大智度論 幻人聽法品Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Illusory Person Hears the Dharma
幻人聽法品：須菩提以幻化人喻答諸天子，乃至涅槃如幻如夢；阿難代答四種能受深般若之人（經＋論）
前一品把「住」處撿到無所住，這一品從一個念頭開始：諸天子心裡想，該用什麼樣的人來聽須菩提說法？須菩提知道他們的心念，回得出人意表——用如幻化人來聽。為什麼？因為這樣的人無聞、無聽、無知、無證。諸天子追問：眾生如幻如化，那聽法的人也如幻如化嗎？須菩提說：正是這樣。眾生如幻，聽法者也如幻；我如幻如夢，乃至知者、見者、色受想行識、諸空、諸度、四念處乃至十八不共法、四沙門果乃至辟支佛道，一路數下去都如幻如夢，連佛道也如幻如夢。話說到這裡，諸天子心頭一震，再問：你說佛道如幻如夢，難道連涅槃也如幻如夢嗎？須菩提答得毫不退讓：我說涅槃也如幻如夢；假使有一法勝過涅槃，我說它也一樣如幻如夢。何以故？幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別。這一句是全品的落點——說涅槃如幻，不是說涅槃虛妄不存，而是幻、夢、涅槃三者同歸畢竟空，不二不別。論主接手拆解：一切眾生中佛第一、一切法中涅槃第一，聽到這最上最妙的二法竟說如幻，難怪要驚疑重問；但這二法雖妙，都從虛妄法出故空——從虛妄法故有涅槃，從福德智慧故有佛，屬因緣而無有實定。至於「若有法勝涅槃亦如幻」這句假設，論主說得明白：譬喻之法，有時舉實事，有時只是假設，隨因緣而說，就像佛說「若令樹木解我所說，我也記它得須陀洹」——樹木本無可解，佛不過為解悟人意而假設罷了。涅槃已是一切法中究竟無上，如眾川歸海、諸山之須彌、諸法之虛空，一切苦盡、畢竟常樂，實無法勝之；就算假設有，般若的智慧也照破無礙——譬如大熱鐵丸放在擘散的細毛上，直燒穿過而熱勢不減，只是更無可燒之物；般若破一切有法乃至涅槃，直過無礙，智力不減，只是更無法可破。下半品換了場景：舍利弗領著諸大弟子和無數千菩薩一起問——這般若如此甚深、難見、難解、難知、寂滅、微妙，究竟誰能領受？一向少言的阿難這時開口代答：有四種人能信受——不退轉的菩薩、漏盡的阿羅漢、正見成就的三種學人、還有雖未到不退轉但福德利根、常隨善知識的菩薩。論主特為一問：阿難平素不預論議，這裡為何代答？答得也細：阿難雖漏未盡、於空智慧未能善巧，但這一問問的是「誰能信受」的有事而非空事，加以此時樂說心生、信力猛利，故能如法問答。而信受的關鍵，須菩提自道因緣：不以空分別色，色即是空，空即是色——般若無所破故無過罪，所以不說非法。最後舍利弗讚歎助成，點出般若不只說空，也廣說三乘、攝取菩薩、行報七辯；須菩提然可之，卻只回到一處落腳：般若雖廣說三乘，並非有定相，都是以十八空和合故說，攝取菩薩、七種辯也一樣，全憑一個空智慧。從幻人聽法問起，到十八空作結——原來聽者如幻、所聽如幻、能說如幻，連最上的涅槃也如幻，而這如幻不是斷滅，是畢竟空裡的活句。
The previous chapter sifted the place of ‘abiding’ down to abiding nowhere; this chapter begins from a single thought: the gods think to themselves, what kind of person should be used to hear Subhūti teach the dharma? Subhūti knows their thought and answers in a way no one expects: use a person like an illusion, like a conjuration, to hear it. Why? Because such a person has no hearing, no listening, no knowing, no realising. The gods press on: if beings are like illusion and conjuration, is the hearer of the dharma also like illusion and conjuration? Subhūti says: just so. Beings are like an illusion, and the hearer of the dharma is like an illusion too; I am like an illusion, like a dream, and so on to the knower and the seer, form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the emptinesses, the perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, the four fruits of the śramaṇa up to the pratyekabuddha path, counting all the way down, all like an illusion, like a dream; even the Buddha path is like an illusion, like a dream. At this the gods are shaken, and ask again: you say the Buddha path is like an illusion, like a dream; can it be that even nirvāṇa is like an illusion, like a dream? Subhūti answers without yielding an inch: I say nirvāṇa too is like an illusion, like a dream; and if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, I would say it too is like an illusion, like a dream. Why? Illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa are not two and not different. This sentence is where the whole chapter lands: to say nirvāṇa is like an illusion is not to say nirvāṇa is false and does not exist, but that illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa, all three, return alike to ultimate emptiness, not two and not different. The treatise-author takes over and unpicks it: among all beings the Buddha is first, among all dharmas nirvāṇa is first; to hear these two highest and most subtle dharmas called like an illusion, no wonder there is alarm and a second question. But these two dharmas, subtle as they are, both come from false dharmas and so are empty: from false dharmas there is nirvāṇa, from merit and wisdom there is the Buddha; they belong to causes and conditions and have nothing real and fixed. As for the supposition ‘if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa it too would be like an illusion’, the treatise-author says plainly: the method of simile sometimes cites a real thing and sometimes is only a supposition, spoken according to causes and conditions, just as the Buddha says ‘if a tree could understand what I teach, I would predict for it too the attainment of srota-āpanna’; a tree from the start has nothing that can understand, and the Buddha only makes the supposition to open people's understanding. Nirvāṇa is already the ultimate and unsurpassed among all dharmas, like the sea to which all rivers return, like Sumeru among mountains, like space among dharmas, the exhaustion of all suffering, ultimately constant and blissful, and in truth no dharma surpasses it; and even supposing there were, the wisdom of prajñā would illumine and break it without obstruction. It is like a great red-hot iron ball placed on fine hairs pulled apart: it burns straight through with its heat undiminished, only there is nothing more to burn. Prajñā breaks all existent dharmas and on to nirvāṇa, passing straight through without obstruction, its power of knowledge undiminished, only there is no further dharma to break. The latter half of the chapter changes scene: Śāriputra, leading the great disciples and countless thousands of bodhisattvas, asks together: this prajñā, so very deep, hard to see, hard to understand, hard to know, still and extinguished, subtle, who after all can receive it? Ānanda, who has all along said little, now speaks and answers on their behalf: four kinds of person can believe and receive it: the non-retrogressing bodhisattva, the arhat whose outflows are exhausted, the three kinds of person still in training who have accomplished right view, and the bodhisattva who, though not yet at non-retrogression, has merit and sharp faculties and constantly follows good friends. The treatise-author raises a question especially for this: Ānanda ordinarily does not take part in debate, so why does he answer here? The answer is fine-grained too: although Ānanda's outflows are not exhausted and he is not yet skilled in the wisdom of emptiness, what is asked here is the matter of ‘who can believe and receive’, an existent matter and not a matter of emptiness; moreover at this moment the mind of delight in speaking has arisen and the power of faith is keen, and so he can ask and answer as the dharma requires. And the key to believing and receiving Subhūti states himself: not to discriminate form by means of emptiness, for form itself is emptiness and emptiness itself is form; because prajñā breaks nothing it has no fault, and so it does not speak what is not the dharma. Finally Śāriputra praises and helps complete it, pointing out that prajñā does not only teach emptiness but also teaches the three vehicles at length, gathers in bodhisattvas, and carries the seven eloquences as its practice and reward. Subhūti agrees, yet comes to rest in one place only: although prajñā teaches the three vehicles at length it has no fixed mark; all of it is taught because the eighteen emptinesses come together, and gathering in bodhisattvas and the seven eloquences are the same, everything resting on the one wisdom of emptiness. Beginning from the question of the illusory person hearing the dharma and ending in the eighteen emptinesses: so the hearer is like an illusion, what is heard is like an illusion, the one who teaches is like an illusion, and even the highest, nirvāṇa, is like an illusion; and this being like an illusion is not annihilation but the living word within ultimate emptiness.
卷55 〔T25 0448c07〕
大智度論釋幻人聽法品第二十八 聖者龍樹造 後秦龜茲國三藏鳩摩羅什譯 【經】 爾時，諸天子心念：「應用何等人聽須菩提所說？」 須菩提知諸天子心所念，語諸天子言：「如幻化人聽法，我應用如是人。何以故？如是人無聞、無聽、無知、無證故。」 諸天子語須菩提：「是眾生如幻、如化，聽法者亦如幻、如化耶？」 「如是！如是！諸天子！眾生如幻，聽法者亦如幻；眾生如化，聽法者亦如化。諸天子！我如幻、如夢，眾生乃至知者、見者亦如幻、如夢。諸天子！色如幻、如夢，受、想、行、識如幻、如夢。 「眼乃至意觸因緣生受如幻、如夢，內空乃至無法有法空、檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜如幻、如夢。諸〔T25 0449a〕天子！四念處乃至十八不共法如幻、如夢，須陀洹果如幻、如夢，斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果、辟支佛道如幻、如夢。諸天子！佛道如幻、如夢。」 爾時，諸天子問須菩提：「汝說佛道如幻、如夢，汝說涅槃亦復如幻、如夢耶？」 須菩提語諸天子：「我說佛道如幻、如夢，我說涅槃亦如幻、如夢；若當有法勝於涅槃者，我說亦復如幻、如夢。何以故？諸天子！是幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別。」 【論】 問曰： 上已說「如幻、如夢，無說者、無聽者」，今何以故復問「應用何等人隨須菩提意聽法者」？ 答曰： 諸天子先言「須菩提所說不可解」，此中須菩提說幻化人喻。 今諸天子更作是念：「何等人聽，與須菩提所說相應，能信、受、行、得道果？」 須菩提答：「如幻化人聽者，則與我說法相應。」 問曰： 是化人無心心數法，不能聽受，何用說法？ 答曰： 非即使幻化人聽，但欲令行者於諸法用心無所著，如幻化人，是幻化人無聞亦無證。眾生如幻、如夢，聽法亦如幻、如夢——「眾生」者說法人，「聽法」者是受法人。 須菩提言：「不但說法者、聽法者如幻、如夢，我乃至知者、見者皆如幻、如夢，色亦如幻、如夢，乃至涅槃如幻、如夢，即是所說法如幻、如夢。」 一切眾生中，佛為第一；一切諸法中，涅槃第一。聞是二事如幻、如夢，心則驚疑：「佛及涅槃最上最妙，云何如幻、如夢？」以是故，更重問其事：「佛及涅槃審如幻、如夢耶？」「須菩提將無誤說？我等將無謬聽？」是以更定問。 須菩提語諸天子：「我說佛及〔T25 0449b〕涅槃，正自如幻、如夢。」 是二法雖妙，皆從虛妄法出故空。所以者何？從虛妄法故有涅槃，從福德智慧故有佛，是二法屬因緣，無有實定；如念佛、念法義中說。 須菩提作是念：「般若波羅蜜力，假令有法勝涅槃者，能令如幻，何況涅槃！」 何以故？涅槃，一切憂愁苦惱畢竟滅，以是故，無有法勝涅槃者。 問曰： 若無法勝涅槃者，何以故說「若有法勝涅槃，亦復如幻」？ 答曰： 譬喻法，或以實事、或時假設，隨因緣故說。如佛言：「若令樹木解我所說者，我亦記言得須陀洹。」但樹木無因緣可解，佛為解悟人意故，引此喻耳。 涅槃是一切法中究竟無上法，如眾川萬流大海為上，諸山之中須彌為上，一切法中虛空為上。涅槃亦如是，無有老病死苦，無有邪見、貪、恚等諸衰，無有愛別離苦，無怨憎會苦，無所求不得苦，無常、虛誑、敗壞、變異等一切皆無。以要言之，涅槃是一切苦盡，畢竟常樂，十方諸佛、菩薩、弟子眾所歸處，安隱常樂，無過是者，終不為魔王、魔人所破。如阿毘曇中說：「有上法者，一切有為法及虛空、非智緣盡；無上法者，智緣盡，所謂涅槃。」是故知無法勝涅槃者。 須菩提美般若波羅蜜力大故言：「若有法勝涅槃者，是亦如幻。」 譬如大熱鐵丸，以著擘起毳上，直燒下過，熱勢無損，但更無可燒者；般若波羅蜜智慧破一切有法，乃至涅槃，直過無礙，智力不減，直更無法可破。是故言「設有法勝涅槃，智慧力亦能破。」 〔T25 0449c〕 【經】 爾時，慧命舍利弗、摩訶目揵連、摩訶拘絺羅、摩訶迦旃延、富樓那彌多羅尼子、摩訶迦葉及無數千菩薩問須菩提：「般若波羅蜜如是甚深、難見、難解、難知、寂滅、微妙，誰當受者？」 爾時，阿難語諸大弟子及諸菩薩：「阿鞞跋致諸菩薩摩訶薩，能受是甚深、難見、難解、難知、寂滅、微妙般若波羅蜜；正見成就人、漏盡阿羅漢所願已滿，亦能受之；復次，善男子、善女人多見佛、於諸佛所多供養、種善根、親近善知識、有利根——是人能受，不言是法非法。」 須菩提言：「不以空分別色，不以色分別空；受、想、行、識亦如是。不以無相、無作分別色，不以色分別無相、無作；受、想、行、識亦如是。不以無生、無滅、寂滅、離分別色，不以色分別無生、無滅、寂滅、離；受、想、行、識亦如是。眼乃至意觸因緣生受亦如是。檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜，內空乃至無法有法空，四念處乃至十八不共法，一切三昧門、一切陀羅尼門，須陀洹乃至阿羅漢、辟支佛、佛；一切智，不以空分別一切智、不以一切智分別空，不以空分別一切種智、不以一切種智分別空；無相、無作、無生、無滅、寂滅、離亦如是。」 須菩提語諸天子言：「是般若波羅蜜甚深，誰能受者？是般若波羅蜜中無法可示，無法可說；若無法可示、無法可說，受人亦不可得。」 爾時，舍利弗語須菩提言：「般若波羅蜜中廣說三乘之教及攝取菩薩之法，從初發意地乃至十地，檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜，四念處乃至八聖道分，佛十力乃至十八不共法，護持菩薩之教。菩薩摩訶薩〔T25 0450a〕如是行般若波羅蜜，常化生，不失神通，遊諸佛國，具足善根，隨其所欲供養諸佛，即得如願，從諸佛所聽受法教，至薩婆若初不斷絕，未曾離三昧時，當得捷疾辯、利辯、不盡辯、不可斷辯、隨應辯、義辯、一切世間最上辯。」 須菩提言：「如是！如是！如舍利弗言，般若波羅蜜廣說三乘之教及護持菩薩之教，乃至菩薩摩訶薩得一切世間最上辯，不可得故。我乃至知者、見者不可得，色、受、想、行、識，檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜不可得，內空乃至無法有法空不可得，四念處乃至八聖道分，佛十力乃至一切種智，亦不可得故。」 舍利弗語須菩提：「何因緣故，般若波羅蜜中廣說三乘而不可得？何因緣故，般若波羅蜜中護持菩薩？何因緣故，菩薩摩訶薩得捷疾辯乃至一切世間最上辯不可得故？」 須菩提語舍利弗言：「以內空故，般若波羅蜜廣說三乘不可得故；外空乃至無法有法空故，廣說三乘不可得故。內空故，護持菩薩乃至一切世間最上辯不可得故；外空乃至無法有法空故，護持菩薩乃至一切世間最上辯不可得故。」 【論】 者言： 是時諸大弟子舍利弗等語須菩提：「是般若波羅蜜法甚深、難解。」以諸法無定相故為「甚深」；諸思惟觀行滅故「難見」；亦不著般若波羅蜜故名「難解、難知」；滅三毒及諸戲論故名「寂滅」；得是智慧妙味故，常得滿足，更無所求，餘一切智慧皆麁澁叵樂，故言「微妙」。 諸大弟子作是言：「般若波羅蜜智慧甚深，世間人智慧淺薄，但貪著福〔T25 0450b〕德果報，而不樂修福德。著有則情勇，破有則心怯；本所聞習邪見經書，堅著不捨，如是人常樂世樂。」以是故言：「誰能信受是深般若波羅蜜？若無信受，何用說為？」 阿難助答：有四種人能信受，是故大德須菩提所說必有信受，不空說也。 一者、阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩，知一切法不生不滅，不取相、無所著故，是則能受。 二者、漏盡阿羅漢，漏盡故無所著，得無為最上法，所願已滿，更無所求故，常住空、無相、無作三昧，隨順般若波羅蜜故，則能信受。 三者、三種學人，正見成就，漏雖未都盡，四信力故，亦能信受。 四者、有菩薩雖未得阿鞞跋致，福德利根，智慧清淨，常隨善知識，是人亦能信受。 信受相，不言「是法非佛菩薩大弟子所說」；雖聞般若波羅蜜諸法皆畢竟空，不以愛先法故而言「非法」。 問曰： 自上已來，阿難都無言論，今何以代須菩提答？ 答曰： 阿難是第三轉法輪將，能為大眾師，是世尊近侍。雖得初道，以漏未盡故，雖有多聞智慧，自以於空智慧中未能善巧，若說空法，自未入故，皆是他事，是故無言。或時說諸有事，則能問能答。如後品中問佛言：「世尊何以故但讚歎般若波羅蜜，不讚五波羅蜜？」此中問人誰能信是深般若波羅蜜者，非是空事故，阿難便答。須菩提常樂說空事，不喜說有。 又以阿難是時樂說心生，是故聽答。阿難煩惱未盡故智慧力鈍，然信力猛利故，於甚深般若波羅蜜中能如法問答。 問曰： 般〔T25 0450c〕若波羅蜜無所有，無有一定法，云何「四種人信受，不言非法」？ 答曰： 今須菩提此中自說因緣：「不以空分別色，色即是空，空即是色。」以是故，般若波羅蜜無所失、無所破；若無所破，則無過罪，是故不言非法。空即是般若波羅蜜，不以空智慧破色令空，亦不以破色因緣故有空，空即是色、色即是空故。 以般若波羅蜜中破諸戲論，有如是功德，故無不信受。 無相、無作，無生、無滅，寂滅、遠離，亦如是。乃至一切種智，皆應廣說。 問曰： 諸大弟子問是義，須菩提何以乃答諸天子？ 答曰： 諸大弟子已得阿羅漢，但自為疑故問，益利事少；諸天子發心為菩薩，利益深故為說。 復次，雖為諸天子說，即是答諸大弟子。 上說「諸法空」，今說「深般若波羅蜜中眾生畢竟空」。以是故，般若波羅蜜中無有說者，何況有聽受者！若能如是解諸法空，心無所著則能信受。 爾時，須菩提說深般若波羅蜜，舍利弗讚歎助成其事：「般若波羅蜜非但以空故可受，亦廣說有三乘。」 三乘義，如先說。 「攝取菩薩」者，以般若波羅蜜利益諸菩薩，令得增長。 復次，「攝取」者，是般若波羅蜜中有十地，令菩薩從一地至一地，乃至第十地。 十地義、從六波羅蜜乃至一切種智義，如先說。 「化生」者，說般若波羅蜜行報。 行般若波羅蜜，於一切法無礙故，得「捷疾辯」。有人雖能捷疾，鈍根故不能深入，以能深入故利，是「利辯」。說諸法實相，無邊無盡故，名「樂說無盡辯」。般若中無諸戲論〔T25 0451a〕故，無能問難斷絕者，名「不可斷辯」。斷法愛故，隨眾生所應而為說法，名「隨應辯」。說趣涅槃利益之事故，名「義辯」。說一切世間第一之事，所謂大乘，是名「世間最上辯」。 須菩提然其問，言：「如是！如是！」 舍利弗作是念：「須菩提常樂說空，何以故受我所說般若波羅蜜廣說三乘之教？應當更有因緣。」 須菩提答：「般若波羅蜜雖廣說三乘法，非有定相，皆以十八空和合故說。攝取菩薩、七種辯亦如是，以空智慧故。」
《大智度論》卷55 · T25n1509 0448c07–0451a11
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.
諸天子心裡想『該用什麼樣的人來聽』，須菩提答：用如幻化的人來聽
那時，諸天子心裡起了一個念頭：『該用什麼樣的人，來聽須菩提所說的法呢？』須菩提知道諸天子心裡所想的，就對諸天子說：『要用如同幻化出來的人那樣去聽法，我這法就該用這樣的人來聽。為什麼呢？因為這樣的人沒有能聞、沒有能聽、沒有能知、沒有能證的緣故。』
諸天子便對須菩提說：『這眾生像幻、像化，那聽法的人也是像幻、像化嗎？』
眾生、我、乃至佛道，全都如幻如夢
須菩提答：『正是這樣！正是這樣！諸天子！眾生如幻，聽法的人也如幻；眾生如化，聽法的人也如化。諸天子！我如幻、如夢，眾生乃至能知的、能見的也如幻、如夢。諸天子！色如幻、如夢，受、想、行、識也如幻、如夢。
『從眼一直到意所接觸、因緣而生的種種感受，都如幻、如夢；內空一直到無法有法空，布施的檀波羅蜜一直到智慧的般若波羅蜜，也如幻、如夢。諸天子！四念處一直到十八不共法，都如幻、如夢；須陀洹果如幻、如夢，斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果、辟支佛道也如幻、如夢。諸天子！佛道也如幻、如夢。』
諸天子震驚重問：連涅槃也如幻如夢嗎——幻、夢、涅槃並無二、並無別
那時，諸天子問須菩提：『你說佛道如幻、如夢，你說涅槃也如幻、如夢嗎？』
須菩提對諸天子說：『我說佛道如幻、如夢，我說涅槃也如幻、如夢；就算有一種法勝過涅槃，我也說它同樣如幻、如夢。為什麼呢？諸天子！這幻、這夢、這涅槃，並沒有兩樣、並沒有分別。』
以下是論釋。
論主自問自答（一）：既已說『無說無聽』，為何又問『該用什麼人聽』
有人問：前面已經說過『如幻、如夢，沒有能說的人、沒有能聽的人』了，如今為什麼又要再問『該用什麼樣的人、隨順須菩提的意思來聽法』呢？
論主回答：因為諸天子先前說過『須菩提所說的話難以理解』，這裡須菩提才用幻化人來作比喻回答他。如今諸天子又起這樣的念頭：『什麼樣的人來聽，才與須菩提所說的相應，能夠信、能夠受、能夠行、能夠得道果呢？』須菩提便答：『像幻化人那樣來聽的，就與我所說的法相應。』
幻化人沒有心、沒有心數法，何必對它說法——只為令修行人用心無所著
有人問：這幻化出來的人並沒有心、沒有心所法，根本不能聽、不能受，何必對它說法呢？
論主回答：並不是真的要幻化人來聽，只是要讓修行的人對種種法用心而無所執著，就像幻化人一樣——那幻化人既沒有能聞、也沒有能證。眾生如幻、如夢，聽法也如幻、如夢——這裡『眾生』指的是說法的人，『聽法』指的是受法的人。
須菩提說：『不只是說法的人、聽法的人如幻、如夢，我乃至能知的、能見的都如幻、如夢，色也如幻、如夢，一直到涅槃都如幻、如夢，也就是所說的法如幻、如夢。』
佛與涅槃最上最妙，怎麼也如幻如夢——須菩提定答：正是如幻如夢
一切眾生當中，佛最為第一；一切諸法當中，涅槃最為第一。諸天子聽到這兩件事說成如幻、如夢，心裡就驚疑起來：『佛與涅槃最上、最妙，怎麼會如幻、如夢呢？』因為這個緣故，才再一次鄭重追問這件事：『佛與涅槃當真如幻、如夢嗎？』『莫不是須菩提說錯了？莫不是我們聽岔了？』所以才又定下心來追問。
須菩提對諸天子說：『我說佛與涅槃，正就是如幻、如夢。』
佛與涅槃二法雖妙，都從虛妄法出而空；就算有法勝過涅槃，也如幻
這佛與涅槃兩種法雖然微妙，卻都是從虛妄法而出，所以是空。為什麼呢？因為是從虛妄法才有涅槃，從福德智慧才有佛，這兩種法都繫屬於因緣，並沒有真實固定的自性；就像在念佛、念法的義理當中所說的那樣。
須菩提起這樣的念頭：『憑般若波羅蜜的力量，就算有一種法勝過涅槃，也能讓它如幻，何況涅槃呢！』為什麼這樣說？涅槃是一切憂愁苦惱徹底止息之處，因為這個緣故，並沒有一種法能勝過涅槃。
既然沒有法勝過涅槃，為何又說『若有法勝涅槃也如幻』——譬喻或用實事、或是假設
有人問：如果並沒有法勝過涅槃，為什麼又要說『若有法勝過涅槃，也同樣如幻』呢？
論主回答：譬喻這種說法，有時用實在的事來說，有時只是隨個假設，都是隨順因緣才這樣講。就像佛說過：『若讓樹木能聽懂我所說的法，我也會記說它得了須陀洹。』但樹木並沒有能聽懂的因緣，佛只是為了開悟人的心意，才引這個譬喻罷了。
涅槃是一切法中究竟無上之法，一切眾苦徹底止盡
涅槃是一切法當中究竟無上的法，就像眾多江川、萬條水流之中大海最上，群山之中須彌山最上，一切法之中虛空最上。涅槃也是這樣，沒有老、病、死的苦，沒有邪見、貪、瞋等種種衰惱，沒有愛別離的苦，沒有怨憎會的苦，沒有所求不得的苦，無常、虛誑、敗壞、變異等等一切都沒有。簡要地說，涅槃就是一切苦的止盡，究竟常樂，是十方諸佛、菩薩、弟子眾所歸投之處，安隱常樂，沒有一法能勝過它，也終究不會被魔王、魔人所破壞。就像《阿毘曇》中所說：『有上法，指的是一切有為法以及虛空、非智緣盡；無上法，指的是智緣盡，也就是涅槃。』因此可知，並沒有法能勝過涅槃。
須菩提讚般若力大：設有法勝涅槃，般若也照樣能破——熱鐵丸燒毳喻
須菩提為了讚美般若波羅蜜力量之大，才說：『若有法勝過涅槃，那也同樣如幻。』就像一顆極熱的鐵丸，放在剝起的細毛上，一直向下燒穿而過，那熱勢一點也沒有減損，只是再也沒有可燒的東西了；般若波羅蜜的智慧破除一切有為法，乃至破到涅槃，直直穿過而毫無障礙，那智慧的力量並不減退，只是再也沒有法可破了。因此才說：『縱使有法勝過涅槃，智慧的力量也照樣能破它。』
諸大弟子共問：這樣甚深的般若，究竟誰能領受
那時，慧命舍利弗、摩訶目揵連、摩訶拘絺羅、摩訶迦旃延、富樓那彌多羅尼子、摩訶迦葉，以及無數千位菩薩，一同問須菩提：『般若波羅蜜像這樣甚深、難見、難解、難知、寂滅、微妙，究竟誰能領受呢？』
阿難代答：有四種人能領受這甚深的般若
那時，阿難對諸位大弟子以及諸位菩薩說：『阿鞞跋致（不退轉）的諸位菩薩摩訶薩，能夠領受這甚深、難見、難解、難知、寂滅、微妙的般若波羅蜜；正見成就的人、以及所願已滿的漏盡阿羅漢，也能夠領受；再者，那些多見諸佛、在諸佛之處多有供養、種了善根、親近善知識、又有利根的善男子、善女人——這種人也能領受，不會說這法是、還是非。』
須菩提申論：不用空去分別色，也不用色去分別空
須菩提說：『不用空去分別色，也不用色去分別空；受、想、行、識也是這樣。不用無相、無作去分別色，也不用色去分別無相、無作；受、想、行、識也是這樣。不用無生、無滅、寂滅、離去分別色，也不用色去分別無生、無滅、寂滅、離；受、想、行、識也是這樣。從眼一直到意所接觸、因緣而生的種種感受，也是這樣。布施的檀波羅蜜一直到般若波羅蜜，內空一直到無法有法空，四念處一直到十八不共法，一切三昧門、一切陀羅尼門，須陀洹一直到阿羅漢、辟支佛、佛；乃至一切智，不用空去分別一切智、也不用一切智去分別空，不用空去分別一切種智、也不用一切種智去分別空；無相、無作、無生、無滅、寂滅、離也都是這樣。』
般若甚深，其中無法可示、無法可說，連受法的人也了不可得
須菩提又對諸天子說：『這般若波羅蜜甚深，誰能領受呢？這般若波羅蜜當中沒有一法可以指示，沒有一法可以言說；既然沒有法可示、沒有法可說，那受法的人也就了不可得了。』
舍利弗讚歎：般若廣說三乘、攝取菩薩，令菩薩得七種辯
那時，舍利弗對須菩提說：『般若波羅蜜當中廣說三乘的教法，以及攝取菩薩的法門，從最初發意地一直到第十地，布施的檀波羅蜜一直到般若波羅蜜，四念處一直到八聖道分，佛的十力一直到十八不共法，都護持著菩薩的教法。菩薩摩訶薩這樣修行般若波羅蜜，常常化生受身，不失神通，遊歷諸佛的國土，具足種種善根，隨他所願供養諸佛，當下即能如願，在諸佛之處聽受法教，直到成就一切智從不間斷，未曾離開三昧的時候，就能得到捷疾辯、利辯、不盡辯、不可斷辯、隨應辯、義辯、以及一切世間最上辯。』
須菩提印可舍利弗所言，並歸到『了不可得』
須菩提說：『正是這樣！正是這樣！如舍利弗所說，般若波羅蜜廣說三乘的教法以及護持菩薩的教法，乃至菩薩摩訶薩得到一切世間最上辯，都是因為了不可得的緣故。我乃至能知的、能見的了不可得，色、受、想、行、識，布施的檀波羅蜜一直到般若波羅蜜也了不可得，內空一直到無法有法空也了不可得，四念處一直到八聖道分，佛的十力一直到一切種智，也都了不可得。』
舍利弗再問是什麼因緣，須菩提答：以內空乃至無法有法空故
舍利弗又問須菩提：『是什麼因緣，般若波羅蜜當中廣說三乘卻了不可得？是什麼因緣，般若波羅蜜當中護持菩薩？又是什麼因緣，菩薩摩訶薩得到捷疾辯乃至一切世間最上辯卻了不可得呢？』
須菩提對舍利弗說：『因為內空的緣故，般若波羅蜜廣說三乘卻了不可得；外空一直到無法有法空的緣故，廣說三乘卻了不可得。因為內空的緣故，護持菩薩乃至一切世間最上辯了不可得；外空一直到無法有法空的緣故，護持菩薩乃至一切世間最上辯了不可得。』
以下是論釋。
論主釋『甚深、難見、難解難知、寂滅、微妙』六重義
論主釋道：這時，諸位大弟子舍利弗等對須菩提說：『這般若波羅蜜的法甚深、難解。』因為諸法沒有固定之相，所以說『甚深』；因為種種思惟、觀行都止息了，所以說『難見』；又因為對般若波羅蜜也不執著，所以名為『難解、難知』；因為止息了三毒以及種種戲論，所以名為『寂滅』；因為得到這智慧的妙味，所以恆常滿足、再無所求，其餘一切智慧相形之下都粗澀難以樂著，所以說『微妙』。
世人智慧淺薄、貪著福報而不修福，這樣的人誰能信受
諸位大弟子這樣說：『般若波羅蜜的智慧甚深，世間人的智慧卻淺薄，只貪著福德的果報，而不樂於修福德。執著「有」的時候情志勇銳，一旦破「有」就心生怯懦；對本來所聞習的邪見經書，堅固執著、不肯捨離，這樣的人常樂著世間之樂。』因為這個緣故才說：『誰能信受這甚深的般若波羅蜜呢？若沒有人信受，又何必說它呢？』
阿難出面助答：有四種人能信受
阿難出面助答：有四種人能信受，所以大德須菩提所說必定有人信受，並不是白說。第一種，是阿鞞跋致的菩薩摩訶薩，知道一切法不生不滅，不取著法相、無所執著，所以能夠信受。第二種，是漏盡的阿羅漢，因為漏已盡而無所執著，得到無為的最上之法，所願已滿、再無所求，所以恆常安住在空、無相、無作三昧中，隨順般若波羅蜜，所以能信受。第三種，是三種學人，正見已經成就，煩惱雖然還沒有全盡，卻因為四種信力的緣故，也能信受。第四種，是雖然還沒有得到阿鞞跋致、但福德深厚、根器銳利、智慧清淨、又常隨善知識的菩薩，這種人也能信受。所謂信受之相，就是不說『這法不是佛、菩薩、大弟子所說的』；雖然聽到般若波羅蜜說諸法都畢竟空，也不因為愛著先前所學的法，就說般若『非法』。
阿難一向沉默無言，這裡為什麼替須菩提回答
有人問：從前面一路以來，阿難都沒有言論，如今為什麼替須菩提回答呢？
論主回答：阿難是第三次轉法輪的大將，能作大眾之師，是世尊的近侍。他雖然證得了初道，但因為煩惱還沒有斷盡，雖然有廣多的聞慧智慧，自己對於空的智慧卻還不能善巧，若要說空法，因為自己還沒有證入，說的都成了別人的事，所以就無話可說。有時說到有相之事，他就能問、能答。就像後面品中問佛：『世尊為什麼只讚歎般若波羅蜜，卻不讚歎其餘五波羅蜜？』這裡問的是『誰能信受這甚深的般若波羅蜜』，並不是關於空的事，所以阿難才出面回答。須菩提一向樂於說空的事，不喜歡說有。
再者，因為阿難這時起了樂說之心，所以出面回答。阿難的煩惱還沒斷盡，所以智慧力較鈍，然而信力猛利，所以能在甚深的般若波羅蜜中如法地問答。
般若無所有、無定法，怎能說『四種人信受、不謗為非法』
有人問：般若波羅蜜無所有，沒有一種固定之法，怎麼能說『四種人信受，不說它非法』呢？
論主回答：如今須菩提在這裡自己說出因緣：『不用空去分別色，色就是空，空就是色。』因為這個緣故，般若波羅蜜沒有所失、沒有所破；既然沒有所破，就沒有過罪，所以不說它非法。空就是般若波羅蜜，並不是用空的智慧去破色而令它成空，也不是因為破色的緣故才有空，而是空本來就是色、色本來就是空的緣故。因為般若波羅蜜當中破除種種戲論，有這樣的功德，所以沒有不信受的。無相、無作，無生、無滅，寂滅、遠離，也都是這樣。乃至一切種智，都應當如此廣說。
諸大弟子問這道理，須菩提為什麼卻回答諸天子
有人問：諸位大弟子問這道理，須菩提為什麼卻回答諸天子呢？
論主回答：諸位大弟子已經證得阿羅漢，只是為自己的疑惑才問，所得的利益不多；諸天子發心作菩薩，利益深廣，所以為他們而說。再者，雖然是為諸天子說，其實就是回答了諸位大弟子。前面說『諸法空』，如今說『甚深般若波羅蜜中眾生畢竟空』。因為這個緣故，般若波羅蜜當中並沒有能說的人，何況有能聽受的人呢！若能這樣了解諸法空，心無所著，就能信受。
舍利弗讚歎助成：般若不但可空受，也廣說三乘、攝取菩薩、化生、七種辯
那時，須菩提說甚深的般若波羅蜜，舍利弗讚歎、助成這件事：『般若波羅蜜不只是因為空才可以領受，也廣說有三乘。』三乘的義理，如前面所說。
所謂『攝取菩薩』，是用般若波羅蜜利益諸位菩薩，使他們得以增長。再者，所謂『攝取』，是說般若波羅蜜當中有十地，令菩薩從一地進到一地，乃至第十地。十地的義理、從六波羅蜜乃至一切種智的義理，如前面所說。所謂『化生』，是說修般若波羅蜜的行報。因為修般若波羅蜜，對一切法無所障礙，所以得到『捷疾辯』。有人雖然能夠捷疾，卻因為根鈍而不能深入，因為能深入才叫作利，這是『利辯』。宣說諸法實相，無邊無盡，所以名為『樂說無盡辯』。因為般若當中沒有種種戲論，沒有人能問難得倒、令其斷絕，所以名為『不可斷辯』。因為斷除了對法的愛著，能隨眾生的根機相應而為說法，所以名為『隨應辯』。因為宣說趣向涅槃、利益眾生之事，所以名為『義辯』。因為宣說一切世間第一之事，也就是大乘，所以名為『世間最上辯』。
收束：般若廣說三乘並無定相，皆以十八空和合故說，以空智慧故
須菩提認可舍利弗的發問，說：『正是這樣！正是這樣！』舍利弗心裡起這樣的念頭：『須菩提一向樂於說空，為什麼卻領受我所說的、般若廣說三乘的教法呢？應當另有因緣。』須菩提便答：『般若波羅蜜雖然廣說三乘之法，卻並沒有固定之相，都是以十八空和合的緣故才說的。攝取菩薩、以及七種辯，也都是這樣，都是憑著空的智慧才有的。』
The gods Wonder in Their Minds ‘What Kind of Person Should Listen?’; Subhūti Answers: Listen as a Conjured Person
At that time a thought arose in the minds of the gods: ‘What kind of person should listen to the Dharma that Subhūti speaks?’ Subhūti knew what the gods were thinking in their minds, and said to them: ‘One should listen to the Dharma the way a conjured person, as if brought forth by illusion, would; this Dharma of mine should be listened to by just such a person. Why? Because such a person has no one able to hear, no one able to listen, no one able to know, and no one able to realise.’
The gods then said to Subhūti: ‘These beings are like an illusion, like a transformation; is the one who listens to the Dharma also like an illusion, like a transformation?’
Beings, the Self, and Even the Path of the Buddha Are All Like an Illusion, Like a Dream
Subhūti answered: ‘Just so! Just so! Gods! Beings are like an illusion, and the one who listens to the Dharma is also like an illusion; beings are like a transformation, and the one who listens to the Dharma is also like a transformation. Gods! I am like an illusion, like a dream; beings, and so on up to the one who is able to know and the one who is able to see, are also like an illusion, like a dream. Gods! Form is like an illusion, like a dream; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are also like an illusion, like a dream.
‘From the eye all the way up to the various feelings born from the condition of mind-contact—all are like an illusion, like a dream; inner emptiness all the way up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, and the dānapāramitā of giving all the way up to the prajñāpāramitā of wisdom, are also like an illusion, like a dream. Gods! The four foundations of mindfulness all the way up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—all are like an illusion, like a dream; the fruit of the srota-āpanna is like an illusion, like a dream, and the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the fruit of the anāgāmin, the fruit of the arhat, and the path of the pratyekabuddha are also like an illusion, like a dream. Gods! The path of the Buddha too is like an illusion, like a dream.’
The gods, Startled, Ask Again: Is Even Nirvāṇa Like an Illusion, Like a Dream?—Illusion, Dream, and Nirvāṇa Are Without Duality and Without Difference
At that time the gods asked Subhūti: ‘You say that the path of the Buddha is like an illusion, like a dream; do you say that nirvāṇa too is like an illusion, like a dream?’
Subhūti said to the gods: ‘I say that the path of the Buddha is like an illusion, like a dream; I say that nirvāṇa too is like an illusion, like a dream. Even if there were a dharma that surpassed nirvāṇa, I would say that it too is likewise like an illusion, like a dream. Why? Gods! This illusion, this dream, and this nirvāṇa are not two at all, and are not different at all.’
What follows is the commentary.
The Treatise-Author Asks and Answers Himself (1): Since ‘No Speaking, No Listening’ Has Already Been Said, Why Ask Again ‘What Kind of Person Should Listen’?
Question: It has already been said above: ‘like an illusion, like a dream, there is no one who speaks and no one who listens’. Why, then, is it now asked again: ‘What kind of person should listen to the Dharma in accord with Subhūti's meaning?’
Answer: Because the gods had said earlier, ‘What Subhūti says is hard to understand’, Subhūti here answered them with the simile of the conjured person. Now the gods again have this thought: ‘What kind of person listening would be in accord with what Subhūti says, so as to be able to believe it, able to receive it, able to practise it, and able to attain the fruit of the path?’ Subhūti then answers: ‘One who listens as a conjured person would is in accord with the Dharma I speak.’
A Conjured Person Has No Mind and No Mental-Factor Dharmas—Why Speak the Dharma to It? Only to Make the Practitioner Use the Mind Without Clinging
Question: This conjured person has no mind and no mental factors at all; it simply cannot listen and cannot receive. Why speak the Dharma to it?
Answer: It is not that a conjured person is really meant to listen; it is only to make the practitioner use the mind toward all dharmas without clinging to anything, just like a conjured person—that conjured person has neither anything able to hear nor anything able to realise. Beings are like an illusion, like a dream, and listening to the Dharma is also like an illusion, like a dream—here ‘beings’ refers to the one who speaks the Dharma, and ‘listening to the Dharma’ refers to the one who receives the Dharma.
Subhūti says: ‘Not only are the one who speaks the Dharma and the one who listens to the Dharma like an illusion, like a dream; I, and so on up to the one who is able to know and the one who is able to see, are all like an illusion, like a dream; form too is like an illusion, like a dream; all the way up to nirvāṇa, all are like an illusion, like a dream—that is, the Dharma that is spoken is like an illusion, like a dream.’
The Buddha and Nirvāṇa Are Highest and Most Wondrous—How Can They Too Be Like an Illusion, Like a Dream? Subhūti Answers Firmly: Precisely Like an Illusion, Like a Dream
Among all beings, the Buddha is foremost; among all dharmas, nirvāṇa is foremost. When the gods heard these two spoken of as like an illusion, like a dream, alarm and doubt arose in their minds: ‘The Buddha and nirvāṇa are highest and most wondrous; how can they be like an illusion, like a dream?’ For this reason they pressed the matter once more, earnestly: ‘Are the Buddha and nirvāṇa truly like an illusion, like a dream?’ ‘Could it be that Subhūti has misspoken? Could it be that we have misheard?’ Therefore they steadied their minds and pressed the question again.
Subhūti said to the gods: ‘I say that the Buddha and nirvāṇa are precisely like an illusion, like a dream.’
Though the Two Dharmas of the Buddha and Nirvāṇa Are Wondrous, Both Come Forth from False Dharmas and Are Empty; Even If a Dharma Surpassed Nirvāṇa, It Too Would Be Like an Illusion
Though these two dharmas, the Buddha and nirvāṇa, are subtle and wondrous, both come forth from false dharmas, and therefore they are empty. Why? Because it is from false dharmas that there is nirvāṇa, and from merit and wisdom that there is the Buddha; both these dharmas are bound to causes and conditions and have no real, fixed own-nature—as was said in the meaning of the recollection of the Buddha and the recollection of the Dharma.
Subhūti has this thought: ‘By the power of prajñāpāramitā, even if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it could be made like an illusion—how much more nirvāṇa!’ Why is this said? Nirvāṇa is the place where all sorrow, suffering, and affliction come to a complete end; for this reason there is no dharma at all that can surpass nirvāṇa.
Since No Dharma Surpasses Nirvāṇa, Why Say ‘If a Dharma Surpassed Nirvāṇa, It Too Would Be Like an Illusion’?—A Simile Either Uses a Real Matter or Is a Supposition
Question: If there is no dharma at all that surpasses nirvāṇa, why say, ‘If there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would likewise be like an illusion’?
Answer: In the manner of speaking by simile, sometimes a real matter is used, and sometimes it is only a supposition; either way it is said in accordance with causes and conditions. It is as the Buddha once said: ‘If trees could understand the Dharma I speak, I would also predict of them that they had attained srota-āpanna.’ But trees have no causes and conditions for understanding; the Buddha merely brought in this simile in order to awaken people's minds.
Nirvāṇa Is the Ultimate and Unsurpassed Dharma Among All Dharmas, Where All the Many Sufferings Come to a Complete End
Nirvāṇa is the ultimate and unsurpassed dharma among all dharmas. Just as among the many rivers and the ten thousand streams the great ocean is highest, among the mountains Mount Sumeru is highest, and among all dharmas space is highest, so too is nirvāṇa: it has no suffering of old age, sickness, and death; no wrong views, greed, hatred, and the other kinds of decline and affliction; no suffering of separation from what is loved; no suffering of meeting with what is hated; no suffering of not getting what is sought; and impermanence, falsity and deceit, decay, and alteration—none of these are there at all. To put it briefly, nirvāṇa is the ending of all suffering, ultimately permanent and blissful; it is the place to which the buddhas of the ten directions, the bodhisattvas, and the assemblies of disciples all go for refuge; secure and at peace, permanent and blissful, no dharma can surpass it, and in the end it cannot be destroyed by the Māra-king or Māra's people. As is said in the Abhidharma: ‘Surpassable dharmas are all conditioned dharmas, together with space and cessation not through the condition of knowledge; the unsurpassed dharma is cessation through the condition of knowledge, that is, nirvāṇa.’ From this it can be known that there is no dharma at all that surpasses nirvāṇa.
Subhūti Praises the Great Power of Prajñā: Were There a Dharma Surpassing Nirvāṇa, Prajñā Could Still Break It—the Simile of the Hot Iron Ball Burning Down
It was in order to praise the greatness of the power of prajñāpāramitā that Subhūti said: ‘If there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would likewise be like an illusion.’ It is like an extremely hot iron ball placed on fine down that has been plucked and fluffed: it burns straight downward through it, and its heat is not diminished in the least—there is simply nothing more to burn. The wisdom of prajñāpāramitā breaks all conditioned dharmas, and so on up to breaking even nirvāṇa, passing straight through without any obstruction; the power of that wisdom does not recede—there is simply no dharma left to break. For this reason it is said: ‘Even if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, the power of wisdom could break it all the same.’
The Great Disciples Ask Together: Prajñā So Profound as This—Who, After All, Can Receive It?
At that time the venerable Śāriputra, Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Mahākauṣṭhila, Mahākātyāyana, Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra, Mahākāśyapa, and countless thousands of bodhisattvas together asked Subhūti: ‘Prajñāpāramitā is profound in this way, hard to see, hard to understand, hard to know, quiescent, subtle and wondrous; who, after all, can receive it?’
Ānanda Answers on His Behalf: There Are Four Kinds of People Who Can Receive This Profound Prajñā
At that time Ānanda said to the great disciples and to the bodhisattvas: ‘The bodhisattva-mahāsattvas who are avaivartika (non-retrogressing) can receive this prajñāpāramitā that is profound, hard to see, hard to understand, hard to know, quiescent, subtle and wondrous; people who are accomplished in right view, and arhats whose outflows are exhausted and whose vows are fulfilled, can also receive it; and further, those good men and good women who have seen many buddhas, who have made many offerings where the buddhas are, who have planted roots of goodness, who draw near to good friends, and who also have sharp faculties—such people too can receive it, and will not say of this Dharma whether it is right or wrong.’
Subhūti Expounds: Do Not Discriminate Form by Emptiness, Nor Discriminate Emptiness by Form
Subhūti said: ‘Do not discriminate form by emptiness, nor discriminate emptiness by form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise. Do not discriminate form by the signless and non-action, nor discriminate the signless and non-action by form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise. Do not discriminate form by non-arising, non-ceasing, quiescence, and separation, nor discriminate non-arising, non-ceasing, quiescence, and separation by form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise. From the eye all the way up to the various feelings born from the condition of mind-contact are likewise. The dānapāramitā of giving all the way up to prajñāpāramitā, inner emptiness all the way up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the four foundations of mindfulness all the way up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, all the gates of samādhi, all the gates of dhāraṇī, the srota-āpanna all the way up to the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, and the Buddha; and so on up to omniscience: do not discriminate omniscience by emptiness, nor discriminate emptiness by omniscience; do not discriminate the omniscience of all kinds by emptiness, nor discriminate emptiness by the omniscience of all kinds; the signless, non-action, non-arising, non-ceasing, quiescence, and separation are all likewise.’
Prajñā Is Profound: Within It There Is No Dharma to Be Shown and No Dharma to Be Spoken, and Even the One Who Receives the Dharma Is Altogether Unfindable
Subhūti further said to the gods: ‘This prajñāpāramitā is profound; who can receive it? Within this prajñāpāramitā there is not a single dharma that can be shown, not a single dharma that can be spoken; since there is no dharma to be shown and no dharma to be spoken, the one who receives the Dharma is then altogether unfindable.’
Śāriputra Praises It: Prajñā Widely Teaches the Three Vehicles and Gathers In the Bodhisattvas, Enabling Bodhisattvas to Attain the Seven Kinds of Eloquence
At that time Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘Within prajñāpāramitā the teachings of the three vehicles are widely taught, together with the Dharma-gates that gather in the bodhisattvas: from the very first ground of arousing intent all the way up to the tenth ground, the dānapāramitā of giving all the way up to prajñāpāramitā, the four foundations of mindfulness all the way up to the eight limbs of the noble path, the ten powers of the Buddha all the way up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—all of these protect and uphold the bodhisattvas' teaching. The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises prajñāpāramitā in this way always takes on a body by apparitional birth, does not lose the supernormal powers, travels through the lands of the buddhas, fulfils all the roots of goodness, makes offerings to the buddhas according to his wishes and has his wish fulfilled on the spot, hears and receives the teaching where the buddhas are, and never ceases until he accomplishes omniscience; never being apart from samādhi, he is able to attain swift eloquence, sharp eloquence, inexhaustible eloquence, unbreakable eloquence, responsive eloquence, eloquence of meaning, and the eloquence foremost in all the world.’
Subhūti Affirms What Śāriputra Said and Brings It Back to ‘Altogether Unfindable’
Subhūti said: ‘Just so! Just so! As Śāriputra has said, prajñāpāramitā widely teaches the teachings of the three vehicles and protects and upholds the bodhisattvas' teaching, and so on up to the bodhisattva-mahāsattva attaining the eloquence foremost in all the world—all of this is because of being altogether unfindable. I, and so on up to the one who is able to know and the one who is able to see, am altogether unfindable; form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the dānapāramitā of giving all the way up to prajñāpāramitā, are also altogether unfindable; inner emptiness all the way up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas is also altogether unfindable; the four foundations of mindfulness all the way up to the eight limbs of the noble path, and the ten powers of the Buddha all the way up to the omniscience of all kinds, are also all altogether unfindable.’
Śāriputra Asks Again What the Cause and Condition Is; Subhūti Answers: Because of Inner Emptiness, and So On Up to the Emptiness of Non-existent and Existent Dharmas
Śāriputra again asked Subhūti: ‘By what cause and condition does prajñāpāramitā widely teach the three vehicles and yet they are altogether unfindable? By what cause and condition does prajñāpāramitā protect and uphold the bodhisattvas? And by what cause and condition does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva attain swift eloquence, and so on up to the eloquence foremost in all the world, and yet it is altogether unfindable?’
Subhūti said to Śāriputra: ‘Because of inner emptiness, prajñāpāramitā widely teaches the three vehicles and yet they are altogether unfindable; because of outer emptiness all the way up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, it widely teaches the three vehicles and yet they are altogether unfindable. Because of inner emptiness, protecting and upholding the bodhisattvas, and so on up to the eloquence foremost in all the world, are altogether unfindable; because of outer emptiness all the way up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, protecting and upholding the bodhisattvas, and so on up to the eloquence foremost in all the world, are altogether unfindable.’
What follows is the commentary.
The Treatise-Author Explains the Sixfold Meaning of ‘Profound, Hard to See, Hard to Understand and Hard to Know, Quiescent, Subtle and Wondrous’
The treatise-author explains: At this time the great disciples, Śāriputra and the others, said to Subhūti: ‘This Dharma of prajñāpāramitā is profound and hard to understand.’ Because dharmas have no fixed mark, it is called ‘profound’; because all thinking and all contemplative practice have come to rest, it is called ‘hard to see’; and because there is no clinging even to prajñāpāramitā, it is named ‘hard to understand, hard to know’; because the three poisons and all idle discourse have come to rest, it is named ‘quiescent’; because the wondrous taste of this wisdom has been gained, one is always content and seeks nothing further, and all other wisdom by comparison is coarse and rough and hard to delight in—therefore it is called ‘subtle and wondrous’.
Worldly People's Wisdom Is Shallow; They Crave the Rewards of Merit Yet Do Not Cultivate Merit—Who Among Such People Can Believe and Receive It?
The great disciples speak thus: ‘The wisdom of prajñāpāramitā is profound, but the wisdom of worldly people is shallow and thin; they only crave the karmic result of merit and do not delight in cultivating merit. When clinging to "existence", their will is keen and bold; once "existence" is broken, their minds grow timid. To the books of wrong views they have heard and practised from the start they cling firmly and will not let go; such people always delight in the pleasures of the world.’ For this reason it is said: ‘Who can believe and receive this profound prajñāpāramitā? If no one believes and receives it, why speak it at all?’
Ānanda Steps Forward to Help Answer: There Are Four Kinds of People Who Can Believe and Receive It
Ānanda steps forward to help answer: there are four kinds of people who can believe and receive it, so what the venerable Subhūti says will certainly be believed and received by someone; it is not spoken in vain. The first kind is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who is avaivartika: knowing that all dharmas neither arise nor cease, he does not grasp at the marks of dharmas and clings to nothing, and therefore he can believe and receive it. The second kind is the arhat whose outflows are exhausted: because the outflows are exhausted he clings to nothing, has attained the highest, unconditioned dharma, his vows are fulfilled and he seeks nothing further; therefore he always abides in the samādhi of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, in accord with prajñāpāramitā, and therefore he can believe and receive it. The third kind is the three kinds of trainees: right view is already accomplished, and although their afflictions are not yet entirely exhausted, because of the four kinds of power of faith they too can believe and receive it. The fourth kind is the bodhisattva who, although he has not yet attained the state of avaivartika, is deep in merit, sharp in faculties, pure in wisdom, and always follows good friends; such a person too can believe and receive it. The mark of believing and receiving is precisely this: one does not say, ‘This Dharma is not what the Buddha, the bodhisattvas, or the great disciples spoke’; and although one hears prajñāpāramitā teach that all dharmas are ultimately empty, one does not, out of attachment to the dharmas one learned before, say that prajñā is ‘not the Dharma’.
Ānanda Has Always Been Silent—Why Does He Answer Here on Subhūti's Behalf?
Question: All along from the beginning Ānanda has had nothing to say; why does he now answer on Subhūti's behalf?
Answer: Ānanda is the great general of the third turning of the Dharma wheel, able to act as teacher of the great assembly, and is the close attendant of the World-Honored One. Although he has realised the first path, because his afflictions are not yet entirely cut off—though he has abundant wisdom from hearing and knowledge—he is not yet himself skilled in the wisdom of emptiness. If he were to speak the dharma of emptiness, since he himself has not yet realised and entered it, what he said would all become another person's matter; so he has nothing to say. At times, when a matter that has marks is under discussion, he is able to ask and able to answer. It is as in a later chapter he asks the Buddha: ‘Why does the World-Honored One praise only prajñāpāramitā and not praise the other five perfections?’ What is asked here is ‘Who can believe and receive this profound prajñāpāramitā?’, which is not a matter of emptiness; so Ānanda steps forward to answer. Subhūti has always delighted in speaking of the matter of emptiness and does not like to speak of existence.
Furthermore, because Ānanda at this time gave rise to a mind that delighted in speaking, he stepped forward to answer. Ānanda's afflictions are not yet entirely cut off, so the power of his wisdom is somewhat dull; yet the power of his faith is keen, and so he is able to ask and answer in accordance with the Dharma within the profound prajñāpāramitā.
Prajñā Is Without Anything Existent and Has No Fixed Dharma—How Can It Be Said That ‘Four Kinds of People Believe and Receive It and Do Not Slander It as Not the Dharma’?
Question: Prajñāpāramitā is without anything existent and has not a single fixed dharma; how can it be said that ‘four kinds of people believe and receive it and do not say it is not the Dharma’?
Answer: Now Subhūti himself states the cause and condition here: ‘Do not discriminate form by emptiness; form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.’ For this reason prajñāpāramitā has nothing lost and nothing broken; since there is nothing broken, there is no fault, and so no one says it is not the Dharma. Emptiness is precisely prajñāpāramitā; it is not that the wisdom of emptiness breaks form and makes it become empty, nor that emptiness exists because form has been broken; rather, it is because emptiness is from the beginning form, and form is from the beginning emptiness. Because within prajñāpāramitā all idle discourse is broken, and it has merits such as these, there is no one who does not believe and receive it. The signless and non-action, non-arising and non-ceasing, quiescence and separation, are all likewise. And so on up to the omniscience of all kinds: all should be widely explained in this way.
The Great Disciples Asked About This Principle—Why Does Subhūti Instead Answer the gods?
Question: The great disciples asked about this principle; why does Subhūti instead answer the gods?
Answer: The great disciples have already realised arhatship and ask only because of their own doubts, so the benefit gained is not great; the gods have aroused the mind to become bodhisattvas, and the benefit is deep and wide, so it is spoken for their sake. Furthermore, although it is spoken for the gods, in fact it answers the great disciples. Earlier it was said, ‘all dharmas are empty’; now it is said, ‘within profound prajñāpāramitā, beings are ultimately empty’. For this reason, within prajñāpāramitā there is no one who is able to speak—how much less anyone who is able to listen and receive! If one can understand in this way that all dharmas are empty, with the mind clinging to nothing, one can believe and receive it.
Śāriputra Praises and Helps Complete It: Prajñā Is Not Only to Be Received as Empty, but Also Widely Teaches the Three Vehicles, Gathers In the Bodhisattvas, Apparitional Birth, and the Seven Kinds of Eloquence
At that time, as Subhūti was speaking the profound prajñāpāramitā, Śāriputra praised and helped complete the matter: ‘Prajñāpāramitā can be received not only because of emptiness; it also widely teaches that there are three vehicles.’ The meaning of the three vehicles is as explained earlier.
As for ‘gathering in the bodhisattvas’: it means using prajñāpāramitā to benefit the bodhisattvas, so that they may grow and increase. Furthermore, ‘gathering in’ means that within prajñāpāramitā there are the ten grounds, which lead the bodhisattva from one ground on to the next, and so on up to the tenth ground. The meaning of the ten grounds, and the meaning from the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, are as explained earlier. As for ‘apparitional birth’: this refers to the result of the practice of cultivating prajñāpāramitā. Because one cultivates prajñāpāramitā and is unobstructed toward all dharmas, one attains ‘swift eloquence’. Some people, though able to be swift, cannot go deep because their faculties are dull; because one can go deep it is called sharp—this is ‘sharp eloquence’. Because one proclaims the real mark of all dharmas, without limit and without end, it is named ‘the inexhaustible eloquence of delight in speaking’. Because within prajñā there is no idle discourse of any kind, and no one can pose a difficulty that defeats it and cuts it off, it is named ‘unbreakable eloquence’. Because attachment to dharmas has been cut off, and one can speak the Dharma in response to the faculties of beings, it is named ‘responsive eloquence’. Because one proclaims matters that lead toward nirvāṇa and benefit beings, it is named ‘eloquence of meaning’. Because one proclaims the foremost matter in all the world, namely the Great Vehicle, it is named ‘the eloquence foremost in the world’.
Conclusion: Prajñā Widely Teaches the Three Vehicles Yet Has No Fixed Mark; All Is Taught Because of the Coming Together of the Eighteen Emptinesses, Because of the Wisdom of Emptiness
Subhūti approved Śāriputra's question, saying: ‘Just so! Just so!’ A thought arose in Śāriputra's mind: ‘Subhūti has always delighted in speaking of emptiness; why, then, does he accept what I have said, that prajñā widely teaches the teachings of the three vehicles? There must be another cause and condition.’ Subhūti then answered: ‘Although prajñāpāramitā widely teaches the dharmas of the three vehicles, they have no fixed mark at all; all are taught because of the coming together of the eighteen emptinesses. Gathering in the bodhisattvas, and the seven kinds of eloquence, are also likewise: all exist by virtue of the wisdom of emptiness.’
幻人聽法品：聽者如幻，乃至涅槃如幻，何以不墮斷滅
在問什麼
這一品的名字叫「幻人聽法」——用如幻化的人來聽法。一開場，諸天子心裡起了一個念頭：「該用什麼樣的人，來聽須菩提所說的法？」須菩提知道他們的心念，便答：要用像幻化人那樣的人來聽，因為這樣的人無聞、無聽、無知、無證。順著這一句，須菩提把「如幻如夢」一路推開去——眾生如幻，聽法者亦如幻；我、乃至知者見者如幻如夢；色受想行識、六入觸受、諸空、諸度、四念處乃至十八不共法、四沙門果乃至辟支佛道，一遍一遍撿過去，最後直說「佛道如幻、如夢」。到這裡諸天子還忍得住，可是再往前一步就撐不住了：連涅槃也如幻如夢嗎？這一問，正是全品最尖銳的地方。
底下壓著幾個不好回答的問題。其一，既然前面已說「無說者、無聽者」，何以又要問「該用什麼人聽」？其二，幻化人沒有心、沒有心數法，根本不能聽受，對它說法有什麼意義？其三，也是最重的一問——佛與涅槃在一切眾生、一切諸法中都稱第一、最上最妙，怎麼能說成如幻如夢，這豈不是把最尊貴的也一併掃空、墮入斷滅了嗎？後半品又換了一組人來問同一件事的另一面：這樣甚深、難見、難解、難知、寂滅、微妙的般若，究竟誰承受得起？這一品要回答的，正是「如幻」二字如何能一路推到涅槃而仍不墮斷滅，以及這無所有的深法，落在什麼樣的人身上才立得住。
逐段解明
第一，先看「用幻化人聽法」這句怪話從哪裡來。諸天子先前嫌須菩提所說難解，須菩提才拈出「幻化人聽」作答——並不是真要一個幻人來聽，而是要令聽法的人用心如幻、於諸法無所執著。論主在這裡點出一組對照：「眾生」指的是說法的人，「聽法」指的是受法的人；說者、受者、乃至所說之法，三處都如幻如夢。這一步先把聽法這件事本身架空，聽者不執實有一個能聽的我、能受的法，下面「乃至涅槃如幻」才推得動。
第二，看須菩提如何把「如幻」一路推到頂。眾生、我、知者見者，色乃至識，六入觸受，內空乃至無法有法空，檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜，四念處乃至十八不共法，四沙門果乃至辟支佛道，佛道——這一長串不是鋪排辭藻，而是要說明：凡落在名相、落在因緣裡的，無一不如幻如夢。推到「佛道如幻」，已是把最高的果位也收進來了。諸天子驚疑，是因為「一切眾生中佛第一，一切諸法中涅槃第一」，最上最妙的兩件事怎能如幻？於是定下心來再問一次：佛與涅槃當真如幻如夢嗎，莫非須菩提說錯、我們聽岔了？須菩提的答語斬釘截鐵：「正自如幻、如夢。」關鍵在他隨即給出的理由——佛與涅槃二法雖妙，卻都從虛妄法而出：從虛妄法故有涅槃，從福德智慧故有佛，二法皆屬因緣、無有實定。可見「如幻」並不是說涅槃斷滅不存在，而是說它同樣是待緣而立、無自性可執——這正是般若「幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」一句的落點：三者在「無自性」這一義上平等，不是把涅槃降同於虛妄，而是連虛妄與涅槃的對立相也一併放下。
第三，看「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」這句假設如何安立。須菩提本已說「無有法勝涅槃者」——涅槃是一切憂苦畢竟滅處，如眾川中大海最上、諸山中須彌最上、諸法中虛空最上，無老病死苦、無邪見貪恚等衰、無愛別離怨憎會所求不得苦，一切無常虛誑敗壞變異盡皆無有，是十方佛菩薩弟子所歸、終不為魔所破。既然無法勝過，何以又設「若有法勝涅槃亦如幻」？論主答得極穩：譬喻之法，或用實事、或出假設，都隨因緣而說；正如「若令樹木解我所說，我亦記言得須陀洹」——樹木本無可解，只為開悟人意而假設之。這句假設，是為了把般若破法的力量說到盡頭：如一顆大熱鐵丸放在細毛上，直燒穿過而熱勢不損，只是再無可燒之物；般若破一切有法乃至涅槃，直過無礙而智力不減，只是再無法可破。「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」，說的正是這破到無可再破的智慧之力，而非真有一法勝過涅槃。
第四，後半品換一組人問同一深法的另一面：誰承受得起？諸大弟子與無數千菩薩齊問——這甚深、難見、難解、難知、寂滅、微妙的般若，誰當受者。論主逐字解此六義：諸法無定相故「甚深」，思惟觀行滅故「難見」，不著般若故「難解、難知」，滅三毒諸戲論故「寂滅」，得此妙味恆足、餘智皆粗澀故「微妙」。世間人智淺，貪福而不修福，著有則勇、破有則怯，堅著邪見不捨，這樣的人受不起，於是問「誰能信受」。阿難出面代答四種人：一是阿鞞跋致菩薩，知法不生不滅、無所著；二是漏盡阿羅漢，所願已滿、常住三三昧、隨順般若；三是三種學人，正見成就、四信力故；四是雖未得阿鞞跋致、而福德利根、常隨善知識的菩薩。四種人的共相，是「不言是法非法」——不因愛著先前所學，就毀般若為非法。
第五，這裡插進一個關於說法者的問難，恰見全品分寸。問：阿難一向沉默，何以此處代答？論主的回答很要緊：阿難是第三轉法輪將、世尊近侍，雖得初道而漏未盡，對「空」的智慧未能善巧，若說空法，自己尚未證入，說來都成他事，所以無言；而問「誰能信受」屬有相之事，非關空理，阿難便能問能答——他這時樂說心生，煩惱雖未盡而信力猛利，故能於深般若中如法問答。這一段不是閒筆：它劃出「說空」與「說有」的界限，說空須自入，說有則憑聞慧信力可及；連代答的資格都要如此分辨，正見般若之空非泛泛可說。隨後又有一問收束義理：般若無所有、無定法，怎能說四種人信受而不謗非法？答在須菩提自說的因緣——「不以空分別色，色即是空，空即是色」：般若無所失、無所破，既無所破則無過罪，故不謗非法；空即是般若，並非以空破色令空，而是色空本自不二。
第六，末段把深法落回菩薩的行與德。有人疑：諸大弟子發問，須菩提何以卻答諸天子？論主答：大弟子已得阿羅漢，為自疑而問、益利事少；諸天子發心為菩薩，利益深故為之說——且雖為諸天子說，即是答諸大弟子。接著舍利弗讚歎助成：般若非但可空受，也廣說三乘、攝取菩薩、化生受身、令得七辯。論主逐一釋之：「攝取菩薩」是般若中有十地，令菩薩從一地至第十地；「化生」是說般若行報；七辯則是行般若於一切法無礙之德——捷疾辯、利辯、樂說無盡辯、不可斷辯、隨應辯、義辯、世間最上辯，一一皆有其所以。最後舍利弗還有一疑：須菩提常樂說空，何以受我廣說三乘之語？須菩提一句收盡全品：般若雖廣說三乘，並非有定相，「皆以十八空和合故說」；攝取菩薩、七種辯亦復如是，「以空智慧故」。可見廣說三乘與畢竟空並不相礙——正因十八空，三乘之教才立得起而不落定相。
不要讀錯
不要把「乃至涅槃如幻」讀成涅槃斷滅、根本不存在。論說得明白：涅槃如幻，是就它「從虛妄法出、屬因緣、無有實定」而言，是無自性可執，不是無涅槃可證；經文自己下的斷語是「幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」——是三者在無自性上平等，不是把涅槃拉低成虛妄。也不要把「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」讀成真有一法勝過涅槃；那是隨因緣的假設之辭，如樹木解語之喻，只為把般若破法之力說到「更無可破」的盡頭。更不要把「用幻化人聽法」讀成教人麻木無心地聽；那是教聽者用心如幻、於法無所著，不是不聞不受。最後，不要把阿難代答讀成阿難能說空；論恰恰藉此劃界——阿難能答的是「誰能信受」這有相之問，說空仍須自入方能善巧，這一分辨，正是全品對「空之難說」最鄭重的提醒。
修行作用
這一品可當一面照心的鏡子。當我們用功聽法、讀經時，不妨想一想「幻人聽法」這句話：能不能一面聽受、一面不執著有一個實在的「我」在聽、有一個實在的「法」被得？聽而如幻，才不會把法變成又一樣可執可爭的東西。遇到「乃至涅槃如幻」這樣震動人的話，不要急著駭怕或急著否定，先看它說的是哪一義——是「無自性」還是「無其事」；把這一步分清楚，許多看似掃空一切的般若語，才不至於被讀成斷滅。對照四種能受深般若的人，也可回看自己：是因愛著舊解而先判「非法」，還是能於畢竟空前心不生怯、不生毀謗？而阿難「說有能答、說空須自入」這一節，更是切身的提醒：有些道理不是聞得多、記得熟就說得的，須自己真入其中；於未證處存一分老實，不強說自己未入之境，正是修行人該有的分寸。
承衍
這一品「乃至涅槃如幻」的震動之句，歷來為般若學所重，後世講經者多所援引。有天台家的古德在辨滅諦、講「若有一法過涅槃者，我亦說如幻化」時，便逐字引本品經初「諸天子心念，如幻人聽法，無聽無聞、無知無證」乃至論釋「一切眾生中佛第一、一切法中涅槃第一」一段，用以印證涅槃如幻而非斷滅之義——只是所引卷次數字與今本略有出入，此處誌其取徑、不論其異同。也有古德在逐文疏釋前一品時，以一句「次幻聽品示其聽法之方」概括本品大意帶過，未及展開，可見古來讀此品者，皆先認取「聽法之方」這一眼目。至於品名，本品古來又稱「如幻品」，舊時經錄與索引之屬，於同一梵本的幾種漢譯間，或作「幻人聽法品」、或作「幻聽品」、或作「如幻品」、「法師如幻品」，品名品次互見參差；這些只是傳譯稱謂的出入，並錄以備參，不判其孰是。把這些讀法帶回本品，最值得留住的並不是一張更細的品名對照表，而是這一品對「如幻」的用法：它敢把如幻一路推到涅槃，卻在推到盡頭時以「不二不別」收住，既不留一法可執，也不把涅槃掃成虛無——這一放一收之間，正是般若「畢竟空而不斷滅」的分寸所在。
The Illusory Person Hears the Dharma: The Hearer Like an Illusion, and So On Up to Nirvāṇa Like an Illusion—Why It Does Not Fall into Annihilation
What Is Being Asked
The name of this chapter is 「幻人聽法」 tr. "an illusory person hears the Dharma"—hearing the Dharma with a person like a conjuration. At the very opening, a thought arises in the minds of the gods: 「該用什麼樣的人，來聽須菩提所說的法？」 tr. "What sort of person should be used to hear the Dharma that Subhūti speaks?" Subhūti, knowing their thoughts, answers: a person like a conjured person should be used to hear it, because such a person has no hearing, no listening, no knowing, and no realising. Following on from this one sentence, Subhūti pushes 「如幻如夢」 tr. "like an illusion, like a dream" all the way outward—beings are like an illusion, and the hearers of the Dharma are also like an illusion; the self, and so on up to the knower and the seer, are like an illusion, like a dream; form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the six sense-fields, contact, and feeling, the emptinesses, the perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, the four fruits of the śramaṇa up to the path of the pratyekabuddha—he picks them up one after another, time after time, and at the last says outright 「佛道如幻、如夢」 tr. "the Buddha-path is like an illusion, like a dream." Up to here the gods can still bear it, but one step further and they can hold out no longer: is even nirvāṇa like an illusion, like a dream? This question is precisely the sharpest point of the whole chapter.
Beneath it lie several questions that are not easy to answer. First, since it has already been said earlier 「無說者、無聽者」 tr. "there is no speaker and no hearer," why ask again 「該用什麼人聽」 tr. "what person should be used to hear"? Second, a conjured person has no mind and no mental-factor dharmas and simply cannot hear and receive; what meaning is there in speaking the Dharma to it? Third, and the weightiest question of all—the Buddha and nirvāṇa are called foremost among all beings and among all dharmas, the highest and most wondrous; how can they be said to be like an illusion, like a dream? Does this not sweep away even the most honoured along with everything else and fall into annihilation? The latter half of the chapter changes to another group of people, who ask about another side of the same matter: this prajñā, so very deep, hard to see, hard to understand, hard to know, quiescent, and subtle—who, in the end, can bear it? What this chapter sets out to answer is exactly how the two words 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion" can be pushed all the way to nirvāṇa and still not fall into annihilation, and on what kind of person this deep Dharma, without anything existent, can stand firm.
Passage by Passage
First, look at where the strange phrase 「用幻化人聽法」 tr. "hearing the Dharma with a conjured person" comes from. The gods had earlier found what Subhūti said hard to understand, and only then did Subhūti take up 「幻化人聽」 tr. "a conjured person hears" as his answer—not that he really wants an illusory person to come and hear, but that he wants those who hear the Dharma to use the mind as if it were an illusion, without clinging to any dharma. Here the treatise-author points out a pair of contrasts: 「眾生」 tr. "beings" refers to the one who speaks the Dharma, and 「聽法」 tr. "hearing the Dharma" refers to the one who receives the Dharma; the speaker, the receiver, and even the Dharma that is spoken—all three places are like an illusion, like a dream. This step first hollows out the very matter of hearing the Dharma: the hearer does not cling to there really being a self that can hear or a Dharma that can be received, and only so can the 「乃至涅槃如幻」 tr. "and so on up to nirvāṇa, like an illusion" below be pushed forward.
Second, look at how Subhūti pushes 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion" all the way to the top. Beings, the self, the knower and the seer; form up to consciousness; the six sense-fields, contact, and feeling; inner emptiness up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; dānapāramitā up to prajñāpāramitā; the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; the four fruits of the śramaṇa up to the path of the pratyekabuddha; the Buddha-path—this long series is not a display of fine words, but is meant to make clear that whatever falls within names and marks, whatever falls within causes and conditions, is without a single exception like an illusion, like a dream. Pushed as far as 「佛道如幻」 tr. "the Buddha-path is like an illusion," even the highest fruit-stage has been gathered in. The gods are startled and doubtful because 「一切眾生中佛第一，一切諸法中涅槃第一」 tr. "among all beings the Buddha is foremost; among all dharmas nirvāṇa is foremost"—how can these two, the highest and most wondrous, be like an illusion? So they settle their minds and ask once more: are the Buddha and nirvāṇa truly like an illusion, like a dream—could it be that Subhūti has misspoken, or that we have misheard? Subhūti’s reply is decisive, as if cutting through nail and iron: 「正自如幻、如夢。」 tr. "They are precisely like an illusion, like a dream." The key lies in the reason he gives immediately afterward—though these two dharmas, the Buddha and nirvāṇa, are wondrous, both come forth from false dharmas: it is from false dharmas that there is nirvāṇa, and from merit and wisdom that there is the Buddha; both dharmas belong to causes and conditions and have nothing really fixed. It can be seen that 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion" does not say that nirvāṇa is annihilated and does not exist, but says that it too is established in dependence on conditions and has no own-nature to be clung to—this is exactly where the prajñā sentence 「幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」 tr. "illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa are not two and not different" comes to rest: the three are equal in the one sense of 「無自性」 tr. "having no own-nature"; this is not lowering nirvāṇa to the level of the false, but setting down, along with it, even the mark of opposition between the false and nirvāṇa.
Third, look at how the hypothesis 「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」 tr. "supposing there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion" is set up. Subhūti had already said 「無有法勝涅槃者」 tr. "there is no dharma that surpasses nirvāṇa"—nirvāṇa is the place where all sorrow and suffering ultimately cease, highest as the great ocean is highest among the many rivers, as Sumeru is highest among the mountains, as space is highest among dharmas; in it there is no suffering of old age, sickness, and death, no declines such as wrong views, greed, and anger, no suffering of separation from the loved, meeting with the hated, and not getting what one seeks; all that is impermanent, false and deceptive, ruined, and changing is entirely absent from it; it is where the buddhas, bodhisattvas, and disciples of the ten directions return, and it is never broken by Māra. Since no dharma surpasses it, why set up further 「若有法勝涅槃亦如幻」 tr. "if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion"? The treatise-author’s answer is most steady: the method of simile sometimes uses real things and sometimes puts forth hypotheses, in every case speaking according to causes and conditions; just as 「若令樹木解我所說，我亦記言得須陀洹」 tr. "if trees could understand what I say, I would also predict that they attain srota-āpanna"—trees have nothing by which to understand, and this is hypothesised only to open and awaken people’s minds. This hypothesis serves to state the power of prajñā in breaking dharmas to its very end: like a great red-hot iron ball set on a fine hair, which burns straight through and passes on with its heat undiminished, only there is nothing more to burn; prajñā breaks all existent dharmas, even nirvāṇa, passing straight through without obstruction with the power of its knowledge undiminished, only there is no dharma left to break. 「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」 tr. "Supposing there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion" speaks precisely of this power of wisdom that breaks until there is nothing more to break, and not of there truly being a dharma that surpasses nirvāṇa.
Fourth, the latter half of the chapter changes to another group of people, who ask about another side of the same deep Dharma: who can bear it? The great disciples and countless thousands of bodhisattvas ask together—this prajñā, very deep, hard to see, hard to understand, hard to know, quiescent, and subtle: who shall be its receiver? The treatise-author explains these six senses word by word: because dharmas have no fixed mark, it is 「甚深」 tr. "very deep"; because reflection, contemplation, and practice cease, it is 「難見」 tr. "hard to see"; because one does not cling to prajñā, it is 「難解、難知」 tr. "hard to understand, hard to know"; because it extinguishes the three poisons and all idle discourse, it is 「寂滅」 tr. "quiescent"; because one who obtains this wondrous flavour is ever satisfied, and all other knowledge is coarse and rough, it is 「微妙」 tr. "subtle". The knowledge of worldly people is shallow: they covet merit yet do not cultivate merit; clinging to existence they are brave, and at the breaking of existence they are timid; they cling firmly to wrong views and will not let them go—people like this cannot bear it, and so the question is asked, 「誰能信受」 tr. "who can believe and receive it?" Ānanda comes forward and answers on their behalf with four kinds of people: first, the avaivartika bodhisattva, who knows that dharmas neither arise nor cease and clings to nothing; second, the arhat whose outflows are exhausted, whose vows are already fulfilled, who ever abides in the three samādhi and accords with prajñā; third, the three kinds of learners, because they are accomplished in right view and by the power of the four faiths; fourth, the bodhisattva who, though he has not yet attained avaivartika, has merit and sharp faculties and constantly follows good friends. What the four kinds of people share is 「不言是法非法」 tr. "not saying of this Dharma that it is not the Dharma"—they do not, out of love and attachment for what they previously learned, disparage prajñā as not the Dharma.
Fifth, here is inserted a challenge concerning the one who speaks the Dharma, and in it the measure of the whole chapter can be seen exactly. It is asked: Ānanda has always been silent—why does he answer on others’ behalf here? The treatise-author’s answer is very important: Ānanda is the general of the third turning of the Dharma-wheel and the World-Honored One’s close attendant; though he has attained the first path, his outflows are not yet exhausted, and he is not yet skilful in the wisdom of 「空」 tr. "emptiness"; were he to speak the dharma of emptiness, he himself not yet having realised and entered it, whatever he said would become someone else’s affair, and so he is without words; but asking 「誰能信受」 tr. "who can believe and receive it" is a matter having marks, not one concerning the principle of emptiness, and so Ānanda can ask and can answer—at this moment the mind of delight in speaking arises in him, and though his afflictions are not yet exhausted, his power of faith is keen and strong, and so within deep prajñā he can ask and answer in accordance with the Dharma. This passage is no idle stroke: it draws the boundary between 「說空」 tr. "speaking of emptiness" and 「說有」 tr. "speaking of existence"—speaking of emptiness requires entering it oneself, while speaking of existence can be reached through the wisdom of hearing and the power of faith; even the qualification to answer on others’ behalf must be distinguished this carefully, which shows exactly that the emptiness of prajñā is not something to be spoken of loosely. Then another question gathers up the doctrinal meaning: prajñā is without anything existent and without fixed dharmas—how can it be said that the four kinds of people believe and receive it and do not slander it as not the Dharma? The answer lies in the cause and condition Subhūti himself speaks—「不以空分別色，色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "one does not use emptiness to discriminate form; form is emptiness, and emptiness is form": prajñā has nothing lost and nothing broken; since nothing is broken there is no fault or offence, and so they do not slander it as not the Dharma; emptiness is prajñā—not that emptiness is used to break form and make it empty, but that form and emptiness are from the root not two.
Sixth, the final section brings the deep Dharma back down to the bodhisattva’s practice and virtues. Someone doubts: the great disciples ask the question, so why does Subhūti answer the gods instead? The treatise-author answers: the great disciples have already attained arhatship; they ask for the sake of their own doubts, and the benefit is small; the gods have aroused the mind to become bodhisattvas, and because the benefit is deep he speaks for them—and though he speaks for the gods, that is itself answering the great disciples. Next, Śāriputra praises and helps bring it to completion: prajñā can not only be received as empty, but also broadly teaches the three vehicles, gathers in bodhisattvas, takes a body by apparitional birth, and brings about the seven eloquences. The treatise-author explains them one by one: 「攝取菩薩」 tr. "gathers in bodhisattvas" means that within prajñā there are the ten grounds, which lead the bodhisattva from one ground up to the tenth; 「化生」 tr. "apparitional birth" speaks of the karmic result of practising prajñā; and the seven eloquences are the virtue of practising prajñā without obstruction in all dharmas—swift eloquence, sharp eloquence, the inexhaustible eloquence of delight in speaking, unbreakable eloquence, responsive eloquence, the eloquence of meaning, and the eloquence foremost in the world—each one having its reason. Finally Śāriputra has one more doubt: Subhūti always delights in speaking of emptiness—why does he accept my words about broadly teaching the three vehicles? Subhūti gathers up the whole chapter in one sentence: though prajñā broadly teaches the three vehicles, it does not have fixed marks, 「皆以十八空和合故說」 tr. "all are spoken because of the coming together of the eighteen emptinesses"; gathering in bodhisattvas and the seven eloquences are likewise so, 「以空智慧故」 tr. "because of the wisdom of emptiness." It can be seen that broadly teaching the three vehicles and ultimate emptiness do not obstruct each other—precisely because of the eighteen emptinesses can the teaching of the three vehicles be established without falling into fixed marks.
Do Not Misread
Do not read 「乃至涅槃如幻」 tr. "and so on up to nirvāṇa, like an illusion" as nirvāṇa being annihilated, not existing at all. The treatise says it clearly: nirvāṇa is like an illusion with respect to its 「從虛妄法出、屬因緣、無有實定」 tr. "coming forth from false dharmas, belonging to causes and conditions, having nothing really fixed"; it is that there is no own-nature to be clung to, not that there is no nirvāṇa to be realised; the sūtra’s own verdict is 「幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」 tr. "illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa are not two and not different"—the three are equal in having no own-nature, not that nirvāṇa is pulled down to the false. Nor should 「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」 tr. "supposing there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion" be read as there truly being a dharma that surpasses nirvāṇa; it is a hypothetical phrase spoken according to causes and conditions, like the simile of trees understanding speech, only to carry the power of prajñā in breaking dharmas to the end where 「更無可破」 tr. "there is nothing more to break." Still less should 「用幻化人聽法」 tr. "hearing the Dharma with a conjured person" be read as teaching people to hear numbly and without mind; it teaches the hearer to use the mind as if it were an illusion, without clinging to dharmas—it is not a matter of neither hearing nor receiving. Finally, do not read Ānanda’s answering on others’ behalf as Ānanda being able to speak of emptiness; the treatise uses precisely this to draw the boundary—what Ānanda can answer is the question having marks, 「誰能信受」 tr. "who can believe and receive it," while speaking of emptiness still requires entering it oneself before one can be skilful; this distinction is precisely the chapter’s most solemn reminder of 「空之難說」 tr. "how hard emptiness is to speak of."
Bearing on Practice
This chapter can serve as a mirror in which to look into the mind. When we apply ourselves to hearing the Dharma and reading the sūtras, we might reflect on the phrase 「幻人聽法」 tr. "an illusory person hears the Dharma": can we hear and receive while not clinging to there being a real 「我」 tr. "self" who hears, a real 「法」 tr. "Dharma" that is obtained? Only by hearing as if in an illusion do we keep the Dharma from becoming one more thing to be clung to and contended over. On meeting words as shaking as 「乃至涅槃如幻」 tr. "and so on up to nirvāṇa, like an illusion," do not rush to fear or rush to deny; first see which sense it speaks of—「無自性」 tr. "having no own-nature," or 「無其事」 tr. "there being no such thing"; once this step is clearly distinguished, the many prajñā sayings that seem to sweep everything away will not be read as annihilation. Setting ourselves beside the four kinds of people who can receive deep prajñā, we can also look back at ourselves: out of love and attachment for old understandings, do we judge first 「非法」 tr. "not the Dharma," or can we, before ultimate emptiness, keep the mind from growing timid and from slandering? And the passage in which Ānanda 「說有能答、說空須自入」 tr. "speaking of existence, can answer; speaking of emptiness, must enter it himself" is an even closer reminder: some principles cannot be spoken just because one has heard much and remembers them well—one must truly enter into them oneself; keeping a measure of honesty where one has not yet realised, and not forcing oneself to speak of a state one has not entered, is exactly the measure a practitioner should have.
Further Resonances
The shaking phrase of this chapter, 「乃至涅槃如幻」 tr. "and so on up to nirvāṇa, like an illusion," has long been valued in prajñā learning, and later expounders of the sūtras have often drawn on it. An ancient master of the Tiantai house, in discussing the truth of cessation and explaining 「若有一法過涅槃者，我亦說如幻化」 tr. "if there were one dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, I would also say it is like an illusion, like a conjuration," quotes word for word this chapter’s opening sūtra text, 「諸天子心念，如幻人聽法，無聽無聞、無知無證」 tr. "the gods thought in their minds: hearing the Dharma like an illusory person, without listening and without hearing, without knowing and without realising," up to the treatise’s explanation 「一切眾生中佛第一、一切法中涅槃第一」 tr. "among all beings the Buddha is foremost, among all dharmas nirvāṇa is foremost," using it to bear out the sense that nirvāṇa is like an illusion and not annihilation—only the fascicle numbers he cites differ slightly from the present text; here his approach is noted, without discussing the similarities and differences. Another ancient master, commenting passage by passage on the preceding chapter, passes over this chapter’s gist with a single sentence, 「次幻聽品示其聽法之方」 tr. "next, the chapter Illusory Hearing shows the method of hearing the Dharma," without unfolding it—it can be seen that those who read this chapter in ancient times all first recognised 「聽法之方」 tr. "the method of hearing the Dharma" as its eye. As for the chapter’s name, this chapter was of old also called 「如幻品」 tr. "the chapter Like an Illusion"; in the old scripture catalogues, indexes, and the like, among the several Chinese translations of the same Sanskrit text, it appears sometimes as 「幻人聽法品」 tr. "the chapter The Illusory Person Hears the Dharma," sometimes as 「幻聽品」 tr. "the chapter Illusory Hearing," sometimes as 「如幻品」 tr. "the chapter Like an Illusion" or 「法師如幻品」 tr. "the chapter The Dharma-Teacher Is Like an Illusion," the chapter names and chapter order varying from one to another; these are only differences of designation in transmission and translation, recorded together for reference, without judging which is right. Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what most deserves keeping is not a finer table of chapter names, but this chapter’s use of 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion": it dares to push like-an-illusion all the way to nirvāṇa, yet on reaching the end it holds fast with 「不二不別」 tr. "not two and not different," neither leaving a single dharma to be clung to nor sweeping nirvāṇa away into nothingness—in this one letting go and one holding fast lies precisely the measure of prajñā’s 「畢竟空而不斷滅」 tr. "ultimate emptiness and yet no annihilation."
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，繫卷五十五之首——卷端題「大智度論釋幻人聽法品第二十八」〔T25 0448c07〕，總釋《大品般若》所對之品〔T08 0276a17–0277a04〕。前品〈問住品第二十七〉居卷五十四，本品起於〔T25 0448c07〕，正文終於「攝取菩薩、七種辯亦如是，以空智慧故。」〔T25 0451a09〕，其後即入次品〈散花品〉。北宋惟白《大藏經綱目指要錄》著錄本卷曰「釋般若中幻人聽法品．散花品義五十六」〔C056 0185c08〕，幻人聽法、散花二品同繫一段，與本品卷次相合（其文語序別有一疑，見第六目）。
本品〈經〉〈論〉交替二番——經①牒引起〔T25 0448c12〕、論①釋起〔T25 0449a10〕、經②牒引起〔T25 0449c01〕、論②釋起〔T25 0450a22〕。本品純漢字三千一百九十五，篇幅不大，讀本未分單元，一檔盡之。
說者之結構，本品自具一型，經①經②各異其體。經①係須菩提依諸天子心念而自陳——諸天子先動一念「應用何等人聽須菩提所說」〔T25 0448c12〕，須菩提知其心念即以幻化人喻答之，中間諸天子兩問、須菩提兩答，通段無舍利弗介入，是須菩提單向宣說之體。經②則轉為多方對話——慧命舍利弗、目揵連、拘絺羅、迦旃延、富樓那、迦葉及無數千菩薩共問「誰當受者」〔T25 0449c01〕，阿難代答四種能受之人，須菩提申論不以空分別色等義，末以舍利弗讚歎、須菩提然可作結。論②起首標籤，本論通例作「問曰」，本品獨作「者言」〔T25 0450a22〕，為底本原有之標籤變異，非轉寫之訛（諸本異文見第八目），論釋若涉此段起首，據實仍其舊。
二、術語考
幻化人（如幻聽法）。 本品之樞喻即在此語。諸天子問須菩提當用何等人聽法，須菩提答「如幻化人聽法，我應用如是人」〔T25 0448c14〕，其故在「如是人無聞、無聽、無知、無證故」〔T25 0448c14〕。論主釋其非撥聽者為無——「非即使幻化人聽，但欲令行者於諸法用心無所著，如幻化人」〔T25 0449a17〕，並判眾生、聽法二名之實——「眾生」者說法人，「聽法」者是受法人〔T25 0449a21〕。
如幻·如夢（乃至涅槃）。 須菩提歷五眾、十二處、諸空、諸度、諸果乃至佛道，一一以「如幻、如夢」貫之——「眾生如幻，聽法者亦如幻；眾生如化，聽法者亦如化」〔T25 0448c17〕，終至「佛道如幻、如夢」，復進至「我說涅槃亦如幻、如夢」〔T25 0449a06〕。此如幻如夢之極，正為本品義眼所在（見第五目）。
阿鞞跋致（不退轉菩薩）。 阿難答能受深般若者，首舉「阿鞞跋致諸菩薩摩訶薩」〔T25 0449c05〕，論釋為「知一切法不生不滅，不取相、無所著故，是則能受」〔T25 0450b07〕。此語所釋經作「阿惟越致」，同名異譯，見第四目。
攝取菩薩。 舍利弗讚般若「廣說三乘之教及攝取菩薩之法」〔T25 0449c26〕，論釋「攝取」有二義——「以般若波羅蜜利益諸菩薩，令得增長」〔T25 0450c21〕，復次「是般若波羅蜜中有十地，令菩薩從一地至一地，乃至第十地」〔T25 0450c22〕。「攝取」一語，所釋經與本論石本並作「護持」，為本品跨本互證之樞（見第四目）。
七種辯（捷疾辯等）。 論釋菩薩行般若之報，開為七辯——「捷疾辯」「利辯」「樂說無盡辯」「不可斷辯」「隨應辯」「義辯」「世間最上辯」〔T25 0450c25〕，全品收於「攝取菩薩、七種辯亦如是，以空智慧故」〔T25 0451a09〕。此七辯經文作「捷疾辯、利辯、不盡辯、不可斷辯、隨應辯、義辯、一切世間最上辯」〔T25 0450a04〕，「不盡辯」論釋展作「樂說無盡辯」，經論用字繁略之異，非別本異讀，並錄不判。
三、譬喻與故事
《大智度論》以譬喻著稱，本品之喻皆在論層，率以世間之事顯畢竟空、顯般若破法之無礙。
幻化人喻（本品樞喻）。 諸天子問當用何人聽法，須菩提以幻化人為答——幻化人「無聞亦無證」〔T25 0449a20〕，用之聽法者，正欲令行者「於諸法用心無所著」〔T25 0449a18〕。喻依在幻術所化之人，喻體在聽者之無取無著，所顯即聽法者如幻、所聽法亦如幻之義，全品之名由此立。
樹木解語喻。 論釋何以得說「若有法勝涅槃，亦復如幻」——「譬喻法，或以實事、或時假設，隨因緣故說」〔T25 0449b09〕，引佛言為證——「若令樹木解我所說者，我亦記言得須陀洹」〔T25 0449b10〕——樹木本無因緣可解，佛為解悟人意而假設此言；設言有法勝涅槃亦然，實無此法，假設以顯般若破法之力。
熱鐵丸燒毳喻。 論美般若之力，設熱鐵丸之喻——「譬如大熱鐵丸，以著擘起毳上，直燒下過，熱勢無損，但更無可燒者」〔T25 0449b25〕——熱丸置於擘散之細毛上，直燒穿過而熱勢不減，但更無可燒之物；般若智慧亦如是，「破一切有法，乃至涅槃，直過無礙，智力不減，直更無法可破」〔T25 0449b27〕。故設有法勝於涅槃，般若之力亦能破之。
眾川須彌虛空喻。 論明涅槃於一切法中為究竟無上，設三喻並舉——「如眾川萬流大海為上，諸山之中須彌為上，一切法中虛空為上」〔T25 0449b13〕——海為眾流之歸、須彌為諸山之極、虛空為諸法之遍，以顯涅槃「是一切苦盡，畢竟常樂」〔T25 0449b18〕之無上。
四、所釋經文
本論所牒之二段〈經〉，與後秦鳩摩羅什譯《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》相承，所釋經此品品題自作「幻聽品」〔T08 0276a17〕，與本論「幻人聽法品」非同名——簡稱與全稱之別；然所釋經此品自繫丹本異名夾注（丹本作幻人聽法品·0276a17 夾注），與本論大正本題名逐字相同，是二名同義、跨本相貫之證。所釋經此品無〈論〉層，故本論論①論②所繫校勘凡四十四條，於所釋經結構上絕無對應，本目不強比對（此四十四條為方法上之天然對照組，逢異必比則生偽陽，據實不做）；唯落於〈經〉層之項乃入雙向對讀。經逐字核之，經①三處、經②十處開合，皆兩本各自成文，非轉抄之訛，並列不強合一。擇其要者如下。
第一，聽須菩提所說。本論作「應用何等人聽須菩提所說」〔T25 0448c12〕，所釋經作「應用何等人聽須菩提所說法」〔T08 0276a18〕——所釋經多一「法」字，節引衍字之別，義理無礙。
第二，幻化合分。本論合寫幻化——「是眾生如幻、如化，聽法者亦如幻、如化耶」〔T25 0448c16〕；所釋經分寫幻、化各成一句——「是眾生如幻，聽法者亦如幻；眾生如化，聽法者亦如化耶」〔T08 0276a22〕。二本皆順同義，壓縮與展開之別，並錄不判。
第三，檀那與檀。所釋經「檀那波羅蜜」全稱本品凡四見——「檀那波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜」〔T08 0276a29〕；本論一律略稱「檀波羅蜜」〔T25 0448c25 等〕。純音譯繁簡，承前數品同一跨品模式（dāna 全音「檀那」、略音「檀」），並錄不判。
第四，阿鞞跋致與阿惟越致。本論作「阿鞞跋致」〔T25 0449c05〕；所釋經作「阿惟越致」〔T08 0276b14〕——avaivartika 之兩種音寫，羅什系並存之譯名，義理無礙。
第五，受之與信受。本論作「亦能受之」〔T25 0449c08〕；所釋經作「亦能信受」〔T08 0276b17〕——同義異詞，並錄不判。
第六，攝取與護持（雙向確證·本品跨本互證之樞）。 本論舍利弗語作「廣說三乘之教及攝取菩薩之法」〔T25 0449c26〕，所釋經同句作「廣說三乘之教及護持菩薩之教」〔T08 0276c07〕——所釋經此處逕讀「護持」，而不作本論大正鉛字之「攝取」。核本論自身校勘記，此處適有「攝取【大】，護持【石】」之異讀〔T25 0449c26〕——是所釋經大正本之「護持」，正與本論石本異讀全合，而與本論大正孤讀「攝取」相違。此為本品〈經〉層可兩側對勘之項中，唯一一例所釋經明確佐證本論非大正異讀之案例，具體逐字可核。又本論舍利弗同段下文別有「護持菩薩之教」〔T25 0449c29〕一語，本論、所釋經兩本並作「護持」〔T08 0276c10〕——是「護持」實為本品通篇之慣用，「攝取」乃本論大正一本於前句之孤讀，其為孤讀益明。兩本各自成文，並錄不判，供定本裁斷。
第七，乃字有無。本論作「至薩婆若初不斷絕」〔T25 0450a03〕；所釋經作「乃至薩婆若初不斷絕」〔T08 0276c13〕——所釋經多一「乃」虛字，語氣之別。
第八，句末故字。本論舍利弗問「菩薩摩訶薩得捷疾辯乃至一切世間最上辯不可得故」〔T25 0450a15〕句末用「故」，所釋經此段句末無「故」〔T08 0276c24〕——本論較所釋經多用句末「故」字收束，行文習慣之別，凡二見，並錄不判。
五、般若義眼
本品之眼，在「涅槃如幻」之極說——般若之如幻不獨遍於生死眾生、五眾諸法，乃直貫至一切法中最上之涅槃，而幻夢涅槃不二不別。其義可約為三重。
其一，聽者如幻，所聽亦如幻。諸天子問當用何人聽法，答以「如幻化人聽法」〔T25 0448c14〕，非謂別有一無心之幻人來聽，乃令聽者「於諸法用心無所著，如幻化人」〔T25 0449a18〕。說法之人如幻、聽法之人如幻，則所說之法亦如幻——「不但說法者、聽法者如幻、如夢，我乃至知者、見者皆如幻、如夢，色亦如幻、如夢，乃至涅槃如幻、如夢，即是所說法如幻、如夢」〔T25 0449a21〕。是聽法一事，能所俱幻，無一實立。
其二，涅槃如幻，不二不別。一切眾生中佛為第一、一切諸法中涅槃第一，聞此二事如幻，心則驚疑而重問——「佛及涅槃審如幻、如夢耶」〔T25 0449a27〕——須菩提定答「我說佛及涅槃，正自如幻、如夢」〔T25 0449a29〕。其所以然，在「是二法雖妙，皆從虛妄法出故空」〔T25 0449b01〕——「從虛妄法故有涅槃，從福德智慧故有佛，是二法屬因緣，無有實定」〔T25 0449b02〕。而其極說在——「我說涅槃亦如幻、如夢；若當有法勝於涅槃者，我說亦復如幻、如夢」〔T25 0449a06〕，「是幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」〔T25 0449a08〕。所言涅槃如幻，非謂涅槃虛妄不存，乃謂幻、夢、涅槃三者不二不別，同歸畢竟空——經論自具此辨，非撥無涅槃。
其三，般若之力，破法無礙。設言有法勝於涅槃亦復如幻，論主辨其為假設之言以顯般若之力——涅槃已是「一切法中究竟無上法」〔T25 0449b13〕、「一切苦盡，畢竟常樂」〔T25 0449b18〕，實無法勝之；假令有之，般若之智亦能破之，如熱鐵丸之直過無礙〔T25 0449b25〕。至於能受此深般若者，論列四種人——阿鞞跋致菩薩、漏盡阿羅漢、三種學人、福德利根之菩薩——其信受之相，在「不以空分別色，色即是空，空即是色」〔T25 0450c03〕，「以般若波羅蜜中破諸戲論，有如是功德，故無不信受」〔T25 0450c08〕。三乘之說、攝取之十地、七種之辯，「皆以十八空和合故說」〔T25 0451a09〕——般若廣說三乘而非有定相，是本品義眼所歸。
六、諸家異釋
《大智度論》本無逐文全疏之傳統，古德引釋率屬據實偏倚。本品之對讀有一特相——釋所釋經之吉藏疏於本品未展逐文，僅一句結構性帶過；釋論之慧影疏適在斷層不覆；而後世徵引則有湛然《法華玄義釋籤》逐字節引本品，為本品古德對讀之最重者。此目誌錄其所疏所引與本品之對應，不判各家詮釋高下。
吉藏《大品經義疏》（X24n0451）於本品未見「幻聽品第」「幻人聽法品」獨立逐文疏標題（全庫關鍵字掃描零命中），唯一命中處隸屬其對品27〈問住品〉逐文疏段之內，列舉「四疑」科判時一句帶過——「次幻聽品示其聽法之方」〔X24 0262b17〕——以一句概括本品內容作為過渡語，未展開逐文之釋。本品及次品〈散花品〉〈三歎品〉並未見吉藏獨立品題起始之疏段，據實記錄，不臆測其疏此段本闕抑或轉為概括之故。
慧影《大智度論疏》（X46n0791）為釋本論之唯一古疏，僅殘卷存世，現存諸卷於卷十三至卷三十六間斷層，本品（卷五十五）適在斷層之中，逐文之疏全然未覆（「幻聽」「幻人聽法」全書零命中），據實記錄，不虛設待補。
湛然《法華玄義釋籤》（T33n1717）於論「若有一法過涅槃者亦復如幻」之語境下，逐字節引本品經①開篇乃至論①之義——其文標『大論第五十』而先引經云——「諸天子心念：應何等人聽須菩提所說？須菩提知諸天子心念，語言：如幻人聽法，我應用如是人聽，無聽無聞，無知無證。須菩提云：我如幻化乃至知者見者如幻如化，歷一切法乃至佛亦如幻化，涅槃法亦如幻化。」〔T33 0876c17〕次引論——「一切眾生中佛第一，一切法中涅槃第一」〔T33 0876c22〕——所引精確對應本品經①「須菩提知諸天子心所念」〔T25 0448c13〕一段及論①「一切眾生中，佛為第一；一切諸法中，涅槃第一」〔T25 0449a24〕之義。湛然標「大論第五十」，卷次數字與本品實繫之卷五十五不合——此為湛然原疏自身之卷次記異（或所據古本卷帙分割與今本不同），據實誌其異文，不代判其是非。此為本品最重之後世徵引。乾隆藏《法華玄義釋籤》異本（L116n1490）於同段亦見同引〔L116 0262a15〕，文字與大正本略異，屬版本異文，非別引。
智顗系止觀輔行索引體裁殘卷（X28n0592）明載本品異名——「大論第五十在五十五卷。釋幻聽品亦名如幻品」〔X28 0594a19〕——確證「如幻品」為本品古稱之一，與本論元本題名「釋如幻品第二十八」（見第八目）直相對應。
《大唐開元釋教廣品歷章》（A097n1267）三處誌品名品次之異：對所釋經作「摩訶般若波羅蜜經幻人聽法品第二十七」〔A97 0812b07〕，品次少一，承前數品所誌之同型；對放光般若經（T221）簡目作「如幻品第二十九」〔A97 0806b06〕、對光讚經（T222）簡目作「法師如幻品第二十六」〔A97 0819b04〕——三譯（放光作「如幻品」、光讚作「法師如幻品」、羅什大品作「幻聽品／幻人聽法品」）同一梵本對應段落，品名互異、品次互異，屬異譯對觀之珍貴材料，並錄不判。
又，惟白《大藏經綱目指要錄》著錄本論卷品之句〔C056 0185c08〕，其上下文語序作「釋般若中天主品義五十五釋般若中幻人聽法品．散花品義五十六」——「五十五」數字緊接於「天主品」（即前品〈問住品〉丹本異名）之後，「幻人聽法品．散花品」繫「五十六」，與本品實繫卷五十五有一卷之差，此條簡目文字語序疑有編排之跳動，本目據實誌其疑點，不臆測解答（見第八目卷次離軌並觀）。
七、互讀與承衍
本品之義脈，前後相承者有二，皆此目所誌，不代定讀。
其一，論內自指與互見之法。論釋「是二法屬因緣，無有實定」，自指前說——「如念佛、念法義中說」〔T25 0449b04〕；論釋阿難何以代答，前指後品——後品阿難問佛「世尊何以故但讚歎般若波羅蜜，不讚五波羅蜜？」〔T25 0450b23〕，以後品阿難問般若之事，證此處阿難能答非空事者；論釋「攝取」之十地與六度乃至一切種智，並云「如先說」〔T25 0450c25〕、三乘義「如先說」〔T25 0450c21〕——皆本論品品相貫之明證。
其二，如幻義之下傳。本品涅槃如幻、不二不別之極說〔T25 0449a06〕，為般若一系反覆承用之句——涅槃如幻非撥無涅槃，乃顯畢竟空之遍極一切法而不留一實，此義下承般若諸經之空觀，後世湛然判「滅諦慧」即引本品此段為證〔T33 0876c19〕（見第六目）。又本品幻化人聽法之喻，以能所俱幻顯無所著之聽，與《大智度論》十喻（如幻、如燄、如水中月等）之教學命脈同貫，皆以世間幻事顯諸法無自性之義。此諸承衍在於義脈之相續，本目誌其迹而已。
八、校本與版本說明
本品底本為《大智度論》卷五十五〔T25 0448c07–0451a11〕；所釋經校本為《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》〈幻聽品〉〔T08 0276a17–0277a04〕；古德對讀校本為吉藏《大品經義疏》（X24n0451·僅一句結構帶過）、慧影《大智度論疏》（X46n0791·殘卷不覆本品）、湛然《法華玄義釋籤》（T33n1717·後世逐字節引）。異讀校記依大正校勘，涉大正底本與宋、元、明、宮、聖、石（石山寺本）諸本之異；異本讀法並列保存，正文仍從現行底本讀法。
工作底本檔末校勘記凡六十三條，其總帳結構此目具列。有獨立記文之錨定條凡六十二，別有遞歸重出之標一處——同一異讀再見之處原記以「＊」通之，工作底本各展為一條，繫於「波羅蜜」之有無〔T25 0450c22〕〔T25 0450c25〕，其重見處底本僅存錨點而無獨立記文，內容與首見同。六十二加一，適為六十三，與工作底本之數全然機械相合。六十三條全數為傳本異讀之正記（type="mod"），無別立現代編訂之層。zone 分布：經①七、論①十七、經②十二、論②二十七。擇其與品題、義理、經論措辭相涉者傳錄如下，全帳並見工作底本檔末。
品卷題（六本異名並陳）。 「大智度論釋幻人聽法品第二十八（卷五十五）【大】，大智度論卷第五十五釋幻聽品第二十八【宋】，……釋如幻品第二十八【元】，釋如幻品第二十八經作幻聽品【明】，大智度經論卷第五十五釋第二十七品訖第二十八品【聖】，摩訶般若波羅蜜□□□法品二十七五十七【石】」〔T25 0448c07〕——宋宮明本近「幻聽品」（同所釋經題），元本作「如幻品」（同 X28 徵引之異名，見第六目），聖石二本明以「第二十七」計數本品。此為本論自身傳世諸本內部品次計數分歧之直接證據。
攝取與護持（雙向確證）。 「攝取【大】，護持【石】」〔T25 0449c26〕——本論石本此處讀「護持」，與所釋經大正本之「護持」全合，而與本論大正孤讀「攝取」相違，跨本互證見第四目第六。
者言標籤特例。 「者言【大】，論者言【元】【明】，釋曰【石】」〔T25 0450a22〕——論②起首之標籤，本論大正作「者言」而非通例「問曰」，元明本增「論」字作「論者言」，石本易作「釋曰」，三種標籤用語並陳，佐證非固定套語，據實仍其舊，勿逕改「問曰」。
果如幻如夢（石本衍文）。 「果【大】，果如幻如夢【石】」〔T25 0449a03〕——石本於「辟支佛道如幻、如夢」句上多「如幻如夢」四字，經第四目對照核所釋經無此衍文，屬石本獨有增筆。
審與悉。 「審【大】，悉【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」〔T25 0449a27〕——「佛及涅槃審如幻、如夢耶」之「審」，四本作「悉」，審實與皆悉之微異，並錄不判。
聖本省句二條。 「難斷絕者名不可斷辯【大】，〔－〕【聖】」〔T25 0451a01〕、「斷法愛故隨眾生所【大】，〔－〕【聖】」〔T25 0451a01〕——七辯段聖本省二整句，並錄之。
收品題（印品次離軌）。 「故【大】，故釋第二十七品竟【石】」〔T25 0451a10〕——全品末句「以空智慧故」之下，石本綴「釋第二十七品竟」之收品記，以「第二十七」計本品，與品卷題聖石二本之計數首尾相印，本論自身品次離軌之跡一貫。
又，本品所釋經今傳電子藏本之品目編列與所題品名有不同步之跡：所釋經底本標記品界結構之計數屬性（n）與其顯文品次數字，自品24〈會宗品〉起持續多算一品（n 恆為顯文數字加一），至本品〈幻聽品〉單點跳失而與顯文「28」重合（前品〈問住品〉之計數屬性同標「28」，與本品雙繫），自次品〈散花品〉起隨即復現多算一之勢——是單點跳失式歸正、隨即復發，非歸正並保持。此屬單一寫本內部結構屬性與顯文不同步之異象，與本論聖石諸本彼此品次計數之分歧（上「第二十七」諸條）性質不同，不宜混為一談，據實分別記錄。品次離軌之成因超出考據職權，並錄不判。
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 stands at the head of Fascicle 55—the title at the head of the fascicle reads 「大智度論釋幻人聽法品第二十八」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma, the Twenty-eighth"〔T25 0448c07〕—and it comments on the whole of the corresponding chapter of the Larger Sūtra〔T08 0276a17–0277a04〕. The preceding chapter, "Asking about Abiding, the Twenty-seventh", lies in Fascicle 54; this chapter begins at〔T25 0448c07〕, and its main text ends with 「攝取菩薩、七種辯亦如是，以空智慧故。」 tr. "The gathering-in of bodhisattvas and the seven kinds of eloquence are likewise, because of the wisdom of emptiness."〔T25 0451a09〕, after which it enters directly into the next chapter, "Scattering Flowers". Weibai of the Northern Song, in the Essentials of the Outline of the Great Canon, records this fascicle as 「釋般若中幻人聽法品．散花品義五十六」 tr. "Explains, in the Prajñā, the meaning of the Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma and the Chapter on Scattering Flowers, fifty-six"〔C056 0185c08〕: the two chapters, the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma and Scattering Flowers, are bound into one section, which accords with the fascicle to which this chapter belongs (the word order of that entry raises a separate doubt; see Section VI).
Within the chapter, Sūtra and Treatise alternate in two rounds—Sūtra citation ① begins at〔T25 0448c12〕, Treatise explanation ① begins at〔T25 0449a10〕, Sūtra citation ② begins at〔T25 0449c01〕, and Treatise explanation ② begins at〔T25 0450a22〕. Counting Chinese characters alone, the chapter runs to three thousand one hundred and ninety-five; it is not long, and the reading edition does not divide it into units: a single file contains it whole.
In the structure of its speakers this chapter has a type of its own, and Sūtra ① and Sūtra ② differ in form. Sūtra ① is Subhūti's own declaration in response to the thoughts in the gods' minds—the gods first stir a single thought, 「應用何等人聽須菩提所說」 tr. "What kind of person should be used to hear what Subhūti speaks?"〔T25 0448c12〕, and Subhūti, knowing the thought in their minds, answers with the simile of the conjured person; in between, the gods ask twice and Subhūti answers twice, and throughout the passage Śāriputra does not intervene: it is the form of a one-directional proclamation by Subhūti. Sūtra ② turns into a many-sided dialogue—the venerable Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Kauṣṭhila, Kātyāyana, Pūrṇa, Kāśyapa, and countless thousands of bodhisattvas together ask 「誰當受者」 tr. "Who will receive it?"〔T25 0449c01〕; Ānanda answers on their behalf, naming four kinds of people able to receive it; Subhūti expounds the meaning of not discriminating form and the rest by means of emptiness; and it ends with Śāriputra's praise and Subhūti's assent. As for the label at the head of Treatise ②, this treatise's usual practice is 「問曰」 tr. "Question:"; this chapter alone has 「者言」 tr. "one who says"〔T25 0450a22〕. This is a variation of the label present in the base text itself, not an error of transcription (the variants among the editions are in Section VIII); where an explanation of the treatise touches the opening of this passage, it keeps the old form according to the facts.
II. Terms Examined
The conjured person (hearing the Dharma as an illusion). The pivotal simile of this chapter lies in this expression. The gods ask Subhūti what kind of person should be used to hear the Dharma, and Subhūti answers 「如幻化人聽法，我應用如是人」 tr. "a conjured person hearing the Dharma—such a person I would use"〔T25 0448c14〕; the reason lies in 「如是人無聞、無聽、無知、無證故」 tr. "because such a person has no hearing, no listening, no knowing, and no realising"〔T25 0448c14〕. The treatise-author explains that this does not dismiss the hearer as non-existent—「非即使幻化人聽，但欲令行者於諸法用心無所著，如幻化人」 tr. "it is not that a conjured person is actually made to hear; it is only that one wishes the practitioner to apply the mind to all dharmas without anything clung to, like a conjured person"〔T25 0449a17〕—and it settles what the two names, 'being' and 'hearing the Dharma', really refer to: 「眾生」 tr. "being" is the person who speaks the Dharma, and 「聽法」 tr. "hearing the Dharma" is the person who receives the Dharma〔T25 0449a21〕.
Like an illusion · like a dream (up to nirvāṇa). Subhūti passes through the five aggregates, the twelve bases, the emptinesses, the perfections, and the fruits, up to the Buddha path, threading each one through with 「如幻、如夢」 tr. "like an illusion, like a dream"—「眾生如幻，聽法者亦如幻；眾生如化，聽法者亦如化」 tr. "beings are like an illusion, and those who hear the Dharma are also like an illusion; beings are like a conjuration, and those who hear the Dharma are also like a conjuration"〔T25 0448c17〕—finally reaching 「佛道如幻、如夢」 tr. "the Buddha path is like an illusion, like a dream", and advancing further to 「我說涅槃亦如幻、如夢」 tr. "I say that nirvāṇa too is like an illusion, like a dream"〔T25 0449a06〕. This utmost reach of being like an illusion, like a dream, is precisely where the eye of the chapter's meaning lies (see Section V).
Avaivartika (the non-retrogressing bodhisattva). Ānanda, answering who is able to receive the deep prajñā, names first 「阿鞞跋致諸菩薩摩訶薩」 tr. "the avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattvas"〔T25 0449c05〕, which the treatise explains as 「知一切法不生不滅，不取相、無所著故，是則能受」 tr. "because they know that all dharmas neither arise nor cease, do not grasp at marks, and cling to nothing, they are able to receive it"〔T25 0450b07〕. In the sūtra explained this term reads 「阿惟越致」 tr. "avaivartika": the same name in a different transliteration; see Section IV.
The gathering-in of bodhisattvas. Śāriputra praises prajñā as 「廣說三乘之教及攝取菩薩之法」 tr. "broadly expounding the teaching of the three vehicles and the dharma of gathering in bodhisattvas"〔T25 0449c26〕, and the treatise explains 「攝取」 tr. "gathering in" in two senses—「以般若波羅蜜利益諸菩薩，令得增長」 tr. "by prajñāpāramitā benefiting the bodhisattvas and causing them to grow"〔T25 0450c21〕, and further, 「是般若波羅蜜中有十地，令菩薩從一地至一地，乃至第十地」 tr. "within this prajñāpāramitā there are ten grounds, causing the bodhisattva to go from one ground to the next, up to the tenth ground"〔T25 0450c22〕. For the word 「攝取」 tr. "gathering in", the sūtra explained and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript of this treatise both read 「護持」 tr. "protecting and upholding"; this is the pivot of the cross-textual mutual attestation in this chapter (see Section IV).
The seven kinds of eloquence (swift eloquence and the rest). The treatise explains the recompense of the bodhisattva who practises prajñā, opening it into seven kinds of eloquence—「捷疾辯」 tr. "swift eloquence", 「利辯」 tr. "sharp eloquence", 「樂說無盡辯」 tr. "inexhaustible eloquence of delight in speaking", 「不可斷辯」 tr. "unbreakable eloquence", 「隨應辯」 tr. "responsive eloquence", 「義辯」 tr. "eloquence of meaning", 「世間最上辯」 tr. "eloquence foremost in the world"〔T25 0450c25〕—and the whole chapter is gathered up in 「攝取菩薩、七種辯亦如是，以空智慧故」 tr. "the gathering-in of bodhisattvas and the seven kinds of eloquence are likewise, because of the wisdom of emptiness"〔T25 0451a09〕. In the sūtra text these seven kinds read 「捷疾辯、利辯、不盡辯、不可斷辯、隨應辯、義辯、一切世間最上辯」 tr. "swift eloquence, sharp eloquence, inexhaustible eloquence, unbreakable eloquence, responsive eloquence, eloquence of meaning, and eloquence foremost in all the world"〔T25 0450a04〕; the treatise's explanation expands 「不盡辯」 tr. "inexhaustible eloquence" into 「樂說無盡辯」 tr. "inexhaustible eloquence of delight in speaking". This is a difference between the fuller and briefer wording of sūtra and treatise, not a variant reading of a different edition; they are recorded side by side without judgement.
III. Similes and Stories
The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa is renowned for its similes. The similes of this chapter all lie in the Treatise layer, and as a rule they use worldly matters to show ultimate emptiness and to show how prajñā refutes dharmas without obstruction.
The simile of the conjured person (the pivotal simile of this chapter). The gods ask what person should be used to hear the Dharma, and Subhūti answers with the conjured person—the conjured person 「無聞亦無證」 tr. "has no hearing and no realising"〔T25 0449a20〕, and using such a person to hear the Dharma is meant precisely to make the practitioner 「於諸法用心無所著」 tr. "apply the mind to all dharmas without anything clung to"〔T25 0449a18〕. The vehicle of the simile is the person conjured by the conjurer's art; its substance is the hearer's not grasping and not clinging; what it shows is that the one who hears the Dharma is like an illusion and the Dharma heard is also like an illusion. The name of the whole chapter is established from this.
The simile of trees understanding speech. The treatise explains how it can be said that 「若有法勝涅槃，亦復如幻」 tr. "if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion"—「譬喻法，或以實事、或時假設，隨因緣故說」 tr. "as for the method of simile, sometimes it uses real matters and sometimes it makes a supposition; it is spoken in accordance with causes and conditions"〔T25 0449b09〕—and cites the Buddha's words in evidence: 「若令樹木解我所說者，我亦記言得須陀洹」 tr. "if the trees could understand what I say, I would predict of them too that they had attained the fruit of srota-āpanna"〔T25 0449b10〕. Trees have in themselves no causes and conditions by which to understand; the Buddha made this supposition so that people would understand and awaken. The saying that there is a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa is likewise: in reality there is no such dharma, and the supposition is made to show the power of prajñā to refute dharmas.
The simile of the hot iron ball burning through down. Praising the power of prajñā, the treatise sets up the simile of the hot iron ball—「譬如大熱鐵丸，以著擘起毳上，直燒下過，熱勢無損，但更無可燒者」 tr. "just as a great hot iron ball, placed on down that has been pulled apart and fluffed up, burns straight down through it with no loss of its heat, only there is nothing further to burn"〔T25 0449b25〕—the hot ball set on fine down pulled apart burns straight through it, and its heat does not lessen; only there is no further thing to burn. The wisdom of prajñā is also like this: 「破一切有法，乃至涅槃，直過無礙，智力不減，直更無法可破」 tr. "it refutes all existent dharmas, up to nirvāṇa, passing straight through without obstruction; the power of its wisdom does not diminish, only there is no further dharma to refute"〔T25 0449b27〕. Therefore, supposing there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, the power of prajñā could refute it too.
The simile of the rivers, Sumeru, and space. The treatise makes clear that among all dharmas nirvāṇa is ultimate and unsurpassed, setting out three similes together—「如眾川萬流大海為上，諸山之中須彌為上，一切法中虛空為上」 tr. "as among the many rivers and the ten thousand streams the great ocean is highest, among all mountains Sumeru is highest, and among all dharmas space is highest"〔T25 0449b13〕—the ocean is where all streams return, Sumeru is the summit of all mountains, and space pervades all dharmas; by these it shows the unsurpassedness of nirvāṇa, which 「是一切苦盡，畢竟常樂」 tr. "is the ending of all suffering, ultimate permanence and bliss"〔T25 0449b18〕.
IV. The Sūtra Passage Explained
The two Sūtra sections cited by this treatise stand in continuity with the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra translated by Kumārajīva of the Later Qin. The sūtra explained itself titles this chapter 「幻聽品」 tr. "Chapter on Illusory Hearing"〔T08 0276a17〕, which is not the same name as this treatise's 「幻人聽法品」 tr. "Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma"—the difference is between an abbreviated and a full name. Yet this chapter of the sūtra explained carries an interlinear note giving the name in the Khitan edition (the Khitan edition reads Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma; interlinear note at 0276a17), which is word for word identical to the title in the Taishō edition of this treatise: evidence that the two names are one in meaning and run through across the texts. This chapter of the sūtra explained has no Treatise layer, so the forty-four collation notes attached to this treatise's Treatise ① and Treatise ② have no counterpart whatever in the structure of the sūtra explained, and this section does not force a comparison (these forty-four notes are, in terms of method, a natural comparison group; to compare wherever there is a difference would generate false positives, and so, according to the facts, it is not done); only items falling in the Sūtra layer enter the two-way comparative reading. A word-by-word check finds three places in Sūtra ① and ten places in Sūtra ② where the wording opens out or closes up; in all of them each of the two texts reads coherently on its own, and these are not errors of copying; they are set side by side and not forced into one. The principal ones are selected below.
First, hearing what Subhūti speaks. This treatise reads 「應用何等人聽須菩提所說」 tr. "What kind of person should be used to hear what Subhūti speaks?"〔T25 0448c12〕, while the sūtra explained reads 「應用何等人聽須菩提所說法」 tr. "What kind of person should be used to hear the Dharma that Subhūti speaks?"〔T08 0276a18〕—the sūtra explained has one more character, 「法」 tr. "Dharma": a difference between an abridged citation and a surplus character, with no obstruction to the doctrine.
Second, illusion and conjuration joined and divided. This treatise writes illusion and conjuration together—「是眾生如幻、如化，聽法者亦如幻、如化耶」 tr. "Are these beings like an illusion, like a conjuration, and are those who hear the Dharma also like an illusion, like a conjuration?"〔T25 0448c16〕; the sūtra explained writes illusion and conjuration separately, each in a sentence of its own—「是眾生如幻，聽法者亦如幻；眾生如化，聽法者亦如化耶」 tr. "Are these beings like an illusion, and those who hear the Dharma also like an illusion; are beings like a conjuration, and those who hear the Dharma also like a conjuration?"〔T08 0276a22〕. Both texts follow the same meaning; it is a difference of compression and expansion, recorded side by side without judgement.
Third, the full and short transliterations of giving. The full form 「檀那波羅蜜」 tr. "dānapāramitā" appears four times in this chapter of the sūtra explained—「檀那波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜」 tr. "dānapāramitā up to prajñāpāramitā"〔T08 0276a29〕; this treatise uniformly uses the abbreviated 「檀波羅蜜」 tr. "dān-pāramitā"〔T25 0448c25 等〕. It is a matter of fuller and briefer pure transliteration, continuing the same cross-chapter pattern of the preceding several chapters (dāna transliterated in full as 「檀那」 tr. "dāna", and in short as 「檀」 tr. "dān"); recorded side by side without judgement.
Fourth, the two transliterations of avaivartika. This treatise reads 「阿鞞跋致」 tr. "avaivartika"〔T25 0449c05〕; the sūtra explained reads 「阿惟越致」 tr. "avaivartika"〔T08 0276b14〕—two transliterations of avaivartika, translated names that coexist in Kumārajīva's line, with no obstruction to the doctrine.
Fifth, 'receive it' and 'believe and receive'. This treatise reads 「亦能受之」 tr. "can also receive it"〔T25 0449c08〕; the sūtra explained reads 「亦能信受」 tr. "can also believe and receive it"〔T08 0276b17〕—the same meaning in different words, recorded side by side without judgement.
Sixth, gathering in and protecting and upholding (confirmed in both directions; the pivot of the cross-textual mutual attestation in this chapter). In this treatise Śāriputra's words read 「廣說三乘之教及攝取菩薩之法」 tr. "broadly expounding the teaching of the three vehicles and the dharma of gathering in bodhisattvas"〔T25 0449c26〕, while the same sentence in the sūtra explained reads 「廣說三乘之教及護持菩薩之教」 tr. "broadly expounding the teaching of the three vehicles and the teaching of protecting and upholding bodhisattvas"〔T08 0276c07〕—here the sūtra explained reads 「護持」 tr. "protecting and upholding" outright, and not the 「攝取」 tr. "gathering in" of the Taishō type of this treatise. Checking this treatise's own collation notes, at exactly this place there is the variant 「攝取【大】，護持【石】」 tr. "'gathering in' in the Taishō; 'protecting and upholding' in the Ishiyama text"〔T25 0449c26〕—so the 「護持」 tr. "protecting and upholding" of the Taishō edition of the sūtra explained agrees entirely with the Ishiyama variant of this treatise, and runs against 「攝取」 tr. "gathering in", the isolated Taishō reading of this treatise. Among the items in this chapter's Sūtra layer that can be checked in both directions, this is the only case in which the sūtra explained clearly supports a non-Taishō variant of this treatise, and it can be checked concretely word for word. Further, lower down in the same passage of Śāriputra's words this treatise separately has the phrase 「護持菩薩之教」 tr. "the teaching of protecting and upholding bodhisattvas"〔T25 0449c29〕, and there this treatise and the sūtra explained both read 「護持」 tr. "protecting and upholding"〔T08 0276c10〕—so 「護持」 tr. "protecting and upholding" is in fact the habitual usage throughout this chapter, while 「攝取」 tr. "gathering in" is an isolated reading of the Taishō edition of this treatise alone, in the earlier sentence, and its isolation is all the clearer. Each of the two texts reads coherently on its own; they are recorded side by side without judgement, for the decision of a critical edition.
Seventh, the presence or absence of nai. This treatise reads 「至薩婆若初不斷絕」 tr. "to sarvajñā, never at all cut off"〔T25 0450a03〕; the sūtra explained reads 「乃至薩婆若初不斷絕」 tr. "up to sarvajñā, never at all cut off"〔T08 0276c13〕—the sūtra explained has one more function character, 「乃」 tr. "nai": a difference of tone.
Eighth, the sentence-final 'because'. In this treatise Śāriputra's question 「菩薩摩訶薩得捷疾辯乃至一切世間最上辯不可得故」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva attains swift eloquence up to eloquence foremost in all the world, because these are unfindable"〔T25 0450a15〕 closes the sentence with 「故」 tr. "because", while in the sūtra explained this passage has no 「故」 tr. "because" at the end of the sentence〔T08 0276c24〕—this treatise more often than the sūtra explained closes a sentence with a final 「故」 tr. "because": a difference of writing habit, occurring twice in all, recorded side by side without judgement.
V. The Prajñā Eye
The eye of this chapter lies in the utmost teaching that 「涅槃如幻」 tr. "nirvāṇa is like an illusion"—the illusoriness of prajñā does not pervade only birth and death, beings, the five aggregates, and all dharmas, but runs straight through to nirvāṇa, the highest among all dharmas; and illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa are without duality and without difference. Its meaning may be summed up in three levels.
First, the hearer is like an illusion, and what is heard is also like an illusion. When the gods ask what person should be used to hear the Dharma, the answer is 「如幻化人聽法」 tr. "a conjured person hearing the Dharma"〔T25 0448c14〕. This does not mean that some separate, mindless illusory person comes to listen; it means that the hearer is made to 「於諸法用心無所著，如幻化人」 tr. "apply the mind to all dharmas without anything clung to, like a conjured person"〔T25 0449a18〕. If the person who speaks the Dharma is like an illusion and the person who hears the Dharma is like an illusion, then the Dharma spoken is also like an illusion—「不但說法者、聽法者如幻、如夢，我乃至知者、見者皆如幻、如夢，色亦如幻、如夢，乃至涅槃如幻、如夢，即是所說法如幻、如夢」 tr. "not only are the one who speaks the Dharma and the one who hears the Dharma like an illusion, like a dream; the self, up to the knower and the seer, are all like an illusion, like a dream; form too is like an illusion, like a dream; up to nirvāṇa, which is like an illusion, like a dream—this is the Dharma spoken being like an illusion, like a dream"〔T25 0449a21〕. Thus in the single matter of hearing the Dharma, subject and object are both illusory, and not one thing stands as real.
Second, nirvāṇa is like an illusion, without duality and without difference. Among all beings the Buddha is foremost, and among all dharmas nirvāṇa is foremost; hearing that these two are like an illusion, the mind is startled and doubting and asks again—「佛及涅槃審如幻、如夢耶」 tr. "Are the Buddha and nirvāṇa truly like an illusion, like a dream?"〔T25 0449a27〕—and Subhūti answers decisively, 「我說佛及涅槃，正自如幻、如夢」 tr. "I say that the Buddha and nirvāṇa are indeed, in themselves, like an illusion, like a dream"〔T25 0449a29〕. The reason lies in 「是二法雖妙，皆從虛妄法出故空」 tr. "though these two dharmas are wondrous, both come forth from false dharmas, and therefore they are empty"〔T25 0449b01〕—「從虛妄法故有涅槃，從福德智慧故有佛，是二法屬因緣，無有實定」 tr. "it is from false dharmas that there is nirvāṇa, and from merit and wisdom that there is the Buddha; these two dharmas belong to causes and conditions and have nothing real or fixed"〔T25 0449b02〕. And its utmost teaching lies in 「我說涅槃亦如幻、如夢；若當有法勝於涅槃者，我說亦復如幻、如夢」 tr. "I say that nirvāṇa too is like an illusion, like a dream; if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, I would say that it too is like an illusion, like a dream"〔T25 0449a06〕 and 「是幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」 tr. "this illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa are without duality and without difference"〔T25 0449a08〕. To say that nirvāṇa is like an illusion does not mean that nirvāṇa is false and does not exist; it means that illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa, the three, are without duality and without difference and return together to ultimate emptiness—the sūtra and treatise themselves contain this distinction; it is not a denial of nirvāṇa.
Third, the power of prajñā refutes dharmas without obstruction. As for the saying that if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa it too would be like an illusion, the treatise-author makes clear that it is a supposition made to show the power of prajñā—nirvāṇa is already 「一切法中究竟無上法」 tr. "the ultimate, unsurpassed dharma among all dharmas"〔T25 0449b13〕 and 「一切苦盡，畢竟常樂」 tr. "the ending of all suffering, ultimate permanence and bliss"〔T25 0449b18〕, and in reality no dharma surpasses it; were there one, the wisdom of prajñā could refute it too, as the hot iron ball passes straight through without obstruction〔T25 0449b25〕. As for those able to receive this deep prajñā, the treatise lists four kinds of people—avaivartika bodhisattvas, arhats whose outflows are exhausted, the three kinds of trainees, and bodhisattvas of merit and sharp faculties—and the mark of their believing and receiving lies in 「不以空分別色，色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "not discriminating form by means of emptiness: form is emptiness, and emptiness is form"〔T25 0450c03〕 and 「以般若波羅蜜中破諸戲論，有如是功德，故無不信受」 tr. "because within prajñāpāramitā all idle discourse is refuted and there are such merits, there is none who does not believe and receive it"〔T25 0450c08〕. The teaching of the three vehicles, the ten grounds of the gathering-in, and the seven kinds of eloquence 「皆以十八空和合故說」 tr. "are all spoken on account of the coming together of the eighteen emptinesses"〔T25 0451a09〕—prajñā broadly expounds the three vehicles, and yet they have no fixed mark: this is where the eye of the chapter's meaning comes to rest.
VI. Divergent Readings of the Masters
The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa has no tradition of a complete line-by-line commentary; the ancient masters' citations and explanations lean wherever the material happens to fall. The comparative reading of this chapter has one particular feature—Jizang's commentary, which explains the sūtra being explained, does not unfold a line-by-line explanation of this chapter and passes over it with a single structural sentence; Huiying's commentary, which explains the treatise, happens not to cover it, falling in a gap; while among later citations, Zhanran's Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus cites this chapter in word-for-word excerpt, the weightiest of the ancient-master readings set against this chapter. This section records the correspondence between what they comment on and cite and this chapter, and does not judge the relative merit of the interpretations.
Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra (X24n0451) has, for this chapter, no independent line-by-line commentary heading of the form 「幻聽品第」 tr. "Chapter on Illusory Hearing, the …" or 「幻人聽法品」 tr. "Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma" (a keyword scan of the whole corpus yields zero hits). The only hit lies within his line-by-line commentary on Chapter 27, "Asking about Abiding", where, listing the outline of the 「四疑」 tr. "four doubts", he passes over it in a single sentence—「次幻聽品示其聽法之方」 tr. "next, the Chapter on Illusory Hearing shows the way of hearing the Dharma"〔X24 0262b17〕—summing up the content of this chapter in one sentence as a transitional phrase, without unfolding a line-by-line explanation. For this chapter and the following chapters, "Scattering Flowers" and "The Threefold Praise", no commentary section of Jizang's beginning with an independent chapter title is found; this is recorded according to the facts, without speculating whether his commentary on this passage was originally lacking or was turned into a summary.
Huiying's Commentary (X46n0791) is the only ancient commentary on this treatise, and it survives only in fragmentary fascicles. The extant fascicles break off between Fascicle 13 and Fascicle 36; this chapter (Fascicle 55) falls precisely within the gap, and no line-by-line commentary covers it at all (「幻聽」 tr. "illusory hearing" and 「幻人聽法」 tr. "the illusory person hearing the Dharma" yield zero hits in the whole work). This is recorded according to the facts, without setting up an empty place to be filled later.
Zhanran's Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus (T33n1717), in the context of discussing the words 「若有一法過涅槃者亦復如幻」 tr. "if there were one dharma exceeding nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion", cites word for word, in excerpt, from the opening of this chapter's Sūtra ① through to the meaning of Treatise ①. His text is marked ‘Great Treatise, fifty’, and first cites the sūtra, saying: 「諸天子心念：應何等人聽須菩提所說？須菩提知諸天子心念，語言：如幻人聽法，我應用如是人聽，無聽無聞，無知無證。須菩提云：我如幻化乃至知者見者如幻如化，歷一切法乃至佛亦如幻化，涅槃法亦如幻化。」 tr. "The gods thought in their minds: What person should hear what Subhūti speaks? Subhūti, knowing the thoughts in the gods' minds, said to them: A person like an illusion hears the Dharma; such a person I would use to hear—without listening and without hearing, without knowing and without realising. Subhūti said: I am like an illusion, like a conjuration, up to the knower and the seer being like an illusion, like a conjuration; passing through all dharmas up to the Buddha, they too are like an illusion, like a conjuration; the dharma of nirvāṇa too is like an illusion, like a conjuration."〔T33 0876c17〕 Next it cites the treatise—「一切眾生中佛第一，一切法中涅槃第一」 tr. "among all beings the Buddha is foremost; among all dharmas nirvāṇa is foremost"〔T33 0876c22〕. What is cited corresponds precisely to the passage of this chapter's Sūtra ①, 「須菩提知諸天子心所念」 tr. "Subhūti knew what was in the minds of the gods"〔T25 0448c13〕, and to the meaning of Treatise ①, 「一切眾生中，佛為第一；一切諸法中，涅槃第一」 tr. "among all beings the Buddha is foremost; among all dharmas nirvāṇa is foremost"〔T25 0449a24〕. Zhanran marks it 「大論第五十」 tr. "Great Treatise, fifty", and this fascicle number does not agree with Fascicle 55, to which this chapter actually belongs—this is a divergence of fascicle numbering within Zhanran's original commentary itself (or else the ancient text he relied on divided its fascicles differently from the present text); the variant is recorded according to the facts, without judging on his behalf which is right. This is the weightiest later citation of this chapter. The variant edition of the Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus in the Qianlong Canon (L116n1490) also has the same citation in the same passage〔L116 0262a15〕, its wording differing slightly from the Taishō edition; this is an edition variant, not a separate citation.
A fragmentary text of the Zhiyi line, in the form of an index to the Supporting Practice and Broad Resolution of Calming and Contemplation (X28n0592), explicitly records another name for this chapter—「大論第五十在五十五卷。釋幻聽品亦名如幻品」 tr. "the Great Treatise's fiftieth is in the fifty-fifth fascicle. The Commentary on the Chapter on Illusory Hearing is also called the Chapter Like an Illusion"〔X28 0594a19〕—confirming that 「如幻品」 tr. "Chapter Like an Illusion" was one of the ancient names of this chapter, corresponding directly to the title in the Yuan edition of this treatise, 「釋如幻品第二十八」 tr. "Commentary on the Chapter Like an Illusion, the Twenty-eighth" (see Section VIII).
The Extended Chapter Register of the Buddhist Teaching of the Kaiyuan Era of the Great Tang (A097n1267) records in three places differences of chapter name and chapter number. For the sūtra explained it reads 「摩訶般若波羅蜜經幻人聽法品第二十七」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma, the Twenty-seventh"〔A97 0812b07〕, the chapter number one lower, of the same type as recorded for the preceding several chapters; for the Emission of Light Prajñāpāramitā (T221) its brief list reads 「如幻品第二十九」 tr. "Chapter Like an Illusion, the Twenty-ninth"〔A97 0806b06〕, and for the Praise of Light Prajñāpāramitā (T222) its brief list reads 「法師如幻品第二十六」 tr. "Chapter on the Dharma-Master Like an Illusion, the Twenty-sixth"〔A97 0819b04〕. The three translations (the Emission of Light has 「如幻品」 tr. "Chapter Like an Illusion", the Praise of Light has 「法師如幻品」 tr. "Chapter on the Dharma-Master Like an Illusion", and Kumārajīva's Larger Sūtra has 「幻聽品／幻人聽法品」 tr. "Chapter on Illusory Hearing / Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma") correspond to the same passage of a single Sanskrit text, yet their chapter names differ and their chapter numbers differ; this is precious material for viewing different translations side by side, recorded side by side without judgement.
Further, Weibai's Essentials of the Outline of the Great Canon records a line on the fascicles and chapters of this treatise〔C056 0185c08〕, whose context runs in this word order: 「釋般若中天主品義五十五釋般若中幻人聽法品．散花品義五十六」 tr. "Explains, in the Prajñā, the meaning of the Chapter on the Lord of the Gods, fifty-five; explains, in the Prajñā, the meaning of the Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma and the Chapter on Scattering Flowers, fifty-six"—the number 「五十五」 tr. "fifty-five" follows directly after 「天主品」 tr. "the Chapter on the Lord of the Gods" (that is, the Khitan-edition alternative name of the preceding chapter, "Asking about Abiding"), while 「幻人聽法品．散花品」 tr. "the Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma and the Chapter on Scattering Flowers" is attached to 「五十六」 tr. "fifty-six", one fascicle off from Fascicle 55, to which this chapter actually belongs. The word order of this brief-list entry is suspected of a jump in its arrangement; this section records the point of doubt according to the facts, without speculating on an answer (see Section VIII, where the irregularities of numbering are viewed together).
VII. Cross-reading and Further Resonances
The line of meaning of this chapter has two points of continuity with what comes before and after, both recorded in this section, without fixing a reading on anyone's behalf.
First, the treatise's own cross-references. Explaining 「是二法屬因緣，無有實定」 tr. "these two dharmas belong to causes and conditions and have nothing real or fixed", the treatise points back to its earlier explanation—「如念佛、念法義中說」 tr. "as explained in the meaning of recollection of the Buddha and recollection of the Dharma"〔T25 0449b04〕. Explaining why Ānanda answers on the others' behalf, it points forward to a later chapter—in the later chapter Ānanda asks the Buddha 「世尊何以故但讚歎般若波羅蜜，不讚五波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One, why do you praise only prajñāpāramitā, and not praise the five perfections?"〔T25 0450b23〕; by Ānanda's asking about prajñā in the later chapter, it shows that Ānanda's being able to answer here is no empty matter. Explaining the ten grounds of 「攝取」 tr. "gathering in", and the six perfections up to omniscience of all kinds, it again says 「如先說」 tr. "as explained before"〔T25 0450c25〕, and of the meaning of the three vehicles, 「如先說」 tr. "as explained before"〔T25 0450c21〕—all clear evidence of how chapter runs through chapter in this treatise.
Second, the transmission downward of the meaning of 'like an illusion'. This chapter's utmost teaching that nirvāṇa is like an illusion, without duality and without difference〔T25 0449a06〕, is a statement taken up again and again in the prajñā line. Nirvāṇa being like an illusion is not a denial of nirvāṇa; it shows that ultimate emptiness pervades to the very limit of all dharmas and leaves not one thing real. This meaning carries down into the contemplation of emptiness of the prajñā sūtras, and in later ages Zhanran, in assessing 「滅諦慧」 tr. "the wisdom of the truth of cessation", cites precisely this passage of this chapter in evidence〔T33 0876c19〕 (see Section VI). Further, this chapter's simile of the conjured person hearing the Dharma, which shows a hearing without anything clung to through subject and object both being illusory, runs through the same lifeline of teaching as the ten similes of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa (like an illusion, like a mirage, like the moon in water, and so on), all of which use illusory matters of the world to show that all dharmas have no own-nature. These further resonances lie in the continuity of the line of meaning; this section merely records their traces.
VIII. Witnesses and Editions
The base text of this chapter is Fascicle 55 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa〔T25 0448c07–0451a11〕; the collation text for the sūtra explained is the chapter "Illusory Hearing" of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra〔T08 0276a17–0277a04〕; the ancient-master texts for comparative reading are Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra (X24n0451; a single structural sentence passing over it), Huiying's Commentary (X46n0791; the fragmentary fascicles do not cover this chapter), and Zhanran's Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus (T33n1717; a later word-for-word excerpt). Variant notes follow the Taishō collation, covering differences between the Taishō base text and the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace editions, the Shōgozō manuscript, and the Ishiyama text (the Ishiyama-dera manuscript); the variant readings are preserved side by side, while the main text continues to follow the reading of the current base text.
The collation notes at the end of the working base text number sixty-three in all, and this section sets out the structure of their full tally. The anchored notes with a note text of their own number sixty-two; in addition there is one mark of recursive repetition—where the same variant appears again, the original note links it with 「＊」 tr. "asterisk", and the working base text expands each occurrence into a note of its own; it concerns the presence or absence of 「波羅蜜」 tr. "pāramitā"〔T25 0450c22〕〔T25 0450c25〕, and at its repeated place the base text keeps only the anchor point, with no note text of its own, the content being the same as at the first occurrence. Sixty-two plus one makes exactly sixty-three, agreeing entirely and mechanically with the count of the working base text. All sixty-three are proper records of variants in the transmitted texts (type="mod"), with no separately established layer of modern editing. By zone: Sūtra ① seven, Treatise ① seventeen, Sūtra ② twelve, Treatise ② twenty-seven. Those bearing on the chapter title, the doctrine, and the wording of sūtra and treatise are selected and transcribed below; the full tally is at the end of the working base text.
Chapter and fascicle title (the different names of six editions set out together). 「大智度論釋幻人聽法品第二十八（卷五十五）【大】，大智度論卷第五十五釋幻聽品第二十八【宋】，……釋如幻品第二十八【元】，釋如幻品第二十八經作幻聽品【明】，大智度經論卷第五十五釋第二十七品訖第二十八品【聖】，摩訶般若波羅蜜□□□法品二十七五十七【石】」 tr. "'Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on the Illusory Person Hearing the Dharma, the Twenty-eighth (Fascicle Fifty-five)' in the Taishō; 'Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Fascicle Fifty-five, Commentary on the Chapter on Illusory Hearing, the Twenty-eighth' in the Song; … 'Commentary on the Chapter Like an Illusion, the Twenty-eighth' in the Yuan; 'Commentary on the Chapter Like an Illusion, the Twenty-eighth; the sūtra has Chapter on Illusory Hearing' in the Ming; 'Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra-Treatise, Fascicle Fifty-five, the commentary on the Twenty-seventh Chapter ended, the Twenty-eighth Chapter' in the Shōgozō; 'Mahāprajñāpāramitā □□□ Dharma Chapter, twenty-seven, fifty-seven' in the Ishiyama text"〔T25 0448c07〕—the Song, Palace, and Ming editions come close to 「幻聽品」 tr. "Chapter on Illusory Hearing" (the same as the title in the sūtra explained); the Yuan edition reads 「如幻品」 tr. "Chapter Like an Illusion" (the same as the alternative name cited in X28; see Section VI); and the Shōgozō and Ishiyama texts explicitly count this chapter as 「第二十七」 tr. "the twenty-seventh". This is direct evidence of a divergence in chapter numbering within the transmitted editions of this treatise itself.
Gathering in and protecting and upholding (confirmed in both directions). 「攝取【大】，護持【石】」 tr. "'gathering in' in the Taishō; 'protecting and upholding' in the Ishiyama text"〔T25 0449c26〕—here the Ishiyama text of this treatise reads 「護持」 tr. "protecting and upholding", agreeing entirely with the 「護持」 tr. "protecting and upholding" of the Taishō edition of the sūtra explained, and running against 「攝取」 tr. "gathering in", the isolated Taishō reading of this treatise; for the cross-textual mutual attestation, see Section IV, the sixth item.
The special case of the label ‘one who says’. 「者言【大】，論者言【元】【明】，釋曰【石】」 tr. "'one who says' in the Taishō; 'the treatise-author says' in the Yuan and Ming; 'the explanation says' in the Ishiyama text"〔T25 0450a22〕—for the label at the head of Treatise ②, the Taishō of this treatise reads 「者言」 tr. "one who says" rather than the usual 「問曰」 tr. "Question:"; the Yuan and Ming editions add the character 「論」 tr. "treatise" to read 「論者言」 tr. "the treatise-author says"; and the Ishiyama text changes it to 「釋曰」 tr. "the explanation says". Three kinds of label wording set out together confirm that it is not a fixed formula; according to the facts the old form is kept, and it must not be changed outright to 「問曰」 tr. "Question:".
Fruit, like an illusion, like a dream (a surplus reading in the Ishiyama text). 「果【大】，果如幻如夢【石】」 tr. "'fruit' in the Taishō; 'fruit, like an illusion, like a dream' in the Ishiyama text"〔T25 0449a03〕—above the sentence 「辟支佛道如幻、如夢」 tr. "the pratyekabuddha path is like an illusion, like a dream", the Ishiyama text has four more characters, 「如幻如夢」 tr. "like an illusion, like a dream". The comparison in Section IV confirms that the sūtra explained lacks this surplus text; it is an addition peculiar to the Ishiyama text.
‘Truly’ and ‘all’. 「審【大】，悉【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」 tr. "'truly' in the Taishō; 'all' in the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace editions"〔T25 0449a27〕—in 「佛及涅槃審如幻、如夢耶」 tr. "Are the Buddha and nirvāṇa truly like an illusion, like a dream?", the character 「審」 tr. "truly" reads 「悉」 tr. "all" in four editions: a slight difference between 'truly so' and 'all without exception', recorded side by side without judgement.
Two sentences omitted in the Shōgozō. 「難斷絕者名不可斷辯【大】，〔－〕【聖】」 tr. "'what is hard to cut off is called unbreakable eloquence' in the Taishō; absent in the Shōgozō"〔T25 0451a01〕, 「斷法愛故隨眾生所【大】，〔－〕【聖】」 tr. "'because love of dharma is cut off, in accordance with what beings …' in the Taishō; absent in the Shōgozō"〔T25 0451a01〕—in the passage on the seven kinds of eloquence the Shōgozō omits two whole sentences; both are recorded.
The chapter-closing note (the chapter numbering off its track). 「故【大】，故釋第二十七品竟【石】」 tr. "'because' in the Taishō; 'because. The commentary on the Twenty-seventh Chapter ends' in the Ishiyama text"〔T25 0451a10〕—below the last sentence of the whole chapter, 「以空智慧故」 tr. "because of the wisdom of emptiness", the Ishiyama text appends the chapter-closing note 「釋第二十七品竟」 tr. "the commentary on the Twenty-seventh Chapter ends", counting this chapter as 「第二十七」 tr. "the twenty-seventh". This matches, from beginning to end, the count of the Shōgozō and Ishiyama texts in the chapter and fascicle title: the traces of this treatise's own chapter numbering running off its track are consistent throughout.
Further, in the electronic canon text of the sūtra explained as transmitted today, there are traces that the enumeration of chapters is out of step with the chapter names given. The counting attribute (n) of the chapter-boundary structure in the base-text markup of the sūtra explained, compared with the displayed chapter number, counts one chapter too many continuously from Chapter 24, "Converging on the Tenet", onward (n is always the displayed number plus one); at this chapter, "Illusory Hearing", it drops a single point and coincides with the displayed 「28」 tr. "twenty-eight" (the counting attribute of the preceding chapter, "Asking about Abiding", is likewise marked 「28」 tr. "twenty-eight", so that the number is attached to both chapters); and from the next chapter, "Scattering Flowers", the tendency to count one too many immediately reappears—a single-point drop back into alignment followed at once by recurrence, not a correction that holds. This is an anomaly in which a structural attribute within a single text is out of step with its displayed text; it differs in nature from the divergence in chapter numbering among the Shōgozō, Ishiyama, and other editions of this treatise (the items above on 「第二十七」 tr. "the twenty-seventh"), and the two should not be conflated; they are recorded separately according to the facts. The cause of the chapter numbering running off its track lies beyond the remit of the apparatus; it is recorded side by side without judgement.