御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.211

2.211

經。須菩提若人言至所說義不　演曰。下第二明如所不分別。即無能見。前破我法所緣之境令知不實。今破能緣我法見心見心乃是所起分別。今翻令作無分別心故。言如所不分別也。論云。已說無所見方便。破義未說。無所見等入相應三昧時不分別。謂如所不分別等。云何得顯示如外道說我如來說。為我見故安置人無我。又為說有此我見故安置法無我。若有彼我見是見所攝。如是觀察。菩薩入相應三昧時不復分別。即此觀察。為入方便。演曰。由執我者。說彼為見明人無我名無我見也。執有此見名為法執明見亦是法無我。彼論自下明其法合文亦為二。初離我執。後離法執。所以然者。前喻中云。微塵碎為末。示現煩惱盡。雖言煩惱亦兼所知二障乃以二執為本。今明斷執障盡理圓證真起化非一非異故。說此文名為法合。頌云。

Sūtra: 'Subhūti, if someone says ... the meaning of what is spoken?' The Exposition states: Below is the second part, clarifying that through non-conceptualization as it is, there is no apprehending vision. Previously, the objective supports of self and dharmas were refuted to let it be known that they are not real. Now, the apprehending mind of the views of self and dharmas is refuted; the mind of views is the conceptualization that is arisen. Now, reversing it to make it a non-conceptualizing mind, it therefore says 'as it is not conceptualized'. The treatise states: 'Having already explained the skillful means of having nothing to be seen, the refuted meaning has not yet been explained. With regard to having nothing to be seen, etc., when entering the corresponding samādhi, one does not conceptualize—that is, as it is not conceptualized, etc. How is it revealed? Just as non-Buddhists speak of a self, the Tathāgata, for the sake of the view of self, establishes the selflessness of persons. Furthermore, to state that this view of self exists, he establishes the selflessness of dharmas. If that view of self exists, it is subsumed under views. Contemplating thus, when the bodhisattva enters the corresponding samādhi, he no longer conceptualizes. This very contemplation serves as the skillful means for entry.' The Exposition states: Because of those who cling to a self, it is spoken of as a 'view', clarifying the selflessness of persons, which is called 'the view of selflessness'. Clinging to the existence of this view is called dharmagrāha, clarifying that the view is also the selflessness of dharmas. In that treatise, below this, it clarifies the application to dharmas; its text also has two parts: first, abandoning ātmagrāha; second, abandoning dharmagrāha. Why is this? In the earlier metaphor it says: 'Fine dust ground into powder demonstrates the exhaustion of afflictions.' Although it speaks of afflictions, it also subsumes the jñeyāvaraṇa; the two obstacles take the two clingings as their root. Now, clarifying that through severing clinging, the obstacles are exhausted and the principle is fully realized, the true is realized and the transformation is arisen, being neither one nor different, this text is therefore spoken and named the application to dharmas. The verse states: