[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) › 2.35 # 金剛般若論會釋 2.35 金剛般若論會釋 2.35 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.2.35) 後配經中，初、問，後、屬，一、無我想，二、無相，無有相也，三、非無相等，無空也，如次配前三相。於三境處生，名三忍相，故知以何相生忍處。此中雖引迦利王等，依文次第而引顯之，意說無三相名忍相，不顯釋迦利王。又解迦利王者，即他怨害，生忍處亦是正引，略無餘二處，理亦無失，為義增明，勸令修學，下望引解。天親論云，是故為得第一法，此苦行勝彼捨身，結前忍辱波羅蜜即非忍辱文。又云，何況離我等嗔恚相故，此解無我想。又云，此行無苦，不但無苦亦有樂，以有慈悲故，如經，乃至「無相亦非無相」故，此明慈悲心相應故。彼論意說，無苦相故，經說無相，以有慈悲，有樂相故。經說「亦非無相」，無相之前，明與慈悲心相應迦，與此少別。又此無別，於忍度生有苦相故。言「非無相」，不於非波羅蜜外眾生之中於無相不救不化，由見生苦而行濟拔，與樂相應，而起慈悲，故云亦非無相，正與此文同。又有別解，此即三忍，無我相耐怨害忍；無想者安受苦忍，不見苦相，故能安忍；非無相者，諦察法忍，撥之為無，是耶見故。然依《能斷》，此無三相二處皆有，一、迦利王下，二、五百生下，餘本唯在迦利王下。梵文具有，道理定然。何故五百生下而無餘二相，但有無我想？故知餘本但翻者略，或復誦者不同。又此論王名迦利，羅什、流支云歌利，真諦云迦陵伽，《能斷》云羯利，詞異名同，此云忍苦害。 > In the subsequent matching to the sūtra, there are first a question and then the correlation: first, the notion of no self; second, signlessness, meaning no sign of existence; and third, not without signs and so forth, meaning no emptiness. These are matched in order to the previous three characteristics. Arising in relation to the three objective spheres, they are called the characteristics of the three endurances; thus one knows by what characteristics the occasion generating endurance arises. Although King Kali and others are cited here, they are cited and shown in the textual order; the intention is to state that the absence of the three signs is called the characteristic of endurance, not to interpret King Kali directly. Another explanation is that King Kali represents harm from an enemy, and the occasion generating endurance is also what is directly cited. Omitting the other two occasions is also logically flawless; to make the meaning clearer and encourage learning and practice, the following is cited in explanation. Vasubandhu's treatise states: "Therefore, to attain the supreme dharma, this ascetic practice surpasses that giving up of the body," concluding the preceding text on "kṣānti-pāramitā is not kṣānti-pāramitā." It also states: "How much more so because one is free from the signs of anger such as a self!" This explains the notion of no self. It also states: "This practice is free from suffering; not only is it free from suffering, it also possesses joy, because it is accompanied by loving-kindness and compassion, as the sūtra says: up to 'without signs and not without signs,'" which clarifies its association with a mind of loving-kindness and compassion. That treatise means: because there is no sign of suffering, the sūtra says "without signs"; because there is loving-kindness and compassion, there is a sign of joy. The sūtra says "not without signs." Prior to signlessness, it clarifies being associated with a mind of loving-kindness and compassion, which differs slightly from this text. Alternatively, there is no difference: because a sign of suffering arises regarding the perfection of endurance, it says "not without signs"; not failing to save and transform sentient beings outside the pāramitā in signlessness, seeing the suffering of beings and carrying out rescue, associating with joy and giving rise to loving-kindness and compassion—hence it says "also not without signs," exactly agreeing with this text. There is yet another explanation: these are the three endurances. The sign of no self is the endurance of bearing harm from enemies; that without notions is the endurance of bearing suffering, because not seeing the sign of suffering, one is able to endure peacefully; that which is not without signs is the endurance through discerning dharmas, because repudiating them as non-existent is wrong view. However, according to the Vajracchedikā, these three absences of signs appear in both places: first, under King Kali; and second, under the five hundred lives. Other editions have them only under King Kali. The Sanskrit text contains both, which is logically certain. Why would there be no other two signs under the five hundred lives, but only the notion of no self? Hence we know that other editions are merely abbreviated translations, or the reciters differed. Furthermore, in this treatise the king's name is Kali; Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci give Geli; Paramārtha gives Jialingjia; and the Vajracchedikā gives Jieli. The words differ, but the name is the same; here it is translated as "enduring suffering and harm." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.2.34) - [Next: 2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.2.36) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816~en-mt.2.35) — 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.2.19) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.2.35) · Pramāṇa