金剛般若經挾註 1.1.4

1.1.4

真實之相。 得茲實相。 必趣菩提菩提果成。 即名第一希有功德）世尊。 是實相者。 則是非相。 是故如來。 說名實相（以般若智。 趣真實相。 夫實相者。 豈有相哉。 則妙色法身。 真空無礙。 非假有相。 離空無相。 即此之相。 非實相耶也）世尊。 我今得聞如是經典。 信解受持。 不足為難（親承受記。 久誤空法。 今復聞說。 信解非難）若當來世。 後五百歲。 其有眾生　得聞是經。 信解受持。 是人則為第一希有（像法之中。 去聖逾遠。 但聞遺教。 便解奉持。 則知是人。 了甚深義。 無出其右。 故云第一）何以故。 此人無我相人相。 眾生相壽者相（何以故。 此人得名第一希有者。 為不著如是等相故。 能信解是經。 得為第一）所以者何。 我相即是非相。 人相眾生相壽者相。 即是非相（於我無相。 妄計有我。 了我了我相非相。 即不著人眾生壽者矣）何以故。 離一切諸相。 則名諸佛（何以故。 此人無我。 則為希有者。 能離諸相。 即是菩提。 故為希有）佛告須菩提。 如是如是（印可其說）若復有人。 得聞是經。 不驚不怖不畏。 當知是人。 甚為希有（於無為法。 而有差別。 如是賢聖。 優劣不同。 也小二乘係執因果。 福德報應。 聞是深義。 必當驚怖。 能不怖畏。 已是希有。 況能信解。 而受持耶也）何以故。 須菩提。 如來說第一波羅蜜。 非第一波羅蜜。 是名第一波羅蜜（諸法莫二。 故云第一。 到彼岸者。 為對此流。 此流已盡。 彼岸何有。 是知諸法。 但亦假名。 累盡名去。 故非第一。 於斯了義。 能入深門。 故是名第一波羅蜜）須菩提。 忍辱波羅蜜。 如來說非忍辱波羅蜜（忍辱者明無我也。 人辱我忍。 以為勝行。 本無人我。 誰辱忍耶）何以故。 須菩提。 如我昔為歌利王。 割截身體。 我於爾時。 無我相。 無人相。 無眾生相。 無壽者相（無我無人。 誰忍誰辱）何以故。 我於往昔。 節節支解時。 若有我相人相。 眾生相壽者相。 應生嗔恨（前舉割截無我。 以明無忍。 今舉不生嗔恨。 復明無我。 小乘計執我相。 則多起貪嗔今隳裂支體。 不生嗔恨者。 則復何外相。 預其間乎。 知無我矣）須菩提。 又念過去。 於五百世作忍辱仙人。 於爾所世。 無我相無人相。 無眾生相。 無壽者相（了無我相。 非止此生。 當於爾時。 已達斯趣）是故須菩提。 菩薩應離一切相。 發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心（從前已來。 明無相降住之義。 今明離相無性。 乃是菩薩發心。 況於菩提。 且無定法。 發心取相。 不亦難乎）不應住色生心。 不應住聲香味觸法生心（菩提無定相可取。 況六塵乎。 是假合相。 不應生心住於此）應生無所住心（以有所住。 即著諸相故。 勸於無所住。 而生其心。 斯對辯也。 夫無所住。 豈生心哉。 若於無所住。 而生心。 是未免於有所住也　但於一切法。 無所住。 以此為生心爾。 非謂別生無所住心也。 故下文云）若心有住則為非住（此又遣無所住也。 言若心。 於無所住有住。 則為非住無所住也）是故佛說。 菩薩心。 不應住色布施（引前佛說以證今義）須菩提。 菩薩。 為利益一切眾生。 應如是布施（菩薩住相布施。 未名懸解眾生欲求。 利益不亦難乎。 故菩薩用心。 應如是不住相布施也）如來說。 一切諸相。 即是非相（如來所說。 福德因果報應等。 一切諸相。 皆因眾生妄心起念爾。 於法性本空。 是故非相）又說。 一切眾生。 即非眾生（若住相布施。 則見有施者受者。 今不住相。 則無我相人相。 生性空故。 即非眾生）須菩提。 如來是真語者。 實語者。 如語者。 不誑語者。 不異語者（夫無我人相。 及無住布施。

the true mark. Attaining this true mark, one will surely head toward bodhi; when the fruit of bodhi is perfected, it is named foremost and rare guṇa.) ‘Bhagavat, this true mark is precisely a non-characteristic; therefore the Tathāgata speaks of it as the name “true mark.”’ (Using prajñā wisdom, one heads toward the true mark. Now, does the true mark have any mark? It is the wondrously formed dharmakāya, truly empty and unimpeded, not a provisional existent mark, and yet not free from empty non-marking. Is this very mark not the true mark?) ‘Bhagavat, now that I have heard such a sūtra, to believe, understand, accept, and uphold it is not difficult.’ (Having personally received vyākaraṇa, he has long understood empty dharmas. Hearing it spoken again now, to believe and understand it is not difficult.) ‘If in a future age, in the final five hundred years, there are sentient beings who hear this sūtra, believe, understand, accept, and uphold it, such persons will be foremost and rare.’ (In the age of the Semblance Dharma, one is ever farther from the sages. Merely hearing the bequeathed teaching, they immediately understand and uphold it; thus we know these persons comprehend the profound meaning, none surpassing them; hence it is called foremost.) ‘Why is this? Such persons will have no notion of a self, notion of a person, notion of a sentient being, or notion of a soul.’ (Why is this? That such persons are called foremost and rare is because they do not grasp at such notions as these; being able to believe and understand this sūtra, they are considered foremost.) ‘For what reason? The notion of a self is precisely a non-characteristic; the notion of a person, the notion of a sentient being, and the notion of a soul are precisely non-characteristics.’ (In terms of a self there is no mark, yet one falsely calculates there to be a self. Understanding that the notion of a self is a non-characteristic, one then does not cling to a person, a sentient being, or a soul.) ‘Why is this? One who is free from all marks is called a Buddha.’ (Why is this? That this person has no self is what makes them rare. Being able to leave all marks behind is precisely bodhi; hence they are rare.) The Buddha told Subhūti, ‘It is so, it is so.’ (Endorsing his statement.) ‘If there is another person who hears this sūtra and is not startled, not terrified, and not afraid, you should know that this person is extremely rare.’ (In asamskṛta dharmas there are distinctions; among such worthy and noble ones, their superiority and inferiority differ. Those of the two lesser vehicles are bound to clinging to causes and conditions, puṇya and retribution; hearing this profound meaning, they will surely be startled and terrified. To be able not to be afraid is already rare; how much more so to be able to believe, understand, accept, and uphold it!) ‘Why is this? Subhūti, the Tathāgata speaks of the foremost pāramitā as not the foremost pāramitā; it is named the foremost pāramitā.’ (All dharmas are not dual; hence it is called the foremost. “Those who reach the other shore” is said in contrast to this stream. When this stream is exhausted, where is the other shore? Thus we know that all dharmas are merely conventional names; when afflictions are exhausted, names fall away, and so it is not the foremost. Comprehending this meaning, one can enter the profound gate; thus it is named the foremost pāramitā.) ‘Subhūti, the kṣānti-pāramitā the Tathāgata speaks of as not the kṣānti-pāramitā.’ (Kṣānti clarifies the absence of self. When others insult me and I endure, that is regarded as an excellent practice. When fundamentally there is no person or self, who insults and who endures?) ‘Why is this? Subhūti, as when in the past my body was sliced and dismembered by King Kali, at that time I had no notion of a self, no notion of a person, no notion of a sentient being, and no notion of a soul.’ (Without self and without person, who endures and who insults?) ‘Why is this? When I was dismembered joint by joint in the past, if I had had a notion of a self, a notion of a person, a notion of a sentient being, or a notion of a soul, I would have given rise to anger and hatred.’ (Previously, being sliced without self was cited to clarify non-endurance; now, not giving rise to anger is cited to clarify non-self again. When the Hīnayāna clings to the notion of a self, they mostly produce greed and anger; now when limbs and body are torn apart, not producing anger—what external mark could intervene there? One knows there is no self.) ‘Subhūti, I also recall that in the past, for five hundred lifetimes I was an ascetic practicing kṣānti; throughout those lifetimes I had no notion of a self, no notion of a person, no notion of a sentient being, and no notion of a soul.’ (Understanding that there is no notion of a self was not limited to this life; at that time he had already comprehended this principle.) ‘Therefore, Subhūti, a bodhisattva should leave behind all marks and give rise to the mind of anuttarā samyaksambodhi.’ (From earlier up to this point, the meaning of subduing and abiding without marks was clarified; now it is clarified that leaving behind marks and having no nature is indeed how a bodhisattva resolves their mind. Furthermore, in bodhi there is no fixed dharma; resolving the mind by taking up marks, would that not also be difficult?) ‘One should not give rise to a mind abiding in rūpa; one should not give rise to a mind abiding in śabda, gandha, rasa, spraṣṭavya, or dharmas.’ (Bodhi has no fixed mark that can be seized, how much less so the six sense objects? These are provisional, composite marks; one should not give rise to a mind abiding in these.) ‘One should give rise to a mind that does not abide in anything.’ (Because having an abode means clinging to all marks, he urges giving rise to the mind without abiding anywhere. This is an antithetical explanation. Now, when there is no abiding, does one give rise to a mind? If one gives rise to a mind in non-abiding, that does not avoid having an abode. It is simply that in all dharmas there is no abiding, and this is what is meant by giving rise to the mind; it does not mean separately giving rise to a mind that does not abide anywhere. Hence the text below says:) ‘If the mind has an abode, then it is not abiding.’ (This also dispels non-abiding. It means that if the mind has an abode in non-abiding, then it is not abiding in non-abiding.) ‘Therefore the Buddha says: A bodhisattva’s mind should not abide in rūpa when practicing giving.’ (Citing the Buddha’s previous statement to corroborate the present meaning.) ‘Subhūti, for the benefit of all sentient beings, a bodhisattva should give in this manner.’ (If a bodhisattva gives while abiding in marks, that is not yet profound liberation; when sentient beings have desires, to benefit them would also be difficult, wouldn't it? Therefore, when a bodhisattva applies their mind, they should give in this manner without abiding in marks.) ‘The Tathāgata speaks of all marks as precisely non-characteristics;’ (All marks, such as puṇya, cause and effect, and retribution spoken of by the Tathāgata, are all merely because sentient beings’ deluded minds produce thoughts. In dharma-nature, they are fundamentally empty, and therefore they are non-characteristics.) ‘and also speaks of all sentient beings as precisely not sentient beings.’ (If one gives while abiding in marks, then one sees there to be a giver and a recipient. Now, not abiding in marks, there is no notion of a self and no notion of a person; because the nature of beings is empty, they are precisely not sentient beings.) ‘Subhūti, the Tathāgata is one who speaks the truth, one who speaks what is real, one who speaks of thusness, one who does not speak deceptively, and one who does not speak differently.’ (Now, the absence of notions of self and person, as well as giving without abiding,