金剛般若經挾註 1.1.1

1.1.1

見諸相非相。 即見如來（如來法空）□□□□□□（離相而見矣也）須菩提。 白佛言世尊。 □□□□□□□句。 生實信不（凡夫心。 信因取相生恐聞是理無處寄。 心）□□□□□□作是說（般若深宗。 為最上乘者。 說聞□即悟不應不信故。 莫作此問也）□□□□□戒修福者。 於此章句。 能生信□□□□□□（況今正法流通。 而無信耶）當知是人。 不於一佛二佛□□□無量千萬佛所。 種諸善根（能之）□□□□□□章句。 乃至一念。 生淨信者（不見能生）□□□□□□來。 悉知悉見。 是諸眾生。 得□□□□□□□（具佛法眼故。 能悉見知見。 是淨信眾生。 得如是無量福德）何以故。 是諸□□□生相壽者相。 無法相。 亦無非□□□□□□（一念淨。 三空頓解。 若計諸相。 則不名淨信。 能信般若。 知達法空。 故知。 是眾生無復諸相）□□□則為著我人眾生壽者（何以相即）□□□□□□□（生淨信也）若取法相。 即著我人眾生□□□□□□以故。 若取非法相。 即著我人眾□□□□□法不應取非法（不取法相。 以空破有。 若滯空不空。 還著有相）□□□□如來常說。 汝等比丘。 知我說□□□□□□況非法（以是不取於相故。 如來常說。 說無法本破於有。 若知有不有。 遂悟）□□□□（岸筌。 以取魚得魚忘筌。 到岸捨筏故。 大聖諸見。 諸見既除。 空法亦盡。 況非空法其可）□□□□何如來。 得阿耨多羅三藐三□□□□□□耶（前令捨法遣彼兩偏。 則佛於菩提。 如何獨得。 而為人說法耶）須菩□□□□□無有定法。 名阿耨多羅三□□□□□□□如來可說（無上正道。 寂然無體。 無相悟。 佛得菩提已。 悟則無佛）□□□□□以故。 如來所說法。 皆不可取。 不□□□□□（眾生離相故。 不可取。 離言故不可說。 而妙不有。 非非則不無。 不有不無。 離諸言相故）□□□□所以者何（所以佛當說法。 而無定法可說者何）一切賢聖。 皆以無為法而有差別（無為法中本無差別。 三乘賢聖根識不同。 一音演說淺深隨□□未悟則量病授藥。 故常說法。 已悟則藥病皆除。 無法可說□□）須菩提於意云何。 若人滿三千大千世界七寶。 以用布施（□□□□□□□若人財寶之施。 以明章句。 理實非虛）是人所得福德。 寧為多不。 須菩提言。 甚多世尊（七寶珍異。 三千皆滿。 無性之福施。 廣增多）何以故。 是福德。 即非福德性。 是故如來。 說福德多（所以施廣而福多。 由非福德性故。 若是福德性。 則不應寶□而福多。 只由無性之福假外緣。 是故如來。 說福德也）若復有人。 於此經中。 受持乃至四句偈等。 為他人說。 其福勝彼（財施之福。 非福德性。 福雖因施。 不趣菩提。 持經之功。 句偈雖少。 能令眾生除煩惱障。 是真福德。 故勝於彼）何以故。 須菩提。 一切諸佛。 及諸佛阿耨多羅三藐三菩提法。 皆從此經出（般若正智。 圓照無礙。 無上正道。 因是發明。 諸佛始則自修。 終以化物。 利濟弘遠　何莫由斯）須菩提所謂佛法。 即非佛法（法無自性。 證則彌同。 因教悟空故稱佛。 法由教立。 悟不滯空。 直論無法可非。 豈但即非佛法）須菩提。 於意云何。 須陀洹能作是念。 我得須陀洹果不（修習無漏。 證無漏果。 悟無所得。 名須陀洹。 借小乘之無我。 明般若之忘相）須菩提言。 不也世尊（是人不起得果之念）何以故。 須陀洹名為入流。 而無所入。 不入色聲香味觸法。 是名須陀洹（習無漏果。 則名入道流。 不取果相。 故無流可入。 豈以忘相。 而無道流可入。 復於有我。 而入聲色六塵耶）須菩提。 於意云何。 斯陀含能作是念。 我得斯陀含果不（斷欲界思惟。

one sees that all lakṣaṇas are non-characteristics, one immediately sees the Tathāgata. (The Tathāgata’s dharmas are empty.) […] (Seeing by being free from lakṣaṇas.) Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying, “Bhagavat, […] lines, will [sentient beings] give rise to true faith?” (The pṛthagjana’s mind: faith arises due to grasping lakṣaṇas, so he feared that upon hearing this principle there would be nowhere for the mind to rest.) […] spoke thus, (The profound principle of prajñā is spoken for those of the supreme vehicle. Upon hearing […] they immediately awaken, and ought not fail to believe; therefore, do not make this inquiry.) “[…] those who uphold the precepts and cultivate puṇya will be able to give rise to faith in these passages and lines […] (how much more so now that the true Dharma is circulating—how could there be no faith?) You should know that such persons have planted kuśalamūlas not merely with one Buddha, two Buddhas, […] but with immeasurable thousands of myriads of Buddhas. (Being able to.) […] lines, down to a single thought, give rise to pure faith. (Not seeing that which can give rise.) […] Tathāgata fully knows and fully sees that all these sentient beings attain […] (Because he possesses the Buddha’s eye of Dharma, he can fully see and fully know that these sentient beings of pure faith attain such immeasurable puṇya.) Why is this? All these [sentient beings no longer have the notion of a self], the notion of a person, the notion of a sentient being, or the notion of a soul; they have neither the characteristic of dharmas nor the characteristic of non-dharmas. […] (When a single thought is pure, the three emptinesses are instantaneously understood. If one calculates various lakṣaṇas, it is not called pure faith. Being able to believe in prajñā, one knows and penetrates the emptiness of dharmas; therefore one knows that these sentient beings no longer have various lakṣaṇas.) […] then they would grasp at a self, a person, a sentient being, and a soul. (Why are lakṣaṇas immediately) […] (giving rise to pure faith.) If they grasp at the characteristic of dharmas, they immediately grasp at a self, a person, a sentient being, […] Why is this? If they grasp at the characteristic of non-dharmas, they immediately grasp at a self, a person, a sentient […] [Therefore, one should not grasp at] dharmas, nor should one grasp at non-dharmas. (Not grasping at the characteristic of dharmas, one breaks through existence by means of emptiness. If one stagnates in emptiness and is not empty, one returns to grasping at the lakṣaṇa of existence.) […] the Tathāgata always says: ‘You monks, know that my preaching of […] [is like a raft; even dharmas should be abandoned,] how much more so non-dharmas!’ (Because of not grasping at lakṣaṇas, the Tathāgata always says [this]. Preaching the absence of dharmas fundamentally shatters existence; if one knows existence to be non-existent, one then awakens.) […] (Shore and trap. A trap is used to catch fish; having caught the fish, one forgets the trap. Reaching the shore, one abandons the raft. Thus the Great Sage [dispels] all views; once all views are eliminated, empty dharmas are also exhausted—how much more could non-empty dharmas [be kept]?) […] How could the Tathāgata have attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi […]? (Previously, he commanded the abandoning of dharmas to eliminate both extremes. If so, how could the Buddha uniquely attain bodhi and preach the Dharma for people?) Subhūti […] there is no fixed dharma named anuttarā samyak[sambodhi, nor is there any fixed dharma] that the Tathāgata can preach. (The unsurpassed correct path is tranquil and without substance; it is awakened to without lakṣaṇas. After the Buddha attained bodhi, in awakening there is no Buddha.) […] Why is this? The dharmas preached by the Tathāgata can neither be grasped nor […] (Because sentient beings are free from lakṣaṇas, it cannot be grasped; because it is free from words, it cannot be spoken. Yet marvelously it is not existent; not being non-existent, it is not nothing. Neither existent nor non-existent, because it is free from all words and lakṣaṇas.) […] Why is that? (Why is it that the Buddha must preach the Dharma, yet has no fixed dharma to preach?) All noble ones and sages are distinguished by means of asamskṛta dharmas. (In asamskṛta dharmas there is fundamentally no distinction. The faculties and consciousnesses of the noble ones and sages of the Three Vehicles differ; with a single voice he expounds, and they follow shallow and deep [accordingly]. […] While not yet awakened, he assesses the sickness to administer medicine, hence he constantly preaches the Dharma. Once awakened, medicine and sickness are both eliminated, and there is no dharma to preach […].) Subhūti, what do you think? If a person were to fill a trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu with the seven precious jewels and give them in dāna, ( […] if a person's giving of wealth and jewels clarifies that the lines and principles are truly not empty,) would the puṇya obtained by this person be much?” Subhūti said, “Very much, Bhagavat.” (The seven jewels are rare and precious; three thousand [realms] are completely filled. The giving of puṇya devoid of svabhāva is vast and ever-increasing.) “Why is this? This puṇya is not of the nature of puṇya; therefore the Tathāgata says that the puṇya is much.” (The reason the giving is vast and the puṇya is much is that it is not of the nature of puṇya. If it were of the nature of puṇya, the jewels […] would not make the puṇya much. It is only because the puṇya devoid of svabhāva relies on external conditions that the Tathāgata speaks of puṇya.) “If, moreover, there is a person who upholds from this sūtra even down to a four-line verse and explains it to others, their puṇya surpasses that [former one].” (The puṇya of giving material wealth is not of the nature of puṇya. Although puṇya results from giving, it does not lead to bodhi. The merit of upholding the sūtra, even with few lines or verses, can cause sentient beings to eliminate the obstacle of afflictions; this is true puṇya, hence it surpasses that.) “Why is this? Subhūti, all Buddhas and the anuttarā samyaksambodhi dharmas of all Buddhas all come forth from this sūtra. (The correct wisdom of prajñā illuminates completely without obstruction. The unsurpassed correct path is manifested from this. All Buddhas first cultivate it themselves and finally use it to transform beings; its benefits and rescues are vast and far-reaching—what does not proceed from this?) Subhūti, what is called the Buddha Dharma is immediately not the Buddha Dharma. (Dharmas have no svabhāva; when realized, they are completely identical. Awakened to emptiness through teaching, it is called the Buddha [Dharma]. Dharmas are established through teaching; awakening does not stagnate in emptiness. Directly speaking, there is no dharma that can be negated—how could it merely be that it is not the Buddha Dharma?) Subhūti, what do you think? Can a srotāpanna think: ‘Have I attained the fruit of a srotāpanna’?” (Cultivating the undefiled, realizing the undefiled fruit, awakening to having nothing attained—this is named a srotāpanna. Borrowing the non-self of the Hīnayāna clarifies prajñā’s forgetting of lakṣaṇas.) Subhūti said, “No, Bhagavat.” (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) “Why is this? A srotāpanna is named a stream-enterer, yet there is nowhere entered; not entering rūpa, śabda, gandha, rasa, spraṣṭavya, or dharmas—this is named a srotāpanna.” (Practicing the undefiled fruit is named entering the stream of the Path. Not grasping at the lakṣaṇa of the fruit, there is no stream to enter. How could forgetting lakṣaṇas result in there being no stream of the Path to enter, or conversely, having a self, enter the six dusts of sound and form?) “Subhūti, what do you think? Can a sakṛdāgāmin think: ‘Have I attained the fruit of a sakṛdāgāmin’?” (Cutting off the reflections of the desire realm.)