[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) › 3.61 # 金剛般若論會釋 3.61 金剛般若論會釋 3.61 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.61) 次下第三佛為述成，亦是勸行菩薩乘人，准前我見非見，亦應如是知、見、信解一切法非法。於中初、述成，次、破尋名執。菩薩發心者，真諦、《能斷》及此論並舉發行菩薩人。故論云，菩薩乘發行者，此顯示何人不分別，答前第二問也。言行菩薩乘者，應如是不分別。於一切法者，顯示何法不分別，言於一切法皆不分別，非但我見等。應如是知、見、信解者，此以答第四何方便，今據論釋如所不分別已，又云，即此觀察為入方便，故知方便通前三義。知、見、信解者，經有三，論判為二，謂定、慧學，即心、智也，於修二時，無漏戒俱亦為戒學，無別修位，故略不說。若爾，云何成知、見、信解三句？論云，「於無分別中知、見、勝解」，意言修無分別時，定、慧別修為二，合修入觀為一，故有三句。初言應如是知者，此教修定時應知諸法非法，論言若智，是修無分別人智；依止奢摩他，是修定時，名止品也。言修無分別人，若修諸定及依定起天眼等，觀諸時法，應知定心定境及所知法皆非法，如前我見非見，故言應如是知。應如是見者，論云，「依止毘鉢舍那」，觀通理事，言菩薩若以智慧觀諸法時，亦應明見諸法非法，如前我見非見，前故言應如是。以慧觀法明了，不同定、智，故名為見。此二在加行中，定、慧隨增，修二未均修，故應如是信解者，雙持定、慧二心，正入真觀時解故。論云，「此二依止三摩提故勝解」，爾時正解諸法非法，此是證信時解，故經名信解。論勝前知見時解，故名勝解。故無性《攝論》云，謂於法界內證相應，而起勝解。云何勝解？論云，「以三摩提自在故」，此據入真觀時離取相轉，故名自在；勝前取相解，故名勝解。又云「解內攀緣影像，彼名勝解」，此據入俗觀時，解識內法如影像等故，名勝解。論牒經結云，「如是知解已而不住法想」者，撿尋諸本，皆無結文，唯此論牒經有斯一句，結前三句，結前三義。推其文勢，有亦無妨。「而不住法想」者，明得此勝解時，於一切法無住著想，如於我見住非見想，故《能斷》云，「如不住法相」。什本云「不生法想」者，即不起執著，然闕如字。此不住想正顯無分別，前知、見二是加行故。或知、見、勝解三種皆方便攝，正不住法，始是根本、後得二智，故論牒經，結釋云「如是知解已而不住法想」者，此正顯示無分別也。世親論解三句云，「二智及三昧，如是得遠離」，謂世、出世智如論說知、見，二皆依三昧故，名為勝解；能伏及斷我、法見故，名為遠離。 > Next below, third, the Buddha ratifies it, and also encourages those practicing the Bodhisattva Vehicle: in accordance with the preceding \[point that\] the view of a self is no view, one should also know, see, and resolve with faith that all dharmas are non-dharmas in this manner. Within this, first, there is ratification; second, refuting the grasping that pursues names. Regarding "a bodhisattva who gives rise to the mind": Paramārtha, the Vajracchedikā, and this treatise all bring up the person who generates practice as a bodhisattva. Hence the treatise says: "Those who generate practice in the Bodhisattva Vehicle"—this reveals which person does not conceptualise, answering the second question from before. Saying "those who practice the Bodhisattva Vehicle" means they should refrain from conceptualisation in this manner. Regarding "with respect to all dharmas": this reveals which dharmas one does not conceptualise, meaning that one does not conceptualise with respect to all dharmas, not merely the view of a self and so forth. Regarding "should know, see, and resolve with faith in this manner": this answers the fourth \[question\], "which expedient means". Now, based on the treatise explaining non-conceptualising in accordance with reality, it further says that precisely this observation serves as the expedient means of entry; hence we know that the expedient means connects with the preceding three meanings. Regarding "know, see, and resolve with faith": the sūtra has three, but the treatise determines them as two, namely the trainings in concentration and wisdom, which are mind and cognition. At the time of cultivating the two, the untainted precepts that accompany them also constitute the training in moral discipline; since there is no distinct stage of cultivation for them, they are omitted and not mentioned. If so, how do they form the three phrases "know", "see", and "resolve with faith"? The treatise says: "knowing, seeing, and resolute faith within non-conceptualisation"—the meaning is that when cultivating non-conceptualisation, concentration and wisdom cultivated separately constitute two, while cultivated together to enter contemplation they constitute one; hence there are three phrases. First, saying "should know in this manner": this teaches that when cultivating concentration one should know that all dharmas are non-dharmas. The treatise says, "if it is cognition, it is the cognition of a person cultivating non-conceptualisation; relying on śamatha, it is the time of cultivating concentration, termed the division of calming." This means that when a person cultivating non-conceptualisation cultivates various concentrations and, relying on concentration, gives rise to the divine eye and so forth to contemplate dharmas of various times, they should know that the concentrated mind, the concentrated sphere, and the knowable dharmas are all non-dharmas, just as the view of a self before is no view; hence it says "should know in this manner". Regarding "should see in this manner": the treatise says, "relying on vipaśyanā", contemplation penetrates both principle and phenomena. This means that when a bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas with wisdom, they should also clearly see that all dharmas are non-dharmas, just as the view of a self before is no view; hence it says "should \[see\] in this manner". Because contemplating dharmas with wisdom is distinct and clear, unlike concentration and cognition, it is termed "seeing". These two reside in the preparatory stage, where concentration and wisdom increase respectively and the two cultivated are not yet cultivated equally; hence regarding "should resolve with faith in this manner": holding both minds of concentration and wisdom together, it is the understanding when properly entering true contemplation. The treatise says: "These two, relying on samādhi, therefore constitute resolute faith." At that time, one correctly understands that all dharmas are non-dharmas; this is the understanding at the time of verified faith, so the sūtra calls it "resolving with faith". The treatise considers it superior to the understanding at the previous times of knowing and seeing, so it calls it "resolute faith". Hence Asanga's brother \[i.e., Asvabhāva\] in his Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: it refers to giving rise to resolute faith in concord with internal realization of the dharmadhātu. What is resolute faith? The treatise says: "Because of mastery in samādhi"—this is based on entering true contemplation where it operates free from grasping at marks, hence it is termed mastery; being superior to the previous understanding that grasps at marks, it is termed resolute faith. It also says, "understanding the internal cognitive image taken as an objective support is termed resolute faith"—this is based on entering conventional contemplation where one understands that dharmas internal to consciousness are like reflected images and so forth; hence it is termed resolute faith. The treatise cites the sūtra to conclude: "having known and understood in this manner, yet not abiding in the notion of dharmas"—when searching through various editions, none have this concluding text; only this treatise cites the sūtra as having this one phrase, concluding the preceding three phrases and concluding the preceding three meanings. Deducing the momentum of its text, its presence is without problem. "Yet not abiding in the notion of dharmas": this clarifies that when obtaining this resolute faith, one has no notions of abiding or attachment toward all dharmas, just as one abides in the notion of no view with respect to the view of a self; hence the Vajracchedikā says, "as not abiding in the marks of dharmas". Kumārajīva's version says "not giving rise to the notion of dharmas", which means not giving rise to grasping and attachment, yet it lacks the word "as". This not abiding in notions directly reveals non-conceptualisation, because the preceding knowing and seeing are preparatory practices. Or alternatively, the three—knowing, seeing, and resolute faith—are all subsumed under expedient means, and only truly not abiding in dharmas begins to be the two cognitions of fundamental and subsequently attained; therefore the treatise cites the sūtra and concludes with the explanation: "having known and understood in this manner, yet not abiding in the notion of dharmas"—this directly reveals non-conceptualisation. Vasubandhu's treatise explains the three phrases, saying: "The two cognitions and samādhi / are thus freed from \[views\]." This means that mundane and supramundane cognitions, as the treatise states, are knowing and seeing; because both rely on samādhi, they are termed resolute faith; because they can subdue and sever views of a self and of dharmas, they are termed being freed from \[views\]. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.60) - [Next: 3.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.62) - [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.3.61) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [金剛般若經疏論纂要](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1701.2.262) — Classical Chinese - [金剛般若波羅蜜經論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.vajracchedika!vajracchedikaprajnaparamitasutrasastra*zh-bodhiruci.3.70) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1816.3.61) · Pramāṇa