金剛般若經挾註 1.1.7

1.1.7

豈有虛實耶）是故如來。 說一切法皆是佛法（切法中。 皆有中義。 能超中道。 即會於如故。 諸法得中皆佛法）須菩提。 所言一切法者。 即非一切法。 是故名一切法（因緣生法本無自性。 無性非有故。 即非一切法也。 為因緣故。 有假名生。 假名非無。 是故名一切法也）須菩提。 譬如人身長大（一切法假因緣生。 如人身長大。 亦資百骸九竅。 以賅而存爾）須菩提言。 世尊。 如來說人身長大。 則為非大身。 是名大身（人身長大。 假合眾緣。 分分不同。 則為非大。 而身相具足。 是名大身。 則知不離假合之身。 而有大身。 不離因緣生法。 而有佛法。 煩惱之外。 豈復別有涅槃耶）須菩提。 菩薩亦如是（勸菩薩。 亦當作如是解行於中道）若作是言。 我當滅度無量眾生。 則不名菩薩（以計有眾生故。 則著於相。 不取中道故。 不得名道心眾生）何以故。 須菩提。 實無有法。 名為菩薩（於五聚蔭中。 實無有一法。 名為菩薩）是故佛說。 一切法無我無人。 無眾生無壽者。 （以結前無有法。 名菩薩故。 不著此四相。 無是等相。 則不應別有菩薩度眾生）須菩提。 若菩薩。 作是言。 我當莊嚴佛土。 是不名菩薩（於內無相。 不應言我度眾生。 於外無相　不應莊嚴於佛土）何以故。 如來說。 莊嚴佛土者。 即非莊嚴。 是名莊嚴（無相莊嚴佛土。 即非有相莊嚴之法。 能了無相。 是名莊嚴。 故菩薩。 不應計我能莊嚴佛土也）須菩提。 若菩薩。 通達無我法者。 如來說。 言真是菩薩（於人無我。 於法無我。 忘於四相。 不取六塵。 能如此者。 則不應計有眾生。 可滅度。 有淨度。 可莊嚴。 通達若斯。 是真道心眾生矣也）須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有肉眼不。 如是世尊。 如來有肉眼（色相同眾生。 即肉為眼。 故云肉眼也）須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有天眼不。 如是世尊。 如來有天眼（於眼淨根。 普照一切。 故云天眼）須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有慧眼不。 如是世尊。 如來有慧眼（依定發慧。 了一切相。 故云慧眼）須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有法眼不。 如是世尊。 如來有法眼（了一切法。 於法無滯。 故云法眼）須菩提。 於意云何。 如來有佛眼不。 如是世尊。 如來有佛眼（然彼眾相。 成我妙身。 圓對無礙。 故云佛眼。 是五眼者。 約事為名。 以所觀之境因能觀之用。 如彼摸象生異號。 於我佛身。 故為同體。 若別為階級次第。 或云修證不同。 此則以色見如來。 非謂通於無相也）須菩提。 於意云何。 如恒河中所有沙。 佛說是沙不。 如是世尊。 如來說是沙（如來說法。 常以河沙為喻）須菩提。 於意云何。 如一恒河中所有沙。 有如是等。 恒河。 是諸恒河所有沙數。 佛世界如是。 寧為多不。 甚多世尊（一河之沙數等諸河。 諸河之沙。 有如世界。 如此世界。 實為甚多）佛告須菩提。 爾所國土中。 所有眾生。 若干種心。 如來悉知（世界已多。 是中眾生。 心心攀緣。 數不能舉。 如是心等。 如來悉知）何以故。 如來說。 諸心皆為非心。 是名為心（何以故。 如來悉知。 謂此諸心。 皆由妄起。 與物相力。 逐境交馳。 如是等是生。 知見妄法。 非有。 異境皆空。 唯淨信心。 如所教住。 證達本末。 是名為心）所以者何。 須菩提。 過去心不可得。 見在心不可得。 未來心不可得（以三世法。 求生知心。 是心無常。 求不可得。 前云非心名心。 借常心以破妄。 此云求不可得。 又遣破妄之常。 然不將不迎。 應而無主。 萬境咸入。 我用不疲。 千相取容。 其求皆給。 不唯般若之蘊乎）須菩提。 於意云何。 若人滿三千大千世界七寶。 以用布施。

How could there be real or unreal?) Therefore the Tathāgata says: ‘All dharmas are the Buddha-dharma.’ (Within all dharmas, there is the meaning of the middle. If one can transcend into the middle way, one accords with Suchness; therefore, when all dharmas attain the middle, they are all the Buddha-dharma.) Subhūti, what are called all dharmas are not all dharmas; therefore they are named all dharmas. (Dharmas produced by causes and conditions are fundamentally without svabhāva. Because being without svabhāva is non-existence, they are not all dharmas. Because of causes and conditions, conventional designations arise. Because conventional designations are not non-existent, therefore they are named all dharmas.) Subhūti, it is like a person with a tall and large body.” (All dharmas arise conventionally from causes and conditions. Just as a person's body being tall and large also relies on the hundred bones and nine apertures to comprise and maintain it.) Subhūti said, “Bhagavat, when the Tathāgata speaks of a person's body being tall and large, it is not a large body; it is named a large body.” (A person's body being tall and large is a conventional aggregation of many conditions. Part by part they are not the same, so it is not large; yet the marks of the body are complete, so it is named a large body. Thus one knows that apart from the conventionally aggregated body there is no large body, and apart from dharmas produced by causes and conditions there is no Buddha-dharma. Outside of the defilements, how could there separately be another nirvāṇa?) “Subhūti, the bodhisattva is also like this. (This exhorts the bodhisattva also to form such an understanding and practice the middle way.) If one speaks thus: ‘I shall bring immeasurable sentient beings to parinirvāṇa,’ then one is not named a bodhisattva. (Because one conceives that there are sentient beings, one clings to marks and does not grasp the middle way; therefore one cannot be named a being with the mind of the Way.) Why is this? Subhūti, there is truly no dharma named a bodhisattva. (Within the five skandhas, there is truly not a single dharma named a bodhisattva.) Therefore the Buddha says: ‘All dharmas are without a self, without a person, without a sentient being, and without a soul.’ (This concludes the preceding [statement that] there is no dharma named a bodhisattva; hence one does not cling to these four lakṣaṇas. Since there are no such lakṣaṇas, there should not separately be a bodhisattva who delivers sentient beings.) Subhūti, if a bodhisattva speaks thus: ‘I shall adorn Buddha-lands,’ this one is not named a bodhisattva. (Internally being without lakṣaṇas, one should not say ‘I deliver sentient beings’; externally being without lakṣaṇas, one should not adorn Buddha-lands.) Why is this? The Tathāgata says that one who adorns Buddha-lands is not adorning; it is named adorning. (To adorn Buddha-lands without lakṣaṇas is not a dharma of adorning with lakṣaṇas. Being able to comprehend signlessness is named adorning; therefore, a bodhisattva should not calculate that ‘I can adorn Buddha-lands.’) Subhūti, if a bodhisattva thoroughly penetrates the dharma of non-self, the Tathāgata says that this is truly a bodhisattva. (Being without self regarding persons, being without self regarding dharmas, forgetting the four lakṣaṇas, and not grasping the six sense-objects—one who can be like this will not calculate that there are sentient beings that can be brought to parinirvāṇa, or pure lands that can be adorned. Thoroughly penetrating like this, such a one is truly a being with the mind of the Way.) Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the physical eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the physical eye.” (The physical lakṣaṇas are the same as sentient beings, taking the flesh as the eye; hence it is called the physical eye.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the heavenly eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the heavenly eye.” (With pure sense-bases of the eye, universally illuminating all; hence it is called the heavenly eye.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the wisdom eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the wisdom eye.” (Relying on concentration to give rise to wisdom, comprehending all lakṣaṇas; hence it is called the wisdom eye.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the dharma eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the dharma eye.” (Comprehending all dharmas, without obstruction regarding dharmas; hence it is called the dharma eye.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the Buddha eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the Buddha eye.” (However, those various lakṣaṇas constitute my wondrous body; fully confronting without hindrance, it is called the Buddha eye. These five eyes are named according to functions. Because the field of observation arises from the function of observation—like those who touch an elephant giving rise to different designations—in my Buddha-body they are fundamentally of the same substance. If one differentiates them into stages and sequences, or says that cultivation and realization differ, this is to see the Tathāgata through form, and does not mean penetrating signlessness.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Buddha speak of the sand in the Gaṅgā as sand?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata speaks of it as sand.” (When the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma, he constantly uses the sand of the river as a metaphor.) “Subhūti, what do you think? If there were as many Gaṅgā rivers as the sand in one Gaṅgā river, and there were as many Buddha-worlds as all the grains of sand in these Gaṅgā rivers, would they indeed be many?” “Very many, Bhagavat.” (The grains of sand in one river equal all those rivers; the sand of all those rivers equals the worlds; such worlds are truly very many.) The Buddha told Subhūti, “As many minds of various kinds as all the sentient beings in those lands have, the Tathāgata completely knows. (The worlds are already many, and the sentient beings in them have minds continually grasping after conditions, the number of which cannot be enumerated; such minds as these, the Tathāgata completely knows.) Why is this? The Tathāgata says that all minds are not mind; this is named mind. (Why does the Tathāgata completely know them? It is said that these minds all arise from delusion. Clashing with objects and chasing after sensory realms, such as these arise. Discerning that delusive dharmas are non-existent, the disparate realms are all empty. Only pure faith abides as taught, realizing and penetrating the fundamental and the branch; this is named mind.) For what reason? Subhūti, the past mind cannot be grasped, the present mind cannot be grasped, and the future mind cannot be grasped. (Seeking to generate the knowing mind through the dharmas of the three times, this mind is impermanent and cannot be found. Earlier it was said that ‘not mind is named mind,’ borrowing the permanent mind to dismantle delusion. Here it is said that it cannot be found, which also dismisses the permanent that dismantled delusion. Thus neither escorting nor welcoming, responding without a master; the ten thousand realms all enter, and my function does not tire; accommodating a thousand lakṣaṇas, whatever is sought is supplied. Is this not solely the storehouse of prajñā?) Subhūti, what do you think? If a person filled a trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu with the seven precious jewels to use in giving,