[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) › 3.2.1 # 金剛般若疏 3.2.1 金剛般若疏 3.2.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.2.1) 「須菩提白佛言：頗有眾生」者，此下第二段、明信受波若義。 所以明信受者，上說波若即是能被之教，今明信受即是所被之緣，此即是緣教相稱。 若緣非教緣，此教則不稱緣； 若教非緣教，此緣則不稟教。 以今緣是教緣故，此緣稟教得益，以教是緣教故，此則不空說。 為此因緣，故緣教相稱也。 又佛種種門說於波若，上已因果門說波若竟； 今就信受門說於般若，所以了悟無依無得，故名信受。 說此無依無得之信，即是說般若義也。 就此門中問答為二：初、即是善吉發問。 所以問者，上明因辨果義已周滿，是故今問信受之人。 然因是無所得因、果是無所得果，因是無所得因，雖行萬行而實無所行； 果是無所得果，雖得菩提而實無所得。 此事難信。 若實有萬行可行、實有佛果可得，信之則易； 若實無萬行可行、實無佛果可得，信之了亦易； 若言俗諦自有因果、真諦自無因果，有無各轍，信之亦易。 今竝不然，雖修萬行，而不見菩薩能行、不見萬行可行，無所依止而修萬行，濟度眾生，此事希有，是以難信。 如空中種樹，不依於地，而溉灌修治有於華實，此事為難，是故今問明有信者。 若言佛身同於二乘，是生滅法，亦易信； 若言佛身是常住法，凝然在金剛後心，此亦易信； 若言應身自無常，法身自是常，此亦易信。 今明如來雖生，畢竟不生； 雖滅，畢竟不滅。 雖無生無滅，而生滅方便利益眾生，此事希有，是故難信，所以問也。 問曰：此為問現在信？ 為問未來信耶？ 答曰：現在眾生福慧深厚，三多具足，在祇洹受道，聞必生信，故不問現在。 但佛滅度後，後五百歲入像法中，此時眾生薄福鈍根，雖尋經文，不能通了，故聞不生信。 《大智論》解信毀品文云「佛滅度後五百歲後，有五百部皆執佛語，不知佛意為解脫故，聞畢竟空，如刀傷心。 」故知未來能信人少，故知問未來世也。 又此舉未來有信以況現在，未來是惡世，外不值佛、內薄福鈍根尚信波若，況現世之人聞不生信？ 「佛告須菩提」下，此第二章明如來答。 就文為二：一者、遮無答； 二者、明有信答。 「莫作是說」者，即是遮無答也。 汝勿謂現在有信受之人，言未來起信受也，故云莫作是說也。 「如來滅後後五百歲」下，此第二、明有信答。 就文大開七別：第一、明信之時節； 第二、明能信之人； 第三、明所信之法； 第四、正出信心； 第五、明信之所由； 第六、明信之利益； 第七、廣釋信義。 此即第一。 言後五百歲者，有人言：正法五百年為初五百，次像法五百年為中五百，次像法後五百年名後五百。 今舉最後五百，此是像法將滅衰弊之時，亦有信般若者，況前兩五百無信人耶？ 今謂不然，言後五百歲者，如《大智論》明五百歲已後也。 前五百年得道者多、不得者少，故名正法。 次五百年，得道者少、不得者多，名為像法。 既正法滅已，次入像法，名後五百歲。 此中雖多不信，如五百部之例，然亦有信受之人，故《大品》云「是波若波羅蜜，佛滅度後，南方轉至北方。 」是中四眾要有信持乃至供養也。 又解云：佛滅後千年，為斷疑云：前五百是正法故聞有信，後五百是像法故聞不信。 若爾，後五百年無信波若，故佛今答云後五百亦有信者，不應言無信者也。 此時亦有信持乃至供養也。 「有持戒修福者」下，此第二明有能信之人。 什師翻經但明二人：一者、持戒人； 二者、修福人。 持戒人多是出家菩薩，修福多是在家菩薩。 《大智論》云「出家菩薩以尸羅為首，在家菩薩以檀為首。 」是故今文但明二人。 然此二人具通大小，若有所得小乘二人，則不信波若，故下文云「若樂小法者，則於此經不能聽受讀誦」。 若大乘二人樂無所得，乃信是法。 故下文云「此經為大乘者說，為最上乘者說」。 若是論經，便有三人。 > Regarding "Subhūti said to the Buddha, 'Could there be sentient beings...'": below this is the second section, which clarifies the meaning of faithful acceptance of prajñā. As for why faithful acceptance is explained: above, prajñā was explained as the teaching that is able to address \[beings\]; here, faithful acceptance is explained as the capacity that is addressed. This is precisely the correspondence between capacity and teaching. If the capacity were not the capacity for the teaching, this teaching would not correspond to the capacity; if the teaching were not the teaching for the capacity, this capacity would not receive the teaching. Because the capacity here is the capacity for the teaching, this capacity receives the teaching and gains benefit; because the teaching is the teaching for the capacity, it is not expounded in vain. For this reason, capacity and teaching correspond to each other. Furthermore, the Buddha expounds prajñā through various approaches; above, he has already finished expounding prajñā through the approach of cause and effect; now, he expounds prajñā through the approach of faithful acceptance. Because one completely awakens to non-reliance and non-attainment, it is called faithful acceptance. Expounding this faith of non-reliance and non-attainment is precisely expounding the meaning of prajñā. Within this approach, there are two parts of questions and answers: first is precisely Subhūti raising the question. The reason he asks: above, the clarification of the cause and the determination of the effect were already complete and exhaustive, and therefore he now asks about people who faithfully accept \[it\]. However, the cause is a cause of non-apprehension, and the effect is an effect of non-apprehension. The cause being a cause of non-apprehension means that although one practices the myriad practices, in truth there is nothing practiced; the effect being an effect of non-apprehension means that although one attains bodhi, in truth there is nothing attained. This matter is difficult to believe. If there were truly myriad practices to be practiced and truly a Buddha-effect to be attained, believing it would be easy; if there were truly no myriad practices to be practiced and truly no Buddha-effect to be attained, completely believing it would also be easy; if one were to say that the conventional truth inherently has cause and effect while the ultimate truth inherently lacks cause and effect, with existence and non-existence taking separate tracks, believing it would also be easy. Now, neither is the case: although one cultivates the myriad practices, one does not see a bodhisattva able to practice, nor does one see myriad practices that can be practiced; relying on nothing, one cultivates the myriad practices and delivers sentient beings. This matter is rare, and therefore difficult to believe. It is like planting a tree in empty space: not relying on the ground, yet through irrigation and cultivation it produces flowers and fruit. This matter is difficult; therefore, he now asks to clarify whether there are those who have faith. If one were to say that the Buddha's body is the same as that of the two vehicles, being a conditioned dharma of arising and ceasing, it would also be easy to believe; if one were to say that the Buddha's body is an eternally abiding dharma, solidly remaining in the final thought of the vajra\[-samādhi\], this would also be easy to believe; if one were to say that the response body is inherently impermanent while the dharmakāya is inherently permanent, this would also be easy to believe. Now it is made clear that although the Tathāgata arises, he is ultimately unarisen; although he ceases, he is ultimately unceasing. Although there is neither arising nor ceasing, through the skillful means of arising and ceasing he benefits sentient beings. This matter is rare, and therefore difficult to believe; hence he asks. Question: Does this ask about faith in the present, or does it ask about faith in the future? Answer: Sentient beings of the present have deep and thick merit and wisdom, being fully endowed with the "three abundances"; receiving the path at Jetavana, upon hearing they will certainly generate faith; therefore he does not ask about the present. But after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, in the final five hundred years entering the semblance Dharma, sentient beings at this time have meager merit and dull faculties; although they search the sūtra texts, they cannot penetrate and understand them, so upon hearing they do not generate faith. The Da zhidu lun, explaining the text of the chapter on faith and revilement, says: "Five hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, there will be five hundred sects all grasping the Buddha's words without knowing the Buddha's intention was for liberation; so hearing ultimate emptiness will be like a knife wounding their hearts." Hence we know that in the future those able to believe will be few; thus we know he asks about the future era. Furthermore, this adduces the existence of faith in the future to illustrate by comparison the present: the future is an evil age, where outwardly one does not encounter a Buddha and inwardly one has meager merit and dull faculties, yet they still believe in prajñā; how much more so should people of the present age not generate faith upon hearing it? From "The Buddha told Subhūti" below, this second chapter clarifies the Tathāgata's answer. In the text there are two parts: first, an answer refuting non-existence; second, an answer clarifying that there is faith. "Do not say such a thing" is precisely the answer refuting non-existence. \[Meaning:\] "Do not say that there are people of faithful acceptance only in the present, and say that \[none\] will give rise to faithful acceptance in the future;" hence he says, "Do not say such a thing." From "In the final five hundred years after the Tathāgata's passing" below, this is the second, an answer clarifying that there is faith. In the text there are broadly seven distinctions: first, clarifying the time of faith; second, clarifying the persons able to believe; third, clarifying the dharma that is believed; fourth, directly presenting the faithful mind; fifth, clarifying the source of faith; sixth, clarifying the benefit of faith; seventh, broadly explaining the meaning of faith. This is the first. Regarding the "final five hundred years": someone says, "The five hundred years of the correct Dharma are the initial five hundred; the next five hundred years of the semblance Dharma are the middle five hundred; the next five hundred years after the semblance Dharma are named the final five hundred. Now adducing the very last five hundred, this is the time when the semblance Dharma is about to perish and decay, yet there are still those who believe in prajñā; how much more so could the preceding two periods of five hundred years lack people of faith?" We say now that this is not so: regarding the "final five hundred years," it is as the Da zhidu lun explains: after the five hundred years. In the first five hundred years, those who attained the path were many and those who did not were few, hence it is called the correct Dharma. In the next five hundred years, those who attained the path were few and those who did not were many, hence it is called the semblance Dharma. When the correct Dharma has already perished and one subsequently enters the semblance Dharma, it is named the final five hundred years. Although here many do not believe, like the case of the five hundred sects, nevertheless there are still people of faithful acceptance; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: "After the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, this prajñāpāramitā will spread from the south to the north." Among them, the fourfold assembly must certainly have those who faithfully uphold and even make offerings to it. Another explanation says: One thousand years after the Buddha's passing, to sever doubts it is said: "Because the first five hundred years were the correct Dharma, upon hearing there was faith; because the final five hundred years are the semblance Dharma, upon hearing there is no faith." If that were so, in the final five hundred years no one would believe in prajñā; hence the Buddha now answers that in the final five hundred years there are also those who believe, and one should not say there are none who believe. At this time there are also those who faithfully uphold and even make offerings to it. From "there will be those who keep the precepts and cultivate merit" below, this is the second, clarifying that there are persons able to believe. Master Kumārajīva's translation of the sūtra clarifies only two kinds of persons: first, precept-keepers; second, merit-cultivators. Precept-keepers are mostly renunciant bodhisattvas; merit-cultivators are mostly lay bodhisattvas. The Da zhidu lun says: "For renunciant bodhisattvas, śīla is foremost; for lay bodhisattvas, dāna is foremost." Therefore, the present text clarifies only two persons. However, these two persons completely span both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. If they are the two persons of the Hīnayāna with apprehension, then they do not believe in prajñā; hence the text below says: "If they delight in inferior dharmas, they cannot listen to, accept, read, or recite this sūtra." If they are the two persons of the Mahāyāna who delight in non-apprehension, then they believe in this dharma; hence the text below says: "This sūtra is spoken for those of the Great Vehicle, spoken for those of the Supreme Vehicle." If it were the commentary's version of the sūtra, there would be three persons. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.1) - [Next: 3.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.2.2) - [Up: 3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699~en-mt.3.2.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.2.1) · Pramāṇa