注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

法治皇权唯法独尊

唵·心存宇宙生生不息演化唯法独尊物质不灭哈哈哈……

 
 
 

日志

 
 

ADORATION to the blessed ?rya-prag??-p?ramit? (perfection of wisdom).《金刚经》  

2017-04-19 17:27:15|  分类: 佛典 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

ADORATION to the blessed ?rya-prag??-p?ramit? (perfection of wisdom).《金刚经》

{p. 111}

THE

VAGRAKKHEDIK?

OR

DIAMOND-CUTTER.

Translated by E.B. Cowell, F. Max Mulller, and J. Takakusu

 

   ADORATION to the blessed ?rya-prag??-p?ramit? (perfection of wisdom).

I.

   Thus it was heard by me: At one time Bhagavat (the blessed Buddha) dwelt in Sr?vast?, in the grove of Geta[1], in the garden of An?thapindada[2], together with a large company of Bhikshus (mendicants), viz. with 1250 Bhikshus[3], with many noble-minded Bodhisattvas[4].

[1. Geta, son of king Prasenagit, to whom the park belonged before it was sold to An?thapindada.

2. Another name of Sudatta, meaning, literally, he who gives food to the poor.

3. The number of 1250 is explained by a Chinese priest Lun-hin, in his commentary on the Amit?yur-dhy?na-s?tra. According to the Dharmagupta-vinaya, which he quotes, the number consisted of 500 disciples of Uruvilva-k?syapa, 300 of Gay?-k?syapa, 200 of Nad?-k?syapa, 150 of S?riputra, and 100 of Maudgaly?yana. The Chinese translators often mistook the Sanskrit expression 'half-thirteen hundred,' i.e. 1250. See Bunyiu Nanjio, Catalogue of Tripitaka, p. 6.

4. Higher beings on the road to Bodhi or perfect knowledge. They are destined hereafter to become Buddhas themselves.]

{p. 112}

   Then Bhagavat having in the forenoon put on his undergarment[1], and having taken his bowl and cloak, entered the great city of Sr?vast? to collect alms. Then Bhagavat, after he had gone to the great city of Sr?vast? to collect alms, performed the act of eating[2], and having returned from his round in the afternoon[3], he put away his bowl and cloak, washed his feet, and sat down on the seat intended[4] for him, crossing his legs[5], holding his body upright, and turning his reflection upon himself. Then many Bhikshus approached to where Bhagavat was, saluted his feet with their heads, turned three times round hira to the right, and sat down on one side. (1)

II.

   At that time again the venerable Subh?ti came to that assembly and sat down. Then rising from his seat and putting his robe over one shoulder, kneeling on the earth with his right knee, he stretched out his folded hands towards Bhagavat and said to him: 'It is wonderful, O Bhagavat, it is exceedingly wonderful, O Sugata, how much the noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been favoured with the highest favour by the Tath?gata, the holy and

[1. In P?li pubbamhasmayam niv?setva, the technical expression for putting on the robes early in the morning; see Childers, s.v. niv?seti.

2. In P?li katabhattakikko, see Childers, s.v.

3. In P?li pakkh?bhattam pindap?tapatikk?nta, see Childers, s.v. pindap?ta. Vig. observes that pakkhabhattam pindap?tapatikk?nto is a {Greek ú!oteron próteron}, as it means, having returned from his rounds, and then made his meal on the food obtained on his rounds.

4. P?li pa??ata.

5. Burnouf, Lotus, p. 334.]

{p. 113}

fully enlightened! It is wonderful how much the noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been instructed[1] with the highest instruction by the Tath?gata, the holy and fully enlightened! How then, O Bhagavat, should the son or the daughter of a good family, after having entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas, behave, how should he advance, and how should he restrain his thoughts?'

   After the venerable Subh?ti had thus spoken, Bhagavat said to him: 'Well said, well said, Subh?ti! So it is, Subh?ti, so it is, as you say. The noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been favoured with the highest favour by the Tath?gata, the noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been instructed with the highest instruction by the Tath?gata. Therefore, O Subh?ti, listen and take it to heart, well and rightly. I shall tell you, how any one who has entered on the path of Bodhisanvas should behave, how he should advance, and how he should restrain his thoughts.' Then the venerable Subh?ti answered the Bhagavat and said: 'So be it, O Bhagavat.' (2)

III.

   Then the Bhagavat thus spoke to him: 'Any one, O Subh?ti, who has entered here on the path of the Bodhisattvas must thus frame his thought: As many beings as there are in this world of beings, comprehended under the term of beings (either born of eggs, or from the womb, or from moisture, or miraculously), with form or without form, with name or without name, or neither with nor without name, as far as

[1. I have followed the Chinese translator, who translates par?ndita by instructed, entrusted, not by protected.]

{p. 114}

any known world of beings is known, all these must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirv?na. And yet, after I have thus delivered immeasurable beings, not one single being has been delivered. And why? If, O Subh?ti, a Bodhisattva had any idea of (belief in) a being, he could not be called a Bodhisattva (one who is fit to become a Buddha). And why? Because, O Subh?ti, no one is to be called a Bodhisattva, for whom there should exist the idea of a being, the idea of a living being, or the idea of a person.' (3)

IV.

   'And again, O Subh?ti, a gift should not be given by a Bodhisattva, while he believes[1] in objects; a gift should not be given by him, while he believes in anything; a gift should not be given by him, while he believes in form; a gift should not be given by him, while he believes in the special qualities of sound, smell, taste, and touch. For thus, O Subh?ti, should a gift be given by a noble-minded Bodhisattva, that he should not believe even in the idea of cause. And why? Because that Bodhisattva, O Subh?ti, who gives a gift, without believing in anything, the measure of his stock of merit is not easy to learn.'--'What do you think, O Subh?ti, is it easy to learn the measure of space in the eastern quarter?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat.'--Bhagavat said: 'In like manner, is it easy to learn the measure of space in the southern, western, northern quarters, below and above (nadir and zenith), in quarters and subquarters, in the ten quarters all round?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed,

[1. To believe here means to depend on or ta accept as real.]

{p. 115}

O Bhagavat.' Bhagavat said: 'In the same manner, O Subh?ti, the measure of the stock of merit of a Bodhisattva, who gives a gift without believing in anything, is not easy to learn. And thus indeed, O Subh?ti, should one who has entered on the path of Bodhisattvas give a gift, that he should not believe even in the idea of cause.' (4)

V.

   'Now, what do you think, O Subh?ti, should a Tath?gata be seen (known) by the possession of signs[1]?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tath?gata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs. And why? Because what has been preached by the Tath?gata as the possession of signs, that is indeed the possession of no-signs.'

   After this, Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subh?ti: 'Wherever there is, O Subh?ti, the possession of signs, there is falsehood; wherever there is no possession of signs, there is no falsehood. Hence the Tath?gata is to be seen (known) from no-signs as signs[2].' (5)

VI.

   After this, the venerable Subh?ti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'Forsooth, O Bhagavat, will there be any beings in the future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the last 500 years[3], during the time

[1. Qualities by which he could be known.

2. It would be easier to read lakshan?lakshanatvatah, from the signs having the character of no-signs. M. de Harlez translates rightly, 'c'est par le non-marque de marquer que la Tath?gata doit être vu et reconnu.'

3. I have changed Pa?k?sat? into Pa?kasat?, because what is intended here is evidently the last of the periods of 500 years each, which, according to the Mah?y?na-Buddhists, elapsed after the death of Buddha. The following extract from the Mah?sannip?ta-s?tra (Ta-tsi-king, No. 61 in Tripitaka), given to me by Mr. B. Nanjio, fully explains the subject. 'It is stated in the fifty-first section of the Mah?sannip?ta-s?tra, that Buddha said: "After my Nirv?na, in the first 500 years, all the Bhikshus and others will be strong in deliberation in my correct Law. (Those who first obtain the 'holy fruit,' i.e. the Srota-?pannas, are called those who have obtained deliberation.) In the next or second 500 years, they will be strong in meditation. In the next or third 500 years, they will be strong in 'much learning,' i.e. bahusruta, religious knowledge. In the next or fourth 500 years, they will be strong in founding monasteries, &c. In the last or fifth 500 years, they will be strong in fighting and reproving. The pure (lit. white) Law will then become invisible."'

The question therefore amounts to this, whether in that corrupt age the law of Buddha will be understood? and the answer is, that there will be always some excellent Boddhisatvas who, even in the age of corruption, can understand the preaching of the Law.]

{p. 116}

of the decay of the good Law, who, when these very words of the S?tras are being preached, will frame a true idea[1]?' The Bhagavat said: 'Do not speak thus, Subh?ti. Yes, there will be some beings in the future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the decay of the good Law, who will frame a true idea when these very words are being preached.

   'And again, O Subh?ti, there will be noble-minded Bodhisattvas, in the future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the decay of the good Law, there will be strong and good and wise beings, who, when these very words of the S?tras are being preached, will frame a true idea. But those noble-minded Bodhisattvas, O Subh?ti, will not have served one Buddha only, and the stock

[1. Will understand them properly.]

{p. 117}

of their merit will not have been accumulated under one Buddha only; on the contrary, O Subh?ti, those noble-minded Bodhisattvas will have served many hundred thousands of Buddhas, and the stock of their merit will have been accumulated under many hundred thousands of Buddhas; and they, when these very words of the S?tras are being preached, will obtain one and the same faith[1]. They are known, O Subh?ti, by the Tath?gata through his Buddha-knowledge; they are seen, O Subh?ti, by the Tath?gata through his Buddha-eye; they are understood, O Subh?ti, by the Tath?gata. All these, O Subh?ti, will produce and will hold fast an immeasurable and innumerable stock of merit. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, there does not exist in those noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of self, there does not exist the idea of a being, the idea of a living being, the idea of a person. Nor does there exist, O Subh?ti, for these noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of quality (dharma), nor of no-quality. Neither does there exist, O Subh?ti, any idea (samg??) or no-idea. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, if there existed for these noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of quality, then they would believe in a self, they would believe in a being, they would believe in a living being, they would believe in a person. And if there existed for them the idea of no-quality, even then they would believe in a self,

[1. I am doubtful about the exact meaning of ekakittapras?da. Childers gives ekakitta, as an adjective, with the meaning of 'having the same thought,' and kittapras?da, as faith in Buddha. But ekakittapras?da may also be 'faith producted by one thought,' 'immediate faith,' and this too is a recognised form of faith in Buddhism. See Sukh?vat?, pp. 71, 108.]

{p. 118}

they would believe in a being, they would believe in a living being, they would believe in a person. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, neither quality nor no-quality is to be accepted by a noble-minded Bodhisattva. Therefore this hidden saying has been preached by the Tath?gata: "By those who know the teaching of the Law, as like unto a raft, all qualities indeed must be abandoned; much more no-qualities[1]"' (6)

VII.

   And again Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subh?ti: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, is there anything (dharma) that was known by the Tath?gata under the name of the highest perfect knowledge, or anything that was taught by the Tath?gata?'

   After these words, the venerable Subh?ti spoke thus to Bhagavat: 'As I, O Bhagavat, understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, there is nothing that was known by the Tath?gata under the name of the highest perfect knowledge, nor is there anything that is taught by the Tath?gata. And why? Because that thing which was known or taught by the Tath?gata is incomprehensible and inexpressible. It is neither a thing nor no-thing. And why? Because the holy persons[2] are of imperfect power[3].' (7)

[1. The same line is quoted in the Abhidharmakosha-vy?khy?.

2. ?ryapudgala need not be Bodhisattvas, but all who have entered on the path leading to Nirv?na.

3. Harlez: 'Parceque les entités supérieures sont produites telles sans être réelles et parfaites pour cela.' If samskrita can be used in Buddhist literature in the sense of perfect, and prabh?vit? as power, my translation might pass, but even then the 'because' remains difficult.]

{p. 119}

VIII.

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, if a son or daughter of a good family filled this sphere of a million millions of worlds with the seven gems or treasures, and gave it as a gift to the holy and enlightened Tath?gatas, would that son or daughter of a good family on the strength of this produce a large stock of merit?' Subh?ti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that son or daughter of a good family would on the strength of this produce a large stock of merit. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, what was preached by the Tath?gata as the stock of merit, that was preached by the Tath?gata as no-stock of merit. Therefore the Tath?gata preaches: "A stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!"' Bhagavat said: 'And if, O Subh?ti, the son or daughter of a good family should fill this sphere of a million millions of worlds with the seven treasures and should give it as a gift to the holy and enlightened Tath?gatas, and if another after taking from this treatise of the Law one G?th? of four lines only should fully teach others and explain it, he indeed would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit immeasurable and innumerable. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, the highest perfect knowledge of the holy and enlightened Tath?gatas is produced from it; the blessed Buddhas are produced from it. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, when the Tath?gata preached:

[1. See Childers, s.v. Lokadh?tu.

2. Or should it be, bh?shate*punyaskandhah punyaskandha iti, i.e. he preaches no-stock of merit is the stock of merit? It would not be applicable to later passages, but the style of the S?tras varies.]

{p. 120}

"The qualities of Buddha, the qualities of Buddha indeed!" they were preached by him as no-qualities of Buddha. Therefore they are called the qualities of Buddha.' (8)

IX.

   Bhagavat said: 'Now, what do you think, O Subh?ti, does a Srota-?panna think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-?patti has been obtained by me?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Srota-?panna does not think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-?patti has been obtained by me. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, he has not obtained any particular state (dharma). Therefore he is called a Srota-?panna. He has not obtained any form, nor sounds, nor smells, nor tastes, nor things that can be touched. Therefore he is called a Srota-?panna. If, O Bhagavat, a Srota-?panna were to think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-?patti has been obtained by me, he would believe in a self, he would believe in a being, he would believe in a living being, he would believe in a person.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, does a Sakrid?g?min think in this wise: The fruit of a Sakrid?g?min has been obtained by me?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Sakrid?g?min

[1. This phrase is wanting in the Sanskrit MSS., but it is found in the Chinese translation of Dharmagupta, of the Sui dynasty (A. D. 589-618).

2. Srota-?panna, a man who has obtained the first grade of sanctification, literally, who has entered the stream. The second grade is that of the Sakrid?g?min, who returns once. The third grade is that of the An?g?min, who does not return at all, but is born in the Brahman world from whence he becomes an Arhat and may obtain Nirv?na.]

{p. 121}

does not think in this wise: The fruit of a Sakrid?g?min has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being (dharma), who has obtained the state of a Sakrid?g?min. Therefore he is called a Sakrid?g?min.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, does an An?g?min think in this wise: The fruit of an An?g?min has been obtained by me?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, an An?g?min does not think in this wise: The fruit of an An?g?min has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being, who has obtained the state of an An?g?min. Therefore he is called an An?g?min.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, does an Arhat think in this wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, an Arhat does not think in this wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being, who is called an Arhat. Therefore he is called an Arhat. And if, O Bhagavat, an Arhat were to think in this wise: The state of an Arhat has been obtained by me, he would believe in a self, he would believe in a being, he would believe in a living being, he would believe in a person.

   'And why? I have been pointed out, O Bhagavat, by the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata, as the foremost of those who dwell in virtue[1].

[1. Aran?vih?rin. Rana is strife, then sin, therefore arana might be peace and virtue, only the a would be short. Probably aranavih?rin was formed with reference to ?ranya-vih?rin, living in the forest, retired from the world, and in peace, just as arhan, worthy, was changed into arahan, the destroyer of sin. Beal translates, 'one who delights in the mortification of an Aranyaka (forest devotee).' De Harlez: 'chey de ceux qui ne sont plus attachés à la jouissance.']

{p. 122}

I, O Bhagavat, am an Arhat, freed from passion. And yet, O Bhagavat, I do not think in this wise: I am an Arhat, I am freed from passion. If, O Bhagavat, I should think in this wise, that the state of an Arhat has been obtained by me, then the Tath?gata would not have truly prophesied of me, saying: "Subh?ti, the son of a good family, the foremost of those dwelling in virtue, does not dwell anywhere, and therefore he is called a dweller in virtue, a dweller in virtue indeed!"' (9)

X.

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, is there anything (dharma) which the Tath?gata has adopted from the Tath?gata D?pankara[1], the holy and fully enlightened?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat; there is not anything which the Tath?gata has adopted from the Tath?gata D?pankara, the holy and fully enlightened.'

   Bhagavat said: 'If, O Subh?ti, a Bodhisattva should say: "I shall create numbers of worlds," he would say what is untrue. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, when the Tath?gata preached: Numbers of worlds, numbers of worlds indeed! they were preached by him as no-numbers. Therefore they are called numbers of worlds.

   'Therefore, O Subh?ti, a noble-minded Bodhisattva should in this wise frame an independent

[1. A former Buddha.]

{p. 123}

mind, which is to be framed as a mind not believing in anything, not believing in form, not believing in sound, smell, taste, and anything that can be touched. Now, for instance, O Subh?ti, a man might have a body and a large body, so that his size should be as large as the king of mountains, Sumeru. Do you think then, O Subh?ti, that his selfhood (he himself) would be large?' Subh?ti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, his selfhood would be large. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, when the Tath?gata preached: "Selfhood, selfhood indeed!" it was preached by him as no-selfhood. Therefore it is called selfhood.' (10)

XI.

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, if there were as many Gang? rivers as there are grains of sand in the large river Gang?, would the grains of sand be many?' Subh?ti said: 'Those Gang? rivers would indeed be many, much more the grains of sand in those Gang? rivers.' Bhagavat said: 'I tell you, O Subh?ti, I announce to you, If a woman or man were to fill with the seven treasures as many worlds as there would be grains of sand in those Gang? rivers and present them as a gift to the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gatas--What do you think, O Subh?ti, would that woman or man on the strength of this produce a large stock of merit?' Subh?ti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that woman or man would on the strength of this produce a large stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.' Bhagavat said: 'And if, O Subh?ti, a woman or man having filled so many worlds with the seven treasures should give them as a gift to the holy and enlightened Tath?gatas,

{p. 124}

and if another son or daughter of a good family, after taking from this treatise of the Law one G?th? of four lines only, should fully teach others and explain it, he, indeed, would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.' (11)

XII.

   'Then again, O Subh?ti, that part of the world in which, after taking from this treatise of the Law one G?th? of four lines only, it should be preached or explained, would be like a Kaitya (holy shrine) for the whole world of gods, men, and spirits; what should we say then of those who learn the whole of this treatise of the Law to the end, who repeat it, understand it, and fully explain it to others? They, O Subh?ti, will be endowed with the highest wonder[1]. And in that place, O Subh?ti, there dwells the teacher[2], or one after another holding the place of the wise preceptor[3].' (12)

XIII.

   After these words, the venerable Subh?ti spoke thus to Bhagavat: 'O Bhagavat, how is this treatise of the Law called, and how can I learn it?' After this, Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subh?ti: 'This treatise of the Law, O Subh?ti, is called the Prag??-p?ramit? (Transcendent wisdom), and you should learn it by that name. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, what was preached by the Tath?gata as the Prag??-p?ramit?, that was preached by the

[1. With what excites the highest wonder.

2. Sast?, often the name of Budha, P?li sattha.

3. This may refer to a succession of teachers handing down the tradition one to the other.]

{p. 125}

Tath?gata as no-P?ramit?. Therefore it is called the Prag??-p?ramit?.

   'Then, what do you think, O Subh?ti, is there anything (dharma) that was preached by the Tath?gata?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagvat, there is not anything that was preached by the Tath?gata.'

   Bhagavat said. 'What do you think then, O Subh?ti,--the dust of the earth which is found in this sphere of a million millions of worlds, is that much?' Subh?ti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that dust of the earth would be much. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, what was preached by the Tath?gata as the dust of the earth, that was preached by the Tath?gata as no-dust. Therefore it is called the dust of the earth. And what was preached by the Tath?gata as the sphere of worlds, that was preached by the Tath?gata as no-sphere. Therefore it is called the sphere of worlds.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, is a holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata to be seen (known) by the thirty-two signs of a hero?' Subh?ti said: 'No indeed, O Bhagavat; a holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata is not to be seen (known) by the thirty-two signs of a hero. And why? Because what was preached by the Tath?gata as the thirty-two signs of a hero, that was preached by the Tath?gata as no-signs. Therefore they are called the thirty-two signs of a hero.'

   Bhagavat said: 'If, O Subh?ti, a woman or man should day by day sacrifice his life (selfhood[1]) as

[1. ?tmabh?va seems to refer here to the living body, not to the spiritual ?tman, which, according to Buddha, can be got rid of by knowledge only. Buddha himself sacrificed his life again and again, and a willingness to die would probably be accepted for the deed.]

{p. 126}

many times as there are grains of sand in the river Gang?, and if he should thus sacrifice his life for as many kalpas as there are grains of sand in the river Gang?, and if another man, after taking from this treatise of the Law one G?th? of four lines only, should fully teach others and explain it, he indeed would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.' (13)

XIV.

   At that time, the venerable Subh?ti was moved by the power of the Law, shed tears, and having wiped his tears, he thus spoke to Bhagavat: 'It is wonderful, O Bhagavat, it is exceedingly wonderful, O Sugata, how fully this teaching of the Law has been preached by the Tath?gata for the benefit of those beings who entered on the foremost path (the path that leads to Nirv?na), and who entered on the best path, from whence, O Bhagavat, knowledge has been produced in me. Never indeed, O Bhagavat, has such a teaching of the Law been heard by me before. Those Bodhisattvas, O Bhagavat, will be endowed with the highest wonder[1], who when this S?tra is being preached hear it and will frame to themselves a true idea. And why? Because what is a true idea is not a true idea. Therefore the Tath?gata preaches: "A true idea, a true idea indeed!"

   'It is no wonder to me, O Bhagavat, that I accept and believe this treatise of the Law, which has been preached. And those beings also, O Bhagavat,

[1. Will possess miraculous powers, and will be admired.]

{p. 127}

who will exist in the future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the good Law, who will learn this treatise of the Law, O Bhagavat, remember it, recite it, understand it, and fully explain it to others, they will indeed be endowed with the highest wonder.

   'But, O Bhagavat, there will not arise in them any idea of a self, any idea of a being, of a living being, or a person, nor does there exist for them any idea or no-idea. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, the idea of a self is no-idea, and the idea of a being, or a living being, or a person is no-idea. And why? Because the blessed Buddhas are freed from all ideas.'

   After these words, Bhagavat thus spoke to the venerable Subh?ti: 'So it is, O Subh?ti, so it is. Those beings, O Subh?ti, who when this S?tra was being recited here will not be disturbed or frightened or become alarmed, will be endowed with the highest wonder. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, this was preached by the Tath?gata, as the Paramap?ramit?, which is no-P?ramit?. And, O Subh?ti, what the Tath?gata preaches as the Paramap?ramit?, that was preached also by immeasurable blessed Buddhas. Therefore it is called the Paramap?ramit?.

   'And, O Subh?ti, the P?ramit? or the highest perfection of endurance (ksh?nti) belonging to a Tath?gata, that also is no-P?ramit?. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, at the time when the king of Kalinga[1] cut my flesh from every limb, I had no idea of a self, of a being, of a living being, or of

[1. The Chinese text points to Kalir?g?. On this Kalir?g? or Kalinripa see Lalita-vistara, p. 191.]

{p. 128}

a person; I had neither an idea nor no-idea. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, if I at that time had had an idea of a self, I should also have had an idea of malevolence. If I had had an idea of a being, or of a living being, or of a person, I should also have had an idea of malevolence. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, I remember the past 500 births, when I was the Rishi Ksh?ntiv?din (preacher of endurance). At that time also, I had no idea of a self, of a being, of a living being, of a person. Therefore then, O Subh?ti, a noble-minded Bodhisattva, after putting aside all ideas, should raise his mind to the highest perfect knowledge. He should frame his mind so as not to believe (depend) in form, sound, smell, taste, or anything that can be touched, in something (dharma), in nothing or anything. And why? Because what is believed is not believed (not to be depended on). Therefore the Tath?gata preaches: "A gift should not be given by a Bodhisattva[1] who believes in anything, it should not be given by one who believes in form, sound, smell, taste, or anything that can be touched."

   'And again, O Subh?ti, a Bodhisattva should in such wise give his gift for the benefit of all beings. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, the idea of a being is no-idea. And those who are thus spoken of by the Tath?gata as all beings are indeed no-beings. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, a Tath?gata says what is real, says what is true, says the things as they are; a Tath?gata does not speak untruth.

   'But again, O Subh?ti, whatever doctrine has been

[1. See before, chap. iv.]

{p. 129}

perceived, taught, and meditated on by a Tath?gata, in it there is neither truth nor falsehood. And as a man who has entered the darkness would not see anything, thus a Bodhisattva is to be considered who is immersed in objects, and who being immersed in objects gives a gift. But as a man who has eyes would, when the night becomes light, and the sun has risen, see many things, thus a Bodhisattva is to be considered who is not immersed in objects, and who not being immersed in objects gives a gift.

   'And again, O Subh?ti, if any sons or daughters of good families will learn this treatise of the Law, will remember, recite, and understand it, and fully explain it to others, they, O Subh?ti, are known by the Tath?gata through his Buddha-knowledge, they are seen, O Subh?ti, by the Tath?gata through his Buddha-eye. All these beings, O Subh?ti, will produce and hold fast an immeasurable and innumerable stock of merit.' (14)

XV.

   'And if, O Subh?ti, a woman or man sacrificed in the morning as many lives as there are grains of sand in the river Gang? and did the same at noon and the same in the evening, and if in this way they sacrificed their lives for a hundred thousands of niyutas of kot?s of ages, and if another, after hearing this treatise of the Law, should not oppose it, then the latter would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable. What should we say then of him who after having written it, learns it, remembers it, understands it, and fully explains it to others?

   'And again, O Subh?ti, this treatise of the Law is

{p. 130}

incomprehensible and incomparable. And this treatise of the Law has been preached by the Tath?gata for the benefit of those beings who entered on the foremost path (the path that leads to Nirv?na), and who entered on the best path. And those who will learn this treatise of the Law, who will remember it, recite it, understand it, and fully explain it to others, they are known, O Subh?ti, by the Tath?gata through his Buddha-knowledge, they are seen, O Subh?ti, by the Tath?gata through his Buddha-eye. All these beings, O Subh?ti, will be endowed with an immeasurable stock of merit, they will be endowed with an incomprehensible, incomparable, immeasurable and unmeasured stock of merit. All these beings, O Subh?ti, will equally remember the Bodhi (the highest Buddha-knowledge), will recite it, and understand it. And why? Because it is not possible, O Subh?ti, that this treatise of the Law should be heard by beings of little faith, by those who believe in self, in beings, in living beings, and in persons. It is impossible that this treatise of the Law should be heard by beings who have not acquired the knowledge of Bodhisattvas, or that it should be learned, remembered, recited, and understood by them. The thing is impossible.

   'And again, O Subh?ti, that part of the world in which this S?tra will be propounded, will have to be honoured by the whole world of gods, men, and evil spirits, will have to be worshipped, and will become like a Kaitya (a holy sepulchre).' (15)

XVI.

   And, O Subh?ti, sons or daughters of a good family who will learn these very S?tras, who will

{p. 131}

remember them. recite them, understand them, thoroughly take them to heart, and fully explain them to others, they will be overcome[1], they will be greatly overcome. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, whatever evil deeds these beings have done in a former birth, deeds that must lead to suffering, those deeds these beings, owing to their being overcome, after they have seen the Law, will destroy, and they will obtain the knowledge of Buddha.

   'I remember, O Subh?ti, in the past, before innumerable and more than innumerable kalpas, there were eighty-four hundred thousands of niyutas of kot?s of Buddhas following after the venerable and fully enlightened Tath?gata D?pankara, who were pleased by me, and after being pleased were not displeased. And if, O Subh?ti, these blessed Buddhas were pleased by me, and after being pleased were not displeased, and if on the other hand people at the last time, at the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the good Law, will learn these very S?tras, remember them, recite them, understand them, and fully explain them to others, then, O Subh?ti, in comparison with their stock of merit that former stock of merit will not come to one hundredth part, nay, not to one thousandth part, not to a hundred thousandth part, not to a ten millionth part, not to a hundred millionth part, not to a hundred thousand ten millionth part, not to a hundred thousands of niyutas ten millionth part. It will not bear number, nor fraction, nor counting, nor comparison, nor approach, nor analogy.

   'And if, O Subh?ti, I were to tell you the stock of

[1. Paribh?ta is explained by despised, but the sense, or even the non-sense, is difficult to understand.]

{p. 132}

merit of those sons or daughters of good families, and how large a stock of merit those sons or daughters of good families will produce, and hold fast at that time, people would become distracted and their thoughts would become bewildered. And again, O Subh?ti, as this treatise of the Law preached by the Tath?gata is incomprehensible and incomparable, its rewards also must be expected (to be) incomprehensible.' (16)

XVII.

   At that time the venerable Subh?ti thus spoke to the Bhagavat: 'How should a person, after having entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas, behave, how should he advance, and how should he restrain his thoughts?' Bhagavat said: 'He who has entered on the path of the Bodhisativas should thus frame his thought: All beings must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirv?na; and yet after I have thus delivered these beings, no being has been delivered. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, if a Bodhisattva had any idea of beings, he could not be called a Bodhisattva, and so on[1] from the idea of a living being to the idea of a person; if he had any such idea, he could not be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, there is no such thing (dharma) as one who has entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.

   'What do you think, O Subh?ti, is there anything which the Tath?gata has adopted from the Tath?gata D?pankara with regard to the highest perfect knowledge? 'After this, the venerable Subh?ti

[1. See chap. iii, p. 114.]

{p. 133}

spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'As far as I, O Bhagavat, understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, there is nothing which has been adopted by the Tath?gata from the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata D?pankara with regard to the highest perfect knowledge.' After this, Bhagavat thus spoke to the venerable Subh?ti: 'So it is, Subh?ti, so it is. There is not, O Subh?ti, anything which has been adopted by the Tath?gata from the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata D?pankara with regard to the highest perfect knowledge. And if, O Subh?ti, anything had been adopted by the Tath?gata, the Tath?gata D?pankara would not have prophesied of me, saying[1]: "Thou, O boy, wilt be in the future the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata called S?kyamuni." Because then, O Subh?ti, there is nothing that has been adopted by the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata with regard to the highest perfect knowledge, therefore I was prophesied by the Tath?gata D?pankara, saying: "Thou, boy, wilt be in the future the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata called S?kyamuni."

   'And why, O Subh?ti, the name of Tath?gata? It expresses true suchness. And why Tath?gata, O Subh?ti? It expresses that he had no origin. And why Tath?gata, O Subh?ti? It expresses the destruction of all qualities. And why Tath?gata, O Subh?ti? It expresses one who had no origin whatever. And why this? Because, O Subh?ti, no-origin is the highest goal.

   'And whosoever, O Subh?ti, should say that, by the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata, the highest

[1. This prophecy is supposed to have been addressed by D?pankara to S?kyamuni, before he had become a Buddha.]

{p. 134}

perfect knowledge has been known, he would speak an untruth, and would slander me, O Subh?ti, with some untruth that he has learned. And why? Because there is no such thing, O Subh?ti, as has been known by the Tath?gata with regard to the highest perfect knowledge. And in that, O Subh?ti, which has been known and taught by the Tath?gata, there is neither truth nor falsehood. Thetefore the Tath?gata preaches: "All things are Buddha-things." And why? Because what was preached by the Tath?gata, O Subh?ti, as all things, that was preached as no-things; and therefore all things are called Buddha-things.

   'Now, O Subh?ti, a man might have a body and a large body.' The venerable Subh?ti said: That man who was spoken of by the Tath?gata as a man with a body, with a large body, he, O Bhagavat, was spoken of by the Tath?gata as without a body, and therefore he is called a man with a body and with a large body.'

   Bhagavat said: 'So it is, O Subh?ti; and if a Bodhisattva were to say: "I shall deliver all beings," he ought not to be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Is there anything, O Subh?ti, that is called a Bodhisattva?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, Bhagavat, there is nothing which is called a Bodhisattva.' Bhagavat said: 'Those who were spoken of as beings, beings indeed, O Subh?ti, they were spoken of as no-beings by the Tath?gata, and therefore they are called beings. Therefore the Tath?gata says: "All beings are without self all beings are without life, without manhood[1], without a personality."

[1. Sans croissance, Harlez; see Childers, s.v. poriso.]

{p. 135}

   'If, O Subh?ti, a Bodhisattva were to say: "I shall create numbers of worlds," he would say what is untrue. And why? Because, what were spoken of as numbers of worlds, numbers of worlds indeed, O Subh?ti, these were spoken of as no-numbers by the Tath?gata, and therefore they are called numbers of worlds.

   'A Bodhisattva, O Subh?ti, who believes that all things are without self, that all things are without self, he has faith, he is called a noble-minded Bodhisattva by the holy and fully enlightened Tath?gata.' (17)

XVIII.

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, has the Tath?gata the bodily eye?' Subh?ti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tath?gata has the bodily eye.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, has the Tath?gata the heavenly eye?' Subh?ti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tath?gata has the heavenly eye.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, has the Tath?gata the eye of knowledge?' Subh?ti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tath?gata has the eye of knowledge.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, has the Tath?gata the eye of the Law?' Subh?ti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tath?gata has the eye of the Law.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, has the Tath?gata the eye of Buddha?' Subh?ti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tath?gata has the eye of Buddha.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, as many grains of sand as there are in the great river Gang?--were they preached by the Tath?gata

{p. 136}

as grains of sand?' Subh?ti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, so it is, O Sugata, they were preached as grains of sand by the Tath?gata.' Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, if there were as many Gang? rivers as there are grains of sand in the great river Gang?; and, if there were as many worlds as there are grains of sand in these, would these worlds be many?' Subh?ti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, so it is, O Sugata, these worlds would be many.' Bhagavat said: 'As many beings as there are in all those worlds, I know the manifold trains of thought of them all. And why? Because what was preached as the train of thoughts, the train of thoughts indeed, O Subh?ti, that was preached by the Tath?gata as no-train of thoughts, and therefore it is called the train of thoughts. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, a past thought is not perceived, a future thought is not perceived, and the present thought is not perceived.' (18)

XIX.

   'What do you think, O Subh?ti, if a son or a daughter of a good family should fill this sphere of a million millions of worlds with the seven treasures, and give it as a gift to holy and fully enlightened Buddhas, would that son or daughter of a good family produce on the strength of this a large stock of merit?' Subh?ti said: 'Yes, a large one.' Bhagavat said: 'So it is, Subh?ti, so it is; that son or daughter of a good family would produce on the strength of this a large stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable. And why? Because what was preached as a stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed, O Subh?ti, that was preached as no-stock

{p. 137}

of merit by the Tath?gata, and therefore it is called a stock of merit. If, O Subh?ti, there existed a stock of merit, the Tath?gata would not have preached: "A stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!"'(19)

XX.

   'What do you think then, O Subh?ti, is a Tath?gata to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tath?gata is not to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body. And why? Because, what was preached, O Bhagavat, as the shape of the visible body, the shape of the visible body indeed, that was preached by the Tath?gata as no-shape of the visible body, and therefore it is called the shape of the visible body.'

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, should a Tath?gata be seen (known) by the possession of signs?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tath?gata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs. And why? Because, what was preached by the Tath?gata as the possession of signs, that was preached as no-possession of signs by the Tath?gata, and therefore it is called the possession of signs.' (20)

XXI.

   Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subh?ti, does the Tath?gata think in this wise: The Law has been taught by me?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, does the Tath?gata think in this wise: The Law has been taught by me.' Bhagavat said: 'If a man should say that the Law has been taught by the Tath?gata, he would say what is not true; he

{p. 138}

would slander me with untruth which he has learned. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, it is said the teaching of the Law, the teaching of the Law indeed. O Subh?ti, there is nothing that can be perceived by the name of the teaching of the Law.'

   After this, the venerable Subh?ti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'Forsooth, O Bhagavat, will there be any beings in the future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the good Law, who, when they have heard these very Laws, will believe?' Bhagavat said: 'These, O Subh?ti, are neither beings nor no-beings. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, those who were preached as beings, beings indeed, they were preached as no-beings by the Tath?gata, and therefore they are called beings.' (2 1)

XXII.

   'What do you think then, O Subh?ti, is there anything which has been known by the Tath?gata in the form of the highest perfect knowledge?' The venerable Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, there is nothing, O Bhagavat, that has been known by the Tath?gata in the form of the highest perfect knowledge.' Bhagavat said: 'So it is, Subh?ti, so it is. Even the smallest thing is not known or perceived there, therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge.' (22)

XXIII.

   'Also, Subh?ti, all is the same there, there is no difference there, and therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge. Free from self, free from being, free from life, free from personality, that

{p. 139}

highest perfect knowledge is always the same, and thus known with all good things. And why? Because, what were preached as good things, good things indeed, O Subh?ti, they were preached as no-things by the Tath?gata, and therefore they are called good things.' (23)

XXIV.

   'And if, O Subh?ti, a woman or man, putting together as many heaps of the seven treasures as there are Sumerus, kings of mountains, in the sphere of a million millions of worlds, should give them as a gift to holy and fully enlightened Tath?gatas; and, if a son or a daughter of a good family, after taking from this treatise of the Law, this Prag??p?ramit?, one G?th? of four lines only, should teach it to others, then, O Subh?ti, compared with his stock of merit, the former stock of merit would not come to the one hundredth part,' &c.[1], till 'it will not bear an approach.' (24)

XXV.

   'What do you think then, O Subh?ti, does a Tath?gatas think in this wise: Beings have been delivered by me? You should not think so, O Subh?ti. And why? Because there is no being, O Subh?ti, that has been delivered by the Tath?gata. And, if there were a being, O Subh?ti, that has been delivered by the Tath?gatas, then the Tath?gata would believe in self, believe in a being, believe in a living being, and believe in a person. And what is called a belief in self, O Subh?ti, that is preached

[1. As before, in chap. xvi.]

{p. 140}

as no-belief by the Tath?gata. And this is learned by children and ignorant persons; and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O Subh?ti, were preached as no-persons by the Tath?gata, and therefore they are called children and ignorant persons.' (25)

XXVI.

   'What do you think then, O Subh?ti, is the Tath?gata to be seen (known) by the possession of signs?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat. So far as I know the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, the Tath?gata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.' Bhagavat said: 'Good, good, Subh?ti, so it is, Subh?ti; so it is, as you say; a Tath?gata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, if the Tath?gata were to be seen (known) by the possession of signs, a wheel-turning king also would be a Tath?gata[1]; therefore a Tath?gata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.' The venerable Subh?ti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'As I understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, a Tath?gata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.' Then the Bhagavat at that moment preached these two G?th?s:

They who saw me by form, and they who heard me by sound,
They engaged in false endeavours, will not see me.

[1. This probably refers to the auspicious signs discovered in S?kyamuni at his birth, which left it open whether he should become a king or a Buddha.]

{p. 141}

A Buddha is to be seen (known) from the Law; for the Lords (Buddhas) have the Law-body;
And the nature of the Law cannot be understood, nor can it be made to be understood. (26)

XXVII.

   'What do you think then, O Subh?ti, has the highest perfect knowledge been known by the Tath?gata through the possession of signs? You should not think so, O Subh?ti. And why? Because, O Subh?ti, the highest perfect knowledge would not be known by the Tath?gata through the possession of signs. Nor should anybody, O Subh?ti, say to you that the destruction or annihilation of any thing is proclaimed by those who have entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.' (27)

XXVIII.

   'And if, O Subh?ti, a son or a daughter of a good family were to fill worlds equal to the number of grains of sand of the river Gang? with the seven treasures, and give them as a gift to holy and fully enlightened Tath?gatas; and if a Bodhisattva acquired endurance in selfless and uncreated things, then the latter will on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.

   'But, O Subh?ti, a stock of merit should not be appropriated by a noble-minded Bodhisattva.' The venerable Subh?ti said: 'Should a stock of merit, O Bhagavat, not be appropriated by a Bodhisattva?' Bhagavat said: 'It should be appropriated, O Subh?ti; it should not be appropriated; and therefore it is said: It should be appropriated.' (28)

{p. 142}

XXIX.

   'And again, O Subh?ti, if anybody were to say that the Tath?gata goes, or comes, or stands, or sits, or lies down, he, O Subh?ti, does not understand the meaning of my preaching. And why? Because the word Tath?gata means one who does not go to anywhere, and does not come from anywhere; and therefore he is called the Tath?gata (truly come), holy and fully enlightened.' (29)

XXX.

   'And again, O Subh?ti, if a son or a daughter of a good family were to take as many worlds as there are grains of earth-dust in this sphere of a million millions of worlds, and reduce them to such fine dust as can be made with immeasurable strength, like what is called a mass of the smallest atoms, do you think, O Subh?ti, would that be a mass of many atoms?' Subh?ti said: 'Yes, Bhagavat, yes, Sugata, that would be a mass of many atoms. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, if it were a mass of many atoms, Bhagavat would not call it a mass of many atoms. And why? Because, what was preached as a mass of many atoms by the Tath?gata, that was preached as no-mass of atoms by the Tath?gata; and therefore it is called a mass of many atoms. And what was preached by the Tath?gata as the sphere of a million millions of worlds, that was preached by the Tath?gata as no-sphere of worlds; and therefore it is called the sphere of a million millions of worlds. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, if there were a sphere of worlds, there would exist a belief in matter; and what was preached as a belief in matter by the Tath?gata, that was

{p. 143}

preached as no-belief by the Tath?gata; and therefore it is called a belief in matter.' Bhagavat said: 'And a belief in matter itself, O Subh?ti, is unmentionable and inexpressible; it is neither a thing nor no-thing, and this is known by children and ignorant persons.' (30)

XXXI.

   'And why? Because, O Subh?ti, if a man were to say that belief in self, belief in a being, belief in life, belief in personality had been preached by the Tath?gata, would he be speaking truly?' Subh?ti said: 'Not indeed, Bhagavat, not indeed, Sugata; he would not be speaking truly. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, what was preached by the Tath?gata as a belief in self, that was preached by the Tath?gata as no-belief; therefore it is called belief in self.'

   Bhagavat said: 'Thus then, O Subh?ti, are all things to be perceived, to be looked upon, and to be believed by one who has entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas. And in this wise are they to be perceived, to be looked upon, and to be believed, that a man should believe neither in the idea of a thing nor in the idea of a no-thing. And why? Because, by saying: The idea of a thing, the idea of a thing indeed, it has been preached by the Tath?gata as no-idea of a thing.' (31)

XXXII.

   'And, O Subh?ti, if a noble-minded Bodhisattva were to fill immeasurable and innumerable spheres of worlds with the seven treasures, and give them as a gift to holy and fully enlightened Tath?gatas;

{p. 144}

and if a son or a daughter of a good family, after taking from this treatise of the Law, this Prag??p?ramit?, one G?th? of four lines only, should learn it, repeat it, understand it, and fully explain it to others, then the latter would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable. And how should he explain it? As in the sky:

Stars, darkness, a lamp, a phantom, dew, a bubble.
A dream, a flash of lightning, and a cloud--thus we should look upon the world (all that was made).

Thus he should explain; therefore it is said: He should explain.'

   Thus spoke the Bhagavat enraptured. The elder Subh?ti, and the friars, nuns, the faithful laymen and women, and the Bodhisattvas also, and the whole world of gods, men, evil spirits and fairies, praised the preaching of the Bhagavat. (32)

Thus is finished the Diamond-cutter, the blessed Prag??p?ramit?.


 

金刚经

金刚经 第一品 法会因由分

如是我闻。一时佛在舍卫国。祗树给孤独园。与大比丘众。千二百五十人俱。尔时世尊。食时。著衣持钵。入舍卫大城乞食。于其城中。次第乞已。还至本处。饭食讫。收衣钵。洗足已。敷座而坐。

金刚经 第二品 善现启请分

时长老须菩提。在大众中。即从座起。偏袒右肩。右膝着地。合掌恭敬。而白佛言。希有世尊。如来善护念诸菩萨。善付嘱诸菩萨。世尊。善男子。善女人。发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心。应云何住,云何降伏其心。佛言。善哉善哉。须菩提。如汝所说。如来善护念诸菩萨。善付嘱诸菩萨。汝今谛听。当为汝说。善男子。善女人。发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心。应如是住,如是降伏其心。唯然。世尊。愿乐欲闻。

金刚经 第三品 大乘正宗分

佛告须菩提。诸菩萨摩诃萨。应如是降伏其心。所有一切众生之类。若卵生。若胎生。若湿生。若化生。若有色。若无色。若有想。若无想。若非有想。非无想。我皆令入无余涅盘而灭度之。如是灭度无量无数无边众生。实无众生得灭度者。何以故。须菩提。若菩萨有我相。人相。众生相。寿者相。即非菩萨。

金刚经 第四品 妙行无住分

复次。须菩提。菩萨于法。应无所住行于布施。所谓不住色布施。不住声香味触法布施。须菩提!菩萨应如是布施。不住于相。何以故?若菩萨不住相布施。其福德不可思量。须菩提。于意云何。东方虚空可思量不。不也。世尊。须菩提。南西北方。四维上下。虚空可思量不。不也。世尊。须菩提。菩萨无住相布施。福德亦复如是。不可思量。须菩提。菩萨但应如所教住。

金刚经 第五品 如理实见分

须菩提。于意云何。可以身相见如来不。不也。世尊。不可以身相得见如来。何以故。如来所说身相。即非身相。佛告须菩提。凡所有相。皆是虚妄。若见诸相非相。即见如来。

金刚经 第六品 正信希有分

须菩提白佛言。世尊。颇有众生。得闻如是言说章句。生实信不。佛告须菩提。莫作是说。如来灭后。后五百岁。有持戒修福者。于此章句。能生信心。以此为实。当知是人。不于一佛二佛三四五佛而种善根。已于无量千万佛所种诸善根。闻是章句。乃至一念生净信者。须菩提。如来悉知悉见。是诸众生。得如是无量福德。何以故。是诸众生无复我相。人相。众生相。寿者相。无法相。亦无非法相。何以故。是诸众生。若心取相。则为著我人众生寿者。若取法相。即著我人众生寿者。何以故。若取非法相,即著我人众生寿者。是故不应取法。不应取非法。以是义故。如来常说。汝等比丘。知我说法。如筏喻者。法尚应舍。何况非法。

金刚经 第七品 无得无说分

须菩提。于意云何。如来得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提耶。如来有所说法耶。须菩提言。如我解佛所说义。无有定法。名阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。亦无有定法。如来可说。何以故。如来所说法。皆不可取。不可说。非法非非法。所以者何。一切贤圣,皆以无为法而有差别。

金刚经 第八品 依法出生分

须菩提。于意云何。若人满三千大千世界七宝。以用布施。是人所得福德。宁为多不。须菩提言。甚多。世尊。何以故。是福德即非福德性。是故如来说福德多。若复有人。于此经中受持乃至四句偈等。为他人说。其福胜彼。何以故。须菩提。一切诸佛。及诸佛阿耨多罗三藐三菩提法。皆从此经出。须菩提。所谓佛法者。即非佛法。

金刚经 第九品 一相无相分

须菩提。于意云何。须陀洹能作是念。我得须陀洹果不。须菩提言。不也。世尊。何以故。须陀洹名为入流。而无所入。不入色声香味触法。是名须陀洹,须菩提。于意云何。斯陀含能作是念。我得斯陀含果不。须菩提言。不也。世尊。何以故。斯陀含名一往来。而实无往来。是名斯陀含。须菩提。于意云何。阿那含能作是念。我得阿那含果不。须菩提言。不也。世尊。何以故。阿那含名为不来,而实无不来。是故名阿那含。须菩提。于意云何。阿罗汉能作是念。我得阿罗汉道不。须菩提言。不也。世尊。何以故。实无有法名阿罗汉。世尊。若阿罗汉作是念。我得阿罗汉道。即著我人众生寿者。世尊。佛说我得无诤三昧。人中最为第一。是第一离欲阿罗汉。我不作是念。我是离欲阿罗汉。世尊。我若作是念。我得阿罗汉道。世尊则不说须菩提。是乐阿兰那行者。以须菩提实无所行。而名须菩提。是乐阿兰那行。

金刚经 第十品 庄严净土分

佛告须菩提。于意云何。如来昔在然灯佛所。于法有所得不。不也。世尊。如来在然灯佛所。于法实无所得。须菩提。于意云何。菩萨庄严佛土不。不也。世尊。何以故。庄严佛土者。即非庄严。是名庄严。是故须菩提。诸菩萨摩诃萨。应如是生清净心。不应住色生心。不应住声香味触法生心。应无所住而生其心。须菩提。譬如有人。身如须弥山王,于意云何。是身为大不。须菩提言。甚大。世尊。何以故。佛说非身。是名大身。

金刚经 第十一品 无为福胜分

须菩提。如恒河中所有沙数。如是沙等恒河。于意云何。是诸恒河沙。宁为多不。须菩提言。甚多。世尊。但诸恒河尚多无数。何况其沙。须菩提。我今实言告汝。若有善男子。善女人。以七宝满尔所恒河沙数三千大千世界。以用布施。得福多不。须菩提言。甚多。世尊。佛告须菩提。若善男子。善女人。于此经中。乃至受持四句偈等。为他人说。而此福德。胜前福德。

金刚经 第十二品 尊重正教分

复次。须菩提。随说是经。乃至四句偈等。当知此处。一切世间天人阿修罗。皆应供养。如佛塔庙。何况有人。尽能受持读诵。须菩提。当知是人。成就最上第一希有之法。若是经典所在之处。即为有佛。若尊重弟子。

金刚经 第十三品 如法受持分

尔时。须菩提白佛言。世尊。当何名此经。我等云何奉持。佛告须菩提。是经名为金刚般若波罗蜜。以是名字。汝当奉持。所以者何。须菩提。佛说般若波罗蜜。即非般若波罗蜜。是名般若波罗蜜。须菩提。于意云何。如来有所说法不。须菩提白佛言。世尊。如来无所说。须菩提。于意云何。三千大千世界所有微尘。是为多不。须菩提言。甚多。世尊。须菩提。诸微尘。如来说非微尘。是名微尘。如来说世界。即非世界。是名世界。须菩提。于意云何。可以三十二相见如来不。不也。世尊。不可以三十二相得见如来。何以故。如来说三十二相。即是非相。是名三十二相。须菩提。若有善男子。善女人。以恒河沙等身命布施。若复有人。于此经中。乃至受持四句偈等。为他人说。其福甚多。

金刚经 第十四品 离相寂灭分

尔时须菩提。闻说是经。深解义趣。涕泪悲泣。而白佛言。希有世尊。佛说如是甚深经典。我从昔来所得慧眼。未曾得闻如是之经。世尊。若复有人得闻是经。信心清净。则生实相。当知是人。成就第一希有功德。世尊。是实相者。即是非相。是故如来说名实相。世尊。我今得闻如是经典。信解受持。不足为难。若当来世。后五百岁。其有众生。得闻是经。信解受持。是人则为第一希有。

何以故。此人无我相。无人相。无众生相。无寿者相。所以者何。我相即是非相。人相众生相寿者相即是非相。何以故。离一切诸相。则名诸佛。佛告须菩提。如是如是。若复有人。得闻是经。不惊不怖不畏。当知是人甚为希有。何以故。须菩提。如来说第一波罗蜜。即非第一波罗蜜。是名第一波罗蜜。须菩提。忍辱波罗蜜。如来说非忍辱波罗蜜。是名忍辱波罗蜜。何以故。须菩提!如我昔为歌利王割截身体。我于尔时。无我相。无人相。无众生相。无寿者相。何以故。我于往昔节节支解时。若有我相人相众生相寿者相。应生嗔恨。须菩提。又念过去于五百世作忍辱仙人。于尔所世。无我相。无人相。无众生相。无寿者相。是故须菩提。菩萨应离一切相。发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心。不应住色生心。不应住声香味触法生心。应生无所住心。若心有住则为非住,是故佛说菩萨心不应住色布施。须菩提。菩萨为利益一切众生。应如是布施。如来说一切诸相。即是非相。又说一切众生。即非众生。须菩提。如来是真语者。实语者。如语者。不诳语者。不异语者。须菩提。如来所得法。此法无实无虚。须菩提。若菩萨心。住于法而行布施。如人入暗,则无所见。若菩萨心不住法而行布施。如人有目。日光明照。见种种色。须菩提。当来之世。若有善男子。善女人。能于此经受持读诵。则为如来。以佛智慧。悉知是人。悉见是人。皆得成就无量无边功德。

金刚经 第十五品 持经功德分

须菩提。若有善男子。善女人。初日分。以恒河沙等身布施。中日分。复以恒河沙等身布施。后日分。亦以恒河沙等身布施。如是无量百千万亿劫。以身布施。若复有人,闻此经典。信心不逆。其福胜彼。何况书写受持读诵。为人解说。须菩提。以要言之。是经有不可思议。不可称量。无边功德。如来为发大乘者说。为发最上乘者说。若有人能受持读诵。广为人说。如来悉知是人。悉见是人。皆得成就不可量。不可称。无有边。不可思议功德。如是人等。则为荷担如来阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。何以故。须菩提。若乐小法者。著我见人见众生见寿者见。则于此经。不能听受读诵。为人解说。须菩提。在在处处。若有此经。一切世间天人阿修罗。所应供养。当知此处。则为是塔。皆应恭敬。作礼围绕。以诸华香而散其处。

金刚经 第十六品 能净业障分

复次。须菩提。若善男子。善女人。受持读诵此经。若为人轻贱。是人先世罪业。应堕恶道。以今世人轻贱故。先世罪业即为消灭。当得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。须菩提。我念过去无量阿僧祗劫。于然灯佛前。得值八百四千万亿那由他诸佛。悉皆供养承事。无空过者。若复有人。于后末世。能受持读诵此经。所得功德。于我所供养诸佛功德。百分不及一。千万亿分乃至算数譬喻所不能及。须菩提。若善男子。善女人。于后末世。有受持读诵此经。所得功德。我若具说者。或有人闻。心则狂乱。狐疑不信。须菩提。当知是经义不可思议。果报亦不可思议。

金刚经 第十七品 究竟无我分

尔时须菩提白佛言。世尊。善男子。善女人。发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心。云何应住?云何降伏其心?佛告须菩提。善男子。善女人。发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心者。当生如是心。我应灭度一切众生。灭度一切众生已。而无有一众生实灭度者。何以故。须菩提。若菩萨有我相人相众生相寿者相,则非菩萨。所以者何。须菩提。实无有法发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心者。须菩提。于意云何。如来于然灯佛所。有法得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提不。不也。世尊。如我解佛所说义。佛于然灯佛所。无有法得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。佛言。如是如是。须菩提。实无有法如来得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。须菩提。若有法如来得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提者。然灯佛则不与我授记。汝于来世。当得作佛。号释迦牟尼。以实无有法得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。是故然灯佛与我授记。作是言。汝于来世。当得作佛。号释迦牟尼。何以故。如来者。即诸法如义。若有人言。如来得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。须菩提。实无有法。佛得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。须菩提。如来所得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。于是中无实无虚。是故如来说一切法皆是佛法。须菩提。所言一切法者。即非一切法。是故名一切法。须菩提。譬如人身长大。须菩提言。世尊。如来说人身长大。即为非大身。是名大身。须菩提。菩萨亦如是。若作是言。我当灭度无量众生。即不名菩萨。何以故。须菩提。实无有法名为菩萨。是故佛说。一切法无我无人无众生无寿者。须菩提。若菩萨作是言。我当庄严佛土。是不名菩萨。何以故。如来说庄严佛土者。即非庄严。是名庄严。须菩提。若菩萨通达无我法者。如来说名真是菩萨。

金刚经 第十八品 一体同观分

须菩提。于意云何。如来有肉眼不。如是。世尊。如来有肉眼。须菩提。于意云何。如来有天眼不。如是。世尊。如来有天眼。须菩提。于意云何。如来有慧眼不。如是。世尊。如来有慧眼。须菩提。于意云何。如来有法眼不。如是。世尊。如来有法眼。须菩提。于意云何。如来有佛眼不。如是。世尊。如来有佛眼。须菩提。于意云何。如恒河中所有沙。佛说是沙不。如是。世尊。如来说是沙。须菩提。于意云何。如一恒河中所有沙。有如是沙等恒河。是诸恒河所有沙数佛世界,如是宁为多不。甚多。世尊。佛告须菩提。尔所国土中。所有众生,若干种心。如来悉知。何以故。如来说诸心皆为非心。是名为心。所以者何。须菩提。过去心不可得。现在心不可得。未来心不可得。

金刚经 第十九品 法界通化分

须菩提。于意云何。若有人满三千大千世界七宝。以用布施。是人以是因缘。得福多不。如是。世尊。此人以是因缘。得福甚多。须菩提。若福德有实。如来不说得福德多。以福德无故。如来说得福德多。

金刚经 第二十品 离色离相分

须菩提。于意云何。佛可以具足色身见不。不也。世尊。如来不应以具足色身见。何以故。如来说。具足色身。即非具足色身。是名具足色身。须菩提。于意云何。如来可以具足诸相见不。不也。世尊。如来不应以具足诸相见。何以故。如来说诸相具足。即非具足。是名诸相具足。

金刚经 第二十一品 非说所说分

须菩提。汝勿谓如来作是念。我当有所说法。莫作是念。何以故。若人言如来有所说法。即为谤佛。不能解我所说故。须菩提。说法者。无法可说。是名说法。尔时慧命须菩提白佛言。世尊。颇有众生。于未来世。闻说是法。生信心不。佛言。须菩提。彼非众生。非不众生。何以故。须菩提。众生众生者。如来说非众生。是名众生。

金刚经 第二十二品 无法可得分

须菩提白佛言。世尊。佛得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。为无所得耶。佛言。如是。如是。须菩提。我于阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。乃至无有少法可得。是名阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。

金刚经 第二十三品 净心行善分

复次。须菩提。是法平等。无有高下。是名阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。以无我无人无众生无寿者。修一切善法。即得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。须菩提。所言善法者。如来说即非善法。是名善法。

金刚经 第二十四品 福智无比分

须菩提。若三千大千世界中。所有诸须弥山王。如是等七宝聚。有人持用布施。若人以此般若波罗蜜经。乃至四句偈等。受持读诵。为他人说。于前福德。百分不及一。百千万亿分。乃至算数譬喻所不能及。

金刚经 第二十五品 化无所化分

须菩提。于意云何。汝等勿谓如来作是念。我当度众生。须菩提。莫作是念。何以故。实无有众生如来度者。若有众生如来度者。如来即有我人众生寿者。须菩提。如来说有我者。即非有我。而凡夫之人以为有我。须菩提。凡夫者。如来说即非凡夫。是名凡夫。

金刚经 第二十六品 法身非相分

须菩提。于意云何。可以三十二相观如来不。须菩提言。如是如是以三十二相观如来。佛言。须菩提。若以三十二相观如来者。转轮圣王即是如来。须菩提白佛言。世尊。如我解佛所说义。不应以三十二相观如来。尔时。世尊而说偈言。若以色见我。以音声求我。是人行邪道。不能见如来。

金刚经 第二十七品 无断无灭分

须菩提。汝若作是念。如来不以具足相故。得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。须菩提。莫作是念。如来不以具足相故。得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。须菩提。汝若作是念。发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心者。说诸法断灭。莫作是念。何以故。发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心者。于法不说断灭相。

金刚经 第二十八品 不受不贪分

须菩提。若菩萨以满恒河沙等世界七宝。持用布施。若复有人知一切法无我。得成于忍。此菩萨胜前菩萨所得功德。何以故。须菩提。以诸菩萨不受福德故。须菩提白佛言。世尊。云何菩萨不受福德。须菩提。菩萨所作福德。不应贪著。是故说不受福德。

金刚经 第二十九品 威仪寂净分

须菩提。若有人言。如来若来若去。若坐若卧。是人不解我所说义。何以故。如来者。无所从来。亦无所去。故名如来。

金刚经 第三十品 一合理相分

须菩提。若善男子。善女人。以三千大千世界碎为微尘。于意云何。是微尘众宁为多不。甚多。世尊。何以故。若是微尘众实有者。佛即不说是微尘众。所以者何。佛说。微尘众。即非微尘众。是名微尘众。世尊。如来所说三千大千世界。即非世界。是名世界。何以故。若世界实有。即是一合相。如来说。一合相。即非一合相。是名一合相。须菩提。一合相者。即是不可说。但凡夫之人贪著其事。

金刚经 第三十一品 知见不生分

须菩提。若人言。佛说我见人见众生见寿者见。须菩提。于意云何。是人解我所说义不。不也。世尊。是人不解如来所说义。何以故。世尊说。我见人见众生见寿者见,即非我见人见众生见寿者见,是名我见人见众生见寿者见。须菩提。发阿耨多罗三藐三菩提心者。于一切法。应如是知。如是见。如是信解。不生法相。须菩提。所言法相者。如来说即非法相。是名法相。

金刚经 第三十二品 应化非真分

须菩提。若有人以满无量阿僧祗世界七宝持用布施。若有善男子。善女人发菩提心者。持于此经。乃至四句偈等。受持读诵。为人演说。其福胜彼。云何为人演说。不取于相。如如不动。何以故。一切有为法。如梦幻泡影。如露亦如电。应作如是观。佛说是经已。长老须菩提。及诸比丘。比丘尼。优婆塞。优婆夷。一切世间天人阿修罗。闻佛所说。皆大欢喜。信受奉行。

 

----《金刚经全文》结束,《金刚经原文》

  评论这张
 
阅读(27)| 评论(0)
推荐

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017