[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) › [金剛般若論會釋](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816) › 1.74 # 金剛般若論會釋 1.74 金剛般若論會釋 1.74 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.74](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.74) 下文但當釋其文相，更下會釋論文，准釋經文三。初解問文中有二，初、屬經釋依義，後、論文解說相。此中具足，即流支成就，義同名異。真諦經云，「諸相勝德」，成就有為相。佛菩提身故，具足成就是正所翻；勝德者，以有為相為佛勝德之體，是義翻之。下觀諸相謂相好，天親論解，乃四相相，謂是有為三種相故，不說住相，如《唯識》說。須菩提懸解佛意，故言不爾也，不可以有為三相成就得見佛之真身，所說有為非法身相。法身相者，無相為相，三有為相是有為相故，行無相因，還得無為無相實法身果，非行無相因而得有為有相假化身報。後佛為成滿前徵次答之義，故重告之，分三，初、「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」，是攝持欲願，顯有為相是虛妄，翻明異此虛妄，無相之相非是虛妄，令其攝持後發生欲願，非是欲願攝持有相虛妄之法，有相虛妄非是無分別定，修行攝持二，云意欲願是初行者妄行有相之惡欲願，非是般若無相欲願，般若無相欲願求無相，故論所言，欲願攝持是無相定，攝散二心根本欲願，故此欲願是正行者無相欲願次第。二云，「若見諸相非相，則非虛妄」，是安立第一義，「相」者為虛妄化身，「非相」為真實法身，見化身諸有為相非法身之無相，則非虛妄，彼以化身有相為真實身相，故是虛妄。後第三結，諸化有相，非真無相，則見法身如來，此為顯現，正是所說無分別定及攝散時，有相中非是真實法身相見，故見如來。此觀見如來，應勘《無垢稱經．觀如來品》說。 > The following text will simply explain the phrasing of the text, and further below reconcile and explain the treatises' passages, following the threefold explanation of the sūtra text. In the initial explanation of the question's text, there are two parts: first, matching the sūtra to explain the underlying meaning; second, the treatise text explaining the stated marks. Here, "fully endowed" is Bodhiruci's "accomplishment"; the meaning is the same while the words differ. Paramārtha's sūtra says, "the superior virtues of the marks," accomplishing the conditioned marks of the Buddha's body of awakening; therefore "fully endowed and accomplished" is the exact translation. "Superior virtues" takes the conditioned marks as the essence of the Buddha's superior virtues, which is a paraphrase based on meaning. Below, "observing the marks" refers to the primary and secondary marks; Vasubandhu's treatise explains this as the marks of the four characteristics, meaning the three kinds of conditioned characteristics, without mentioning the characteristic of abiding, just as explained in the \*Triṃśikā\* (\*Vijñaptimātratā\*). Subhūti intuitively comprehended the Buddha's intention, and so said "No": one cannot see the Buddha's true body through the accomplishment of the three conditioned marks, because what is spoken of as conditioned is not the mark of the dharmakāya. As for the mark of the dharmakāya, it takes signlessness as its mark; since the three conditioned marks are conditioned marks, cultivating signless causes yields in return the unconditioned, signless, real result of the dharmakāya, not that cultivating signless causes yields a conditioned, signed, provisional nirmāṇakāya retribution. Afterwards, in order to fulfill the meaning of the preceding interrogation and subsequent answer, the Buddha repeated his declaration to him, divided into three: First, "Whatever possesses marks is entirely deceptive and false" is the embracing of desire and aspiration, showing that conditioned marks are deceptive and false, and conversely clarifying that, distinct from this falsity, the mark of signlessness is not deceptive and false, causing them to embrace it and afterwards generate desire and aspiration. It is not that desire and aspiration embrace conditioned, deceptive and false dharmas, for the conditioned and deceptive is not non-conceptual concentration. Cultivating and embracing are two: the meaning is that desire and aspiration are the initial practitioner's evil desire and aspiration that falsely practice with marks, not the signless desire and aspiration of prajñā. The signless desire and aspiration of prajñā seek signlessness, and therefore what the treatise calls "desire and aspiration embracing" is the signless concentration, the fundamental desire and aspiration that gathers in the scattered mind. Hence this desire and aspiration is the correct practitioner's signless desire and aspiration in sequence. Second, "If one sees that all marks are non-marks, then they are not deceptive and false" establishes the ultimate truth: "marks" refers to the deceptive and false nirmāṇakāya, while "non-marks" refers to the true dharmakāya. Seeing that the various conditioned marks of the nirmāṇakāya are not the signlessness of the dharmakāya, they are then not deceptive and false; because they took the marks of the nirmāṇakāya as the marks of the true body, it was deceptive and false. Third and finally, the conclusion: when the various provisional marks of transformation are seen as not the true signlessness, one then sees the Tathāgata of the dharmakāya. This is manifestation: precisely at the time of the spoken non-conceptual concentration and gathering in the scattered \[mind\], in what has marks, it is not seen as the mark of the true dharmakāya, and therefore one sees the Tathāgata. Regarding this contemplation of seeing the Tathāgata, one should consult what is said in the "Contemplating the Tathāgata" chapter of the \*Vimalakīrtinirdeśa\*. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.73](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.73) - [Next: 1.75](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.75) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816~en-mt.1.74) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.74](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.1.74) · Pramāṇa