金剛經疏 1.2.3

1.2.3

此四清淨。 攝一切淨。 是第一問也。 問敬也。 舉。 如是世尊。 如來有肉眼者。 是菩提隨俗答也。 如來有肉眼。 無障隔處。 見者。 是肉眼見。 此言見者。 非正見也是第六意識生分別故第六識者。 心是也。 法花經云。 應以種種身得度者。 即現種種身。 而為說法。 此下第二問如來有天眼無。 舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有天眼天眼不。 有二。 具在疏中。 問敬也。 舉。 如是世尊。 如來有天眼。 是第二答也。 第四禪者。 五淨居天是也。 天眼者。 亦以肉團為體。 發光見色。 法花經云。 若能受持讀誦。 見障外色。 此名現世見。 從此第三問。 有惠眼無。 舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有惠眼不。 是第三問敬也。 舉　如是世尊。 如來有惠眼。 是第三答也維摩經云。 佛以一音演說法。 眾生隨類各得解。 觀察決擇。 稱之為惠。 喻大圓鏡智。 種種皆見。 從此以下。 第四問有法眼無。 舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有法眼不。 是第四問敬。 問敬也。 舉　如是世尊。 如來有法眼。 是第四答。 眼者是勇泉義。 證濟一切。 故名勇泉。 泉水不分別。 一切眾生自分別泉水。 喻海水盤理。 著盤理。 海水椀理。 著椀理。 海水。 水皆一等。 器有差別不同。 水皆一等。 從此以下。 第五問有佛眼無。 舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有佛眼不。 是第五問。 問敬也。 舉　如是世尊。 如來有佛眼。 是第五答也。 以前諸文。 皆有遮立。 何為此文。 何不遮邪。 此文是第一義諦。 所以不遮。 從此以下。 釋智清淨有三。 先舉初文。 舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 恒河中所有沙。 佛說是沙不　從此以下。 須菩提答。 舉　如是世尊。 如來說是沙□□□□此第三問恒河中有多少沙。 舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 如恒河中所有沙。 如是等恒河。 是諸恒河所有沙數。 佛世界如是。 寧為多不□□□□□□□從此第四答。 看舉。 甚多世尊□□□□□此須菩提問。 釋迦答。 看舉。 佛告須菩提。 爾所土中。 所有眾生。 若干種心者。 種難計故名若干　從此以下。 顯能知舉。 如來悉知者。 此顯能知也　此下兩徵兩釋。 作何勿心想　何以故。 是初徵也　從此以下。 釋迦分疎。 知眾生心無。 舉。 如來說諸心。 皆為非心。 是名為心者。 貪嗔邪見心取。 作罪者發者。 不簡不信者。 簡却為勿妄相顛倒　所以者何　是第二徵也。 第二釋。 看舉。 須菩提。 過去心不可得。 現在心不可得。 未來心不可得者。 三心之中。 是何心造罪。 過去心已過。 未來心未到。 現在心不住。 何須一一妄豈執著　第三讚染生信相中有三。 先舉初文。 舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 若有人。 滿三千大千世界。 七寶以用布施。 是以是因緣。 得福多不。 從此須菩提述答。 看舉。 如是世尊。 此人以是因緣。 得福甚多者。 第二述答也。 何勿是多。 舉。 須菩提。 若福德有實。 如來不說得福德多。 以福德無故。 如來說得福德多者。 此釋成也。 三事不空者。 見乞人。 見財勿見。 自身施。 此不空三事。 體空者。 不見乞人。 不見財。 勿不見自身施者。 此三事體空　從此眼智。 有兩問答。 先舉初文舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 佛可以具足色身見不　問敬也。 答。 看舉　不也尊。 如來不應以具足色身見　色身不是如來。 何以故者。 欲明義也。 從此明。 看。 舉　如來具足色身。 即非具足色身。 是名具足色身者。 由身不具。 令身闕故　第二如來可以諸相無。 舉　須菩提。 於意云何。 如來可以具足諸相見不。 是第二問也　如來不可諸相見。 不也世尊。

These four purities subsume all purities. This is the first question. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the fleshly eye." This is [Subhūti's] reply in accordance with conventional truth. That the Tathāgata possesses the fleshly eye and sees where there is no obstruction—this is seeing with the fleshly eye. What is spoken of here as seeing is not correct seeing; it is because the sixth consciousness generates discrimination. The sixth consciousness is the mind. The Lotus Sūtra says: "To those who should be saved by various kinds of bodies, he immediately manifests various kinds of bodies and preaches the Dharma for them." Below this is the second question: whether the Tathāgata possesses the divine eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the divine eye or not?'" There are two aspects, detailed in the commentary. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the divine eye.'" This is the second reply. The fourth dhyāna refers to the Five Pure Abodes. The divine eye also takes the lump of flesh as its physical basis; emitting light, it sees forms. The Lotus Sūtra says that if one can uphold, read, and recite it, one will see forms beyond obstructions; this is called seeing in the present world. From here is the third question: whether he possesses the wisdom eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the wisdom eye or not?'" This is the third inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the wisdom eye.'" This is the third reply. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra says: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each attain understanding according to their kind." Observing and deciding is called wisdom (hui). It is likened to the great mirror-like wisdom (ādarśajñāna): all the various [things] are seen. From here below is the fourth question: whether he possesses the Dharma eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the Dharma eye or not?'" This is the fourth inquiry out of reverence. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the Dharma eye.'" This is the fourth reply. "Eye" has the meaning of a gushing spring; it confirms and delivers all, hence it is called a gushing spring. The spring water does not discriminate; all sentient beings discriminate the spring water by themselves. It is likened to seawater in a tray, placed in a tray; seawater in a bowl, placed in a bowl. The seawater is uniformly of one kind, but the vessels have differences and are not the same; the water is uniformly of one kind. From here below is the fifth question: whether he possesses the Buddha eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the Buddha eye or not?'" This is the fifth question. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the Buddha eye.'" This is the fifth reply. The preceding passages all contain refutations and establishments; why does this passage not refute? Because this passage is the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), it does not refute. From here below, the explanation of the purity of wisdom has three parts. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? As to all the sands in the Gaṅgā, does the Buddha speak of them as sand?'" From here below, Subhūti replies. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata speaks of them as sand.'" […] This is the third question: how much sand is in the Gaṅgā? To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? If there were as many Gaṅgā rivers as the sands in the Gaṅgā, and there were as many Buddha-worlds as the sands in all those Gaṅgā rivers, would they indeed be many?'" […] From here is the fourth reply. Look at the quotation: "'Extremely many, Bhagavat.'" […] Here Subhūti asks, and Śākyamuni replies. Look at the quotation: "The Buddha told Subhūti: 'All the sentient beings in that many lands have diverse minds'"—because their varieties are difficult to calculate, they are called "diverse". From here below reveals the ability to know. To quote: "'The Tathāgata fully knows them.'" This reveals the ability to know. Below this are two interrogations and two explanations. What kind of mental conceptions do they produce? "Why is this?" is the first interrogation. From here below, Śākyamuni distinguishes and explains, knowing whether sentient beings' minds exist or not. To quote: "'The minds spoken of by the Tathāgata are all not minds; therefore they are called minds.'" Grasping with minds of greed, anger, and wrong views, those who commit sins and those who arouse [them]—not excluding those without faith, but setting them aside because of erroneous characteristics and upside-down views. "Why is that?" is the second interrogation. For the second explanation, look at the quotation: "'Subhūti, the past mind cannot be apprehended, the present mind cannot be apprehended, and the future mind cannot be apprehended.'" Among the three minds, which mind commits sins? The past mind has already passed, the future mind has not yet arrived, and the present mind does not abide; why must one cling to each and every false arising? The third part, praising [those who] eradicate defilement and produce the characteristics of faith, has three sections. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? If someone filled the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ with the seven treasures and used them in giving, would this person on this basis gain many blessings?'" From here, Subhūti relates his reply. Look at the quotation: "'Even so, Bhagavat. This person, by this reason, would obtain extremely many blessings.'" This is the second [part], relating the reply. In what way are they many? To quote: "'Subhūti, if blessings had real existence, the Tathāgata would not say that one obtains many blessings. Because blessings do not exist, the Tathāgata says that one obtains many blessings.'" This explains and establishes it. When the three things are not empty: seeing the petitioner, seeing the wealth, and seeing one's own giving—this is the three things not being empty. When their substance is empty: not seeing the petitioner, not seeing the wealth, and not seeing one's own giving—this is the three things being empty in substance. From here, on the eye and wisdom, there are two questions and answers. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the complete physical body?'" It is an inquiry out of reverence. For the reply, look at the quotation: "'No, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the complete physical body.'" The physical body is not the Tathāgata. "Why is this?" is to clarify the meaning. From here, clarify it. Look. To quote: "'The Tathāgata's complete physical body is not a complete physical body; therefore it is called a complete physical body'"—because the body is incomplete, causing the body to be deficient. The second: whether the Tathāgata can [be seen] by the various marks or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of the completeness of all marks?'" This is the second question. The Tathāgata cannot be seen by the various marks: "'No, Bhagavat.'"