[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [金剛般若疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699) › 2.5.4 # 金剛般若疏 2.5.4 金剛般若疏 2.5.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.4) 次答住問亦非實空，若是實空，應明無有諸法、無有修行。 今乃明於一切法無所依住而修檀等萬行，豈偏是實空耶？ 今依論經，凡有四句問：一問云何發菩提心？ 二問云何應住； 三問云何修行； 四問云何降伏。 所以有此四問者，凡為菩薩，必須發菩提心，故前問發心。 若不依般若發心，則住顛倒，不住般若。 今依般若發心，則住般若、不住顛倒，故次問住菩提心。 既得住立，故修行萬行，所以次問修行。 以修無所得行，故顛倒有得之心析伏不起，所以次問降伏也。 「佛言：善哉」，此下第二如來答問。 開為二別：一、答問緣起； 二、正答。 答問緣起，復開為二：一、美其歎請； 二則許酬其問。 然佛歎善吉者，良由善吉歎得時宜、問復會道，故佛歎之。 又善吉是聲聞人，今遂能問菩薩事，此為希有，故復歎之。 又時會恐菩薩道深，小乘智淺，問容僻謬，故印歎之，令眾尊人重法也。 「汝今諦聽」下，此第二句許答其問。 就文為二：初、正誡許； 次、受旨願聞。 此兩易知，皆如文所列。 「佛告須菩提」下，第二、如來正答。 就正答中，若依論判，則應開為兩則酬其四問。 次從「於意云何？ 可以身相見如來」下竟經，皆是斷疑，故論主判此章云：自下一切修多羅中斷生疑心。 前酬四問，名為略說般若； 後斷眾疑，即是廣說。 今採論意，按致一經，開為三別：第一、明般若體門； 二、明信受門； 三、明格量門。 明此三者，既稱般若波羅蜜經，故前明般若體； 既明般若體竟，必有信受人，故次明信受門； 信持則獲福無盡，故次明格量門。 又前就因果說般若，即是法門； 次就信受門說般若，即是人門； 後就功德門說般若，明人行法，故得功德也。 就前門為二：一、答其四問，即明因門； 二、斷眾疑，次辨果門。 因即無依無住，果則無相無為，般若未曾因果，為眾生故，故作因果名說。 就明因門答其四問，唯有兩章經文，由來舊釋初章經非答菩提心門，乃是答降伏心問； 次章經答其住問； 後舉佛果答菩提心問。 北地論師云：初答其住問，不答菩提心問。 今謂并不然，若言此中遍度四生，非答菩提心問者，汝復以何法名菩提心？ 又下第二周中善吉更發三問，佛答發菩提心者當生如是心，滅度一切眾生而無滅度，此即是牒菩提心問而解釋之，云何言非答菩提心耶？ 今明經雖兩章，共酬四問：初一章經答住問，即是答菩提心問； 次一章經答修行問，即是答降伏心問也。 問：云何答其住問，即是答菩提心耶？ 解云：由發菩提心故，得住大乘法。 若不發菩提心，則不住大乘。 故論云「利益深心住，此乘功德滿。 」就初經文復開為二：第一、對於善吉總勸菩薩發菩提心； 二者、正明發心之義。 初則如文。 問曰：今正辨菩提心，寧言如是降伏其心？ 答：以發一菩提心故，不起凡夫及二乘心，即是降伏。 初明遍度眾生，故異二乘心，降伏二乘； 後明度無所度，是降伏凡夫心也。 降伏二乘，即是以他降自； 降伏凡夫心，即是以無降有也。 又降伏二乘，亦得是以有降無，二乘無慈悲心、菩薩有慈悲心，故是以有降無，復以無降有，如前說也。 又此中明大慈大悲，即降伏貪瞋煩惱，故名降伏。 又菩薩雖度眾生，實無眾生可度，即是降伏眾生見也。 又菩薩若言有眾生可度，即是常見； 若言無眾生可度，則見斷見。 今雖度眾生，實無所度，故降伏常見； 雖無所度，而常度眾生，故降伏斷見也。 「所有一切眾生之類」下，此第二、正明發菩提心。 論偈云「廣大第一常，其心不顛倒，利益深心住，此乘功德滿。 」故用於四心釋此經文。 四心者：一、廣大心； 二者、第一心； 三者、常心； 四者、不顛倒心。 問：何因緣建乎四心？ 答：凡為菩薩，異凡夫、二乘，自調自度。 今言遍度三界六道，名廣大心。 > Next, replying to the question on abiding is also not substantial emptiness. If it were substantial emptiness, one should explain that there are no dharmas and no cultivation. Now it explains that one relies on and abides in nothing across all dharmas while cultivating the ten thousand practices such as dāna—how could it be one-sidedly substantial emptiness? Now, relying on the treatise and sūtra, altogether there are four questions: the first asks, "How should one bring forth the bodhicitta?"; the second asks, "How should one abide?"; the third asks, "How should one cultivate \[the practices\]?"; the fourth asks, "How should one subdue \[one's thoughts\]?" Why are there these four questions? Generally, to be a bodhisattva one must bring forth the bodhicitta; hence the first question asks about bringing forth the mind. If one does not bring forth the mind by relying on prajñā, one abides in inversion and does not abide in prajñā. Now, bringing forth the mind by relying on prajñā, one abides in prajñā and does not abide in inversion; hence the next question asks about abiding in the bodhicitta. Having attained abiding and establishment, one cultivates the ten thousand practices; hence the next question asks about cultivation. By cultivating non-apprehending practice, the inverted mind of apprehension is analysed and subdued, not arising; hence the next question asks about subduing. "The Buddha said: 'Excellent!'"—from here down is the second \[part\], the Tathāgata answering the questions. It opens into two sections: first, the circumstances of answering the questions; second, the direct answer. The circumstances of answering the questions again opens into two: first, praising his eulogy and request; second, promising to respond to his questions. Now, as for the Buddha praising Subhūti, it is truly because Subhūti's praise was timely and his question was aligned with the Way; therefore the Buddha praised him. Furthermore, Subhūti is a person of the śrāvakas, yet now he is able to ask about bodhisattva matters; this is rare, and therefore he praises him again. Furthermore, the assembly at the time feared that the bodhisattva path was deep while the wisdom of the Hīnayāna was shallow, so the questions might be deviant or mistaken; therefore he certifies and praises him, causing the assembly to revere the person and esteem the Dharma. From "Listen closely now" down is the second sentence, promising to answer his questions. Within the text there are two parts: first, the direct admonition and assent; next, receiving the instruction and wishing to hear it. These two are easy to understand, all laid out as in the text. From "The Buddha told Subhūti" down is the second \[section\], the Tathāgata's direct answer. Within the direct answer, if judged according to the treatise, it should open into two sections to respond to his four questions. Next, from "What do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by bodily marks?" down to the end of the sūtra is all the severing of doubts. Therefore the author of the treatise evaluates this section, saying: "From here down, throughout all the sūtra, doubts that arise are severed." Responding to the four questions earlier is called the brief explanation of prajñā; severing the many doubts later is the extensive explanation. Now, drawing upon the treatise's intention and following the layout of the sūtra, it is divided into three sections: first, the approach explaining the essence of prajñā; second, the approach explaining faithful reception; third, the approach explaining comparative merit. Explaining these three: since it is called the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, it first explains the essence of prajñā; having finished explaining the essence of prajñā, there must be persons who faithfully receive it, so next it explains the approach of faithful reception; if one faithfully upholds it, one obtains inexhaustible blessings, so next it explains the approach of comparative merit. Furthermore, earlier explaining prajñā in terms of cause and effect is the approach of the Dharma; next, explaining prajñā in terms of the approach of faithful reception is the approach of persons; later, explaining prajñā in terms of the approach of merit explains that when persons practice the Dharma, they therefore obtain merit. Within the former approach there are two: first, answering his four questions, which explains the approach of the cause; second, severing the many doubts, which next distinguishes the approach of the fruit. The cause is without reliance and non-abiding; the fruit is without lakṣaṇas and unconditioned. Prajñā has never been cause and effect; for the sake of sentient beings, it is spoken of under the names of cause and effect. Within answering his four questions in explaining the approach of the cause, there are only two chapters of sūtra text. Traditionally, the old commentators explained that the first chapter of the sūtra does not answer the approach of the bodhicitta, but rather answers the question on subduing the mind; the next chapter of the sūtra answers his question on abiding; later, adducing the Buddha's fruit answers the question on the bodhicitta. The treatise masters of the Northern regions said: "The first answers his question on abiding, not the question on the bodhicitta." I now say that none of this is correct. If you say that universally delivering the four kinds of births here is not answering the question on the bodhicitta, then by what dharma do you designate the bodhicitta? Furthermore, in the second cycle below, Subhūti again raises three questions, and the Buddha answers that one who brings forth the bodhicitta should give rise to such a mind: "I must cause all sentient beings to enter nirvāṇa, yet there is no one who enters nirvāṇa." This directly repeats the question on the bodhicitta and explains it; how can you say it does not answer the bodhicitta? We now clarify that although the sūtra has two chapters, together they respond to the four questions: the first chapter of the sūtra answers the question on abiding, which is itself answering the question on the bodhicitta; the next chapter of the sūtra answers the question on cultivation, which is itself answering the question on subduing the mind. Question: How does answering his question on abiding mean answering \[the question on\] the bodhicitta? Explanation: Because of bringing forth the bodhicitta, one is able to abide in the Mahāyāna Dharma. If one does not bring forth the bodhicitta, one does not abide in the Mahāyāna. Therefore the treatise says: "Abiding in the profound mind of benefiting, the merits of this vehicle are perfected." Within the text of the first sūtra \[passage\], it again opens into two: first, broadly exhorting the bodhisattva to bring forth the bodhicitta in address to Subhūti; second, directly clarifying the meaning of bringing forth the mind. The first is as in the text. Question: Now it directly distinguishes the bodhicitta; why does it say "one should thus subdue their mind"? Answer: Because of bringing forth the one bodhicitta, the minds of ordinary beings and the two vehicles do not arise, which is itself subduing. First, it explains universally delivering sentient beings; thus it differs from the minds of the two vehicles and subdues the two vehicles. Later, it explains delivering without anything delivered; this subdues the minds of ordinary beings. Subduing the two vehicles is using the other to subdue the self; subduing the minds of ordinary beings is using non-existence to subdue existence. Furthermore, subduing the two vehicles can also be using existence to subdue non-existence: the two vehicles lack the compassionate mind, while the bodhisattva has the compassionate mind; hence it uses existence to subdue non-existence, and again uses non-existence to subdue existence, as explained earlier. Furthermore, clarifying great kindness and great compassion here subdues the defilements of greed and anger; hence it is called subduing. Furthermore, although the bodhisattva delivers sentient beings, in reality there are no sentient beings to be delivered; this is subduing the view of sentient beings. Furthermore, if a bodhisattva says there are sentient beings to be delivered, this is eternalism; if they say there are no sentient beings to be delivered, this falls into annihilationism. Now, although delivering sentient beings, in reality there is nothing delivered, thus subduing eternalism; although there is nothing delivered, one constantly delivers sentient beings, thus subduing annihilationism. From "As for all classes of sentient beings" down is the second \[part\], directly clarifying bringing forth the bodhicitta. The verse of the treatise says: "Vast, supreme, constant, / and the mind is not inverted; / abiding in the profound mind of benefiting, / the merits of this vehicle are perfected." Therefore, the four minds are used to explain this sūtra text. The four minds are: first, the vast mind; second, the supreme mind; third, the constant mind; fourth, the non-inverted mind. Question: For what reason are the four minds established? Answer: Generally, to be a bodhisattva differs from ordinary beings and the two vehicles, who train themselves and deliver themselves. Saying here that one universally delivers the three realms and six destinies is called the vast mind. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.3) - [Next: 2.5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.5) - [Up: 2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699~en-mt.2.5.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [金剛經纂要刊定記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1702.4.17) — Classical Chinese - [金剛般若波羅蜜經論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.vajracchedika!vajracchedikaprajnaparamitasutrasastra*zh-bodhiruci.1.13) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.4) · Pramāṇa