出殊勝的衡量意義。現在又用恒河沙的比喻來衡量受持佛經的福報，說明無量恒河沙的七寶佈施的福報雖然多，但這是取相的福報，得到的是世間的果報，終究會有盡頭。而受持佛經的福報能得到無上的佛果，是無盡的報應，才能顯現出受持佛經的福報殊勝，所以受持一個四句偈的功德勝過前面兩種佈施的福報。聽到這些話后，又產生疑問：既然這部佛經如此深奧重要，那麼不知道僅僅是受持這部經的一個偈的功德勝過前面兩種佈施的福報，還是有更殊勝的事情呢？這種衡量的意義是足夠還是不足夠呢？所以回答的意思是，不僅僅是受持佛經能得到無量的福報，如果有人能夠尊重宣說這部經的地方，以及恭敬供養能夠宣說這部經的人，也能得到無量無邊的功德，勝過前面三千大千世界和恒河沙這兩種佈施的福報，所以勸人供養。因為宣說佛經的這兩個地方勝過能捨財的兩個地方，因為尊重受持佛經的人和宣說佛經的地方，所以……

【English Translation】 English version Even Sāsvata (name of a Bodhisattva), though unable to fully know, speaks truthfully without contemplation because he has not lied for one great asaṃkhya-kalpa (an extremely long unit of time). The reason for using the sand of the Ganges River as a metaphor is that the sand of the Ganges River is numerous. Moreover, the people of India (ancient India) have all seen this river, so many sutras use it as a metaphor. If each grain of sand in the Ganges River represents a Ganges River, and three thousand great chiliocosms (a unit in Buddhist cosmology) as numerous as the sand in these Ganges Rivers are filled with seven treasures (seven kinds of precious gems) to be given as alms to all Buddhas, it is still not as good as the merit of upholding one verse (a poetic stanza in a Buddhist scripture).

The Treatise says: 'Previously, many metaphors of merit have been discussed, why is it discussed again here?' The explanation is that the previous discussion compared the merit of giving alms with the seven treasures of three thousand chiliocosms to the merit of upholding a four-line verse from a sutra. Why is the metaphor of the sand of the Ganges River discussed again here? Because of this question, the verse answers 'to explain the difference in multiple meanings.' The meaning of 'to explain the difference in multiple meanings' is that the author of the treatise composes a verse to explain the previous question, wanting to clarify the concept of 'multiple.' Although it is said that there is a difference between finite and infinite, this metaphor is used again, for example, this infinite giving is different from the merit of three thousand chiliocosms, so it is said 'to explain the difference in multiple meanings.' The meaning of 'also achieves superior comparison' is that although the previous metaphor of three thousand chiliocosms compared the merit of upholding one verse, it did not fully reveal the meaning of superior comparison. Now, the metaphor of the sand of the Ganges River is used again to compare the merit of upholding a sutra, explaining that although the merit of giving alms with the seven treasures of countless Ganges sands is great, it is a merit of taking form, and what is obtained is worldly retribution, which will eventually come to an end. The merit of upholding a sutra can obtain the unsurpassed fruit of Buddhahood, which is endless retribution, and only then can it be shown that the merit of upholding a sutra is superior, so the merit of upholding one four-line verse surpasses the merit of the previous two kinds of giving. After hearing these words, another question arises: Since this sutra is so profound and important, I do not know whether the merit of merely upholding one verse of this sutra surpasses the merit of the previous two kinds of giving, or whether there is something more superior? Is the meaning of this comparison sufficient or insufficient? So the meaning of the answer is that not only can upholding a sutra obtain immeasurable merit, but if someone can respect the place where this sutra is preached, and respectfully make offerings to the person who can preach this sutra, they can also obtain immeasurable and boundless merit, surpassing the merit of the previous two kinds of giving of three thousand chiliocosms and the sand of the Ganges River, so they are encouraged to make offerings. Because these two places of preaching the sutra are superior to the two places of being able to give wealth, because of the respect for the person who upholds the sutra and the place where the sutra is preached, therefore...

---

次明也。

此一段經有六段文：一、尊重說法處；二、敬能說人；三、問經名字受持方軌；四、明三世諸佛同說此經非我一佛獨說；五、明微塵世界二種譬喻，以釋前恒沙喻中疑；六、明三十二相方便了因之福，猶不如持經之福，是其正因也。一、重說法處者，從「複次須菩提至如佛塔廟」也。「隨所有處說是經」者，隨在何處，若在講堂中、聚落、空澤曠野中，隨有說《金剛般若經》處也。所以此中勸人天修羅供養說法處者，明人天修羅所以得此殊勝五欲樂報者，皆由依般若經修行五戒十善克得此報故，勸其供養說法處也。「如佛塔廟」者，勸供養此經處如供養應佛遺形舍利住持塔想也。應勸言「供養說此經處，如供養經」，故《涅槃經》云「當知此處即是金剛明在地則地貴」也。此不應言「如佛塔廟」，取以然者，此經所詮明於法身，塔中舍利乃是應佛遺蹟，故不如也。是以《大品經》中佛告帝釋言：「三千大千世界滿中舍利作一分，此摩訶般若一匣經作一分，汝於此二欲取何者？」帝釋白佛：「我寧取此般若經也。然我非不敬重如來舍利，以由般若故方有舍利。亦以般若勛修故，舍利得供養。故取經不取捨利。」以不如故，不應供養說經處如塔廟想也。出經家以世人多尊敬塔廟舍利形像故，勸供養說法空

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其次是闡明（經文的）重要性。

這一段經文有六個部分：第一，尊重說法之處；第二，尊敬能說法之人；第三，詢問經的名字和受持的方法；第四，闡明三世諸佛共同宣說此經，並非我一佛獨自宣說；第五，闡明微塵世界兩種譬喻，用來解釋前面恒河沙數譬喻中的疑惑；第六，闡明三十二相方便了因之福，仍然不如受持此經之福，這是其正因。第一，尊重說法之處，從『複次須菩提至如佛塔廟』。『隨所有處說是經』，無論在什麼地方，如果在講堂中、聚落、空曠的沼澤曠野中，無論在什麼地方宣說《金剛般若經》。 這裡勸人天修羅供養說法之處的原因是，闡明人天修羅之所以得到這種殊勝的五欲之樂的果報，都是由於依靠般若經修行五戒十善而得到的，所以勸他們供養說法之處。『如佛塔廟』，勸人供養此經之處，如同供養應化佛的遺體舍利所住持的塔一樣。應該勸導說『供養宣說此經之處，如同供養經』，所以《涅槃經》說『應當知道這個地方就是金剛光明，在地則地貴』。這裡不應該說『如佛塔廟』，如果這樣認為，是因為此經所詮釋的是法身，塔中的舍利是應化佛的遺蹟，所以不如法身。因此，《大品經》中佛告訴帝釋說：『三千大千世界裝滿舍利作為一份，這摩訶般若經一匣作為一份，你在這兩者中想要哪一個？』帝釋告訴佛：『我寧願選擇這般若經。然而我並非不敬重如來舍利，因為由於般若的緣故才有舍利。也因為般若的熏修，舍利才得到供養。所以選擇經而不選擇舍利。』因為不如法身，所以不應該供養說經之處如同供養塔廟一樣。出經家認為世人大多尊敬塔廟舍利形像，所以勸人供養說法之處。

【English Translation】 English version: Next is to clarify the importance (of the scripture).

This section of the scripture has six parts: First, respecting the place where the Dharma is preached; second, respecting the person who can preach the Dharma; third, asking about the name of the scripture and the method of receiving and upholding it; fourth, clarifying that the Buddhas of the three worlds all speak this scripture together, not just me, one Buddha, speaking it alone; fifth, clarifying the two metaphors of the world of dust particles, used to explain the doubts in the previous metaphor of the sands of the Ganges; sixth, clarifying that the blessings of the thirty-two marks of excellence as a convenient cause are still not as good as the blessings of upholding this scripture, which is the true cause. First, respecting the place where the Dharma is preached, from 'Furthermore, Subhuti, to like a Buddha's stupa or temple'. 'Wherever this scripture is spoken', no matter where, if it is in a lecture hall, a settlement, a deserted swamp, or a wilderness, wherever the Diamond Sutra is spoken. The reason for encouraging humans, devas (gods), and asuras (demons) to make offerings to the place where the Dharma is preached here is to clarify that the reason why humans, devas, and asuras receive this supreme reward of the five desires is all because they rely on the Prajna Sutra to practice the five precepts and ten virtues to obtain it, so they are encouraged to make offerings to the place where the Dharma is preached. 'Like a Buddha's stupa or temple', encouraging people to make offerings to the place of this scripture, just like making offerings to the stupa where the relics of the manifested Buddha reside. It should be encouraged to say 'Making offerings to the place where this scripture is spoken is like making offerings to the scripture', so the Nirvana Sutra says 'You should know that this place is the Vajra Light, and the land is precious when it is on the ground'. It should not be said here 'Like a Buddha's stupa or temple', if you think so, it is because what this scripture explains is the Dharmakaya (Dharma body), and the relics in the stupa are the traces of the manifested Buddha, so it is not as good as the Dharmakaya. Therefore, in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, the Buddha told Indra: 'If the three thousand great thousand worlds are filled with relics as one part, and this box of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra is one part, which one do you want to choose between these two?' Indra told the Buddha: 'I would rather choose this Prajna Sutra. However, it is not that I do not respect the relics of the Tathagata, because there are relics because of Prajna. Also, because of the cultivation of Prajna, the relics are offered. So choose the scripture and not the relics.' Because it is not as good as the Dharmakaya, one should not make offerings to the place where the scripture is spoken as if making offerings to a stupa or temple. The scripture publisher believes that most people respect the images of stupas, temples, and relics, so they encourage people to make offerings to the place where the Dharma is preached.

---

地如塔廟想也。二、敬能說人者，從「何況有人乃至尊重似佛」也。「何況有人盡能受持讀誦此經」者，隨凡夫聖人但能受持演說此經、若與供養者，當知是人成就最上第一希有功德。前明說四句偈處尚勸供養得多福德，況有一人盡能受持讀誦此經、若興供養，當知此人得福轉多無量也。「最上希有功德」者，明供養受持經人必近得初地已上報，遠得佛果最上希有第一功德也。此最上第一希有，有二種：一、依世辯釋名，以後釋前。又一種解：最者，無有能勝也。上者，更無過也；第一者，不共下地有也；希有者，世間所無也。明盡受持人，經云得此最上等功德故，勸供養持經人也。「若是經典所在之處」者，明持經人即是經取住處也。「則為有佛」者，明勸供養持經人，莫問凡夫聖人，但能受持此經、勸供養者，當如佛想。所以然者，如來在世，親說此經以化悟眾生，末世之中有人隨順佛意受持經者，則為與佛無異故。此人雖是凡夫不名為佛，而流通大乘、說法化人，生解斷或、證於聖果，分同於佛，故勸供養如佛也。故經言「是中諸人亦是金剛明處人」則人尊也。又解此經所表即是真極法身故，亦云則為有佛也。「若尊重似佛」者，謂菩薩也，明菩薩大士至於智慧除惑、說法化物自他利行，亦是分有種智片悟同佛

，故云似佛。明此持經人化物功齊菩薩故，勸供養持經人如供養菩薩，故云尊重似佛也。三、問經名者，從「爾時須菩提白佛乃至則非般若波羅蜜」也。此中所以問其經名者，須菩提心念：如來上雖嘆經理重深，勸受持供養說法處及恭敬持經人；然我今說欲受持流通末代化益群生，若不識經名、不知受持方法，無由得說化益群生。故問經名也。「佛告須菩提：此法門名為金剛般若波羅蜜。以是名字汝當奉持」者，此是答問經名也。「金剛」者，堅實也。「般若」者，如來果頭智慧照了一切法相也。「波羅蜜」者，到彼岸也。此如來智慧彼岸功德，其體堅實喻如金剛，故云金剛般若波羅蜜也。「以是名字汝當奉持」者，因理名經，亦名金剛般若波羅蜜，故敕須菩提，以此名字，受持化物流通末代也。「何以故」者，此何以故取以而來？向須菩提既聞經名，便應問世尊：云何名此經作金剛般若波羅蜜？但有其念而不作問，故直言何以故也。答云「佛說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜」等，此是如來以世辨釋經名也，明此經詮說如來無為法身彼岸智慧，唯是如來果頭所得堅固智慧彼岸功德故，云佛說般若波羅蜜。然此智慧彼岸，唯佛境界，非二乘凡夫所知，故云即非般若波羅蜜。以是如來境界，非餘人所得故，名金剛般若耳。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所以說（持經人）類似於佛。表明這位受持經典的人教化眾生的功德等同於菩薩，所以勸人供養受持經典的人如同供養菩薩，所以說尊重（持經人）類似於佛。三、問經名，從『爾時須菩提白佛乃至則非般若波羅蜜』開始。這裡須菩提問經名的原因是，須菩提心想：如來上面雖然讚歎經典意義深遠重大，勸人受持供養，在說法的地方恭敬受持經典的人；但我現在想要受持流通，在末法時代教化利益眾生，如果不認識經名、不知道受持方法，就沒有辦法說法教化利益眾生。所以問經名。『佛告須菩提：此法門名為金剛般若波羅蜜。以是名字汝當奉持』，這是回答問經名。『金剛』，是堅實的意思。『般若』，是如來果地的智慧，照見一切法相。『波羅蜜』，是到彼岸的意思。這如來的智慧彼岸功德，它的本體堅實，比喻如同金剛，所以說金剛般若波羅蜜。『以是名字汝當奉持』，因為理而命名經，也叫金剛般若波羅蜜，所以告誡須菩提，用這個名字，受持教化流通到末法時代。『何以故』，這個何以故從哪裡來？之前須菩提已經聽聞經名，就應該問世尊：為什麼稱這部經為金剛般若波羅蜜？但只是心裡有這個念頭而沒有發問，所以直接說何以故。回答說『佛說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜』等，這是如來用世俗的言語來解釋經名，表明這部經詮釋瞭如來無為法身的彼岸智慧，唯有如來果地才能得到的堅固智慧彼岸功德，所以說佛說般若波羅蜜。然而這智慧彼岸，唯有佛的境界，不是二乘凡夫所能知道的，所以說即非般若波羅蜜。因為這是如來的境界，不是其他人所能得到的，所以名為金剛般若罷了。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said to be 'like the Buddha'. This clarifies that the merit of this Sutra-holder in transforming beings is equal to that of a Bodhisattva. Hence, it is advised to make offerings to the Sutra-holder as if offering to a Bodhisattva, thus it is said that respecting the Sutra-holder is 'like the Buddha'. Three, the question about the Sutra's name begins from 'Then, Subhuti said to the Buddha, up to, then it is not Prajna Paramita'. The reason Subhuti asks about the Sutra's name here is because Subhuti thought: Although the Thus Come One (Tathagata) above praised the Sutra's profound and weighty meaning, and advised people to receive, uphold, make offerings, and respectfully treat the place where it is taught and the Sutra-holders; but now I want to receive, uphold, propagate, and benefit sentient beings in the degenerate age. If I do not know the Sutra's name and the method of receiving and upholding it, there is no way to teach and benefit sentient beings. Therefore, he asks about the Sutra's name. 'The Buddha told Subhuti: This Dharma gate is named the Vajra (Diamond) Prajna Paramita (Perfection of Wisdom). With this name, you should uphold it.' This is the answer to the question about the Sutra's name. 'Vajra' means firmness. 'Prajna' is the wisdom of the Thus Come One's fruition, illuminating all Dharma characteristics. 'Paramita' means reaching the other shore. This wisdom and other-shore merit of the Thus Come One, its essence is firm, likened to a Vajra, therefore it is called Vajra Prajna Paramita. 'With this name, you should uphold it' means that the Sutra is named based on its principle, and it is also called Vajra Prajna Paramita. Therefore, the Buddha instructs Subhuti to use this name to receive, uphold, teach, and propagate it in the degenerate age. 'Why is that so?' Where does this 'Why is that so?' come from? Previously, Subhuti had already heard the Sutra's name, and he should have asked the World Honored One: Why is this Sutra called Vajra Prajna Paramita? But he only had the thought in his mind and did not ask, so the Buddha directly says 'Why is that so?' The answer is 'The Buddha speaks of Prajna Paramita, which is not Prajna Paramita,' etc. This is the Thus Come One explaining the Sutra's name using worldly language, clarifying that this Sutra explains the other-shore wisdom of the Thus Come One's unconditioned Dharmakaya (Dharma body), which is only the firm wisdom and other-shore merit obtained at the Thus Come One's fruition. Therefore, it is said that the Buddha speaks of Prajna Paramita. However, this wisdom and other shore is only the realm of the Buddha, not known by the Two Vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) and ordinary people, therefore it is said that it is not Prajna Paramita. Because this is the realm of the Thus Come One, not obtainable by others, therefore it is named Vajra Prajna.

---

四、十方三世諸佛同說此經者，從「須菩提！于意云何？如來無所說法」，此是一部經中第二無所說法也。上第六段中雲「無有定法如來可說」者，明應佛不實證實說，故云不說法。今須菩提言「世尊！如來無所說法」者，此二處經文乃同解意大果。次前經中言「何以故？佛說波羅蜜即非波羅蜜」，釋云此金剛般若波羅蜜，唯是如來境界，非餘人取得者。乘此生疑，為唯釋迦如來獨得獨說而余佛不得不說？為十方諸佛同得同說也？餘人語濫，故須料簡也。此中應有問答，而不作問答，直問「須菩提！于意云何？如來有所說法不」。須菩提解如來意，故答「世尊！如來無所說法」，明此至與三世諸佛現果證法作勝因故，三世諸佛相與共說「我皆因受持金剛般若經故，得發菩提心。依此經故，修十地行，成三菩提」。同得同說，不多不少、不增不減，非但我釋迦獨得而說，故云無所說法也。故《大集經》中佛自說言「吾從得道夜至涅槃夜，非其中間而不說一字」。然如來一代說無量諸經，云何乃言不說一字者？明我今所說十二部，與三世諸佛同說不異；十方諸佛所說，我不別說一字也。又解：如來從得道夜至涅槃，更不說一字者，明證法無名相，言語道斷心行處滅，不可以名相往說，故言不說一字也。

「須菩提！

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 四、十方三世諸佛共同宣說此經，從『須菩提！你的意思如何？如來沒有說法』開始，這是這部經中第二次提到沒有說法。前面第六段中說『沒有固定的法如來說』，說明應化身佛不以真實的證悟來說法，所以說不說法。現在須菩提說『世尊！如來沒有說法』，這兩處經文表達的是相同的深刻含義。之前經文中說『為什麼呢？佛說的波羅蜜即非波羅蜜』，解釋說這《金剛般若波羅蜜》唯有如來的境界才能達到，不是其他人可以得到的。因此產生疑問，難道只有釋迦如來獨自證得獨自宣說，而其他佛不能說嗎？還是十方諸佛共同證得共同宣說呢？因為其他人說法容易混淆，所以需要辨別清楚。這裡應該有問答，但沒有采用問答的形式，直接問『須菩提！你的意思如何？如來有所說法嗎？』須菩提理解如來的意思，所以回答『世尊！如來沒有說法』，說明這部經與三世諸佛的證果之法具有殊勝的因緣，所以三世諸佛共同宣說『我們都是因為受持《金剛般若經》的緣故，才得以發起菩提心。依靠這部經的緣故，修習十地之行，成就三菩提』。共同證得共同宣說，不多不少、不增不減，不是隻有我釋迦獨自證得而宣說，所以說沒有說法。《大集經》中佛自己說『我從得道之夜到涅槃之夜，沒有一刻不在說法』。然而如來一生宣說了無數經典，為什麼又說沒有說一個字呢？說明我現在所說的十二部經，與三世諸佛共同宣說的內容沒有差異；十方諸佛所說的，我沒有另外再說一個字。另一種解釋是：如來從得道之夜到涅槃，沒有再說一個字，說明證悟的法沒有名相，言語的道路斷絕，心念的活動止息，不可以用名相來描述，所以說沒有說一個字。 『須菩提！』

【English Translation】 English version 4. The Buddhas of the ten directions and three times all speak this Sutra. Starting from 'Subhuti! What do you think? The Tathagata has no Dharma to teach,' this is the second instance in this Sutra of saying there is no Dharma to teach. In the sixth section above, it says 'There is no fixed Dharma that the Tathagata can speak,' clarifying that the manifested Buddha does not speak based on actual, verified realization, hence saying there is no Dharma to teach. Now, when Subhuti says 'World Honored One! The Tathagata has no Dharma to teach,' these two instances in the Sutra convey the same profound meaning and great result. Earlier in the Sutra, it says 'Why? Because what the Buddha speaks of as Paramita is not Paramita,' explaining that this Diamond Prajna Paramita is solely the realm of the Tathagata, unattainable by others. This gives rise to doubt: Is it only Shakyamuni Tathagata who alone attains and alone speaks, while other Buddhas cannot speak? Or do the Buddhas of the ten directions all attain and all speak together? Because the words of others are easily confused, it is necessary to distinguish clearly. There should be a question and answer here, but instead of a question and answer, it directly asks 'Subhuti! What do you think? Does the Tathagata have something to teach?' Subhuti understands the Tathagata's intention, so he answers 'World Honored One! The Tathagata has no Dharma to teach,' clarifying that this Sutra, with the Dharma of the realized fruit of the Buddhas of the three times, creates a supreme cause, so the Buddhas of the three times together say 'We all, because of upholding the Diamond Prajna Sutra, were able to generate the Bodhi mind. Relying on this Sutra, we cultivate the practices of the ten Bhumis and attain the three Bodhis.' They attain and speak together, no more, no less, without increase or decrease, not only Shakyamuni alone attains and speaks, hence saying there is no Dharma to teach. Therefore, in the Mahasamghata Sutra, the Buddha himself says 'From the night I attained enlightenment until the night of Nirvana, there was not a moment in between that I did not speak a single word.' However, the Tathagata spoke countless Sutras throughout his life, so how can it be said that he did not speak a single word? It clarifies that the twelve divisions of teachings that I now speak are no different from what the Buddhas of the three times speak together; what the Buddhas of the ten directions speak, I do not speak a single word differently. Another explanation: From the night the Tathagata attained enlightenment until Nirvana, he did not speak another word, clarifying that the Dharma of realization has no name or form, the path of language is cut off, the activity of the mind ceases, and it cannot be described with names and forms, hence saying he did not speak a single word. 'Subhuti!'

---

于意云何？三千大千世界中所有微塵是為多不」者，此挍量分中第三譬喻，釋前第二恒沙譬喻，即通釋前第一三千譬喻也。疑雲：前二種喻，既取施甚多，何故得福使少，不如受持一偈之福。受持一偈經其功甚少，所以獲福多於施福無量無邊？以有斯疑，引此喻釋持得多福。所以欲明施福雖多，因是有漏煩惱染塵，果是繫縛三界之法，不能出離，所以不如。明受持一偈雖少，乃能出離三界、遠招佛果，因是無漏非煩惱染塵，果非繫縛，故勝施福也。是故舉微塵譬喻，釋此疑也。欲挍量持經、佈施二種福德憂劣不同，何故乃引外無記塵為喻也？依世辯論，明微塵之名通記無記。直言微塵者，或名煩惱、或名為染、或名為縛、或名為界、亦名為性、亦名為垢、亦名為塵、亦名點污，有種種名也。泛云微塵者，亦是煩惱微塵、亦是地微塵，以此二名相似。又名義復同，是故引地微塵為喻也。明前二種七寶佈施得福雖多，以取相心心施，與貪等煩惱合故，是染煩惱塵。體非出離故，所以不如也。持經一偈之福，因非取相，果是出離，所以是勝也。「是為多不」者，此如來問須菩提，三千世界中所有微塵為多不也。「須菩提言：彼微塵甚多。世尊」，此是須菩提仰答如來，明微塵甚為多也。「是諸微塵如來說非微塵」者，明地無

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『你的意思如何？三千大千世界中所有的微塵，你說多不多呢？』這是在校量分中的第三個譬喻，用來解釋前面的第二個恒河沙譬喻，也間接解釋了前面的第一個三千譬喻。疑問是：前面的兩種譬喻，既然說佈施非常多，為什麼得到的福報反而少，不如受持一個偈子的福報呢？受持一個偈子的功德很少，為什麼獲得的福報卻多於無量無邊的佈施福報呢？因為有這樣的疑問，所以引用這個譬喻來解釋受持佛經能獲得更多福報。想要說明佈施的福報雖然多，但因為是有漏的煩惱染污，結果是束縛在三界之內的法，不能出離，所以不如受持佛經。說明受持一個偈子雖然少，卻能出離三界，最終證得佛果，因為這是無漏的，不是煩惱染污，結果不是束縛，所以勝過佈施的福報。因此，舉微塵這個譬喻，來解釋這個疑問。想要校量持經和佈施兩種福德的優劣不同，為什麼卻引用外道的無記塵作為譬喻呢？依據世俗的辯論，說明微塵這個名稱可以通用於記和無記。直接說微塵，或者名為煩惱，或者名為染污，或者名為束縛，或者名為界限，也名為自性，也名為垢穢，也名為塵埃，也名為污點，有種種名稱。泛泛地說微塵，也可以是煩惱微塵，也可以是地上的微塵，因為這兩個名稱相似。又因為名稱和意義相同，所以引用地上的微塵作為譬喻。說明前面兩種用七寶佈施得到的福報雖然多，因為是用執著于相的心去佈施，與貪婪等煩惱結合在一起，所以是染污的煩惱塵埃。本體不能出離，所以不如受持佛經。持經一個偈子的福報，因為不是執著于相，結果是出離，所以是殊勝的。『是為多不』，這是如來問須菩提，三千世界中所有的微塵多不多。『須菩提言：彼微塵甚多。世尊』，這是須菩提仰慕地回答如來，說明微塵非常多。『是諸微塵如來說非微塵』，說明地上的微塵

【English Translation】 English version: 『What do you think? Are the motes of dust in the three thousand great thousand worlds many or not?』 This is the third analogy in the Section on Comparative Merits, explaining the second analogy of the Ganges sands, and also indirectly explaining the first analogy of the three thousand worlds. The question is: Since the previous two analogies spoke of giving so much, why is the resulting merit less than that of upholding a single verse? The merit of upholding a single verse is small, so why does it yield more merit than limitless and boundless merit from giving? Because of this doubt, this analogy is cited to explain that upholding the sutras brings more merit. The intention is to show that although the merit of giving is great, it is due to the defilement of leaky (有漏) afflictions (煩惱), and the result is a dharma (法) that binds one within the three realms (三界), unable to escape, and therefore it is not as good as upholding the sutras. It explains that although upholding a single verse is little, it can lead to escape from the three realms and ultimately to the attainment of Buddhahood (佛果), because it is free from leakage (無漏), not defiled by afflictions, and the result is not bondage, so it surpasses the merit of giving. Therefore, the analogy of motes of dust is used to explain this doubt. Wanting to compare the differences in superiority and inferiority between the two kinds of merit, upholding the sutras and giving, why is the non-definitive (無記) dust of external paths used as an analogy? According to worldly debates, the name 『mote of dust』 can be used for both definitive (記) and non-definitive. Directly speaking of motes of dust, it may be called affliction (煩惱), or defilement (染污), or bondage (束縛), or limitation (界限), also called nature (性), also called filth (垢穢), also called dust (塵埃), also called stain (污點), having various names. Generally speaking of motes of dust, it can also be motes of dust of affliction, or motes of dust of the earth, because these two names are similar. Also, because the name and meaning are the same, the motes of dust of the earth are used as an analogy. It explains that although the merit gained from the previous two kinds of giving with seven treasures (七寶) is great, it is because the giving is done with a mind attached to appearances (取相心), combined with afflictions such as greed (貪), so it is defiled dust of affliction. The essence cannot escape, so it is not as good as upholding the sutras. The merit of upholding a single verse of the sutras is because it is not attached to appearances, and the result is escape, so it is superior. 『Are they many or not?』 This is the Tathagata (如來) asking Subhuti (須菩提) whether the motes of dust in the three thousand worlds are many or not. 『Subhuti said: Those motes of dust are very many, World Honored One (世尊).』 This is Subhuti reverently answering the Tathagata, explaining that the motes of dust are very many. 『These motes of dust, as the Tathagata said, are not motes of dust,』 explaining that the motes of dust of the earth

---

記微塵非染煩惱微塵也。非是性空故言非，亦非全無，但非染煩惱微塵，故言非也。「是名微塵」者，是名三千世界地無記微塵，亦得云是非煩惱染微塵也。第四所以復引世界喻者，前就細為言，此據粗而說。粗細雖異，名義名同，亦通記無記，不異塵喻也，復以世辯之名不同故也。

「須菩提！于意云何？可以三十二相見如來不」者，此何故來？前明二種佈施取相之福，但得三界天人有為果報故，不及持經福者。然未知報佛三十二大人相福方便之因，此十地萬行亦是出世無漏之福，復何如持經之福也？所以然者，經中明如來自云「我於過去，由以頭頂禮敬父母師長，今得無見頂相。以見他為福隨喜佐助故，手中得羅網相。從三大阿僧祇劫來不曾妄語故，得廣長舌相」，然如是等相亦皆是無漏勝因所招，此因為同持經之福、為不同？以有此疑故，佛問須菩提可以三十二大人相見如來不？故答意明何但恒沙七寶佈施取相之行不及持經一偈之福，設報佛三十二大人相福方便勝因，亦不如受持此經一偈之福也。又難：然三十二大人相因是其了因，受持此經亦是了因。既二俱了因，何故持經功德勝大人相福？故答所以然者，明此經故從法身中來，是其一分故，還詮法身，尋此能詮證於法身。雖言受持經教，而意在所證詮

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：記錄微塵並非被染污的煩惱微塵。說『非』，是因為它本質是空性的，但也不是完全沒有，只是它不是被染污的煩惱微塵，所以說『非』。『是名微塵』，指的是三千世界土地上無記性的微塵，也可以說是非煩惱染污的微塵。第四次再次引用世界的比喻，是因為前面是從細微的角度來說，這裡是從粗大的角度來說。粗細雖然不同，名稱和意義相同，也包括有記和無記，與塵土的比喻沒有不同，再次用世界來區分，是因為名稱不同。

『須菩提！于意云何？可以三十二相見如來不』，這是為什麼提出來的？前面說明兩種佈施，因為執著于相而得到的福報，只能得到三界天人有為的果報，所以不如受持經文的福報。然而還不知道以佛的三十二大丈夫相為報的福德，其方便之因是什麼，這十地萬行也是出世間無漏的福報，又怎麼比得上受持經文的福報呢？之所以這樣說，是因為經中說明如來自己說：『我於過去，因為用頭頂禮敬父母師長，現在得到無見頂相。因為看到別人行善就隨喜幫助，所以手中得到羅網相。從三大阿僧祇劫（Asamkhya kalpa）以來不曾說謊，所以得到廣長舌相』，像這些相都是無漏殊勝的因所招感的，這個因和受持經文的福報相同還是不同呢？因為有這個疑問，所以佛問須菩提是否可以通過三十二大丈夫相見到如來。所以回答的意思是，不要說用恒河沙（Ganges sand）一樣的七寶佈施，這種執著于相的行為不如受持經文一偈的福報，即使是以佛的三十二大丈夫相為報的福德，其方便殊勝之因，也不如受持此經一偈的福報。又有人提問：然而三十二大丈夫相的因是其了因，受持此經也是了因。既然兩者都是了因，為什麼受持經文的功德勝過大人相的福報？所以回答說，是因為這部經是從法身（Dharmakaya）中來的，是法身的一部分，所以又詮釋法身，通過這個能詮來證得法身。雖然說是受持經教，但意在所證悟的法身。

【English Translation】 English version: Recording a subtle dust particle is not a defiled dust particle of affliction. Saying 'not' is because its essence is emptiness, but it is not completely non-existent; it is simply not a defiled dust particle of affliction, hence the term 'not'. 'Is named subtle dust particle' refers to the unmarked subtle dust particles on the earth of the three thousand worlds, and can also be said to be non-affliction-defiled subtle dust particles. The fourth time the analogy of the world is cited again is because the previous discussion was from a subtle perspective, while this is from a coarse perspective. Although the coarse and subtle are different, the names and meanings are the same, including both marked and unmarked, and there is no difference from the analogy of dust. The world is used again to distinguish because the names are different.

'Subhuti! What do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the thirty-two marks?' Why is this question raised? The previous explanation of the two types of giving, because of attachment to form, only results in the conditioned rewards of gods and humans in the three realms, so it is not as good as the merit of upholding the sutras. However, it is not yet known what the expedient cause is for the merit of repaying the Buddha with the thirty-two major marks, and these ten stages and myriad practices are also supramundane unconditioned merits. How can they compare to the merit of upholding the sutras? The reason for saying this is because the sutra explains that the Tathagata himself said: 'In the past, because I bowed to my parents and teachers with the crown of my head, I now have the invisible crown mark. Because I rejoice and assist when I see others doing good, I have the net-like mark on my hands. Since three great Asamkhya kalpas (Asamkhya kalpa) ago, I have never lied, so I have the broad and long tongue mark.' These marks are all caused by unconditioned and excellent causes. Are these causes the same as or different from the merit of upholding the sutras? Because of this doubt, the Buddha asked Subhuti whether the Tathagata could be seen by means of the thirty-two major marks. Therefore, the meaning of the answer is that not only is the practice of giving seven treasures like the Ganges sand (Ganges sand) with attachment to form not as good as the merit of upholding a single verse of the sutra, but even the expedient and excellent cause of the merit of repaying the Buddha with the thirty-two major marks is not as good as the merit of upholding a single verse of this sutra. Someone also asks: However, the cause of the thirty-two major marks is its direct cause, and upholding this sutra is also a direct cause. Since both are direct causes, why is the merit of upholding the sutra superior to the merit of the major marks? Therefore, the answer is that this sutra comes from the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya), and is a part of the Dharmakaya, so it also explains the Dharmakaya, and through this explainer, one attains the Dharmakaya. Although it is said to uphold the teachings of the sutras, the intention is in the Dharmakaya that is realized.

---

理，故受持此經者即受法身，故勝大人相福也，非謂所持經功德了因義遣也。「于意云何？可以三十二大人相見如來不」者，佛問須菩提，于汝內心所解，可以報佛三十二大人相見古今一定虛空法身如來不也？故言可以三十二大人相見如來不也。「須菩提言不也」者，明法報義殊，修得不修得亦異故，不可以報佛相好見法身如來也。此如來名同，故爾解釋也。

「何以故」者，有人乘生疑念：若不可以報佛三十二大人相見法身如來者，何故如來自說「我三大阿僧祇修行滿足，金剛心后，顯本有法身，以為報佛。」爾時為法報二佛則體一無差，何故乃言「不可以報佛大丈夫相見法身佛」？故云何以故也。故須菩提答「如來說三十二大人相三十二大人相」者，是報佛如來修得之相故，如來說為報佛三十二大人相也。「即是非相」者，明此報佛所得三十二大人相，即非古今一定法身相也。何以故？法報二佛體一無差，而不可以報佛相見者，以古今一定虛空法身，若修十地行亦不可得以色相而見，不修十地行亦不可得以色相而見，以此三十二大人相非法身相故，言即是非相也。以此別相義故，不可以報佛修得之相見無為法身佛也。上來校量持經功德勝如不同。然法報二佛體既不殊，無優劣之別，所以乃云不可以報佛大丈

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：道理是這樣的，所以受持這部經的人，就是接受了法身，因此勝過以大人相所獲得的福報。這並不是說所持經的功德了因義被遣除了。「你的意思怎麼樣？可以憑藉三十二大人相來見如來嗎？」這是佛陀問須菩提，在你內心所理解的，可以憑藉報身佛的三十二大人相，來見古今不變、虛空般的法身如來嗎？所以說可以憑藉三十二大人相來見如來嗎？「須菩提說不可以」表明法身和報身的意義不同，修得和不修得也有差異，所以不可以用報身佛的相好來見法身如來。這裡如來的名號相同，所以這樣解釋。「為什麼呢？」有人因此產生疑惑：如果不能用報身佛的三十二大人相來見法身如來，為什麼如來自己說「我經過三大阿僧祇劫的修行圓滿，在金剛心之後，顯現出本有的法身，作為報身佛。」那時法身佛和報身佛本體是一樣的，沒有差別，為什麼又說「不可以用報身佛的大丈夫相來見法身佛」？所以問為什麼呢。因此須菩提回答「如來說的三十二大人相，三十二大人相」，這是報身佛如來修得的相，所以如來說是報身佛的三十二大人相。「即是非相」，表明這報身佛所得到的三十二大人相，不是古今不變的法身相。為什麼呢？法身佛和報身佛本體是一樣的，但是不可以用報身佛的相來見法身佛，因為古今不變、虛空般的法身，如果修十地行也不能用色相而見，不修十地行也不能用色相而見，因此這三十二大人相不是法身相，所以說即是非相。因為這種差別相的緣故，不可以用報身佛修得的相來見無為的法身佛。上面比較了受持經的功德，勝過不同的福報。然而法身佛和報身佛本體既然沒有差別，沒有優劣之分，所以才說不可以用報身佛的大丈夫相

【English Translation】 English version: The reason is that, therefore, those who receive and uphold this sutra are receiving the Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma body), thus surpassing the blessings obtained through the thirty-two major marks (三十二大人相, thirty-two marks of a great man). This does not mean that the merit of upholding the sutra, in terms of the cause of understanding, is eliminated. 'What do you think? Can the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) be seen by the thirty-two major marks?' This is the Buddha asking Subhuti (須菩提, one of the principal disciples of the Buddha), in your inner understanding, can you use the thirty-two major marks of the Reward Body Buddha (報佛, Reward Body Buddha) to see the eternal, unchanging, space-like Dharmakaya Tathagata? Therefore, it is said, 'Can the Tathagata be seen by the thirty-two major marks?' 'Subhuti said, no,' indicating that the meanings of Dharmakaya and Reward Body are different, and whether one cultivates or not also makes a difference, so one cannot use the physical characteristics of the Reward Body Buddha to see the Dharmakaya Tathagata. Here, the names of the Tathagatas are the same, so this is the explanation. 'Why?' Someone may give rise to doubt: If one cannot use the thirty-two major marks of the Reward Body Buddha to see the Dharmakaya Tathagata, why did the Tathagata himself say, 'I cultivated for three great Asamkhya kalpas (阿僧祇劫, incalculable eons), and after the diamond mind (金剛心, diamond mind), manifested the inherent Dharmakaya as the Reward Body Buddha.' At that time, the Dharmakaya Buddha and the Reward Body Buddha were one and the same, without difference, so why say, 'One cannot use the major marks of the Reward Body Buddha to see the Dharmakaya Buddha?' Therefore, it is asked, 'Why?' Therefore, Subhuti answers, 'The thirty-two major marks that the Tathagata speaks of, the thirty-two major marks,' these are the marks attained through cultivation by the Reward Body Buddha Tathagata, so the Tathagata speaks of them as the thirty-two major marks of the Reward Body Buddha. 'Are immediately non-marks,' indicating that these thirty-two major marks attained by the Reward Body Buddha are not the eternal, unchanging Dharmakaya marks. Why? The Dharmakaya Buddha and the Reward Body Buddha are one and the same, but one cannot use the marks of the Reward Body Buddha to see the Dharmakaya Buddha, because the eternal, unchanging, space-like Dharmakaya, even if one cultivates the ten Bhumis (十地, ten grounds) of Bodhisattvas, cannot be seen with physical characteristics, and even if one does not cultivate the ten Bhumis, cannot be seen with physical characteristics, therefore these thirty-two major marks are not the Dharmakaya marks, so it is said that they are immediately non-marks. Because of this difference in characteristics, one cannot use the marks attained through cultivation by the Reward Body Buddha to see the unconditioned Dharmakaya Buddha. The above compares the merit of upholding the sutra, surpassing different blessings. However, since the Dharmakaya Buddha and the Reward Body Buddha are not different in essence, and there is no distinction of superiority or inferiority, therefore it is said that one cannot use the major marks of the Reward Body Buddha

---

夫相見法身如來者，此舉果以明因有勝如不同，非謂法報二佛其體是一而優劣有異，而不可以報佛丈夫相見法身佛也。有人乘生疑難：若是三十二大人相非法身佛者，此三十二大人相則一向非相，故答是名三十二大人相，則是名報佛三十二大人相相，亦得是名非法身相也。此就法報二佛別相義邊論，不道一義邊故，是名報佛丈夫相也。

「論曰：云何成彼勝福」者，論主將欲設偈釋此一段經，先作問生疑，問此一段經云何成上持經之福勝七寶施福也。即以偈答。而此一段經，但以一偈論釋。「尊重於二處者」，此一句釋人處二經：一、釋尊重說法處；二、釋敬重能說人。此應云尊重於二處，因習證大體；亦應言不尊重於二處，彼因習煩惱：一、不尊重舍物處，二不敬重舍物人。但以偈狹故，𨷂不論也。「因習證大體」者，釋上尊重二處。所以但言尊重說法處人，不重舍物處人者，因受持修行此經一四句偈故，能證法身大體故，但言尊重說法人處，不言舍財處人也。又此偈中第二句，依下長行論次第廣應釋問經名、如來無所說法等二段經也。「彼因習煩惱」者，明七寶佈施雖多，取相之福是人天之因，是染縛之法，故言彼因習煩惱，不言重舍物處人也。「此降伏染福」者，明三十二相因勝前取相施福也。然三十二

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所謂『相見法身如來』，這是爲了說明因地修行殊勝，所以果報也不同，並非說法身佛和報身佛本體相同，只是優劣有別，因此不能以報身佛的三十二大丈夫相去相見法身佛。有人因此產生疑問：如果三十二大丈夫相不是法身佛的特徵，那麼這三十二大丈夫相就始終不是真實的相。所以回答說，『是名三十二大人相』，這只是名為報身佛的三十二大丈夫相，也可以說是非法身之相。這是就法身佛和報身佛的差別相而言，不是從一體的角度來說，所以說是報身佛的大丈夫相。

論曰：『云何成彼勝福』，論主將要用偈頌來解釋這段經文，先提出問題以引發思考，問這段經文如何成就勝過用七寶佈施的福德。然後用偈頌來回答。而這段經文，只用一個偈頌來論述解釋。『尊重於二處者』，這一句解釋了人與處兩個方面：一是尊重說法之處；二是敬重能說法之人。這裡應該說尊重於二處，因為通過修習可以證得法身大體；也應該說不尊重於二處，因為那些人因習氣而產生煩惱：一是不尊重舍物之處，二是不敬重舍物之人。但因為偈頌篇幅有限，所以沒有全部論述。『因習證大體』，解釋了上面所說的尊重二處。所以只說尊重說法之處和說法之人，而不說重視舍物之處和舍物之人，是因為受持修行此經中的一句四句偈，就能證得法身大體，所以只說尊重說法之人與處，而不說舍財之處與人。而且這個偈頌中的第二句，應該按照下文長行的論述次序，廣泛地解釋『問經名』、『如來無所說法』等兩段經文。『彼因習煩惱』，說明七寶佈施雖然多，但執著于相的福報是人天道的因，是染污束縛之法，所以說『彼因習煩惱』，而不說重視舍物之處與人。『此降伏染福』，說明三十二相的因勝過之前執著于相的佈施福報。然而三十二相

【English Translation】 English version: The so-called 'seeing the Dharmakaya Tathagata' illustrates that due to the superior practice in the causal stage, the resultant rewards are also different. It does not mean that the Dharmakaya Buddha and the Sambhogakaya Buddha are the same in essence, but only differ in superiority and inferiority. Therefore, one cannot use the thirty-two major marks of the Sambhogakaya Buddha to see the Dharmakaya Buddha. Some people raise doubts about this: if the thirty-two major marks are not characteristics of the Dharmakaya Buddha, then these thirty-two major marks are never real marks. Therefore, the answer is, 'they are called the thirty-two major marks,' which are only named as the thirty-two major marks of the Sambhogakaya Buddha, and can also be said to be non-Dharmakaya marks. This is discussed from the perspective of the difference between the Dharmakaya Buddha and the Sambhogakaya Buddha, not from the perspective of oneness, so it is said to be the major marks of the Sambhogakaya Buddha.

The Treatise says: 'How is that supreme merit achieved?' The author of the treatise is about to use a verse to explain this passage of scripture, first raising a question to provoke thought, asking how this passage of scripture achieves merit that surpasses the merit of giving with seven treasures. Then he answers with a verse. And this passage of scripture is discussed and explained with only one verse. 'Respect in two places' explains the two aspects of person and place: one is respecting the place where the Dharma is spoken; the other is respecting the person who can speak the Dharma. Here it should be said to respect in two places, because through practice one can realize the great body of the Dharmakaya; it should also be said not to respect in two places, because those people generate afflictions due to habitual tendencies: one is not respecting the place where things are given, and the other is not respecting the person who gives things. But because the verse is limited in length, it is not fully discussed. 'Because of practice, one realizes the great body' explains the above-mentioned respect in two places. Therefore, it only says to respect the place where the Dharma is spoken and the person who speaks the Dharma, and does not say to value the place where things are given and the person who gives things, because by upholding and practicing a four-line verse in this scripture, one can realize the great body of the Dharmakaya, so it only says to respect the person and place where the Dharma is spoken, and does not say the place and person where wealth is given. Moreover, the second line in this verse should be widely explained according to the order of the long commentary below, explaining the two passages of scripture such as 'asking the name of the scripture' and 'the Tathagata has nothing to say.' 'They cause habitual afflictions' explains that although giving with seven treasures is much, the merit of clinging to appearances is the cause of the human and heavenly realms, which is a defiled and binding Dharma, so it says 'they cause habitual afflictions,' and does not say to value the place and person where things are given. 'This subdues defiled merit' explains that the cause of the thirty-two marks surpasses the merit of giving with clinging to appearances before. However, the thirty-two marks

---

相福雖勝前施福，猶不如持經一偈功德也，明此持經功德非但勝有滿之因，亦勝大人相方便因，故言此降伏染福也。「此義云何」等，自下釋此一偈，次第解經也。「尊重於二處者」，提偈中上句，釋經中第一第二與句經也。「一者所說處，二者能說人」等，上句云尊重處，今數出之也。以尊重經論故，舉此人處勸供養也。「非七寶等」者，以七寶施福是煩惱因故，不勸人供養，此舍財處人也。「此法門與一切證法作勝因故」者，以釋偈中第二句，解第三第四子句經文，明十方諸佛云我皆因受持此金剛般若經故解無為法身、證大菩提，故同說也。「如經」以下至「如來無所說法」，舉經來結，然後更釋也。「此義云何」者，此經中言「如來無所說法」，論主乃釋作十方諸佛證法以為勝因同說之義。此竟云何也？即釋云「無有一法唯獨如來說余佛不說故」，得釋如來無所說法，經作十方諸佛勝因同說義也。「彼珍寶」等經煩惱塵染因，釋偈中第三句，解經第五子句也。「彼珍寶佈施福德是染煩惱因」者，出七寶施福作有漏因義也。「以能成就煩惱事故」者，明向因所得果是三界中人天五陰果事也。「此因遠離煩惱因故」者，明持經之福非煩惱因也。「是故」者，是七寶施福是煩惱因，持經之福非煩惱因，故說此地微塵喻

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 相較於之前的佈施福報，持誦佛經中一偈的功德更為殊勝。這表明持經的功德不僅勝過獲得圓滿果報的因，也勝過成就大人相的方便之因，因此說這是降伏染污的福報。「此義云何」等，從下文開始解釋這一偈，依次解讀經文。「尊重於二處者」，提出偈中的上句，解釋經中的第一和第二句經文。「一者所說處，二者能說人」等，上句說尊重之處，現在一一列舉出來。因為尊重經論的緣故，舉出人和處所勸人供養。「非七寶等」者，因為用七寶佈施的福報是煩惱之因，所以不勸人供養，這是舍財的處所和人。「此法門與一切證法作勝因故」者，這是解釋偈中的第二句，解讀第三和第四句經文，說明十方諸佛說我都是因為受持這部《金剛般若經》的緣故，才得以解脫無為法身、證得大菩提，所以共同宣說。「如經」以下至「如來無所說法」，引用經文來總結，然後進一步解釋。「此義云何」者，這部經中說「如來無所說法」，論主卻解釋為十方諸佛證法的殊勝之因，共同宣說的含義。這究竟是什麼意思呢？即解釋說「沒有一種法是唯獨如來說而其他佛不說的」，從而解釋瞭如來無所說法，經文是十方諸佛殊勝之因，共同宣說的含義。「彼珍寶」等經煩惱塵染之因，解釋偈中的第三句，解讀經文的第五句。「彼珍寶佈施福德是染煩惱因」者，說明用七寶佈施的福報是有漏之因。「以能成就煩惱事故」者，說明由這個因所得到的果報是三界中人天五陰的果報。「此因遠離煩惱因故」者，說明持經的福報不是煩惱之因。「是故」者，是因為七寶佈施的福報是煩惱之因，持經的福報不是煩惱之因，所以說這個大地微塵的比喻。

【English Translation】 English version The merit of reciting even a single verse from this scripture surpasses the merit of previous acts of generosity. This clarifies that the merit of upholding the scripture not only exceeds the cause of attaining complete fruition but also surpasses the expedient cause of achieving the marks of a great being. Therefore, it is said that this subdues defiled blessings. 'What is the meaning of this?' etc., from below, explains this verse, sequentially interpreting the scripture. 'Respect in two places' refers to the upper line of the verse, explaining the first and second lines of the scripture. 'One is the place where it is spoken, and the other is the person who speaks it,' etc. The upper line speaks of the place of respect, which is now enumerated. Because of respecting the scriptures, this person and place are mentioned to encourage offerings. 'Not seven treasures, etc.' because the merit of giving with seven treasures is a cause of affliction, so people are not encouraged to make offerings; this is the place and person for giving away wealth. 'This Dharma-door is the superior cause for all Dharma attainments' explains the second line of the verse, interpreting the third and fourth sub-lines of the scripture, clarifying that all Buddhas of the ten directions say that they all attained the unconditioned Dharma-body and realized great Bodhi because of upholding this Vajra Prajna Sutra, so they speak in unison. 'As the scripture says' down to 'The Tathagata has nothing to say,' quotes the scripture to conclude, and then further explains. 'What is the meaning of this?' This scripture says, 'The Tathagata has nothing to say,' but the commentator explains it as the meaning of the superior cause of the Dharma attained by all Buddhas of the ten directions, speaking in unison. What does this ultimately mean? It is explained as 'There is no Dharma that only the Tathagata speaks and other Buddhas do not speak,' thus explaining that the Tathagata has nothing to say, and the scripture is the superior cause of all Buddhas of the ten directions, speaking in unison. 'Those precious jewels' etc. are the cause of defilement by the dust of affliction, explaining the third line of the verse, interpreting the fifth sub-line of the scripture. 'The merit of giving with those precious jewels is the cause of defiled affliction' clarifies that the merit of giving with seven treasures is a cause of conditioned existence. 'Because it can accomplish the affairs of affliction' clarifies that the result obtained from this cause is the result of the five aggregates of humans and gods in the three realms. 'This cause is far from the cause of affliction' clarifies that the merit of upholding the scripture is not a cause of affliction. 'Therefore' is because the merit of giving with seven treasures is a cause of affliction, and the merit of upholding the scripture is not a cause of affliction, so this analogy of the dust of the earth is spoken.

---

也，明此地塵是微塵而非染因故，證經七寶施福亦名微塵，而是染因故，不及持經福也。「如經」等，引微塵世界等經結也。「何故如是說」者，問：向經何以言是諸微塵，復言如來說非微塵，何故如是相違說也？即釋彼微塵非貪等煩惱體，明彼三千世界地微塵非貪瞋等煩惱染微塵，故言非微塵也。「以是義故名為地微塵」者，以是地無記微塵，非貪等塵義故，唯得說為地微塵也，世界之義亦同微塵也。「此明何義」者，向說地微塵非煩惱染者，此為明何等義故也？即釋云，彼福德是煩惱染因，此正出喻所況事，為明七寶施福是煩惱染塵故，明此微塵世界二喻也。「是故於外無記塵，彼福德善根為近」者，是七寶施福是煩惱染因，能感三界人天果報，故得為近。外無記塵非煩惱染因，不能感果，故不名為近也。「何況此福能成佛菩提」者，上七寶施福但於世間果報有其因義，形於外塵尚得為近，何況持經之福能顯法身佛菩提，此最是近中之近也，及成就大丈夫相福德中勝故。明此持經之福於法身菩提有勝因之義，不但勝七寶于福人天之因，亦勝報佛大丈夫相因。是受持經福勝丈夫相因，無漏福故。況復不勝七寶佈施有漏之福？故云勝彼福也。「何以故」者，此持經之福勝七寶佈施有漏之福，事容可爾；而此丈夫相因是

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：而且，要明白這裡的『塵』是指微塵，而不是染污的原因。因此，即使用七寶佈施所獲得的福報也被稱為『微塵』，但因為它是染污的原因，所以不如受持經書的福報。『如經』等，引用微塵世界等經典來總結。『何故如是說』，是問：為什麼經典中說這些是微塵，又說如來說非微塵，為何這樣互相矛盾的說法？接著解釋說，那些微塵不是貪婪等煩惱的本體，說明那三千世界的地微塵不是貪嗔等煩惱染污的微塵，所以說非微塵。『以是義故名為地微塵』，因為這是無記的地微塵，不是貪婪等塵埃的含義，所以只能說是地微塵，世界的意義也與微塵相同。『此明何義』，前面說地微塵不是煩惱染污，這是爲了說明什麼意義呢？接著解釋說，那種福德是煩惱染污的原因，這正是提出比喻所要說明的事情，爲了說明七寶佈施的福報是煩惱染污的塵埃，說明這微塵和世界的兩個比喻。『是故於外無記塵，彼福德善根為近』，這七寶佈施的福報是煩惱染污的原因，能夠感得三界人天的果報，所以可以稱為『近』。外面的無記塵不是煩惱染污的原因，不能感得果報，所以不能稱為『近』。『何況此福能成佛菩提』，上面說的七寶佈施的福報只是在世間的果報方面有其原因的意義，相對於外面的塵埃尚且可以稱為『近』，何況受持經書的福報能夠顯現法身佛的菩提，這才是最接近的。以及成就大丈夫相的福德中最為殊勝的。說明這受持經書的福報對於法身菩提有殊勝的原因的意義，不僅僅勝過七寶佈施所帶來的福報人天的原因，也勝過報佛大丈夫相的原因。這是受持經書的福報勝過大丈夫相的原因，因為是無漏的福報。更何況不能勝過七寶佈施的有漏福報呢？所以說勝過那種福報。『何以故』，這受持經書的福報勝過七寶佈施的有漏福報，事情或許可以這樣說；而這大丈夫相的原因是

【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, it should be understood that the 'dust' here refers to fine particles (microcosmic dust) and not the cause of defilement. Therefore, even the merit gained from giving with the seven treasures is called 'microcosmic dust' (微塵), but because it is a cause of defilement, it is not as great as the merit of upholding the scriptures. 'As the Sutra says' etc., cites the Sutra of Microcosmic Worlds (微塵世界) etc. to conclude. 'Why is it said like this?' is asking: Why does the Sutra say that these are microcosmic dust, and yet the Tathagata says they are not microcosmic dust? Why is there such contradictory speech? Then it explains that those microcosmic dust are not the substance of greed and other afflictions, clarifying that the earth microcosmic dust of the three thousand worlds are not the defiled microcosmic dust of greed, anger, etc., therefore it is said they are not microcosmic dust. 'For this reason, it is called earth microcosmic dust' (地微塵), because this is the earth's neutral (無記) microcosmic dust, not the meaning of dust of greed etc., so it can only be said to be earth microcosmic dust, and the meaning of 'world' is the same as microcosmic dust. 'What meaning does this clarify?' (此明何義) is asking, what meaning is being clarified by saying that earth microcosmic dust is not defiled by afflictions? Then it explains that that merit is the cause of defilement by afflictions, which is precisely the point of the analogy, to clarify that the merit of giving with the seven treasures is the dust of defilement by afflictions, clarifying the two analogies of microcosmic dust and the world. 'Therefore, in external neutral dust, that merit and roots of goodness are near' (外無記塵，彼福德善根為近), the merit of giving with the seven treasures is the cause of defilement by afflictions, which can bring about the fruits of humans and gods in the three realms, so it can be called 'near'. External neutral dust is not the cause of defilement by afflictions and cannot bring about fruits, so it cannot be called 'near'. 'How much more can this merit accomplish Buddha's Bodhi?' (何況此福能成佛菩提), the merit of giving with the seven treasures mentioned above only has the meaning of being a cause in terms of worldly fruits, and can still be called 'near' relative to external dust, how much more so can the merit of upholding the scriptures reveal the Dharmakaya (法身) Buddha's Bodhi, which is the closest of all. And it is the most excellent among the merits of accomplishing the marks of a great man (大丈夫相). It clarifies that the merit of upholding the scriptures has the meaning of being an excellent cause for the Dharmakaya Bodhi, not only surpassing the cause of the merit of giving with the seven treasures for humans and gods, but also surpassing the cause of the marks of a great man of the reward Buddha. This is because the merit of upholding the scriptures surpasses the cause of the marks of a great man, because it is unconditioned (無漏) merit. How much more so does it surpass the conditioned (有漏) merit of giving with the seven treasures? Therefore, it is said to surpass that merit. 'Why is this so?' (何以故), the merit of upholding the scriptures surpasses the conditioned merit of giving with the seven treasures, which may be the case; but the cause of the marks of a great man is

---

無漏福，何以故復云不如持經福也？即釋云「彼相於佛菩提非相故」。然大丈夫相因所以不如持經福者，明大丈夫相唯是報佛相非法身佛相，以此無漏福德但能與報佛丈夫相為因，不能與法佛菩提為因，故受持經者即是受持法佛菩提，是故持經之福勝丈夫相因也，即結之「以非彼法身相故」也。此中乘生疑難：若此丈夫相非法佛相菩提相者，何故如來說顯本有之性以為報佛？若令顯本有之性為報佛者，便二佛一體，何故言丈夫相非法佛相也？即釋云「是故說大丈夫相」，明法報二佛雖復體一，復有別相之義，是故我說大丈夫修修得之相，唯是報佛家相非法身相，即結云「以彼相故」也，明以彼丈夫相即報佛相故。上云「于佛菩提非相」，非謂于報佛菩提亦非相也，此受持及說能成佛菩提。「是故彼非勝故」者，唯結持經福勝丈夫相，無漏福也。「又彼福德至最近最勝」，釋偈中第四句降伏義，明凡夫相因是無漏福、能降伏，七寶施福尚不如持經福德，何況不勝珍寶佈施有漏之福。此一句雙結勝二種福也。「如是彼檀至最勝成也」，此通結舍外財二種譬喻挍量及丈夫相福中勝義成也。

「佛言：須菩提！若善男子善女人，以恒河沙身命佈施」者，此挍量分中第七段經文。所以來者，上明三千恒沙二種佈施，唯言舍

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：無漏的福德，為什麼又說不如受持經典的福德呢？解釋說：『因為大丈夫相與佛的菩提不相應。』然而大丈夫相作為成佛的因，為什麼不如受持經典的福德呢？說明大丈夫相只是報身佛的相，不是法身佛的相。因此，這種無漏的福德只能作為成就報身佛大丈夫相的因，不能作為成就法身佛菩提的因。所以，受持經典的人就是受持法身佛的菩提，因此受持經典的福德勝過大丈夫相的因。最後總結說：『因為不是法身佛的相。』這裡，有人產生疑問：如果這個大丈夫相不是法身佛的相，也不是菩提的相，為什麼如來說顯現本有的自性作為報身佛呢？如果說顯現本有的自性就是報身佛，那麼報身佛和法身佛就是一體的，為什麼又說大丈夫相不是法身佛的相呢？解釋說：『所以說大丈夫相』，說明法身佛和報身佛雖然本體是一體的，但又有不同的相。所以我說大丈夫通過修行而得到的相，只是報身佛的相，不是法身佛的相。最後總結說：『因為那個相的緣故』，說明因為那個大丈夫相就是報身佛的相的緣故。上面說『與佛的菩提不相應』，不是說與報身佛的菩提也不相應。這種受持和演說能夠成就佛的菩提。『所以那個不是最殊勝的緣故』，只是總結受持經典的福德勝過大丈夫相的無漏福德。『而且那個福德達到最近最殊勝』，解釋偈頌中第四句降伏的含義，說明凡夫的相因是無漏的福德，能夠降伏，用七寶佈施的福德尚且不如受持經典的福德，更何況不如不勝過珍寶佈施的有漏福德。這一句雙重總結了勝過兩種福德。『像這樣，那個佈施達到最殊勝成就』，這裡總括了捨棄外財的兩種譬喻比較，以及大丈夫相的福德中殊勝的意義成就。 『佛說：須菩提！（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子之一）如果善男子善女人，以恒河沙數的身命來佈施』，這是比較功德的第七段經文。之所以這樣說，是因為上面說明了三千大千世界和恒河沙數這兩種佈施，只說了捨棄

【English Translation】 English version: Why is it said that the merit of non-outflow is inferior to the merit of upholding the scriptures? It is explained, 'Because the marks of a great man are not corresponding to the Bodhi of the Buddha.' However, why is the cause of the marks of a great man inferior to the merit of upholding the scriptures? It is clarified that the marks of a great man are only the marks of the Reward Body Buddha, not the marks of the Dharma Body Buddha. Therefore, this non-outflow merit can only be the cause of the Reward Body Buddha's marks of a great man, and cannot be the cause of the Dharma Body Buddha's Bodhi. Therefore, those who uphold the scriptures are upholding the Dharma Body Buddha's Bodhi, so the merit of upholding the scriptures surpasses the cause of the marks of a great man. It concludes, 'Because it is not the mark of the Dharma Body.' Here, a doubt arises: If these marks of a great man are not the marks of the Dharma Body Buddha or the marks of Bodhi, why does the Tathagata say that revealing the inherent nature is the Reward Body Buddha? If revealing the inherent nature is the Reward Body Buddha, then the two Buddhas are one body. Why is it said that the marks of a great man are not the marks of the Dharma Body Buddha? It is explained, 'Therefore, it is said the marks of a great man,' clarifying that although the Dharma Body Buddha and the Reward Body Buddha are one in essence, they also have different marks. Therefore, I say that the marks attained by a great man through cultivation are only the marks of the Reward Body Buddha, not the marks of the Dharma Body Buddha. It concludes, 'Because of those marks,' clarifying that because those marks of a great man are the marks of the Reward Body Buddha. The above statement, 'not corresponding to the Bodhi of the Buddha,' does not mean that it is not corresponding to the Bodhi of the Reward Body Buddha either. This upholding and speaking can accomplish the Bodhi of the Buddha. 'Therefore, that is not the most excellent,' only concludes that the merit of upholding the scriptures surpasses the non-outflow merit of the marks of a great man. 'Moreover, that merit reaches the nearest and most excellent,' explaining the meaning of subduing in the fourth line of the verse, clarifying that the cause of the marks of ordinary people is non-outflow merit, which can subdue. The merit of giving with seven treasures is still inferior to the merit of upholding the scriptures, let alone being inferior to the outflow merit of giving treasures that are not superior. This sentence doubly concludes the superiority over the two kinds of merit. 'Thus, that almsgiving reaches the most excellent accomplishment,' this generally concludes the comparison of the two metaphors of giving up external wealth, as well as the accomplishment of the superior meaning in the merit of the marks of a great man. 'The Buddha said: Subhuti (one of the Buddha's disciples)! If a good man or good woman gives with as many bodies and lives as the sands of the Ganges River,' this is the seventh section of scripture in the comparison of merits. The reason for this is that the above clarifies the two kinds of giving of the three thousand great thousand worlds and the sands of the Ganges River, only speaking of giving up

---

于外財，挍量不如持經福多，未足顯持經之福勝中之勝。然菩薩大士，舍有二種：一者內舍，所謂身命；二者外舍，謂財寶等。今明何但舍外財佈施不及持經之福，舍中之難不過身命，假令舍恒沙身命苦惱身心，亦不及持經一偈之福，故次明也。雖云此經明以捨身福德不及持經之福，未知何者為是？故就此經顯出也。然此一段經，凡有八分明義：第一明若善男子善女人，舍恒河沙身命佈施，不及於此經中受持四句偈為他人說者。論釋云「苦身勝於彼」，此明地前苦菩薩取相心中，設為菩提舍其身命，雖勝舍于外財，猶不及持經福也。云何名取相心？凡有二義也。眾生於無量世來，於己身中計我貪著，但求三界人天勝果，不知菩提妙絕世相，雖聞菩提勝妙，猶謂同於世間人天果報體是有為不免生滅。設為此菩提捨身，還招之界有為果報，故是取相。是取相故，所以不如也。又縱令初地以上舍身不取相福，亦不如持一偈之福也。明受持此經者，雖云受持一偈經教，而意在受持所詮法身。然言教雖是名相，而所詮者是無為法身之義邊，無相故非取相也。既依經修行，知法身非同三界故，勝於恒河沙身所相福也。第二「爾時須菩提聞說此經至未曾得聞如是法門」。此論釋云「希有」也。「須菩提聞說是經，深解義趣」者，明須

菩提聞如來說此經故方解無為法身，名深解義趣也。然須菩提若是菩薩權為聲聞者，方便現言深解；若是實聲聞，昔來實不聞不解，今日始聞方解深義也。「悲泣流淚」者，然須菩提悲泣有二意：須菩提以念此經理深重昔來未聞故，所以悲泣；二、以傷已所小乘果證不得此大乘法門，所以悲泣也。若權作聲聞，應流淚也。「捫淚而白佛言希有」者，而此段論名希有者，偏提此兩字為第二段名也。希有有二種：一、明此金剛般若果頭無為法身甚深法界，唯是如來所得、下地所無，故云希有。二、明須菩提自云我雖得羅漢果具十知三三昧及八解脫，未曾得聞此甚深法門。以信者難得，故言希有也。自如來成道五年以來，常說般若不曾斷絕，又上言十方三世諸佛亦恒說此法，何故須菩提言昔來未曾得聞為希有也？然如來雖復常說此經，乃是大乘法輪，須菩提是小乘之人，從來未曾得聞、設聞不解，于須菩提名為希有也。「我從昔來所得慧眼，未曾得聞如是法門」者，明須菩提自云我雖先得性空無我慧眼，未曾聞此無為法身甚深法門也。何故但云我所得慧眼，不言得法眼者，明小乘人雖觀有漏無漏示法解人無我空，未得因緣法體及真如法空故，但言所得慧眼，不論得法眼也。

「何以故？須菩提！佛說般若波羅蜜即非」

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：須菩提聽聞如來說這部經，才理解了無為法身，這叫做深解義趣。然而，如果須菩提是菩薩爲了方便教化而示現為聲聞，那麼他方便地說自己深解；如果是真正的聲聞，過去確實沒有聽聞和理解過，今天才聽聞並理解了這深刻的含義。「悲泣流淚」是因為須菩提悲泣有兩種原因：一是須菩提想到這部經的道理深奧重要，過去從未聽聞過，所以悲泣；二是為自己所證的小乘果位，不能得到這種大乘法門而悲泣。如果是權宜示現為聲聞，也應該流淚。「捫淚而白佛言希有」這段話，之所以用『希有』來命名第二段，是因為特別提到了這兩個字。『希有』有兩種含義：一是說明這《金剛般若》所證的果位，無為法身，是非常深奧的法界，只有如來才能證得，下地位的修行者沒有，所以說是『希有』。二是說明須菩提自己說，我雖然得到了阿羅漢果，具備十種智慧、三種三昧以及八種解脫，但從未聽聞過這種甚深的法門。因為相信的人很難得，所以說是『希有』。自從如來成道五年以來，經常講說般若，從未間斷，而且前面也說過十方三世諸佛也經常講說此法，為什麼須菩提說過去從未聽聞，認為是希有呢？這是因為如來雖然經常講說這部經，但這是大乘法輪，須菩提是小乘之人，從來沒有聽聞過，即使聽聞了也不理解，所以對於須菩提來說，就是『希有』。「我從昔來所得慧眼，未曾得聞如是法門」是說須菩提自己說，我雖然先前得到了性空無我的慧眼，但從未聽聞過這種無為法身的甚深法門。為什麼只說『我所得慧眼』，而不說得到法眼呢？這是因為小乘人雖然觀察有漏無漏，示現法解人無我空，但沒有得到因緣法體以及真如法空，所以只說得到慧眼，而不說得到法眼。 「何以故？須菩提！佛說般若波羅蜜即非」

【English Translation】 English version: Because Bodhi (wisdom) heard the Tathagata (another name for Buddha) speak this sutra, he then understood the unconditioned Dharma body, which is called profound understanding of the meaning. However, if Subhuti (one of the principal disciples of the Buddha) is a Bodhisattva (an enlightened being) who provisionally acts as a Sravaka (a disciple who attains enlightenment by hearing the teachings), then he conveniently says that he has profound understanding; if he is a true Sravaka, he has never heard or understood it in the past, and today he hears and understands the profound meaning. 『Weeping with tears』 is because Subhuti weeps for two reasons: first, Subhuti thinks that the principles of this sutra are profound and important, and he has never heard of them before, so he weeps; second, he weeps for his own attainment of the Hinayana (small vehicle) fruit, which cannot obtain this Mahayana (great vehicle) Dharma gate. If it is a provisional act as a Sravaka, he should also shed tears. 『Wiping away tears, he said to the Buddha, it is rare』 This passage is named 『rare』 because these two words are specifically mentioned. 『Rare』 has two meanings: first, it explains that the fruit attained by this Diamond Prajna (wisdom), the unconditioned Dharma body, is a very profound Dharma realm, which only the Tathagata can attain, and practitioners in lower positions do not have it, so it is said to be 『rare』. Second, it explains that Subhuti himself said that although I have attained the Arhat (one who has attained nirvana) fruit, possessing ten kinds of wisdom, three Samadhis (a state of meditative consciousness), and eight liberations, I have never heard of this profound Dharma gate. Because it is difficult for believers to obtain, it is said to be 『rare』. Since the Tathagata attained enlightenment five years ago, he has often spoken of Prajna without interruption, and it was also mentioned earlier that the Buddhas of the ten directions and three times also often speak of this Dharma, why does Subhuti say that he has never heard of it in the past and considers it rare? This is because although the Tathagata often speaks of this sutra, it is the Mahayana Dharma wheel, and Subhuti is a Hinayana person, who has never heard of it, and even if he has heard of it, he does not understand it, so for Subhuti, it is 『rare』. 『I have never heard of such a Dharma gate with the eye of wisdom that I have obtained from the past』 means that Subhuti himself said that although I had previously obtained the eye of wisdom of emptiness of nature and non-self, I have never heard of this profound Dharma gate of the unconditioned Dharma body. Why only say 『the eye of wisdom that I have obtained』 and not say that I have obtained the Dharma eye? This is because although Hinayana people observe the conditioned and unconditioned, showing the Dharma to understand the emptiness of non-self, they have not obtained the Dharma body of cause and condition and the emptiness of true suchness, so they only say that they have obtained the eye of wisdom, and do not say that they have obtained the Dharma eye. 『Why? Subhuti! The Buddha said that Prajna Paramita (perfection of wisdom) is not』

---

者，此第三章門。論釋云「彼智岸難量」。「何以故」者，難云：須菩提既得慧眼，何故不聞如是法門？故言何以故也。答意以此法如來果頭彼岸功德第一上義，非二乘所測故，所以不聞。此一意成上希有也。「佛說般若波羅蜜」者，此是世辨釋名，明此法門所證，唯諸佛果頭智慧彼岸境界，故云說波羅蜜也。「即非波羅蜜」者，明此智慧彼岸乃是如來所得法，非二乘所知境界，故云即非波羅蜜也。又此第二意，以此即非般若波羅蜜至作第三彼智岸難量段也。「世尊！若復有人得聞是經信心清凈即生實相乃至說名實相」。此第四段。論釋云「亦不同余法」。「若復有人」者，謂初地已前信相菩薩人也。「得聞是經信心清凈則生實相」者，既聞此經，決定能信無為法身生實相之解，無有疑濁，故清凈也。「當知是人成就最上第一希有功德」者，若菩薩信此經所表無為法身，生信以為實相故，便能依經修行，證得果頭無為法身希有功德，故曰成就也。明此無為法身三大僧祇方得此果，勝於小乘，故稱第一。金剛以還之所未得，故曰希有也。「世尊！是實相」者，謂即此經中明如來如得無為法身實相法也。「則是非相」者，明此如來所得實相則非二乘法中所得實相也。「是故如來說名實相實相」者，解有二種解。明此無為法

身實相之理，唯是如來所得實相，故重言實相實相。又第二解意，有人疑：若佛大乘法中有實相，二乘法中無實相者，何故二乘法中亦自言有實相也？故答：今言如來有實相餘人無者，古今一定無為法身實相之理，故言無實相，非論二乘法中所明性空實相亦無也。是故如來說名實相實相者，一如來所得無為法身實相，二乘所得性空實相，故言實相實相也。「世尊！我今得聞如是法門不足為難」者，此第五章門。論釋云「堅實解深義」。此云「聞是法門信解不足為難」者，凡有四意：一意須菩提自言，我今生值佛世，復是出家之人，是有信者，得羅漢道；聞佛陀說，寧容不信？二者須菩提雖是小乘人，已曾發道意故，聞則能信。三者須菩提乃是法身菩薩現為聲聞，聞此法門，豈容不信也？四者須菩提得如來冥加力故，聞說必能解。有此四義故，云不足為難也。「若當來世，其有眾生得聞是法聞信解受持，是人則為第一希有」者，須菩提自言，我值佛現在，具上四義，故生信解不以為難；如來滅后，既不值佛世，若能於此經生信，是人則為登初地已上第一希有人也。初地所得勝地前二乘凡夫，故云第一也。「希有」者，一大阿僧祇行滿始得，地前未階，故云希有也。「何以故？此人無我相乃至當知是人甚為希有」，此猶明

當末世中生信者希有。然就此第五門中，有三「何以故」，初明法空、后明我空、第三釋疑。前三何以故，並釋是人則為第一希有。此二何以故，若因釋第一希有者，有何異也？初何以故者，明信解受持此經人何以故得為第一希有也。即答：是人無我相示，明以空得初地法空解故，能信此經。地前凡夫二乘未解法空，故不能信也。故知證而能信者第一希有也。第二何以故者，問云：為當唯得法空解故能信此經？為更有所得而能信也？即答：我示相即非相等。答意明非但得法空解故能信解此經，亦得我空解故然後能信也，故復明第二何以故也。第三何以故者，聞前無我相等明法空，復聞我所相即是非相明我空，釋能取所取皆空。即生疑念：今現見內六入是能取、外六塵是所取，何得言是空？若皆空者，不應有能取所取，故云何以故。故答：以離一切相則名諸佛，故知空也。明諸佛見此能取所取我之與法虛誑不實，以皆是空故，所以離也。此明法空者，但論因緣法空，不明佛性法空也。「佛告須菩提：如是如是」等者，上來須菩提雖說當來世人有能生信者是初地已上第一希有，恐人疑謂此言未必可信，故佛印之如是，如須菩提所說，莫生疑念，故重言如是如是也。「若復有人得聞是經，不驚不怖不畏，當知是人甚為希有」

者，此猶成前第五段，明須菩提言所以不虛可信，正如是者。明此人已得初地無我之解，離五怖畏、無有疑濁，故聞經不驚怖畏。若依世辯解義，以後釋前。何故不驚？以不怖。何故不怖？以不畏。如是次第也。又復「不驚」者，謂身相中，得初地無我解、離五怖畏，聞諸法無我，身無懼相，故曰不驚。「不怖」者，在於心中，聞諸法無我，內心決定不疑，故曰不怖。「不畏」者，身心畢竟不謗也。又解：明此人以得聞慧解故，初聞大乘無我教，一住情安於理，故曰不驚。得思慧解故，生深信不疑，故曰不怖。既生信已得修慧之解故，修不譭謗，故曰不畏也。「當知是人甚為希有」者，如來重舉述成上文，不異前釋也。

「何以故？如來說第一波羅蜜非第一波羅蜜」，明第六段。論釋名「勝餘修多羅」也。然此「何以故」者，總以下第六、第七、第八段，通釋成前五章門義也。云何釋？上釋云：何以故舍恒河沙身命佈施，不如受持此經一四句偈之福？複次須菩提既得慧眼，何以故未曾得聞此經，名為希有？又復此經，何以故非凡夫二乘測量境界？又復何以故，受持此經能生實相之解，二乘法中無也？又復何以故，要得我法二空解人能信此經受持修行，得為第一希有。上五章門義何以故如此等，故答「如來說第一

者，此猶成前第五段，明須菩提言所以不虛可信，正如是者。明此人已得初地無我之解，離五怖畏、無有疑濁，故聞經不驚怖畏。若依世辯解義，以後釋前。何故不驚？以不怖。何故不怖？以不畏。如是次第也。又復「不驚」者，謂身相中，得初地無我解、離五怖畏，聞諸法無我，身無懼相，故曰不驚。「不怖」者，在於心中，聞諸法無我，內心決定不疑，故曰不怖。「不畏」者，身心畢竟不謗也。又解：明此人以得聞慧解故，初聞大乘無我教，一住情安於理，故曰不驚。得思慧解故，生深信不疑，故曰不怖。既生信已得修慧之解故，修不譭謗，故曰不畏也。「當知是人甚為希有」者，如來重舉述成上文，不異前釋也。

「何以故？如來說第一波羅蜜非第一波羅蜜」，明第六段。論釋名「勝餘修多羅」也。然此「何以故」者，總以下第六、第七、第八段，通釋成前五章門義也。云何釋？上釋云：何以故舍恒河沙身命佈施，不如受持此經一四句偈之福？複次須菩提既得慧眼，何以故未曾得聞此經，名為希有？又復此經，何以故非凡夫二乘測量境界？又復何以故，受持此經能生實相之解，二乘法中無也？又復何以故，要得我法二空解人能信此經受持修行，得為第一希有。上五章門義何以故如此等，故答「如來說第一

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這段話實際上是第五段的延續，闡明了須菩提所說的話並非虛假，而是可信的，就像他所說的那樣。說明這個人已經獲得了初地的無我之解，遠離了五種怖畏，沒有疑惑和混濁，所以聽聞佛經不會感到驚慌和恐懼。如果按照世俗的辯論來解釋，就是用後面的解釋前面的。為什麼不驚慌？因為不恐懼。為什麼不恐懼？因為不畏懼。就是這樣的順序。進一步解釋，『不驚』是指在身相中，獲得了初地的無我之解，遠離了五種怖畏，聽聞諸法無我，身體上沒有懼怕的表象，所以說不驚。『不怖』是指在心中，聽聞諸法無我，內心堅定不疑，所以說不怖。『不畏』是指身心最終不會誹謗。另一種解釋是：說明這個人因為獲得了聞慧的理解，初次聽聞大乘無我的教義，立即安住于真理，所以說不驚。因為獲得了思慧的理解，產生了深刻的信心，沒有懷疑，所以說不怖。既然產生了信心，因為獲得了修慧的理解，修行時不會譭謗，所以說不畏。『當知是人甚為希有』，如來再次強調，總結了上文，與之前的解釋沒有不同。 現代漢語譯本：『何以故？如來說第一波羅蜜（paramita，到彼岸）非第一波羅蜜』，這是第六段的內容。論釋中稱之為『勝餘修多羅（sutra，經）』。這裡的『何以故』，總括了下面的第六、第七、第八段，用來全面解釋前面五章的內容。如何解釋呢？前面解釋說：為什麼捨棄恒河沙數的身命來佈施，不如受持這部經中的一句四句偈的福報？再者，須菩提既然獲得了慧眼，為什麼以前沒有聽聞過這部經，就被稱為稀有？又為什麼這部經不是凡夫和二乘（聲聞和緣覺）所能測量的境界？又為什麼受持這部經能夠產生實相的理解，這是二乘佛法中所沒有的？又為什麼一定要獲得我法二空的理解的人才能相信這部經，受持修行，才能成為第一稀有。上面五個章節的內容為什麼會是這樣，所以回答說『如來說第一』

【English Translation】 English version: This passage actually continues the fifth section, clarifying that what Subhuti said is not false but credible, just as he said. It explains that this person has attained the understanding of no-self in the first ground (bhumi), is free from the five fears, and has no doubts or turbidity, so he will not be alarmed or afraid when hearing the sutra. If interpreted according to worldly debate, it is using the latter to explain the former. Why not be alarmed? Because not afraid. Why not afraid? Because not fearful. It is in this order. Further explanation, 'not alarmed' refers to, in the physical form, having attained the understanding of no-self in the first ground, being free from the five fears, hearing that all dharmas are without self, there is no appearance of fear in the body, so it is said 'not alarmed'. 'Not afraid' refers to, in the heart, hearing that all dharmas are without self, the inner mind is firmly without doubt, so it is said 'not afraid'. 'Not fearful' refers to the body and mind ultimately not slandering. Another explanation is: it explains that this person, because he has obtained the understanding of hearing wisdom (sruta-maya-prajna), upon first hearing the Mahayana teaching of no-self, immediately dwells in the truth, so it is said 'not alarmed'. Because he has obtained the understanding of thinking wisdom (cinta-maya-prajna), he has generated deep faith without doubt, so it is said 'not afraid'. Since he has generated faith, because he has obtained the understanding of cultivation wisdom (bhavana-maya-prajna), he will not slander during cultivation, so it is said 'not fearful'. 'Know that this person is very rare', the Tathagata emphasizes again, summarizing the above, and there is no difference from the previous explanation. English version: 'Why? The Tathagata says the first paramita (perfection, to the other shore) is not the first paramita', this is the content of the sixth section. The commentary calls it 'superior to other sutras (sutra)'. The 'why' here encompasses the following sixth, seventh, and eighth sections, used to comprehensively explain the content of the previous five chapters. How to explain it? The previous explanation said: Why is abandoning countless bodies and lives like the sands of the Ganges for almsgiving not as good as receiving and upholding a four-line verse from this sutra? Furthermore, since Subhuti has obtained the eye of wisdom, why is it called rare that he has never heard this sutra before? Also, why is this sutra not a realm that ordinary people and the two vehicles (sravakas and pratyekabuddhas) can measure? Also, why can upholding this sutra generate an understanding of reality, which is not found in the teachings of the two vehicles? Also, why is it necessary for someone who has obtained the understanding of the emptiness of self and dharmas to believe in this sutra, uphold it, and practice it, in order to be considered the most rare? Why are the contents of the above five chapters like this, so the answer is 'The Tathagata says the first'

---

波羅蜜」等，以此經是如來果頭第一彼岸功德，勝餘修多羅故；復以此經能與佛果作大因故；復非但與佛現果作其勝因，乃與十方諸佛作勝因，故得釋成也。又復一解：直以第六章門釋前五章門也。如來說第一波羅蜜者，明佛果彼岸前勝功德，故云說第一波羅蜜也。泛明波羅蜜有於三階：一是地前相似波羅蜜；二是登地以上真實波羅蜜，斯二皆是因中之行也。今言第一波羅蜜者，乃是果頭法身常住彼岸功德，故云第一也。依論釋名勝余修多羅者，明理本勝於教本故。言教非無為法身，故云非第一波羅蜜。又復非者，非前二波羅蜜也。又復非者，非二乘境界，亦云為非也。「如來說第一波羅蜜」者，此第七段，論名「大因」。大因者，正因也。正因者，即清凈法身廣大理也。明釋迦如來自云我由受持此經故，解無為法身、證得佛果彼岸功德，故云如來說第一波羅蜜者也。「彼無量諸佛亦說波羅蜜」者，此第八，論名「清凈」也。前云第一波羅蜜能與如來現果為大因，為當唯釋迦如來受持此經獨證獨說以為大因？十方諸佛皆說我因受持此經故證得佛果，因行因說以為大因也？故答云「彼無量諸佛亦說波羅蜜」，明彼十方諸佛皆言我因受持此經，解無為法身，故說于佛果，非我獨行獨說名為大因也。「是名第一波羅蜜」者，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『波羅蜜』（到達彼岸）等，因為此經是如來果位上第一彼岸的功德，勝過其他的修多羅（經）；又因為此經能為佛果提供巨大的因緣；而且不僅僅是為佛的顯現之果提供殊勝的因緣，也為十方諸佛提供殊勝的因緣，所以這樣解釋是成立的。還有一種解釋：直接用第六章門來解釋前面的五個章門。如來說『第一波羅蜜』，是說明佛果彼岸之前的殊勝功德，所以說『第一波羅蜜』。泛泛地說明波羅蜜有三個階段：一是地前相似的波羅蜜；二是登地以上的真實波羅蜜，這兩種都是因地中的修行。現在說的『第一波羅蜜』，乃是果位上的法身常住彼岸的功德，所以說是『第一』。依據論典解釋『勝餘修多羅』，是說明理體根本上勝過教法根本。言教不是無為法身，所以說不是『第一波羅蜜』。另外，『非』是指不是前面的兩種波羅蜜。還有，『非』是指不是二乘（聲聞、緣覺）的境界，也可以說是『非』。『如來說第一波羅蜜』，這第七段，論中稱為『大因』。大因，就是正因。正因，就是清凈法身廣大的理體。說明釋迦如來自稱我因為受持此經，理解無為法身、證得佛果彼岸的功德，所以說『如來說第一波羅蜜』。『彼無量諸佛亦說波羅蜜』，這第八段，論中稱為『清凈』。前面說第一波羅蜜能為如來的顯現之果作為大因，難道只有釋迦如來受持此經獨自證悟獨自宣說作為大因嗎？十方諸佛都說我因為受持此經而證得佛果，因地修行因地宣說作為大因嗎？所以回答說『彼無量諸佛亦說波羅蜜』，說明十方諸佛都說我因為受持此經，理解無為法身，所以宣說佛果，不是我獨自修行獨自宣說稱為大因。『是名第一波羅蜜』，

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 『Pāramitā』 (Perfection, reaching the other shore) etc., this is because this Sutra is the foremost other shore of merit in the fruit of the Tathāgata (Thus Come One), surpassing other Sutras; moreover, this Sutra can provide a great cause for the fruit of Buddhahood; and not only does it provide a supreme cause for the manifested fruit of the Buddha, but it also provides a supreme cause for all Buddhas in the ten directions, so this explanation is valid. There is another explanation: directly using the sixth chapter to explain the previous five chapters. The Tathāgata speaks of the 『foremost Pāramitā』 to explain the supreme merit before the other shore of the fruit of Buddhahood, hence it is said 『foremost Pāramitā.』 Generally speaking, Pāramitā has three stages: first, the Pāramitā similar to that before reaching the Bhumi (ground); second, the true Pāramitā above the Bhumi, both of which are practices in the causal stage. The 『foremost Pāramitā』 now spoken of is the merit of the Dharmakāya (Dharma body) abiding on the other shore in the fruit stage, hence it is called 『foremost.』 According to the commentary explaining 『surpassing other Sutras,』 it clarifies that the principle is fundamentally superior to the teachings. Teachings are not the unconditioned Dharmakāya, so it is said not to be the 『foremost Pāramitā.』 Furthermore, 『not』 refers to not being the previous two Pāramitās. Also, 『not』 refers to not being the realm of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha), which can also be said to be 『not.』 『The Tathāgata speaks of the foremost Pāramitā,』 this seventh section is called 『great cause』 in the commentary. Great cause is the direct cause. Direct cause is the vast principle of the pure Dharmakāya. It clarifies that Śākyamuni (釋迦牟尼) Tathāgata himself said that because I uphold this Sutra, I understand the unconditioned Dharmakāya and attain the merit of the other shore of the fruit of Buddhahood, hence it is said 『The Tathāgata speaks of the foremost Pāramitā.』 『Those immeasurable Buddhas also speak of Pāramitā,』 this eighth section is called 『purity』 in the commentary. Previously, it was said that the foremost Pāramitā can be a great cause for the manifested fruit of the Tathāgata. Is it only Śākyamuni Tathāgata who upholds this Sutra, solely realizing and solely proclaiming it as a great cause? Do all Buddhas in the ten directions say that because I uphold this Sutra, I attain the fruit of Buddhahood, practicing and proclaiming it as a great cause? Therefore, the answer is 『Those immeasurable Buddhas also speak of Pāramitā,』 clarifying that all Buddhas in the ten directions say that because I uphold this Sutra, I understand the unconditioned Dharmakāya, so I proclaim the fruit of Buddhahood, not that I alone practice and proclaim it as a great cause. 『This is called the foremost Pāramitā,』

---

通結上三句為果頭第一彼岸功德也。以此經中有上八種功德故，勝捨身福也。

「論曰：自下經文重明彼福德中此福轉勝」者，論主將欲作偈釋此一段經故，無略解經中所明持經福德轉勝之義也。上以引三千恒沙無量珍寶佈施挍量不如持經福德，明舍外財則易故，未是顯勝中之上。今明舍于內財，以身命佈施則難；雖難而能捨，猶不及持經之福，豈非顯轉勝之義也。此中以二偈作八章門，釋此一段經也。「苦身勝於彼」者，釋經中「佛言須菩提以下至涕淚悲泣」，明舍外財則易，舍內財則難，以眾生多於己身愛戀情重，若舍則有大苦。以為法故，雖苦而能捨，是故舍身勝彼舍外財也。然雖勝舍舍外財，猶不如持一偈之福，故言勝於彼也。

「希有」者，釋經中「捫淚而白佛至得聞如是法門」，明此金剛般若果頭甚深法界唯是如來所得，須菩提雖得羅漢具十智等功德，而未曾聞此甚深法門，故言為希有也。「及上義」者，其彼智圻難量，同釋一經故，鉤鎖入第三分，復及成第二希有。上雖雲鬚菩提未曾有聞，未知何故不聞？以此法是如來果頭彼圻功德第一上義，非二乘境界，所以不聞。以不聞故，名為希有，故云及上義也。

「彼智圻難量」者，正釋經中第三，佛說般若波羅蜜即非般若波羅蜜，此與

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：總結以上三句，是果頭（佛果的頂點）第一彼岸（涅槃）的功德。因為這部經中有以上八種功德，所以勝過捨身佈施的福德。

『論曰：自下經文重明彼福德中此福轉勝』，論主的意圖是作偈來解釋這段經文，並非要簡略地解釋經中所闡明的受持此經的福德更為殊勝的意義。前面用三千恒河沙數無量珍寶佈施來比較，不如受持此經的福德，說明捨棄外在的財物是容易的，還不是顯現殊勝中的最上。現在說明捨棄內在的財物，用身命來佈施是困難的；即使困難而能夠捨棄，仍然比不上受持此經的福德，這難道不是顯現更為殊勝的意義嗎？這裡用兩首偈頌作為八個章節的綱要，來解釋這段經文。『苦身勝於彼』，解釋經中『佛言須菩提以下至涕淚悲泣』，說明捨棄外在的財物是容易的，捨棄內在的財物是困難的，因為眾生大多對自己身軀的愛戀情執很重，如果捨棄就會有很大的痛苦。因為爲了佛法，即使痛苦而能夠捨棄，所以捨身勝過捨棄外在的財物。然而即使勝過捨棄外在的財物，仍然比不上受持一偈的福德，所以說勝於彼。

『希有』，解釋經中『捫淚而白佛至得聞如是法門』，說明這《金剛般若》果頭甚深法界唯有如來才能證得，須菩提雖然證得阿羅漢，具備十智等功德，卻未曾聽聞過這種甚深法門，所以說是希有。『及上義』，是說那智慧的邊際難以衡量，同樣是解釋同一部經，鉤鎖般地進入第三分，又成就第二種希有。前面雖然說須菩提未曾聽聞過，但不知道為什麼沒有聽聞？因為這種法是如來果頭彼岸功德第一殊勝的意義，不是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的境界，所以沒有聽聞。因為沒有聽聞過，所以稱為希有，所以說『及上義』。

『彼智圻難量』，正是解釋經中第三點，佛說般若波羅蜜即非般若波羅蜜，這與

【English Translation】 English version: Summarizing the above three sentences, it refers to the merit of the first shore (Nirvana) at the peak of the Fruition (the pinnacle of Buddhahood). Because this Sutra contains the above eight kinds of merits, it surpasses the merit of giving up one's body in charity.

『The Treatise says: From the following Sutra text, it repeatedly clarifies that within that merit, this merit is even more superior.』 The Treatise Master intends to compose a verse to explain this section of the Sutra, not to briefly explain the meaning of the merit of upholding this Sutra being even more superior as clarified in the Sutra. Earlier, using the charity of three thousand Ganges' worth of countless treasures as a comparison, it is not as good as the merit of upholding this Sutra, indicating that giving up external wealth is easy, and it is not yet the most superior among the manifestations of superiority. Now, it clarifies that giving up internal wealth, using one's life as charity, is difficult; even if it is difficult but one is able to give it up, it is still not comparable to the merit of upholding this Sutra. Isn't this manifesting an even more superior meaning? Here, two verses are used as the outline of eight chapters to explain this section of the Sutra. 『Afflicting the body surpasses that,』 explains the Sutra 『The Buddha said to Subhuti down to weeping with tears,』 indicating that giving up external wealth is easy, and giving up internal wealth is difficult, because sentient beings mostly have strong love and attachment to their own bodies. If they give it up, there will be great suffering. Because it is for the sake of the Dharma, even if it is painful but one is able to give it up, therefore giving up one's body surpasses giving up external wealth. However, even if it surpasses giving up external wealth, it is still not comparable to the merit of upholding one verse, therefore it is said to surpass that.

『Rare,』 explains the Sutra 『Wiping away tears and saying to the Buddha down to hearing such a Dharma gate,』 indicating that this profound Dharma realm at the peak of the Fruition of the Diamond Prajna (Vajra Prajna) can only be attained by the Tathagata (Thus Come One), Subhuti (one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha), although having attained Arhatship (one who is worthy) and possessing merits such as the ten wisdoms, has never heard of this profound Dharma gate, therefore it is said to be rare. 『And the above meaning,』 refers to the immeasurable boundary of that wisdom, similarly explaining the same Sutra, entering the third section like a hook and lock, and also accomplishing the second kind of rarity. Although it was said earlier that Subhuti had never heard of it, but it is not known why he had not heard of it? Because this Dharma is the first superior meaning of the merit of the other shore at the peak of the Fruition of the Tathagata, it is not the realm of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), therefore he had not heard of it. Because he had not heard of it, it is called rare, therefore it is said 『and the above meaning.』

『The boundary of that wisdom is difficult to measure,』 is precisely explaining the third point in the Sutra, the Buddha said Prajna Paramita (Perfection of Wisdom) is not Prajna Paramita, this is related to

---

上義文同而意異故，別為第三段。「彼智圻」者，胡言般若波羅蜜，漢言智慧彼岸也。「難量」者，明此智岸是如來果頭彼岸，而此絕於下地二乘圖度境界，故云彼智圻難量也。

「亦不同余法」者，釋經「若復有人信心清凈至實相實相」等。此經明如來法身常住實相之理，二乘外道法中所不明。小乘外道法中既所不明，亦不生信，故云亦不同余法也。

「堅實解深義」者，釋經「世尊我今得聞至甚為希有」，明我空法空經文所以名堅實者，以此菩薩登于初地，現前得二空理中真解，不可岨壞，故云堅實。此解所以不可岨壞者，以解二種無我深義故也。

「勝餘修多羅」者，釋經中「何以故如來說第一波羅蜜者」等。「修多羅」者，此是西域之名，漢翻為本。明此經所詮證理既勝，故能詮之教亦勝，以勝於二乘理教故，云勝餘修多羅也。又更有一解：泛明本義，理教俱有。以所詮法身無名相理，能與十二部經言教為本。亦云能生有善，故名為本。能詮言教修多羅亦與詮法為本，詮於法身、能生萬善，故名為本。以理本勝於教本故，云勝餘修多羅也。

「大因及清凈」者，此一句通釋前第七、第八段經文。「大因」者，正釋「如來說第一波羅蜜」者，明此經所詮無為法身佛性之理，能與諸佛妙

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為上面的文句相同而意義不同，所以單獨作為第三段解釋。「彼智圻（bǐ zhì qí）」是梵語般若波羅蜜（bō rě bō luó mì）的音譯，漢譯為智慧彼岸。「難量」是說此智慧之岸是如來果位的彼岸，而這超越了下地二乘（èr shèng）所能思量和達到的境界，所以說彼智圻難量。 『亦不同余法』是解釋經文『若復有人信心清凈至實相實相』等。此經闡明如來法身常住實相的道理，這是二乘外道之法中所不明白的。小乘外道之法既然不明白，也不會生起信心，所以說亦不同余法。 『堅實解深義』是解釋經文『世尊我今得聞至甚為希有』，說明我空法空的經文之所以稱為堅實，是因為菩薩登于初地，現前證得二空之理中的真實理解，不可破壞，所以說堅實。此理解之所以不可破壞，是因為理解了二種無我的深奧含義。 『勝餘修多羅（xiū duō luó）』是解釋經文中『何以故如來說第一波羅蜜者』等。「修多羅」是西域的名稱，漢譯為「本」。說明此經所詮釋的證悟之理既然殊勝，所以能詮釋的教法也殊勝，因為它勝過二乘的理和教，所以說勝餘修多羅。還有另一種解釋：泛指根本的意義，理和教都具備。因為所詮釋的法身沒有名相之理，能夠作為十二部經言教的根本。也可以說能夠產生善，所以名為「本」。能詮釋的言教修多羅也以詮釋法為根本，詮釋法身，能夠產生萬善，所以名為「本」。因為理本勝過教本，所以說勝餘修多羅。 『大因及清凈』，這一句總括解釋前面第七、第八段經文。「大因」是專門解釋『如來說第一波羅蜜』，說明此經所詮釋的無為法身佛性的道理，能夠作為諸佛妙

【English Translation】 English version: Because the preceding sentences are similar in wording but different in meaning, they are explained separately as the third section. 『彼智圻 (bǐ zhì qí)』 is a transliteration of the Sanskrit term Prajna Paramita (bō rě bō luó mì), which is translated into Chinese as the 『other shore of wisdom.』 『難量 (nán liáng)』 means that this shore of wisdom is the other shore of the Tathagata's (rú lái) fruition, and this surpasses the realm that the two vehicles (èr shèng) of the lower grounds can contemplate and attain, hence it is said that 彼智圻 is immeasurable. 『亦不同余法 (yì bù tóng yú fǎ)』 explains the sutra text 『若復有人信心清凈至實相實相 (ruò fù yǒu rén xìn xīn qīng jìng zhì shí xiàng shí xiàng)』 etc. This sutra elucidates the principle of the Tathagata's Dharmakaya (fǎ shēn) abiding in the true nature, which is not understood in the teachings of the two vehicles and external paths. Since the teachings of the Hinayana (xiǎo shèng) and external paths do not understand this, they also do not generate faith, hence it is said that it is also different from other teachings. 『堅實解深義 (jiān shí jiě shēn yì)』 explains the sutra text 『世尊我今得聞至甚為希有 (shì zūn wǒ jīn dé wén zhì shèn wéi xī yǒu)』, clarifying that the sutra text on the emptiness of self and the emptiness of phenomena is called 『堅實 (jiān shí)』 because the Bodhisattva (pú sà) ascends to the first ground and directly attains the true understanding of the two emptinesses, which cannot be destroyed, hence it is said to be 『堅實 (jiān shí)』. The reason why this understanding cannot be destroyed is because it understands the profound meaning of the two kinds of non-self. 『勝餘修多羅 (shèng yú xiū duō luó)』 explains the sutra text 『何以故如來說第一波羅蜜者 (hé yǐ gù rú lái shuō dì yī bō luó mì zhě)』 etc. 『修多羅 (xiū duō luó)』 is a name from the Western Regions, translated into Chinese as 『本 (běn)』, meaning 『root』 or 『foundation』. It explains that since the principle of enlightenment expounded in this sutra is supreme, the teaching that expounds it is also supreme, because it surpasses the principle and teaching of the two vehicles, hence it is said to be 『勝餘修多羅 (shèng yú xiū duō luó)』. There is another explanation: it broadly refers to the fundamental meaning, encompassing both principle and teaching. Because the Dharmakaya (fǎ shēn) being expounded has no characteristic of name and form, it can serve as the foundation for the teachings of the twelve divisions of scriptures. It can also be said that it can generate goodness, hence it is called 『本 (běn)』. The teaching that expounds, the Sutra (xiū duō luó), also takes the exposition of the Dharma as its foundation, expounding the Dharmakaya (fǎ shēn), which can generate myriad virtues, hence it is called 『本 (běn)』. Because the principle-foundation surpasses the teaching-foundation, it is said to be 『勝餘修多羅 (shèng yú xiū duō luó)』. 『大因及清凈 (dà yīn jí qīng jìng)』, this sentence generally explains the preceding seventh and eighth sections of the sutra text. 『大因 (dà yīn)』 specifically explains 『如來說第一波羅蜜 (rú lái shuō dì yī bō luó mì)』, clarifying that the principle of the unconditioned Dharmakaya (fǎ shēn) Buddha-nature expounded in this sutra can serve as the wonderful of all Buddhas.

---

果作其正因，勝於了因，故云大因也。

「及清凈」者，釋經「彼無量諸佛亦說波羅蜜」等，明諸佛同說此法名字句義，不增不減。以共說故，說必當理。無有差理之共，故名清凈。又復一解：彼無量諸佛皆說，我因此佛性平等自性清凈之理證於佛果，故云清凈也。

「福中勝福德」者，以此經所辨，有如上功德故，持一偈之福勝於捨身等福也。「此二偈說何義」，示一段長行，詮一一提偈中章門次第解已，然後舉經來結可知也。就中若文有隱者，則超釋之也。

「何以故」者，有疑難云：若舍恒沙身命者得福甚多，何故不及持經一偈之福也？即釋云「彼捨身命苦身心故」，明此人當捨身時有取相心，故身心苦惱，后得果亦苦。以因果俱不清凈，所以不如。明持經之福，因不取相、得果清凈，故勝捨身也。「何況為法舍」者，明直世間果報捨身命者，不如持經之福可小，何況復為無上菩提法故取相心舍，亦不及持經福也。又復縱令令初地已上為菩提法捨身，雖非取相，猶亦不及，故言何況為法舍也。經中但引捨身福德不如持經一偈之福，不云取相舍故所以不如。以此義隱難解，論主釋云「以彼捨身若惱身心」是取相故，雖多捨身命，而不如持經是不取相也。因此彼捨身苦身心故，乘出經中玄疑，發

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果將『果作其正因』（以正確的行為作為根本原因）與『勝於了因』（超越于僅僅瞭解原因）相比，前者更為重要，所以被稱為『大因』（偉大的原因）。 『及清凈』（以及清凈）是指解釋經文『彼無量諸佛亦說波羅蜜』（無數的佛陀也宣說了波羅蜜）等內容，說明諸佛共同宣說此法的名字、語句和意義，沒有增減。因為是共同宣說，所以說的必定合乎道理。沒有偏離真理的共同之處，所以稱為『清凈』。還有一種解釋：無數的佛陀都說，我因為佛性（Buddha-nature）平等、自性清凈的道理而證得佛果，所以稱為『清凈』。 『福中勝福德』（在福報中最為殊勝的福德）是指因為這部經所闡述的內容具有上述功德，所以受持一偈（verse）的福報勝過捨棄身體等行為所帶來的福報。『此二偈說何義』（這兩句偈語說了什麼意義）是展示一段長篇論述，詮釋一一提偈（each verse）中章節的次第解釋之後，然後引用經文來總結，這是可以理解的。其中如果文字有隱晦之處，就進行超越常規的解釋。 『何以故』（為什麼呢）是有人提出疑問：如果捨棄像恒河沙一樣多的身命，得到的福報應該非常多，為什麼比不上受持經文一偈的福報呢？於是解釋說『彼捨身命苦身心故』（因為他們捨棄身命時，身心感到痛苦），說明這些人捨棄身體時有取相心（attachment to form），所以身心感到苦惱，後來得到的果報也是痛苦的。因為因和果都不清凈，所以不如受持經文的福報。說明受持經文的福報，因為不執著于外相，得到的果報是清凈的，所以勝過捨棄身體的行為。『何況為法舍』（更何況是爲了佛法而捨棄）是說僅僅爲了世間的果報而捨棄身命，不如受持經文的福報，這已經是很小的福報了，更何況是爲了無上菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi）的佛法，即使有取相心而捨棄，也比不上受持經文的福報。又或者即使是初地（first Bhumi）以上的菩薩爲了佛法而捨棄身體，雖然沒有取相，仍然比不上，所以說『何況為法舍』。經文中只是引用了捨棄身體的福德不如受持經文一偈的福報，沒有說因為執著于外相而捨棄所以不如。因為這個意義隱晦難以理解，論主解釋說『以彼捨身若惱身心』（因為他們捨棄身體時，如果身心感到苦惱）是因為執著于外相，雖然多次捨棄身命，卻不如受持經文的不執著于外相。因此，他們捨棄身體時身心感到痛苦，從而引出經文中隱藏的疑問，引發。

【English Translation】 English version: If 'guozuo qi zheng yin' (taking correct actions as the fundamental cause) is compared to 'sheng yu liao yin' (surpassing merely understanding the cause), the former is more important, hence it is called 'da yin' (great cause). 'Ji qingjing' (and purity) refers to explaining the sutra 'bi wuliang zhu fo yi shuo boluomi' (countless Buddhas also spoke of Paramita), clarifying that all Buddhas jointly proclaim the names, phrases, and meanings of this Dharma, without addition or subtraction. Because it is jointly proclaimed, what is said must be reasonable. There is no common ground for deviating from the truth, hence it is called 'purity'. Another explanation is: countless Buddhas all say, 'I attained Buddhahood because of the principle of Buddha-nature (Buddha-nature) being equal and inherently pure,' hence it is called 'purity'. 'Fu zhong sheng fude' (the most supreme merit among merits) refers to the fact that because what is expounded in this sutra possesses the aforementioned merits, the merit of upholding one verse surpasses the merit of giving up one's body, etc. 'Ci er ji shuo he yi' (what is the meaning of these two verses) is to present a lengthy discourse, interpreting the sequential explanations of the chapters in each verse, and then quoting the sutra to conclude, which is understandable. If there are obscure points in the text, they are explained in an unconventional manner. 'He yi gu' (why is that) is because someone raises the question: if one were to give up as many lives as there are sands in the Ganges River, the merit gained should be very great, so why is it not comparable to the merit of upholding one verse of the sutra? The explanation is 'bi she shen ming ku shen xin gu' (because they suffer in body and mind when giving up their lives), indicating that these people have attachment to form (attachment to form) when giving up their bodies, so they feel distressed in body and mind, and the resulting karmic fruit is also painful. Because both the cause and the effect are not pure, it is not as good as the merit of upholding the sutra. It explains that the merit of upholding the sutra is because one is not attached to external forms, and the resulting karmic fruit is pure, so it surpasses the act of giving up one's body. 'He kuang wei fa she' (how much more so for giving up for the Dharma) means that merely giving up one's life for worldly rewards is not as good as the merit of upholding the sutra, which is already a small merit, how much more so for the Dharma of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi), even if one gives up with attachment to form, it is still not comparable to the merit of upholding the sutra. Furthermore, even if Bodhisattvas above the first Bhumi (first Bhumi) give up their bodies for the Dharma, although without attachment, it is still not comparable, hence it is said 'how much more so for giving up for the Dharma'. The sutra only cites that the merit of giving up one's body is not as good as the merit of upholding one verse of the sutra, without saying that it is because of giving up with attachment to form that it is not as good. Because this meaning is obscure and difficult to understand, the commentator explains that 'yi bi she shen ruo nao shen xin' (because they suffer in body and mind when giving up their lives) is because of attachment to form, although one gives up many lives, it is not as good as upholding the sutra without attachment to form. Therefore, they suffer in body and mind when giving up their bodies, thereby eliciting the hidden question in the sutra, triggering.

---

起下忍辱波羅蜜經生疑法用，如下經中生起不異也。釋第四章門中雲「以是義故」者，以是除佛法余處無實，未曾有、未曾生信義故。唯佛大乘法中明此無為法身實相之理，小乘法中不辨有此實相之理，故云不同余法也。「如來為須菩提說如是義」者，此釋如來述成經文。從「佛告須菩提如是如是」以下，說此段經未也。「彼珍寶檀」等已下，通結上來舍內外財挍量不如持經之福也。「彼珍寶檀等無如是功德」者，明前內外二種施中無如上來經中所辨八種功德也。「是故彼福德中此福勝」者，是內外舍中無此八種功德，依此經中有八種功德故。故此持經之福，勝向捨身財等福也。

「論曰：自下經文復為斷疑」等者，此是論主生序疑者意，生起下經。但生疑法用，不異經中，故不委釋也。

金剛仙論卷第五 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第六

魏天平二年菩提流支三藏於洛陽譯

「須菩提！如來說忍辱波羅蜜」者，此挍量分中第八經文。此所以來者，前段經明以恒沙身命佈施，不如受持此經一四句偈、為人演說，其福不可教，應云彼人取初心中捨身命佈施是有漏之因故，所以不及持經之福。論主應如是釋，而所以云「彼捨身命苦身心故」者，為欲

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《起下忍辱波羅蜜經生疑法用》，如下經中所生起的（法用）沒有差異。解釋第四章門中的『以是義故』，是因為除了佛法之外，其他地方沒有真實，沒有未曾有、未曾生信的意義。只有佛的大乘法中闡明了這種無為法身的實相之理，小乘法中不辨別有這種實相之理，所以說不同於其他法。『如來為須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）說如是義』，這是解釋如來闡述並完成經文。從『佛告須菩提如是如是』以下，是說這段經文結束了。『彼珍寶檀』等以下，總括總結了上面所說的舍內外財，衡量起來不如持經的福德。『彼珍寶檀等無如是功德』，說明前面的內外兩種佈施中，沒有像上面經文中所辨明的八種功德。『是故彼福德中此福勝』，是說內外佈施中沒有這八種功德，依據這部經中有八種功德的緣故。所以，持誦這部經的福德，勝過捨身財等的福德。 『論曰：自下經文復為斷疑』等，這是論主生起序言，懷疑者的意思，生起下面的經文。但生疑的法用，與經中沒有差異，所以不詳細解釋。 《金剛仙論》卷第五 《金剛仙論》卷第六 魏天平二年菩提流支（Bodhiruci，譯經師）三藏於洛陽譯 『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）！如來說忍辱波羅蜜（Kshanti Paramita，忍辱到彼岸）』，這是校量分中的第八段經文。這段經文之所以出現，是因為前面的經文說明了以恒河沙數的身命佈施，不如受持此經中的一句四句偈，併爲人演說，其福德不可估量，應該說那個人最初發心時捨身命佈施是有漏的因，所以比不上持經的福德。論主應該這樣解釋，而之所以說『彼捨身命苦身心故』，是爲了想要……

【English Translation】 English version: 'The arising of the method of generating doubt in the Sutra of Kshanti Paramita (Kshanti Paramita, Perfection of Patience), is no different from that which arises in the following sutras.' The explanation of 'Therefore, by this meaning' in the fourth chapter means that apart from the Buddha's Dharma, there is no truth elsewhere, no meaning of 'unprecedented' or 'unborn faith'. Only the Buddha's Mahayana Dharma clarifies the principle of the true nature of this unconditioned Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, Dharma Body), while the Hinayana Dharma does not distinguish the existence of this true nature, hence it is said to be different from other dharmas. 'The Tathagata (Tathagata, Thus Come One) speaks to Subhuti (Subhuti, Buddha's disciple) of such meaning,' this explains the Tathagata's narration and completion of the sutra text. From 'The Buddha tells Subhuti, thus, thus,' onwards, it is said that this section of the sutra is finished. 'Those precious jewel offerings' and so on, generally conclude that the merit of giving away internal and external wealth is not as good as upholding the sutra. 'Those precious jewel offerings do not have such merits,' this clarifies that the previous two types of giving, internal and external, do not have the eight types of merits as distinguished in the above sutra. 'Therefore, in those merits, this merit is superior,' it means that there are no such eight types of merits in internal and external giving, but according to this sutra, there are eight types of merits. Therefore, the merit of upholding this sutra is superior to the merit of giving away one's body and wealth, etc. 'The treatise says: From the following sutra text onwards, doubts are resolved again,' etc., this is the treatise master's introduction, the meaning of the doubters, giving rise to the following sutra text. However, the method of generating doubt is no different from that in the sutra, so it is not explained in detail. Treatise of Vajrasena, Volume 5 Treatise of Vajrasena, Volume 6 Translated by Tripitaka Bodhiruci (Bodhiruci, Sutra translator) in Luoyang in the second year of Tianping of the Wei Dynasty 'Subhuti (Subhuti, Buddha's disciple)! The Tathagata (Tathagata, Thus Come One) speaks of Kshanti Paramita (Kshanti Paramita, Perfection of Patience),' this is the eighth section of the chapter on comparison. The reason for this is that the previous sutra text explained that giving away as many bodies and lives as there are sands in the Ganges River is not as good as receiving and upholding one four-line verse from this sutra and explaining it to others, its merit is immeasurable, it should be said that the person's initial intention to give away their body and life is a conditioned cause, so it is not as good as the merit of upholding the sutra. The treatise master should explain it this way, and the reason for saying 'because they give away their body and life and suffer physically and mentally' is to want to...

---

生起此經，故作是說，序疑者意。云何疑者？彼人舍恒沙身命，是取相心故，因不清凈。所得果報不出三界，亦不清凈故。得福少者，諸菩薩等依此經修行捨身命者，因亦應不清凈。若因不清凈，所感果報亦不清凈，同於苦果。如似忍辱仙人為歌利王割截身體，爾時身心苦惱。引此為難，故以經答，明前舍恒沙身者，在於地前是凡夫人，未得無我之解，未斷身見等或，故有取相心，無忍波羅蜜。當捨身時，情生苦性，以此捨身難。以為法故，雖難能捨。復謂無為法身，因於人天有為果報。有此分別故，所得因果俱不清凈。今明忍辱仙人乃是初地菩薩，解法身是無為，已得無生忍度，成就離取相心。捨身命時，心無煩惱，故不以為難。以是義故，因是清凈、果亦清凈。此之二人既凡聖位殊，何得以凡夫捨身有苦，難於聖人依經修行捨身者亦使有苦？為除此疑故，故次明也。

「如來說忍辱波羅蜜」者，明如來說依經修行，謂菩薩等已證初地，出生忍波羅蜜故，無有取相之心。捨身之時無故，言如來說忍辱波羅蜜也。「即非忍辱波羅蜜」者，明此初地所得忍波羅蜜，非地前凡夫二乘所境界，故言即非忍辱波羅蜜。此明地前凡夫未得初地忍波羅蜜真無我解，猶有取相之捨身有苦，不得以此比類引之為難也。何以故知？

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 生起此經，是爲了說明疑惑者的想法。什麼是疑惑呢？那人捨棄如恒河沙數般的生命，是因為有執著于相的心，所以因不清凈。所得到的果報不能超出三界，也是不清凈的。如果說得到福報少，那麼諸菩薩等依照此經修行捨棄身命，他們的因也應該是不清凈的。如果因不清凈，所感得的果報也是不清凈的，等同於苦果。比如像忍辱仙人被歌利王割截身體，當時身心苦惱。引用這個例子來發難，所以用經文來回答，說明前面捨棄如恒河沙數生命的人，是在初地菩薩之前，是凡夫俗子，沒有得到無我的理解，沒有斷除身見等惑，所以有執著于相的心，沒有忍辱波羅蜜（Kshanti Paramita，忍辱到彼岸）。當捨棄身體的時候，心中產生苦性，因此捨棄身體是困難的。又認為無為法身（Asamskrta-dharma-kaya，不造作的法身），是由於人天有為的果報。因為有這樣的分別，所以得到的因果都不清凈。現在說明忍辱仙人乃是初地菩薩，理解法身是無為的，已經得到無生法忍（Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti，對諸法不生不滅的體悟），成就了遠離執著于相的心。捨棄身命的時候，心中沒有煩惱，所以不認為是困難的。因為這個緣故，因是清凈的，果也是清凈的。這兩個人，一個是凡夫，一個是聖人，地位不同，怎麼能用凡夫捨身有苦，來質疑聖人依照經修行捨身也會有苦呢？爲了消除這個疑惑，所以接下來進行說明。

『如來說忍辱波羅蜜』，說明如來說的是依照此經修行，指的是菩薩等已經證得初地，生出忍辱波羅蜜的緣故，沒有執著于相的心。捨棄身體的時候沒有痛苦，所以說如來說忍辱波羅蜜。『即非忍辱波羅蜜』，說明這初地所得到的忍辱波羅蜜，不是初地之前的凡夫二乘所能理解的境界，所以說即非忍辱波羅蜜。這說明初地之前的凡夫沒有得到初地忍辱波羅蜜的真無我理解，仍然有執著于相的捨身之苦，不能用這個來類比發難。為什麼知道是這樣呢？

【English Translation】 English version: This sutra is spoken to address the doubts of those who question. What are these doubts? That person who relinquished countless lives like the sands of the Ganges did so with a mind attached to form (rupa-samjna), hence the cause was impure. The resulting karmic reward does not transcend the Three Realms (Triloka), and is therefore also impure. If the merit gained is small, then the Bodhisattvas who practice according to this sutra and relinquish their lives, their cause should also be impure. If the cause is impure, the resulting karmic reward is also impure, equivalent to a bitter fruit. For example, when the Kshanti Rishi (Sage of Patience) had his body cut by King Kali, he experienced physical and mental suffering at that time. This example is used to raise a difficulty, so the sutra answers by clarifying that those who relinquished countless lives like the sands of the Ganges were ordinary people before reaching the first Bhumi (Bhumis, stages of a Bodhisattva's path), had not attained the understanding of no-self (Anatta), and had not severed the delusions such as the view of self (Satkayadrishti), therefore they had a mind attached to form and lacked the Paramita of Patience (Kshanti Paramita). When relinquishing their bodies, they experienced suffering, hence relinquishing the body was difficult. Furthermore, they considered the Unconditioned Dharma Body (Asamskrta-dharma-kaya) to be the result of conditioned rewards in the realms of humans and gods. Because of this distinction, both the cause and the effect obtained were impure. Now it is clarified that the Kshanti Rishi was a Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi, understood that the Dharma Body is unconditioned, had attained the forbearance of non-origination (Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti), and had achieved a mind free from attachment to form. When relinquishing his life, his mind had no afflictions, therefore he did not consider it difficult. For this reason, the cause is pure, and the effect is also pure. These two individuals, one an ordinary person and the other a sage, have different statuses. How can one use the suffering of an ordinary person relinquishing their body to question whether a sage who practices according to the sutra and relinquishes their body will also suffer? To dispel this doubt, the following explanation is given.

'The Tathagata speaks of the Paramita of Patience,' clarifies that the Tathagata speaks of practicing according to this sutra, referring to Bodhisattvas who have already attained the first Bhumi and given rise to the Paramita of Patience, therefore they have no mind attached to form. There is no suffering when relinquishing the body, hence it is said that the Tathagata speaks of the Paramita of Patience. 'Which is not the Paramita of Patience,' clarifies that the Paramita of Patience attained in this first Bhumi is not a realm that ordinary people or those of the Two Vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) before the first Bhumi can comprehend, hence it is said that it is not the Paramita of Patience. This clarifies that ordinary people before the first Bhumi have not attained the true understanding of no-self of the Paramita of Patience of the first Bhumi, and still have the suffering of relinquishing the body with attachment to form, and this cannot be used as an analogy to raise a difficulty. How is it known to be so?

---

「如我往昔為歌利王割截身體，應生瞋恨」，明忍辱仙人得初地無生，會真無我解，離二種煩惱。何者為二？一者無始妄想我見俱生煩惱。既有此我見故，便成就三不善根及三善根性，后時遇緣則起也。二者瞋恨等墮煩惱也。此言「何以故」，釋上何以得知。我于爾時已證初地忍波羅蜜彼岸功德，非是地前凡夫，故言何以故也，故引如我昔為歌利王以答之。「歌利王」者，此幡惡王也，明如來因地時曾現作外通仙人，在山學通，為王射獵問鹿因緣，仙人說語答，王不正敬，即為割截身體節節分解。「不生瞋恨」者，以得初地無生真無我解、一體平等心，不見彼是惡王、我為能忍，故不生瞋恨。以是故知忍波羅蜜唯在初地上法也，不得以地前捨身有苦是其不如，難於忍波羅蜜亦使是劣也。「我于爾時無我相等」者，明仙人離於我見俱生煩惱也。此我相等四句，釋不異上第六段中，故不更釋也。「無相」者，明此菩薩既證初地真如無我一體心成故，不見彼是惡人能割之者、我為菩薩是受割之人，彼此隹夷氓然平觀，故言無相也。得云無相者，何但無有我相，乃至亦無無我相也。又復解云：以此菩薩既道證初地，得一體悲心成故，冥然無分別，不見有彼此，我異惡人、惡人異我，故言無相也。乘此復生疑，難此云：菩薩不見

能割所割二乘之異名無相者，為有心故言不見？為無心故不見？若無心故不見者，菩薩云何而得修行利益眾生？故答「亦非無相」，明此菩薩解彼此無二時，非是念無心，正是初地以上轉勝真解無漏之心。既此解，雖不見眾生與己身有異，而能以慈悲心廣度眾生，但利眾生不自利益也。如《十地經》說「一切動心憶想皆悉盡滅者，無有障法想，非無治法想」；此亦如是，無有障想，故言無想。非無治想，故言亦非無相也。故不應難言菩薩得一體平等解無心修行度眾生也。

「何以故？我于往昔節節支解時，若有我等相，應生瞋恨」者，釋無我人一。何以得知？我于往昔彼歌利生割截身時，離我等根本煩惱也。即釋云「我于爾時若有我等者，應生瞋恨」故。以離我見之惑，得無我解，此以離瞋恨，故證無我見根本或也。「又念過去五百世作忍辱仙人至無壽者相」，何故復引此來也？欲明忍波羅蜜有二種：一者地前、二者地上，非但今者初地中得忍波羅蜜成就，能離二種障煩惱；于往昔五百世作忍辱仙人，在於地前性地中時，此以得相似忍深伏煩惱，為王割截身體已不生瞋恨，況復今日在初地中得真無我忍行成就，而復生于瞋恨？故引此仙人為證也。

「是故須菩提！菩薩離一切相發菩提心」，此文所以復來

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能割者（能進行割截的主體）和所割者（被割截的對象）是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）所執著的異名，而無相的境界，是因為有心所以說不見呢？還是因為無心所以不見呢？如果是因為無心所以不見，那麼菩薩又如何能夠修行利益眾生呢？所以回答說『亦非無相』，表明這位菩薩理解彼此沒有差別時，並非是念頭空無的無心狀態，而是初地以上轉為殊勝的真正理解、沒有煩惱染污的心。既然有了這種理解，即使不見眾生與自身有差別，也能以慈悲心廣泛地度化眾生，只是利益眾生而不為自己謀求利益。如同《十地經》所說：『一切動念、憶想都完全滅盡，是沒有障礙法的想法，而不是沒有對治法的想法』；這裡也是如此，沒有障礙的想法，所以說是無想。不是沒有對治的想法，所以說『亦非無相』。因此不應該質疑說菩薩得到一體平等的理解后，會以無心的狀態修行度化眾生。

『何以故？我于往昔節節支解時，若有我等相，應生瞋恨』，這是解釋無我人一（沒有我相和人相，達到一體）。憑什麼知道呢？因為我在往昔被歌利王割截身體時，遠離了我等根本煩惱。也就是解釋說『我于爾時若有我等者，應生瞋恨』。因為遠離了我見的迷惑，得到了無我的理解，這是因為遠離了瞋恨，所以證明了無我見的根本道理。『又念過去五百世作忍辱仙人至無壽者相』，為什麼又引用這個例子呢？想要說明忍波羅蜜（忍辱到彼岸）有兩種：一種是地前（菩薩十地之前），一種是地上（菩薩十地之上），不僅僅是現在初地中得到忍波羅蜜的成就，能夠遠離兩種障礙煩惱；在往昔五百世做忍辱仙人時，在菩薩十地之前的性地中，這是因為得到了相似的忍辱，深深地降伏了煩惱，被國王割截身體后也不生瞋恨，更何況今天在初地中得到真正的無我忍行成就，又怎麼會生起瞋恨呢？所以引用這位仙人的事蹟來作為證明。

『是故須菩提！菩薩離一切相發菩提心』，這段經文為什麼又再次出現呢？

【English Translation】 English version The 'able to cut' (the subject who can cut) and 'that which is cut' (the object being cut) are different names clung to by the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), while the state of no-form (anupalabdhi), is it said to be unseen because of having mind, or unseen because of having no mind? If it is unseen because of having no mind, then how can a Bodhisattva cultivate and benefit sentient beings? Therefore, the answer is 'also not no-form,' clarifying that when this Bodhisattva understands that there is no difference between self and others, it is not a state of mindlessness with empty thoughts, but rather a mind of superior true understanding without defilements, transformed from the first ground (bhūmi) and above. Since this understanding exists, even though one does not see a difference between sentient beings and oneself, one can extensively liberate sentient beings with a compassionate heart, only benefiting sentient beings and not seeking self-benefit. As the Daśabhūmika Sūtra says, 'All moving thoughts and recollections are completely extinguished, there is no thought of obstructing dharmas, but it is not without the thought of remedial dharmas'; it is the same here, there is no obstructing thought, therefore it is said to be no-thought (asaṃjñā). It is not without remedial thought, therefore it is said to be 'also not no-form.' Therefore, one should not question that a Bodhisattva, having attained the understanding of oneness and equality, cultivates and liberates sentient beings in a state of mindlessness.

'Why? Because when I was dismembered limb by limb in the past, if there were a perception of self and others, I should have generated anger,' this explains the oneness of no-self and no-person (anātman and niratman, absence of self and person). How is this known? Because when I was having my body cut by Kālirāja in the past, I was free from the fundamental afflictions of self and others. That is, it explains, 'If I had a perception of self and others at that time, I should have generated anger.' Because one is free from the delusion of self-view, one attains the understanding of no-self; this is because one is free from anger, thus proving the fundamental principle of no-self-view. 'Also, recalling the past five hundred lives as the Kṣāntivādin (Sage of Patience) up to the perception of no-life,' why is this example cited again? It is to explain that there are two types of kṣānti pāramitā (perfection of patience): one before the grounds (before the ten bhūmis of a Bodhisattva), and one on the grounds (on the ten bhūmis of a Bodhisattva), it is not only now, in the first ground, that one attains the accomplishment of the kṣānti pāramitā, being able to be free from the two kinds of obstructing afflictions; when one was the Kṣāntivādin in the past five hundred lives, in the nature-ground before the ten bhūmis, this is because one attained a similar patience, deeply subduing afflictions, and did not generate anger even after having one's body cut by the king, how much more so today, having attained the true no-self patience practice in the first ground, would one generate anger? Therefore, the deeds of this sage are cited as proof.

'Therefore, Subhuti! Bodhisattvas should generate the bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) by relinquishing all notions of form,' why does this passage appear again?

---

，明「是故」者，以是初地以上得真如實智平等無我之解、忍波羅蜜成就，能忍苦行，于天上菩提不生退轉故。以是地前未得無生忍波羅蜜成就，見苦行若，于無上菩提喜生退轉故，是故勸勵地前諸小菩薩，應當離一切法中所相之菩發三菩提心也。言發三菩提心者，勸地前人發初地以上三菩提也也。

「何以故」者，問何以故，勸地前人發初地不取相真無我解三菩提心。故答「若心有住則為非住」，明若心於色等有為五欲法中有取相心住者之倒者，則住世間有為法中，非住出世間無為法中也。「則為非住」者，明既住世間法中，則為非住于初地，不住道真無漏解出世間法也。「不應住色等生心」者，不著果報。「應生無所住心」者，不應報恩，闕不論不著自身也。「是故佛說菩薩心不住色佈施」者，是故懷取相心者住於世間，不能住于出世，不住道中故。上第四如實修行分中，佛說不著三事行於佈施，故云心不住色佈施也。

因前不住世間不見三事，乘生疑難：若菩薩得出世無我平等解故不住三事，復不見施者等三。若爾，菩薩出於世間，眾生沒在世間。復言不見眾生，若爾，菩薩云何有施能利益眾生也？故答云「菩薩為利益一切眾生故，應如是佈施」，明若取相心施，尚不能自利，況能利他也？安以不

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：解釋『是故』的原因，是因為初地（初地，菩薩修行階位之一）以上的菩薩獲得了對真如實智（真如實智，佛教術語，指真實如是的智慧）的平等無我之理解，並且忍波羅蜜（忍波羅蜜，佛教術語，指忍辱的修行）成就，能夠忍受苦行，對於證得菩提（菩提，佛教術語，指覺悟）不會產生退轉。因為初地之前的菩薩沒有獲得無生忍波羅蜜（無生忍波羅蜜，佛教術語，指對一切法不生不滅的真理的證悟）的成就，看到苦行就好像看到了什麼，對於無上菩提（無上菩提，佛教術語，指最高的覺悟）容易產生退轉，所以勸勉初地之前的小菩薩，應當遠離一切法中的我相，發起三菩提心（三菩提心，佛教術語，指三種覺悟之心）。所說的發起三菩提心，是勸勉初地之前的人發起初地以上的三菩提心。 解釋『何以故』的原因，是問為什麼勸勉初地之前的人發起初地不取相的真無我解的三菩提心。所以回答『若心有住則為非住』，說明如果心對於色等有為五欲法（五欲法，佛教術語，指色、聲、香、味、觸五種慾望）中有取相心，執著於此，那麼就住在世間的有為法中，而不是住在出世間的無為法中。『則為非住』，說明既然住在世間法中，那麼就不是住在初地，不住在道真無漏解的出世間法中。『不應住色等生心』，是不執著于果報。『應生無所住心』，是不應該求報恩，這裡省略了不執著自身。『是故佛說菩薩心不住色佈施』，因此懷有取相心的人住在世間，不能住在出世間，不住在道中。前面第四如實修行分中，佛說不執著于施者、受者、施物三事而行佈施，所以說心不住色佈施。 因為前面說不住在世間，不見施者、受者、施物三事，所以產生疑問：如果菩薩得出世的無我平等解，所以不住在三事，也不見施者等三。如果這樣，菩薩出於世間，眾生沉沒在世間。又說不見眾生，如果這樣，菩薩怎麼能通過佈施來利益眾生呢？所以回答說『菩薩為利益一切眾生故，應如是佈施』，說明如果用取相心來佈施，尚且不能自利，更何況能利益他人呢？怎麼能不...

【English Translation】 English version: The reason for explaining 'is gu (是故)' is that Bodhisattvas above the first Bhumi (初地) (first Bhumi, one of the stages of Bodhisattva practice) have attained the understanding of equality and non-self of True Suchness and Real Wisdom (真如實智) (True Suchness and Real Wisdom, a Buddhist term, referring to the wisdom of reality as it is), and the Ksanti Paramita (忍波羅蜜) (Ksanti Paramita, a Buddhist term, referring to the practice of patience) is accomplished, able to endure ascetic practices, and will not regress from attaining Bodhi (菩提) (Bodhi, a Buddhist term, referring to enlightenment). Because Bodhisattvas before the first Bhumi have not attained the accomplishment of Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti (無生忍波羅蜜) (Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti, a Buddhist term, referring to the realization of the truth that all dharmas are neither born nor destroyed), seeing ascetic practices is like seeing something, and they are prone to regress from Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (無上菩提) (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, a Buddhist term, referring to the highest enlightenment), so they exhort the small Bodhisattvas before the first Bhumi to stay away from the appearance of self in all dharmas and generate the three Bodhicittas (三菩提心) (three Bodhicittas, a Buddhist term, referring to the three kinds of enlightened mind). The so-called generating the three Bodhicittas is to exhort those before the first Bhumi to generate the three Bodhicittas above the first Bhumi. The reason for explaining 'he yi gu (何以故)' is to ask why exhort those before the first Bhumi to generate the three Bodhicittas of the non-attachment to form and the true non-self understanding of the first Bhumi. Therefore, the answer is 'If the mind has attachment, then it is non-attachment', which means that if the mind has attachment to form and other conditioned five desires (五欲法) (five desires, a Buddhist term, referring to the five desires of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch), then it dwells in the conditioned dharmas of the world, not in the unconditioned dharmas of transcending the world. 'Then it is non-attachment' means that since it dwells in the worldly dharmas, then it does not dwell in the first Bhumi, and does not dwell in the transcendental dharmas of the true and undefiled understanding of the path. 'One should not dwell on form and other things to generate the mind' means not being attached to the fruits of retribution. 'One should generate a mind that dwells nowhere' means that one should not seek to repay kindness, and it omits not being attached to oneself. 'Therefore, the Buddha said that the Bodhisattva's mind does not dwell on form when giving alms' means that those who cherish the mind of attachment dwell in the world and cannot dwell in transcendence, and do not dwell in the path. In the fourth section above, 'Practicing as it is', the Buddha said that one should give alms without being attached to the three things, so it is said that the mind does not dwell on form when giving alms. Because the previous statement said not to dwell in the world and not to see the three things of the giver, receiver, and gift, doubts arise: If the Bodhisattva attains the transcendental understanding of non-self and equality, so he does not dwell on the three things, and does not see the giver, etc. If so, the Bodhisattva is out of the world, and sentient beings are submerged in the world. It is also said that one does not see sentient beings, if so, how can the Bodhisattva benefit sentient beings through giving alms? Therefore, the answer is 'Because the Bodhisattva wants to benefit all sentient beings, he should give alms in this way', which means that if one gives alms with an attached mind, one cannot even benefit oneself, let alone benefit others? How can one not...

---

取相心行施，故能利益一切眾生。如我上說，如是不取相心而行佈施，得福德無量也。

覆生疑難：若言為利益眾生行佈施者，則還是取眾生相，云何上言菩薩于平等理中，不見我為菩薩、彼是眾生相也？故答「世尊！一切眾生相即是非相」，此明一切眾生相者五陰所成假名名字虛妄眾生，但有名用也。「即是非相」者，明此虛妄眾生及以五陰中本來空寂，求定實神我眾生及以定實我所不可得，故言即是非相，此明人無我空也。

乘復有疑：若一切眾生，本來無我我所，空故不可得，即是非相者，如來何故於處處經中說有眾生？如此經中說卵生等眾生，以此來驗，故知實有眾生，那得道言眾生即非眾生也？若爾，正可無定實神我眾生可度，故言一切眾生即是非相；然非無五陰所成虛假眾生，何故不度也？故答「如來說一切眾生即非眾生」，明如來依世諦道中說有眾生，非謂有定實眾生，此正以五陰法來成彼虛假眾生，此五陰法自體本來空寂故，此五陰所成假名眾生亦空，故云即非眾生也。此明五陰因緣法體空乃至假名亦無也，故亦無虛假眾生可度也。

此一段經，凡以五偈釋。「能忍于苦行」一偈，作上問答意釋疑也。「能忍于苦行」者初二句，釋經中忍辱波羅蜜，此明初地菩薩忍有二種：一能忍

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以執著于外相的心態去行佈施，因此只能利益一部分眾生。正如我上面所說，如果不執著于外相，以無相的心態去行佈施，所獲得的福德是無量的。

有人再次產生疑問：如果說是爲了利益眾生而去行佈施，那麼還是執著于眾生之相，為什麼上面又說菩薩在平等之理中，不見有『我』是菩薩，『彼』是眾生這樣的分別呢？所以回答說：『世尊！一切眾生相即是非相』，這是說明一切眾生相是由五陰（色、受、想、行、識）所形成的假名，只是一個虛妄的名字而已。『即是非相』，是說明這虛妄的眾生以及五陰，其本性都是空寂的，想要找到一個真實的、固定的神我（ātman）眾生，以及一個真實存在的『我所』（belongings）是根本不可能的，所以說『即是非相』，這是說明人無我（pudgala-nairātmya）的空性。

又有人產生疑問：如果一切眾生，本來就沒有『我』和『我所』，因為空性而不可得，就是『即是非相』，那麼如來（Tathāgata）為什麼在各處經典中都說有眾生呢？比如這部經中說有卵生等眾生，以此來驗證，就知道確實有眾生存在，怎麼能說眾生即非眾生呢？如果這樣說，或許可以理解為沒有固定不變的神我眾生可以被度化，所以說一切眾生即是非相；然而並非沒有五陰所形成的虛假眾生，為什麼不度化他們呢？所以回答說：『如來說一切眾生即非眾生』，說明如來是依據世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）的層面來說有眾生，並非說有真實存在的眾生，這正是用五陰法來構成那虛假的眾生，而這五陰法的自體本來就是空寂的，因此這五陰所形成的假名眾生也是空的，所以說『即非眾生』。這是說明五陰因緣法體是空性的，乃至假名也是不存在的，所以也沒有虛假的眾生可以被度化。

這一段經文，總共用五個偈頌來解釋。『能忍于苦行』這一偈頌，是用來解釋上面問答的含義，消除疑惑的。『能忍于苦行』這句的前兩句，解釋了經文中的忍辱波羅蜜（kṣānti-pāramitā），說明初地菩薩（prathamā-bhūmi）的忍辱有兩種：一種是能忍

【English Translation】 English version: To give alms with a mind attached to appearances only benefits some sentient beings. As I said above, if one gives alms without attachment to appearances, with a mind free from such notions, the merit obtained is immeasurable.

Someone raises a doubt again: If it is said that giving alms is done to benefit sentient beings, then it is still clinging to the appearance of sentient beings. Why did you say earlier that a Bodhisattva, in the principle of equality, does not see 'I' as a Bodhisattva and 'they' as sentient beings? Therefore, the answer is: 'World Honored One! All appearances of sentient beings are not appearances.' This clarifies that all appearances of sentient beings are false names formed by the five skandhas (pañca-skandha) – form (rūpa), feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), mental formations (saṃskāra), and consciousness (vijñāna) – merely a fictitious name. 'Are not appearances' clarifies that these illusory sentient beings and the five skandhas are inherently empty and still. Seeking a real, fixed self (ātman) among sentient beings, and a real 'mine' (belongings) is unattainable. Therefore, it is said 'are not appearances,' clarifying the emptiness of the self (pudgala-nairātmya).

Someone doubts again: If all sentient beings inherently lack a 'self' and 'mine,' being unattainable due to emptiness, and are thus 'not appearances,' why does the Tathāgata (Tathāgata) say there are sentient beings in various sutras? For example, this sutra speaks of oviparous beings, etc. This confirms that sentient beings truly exist. How can it be said that sentient beings are not sentient beings? If so, perhaps it can be understood that there are no fixed, substantial selves among sentient beings that can be liberated, hence the statement that all sentient beings are not sentient beings. However, there are still illusory sentient beings formed by the five skandhas. Why not liberate them? Therefore, the answer is: 'The Tathāgata says that all sentient beings are not sentient beings,' clarifying that the Tathāgata speaks of sentient beings according to the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), not implying that there are truly existing sentient beings. This uses the five skandhas to constitute those illusory sentient beings, but the very nature of these five skandhas is inherently empty. Therefore, the nominal sentient beings formed by these five skandhas are also empty, hence the statement 'are not sentient beings.' This clarifies that the essence of the five skandhas, the causal conditions, is empty, and even the nominal existence is non-existent. Therefore, there are no illusory sentient beings to be liberated.

This section of the sutra is explained in five verses. The verse 'able to endure suffering' is used to explain the meaning of the above questions and answers, dispelling doubts. The first two lines of 'able to endure suffering' explain the kṣānti-pāramitā (kṣānti-pāramitā) in the sutra, clarifying that the patience of a Bodhisattva on the first ground (prathamā-bhūmi) is of two types: one is able to endure

---

打罵割截之惱；二得無生忍，能忍說法生滅之患，故云能忍于苦行也。何故能忍？故下句云「以苦行有善」。「有善」者，得忍波羅蜜等無漏功德真如證智理之解，故言以苦行有善也。「彼福不可量」者，釋經「即非波羅蜜」，明初地所得忍波羅蜜，非二乘凡夫之所惻度，故云不可量也。「如是最勝義」者，成上不可量，明初地菩薩得忍波羅蜜，會二無我第一之法，于住前凡夫二乘所不能及，故言最勝義也。

第二偈，釋經仙人為歌利王所割無二種煩惱忍不生瞋也。「離我及恚相」者，此一句明菩薩昔曾為仙人，被歌利王割截身體，離二種煩惱：一、離我見俱生煩惱，二、離瞋恨等容塵煩惱。「離我」者，離我人見等根本惑也。「及恚相」者，離瞋恨等容塵煩惱惑也。此明初地菩薩永斷四住及習氣皆盡也。「實無于苦惱」者，釋經中「無相」。苦本由於著我我所，菩薩既離我我所，何惱之有？故云實無于苦惱也。「共樂有慈悲」者，釋經中「亦非無相」。「共樂」者，此明菩薩從發心以來，恒在心念：我何時當得慈悲成就，身如地水火風能實益眾生？是故菩薩既會初地無生，得一體心成，故能以慈悲實益稱本願心，故共樂也。明何故無苦？以有忍波羅蜜第一之樂。何故得此第一之樂？以得一體慈悲心相應故也。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 打罵割截之惱；二得無生忍（Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti），能忍說法生滅之患，所以說能忍于苦行。為什麼能忍？所以下一句說『以苦行有善』。『有善』是指，得到忍波羅蜜（ksanti-paramita）等無漏功德，以及真如證智理的理解，所以說以苦行有善。『彼福不可量』，解釋經文『即非波羅蜜』，說明初地菩薩所得的忍波羅蜜，不是二乘凡夫所能測度的，所以說不可量。『如是最勝義』，成就了上面所說的不可量，說明初地菩薩得到忍波羅蜜，會通了二無我第一之法，是住在初地之前的凡夫和二乘所不能達到的，所以說最勝義。

第二偈，解釋經文仙人為歌利王（Kali）所割截身體，沒有產生兩種煩惱，忍辱不生瞋恨。『離我及恚相』，這一句說明菩薩過去曾為仙人，被歌利王割截身體，遠離了兩種煩惱：一、遠離我見俱生煩惱，二、遠離瞋恨等隨煩惱。『離我』，是遠離我人見等根本惑。『及恚相』，是遠離瞋恨等隨煩惱惑。這說明初地菩薩永遠斷除了四住地煩惱以及習氣都已斷盡。『實無于苦惱』，解釋經文中的『無相』。痛苦本來是由於執著於我以及我所，菩薩既然遠離了我以及我所，哪裡還有苦惱呢？所以說實在沒有苦惱。『共樂有慈悲』，解釋經文中的『亦非無相』。『共樂』，說明菩薩從發心以來，一直都在心中想著：我什麼時候才能得到慈悲成就，身體如同地水火風一樣能夠真實地利益眾生？因此菩薩既然會通了初地無生，得到了與一體之心相應，所以能夠以慈悲真實地利益眾生，符合本願之心，所以說共樂。說明為什麼沒有痛苦？因為有忍波羅蜜第一之樂。為什麼能得到這第一之樂？因為得到了與一體慈悲心相應。

【English Translation】 English version The vexation of beating, scolding, cutting, and severing; secondly, attaining Anutpattika-dharma-ksanti (無生忍, the patience with the unoriginated nature of phenomena), being able to endure the suffering of the arising and ceasing of Dharma teachings, hence it is said to be able to endure ascetic practices. Why is it able to endure? Therefore, the following sentence says 'because ascetic practices have goodness.' 'Having goodness' means obtaining the understanding of the unconditioned merits such as ksanti-paramita (忍波羅蜜, perfection of patience), as well as the realization of the principle of Suchness and the wisdom of realization, hence it is said that ascetic practices have goodness. 'That merit is immeasurable' explains the sutra 'is not ksanti-paramita,' clarifying that the ksanti-paramita obtained by the Bodhisattva of the first ground is not something that can be fathomed by the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, hence it is said to be immeasurable. 'Such is the supreme meaning' accomplishes the aforementioned immeasurability, clarifying that the Bodhisattva of the first ground obtains ksanti-paramita, comprehending the foremost Dharma of the two non-selves, which is unattainable by ordinary beings and the two vehicles before dwelling on the first ground, hence it is said to be the supreme meaning.

The second verse explains the sutra that the Immortal being cut by King Kali (歌利王) did not generate two kinds of afflictions, and patience did not give rise to anger. 'Departing from self and anger's appearance,' this sentence explains that the Bodhisattva was once an Immortal, whose body was severed by King Kali, and was free from two kinds of afflictions: first, free from the innate afflictions of self-view; second, free from the secondary afflictions such as hatred. 'Departing from self' is departing from the fundamental delusions such as the view of self and others. 'And anger's appearance' is departing from the secondary afflictions such as hatred. This clarifies that the Bodhisattva of the first ground has permanently severed the afflictions of the four abodes and all habitual tendencies are exhausted. 'Truly there is no suffering' explains the 'non-appearance' in the sutra. Suffering originally arises from attachment to self and what belongs to self. Since the Bodhisattva has departed from self and what belongs to self, what suffering is there? Therefore, it is said that truly there is no suffering. 'Sharing joy with compassion' explains 'also not non-appearance' in the sutra. 'Sharing joy' means that since the Bodhisattva generated the aspiration for enlightenment, they have always been thinking in their mind: when will I attain the accomplishment of compassion, so that my body, like earth, water, fire, and wind, can truly benefit sentient beings? Therefore, since the Bodhisattva has comprehended the unoriginated nature of the first ground and attained the unity of mind, they are able to truly benefit sentient beings with compassion, in accordance with their original aspiration, hence it is said to be sharing joy. It explains why there is no suffering: because there is the foremost joy of ksanti-paramita. Why can this foremost joy be attained? Because it is attained in accordance with the unity of compassionate mind.

---

「如是苦行果」者，如是慈悲第一之樂，是初地所得。「苦行果」者，不因地前故，成上持經之福勝也。「此二偈說何義」以下，此一段長行論中有二：從初至「慈悲心相應故如是說」，釋前二偈也。「雖此苦行同于苦果，而此苦行不疲惓」者，論主將正答疑家所引捨身無苦，先略領疑意故，言雖此苦行同于苦果也。明忍辱仙人為歌利王割截身時，此苦行雖似同前捨身，而此苦行不疲惓，以仙人被割截時不以苦行為苦故。於此捨身苦行情無厭惓，于無上菩提心不退轉也。「以有羼提波羅蜜名為第一」者，明仙人所以能于捨身無惓、于菩提不退者，以得此初地羼提波羅蜜成就故不生苦惱，不同地前人捨身生苦，那得之為難？此釋偈中初句也。「彼圻有二種義」者，釋偈中第二句「以苦行有善」，解經中波羅蜜義。「一者波羅蜜清凈善根體」者，初地真如證智清凈善根萬德之體。「二者彼圻功德不可量」者，明即此證智體上有萬功德之用也。此萬德用，非二乘凡夫惻量境界，故言不可量也。此句解波羅蜜義竟，乘作非波羅蜜義也。「如經即非波羅蜜」者，即乘舉第二句經來結，然後解作非波羅蜜義也。「是故為得第一法」者，是初地忍辱波羅蜜，非地前凡夫二乘惻量境界義故，說地前人未得無我之解，但為得初地忍波羅蜜

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『如是苦行果』（如此苦行的結果）者，如此慈悲第一之樂，是初地（菩薩修行階位的第一層）所得。『苦行果』者，不因地前故，成就上持經（受持佛經）的福德殊勝。「此二偈說何義」以下，這一段長行論（對經文的解釋）中有二：從開始至『慈悲心相應故如是說』，解釋前兩句偈頌。「雖此苦行同于苦果，而此苦行不疲惓」者，論主（論典的作者）將要正面回答提問者所引用的捨身無苦，先略微領會提問者的意思，所以說雖然此苦行同于苦果。說明忍辱仙人（修忍辱行的仙人）被歌利王（殘暴的國王）割截身體時，此苦行雖然看似同於之前的捨身，而此苦行不疲倦，因為仙人被割截時，不以苦行為苦。於此捨身苦行，情無厭倦，于無上菩提心（追求覺悟的心）不退轉。「以有羼提波羅蜜（忍辱到彼岸）名為第一」者，說明仙人之所以能于捨身無倦、于菩提不退轉，是因為得到這初地羼提波羅蜜成就，所以不生苦惱，不同於地前（未入初地）的人捨身生苦，那怎麼能以此為難呢？這是解釋偈頌中的第一句。「彼圻有二種義」者，解釋偈頌中第二句『以苦行有善』，解釋經中的波羅蜜義。「一者波羅蜜清凈善根體」者，初地真如證智（證悟真如的智慧）清凈善根萬德之體。「二者彼圻功德不可量」者，說明即此證智體上有萬功德之用。這萬德之用，非二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）凡夫所能測量的境界，所以說不可量。此句解釋波羅蜜義完畢，承接來說非波羅蜜義。「如經即非波羅蜜」者，即承接舉第二句經來總結，然後解釋作非波羅蜜義。「是故為得第一法」者，是初地忍辱波羅蜜，非地前凡夫二乘所能測量的境界義，所以說地前人未得無我之解，只是爲了得到初地忍波羅蜜。

【English Translation】 English version 『Such is the fruit of asceticism』 means that such is the first joy of compassion, which is attained by the first Bhumi (the first stage of a Bodhisattva's path). 『The fruit of asceticism』 means that it is not due to the stage before the Bhumi, hence it accomplishes the supreme merit of upholding the Sutra. Regarding 『What is the meaning of these two verses』 below, this section of the commentary in prose has two parts: from the beginning to 『because it corresponds to the mind of compassion, thus it is said,』 explaining the preceding two verses. 『Although this asceticism is similar to the fruit of suffering, yet this asceticism is not weary,』 the author of the commentary is about to directly answer the questioner's citation of 『no suffering in giving up the body,』 first briefly grasping the questioner's meaning, therefore saying that although this asceticism is similar to the fruit of suffering. It explains that when the Kshanti Rishi (the sage who practices patience) was dismembered by King Kali (a cruel king), although this asceticism seems similar to the previous giving up of the body, yet this asceticism is not weary, because when the sage was being dismembered, he did not regard the asceticism as suffering. In this asceticism of giving up the body, there is no weariness in feeling, and there is no turning back from the supreme Bodhicitta (the mind of seeking enlightenment). 『Because having Kshanti Paramita (patience to the other shore) is called the first』 means that the reason why the sage is able to be without weariness in giving up the body and without turning back from Bodhi is because he has attained the accomplishment of this first Bhumi Kshanti Paramita, therefore he does not generate suffering, unlike those before the Bhumi who generate suffering when giving up the body, so how can this be used as a difficulty? This is explaining the first line in the verse. 『That shore has two kinds of meanings』 explains the second line in the verse, 『because asceticism has goodness,』 explaining the meaning of Paramita in the Sutra. 『One is the pure root of goodness of the Paramita』 is the pure root of goodness, the substance of ten thousand virtues, of the true suchness (Tathata) and wisdom of realization of the first Bhumi. 『The merit of that shore is immeasurable』 explains that on this substance of realized wisdom, there is the function of ten thousand merits. This function of ten thousand merits is not a realm that can be measured by the Shravakas (Hearers) and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas) of the Two Vehicles and ordinary people, therefore it is said to be immeasurable. This sentence concludes the explanation of the meaning of Paramita, continuing to speak of the meaning of non-Paramita. 『As the Sutra says, it is not Paramita』 means that it continues by citing the second line of the Sutra to conclude, and then explains it as the meaning of non-Paramita. 『Therefore, in order to attain the first Dharma』 is the Kshanti Paramita of the first Bhumi, not a realm that can be measured by ordinary people and the Two Vehicles before the Bhumi, therefore it is said that people before the Bhumi have not attained the understanding of no-self, but only in order to attain the Kshanti Paramita of the first Bhumi.

---

第一法故，此苦行尚勝彼捨身，何況仙人已證初地，離於我相及瞋恚相，而當不勝前捨身也？此句結勝前捨身，即釋第二偈上句「離我及瞋恚相」也。「又此行無苦」者，釋偈中實無于苦惱也。「不但無苦，及有樂，以有慈悲故」者，釋偈中其樂有慈悲也，如經結也。「此明慈悲心相應故如是說」者，論主自言，我何故作偈云「實無于苦惱，共樂有慈悲」釋此經中「無相亦非無相」也？以得一體慈悲相應故，捨身時無苦而有樂故，得說偈中二句為釋故，云如是說也。

「若有菩薩不離我相等」者，此長行論中第二，將欲作第三偈，釋經中「菩薩應離一切相」，主心不住色有施故，先玄舉凡夫菩薩未得無我解于苦行生厭，復欲退菩提心。為勸此人，令修不取相不退之行，故作此生起。「如經」等，舉所勸經結也。「此明何義」者，此問：向論主生起舉經結中為明何義也？即釋云「未生第一菩提心者有如是過」，明未證初地第一菩提心者，喜見苦行若有退菩提心過也。「為防此過」者，為防退轉過故，即作第三偈，釋經中防過之意。云「為不捨心起」，此第三偈，明為初地不捨菩提心故，起地前不取相行，釋經中「是故菩薩應離一切相發阿耨菩提心」等。「不捨心」者，謂初地不捨菩提心也，明地前菩薩未發初地無

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為第一種方法，這種苦行勝過之前的捨身，更何況仙人已經證得初地（菩薩十地之第一地，歡喜地），遠離了我相（執著于自我的表象）和瞋恚相（憤怒和憎恨的表象），怎麼會不如之前的捨身呢？這句話總結了勝過之前捨身的原因，也就是解釋了第二首偈頌的上句『離我及瞋恚相』。『又此行無苦』，解釋了偈頌中實際上沒有痛苦。『不但無苦，及有樂，以有慈悲故』，解釋了偈頌中其樂有慈悲，如經文所總結。『此明慈悲心相應故如是說』，論主（對經文的解釋者）自己說，我為什麼作偈說『實無于苦惱，共樂有慈悲』來解釋這部經中的『無相亦非無相』呢？因為得到了一體慈悲的相應，所以在捨身時沒有痛苦而有快樂，所以才能說偈中的兩句來解釋，因此說『如是說』。 『若有菩薩不離我相等』，這段長行論（對經文的詳細解釋）中的第二部分，將要作第三首偈頌，解釋經文中的『菩薩應離一切相』，因為主心不住於色相而有佈施，所以先概括地指出凡夫菩薩沒有證得無我，對於苦行產生厭倦，甚至想要退失菩提心（追求覺悟的心）。爲了勸導這些人，讓他們修習不執著于相、不退轉的修行，所以才有了這段生起。『如經』等，引用所勸導的經典來總結。『此明何義』，這是提問：之前論主生起引用經典總結是爲了說明什麼意義呢？接著解釋說『未生第一菩提心者有如是過』，說明沒有證得初地第一菩提心的人，喜歡看到苦行，如果這樣就會有退失菩提心的過失。『為防此過』，爲了防止退轉的過失，所以作了第三首偈頌，解釋經文中防止過失的用意。說『為不捨心起』，這第三首偈頌，說明爲了初地不捨菩提心，發起地前不取相的修行，解釋經文中的『是故菩薩應離一切相發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心（無上正等正覺之心）』等。『不捨心』，指的是初地不捨菩提心，說明地前菩薩沒有發起初地無

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the first method, this ascetic practice is superior to the previous self-sacrifice, let alone that the celestial being has already attained the first Bhumi (the first of the ten Bodhisattva stages, the Joyful Ground), being free from the appearance of self (attachment to the appearance of self) and the appearance of anger (the appearance of anger and hatred), how could it not be superior to the previous self-sacrifice? This sentence summarizes the reason for surpassing the previous self-sacrifice, which is to explain the first line of the second verse, 'Free from self and the appearance of anger.' 'Moreover, this practice has no suffering,' explains that there is actually no suffering in the verse. 'Not only is there no suffering, but there is also joy, because there is compassion,' explains that the joy in the verse has compassion, as summarized in the sutra. 'This explains that it is said in accordance with the corresponding compassionate mind,' the commentator (the interpreter of the sutra) himself says, why did I compose the verse saying 'There is actually no suffering, sharing joy with compassion' to explain 'non-form is also not non-form' in this sutra? Because one has attained the corresponding compassion of oneness, there is no suffering but joy at the time of self-sacrifice, so one can say the two lines in the verse to explain, therefore it is said 'in this way.' 'If there are Bodhisattvas who do not depart from the appearance of self, etc.,' this is the second part of this long commentary (detailed explanation of the sutra), which is about to compose the third verse to explain 'Bodhisattvas should depart from all appearances' in the sutra, because the main mind does not dwell on form but has giving, so it first generally points out that ordinary Bodhisattvas have not attained non-self, and are tired of ascetic practices, and even want to retreat from the Bodhi mind (the mind of pursuing enlightenment). In order to persuade these people, let them practice non-attachment to appearances and non-retrogression, so this arising is created. 'As in the sutra,' etc., quoting the sutra being persuaded to summarize. 'What does this mean,' this is asking: What meaning did the commentator previously arise to quote the sutra to summarize? Then it explains 'Those who have not generated the first Bodhi mind have such faults,' indicating that those who have not attained the first Bodhi mind of the first Bhumi like to see ascetic practices, and if so, there will be the fault of retreating from the Bodhi mind. 'To prevent this fault,' in order to prevent the fault of retrogression, the third verse is composed to explain the intention of preventing faults in the sutra. Saying 'To arise without abandoning the mind,' this third verse explains that in order to not abandon the Bodhi mind of the first Bhumi, the practice of non-attachment to appearances before the Bhumi is initiated, explaining 'Therefore, Bodhisattvas should depart from all appearances and generate the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi mind (the mind of unsurpassed, equal, and correct enlightenment),' etc. 'Not abandoning the mind' refers to not abandoning the Bodhi mind of the first Bhumi, indicating that the Bodhisattva before the Bhumi has not initiated the first Bhumi without

---

我心者，見苦行苦，苦有退失。今言為者，教地前菩薩為初地不捨菩提心故，起地前方便不取相行，趣于地上真無生忍堅固解故，之為不捨心起也。「修行及堅固」者，上句云起，此言修也，明初地無生之解永不退轉不可沮壞，名為堅固。所以修地前方便行者，為證初地無生堅固之解，故云修行及堅固。上句云爲不捨心起，此言修行及堅固，義一名異也。「為忍波羅蜜」者，釋前二句。然前二句釋義已盡，所以有此四句綩轉相釋，名為成偈故也。此第三句還釋成初句，明初地所以得不捨菩提心者，以其得忍波羅蜜成就故，不見苦行苦，不捨菩提心也。忍波羅蜜猶是初地無生之解也。「習彼能學心」者，此第四句，釋上第二句。「習」者，修習也。「彼」者，彼于初地無生堅固解也。「能學心」者，是初地前方便行也。明為彼初地平等無上堅固解故，習地前方便能學心也。此能學心即是修行故，言習彼能學心也。

「此義云何」等一段長行，論略有二意：從初至「攝六波羅蜜故」，此釋前偈也。「為何等心起行相而修行」者，問偈中第二句也。「為何等心不捨相」者，問偈中初句也。若作次第，從初句問亦得。此作二問竟，以下半偈答云「為忍波羅蜜，習彼能學心」也。「又第一義心」者，提偈前生起中第一心來

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『我心』指的是，見到苦行之苦，苦也有退失的時候。現在說的『為』，是教導地上之前的菩薩，爲了初地不捨棄菩提心的緣故，發起地上之前的方便，不執取相的修行，趨向于地上真正的無生忍的堅固理解，所以說是不捨棄菩提心的發起。『修行及堅固』，上一句說『起』，這一句說『修』，說明初地的無生之解永遠不會退轉，不可破壞，叫做堅固。所以修地前方便行的人，是爲了證得初地無生的堅固理解，所以說『修行及堅固』。上一句說『為不捨心起』，這一句說『修行及堅固』，意思相同，只是說法不同。『為忍波羅蜜』，解釋前面兩句。然而前面兩句的解釋已經很完整了，所以有這四句迴環解釋，叫做成就偈頌的緣故。這第三句還是解釋成就第一句，說明初地之所以能夠不捨棄菩提心，是因為他們得到忍波羅蜜（Kshanti Paramita，忍辱波羅蜜）成就的緣故，不見苦行之苦，不捨棄菩提心。忍波羅蜜仍然是初地的無生之解。『習彼能學心』，這是第四句，解釋上面的第二句。『習』，是修習的意思。『彼』，是指初地的無生堅固解。『能學心』，是初地之前的方便行。說明爲了那個初地平等無上的堅固解的緣故，修習地前方便能學心。這個能學心就是修行，所以說『習彼能學心』。 『此義云何』等一段長行，論中略有二個意思：從開始到『攝六波羅蜜故』，這是解釋前面的偈頌。『為何等心起行相而修行』，是問偈頌中的第二句。『為何等心不捨相』，是問偈頌中的第一句。如果按照次第，從第一句問也可以。這裡做了兩個提問之後，用下面的半偈回答說『為忍波羅蜜，習彼能學心』。『又第一義心』，是提出偈頌前生起中的第一個心。

【English Translation】 English version: 'My mind' refers to seeing the suffering of ascetic practices, and suffering also has the possibility of regression. Now, 'for' refers to instructing Bodhisattvas before the first ground (Bhumi), for the sake of not abandoning the Bodhicitta (心, mind of enlightenment) in the first ground, initiating the expedient means before the ground, not clinging to the practice of forms, and moving towards the firm understanding of true non-origination (Anutpattika-dharmakshanti) on the ground. Therefore, it is said to be the arising of not abandoning the mind of enlightenment. 'Practice and firmness,' the previous sentence said 'arising,' this sentence says 'practice,' clarifying that the understanding of non-origination in the first ground will never regress and cannot be destroyed, which is called firmness. Therefore, those who practice the expedient means before the ground do so to attain the firm understanding of non-origination in the first ground, hence the saying 'practice and firmness.' The previous sentence said 'for the arising of not abandoning the mind,' this sentence says 'practice and firmness,' the meaning is the same, only the expression is different. 'For the Kshanti Paramita (忍波羅蜜, perfection of patience),' explains the previous two sentences. However, the explanation of the previous two sentences is already complete, so there are these four sentences explaining in a circular manner, which is called the reason for completing the verse. This third sentence still explains and completes the first sentence, clarifying that the reason why the first ground can not abandon the Bodhicitta is because they have attained the accomplishment of the Kshanti Paramita, not seeing the suffering of ascetic practices, and not abandoning the Bodhicitta. The Kshanti Paramita is still the understanding of non-origination in the first ground. 'Practice that capable mind,' this is the fourth sentence, explaining the second sentence above. 'Practice' means to cultivate. 'That' refers to the firm understanding of non-origination in the first ground. 'Capable mind' refers to the expedient practices before the first ground. It explains that for the sake of that equal and supreme firm understanding of the first ground, one cultivates the capable mind of expedient practices before the ground. This capable mind is practice, so it is said 'practice that capable mind.' The long passage beginning with 'What is the meaning of this?' contains two main ideas in the treatise: from the beginning to 'because it encompasses the six Paramitas (波羅蜜, perfections),' this explains the previous verse. 'With what kind of mind does one practice with characteristics?' asks about the second sentence in the verse. 'With what kind of mind does one not abandon characteristics?' asks about the first sentence in the verse. If following the order, one could also ask from the first sentence. After asking these two questions, the following half-verse answers, 'For the Kshanti Paramita, practice that capable mind.' 'Also, the mind of the ultimate meaning' brings up the first mind in the arising before the verse.

---

也。「已入初地得羼提波羅蜜」者，屬當下半偈中忍波羅蜜，以為已入初地第一義心也，答向二問竟也。「此名不住心」者，此忍波羅蜜是初地不住道心也。「如經」以下，重舉經結也。「何以故」者，問此經中何故云應離一切相發三菩提心？故言何以故也。即釋云「亦不住生心義故」，示於色等法中不取著者，能證初地菩提心義故。此釋經中「何以故？若心有住則為非住」也。「若心住於色等法，彼心不住佛菩提」者，此明於色等法中取著者，不能證初地菩提心也。此釋經中「不住色生心乃至心不住色佈施」也。此明不住心行於佈施者。此結次前所釋二句經也。「此經文說不住心起行方便」者，此向來經文明若能起此不著心者，便得與初地為方便因也。「以檀波羅蜜攝六故」者，如上第四如實修行分中以一攝六，義可知也。

「云何為利益眾生而不名住于眾生」者，此是偈中第二意，論主將作第四偈釋經故，先作生疑之意，即舉斷疑經來結，後方以偈釋之也。此第四偈，明離眾生相及五陰事也，釋經中「菩薩為利益一切眾生應如是佈施」等一段經。「修行利眾生」者，此一句偏釋「為利益一切眾生應如是佈施」。此中有疑：若不見三事、不取眾生相，云何行施因義得成也？故答云「修行利眾生」，明菩薩雖不

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『也。已入初地得羼提波羅蜜（忍辱波羅蜜，指菩薩修行忍辱到達彼岸）』者，屬於當下半偈中忍波羅蜜，認為已經進入初地，獲得第一義心，回答了前面的兩個問題。『此名不住心』者，此忍波羅蜜是初地不住道心。『如經』以下，再次引用經文作為總結。『何以故』者，問此經中為何說應離一切相發三菩提心（覺悟之心）？所以說『何以故』。即解釋說『亦不住生心義故』，說明在色等法中不執著，能證得初地菩提心的意義。這是解釋經中的『何以故？若心有住則為非住』。『若心住於色等法，彼心不住佛菩提』者，這是說明在色等法中執著的人，不能證得初地菩提心。這是解釋經中的『不住色生心乃至心不住色佈施』。這是說明不住心而行佈施。這是總結前面所解釋的兩句經文。『此經文說不住心起行方便』者，這是說向來的經文明示，如果能生起這種不執著的心，便能與初地結下方便之因。『以檀波羅蜜（佈施波羅蜜）攝六故』者，如上面第四如實修行分中以一攝六，其中的意義可以理解。 『云何為利益眾生而不名住于眾生』者，這是偈中的第二層意思，論主將要用第四個偈頌來解釋經文，所以先提出疑問，然後引用斷疑經來總結，最後才用偈頌來解釋。這第四個偈頌，說明要遠離眾生相以及五陰（色、受、想、行、識）之事，解釋經中的『菩薩為利益一切眾生應如是佈施』等一段經文。『修行利眾生』者，這一句偏重解釋『為利益一切眾生應如是佈施』。這裡有一個疑問：如果不見三事、不取眾生相，如何行佈施的因義才能成立呢？所以回答說『修行利眾生』，說明菩薩雖然不

【English Translation】 English version: 'Also. 'Having entered the first ground and attained Kshanti Paramita (the perfection of patience, referring to the bodhisattva's practice of patience reaching the other shore)' belongs to the patience paramita in the latter half of the verse, considering it as having entered the first ground and attained the heart of the ultimate truth, answering the previous two questions. 'This is called non-abiding mind' means this patience paramita is the non-abiding mind of the first ground. 'As the sutra says' below, the sutra is quoted again as a conclusion. 'Why is it so?' asks why the sutra says one should renounce all forms to arouse the Bodhi mind (the mind of enlightenment). Therefore, it says 'Why is it so?' It is then explained as 'Also, because it does not abide in the meaning of arising mind,' indicating that not being attached to phenomena such as form can prove the meaning of the Bodhi mind of the first ground. This explains the sutra's 'Why is it so? If the mind abides, then it is non-abiding.' 'If the mind abides in phenomena such as form, that mind does not abide in the Buddha's Bodhi' means that those who are attached to phenomena such as form cannot prove the Bodhi mind of the first ground. This explains the sutra's 'Not abiding in form to generate mind, even to the point of the mind not abiding in form to give alms.' This explains the practice of giving alms with a non-abiding mind. This concludes the two lines of sutra explained previously. 'This sutra text speaks of the expedient of a non-abiding mind arising in practice' means that the sutra text indicates that if one can generate this non-attached mind, one can form an expedient cause with the first ground. 'Because Dana Paramita (the perfection of giving) encompasses the six' is like the above fourth section on practicing truthfully, where one encompasses the six, and the meaning can be understood. 'How can one benefit sentient beings without being called abiding in sentient beings?' This is the second meaning in the verse. The commentator is going to use the fourth verse to explain the sutra, so he first raises a question, then quotes the sutra that dispels doubts to conclude, and finally uses the verse to explain it. This fourth verse explains the need to be apart from the characteristics of sentient beings and the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness), explaining the section of the sutra that says 'Bodhisattvas should give alms in this way to benefit all sentient beings.' 'Practicing to benefit sentient beings' specifically explains 'should give alms in this way to benefit all sentient beings.' There is a doubt here: if one does not see the three things and does not grasp the characteristics of sentient beings, how can the meaning of giving alms be established? Therefore, the answer is 'Practicing to benefit sentient beings,' indicating that although the bodhisattva does not

---

見三事、不取眾生相，然非不為利益眾生行於佈施，因義得成，故下句云「如是因當識」。「如是因」者，初地檀波羅蜜即是了因行也，因義既成，勸人識知也。

乘復生疑者：為利益眾生行佈施者，即走取眾生相。故下半偈答云「眾生及事相，遠離亦應知」，此釋經中「一切眾生相即是非相」。「遠離」者，不取眾生相也。「亦應知」者，明非但離眾生，亦遠離五陰事相也。以此即知，初地菩薩利眾生行諸度者，非取相行也。「利益是因體」者，釋上半偈。「彼修行利眾生，非取眾生相事」者，釋下半偈。「何者是眾生事」者，作問生起第五偈。此第五偈還成前第四偈，釋經中「何以故如來說一切眾生即非眾生」。云何成第四偈？上直云遠離眾生及事定實之相，未知此眾生五陰何故無有定實所以而離？故此偈正出也。「假名」者，假名名字眾生也。「及陰事」者，五陰相事也。

又復生疑：上云離眾生相者，正可無定實眾生可度，非無虛妄眾生，何故不度？故答云「如來離彼相」。此五陰所成眾生，其性不實猶如幻炎，本來寂靜故，亦無五陰所成虛妄眾生而可度也。「諸佛無彼二」者，不異前第二句。然闡陀論法，一句兩句乃至三句釋義雖盡，要須成偈，故重舉來也。「以見實法故」者，明如來何故離

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 見到三種事相時，不執取眾生的表相，然而並非不做利益眾生的佈施行為，因為其中的道理已經成立，所以下一句說『如是因當識』。『如是因』指的是，初地菩薩的檀波羅蜜（Dānapāramitā，佈施波羅蜜）就是了因的修行，因為其中的道理已經成立，所以勸人認識並瞭解它。

有人再次產生疑問：爲了利益眾生而行佈施，不就是執取眾生的表相嗎？所以下半偈回答說『眾生及事相，遠離亦應知』，這是解釋經文中的『一切眾生相即是非相』。『遠離』指的是，不執取眾生的表相。『亦應知』指的是，表明不僅要遠離眾生，也要遠離五陰（pañca-skandha）的事相。由此可知，初地菩薩利益眾生而行各種波羅蜜，並非執取表相的行為。『利益是因體』，這是解釋上半偈。『彼修行利眾生，非取眾生相事』，這是解釋下半偈。『何者是眾生事』，這是爲了引出第五偈而提出的問題。這第五偈實際上是重複了前面的第四偈，解釋經文中的『何以故如來說一切眾生即非眾生』。如何重複第四偈呢？前面只是直接說要遠離眾生以及事相的定實之相，但不知道這眾生的五陰為什麼沒有定實，所以要遠離？所以這偈頌正是爲了說明這一點。『假名』指的是，假名名字的眾生。『及陰事』指的是，五陰的相和事。

又有人產生疑問：前面說要遠離眾生相，只是說沒有定實的眾生可以度化，並非沒有虛妄的眾生，為什麼不度化呢？所以回答說『如來離彼相』。這五陰所成的眾生，其本性不真實，猶如幻化的火焰，本來就是寂靜的，所以也沒有五陰所成的虛妄眾生可以度化。『諸佛無彼二』，與前面的第二句意思相同。然而闡陀（Chanda）論述佛法，一句兩句乃至三句解釋意義雖然已經窮盡，但必須要形成偈頌，所以又重複提出來。『以見實法故』，說明如來為什麼遠離。

【English Translation】 English version Upon seeing three kinds of phenomena, one does not grasp at the characteristics of sentient beings, yet it is not that one does not perform acts of giving to benefit sentient beings, because the principle within is established, hence the following line says 'Such cause should be known'. 'Such cause' refers to the Dānapāramitā (Perfection of Giving) of the first Bhumi (stage of a Bodhisattva), which is the practice of the causal factor. Since the principle within is established, one is encouraged to recognize and understand it.

Someone may again raise a doubt: Isn't performing acts of giving to benefit sentient beings the same as grasping at the characteristics of sentient beings? Therefore, the second half of the verse answers, 'Sentient beings and the characteristics of things, should also be known as being apart', this explains the sutra's statement 'All characteristics of sentient beings are non-characteristics'. 'Being apart' refers to not grasping at the characteristics of sentient beings. 'Should also be known' indicates that not only should one be apart from sentient beings, but also from the characteristics of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha). From this, it can be known that when a Bodhisattva of the first Bhumi benefits sentient beings and practices the various pāramitās, it is not an act of grasping at characteristics. 'Benefit is the essence of the cause', this explains the first half of the verse. 'They cultivate to benefit sentient beings, not grasping at the characteristics of sentient beings', this explains the second half of the verse. 'What are the affairs of sentient beings?' This is the question raised to introduce the fifth verse. This fifth verse actually repeats the previous fourth verse, explaining the sutra's statement 'Why does the Tathagata say that all sentient beings are not sentient beings?' How does it repeat the fourth verse? The previous verse only directly stated that one should be apart from the fixed and real characteristics of sentient beings and things, but it is not known why the five skandhas of these sentient beings have no fixed reality, so one should be apart from them? Therefore, this verse is precisely to explain this point. 'Provisional name' refers to sentient beings with a provisional name. 'And skandha affairs' refers to the characteristics and affairs of the five skandhas.

Someone may again raise a doubt: The previous statement that one should be apart from the characteristics of sentient beings only means that there are no fixed and real sentient beings to be liberated, not that there are no illusory sentient beings, so why not liberate them? Therefore, the answer is 'The Tathagata is apart from those characteristics'. The sentient beings formed by these five skandhas are inherently unreal, like illusory flames, and are originally quiescent, so there are no illusory sentient beings formed by the five skandhas to be liberated. 'The Buddhas have none of those two' has the same meaning as the previous second line. However, when Chanda discusses the Dharma, although the meaning is exhausted by explaining it in one, two, or even three lines, it is necessary to form a verse, so it is repeated again. 'Because of seeing the real Dharma' explains why the Tathagata is apart.

---

假實二種相者，以見真如實法第一義諦證於佛果無此二相，故知眾生及與五陰，體是虛妄、本來寂靜，以不實故如來遠離，若是實者諸佛應取也。

「此說何義」等一段長行論，從初至「人無我」，釋偈中初句，成前第四偈也。「名相眾生及彼事」者，謂初句中「假名及陰事」也。「云何彼修行離眾生事相」者，問前第四偈中言菩薩修行利益眾生時，云遠離眾生相及五陰事相之義竟云何也？故釋云「即彼名相想非相」，明假名眾生即體虛妄，故云非相也。「以無彼實體故」者，此假名眾生所以空者，明假名法中求實眾生體不可得也。「以是義故眾生即非眾生」者，舉經來結也。「以何等法」者，以何等法來成此眾生，而言眾生體空也？即答「謂五陰法名眾生」，明以五陰和合即此法上假得眾生名也。若五陰和合得眾生名者，便有眾生，何故言空也？釋云「彼五陰無眾生體」，明此眾生雖為五陰眾生，而此五陰中從本以來無實眾生可得也。自前論釋人無我空也。「以無實故」者，明因緣法無我也。所以五陰中無眾生體者，以此五陰如幻如化即體自空，此明能成五陰體空，故所成眾生亦不實也。「如是明法無我、人無我」者，結二無我名也。「何以故」者，何以得知此眾生五陰體空不實也？釋云「一切諸佛離一切相

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『假』和『實』這兩種相，是因為見到真如實法（Tathata, 真實不變的本體）的第一義諦（Paramartha-satya, 最高的真理）時，證得佛果（Buddha-phala, 佛的果位）時沒有這兩種相。因此可知眾生（Sattva, 有情）以及五陰（Panca-skandha, 色、受、想、行、識五種構成要素），其體性是虛妄的、本來就是寂靜的。因為不是真實的，所以如來（Tathagata, 佛的稱號）遠離它；如果是真實的，諸佛（Buddhas, 覺悟者）就應該取它了。

從『此說何義』開始的一段長行論，從開頭到『人無我』，解釋偈頌中的第一句，成就了前面的第四個偈頌。『名相眾生及彼事』，指的是第一句中的『假名及陰事』。『云何彼修行離眾生事相』，是問前面第四個偈頌中說菩薩（Bodhisattva, 追求覺悟的修行者）修行利益眾生時，如何遠離眾生相以及五陰事相的意義究竟是什麼？所以解釋說『即彼名相想非相』，說明假名眾生的體性是虛妄的，所以說『非相』。『以無彼實體故』，這個假名眾生之所以是空性的，是因為在假名法中尋求真實的眾生本體是不可得的。『以是義故眾生即非眾生』，是引用經文來總結。『以何等法』，用什麼法來構成這個眾生，卻說眾生的體性是空性的呢？回答說『謂五陰法名眾生』，說明用五陰和合就在這個法上假立眾生的名字。如果五陰和合得到眾生的名字，就應該有眾生，為什麼說它是空性的呢？解釋說『彼五陰無眾生體』，說明這個眾生雖然是五陰眾生，而這個五陰中從本來就沒有真實的眾生可以得到。以上論述解釋了人無我空。『以無實故』，說明因緣法（Hetu-pratyaya, 條件和合的法則）也是無我的。五陰中沒有眾生體的原因是，這個五陰如幻如化，其體性本身就是空性的，這說明能構成五陰的體性是空性的，所以所構成的眾生也是不真實的。『如是明法無我、人無我』，總結了法無我（Dharma-nairatmya, 諸法無自性）和人無我（Pudgala-nairatmya, 沒有永恒不變的自我）的名稱。『何以故』，為什麼得知這個眾生五陰的體性是空性不真實的呢？解釋說『一切諸佛離一切相』

【English Translation】 English version The two aspects of 『false』 and 『real』 exist because when one sees the first principle of ultimate truth (Paramartha-satya) of True Suchness (Tathata), one realizes that there are no such two aspects in the attainment of Buddhahood (Buddha-phala). Therefore, it is known that sentient beings (Sattva) and the five aggregates (Panca-skandha), are inherently illusory and fundamentally quiescent. Because they are not real, the Thus Come One (Tathagata) distances himself from them; if they were real, all Buddhas (Buddhas) should take them.

The long prose section starting with 『What does this mean?』 explains the first line of the verse, from the beginning to 『no self of person』, completing the fourth verse. 『Name and form, sentient beings and their affairs』 refers to 『false names and aggregates』 in the first line. 『How does that practitioner separate from the aspects of sentient beings and their affairs?』 asks about the meaning of the fourth verse, which states that when a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva) practices to benefit sentient beings, how does he separate from the aspects of sentient beings and the affairs of the five aggregates? Therefore, it is explained as 『that which is named and formed is not an aspect』, clarifying that the nature of nominally designated sentient beings is illusory, hence 『not an aspect』. 『Because there is no real substance in them』 explains that the reason why these nominally designated sentient beings are empty is that the real substance of sentient beings cannot be found in nominally designated dharmas. 『Therefore, sentient beings are not sentient beings』 is a conclusion drawn from the scriptures. 『By what dharma』 means by what dharma are these sentient beings constituted, yet it is said that the nature of sentient beings is empty? The answer is 『the five aggregates are called sentient beings』, clarifying that the name of sentient beings is nominally established on this dharma when the five aggregates are combined. If the name of sentient beings is obtained by the combination of the five aggregates, then there should be sentient beings, so why is it said to be empty? It is explained as 『those five aggregates have no substance of sentient beings』, clarifying that although these sentient beings are the sentient beings of the five aggregates, there are no real sentient beings to be found in these five aggregates from the beginning. The above discussion explains the emptiness of no self of person. 『Because there is no reality』 explains that the law of dependent origination (Hetu-pratyaya) is also without self. The reason why there is no substance of sentient beings in the five aggregates is that these five aggregates are like illusions and transformations, and their nature is inherently empty. This explains that the nature that constitutes the five aggregates is empty, so the sentient beings that are constituted are also unreal. 『Thus, it clarifies no self of phenomena and no self of person』 summarizes the names of no self of phenomena (Dharma-nairatmya) and no self of person (Pudgala-nairatmya). 『Why?』 means how do we know that the nature of the five aggregates of these sentient beings is empty and unreal? It is explained as 『all Buddhas are free from all aspects』.

---

」等，明諸佛離故，證眾生五陰體空也。「此句明彼二相不實」者，此句論向語佛所離二句，明以二相不實故如來離也，即以偈中下三句結成也。「此說何義」者，問此偈下三句說何等義也？即釋云「若彼二實有者，諸佛如來應有彼二相」，明若彼眾生五陰實有不空者，即是第一義諦，諸佛如來應有此二相；而諸佛離故，明知此二不實也。復精釋何以故，若此二是實，便如來萬德中應有；以諸佛如來是見真如實諦之人，而不見此二人又復離之，故證眾生五陰假實俱空也。

「須菩提！如來是真語者」等，此一段經是校量分中第九經文。此所以來者，猶遠釋第六段聖人無為法得名，是法不可取說者，受持此經言教，則無福德中疑也。然挍量分初以來已廣釋云，假令三千恒沙七寶及捨身命施人福德雖多，猶不如受持此經一偈之福。雖復如是挍量、如是廣釋，大眾生疑心猶故未盡，復因前舍恒沙身命不如受持一四句偈，更復生疑。如是上雖廣解所證法身之體絕於名相言詮所不及，又云十二部經言教法中無所詮證法，若然此能詮之教猶與所詮法身條然有別，而此言教則還為非法，何得受持一偈言教能得法身，勝於舍無量身命之福？直爾生疑不信也。既有此疑，如來亦應更引喻挍量。而所以不更挍量者，因此言上恐復生疑

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『等，明諸佛離故，證眾生五陰（蘊、處、界的別名）體空也。』此句說明彼二相不實，是指此句論述前面所說的佛所遠離的兩種相，說明因為這兩種相不真實，所以如來才能遠離它們，也就是用偈語中的后三句來總結。「此說何義」是指，問這偈語的后三句說的是什麼意義？解釋說：『若彼二實有者，諸佛如來應有彼二相』，說明如果眾生的五陰確實存在而不是空性的，那就是第一義諦，諸佛如來就應該具有這兩種相；但是諸佛已經遠離了這些相，說明這兩種相是不真實的。進一步解釋為什麼，如果這兩種相是真實的，那麼如來的萬德中就應該有；因為諸佛如來是見到真如實諦的人，但是他們沒有見到這兩種相，並且還遠離了它們，所以證明眾生的五陰是假有，實性是空性的。 『須菩提！如來是真語者』等，這一段經文是校量分中的第九段經文。之所以要說這段經文，是爲了進一步解釋第六段中聖人以無為法得名，以及這種法是不可取、不可說的，從而消除人們對於受持此經的言教而沒有福德的疑慮。然而，校量分一開始就已經廣泛地解釋說，即使用三千恒河沙數的七寶以及捨棄身命來佈施給他人，所獲得的福德雖然很多，仍然不如受持此經中一句偈語的福德。雖然已經這樣校量、這樣廣泛地解釋，但是大眾的疑心仍然沒有完全消除，又因為前面說捨棄恒河沙數的生命不如受持一句四句偈，而更加產生了懷疑。像這樣，上面雖然廣泛地解釋了所證得的法身的本體超越了名相言詮所能達到的境界，又說十二部經的言教法中沒有所詮證的法，如果這樣，那麼這能詮釋的言教仍然與所詮釋的法身截然不同，那麼這言教就仍然是非法，怎麼能受持一句偈語的言教就能得到法身，勝過捨棄無量身命的福德呢？直接就產生了懷疑和不相信。既然有這樣的懷疑，如來也應該再次引用比喻來校量。但是之所以不再校量，是因為擔心說了之後反而會產生更多的懷疑。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Etc., clarifying that because all Buddhas are detached, it proves that the five skandhas (another name for the aggregates, spheres, and realms) of sentient beings are empty in nature.' This sentence, stating that those two characteristics are unreal, refers to the previous statement about the two characteristics that the Buddha is detached from, explaining that because these two characteristics are not real, the Tathagata can detach from them. It is summarizing with the last three lines of the verse. 'What does this mean?' refers to asking what the last three lines of the verse mean. The explanation is: 'If those two were truly existent, all Buddhas and Tathagatas should possess those two characteristics,' clarifying that if the five skandhas of sentient beings were truly existent and not empty, then that would be the ultimate truth, and all Buddhas and Tathagatas should possess these two characteristics; but since all Buddhas have detached from these characteristics, it proves that these two characteristics are not real. Further explaining why, if these two characteristics were real, then they should be present among the myriad virtues of the Tathagata; because all Buddhas and Tathagatas are those who have seen the true suchness and the real truth, but they have not seen these two characteristics, and have also detached from them, therefore proving that the five skandhas of sentient beings are both falsely existent and empty in their true nature. 'Subhuti! The Tathagata speaks the truth,' etc., this section of scripture is the ninth section in the 'Comparative Merits' chapter. The reason for stating this section of scripture is to further explain that in the sixth section, the sage is named by the unconditioned dharma, and that this dharma is not to be grasped or spoken of, thereby dispelling people's doubts about not having merit from upholding the teachings of this scripture. However, from the beginning of the 'Comparative Merits' chapter, it has already been extensively explained that even if one uses three thousand Ganges' worth of seven treasures and sacrifices one's life to give to others, the merit obtained, although great, is still not as great as the merit of upholding one verse from this scripture. Although it has been compared and extensively explained in this way, the doubts of the masses have still not been completely dispelled, and because of the previous statement that sacrificing Ganges' worth of lives is not as good as upholding one four-line verse, even more doubts have arisen. Like this, although the above has extensively explained that the essence of the Dharmakaya attained transcends the realm that names and words can reach, and it is also said that there is no dharma to be proven in the teachings of the twelve divisions of scriptures, if this is the case, then this teaching that can explain is still distinctly different from the Dharmakaya that is explained, then this teaching is still not the Dharma, how can upholding one verse of teaching obtain the Dharmakaya, surpassing the merit of sacrificing countless lives? Directly, doubts and disbelief arise. Since there are such doubts, the Tathagata should also use metaphors again to compare. But the reason for not comparing again is because of the fear that saying more would cause even more doubts.

---

，疑終不盡。然假使如來無量劫住，廣引舍內外身財挍量，亦復不及持一偈之福。故如來置答，直勸其言：但信我語，勿復生疑。我是一切智人，終不誑汝。故經答云「如來是真語者乃至不異語者」，明贊如來說四法等，皆悉不虛，勸人信我誠言，故次明也。「須菩提！如來是真語者」，明如來是一切智人，證得果頭十力無畏諸功德等。如己所證還為人說，如實不虛，故云真語者也。如來為小乘人說四諦法，此聲聞人觀四諦理、斷三界結，得小乘果證。然雖非究竟之實，當其分有觀境除得不謬，故云「實語」也。「如語」者，明如來為諸菩薩說真如佛性，是其大乘自說而說，如理不謬，故名如語也。「不異語」者，明如來說三世之事，稱法虛實終無差錯，故云不異語也。

「須菩提！如來所得法、所說法」者，如來自說，我亦因受持此經言教法故，證果頭無為法身，既證還為人說，終不虛妄。汝等應當生信，勿復疑也。「所得法」者，謂證法也。「所說法」者，謂言教法也。既聞此說，復乘生疑難：若如來言我證得此法還為人說，勸我生信者，此所證法即是可取可說，因於名相。若爾，還復同我前疑，上言證法無名相不可取說者，此言則壞也。有如此疑難，以答言「無實」，明今言所得、所說者，依世諦名相道

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：疑慮始終無法消除。然而，即使如來住世無量劫，廣泛引用捨棄內外身財的譬喻來衡量，也比不上受持一偈的福德。因此，如來選擇不回答，直接勸告他們說：『只要相信我的話，不要再生疑。我是一切智人，終究不會欺騙你們。』所以經中回答說『如來是真語者乃至不異語者』，明白讚歎如來說的四種法等，都是真實不虛的，勸人相信我的誠實之言，所以接下來闡明這一點。「須菩提！如來是真語者」，說明如來是一切智人，證得了果地上的十力、無畏等諸功德。如自己所證悟的，如實不虛地為人宣說，所以稱為真語者。如來為小乘人宣說四諦法，這些聲聞人觀察四諦之理、斷除三界煩惱，證得小乘果位。雖然不是究竟的真實，但當他們分階段地觀察境界、去除煩惱時，所得的見解沒有謬誤，所以稱為『實語』。「如語」是指，如來為諸菩薩宣說真如佛性，這是大乘的自說而說，符合真理沒有謬誤，所以稱為如語。「不異語」是指，如來說的三世之事，符合法理的虛實，始終沒有差錯，所以稱為不異語。 「須菩提！如來所得法、所說法」，如來自己說，我也是因為受持此經的言教法，才證得果地上的無為法身，既然證得了，就為人宣說，終究不會虛妄。你們應當生起信心，不要再生疑。「所得法」是指證悟的法。「所說法」是指言教法。聽了這些話，又再次產生疑問：如果如來說我證得了此法還為人宣說，勸我生起信心，那麼這所證的法就是可以獲取、可以言說的，依賴於名相。如果是這樣，那就又和我之前的疑問一樣了，之前說證悟的法沒有名相，不可獲取、不可言說，那麼現在所說的話就自相矛盾了。有這樣的疑問，所以回答說『無實』，說明現在所說的所得、所說，是依據世俗諦的名相道。

【English Translation】 English version: Doubts ultimately remain unresolved. However, even if the Tathagata (如來，another name for Buddha) were to dwell for countless kalpas (劫，an immense period of time), extensively citing analogies of relinquishing internal and external possessions and wealth, it would still not equal the merit of upholding a single verse. Therefore, the Tathagata chooses not to answer, directly advising them: 'Just believe my words, do not give rise to further doubt. I am the All-Knowing One, and I will never deceive you.' Thus, the sutra (經，Buddhist scripture) answers, 'The Tathagata is a speaker of truth, even to the point of being a non-deviating speaker,' clearly praising the Tathagata's teachings of the Four Noble Truths (四諦法，the four central beliefs containing the essence of Buddhist teaching) and so on, all of which are true and not false, urging people to believe my sincere words, hence the subsequent clarification. 'Subhuti (須菩提，one of the principal disciples of the Buddha)! The Tathagata is a speaker of truth,' clarifies that the Tathagata is the All-Knowing One, having attained the ten powers (十力，ten kinds of knowledge possessed by a Buddha) and fearlessness (無畏，freedom from fear) and other merits at the fruition stage. As one has realized, one speaks to others truthfully and without falsehood, hence the term 'speaker of truth.' The Tathagata speaks the Four Noble Truths for the Sravakas (聲聞人，a disciple of Buddha) of the Small Vehicle (小乘人，Hinayana Buddhism), these Sravakas observe the principles of the Four Noble Truths, sever the bonds of the Three Realms (三界結，the realms of desire, form, and formlessness), and attain the fruition of the Small Vehicle. Although it is not the ultimate reality, when they observe the realms and remove afflictions in stages, the insights gained are without error, hence the term 'speaker of reality.' 'Speaker of suchness' refers to the Tathagata speaking of the True Thusness (真如佛性，the ultimate nature of reality) of the Buddha-nature for the Bodhisattvas (菩薩，a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings), this is the self-speaking of the Great Vehicle (大乘，Mahayana Buddhism), in accordance with principle and without error, hence the term 'speaker of suchness.' 'Non-deviating speaker' refers to the Tathagata speaking of the affairs of the three times (三世之事，past, present, and future), in accordance with the truth and reality of the Dharma (法，the teachings of the Buddha), without any discrepancy, hence the term 'non-deviating speaker.' 'Subhuti! The Dharma attained by the Tathagata, the Dharma spoken by the Tathagata,' the Tathagata himself says, I also, because of upholding the teachings of this sutra, attained the unconditioned Dharmakaya (無為法身，the body of essence) at the fruition stage, having attained it, I speak it for others, and it will never be false. You should give rise to faith, do not give rise to further doubt. 'The Dharma attained' refers to the Dharma of enlightenment. 'The Dharma spoken' refers to the Dharma of teachings. Having heard these words, doubt arises again: If the Tathagata says I have attained this Dharma and speak it for others, urging me to give rise to faith, then this Dharma attained is something that can be grasped and spoken, relying on names and forms. If that is the case, then it is the same as my previous doubt, previously saying that the Dharma of enlightenment has no names and forms, cannot be grasped or spoken, then the current words contradict themselves. Having such doubts, the answer is 'without reality,' clarifying that what is now said to be attained and spoken is based on the path of conventional truth (世諦，conventional truth) of names and forms.

---

中言有得有說，非真如理中有名相故可說也。然真如之理，從本以來言語道斷、心行處滅，故無得、無說也。何得聞言有得、有說，便使證法同於名相可取說也？證法既非名相，若謂證法同於名相可得、可說者，此則不實也。復生疑難：若證法一向無名相，何故如來前言「我是真語實語者」等，勸使受持能詮經教，今復云前說無實？此二言相違。若爾，還同前第二疑，條然離於證法有能詮言教。此言教則是非法，設受持讀誦，無所利益。上云言教是法有其因義，此語則壞也。故云「無妄語」，明如來實證真如，還說真如法。此言教從證法中來，是彼一分故，不云一向非法。而此言教既說真如，故受持此經教，還能證真如。有此大利益事，故不妄語也。

「論曰：此中有疑」等，論主將作偈釋經，先略序生疑之意，復舉經略申斷疑之義也。凡有三行偈，釋此一段經。初偈作問答意釋疑，總舉四語以勸信。上二句釋前疑問，下二句釋，舉四語來，勸信之意也。「果雖不住道，而道能為因」者，「果」謂證法果，「道」者言教道也。此一句應云言教之道不住證法果中也，而此教道還能與證法作因。言教顯出證果，故為因也。上難云：證法無名相，言教是名相。此名相法，云何能與無名相法作因邪？故答「以諸佛實語」

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：

如果說在中（中道）的言語中有所得有所說，那是因為在真如的道理中存在名相，所以可以言說。然而，真如的道理，從根本上來說，是言語無法表達，心識活動無法到達的境界，所以無所得，也無所說。為什麼聽到言語中有所得有所說，就認為證悟的佛法等同於名相，可以被獲取和言說呢？證悟的佛法既然不是名相，如果說證悟的佛法等同於名相，可以被獲得和言說，這就是不真實的。又產生疑問：如果證悟的佛法一向沒有名相，為什麼如來之前說『我是說真話實話的人』等等，勸導人們受持能夠詮釋經教的言語，現在又說之前所說的不真實？這兩種說法是矛盾的。如果這樣，就和之前的第二個疑問一樣，顯然是脫離了證悟的佛法，而存在能夠詮釋的言教。這些言教就是非法，即使受持讀誦，也沒有什麼利益。之前說言教是佛法，有其原因和意義，這種說法就被破壞了。所以說『沒有妄語』，說明如來真實證悟了真如，才說真如佛法。這些言教是從證悟的佛法中產生的，是它的一部分，所以不能說完全是非法。而且這些言教既然說的是真如，所以受持這些經教，還能證悟真如。有這樣大的利益，所以不是妄語。

『論曰：此中有疑』等等，論主將要作偈來解釋經文，先簡略地敘述產生疑問的用意，再舉出經文來簡要地闡述斷除疑問的意義。總共有三行偈，解釋這一段經文。第一個偈子以問答的方式來解釋疑問，總共舉出四種說法來勸人相信。上面兩句解釋之前的疑問，下面兩句解釋，舉出四種說法來，勸人相信的用意。『果雖不住道，而道能為因』，『果』指的是證悟佛法的果實，『道』指的是言教的道路。這一句應該說言教的道路不住在證悟佛法的果實中，但是這個言教的道路還能為證悟佛法作因。言教顯現出證悟的果實，所以是因。之前質疑說：證悟的佛法沒有名相，言教是名相。這種名相之法，怎麼能為沒有名相的佛法作因呢？所以回答『以諸佛實語』（憑藉諸佛真實不虛的言語）。 English version:

If it is said that there is attainment and speaking in the words of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka), it is because there are names and forms in the principle of Suchness (Tathata), so it can be spoken. However, the principle of Suchness, from its very origin, is beyond the reach of language and the cessation of mental activity, so there is no attainment and no speaking. Why, upon hearing that there is attainment and speaking in words, would one then consider the Dharma realized to be the same as names and forms, able to be grasped and spoken? Since the realized Dharma is not names and forms, if it is said that the realized Dharma is the same as names and forms, able to be attained and spoken, then this is untrue. Further doubts arise: If the realized Dharma has always been without names and forms, why did the Tathagata (如來，another name for Buddha) previously say, 'I am one who speaks truthfully and realistically,' etc., encouraging people to uphold the teachings that can explain the scriptures, and now say that what was said before is not real? These two statements contradict each other. If so, it is the same as the second doubt before, clearly separated from the realized Dharma, there are teachings that can explain. These teachings are then not the Dharma, and even if upheld and recited, there is no benefit. Previously, it was said that the teachings are the Dharma, with its cause and meaning, this statement would then be destroyed. Therefore, it is said 'no false speech,' clarifying that the Tathagata truly realized Suchness, and then speaks the Dharma of Suchness. These teachings come from the realized Dharma, and are a part of it, so it cannot be said to be entirely non-Dharma. And since these teachings speak of Suchness, upholding these scriptures can still realize Suchness. There is such great benefit, so it is not false speech.

'The Treatise says: There are doubts here,' etc., the author of the treatise is about to compose a verse to explain the scripture, first briefly narrating the intention of raising doubts, and then citing the scripture to briefly elaborate on the meaning of resolving doubts. There are a total of three lines of verse, explaining this section of the scripture. The first verse explains the doubt in the form of questions and answers, and generally cites four statements to encourage belief. The first two lines explain the previous doubts, and the last two lines explain, citing four statements, the intention of encouraging belief. 'Although the fruit does not abide in the path, the path can be the cause,' 'fruit' refers to the fruit of realizing the Dharma, 'path' refers to the path of teachings. This sentence should say that the path of teachings does not abide in the fruit of realizing the Dharma, but this path of teachings can still be the cause for realizing the Dharma. The teachings reveal the fruit of realization, so it is the cause. Previously, it was questioned: The realized Dharma has no names and forms, and the teachings are names and forms. How can this Dharma of names and forms be the cause for the Dharma without names and forms? Therefore, the answer is 'with the true words of all Buddhas' (以諸佛實語).

【English Translation】 English version:

If it is said that there is attainment and speaking in the words of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka), it is because there are names and forms in the principle of Suchness (Tathata), so it can be spoken. However, the principle of Suchness, from its very origin, is beyond the reach of language and the cessation of mental activity, so there is no attainment and no speaking. Why, upon hearing that there is attainment and speaking in words, would one then consider the Dharma realized to be the same as names and forms, able to be grasped and spoken? Since the realized Dharma is not names and forms, if it is said that the realized Dharma is the same as names and forms, able to be attained and spoken, then this is untrue. Further doubts arise: If the realized Dharma has always been without names and forms, why did the Tathagata (如來，another name for Buddha) previously say, 'I am one who speaks truthfully and realistically,' etc., encouraging people to uphold the teachings that can explain the scriptures, and now say that what was said before is not real? These two statements contradict each other. If so, it is the same as the second doubt before, clearly separated from the realized Dharma, there are teachings that can explain. These teachings are then not the Dharma, and even if upheld and recited, there is no benefit. Previously, it was said that the teachings are the Dharma, with its cause and meaning, this statement would then be destroyed. Therefore, it is said 'no false speech,' clarifying that the Tathagata truly realized Suchness, and then speaks the Dharma of Suchness. These teachings come from the realized Dharma, and are a part of it, so it cannot be said to be entirely non-Dharma. And since these teachings speak of Suchness, upholding these scriptures can still realize Suchness. There is such great benefit, so it is not false speech.

'The Treatise says: There are doubts here,' etc., the author of the treatise is about to compose a verse to explain the scripture, first briefly narrating the intention of raising doubts, and then citing the scripture to briefly elaborate on the meaning of resolving doubts. There are a total of three lines of verse, explaining this section of the scripture. The first verse explains the doubt in the form of questions and answers, and generally cites four statements to encourage belief. The first two lines explain the previous doubts, and the last two lines explain, citing four statements, the intention of encouraging belief. 'Although the fruit does not abide in the path, the path can be the cause,' 'fruit' refers to the fruit of realizing the Dharma, 'path' refers to the path of teachings. This sentence should say that the path of teachings does not abide in the fruit of realizing the Dharma, but this path of teachings can still be the cause for realizing the Dharma. The teachings reveal the fruit of realization, so it is the cause. Previously, it was questioned: The realized Dharma has no names and forms, and the teachings are names and forms. How can this Dharma of names and forms be the cause for the Dharma without names and forms? Therefore, the answer is 'with the true words of all Buddhas' (以諸佛實語).

---

，此明諸佛是一切智人，具四種實語，說心當理，但信勿疑也。

有人乘生疑難：如來所智境界有無量無邊，何故唯說四語？故答「彼智有四種」，此明依於四境但云四語，然此四境雖名狹而義廣論。法雖無量，不出佛果、小乘、大乘及三世有為法等，以此四名攝法皆盡故，略明斯四也。此本偈兩句，與下第二偈為章門，別釋備文在於下偈也。「此義云何至有四種實語」，釋下本偈為乘生第二偈也，第二偈正釋四種智境也。「實智及小乘」者，此一句合釋二語。「實智」者，釋經「真語」也。「小乘」者，釋經「實語」也。「說摩訶衍法」者，此是胡音，漢翻名大乘。釋經「如語」也。「及一切授記」者，釋經「不異語」也。「以不虛說故」者，是疾轉義，遍上四句之下皆言以不虛說故也。明如來既有四種實語，凡有所說皆不虛妄海。汝等大眾於我言，不說持經功德，但生深信，勿是懷疑。故明四種語是實，以成不虛也說。

「此明何義」等，一段長行論，大意有二：從初至「不顛倒」，次第釋偈，以經結之。復言設難已，又次第廣解具難也。「以如來實智不妄說佛菩提至次第說四語」，並解偈中四偈也。「如經」以下，並以經來結四語也。「不妄說小乘」等者，所以提此句來，論主假設難云：如來所說

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這表明諸佛是具有一切智慧的人，具備四種真實之語，所說符合心性與真理，但應深信不疑。

有人或許會產生疑問：如來所證知的境界有無量無邊，為何只說四種語言？因此回答說『彼智有四種』，這表明是依據四種境界而只說四種語言，然而這四種境界雖然名稱狹窄但意義廣博。法雖然無量，但不超出佛果、小乘（Śrāvakayāna，聲聞乘）、大乘（Mahāyāna，菩薩乘）以及三世有為法等，用這四個名稱可以涵蓋所有法，所以簡略說明這四種。此本偈的兩句，與下方的第二個偈頌作為章節的開端，詳細的解釋在下面的偈頌中。『此義云何至有四種實語』，解釋下方的本偈，作為乘生第二偈。第二個偈頌正是解釋四種智慧境界。『實智及小乘』，這一句合併解釋兩種語言。『實智』，解釋經文中的『真語』。『小乘』，解釋經文中的『實語』。『說摩訶衍法』，這是胡語，漢譯名為大乘。解釋經文中的『如語』。『及一切授記』，解釋經文中的『不異語』。『以不虛說故』，是快速轉變的意思，遍及上面四句之下都說因為不虛妄的緣故。表明如來既然有四種真實之語，凡是所說的都不虛妄。你們大眾對於我說的話，不要說持經的功德，但要生起深信，不要懷疑。所以說明四種語言是真實的，以此成就真實不虛。

『此明何義』等，這一段長篇論述，大意有二：從開始到『不顛倒』，依次解釋偈頌，用經文來總結。又說假設了疑問之後，又依次廣泛地解釋了疑問。『以如來實智不妄說佛菩提至次第說四語』，並解釋偈頌中的四個偈頌。『如經』以下，用經文來總結四種語言。『不妄說小乘』等，之所以提出這句話來，論主假設疑問說：如來所說

【English Translation】 English version: This clarifies that all Buddhas are all-knowing beings, possessing four kinds of truthful speech, speaking in accordance with the mind and truth, so just believe without doubt.

Someone might raise a question: The realms known by the Tathāgata (如來，Thus Come One) are immeasurable and boundless, so why only speak of four kinds of speech? Therefore, the answer is, 'That wisdom has four kinds,' which clarifies that it is based on four realms that only four kinds of speech are spoken, yet these four realms, though narrow in name, are broad in meaning. Although the Dharma (法，teachings) is immeasurable, it does not go beyond the Buddha-fruit (佛果，Buddhahood), the Śrāvakayāna (小乘，the Vehicle of Hearers), the Mahāyāna (大乘，the Great Vehicle), and the conditioned dharmas (有為法，conditioned phenomena) of the three times, etc. All dharmas are encompassed by these four names, so these four are briefly explained. The two lines of this original verse, together with the second verse below, serve as the beginning of the chapter, with detailed explanations in the verses below. 'What is the meaning of this, up to the four kinds of truthful speech,' explains the original verse below, serving as the second verse of arising questions. The second verse precisely explains the four realms of wisdom. 'Real wisdom and the Śrāvakayāna,' this sentence combines to explain two kinds of speech. 'Real wisdom' explains the 'true speech' in the scripture. 'Śrāvakayāna' explains the 'real speech' in the scripture. 'Speaking the Mahāyāna Dharma' is a foreign term, translated into Chinese as the Great Vehicle. It explains the 'as-it-is speech' in the scripture. 'And all predictions' explains the 'non-different speech' in the scripture. 'Because of not speaking falsely' is the meaning of rapid transformation, pervading below all four sentences, saying that it is because of not being false. It clarifies that since the Tathāgata has four kinds of truthful speech, whatever is spoken is not false. You all, regarding my words, do not speak of the merit of upholding the scripture, but generate deep faith and do not doubt. Therefore, it clarifies that the four kinds of speech are real, thereby accomplishing truthfulness.

'What does this clarify,' etc., this long passage of commentary has two main points: From the beginning to 'not inverted,' it explains the verses in order, concluding with the scripture. It also says that after assuming a question, it then widely explains the question in order. 'Because the Tathāgata's real wisdom does not falsely speak of Buddha-bodhi (佛菩提，Buddha's enlightenment) up to speaking the four kinds of speech in order,' and explains the four verses in the verses. 'As the scripture' and below, it concludes the four kinds of speech with the scripture. 'Not falsely speaking of the Śrāvakayāna,' etc., the reason for bringing up this sentence is that the commentator assumes the question, saying: What the Tathāgata speaks

---

大乘，理是真實、果是究竟，可名實語；為小乘人說於四諦，理非究竟，雖證羅漢，果未滿足。然諸大乘經中復廣破小乘，云非是真實，云何而言說於四諦名為實語也？釋云「說小乘苦諦等唯是諦故」，明如來說四諦等法，小乘人依教修行，得性空人無我解，斷四住煩惱，證羅漢果，但于小乘為實，故言唯是諦故也。「不妄說授記」者，復假設一難云：此三世之法流動不實，體是虛妄，云何言說三世事者名不異語也？釋云「一切過去未來現在授記故，如彼義如是說，不顛倒故」。「如彼義」者，如彼三世法，虛則如虛而說、實則依實而記，故不顛倒也。

「經復言須菩提如來所得法所說法」等者，此是長行論中第二意，將欲作下第三偈釋故，先舉此經來，作問生起云何故如是說也。第三偈，隨順彼實智，說不實不虛，者，釋經中「所得法、所得說法無實」也。「隨須彼實智」者，釋經中「如來所得法、所說法無妄語」，明如來雖以音聲言教說于證法，而證法恒無名故，能詮言教非即證法。然言教雖非證法，非不因證有說、假教得證，以此言教能與證法作因故，言隨須彼實智也。「說不實不虛」者，釋經中「無實無妄語」也，明真如證法絕於名相，若取音聲名相同于證法，此言虛妄，故云說不實也。然雖聲教非證

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大乘的道理是真實不虛的，果位是究竟圓滿的，因此可以稱為『實語』（真實之語）；為小乘根器的人宣說四諦（苦、集、滅、道），其理並非究竟，即使證得阿羅漢果位，果德也未達到圓滿。然而，許多大乘經典中又廣泛地破斥小乘，說其並非真實，那麼，又怎麼能說宣說四諦是『實語』呢？ 解釋說：『宣說小乘的苦諦等，僅僅是因為它們是諦（真理）的緣故』，表明如來說四諦等法，小乘修行人依照教法修行，證得性空（諸法無自性）人無我（沒有永恒不變的自我）的理解，斷除四住煩惱（見一切處住地煩惱、欲愛住地煩惱、色愛住地煩惱、有愛住地煩惱），證得阿羅漢果位，但這只是對於小乘而言是真實的，所以說『僅僅是因為它們是諦的緣故』。 『不妄說授記』，又假設一個疑問說：這三世（過去、現在、未來）的法，流動變化而不真實，其體性是虛妄的，怎麼能說宣說三世之事的人，所說之語不是虛妄的呢？解釋說：『一切過去、未來、現在的授記都是如此，因為那個道理是這樣說的，所以不是顛倒的』。 『如彼義』，就像那三世的法，虛妄的就按照虛妄的來說，真實的就依據真實的情況來授記，所以不是顛倒的。 『經復言須菩提如來所得法所說法』等，這是長行論中的第二層意思，將要解釋下面的第三個偈頌，所以先引用這段經文，提出疑問，說明為什麼這樣說。 第三個偈頌，『隨順彼實智，說不實不虛』，是解釋經文中的『所得法、所得說法無實』。『隨順彼實智』，是解釋經文中的『如來所得法、所說法無妄語』，說明如來雖然用音聲言教來宣說所證之法，但所證之法恒常沒有名稱，所以能詮釋的言教並非就是所證之法。然而，言教雖然不是所證之法，卻不能說不是因為證悟而有宣說，通過言教可以證悟，因為這言教能夠為證悟之法作為因緣，所以說『隨順彼實智』。 『說不實不虛』，是解釋經文中的『無實無妄語』，說明真如（事物本來的樣子）證法超越了名相，如果執取音聲名相與證法相同，這種說法就是虛妄的，所以說『說不實』。然而，雖然音聲言教不是證悟

【English Translation】 English version In Mahayana, the principle is true and the fruit is ultimate, hence it can be called 'true speech' (satya-vacana); for those of the Hinayana, the principle of the Four Noble Truths (duhkha, samudaya, nirodha, marga) is not ultimate, and even if they attain the Arhat fruit, the fruit is not yet complete. However, many Mahayana sutras widely refute the Hinayana, saying that it is not true. How can it be said that speaking of the Four Noble Truths is 'true speech'? The explanation says: 'Speaking of the Hinayana's Truth of Suffering, etc., is only because they are truths,' indicating that when the Tathagata speaks of the Four Noble Truths, etc., Hinayana practitioners, following the teachings, cultivate and attain the understanding of emptiness (sunyata - the absence of inherent existence) and the absence of self (anatman - no permanent, unchanging self), severing the four abodes of affliction (four types of kleshas), and attain the Arhat fruit. But this is only true for the Hinayana, hence it is said, 'only because they are truths'. 'Not falsely predicting prophecies', again poses a question: These phenomena of the three times (past, present, future), are flowing and changing and not real, their nature is illusory. How can it be said that someone who speaks of the affairs of the three times does not speak falsely? The explanation says: 'All predictions of the past, future, and present are like this, because that principle is spoken of in this way, therefore it is not inverted'. 'Like that meaning', just as the phenomena of the three times, what is illusory is spoken of as illusory, and what is real is predicted according to the real situation, therefore it is not inverted. 'The sutra further says, Subhuti, the Dharma attained by the Tathagata, the Dharma spoken', etc., this is the second meaning in the long commentary, intending to explain the third verse below, so first quoting this sutra, raising the question to explain why it is said in this way. The third verse, 'In accordance with that real wisdom, speaking of what is not real and not unreal', explains the sutra's 'the Dharma attained, the Dharma spoken, is without reality'. 'In accordance with that real wisdom', explains the sutra's 'the Dharma attained by the Tathagata, the Dharma spoken, is without false speech', indicating that although the Tathagata uses sound and verbal teachings to speak of the Dharma that is realized, the Dharma that is realized is always without name, so the verbal teachings that explain it are not the Dharma that is realized. However, although the verbal teachings are not the Dharma that is realized, it cannot be said that there is no speaking because of realization, and realization can be attained through verbal teachings, because these verbal teachings can serve as a cause for the Dharma of realization, so it is said 'in accordance with that real wisdom'. 'Speaking of what is not real and not unreal', explains the sutra's 'without reality and without false speech', indicating that the suchness (tathata - the true nature of things) of the Dharma of realization transcends names and forms. If one grasps the sound and name as being the same as the Dharma of realization, this statement is false, so it is said 'speaking of what is not real'. However, although the sound and verbal teachings are not the realization

---

，非不同證有說、還假教會理，言教是法，故言說不虛也。「如聞聲取證，對治如是說」者，問前經中如來自言，我是真語者等四種實語，復言所得法所說法無實無妄語，此之二經何故相違？故即以下半偈答「如聞聲取證，對治如是說」也。答意恐畏眾生尋聲取證，謂真如法即同聲教是其名相，作如此意對治此取著，故教言莫如所聞聲取證法也。「對治如是說」者，對治如聲取證故，或是不實或說不虛也。

「此義云何」等，一段長行論，釋有二意：從初至「依字句說故」，釋上半偈，解經中「所得法」以下經文也。「諸佛所說法乃至不能得彼證法」，釋偈中初句也。「何以故至是故無妄語」，釋偈第二句也。「若爾何故說如來所得法所說法」者，作難：若如所聞聲取于證智是不實者，則證法一句不可說，何故如來自云我所得法所說法也？即釋云「以依字句說故」，明證法無名相不可得說，然非不依于言教玄談前理也。「何故如來前說是真語者，復言所說法無實無虛妄語」者，此是長行論中第二意難，執如來經中相違之言設難。舉下半偈來，釋解問答意，不異偈中也。

「須菩提！譬如有人入闇則無所見」等，有二段經文，此是大段中第八分，明一切眾生有真如佛性。此段中明一切眾生有真如性，即因以

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：並非所有證悟都相同，還需藉助教理來理解，因為言語教誨是佛法的體現，所以言說並非虛妄。關於『如聞聲取證，對治如是說』，有人會問，之前的經文中，如來自己說，我是說真話的人等四種真實之語，又說所得之法和所說之法無實無妄，這兩部經文為何互相矛盾？因此，用下半偈來回答『如聞聲取證，對治如是說』。回答的意思是，恐怕眾生尋著聲音去尋求證悟，認為真如之法等同於聲音教誨，只是名稱和表象，爲了對治這種執著，所以教導人們不要像聽聞聲音那樣去尋求證悟之法。『對治如是說』，是爲了對治像聽聞聲音那樣尋求證悟，所以（佛法）有時說不實，有時說不虛妄。 『此義云何』等，這段長行論，解釋有兩種含義：從開始到『依字句說故』，解釋上半偈，解釋經中『所得法』以下的經文。『諸佛所說法乃至不能得彼證法』，解釋偈中的第一句。『何以故至是故無妄語』，解釋偈中的第二句。『若爾何故說如來所得法所說法』，這是設問：如果像聽聞聲音那樣去尋求證智是不真實的，那麼證法一句就不可說，為何如來自己說我所得之法和所說之法呢？於是解釋說『以依字句說故』，說明證法沒有名稱和表象，不可言說，但並非不依據言語教誨來玄妙地談論之前的道理。『何故如來前說是真語者，復言所說法無實無虛妄語』，這是長行論中的第二種設問，執著于如來經文中相互矛盾的言語來設問。舉出下半偈來，解釋問答的含義，與偈中的意思沒有不同。 『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）！譬如有人入闇則無所見』等，有兩段經文，這是大段中的第八分，說明一切眾生都有真如佛性。這段中說明一切眾生都有真如佛性，即因為

【English Translation】 English version: It is not that all realizations are the same; one must also rely on the teachings to understand, because verbal teachings are the manifestation of the Dharma, so speech is not false. Regarding 'As hearing sounds to seek realization, counteracting is thus spoken,' someone might ask, in the previous sutras, the Tathagata (如來，another name for Buddha) himself said, 'I am a speaker of truth' and the four kinds of truthful speech, and also said that the Dharma attained and the Dharma spoken are neither real nor false. Why do these two sutras contradict each other? Therefore, the second half of the verse is used to answer 'As hearing sounds to seek realization, counteracting is thus spoken.' The meaning of the answer is, fearing that sentient beings would seek realization by following sounds, thinking that the Dharma of Suchness (真如，the true nature of reality) is the same as sound teachings, merely names and appearances, in order to counteract this attachment, people are taught not to seek the Dharma of realization like hearing sounds. 'Counteracting is thus spoken' is to counteract seeking realization like hearing sounds, so (the Dharma) sometimes says what is unreal and sometimes says what is not false. 'What is the meaning of this,' etc., this long passage of commentary has two meanings: from the beginning to 'because it is spoken according to words and phrases,' it explains the first half of the verse, explaining the sutra text from 'the Dharma attained' onwards. 'The Dharma spoken by all Buddhas, even to the point of not being able to attain that Dharma of realization,' explains the first line of the verse. 'Why is it that up to therefore there is no false speech,' explains the second line of the verse. 'If so, why does the Tathagata say that the Dharma attained and the Dharma spoken,' this is a question: if seeking wisdom through hearing sounds is not real, then the phrase 'Dharma of realization' cannot be spoken. Why does the Tathagata himself say 'the Dharma attained and the Dharma spoken'? Thus, it is explained 'because it is spoken according to words and phrases,' explaining that the Dharma of realization has no name or appearance, and cannot be spoken, but it is not that it does not rely on verbal teachings to mysteriously discuss the previous principle. 'Why did the Tathagata previously say that he was a speaker of truth, and then say that the Dharma spoken is neither real nor false,' this is the second question in the long commentary, clinging to the contradictory words in the Tathagata's sutras to pose a question. Citing the second half of the verse to explain the meaning of the question and answer, there is no difference from the meaning in the verse. 'Subhuti (須菩提，Buddha's Disciple)! For example, if a person enters darkness, they will see nothing,' etc., there are two sections of scripture. This is the eighth section of the large section, explaining that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature of Suchness. This section explains that all sentient beings have the nature of Suchness, that is, because

---

為名也。以何次第起？因上第六段中一切聖人皆以真如無為法得名，生第八疑，乃至第七段中廣釋一切聖人皆以無為法得名，疑者云：應言一切眾生皆以真如無為法得名，何故但言一切聖人以無為法得名也？所以應然者，如上第三段經常心中言，若菩薩有眾生想即非菩薩，明者菩薩於一切眾生不起我心者，不名解真如菩薩；要解一切眾生平等有真如佛性我者，乃名菩薩。然此菩薩證初地時，解一切眾生如我身，以一切眾生真如佛性、我身所有真如佛性平等無二，無差別故，取眾生如我身。又處處經中道「一切眾生皆有佛性」，若一切眾生與聖人真如理同者，何故一切眾生有取著心者不以真如清凈得名，獨諸佛菩薩無取著心者以真如清凈得名也？故知聖人以真如法得名者可有佛性，一切眾生不以真如得名則無佛性。若眾生本無佛性，聖人修行因緣后時始得，無佛性則是本無今有便是無常。又復若真如佛性一切眾生平等有之，何故有人得見、有人不見也？有如此疑故，引入闇等喻來答。答意云：真如佛性雖復一切眾生有之平等，明諸佛菩薩修行斷惑故能見性，一切眾生未能修行斷惑故所以不見也。然見性斷惑者，以真如清凈得名；若不見性未斷惑者，以不真如清凈得名也。明凡聖二人雖復有之平等，以見不見差故，不應以

一切眾生等共有之，設使皆以真如清凈得名。為除此疑，故次明也。「如人入闇則無所見」，此一段經有二種喻，喻愚智二人，明有修行斷惑者能見佛性，以無為法得名；不修行未斷惑者則不能見性，以不能見性故不以無為法得名也。「譬如人入闇則無所見」者，作喻也。「若菩薩心住於事，亦復如是」等者，合喻也。喻凡夫二乘諸小菩薩有四住習氣無明之闇，行取相之行，不能見真如佛性也。二乘人既證真無漏解，所以亦名取相者。然二乘人雖不取有為法相，而取無為涅槃相也。「如人有目見諸色」等者，作喻也。「若菩薩不住於事，亦復如是」等，合喻也。譬初地以上斷四住習氣，稍遣無明，行不取相，明智得真無漏，能見佛性等常無常理也。

「論曰：復有疑」等，此中論主將欲偈釋於此經，略書疑者之意，生起下偈也。「若聖人以無為法得名」者，提前第六段中生疑處經也。「彼真如一切時一切處有」者，執第三段經為難也。並舉此兩經，然後下設二難。「云何不住心得佛菩提則非不住」者，若三世眾生等有真如佛性者，一切眾生應皆以無為法得名，云何唯諸佛菩薩有不住心者得佛菩提？有不住心者得佛菩提，以無為法得名；而一切眾生有住者心無不住心者，不得佛菩提，不以無為法得名也。「若一切

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一切眾生平等共有真如佛性，假設所有眾生都能以真如清凈的體性而得名。爲了消除這種疑惑，所以接下來進行說明。『如人入闇則無所見』，這一段經文有兩種比喻，比喻愚人和智者二人，說明有修行斷除迷惑的人能夠見到佛性，以無為法而得名；不修行未斷除迷惑的人就不能見到佛性，因為不能見到佛性所以不能以無為法而得名。『譬如人入闇則無所見』，這是作比喻。『若菩薩心住於事，亦復如是』等等，這是合比喻。比喻凡夫、二乘以及諸小菩薩有四住地的習氣和無明的黑暗，行著取相的修行，不能見到真如佛性。二乘人既然證得了真實的無漏解脫，所以也稱為取相者。然而二乘人雖然不取有為法的相，卻取無為涅槃的相。 『如人有目見諸色』等等，這是作比喻。『若菩薩不住於事，亦復如是』等等，這是合比喻。譬如初地以上的菩薩斷除了四住地的習氣，稍微遣除了無明，行不取相的修行，明白智慧得到真實的無漏，能夠見到佛性等常與無常的道理。 『論曰：復有疑』等等，這裡論主將要用偈頌來解釋這段經文，簡略地寫出疑惑者的意思，從而引出下面的偈頌。『若聖人以無為法得名』，這是提前到第六段中產生疑惑的地方的經文。『彼真如一切時一切處有』，這是執著第三段經文作為詰難。並舉出這兩段經文，然後在下面設定兩個詰難。『云何不住心得佛菩提則非不住』，如果三世眾生等都有真如佛性，一切眾生應該都能以無為法得名，為什麼只有諸佛菩薩有不住心的人才能得到佛菩提？有不住心的人得到佛菩提，以無為法得名；而一切眾生有住心的人沒有不住心的人，不能得到佛菩提，不能以無為法得名。『若一切

【English Translation】 English version All sentient beings equally share the Tathata (真如, true thusness), assuming all could be named by the pure nature of Tathata. To dispel this doubt, the following explanation is given. 'As a person entering darkness sees nothing,' this passage of scripture contains two metaphors, comparing foolish and wise individuals, illustrating that those who cultivate and sever delusions can see the Buddha-nature (佛性, buddha nature), and are named by the unconditioned dharma (無為法, unconditioned dharma); those who do not cultivate and have not severed delusions cannot see the Buddha-nature, and because they cannot see the Buddha-nature, they are not named by the unconditioned dharma. 'For example, a person entering darkness sees nothing,' this is making a metaphor. 'If a Bodhisattva's (菩薩, bodhisattva) mind dwells on things, it is also like this,' etc., this is combining the metaphor. It is a metaphor for ordinary people, Two Vehicles (二乘, two vehicles), and lesser Bodhisattvas who have the darkness of the four abodes of habit (四住地, four abodes of habit) and ignorance (無明, ignorance), practicing with attachment to characteristics, and cannot see the Tathata Buddha-nature. Since people of the Two Vehicles have attained true non-outflow liberation, they are also called those who grasp at characteristics. However, although people of the Two Vehicles do not grasp at the characteristics of conditioned dharmas (有為法, conditioned dharmas), they grasp at the characteristics of unconditioned Nirvana (涅槃, nirvana). 'As a person with eyes sees all colors,' etc., this is making a metaphor. 'If a Bodhisattva does not dwell on things, it is also like this,' etc., this is combining the metaphor. It is like Bodhisattvas above the first ground (初地, first ground) who have severed the habits of the four abodes, slightly dispelled ignorance, practice without attachment to characteristics, understand that wisdom attains true non-outflow, and can see the Buddha-nature and other principles of permanence and impermanence. 'The Treatise says: There is further doubt,' etc., here the author of the treatise intends to explain this scripture with verses, briefly writing out the meaning of the doubter, thereby introducing the following verses. 'If a sage is named by the unconditioned dharma,' this is referring back to the scripture in the sixth section where the doubt arises. 'That Tathata exists at all times and in all places,' this is clinging to the third section of the scripture as a challenge. Both of these scriptures are cited, and then two challenges are set forth below. 'How is it that not dwelling in the mind attains Buddha-bodhi (佛菩提, buddha-bodhi) and is not non-dwelling,' if all sentient beings in the three realms (三世, three realms) equally have the Tathata Buddha-nature, all sentient beings should be named by the unconditioned dharma, why is it that only Buddhas (佛, buddha) and Bodhisattvas who have non-dwelling minds can attain Buddha-bodhi? Those who have non-dwelling minds attain Buddha-bodhi, and are named by the unconditioned dharma; while all sentient beings who have dwelling minds and do not have non-dwelling minds cannot attain Buddha-bodhi, and are not named by the unconditioned dharma. 'If all

---

時一切處有真如，何故有人能得有不得」者，此重牒經故，設第二得見不見難，依下論可知也。為斷此二疑難故，略引入闇喻經申斷疑意，下作偈釋也。

凡此二偈，釋斯一段經。初一偈作問答意釋疑。上既有疑問於前，故偈答言「時及處實有」。「時」者，謂三世時。佛性之體乃無三世，眾生有三世，故逐眾生云三世也。「處」者，三世中一切眾生處，此表異木石無情物也。「實有」者，此三世眾生實有此佛性，如疑者意不異也。而不得真如者，明疑難云若時處眾生實有真佛性者，何故不得也。故第三句云「無智以住法」。「無智」者，明二乘凡夫未得初地無漏智也。何故無智？以心住法故。「住法」者，明地前凡夫二障在懷，故有取著之心也。以凡夫二乘取著行故，不能見真如佛性也。「餘者有智得」者，明入地以上菩薩及諸佛如來得出世勝解，能見此佛性也。

長行論云「此義云何」以下至「是故能得」，論主此中凡作三問答，釋前一偈，依論可知也。「以是義故，諸佛如來清凈得名，是故住心不得佛菩提」者，並詰得名不得名之由也。第二偈通釋經中闇明二喻併合也。

「闇明愚無智」者，闇明兩字，雙舉二喻以為章門，下次第合喻。愚者單合上闇字，即釋何故名愚？以其無智故。此一句

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當一切時處都有真如（Tathata，如實），為什麼有人能證得，有人卻不能呢？』這是再次強調經文的緣故，假設第二種得見與不得見的疑問，可以依據下面的論述來理解。爲了斷除這兩種疑惑，略微引入《闇喻經》來申明斷疑的用意，下面用偈頌來解釋。

這兩首偈頌，解釋這段經文。第一首偈頌以問答的形式來解釋疑惑。上面已經對前面提出了疑問，所以偈頌回答說：『時間和處所確實存在。』『時間』，指的是三世（過去、現在、未來）的時間。佛性的本體沒有三世的分別，眾生有三世的分別，所以隨著眾生而說三世。『處所』，指的是三世中一切眾生所處的處所，這表明它不同於木石等無情之物。『確實存在』，指的是這三世的眾生確實具有這種佛性，和疑惑者的意思沒有不同。而不能證得真如的人，是說明疑惑在於如果時間和處所中的眾生確實具有真佛性，為什麼不能證得呢？所以第三句說：『無智者執著於法。』『無智』，指的是二乘（聲聞、緣覺）凡夫沒有證得初地（歡喜地）的無漏智慧。為什麼沒有智慧？因為心執著於法。『執著於法』，指的是地前的凡夫二障（煩惱障、所知障）存在於心中，所以有取著之心。因為凡夫和二乘有取著之行，所以不能見到真如佛性。『其餘有智者得』，指的是入地以上的菩薩以及諸佛如來，得出世間的殊勝理解，能夠見到這種佛性。

長行論中說：『此義云何？』以下至『是故能得』，論主在這裡總共作了三個問答，解釋前面的偈頌，可以依據論述來理解。『以是義故，諸佛如來清凈得名，是故住心不得佛菩提』，這是追問得到名和得不到名的原因。第二首偈頌總括地解釋經文中的黑暗和光明兩種比喻並加以結合。

『黑暗光明愚無智』，黑暗和光明兩個詞，同時舉出兩種比喻作為章節的綱領，下面依次結合比喻。『愚』字單獨結合上面的『黑暗』字，即解釋為什麼稱為愚？因為他沒有智慧。這一句

【English Translation】 English version: 'When True Suchness (Tathata) is present in all times and places, why can some people attain it while others cannot?' This is a re-emphasis of the sutra's meaning, posing a second difficulty regarding seeing and not seeing, which can be understood based on the following discussion. To resolve these two doubts, the 'Darkness Metaphor Sutra' is briefly introduced to clarify the intention of dispelling doubts, and a verse is composed below to explain it.

These two verses explain this section of the sutra. The first verse explains the doubt in the form of a question and answer. Since there was a question raised earlier, the verse answers: 'Time and place truly exist.' 'Time' refers to the time of the three periods (past, present, and future). The essence of Buddha-nature does not have the distinction of three periods, but sentient beings do, so it is spoken of in accordance with sentient beings. 'Place' refers to the place where all sentient beings in the three periods reside, which indicates that it is different from inanimate objects like wood and stone. 'Truly exist' means that these sentient beings in the three periods truly possess this Buddha-nature, which is not different from the doubter's intention. As for those who cannot attain True Suchness, it clarifies the doubt that if sentient beings in time and place truly possess true Buddha-nature, why can't they attain it? Therefore, the third line says: 'The unwise cling to the Dharma.' 'Unwise' refers to the Shravakas (Hearers) and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Realizers), who have not attained the unconditioned wisdom of the first Bhumi (Joyful Ground). Why is there no wisdom? Because the mind clings to the Dharma. 'Clinging to the Dharma' refers to the fact that the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations) of ordinary beings before the Bhumis are present in their minds, so they have attachment. Because ordinary beings and Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas have the practice of attachment, they cannot see True Suchness Buddha-nature. 'The rest, the wise attain,' refers to Bodhisattvas above the Bhumis and all Buddhas and Tathagatas, who have attained the supreme understanding of transcending the world and can see this Buddha-nature.

The commentary in the long passage says: 'What is the meaning of this?' From there to 'Therefore, they can attain,' the commentator makes a total of three questions and answers here, explaining the previous verse, which can be understood based on the commentary. 'Because of this meaning, the Buddhas and Tathagatas are named pure, therefore, a mind that dwells cannot attain Buddha-Bodhi,' this is questioning the reason for attaining or not attaining the name. The second verse comprehensively explains and combines the two metaphors of darkness and light in the sutra.

'Darkness, light, foolishness, no wisdom,' the two words darkness and light, simultaneously raise two metaphors as the outline of the chapter, and below they combine the metaphors in order. The word 'foolish' is combined with the word 'darkness' above, which explains why it is called foolish? Because he has no wisdom. This sentence

---

中下三字釋，合闇喻竟。「明者如有智」者，「明者」還牒上句中明字喻；合有智者故，言如有智也。「對法及對治」等，自下半偈釋第二喻經。「對法」者，舉初入闇法，喻所治法也。「及對治」者，舉喻中明閤中智法喻二也。「得滅法如是」者，「得」者得明智慧治法，「滅」者滅愚闇所治法，如有日光明對治能滅于闇也。以不取相佈施之解，對治心住於事取相愚心故，言對治法及對治得滅法如是也。

「此義云何？彼闇明喻者相似法故」者，闇明愚智法，喻義有相似，故以況也。「闇者示現無智，日光明者示現有智」等，一一別合二喻，此釋上半偈也。「有目者明何義」者，向雖通解闇明二喻，猶未出喻來之意。今將以下半偈釋第二喻經，結作能治取治之義，故提經來。問曰「有目者明何義」也？即答「偈言對治及對治得滅法如是」也。「如是次第」者，光明對法及后明對治也。「又有目者」以下，次第提經解說對治，后以經結也。

「複次須菩提！若有善男子善女人能於此法門受持讀誦修行」者，此是第八段中第二經文。此經所以來者，前段經明一切眾生皆有真如佛性，引闇明二喻，譬修行者見、不修行者則不能見。難云：修行者見，未知依何等法門修行，以何方便、以何為因而得見真如佛性也

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『中下三字釋，合闇喻竟。』——對『中』、『下』和『三字』的解釋，到此就結束了對黑暗的比喻。 『明者如有智』者，『明者』還牒上句中明字喻；合有智者故，言如有智也。——『明者如有智』，這裡的『明者』呼應了前一句中『明』字的比喻；與有智慧的人相合，所以說『如有智』。 『對法及對治』等，自下半偈釋第二喻經。——『對法及對治』等，從下半偈開始解釋第二個比喻的經文。 『對法』者，舉初入闇法，喻所治法也。——『對法』，指的是最初進入黑暗的狀態，比喻所要對治的法。 『及對治』者，舉喻中明閤中智法喻二也。——『及對治』，指的是比喻中的光明，與（黑暗）中智慧的法相合，是比喻的第二層含義。 『得滅法如是』者，『得』者得明智慧治法，『滅』者滅愚闇所治法，如有日光明對治能滅于闇也。——『得滅法如是』，『得』是獲得光明和智慧來對治（煩惱）的方法，『滅』是滅除愚昧和黑暗所要對治的（煩惱），就像太陽的光明能夠對治並消滅黑暗一樣。以不執著于相的佈施的理解，來對治內心執著於事物表象的愚癡之心，所以說對治法以及對治所得的滅法就是這樣。 『此義云何？彼闇明喻者相似法故』者，闇明愚智法，喻義有相似，故以況也。——『這其中的含義是什麼呢？』因為黑暗和光明的比喻，在本質上有相似之處，黑暗、光明、愚昧、智慧這些法，在比喻的意義上有相似之處，所以用它們來作比喻。 『闇者示現無智，日光明者示現有智』等，一一別合二喻，此釋上半偈也。——『黑暗表示沒有智慧，太陽的光明表示有智慧』等等，一一分別對應兩個比喻，這是解釋上半偈的內容。 『有目者明何義』者，向雖通解闇明二喻，猶未出喻來之意。今將以下半偈釋第二喻經，結作能治取治之義，故提經來。問曰『有目者明何義』也？——『有眼睛的人明白什麼含義』，之前雖然已經通俗地解釋了黑暗和光明的兩個比喻，但還沒有完全揭示比喻的真正含義。現在將用下半偈來解釋第二個比喻的經文，總結出能對治和所對治的含義，所以提出經文來。提問說『有眼睛的人明白什麼含義』？ 即答『偈言對治及對治得滅法如是』也。——回答說『偈語說對治以及對治所得的滅法就是這樣』。 『如是次第』者，光明對法及后明對治也。——『像這樣的次第』，光明對應於法，後面的光明對應于對治。 『又有目者』以下，次第提經解說對治，后以經結也。——從『又有目者』以下，依次提出經文來解釋對治，最後用經文來總結。 『複次須菩提（Subhuti）！若有善男子善女人能於此法門受持讀誦修行』者，此是第八段中第二經文。——『再者，須菩提（Subhuti）！如果有善男子善女人能夠對這個法門接受、奉持、讀誦、修行』，這是第八段中的第二段經文。 此經所以來者，前段經明一切眾生皆有真如佛性，引闇明二喻，譬修行者見、不修行者則不能見。——這段經文之所以出現，是因為前一段經文說明一切眾生都具有真如佛性，引用黑暗和光明的兩個比喻，比喻修行的人能夠見到（真如佛性），不修行的人就不能見到。 難云：修行者見，未知依何等法門修行，以何方便、以何為因而得見真如佛性也。——（有人）可能會問：修行的人能夠見到（真如佛性），但不知道依靠什麼法門修行，用什麼方法，以什麼為因才能見到真如佛性呢？

【English Translation】 English version: 『The explanation of the middle, lower, and three characters concludes the metaphor of darkness.』—The explanation of 『middle,』 『lower,』 and 『three characters』 concludes the metaphor of darkness. 『The enlightened are like the wise,』—『The enlightened』 echoes the metaphor of 『light』 in the previous sentence; it aligns with those who are wise, hence the saying 『like the wise.』 『The Dharma and the antidote,』 etc., from the latter half of the verse, explain the second metaphoric sutra. 『The Dharma』 refers to the initial state of entering darkness, symbolizing the Dharma to be treated. 『And the antidote』 refers to the light in the metaphor, corresponding to the wisdom in the Dharma, representing the second layer of the metaphor. 『Attaining the Dharma of extinction is thus,』—『Attaining』 is attaining the light and wisdom to treat (afflictions), 『extinction』 is extinguishing the ignorance and darkness to be treated (afflictions), just as the sunlight can treat and eliminate darkness. Using the understanding of non-attachment to form in giving to counteract the foolish mind that clings to the appearance of things, hence the saying that the antidote and the extinction attained through the antidote are thus. 『What is the meaning of this? The metaphors of darkness and light are similar in nature,』—The Dharma of darkness, light, ignorance, and wisdom are similar in the meaning of the metaphor, so they are used as analogies. 『Darkness represents the absence of wisdom, sunlight represents the presence of wisdom,』 etc., each separately corresponds to the two metaphors, explaining the first half of the verse. 『What does one with eyes understand?』—Although the two metaphors of darkness and light have been explained in general terms, the true meaning of the metaphor has not yet been fully revealed. Now, the second metaphoric sutra will be explained using the latter half of the verse, summarizing the meaning of what can be treated and what is treated, so the sutra is brought up. The question is asked, 『What does one with eyes understand?』 The answer is, 『The verse says that the antidote and the extinction attained through the antidote are thus.』 『Such is the order,』—Light corresponds to the Dharma, and the subsequent light corresponds to the antidote. From 『And one with eyes』 onwards, the sutra is presented in order to explain the antidote, and finally, the sutra is used to conclude. 『Furthermore, Subhuti (Subhuti)! If there are good men and good women who can receive, uphold, read, and practice this Dharma gate,』 this is the second sutra passage in the eighth section. The reason for this sutra passage is that the previous sutra passage stated that all beings possess the Tathagata-dhatu (Tathagata-dhatu), using the two metaphors of darkness and light to illustrate that those who practice can see (the Tathagata-dhatu), while those who do not practice cannot see. One might ask: Those who practice can see (the Tathagata-dhatu), but it is not known which Dharma gate to rely on for practice, what method to use, and what cause to rely on to see the Tathagata-dhatu.

---

？有如此問，故引經答，明依此金剛般若及諸大乘經，受持讀誦三種修行成就勝業，以此方便萬行為因，能見佛性，故次明也。

就此一段經中有二：一、明三種修行；二、明校量功德，復拘鎖入下第九利益段中。何者三種修行？一者受修行，謂從他邊受也；二者持修行，內自誦持不令妄失；三讀誦修行，更廣讀眾經亦名修行。此三種修行皆攝在聞慧，不通思、修二慧，故經言「若善男子善女人能於此法門受持讀誦修行」也。

因前三種修行，乘復生疑：如來雖說受持讀誦修行能見佛性，未知此依經修行人，為決定能見、為當不見也？故答「則為如來悉知悉見悉覺是人」也。「悉知」者，以佛智知。「悉見」者，以佛眼見。「悉覺」者，以一切種智了了覺也。明如來自云，我是一切智人了了知見，依此法門三種修行得見佛性，決定無疑也。因此復生疑：上雖明三種修行者能見佛性，未知見此性時得幾許功德？為多為少？有如此疑問故，答言「皆成就無量無邊功德聚」，明修行見性成道證無為法身時，果頭所得功德不可限量，非算數所知。何得疑雲得幾許功德？為多為少也？此是因中說果也。

「須菩提！若善男子善女人初日分以恒河沙等身佈施至為人廣說」，舉此捨身喻來挍量持經功德。上第七段

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人這樣發問，所以引用經文來回答，明確依據這部《金剛般若》以及諸部大乘經典，受持讀誦這三種修行能夠成就殊勝的功業，以這種方便法門和萬行作為因，能夠見到佛性，所以接下來進行闡明。

就這一段經文來說，包含兩層意思：第一，闡明三種修行；第二，闡明校量功德，並且將其歸入下面的第九段利益之中。哪三種修行呢？第一是受修行，指的是從他人那裡接受（佛法）；第二是持修行，在內心自己誦讀並記住而不忘記；第三是讀誦修行，更廣泛地閱讀各種經典也叫做修行。這三種修行都包含在聞慧之中，不包括思慧和修慧，所以經文說『如果善男子善女人能夠對這個法門受持讀誦修行』。

因為前面的三種修行，進而產生疑問：如來雖然說受持讀誦修行能夠見到佛性，但是不知道依照這部經修行的人，是決定能夠見到佛性，還是不能見到呢？所以回答說『那麼如來完全知曉、完全看見、完全覺悟這個人』。『完全知曉』，是用佛的智慧來知曉。『完全看見』，是用佛的眼睛來看見。『完全覺悟』，是用一切種智完全明瞭地覺悟。說明如來自己說，我是一切智人，完全明瞭地知曉和看見，依照這個法門進行三種修行能夠見到佛性，是決定無疑的。因此又產生疑問：上面雖然說明三種修行的人能夠見到佛性，但是不知道見到佛性的時候能夠得到多少功德？是多還是少？因為有這樣的疑問，所以回答說『都成就無量無邊的功德聚集』，說明修行見性成道證得無為法身的時候，在果位上得到的功德是不可估量的，不是算數能夠知道的。怎麼能懷疑說得到多少功德？是多還是少呢？這是在因地中說果地的事情。

『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）！如果善男子善女人在最初的早晨，用像恒河沙一樣多的身體來佈施，甚至爲了他人廣泛宣說（佛法）』，用這個捨身的比喻來衡量受持經文的功德。上面第七段

【English Translation】 English version: Someone asks in this way, so I quote the scriptures to answer, clearly based on this Diamond Prajna and various Mahayana sutras, upholding, reciting, and practicing these three types of cultivation can achieve excellent karma. Using this expedient method and myriad practices as the cause, one can see the Buddha-nature, so it is explained next.

Regarding this passage of scripture, it contains two meanings: first, explaining the three types of cultivation; second, explaining the comparison of merits, and including it in the following ninth section on benefits. What are the three types of cultivation? First is receiving cultivation, which refers to receiving (the Dharma) from others; second is upholding cultivation, internally reciting and remembering without forgetting; third is reading and reciting cultivation, more extensively reading various scriptures is also called cultivation. These three types of cultivation are all included in the wisdom of hearing, not including the wisdom of thinking and cultivating, so the scripture says 'If good men and good women can uphold, recite, and practice this Dharma gate'.

Because of the previous three types of cultivation, doubts arise: Although the Tathagata (如來，the thus-gone one) said that upholding, reciting, and practicing can see the Buddha-nature, it is not known whether the person who cultivates according to this scripture will definitely see the Buddha-nature or not? So the answer is 'Then the Tathagata (如來，the thus-gone one) fully knows, fully sees, and fully awakens this person'. 'Fully knows' means knowing with the wisdom of the Buddha. 'Fully sees' means seeing with the eyes of the Buddha. 'Fully awakens' means fully and clearly awakening with all-knowing wisdom. It explains that the Tathagata (如來，the thus-gone one) himself said, I am an all-knowing person, fully and clearly knowing and seeing, practicing these three types of cultivation according to this Dharma gate can see the Buddha-nature, there is no doubt. Therefore, another doubt arises: Although it was explained above that those who practice the three types of cultivation can see the Buddha-nature, it is not known how much merit one can obtain when seeing this nature? Is it much or little? Because of this doubt, the answer is 'All achieve immeasurable and boundless accumulations of merit', explaining that when cultivating to see the nature, attain the Dao (道，the way), and realize the unconditioned Dharmakaya (法身，dharma body), the merit obtained at the fruit stage is immeasurable and cannot be known by calculation. How can one doubt how much merit one can obtain? Is it much or little? This is speaking of the fruit in the cause.

'Subhuti (須菩提，Buddha's disciple)! If good men and good women, in the early morning, give away as many bodies as there are sands in the Ganges (恒河，the Ganges River), even to widely explain (the Dharma) for others', using this metaphor of giving away the body to measure the merit of upholding the scripture. Above, the seventh section

---

中以廣明挍量功德，所以此中復明挍量功德者，上疑雲：受持讀誦修行此經能見佛性，未知見佛性時所得功德為多為少？前以法說，明得無量無邊功德聚。雖有此答，猶未顯多福之義，故復引世間少分譬喻挍量以答此義，明依經修行見性功德，非算數法、不可限量；捨身福德是有為取相，數量法故，雖多不如。此明多分無量，非少分經。

前挍量分中，以明捨身譬喻有何勝，故此中復明凡有二種勝：一、以所捨身；二、時劫長遠，有此二勝故重明也。「若復有人聞此法門信心不謗」等，明直爾聞經信心不謗，尚勝捨身福德無量阿僧祇，何況有能書寫讀誦如說修行為他演說者，其福轉多無量阿僧祇也。此一段經，凡以三偈論釋。初一偈與前後二段經論中五偈為本，上一句生此一段中第二偈，第二句生中此一段，第三句義生下利益分經，正與下利益分論中三偈為本，第四句通結上三句二本以為修行也。「於何法修行」者，問依何法門修行能見佛性也，覆問修行見性得何等福德也。「覆成就何業」者，又問為直以受持此經故能見佛性，覆成就何等勝行能斷惑見性也。「如是說修行」者，上問云何修行能見佛性名為修行？故云如是說修行也。

此初一偈總生兩段經，與五偈為本也。「於何法修行」者，提偈中初句

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了更廣泛地闡明和比較功德，所以這裡再次闡明比較功德的原因是，前面有疑問說：『受持、讀誦、修行此經能夠見到佛性，但不知道見到佛性時所獲得的功德是多還是少？』前面用佛法來說明，闡明獲得無量無邊的功德聚集。雖然有這樣的回答，但仍然沒有明顯地顯示出多福的意義，所以再次引用世間少許的比喻來比較衡量以回答這個意義，闡明依據經典修行見性的功德，不是算術方法可以計算的，是不可估量的；捨棄身體所獲得的福德是有為的取相，可以用數量來計算，雖然多，但不如見性功德。這裡闡明見性功德是多分無量的，不是少分經典可以比擬的。

在前面的比較衡量部分中，已經闡明了捨身譬喻有什麼殊勝之處，所以這裡再次闡明凡有二種殊勝之處：一、以所捨棄的身體；二、時間劫數的長遠，因為有這兩種殊勝之處，所以再次闡明。『若復有人聞此法門信心不謗』等，闡明僅僅是聽聞此經，有信心而不誹謗，尚且勝過捨身所獲得的無量阿僧祇（無數）福德，更何況有能夠書寫、讀誦、如所說修行、為他人演說的人，他們的福德更加增多，無量阿僧祇。這一段經文，總共用三首偈頌來論述解釋。最初一首偈頌與前後兩段經文論述中的五首偈頌為根本，上一句生出這一段中的第二首偈頌，第二句生出這一段，第三句的意義生出下面的利益分經文，正好與下面的利益分論中的三首偈頌為根本，第四句總結上面的三句和兩個根本，作為修行的依據。『於何法修行』，是問依據什麼法門修行能夠見到佛性，反過來問修行見效能夠獲得什麼樣的福德。『覆成就何業』，又是問僅僅因為受持此經就能見到佛性嗎？又成就了什麼樣的殊勝行為能夠斷除迷惑，見到佛性。『如是說修行』，上面問怎樣修行能夠見到佛性，才叫做修行？所以說如是說修行。

這最初一首偈頌總共生出兩段經文，與五首偈頌為根本。『於何法修行』，是提煉偈頌中的第一句。

【English Translation】 English version: In order to more broadly clarify and compare merits, the reason for further clarifying and comparing merits here is that there was a previous doubt: 'Practicing, upholding, reciting, and cultivating this sutra can lead to seeing the Buddha-nature, but it is unknown whether the merits gained from seeing the Buddha-nature are many or few?' The previous explanation used the Dharma to clarify the accumulation of immeasurable and boundless merits. Although there was such an answer, it still did not clearly show the meaning of great fortune, so it again uses a few worldly metaphors to compare and measure in order to answer this meaning, clarifying that the merits of seeing the nature through cultivation according to the sutra cannot be calculated by arithmetic methods and are immeasurable; the merits gained from sacrificing the body are conditioned and based on form, which can be calculated by quantity, but although many, they are not as good as the merits of seeing the nature. This clarifies that the merits of seeing the nature are mostly immeasurable, not comparable to a small portion of scriptures.

In the previous section on comparing and measuring, it has already been clarified what is special about the metaphor of sacrificing the body, so here it is clarified again that there are two kinds of special qualities: one, with the body that is sacrificed; two, the length of time and kalpas (aeons), because of these two special qualities, it is clarified again. 'If there is someone who hears this Dharma gate with faith and does not slander,' etc., clarifies that merely hearing this sutra, having faith and not slandering, is still better than the immeasurable Asamkhya (countless) merits gained from sacrificing the body, let alone those who can write, recite, cultivate as said, and explain it to others, their merits will increase even more, immeasurable Asamkhya. This section of scripture uses a total of three verses to discuss and explain. The first verse is the foundation for the five verses in the preceding and following sections of scripture, the previous sentence gives rise to the second verse in this section, the second sentence gives rise to this section, the meaning of the third sentence gives rise to the following section on the benefits, which is exactly the foundation for the three verses in the following section on the benefits, the fourth sentence summarizes the above three sentences and two foundations as the basis for cultivation. 'In what Dharma to cultivate,' is asking what Dharma gate to cultivate according to in order to see the Buddha-nature, and in turn asking what kind of merits can be gained from cultivating and seeing the nature. 'And accomplish what karma,' is also asking whether it is only because of upholding this sutra that one can see the Buddha-nature? And what kind of special actions have been accomplished to cut off delusion and see the Buddha-nature. 'Thus say cultivation,' the above asks how to cultivate in order to see the Buddha-nature, what is called cultivation? Therefore, it is said, thus say cultivation.

This first verse gives rise to two sections of scripture in total, with five verses as the foundation. 'In what Dharma to cultivate,' is extracting the first sentence in the verse.

---

問來也。「示現彼行」者，答上問，明示現依此經教受持讀誦三種修行，生下第二偈也。此第二偈，答前偈上句於何法修行，正釋經中三種修行受持讀誦等經文也。「名字三種法」者，猶是經中三種修行。故第二句指出其事，謂受持讀聞廣說即是名字中三種聞慧也。上雖云三種聞慧體，未知修之方法竟復云何？故下半偈云「修從他及內，得聞是修智」。「修從他」者，從他諸佛菩薩善知識邊聞法，即受修行也。「及內」者，既受他，受得內自誦持不令妄失，即是持修行也。依西國，誦法有三種：一大聲、二小聲、三默誦也。「得聞」者，明聞不但受誦名為聞慧，但能轉讀眾經亦名聞慧，此是讀誦修行也。「是修智」者，以此三種聞慧智通，結為三種修行聞慧智也。「此說何義至受持讀誦故」，釋上半偈，以也結也。「彼修行云何得以下至為得修行故」，作問生起，以下半偈來答，然後次第解釋也。向說名字及以修行等，牒前生后偈也。第三偈答初偈第二句得何等福德，釋經中挍量經文。

「此為自淳熟」者，此牒前三種修行，明三種聞慧，成己自行之德也。「餘者化眾生」者，明廣為他說，成利他之行也。前已明，此何故復重舉來也？將欲以喻挍量故，舉前自行外化持經見性之時得幾許福也。今明見性會無為法

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：什麼是『示現彼行』？答：這是對前面問題的回答，表明示現依據此經教受持、讀誦這三種修行方式，引出下面的第二首偈頌。這第二首偈頌，回答了前一首偈頌的上半句，即在何種法上修行，正是解釋經中的三種修行，即受持、讀誦等經文。『名字三種法』，仍然是經中的三種修行。所以第二句指出了這件事，即受持、讀聞、廣說，就是名字中的三種聞慧。上面雖然說了三種聞慧的本體，但不知道修習的方法究竟是什麼？所以下半偈說『修從他及內，得聞是修智』。『修從他』，是從諸佛菩薩善知識那裡聽聞佛法，就是接受修行。『及內』，是說已經接受了他人的教導，自己內心誦讀、受持，不讓它遺忘丟失，這就是持修行。按照西國（印度）的說法，誦經的方法有三種：一是大聲誦、二是小聲誦、三是默誦。『得聞』，表明聽聞不僅僅是受持、誦讀才叫做聞慧，只要能夠轉讀各種經典，也叫做聞慧，這是讀誦修行。『是修智』，是用這三種聞慧使智慧通達，總結為三種修行聞慧智。『此說何義至受持讀誦故』，解釋上半偈，用『也』字結尾。『彼修行云何得以下至為得修行故』，提出問題，用下半偈來回答，然後依次解釋。前面說了名字以及修行等，這是承接前面的內容，引出後面的偈頌。第三首偈頌回答第一首偈頌的第二句，即得到什麼樣的福德，解釋經中校量功德的經文。 『此為自淳熟』，這是承接前面的三種修行，表明三種聞慧，成就自己修行的功德。『餘者化眾生』，表明廣泛地為他人宣說，成就利益他人的行為。前面已經說明了，為什麼這裡又重複提起呢？將要用比喻來校量功德，舉出前面自己修行、對外教化、持經見性的時候，能夠得到多少福德。現在說明見性，領會無為法。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is 『showing those practices』 (示現彼行)? Answer: This answers the previous question, clarifying that showing is based on the three practices of receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting this scripture, leading to the second verse below. This second verse answers the first half of the previous verse, namely, on what Dharma (法) to practice, precisely explaining the scripture's three practices of receiving, upholding, reading, and so on. 『The three Dharmas of names』 (名字三種法) are still the three practices in the scripture. Therefore, the second sentence points out this matter, that is, receiving, upholding, hearing, and widely speaking are the three kinds of wisdom gained through hearing (聞慧) within the names. Although the essence of the three kinds of wisdom gained through hearing has been mentioned above, what exactly is the method of cultivating them? Therefore, the second half of the verse says, 『Cultivation comes from others and within, obtaining hearing is cultivating wisdom』 (修從他及內，得聞是修智). 『Cultivation comes from others』 (修從他) means hearing the Dharma from Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and virtuous friends, which is receiving and practicing. 『And within』 (及內) means that having received instruction from others, one recites and upholds it internally, not letting it be forgotten or lost, which is upholding practice. According to the Western Country (India), there are three ways of reciting scriptures: loudly, softly, and silently. 『Obtaining hearing』 (得聞) clarifies that hearing is not only receiving, upholding, and reciting, which are called wisdom gained through hearing, but also being able to read and recite various scriptures, which is also called wisdom gained through hearing; this is reading and reciting practice. 『Is cultivating wisdom』 (是修智) uses these three kinds of wisdom gained through hearing to make wisdom penetrate, concluding as the three practices of wisdom gained through hearing. 『This explains what meaning, up to receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting』 (此說何義至受持讀誦故), explains the first half of the verse, ending with 『也』. 『How can those practices be obtained, down to obtaining practice』 (彼修行云何得以下至為得修行故), raises the question, using the second half of the verse to answer, and then explaining in order. Having spoken of names and practices, etc., this connects the previous content and leads to the following verse. The third verse answers the second sentence of the first verse, namely, what kind of merit is obtained, explaining the scripture's passages on comparing merit. 『This is for self-maturation』 (此為自淳熟), this connects to the previous three practices, clarifying the three kinds of wisdom gained through hearing, accomplishing the merit of one's own practice. 『The rest transforms sentient beings』 (餘者化眾生), clarifies widely speaking for others, accomplishing the act of benefiting others. It has already been explained before, so why is it mentioned again here? It is going to use a metaphor to compare merit, citing how much merit can be obtained when one practices oneself, teaches others externally, upholds the scripture, and sees one's nature. Now it explains seeing one's nature, understanding the unconditioned Dharma (無為法).

---

身時，得無量無邊功德不可限量。雖不可限量，且引三時舍恒沙身，比持經功德，猶不及少分，故重來也。「以事及事大」者，事謂所捨身事也，時謂劫數多也，明於多時中舍無量身，故云以事及時大也。「福中勝福德」者，明捨身、持經二種福德也。此二種福中，持經之福勝、捨身之福劣，故云福中勝福德也。「此義云何至廣說法故」，上半偈也。「得何等福德」以下，說未問挍量義，以下半偈答，次第解釋，然後以經結之，依論可知也。

金剛仙論卷第六 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第七

「須菩提！以要言之，此經有不可思議不可稱量無邊功德」者，此是大段中第九，名為利益分。此經所以來者，前第八段中明一切眾生雖皆有真如佛性平等無差，要修行者見、不修行者則不能見。上已明依此經受持讀誦三種修行能見佛性，然猶非究竟勝行，未知為直依此經三種修行得見佛性？為復更成就何等勝行，有何等利益能見佛性？見佛性時得何等果報？故今明不但依此經三種修行能見佛性，要更依經發思修二慧、復廣修萬行，現在能滅往罪、未來斷除二障，得此現在未來現多種利益，方能見於佛性終克常果也。然前段初偈中言成就何業，今此中正出業體有多種，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：捨身之時，能獲得無量無邊的功德，這是不可否認的。即使如此，且用過去、現在、未來三世捨棄如恒河沙數般的身軀所獲得的功德，與受持此經的功德相比，仍然不及受持此經功德的少部分，所以才要再三強調受持此經的功德。「以事及事大」的意思是，『事』指的是捨身這件事，『時』指的是經歷的劫數眾多，說明在漫長的時間裡捨棄了無數的身體，所以說『以事及時大』。「福中勝福德」的意思是，說明捨身和受持經書這兩種福德。在這兩種福德中，受持經書的福德勝過捨身的福德，所以說『福中勝福德』。「此義云何至廣說法故」，是上半偈的內容。「得何等福德」以下，說明了之前未曾問及的比較功德大小的意義，以下半偈來回答，依次解釋，然後用經文來總結，依據論著就可以理解了。

金剛仙論卷第六 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第七

『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）！總而言之，這部經有不可思議、不可稱量、無邊的功德』，這是大段中的第九部分，名為利益分。這部經之所以出現，是因為在前面的第八段中說明了一切眾生雖然都具有真如佛性（Tathata-buddhadhatu），平等沒有差別，但是需要修行的人才能見到，不修行的人就不能見到。上面已經說明了依靠受持、讀誦這部經這三種修行方式能夠見到佛性，然而還不是究竟的殊勝修行，還不知道是直接依靠這部經的三種修行就能見到佛性？還是需要進一步成就什麼樣的殊勝修行，有什麼樣的利益才能見到佛性？見到佛性的時候能得到什麼樣的果報？所以現在說明，不僅僅依靠這部經的三種修行就能見到佛性，還需要進一步依靠經書生髮思慧和修慧兩種智慧、並且廣泛地修習各種善行，現在能夠消除過去的罪業、未來能夠斷除煩惱障（Klesavarana）和所知障（Jneyavarana）這兩種障礙，得到現在和未來顯現的多種利益，才能見到佛性，最終證得常樂我凈的果位。然而前一段最初的偈頌中說成就什麼樣的業，現在這裡正式地提出了業的本體有多種。

【English Translation】 English version: At the time of giving up the body, one can obtain immeasurable and boundless merits, which is undeniable. Even so, if one were to use the merits gained from giving up bodies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges River in the past, present, and future, it would still not be comparable to even a small portion of the merits of upholding this Sutra, which is why the merits of upholding this Sutra must be repeatedly emphasized. 'Taking the event and the greatness of the event' means that 'event' refers to the act of giving up the body, and 'time' refers to the multitude of kalpas experienced, indicating that countless bodies have been given up over a long period of time, hence the saying 'taking the event and the greatness of the event.' 'Superior merit among merits' means explaining the two types of merits: giving up the body and upholding the Sutra. Among these two types of merits, the merit of upholding the Sutra surpasses the merit of giving up the body, hence the saying 'superior merit among merits.' 'What is the meaning of this, up to extensively explaining the Dharma?' refers to the content of the first half of the verse. 'What kind of merit is obtained?' below explains the meaning of comparing the magnitude of merits that was not previously asked, and the second half of the verse is used to answer, explaining it in order, and then summarizing it with the Sutra, which can be understood according to the treatise.

Vajrasena Treatise, Volume 6 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 25, No. 1512, Vajrasena Treatise

Vajrasena Treatise, Volume 7

'Subhuti (佛陀的弟子)! In short, this Sutra has inconceivable, immeasurable, and boundless merits,' which is the ninth part in the major section, called the Benefit Section. The reason why this Sutra appears is because the previous eighth section explained that although all sentient beings possess the Tathata-buddhadhatu (真如佛性), equally without difference, it requires practitioners to see it, while those who do not practice cannot see it. It has already been explained above that relying on the three practices of receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting this Sutra can lead to seeing the Buddha-nature, but it is still not the ultimate and supreme practice. It is still unknown whether one can directly see the Buddha-nature by relying on these three practices of this Sutra? Or what kind of supreme practice needs to be further accomplished, and what kind of benefits can lead to seeing the Buddha-nature? What kind of karmic retribution can be obtained when seeing the Buddha-nature? Therefore, it is now explained that not only can one see the Buddha-nature by relying on the three practices of this Sutra, but one also needs to further rely on the Sutra to generate the two wisdoms of reflective wisdom (思慧) and cultivation wisdom (修慧), and extensively cultivate various good deeds. In the present, one can eliminate past sins, and in the future, one can eradicate the two obscurations (二障) of Klesavarana (煩惱障) and Jneyavarana (所知障), obtaining various benefits manifested in the present and future, in order to see the Buddha-nature and ultimately attain the state of permanence, bliss, self, and purity. However, the initial verse in the previous section mentioned what kind of karma is accomplished, and now it formally presents that the substance of karma has various types.

---

故次來也。上來已廣明持此經者，得多福德，皆是利益，何故不障利益之名？所以此段獨得利益之稱者，然上來雖明依此經修行有多利益，未若此段明由持經因緣發生思修二慧，能轉過去重業現世輕受，未來複得世間出世間二種果報。以有如此多種利益，故偏名利益分也。

然依此經修行乃有無量利益，且依此一段作九種章門，或作十種以利益之義，故經初言「以要言之」，即是略列九種章門，以明利益也。何者為九？一者，「此經有不可思議不可稱量無邊功德」者，論云「非餘者境界」，明此經理深重有無邊功德，故先舉如來所說法也。「不可思議」者，明此經所詮無為法身，是諸佛境界故，二乘凡夫不能惻也。「不可稱量」者，明經有大功德，不可以算數稱量諸佛大人境界，故下句云無量功德也。

二者，「此法門如來為發大乘者說，為發最上乘者說」。論名「唯依大人說，此出所為人」，明經理既深，小根之人所不能受，唯為菩薩大根者說、為發大乘者說，此是地前菩薩始發心人；為最上乘者，此明不但為始發心人說，亦為如實修行者說也。

三者，依下偈論釋初偈第三句云「及希聞信法」，明此經希有，信者難得。準偈中應別有第三段經，但能信之人及所信法不異前二段經故，義有文無。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所以這次才來解釋這段經文。前面已經廣泛說明了受持此經的人，能夠獲得很多福德，都是利益，為什麼不阻礙利益這個名稱呢？之所以這段經文單獨得到利益的稱呼，是因為前面雖然說明了依照此經修行有很多利益，但不如這段經文說明由於受持此經的因緣，能夠生起思慧和修慧，能夠將過去所造的重業轉變為現在世的輕微承受，未來還能獲得世間和出世間兩種果報。因為有如此多種利益，所以特別稱為利益分。 然而依照此經修行有無量利益，且依照這一段經文，可以作出九種章門，或者十種章門，來闡釋利益的意義。所以經文一開始說『以要言之』，就是簡略地列出九種章門，來闡明利益。哪九種呢？第一種，『此經有不可思議不可稱量無邊功德』，論中說『非餘者境界』，說明此經的義理深奧重大，有無邊的功德，所以首先舉出如來所說的法。『不可思議』，說明此經所詮釋的無為法身，是諸佛的境界，所以二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）和凡夫不能測度。『不可稱量』，說明此經有大的功德，不可以用算數來稱量諸佛大人的境界，所以下一句說無量功德。 第二種，『此法門如來為發大乘者說，為發最上乘者說』。論中名為『唯依大人說，此出所為人』，說明經義既然深奧，小根器的人不能接受，只為菩薩大根器的人說，為發大乘心的人說，這是地前菩薩剛剛發心的人；為最上乘者，這說明不但是為剛剛發心的人說，也是為如實修行的人說。 第三種，依照下面的偈頌，論釋初偈的第三句說『及希聞信法』，說明此經稀有，相信的人難以得到。按照偈頌中的意思，應該另外有第三段經文，但是能夠相信的人和所相信的法，與前面兩段經文沒有不同，所以義理上有，而文字上沒有。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, I have come here to explain this section. It has already been extensively explained that those who uphold this Sutra will gain much merit and virtue, all of which are benefits. Why not acknowledge the name of benefit? The reason why this section alone receives the title of 'Benefit' is that, although it has been explained earlier that practicing according to this Sutra has many benefits, it is not as clear as this section in explaining that due to the causes and conditions of upholding this Sutra, one can generate wisdom of thought and wisdom of cultivation, which can transform the heavy karma of the past into light suffering in the present life, and in the future, one can obtain both worldly and transcendental rewards. Because there are so many benefits, it is specifically called the 'Benefit Section'. However, practicing according to this Sutra has immeasurable benefits. Let's create nine or ten chapter headings based on this section to explain the meaning of benefit. Therefore, the Sutra begins by saying 'In short', which is to briefly list nine chapter headings to clarify the benefits. What are the nine? First, 'This Sutra has inconceivable, immeasurable, and boundless merits and virtues'. The commentary says, 'Not the realm of others', indicating that the meaning of this Sutra is profound and significant, with boundless merits and virtues. Therefore, the Dharma spoken by the Tathagata (如來) [Thus Come One] is mentioned first. 'Inconceivable' indicates that the unconditioned Dharmakaya (法身) [Dharma Body] explained in this Sutra is the realm of all Buddhas, so the Two Vehicles (二乘) [Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna] and ordinary people cannot fathom it. 'Immeasurable' indicates that this Sutra has great merits and virtues, and the realm of Buddhas and great beings cannot be measured by numbers. Therefore, the next sentence says 'boundless merits and virtues'. Second, 'This Dharma-door (法門) [Dharma teaching] is spoken by the Tathagata for those who have aroused the Mahayana (大乘) [Great Vehicle] mind, and for those who have aroused the Supreme Vehicle mind'. The commentary is named 'Only spoken according to great beings, this reveals the intended audience', indicating that since the meaning of the Sutra is profound, people with small roots cannot accept it. It is only spoken for Bodhisattvas (菩薩) [Enlightenment Being] with great roots, for those who have aroused the Mahayana mind, which refers to those who have just aroused the mind before reaching the Bhumis (地) [Stages of a Bodhisattva's Path]; for those of the Supreme Vehicle, this indicates that it is not only spoken for those who have just aroused the mind, but also for those who are truly practicing. Third, according to the following verse, the commentary on the third line of the first verse says 'and those who rarely hear and believe in the Dharma', indicating that this Sutra is rare, and it is difficult to find those who believe in it. According to the meaning in the verse, there should be a third section of the Sutra, but the people who can believe and the Dharma they believe in are no different from the previous two sections, so it exists in meaning but not in text.

---

應舉不信之人形出能信之者，但以此不信之人義通前後故不別出，即指下第五經文中二乘外道不信者是也。

四者，「若有人受持讀誦修行此經至無量功德聚」，論名「滿足無上界」。此明由受持此經故能生思修二慧乃至修二種莊嚴，顯滿足法身也。「如來悉知悉見是人」者，上第六第八段中已明此義，今何故重明也？解云：為漸化眾生令生信心，故處處明也。「不可思議不可稱量無邊功德聚」者，此明持經因緣，得彼無為法身無邊功德聚也。

五者，「如是人等則為荷擔如來阿耨三菩提」者，論名「受持真妙法」。明此持經之人既受持此經，則是能荷擔法身如來大菩提也。「何以故」者，難云：何以故如來唯為大乘人說此法門，不為小乘外道說也？故釋云「須菩提！若樂小法者至無有是處」，明此二乘諸見外道各執己解故，所以不能於此經生信；既不生信，亦不為人說也。此一段經皆明持經利益，何故乃舉樂小法人及以我見外道等在此中也？欲明斯二人於此經中不能生信，既不生信則亦不能受持讀誦如說修行，既不能受持何能荷擔也。上第三段指不信之人，在於第五即此文所明二乘外道人是也。「若樂小法者」，明二乘之人心小意俠志無遠悕，聞佛道長遠久受勤苦乃可得成，便生怯弱退轉之心，但欲一

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於那些不相信的人，可以通過相信的人的行為來感化他們，這裡之所以沒有單獨列出不信之人，是因為他們的含義已經包含在前後文中了，也就是指下文第五段經文中所說的二乘（指聲聞乘和緣覺乘）和外道這些不相信的人。 第四點，『若有人受持讀誦修行此經至無量功德聚』，在論中被稱為『滿足無上界』。這說明由於受持此經，能夠生起思慧和修慧，乃至修習兩種莊嚴（智慧莊嚴和功德莊嚴），從而彰顯圓滿的法身。『如來悉知悉見是人』，這個意思在前面的第六和第八段中已經闡明過了，為什麼現在又要重複說明呢？解釋說：這是爲了逐漸教化眾生，使他們生起信心，所以才處處說明。『不可思議不可稱量無邊功德聚』，這說明持經的因緣，能夠獲得那無為法身的無邊功德聚集。 第五點，『如是人等則為荷擔如來阿耨三菩提』，在論中被稱為『受持真妙法』。說明這些持經之人，既然受持此經，就是能夠承擔法身如來的大菩提。『何以故』，這是提問說：為什麼如來只為大乘人說此法門，而不為小乘和外道說呢？所以解釋說『須菩提！若樂小法者至無有是處』，說明這些二乘和持有各種見解的外道，各自執著于自己的理解，所以不能對這部經產生信心；既然不產生信心，也不會為他人宣說。這段經文都在說明持經的利益，為什麼又要舉出愛好小法的人以及持有我見的外道等人呢？這是爲了說明這兩種人對於此經不能生起信心，既然不生起信心，也就不能受持讀誦如說修行，既然不能受持，又怎麼能夠承擔呢？上面第三段所指的不信之人，就在於第五段，也就是這段經文所說的二乘外道之人。『若樂小法者』，說明二乘人的心胸狹隘，志向不遠大，聽到佛道長遠，需要長期忍受勤苦才能成就，便會產生怯弱退轉之心，只想儘快了脫生死。

【English Translation】 English version For those who do not believe, they can be influenced by the actions of those who do believe. The reason why the non-believers are not listed separately here is because their meaning is already included in the preceding and following context, which refers to the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas (the Two Vehicles) and the heretics mentioned in the fifth section of the scripture below, who do not believe. Fourthly, 'If someone receives, upholds, reads, recites, and practices this sutra, they will attain immeasurable accumulations of merit,' which is called 'Fulfilling the Supreme Realm' in the treatise. This explains that by receiving and upholding this sutra, one can generate wisdom from thought and cultivation, and even cultivate the two kinds of adornments (wisdom adornment and merit adornment), thereby manifesting the complete Dharmakaya (Dharma body). 'The Tathagata knows and sees this person in their entirety,' this meaning has already been explained in the previous sixth and eighth sections, so why is it repeated now? The explanation is: This is to gradually teach sentient beings and make them generate faith, so it is explained everywhere. 'Inconceivable, immeasurable, boundless accumulations of merit,' this explains that the causal condition of upholding the sutra can obtain the boundless accumulations of merit of that unconditioned Dharmakaya. Fifthly, 'Such people will bear the Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi of the Tathagata,' which is called 'Receiving and Upholding the True Wonderful Dharma' in the treatise. It explains that these people who uphold the sutra, since they receive and uphold this sutra, are able to bear the great Bodhi of the Dharmakaya Tathagata. 'Why is that?' This is asking: Why does the Tathagata only speak this Dharma gate for the Mahayana practitioners, and not for the Hinayana and heretics? Therefore, it is explained, 'Subhuti! It is impossible for those who delight in the Lesser Dharma,' explaining that these Two Vehicles and heretics who hold various views are each attached to their own understanding, so they cannot generate faith in this sutra; since they do not generate faith, they will not proclaim it to others. This section of the scripture is all about explaining the benefits of upholding the sutra, so why mention those who delight in the Lesser Dharma and those who hold self-views, etc.? This is to explain that these two types of people cannot generate faith in this sutra, and since they do not generate faith, they cannot receive, uphold, read, recite, and practice as taught, and since they cannot receive and uphold, how can they bear it? The non-believers referred to in the third section above are in the fifth section, which is the Two Vehicles and heretics mentioned in this section of the scripture. 'Those who delight in the Lesser Dharma' explains that the minds of the Two Vehicles are narrow, their aspirations are not far-reaching, and when they hear that the Buddha's path is long and requires enduring diligence and hardship to achieve, they will generate timidity and a desire to retreat, only wanting to quickly escape from samsara.

---

生三生乃至六十劫，劬劬行道，速出三界，盡分段生死，證羅漢果取灰身之樂，故不能信也。「若有我見人見」等者，此明外道之人恃已我見為是，更無所求，不能信也。

六者，「須菩提在在處處若有此經」者，斯一段經，論名「尊重身得福」。敬重有此經處，勸人天阿修羅等廣設供養，生功德也。然此起塔勸供養處，與上勸供養處，文同而義異。上勸起塔供養者，明眾生所以得人天修羅五欲樂果者，由依此經修行五戒十善而得，故所以勸起塔供養其處以酬往恩；此中復勸於此處供養者，明依此經修行，畢竟能得無為法身無上菩提，故勸供養如塔廟想也。

七者，「複次須菩提！若善男子善女人受持讀誦此經，為人輕賤」者，論名「及遠離諸障」。此一段經，出經之威力，明持經功德有二世利益：一、由受持此經發思修二慧，能轉過去三塗重業，現世輕受。二、因思修二慧故，十地行滿，未來遠離二障，必得無上菩提也。明此人先世非但有罪亦有福德，以過去福德因緣今得聞此經，既聞經已，復能受持、為人演說，得滅罪業；非但滅過去罪業，復能斷除二障，得大菩提也。「為人輕賤」者，明持經功德能轉三塗重業為輕。使現在為人輕賤，乃至頭痛即滅，非謂由持經故招人輕賤報也。乘生疑難：若此經

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果有人認為修行三生乃至六十劫，勤勉地修行，就能迅速脫離三界，結束分段生死，證得阿羅漢果，享受灰身滅智的快樂，那麼他們是不會相信此經的。』若有我見人見』等，這是說明外道之人，自恃自己的我見是正確的，不再尋求其他，所以不能相信此經。 六者，』須菩提在在處處若有此經』，這一段經文，在論中名為』尊重身得福』。敬重有此經的地方，勸導人天阿修羅等廣設供養，產生功德。然而，這裡勸人建塔供養的地方，與前面勸人供養的地方，文字相同而意義不同。前面勸人建塔供養，是說明眾生之所以能得到人天修羅五欲之樂的果報，是因為依此經修行五戒十善而得到的，所以勸人建塔供養那個地方，以酬謝過去的恩德；這裡再次勸人於此處供養，是說明依此經修行，最終能得到無為法身無上菩提，所以勸人供養此處，如同對待塔廟一樣。 七者，』複次須菩提！若善男子善女人受持讀誦此經，為人輕賤』，在論中名為』及遠離諸障』。這一段經文，闡述了此經的威力，說明持經的功德有兩世的利益：一、由於受持此經，發起思修二慧，能將過去三塗（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）的深重罪業，轉為現世的輕微承受。二、因為思修二慧的緣故，十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）的修行圓滿，未來能遠離二障（煩惱障和所知障），必定能得到無上菩提。說明這個人前世不僅有罪業，也有福德，因為過去福德的因緣，今生才能聽聞此經，既然聽聞此經，又能受持、為人演說，得以滅除罪業；不僅滅除過去的罪業，還能斷除二障，得到大菩提。』為人輕賤』，說明持經的功德能將三塗的深重罪業轉化為輕微的果報，使得現在被人輕賤，乃至頭痛就能消滅，而不是說因為持經的緣故，才招致被人輕賤的果報。由此產生疑問：如果此經

【English Translation】 English version: Those who believe that by practicing diligently for three to sixty kalpas (aeons), they can quickly escape the Three Realms (Trialoka), end their segmented life and death (samsara), attain the Arhat fruit (arahatship), and enjoy the bliss of extinguishing their bodies and wisdom, will not believe in this sutra. 'If there is an ego-view or a person-view,' etc., this explains that those of external paths (non-Buddhist schools) rely on their own ego-view as correct, seek nothing else, and therefore cannot believe in this sutra. Sixth, 'Subhuti, wherever this sutra is present,' this section of the sutra is named 'Respecting the Body and Gaining Blessings' in the commentary. Respecting the place where this sutra is present, encouraging humans, devas (gods), asuras (demigods), etc., to make extensive offerings, generates merit. However, the place where it is encouraged to build stupas (pagodas) and make offerings here, and the place where it was previously encouraged to make offerings, have the same words but different meanings. The previous encouragement to build stupas and make offerings explains that the reason why sentient beings can obtain the fruits of the five desires of humans, devas, and asuras is because they practice the five precepts and ten virtues according to this sutra, so they are encouraged to build stupas and make offerings at that place to repay past kindness; this further encouragement to make offerings at this place explains that by practicing according to this sutra, one can ultimately obtain the unconditioned Dharma body (dharmakaya) and unsurpassed Bodhi (enlightenment), so one is encouraged to make offerings here as if treating it as a stupa or temple. Seventh, 'Furthermore, Subhuti! If good men and good women receive, uphold, read, and recite this sutra, they will be despised by others,' this is named 'And Separating from All Obstacles' in the commentary. This section of the sutra expounds the power of this sutra, explaining that the merit of upholding the sutra has benefits in two lives: first, by receiving and upholding this sutra, developing the two wisdoms of thinking and cultivation, one can transform the heavy karma of the past three evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals) into light suffering in this life. Second, because of the two wisdoms of thinking and cultivation, the practice of the ten bhumis (ten stages of a Bodhisattva's path) is completed, and in the future, one can be separated from the two obstacles (afflictive obstacles and cognitive obstacles), and will surely attain unsurpassed Bodhi. This explains that this person not only has sins but also has merits in their previous lives, because of the karmic conditions of past merits, they can hear this sutra in this life, and since they have heard this sutra, they can receive, uphold, and explain it to others, so they can extinguish their sins; not only extinguishing past sins, but also cutting off the two obstacles and attaining great Bodhi. 'Despised by others' explains that the merit of upholding the sutra can transform the heavy karma of the three evil realms into light retribution, so that one is now despised by others, and even a headache can be eliminated, rather than saying that it is because of upholding the sutra that one incurs the retribution of being despised. This raises a question: If this sutra

---

有大威力，能轉重業為輕，罪即消滅者；既威力如是，何故不能使罪業永盡，乃令輕報而已？答意明此經威力實非不能令永滅，但為行惡不信眾生亦有善惡業報也，然不差故，但令輕受不永盡。

八者，論名「復能速證法」，從「須菩提！我念過去無量阿僧祇等至所不能及」。此一段經，明釋迦如來自引往昔初燃燈已前未入習種性時，供養八十四億那由他佛。雖復親承爾許諸佛，四事供養、聽受勝法、三業利益，無空過者，故挍量不如末世持經功德百千萬分。不相比類，以不能速證佛果故也。有三義故所以不如。何者？一、以如來在世修行供養不以為難；二、所行經供養功德是取相心；三、此取相之行既不能正感菩提，但能作其遠因。有此三義故，不速證無上菩提，不如持經福也。

九者，論名「成種種勢力，得大妙果報」。若作十章門，分此兩句為二。從「須菩提！若善男子善女人於後末世有受持修行此經所得功德，若我具說或有人聞心則狂亂」等，自此以下二段經，明持經因緣，能得世間出世間二種果報。此文明持經功德非但正感佛果，亦兼得世間人王天王五欲果報也。「若我具說或有人聞心則狂亂疑惑不信」者，若我具說持經所得世間出世間二種果報者，眾生聞則疑惑故，但說得出世不可思議功德

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：此經有大威力，能將深重的罪業轉化為輕微的果報，使罪過得以消滅；既然威力如此巨大，為何不能使罪業永遠斷絕，而只是減輕其所受的報應呢？答：意在說明此經的威力實際上並非不能使罪業永遠斷滅，而是爲了讓那些作惡而不信因果報應的眾生，也能明白善惡終有報應的道理，只是果報不會有差錯，只會減輕其所受的苦難，而不是永遠免除。

八者，論述名為『復能速證法』，從『須菩提！我念過去無量阿僧祇等至所不能及』這一段經文開始。這段經文闡明了釋迦如來追憶往昔在燃燈佛之前，尚未進入習種性時，曾供養八十四億那由他佛（極多的數量）。雖然親自承事如此眾多的佛，以四事供養（衣食、臥具、醫藥、供身之物）、聽受殊勝的佛法、以身口意三業利益眾生，沒有虛度光陰，但相比之下，不如末世受持此經的功德的百千萬分之一。這是因為前者不能迅速證得佛果。有三個原因導致不如後者：一、如來在世時修行供養，不覺得是難事；二、所行的供養功德是著相之心；三、這種著相的修行不能直接感得菩提（覺悟），只能作為遙遠的因緣。因為這三個原因，所以不能迅速證得無上菩提，不如受持此經的福報。

九者，論述名為『成種種勢力，得大妙果報』。如果按照十章門來劃分，可以將這兩句話分為兩部分。從『須菩提！若善男子善女人於後末世有受持修行此經所得功德，若我具說或有人聞心則狂亂』等，自此以下兩段經文，闡明了受持此經的因緣，能夠獲得世間和出世間兩種果報。這裡說明受持此經的功德，不僅能直接感得佛果，也能兼得世間人王、天王的五欲果報（色、聲、香、味、觸）。『若我具說或有人聞心則狂亂疑惑不信』，如果我完全說出受持此經所能獲得的世間和出世間兩種果報，眾生聽了就會疑惑不信，所以只說得出世間不可思議的功德。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: This sutra possesses great power, capable of transforming heavy karma into light retribution, and causing sins to be extinguished. Since its power is so immense, why can't it make sins disappear forever, but only lighten the consequences? Answer: The intention is to clarify that the sutra's power is not actually incapable of permanently eradicating sins. However, it is also meant to show those who commit evil and do not believe in karmic retribution that good and evil ultimately have their consequences. The retribution will not be mistaken, but the suffering will only be lessened, not permanently eliminated.

Eighth, the discourse is named 'Again, Able to Quickly Attain the Dharma,' starting from 'Subhuti! I remember the past immeasurable asamkhyas (countless) and so on, reaching what is unattainable.' This section of the sutra clarifies that Shakyamuni Tathagata recalls that in the past, before Dipankara Buddha, when he had not yet entered the stage of habitual nature, he had made offerings to eighty-four billion nayutas (extremely large numbers) of Buddhas. Although he personally served so many Buddhas, offering the four requisites (clothing, food, bedding, medicine), listening to the supreme Dharma, and benefiting beings with his body, speech, and mind without wasting time, in comparison, it is not even one hundred thousandth of the merit of upholding this sutra in the degenerate age. This is because the former cannot quickly attain Buddhahood. There are three reasons why it is inferior: first, practicing offerings when the Tathagata is in the world is not considered difficult; second, the merit of the offerings made is with an attachment to form; third, this practice with attachment to form cannot directly bring about Bodhi (enlightenment), but can only serve as a distant cause. Because of these three reasons, one cannot quickly attain unsurpassed Bodhi, and it is not as good as the blessings of upholding this sutra.

Ninth, the discourse is named 'Accomplishing Various Powers, Obtaining Great Wonderful Retribution.' If divided according to the ten chapters, these two sentences can be separated into two parts. Starting from 'Subhuti! If good men and good women in the future degenerate age uphold and practice this sutra, the merit obtained, if I were to fully explain it, some would hear it and their minds would become confused,' and continuing with the following two sections of the sutra, it clarifies that the causes and conditions of upholding this sutra can lead to both worldly and transcendental retributions. This explains that the merit of upholding this sutra not only directly brings about Buddhahood, but also concurrently obtains the five desires (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) of worldly kings and heavenly kings. 'If I were to fully explain it, some would hear it and their minds would become confused, doubtful, and disbelieving,' if I were to fully explain the worldly and transcendental retributions that can be obtained by upholding this sutra, beings would hear it and become doubtful and disbelieving, so only the inconceivable merit of the transcendental is spoken of.

---

，不說得世間果報也。上明行取相行者，得三界果報，受持此經，唯得無為法身至極之果；此中復言得世間出世間二種果報，斯言何故前後相違不定？若得無為法身，不應復得世間天王果報；既得人王天王報，不應復得法身果也，以此世人現都榮位、情重王報，于中取著，便用持經功德求於世報、不求佛果，故心狂亂也。既狂亂，則猶豫不信。不知受持此經為決定能得佛果、為不得？如此猶豫，故曰疑也。此疑心迷理更起煩惱，故曰或也。然上言依此經行無相檀波羅蜜等，能得無為法身，不得世間果報。今此中何故云受持此經得世間出世間人王天王等尊位勢力果報者，明受持此經實自遠得無為法身大妙果報。所以得世間諸王果報者，以行者修行未滿、未成佛中間，自然得此人天傍報。如人種谷但求果實，不悕蒿草自然得之。菩薩雖受此世王之果而不染著，勿謂此果同於世間取相所得實果也。

「論曰：覆成就何業修行」者，牒上第八段三種修行初論本偈中第三句也。「顯彼修行業」者，生此利益分，明此一段經。所以經文在此而章門在上者，以前明三種聞慧是其修行，今辨得多種利益。思修二慧亦是修行，以三慧義勢相屬。復修行名通，義有拘瑣故，章門在上、經釋在此。以斯經解釋方彰、修行之義足，故言顯

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不說獲得世間的果報。前面說明通過執著于外相的修行者，會得到三界的果報，而受持此經的人，只能得到無為法身的至高果位。這裡又說能得到世間和出世間兩種果報，這種說法為什麼前後矛盾，不確定呢？如果得到了無為法身，就不應該再得到世間天王的果報；既然得到了人王、天王的果報，就不應該再得到法身果位。因為世人現在看重榮華富貴和王者的果報，因此執著於此，就用受持此經的功德來追求世間的果報，而不追求成佛的果位，所以心生狂亂。既然心生狂亂，就會猶豫不信。不知道受持此經是決定能得到佛果，還是不能得到？像這樣猶豫不決，所以說是疑惑。這種疑惑的心迷惑了真理，更生起煩惱，所以說是或者。然而前面說依照此經修行無相檀波羅蜜（Dānapāramitā，佈施波羅蜜）等，能得到無為法身，得不到世間的果報。現在這裡為什麼說受持此經能得到世間出世間人王天王等尊貴地位和勢力果報呢？這是說明受持此經實際上自然能得到無為法身的大妙果報。之所以能得到世間諸王的果報，是因為修行者修行未圓滿、未成佛的中間階段，自然會得到這種人天傍報。就像人種稻穀只求果實，不希望得到蒿草卻自然得到一樣。菩薩雖然接受這種世間王者的果報，卻不染著，不要認為這種果報等同於世間執著外相所得到的真實果報。 『論曰：覆成就何業修行』，是摘錄上面第八段三種修行初論本偈中的第三句。『顯彼修行業』，是說產生這種利益的部分，說明這一段經文。之所以經文在這裡而章門在上面，是因為前面說明三種聞慧是其修行，現在辨別得到多種利益。思慧和修慧也是修行，因為三慧的意義和趨勢相互關聯。『復修行』這個名稱是通用的，意義上有拘束和瑣碎的地方，所以章門在上面，經文解釋在這裡。因為用這部經來解釋才能彰顯，修行的意義才足夠，所以說『顯』。

【English Translation】 English version: It is not said that one obtains worldly rewards. The previous section explained that practitioners who cling to appearances obtain the rewards of the Three Realms, while those who uphold this sutra only attain the supreme fruit of the unconditioned Dharmakāya (法身, Dharma body). Here, it is said again that one can obtain both worldly and supramundane rewards. Why is this statement contradictory and uncertain? If one attains the unconditioned Dharmakāya, one should not obtain the worldly reward of a Deva King (天王, Heavenly King); since one obtains the reward of a human king and a Deva King, one should not obtain the fruit of the Dharmakāya. Because worldly people now value glory and the rewards of kings, they cling to them and use the merit of upholding this sutra to seek worldly rewards instead of seeking the fruit of Buddhahood, thus their minds become confused. Since their minds are confused, they hesitate and do not believe. They do not know whether upholding this sutra will definitely lead to the fruit of Buddhahood or not. Because of such hesitation, it is called doubt. This doubtful mind obscures the truth and gives rise to further afflictions, so it is called 'or'. However, it was previously said that practicing according to this sutra, such as the non-attachment Dānapāramitā (檀波羅蜜, Perfection of Giving), can lead to the unconditioned Dharmakāya and not to worldly rewards. Why does it now say that upholding this sutra can lead to noble positions and powerful rewards such as human kings and Deva Kings in both the worldly and supramundane realms? This explains that upholding this sutra actually and naturally leads to the great and wonderful reward of the unconditioned Dharmakāya. The reason why one can obtain the rewards of worldly kings is that during the intermediate stage when the practitioner's practice is not yet complete and Buddhahood has not yet been attained, one naturally obtains these secondary rewards of humans and Devas. It is like planting rice and only seeking the fruit, but naturally obtaining weeds even though one does not desire them. Although Bodhisattvas (菩薩, enlightened beings) accept these rewards of worldly kings, they are not attached to them. Do not think that these rewards are the same as the real rewards obtained through worldly attachment to appearances. 『The Treatise says: What further karma is accomplished through practice?』 This is an excerpt from the third line of the initial verse of the Three Kinds of Practice in the eighth section above. 『Revealing that practice』 refers to the section that generates these benefits, explaining this passage of scripture. The reason why the scripture is here while the chapter heading is above is that the previous section explained that the three kinds of wisdom gained through hearing are the practice, and now it distinguishes the attainment of various benefits. Wisdom gained through contemplation and wisdom gained through cultivation are also practices, because the meanings and tendencies of the three kinds of wisdom are related to each other. The name 『further practice』 is general, and there are places where the meaning is restricted and trivial, so the chapter heading is above, and the scriptural explanation is here. Because the explanation using this scripture can reveal it, and the meaning of practice is sufficient, it is said to 『reveal』.

---

彼修行業也。此一段經，凡以三行偈，作九種章門或作十章門釋此一段經。初一偈釋前四章門，第二偈釋中四章門，第三偈上二句釋后一章門亦得分釋二章門，下半偈通結三偈，勸人令知也。「非餘者境界」者，釋經中第一段，明此經理深，非凡夫二乘聞思修慧心意識所惻，故非餘者境界也。「唯依大人說」者，釋第二段經，明經理既深，小根之人不能勘受，故但為菩薩大人說也。然如來非能為菩薩說、不為小乘人說，但菩薩機根大故所以為說，小乘之人器小心狹不勘聞大所以不為說之，非情不平等鄙於二乘不為說也。如日初出，光照高山，后照于下，非曰有高下之心故然也。「及希聞信法」者，此是釋第三段，明此經希有信者難得。經中更無別文可釋，即指前二段經中人法，以為能信所信人法也。「希聞」者，明凡夫二乘不聞此經，設聞不能生信，唯菩薩能聞能信，信者難得，故云希聞信法也。「滿足無上界」者，釋第四段經，明持經因緣，能顯無為法身法身滿足性也。此明滿足性，有二二十，二地菩薩分中顯滿足性；二顯如來果頭具足現用滿足性也。「受持真妙法」者，釋經中第五段。若受持此經，不能尋詮會理得理亡詮，不名受持真妙法要。受持此經，能亡詮會旨，解無為法身，方名受持真妙法，故明受持經者

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 彼（指菩薩）修習行業。這一段經文，總共用三行偈頌，作出九種章門或者十章門來解釋這一段經文。第一偈解釋前面四個章門，第二偈解釋中間四個章門，第三偈的前兩句解釋後面一個章門，也可以分開解釋為兩個章門，下半偈總結這三偈，勸人明白這個道理。「非餘者境界（不是其他人的境界）」是解釋經文中的第一段，說明這個道理深刻，不是凡夫和二乘（聲聞、緣覺）通過聽聞、思考、修習所產生的智慧、心意識所能測度的，所以說不是其他人的境界。「唯依大人說（只依仗大人物說）」是解釋第二段經文，說明道理既然深奧，小根器的人不能承受，所以只為菩薩這樣的大人說。然而如來不是隻能為菩薩說、不為小乘人說，而是因為菩薩的根器大所以才為他們說，小乘之人器量小、心胸狹窄，不能聽聞大的道理，所以不為他們說，不是（如來）情感不平等，鄙視二乘而不為他們說。如同太陽剛出來的時候，光芒照耀高山，然後才照耀下面，不是太陽有高下之心，而是自然如此。「及希聞信法（以及稀有聽聞並相信此法）」這是解釋第三段，說明這部經很難得，相信的人難以得到。經文中沒有其他可以解釋的文句，就是指前面兩段經文中的人法，作為能夠相信和所相信的人法。「希聞（稀有聽聞）」說明凡夫和二乘不能聽聞這部經，即使聽聞也不能生起信心，只有菩薩能夠聽聞並且能夠相信，相信的人難以得到，所以說是稀有聽聞並相信此法。「滿足無上界（滿足無上的境界）」是解釋第四段經文，說明持經的因緣，能夠顯現無為法身，法身圓滿的體性。這裡說明圓滿的體性，有二個二十，二地菩薩分證中顯現圓滿的體性；二是顯現如來果地上具足的現用圓滿的體性。「受持真妙法（接受並保持真正的微妙之法）」是解釋經文中的第五段，如果受持這部經，不能夠尋著言語而領會道理，得到道理后又忘記言語，不能稱為接受並保持真正的微妙之法。受持這部經，能夠忘記言語而領會宗旨，理解無為法身，才叫做接受並保持真正的微妙之法，所以說明受持經的人

【English Translation】 English version He (referring to the Bodhisattva) cultivates virtuous conduct. This section of the scripture, in total, uses three lines of verses to create nine or ten chapter headings to explain this section of the scripture. The first verse explains the first four chapter headings, the second verse explains the middle four chapter headings, and the first two lines of the third verse explain the last chapter heading, or it can be divided into two chapter headings for explanation. The second half of the verse summarizes these three verses, encouraging people to understand this principle. 'Not the realm of others' (非餘者境界) explains the first section of the scripture, indicating that this principle is profound and cannot be measured by the wisdom, mind, and consciousness produced by ordinary people and the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas) through hearing, thinking, and practicing. Therefore, it is said that it is not the realm of others. 'Only relying on great beings to speak' (唯依大人說) explains the second section of the scripture, indicating that since the principle is profound, people with small roots cannot bear it, so it is only spoken for great beings like Bodhisattvas. However, the Tathāgata is not only able to speak for Bodhisattvas and not for people of the Small Vehicle, but because Bodhisattvas have great roots, they are spoken to. People of the Small Vehicle have small capacity and narrow minds, and cannot hear great principles, so they are not spoken to. It is not that (the Tathāgata's) emotions are unequal, despising the Two Vehicles and not speaking to them. Just like when the sun first comes out, its light shines on high mountains, and then shines below. It is not that the sun has a high or low mind, but it is naturally so. 'And rarely hearing and believing in the Dharma' (及希聞信法) This explains the third section, indicating that this scripture is rare and those who believe are difficult to obtain. There are no other sentences in the scripture that can be explained, which refers to the people and Dharma in the previous two sections of the scripture, as the people and Dharma that can be believed and are believed in. 'Rarely hearing' (希聞) indicates that ordinary people and the Two Vehicles cannot hear this scripture, and even if they hear it, they cannot generate faith. Only Bodhisattvas can hear and believe, and those who believe are difficult to obtain, so it is said that rarely hearing and believing in the Dharma. 'Fulfilling the unsurpassed realm' (滿足無上界) explains the fourth section of the scripture, indicating that the cause and condition of upholding the scripture can manifest the unconditioned Dharmakāya, the complete nature of the Dharmakāya. Here, the complete nature is explained, with two twenties: the complete nature is manifested in the partial realization of the Bodhisattvas of the Second Ground; the second is the complete nature of the complete manifestation of the present use on the fruit ground of the Tathāgata. 'Receiving and upholding the true and wonderful Dharma' (受持真妙法) explains the fifth section of the scripture. If one receives and upholds this scripture but cannot seek the words to understand the principle, and forgets the words after obtaining the principle, it cannot be called receiving and upholding the true and wonderful Dharma. Receiving and upholding this scripture, being able to forget the words and understand the purpose, and understanding the unconditioned Dharmakāya, is called receiving and upholding the true and wonderful Dharma, so it explains the person who receives and upholds the scripture.

---

，即是荷擔如來真妙法身也。「尊重身得福」者，釋經中第六段，明非但持經多得功德，敬重說此經處、廣設供養亦得多福，以此處說金剛般若、辨無為法身，供養此處即供養法身故，云尊重也。「身時得福」者，說供養人，身得世間出世間二種果報也。「及遠離諸障」者，釋經中第七段，以持經功德威力，使三惡罪業現世輕受即為消滅，亦離智障煩惱障也。「復能速證法」者，釋經中第八段，明佛自引過去雖供養諸佛，當爾時懷取相心，不能疾得菩提。若能受持此經者，不近期三界有為果報故，能速證無上菩提法也。「成種種勢力」者，釋經中第九段，明持經功德能得世間人天中王種種勢力果也。「得大妙果報」者，此二句釋經中「此法門不可思議果報亦不可思議」，此明非但直得世間種種勢力果報，乃遠感出世間極大妙果也。

「此三行偈說何等義」者，論主將以長行釋偈中九章門故，作此問生起也。「有不可思議至不共聲聞」等，釋偈中初句也。「以為住第一大乘者至修行勝故」，釋偈中第二句也。「以信小乘等則不能聞此示希聞而能信法故」，釋偈中第三句也，並釋三章門竟。「如經」以下，通舉經來結也。

「希聞者謂不可思議等文句」者，前二章門經中有文，即此二章門經。上作第三章門，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『即是荷擔如來真妙法身也』，意思是承擔如來真實微妙的法身。『尊重身得福』，解釋經文中的第六段，說明不僅是受持經文能獲得很多功德，恭敬尊重講說此經的地方、廣泛地設定供養也能獲得很多福報，因為這個地方講說《金剛般若》，闡明無為法身，供養這個地方就是供養法身，所以說尊重。『身時得福』，是說供養的人，身體能得到世間和出世間兩種果報。『及遠離諸障』，解釋經文中的第七段，憑藉受持經文的功德威力，使本應在三惡道受的罪業在現世輕輕地承受，從而得以消滅，也能遠離智慧上的障礙和煩惱上的障礙。『復能速證法』，解釋經文中的第八段，說明佛親自引用過去的事情，雖然供養諸佛，但當時懷有取相之心，不能快速地獲得菩提。如果能夠受持此經的人，不貪求三界有為的果報，所以能快速地證得無上菩提之法。『成種種勢力』，解釋經文中的第九段，說明受持經文的功德能夠獲得世間人天中王的種種勢力果報。『得大妙果報』，這兩句解釋經文中『此法門不可思議果報亦不可思議』，這說明不僅直接獲得世間的種種勢力果報，還能長遠地感得超脫世間的極大微妙果報。

『此三行偈說何等義』，論主將要用長行來解釋偈中的九個章節，所以提出這個問題來引起下文。『有不可思議至不共聲聞』等，解釋偈中的第一句。『以為住第一大乘者至修行勝故』，解釋偈中的第二句。『以信小乘等則不能聞此示希聞而能信法故』，解釋偈中的第三句，並解釋三個章節完畢。『如經』以下，總括經文來作總結。

『希聞者謂不可思議等文句』，前兩個章節在經文中有文句，就是這兩個章節的經文。上面作為第三個章節。

【English Translation】 English version: 'That is, bearing the true and wonderful Dharma-body of the Tathagata' means to undertake the real and subtle Dharma-body of the Tathagata. 'Respecting the body brings blessings' explains the sixth section of the scripture, clarifying that not only does upholding the scripture bring much merit, but also reverently respecting the place where this scripture is spoken and extensively making offerings also brings much blessings, because this place speaks of the Vajra Prajna, elucidating the unconditioned Dharma-body, and offering to this place is offering to the Dharma-body, hence the term 'respect'. 'The body at the time receives blessings' refers to the person making offerings, whose body can receive two kinds of rewards, worldly and otherworldly. 'And be far from all obstacles' explains the seventh section of the scripture, that by the power of upholding the scripture, the sins that should be suffered in the three evil realms are lightly endured in this life, thereby being eliminated, and one can also be free from obstacles of wisdom and obstacles of affliction. 'And can quickly attain the Dharma' explains the eighth section of the scripture, clarifying that the Buddha himself cites past events, that although he made offerings to all Buddhas, he then harbored a mind of grasping at appearances, and could not quickly attain Bodhi. If one can uphold this scripture, not craving the conditioned rewards of the three realms, then one can quickly attain the unsurpassed Dharma of Bodhi. 'Achieve various powers' explains the ninth section of the scripture, clarifying that the merit of upholding the scripture can obtain various powerful rewards of the king among humans and devas in the world. 'Obtain great and wonderful rewards', these two sentences explain the scripture 'This Dharma-door is inconceivable, and its rewards are also inconceivable', which clarifies that not only does one directly obtain various powerful rewards of the world, but one can also remotely receive extremely wonderful rewards that transcend the world.

'What is the meaning of these three lines of verse?' The commentator is about to use prose to explain the nine chapters in the verse, so he raises this question to introduce the following text. 'Having inconceivable [qualities] up to not shared by Sravakas (hearers)' explains the first line of the verse. 'Considering those who abide in the first Great Vehicle up to the superiority of practice' explains the second line of the verse. 'Because those who believe in the Small Vehicle etc. cannot hear this, it shows that those who rarely hear and can believe in the Dharma' explains the third line of the verse, and the explanation of the three chapters is completed. 'As the scripture' below, generally summarizes the scripture to conclude.

'Those who rarely hear refer to the phrases such as inconceivable' The previous two chapters have phrases in the scripture, which are the scriptures of these two chapters. The above is taken as the third chapter.

---

經無別文，恐人不識故，還指上章門，謂「不可思議」等文句也。「得不可思議等福德至無量功德聚故」，解偈中第四句，舉經來結也。下釋二偈五章門，一一略提經解釋，還廣舉經，依論可知也。

「爾時須菩提白佛言：云何菩薩發三菩提心？云何降伏其心」等，以下凡有十六段經文，此是大段中第十，名為斷疑分。此所以名斷疑者，上從第三段來已廣辨斷疑，何故不與斷疑之名，此段所以獨得斷疑之稱也？然眾生到側。或取著心，多聞如來說法，於一法上起種種疑。從第三段來至第九段，此一週說法，于菩薩眾生佛凈土等四法上次第一遍斷疑。然各逐所明，事義不同，別立名字。雖復斷疑，而不名斷疑分。自此以下還提上經，其文略同，而疑有異、答意亦異，故獨得斷疑之名也。以何次第起此第十段？十將欲釋上所未斷疑故，次第重舉前七段經來以釋眾疑故，次明此斷疑分經也。

「爾時須菩提白佛至則非菩薩」，重牒前第三住分經文。然此住義前已廣釋，所以重舉來者，就此文上有疑未盡，為欲取下「何以故須菩提實無有法名為菩薩」以釋上疑故，通舉來也。此言「何以故」者，以作難云：上第三段經中已明此三種修行，何以故此中復重明？有何勝也？故釋「實無有法名為菩薩發三菩提心者」，明

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經文沒有其他不同的文字，只是恐怕人們不理解，所以又指向上面的章節，就是指『不可思議』等語句。『得到不可思議等福德乃至無量功德聚集』，這是解釋偈頌中的第四句，引用經文來作總結。下面解釋兩首偈頌的五個章節，一一簡略地提一下經文的解釋，然後廣泛地引用經文，根據《大智度論》就可以理解了。 『爾時須菩提白佛言：云何菩薩發三菩提心？云何降伏其心』等，以下共有十六段經文，這是大段中的第十段，名為斷疑分。這段經文之所以名為斷疑，是因為從第三段開始就已經廣泛地辨析斷疑，為什麼不給之前的段落也起名為斷疑呢？因為只有這一段才特別地被稱為斷疑。這是因為眾生執著于外在，或者執著于內心，聽聞如來說法，對於一個法就產生種種疑問。從第三段到第九段，這一週的說法，依次對菩薩、眾生、佛、凈土等四法進行了一遍斷疑。然而，每一段所闡明的內容和意義都不同，所以分別設立名字。雖然也斷除了疑惑，但不稱為斷疑分。從這裡以下又重新提起上面的經文，文字大致相同，但疑惑有所不同，回答的意義也不同，所以只有這一段才被稱為斷疑。以什麼樣的次第來引出這第十段呢？因為將要解釋上面沒有斷除的疑惑，所以依次重新舉出前面的七段經文來解釋各種疑惑，因此接下來闡明這個斷疑分的經文。 『爾時須菩提白佛至則非菩薩』，這是重新疊述前面第三住分的經文。然而，這個住的意義前面已經廣泛地解釋過了，之所以重新舉出來，是因為這段經文還有未盡的疑問，爲了引用下面的『何以故須菩提實無有法名為菩薩』來解釋上面的疑問，所以全部舉出來。這裡說『何以故』，是以提問的方式說：在前面第三段經文中已經闡明了這三種修行，為什麼這裡又重新闡明呢？有什麼殊勝之處呢？所以解釋『實無有法名為菩薩發三菩提心者』，是爲了闡明...

【English Translation】 English version: There are no different words in the sutra; it is only for fear that people will not understand, so it refers back to the previous chapters, namely the sentences such as 'inconceivable' (不可思議). 'Obtaining inconceivable merits and virtues, even accumulating immeasurable merits' (得不可思議等福德至無量功德聚), this explains the fourth line of the verse, quoting the sutra to conclude. Below, the five chapters of the two verses are explained, briefly mentioning the explanation of the sutra one by one, and then widely quoting the sutra, which can be understood according to the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (大智度論). 'At that time, Subhuti (須菩提) said to the Buddha: How does a Bodhisattva (菩薩) generate the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta (三菩提心)? How does he subdue his mind?' etc. Below are sixteen sections of scripture in total, this is the tenth section in the major section, named the 'Section on Resolving Doubts' (斷疑分). The reason why this section is named 'Resolving Doubts' is because from the third section onwards, doubts have been widely analyzed and resolved. Why are the previous sections not also named 'Resolving Doubts'? It is because only this section is specifically called 'Resolving Doubts'. This is because sentient beings are attached to externals, or attached to their minds, and upon hearing the Tathagata's (如來) teachings, they generate various doubts about one Dharma (法). From the third section to the ninth section, this week of teachings resolves doubts about the four Dharmas of Bodhisattvas, sentient beings, Buddhas, and Pure Lands (凈土) in order. However, each section clarifies different content and meanings, so they are given separate names. Although doubts are also resolved, they are not called the 'Section on Resolving Doubts'. From here onwards, the previous sutra is mentioned again, the words are roughly the same, but the doubts are different, and the meaning of the answers is also different, so only this section is called 'Resolving Doubts'. In what order is this tenth section introduced? Because it is about to explain the doubts that have not been resolved above, the previous seven sections of the sutra are re-quoted in order to explain various doubts, therefore, the sutra of this 'Section on Resolving Doubts' is explained next. 'At that time, Subhuti said to the Buddha... then it is not a Bodhisattva' (爾時須菩提白佛至則非菩薩), this is a repetition of the scripture from the third sthita (住) section. However, the meaning of this sthita has already been widely explained before. The reason why it is re-quoted is because there are still unresolved doubts in this scripture. In order to quote the following 'Why? Subhuti, in reality, there is no Dharma called a Bodhisattva' (何以故須菩提實無有法名為菩薩) to explain the above doubts, it is all quoted. Here, saying 'Why?' (何以故) is in the form of a question: In the previous third section of the sutra, these three practices have already been explained, why are they explained again here? What is the superior aspect? Therefore, explaining 'In reality, there is no Dharma called a Bodhisattva generating the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta' (實無有法名為菩薩發三菩提心者) is to clarify...

---

於前三種修行上疑未遣，為以此實無有法名為菩薩釋疑，故重來也。疑意：云何上第三段中，明菩薩證得初地無生二種無我見道之解，具足四種深心、永斷三界四住習氣無明粗品、離五怖畏，住于初地平等理中，不見彼是眾生、我為菩薩。於此理中柔伏其心；復得二地以上修道之解，以得此解故，存我能具足四種深心住于初地、我能不著三事修行、我能不見三事降伏其心、我能斷煩惱、我能化人，有此分別之心。以有此心故，有人疑雲：若菩薩以證見道修無我之解，何故猶云我能證平等理，不見眾生異於菩薩，乃至我能修行等？既自得無我解，今言不見，誰云不見？菩薩言我能不見。即難：者是菩薩，何者是我？而菩薩言我能不見也。若爾，疑者還謂：即眾生五陰是菩薩，更無別菩薩。若眾生五陰非菩薩者，何故菩薩自言我能？以此驗之，故知即此眾生五陰是實菩薩也。為除此疑故，言實無有法名為菩薩發三菩提心者也。今明實無有法名為菩薩者，假名名字眾生，體虛妄不實，五陰因緣滅法，體本來空寂。于眾生五陰有為法中，無有一法是實可名為菩薩。若眾生五陰中無有一法是實名為菩薩者，云何而言我是菩薩？然今言我是菩薩、我能見修、我能修行等者，非謂菩薩發初地已猶存眾生五陰以之為我，有身見等粗惑未

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 對於前三種修行上的疑惑尚未消除，爲了消除『實際上沒有一種法可以稱為菩薩』的疑問，所以（提問者）再次前來。疑惑在於：為什麼在前面第三段中，說明菩薩證得初地時，獲得了無生和二種無我見道的理解，具足四種深心，永遠斷除了三界四住地的習氣無明粗品，脫離了五種怖畏，安住在初地的平等真理中，不見他人是眾生，而自己是菩薩。在這種真理中調伏自己的心；又獲得了二地以上的修道理解，因為獲得了這種理解，所以認為『我』能夠具足四種深心安住在初地，『我』能夠不執著於三事修行，『我』能夠不見三事而降伏其心，『我』能夠斷除煩惱，『我』能夠教化他人，產生了這種分別之心。因為有這種心，所以有人懷疑說：如果菩薩已經證得了見道修無我的理解，為什麼還說『我』能夠證得平等真理，不見眾生與菩薩的差別，乃至『我』能夠修行等等？既然自己已經獲得了無我解脫，現在說『不見』，是誰說『不見』？菩薩說『我』能夠不見。於是反駁說：誰是菩薩，誰是『我』？而菩薩卻說『我』能夠不見。如果這樣，懷疑者還會認為：眾生的五陰(skandha，構成個體的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識)就是菩薩，沒有其他的菩薩。如果眾生的五陰不是菩薩，為什麼菩薩自己說『我』能夠？以此來驗證，就知道這眾生的五陰就是真實的菩薩。爲了消除這種疑惑，所以說實際上沒有一種法可以稱為發起三菩提心(threefold Bodhi-mind，希求證得菩提的心)的菩薩。現在說明實際上沒有一種法可以稱為菩薩，只是假借名字稱之為眾生，其體虛妄不實，五陰因緣生滅之法，其體本來空寂。在眾生五陰的有為法(conditioned phenomena，由因緣和合而成的現象)中，沒有一種法是真實可以稱為菩薩的。如果眾生的五陰中沒有一種法是真實可以稱為菩薩的，為什麼說『我』是菩薩？然而現在說『我』是菩薩，『我』能夠見修，『我』能夠修行等等，並不是說菩薩在發起初地之後仍然保留眾生的五陰作為『我』，還有身見(belief in a permanent self，認為存在永恒不變的自我的錯誤觀念)等粗重的迷惑未

【English Translation】 English version: The doubts regarding the previous three types of practice have not yet been dispelled. In order to resolve the doubt that 'there is actually no dharma that can be called a Bodhisattva', (the questioner) comes again. The doubt lies in: Why, in the previous third section, is it explained that when a Bodhisattva attains the first ground (Bhumi，the stages of the Bodhisattva path), they gain the understanding of non-origination and the two types of no-self (anatta，the doctrine that there is no permanent, unchanging self), possess the four profound minds, permanently sever the coarse aspects of ignorance that are the habitual tendencies of the four abodes of the three realms, escape the five fears, and abide in the equality of the first ground, not seeing others as sentient beings and themselves as a Bodhisattva. In this truth, they subdue their minds; and they also gain the understanding of the path of cultivation from the second ground onwards. Because they have gained this understanding, they think 'I' am able to possess the four profound minds and abide in the first ground, 'I' am able to practice without attachment to the three things, 'I' am able to subdue my mind without seeing the three things, 'I' am able to cut off afflictions, 'I' am able to teach others,' and they generate this discriminating mind. Because they have this mind, some people doubt and say: If a Bodhisattva has already attained the understanding of no-self through the path of seeing, why do they still say 'I' am able to attain the truth of equality, not seeing the difference between sentient beings and Bodhisattvas, and even 'I' am able to practice, etc.? Since they have already attained the liberation of no-self, now saying 'not seeing', who is saying 'not seeing'? The Bodhisattva says 'I' am able to not see. Then it is retorted: Who is the Bodhisattva, and who is 'I'? But the Bodhisattva says 'I' am able to not see. If that is the case, the doubter will still think: The five skandhas (skandha，the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) of sentient beings are the Bodhisattva, and there is no other Bodhisattva. If the five skandhas of sentient beings are not the Bodhisattva, why does the Bodhisattva say 'I' am able? Using this to verify, it is known that these five skandhas of sentient beings are the real Bodhisattva. In order to dispel this doubt, it is said that there is actually no dharma that can be called a Bodhisattva who has generated the threefold Bodhi-mind (threefold Bodhi-mind，the mind that seeks enlightenment). Now it is explained that there is actually no dharma that can be called a Bodhisattva, it is just a borrowed name called sentient beings, its substance is false and unreal, the dharma of the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas due to conditions, its substance is originally empty and still. In the conditioned phenomena (conditioned phenomena，phenomena that arise from causes and conditions) of the five skandhas of sentient beings, there is no dharma that is real that can be called a Bodhisattva. If there is no dharma in the five skandhas of sentient beings that is real that can be called a Bodhisattva, why say 'I' am a Bodhisattva? However, now saying 'I' am a Bodhisattva, 'I' am able to see and cultivate, 'I' am able to practice, etc., it does not mean that the Bodhisattva still retains the five skandhas of sentient beings as 'I' after generating the first ground, and still has gross delusions such as the belief in a permanent self (belief in a permanent self，the mistaken belief in an unchanging self).

---

盡也。所以尚言我能者，明見道修道二種菩薩，雖現見真性斷除四住不善煩惱等一品粗惑，猶有無明住地根本煩惱細惑，于善法中有微分別心未斷盡故，有此功用之惑，於七地以還非患，乃障八地以上無功用不住道解。因斷此疑，即勵諸菩薩，遣存我分別之心故，言實無有法名為菩薩發三菩提心也。此乃隱覆之答，非是正答。若欲正答，亦應更問：若起此分別非真實菩薩者，何者是真實菩薩？應答：有實菩薩。何者是？要得無生忍、會二種無我解者，是真實菩薩。而不正答者，以引釋在下第四經中，但此義勢未盡，故合答也。

此一段經，以一行偈釋。「于內心修行，存我為菩薩」者，初地以上七地以還菩薩，雖得無我之解于內心中，修行之時自謂我是菩薩、我能不見三事。此之分別等，即是根本無明，于善法中分別之惑也。應問：此見道修道三種修行勝解為實不實也？亦應答：是實。次難：若是實者，自言我能修行，此有何妨？即答「此即障於心」也，明如此分別云我能修行等，善法無明功用之惑，障八地以上心。應問：障八地以上何等心？故下句云「違于不住道」，明七地以還善法分別功用之惑，障八地以上無功用心不住道解也。此言「不住」者，不住功用心、不住無功用心，故名不住道也。「此義云何至

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是窮盡的說法。之所以還說『我能』，是爲了說明見道和修道兩種菩薩，雖然已經親眼見到真性，斷除了四住地的各種不善煩惱等一品粗惑，但仍然有無明住地的根本煩惱細惑，對於善法中存在微細的分別心沒有斷盡，因此有這種功用之惑。對於七地及以下的菩薩來說，這並非過患，而是障礙八地及以上無功用不住道的解脫。因為要斷除這種疑惑，所以勉勵各位菩薩，去除存留的『我』的分別之心，因此說實際上沒有一種法叫做菩薩發起三菩提心。這是一種隱晦的回答，並非正面回答。如果要正面回答，也應該進一步問：如果生起這種分別心就不是真實的菩薩，那麼什麼是真實的菩薩？應該回答：有真實的菩薩。什麼是真實的菩薩？必須要證得無生忍，領會兩種無我之解的，才是真實的菩薩。而不正面回答的原因，是因為將解釋放在了下面的第四經中，但這裡的意義還沒有完全表達，所以合併回答了。 這一段經文，用一行偈頌來解釋。『于內心修行，存我為菩薩』，指的是初地以上到七地以下的菩薩，雖然已經獲得了無我的理解，但在內心修行的時候，自認為『我是菩薩』、『我能』、『不見三事』。這種分別等等，就是根本無明，是對於善法中的分別之惑。應該問：這種見道修道三種修行的殊勝理解是真實還是不真實呢？也應該回答：是真實的。接著質問：如果是真實的，那麼自稱『我能修行』，這有什麼妨礙呢？於是回答『此即障於心』，說明如此分別，認為『我能修行』等等，這種善法無明功用之惑，會障礙八地以上的心。應該問：障礙八地以上的什麼心呢？所以下一句說『違于不住道』，說明七地及以下的善法分別功用之惑，會障礙八地以上無功用心不住道的解脫。這裡說的『不住』，是不住功用心，不住無功用心，所以叫做不住道。『此義云何至』

【English Translation】 English version: This is the statement of exhaustion. The reason for still saying 'I can' is to clarify that the two types of Bodhisattvas, those who have seen the Path and those who are cultivating the Path, although they have directly seen the true nature and eradicated the coarse delusions of the four abodes of unwholesome afflictions, still have the subtle delusions of fundamental afflictions residing in ignorance, and have not completely eradicated the subtle discriminating mind towards wholesome dharmas. Therefore, they have this delusion of functional effort. For Bodhisattvas at the seventh Bhumi and below, this is not a fault, but an obstacle to the liberation of non-functional non-abiding Path of the eighth Bhumi and above. In order to eliminate this doubt, all Bodhisattvas are encouraged to remove the discriminating mind of 'I' that remains, hence the statement that there is actually no dharma called a Bodhisattva generating the three Bodhi minds. This is a veiled answer, not a direct answer. If a direct answer is desired, one should further ask: If generating this discriminating mind is not a true Bodhisattva, then what is a true Bodhisattva? The answer should be: There are true Bodhisattvas. What are they? Those who have attained the acceptance of non-origination (Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti) and comprehend the two types of selflessness are true Bodhisattvas. The reason for not answering directly is that the explanation is given in the fourth sutra below, but the meaning here is not fully expressed, so it is answered together. This section of the sutra is explained with a single line of verse. 'Inwardly cultivating, retaining 'I' as a Bodhisattva' refers to Bodhisattvas from the first Bhumi up to the seventh Bhumi, who, although they have attained the understanding of selflessness, when cultivating inwardly, think of themselves as 'I am a Bodhisattva', 'I can', 'not seeing the three things'. This discrimination, etc., is the fundamental ignorance, the delusion of discrimination in wholesome dharmas. One should ask: Is this superior understanding of the three cultivations of seeing the Path and cultivating the Path real or unreal? The answer should also be: It is real. Then challenge: If it is real, then what is the harm in claiming 'I can cultivate'? The answer is 'This obstructs the mind', clarifying that such discrimination, thinking 'I can cultivate', etc., this delusion of functional effort of wholesome dharma obstructs the mind of the eighth Bhumi and above. One should ask: What mind of the eighth Bhumi and above does it obstruct? Therefore, the next sentence says 'contradicts the non-abiding Path', clarifying that the delusion of discriminating functional effort of wholesome dharma of the seventh Bhumi and below obstructs the liberation of the non-functional non-abiding Path of the eighth Bhumi and above. The 'non-abiding' here means not abiding in functional effort, not abiding in non-functional effort, hence it is called the non-abiding Path. 'What does this meaning mean to'

---

降伏其心」，釋偈初句。「菩薩生此分別」者，釋偈中第二句。「障于菩提行」者，釋偈中第三句。下並以三句偈來經結也。「障何等心」者，提第三句作問也。即答「偈言違于不住道」者，此以第四句為答也。「如經」以下，舉釋疑經來結也。「須菩提！如來於燃燈佛所，有法得菩提不」，此斷疑分中第二經文，何故復來？以前疑實無有法名菩薩。疑者謂一向無菩薩者，何故如來云我昔在燃燈佛所行菩薩行得菩提記？以此驗之，應有菩薩行，何故言無？「佛語須菩提：我于燃燈佛所，有法得菩提不？須菩提解答佛言：佛于燃燈佛所，無有法得菩提記」，明菩薩猶在習種性中，于燃燈佛所唯言語受記，未有所證，故言無法得菩提也。明未得初地真實無生忍三菩提也，而非無地前假名名字菩薩言語受菩提記也。前疑問于應有菩提，何故今者答以不得菩提也？此名真如所證法為菩提，明眾生修行證菩提者名為菩薩。爾時既未登菩提，明非是實也。「佛言：如是。須菩提！實無有法如來於燃燈佛所得三菩提」者，此如來印可須菩提所說不虛，拂去眾疑也。「須菩提！若有法如來得菩提者，燃燈佛則不與我授記：汝于來世當得作佛，號釋迦牟尼」者，如來自云，若我在習種中，燃燈佛時已得初地無生三菩提記者，則后時無量諸

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『降伏其心』，解釋偈語的第一句。 『菩薩生此分別』，解釋偈語中的第二句。 『障于菩提行』，解釋偈語中的第三句。下面用三句偈來總結這段經文。 『障何等心』，提出第三句作為疑問。回答『偈言違于不住道』，這是用第四句作為回答。 『如經』以下，引用解釋疑惑的經文來總結。 『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）！如來（Tathagata，佛陀的稱號）于燃燈佛（Dipankara Buddha，過去佛）所，有法得菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）不』，這段斷除疑惑的部分中第二段經文，為何再次出現？因為前面疑惑確實沒有法可以稱為菩薩（Bodhisattva，追求覺悟的修行者）。疑惑的人認為一向沒有菩薩，為何如來說我過去在燃燈佛那裡修行菩薩行得到菩提的授記？用這個來驗證，應該有菩薩行，為何說沒有？ 『佛語須菩提：我于燃燈佛所，有法得菩提不？須菩提解答佛言：佛于燃燈佛所，無有法得菩提記』，說明菩薩還在習種性（種子階段）中，在燃燈佛那裡只是口頭接受授記，還沒有任何證悟，所以說沒有法得到菩提。說明還沒有得到初地（初地菩薩）真實無生忍（Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti，對法不生不滅的領悟）三菩提，而不是沒有地前假名名字菩薩口頭接受菩提的授記。前面疑問在於應該有菩提，為何現在回答說不得菩提？這是指真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）所證的法為菩提，說明眾生修行證得菩提的人稱為菩薩。當時既然沒有登上菩提，說明不是真實的。 『佛言：如是。須菩提！實無有法如來於燃燈佛所得三菩提』，這是如來印可須菩提所說不虛，拂去眾人的疑惑。 『須菩提！若有法如來得菩提者，燃燈佛則不與我授記：汝于來世當得作佛，號釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni，釋迦族聖人）』，如來自述，如果我在習種中，燃燈佛時已經得到初地無生三菩提的授記者，那麼後來無數的

【English Translation】 English version 『Subduing the mind』, explains the first line of the verse. 『Bodhisattvas give rise to these distinctions』, explains the second line of the verse. 『Obstructing the path to Bodhi』, explains the third line of the verse. The following uses a three-line verse to conclude this passage of scripture. 『What kind of mind is obstructed?』, raises the third line as a question. The answer 『The verse contradicts the path of non-abiding』 uses the fourth line as the answer. 『As the scripture says』 below, quotes scriptures that clarify doubts to conclude. 『Subhuti! Did the Tathagata obtain any Dharma (teachings) for Bodhi at Dipankara Buddha』s place?』, this is the second passage in the section on dispelling doubts, why does it appear again? Because previously there was doubt that there was truly no Dharma that could be called a Bodhisattva. Those who doubt believe that there have never been Bodhisattvas, so why does the Tathagata say that he practiced the Bodhisattva path and received the prediction of Bodhi at Dipankara Buddha』s place? Using this to verify, there should be Bodhisattva practice, so why say there isn』t? 『The Buddha said to Subhuti: Did I obtain any Dharma for Bodhi at Dipankara Buddha』s place? Subhuti answered the Buddha: The Buddha did not obtain any Dharma for the prediction of Bodhi at Dipankara Buddha』s place』, indicating that the Bodhisattva is still in the stage of cultivating seeds, and only received a verbal prediction at Dipankara Buddha』s place, without any realization, so it is said that there is no Dharma to obtain Bodhi. This indicates that they have not yet attained the first Bhumi (first stage Bodhisattva) of true Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti Three Bodhi, and not that there are no pre-Bhumi provisional name Bodhisattvas who verbally receive the prediction of Bodhi. The previous question was about whether there should be Bodhi, so why is the answer now that Bodhi is not obtained? This refers to the Dharma realized by Tathata as Bodhi, indicating that those who cultivate and realize Bodhi are called Bodhisattvas. Since they had not yet ascended to Bodhi at that time, it indicates that it was not real. 『The Buddha said: It is so. Subhuti! In reality, the Tathagata did not obtain Three Bodhi from Dipankara Buddha』, this is the Tathagata endorsing that what Subhuti said is not false, dispelling everyone』s doubts. 『Subhuti! If the Tathagata had obtained Bodhi through Dharma, Dipankara Buddha would not have given me the prediction: You will become a Buddha in the future, named Sakyamuni』, the Tathagata narrates, if I had already obtained the prediction of the first Bhumi Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti Three Bodhi at the time of Dipankara Buddha while in the stage of cultivating seeds, then countless later

---

佛乃至初地中，燃燈等則更不與我授無生忍記也。「以實未得無生忍三菩提記，是故后燃燈佛等復與我授記：摩那婆！汝于來世當得作佛，號釋迦」者，此明正以我于彼時實未得初地真無生忍三菩提記故，后明時燃燈佛更與我授記，汝當作佛也。又第三燃燈佛所，爾時始證真無生忍記。

「何以故」者，此有疑難云：如上所說，應有菩提；今何故言實無有法如來得菩提？若實無有法如來得菩提者，則謗謂一向無菩提，亦無諸佛得菩提者。若爾，既無菩提可得，何故菩薩三大阿僧祇劫修苦行菩提也？答「言如來者即實真如」也。上所以云無有一法名得菩提者，明爾時但言語授記，未有證法是實而得名為菩提，非謂理中一向無菩提故。今言「即實真如」者，明實有無為法身菩提，古今一定、體不變不異、無生住滅相故，名即實真如。指此真如無為法身是菩提體，以有實菩提故。明知亦有菩薩，復有修行得佛，何得謗言一向無菩提亦無菩薩修行證果成佛者也？然今雖答有菩提之體，猶未是正答，下大身喻中別當正答也。乘此答「言如來者即實真如」，復更生疑：若言真如菩提是實有者，此有猶同世間色等有為萬相之有。生此疑心故，答言「若有人言如來得三菩提者，是人不實語」。此明法身菩提體絕萬相、妙有故有，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：佛陀乃至初地菩薩的階段，燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）等佛陀並沒有給我授予無生法忍的記別。因為我實際上沒有得到無生法忍的三菩提記別，所以後來的燃燈佛等佛陀再次給我授記：『摩那婆（Manava，青年）！你于未來世應當成佛，號為釋迦（Sakyamuni Buddha）』。這說明正因為我在那時實際上沒有得到初地真無生法忍的三菩提記別，所以在後來的明示時刻，燃燈佛再次給我授記，說你將來會成佛。並且，在第三位燃燈佛那裡，我那時才開始證得真正的無生法忍記別。 『何以故』（Why is that？）的意思是，這裡有一個疑問：如上面所說，應該有菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）；現在為什麼說實際上沒有一種法是如來（Tathagata）得到的菩提呢？如果實際上沒有一種法是如來得到的菩提，那麼就相當於誹謗說一直沒有菩提，也沒有諸佛得到菩提。如果這樣，既然沒有菩提可以得到，為什麼菩薩（Bodhisattva）要用三大阿僧祇劫（asamkhya kalpas，無數大劫）來修行苦行以求菩提呢？回答說：『言如來者即實真如』（'Tathagata' means true suchness）。上面之所以說沒有一種法名為得到菩提，是說明那時只是用言語授記，還沒有證得法是真實而得到名為菩提，不是說在理上一向沒有菩提。現在說『即實真如』，是說明實際上有無為法身菩提，從古至今都是一定的，本體不變不異，沒有生住滅的現象，所以名為即實真如。指出這個真如無為法身是菩提的本體，因為有真實的菩提。明確知道也有菩薩，也有修行而得佛，怎麼能誹謗說一直沒有菩提，也沒有菩薩修行證果成佛呢？然而，現在雖然回答說有菩提的本體，還不是真正的回答，下面的大身比喻中會另外進行真正的回答。承接這個回答『言如來者即實真如』，又產生了疑問：如果說真如菩提是真實存在的，那麼這種存在就如同世間的色等有為萬相的存在。因為產生了這種疑問，所以回答說：『若有人言如來得三菩提者，是人不實語』（If someone says the Tathagata has attained complete, unexcelled Enlightenment, that person does not speak the truth）。這說明法身菩提的本體超越萬相，是妙有故有。

【English Translation】 English version: Even at the stage of a Buddha or a Bodhisattva in the initial Bhumi (first ground), Dipamkara Buddha and other Buddhas did not bestow upon me the prediction of Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti (patience with the unoriginated nature of reality). 'Because I had not actually attained the prediction of Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti of the Threefold Bodhi, therefore later Dipamkara Buddha and others again gave me the prediction: 'Manava (youth)! In the future you shall become a Buddha, named Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni Buddha)'.' This clarifies that precisely because I had not actually attained the prediction of the Threefold Bodhi of the true Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti of the first Bhumi at that time, therefore at the later time of clarification, Dipamkara Buddha again gave me the prediction, saying you will become a Buddha. Furthermore, at the third Dipamkara Buddha, I then began to realize the true Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti prediction. 'Why is that?' means, here there is a doubt: As mentioned above, there should be Bodhi (Enlightenment); now why is it said that actually there is no Dharma that the Tathagata (Tathagata) has attained as Bodhi? If actually there is no Dharma that the Tathagata has attained as Bodhi, then it is equivalent to slandering that there has never been Bodhi, and no Buddhas have attained Bodhi. If so, since there is no Bodhi to be attained, why should a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva) cultivate ascetic practices for three great asamkhya kalpas (asamkhya kalpas, countless great eons) to seek Bodhi? The answer is: ''Tathagata' means true suchness.' The reason why it was said above that there is no Dharma named attaining Bodhi is to clarify that at that time it was only a verbal prediction, and there had not yet been the realization that Dharma is true and thus named Bodhi, not that there is no Bodhi in principle. Now saying 'is true suchness' is to clarify that there actually is unconditioned Dharmakaya Bodhi, which is constant from ancient times to the present, its essence unchanging and undifferentiated, without the phenomena of arising, abiding, and ceasing, therefore it is named true suchness. It points out that this true suchness unconditioned Dharmakaya is the essence of Bodhi, because there is true Bodhi. It is clearly known that there are also Bodhisattvas, and there is also cultivation to attain Buddhahood, how can one slander that there has never been Bodhi, and no Bodhisattvas cultivate to realize the fruit and become Buddhas? However, although the answer now says that there is the essence of Bodhi, it is not yet the true answer, the great body metaphor below will provide a separate true answer. Continuing from this answer ''Tathagata' means true suchness,' another doubt arises: If it is said that true suchness Bodhi is truly existent, then this existence is like the existence of conditioned phenomena such as form in the world. Because this doubt arises, the answer is: 'If someone says the Tathagata has attained complete, unexcelled Enlightenment, that person does not speak the truth.' This clarifies that the essence of Dharmakaya Bodhi transcends all phenomena, it exists because of wondrous existence.

---

非是有為虛妄之有，那得聞有便取同色等萬相虛妄之有？既是妙有，謂同虛妄有者即是妄說，故言不實語也。下經即成何取此菩提同有為者是其不實語，以實無有法佛得三菩提故也。此中應引上菩薩證成此義。上實無有法名為菩薩者，明眾生五陰非實菩薩，而言此眾生五陰法中實不有一法名菩薩者，是不實語。今言實無有法如來得三菩提，明菩提之體無色等萬相可得，而言有得菩提者亦是虛妄。此明如菩薩，佛亦如是；以菩薩不實故，菩提亦不實也。或者聞言有菩提，便謂菩提同有為色等萬相可得，故答以不得菩薩。此明不得者，菩提之體無有為萬相一法可得，故言不得菩提，非謂理中無得，那得以菩提無有為萬相可得，難理中亦使不得也？乘實無有法佛得三菩提，覆生疑謗：若言實無有法佛得三菩提者，便一向無有得菩提人。既無得菩提者，故知亦無菩提可得也。故答言「須菩提！如來所得阿耨三菩提」，此佛引己所得菩提證成有得之義也。言「如來所得」者，明我親自修行逕三大阿僧祇，十地行滿證得菩提，何得謗言一向無有得菩提者也？於是中不實者，結成上實無有法佛得菩提，明菩提之體無色等萬相，而取同有為萬相可得者，此是不實也。「不妄語」者，結成前如來所得阿耨三菩提明菩提之體，雖無色等萬相

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：並非是有為法那種虛妄的存在，怎麼能聽到『有』就認為菩提與色等萬相那種虛妄的存在相同呢？既然是妙有，說它與虛妄有相同就是妄說，所以說是不實之語。下文的經文就成了：為何認為菩提與有為法相同，這是不實之語，因為實際上沒有一個法能讓佛陀證得三菩提。這裡應該引用上文菩薩來證明這個道理。上文說『實際上沒有一個法名為菩薩』，是說眾生的五陰不是真實的菩薩，如果說在這個眾生的五陰法中，實際上沒有一個法名為菩薩，這就是不實之語。現在說實際上沒有一個法能讓如來證得三菩提，是說菩提的本體沒有色等萬相可以獲得，如果說有能獲得菩提的人，這也是虛妄的。這說明如菩薩一樣，佛陀也是如此；因為菩薩不是真實的，所以菩提也不是真實的。或者有人聽到說有菩提，就認為菩提與有為法的色等萬相一樣可以獲得，所以回答說『不得菩薩』。這說明『不得』的意思是，菩提的本體沒有有為法的萬相一法可以獲得，所以說『不得菩提』，不是說在理體中沒有獲得，怎麼能因為菩提沒有有為法的萬相可以獲得，就認為在理體中也不能獲得呢？如果認為實際上沒有一個法能讓佛陀證得三菩提，就會產生懷疑和誹謗：如果說實際上沒有一個法能讓佛陀證得三菩提，那就完全沒有證得菩提的人了。既然沒有證得菩提的人，就知道也沒有菩提可以獲得了。所以回答說『須菩提！如來所得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）』，這是佛陀引用自己所證得的菩提來證明有獲得的道理。說『如來所得』，是說我親自修行經過三大阿僧祇劫（asamkhya kalpa，無數大劫），十地行圓滿證得菩提，怎麼能誹謗說完全沒有證得菩提的人呢？在這其中不真實的是，總結上文『實際上沒有一個法能讓佛陀證得菩提』，說明菩提的本體沒有色等萬相，而認為與有為法的萬相相同可以獲得，這是不真實的。『不妄語』，總結前文『如來所得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提』，說明菩提的本體雖然沒有色等萬相 可得

【English Translation】 English version: It is not the 'being' of conditioned phenomena, which is illusory. How can one, upon hearing 'being', immediately equate Bodhi with the illusory 'being' of forms and myriad phenomena? Since it is 'wonderful being', to say it is the same as illusory being is a false statement, hence an untrue word. The following sutra passage would then become: Why consider Bodhi to be the same as conditioned phenomena? This is an untrue word, because in reality, there is no dharma by which the Buddha attains Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment). Here, the previous statement about Bodhisattvas should be cited to prove this point. The previous statement, 'In reality, there is no dharma called a Bodhisattva,' clarifies that the five skandhas (skandhas, aggregates) of sentient beings are not true Bodhisattvas. To say that within the five skandhas of sentient beings, there is actually no dharma called a Bodhisattva, is an untrue word. Now, to say that in reality, there is no dharma by which the Tathagata (Tathagata, Thus Come One) attains Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, clarifies that the essence of Bodhi cannot be obtained through forms and myriad phenomena. To say that there is someone who attains Bodhi is also illusory. This illustrates that just as with Bodhisattvas, the Buddha is the same; because Bodhisattvas are not real, Bodhi is also not real. Perhaps someone, upon hearing that there is Bodhi, immediately thinks that Bodhi is the same as the conditioned phenomena of forms and myriad phenomena and can be obtained. Therefore, the answer is 'unattainable Bodhisattva'. This clarifies that 'unattainable' means that the essence of Bodhi cannot be obtained through any of the conditioned phenomena. Therefore, to say 'unattainable Bodhi' does not mean that there is no attainment in principle. How can one, because Bodhi cannot be obtained through conditioned phenomena, argue that it also cannot be obtained in principle? If one believes that in reality, there is no dharma by which the Buddha attains Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, doubts and slanders will arise: If one says that in reality, there is no dharma by which the Buddha attains Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, then there is absolutely no one who attains Bodhi. Since there is no one who attains Bodhi, it is known that there is also no Bodhi to be attained. Therefore, the answer is, 'Subhuti! The Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi attained by the Tathagata,' This is the Buddha citing his own attainment of Bodhi to prove the principle of attainment. To say 'attained by the Tathagata' means that I personally cultivated through three great asamkhya kalpas (asamkhya kalpa, countless eons), perfected the ten bhumis (bhumis, stages) and attained Bodhi. How can one slander that there is absolutely no one who attains Bodhi? The untruthful aspect in this is summarizing the previous statement, 'In reality, there is no dharma by which the Buddha attains Bodhi,' clarifying that the essence of Bodhi does not have forms and myriad phenomena, and to consider it the same as the conditioned phenomena that can be obtained is untrue. 'Not false speech' summarizes the previous statement, 'The Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi attained by the Tathagata,' clarifying that although the essence of Bodhi does not have forms and myriad phenomena, can be obtained.

---

可得，非不實有真如菩提萬德具足為如來所證，故云不妄語也。此雙結上有得、無得二種經文也。「是故如來說一切法皆是佛法」者，偏成上是故所得阿耨菩提理中不有妄得語義故，如來所說一切果頭萬德之法，皆是諸佛法身妙有之法。亦應言：是故如來說一切法非佛法，明色等有為萬相一切法，皆非果頭萬德一切法。以不作此說故，大眾乘如來說一切法皆是佛法，復更生疑：若言一切法皆是佛法者，而一切名濫，有有為一切、有無為一切，此二種一切可皆是佛法耶？若皆是佛法者，那得上言法身菩提無萬相可得，真如無為法中實有菩提也，故經答言「所言一切法一切法者，即非一切法」也。上「一切法」者，名有為一切法；下「一切法」者，是無為一切。「即非一切法」者，明上有為一切非無為一切，亦得言無為一切即非有為一切法。「是故名一切法」者，此句雙結二種一切法，是故名有為一切法、是故名無為一切法也。雖復一切名同，有為一切法體是虛妄，故非菩提；無為一切法體是真實，故是菩提。勿得以一切名同，便謂有為一切亦是果頭一切萬德佛法也。

「論曰：此中有疑」以下，論主先生起疑意，舉經來結，作兩偈釋此一段經。初偈釋經中「須菩提！于意云何至不實不妄語」也。「以後時授記」者

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此可知，並非不真實地存在著真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）菩提（Bodhi，覺悟），而是萬德（具備一切功德）具足，為如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）所證悟，所以說如來不說妄語。這總結了上文所說的『得』與『無得』兩種經文。『是故如來說一切法皆是佛法』，是爲了說明上文所得到的阿訍多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）的道理中，沒有虛妄獲得的含義。如來說的一切果地（證得佛果）的萬德之法，都是諸佛法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）妙有之法。也可以說：『是故如來說一切法非佛法』，說明色等有為（有生滅變化）的萬相一切法，都不是果地的萬德一切法。因為如果不這樣說，大眾就會誤以為如來說的一切法都是佛法，從而產生疑問：如果說一切法都是佛法，那麼『一切』這個名稱就太氾濫了，既有有為的一切，又有無為（無生滅變化）的一切，這兩種『一切』都可以是佛法嗎？如果都是佛法，那又怎麼能說，法身菩提沒有萬相可得，真如無為法中確實有菩提呢？所以經中回答說『所言一切法一切法者，即非一切法』。上文的『一切法』，指的是有為的一切法；下文的『一切法』，指的是無為的一切。『即非一切法』，說明有為的一切不是無為的一切，也可以說無為的一切不是有為的一切法。『是故名一切法』，這句話總結了兩種『一切法』，所以稱為有為的一切法，所以稱為無為的一切法。雖然都叫『一切』，但有為的一切法體是虛妄的，所以不是菩提；無為的一切法體是真實的，所以是菩提。不要因為都叫『一切』，就認為有為的一切也是果地的一切萬德佛法。 『論曰：此中有疑』以下，論主先生提出了疑問，引用經文來總結，並作了兩首偈頌來解釋這段經文。第一首偈頌解釋經中的『須菩提！于意云何至不實不妄語』。『以後時授記』指的是...

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it can be known that it is not that the Tathata (the true nature of things) Bodhi (enlightenment) does not exist truthfully, but that it is complete with all merits (possessing all virtues) and is realized by the Tathagata (the title of the Buddha), so it is said that the Tathagata does not lie. This summarizes the two types of scriptures mentioned above, 'attainment' and 'non-attainment'. 'Therefore, the Tathagata says that all dharmas are Buddha-dharmas' is to explain that in the principle of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled complete enlightenment) obtained above, there is no meaning of false attainment. All the dharmas of myriad virtues in the fruit stage (the stage of attaining Buddhahood) spoken by the Tathagata are the wonderful existence of the Dharmakaya (the Dharma-body of the Buddha) of all Buddhas. It can also be said: 'Therefore, the Tathagata says that all dharmas are not Buddha-dharmas,' indicating that all dharmas of the myriad appearances of conditioned (subject to birth and death) are not all the dharmas of the myriad virtues of the fruit stage. Because if it is not said in this way, the public will mistakenly think that all the dharmas spoken by the Tathagata are Buddha-dharmas, thus raising the question: If it is said that all dharmas are Buddha-dharmas, then the name 'all' is too broad, there are both conditioned 'all' and unconditioned (not subject to birth and death) 'all', can both of these 'all' be Buddha-dharmas? If they are all Buddha-dharmas, then how can it be said that the Dharmakaya Bodhi has no myriad appearances to be attained, and that there is indeed Bodhi in the Tathata unconditioned dharma? Therefore, the scripture answers, 'What is meant by all dharmas, all dharmas, is not all dharmas.' The 'all dharmas' mentioned above refers to all conditioned dharmas; the 'all dharmas' mentioned below refers to all unconditioned dharmas. 'Is not all dharmas' indicates that all conditioned is not all unconditioned, and it can also be said that all unconditioned is not all conditioned dharmas. 'Therefore, it is called all dharmas,' this sentence summarizes the two types of 'all dharmas', so it is called all conditioned dharmas, so it is called all unconditioned dharmas. Although they are both called 'all', the substance of all conditioned dharmas is false, so it is not Bodhi; the substance of all unconditioned dharmas is true, so it is Bodhi. Do not think that because they are both called 'all', all conditioned is also all the Buddha-dharmas of the myriad virtues of the fruit stage. 'The Treatise says: There is doubt here' below, the author of the treatise raises a question, quotes the scriptures to summarize, and composes two verses to explain this passage of scripture. The first verse explains 'Subhuti! What do you think of this, to not be untrue and not lie' in the scripture. 'To predict in the future' refers to...

---

，此還釋前斷疑經。作疑不異於上。若作正答，應雲實無有法得菩提者，明我于燃燈佛時未有所證故，云無法得菩提。既無所證菩提，成上亦無實證菩薩。言有菩薩者，要現得無生法忍出世間解，名真菩薩。今偈但答言「以後時授記」，義中已知實有菩薩。若無菩薩者，何得言后時授記？所以此中不正答者，以斯義勢未盡故拘瑣在下，以下經文中有正釋故。此因后時授記，以明於有也。「燃燈行非上」者，我於前燃燈佛時，在習種性中，未得初地無生法忍第一上行故，云燃燈行非上也。故上句云「以後時授記」，后性地中第二燃燈佛懸授初地、八地無生忍記。后三十心滿，復有第三燃燈佛與我授無生忍后時記。此謂道種之未初地之前，此燃燈佛與我授記，以驗知前燃燈佛邊未證無生三菩提現道記也。此上二句，釋「摩那婆！汝于來世作佛，號釋迦牟尼」以前經也。「菩提彼行等」者，經中先言眾生五陰非菩薩，后云色等有為非菩提。依此作偈，應言「彼行等菩提」，而言「菩提彼行」者，明證菩提者是實菩薩。既未證菩提，故知亦無明證菩薩。不實義同，反覆相成故也。又復一釋：應言「彼行隨等菩提」，但依闡陀論作偈法，用逐語便上下意也。此明如菩薩佛亦如是，故下句云「非實有為相」。此明以眾生五陰有為萬

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是《此還釋前斷疑經》。所提出的疑問與之前相似。如果給出正確的回答，應該說實際上沒有獲得菩提之法的人，這表明我在燃燈佛（Dipamkara Buddha）之時，並沒有任何證悟，所以說沒有法可以獲得菩提。既然沒有證悟菩提，那麼之前所說的實際證悟菩薩也是不存在的。所謂菩薩，必須顯現獲得無生法忍（Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti），證得出世間的解脫，才能稱為真正的菩薩。現在的偈頌只是回答說『以後時授記』，從意義上已經知道確實有菩薩。如果沒有菩薩，又怎麼能說以後時授記呢？所以這裡沒有正面回答，是因為這個意義還沒有完全表達，所以拘泥於下文，因為下面的經文中有正式的解釋。這是因為以後時授記，來表明確實有菩薩。『燃燈行非上』，是指我在之前的燃燈佛之時，處於習種性中，沒有獲得初地（Prathama-bhumi）的無生法忍，也就是第一上行，所以說燃燈行非上。所以上一句說『以後時授記』，在後性地中，第二位燃燈佛懸記我初地、八地（Achala-bhumi）的無生忍記。在三十心圓滿之後，又有第三位燃燈佛給我授無生忍的后時記。這是指在道種性未到初地之前，這位燃燈佛給我授記，以此驗證之前的燃燈佛那裡，我並沒有證得無生三菩提（Anutpattika-samyak-sambodhi）的現道記。以上兩句，解釋了『摩那婆（Manava）！汝于來世作佛，號釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni）』之前的經文。 『菩提彼行等』，經中先說眾生五陰（Skandha）不是菩薩，後來又說色等有為法不是菩提。依據這個來作偈，應該說『彼行隨等菩提』，而說『菩提彼行』，是表明證得菩提的人才是真正的菩薩。既然沒有證得菩提，就知道也沒有真正證得菩薩。不真實的意義相同，反覆互相印證。又有一種解釋：應該說『彼行隨等菩提』，只是依據闡陀論（Chandah）作偈的方法，用順著語句來表達上下的意義。這表明如菩薩一樣，佛也是如此，所以下一句說『非實有為相』。這表明以眾生五陰的有為萬法

【English Translation】 English version: This is the 'Sutra on Further Explanation for Resolving Doubts'. The doubts raised are similar to those before. If a correct answer were given, it should be said that there is actually no one who attains the Dharma of Bodhi, indicating that I had no realization at the time of Dipamkara Buddha (燃燈佛), so it is said that there is no Dharma to attain Bodhi. Since there is no realization of Bodhi, then the previous statement of actually realizing a Bodhisattva is also non-existent. A so-called Bodhisattva must manifest the attainment of Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti (無生法忍), realizing liberation from the world, to be called a true Bodhisattva. The current verse only answers 'predicted for a later time', from which it is already known that there is indeed a Bodhisattva. If there were no Bodhisattva, how could it be said that a prediction is made for a later time? The reason why it is not answered directly here is because this meaning has not been fully expressed, so it is confined to the following text, because there is a formal explanation in the following sutra text. This is because of the prediction for a later time, to indicate that there is indeed a Bodhisattva. 'Dipamkara's practice was not supreme' refers to the fact that at the time of the previous Dipamkara Buddha, I was in the stage of habitual nature, not having attained the Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti of the first ground (Prathama-bhumi 初地), which is the first supreme practice, so it is said that Dipamkara's practice was not supreme. Therefore, the previous sentence says 'predicted for a later time', in the later nature ground, the second Dipamkara Buddha predicted my Anutpattika-kshanti of the first ground and the eighth ground (Achala-bhumi 八地). After the thirty minds are completed, there is a third Dipamkara Buddha who gives me the prediction of Anutpattika-kshanti for a later time. This refers to the fact that before the seed nature of the path reaches the first ground, this Dipamkara Buddha predicted me, thereby verifying that in the previous Dipamkara Buddha's place, I did not realize the present path record of Anutpattika-samyak-sambodhi (無生三菩提). The above two sentences explain the previous sutra text 'Manava (摩那婆)! You will become a Buddha in the future, named Sakyamuni (釋迦牟尼)'. 'Bodhi, those practices, etc.', the sutra first says that the five skandhas (五陰) of sentient beings are not Bodhisattvas, and later says that conditioned dharmas such as form are not Bodhi. According to this to compose a verse, it should be said 'those practices follow and equal Bodhi', but saying 'Bodhi, those practices' indicates that the one who attains Bodhi is the true Bodhisattva. Since Bodhi has not been attained, it is known that there is also no true attainment of Bodhisattva. The meaning of untruth is the same, repeatedly confirming each other. Another explanation: it should be said 'those practices follow and equal Bodhi', but according to the method of composing verses in Chandah (闡陀論), using following the sentences to express the meaning of the upper and lower parts. This indicates that just like a Bodhisattva, a Buddha is also like that, so the next sentence says 'not truly conditioned characteristics'. This indicates that with the conditioned myriad dharmas of the five skandhas of sentient beings

---

相而得菩薩菩提者，此是虛妄，故云非實。何故非實？以取有為為實相故也。此後二句，釋「何以故」已下經也。此解直明菩薩菩提不可以有為相得，未明無為法中有實菩薩行，及菩提可得義中應作第二道義言「菩提彼行等，是實無為相」，以正偈俠故，更作第二偈。雖作第二偈，以經中未明有實菩薩故，但明有實菩提也。「此義云何至無有一法得菩提」，此釋偈中第二句也。「若我于彼佛所已證菩提，則后時諸佛不授我記」者，此釋偈中上句也。「是故我于彼時行未成佛故」者，還以上句結下第二句也。此中應解上句，何故先釋第二句者？但下句所釋經文在於前故，此長行論依經次第先解第二句也。「偈言」以下，釋竟雙引上半偈結也。「若無菩提，即無諸佛如來」等者，先作生疑謗意也。「如經」等者，舉釋疑經結，然後以論釋經也。「若有人言」以下，先舉經作問，以偈中第三句來答也。「此義云何」者，以此偈言「菩提彼行等」者此義意云何也。「彼菩薩行等」者，提彼前經中菩薩發菩提心行，釋偈中「彼行」也。「如是如來至此亦虛妄」者，提此經中「若人言如來得菩提不實語」釋偈中「菩提」也。「故言菩提彼行等」者，結句也。若有人取眾生五陰色等有為法以為菩薩菩提者，此是不實，故言等也。「若

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若以有相之法獲得菩薩的菩提（bodhi，覺悟），這是虛妄的，所以說『非實』。為什麼說『非實』呢？因為執取有為法作為實相的緣故。後面的兩句，是解釋『何以故』以下的經文。這個解釋只是直接說明菩薩的菩提不能以有為相獲得，沒有說明無為法中有真實的菩薩行，以及菩提可以獲得的意義。在其中應該作第二道義，說『菩提彼行等，是實無為相』，以糾正偈頌的不足，所以再作第二個偈頌。雖然作了第二個偈頌，因為經中沒有明確說明有真實的菩薩，所以只是說明有真實的菩提。『此義云何至無有一法得菩提』，這是解釋偈頌中的第二句。『若我于彼佛所已證菩提，則后時諸佛不授我記』，這是解釋偈頌中的上句。『是故我于彼時行未成佛故』，還是用上句來總結下句。這裡面應該先解釋上句，為什麼先解釋下句呢？只是因為下句所解釋的經文在前面，這個長行論是按照經文的次第先解釋下句。『偈言』以下，解釋完畢，雙雙引用上半個偈頌來總結。『若無菩提，即無諸佛如來』等等，先假設產生懷疑和誹謗的意念。『如經』等等，舉出解釋疑惑的經文來總結，然後用論來解釋經文。『若有人言』以下，先舉出經文作為提問，用偈頌中的第三句來回答。『此義云何』，這是說這個偈頌所說的『菩提彼行等』，這個意義是什麼呢？『彼菩薩行等』，是提煉前面經文中的菩薩發菩提心行，解釋偈頌中的『彼行』。『如是如來至此亦虛妄』，是提煉這個經文中的『若人言如來得菩提不實語』，解釋偈頌中的『菩提』。『故言菩提彼行等』，是總結句。如果有人執取眾生的五陰（skandha，構成個體的五種要素）色等有為法，作為菩薩的菩提，這是不真實的，所以說『等』。

【English Translation】 English version To obtain Bodhi (bodhi, enlightenment) of a Bodhisattva through forms, this is illusory, hence 'unreal'. Why 'unreal'? Because grasping at conditioned phenomena as the true nature. The following two sentences explain the sutra following 'Why is it so?'. This explanation directly states that a Bodhisattva's Bodhi cannot be obtained through conditioned forms, without clarifying that in unconditioned phenomena there is true Bodhisattva practice, and the meaning that Bodhi can be obtained. In this, a second meaning should be made, saying 'Bodhi, that practice, etc., is the true unconditioned nature', to correct the shortcomings of the verse, hence a second verse is made. Although a second verse is made, because the sutra does not explicitly state that there is a true Bodhisattva, it only states that there is true Bodhi. 'What is the meaning of this, up to no single dharma can attain Bodhi', this explains the second line in the verse. 'If I had already attained Bodhi at that Buddha's place, then later Buddhas would not have given me prediction', this explains the first line in the verse. 'Therefore, at that time, my practice had not yet become a Buddha', this still uses the first line to conclude the second line. In this, the first line should be explained first, why is the second line explained first? It is only because the sutra text explained by the second line is in front, this long commentary explains the second line first according to the order of the sutra. 'The verse says' below, the explanation is finished, both quoting the first half of the verse to conclude. 'If there is no Bodhi, then there are no Buddhas, Tathagatas' etc., first assuming the generation of doubt and slander. 'As the sutra' etc., citing the sutra that explains doubts to conclude, and then using the commentary to explain the sutra. 'If someone says' below, first citing the sutra as a question, using the third line in the verse to answer. 'What is the meaning of this', this is saying that the verse says 'Bodhi, that practice, etc.', what is the meaning of this? 'That Bodhisattva practice, etc.', is extracting the Bodhisattva's aspiration for Bodhi mind practice in the previous sutra, explaining 'that practice' in the verse. 'Thus, the Tathagata is also false here', is extracting 'If someone says the Tathagata attained Bodhi is untrue speech' in this sutra, explaining 'Bodhi' in the verse. 'Therefore, it is said Bodhi, that practice, etc.', is the concluding sentence. If someone grasps at the conditioned phenomena such as the five skandhas (skandha, the five aggregates that constitute an individual) of sentient beings as the Bodhi of a Bodhisattva, this is not true, hence 'etc.' is said.

---

如是有人謗言：如來不得菩提」者，此出疑謗之意也。為斷此疑，「如經」以下即釋，引疑經結也。「此義云何」者，設問。前言實無有法如來得菩提，此中復言如來所得阿耨三菩提，此言相反，其義云何也？即釋云「以如來得彼菩提故」，此句釋后經如來所得三菩提，明理而言之，如來實修行證得菩提也。若如來實得菩提，何故前言不得也？故即舉偈釋言「非實有為相故」。此句解前如來不得三菩提經也。「有為相者，謂五陰相」者，片出偈中有為相名也。「彼菩提法無色等相故」者，明菩提體無色等五陰相可得，故云非實有為相也。「此復云何」者，前偈下二句且解經中菩提無色等萬相故不可得，若取菩提同色等相者，此則非實；然猶未解實有真如菩提，亦未解有證菩提者。經文今將欲作第二偈以釋此義故，先設問生起云：若言菩提無色等相者，經云「言如來者即實真如」，又云「如來所得阿耨三菩提」，此義復云何也？故即以偈答「彼即非相相」。此第二偈釋經中「是故如來說一切法佛法」記經。「彼即非相相」。「彼」者，彼於法身菩提，非色等有為萬法相也。如是無有相者是無為法身決定萬德相也。「以不虛說故」者，明上法身菩提雖無有為萬相，而非不有真如無為萬德之相故，經云「如來所得阿耨三菩提

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果有人誹謗說：『如來沒有證得菩提（bó tí，覺悟）』，這表達了疑惑和誹謗的意思。爲了斷除這種疑惑，『如經』以下就開始解釋，引用疑惑的經典來總結。『此義云何』是設問。前面說實際上沒有法如來能夠證得菩提，這裡又說如來所證得的阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（ā nòu duō luō sān miǎo sān pú tí，無上正等正覺），這兩種說法相反，其中的含義是什麼呢？ 接著解釋說：『以如來得彼菩提故』，這句話解釋了後面經典中如來所證得的三菩提，從理上來說，如來確實通過修行證得了菩提。如果如來確實證得了菩提，為什麼前面又說沒有證得呢？所以就引用偈頌解釋說：『非實有為相故』。這句話解釋了前面如來沒有證得三菩提的經典。『有為相者，謂五陰相』，這是從偈頌中提取出有為相的名稱。『彼菩提法無色等相故』，說明菩提的本體沒有色等五陰（wǔ yīn，構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）之相可以獲得，所以說不是真實的有為相。 『此復云何』，前面的偈頌的后兩句只是解釋了經典中菩提沒有色等萬相所以不可得，如果執取菩提和色等相一樣，這就不是真實的；然而還沒有解釋真實存在的真如（zhēn rú，事物的本真如實的狀態）菩提，也沒有解釋有證得菩提的人。經文現在將要作第二個偈頌來解釋這個含義，所以先設問來引發：如果說菩提沒有色等相，經典中說『言如來者即實真如』，又說『如來所得阿耨三菩提』，這個含義又是什麼呢？所以就用偈頌回答『彼即非相相』。這第二個偈頌解釋經典中『是故如來說一切法佛法』的記載。『彼即非相相』。『彼』，指的是法身（fǎ shēn，佛的真身）菩提，不是色等有為萬法的相。像這樣沒有相，就是無為法身（wú wéi fǎ shēn，不依賴任何條件而存在的佛的真身）決定的萬德之相。『以不虛說故』，說明上面的法身菩提雖然沒有有為萬相，但並非沒有真如無為的萬德之相，所以經典中說『如來所得阿耨三菩提』。

【English Translation】 English version: If someone slanders, saying: 'The Tathagata (rú lái, 'Thus Come One', an epithet of the Buddha) has not attained Bodhi (bó tí, enlightenment),' this expresses doubt and slander. To dispel this doubt, the explanation begins from 'as the sutra says,' citing the sutra of doubt to conclude. 'What is the meaning of this?' is a question. Earlier it was said that in reality there is no Dharma (fǎ, law, teaching) by which the Tathagata can attain Bodhi, but here it is said that the Tathagata has attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (ā nòu duō luō sān miǎo sān pú tí, unsurpassed, complete and perfect enlightenment). These two statements contradict each other, so what is the meaning of this? Then it is explained: 'Because the Tathagata attained that Bodhi.' This sentence explains the three Bodhis attained by the Tathagata in the later sutra. Speaking from the perspective of principle, the Tathagata truly attained Bodhi through practice. If the Tathagata truly attained Bodhi, why was it said earlier that he did not attain it? Therefore, a gatha (偈頌，verse) is cited to explain: 'Because it is not a real conditioned appearance.' This sentence explains the earlier sutra that the Tathagata did not attain the three Bodhis. 'Conditioned appearance refers to the appearance of the five skandhas (wǔ yīn, the five aggregates that constitute individual existence, namely form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness),' extracting the name of conditioned appearance from the gatha. 'Because that Bodhi-dharma has no appearance of form, etc.,' indicating that the essence of Bodhi has no appearance of form, etc., of the five skandhas that can be obtained, so it is said that it is not a real conditioned appearance. 'What is this again?' The latter two lines of the previous gatha only explained that Bodhi in the sutra has no myriad appearances of form, etc., so it cannot be attained. If one clings to Bodhi as being the same as the appearance of form, etc., then this is not real. However, it has not yet explained the truly existing Suchness (zhēn rú, the true and real state of things) Bodhi, nor has it explained that there are those who attain Bodhi. The sutra is now about to compose a second gatha to explain this meaning, so it first poses a question to initiate it: If it is said that Bodhi has no appearance of form, etc., the sutra says 'The one called Tathagata is truly Suchness,' and also says 'The Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi attained by the Tathagata,' what is the meaning of this again? Therefore, it answers with the gatha 'That is the appearance of non-appearance.' This second gatha explains the record in the sutra 'Therefore, the Tathagata speaks of all Dharmas as Buddha-dharma.' 'That is the appearance of non-appearance.' 'That' refers to the Dharmakaya (fǎ shēn, the body of the Dharma, the true body of the Buddha) Bodhi, not the appearance of the myriad conditioned Dharmas of form, etc. Being without appearance in this way is the determined appearance of the myriad virtues of the unconditioned Dharmakaya (wú wéi fǎ shēn, the true body of the Buddha that exists independently of any conditions). 'Because it is not falsely spoken,' indicating that although the above Dharmakaya Bodhi has no conditioned myriad appearances, it is not without the appearance of the myriad virtues of true Suchness, so the sutra says 'The Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi attained by the Tathagata.'

---

」者非為妄說故，言以不虛說故也。又問：何故不虛說也？故下第三句云「是法諸佛法」。「是法」者，是無為一切法也。「諸佛法」者，是佛所證果頭無為法身萬德一切法相也。故第四句云「一切自體相」，明此萬德是真真如法身自體相，非是有為萬相所成也。「此義云何」以下至「以不虛說故」，解偈中初句竟，通以上半偈來結也。「是故如來說一切法佛法如是等」者，提結為問，云：如來說一切法佛法，此義云何也？故即答「以如來得如是法」，明如來躬自修行，證得如是果頭萬德一切法也。故復以下半偈來結釋已，然後先解第四句，后釋第三句也。「彼處色等相不住故」等，明菩提萬德一切法。所以唯以真如為體，不以色等為體者，以菩提體是真如無為故，但住持萬德一切法，不住持色等一切法，故以為體也。

「須菩提！譬如有人其身妙大」等，此斷疑分中第三經文。前喻明報身佛，今明法身佛。上已廣釋法身無萬相而是妙有，又次前經中兩句明法身菩提萬德圓滿，故有菩提可得。然疑者猶謂全無法身。何以故爾？若法身萬德滿足，應有萬相可見；若無萬相可見者，便應一向無法身，所以得知法身是無。前段經中，如來或言有菩提可得、或言無菩提可得。若法身定有者，應答我有得；若法身定無，應

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：'這並非是虛妄的說法，是因為言語不虛假。' 又問：'為什麼不虛假呢？' 所以下面第三句說：'是法諸佛法（這是指一切佛所證悟的真理）。' '是法'，指的是無為的一切法（超越生滅變化的永恒真理）。'諸佛法'，指的是佛所證悟的果位，即無為法身所具有的萬德（無量的功德）和一切法相（真理的各種顯現）。所以第四句說：'一切自體相（一切事物本來的、內在的相）'，說明這萬德是真如法身（不生不滅的真如所顯現的法身）的自體相，不是由有為的萬相（生滅變化的現象）所形成的。'此義云何（這是什麼意思）'以下直到'以不虛說故（因為所說不虛假）'，解釋偈中的第一句完畢，總括以上半偈來作總結。'是故如來說一切法佛法如是等（所以如來說一切法都是佛法，像這樣等等）'，提出總結作為提問，說：如來說一切法都是佛法，這又是什麼意思呢？所以就回答說：'以如來得如是法（因為如來證得了這樣的法）'，說明如來親自修行，證得了這樣的果位，具有萬德和一切法。所以又用下半偈來總結解釋完畢，然後先解釋第四句，后解釋第三句。'彼處色等相不住故（因為在那裡，色等現象不住留）'等等，說明菩提（覺悟）的萬德和一切法。之所以只以真如（事物的本性）為體，不以色等為體，是因為菩提的本體是真如無為的，只住持萬德和一切法，不住持色等一切法，所以以真如為體。

'須菩提（佛陀的弟子名）！譬如有人其身妙大（譬如有一個人，他的身體非常高大）'等等，這是斷疑分中的第三段經文。前面的比喻說明報身佛（爲了教化眾生而示現的佛身），現在說明法身佛（佛的真如法性身）。上面已經廣泛地解釋了法身沒有萬相，而是妙有（不可思議的存在），又在前面的經文中用兩句話說明法身菩提萬德圓滿，所以有菩提可以證得。然而懷疑的人仍然認為完全沒有法身。為什麼會這樣呢？如果法身萬德滿足，應該有萬相可見；如果沒有萬相可見，就應該完全沒有法身，所以認為法身是空無。前一段經文中，如來有時說有菩提可以證得，有時說沒有菩提可以證得。如果法身一定存在，應該回答說我有證得；如果法身一定不存在，應該

【English Translation】 English version: 'This is not a false statement, because the words are not untrue.' Again, it is asked: 'Why are they not untrue?' Therefore, the third line below says, 'This Dharma is the Dharma of all Buddhas.' 'This Dharma' refers to all unconditioned Dharmas (eternal truths beyond birth and death). 'The Dharma of all Buddhas' refers to the fruit attained by the Buddhas, which is the unconditioned Dharmakaya (Dharma body) possessing myriad virtues and all Dharma characteristics (various manifestations of truth). Therefore, the fourth line says, 'All self-nature characteristics,' clarifying that these myriad virtues are the self-nature characteristics of the true Suchness Dharmakaya (the Dharma body manifested by immutable Suchness), not formed by conditioned myriad phenomena. 'What is the meaning of this?' up to 'because the words are not untrue,' completes the explanation of the first line of the verse, summarizing the first half of the verse. 'Therefore, the Tathagata (another name for Buddha) says that all Dharmas are the Dharma of the Buddhas, and so on,' raises the conclusion as a question, saying: What does it mean that the Tathagata says all Dharmas are the Dharma of the Buddhas? Therefore, it is answered, 'Because the Tathagata has attained such Dharma,' clarifying that the Tathagata personally cultivated and attained such a fruit, possessing myriad virtues and all Dharmas. Therefore, the latter half of the verse is used to conclude the explanation, and then the fourth line is explained first, followed by the third line. 'Because in that place, characteristics such as form do not abide,' etc., explains the myriad virtues and all Dharmas of Bodhi (enlightenment). The reason why it only takes Suchness as its essence, and not form, etc., is because the essence of Bodhi is unconditioned Suchness, only sustaining myriad virtues and all Dharmas, not sustaining all Dharmas such as form, so it takes Suchness as its essence.

'Subhuti (name of Buddha's disciple)! Suppose there is someone whose body is wonderfully large,' etc., this is the third passage in the section on resolving doubts. The previous metaphor explained the Sambhogakaya Buddha (the reward body of the Buddha manifested to teach sentient beings), now explaining the Dharmakaya Buddha (the Dharma body of the Buddha's true nature). It has already been extensively explained above that the Dharmakaya has no myriad characteristics but is wonderfully existent, and in the previous sutra, two lines clarified that the Dharmakaya Bodhi is complete with myriad virtues, so there is Bodhi to be attained. However, those who doubt still believe that there is no Dharmakaya at all. Why is this so? If the Dharmakaya is complete with myriad virtues, there should be myriad characteristics visible; if there are no myriad characteristics visible, then there should be no Dharmakaya at all, so it is thought that the Dharmakaya is empty. In the previous passage, the Tathagata sometimes said that there is Bodhi to be attained, and sometimes said that there is no Bodhi to be attained. If the Dharmakaya certainly exists, it should be answered that I have attained it; if the Dharmakaya certainly does not exist, it should

---

答言無得。今答既不定，復不可見，故知法身是無也。有如此疑，故經答「譬如有人其身妙大」等也。答意明理而言之，菩提之體雖無萬相可得，然實有真如法身菩提可得，但不得定答。所以然者，明此法身乃是非有非無、妙有妙無中道之理。我若定答，汝等便生邪見，聞菩提是有，取同色等有為之有，則成常見；聞無，謂一向同於虛空兔角無體之無，則成斷見，故不得定答也。又此法身具足功德智慧二種莊嚴，體是妙有，故有法身可得；遠離二障，體非有為，故無法身可得。有此二義故，上不得定答，那得難言何故作此不定答也？為斷此疑故，引大身喻，明有法身體，不應言無法身也。此喻釋成前言「如來者即實真如」也。「譬如有人」者，如來引大身喻，喻法身人也。「其身妙大」者，如來自合喻。則法身體相圓滿、古今湛然，畢竟達離二障、具足二種莊嚴。「妙」者智慧莊嚴，「大」者功德莊嚴也。此其身妙大，成上章云「如來所得阿耨三菩提」，明實有無為法身菩提可得也。前二段經，明眾生五陰非實菩薩故，有為萬相亦非實菩提。此下二段經，明法身菩提是妙有故，菩薩無生忍行亦是實有也。上第五段中雲「不可以相成就見如來」者，明無為法身體無三相也。第六段中言「如來不得菩提亦不說法」者，此名

應化佛不得不說也。第七分山王大身喻中，謂報佛體無取相分別也。此中大身譬喻，亦明法身佛。此之三佛別相中論也。「須菩提言：世尊！如來說人身妙大則非大身」者，須菩提若不作此說，有二種失：一、不解如來意；二、不解無為法身，故作此說也。或者聞言法身是有，疑謂還同有為萬相之有，故釋云「則非大身」也。此明古今一定法身體，畢竟遠離二障，不同有為有漏萬相大身也。此兩句成上「實無有法如來得阿耨三菩提」，明色等有為法非實菩提體也。「是故如來說名大身」者，說名古今一定體無萬相妙有湛然真極法佛大身也，亦得「是故如來說名非大身」也。此一句雙結上「其身妙大即非妙大」二句經也。

此一段經以二偈釋。初偈作問答意釋疑。「依彼法身佛，故說大身喻」者，此出喻意，明與喻之來為顯法身故也。「身離一切障」者，明法身古今湛然自性，永無二障，非斷故方離也。「及遍一切境」者，明此法身體是妙有，復永絕二障，無障無礙故，能遍入一切有心眾生之境。然下長行論中，先釋功德及大體，後方釋及遍一切境。所以然者，要先有法身之體，然後障遍一切處，明有體故遍，故釋在後也。「功德及大體」者，此第二偈，正釋經中「其身妙大」。「功德」者，正釋經「大」字。「

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 應化佛（Nirmanakaya Buddha，為教化而示現的佛）不得不說。第七分《山王大身喻》中，說的是報佛（Sambhogakaya Buddha，證得功德的佛）之體沒有取相分別。這裡的大身譬喻，也是爲了說明法身佛（Dharmakaya Buddha，真理之身的佛）。這裡的三佛（Trikaya，佛的三身）是別相中的論述。「須菩提言：世尊！如來說人身妙大則非大身」這句話，須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）如果不這樣說，會有兩種過失：一、不理解如來的意思；二、不理解無為法身（Asamskrta-Dharmakaya，非造作的法身），所以才這樣說。或者有人聽到法身是有，懷疑它還和有為萬相之有相同，所以解釋說「則非大身」。這說明古今一定的法身體，畢竟遠離二障（two hindrances，煩惱障和所知障），不同於有為有漏萬相的大身。這兩句成就了前面所說的「實無有法如來得阿耨三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）」，說明色等有為法不是真實的菩提體。「是故如來說名大身」這句話，是說古今一定體無萬相妙有湛然真極法佛大身，也可以說「是故如來說名非大身」。這一句雙重總結了前面「其身妙大即非妙大」這兩句經文。

這一段經文用兩個偈頌來解釋。第一個偈頌以問答的方式來解釋疑惑。「依彼法身佛，故說大身喻」這句話，是說明譬喻的意義，說明用譬喻是爲了彰顯法身。「身離一切障」這句話，是說明法身古今湛然自性，永遠沒有二障，不是斷滅后才離開的。「及遍一切境」這句話，是說明這個法身體是妙有，又永遠斷絕二障，沒有障礙，所以能夠遍入一切有心眾生的境界。然而下面的長行論述中，先解釋功德和大體，然後才解釋「及遍一切境」。之所以這樣，是因為要先有法身之體，然後才能遍及一切處，說明因為有體才能遍及，所以解釋放在後面。「功德及大體」這句話，是第二個偈頌，正是解釋經文中的「其身妙大」。「功德」是解釋經文中的「大」字。

【English Translation】 English version The Nirmanakaya Buddha (Transformation Body Buddha) must be spoken of. In the seventh section, 'Parable of the Great Body of Mount Sumeru,' it refers to the Sambhogakaya Buddha (Reward Body Buddha) as having no distinguishing characteristics. The metaphor of the great body here also clarifies the Dharmakaya Buddha (Dharma Body Buddha). These three bodies (Trikaya, the three bodies of the Buddha) are discussed in terms of their distinct characteristics. 'Subhuti (Buddha's disciple) said: World Honored One! If the Tathagata (Thus Come One) speaks of the wonderful greatness of the human body, then it is not a great body.' If Subhuti had not said this, there would be two errors: first, not understanding the Tathagata's intention; second, not understanding the unconditioned Dharmakaya (Asamskrta-Dharmakaya, the unconditioned Dharma Body). Therefore, he made this statement. Or, someone hearing that the Dharmakaya exists might doubt that it is the same as the conditioned existence of myriad forms. Therefore, it is explained, 'then it is not a great body.' This clarifies that the Dharma Body, constant throughout time, is ultimately free from the two hindrances (two hindrances, afflictive and cognitive), unlike the conditioned and defiled great body of myriad forms. These two sentences complete the preceding statement, 'In reality, there is no Dharma by which the Tathagata attains Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment),' clarifying that conditioned Dharmas such as form are not the true body of Bodhi. 'Therefore, the Tathagata speaks of it as a great body' means speaking of the Dharma Body of the Buddha, which is constant throughout time, without myriad forms, wonderfully existent, serene, and truly ultimate. It can also be said, 'Therefore, the Tathagata speaks of it as not a great body.' This sentence doubly concludes the preceding two sentences of the sutra, 'Its body is wonderfully great, yet it is not wonderfully great.'

This section of the sutra is explained with two verses. The first verse explains doubts in the form of questions and answers. 'Relying on that Dharmakaya Buddha, therefore the metaphor of the great body is spoken' clarifies the meaning of the metaphor, explaining that the metaphor is used to reveal the Dharmakaya. 'The body is free from all hindrances' clarifies that the Dharmakaya is eternally serene in its nature, without the two hindrances, not freed by cutting them off. 'And pervades all realms' clarifies that this Dharma Body is wonderfully existent and eternally free from the two hindrances, without obstruction, and therefore able to pervade the realms of all sentient beings with minds. However, in the following prose commentary, the merits and the great substance are explained first, and then 'and pervades all realms' is explained. The reason for this is that there must first be the substance of the Dharmakaya, and then it can pervade all places, clarifying that it pervades because it has substance, so the explanation is placed later. 'Merits and the great substance' is the second verse, which directly explains 'Its body is wonderfully great' in the sutra. 'Merits' explains the word 'great' in the sutra.

---

及大體」者，正釋經「妙」字。「大」者功德莊嚴，「妙」者智慧莊嚴也。前列經先舉妙、后明大，此偈中先釋大、后解妙，此偈以語便故也。「故即說大身」者，以法身具二莊嚴，結作大身義也。「非身即是身」者，釋經「人身妙大則非大身」。「非身」者，明法身體無萬相，不同有為有漏之身，故言非身也。「即是身」者，明如是非有為身者即是真如，具二莊嚴妙有法身也。下長行論中故引此「非身即是身」，結成及遍一切境，明有相之身故不遍一切，無為法身體非形相，能遍一切故，以非身即是身成遍一切處也。「是故說非身」者，釋經中「是故如來說名大身」，以無為法身非有為身，故名非身，非謂無有無為法身，故言是故說非身也。

「此二偈說何義」等，論主欲作長行論釋偈故，先設問生起，然後解釋。「畢竟遠離煩惱障、智障，畢竟具足法身故」者，釋偈中第三句「身離一切障」。「此復云何」者，此畢竟遠離二障，具足法身義。復云何也？故釋有二種義：「一者遍一切處」者，明法身離二種障故，能遍一切有心之境，即見初偈第四句。「二者功德大」，明法身非但體離二障故遍，復以備二莊嚴萬德具足故，能遍於一切有心之境。「是故名大身」者，結作大身義故，即舉第二偈上句「功德及大體

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『及大體』，正是解釋經文中的『妙』字。『大』指的是功德莊嚴，『妙』指的是智慧莊嚴。前面列舉經文時先說『妙』，后說『大』，而這個偈頌中先解釋『大』，后解釋『妙』，這是因為偈頌的語言表達方便的緣故。『所以說大身』，因為法身具備兩種莊嚴，總結為大身的含義。『非身即是身』，解釋經文中的『人身妙大則非大身』。『非身』，說明法身體性沒有萬千表象，不同於有為有漏之身，所以說是『非身』。『即是身』，說明像這樣不是有為之身的就是真如，具備兩種莊嚴的妙有法身。下面的長行論中因此引用『非身即是身』，總結成就及遍一切境，說明有相之身不能遍及一切，無為法身體性沒有形相，能夠遍及一切，所以用『非身即是身』來成就遍一切處。『是故說非身』，解釋經文中的『是故如來說名大身』，因為無為法身不是有為之身，所以稱為『非身』，並非說沒有無為法身，所以說是『是故說非身』。

『這兩首偈頌說明什麼含義』等等，論主想要作長行論來解釋偈頌，所以先提出問題引發思考，然後進行解釋。『畢竟遠離煩惱障、智障，畢竟具足法身』，解釋偈頌中的第三句『身離一切障』。『這是什麼意思』，這是說畢竟遠離兩種障礙，具足法身的含義。又是什麼意思呢？所以解釋有兩種含義：『一是遍一切處』，說明法身遠離兩種障礙，所以能夠遍及一切有心之境，也就是見到第一首偈頌的第四句。『二是功德大』，說明法身不僅本體遠離兩種障礙而能周遍，而且具備兩種莊嚴，萬德具足，所以能夠遍及一切有心之境。『是故名大身』，總結為大身的含義，也就是舉出第二首偈頌的上句『功德及大體』（Gunakaya）。

【English Translation】 English version: 『And the Great Essence』 precisely explains the word 『Wonderful』 in the sutra. 『Great』 refers to the adornment of merit, and 『Wonderful』 refers to the adornment of wisdom. The previous listing of the sutra first mentioned 『Wonderful』 and then 『Great,』 while this verse first explains 『Great』 and then 『Wonderful.』 This is because the language of the verse is convenient. 『Therefore, it is said to be the Great Body』 because the Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma Body) possesses two adornments, concluding the meaning of the Great Body. 『Not-Body is precisely Body』 explains the sutra』s 『The wonderful and great human body is not the Great Body.』 『Not-Body』 clarifies that the Dharmakaya』s nature does not have myriad forms, unlike the conditioned and defiled body, so it is called 『Not-Body.』 『Is precisely Body』 clarifies that what is not a conditioned body like this is precisely Suchness (真如, True Thusness), possessing the wonderful Dharmakaya with two adornments. Therefore, the long commentary below quotes 『Not-Body is precisely Body』 to conclude the accomplishment and pervasiveness of all realms, explaining that the body with form cannot pervade all, while the nature of the unconditioned Dharmakaya has no form and can pervade all. Thus, 『Not-Body is precisely Body』 achieves pervasiveness in all places. 『Therefore, it is said to be Not-Body』 explains the sutra』s 『Therefore, the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) calls it the Great Body,』 because the unconditioned Dharmakaya is not a conditioned body, so it is called 『Not-Body,』 not meaning that there is no unconditioned Dharmakaya, so it is said, 『Therefore, it is said to be Not-Body.』

『What meaning do these two verses convey?』 etc. The commentator wants to write a long commentary to explain the verses, so he first raises a question to provoke thought and then explains it. 『Ultimately being apart from the obstacles of afflictions and the obstacles of wisdom, ultimately possessing the Dharmakaya』 explains the third line of the verse, 『The body is apart from all obstacles.』 『What does this mean?』 This means ultimately being apart from the two obstacles and possessing the meaning of the Dharmakaya. What does it mean again? Therefore, the explanation has two meanings: 『First, pervading all places』 clarifies that the Dharmakaya is apart from the two obstacles, so it can pervade all realms of mind, which is seeing the fourth line of the first verse. 『Second, the merit is great』 clarifies that the Dharmakaya not only pervades because its essence is apart from the two obstacles, but also because it possesses two adornments and is complete with myriad virtues, so it can pervade all realms of mind. 『Therefore, it is called the Great Body』 concludes the meaning of the Great Body, which is raising the upper line of the second verse, 『Merit and the Great Essence』 (Gunakaya).

---

」來成也。「遍一切處者，真如一切法不差別故」者，此解一切處義，明就行者而言，則有諸佛菩薩及以眾生三時之異；論真如法身，其體滿足、古今平等，無有差別也。自此以前，釋初一偈半經中「其身妙大」也。偈言「非身即是身，是故說非身」者，明此半偈義有拘瑣釋上之義，復欲乘釋經偈，故舉此半偈成上以釋經結也。「此說何義」者，方次第解釋也。

「佛言：須菩提！菩薩亦如是」等，此一段經，是斷疑分中第四經文。所以來者，此有疑故也。云何疑？上言實無有法名為菩薩；若無菩薩，則亦無修行得菩提者；又若無修行得菩提者，則亦無人教化眾生、亦無眾生入涅槃；若言我莊嚴佛土非菩薩者，則亦無依報凈土。若此等四法皆是無者，何故諸菩薩發心、度眾生修凈土行、求無上菩提？有如此疑。依如上釋，此疑應已遣，但或者偏執以興難也。故經答「菩薩亦如是」等。答意云：上言無菩薩等者，據眾生五陰有為法中無也，非謂理中亦無。然非不實有菩薩會無生理修行得佛菩提，既有諸佛證果之人，然諸佛菩薩本不獨善，復化物同得故，發心修行、度眾生令入涅槃、修凈土行，但知不離真如法界外有為法中別有實菩薩是能度者、有實眾生是可度者、有真凈土可修故。下經言「通達無我無我法者是名

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『來成也』。『遍一切處者，真如一切法不差別故』，這句話解釋了一切處的含義，如果從修行者的角度來說，就有諸佛菩薩以及眾生三時的不同；如果從真如法身來說，它的本體是圓滿具足、古今平等的，沒有差別。從這裡往前，解釋了前面一偈半經文中的『其身妙大』。偈語說『非身即是身，是故說非身』，說明這半偈的意思，一方面是總結解釋上面的經文，另一方面是想借此來解釋經中的偈語，所以引用這半偈來總結上面的解釋。『此說何義』，是開始按順序解釋。 『佛言：須菩提！菩薩亦如是』等等，這一段經文，是斷疑部分中的第四段經文。之所以這樣說，是因為這裡有疑問。什麼疑問呢？前面說實際上沒有一種法叫做菩薩；如果沒有菩薩，那麼也就沒有修行而證得菩提的人；又如果沒有修行而證得菩提的人，那麼也就沒有人教化眾生，也沒有眾生進入涅槃；如果說我莊嚴佛土不是菩薩所為，那麼也就沒有依報凈土。如果這四種法都是沒有的，為什麼諸菩薩還要發心、度化眾生、修凈土行、求無上菩提呢？有這樣的疑問。按照上面的解釋，這個疑問應該已經消除了，但或許有人偏執而提出疑問。所以經文回答說『菩薩亦如是』等等。回答的意思是：前面說沒有菩薩等等，是從眾生五陰有為法的角度來說沒有，不是說在理體上也沒有。然而並非沒有真實的菩薩會通過修行而證得佛菩提，既然有諸佛證果之人，那麼諸佛菩薩本來就不只是自己得到好處，還要使眾生也一同得到，所以發心修行、度化眾生令其進入涅槃、修凈土行，只是要知道不要在真如法界之外，認為在有為法中另外有真實的菩薩是能度化眾生的，有真實的眾生是可被度化的，有真實的凈土是可以修行的。下面的經文說『通達無我無我法者是名』

【English Translation】 English version: 『Lai cheng ye.』 『Bian yi qie chu zhe, zhen ru yi qie fa bu cha bie gu』 (The one who pervades all places, because the true suchness is not different from all dharmas), this explains the meaning of 『all places』. If speaking from the perspective of the practitioner, there are differences between Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and sentient beings in the three times; if speaking from the perspective of the true suchness Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya: the body of the Dharma, the ultimate reality), its essence is complete and perfect, equal in ancient and modern times, without any difference. From here onwards, it explains 『qi shen miao da』 (whose body is wonderfully great) in the previous one and a half verses of the sutra. The verse says 『fei shen ji shi shen, shi gu shuo fei shen』 (non-body is precisely body, therefore it is said to be non-body), indicating that the meaning of this half-verse, on one hand, summarizes and explains the above sutra text, and on the other hand, intends to use this to explain the verses in the sutra, so it quotes this half-verse to summarize the above explanation. 『Ci shuo he yi』 (What does this say?), is to begin explaining in sequence. 『The Buddha said: Subhuti! Bodhisattvas are also like this』 etc., this section of the sutra is the fourth section of text in the 『resolving doubts』 section. The reason for this is that there is doubt here. What doubt? It was said earlier that there is actually no dharma called Bodhisattva; if there is no Bodhisattva, then there is also no one who cultivates and attains Bodhi (Bodhi: enlightenment); and if there is no one who cultivates and attains Bodhi, then there is also no one to teach sentient beings, and no sentient beings enter Nirvana (Nirvana: liberation); if it is said that my adornment of the Buddha-land is not done by Bodhisattvas, then there is also no dependent pure land. If these four dharmas are all non-existent, why do all Bodhisattvas still generate the aspiration, liberate sentient beings, cultivate pure land practices, and seek unsurpassed Bodhi? There is such a doubt. According to the above explanation, this doubt should have been dispelled, but perhaps some are stubbornly raising difficulties. Therefore, the sutra answers 『Bodhisattvas are also like this』 etc. The meaning of the answer is: the previous statement that there are no Bodhisattvas etc., is from the perspective of the five skandhas (skandhas: aggregates of existence) of sentient beings in conditioned dharmas, not that there is none in principle. However, it is not that there are no real Bodhisattvas who will attain Buddha Bodhi through cultivation, since there are those who have attained the fruit of Buddhahood, then the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas originally do not only benefit themselves, but also transform sentient beings to attain it together, so they generate the aspiration, cultivate, liberate sentient beings to enter Nirvana, and cultivate pure land practices, but know not to think that outside the true suchness Dharmadhatu (Dharmadhatu: the realm of reality), there are separate real Bodhisattvas in conditioned dharmas who are able to liberate sentient beings, there are real sentient beings who can be liberated, and there are real pure lands that can be cultivated. The following sutra says 『tong da wu wo wu wo fa zhe shi ming』 (those who understand no-self and the dharma of no-self are called』

---

菩薩」；上言無者，道眾生五陰有為法中無實菩薩。若爾，非一向無菩薩，那得聞言實無有法名為菩薩，便全無菩薩？為斷此疑，故次明也。

「佛言：菩薩亦如是」者，上辨如菩薩，佛亦復如是；此明如佛，菩薩亦如是。云何亦如是？即此斷疑分第一段中，明實無有法名為菩薩。次第二段中，明實無有法如來得菩提。此二段經，先明眾生五陰有為虛妄法，非實菩薩故；次明若謂菩提同有為萬相可得者，是不實說故。上論偈言「菩提彼行等」，此即是如菩薩佛亦復如是也。又次前段經，明有為萬相非是菩提，而真如無為萬德之法是實菩提。此段明眾生五陰有為虛妄非實菩薩，然非不有會真如無生理者是真菩薩。此二段經，明理中實有、菩提是可證，故亦有菩薩實證之人，此明如佛菩薩亦如是。今言亦如是如者，明有為虛妄非菩薩，會無生忍者是真菩薩，義同有為萬相非實菩提，真如無為是實菩提相故，言菩薩亦如是。前二段經，但就菩薩菩提不實義同故，言亦如是。此二段，並明菩薩菩提實義邊同亦如是，不實義同亦如是也。「若作是言：我當滅度無量眾生。則非菩薩」者，明若作心謂離真如法界外別有行者，發菩提心、修諸波羅蜜行、以慈悲四無量四攝等法教化眾生令得涅槃，是真菩薩者，此未會平等，非是

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『菩薩』（Bodhisattva）：前面說『無』，是指眾生五陰（Skandha）有為法（conditioned dharmas）中沒有真實的菩薩。如果這樣，並非完全沒有菩薩，怎麼能因為聽到『實際上沒有一種法叫做菩薩』，就認為完全沒有菩薩呢？爲了消除這種疑惑，所以接下來進行說明。 『佛說：菩薩也是這樣』，前面辨明如同菩薩一樣，佛也是這樣；這裡說明如同佛一樣，菩薩也是這樣。怎樣也是這樣呢？就是在這段斷疑分的第一段中，說明實際上沒有一種法叫做菩薩。其次在第二段中，說明實際上沒有一種法如來（Tathagata）能證得菩提（Bodhi）。這兩段經文，先說明眾生五陰有為虛妄法，不是真實的菩薩；其次說明如果認為菩提和有為萬相一樣可以得到，這是不真實的說法。前面論偈說『菩提彼行等』，這就是如同菩薩佛也是這樣。又其次前面一段經文，說明有為萬相不是菩提，而真如（Tathata）無為萬德之法才是真實的菩提。這段說明眾生五陰有為虛妄不是真實的菩薩，然而並非沒有證會真如無生理者，這才是真菩薩。這兩段經文，說明理中實際存在、菩提是可以證得的，所以也有菩薩實際證得之人，這說明如同佛一樣菩薩也是這樣。現在說『也是這樣』，是說明有為虛妄不是菩薩，證會無生忍（Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti）者才是真菩薩，意義等同於有為萬相不是真實的菩提，真如無為才是真實的菩提相，所以說菩薩也是這樣。前面兩段經文，只是就菩薩菩提不真實的意義相同，所以說『也是這樣』。這兩段，並說明菩薩菩提真實意義方面相同，也說『也是這樣』，不真實的意義相同也說『也是這樣』。『如果這樣說：我應當滅度無量眾生。那就不是菩薩』，說明如果作意認為在真如法界（Dharmadhatu）之外另有修行者，發起菩提心、修諸波羅蜜（Paramita）行、以慈悲四無量（Four Immeasurables）、四攝（Four Embracing Dharmas）等法教化眾生令得涅槃（Nirvana），是真菩薩，這是沒有證會平等，不是。

【English Translation】 English version 'Bodhisattva' (Bodhisattva): The previous statement of 'non-existence' refers to the absence of a real Bodhisattva within the conditioned dharmas (Skandha) of sentient beings. If that were the case, it wouldn't mean there are absolutely no Bodhisattvas. How could one conclude that there are no Bodhisattvas at all simply upon hearing that 'there is actually no dharma called Bodhisattva'? To dispel this doubt, the following explanation is provided. 『The Buddha said: Bodhisattvas are also like this.』 The previous section clarified that just as with Bodhisattvas, the Buddha is also like that; this section clarifies that just as with the Buddha, Bodhisattvas are also like that. How are they also like that? It is in the first part of this section on resolving doubts, which clarifies that there is actually no dharma called Bodhisattva. Secondly, in the second part, it clarifies that there is actually no dharma by which the Tathagata attains Bodhi. These two sections of scripture first explain that the conditioned and illusory dharmas of the Skandha of sentient beings are not real Bodhisattvas; secondly, they explain that if one thinks Bodhi is the same as the conditioned myriad phenomena and can be attained, that is an untrue statement. The previous verse stated 'Bodhi, their practice, etc.,' which is like saying that just as with Bodhisattvas, the Buddha is also like that. Furthermore, the previous section of scripture clarified that the conditioned myriad phenomena are not Bodhi, but the dharma of True Suchness (Tathata), unconditioned and with myriad virtues, is the real Bodhi. This section explains that the conditioned and illusory Skandha of sentient beings are not real Bodhisattvas, yet it is not that there are none who realize True Suchness and the non-arising principle; these are the true Bodhisattvas. These two sections of scripture clarify that in principle, there is actual existence, and Bodhi can be attained, so there are also people who actually attain Bodhisattvahood; this clarifies that just as with the Buddha, Bodhisattvas are also like that. Now, saying 'also like that' clarifies that conditioned illusion is not a Bodhisattva, but one who realizes the non-arising forbearance (Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti) is a true Bodhisattva, which is equivalent in meaning to the conditioned myriad phenomena not being real Bodhi, while True Suchness and non-being are the real aspect of Bodhi, hence the saying that Bodhisattvas are also like that. The previous two sections of scripture only addressed the shared meaning of the unreal nature of Bodhisattvas and Bodhi, hence the saying 'also like that.' These two sections, together, clarify that the real meaning of Bodhisattvas and Bodhi is the same, hence the saying 'also like that,' and the unreal meaning is also the same, hence the saying 'also like that.' 'If one says: I shall liberate countless sentient beings. Then that is not a Bodhisattva,' which clarifies that if one intentionally thinks that there are practitioners separate from the True Suchness Dharmadhatu, who arouse the Bodhi mind, cultivate the Paramitas, and use the Four Immeasurables of loving-kindness and compassion, the Four Embracing Dharmas, etc., to teach sentient beings to attain Nirvana, that is a true Bodhisattva, this is not realizing equality, and is not.

---

初地以上解真如平等菩薩也。「佛言：須菩提！頗有實法名為菩薩」者，因前經，乘更生疑：若發心修行、教化眾生非真菩薩者，還同前疑，正眾生五陰是實菩薩。有如此疑，故佛問須菩提：眾生五陰有為法中頗有一法是實名為菩薩不？故須菩提答「不也。世尊！實無有法名為菩薩」。此答意明眾生五陰有為之法，本來空寂，無有一法是實可名菩薩故，不應取眾生五陰以為真實菩薩也。「一切法無眾生、無人、無壽者」等，引佛語為證也。此就因緣法空中以解無菩薩，明有為法中本來空寂，無有一法是實可名菩薩是能度者，故亦知無實眾生是可度者也。所以經中但言無眾生等三，不言無我者，以此經始未明真如之我。若言無我，恐眾生謂佛性真我亦無，故不言無我，以名相濫故也。

「須菩提！若菩薩作是言：我莊嚴佛國土。至是名莊嚴佛國土」，此明若起心分別，謂異於真法界外別有出世莊嚴凈土，為無漏勝因所得是真實者，不名解真如平等菩薩也。所以重言莊嚴者，明修行因緣顯真如法性有真莊嚴凈土用，非謂異法性別有為波羅蜜行所得莊嚴凈土，故重莊嚴。「是名莊嚴」者，即是第一義諦莊嚴也。此一段經明有實菩薩，何故乃云作是言我度眾生、我莊嚴凈土者非真菩薩也？為明舉非以形是，故重牒來也。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 初地以上的菩薩理解真如的平等性。「佛說：須菩提！難道有什麼實在的法可以稱為菩薩嗎？」這是因為前面的經文，使聽者更加產生懷疑：如果發心修行、教化眾生不是真正的菩薩，那麼就和之前的疑惑一樣，認為眾生的五陰才是真實的菩薩。因為有這樣的疑惑，所以佛問須菩提：眾生的五陰這些有為法中，難道有一法可以真實地稱為菩薩嗎？所以須菩提回答說：「不是的，世尊！實在沒有一種法可以稱為菩薩」。這個回答的意思是說，眾生的五陰這些有為之法，本來就是空寂的，沒有一種法可以真實地稱為菩薩，所以不應該把眾生的五陰當作真實的菩薩。「一切法無眾生、無人、無壽者」等等，是引用佛的話來作為證明。這是就因緣法空的層面來解釋沒有菩薩，說明有為法中本來就是空寂的，沒有一種法可以真實地稱為菩薩，是能度化眾生的人，所以也應該知道沒有真實的眾生是可以被度化的。所以經文中只說沒有眾生等三種，而不說沒有我，是因為這部經開始時還沒有明確說明真如之我。如果說沒有我，恐怕眾生會認為佛性的真我也就沒有了，所以不說沒有我，因為名相容易混淆。

「須菩提！如果菩薩這樣說：我莊嚴佛國土。到這才是名為莊嚴佛國土」，這是說明如果生起分別心，認為在真法界之外另有出世的莊嚴凈土，是無漏殊勝的因所得到的，是真實存在的，那麼就不能稱為理解真如平等性的菩薩。所以重複說莊嚴，是說明修行因緣顯現真如法性，有真實的莊嚴凈土的作用，而不是說另外有一種法，是和真如法性不同的，是有為的波羅蜜行所得到的莊嚴凈土，所以重複說莊嚴。「是名莊嚴」的意思，就是第一義諦的莊嚴。這一段經文說明有真實的菩薩，為什麼又說如果說我度眾生、我莊嚴凈土就不是真正的菩薩呢？是爲了說明舉出否定的一面是爲了襯托肯定的一面，所以重複說明。

【English Translation】 English version Bodhisattvas above the first ground understand the equality of Suchness (真如, Zhenru). 'The Buddha said: Subhuti (須菩提)! Is there any real dharma (法) called a Bodhisattva?' This is because the previous sutra caused further doubt: if the aspiration to cultivate and teach sentient beings is not a true Bodhisattva, then it is the same as the previous doubt, that the five skandhas (五陰) of sentient beings are the real Bodhisattva. Because of this doubt, the Buddha asked Subhuti: Among the conditioned dharmas (有為法) of the five skandhas of sentient beings, is there any dharma that can truly be called a Bodhisattva? Therefore, Subhuti answered, 'No, World Honored One (世尊)! There is truly no dharma called a Bodhisattva.' The meaning of this answer is that the conditioned dharmas of the five skandhas of sentient beings are originally empty and still, and there is no dharma that can truly be called a Bodhisattva. Therefore, one should not take the five skandhas of sentient beings as a real Bodhisattva. 'All dharmas are without sentient beings, without people, without lifespan' etc., are cited from the Buddha's words as proof. This explains the absence of a Bodhisattva from the perspective of the emptiness of conditioned dharmas, clarifying that the conditioned dharmas are originally empty and still, and there is no dharma that can truly be called a Bodhisattva, who is the one who can liberate sentient beings. Therefore, one should also know that there are no real sentient beings who can be liberated. The reason why the sutra only mentions the absence of sentient beings, etc., but not the absence of self, is because this sutra has not yet clearly explained the true self of Suchness. If it were said that there is no self, sentient beings might think that the true self of Buddha-nature (佛性) would also be absent, so it is not said that there is no self, because the names and concepts are easily confused.

'Subhuti! If a Bodhisattva says: I adorn the Buddha-land (佛國土). This is called adorning the Buddha-land,' this clarifies that if one gives rise to a discriminating mind, thinking that there is a separate Pure Land (凈土) of adornment beyond the true Dharma-realm (真法界), which is obtained by the unconditioned (無漏) superior cause and is real, then one cannot be called a Bodhisattva who understands the equality of Suchness. The repetition of 'adornment' clarifies that the conditions of cultivation manifest the Dharma-nature (法性) of Suchness, and there is the function of a true adorned Pure Land, not that there is another dharma, different from the Dharma-nature of Suchness, which is the adorned Pure Land obtained by the conditioned Paramita (波羅蜜) practice. 'This is called adornment' means the adornment of the first principle (第一義諦). This section of the sutra clarifies that there are real Bodhisattvas, so why does it say that if one says 'I liberate sentient beings, I adorn the Pure Land' then one is not a true Bodhisattva? It is to clarify that the mention of the negative is to highlight the positive, so it is repeated.

---

更有一意：明眾生、菩薩、佛、凈土此四，雖名用有異，而同一法界中名。若不會真法界者，謂此四法離真法界別體相異故，不名真菩薩。若會真如平等之解者，知此法雖時異用別，語其所歸，無有異相離於真法界條然有也。故《勝鬘經》云「依如來藏建立一切法」，又如《不增不減經》中明，就佛性法身體上有眾生菩薩佛。故知凡聖雖殊而同依佛性。若同一法界，所以有斯四法差別者，明未修行不斷惑者名為眾生；修行之中分別斷惑者或為菩薩；全修行滿足除二惑永盡故名為佛也；既得圓報法身，必有所依之土，即此圓報法有上品世間依報用異，故有凈土。此明佛與凈土二法體一，就用異也。

有人生疑：若起如此心非菩薩者，起何等心名真菩薩？故答「須菩提！若菩薩通達無我無我法者，名為真是菩薩菩薩」者，解意上來明未得二無我解者不名為真實菩薩，遙指正答在此。今言通達無我無我法，正出解二無我法者名真菩薩也。「無我無我法」者，有二種無我：一、人無我，二、法無我。人無我者，解眾生五陰中從本以來無定實神我及眾生等，故曰人無我也。法無我有二種：一、觀因緣法體本來空寂；二、觀佛性法體無萬相故空。若能通達三空二無我者是真菩薩，故曰通達無我無我法也。所以重言菩薩菩薩者

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 還有一種觀點：眾生（Sattvas）、菩薩（Bodhisattvas）、佛（Buddhas）、凈土（Pure Land）這四者，雖然名稱和作用有所不同，但都是同一法界（Dharmadhatu）中的名稱。如果不能領會真正的法界，認為這四法脫離了真法界，有各自不同的體相，就不能稱為真菩薩。如果領會了真如（Tathata）平等的道理，就會知道這四法雖然在時間和作用上有所不同，但說到它們的歸宿，並沒有不同的相狀，不會脫離真法界而獨立存在。《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）說：『依如來藏（Tathāgatagarbha）建立一切法。』又如《不增不減經》（Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa Sūtra）中闡明，就佛性（Buddha-nature）法身體上來說，有眾生、菩薩、佛。因此可知，凡夫和聖人雖然不同，但都依于佛性。如果同屬於一個法界，為什麼會有這四法的差別呢？這是因為，沒有修行、沒有斷除迷惑的稱為眾生；修行之中，分別斷除迷惑的，或許稱為菩薩；完全修行圓滿，除盡兩種迷惑的，就稱為佛；既然得到圓滿的報身（Sambhogakāya），必定有所依止的國土，這就是圓滿報法中有上品世間依報的作用不同，所以有凈土。這說明佛與凈土二者本體是一樣的，只是作用不同。

有人產生疑問：如果生起這樣的心念就不是菩薩，那麼生起什麼樣的心念才稱為真菩薩呢？所以回答說：『須菩提（Subhuti）！如果菩薩通達無我（Anatta）和無我法（Anatta-dhamma），就稱為真是菩薩。』這句話的意思是說，上面已經說明沒有得到二無我解的人，不能稱為真實的菩薩，這裡遙相呼應，正面回答了這個問題。現在說通達無我和無我法，正是說領悟了二無我法的人，才稱為真菩薩。『無我無我法』，有兩種無我：一、人無我（Pudgala-nairātmya），二、法無我（Dharma-nairātmya）。人無我，是瞭解眾生的五陰（Skandha）中，從根本上來說沒有恒定實在的神我以及眾生等等，所以叫做人無我。法無我有兩種：一、觀察因緣法（Pratītyasamutpāda）的體性本來就是空寂的；二、觀察佛性法的體性沒有萬象，所以是空。如果能夠通達三空（三解脫門）和二無我，就是真菩薩，所以說通達無我和無我法。之所以重複說菩薩菩薩，是因為...

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, there is another view: sentient beings (Sattvas), Bodhisattvas, Buddhas, and Pure Lands, although different in name and function, are all names within the same Dharmadhatu (法界, realm of reality). If one does not understand the true Dharmadhatu, thinking that these four dharmas are separate from the true Dharmadhatu and have different entities and characteristics, then one cannot be called a true Bodhisattva. If one understands the principle of equality of Suchness (真如, Tathata), one will know that although these dharmas differ in time and function, when it comes to their ultimate destination, there is no different appearance, and they do not exist separately from the true Dharmadhatu. Therefore, the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (勝鬘經) says, 'All dharmas are established based on the Tathāgatagarbha (如來藏, Buddha-nature).' Also, as explained in the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa Sūtra (不增不減經), regarding the Dharma body of Buddha-nature (佛性), there are sentient beings, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas. Therefore, it is known that although ordinary beings and sages are different, they all rely on Buddha-nature. If they all belong to the same Dharmadhatu, why are there differences among these four dharmas? This is because those who have not cultivated and have not severed delusions are called sentient beings; those who are in the process of cultivation and are separately severing delusions may be called Bodhisattvas; those who have fully completed cultivation and have completely removed the two delusions are called Buddhas; since they have obtained the perfect Sambhogakāya (圓報法身, enjoyment body), they must have a land to rely on, which is the different function of the superior world's dependent reward in the perfect reward Dharma, so there are Pure Lands. This explains that the Buddha and the Pure Land are one in essence, but different in function.

Some may have doubts: if having such a thought is not a Bodhisattva, then what kind of thought is called a true Bodhisattva? Therefore, the answer is: 'Subhuti (須菩提)! If a Bodhisattva understands non-self (無我, Anatta) and non-self of dharmas (無我法, Anatta-dhamma), he is called a true Bodhisattva.' The meaning of this sentence is that the above has explained that those who have not attained the understanding of the two non-selves cannot be called true Bodhisattvas, and this is a remote response, directly answering this question. Now, saying that one understands non-self and non-self of dharmas, it is precisely saying that those who understand the two non-self dharmas are called true Bodhisattvas. 'Non-self and non-self of dharmas' refers to two kinds of non-self: first, non-self of persons (人無我, Pudgala-nairātmya), and second, non-self of dharmas (法無我, Dharma-nairātmya). Non-self of persons means understanding that in the five skandhas (五陰) of sentient beings, there is fundamentally no constant and real self or sentient beings, etc., so it is called non-self of persons. Non-self of dharmas has two aspects: first, observing that the nature of conditioned dharmas (因緣法, Pratītyasamutpāda) is originally empty and still; second, observing that the nature of Buddha-nature dharmas has no myriad phenomena, so it is empty. If one can understand the three emptinesses (三空, three doors of liberation) and the two non-selves, one is a true Bodhisattva, so it is said that one understands non-self and non-self of dharmas. The reason for repeating 'Bodhisattva Bodhisattva' is because...

---

，明菩薩有二種：一者地前菩薩，聞信二種無我；二者地上菩薩，現見二種無我。若直云菩薩，恐失地前菩薩彷彿觀理深伏煩惱者，故重言菩薩菩薩也。

「論曰：此中有疑」等者，論主將欲以偈釋前經文，故作此生起也。「若無菩薩至清凈佛國土」，以牒所疑事也。「若如是」以下，序生疑之意，指經為釋，如經中生起也。凡以二偈釋斯一段經文。初偈作問答意，釋經中「菩薩亦如是至不名菩薩」也。第二偈，釋經「若菩薩通達無我無我法」盡經也。

「不達真法界，起度眾生意，及清凈國土」者，明菩薩所以起心度眾生及莊嚴佛國土者，正以不達真如法界平等理故，不知凡聖一如依正同體，謂離此真法界外於三界有為法中，別有菩薩是能度者、有實眾生是可度者、有真凈土可修，此不名解平等真實菩薩。故下句云「生心即是倒」也。故經中明文殊師利向佛懺悔：「我從昔來，由不達真法界理故，以取相心，化眾生、修十地行、凈佛國土。有如此罪，今向佛懺悔。以起心取此不實為故名倒也。

「此義云何？若起如是心」等一段長行論，先舉偈為問，后以經答也。此示何義？將作偈釋經故，問此經云通達無我無我法者，示何等義也。所以偈答云「眾生及菩薩」等，此第二偈。「眾生及菩薩」，「

【現代漢語翻譯】 明菩薩有兩種：一種是地前菩薩（指修行位階在初地之前的菩薩），聽聞並相信人無我（梵文：pudgala-nairātmya，指沒有永恒不變的個體）和法無我（梵文：dharma-nairātmya，指一切事物沒有獨立的自性）這兩種「無我」；另一種是地上菩薩（指修行位階在初地及以上的菩薩），能夠親身證見人無我和法無我這兩種「無我」。如果只說『菩薩』，恐怕會遺漏那些地前菩薩，他們雖然彷彿觀照到真理，但仍有很深的煩惱潛伏著，所以要重複說『菩薩菩薩』。

『論曰：此中有疑』等，是說論主將要用偈頌來解釋前面的經文，所以先提出疑問。『若無菩薩至清凈佛國土』，這是引述所懷疑的事情。『若如是』以下，敘述產生懷疑的意圖，並指出經文字身就是一種解釋，就像經文中自然生起一樣。總共用兩首偈頌來解釋這段經文。第一首偈頌以問答的形式，解釋經文中『菩薩亦如是至不名菩薩』。第二首偈頌，解釋經文『若菩薩通達無我無我法』直到經文結束。

『不達真法界，起度眾生意，及清凈國土』，說明菩薩之所以發起度化眾生以及莊嚴佛國土的心，正是因為沒有通達真如法界（梵文：tathatā-dhātu）的平等之理，不知道凡夫和聖人、依報和正報都是一體的。他們認為，離開這真法界之外，在三界（梵文：trayo dhātava，指欲界、色界、無色界）的有為法（梵文：saṃskṛta-dharma，指由因緣和合而成的法）中，另外有菩薩是能度化者，有真實的眾生是可被度化者，有真正的凈土可以修習。這種想法不叫做理解平等真實的菩薩。所以下一句說『生心即是倒』。因此，經文中明確記載文殊師利（梵文：Mañjuśrī）向佛懺悔：『我從過去以來，由於沒有通達真法界的道理，所以用取相的心，去化度眾生、修習十地（梵文：daśa-bhūmi，菩薩修行的十個階段）之行、清凈佛國土。有這樣的罪過，現在向佛懺悔。因為生起心去執取這些不真實的事物，所以叫做顛倒。』

『此義云何？若起如是心』等這段長行論，先提出偈頌作為提問，然後用經文來回答。這是爲了說明什麼意義呢？將要作偈頌來解釋經文，所以提問說這部經所說的通達無我無我法，是揭示了什麼樣的意義。因此用偈頌回答說『眾生及菩薩』等，這是第二首偈頌。『眾生及菩薩』，

【English Translation】 There are two types of Bodhisattvas: the first are those before the Bhumis (referring to Bodhisattvas whose stage of practice is before the first Bhumi), who hear and believe in the two types of 'non-self': the non-self of persons (Sanskrit: pudgala-nairātmya, referring to the absence of a permanent, unchanging individual) and the non-self of phenomena (Sanskrit: dharma-nairātmya, referring to the absence of independent self-nature in all things); the second are Bodhisattvas on the Bhumis (referring to Bodhisattvas whose stage of practice is on or above the first Bhumi), who can directly see these two types of 'non-self'. If we simply say 'Bodhisattva', we might miss those Bodhisattvas before the Bhumis, who, although they seem to contemplate the truth, still have deep-seated afflictions lurking within. Therefore, we repeat 'Bodhisattva Bodhisattva'.

'The Treatise says: There is doubt here,' etc., means that the author of the treatise is about to use verses to explain the preceding sutra text, so he raises this question first. 'If there are no Bodhisattvas reaching pure Buddha lands,' this is citing the matter in question. 'If so,' and below, narrates the intention of raising the doubt, and points out that the sutra itself is an explanation, just as it arises naturally in the sutra. A total of two verses are used to explain this passage of scripture. The first verse explains 'Bodhisattvas are also like this, not called Bodhisattvas' in the form of a question and answer. The second verse explains the sutra 'If Bodhisattvas understand the non-self of persons and the non-self of phenomena' until the end of the sutra.

'Not understanding the true Dharma realm, giving rise to the intention to liberate sentient beings, and purify Buddha lands,' explains that the reason why Bodhisattvas generate the mind to liberate sentient beings and adorn Buddha lands is precisely because they have not understood the principle of equality of the true Suchness Dharma realm (Sanskrit: tathatā-dhātu), and do not know that ordinary beings and sages, dependent and principal retributions, are all one entity. They believe that apart from this true Dharma realm, in the conditioned dharmas (Sanskrit: saṃskṛta-dharma, referring to dharmas that arise from the combination of causes and conditions) of the three realms (Sanskrit: trayo dhātava, referring to the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm), there are separate Bodhisattvas who are able to liberate, there are real sentient beings who can be liberated, and there are true pure lands that can be cultivated. This kind of thinking is not called understanding the equal and true Bodhisattva. Therefore, the next sentence says, 'Generating the mind is delusion.' Therefore, the sutra clearly records Mañjuśrī (Sanskrit: Mañjuśrī) repenting to the Buddha: 'Since the past, because I have not understood the principle of the true Dharma realm, I have used the mind of grasping at appearances to transform sentient beings, cultivate the practices of the ten Bhumis (Sanskrit: daśa-bhūmi, the ten stages of Bodhisattva practice), and purify Buddha lands. I have such sins, and now I repent to the Buddha. Because generating the mind to grasp these unreal things is called delusion.'

'What is the meaning of this? If such a mind arises,' etc., this long passage of commentary first presents the verse as a question, and then uses the sutra to answer. What meaning is this intended to illustrate? It is going to compose a verse to explain the sutra, so it asks what meaning is revealed by the sutra's statement of understanding the non-self of persons and the non-self of phenomena. Therefore, it answers with the verse 'Sentient beings and Bodhisattvas,' etc., this is the second verse. 'Sentient beings and Bodhisattvas,'

---

眾生」者，凡夫菩薩也。「及菩薩」者，謂初地以上菩薩也。「知諸法無我」者，明此二種菩薩得三空二無我解也。此明地前菩薩彷彿解二無我，登地以上現見二無我也。故下半偈云「非聖自智信，及聖以有智」。「非聖」者，明地前菩薩未現得真如無我解故名非聖，非不得相似之解，聞中生決定信故，言自智信也。「及聖以有智」者，明初地以上菩薩現會三空二無我理故名為聖。何故名聖？以有真如無漏智故，言及聖以有智也。長行論云「此明何義？知無我無我法」者，先釋偈中第二句，出菩薩所觀二種我境也。「謂眾生及菩薩」者，釋偈中初句，出二種菩薩能觀人也。「何等眾生、何等菩薩」者，將釋下半偈故，作問生起。問此二種菩薩既俱觀二種無我理，有何憂劣，而有眾生、菩薩二名不同也？即釋云「于彼法若能自智信」。總出二種菩薩，于彼三空理以智信也。「世間智」者，正釋偈中下半偈，明此二菩薩雖同信三空而憂劣有別也。「所謂凡夫聖人」以下，兩對結，得二菩薩名不同也。「如經」以下，引經結也。

金剛仙論卷第七 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第八

「須菩提！于意云何？如來有肉眼不」等，此是斷疑分中第五段經文。此所以來者，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『眾生』（Sattvas）指的是凡夫和菩薩。『及菩薩』指的是初地以上的菩薩。『知諸法無我』指的是這兩種菩薩證得了三空和二無我的理解。這說明地前菩薩彷彿理解了二無我，而登地以上的菩薩則現見了二無我。因此下半偈說：『非聖自智信，及聖以有智』。『非聖』指的是地前菩薩尚未現證真如無我之解，所以稱為非聖，並非不能得到相似的理解，而是在聽聞后產生堅定的信心，所以說是自智信。『及聖以有智』指的是初地以上的菩薩現量證會了三空二無我的道理，所以稱為聖。為什麼稱為聖？因為具有真如無漏智，所以說是及聖以有智。長行論中說：『此明何義？知無我無我法』，這是先解釋偈中的第二句，說明菩薩所觀的兩種我境。『謂眾生及菩薩』，這是解釋偈中的第一句，說明兩種菩薩能觀之人。『何等眾生、何等菩薩』，這是爲了解釋下半偈而提出的問題。問這兩種菩薩既然都觀二種無我之理，有什麼優劣，而有眾生、菩薩二種名稱的不同呢？接著解釋說：『于彼法若能自智信』，總括了兩種菩薩，對於三空之理以智信。『世間智』，這是正式解釋偈中的下半偈，說明這兩種菩薩雖然都信三空，但優劣有別。『所謂凡夫聖人』以下，兩相對結，得出二菩薩名稱的不同。『如經』以下，引用經文作結。 金剛仙論卷第七 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論 金剛仙論卷第八 『須菩提！于意云何？如來有肉眼不』等，這是斷疑分中第五段經文。之所以這樣說，

【English Translation】 English version: 『Sentient beings』 (Sattvas) refers to ordinary beings and Bodhisattvas. 『And Bodhisattvas』 refers to Bodhisattvas of the first Bhumi (stage) and above. 『Knowing that all dharmas are without self』 refers to these two kinds of Bodhisattvas attaining the understanding of the three emptinesses (tri-sunyata) and the two no-selves (dvi-nairatmya). This explains that Bodhisattvas before the Bhumis have a semblance of understanding of the two no-selves, while Bodhisattvas who have attained the Bhumis directly perceive the two no-selves. Therefore, the second half of the verse says: 『Non-saints believe through their own wisdom, and saints through having wisdom.』 『Non-saints』 refers to Bodhisattvas before the Bhumis who have not yet directly realized the understanding of Suchness (Tathata) and no-self, so they are called non-saints, not that they cannot obtain a similar understanding, but they generate firm faith upon hearing, so it is said to be belief through their own wisdom. 『And saints through having wisdom』 refers to Bodhisattvas of the first Bhumi and above who directly realize the principle of the three emptinesses and the two no-selves, so they are called saints. Why are they called saints? Because they possess the wisdom of Suchness without outflows (anasrava-jnana), so it is said to be 『and saints through having wisdom.』 The commentary in the long passage says: 『What does this explain? Knowing no-self and the dharma of no-self,』 this first explains the second line of the verse, explaining the two kinds of self-realms observed by Bodhisattvas. 『Namely sentient beings and Bodhisattvas,』 this explains the first line of the verse, explaining the two kinds of people who can observe. 『What kind of sentient beings, what kind of Bodhisattvas,』 this is a question raised to explain the second half of the verse. It asks, since these two kinds of Bodhisattvas both observe the principle of the two no-selves, what are their merits and demerits, and why are there two different names of sentient beings and Bodhisattvas? Then it explains: 『Regarding that dharma, if one can believe through one's own wisdom,』 this summarizes the two kinds of Bodhisattvas, who believe in the principle of the three emptinesses through wisdom and faith. 『Mundane wisdom,』 this is the formal explanation of the second half of the verse, explaining that although these two kinds of Bodhisattvas both believe in the three emptinesses, their merits and demerits are different. 『So-called ordinary people and saints』 below, the two are contrasted and concluded, resulting in the different names of the two Bodhisattvas. 『As the sutra says』 below, the sutra is quoted to conclude. Vajrasena Treatise, Volume 7 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 25 No. 1512 Vajrasena Treatise Vajrasena Treatise, Volume 8 『Subhuti! What do you think? Does the Tathagata have a physical eye?』 etc., this is the fifth section of scripture in the division of dispelling doubts. The reason for this is,

---

有疑故來也。云何疑？上第三段經云「菩薩不見彼是眾生、我為菩薩」，即此斷疑分中前第四經言「菩薩不見眾生，亦不見清凈國土」，又挍量分中亦云以不見眾生等法，名諸佛如來。而此菩薩、眾生、佛、凈土等四，前已了了解釋，明此四名雖異，皆依真如故有。若離真如法界，于有為虛妄法中謂更有此四法可見者，非是菩薩；若解不異真如而見此四者，名真菩薩也。雖爾了了解釋有無之義，然眾生復乘無生，或更起異疑，云：若不見諸法名為諸佛者，或謂諸佛法身是以依身故有五眼，若無法身便應無五眼，若無五眼則不見諸法。未知今言不見者，為有五眼故不見？為無五眼故不見也？若有五眼者，為目前法是無故所以不見？為目前境實有而言不見也？為斷此疑故，以此五眼經答也。答意明如來具足五眼，有無斯照，隨法虛實皆如實智知。今言不見者，有眼故云不見，非無眼言不見也。若有眼者，何故言不見有？但前境虛妄無法可見也。不見有二種：一、真如平等理中不見眾生等四條然有異，故言不見；二、眾生五陰虛妄法體本來不生古今空寂，故無法可見。此二明理中絕相故，聖人無有取相分別之見，故云不見也。所以得言見者，如來具二諦智，如虛妄而知、如實而見也。此就諸法空寂義邊故言不見，非謂眼境並

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為有疑問所以前來請教。疑問是什麼呢？前面第三段經文說：『菩薩不見那個是眾生，我作為菩薩』，緊接著斷疑品中的第四經又說：『菩薩不見眾生，也不見清凈國土』，而且在校量品中也說因為不見眾生等法，所以名為諸佛如來。而這菩薩、眾生、佛、凈土這四者，前面已經清楚地解釋過，明白這四個名稱雖然不同，都是依據真如才有的。如果離開真如法界，在有為虛妄的法中認為還有這四法可見，那就不是菩薩；如果理解到不異於真如而見到這四者，才叫做真菩薩。雖然如此清楚地解釋了有無的意義，然而眾生又執著于無生，或者又產生其他的疑問，說：如果不見諸法就名為諸佛，或者認為諸佛的法身是因為依附於色身才具有五眼，如果沒有法身就應該沒有五眼，如果沒有五眼就不能見到諸法。不知道現在所說的不見，是因為有五眼所以不見？還是因為沒有五眼所以不見呢？如果有五眼，那麼是因為眼前的法是空無所有所以不見？還是因為眼前的境界真實存在卻說不見呢？爲了斷除這個疑問，所以用這五眼經來回答。回答的意思是說明如來具足五眼，有無都能照見，隨著法的虛實都能如實地用智慧知曉。現在說的不見，是因為有眼所以說不見，不是因為沒有眼才說不見。如果有眼，為什麼說不見有呢？只是因為眼前的境界虛妄，沒有法可以見到。不見有兩種：一、在真如平等的理中，不見眾生等四條，雖然有差異，所以說不見；二、眾生的五陰虛妄法體本來就不生，古今都是空寂的，所以沒有法可以見到。這兩種說明在理上斷絕了相，所以聖人沒有取相分別的見解，所以說不見。之所以能說見到，是因為如來具有二諦智，如虛妄而知，如真實而見。這是就諸法空寂的意義來說不見，不是說眼和境界都... 未完

【English Translation】 English version: Because of doubts, I come to inquire. What are the doubts? The previous third section of the sutra says, 'The Bodhisattva does not see that they are sentient beings, and I am the Bodhisattva.' Then, the fourth sutra in the section on resolving doubts says, 'The Bodhisattva does not see sentient beings, nor does he see pure lands.' Moreover, in the section on comparison, it is also said that because of not seeing sentient beings and other dharmas, they are called Buddhas Tathagatas. As for these four—Bodhisattva, sentient beings, Buddha, and pure land—they have already been clearly explained earlier, clarifying that although these four names are different, they all exist based on Suchness. If one departs from the realm of Suchness and Dharma, and believes that these four dharmas can still be seen in conditioned, illusory dharmas, then one is not a Bodhisattva. If one understands that these four are not different from Suchness and sees them, then one is called a true Bodhisattva. Although the meaning of existence and non-existence has been explained so clearly, sentient beings may again cling to non-birth, or raise other doubts, saying: If not seeing all dharmas is called being a Buddha, then it may be thought that the Dharmakaya of the Buddhas has five eyes because it relies on the physical body. If there is no Dharmakaya, then there should be no five eyes. If there are no five eyes, then one cannot see all dharmas. I do not know whether the 'not seeing' now spoken of is because one has five eyes and therefore does not see, or because one does not have five eyes and therefore does not see. If one has five eyes, is it because the dharma before one's eyes is empty and therefore not seen, or is it because the realm before one's eyes actually exists but it is said that it is not seen? To resolve this doubt, this Sutra on the Five Eyes is used to answer. The meaning of the answer is to explain that the Tathagata is complete with the five eyes, illuminating both existence and non-existence, and knowing the truth and falsehood of dharmas with true wisdom. The 'not seeing' now spoken of is because one has eyes and therefore says 'not seeing,' not because one does not have eyes and says 'not seeing.' If one has eyes, why say 'not seeing existence'? It is only because the realm before one's eyes is illusory and there is no dharma to be seen. There are two kinds of 'not seeing': first, in the principle of Suchness and equality, the four items of sentient beings, etc., are not seen, although there are differences, so it is said 'not seeing'; second, the five aggregates of sentient beings are illusory, and their essence is originally unborn, empty and still from ancient times to the present, so there is no dharma to be seen. These two explain that because the principle is free from characteristics, the sages have no views of grasping characteristics and making distinctions, so it is said 'not seeing.' The reason why it can be said that one sees is that the Tathagata has the wisdom of the two truths, knowing as illusory and seeing as real. This is speaking of 'not seeing' from the perspective of the emptiness and stillness of all dharmas, not saying that the eye and the realm are both... incomplete

---

無令不見也。若爾，那得聞言不見，便謂諸佛菩薩一向無眼不見諸法？次明也。

「如來有肉眼」者，何者是肉眼所知境界，而言如來有肉眼？明凡夫之人肉眼，但見因緣和合虛妄境界，見上不見下。然眾生造業既殊，報得肉眼亦差品不同，或但見障內不見障外、或內外俱見，或晝見夜不見、或夜見晝不見、或晝夜俱見。此等諸眼，皆是父母所生眼。如弗婆提人，以父母所生眼，能見障外色，前後俱見。如來同凡夫見此虛妄之色故，云如來有肉眼也。「如來有天眼」者，天眼有二種：一者修得、二者報得。何者是天眼所知境界？天眼亦照因緣和合虛妄境界，皆見障外之色，亦有見下不見上者、有見前不見后。若因他力，見上見下、見前見后，有四方俱見。明如來所見亦同凡夫顛倒取境，如來稱前境虛實而緣，以此為異，故言如來有天眼也。然世間人，有報得肉眼、有報得天眼，亦有修得天眼者，此皆三界中法，明諸佛菩薩道超世表，久已無此二眼。何故道言如來有此二眼者？以見同二眼故，言如來有天眼也。

「如來有慧眼」者，何者是慧眼所緣境？明慧眼知一切有為法無為法、有漏無漏、善惡無記等法，而不作念我知此法。明如來亦同二乘所緣法故，言如來有慧眼也。

「如來有法眼」者，何者

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不要讓他們看不見。如果這樣，怎麼能說聽到了卻看不見，就認為諸佛菩薩總是沒有眼睛，看不見諸法呢？這是進一步說明。

『如來有肉眼』，什麼是肉眼所知的境界，而說如來有肉眼呢？說明凡夫的肉眼，只能看見因緣和合的虛妄境界，看見上面看不見下面。然而眾生造的業不同，得到的肉眼也有差別，有的只能看見障礙內的，看不見障礙外的；有的內外都能看見；有的白天能看見，晚上看不見；有的晚上能看見，白天看不見；有的晝夜都能看見。這些眼睛，都是父母所生的眼睛。比如弗婆提人（Pubbavideha，四大部洲之一，位於東方），用父母所生的眼睛，能看見障礙外的顏色，前後都能看見。如來和凡夫一樣看見這些虛妄的顏色，所以說如來有肉眼。『如來有天眼』，天眼有兩種：一種是修得的，一種是報得的。什麼是天眼所知的境界？天眼也照見因緣和合的虛妄境界，都能看見障礙外的顏色，也有看見下面看不見上面的，有看見前面看不見後面的。如果依靠他力，就能看見上面下面，看見前面後面，能四方都看見。說明如來所見也和凡夫一樣顛倒取境，如來稱量前境的虛實而緣，以此為不同，所以說如來有天眼。然而世間人，有報得肉眼的，有報得天眼的，也有修得天眼的，這些都是三界中的法，說明諸佛菩薩的道超越世間，早就沒有這兩種眼睛了。為什麼說如來有這兩種眼睛呢？因為看見的（境界）和這兩種眼睛一樣，所以說如來有天眼。

『如來有慧眼』，什麼是慧眼所緣的境界？說明慧眼知道一切有為法、無為法、有漏法、無漏法、善法、惡法、無記法等，但不作念『我知道這些法』。說明如來也和二乘（聲聞和緣覺）所緣的法一樣，所以說如來有慧眼。

『如來有法眼』，什麼是

【English Translation】 English version Do not let them not see. If so, how can it be said that one hears but does not see, and then concludes that all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are always without eyes and cannot see all dharmas? This is a further explanation.

'The Tathagata has a physical eye': What is the realm known by the physical eye, that it is said the Tathagata has a physical eye? It explains that the physical eye of ordinary people can only see the illusory realm of compounded causes and conditions, seeing above but not below. However, since sentient beings create different karmas, the physical eyes they receive as retribution also differ in quality. Some can only see within obstacles and not outside them; some can see both inside and outside; some can see during the day but not at night; some can see at night but not during the day; some can see both day and night. All these eyes are born from parents. For example, the people of Pubbavideha (one of the four great continents, located in the east) can see colors outside obstacles and see both before and after with their eyes born from parents. The Tathagata sees these illusory colors in the same way as ordinary people, therefore it is said that the Tathagata has a physical eye. 'The Tathagata has a heavenly eye': There are two types of heavenly eyes: one is attained through cultivation, and the other is attained through retribution. What is the realm known by the heavenly eye? The heavenly eye also illuminates the illusory realm of compounded causes and conditions, and can see colors outside obstacles. Some can see below but not above, and some can see before but not after. If relying on the power of others, one can see above and below, see before and after, and see in all four directions. It explains that the Tathagata's seeing is also like ordinary people's inverted grasping of objects. The Tathagata weighs the truth and falsehood of the preceding object and relates to it accordingly, and this is the difference. Therefore, it is said that the Tathagata has a heavenly eye. However, worldly people have physical eyes obtained through retribution, heavenly eyes obtained through retribution, and some have heavenly eyes obtained through cultivation. These are all dharmas within the Three Realms, explaining that the path of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas transcends the world and has long been without these two eyes. Why is it said that the Tathagata has these two eyes? Because the seeing (of the realm) is the same as these two eyes, it is said that the Tathagata has a heavenly eye.

'The Tathagata has the eye of wisdom': What is the realm perceived by the eye of wisdom? It explains that the eye of wisdom knows all conditioned dharmas, unconditioned dharmas, defiled dharmas, undefiled dharmas, good dharmas, evil dharmas, neutral dharmas, etc., but does not think 'I know these dharmas'. It explains that the Tathagata also perceives the same dharmas as the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas), therefore it is said that the Tathagata has the eye of wisdom.

'The Tathagata has the Dharma eye': What is

---

是法眼所緣境界？明法眼能知三乘聖人當證果時，乘何等心證於道果。如此法眼所緣證法差別，如來亦同見之，故言如來有法眼也。「如來有佛眼」者，然上之四眼，見境不周，知法不盡故。設所知見，不能明瞭。明佛眼所見，真俗並照，鉅細斯鑒，一切萬法了了通達，無境不周、無法不盡，故名佛眼。此眼如來有五眼，故有境之見。既有此眼，故知佛有身有眼言不見，非無身無眼言不見故。次明此五眼經文也。乘五眼經文，復更生疑。疑雲：十方世界無量無邊，直三千世界中所有種種諸法尚不可知盡，況無邊世界中亦有種種諸法，何故但明此五眼？若正有此五眼是為如來，則知法不盡、見境不周。故引恒河沙喻以答此疑，欲明如來雖但有五眼，而照所知之境莫不皆盡。然知境雖盡，不可俱障于文。且境中微細難知者不過心法故，舉恒沙世界中眾生，一眾生身中有善心不善心無記心、有漏無漏三三等心數不可限量。一眾生有若干種心，恒沙世界眾生各有爾許心數差別不同，如來以三達靈知於一念中朗照故，不應難云若如來但有五眼則知境不盡也。此明眼雖有五，而知境斯盡也。

「佛言：須菩提！于意云何？如恒河中所有沙，佛說是沙不」者，前舉五眼，明佛肉具能見之智。然智不孤起必知境，今將明五眼所知

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是法眼所緣的境界嗎？說明法眼能夠知曉三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的聖人在證果的時候，以什麼樣的心來證得道果。像這樣法眼所緣的證法差別，如來也同樣能夠見到，所以說如來有法眼啊。「如來有佛眼」的意思是說，前面的四種眼（肉眼、天眼、慧眼、法眼），見到的境界不全面，瞭解的法也不透徹。即使有所知所見，也不能夠明瞭。說明佛眼所見，真諦和俗諦都能照見，細微和巨大的都能明察，對於一切萬法都能夠了了通達，沒有哪個境界不能周遍照見，沒有哪個法不能完全瞭解，所以叫做佛眼。這種眼如來具有五種眼，所以能夠見到境界。既然有這種眼，就知道佛有身有眼說不能見，不是沒有身沒有眼說不能見。下面說明這五眼的經文。憑藉五眼的經文，又產生了疑問。疑問是：十方世界無量無邊，僅僅三千世界中所有的種種諸法尚且不能完全知曉，更何況無邊世界中也有種種諸法，為什麼只說明這五眼？如果真正只有這五眼才是如來，那麼就是知法不盡、見境不周。所以引用恒河沙的比喻來回答這個疑問，想要說明如來雖然只有五眼，但是照見所知的境界沒有不完全窮盡的。然而知曉境界雖然窮盡，卻不能全部都寫在經文里。而且境界中微細難以知曉的不過是心法，所以舉例恒河沙世界中的眾生，一個眾生身中就有善心、不善心、無記心，有漏、無漏等種種心，這些心數不可勝數。一個眾生有若干種心，恒河沙世界的眾生各自有如此多的心數差別不同，如來以三達（宿命通、天眼通、漏盡通）的靈知在一念之中明朗照見，所以不應該質疑說如果如來只有五眼，那麼知曉的境界就不完全窮盡。這裡說明眼雖然有五種，但是知曉的境界是完全窮盡的。 「佛說：須菩提！你認為怎麼樣？就像恒河中所有的沙子，佛說是沙子嗎？」前面舉例五眼，說明佛具有能夠見到的智慧。然而智慧不會單獨產生，必定要知曉境界，現在將要說明五眼所知曉的境界。

【English Translation】 English version: Is it the realm perceived by the Dharma Eye? It explains that the Dharma Eye can know what kind of mind the saints of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) use to attain the fruit of the path when they are about to attain it. The Tathāgata (如來) also sees the differences in the Dharma (法) realized by the Dharma Eye, so it is said that the Tathāgata has the Dharma Eye. 'The Tathāgata has the Buddha Eye' means that the previous four eyes (flesh eye, heavenly eye, wisdom eye, Dharma Eye) do not see the realm comprehensively, and do not understand the Dharma thoroughly. Even if there is knowledge and perception, it cannot be clear. It explains that what the Buddha Eye sees can illuminate both the truth and the mundane, and can clearly discern the subtle and the great. It can thoroughly understand all Dharmas, without any realm that cannot be comprehensively illuminated, and without any Dharma that cannot be fully understood, so it is called the Buddha Eye. The Tathāgata has these five eyes, so it can see the realm. Since it has this eye, it knows that the Buddha has a body and eyes and says it cannot see, not that it has no body and no eyes and says it cannot see. The following explains the sutra text of these five eyes. Relying on the sutra text of the five eyes, doubts arise again. The doubt is: the ten directions of the world are immeasurable and boundless, and even all the various Dharmas in the three thousand worlds cannot be fully known, let alone the various Dharmas in the boundless world. Why only explain these five eyes? If only these five eyes are truly the Tathāgata, then it is knowing the Dharma incompletely and seeing the realm incompletely. Therefore, the analogy of the sands of the Ganges River is used to answer this doubt, wanting to explain that although the Tathāgata only has five eyes, the realms it illuminates are all completely exhausted. However, although knowing the realm is exhausted, it cannot all be written in the sutra text. Moreover, the subtle and difficult to know in the realm is nothing more than the Dharma of the mind, so take the example of the sentient beings in the Ganges River world. In the body of one sentient being, there are good minds, unwholesome minds, neutral minds, defiled, undefiled, and so on. The number of these minds is countless. One sentient being has several kinds of minds, and the sentient beings in the Ganges River world each have so many different kinds of minds. The Tathāgata illuminates clearly in one thought with the spiritual knowledge of the three penetrations (divine eye, divine ear, and knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows), so one should not question that if the Tathāgata only has five eyes, then the realm it knows is not completely exhausted. This explains that although there are five eyes, the realm of knowledge is completely exhausted. The Buddha said: Subhuti (須菩提)! What do you think? Like all the sand in the Ganges River, does the Buddha say it is sand?' The previous example of the five eyes explains that the Buddha has the wisdom to see. However, wisdom does not arise alone, it must know the realm. Now we will explain the realm known by the five eyes.

---

之境，故佛問須菩提：汝意地思惟籌量，謂如來知此恒河中沙頭數多少不也？應如是問，所以乃言如來說是沙不者，明理而言之要先知后說。今言如來說者，明知如來知故方說，故云佛說是沙不也。「須菩提言：如是。世尊！如來說是沙」者，明須菩提得冥加力故，解如來意，故仰述如來所說，言：如是世尊：如來實了了知此恒河中沙頭數多少。故說非為不知也。

此喻意，明以一恒河為一眾生，此一眾生有善不善無記等心數法，多少如恒河中沙；復以此沙數恒河為一眾生，一眾生亦有爾許數心數法；復以此沙數佛世界，爾許世界中復有無量恒沙；復以一河為一眾生，爾許眾生心數法皆了了知，況余非心心法也。

乘此，更生疑念：如地前菩薩以信解力故，亦知一三千世界中眾生心數法；未知今言如來知恒沙眾生心數法者，為同地前菩薩但知一佛三千世界中恒沙眾生心數法？為遍知十方無量恒河沙世界中眾生心數法也？將釋此疑故，佛重問須菩提「于意云何？如一恒河中所有沙數佛世界至如是佛世界寧為多不」。此欲明如來非但知一三千世界中恒沙眾生心心數法也，乃遍知十方世界中無量恒河沙眾生心數法也。「須菩提言：彼世界甚多。世尊」者，明須菩提仰答如來如上所說十方恒沙世界實多無量也。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，佛陀問須菩提（Subhuti）：『你用心去思量，認為如來（Tathagata）知道這條恒河（Ganges River）中沙子的數量嗎？』應該這樣問，之所以說『如來說是沙不』，是說明理要先知后說。現在說『如來說』，是表明如來知道才說，所以說佛陀說這些是沙子。『須菩提言：如是。世尊！如來說是沙』，表明須菩提得到佛的加持，理解如來的意思，所以贊同如來說的，說：『是的，世尊！如來確實完全知道這條恒河中沙子的數量。』所以說不是不知道。

這個比喻的意思是，用一條恒河代表一個眾生，這個眾生有善、不善、無記等心數法，數量就像恒河中的沙子一樣多；又用這些沙子數量的恒河代表一個眾生，一個眾生也有這麼多數量的心數法；又用這些沙子數量的佛世界，這些世界中又有無量恒河沙；又用一條河代表一個眾生，這麼多眾生的心數法都完全知道，更何況其他非心心法呢。

因此，產生了新的疑問：像地上菩薩因為信解的力量，也知道一個三千大千世界中眾生的心數法；不知道現在說如來知道恒河沙眾生的心數法，是和地上菩薩一樣只知道一個佛的三千大千世界中恒河沙眾生的心數法？還是普遍知道十方無量恒河沙世界中眾生的心數法呢？爲了解釋這個疑問，佛陀再次問須菩提：『你認為怎麼樣？如果一條恒河中所有沙子的數量的佛世界，像這樣的佛世界是多還是不多？』這是要說明如來不僅僅知道一個三千大千世界中恒河沙眾生的心心數法，而是普遍知道十方世界中無量恒河沙眾生的心數法。『須菩提言：彼世界甚多。世尊』，表明須菩提贊同如來如上所說的十方恒河沙世界確實多得無量。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the Buddha asked Subhuti: 'Do you contemplate in your mind, thinking that the Tathagata knows the number of grains of sand in this Ganges River?' It should be asked this way. The reason for saying 'The Tathagata says it is sand or not' is to clarify that understanding should precede speaking. Now, saying 'The Tathagata says' indicates that the Tathagata speaks because he knows. Therefore, it is said that the Buddha says these are sand. 'Subhuti said: Yes, World Honored One! The Tathagata says it is sand,' indicates that Subhuti, having received the Buddha's blessing, understands the Tathagata's meaning. Therefore, he agrees with what the Tathagata said, saying: 'Yes, World Honored One! The Tathagata truly knows the number of grains of sand in this Ganges River.' Therefore, it is said that he does not not know.

The meaning of this metaphor is to use one Ganges River to represent one sentient being. This sentient being has mental activities such as good, bad, and neutral, the number of which is as many as the grains of sand in the Ganges River. Furthermore, these Ganges Rivers, equal in number to the grains of sand, represent one sentient being. One sentient being also has this many mental activities. Furthermore, these Buddha worlds, equal in number to the grains of sand, contain countless Ganges Rivers. Furthermore, one river represents one sentient being. All the mental activities of these many sentient beings are completely known, let alone other non-mental activities.

Therefore, a new doubt arises: Like Bodhisattvas on the ground before, due to the power of faith and understanding, they also know the mental activities of sentient beings in one three-thousand great thousand world. I wonder if the current statement that the Tathagata knows the mental activities of sentient beings as numerous as the sands of the Ganges is the same as Bodhisattvas on the ground before, only knowing the mental activities of sentient beings as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in one Buddha's three-thousand great thousand world? Or does he universally know the mental activities of sentient beings in countless Ganges sand worlds in the ten directions? To resolve this doubt, the Buddha asked Subhuti again: 'What do you think? If the number of Buddha worlds is equal to the number of grains of sand in one Ganges River, are such Buddha worlds many or not?' This is to clarify that the Tathagata not only knows the mental activities of sentient beings as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in one three-thousand great thousand world, but also universally knows the mental activities of sentient beings as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in countless worlds in the ten directions. 'Subhuti said: Those worlds are very many, World Honored One,' indicates that Subhuti agrees with the Tathagata's statement above that the Ganges sand worlds in the ten directions are indeed countless.

---

「佛告須菩提：爾許世界中眾生若干種心住，如來悉知」者，上來問答雖有重數，正答意在此文。明如來乃是一切智人，但以五眼了了遍知十方恒河沙世界中眾生色心等法無不皆盡，今且舉知心法，明知色亦無遺也。然就此所知法中，有種種差別、憂劣不同。如人中果報比于諸天，優劣上下不得為喻。況諸佛菩薩出世勝報，比於人天之果，俱然懸絕不可算數。如來了達無餘，故言悉知也。「何以故」者，因向若干種心住如來悉知，復生疑念：上云眾生五陰六塵六識體是虛妄，若取此眾生五陰等妄法者即非菩薩；又云離一切諸相則名諸佛。若爾，何以故今復言若干種心住如來悉知？若如來知見此法，則應是實、非為虛妄。未知此言心住者，為四念處真如境中住、為余法中住？若是真實，上不應言虛妄，道如來不見；若是虛妄，不應復言若干種心住如來悉知。故言何以故也。即答「如來說諸心住皆為非心住」。此言「諸心住」者，凡夫六識，于虛妄法中顛倒而住。「皆為非心住」者，非於四念處中無顛倒真實住也。此明上言離者，虛妄故離。今所以言知者，如來五眼照境斯盡、虛實俱了故云知，非為真實也。「是名為心住」者，結虛妄緣中顛倒住，亦得結上皆為非心住，是名為非四念處境中真實住也。「何以故？過

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『佛（Buddha）告訴須菩提（Subhuti）：在那些世界中，眾生有多少種心念的停留狀態，如來（Tathagata）完全知曉』，之前的問答雖然重複多次，但真正的答案就在這句話中。說明如來是一切智者，憑藉五眼完全、普遍地知曉十方恒河沙數世界中眾生的色法和心法，沒有遺漏。現在先舉知心法為例，說明知色法也沒有遺漏。然而，在所知的這些法中，有種種差別、優劣不同。比如人間的果報與諸天相比，優劣高下無法比擬。更何況諸佛菩薩出世的殊勝果報，與人天之果相比，更是懸殊巨大，不可計數。如來完全通達，所以說完全知曉。『為什麼呢』，因為之前說如來完全知曉眾生有多少種心念的停留狀態，又產生了疑問：之前說眾生的五陰（Panca-skandha）、六塵（Sad-ayatana）、六識（Sad-vijnana）的本體是虛妄的，如果執取眾生的五陰等虛妄之法，就不是菩薩；又說遠離一切諸相（Lakshana），才稱為諸佛。如果是這樣，為什麼現在又說如來完全知曉多少種心念的停留狀態呢？如果如來知見這些法，那麼這些法應該是真實的，而不是虛妄的。不知道這裡所說的心念的停留狀態，是在四念處（Catus-smrtyupasthana）的真如（Tathata）境界中停留，還是在其他的法中停留？如果是真實的，之前不應該說是虛妄的，說如來不見；如果是虛妄的，不應該又說如來完全知曉多少種心念的停留狀態。所以說『為什麼呢』。接著回答說『如來說的諸心住，都可說為非心住』。這裡說的『諸心住』，是指凡夫的六識，在虛妄的法中顛倒地停留。『都可說為非心住』，是指不是在四念處中沒有顛倒地真實停留。這裡說明之前說的遠離，是因為虛妄所以要遠離。現在之所以說知曉，是因為如來的五眼照見一切境界，虛實都明瞭，所以說知曉，不是因為這些是真實的。『是名為心住』，總結說在虛妄的因緣中顛倒地停留，也可以總結說都可說為非心住，是指不是在四念處的境界中真實地停留。『為什麼呢？』 過

【English Translation】 English version 『The Buddha said to Subhuti: The Tathagata knows all the various states of mind in which beings dwell in those worlds.』 Although the preceding questions and answers have been repeated several times, the true answer lies in this statement. It clarifies that the Tathagata is an all-knowing being, who, with the five eyes, fully and universally knows all the phenomena of form and mind of beings in the ten directions of countless worlds, without any omission. Now, let's take the knowledge of mind as an example to illustrate that the knowledge of form is also without omission. However, among these known phenomena, there are various differences, superiorities, and inferiorities. For example, the karmic rewards in the human realm cannot be compared to those in the heavens in terms of superiority or inferiority. Moreover, the supreme karmic rewards of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas appearing in the world are vastly different and incalculable compared to the rewards of humans and gods. The Tathagata fully understands without remainder, hence the statement 『knows all.』 『Why is that?』 Because after saying that the Tathagata knows all the various states of mind in which beings dwell, a doubt arises: Previously, it was said that the essence of beings' five skandhas (Panca-skandha), six sense bases (Sad-ayatana), and six consciousnesses (Sad-vijnana) is illusory. If one clings to the illusory dharmas such as the five skandhas of beings, then one is not a Bodhisattva. It was also said that only by being free from all characteristics (Lakshana) can one be called a Buddha. If that is the case, why is it now said that the Tathagata knows all the various states of mind in which beings dwell? If the Tathagata knows and sees these dharmas, then these dharmas should be real, not illusory. It is not known whether the dwelling of the mind mentioned here is dwelling in the realm of Suchness (Tathata) of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Catus-smrtyupasthana) or dwelling in other dharmas. If it is real, it should not have been said to be illusory before, saying that the Tathagata does not see it. If it is illusory, it should not be said again that the Tathagata knows all the various states of mind in which beings dwell. Hence the question 『Why is that?』 The answer is 『The Tathagata says that all dwelling of the mind can be said to be non-dwelling of the mind.』 The 『dwelling of the mind』 here refers to the six consciousnesses of ordinary beings dwelling in an inverted manner in illusory dharmas. 『Can be said to be non-dwelling of the mind』 means not dwelling truly without inversion in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. This clarifies that the previous statement of being free from is because it is illusory, hence the freedom. The reason for saying knowing now is because the Tathagata's five eyes illuminate all realms, and both the real and the illusory are clear, hence the saying knowing, not because they are real. 『Is called dwelling of the mind』 concludes that dwelling in an inverted manner in illusory conditions can also be concluded as can be said to be non-dwelling of the mind, which means not truly dwelling in the realm of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. 『Why is that?』 Over

---

去心不可得等」者，釋上何以知。此言心住者，是六識顛倒虛妄緣中住故。釋云過去心等不可得，明以三世等心不住為住，故曰虛妄也。過去心法已謝于往，空故不可得。未來心未至，空故不可得。現在心念念生滅不住，即體是空，故不可得也。

因三世虛妄諸心顛倒，復更生疑：若心住是虛妄顛倒者，便謂凡夫聖人心皆是虛妄顛倒。若爾，則初地以上諸菩薩心亦是虛妄顛倒；以心虛妄顛倒故，所有佈施等福德智慧了因之行亦應是顛倒，故非菩提因，不成彼岸無漏功德也。為斷此疑故，答言「以三千世界七寶佈施，得福甚多」。此明初地以上得真無漏解，不取相不住心行佈施故，福德非顛倒。以非顛倒故，成波羅蜜行。不同地前凡夫六識心是虛妄取相顛倒，故福德亦是顛倒。然此福德雖非顛倒，而要以地前取相顛倒福德為因，故非條然也。「得福甚多」者，明此無相佈施乃感常住佛果無盡之福，故言得福甚多也。

即復生疑：若此三千七寶佈施實有福德，是無漏非顛倒者，何故上三千七寶佈施言非福德聚也？為斷此疑故，答言「須菩提！若福德聚相有實者，如來則不說福德聚福德聚」。然上明二種福德聚：一是取相有漏福德聚；二是不取相無漏福德聚。我言非福德聚者，明有漏福德聚非趣菩提無漏福德聚

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『去心不可得等』，是爲了解釋上面所說的『何以知』（如何得知）的問題。這裡說的心住在哪裡呢？是因為六識顛倒虛妄的因緣中住著。解釋說，過去心等不可得，表明以三世等心不住為住，所以說是虛妄。過去的心法已經過去，空無所有所以不可得。未來的心還沒有到來，空無所有所以不可得。現在的心念念生滅不停留，它的本體就是空，所以不可得。

因為三世虛妄，各種心識顛倒，所以又產生疑問：如果心住是虛妄顛倒的，那麼就認為凡夫和聖人的心都是虛妄顛倒的。如果是這樣，那麼初地以上的各位菩薩的心也是虛妄顛倒的；因為心是虛妄顛倒的，所以所有的佈施等福德智慧以及了因之行也應該是顛倒的，因此不是菩提之因，不能成就到達彼岸的無漏功德。爲了斷除這個疑問，回答說『以三千世界七寶佈施，得福甚多』。這說明初地以上的菩薩得到真正的無漏智慧，不執著于相，不住於心而行佈施，所以福德不是顛倒的。因為不是顛倒的，所以能成就波羅蜜（Paramita）行。這不同於地前凡夫的六識心是虛妄取相顛倒的，所以福德也是顛倒的。然而這種福德雖然不是顛倒的，但也要以地前取相顛倒的福德為因，所以不是截然不同的。『得福甚多』，說明這種無相佈施能夠感得常住佛果無盡的福報，所以說得福甚多。

接著又產生疑問：如果這三千七寶佈施確實有福德，是無漏非顛倒的，那麼為什麼上面說三千七寶佈施不是福德聚呢？爲了斷除這個疑問，回答說『須菩提（Subhuti）！如果福德聚的相是真實的，如來（Tathagata）就不會說福德聚福德聚了』。上面說明了兩種福德聚：一種是取相有漏的福德聚；另一種是不取相無漏的福德聚。我說不是福德聚，是說明有漏的福德聚不是通向菩提的無漏福德聚。

【English Translation】 English version: 『The past mind is unattainable, etc.』, is to explain the question of 『How do we know』 mentioned above. What does it mean to say that the mind dwells? It is because it dwells in the conditions of the inverted and illusory six consciousnesses. The explanation that the past mind, etc., are unattainable clarifies that taking the non-dwelling of the minds of the three times as dwelling is why it is said to be illusory. The past mind has already passed, and is empty, so it is unattainable. The future mind has not yet arrived, and is empty, so it is unattainable. The present mind arises and ceases from moment to moment without stopping; its very essence is emptiness, so it is unattainable.

Because the minds of the three times are illusory and the various consciousnesses are inverted, another doubt arises: If the dwelling of the mind is illusory and inverted, then it is thought that the minds of both ordinary people and sages are illusory and inverted. If this is the case, then the minds of the Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva) above the first ground (Bhumi) are also illusory and inverted; because the mind is illusory and inverted, all acts of giving (Dana) and other merits, wisdom, and the causes of understanding should also be inverted, and therefore not the cause of Bodhi (Enlightenment), and cannot achieve the flawless merits of reaching the other shore (Paramita). To dispel this doubt, the answer is, 『Giving with the seven treasures of the three thousand great thousand worlds brings much merit.』 This clarifies that Bodhisattvas above the first ground attain true flawless understanding, and because they give without clinging to appearances and without dwelling in the mind, their merit is not inverted. Because it is not inverted, it can accomplish the Paramita practice. This is different from the six consciousnesses of ordinary people before the ground, which are illusory, clinging to appearances, and inverted, so their merit is also inverted. However, although this merit is not inverted, it still requires the merit of clinging to appearances and inversion before the ground as its cause, so it is not entirely separate. 『Much merit』 indicates that this formless giving can bring about the endless merit of the permanent Buddha fruit, so it is said to bring much merit.

Then another doubt arises: If this giving with the seven treasures of the three thousand worlds truly has merit, and is flawless and not inverted, then why was it said above that giving with the seven treasures of the three thousand worlds is not a collection of merit? To dispel this doubt, the answer is, 『Subhuti (Subhuti)! If the appearance of the collection of merit were real, the Tathagata (Tathagata) would not have said collection of merit, collection of merit.』 The above explains two kinds of collections of merit: one is the collection of merit with outflows that clings to appearances; the other is the collection of merit without outflows that does not cling to appearances. My saying that it is not a collection of merit is to clarify that the collection of merit with outflows is not the collection of merit without outflows that leads to Bodhi.

---

，不言無漏福德亦非福德聚也。那得以彼三千世界七寶佈施取相福德是顛倒故，難我此中初地以上不取相佈施無漏福德亦使是顛倒也？

「論曰：復有疑」等，此先牒前所疑事也。「若如是」以下，序生疑意，指經為釋也。此一段經，以三偈行釋。初偈正釋五眼經文，作問答意斷疑。第二偈釋恒沙世界譬喻中一段經文。第三偈釋三千世界七寶佈施福多經文。初偈云「雖不見諸法」者，上疑雲不見諸法，未知為有眼而不見、為無眼故不見也。故偈釋明諸佛菩薩雖不同凡夫于眾生五陰色等有為法上有取相之見，非不有五眼如法相虛實而見，非令無眼故不見也。故第二句云「非無了境眼」，此明雖云諸佛不見諸法，非無五眼照境之用也。何以得知？故次下句言「諸佛五種實」，此明諸佛有五眼具足也。若爾，即復生疑：此五種眼，還同於凡夫顛倒之見故。即答「以見彼顛倒」，明諸佛菩薩實有五眼，稱于顛倒境界而見，而見非顛倒故，不同凡夫也。此半偈雖解經意，猶未釋經文，故拘瑣作第二偈也。長行論云「何故說彼非顛倒」者，論主將釋此偈答之意，故設問云：若諸佛實有五眼見前境界者，前境是虛妄故，緣之智則應是顛倒，何故說彼五眼為非顛倒也？即答「為顯斷疑譬喻，是故說我知彼種種心住如是等也」。明

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不說沒有煩惱的福德也不是福德的聚集。如果用那三千世界七寶佈施來獲取有形相的福德，那是顛倒的。難道我這裡初地以上的菩薩不執著于外在形相的佈施，所獲得的沒有煩惱的福德，也是顛倒的嗎？

『論曰：復有疑』等，這是先提出前面所懷疑的事情。『若如是』以下，敘述產生懷疑的意圖，指經文作為解釋。這一段經文，用三個偈頌來解釋。第一個偈頌正式解釋《五眼經》的經文，以問答的方式來斷除疑惑。第二個偈頌解釋恒河沙世界譬喻中的一段經文。第三個偈頌解釋三千世界七寶佈施福德多的經文。第一個偈頌說『雖不見諸法』，上面懷疑說看不見諸法，不知道是有眼而看不見，還是因為沒有眼所以看不見。所以偈頌解釋明白諸佛菩薩雖然不同於凡夫，對於眾生的五陰色等有為法上有執著于外在形相的見解，但並非沒有五眼如實地照見法相的虛實，並非因為沒有眼所以看不見。所以第二句說『非無了境眼』，這說明雖然說諸佛看不見諸法，但並非沒有五眼照見境界的作用。憑什麼知道呢？所以接下來的句子說『諸佛五種實』，這說明諸佛具有五眼。如果這樣，就又產生懷疑：這五種眼，還和凡夫顛倒的見解一樣嗎？就回答說『以見彼顛倒』，說明諸佛菩薩確實有五眼，按照顛倒的境界而見，但所見並非顛倒，所以不同於凡夫。這半個偈頌雖然解釋了經文的意義，但還沒有解釋經文的文字，所以拘泥瑣碎地作了第二個偈頌。長行論說『何故說彼非顛倒』，論主將要解釋這個偈頌回答的意義，所以設問說：如果諸佛確實有五眼見到前面的境界，前面的境界是虛妄的，那麼緣于虛妄境界的智慧就應該是顛倒的，為什麼說那五眼不是顛倒的呢？就回答說『為顯斷疑譬喻，是故說我知彼種種心住如是等也』。說明

【English Translation】 English version: It is not said that the merit of non-outflow is not a collection of merit. If one uses the seven treasures of the three thousand worlds to give alms and obtain merit with form, that is inverted. Could it be that the merit of non-outflow from formless giving by Bodhisattvas above the first ground here is also inverted?

'The Treatise says: There is further doubt,' etc., this first states the matter that was previously doubted. 'If it is like this' and below, it narrates the intention of generating doubt, referring to the sutra as an explanation. This section of the sutra is explained with three verses. The first verse formally explains the text of the Five Eyes Sutra, using a question-and-answer format to dispel doubts. The second verse explains a section of the sutra in the simile of the Ganges River sands worlds. The third verse explains the sutra text about the great merit of giving alms with the seven treasures of the three thousand worlds. The first verse says, 'Although they do not see all dharmas,' the doubt above says that they do not see all dharmas, and it is not known whether it is because they have eyes but do not see, or because they do not have eyes that they do not see. Therefore, the verse explains clearly that although Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are different from ordinary people in that they do not have the view of grasping at forms on the conditioned dharmas such as the five skandhas (pañca-skandha) of sentient beings, they do not lack the five eyes to see the reality and unreality of the dharma characteristics as they are, and it is not because they do not have eyes that they do not see. Therefore, the second line says, 'Not without the eyes that understand the realm,' this clarifies that although it is said that Buddhas do not see all dharmas, they do not lack the function of the five eyes to illuminate the realm. How is this known? Therefore, the following sentence says, 'The five kinds of Buddhas are real,' this clarifies that Buddhas have the five eyes complete. If so, then doubt arises again: are these five kinds of eyes still the same as the inverted views of ordinary people? The answer is, 'Because they see that inversion,' clarifying that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas truly have five eyes, and see according to the inverted realm, but what they see is not inverted, so they are different from ordinary people. Although this half-verse explains the meaning of the sutra, it has not yet explained the words of the sutra, so it meticulously made the second verse. The long treatise says, 'Why is it said that they are not inverted,' the author of the treatise is about to explain the meaning of this verse's answer, so he asks, 'If Buddhas truly have five eyes to see the realm in front, and the realm in front is unreal, then the wisdom that arises from the unreal realm should be inverted, why is it said that those five eyes are not inverted?' The answer is, 'To show the simile of dispelling doubt, therefore it is said that I know their various states of mind, such as this, etc.' Clarifying that

---

為釋若但有五眼，則知多境不盡之疑，故引恒沙譬喻，是故言道若干種心住如來悉知，非同凡夫顛倒之知也。故下問云「此示何義」，即答「彼非顛倒，以見顛倒故」也。「何者是顛倒」者，問若佛五眼非顛倒者，何者是顛倒眼也。即答「偈言：種種顛倒識，以離於實念」也。明六識非一，故云種種。妄取六塵，以不實為實，此憣境之心，故云顛倒識也。何以得知六識是顛倒？次下句云「以離於實念」。「實念」者，四念處觀也。觀我此身常此身無常，乃至法亦如是也。以六識不住四念處中，乃取虛妄六塵，故名顛倒也。「不住彼實智，是故說顛倒」者，此二句成上二句也，明六識不住彼四念處實智境中，是故我說為顛倒也。「此義云何至差別顛倒」，釋偈中初句也。「何故彼心住名為顛倒」者，何故此六種心住名為顛倒也。即以偈下三句答，明其六識但緣六塵虛妄境界，不能住四念處境中，是故說顛倒也。

「如來說諸心住皆為非心住」者，提此一偈所釋經來也。「此句示現遠離四念處」者，釋向六識心住離四念處境，故說為非心住也。「此以何義」者，此以義故六識離四念處名為非心住也。即答「心住者住彼念處」也，明若心住於四念境中者可名為住，而此六識以離彼四念處取虛妄境界，故云不住也。「又

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果解釋說如來只有五眼，那麼就會產生知曉的境界不全面的疑問，所以引用恒河沙數來比喻，因此說種種不同的心念狀態，如來全部知曉，不同於凡夫顛倒的認知。所以下面提問說『這顯示了什麼意義』，就回答說『那不是顛倒，因為看見了顛倒的緣故』。『什麼是顛倒』，是問如果佛的五眼不是顛倒的，那麼什麼是顛倒的眼呢？就回答說『偈語說：種種顛倒識，因為離開了真實的念頭』。說明六識不是單一的，所以說種種。虛妄地執取六塵，把不真實的當作真實的，這種攀緣外境的心，所以說是顛倒識。怎麼知道六識是顛倒的呢？接下來的句子說『因為離開了真實的念頭』。『真實的念頭』，指的是四念處觀。觀察我這個身體，常則此身無常，乃至法也是這樣。因為六識不住在四念處中，而是執取虛妄的六塵，所以叫做顛倒。『不住彼實智，是故說顛倒』，這兩句是承接上面的兩句，說明六識不住在四念處的真實智慧境界中，所以我說它是顛倒。『此義云何至差別顛倒』，解釋偈語中的第一句。『何故彼心住名為顛倒』，為什麼這六種心念狀態叫做顛倒呢？就用偈語下面的三句來回答，說明這六識只是攀緣六塵虛妄的境界，不能安住在四念處的境界中，所以說是顛倒。

『如來說諸心住皆為非心住』，提起了這一偈所解釋的經文。『此句示現遠離四念處』，解釋了前面六識心念狀態離開了四念處的境界，所以說是非心住。『此以何義』，這是因為什麼緣故六識離開四念處叫做非心住呢？就回答說『心住者住彼念處』，說明如果心安住在四念處的境界中就可以叫做住，而這六識因為離開了四念處而執取虛妄的境界，所以說不住。『又』

【English Translation】 English version: If it is explained that the Tathagata only has five eyes, then there will be doubt about the incompleteness of knowing the realms, so the analogy of the Ganges' sands is used. Therefore, it is said that the Tathagata knows all kinds of different states of mind, which is different from the inverted knowledge of ordinary people. So the following question asks, 'What meaning does this show?' and the answer is, 'That is not inverted, because it sees the cause of inversion.' 'What is inversion?' asks if the Buddha's five eyes are not inverted, then what is the inverted eye? The answer is, 'The verse says: all kinds of inverted consciousness, because it is separated from true mindfulness.' It explains that the six consciousnesses are not singular, so it says all kinds. Falsely grasping the six dusts, taking the unreal as real, this mind that clings to external objects, so it is called inverted consciousness. How do we know that the six consciousnesses are inverted? The next sentence says, 'Because it is separated from true mindfulness.' 'True mindfulness' refers to the four foundations of mindfulness. Observing my body, constant then this body is impermanent, and even the Dharma is also like this. Because the six consciousnesses do not dwell in the four foundations of mindfulness, but grasp the false six dusts, so it is called inversion. 'Not dwelling in that true wisdom, therefore it is said to be inverted,' these two sentences follow the previous two sentences, explaining that the six consciousnesses do not dwell in the realm of true wisdom of the four foundations of mindfulness, so I say it is inverted. 'What is the meaning of this to the difference of inversion,' explains the first sentence in the verse. 'Why is that state of mind called inversion?' Why are these six states of mind called inversion? It answers with the following three sentences of the verse, explaining that these six consciousnesses only cling to the false realms of the six dusts, and cannot dwell in the realm of the four foundations of mindfulness, so it is said to be inverted.

'The Tathagata says that all states of mind are non-states of mind,' raises the sutra explained by this verse. 'This sentence shows being far from the four foundations of mindfulness,' explains that the previous six states of mind are separated from the realm of the four foundations of mindfulness, so it is said to be non-states of mind. 'What is the meaning of this?' What is the reason why the six consciousnesses are called non-states of mind when they are separated from the four foundations of mindfulness? The answer is, 'The state of mind dwells in those foundations of mindfulness,' explaining that if the mind dwells in the realm of the four foundations of mindfulness, it can be called dwelling, but these six consciousnesses grasp the false realm because they are separated from the four foundations of mindfulness, so it is said to be non-dwelling. 'Also'

---

住、不動、根本名異義一」者，釋上心住彼念處者有于住義也。依世雜論解：以後釋前何故名住，以其不動。何故不動？以根本也。又解：何名住？明菩薩以四念處解，棲心真如理中，故名為住。既心住真，不為五欲所壞，故曰不動。亦得云不為二乘所壞，故曰不動。此真如解，既不為五欲所動，便能與菩提為基，故名根本也。「若如是不住是故說心住」者，若不能如是於四念處境中住者，是故便說為虛妄境中住也。「此明不住相續不斷行因」者，雙釋住不住義也。此「不住」者，釋前句也；若如是不住相續不斷行因者，釋「是故說心住」也。「是故不住」者，結虛妄住者為非實住也。示彼相續顛倒，明虛妄境中相續住者是顛倒識也，結答上問何故彼心住名為顛倒也。「如經過去心」以下，舉釋虛妄住非心住經，結成顛倒義也。「以過去未來」以下，釋三世心住經，可知也。

「何故依福德重說譬喻」者，作問生起第三偈也。第三偈「佛智慧根本」者，上難云：以心顛倒故此福德亦應是顛倒。今言佛智慧根本，明此初地以上不取相佈施是無漏福德，乃與佛果種智以為勝因，故曰佛智慧根本也。又第二句云「非顛倒功德」，明知此菩薩佈施福德，非取相顛倒心也。「以是福德根」者，以是佛智慧根本福德根也。「

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『住、不動、根本名異義一』是指什麼呢？解釋上面所說的心安住於四念處，在於『住』的意義。依照《世雜論》的解釋：用後面的解釋前面的，為什麼稱為『住』？因為它是『不動』的。為什麼『不動』？因為它是『根本』。又解釋：什麼叫做『住』？說明菩薩用四念處來理解，將心安住在真如的道理之中，所以稱為『住』。既然心安住在真如，不被五欲所破壞，所以說『不動』。也可以說不被二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）所破壞，所以說『不動』。這個真如的理解，既然不被五欲所動搖，便能與菩提（覺悟）作為基礎，所以叫做『根本』。『若如是不住是故說心住』是指，如果不能像這樣在四念處的境界中安住，因此就說是安住在虛妄的境界中。 『此明不住相續不斷行因』，是同時解釋『住』和『不住』的意義。這個『不住』，是解釋前面的句子；如果像這樣不住，相續不斷地修行，就是解釋『是故說心住』。『是故不住』，是總結虛妄的安住不是真實的安住。顯示那種相續顛倒，說明在虛妄境界中相續安住是顛倒的識，總結回答上面提出的問題：為什麼那種心的安住被稱為顛倒。 『如經過去心』以下，是引用並解釋虛妄的安住不是心的安住的經典，總結構成顛倒的意義。『以過去未來』以下，是解釋三世心安住的經典，可以理解。

『何故依福德重說譬喻』，是提出問題，引出第三個偈頌。第三個偈頌『佛智慧根本』，是針對上面的質疑：因為心是顛倒的，所以這種福德也應該是顛倒的。現在說佛智慧的根本，說明初地以上的菩薩不執著于相的佈施是無漏的福德，能夠與佛果的種智作為殊勝的因，所以說是佛智慧的根本。而且第二句說『非顛倒功德』，明確地知道這種菩薩佈施的福德，不是執著于相的顛倒心。『以是福德根』，是以這種佛智慧根本的福德根。

【English Translation】 English version What does 『dwelling, non-moving, and fundamental having different meanings』 refer to? Explaining the above-mentioned mind dwelling in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Sati-patthana) lies in the meaning of 『dwelling』. According to the explanation in the Śeṣa Agama (Śeṣa Agama): Using the latter to explain the former, why is it called 『dwelling』? Because it is 『non-moving』. Why 『non-moving』? Because it is 『fundamental』. Another explanation: What is called 『dwelling』? It explains that Bodhisattvas use the Four Foundations of Mindfulness to understand, settling the mind in the principle of Suchness (Tathata), hence it is called 『dwelling』. Since the mind dwells in Suchness, it is not destroyed by the five desires, hence it is said to be 『non-moving』. It can also be said that it is not destroyed by the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), hence it is said to be 『non-moving』. This understanding of Suchness, since it is not moved by the five desires, can serve as the foundation for Bodhi (Enlightenment), hence it is called 『fundamental』. 『If it is not dwelling in this way, therefore it is said that the mind dwells』 refers to, if one cannot dwell in the realm of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness in this way, therefore it is said to be dwelling in a false realm. 『This explains that non-dwelling is the continuous and uninterrupted cause of practice』 simultaneously explains the meaning of 『dwelling』 and 『non-dwelling』. This 『non-dwelling』 explains the previous sentence; if one does not dwell in this way, continuously and uninterruptedly practicing, it explains 『therefore it is said that the mind dwells』. 『Therefore non-dwelling』 concludes that false dwelling is not true dwelling. It shows that continuous inversion, explaining that continuous dwelling in a false realm is inverted consciousness, concluding the answer to the above question: why is that kind of mind dwelling called inverted. 『As in the sutra, the past mind』 below, quotes and explains the sutra that false dwelling is not mind dwelling, concluding and forming the meaning of inversion. 『With the past and future』 below, explains the sutra of the mind dwelling in the three times, which can be understood.

『Why are metaphors repeatedly used based on merit?』 raises the question, introducing the third verse. The third verse 『the root of Buddha's wisdom』 addresses the above question: because the mind is inverted, this merit should also be inverted. Now saying the root of Buddha's wisdom explains that Bodhisattvas above the first ground (Bhumis) do not cling to the characteristics of giving, which is unconditioned merit, and can serve as the excellent cause for the seed wisdom of Buddhahood, hence it is said to be the root of Buddha's wisdom. Moreover, the second sentence says 『non-inverted merit』, clearly knowing that this Bodhisattva's merit of giving is not an inverted mind clinging to characteristics. 『With this root of merit』 is with this root of merit that is the root of Buddha's wisdom.

---

故重說譬喻」者，重說三千世界施福，明雖同是佈施，但取相心佈施者福德是顛倒；不取相心，施名雖同而福非顛倒也。然取相心施雖是顛，非不因此地前取相有漏施福以此為因，然後得入初地無漏，有順理之義故。地前取相福德，亦得相從為不顛倒福德也。「此說何義至何名善法」者，此序經中生疑之意也。「為斷此疑」以下至「福德非顛倒」，釋答疑之意也。「何以故」者，釋此七寶施福何以故得為非顛倒也。即提偈上句來，答以「佛智慧根本」故非顛倒也。「云何示現根本」者，問云何示現此七寶施福是佛智慧根本也。「如經須菩提」等，舉經為取第二福德聚，答佛智慧根本義也。「此義云何」以下，釋經中第二福德聚是其無漏故非顛倒，以無漏故得為佛智慧根本也。

「須菩提！于意云何？佛可以色身見不」等，此一段經是斷疑分中第六段經文。此經所以來者，有疑故。上已三處明可以相成就見如來不，此中第四何故復言佛可以具足色相身成就見不也？初一邊，明法身上無應佛生住滅三相。第二邊，明法身上無報佛大丈夫相。第三邊，明法身上無色等法有為萬相。此三處，就別相中以明法身佛古今湛然如虛空身非修行故得，不可以色相而見。須彌山王喻中，明報身佛由行者修行因緣萬德圓滿，以色相莊

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『故重說譬喻』，是再次說明用三千大千世界財物佈施的福報，闡明雖然同樣是佈施，但執著于外相的佈施，其福德是顛倒的；不執著于外相的佈施，即使佈施之名相同，其福德也不是顛倒的。然而，執著于外相的佈施雖然是顛倒的，但並非不能因此在初地之前，以執著外相的有漏佈施福德為因，然後得以進入初地無漏境界，這其中有順理成章的意義。因此，初地之前執著外相的福德，也可以被認為是不顛倒的福德。『此說何義至何名善法』，這是在經文的序分中產生疑問的意思。『為斷此疑』以下至『福德非顛倒』，是解釋和回答疑問的意思。『何以故』，是解釋為什麼用七寶佈施的福德可以成為不顛倒的福德。即是提引偈文的上句，回答說因為是『佛智慧根本』，所以不是顛倒的。『云何示現根本』，是問如何顯示這七寶佈施的福德是佛智慧的智慧根本。『如經須菩提』等，是引用經文來選取第二種福德聚，回答佛智慧根本的意義。『此義云何』以下，是解釋經文中的第二種福德聚是無漏的，所以不是顛倒的，因為是無漏的，所以可以成為佛智慧的根本。 『須菩提！于意云何？佛可以色身見不』等，這一段經文是斷疑分中的第六段經文。這部經之所以出現，是因為有疑問。上面已經三處說明不可以相成就見如來（Tathagata），這裡第四次又問為什麼佛可以具足色相身成就見嗎？第一次，說明法身（Dharmakaya）上沒有應佛（Nirmanakaya）的生住滅三相。第二次，說明法身上沒有報佛（Sambhogakaya）大丈夫相。第三次，說明法身上沒有色等法有為萬相。這三處，就個別相中說明法身佛古今湛然如虛空，身體不是通過修行而得到的，不可以色相而見。須彌山王（Sumeru）的比喻中，說明報身佛由修行者修行因緣萬德圓滿，以色相莊嚴。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Therefore, the repeated explanation of the metaphor』 refers to explaining again the merit of giving with the wealth of three thousand great thousand worlds, clarifying that although both are giving, the merit of giving with attachment to appearances is inverted; giving without attachment to appearances, even if the name of giving is the same, its merit is not inverted. However, although giving with attachment to appearances is inverted, it is not that it cannot be the cause for entering the first Bhumi (stage of Bodhisattva) of non-outflow after taking the conditioned merit of giving with attachment to appearances before the first Bhumi, and then entering the first Bhumi of non-outflow, which has a logical meaning. Therefore, the merit of attachment to appearances before the first Bhumi can also be regarded as non-inverted merit. 『What is the meaning of this saying, and what is called good Dharma?』 This is the meaning of raising doubts in the introduction of the Sutra. 『To dispel this doubt』 to 『merit is not inverted』 is the meaning of explaining and answering doubts. 『Why?』 is to explain why the merit of giving with seven treasures can be non-inverted. That is, quoting the upper sentence of the verse, answering that it is not inverted because it is the 『root of Buddha's wisdom』. 『How to show the root?』 is to ask how to show that the merit of giving with these seven treasures is the root of Buddha's wisdom. 『As in the Sutra, Subhuti (one of the principal disciples of the Buddha)』 etc., is to cite the Sutra to select the second accumulation of merit, answering the meaning of the root of Buddha's wisdom. 『What is the meaning of this?』 below, is to explain that the second accumulation of merit in the Sutra is non-outflow, so it is not inverted, and because it is non-outflow, it can be the root of Buddha's wisdom. 『Subhuti! What do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by a physical body?』 etc., this section of the Sutra is the sixth section of the Sutra in the Doubt-Dispelling section. The reason why this Sutra appears is because there are doubts. It has already been explained in three places above that the Tathagata (Buddha) cannot be seen by the accomplishment of characteristics. Why is it asked for the fourth time here whether the Buddha can be seen by the accomplishment of a body with complete characteristics? The first time, it was explained that there are no three characteristics of birth, dwelling, and extinction of the Nirmanakaya (emanation body) Buddha on the Dharmakaya (Dharma body). The second time, it was explained that there are no marks of a great man of the Sambhogakaya (enjoyment body) Buddha on the Dharmakaya. The third time, it was explained that there are no conditioned ten thousand phenomena such as form on the Dharmakaya. In these three places, it is explained in the individual characteristics that the Dharmakaya Buddha is eternally clear like empty space from ancient times to the present, and the body is not obtained through practice, and cannot be seen by physical characteristics. In the metaphor of Mount Sumeru (the king of mountains), it is explained that the Sambhogakaya Buddha is adorned with physical characteristics due to the perfect fulfillment of ten thousand virtues through the practice of the practitioner.

---

嚴體非有為有漏，湛然常住；此就別相明報佛。第六段中「無有定法得菩提」者，明應佛從感故有，非修行可得，畢無色無心；此就別相明應佛。此三佛曆然不同也。法身佛非報、應二佛，報身佛非法身、應身佛，應身佛非法、報二佛，此就三種佛別相義邊不得為一也。有人生疑：若此三佛差別不同，則皆是不實，何以故應身佛非修行所得，無色無心則是虛妄？既離法身有報佛，報佛則是本無今有、已有還無，亦是不實。若法身佛如虛空不可得見、體亦不實，此是一種疑。又上第六段中雲「聖人以無為法得名」。復云由行者修行因緣成就相好，名之為佛。若然，為當即法身上有此報、應二佛色相之身冥然是一？為條然異於法身有此二色相身也？若冥然是一，則不應有三佛用差；若條然異有，則皆是虛妄，無有一義。有如此疑，故「佛問須菩提：佛可以具足色身見不」等。此答意云：汝不應作是難。所以然者，則此三佛，亦有一義亦有異義，故語一則如終一法性無有二相，論異則三佛體用有別歷然不同。此三種佛，理而言之，恒一恒三、恒三恒一，言三不傷其一體、論一廢其三用，故不應難言：此三種佛為冥然作一、為條然有異？為釋此疑，故次明也。

「于意云何？佛可以具足色身見不」者，此佛問須菩提，明

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 嚴體（指法身佛的莊嚴體性）並非有為有漏之法，而是湛然常住的。這是就別相（差別相）而言，說明報身佛的特點。 第六段中說『無有定法得菩提（覺悟）』，是說明應身佛是因應眾生的感應而示現，並非通過修行可以獲得，最終歸於無色無心。這是就別相而言，說明應身佛的特點。這三種佛的體性歷然不同。 法身佛不是報身佛和應身佛，報身佛不是法身佛和應身佛，應身佛不是法身佛和報身佛。這是就三種佛的別相義方面來說，不能視為一體。 有人產生疑問：如果這三種佛的差別不同，那麼它們都是不真實的。為什麼呢？應身佛不是通過修行所得，無色無心就是虛妄的。既然離開法身而有報身佛，報身佛就是本來沒有現在有，已經有了還會消失，也是不真實的。如果法身佛像虛空一樣不可得見，其體性也是不真實的。這是一種疑問。 又，前面第六段中說『聖人以無為法得名』，又說由於修行者的修行因緣成就了相好，才被稱為佛。如果是這樣，那麼到底是法身佛身上就冥然地具有報身佛和應身佛這兩種色相之身，渾然一體呢？還是截然不同於法身，另外具有這兩種色相之身呢？如果渾然一體，就不應該有三種佛在作用上的差別；如果截然不同，那麼它們都是虛妄的，沒有一點真實意義。有這樣的疑問，所以『佛問須菩提：佛可以具足色身見不』等等。 這段回答的意思是：你不應該提出這樣的疑問。原因是，這三種佛，既有一體性，也有差別性。說一體性，就像最終歸於一法性，沒有兩種相；說差別性，則三種佛的體性和作用有區別，歷然不同。這三種佛，從理上說，恒常是一，恒常是三，恒常是三，恒常是一。說三不損害其一體性，說一不廢除其三種作用。所以不應該問：這三種佛是渾然一體，還是截然不同？爲了解釋這個疑問，所以接下來進行說明。 『于意云何？佛可以具足色身見不』，這是佛問須菩提，說明...

【English Translation】 English version The rigorous body (referring to the majestic nature of Dharmakaya Buddha) is neither conditioned nor defiled, but serenely permanent. This explains the characteristics of Sambhogakaya Buddha from the perspective of distinct appearances (different aspects). In the sixth section, it says 'There is no fixed Dharma to attain Bodhi (enlightenment),' which explains that Nirmanakaya Buddha manifests in response to the sentient beings' feelings and is not attainable through practice, ultimately returning to non-form and non-mind. This explains the characteristics of Nirmanakaya Buddha from the perspective of distinct appearances. The nature of these three Buddhas is clearly different. Dharmakaya Buddha is not Sambhogakaya Buddha or Nirmanakaya Buddha, Sambhogakaya Buddha is not Dharmakaya Buddha or Nirmanakaya Buddha, and Nirmanakaya Buddha is not Dharmakaya Buddha or Sambhogakaya Buddha. This is from the perspective of the distinct meanings of the three Buddhas, and they cannot be regarded as one. Some people have doubts: If the differences between these three Buddhas are different, then they are all unreal. Why? Nirmanakaya Buddha is not obtained through practice, and non-form and non-mind are false. Since there is Sambhogakaya Buddha apart from Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya Buddha is originally non-existent but now exists, and will disappear after it exists, which is also unreal. If Dharmakaya Buddha is invisible like the void, its nature is also unreal. This is one doubt. Also, in the sixth section above, it says 'Saints are named by unconditioned Dharma,' and it also says that because of the causes and conditions of practitioners' practice, the marks and characteristics are achieved, and they are called Buddhas. If so, is it that Dharmakaya Buddha inherently and indistinctly possesses the two forms of Sambhogakaya Buddha and Nirmanakaya Buddha, being completely one? Or is it completely different from Dharmakaya, having these two forms separately? If they are completely one, there should be no difference in the functions of the three Buddhas; if they are completely different, then they are all false and have no real meaning. Because of such doubts, 'The Buddha asked Subhuti: Can the Buddha be seen by fully possessing a physical body?' etc. The meaning of this answer is: You should not raise such questions. The reason is that these three Buddhas have both unity and difference. Speaking of unity, it is like ultimately returning to one Dharma nature, without two aspects; speaking of difference, the nature and functions of the three Buddhas are different and distinct. These three Buddhas, in terms of principle, are constantly one and constantly three, constantly three and constantly one. Saying three does not harm its oneness, and saying one does not abolish its three functions. Therefore, one should not ask: Are these three Buddhas indistinctly one or distinctly different? To explain this doubt, the following explanation is given. 'What do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by fully possessing a physical body?' This is the Buddha asking Subhuti, explaining...

---

虛空法身古今湛然體無色相，可以報、應二佛具足色身見不也？故須菩提答「不也。世尊！如來不應以色身見」，此明三佛別相異義邊。明法身如來古今湛然猶如虛空，不可以報、應二佛具足色身而見故，不得說即法身上有報應二佛具足色身。此一句順上經中三佛別相法身義邊，不可以二佛具足色身見也。「何以故」者，有人乘此生疑：若法身如來古今無相猶如虛空，不可以報應二佛具足色身見者，法身便一向無色。若爾，則異於法身，別有報、應二佛具足之色，則還同前疑，三佛條然別相，何以故復作如是說也？故即答「如來說具足色身」，此明三佛一義邊，即法身上有功德智慧二種莊嚴，真如解脫色萬德圓滿無所缺少。以修行因緣顯本有法身以為報佛故，即法身上有此具足色身也。若法身中無具足色者，則不應有報、應二佛具足色身。以斯義故，得道即法身上有報、應二佛色身。此明三佛不異義也，是故上言一切法皆是佛法。覆復生疑：若即疑若即法身上有報應二種色身者，便法身中有色，上不應言報佛三十二丈夫相及應佛相非法身相也，又亦不應云法身古今一定如虛空也。故答言「即非具足色身」，明曏者就三佛一義邊，得云即法身上有具足色身。若據異義邊，明法身古今一定，無有二佛色身之用故。上初句云

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 虛空法身（Dharmakāya，佛的法性之身）古往今來清澈明凈，其本體沒有色相，那麼可以用具有色身的報身佛（Saṃbhogakāya）和應身佛（Nirmāṇakāya）來見嗎？所以須菩提（Subhūti）回答說：『不是的，世尊！不應該以色身來見如來（Tathāgata）』，這說明了三佛（Trikāya）在別相上的不同意義。說明法身如來古往今來清澈明凈，就像虛空一樣，不可以用具有色身的報身佛和應身佛來見，所以不能說在法身上有報身佛和應身佛的具足色身。這一句順應了前面經文中三佛別相中法身的意義，不可以二佛的具足色身來見。『何以故』（原因是什麼）呢？有人因此產生疑問：如果法身如來古往今來沒有形象，就像虛空一樣，不可以用具有色身的報身佛和應身佛來見，那麼法身就完全沒有色相了。如果這樣，就不同於法身，另外有報身佛和應身佛的具足之色，那就又和前面的疑問一樣了，三佛截然是不同的相，為什麼又這樣說呢？所以回答說：『如來說具足色身』，這說明了三佛在同一意義上的理解，即法身上有功德和智慧兩種莊嚴，真如（Tathātā）解脫的色相萬德圓滿，沒有什麼缺少。因為修行的因緣，顯現出本有的法身作為報身佛，所以在法身上有這具足的色身。如果法身中沒有具足的色相，那麼就不應該有報身佛和應身佛的具足色身。因為這個意義，可以說道法身上有報身佛和應身佛的色身。這說明了三佛沒有差異的意義，所以前面說一切法都是佛法。又產生疑問：如果法身上有報身佛和應身佛兩種色身，那麼法身中就有色相，上面不應該說報身佛的三十二大丈夫相（Lakṣaṇa-mahāpuruṣa）和應身佛的相不是法身的相，也不應該說，法身古往今來一定不變，就像虛空一樣。所以回答說：『即非具足色身』，說明前面是從三佛同一意義上說的，所以可以說在法身上有具足色身。如果根據不同意義來說，說明法身古往今來一定不變，沒有二佛色身的作用。上面第一句說

【English Translation】 English version The Dharmakāya (Dharmakāya, the body of the Buddha's Dharma nature) is clear and pure from ancient times to the present, and its essence has no form. Can it be seen with the Saṃbhogakāya (reward body Buddha) and Nirmāṇakāya (incarnation body Buddha) that have form? Therefore, Subhūti (Subhūti) replied: 'No, World Honored One! The Tathāgata (Tathāgata) should not be seen with a body of form.' This explains the different meanings of the three bodies (Trikāya) in their distinct aspects. It explains that the Dharmakāya Tathāgata is clear and pure from ancient times to the present, like the void, and cannot be seen with the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya that have form. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Dharmakāya has the complete form of the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya. This sentence follows the meaning of the Dharmakāya in the distinct aspects of the three bodies in the previous scripture, and cannot be seen with the complete form of the two Buddhas. 'Why?' (What is the reason?) Someone may have doubts about this: If the Dharmakāya Tathāgata has no form from ancient times to the present, like the void, and cannot be seen with the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya that have form, then the Dharmakāya has no form at all. If this is the case, it is different from the Dharmakāya, and there are separate forms of the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya, which is the same as the previous doubt. The three bodies are clearly different aspects, so why is it said like this again? Therefore, the answer is: 'The Tathāgata speaks of a complete body of form.' This explains the understanding of the three bodies in the same meaning, that is, the Dharmakāya has the adornments of merit and wisdom, and the form of true suchness (Tathātā) liberation is complete with myriad virtues, lacking nothing. Because of the causes and conditions of practice, the inherent Dharmakāya is manifested as the Saṃbhogakāya, so the Dharmakāya has this complete body of form. If the Dharmakāya does not have a complete form, then there should not be the complete form of the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya. Because of this meaning, it can be said that the Dharmakāya has the forms of the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya. This explains the meaning that the three bodies are not different, so it was said earlier that all dharmas are Buddha-dharma. Doubts arise again: If the Dharmakāya has the two forms of the Saṃbhogakāya and Nirmāṇakāya, then the Dharmakāya has form. It should not be said above that the thirty-two major marks (Lakṣaṇa-mahāpuruṣa) of the Saṃbhogakāya and the form of the Nirmāṇakāya are not the form of the Dharmakāya, nor should it be said that the Dharmakāya is constant from ancient times to the present, like the void. Therefore, the answer is: 'It is not a complete body of form.' It explains that the previous statement was made from the same meaning of the three bodies, so it can be said that the Dharmakāya has a complete body of form. If it is based on different meanings, it explains that the Dharmakāya is constant from ancient times to the present and has no function of the forms of the two Buddhas. The first sentence above says

---

「不應以具足色身見」故，言即非具足色身也，此成上經「三十二大人相即是非相」也。若法身上無報應色者，還同前疑；若法身佛就體無色身可見者，此之色身則條然異於法身，那得道言即法身佛上有具足色身也。故答言「是故如來說名具足」，明法身中雖即無報、應之色可見，然正顯法身作報佛色身之用。由有報、應故，不離法身有報、應之色，故言如來說名具足色身也。此成上第二句一義邊一切法皆是佛法也。又復就理而言，亦得云是故如來說名不具足色身。所以得云不具足身者，就異義邊論，明即法身佛上無二佛色身之用故，亦得云不具足色身。此句雙結三佛一異有色之義，但以答難故，直云是故如來說名具足色身，此成上異義也。

又問：此中但就色身明具足之義則足，何故復明諸具足也？有人乘無生疑：若法身佛上無具足色身，此法身佛為有三十二相、為無三十二相？為一為異也？有如此疑問，以故諸相經答，明因色身故則有三十二相。上已了了解釋即法身佛上有具足色身，即法身上無具足色身，何得難言若法身無色為有諸相為無諸相也。諸相四句經文不異前具足色身中義，故不別釋也。

「論曰：復有疑，若諸佛以無為法得名」者，牒上第六段中經來也，論主略申生疑所以。「云何諸佛成

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『不應該因為具有完備的色身而產生這種見解』，所以說並非是完備的色身，這成就了前面經文所說的『三十二大丈夫相即是非相』的含義。如果法身上沒有報身和應身之色，那就和之前的疑問一樣了；如果法身佛就其本體而言沒有可見的色身，那麼這個色身就顯然不同於法身，怎麼能說就是法身佛上有完備的色身呢？所以回答說『是故如來說名具足』，表明法身中雖然沒有報身和應身之色可見，但正是顯現法身具有化現報身佛色身的作用。因為有報身和應身，所以不離法身而有報身和應身之色，所以說如來說名為具足色身。這成就了前面第二句所說的一義方面一切法皆是佛法的含義。又從理上來說，也可以說是故如來說名不具足色身。之所以能說不具足色身，是從異義方面來說，表明法身佛上沒有二佛色身的作用，所以也可以說是不具足色身。這句話總結了三佛一異有色的含義，但因為是回答疑問，所以直接說是故如來說名具足色身，這成就了前面所說的異義。

又問：這裡僅僅就色身說明具足的含義就足夠了，為什麼還要說明諸具足呢？有人產生了無生的疑問：如果法身佛上沒有完備的色身，那麼這個法身佛是有三十二相（Thirty-two major marks of a Buddha）還是沒有三十二相？是一還是異呢？有這樣的疑問，所以諸相經回答說，因為色身所以有三十二相。上面已經很清楚地解釋了法身佛上有完備的色身，法身上沒有完備的色身，怎麼能問如果法身沒有色，是有諸相還是沒有諸相呢？諸相四句經文和前面具足色身中的含義沒有不同，所以不另外解釋了。

『論曰：復有疑，若諸佛以無為法得名』，這是引用上面第六段經文的內容，論主簡略地說明產生疑問的原因。『云何諸佛成』

【English Translation】 English version: 『One should not perceive based on the possession of a complete physical body,』 therefore, it is said that it is not a complete physical body. This fulfills the meaning of the previous scripture stating that 『the thirty-two major marks of a great man are precisely non-marks.』 If the Dharmakaya (Dharma body) does not have the color of the Reward Body (Sambhogakaya) and Manifestation Body (Nirmanakaya), it would be the same as the previous doubt. If the Dharmakaya Buddha, in its essence, does not have a visible physical body, then this physical body is clearly different from the Dharmakaya. How can it be said that the Dharmakaya Buddha possesses a complete physical body? Therefore, the answer is, 『Therefore, the Tathagata (Thus Come One) is named complete,』 indicating that although the color of the Reward Body and Manifestation Body is not visible in the Dharmakaya, it precisely reveals the function of the Dharmakaya in manifesting the color of the Reward Body Buddha. Because there are Reward Body and Manifestation Body, there is the color of Reward Body and Manifestation Body inseparable from the Dharmakaya. Therefore, it is said that the Tathagata is named as possessing a complete physical body. This fulfills the meaning of the first meaning of the second sentence above, that all dharmas are Buddha-dharma.

Furthermore, from the perspective of principle, it can also be said that 『Therefore, the Tathagata is named as not possessing a complete physical body.』 The reason for saying 『not possessing a complete body』 is from the perspective of different meanings, indicating that the Dharmakaya Buddha does not have the function of the two Buddha's physical bodies, so it can also be said to be 『not possessing a complete physical body.』 This sentence summarizes the meaning of the oneness and difference, and the existence of color, of the three bodies of Buddha (Trikaya), but because it is answering a question, it directly says 『Therefore, the Tathagata is named as possessing a complete physical body,』 which fulfills the meaning of the aforementioned difference.

Furthermore, it is asked: It would be sufficient to explain the meaning of completeness only in terms of the physical body here. Why is it necessary to explain all completeness? Someone raises the doubt of non-origination: If the Dharmakaya Buddha does not have a complete physical body, then does this Dharmakaya Buddha have the thirty-two marks or not? Is it one or different? Because there is such a doubt, the Sutra on Marks answers that because of the physical body, there are the thirty-two marks. It has already been clearly explained above that the Dharmakaya Buddha has a complete physical body, and the Dharmakaya does not have a complete physical body. How can one ask if the Dharmakaya has no color, does it have marks or not? The four-sentence structure of the Sutra on Marks is not different from the meaning in the previous complete physical body, so it will not be explained separately.

『The Treatise says: Furthermore, there is doubt, if all Buddhas are named by unconditioned dharma,』 this quotes the content of the scripture from the sixth section above. The author of the treatise briefly explains the reason for raising the doubt. 『How do all Buddhas achieve』

---

就八十種好三十二相而名為佛」者，序作難之辭，云：若法身佛無為法得名如虛空者，與報應二佛色相之身，為一為異等也。廣作疑問、不異經相也。生起「為斷此疑，是故說非成就色身、非成就諸相」者，略舉經中色相二處三佛異義經文答其不異之難。又色攝得八十種好三十二相，復舉上二處三佛一義經意答其異疑也。「如經」以下，舉二處一異經來結也。

此一段文，以二行偈釋。初釋經中「法身佛不可以具足色身見、不可以具足諸相見」。第二偈上三句，釋經中「如來說具足色身具足相身」，下一句釋經中「即非具足色身即非具足相身，是故如來說具足色身具足相身」等經也。「何故如是說」者，將欲偈釋故，先問何故不定？答乃作如此不定之說，或言法身有色相、或言法身無色相也。故即偈答「法身畢竟體，非彼相好身」。此二偈明就三佛異義邊不得言有色相，一義邊得言有色相也。「法身畢竟體」者，以初二偈釋二處經中佛問、須菩提答乃至如來不應以色身見、不應以相身見等，明虛空法身畢竟無有報、應色相之用可見，故云法身畢竟體也。何以故？以報應色相之身修行方得故。色相之身顯用於報應，真如法身雖萬德圓滿，但據體而論，故無色相之用也。如冬樹無果，以時未至故，非一向無也。若一

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：關於『以八十種好和三十二相來稱之為佛』的說法，序言中提出了疑問，說：如果法身佛（Dharmakaya Buddha，體現真理的佛身）是無為法（Asamskrta-dharma，不生不滅的法則），其名稱如同虛空一樣，那麼與報身佛（Sambhogakaya Buddha，因修行而獲得的佛身）和應身佛（Nirmanakaya Buddha，為度化眾生而顯現的佛身）的色相之身，是一體還是異體呢？這裡廣泛地提出了疑問，與經文的意義並不相悖。引出『爲了斷除這個疑惑，所以說非成就色身，非成就諸相』，這是簡要地引用經文中關於色身和相好兩方面，三佛（法身佛、報身佛、應身佛）的差異的經文，來回答其不相悖的疑問。又因為色身包含了八十種好和三十二相，所以又引用了上面兩處經文中三佛一體的經文含義，來回答其相異的疑問。『如經』以下，是引用兩處經文中一體和相異的經文來總結。 這一段文字，用兩行偈頌來解釋。第一句解釋經文中『法身佛不可以具足色身見，不可以具足諸相見』。第二偈的前三句，解釋經文中『如來說具足色身具足相身』，下一句解釋經文中『即非具足色身即非具足相身，是故如來說具足色身具足相身』等經文。『何故如是說』，這是將要用偈頌來解釋，所以先問為什麼不定？回答說才作出如此不定的說法，或者說，法身有色相，或者說法身沒有色相。所以用偈頌回答說『法身畢竟體，非彼相好身』。這兩句偈頌說明，就三佛異體的角度來說，不能說有色相，一體的角度來說，可以說有色相。『法身畢竟體』，是用最初的兩句偈頌來解釋兩處經文中佛的提問、須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）的回答，乃至如來不應以色身見，不應以相身見等，說明虛空法身（Dharmakaya，體現真理的佛身）畢竟沒有報身和應身的色相之用可以被看見，所以說，法身畢竟體。為什麼呢？因為報身和應身的色相之身是通過修行才能得到的。色相之身顯現用於報身和應身，真如法身（Tathata-Dharmakaya，如如不動的佛身）雖然萬德圓滿，但就其本體而言，所以沒有色相之用。如同冬天的樹沒有果實，因為時機未到，並非一向沒有。如果一

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the statement 'to be called Buddha by virtue of the eighty minor marks and thirty-two major marks', the introduction raises a question, saying: If the Dharmakaya Buddha (Dharmakaya Buddha, the body of the Buddha that embodies truth) is an unconditioned dharma (Asamskrta-dharma, the law of non-birth and non-death), and its name is like space, then are the Rupakaya (physical body) of the Sambhogakaya Buddha (Sambhogakaya Buddha, the body of the Buddha attained through practice) and the Nirmanakaya Buddha (Nirmanakaya Buddha, the body of the Buddha manifested to liberate sentient beings) one or different? Here, questions are raised extensively, which do not contradict the meaning of the sutras. It introduces 'In order to dispel this doubt, it is said that it is not the attainment of the Rupakaya, nor the attainment of the marks', which is a brief citation of the sutras regarding the differences between the three Buddhas (Dharmakaya Buddha, Sambhogakaya Buddha, Nirmanakaya Buddha) in terms of Rupakaya and marks, to answer the question of non-contradiction. Furthermore, because the Rupakaya includes the eighty minor marks and thirty-two major marks, it also cites the meaning of the sutras in the above two places regarding the unity of the three Buddhas, to answer the question of difference. 'As the sutra says' below, it cites the sutras in two places regarding unity and difference to conclude. This passage is explained with two lines of verses. The first line explains the sutra 'The Dharmakaya Buddha cannot be seen with the complete Rupakaya, nor can it be seen with the complete marks'. The first three lines of the second verse explain the sutra 'The Tathagata (Tathagata, 'Thus Gone One', an epithet of the Buddha) says the complete Rupakaya and the complete marks', and the next line explains the sutra 'That is, it is not the complete Rupakaya, nor is it the complete marks, therefore the Tathagata says the complete Rupakaya and the complete marks', and so on. 'Why is it said like this?' This is because it is about to be explained with verses, so first ask why it is uncertain? The answer is that such an uncertain statement is made, or it is said that the Dharmakaya has Rupakaya, or it is said that the Dharmakaya has no Rupakaya. Therefore, the verse answers 'The Dharmakaya is ultimately the essence, not that body with marks'. These two verses explain that from the perspective of the difference between the three Buddhas, it cannot be said that there are Rupakaya, and from the perspective of unity, it can be said that there are Rupakaya. 'The Dharmakaya is ultimately the essence' is to explain the Buddha's question and Subhuti's (Subhuti, a disciple of the Buddha) answer in the two sutras, and even the Tathagata should not be seen with the Rupakaya, and should not be seen with the marks, etc., with the first two verses, explaining that the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, the body of the Buddha that embodies truth) of emptiness ultimately has no use of the Rupakaya of the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya that can be seen, so it is said that the Dharmakaya is ultimately the essence. Why? Because the Rupakaya of the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya can only be obtained through practice. The Rupakaya is manifested for the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya, and although the Tathata-Dharmakaya (Tathata-Dharmakaya, the unchanging Buddha-body) is perfect with all virtues, it has no use of Rupakaya in terms of its essence. It is like a tree without fruit in winter, because the time has not come, not because it never has it. If one

---

向無者，應時至亦無。以此喻驗之，法身非不有色相，以時未至故不可見也。「非彼相好身」者，明法身非報應相好身也。「以非相成就」者，所以言法身非相好身者，以法身不為現用相好所成故也。法身何故不為相所成？故下句云「非彼法身故」，明相好之身，非古今一定法身之體，故言非彼法身故。此明法身佛異義也。

第二偈上句，釋經中何以故如來說具足色身、具足相身二處經文也。明法身上雖無色相之用可見，然不離於法身，以修行因緣則有報應色相之用，畢竟不從余處來也，故云「不離於法身，彼二非不佛」也。「彼二」者，彼色之與相，非不是法身佛故。第三句云「故重說成就」，下一句並釋法身中亦得言有色。「亦無二」者，此明虛空法身中畢竟無報、應色相，故言亦無二，釋經中「即非具足色身相身」也。雖法身上無，亦得道即法身中有，故云及有二。此明不離法身報、應色相之身也，釋經中「是故說具足色身具足相身」也。「此二偈說何義至以非彼法身相故」，釋初偈，明法身異義邊無色相也。「此二非不彼乃至偈言彼二非不佛故」，釋第二偈上二句，引所釋經證，舉偈第二句結明一義邊法身有色相也。「是故此二乃至以不離法身故」，釋第二偈中下句，明法身中亦得說無報、應色相二，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於『向無者，應時至亦無』，這意味著即使是看似不存在的事物，在時機未到時也無法顯現。這可以用來比喻法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）並非沒有色相，而是因為時機未到所以無法被看見。『非彼相好身』，說明法身並非報應身（Sambhogakaya，佛的報身）所具有的相好（lakshana，佛的三十二相和八十隨形好）。『以非相成就』，之所以說說法身不是相好身，是因為法身不是由現用的相好所成就的。法身為什麼不是由相所成就的呢？所以下一句說『非彼法身故』，說明相好之身，不是自古至今恒定不變的法身本體，所以說不是那個法身。這說明了法身佛（Dharmakaya Buddha）的差異之處。 第二偈的上句，解釋了經文中為什麼如來說『具足色身』、『具足相身』這兩處經文。說明法身上雖然沒有色相的功用可以被看見，但是並不離開法身，因為通過修行因緣就會有報應色相的功用，畢竟不是從其他地方來的，所以說『不離於法身，彼二非不佛』。『彼二』，指的是色和相，並非不是法身佛。第三句說『故重說成就』，下一句一起解釋法身中也可以說有色。『亦無二』，這說明虛空法身中畢竟沒有報身、應身（Nirmanakaya，佛的應化身）的色相，所以說『亦無二』，解釋了經文中的『即非具足色身相身』。雖然法身上沒有，也可以說道即法身中有，所以說及有二。這說明不離開法身的報身、應身色相之身，解釋了經文中的『是故說具足色身具足相身』。『此二偈說何義至以非彼法身相故』，解釋第一偈，說明法身異義一邊沒有色相。『此二非不彼乃至偈言彼二非不佛故』，解釋第二偈的上兩句，引用所解釋的經文來證明，舉出偈的第二句來總結說明一義一邊法身有色相。『是故此二乃至以不離法身故』，解釋第二偈的下半句，說明法身中也可以說沒有報身、應身色相二。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding 『To the non-existent, even when the time arrives, there is still nothing.』 This means that even things that seem non-existent cannot manifest until the time is right. This can be used as a metaphor to illustrate that the Dharmakaya (the Body of Dharma, the essential nature of the Buddha) is not without form, but it is not visible because the time has not yet come. 『Not that body of marks and characteristics』 clarifies that the Dharmakaya is not the body of marks and characteristics (lakshana, the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks of a Buddha) possessed by the Sambhogakaya (the Body of Enjoyment, the reward body of the Buddha). 『Because it is not accomplished by form』 explains why the Dharmakaya is said not to be a body of marks and characteristics, because the Dharmakaya is not accomplished by the currently used marks and characteristics. Why is the Dharmakaya not accomplished by form? Therefore, the next sentence says, 『Therefore, it is not that Dharmakaya,』 clarifying that the body of marks and characteristics is not the eternally unchanging essence of the Dharmakaya from ancient times to the present, so it is said not to be that Dharmakaya. This explains the difference in meaning of the Dharmakaya Buddha. The first line of the second verse explains why the sutra says 『complete body of form』 and 『complete body of characteristics.』 It explains that although the Dharmakaya does not have the function of form that can be seen, it does not depart from the Dharmakaya, because through the causes and conditions of practice, there will be the function of the reward body's form and characteristics, and it ultimately does not come from elsewhere, so it is said, 『Not departing from the Dharmakaya, those two are not not Buddha.』 『Those two』 refers to form and characteristics, which are not not the Dharmakaya Buddha. The third line says, 『Therefore, it is repeatedly said to be accomplished,』 and the next line together explains that it can also be said that there is form in the Dharmakaya. 『Also, not two』 explains that there are ultimately no Sambhogakaya or Nirmanakaya (the Body of Transformation, the emanation body of the Buddha) forms in the empty Dharmakaya, so it is said, 『Also, not two,』 explaining the sutra's 『that is, not a complete body of form and characteristics.』 Although it is not in the Dharmakaya, it can also be said that it is in the Dharmakaya, so it is said to have two. This explains the body of the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya forms that do not depart from the Dharmakaya, explaining the sutra's 『Therefore, it is said to have a complete body of form and a complete body of characteristics.』 『What is the meaning of these two verses up to because it is not that Dharmakaya form』 explains the first verse, clarifying that there is no form on the side of the different meaning of the Dharmakaya. 『These two are not not that up to the verse saying those two are not not Buddha』 explains the first two lines of the second verse, citing the sutra being explained to prove it, and citing the second line of the verse to summarize and explain that the Dharmakaya has form on the side of one meaning. 『Therefore, these two up to because they do not depart from the Dharmakaya』 explains the second half of the second verse, clarifying that it can also be said that there are no Sambhogakaya or Nirmanakaya forms in the Dharmakaya.

---

亦得說有色相二也。所以此中再重釋此一異之義者，但經中為釋難故，有其兩重故，論主亦重釋也。「是故此二，亦得言無，故說非身成就非相成就」，此是釋法身無色相義，經論相屬也。「亦得言有，故說色身成就諸相成就」者，此解法身有色相義，經論相屬也。「偈言亦無二及有」者，釋竟以偈結之也。「何故如是說」者，設問也。「以彼法身中無，即於是義」者，答法身中無色相所以也。「說如來色身成就諸相成就，以不離彼身故」者，答法身有色相所由也。「而法身不如是說」者，明雖不離法身有色相之身，而法身義邊古今一定畢竟無此色相。為生下疑故作此句，欲使乘無生難因言長理故后章得顯也。

「佛言須菩提：于意云何？汝謂如來有所說法耶」等，此斷疑分中第七段經文。已三遍來，此所以來，有疑故也。上來廣辨法身之體畢竟無有有為萬相，又此前段經復明虛空法身異義邊體無報應色相，若法身無色相則亦無眼等諸根，既無諸根亦無口業。云何言如來說此法？問：法身佛為說法、為不說法也？若法身佛不說法者，報、應二佛亦應一向不說法。又疑：若使如來說法者，為即此證智法身有言教可說？為離此證智法身別有此言教可說也？為斷此疑故，答「于意云何？汝謂如來有所說法耶」。此答意

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 亦可說有色相兩種屬性。這裡再次重複解釋這一異同之義，是因為經文中爲了消除疑惑，存在兩種情況，所以論主也重複解釋。「是故此二，亦得言無，故說非身成就非相成就」，這是解釋法身沒有色相的含義，經文和論述相互關聯。「亦得言有，故說色身成就諸相成就」則是解釋法身具有色相的含義，經文和論述相互關聯。「偈言亦無二及有」一句，是解釋完畢後用偈頌總結。「何故如是說」是設問。「以彼法身中無，即於是義」是回答法身中沒有色相的原因。「說如來色身成就諸相成就，以不離彼身故」是回答法身具有色相的緣由。「而法身不如是說」是說明雖然不離法身而有色相之身，但就法身的意義而言，自古至今都是一定不變的，畢竟沒有這種色相。爲了引發下面的疑問而作此句，想要藉助無生的困難，因為言語越長，道理越明顯，所以後面的章節才能顯現出來。

『佛言須菩提（Subhuti，人名）：于意云何？汝謂如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）有所說法耶』等，這是斷疑部分中的第七段經文。已經來了三次，之所以來，是因為有疑問。上面廣泛辨析法身的本體畢竟沒有有為的萬象，而且此前一段經文又闡明虛空法身在異義方面沒有報應色相，如果法身沒有色相，那麼也就沒有眼等諸根，既然沒有諸根，也就沒有口業。怎麼說如來說此法呢？問：法身佛是說法還是不說法呢？如果法身佛不說法，那麼報身佛和應身佛也應該一概不說法。又懷疑：如果如來說法，是即此證智法身有言教可說？還是離開此證智法身另有此言教可說呢？爲了斷除這個疑問，回答『于意云何？汝謂如來有所說法耶』。這個回答的意思是

【English Translation】 English version It can also be said that there are two aspects: form and characteristics. The reason for repeatedly explaining the meaning of this difference and sameness here is that there are two situations in the sutra to eliminate doubts, so the commentator also repeats the explanation. 'Therefore, these two can also be said to be non-existent, hence it is said that neither the body is accomplished nor the characteristics are accomplished.' This explains the meaning of Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, the body of the law) having no form or characteristics, and the sutra and commentary are related. 'It can also be said to be existent, hence it is said that the physical body is accomplished and all characteristics are accomplished.' This explains the meaning of Dharmakaya having form and characteristics, and the sutra and commentary are related. The phrase 'The verse says neither non-duality nor existence' is a summary in verse after the explanation is completed. 'Why is it said like this?' is a question. 'Because it is absent in that Dharmakaya, that is the meaning' is the answer to why there are no form and characteristics in Dharmakaya. 'It is said that the Tathagata's (Tathagata, the one who has thus come) physical body is accomplished and all characteristics are accomplished because it is not separate from that body' is the answer to the reason why Dharmakaya has form and characteristics. 'But the Dharmakaya is not spoken of in this way' clarifies that although there is a body with form and characteristics that is not separate from the Dharmakaya, in terms of the meaning of Dharmakaya, it is certain and unchanging from ancient times to the present, and there are ultimately no such form and characteristics. This sentence is made to raise the following doubts, wanting to use the difficulty of non-origination, because the longer the words, the clearer the principle, so the later chapters can be revealed.

'The Buddha said to Subhuti (Subhuti, name of a person): What do you think? Do you think the Tathagata (Tathagata, title of the Buddha) has spoken any Dharma?' etc., this is the seventh section of scripture in the section on resolving doubts. It has come three times already, and the reason for coming is because there are doubts. The above extensively analyzes that the essence of Dharmakaya ultimately has no conditioned phenomena, and the previous section of scripture also clarifies that the empty Dharmakaya has no retribution form and characteristics in terms of different meanings. If Dharmakaya has no form and characteristics, then there are no sense organs such as eyes, and since there are no sense organs, there is no verbal karma. How can it be said that the Tathagata speaks this Dharma? Question: Does the Dharmakaya Buddha speak Dharma or not? If the Dharmakaya Buddha does not speak Dharma, then the Reward Body Buddha and the Manifestation Body Buddha should also not speak Dharma at all. Also, there is doubt: If the Tathagata speaks Dharma, is it that this wisdom-attained Dharmakaya has verbal teachings that can be spoken? Or is it that apart from this wisdom-attained Dharmakaya, there are other verbal teachings that can be spoken? To dispel this doubt, the answer is 'What do you think? Do you think the Tathagata has spoken any Dharma?' The meaning of this answer is

---

明法身之體無名無相，畢竟無色相可見、無言教可說。又雖無色相諸根，然要顯法身，為報佛由法身現時為報故，得言因法身有色相諸根、有口業、有言教說法。故上論云「聖人證無為法，還說無為法」，若以此文驗者，雖即證法無言教可說，亦不得離此所證法身別有教法可說也。「于意云何」者，此應有問答而不作問答，故如來直問須菩提于意云何，欲使冥解而答也。

「汝謂如來作是念：如來有所說法不」者，問須菩提，汝謂如來作念，謂于無名相證法中有名相可說不？汝謂如來作是念：離於所證法更言教法可說不也。「莫作是念」者，遮須菩提此念。汝若謂如來於證法無名相理取同名相可說者，此是不正念。若謂如來離於證智更有教法可說者，此亦是不正念。故言莫作是念也。「何以故？須菩提！若人言：如來有所說法。則為謗佛，不能解我所說義」者，此釋前何以故汝向所說是不正說。「若人言如來有所說法，則為謗佛」，明實不作是說，道言如來作此說，即誣聖言，故言謗佛。此人所以生謗者，以不解如來所說理教一異之義故。云何不解？聞言證法無名相，便謂離於證法，條然更有言教可說，不知證智無名相無法可說，故曰不解義。不知因尋教得理、由證有說，故不解義也。「何以故」者，此世辨釋

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：明瞭法身的本體，它是無名無相的，畢竟沒有色相可以看見，也沒有言語教導可以述說。雖然法身沒有色相和諸根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意），但要顯現法身，是因為報身佛由法身顯現的緣故，所以可以說因為法身而有色相和諸根，有口業，有言語教導說法。所以前面的論述說：『聖人證悟無為法（Nirvana），仍然宣說無為法』，如果用這段文字來驗證，即使證悟的法是無言語教導可以述說的，也不得離開這個所證悟的法身，另外有教法可以述說。『于意云何』（What do you think？）這句話，這裡應該有問答，但是沒有作問答，所以如來直接問須菩提『于意云何』，想要使他心領神會而回答。 『汝謂如來作是念：如來有所說法不』（Do you think, Subhuti, that the Tathagata would think: I have preached the Dharma?）這句話，是問須菩提，你認為如來會這樣想嗎？認為在無名相的證法（Dharma）中，有名相可以述說嗎？你認為如來會這樣想嗎？離開所證悟的法，另外有言語教法可以述說嗎？『莫作是念』（Do not think like that）這句話，是阻止須菩提這樣想。你如果認為如來在證悟法無名相的道理中，取同名相可以述說，這是不正的念頭。如果認為如來離開證悟的智慧，另外有教法可以述說，這也是不正的念頭。所以說『莫作是念』。『何以故？須菩提！若人言：如來有所說法。則為謗佛，不能解我所說義』（Why? Subhuti, if anyone says that the Tathagata has preached the Dharma, he slanders me with falsehood. He is unable to understand what I mean.）這句話，是解釋前面為什麼說你剛才所說是『不正說』。『若人言如來有所說法，則為謗佛』，說明實際上沒有這樣說，卻說如來說了這樣的話，就是誣衊聖人的言論，所以說是誹謗佛。這個人之所以產生誹謗，是因為不理解如來所說的理教一異的意義。怎樣是不理解呢？聽到證悟的法是無名相的，就認為離開證悟的法，條條框框地另外有言語教導可以述說，不知道證悟的智慧是無名相，沒有法可以述說的，所以說不理解意義。不知道因為尋找教義而得到真理，因為證悟而有述說，所以不理解意義。『何以故』這句話，是世俗的辨釋。

【English Translation】 English version: To understand the essence of Dharmakaya (法身 - Dharma body), it is nameless and formless, ultimately without any visible appearance or teachable words. Although Dharmakaya lacks physical forms and sense organs, its manifestation as a Sambhogakaya (報身 - reward body) Buddha necessitates the existence of forms, organs, speech, and teachings. Therefore, the preceding discussion states, 'Saints realize the unconditioned Dharma (無為法 - Nirvana), yet still teach the unconditioned Dharma.' If we examine this statement, even though the realized Dharma is beyond words, we cannot separate the teachings from the Dharmakaya itself. '于意云何' (What do you think?) implies a question-and-answer format, but instead of engaging in a dialogue, the Tathagata (如來 - Thus Come One) directly asks Subhuti (須菩提), intending for him to understand intuitively and respond. 『汝謂如來作是念：如來有所說法不』 (Do you think, Subhuti, that the Tathagata would think: I have preached the Dharma?) questions Subhuti's assumption that the Tathagata believes there are names and forms to be spoken within the nameless and formless Dharma. It asks if Subhuti thinks the Tathagata believes there are separate teachings apart from the realized Dharma. 『莫作是念』 (Do not think like that) discourages Subhuti from such thoughts. If you believe the Tathagata takes similar names and forms from the nameless and formless principle of the realized Dharma to be spoken, this is an incorrect thought. If you believe the Tathagata has separate teachings apart from the realized wisdom, this is also an incorrect thought. Therefore, it says, 'Do not think like that.' 『何以故？須菩提！若人言：如來有所說法。則為謗佛，不能解我所說義』 (Why? Subhuti, if anyone says that the Tathagata has preached the Dharma, he slanders me with falsehood. He is unable to understand what I mean.) explains why Subhuti's previous statement was incorrect. 『若人言如來有所說法，則為謗佛』 (If anyone says that the Tathagata has preached the Dharma, he slanders me with falsehood) clarifies that the Tathagata did not actually say this, and claiming that the Tathagata did is a false accusation, thus slandering the Buddha. The reason for this slander is a misunderstanding of the unity and difference between the principles and teachings of the Tathagata. How does this misunderstanding arise? Upon hearing that the realized Dharma is nameless and formless, one assumes there are separate, distinct teachings apart from the realized Dharma, failing to understand that realized wisdom is nameless and formless, with no Dharma to be spoken. Therefore, it is said that one does not understand the meaning. One does not understand that truth is found through seeking teachings, and speech arises from realization, hence the lack of understanding. 『何以故』 (Why?) is a worldly explanation.

---

名，何以故道言如來有所說法則是謗佛也。故下即云「如來說法說法者，無法可說」，明說法有二：一是所詮證義；二能證言教。然此理教雖殊，而本末相由，理無條然。若謂證法有名相可說者，此不解聖意，名為謗佛。聞言證法無名相，便謂離此證法別有言教可說，復是不解聖意，亦為謗佛也。「無法可說」者，明證法無言教可說，離於證法亦無言教可說也。「是名說法」者，如是解證法無名相可說、不離證法有教法可說者，方名正解、方名正說，故言是名說法也。亦應言是名非說法，明若不如是解證中無名相可說、因證有名相可說者，故非說法也。

「論曰：復有疑乃至若相成就不可得見」者，牒次前無色無相經也。「云何言如來說法」者，作難。自下經文以下，引經申斷疑之意也。

此經以一行偈釋。「如佛法亦然」者，釋經中「乃至不能解我所說故」。「如佛」者，如前經中明法身佛上有色相無色相、三佛一異離即之義也。「法亦然」者，佛既如此，理教法一異義亦同也。明能證言教、所詮證義，依此而論亦得言有差別故。次第二句云「所說二差別」，此釋經中「說法說法者」，二差別者，理教殊也。此明能詮所詮異義邊亦然也，亦得言無差別故。下二句云「不離於法界，說法無自相」，此釋經

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：名為何故？如果說道如來有所說法，那就是謗佛。因此下面就說『如來說法，說法者，無法可說』，說明說法有兩種：一是所詮證的真義；二是能詮證的言教。然而此理與教雖然不同，但本末相互依存，真理並非孤立存在。如果認為證悟之法有名相可以言說，這就是不理解聖意，稱為謗佛。聽到言語證悟之法無名相，便認為離開此證悟之法，另有言教可以言說，這也是不理解聖意，也是謗佛。『無法可說』，是說明證悟之法沒有言教可以言說，離開證悟之法也沒有言教可以言說。『是名說法』，如此理解證悟之法無名相可以言說、不離證悟之法有教法可以言說，才稱得上是正確的理解，才稱得上是正確的說法，所以說是名說法。也應該說是名非說法，說明如果不如是理解證悟中無名相可以言說、因為證悟有名相可以言說，所以不是說法。

『論曰：復有疑乃至若相成就不可得見』，這是承接前面的《無色無相經》。『云何言如來說法』，這是提出疑問。從下面的經文開始，引用經文來申明斷除疑惑的用意。

此經用一行偈頌來解釋。『如佛法亦然』，這是解釋經中的『乃至不能解我所說故』。『如佛』，如前面經中說明法身佛上有色相無色相、三佛一異離即的含義。『法亦然』，佛既然如此，理教法的一異之義也相同。說明能詮證的言教、所詮證的真義，依據此而論也可以說有差別。第二句說『所說二差別』，這是解釋經中的『說法說法者』，二差別指的是理與教的差別。這說明能詮與所詮的差異之處也是如此，也可以說沒有差別。下面兩句說『不離於法界，說法無自相』，這是解釋經

【English Translation】 English version: Why is it named so? If it is said that the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) has something to say, then it is slandering the Buddha. Therefore, the following says, 'The Tathagata speaks Dharma (法, teachings), and the speaker of Dharma has nothing to say,' indicating that there are two kinds of speaking Dharma: one is the true meaning of what is being enlightened; the other is the verbal teachings that can enlighten. However, although this principle and teaching are different, they are interdependent from beginning to end, and the truth does not exist in isolation. If one thinks that the enlightened Dharma has names and forms that can be spoken, then this is not understanding the holy intention and is called slandering the Buddha. Hearing that the Dharma of verbal enlightenment has no names and forms, one thinks that apart from this Dharma of enlightenment, there are other verbal teachings that can be spoken, which is also not understanding the holy intention and is also slandering the Buddha. 'Nothing to say' means that there are no verbal teachings that can be spoken about the enlightened Dharma, and there are no verbal teachings that can be spoken apart from the enlightened Dharma. 'Is called speaking Dharma' means that understanding that the enlightened Dharma has no names and forms that can be spoken, and that there are teachings that can be spoken without departing from the enlightened Dharma, is called correct understanding and correct speaking, so it is called speaking Dharma. It should also be said that it is called non-speaking Dharma, indicating that if one does not understand that there are no names and forms that can be spoken in enlightenment, and that there are names and forms that can be spoken because of enlightenment, then it is not speaking Dharma.

'The treatise says: There is also doubt, even if the accomplishment of form cannot be seen,' which refers to the previous Anupalabdhi (無色無相, without color and form) Sutra. 'How can it be said that the Tathagata speaks Dharma?' This is raising a question. From the following sutra text onwards, the intention of quoting the sutra to clarify and dispel doubts is stated.

This sutra is explained with a single line of verse. 'As the Buddha Dharma is also thus,' which explains 'even if they cannot understand what I say' in the sutra. 'As the Buddha,' as in the previous sutra, it explains the meaning of the Dharmakaya Buddha (法身佛, Dharma body Buddha) having form and no form, and the oneness and difference, separation and identity of the three Buddhas. 'The Dharma is also thus,' since the Buddha is like this, the meaning of oneness and difference of principle and teaching is also the same. It explains that the verbal teachings that can enlighten and the true meaning of what is being enlightened can also be said to have differences based on this. The second sentence says 'the two differences of what is said,' which explains 'the speaker of Dharma speaks Dharma' in the sutra, and the two differences refer to the difference between principle and teaching. This explains that the difference between the expresser and the expressed is also the same, and it can also be said that there is no difference. The following two sentences say 'not apart from the Dharmadhatu (法界, Dharma Realm), speaking Dharma has no self-nature,' which explains the sutra

---

中「無法可說是名說法」也。「不離於法界」者，明聖人證於真如法界，還說此真如，故知此所詮證義、能詮聲教不得相離。此明一義邊亦然也。「說法無自相」者，既如證如說，離於真如法界更無言教自相可說，即證智體無有名相故，亦無言教自相可說也。

長行論初「何故言說法說法者」，提經為問也。即指偈答言「所說二差別」故。「何者是二乃至所有義」，此出經中重言說法說法者，偈中二也。「何故言無法可說」者，若有言教能說、復有所說，義便應是有說，何故言無法可說也？即以下半偈答言「不離於法界，說法無自相」故也。「此以何義」以下，有一問答釋偈也。

「爾時慧命須菩提白佛言：世尊！頗有眾生於未來世聞說此經法生信心不」等，此一段經是斷疑分中第八段經文。復所以來，此亦有疑故來也。前段經，或明法身體無報應色相之身，或云即法身上有報應色相；今疑者偏報無邊生難：若一義邊，即法身上有報、應色相者，法身佛既體如虛空不可以色相而見，此報、應二佛與法身一故，則應是無。又次前經明真如法界體絕名相與言教有異，復云不離真如法界有言教可說。若爾，此真法界體亦如虛空，無有聲教。此聲教既與證智體一，應亦是其無，以證法無名相故也。此之兩處，或明

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其中，『無法可說是名說法』也，意思是說沒有固定的方法可以被稱作說法（Dharma teaching）。『不離於法界（Dharmadhatu）』，說明聖人證悟了真如法界（Tathata-Dharmadhatu），然後宣說這真如（Tathata），因此可知這所詮釋的證悟之義，與能詮釋的聲教（verbal teachings）是不可分離的。這說明從一義（one aspect）的層面來看也是如此。『說法無自相』，既然是如證悟般宣說，離開了真如法界（Tathata-Dharmadhatu）就沒有其他的言教自相（self-nature of verbal teachings）可以宣說，也就是證悟的智慧本體沒有名稱和相狀，因此也沒有言教的自相可以宣說。

長行論（commentary in prose）一開始的『何故言說法說法者』，是提經文作為提問。緊接著用偈頌回答說『所說二差別』。『何者是二乃至所有義』，這是解釋經文中重複出現的『說法說法』，在偈頌中指的是兩種差別。『何故言無法可說』，如果存在能夠宣說的言教，以及被宣說的內容，那麼從意義上來說就應該是有所說，為什麼又說無法可說呢？緊接著用下半偈回答說『不離於法界，說法無自相』。

『此以何義』以下，是一個問答，用來解釋偈頌的含義。

『爾時慧命須菩提（Subhuti）白佛言：世尊（Bhagavan）！頗有眾生於未來世聞說此經法生信心不』等等，這段經文是斷疑分（section on resolving doubts）中的第八段經文。之所以再次提出疑問，是因為這裡仍然存在疑惑。前面的經文，或者說明法身（Dharmakaya）體沒有報應色相之身（reward and manifested bodies），或者說在法身（Dharmakaya）上存在報應色相（reward and manifested bodies）；現在疑惑的是偏執報應身（reward and manifested bodies）的無邊性，產生了困難：如果從一義（one aspect）的層面來看，即法身（Dharmakaya）上有報、應色相（reward and manifested bodies），法身佛（Dharmakaya Buddha）的本體如同虛空，不可以色相而見，那麼這報身佛（Sambhogakaya Buddha）、應身佛（Nirmanakaya Buddha）與法身（Dharmakaya）是一體的，就應該是沒有的。另外，前面的經文說明真如法界（Tathata-Dharmadhatu）的本體超越了名相，與言教存在差異，又說不離真如法界（Tathata-Dharmadhatu）有言教可以宣說。如果這樣，這真如法界（Tathata-Dharmadhatu）的本體也如同虛空，沒有聲教（verbal teachings）。這聲教（verbal teachings）既然與證智體（wisdom of realization）是一體的，也應該是沒有的，因為證悟的法沒有名相。這兩處經文，或者說明

【English Translation】 English version: Among these, 'No Dharma can be spoken is called speaking Dharma' means that there is no fixed method that can be called Dharma teaching. 'Not apart from the Dharmadhatu (法界)' explains that the sage realizes the Tathata-Dharmadhatu (真如法界), and then proclaims this Tathata (真如). Therefore, it can be known that the meaning of the realized truth that is being explained, and the verbal teachings (聲教) that are capable of explaining it, are inseparable. This explains that this is also the case from the perspective of one aspect.

'Speaking Dharma has no self-nature' means that since it is proclaimed as realized, there is no other self-nature of verbal teachings (言教自相) that can be spoken apart from the Tathata-Dharmadhatu (真如法界). That is, the essence of the wisdom of realization has no name or form, so there is also no self-nature of verbal teachings that can be spoken.

The commentary in prose (長行論) begins with 'Why is it said speaking Dharma, speaking Dharma?', which raises the question using the sutra text. It then answers with a verse, saying 'What is spoken are two differences'. 'What are the two, and all their meanings?' This explains the repeated 'speaking Dharma, speaking Dharma' in the sutra, which refers to two differences in the verse. 'Why is it said that no Dharma can be spoken?' If there are verbal teachings that can be spoken, and content that is spoken, then in terms of meaning, there should be something spoken. Why then is it said that no Dharma can be spoken? It then answers with the second half of the verse, saying 'Not apart from the Dharmadhatu, speaking Dharma has no self-nature'.

'What is the meaning of this?' below is a question and answer to explain the meaning of the verse.

'At that time, the Venerable Subhuti (須菩提) said to the Buddha (佛): World Honored One (世尊)! Will there be beings in the future who will hear this sutra and generate faith?' etc. This section of the sutra is the eighth section in the section on resolving doubts (斷疑分). The reason for raising the question again is that there are still doubts here. The previous sutras either explained that the Dharmakaya (法身) has no reward and manifested bodies (報應色相之身), or said that there are reward and manifested bodies (報應色相) on the Dharmakaya (法身); now the doubt is the clinging to the boundlessness of the reward and manifested bodies (報應身), which creates difficulties: If from the perspective of one aspect, that is, the Dharmakaya (法身) has reward and manifested bodies (報、應色相), and the essence of the Dharmakaya Buddha (法身佛) is like space and cannot be seen with form, then these Sambhogakaya Buddha (報身佛) and Nirmanakaya Buddha (應身佛) are one with the Dharmakaya (法身), and should be non-existent. In addition, the previous sutras explained that the essence of the Tathata-Dharmadhatu (真如法界) transcends names and forms and differs from verbal teachings, and also said that there are verbal teachings that can be spoken not apart from the Tathata-Dharmadhatu (真如法界). If so, the essence of this Tathata-Dharmadhatu (真如法界) is also like space, without verbal teachings (聲教). Since these verbal teachings (聲教) are one with the wisdom of realization (證智體), they should also be non-existent, because the realized Dharma has no name or form. These two sutras either explain

---

法身法界無色相言教，而復言不離法身法界有此色相言教，斯二段經一異之義至深難解，為但現坐能信？為未來世中亦有人能信？為一向無人能信也？又若有人能信者，有何等人能生信心？為是凡夫、為是聖人也？有如此疑，故須菩提問頗有眾生聞說此法生信心不，佛即答「彼非眾生非不眾生」。此答意明經理雖甚深難信，然非但道益當時現坐生信，明未來世中亦有人能信。何人能信？明要地前、地上二種菩薩，久供諸佛殖因深遠，具足二種無我解者，能信此經也。經言「彼非眾生非不眾生」者，此出有能信人也。應直答言菩薩有智慧人能信此經，何故乃言彼非眾生非不眾生也？然此聖人相解，其言雖隱，而能於此言取悟也。「彼非眾生」者，明彼能信人，非無智慧、不修行、不曾供養諸佛，聞此經未生信眾生也。「非不眾生」者，非不是能信聖人眾生，明此人已曾供養過去諸佛、修行來久，聞此深經則能生信無疑。是故彼非無智不信眾生，是有智慧能信眾生，故次明也。「何以故」者，此世辨釋前應問：何以故名此能信人作彼非眾生，何故複名為非不眾生也？我未解此義，唯愿如來為我解說。即答言「須菩提！眾生眾生者」，此重牒前彼非眾生非不眾生，然後釋也。「如來說非眾生是名眾生」者，明此能信人非是底

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）和法界（Dharmadhatu，一切法的總稱）的無形無相的言教，以及不離法身法界而有此色相言教，這兩段經文的差異和相同之處，意義非常深奧難以理解。是隻有現在在座的人才能相信嗎？還是未來世中也有人能相信？或者是一向沒有人能相信呢？如果有人能相信，又是什麼樣的人能夠生起信心？是凡夫，還是聖人呢？ 因為有這樣的疑問，所以須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）問：『頗有眾生聞說此法生信心不？』佛陀回答說：『彼非眾生非不眾生。』這個回答表明，經文的道理雖然非常深奧難以置信，但不僅僅是當時在座的人能夠生起信心，也表明未來世中也有人能夠相信。什麼樣的人能夠相信呢？表明是十地（Bhumi，菩薩修行階位）之前的菩薩和地上菩薩，他們長久供養諸佛，種下深厚的因緣，具足兩種無我（Anatta，佛教教義，指沒有永恒不變的自我）的理解，才能相信這部經。 經文說『彼非眾生非不眾生』，這是指出有能夠相信的人。應該直接回答說菩薩和有智慧的人能夠相信這部經，為什麼卻說『彼非眾生非不眾生』呢？然而，這種聖人的解釋，言語雖然隱晦，卻能夠從中領悟。『彼非眾生』，表明那些能夠相信的人，不是沒有智慧、不修行、不曾供養諸佛，聽聞此經而未生起信心的眾生。『非不眾生』，不是說他們不是能夠相信的聖人眾生，表明這些人已經供養過過去的諸佛，修行很久，聽聞這部深奧的經文就能生起信心無疑。因此，他們不是沒有智慧不相信的眾生，而是有智慧能夠相信的眾生，所以接下來進行說明。 『何以故』，這是爲了辨釋前面應該提出的問題：為什麼稱呼這些能夠相信的人為『彼非眾生』，又為什麼稱呼為『非不眾生』呢？我沒有理解這個意義，希望如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）為我解釋。佛陀回答說：『須菩提！眾生眾生者』，這是重複前面所說的『彼非眾生非不眾生』，然後進行解釋。『如來說非眾生是名眾生』，表明這些能夠相信的人不是...

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the word-teachings of the Dharmakaya (the Body of Essence, the body of the Buddha's Dharma nature) and the Dharmadhatu (the Realm of Dharma, the totality of all things), which are without form or appearance, and the word-teachings of form and appearance that are not separate from the Dharmakaya and Dharmadhatu, the difference and sameness between these two passages of scripture are very profound and difficult to understand. Is it only those present here who can believe? Or will there be people in future ages who can believe? Or will no one ever be able to believe? And if there are people who can believe, what kind of people are able to generate faith? Are they ordinary people, or are they sages? Because of such doubts, Subhuti (one of the Buddha's disciples) asked: 'Are there beings who, upon hearing this Dharma, will generate faith?' The Buddha replied: 'They are neither beings nor not beings.' This answer indicates that although the principles of the scripture are very profound and difficult to believe, it is not only those present who can generate faith, but also indicates that there will be people in future ages who can believe. What kind of people can believe? It indicates that Bodhisattvas before the Tenth Ground (Bhumi, stages of Bodhisattva practice) and Bodhisattvas on the Grounds, who have long made offerings to all Buddhas, planted deep causes, and possess the understanding of two kinds of non-self (Anatta, Buddhist doctrine of no permanent self), can believe this scripture. The scripture says 'They are neither beings nor not beings,' which points out that there are people who can believe. It should be directly answered that Bodhisattvas and wise people can believe this scripture, so why say 'They are neither beings nor not beings'? However, this explanation by sages, although the words are obscure, can be understood from it. 'They are not beings' indicates that those who can believe are not beings without wisdom, who do not practice, who have not made offerings to all Buddhas, and who have not generated faith upon hearing this scripture. 'Not not beings' does not mean that they are not sage beings who can believe, indicating that these people have already made offerings to past Buddhas, have practiced for a long time, and will undoubtedly generate faith upon hearing this profound scripture. Therefore, they are not beings without wisdom who do not believe, but beings with wisdom who can believe, so the explanation follows. 'Why is this so?' This is to clarify the question that should have been asked earlier: Why are these people who can believe called 'They are not beings,' and why are they called 'Not not beings'? I have not understood this meaning, and I hope the Tathagata (title of the Buddha) will explain it to me. The Buddha replied: 'Subhuti! Beings, beings,' this is repeating what was said earlier, 'They are neither beings nor not beings,' and then explaining it. 'What the Tathagata calls non-beings is named beings,' indicating that these people who can believe are not...

---

下愚癡凡夫信眾生也，是名菩薩摩訶薩能信聖人快眾生也。

「論曰：復有疑，若言諸佛說者，是無所說法不離於法界，亦是其無」者，牒前有色相無色相、有說法無說法二處深經也。「有何等人能信此甚深法界」者，作疑問之意也。「自下經文」者，指經為釋也。「所說說者深」者，以此一偈釋斯一段經。依經次第，應言「說者所說深」，但以闡陀論法隨逐語便故，言所說說者深，亦以乘勢明義故也，正釋經中「聞說此經」也。「所說」者，牒前經中如來所說理之與教。「說」者，牒前不可以色相成就見法身如來等經中所明三種佛能說人也。「深」者，明前所牒二經一異理深。即舉疑：斯之二經，佛說太深，于未來世為有人能信、為當無人能信也？故下句云「非無能信者」，此句明有人能信也。應問：何者是能信人？故下句即指出其人「非眾生眾生」，釋經中「彼非眾生非不眾生」。「非眾生」者，明非無信眾生也。「眾生」者，是有信眾生也。「非聖」者，此世辨釋名，非眾生者，非是不聖，正是聖也，故即云「非不聖」也。此是出其能信之人也。「何故言須菩提非眾生非不眾生」者，提經為問也。「偈言」以下，指下半偈為釋也。「此以何義」者，此半偈以何義故，得釋彼非眾生非不眾生經為能信人也？

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 愚昧無知的凡夫俗子相信眾生，這被稱為菩薩摩訶薩能夠相信聖人，快速地度化眾生。

論中說：還有疑問，如果說諸佛所說的，是沒有什麼可說，不離於法界，也是虛無的，這是承接前面有色相無色相、有說法無說法兩處甚深經典的說法。『有什麼樣的人能夠相信這甚深法界』，這是提出疑問的意思。『自下經文』，是指用經文來解釋。『所說說者深』，是用這一偈來解釋這一段經文。按照經文的順序，應該說『說者所說深』，但因為闡陀論法隨著語言的方便，所以說『所說說者深』，也是爲了乘勢闡明意義，正是解釋經中的『聞說此經』。『所說』，是承接前面經中如來所說的理和教。『說』，是承接前面不可以色相成就見法身如來等經中所闡明的三種佛能說之人。『深』，是闡明前面所承接的兩部經典一異的道理很深。即提出疑問：這兩部經典，佛說得太深奧了，在未來世是否有人能夠相信，還是沒有人能夠相信呢？所以下句說『非無能信者』，這句說明有人能夠相信。應該問：什麼樣的人是能夠相信的人？所以下句就指出了這樣的人『非眾生眾生』，解釋經中的『彼非眾生非不眾生』。『非眾生』，是說明不是沒有信心的眾生。『眾生』，是有信心的眾生。『非聖』，這是世俗的辨釋名稱，非眾生，不是不聖，正是聖人，所以就說『非不聖』。這是指出能夠相信的人。『何故言須菩提非眾生非不眾生』，是提經文來發問。『偈言』以下，是指下半偈來解釋。『此以何義』，這半偈以什麼意義，能夠解釋那非眾生非不眾生經，作為能夠相信的人呢？

【English Translation】 English version Foolish and ignorant ordinary people believe in sentient beings; this is called a Bodhisattva-Mahasattva who can believe in sages and quickly liberate sentient beings.

The commentary says: There is further doubt, if it is said that what the Buddhas speak is that there is nothing to speak, not apart from the Dharma Realm, and is also emptiness, this is in reference to the previous two profound sutras concerning form and formlessness, speaking and non-speaking. 'What kind of person can believe in this profound Dharma Realm?' This is meant to raise a question. 'From the following sutra text' refers to using the sutra to explain. 'What is spoken is profound' uses this verse to explain this section of the sutra. According to the order of the sutra text, it should be 'The speaker's speech is profound,' but because the Chanda's method of argumentation follows the convenience of language, it says 'What is spoken is profound,' which is also to take advantage of the momentum to clarify the meaning, precisely explaining 'hearing this sutra' in the sutra. 'What is spoken' refers to the principles and teachings spoken by the Tathagata in the previous sutra. 'Speaking' refers to the three types of Buddhas who can speak, as explained in the previous sutra such as 'The Dharmakaya Tathagata cannot be seen by accomplishing form.' 'Profound' clarifies that the principles of similarity and difference between the two sutras previously referred to are profound. Namely, raising a doubt: These two sutras, spoken by the Buddha, are too profound. In the future world, will there be anyone who can believe, or will there be no one who can believe? Therefore, the following sentence says 'There are those who can believe,' which clarifies that there are people who can believe. It should be asked: What kind of person is able to believe? Therefore, the following sentence points out such a person: 'Neither sentient beings nor non-sentient beings,' explaining 'They are neither sentient beings nor non-sentient beings' in the sutra. 'Not sentient beings' clarifies that they are not sentient beings without faith. 'Sentient beings' are sentient beings with faith. 'Not a sage' is a worldly distinction of names; not sentient beings are not non-sages, but precisely sages, so it is said 'not not a sage.' This points out the person who can believe. 'Why is it said that Subhuti is neither a sentient being nor a non-sentient being?' This is raising a question based on the sutra text. 'The verse says' below refers to using the second half of the verse to explain. 'What is the meaning of this?' With what meaning can this second half of the verse explain that the sutra 'neither sentient beings nor non-sentient beings' is a person who can believe?

---

即釋「若有信此經至非凡夫體故」，解經偈中彼非眾生也。「若有信此經彼人非眾生」者，取偈上二句中能信義也。「非眾生者」，提偈第三句中「非眾生」來也。「非無聖體」者，以偈下句中「非聖」兩字釋前非眾生也。「非無聖體者非凡夫體故」者，此是論主結能信者是聖人，非凡夫體也。「非不眾生者」，提經來也。「以有聖體故」者，以偈第四句中「非不聖」釋之也。「彼人非凡夫眾生、非不是聖體眾生」者，結此能信為非凡夫，是聖人也。「如經何以故至是名眾生故」，引如來成釋為證也。「如來說非眾生者，非凡夫眾生」，我論主釋經「是故說眾生者」，結為能信聖人眾生也。「眾生」者，以聖人眾生。「是故說非眾生」者，以是能信聖眾生故。結為非凡夫眾生也。

「佛言：須菩提！于意云何？如來得阿耨三菩提也」，此等是斷疑分中第九段經文。此已五遍來，文雖相似而義有殊，故非重也。此所以來者，為釋疑故也。此疑從何處生？上來已廣明法身古今體滿，非修得法文，即此斷疑分初第二段。經中言「無有實法如來得阿耨三菩提」，明法身菩提非有為法故，不可以有為相得。即復言「如來所得阿耨三菩提」，明菩提之體是無為法，故有菩提可得。復以大身譬喻釋成，明法身本來圓滿具二莊嚴

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 解釋『若有信此經至非凡夫體故』，解經偈中說『彼非眾生也』。『若有信此經彼人非眾生』，是取解經偈前兩句中『能信』的含義。『非眾生者』，是提了解經偈第三句中的『非眾生』。『非無聖體』，是用解經偈下句中的『非聖』兩字來解釋前面的『非眾生』。『非無聖體者非凡夫體故』，這是論主總結能信此經的人是聖人，不是凡夫俗子的身體。『非不眾生者』，是提經文來說明。『以有聖體故』，是用解經偈第四句中的『非不聖』來解釋它。『彼人非凡夫眾生、非不是聖體眾生』，總結說能信此經的人不是凡夫，而是聖人。『如經何以故至是名眾生故』，引用如來的解釋作為證明。『如來說非眾生者，非凡夫眾生』，我論主解釋經文『是故說眾生者』，總結為能信此經的聖人是眾生。『眾生』，是指聖人的眾生。『是故說非眾生』，因為是能信此經的聖眾生，所以總結為不是凡夫眾生。

『佛言：須菩提！于意云何？如來得阿耨三藐三菩提也』（Sumeru! What do you think? Has the Tathagata attained Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi?），這些是斷疑分中第九段經文。這已經來了五遍，文字雖然相似，但意義不同，所以不是重複。這所以來的原因是，爲了解釋疑惑。這個疑惑從哪裡產生？上面已經廣泛說明法身（Dharmakaya）古今體滿，不是修得的法文，就是這個斷疑分初第二段。經文中說『無有實法如來得阿耨三菩提』，說明法身菩提（Bodhi）不是有為法，所以不能用有為相來獲得。接著又說『如來所得阿耨三菩提』，說明菩提的本體是無為法，所以有菩提可以獲得。又用大身譬喻來解釋，說明法身本來圓滿具備二種莊嚴。

【English Translation】 English version Explaining 『If one believes in this sutra, they are no longer in the body of an ordinary person,』 the verse in the commentary says, 『They are not sentient beings.』 『If one believes in this sutra, that person is not a sentient being,』 takes the meaning of 『able to believe』 from the first two lines of the commentary verse. 『Not sentient beings』 refers to 『not sentient beings』 from the third line of the commentary verse. 『Not without a holy body』 uses the words 『not holy』 from the last line of the commentary verse to explain the preceding 『not sentient beings.』 『Not without a holy body, therefore not in the body of an ordinary person,』 is the commentator's conclusion that those who can believe are sages, not in the body of ordinary people. 『Not not sentient beings』 is brought up from the sutra to explain. 『Because they have a holy body』 is explained using 『not not holy』 from the fourth line of the commentary verse. 『That person is not an ordinary sentient being, not not a sentient being with a holy body,』 concludes that those who can believe are not ordinary people, but sages. 『As the sutra says, why is it so, therefore it is called a sentient being,』 cites the Tathagata's (Thus Come One) explanation as proof. 『The Tathagata says not sentient beings, not ordinary sentient beings,』 my commentator explains the sutra 『therefore it is said sentient beings,』 concluding that the sages who can believe are sentient beings. 『Sentient beings』 refers to the sentient beings of sages. 『Therefore it is said not sentient beings,』 because they are holy sentient beings who can believe in this sutra, it is concluded that they are not ordinary sentient beings.

『The Buddha said: Subhuti! What do you think? Has the Tathagata attained Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi (unsurpassed, complete enlightenment)?』 These are the ninth section of scripture in the division for resolving doubts. This has already appeared five times, although the words are similar, the meanings are different, so it is not a repetition. The reason for this appearance is to resolve doubts. Where does this doubt arise from? The Dharmakaya (Dharma body) has been extensively explained above as being full and complete from ancient times to the present, not a scriptural text obtained through cultivation, which is the first and second section of this division for resolving doubts. The sutra says 『There is no real dharma by which the Tathagata attains Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi,』 explaining that the Dharmakaya Bodhi (enlightenment) is not a conditioned dharma, so it cannot be obtained through conditioned characteristics. Then it says again 『The Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi attained by the Tathagata,』 explaining that the essence of Bodhi is an unconditioned dharma, so there is Bodhi that can be obtained. It also uses the analogy of the great body to explain, clarifying that the Dharmakaya is originally complete and possesses two kinds of adornments.

---

，離於二障，非修行得。即生疑雲：若言如來得三菩提者，為修行故得、為不修行故得？若法身菩提古今一定猶如虛空，萬德圓滿，非修行因緣然後可得者，云何言行者一阿僧祇修行滿足證於初地，轉得七地二阿僧祇滿乃至上上轉勝，三阿僧祇后證佛果菩提也？以此驗知，法身便由修行因緣可得後方圓足，那得道法身如來猶如虛空萬德圓滿非修得法也？若由修行得者，云何乃離於上上證所得報佛，而說別有法身如來？此執一難異也。又次前第六段經，明法身猶如虛空體無諸相非修行得法，故不可以具足色相而見。乘生疑念：若法身非修得法、無色相可見者，云何菩薩修行因緣轉轉證得阿耨三菩提也？此疑既起之在先，所以今方斷者，以中間更乘生異疑，遣之未盡，故今方釋也。此謂為疑故，經中答意明佛有二種：一、法身佛，古今湛然體性圓滿，非修得法，此即性凈涅槃。二者報佛，藉十地方便修行因緣，本有之性顯用之時名為報佛，即方便涅槃。不可以報身方便修涅槃行得故，便使法佛性凈涅槃亦修行而得。為釋此疑，故次明也。然就斯一段經，凡有四子句。前三句，明法身佛性凈涅槃，體相圓滿，非修得法。后一句，明報佛方便涅槃，亦萬德圓滿，而有無方大用，是可修得法也。

「無有少法得三菩提」者

，此是第一子句，明法身如來萬德圓滿無所缺減，雖在煩惱染法，于萬德中不少一法，非以修行因緣後方滿足故，得名為無上菩提，故云無少法得三菩提也。此就法體滿足，以明法身非修得法也。「複次須菩提！是法平等無有高下，是名三菩提」者，此是第二子句，釋初句。法身所以萬德本圓非修行方滿者，以法身古今一定，非以由人修行因緣故在聖人心中萬德增名為高，非以人不修行因緣故在闡提心中萬德減名為下。此就行者以明法佛體無增減非修得行也。「以無眾生、無人、無壽者得平等三菩提」者，此是第三子句，釋前第二句。法身所以平等無有高下者，明一切眾生法身體相萬德皆等，無此功德多、彼功德少，本來寂滅、自性離障、一切平等，無有我人等或，不如金剛以還因中行者，行有深淺、斷惑有多少故，勝如不同有憂劣之別，故起慢心自謂我功德多、遣惑亦多，彼劣於我。所以有此分別慢者，以其先有煩惱遣之未盡，故有我人等見。明一切眾生法身佛性無有憂劣，從本以來清凈體無惑染故，言無我人平等得三菩提。故《勝鬘經》「剎那善心非煩惱所染，剎那不善心亦非煩惱所染」。依西國，剎那有十種名。此言剎那者，憣為空也。明空善心非煩惱取染，不空善心亦非煩惱所染。空善心者，明古今一定法身

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是第一個子句，闡明法身如來萬德圓滿，沒有任何欠缺或減少。即使處於煩惱染污之法中，其萬德之中也不會缺少一法，並非通過修行因緣之後才得以圓滿，因此得名為無上菩提，所以說『無少法得三菩提』。這是就法體本自具足而言，說明法身並非通過修行而獲得的法。 『複次，須菩提！是法平等，無有高下，是名三菩提』，這是第二個子句，解釋第一個子句。法身之所以萬德本來圓滿，並非通過修行才圓滿，是因為法身自古至今都是一定的，不會因為人的修行因緣而在聖人心中萬德增加而稱為『高』，也不會因為人不修行因緣而在斷善根者心中萬德減少而稱為『下』。這是就行者而言，說明法佛的本體沒有增減，並非通過修行而獲得的。 『以無眾生、無人、無壽者得平等三菩提』，這是第三個子句，解釋前面的第二個子句。法身之所以平等沒有高下，是因為一切眾生的法身體相和萬德都是平等的，沒有此人功德多、彼人功德少的區別，本來就是寂滅的，自性遠離障礙，一切平等，沒有我、人等的差別。不像金剛之前的因地修行者，修行有深淺，斷惑有多少，所以勝劣不同，有優劣之別，因此會生起慢心，自認為我的功德多，遣除的迷惑也多，別人不如我。之所以有這種分別和傲慢，是因為他們先前還有煩惱沒有完全遣除，所以有我、人等見。說明一切眾生的法身佛性沒有優劣，從本來就是清凈的，本體沒有迷惑染污，所以說沒有我、人而平等獲得三菩提。所以《勝鬘經》（Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra）說：『剎那善心非煩惱所染，剎那不善心亦非煩惱所染』。根據西國（印度）的說法，剎那（kṣaṇa）有十種名稱。這裡說的剎那，翻譯為空。說明空性的善心不會被煩惱染污，不空性的善心也不會被煩惱染污。空性的善心，說明自古至今都是一定的法身。

【English Translation】 English version: This is the first clause, clarifying that the Dharmakāya Tathāgata (法身如來) is complete with myriad virtues, without any deficiency or reduction. Even when in the defiled Dharma of afflictions, not a single virtue is lacking among its myriad virtues. It is not that it becomes complete only after the cause and condition of cultivation, therefore it is named Anuttarā-Samyak-Saṃbodhi (無上菩提), hence it is said, 'No Dharma is lacking to attain the Threefold Bodhi (三菩提).' This refers to the inherent completeness of the Dharma body (法身), explaining that the Dharmakāya is not a Dharma attained through cultivation. 'Furthermore, Subhuti (須菩提)! This Dharma is equal, without high or low, this is named Threefold Bodhi (三菩提),' this is the second clause, explaining the first clause. The reason why the Dharmakāya is originally complete with myriad virtues and not completed through cultivation is that the Dharmakāya is constant from ancient times to the present. It is not that the myriad virtues increase in the minds of sages due to the cause and condition of human cultivation and are called 'high,' nor that the myriad virtues decrease in the minds of icchantikas (闡提) due to the cause and condition of human non-cultivation and are called 'low.' This refers to the practitioner, explaining that the essence of the Dharma Buddha (法佛) has no increase or decrease, and is not attained through cultivation. 'Because there is no sentient being (眾生), no person (人), no life-span (壽者) who attains equal Threefold Bodhi (三菩提),' this is the third clause, explaining the preceding second clause. The reason why the Dharmakāya is equal without high or low is that the Dharma body's form and the myriad virtues of all sentient beings are equal. There is no difference of 'this person has more merit, that person has less merit.' It is originally quiescent, its nature is free from obstacles, everything is equal, without the distinctions of self, person, etc. It is not like the practitioners in the causal stage before Vajra (金剛), whose cultivation has depth and shallowness, and whose severing of delusions has much or little, therefore the superior and inferior are different, and there is a distinction between excellence and inferiority, thus giving rise to arrogance, thinking 'My merit is much, and I have eliminated many delusions, others are inferior to me.' The reason for having this distinction and arrogance is that they still have afflictions that have not been completely eliminated, therefore they have the view of self, person, etc. It explains that the Dharmakāya Buddha-nature of all sentient beings has no excellence or inferiority, and is pure from the beginning, its essence is free from the defilement of delusion, therefore it is said that without self or person, equal Threefold Bodhi (三菩提) is attained. Therefore, the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (勝鬘經) says, 'A momentary wholesome thought is not defiled by afflictions, and a momentary unwholesome thought is also not defiled by afflictions.' According to the Western Country (India), there are ten names for kṣaṇa (剎那). The kṣaṇa mentioned here is translated as emptiness. It explains that the wholesome thought of emptiness is not taken and defiled by afflictions, and the unwholesome thought of non-emptiness is also not defiled by afflictions. The wholesome thought of emptiness explains that the Dharmakāya (法身) is constant from ancient times to the present.

---

如來藏體空，無二十五有生死萬相，故言空也。不空善心者，明法身自性體備萬德妙有湛然不空也，故即上經言空如來藏也。前二子句明法身妙有，即不空如來藏，此一句明法身妙無，即空如來藏也。此就無鄣清凈，以彰法佛平等滿足非修得也。此前三句，宛轉釋法佛性凈涅槃義竟也。

時眾聞言法身古今圓滿非修得法，乘即生疑：若爾，何故諸菩薩發菩提心，三大阿僧祇修十地行竟何所為？故答「一切善法得三菩提」。此是第四句，明報佛方便涅槃有修得也。所以據報佛明有修得者，然報佛要就行者修得現用時語，既就行者論之，便有修行因緣萬善滿足，則有法可得。前但據性體本有為言而不辨其用，今就行者會時而語佛性有用，以有用不用異故，得云有增減也。復就行者斷惑有多少故，有憂劣不同凡聖兩別。據行者顯報有于修得，故言一切善法得三菩提也。乘茲即生疑念：若一切善法得三菩提者，疑謂一切名濫，有漏無漏、世間出世間善法俱是一切，可皆得菩提也。若皆得者，何故上論偈言「福不趣菩提」也？以斷此疑故，答言「須菩提！所言善法善法者，如來說非善法，是名善法」者。此明善法有二：一、有漏善法；二、無漏善法。「如來說非善法」者，明向一切善法是一切無漏善法，非是不趣菩提有漏

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如來藏（Tathagatagarbha，如來所藏之意）的本體是空性的，沒有二十五有（二十五種存在狀態）的生死萬象，所以說是空。說不空善心，是說明法身（Dharmakaya，佛的法性之身）自性的本體具備萬德妙有，湛然不動而不空，所以就是上面經文所說的空如來藏。前面的兩句說明法身的妙有，就是不空如來藏，這一句說明法身的妙無，就是空如來藏。這是就無障清凈而言，來彰顯法佛（Dharma Buddha，體現法性的佛）的平等滿足，不是通過修行而得到的。以上這三句，婉轉地解釋了法佛性凈涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）的意義。 當時聽眾聽到法身是古今圓滿，不是通過修行而得到的，就產生了疑問：如果這樣，為什麼諸菩薩（Bodhisattva，立志成佛的修行者）要發菩提心（Bodhi-citta，覺悟之心），經歷三大阿僧祇劫（Asankhyeya kalpa，極長的時間單位）修行十地（Bhumi，菩薩修行的十個階段）呢？是爲了什麼呢？所以回答說『一切善法得三菩提（Tri-bodhi，三種覺悟）』。這是第四句，說明報佛（Sambhogakaya，佛的報身）的方便涅槃是通過修行而得到的。之所以根據報佛來說明有修得，是因為報佛要在修行者修得現用時才顯現。既然就修行者來討論，就有修行的因緣和萬善的滿足，那麼就有法可以得到。前面只是根據性體本有來說，而不辨別它的作用，現在就修行者會合時機來說佛性有用，因為有用和不用不同，所以才說有增減。又因為修行者斷惑有多少，所以有優劣不同，凡人和聖人有區別。根據修行者來顯示報身是通過修得而有的，所以說一切善法得三菩提。因此就產生了疑問：如果一切善法都能得到三菩提，就懷疑一切名稱都可能被濫用，有漏無漏（有煩惱和無煩惱）、世間出世間（世俗和超越世俗）的善法都屬於一切，都可以得到菩提。如果都可以得到，為什麼上面的偈語說『福不趣菩提』呢？爲了斷除這個疑問，回答說『須菩提（Subhuti，佛陀的弟子）！所說的善法善法，如來說非善法，是名善法』。這是說明善法有兩種：一是有漏善法；二是無漏善法。『如來說非善法』，是說明前面所說的一切善法是一切無漏善法，不是不趨向菩提的有漏善法。

【English Translation】 English version: The essence of the Tathagatagarbha (the womb of the Thus Come One) is emptiness, devoid of the myriad phenomena of birth and death in the Twenty-five Existences, hence it is said to be empty. The statement 'not empty good mind' clarifies that the Dharmakaya (the body of the Dharma) self-nature's essence possesses myriad virtues and wondrous existence, serene and not empty. Therefore, it corresponds to the previously mentioned 'empty Tathagatagarbha' in the sutra. The preceding two phrases elucidate the Dharmakaya's wondrous existence, which is the 'not empty Tathagatagarbha,' while this phrase elucidates the Dharmakaya's wondrous non-existence, which is the 'empty Tathagatagarbha.' This refers to the unobstructed purity, highlighting the Dharma Buddha's (Buddha embodying the Dharma) equality and completeness, not attained through cultivation. These three phrases intricately explain the meaning of the Dharma Buddha's nature, pure Nirvana (liberation). At that time, the assembly, upon hearing that the Dharmakaya is complete from ancient times and not attained through cultivation, immediately harbored doubts: 'If that is so, why do all Bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings) generate the Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment), cultivate the Ten Bhumis (ten stages of the Bodhisattva path) for three great Asankhyeya kalpas (immeasurably long eons)? What is the purpose?' Therefore, the answer is 'all good dharmas attain the Tri-bodhi (three types of enlightenment).' This is the fourth phrase, clarifying that the Sambhogakaya Buddha's (enjoyment body of the Buddha) expedient Nirvana is attainable through cultivation. The reason for explaining attainability through cultivation based on the Sambhogakaya Buddha is that the Sambhogakaya Buddha manifests only when practitioners attain practical use through cultivation. Since it is discussed in terms of practitioners, there are causes and conditions for cultivation and the fulfillment of myriad virtues, thus there is Dharma that can be attained. Previously, it was only discussed based on the inherent nature of the essence without distinguishing its function. Now, it is discussed in conjunction with the practitioner's opportune moment, stating that the Buddha-nature has a function. Because of the difference between having a function and not having a function, it can be said that there are increases and decreases. Furthermore, because practitioners sever afflictions to varying degrees, there are differences in superiority and inferiority, distinguishing between ordinary beings and sages. Based on practitioners, it is shown that the Sambhogakaya is attained through cultivation, hence it is said that all good dharmas attain the Tri-bodhi. Consequently, doubts arise: 'If all good dharmas can attain the Tri-bodhi, it is suspected that all names may be misused, and that defiled and undefiled (with and without afflictions), mundane and supramundane (worldly and beyond worldly) good dharmas all belong to 'all' and can all attain Bodhi. If all can attain it, why does the verse above say 'merit does not lead to Bodhi'?' To dispel this doubt, the answer is 'Subhuti (a disciple of the Buddha)! What is called 'good dharma, good dharma,' the Thus Come One says is not good dharma, that is named good dharma.' This clarifies that there are two types of good dharmas: one is defiled good dharma, and the other is undefiled good dharma. 'The Thus Come One says is not good dharma' clarifies that the previously mentioned 'all good dharmas' refers to all undefiled good dharmas, not the defiled good dharmas that do not lead to Bodhi.

---

善法也。故下句云「是名善法」，此明是名無漏善法，亦得言是名非善法，明無漏非有漏故也。

「論曰：復有疑，若如來不得一法得三菩提」者，舉所疑經來也。「云何離於上上證轉轉得三菩提」者，作難也。「自下經文為斷此疑，示現非證法名為得三菩提」者，論主略引經中斷疑意也。此以二偈，釋茲一段。初偈釋前三句，明法身無修得。下一偈釋后一句，明報佛有修得也。

「彼處無少法，知菩提無上」，此二句釋初子句。「知菩提無上」者，以知彼法身處體相滿足無所缺少故，得名為無上最勝菩提也。「法界不增減」者，釋第二子句，明此法身非修得方滿名為增，亦非不修行故少名為減也。「凈平等自相」者，釋第三子句，明法佛體上古今清凈，從本以來無我人等或，故言凈也。第二句知菩提無上，依下長行論釋此一句，義通前三故，上三句下皆應言「知菩提無上」也。第二偈「有無上方便」者，釋第四子句，明報佛是修得，就現用義邊得名為增，未用義邊得名為減也。「及離於漏法」等下三句，釋第四子句下「須菩提！所言善法善法者」等釋疑經文也。「及離於漏法」者，明報佛方便之因。無漏善法體離諸漏，非有漏善法也。「是故非凈法」者，明有漏善法非是無漏清凈善法也。「即是清凈法

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是善法。所以下句說『是名為善法』，這是說明名為無漏善法，也可以說是名為非善法，說明無漏不是有漏的緣故。

『論曰：復有疑，若如來不得一法得三菩提』，這是舉出所懷疑的經典。「云何離於上上證轉轉得三菩提』，這是提出疑問。「自下經文為斷此疑，示現非證法名為得三菩提』，這是論主簡略地引用經文來斷除疑惑。這裡用兩首偈頌，解釋這一段。第一首偈頌解釋前面三句，說明法身沒有修習而證得。下一首偈頌解釋後面一句，說明報佛有修習而證得。

『彼處無少法，知菩提無上』，這兩句解釋第一個子句。「知菩提無上』，因為知道彼法身之處體相圓滿沒有缺少，所以得名為無上最勝菩提。「法界不增減』，解釋第二個子句，說明此法身不是通過修習才圓滿而名為增，也不是因為不修行而減少。「凈平等自相』，解釋第三個子句，說明法佛的本體上古今清凈，從本來就沒有我人等分別，所以說清凈。第二句『知菩提無上』，依據下面的長行論來解釋這一句，意義貫通前面三句，所以上面三句下面都應該說『知菩提無上』。第二首偈頌『有無上方便』，解釋第四個子句，說明報佛是通過修習而證得的，就現用義的方面來說可以稱為增，未用義的方面來說可以稱為減。「及離於漏法』等下面三句，解釋第四個子句下面『須菩提！所言善法善法者』等解釋疑惑的經文。「及離於漏法』，說明報佛方便的原因。無漏善法的本體遠離各種煩惱，不是有漏善法。「是故非凈法』，說明有漏善法不是無漏清凈善法。「即是清凈法』

【English Translation】 English version: It is a wholesome dharma (善法). Therefore, the following sentence says, 'This is called wholesome dharma,' which explains that it is called unconditioned wholesome dharma. It can also be said that it is called unwholesome dharma, explaining that the unconditioned is not conditioned.

'The Treatise says: Again, there is doubt, if the Tathagata (如來) does not attain a single dharma (法), how does he attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提, unsurpassed complete enlightenment)?' This is citing the sutra (經) that raises the doubt. 'How can one attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi by progressing from higher and higher attainments?' This is posing the difficulty. 'The following sutra text is to resolve this doubt, showing that not attaining dharma is called attaining Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi,' this is the treatise master briefly citing the sutra to resolve the doubt. Here, two verses are used to explain this section. The first verse explains the first three sentences, clarifying that the Dharmakaya (法身, Dharma body) is not attained through cultivation. The next verse explains the last sentence, clarifying that the Sambhogakaya Buddha (報佛, Reward body Buddha) is attained through cultivation.

'In that place, there is no little dharma, knowing that Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment) is unsurpassed,' these two sentences explain the first sub-sentence. 'Knowing that Bodhi is unsurpassed,' because knowing that the essence and characteristics of that Dharmakaya are complete and without lack, it is called unsurpassed and most excellent Bodhi. 'The Dharmadhatu (法界, Dharma realm) neither increases nor decreases,' explains the second sub-sentence, clarifying that this Dharmakaya is not called increasing because it is complete through cultivation, nor is it called decreasing because it is not cultivated. 'Pure, equal, self-nature,' explains the third sub-sentence, clarifying that the essence of the Dharma Buddha (法佛, Dharma Buddha) is pure from ancient times to the present, and from the beginning, there is no self, person, etc., therefore it is called pure. The second sentence, 'Knowing that Bodhi is unsurpassed,' according to the following long commentary to explain this sentence, the meaning connects to the previous three sentences, so the above three sentences should all say 'Knowing that Bodhi is unsurpassed.' The second verse, 'Having unsurpassed skillful means,' explains the fourth sub-sentence, clarifying that the Sambhogakaya Buddha is attained through cultivation, and in terms of the meaning of present use, it can be called increasing, and in terms of the meaning of unused, it can be called decreasing. 'And being apart from defiled dharmas (漏法)' and the following three sentences, explain the fourth sub-sentence below, 'Subhuti (須菩提)! What is called wholesome dharma, wholesome dharma,' etc., explaining the sutra text that resolves the doubt. 'And being apart from defiled dharmas,' explains the cause of the Sambhogakaya Buddha's skillful means. The essence of unconditioned wholesome dharma is apart from all defilements, it is not conditioned wholesome dharma. 'Therefore, it is not pure dharma,' explains that conditioned wholesome dharma is not unconditioned pure wholesome dharma. 'It is pure dharma.'

---

」者，如是非有漏善法故，即是出世無漏清凈善法方便因也。何得以有漏善法于菩提無方便因，難無漏善法亦使非方便因也？「此明何義」以下至經「一切善法得三菩提」，釋二偈中上五子句，解經中四子句也。先次解釋，后以經結之也。「余菩提善法不滿足」者，謂因中方便菩提，亦謂二乘菩提，體未滿足，須更修習故，言余菩提者善法不滿足也。「須菩提！所言善法者如來說非善法等，何故如是說」者，先提下答疑經為問，即牒后偈下三句為釋。「此以何義」以下，復設問也。「彼法無有漏法故名非善法」者，此解無漏善法非是有漏善法故，如來說名為非善法也。「以無有漏法是故名善法」者，解無漏善法為善法也。「以決定善法」者，結無漏善法也。

金剛仙論卷第八 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第九

魏天平二年菩提流支三藏於洛陽譯

「須菩提！三千大千世界中所有須彌山王」等，此是斷疑分中第十段經文。此三千譬喻已四遍來，何故數來而非重者？此乃文句相似而義有別，故非重也。此復所以來者，有疑故來也。云何為疑？前段經中答疑四句，初有三句，明法身菩提性凈涅槃，本體圓滿非修得法；后一句，明報佛方便涅槃，由修一切善法

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『者，如是非有漏善法故，即是出世無漏清凈善法方便因也。』意思是說，像這樣不是有漏的善法，就是出世間的、沒有煩惱染污的清凈善法的方便之因。『何得以有漏善法于菩提無方便因，難無漏善法亦使非方便因也？』為什麼說有漏的善法對於證得菩提沒有方便之因，難道無漏的善法也不是方便之因嗎？ 『此明何義』以下至經『一切善法得三菩提』，釋二偈中上五子句，解經中四子句也。先次解釋，后以經結之也。』這段話從『此明何義』開始，到經文『一切善法得三菩提』，解釋了兩個偈頌中的前五個句子，也解釋了經文中的四個句子。先依次解釋，然後用經文來總結。 『余菩提善法不滿足』者，謂因中方便菩提，亦謂二乘菩提，體未滿足，須更修習故，言余菩提者善法不滿足也。『余菩提善法不滿足』，指的是因地中的方便菩提，也指二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的菩提，它們的本體還不圓滿，需要進一步修習，所以說其他的菩提善法是不圓滿的。 『須菩提！所言善法者如來說非善法等，何故如是說』者，先提下答疑經為問，即牒后偈下三句為釋。『須菩提！所言善法者如來說非善法等，何故如是說』，這是先提出下面要回答的疑問，也就是把後面的偈頌中的三句話作為解釋。 『此以何義』以下，復設問也。『此以何義』以下，又提出了問題。 『彼法無有漏法故名非善法』者，此解無漏善法非是有漏善法故，如來說名為非善法也。『彼法無有漏法故名非善法』，這是解釋說，因為無漏的善法不是有漏的善法，所以如來說它不是善法。 『以無有漏法是故名善法』者，解無漏善法為善法也。『以無有漏法是故名善法』，這是解釋無漏的善法是善法。 『以決定善法』者，結無漏善法也。『以決定善法』，這是總結無漏的善法。

金剛仙論卷第八 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第九

魏天平二年菩提流支（Bodhiruci）三藏於洛陽譯

『須菩提（Subhuti）！三千大千世界中所有須彌山王（Sumeru）』等，此是斷疑分中第十段經文。『須菩提！三千大千世界中所有須彌山王』等等，這是斷疑部分中的第十段經文。 此三千譬喻已四遍來，何故數來而非重者？此乃文句相似而義有別，故非重也。這三千大千世界的比喻已經出現過四次了，為什麼多次出現而不是重複呢？這是因為文句相似，但意義不同，所以不是重複。 此復所以來者，有疑故來也。之所以再次出現，是因為有疑問。 云何為疑？前段經中答疑四句，初有三句，明法身（Dharmakaya）菩提（Bodhi）性凈涅槃（Nirvana），本體圓滿非修得法；后一句，明報佛（Sambhogakaya Buddha）方便涅槃，由修一切善法。什麼樣的疑問呢？前一段經文中回答疑問的四句話，前三句說明法身、菩提、自性清凈涅槃，本體圓滿，不是通過修行可以得到的；后一句說明報身佛的方便涅槃，是通過修習一切善法而得到的。

【English Translation】 English version: 'That, because it is non-defiled wholesome Dharma, is the expedient cause of the transcendental, undefiled, pure wholesome Dharma.' This means that such non-defiled wholesome Dharmas are the expedient causes for the pure wholesome Dharmas that are beyond the world and free from afflictions. 'Why is it said that defiled wholesome Dharmas are not expedient causes for Bodhi, and why is it difficult to say that undefiled wholesome Dharmas are also not expedient causes?' 'What does this mean?' From here to the sutra 'all wholesome Dharmas attain the Three Bodhis (Trikaya)', it explains the first five lines of the two gathas (verses) and also explains the four lines in the sutra. First, it explains them in order, and then concludes with the sutra. 'The remaining Bodhi wholesome Dharmas are not complete' refers to the expedient Bodhi in the causal stage, and also refers to the Bodhi of the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana), whose essence is not yet complete and needs further cultivation. Therefore, it is said that the remaining Bodhi wholesome Dharmas are not complete. 'Subhuti (Subhuti)! What the Tathagata (Tathagata) calls wholesome Dharmas are not wholesome Dharmas, etc. Why is this so?' First, the sutra raises the question to be answered below, and then uses the last three lines of the following gatha as an explanation. 'What is the meaning of this?' Below, another question is posed. 'That Dharma is called non-wholesome Dharma because it has no defiled Dharma.' This explains that undefiled wholesome Dharma is not defiled wholesome Dharma, so the Tathagata calls it non-wholesome Dharma. 'Because there is no defiled Dharma, it is called wholesome Dharma.' This explains that undefiled wholesome Dharma is wholesome Dharma. 'Because it is a definite wholesome Dharma,' concludes the undefiled wholesome Dharma.

The Diamond Celestial Treatise, Volume 8 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 25, No. 1512, The Diamond Celestial Treatise

The Diamond Celestial Treatise, Volume 9

Translated by Tripitaka Bodhiruci (Bodhiruci) in Luoyang in the second year of Tianping of the Wei Dynasty

'Subhuti (Subhuti)! All the Sumeru (Sumeru) mountain kings in the three thousand great thousand worlds,' etc., this is the tenth section of scripture in the section on resolving doubts. This analogy of the three thousand worlds has appeared four times already. Why does it appear so many times and not repeat itself? This is because the sentences are similar but the meanings are different, so it is not a repetition. The reason for its reappearance is that there are doubts. What are the doubts? In the previous section of the sutra, the four sentences answering the doubts, the first three sentences explain the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya), Bodhi (Bodhi), and the self-nature pure Nirvana (Nirvana), whose essence is complete and cannot be attained through cultivation; the last sentence explains the Sambhogakaya Buddha's (Sambhogakaya Buddha) expedient Nirvana, which is obtained through cultivating all wholesome Dharmas.

---

方便因滿法身有用，是修得法。難意：若法性法身非修得者，身有報佛亦不聽是修行得得也。何以故？上挍量分中，明受持讀誦此經能詮言教，依而修行善法滿足故得三菩提。然此經教音聲之性，證法中無念念生滅，無有習因增長之義，體是無記，非為善法故。受持經教不能發生三慧之善，不生三慧善故無有因義，既無因義則不證菩提。那得道言一切善法得阿耨三菩提也？故千須彌七寶佈施勝福譬喻以答此疑，明此般若一偈經教從證法中來，非是無記而能詮於法身。若依經修行因緣，能顯性證果，得大菩提，勝於三千須彌珍寶佈施之福不可算數故。不應難言經教是無記故，受持修行不能得大菩提。為除此疑，次明此一段經也。

「百分不及一等」者，論云「算類勝」，此明有漏福德是有盡法故數亦有限，明無漏善法是無盡之法數亦無限，所以勝也。「歌羅分不及一」者，論云「力勝」，歌羅者，西國正音，如析一毛以為百分，一分名一歌羅。此義憣為力勝，以無漏善法功德勢力勝于有漏善法故，名為力勝也。「數分不及一」者，論云「不相似勝」，猶是其數數中轉微轉細，乃至少許猶不及一故，名不相似勝也。明此無漏善法若有形色者，虛空法界所不容受，以有為有盡法形無為無盡法故，假令乃至少許亦不相似

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 方便因圓滿法身是有用的，這是通過修行獲得的法。難點在於：如果法性法身不是通過修行獲得的，那麼報身佛也不應該聽任通過修行來獲得。為什麼呢？在前面的校量功德分中，已經明確了受持讀誦此經能夠詮釋言教，依照它修行善法，功德圓滿，因此可以獲得三菩提（Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。然而，此經教音聲的性質，在證法中沒有唸唸生滅，沒有習因增長的意義，其體性是無記（avyākrta，非善非惡），不是善法。因此，受持經教不能產生三慧（聞慧、思慧、修慧）的善，不產生三慧的善，就沒有因的意義，既然沒有因的意義，就不能證得菩提。那怎麼能說一切善法都能獲得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提呢？所以用千個須彌山七寶佈施的殊勝福報來比喻，以回答這個疑問，說明這《般若經》的一偈經教是從證法中來的，不是無記，而是能夠詮釋法身。如果依照經修行，因緣成熟，能夠顯現自性，證得果位，獲得大菩提，勝過用三千須彌山的珍寶佈施的福報，不可計數。不應該質疑說經教是無記，所以受持修行不能獲得大菩提。爲了消除這個疑問，接下來闡明這一段經文。 『百分不及一等』，論中說『算類勝』，這說明有漏福德是有盡之法，所以數量也是有限的，說明無漏善法是無盡之法，數量也是無限的，所以殊勝。『歌羅分不及一』，論中說『力勝』，歌羅（kala）是西國正音，比如將一根毛髮分成一百份，一份叫做一歌羅。這個意思翻譯為力勝，因為無漏善法的功德勢力勝過有漏善法，所以叫做力勝。『數分不及一』，論中說『不相似勝』，仍然是在數量中轉為更微小更細緻，乃至於極少許，仍然不及一，所以叫做不相似勝。說明這無漏善法如果有形色，那麼虛空法界都不能容納，因為有為有盡之法有形，無為無盡之法沒有形，即使是極少許也不相似。

【English Translation】 English version The expedient cause of the complete Dharmakaya (Dharmakāya, 法身) is useful; this is the Dharma (法) obtained through cultivation. The difficulty lies in this: if the Dharmakaya of Dharma-nature (法性) is not obtained through cultivation, then the Reward Body Buddha (報身佛) should also not allow it to be obtained through cultivation. Why? In the previous chapter on comparing merits, it was made clear that upholding, reciting, and reading this sutra can explain the teachings, and by practicing good deeds according to it, one can attain complete merit and thus attain Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提, Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment). However, the nature of the sound of this sutra teaching, in the Dharma of realization, has no arising and ceasing of thoughts, and no meaning of increasing through habitual causes; its essence is indeterminate (avyākrta, 無記), not a good Dharma. Therefore, upholding the sutra teachings cannot generate the goodness of the three wisdoms (聞慧,思慧,修慧 - hearing, thinking, and cultivation), and without generating the goodness of the three wisdoms, there is no meaning of cause. Since there is no meaning of cause, one cannot attain Bodhi. How can it be said that all good Dharmas can attain Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi? Therefore, the analogy of giving seven treasures filling a thousand Mount Sumerus (須彌山) is used to answer this doubt, explaining that this verse of the Prajna Sutra (般若經) comes from the Dharma of realization, not indeterminate, but capable of explaining the Dharmakaya. If one practices according to the sutra, the conditions will mature, one can manifest one's nature, attain the fruit, and obtain great Bodhi, surpassing the merit of giving treasures filling three thousand Mount Sumerus, which is incalculable. One should not question that the sutra teachings are indeterminate, so upholding and practicing cannot attain great Bodhi. To dispel this doubt, the following passage of the sutra is explained. 『One part in a hundred is not equal』 – the treatise says 『calculation surpasses』. This explains that the meritorious virtue of defilements (有漏) is a finite Dharma, so the number is also limited, explaining that the good Dharma of non-defilements (無漏) is an infinite Dharma, so the number is also infinite, therefore it is superior. 『One kala part is not equal』 – the treatise says 『strength surpasses』. Kala (歌羅) is the correct sound in the Western country, like dividing a hair into a hundred parts, one part is called one kala. This meaning is translated as strength surpasses, because the meritorious power of the good Dharma of non-defilements surpasses the good Dharma of defilements, so it is called strength surpasses. 『A numerical part is not equal』 – the treatise says 『dissimilarity surpasses』, still transforming into smaller and finer amounts within the number, even to the slightest amount, it is still not equal to one, so it is called dissimilarity surpasses. This explains that if this good Dharma of non-defilements had form and color, then the space of the Dharma realm could not contain it, because the Dharma of conditioned existence (有為) has form and is finite, while the Dharma of unconditioned existence (無為) has no form and is infinite; even if it were the slightest amount, it would still be dissimilar.

---

。如分芥子以為萬分擬須彌山，唐失其身，終不相類也。「優波尼沙陀分」者，論中義憣云「因勝」，明因果不相似。珍寶有漏善法但得三界報，因果俱是不如。無漏善法乃遠得佛果，因果俱勝故，名因果不相似也。

「論曰：復有疑」以下至「不能得大菩提」，執經作難。何以故？以所說法是無記法，釋成難意。為斷此疑，以下略申答意，生於下偈也。凡以二偈釋茲一段經。初一偈，解持經功德勝佈施之福，經教是無記非因之疑也。第二偈，釋四種勝，從「百分不及一」乃至「所不能及也」。「雖言無記法」者，舉疑意。前疑言：經教是音聲性無記之法，依此無記法受持修行，則無善、則無因義，何得言以一切善法得三菩提也？故答云「雖言無記法」，此句順疑者意，故云「雖言無記法」。音聲言教雖是無記之法，而能詮于佛性涅槃之理，依而修行發生三慧勝解，能使行者終克常果，有詮理益初咸果之能。此明言教雖是無記而有因義，故次下句云「而說是彼因」。若爾，那得難言以無記故無有因義則無修行得菩提者也？此釋上半偈也。又一解：經非是無記。何以故？以此經教從真如證法中來，是其一分，為此真如證法所勛故。言教非是無記，有其因義。如以須摩那華及薝蔔華勛胡麻子，后押得油，名須摩那油

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果將芥子（芥菜籽，一種很小的種子）分成萬份來比擬須彌山（佛教中的聖山），即使經過長久的時間，它們也終究是不相似的。『優波尼沙陀分』，在論中的翻譯是『因勝』，說明了因果不相似的道理。珍寶和有漏的善法只能得到三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的果報，因和果都不殊勝。而無漏的善法才能最終獲得佛果，因和果都殊勝，所以叫做因果不相似。

『論曰：復有疑』以下至『不能得大菩提』，是執著于經文而提出疑問。為什麼呢？因為所說的法是無記法（既非善也非惡的法），這是爲了解釋併成立這個疑問。爲了消除這個疑問，下面簡略地闡述回答的意義，產生於下面的偈頌中。總共用兩首偈頌來解釋這段經文。第一首偈頌，解釋了受持經文的功德勝過佈施的福報，消除了經教是無記而非因的疑問。第二首偈頌，解釋了四種殊勝，從『百分不及一』乃至『所不能及也』。『雖言無記法』，是提出疑問的意旨。前面疑問說：經教是音聲性的無記之法，依照這個無記之法受持修行，就沒有善，就沒有因的意義，怎麼能說憑藉一切善法得到三菩提（證悟）呢？所以回答說『雖言無記法』，這句話順應了提問者的意思，所以說『雖言無記法』。音聲言教雖然是無記之法，卻能夠詮釋佛性涅槃的道理，依靠它修行能夠發生三慧（聞慧、思慧、修慧）的殊勝理解，能夠使修行者最終證得常果（不生不滅的境界），具有詮釋真理和成就果報的能力。這說明言教雖然是無記，卻具有因的意義，所以接下來的句子說『而說是彼因』。如果這樣，那怎麼能說因為是無記就沒有因的意義，從而沒有修行而得到菩提的人呢？這是解釋上半首偈頌。另一種解釋：經並非是無記。為什麼呢？因為這部經教是從真如（事物的本性）證法中來的，是它的一部分，被這真如證法所熏習。言教不是無記，具有它的因的意義。就像用須摩那華（一種香花）和薝蔔華（黃色的香花）熏胡麻子（芝麻），之後壓榨得到的油，叫做須摩那油。

【English Translation】 English version: If one were to divide a mustard seed (a very small seed) into ten thousand parts to compare it to Mount Sumeru (the sacred mountain in Buddhism), even after a long time, they would still be dissimilar. 『Upaniṣad-bhāga』 (Upaniṣad portion), which is translated in the treatise as 『superior cause,』 explains the principle that cause and effect are dissimilar. Precious jewels and meritorious deeds with outflows can only obtain rewards within the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm); both cause and effect are not superior. However, meritorious deeds without outflows can ultimately attain Buddhahood; both cause and effect are superior, hence it is called the dissimilarity of cause and effect.

『The treatise says: Moreover, there is doubt』 down to 『cannot attain great Bodhi,』 is clinging to the scriptures and raising a question. Why? Because the Dharma (teachings) being spoken is indeterminate (neither good nor evil), which explains and establishes the meaning of the difficulty. To dispel this doubt, the following briefly elaborates on the meaning of the answer, arising from the following verse. In total, two verses are used to explain this section of the scripture. The first verse explains that the merit of upholding the scriptures surpasses the blessings of giving, dispelling the doubt that scriptural teachings are indeterminate and not a cause. The second verse explains the four kinds of superiority, from 『one in a hundred parts is not equal』 to 『cannot be compared.』 『Although it is said to be indeterminate Dharma,』 is raising the intention of the doubt. The previous doubt said: Scriptural teachings are indeterminate Dharma of the nature of sound; according to this indeterminate Dharma, upholding and practicing, there is no good, there is no meaning of cause, how can it be said that by means of all good Dharmas one attains Threefold Enlightenment (Bodhi)? Therefore, the answer says 『Although it is said to be indeterminate Dharma,』 this sentence conforms to the meaning of the questioner, so it says 『Although it is said to be indeterminate Dharma.』 Although the teachings of sound are indeterminate Dharma, they are able to explain the principle of Buddha-nature and Nirvana; relying on it to practice can generate the superior understanding of the Three Wisdoms (Hearing Wisdom, Thinking Wisdom, Cultivation Wisdom), and can enable practitioners to ultimately attain the Constant Fruit (the state of non-birth and non-death), possessing the ability to explain the truth and achieve the fruit of reward. This explains that although the teachings are indeterminate, they have the meaning of cause, so the following sentence says 『and it is said to be its cause.』 If so, then how can it be said that because it is indeterminate, there is no meaning of cause, and therefore there are no people who practice and attain Bodhi? This is the explanation of the first half of the verse. Another explanation: The scripture is not indeterminate. Why? Because this scriptural teaching comes from the True Suchness (the nature of things) Dharma, it is a part of it, and is influenced by this True Suchness Dharma. The teachings are not indeterminate, they have the meaning of their cause. Just like using Sumana flowers (a fragrant flower) and Campaka flowers (yellow fragrant flowers) to scent sesame seeds, and then pressing them to obtain oil, it is called Sumana oil.

---

及薝蔔油。此言教亦如是，為證法所勛，非是無記故，受持讀誦此能詮言教，發生聞慧，從聞生思，從思生修，次第修行乃至證得無上菩提，勝於三千須彌七寶施福。以三千須彌七寶有漏施福不能得大菩提，是故不如。故下半偈言「是故一法寶，勝無量珍寶」。「一法寶」者，此般若經一行偈名為法寶。「是故」者，是故經教非是無記，有其因義故，便勝無量珍寶佈施有相之福也。

「此義云何？雖言所說法乃至能為菩提因」，釋上半偈。論主且順疑者意，明經教雖是無記而有因義也。「又言無記者，此義不然者至勝無量珍寶故」，此解下半偈，即舉偈結也。此違疑者意，正解經教非是無記法也。「汝法是無記而我法是記」者，汝小乘法中謂聲教為無記，今依我大乘中，明音聲經教從佛法身記法中來故，是記法非是無記。又行者身口意業有所起作，皆有招感之能，亦有順理益物之義，故諸佛說所經教，音聲之性是口業善，能慎理益物非無記也。「是故此所說法勝彼阿僧祇須彌珍寶故」者，結受持經教福德勝珍寶施福也。「如經」以下，以經結論也。

「此示何義」者，此一段向如經者，通引持經福，結作勝珍寶施福義。然未知釋勝有幾種，故設問，問此百分不及一等此示何義也。即作第二偈，答「數力無

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：還有薝蔔油（Campaka oil）。這（佛陀的）教言也是如此，因為它被證法所熏習，不是無記（中性）的，所以受持、讀誦這能詮釋的言教，能發生聞慧（通過聽聞佛法而獲得的智慧），從聽聞產生思，從思產生修，次第修行乃至證得無上菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺），勝過用三千個須彌山（Sumeru，佛教宇宙觀中的聖山）的七寶（七種珍寶）來佈施的福德。因為用三千個須彌山的七寶所做的有漏（有缺陷）佈施的福德不能得到大菩提，所以不如（受持讀誦佛經的功德）。因此下半偈說『是故一法寶，勝無量珍寶』。『一法寶』指的是這《般若經》（Prajna-paramita Sutra）中的一行偈頌，被稱為法寶。『是故』的意思是，因此經教不是無記的，有其因緣和意義，所以勝過用無量珍寶佈施的有相之福。 『此義云何？雖言所說法乃至能為菩提因』，解釋上半偈。論主（指論典的作者）且順從懷疑者的意思，說明經教雖然是無記的，但有其因緣和意義。『又言無記者，此義不然者至勝無量珍寶故』，這是解釋下半偈，即舉出偈頌來作結論。這違背了懷疑者的意思，正確地解釋了經教不是無記法。『汝法是無記而我法是記』，你們小乘法中認為聲教是無記的，現在依我們大乘法中，說明音聲經教是從佛法身記法中來的，所以是記法，不是無記法。而且行者的身口意業有所起作，都有招感（業果）的能力，也有順應道理利益萬物的意義，所以諸佛所說的經教，音聲的性質是口業善，能謹慎地順應道理利益萬物，不是無記的。『是故此所說法勝彼阿僧祇須彌珍寶故』，總結受持經教的福德勝過珍寶佈施的福德。『如經』以下，用經文來作結論。 『此示何義』，這一段引經文，總括受持經文的福德，總結其勝過珍寶佈施的意義。然而還不知道這種殊勝之處有幾種，所以設問，問這百分之一都比不上等等，這顯示了什麼意義。即作第二偈，回答『數力無』。

【English Translation】 English version: And also Campaka oil. This teaching is also like that, because it is perfumed by the Dharma of realization, it is not neutral (avyākrta), therefore, upholding, reciting this teaching that can explain, can generate wisdom from hearing (śruta-mayā prajñā), from hearing arises thinking, from thinking arises cultivation, cultivating in sequence until realizing unsurpassed Bodhi (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi), it is superior to the merit of giving offerings of the seven treasures (seven kinds of precious gems) of three thousand Sumeru mountains (Sumeru, the sacred mountain in Buddhist cosmology). Because the merit of giving offerings with outflows (with imperfections) made with the seven treasures of three thousand Sumeru mountains cannot attain great Bodhi, therefore it is not as good (as the merit of upholding and reciting the sutras). Therefore, the second half of the verse says 'Therefore, one Dharma treasure is superior to immeasurable treasures'. 'One Dharma treasure' refers to one line of verse in this Prajna-paramita Sutra, which is called a Dharma treasure. 'Therefore' means that therefore the sutra teachings are not neutral, they have their cause and meaning, so they are superior to the merit of giving offerings of immeasurable treasures with form. 'What is the meaning of this? Although it is said that what is spoken can even be the cause of Bodhi', explains the first half of the verse. The author of the treatise follows the intention of the doubters, explaining that although the sutra teachings are neutral, they have their cause and meaning. 'Also saying neutral, this meaning is not so, up to being superior to immeasurable treasures', this explains the second half of the verse, that is, citing the verse to make a conclusion. This contradicts the intention of the doubters, correctly explaining that the sutra teachings are not neutral dharmas. 'Your Dharma is neutral and my Dharma is marked', in your Hinayana Dharma, it is considered that the teachings are neutral, now according to our Mahayana Dharma, it is explained that the teachings of sound and scripture come from the Dharma body of the Buddha, so it is marked Dharma, not neutral Dharma. Moreover, the actions of body, speech, and mind of the practitioner have the ability to attract (karma), and also have the meaning of conforming to reason and benefiting beings, so the sutras spoken by the Buddhas, the nature of sound is good karma of speech, which can carefully conform to reason and benefit beings, it is not neutral. 'Therefore, what is spoken here is superior to those Asamkhya Sumeru treasures', concludes that the merit of upholding the sutras is superior to the merit of giving treasures. 'As the sutra' below, uses the sutra to make a conclusion. 'What does this show?', this section quotes the sutra, summarizing the merit of upholding the sutras, concluding that it is superior to the meaning of giving treasures. However, it is not yet known how many kinds of this superiority there are, so a question is posed, asking what is the meaning of showing that even one percent is not comparable, etc. Then the second verse is made, answering 'number power no'.

---

似勝」也。此一句中合釋三種勝，謂數勝、力勝、無似勝也。「無似因亦然」者，此明第四因勝，為成句故通引無似來也。「一切世間法不可得為喻」者，無漏善法能與佛果作無盡之因，一切世間有漏法中無可為比者，故云不可得喻故也。

「此說何等義？示於前福德此福為勝」者，此一問答，通解一偈所明勝義也。「云何為勝？一者數勝」等，數出上半偈中四種勝也。「是故偈言」等，舉下半偈，結作勝也。「數勝」者以下，一一別提四種勝名，略釋名，舉經屬當可知也。「又此法最勝，無有世法可喻」，「此法」者，釋下半偈，即引偈結也。「如是此福德中」以下，結受持福勝也。

「須菩提！于意云何？汝謂如來作是念：我度眾生耶」等，此是斷疑分中第十一段經文。所以來者，斯有疑故來也。云何疑？上第九段經中，前三句明法身平等，本來滿足、無所缺少，不由修行而得，復無高下，亦無我人眾生壽者相，平等得三菩提。此明就佛性法身平等理中古今湛然無有彼此、凡聖兩別也。難者云：若法身平等無有凡聖差別者，則亦無修道得果之人。若無修道得果，云何經中言如來度眾生。若佛度眾生，則知如來修行斷惑可有滿足法身，眾生未修行斷惑則無滿足法身。若然，便由修行斷惑因緣得大菩提，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『似勝』也。這一句中綜合解釋了三種殊勝，即數量殊勝、力量殊勝、無與倫比的殊勝。『無似因亦然』，這說明第四種因殊勝，爲了使句子完整，也順帶提到了無與倫比。『一切世間法不可得為喻』，無漏的善法能夠為佛果提供無盡的因，一切世間有漏的法中沒有可以相比的，所以說找不到可以比喻的事物。 『此說何等義？示於前福德此福為勝』，這一問一答，總的解釋了一個偈頌所闡明的殊勝意義。『云何為勝？一者數勝』等，列舉了上半偈中的四種殊勝。『是故偈言』等，引用下半偈，總結作為殊勝。『數勝』以下，一一分別提出四種殊勝的名稱，簡要解釋名稱，引用經文，其所屬內容應當可以理解。『又此法最勝，無有世法可喻』，『此法』，解釋下半偈，即引用偈頌來總結。『如是此福德中』以下，總結受持福德的殊勝。 『須菩提！于意云何？汝謂如來作是念：我度眾生耶』等，這是斷疑分中的第十一段經文。之所以出現這段經文，是因為存在疑問。什麼疑問呢？前面第九段經文中，前三句闡明法身平等，本來就圓滿具足、沒有什麼缺少，不是通過修行才能得到的，也沒有高下之分，也沒有我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相，平等地獲得三菩提。這說明就佛性法身平等的道理而言，自古至今都是一樣的，沒有彼此、凡聖的差別。提問者說：如果法身平等，沒有凡聖的差別，那麼也就沒有修道證果的人。如果沒有修道證果，為什麼經中說如來度化眾生？如果佛度化眾生，那就說明如來修行斷除迷惑，可以有圓滿的法身，眾生沒有修行斷除迷惑，就沒有圓滿的法身。如果這樣，那就是通過修行斷除迷惑的因緣才能獲得大菩提。

【English Translation】 English version 'Superior to the Similar'. This sentence comprehensively explains three kinds of superiority: superiority in number, superiority in power, and unparalleled superiority. 'The cause of the unparalleled is also the same' indicates the fourth kind of superiority in cause. To complete the sentence, it also mentions the unparalleled. 'No worldly dharma can be used as a metaphor' means that the unconditioned good dharma can provide endless causes for Buddhahood, and there is nothing comparable among all conditioned worldly dharmas, so it is said that no metaphor can be found. 'What meaning does this speak of? Showing that this merit is superior to previous merits', this question and answer generally explain the superior meaning elucidated in a verse. 'How is it superior? First, superiority in number', etc., lists the four kinds of superiority in the first half of the verse. 'Therefore, the verse says', etc., quotes the second half of the verse, summarizing it as superiority. 'Superiority in number' and below, each separately presents the names of the four kinds of superiority, briefly explains the names, and cites the sutras, and its belonging content should be understandable. 'Moreover, this dharma is the most superior, and no worldly dharma can be compared', 'this dharma' explains the second half of the verse, that is, quoting the verse to conclude. 'Thus, in this merit', and below, concludes the superiority of upholding merit. 'Subhuti, what do you think? Do you think that the Tathagata has this thought: I liberate sentient beings?' etc., this is the tenth section of scripture in the division of resolving doubts. The reason for this passage is that there is doubt. What doubt? In the previous ninth section of scripture, the first three sentences explain that the Dharmakaya is equal, originally complete and lacking nothing, not obtained through practice, and there is no high or low, nor the appearance of self, person, sentient being, or lifespan, equally attaining the Three Bodhisattvas. This explains that in terms of the principle of equality of the Buddha-nature Dharmakaya, it has always been the same from ancient times to the present, without the difference between each other, ordinary and holy. The questioner says: If the Dharmakaya is equal and there is no difference between ordinary and holy, then there are no people who cultivate the path and attain the fruit. If there is no cultivation of the path and attainment of the fruit, why does the sutra say that the Tathagata liberates sentient beings? If the Buddha liberates sentient beings, then it shows that the Tathagata cultivates and cuts off delusions, and can have a complete Dharmakaya, while sentient beings who have not cultivated and cut off delusions do not have a complete Dharmakaya. If so, then it is only through the cause of cultivating and cutting off delusions that one can attain great Bodhi.

---

非有古今圓滿法身不由修得，明矣。上第三住分及此斷疑分第四經中並言「菩薩若作是念：我度眾生。則非菩薩」。此二處，明菩薩于真如平等理中不見眾生真如法身異於己身真如法身而可度者。然菩薩位在學地，處不定之境，斷惑不盡、見理未圓，于平等理中若見眾生真如法身不滿，異於己身真如法身，起心度者尚非菩薩，況如來行滿惑盡、位居無學，云何而言佛度眾生也？此明佛與眾生法身平等無有增減亦無高下，故離真如法身無別眾生可度。若言佛度眾生，則法身是修得法，非本凈平等凡聖共有。以此驗知，諸佛修行得果可有法身，眾生未修則無法身。若眾生無法身，則不得言法身平等體無增減無所缺少，亦不得言法身本凈無我人等也。以有此疑故，經答言「汝謂如來作是念：我度眾生耶」。此佛問須菩提，汝謂如來起心分別：我由修行因緣斷滅盡故有滿足法身，眾生未修行斷惑故無滿足法身。謂異真如法界外別有眾生，而欲起心度之，令得解脫也。

「莫作是見」者，遮其見心也。「何以故」者，釋前，明我何以故止汝莫作是見也。即答「實無眾生如來度者」。然佛與眾生雖凡聖有異，而滿足法身平等無差，此明即真如來平等理上有此眾生名字，更無別定實眾生異於真法界而為如來度也。

如《

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：非說古今圓滿的法身不是通過修行而得到的，這是很明顯的。在第三住分和這個斷疑分第四經中都說：『菩薩如果這樣想：我度化眾生，那就不是菩薩。』這兩處經文說明，菩薩在真如平等的道理中，沒有看到眾生的真如法身和自己的真如法身有什麼不同，從而認為可以度化他們。然而，菩薩的地位還在學習的階段，處於不確定的境界，斷除迷惑還不徹底，對真理的理解還不圓滿。在平等的道理中，如果看到眾生的真如法身不圓滿，和自己的真如法身不同，從而生起度化眾生的念頭，尚且還不是菩薩，更何況如來修行圓滿，斷除所有迷惑，地位已經達到無學的境界，怎麼能說佛度化眾生呢？這說明佛和眾生的法身是平等的，沒有增減，也沒有高下，所以離開真如法身，就沒有另外的眾生可以度化。如果說佛度化眾生，那麼法身就是通過修行得到的，不是本來清凈平等的，凡人和聖人共同擁有的。通過這個來驗證，諸佛通過修行得到結果，才可能有法身，眾生沒有修行就沒有法身。如果眾生沒有法身，那就不能說，法身是平等的，本體沒有增減，沒有缺少，也不能說，法身本來清凈，沒有我人等的分別。因為有這樣的疑問，所以經文回答說：『你認為如來有這樣的想法：我度化眾生嗎？』這是佛問須菩提（Subhuti），你認為如來生起分別心：我因為修行的因緣，斷滅了所有煩惱，所以有圓滿的法身，眾生沒有修行斷除迷惑，所以沒有圓滿的法身。認為在真如法界之外，另外有眾生，想要生起念頭去度化他們，讓他們得到解脫。 『不要這樣認為』，是阻止他產生這樣的想法。『為什麼呢？』，是解釋前面，說明我為什麼要阻止你產生這樣的想法。接著回答說：『實際上沒有眾生是被如來度化的。』雖然佛和眾生在凡聖上有區別，但是圓滿的法身是平等沒有差別的，這說明在真如如來平等的道理上，有眾生這個名字，沒有另外確定的真實的眾生不同於真法界，而被如來度化。 如《

【English Translation】 English version: It is clear that the perfect Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, the body of the Dharma) of all times is not obtained without cultivation. In both the third dwelling section and the fourth sutra of this doubt-severing section, it is said: 'If a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, an enlightened being) thinks: I liberate sentient beings, then he is not a Bodhisattva.' These two passages explain that a Bodhisattva, in the principle of true suchness (真如, true reality) and equality, does not see that the true suchness Dharmakaya of sentient beings is different from his own true suchness Dharmakaya, and thus thinks that they can be liberated. However, the Bodhisattva's position is still in the stage of learning, in a state of uncertainty, not completely severing delusions, and not fully understanding the truth. In the principle of equality, if he sees that the true suchness Dharmakaya of sentient beings is incomplete and different from his own true suchness Dharmakaya, and thus generates the thought of liberating them, he is not yet a Bodhisattva. How much more so, then, can it be said that the Tathagata (如來, thus-gone one), having completed his practice, severed all delusions, and attained the position of no-more-learning, liberates sentient beings? This explains that the Dharmakaya of the Buddha and sentient beings are equal, without increase or decrease, and without high or low. Therefore, apart from the true suchness Dharmakaya, there are no separate sentient beings to be liberated. If it is said that the Buddha liberates sentient beings, then the Dharmakaya is something obtained through cultivation, not originally pure and equal, shared by both ordinary beings and sages. Based on this, it can be known that Buddhas, through cultivation, attain the result and thus have a Dharmakaya, while sentient beings, without cultivation, do not have a Dharmakaya. If sentient beings do not have a Dharmakaya, then it cannot be said that the Dharmakaya is equal, that its essence has no increase or decrease and lacks nothing, nor can it be said that the Dharmakaya is originally pure and without self, person, etc. Because of this doubt, the sutra answers: 'Do you think that the Tathagata has this thought: I liberate sentient beings?' This is the Buddha asking Subhuti (須菩提, one of the principal disciples of the Buddha), do you think that the Tathagata generates discriminating thoughts: I, because of the causes and conditions of cultivation, have severed all afflictions and thus have a complete Dharmakaya, while sentient beings, without cultivating and severing delusions, do not have a complete Dharmakaya. Thinking that outside the true suchness Dharma-realm (法界, the realm of Dharma), there are separate sentient beings, and wanting to generate the thought to liberate them, so that they can attain liberation. 'Do not have this view' is to prevent him from generating such a thought. 'Why?' is to explain the preceding, clarifying why I am stopping you from having this view. It then answers: 'In reality, there are no sentient beings liberated by the Tathagata.' Although there are differences between Buddhas and sentient beings in terms of being ordinary or sage, the complete Dharmakaya is equal and without difference. This explains that in the principle of true suchness and equality of the Tathagata, there is the name of sentient beings, but there are no other definite real sentient beings different from the true Dharma-realm, who are liberated by the Tathagata. As in the 《

---

文殊般若經》說：「假使十方一切諸佛，一一佛住世若一劫、若過一劫，晝夜說法心不暫息，各各度于無量恒河沙眾生皆入涅槃，而眾生界亦不增不減。何以故？離真如法界外，眾生定相不可得故，是故眾生界不增不減。」又《華嚴經》云：「不增眾生界、不減眾生界。」此就平等法身真實法界理中明無增減也。又《小品般若》中說：「一切眾生本來清凈。假令諸佛于百千萬劫唱言眾生眾生，而無一定實眾生可得也。」若以此等文驗，于平等理中無有眾生異於諸佛而可度也。又若佛度眾生，則是佛自度佛、法界還度法界。以此故知即法身上有此眾生名字，不離法界外別有眾生可度也。故《不增不減經》言：「惑覆法身名為眾生也。」即復有疑：正可無定實眾生可度，非無五陰所成虛假眾生，如來何故不度？故經答云「須菩提！若實有眾生如來度者，如來則有我人相等見」，此明非但無有定實眾生可度，乃至亦無虛假眾生可度。何以故？正五陰法上名為眾生，然此五陰無眾生體。非但無眾生體，復不異佛性土有是眾生五陰虛妄名字故，亦不可度。若如來起心，謂異於真如法界有五陰所成虛假眾生可度者，則猶有我相等惑不盡也。

乘復有疑：若如來無有我相等惑者，如來何故自云我過去曾作轉輪聖王帝釋梵王等。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《文殊般若經》說：『假使十方一切諸佛，每一位佛住世一劫，或者超過一劫，日夜不停地說法，各自度化無量恒河沙數的眾生，使他們都進入涅槃，然而眾生界也不會因此增加或減少。為什麼呢？因為離開真如法界之外，眾生的固定相狀是不可得的，所以眾生界不會增加也不會減少。』 《華嚴經》也說：『不增加眾生界，不減少眾生界。』這是就平等法身真實法界的道理中說明沒有增減。 《小品般若》中說：『一切眾生本來清凈。即使諸佛在百千萬劫中不斷宣說眾生、眾生，也沒有一個可以確定的真實眾生可以得到。』如果用這些經文來驗證，在平等之理中，沒有眾生不同於諸佛而可以被度化。 而且，如果佛度化眾生，那就是佛自己度化佛，法界還是度化法界。因此可知，只是在法身上有這個眾生的名字，不離開法界之外，沒有另外的眾生可以被度化。所以《不增不減經》說：『被迷惑所覆蓋的法身，就叫做眾生。』 接著又產生疑問：或許沒有可以確定的真實眾生可以度化，但並非沒有由五陰所形成的虛假眾生，如來為什麼不度化他們呢？ 所以經中回答說：『須菩提！如果真的有眾生被如來度化，那麼如來就有了我、人等相的見解。』這說明不僅沒有可以確定的真實眾生可以度化，甚至也沒有虛假的眾生可以度化。為什麼呢？因為只是在五陰法上才有名為眾生的說法，然而這五陰並沒有眾生的實體。不僅沒有眾生的實體，而且不異於佛性，國土上才有這些眾生五陰的虛妄名字，所以也不可以度化。如果如來生起念頭，認為不同於真如法界，有五陰所形成的虛假眾生可以度化，那麼就仍然有我相等迷惑沒有斷盡。 接著又產生疑問：如果如來沒有我相等迷惑，如來為什麼自己說我過去曾經做過轉輪聖王（Chakravartin，統治世界的理想君主）、帝釋（Indra，忉利天之主）、梵王（Brahma，色界之主）等。

【English Translation】 English version The Manjushri Prajna Sutra says: 'Suppose all the Buddhas in the ten directions, each Buddha dwelling in the world for one kalpa (aeon), or even more than one kalpa, ceaselessly teaching the Dharma day and night, each delivering countless Ganges-sand-like beings, causing them all to enter Nirvana, yet the realm of beings will neither increase nor decrease. Why? Because apart from the realm of True Thusness (Tathata, 真如) and Dharma-dhatu (法界, the realm of Dharma), the fixed form of beings is unattainable. Therefore, the realm of beings neither increases nor decreases.' The Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經) also says: 'The realm of beings does not increase, nor does the realm of beings decrease.' This explains the absence of increase or decrease in the principle of the equal Dharma-kaya (法身, Dharma Body) and the real Dharma-dhatu. The Smaller Prajna Sutra (小品般若) says: 'All beings are originally pure. Even if all the Buddhas were to proclaim 'beings, beings' for hundreds of thousands of kalpas, no definite, real being can be obtained.' If we verify this with such texts, in the principle of equality, there are no beings different from the Buddhas that can be delivered. Moreover, if the Buddha delivers beings, it is the Buddha delivering the Buddha, the Dharma-dhatu still delivering the Dharma-dhatu. Therefore, it is known that only on the Dharma-kaya is there this name of 'being'; apart from the Dharma-dhatu, there are no separate beings that can be delivered. Therefore, the Sutra on No Increase No Decrease (不增不減經) says: 'The Dharma-kaya covered by delusion is called a being.' Then another doubt arises: Perhaps there are no definite, real beings that can be delivered, but there are indeed illusory beings formed by the five skandhas (五陰, aggregates of existence). Why does the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) not deliver them? Therefore, the sutra answers: 'Subhuti (須菩提)! If there were truly beings delivered by the Tathagata, then the Tathagata would have views of self, person, etc.' This explains that not only are there no definite, real beings that can be delivered, but even illusory beings cannot be delivered. Why? Because it is only on the five skandhas that the name 'being' exists, but these five skandhas have no substance of a being. Not only is there no substance of a being, but also, not different from the Buddha-nature (佛性) and the land, there are these illusory names of the five skandhas of beings, so they cannot be delivered. If the Tathagata were to give rise to the thought that, different from the realm of True Thusness, there are illusory beings formed by the five skandhas that can be delivered, then there would still be delusions of self, etc., that have not been exhausted. Then another doubt arises: If the Tathagata has no delusions of self, etc., why does the Tathagata himself say that in the past he was a Chakravartin (轉輪聖王, wheel-turning king), Indra (帝釋, ruler of the Trayastrimsa Heaven), Brahma (梵王, ruler of the Brahma realm), etc.?

---

以此驗之，明知如來有我相未盡，不應言如來無有我相也。故答言「須菩提！如來說有我者則非有我」，明如來隨世俗語故言有我，非謂有我人等相未盡故也。

乘復生疑：應有神我。若實無有神我，何故一切人皆云有我，我過去從天道中來、人道中來也。故答「而毛道凡夫生者以為有我」，明毛道凡夫懷取相之心，于無我法中計有神我，從過去中來，不滅至於現在，故妄言有我，非謂理中實有我也。「毛道」者，此義釋云愚癡闇冥無有智慧名為毛道。此中須菩提應問：世尊！云何名為毛道凡夫？我未解此義，愿如來為我解釋。故佛答須菩提「毛道凡夫生者，如來說名非生」。此云「生」者，生之言起毛道凡夫。起於我見，故言生也。此生，西域云禪那，依世辨論，無正名相憣故，且就義解，作名云毛道凡夫生也。「說名非生」者，明毛道凡夫但能起於我見等，或不能生彼出世無漏聖解，故言非生也。是故言毛道凡夫生者，是但能起於我見，不生聖人法故，結名為毛道凡夫生也。

「論曰：復有疑，若是法平等相無高下」者，牒此段第九生疑處前三子句經也。「云何如來名為度眾生」者，設疑難意也。「自下經文為斷此疑」者，申此經來意為斷此疑也。此一段經以二偈釋。初偈作問答意，釋前二疑經，義

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：用這個來驗證，就清楚地知道如來還有『我相』（認為有一個真實不變的自我的觀念）沒有完全消除，不應該說如來沒有『我相』。所以回答說：『須菩提！如來說有我，則非有我』，說明如來是隨順世俗的說法才說有『我』，並不是說如來還有『我人』（執著于自我和他人）、『我眾生』（執著于自我存在於眾生之中）等相沒有消除的緣故。

須菩提又產生疑問：應該是有『神我』（永恒不變的靈魂）存在的。如果確實沒有『神我』，為什麼所有的人都說有『我』，說我過去是從天道中來、人道中來的呢？所以佛回答說：『而毛道凡夫生者以為有我』，說明愚昧無知的凡夫懷有執取外相的心，在『無我』的法理中妄想有『神我』，從過去而來，不會消滅直到現在，所以胡亂地說有『我』，並不是說在真理中真的有『我』存在。「毛道」（愚癡之路）的意思，這裡的解釋是說愚癡、黑暗、沒有智慧叫做『毛道』。這裡須菩提應該問：世尊！什麼叫做『毛道凡夫』？我還不理解這個意思，希望如來為我解釋。所以佛回答須菩提說：『毛道凡夫生者，如來說名非生』。這裡說的『生』，是指『毛道凡夫』生起。生起『我見』（對自我的錯誤認知），所以說是『生』。這個『生』，在西域叫做『禪那』（Dhyana），根據世俗的辨論，沒有正確的名稱可以翻譯，所以姑且就意義來解釋，稱作『毛道凡夫生』。「說名非生」的意思是說，『毛道凡夫』只能生起『我見』等等，或許不能生起超出世間的無漏（沒有煩惱）的聖賢智慧，所以說是『非生』。因此說『毛道凡夫生者』，是說他們只能生起『我見』，不能生起聖人的法，所以總結命名為『毛道凡夫生』。

『論曰：復有疑，若是法平等相無高下』，這是指這段經文第九個產生疑問的地方的前三個子句。「云何如來名為度眾生」，這是提出疑問的意圖。「自下經文為斷此疑」，這是說明這段經文的來意是爲了斷除這個疑問。這段經文用兩個偈頌來解釋。第一個偈頌是作問答的意思，解釋前面兩個疑問的經文的含義。

【English Translation】 English version: Examining it in this way, it is clearly known that the Tathagata (如來, 'Thus Come One', an epithet of the Buddha) has not completely eliminated the 'self-image' (我相, the notion of a real and unchanging self), and it should not be said that the Tathagata has no 'self-image'. Therefore, the answer is: 'Subhuti (須菩提)! What the Tathagata speaks of as having a self is, in fact, not having a self,' clarifying that the Tathagata speaks of having a self in accordance with worldly conventions, not because the Tathagata has not eliminated the images of 'self and others' (我人), 'self among beings' (我眾生), and so on.

Subhuti further doubts: There should be a 'divine self' (神我, an eternal soul). If there is truly no 'divine self', why do all people say there is a 'self', saying that I came from the heavenly realm or the human realm in the past? Therefore, the Buddha answers: 'But those beings born of the 'foolish path' (毛道凡夫生者) believe there is a self,' explaining that ignorant and foolish beings harbor a mind of clinging to appearances, and in the Dharma (法, the teachings of the Buddha) of 'no-self' (無我), they falsely imagine there is a 'divine self', coming from the past, not ceasing until the present, so they falsely say there is a 'self', not because there is truly a 'self' in reality. The meaning of 'foolish path' (毛道) here is explained as ignorance, darkness, and lack of wisdom, which is called the 'foolish path'. Here, Subhuti should ask: 'World-Honored One (世尊)! What is called a 'foolish path being' (毛道凡夫)? I do not yet understand this meaning; I hope the Tathagata will explain it for me.' Therefore, the Buddha answers Subhuti: 'Those beings born of the 'foolish path', the Tathagata calls them 'non-born' (非生).' The 'born' (生) here refers to the arising of 'foolish path beings'. The arising of 'self-view' (我見, the mistaken perception of self) is called 'born'. This 'born', in the Western Regions (西域), is called 'Dhyana' (禪那), according to worldly discussions, there is no correct name to translate it, so for the sake of meaning, it is called 'foolish path being born'. The meaning of 'called non-born' is that 'foolish path beings' can only give rise to 'self-view' and so on, and perhaps cannot give rise to the unconditioned (無漏, without defilements) wisdom of the sages that transcends the world, so it is called 'non-born'. Therefore, it is said that 'those beings born of the 'foolish path'' are those who can only give rise to 'self-view' and cannot give rise to the Dharma of the sages, so they are collectively named 'foolish path being born'.

'The Treatise says: There is further doubt, if this Dharma is of equal nature without high or low,' refers to the first three clauses of the ninth place where doubt arises in this passage of scripture. 'Why is the Tathagata called the one who liberates sentient beings?' This is the intention of raising the doubt. 'The following scripture is to dispel this doubt,' explains that the intention of this scripture is to dispel this doubt. This passage of scripture is explained with two verses. The first verse is in the form of questions and answers, explaining the meaning of the previous two scriptures of doubt.

---

勢未盡拘瑣入下第二偈上三句也，第四句釋后二疑經也。

「平等真法界，佛不度眾生」者，明真如理中佛與眾生法身平等，無凡聖兩異，何得謂于真如法界外更有一定實眾生與佛有異而可度也，釋經中「何以故？實無眾生如來度者」以前經文也。即難：若真如平等理中無眾生可度者，非無虛假眾生，何故不度也？故下半偈云「以名共彼陰，不離於法界」，此明假名眾生為五陰所成，此五陰法體亦是虛妄，依真如有故，無別虛妄眾生可度也。

「此義云何」以下至「偈言不離於法界故」，先釋下半偈眾生假名與五陰共故，解偈第三句也。彼名共陰不離法界者，釋作名陰共義也，即引第四句證不離也。論主何故先釋下半偈者，疑者謂眾生無法身，此下半偈明眾生五陰即是法界中名，當知等有法身，故先解下半偈然後釋上半偈，平等中佛不度眾生便故也，自下解上半偈也。「彼法界無差別」者，正解初句，即提所釋偈言「平等真法界」故也。「是故如來不度一眾生」者，是法界平等、凡聖無異，故佛尚不度一眾生，何況多也。即以偈第二句結佛不度眾生故也。「如經何以故實無眾生如來度」者，結上半偈也。

「佛言須菩提」以下，結後半偈，復拘瑣生下第二偈也。第二偈「取我度為過，以取彼法是，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『勢未盡拘瑣入下第二偈上三句也，第四句釋后二疑經也。』這句話的意思是，前面的論述還沒有完全概括和歸納到下面的第二個偈頌的前三句中，而第四句則是用來解釋《金剛經》中後面兩個疑問的。

『平等真法界，佛不度眾生』這句話，闡明了在真如理體中，佛與眾生的法身是平等的，沒有凡夫和聖人的區別。怎麼能說在真如法界之外，還有一個確定的、實在的眾生，與佛不同，可以被度化呢？這是解釋經文中『何以故？實無眾生如來度者』之前的經文。這裡提出一個疑問：如果真如平等的理體中沒有眾生可以被度化，難道就沒有虛假的眾生嗎？為什麼不度化他們呢？所以下半偈說『以名共彼陰，不離於法界』，這說明假名眾生是由五陰組成的，而這五陰的法體也是虛妄的，依存於真如而存在，沒有另外的虛妄眾生可以被度化。

『此義云何』以下至『偈言不離於法界故』，首先解釋下半偈，眾生的假名與五陰共同存在，這是解釋偈頌的第三句。『彼名共陰不離法界者』，解釋了名與陰共同存在的意義，並引用第四句來證明不離法界。論主為什麼先解釋下半偈呢？因為有人懷疑眾生沒有法身，而這下半偈說明眾生的五陰就是法界中的名，應當知道眾生同樣具有法身，所以先解釋下半偈，然後解釋上半偈，這樣『平等中佛不度眾生』的道理就明白了。下面開始解釋上半偈。『彼法界無差別』，這是對第一句的正面解釋，即提到了所解釋的偈頌『平等真法界』。『是故如來不度一眾生』，因為法界是平等的，凡夫和聖人沒有區別，所以佛尚且不度化一個眾生，更何況是很多眾生呢？這是用偈頌的第二句來總結佛不度眾生的原因。『如經何以故實無眾生如來度』，這是對上半偈的總結。

『佛言須菩提』以下，總結後半偈，再次概括和歸納到下面的第二個偈頌。第二個偈頌是『取我度為過，以取彼法是，』

【English Translation】 English version: 『The force has not yet exhausted in summarizing the first three lines of the second verse below; the fourth line explains the two doubts in the sutra.』 This means that the preceding discussion has not fully encompassed and summarized the first three lines of the second verse below, while the fourth line is used to explain the latter two doubts in the Diamond Sutra.

『Equal is the true Dharma realm, the Buddha does not liberate sentient beings,』 clarifies that in the principle of Suchness, the Dharma bodies of the Buddha and sentient beings are equal, without the distinction of ordinary beings and sages. How can it be said that outside the true Dharma realm, there is a definite, real sentient being, different from the Buddha, that can be liberated? This explains the sutra passage before 『Why is that? In reality, there are no sentient beings liberated by the Tathagata.』 Here, a question is raised: If there are no sentient beings to be liberated in the equal principle of Suchness, are there no illusory sentient beings? Why not liberate them? Therefore, the second half of the verse says, 『With name, sharing those skandhas, not apart from the Dharma realm,』 which explains that nominal sentient beings are composed of the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), and the Dharma nature of these five skandhas is also illusory, existing dependent on Suchness, with no separate illusory sentient beings to be liberated.

『What is the meaning of this?』 down to 『The verse says, not apart from the Dharma realm,』 first explains the second half of the verse, that the nominal existence of sentient beings is shared with the five skandhas, which explains the third line of the verse. 『With name, sharing skandhas, not apart from the Dharma realm,』 explains the meaning of name and skandhas coexisting, and quotes the fourth line to prove that they are not apart from the Dharma realm. Why does the commentator explain the second half of the verse first? Because some people doubt that sentient beings do not have a Dharma body, and this second half of the verse explains that the five skandhas of sentient beings are names within the Dharma realm, and it should be known that sentient beings also have a Dharma body. Therefore, the second half of the verse is explained first, and then the first half of the verse is explained, so that the principle of 『In equality, the Buddha does not liberate sentient beings』 becomes clear. The explanation of the first half of the verse begins below. 『That Dharma realm has no difference,』 is a direct explanation of the first line, referring to the verse being explained, 『Equal is the true Dharma realm.』 『Therefore, the Tathagata does not liberate even one sentient being,』 because the Dharma realm is equal, and there is no difference between ordinary beings and sages, so the Buddha does not liberate even one sentient being, let alone many sentient beings? This uses the second line of the verse to summarize the reason why the Buddha does not liberate sentient beings. 『As the sutra says, Why is that? In reality, there are no sentient beings liberated by the Tathagata,』 is a summary of the first half of the verse.

『The Buddha said, Subhuti,』 below, summarizes the second half of the verse, and again summarizes and incorporates it into the second verse below. The second verse is 『To take my liberation as a fault, to take that Dharma as right,』

---

取度眾生故」，此三句共前偈下二句同釋經中「若實有生如來度者，如來則有我人眾生壽者相」等。此句為明如來無有取眾生相而欲度之，今言若度則是取相過者，此舉有過以明無過，故知異法界外無別有五陰所成虛假眾生為如來度者也。「取我度為過」者，明如來若專念見有五陰所成虛假眾生異真法界而取度之者，即有取相之過。云何是過？答「以取彼法是」，以取五陰等法虛妄有為以為眾生，欲度之令得解脫，故為過也。上雖言「以取彼法是」，未知作何等意取，故第三句云「取度眾生故」。若如來自謂已是佛無煩惱人，見眾生是凡夫具足煩惱、無有法身，令拔之令離此或，此是取相過也。「不取取應知」者，釋經中「如來說有我者則非有我，而毛道凡夫生者以為有我」也，答第三何故說我疑也。「不取」者，明如來解生陰本來虛妄，無實眾生可度，故云不取。「取」者，毛道眾生不解生陰體虛，謂為定實有我，故言為取。「應知」者，此凡聖二人取不取義，勸人知也。

「此義云何至取我度為過故」，釋偈初句，即舉偈來結也。「以取彼法是至有如是相故」，此中間二句，先提偈於前，然後解釋也。「經復言須菩提如來說有我者等，此義云何」者，此提第四句所釋經為問也。偈言「不取取應知」者，提偈

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『取度眾生故』，這三句與前面偈頌的下兩句共同解釋經文中的『若實有生如來度者，如來則有我人眾生壽者相』等等。這句是說明如來沒有執取眾生之相而想要度化他們，現在說如果度化就是執取了相的過失。這裡舉出有過失的情況來表明沒有過失，所以要知道在異法界之外，沒有另外由五陰所形成的虛假眾生給如來度化。『取我度為過』，說明如來如果專注于見到由五陰所成的虛假眾生不同於真法界而想要度化他們，就有了執取相的過失。什麼是過失呢？回答說『以取彼法是』，因為執取五陰等虛妄有為之法作為眾生，想要度化他們使他們得到解脫，所以是過失。上面雖然說『以取彼法是』，還不知道是作何種意思的執取，所以第三句說『取度眾生故』。如果如來自己認為已經是佛，是沒有煩惱的人，見到眾生是凡夫，具足煩惱、沒有法身，想要拔除他們，使他們離開這些，這就是執取相的過失。『不取取應知』，解釋經文中的『如來說有我者則非有我，而毛道凡夫生者以為有我』。回答第三句為什麼說我，令人疑惑。『不取』，說明如來了解眾生的五陰本來是虛妄的，沒有真實的眾生可以度化，所以說不取。『取』，毛道眾生不瞭解五陰的本體是虛妄的，認為確實有我，所以說是取。『應知』，這是凡夫和聖人二人取與不取的意義，勸人瞭解。

『此義云何至取我度為過故』，解釋偈頌的第一句，就是舉出偈頌來總結。『以取彼法是至有如是相故』，這中間兩句，先提出偈頌在前面，然後解釋。『經復言須菩提如來說有我者等，此義云何』，這是提出第四句所解釋的經文作為提問。偈頌說『不取取應知』，提出偈頌。

【English Translation】 English version 'Taking to liberate sentient beings', these three sentences, together with the last two sentences of the previous verse, explain the sutra passage 'If there were truly sentient beings for the Tathagata to liberate, the Tathagata would have the characteristics of self, person, sentient being, and life'. This sentence clarifies that the Tathagata does not grasp the characteristic of sentient beings with the desire to liberate them. Now, saying that liberation implies grasping onto characteristics is a fault. This illustrates the absence of fault by pointing out the presence of fault. Therefore, it should be understood that outside the realm of different dharmas, there are no separate, false sentient beings formed by the five skandhas for the Tathagata to liberate. 'Taking self to liberate is a fault' clarifies that if the Tathagata focuses on seeing false sentient beings formed by the five skandhas as different from the true dharma realm and desires to liberate them, then there is the fault of grasping onto characteristics. What is the fault? The answer is 'Because taking those dharmas is'. Because grasping onto the false and conditioned dharmas such as the five skandhas as sentient beings, desiring to liberate them so that they may attain liberation, is therefore a fault. Although it was said above 'Because taking those dharmas is', it is still not known what kind of taking is meant. Therefore, the third sentence says 'Taking to liberate sentient beings'. If the Tathagata considers himself to be a Buddha, a person without afflictions, and sees sentient beings as ordinary beings, complete with afflictions and without a dharma body, desiring to uproot them and make them leave these, this is the fault of grasping onto characteristics. 'Not taking, taking should be known' explains the sutra passage 'The Tathagata speaks of self, which is not self, but ordinary beings born of ignorance take it to be self'. It answers why the third sentence speaks of self, causing doubt. 'Not taking' clarifies that the Tathagata understands that the skandhas of sentient beings are originally false, and there are no real sentient beings to liberate, therefore it is said 'not taking'. 'Taking', ordinary beings of ignorance do not understand that the essence of the skandhas is false, and consider that there is indeed a self, therefore it is said 'taking'. 'Should be known', this is the meaning of taking and not taking for both ordinary beings and sages, encouraging people to understand.

'What is the meaning of this, up to taking self to liberate is a fault?', explains the first sentence of the verse, which is to summarize by citing the verse. 'Because taking those dharmas is, up to having such characteristics', these two sentences in the middle first present the verse, and then explain it. 'The sutra again says, Subhuti, the Tathagata speaks of self, etc., what is the meaning of this?', this raises the sutra passage explained in the fourth sentence as a question. The verse says 'Not taking, taking should be known', raising the verse.

---

與經相屬當也。「此以何義」以下，釋偈中「取不取」義，明如來不取凡夫取也。「又須菩提毛道凡夫生者，如來說非生者」，以此經偈中未釋，故別提來也。「不生聖人法故名非生」者，此是彌勒世尊釋，明所以言毛道凡夫生為不生者，由不能生聖人法故名非生也。

「須菩提！于意云何？可以相成就得見如來不」者，此斷疑分中第十二段經文，已六遍來。所以復來者，有疑故來也。謂雖覆上來廣為我解法身如來無有色相可見，若不了見便應是無；然復言雖不可見而是妙有，若有應是可見，然今道有而不可見者，明知無別無為法身非修得法也。正修方便萬善，三十二相因緣福德業，所得佛果無量相好身時，即有法身，那得離此之外別有法身也？若由修行因緣得相好身時即有法身者，便以修福德因緣得真法身。如經中明，佛修三十二相業時，以頭頂禮拜三寶師長父母故，得無見頂相；助他為善故，手中得羅網相等。以此報相既為因得，類知法身亦應是可修得。若可修得，前經中不應以初三句明法身無修得，后一句一切善法得三菩提，明報身有修得。以此比知，由修福德行見報佛色相者，即法身。故知法身是可修得法，不應別有古今一定法身是非修德法也。有如此疑，故答意明不可以報佛色相為因、所得是可見故

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：與經文的意義相符。「此以何義」以下，解釋偈語中『取不取』的含義，闡明如來不執取凡夫的執取。「又須菩提，毛道凡夫所生者，如來說非生者」，因為這句經文在偈語中沒有解釋，所以特別提出來。「不生聖人法故名非生」者，這是彌勒世尊的解釋，說明為什麼說毛道凡夫所生為『不生』，因為不能產生聖人的法，所以稱為『非生』。 『須菩提！于意云何？可以相成就得見如來不』者，這是斷疑分中的第十二段經文，已經出現過六次。之所以再次出現，是因為還有疑問。意思是說，雖然前面已經廣泛地為我解釋了法身如來沒有色相可見，如果不能明白這一點，就應該認為法身是沒有的；然而又說雖然不可見，卻是妙有，如果有，就應該是可見的，現在說有卻不可見，這說明無別無為的法身不是修習而得的。真正修習方便萬善，以三十二相的因緣福德業，所得到的佛果無量相好之身時，就有了法身，怎麼能離開這個之外，另外存在一個法身呢？如果由於修行因緣得到相好之身時就有了法身，那麼就是以修福德因緣得到真法身。如經中所說，佛修三十二相業時，以頭頂禮拜三寶（Buddha, Dharma, Sangha 佛，法，僧）師長父母，所以得到無見頂相；幫助他人為善，所以手中得到羅網相等。這些報相既然是因緣所得，那麼可以推知法身也應該是可以修得的。如果可以修得，那麼前面的經文中就不應該用前三句說明法身是無修得，后一句『一切善法得三菩提（Bodhi 覺悟）』，說明報身是有修得。以此相比，由修福德行見報佛色相者，即是法身。所以知道法身是可以修得的法，不應該另外存在一個古今一定、不是修德之法。有這樣的疑問，所以回答的意思是，不可以報佛色相為因，因為所得是可見的。

【English Translation】 English version: It is appropriate to be consistent with the meaning of the sutra. 『此以何義』 (ci yi he yi - What is the meaning of this?) and the following explains the meaning of 『取不取』 (qu bu qu - taking or not taking) in the verse, clarifying that the Tathagata (如來) does not grasp what ordinary people grasp. 『又須菩提毛道凡夫生者，如來說非生者』 (you Xūbútí máo dào fánfū shēng zhě, Rúlái shuō fēi shēng zhě - Furthermore, Subhuti (須菩提), the birth of ordinary beings through hair pores, the Tathagata says is not birth), this is specifically mentioned because it is not explained in the verse of the sutra. 『不生聖人法故名非生』 (bù shēng shèngrén fǎ gù míng fēi shēng - Not producing the Dharma of sages, therefore it is called not-birth), this is Maitreya (彌勒) Buddha's explanation, clarifying why the birth of ordinary beings through hair pores is called 『not-birth,』 because it cannot produce the Dharma of sages, therefore it is called 『not-birth.』 『須菩提！于意云何？可以相成就得見如來不』 (Xūbútí! Yú yì yún hé? Kěyǐ xiàng chéngjiù dé jiàn Rúlái bù? - Subhuti! What do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by the accomplishment of characteristics?), this is the twelfth section of the Doubt-Severing Division, and it has appeared six times already. The reason for its reappearance is because there are still doubts. It means that although it has been extensively explained to me that the Dharmakaya (法身) Tathagata has no visible form, if this is not understood, it should be considered that the Dharmakaya does not exist; however, it is also said that although it is invisible, it is wonderfully existent. If it exists, it should be visible, but now it is said to exist but is invisible, which shows that the Dharmakaya, which is without distinction and without action, is not obtained through cultivation. When truly cultivating expedient skillful means, myriad virtues, and the causes and conditions of the thirty-two characteristics, the resulting Buddha-fruit of immeasurable excellent forms is the Dharmakaya. How can there be a separate Dharmakaya apart from this? If the Dharmakaya exists when the excellent forms are obtained through the causes and conditions of cultivation, then the true Dharmakaya is obtained through the causes and conditions of cultivating merit. As it is explained in the sutra, when the Buddha cultivated the karma of the thirty-two characteristics, he obtained the invisible crown of the head because he bowed to the Three Jewels (三寶) - Buddha, Dharma, Sangha (佛，法，僧), teachers, elders, and parents; he obtained the net-like marks on his hands because he helped others to do good. Since these reward-characteristics are obtained through causes, it can be inferred that the Dharmakaya should also be obtainable through cultivation. If it is obtainable through cultivation, then the previous sutra should not have used the first three sentences to explain that the Dharmakaya is not obtained through cultivation, and the last sentence, 『all good dharmas obtain Bodhi (菩提)』, explains that the Reward-body is obtained through cultivation. Comparing this, seeing the Reward-Buddha's form through the cultivation of meritorious deeds is the Dharmakaya. Therefore, it is known that the Dharmakaya is a Dharma that can be cultivated, and there should not be a separate, fixed Dharmakaya from ancient times that is not a Dharma of cultivated virtue. With such doubts, the meaning of the answer is that the Reward-Buddha's form cannot be the cause, because what is obtained is visible.

---

，如此比類亦謂法身是可見亦為福田所得也。「須菩提！于意云何？可以相成就見如來不」者，佛問須菩提，于汝意地以智慧思惟籌量，可以福德業所得大夫相身見法身如來不也？故須菩提即答，如我解如來所說義意，不可以報佛福德業所得成就相身見法身如來也。

「佛言如是」者，如來印可須菩提所說當理。佛去大眾疑心，明實如汝所說，不可以福德相成就身比知見法身如來也。「佛言：須菩提！若以相成就觀如來者，轉輪聖王應是如來」者，明若以報佛有色相身為修因所得，謂法身佛亦為因得，由修行因緣後方有者，世間輪王亦有三十二相八十種好，豈可亦是法身佛也？此中乃難法、報二佛，何故引輪王來反質者，然此二種佛義有一異，別相難分，引輪王非況類釋，使疑者解撥理雖一，就體用義殊故，所以二佛異相歷然可見也。

「論曰：復有疑，雖相成就不可得見如來至法身為體」，此惑者詭順如來上來所釋法身之義。然雖似領解，而猶有疑心未盡，意欲更作疑難，故牒來也。「而如來法身以見相成就比智，則知如來法身為福相成就」者，此是作難之辭也。「而如來法身」者，疑者云：如來雖作此解，而我意猶謂無別無為法身不可以相見、不為因得也。「以見相成就」者，疑者謂以見報佛福相成

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：像這樣以此類推，如果說法身是可見的，也就意味著法身可以通過修福得來。「須菩提！于意云何？可以相成就見如來不」這句話，是佛問須菩提，在你的意念中，用智慧去思考衡量，可以通過由福德業報所得的具足相好的色身，去見到法身如來嗎？所以須菩提回答說，依我所理解的如來所說之義，不可以憑藉由報佛福德業報所得的成就相好之身，去見到法身如來。

「佛言如是」這句話，是如來印可須菩提所說符合道理。佛爲了去除大眾的疑心，明確表示確實如你所說，不可以憑藉福德相成就之身來比擬認知法身如來。「佛言：須菩提！若以相成就觀如來者，轉輪聖王應是如來」這句話，是說明如果認為以報佛的有色相身為修因所得，就認為法身佛也是通過修因才能得到，是由修行因緣之後才有的，那麼世間的轉輪聖王也有三十二相八十種好，難道也可以說是法身佛嗎？這裡是詰難法身佛和報身佛，為什麼要引用轉輪聖王來反問呢？這是因為這兩種佛的意義有一部分相同，一部分不同，差別相難以區分，引用轉輪聖王並非是比況，而是爲了使疑惑的人理解，道理雖然相同，但在體和用上的意義卻不同，所以法身佛和報身佛的差別相才如此明顯可見。

「論曰：復有疑，雖相成就不可得見如來至法身為體」，這是迷惑者違背如來之前所解釋的法身之義。雖然表面上似乎領會了，但仍然有疑心未消除，想要進一步提出疑問，所以再次提起。「而如來法身以見相成就比智，則知如來法身為福相成就」這句話，這是提出疑問的言辭。「而如來法身」這句話，是疑惑者說：如來雖然這樣解釋，但我仍然認為無別無為的法身不可以憑藉相來見，也不是通過修因而得來的。「以見相成就」這句話，是疑惑者認為憑藉見到報佛的福相成就

【English Translation】 English version: Similarly, if we say that the Dharmakaya (法身) [Dharma body] is visible, it also means that the Dharmakaya can be obtained through cultivating blessings. 'Subhuti (須菩提)! What do you think? Can the Tathagata (如來) [Thus Come One] be seen by the accomplishment of characteristics?' This is the Buddha (佛) asking Subhuti, in your mind, using wisdom to think and measure, can you see the Dharmakaya Tathagata through the physical body with complete characteristics obtained from meritorious deeds?

Therefore, Subhuti answered, according to my understanding of the meaning of what the Tathagata said, the Dharmakaya Tathagata cannot be seen by relying on the accomplished physical body obtained from the meritorious deeds of the Reward Body Buddha (報佛).

'The Buddha said, so it is,' means that the Tathagata affirmed that what Subhuti said is reasonable. The Buddha, in order to dispel the doubts of the assembly, clearly stated that it is indeed as you said, the Dharmakaya Tathagata cannot be known by comparing it to the body accomplished with meritorious characteristics. 'The Buddha said: Subhuti! If the Tathagata is viewed by the accomplishment of characteristics, then the Chakravarti King (轉輪聖王) [Wheel-Turning King] should be the Tathagata,' which means that if it is thought that the colored physical body of the Reward Body Buddha is obtained through the cause of cultivation, and it is thought that the Dharmakaya Buddha is also obtained through the cause of cultivation, and only exists after the cause of cultivation, then the Chakravarti King in the world also has thirty-two marks and eighty minor characteristics, can he also be said to be the Dharmakaya Buddha? This is questioning the Dharmakaya Buddha and the Reward Body Buddha. Why is the Chakravarti King cited to question back? This is because these two kinds of Buddhas have some similarities and some differences, and the differences are difficult to distinguish. Citing the Chakravarti King is not an analogy, but to make those who are doubtful understand that although the principles are the same, the meanings in terms of substance and function are different, so the differences between the Dharmakaya Buddha and the Reward Body Buddha are so clearly visible.

'Treatise says: There is still doubt, although the accomplishment of characteristics cannot be used to see the Tathagata to the Dharmakaya as the body,' this is a confused person violating the meaning of the Dharmakaya explained by the Tathagata earlier. Although it seems that they have understood, they still have doubts that have not been eliminated, and they want to raise further questions, so they bring it up again. 'And the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is compared to the accomplishment of visible characteristics, then it is known that the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is the accomplishment of blessed characteristics,' this is a statement of questioning. 'And the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata,' the doubter says: Although the Tathagata explains it this way, I still think that the Dharmakaya, which is without distinction and unconditioned, cannot be seen by characteristics, nor is it obtained through cultivation. 'By seeing the accomplishment of characteristics,' the doubter thinks that by seeing the accomplishment of the blessed characteristics of the Reward Body Buddha

---

就身時即有法身，非本有也。「比智則知如來法身為福相成就」者，明報佛既為福得因所得、可以相見故，比智類知法身如來亦應為因所得、可以相見，寧別有無為法身古今一定，不為因得不可以相見也。

「自下經文為斷此疑」者，申經之來意也。此一段經以二偈釋。初偈釋經答疑。「非是色身相，可比知如來」者，明非以福德業方便因所得色相之身是可見故，謂以比此知法身如來同於色相亦是可見，更無別無相法身故。下半偈云「諸佛唯法身，轉輪王非佛」。「諸佛唯法身」者，明法身佛雖不同報佛色相可見是修得法，而有二種莊嚴：真如解脫、具足色相也。若以報佛有色相即謂是法身者，輪王有三十二相應是法身；然輪王有相非法身者，報佛有相亦非即法身佛也。「此義云何？有人言：福德能成是相至阿耨三菩提」，此是論主重引疑者之辭也，「為遮此故」以下還舉釋疑經來為解也。「是故非以相成就得見如來故」者，是輪王有相非法身義，故非以報佛可以相見為因得故，亦令古今一定無為法身同使為因得可以相見也。而此長行論直舉疑意，指經為解疑答義盡，不釋于偈也。然以上一偈，釋經答疑俱盡，何故復作第二偈者，上偈就別相義邊一向明色相非法身佛，懼畏眾生以報身色相全異法身，即棄捨報佛

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當身體存在時，法身（Dharmakaya，佛的真身）才顯現，並非原本就存在。「通過比較智慧可以得知如來法身是福德相成就」這句話，說明報身佛（Sambhogakaya，受用身）既然是福德因所得，可以被看見，那麼通過比較智慧可以推知法身如來也應該是通過因緣所得，可以被看見，難道還有另外一種無為法身（Asamskrta-dharmakaya，非造作法身）是自古至今恒定不變，不是通過因緣所得，不可以被看見的嗎？ 「下面的經文是爲了斷除這種疑惑」這句話，闡述了經文的來意。這一段經文用兩個偈頌來解釋。第一個偈頌解釋經文，回答疑問。「不是色身相，可以比知如來」這句話，說明不能因為通過福德業和方便因所得的色相之身是可以被看見的，就認為可以通過比較這個來得知法身如來也和色相一樣是可以被看見的，更沒有另外一種無相法身。「下半偈說『諸佛唯法身，轉輪王非佛』。『諸佛唯法身』這句話，說明法身佛雖然不同於報身佛的色相可見，是修習所得的法，但有兩種莊嚴：真如解脫和具足色相。如果因為報身佛有色相就認為是法身，那麼轉輪王（Cakravartin，擁有轉輪聖器的統治者）有三十二相，難道就是法身了嗎？然而轉輪王有相卻不是法身，所以報身佛有相也不是法身佛。「此義云何？有人言：福德能成是相至阿耨三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）」，這是論主（commentator）再次引用提問者的言辭，「爲了遮止這個觀點」以下，再次引用解釋疑問的經文來解釋。「是故非以相成就得見如來故」這句話，是說轉輪王有相卻不是法身的道理，所以不能因為報身佛可以被看見，是通過因緣所得，就認為自古至今恒定不變的無為法身也同樣是通過因緣所得，可以被看見。而這段長行論直接提出疑問，指出經文是爲了解釋疑問，回答問題，沒有解釋偈頌。然而以上一個偈頌，解釋經文，回答疑問已經完全足夠，為什麼還要作第二個偈頌呢？因為上一個偈頌就別相義（distinctive characteristics）方面，一直說明色相不是法身佛，擔心眾生因為報身佛的色相完全不同於法身，就拋棄報身佛。

【English Translation】 English version: The Dharmakaya (the true body of the Buddha) only manifests when the body exists; it is not originally present. The statement 'Through comparative wisdom, one knows that the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata (Thus Come One) is accomplished by the aspect of merit' clarifies that since the Sambhogakaya (Enjoyment Body) is obtained through the cause of merit and can be seen, it can be inferred through comparative wisdom that the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata should also be obtained through causes and can be seen. Is there another Asamskrta-dharmakaya (Unconditioned Dharmakaya) that is constant from ancient times to the present, not obtained through causes, and cannot be seen? The phrase 'The following sutra text is to dispel this doubt' explains the intention of the sutra. This section of the sutra is explained with two gathas (verses). The first gatha explains the sutra and answers the question. 'It is not the form of the physical body that can be compared to know the Tathagata' clarifies that one cannot assume that because the form of the physical body obtained through meritorious deeds and expedient causes can be seen, one can infer that the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is also visible like the physical form. There is no other formless Dharmakaya. The second half of the gatha says, 'The Buddhas are only the Dharmakaya; a Chakravartin (Wheel-Turning King) is not a Buddha.' 'The Buddhas are only the Dharmakaya' clarifies that although the Dharmakaya Buddha is different from the visible form of the Sambhogakaya Buddha and is a Dharma obtained through practice, it has two kinds of adornments: true suchness liberation and complete physical forms. If one considers the Sambhogakaya Buddha to be the Dharmakaya simply because it has physical form, then the Chakravartin, who has the thirty-two marks, would also be the Dharmakaya. However, the Chakravartin has form but is not the Dharmakaya, so the Sambhogakaya Buddha with form is not the Dharmakaya Buddha. 'What is the meaning of this? Some say that merit can accomplish this form up to Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment),' This is the commentator's re-quoting of the questioner's words. 'To prevent this,' the following again quotes the sutra explaining the question to explain. 'Therefore, it is not by the accomplishment of form that one can see the Tathagata' is the meaning that the Chakravartin has form but is not the Dharmakaya. Therefore, one cannot assume that because the Sambhogakaya Buddha can be seen and is obtained through causes, the unconditioned Dharmakaya, which is constant from ancient times to the present, is also obtained through causes and can be seen. This long commentary directly raises the question, pointing out that the sutra is to explain the question and answer the problem, without explaining the gatha. However, since the above gatha has completely explained the sutra and answered the question, why is a second gatha made? Because the above gatha, from the perspective of distinctive characteristics, has always clarified that physical form is not the Dharmakaya Buddha, fearing that sentient beings, because the physical form of the Sambhogakaya Buddha is completely different from the Dharmakaya, will abandon the Sambhogakaya Buddha.

---

之義，故作下偈。明雖法身不可以報佛色相比類而取，就一義邊，然即此法身顯用名為報佛故，不應全棄也。此偈上之三句，猶釋法身體非色相不為因得，不異於上；所以重來，但取下句「方便異相故」，為欲成偈所以重來也。「方便異相」者，明如來有二種身：一者智相身；二者異相身。智相者，是法身如來真如解脫相。方便異相身者，謂報佛福德相好莊嚴之身，為方便同所得，與法身義殊故，名異相身也。而此相好報身正是法身顯用，故名報相語其體也。本無殊技，那得聞言就異義邊辨法身無相好，便謂離法身之外條然有報佛色相可得，棄其所以一義也。

「爾時世尊說二行偈」者，是斷疑分中第十三經文。所以來者，次前段經解法身古今湛然猶如虛空，不可以福德業所得報佛大丈夫相見。將欲釋成此義故，說兩偈也。初偈上二句，明法身體絕色聲，不可以視聽而取。下二句，明若以因見聞而取法身者，是人行耶道，不能見法身如來也。第二偈上兩句，正出法身體有真解脫色聲，古今湛然，非一向無色聲也。下半偈，明此法身雖體有真實色聲，而非識相之境，故所以不知。「若以色見我，以音聲求我」者，若語當時發聲說偈者，是應佛口業亦道報佛口業；若就理而言之，是法身佛說也。明不可以報、應二佛

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，作了下面的偈頌。闡明雖然法身不能用報佛（Sambhogakaya，報身佛）的色相來比擬和理解，但就某一角度而言，正是這法身顯現作用才被稱為報佛，所以不應完全拋棄。這偈頌的前三句，仍然解釋法身本體並非色相，不是由因緣所得，與前面的意思沒有不同；之所以重複出現，只是爲了取用下句『方便異相故』，爲了完成偈頌所以重複出現。『方便異相』，說明如來（Tathagata，如來）有兩種身：一是智相身；二是異相身。智相，是法身如來（Dharmakaya Tathagata，法身如來）真如解脫之相。方便異相身，是指報佛（Sambhogakaya，報身佛）福德相好莊嚴之身，爲了方便與眾生共同證得，與法身的意義不同，所以名為異相身。而這相好報身正是法身顯現的作用，所以稱為報相，是就其本體而言。本來沒有特殊的技巧，怎麼能聽到（有人）說就從不同的角度辨析法身沒有相好，便認為在法身之外截然有報佛的色相可以獲得，拋棄了其統一的意義呢？ 『爾時世尊說二行偈』，是斷疑分中第十三經文。之所以引用，是因為前面一段經文解釋法身古今湛然猶如虛空，不能用福德業所得的報佛大丈夫相來見。將要解釋成就這個意義，所以說了兩首偈頌。初偈的前兩句，說明法身本體超越色聲，不能用視聽來獲取。后兩句，說明如果用因緣見聞來獲取法身，這個人是行邪道，不能見到法身如來。第二偈的前兩句，正是指出法身本體具有真解脫的色聲，古今湛然，並非一概沒有色聲。後半偈，說明這法身雖然本體具有真實的色聲，但不是識相的境界，所以不能知曉。『若以色見我，以音聲求我』，如果說當時發聲說偈的是應佛（Nirmanakaya，應身佛）的口業，也說是報佛（Sambhogakaya，報身佛）的口業；如果就理而言，是法身佛（Dharmakaya Buddha，法身佛）說的。說明不能用報身、應身二佛

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the following verse was composed. It clarifies that although the Dharmakaya (法身, the body of the Dharma) cannot be compared to or understood through the physical characteristics of the Sambhogakaya Buddha (報佛, the reward body Buddha), from a certain perspective, it is precisely the manifestation of this Dharmakaya that is called the Sambhogakaya Buddha, so it should not be completely discarded. The first three lines of this verse still explain that the essence of the Dharmakaya is not physical form and is not obtained through causes and conditions, which is no different from the previous meaning; the reason for the repetition is only to use the following line 'due to expedient different forms,' and the repetition is to complete the verse. 'Expedient different forms' explains that the Tathagata (如來, Thus Come One) has two types of bodies: one is the body of wisdom form; the other is the body of different forms. The wisdom form is the true suchness liberation aspect of the Dharmakaya Tathagata (法身如來, Dharmakaya Thus Come One). The expedient different form body refers to the Sambhogakaya Buddha's (報佛, reward body Buddha) body adorned with blessings and excellent characteristics, which is named the body of different forms because it is convenient for beings to attain together and has a different meaning from the Dharmakaya. And this Sambhogakaya with excellent characteristics is precisely the manifestation of the Dharmakaya, so it is called the reward form, referring to its essence. Originally, there were no special skills, so how could one hear (someone) say that from different perspectives, the Dharmakaya has no excellent characteristics, and then think that there is a Sambhogakaya's physical form that can be obtained separately from the Dharmakaya, discarding its unified meaning? 'At that time, the World Honored One spoke two lines of verse,' which is the thirteenth scripture in the section on resolving doubts. The reason for quoting it is that the previous passage explained that the Dharmakaya is eternally clear like empty space and cannot be seen with the physical characteristics of the Sambhogakaya Buddha (報佛, reward body Buddha) obtained through meritorious deeds. In order to explain and accomplish this meaning, two verses were spoken. The first two lines of the first verse explain that the essence of the Dharmakaya transcends physical form and sound and cannot be obtained through sight and hearing. The last two lines explain that if one uses causes and conditions of seeing and hearing to obtain the Dharmakaya, that person is practicing a wrong path and cannot see the Dharmakaya Tathagata. The first two lines of the second verse precisely point out that the essence of the Dharmakaya has the true liberation of physical form and sound, eternally clear, and is not entirely without physical form and sound. The latter half of the verse explains that although this Dharmakaya has the true physical form and sound in its essence, it is not the realm of consciousness, so it cannot be known. 'If one sees me through form, or seeks me through sound,' if it is said that the one who spoke the verse at that time was the Nirmanakaya Buddha's (應佛, transformation body Buddha) speech karma, it is also said to be the Sambhogakaya Buddha's (報佛, reward body Buddha) speech karma; if speaking in terms of principle, it is the Dharmakaya Buddha (法身佛, Dharmakaya Buddha) who spoke. It explains that the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya Buddhas cannot be used

---

所得色聲見聞於我也。此明就釋迦法身不可以色聲見聞，類一切眾生法身如來亦不可以色聲見聞也。若謂法身同此色聲可見聞者，是不正見，故第三句云「是人行邪道」也。「不能見如來」者，如是取法身同於色聲，不能見彼法身如來也。

有人乘此生疑：若法身如來不可以色聲而見聞者，一向無法身，又法身一向無色聲，此之色聲則條然異於法身故。第二偈答彼如來妙體，明彼法身雖不可以色聲見聞，而曏者色聲即此法身妙有體上有彼色聲故。上經云「不離法身有色相可見，不離證智有聲教可說」。又《十地經》七地中言「知諸佛法身自性無身，而起色身相好莊嚴行。知諸佛音聲無聲，本來寂滅不可說相，而隨一切眾生差別莊嚴音聲行也」。以此文驗，故知法身雖無色聲，不離法身有此色聲故。第二句云「即法身諸佛」，明法身之體具足萬德故，有色聲性也。或者聞即法身上有色聲之性，便謂法身有色聲，可用凡夫虛妄分別心意意識而得見聞，故第三句云「法體不可見」，明法身雖有色聲之性，不可以凡夫視聽而見聞也。雖云法身不可見，未知不見者誰？故第四句云「彼識不能知」，明彼法身雖體有色聲，而無色聲之用；又不聞下地色聲故，凡夫六識不能見聞也。非但凡夫不能見聞，二乘聖智亦所不見聞也。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所得的色、聲、見、聞，對於『我』也是如此。這說明釋迦牟尼佛的法身不可以通過色、聲、見、聞來認識，同樣，一切眾生的法身如來也不可以通過色、聲、見、聞來認識。如果認為法身和這些色、聲一樣可以被看見、聽見，這是不正的見解，所以第三句說『是人行邪道』。『不能見如來』，就是說如果這樣理解法身，認為它等同於色、聲，就不能真正見到法身如來。

有人因此產生疑問：如果法身如來不可以通過色、聲來見聞，那麼法身是否就一向不存在？或者法身一向沒有色、聲，那麼這些色、聲就完全不同於法身？第二偈回答說，如來的妙體，說明法身雖然不可以通過色、聲見聞，但之前的色、聲就是法身妙有的本體上所具有的。正如《勝鬘經》所說：『不離法身有色相可見，不離證智有聲教可說。』又如《十地經》第七地中所說：『知諸佛法身自性無身，而起色身相好莊嚴行。知諸佛音聲無聲，本來寂滅不可說相，而隨一切眾生差別莊嚴音聲行也。』根據這些經文，可知法身雖然沒有色、聲，但色、聲並不離開法身。第二句說『即法身諸佛』，說明法身的本體具足萬德，所以具有色、聲的性質。或者有人聽到法身上有色、聲的性質，就認為法身有色、聲，可以用凡夫虛妄分別的心意意識來見聞，所以第三句說『法體不可見』，說明法身雖然有色、聲的性質，但不可以用凡夫的視聽來見聞。雖然說『法身不可見』，但不知道是誰不能見？所以第四句說『彼識不能知』，說明法身雖然本體具有色、聲，但沒有色、聲的作用；而且不聞下地色聲，所以凡夫的六識不能見聞。不僅凡夫不能見聞，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的聖智也不能見聞。

【English Translation】 English version The perceived form, sound, sight, and hearing are also the same for 『me』. This clarifies that the Dharmakaya (法身) [Dharma body] of Shakyamuni (釋迦牟尼佛) [Shakyamuni Buddha] cannot be understood through form, sound, sight, and hearing. Similarly, the Dharmakaya Tathagata (如來) [Thus Come One] of all sentient beings cannot be understood through form, sound, sight, and hearing. If one believes that the Dharmakaya is the same as these forms and sounds, and can be seen and heard, this is an incorrect view. Therefore, the third line says, 『This person walks a heretical path.』 『Cannot see the Tathagata』 means that if one understands the Dharmakaya in this way, considering it equivalent to form and sound, one cannot truly see the Dharmakaya Tathagata.

Someone might raise a doubt based on this: If the Dharmakaya Tathagata cannot be seen or heard through form and sound, does the Dharmakaya not exist at all? Or does the Dharmakaya inherently lack form and sound, making these forms and sounds completely different from the Dharmakaya? The second verse answers that the wondrous essence of the Tathagata clarifies that although the Dharmakaya cannot be seen or heard through form and sound, the aforementioned forms and sounds are inherent in the wondrous existence of the Dharmakaya's essence. As the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra states, 『Form and appearance can be seen without being separate from the Dharmakaya, and teachings can be spoken without being separate from the wisdom of realization.』 Furthermore, the Ten Bhumi Sutra states in the seventh stage, 『Knowing that the Dharmakaya of all Buddhas is inherently without a body, they arise with adorned and auspicious physical forms. Knowing that the sounds of all Buddhas are without sound, inherently silent and beyond description, they adorn sounds according to the differences of all sentient beings.』 Based on these sutras, it can be known that although the Dharmakaya lacks form and sound, form and sound are not separate from the Dharmakaya. The second line says, 『Is the Dharmakaya of all Buddhas,』 clarifying that the essence of the Dharmakaya is complete with myriad virtues, and therefore possesses the nature of form and sound. Or someone might hear that the Dharmakaya has the nature of form and sound and then believe that the Dharmakaya has form and sound, and can be seen and heard using the deluded discriminating mind and consciousness of ordinary beings. Therefore, the third line says, 『The essence of the Dharma cannot be seen,』 clarifying that although the Dharmakaya has the nature of form and sound, it cannot be seen or heard through the sight and hearing of ordinary beings. Although it is said that 『the Dharmakaya cannot be seen,』 who is it that cannot see? Therefore, the fourth line says, 『That consciousness cannot know,』 clarifying that although the Dharmakaya inherently possesses form and sound, it does not have the function of form and sound; moreover, it does not hear the sounds of the lower realms, so the six consciousnesses of ordinary beings cannot see or hear it. Not only can ordinary beings not see or hear it, but the sacred wisdom of the Two Vehicles (二乘) [Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna] also cannot see or hear it.

---

此二偈經，論主但以一偈釋。初二句，釋前一偈，明若以法身同於二佛色聲而可見聞者，是人不知法身佛也。下半偈兩句釋后一偈，明真實法身雖有色聲之性，非六識境界故，不可見聞也。「此示何義？如來法身至不應如是見聞」，論主釋偈論初句，解經中前偈上二句。「以何等人不能見？謂凡夫不能見」者，釋偈論第二句，解經中前偈下二句也。解已舉論中上半偈，釋經中前偈下兩句結也。「是人」者，凡夫人等，牒前所引是人不能見法身如來也，即拘瑣釋論中下半偈，解經中第二偈，即具引所釋經結也。

「須菩提！于意云何？如來可以相成就得三菩提耶」，此一段經，是斷疑分中第十四段經文，此經已七遍來。所以復來者，上已廣解無為法身古今一定妙有湛然體無諸相，不為修行所得；又次前二段經明法身體自滿足，非修福德業所得相好色聲而可見聞。或者執謂正以菩薩始從發菩提心，三大阿僧祇劫修，十地行滿金剛心謝證種智時，名為報佛，有無量相好者即是法身，故謂法身是修得亦可見聞。今聞別有無為法身不為因得，復不可以色聲見聞，乘生疑難：若法身體無諸相不可見聞，非修福德業可得者，諸菩薩摩訶薩三大阿僧祇所修功德智慧十地勝因，為當定有所得、定無所得也？若定無所得者，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這兩首偈頌的經文，論主只用一首偈頌來解釋。前面的兩句，解釋前一首偈頌，說明如果認為法身（Dharmakaya）與二佛（Two Buddhas）的色（rupa）聲（sabda）相同，可以通過見聞來感知，那麼這個人就不瞭解法身佛（Dharmakaya Buddha）。後面的半首偈頌的兩句，解釋后一首偈頌，說明真實的法身雖然具有色聲的性質，但不是六識（six consciousnesses）的境界，因此不可見聞。「這顯示了什麼意義？如來的法身不應該這樣被見聞」，論主解釋偈頌的第一句，解釋經文中前一首偈頌的前兩句。「什麼樣的人不能見到？凡夫（ordinary people）不能見到」，這是解釋偈頌的第二句，解釋經文中前一首偈頌的后兩句。解釋完畢后，引用論中的上半首偈頌，解釋經文中前一首偈頌的后兩句作為總結。「是人」指的是凡夫等人，呼應前面所引用的『是人不能見法身如來』，也就是拘泥地解釋論中的下半首偈頌，解釋經文中的第二首偈頌，完整地引用所解釋的經文作為總結。 「須菩提（Subhuti）！于意云何？如來（Tathagata）可以相成就得三菩提（threefold Bodhi）耶」，這段經文是斷疑分中的第十四段經文，這部經已經重複了七遍。之所以再次出現，是因為前面已經廣泛解釋了無為法身（unconditioned Dharmakaya）自古至今都是一定不變的，妙有湛然，本體沒有諸相，不是通過修行可以獲得的；而且之前的兩段經文說明法身體自滿足，不是通過修福德業（meritorious deeds）可以獲得相好色聲，從而可以被見聞的。有些人執著地認為，菩薩（Bodhisattva）從最初發菩提心（Bodhi-mind）開始，經過三大阿僧祇劫（three great Asamkhyeya kalpas）的修行，十地（ten bhumis）的修行圓滿，金剛心（vajra heart）消謝，證得種智（Buddha-gnosis）時，被稱為報佛（reward body of Buddha），具有無量的相好，這就是法身，因此認為法身是修得的，也可以被見聞。現在聽說另外還有無為法身，不是通過因緣可以獲得的，也不可以通過色聲見聞，於是產生疑問：如果法身體沒有諸相，不可見聞，不是通過修福德業可以獲得的，那麼諸位菩薩摩訶薩（Bodhisattvas-Mahasattvas）三大阿僧祇劫所修的功德智慧（merit and wisdom），十地殊勝的因，到底是確定有所得，還是確定沒有所得呢？如果確定沒有所得的話，

【English Translation】 English version These two verses are explained by the commentator with only one verse. The first two lines explain the previous verse, clarifying that if one considers the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya) to be the same as the rupa (form) and sabda (sound) of the Two Buddhas (Two Buddhas), and thus perceivable through sight and hearing, then that person does not understand the Dharmakaya Buddha (Dharmakaya Buddha). The latter half of the verse, consisting of two lines, explains the subsequent verse, clarifying that although the true Dharmakaya possesses the nature of rupa and sabda, it is not within the realm of the six consciousnesses (six consciousnesses), and therefore cannot be seen or heard. 'What meaning does this show? The Tathagata's (Tathagata) Dharmakaya should not be seen or heard in this way,' the commentator explains the first line of the verse, interpreting the first two lines of the previous verse in the sutra. 'What kind of people cannot see it? Ordinary people (ordinary people) cannot see it,' this explains the second line of the verse, interpreting the last two lines of the previous verse in the sutra. After the explanation, the upper half of the verse in the commentary is cited to explain the last two lines of the previous verse in the sutra as a conclusion. 'These people' refers to ordinary people and others, echoing the previously cited 'these people cannot see the Dharmakaya Tathagata,' which is to meticulously explain the latter half of the verse in the commentary, interpreting the second verse in the sutra, and completely citing the explained sutra as a conclusion. 'Subhuti (Subhuti)! What do you think? Can the Tathagata (Tathagata) attain threefold Bodhi (threefold Bodhi) through the accomplishment of characteristics?' This section of the sutra is the fourteenth section in the Doubt-Severing Division, and this sutra has already been repeated seven times. The reason for its recurrence is that the unconditioned Dharmakaya (unconditioned Dharmakaya) has been extensively explained before as being constant from ancient times to the present, wonderfully existent and serene, with no characteristics in its essence, and not attainable through practice; moreover, the previous two sections of the sutra explain that the Dharmakaya is self-sufficient, and not attainable through the cultivation of meritorious deeds (meritorious deeds) to acquire auspicious characteristics, forms, sounds, and thus be perceivable through sight and hearing. Some people stubbornly believe that when a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva) begins to generate the Bodhi-mind (Bodhi-mind), cultivates for three great Asamkhyeya kalpas (three great Asamkhyeya kalpas), completes the practice of the ten bhumis (ten bhumis), and the vajra heart (vajra heart) dissolves, attaining Buddha-gnosis (Buddha-gnosis), they are called the reward body of Buddha (reward body of Buddha), possessing immeasurable auspicious characteristics, and this is the Dharmakaya, thus believing that the Dharmakaya is attainable through practice and can be seen and heard. Now, having heard that there is another unconditioned Dharmakaya, not attainable through causes and conditions, and not perceivable through sight and hearing, doubts arise: if the Dharmakaya has no characteristics, cannot be seen or heard, and is not attainable through the cultivation of meritorious deeds, then what about the merit and wisdom (merit and wisdom) cultivated by the Bodhisattvas-Mahasattvas (Bodhisattvas-Mahasattvas) for three great Asamkhyeya kalpas, and the superior causes of the ten bhumis, is it definitely something gained, or definitely nothing gained? If it is definitely nothing gained,

---

則因果俱失，同於小乘斷滅之見，無菩提可得，前言一切善法得三菩提，此言則壞。若爾，既無菩提可得，諸菩薩何為三大阿僧祇徒自勞苦而無所克獲？所修福德勝因既不感果，向何處去也？有如是疑，將釋此疑故，佛問須菩提：于意云何？如來可以相成就得三菩提不耶？此佛還以前人所疑問須菩提也。「莫作是念」者，遮其所見。汝莫作是念，謂法身佛同於報佛修福相可得。此未是正答也。「汝若作是念：菩薩發三菩提。說諸法斷滅相」者，明須菩提疑雲：若不可以相成就得三菩提者，菩薩則所修功德智慧之因，果畢竟無有菩提果可得。若無菩提可得，則因無所招，便失福因亦失果報，故云說斷滅相也。所以此中乃言菩薩發三菩提心者說諸法斷滅相也。然小乘之人，以自身所證灰身涅槃畢竟滅故，即以己所得準于菩薩謂亦聞其所得，故起斷滅相。此小乘人，于菩薩法中齊何處來作斷滅意？有曇無德、彌沙塞人。此二家小乘計，得初地無生忍解時，舍一切地前所修功德亦不受果報。何故如此？小乘人斷三界煩惱、盡分段生死，灰身滅智入無餘涅槃，善惡因果一切俱舍。既見初地菩薩斷四住煩惱出於分段生死，意謂聞已滅于身智，亦舍因中萬行及失果報，故言說諸法斷滅相。復有一家小乘曇無德人計，謂至五地六地，作

十四諦觀，善學五明及十種逆慎觀十二因緣，方得無生忍，斷三界煩惱、出分段生死，灰身盡智無餘涅槃。爾時同小乘斷滅，因果俱失。後有一家薩婆多中日出道人計，第七地中始得無生忍，方盡三界煩惱、出分段生死，同已小乘舍于身智亦無依報凈土。復有一家小乘計，至八地中得大無生忍無功用解，爾時方出三界，舍于身智一切皆失。最後一家薩婆多人計，十地中始得阿那含，斷三界煩惱盡，金剛心后出分段生死，得阿羅漢即名為佛，入無餘涅槃，舍諸功德滅于身智，故說斷滅相也。

「須菩提！莫作是念乃至說諸法斷滅相」者，此且止其見情，明非斷滅，未是正答，依下論中應有一行半。「經言：何以故？菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者於法不說斷滅相」者，此是正答，釋上我何以故止汝莫作是念者，明古今湛然無為法身，雖復不可以修福德相成就所得，而菩薩證初地無生法忍阿耨三菩提心，乃至無上佛果阿耨三菩提心，非是斷滅。此無生忍三菩提心所以名為不斷滅者，明菩薩由一大阿僧祇所修功德智慧八萬四千波羅蜜行因緣，得初地無生法忍，了出佛性無為法身。以此一大阿僧祇功德智慧，即與法身理冥，泯然一觀不可分別，故不失因。既得無生法忍，便分有出世間實報真如法性身上二種涅槃無方圓用

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 十四諦觀，如果精通五明和謹慎觀察十種逆境，以及十二因緣，才能獲得無生忍，斷除三界煩惱，脫離分段生死，最終達到灰身盡智的無餘涅槃。那時就和小乘的斷滅論相同，因果都喪失了。後來有一家薩婆多部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）中的日出道人計算，認為在第七地中才能獲得無生忍，才能斷盡三界煩惱，脫離分段生死，和已證的小乘一樣，捨棄了身智，也沒有依報凈土。又有一家小乘計算，認為到了第八地中才能獲得大無生忍的無功用解，那時才能脫離三界，捨棄身智，一切都喪失了。最後一家薩婆多部的人計算，認為在十地中才能獲得阿那含（Anagamin，不還果），斷盡三界煩惱，在金剛心之後脫離分段生死，獲得阿羅漢（Arhat，阿羅漢果）就稱為佛，進入無餘涅槃，捨棄各種功德，滅盡身智，所以說是斷滅相。

『須菩提（Subhuti，空生）！不要這樣想，乃至說諸法是斷滅相』，這只是阻止他的見解，說明不是斷滅，還不是正確的回答，依據下面的論述中應該有一行半的解釋。『經中說：為什麼呢？菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta，無上正等正覺之心）的人，對於法不說斷滅相』，這是正確的回答，解釋上面我為什麼要阻止你這樣想，說明古今湛然不動的無為法身，即使不可以依靠修福德相成就而獲得，但是菩薩證得初地無生法忍的阿耨三菩提心，乃至無上佛果的阿耨三菩提心，不是斷滅。這無生忍的三菩提心之所以被稱為不斷滅，是因為菩薩由一大阿僧祇劫（asamkhya kalpa，無數大劫）所修的功德智慧，以及八萬四千波羅蜜（paramita，到彼岸）行的因緣，才能獲得初地無生法忍，了悟顯現佛性的無為法身。用這一大阿僧祇劫的功德智慧，就與法身之理相合，泯然成為一體，不可分別，所以不喪失因。既然獲得無生法忍，便分有出世間實報真如法性身上兩種涅槃的無方圓作用。

【English Translation】 English version Fourteen Contemplations on Truths, only by skillfully studying the Five Sciences and cautiously observing the Ten Adverse Conditions, as well as the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, can one attain the Patience of Non-Origination, sever the afflictions of the Three Realms, escape the Segmented Existence of birth and death, and ultimately reach the Nirvana without Remainder, where body and wisdom are exhausted. At that time, it would be the same as the annihilationism of the Hinayana, and both cause and effect would be lost. Later, a day-emerging ascetic of the Sarvastivada school calculated that only in the Seventh Ground can one attain the Patience of Non-Origination, completely exhaust the afflictions of the Three Realms, and escape the Segmented Existence of birth and death, similar to those who have already attained Hinayana, abandoning body and wisdom, and also without a Pure Land of Dependent Reward.

Furthermore, one school of Hinayana calculates that only in the Eighth Ground can one attain the Great Patience of Non-Origination with effortless liberation, and only then can one escape the Three Realms, abandoning body and wisdom, and everything is lost. Finally, one school of Sarvastivadins calculates that only in the Tenth Ground can one attain Anagamin (Anagamin, Non-Returner), completely severing the afflictions of the Three Realms, and after the Vajra Mind, escape the Segmented Existence of birth and death, attaining Arhat (Arhat, Worthy One), who is then called Buddha, entering Nirvana without Remainder, abandoning all merits, and extinguishing body and wisdom, hence it is said to be an aspect of annihilation.

『Subhuti (Subhuti, emptiness born)! Do not think in this way, even to the point of saying that all dharmas have an aspect of annihilation,』 this merely stops his view and explains that it is not annihilation, but it is not yet the correct answer. According to the following discourse, there should be one and a half lines of explanation. 『The sutra says: Why? Because a Bodhisattva who has aroused the mind of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment mind) does not speak of dharmas as having an aspect of annihilation,』 this is the correct answer, explaining why I stopped you from thinking in this way, clarifying that the eternally still and unconditioned Dharmakaya, although it cannot be attained by relying on the accomplishment of cultivating meritorious virtues, the Bodhisattva who has attained the Patience of Non-Origination in the First Ground, the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi mind, even to the unsurpassed Buddha fruit of the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi mind, is not annihilation. The reason why this Patience of Non-Origination and the Bodhi mind are called non-annihilation is because the Bodhisattva, through the merits and wisdom cultivated over one great asamkhya kalpa (asamkhya kalpa, countless great eons), and the causes and conditions of the eighty-four thousand paramita (paramita, to the other shore) practices, can attain the Patience of Non-Origination in the First Ground, and understand the manifestation of the Buddha-nature's unconditioned Dharmakaya. With this merit and wisdom of one great asamkhya kalpa, it merges with the principle of the Dharmakaya, becoming one indistinguishable whole, so the cause is not lost. Since one has attained the Patience of Non-Origination, one then distinguishes two kinds of Nirvana on the body of the supramundane Real Reward True Thusness Dharma-nature, with boundless and all-encompassing functions.

---

故，果亦不失。乃至第二第三阿僧祇，因果皆如是不失，故言於法不就斷滅相也。今者如來將明菩薩于初地中得無生法忍，乃至十地無漏功德及果頭圓報悉皆不失，不聞小乘舍于身智失無漏果報。若爾得無漏功德，可容不失地前有漏功德是世間法，得出世解時應舍此功德，未知地前因行為失不失？故即答世間功德亦不失。何以故爾？要世間善滿，得出世間善轉。地前有漏功德作彼地上無漏功德轉轉增勝，菩薩爾時境智雙夷泯然一觀，不見有世間出世間及能照所照之異，唯有真如一味等味，如萬川歸海同一鹹味，無有諸河味別故，亦不失地前功德也。初地既爾不失功德，乃至十地無漏功德及以果報皆不失也。此中就三大阿僧祇劫三時辨因果，若以地前為因，初地無生法忍見道為果；若七地已還修道勝行為因，八地中大無生忍無功用道為果；若金以還無功用行為因，佛地功德為果。如今廣解，地地相望皆有因果。乘生疑問：若得初地無生忍乃至十地，不失功德非斷滅者，可得幾許功德？為多為少？應有此疑問故，引恒沙七寶施福挍量，明得福甚多，用比初地無生忍無漏功德乃至一念，百千萬億不及一分，明此有漏功德甚為多也。縱使七寶施福是無漏，甚多雖多，比于無生忍一念功德，亦百千萬億恒河沙倍不可為喻也。若菩

【現代漢語翻譯】 因此，果報也不會消失。乃至第二、第三阿僧祇劫（asamkhya kalpa，無數大劫），因果都是這樣不會消失，所以說對於法不執著于斷滅相。現在如來將要闡明菩薩在初地（first bhumi，菩薩修行的第一個階段）中獲得無生法忍（anutpattika-dharma-kshanti，對諸法不生不滅的證悟），乃至十地（tenth bhumi，菩薩修行的最高階段）的無漏功德（anasrava，沒有煩惱的功德）以及果報圓滿都不會消失，不像小乘那樣捨棄身智而失去無漏果報。如果這樣，獲得無漏功德，可以容許不失去地前有漏功德（sasrava，有煩惱的功德），因為這是世間法，得出世解脫時應該捨棄這些功德，不知道地前的因行是失去還是不失去？所以就回答說世間功德也不會失去。為什麼這樣說呢？因為要世間善行圓滿，才能得出世間善行的轉變。地前有漏功德作為地上無漏功德的轉變，轉轉增勝，菩薩那時境智雙融，泯然一觀，不見有世間出世間以及能照所照的差別，唯有真如（tathata，事物的真實本性）一味等味，如萬川歸海，同一鹹味，沒有諸河味道的差別，所以也不失去地前功德。初地既然這樣不失去功德，乃至十地無漏功德以及果報都不會失去。這裡就三大阿僧祇劫（three asamkhya kalpas，三大無數劫）三時辨別因果，如果以地前為因，初地無生法忍見道為果；如果七地（seventh bhumi）已還修道勝行為因，八地（eighth bhumi）中大無生忍無功用道為果；如果金剛喻定（vajropama samadhi，一種堅固如金剛的禪定）已還無功用行為因，佛地功德為果。如今廣泛解釋，地地相望都有因果。乘生疑問：如果得到初地無生忍乃至十地，不失去功德不是斷滅，可以得到多少功德？是多還是少？應該有這樣的疑問，所以引用恒河沙七寶佈施的福德來比較衡量，說明得到的福德非常多，用它來比初地無生忍無漏功德乃至一念，百千萬億不及一分，說明這種有漏功德非常多。縱使七寶佈施的福德是無漏的，非常多，但比于無生忍一念功德，也百千萬億恒河沙倍不能比喻。如果菩

【English Translation】 Therefore, the fruition also will not be lost. Even in the second and third asamkhya kalpas (asamkhya kalpa, countless great eons), the cause and effect are thus not lost, hence it is said that one does not cling to the annihilation aspect of the Dharma. Now, the Tathagata (Tathagata, 'Thus Gone One', a title for the Buddha) will explain that the Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, an enlightened being who postpones Buddhahood to help others) attains Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti (anutpattika-dharma-kshanti, the realization of the non-arising and non-ceasing of all dharmas) in the first bhumi (first bhumi, the first stage of a Bodhisattva's practice), and even the anasrava (anasrava, without defilements) merits and the complete fruition of the tenth bhumi (tenth bhumi, the highest stage of a Bodhisattva's practice) will not be lost, unlike the Sravakas (Sravakas, disciples who attain enlightenment by listening to the Buddha's teachings) who abandon their body and wisdom and lose the anasrava fruition. If this is the case, having attained anasrava merits, it is permissible not to lose the sasrava (sasrava, with defilements) merits before the bhumis, as these are worldly dharmas. When one attains supramundane liberation, one should abandon these merits. It is not known whether the causal actions before the bhumis are lost or not lost. Therefore, the answer is that worldly merits are also not lost. Why is this so? Because one must have worldly goodness fulfilled in order to have the transformation of supramundane goodness. The sasrava merits before the bhumis serve as the transformation of the anasrava merits on the bhumis, increasing and surpassing. At that time, the Bodhisattva's realm and wisdom are both leveled, and in a single observation, one does not see the difference between worldly and supramundane, or between the observer and the observed. There is only the single flavor of Tathata (tathata, the true nature of things), like the myriad rivers returning to the sea, having the same salty taste, without the difference in the taste of the various rivers. Therefore, the merits before the bhumis are also not lost. Since the first bhumi is thus not losing merits, even the anasrava merits and the fruition of the tenth bhumi will not be lost. Here, the cause and effect are distinguished in the three asamkhya kalpas (three asamkhya kalpas, three countless eons) and three times. If the time before the bhumis is taken as the cause, the realization of the path of Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti in the first bhumi is the fruition; if the superior practices of cultivation after the seventh bhumi (seventh bhumi) are taken as the cause, the great Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti and the path of non-effort in the eighth bhumi (eighth bhumi) are the fruition; if the actions of non-effort after the Vajropama Samadhi (vajropama samadhi, a samadhi as firm as diamond) are taken as the cause, the merits of the Buddha-bhumi are the fruition. Now, explaining broadly, there are cause and effect in each bhumi in relation to each other. A question arises: If one attains Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti in the first bhumi and even the tenth bhumi, and does not lose merits and is not annihilated, how much merit can one attain? Is it much or little? There should be such a question, so the merit of giving offerings of seven treasures as numerous as the sands of the Ganges River is cited for comparison and measurement, explaining that the merit attained is very much. Using it to compare even a single thought of the anasrava merit of Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti in the first bhumi, hundreds of thousands of millions are not equal to one part, explaining that this sasrava merit is very much. Even if the merit of giving offerings of seven treasures is anasrava, although it is very much, compared to a single thought of the merit of Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti, even hundreds of thousands of millions of Ganges River sands cannot be used as a metaphor. If the Bodhi

---

薩知一切法無我得無生忍，勝前所得福德者，出初地無生忍功德勝前七寶施福也。知一切法無我者，於一切眾生五陰有為法中，解知從本以來無有神我人及以壽者，故言知一切法無我也。得無生忍者，是因緣真如二種法無我，明因緣法體本來不生名為無生，真如法體本來寂絕我無我相，名為無生，亦得云無於三相。就初地為言，故云無生法忍，以此菩薩得真如無我無生忍解故，不起二種無相也。又疑問：若有漏無漏二種福德悉皆不失者，此菩薩便是取有漏福德。若取有漏福德因，使受三界果報故，如來答以諸菩薩不取福德故，此且據偏而答，明菩薩于初地中不取世間有漏福德。然須菩提亦就偏領解，言以諸菩薩不取福德如佛所說也。

「佛言：須菩提！菩薩受福德不取福德」，上須菩提似謬解佛意，聞言菩薩不取福德，疑謂有漏無漏悉皆不取，故佛答須菩提，菩薩受福德不取福德。不取福德，明非是全不取不受有漏無漏一切福德，止不取有漏福德、非不受無漏福德。然菩薩若得云受福德，亦得言取福德。若使得云不取福德，亦得言不受福德，何故言菩薩受福德？此明直綺互彰名也。又解：何故但言受，不言取福德者，恐即濫于取相之取，故單言受福德，不言取也。是故菩薩取福德者，明取出世間無漏福德也，亦

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 薩知一切法無我得無生忍（Kṣānti，對一切法無我之認知而獲得的對不生不滅的領悟），勝過之前所得的福德，這是因為初地菩薩的無生忍功德勝過之前的七寶佈施所帶來的福德。『知一切法無我』，是指在一切眾生的五陰（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）有為法（Saṃskṛta，由因緣和合而成的法）中，理解並認知到從根本上來說，沒有神我（Ātman，永恒不變的自我）、人以及壽者（Jīva，壽命或生命），所以說『知一切法無我』。『得無生忍』，是指因緣（Hetu-pratyaya，事物生起的原因和條件）和真如（Tathātā，事物的真實如是之性）這兩種法的無我。明白因緣法的本體本來不生，稱為無生；真如法的本體本來寂靜，斷絕了我相（Ātma-saṃjñā，對自我的執著）和無我相（Nirātma-saṃjñā，對無我的執著），稱為無生，也可以說是沒有三種相（三相：生、住、滅）。就初地菩薩而言，所以說是無生法忍，因為這位菩薩獲得了對真如無我無生的理解，所以不會生起兩種無相（兩種無相：有相和無相）。 又有人提問：如果說有漏（Sāsrava，有煩惱的）和無漏（Anāsrava，無煩惱的）兩種福德都完全不會失去，那麼這位菩薩豈不是在追求有漏福德？如果追求有漏福德的因，就會承受三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）的果報，所以如來（Tathāgata，佛的稱號）回答說諸菩薩不追求福德。這只是從一個方面來回答，說明菩薩在初地中不追求世間的有漏福德。然而，須菩提（Subhūti，佛陀的弟子）也只是從一個方面來理解，說諸菩薩不追求福德，就像佛所說的那樣。 『佛說：須菩提！菩薩接受福德，但不執取福德』，上面須菩提似乎誤解了佛的意思，聽到菩薩不執取福德，懷疑是不是有漏和無漏的福德都不執取，所以佛回答須菩提，菩薩接受福德，但不執取福德。不執取福德，說明不是完全不接受有漏和無漏的一切福德，只是不執取有漏福德，並非不接受無漏福德。然而，菩薩如果可以說接受福德，也可以說執取福德。如果可以說不執取福德，也可以說不接受福德，為什麼說菩薩接受福德呢？這是說明直言和婉言相互映襯的修辭手法。另一種解釋：為什麼只說接受，而不說執取福德呢？是恐怕和執著于相的『取』相混淆，所以只說接受福德，不說執取。因此，菩薩執取福德，說明是執取出世間的無漏福德。

【English Translation】 English version The Kṣānti (patience, acceptance) of non-self in all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) and the attainment of Anutpāda-dharmakṣānti (the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas) surpasses the merit previously obtained, because the merit of Anutpāda-dharmakṣānti of the first Bhūmi (stage of a Bodhisattva's path) surpasses the merit of giving the seven treasures. 'Knowing the non-self of all dharmas' means that in the five Skandhas (aggregates of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) of all sentient beings, which are Saṃskṛta (conditioned) dharmas, one understands and knows that from the beginning, there is no Ātman (self), person, or Jīva (life), hence the saying 'knowing the non-self of all dharmas.' 'Attaining Anutpāda-dharmakṣānti' refers to the non-self of the two types of dharmas: Hetu-pratyaya (cause and condition) and Tathātā (suchness). Understanding that the essence of Hetu-pratyaya dharmas is originally unborn is called Anutpāda; the essence of Tathātā dharmas is originally tranquil, devoid of the appearance of self (Ātma-saṃjñā) and non-self (Nirātma-saṃjñā), which is called Anutpāda, and it can also be said to be without the three characteristics (arising, abiding, ceasing). Speaking of the first Bhūmi, it is called Anutpāda-dharmakṣānti, because this Bodhisattva attains the understanding of non-self and non-arising in Tathātā, and therefore does not give rise to the two types of non-appearance (appearance and non-appearance). Someone asks: If both Sāsrava (defiled) and Anāsrava (undefiled) merits are not lost, then is this Bodhisattva pursuing Sāsrava merit? If one pursues the cause of Sāsrava merit, one will receive the results of the three Trailokya (realms: desire realm, form realm, formless realm), so the Tathāgata (Buddha) answers that the Bodhisattvas do not pursue merit. This is only answering from one aspect, explaining that the Bodhisattva in the first Bhūmi does not pursue worldly Sāsrava merit. However, Subhūti (a disciple of the Buddha) also understands it from one aspect, saying that the Bodhisattvas do not pursue merit, as the Buddha said. 'The Buddha said: Subhūti! Bodhisattvas receive merit but do not grasp at merit.' Above, Subhūti seems to misunderstand the Buddha's meaning, hearing that Bodhisattvas do not grasp at merit, suspecting that neither Sāsrava nor Anāsrava merit is grasped at. Therefore, the Buddha answers Subhūti, Bodhisattvas receive merit but do not grasp at merit. Not grasping at merit means that it is not that all Sāsrava and Anāsrava merits are not received, but only that Sāsrava merit is not grasped at, not that Anāsrava merit is not received. However, if it can be said that Bodhisattvas receive merit, it can also be said that they grasp at merit. If it can be said that they do not grasp at merit, it can also be said that they do not receive merit. Why is it said that Bodhisattvas receive merit? This explains the rhetorical technique of contrasting direct and indirect expressions. Another explanation: Why only say 'receive' and not 'grasp' at merit? It is to avoid confusion with the 'grasping' of clinging to appearances, so only 'receive' merit is said, not 'grasp.' Therefore, when Bodhisattvas grasp at merit, it means they grasp at the Anāsrava merit that transcends the world.

---

得言是故菩薩不取福德。然此中得云取福德者，明知須菩提言不取者是偏語耳，故知亦得言取受不取不受也。

「論曰：有人起如是心」等，作生疑答之意，不異經中也。此一段經凡以二偈釋。初一偈，作問答意釋疑，明菩薩得無生忍時不失因果，非是斷滅。第二偈，釋引喻挍量不及無漏福德也。上經中有疑，今問云何斷疑？即作偈答。「不失功德因，及彼勝果報」，此二句釋「莫作是念說諸法斷滅相」已前經也。明菩薩得初地無生忍，不失地前一阿僧祇所修萬行。此辨乃藉地前功德為因，方得初地真無漏解，故不失因也；然初地以上出世間無生法忍無漏勝福，不同二乘灰身盡滅故，亦不失果報。雖言不失因不失果，未知何時不失？故第三句答云「得勝忍不失」。自下半偈超釋經中「若有菩薩得無生忍勝前福德」等，明菩薩證初地無生勝忍，乃至十地行滿得佛時，亦不失因果也。得勝忍時何故不失？第四句云「以得無垢果」故。明初地斷除二障，得出世無漏法性報身真實凈土無垢果時，轉勝增明，故不失也。「示勝福德相，故重說勝喻」者，此二句釋前恒沙世界七寶施等經，明所以引此恒沙譬喻來者，為欲挍量顯示無漏勝福德故，即是證成不失無漏福德也。「是福德無報」者，下半偈釋「以諸菩薩不取福德」以

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為這個原因，菩薩不執取福德。然而，這裡說得到並執取福德，是想表明須菩提說的不執取只是一種片面的說法。因此，可以理解為既可以說執取，也可以說不執取，或者說既執受，也非執受。

『論曰：有人起如是心』等等，是用來解答產生的疑惑，與經中的意思沒有不同。這一段經文總共用兩個偈頌來解釋。第一個偈頌，以問答的形式來解釋疑惑，說明菩薩證得無生忍時，不會失去因果，不是斷滅。第二個偈頌，解釋了用比喻來衡量也比不上無漏福德。前面的經文中有疑惑，現在問如何斷除疑惑？就用偈頌來回答。『不失功德因，及彼勝果報』，這兩句解釋了『莫作是念說諸法斷滅相』之前的經文。說明菩薩證得初地無生忍，不會失去初地之前一個阿僧祇劫所修的萬行。這裡說明，正是憑藉初地之前的功德作為因，才能證得初地的真無漏智慧，所以不會失去因；然而，初地以上的出世間無生法忍的無漏殊勝福德，不同於二乘灰身泯智，所以也不會失去果報。雖然說不失因，不失果，但不知道什麼時候不失？所以第三句回答說『得勝忍不失』。從下半個偈頌開始，直接解釋經文中『若有菩薩得無生忍勝前福德』等等，說明菩薩證得初地無生勝忍，乃至十地修行圓滿成佛時，也不會失去因果。證得勝忍時為什麼不失去？第四句說『以得無垢果』的緣故。說明初地斷除了二障，證得出世間無漏法性報身的真實凈土的無垢果時，會更加殊勝光明，所以不會失去。『示勝福德相，故重說勝喻』，這兩句解釋了前面恒河沙世界七寶佈施等等的經文，說明之所以引用恒河沙的比喻，是爲了衡量顯示無漏的殊勝福德，也就是爲了證明不會失去無漏福德。『是福德無報』，下半個偈頌解釋『以諸菩薩不取福德』。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, Bodhisattvas do not grasp at merit and virtue. However, the statement here about obtaining and grasping at merit and virtue clarifies that Subhuti's statement about not grasping is merely a partial view. Thus, it can be understood that one can say both grasping and not grasping, or both accepting and not accepting.

『The Treatise says: If someone gives rise to such a thought』 etc., is intended to answer arising doubts, and is no different from the meaning in the sutra. This section of the sutra is explained with two verses in total. The first verse, in the form of a question and answer, explains the doubt, clarifying that when a Bodhisattva attains the Patience of Non-birth (Anutpattika-dharma-kshanti), they do not lose cause and effect, and it is not annihilation. The second verse explains that even using metaphors for comparison cannot match the merit and virtue of non-outflow (Anasrava). There are doubts in the previous sutra, now asking how to dispel the doubts? It is answered with a verse. 『Not losing the cause of merit and virtue, and that superior fruit of retribution』, these two lines explain the sutra before 『Do not think that all dharmas are of the nature of annihilation』. It explains that when a Bodhisattva attains the Patience of Non-birth in the first ground (Bhumis), they do not lose the ten thousand practices cultivated in one Asankhya Kalpa before the first ground. This clarifies that it is precisely by relying on the merit and virtue before the ground as the cause that one can attain the true non-outflow wisdom of the first ground, so the cause is not lost; however, the non-outflow superior merit and virtue of the Patience of Non-birth beyond the first ground, which is different from the two vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) extinguishing body and mind, so the fruit of retribution is also not lost. Although it is said that the cause is not lost and the fruit is not lost, when is it not lost? So the third line answers 『Attaining superior patience, not lost』. Starting from the second half of the verse, it directly explains the sutra 『If a Bodhisattva attains the Patience of Non-birth, surpassing previous merit and virtue』 etc., explaining that when a Bodhisattva attains the superior Patience of Non-birth in the first ground, and even when the practice of the ten grounds is completed and Buddhahood is attained, the cause and effect are also not lost. Why is it not lost when attaining superior patience? The fourth line says 『Because the stainless fruit is attained』. It explains that when the first ground cuts off the two obscurations (Kleshavarana and Jneyavarana), and attains the stainless fruit of the true pure land of the Dharma-nature Reward Body (Dharmakaya) of non-outflow beyond the world, it will become even more superior and bright, so it will not be lost. 『Showing the aspect of superior merit and virtue, therefore repeatedly speaking of superior metaphors』, these two lines explain the sutras of giving treasures in the Ganges River sand worlds etc., explaining that the reason for quoting the metaphor of the Ganges River sand is to measure and display the superior merit and virtue of non-outflow, which is to prove that the merit and virtue of non-outflow will not be lost. 『This merit and virtue has no reward』, the second half of the verse explains 『Because all Bodhisattvas do not grasp at merit and virtue』.

---

下經也。「是福德」者，是初地無漏勝福德也。「無報」者，明此無漏勝福德無世間有漏報也。「如是受不取」者，如是受無漏勝福德，如是不取有漏福德，受取不受不取義聞於前也。「此義云何？雖不依福德至功德莊嚴」，釋前偈上二句，作答疑難云意，明不斷滅也。「何故依彼福德重說譬喻」者，問后偈上二句喻來之意也，即以初偈下二句答。「偈言得勝忍不失，以得無垢果」，明譬喻所況得無生忍時不失因果，非斷滅義也。「此義云何」者，問引此珍寶施福校量，云菩薩得無生忍時獲多福德，非是斷滅之義云何也。「有人起如是心以下至是故不失」，提疑人失因果之疑。為遮斷此疑故，引喻挍量，明得無生忍時不失因果不斷滅也。「如經何以至不說斷滅相」，舉經來結。然此經文，前憣經漏𨷂，依此論引來，明知應有也。

「若復有菩薩知一切法無我得無生法忍」者，將釋此經故提來也。「有二種無我，不生二種無我相」者，即解前「知一切法無我」經也。「是故受而不取」者，是菩薩得無生忍時，有二種無我解，而不生二種無我相故，但受地上無生忍功德，不取地前有漏福德也。此句有成上生下義也。「如經」以下，舉經來結也。「云何菩薩受福德不取福德」者，論主問向所結經。若菩薩受福德者即是

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 下經也。「是福德」者，指的是初地無漏殊勝的福德。「無報」者，說明這種無漏殊勝的福德沒有世間有漏的果報。「如是受不取」者，像這樣領受無漏殊勝的福德，像這樣不取有漏的福德，領受和不領受的含義已經在前面解釋過了。「此義云何？雖不依福德至功德莊嚴」，解釋前面偈頌的上兩句，作為回答疑問的用意，說明不是斷滅。「何故依彼福德重說譬喻」者，詢問後面偈頌的上兩句用比喻來說明的意思，即用第一個偈頌的下兩句來回答。「偈言得勝忍不失，以得無垢果」，說明比喻所比擬的是獲得無生忍時不會失去因果，不是斷滅的意思。「此義云何」者，詢問引用這個珍寶佈施的福德來衡量，說菩薩獲得無生忍時獲得很多福德，不是斷滅的含義是什麼。「有人起如是心以下至是故不失」，提出有人懷疑失去因果的疑問。爲了消除這種懷疑，引用比喻來衡量，說明獲得無生忍時不會失去因果，不是斷滅。「如經何以至不說斷滅相」，引用經文來總結。然而這段經文，之前的翻譯遺漏了，根據這個論的引用來看，應該有的。

「若復有菩薩知一切法無我得無生法忍」者，將要解釋這段經文所以先提出來。「有二種無我，不生二種無我相」者，即解釋前面「知一切法無我」的經文。「是故受而不取」者，是菩薩獲得無生忍時，有兩種無我的理解，而不產生兩種無我的執著，所以只領受地上無生忍的功德，不取地前有漏的福德。這句話有承上啟下的作用。「如經」以下，引用經文來總結。「云何菩薩受福德不取福德」者，論主詢問之前總結的經文。如果菩薩領受福德，那就是

【English Translation】 English version: The lower scripture also. 'Is merit' refers to the unsurpassed, undefiled merit of the first ground (初地, first of the ten bhumis). 'Without retribution' clarifies that this unsurpassed, undefiled merit has no worldly, defiled retribution. 'Thus receiving without grasping' means receiving unsurpassed, undefiled merit in this way, and not grasping defiled merit in this way. The meaning of receiving and not receiving has been explained before. 'What is the meaning of this? Although not relying on merit to the adornment of virtue,' explains the first two lines of the previous verse, answering doubts and clarifying that it is not annihilation. 'Why rely on that merit to repeat the metaphor?' asks about the meaning of the metaphor in the last two lines of the later verse, which is answered by the last two lines of the first verse. 'The verse says that obtaining superior endurance is not lost, because one obtains undefiled fruit,' clarifying that the metaphor illustrates that obtaining non-origination endurance (無生忍, an acceptance that things do not have an origin) does not lose cause and effect, and is not annihilation. 'What is the meaning of this?' asks about the meaning of quoting the merit of offering treasures to measure, saying that when a Bodhisattva obtains non-origination endurance, they obtain much merit, and it is not annihilation. 'Someone raises such a thought, down to therefore not lost,' raises the doubt that one loses cause and effect. To dispel this doubt, a metaphor is used to measure, clarifying that obtaining non-origination endurance does not lose cause and effect and is not annihilation. 'As the scripture says, why not speak of the characteristic of annihilation,' quotes the scripture to conclude. However, this scripture was missed in the previous translation, and according to this treatise's quotation, it should be there.

'If there is a Bodhisattva who knows that all dharmas are without self and obtains non-origination dharma endurance,' is brought up to explain this scripture. 'There are two kinds of no-self, not generating two kinds of no-self appearances,' explains the previous scripture 'knowing that all dharmas are without self.' 'Therefore, receiving without grasping' means that when a Bodhisattva obtains non-origination endurance, they have two kinds of understanding of no-self, but do not generate two kinds of attachments to no-self, so they only receive the merit of non-origination endurance on the ground, and do not grasp the defiled merit before the ground. This sentence has the meaning of connecting the above and leading to the below. 'As the scripture says' below, quotes the scripture to conclude. 'How does a Bodhisattva receive merit without grasping merit?' The treatise master asks about the scripture concluded earlier. If a Bodhisattva receives merit, then it is

---

其取，何故言受而復云不取也？即指偈言「是福德無報，如是受不取」，以此為釋也。「此義云何」以下，論主釋向半偈也。

「須菩提！若有人言：如來若去若來、若行住坐臥，是人不解我所說義」者，此是斷疑分中第十五段經文。所以來者，前廣解法身如來古今一定，體絕萬相湛然常住，非修行所得。次前段明菩薩得出世間解，受無漏福德，不取世間有漏福德。有人乘此生疑：菩薩本因地時發心許度一切眾生，我所修善根與一切眾生共之。疑雲：若諸菩薩得真法身，出於世間，受無漏果報、不受三界有漏果報；眾生在世間，受無漏果、不受無漏果報。然人天果報，聞是三界中法，人尚不得受天報，況無漏福德出世果報得眾生受用也。若爾，世間出世間條然有別，云何諸菩薩所修善根令眾生受用得其利益？以此驗之，菩薩雖出三界得真法身，猶有去來化物受三界報，不條然方外不去不來也。若不去不來者，菩薩福德眾生不得受用，則菩薩虛發此愿無所利益。為斷此疑故，答明諸佛菩薩真實法身雖無去無來，而應身從感去來化物，眾生用之益真實不虛。如此則菩薩善根眾生用之，本願不虛，非謂法身有去來坐臥四種威儀教化眾生，故次明也。

「須菩提！若有人言如來若去若來等，是人不解我所說義」者

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：為什麼說『取』，又說『受』卻又說『不取』呢？這是指用偈語『是福德無報，如是受不取』來解釋的。『此義云何』以下，是論主解釋前面半句偈語。 『須菩提！若有人言：如來若去若來、若行住坐臥，是人不解我所說義』，這是斷疑部分中的第十五段經文。之所以這樣說，是因為前面廣泛解釋了法身如來古今不變，本體超越一切表象，澄澈常住，不是通過修行可以得到的。緊接著前面一段說明菩薩證得出世間的解脫，接受無漏的福德，不接受世間有漏的福德。有人因此產生疑問：菩薩最初在因地發願要度化一切眾生，我所修的善根要與一切眾生共同分享。疑問是：如果各位菩薩證得真法身，脫離世間，接受無漏的果報，不接受三界有漏的果報；眾生在世間，接受有漏的果報，不能接受無漏的果報。然而人天果報，是三界中的法，人尚且不能接受天上的果報，更何況無漏的福德這種出世間的果報能被眾生受用呢？如果這樣，世間和出世間截然不同，那麼各位菩薩所修的善根如何能讓眾生受用並獲得利益呢？由此推斷，菩薩雖然脫離三界證得真法身，仍然有去來變化來度化眾生，接受三界的果報，不是截然處於方外，不去不來。如果菩薩不去不來，那麼眾生就無法受用菩薩的福德，那麼菩薩發的這個願望就落空了，沒有任何利益。爲了消除這個疑問，所以回答說諸佛菩薩真實的法身雖然沒有去來，但是應身會根據眾生的感應而有去來變化來度化眾生，眾生從中獲得的利益是真實不虛的。這樣，菩薩的善根就能被眾生受用，最初的願望就不會落空，而不是說法身有去來坐臥四種威儀來教化眾生，所以接下來進行說明。 『須菩提！若有人言如來若去若來等，是人不解我所說義』。

【English Translation】 English version: Why is it said 'to take', and then 'to receive' but also 'not to take'? This refers to using the verse 'This merit is without reward, thus received but not taken' to explain it. 'What is the meaning of this?' below, is the master of the treatise explaining the first half of the verse. 'Subhuti! If someone says: The Tathagata either goes or comes, either walks, stands, sits, or lies down, that person does not understand the meaning of what I have said,' this is the fifteenth section of scripture in the part on resolving doubts. The reason for this is that the previous section extensively explained that the Dharmakaya (法身) [Dharma body] Tathagata (如來) [Thus Come One] is unchanging from ancient times to the present, its essence transcends all appearances, it is clear and constantly abiding, and it cannot be attained through practice. The preceding section explained that Bodhisattvas (菩薩) [Enlightenment Beings] attain liberation from the world, receive uncontaminated merit, and do not receive contaminated merit of the world. Someone may then have doubts: Bodhisattvas initially vowed in the causal stage to liberate all sentient beings, and the roots of goodness that I cultivate should be shared with all sentient beings. The doubt is: If all Bodhisattvas attain the true Dharmakaya, leave the world, receive uncontaminated retribution, and do not receive contaminated retribution of the three realms; sentient beings in the world receive contaminated retribution and cannot receive uncontaminated retribution. However, the retribution of humans and gods is a dharma within the three realms, and humans cannot even receive the retribution of the heavens, let alone the uncontaminated merit, which is a supramundane retribution, be received and used by sentient beings? If this is the case, the mundane and supramundane are completely different, then how can the roots of goodness cultivated by the Bodhisattvas be received and benefited by sentient beings? From this, it can be inferred that although Bodhisattvas leave the three realms and attain the true Dharmakaya, they still have comings and goings to transform sentient beings and receive the retribution of the three realms, and are not completely outside the realm, neither going nor coming. If the Bodhisattvas neither go nor come, then sentient beings cannot receive the merit of the Bodhisattvas, and then the vow made by the Bodhisattvas would be in vain and without any benefit. In order to eliminate this doubt, the answer is that although the true Dharmakaya of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas has no coming or going, the manifested body will have comings and goings to transform sentient beings according to their responses, and the benefits that sentient beings receive from it are real and not false. In this way, the roots of goodness of the Bodhisattvas can be received and used by sentient beings, and the initial vow will not be in vain, rather than saying that the Dharmakaya has the four dignities of coming, going, sitting, and lying down to teach sentient beings, so the following explanation is given. 'Subhuti! If someone says that the Tathagata either goes or comes, etc., that person does not understand the meaning of what I have said.'

---

，有人見應佛來去從感說法益物，謂即是真佛有四威儀去來，從感受三界報、處世化物，故言是人不解我所說義也。明此人不解如來所說三佛一異義也。乘此生二種疑，下論偈生起序其疑意，微塵喻中釋也。「何以故？如來者無所至去無所從來」，此釋前經「何以故謂如來有去來坐臥者，不解我所說義」者，以見應身去來從感化物，謂法身亦然，故曰不解。明應身如來有去有來，法身無去無來也。若就報、應二佛，得云如來。據法身佛而論，不應言如來，正應云如住。所以然者，語報佛也。得道始從菩提心，修十地行，乘因向果，以果望因得云如來既有真報，必有影像，故應佛從真，亦得道乘因向果名為如來。然法身佛，古今湛然體性圓滿，非修得法，不可得言乘因向果故，正得云如住，不得言如來，故言「何故？如來者無所至去無所從來」也。法身如來不從此至彼入涅槃故，言無所至去。不從彼至此來在世間教化眾生，故曰無所從來。「故曰如來」者，依胡本，名多陀阿伽度，漢憣為如住。此應言如住，但以依昔什公所釋，還存如來之號也。此一段經以二偈釋。初偈釋疑，解經中「若去來坐臥等至不解我所說義」。第二偈，釋經中「何以故」以下也，序經中二疑，生下微塵喻經。初句言「是福德應報」者，上疑雲：

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人見到應化之佛（Nirmanakaya Buddha，為應機教化而示現的佛）的來去，以及隨順眾生根性而說法利益眾生，就認為這就是真佛，具有四種威儀（行、住、坐、臥）的來去，隨順感受三界果報、處於世間教化萬物，所以說這種人是不瞭解我所說的真義。說明此人不瞭解如來所說的法身、報身、應身三佛的一異之義。因此產生兩種疑惑，下面的偈頌就是爲了闡述這些疑惑，並在微塵的比喻中解釋這些疑惑。「何以故？如來者無所至去無所從來」，這是解釋前面經文中的『何以故謂如來有去來坐臥者，不解我所說義』，因為他們見到應身佛的來去和隨順眾生根性而教化，就認為法身佛也是如此，所以說是不瞭解。說明應身如來有去有來，而法身沒有去來。如果就報身佛（Sambhogakaya Buddha，通過修行獲得的果報身）和應身佛來說，可以說如來。但如果就法身佛（Dharmakaya Buddha，證悟的真如法性身）而論，不應該說如來，而應該說如住。之所以這樣說，是因為針對的是報身佛。得道是從菩提心開始，修十地之行，從因向果，以果望因，可以說如來。既然有真報身，必然有影像，所以應身佛從真身而來，也可以說從因向果名為如來。然而法身佛，古今湛然，體性圓滿，不是修得的法，不可說從因向果，所以應該說如住，不應該說如來，所以說『何故？如來者無所至去無所從來』。法身如來不從此到彼入涅槃，所以說無所至去。不從彼到此來在世間教化眾生，所以說無所從來。「故曰如來」者，依據胡本，名為多陀阿伽度（Tathagata），漢譯為如住。這裡應該說如住，但因為依據以前鳩摩羅什（Kumarajiva）的解釋，還是保留如來之號。這一段經文用兩個偈頌來解釋。第一個偈頌解釋疑惑，解釋經文中的『若去來坐臥等至不解我所說義』。第二個偈頌，解釋經文中的『何以故』以下的內容，闡述經文中的兩個疑惑，引出下面的微塵比喻經。初句說『是福德應報』，是針對上面所說的疑惑：

【English Translation】 English version: Some people see the coming and going of the Nirmanakaya Buddha (the manifested Buddha who teaches according to the capacity of beings), and the way he teaches and benefits beings according to their dispositions, and they think that this is the true Buddha, with the four dignities (walking, standing, sitting, and lying down) of coming and going, experiencing the rewards of the three realms, and being in the world to transform all things. Therefore, it is said that these people do not understand the true meaning of what I have said. This explains that these people do not understand the meaning of the oneness and difference of the Trikaya (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Nirmanakaya). Because of this, two kinds of doubts arise. The following verses are to explain these doubts, and they are explained in the analogy of the dust mote. 'Why? The Tathagata has nowhere to go and nowhere to come from.' This explains the previous sutra passage, 'Why do you say that the Tathagata comes and goes, sits and lies down? You do not understand the meaning of what I have said,' because they see the coming and going of the Nirmanakaya Buddha and his teaching according to the capacity of beings, and they think that the Dharmakaya Buddha is also like this, so it is said that they do not understand. It explains that the Nirmanakaya Tathagata comes and goes, but the Dharmakaya has no coming and going. If we talk about the Sambhogakaya Buddha and the Nirmanakaya Buddha, we can say Tathagata. But if we talk about the Dharmakaya Buddha, we should not say Tathagata, but should say 'as abiding'. The reason for this is that it refers to the Sambhogakaya Buddha. Attaining the Way starts from the Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment), cultivating the practices of the ten Bhumis (stages), moving from cause to effect, and looking at the cause from the perspective of the effect, we can say Tathagata. Since there is a true Sambhogakaya, there must be an image, so the Nirmanakaya Buddha comes from the true body, and it can also be said that moving from cause to effect is called Tathagata. However, the Dharmakaya Buddha, is eternally clear, and its nature is complete. It is not a Dharma that is attained through cultivation, and it cannot be said to move from cause to effect, so it should be said 'as abiding', and should not be said Tathagata, so it is said, 'Why? The Tathagata has nowhere to go and nowhere to come from.' The Dharmakaya Tathagata does not go from here to there to enter Nirvana, so it is said that there is nowhere to go. He does not come from there to here to teach sentient beings in the world, so it is said that there is nowhere to come from. 'Therefore it is called Tathagata', according to the Hu version, it is called 多陀阿伽度 (Tathagata), which is translated into Chinese as 'as abiding'. Here it should be said 'as abiding', but because according to the previous explanation of Kumarajiva, the title of Tathagata is still retained. This passage of scripture is explained by two verses. The first verse explains the doubts, explaining the sutra passage 'If you come and go, sit and lie down, etc., you do not understand the meaning of what I have said.' The second verse explains the content from 'Why?' in the sutra, explaining the two doubts in the sutra, and introducing the following sutra of the analogy of the dust mote. The first sentence says 'It is the reward of merit', which is aimed at the doubts mentioned above:

---

菩薩得真法身，離於世間、不受三界報、無去來者，眾生云何而得受用菩薩福德？故以偈答「是福德應報，為化諸眾生」。「福德」者，菩薩所修善根也。「應報」者，為化眾生現入三界，三業教化，令眾生得益。如此則是菩薩福德與眾生共受，非謂法身有來去也。難者言：上來廣解法、報二佛湛然常住無去無來。既無心去來，何由有此應化去來化物？若爾，諸佛如求，為有心去來？為無心去來也？故下半偈答「自然如是業，諸佛現十方」，明諸佛既成道已，本願力故，隨眾生感，自然應身遍十方界教化眾生，不待作意方有去來也。

「此義云何？明諸佛化身有用」等，釋上半偈，作答疑意。明雖法身無去來用，而化身去來益物也。

「偈言」以下，用下半偈釋成上半偈也。第二偈上二句言「去來化身佛」者，牒前偈，明應佛有去來。「如來常不動」者，正釋經「何以故如來者無所至去無所從來」等。復欲乘作疑意，生下微塵喻及無量七寶挍量經文，明供養應佛及持應佛所說與真佛無異。下半偈正生微塵喻，明三佛不一異也。何故作此上半偈？以生於下七寶施福挍量經文。有人因前經生第一疑：若法身佛不去不來，應佛有去來，隨感處於世間，為眾生供養得福，即是菩薩因地福德眾生受用者，是義不然。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 菩薩證得真正的法身（Dharmakāya，佛的法性之身），遠離世間，不受三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的果報，沒有來去。那麼，眾生如何能夠受用菩薩的福德呢？因此用偈語回答說：『這福德的應報，是爲了教化眾生』。「福德」指的是菩薩所修的善根。「應報」指的是爲了教化眾生而示現進入三界，通過身、口、意三業進行教化，使眾生獲得利益。這樣，就是菩薩的福德與眾生共同受用，而不是說法身有來去。有人質疑說：前面已經廣泛地解釋了法身佛（Dharmakāya Buddha）和報身佛（Saṃbhogakāya Buddha）都是湛然常住，沒有去來。既然沒有心念的去來，怎麼會有應化身（Nirmāṇakāya Buddha）的去來化物呢？如果這樣說，諸佛的應化，是有心念的去來呢？還是沒有心念的去來呢？所以下半偈回答說：『自然如是業，諸佛現十方』，說明諸佛既然已經成道，由於本願力的緣故，隨著眾生的感應，自然地應化身遍佈十方世界教化眾生，不需要刻意造作才有去來。

『此義云何？明諸佛化身有用』等，解釋上半偈，作為回答疑問的意思。說明雖然法身沒有去來的作用，但是化身有去來利益眾生。

『偈言』以下，用下半偈解釋成就上半偈。第二偈的上兩句說『去來化身佛』，是承接前面的偈語，說明應化身佛有去來。『如來常不動』，正是解釋經文『何以故如來者無所至去無所從來』等。又想借此產生疑問，引出下面的微塵譬喻以及無量七寶校量的經文，說明供養應化身佛以及持誦應化身佛所說的法與供養真佛沒有區別。下半偈正是引出微塵譬喻，說明三身佛（Trikāya）不一也不異。為什麼要做這個上半偈？是爲了引出下面的用七寶佈施的福德校量的經文。有人因為前面的經文產生第一個疑問：如果法身佛不去不來，應化身佛有去來，隨著感應出現在世間，為眾生供養而得福，就是菩薩因地福德眾生受用，這個說法是不對的。

【English Translation】 English version If a Bodhisattva attains the true Dharmakāya (法身, the body of the Dharma, the ultimate nature of reality), is detached from the world, does not receive the retribution of the Three Realms (三界, the realms of desire, form, and formlessness), and has no coming or going, how can sentient beings receive and benefit from the Bodhisattva's merit and virtue? Therefore, the verse answers: 'This merit and virtue's response is to transform all beings.' 'Merit and virtue' refers to the roots of goodness cultivated by the Bodhisattva. 'Response' refers to manifesting in the Three Realms to transform beings, teaching through the three karmas (三業, body, speech, and mind), enabling beings to benefit. In this way, the Bodhisattva's merit and virtue are shared with all beings, not that the Dharmakāya has coming and going. The questioner says: Above, it has been extensively explained that the Dharmakāya Buddha (法身佛) and the Saṃbhogakāya Buddha (報身佛, the body of enjoyment) are both serene, constant, abiding, without coming or going. Since there is no coming or going of the mind, how can there be the Nirmāṇakāya (應化身, the emanation body) coming and going to transform beings? If so, is the Nirmāṇakāya of all Buddhas with the coming and going of the mind? Or without the coming and going of the mind? Therefore, the second half of the verse answers: 'Naturally, such is the karma, the Buddhas appear in the ten directions,' explaining that since all Buddhas have attained enlightenment, due to the power of their original vows, according to the sentient beings' responses, the Nirmāṇakāya naturally pervades the ten directions to teach and transform beings, not waiting for intentional action to have coming and going.

'What is the meaning of this? It clarifies that the Buddhas' emanation body has a function,' etc., explains the first half of the verse, as a way to answer doubts. It clarifies that although the Dharmakāya has no coming and going function, the emanation body has coming and going to benefit beings.

'The verse says' below, uses the second half of the verse to explain and complete the first half of the verse. The first two lines of the second verse say 'The coming and going emanation body Buddha,' which refers back to the previous verse, clarifying that the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha has coming and going. 'The Tathagata is always unmoving,' is precisely explaining the sutra 'Why is it that the Tathagata has nowhere to go and nowhere to come from,' etc. It also intends to raise doubts, leading to the following analogy of dust motes and the sutra comparing the measure of limitless seven treasures, clarifying that offering to the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha and upholding what the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha says is no different from offering to the true Buddha. The second half of the verse precisely introduces the analogy of dust motes, clarifying that the Trikāya (三身, the three bodies of the Buddha) are neither one nor different. Why is this first half of the verse made? It is to introduce the following sutra text comparing the merit of giving with seven treasures. Someone has the first doubt because of the previous sutra: If the Dharmakāya Buddha does not go or come, and the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha has coming and going, appearing in the world according to the responses, and sentient beings gain merit by making offerings, which is the Bodhisattva's merit and virtue in the causal stage being enjoyed by sentient beings, this statement is not correct.

---

何故不然？以此應佛化身去來無有實體故也。又上第五段經中明應佛有生住滅三相故非佛，次第六段經中明應佛不發心修行證果說法，此便應一向非佛。以此三處經驗，丈六如來應非是佛。若非佛者，云何供養應佛即是眾生受用菩薩福德也？又若供養應佛得福者，與供養真佛有何異也？有如此疑故，論主設此半偈發起疑意也。此明應身有去來，法報湛然無去來等故，云常不動。因即生第二疑，疑雲，若應化佛有去來，法報二佛無去來者，此之三佛為一處住如眾僧在堂，為冥然唸作一不可分別？為條然異處住如東方阿閦、西方無量壽等也？若合作一者，不應有去來不去不來別；若條然異者，則三佛有別體，此云何也？故下半偈答云「於是法界處，非一亦非異」，此明三佛于真如法界中不可定說冥然合作一一處聚集住，亦不可說條然有差別也。又時一解於是法界處非一亦非異者，此論主假作問答，為欲生下微塵譬喻。云何生下？上廣釋法報二佛不一不異，亦通應佛不一不異。又此段經中明法報二佛無去無來，應佛有去來，因此生疑：若法報二佛無有去來，則是常住；應佛有去來，便是無常。若然，此之三佛為一為異？又乘疑：十方諸佛斷或證果之時，于真法界中為一處聚集住，為冥然合作一？為條然異處住？及一切眾生所

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 何故不然？因為應化佛的示現來去沒有實體。而且前面第五段經文中說明應化佛有生、住、滅三種現象，所以不是真佛。再者，第六段經文中說明應化佛不發心修行、證果、說法，這樣看來應化佛就完全不是佛了。根據這三方面的驗證，丈六金身的如來應該不是真佛。如果不是真佛，那麼供養應化佛怎麼會是眾生受用菩薩的福德呢？而且如果供養應化佛能得到福報，那和供養真佛有什麼區別呢？因為有這樣的疑問，所以論主提出這半句偈語來引發疑問。這說明應身佛有來去，而法身佛和報身佛湛然不動，沒有來去等等，所以說『常不動』。 因此產生第二個疑問，疑問是：如果應化佛有來去，法身佛和報身佛沒有來去，那麼這三佛是住在一起，像眾僧在禪堂一樣，冥然合一，不可分別呢？還是截然分開，住在不同的地方，像東方阿閦佛（Akshobhya Buddha，不動佛）和西方無量壽佛（Amitabha Buddha，阿彌陀佛）那樣呢？如果合作一體，就不應該有來去與不來去的區別；如果截然分開，那麼三佛就有不同的本體，這又該怎麼解釋呢？所以下半句偈語回答說：『於是法界處，非一亦非異』，這說明三佛在真如法界中，不能確定地說冥然合一，聚集在一處，也不能說截然有差別。 又有另一種解釋，『於是法界處，非一亦非異』，這是論主假設問答，爲了引出下面的微塵譬喻。怎麼引出下面的內容呢？上面廣泛解釋了法身佛和報身佛不一不異，也同樣適用於應化佛的不一不異。而且這段經文中說明法身佛和報身佛沒有來去，應化佛有來去，因此產生疑問：如果法身佛和報身佛沒有來去，那就是常住；應化佛有來去，那就是無常。如果這樣，這三佛是一體還是異體？又進一步產生疑問：十方諸佛斷除煩惱或者證得果位的時候，在真法界中是聚集在一處，冥然合一，還是截然分開住在不同的地方？以及一切眾生所……

【English Translation】 English version Why not? Because the manifestations of Nirmāṇakāya Buddhas (應化佛, manifestation body of the Buddha) come and go without a substantial form. Moreover, the fifth section of the scripture above clarifies that Nirmāṇakāya Buddhas have three characteristics: birth, duration, and cessation, thus they are not true Buddhas. Furthermore, the sixth section of the scripture states that Nirmāṇakāya Buddhas do not generate the aspiration for enlightenment, practice, attain fruition, or preach the Dharma, so it seems that Nirmāṇakāya Buddhas are entirely not Buddhas. Based on these three verifications, the sixteen-foot-tall Tathāgata (如來, Thus Come One) should not be a true Buddha. If not a true Buddha, how can offering to a Nirmāṇakāya Buddha be the merit and virtue that sentient beings receive from Bodhisattvas? And if offering to a Nirmāṇakāya Buddha brings blessings, what is the difference between that and offering to a true Buddha? Because of such doubts, the author raises this half-verse to provoke questioning. This explains that the Nirmāṇakāya has coming and going, while the Dharmakāya (法身佛, Dharma body of the Buddha) and Sambhogakāya (報身佛, Enjoyment body of the Buddha) are serene and unmoving, without coming and going, etc., hence the saying 'always unmoving'. Therefore, a second doubt arises, which is: if Nirmāṇakāya Buddhas have coming and going, and Dharmakāya and Sambhogakāya Buddhas do not have coming and going, then do these three Buddhas dwell together in one place, like monks in a meditation hall, merged into one, indistinguishable? Or are they distinctly separate, dwelling in different places, like Akshobhya Buddha (阿閦佛, the Immovable Buddha) in the east and Amitābha Buddha (無量壽佛, Buddha of Immeasurable Life) in the west? If they are integrated as one, there should be no distinction between coming and going and not coming and not going; if they are distinctly separate, then the three Buddhas have different entities, so how can this be explained? Therefore, the second half of the verse answers: 'Therefore, in the realm of Dharma, neither one nor different', which explains that in the realm of true suchness (真如法界, true nature of reality), it cannot be definitively said that the three Buddhas are merged into one, gathered in one place, nor can it be said that they are distinctly different. There is another interpretation: 'Therefore, in the realm of Dharma, neither one nor different', this is the author posing a question and answer to introduce the analogy of dust particles below. How does it lead to the content below? The above extensively explains that the Dharmakāya and Sambhogakāya Buddhas are neither one nor different, which also applies to the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha being neither one nor different. Moreover, this section of the scripture explains that the Dharmakāya and Sambhogakāya Buddhas have no coming and going, while the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha has coming and going, thus raising the question: if the Dharmakāya and Sambhogakāya Buddhas have no coming and going, then they are permanent; if the Nirmāṇakāya Buddha has coming and going, then it is impermanent. If so, are these three Buddhas one or different? Furthermore, the question arises: when the Buddhas of the ten directions cut off afflictions or attain fruition, do they gather in one place in the true Dharma realm, merged into one, or do they dwell separately in different places? And all sentient beings...

---

有真如佛性，為一為異？為多為少？有如此疑故，於此二句中具引向所疑一異之義假作問答，拘瑣向下。「於是法界處」，是問問意。此三佛斷煩惱盡時，于真如法界中為一處住？為異處住也？故下句答云「非一亦非異」。答意明諸佛成道斷煩惱時，此之三佛于真如法界中，不可說言一處住、異處住也。此明不去不來至無所至去無所從來故、釋偈第二句、以經結也。「此義云何」以下，問答釋經，解如來為如住義也。

金剛仙論卷第九 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

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。疑雲：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，于真如法界中，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，然今窗中因日光見者此是粗塵，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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有真如佛性（Tathata-Buddha-nature），是一還是異？是多還是少？因為有這樣的疑惑，所以在這兩句中，具足引用了先前所疑惑的一異之義，假作問答，拘泥瑣碎地向下解釋。「於是法界處」，是提問的意圖。這三佛斷盡煩惱時，在真如法界（Dharmadhatu）中是在一個地方住，還是在不同的地方住呢？所以下一句回答說「非一亦非異」。回答的意思是，諸佛成道斷煩惱時，這三佛在真如法界中，不能說是在一個地方住，也不能說是在不同的地方住。這說明不去不來，到達無所至，去無所從來，所以用經文總結偈的第二句。「此義云何」以下，用問答來解釋經文，解釋如來（Tathagata）的『如』是如常安住的意思。

金剛仙論卷第九 大正藏第 25 冊 No. 1512 金剛仙論

金剛仙論卷第十

『須菩提（Subhuti）！若善男子善女人，以三千大千世界微塵』等，這一段經文是斷疑分中的第十六經文。之所以這樣說，是爲了回答上面的疑問。疑問是：如果應化佛有去來，法身佛和報身佛沒有去來，那麼這三佛以及十方諸佛，斷盡煩惱成道之時，在真如法界中，是在一個住處，還是在不同的住處？是合作嗎？一切眾生的真如性，是一還是異？是多還是少？這仍然是前面經文中所疑問的事情，前面的論偈中略微地引出了這篇經文的開端，用問答說『於是法界處，非一亦非異』。而這篇經文將要詳細解釋那疑惑的一異多少之義，所以引用三千世界微塵的比喻來回答。這說明粉碎三千大千世界成為極細微塵，成為沒有色香味觸的塵埃，然而現在窗戶中因為日光而看見的，這是粗塵，分析這種粗塵為三百分才叫做微塵，這種微塵不是凡夫和二乘所能見到的。再次磨碎這種細塵使之……

【English Translation】 English version Is the Tathata-Buddha-nature one or different? Is it many or few? Because of such doubts, these two sentences fully quote the meaning of 'one' and 'different' that were previously doubted, artificially creating questions and answers, and meticulously explaining downwards. 'Therefore, in the Dharmadhatu' is the intention of the question. When these three Buddhas have exhausted their afflictions, do they reside in one place or different places in the Dharmadhatu? Therefore, the next sentence answers, 'Neither one nor different.' The answer means that when the Buddhas attain enlightenment and exhaust their afflictions, these three Buddhas in the Dharmadhatu cannot be said to reside in one place or in different places. This explains that they neither go nor come, reaching nowhere to go, and going from nowhere to come, so the second sentence of the verse is concluded with the sutra. 'What is the meaning of this?' and the following uses questions and answers to explain the sutra, explaining that the 'Tathata' (如) of Tathagata (如來) means 'abiding as is'.

Vajrasena Commentary, Volume 9 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 25, No. 1512, Vajrasena Commentary

Vajrasena Commentary, Volume 10

'Subhuti! If a good man or good woman takes the dust of three thousand great thousand worlds,' etc., this section of the sutra is the sixteenth sutra text in the section on resolving doubts. The reason for this is to answer the above question. The question is: If the manifested Buddha has coming and going, and the Dharma-body Buddha and Reward-body Buddha do not have coming and going, then when these three Buddhas and the Buddhas of the ten directions exhaust their afflictions and attain enlightenment, do they reside in one place or in different places in the Dharmadhatu? Is it a collaboration? Is the Tathata-nature of all sentient beings one or different? Is it many or few? This is still the matter questioned in the previous sutra. The previous verse in the commentary briefly introduced the beginning of this sutra, using questions and answers to say, 'Therefore, in the Dharmadhatu, neither one nor different.' And this sutra will explain in detail the meaning of 'one', 'different', 'many', and 'few' that were doubted, so it uses the analogy of the dust of three thousand worlds to answer. This explains that breaking the three thousand great thousand worlds into extremely fine dust, becoming dust without color, smell, taste, or touch. However, what is seen in the window now because of sunlight is coarse dust. Analyzing this coarse dust into three hundred parts is called fine dust. This fine dust cannot be seen by ordinary people and those of the Two Vehicles. Grind this fine dust again to make it...

---

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，于真如法界中，不可說言一異，亦不可說言一處住、異處住。眾生佛性性凈解脫，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。

「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！于意云何？是微塵眾寧為多不」者，明所碎世界既廣，故佛問須菩提：于汝意地，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！」此明如來曏者所說彼塵眾多；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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 造作沒有顏色、味道等的塵埃。這種微塵沒有顏色、味道、形狀，也沒有四方上下，數量雖然多，但不能說它們住在一處、住在異處、合作成一個整體，以此來比喻三佛以及十方諸佛也眾多無量。然而這些諸佛雖然多，在斷盡煩惱時，于真如法界中，不能說是一還是異，也不能說住在一處還是住在異處。眾生的佛性本性清凈解脫，就眾生來說雖然多，但在真如理中，古今平等，也不能說是一還是異，是多還是少。爲了解釋這個疑問，所以接下來進行說明。 『以三千世界微塵』，這是舉例說明三千世界極其細微的塵埃。『復以爾許微塵世界』，這稱為細微塵，作為世界，『界』的意思是性質，所以這一微塵依據世間辨別討論，也稱為世界，也稱為微塵。『碎為微塵』，再次粉碎這些極其細微的塵埃，成為沒有顏色、味道、氣味、觸覺的微塵。『阿僧祇（asaṃkhya）』，說明不僅僅粉碎三千世界成為微塵，也粉碎阿僧祇世界成為微塵。也可以說沒有顏色、味道的微塵不可計數，所以說阿僧祇。『須菩提（Subhūti）！于意云何？是微塵眾寧為多不』，說明所粉碎的世界既然廣大，所以佛問須菩提：在你心中，思考衡量，認為這些微塵是多還是不多呢？所以須菩提理解如來的意思，回答說：『彼微塵眾甚多。世尊（Bhagavan）！』這說明如來之前所說的那些塵埃眾多；雖然多，因為沒有顏色、味道、氣味、觸覺、形狀、方位，沒有妨礙，所以不能說住在一處、住在異處、合作成一個整體，以此來比喻十方諸佛也極其眾多無量。這十方諸佛，如果就修行者而言，一個修行者自身成就一佛；修行者既然多，所以佛也多。諸佛就修行者而言既然多，不能說是一；二障（煩惱障和所知障）永遠斷盡，法身平等沒有差別，不能說是異。然而這些微塵粉碎

【English Translation】 English version They create dust that has no color, taste, or other qualities. These fine dust particles have no color, taste, or shape, nor do they have the four directions (north, south, east, west) or up and down. Although their number is vast, it cannot be said that they dwell in one place, dwell in different places, or combine into one. This is used as an analogy for the countless Buddhas of the three times and the ten directions. However, although these Buddhas are numerous, when they have exhausted their afflictions, it cannot be said in the realm of True Thusness (Tathātā) whether they are one or different, nor can it be said whether they dwell in one place or in different places. The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is inherently pure and liberated. Although sentient beings are numerous, in the principle of True Thusness, past and present are equal, and it cannot be said whether they are one or different, many or few. To resolve this doubt, the following explanation is given. 『With the dust of three thousand worlds,』 this illustrates the extremely fine dust of three thousand worlds. 『Again, with worlds as numerous as these fine dust particles,』 this is called fine dust. As a world, 『world』 (界) means nature. Therefore, this one dust particle, when discussed according to the world, is also called a world and also called fine dust. 『Crushed into fine dust,』 again, these extremely fine dust particles are crushed into dust particles without color, taste, smell, or touch. 『Asaṃkhya (阿僧祇),』 this indicates that not only are three thousand worlds crushed into fine dust, but also asaṃkhya worlds are crushed into fine dust. It can also be said that the dust particles without color or taste are countless, hence the term asaṃkhya. 『Subhūti (須菩提)! What do you think? Are these dust particles numerous or not?』 This indicates that since the worlds being crushed are vast, the Buddha asks Subhūti: In your mind, contemplate and consider whether you think these dust particles are many or not. Therefore, Subhūti understands the Tathāgata's (如來) meaning and replies, 『These dust particles are very numerous, Bhagavan (世尊)!』 This explains that the dust particles the Tathāgata spoke of earlier are numerous; although numerous, because they have no color, taste, smell, touch, shape, or location, and there is no obstruction, it cannot be said that they dwell in one place, dwell in different places, or combine into one. This is used as an analogy for the countless Buddhas of the ten directions. These Buddhas of the ten directions, if considered from the perspective of practitioners, one practitioner achieves Buddhahood; since practitioners are numerous, so are the Buddhas. Since the Buddhas are numerous from the perspective of practitioners, it cannot be said that they are one; the two obscurations (klesha-avarana and jneya-avarana) are forever exhausted, and the Dharma-body is equal without difference, so it cannot be said that they are different. However, these dust particles are crushed

---

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。復疑雲：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，說于無塵為塵也。亦得道是故佛說非微塵眾，此因事無，以明因緣法體空也。

「世尊！如來說三千大千世界則非世界」者，嚮明微塵喻，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。然要以細微塵成粗世界，若細微塵無實者，何故有此三千世界等粗物？然此

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：對於沒有顏色和味道的微塵，即使數量眾多，因為沒有形狀，所以沒有顏色、味道等屬性，也沒有六個方向，因此不能說它位於一個確定的地方。這可以比作十方諸佛斷除煩惱障和所知障，證悟真如法界時，沒有形狀的阻礙，也沒有固定的方位，因此不能說他們住在一個地方或不同的地方。須菩提理解佛的意圖，所以如上回答。聽眾中有人因此產生疑問：前面既然說打碎微塵成為虛空，沒有六個方向的形狀，又說微塵的數量非常多。這兩種說法為什麼相互矛盾？所以問『何以故』（為什麼）。佛即回答：『若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說微塵眾』，這說明如果微塵眾真的具有六個方向的形狀、顏色、味道、觸感等不空的屬性，佛就不會假設說打碎細微的微塵成為沒有顏色和味道的微塵了。又有人懷疑說：如果這些微塵的本體是空無色味的，是不真實的，為什麼如來又說為微塵？因為如來說為微塵，就表明微塵是真實的，不是空無的，所以問『何以故』（為什麼）。佛即回答：『佛說微塵眾則非微塵眾』，這說明如來依世俗諦的層面說虛妄的微塵，所以說佛說微塵眾。這些微塵眾是虛妄不實的，本來就是空寂的，所以說『則非微塵眾』。既然這些微塵是虛妄的，哪裡有真實的微塵可以談論呢？『是故佛說微塵眾』，因此，如來上面說了沒有顏色、味道、觸感、沒有形狀的微塵，所以說于無塵為塵。也可以理解為因此佛說非微塵眾，這是因為事物本身是空的，從而說明因緣法的本體也是空的。 『世尊！如來說三千大千世界則非世界』，前面用微塵做比喻，是從極細微的角度來說的，這裡說三千世界，是從微塵的角度來說的。然而又有人產生疑問：前面佛說細微的微塵，它的本體是不真實的，所以是空無的。然而需要用細微的微塵來構成粗大的世界，如果細微的微塵沒有真實的本體，為什麼會有這三千世界等粗大的物體呢？然而此

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding dust that has no color or taste, even if there is a multitude of it, because it has no shape, it has no attributes such as color or taste, nor does it have six directions. Therefore, it cannot be said to be in a fixed place. This can be compared to when the Buddhas of the ten directions sever the obscurations of afflictions and the obscurations of knowledge, and realize the true nature of reality (Dharmadhatu), there is no obstruction of form, nor is there a fixed location. Therefore, it cannot be said that they dwell in one place or in different places. Subhuti (a disciple of the Buddha, meaning 'Good Existence') understood the Buddha's intention, so he answered as above. Someone in the assembly therefore had a doubt: Since it was said earlier that breaking up dust creates emptiness, without the shape of six directions, and yet it is said that the multitude of dust is very large. Why are these two statements contradictory? Therefore, he asked, 'What is the reason?' The Buddha then answered, 'If the multitude of dust were truly existent, the Buddha would not speak of the multitude of dust.' This explains that if the multitude of dust truly had non-empty attributes such as the shape of six directions, color, taste, and touch, the Buddha would not have assumed that breaking up fine dust would create dust without color or taste. Someone further doubted: If the substance of this dust is empty and without color or taste, and is unreal, why does the Tathagata (another name for the Buddha, meaning 'Thus Gone') speak of it as dust? Because the Tathagata speaks of it as dust, it shows that the dust is real and not empty. Therefore, he asked, 'What is the reason?' The Buddha then answered, 'The dust spoken of by the Buddha is not the dust.' This explains that the Tathagata speaks of illusory dust according to the level of conventional truth (Samvriti-satya), so it is said that the Buddha speaks of the multitude of dust. This multitude of dust is illusory and unreal, and is originally empty and still. Therefore, it is said, 'It is not the dust.' Since this dust is illusory, where is there real dust that can be discussed? 'Therefore, the Buddha speaks of the multitude of dust.' Therefore, the Tathagata spoke above of dust without color, taste, touch, or shape, so he speaks of no-dust as dust. It can also be understood as therefore the Buddha speaks of non-dust, which is because things themselves are empty, thereby explaining that the substance of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) is also empty. 'World Honored One! The Tathagata speaks of the three thousand great thousand worlds (Trisahasra-maha-sahasra-lokadhatu) as not being worlds.' The previous analogy of dust was spoken from the perspective of the extremely subtle. Here, speaking of the three thousand worlds is from the perspective of dust. However, another doubt arises: Earlier, the Buddha said that fine dust is unreal in its substance, so it is empty. However, fine dust is needed to form coarse worlds. If fine dust has no real substance, why are there these coarse objects such as the three thousand worlds? However, this

---

粗世界既為細塵所成，若細塵無者，何故眼見三千世界等粗物是有？以粗物有故，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，明知三千粗界亦虛假不實也。「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。

「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，有為世界莫問粗細，皆是虛

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 既然粗大的世界是由細小的微塵組成的，如果不存在細小的微塵，那麼為什麼眼睛能看到三千世界等粗大的事物是存在的呢？因為粗大的事物存在，所以明顯知道細小的微塵也是存在的。因此回答說『如來說三千大千世界則非世界』，表明如來說假的三千集合成一個世界。如果有一個世界不是由其他事物組成的，那麼可以說這個世界是真實的；然而沒有一個世界不是由其他事物組成的，所以沒有什麼是真實的。因為它們不是真實的，所以說如來說三千世界則非世界。然而，既然這些細小的微塵不存在，明顯知道三千粗大的世界也是虛假不真實的。『是故佛說三千世界』，是爲了說明如果有一個世界是真實的而非虛妄的，佛就不會虛假地說三千世界；佛既然說總括三千為一個世界，所以知道它是虛假不真實的。

『何以故』，有人因此產生懷疑：如果微塵、世界二者都不真實，如來為什麼說微塵聚集所以世界形成、微塵散開所以世界壞滅？因為這些聖人的話語真實可信，所以知道微塵是真實的，為什麼說它是空性的呢？所以說『何以故』。回答說『若世界實有者，則是一合相』，這裡說的『世界』，是指稱微塵為世界，說明為什麼三千世界是不真實的。如果微塵世界是真實的，四面八方的微塵到來就會渾然一體，成為一個不可分別的世界，不應該有三千的名稱。既然有三千的名稱，所以知道能形成微塵世界的微塵是虛妄不真實的。因為這些微塵虛妄不真實，所以它的本體就是空性。空性沒有形狀，所以往來沒有阻礙，乃至鐵圍山（Cakravāḍa mountains，環繞世界的鐵山）也不能阻擋。所以從道理上來說，東方來的微塵沒有阻礙，西方乃至南北上下六方來的微塵都沒有阻礙。這些微塵既然不互相阻礙，也沒有聚集的相狀，完全空無沒有形狀，乃至須彌山（Mount Sumeru，佛教宇宙觀中的聖山）也看不見。由此驗證可知，有為的世界無論粗細，都是虛假的。

【English Translation】 English version: Since the coarse world is formed by fine dust, if there were no fine dust, why is it that the three thousand worlds and other coarse things are seen as existent? Because coarse things exist, it is clearly known that fine dust also exists. Therefore, the answer is, 'The Tathagata said that the three thousand great thousand worlds are not worlds,' clarifying that the Tathagata speaks of the false three thousand forming one world. If there were a world not formed by others, it could be said that the world is real; however, there is no world that is not formed by others, therefore nothing is real. Because they are not real, it is said that the Tathagata said that the three thousand worlds are not worlds. However, since these fine dusts do not exist, it is clear that the three thousand coarse worlds are also false and unreal. 'Therefore, the Buddha speaks of the three thousand worlds' is to clarify that if there were a world that is real and not false, the Buddha would not falsely speak of the three thousand worlds; since the Buddha speaks of encompassing the three thousand as one world, it is known to be false and unreal.

'Why is this?' Someone thus gives rise to doubt: If both dust and the world are unreal, why does the Tathagata say that the world is formed because dust gathers, and the world is destroyed because dust scatters? Because these words of the sages are truthful and verifiable, it is known that dust is real, so why is it said to be empty? Therefore, it is said, 'Why is this?' The answer is, 'If the world were truly existent, it would be a single aggregate.' Here, 'world' refers to calling dust a world, clarifying why the three thousand worlds are unreal. If the dust world were real, the dust from all directions would come and merge into one, forming an indistinguishable world, and there should not be the name of three thousand. Since there is the name of three thousand, it is known that the dust that forms the dust world is false and unreal. Because this dust is false and unreal, its essence is emptiness. Because emptiness has no shape, there is no obstruction in coming and going, and even the Cakravāḍa mountains (Cakravāḍa mountains, iron mountains surrounding the world) do not hinder it. Therefore, logically speaking, dust coming from the east has no obstruction, and dust coming from the west, and even from the north, south, above, and below, in the six directions, has no obstruction. Since these dusts do not obstruct each other, and there is no appearance of gathering, they are completely empty and without shape, and even Mount Sumeru (Mount Sumeru, the sacred mountain in Buddhist cosmology) cannot be seen. From this verification, it can be known that the conditioned world, whether coarse or fine, is false.

---

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。

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，明知粗世界是實。粗世界既實，細微塵亦實，何得言粗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，于虛事之中計以為實，非謂粗世界是性實也。然所成粗世界既不實故，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，取微塵世界粗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，后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，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：虛妄不實之法，其本性本來就是空寂的，只是依照世人的虛妄情感才說有世界。這說明因緣法的本體本來就是空性的。

有人因此產生疑問：如果一合相是真實存在的，為什麼如來說將三千大千世界合為一個一合相呢？所以回答說：『如來說一合相』，是依照世俗諦的說法，在虛妄法中說一合相。『則非一合相』，是從究竟的道理來說，沒有一個世界是渾然一體的，不依靠三千大千世界而成，所以說不是一合相。『佛言：須菩提：一合相者則是不可說』，說明有為法虛妄不實，沒有一個世界是渾然一體的真實存在，所以說是不可說的。

因此又產生疑問：如果世界的一合相沒有真實性，那麼眾生就不應該能看見，也不應該能使用它；然而現在明明看見有這個世界的房屋、住宅、衣服、器物等可以利用。既然有這些作用，就說明粗顯的世界是真實的。粗顯的世界既然是真實的，細微的塵埃也是真實的，怎麼能說粗顯和細微的塵埃世界都是虛妄不實的呢？所以經中回答說：『但凡夫之人貪著其事』，說明凡夫之人因為取相顛倒的緣故，在虛妄的事物中妄計為真實，並不是說粗顯的世界是本體真實。然而所形成的粗顯世界既然不真實，就說明細微的塵埃也是虛妄的。『何以故』，因為前面說凡夫貪著其事，因此又產生疑問：如果凡夫人因為顛倒之心，將微塵世界粗細有為的虛妄事物妄認為真實，如來沒有取相顛倒之心，為什麼也說有微塵世界？如來為什麼又說，我見微塵以及世界等。如果如來說我見和所見，我與我所的差別，內外的差異，又如來為什麼又說本來有我人眾生等見，後來觀察我法體性空，才得到二種無我解脫，才斷除我人等迷惑，名為得道。如來既然這樣說，

【English Translation】 English version: Illusory and unreal, its nature is originally empty and still. It is only according to the deluded emotions of people that we say there are worlds. This explains that the essence of dependent origination is originally emptiness.

Someone may have doubts: If the 'one aggregate' (eka-samghata) is truly existent, why does the Tathagata say that the aggregation of three thousand great thousand worlds is one aggregate? Therefore, the answer is: 'The Tathagata speaks of one aggregate' according to conventional truth (samvriti-satya), speaking of one aggregate within illusory dharmas. 'Then it is not one aggregate' is from the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya) perspective, there is no world that is a completely unified whole, not relying on the three thousand great thousand worlds to be formed, so it is said that it is not one aggregate. 'The Buddha said: Subhuti: What is called 'one aggregate' is unspeakable,' explaining that conditioned dharmas are illusory and unreal, there is no world that is a completely unified whole that is real and can be spoken of, so it is said that it is unspeakable.

Therefore, another doubt arises: If the 'one aggregate' of the world has no reality, then sentient beings should not be able to see it, nor should they be able to use it; however, now we clearly see that there are houses, residences, clothes, utensils, and other things in this world that can be used. Since there are these uses, it shows that the coarse world is real. Since the coarse world is real, the subtle dust is also real, how can it be said that both the coarse and subtle dust worlds are illusory and unreal? Therefore, the sutra answers: 'But ordinary people are attached to these things,' explaining that ordinary people, because of taking appearances and being deluded, mistakenly regard illusory things as real, not that the coarse world is inherently real. However, since the coarse world that is formed is not real, it shows that the subtle dust is also illusory. 'Why is this so?' Because of the previous statement that ordinary people are attached to these things, another doubt arises: If ordinary people, because of their deluded minds, mistakenly regard the coarse and subtle conditioned phenomena of the dust world as real, the Tathagata has no deluded mind of taking appearances, why does he also say that there are dust worlds? Why does the Tathagata also say, 'I see dust and worlds, etc.' If the Tathagata says 'I see' and 'what is seen,' the difference between 'I' and 'what belongs to me,' the difference between inside and outside, and why does the Tathagata also say that originally there were views of 'self,' 'person,' 'sentient being,' etc., and later, by observing the emptiness of the nature of self and dharma, one attains two kinds of selflessness, and only then cuts off the delusions of self, person, etc., and is called 'attaining the Way'? Since the Tathagata says this,

---

以此驗之，明知此微塵世界粗細等法是其實有，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！于意云何？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，后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」，明曏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，后觀此我所二種空故，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，于聲聞為解，于菩薩為障。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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：用這個來驗證，就清楚地知道這個微塵世界，粗細等等的法，是真實存在的，不是虛妄的，所以不是空。因為有這樣的疑惑，所以說『何以故也』（為什麼呢）。佛現在將要回答這個道理，所以問須菩提：如果有人這樣說：『佛說有我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。』須菩提！你認為怎麼樣？這個人所說的是正確的嗎？這說明佛問須菩提，如果有人像前面所疑惑的那樣，認為佛是這樣說的：本來確實有我法，後來觀察這個我法，得到了無我法的理解，去除我法兩種見解，得到無我無法，這叫做得道。這個人所說的合乎道理嗎？這個說法正確嗎？所以須菩提回答說：『不也。世尊』，說明前面疑惑的人所說的不合道理，不符合佛的意思，所以說『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』，解釋了為什麼這個人所說的言論不合道理，是不正確的。說明二乘之人認為本來確實有我人眾生壽者等我我所見，後來觀察這我所兩種空性，所以能夠斷除這種我人等見，就說我得到了無我的理解，把這個當作真正的理解。如果認為如來也是這樣說的，把這個當作真實的，這種說法是不正確的。然而諸佛如來理解一切法本來就是空寂的，尚且沒有我法可以去除，哪裡還有我法兩種空性的見解可以存在呢？所以說『即非我人等見也』。這種無我等見，對於聲聞來說是解脫，對於菩薩來說是障礙。現在說明佛說要觀察我法從本來就是空，畢竟寂滅的，沒有我法可以空，乃至煩惱也本來就是寂靜的，所以沒有煩惱可以斷除。不同於二乘人認為本來有我，有法，現在理解了二空，才斷除這種迷惑，叫做得道。『是名非我見人見』等等，是總結我法兩種空性。二乘人見到我沒有了，得到無我人等的理解，認為這是真實的，所以說『是名非我人見』，也可以引導說『是名我人』 English version: Examining it in this way, it is clearly known that this microcosm, with its coarse and fine aspects, is actually existent, not illusory, and therefore not empty. Because of this doubt, it is said, 'What is the reason?' The Buddha is now about to answer this meaning, so he asks Subhuti: 'If someone says, 'The Buddha speaks of the perception of self, person, sentient being, and life-span.' Subhuti! What do you think? Is what this person says correct?' This clarifies that the Buddha is asking Subhuti, if someone doubts as before, thinking that the Buddha said: 'Originally there was indeed the self-dharma (我法), later observing this self-dharma, one attains the understanding of no-self-dharma, removing the two views of self-dharma, attaining no-self and no-dharma, which is called enlightenment.' Is what this person says reasonable? Is this statement correct?' Therefore, Subhuti answers, 'No, World Honored One,' clarifying that what the person who doubts says is unreasonable and does not accord with the Buddha's intention, so he says 'No.' 'Why? World Honored One! The Tathagata speaks of the perception of self, person, sentient being, and life-span, which is not the perception of self, person, sentient being, and life-span,' explains why what this person says is unreasonable and incorrect. It clarifies that those of the Two Vehicles (二乘) believe that originally there was indeed the perception of self, person, sentient being, and life-span, etc., the view of self and what belongs to self (我我所見), later observing the emptiness of these two, self and what belongs to self, they are able to sever this perception of self, person, etc., and say that they have attained the understanding of no-self, taking this as the true understanding. If one thinks that the Tathagata also says this, taking this as real, this statement is incorrect. However, the Buddhas and Tathagatas understand that all dharmas are originally empty and still, there is not even a self-dharma to be removed, how can there be the view of the emptiness of self and dharma? Therefore, it is said, 'which is not the perception of self, person, etc.' This perception of no-self, etc., is liberation for the Shravakas (聲聞), and an obstacle for the Bodhisattvas (菩薩). Now it clarifies that the Buddha says to observe that self-dharma is originally empty, ultimately still, there is no self-dharma to be emptied, and even afflictions are originally still, so there are no afflictions to be severed. It is different from those of the Two Vehicles who believe that originally there was self, there was dharma, now understanding the two emptinesses, they sever this delusion, which is called enlightenment. 'It is called the non-perception of self and person,' etc., summarizes the two emptinesses of self and dharma. Those of the Two Vehicles see that the self is gone, attain the understanding of no-self and person, etc., taking this as real, so it is said, 'It is called the non-perception of self and person,' it can also lead to saying 'It is called self and person.'

【English Translation】 Examining it in this way, it is clearly known that this microcosm, with its coarse and fine aspects, is actually existent, not illusory, and therefore not empty. Because of this doubt, it is said, 'What is the reason?' The Buddha is now about to answer this meaning, so he asks Subhuti: 'If someone says, 'The Buddha speaks of the perception of self, person, sentient being, and life-span.' Subhuti! What do you think? Is what this person says correct?' This clarifies that the Buddha is asking Subhuti, if someone doubts as before, thinking that the Buddha said: 'Originally there was indeed the self-dharma, later observing this self-dharma, one attains the understanding of no-self-dharma, removing the two views of self-dharma, attaining no-self and no-dharma, which is called enlightenment.' Is what this person says reasonable? Is this statement correct?' Therefore, Subhuti answers, 'No, World Honored One,' clarifying that what the person who doubts says is unreasonable and does not accord with the Buddha's intention, so he says 'No.' 'Why? World Honored One! The Tathagata speaks of the perception of self, person, sentient being, and life-span, which is not the perception of self, person, sentient being, and life-span,' explains why what this person says is unreasonable and incorrect. It clarifies that those of the Two Vehicles believe that originally there was indeed the perception of self, person, sentient being, and life-span, etc., the view of self and what belongs to self, later observing the emptiness of these two, self and what belongs to self, they are able to sever this perception of self, person, etc., and say that they have attained the understanding of no-self, taking this as the true understanding. If one thinks that the Tathagata also says this, taking this as real, this statement is incorrect. However, the Buddhas and Tathagatas understand that all dharmas are originally empty and still, there is not even a self-dharma to be removed, how can there be the view of the emptiness of self and dharma? Therefore, it is said, 'which is not the perception of self, person, etc.' This perception of no-self, etc., is liberation for the Shravakas, and an obstacle for the Bodhisattvas. Now it clarifies that the Buddha says to observe that self-dharma is originally empty, ultimately still, there is no self-dharma to be emptied, and even afflictions are originally still, so there are no afflictions to be severed. It is different from those of the Two Vehicles who believe that originally there was self, there was dharma, now understanding the two emptinesses, they sever this delusion, which is called enlightenment. 'It is called the non-perception of self and person,' etc., summarizes the two emptinesses of self and dharma. Those of the Two Vehicles see that the self is gone, attain the understanding of no-self and person, etc., taking this as real, so it is said, 'It is called the non-perception of self and person,' it can also lead to saying 'It is called self and person.'

---

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，于粗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彷彿而知。「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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：眾生、壽者、見者（所有能感知存在的生命形式）。明白如上所說，並且理解我和法，從古至今都是清澈明凈，本來就不生不滅的。親眼見到真如的平等性，證得初地無生法忍菩提（菩薩果位的第一個階段，對事物不生不滅的深刻理解），乃至最終證得佛果無上菩提（最高的覺悟）。這與小乘佛教徒執著于無我、無法的見解，並將其視為真正的道路是不同的。佛陀這樣說，所以說這是佛陀所說的虛妄不實的我、人、眾生等見解，說明這是名為無我、人等虛妄的見解。

乘（這裡指提問者）進一步疑問：如果持有無我、無法的見解而不能得道，那麼觀察什麼樣的法，生起什麼樣的心，證得什麼樣的法，才能稱之為得道呢？所以佛陀回答：『須菩提（佛陀的弟子）！菩薩發菩提心的人，對於一切法應該這樣去了解』等等。這裡以初地證智作為菩提心，說明在什麼意義上勸導人們。如果想要獲得初地以上的真實之道，對於粗細的有為我法、無我無法這些虛妄的事物，應該這樣生起知見和信心。『如是知』，說明停留在前面階段的人，用世間的聞慧五明論智（世俗的知識和技能）彷彿地知道。『如是見』，說明停留在更高階段的人，用出世間第一義智（超越世俗的智慧）去見。『如是信』，說明前面這兩種人，都依靠三昧（冥想）的無量功德力去相信。這裡說明，這樣的人因為運用這兩種智慧和三昧，所以能見到真如佛性，去除一切法上存在的有無的困擾。『如是不住法相』，既然在有為虛妄的無我無法中生起了知見和信心，便不會執著於它。『何以故』，或許有人聽到菩薩不住法相，懷疑菩薩對於世間法和出世間法都完全不住著，所以問為什麼。所以佛陀回答：『須菩提！所說的法相法相，如來說就是非法相』。上面說的『法相』，是世間色等有為法有無的相。下面說的『法相』，是出世真如無為法相。『如來說即非法相』，說明如來說『即非法相』，說明如來說世間的有無法相，不是出世間的。

【English Translation】 English version: Sentient beings, those who live long, those who see (all forms of life capable of perception). Understand as explained above, and comprehend that I and the Dharma, from ancient times to the present, are clear and pure, inherently neither arising nor ceasing. Directly witness the equality of Suchness (Tathata), attain the Bodhi (enlightenment) of the first ground of No-Birth Tolerance (the first stage of a Bodhisattva's path, a profound understanding of the non-arising and non-ceasing of things), and ultimately attain the unsurpassed Bodhi of Buddhahood (the highest enlightenment). This is different from the Hinayana Buddhists who cling to the views of no-self and no-dharma, considering them as the true path. The Buddha speaks thus, therefore it is said that this is the Buddha's teaching on the false and unreal views of self, person, sentient beings, etc., clarifying that this is called the false view of no-self, no-person, etc.

The questioner (referred to as 'Cheng' here) further asks: If holding the views of no-self and no-dharma does not lead to enlightenment, then what kind of Dharma should one observe, what kind of mind should one generate, and what kind of Dharma should one realize to be called enlightened? Therefore, the Buddha answers: 'Subhuti (a disciple of the Buddha)! Those who have aroused the Bodhi-mind (the mind of enlightenment) should understand all Dharmas in this way,' and so on. Here, the wisdom of the first ground is taken as the Bodhi-mind, explaining in what sense to encourage people. If one wishes to attain the true path beyond the first ground, one should generate such knowledge, views, and faith in the coarse and subtle conditioned Dharmas of self and no-self, and the unreal things of no-dharma. 'Such knowledge' means that those who remain in the previous stage know vaguely with worldly learning, the five sciences, and logical intelligence (secular knowledge and skills). 'Such views' means that those who remain in the higher stage see with the transcendental wisdom of the first principle (wisdom beyond the secular). 'Such faith' means that both of these people rely on the immeasurable power of merit from Samadhi (meditation) to believe. This explains that such people, because they use these two kinds of wisdom and Samadhi, can see the Buddha-nature of Suchness and remove the troubles of existence and non-existence in all Dharmas. 'Thus, not abiding in the characteristics of Dharmas' means that since knowledge, views, and faith have arisen in the conditioned and unreal no-self and no-dharma, one will not cling to them. 'Why?' Perhaps someone hears that Bodhisattvas do not abide in the characteristics of Dharmas and suspects that Bodhisattvas do not abide in either worldly or transcendental Dharmas at all, so they ask why. Therefore, the Buddha answers: 'Subhuti! The so-called characteristics of Dharmas, the Tathagata (Buddha) says are not the characteristics of Dharmas.' The 'characteristics of Dharmas' mentioned above are the characteristics of existence and non-existence of conditioned Dharmas such as worldly forms. The 'characteristics of Dharmas' mentioned below are the characteristics of unconditioned Dharmas of transcendental Suchness. 'The Tathagata says they are not the characteristics of Dharmas' means that the Tathagata says 'they are not the characteristics of Dharmas,' explaining that the Tathagata speaks of the worldly characteristics of existence and non-existence, not the transcendental ones.

---

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佈施」者，此上有疑：上來微塵喻中明三佛不一不異。雖明三佛，準上經文唯應有二，不應有三。何者？上第六段中雲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？噁心譭謗損害之者，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，噁心譭謗得罪亦然。故引此喻，以阿僧祇世界七寶持用佈施挍量，不如有人于應佛邊發菩薩心，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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無為真如法相（指不依賴因緣、永恒不變的真如的體現）。出世間真如法相，就不是世間有或無這些虛妄的法相了。』是名法相』的意思是，像這樣不是世間有為有漏的法相，就是出世間真如無為的法相，也可以說是世間有無法相。前面說』不住法相』，只是不住於世間有為法的有無之相，不是不住于出世間無為的法相，怎麼能聽到不住法相就認為世間出世間有為無為的法相都不住呢？從這句經文開始，是爲了解釋前面偈頌中』於此法界處，非一亦非異』的疑問。 』須菩提！如果有人用充滿無量阿僧祇（極大的數字單位）世界的七寶來佈施』，這裡有個疑問：前面微塵的比喻中說明三佛（法身佛、報身佛、應身佛）不一也不異。雖然說了三佛，但按照前面的經文，應該只有二佛，不應該有三佛。為什麼呢？前面第六段中說釋迦牟尼（佛名）非佛也不是說法者；而且之前的經文又說化佛（佛的化身）有來去教化眾生，供養他可以得到福報。這前後矛盾。現在疑惑的是不知道應身佛（佛爲了度化眾生而顯現的化身）到底是佛還是不是佛？如果是佛，供養這個應身佛所得到的福德，和供養其他二佛一樣，還是有所差別？化佛所說的經法，是正法還是不是正法？如果接受應身佛所說的法，所得到的利益和接受報身佛（佛修成正果后所呈現的莊嚴形象）所說法的功德一樣，還是有所差別？用噁心譭謗損害應身佛的人，罪過又如何呢？所以想要回答應身佛是佛，所說的經教是正法，供養受持可以得到福報。聽聞前二佛，用噁心譭謗也會得到罪過。所以引用這個比喻，用阿僧祇世界的七寶來佈施，比不上有人在應身佛身邊發起菩薩心（立志普度眾生的心），接受應身佛所說的《般若經》（大乘佛教的重要經典）中的一句四句偈，甚至為他人演說，他的福報勝過用無量阿僧祇世界的七寶佈施。上面的疑問是通用於應身佛的，為什麼現在經文中只說受持應身佛所說經的福報呢？

【English Translation】 English version The characteristic of True Thusness in its unconditioned state (refers to the manifestation of True Thusness that does not depend on conditions and is eternally unchanging). The characteristic of True Thusness beyond the world is not the false characteristic of existence or non-existence in the world. 'This is called the characteristic of Dharma' means that, like this characteristic that is not conditioned and defiled in the world, it is the unconditioned characteristic of True Thusness beyond the world, and it can also be said to be the characteristic of existence and non-existence in the world. When it is said earlier 'not dwelling in the characteristic of Dharma', it only means not dwelling in the characteristic of existence or non-existence of conditioned Dharmas in the world, not that one does not dwell in the unconditioned characteristic of True Thusness beyond the world. How can one hear 'not dwelling in the characteristic of Dharma' and then think that one does not dwell in any characteristic of conditioned or unconditioned Dharmas in the world or beyond the world? From this sutra passage onwards, it is to explain the doubt in the previous verse 'In this realm of Dharma, neither one nor different'. 'Subhuti! If there is a Bodhisattva who uses the seven treasures filling countless Asamkhya (an extremely large numerical unit) worlds for almsgiving', there is a doubt here: In the previous analogy of dust motes, it was explained that the three Buddhas (Dharmakaya Buddha, Sambhogakaya Buddha, Nirmanakaya Buddha) are neither one nor different. Although three Buddhas were mentioned, according to the previous sutra text, there should only be two, not three. Why? In the sixth section above, it says that Sakyamuni (name of a Buddha) is neither a Buddha nor a speaker of Dharma; and the previous sutra also says that the manifested Buddha (an incarnation of the Buddha) comes and goes to teach sentient beings, and offering to him brings blessings. This is contradictory. Now the doubt is whether the Response Body Buddha (an incarnation manifested by the Buddha to save sentient beings) is a Buddha or not? If he is a Buddha, is the merit of offering to this Response Body Buddha the same as that of offering to the other two Buddhas, or is there a difference? Is the Dharma spoken by the manifested Buddha the correct Dharma or not? If one accepts the Dharma spoken by the Response Body Buddha, is the benefit obtained the same as the merit of receiving and upholding the Dharma spoken by the Reward Body Buddha (the majestic form presented by the Buddha after attaining enlightenment), or is there a difference? What is the sin of those who slander and harm the Response Body Buddha with evil intentions? Therefore, one wants to answer that the Response Body Buddha is a Buddha, the teachings spoken are the correct Dharma, and offering and upholding it can bring blessings. Hearing about the previous two Buddhas, slandering with evil intentions will also bring sin. Therefore, this analogy is cited, using the seven treasures of Asamkhya worlds for almsgiving is not as good as someone who, by the side of the Response Body Buddha, arouses the Bodhi mind (the mind to vow to save all sentient beings), receives a four-line verse from the Prajna Sutra (an important classic of Mahayana Buddhism) spoken by the Response Body Buddha, and even expounds it to others, his merit surpasses that of giving alms with the seven treasures of countless Asamkhya worlds. The above doubt applies to the Response Body Buddha in general, why does the current sutra only mention the merit of receiving and upholding the sutras spoken by the Response Body Buddha?

---

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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人問，不談供養應化之佛（應佛，指應身佛，佛的三身之一）是否也能獲得很多福報？如果受持應化之佛所說的經法，而這些經法確實是應化之佛所說，僅僅說受持應化之佛所說就能獲得無量福報，那麼就可以知道供養應化之佛也能獲得很多福報，所以經文中沒有特別指出供養應化之佛。有人疑惑：如果供養應化之佛所說的經教與供養真佛（指法身佛或報身佛）沒有區別，為什麼這位應化之佛在世間教化說法，卻不能被稱為應化之佛說法呢？所以經中問『為什麼為人演說，卻不被稱為說』，說明應化之佛說法時，自己說我從無量阿僧祇劫（阿僧祇劫，佛教時間單位，極長的時間）以來廣泛修行各種善行，現在才成就佛果，具足各種相好（相好，佛的莊嚴身相）以及各種功德，但不說我是化佛（化佛，應化之佛的簡稱）。如果自己說我是化佛，眾生就會認為這是幻化之人，這是什麼鬼神？於是就不生起恭敬和信任，不接受他所說的。心中既然不相信，不接受他的教導，就沒有什麼利益。因為不說自己是化佛，所以有很多利益。『是名為說』的意思是，這位應化之佛從真處而來，但不說是應化之身，所以供養受持所獲得的利益，與供養真佛沒有差別，這才是應化之佛所說的正法。

這一段經文總共用六個偈頌來解釋。第一個偈頌，用微塵的比喻，作為問答的形式，解釋前面經文中的疑問。第二個偈頌，說明微塵沒有顏色、味道、形狀，所以既不是一也不是異，諸佛也是這樣，因為煩惱已經斷盡，所以既不是一也不是異。第三個偈頌的前兩句，說明凡夫不理解有為法（有為法，因緣和合而生的事物）是空性的，隨著名相而執著。后兩句，瑣碎地進入第四個偈頌，有一偈半，總的說明諸佛菩薩不僅僅因為證得無我無法的解脫才被稱為得道。第五個偈頌的前兩句，說明兩種菩薩能夠理解的智慧。後半個偈頌，說明供養化佛與供養真佛沒有區別。第六個偈頌，說明應化之佛所說的法是真正的說法。第一個偈頌說『世界作微塵』等一個偈頌，解釋經文中的『善男子善女人以下乃至阿僧祇世界』，如果按照世辨論（世辨論，佛教論書名稱）中的...

【English Translation】 English version: Someone asks, wouldn't one gain much merit even without mentioning offering to the Response Body Buddha (Ying Fo, referring to the Nirmanakaya Buddha, one of the three bodies of the Buddha)? If one upholds the sutras and teachings spoken by the Response Body Buddha, and these teachings are indeed spoken by the Response Body Buddha, merely saying that upholding what the Response Body Buddha has spoken brings immeasurable merit, then it can be known that offering to the Response Body Buddha also brings much merit. Therefore, the sutra does not specifically mention offering to the Response Body Buddha. Someone doubts: If offering to the sutras and teachings spoken by the Response Body Buddha is no different from offering to the True Buddha (referring to the Dharmakaya or Sambhogakaya Buddha), then why is it that when this Response Body Buddha teaches and speaks Dharma in the world, it cannot be called the Response Body Buddha speaking Dharma? Therefore, the sutra asks, 'Why is it that when speaking for others, it is not called speaking?' This explains that when the Response Body Buddha speaks Dharma, he says that he has extensively cultivated various virtuous practices for countless asamkhya kalpas (asamkhya kalpa, a Buddhist unit of time, an extremely long period), and only now has he attained Buddhahood, possessing all the auspicious marks (auspicious marks, the majestic physical characteristics of the Buddha) and various merits, but he does not say that he is a Transformation Buddha (Hua Fo, abbreviation for Response Body Buddha). If he says that he is a Transformation Buddha, sentient beings will think that this is an illusionary person, what kind of ghost or spirit is this? Then they will not generate respect and trust, and will not accept what he says. Since their minds do not believe and they do not accept his teachings, there will be no benefit. Because he does not say that he is a Transformation Buddha, there are many benefits. 'This is called speaking' means that this Response Body Buddha comes from the true source, but does not say that he is a response body, so the benefits gained from offering and upholding are no different from offering to the True Buddha. This is what the Response Body Buddha speaks is the true Dharma.

This section of the sutra uses a total of six verses to explain. The first verse uses the analogy of dust particles, in the form of questions and answers, to explain the doubts in the previous sutra. The second verse explains that dust particles have no color, taste, or shape, so they are neither one nor different. The Buddhas are also like this, because afflictions have been completely extinguished, so they are neither one nor different. The first two lines of the third verse explain that ordinary people do not understand that conditioned dharmas (conditioned dharmas, things that arise from the combination of causes and conditions) are empty in nature, and they cling to names and forms. The last two lines, intrusively entering the fourth verse, have one and a half verses, generally explaining that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are not only called enlightened because they have attained liberation from selflessness and dharma-lessness. The first two lines of the fifth verse explain the wisdom that two kinds of Bodhisattvas can understand. The last half verse explains that offering to the Transformation Buddha is no different from offering to the True Buddha. The sixth verse explains that the Dharma spoken by the Response Body Buddha is the true Dharma. The first verse says 'The world is made of dust particles,' etc., one verse, explaining 'Good men and good women, down to asamkhya worlds' in the sutra. If according to the Shishabheda-vada (Shishabheda-vada, name of a Buddhist treatise)...

---

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，明藉此微塵喻，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，重舉上喻碎于微塵為無色味塵，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，于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，問此微塵喻況諸佛于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[阿-可+(可/(可*可))]。喻諸佛如來斷二障盡時，于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。

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『名此微塵為世界』（稱這種微塵為世界），並非指三千大千世界。這裡說明破除有色有味的微塵成為無色無味的微塵，這種微塵沒有色、香、味、觸，也沒有方位，所以稱為微塵。『此喻示彼義』（這個比喻是爲了揭示那個意義）是指，用這個微塵的比喻，來解釋上面疑問所說的，在法界之處，不一也不異的意義，所以說『示彼義也』（揭示那個意義）。『微塵碎為末』（微塵粉碎成末）是指，再次舉出上面的比喻，粉碎微塵成為無色無味的塵埃，比喻諸佛如來成道之時，永遠沒有二障，所以下一句說『示現煩惱盡』（顯示煩惱已盡）。『此明何義』（這說明什麼意義）是問，這一偈引用比喻的用意，是爲了說明什麼意義。偈語說『於是法界處，非一亦非異』（在法界之處，非一也非異）是指，論主引用前面的偈語，簡略地回答微塵比喻所比況的事情。『彼諸佛如來於真如法界中』（那些諸佛如來在真如法界中）等等，是進一步解釋所引用的偈語，說明諸佛雖然很多，但在真如法界中，不是在一個地方住，也不是在不同的地方住。『為示此義故說世界碎微塵喻』（爲了揭示這個意義，所以說了世界粉碎成微塵的比喻），是解釋了諸佛不在一個地方住、不在不同地方住之後，提煉比喻來作總結。『此喻示何義』（這個比喻揭示了什麼意義）是問，這個微塵的比喻，比況諸佛在真如法界中，不在一個地方住，不在不同地方住，不知道這個比喻有什麼相似之處，可以用這個比喻來揭示呢？接著用下面的半偈回答說『微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡』（微塵粉碎成末，顯示煩惱已盡）。說明如果不粉碎世界，就會有彼此的差別；既然粉碎成微塵，就沒有彼此的差別了。比喻諸佛如來斷除二障盡時，在真如法界中沒有彼此的障礙。一個地方和不同地方有如此的相似之處，所以用它來比況。『此喻非聚集微塵眾』（這個比喻不是聚集的微塵眾），將要作偈來解釋經文，所以先舉出經文中所說明的比喻的意義，說微塵眾，不是實際有微塵聚集起來叫做眾。『示現非一喻』（顯示非一的比喻），爲了顯示諸佛非常多，假設用無色無味的塵埃作為微塵眾。 English version 'Naming this subtle dust particle as a world' does not refer to the three thousand great thousand worlds. This explains breaking down colored and flavored subtle dust particles into colorless and flavorless subtle dust particles. These subtle dust particles have no color, smell, taste, or touch, and also have no location, hence they are called subtle dust particles. 'This metaphor illustrates that meaning' means using this metaphor of subtle dust particles to explain the above question, that in the realm of Dharma, the meaning is neither one nor different, hence it is said 'illustrates that meaning'. 'Subtle dust particles broken into powder' means reiterating the above metaphor, breaking subtle dust particles into colorless and flavorless dust, which is a metaphor for when the Buddhas and Tathagatas attain enlightenment, they will forever have no two obscurations, hence the next sentence says 'reveals the exhaustion of afflictions'. 'What meaning does this explain?' asks what the intention of quoting the metaphor in this verse is, to explain what meaning. The verse says 'Therefore, in the realm of Dharma, neither one nor different' refers to the author quoting the previous verse to briefly answer the matter illustrated by the metaphor of subtle dust particles. 'Those Buddhas and Tathagatas in the realm of Suchness' etc., further explains the quoted verse, explaining that although there are many Buddhas, in the realm of Suchness, they do not reside in one place, nor do they reside in different places. 'To illustrate this meaning, the metaphor of the world breaking into subtle dust particles is spoken' concludes the explanation of Buddhas not residing in one place or different places by extracting the metaphor. 'What meaning does this metaphor illustrate?' asks what similarities this metaphor of subtle dust particles has to the Buddhas not residing in one place or different places in the realm of Suchness, and what similarities allow this metaphor to illustrate it? Then the following half-verse answers, 'Subtle dust particles broken into powder, reveals the exhaustion of afflictions'. It explains that if the world is not broken, there will be differences between each other; since it is broken into subtle dust particles, there is no difference between each other. It is a metaphor for when the Buddhas and Tathagatas have exhausted the two obscurations, there are no obstacles between each other in the realm of Suchness. One place and different places have such similarities, so it is used to illustrate it. 'This metaphor is not an assembly of subtle dust particles' is about to compose a verse to explain the sutra, so first it raises the meaning of the metaphor explained in the sutra, saying that the assembly of subtle dust particles is not actually an assembly of subtle dust particles called an assembly. 'Reveals the metaphor of not one' is to show that there are many Buddhas, assuming that colorless and flavorless dust is an assembly of subtle dust particles.

【English Translation】 'Naming this subtle dust particle as a world' (名此微塵為世界) does not refer to the three thousand great thousand worlds. This explains breaking down colored and flavored subtle dust particles into colorless and flavorless subtle dust particles. These subtle dust particles have no color, smell, taste, or touch, and also have no location, hence they are called subtle dust particles. 'This metaphor illustrates that meaning' (此喻示彼義) means using this metaphor of subtle dust particles to explain the above question, that in the realm of Dharma, the meaning is neither one nor different, hence it is said 'illustrates that meaning' (示彼義也). 'Subtle dust particles broken into powder' (微塵碎為末) means reiterating the above metaphor, breaking subtle dust particles into colorless and flavorless dust, which is a metaphor for when the Buddhas and Tathagatas attain enlightenment, they will forever have no two obscurations, hence the next sentence says 'reveals the exhaustion of afflictions' (示現煩惱盡). 'What meaning does this explain?' (此明何義) asks what the intention of quoting the metaphor in this verse is, to explain what meaning. The verse says 'Therefore, in the realm of Dharma, neither one nor different' (於是法界處，非一亦非異) refers to the author quoting the previous verse to briefly answer the matter illustrated by the metaphor of subtle dust particles. 'Those Buddhas and Tathagatas in the realm of Suchness' (彼諸佛如來於真如法界中) etc., further explains the quoted verse, explaining that although there are many Buddhas, in the realm of Suchness, they do not reside in one place, nor do they reside in different places. 'To illustrate this meaning, the metaphor of the world breaking into subtle dust particles is spoken' (為示此義故說世界碎微塵喻) concludes the explanation of Buddhas not residing in one place or different places by extracting the metaphor. 'What meaning does this metaphor illustrate?' (此喻示何義) asks what similarities this metaphor of subtle dust particles has to the Buddhas not residing in one place or different places in the realm of Suchness, and what similarities allow this metaphor to illustrate it? Then the following half-verse answers, 'Subtle dust particles broken into powder, reveals the exhaustion of afflictions' (微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡). It explains that if the world is not broken, there will be differences between each other; since it is broken into subtle dust particles, there is no difference between each other. It is a metaphor for when the Buddhas and Tathagatas have exhausted the two obscurations, there are no obstacles between each other in the realm of Suchness. One place and different places have such similarities, so it is used to illustrate it. 'This metaphor is not an assembly of subtle dust particles' (此喻非聚集微塵眾) is about to compose a verse to explain the sutra, so first it raises the meaning of the metaphor explained in the sutra, saying that the assembly of subtle dust particles is not actually an assembly of subtle dust particles called an assembly. 'Reveals the metaphor of not one' (示現非一喻) is to show that there are many Buddhas, assuming that colorless and flavorless dust is an assembly of subtle dust particles.

---

第二偈，釋經中「于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，疑雲：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，清凈法身體既無礙，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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第二偈，解釋經文中的『于意云何是微塵眾寧為多不是故佛說一合相』一段經文。「非聚集」是指，前面的經文說『微塵眾甚多』，似乎是真實存在微塵。這裡說明是以沒有顏色和味道的塵埃作為微塵，並非是真實存在的微塵聚集在一起而說微塵眾多，所以說不是聚集。「故集」是指，有人疑問：如果沒有真實的微塵聚集，為什麼說微塵眾多？所以回答說聚集，是依照世俗諦的名字假設，在沒有聚集的情況下說聚集，不是說真實有微塵眾聚集在一起而說多，所以說是『故集』。「非唯是一喻」是指，如果真實沒有微塵聚集，為什麼假設說甚多呢？說明因為微塵微小已經很多，何況十方諸佛也是甚多，不可說是一。微塵既然是沒有實體的，不可說一定有微塵聚集，用比喻如來斷除煩惱，身體沒有障礙，不可說在一個地方聚集，所以說『非唯是一喻』。「聚集處非彼」是指，說明微塵雖然多，因為本體是空性的，聚集的地方沒有真實的塵埃可以得到。一個地方沒有，也不從其他地方而來，因為其他地方沒有真實的微塵可以得到，所以說『聚集處非彼』。「非是差別喻」是指，說明像微塵一樣沒有障礙，一個地方聚集的相不可得，其他地方差別而來的相也不可得；何況諸佛也是這樣，清凈法身體既然沒有障礙，不是住在一個地方，也不是條條塊塊在其他地方有差別。像東方阿閦佛等也是不可得的，所以說『非是差別喻』。「此義云何？如微塵至無聚集物故」，解釋上半偈。「亦非異處差別至以差別不住故」，解釋下半偈。「如是諸佛如來至亦非異處住」，上面解釋偈中的比喻意義，這裡解釋合起來比喻的意義。「如是三千世界合相喻非聚集故」是指，前面解釋微塵

【English Translation】 English version Verse 2, explaining the sutra passage 『What do you think, are the aggregates of dust particles many? No. Therefore, the Buddha speaks of a composite.』 『Not an aggregation』 means that the previous sutra said 『The aggregates of dust particles are very many,』 seemingly implying the real existence of dust particles. This clarifies that colorless and tasteless dust is considered as dust, not that real dust particles are aggregated to say that there are many dust particles; hence, it is said 『not an aggregation.』 『Therefore, an aggregation』 addresses the doubt: If there is no real aggregation of dust particles, why say that there are many dust particles? Therefore, the answer is that 『aggregation』 is based on conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and nominal designation. Speaking of aggregation where there is no aggregation does not mean that there is a real aggregation of dust particles to say that there are many; hence, it is said 『therefore, an aggregation.』 『Not solely a metaphor』 questions: If there is no real aggregation of dust particles, why assume that there are very many? It clarifies that since minute dust particles are already many, how much more so are the Buddhas of the ten directions, which are very many and cannot be said to be one. Since dust particles have no substance, it cannot be said that there is definitely an aggregation of dust particles. This is used as a metaphor for the Tathāgata (Tathāgata) who has eliminated afflictions and whose body is without obstruction; it cannot be said to be aggregated in one place; hence, it is said 『not solely a metaphor.』 『The place of aggregation is not there』 clarifies that although there are many dust particles, because their essence is emptiness, no real dust can be found in the place of aggregation. Since there is none in one place, it also does not come from another place, because there are no real dust particles to be found in another place; hence, it is said 『the place of aggregation is not there.』 『Not a metaphor of difference』 clarifies that just as dust particles are unobstructed, the appearance of aggregation in one place is unattainable, and the appearance of coming from a difference in another place is also unattainable. How much more so are the Buddhas, whose pure Dharma body (Dharma body) is unobstructed, not dwelling in one place, nor distinctly differentiated in other places. Like Akshobhya (Akshobhya) Buddha of the East, etc., are also unattainable; hence, it is said 『not a metaphor of difference.』 『What is the meaning of this? Like dust particles, there is no aggregated object,』 explains the first half of the verse. 『Also, not a difference in another place, because there is no dwelling in difference,』 explains the second half of the verse. 『Thus, the Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, also do not dwell in another place,』 the above explains the metaphorical meaning in the verse; this explains the meaning of the combined metaphor. 『Thus, the composite metaphor of the three thousand worlds is not an aggregation,』 refers to the previous explanation of dust particles.

---

不一異義，今此辨世界粗物中不一異義亦然，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併合喻竟，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，于虛事生貪，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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：關於『不一』和『異』的含義，現在用這個來辨析。在世界粗糙的事物中，『不一』和『異』的含義也是這樣。所以說『如是乃至非聚集』。『此以何義』是指，用三千世界合在一起的比喻，又說不是聚集，這是什麼含義，為什麼要這樣說呢？ 『如經』以下，是引用如來的既成說法來回答。『若實有一物聚集，如來則不說一物聚集』，前面已經解釋了微塵和世界的兩個比喻，以及合併的比喻。這段文字為什麼又出現呢？前面雖然說明了微塵和世界是虛妄不實的，不是在一個地方聚集，也不是在不同地方有差別，以此來比況諸佛，但是沒有解釋微塵和世界之所以是空的原因。現在正是解釋二法（微塵和世界）的空性，說明如果真的有一個微塵是不空的並且聚集在一起，如來就不會假設說沒有塵，或者說塵是聚集的。『若實有一世界』等，這是解釋世界的空性與微塵沒有差別。『如經』以下，是引用經文來總結。『但凡夫之人貪著其事』，這段文字在前面的偈頌中沒有，為什麼單獨提出來呢？是爲了說明凡夫虛妄地執著于眼前的境界，對於虛假的事物產生貪戀，把不真實的當作真實的，從而成就了上面所說的微塵二法本體是空的，所以引用這段話來解釋。『如經』以下，是總括前面經文來總結。第三偈頌『但隨於音聲』的上兩句，解釋經文中『但凡夫之人貪著其事』。說明凡夫沒有如實的理解，只有虛妄的分辨，隨聲音而執著，聽到說色是可見可觸的，就認為是真實的含義也是可見可觸的，所以說『但隨於音聲』。『凡夫取顛倒』，聽到說色等是可見可觸的，凡夫就認為色等確實是可見可觸的，把不真實的當作真實的，所以說『凡夫取顛倒』。『非無二得道』，下面這半句偈頌與第四偈頌的前三句，共同解釋經文中『何以故？若人如是言至是名我見』等。『非無二得道』，說明諸

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the meanings of 'not one' and 'different,' we now use this to distinguish them. In the coarse objects of the world, the meanings of 'not one' and 'different' are also like this. Therefore, it is said, 'Thus, even not a gathering.' 'What is the meaning of this?' refers to using the analogy of three thousand worlds combined, and then saying it is not a gathering. What is the meaning of this, and why is it said in this way? 'As the sutra says' below, it quotes the established teachings of the Tathagata (Thus Come One) as an answer. 'If there were truly a thing gathered, the Tathagata would not say a thing is gathered.' The two analogies of micro-dust (a tiny particle) and world, as well as the combined analogy, have already been explained. Why does this passage appear again? Although it was previously explained that micro-dust and the world are illusory and unreal, not gathered in one place, nor differentiated in different places, to compare with all Buddhas, it did not explain why micro-dust and the world are empty. Now, it is precisely explaining the emptiness of the two dharmas (micro-dust and world), clarifying that if there were truly a micro-dust that is not empty and is gathered together, the Tathagata would not assume to say there is no dust, or that dust is a gathering. 'If there were truly a world,' etc., this explains that the emptiness of the world is no different from that of micro-dust. 'As the sutra says' below, it quotes the sutra to conclude. 'But ordinary people are attached to these things,' this passage is not in the previous verses, why is it mentioned separately? It is to explain that ordinary people falsely cling to the present environment, develop attachment to false things, and take the unreal as real, thus accomplishing the emptiness of the essence of the two dharmas of micro-dust mentioned above, so this passage is quoted to explain it. 'As the sutra says' below, it summarizes by generalizing the previous sutra. The first two lines of the third verse, 'But follow the sound,' explain 'But ordinary people are attached to these things' in the sutra. It explains that ordinary people do not have a true understanding, but only false discrimination, clinging to sounds, and when they hear that form is visible and tangible, they think that the real meaning is also visible and tangible, so it is said, 'But follow the sound.' 'Ordinary people take to inversion,' when they hear that form, etc., is visible and tangible, ordinary people think that form, etc., is truly visible and tangible, taking the unreal as real, so it is said, 'Ordinary people take to inversion.' 'Not without two attaining the Way,' the following half verse, together with the first three lines of the fourth verse, jointly explain 'Why? If people say thus, it is called self-view,' etc., in the sutra. 'Not without two attaining the Way,' explains that all

---

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，則障于真如菩提，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，非四住粗或，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，以虛妄分別」，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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果認為『有我』是可以被空掉的，或者說道理上說『認為沒有我』，這都不是真正的、究竟的深刻理解。所以說，『見到我』實際上就是『沒有見到』。同樣，也應該說『見到法』就是『沒有見到』，只是因為偈頌的結構限制，所以只說了『見到我』，而沒有說『見到法』。為什麼『見到我』就被稱為『沒有見到』呢？所以第二句說『沒有真實』。如果沒有真實，為什麼還會見到『有』呢？這是因為以虛妄之心去見，所以說是『沒有真實的虛妄之見』。以上兩句，解釋了前面偈頌中的『非無二得道』。『這是微細障』，說明執著于『有』的心，可以稱為塵世的迷惑，而存留『無』的心，可以稱為微細的障礙。這種存留『我』和『法』都空的見解，是無明之惑的本體，不是四住地的粗重惑業，因為它阻礙了對真如的深刻理解，所以說是微細的障礙。『見真如遠離』這一句，解釋了經中所說的菩薩發三菩提心，說明這種微細的迷惑，要等到證得初地的時候，才能顯現見到真如究竟深刻的道理，去除這種虛妄的分別，到那時才能完全消除，所以說『見真如遠離』。這兩句解釋了遠離『我』和『法』。『是故見即不見至見法亦是不見』，這是解釋上半偈頌。『是故見即不見』，解釋第一句。『無其實義，以虛妄分別』，解釋第二句。『以是無我』，是總結句。『是故如來說彼我見即是不見』，這是引用佛陀的成語作為證明。『以其無實至我見不見故』，是論主的解釋，證明如來的證悟。『見法者亦是不見』，因為偈頌中沒有這句話，所以特別提出來進行類比解釋。『如經菩薩發三菩提心』以下，這是爲了經文前面偈頌的第四句，說明菩薩得到真如的理解，不存留『無我』『無法』的見解，以此作為正確的見解，反過來是爲了說明前面存留『無我』『無法』的見解是不正確的，所以引用這段經文。『此復何義』，這是說為什麼引用菩薩見法相的經文，來反駁前面的兩種見解，稱之為『不見』呢？即回答『以見法相即不見』。

【English Translation】 English version: To perceive 'self' as something that can be emptied, or to assert that 'there is no self' according to doctrine, is not a true, ultimate, and profound understanding. Therefore, it is said that 'seeing self' is actually 'not seeing'. Similarly, it should also be said that 'seeing dharma' is 'not seeing', but due to the structure of the verse, only 'seeing self' is mentioned, not 'seeing dharma'. Why is 'seeing self' called 'not seeing'? Therefore, the second line says 'without reality'. If there is no reality, why is 'existence' still perceived? It is because of seeing with a deluded mind, hence it is said 'unreal deluded perception'. The above two lines explain 'not without two attainments of the path' from the previous verse. 'This is a subtle obstruction' indicates that attachment to 'existence' can be called worldly delusion, while clinging to 'non-existence' can be called a subtle obstruction. This clinging to the view that both 'self' and 'dharma' are empty is the essence of ignorance and delusion, not the gross karmic obscurations of the four abodes, because it hinders the profound understanding of Suchness, hence it is called a subtle obstruction. 'Seeing Suchness is detachment' explains the Bodhisattva's arising of the three Bodhi minds in the sutra, indicating that this subtle delusion can only be manifested and seen when one attains the first ground, revealing the ultimate and profound truth of Suchness, removing this false discrimination, and only then can it be completely eliminated, hence it is said 'seeing Suchness is detachment'. These two lines explain detachment from 'self' and 'dharma'. 'Therefore, seeing is not seeing, even seeing dharma is not seeing' explains the first half of the verse. 'Therefore, seeing is not seeing' explains the first line. 'Without real meaning, due to false discrimination' explains the second line. 'Therefore, there is no self' is the concluding sentence. 'Therefore, the Tathagata says that the perception of self is not seeing' quotes the Buddha's words as proof. 'Because it is unreal, therefore seeing self is not seeing' is the commentator's explanation, proving the Tathagata's enlightenment. 'Seeing dharma is also not seeing' is specifically mentioned and explained by analogy because this sentence is not in the verse. 'As in the sutra, the Bodhisattva arises the three Bodhi minds' below is for the fourth line of the verse before the sutra, explaining that the Bodhisattva attains the understanding of Suchness, does not cling to the view of 'no self' and 'no dharma', and takes this as the correct view, conversely, it is to explain that the previous clinging to the view of 'no self' and 'no dharma' is incorrect, so this passage is quoted. 'What is the meaning of this?' This is to say why the sutra of the Bodhisattva seeing the Dharma-nature is quoted to refute the previous two views, calling them 'not seeing'? The answer is 'because seeing the Dharma-nature is not seeing'.

---

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，于聲聞無妨、于菩薩為患，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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『相』，說明因為執著于『法』的表象，就無法真正領悟『法相』的真諦。『如彼我見即非見』，如果執著于『無我』的觀念，並認為這是正確的見解，那也同樣不是真正的見解。『何故此二見說名不見』，這是爲了引出下半偈而提出的問題，意思是說，這『無我』和『無法』兩種見解應該是正確的理解，為什麼還說不是真正的見解呢？下半偈回答說『此是微細障，見真如遠離』。『此復云何』，問的是這句偈語中，為什麼說這兩種見解是微細的障礙，會讓人『見真如遠離』呢？解釋是『彼見我見法，此是細障』，總結這兩種見解是障礙的名稱。『以不見彼二故』，解釋了作為障礙的意義。『是以見法以為得遠離』，這兩種見解，對於聲聞乘的修行者沒有妨礙，但對於菩薩乘的修行者來說卻是禍患，因此說『見真如遠離』。『又如是知』等等，上面已經引用並總結了前面的偈語，為什麼這裡又重複引用呢？因為前面的偈語只是解釋了得到這種知見和信心的人，都遠離了『無我』和『無法』的微細障礙，但還沒有解釋『知』、『見』、『信』的含義，現在將要用偈語來解釋，所以再次引用。 第五偈『二智及三昧，如是得遠離』，這上面的兩句解釋了經文中菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta，無上正等正覺之心）應該這樣知、見、信等等。說明這一點的原因是，上面說執著于『二空』（人空和法空）的人心中有微細的障礙，所以不能稱為得道。說明見到真如的人都遠離了微細的障礙，才能稱為得道。但還不知道什麼樣的人，能夠見到真如、遠離微細的障礙？現在辨別出兩種菩薩，他們具足功德和智慧，能夠見到真如的深刻道理，能夠遠離微細的障礙。『二智』，指的是地前（菩薩十地之前）的世智和地上（菩薩十地之上）的第一義智，這就是二智。世智，解釋經文中的『如是知』。第一義智，解釋經文中的『如是見』。『及三昧』，指的是離垢等無量的三昧（Samadhi，禪定），解釋經文中的『如是信』。所以說『二智及

【English Translation】 English version 『Appearance』 explains that because of clinging to the appearance of 『Dharma』 (law, teaching), one cannot truly comprehend the essence of 『Dharma-lakshana』 (the true nature of Dharma). 『Like seeing self and others is not seeing』 means that if one clings to the concept of 『non-self』 (Anatman) and considers it the correct view, that is also not a true view. 『Why are these two views called non-seeing?』 This question is posed to introduce the second half of the verse, meaning that these two views of 『non-self』 and 『non-Dharma』 should be correct understandings, so why are they said to be not true views? The second half of the verse answers, 『These are subtle obstacles, far from seeing true suchness.』 『What is this again?』 asks why this verse says that these two views are subtle obstacles that cause one to be 『far from seeing true suchness』? The explanation is 『Seeing self, seeing others, seeing Dharma, these are subtle obstacles,』 summarizing these two views as names for obstacles. 『Because not seeing those two』 explains the meaning of being an obstacle. 『Therefore, seeing Dharma is considered to be far away』 These two views are not obstacles for the practitioners of the Sravaka (voice-hearer) vehicle, but they are harmful to the practitioners of the Bodhisattva vehicle, so it is said that 『seeing true suchness is far away.』 『Again, knowing thus』 etc. The previous verse has already been quoted and summarized, so why is it quoted again here? Because the previous verse only explained that those who obtain this knowledge, view, and faith are all free from the subtle obstacles of 『non-self』 and 『non-Dharma,』 but it has not yet explained the meaning of 『knowledge,』 『view,』 and 『faith.』 Now, a verse will be used to explain them, so it is quoted again. The fifth verse, 『Two wisdoms and Samadhi (concentration), thus one attains distance,』 the above two lines explain that the Bodhisattva who aspires to Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta (unexcelled complete enlightenment mind) in the sutra should know, see, and believe in this way. The reason for clarifying this is that the above says that those who cling to the 『two emptinesses』 (emptiness of self and emptiness of Dharma) have subtle obstacles in their minds, so they cannot be called enlightened. It is explained that those who see true suchness are free from subtle obstacles and can be called enlightened. But it is not yet known what kind of person can see true suchness and be free from subtle obstacles? Now, two kinds of Bodhisattvas are distinguished, who possess merit and wisdom, can see the profound truth of true suchness, and can be free from subtle obstacles. 『Two wisdoms』 refers to the worldly wisdom before the ten Bhumis (stages) of a Bodhisattva and the wisdom of the first principle on the Bhumis of a Bodhisattva, these are the two wisdoms. Worldly wisdom explains 『knowing thus』 in the sutra. The wisdom of the first principle explains 『seeing thus』 in the sutra. 『And Samadhi』 refers to countless Samadhis (meditative states) such as freedom from defilement, explaining 『believing thus』 in the sutra. Therefore, it is said 『Two wisdoms and

---

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：化佛既不修行斷惑、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？噁心毀害，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佈施之福，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「

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 三昧（Samadhi，一種精神集中狀態）也。』如是得遠離』，說明具備智慧和三昧兩種功德的人，能夠徹底明瞭真理，遠離細微的障礙。』化身示現福』，是因為之前的經文里有人疑惑：化身佛既然不修行斷除迷惑、不證得菩提（Bodhi，覺悟），也不說法，有生滅去來，不是真正的佛，那麼供養化身佛，是有福德還是沒有福德呢？如果得到福德，與供養真佛相比，是有差別還是沒有差別呢？惡意譭謗損害化身佛，罪過又如何呢？所以回答說』化身示現福，非無無盡福』，說明化身佛雖然不修行證果，但是由於真身為根本，眾生有所感應，聖人就會應感而垂示。這種應化佛是從真身處而來，與真佛有其相同之處，而且應化佛不會說自己是化身佛，所以供養化身佛所得的功德與供養真佛沒有差別。示現是有福德的，不是沒有無盡的福德，而是有無量無邊的功德。經文引用用七寶佈施的福德雖然多，但是不如供養化身佛，也不及接受化身佛所說的經教所得的福德多。然而經文中只是辨明受持化身佛所說的經教尚且勝過七寶佈施的福德，由此可知供養化身佛也勝過七寶佈施的福德。這兩句，解釋了經文中的』若有發菩提心者至無量阿僧祇（Asamkhya，無數）』。 』此義云何？示現世智至遠離彼障』，解釋偈頌中的前兩句。

』是故重說勝福譬喻』，解釋下半偈。』是故』，是因為之前有人疑惑：供養應化佛以及受持應化佛所說，是有福德還是沒有福德？所以我引用殊勝福德的譬喻來解釋這個疑惑。』云何為人演說而不名為說』等，為什麼這樣說呢？這是將要用偈頌來解釋這段經文，所以先提出來作為提問。問：這部經為他人演說，應該稱之為說。為什麼卻說不名為說呢？所以問為什麼這樣說。

第六說

【English Translation】 English version: Samadhi (Samadhi, a state of mental concentration). 'Thus obtaining detachment' explains that a person possessing the two merits of wisdom and Samadhi can thoroughly understand the truth and be detached from subtle obstacles. 'Manifesting blessings through transformation bodies' addresses a doubt raised in previous sutras: Since transformation Buddhas do not cultivate to sever delusions, do not attain Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment), do not preach the Dharma, and are subject to birth, death, coming, and going, and are not real Buddhas, does offering to transformation Buddhas bring blessings or not? If blessings are obtained, is there a difference between offering to transformation Buddhas and offering to true Buddhas? What is the sin of maliciously slandering and harming transformation Buddhas? Therefore, the answer is 'Manifesting blessings through transformation bodies, there is no end to blessings,' explaining that although transformation Buddhas do not cultivate to attain fruition, they are rooted in the true body, and sentient beings have a response, so the sage responds to the feeling and manifests. This response Buddha comes from the true body, sharing a commonality with the true Buddha, and the response Buddha does not claim to be a transformation Buddha, so the merit of offering to a transformation Buddha is no different from offering to a true Buddha. Manifestation is with blessings, not without endless blessings, but with immeasurable and boundless merits. The sutra cites that although the merit of giving with the seven treasures is great, it is not as great as offering to a transformation Buddha, nor is it as great as receiving the teachings spoken by a transformation Buddha. However, the sutra only clarifies that receiving and upholding the teachings spoken by a transformation Buddha is superior to the merit of giving with the seven treasures, thus it is known that offering to a transformation Buddha is also superior to the merit of giving with the seven treasures. These two sentences explain 'If there are those who generate the mind of Bodhi to immeasurable Asamkhya (Asamkhya, countless).' 'What is the meaning of this? Manifesting worldly wisdom to being detached from those obstacles' explains the first two lines of the verse.

'Therefore, the parable of superior blessings is repeated' explains the second half of the verse. 'Therefore' is because someone previously doubted: Does offering to a response Buddha and receiving the teachings spoken by a response Buddha bring blessings or not? Therefore, I cite the parable of superior merit to explain this doubt. 'How can one expound for others and not be called expounding?' etc., why is it said like this? This is because a verse is about to be used to explain this passage of scripture, so it is brought up as a question. Question: This sutra, when expounded for others, should be called expounding. Why is it said that it is not called expounding? Therefore, it is asked why it is said like this.

Sixth discourse

---

諸佛說法時」一偈，釋經中「云何為人演說而不名說」等經文也。經中疑雲：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，于真法界中非一處住、不異處住。便生疑雲：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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於諸佛說法時的偈頌，解釋了經文中『如何為人演說而不稱為說』等經文。經中存在疑問：因為化佛（Nirmanakaya Buddha，應化之佛）並非真實存在，所以所說的經教也應該是不正確的說法。因為有這樣的疑問，所以偈頌解釋說『諸佛說法時，不言是化身』。『說法時』指的是眾生有所感應，沒有八難（Ashta-Aksana，八種障礙修行的處境），接受佛法教導的時候。說明應化身佛（Nirmanakaya Buddha）應眾生的感應而出現，在說法的時候，即使化身不是真實的，但所說的言教是正確的說法。為什麼這麼說呢？下句說『不言是化身』，說明化身佛為眾生說法時，不說『我是化佛』。如果說『我是化佛』，可能會讓眾生不生恭敬心。既然不恭敬相信，那麼即使化現也沒有益處，所以不說『我是化佛』。因為不說『我是化佛』，所以所說的經教眾生信受，有很多利益，這就是正確的說法。所以下半偈說『以不如是說，是故彼說正』。

『一切有為法，如星翳燈』等，這一偈是第十一段經，名為不住道分（Non-abiding Path Section）。這部經為什麼名為不住道呢？說明諸佛如來以出世的妙智，觀察九種有為法（Nine conditioned Dharmas）即是涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。不同於凡夫貪戀世間，也不同於二乘（Two Vehicles，聲聞和緣覺）安於涅槃。不住于這兩種道，所以叫做不住道。之所以要說這個，是爲了解釋疑問。前一段的微塵喻經，說明諸佛如來成就正覺（Enlightenment）時，斷盡了二障（Two obscurations，煩惱障和所知障），所以在真法界（Dharmadhatu，法界）中非一處住、非異處住。於是產生疑問：諸佛如來，是像那些微塵一樣體性空無，畢竟沒有身體嗎？還是確實有身體呢？如果有身體，身體應該有住處，為什麼說非一處住、非異處住呢？如果有住處，是在世間中住？還是在涅槃中住呢？如果在世間中住，為什麼前一段經文說如來入涅槃去了？如果在涅槃中住，又為什麼說如來來到世間呢？

【English Translation】 English version The verse about 『When the Buddhas preach the Dharma,』 explains scriptures such as 『How does one expound for others without naming it as expounding?』 Doubts arise in the scripture: Because the Nirmanakaya Buddha (Transformation Body Buddha) is not real, the teachings expounded should also be incorrect. Because of this doubt, the verse explains, 『When the Buddhas preach the Dharma, they do not say they are transformation bodies.』 『When preaching the Dharma』 refers to when sentient beings have a response, are free from the eight adversities (Ashta-Aksana, eight conditions that hinder practice), and receive the teachings. It clarifies that the Nirmanakaya Buddha appears in response to the feelings of sentient beings, and when preaching the Dharma, even if the transformation body is not real, the teachings expounded are correct. Why is this so? The following line says, 『They do not say they are transformation bodies,』 clarifying that when the transformation body Buddha preaches the Dharma to sentient beings, they do not say, 『I am a transformation Buddha.』 If they said, 『I am a transformation Buddha,』 it might cause sentient beings not to generate respect. Since they do not respectfully believe, even transformation would be useless, so they do not say, 『I am a transformation Buddha.』 Because they do not say, 『I am a transformation Buddha,』 the teachings expounded are believed and accepted by sentient beings, bringing many benefits, which is the correct way of expounding. Therefore, the second half of the verse says, 『Because they do not speak in this way, therefore their speech is correct.』

『All conditioned Dharmas are like stars, illusions, lamps,』 etc., this verse is the tenth-first section of the scripture, named the Non-abiding Path Section. Why is this scripture named the Non-abiding Path? It explains that the Buddhas and Tathagatas, with their transcendent wisdom, observe the nine conditioned Dharmas (Nine conditioned Dharmas) as Nirvana (Nirvana, cessation). They are different from ordinary people who are attached to the world, and also different from the Two Vehicles (Two Vehicles, Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) who are content with Nirvana. Not abiding in these two paths, it is called the Non-abiding Path. The reason for this explanation is to resolve doubts. The previous section, the Microcosm Parable Scripture, explains that when the Buddhas and Tathagatas attain Enlightenment, they completely eradicate the two obscurations (Two obscurations, afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations), so in the Dharmadhatu (Dharmadhatu, the realm of Dharma) they do not abide in one place, nor do they abide in a different place. Thus, doubts arise: Are the Buddhas and Tathagatas like those microcosms, empty in nature, ultimately without a body? Or do they truly have a body? If they have a body, the body should have a dwelling place, so why is it said that they do not abide in one place, nor do they abide in a different place? If they have a dwelling place, do they dwell in the world? Or do they dwell in Nirvana? If they dwell in the world, why did the previous scripture say that the Tathagata entered Nirvana? If they dwell in Nirvana, then why is it said that the Tathagata comes into the world?

---

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；又具慈悲大愿故，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，中道取證故住于涅槃。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」；「夢電云」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，于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，要以清油凈炷及以燈爐，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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『見心』（能見之心）可以用星辰來比喻。因為外道和凡夫大多認為日月星辰是恒常真實的，也認為內心是恒常真實的，所以就根據他們的這種想法來破斥他們。日月星辰互相掩蓋、轉移不定，所以不是真實的；心法也是這樣，因為有少許相似之處，所以用天上的星宿來比喻。太陽沒有出來的時候，星辰在空中顯現，有照亮萬物的功用。太陽出來之後，星辰的光明全部消失，雖然存在卻不顯現，這是因為大的遮蔽了小的。能見之心也是這樣，在沒有生起出世的證悟智慧和無漏聖解的時候，妄想心法有取境的作用。聖解生起之後，妄想心法消滅無餘，因為它是不真實的。這樣觀察的時候，就能理解能見六識本來就是空寂的，都是虛幻不實的法。 二、用『如翳』（眼翳）來比喻能見之心。這第二種比喻和第一種有什麼不同呢？有小乘人認為：憑什麼知道心和心法是真實的呢？因為它們能夠見到前面的境界，能夠攝取六塵，所以是真實的。這就好比眼翳。小乘人認為眼翳所見的『揵闥婆城』（海市蜃樓）等是虛妄不實的，而能見的六識以及所見的六塵是真實的。如來就根據他們所理解的，用眼翳來比喻，破除他們的執著。就像人眼睛上有眼翳，在虛空中錯誤地看到毛髮輪等顏色，認為它們是真實的。觀察有為法的心也是這樣，在色等有為虛妄法中，認為不真實的是真實的，因為心顛倒地攝取境界。 三、用『如燈』來比喻能見之心。這第三種比喻和前兩種有什麼不同呢？解釋說：二乘和外道都見到、都知道水流和燈焰是遷流變化不停留的，所以就根據他們所認識的來曉喻他們，所以用燈來比喻內在的識。就像世人點燈，需要清凈的油、乾淨的燈芯以及燈盞，這三種條件相互配合才能點燃。識法也是這樣，需要依靠根塵和合，因為貪愛等煩惱，識法才能生起，有攝取境界的作用。證悟智慧生起的時候，這個識就寂然不動，沒有攝取境界的作用，因為它本身就是虛幻不實的。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Seeing-mind' (the mind that can see) can be compared to stars. Because heretics and ordinary people mostly believe that the sun, moon, and stars are constant and real, and also believe that the inner mind is constant and real, they are refuted based on this idea. The sun, moon, and stars obscure each other and shift constantly, so they are not real; the mind-dhamma is also like this, because there are slight similarities, it is compared to the stars in the sky. When the sun has not yet risen, the stars appear in the sky, having the function of illuminating all things. After the sun rises, the light of the stars completely disappears, although they exist, they do not appear, because the large obscures the small. The seeing-mind is also like this, before the arising of transcendent wisdom and undefiled holy understanding, the deluded mind-dhamma has the function of grasping objects. After the holy understanding arises, the deluded mind-dhamma is extinguished without remainder, because it is not real. When observing in this way, one can understand that the seeing six consciousnesses are originally empty and still, and are all illusory and unreal dharmas. Second, 'like cataracts' is used to describe the seeing-mind. What is the difference between this second metaphor and the first? Some Hinayana practitioners believe: How do we know that the mind and mind-dhamma are real? Because they can see the front realm and can grasp the six dusts, so they are real. This is like cataracts. Hinayana practitioners believe that the 'Gandharva city' (mirage) seen by cataracts is illusory and unreal, while the seeing six consciousnesses and the seen six dusts are real. The Tathagata, based on their understanding, uses cataracts as a metaphor to break their attachments. Just like a person with cataracts in their eyes, mistakenly sees hair-wheels and other colors in the empty space, and believes them to be real. Observing the mind of conditioned dharmas is also like this, in the conditioned and illusory dharmas such as form, believing that what is unreal is real, because the mind perversely grasps the realm. Third, 'like a lamp' is used to describe the seeing-mind. What is the difference between this third metaphor and the previous two? The explanation says: The two vehicles and heretics all see and know that the flowing water and the flame of a lamp are constantly changing and do not stay, so they are enlightened based on what they know, so the lamp is used to describe the inner consciousness. Just like people lighting a lamp, it requires clean oil, a clean wick, and a lamp holder, these three conditions must cooperate with each other to be lit. The consciousness-dhamma is also like this, it needs to rely on the aggregation of roots and dust, because of afflictions such as greed and love, the consciousness-dhamma can arise, having the function of grasping the realm. When the wisdom of enlightenment arises, this consciousness becomes still and does not have the function of grasping the realm, because it is illusory and unreal in itself.

---

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，感得凈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，唸唸遷謝，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，暫有不亭速于泡沫。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于住，如人夢受五欲及見種種色物，寤已則無，唯可念知不可重睹，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，現在峻轉疾極于電，故以為喻也。九、如雲者，如虛空中清凈無雲，以眾生不可思議業有，龍為本故，于虛空中未現云現、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勛故，能令未現法現、

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：虛妄的緣故。這個能見之心既然不真實，那麼它背離了什麼法，又趨向于什麼法呢？

四、如幻：就像世間的幻術師，幻化出四種軍隊以及男女等等，種種隨意自在，都能看見，但沒有真實性。器世間（Utensil world）也是這樣，因為眾生造作善惡業種種不同，隨著那些眾生善惡的業力，感得清凈或污穢的土地，也有萬種品類的差別。這是由於業力所見不同，並非是真實存在的。就像有人把虛空當作大地，把大地當作虛空；有人把水當作火來用，把火當作水來用，要知道哪個是真實的呢？就像婆羅墮（Bharadvaja）婆羅門（Brahmin），以火為食物，在虛空中睡眠，這就是這樣的事情。

五、如露：就像草上的朝露，見到太陽就會消落。陰身（Skandha body）也是這樣，生出來之後立刻就滅亡，唸唸遷謝，暫時不能停留，因為它的體性虛幻不實，是無常的。六、如泡：就像因為天上落下的雨滴擊打地上的水而形成泡沫，愚癡的小孩以為是流離珠（crystal bead），心中產生愛戀執著，但須臾之間就會滅亡，不能長久存在。三受（Three feelings）也是這樣，從根、塵、識（Root, dust, consciousness）三者和合之後產生苦、樂等感受，暫時存在不能停留，比泡沫還要迅速。這個世界的身、苦樂等感受不真實就像這樣，那麼它背離了什麼法，又趨向于什麼法呢？

七、如夢：前面的六種有為虛妄之法已經謝滅而停止，就像人在夢中感受五欲（Five desires），以及看見種種色相事物，醒來之後就什麼都沒有了，只能回憶知道，不能再次看見，過去遷滅就像夢醒一樣沒有差別。八、如電：就像閃電的光芒暫時顯現，道理上不能長久停留。六種有為，現在迅速運轉，快到極點就像閃電一樣，所以用它來比喻。九、如雲：就像虛空中清凈沒有云，因為眾生不可思議的業力，以龍（Naga）為根本，所以在虛空中未曾顯現的云顯現出來，顯現之後又消滅。六種有為未曾生起的法也是這樣，由於有無始以來的阿梨耶識（Alaya-vijñana）根本種子無明住地（Avidya-sthiti）的熏習，能夠使未曾顯現的法顯現出來。

【English Translation】 English version: It is due to falsity. Since this mind that can see is not real, what Dharma does it turn away from, and what Dharma does it turn towards?

Four, like an illusion: Just like a magician in the world, who conjures up four types of troops, men and women, etc., in various ways at will, all of which can be seen, but are not real. The Utensil world is also like this, because sentient beings create different kinds of good and evil karma. According to the good and evil karma of those sentient beings, they experience pure or impure lands, which also have ten thousand kinds of differences. This is due to the differences in what is seen through karma, and is not actually real. It is like someone who takes emptiness as the earth and the earth as emptiness; someone who uses water as fire and fire as water. How can one know which is real? Like Bharadvaja the Brahmin, who takes fire as food and sleeps in emptiness, that is the kind of thing.

Five, like dew: Like morning dew on the grass, which disappears when it sees the sun. The Skandha body is also like this, it is born and then immediately disappears, changing from moment to moment, and cannot stay for long, because its nature is illusory and impermanent. Six, like a bubble: Like bubbles formed when raindrops from the sky hit the water on the ground. Foolish children think they are crystal beads, and develop love and attachment, but they disappear in an instant and cannot last long. The Three feelings are also like this, arising from the combination of root, dust, and consciousness, producing feelings of suffering, joy, etc., which exist temporarily and are even faster than bubbles. The body, suffering, joy, etc. in this world are unreal like this, so what Dharma does it turn away from, and what Dharma does it turn towards?

Seven, like a dream: The previous six kinds of conditioned and false dharmas have already ceased and stopped, just like a person in a dream experiencing the five desires and seeing various forms and objects. When they wake up, there is nothing left, only memories that can be known, but cannot be seen again. The past that has passed away is no different from waking up from a dream. Eight, like lightning: Like the flash of lightning that appears temporarily, it cannot last long in principle. The six kinds of conditioned things are now rapidly changing, extremely fast like lightning, so it is used as a metaphor. Nine, like clouds: Like the emptiness that is pure and without clouds, because of the inconceivable karma of sentient beings, with the Naga as the root, clouds that have not yet appeared appear in the emptiness, and after appearing, they disappear again. The six kinds of conditioned dharmas that have not yet arisen are also like this. Due to the beginningless Alaya-vijñana, the fundamental seed of Avidya-sthiti, it can cause dharmas that have not yet appeared to appear.

---

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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在已經結束了。因為它不真實，所以用云來比喻它。然而這六種有為法，既然被過去、現在、未來三世所轉變，虛妄的情感認為它是存在的，但它的本體並不真實，和九種比喻沒有區別。如果這樣，那麼是背離了什麼樣的法，趨向了什麼樣的法呢？『應當這樣觀察』的意思是，九種有為法就像九種比喻，應當以不真實的態度來觀察。應當說一切有為法都像星星，應當這樣觀察，乃至像云，都應當這樣說。這些有為法既然如此不真實，那麼本來就是寂滅的。本來就是寂滅的，那麼就只有唯一的真如（Tathata，事物的真實如是之相）。真如寂滅，就是涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）。因此，諸佛如來看到世間就是涅槃，所以不同於二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）厭惡背離生死，喜歡安住在涅槃，而不去教化眾生。看到涅槃就是世間，所以不同於凡夫眾生在生死中輪迴而沒有厭倦，不尋求出世的涅槃解脫之果。 『論曰：復有疑』等，這一段長行論，論主（作者）簡略地作了疑問和解答的意思。如果諸佛如來經常為眾生說法，那麼這應該是住在世間；又說如來進入涅槃，那就是住在涅槃。為什麼上面的論述中說不住在一處，也不住在不同的地方呢？爲了斷除這個疑問，如來說了偈語來比喻，這是爲了簡略地回答疑問，闡述九種比喻的來意。這一偈經，論主用三行偈來解釋：第一偈，用問答來解釋疑問，說明不住之道；第二偈，指出所觀察的九種有為境界；第三偈，再次舉出九種有為法，回答難題，說明觀察的有所得。『非有為非離』的意思是，說『非有』，說明諸佛所得到的常住涅槃出世間法的本體，斷絕了生滅起動、沒有始終的相狀，所以不是有為法。如果不是有為法，那麼就可以截然分開，不住在有為法中，所以說『非離』。說明有為法的真實體性就是涅槃，不離開有為之外還有涅槃。所以下一句說『諸如來涅槃』，明確證明證得大涅槃時，不住在...

【English Translation】 English version: Now it is finished. Because it is unreal, it is likened to a cloud. However, these six types of conditioned dharmas (Samskrta dharmas), since they are transformed by the three times (past, present, and future), deluded emotions consider them to exist, but their essence is not real, and there is no difference from the nine similes. If so, then what kind of dharma is being turned away from, and what kind of dharma is being approached? 『One should observe in this way』 means that the nine types of conditioned dharmas are like nine types of similes, and one should observe them with an attitude of unreality. One should say that all conditioned dharmas are like stars, and one should observe in this way, and even like clouds, one should say in this way. Since these conditioned dharmas are so unreal, then they are originally quiescent. Originally quiescent, then there is only the one True Thusness (Tathata, the true suchness of things). True Thusness quiescent is Nirvana (Nirvana, liberation). Therefore, all Buddhas and Tathagatas see the world as Nirvana, so they are different from the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) who are disgusted with turning away from birth and death, and like to dwell in Nirvana, and do not transform sentient beings. Seeing Nirvana as the world, so they are different from ordinary sentient beings who revolve in birth and death without weariness, and do not seek the fruit of transcendent Nirvana liberation. 『The Treatise says: There is further doubt,』 etc. In this long passage of the treatise, the author briefly presents the meaning of questions and answers. If all Buddhas and Tathagatas are constantly speaking the Dharma for sentient beings, then this should be dwelling in the world; and it is also said that the Tathagata enters Nirvana, which is dwelling in Nirvana. Why does the above discussion say that one does not dwell in one place, nor does one dwell in different places? In order to dispel this doubt, the Tathagata spoke verses as similes, which is to briefly answer the doubt and explain the intention of the nine similes. This verse of scripture, the author explains with three lines of verses: the first verse, uses questions and answers to explain doubts, clarifying the path of non-dwelling; the second verse, points out the nine types of conditioned realms to be observed; the third verse, again cites the nine types of conditioned dharmas, answering the difficult question and explaining what is gained from observation. 『Not conditioned nor separate』 means that saying 『not conditioned』 explains that the essence of the permanent Nirvana transcendent dharma obtained by the Buddhas cuts off the appearance of arising, ceasing, moving, and having no beginning or end, so it is not a conditioned dharma. If it is not a conditioned dharma, then it can be clearly separated and not dwell in the conditioned dharma, so it is said 『not separate.』 It explains that the true nature of conditioned dharmas is Nirvana, and there is no Nirvana outside of conditioned dharmas. Therefore, the next sentence says 『All Tathagatas Nirvana,』 clearly proving that when attaining Great Nirvana, one does not dwell in...

---

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舍有為而取涅槃。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凈涅槃，既見性凈涅槃，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，以不住世間者結后句也。「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

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：在有為法（Samskrta-dharma，指因緣和合而生的事物）中，也不離有為法。如果不離有為法，那就是住在世間；如果不是有為法，那就是住在涅槃（Nirvana，指解脫生死的狀態）。為什麼說諸佛不住在涅槃，也不住在世間呢？所以下半偈回答說：『九種有為法，妙智正觀故』，說明諸佛如來得出世的正觀，見到有為法本來就是寂滅，那就是涅槃的本性，不同於聲聞（Sravaka，指聽聞佛法而修行的弟子）見到世間和涅槃是不同的，因此厭棄有為而取涅槃。現在說有為就是涅槃，這是佛性的妙有常住涅槃。說明諸佛如來觀察有為法就是性凈涅槃，既然見到性凈涅槃，斷除二障（煩惱障和所知障）永遠窮盡，得到這種妙智正觀時，就能立即得到那現果方便涅槃，所以不捨棄有為而住在涅槃。『此義云何？諸佛涅槃』，這是提偈中的第二句。『非有為法亦不離有為法』，這是解釋偈中的上句。『何以故』，這是解釋前面說的諸佛涅槃，為什麼不是有為法，卻又說不離有為法呢？就是解釋說，因為諸佛得到涅槃，出離生死，所以不是有為法。『化身說法至為利益眾生故』，說明諸佛以應身（Nirmanakaya，指佛為度化眾生而示現的化身）常在世間教化，所以不離有為法。這說明諸佛以不住涅槃來總結第一句，以不住世間來總結后一句。『何故諸佛示現世間行而不住有為法中』，將要解釋下半偈，問前面說的示現世間行，為什麼諸佛應身教化示現有生老病死，卻不稱為住在有為法中呢？以下半偈回答：『九種有為法，妙智正觀故』。雖然和世間一樣有老病死，但不是有為法。『此以何義』，問這偈所說明的正觀，用什麼方法來觀察，才能得名為正觀，雖然示現有生死等世間行，卻不稱為住在有為法中呢？就解釋說『如星宿』等，是相對而言的。

【English Translation】 English version: Within conditioned dharmas (Samskrta-dharma, referring to things arising from the combination of causes and conditions), one is also not apart from conditioned dharmas. If one is not apart from conditioned dharmas, then one dwells in the world; if it is not conditioned, then one dwells in Nirvana (Nirvana, referring to the state of liberation from birth and death). Why is it said that all Buddhas neither dwell in Nirvana nor dwell in the world? Therefore, the latter half of the verse answers: 'Nine kinds of conditioned dharmas, due to the correct contemplation of wondrous wisdom,' clarifying that all Buddhas and Tathagatas attain the supramundane correct contemplation, seeing that conditioned dharmas are originally quiescent, which is the nature of Nirvana, unlike Sravakas (Sravaka, referring to disciples who practice by hearing the Buddha's teachings) who see the world and Nirvana as different, thus厭舍(厭舍) conditioned existence and taking Nirvana. Now, saying that conditioned existence is Nirvana is the wondrous existence of Buddha-nature, the permanent abiding Nirvana. It clarifies that all Buddhas and Tathagatas contemplate conditioned dharmas as the self-nature pure Nirvana. Since they see the self-nature pure Nirvana, severing the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations) completely, when they attain this wondrous wisdom and correct contemplation, they can immediately attain that present-result expedient Nirvana, therefore not abandoning conditioned existence while dwelling in Nirvana. 'What is the meaning of this? The Nirvana of all Buddhas,' this is the second line in the verse. 'Is neither a conditioned dharma nor apart from conditioned dharmas,' this explains the first line in the verse. 'Why is this so?' This explains why the Nirvana of all Buddhas is not a conditioned dharma, yet it is said to be not apart from conditioned dharmas. It explains that because all Buddhas attain Nirvana and are liberated from birth and death, it is not conditioned. 'The transformation body teaches the Dharma to greatly benefit sentient beings,' clarifying that all Buddhas constantly teach and transform in the world with their Nirmanakaya (Nirmanakaya, referring to the transformation body manifested by the Buddha to liberate sentient beings), therefore not being apart from conditioned dharmas. This clarifies that all Buddhas conclude the first line with not dwelling in Nirvana, and conclude the latter line with not dwelling in the world. 'Why do all Buddhas manifest worldly conduct but not dwell in conditioned dharmas?' This will explain the latter half of the verse, asking why the Buddhas' transformation bodies manifest birth, old age, sickness, and death while teaching and transforming, yet are not called dwelling in conditioned dharmas? The latter half of the verse answers: 'Nine kinds of conditioned dharmas, due to the correct contemplation of wondrous wisdom.' Although they have old age, sickness, and death like the world, they are not conditioned dharmas. 'What is the meaning of this?' It asks what method is used to contemplate the correct contemplation explained in this verse, so that it can be called correct contemplation, although it manifests worldly conduct such as birth and death, yet is not called dwelling in conditioned dharmas? It explains that 'like stars,' etc., is relative.

---

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，便能于有為法中，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，釋經中夢電云也。此明六種有為已謝于往名為過去，六種有為萌兆未起名未來，六種有為起於今辰唸唸生滅名為現在，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，牒前偈中后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「于有為法中，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，

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為有九種正觀，所以能夠明白諸佛觀察九種有為法是虛妄不實的。如同觀察星宿等九種法是虛妄不實的，就能在有為法中，憑藉正觀的力量，終日向世間示現修行，卻能不住于有為法之中。』這九種正觀，應當在九種境界中瞭解』，這是爲了指出正觀的境界，勸人認識它。第二偈的上句說』見相』，直接說是心見相，涵蓋了能見的三個方面，只是爲了構成偈頌，才提到了識。這一句有三個方面，說明能見的心，解釋經文中的星、翳（yì，眼睛上的障礙物）、燈三種比喻。』器身受用事』，這三個方面說明所受用的事物，解釋經文中的幻、露、泡三種比喻。』過去現在法，亦觀未來世』，說明前六種有為法在過去、現在、未來三世中流轉，解釋經文中的夢、電、云三種比喻。這說明六種有為法已經消逝於過去，稱為過去；六種有為法萌芽未起，稱為未來；六種有為法在當下生起，唸唸生滅，稱為現在，所以說是三世流轉。第三偈』觀相及受用』，』觀相』，是呼應前一偈中的』見相識』。』及受用』，是呼應前一偈中的三個』器身受用事』。』觀於三世事』，是呼應前一偈中後面的三個過去、現在、未來三世法。之所以要重複列舉這九種法，是因為有人會問：觀察這九種有為法，能得到什麼樣的功德，成就什麼樣的智慧？所以用下面的半偈回答說』于有為法中，得無垢自在』，說明觀察這九種有為法時，能得到初地以上的無漏無垢之果，無生之智，不住道解，自在功德。 』佛說是經已至信受奉行』，這是第十二流通分經。之所以接下來要說明流通，是因為上面已經說法，正確地辨明了經的本體，信受領悟的人很多。現在將要說明如來說法，不僅僅是爲了利益當時的人，也希望恩澤能夠普及到遙遠的未來，所以要使經流通到未來。

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the nine kinds of Right Contemplation, it becomes clear that the Buddhas observe the nine kinds of conditioned dharmas (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ) as being illusory and unreal. Just as observing the nine kinds of dharmas such as stars is illusory and unreal, one can, within conditioned dharmas, rely on the power of Right Contemplation to demonstrate practice to the world all day long, yet be able to not dwell in conditioned dharmas. 'These nine kinds of Right Contemplation should be understood in the nine kinds of realms,' this is to point out the realm of Right Contemplation and encourage people to recognize it. The upper line of the second verse says 'seeing appearances,' directly saying that the mind sees appearances, encompassing the three aspects of the seeing faculty, but only for the sake of forming a verse, it mentions consciousness (識, shí). This line has three aspects, explaining the seeing mind, explaining the three metaphors of stars, cataracts (翳, yì), and lamps in the sutra. 'Vessels, body, and things used,' these three aspects explain the things that are used, explaining the three metaphors of illusions, dew, and bubbles in the sutra. 'Past and present dharmas, also contemplate the future world,' explaining that the previous six kinds of conditioned dharmas revolve in the three periods of past, present, and future, explaining the three metaphors of dreams, lightning, and clouds in the sutra. This explains that the six kinds of conditioned dharmas that have already passed into the past are called the past; the six kinds of conditioned dharmas that have not yet sprouted are called the future; the six kinds of conditioned dharmas that arise in the present moment, arising and ceasing moment by moment, are called the present, so it is said that they revolve in the three periods. The third verse 'contemplate appearances and things used,' 'contemplate appearances,' echoes the 'seeing appearances and consciousness' in the previous verse. 'And things used,' echoes the three 'vessels, body, and things used' in the previous verse. 'Contemplate the affairs of the three periods,' echoes the latter three past, present, and future dharmas of the three periods in the previous verse. The reason for repeatedly listing these nine kinds of dharmas is because someone might ask: What kind of merit can be obtained by contemplating these nine kinds of conditioned dharmas, and what kind of wisdom can be achieved? Therefore, the following half-verse answers 'within conditioned dharmas, one obtains stainless freedom,' explaining that when contemplating these nine kinds of conditioned dharmas, one can obtain the fruit of non-outflow and stainlessness above the first ground (初地, chū dì), the wisdom of non-arising, non-dwelling in the path of liberation, and the merit of unhinderedness. 'The Buddha having spoken this sutra, they believed, accepted, and practiced it,' this is the twelfth section on dissemination. The reason for explaining dissemination next is because the Dharma has been spoken above, correctly identifying the essence of the sutra, and many people have believed and understood it. Now it will be explained that the Buddha's speaking of the Dharma is not only for the benefit of the people of that time, but also in the hope that the grace can extend to the distant future, so the sutra should be disseminated to the future.

---

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、說者清凈，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，故曰說者清凈也。二、所說清凈，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，故曰所說清凈也。三、受者清凈，時會大眾一心專聽無見諍過，不言我法是、彼法非，心無疑濁，故曰清凈也。一切大眾，慶睹天尊，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、凈土。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》並《地持論》，赍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。「回此福德施群生」者，然菩薩大士每日事興愿故，論主自申己所有造論傳訓功德，不專獨善，乃回與法界眾生，同向無上菩提心也。

金剛仙論卷第十

【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 雖然經文內容廣泛，但其所闡明的對象不外乎眾生（Sattvas，指有情眾生）、菩薩（Bodhisattvas，指追求覺悟的修行者）、佛（Buddhas，指覺悟者）和凈土（Pure Lands，指清凈的佛國）。雖然這裡說得很簡略，但其所闡明的，也涵蓋了這四個方面，所以說是總持法（Dharani，指總攝憶持佛法之能力）。 『不可稱量』，說明這部經的義理深奧，不是二乘（指聲聞乘和緣覺乘，小乘佛教的兩種主要流派）的小智慧所能測度的。 『深句義』，是指這部經的文句和次第都具有深刻的含義。這裡可能會產生疑問：如果這部《金剛般若經》的句義和次第難以理解，不是可以輕易測度的，那麼論主（指天親菩薩，Vasubandhu）是如何理解並造論解釋它的呢？ 所以說『從尊者聞』，表明論主自己說這部《金剛般若經》甚深法門的義理並非依靠自己的智慧來理解，而是從尊者，胡名阿僧呿（Asanga），漢譯為無障礙比丘（Unobstructed Bhiksu）那裡聽聞，並且更遠地從彌勒世尊（Maitreya Buddha）那裡聽聞，表明推崇功德有所歸屬，不是謬傳，所以說是從尊者那裡聽聞。 『及廣說』，說明無障礙比丘是性地菩薩（指具有菩薩根性的修行者），博聞強記，能夠流通大乘佛法，折服外道。彌勒世尊憐憫閻浮提（Jambudvipa，指我們所居住的這個世界）的人們，創作了《金剛般若經義釋》和《地持論》（Bodhisattvabhumi），交給無障礙比丘讓他流通。然而彌勒世尊只作了長行（散文體）的解釋，論主天親從無障礙比丘那裡學到后，又尋究這部經論的意義，更作偈論（詩頌體）廣泛地提出疑問來解釋這部經，總共有八十偈，並且作了長行論釋，又將這部論轉教給金剛仙論師（Vajrasena）等人。這位金剛仙又轉教給無盡意（Aksayamati），無盡意又轉教給聖濟（Srijina），聖濟轉教給菩提留支（Bodhiruci），這樣輾轉相授，直到現在大約二百年，未曾斷絕，所以說是及廣說。 『回此福德施群生』，菩薩大士每日都有所事所愿，論主自己陳述自己所有造論傳訓的功德，不專為自己享用，而是迴向給法界（Dharmadhatu，指宇宙萬有）眾生，共同趨向無上菩提心（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta，指追求無上正等正覺之心）。 《金剛仙論》卷第十

【English Translation】 English version: Although the text is extensive, what it elucidates does not go beyond sentient beings (Sattvas, referring to beings with consciousness), Bodhisattvas (those who aspire to enlightenment), Buddhas (the enlightened ones), and Pure Lands (pure Buddha realms). Although this is briefly stated, what it elucidates also encompasses these four aspects, hence it is called the Dharani (the power to uphold and remember the Buddha's teachings). 'Immeasurable' indicates that the principles of this scripture are profound and cannot be fathomed by the limited wisdom of the Two Vehicles (referring to the Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, the two main schools of Theravada Buddhism). 'Profound in meaning of phrases' refers to the fact that the phrases and sequence of this scripture have profound meanings. A question may arise here: If the meaning and sequence of this 'Vajra Prajna Sutra' are difficult to understand and not easily fathomable, how did the commentator (referring to Vasubandhu) understand and create a commentary to explain it? Therefore, it is said 'heard from the Venerable One,' indicating that the commentator himself stated that the meaning of this profound Dharma gate of the 'Vajra Prajna Sutra' was not understood by his own wisdom, but was heard from the Venerable One, whose Sanskrit name is Asanga, translated into Chinese as Unobstructed Bhiksu (Unobstructed Monk), and further back, heard from Maitreya Buddha, indicating that the merit is attributed to its source and is not a false transmission, hence it is said to be heard from the Venerable One. 'And widely expounded' indicates that the Unobstructed Bhiksu is a Bodhisattva of the nature ground (referring to a practitioner with Bodhisattva nature), with great learning and strong memory, capable of propagating Mahayana Buddhism and subduing external paths. Maitreya Buddha, out of compassion for the people of Jambudvipa (referring to the world we live in), created the 'Commentary on the Vajra Prajna Sutra' and the 'Bodhisattvabhumi Sastra', entrusting them to the Unobstructed Bhiksu to circulate. However, Maitreya Buddha only created the prose explanation; the commentator Vasubandhu, after learning from the Unobstructed Bhiksu, further explored the meaning of this scripture and commentary, and created verse commentaries, extensively raising questions to explain this scripture, totaling eighty verses, and also created prose commentaries, and then passed this commentary on to Vajrasena and others. This Vajrasena then passed it on to Aksayamati, Aksayamati then passed it on to Srijina, Srijina passed it on to Bodhiruci, and so on, passing it down to the present day for about two hundred years, without interruption, hence it is said to be widely expounded. 'Dedicate this merit to all beings' because Bodhisattvas have daily tasks and vows, the commentator himself states all the merits of creating and transmitting the commentary, not exclusively for his own benefit, but dedicating it to all beings in the Dharmadhatu (referring to the entirety of existence), together aspiring to Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi-citta (the mind of seeking supreme perfect enlightenment). Vajrasena Commentary, Volume 10

---