金剛般若經挾註 1.1.2

1.1.2

得人我空相。 證果之時。 有斯念不）須菩提言。 不也世尊（是人不起得果之念）何以故。 斯陀含。 名一往來。 而實無往來。 是名斯陀含（盡天人趣。 獲往來生一。 斯往來則明所得果。 不取果相。 故實無往來。 若見一往來果。 是生我慢。 則非斯陀含）須菩提。 於意云何。 阿那含能作是念。 我得阿那含果不（斷欲界思盡。 更不復來。 證果之時。 有斯念不）須菩提言。 不也世尊（是人不起得果之念）何以故。 阿那含名為不來。 而實無來。 是故名阿那含（達無人我。 不復還來。 故名不來人法二空。 無取住相。 故實無來。 即阿那含。 而具斯義）須菩提。 於意云何。 阿羅漢能作是念。 我得阿羅漢道不（修習智慧。 斷除煩惱。 證果之時。 有是念不也）須菩提言。 不也世尊（是人不起得果之念）何以故。 實無有法。 名阿羅漢（以斷煩惱。 名阿羅漢。 煩惱性空。 斷無所斷。 悟無所斷。 豈復別有阿羅漢耶）世尊。 若阿羅漢。 作是念。 我得阿羅漢道。 即為著我人眾生壽者（若取果相。 即計有我。 於我不忘諸相。 咸著相受報　眾惱皆生。 取相受生。 豈名羅漢）世尊。 佛說我得無諍三昧人中最為第一。 是第一離欲阿羅漢（善吉樂阿蘭行。 得三昧定。 深入觀不相違諍。 凡諸人中。 最為超勝。 故云第一。 三界煩惱。 逐境愛累。 是名為欲。 如是悉離。 故亦云第一）我不作是念。 我是離欲阿羅漢（我於爾時。 曾不起念云。 有欲可離。 有果可得）世尊。 我若作是念。 我得阿羅漢道。 世尊則不說須菩提是樂阿蘭那行者（我若起念。 計有得果。 獲離欲道。 即成著我。 違無諍行。 則世尊。 不應說我是樂阿蘭那也）以須菩提。 實無所行。 而名須菩提。 是樂阿蘭那行（於行無行。 是了空相）佛告須菩提。 於意云何。 如來昔在然燈佛所。 於法有所得不（將明菩薩亦悟於空。 故却問。 我昔為菩薩。 於然燈佛所。 受記菩提。 當爾之時。 見有菩提法可得不）世尊。 如來昔在然燈佛所。 於法實無所得（悟法性空。 得無生忍。 勤行般若。 勝果則曰菩提。 深入正觀。 諸佛由之授記）須菩提。 於意云何。 菩薩莊嚴佛土不（菩薩修持淨土行業。 見有淨土可莊嚴不）不。 也世尊。 何以故。 莊嚴佛土者。 即非莊嚴。 是名莊嚴（萬行不常。 畢竟空寂。 亦有修習。 假名莊嚴。 國土本空。 無莊嚴相。 能了無相。 即以是莊嚴故。 是名莊嚴也）是故須菩提。 菩薩摩訶薩。 應如是生清淨心。 不應住色生心。 不應住聲香味觸法生心（是以修習者故。 不取莊嚴之相。 應如是生畢境空寂心。 是心清淨故。 不住於色。 及聲香等。 若於是法。 而生心者。 即非清淨心所證之果。 非畢境果故。 不應如是也）應無所住。 而生其心（知色相空。 心無所住故。 於無所住。 生清淨心。 雖假生心之名。 而無住心之相。 無住正觀。 慧照湛然。 是則以不住法。 住般若中也）須菩提。 譬如有人。 身如須彌山王。 於意云何。 是身為大不（身相空。 假如須彌山。 雖有大名。 皆非實體。 不應起心取相。 以為大身。 破前取色之心。 故起大身之問）須菩提言。 甚大世尊。 何以故。 佛說非身。 是名大身。 （觀乎泰山。 木石同壇。 和合眾材。 假名為大。 本無自性。 何定大耶。 所以佛說非身。 是名大身。 不應生心。 以取身相。 如色聲等不可取）須菩提。 如恒河中。 所有沙數。 如是沙等恒河。 於意云何。 是諸恒河沙。 寧為多不（以一恒河沙。 而數。 於河河中之沙。 亦復如彼。 如此之數。 為多不耶）須菩提言。 甚多世尊。 但諸恒河。 尚多無數。 何況其沙（以沙數河河尚無數況復於沙。

[does he who] realizes the non-characteristic emptiness of a person and self, at the time of realizing the fruit, have such a thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? A sakṛdāgāmin is named 'once-returning', yet in reality there is no returning; this is called a sakṛdāgāmin." (Having exhausted the destinies of devas and humans, he obtains a single returning life. Here 'returning' clarifies the fruit attained. He does not grasp at the characteristic of the fruit; hence there is truly no returning. If he saw the fruit of once-returning, that would give rise to egoistic conceit, and he would not be a sakṛdāgāmin.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Can an anāgāmin form this thought: 'I have attained the fruit of an anāgāmin'?" (Having entirely cut off mental afflictions of the desire realm, he does not return again. At the time of realizing the fruit, does he have this thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? An anāgāmin is named 'non-returning', yet in reality there is no non-returning; therefore he is called an anāgāmin." (Realizing the absence of person and self, he does not return again; thus he is called 'non-returning'. Both person and dharmas are empty, without characteristics of grasping or abiding; therefore in reality there is no coming. This is the anāgāmin, which possesses this meaning.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Can an arhat form this thought: 'I have attained the path of an arhat'?" (Practicing wisdom, he cuts off afflictions. At the time of realizing the fruit, does he have this thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? In reality there is no dharma named an arhat." (Because he cuts off afflictions, he is named an arhat. The nature of afflictions is empty; in cutting them off there is nothing to be cut off. Realizing there is nothing to be cut off, how could there further be a distinct arhat?) "Bhagavat, if an arhat were to form this thought, 'I have attained the path of an arhat', that would be clinging to a self, a person, a sentient being, and a soul." (If he grasps at the characteristic of the fruit, he presumes there is a self. Not forgetting characteristics with regard to the self, all grasping at characteristics incurs retribution; all afflictions arise. Grasping at characteristics and undergoing rebirth, how could he be named an arhat?) "Bhagavat, the Buddha has declared that among humans I have attained araṇā-samādhi and am foremost, that I am the foremost arhat free from desire." (Subhūti delights in forest practice, has attained the concentration of samādhi, and has deeply entered contemplation without conflict or dispute. Among all humans, he is the most transcendent; thus he is called foremost. The afflictions of the three realms, which bind through attachment chasing after sense objects, are called desire. Having completely abandoned these, he is likewise called foremost.) "I do not form this thought: 'I am an arhat free from desire.'" (At that time I never gave rise to the thought, saying: 'There is desire to be abandoned; there is a fruit to be attained.') "Bhagavat, if I were to form this thought, 'I have attained the path of an arhat', the Bhagavat would not say that Subhūti is a forest-dweller." (If I gave rise to the thought, reckoning an attainment of the fruit and achieving the path free from desire, that would become clinging to a self and would conflict with non-disputing practice. Then the Bhagavat would not have said that I am a forest-dweller.) "Because Subhūti in reality has no practice, he is named 'Subhūti who is a forest-dweller'." (Being without practice in the midst of practice is to comprehend the characteristic of emptiness.) The Buddha addressed Subhūti, "What do you think? When the Tathāgata was formerly with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, did he attain anything with regard to the Dharma?" (About to clarify that bodhisattvas likewise awaken to emptiness, he therefore turns to ask: 'Formerly when I was a bodhisattva, at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, I received the vyākaraṇa of bodhi; at that time, did I see that there was a dharma of bodhi to be attained?') "[No,] Bhagavat. When the Tathāgata was formerly with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, with regard to the Dharma he in reality attained nothing." (Awakening to the empty nature of dharmas, he attained anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti and diligently practiced prajñā; the supreme fruit is called bodhi. Deeply entering correct contemplation, all Buddhas confer vyākaraṇa based on this.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Does a bodhisattva adorn Buddha-fields?" (When a bodhisattva cultivates the practices of a pure land, does he see that there is a pure land to be adorned?) "No, Bhagavat. Why is this? The adornment of Buddha-fields is no adornment; this is called adornment." (The myriad practices are impermanent, ultimately empty and quiescent. There is also cultivation, which is conventionally designated 'adornment'. Lands are originally empty, without characteristics of adornment. Being able to understand signlessness is precisely adornment through this; therefore it is called adornment.) "Therefore, Subhūti, a bodhisattva mahāsattva should thus give rise to a pure mind: they should not give rise to a mind abiding in rūpa; they should not give rise to a mind abiding in śabda, gandha, rasa, spraṣṭavya, or dharmas." (Therefore, cultivators do not grasp at the characteristics of adornment. They should thus give rise to an ultimately empty and quiescent mind. Because this mind is pure, it does not abide in rūpa or in śabda, gandha, and the rest. If with respect to these dharmas one gives rise to a mind, then it is not a fruit realized by a pure mind; because it is not the ultimate fruit, one should not do so.) "They should give rise to their mind without abiding anywhere." (Knowing that the characteristics of rūpa are empty, the mind abides nowhere; therefore, in non-abiding they give rise to a pure mind. Although having the provisional name of 'giving rise to a mind', there is no characteristic of an abiding mind. The correct contemplation of non-abiding, with its illumination of wisdom clear and serene—this is precisely abiding in prajñā through non-abiding dharmas.) "Subhūti, suppose there were a person whose body was like Mount Sumeru, king [of mountains]. What do you think? Would that body be large?" (The characteristics of the body are empty. Even if like Mount Sumeru, though having the name 'large', none have real substance. One should not give rise to a mind that grasps at characteristics, taking it to be a large body. To refute the previous mind that grasped at rūpa, he therefore raises the question of a large body.) Subhūti said, "Extremely large, Bhagavat. Why is this? The Buddha has explained that it is not a body; this is called a large body." (Observing Mount Tai, wood and stone share the same mound, combining numerous materials, provisionally named 'large'. Originally lacking intrinsic nature, how could it be definitively large? Therefore the Buddha said it is not a body; this is called a large body. One should not give rise to a mind to grasp at bodily characteristics, just as rūpa, śabda, and the rest cannot be grasped.) "Subhūti, as many grains of sand as there are in the Gaṅgā River, if there were as many Gaṅgā Rivers as these grains of sand, what do you think? Would the sand in all those Gaṅgā Rivers be numerous?" (Using the sand of one Gaṅgā River to count rivers, the sand in those rivers is also like that. Would such a number be great?) Subhūti said, "Extremely numerous, Bhagavat. Those Gaṅgā Rivers alone would be innumerably many, how much more so their sand!" (If the rivers numbered by the sand are already innumerable, how much more so their sand!)