金剛經疏 1.3

1.3

是法平等有三。一者事平等。二者相平等。三者性平等。從此第三法。舉　以無我無人。無眾生無受者。立也。法有我眾生。是修皆到。縱有善法。則分別俱行。所以不得。無人無受者。所修皆正。不與分別俱。所以別得。從此以下。何勿名善法。舉修一切善者。如來說非善法者。遮也　作勿生名善。舉則得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者。修一切善。則得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。大寬遮却。舉。須菩提。所言善者。如來說則非善法。是名善法者。遮也。意令離文字故　喻女兒作莊。空說不得莊會須開鏡。合然始得莊　次施大利。以法教量。舉　須菩提。若三千大千世界中。所有諸須彌山王。如是等七寶聚。有人持用布施。以俗譬喻方便顯多。須彌山王。最大故名山王。其山縱橫八萬四千由旬。因地論說。一四天下。有一須彌山須彌山外有七重金山金山之中。有七由海水。水皆八得。八得者。一輕。二冷。三軟。四美。五清淨。六不臭。七飲時條適。八飲以無患。是中輕冷軟三種。是觸塵。美一種。是味塵。清淨一種。是色塵。不臭一種。是香塵。條適無患。是具世力。是八和合。假名為水。故知。諸大亦是假名　從此以下。教量。看舉　若人以此般若波羅蜜經。乃至四句偈等。受持讀誦。為他人說。相前福德。百分不及一。百千萬億分。乃至算數譬喻。所不能及者。是謂此經。為利大也　從此以下。釋第三無妄失念。舉　須菩提。於意云何。汝等勿謂如來作是念。我當度眾生者。顯佛無此念也。釋迦遮須菩提。舉　須菩提。莫作是念者。正遮疑者之所疑也　何以故。自徵遮意。緣何勿事不念。舉　實無有眾生如來度者。佛以平智知。平等法平等法界中。無實眾生故。意不立眾生相。設使有眾生度無。舉　若有眾生如來度者。如來則有我人眾生受者。就彼解也據佛法。有眾生無舉　須菩提。如來說有我者。則非有我者。但有我相。非實我故。何誰有我。舉。而凡夫之人。以為有我者。是彼外道到見。雖有我見。不見我有。不見佛性。無般若故　誦曰。凡夫人妄相起貪嗔。日日憂他死。寧愁自己身。又曰。眾生福業薄。不堪受法藥。破袋盛真珠。出門還漏却　凡夫有無。舉　須菩提。凡夫者。如來說則非凡夫者。是佛真智也。以凡夫見如來。亦凡夫謂佛為惡人。共佛事利故　誦曰。凡夫相何似。總是淨虛無。識心除妄想。捨報利凡夫。次釋現見法身。有六字句。先舉初文。舉　須菩提。於意云何。可以三十二相。觀如來不者。審問也　妙相者即智深智深者四智菩提也審問竟。舉　須菩提言。如是如是。以三十二相。觀如來者。誤答也。餘類無此相。是不共法　從此以下。釋迦呵須菩提。舉　佛言須菩提。若以三十二相。觀如來者。轉輪聖王。則是如來者。阿難也。呵令捨邪難。令入正。此相望例。出不定過　從此以下。正解。看舉　須菩提。白佛言世尊。如我解佛所說義。不應以三十二相。觀如來者。正解也。得正難已。正解生故　從此須菩提伏也　相貌理無如來。從此第五示現令見。舉　爾時世尊。而說偈言。若以色見我。以音聲。求我。是人行邪道。不能見如來。偈言者。示現令見也　色見我者。相好觀也　音聲求我者。說法觀也　行邪道者。相非如來。生如來想。此妄想心。非正見故。不能見如來者。不如來妙法身故　觀有二種。一正觀。二邪觀。正觀有五。一色蘊如聚末。二受蘊如浮泡。三相蘊如陽焰。四行蘊如巴椒。五識蘊如幻化　從此以下。拔彼疑心。看舉。須菩提。須若作是念。如來不以具足相故。得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者。拔彼疑心也。語稍難解者。以相言中少一。豈字又相語末。少一。邪字實生如是疑。舉　須菩提。莫作是念者。遮彼疑也　從此以下。示現正義看舉　如來不以具足相故。得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者。教令解也。阿耨菩提。當不可得。云何修具。能為得因　次下當釋生死涅槃地。降伏有住心。得無住處。相中有二。先說不住無為。後說不住有為。不住有為文有一訟。不住染。五欣佛妙智。六熾然精進。相中有二。先舉初文。舉　須菩提。汝若作是念。發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者。說法斷滅者。呵也。說諸法斷滅無。舉。莫作是念者。教也。除相取故。莫立相趣　何以故。徵也。求正義故。從此以下。釋迦分疎。舉。發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者。相法不說斷相者。釋迦也　一切總是法身作。如何簡辨。須菩提。不捨生死。不入涅槃。眾生界無盡。菩薩願亦然　從此以下。第二了知諸行。舉　須菩提。若菩薩。以滿恒河沙等界。七寶布施者。第二了知諸行也　從此以下。功德大小。舉　若復有人。知一切法無我。得成於忍。此菩薩。勝前菩薩所得功德者。了知諸行無染著故。從此釋勝所由。緣何勿事勝。舉　須菩提。以諸菩薩。不受福德故。釋知勝所由也。知無我以不受福德故。菩薩行有二。一自利行二利他行。故云菩薩不受福德。受敬不受。是菩薩行不受非菩薩行。受敬不捨。非菩薩行。菩薩行行由如大地故。名不受福德　從此善現　生疑菩薩不受福得。舉　須菩提。白佛言世尊。云何菩薩。不受福德者。善現生疑也。未能了達不受義故　從此釋看。為何勿不受福得。舉　須菩提。菩薩所作福德。不應貪著。是故說不受福德。如來重釋也。知法無我者。不著我所故。菩薩退果不退行　凡夫人行果俱退。聲聞人行果俱不退　從此第三。入佛威儀。舉　須菩提若有人言。如來若來若去。若坐若臥。是人不解我所說義。第三入佛威儀也。闕住威儀。所以大人。不合住威儀。立亦如之。不解如來所說義　何以故者。如來自徵。現見威儀。云何不解。舉　如來者。無所從來。亦無所去。故名如來者。佛還自解。坐不離行。行不離坐。意諸法無定相　從此以下。第四輪迴不染相中有二。先舉初文。舉　須菩提。若善男子善女人。以三千大千世界。碎為微塵。於意云何。是微塵眾。寧為多不。第四輪迴不染也。相中有二。先遣細相。無塵即不染。後遣麁相。無麁即不著。問微塵眾。寧為多不　甚多世尊。是略答　何以故釋。舉　若是微塵眾實有者。佛則不說是微塵眾者。先自是塵不須拆故。實塵能染　不可離故。既無實塵　所以者何　更重徵起　釋迦分疎。舉。佛說微塵眾。則非微塵眾者。假想分拆。無實塵故　從此破相。看舉。世尊如來所說。三千大千世界。則非世界。是名世界者遣麁相也。先遣次釋後印。初破微塵。喻無所蘊　次破世界。喻無思蘊　初破微塵。喻器不實。次破世界。喻無眾生。初破微塵。喻無煩惱。次破世界。喻無身心。初說微塵。喻佛化身。遍周法界。教化眾生。次說世界。喻諸眾生。得聞佛法。苦身以盡。總不實　何以故　從此以下番釋。舉　若世界實有者。則是一合相。番釋也。意一切勿無實世界者。亦復如是　從此引佛言成。舉。如來說一合相。則非一合相。是名一合相者。引佛所說成。已所解　一切物不是無不實　從此以下。明一合相。舉　須菩提。一合相者。則是不可說。但凡夫之人。貪著其事者。如來印也。一切物皆不可說。即得成佛。所以一切相。是不可說。恒沙諸佛。參羅萬象。一法印也。皆到不可說。即得成佛。上來諸文不同。總是輪迴不染了　次下第五欣佛妙智。文有三句。先舉初聞舉。須菩提。若人言。佛說我見。人見。眾生見受者見。須菩提。於意云何。是人解我所說義。是初審問也　喻父設客不共。家內平章。直喚客來。大兒少多解。以下。小者總不解。父意亦如須菩提。須菩提喻大兒。小者喻末代凡品。問敬也。須菩提答。舉。世尊是人不解如來所說義者。正答也。為成如來智深妙故。為成如來智深妙故。何以故。釋。從此以下。須菩提分疎。舉　世尊說。我見人見。眾生見受者見。即非我見人見。眾生見受者見。是名我見人見。眾生見受者見者。彼但有見無我等故所見既無能非見故。意不生法相。生法相不可成佛。從此以下。第三如來仰勸。舉　須菩提。發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者。於一切法。應如是知如是見。如是信解。不生法相者。□勸也。知從無始法相如是。見遣未來法亦如是。信解現在法皆如是　立少法相得無。舉　須菩提。所言法相者。凡所有相也。如來說即非法相者。知彼諸相皆虛妄也。是名法相者。若見諸相非相。即見如來無相之相。是實也。此一段便消文却。請勿怪之　從此以下。釋第六識然精進。舉　須菩提。若有人。以滿無量阿僧祇世界七寶。持用布施者。第六熾然精進也。財法二種。攝養眾生。勸一不可。此則財攝也。從此法攝。看舉　若有善男子善女人。發菩提心者。持於此經。及至四句偈等。受持讀誦。為人演說。其福勝彼者。此則法攝也。法攝勝財攝。財攝生勝法攝。生智。生智即解脫。生福有染故　釋迦牟尼佛。若為為人演說舉　云何為人演說者。請說法儀。從此以下。釋迦示傳法軌則。舉　不取相於如如不動者。亦傳法無說說無聽無聽同說同能善分數諸法於相第一義。而不動故。放捨身命。任眾生用。即是如如不動　不取於相。如如不動。何以故者。乘前問起　此經六義。以如前釋。後有一訟。此即當宗。舉。若為一切有為法。如夢幻泡影。如露亦如電。應作如是觀。一切有為法。是所觀境　如夢亦如電。喻示境相。應作如是觀。結勸修學。然依論釋。訟有九喻。如星翳燈幻露泡夢電雲　誦曰　親同宿林鳥。曉即隨緣去。恩愛當頭栖。相看如陌路　合殺父將知。妻奴子非君。已有萬貨。豈我常珍。自非十善菩提。自外蓋非身寶。所恨生生貪悋。不以善善為懷。一旦墮落三塗。臨急將何憑託後悔。悔之不及。更求求亦無由。自然甘羅。其中進退欲何遊越。此經一部。約有三文。一經前由敘分。二當根正說分。三受流行分。此文當宗。即其是也。舉。若為　佛說是經已。長老須菩提。及諸比丘比丘尼。優婆塞優婆夷。一切世間。天人阿修羅。聞佛所說。皆大歡喜。信受奉行。文相皎然。無勞廣說。

"This Dharma is impartial" has three aspects: first, impartiality of phenomena; second, impartiality of characteristics; third, impartiality of nature. From here, the third dharma is cited: "Through being without self, without person, without sentient being, and without liver of life"—this establishes [it]. Where dharmas involve self and sentient beings, whatever one cultivates leads there; even if there are wholesome dharmas, they proceed together with discrimination, which is why one does not attain it. Where there is no person and no liver of life, all that is cultivated is correct; not being accompanied by discrimination, one specially attains it. From here below: why are they not called wholesome dharmas? It cites: "cultivates all wholesome [dharmas], the Tathāgata says are not wholesome dharmas"—this is a refutation. How does one generate what is called wholesome? It cites: "then one attains anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi." If one cultivates all wholesome dharmas, one then attains anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi; this broadly refutes it. It cites: "Subhūti, as for what are called wholesome [dharmas], the Tathāgata says they are not wholesome dharmas; therefore they are called wholesome dharmas"—this is a refutation. The intent is to cause one to leave behind words and letters. As a metaphor, when a girl puts on makeup, speaking in vain does not achieve makeup; she must necessarily open the mirror, and only when doing so correctly does she achieve makeup. Next, bestowing great benefit: assessing by the teaching of the Dharma. It cites: "Subhūti, if in the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ there were as many Sumeru kings of mountains as all these, and someone took piles of the saptaratna equal to them and used them for giving..." Using a mundane metaphor as an expedient means to demonstrate abundance. Sumeru is the king of mountains because it is the largest, hence called "king of mountains." This mountain is eighty-four thousand yojanas in height and breadth. According to the commentary on the Stages of Practice, for each four-continent world there is one Sumeru mountain. Outside Mount Sumeru there are seven concentric golden mountains, and within the golden mountains are oceans of seven yojanas. The waters all have eight qualities. The eight qualities are: first, light; second, cold; third, soft; fourth, delicious; fifth, pure; sixth, non-odorous; seventh, soothing when drunk; eighth, causing no distress after drinking. Among these, the three kinds—light, cold, and soft—are tangible sense objects. Delicious is a taste sense object. Pure is a visible form sense object. Non-odorous is an odor sense object. Soothing and causing no distress are the complete worldly virtues. These eight coalesce to receive the conventional name "water." Thus we know that the great elements are also conventional designations. From here below: assessing the teaching. Look at the citation: "If a person takes from this Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra even a four-line verse and the like, receives, upholds, reads, recites, and explains it to others, the merit of the former does not equal a hundredth part of this, nor a thousandth, nor a ten-thousandth, nor a hundred-millionth part, up to being beyond the reach of calculation or metaphor." This means that this sūtra is of great benefit. From here below: explaining the third [point], non-forgetfulness of mindfulness. It cites: "Subhūti, what do you think? You all should not say that the Tathāgata has this thought: 'I shall deliver sentient beings.'" This shows that the Buddha has no such thought. Śākyamuni refutes Subhūti, citing: "Subhūti, do not entertain this thought"—this directly refutes what the doubter doubts. "Why?" He himself inquires into the intent of the refutation. For what reason is there no such thought? It cites: "Truly there are no sentient beings delivered by the Tathāgata." The Buddha knows through impartial wisdom. In the impartial Dharma and impartial dharmadhātu, there are no real sentient beings, hence in his intent he does not establish the mark of sentient beings. Suppose there were sentient beings delivered or not? It cites: "If there were sentient beings delivered by the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata would possess ātmasaṃjñā, pudgalasaṃjñā, sattvasaṃjñā, and jīvasaṃjñā." This is explained according to their perspective. Relying on the Buddha's Dharma, are there sentient beings or not? It cites: "Subhūti, the Tathāgata's speaking of having a self is not having a self." There is only the mark of a self, not a real self. Who has a self? It cites: "Yet ordinary beings consider that there is a self." This is the inverted view of non-Buddhists; although they have the view of self, they do not see the existence of the self, nor do they see the Buddha-nature, because they lack prajñā. A verse says: "Ordinary beings generate greed and anger through false marks; / Day after day they worry about another's death—why do they not grieve for their own person?" Another says: "Sentient beings' karmic merit is meager; / They cannot bear to receive the Dharma medicine. / A broken bag holding true pearls— / Step outside the door and they leak away again." Ordinary beings: do they exist or not? It cites: "Subhūti, ordinary beings the Tathāgata says are not ordinary beings." This is the Buddha's true wisdom. Seeing the Tathāgata as an ordinary being, ordinary beings also consider the Buddha an evil person, because they share in the Buddha's activities and benefits. A verse says: "What does the mark of an ordinary being resemble? / It is entirely pure and empty nothingness. / Recognize the mind, eliminate delusions; / Relinquishing retribution, one benefits ordinary beings." Next: explaining the manifest perception of the Dharmakāya. There are six phrases. First, citing the initial text. It cites: "Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be perceived by means of the thirty-two marks?" This is an inquiry. The wondrous marks are deep wisdom; deep wisdom is the bodhi of the four wisdoms. The inquiry having finished, it cites: "Subhūti said: 'Just so, just so; the Tathāgata can be perceived by means of the thirty-two marks.'" This is an erroneous answer. Other kinds do not have these marks; it is an unshared dharma. From here below: Śākyamuni reproaches Subhūti. It cites: "The Buddha said: 'Subhūti, if one could perceive the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks, then a wheel-turning sage king would be a Tathāgata.'" This is a reprimand. He reproaches him to cause him to abandon the heterodox objection and enter the correct. Comparing these instances exposes the flaw of indeterminacy. From here below: the correct understanding. Look at the citation: "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'Bhagavat, as I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has spoken, one should not perceive the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks.'" This is the correct understanding. Having received the correct reprimand, correct understanding arises. From this, Subhūti submits. In the principle of characteristics, there is no Tathāgata. From here, the fifth: showing so as to cause him to see. It cites: "At that time the Bhagavat spoke this verse: 'Whoever sees me by form, / Seeks me by sound, / This person walks a heterodox path, / And cannot see the Tathāgata.'" The verse shows [it] so as to cause seeing. "Sees me by form" is contemplation of the major and minor marks. "Seeks me by sound" is contemplation of preaching the Dharma. "Walks a heterodox path": characteristics are not the Tathāgata, yet one generates the conception of the Tathāgata; this delusional mind is not right view, hence "cannot see the Tathāgata," because it is not the Tathāgata's wondrous Dharmakāya. Contemplation has two kinds: first, right contemplation; second, heterodox contemplation. Right contemplation has five: first, the aggregate of form is like a heap of foam; second, the aggregate of sensation is like a floating bubble; third, the aggregate of perception is like a mirage; fourth, the aggregate of formations is like a plantain tree; fifth, the aggregate of consciousness is like an illusion. From here below: uprooting their doubting mind. Look at the citation: "Subhūti, if you should entertain this thought: 'The Tathāgata did not, by means of the complete marks, attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi'"—this uproots their doubting mind. The language is somewhat difficult to interpret because within the words about the marks one character "how" is missing, and at the end of the words about marks one character "heterodox" is missing; such doubt truly arises. It cites: "Subhūti, do not entertain this thought"—this refutes their doubt. From here below: demonstrating the correct principle. Look at the citation: "The Tathāgata did not, by means of the complete marks, attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi"—this instructs and causes understanding. Anuttarā-bodhi cannot be attained; how could cultivating completeness serve as the cause of attainment? Next below will be explained: on the ground of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, subduing the mind that has support, attaining the unsupported place. Within the marks there are two: first, speaking of not abiding in the unconditioned; later, speaking of not abiding in the conditioned. The text on not abiding in the conditioned has one verse. Not abiding in defilement; fifth, rejoicing in the Buddha's wondrous wisdom; sixth, blazing vigor. Within the marks there are two; first, citing the initial text. It cites: "Subhūti, if you should entertain this thought: 'Those who generate the mind for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi speak of dharmas as severed and annihilated'"—this is a reproach. Does it speak of all dharmas as severed and annihilated? It cites: "Do not entertain this thought"—this is an instruction. It eliminates attachment to marks, so do not establish an inclination toward marks. "Why?" An inquiry, seeking the correct meaning. From here below: Śākyamuni distinguishes and clarifies. It cites: "Those who generate the mind for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, regarding dharmas, do not speak of marks of annihilation"—this is Śākyamuni. Everything is entirely wrought by the Dharmakāya; how can it be distinguished? Subhūti, not abandoning saṃsāra, not entering nirvāṇa: the realm of sentient beings is inexhaustible, and the bodhisattva's vow is likewise. From here below: second, fully understanding all conditioned actions. It cites: "Subhūti, if a bodhisattva should give the saptaratna filling worlds equal to the sands of the Gaṅgā..." This is the second: fully understanding all conditioned actions. From here below: the greatness or smallness of merit. It cites: "If, furthermore, a person knows that all dharmas are without self and attains patience, this bodhisattva surpasses the merit attained by the former bodhisattva." This is because they fully understand all conditioned actions to be without defiled attachment. From here: explaining the reason for superiority. By what matter is it superior? It cites: "Subhūti, because bodhisattvas do not receive merit." This explains the reason for knowing superiority. Knowing selflessness, they do not receive merit. Bodhisattva practice has two kinds: first, practice benefiting oneself; second, practice benefiting others. Hence it says bodhisattvas do not receive merit. Receiving reverently without accepting is bodhisattva practice; not receiving is not bodhisattva practice. Receiving reverently without relinquishing is not bodhisattva practice. Because the practice of bodhisattva practice is like the great earth, it is called not receiving merit. From here: Subhūti generates doubt about bodhisattvas not receiving merit. It cites: "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'Bhagavat, how do bodhisattvas not receive merit?'" Subhūti generates doubt because he has not yet thoroughly understood the meaning of not receiving. From here, look at the explanation: why do they not receive merit? It cites: "Subhūti, as for the merit wrought by bodhisattvas, they should not greedily attach to it; therefore it is said they do not receive merit." The Tathāgata re-explains it. Those who know the selflessness of dharmas do not attach to what belongs to self. The bodhisattva regresses in fruit but does not regress in practice. Ordinary beings regress in both practice and fruit; śrāvakas regress in neither practice nor fruit. From here, third: entering the Buddha's deportment. It cites: "Subhūti, if someone says the Tathāgata comes or goes, sits or lies down, this person does not understand the meaning of what I say." This is the third: entering the Buddha's deportment. Lacking the deportment of abiding, therefore a great person is not bound by the deportment of abiding; standing is also like this. They do not understand the meaning of what the Tathāgata says. "Why?" The Tathāgata inquires into himself: manifestly seeing the deportment, why do they not understand? It cites: "The Tathāgata has nowhere from which he comes, and also nowhere to which he goes, therefore he is called the Tathāgata." The Buddha turns back to explain it himself: sitting does not depart from walking, walking does not depart from sitting; the intent is that all dharmas have no fixed mark. From here below: fourth, unpolluted by saṃsāra. Within the marks there are two: first, citing the initial text. It cites: "Subhūti, if a kulaputra or kuladhitā should reduce the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ to fine dust particles, what do you think? Would these dust particles be numerous or not?" This is the fourth: unpolluted by saṃsāra. Within the marks there are two: first, eliminating subtle marks—when there is no dust, there is no pollution; later, eliminating coarse marks—when there is no coarseness, there is no attachment. He asks: would these dust particles be numerous or not? "Very many, Bhagavat"—this is a brief answer. "Why?" is an explanation. It cites: "If these dust particles were real entities, the Buddha would not speak of these dust particles." Being already dust of itself, there is no need to break it down. Real dust could pollute, because it could not be parted from. Since there is no real dust, "Why is this?" He further inquires again. Śākyamuni distinguishes and clarifies, citing: "The dust particles spoken of by the Buddha are not dust particles." Through conceptual breakdown, there is no real dust. From here: demolishing marks. Look at the citation: "Bhagavat, the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ spoken of by the Tathāgata are not a world; therefore they are called a world"—this eliminates coarse marks. First eliminating, next explaining, later confirming. First demolishing dust particles is a metaphor for the absence of the aggregate of grasping; next demolishing the world is a metaphor for the absence of the aggregate of thinking. First demolishing dust particles is a metaphor for the receptacle world being unreal; next demolishing the world is a metaphor for the non-existence of sentient beings. First demolishing dust particles is a metaphor for the absence of defilements; next demolishing the world is a metaphor for the absence of body and mind. First speaking of dust particles is a metaphor for the Buddha's transformation bodies pervading the entire dharmadhātu to teach and transform sentient beings; next speaking of the world is a metaphor for all sentient beings who, having heard the Buddha's Dharma, have exhausted their suffering bodies: none of them are real. "Why?" From here below: repeated explanation. It cites: "If the world were a real entity, then it would be a unitary aggregate." This is a repeated explanation. The intent is that all things are without a real world, and it is likewise for this. From here, citing the Buddha's words for confirmation. It cites: "The unitary aggregate spoken of by the Tathāgata is not a unitary aggregate; therefore it is called a unitary aggregate." Citing what the Buddha spoke confirms what he himself understood. All things are not non-empty. From here below: clarifying the unitary aggregate. It cites: "Subhūti, a unitary aggregate is ineffable, yet ordinary beings greedily attach to its affairs." The Tathāgata confirms it. When all things are ineffable, one then attains buddhahood. Therefore all marks are ineffable. The Gaṅgā-sand Buddhas and the myriad phenomena are a single Dharma seal. All reaching the ineffable, one then attains buddhahood. The above various texts differ; all of this has finished [explaining] being unpolluted by saṃsāra. Next below, fifth: rejoicing in the Buddha's wondrous wisdom. The text has three phrases. First, citing the initial text. It cites: "Subhūti, if someone should say that the Buddha spoke of ātmadṛṣṭi, pudgaladṛṣṭi, sattvadṛṣṭi, and jīvadṛṣṭi, Subhūti, what do you think? Does this person understand the meaning of what I have spoken?" This is the initial inquiry. Metaphorically, a father hosts a guest without consulting his household; he simply calls the guest in. The eldest son understands somewhat, while those below, the younger ones, do not understand at all. The father's intent is also like Subhūti: Subhūti is like the eldest son, the younger ones are like the ordinary ranks of later generations. An inquiry of respect. Subhūti answers, citing: "Bhagavat, this person does not understand the meaning of what the Tathāgata has spoken"—this is the correct answer. It is to accomplish the profound wondrousness of the Tathāgata's wisdom; it is to accomplish the profound wondrousness of the Tathāgata's wisdom. "Why?" is an explanation. From here below: Subhūti distinguishes and clarifies. It cites: "The Bhagavat speaks of ātmadṛṣṭi, pudgaladṛṣṭi, sattvadṛṣṭi, and jīvadṛṣṭi as not being ātmadṛṣṭi, pudgaladṛṣṭi, sattvadṛṣṭi, and jīvadṛṣṭi; therefore they are called ātmadṛṣṭi, pudgaladṛṣṭi, sattvadṛṣṭi, and jīvadṛṣṭi." They have only the views, without the self and the like; since what is seen does not exist, that which sees is not a view. The intent is not to give rise to dharmasaṃjñā; giving rise to dharmasaṃjñā, one cannot attain buddhahood. From here below, third: the Tathāgata's earnest exhortation. It cites: "Subhūti, those who generate the mind for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, regarding all dharmas, should know thus, see thus, and believe and understand thus, not giving rise to dharmasaṃjñā." This is an earnest exhortation: knowing that from beginningless time dharmasaṃjñā is thus, seeing that future dharmas to be dispelled are also thus, believing and understanding that present dharmas are all thus. Can one establish the slightest dharmasaṃjñā? It cites: "Subhūti, as for what is called dharmasaṃjñā, it is whatsoever marks there are. The Tathāgata says it is not dharmasaṃjñā; therefore it is called dharmasaṃjñā." Knowing that those various marks are all false and empty: "is called dharmasaṃjñā" means that if one sees that all marks are non-marks, one then sees the Tathāgata's markless mark; this is the truth. This passage explains the text directly, please take no offense. From here below: explaining the sixth, blazing vigor. It cites: "Subhūti, if someone takes the saptaratna filling immeasurable asaṃkhyeya worlds and uses them for giving..." This is the sixth: blazing vigor. Using the two kinds, material and Dharma, to gather and nurture sentient beings, exhorting only one will not do; this is material gathering. From here, Dharma gathering. Look at the citation: "If there is a kulaputra or kuladhitā who generates the bodhicitta, upholds this sūtra, even down to a four-line verse and the like, receives, upholds, reads, recites, and expounds it for others, their merit surpasses the former." This is Dharma gathering. Dharma gathering surpasses material gathering: material gathering generates superiority; Dharma gathering generates wisdom. Generating wisdom brings liberation, while generating merit has defilement. How does Śākyamuni Buddha expound it for others? It cites: "How does one expound it for others?" Asking for the deportment of expounding the Dharma. From here below: Śākyamuni reveals the rules for transmitting the Dharma. It cites: "Without grasping at marks, unmoved in suchness." Transmitting the Dharma is also without preaching: preaching is without hearing, without hearing is identical to preaching, equally able to skillfully distinguish all dharmas; in marks, regarding the ultimate truth, remaining unmoved. Relinquishing body and life to let sentient beings use them as they will is precisely being unmoved in suchness. "Without grasping at marks, unmoved in suchness. Why?" Arising from the previous question. The six meanings of this sūtra have already been explained above. Later there is one verse; this is the central thesis. It cites: "How? 'All conditioned dharmas / Are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow, / Like dew and like lightning; / One should contemplate them thus.'" All conditioned dharmas are the contemplated realm. "Like a dream and like lightning" metaphorically shows the marks of the realm. "One should contemplate them thus" concludes by exhorting practice and study. However, according to the commentary's explanation, the verse has nine metaphors: like a star, a cataract, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud. A verse says: "Relatives are like birds roosting in the woods together: / At dawn they depart according to conditions. / Affection perches right before one's face, / Yet looking at each other, they are as strangers on the road." Joining to kill one's father, one will soon know: wife, slaves, and children are not your own. Having already myriad goods, how could they be my eternal treasure? Aside from the ten wholesome deeds and bodhi, anything beyond is surely not the person's jewel. What is regrettable is that lifetime after lifetime one is greedy and stingy, not harboring wholesome goodness. Once fallen into the three bad destinies, when urgent, what will one rely on? Regretting later, regret comes too late; seeking again, seeking is also without recourse. Naturally swallowed up in their midst, advancing and retreating, where would one wander beyond? This entire sūtra consists of roughly three sections: first, the opening preface section before the sūtra; second, the main teaching section suited to the faculties; third, the transmission and circulation section. This text corresponds to the central thesis; it is precisely that. It cites: "How? 'When the Buddha had spoken this sūtra, the Elder Subhūti, along with the bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, upāsikās, and all the worlds of devas, humans, and asuras, hearing what the Buddha spoke, all rejoiced greatly, faithfully accepted it, and practiced it.'" The textual characteristics are radiant and clear; there is no need for extensive explanation.