Chinese
大正藏第 85 册 No. 2742 金刚般若波罗蜜经传外传卷下 No. 2742 金刚般若波罗蜜经传外传卷下 法无我若有彼我见是见所摄。菩萨入相应三昧时不复分别。即此观察为入方便菩萨则人无分别也。一切法则法无分别也。欲愿及摄散二种。则一切住方便也。不住法想则显示不分别也。此则与传总结劝修法空而不住法空。略符同然知见信不明。何者彼云。显示增上心增上智故。于无分别中知见胜解。按知者依止奢摩他也。见者依止毗钵舍那。此二胜解者依止三摩提。胜解即如是信也。奢摩他即增上心也。毗钵舍那即增上惠也。三摩提即止观自在也。按此三但是直往者也。修伏大乘也。不是顿悟者。住最上乘也。彼于三僧祇难解难入。此于一刹那易证易得。具如传。我皆令入中广释。天亲以为知是世智。见是第一义智。信是三昧。此则失经之□旨。以见法见我不见真如故。按见法尚不见真如。何况见我。然则世智为知有知无。第一义智为见真见。俗三昧为信住信离。若无有无何名世智。若无真俗何有第一义。若非住离谁入三昧。原夫因定发惠三藏通门。若以此言即合信在前而见知为后。不得言知见信也。差别之名且如上例。按此经文。宣常住智果之体真化二身之极。六喻 现代汉语译本 《金刚般若波罗蜜经传外传》卷下 法无我，若有人执着于‘彼’和‘我’的观念，就是被错误的见解所束缚。菩萨进入与实相相应的禅定（三昧，Samadhi）时，不再分别彼此。这种观察是进入禅定的方便法门，菩萨因此达到人无分别的境界。一切法也是如此，其本质是没有分别的。通过生起愿望和摄持散乱的心这两种方法，可以安住于一切法中，这是一种方便。不执着于法的概念，就显示了不分别的道理。这与经传的总结相符，劝导人们修习法空，但又不执着于法空。略微符合‘知、见、信’不明的说法。为什么这么说呢？因为经传中说，通过增上心和增上智，在无分别中获得知见和胜解。按照经传的说法，‘知’是依止奢摩他（止，Śamatha），‘见’是依止毗钵舍那（观，Vipassanā），这两种胜解是依止三摩提（定，Samādhi）。胜解就是这样的信心。奢摩他就是增上心，毗钵舍那就是增上慧，三摩提就是止观自在。按照这种说法，这三种方法只是直接前进的道路，是修习降伏大乘的方法，而不是顿悟的方法，是安住于最上乘的方法。他们认为需要三大阿僧祇劫才能理解和进入，而我们认为在一刹那间就能轻易证得。具体内容详见经传中‘我皆令入’的广释。天亲菩萨认为，‘知’是世俗的智慧，‘见’是第一义谛的智慧，‘信’是三昧。这种说法失去了经的宗旨，因为执着于法见，执着于我见，就无法见到真如。如果执着于法见都无法见到真如，更何况执着于我见呢？那么，世俗的智慧是知有知无，第一义谛的智慧是见真见俗，三昧是信住信离吗？如果没有有和无，怎么能称为世俗的智慧？如果没有真和俗，怎么会有第一义谛？如果不是安住和远离，谁能进入三昧？原本因定而生慧是三藏通用的法门。如果按照这种说法，就应该是信在前，而见知在后，不能说是知见信。差别的名称暂且如上面的例子。按照这部经文，宣扬常住智果的体真化二身，以及六种比喻。
English
English version The Outer Transmission of the Diamond Prajna Paramita Sutra, Volume 2 The Dharma is without self. If one has the perception of 'that' and 'self,' one is bound by these perceptions. When a Bodhisattva enters Samadhi (Samadhi), which corresponds to reality, they no longer differentiate. This observation is a convenient method for entering Samadhi, and the Bodhisattva thus attains a state of non-differentiation of persons. All Dharmas are also like this; their essence is without differentiation. By generating aspiration and restraining the distracted mind, one can abide in all Dharmas, which is a convenient method. Not clinging to the concept of Dharma reveals the principle of non-differentiation. This aligns with the summary of the transmission, which advises cultivating the emptiness of Dharma without clinging to the emptiness of Dharma. It slightly corresponds to the statement that 'knowledge, vision, and faith' are unclear. Why is this said? Because the transmission states that through increased mind and increased wisdom, one obtains knowledge, vision, and profound understanding in non-differentiation. According to the transmission, 'knowledge' relies on Śamatha (calm abiding), 'vision' relies on Vipassanā (insight), and these two profound understandings rely on Samadhi (concentration). Profound understanding is such faith. Śamatha is increased mind, Vipassanā is increased wisdom, and Samadhi is the freedom of calm abiding and insight. According to this explanation, these three methods are merely a direct path forward, a method for cultivating the subduing of the Mahayana, not a method for sudden enlightenment, but a method for abiding in the supreme vehicle. They believe it takes three great Asankhya kalpas to understand and enter, while we believe it can be easily attained in an instant. The specifics are detailed in the extensive explanation of 'I cause all to enter' in the transmission. Bodhisattva Vasubandhu believes that 'knowledge' is worldly wisdom, 'vision' is the wisdom of the first principle, and 'faith' is Samadhi. This explanation loses the essence of the Sutra because clinging to the view of Dharma and clinging to the view of self prevents one from seeing Suchness (Tathata). If one cannot see Suchness even when clinging to the view of Dharma, how much more so when clinging to the view of self? Then, is worldly wisdom knowing existence and non-existence, is the wisdom of the first principle seeing truth and seeing the mundane, is Samadhi believing in abiding and believing in detachment? If there is no existence and non-existence, how can it be called worldly wisdom? If there is no truth and mundane, how can there be a first principle? If it is not abiding and detachment, who can enter Samadhi? Originally, the arising of wisdom from Samadhi is a common gateway for the three baskets (Tripitaka). If according to this statement, faith should be first, and knowledge and vision should be later; it should not be said that knowledge, vision, and faith are first. The names of the differences are temporarily like the examples above. According to this Sutra text, it proclaims the true and transformative bodies of the eternally abiding wisdom fruit, as well as the six metaphors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
三义现观皎然。十圣三贤自修明白。所以如来举兹正入劝彼真乘不是别明定惠也。斯则唯用三无专除自性。虽云二我终是一空。然则遍计我相妄有妄故但知也。依他我见假有假故须见也。真实我性证有证故方信也。如是不住无相见性。此是法相对能悟入总为相分。此相即无自性故曰则非犹是我之习气故曰是名此则不住法空也。具如传释。若诸佛说法不言化身者。则释迦如来谁说是化。按佛身既是福感而现说法。何关佛身。此则常住本法也。缘自得法也。然则化身是影。像增上缘何尝成道何尝言说。假令有法亦不能诠。以法性不可言故。是则劝持经者演说勿生我说想勿生诠义相。如彼迷南为北谓之非北。彼终不悟。若自觉了亦不由他无说明矣。且如来演说向是众心菩萨宣传。宁容已力。何况能说能听俱是自心所行所证。悉无自性。如虚空无世界微尘自性也。故云。 我坐道场时 智慧不可得 空拳诳小儿 以度于一切 按此即菩提之初鉴无性之后心。或演俗谛法门。或说真如理观。皆缘彼识实无自心此则无染也。此不名说也。如此说者是名真说也。所以持一四句偈。菩萨檀度非疋。良由此焉。无著云。于生死不染。天亲云。不住涅槃。此则更相表里同为除疑。按此偈四句文即三重。一指法 举喻三劝修 现代汉语译本 三义现观如此明晰。十圣（佛教修行中的十个圣位）三贤（佛教修行中的三个贤位）各自修行明白。所以如来举出这正入之法，劝导他们进入真乘，而不是另外说明定和慧。这便是只用三无（无相、无所有、无所得）来专门去除自性。虽然说二我（人我、法我），终究都是空。然而遍计所执的我相是虚妄的，因为是妄有的，所以只需知道即可。依他起的我见是假有的，因为是假有的，所以需要去见。真实的我的自性是证有的，因为是证有的，所以才能相信。像这样不住于无相而见性。这是法相对能悟入，总的来说都是相分。这相即是无自性的，所以说‘则非’，犹如我的习气，所以说‘是名’，这便是不住于法空。具体如传释所说。如果诸佛说法不谈化身，那么释迦如来谁说是化身呢？按照佛身既然是福报感应而显现说法，与佛身有什么关系呢？这便是常住的根本法。是凭借自身而得法。然而化身是影子、是影像的增上缘，何曾成道，何曾言说？假设有法，也不能诠释，因为法性不可言说。因此劝导受持经典的人演说时，不要生起‘我说’的想法，不要生起诠释意义的想法。如同那些把南方误认为北方的人，说它不是北方，他们终究不会醒悟。如果自觉觉悟了，也不需要他人说明了。而且如来演说是面向众生的心，菩萨宣传也是如此，哪里能用自己的力量呢？更何况能说能听都是自心所行所证，完全没有自性。如同虚空没有世界微尘的自性一样。所以说： 我坐道场时，智慧不可得 空拳诳小儿，以度于一切 按照这便是菩提之初鉴无性之后心。或者演说俗谛法门，或者说真如理观，都是因为他们的识实在没有自心，这便是无染。这不叫说。像这样说才是真说。所以受持一句四句偈，菩萨的布施度就不是寻常的。实在是因为这个缘故。无著菩萨说：‘于生死不染。’天亲菩萨说：‘不住涅槃。’这便是互相表里，共同为了消除疑惑。按照这偈四句文即有三重含义：一是指法，二是举例，三是劝修。
English
English version The manifestation of the three meanings is brilliantly clear. The Ten Saints (the ten holy stages in Buddhist practice) and Three Worthies (the three worthy stages in Buddhist practice) cultivate and understand on their own. Therefore, the Tathagata (another name for Buddha) cites this correct entry method to encourage them to enter the True Vehicle, not to separately explain Samadhi (concentration) and Prajna (wisdom). This is to exclusively use the Three Nothings (no characteristics, no possessions, no attainment) to specifically eliminate self-nature. Although it speaks of the two selves (the self of person and the self of phenomena), ultimately they are both empty. However, the self-image of Parikalpita (completely conceptualized nature) is illusory because it is falsely existent, so it only needs to be known. The self-view of Paratantra (other-dependent nature) is provisionally existent because it is provisionally existent, so it needs to be seen. The true self-nature of Parinispanna (perfected nature) is verified as existent because it is verified as existent, so it can be believed. Thus, not dwelling in no-form while seeing the nature. This is the Dharma (law) relative to what can be enlightened, and overall, it is all aspect-division. This aspect is without self-nature, so it is said 'then it is not,' like my habitual tendencies, so it is said 'this is named,' this is not dwelling in the emptiness of Dharma. As detailed in the commentaries. If the Buddhas preach the Dharma without mentioning the Nirmanakaya (transformation body), then who says that Shakyamuni Tathagata is a transformation? According to the fact that the Buddha's body is manifested and preaches the Dharma due to the response of blessings, what does it have to do with the Buddha's body? This is the permanent fundamental Dharma. It is obtaining the Dharma through oneself. However, the transformation body is a shadow, an enhancing condition of the image, when has it ever attained enlightenment, when has it ever spoken? Even if there were a Dharma, it could not explain it, because the nature of Dharma is inexpressible. Therefore, those who uphold the scriptures are advised not to give rise to the thought of 'I speak' when expounding, and not to give rise to the thought of interpreting the meaning. Like those who mistake the south for the north, saying it is not the north, they will never awaken. If one is self-aware and enlightened, there is no need for others to explain. Moreover, the Tathagata's exposition is directed towards the minds of sentient beings, and the Bodhisattvas' propagation is the same, how can one use one's own power? Furthermore, both the ability to speak and the ability to listen are all actions and attainments of one's own mind, completely without self-nature. Like the emptiness of space without the self-nature of world dust. Therefore, it is said: When I sat at the Bodhi (enlightenment) tree, wisdom could not be obtained An empty fist deceives a small child, in order to liberate all According to this, it is the initial insight of Bodhi and the subsequent mind of no-self-nature. Whether expounding the Dharma gate of conventional truth or speaking of the contemplation of Suchness (true thusness), it is all because their consciousness truly has no self-mind, this is without defilement. This is not called speaking. Speaking like this is called true speaking. Therefore, upholding a four-line verse, the Bodhisattva's Dana (giving) is not ordinary. It is truly for this reason. Asanga (an important Buddhist philosopher) said: 'Not defiled by birth and death.' Vasubandhu (an important Buddhist philosopher) said: 'Not dwelling in Nirvana (liberation).' This is mutually complementary, both for removing doubts. According to this verse, the four lines have three meanings: first, it refers to the Dharma; second, it gives an example; and third, it encourages practice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。弥勒云。非有为非离诸如来涅槃。此断疑也。何者若常说法谁入涅槃。故云。佛得涅槃化身说法。化身说法此非无为也。佛得涅槃非有为也。且有无不住是尽法门。菩萨一别行耳。不可用释如来也。然则报佛有始无终。若入涅槃与化何异则如来不来不说。具如上传。岂可以菩萨心量而言佛不住有为无为乎。至若须陀洹果尚离有无品。况佛智乎。净名云。我观如来。前际不来中际不住后际不去。乃至不此岸不彼岸非中流。非有为非无为。不可以识识不可以智知此名正观。此名见佛。故知对机演说。则云不住生死涅槃。以彼二性不可得故。自言观佛则云离于有为无为。以彼二为是心量心故。前后既无来去。中间说者是谁。而乃以微尘世界解清净虚空。岂非至惑也。若如彼释。即应云一菩萨涅槃非有为非离。何者尽无尽。是应香积菩萨言非诸菩萨故。按涅槃此云静息。岂可有无而不静息乎。然则法无我智中已离真如无为自性。何况最清净觉。又离法无我智而存不住有无乎。如上传。彼果断中正释弥勒。以九事喻九法。合之为三。一体二用三行识尘根是体也。器身受是用也。过现未是行也。论云。见相识者。见是见分能受识。相是相分所受识。识是身身者受者识。亦不相违。然则识是了别。星有光辉。若满月澄明则小星晦色 。太阳曜景则大星不现。故闻思惠起分别则微正惠若生彼识则灭。此对除同也。且六尘相现六识见生空花在瞩眼翳能起此相由见同也。六根成就是地水火风和合灯景照烛因油盏炷火共明此缘假同也。器是依报从他受用生幻是妄境依他药草起。此不自生同也。身是正报从业种成露是气积因夜凉。有此依他起同也。受谓三受。由依正而领纳。泡因水激。从风雨而生成。此由触有同也。过去业缘现在思念梦中妄境窹已觉知。此却缘同也。现在假有念念不停。电光才现新新谢灭。此势速同也。以种约报报在当生。以云约雨雨即未有。此后有同也。由此九观故。佛于有为法中能得自在。故偈云。 观相及受用 观于三世事 于有为法中 得无垢自在 按此于有为得自在。于无为则不然。何者以此九种唯观有为故。前偈云。妙智正观故。未审此智为是菩萨为嘱如来。若是菩萨者不得言诸如来涅槃也。是如来者不可云应作如是观也。师资犹自未明文义如何得晓。若此九喻不通显三无性。是别明九种观者。未知若为作如星观。如星闇中有光明处不现。为起闇相为起明心。若起惠明者此则除星观。不得云如星也。又如翳观。则境从翳生。知生不除则翳境恒起。若除翳境即是除翳观。不可云如翳也。又如灯观。灯从众缘生 现代汉语译本：当太阳的光芒显耀时，星辰便不再显现。同样，当听闻、思考所生的智慧生起分别时，那微弱的正智慧就会消失。这是对治相同之处。而且，六尘（色、声、香、味、触、法）的相状显现，六识（眼识、耳识、鼻识、舌识、身识、意识）的见解产生，就像眼花患者眼中所见的空花，眼翳能引起这些现象，这是因为见解相同。六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）的成就，就像地、水、火、风的和合，灯景的照亮，依赖油、盏、炷、火共同发光，这是因缘假合的相同之处。器世间是依报，从他处接受享用，就像幻境是虚妄的境界，依赖他人的药草而生起。这不是自身产生的相同之处。身体是正报，由业力的种子形成，就像露水是水汽积聚，因为夜晚的凉意。这是依他而起的相同之处。感受是指苦受、乐受、不苦不乐受三种感受。由依报和正报而领纳，就像水泡因水流激荡而产生，从风雨中生成。这是由接触而有的相同之处。过去的业缘，现在的思念，就像梦中的虚妄境界，醒来后便觉知。这是却缘的相同之处。现在的假有，念念不停留。电光才刚闪现，新的生起，旧的就消灭。这是势头快速的相同之处。以种子来约定果报，果报在未来产生。以云来约定雨，雨还没有出现。这是后有的相同之处。由于这九种观想，所以佛在有为法中能够得到自在。所以偈颂说： ‘观相及受用，观于三世事，于有为法中，得无垢自在。’ 按此说法，在有为法中得到自在，在无为法中则不然。为什么呢？因为这九种观想只观察有为法。前面的偈颂说：‘妙智正观故。’不知道这智慧是菩萨的智慧还是如来的嘱托。如果是菩萨的智慧，就不能说诸如来涅槃了。如果是如来的智慧，就不能说应该作这样的观想。师父和弟子的关系还不明确，文句的意义怎么能够明白呢？如果这九个比喻不能通达地显示三无自性，而是分别说明九种观想，那么不知道应该如何作如星观。就像星星在黑暗中有光明的地方不显现，是生起黑暗的相状，还是生起光明的念头？如果生起智慧光明，这就排除了星观，不能说是如星了。又如眼翳的观想，境界从眼翳产生，知道产生而不排除，那么眼翳的境界就会恒常生起。如果排除眼翳的境界，就是排除眼翳的观想，不能说是如眼翳了。又如灯的观想，灯从众多的因缘生起