[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 # 金剛般若疏 2.5 金剛般若疏 2.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.1) 「還至本處」下，第二、明得食後事。 然須識般若大意，此是去而不往、歸無所還、受而不納、食而不飡也。 此中亦有四句：第一、明還至本處。 然鉢他既滿，須反所住，以待中時。 又利物故往，利竟便還。 所以令鉢滿即還，不許隨得隨噉者，略有二：前供養師長； 二、兼濟老病。 如來得食，分為三分：一、分布施陸地眾生； 一分布施水中眾生； 一分自食，若有老病，亦分施也。 「飯食訖」者，第二句，明食事竟究。 「收衣鉢」者，第三、明攝容儀也。 「洗足已」者，第四句，亦有五：一者、明洗塵累，塗步行乞，雖離地四寸，而示有塵垢，故便洗也； 二、示尊敬般若，故須身淨方說； 三、為護僧臥具； 四、為諸天下，禮敬於足； 五、為表眾生煩惱應淨。 問：佛日行幾里？ 答：如轉輪王法，日行四十里也。 問：《樂瓔珞女經》雖明乞食為於十事，今更有餘義不耶？ 答：三藏云：佛欲為破惡世貪名利高慢，出家人多貪積聚，是故如來自行乞食。 又為息外道譏謗，言沙門釋子多好著樂，是故行乞。 又為顯如來少欲知足，不受人天所奉供養，躬自行乞。 又有二外道：一者、樂行，坐受供養； 二者、苦行，過時而乞。 所以過時者，正以或得不得為苦行也。 今如來為破二事：佛自乞故，破著樂外道； 以其乞得時故，破苦行外道。 「敷座而坐」下，第二、明將說般若故前入三昧。 文亦有二：一者、敷座，定前方便； 二者、而坐，正入三昧。 所以自敷座者，般若名為佛母，今欲尊敬般若，故自敷座。 二者、隨順諸佛教戒，若不自敷座、臥具，得突吉羅罪。 又是示少欲知足，不使人敷也。 言而坐者，第二正入三昧。 論經長有結跏趺坐，是坐中最勝故、見者歡喜故、身得安穩故、心得端直故。 所以入三昧者，如來靜散無二，實無出入，而今為說法人作於模軌。 夫說深法，必須靜心，若不靜心，則不識根緣，亦不審法相。 是故如來前入三昧，然後說法，則是明照於根緣，明審法相。 《毘婆沙》云「依相書善法，示聰明人相。 」聰明人相者，善言所言、善行所行、善思所思，是故如來入定思惟，然後方說也。 又示輕賤薄眾生模軌法則故，有人得少知見，他問即答而不思之； 如來不爾，久思惟竟，方乃說也。 「時長老須菩提」下，若依開善，此則猶屬序分，此之一文名歎請序。 今謂不爾，已如前說。 善吉正問，如來正答。 如《華嚴》普慧二百句問、普賢二千句答，何故容割問為序、截答為正？ 北地論師云：此文屬十二分中護念付屬分。 是亦不然，如前說善吉有歎有請，歎即是護念付屬，請即是發乎四句。 問若以歎為護念付屬分者，應以請文為請問分。 若言論解護念付屬以之為分，不解請問故請問非分者，論亦不解通、別二序，應無序分。 然此是未見論家製作之意，故生此謬耳。 此是易故不釋、難故須解，豈是解與不解而判分與不分耶？ 今從此文屬第二正說般若分也。 若三業分經者，乞食等身業利益分，入三昧意業利益分，今是口業利益分也。 若以福慧為判者，上是生物福德門，今是生物智慧門。 亦上是利益在家門，今是通益一切門，具如前十數對說，亦不可專作序、正兩分。 故經意無盡，言多不足； 三段失旨，意顯於茲。 今聊寄一，名為序、正、流通之說耳。 就此正說，開為二周：第一周為利根人，廣說般若； 第二周為中下根未悟，略說般若。 作此開文，驚乎常聽； 今具引事義，證其起盡。 問：何以知前是一周，後復是一周說耶？ 答：今當以數義驗之：一者、經自有文，善吉有前問後問； 二問略同； 如來前答後答，二答相類，是故當知二周說也。 又經語難明，今以論為證。 論解前經答四問竟，而後次第生起，釋玄疑伏難，蟬聯而來； 亦釋後問竟，次第生起，釋玄疑伏難，相接而至，是故知為兩周也。 > From "returning to his original place" onward is the second \[section\], explaining what happened after obtaining the food. However, one must recognize the great intent of prajñā: this is going without departing, returning with nowhere to return to, receiving without taking in, and eating without consuming. Herein there are also four phrases: First, explaining his returning to his original place. Now, once the bowl is filled, he must return to his dwelling to await the noon hour. Furthermore, having gone for the sake of benefiting beings, having completed the benefit he promptly returns. As for why he is made to return as soon as the bowl is full, and not permitted to eat as soon as food is obtained, briefly there are two \[reasons\]: first, to make offerings to teachers and elders; second, to simultaneously aid the aged and sick. When the Tathāgata obtained food, he divided it into three portions: one portion he gave in charity to land-dwelling sentient beings; one portion he gave in charity to water-dwelling sentient beings; and one portion he ate himself, also sharing it if there were any who were old or sick. "Having finished his meal" is the second phrase, explaining the conclusion of the meal. "Put away his robes and bowl" is the third, explaining the collecting of his outward attire. "Washed his feet" is the fourth phrase, which also has five \[meanings\]: first, explaining the washing away of worldly defilements—walking on foot to beg for food, although \[his feet\] were four inches above the ground, he manifested having dust and dirt, and therefore washed them; second, manifesting reverence for prajñā, so he had to purify his body before speaking; third, to protect the monks' bedding; fourth, for the gods below to pay homage to his feet; fifth, to signify that the afflictions of sentient beings should be cleansed. Question: How many li did the Buddha walk each day? Answer: Like the rule of a wheel-turning king, he walked forty li each day. Question: Although the Sutra of the Girl Who Delights in Necklaces explains that begging for food is for the sake of ten matters, are there further meanings here? Answer: The Tripiṭaka master said: The Buddha wished to smash the greed for fame and gain and the arrogance of the evil age, where renunciants largely covet accumulation; therefore the Tathāgata himself went begging for food. Furthermore, to cease the ridicule and slander of non-Buddhists who said that the Śramaṇas, sons of the Śākya, mostly delight in clinging to pleasure, he therefore went begging. Furthermore, to reveal that the Tathāgata has few desires and knows contentment, not receiving offerings presented by humans and devas, he personally went begging. Furthermore, there are two kinds of non-Buddhists: first, those of pleasurable practice, who sit and receive offerings; second, those of ascetic practice, who beg past the proper time. The reason they go past the proper time is precisely that sometimes getting and sometimes not getting \[food\] serves as ascetic practice. Now the Tathāgata smashed both matters: because the Buddha himself begged, he smashed the non-Buddhists who cling to pleasure; because he begged at the proper time, he smashed the ascetic non-Buddhists. From "arranged his seat and sat down" onward is the second \[part\], explaining that because he was about to preach prajñā, he first entered samādhi. The text also has two \[parts\]: first, arranging the seat, the preliminary expedient before meditation; second, sitting down, the actual entry into samādhi. The reason he arranged the seat himself is that prajñā is called the mother of Buddhas; now wishing to revere prajñā, he therefore arranged the seat himself. Second, it accords with the training and precepts of all Buddhas: if one does not arrange one's own seat and bedding, one commits a duṣkṛta offense. Furthermore, this manifests having few desires and knowing contentment, not having others arrange it. As for "sat down," this is the second, the actual entry into samādhi. The treatise version of the sūtra additionally has "sat cross-legged"; this is because it is the most supreme among postures, causes those who see it to rejoice, brings stability and ease to the body, and makes the mind upright. The reason he entered samādhi is that for the Tathāgata, stillness and distraction are not two, and there is truly no entering or leaving; yet now he provides a model and rule for preachers of the Dharma. Now, whenever speaking profound Dharma, one must still the mind; if one does not still the mind, one will not discern the capacities and conditions \[of beings\], nor examine the characteristics of dharmas. Therefore, the Tathāgata first entered samādhi and only then preached the Dharma; this is clearly illuminating capacities and conditions, and clearly examining the characteristics of dharmas. The Vibhāṣā says: "Relying on the good dharma of divination manuals, it shows the marks of an intelligent person." The marks of an intelligent person are: speaking well what is spoken, practicing well what is practiced, and thinking well what is thought. Therefore the Tathāgata entered meditation and contemplated, and only then spoke. Furthermore, it is to provide a model and rule for frivolous and shallow sentient beings, for there are people who, having gained a little knowledge and view, answer immediately when others question them without thinking about it; the Tathāgata is not like this—only after contemplating for a long time does he then speak. From "At that time, the elder Subhūti" onward: if one follows Kaishan, this still belongs to the introductory section, and this text is called the preface of praise and request. I now hold that this is not so, as explained before. Subhūti properly questions, and the Tathāgata properly answers. Just as in the Avataṃsaka, where Universal Wisdom asks two hundred phrases and Samantabhadra answers with two thousand phrases, why should one cut off the questions as an introduction and sever the answers as the main body? The treatise masters of the north say: This text belongs to the section of mindfulness and entrustment among the twelve divisions. This too is not so. As explained before, Subhūti both praises and requests: the praise is indeed the mindfulness and entrustment, and the request is what initiates the four phrases. If one regards the praise as the section of mindfulness and entrustment, one ought to regard the request text as the section of asking questions. If one says that because the treatise explains mindfulness and entrustment it takes it as a section, but because it does not explain asking questions therefore asking questions is not a section, then since the treatise also does not explain the general and specific prefaces, there ought to be no introductory section. However, this is simply having failed to see the treatise author's intention in composing \[the work\], which is why this error arose. This was not explained because it was easy, and had to be explained because it was difficult—how could whether it is explained or not determine whether it is divided or not divided into sections? Now, from this text onward, it belongs to the second section, the proper preaching of prajñā. If one divides the sūtra by the three karmas: begging for food and so forth is the section of benefiting through bodily karma; entering samādhi is the section of benefiting through mental karma; and now is the section of benefiting through vocal karma. If one determines it by merit and wisdom: the above is the gate of generating merit in beings; now is the gate of generating wisdom in beings. Also, the above is the gate of benefiting the laity; now is the gate of universally benefiting all, fully stated as in the previous dozen pairs; nor can one exclusively make it into just the two divisions of preface and main body. Thus the intent of the sūtra is inexhaustible, and words often fall short; that the three-section \[division\] loses the principle, the intention is made clear here. For now I merely provisionally resort to one, calling it the explanation of preface, main body, and propagation. Regarding this proper preaching, it is opened into two cycles: the first cycle extensively expounds prajñā for those of sharp faculties; the second cycle briefly expounds prajñā for those of medium and lower faculties who have not yet awakened. Making this opening of the text may startle ordinary ears; I shall now cite facts and principles in full to prove its beginning and end. Question: How is it known that the former is one cycle and the latter is again one cycle of preaching? Answer: We should now verify it through several principles: First, the sūtra itself has the text, where Subhūti has an earlier question and a later question; the two questions are roughly similar; the Tathāgata has an earlier answer and a later answer, and the two answers resemble each other; therefore one should know it is two cycles of preaching. Furthermore, the words of the sūtra are difficult to understand, so we now take the treatise as proof. The treatise explains that after the earlier sūtra \[passage\] finishes answering the four questions, thereafter it gives rise to them in sequence, resolving profound doubts and hidden objections in continuous succession; it also finishes explaining the later question, gives rise to them in sequence, resolving profound doubts and hidden objections as they arrive one after another; therefore we know there are two cycles. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.2) 斯乃經論兩證，豈虛搆哉？ 問曰：聖人制作，理致玄遠、辭即巧妙，豈當一軸之經遂有二周煩長？ 答曰：雖曰兩周，其旨各異，非煩長也。 所以者何？ 類如《大品》兩周，前周明於實慧，後周辨於善權。 今之兩周在義亦異，前周則淨於緣，後周則盡於觀。 然要須緣淨觀盡，不緣不觀、無所依止，方能悟於般若。 故肇公云「法無有無之數，聖無有無之智。 法無有無之數，則無數於外； 聖無有無之智，則無心於內。 於外無數，於內無心，彼已寂滅，乃階其妙。 」影公云「萬化非無宗，宗之者無相； 虛宗非無契，契之者無心。 故至人以無心之妙慧，契彼無相之虛宗，此則內外兩冥，緣智俱寂，豈容名數於其間哉？ 」斯二三子，言與經會，信而好古，餘豈異哉？ 問：何以得知前周盡緣，後周盡觀耶？ 答：經有明文，論有誠說。 前經直云雖度眾生，而無眾生可度，正歎菩薩依般若作無所得發心，乃至無所得修行。 而經意雖復緣觀俱息，但文未正顯灼破於觀主，故鈍根之徒由言，有於菩薩巧度眾生，巧能修行，故後周經文方息四心，無發心人乃至修行者。 然前周正勸生四心，後周明四心亦息，豈不然乎？ 論偈云「於內心修行，存我為菩薩，此則障於心，違於不住道。 」以是義故，當知此文正息觀至盡於觀主，文義昺然，無所疑也。 此之二周，非止是一經之大意，乃是方等之旨歸、至人環中之妙術也。 又前周為前會，後周為後會，下當更辨。 就前周文，科為二別：一、善吉致問； 二、如來答。 就問之中復開為二：一者、經家序能問之人儀容； 二者、發言正問。 初序中又二：一者、標對揚之主； 二、序請法之儀。 「爾時」者，此是如來加與善吉之時，亦是時會發悟之時，故云爾時。 問：此經加與義，與《大品》何異？ 答：《大品》則具口意二加：發言命說，稱為口加； 與其智慧辨才，名為意加。 今此經但其與智慧辯才，為意加； 不命之令說，無有口加也。 然下文亦有對揚之義，但無炳然命說，故與《大品》不同。 「須菩提」者，此人本迹，其事難知。 三藏云：是本東方世界青龍陀佛，影嚮能仁，為弟子化，其猶文殊之例也。 或有經云：此是化人。 《攝大乘論》明身子是化人，善吉猶為其例。 又經云：是舍衛國長者之子，位登遺顏。 言遺顏者，法身菩薩過阿鞞之位也。 復云：是舍衛國內有婆羅門，名曰鳩留，其人無子，祈天神。 天神云：「汝家大富，無堪生者。 」因見一大德天下，詫生其家。 兒既長大，令父母請佛還家，後送佛反於祇洹，即得羅漢果。 復有經說：昔為白衣人，見沙門乞食不得，空鉢而反，因以食與之，後得十劫常生天中，故其人福德深厚無比。 又言是淨音嚮王太子。 如此等說，多出福報雜譬喻經。 須菩提者，翻為善業，亦言善學，舊云善吉。 善吉與善財生異。 何者？ 善財生時，七寶踊現，故名善財。 須菩提生時，舉室皆空，父母疑怪，請問相師。 相師云：「唯善唯吉。 」故名善吉。 又云空生，即從生時受稱。 其人內祕菩薩行，外現聲聞，位高可崇，故呼為長老也。 「即從坐起」下，第二、明請法之儀。 此中凡有五句：一、避席修敬。 弟子儀法既尊人重法，不可晏然而坐，故將欲請道，所以避席。 「偏袒右肩」者，既表師弟之儀，則示永有驅策之相。 又是隨從國法，故修敬袒肩。 「右膝著地」者，此明屈曲伏從，示師弟無有違拒之貌。 「合掌向佛」者，此是斂肅容貌，專心受道也。 「而白佛言」者，上來經家序其身業，此之一句序其口業也。 「希有世尊」者，此下第二、正明發問。 就此為兩：第一、稱歎； 第二、請問。 言希有世尊者，《中阿含》二十四卷云「昔時大王者，我身是也。 我從子至子、從孫至孫、從族至族，八萬四千轉輪王，并前剃除髻髮、捨家趣非家。 > This is corroborated by both the sūtras and the treatises; how could it be an empty fabrication? Question: The compositions of the sages are profound in their principles and subtle in their phrasing; how could a single scroll of a sūtra contain the verbosity and redundancy of two cycles? Answer: Although there are said to be two cycles, their purports are each different; they are not redundant. Why is this? It is like the two cycles of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, where the former cycle explains real wisdom and the latter cycle distinguishes skillful means. The two cycles here are also different in their meaning: the former cycle purifies the objective condition, and the latter cycle exhausts the subjective contemplation. However, it is essential that the condition be purified and the contemplation be exhausted—neither conditioning nor contemplating, having nothing upon which to rely—before one can awaken to prajñā. Therefore Master Zhao said: "Dharmas have no categories of existence and non-existence; the sage has no cognition of existence and non-existence. If dharmas have no categories of existence and non-existence, then there are no categories externally; if the sage has no cognition of existence and non-existence, then there is no mind internally. With no categories externally and no mind internally, when both of these are quiescent, one then ascends to that subtlety." Master Ying said: "The myriad transformations are not without a source, but what sources them is without marks; the empty source is not without accord, but what accords with it is without mind. Therefore the ultimate person, with the wondrous wisdom of no-mind, accords with that markless empty source; this is when both internal and external are darkened together, and both condition and cognition are quiescent—how could names and categories be admitted between them?" The words of these two or three masters chime with the sūtra; "trusting and loving antiquity," how could I differ from them? Question: How do we know that the former cycle exhausts the condition and the latter cycle exhausts the contemplation? Answer: The sūtra has clear passages and the treatises have truthful statements. The earlier sūtra text simply says that although one liberates sentient beings, there are no sentient beings to be liberated, directly praising the bodhisattva's arousal of the mind of non-apprehension and, extending up to, the practice of non-apprehension relying on prajñā. And although the sūtra's intent is that both condition and contemplation are stilled, the text has not yet explicitly and clearly demolished the subject of contemplation. Therefore, those of dull faculties still say that there is a bodhisattva who skillfully liberates sentient beings and is skillfully able to practice. Hence the text of the latter cycle then stills the four minds: there is no person who arouses the mind, extending up to no practitioner. Thus, the former cycle directly encourages the arising of the four minds, while the latter cycle explains that the four minds are also stilled; how could it not be so? The treatise verse says: "Practicing in the internal mind, retaining a self as a bodhisattva—this obstructs the mind and contradicts the path of non-abiding." By this meaning, one should know that this text directly stills contemplation to the point of exhausting the subject of contemplation; the text and meaning are radiant, admitting of no doubt. These two cycles are not merely the main purport of a single sūtra; they are the ultimate destination of the Vaipulya teachings and the wondrous art of the ultimate person within the ring. Furthermore, the former cycle is the former assembly and the latter cycle is the latter assembly, as will be distinguished below. In terms of the text of the former cycle, it is divided into two sections: first, Subhūti puts the question; second, the Tathāgata answers. Within the question, it is further divided into two: first, the compiler of the sūtra introduces the demeanor of the interrogator; second, the formulation of the question itself. The initial introduction also has two parts: first, identifying the interlocutor; second, introducing the etiquette of requesting the Dharma. "At that time": this is the time when the Tathāgata bestowed his empowerment upon Subhūti, and also the time when the assembly at that moment experienced awakening; hence it says "at that time." Question: How does the meaning of bestowal in this sūtra differ from that in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra? Answer: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra possesses both verbal and mental empowerment: speaking words to command someone to explain is called verbal empowerment; bestowing wisdom and eloquence upon them is called mental empowerment. Now this sūtra only bestows wisdom and eloquence upon him, which is mental empowerment; it does not command him to explain, so there is no verbal empowerment. However, the subsequent text also contains the sense of an interlocution, but lacks an explicit command to explain; therefore it is not the same as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. "Subhūti": as for this person's original \[state\] and traces, the matter is difficult to fathom. The Tripiṭaka master says: originally, he was the Buddha Candana of the eastern world, casting his shadow in echo of Śākyamuni to act as a disciple to transform others, following the example of Mañjuśrī. Some sūtras say: he was a transformationally created person. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha explains that Śāriputra was a transformation person, and Subhūti is an example of the same kind. Another sūtra says: he was the son of an elder in Śrāvastī whose attainment reached the stage of Yiyan. "Yiyan" means a dharmakāya bodhisattva surpassing the stage of avaivartika. It is also said: in Śrāvastī there was a brahmin named Jūliú who had no son and prayed to a heavenly deity. The heavenly deity said, "Your family is exceedingly wealthy, and no one is worthy of being born \[there\]." Thereupon, seeing a person of great virtue descend, he took rebirth in that family. When the child had grown up, he had his parents invite the Buddha to return to their home, and later accompanied the Buddha back to the Jetavana, whereupon he attained the fruit of arhatship. Still other sūtras explain: in the past he was a layperson who saw a monk begging for food and receiving nothing, returning with an empty bowl; he then gave him food, and consequently for ten kalpas was constantly born in heaven, which is why his merit and virtue were incomparably deep and thick. It is also said that he was the crown prince of King Jìngyīnxiàng. Such accounts mostly come from the Za piyu jing on karmic retributions. Subhūti is translated as Shan-ye (Good Action), or as Shan-xue (Good Learner); formerly it was rendered as Shan-ji (Good and Auspicious). Shan-ji's birth differed from that of Sudhana. How so? When Sudhana was born, the seven treasures welled up, hence he was named Sudhana (Good Wealth). When Subhūti was born, the entire room was empty; his parents were bewildered and consulted a diviner. The diviner said, "Only good, only auspicious." Hence he was named Shan-ji. He is also called Kongsheng (Born of Emptiness), taking his name from the circumstances of his birth. Inwardly this person concealed the bodhisattva practice, outwardly manifesting as a śrāvaka; his status was elevated and venerable, so he is addressed as "Elder." "Then rose from his seat": second, this explains the etiquette of requesting the Dharma. Here there are five phrases: first, leaving one's seat to show reverence. The proper conduct of a disciple is to revere the person and respect the Dharma, so one cannot remain seated at ease; thus, wishing to request the path, he leaves his seat. "Bared his right shoulder": this shows the demeanor of master and disciple, indicating the sign of perpetual service. It also accords with the law of the country, hence he bares his shoulder to pay reverence. "Knelt on his right knee": this shows bending in submissive obedience, displaying the master-disciple attitude of offering no resistance. "Joined his palms toward the Buddha": this is collecting and composing one's countenance, single-mindedly receiving the path. "And addressed the Buddha, saying": the text above has presented his physical actions; this phrase presents his vocal action. "Rare, World-Honoured One!": this begins the second section, the direct questioning. Within this there are two parts: first, praising; second, inquiring. Regarding the words "Rare, World-Honoured One!", the twenty-fourth fascicle of the Madhyama Āgama says: "The great king of former times was none other than myself. From son to son, from grandson to grandson, from clan to clan, eighty-four thousand wheel-turning kings, together with shaving their hair and topknots, leaving home to go forth into the homeless state." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [2.5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.3) 」又《增一阿含》第二十一卷云「若如來不出家者，當二千五百歲作轉輪王。 」今捨轉輪王位，遂能為物塗行乞食，故為希有。 又善吉知般若無相無貌，念想觀除、言語亦滅，而無名相中為眾生故作名相說，雖作名字而不傷無名，故為希有。 譬如劫盡大火，世界洞然，有人擔一束乾草而從火中過，不燒一葉，故為希有。 「善護念諸菩薩，善付屬諸菩薩」者，歎也。 問：何因緣故，有此歎耶？ 答：此一言貫於前後。 如來所以塗行乞食者，正為大慈大悲護念付屬諸菩薩故也。 又今說般若者，亦為護念付屬諸菩薩故也。 又歎上塗行乞食以為希有，則歎佛身業； 今歎護念菩薩，是歎如來意業； 善付屬諸菩薩，即是歎口業。 如來既三業利物，故善吉竝歎三業。 問：云何名為善護念耶？ 答：欲使其內德堅固，名為護念； 令其外德成就，名為善付囑。 問：諸佛如來常念六道，何因緣故偏念菩薩？ 答：雖常念六道，但菩薩堪受般若，有其內因，是故外為諸佛護念。 問：諸佛護念，有何利益？ 答：猶如魚子，母念則成，不念則壞。 菩薩亦爾，佛若護念，善根則成； 若不護念，善根則壞。 付囑者，以無上法寶付諸菩薩，以諸菩薩善能問答，如是法寶則得久住無量千世。 所以通稱為善者，若護念付囑聲聞則不善； 今以護念付囑菩薩，故名為善。 具如《大經》付囑老少二人譬也。 依論解釋，論曰「巧護義應知，加彼身同行」者，此釋善護念也。 善是巧之異名，故云巧護，義應知也。 加彼身同行者，護念即是加與之義，謂加與二力：一者、加其智慧力，令成就佛法故。 此即是加其自行，故名為身，身即自身也。 次加其教化眾生力，即是加其化他力，令受化之徒與其行同，故云同行也。 「不退得未得，是名善付囑」者，此之半偈，釋付囑義。 論云「善護念者，依根熟菩薩說。 善付囑者，依根未熟菩薩說。 」根熟菩薩則堪加與自行、化他二種之力，以如前明。 今以根未熟菩薩付囑根熟菩薩，令其未熟得熟也。 不退得未得者，已得功德令其不退，所未得者而令得之，故云不退得未得也。 問：論釋之與舊解云何同異？ 答：論以人付囑於人，名善付囑； 舊釋以法寶付囑於人，名善付囑。 兩言雖異，會歸終一。 以人付囑人，終令得悟法，即是付囑法義； 以法付囑人，終為化人義，即是付囑人也。 又一義防遏眾魔，不令得菩薩便，為護念義； 為說道法，令如說修行，為付囑也。 問：根熟與未熟，約何位耶？ 答：北地論師云：根熟菩薩即是內凡習種性之人，必能趣於初地，名為根熟。 若是外凡，未能必入於初地，名為未熟。 「善男子善女人發菩提心」者，此第二、正發問。 若依羅什法師翻經，唯可三問：一問菩提心、二問云何應住、三問降伏。 但解此三問，眾師不同。 第一師云：問雖有三，不出願之與行； 菩提心一問，即是問願； 降伏住二問，即是問行。 菩薩之道，不出願行二門：行以涉行為義，願以要期為旨。 行若無願，行則無所御； 願若無行，願則不果。 其猶鳥之二翼、車之兩輪，故行以即事涉行，願以懸求未得。 今明行願之義，實如所說，若偏以菩提心為願，此事未然。 今以發正道心名菩提心，豈得空有其願而無行耶？ 復有師云：應為三問：一問菩提心，即問平等空； 二問云何住，問實法空； 三問云何降伏，問假名空。 然觀門次第，應從淺至深，今乃從深至淺，此是說門，非是行門。 問者唯慕其深，前問深也。 今謂此亦不然，三空乃通貫大小，今正辨菩薩之行。 又且問無三空之辭，佛答無三空之意。 初答乃明菩薩成廣大心，遍度眾生而無所度，非謂但明假名空也。 若但明假名空，即應但辨無眾生，亦無度義，亦無廣大心義。 今乃明大心而無度，無度而大心，此乃是無度度義、度無度義，二慧具足，云何偏是假名空？ > " Furthermore, the twenty-first fascicle of the Ekottarika Āgama states: "If the Tathāgata had not gone forth from the household life, he would have been a wheel-turning king for two thousand five hundred years." Now, abandoning the position of a wheel-turning king, he was able to walk on foot and beg for food for the sake of beings; therefore, it is rare. Moreover, Subhūti knows that prajñā is devoid of marks and form, with reflections, thoughts, and contemplations eliminated, and verbal discourse also extinguished; yet within the nameless and formless, for the sake of sentient beings, he speaks of names and forms, and although he produces names and words, they do not violate the nameless; therefore, it is rare. It is like the great fire at the end of a kalpa, when the world is ablaze: a person carrying a bundle of dry grass passes through the fire, and not a single leaf is burnt; therefore, it is rare. "Being well mindful of and protecting all bodhisattvas, and well entrusting all bodhisattvas" is praise. Question: For what reason is there this praise? Answer: This one phrase runs through what precedes and follows. The reason why the Tathāgata walked on foot and begged for food was precisely out of great kindness and great compassion to be mindful of, protect, and entrust all bodhisattvas. Furthermore, his present preaching of prajñā is also to be mindful of, protect, and entrust all bodhisattvas. Moreover, praising the walking on foot and begging for food above as rare is praising the Buddha's bodily karma; now, praising his being mindful of and protecting bodhisattvas is praising the Tathāgata's mental karma; and well entrusting all bodhisattvas is praising his vocal karma. Since the Tathāgata benefits beings through the three karmas, Subhūti praises all three karmas together. Question: What is meant by "well mindful of and protecting"? Answer: Desiring to make their internal virtues firm is called being mindful of and protecting; causing their external virtues to be accomplished is called well entrusting. Question: The Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, are constantly mindful of the six destinies; for what reason are they particularly mindful of bodhisattvas? Answer: Although they are constantly mindful of the six destinies, only bodhisattvas are capable of receiving prajñā, possessing the internal cause; therefore, externally, they are protected and kept in mind by the Buddhas. Question: When the Buddhas protect and keep them in mind, what benefit is there? Answer: It is just like fish roe: if the mother keeps them in mind, they develop; if she does not, they spoil. Bodhisattvas are also like this: if the Buddha protects and keeps them in mind, their roots of goodness develop; if he does not protect and keep them in mind, their roots of goodness spoil. As for entrusting, it means handing over the unexcelled Dharma-jewel to all bodhisattvas; because all bodhisattvas are skilled in asking and answering, such a Dharma-jewel will abide for a long time across immeasurable thousands of generations. The reason why both are generally called "well" is that if he were to protect, be mindful of, and entrust śrāvakas, it would not be good; now, because he protects, is mindful of, and entrusts bodhisattvas, it is called "well." It is fully detailed in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's parable of entrusting the two people, old and young. Explaining according to the treatise \[the Bodhisattvabhūmi / Vasubandhu's Commentary\], the treatise says: "The meaning of skilful protection should be known as endowing their bodies with joint practice." This explains "being well mindful of and protecting." "Well" is another name for "skilful"; hence it says "skilful protection, its meaning should be known." "Endowing their bodies with joint practice": being mindful of and protecting has the meaning of conferring upon them, meaning conferring upon them two kinds of power. First, conferring the power of wisdom upon them, to cause them to accomplish the Buddha-Dharma; this is conferring their own practice, hence it is called "body," where "body" means one's own body. Next, conferring the power of teaching and transforming sentient beings; this is conferring the power of transforming others, causing the assembly of those who are transformed to share the same practice with them, hence it is called "joint practice." "Not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained is called well entrusting." This half-verse explains the meaning of entrusting. The treatise says: "Being well mindful of and protecting is spoken in reliance upon bodhisattvas whose faculties are mature. Well entrusting is spoken in reliance upon bodhisattvas whose faculties are not yet mature." A bodhisattva whose faculties are mature is capable of being endowed with the two powers of self-practice and transforming others, as explained before. Now, by entrusting the bodhisattvas whose faculties are not yet mature to the bodhisattvas whose faculties are mature, it causes those who are not yet mature to become mature. "Not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained": causing them not to retrogress from the virtues already attained, and causing them to attain what has not yet been attained; hence it says "not retrogressing from what has been attained and attaining what has not been attained." Question: How do the treatise's explanation and the old interpretation differ and agree? Answer: The treatise takes entrusting persons to persons as well entrusting; the old interpretation takes entrusting the Dharma-jewel to persons as well entrusting. Although the two statements differ, their ultimate import is one. Entrusting persons to persons ultimately causes them to awaken to the Dharma, which is the meaning of entrusting the Dharma; entrusting the Dharma to persons is ultimately for the sake of transforming persons, which is the meaning of entrusting persons. Furthermore, another meaning is that warding off the maras so that they do not get an advantage over bodhisattvas is the meaning of being mindful of and protecting; preaching the path and the Dharma to them so that they practice according to what is taught is entrusting. Question: In terms of what stages are mature and immature faculties explained? Answer: The Northern treatise masters say: A bodhisattva of mature faculties is an internal ordinary person of the lineage of practice-nature (prayoga-gotra), who is certain to proceed toward the first bhūmi; this is called mature faculties. If one is an external ordinary person, who is not yet certain to enter the first bhūmi, this is called immature. "A good son or good woman who arouses the mind set on awakening": this is the second, properly posing the questions. If we follow Dharma Master Kumārajīva's translation of the sūtra, there can only be three questions: first, asking about the mind set on awakening; second, asking how one should abide; third, asking about subduing. But in explaining these three questions, the various masters differ. The first master says: Although the questions are three, they do not go beyond vow and practice. The single question on the mind set on awakening is asking about vow; the two questions on subduing and abiding are asking about practice. The way of the bodhisattva does not go beyond the two gates of vow and practice: practice takes engaging in practice as its meaning; vow takes commitment to a future goal as its purport. If practice lacks vow, practice has nothing to guide it; if vow lacks practice, the vow will not bear fruit. They are like the two wings of a bird or the two wheels of a cart; therefore, practice engages in action according to concrete affairs, while vow aspires to what has not yet been attained. Now, explaining the meaning of practice and vow, it is indeed as stated; yet to take bodhicitta exclusively as vow is not correct. Now, taking the arousing of the mind of the correct path as bodhicitta, how could there be only an empty vow without practice? Another master says: There should be three questions: first, asking about bodhicitta is asking about the emptiness of equality; second, asking how to abide is asking about the emptiness of real dharmas; third, asking how to subdue is asking about the emptiness of provisional designations. However, the sequence of contemplation gates should proceed from the shallow to the deep; now it proceeds from the deep to the shallow, which is the teaching gate, not the practice gate. The questioner only aspires to the deep, so he asks about the deep first. We now say that this too is not so: the three emptinesses run through both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, whereas here we are properly distinguishing the practice of the bodhisattva. Moreover, the question has no words about the three emptinesses, and the Buddha's answer has no meaning of the three emptinesses. The initial answer clarifies that the bodhisattva accomplishes the vast mind, universally liberating sentient beings while there is nothing liberated; it does not mean merely clarifying the emptiness of provisional designations. If it merely clarified the emptiness of provisional designations, it should only distinguish that there are no sentient beings, with neither the meaning of liberation nor the meaning of the vast mind. Now it clarifies the great mind without liberation, and non-liberation while having the great mind; this is the meaning of liberating without liberation, and non-liberation as liberation, endowed with both types of wisdom. How could it be exclusively the emptiness of provisional designations? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [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) ### [2.5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5.5) 雖復遍度眾生，若遍與眾生人天之樂，名為下心； 若遍與眾生二乘之樂，名曰中心； 今遍與眾生大涅槃樂，名第一心。 菩薩雖復遍與眾生大涅槃樂，或時休息，生死道長、眾生性多，云何可遍度之令得常樂？ 是故於生死中起疲厭心。 今明生死邊如虛空、眾生性邊亦如虛空，是中無生死往來亦無解脫者，故能菩薩常度眾生、誨而不倦，名為常心。 雖度眾生，而不見眾生可度，是名菩薩不顛倒心。 以建此四心，住菩薩道，得大利益，故論云「利益深心住」。 是故建此四心，則菩提心滿足，故論云「此乘功德滿」。 雖有四心，不出慈悲般若，前三是慈悲心、後一是般若心，前是功德、後是智慧，前亦是方便、後名為實慧，故發心即具福慧，亦即具二慧。 如《大經》云「發心、畢竟二不別」。 若望開善義，假名空但是空心，但得四中之一，又二慧中但得實慧意耳。 問：何故名廣大心？ 答：從所有一切眾生之類至非有想非無想已來，總攝眾生，名廣大心。 此中二句：所有一切眾生之類，此總攝眾生。 若卵生下，此有三句，別攝眾生。 第一句以一門攝眾生，謂一生門； 第二、有色、無色二門攝眾生，欲、色兩界名為有色，無色一界名為無色。 第三、以三門攝眾生，無想者，即是色界第四禪中無想天也； 非有想非無想者，無色界最後天也； 有想一句除上二處，通三界也。 問：何故不以六道攝眾生？ 答：六道不攝中陰，四生則一切攝故也。 「我皆令入無餘涅槃」者，此下第二明第一心也。 此言「無餘」者，非灰身滅智，小乘無餘，斯乃無累不盡、無復餘累，無德不圓、無復餘德，故云無餘也。 問：此乃是涅槃教意，云何釋般若文？ 答：作此問者，乃是五時教意，非經論之說。 《般若論》云「此經正辨無為法身」，與大般涅槃更復何異？ 「如是滅度無量無邊眾生」者，此下第三名為常心。 問：《般若論》云「不見眾生異於菩薩，常不離是心，名曰常心。 」此意云何？ 答：今言常心，可有二義：一者、常不離正觀心，名曰常心，則是論意不見眾生異於菩薩、不見菩薩異眾生，故眾生、菩薩皆畢竟淨，常作此觀，名曰常心。 二者、以正觀心常度眾生，不休不息，名曰常心。 何以故？ 「若菩薩有我相」下，此第四明不顛倒心。 雖常度眾生，無眾生可度，名不顛倒。 若見有眾生，則是我見。 凡夫自不能度，何能度物耶？ > Although universally delivering sentient beings, if one universally gives sentient beings the happiness of humans and gods, it is called the lower mind; if one universally gives sentient beings the happiness of the two vehicles, it is called the middling mind; now, universally giving sentient beings the happiness of great nirvāṇa is called the supreme mind. Although the bodhisattva universally gives sentient beings the happiness of great nirvāṇa, at times they may take rest: the path of saṃsāra is long, and the natures of sentient beings are manifold—how could one universally deliver them and cause them to attain constant happiness? Therefore, toward saṃsāra they give rise to a mind of weariness and disgust. Now it clarifies that the limit of saṃsāra is like space, and the limit of the nature of sentient beings is also like space; within this there is no coming and going in saṃsāra, nor are there any who are liberated. Therefore, the bodhisattva is able to constantly deliver sentient beings, instructing without weariness; this is called the constant mind. Although delivering sentient beings, one does not see any sentient beings that can be delivered; this is called the bodhisattva's non-inverted mind. Because one establishes these four minds, abides in the bodhisattva path, and attains great benefit, the treatise says: "Abiding in the profound mind of benefiting." Therefore, when one establishes these four minds, the bodhicitta is perfected; hence the treatise says: "The merits of this vehicle are perfected." Although there are four minds, they do not go beyond compassion and prajñā: the first three are the mind of compassion, and the last one is the mind of prajñā; the former is merit, and the latter is wisdom; the former is also skillful means, and the latter is called real wisdom. Therefore, in bringing forth the mind, one is endowed with blessings and wisdom, and is also endowed with the two wisdoms. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Bringing forth the mind and the ultimate \[attainment\] are not two or different." If compared with Kaishan's position, the emptiness of nominal designation is merely the empty mind, attaining only one of the four, and between the two wisdoms it attains only the purport of real wisdom. Question: Why is it called the vast mind? Answer: From "all classes of sentient beings" down to "neither with thought nor without thought", it universally gathers sentient beings; this is called the vast mind. Here there are two sentences: "all classes of sentient beings" universally gathers sentient beings. From "if egg-born" down, there are three sentences that separately gather sentient beings. The first sentence gathers sentient beings through one approach, namely the approach of the single \[category of\] birth; the second gathers sentient beings through the two approaches of with-form and formless: the desire and form realms are called with-form, and the single formless realm is called formless. The third gathers sentient beings through three approaches: "without thought" is the Heaven of Thoughtlessness in the fourth dhyāna of the form realm; "neither with thought nor without thought" is the final heaven of the formless realm; the single phrase "with thought" excludes the above two places and pervades the three realms. Question: Why not gather sentient beings through the six destinies? Answer: The six destinies do not gather the intermediate existence (antarābhava), whereas the four kinds of births gather everything; hence \[it is used\]. "I will cause them all to enter anupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa"—from here down is the second, clarifying the supreme mind. Saying "without remainder" (anupadhiśeṣa) here is not the ash-body and extinguished-wisdom of Hīnayāna anupadhiśeṣa; this means there is no burden that is not exhausted, with no further remaining burdens, and there is no virtue that is not perfected, with no further remaining virtues; hence it is called "without remainder". Question: This is the doctrinal purport of the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\]; how can it explain the text of Prajñā? Answer: One who poses this question follows the doctrinal purport of the five periods, not the statements of the sūtras and treatises. The Prajñā Treatise says: "This sūtra directly distinguishes the unconditioned dharmakāya." What difference is there between this and the Mahāparinirvāṇa? "Having thus delivered immeasurable and boundless sentient beings"—from here down is the third, named the constant mind. Question: The Prajñā Treatise says: "Not seeing sentient beings as different from the bodhisattva, and never departing from this mind, is named the constant mind." What is the meaning of this? Answer: Now, in speaking of the constant mind, there can be two meanings: first, never departing from the mind of correct contemplation is named the constant mind; that is the intention of the treatise that one does not see sentient beings as different from the bodhisattva, and does not see the bodhisattva as different from sentient beings, so that both sentient beings and the bodhisattva are ultimately pure—constantly practicing this contemplation is named the constant mind. Second, through the mind of correct contemplation, one constantly delivers sentient beings without ceasing or resting; this is named the constant mind. Why is this? From "If a bodhisattva has the mark of a self" down is the fourth, clarifying the non-inverted mind. Although constantly delivering sentient beings, there are no sentient beings that can be delivered; this is named non-inverted. If one sees that there are sentient beings, this is the view of self. An ordinary being cannot even deliver themselves; how could they deliver others? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699~en-mt.2.5.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (4) - [金剛般若波羅蜜經論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.vajracchedika!vajracchedikaprajnaparamitasutrasastra*zh-bodhiruci.1.8) — Classical Chinese - [金剛經纂要刊定記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1702.4.17) — Classical Chinese - [金剛般若經旨贊](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.12) — Classical Chinese - [御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2733.2.66) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.2.5) · Pramāṇa