金剛般若經挾註 1.1.8

1.1.8

是人以是因緣。 得福多不。 如是世尊。 此人以是因緣。 得福甚多（施寶求福。 以果酬因。 故知。 福德甚多）須菩提。 若福德有實。 如來不說得福德多。 以福德無故。 如來說得福德多（寶施求福。 非福德性。 未絕因地故。 說果多。 七寶既盡。 假名所獲。 亦非有實。 非有實故。 故不取相。 是以如來。 應緣而說。 云得福多。 若行深般若。 歸趣中道。 罪既不至。 福亦不來。 心如教住。 法尚應捨。 有何福德。 於其間哉）須菩提。 於意云何。 佛可以具足色身見不。 不也世尊。 如來不應以具足色身見（色為有分。 身假緣成。 凡是色身。 皆非妙相故。 不應以此見如來也）何以故。 如來說具足色身。 即非具足色身（具足色身。 分分假合故。 即非具足色身。 離假合身。 別無真身。 故是名具足色身。 當試論之。 夫無色之色。 見一切色。 非身之身。 見一切身。 若以色色空。 縱妙身而有我。 以空空色。 雖色身而見佛。 豈復捨此。 而別有色身妙身耶）須菩提。 於意云何。 如來可以具足諸相見不。 不也世尊。 如來不應以具足諸相見。 何以故。 如來說諸相具足。 即非具足。 是名諸相具足（以一色身。 不應見佛。 今就諸相得見不耶。 則一一相中。 同一色相故　不應以此得見如來也）須菩提。 汝勿謂如來作是念。 我當有所說法莫作是念（為眾生說。 如彼筏喻故。 如來無說之念。 汝不應作是思惟）何以故。 若人言。 如來有所說法。 即為謗佛。 不能解我所說故（法無定法。 說豈說耶。 若人以我有法可說。 是人不解般若空義。 與我說法之謗爾）須菩提。 說法者無法可說。 是名說法（言者在意。 得意而忘言。 法者辯空。 悟空而無法。 空本無法。 故云無法可說。 了是義者。 得法甚深。 故云是名說法）須菩提。 白佛言世尊。 佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。 為無所得耶（前云無法可說。 善吉啟問。 欲明無法所由故云若無法可說者。 則佛於菩提無所得耶）如是如是須菩提。 我於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。 乃至無有少法可得。 是名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（於菩提中。 無有少法。 若有少法。 不名菩提。 為無法可得。 而能感而遂通　故名菩提也）復次須菩提。 是法平等。 無有高下。 是名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（於菩提道。 本無異門。 泯彼色空。 離於常斷。 一相無二。 是無為法。 適使萬殊。 咸其自己。 涅槃煩惱。 究竟無餘。 只於是中。 名菩提義）以無我無人。 無眾生無壽者。 修一切善法。 則得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（無彼四相。 明己悟空。 習此中道。 云修善法。 不滯無有。 名得菩提）須菩提。 所言善法者。 如來說非善法。 是名善法（稱中道者。 因邊獲稱。 若存中法。 不異於邊故。 聖人說空。 以破於有云。 善法有法既盡亦無空法。 故非善法。 能遣斯遣。 深入菩提。 是名善法）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。 若有人。 以此般若波羅蜜經。 乃至四句偈等受持。 為他人說。 於前福德。 百分不及一。 百千萬億分。 乃至算數譬喻。 所不能及（如此校量。 前來已說。 於所明義。 一一不同。 前云是法平等。 不應經優而寶劣。 故自宣此義。 將遣是疑。 只為般若平等故。 勝如山之寶爾）須菩提。 於意云何。 汝等勿謂如來作是念。 我當度眾生。 須菩提。 莫作是念（如來無是念故。 汝莫作是思惟）何以故。 實無有眾生。 如來度者（眾生正性。 本來清淨。 六根起想。 煩惱病生。 觀生本空。 有何可度）若有眾生。 如來度者。 如來則有我人。 眾生壽者（般若中觀。 離諸名相。 若見眾生可度者。 則於法如中。

"Would that person, by reason of this, obtain much puṇya?" "So it is, Bhagavat. That person, by reason of this, would obtain very much puṇya." (Giving jewels to seek puṇya recompenses the cause with the fruit; therefore, one knows that the puṇya is exceedingly great.) "Subhūti, if puṇya were real, the Tathāgata would not say that he obtains much puṇya. Because puṇya is non-existent, the Tathāgata says that he obtains much puṇya." (Giving jewels to seek puṇya is not the nature of puṇya. Because the causal stage has not yet been cut off, he speaks of the fruit as great. When the seven precious jewels are exhausted, what is obtained is a provisional name and is also not real. Because it is not real, one does not seize upon lakṣaṇas. For this reason, the Tathāgata speaks in response to conditions, saying that he obtains much puṇya. If one practices deep prajñā and returns to the middle way, then fault does not arrive and puṇya also does not come. The mind abides according to the teaching, and even dharmas should be relinquished; what puṇya could there be therein?) "Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the complete physical body?" "No, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the complete physical body." (Form has parts, and the body is formed through dependent conditions. All physical bodies are not the wondrous lakṣaṇa; therefore, one should not see the Tathāgata by means of this.) "Why is this? The complete physical body spoken of by the Tathāgata is not the complete physical body." (Because the complete physical body is a provisional combination of parts, it is not the complete physical body. Apart from the provisionally combined body, there is no other true body; therefore it is called the complete physical body. Let us test and discuss it: Form without form sees all form; the body that is not a body sees all bodies. If one makes emptiness form by means of form, even with a wondrous body there is still a self; if one empties form by means of emptiness, although it is a physical body, one sees the Buddha. How could one abandon this and have another physical body or wondrous body?) "Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of the completeness of all marks?" "No, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the completeness of all marks. Why is this? The completeness of all marks spoken of by the Tathāgata is not completeness; it is called the completeness of all marks." (By means of a single physical body, one should not see the Buddha. Now, can one see him through all the marks? Then in each and every mark, it is of the same mark of form; therefore, one should not be able to see the Tathāgata by means of this.) "Subhūti, you should not say that the Tathāgata thinks: 'I ought to have some dharma to expound.' Do not give rise to this thought." (Speaking for sentient beings is like the parable of the raft; therefore, the Tathāgata has no thought of expounding. You should not give rise to such reflection.) "Why is this? If a person says that the Tathāgata has some dharma to expound, he slanders the Buddha, because he is unable to understand what I expound." (Dharmas have no fixed dharma; how could expounding be expounding? If a person considers me to have a dharma that can be expounded, this person does not understand the prajñā meaning of emptiness, which constitutes the slander of my expounding the Dharma.) "Subhūti, as for the expounding of Dharma, there is no dharma that can be expounded; this is called expounding the Dharma." (Words lie in the meaning; having obtained the meaning, one forgets the words. Dharmas discern emptiness; having awakened to emptiness, there are no dharmas. Emptiness fundamentally has no dharmas; therefore, it is said that there is no dharma that can be expounded. One who understands this meaning attains the profoundly deep Dharma; therefore, it is said: this is called expounding the Dharma.) Subhūti said to the Buddha: "Bhagavat, when the Buddha attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi, was there nothing at all attained?" (It was previously said that there is no dharma that can be expounded; Subhūti inquired, wishing to clarify the reason for there being no dharma; hence he said: If there is no dharma that can be expounded, then did the Buddha attain nothing with respect to bodhi?) "So it is, so it is, Subhūti. With respect to anuttarā samyaksambodhi, I did not have even the least dharma that could be attained; this is called anuttarā samyaksambodhi." (In bodhi, there is not the least dharma. If there were the least dharma, it would not be called bodhi. Because there is no dharma that can be attained, yet he is capable of resonating and thereby penetrating throughout; therefore, it is called bodhi.) "Furthermore, Subhūti, this dharma is impartial, without high or low; this is called anuttarā samyaksambodhi." (In the path of bodhi, there is fundamentally no disparate gateway. It eliminates both form and emptiness, and is free from permanence and annihilation. Its single lakṣaṇa is without duality; it is an asamskṛta dharma. It simply causes the myriad differences to all be oneself. Nirvāṇa and kleśa are ultimately without remainder. It is only in this that it is termed the meaning of bodhi.) "By being without a notion of a self, without a notion of a person, without a notion of a sentient being, and without a notion of a soul, one cultivates all wholesome dharmas and then attains anuttarā samyaksambodhi." (Being without those four notions clarifies that one has oneself awakened to emptiness. Practicing this middle way is called cultivating wholesome dharmas. Not lingering in non-existence or existence is called attaining bodhi.) "Subhūti, regarding the so-called wholesome dharmas, the Tathāgata says they are not wholesome dharmas; these are called wholesome dharmas." (That which is designated the middle way obtains its designation because of the extremes. If one maintains the dharma of the middle, it is not different from the extremes; therefore, the sage speaks of emptiness to break through existence, saying 'wholesome dharmas.' When existing dharmas are exhausted, empty dharmas are also non-existent; therefore they are not wholesome dharmas. Being able to dispatch this dispatching and penetrate deeply into bodhi: this is called wholesome dharmas.) "Subhūti, if a person took all the Kings of Mount Sumeru within the trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu—heaps of seven precious jewels such as these—and gave them in generosity; and if another person were to take even as little as a four-line verse from this Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, uphold it, and expound it for others, the former puṇya would not equal one hundredth part of this; it would not equal a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a koṭi of parts, even up to what cannot be reached by calculation or metaphor." (Such a comparison has been spoken before, but in the meanings clarified, each is distinct. It was said previously that 'this dharma is impartial'; the sūtra should not be superior while the jewels are inferior. Therefore, he personally proclaimed this meaning to dispatch this doubt. It is solely because prajñā is impartial that it surpasses jewels like mountains.) "Subhūti, what do you think? You all should not say that the Tathāgata thinks: 'I ought to cross over sentient beings.' Subhūti, do not give rise to this thought." (Because the Tathāgata has no such thought, you should not give rise to such reflection.) "Why is this? Truly there are no sentient beings whom the Tathāgata crosses over." (The true nature of sentient beings is originally pure. The six sense faculties give rise to thoughts, and the sickness of kleśa arises. Contemplating beings as fundamentally empty, what is there to cross over?) "If there were sentient beings whom the Tathāgata crossed over, the Tathāgata would have a notion of a self, a notion of a person, a notion of a sentient being, and a notion of a soul." (The contemplation of the middle in prajñā is free from all names and lakṣaṇas. If one sees sentient beings that can be crossed over, then with respect to the suchness of dharmas,