[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) › [金剛般若經旨贊](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735) › 1.46 # 金剛般若經旨贊 1.46 金剛般若經旨贊 1.46 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.46) 經。須菩提至生實信不　贊曰。下明法身。即十八中。第四欲得法身住處。於中顯有三種法身。謂即言說智相福相。欲三法身。即分別為三。第一欲得言說法身。當斷第二不信空說疑。令修稱實持說之行。前文既言。欲得如來色身果者。當觀法身。故此令其欲得法身。然夫法身。有其二種。謂佛菩薩。福之與智。此福及智。是功德法。及依止故。皆名法身。此依言說教法而生故。此言說亦名法身。由能生詮福智身故。猶如實相觀照二種。正名般若。能詮文字。能生詮故。亦名般若。故此文字。亦名法身。既此言說。是法身因。若欲希求福智身者。應先欲得言說法身。現在當來。俱流行世。若欲流行。不應取為法非法相。而為持說。既令希願當現流通故。即於此而生疑念。向法無相行於布施。是因深義。又說如來非有為相。是果深義。因深果遠。邃旨難知。佛在之時。尚難信解。況佛滅後。時惡根微。豈更離相而為信解。云何令我當現流通。既無信者。寧非空說。此即由先欲得。有此疑生。疑念既興。便不希願。今者欲斷彼疑念心。令其希求現當持說。故說惡時有信持者。既為二意。說此經文。由此兩論。各明一義。無著約令希願。名欲得言說法身。天親就斷疑心。名斷不信空說。文中有二。初善現發問。後如來為說。此初也。善現意。欲斷彼疑心。令希求故。而發問云。於當後世。豈有眾生聞此言說法身章句。而生真實信解以不。 > Sūtra: Subhūti \[…\] up to: “will give rise to true faith or not?” > Commentary: Below, the text explains the Dharmakāya. This is the fourth of the eighteen \[topics\]: the abode of desiring to attain the Dharmakāya. Within this, three kinds of Dharmakāya are revealed: namely, the verbal \[teaching\], the aspect of wisdom, and the aspect of merit. Desiring the three Dharmakāyas is accordingly divided into three parts. First, desiring to attain the verbal Dharmakāya: one should sever the second doubt, which is doubting that \[the teaching\] is spoken in vain due to lack of faith, so that one is caused to cultivate the practice of upholding and explaining in accord with reality. Since the previous text already stated, “One who desires to attain the fruit of the Tathāgata’s form-body should contemplate the Dharmakāya,” it now causes them to desire to attain the Dharmakāya. > > Now, the Dharmakāya has two kinds: namely, the merit and the wisdom of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. These merits and wisdoms are dharmas of virtue and are the locus of reliance; hence both are called Dharmakāya. Because they arise by relying on the teaching dharma of verbal explanation, this verbal explanation is also called Dharmakāya. Because it is capable of generating and expressing the bodies of merit and wisdom, it is just like the two kinds—true-mark \[prajñā\] and contemplative \[prajñā\]—being properly called prajñā, while the expressing words, because they can generate and express \[them\], are also called prajñā; thus these words are also called Dharmakāya. > > Since this verbal explanation is the cause of the Dharmakāya, one who seeks the body of merit and wisdom should first desire to attain the verbal Dharmakāya, so that it circulates in the world in both the present and the future. If one desires it to circulate, one should not apprehend the marks of dharma or non-dharma while upholding and explaining it. Since \[the Buddha\] causes them to aspire for its circulation in the present and the future, doubts arise regarding this: “Earlier, it was said that practicing giving without the marks of dharmas is a profound cause; furthermore, it was said that the Tathāgata is not a conditioned mark, which is a profound fruit. The cause is profound and the fruit is far-reaching, and the deep purport is difficult to know. Even while the Buddha was in the world, it was difficult to have faith-and-understanding; how much more so after the Buddha's extinction, when the times are evil and capacities are inferior—how could they depart from marks and generate faith-and-understanding? Why cause me to circulate it now and in the future? Since there will be no one with faith, would this not be spoken in vain?” > > Thus, because of previously desiring to attain it, this doubt arises. Once the thought of doubt has arisen, one no longer aspires. Now, wishing to sever that thought of doubt and cause them to seek to uphold and explain it in the present and future, it is said that in evil times there will still be those who uphold it with faith. Since this sūtra text was spoken for these two intents, the two treatises each clarify one meaning: Asaṅga, focusing on causing aspiration, terms it “desiring to attain the verbal Dharmakāya”; Vasubandhu, focusing on severing the doubtful mind, terms it “severing \[the doubt that\] it is spoken in vain due to lack of faith.” > > Within the text there are two parts: first, Subhūti raises the question, and afterward, the Tathāgata explains it for him. This is the first. Subhūti's intention is that, wishing to sever that doubtful mind and cause them to seek it, he raises the question, saying: “In the future age, will there be any sentient beings who, upon hearing the phrases of this verbal Dharmakāya, give rise to true faith-and-understanding or not?” > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.45) - [Next: 1.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.47) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735~en-mt.1.46) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2735.1.46) · Pramāṇa