大智度論 斷見品Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Cutting Off Views
斷見品：舍利弗說『為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩』——我見、眾生見乃至轉法輪見一一枚舉，無方便則於色生見用有所得，以方便力斷諸見用無所得；論主以目連龍池、縫衣、腰帶三事明舍利弗智慧與佛懸殊，答其非為顯智慧乃逐佛廣益眾生、多人信樂、佛慈悲聽許，舍利弗自述所斷三種見無始習著入骨髓。須菩提說『阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心』，一切智心無漏不繫而於中不著，故名摩訶薩；舍利弗節節推性空、陰雲翳日月不能污日月，以一切法無所得故名摩訶薩、能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（經＋論）
前一品〈摩訶薩品〉，是佛親口說菩薩何以又名「摩訶薩」——大菩薩。這一品，佛不再自說，卻由兩位大弟子接著往下說：舍利弗與須菩提，各自對佛說「世尊，我也想說一說：菩薩憑什麼稱作摩訶薩」，佛都許可了。於是同一個「何以名大」的問題，這一品便有了兩個回答，一人一義，恰成一對。舍利弗的回答，是「斷諸見」。他先一口氣數了一長串眾生所執的見——我見、眾生見、壽見、命見，一直數到斷見、常見、有見、無見，乃至佛見、轉法輪見；這些見，龍樹在論裡說它們「無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」，是從無始以來就深植骨髓、極難拔除的邪執。菩薩之所以稱大，正在於他能為眾生把這些見一一斷除而為之說法——「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」。可是斷見還有一層要緊的分寸：若是無方便，自己反於色等法上生見、落在有所得裡；唯有以方便力去斷、以無所得的心去斷，才是菩薩的斷見。也要留意：這一品的品名「斷見」，說的是這「斷除諸見」的動作，而不是那一長串見裡與「常見」對舉的那一項斷滅見——同樣兩個字，一個是能斷之行，一個是所斷之見。為了顯舍利弗有資格接著佛說法，龍樹還插了一段故事：佛在龍王池邊令目連去召舍利弗，目連神通第一，卻連舍利弗擲在地上的一條腰帶都舉不起來，入了甚深禪定去舉，大地都震動了而帶仍不離地；佛便告訴眾人，舍利弗所出入的禪定，目連連名字都認不得——以此顯舍利弗智慧之深，足以次於佛而說。須菩提的回答，是「無等等心」。他立了三種心：阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心——所謂「無等等」，是說這心無與倫比，卻又與諸佛平等，不是二乘所能共有。然而這樣尊貴的心，也一樣不可自恃、不可執著：菩薩「從初發意已來，不見法有生有滅、有增有減、有垢有淨」，這心畢竟空，所以雖有無等等心而「於是心亦不著」。舍利弗還進一步反問：不只這一切智心無漏不繫，凡夫人的心不也一樣無漏不繫、本性常空嗎？龍樹便用一個譬喻答他——「如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」：陰雲能遮蔽日月，卻污染不了日月的光；凡夫心雖為煩惱所覆，它的實相本來性空清淨，與聖人心並無兩樣，差別只在迷與悟。於是這一品，舍利弗以「斷諸見」明大、須菩提以「無等等心」明大，一破一立，看似兩路，其實同歸一處——斷諸見而不著所斷，心與佛等而不著其心，末了都落在「以一切法無所得故」這一句上。菩薩之所以為「大」，大在能為眾生斷見、大在發起與佛平等之心；而這一切的大，全繫於一個「不著」、一個「無所得」。這，便是斷見品要你去領會的般若。
In the previous chapter, Mahāsattva, the Buddha himself said why the bodhisattva is also named ‘mahāsattva’, great bodhisattva. In this chapter the Buddha no longer speaks himself; two great disciples carry it on. Śāriputra and Subhūti each say to the Buddha, ‘World-Honored One, I too wish to speak: by what is the bodhisattva called mahāsattva’, and the Buddha permits them both. So the same question, ‘why is he called great’, receives two answers in this chapter, one meaning from each, making a matched pair. Śāriputra's answer is ‘cutting off all views’. He first counts off in one breath a long series of the views beings cling to: the view of self, the view of beings, the view of a life, the view of a life-force, on through the view of annihilation, the view of permanence, the view of existence, the view of non-existence, up to the view of a Buddha and the view of turning the wheel of Dharma; of these views Nāgārjuna says in the treatise that 「無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」 tr. "from the beginningless world they have been habitually clung to, entering into the very marrow", wrong clingings planted deep in the marrow from beginningless time and extremely hard to pull out. The bodhisattva is called great precisely because he can cut off these views one by one for beings and teach them the Dharma to that end: 「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」 tr. "he teaches the Dharma in order to cut off such views; this is called mahāsattva". But cutting off views has a further point of proportion that matters: without skilful means one gives rise oneself to views upon form and the other dharmas and falls into having something attained; only cutting off by the power of skilful means, cutting off with the mind of nothing to be attained, is the bodhisattva's cutting off of views. Note too that the chapter's name, ‘Cutting Off Views’, speaks of this act of ‘cutting off all views’, and not of that one item in the long list, the view of annihilation, set against the view of permanence; the same two characters, but one is the practice that cuts and the other the view that is cut. To show that Śāriputra is qualified to teach the Dharma following the Buddha, Nāgārjuna inserts a story: by the pool of the nāga king the Buddha sent Maudgalyāyana to summon Śāriputra; Maudgalyāyana, foremost in supernormal power, could not even lift a belt Śāriputra had thrown on the ground; he entered a very deep absorption to lift it, and the great earth quaked while the belt still did not leave the ground; the Buddha then told the assembly that Maudgalyāyana did not even know the names of the absorptions Śāriputra entered and left, thereby showing the depth of Śāriputra's wisdom, sufficient to speak next after the Buddha. Subhūti's answer is ‘the mind equal to the unequalled’. He sets up three minds: the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, and the mind not shared with śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha; ‘equal to the unequalled’ says that this mind is beyond compare and yet equal to the Buddhas, not something the two vehicles can share. Yet even so noble a mind may likewise not be relied upon with pride or clung to: the bodhisattva 「從初發意已來，不見法有生有滅、有增有減、有垢有淨」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent onward does not see any dharma as arising or ceasing, increasing or decreasing, defiled or pure"; this mind is ultimately empty, and so, though he has the mind equal to the unequalled, ‘he is not attached to this mind either’. Śāriputra presses further with a counter-question: not only is this mind of omniscience without outflows and unbound; is not the mind of ordinary people likewise without outflows and unbound, always empty in its nature? Nāgārjuna answers him with a simile, 「如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」 tr. "as said before: dark clouds veil the sun and moon, but cannot defile the sun and moon": dark clouds can cover the sun and moon, but cannot defile their light; though the ordinary person's mind is covered by afflictions, its real mark is from the first empty in nature and pure, no different from the mind of the sage; the difference lies only in confusion and awakening. So in this chapter Śāriputra shows greatness by ‘cutting off all views’ and Subhūti shows greatness by ‘the mind equal to the unequalled’, one refuting and one establishing, two roads in appearance that return in truth to one place: cutting off all views without clinging to what is cut off, a mind equal to the Buddhas without clinging to that mind, and at the last both come to rest on the sentence ‘because all dharmas have nothing to be attained’. The bodhisattva is ‘great’ in being able to cut off views for beings and great in arousing a mind equal to the Buddhas; and all this greatness hangs on one ‘non-clinging’, one ‘nothing to be attained’. This is the prajñā that the Chapter on Cutting Off Views wants you to grasp.
卷45 〔T25 0384b10〕
大智度論釋斷見品第十四 【經】 爾時，慧命舍利弗白佛言：「世尊！我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩！」 佛告舍利弗：「便說！」 舍利弗言：「我見、眾生見、壽見、命見、生見、養育見、眾數見、人見、作見、使作見、起見、使起見、受見、使受見、知者見、見者見，斷見、常見，有見、無見，陰見、入見、界見，諦見、因緣見，四念處見乃至十八不共法見，佛道見，成就眾生見、淨佛世界見，佛見，轉法輪見。為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩。」 須菩提語舍利弗言：「何因緣故色見是妄見？何因緣故受、想、行、識乃至轉法輪見是名妄見？」 舍利弗語須菩提：「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，無方便故，於色生見，用有所得故；於受、想、行、識乃至轉法輪生見，用有所得故。是中菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故。」 【論】 問曰： 佛將五百大阿羅漢至阿那婆達多龍王池，受遠離樂，欲說自身及弟子本業因緣，而舍利弗不在，佛令目連命之。 時，目連以神通力到祇洹；時，舍利弗〔T25 0384c〕縫衣，語目連言：「小住！待縫衣訖當去。」目連催促疾去；時，目連以手摩衣，衣即成竟。 舍利弗見目連貴其神通，即以腰帶擲地，語言：「汝舉此帶去。」目連以兩手舉此帶，不能離地；即入諸深定舉之，地為大動，帶猶著地。 時，憍陳如問佛：「以何因緣故地大震動？」佛言：「目連入甚深禪定，作大神力，欲舉舍利弗帶而不能舉。」 佛告諸比丘：「舍利弗所入出禪定，目連乃至不識其名；佛所入禪定，舍利弗乃至不識其名。」 如舍利弗智慧與佛懸殊，何以言「我亦樂說」？ 答曰： 舍利弗非欲於大眾中顯其智慧、高心故說；舍利弗逐佛轉法輪人，廣益眾生。是摩訶薩義所益甚廣，是故佛說已，舍利弗次說。 復次，多人信樂舍利弗語。所以者何？以宿世因緣故，多發菩薩心。 佛以大慈悲心故，吾我心及習根本已拔，又法愛已斷故，如是種種因緣，故聽。 舍利弗言：「我見及知者、見者、佛見、菩薩見——諸眾生見等，及有無、斷常等邪見，五眾乃至諸佛法轉法輪等諸法見；是菩薩能斷是三種見故，當於大眾中說法。」是三種見，無始世界來，習著入於骨髓。 須菩提作是念：「佛說五眾等乃至諸佛法是菩薩行，何以為斷諸見故說法？」作是念已，問舍利弗。 舍利弗答：「無方便菩薩欲行般若波羅蜜，觀色求定相，取色一切相，生色見。與此相違，名為有方便；是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見。」 【經】 爾時，須菩提白佛言：「世尊！我亦欲說所〔T25 0385a〕以為摩訶薩！」 佛言：「便說！」 須菩提言：「世尊！是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心。何以故？是一切智心無漏不繫故。是一切智心無漏不繫中亦不著，以是因緣故，名摩訶薩。」 舍利弗語須菩提：「何等為菩薩摩訶薩無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心？」 須菩提言：「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意已來，不見法有生有滅、有增有減、有垢有淨。舍利弗！若法無生無滅乃至無垢無淨，是中無聲聞心、無辟支佛心、無阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無佛心。舍利弗！是名菩薩摩訶薩無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心。」 舍利弗語須菩提：「如須菩提說：『一切智心無漏心不繫心中不著。』須菩提！色亦不著，受、想、行、識亦不著，四念處亦不著，乃至十八不共法亦不著，何以故但說是心不著？」 須菩提言：「如是！如是！舍利弗！色亦不著，乃至十八不共法亦不著。」 舍利弗語須菩提：「凡夫人心亦無漏不繫，性空故；諸聲聞、辟支佛心、諸佛心亦無漏不繫，性空故。」 須菩提言：「如是！舍利弗！」 舍利弗言：「須菩提！若色亦無漏不繫，性空故；受、想、行、識無漏不繫，性空故；乃至意觸因緣生受無漏不繫，性空故。」 須菩提言：「爾！」 舍利弗言：「四念處亦無漏不繫，性空故；乃至十八不共法亦無漏不繫，性空故。」 須菩提言：「爾！如舍利弗所言：『凡夫人心亦無漏不繫，性空故；乃至十八不共法亦無漏不繫，性空故。』」 舍利弗語須菩提：「如須菩提所說：『空，無心故，不著是心。』須菩提！色無故，不著色；受、想、行、識，乃至意觸因緣生受〔T25 0385b〕無故，不著受；四念處無故，不著四念處；乃至十八不共法無故，不著十八不共法。」 須菩提言：「如是！舍利弗！色無故，色中不著；乃至十八不共法無故，十八不共法中不著。如是，舍利弗！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，以阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心；不念有是心，亦不著是心，以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩。」 【論】 釋曰： 須菩提說摩訶薩無等等心，於是心亦不著。 「不著」者，是菩薩從初發心已來，不見有法定相，若生若滅、若增若減、若垢若淨。是心畢竟空，是中無有心相非心相，諸相畢竟清淨故。以是故，無聲聞心、辟支佛心、菩薩心、佛心。須菩提稱貴菩薩，如是心亦美，菩薩不著是心亦為尊貴。 舍利弗欲難須菩提，作是言：「非但一切智心無漏不繫，菩薩不應自高。所以者何？凡夫人心亦無漏不繫，性常空故；如聲聞、辟支佛、佛心無漏不繫，是凡夫人心實相性空。實相性空，清淨不著；如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月。又諸煩惱實相，與常性空心相無異。但住凡夫地中，是垢是淨。住聖人地中，修無相智慧故，無所分別；但憐愍眾生故，雖復有說，心無所著。非獨凡夫人心無漏不繫，五眾乃至十八不共法亦如是。」 須菩提然可。 又舍利弗言：「是心無心，心相空故不著；色中色相無故亦不著，乃至諸佛法亦如是。」須菩提言：「如是！」以是故，菩薩能觀諸法性常空，不可得空，畢竟清淨。 以是故說：「阿耨〔T25 0385c〕多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心，不念有是心，亦不著是心，能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」。
《大智度論》卷45 · T25n1509 0384b10–0385c04
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
舍利弗請說何以名為摩訶薩——列我見乃至轉法輪見諸見，斷此諸見而說法即是摩訶薩
那時，慧命舍利弗對佛說：『世尊！我也想說一說菩薩何以名為摩訶薩！』
佛告訴舍利弗：『你就說吧！』
舍利弗說：『所謂那些見，就是我見、眾生見、壽見、命見、生見、養育見、眾數見、人見、作見、使作見、起見、使起見、受見、使受見、知者見、見者見，斷見、常見，有見、無見，陰見、入見、界見，諦見、因緣見，四念處見一直到十八不共法見，佛道見，成就眾生見、淨佛世界見，佛見，轉法輪見。為著斷除這樣種種的見而為眾生說法，這就名為摩訶薩。』
何以色見乃至轉法輪見是妄見——無方便則於色生見用有所得，以方便力斷諸見用無所得
須菩提對舍利弗說：『為著甚麼緣故，色見是妄見呢？為著甚麼緣故，受、想、行、識一直到轉法輪見叫做妄見呢？』
舍利弗對須菩提說：『菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜的時候，因為沒有方便的緣故，就在色上生起見，這是由於有所得的緣故；在受、想、行、識一直到轉法輪上生起見，也是由於有所得的緣故。這當中，菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜，以方便的力量斷除諸見而為眾生說法，這是由於無所得的緣故。』
以下是論釋。
論主設問——舍利弗智慧遠不及佛，為何也自道「我亦樂說」（借目連龍池、縫衣、腰帶三事為引）
論主解釋說。有人問：
佛帶領五百位大阿羅漢到阿那婆達多龍王的池邊，領受遠離之樂，想要說自身以及弟子們過去世的本業因緣，而舍利弗不在座，佛就令目連去喚他。
那時，目連以神通力到了祇洹；那時，舍利弗正在縫衣，對目連說：『稍等一下！等我縫完衣就去。』目連催他快去；這時，目連用手一摩那衣，衣就縫成了。
舍利弗見目連看重自己的神通，就把腰帶擲在地上，對他說：『你把這條帶子舉起來吧。』目連用兩手來舉這帶子，卻不能使它離地；於是入於種種深定去舉它，大地為之震動，帶子卻仍舊著在地上。
那時，憍陳如問佛：『是甚麼緣故，大地大大震動呢？』佛說：『目連入於甚深禪定，作大神力，想要舉起舍利弗的帶子而舉不起來。』
佛告訴諸比丘：『舍利弗所出入的禪定，目連連它的名字都不認得；佛所入的禪定，舍利弗連它的名字都不認得。』
像舍利弗這樣智慧與佛相去懸殊，為甚麼卻說『我也樂說』呢？
論主三答——非為顯智慧起高心，乃逐佛廣益眾生、多人信樂其語、佛慈悲聽許
論主回答：
舍利弗並不是想在大眾當中顯露自己的智慧、起高心而說；舍利弗是隨逐佛轉法輪的人，廣益眾生。這摩訶薩的義所利益的甚為廣大，所以佛說完了，舍利弗接著說。
再者，很多人信服樂從舍利弗的話。這是甚麼緣故呢？因為過去世的因緣，很多人由他而發起菩薩心。
佛以大慈悲心的緣故，吾我之心以及習氣的根本都已經拔除，又因為法愛已經斷了，由這樣種種的因緣，所以聽許舍利弗說。
舍利弗自述所斷『三種見』，無始世界來習著入於骨髓
舍利弗說：『我見以及知者見、見者見、佛見、菩薩見——諸眾生見等等，以及有見、無見、斷見、常見等等邪見，五眾一直到諸佛法、轉法輪等等諸法見；這菩薩能斷除這三種見的緣故，應當在大眾當中說法。』這三種見，從無始的世界以來，串習執著已深入到骨髓裡。
須菩提設難：既說這是菩薩所行，為何又要為斷諸見而說法——雖觀色不生妄見而能斷諸見
須菩提這樣想：『佛說五眾等等一直到諸佛法都是菩薩所行，為甚麼卻要為著斷除諸見的緣故而說法呢？』這樣想了之後，就問舍利弗。
舍利弗回答：『沒有方便的菩薩想要修行般若波羅蜜，觀色而求取決定之相，取著色的一切相，就生起色見。與此相違背的，名為有方便；這菩薩雖然觀色，卻不生妄見，而能斷除諸見。』
以下是經文。
須菩提請說：阿耨菩提心、無等等心、不共二乘心——一切智心無漏不繫而於中不著
那時，須菩提對佛說：『世尊！我也想說一說菩薩何以名為摩訶薩！』
佛說：『你就說吧！』
須菩提說：『世尊！這就是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心。這是甚麼緣故呢？因為這一切智心是無漏、不繫的緣故。在這無漏不繫的一切智心當中也不執著，由這樣的因緣，所以名為摩訶薩。』
何等是無等等心、不共二乘心——不見諸法生滅增減垢淨，是中無四種心
舍利弗對須菩提說：『甚麼是菩薩摩訶薩的無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心呢？』
須菩提說：『菩薩摩訶薩從最初發意以來，不見有法是有生、有滅、有增、有減、有垢、有淨的。舍利弗！若是法無生、無滅一直到無垢、無淨，這當中就沒有聲聞心、沒有辟支佛心、沒有阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、沒有佛心。舍利弗！這就叫做菩薩摩訶薩的無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心。』
色乃至十八不共法皆不著，何以但說是心不著——須菩提然可色亦不著
舍利弗對須菩提說：『如同須菩提所說：一切智心是無漏心、不繫心，於其中不執著。須菩提！色也不執著，受、想、行、識也不執著，四念處也不執著，一直到十八不共法也不執著，為甚麼卻只說這心不執著呢？』
須菩提說：『正是這樣！正是這樣！舍利弗！色也不執著，一直到十八不共法也不執著。』
凡夫心、二乘心、諸佛心皆無漏不繫性空——須菩提節節然可
舍利弗對須菩提說：『凡夫人的心也是無漏、不繫的，因為性空的緣故；諸聲聞、辟支佛的心，諸佛的心，也是無漏、不繫的，因為性空的緣故。』
須菩提說：『正是這樣！舍利弗！』
舍利弗說：『須菩提！若是色也無漏、不繫，因為性空的緣故；受、想、行、識也無漏、不繫，因為性空的緣故；一直到意觸因緣所生的受也無漏、不繫，因為性空的緣故。』
須菩提說：『是的！』
舍利弗說：『四念處也無漏、不繫，因為性空的緣故；一直到十八不共法也無漏、不繫，因為性空的緣故。』
須菩提說：『是的！如同舍利弗所說：凡夫人的心也無漏、不繫，因為性空的緣故；一直到十八不共法也無漏、不繫，因為性空的緣故。』
轉入『空無心故不著』——法無所有故不著法
舍利弗對須菩提說：『如同須菩提所說：因為空、無心的緣故，所以不執著這心。須菩提！因為色無所有的緣故，所以不執著色；因為受、想、行、識一直到意觸因緣所生的受無所有的緣故，所以不執著受；因為四念處無所有的緣故，所以不執著四念處；一直到因為十八不共法無所有的緣故，所以不執著十八不共法。』
經文收束：以三心行般若不念不著，以一切法無所得故名摩訶薩
須菩提說：『正是這樣！舍利弗！因為色無所有的緣故，所以在色當中不執著；一直到因為十八不共法無所有的緣故，所以在十八不共法當中不執著。像這樣，舍利弗！菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜的時候，以阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心；不執念有這樣一個心，也不執著這樣一個心，因為對一切法無所得的緣故，正因為這樣，所以名為摩訶薩。』
以下是論釋。
論主釋『於是心亦不著』——不見有法定相，是心畢竟空，故無四種心
論主解釋說。
須菩提所說摩訶薩的無等等心，於這心也不執著。
所謂『不著』，是這菩薩從最初發心以來，不見有一個法有決定之相，或生、或滅，或增、或減，或垢、或淨。這心畢竟是空的，這當中沒有一個心相或非心相，因為諸相畢竟清淨的緣故。由這緣故，就沒有聲聞心、辟支佛心、菩薩心、佛心。須菩提稱揚珍貴菩薩，說這樣的心也美，說菩薩不執著這心也為尊貴。
舍利弗設難：凡夫心亦無漏不繫，菩薩不應自高——陰雲翳日月不能污日月
舍利弗想要問難須菩提，就這樣說：『不只是一切智心無漏、不繫，菩薩不應當自高。這是甚麼緣故呢？凡夫人的心也是無漏、不繫的，因為性常空的緣故；就像聲聞、辟支佛、佛的心是無漏、不繫的，那凡夫人的心其實相也是性空的。實相性空，清淨而不受染著；就像先前所說：陰雲遮蔽了日月，卻不能污染日月。再者，諸煩惱的實相，與常性空的心相並沒有差異。只是住在凡夫地當中，才有這垢、這淨的分別。住在聖人地當中，因為修無相智慧的緣故，就沒有甚麼分別；只是憐愍眾生的緣故，雖然還是有所說，心卻無所執著。不只是凡夫人的心無漏、不繫，五眾一直到十八不共法也是這樣。』
須菩提然可他的話。
舍利弗再進『是心無心，心相空故不著』——菩薩能觀諸法性常空、不可得空、畢竟清淨
舍利弗又說：『這心其實無心，因為心相空的緣故，所以不執著；色當中因為色相無所有的緣故，所以也不執著，一直到諸佛法也是這樣。』須菩提說：『正是這樣！』由這緣故，菩薩能觀見諸法性常空、不可得空、畢竟清淨。
全品終極收束：不念不著是心，能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提
由這緣故，所以說：『阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心，不執念有這樣一個心，也不執著這樣一個心，就能迅速到達阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』
Śāriputra Asks to Say Why One Is Named Mahāsattva: He Lists the Views, from the View of a Self to the View of Turning the Dharma Wheel, and Teaching the Dharma to Cut Off These Views Is What Makes a Mahāsattva
At that time the venerable Śāriputra said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! I too wish to say why a bodhisattva is named a mahāsattva!’
The Buddha told Śāriputra: ‘Say it, then!’
Śāriputra said: ‘The views in question are these: the view of a self, the view of a being, the view of a lifespan, the view of a life, the view of one born, the view of one nourished, the view of a numbered one, the view of a person, the view of an agent, the view of one who causes action, the view of one who arises, the view of one who causes arising, the view of one who receives, the view of one who causes receiving, the view of a knower, the view of a seer; the view of annihilation, the view of permanence; the view of existence, the view of non-existence; the view of the aggregates, the view of the sense-fields, the view of the elements; the view of the truths, the view of causes and conditions; the view of the four foundations of mindfulness, all the way up to the view of the eighteen unshared dharmas; the view of the Buddha-path; the view of bringing beings to maturity, the view of purifying Buddha-worlds; the view of the Buddha; the view of turning the Dharma wheel. To teach the Dharma to beings in order to cut off views of these kinds—this is what is named a mahāsattva.’
Why Are the View of Form up to the View of Turning the Dharma Wheel False Views? Without Skilful Means One Gives Rise to Views about Form, Because Something Is Attained; by the Power of Skilful Means One Cuts Off the Views, Because Nothing Is Attained
Subhūti said to Śāriputra: ‘For what reason is the view of form a false view? For what reason are feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, all the way up to the view of turning the Dharma wheel, called false views?’
Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘When a bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, because he lacks skilful means, he gives rise to views about form—this is because there is something to be attained; he gives rise to views about feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, all the way up to turning the Dharma wheel—this too is because there is something to be attained. Here, a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises prajñāpāramitā cuts off the views by the power of skilful means and teaches the Dharma to beings—this is because there is nothing to be attained.’
What follows is the treatise's explanation.
The Treatise-Author Poses a Question: Śāriputra's Wisdom Falls Far Short of the Buddha's, So Why Does He Too Say ‘I Too Would Gladly Speak’? (Introduced by Three Episodes with Maudgalyāyana: the Nāga Lake, the Sewing of the Robe, and the Waistband)
The treatise-author explains. Question:
The Buddha led five hundred great arhats to the lake of the nāga king Anavatapta, to receive the bliss of seclusion, wishing to tell the original karmic causes and conditions of himself and of his disciples in past lives; but Śāriputra was not in the assembly, so the Buddha had Maudgalyāyana go and call him.
At that time Maudgalyāyana, by the power of spiritual penetration, arrived at the Jetavana; at that time Śāriputra was sewing a robe, and he said to Maudgalyāyana: ‘Wait a little! When I have finished sewing the robe I will go.’ Maudgalyāyana urged him to go quickly; then Maudgalyāyana stroked the robe once with his hand, and the robe was finished.
Śāriputra, seeing that Maudgalyāyana set store by his own spiritual penetrations, threw his waistband on the ground and said to him: ‘Lift this band up.’ Maudgalyāyana lifted the band with both hands, but could not make it leave the ground; so he entered all kinds of deep absorptions to lift it, and the great earth shook because of it, yet the band still stayed on the ground.
At that time Kauṇḍinya asked the Buddha: ‘For what reason does the great earth shake so greatly?’ The Buddha said: ‘Maudgalyāyana has entered a very deep meditative absorption and is exerting great spiritual power, wishing to lift Śāriputra's band, and he cannot lift it.’
The Buddha told the bhikṣus: ‘Of the meditative absorptions that Śāriputra enters and leaves, Maudgalyāyana does not even know the names; of the meditative absorptions that the Buddha enters, Śāriputra does not even know the names.’
Since Śāriputra's wisdom is as far removed from the Buddha's as this, why does he nevertheless say ‘I too would gladly speak’?
The Treatise-Author's Three Answers: Not to Display His Wisdom or Give Rise to a Lofty Mind, but Because He Follows the Buddha in Benefiting Beings Broadly, Because Many People Trust and Delight in His Words, and Because the Buddha in Compassion Permits It
Answer:
Śāriputra does not speak because he wishes to display his own wisdom in the midst of the great assembly and give rise to a lofty mind; Śāriputra is one who follows the Buddha in turning the Dharma wheel, benefiting beings broadly. What the meaning of this ‘mahāsattva’ benefits is exceedingly vast, so when the Buddha had finished speaking, Śāriputra spoke next.
Furthermore, many people trust and gladly follow Śāriputra's words. Why is this? Because of causes and conditions from past lives, many people aroused the bodhisattva mind through him.
Because of the Buddha's mind of great compassion, and because the mind of self and the root of the habitual tendencies have already been uprooted, and moreover because love of dharma has already been cut off—for causes and conditions of all these kinds, he permits Śāriputra to speak.
Śāriputra Himself States the ‘Three Kinds of Views’ to Be Cut Off; from Beginningless Worlds Their Habitual Clinging Has Entered the Bone Marrow
Śāriputra says: ‘The view of a self, together with the view of a knower, the view of a seer, the view of the Buddha, the view of a bodhisattva—the views of beings and the like; and wrong views such as the view of existence, the view of non-existence, the view of annihilation, and the view of permanence; and views of dharmas such as the five aggregates, all the way up to the dharmas of the Buddhas and turning the Dharma wheel—because this bodhisattva is able to cut off these three kinds of views, he ought to teach the Dharma in the midst of the great assembly.’ These three kinds of views, from beginningless worlds onward, have been practised and clung to until they have entered deep into the bone marrow.
Subhūti Raises a Difficulty: Since These Are Said to Be What the Bodhisattva Practises, Why Teach the Dharma in Order to Cut Off Views? Answer: Although He Contemplates Form, He Does Not Give Rise to False Views, and He Is Able to Cut Off the Views
Subhūti thought thus: ‘The Buddha says that the five aggregates and the rest, all the way up to the dharmas of the Buddhas, are all what the bodhisattva practises; why then is the Dharma to be taught for the sake of cutting off views?’ Having thought this, he asked Śāriputra.
Śāriputra answered: ‘A bodhisattva without skilful means who wishes to practise prajñāpāramitā contemplates form and seeks to grasp a fixed mark in it, grasping and clinging to all the marks of form, and so gives rise to the view of form. What runs contrary to this is named having skilful means; this bodhisattva, although he contemplates form, does not give rise to false views, and is able to cut off the views.’
What follows is the sūtra text.
Subhūti Asks to Speak: The Mind of Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi, the Mind Equal to the Unequalled, the Mind Not Shared with the Two Vehicles; the Mind of Omniscience Is without Outflows and Unbound, and Yet One Does Not Cling within It
At that time Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! I too wish to say why a bodhisattva is named a mahāsattva!’
The Buddha said: ‘Say it, then!’
Subhūti said: ‘World-Honored One! It is the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Why is this? Because this mind of omniscience is without outflows and unbound. Within this mind of omniscience that is without outflows and unbound, one also does not cling; through causes and conditions such as these, one is named a mahāsattva.’
What Is the Mind Equal to the Unequalled, the Mind Not Shared with the Two Vehicles? Not Seeing Dharmas Arise or Cease, Increase or Decrease, Be Defiled or Pure; Within This There Are None of the Four Kinds of Mind
Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘What is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas?’
Subhūti said: ‘From the first arousing of intent onward, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not see any dharma that has arising, has ceasing, has increase, has decrease, has stain, or has purity. Śāriputra! If a dharma is without arising, without ceasing, all the way up to without stain and without purity, then within this there is no śrāvaka mind, no pratyekabuddha mind, no mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, no Buddha mind. Śāriputra! This is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.’
Form up to the eighteen unshared dharmas Are All Not Clung To, So Why Say Only That This Mind Is Not Clung To? Subhūti Assents That Form Too Is Not Clung To
Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘As Subhūti has said: the mind of omniscience is a mind without outflows, an unbound mind, and one does not cling within it. Subhūti! Form too is not clung to; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness too are not clung to; the four foundations of mindfulness too are not clung to; all the way up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, which too are not clung to. Why then do you say only that this mind is not clung to?’
Subhūti said: ‘Just so! Just so! Śāriputra! Form too is not clung to, all the way up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, which too are not clung to.’
The Mind of Ordinary People, the Minds of the Two Vehicles, and the Minds of the Buddhas Are All without Outflows, Unbound, and Empty in Nature: Subhūti Assents Point by Point
Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘The mind of ordinary people too is without outflows and unbound, because it is empty in nature; the minds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and the minds of the Buddhas, too are without outflows and unbound, because they are empty in nature.’
Subhūti said: ‘Just so! Śāriputra!’
Śāriputra said: ‘Subhūti! Then form too is without outflows and unbound, because it is empty in nature; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness too are without outflows and unbound, because they are empty in nature; all the way up to the feeling produced by the condition of mind-contact, which too is without outflows and unbound, because it is empty in nature.’
Subhūti said: ‘It is so!’
Śāriputra said: ‘The four foundations of mindfulness too are without outflows and unbound, because they are empty in nature; all the way up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, which too are without outflows and unbound, because they are empty in nature.’
Subhūti said: ‘It is so! As Śāriputra has said: the mind of ordinary people too is without outflows and unbound, because it is empty in nature; all the way up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, which too are without outflows and unbound, because they are empty in nature.’
A Turn to ‘Because It Is Empty and No-Mind, One Does Not Cling’: Because Dharmas Are Nothing Whatever, One Does Not Cling to Dharmas
Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘As Subhūti has said: because it is empty and no-mind, one does not cling to this mind. Subhūti! Because form is nothing whatever, one does not cling to form; because feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, all the way up to the feeling produced by the condition of mind-contact, are nothing whatever, one does not cling to feeling; because the four foundations of mindfulness are nothing whatever, one does not cling to the four foundations of mindfulness; all the way up to: because the eighteen unshared dharmas are nothing whatever, one does not cling to the eighteen unshared dharmas.’
The Sūtra Text Draws to a Close: Practising Prajñāpāramitā with the Three Minds, Neither Dwelling on Nor Clinging to Them, One Is Named Mahāsattva Because Nothing Is Attained in Any Dharma
Subhūti said: ‘Just so! Śāriputra! Because form is nothing whatever, one does not cling within form; all the way up to: because the eighteen unshared dharmas are nothing whatever, one does not cling within the eighteen unshared dharmas. In this way, Śāriputra! When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, it is with the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; he does not dwell on the thought that there is such a mind, nor does he cling to such a mind, because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained; precisely because of this, he is named a mahāsattva.’
What follows is the treatise's explanation.
The Treatise-Author Explains ‘Within This Mind Too One Does Not Cling’: One Does Not See That Any Dharma Has a Fixed Mark; This Mind Is Ultimately Empty, and Therefore There Are None of the Four Kinds of Mind
The treatise-author explains.
What Subhūti has said is the mahāsattva's mind equal to the unequalled, and that within this mind too one does not cling.
As for ‘not clinging’: from the first arousing of the mind onward, this bodhisattva does not see that any single dharma has a fixed mark—whether arising or ceasing, increasing or decreasing, defiled or pure. This mind is ultimately empty; within it there is no mark of mind and no mark of non-mind, because all marks are ultimately pure. For this reason there is no śrāvaka mind, pratyekabuddha mind, bodhisattva mind, or Buddha mind. Subhūti extols and treasures the bodhisattva, saying that such a mind is fine, and saying that the bodhisattva's not clinging to this mind is also worthy of honour.
Śāriputra Raises a Difficulty: The Mind of Ordinary People Too Is without Outflows and Unbound, So the Bodhisattva Should Not Exalt Himself; Dark Clouds Cover the Sun and Moon but Cannot Stain Them
Wishing to challenge Subhūti, Śāriputra speaks thus: ‘It is not only the mind of omniscience that is without outflows and unbound; the bodhisattva should not exalt himself. Why is this? The mind of ordinary people too is without outflows and unbound, because its nature is always empty; just as the minds of the śrāvakas, the pratyekabuddhas, and the Buddhas are without outflows and unbound, so the real mark of the mind of ordinary people is likewise empty in nature. The real mark, empty in nature, is pure and receives no taint; as was said earlier: dark clouds cover the sun and moon, yet they cannot stain the sun and moon. Furthermore, the real mark of the afflictions is no different from the mark of the mind whose nature is always empty. It is only while dwelling on the ground of ordinary people that there is this discrimination of defiled and pure. Dwelling on the ground of the sages, because one cultivates signless wisdom, there is no discrimination at all; only out of pity for beings, although one still says something, the mind clings to nothing. It is not only the mind of ordinary people that is without outflows and unbound; the five aggregates, all the way up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, are likewise.’
Subhūti assents to his words.
Śāriputra Advances Further: ‘This Mind Is No-Mind; Because the Mark of Mind Is Empty, One Does Not Cling’; the Bodhisattva Is Able to Contemplate All Dharmas as Always Empty in Nature, as the Emptiness of the Unfindable, as Ultimately Pure
Śāriputra says further: ‘This mind is in fact no-mind; because the mark of mind is empty, one does not cling to it; within form, because the mark of form is nothing whatever, one likewise does not cling, and so it is all the way up to the dharmas of the Buddhas.’ Subhūti says: ‘Just so!’ For this reason the bodhisattva is able to contemplate and see all dharmas as always empty in nature, as the emptiness of the unfindable, as ultimately pure.
The Final Close of the Whole Chapter: Neither Dwelling on Nor Clinging to This Mind, One Is Able to Reach Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi Swiftly
For this reason it is said: ‘The mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas—not dwelling on the thought that there is such a mind, nor clinging to such a mind, one is able to reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi swiftly.’
斷見品：菩薩以『斷諸見』與『無等等心而不著』二義名為摩訶薩——無方便則於色生見用有所得，以方便力斷諸見用無所得；發阿耨菩提心、無等等心、不共二乘心而不念不著，以一切法無所得故名摩訶薩
在問什麼
這一品承接前一品〈摩訶薩品〉——上一品佛已自說「於畢定眾中為上首，是故名為摩訶薩」，這一品便由兩位大弟子接著說。先是舍利弗一開口便求「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」，佛許之後，他列出我見、眾生見一路到佛見、轉法輪見一長串的見，收於一句「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」；再是須菩提同樣求「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」，立起「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」，收於「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」。這一品的名，本論題作「斷見」，正落在舍利弗這一半的「斷諸見」上。全品的幾個難處由此逼出。其一，舍利弗所列那一長串見，究竟是甚麼要斷、怎麼斷——是連正法之觀也一併廢去，還是別有所指。其二，這一品既名「斷見」，而所列諸見之中偏偏又有一項就叫「斷見」，這與「常見」對舉的斷滅之見，跟品名之「斷見」是不是一回事。其三，論主釋舍利弗這一半，何以先講一段目連神通舉不起腰帶、大地震動的故事——舍利弗智慧與佛如此懸殊，他憑甚麼也「樂說」摩訶薩義。其四，須菩提那一半立起「無等等心」，這心既是不共二乘的最高之心，何以立起隨即又要「不著」——立此心與不著此心，豈不自相牴牾。這一品要回答的是這樣一件事：菩薩之名「摩訶薩」，在舍利弗這一半落在「斷諸見」上、在須菩提這一半落在「無等等心而不著」上，而兩半的根其實是同一味——「用無所得」「以一切法無所得」；所斷的見與所不著的心，斷的、不著的，都是那一念「有所得」的執取。
逐段解明
先看舍利弗這一段經文。舍利弗求說摩訶薩義，佛許之後，他一口氣列出我見、眾生見、壽見、命見，一路到佛見、轉法輪見，數十種見一一枚舉，末以「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」收束——「大」字在他這裡先落在「斷諸見」上。須菩提隨即設一問，何因緣故色見是妄見。舍利弗答得極要緊：菩薩行般若時「無方便故，於色生見，用有所得故」，反過來「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」。這一答把「斷見」的分寸點定了：所斷的不是觀色觀法本身，而是「用有所得」而在色上、在一切法上妄生的執見；有方便、無所得，見自不生，這纔是「斷諸見」。
接著論主開釋舍利弗這一半。論主先不忙釋義，卻設一問——舍利弗智慧與佛相去懸殊，何以他也敢「樂說」摩訶薩義。為顯這懸殊，論主引出一段故事：佛在阿那婆達多龍王池邊，欲說本業因緣而舍利弗不在，佛令目連去喚；目連以手一摩，舍利弗的衣即縫成，舍利弗卻把腰帶擲地，要目連舉起，目連入諸深定舉之，大地震動而帶猶著地；佛因而告眾，舍利弗所出入的禪定，目連連名字都不識。這一段的用意不在鬥神通，而在逼出一問：智慧如此懸殊，舍利弗憑甚麼也「樂說」。論主的答有三：一是舍利弗非為在大眾中顯智慧、起高心而說，他是隨逐佛轉法輪、廣益眾生的人，摩訶薩義所益甚廣，所以佛說已他次說；二是多人信樂舍利弗的話，由宿世因緣而多發菩薩心；三是佛大慈悲，吾我之心與習氣根本已拔、法愛已斷，所以聽許他說。答畢，論主牒回斷見義：舍利弗自述所斷是「三種見」——我見及知者見者佛見菩薩見等、有無斷常等邪見、五眾乃至諸佛法轉法輪等諸法見，而「是三種見，無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」。須菩提又設一問：五眾乃至諸佛法既是菩薩所行，何以反要為斷諸見故說法。舍利弗答得斬截：無方便的菩薩觀色求定相、取色一切相，纔生色見；有方便則「雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」——觀法宛然而見自不生，這就收定了斷見一半。
再看須菩提這一段經文。須菩提同樣求說摩訶薩義，立起三心「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」，並自釋所以：這一切智心無漏不繫，而「是一切智心無漏不繫中亦不著」，以此因緣名摩訶薩——立此最高之心，隨即說於此心亦不著。舍利弗便追問何等是這無等等心，須菩提答：菩薩從初發意以來，不見有法有生滅、增減、垢淨；法既無生無滅乃至無垢無淨，這當中便「無聲聞心、無辟支佛心、無阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無佛心」——這纔是「無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」。以下舍利弗節節推問：既說心不著，何以不說色乃至十八不共法亦不著；須菩提一一然可，色亦不著乃至十八不共法亦不著。舍利弗更進一層，說凡夫人心、二乘心、諸佛心皆「無漏不繫，性空故」，色乃至意觸因緣生受、四念處乃至十八不共法亦皆無漏不繫性空，須菩提節節然可。末後舍利弗轉入一句要害，「空，無心故，不著是心」，並推開來——色無故不著色，乃至十八不共法無故不著。須菩提然可，收於全段之末：菩薩行般若時，以這三心而「不念有是心，亦不著是心，以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」。
末後論主釋須菩提這一半。論主開口便牒定綱領「須菩提說摩訶薩無等等心，於是心亦不著」，並釋這「不著」：菩薩從初發心以來，不見有法有定相、有生滅增減垢淨；這心「畢竟空」，其中無心相非心相，諸相畢竟清淨，所以「無聲聞心、辟支佛心、菩薩心、佛心」——須菩提稱貴這菩薩，說其心亦美，而不著此心「亦為尊貴」。此下論主藉舍利弗一難把義理推到底：舍利弗說，不只一切智心無漏不繫，菩薩不應自高，因凡夫人心也無漏不繫、性常空，其實相性空正如聖人之心；實相性空、清淨不著，論主在此引出本品最要緊的一喻——「如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」，煩惱如陰雲，而心之實相性空清淨如日月之明，陰雲蔽之而日月未嘗被污。只是住凡夫地便成垢成淨，住聖人地則修無相智慧、無所分別，雖為憐愍眾生而說，心仍無所著。須菩提然可。舍利弗又進一解「是心無心，心相空故不著；色中色相無故亦不著，乃至諸佛法亦如是」；須菩提然可，論主便總說：菩薩由此能觀諸法「性常空、不可得空、畢竟清淨」。全品收於一句——以阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心，「不念有是心，亦不著是心」，便「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」；無等等心一半，就繫在這「不著」與「無所得」上，恰與斷見一半的「用無所得」首尾同一味。
不要讀錯
第一，不要把「斷諸見」讀成連正法之觀也一併廢去。經明說是「無方便故，於色生見，用有所得故」纔成妄見，而「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」——所斷的是「有所得」的執見，不是廢除觀法。舍利弗自答「雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」，觀色宛然而妄見自不生。斷的是見上之執，不是觀法之用。
第二，不要把品名的「斷見」與所列諸見中那一項「斷見」讀成一回事。舍利弗所列諸見裡，有一項「斷見」是與「常見」對舉的斷滅之見；而品名之「斷見」以及經論反覆說的「斷諸見」「為斷如是諸見」，是「斷除眾見」的意思——一個是所斷之中的一項專名，一個是能斷的總說，同是「斷見」二字而所指寬狹不同，不可混為一談。
第三，不要把「無等等心」讀成高舉自心、與佛比肩而生自尊。須菩提立此心，隨即便說「是一切智心無漏不繫中亦不著」；論主釋得更明，須菩提稱貴菩薩，說其心美，而「不著是心亦為尊貴」——尊貴正在不著。立最高之心而不認有此心、不著此心，纔是無等等，不是拿此心去與佛較量而自高。
第四，不要把「凡夫人心亦無漏不繫、性空」讀成凡聖無別、修證無用。舍利弗難詞自有分寸「但住凡夫地中，是垢是淨；住聖人地中，修無相智慧故，無所分別」——實相性空是凡聖同然，而住凡夫地便成垢淨，住聖人地方能無所分別。陰雲翳日月，日月之明本不為陰雲所污，然陰雲在時終須以無相智慧去其蔽。性空是同，用功不可廢。
第五，不要把「不著」讀成甚麼都不說、不度眾生的斷滅。須菩提難詞明說，住聖人地雖無所分別，「但憐愍眾生故，雖復有說，心無所著」——仍舊說法度生，只是心不著。菩薩正由「不念有是心，亦不著是心」而「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」——不著是趣菩提的疾道，不是坐廢不行。
修行作用
這一品最切近用功處，是把「斷」與「不著」收到同一味「無所得」上。其一，斷諸見的下手，不在廢觀，而在觀色觀法時不「用有所得」而妄生執見——那數十種見，說到底都是「有所得」纔成的妄見，有方便、無所得，見自不生。其二，無等等心的下手，是行最高之心而不認有此心，發阿耨菩提心、無等等心而「不念有是心，亦不著是心」，稱貴而不著，方是真尊貴。其三，陰雲翳日月一喻最堪日用受持，煩惱現前時，知心之實相性空清淨，本不為煩惱所污，不必因一念煩惱便自謂染污；然亦不可恃「性空」而廢修，須住聖人地修無相智慧，方去其陰雲之蔽。其四，是那一味「雖復有說，心無所著」的把柄，說法度生宛然不廢，而心不著能說所說、不著能度所度，這無所得而行，正是「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」的疾道。
承衍
後來有古德為這一品逐文作疏，一開卷便為它列了幾個名：主名作「樂說品」，又標「亦名斷耶品」。這「斷耶」與本論的「斷見」用字雖不同，而義相通——「耶」即「邪」，斷耶猶言斷邪見。這古德並自釋何以名「樂說」：因為此下富樓那說法已另立別品，相對而言，本品的舍利弗、須菩提二人都是欣然樂說摩訶薩義，所以立名樂說品，而此品又因這二人自然分成兩段。可見本論題作「斷見」、古德題作「樂說」，二名並不相違：樂說是就二人並皆樂說而立，斷見是就舍利弗這一半的斷諸邪見而立——一就說者的框架，一就所說的內容，古德本人正是在同一段裡並列這兩義而不以為牴牾。這古德又把二人的教法各自歸納：第一人以「斷諸見」故為大，第二人以「斷諸愛」故名大人——「見」與「愛」分屬迷惑的兩大類，舍利弗一半斷的是見，須菩提一半的「不著」斷的正是愛，兩半合起來纔見「大」的全量。他又把舍利弗那一長串見歸為「三見」：一是人見，自我見以至佛見；二是世出世見，如色相說法見；三是耶見，即斷常有無——這恰與本品論文中舍利弗自說的「三種見」相印。又把須菩提的立宗科為「三心」：一發菩提心，二此心與佛平等，三不與二乘共——與經文「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」三詞逐一相應。把這些讀法帶回本品，最要留住的仍是那一句：菩薩之名摩訶薩，在舍利弗一半落在「斷諸見」、在須菩提一半落在「無等等心而不著」，而斷的見與不著的心，同繫於「用無所得」「以一切法無所得」——名有斷見、樂說之異，義只是這一味無所得而已。
Cutting Off Views: The Bodhisattva Is Called Mahāsattva on Two Counts, ‘Cutting Off All Views’ and ‘the Mind Equal to the Unequalled, yet Unattached’—Without Skilful Means, Views Arise in Form Because He Works with Something to Be Attained; by the Power of Skilful Means He Cuts Off All Views Because He Works with Nothing to Be Attained; He Arouses the Mind of Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi, the Mind Equal to the Unequalled, the Mind Not Shared with the Two Vehicles, yet Neither Thinks of It nor Is Attached to It, and Because in All Dharmas There Is Nothing to Be Attained He Is Called Mahāsattva
What Is Being Asked
This chapter follows on from the chapter before it, the Chapter on Mahāsattva—in that chapter the Buddha had himself said 「於畢定眾中為上首，是故名為摩訶薩」 tr. "he is foremost within the assembly of the assured; for this reason he is called mahāsattva," and in this chapter two great disciples take up the word after him. First Śāriputra, the moment he opens his mouth, asks: 「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」 tr. "I too wish to say why one is a mahāsattva." Once the Buddha permits him, he sets out a long string of views, from the view of self and the view of beings all the way to the view of a buddha and the view of turning the wheel of the Dharma, and gathers them up in a single sentence: 「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」 tr. "it is in order to cut off such views as these that he teaches the Dharma; this is called mahāsattva." Next Subhūti likewise asks, “I too wish to say why one is a mahāsattva,” and sets up 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」 tr. "the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas," gathering it up in 「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」 tr. "because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained—for this reason he is called mahāsattva." The name of this chapter, which the treatise titles “Cutting Off Views,” falls squarely on Śāriputra’s half, on “cutting off all views.” From this several difficulties in the whole chapter are forced out. First, the long string of views that Śāriputra sets out—what exactly is to be cut off, and how is it cut off? Is even the contemplation of the true Dharma to be abolished along with them, or is something else meant? Second, since this chapter is named “Cutting Off Views,” and yet among the views listed there is precisely one item that is itself called “the view of annihilation”—is this view of annihilation, paired against “the view of permanence,” one and the same thing as the “cutting off views” of the chapter’s name? Third, in explaining Śāriputra’s half, why does the treatise-author first tell a story of Maudgalyāyana being unable with his supernormal powers to lift a waist-sash, and of the great earth quaking—if Śāriputra’s wisdom stands so far below the Buddha’s, on what ground does he too “delight in speaking” of the meaning of mahāsattva? Fourth, Subhūti’s half sets up “the mind equal to the unequalled”; since this mind is the highest mind, not shared with the two vehicles, why, as soon as it is set up, must one also be “unattached” to it—does setting up this mind and not being attached to this mind not contradict itself? What this chapter sets out to answer is this: the name “mahāsattva” for a bodhisattva falls, in Śāriputra’s half, on “cutting off all views,” and in Subhūti’s half on “the mind equal to the unequalled, yet unattached”; and the root of the two halves is in truth of a single flavour—「用無所得」 tr. "working with nothing to be attained," “because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained.” The views that are cut off and the mind that is not clung to—what is cut off and what is not clung to are both that single thought of grasping at ‘something to be attained.’
Passage by Passage
First look at Śāriputra’s passage of sūtra. Śāriputra asks to speak of the meaning of mahāsattva, and once the Buddha permits him, he sets out in one breath the view of self, the view of beings, the view of a life-span, the view of a life, going on all the way to the view of a buddha and the view of turning the wheel of the Dharma—several dozen kinds of view enumerated one by one—and closes with “it is in order to cut off such views as these that he teaches the Dharma; this is called mahāsattva”: with him the word “great” falls first on “cutting off all views.” Subhūti then puts a question: through what causes and conditions is the view of form a false view? Śāriputra’s answer is of the utmost importance: when a bodhisattva practises prajñā, 「無方便故，於色生見，用有所得故」 tr. "because he lacks skilful means, views arise in him concerning form, because he works with something to be attained"; and conversely, 「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」 tr. "by the power of skilful means he teaches the Dharma in order to cut off all views, because he works with nothing to be attained." This answer fixes the measure of “cutting off views”: what is cut off is not the contemplating of form or of dharmas as such, but the grasping views that falsely arise over form and over all dharmas through “working with something to be attained”; where there are skilful means and nothing to be attained, views of themselves do not arise—this alone is “cutting off all views.”
Next the treatise-author opens up Śāriputra’s half. He does not hurry to explain the meaning, but first puts a question: Śāriputra’s wisdom lies so far from the Buddha’s—how does he too dare to “delight in speaking” of the meaning of mahāsattva? To make this distance plain, the treatise-author brings out a story. The Buddha was beside the pool of the dragon king Anavatapta and wished to speak of the causes and conditions of former deeds, but Śāriputra was not present, so the Buddha had Maudgalyāyana go and call him. Maudgalyāyana brushed it with a hand and Śāriputra’s robe was at once stitched whole; Śāriputra, however, threw his waist-sash to the ground and told Maudgalyāyana to lift it. Maudgalyāyana entered the deep absorptions to lift it; the great earth quaked, yet the sash still lay upon the ground. The Buddha therefore told the assembly that of the meditative absorptions Śāriputra enters and leaves, Maudgalyāyana does not know even the names. The point of this passage is not a contest of supernormal powers; it is to force out a question: with wisdom so unequal, on what ground does Śāriputra too “delight in speaking”? The treatise-author’s answer has three parts. First, Śāriputra does not speak in order to display his wisdom before the great assembly or to raise a lofty mind; he is one who follows the Buddha in turning the wheel of the Dharma and broadly benefits beings, and the meaning of mahāsattva benefits very widely—so when the Buddha has spoken, he speaks next. Second, many people believe in and delight in Śāriputra’s words, and through causes and conditions from former lives many arouse the bodhisattva mind. Third, the Buddha is of great kindness and compassion; the mind of self and I and the habit-energies have been uprooted at the root, and the love of dharma has been cut off; therefore he permits him to speak. The answer done, the treatise-author returns to the meaning of cutting off views: Śāriputra himself states that what he cuts off is “three kinds of view”—the view of self together with the views of a knower, a seer, of a buddha, of a bodhisattva, and so on; the wrong views of existence and non-existence, annihilation and permanence, and so on; and the views of dharmas, from the five aggregates up to all the buddhas’ dharmas, the turning of the wheel of the Dharma, and so on—and 「是三種見，無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」 tr. "these three kinds of view, from the beginningless world onward, have been habitually clung to until they have entered the marrow of the bones." Subhūti then puts a further question: since the five aggregates up to all the buddhas’ dharmas are what a bodhisattva practises, why on the contrary must he teach the Dharma in order to cut off all views? Śāriputra’s answer is clean-cut: a bodhisattva without skilful means contemplates form seeking a fixed mark and grasps all the marks of form, and only then does the view of form arise; with skilful means, 「雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」 tr. "though he contemplates form, he gives rise to no false view, and is able to cut off all views"—the contemplation of dharmas stands clearly present, yet views of themselves do not arise. This settles the half on cutting off views.
Now look at Subhūti’s passage of sūtra. Subhūti likewise asks to speak of the meaning of mahāsattva, sets up three minds—“the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas”—and himself explains the reason: this mind of omniscience is without outflows and unbound, and 「是一切智心無漏不繫中亦不著」 tr. "even in this mind of omniscience, without outflows and unbound, he is not attached"; on account of this cause and condition he is called mahāsattva. He sets up this highest mind and says at once that even to this mind he is not attached. Śāriputra then presses him: what is this mind equal to the unequalled? Subhūti answers: from the first arousing of intent onward, the bodhisattva does not see that any dharma has arising and ceasing, increase and decrease, stain and purity; and since dharmas are without arising and without ceasing, and so on up to without stain and without purity, within this there is 「無聲聞心、無辟支佛心、無阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無佛心」 tr. "no śrāvaka mind, no pratyekabuddha mind, no mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, no buddha mind"—this alone is “the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.” From here Śāriputra presses his questions step by step: since you say one is unattached to the mind, why do you not say one is also unattached to form, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas? Subhūti assents to each in turn: one is unattached to form as well, and so on up to being unattached to the eighteen unshared dharmas. Śāriputra goes a layer further, saying that the mind of ordinary people, the minds of the two vehicles, and the minds of the buddhas are all 「無漏不繫，性空故」 tr. "without outflows and unbound, because they are empty in nature"; and that form, and so on up to the feeling born from the condition of mind-contact, the four foundations of mindfulness, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, are likewise all without outflows, unbound, and empty in nature; Subhūti assents step by step. At the end Śāriputra turns to a crucial sentence, 「空，無心故，不著是心」 tr. "because it is empty and there is no mind, one is not attached to this mind," and extends it outward—because form is non-existent one is not attached to form, and so on up to: because the eighteen unshared dharmas are non-existent one is not attached to them. Subhūti assents, and this brings the whole passage to its close: when a bodhisattva practises prajñā, with these three minds he 「不念有是心，亦不著是心，以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」 tr. "does not think that there is this mind, nor is he attached to this mind, because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained; for this reason he is called mahāsattva."
Last, the treatise-author explains Subhūti’s half. His very first words fix the guiding line, 「須菩提說摩訶薩無等等心，於是心亦不著」 tr. "Subhūti speaks of the mahāsattva’s mind equal to the unequalled, and that even to this mind he is not attached," and he explains this “not attached”: from the first arousing of the mind onward, the bodhisattva does not see that any dharma has a fixed mark, or has arising and ceasing, increase and decrease, stain and purity; this mind is “ultimate emptiness,” within it there is neither the mark of mind nor the mark of non-mind, and all marks are ultimately pure, and so there is 「無聲聞心、辟支佛心、菩薩心、佛心」 tr. "no śrāvaka mind, pratyekabuddha mind, bodhisattva mind, or buddha mind"—Subhūti esteems this bodhisattva and says that his mind is also fine, yet his not being attached to this mind “is also honourable.” From here the treatise-author uses a challenge from Śāriputra to push the meaning to its end. Śāriputra says: it is not only the mind of omniscience that is without outflows and unbound, and the bodhisattva ought not to exalt himself, because the mind of ordinary people too is without outflows and unbound, its nature ever empty, and its real mark, empty in nature, is just like the mind of the noble ones. The real mark empty in nature, pure and unattached—here the treatise-author brings out the most important simile of this chapter, 「如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」 tr. "as was said before: dark clouds screen the sun and moon, but cannot defile the sun and moon." The afflictions are like dark clouds, while the real mark of the mind, empty in nature and pure, is like the brightness of the sun and moon; the dark clouds cover them, yet the sun and moon are never defiled. Only, one who dwells on the ground of the ordinary person becomes defiled and becomes pure; one who dwells on the ground of the noble ones cultivates signless wisdom and makes no discriminations, and though he speaks out of compassion for beings, his mind still has nothing it is attached to. Subhūti assents. Śāriputra advances a further explanation, 「是心無心，心相空故不著；色中色相無故亦不著，乃至諸佛法亦如是」 tr. "this mind is no mind; because the mark of mind is empty, one is not attached; because in form there is no mark of form, one is likewise not attached; and so on up to all the buddhas’ dharmas, which are likewise so." Subhūti assents, and the treatise-author then sums up: by this the bodhisattva is able to contemplate dharmas as “ever empty in nature, empty in being unfindable, ultimately pure.” The whole chapter closes on one sentence—with the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, “he does not think that there is this mind, nor is he attached to this mind,” and so he 「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "is able swiftly to reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." The half on the mind equal to the unequalled is bound up precisely in this “not attached” and “nothing to be attained,” and from head to tail it is of exactly one flavour with the “working with nothing to be attained” of the half on cutting off views.
Do Not Misread
First, do not read “cutting off all views” as abolishing even the contemplation of the true Dharma. The sūtra says plainly that it is “because he lacks skilful means, views arise in him concerning form, because he works with something to be attained” that false views come about, while “by the power of skilful means he teaches the Dharma in order to cut off all views, because he works with nothing to be attained”—what is cut off is the grasping view of ‘something to be attained,’ not the abolition of contemplating dharmas. Śāriputra himself answers, “though he contemplates form, he gives rise to no false view, and is able to cut off all views”: the contemplation of form stands clearly present, and false views of themselves do not arise. What is cut off is the grasping upon views, not the use of contemplating dharmas.
Second, do not read the “cutting off views” of the chapter’s name and the one item among the listed views called “the view of annihilation” as one and the same thing. Among the views Śāriputra lists there is one item, “the view of annihilation,” the view that things are cut off and perish, paired against “the view of permanence”; whereas the “cutting off views” of the chapter’s name, and the “cutting off all views” and “in order to cut off such views as these” that sūtra and treatise say again and again, mean ‘cutting off and removing the many views’—the one is the proper name of a single item among what is cut off, the other a general statement of the cutting off itself; the two are written with the same two characters, yet what they point to differs in breadth, and they must not be run together.
Third, do not read “the mind equal to the unequalled” as exalting one’s own mind, setting oneself shoulder to shoulder with the Buddha and giving rise to self-regard. Having set up this mind, Subhūti at once says “even in this mind of omniscience, without outflows and unbound, he is not attached”; the treatise-author explains it more clearly still: Subhūti esteems the bodhisattva and says his mind is fine, and yet 「不著是心亦為尊貴」 tr. "not being attached to this mind is also honourable"—the honour lies precisely in not being attached. To set up the highest mind yet not acknowledge that there is this mind, not be attached to this mind—only this is “equal to the unequalled”; it is not to take this mind and measure oneself against the Buddha in self-exaltation.
Fourth, do not read “the mind of ordinary people too is without outflows and unbound, empty in nature” as meaning that there is no difference between the ordinary and the noble and that cultivation and realisation are useless. Śāriputra’s challenge carries its own sense of measure: 「但住凡夫地中，是垢是淨；住聖人地中，修無相智慧故，無所分別」 tr. "only, dwelling on the ground of the ordinary person, there is defilement and there is purity; dwelling on the ground of the noble ones, because one cultivates signless wisdom, there is nothing one discriminates." The real mark, empty in nature, is the same for the ordinary and the noble, yet one who dwells on the ground of the ordinary person becomes defiled and pure, and only one who dwells on the ground of the noble ones can be free of discrimination. Dark clouds screen the sun and moon, and the brightness of the sun and moon is from the first not defiled by the dark clouds; yet while the dark clouds are there, their covering must in the end be removed by signless wisdom. Emptiness of nature is the same; effort in practice cannot be abandoned.
Fifth, do not read “not being attached” as an annihilation that says nothing and does not liberate beings. Subhūti’s challenge says plainly that though on the ground of the noble ones there is nothing one discriminates, 「但憐愍眾生故，雖復有說，心無所著」 tr. "only, out of compassion for beings, though one still speaks, the mind has nothing it is attached to"—he still teaches the Dharma and liberates beings; only his mind is not attached. It is precisely through “not thinking that there is this mind, nor being attached to this mind” that the bodhisattva “is able swiftly to reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi”—not being attached is the swift path toward awakening, not a sitting idle that does nothing.
Bearing on Practice
The point of this chapter closest to one’s own effort is that it gathers “cutting off” and “not being attached” into a single flavour, “nothing to be attained.” First, the starting-point for cutting off all views lies not in abolishing contemplation but in not “working with something to be attained” when contemplating form and contemplating dharmas, and so not falsely giving rise to grasping views—those several dozen kinds of view are, in the end, all false views that come about only through ‘something to be attained’; where there are skilful means and nothing to be attained, views of themselves do not arise. Second, the starting-point for the mind equal to the unequalled is to practise the highest mind yet not acknowledge that there is this mind: to arouse the mind of anuttarā awakening, the mind equal to the unequalled, and yet “not think that there is this mind, nor be attached to this mind”; to be esteemed yet unattached—only this is true honour. Third, the simile of dark clouds screening the sun and moon is the one best received and upheld in daily use: when afflictions appear, know that the real mark of the mind is empty in nature and pure, and was never defiled by the afflictions, so there is no need, on account of one thought of affliction, to call oneself defiled; yet neither may one rely on “emptiness of nature” and abandon cultivation—one must dwell on the ground of the noble ones and cultivate signless wisdom, and only so remove the covering of the dark clouds. Fourth is the handle of that single flavour, “though one still speaks, the mind has nothing it is attached to”: teaching the Dharma and liberating beings stands clearly present and is not abandoned, while the mind is attached neither to the speaker nor to what is spoken, neither to the one who liberates nor to those liberated; this practising with nothing to be attained is exactly the swift path by which one “is able swiftly to reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.”
Further Resonances
Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter phrase by phrase, and at the very opening of the scroll listed several names for it: the chief name he gives is “the Chapter on Delight in Speaking,” and he also marks 「亦名斷耶品」 tr. "it is also named the Chapter on Cutting Off the Deviant." Though this “Cutting Off the Deviant” uses a different character from this treatise’s “Cutting Off Views,” the meaning is connected—the character he uses for “deviant” is the same as the one for “wrong,” and “cutting off the deviant” is as much as to say cutting off wrong views. This ancient master also explains for himself why the chapter is named “Delight in Speaking”: because from here on Pūrṇa’s teaching of the Dharma is set up as a separate chapter, and by contrast, in this chapter both of the two, Śāriputra and Subhūti, gladly delight in speaking of the meaning of mahāsattva, so it is named the Chapter on Delight in Speaking; and this chapter, on account of these two, falls naturally into two sections. It can be seen that the treatise’s title “Cutting Off Views” and the ancient master’s title “Delight in Speaking” do not conflict: “delight in speaking” is set up from the fact that both of the two delight in speaking, and “cutting off views” is set up from Śāriputra’s half, the cutting off of all wrong views—the one taken from the frame of the speakers, the other from the content of what is spoken, and the ancient master himself sets these two meanings side by side in one and the same passage without finding them in conflict. This ancient master further sums up the teaching of each of the two: the first is great because of “cutting off all views,” the second is called a great person because of 「斷諸愛」 tr. "cutting off all cravings"—“views” and “cravings” belong to the two great classes of delusion; Śāriputra’s half cuts off views, and the “not being attached” of Subhūti’s half cuts off precisely cravings; only with the two halves together is the full measure of “great” seen. He also gathers Śāriputra’s long string of views into “three views”: first, the view of persons, from the view of self up to the view of a buddha; second, worldly and world-transcending views, such as the view of the marks of form and the view of teaching the Dharma; third, deviant views, namely annihilation and permanence, existence and non-existence—and this seals exactly with the “three kinds of view” that Śāriputra himself states in the treatise text of this chapter. He also divides Subhūti’s thesis into “three minds”: first, arousing the mind of awakening; second, this mind is equal to the Buddha; third, it is not shared with the two vehicles—corresponding one by one to the three phrases of the sūtra, “the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.” Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is still that one sentence: the name mahāsattva for a bodhisattva falls, in Śāriputra’s half, on “cutting off all views,” and in Subhūti’s half on “the mind equal to the unequalled, yet unattached”; and the views cut off and the mind not clung to are bound alike to “working with nothing to be attained,” “because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained”—the names differ, “Cutting Off Views” and “Delight in Speaking,” but the meaning is only this single flavour of nothing to be attained.
考據Apparatus
一、科判
本品在《大智度論》釋《大品般若》之次第中屬〈釋餘品〉一段，繫卷四十五之中段，論自題「大智度論釋斷見品第十四」〔T25 0384b10〕，所釋為《大品般若》相當之一品。
本品品名有一重須先辨之異名，其精細度為本論各品之最——非「經作樂說、論作斷見」之整齊二分可盡，兩造傳本之叢集皆非一面倒，且雙方多數傳本反共傾「斷（諸）見」一系。其一，本論論題作「大智度論釋斷見品第十四」〔T25 0384b10〕，所釋經後秦鳩摩羅什譯《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》於同一位置題作「樂說品第十四」〔T08 0244a18〕，其品題行下 CBETA 內嵌一校勘註，標明丹本（高麗藏所據遼丹藏系統之異本）一系此品作「斷見品」（此註屬校本異文之標記，詳第八目）。其二，若唯就大正印本之表面品題觀之，固成「經樂說／論斷見」之二分；然逐核兩造各自完整之校勘叢集（詳第四目、第八目），其格局實為：本論一系六本中，大正、元、宋、石四本皆讀「斷見」核心，明本自題「斷見」而附記「經作斷諸見品」，唯宮本一本獨讀「樂說」，聖本此段全闕；所釋經一系六本中，唯大正底本一本讀「樂說」，宋、元、明、宮四本皆讀「斷諸見」，聖本讀「斷見」。是「斷（諸）見」實為橫跨論、經兩系、涵蓋雙方絕大多數傳本之主流讀法，「樂說」則為兩系各自唯一之少數讀（本論唯宮本、所釋經唯大正底本），且此二處少數之「樂說」讀互相一致。此一格局非「經樂說對論斷見」之表面二分所能概，本目及第四目、第八目皆全幅並存兩造之傳本讀法，不偏取支持單一論斷之一側，誌錄不判。
本品之異名復有古德之獨立印證——非二讀相斥，乃兩名並行不違。吉藏《大品經義疏》逐文疏品題行列本品三名「樂說品第十四 亦名斷耶品 亦名富樓那品」〔X24n0451 0242c22〕，其卷首品目亦著錄本品，於品題「樂說品第十四」下以夾註記其異名（斷耶品、富樓那品）〔X24n0451 0195a19〕。吉藏明釋「樂說」之所以立，云「品二人並是樂說，故立名樂說品」〔X24n0451 0242c24〕——謂本品舍利弗、須菩提二人皆欣然自願說法（樂說），故就此立名；而其別釋舍利弗一半，又云「一、人斷諸見故為大」〔X24n0451 0243a06〕——就舍利弗以「斷諸見」故名大人。是「樂說」（就二人樂於說法之姿）與「斷見」（就舍利弗所斷之邪見）分屬敘事框架與教法內容二層，古德本不視為矛盾（詳第六目）。本目及以下讀者面正文仍隨本論題稱〈斷見品〉。
本品前承〈摩訶薩品第十三〉（繫卷四十五之首），〈斷見品第十四〉即其次品，然承前品續於卷四十五之中段而下，未別起新卷，故本品品題後無「龍樹菩薩造」「鳩摩羅什奉詔譯」造譯題款（此與前〈摩訶薩品〉為卷首、有題款者相對，型態同前〈句義品〉）。本品全帙落於卷四十五之內，起品題〔T25 0384b10〕；卷四十五未於本品之末結卷，其下續入〈大莊嚴品第十五〉，故本品無卷尾題，範圍終點取次品〈大莊嚴品第十五〉起題〔T25 0385c04〕，不含。
本品經論為單卷小型品，其架構為二〈經〉二〈論〉四大塊相承（異於前〈摩訶薩品〉之一經一論、〈句義品〉之二經二論交替）——【經】①〔T25 0384b11〕、【論】①〔T25 0384b26〕、【經】②〔T25 0384c29〕、【論】②〔T25 0385b09〕，每一經論對恰對應一位發問菩薩。第一對（經①論①）明舍利弗說「斷諸見」義：【經】①（〔T25 0384b11〕起）舍利弗白佛「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」，佛許之，舍利弗即列我見、眾生見乃至轉法輪見等諸見，收於「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」〔T25 0384b18〕；須菩提問何因緣故色見是妄見，舍利弗答以無方便則於色生見、以方便力「斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」〔T25 0384b25〕。【論】①（〔T25 0384b26〕起）先以目連神通不及舍利弗智慧一事，發明舍利弗何以能於大眾而說（詳第三目），復申舍利弗所斷之三種見（人見、色相說法見、斷常有無）「無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」〔T25 0384c22〕，末以「是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」〔T25 0384c27〕收之。第二對（經②論②）明須菩提說「無等等心」義：【經】②（〔T25 0384c29〕起）須菩提白佛「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」，繼立「是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」〔T25 0385a01〕，反覆與舍利弗論此心之無漏不繫、性空、不著，收於「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」〔T25 0385b07〕。【論】②（〔T25 0385b09〕起）釋「不著」之義，以陰雲翳日月之喻明凡夫心亦無漏不繫、性空清淨（詳第三目），末以「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」〔T25 0385c02〕收全品。二段【論】皆插於所釋經之外，T223 於此二段全無對應（詳第四目）。
二、術語考
斷見（斷·諸見·動賓結構）。 本品得名主流讀法之所繫。此「斷見」非所枚舉諸見中與「常見」對舉之「斷滅見」一項（詳下條），乃「斷除〔諸〕見」之動賓結構——動詞「斷」、受詞「（諸）見」。此一動賓用法貫穿本品前半，凡四見：經①舍利弗枚舉諸見已，收於「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」〔T25 0384b18〕；經①末答須菩提之問，云「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」〔T25 0384b25〕；論①覆述須菩提之設問，作「何以為斷諸見故說法」〔T25 0384c24〕；論①收句復云「是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」〔T25 0384c27〕。是「斷見」者，菩薩以方便力斷除眾生種種邪見而為說法，故名摩訶薩，此為本品前半之骨幹術語，亦即本論題「斷見品」之經文內證。
斷見、常見（所枚舉諸見中之專名項·品名與列目之字面重合）。 品名「斷見」二字，復與經①所枚舉諸見列目中之一項相重。經①舍利弗歷數我見、眾生見、壽見、命見乃至轉法輪見等諸見，其中一項即「斷見」，與「常見」對舉，云「知者見、見者見，斷見、常見，有見、無見，陰見、入」〔T25 0384b15〕——此處「斷見」為專有名詞，特指與「常見」對舉之斷滅見（uccheda-dṛṣṭi 系），乃所應斷之一種邪見，與品名及上文「斷諸見」之動賓「斷見」用法不同。是本品「斷見」二字，於品名為「斷除諸見」之動作，於列目為「斷滅見」之一種所斷邪見，字面全同而用法有別。本目如實誌此文本內部之字面重合，不判譯者、論主是否有意為此雙關，誌錄不判。
無等等心（經②命脈之名）。 本品後半之核心術語。經②須菩提立宗，云「是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」〔T25 0385a01〕——所立三心：一者阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心（發無上菩提之心），二者無等等心（此心無與倫比而與諸佛平等，故謂「無等等」），三者不共聲聞辟支佛心（非二乘所共）。論②開宗複述此立宗而標「不著」為釋義之綱，云「須菩提說摩訶薩無等等心，於是心亦不著」〔T25 0385b09〕。是「無等等心」與「不著」二者相結，構成經②論②之義理骨幹，與經①論①之「斷諸見」骨幹相對，成本品二人二義之對稱。
不著（無等等心之修證關要）。 論②釋「不著」，云「『不著』者，是菩薩從初發心已來，不見有法定相」〔T25 0385b10〕——菩薩自初發心以來，不見諸法有生滅、增減、垢淨之定相，此心畢竟空、無有心相非心相，故雖有無等等心而不著此心。經②舍利弗與須菩提反覆論凡夫心、二乘心、諸佛心皆無漏不繫、性空，須菩提然可，明此「不著」乃就一切法性空、無所得而立，非別有一實心可執。論②末以「菩薩能觀諸法性常空，不可得空，畢竟清淨」〔T25 0385b28〕總收其義。
三、譬喻與故事
《大智度論》以譬喻與故事著稱，本品之論釋，一以目連舍利弗神通智慧懸殊之故事發明舍利弗何以堪任說法，一以陰雲翳日月之喻明凡夫心之本淨，皆繫於【論】一二兩段，為本品義理之教學命脈。
其一，目連舍利弗故事（論①·發明舍利弗何以能說）。論①先設一問——舍利弗智慧既與佛懸殊，何以敢言「我亦樂說」〔T25 0384c11〕？其答之前，先敘一事以顯舍利弗禪定智慧之深。事云佛將五百大阿羅漢至阿那婆達多龍王池，令目連召不在會之舍利弗；目連以神通力到祇洹，時舍利弗方縫衣，云「時，目連以神通力到祇洹；時，舍利弗縫衣」〔T25 0384b29〕。舍利弗欲驗目連神通，以腰帶擲地令舉，云「舍利弗見目連貴其神通，即以腰帶擲地」〔T25 0384c02〕——目連以兩手舉之不能離地，乃至入諸深定舉之，地為大動而帶猶著地。憍陳如問佛地何以大動，云「時，憍陳如問佛：『以何因緣故地大震動？』」〔T25 0384c06〕，佛答目連入甚深禪定欲舉舍利弗帶而不能。佛復告諸比丘以明二人禪定深淺懸絕，云「佛告諸比丘：『舍利弗所入出禪定，目連乃至不識其名』」〔T25 0384c08〕——舍利弗所出入之禪定，目連尚不能識其名。此一故事非為誇神通，乃明舍利弗智慧之深足以次佛而說摩訶薩義，故論以之發明經①舍利弗「我亦欲說」之堪任。
其二，陰雲翳日月喻（論②·明凡夫心本淨）。論②釋須菩提「不著」義時，舍利弗設難——非但一切智心無漏不繫，凡夫人心亦無漏不繫、性常空故，菩薩不應自高。論以喻明凡夫心之實相本淨、為客塵所翳而非所污，云「清淨不著；如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」〔T25 0385b20〕——如陰雲蔽翳日月，日月之明不為所污，喻凡夫心雖為煩惱所覆而其實相性空清淨不變。論復申諸煩惱實相與常性空心相無異，但住凡夫地則有垢淨之別，住聖人地則修無相智慧而無所分別，是凡聖心之實相一如，唯迷悟有異。
四、所釋經文
本論所牒之【經】段，與後秦鳩摩羅什譯《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》〈樂說品第十四〉〔T08 0244a18–0244c17〕逐項相承。以下逐字對位，證論所釋確係此本經文；其論釋二段插入處，尤見本品義理之骨在論不在經，且二段插入之對讀零命中。
第一組，品題異名（兩造傳本叢集全量並存）。本論〔T25 0384b10〕「大智度論釋斷見品第十四」與 T223〔T08 0244a18〕「樂說品第十四」，表面品名用字全異。然逐核兩造完整校勘（詳第八目）：本論一系六本中，大正、元、宋、石四本皆讀「斷見」核心，明本自題「斷見」而附記「經作斷諸見品」，唯宮本獨讀「樂說」，聖本闕；所釋經一系六本中，唯大正底本讀「樂說」，宋、元、明、宮四本皆讀「斷諸見」，聖本讀「斷見」。是本論明本所附之「經作斷諸見品」，正與 T223 宋元明宮四本之「斷諸見」逐字吻合，兩造獨立互證「斷（諸）見」為橫跨論經兩系之主流讀法，「樂說」則各為一系之少數讀（詳第一目）。此異名之全幅格局並存於第八目，誌錄不判。
第二組，開宗發問之「欲說」（品名「樂說」而經文本身反作「欲說」）。本論〔T25 0384b11〕經①舍利弗「世尊！我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」與 T223〔T08 0244a20〕「世尊！我亦欲說所以為摩」逐字相承——二本經文本身於此皆作「欲說」而非題名之「樂說」，本論論①覆述時方作「我亦樂說」〔T25 0384c11〕（詳第六目吉藏「二人並是樂說」之命名說明），是「樂說」一名承論釋複述之語而非承經文本文，此為本品異名之關鍵內證。
第三組，陰／蔭見之同音假借異文。本論〔T25 0384b15〕「陰見、入」與 T223〔T08 0244a25〕「蔭見、入見、界見」——本論作「陰見」、T223 作「蔭見」，陰、蔭同音假借；本論此字自身於〔T25 0385b20〕「陰雲翳日月」處宋、宮、石三本亦作「蔭」（詳第八目），與 T223 之「蔭」為全篇貫穿之同型異文，誌錄不判。
第四組，淨佛世界／國土見之詞面異讀。本論〔T25 0384b17〕「淨佛世界見」與 T223〔T08 0244a27〕「佛國土見」——本論作「淨佛世界見」、T223 作「淨佛國土見」，世界、國土同義（皆譯 lokadhātu／kṣetra 系語）；本論此字【石】本異文亦作「國土」（詳第八目），與 T223 主流讀法趨同，供譯者參考，誌錄不判。
第五組，於／得色生見之虛詞異文。本論〔T25 0384b22〕「無方便故，於色生見，用有所得故」與 T223〔T08 0244b03〕「無方便故得色生見，用有所得故」——本論作「於色生見」、T223 作「得色生見」，於、得語法層小異而義同，誌錄不判。
第六組，斷諸見／斷諸見網之詞面異讀。本論〔T25 0384b25〕「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法」與 T223〔T08 0244b06〕「便力斷諸見網故而為說法」——本論作「斷諸見」、T223 作「斷諸見網」，T223 多一「網」字（「見網」喻邪見如羅網纏縛，佛典常見複合詞），供譯者參考，誌錄不判。
第七組，論①所釋經全無對應（經論分層之中段插入）。經①舍利弗答須菩提之末句本論〔T25 0384b25〕「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」與 T223〔T08 0244b06〕逐字相承；然此句之後，本論插入整段【論】①〔T25 0384b26–0384c29〕（目連故事、三種見、無方便有方便之辨），而 T223 於「用無所得故」之後零間隔直轉須菩提發問「爾時須菩提白佛言：『世尊！我亦欲說』」〔T08 0244b07〕，於論①對應處全無一字。此為本品第一處經論分層之確證，且插入點恰落於全品之中段（異於前〈摩訶薩品〉論僅插於品末）。
第八組，從初發意已／以來、不見／終不見之雙重異文。本論〔T25 0385a07〕「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意已來，不見法有生有滅」與 T223〔T08 0244b14〕「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意以」（下句 T223 作「終不見法」）——本論作「已來」「不見」、T223 作「以來」「終不見」（多一「終」字強調語氣），已、以同音假借，誌錄不判。
第九組，本品收束句之無所得／無所有（般若核心術語層之異讀）。經②收束句本論〔T25 0385b07〕「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」與 T223〔T08 0244c15〕「不念有是心亦不著是心，用一切法無所有故。以是故，名摩訶薩」——本論作「無所得」、T223 作「無所有」。「無所得」（無有可執取者，即《般若心經》「無智亦無得」之「無得」）與「無所有」（一切法不存在）義涵側重有別，為本組對讀中最具義理分量之詞面異讀，供譯者參考，誌錄不判。
第十組，論②所釋經全無對應（經論分層之末端插入）。此句之後，本論插入整段【論】②〔T25 0385b09–0385c03〕（釋「不著」、舍利弗難詞、陰雲翳日月喻），而 T223 於經②收束句之後零間隔直轉下一品〈辯才品第十五〉〔T08 0244c17〕，於論②對應處全無一字。是本品二段【經】①②首尾相接於 T223 而構成完整、連續之樂說品經文，其疆界〔T08 0244a18–0244c17〕恰與本論二段【經】之並集精確重合；二段【論】則全落於 T223 品界之外——論①插於經①經②之間（中段插入·T223 零間隔直承），論②插於經②收束句之後（末端插入·T223 已轉入下一品）。此與前〈句義品〉二段論插入之型態全同。
第十一組，旁參異譯之品名標籤與內容不對應（方法之辨）。旁參異譯之品名標籤未必與本品內容一一對應，須逐字核內容而非徒憑標籤：無羅叉譯《放光般若經》於「摩訶薩品第十五」〔T08n0221 0019c01〕標籤之下，其緊接之經文逕作舍利弗說斷諸見，云「菩薩於諸妄見悉斷，是故名為摩訶薩」〔T08n0221 0019c03〕——其內容實對應本品〔斷見品〕舍利弗之斷見段，而非同名之前〈摩訶薩品〉，是放光之品分與本論、T223 不同步。玄奘譯《大般若波羅蜜多經》初分則將本論之品十三、品十四合為一「摩訶薩品」而不分，其舍利子、善現二人之開場句皆逕譯「我亦樂說」〔T05n0220a 0264b28〕〔T05n0220a 0265b08〕（與本論論①「我亦樂說」之複述相印，詳第六目）。此二旁參，一示品名標籤與內容不必對應，一示諸譯品分界線之編輯彈性，皆誌錄不判。
五、般若義眼
本品之眼，在以二人二義——舍利弗之「斷諸見」、須菩提之「無等等心」——共明菩薩之為摩訶薩，而其斷、其心終歸於無所得。全品二輪往復，皆繫於般若之「用無所得」一線。
其一，斷諸見之大，在方便斷見而不著所斷。經①舍利弗歷數我見乃至轉法輪見等諸見，收於「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」〔T25 0384b18〕——菩薩能為眾生斷除種種邪見而說法，故名摩訶薩。然斷見非徒破而已，其關要在「方便」與「無所得」二軸：無方便則於色等生見、用有所得故，以方便力則「斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」〔T25 0384b25〕。論①復申此諸見「無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」〔T25 0384c22〕——邪見根深難拔，故須以方便力、無所得心斷之，末歸「是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」〔T25 0384c27〕。是斷見之大，非恃能斷之功，乃以無所得心斷而不著。
其二，無等等心之大，在心與佛等而不著此心。經②須菩提立「是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」〔T25 0385a01〕——此心無與倫比而與諸佛平等，非二乘所共。然此尊貴之心亦不可自恃，其關要在「不著」：菩薩「從初發意已來，不見法有生有滅、有增有減、有垢有淨」〔T25 0385a07〕，「若法無生無滅乃至無垢無淨，是中無聲聞心」〔T25 0385a08〕乃至無佛心，是名無等等心。論②以陰雲翳日月喻明凡夫心亦無漏不繫、性空清淨（第三目），明此心之尊貴不在其相之高，乃在了達一切心性空、無所得而不著。
其三，二義同歸無所得，是般若之眼。經①收於「用無所得故」，經②收於「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」〔T25 0385b07〕（此收束句「無所得」為本論底本讀，本系餘五本作「無所有」，詳第八目），論②末歸「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」〔T25 0385c02〕——斷見一軸以無所得斷諸見，無等等一軸以不著行無等等心，二軸雖分屬二人二義，而其所歸唯在以無所得心行般若。是本品自舍利弗之斷見、須菩提之無等等心，以至於「不著」「無所得」遮其能斷之功、所貴之心，一線貫下，所歸唯在斷見而不著所斷、心貴而不著其心之般若義眼。
六、諸家異釋
古德引釋本品者，此目誌錄其所疏、所引與本品之對應，不判各家詮釋。本品古德之網：吉藏《大品經義疏》逐文直疏，其支持最豐（含品名三題並列、「二人並是樂說」之命名說明、「斷諸見／斷諸愛」二分、「三見」列目、須菩提「三心」科判）；慧影《大智度論疏》現存殘卷於本品之逐文疏付之闕如（品十三以下一大段缺），如實記無；均正《大乘四論玄義》遍檢無本品之引用，其「斷見」諸見皆義理泛用之同名陷阱；智顗諸著查無徵引。別有旁參異譯及品名同名之辨附於末段。
吉藏《大品經義疏》（X24n0451）直釋所釋經段，其支持為本品古德之最豐者。其逐文疏品題行列本品三名，云「樂說品第十四 亦名斷耶品 亦名富樓那品」〔X24n0451 0242c22〕，卷首品目亦著錄本品，於品題「樂說品第十四」下以夾註記其異名（斷耶品、富樓那品）〔X24n0451 0195a19〕——「斷耶」之「耶」為「邪」之通假，「斷耶」猶「斷邪〔見〕」，與本論「斷見」義相通而字面不全同（近義非全同，誌錄不判）；「富樓那品」則與次〈大莊嚴品〉富樓那之發問相關。其明釋「樂說」命名之由，先云「論經此品，後人望下義，富樓那說既有別品」〔X24n0451 0242c23〕，繼云「品二人並是樂說，故立名樂說品」〔X24n0451 0242c24〕——謂〔次品〕富樓那之說法既另立別品，則本品之「二人」（舍利弗、須菩提）皆屬「樂說」（欣然自願說法），故立名樂說品。其別釋二人之教法，各就一義判之，云「一、人斷諸見故為大；第二、人斷諸愛故名大人」〔X24n0451 0243a06〕——第一人（舍利弗）以「斷諸見」故為大（正對本論題「斷見」），第二人（須菩提）以「斷諸愛」故名大人（「愛」與「見」分屬惑之二類，「斷諸愛」與經②「不著」之修證主軸相應）。是吉藏於同一段落並存「樂說」（就二人樂說）與「斷（諸）見」（就舍利弗一半）二名而不視為矛盾，與本目第一目、第四目所辨之異名格局逐義相印。
吉藏復以「三見」科舍利弗所列之諸見。其判舍利弗獲許說法之由，先繫「宿世因緣」，云「二者、有人與身子宿世因緣中，其說」〔X24n0451 0243a08〕——與本論論①「以宿世因緣故，多發菩薩心」〔T25 0384c15〕用語相呼應。繼歸其諸見為三類，云「故許說也。正說中明三見」〔X24n0451 0243a11〕，復列之云「色相說法見，是世出世見也。斷常有無，是耶見」〔X24n0451 0243a12〕——將舍利弗所歷諸見歸為人見（我見至佛見等）、世出世見（色相說法見）、耶見（斷常有無）三類，正與本論論①「是三種見，無始世界來」〔T25 0384c21〕之「三種見」逐字呼應。
吉藏復以「三心」科須菩提之立宗。其總判須菩提段為五分，云「次須菩提說大人亦五：初、求說；二、許說；三、正說；四、二人判論義；五、結」〔X24n0451 0243b01〕，其正說一分復標三心，云「正說中，初標三心，次釋，三結。三心者：一、發菩提心；二、欲歎此心與佛等，如華嚴云菩提心即是佛心；三、簡明佛此心不與二乘共」〔X24n0451 0243b03〕——三心即發菩提心（對應經②「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」）、此心與佛等（對應「無等等心」，吉藏以「與佛等」訓其義）、不與二乘共（對應「不共聲聞辟支佛心」），與經②三心逐一對應。其中「如華嚴云菩提心即是佛心」乃吉藏所引《華嚴》之語為旁證，本目逐字照錄，誌錄不判，不作本目之引申。
慧影《大智度論疏》（X46n0791）之現存殘卷，於本品之逐文疏付之闕如。慧影疏原二十四卷，今存殘卷之總目至〈句義品第十二〉即告一段落，其後細目跳越品十三以下諸品而直至品三十七，故本品〔品十四〕之逐文疏落於此一大段缺口之內，於此殘卷中不存。慧影於前〈句義品〉疏內科分大段，云「就此分中復有二分，此初一品明菩薩義，次摩訶薩品明摩訶薩義」〔X46n0791 0872c06〕——此僅為慧影預告品十三（摩訶薩品）之前瞻語，指前品而非本品。別有慧影疏「蜜為菩提心位，中二為無等等心」〔X46n0791 0863a07〕一處用「無等等心」，然其上下文為六波羅蜜與三心位之對應（初波羅蜜為菩提心位、中二為無等等心位、後二為大心位），與本品經②須菩提之三心立宗語境不同，屬「無等等心」一詞於般若文獻中反覆出現之泛用，非本品之引用。是慧影對本品之逐文疏本身不存，如實誌錄，不臆稱其有。
均正《大乘四論玄義》（X46n0784）一書，本目以「斷見品」「樂說品」「斷諸見品」「斷耶品」諸品名遍檢，皆無一命中；另以「斷見」二字廣檢，得十三處，然逐字覈其上下文，皆屬十地斷惑階位論或中觀斷常二見論之泛用，與本品之斷見（斷除諸邪見）內容或品名皆無涉。試舉其二以明：一者，均正論十地斷惑，云「斷道亦十階：初地斷見諦上品，二地斷見諦中品」〔X46n0784 0557a14〕——此「斷見諦」為斷見道所斷惑之固定術語，屬十地位次論；二者，均正論中觀不落斷常，云「無言定無，無即是斷見，乃至六十二見因此而生，失於中道」〔X46n0784 0581a17〕——此「斷見」為與「常見」對舉之斷滅見，屬中觀二見論。二者皆均正自身教理之泛用，非引本品，誌此以防混。
又，本品品名及核心術語之同名，多有非引本品者，誌此以防混。其一，「斷見」二字，於十地斷惑論（斷見諦惑）與中觀斷常二見論（斷滅見）二大語境反覆出現，非本品之特有信號，必逐字核其上下文是否指本品之諸見枚舉或摩訶薩教法脈絡，方可判為本品之引用。其二，「無等等心」為般若文獻固定三心框架之常語，慧影〔X46n0791 0863a07〕、智顗《妙法蓮華經文句》「今發佛心故云發無等等心也」〔T34n1721 0629b07·〈陀羅尼品〉語境〕各見一例泛用，皆非引本品。其三，智顗諸著以本品品名及核心術語遍檢，除「無等等心」一例泛用外皆查無徵引，如實記無，不臆造。
七、互讀與承衍
本品之骨有三，皆為般若一系及後出諸疏所承。
其一，品名異名格局之承——本品「斷見／樂說」二讀並存，且兩造多數傳本共傾「斷（諸）見」，古德吉藏《大品經義疏》逐文疏品題行以三題並列「樂說品第十四 亦名斷耶品 亦名富樓那品」〔X24n0451 0242c22〕，並明釋「品二人並是樂說，故立名樂說品」〔X24n0451 0242c24〕與別釋舍利弗「一、人斷諸見故為大」〔X24n0451 0243a06〕並存於同一段落——是「樂說」（就二人樂說之敘事框架）與「斷見」（就舍利弗所斷之教法內容）二名，古德本以之為並行不違之二觀，非彼此排斥之異文。此別題之所以並立，緣本品前有舍利弗斷見一段、後有須菩提無等等心一段，經家、論家各就其一面而題之。本目誌其相承，不代為定讀，所繫諸出處皆見第六目逐字之載。
其二，斷諸見／斷諸愛與三見、三心科判之承——本品論①自設「是三種見」〔T25 0384c21〕、經②立阿耨多羅三藐三菩提等三心〔T25 0385a01〕，古德吉藏承之而立二分與二科：以「一、人斷諸見故為大；第二、人斷諸愛故名大人」〔X24n0451 0243a06〕判二人之教法，以「三見」（人見、世出世見、耶見）〔X24n0451 0243a11〕〔X24n0451 0243a12〕科舍利弗所列諸見，以「三心」（發菩提心、與佛等、不共二乘）〔X24n0451 0243b03〕科須菩提之立宗。是本品「三種見」「無等等心」之義理架構，古德以獨立之框架承而判之。本目誌其相承，不代為定讀，所繫諸出處皆見第六目逐字之載。
其三，「我亦樂說」與四人釋摩訶薩之承——本品二人皆承前〈摩訶薩品〉佛自說摩訶薩義而續說，其經文云「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」〔T25 0384b11〕，論①覆述時作「何以言『我亦樂說』」〔T25 0384c11〕——「我亦」之「亦」即承前品佛已自說之義。古德吉藏判此為「四人釋摩訶薩」（佛、舍利弗、須菩提、富樓那四人依次釋摩訶薩義）之中二人，其於前品即繫「次身子須菩提兩人共一品，故是合不離也」〔X24n0451 0242a12〕——明舍利弗、須菩提二人共此一品，可合可離。玄奘譯本更將本論品十三、品十四合為一「摩訶薩品」而其二人開場句皆逕譯「我亦樂說」〔T05n0220a 0264b28〕〔T05n0220a 0265b08〕，與本論論①之複述相印。是本品「二人續佛而說摩訶薩義」之弧位，古德以「四人釋摩訶薩」承而判之，異譯以合品譯之。本目誌其相承，不代為定讀，所繫諸出處皆見第四目、第六目逐字之載。
就本論次第言，本品論②有內部互讀之明文，係論主自繫。論②釋凡夫心本淨時，以一論主自標之喻明之，云「清淨不著；如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」〔T25 0385b20〕——「如先說」者，論主自標此陰雲翳日月之喻為其前文已說之語，於此承而用之，以明凡夫心之實相性空、雖為煩惱客塵所翳而其明不污。此喻脈之自繫，本目誌其相承，不代為定讀。
八、校本與版本說明
本品校勘可與經義相涉者，擇要如下；異本讀法並列保存，正文仍從現行底本讀法。
0384b10（品題·兩造傳本全量並存）：大智度論釋斷見品第十四【大】｜大智度論斷見品第十四【宋】｜釋斷見品第十四經作斷諸見品【明】｜大智度論第十四品釋樂說品【宮】｜摩訶般若波羅蜜斷見品第十四【石】｜〔大智度論釋斷見品第十四〕十一字－【聖】（【元】無獨立異文，從大正底本讀「斷見」）——本論一系六本中，大正、元、宋、石四本皆維持「斷見」核心用字，明本自題「斷見」而附記「經作斷諸見品」（即明本自註：所釋經作「斷諸見品」），唯宮本一本獨題「釋樂說品」，聖本此段全闕。與所釋經 T223 之品題形成對照——T223 大正底本讀「樂說」，而其宋、元、明、宮四本皆作「斷諸見」、聖本作「斷見」（T223 品題校記逐字作「樂說【大】，斷諸見【宋】【元】【明】【宮】，斷見【聖】」）。是本論明本所附「經作斷諸見品」與 T223 宋元明宮四本之「斷諸見」逐字互證，「斷（諸）見」為橫跨論、經兩系絕大多數傳本之主流讀法；「樂說」則為本論宮本、T223 大正底本各自唯一之少數讀，且二者互相一致（詳第一目、第四目第一組）。又，T223 品題行下大正本別附一校記「丹本作斷見品」六字，此註僅【大】獨有，宋元明宮聖五本皆無——即丹本（遼丹藏系）一系亦與本論同讀「斷見」。正文從底本「斷見品」。
0384b17：世界【大】｜國土【石】——「淨佛〔世界〕見」句（第四目第四組）。底本作「淨佛世界見」，石本作「淨佛國土見」，與所釋經 T223 主流讀法「國土」相合，世界、國土同義並存，誌錄不判。正文從底本「世界」。
0384c17：吾【大】｜五【聖】——「〔吾〕我心及習根本已拔」句。底本作「吾我心」，聖本作「五我心」——吾、五形近訛字，義理無涉，純屬技術性傳抄異文，誌錄不判。正文從底本「吾」。
0384c28：見【大】【聖】｜邪見等【宋】【元】【明】【宮】——「是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸〔見〕」句（第二目「斷見」動賓四見之第四例）。底本作「斷諸見」，宋、元、明、宮四本作「斷諸邪見等」——四本增「邪」字並綴「等」字，為「斷除諸邪見」之語意擴充，未改「斷（諸）見」之動賓骨幹（第二目所立），誌錄不判。正文從底本「見」。
0385a11：等等【大】｜〔－〕【聖】——「是名菩薩摩訶薩無〔等等〕心」句，觸及本品後半核心術語「無等等心」本身（第二目）。底本作「無等等心」，聖本此二字全闕（僅餘「無心」）——若非傳抄脫漏，則此句義涵將由「無等等心」變為「無心」。聖本此品於品題處亦全闕（見上0384b10），其殘缺程度較高，故此處傾判為傳抄脫漏而非有意異文，誌錄不判，不臆改。正文從底本「等等」。
0385b08：得【大】｜有【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】——「以一切法無所〔得〕故，以是故名摩訶薩」句（第四目第九組·第五目「般若之眼」所繫收束句）。底本作「無所得」，宋、元、明、宮、聖五本作「無所有」——本論六本中唯大正底本一本讀「得」，餘五本皆讀「有」，與所釋經 T223〔T08 0244c15〕「無所有」逐字互證。此「無所得／無所有」之異，其少數之懸殊（一比五）更甚於品題「樂說」之少數讀（詳第一目）；「無所得」（遮能取之得）與「無所有」（遮所取之有）於般若為相通之遮遣，同為本品斷見、無等等心兩半共歸之處，異本讀法並存，正文仍從底本「得」，誌錄不判。
0385b20：陰【大】｜蔭【宋】【宮】【石】——「如先說：〔陰〕雲翳日月」句（第三目）。底本作「陰雲」，宋、宮、石三本作「蔭雲」——陰、蔭同音假借，與所釋經 T223 之「蔭見」（第四目第三組）為全篇貫穿之同型異文，誌錄不判。正文從底本「陰」。
0385c03：（釋第十四品竟）【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】——品末收尾註「釋第十四品竟」，僅【大】獨有，宋、元、明、宮四本皆闕。此註屬印本編輯層之收束標記，非古本共見之正文文字，不計入本品正文字數。又，同一位置別有校記「四【大】｜三【石】」——石本此收尾註作「釋第十三品竟」，較大正本少一品次，是石本之卷次品次編號系統與大正本不同步，成因未強考，誌錄不判。
本品底本為《大智度論》卷四十五〔T25 0384b10–0385c04〕，本品承前〈摩訶薩品第十三〉續於卷四十五之中段，卷四十五未於本品之末結卷（續入〈大莊嚴品第十五〉），故本品無卷尾題。所釋經校本為《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》〈樂說品第十四〉〔T08 0244a18–0244c17〕（其品題丹本一系作「斷見品」，詳第一目）。旁參異譯有《放光般若經》（T08n0221·「摩訶薩品第十五」標籤下實載本品斷見內容，第四目第十一組）、玄奘《大般若波羅蜜多經》初分（T05n0220a·合本論品十三、品十四為一「摩訶薩品」）。古德疏校本為吉藏《大品經義疏》（X24n0451·釋經段，本品支持最豐），別有慧影《大智度論疏》（X46n0791·本品逐文疏缺、僅前品前瞻提及）、均正《大乘四論玄義》（X46n0784·「斷見」諸見皆義理泛用、非本品引用）。異讀校記依大正校勘，涉大正底本與宋、元、明、宮、聖、石諸本之異。本品全帙校勘記凡四十八條，詳存工作底本檔末；本表僅傳錄與本品核心義理措辭相涉之要目，不延伸為各本高下之判。
I. Structural Placement
Within the sequence in which the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa comments on the Larger Sūtra, this chapter belongs to the section of the Commentary on the Remaining Chapters and falls in the middle part of Fascicle 45. The treatise gives its own title as 「大智度論釋斷見品第十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on Cutting Off Views, the Fourteenth"〔T25 0384b10〕, and what it explains is the corresponding chapter of the Larger Sūtra.
The chapter name carries an alternative name that must first be sorted out, and the fineness of the case is the greatest of any chapter in this treatise—it cannot be exhausted by the neat dichotomy 「經作樂說、論作斷見」 tr. "the sūtra reads 'delight in speaking', the treatise reads 'cutting off views'"; neither side's cluster of witnesses leans all one way, and the majority of witnesses on both sides in fact lean together toward the 「斷（諸）見」 tr. "cutting off (all) views" line. First, the treatise's title reads 「大智度論釋斷見品第十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on Cutting Off Views, the Fourteenth"〔T25 0384b10〕, while the sūtra explained, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra translated by Kumārajīva of the Later Qin, titles the same position 「樂說品第十四」 tr. "Chapter on Delight in Speaking, the Fourteenth"〔T08 0244a18〕; beneath its title line CBETA embeds a collation note, marking that the Khitan edition line (the variant text of the Liao Khitan canon system on which the Korean canon relied) titles this chapter 「斷見品」 tr. "Chapter on Cutting Off Views" (this note is a marker of a variant reading among the witnesses; see Section VIII). Second, if one looks only at the surface chapter titles of the Taishō printed edition, there is indeed the dichotomy 「經樂說／論斷見」 tr. "the sūtra: delight in speaking / the treatise: cutting off views"; but when the complete collation clusters of both sides are checked one by one (see Sections IV and VIII), the actual configuration is this: of the six texts in the treatise line, the four of the Taishō, Yuan, Song, and Ishiyama all read the core 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views"; the Ming text titles itself 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" and appends the note 「經作斷諸見品」 tr. "the sūtra reads 'Chapter on Cutting Off All Views'"; only the Palace text alone reads 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking"; and the Shōgozō lacks this passage entirely. Of the six texts in the line of the sūtra explained, only the Taishō base text reads 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking"; the four of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace all read 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views"; and the Shōgozō reads 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views". Thus 「斷（諸）見」 tr. "cutting off (all) views" is in fact the mainstream reading, spanning both the treatise line and the sūtra line and covering the great majority of witnesses on both sides, while 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" is the single minority reading within each line (in the treatise only the Palace text, in the sūtra explained only the Taishō base text), and these two minority readings of 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" agree with each other. This configuration cannot be summed up by the surface dichotomy 「經樂說對論斷見」 tr. "the sūtra's delight in speaking against the treatise's cutting off views"; this section, together with Sections IV and VIII, keeps the witness readings of both sides side by side in full, without favouring the side that supports a single conclusion, and records them without judgement.
The chapter's alternative name also has independent confirmation from an ancient master—the two readings do not exclude each other; the two names run side by side without conflict. In his line-by-line commentary Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra lists three names for this chapter on the title line, 「樂說品第十四 亦名斷耶品 亦名富樓那品」 tr. "Chapter on Delight in Speaking, the Fourteenth; also named Chapter on Cutting Off the Deviant; also named Chapter of Pūrṇa"〔X24n0451 0242c22〕; its table of chapters at the head of the fascicles also records this chapter, noting its alternative names (Chapter on Cutting Off the Deviant, Chapter of Pūrṇa) in an interlinear note beneath the title 「樂說品第十四」 tr. "Chapter on Delight in Speaking, the Fourteenth"〔X24n0451 0195a19〕. Jizang explains expressly why 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" was established, saying 「品二人並是樂說，故立名樂說品」 tr. "the two persons of the chapter both delight in speaking, and therefore it is named the Chapter on Delight in Speaking"〔X24n0451 0242c24〕—meaning that the two persons of this chapter, Śāriputra and Subhūti, both gladly and of their own will speak the Dharma (delight in speaking), and the name is established on this basis; and in separately explaining the Śāriputra half he further says 「一、人斷諸見故為大」 tr. "first, the person is great because he cuts off all views"〔X24n0451 0243a06〕—calling Śāriputra a great person on the ground of 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views". Thus 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" (taken from the stance of the two persons delighting in speaking the Dharma) and 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" (taken from the wrong views that Śāriputra cuts off) belong respectively to two layers, the narrative frame and the content of the teaching, and the ancient master did not regard them as contradictory (see Section VI). In this section and in the reader-facing main text below, the chapter continues to be called "Cutting Off Views" after the treatise's title.
This chapter follows on from Chapter 13, "Mahāsattva" (at the head of Fascicle 45); Chapter 14, "Cutting Off Views", is its next chapter, but it continues the preceding chapter from the middle part of Fascicle 45 downward without starting a new fascicle, so after this chapter's title there is no author-and-translator colophon 「龍樹菩薩造」 tr. "composed by the bodhisattva Nāgārjuna" or 「鳩摩羅什奉詔譯」 tr. "translated by Kumārajīva by imperial order" (in contrast to the preceding "Mahāsattva", which heads a fascicle and has the colophon; the pattern is the same as the earlier "The Meaning of the Phrase"). The whole of this chapter falls within Fascicle 45, starting from the chapter title〔T25 0384b10〕; Fascicle 45 does not close at the end of this chapter, and below it continues into Chapter 15, "The Great Adornment", so this chapter has no fascicle-end title, and the end point of its range is taken as the opening title of the next chapter, Chapter 15, "The Great Adornment"〔T25 0385c04〕, not included.
The sūtra and treatise of this chapter form a small chapter within a single fascicle, structured as four major blocks, two Sūtra and two Treatise, in succession (unlike the preceding "Mahāsattva", with one Sūtra and one Treatise, or "The Meaning of the Phrase", with two Sūtra and two Treatise sections alternating)—Sūtra ①〔T25 0384b11〕, Treatise ①〔T25 0384b26〕, Sūtra ②〔T25 0384c29〕, Treatise ②〔T25 0385b09〕, each Sūtra-and-Treatise pair corresponding exactly to one questioning bodhisattva. The first pair (Sūtra ① and Treatise ①) makes clear the meaning of 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" as spoken by Śāriputra: in Sūtra ① (from〔T25 0384b11〕) Śāriputra addresses the Buddha, 「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」 tr. "I too wish to speak of why one is a mahāsattva"; the Buddha permits it, and Śāriputra lists the views—the view of self, the view of beings, and so on down to the view of turning the Dharma wheel—gathering them up in 「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」 tr. "in order to cut off such views one teaches the Dharma; this is called a mahāsattva"〔T25 0384b18〕; Subhūti asks for what cause and condition the view of form is a false view, and Śāriputra answers that without skilful means one gives rise to views regarding form, whereas by the power of skilful means one 「斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」 tr. "cuts off all views and so teaches the Dharma, by means of there being nothing to be attained"〔T25 0384b25〕. Treatise ① (from〔T25 0384b26〕) first uses the incident in which Maudgalyāyana's supernormal powers fell short of Śāriputra's wisdom to bring out why Śāriputra is able to speak before the great assembly (see Section III); it then sets out the three kinds of views that Śāriputra cuts off (the view of persons, the views of form-marks and of teaching the Dharma, and annihilation, permanence, existence, and non-existence), which 「無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」 tr. "since the beginningless world, habitual attachment to them has entered into the marrow"〔T25 0384c22〕, and at the end gathers this up with 「是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」 tr. "this bodhisattva, though he contemplates form, does not give rise to false views, and is able to cut off all views"〔T25 0384c27〕. The second pair (Sūtra ② and Treatise ②) makes clear the meaning of 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled" as spoken by Subhūti: in Sūtra ② (from〔T25 0384c29〕) Subhūti addresses the Buddha, 「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」 tr. "I too wish to speak of why one is a mahāsattva", and goes on to set forth 「是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」 tr. "this mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"〔T25 0385a01〕; he discusses back and forth with Śāriputra this mind's being undefiled and unbound, empty by nature, and not clung to, gathering it up in 「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」 tr. "because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained; for this reason one is called a mahāsattva"〔T25 0385b07〕. Treatise ② (from〔T25 0385b09〕) explains the meaning of 「不著」 tr. "not clinging", using the simile of dark clouds veiling the sun and moon to make clear that the mind of the ordinary person too is undefiled and unbound, empty by nature and pure (see Section III), and at the end gathers up the whole chapter with 「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "can swiftly reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"〔T25 0385c02〕. Both Treatise sections are inserted outside the sūtra explained; T223 has no correspondence whatever to these two sections (see Section IV).
II. Terms Examined
Cutting off views (cutting off · all views · verb–object construction). This is what the mainstream reading of the chapter name hangs on. This 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" is not the item among the views enumerated that is paired with 「常見」 tr. "the eternalism view", namely 「斷滅見」 tr. "the annihilation view" (see the next entry); it is the verb–object construction 「斷除〔諸〕見」 tr. "cutting off 〔all〕 views"—the verb 「斷」 tr. "cut off" and the object 「（諸）見」 tr. "(all) views". This verb–object usage runs through the first half of the chapter and appears four times: in Sūtra ①, having enumerated the views, Śāriputra gathers them up in 「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」 tr. "in order to cut off such views one teaches the Dharma; this is called a mahāsattva"〔T25 0384b18〕; at the end of Sūtra ①, answering Subhūti's question, he says 「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」 tr. "by the power of skilful means one cuts off all views and so teaches the Dharma, by means of there being nothing to be attained"〔T25 0384b25〕; Treatise ①, restating Subhūti's question, has 「何以為斷諸見故說法」 tr. "why does one teach the Dharma in order to cut off all views?"〔T25 0384c24〕; and the closing sentence of Treatise ① again says 「是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」 tr. "this bodhisattva, though he contemplates form, does not give rise to false views, and is able to cut off all views"〔T25 0384c27〕. Thus 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" means that the bodhisattva, by the power of skilful means, cuts off beings' various wrong views and teaches the Dharma for them, and is therefore called a mahāsattva. This is the backbone term of the chapter's first half, and it is also the internal evidence in the sūtra text for the treatise's title, 「斷見品」 tr. "Chapter on Cutting Off Views".
The annihilation view and the eternalism view (proper items among the views enumerated · the literal overlap between the chapter name and the list). The two characters 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views / annihilation view" of the chapter name also coincide with one item in the list of views enumerated in Sūtra ①. In Sūtra ① Śāriputra counts off the views—the view of self, the view of beings, the view of a life-span, the view of a life, and so on down to the view of turning the Dharma wheel—and one item among them is precisely 「斷見」 tr. "the annihilation view", paired with 「常見」 tr. "the eternalism view": 「知者見、見者見，斷見、常見，有見、無見，陰見、入」 tr. "the view of a knower, the view of a seer; the annihilation view, the eternalism view; the view of existence, the view of non-existence; the view of the aggregates, of the sense-fields"〔T25 0384b15〕—here 「斷見」 tr. "the annihilation view" is a proper term, meaning specifically the view of annihilation paired with 「常見」 tr. "the eternalism view" (of the uccheda-dṛṣṭi type), one kind of wrong view that is to be cut off, and its usage differs from that of the chapter name and of the verb–object sense in 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" above, 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views". Thus the two characters 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views / annihilation view" in this chapter are, in the chapter name, the act of 「斷除諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views", and in the list, 「斷滅見」 tr. "the annihilation view", one kind of wrong view to be cut off: identical in letter, different in usage. This section records this internal literal overlap in the text as it is, and does not judge whether the translator or the treatise-author intended the double meaning; it records without judgement.
The mind equal to the unequalled (the name that is the lifeline of Sūtra ②). This is the core term of the chapter's second half. In Sūtra ② Subhūti sets forth his thesis, saying 「是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」 tr. "this mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"〔T25 0385a01〕—three minds are set forth: first, the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi (the mind that arouses unsurpassed awakening); second, the mind equal to the unequalled (this mind has no peer, yet is equal to all the Buddhas, and so is called 「無等等」 tr. "equal to the unequalled"); third, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas (not held in common by the two vehicles). Treatise ②, opening its exposition, restates this thesis and marks 「不著」 tr. "not clinging" as the guiding thread of its explanation, saying 「須菩提說摩訶薩無等等心，於是心亦不著」 tr. "Subhūti speaks of the mahāsattva's mind equal to the unequalled; toward this mind too he does not cling"〔T25 0385b09〕. Thus 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled" and 「不著」 tr. "not clinging" are bound together, forming the doctrinal backbone of Sūtra ② and Treatise ②, set over against the backbone of 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" in Sūtra ① and Treatise ①, and making up the symmetry of two persons and two meanings in this chapter.
Not clinging (the crux of practice and realisation of the mind equal to the unequalled). Treatise ② explains 「不著」 tr. "not clinging", saying 「『不著』者，是菩薩從初發心已來，不見有法定相」 tr. "'not clinging' means that this bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the mind onward, does not see any dharma as having a fixed mark"〔T25 0385b10〕—since the first arousing of the mind the bodhisattva does not see dharmas as having fixed marks of arising and ceasing, increasing and decreasing, defilement and purity; this mind is ultimately empty, having neither the mark of mind nor the mark of non-mind, and so, though he has the mind equal to the unequalled, he does not cling to this mind. In Sūtra ② Śāriputra and Subhūti discuss back and forth that the mind of the ordinary person, the minds of the two vehicles, and the minds of the Buddhas are all undefiled and unbound and empty by nature, and Subhūti assents, making clear that this 「不著」 tr. "not clinging" is established on the emptiness by nature of all dharmas and on there being nothing to be attained, not on some separate real mind that could be grasped. Treatise ② ends by gathering up its meaning in 「菩薩能觀諸法性常空，不可得空，畢竟清淨」 tr. "the bodhisattva is able to contemplate that the nature of all dharmas is always empty, empty as unfindable, ultimately pure"〔T25 0385b28〕.
III. Similes and Stories
The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa is renowned for its similes and stories. In the treatise's exposition of this chapter, the story of the gulf between the supernormal powers of Maudgalyāyana and the wisdom of Śāriputra brings out why Śāriputra is fit to speak the Dharma, and the simile of dark clouds veiling the sun and moon makes clear the original purity of the ordinary person's mind; both belong to the two Treatise sections, ① and ②, and are the teaching lifeline of the chapter's doctrine.
First, the story of Maudgalyāyana and Śāriputra (Treatise ① · bringing out why Śāriputra is able to speak). Treatise ① first poses a question—since Śāriputra's wisdom is so far from the Buddha's, how does he dare to say 「我亦樂說」 tr. "I too delight in speaking"〔T25 0384c11〕? Before answering, it first narrates an incident to show the depth of Śāriputra's meditative absorption and wisdom. The account says that the Buddha took five hundred great arhats to the pool of the dragon king Anavatapta and had Maudgalyāyana summon Śāriputra, who was not in the assembly; Maudgalyāyana reached the Jetavana by his supernormal power while Śāriputra was sewing a robe: 「時，目連以神通力到祇洹；時，舍利弗縫衣」 tr. "At that time Maudgalyāyana, by the power of his supernormal powers, reached the Jetavana; at that time Śāriputra was sewing a robe"〔T25 0384b29〕. Wishing to test Maudgalyāyana's supernormal powers, Śāriputra threw his waist-sash on the ground and had him lift it: 「舍利弗見目連貴其神通，即以腰帶擲地」 tr. "Śāriputra, seeing that Maudgalyāyana prized his supernormal powers, at once threw his waist-sash on the ground"〔T25 0384c02〕—Maudgalyāyana lifted it with both hands but could not raise it from the ground, and even when he entered deep absorptions and lifted it, the earth shook greatly and the sash still clung to the ground. Kauṇḍinya asked the Buddha why the earth shook so greatly: 「時，憍陳如問佛：『以何因緣故地大震動？』」 tr. "At that time Kauṇḍinya asked the Buddha: 'For what cause and condition does the earth shake greatly?'"〔T25 0384c06〕; the Buddha answered that Maudgalyāyana had entered a very deep meditative absorption wishing to lift Śāriputra's sash, and could not. The Buddha further told the monks, to make clear the vast gulf in depth between the two men's absorptions: 「佛告諸比丘：『舍利弗所入出禪定，目連乃至不識其名』」 tr. "The Buddha told the monks: 'Of the meditative absorptions that Śāriputra enters and leaves, Maudgalyāyana does not even know the names'"〔T25 0384c08〕—the absorptions that Śāriputra leaves and enters, Maudgalyāyana cannot even recognise by name. This story is not told to vaunt supernormal powers; it makes clear that the depth of Śāriputra's wisdom is enough for him to speak the meaning of the mahāsattva next after the Buddha, and so the treatise uses it to bring out Śāriputra's fitness for his 「我亦欲說」 tr. "I too wish to speak" in Sūtra ①.
Second, the simile of dark clouds veiling the sun and moon (Treatise ② · making clear the original purity of the ordinary person's mind). When Treatise ② explains Subhūti's meaning of 「不著」 tr. "not clinging", Śāriputra raises a difficulty—not only is the mind of omniscience undefiled and unbound; the mind of the ordinary person too is undefiled and unbound, because its nature is always empty, so the bodhisattva should not exalt himself. The treatise uses a simile to make clear that the real mark of the ordinary person's mind is originally pure, veiled but not defiled by adventitious dust: 「清淨不著；如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」 tr. "pure and not clinging; as said before: dark clouds veil the sun and moon but cannot defile the sun and moon"〔T25 0385b20〕—just as dark clouds cover and veil the sun and moon while the brightness of the sun and moon is not defiled by them, so the mind of the ordinary person, though covered by afflictions, has a real mark, empty by nature and pure, that does not change. The treatise further sets out that the real mark of the afflictions is no different from the mark of the mind that is always empty by nature; it is only that one who dwells on the ground of the ordinary person has the distinction of defilement and purity, while one who dwells on the ground of the noble ones cultivates signless wisdom and makes no discriminations. Thus the real mark of the ordinary and the noble mind is one and the same; only delusion and awakening differ.
IV. The Sūtra Passage Explained
The Sūtra sections cited by this treatise follow item by item Chapter 14, "Delight in Speaking", of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra translated by Kumārajīva of the Later Qin〔T08 0244a18–0244c17〕. Below, the texts are aligned word by word, proving that what the treatise explains is indeed the sūtra text of this recension; at the two places where Treatise sections are inserted, especially, one sees that the bones of this chapter's doctrine lie in the treatise and not in the sūtra, and the comparison for both insertions finds nothing.
The first group: the alternative chapter names (the witness clusters of both sides kept side by side in full). The treatise's 「大智度論釋斷見品第十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on Cutting Off Views, the Fourteenth"〔T25 0384b10〕 and T223's 「樂說品第十四」 tr. "Chapter on Delight in Speaking, the Fourteenth"〔T08 0244a18〕 differ entirely in the wording of their surface chapter names. But when the complete collations of both sides are checked one by one (see Section VIII): of the six texts in the treatise line, the four of the Taishō, Yuan, Song, and Ishiyama all read the core 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views"; the Ming text titles itself 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" and appends the note 「經作斷諸見品」 tr. "the sūtra reads 'Chapter on Cutting Off All Views'"; only the Palace text alone reads 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking"; and the Shōgozō is lacking. Of the six texts in the line of the sūtra explained, only the Taishō base text reads 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking"; the four of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace all read 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views"; and the Shōgozō reads 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views". Thus the note appended by the Ming text of the treatise, 「經作斷諸見品」 tr. "the sūtra reads 'Chapter on Cutting Off All Views'", agrees word for word with the 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace texts of T223; the two sides independently attest each other that 「斷（諸）見」 tr. "cutting off (all) views" is the mainstream reading spanning both the treatise and sūtra lines, while 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" is in each line a minority reading (see Section I). The full configuration of these alternative names is kept side by side in Section VIII, recorded without judgement.
The second group: the 「欲說」 tr. "wish to speak" of the opening question (the chapter is named 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking", yet the sūtra text itself reads 「欲說」 tr. "wish to speak"). The treatise's Sūtra ①, where Śāriputra says 「世尊！我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」 tr. "World-Honored One! I too wish to speak of why one is a mahāsattva"〔T25 0384b11〕, follows T223's 「世尊！我亦欲說所以為摩」 tr. "World-Honored One! I too wish to speak of why one is a mahā-"〔T08 0244a20〕 word for word—in both texts the sūtra wording itself here reads 「欲說」 tr. "wish to speak", not the 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" of the title; only when Treatise ① restates it does the treatise read 「我亦樂說」 tr. "I too delight in speaking"〔T25 0384c11〕 (see Jizang's explanation of the naming in Section VI, 「二人並是樂說」 tr. "the two persons both delight in speaking"). Thus the name 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" follows the wording of the treatise's restatement and not the sūtra text proper; this is the key internal evidence for the chapter's alternative name.
The third group: the variant 'aggregate' / 'shade' by phonetic loan. The treatise's 「陰見、入」 tr. "the view of the aggregates, of the sense-fields"〔T25 0384b15〕 and T223's 「蔭見、入見、界見」 tr. "the view of the aggregates, the view of the sense-fields, the view of the elements"〔T08 0244a25〕—the treatise reads 「陰見」 tr. "the view of the aggregates" and T223 reads 「蔭見」 tr. "the view of the aggregates" (written with the character for 'shade'); the two characters are phonetic loans of the same sound. The same character of the treatise itself, at 「陰雲翳日月」 tr. "dark clouds veil the sun and moon"〔T25 0385b20〕, is also read 「蔭」 tr. "shade" in the Song, Palace, and Ishiyama texts (see Section VIII); together with T223's 「蔭」 tr. "shade", this is a variant of the same type running through the whole chapter, recorded without judgement.
The fourth group: the verbal variant between 'purifying buddha-worlds' and 'buddha-lands' in the view. The treatise's 「淨佛世界見」 tr. "the view of purifying buddha-worlds"〔T25 0384b17〕 and T223's 「佛國土見」 tr. "-ing buddha-lands"〔T08 0244a27〕—the treatise reads 「淨佛世界見」 tr. "the view of purifying buddha-worlds" and T223 reads 「淨佛國土見」 tr. "the view of purifying buddha-lands"; 'world' and 'land' are synonymous (both render terms of the lokadhātu/kṣetra family). The 【石】 variant of this word in the treatise also reads 「國土」 tr. "land" (see Section VIII), converging with T223's mainstream reading; it is offered for the translator's reference and recorded without judgement.
The fifth group: the particle variant 'regarding' / 'gets' in giving rise to views of form. The treatise's 「無方便故，於色生見，用有所得故」 tr. "because of lacking skilful means, one gives rise to views regarding form, by means of there being something to be attained"〔T25 0384b22〕 and T223's 「無方便故得色生見，用有所得故」 tr. "because of lacking skilful means one gets form and gives rise to views, by means of there being something to be attained"〔T08 0244b03〕—the treatise reads 「於色生見」 tr. "gives rise to views regarding form" and T223 reads 「得色生見」 tr. "gets form and gives rise to views"; 'regarding' and 'gets' differ slightly at the grammatical level but agree in meaning, recorded without judgement.
The sixth group: the verbal variant 'cutting off all views' / 'cutting off the net of all views'. The treatise's 「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法」 tr. "by the power of skilful means one cuts off all views and so teaches the Dharma"〔T25 0384b25〕 and T223's 「便力斷諸見網故而為說法」 tr. "-ful means cuts off the net of all views and so teaches the Dharma"〔T08 0244b06〕—the treatise reads 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" and T223 reads 「斷諸見網」 tr. "cutting off the net of all views", T223 having one more character, 「網」 tr. "net" (「見網」 tr. "the net of views" likens wrong views to a net that entangles and binds, a compound common in the Buddhist scriptures); it is offered for the translator's reference and recorded without judgement.
The seventh group: Treatise ① has no correspondence at all in the sūtra explained (the insertion in the middle, a sign of the layering of sūtra and treatise). The closing sentence of Śāriputra's answer to Subhūti in Sūtra ①, the treatise's 「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」 tr. "by the power of skilful means one cuts off all views and so teaches the Dharma, by means of there being nothing to be attained"〔T25 0384b25〕, follows T223〔T08 0244b06〕 word for word; but after this sentence the treatise inserts the whole of Treatise ①〔T25 0384b26–0384c29〕 (the story of Maudgalyāyana, the three kinds of views, the distinction between lacking and having skilful means), whereas T223, after 「用無所得故」 tr. "by means of there being nothing to be attained", turns with no interval directly to Subhūti's question, 「爾時須菩提白佛言：『世尊！我亦欲說』」 tr. "At that time Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying: 'World-Honored One! I too wish to speak'"〔T08 0244b07〕, and has not a single word corresponding to Treatise ①. This is the first sure proof in this chapter of the layering of sūtra and treatise, and the point of insertion falls precisely in the middle of the chapter (unlike the preceding "Mahāsattva", where the treatise is inserted only at the end of the chapter).
The eighth group: the double variant 'since' / 'from … onward' and 'does not see' / 'never sees', in 'from the first arousing of intent'. The treatise's 「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意已來，不見法有生有滅」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, from the first arousing of intent onward, does not see dharmas as having arising or ceasing"〔T25 0385a07〕 and T223's 「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意以」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, from the first arousing of intent on-"〔T08 0244b14〕 (where in the following clause T223 reads 「終不見法」 tr. "never sees dharmas")—the treatise reads 「已來」 tr. "onward" and 「不見」 tr. "does not see", and T223 reads 「以來」 tr. "onward" and 「終不見」 tr. "never sees" (with one more character, 「終」 tr. "ever", strengthening the tone); the two characters for 'onward' are phonetic loans of the same sound, recorded without judgement.
The ninth group: the variant 'nothing to be attained' / 'nothing existent' in the chapter's closing sentence (a variant at the level of the core terms of prajñā). The closing sentence of Sūtra ②, the treatise's 「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」 tr. "because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained; for this reason one is called a mahāsattva"〔T25 0385b07〕, and T223's 「不念有是心亦不著是心，用一切法無所有故。以是故，名摩訶薩」 tr. "does not think that there is this mind, nor cling to this mind, because in all dharmas there is nothing existent. For this reason one is called a mahāsattva"〔T08 0244c15〕—the treatise reads 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" and T223 reads 「無所有」 tr. "nothing existent". 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" (there is nothing that can be grasped and attained, that is, in the Heart Sūtra's 「無智亦無得」 tr. "no wisdom and also no attainment", the 「無得」 tr. "no attainment") and 「無所有」 tr. "nothing existent" (all dharmas do not exist) differ in the emphasis of their meaning; this is the verbal variant of greatest doctrinal weight in this group's comparison, offered for the translator's reference and recorded without judgement.
The tenth group: Treatise ② has no correspondence at all in the sūtra explained (the insertion at the end, a sign of the layering of sūtra and treatise). After this sentence the treatise inserts the whole of Treatise ②〔T25 0385b09–0385c03〕 (the explanation of 「不著」 tr. "not clinging", Śāriputra's objection, the simile of dark clouds veiling the sun and moon), whereas T223, after the closing sentence of Sūtra ②, turns with no interval directly to the next chapter, Chapter 15, "Eloquence"〔T08 0244c17〕, and has not a single word corresponding to Treatise ②. Thus the two Sūtra sections of this chapter, ① and ②, join end to end in T223 to form the complete, continuous sūtra text of the Chapter on Delight in Speaking, and its boundaries〔T08 0244a18–0244c17〕 coincide exactly with the union of the treatise's two Sūtra sections; the two Treatise sections fall wholly outside the chapter boundaries of T223—Treatise ① inserted between Sūtra ① and Sūtra ② (an insertion in the middle · T223 follows on with no interval), Treatise ② inserted after the closing sentence of Sūtra ② (an insertion at the end · T223 has already turned to the next chapter). This is exactly the same pattern as the insertion of the two Treatise sections in the earlier "The Meaning of the Phrase".
The eleventh group: the chapter-name labels of the parallel translations do not correspond to their content (a distinction of method). The chapter-name labels of the parallel translations do not necessarily correspond one to one with this chapter's content; one must check the content word by word rather than rely on the labels alone. In the Emission of Light Prajñāpāramitā translated by Wuluocha, under the label 「摩訶薩品第十五」 tr. "Chapter on the Mahāsattva, the Fifteenth"〔T08n0221 0019c01〕, the sūtra text that immediately follows has Śāriputra speaking directly of cutting off all views, saying 「菩薩於諸妄見悉斷，是故名為摩訶薩」 tr. "the bodhisattva cuts off all false views entirely; therefore he is called a mahāsattva"〔T08n0221 0019c03〕—its content actually corresponds to Śāriputra's section on cutting off views in this chapter 〔"Cutting Off Views"〕, and not to the earlier chapter of the same name, "Mahāsattva"; so the chapter division of the Emission of Light is out of step with this treatise and with T223. The First Assembly of Xuanzang's translation, the Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, merges this treatise's Chapters 13 and 14 into a single 「摩訶薩品」 tr. "Chapter on the Mahāsattva" without division, and the opening sentences of its two persons, Śāriputra and Subhūti (named there Śāriputra and Good Appearance), are both rendered directly as 「我亦樂說」 tr. "I too delight in speaking"〔T05n0220a 0264b28〕〔T05n0220a 0265b08〕 (matching the restatement 「我亦樂說」 tr. "I too delight in speaking" in this treatise's Treatise ①; see Section VI). Of these two parallels, one shows that chapter-name labels need not correspond to content, and the other shows the editorial flexibility of the chapter boundaries among the translations; both are recorded without judgement.
V. The Prajñā Eye
The eye of this chapter lies in making clear, through two persons and two meanings—Śāriputra's 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" and Subhūti's 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled"—together what makes a bodhisattva a mahāsattva, while the cutting off and the mind finally return to there being nothing to be attained. The two rounds of back-and-forth in the whole chapter both hang on the single thread of prajñā's 「用無所得」 tr. "by means of there being nothing to be attained".
First, the greatness of cutting off all views lies in cutting off views with skilful means without clinging to what is cut off. In Sūtra ① Śāriputra counts off the views, from the view of self down to the view of turning the Dharma wheel, gathering them up in 「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」 tr. "in order to cut off such views one teaches the Dharma; this is called a mahāsattva"〔T25 0384b18〕—the bodhisattva is able to teach the Dharma in order to cut off beings' various wrong views, and so is called a mahāsattva. Yet cutting off views is not mere refutation; its crux lies on two axes, 「方便」 tr. "skilful means" and 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained": without skilful means one gives rise to views regarding form and the rest, by means of there being something to be attained; with the power of skilful means one 「斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」 tr. "cuts off all views and so teaches the Dharma, by means of there being nothing to be attained"〔T25 0384b25〕. Treatise ① further sets out that these views, 「無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」 tr. "since the beginningless world, habitual attachment to them has entered into the marrow"〔T25 0384c22〕—wrong views are deep-rooted and hard to pull out, and so must be cut off with the power of skilful means and a mind of nothing to be attained—and ends by returning to 「是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」 tr. "this bodhisattva, though he contemplates form, does not give rise to false views, and is able to cut off all views"〔T25 0384c27〕. Thus the greatness of cutting off views does not rely on the merit of being able to cut off; it lies in cutting off with a mind of nothing to be attained, and not clinging.
Second, the greatness of the mind equal to the unequalled lies in the mind's being equal to the Buddha's while not clinging to this mind. In Sūtra ② Subhūti sets forth 「是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」 tr. "this mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"〔T25 0385a01〕—this mind has no peer yet is equal to all the Buddhas, and is not held in common by the two vehicles. Yet this honoured mind too may not be relied upon for oneself; its crux lies in 「不著」 tr. "not clinging": the bodhisattva, 「從初發意已來，不見法有生有滅、有增有減、有垢有淨」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent onward, does not see dharmas as having arising or ceasing, increase or decrease, defilement or purity"〔T25 0385a07〕; 「若法無生無滅乃至無垢無淨，是中無聲聞心」 tr. "if a dharma has no arising and no ceasing, down to without stain and without purity, within it there is no śrāvaka mind"〔T25 0385a08〕, down to no buddha-mind; this is called the mind equal to the unequalled. Treatise ② uses the simile of dark clouds veiling the sun and moon to make clear that the mind of the ordinary person too is undefiled and unbound, empty by nature and pure (Section III), making clear that the honour of this mind does not lie in the height of its mark, but in penetrating that every mind is empty by nature and that there is nothing to be attained, and so not clinging.
Third, the two meanings return alike to nothing to be attained; this is the eye of prajñā. Sūtra ① closes with 「用無所得故」 tr. "by means of there being nothing to be attained"; Sūtra ② closes with 「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」 tr. "because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained; for this reason one is called a mahāsattva"〔T25 0385b07〕 (the 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" of this closing sentence is the reading of this treatise's base text; the other five texts of this line read 「無所有」 tr. "nothing existent"; see Section VIII); and Treatise ② ends by returning to 「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "can swiftly reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"〔T25 0385c02〕—the axis of cutting off views cuts off all views by means of there being nothing to be attained, and the axis of the unequalled practises the mind equal to the unequalled by not clinging; though the two axes belong to two persons and two meanings, where they return is only this: practising prajñā with a mind of nothing to be attained. Thus in this chapter, from Śāriputra's cutting off views and Subhūti's mind equal to the unequalled, down to 「不著」 tr. "not clinging" and 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained", which bar the merit of being able to cut off and the mind that is honoured, one thread runs through, and where it returns is only the prajñā eye of cutting off views without clinging to what is cut off, and of the mind's being honoured without clinging to that mind.
VI. Divergent Readings of the Masters
For the ancient masters who cite and explain this chapter, this section records the correspondence between what they comment on or cite and this chapter, and does not judge the interpretations of the masters. The network of ancient masters for this chapter: Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra comments directly, passage by passage, and its support is the richest (including the three titles set side by side for the chapter name, the explanation of the naming, 「二人並是樂說」 tr. "the two persons both delight in speaking", the twofold division 「斷諸見／斷諸愛」 tr. "cutting off all views / cutting off all cravings", the listing of the 「三見」 tr. "three views", and the outline of Subhūti's 「三心」 tr. "three minds"); the surviving fragmentary fascicles of Huiying's Commentary lack any line-by-line commentary on this chapter (a large lacuna from Chapter 13 onward), recorded as absent as it is; Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises, searched throughout, has no citation of this chapter, and its 「斷見」 tr. "annihilation view" occurrences are all the same-name trap of general doctrinal usage; and for Zhiyi's works, no citation was found. There is also a separate discussion of the parallel translations and of same-name chapter titles, appended in the last paragraph.
Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra (X24n0451) directly explains the sūtra sections explained, and its support is the richest among the ancient masters for this chapter. In his line-by-line commentary he lists three names for this chapter on the title line, saying 「樂說品第十四 亦名斷耶品 亦名富樓那品」 tr. "Chapter on Delight in Speaking, the Fourteenth; also named Chapter on Cutting Off the Deviant; also named Chapter of Pūrṇa"〔X24n0451 0242c22〕; the table of chapters at the head of the fascicles also records this chapter, noting its alternative names (Chapter on Cutting Off the Deviant, Chapter of Pūrṇa) in an interlinear note beneath the title 「樂說品第十四」 tr. "Chapter on Delight in Speaking, the Fourteenth"〔X24n0451 0195a19〕—of 「斷耶」 tr. "cutting off the deviant", the 「耶」 tr. "deviant" is a loan for 「邪」 tr. "deviant", so that 「斷耶」 tr. "cutting off the deviant" is like 「斷邪〔見〕」 tr. "cutting off deviant 〔views〕", related in meaning to the treatise's 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" but not wholly identical in letter (near in meaning, not identical; recorded without judgement); and 「富樓那品」 tr. "Chapter of Pūrṇa" relates to Pūrṇa's question in the next chapter, "The Great Adornment". He expressly explains the reason for the name 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking", first saying 「論經此品，後人望下義，富樓那說既有別品」 tr. "as for this chapter of the sūtra the treatise explains, later people looked to the meaning below: since Pūrṇa's speaking already has a separate chapter"〔X24n0451 0242c23〕, and then saying 「品二人並是樂說，故立名樂說品」 tr. "the two persons of the chapter both delight in speaking, and therefore it is named the Chapter on Delight in Speaking"〔X24n0451 0242c24〕—meaning that since Pūrṇa's speaking 〔in the next chapter〕 was set up as a separate chapter, the 「二人」 tr. "two persons" of this chapter (Śāriputra and Subhūti) both belong to 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" (gladly and of their own will speaking the Dharma), and so it is named the Chapter on Delight in Speaking. In separately explaining the teachings of the two persons, he judges each by one meaning, saying 「一、人斷諸見故為大；第二、人斷諸愛故名大人」 tr. "first, the person is great because he cuts off all views; second, the person is called a great person because he cuts off all cravings"〔X24n0451 0243a06〕—the first person (Śāriputra) is great because of 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" (corresponding exactly to the treatise's title, 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views"), and the second person (Subhūti) is called a great person because of 「斷諸愛」 tr. "cutting off all cravings" (「愛」 tr. "craving" and 「見」 tr. "views" belong to two classes of delusion, and 「斷諸愛」 tr. "cutting off all cravings" corresponds to the main axis of practice and realisation, 「不著」 tr. "not clinging", in Sūtra ②). Thus in one and the same passage Jizang keeps side by side the two names 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" (on account of the two persons' delight in speaking) and 「斷（諸）見」 tr. "cutting off (all) views" (on account of the Śāriputra half) and does not regard them as contradictory, matching point for point the configuration of alternative names discussed in Sections I and IV.
Jizang further outlines the views listed by Śāriputra as 「三見」 tr. "three views". In judging why Śāriputra was permitted to speak the Dharma, he first ties it to 「宿世因緣」 tr. "past-life causes and conditions", saying 「二者、有人與身子宿世因緣中，其說」 tr. "second, there are people who, in past-life causes and conditions with Śāriputra, his speaking"〔X24n0451 0243a08〕—echoing in wording the treatise's Treatise ①, 「以宿世因緣故，多發菩薩心」 tr. "because of past-life causes and conditions, many aroused the bodhisattva mind"〔T25 0384c15〕. He then assigns the views to three classes, saying 「故許說也。正說中明三見」 tr. "therefore he is permitted to speak. Within the main teaching, three views are made clear"〔X24n0451 0243a11〕, and lists them again, saying 「色相說法見，是世出世見也。斷常有無，是耶見」 tr. "the views of form-marks and of teaching the Dharma are worldly and world-transcending views. Annihilation, permanence, existence, and non-existence are deviant views"〔X24n0451 0243a12〕—assigning the views that Śāriputra runs through to three classes: the view of persons (from the view of self to the view of the Buddha and so on), worldly and world-transcending views (the views of form-marks and of teaching the Dharma), and deviant views (annihilation, permanence, existence, and non-existence); this echoes word for word the treatise's Treatise ①, 「是三種見，無始世界來」 tr. "these three kinds of views, since the beginningless world"〔T25 0384c21〕, in its 「三種見」 tr. "three kinds of views".
Jizang further outlines Subhūti's thesis as 「三心」 tr. "three minds". He divides the Subhūti section as a whole into five parts, saying 「次須菩提說大人亦五：初、求說；二、許說；三、正說；四、二人判論義；五、結」 tr. "next, Subhūti's speaking of the great person also has five parts: first, requesting to speak; second, permission to speak; third, the main teaching; fourth, the two persons discussing and judging the meaning; fifth, the conclusion"〔X24n0451 0243b01〕, and within the main-teaching part he again marks the three minds, saying 「正說中，初標三心，次釋，三結。三心者：一、發菩提心；二、欲歎此心與佛等，如華嚴云菩提心即是佛心；三、簡明佛此心不與二乘共」 tr. "within the main teaching, first the three minds are marked, next explained, third concluded. The three minds: first, arousing the mind of awakening; second, wishing to praise this mind as equal to the Buddha's, as the Flower Adornment Sūtra says, the mind of awakening is the buddha-mind; third, distinguishing and making clear that this buddha-mind is not shared with the two vehicles"〔X24n0451 0243b03〕—the three minds are arousing the mind of awakening (corresponding to Sūtra ②'s 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」 tr. "mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"), this mind's being equal to the Buddha's (corresponding to 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled", which Jizang glosses as 「與佛等」 tr. "equal to the Buddha"), and its not being shared with the two vehicles (corresponding to 「不共聲聞辟支佛心」 tr. "the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"), corresponding one by one to the three minds of Sūtra ②. Among these, 「如華嚴云菩提心即是佛心」 tr. "as the Flower Adornment Sūtra says, the mind of awakening is the buddha-mind" is a saying of the Flower Adornment Sūtra cited by Jizang as corroboration; this section records it word for word, without judgement, and does not make it an extension of this section.
Of Huiying's Commentary (X46n0791), the surviving fragmentary fascicles lack any line-by-line commentary on this chapter. Huiying's commentary was originally in twenty-four fascicles; the general table of the surviving fragments comes to a stop at Chapter 12, "The Meaning of the Phrase", after which the detailed table skips the chapters from Chapter 13 onward and goes directly to Chapter 37, so the line-by-line commentary on this chapter 〔Chapter 14〕 falls within this large lacuna and does not survive in these fragments. In his commentary on the earlier "The Meaning of the Phrase", Huiying divides a large section, saying 「就此分中復有二分，此初一品明菩薩義，次摩訶薩品明摩訶薩義」 tr. "within this division there are again two divisions: this first chapter makes clear the meaning of 'bodhisattva', and the next, the Chapter on the Mahāsattva, makes clear the meaning of 'mahāsattva'"〔X46n0791 0872c06〕—this is only Huiying's forward-looking announcement of Chapter 13 ("Mahāsattva"), pointing to the preceding chapter and not to this one. Separately, there is one place in Huiying's commentary, 「蜜為菩提心位，中二為無等等心」 tr. "-mitā is the stage of the mind of awakening; the middle two are the mind equal to the unequalled"〔X46n0791 0863a07〕, that uses 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled"; but its context is the correspondence of the six perfections to the stages of the three minds (the first perfection is the stage of the mind of awakening, the middle two the stage of the mind equal to the unequalled, the last two the stage of the great mind), which differs from the context of Subhūti's thesis of the three minds in Sūtra ② of this chapter; it belongs to the general usage of the term 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled", which recurs throughout the prajñā literature, and is not a citation of this chapter. Thus Huiying's line-by-line commentary on this chapter itself does not survive; this is recorded as it is, without claiming speculatively that it exists.
In Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises (X46n0784), this section searched throughout with the chapter names 「斷見品」 tr. "Chapter on Cutting Off Views", 「樂說品」 tr. "Chapter on Delight in Speaking", 「斷諸見品」 tr. "Chapter on Cutting Off All Views", and 「斷耶品」 tr. "Chapter on Cutting Off the Deviant", with not a single hit; a further broad search with the two characters 「斷見」 tr. "annihilation view / cutting off views" yielded thirteen places, but when their contexts are checked word by word, all belong to the general usage of the theory of the stages of cutting off delusion on the ten grounds or of the Madhyamaka theory of the two views of annihilation and permanence, and have nothing to do with the content or the chapter name of this chapter's cutting off views (cutting off all wrong views). Two examples illustrate: first, Junzheng, discussing the cutting off of delusion on the ten grounds, says 「斷道亦十階：初地斷見諦上品，二地斷見諦中品」 tr. "the path of cutting off also has ten steps: the first ground cuts off the upper grade of the delusions cut off by seeing the truths, the second ground cuts off the middle grade of the delusions cut off by seeing the truths"〔X46n0784 0557a14〕—this 「斷見諦」 tr. "cutting off [what is abandoned by] seeing the truths" is a fixed term for cutting off the delusions abandoned on the path of seeing, belonging to the theory of the stages of the ten grounds; second, Junzheng, discussing the Madhyamaka's not falling into annihilation or permanence, says 「無言定無，無即是斷見，乃至六十二見因此而生，失於中道」 tr. "'non-existence' says definitely non-existent; non-existence is the annihilation view; even the sixty-two views arise from this, losing the middle way"〔X46n0784 0581a17〕—this 「斷見」 tr. "annihilation view" is the view of annihilation paired with 「常見」 tr. "the eternalism view", belonging to the Madhyamaka theory of the two views. Both are general usages within Junzheng's own doctrinal system and not citations of this chapter; this is recorded to prevent confusion.
Further, there are many same-name occurrences of this chapter's name and core terms that are not citations of this chapter; this is recorded to prevent confusion. First, the two characters 「斷見」 tr. "annihilation view / cutting off views" recur in two large contexts, the theory of cutting off delusion on the ten grounds (the delusions of seeing the truths) and the Madhyamaka theory of the two views of annihilation and permanence (the annihilation view); they are not a signal peculiar to this chapter, and only after checking word by word whether the context refers to this chapter's enumeration of views or to the context of its teaching on the mahāsattva can one judge an occurrence to be a citation of this chapter. Second, 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled" is a common expression within the fixed three-mind framework of the prajñā literature; Huiying〔X46n0791 0863a07〕 and Zhiyi's Words and Phrases of the Lotus, 「今發佛心故云發無等等心也」 tr. "now, because one arouses the buddha-mind, it is said that one arouses the mind equal to the unequalled"〔T34n1721 0629b07·in the context of the Chapter on Dhāraṇī〕, each show one instance of general usage, and neither cites this chapter. Third, Zhiyi's works, searched throughout with this chapter's name and core terms, yield no citation at all apart from the one general-usage instance of 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled"; this is recorded as absent as it is, without fabrication.
VII. Cross-reading and Further Resonances
The bones of this chapter are three, and all were received by the prajñā line and by the later commentaries.
First, the reception of the configuration of alternative chapter names—this chapter's two readings, 「斷見／樂說」 tr. "cutting off views / delight in speaking", stand side by side, and the majority of witnesses on both sides lean together toward 「斷（諸）見」 tr. "cutting off (all) views"; in his line-by-line commentary the ancient master Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra sets three titles side by side on the title line, 「樂說品第十四 亦名斷耶品 亦名富樓那品」 tr. "Chapter on Delight in Speaking, the Fourteenth; also named Chapter on Cutting Off the Deviant; also named Chapter of Pūrṇa"〔X24n0451 0242c22〕, and keeps side by side in the same passage the express explanation 「品二人並是樂說，故立名樂說品」 tr. "the two persons of the chapter both delight in speaking, and therefore it is named the Chapter on Delight in Speaking"〔X24n0451 0242c24〕 and the separate explanation for Śāriputra, 「一、人斷諸見故為大」 tr. "first, the person is great because he cuts off all views"〔X24n0451 0243a06〕—thus the two names 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" (from the narrative frame of the two persons' delight in speaking) and 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" (from the content of the teaching, the views that Śāriputra cuts off) were taken by the ancient master as two views running side by side without conflict, not as mutually exclusive variants. The reason these separate titles stand together is that this chapter has first a section on Śāriputra's cutting off views and then a section on Subhūti's mind equal to the unequalled, and the sūtra-transmitters and treatise-authors each titled it from one side. This section records the line of reception and does not settle the reading on anyone's behalf; the sources it rests on are all given word for word in Section VI.
Second, the reception of 'cutting off all views / cutting off all cravings' and of the outlines of the three views and three minds—Treatise ① of this chapter itself sets up 「是三種見」 tr. "these three kinds of views"〔T25 0384c21〕, and Sūtra ② sets forth the three minds beginning with the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi〔T25 0385a01〕; the ancient master Jizang received these and set up a twofold division and two outlines: with 「一、人斷諸見故為大；第二、人斷諸愛故名大人」 tr. "first, the person is great because he cuts off all views; second, the person is called a great person because he cuts off all cravings"〔X24n0451 0243a06〕 he judges the teachings of the two persons; with the 「三見」 tr. "three views" (the view of persons, worldly and world-transcending views, deviant views)〔X24n0451 0243a11〕〔X24n0451 0243a12〕 he outlines the views listed by Śāriputra; and with the 「三心」 tr. "three minds" (arousing the mind of awakening, equal to the Buddha's, not shared with the two vehicles)〔X24n0451 0243b03〕 he outlines Subhūti's thesis. Thus the doctrinal framework of this chapter's 「三種見」 tr. "three kinds of views" and 「無等等心」 tr. "mind equal to the unequalled" was received and judged by the ancient master within an independent framework. This section records the line of reception and does not settle the reading on anyone's behalf; the sources it rests on are all given word for word in Section VI.
Third, the reception of 「我亦樂說」 tr. "I too delight in speaking" and of the four persons explaining the mahāsattva—the two persons of this chapter both continue speaking after the Buddha himself has spoken the meaning of the mahāsattva in the preceding chapter, "Mahāsattva"; the sūtra text says 「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」 tr. "I too wish to speak of why one is a mahāsattva"〔T25 0384b11〕, and when Treatise ① restates it, it reads 「何以言『我亦樂說』」 tr. "why does he say, 'I too delight in speaking'?"〔T25 0384c11〕—of 「我亦」 tr. "I too", the 「亦」 tr. "too" continues from the meaning the Buddha had already spoken himself in the preceding chapter. The ancient master Jizang judges these to be the middle two of 「四人釋摩訶薩」 tr. "four persons explaining the mahāsattva" (the Buddha, Śāriputra, Subhūti, and Pūrṇa explaining in turn the meaning of the mahāsattva); already in the preceding chapter he notes 「次身子須菩提兩人共一品，故是合不離也」 tr. "next, the two persons Śāriputra and Subhūti share one chapter; hence it is joining, not separating"〔X24n0451 0242a12〕—making clear that Śāriputra and Subhūti share this one chapter, which may be taken together or apart. Xuanzang's translation further merges this treatise's Chapters 13 and 14 into a single 「摩訶薩品」 tr. "Chapter on the Mahāsattva", and the opening sentences of its two persons are both rendered directly as 「我亦樂說」 tr. "I too delight in speaking"〔T05n0220a 0264b28〕〔T05n0220a 0265b08〕, matching the restatement in this treatise's Treatise ①. Thus the arc of this chapter, 「二人續佛而說摩訶薩義」 tr. "the two persons continue after the Buddha in speaking the meaning of the mahāsattva", was received and judged by the ancient master as 「四人釋摩訶薩」 tr. "four persons explaining the mahāsattva", and rendered by the other translation as a merged chapter. This section records the line of reception and does not settle the reading on anyone's behalf; the sources it rests on are all given word for word in Sections IV and VI.
With respect to the treatise's own sequence, Treatise ② of this chapter contains an express internal cross-reference, a self-reference by the treatise-author. When Treatise ② explains the original purity of the ordinary person's mind, it makes this clear with a simile that the treatise-author himself marks, saying 「清淨不著；如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」 tr. "pure and not clinging; as said before: dark clouds veil the sun and moon but cannot defile the sun and moon"〔T25 0385b20〕—「如先說」 tr. "as said before" means that the treatise-author himself marks this simile of dark clouds veiling the sun and moon as something already said in his earlier text, and here takes it up and uses it to make clear that the real mark of the ordinary person's mind is empty by nature, and that though veiled by the adventitious dust of the afflictions its brightness is not defiled. This self-reference within the line of the simile is recorded by this section as a line of reception, without settling the reading on anyone's behalf.
VIII. Witnesses and Editions
The collation readings of this chapter that can bear on the meaning of the scripture are selected as follows; the variant readings are preserved side by side, while the main text continues to follow the reading of the current base text.
0384b10 (chapter title · the witness clusters of both sides kept side by side in full): 大智度論釋斷見品第十四【大】｜大智度論斷見品第十四【宋】｜釋斷見品第十四經作斷諸見品【明】｜大智度論第十四品釋樂說品【宮】｜摩訶般若波羅蜜斷見品第十四【石】｜〔大智度論釋斷見品第十四〕十一字－【聖】 (【元】 has no independent variant and follows the Taishō base text in reading 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views")—of the six texts in the treatise line, the four of the Taishō, Yuan, Song, and Ishiyama all keep the core wording 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views"; the Ming edition titles itself 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" and appends the note 「經作斷諸見品」 tr. "the sūtra reads 'Chapter on Cutting Off All Views'" (that is, the Ming edition's own note: the sūtra explained reads 「斷諸見品」 tr. "Chapter on Cutting Off All Views"); only the Palace edition alone titles it 「釋樂說品」 tr. "Commentary on the Chapter on Delight in Speaking"; and the Shōgozō text lacks this passage entirely. This contrasts with the chapter title of the sūtra explained, T223—T223's Taishō base text reads 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking", while its Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace texts all read 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" and the Shōgozō text reads 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" (the collation note on T223's chapter title reads word for word 「樂說【大】，斷諸見【宋】【元】【明】【宮】，斷見【聖】」 tr. "'delight in speaking' in the Taishō; 'cutting off all views' in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace; 'cutting off views' in the Shōgozō"). Thus the note appended by the treatise's Ming edition, 「經作斷諸見品」 tr. "the sūtra reads 'Chapter on Cutting Off All Views'", and the 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views" of T223's Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace texts attest each other word for word, and 「斷（諸）見」 tr. "cutting off (all) views" is the mainstream reading of the great majority of witnesses spanning both the treatise and sūtra lines; 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" is the single minority reading in each case, of the treatise's Palace edition and of T223's Taishō base text, and the two agree with each other (see Section I and the first group of Section IV). Further, beneath T223's chapter title line the Taishō edition separately attaches a collation note of six characters, 「丹本作斷見品」 tr. "the Khitan edition reads 'Chapter on Cutting Off Views'"; this note is found only in 【大】, and none of the five texts of the Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, and Shōgozō has it—that is, the Khitan edition line (the Liao Khitan canon system) too reads 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views", as this treatise does. The main text follows the base text, 「斷見品」 tr. "Chapter on Cutting Off Views".
0384b17: 世界【大】｜國土【石】—the sentence 「淨佛〔世界〕見」 tr. "the view of purifying buddha-〔worlds〕" (the fourth group of Section IV). The base text reads 「淨佛世界見」 tr. "the view of purifying buddha-worlds", and the Ishiyama text reads 「淨佛國土見」 tr. "the view of purifying buddha-lands", agreeing with the mainstream reading 「國土」 tr. "lands" of the sūtra explained, T223; 'world' and 'land' are synonymous and kept side by side, recorded without judgement. The main text follows the base text, 「世界」 tr. "worlds".
0384c17: 吾【大】｜五【聖】—the sentence 「〔吾〕我心及習根本已拔」 tr. "the mind of 〔I〕 and mine, and the root of habitual tendencies, have already been pulled out". The base text reads 「吾我心」 tr. "the mind of I and mine", and the Shōgozō text reads 「五我心」 tr. "the five-mine mind"—'I' and 'five' are graphically similar miswritings, of no doctrinal bearing, a purely technical copying variant, recorded without judgement. The main text follows the base text, 「吾」 tr. "I".
0384c28: 見【大】【聖】｜邪見等【宋】【元】【明】【宮】—the sentence 「是菩薩雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸〔見〕」 tr. "this bodhisattva, though he contemplates form, does not give rise to false views, and is able to cut off all 〔views〕" (the fourth of the four occurrences of the verb–object 「斷見」 tr. "cutting off views" in Section II). The base text reads 「斷諸見」 tr. "cutting off all views", and the four texts of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace read 「斷諸邪見等」 tr. "cutting off all wrong views and the like"—the four texts add the character 「邪」 tr. "wrong" and append the character 「等」 tr. "and the like", a semantic expansion to 「斷除諸邪見」 tr. "cutting off all wrong views" that does not alter the verb–object backbone of 「斷（諸）見」 tr. "cutting off (all) views" (established in Section II), recorded without judgement. The main text follows the base text, 「見」 tr. "views".
0385a11: 等等【大】｜〔－〕【聖】—the sentence 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無〔等等〕心」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's mind 〔equal to the〕 unequalled", which touches the very core term of the chapter's second half, 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled" (Section II). The base text reads 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled", and in the Shōgozō text these two characters are entirely lacking (leaving only 「無心」 tr. "no-mind")—unless this is a copying omission, the sense of this sentence would change from 「無等等心」 tr. "the mind equal to the unequalled" to 「無心」 tr. "no-mind". The Shōgozō text of this chapter is also entirely lacking at the chapter title (see0384b10above), and its degree of damage is high, so this place leans toward being judged a copying omission rather than an intended variant; it is recorded without judgement and not emended by speculation. The main text follows the base text, 「等等」 tr. "equal to the".
0385b08: 得【大】｜有【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】—the sentence 「以一切法無所〔得〕故，以是故名摩訶薩」 tr. "because in all dharmas there is nothing to be 〔attained〕; for this reason one is called a mahāsattva" (the ninth group of Section IV · the closing sentence on which Section V's 「般若之眼」 tr. "eye of prajñā" rests). The base text reads 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained", and the five texts of the Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, and Shōgozō read 「無所有」 tr. "nothing existent"—of the six texts of the treatise, only the Taishō base text reads 「得」 tr. "attained", while the other five all read 「有」 tr. "existent", attesting word for word the 「無所有」 tr. "nothing existent" of the sūtra explained, T223〔T08 0244c15〕. The disparity of this minority in the variant 「無所得／無所有」 tr. "nothing to be attained / nothing existent" (one against five) is even greater than that of the minority reading 「樂說」 tr. "delight in speaking" in the chapter title (see Section I); 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" (negating the attainment of what grasps) and 「無所有」 tr. "nothing existent" (negating the existence of what is grasped) are mutually consistent negations in prajñā, and are equally where the two halves of this chapter, cutting off views and the mind equal to the unequalled, return together; the variant readings are kept side by side, the main text still follows the base text, 「得」 tr. "attained", recorded without judgement.
0385b20: 陰【大】｜蔭【宋】【宮】【石】—the sentence 「如先說：〔陰〕雲翳日月」 tr. "as said before: 〔dark〕 clouds veil the sun and moon" (Section III). The base text reads 「陰雲」 tr. "dark clouds", and the three texts of the Song, Palace, and Ishiyama read 「蔭雲」 tr. "shading clouds"—the two characters are phonetic loans of the same sound, and together with the 「蔭見」 tr. "view of the aggregates" of the sūtra explained, T223 (the third group of Section IV), this is a variant of the same type running through the whole chapter, recorded without judgement. The main text follows the base text, 「陰」 tr. "dark".
0385c03: （釋第十四品竟）【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】—the closing note at the end of the chapter, 「釋第十四品竟」 tr. "the commentary on the fourteenth chapter is finished", is found only in 【大】; the four texts of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace all lack it. This note is a closing marker of the editorial layer of the printed edition, not text of the main body shared by the old texts, and is not counted in the chapter's main-text character count. Further, at the same position there is a separate collation note, 「四【大】｜三【石】」 tr. "'four' in the Taishō; 'three' in the Ishiyama"—the Ishiyama text's closing note reads 「釋第十三品竟」 tr. "the commentary on the thirteenth chapter is finished", one chapter number fewer than the Taishō edition, so the Ishiyama text's system of fascicle and chapter numbering is out of step with the Taishō edition; the cause is not forcibly investigated, and it is recorded without judgement.
The base text of this chapter is Fascicle 45 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa〔T25 0384b10–0385c04〕; the chapter continues the preceding Chapter 13, "Mahāsattva", from the middle part of Fascicle 45, and Fascicle 45 does not close at the end of this chapter (it continues into Chapter 15, "The Great Adornment"), so this chapter has no fascicle-end title. The collation text for the sūtra explained is Chapter 14, "Delight in Speaking", of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra〔T08 0244a18–0244c17〕 (whose chapter title in the Khitan edition line reads 「斷見品」 tr. "Chapter on Cutting Off Views"; see Section I). The parallel translations consulted are the Emission of Light Prajñāpāramitā (T08n0221 · under the label 「摩訶薩品第十五」 tr. "Chapter on the Mahāsattva, the Fifteenth" it actually carries this chapter's content on cutting off views; the eleventh group of Section IV) and the First Assembly of Xuanzang's Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (T05n0220a · merging this treatise's Chapters 13 and 14 into a single 「摩訶薩品」 tr. "Chapter on the Mahāsattva"). The collation text for the ancient-master commentaries is Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra (X24n0451 · the sūtra-explanation section, the richest support for this chapter); there are also Huiying's Commentary (X46n0791 · the line-by-line commentary on this chapter is lacking, with only a forward-looking mention in the preceding chapter) and Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises (X46n0784 · its 「斷見」 tr. "annihilation view" occurrences are all general doctrinal usage, not citations of this chapter). Variant notes follow the Taishō collation, covering differences between the Taishō base text and the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace editions, the Shōgozō, and the Ishiyama text. The collation notes for the whole chapter number forty-eight in all and are kept in detail at the end of the working base text; this list transcribes only the principal items that bear on the wording of the chapter's core doctrine, and does not extend into judgements of the relative merit of the editions.