[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 # 金剛般若疏 3.4 金剛般若疏 3.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.1) 「須菩提！ 於意云何？ 須陀洹能作是念」下，此第二、釋成格量之義。 就此章中大開二別：第一、舉小乘因果釋成格量之義； 第二、舉大乘因果釋格量之義。 就此二章，各開兩別。 初段兩者：第一、舉小乘因成格量義； 第二、舉小乘果成格量義。 今即是初。 問曰：云何舉大小乘義成格量耶？ 答：前章云：如來所說皆不可取不可說，乃至一切賢聖皆體悟實相無為而有差別。 然此語意即是明悟實相無依無得之義，以悟無依無得故，須有大小乘賢聖不同。 疑者云：若言諸法不可取、不可說、無依無得者，云何小乘取得四果乃至大乘證得佛耶？ 以大小乘皆有證得，故知非是無依無得； 以大小乘皆說有證得，故知非是不可說義。 今為釋此疑故，明大小乘雖有證得，而實無所得； 雖有所說，實無所說。 是故當知無取無說、無依無得，是以舉大小乘釋成上不可取不可說，乃至皆以無為法而有差別也。 問曰：云何成上格量？ 答：諸法若是可取可說、有依有得者，受持則無功德； 良由波若無取無說，是以受持，其福無邊。 問曰：此經下文云「為大乘者說，若樂小法者，不能聽受」，《大品》云「波若是菩薩法，不屬二乘」。 今云何乃引小乘為證成？ 答：此舉小況大，明小乘人尚悟無依無得、無取無說，云何菩薩而不信無所得法耶？ 如大品引先尼為證，聽者聞諸法畢竟空不信受，故引先尼小乘人尚信法空，今大乘人無相法中豈不信空耶？ 又今是無所得三乘，是波若善巧方便用，此是大小，非有所得小也。 又欲引學小乘人令入大法，欲為小乘亦須學此法。 如《大品》云「諸天子！ 汝欲住須陀洹果，亦不離是忍也。 」問：若爾，此法便是通三乘法。 答：如觀中道者有三品：下智觀故，得聲聞菩提； 中智觀故，得緣覺菩提； 上智觀故，得佛菩提也。 問：何故聲聞法中立於四果，菩薩法中開於十地？ 師云：今須開此一路，此一路擁塞來久。 今明無礙通方悉得聖人善巧，為欲出處眾生，隨其根性故開大小。 然至論道門未曾大小，今作大小者，並是赴根緣故開大小方便。 然大小不同，由有其通別。 若通而為論，大小皆得名地、大小悉得稱果，故如三乘共十地，八人地見地即須陀洹果，薄地即斯陀含果，離欲地即阿那含果，已辦地即阿羅漢果，菩薩法中已辦地屬佛地，是知大小皆得名地。 然大小皆名果者，小乘既名四果，菩薩十地亦名十果，故《大品》云「有法是菩薩道，無法是菩薩果」也。 若就別為論，開大小不同，則果地為異，小乘則名因果，菩薩稱為十地。 所以菩薩名地是勝持廣普，能生能成，有此眾義故，與其地名； 聲聞無此諸義，故不名為地。 聲聞之人厭老病死，欲入無餘故斷除煩惱； 數辨蘇息遂其心期，故與其果稱。 菩薩無此諸事，故不名為果。 然復有互舉之義，其事常通。 何以知之？ 如三種皆乘、三種皆道、三種皆地、三種皆聖人，然地豈不通耶？ 故知隨舉一義耳。 問：依小乘義，明惑唯有見諦，思惟斷三界見諦惑既立初果，斷思惟亦立一果。 若爾，唯應有二果，何得有四果耶？ 若斷三界思惟既立三果，三界見諦亦應立三果。 又若約界而判，既有三界，斷三界惑應有三果，何故斷欲界惑立於二果，斷上二界惑立一果耶？ 若依靜散而判，欲界已為散地，斷欲界惑應立一果。 上二界已為靜地，斷二界惑亦應立一果。 今何因緣故，不依此諸義立因果耶？ 答：此是如來善巧假名制立，無有定相，通而為論，具如問也。 而今不爾者，斷三界見諦出三塗之表，為聖人故，立初果人。 見惡道塵散八十八頭蛇死，就斷三界思惟，更立三果，斷欲界思惟立於二果，斷上二界思惟立羅漢。 所以然者，欲界是苦難地，此既難可過度，是以斷欲界惑立於二果。 上二界非苦難地，已有解基，惑則易斷，是以斷上二界惑立阿羅漢果。 > From “Subhūti, what do you think? Can a srotāpanna think like this?” onward, this is the second \[section\]: explaining the meaning of the comparative appraisal. Within this section, there are two major divisions: first, adducing the causes and fruits of the Hīnayāna to explain the meaning of the comparative appraisal; second, adducing the causes and fruits of the Mahāyāna to explain the meaning of the comparative appraisal. In each of these two sections, there are two divisions. The two in the first section are: first, adducing the causes of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative appraisal; second, adducing the fruits of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative appraisal. Here is the first. > > Question: Why are the meanings of the Great and Small Vehicles adduced to establish the comparative appraisal? > Answer: The preceding section stated: what the Tathāgata has spoken cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken, up to all worthy and noble ones being differentiated through their awakening to the unconditioned dharmatā. Now, the import of these words is to illuminate the meaning of awakening to the dharmatā as non-reliance and non-apprehension; because of awakening to non-reliance and non-apprehension, there necessarily are the differences among the worthy and noble ones of the Great and Small Vehicles. The doubter says: If dharmas cannot be grasped, cannot be spoken, and are non-reliance and non-apprehension, how is it that the Hīnayāna obtains the four fruits and the Mahāyāna realizes and attains buddhahood? Since both the Great and Small Vehicles involve realization and attainment, one knows it is not non-reliance and non-apprehension; since both the Great and Small Vehicles are said to have realization and attainment, one knows it is not the meaning of being unspeakable. Now, in order to resolve this doubt, it is clarified that although the Great and Small Vehicles have realization and attainment, in reality there is nothing attained; although there is something spoken, in reality there is nothing spoken. Therefore, one should know that it is without grasping and without speaking, without reliance and without apprehension. Hence, the Great and Small Vehicles are adduced to explain the aforementioned \[teachings\] of being ungraspable and unspeakable, up to all being differentiated through the unconditioned dharma. > > Question: How does this establish the comparative appraisal above? > Answer: If dharmas were graspable, speakable, reliant, and apprehended, then accepting and upholding them would have no merit; it is precisely because prajñā is without grasping and without speaking that, when one accepts and upholds it, its blessings are boundless. > > Question: The text below in this sūtra says, “\[This sūtra\] is spoken for those of the Great Vehicle; if one delights in inferior teachings, one cannot hear and accept it.” The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: “Prajñā is the teaching of bodhisattvas; it does not belong to the two vehicles.” Why now do you cite the Hīnayāna to corroborate and establish this? > Answer: This is adducing the lesser to illustrate the greater, clarifying that if even practitioners of the Hīnayāna awaken to non-reliance, non-apprehension, non-grasping, and non-speaking, how could bodhisattvas not have faith in the teaching of non-apprehension? Just as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra cites Śreṇika as proof: when listeners heard that all dharmas are ultimately empty, they did not believe or accept it; thus it cited Śreṇika, a person of the Hīnayāna, who still had faith in the emptiness of dharmas—how could practitioners of the Mahāyāna now, in the teaching of signlessness, not have faith in emptiness? Furthermore, what is present here are the three vehicles of non-apprehension, which are the skillful means and function of prajñā; these are the great and the small, not the small of apprehension. Furthermore, \[the Buddha\] wishes to guide those who study the Hīnayāna to enter the Great Teaching; even if one wishes to practice the Hīnayāna, one must also study this teaching. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: “Devaputras! If you wish to abide in the fruit of a srotāpanna, you must also not depart from this forbearance.” > > Question: If so, then this teaching is common to the three vehicles? > Answer: Just as there are three grades of those who contemplate the middle way: through contemplation with inferior wisdom, one attains śrāvaka bodhi; through contemplation with middling wisdom, one attains pratyekabuddha bodhi; through contemplation with superior wisdom, one attains buddha bodhi. > > Question: Why are four fruits established in the śrāvaka teaching, while ten bhūmis are opened in the bodhisattva teaching? > The master said: One must now open this path, as this path has long been blocked. Now we clarify that unimpeded and universal adaptability fully captures the skillful means of the sage: wishing to rescue and guide sentient beings, the Great and Small are opened according to their faculties and dispositions. However, when speaking ultimately of the gate of the Path, it has never been great or small; that it is now made into great and small is entirely an expedient of opening the great and the small in response to faculties and conditions. Yet the difference between the great and the small is due to there being both common and distinct aspects. If discussed generally, both the great and the small can be called bhūmis, and both the great and the small can be called fruits. Thus, in the ten bhūmis shared by the three vehicles, the bhūmi of the eight people and the bhūmi of seeing are the fruit of a srotāpanna; the bhūmi of attenuation is the fruit of a sakṛdāgāmin; the bhūmi of freedom from desire is the fruit of an anāgāmin; the bhūmi of what has been accomplished is the fruit of an arhat; and in the bodhisattva teaching, the bhūmi of what has been accomplished belongs to the buddha bhūmi. From this, one knows that both the great and the small can be called bhūmis. And that both the great and the small are called fruits: since the Hīnayāna is called the four fruits, the bodhisattva's ten bhūmis are also called the ten fruits; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, “Dharmas with existence are the bodhisattva's path; dharmas without existence are the bodhisattva's fruit.” > > If discussed according to their distinctions, the opening of the great and the small differs: their fruits and bhūmis are distinct; the Hīnayāna is termed cause and fruit, whereas the bodhisattva is termed the ten bhūmis. The reason the bodhisattva is termed 'bhūmi' (ground) is that it supremely upholds and is vast and universal, able to give birth and bring to completion; because it possesses these numerous meanings, it is given the name 'bhūmi'. The śrāvaka lacks these various meanings, hence it is not called a bhūmi. The person of the śrāvaka reviles old age, sickness, and death, and wishes to enter the remainderless \[nirvāṇa\], hence they sever and eliminate afflictions; frequently realizing rest and respite to fulfill the longing of their heart, they are given the designation 'fruit'. The bodhisattva does not have these matters, hence it is not called a fruit. Yet there is also the sense of their mutual application, and the matter is always universally applicable. How is this known? For instance, all three kinds are vehicles, all three kinds are paths, all three kinds are bhūmis, and all three kinds are noble ones; so how could 'bhūmi' not be universally applicable? Thus one knows that one meaning is merely cited according to context. > > Question: According to the Hīnayāna doctrine, afflictions are only explained as \[severed by\] seeing the truths and \[severed by\] cultivation. Since the initial fruit is established upon severing the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms, severing the afflictions of cultivation should likewise establish only one fruit. If so, there should only be two fruits; how can there be four fruits? If severing the afflictions of cultivation in the three realms establishes three fruits, then \[severing\] the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms should also establish three fruits. Furthermore, if determined according to realms: since there are three realms, severing the afflictions of the three realms should have three fruits; why does severing the afflictions of the desire realm establish two fruits, while severing the afflictions of the upper two realms establishes one fruit? If determined according to calm and distraction: the desire realm is already a distracted realm, so severing the afflictions of the desire realm should establish one fruit; the upper two realms are already calm realms, so severing the afflictions of the two realms should also establish one fruit. For what reason now are causes and fruits not established according to these meanings? > Answer: These are provisional designations established through the Tathāgata's skillful means, without fixed lakṣaṇas; discussed generally, it is fully as questioned. But that it is not so now is because severing the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms brings one out beyond the three lower destinies to become a noble one; hence the person of the initial fruit is established. The dust of the evil destinies having settled and the eighty-eight heads of the serpent having died, with respect to severing the afflictions of cultivation in the three realms three further fruits are established: severing the afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm establishes two fruits, and severing the afflictions of cultivation in the upper two realms establishes the arhat. Why is this? The desire realm is a realm of suffering and difficulty; since this is difficult to cross over, severing the afflictions of the desire realm establishes two fruits. The upper two realms are not realms of suffering and difficulty, and already have the foundation of liberation, so their afflictions are easily severed; hence severing the afflictions of the upper two realms establishes the fruit of an arhat. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [3.4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.2) 言斷欲界惑立二果者，欲界思惟有九品，斷前六品名斯陀含果，具斷後三品立阿那含果。 所以斷前六品立斯陀含果者，《毘婆娑》中和須密論師云：「前六品煩惱能發無作潤於三塗，是故斷此六品制於一果。 又且既開惑以為九品，是則上中二三品其惑則重，是以斷之立於一果，後三品既輕故斷之而立阿那含果。 」莊嚴師云：欲界思惟九品煩惱潤業不同，前之三品潤邊地貧窮，次有三品潤邊地富貴。 問曰：立此四果，出何處文？ 答：《毘婆娑》以五義故立：一者、捨於曾道； 二者、得未曾道； 三者、得一味解脫； 四者、具修十六行； 五者、修得八智。 今以五義具立初果，下三果者可具三義，謂捨於曾道、得未曾道及一味解脫也。 如此等義，數論中廣釋，但知是假名方便，不如數論有所得解，數論但得名字，不知佛意也。 就初果文，前問、次答。 就答中有三：一、正答，明悟初果時不見得與不得、證與不證，即成上不可取、不可說義也。 「何以故」下，第二句、釋於上義。 須陀洹者，此言修習無漏，亦名逆生死流。 流有二種：一、生死流，即是煩惱； 二者、道流，名為正觀。 今此中具明二流，名為入流，即是入於道流； 不入色、聲、香、味觸法即是逆生死流，由入道流故。 逆生死流，故入道流。 然入道流而實無所入，亦逆生死流實無所逆。 第三句「是名須陀洹」者，結名也。 餘經云：得須陀，名為溝巷斷結，前觀欲界苦，斷欲界苦下煩惱。 次觀上界苦，斷上界苦下煩惱，還觀欲界集，次觀上界集，如是上下屈曲，似於溝巷，故云溝巷斷結。 三藏師云：得須陀洹者，此云至流，如煩惱引人至生死流，八正道引人至涅槃流也。 問：何故但云不入六塵？ 答：既不入六塵，亦不入六情六識，即明於法空。 不見須陀洹故，即是人空入道流； 無所入故，則涅槃不可得； 逆生死流無所逆故、生死不可得故，不人、不法、不生死、不涅槃，乃名波若須陀洹也。 第二果亦有問答，文來可知。 斯陀含者，此云薄婬怒癡，亦名一往來。 此人猶感欲界兩生，一生天上、一生人中便成羅漢，故名一往來，亦名頻來。 以頻受兩生，故名曰頻來。 第三、阿那含者，此云不還，亦云不來，斷欲界結盡，不生欲界，故名不來也。 「而實無來」者，問：阿那含名不來，既云實不來； 斯陀含名一往來，應云實往來。 上云一往來實無往來，時阿那含名不來，應云無不來。 答：其實應爾，但互文現意而不爾者，那含名不來，而云實無來者，此不來之名而無得之語，其義相稱，故以無來之語還釋不生之名。 上二果名不同，此所以非類也。 又意實應言而無不來，今少不字但云無來者，無即兼不，故省煩言也。 問：四果，十智中具有幾智？ 答：初二果，十智中除盡、無生及他心。 問：凡夫外道尚得他心，二果聖人何故不得？ 答：聖人非不能得，若得他心，即得四禪斷欲界，非復初二果也。 第三果人八智加他心，第四果具十智也。 從第四果去，即是第二、舉小乘果以成格量之義。 上來三種雖並稱果，若望羅漢，並皆是因。 就此文中復開為二：一者、通舉羅漢； 二者、別明善吉。 初亦有問答。 答中有三：一、直答； 二、順釋答； 三、反釋答。 問：四人並皆稱果，何故前三云果，羅漢稱道？ 答：果道之名皆通四人，但羅漢既其德極，簡異上三，偏云道也。 所以然者，《大經》云「菩提名盡智、無生智」。 菩提，此稱為道。 羅漢既得此二智與其道名，上之三果未得二智，不名與道也。 第二、偏據善吉悟解勝為證者，善吉猶是羅漢，但今是對揚之主，又復別得勝定異於餘人，又自引為證，欲使於義明顯也。 就文有四：一、明佛就其得上果； 二、明其果不作得意； 三、明若有得意，則不為佛所印可； 四、明以無著故為佛所歎。 > Regarding establishing two fruits through severing the delusions of the desire realm: the bhavanā-heya of the desire realm has nine grades; severing the first six grades is called the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, and completely severing the remaining three grades establishes the fruit of the anāgāmin. As for why severing the first six grades establishes the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the master Vasumitra says in the \*Vibhāṣā\*: "The afflictions of the first six grades can generate unmanifest karma and moisten rebirth in the three evil destinies; therefore, severing these six grades establishes one fruit. Moreover, having divided the delusions into nine grades, the delusions of the superior and middling two \[sets of\] three grades are heavy; hence severing them establishes one fruit, while the latter three grades are light, so severing them establishes the fruit of the anāgāmin." Master Zhuangyan says: "The afflictions of the nine grades of bhavanā-heya of the desire realm moisten karma differently: the first three grades moisten rebirth in the impoverished borderlands, and the next three grades moisten rebirth in the wealthy borderlands." Question: "From what text does the establishment of these four fruits come?" Answer: "The \*Vibhāṣā\* establishes them on account of five meanings: first, abandoning a path previously traveled; second, attaining a path not previously traveled; third, attaining liberation of a single flavor; fourth, fully cultivating the sixteen aspects; fifth, cultivating and attaining the eight knowledges. Now, the first fruit is established by fully possessing all five meanings; the lower three fruits may fully possess three meanings—namely, abandoning a path previously traveled, attaining a path not previously traveled, and liberation of a single flavor. Such meanings are extensively explained in the Sarvāstivāda treatises. One should merely know they are provisional designations and skillful means; it is not like the understanding of apprehension in the Sarvāstivāda treatises, for the Sarvāstivāda treatises only grasp the names and do not know the Buddha's intention." Regarding the text on the first fruit, there is first the question and next the answer. Within the answer there are three parts: first, the direct answer, clarifying that when awakening to the first fruit, one does not see attainment and non-attainment, or realization and non-realization, which accomplishes the aforementioned meaning of being ungraspable and ineffable. From "Why is this?" downward is the second sentence, explaining the meaning above. As for srotāpanna: here this means cultivating the uncontaminated, and it is also called "going against the flow of saṃsāra." There are two kinds of flows: first, the flow of saṃsāra, which is afflictions; second, the flow of the path, which is called correct contemplation. Here both flows are fully clarified: being called "entering the stream" means entering the flow of the path; not entering form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas means going against the flow of saṃsāra on account of entering the flow of the path. Because one goes against the flow of saṃsāra, one enters the flow of the path. Yet entering the flow of the path, there is in truth nothing entered; and going against the flow of saṃsāra, there is in truth nothing gone against. The third sentence, "This is called a srotāpanna," concludes with the name. Other sūtras say: "Attaining the srotāpanna is called severing the fetters in the trenches: first contemplating the suffering of the desire realm to sever the afflictions under the suffering of the desire realm; next contemplating the suffering of the higher realms to sever the afflictions under the suffering of the higher realms; turning back to contemplate the origination of the desire realm, and next contemplating the origination of the higher realms. Bending up and down like this resembles trenches; hence it is called severing the fetters in the trenches." The Tripiṭaka Master says: "Attaining the srotāpanna is translated here as reaching the flow: just as afflictions lead a person to the flow of saṃsāra, the Noble Eightfold Path leads a person to the flow of nirvāṇa." Question: "Why does it only say not entering the six sense objects?" Answer: "Since one does not enter the six sense objects, nor does one enter the six faculties or six consciousnesses, this clarifies the emptiness of dharmas. Because one does not see a srotāpanna, this is the emptiness of persons. Entering the flow of the path, there is nothing entered; hence nirvāṇa is unobtainable. Going against the flow of saṃsāra, there is nothing gone against; hence saṃsāra is unobtainable. Thus, no person, no dharma, no saṃsāra, and no nirvāṇa—this is called a srotāpanna of prajñā." The second fruit also has a question and answer; the coming of the text can be known. Sakṛdāgāmin is translated here as "attenuating lust, anger, and delusion," and is also called "once-returner." This person still experiences two births in the desire realm—one birth in heaven and one birth among humans, whereupon they become an arhat; hence they are called "once-returner," and also called "frequent returner." Because they frequently undergo two births, they are called a "frequent returner." Third, anāgāmin is translated here as "non-returner," and also called "not coming": having exhausted the fetters of the desire realm, they are not reborn in the desire realm; hence they are called "not coming." Regarding "yet in truth there is no coming": Question: "The anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' and it already says 'in truth does not come'; the sakṛdāgāmin is named 'once-returning,' so it should say 'in truth returns.' Above it said that the once-returner 'in truth has no returning'; so when the anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' it should say 'there is no not-coming.'" Answer: "In truth it should be so, but the alternating text expresses the meaning without doing so. The anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' yet it says 'in truth there is no coming' because the name of 'not coming' and the expression of 'no attainment' correspond in meaning; hence the phrase 'no coming' is used in turn to explain the name of 'non-birth.' The names of the two fruits above are different, which is why they are not of the same category. Furthermore, the meaning in truth should say 'and there is no not-coming'; now, lacking the character 'not' and merely saying 'no coming,' 'no' subsumes 'not,' thus sparing cumbersome words." Question: "Among the ten knowledges, how many knowledges do the four fruits fully possess?" Answer: "The first two fruits, among the ten knowledges, exclude the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and the knowledge of others' minds." Question: "Ordinary beings and non-Buddhists still attain the knowledge of others' minds; why do the noble ones of the two fruits not attain it?" Answer: "It is not that the noble ones are incapable of attaining it; if they attain the knowledge of others' minds, they attain the four dhyānas and sever the desire realm, and are no longer of the first two fruits. A person of the third fruit possesses eight knowledges plus the knowledge of others' minds, and the fourth fruit fully possesses all ten knowledges." From the fourth fruit onward is the second part: adducing the fruit of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative assessment. The three above, although all called fruits, are all causes when viewed in relation to the arhat. Within this text there are again two parts: first, speaking generally of arhats; second, specifically clarifying Subhūti. The first also has a question and answer. Within the answer there are three parts: first, a direct answer; second, an answer explaining in accordance; third, an answer explaining by contrast. Question: "All four persons are called fruits; why do the first three say 'fruit' while the arhat is called the 'path'?" Answer: "The designations of fruit and path both apply to all four persons; however, because the arhat's virtue is ultimate, to distinguish them from the three above, it specifically says 'path.' Why is this? The \*Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra\* says: 'Bodhi is named the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising.' Bodhi is called the 'path' here. Since the arhat has attained these two knowledges, they are given the name of the 'path'; the three fruits above have not attained these two knowledges, so they are not named with the 'path.'" Second, specifically relying on Subhūti's superior awakening and understanding as proof: Subhūti is indeed an arhat, but now he is the principal interlocutor, and he has also uniquely attained superior samādhi distinct from other people; moreover, he adduces himself as proof, wishing to make the meaning evident. In the text there are four parts: first, clarifying that the Buddha addressed his attainment of the superior fruit; second, clarifying that regarding his fruit he does not form the thought of attainment; third, clarifying that if he had the thought of attainment, he would not be endorsed by the Buddha; fourth, clarifying that because of non-attachment, he is praised by the Buddha. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [3.4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.3) 「人中最為第一」者，凡有三種第一：一者、人第一。 二者、離第一，謂離二種障：一、離煩惱障； 二、離定障也。 三者、德第一，即得無諍定及斷煩惱障智、斷定障智。 問：何因緣修無諍三昧？ 答：凡有三義：一者、昔聞佛說此三昧有種種功德，心信願得，今成羅漢故修此定，由昔因故，便習得也。 二者、在凡夫時，於多眾生起諍，故受苦報。 今得無學，還憶昔憂悔，故修此定。 三者、欲令多人得現果報，故復修之。 得此定已，前作方便守護他心，無一眾生於我起諍，然後現身，故名無諍。 問：以何方便法修此定耶？ 答：前散心中發願，隨其心願，要期近遠，或一土一村人物處所，悉願見其形相、姓族名字及知其心所趣向。 發此願已，入達分三昧，如昔所願，皆悉分明。 此事已還出散心，憶念定中所見，如夢中所見覺已還憶。 以是義故，能遮惡生善，不煩惱他，故名無諍。 無諍與願智相成，如前說也。 問：云何名為無諍？ 答：有人言：以慈心為無諍，以慈心故，不與物諍。 有人言：第四禪名無諍，以此定離三災，免四受故也。 有人言：空解為無諍定。 有人言：即以無諍智為無諍定。 今依論釋。 論云「依彼善吉者，遠離二種障，斷煩惱故得羅漢，斷三昧鄣得無諍定。 」故知此別是方法定，非是空解，亦非四禪，亦非慈心也。 問：文云「離欲羅漢」，離何欲耶？ 答：非是離煩惱之欲，乃是善吉好修阿蘭若行，遠離五欲五塵之境，名為離欲。 阿蘭若者，此云無事，即是優遊任放，不為塵累所拘。 四段文處易知，不須出也。 「佛告須菩提：如來昔在然燈佛所」下，是第二章，舉大乘因果釋成上義。 就文為兩：第一、舉大乘因釋成前義； 第二、舉大乘果釋成前義。 就舉大乘因中，開為二別：第一、舉受記； 第二、明嚴土。 今即初。 所以有此文來者，從上如來所說法不可取、不可說文生。 若言諸法不可取者，昔為儒童菩薩應不得記； 若昔為儒童菩薩遂得記者，則諸法可取。 若言諸法不可說者，然燈佛不應為其授記。 既為釋迦授記：「汝於來世當得作佛。 」則是可說。 以時會有於此疑故，佛騰眾疑問於善吉，故云「如來於然燈佛所有法得菩提不？ 」善吉答云：「於然燈佛所實無所得。 」此意明不見人是能得、無有記之可得，具如《淨名．彌勒章》記，如是無得無不得乃名得受記，此得實無所得也。 北人云：凡有四時受記：一是習種性不現前受記； 二是道種性亦不現前受記； 三是初地現前受記； 四是八地大無生忍現前受記。 此中文明釋迦由是習種性菩薩，未得初地已上無生法忍記。 今佛問善吉云：「我於爾時已證初地無生法忍三菩提耶？ 乃至金剛已後常住現果證三菩提耶？ 」善吉答云：「如來爾時未得初地無生法忍三菩提，亦未得金剛後常住三菩提。 」今謂論無此義，又未見經說，若就義推，於理不可。 此中乃明無依無得之義，破有依有得之疑，成上不可取、不可說意，云何乃作行位淺深解釋？ 故於義不然。 但經中不無三賢十聖之說，《首楞嚴經》亦有四種受記之文，非此中正意也。 「於意云何？ 莊嚴佛土不」下，此第二、次辨嚴土釋成上義。 來意同前。 若言諸法不可取、不可說，云何菩薩取淨佛土行？ 為釋此疑，故有此文來也。 問：因行無量，何故前辨受記，今明嚴土？ 答：受記是菩薩自行，嚴土是化他行，自悟無生故佛授記。 是自行眾生之類是菩薩佛土，故嚴土之行則是化他行，行門雖多不出此二，是故明也。 又前論得記則是正果，今論嚴土則依果。 又菩薩得無生已後更無餘事，唯成就眾生、淨佛國土故。 次第二句來文亦有二：一、問； 二、答。 問意可知。 就答中有二：第一、正明嚴土之真偽； 第二、勸修淨土因。 今即是初。 > "Foremost among humans": there are altogether three kinds of being foremost. First is being foremost among persons. Second is being foremost in abandonment: this refers to abandoning two kinds of obstacles, namely, abandoning the affliction obstacle and abandoning the absorption obstacle. Third is being foremost in virtue: this is attaining the absorption of non-disputation, as well as the knowledge that severs the affliction obstacle and the knowledge that severs the absorption obstacle. Question: For what reasons and conditions does one cultivate the absorption of non-disputation? Answer: There are altogether three meanings. First, formerly hearing the Buddha explain that this absorption has various merits, one had faith in one's heart and vowed to attain it; now having become an arhat, one cultivates this absorption, and due to the former cause, one becomes practiced in it and attains it. Second, while an ordinary person, one gave rise to disputation against many sentient beings and thus suffered retribution; now having attained the stage beyond training (aśaikṣa), one looks back, remembering former sorrows and regrets, and therefore cultivates this absorption. Third, wishing to cause many persons to obtain retribution in the present life, one further cultivates it. Having attained this absorption, one first applies skillful means to safeguard the minds of others so that not a single sentient being gives rise to disputation toward oneself, and only then does one manifest one's body; hence it is called "non-disputation". Question: By what skillful means does one cultivate this absorption? Answer: First, within the dispersed mind, one makes a vow. In accordance with that aspiration of mind, one sets a near or far limit—perhaps a land, a village, people, or places—vowing to see all their appearances, clan names, and personal names, and to know what their minds tend toward. Having made this vow, one enters the penetrative absorption (nirvedha-bhāgīya samādhi); just as previously vowed, everything is clearly distinct. Having completed this matter, one returns to the dispersed mind and recollects what was seen in absorption, just as what was seen in a dream is remembered upon waking. By this means, one can prevent evil and generate good without vexing others; hence it is called "non-disputation". Non-disputation and the knowledge of aspiration complement each other, as explained before. Question: Why is it called "non-disputation"? Answer: Some say that benevolence (maitrī) is non-disputation, because on account of benevolence one does not dispute with beings. Some say that the fourth dhyāna is called non-disputation, because this absorption is free from the three disasters and avoids the four feelings. Some say that understanding emptiness is the absorption of non-disputation. Some say that it is precisely the knowledge of non-disputation that constitutes the absorption of non-disputation. Now, we explain in accordance with the treatise (\*Upadeśa\*). The treatise says: "Relying on Subhūti, he was far removed from two kinds of obstacles: by severing afflictions, he attained arhatship; by severing absorption obstacles, he attained the absorption of non-disputation." Hence we know that this is a distinct methodological absorption; it is neither an understanding of emptiness, nor the fourth dhyāna, nor benevolence. Question: The text says "desire-free arhat"; what desire is abandoned? Answer: It is not the desire of afflictions that is abandoned; rather, it is that Subhūti loved cultivating the practices of the araṇya, keeping far away from the realms of the five desires and five sense objects; this is called "desire-free". "Araṇya" is translated here as "free of business"; that is, wandering at ease and unrestrained, not bound by mundane encumbrances. The locations of the four passages are easy to recognize and need not be cited. "The Buddha said to Subhūti: 'In the past, when the Tathāgata was with Dīpaṃkara Buddha...'" onward is the second chapter, adducing Mahāyāna causes and fruits to explain and establish the preceding meaning. In the text, there are two parts: first, adducing Mahāyāna causes to explain and establish the preceding meaning; second, adducing Mahāyāna fruits to explain and establish the preceding meaning. Within adducing Mahāyāna causes, it divides into two: first, adducing the reception of prediction (vyākaraṇa); second, clarifying the adornment of lands. Here is the first. The reason this text occurs is that it arises from the preceding statement that the Dharma spoken by the Tathāgata cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken. If one says that dharmas cannot be grasped, then formerly as the Bodhisattva Māṇava, he should not have received prediction; if formerly as the Bodhisattva Māṇava he did indeed receive prediction, then dharmas would be graspable. If one says that dharmas cannot be spoken, then Dīpaṃkara Buddha should not have bestowed the prediction upon him. Since he bestowed the prediction upon Śākyamuni: "In a future age, you will attain Buddhahood," then it would be speakable. Because the assembly at that time harboured this doubt, the Buddha brought up the assembly's doubt to ask Subhūti, saying: "Did the Tathāgata attain bodhi through any dharma when with Dīpaṃkara Buddha?" Subhūti answered: "When with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, there was truly nothing attained." This meaning clarifies that one does not see a person who is capable of attaining, nor is there any prediction that can be attained, fully as recorded in the chapter on Maitreya in the \*Vimalakīrtinirdeśa\*; only such non-attainment and non-non-attainment is called obtaining the reception of prediction—this attainment is truly non-apprehension. Masters of the north say that there are altogether four times of receiving prediction: first, receiving prediction not face-to-face at the lineage of habituation; second, receiving prediction also not face-to-face at the lineage of the path; third, receiving prediction face-to-face at the first bhūmi; fourth, receiving prediction face-to-face upon the great forbearance of non-arising at the eighth bhūmi. The text here clarifies that because Śākyamuni was still a bodhisattva of the lineage of habituation, he had not yet attained the prediction of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas at the first bhūmi or above. Now the Buddha asks Subhūti: "Did I at that time already realize the sambodhi of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhūmi? Or even realize the sambodhi of the permanent, present fruit after the vajra-\[like samādhi\]?" Subhūti answered: "The Tathāgata at that time had not yet attained the sambodhi of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhūmi, nor had he attained the permanent sambodhi after the vajra." We now maintain that the treatise has no such meaning, nor have we seen it stated in the sūtras; if inferred according to the principle, it is theoretically unacceptable. What is clarified here is simply the meaning of non-reliance and non-apprehension, refuting doubts about having reliance and apprehension, and establishing the preceding sense of being ungraspable and unspeakable; how could one interpret it in terms of the shallowness or depth of stages of practice? Thus in meaning it is not so. However, sūtras are not without the explanation of the three levels of sages and ten levels of āryas, and the \*Śūraṅgamasūtra\* also contains a passage on four kinds of predictions, but that is not the primary intent here. "'What do you think? Does he adorn Buddha lands or not?'" onward is the second part, which next distinguishes the adornment of lands to explain and establish the preceding meaning. The intention of its arrival is the same as before: if all dharmas cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken, how does a bodhisattva undertake the practice of purifying Buddha lands? To resolve this doubt, this text arrives. Question: Since causal practices are immeasurable, why was receiving prediction distinguished first, and now the adornment of lands clarified? Answer: Receiving prediction is the bodhisattva's own practice, while adorning lands is the practice of converting others. Because one awakens oneself to non-arising, the Buddha bestows the prediction: this is one's own practice. The categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's Buddha land; hence the practice of adorning lands is the practice of converting others. Although the portals of practice are many, they do not exceed these two; therefore it is clarified. Moreover, discussing the attainment of prediction earlier was the direct retribution (the person), while discussing the adornment of lands now is the dependent retribution (the environment). Furthermore, after attaining non-arising, the bodhisattva has no other business than maturing sentient beings and purifying Buddha lands. Next, the arriving text of the second phrase also has two parts: first, question; second, answer. The intent of the question is clear. Within the answer, there are two: first, directly clarifying the reality and falsity of adorning lands; second, exhorting the cultivation of causes for the pure land. Here is the first. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [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) ### [3.4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4.5) 香山頂有阿耨達池，流出四河，恒河即是四河中一也。 有人言：此河長八千里，廣處四十里，狹處十里，此中沙極細如\[麩-夫+少\]麵，水作白色如乳，極深象馬度皆沒。 次、舉經格量，其文可見。 財施不及法施者，具有多義：一者、明法施之時，能施之人多是聖人智人； 若使財施，能施之者則不爾。 愚人無能行施，所以財施則劣，法施則勝也。 二、明受法施之人亦必是智人方能領受，愚者之與畜生不能受此，故明法施為勝。 三者、明得福為勝，財施則但明能施之者得福，受施之者則不得； 若使法施，則能所二人竝皆得福，是故為勝也。 四者、法施則能施所施皆得而不失； 若使財施，則受施之人得五事果，能施則失也。 五者、財施則但益肉身，法施則益法身。 六者、則法施能斷惑，財施正是伏慳。 七者、法施則出有法，財施則是有流。 八者、財施果有盡，法施果無盡； 九者、財施不一時得，法施則一時而得。 十者、明法施具四攝，財施但一攝，是故法施勝於財施也。 > On the peak of Gandhamādana Mountain is Lake Anavatapta, from which four rivers flow out, and the Ganges is one among these four rivers. Some say: this river is eight thousand li long, forty li wide at its widest, and ten li wide at its narrowest; the sand in it is extremely fine, like roasted flour, and the water is white like milk, so extremely deep that elephants and horses crossing it are submerged. Next, citing the sūtra for comparative assessment, the text can be seen. There are multiple reasons why the gift of wealth does not match the gift of Dharma: First, it clarifies that at the time of giving the gift of Dharma, the person who can give is mostly an aryan or a wise person; if it were the gift of wealth, the one who can give is not so. A foolish person is incapable of practicing \[the gift of Dharma\]; therefore the gift of wealth is inferior, and the gift of Dharma is superior. Second, it clarifies that the person who receives the gift of Dharma must also be a wise person before they can receive it; the foolish and animals cannot receive this, which clarifies that the gift of Dharma is superior. Third, it clarifies that the attainment of merit is superior: the gift of wealth only explains that the one who can give gains merit, while the one who receives the gift does not; if it were the gift of Dharma, both the giver and the recipient together gain merit, which is why it is superior. Fourth, with the gift of Dharma, both what can be given and what is given are retained without loss; if it were the gift of wealth, the recipient gains the fruit of five things, while the giver loses them. Fifth, the gift of wealth benefits only the physical body, whereas the gift of Dharma benefits the dharmakāya. Sixth, the gift of Dharma can cut off delusion, while the gift of wealth merely suppresses stinginess. Seventh, the gift of Dharma transcends the realm of existence, while the gift of wealth is an outflow of conditioned existence. Eighth, the fruit of the gift of wealth has an end, whereas the fruit of the gift of Dharma is inexhaustible. Ninth, the gift of wealth is not obtained all at once, whereas the gift of Dharma is obtained all at once. Tenth, it clarifies that the gift of Dharma possesses all four articles of attraction, whereas the gift of wealth has only one article of attraction; this is why the gift of Dharma is superior to the gift of wealth. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699~en-mt.3.4.1) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [金剛般若波羅蜜經論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.vajracchedika!vajracchedikaprajnaparamitasutrasastra*zh-bodhiruci.1.85) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1699.3.4) · Pramāṇa