[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) › 3.4 # 金剛般若論會釋 3.4 金剛般若論會釋 3.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.4) 下解離慢，經文有三，初、明起我度發慢不名菩薩，次、顯諸法無實除度執，後、引佛說證結成上。論解有二，初、標問屬經，次、正釋義。正釋義中有二，初、釋經中執我度慢不名菩薩，真諦、《能斷》、此論皆言「若菩薩作是念」，唯什、魏本無菩薩字，以錯入前印文中故，其義可解，不釋經文第二教除度執，如《大品》第一及第六中說，菩薩但有名字，名字亦空，故言「實無有法名為菩薩」。若無一法是能度菩薩，則不見有法可作慢者，故言無法名菩薩也。《能斷》本中重言有情者，能度、所度二有情也。第三引佛說證中，初、標能經，次、反解成上若菩薩有眾生念等。是標配中云為顯示此故者，謂顯次前實無有法名為菩薩故，佛世尊自引前說，以成今義。已觀魏本，似須菩提引佛先語，熟尋餘本，皆是佛言，《能斷》為正，將此為本，少有不同，應前被演。 > Below, the explanation of leaving conceit: the sūtra text has three \[parts\]: first, clarifying that arousing the conceit of ‘I liberate’ is not being named a bodhisattva; next, revealing that all phenomena are without actuality to remove the grasping at liberation; later, citing the Buddha's words as proof to conclude the above. The treatise explanation has two \[parts\]: first, indicating the question and correlating it to the sūtra; next, properly explaining the meaning. In properly explaining the meaning, there are two \[parts\]: first, explaining that grasping at the conceit of ‘I liberate’ in the sūtra is not being named a bodhisattva. Paramārtha, the \*Vajracchedikā\*, and this treatise all state: “If a bodhisattva has this thought”; only Kumārajīva's and the Wei versions lack the word “bodhisattva,” because it was mistakenly inserted into the preceding ratification text; its meaning is readily understood. Not explaining the second sūtra text of teaching the removal of the grasping at liberation: as explained in the first and sixth \[chapters\] of the \*Large Prajñāpāramitā\*, “a bodhisattva” is merely a name, and names are also empty; therefore it says: “there is truly no phenomenon named a bodhisattva.” If not a single phenomenon is a bodhisattva who can liberate, then one does not see any phenomenon that can act with conceit; hence it says that there is no phenomenon named a bodhisattva. In the \*Vajracchedikā\* version, repeating the word “sentient beings” refers to the two sentient beings: the one who can liberate and the one who is liberated. In the third \[part\], citing the Buddha's words as proof: first, indicating the correlating sūtra text; next, explaining by antithesis to complete the above, such as “if a bodhisattva has the notion of a sentient being.” Saying “in order to reveal this” in the correlation means that in order to reveal that immediately preceding \[point\], “there is truly no phenomenon named a bodhisattva,” the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, personally cited the previous explanation to establish the present meaning. Having examined the Wei version, it appears as if Subhūti cited the Buddha's previous words; examining the other versions thoroughly, they are all the Buddha's words. The \*Vajracchedikā\* is the correct \[one\]; taking this as the basis, there are slight differences, which should have been explained earlier. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.3) - [Next: 3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.5) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816~en-mt.3.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.4) · Pramāṇa