|
【一合理相分第三十】
須菩提。若善男子。善女人。以三千大千世界碎為微塵。於意云何。是微塵眾甯為多不。須菩提言。甚多。世尊。何以故。若是微塵眾實有者。佛即不說是微塵眾。所以者何。佛說微塵眾。即非微塵眾。是名微塵眾。世尊。如來所說三千大千世界。即非世界。是名世界。何以故。若世界實有者。即是一合相。如來說一合相。即非一合相。是名一合相。須菩提。一合相者即是不可說。但凡夫之人貪著其事。
所以這三千大千世界碎為微塵，於意云何？「是微塵眾甯為多不」，你說這個微塵多不多呢？「須菩提言，甚多」，須菩提說，很多。「世尊！何以故」，什麼緣故甚多呢？「若是微塵眾實有者」，這個微塵沒有體性，本來它是沒有的，假設它要是實有的話，「佛即不說是微塵眾」，佛就不叫它作微塵了。因為沒有體性，所以叫它作微塵。「所以者何」，所以「佛說微塵眾」，只不過按一般的眾生所見到的說微塵眾，「即非微塵眾」，在這個微塵裡邊本來是空的，本來是有妙有的，所以這即非微塵眾，「是名微塵眾」，只不過勉強給它取個名字叫微塵眾而已。「世尊，如來所說三千大千世界，即非世界」，按照這個道理來講，世尊、如來所說這個三千大千世界，本來是沒有的，沒有三千大千世界，「是名世界」，只是一個假名而已。「何以故？若世界實有者」，假設這個世界若是真有的話，「即是一合相」 ，一合相就是真性，真性就叫一合相。要是真有的話，它也就變成真性了。「如來說一合相」，如來說連一合相－就是真性，「即非一合相。，這也沒有一個本體，這個真性本來它是真的，但是也沒有一個實體，「是名一合相」，也就是勉強一個假名，叫一合相而已，所以般若無說，它也沒有一個體，所以沒有可說的一合相，即是不可說。「須菩提」，釋迦牟尼佛聽見須菩提這樣解釋，就叫了一聲須菩提說，什麼叫一合相？我告訴你，「一合相者，即是不可說」，說不出來，沒有法可以說出來，什麼叫一合相？這不過就是一個假名而已，「但凡夫之人貪著其事」，可是一般的凡夫都執著這個是有的，那個是空的，這個是實的，那個是虛的，貪著這個事情。他為什麼貪著？就因為他執著他這八識田，他說看見見分和相分，他認為這個就是真的了，其實這完全都是虛幻的。
【知見不生分第三十一】
須菩提。若人言。佛說我見人見眾生見壽者見。須菩提。於意云何。是人解我所說義不。不也。世尊。是人不解如來所說義。何以故。世尊說我見人見眾生見壽者見。即非我見人見眾生見壽者見。是名我見人見眾生見壽者見。須菩提。發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者。於一切法。應如是知。如是見。如是信解。不生法相。須菩提。所言法相者。如來說即非法相。是名法相。
「須菩提！若人言：佛說我見、人見、眾生見 、壽者見，須菩提！於意云何？是人解我所說義不？不也，世尊！是人不解如來所說義」。釋迦牟尼佛叫了一聲：「須菩提！若人言」，假設若有人這麼說，怎麼樣說呢？若有人說，「佛說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見」，須菩提你的意思怎麼樣？「是人解我所說義不」，這個人明白我所說的道理嗎？「不也，世尊，是人不解如來所說義」，須菩提說，這個人不明白佛所說的道理，因為他沒有得到人空、法空、空也要空這個道理。般若是講空理，前面是說我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相，現在又說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，有什麼分別呢？相是以眼見，由眼睛見著這個相而執著這個相，見是以心取之為見。前邊是以眼，這個是以心。這個心若執著到見上，就是一種微細的執著相，相是一種粗的執著。粗的執著屬於一種皮毛的執著，細的執著是你意識裡分別的執著，所以皮毛外面對相的執著容易去、容易空，而屬於意識的微細執著是很難把它空了，所以佛又再把它提出來，令人不但要降心離相，而且也要降心離見，把見離了，才能證到人空、法空、空亦空的境界，這一段經文是說要離見。
「何以故？世尊說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見」。須菩提又說這個人不明白佛所說的法，是人不解如來所說義，「何以故」，什麼原因他不明白呢？「世尊說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見」，佛所說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是在俗諦上來講，要是在真諦上來說，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，在 中道來講，不過是個假名而巳，其實都是虛妄的。本來沒有相，也沒有見，不過佛說般若妙法，就給它假立起個名字而已。「須菩提」，釋迦牟尼佛又叫了一聲須菩提，發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心的人，「於一切法，應如是知」， 不但我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，就是一切法也應該如是知，「如是見」，像這樣的見解，「如是信解」，也應該這樣解，「不生法相」，就是不生法的執著相，不要有所執著。所謂「佛說一切法，為度眾生一切心，若無一切心，何用一切法。」所以不應該執著這個法相。「須菩提，所言法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相」，須菩提！所說這個法相，如來說本來沒有法相，是法離一切相，所以就僅僅給它取個假名而已，叫做一個法相。
|
|
Chapter 30. The Totality of Principle and Marks
"Subhuti, if a good man or good woman were to pulverize three thousand great thousand world systems into motes of fine dust, what do you think, would that mass of fine dust be large?" Subhuti said, "Large, World Honored One, and why? If that mass of fine dust motes actually existed, the Buddha would not speak of it as a mass of fine dust motes, and why? The mass of fine dust motes is spoken of by the Buddha as no mass of fine dust motes, therefore it is called a mass of fine dust motes. World Honored One, the three thousand great thousand world systems are spoken of by the Tathagata as no world systems, therefore they are called world system, and why? If world systems actually existed, then there would be a totality of marks. The totality of marks is spoken of by the Tathagata as no totality of marks. Therefore it is called a totality of marks." "Subhuti, the totality of marks cannot be spoken of, but people of the common sort greedily attach to such things."
Commentary:
The Buddha asked Subhuti, "If one were to pulverize three thousand great thousand world systems into motes of fine dust, would there be a great mass of dust?"
Subhuti said, "There would be much dust, but only because the fine dust motes have no substantial nature. They basically do not exist. If they did exist the
Buddha would not speak of it as a mass of fine dust. The Buddha did speak of a mass of fine dust motes, but it is only from the point of view of common people that a mass of fine dust motes actually exists.
... is no mass of fine dust motes... The fine dust basically is empty, and basically is wonderfully existent.
Therefore it is called a mass of fine dust motes. One can force the issue and give it a name, but it is just a name and nothing more.
The three thousand great thousand world systems spoken of by the Tathagata are basically non-existent.
Therefore they are called world system. It is merely a false name and nothing more. Why?
If world systems actually existed then there would be a totality of marks. The totality of marks refers to the true nature. If the totality of marks actually existed then that would mean the true nature actually exists.
The totality of marks is spoken of by the Tathagata... The Buddha said not even the totality of marks, that is, the true nature, has marks
... is no totality of marks. It also has no basic substance. The true nature is fundamentally true, but also has no false substance.
Therefore it is called the totality of marks. That is also forcing a name, "totality of marks," and that is all.
Prajna is not spoken, because it has no substance, and there is nothing which can be said.
Subhuti, the totality of marks cannot be spoken of. Sakyamuni Buddha heard Subhuti's explanation and again called to him. "What is called a totality of marks? I will tell you. A totality of marks is ineffable. It cannot be expressed. That is because it is a false name and nothing more.
But people of the common sort greedily attach to such things. Common people become attached and say, "That exists, this is empty. That is true, this is false."
They greedily attach to phenomena. Why? Because they become involved in views based upon discriminations which occur in the field of the eight consciousness. They consider the discrimination of views and the discrimination of marks to be true. Actually both kinds of discriminations are empty and false.
Chapter 31. Neither Knowing nor Seeing is Produced
"Subhuti, if someone were to say that the view of a self, the view of others, the view of living beings, and the view of a life are spoken of by the Buddha, Subhuti, what do you think? Does that person understand the meaning of my teaching?"
"No, World Honored One, that person does not understand the meaning of the Tathagata's teaching. And why? The view of a self, the view of others, the view of living beings, and the view of a life are spoken of by the world honored one as no view of self, no view of others, no view of living beings, and no view of a life. Therefore they are called the view of self, the view of others, the view of living beings, and the view of a life."
"Subhuti, those who have resolved their hearts on
Anuttarasamyaksambodhi should
thos know, thus view, thus believe and understand all
dharmas, and not produce the marks of
dharmas. Subhuti, the marks of
dharmas are spoken of by the
Tathagata as no marks of dharmas, therefore they are called the marks of
dharmas.
Commentary:
Subhuti said that someone who holds the opinion that the Buddha spoke of a view of self, others, living beings, and a life does not understand the doctrine which the Buddha taught. That person has not reached an understanding of the doctrine of the emptiness of people, of dharmas, and of emptiness itself found in the prajna teaching, which expresses the principle of emptiness.
Earlier, the Buddha had spoken of the "marks" of self, others, living beings, and a life; then, at this point he spoke of the
view of self, of others, of living beings, and of a life. What is the difference between marks and views? Marks are external objects with which one becomes involved through the eye organ. Views, on the other hand, are discriminations of the mind to which one becomes attached and at which one grasps. Views are subtle attachments; marks are coarse attachments. The superficial outer marks are easy to discard, but it is very difficult to obliterate the subtle attachments of the mind consciousness. Therefore the Buddha mentions both, to enable people not only to subdue their hearts and leave marks, but also to subdue their hearts and eradicate views. When one separates from views, one can truly arrive at the state of the emptiness of people, of dharmas, and of emptiness itself.
But the Buddha only spoke of those views from the standpoint of common truth. If explained in terms of actual truth, they are not views. When expressed from the standpoint of the Middle Way,
they are called the view of self, the view of others, the view of living beings, and the view of a life. Originally there are no marks and no views, but in the wonderful dharma of prajna the Buddha gives them false names.
Not only are the view of self, of others, of living beings, and of a life that way, all dharmas should thus be known.
Thus view, thus believe and understand all dharmas, and do not
produce the mark of dharmas. That means do not be attached to any dharmas.
All Dharma spoken by the Buddha
Was for the sake of the hearts of living beings;
If there were no hearts,
Of what use would Dharma be?
The marks of dharmas are spoken of by the Tathagata as no marks of Dharmas: therefore they are called the marks of dharmas. They are merely given a false name.
|
