[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) › 3.4.4 # 金剛般若疏 3.4.4 金剛般若疏 3.4.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.4) 若依《大品經》說，此中始終圓成一意，即是菩薩無大莊嚴為大莊嚴，雖大莊嚴實無莊嚴。 然依論釋，此中文云「須菩提言：不也。 世尊」者，此明如來法身實無七寶形相莊嚴，故不應言菩薩有七寶淨土之可取也。 如來說莊嚴佛土者，疑者云：若形相莊嚴非真土者，佛何故說七寶等為淨土，令菩薩修淨土因取淨土果耶？ 故今釋云：如來以正法為身、無身非身，是故無土。 今說形相為淨土者，此為始行之人，令棄土沙之穢、取寶玉之淨耳，非是第一義真淨土也，故言如來莊嚴佛土則非莊嚴也。 「是名莊嚴」者，此是第一義真實莊嚴。 正以諸法實相無德不備、無累不淨，故名莊嚴； 為至人之所栖止，故名之為土。 「應如是生清淨心」下，此第二、明淨土因。 然上明土果，破別相世俗之土，明第一義真淨佛土，故明二土真偽不同，此中辨因有得失之異。 就文開為三別：第一、正勸修得； 二者、勸捨失； 三者、重勸修得。 「應如是生清淨信心」，此即是勸修得也。 「不應住聲香味觸法生心」者，此第二句勸失捨。 「應無所住」下，第三句、勸修得。 「須菩提！ 譬如有人身如須彌山王」下，第二、明大乘果證前無取無說成格量之義。 就文為二：前佛問，次善吉答。 今即初問。 成論人釋云：山王廣大譬無相理廣大也。 今謂不然，非但義無次第，亦是文無所出。 今依論生起，猶為釋疑。 疑云：若無取無說者，云何諸佛取得菩提而為他說得菩提耶？ 所以舉須彌山者，明須彌於十寶山中最大，譬佛於十地中最大。 須彌，此云妙高山，亦云安明山也。 釋意云：如須彌山雖於十寶山中之大，亦無心言大。 佛亦爾，雖於眾聖中大，亦云無心言大； 雖得菩提，亦無心言得也。 「佛說非身是名大身」者，又釋疑，疑云：聞須彌無心言大，謂與佛齊，須彌既是有為有漏，言佛亦是有為有漏。 故今釋云「佛說非身」者，明佛不同須彌，非是有為有漏身，故云非身。 「是名大身」，即是無為無漏身也，故云是名大身也。 問：此舉三佛中何佛耶？ 答：正舉報佛。 所以然者，報佛正是修因滿故得菩提。 法佛是佛性，未得菩提，故不說法佛； 得報佛竟方起應化，故化佛亦非得菩提，故但舉報佛也。 「須菩提！ 於意云何？ 如恒河中所有沙數」下，此第二、舉諸恒河沙珍寶布施格量持說四句偈也。 所以有此文來者，凡有二義：一者、上明布施少，正是三千世界珍寶故不及持經。 今明布施多，謂諸恒沙世界珍寶應及持經。 又上大千珍寶但施眾生，故是福田劣。 今恒沙珍寶供養諸佛，此是福田勝，應及持經。 今明雖施多田勝，由是有所得施，亦不及持經也。 問：先說大千格量既不及持經，何故不即說恒沙珍寶以格量持經耶？ 答：增數明義從小至多，實應相次，但上聞大千格量不及持經，時會或未了，不及之所以，謂波若猶是可取可說，云何受持四句及勝大千珍寶？ 是以上廣釋疑，明波若非可取可說故，四句雖少，若持若說其福則多； 布施雖多，是可取可說，故其福則少。 所以釋前疑竟，方顯勝之所由，故方更格量也。 就此文中為二：一、明財施福多； 二、明法施格量。 就初有兩問答，即為二意：初一番明沙數多，後一番明福德多。 今以問答相承，直為四別：一、舉沙數為問； 二、稱事而答； 三、舉財施為問； 四、明施福多也。 初問中有三意：前舉一恒沙為本，二以沙數河，三以彼沙數河中之沙為問。 第二答中有兩意：初、直答，多從後德。 「但諸恒河」下，顯多之義，明諸河顯數尚以無邊，況河中之沙云何可數？ 問：何因緣故，佛經之中多舉恒河為喻？ 答：於四河中恒河最大，其沙又多，故舉為喻。 二者、外道云此是吉河，入中洗者罪垢清淨，故舉為喻。 三者、餘河名字數轉，此河世世名字不轉也。 又五天竺國在此河邊住，佛弟子眼見，故舉為喻。 > If we rely on what the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, this passage from beginning to end coherently forms one meaning: namely, that for a bodhisattva, being without great adornment is the great adornment, and although there is great adornment, in truth there is no adornment. Yet relying on the commentary's explanation, where the text here says, "Subhūti said: 'No, World-Honoured One,'" this clarifies that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya truly lacks the marks and adornments of the seven precious things; hence one should not say that a bodhisattva has a pure land of seven precious things to be apprehended. Regarding "The Tathāgata speaks of adorning Buddha-lands": a doubter might ask, "If the adornment of marks is not the true land, why does the Buddha speak of the seven precious things and so forth as a pure land, causing bodhisattvas to cultivate the causes of a pure land and grasp the fruit of a pure land?" Thus it is now explained: The Tathāgata takes the true Dharma as his body, having no body and no non-body; therefore there is no land. When he now speaks of marks as a pure land, this is for practitioners at the beginning stages, to cause them to abandon the defilement of earth and sand and grasp the purity of gems and jade; it is not the true pure land of the ultimate truth. Hence it is said that the Tathāgata adorning a Buddha-land is no adornment. Regarding "is called adornment": this is the true adornment of the ultimate truth. Precisely because the dharmatā of all phenomena lacks no virtue and has no burden that is not purified, it is called adornment; because it is where the consummate person dwells, it is called a land. From "should thus give rise to a pure mind" onward is the second part: clarifying the causes of a pure land. Now, the above clarified the fruit of the land, refuting the world's differentiated lands and clarifying the true pure Buddha-land of the ultimate truth, thus clarifying the difference between the true and false aspects of the two lands; here, the causes are distinguished according to the differences between gain and loss. Within the text, it is divided into three sections: first, directly encouraging cultivation and attainment; second, encouraging abandoning the defects; third, reiterating encouragement to cultivate and attain. "Should thus give rise to a pure mind of faith" is the encouragement to cultivate and attain. "Should not give rise to a mind abiding in sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or phenomena" is the second sentence, encouraging abandoning defects. From "should not abide in anything" onward is the third sentence, encouraging cultivation and attainment. From "Subhūti! Suppose there were a person whose body was like Mount Sumeru, king of mountains" onward is the second part: clarifying the fruit of the Mahāyāna to verify the previous meaning of non-apprehension and non-explanation, thereby establishing the comparative assessment. The text has two parts: first the Buddha's question, and next Subhūti's reply. This is the initial question. Masters of the Tattvasiddhi explain: The vastness of the king of mountains illustrates the vastness of the principle of signlessness. We now say this is not so: not only does the meaning lack proper order, but the text has no source for it. Now, generating \[the meaning\] on the basis of the commentary, it is still to resolve a doubt. The doubt asks: If there is no apprehension and no explanation, how do the Buddhas attain bodhi and speak of attaining bodhi for others? The reason Mount Sumeru is cited is to clarify that Sumeru is the largest among the ten jewel mountains, illustrating that the Buddha is the greatest among the ten bhūmis. Sumeru is translated here as "Wondrous High Mountain" and also as "Peaceful and Luminous Mountain". The meaning of the explanation is: just as Mount Sumeru, although the greatest among the ten jewel mountains, has no mind that says it is great, the Buddha is likewise: although he is the greatest among all the sages, he likewise has no mind that says he is great; although he attains bodhi, he also has no mind that says he attains it. Regarding "The Buddha explains as no body, which is called a great body": this again resolves a doubt. The doubt asks: Hearing that Sumeru has no mind that says it is great, one might think it is equal to the Buddha; since Sumeru is conditioned and contaminated, one might say that the Buddha is also conditioned and contaminated. Therefore, it is now explained: "The Buddha explains as no body" clarifies that the Buddha is not like Sumeru and is not a conditioned and contaminated body; hence it is called "no body". "Is called a great body" means the unconditioned and uncontaminated body; hence it is said, "is called a great body." Question: Among the three bodies of the Buddha, which Buddha is being cited here? Answer: It specifically cites the retribution body (saṃbhogakāya). Why is this? The retribution body is precisely the fulfillment of cultivating causes, and therefore attains bodhi. The Dharma-body is the Buddha-nature, which has not yet attained bodhi; therefore the Dharma-body is not mentioned. Only after attaining the retribution body does he give rise to response and transformation bodies; hence the transformation body also does not attain bodhi. Therefore, he only cites the retribution body. From "Subhūti! What do you think? If there were as many sands as in the Ganges..." onward is the second part: citing the dāna of precious gems equal to the sands of all those Ganges rivers to make a comparative assessment with upholding and expounding a four-line gāthā. The appearance of this passage has two reasons: First, previously it was explained that a small dāna—namely, the precious gems of three thousand worlds—did not match upholding the sūtra. Now it clarifies that a vast dāna—namely, the precious gems of as many worlds as the sands of all those Ganges rivers—should match upholding the sūtra. Furthermore, previously the precious gems of the great chiliocosm were given only to sentient beings, which was an inferior field of merit. Now, the precious gems equal to the sands of the Ganges are offered to the Buddhas, which is a superior field of merit and should match upholding the sūtra. Now it is shown that although the gift is vast and the field is superior, because it is a dāna of apprehension, it still does not match upholding the sūtra. Question: Since the previously stated comparison with the great chiliocosm already did not match upholding the sūtra, why did he not immediately speak of the precious gems equal to the sands of the Ganges to assess it against upholding the sūtra? Answer: Expounding the meaning by increasing the number from few to many should indeed proceed in sequence; but previously, upon hearing that the comparative assessment of the great chiliocosm did not match upholding the sūtra, the assembly at that time may not have understood the reason why it did not match, thinking that prajñā was still something to be apprehended and explained: how could receiving and upholding four lines surpass the precious gems of a great chiliocosm? Therefore, the above broadly resolved the doubt, clarifying that because prajñā cannot be apprehended or explained, although four lines are few, if one upholds or expounds them, the merit is vast; although the dāna is vast, it can be apprehended and explained, so its merit is small. It is for this reason that only after resolving the previous doubt is the ground of its superiority revealed, and therefore the comparative assessment is made again. Within this passage there are two parts: first, clarifying that the merit of the gift of wealth is great; second, clarifying the comparative assessment of the gift of Dharma. In the first part there are two questions and answers, which have two meanings: the first round clarifies that the number of sands is great, and the second round clarifies that the merit is great. Taking the questions and answers in succession, there are directly four divisions: first, asking about the number of sands; second, answering according to the matter; third, asking about the gift of wealth; fourth, clarifying that the merit of the gift is great. Within the first question there are three aspects: first, taking one Ganges's sands as the basis; second, taking rivers equal to the number of sands; third, asking about the sands in those rivers numbering like the sands. In the second answer there are two aspects: first, answering directly, mostly following the subsequent virtue. From "Just those Ganges rivers..." onward, the meaning of vastness is shown, clarifying that the number of the rivers themselves is already boundless, so how much more uncountable are the sands within the rivers? Question: For what reason do Buddhist sūtras frequently cite the Ganges as a metaphor? Answer: Among the four rivers, the Ganges is the largest, and its sand is also the most abundant, so it is cited as a metaphor. Second, non-Buddhists say this is an auspicious river, and that those who enter it to bathe are purified of sins and defilements; hence it is cited as a metaphor. Third, the names of other rivers change frequently, but this river's name does not change age after age. Furthermore, the five regions of India reside alongside this river, and the Buddha's disciples saw it with their own eyes; hence it is cited as a metaphor. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.3) - [Next: 3.4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.5) - [Up: 3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699~en-mt.3.4.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.4) · Pramāṇa