文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經 文殊般若 · 卷上 · 眾生界
眾生界既不增不減，菩薩為什麼仍求菩提、常行說法？經文不取消菩薩行，卻也不讓行者、眾生與所說之法成為可得之物。佛再問眾生界的相、量、處所與所住；文殊答其相與量如佛界，量不可思議，眾生無住如虛空之住。由此，佛把問題轉到修行：如何住般若？文殊答不住於法就是住，以無住之相就是住。當佛再問善根如何增減，文殊連說善根、一切法與般若性相都無增無減，隨後逐項放下凡聖、生死涅槃、垢惱功德、生滅增減、好醜高下的取捨。沒有一法可得，並未把常行說法刪去；以不住為住，也沒有另造一個無住之相可守。本章把行完整留下，又使行中無所取著；這一雙向分際的義理判定仍存疑。
If the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases, why do bodhisattvas still seek awakening and constantly teach the Dharma? The sūtra does not cancel bodhisattva practice, yet neither does it allow the practitioner, sentient beings, or the Dharma taught to become attainable things. The Buddha then asks about the mark, measure, location, and abiding of the realm of sentient beings. Mañjuśrī replies that its mark and measure are like the Buddha-realm, that its measure is inconceivable, and that sentient beings have no abiding, like the abiding of space. From here the Buddha turns the question toward practice: how does one abide in prajñā? Mañjuśrī answers that not abiding in any dharma is abiding, and that being without a mark of abiding is abiding. When the Buddha then asks how roots of goodness increase or decrease, Mañjuśrī says in succession that roots of goodness, all dharmas, and the nature and marks of prajñā neither increase nor decrease. He then releases, one by one, the taking and abandoning of ordinary and noble, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, afflictive defilement and merit, arising and ceasing, increase and decrease, beauty and ugliness, high and low. That no dharma can be attained does not erase the constant teaching of Dharma; taking non-abiding as abiding does not fabricate another mark of non-abiding to guard. The chapter leaves practice whole while freeing practice from grasping. The doctrinal determination of this two-way boundary remains uncertain.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Realm of Sentient Beings · Heart-Essence · Summer 2026
〔T08 0726c〕 舍利弗復語文殊師利言：「若眾生界不增不減，何故菩薩為諸眾生，求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，常行說法？」文殊師利言：「若諸眾生悉空相者，亦無菩薩求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無眾生而為說法。何以故？我說法中無有一法當可得故。」爾時佛告文殊師利：「若無眾生，云何說有眾生及眾生界？」文殊師利言：「眾生界相，如諸佛界。」又問：「眾生界者是有量耶？」答曰：「眾生界量，如佛界量。」佛又問：「眾生界量，有處所不？」答曰：「眾生界量，不可思議。」又問：「眾生界相，為有住不？」答曰：「眾生無住，猶如空住。」佛告文殊師利：「如是修般若波羅蜜時，當云何住般若波羅蜜？」文殊師利言：「以不住法為住般若波羅蜜。」佛復問文殊師利：「云何不住法名住般若波羅蜜？」文殊師利言：「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜。」佛復告文殊師利：「如是住般若波羅蜜時，是諸善根，云何增長？云何損減？」文殊師利言：「若能如是住般若波羅蜜，於諸善根無增無減，於一切法亦無增無減。是般若波羅蜜性相亦無增無減。世尊！如是修 〔T08 0727a〕 般若波羅蜜則不捨凡夫法，亦不取賢聖法。何以故？般若波羅蜜不見有法可取可捨，如是修般若波羅蜜，亦不見涅槃可樂、生死可厭。何以故？不見生死，況復厭離；不見涅槃，何況樂著。如是修般若波羅蜜，不見垢惱可捨，亦不見功德可取，於一切法心無增減。何以故？不見法界有增減故。世尊！若能如是，是名修般若波羅蜜。世尊！不見諸法有生有滅，是修般若波羅蜜。世尊！不見諸法有增有減，是修般若波羅蜜。世尊！心無悕取，不見法相有可求者，是修般若波羅蜜。世尊！不見好醜，不生高下，不作取捨。何以故？法無好醜，離諸相故；法無高下，等法性故；法無取捨，住實際故。是修般若波羅蜜。」
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
舍利弗又對文殊師利說：『既然眾生界不增加也不減少，菩薩為什麼還要為眾生求無上正等正覺，並且經常為他們說法？』
文殊師利回答：『如果一切眾生全都呈現空相，那麼也沒有一位菩薩在求無上正等正覺，也沒有一個眾生需要由菩薩為他說法。為什麼呢？因為在我所說的法中，沒有任何一法可以得到。』
這時，佛問文殊師利：『如果沒有眾生，為什麼又說有眾生和眾生界？』
文殊師利回答：『眾生界的相，就像諸佛界的相。』
佛又問：『眾生界是有數量的嗎？』
文殊師利回答：『眾生界的量，就像佛界的量。』
佛又問：『眾生界的量，有一個所在的地方嗎？』
文殊師利回答：『眾生界的量不能用心思量。』
佛又問：『眾生界的相，有所安住嗎？』
文殊師利回答：『眾生沒有固定的安住，就像虛空的安住。』
佛告訴文殊師利：『像這樣修般若波羅蜜時，應當怎樣安住於般若波羅蜜？』
文殊師利回答：『以不安住於任何法，作為安住於般若波羅蜜。』
佛又問文殊師利：『為什麼說，不安住於法，就叫作安住於般若波羅蜜？』
文殊師利回答：『以沒有安住之相，就是安住於般若波羅蜜。』
佛又告訴文殊師利：『像這樣安住於般若波羅蜜時，這些善根要怎樣增長？又會怎樣減損？』
文殊師利回答：『如果能像這樣安住於般若波羅蜜，對各種善根便沒有增加，也沒有減少；對一切法也沒有增加，沒有減少；般若波羅蜜的本性與形相同樣沒有增加，也沒有減少。
『世尊！像這樣修般若波羅蜜，並不是捨棄凡夫之法，也不是取來賢者、聖者之法。為什麼呢？因為般若波羅蜜看不見有任何一法可以取來或捨去。
『像這樣修般若波羅蜜，也看不見涅槃是可以喜愛的，看不見生死是可以厭惡的。為什麼呢？既然看不見生死，何況會厭棄、遠離它；既然看不見涅槃，何況會喜愛、執著它。
『像這樣修般若波羅蜜，看不見煩惱垢染可以捨去，也看不見功德可以取得；面對一切法，心中沒有增加或減少。為什麼呢？因為看不見法界有所增加或減少。
『世尊！如果能這樣，就是修般若波羅蜜。世尊！看不見諸法有生起、有消滅，就是修般若波羅蜜。世尊！看不見諸法有增加、有減少，就是修般若波羅蜜。世尊！心中沒有想要取得什麼，也看不見法的形相中有任何可以追求的東西，就是修般若波羅蜜。
『世尊！不把法看成美好或醜惡，不生出高或低的分別，也不作取來或捨去的行為。為什麼呢？法沒有美好或醜惡，因為法離開各種形相；法沒有高或低，因為法性平等；法沒有可以取來或捨去的，因為法安住於實際。這就是修般若波羅蜜。』
Śāriputra again said to Mañjuśrī, ‘Since the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases, why do bodhisattvas still seek unsurpassed perfect awakening for sentient beings and constantly teach them the Dharma?’
Mañjuśrī replied, ‘If all sentient beings are entirely of the mark of emptiness, then there is no bodhisattva seeking unsurpassed perfect awakening and no sentient being for whom a bodhisattva must teach the Dharma. Why? Because in the Dharma I teach, there is no single dharma that can be attained.’
The Buddha then asked Mañjuśrī, ‘If there are no sentient beings, why does one speak of sentient beings and the realm of sentient beings?’
Mañjuśrī replied, ‘The mark of the realm of sentient beings is like the mark of the realm of all Buddhas.’
The Buddha asked again, ‘Does the realm of sentient beings have a measurable quantity?’
Mañjuśrī replied, ‘The measure of the realm of sentient beings is like the measure of the Buddha-realm.’
The Buddha asked again, ‘Does the measure of the realm of sentient beings have a place where it is located?’
Mañjuśrī replied, ‘The measure of the realm of sentient beings cannot be conceived by the mind.’
The Buddha asked again, ‘Does the mark of the realm of sentient beings have anywhere it abides?’
Mañjuśrī replied, ‘Sentient beings have no fixed abiding, just as space abides.’
The Buddha told Mañjuśrī, ‘When cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā in this way, how should one abide in the prajñā-pāramitā?’
Mañjuśrī replied, ‘Take not abiding in any dharma as abiding in the prajñā-pāramitā.’
The Buddha again asked Mañjuśrī, ‘Why is not abiding in any dharma called abiding in the prajñā-pāramitā?’
Mañjuśrī replied, ‘To be without any mark of abiding is itself to abide in the prajñā-pāramitā.’
The Buddha again said to Mañjuśrī, ‘When one abides in the prajñā-pāramitā in this way, how do these roots of goodness increase? How do they diminish?’
Mañjuśrī replied, ‘If one can abide in the prajñā-pāramitā in this way, the various roots of goodness neither increase nor decrease. All dharmas likewise neither increase nor decrease, and the nature and marks of the prajñā-pāramitā also neither increase nor decrease.
‘World-Honored One! To cultivate the prajñā-pāramitā in this way is neither to abandon the dharmas of ordinary beings nor to take up the dharmas of the worthy and the noble. Why? Because the prajñā-pāramitā sees no dharma that can be taken up or abandoned.
‘To cultivate the prajñā-pāramitā in this way is likewise not to see nirvāṇa as something to delight in or saṃsāra as something to be repelled by. Why? Since one does not see saṃsāra, how much less could one reject and leave it? Since one does not see nirvāṇa, how much less could one delight in and cling to it?
‘To cultivate the prajñā-pāramitā in this way is not to see afflictive defilements that can be abandoned, nor to see merit that can be taken up. In relation to all dharmas, the mind neither increases nor decreases. Why? Because one does not see increase or decrease in the dharma-realm.
‘World-Honored One! If one can practice in this way, this is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā. World-Honored One! Not seeing dharmas as arising or ceasing is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā. World-Honored One! Not seeing dharmas as increasing or decreasing is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā. World-Honored One! When the mind has no longing to grasp and does not see within the marks of dharmas anything that can be sought, this is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā.
‘World-Honored One! One does not regard dharmas as beautiful or ugly, does not give rise to distinctions of high or low, and does not act by taking up or abandoning. Why? Dharmas have neither beauty nor ugliness because they are apart from all marks; dharmas have neither high nor low because dharma-nature is equal; and dharmas have neither taking nor abandoning because they abide at the reality-limit. This is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā.’
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Realm of Sentient Beings · Vernacular · Summer 2026
眾生界不增不減，為什麼還要求菩提、常行說法？
本章從舍利弗的一個追問開始：眾生界既然不增不減，菩薩為什麼還要為眾生求無上正等正覺，又為什麼經常說法？問題不是抽象地問空，而是問行：若度無量眾生也不使眾生界增減，菩薩所求與所說是否還有著落？
文殊沒有回答說菩薩不必求、不必說。他先說，若眾生全都呈空相，便沒有一位可得的菩薩在求菩提，也沒有一個可得的眾生正被說法；理由是「我說法中無有一法當可得故」。經文把求菩提、常說法的問提在眼前，又不讓回答落到一個可得的菩薩、眾生或法上。
這一答也不能倒讀成什麼都不行。舍利弗所問的菩薩求菩提、常行說法仍在句中；文殊所切斷的，是把行者、所化眾生與所說之法當成可得之物。這一分際的義理判定仍存疑；此處只守住經文同時保存行與無所得的次第。
說無眾生，為什麼又說眾生界？
佛緊接著追問：若無眾生，為什麼又說有眾生與眾生界？這一問不讓『眾生空』停成一句容易滑過的話。文殊要依次回答的，是眾生界的相、量、處所與所住。
第一答是「眾生界相，如諸佛界」；第二答是「眾生界量，如佛界量」。經文沒有另列一個數目，也沒有說眾生界比佛界大或小，只以佛界回應其相與量。第三問追問這一量有沒有處所，文殊答不可思議；第四問再問眾生界相有沒有安住，文殊答「眾生無住，猶如空住」。
虛空之喻是本章自己的刀。經只說猶如空住，沒有再替虛空安立一個固定住處。因此，這個譬喻首先回答的是有住與無住之問：若想替眾生界指出一個所在，經文卻以虛空之住來回應。它沒有把眾生界抹掉，也沒有把它安放成一個可指的地方。
不住於法，怎麼叫作住般若？
佛由眾生無住轉問：像這樣修般若時，應當怎樣住般若？文殊答「以不住法為住般若波羅蜜」。佛不讓這句話停在表面，又追問：為什麼不住於法，反而叫作住般若？文殊第二答是「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」。
兩答的次第很緊。第一答不住於法，第二答連一個可以抓住的無住之相也不另立。若把『無住』守成一個固定樣子，便與第二答相違；若因為不住便說沒有修行，則又越過佛所問的住般若。經文把住與不住放在同一組問答裡，要求讀者不漏掉任何一邊。
明代洪蓮所編《金剛經註解》錄陳雄說時，曾引本章這兩答來說明住無所住。這一後世居士徵引至少證明，後來講《金剛經》之住時，確曾以本章原句作刀；但他的會釋屬後出的承用，不能反過來取代本章自身的兩輪問答。
善根如何增長，為什麼答案卻是無增無減？
佛接著問：像這樣住般若時，善根怎樣增長，又怎樣減損？文殊沒有分別列出增長與損減的條件，而先說善根無增無減，再說一切法無增無減，最後說般若的性相也無增無減。問句從善根入手，答案卻一步步擴到一切法與般若自身。
後面的長答把這個無增無減說得更具體。凡夫法不被捨掉，賢聖法也不被取來；涅槃不被當作可樂，生死不被當作可厭；垢惱不被看成可捨，功德也不被看成可取。經文並非只重複一個『無』字，而是一對一對點出人心最容易作取捨的地方。
接著，文殊連說幾項修般若：不見諸法有生有滅，不見諸法有增有減，心不希求取得什麼，也不見法相中有可求之物；不見好醜，不生高下，不作取捨。最後三句各給理由：法離諸相，所以無好醜；法性平等，所以無高下；法住實際，所以無取捨。這些理由都在本章原文中，義疏不另添一套更高的名相。
承衍
本段後來整段收入《大寶積經》的文殊說般若會，從眾生界問答到不取凡聖、生死涅槃，仍依原有次第展開。它在藏內的重收，保存了這組短問答與長答相接的完整形狀：先問眾生界，再問住般若，最後逐項鬆開增減與取捨。
再後來，明代洪蓮編錄的《金剛經註解》在解說住時，明白引出本章不住法與無住相兩句。由本經的問答，到《大寶積經》的重收，再到後世居士以原句解住，承衍的線索可以核見；至於各經各疏如何作義理會通，仍須誌錄而不代裁。
本章自身也沒有把問題封死。它從『為何仍行』起問，經過眾生界無住，落到住般若而不作取捨；下一輪又將轉問諸佛法是否殊勝。此處的承衍，首先是讓這一連串追問繼續，而不是把無住變成一句停止思考的答案。
If the Realm of Sentient Beings Neither Increases nor Decreases, Why Still Seek Awakening and Constantly Teach the Dharma?
The chapter begins with a further question from Śāriputra. Since the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases, why do bodhisattvas still seek unsurpassed perfect awakening for sentient beings, and why do they constantly teach the Dharma? The question does not ask about emptiness in the abstract; it asks about practice. If liberating immeasurable sentient beings causes no increase or decrease in their realm, do the bodhisattva’s seeking and teaching still have any footing?
Mañjuśrī does not answer that bodhisattvas need not seek or teach. He first says that if sentient beings are entirely of the mark of emptiness, there is no attainable bodhisattva seeking awakening and no attainable sentient being for whom the Dharma is taught. His reason is 「我說法中無有一法當可得故」— “within the Dharma I teach there is not a single dharma that can be attained.” The sūtra places seeking awakening and constantly teaching the Dharma plainly before the reader, while refusing to let the answer settle upon an attainable bodhisattva, sentient being, or Dharma.
Nor can this answer be read backward to mean that nothing is practiced. Śāriputra’s question about the bodhisattva seeking awakening and constantly teaching still remains in the sentence. What Mañjuśrī cuts off is treating the practitioner, the sentient beings transformed, and the Dharma taught as attainable things. The doctrinal determination of this boundary remains uncertain; here the exposition only preserves the sequence in which the sūtra retains both practice and non-attainment.
If There Are No Sentient Beings, Why Speak of the Realm of Sentient Beings?
The Buddha immediately presses the point: if there are no sentient beings, why speak of sentient beings and their realm? This question does not allow “sentient beings are empty” to become a sentence one can easily pass over. Mañjuśrī must answer, in turn, concerning the realm’s mark, measure, location, and abiding.
The first reply is 「眾生界相，如諸佛界」— “the mark of the realm of sentient beings is like the realm of all Buddhas.” The second is 「眾生界量，如佛界量」— “the measure of the realm of sentient beings is like the measure of the Buddha-realm.” The sūtra supplies no separate number and does not say that the realm of sentient beings is greater or smaller than the Buddha-realm; it answers its mark and measure by means of the Buddha-realm. When the third question asks whether this measure has a location, Mañjuśrī replies that it is inconceivable. The fourth asks whether the mark of the realm of sentient beings has an abiding, and he replies, 「眾生無住，猶如空住」— “sentient beings have no abiding, just as space abides.”
The simile of space is this chapter’s own blade. The sūtra says only “just as space abides” and does not then establish a fixed place where space itself abides. The simile therefore first answers the question of abiding and non-abiding: if one tries to point out a location for the realm of sentient beings, the sūtra responds with the abiding of space. It neither erases the realm of sentient beings nor places it in a location that can be indicated.
How Is Not Abiding in Any Dharma Called Abiding in Prajñā?
From the non-abiding of sentient beings, the Buddha turns to ask: when cultivating prajñā in this way, how should one abide in prajñā? Mañjuśrī replies, 「以不住法為住般若波羅蜜」— “One abides in the prajñā-pāramitā by not abiding in any dharma.” The Buddha does not let this sentence remain on the surface, but asks again: why is not abiding in any dharma called abiding in prajñā? Mañjuśrī’s second answer is 「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」— “To be without a mark of abiding is itself to abide in the prajñā-pāramitā.”
The sequence of the two replies is tight. The first does not abide in any dharma; the second does not separately establish even a graspable mark of non-abiding. If one guards “non-abiding” as a fixed state, one contradicts the second reply. If one says that because there is no abiding there is no practice, one has stepped past the Buddha’s question about abiding in prajñā. The sūtra places abiding and non-abiding within the same exchange and requires the reader not to omit either side.
The Ming compilation of Honglian, the Annotated Explanation of the Diamond Sūtra, records Chen Xiong citing these two replies to explain abiding without anywhere abiding. This later lay citation at least establishes that when later readers explained abiding in the Diamond Sūtra, they indeed used this chapter’s own sentence as a blade. Yet that interpretation is a later use and cannot replace the two rounds of questioning within this chapter itself.
If Roots of Goodness Grow, Why Is the Answer Neither Increase nor Decrease?
The Buddha then asks: when one abides in prajñā in this way, how do roots of goodness increase, and how do they diminish? Mañjuśrī does not separately list the conditions of increase and diminution. He first says that roots of goodness neither increase nor decrease, then that all dharmas neither increase nor decrease, and finally that the nature and marks of prajñā likewise neither increase nor decrease. The question begins with roots of goodness, but the answer expands step by step to all dharmas and prajñā itself.
The long answer that follows makes this absence of increase and decrease concrete. Ordinary dharmas are not abandoned, and noble dharmas are not taken up; nirvāṇa is not treated as delightful, and saṃsāra is not treated as repellent; afflictive defilements are not seen as something to abandon, nor merit as something to acquire. The sūtra does not merely repeat the word “no.” Pair by pair, it points to the places where the mind most readily takes and rejects.
Mañjuśrī then names several ways of cultivating prajñā: not seeing dharmas as arising or ceasing, not seeing them as increasing or decreasing, not longing to grasp anything, and not seeing within the marks of dharmas anything that can be sought; not seeing beauty or ugliness, not giving rise to high or low, and not performing taking or abandoning. The final three sentences give their reasons: dharmas are apart from all marks and therefore have neither beauty nor ugliness; dharma-nature is equal and therefore has neither high nor low; dharmas abide at the reality-limit and therefore have neither taking nor abandoning. All these reasons stand within the chapter’s source text. The exposition does not add a higher system of terms.
Onward Transmission
This passage was later incorporated in full into the “Mañjuśrī Teaching of Prajñā Assembly” of the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra. From the questions about the realm of sentient beings through not taking ordinary and noble, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, it continues in the same sequence. Its reincorporation within the canon preserves the complete shape in which the short exchanges lead into the long answer: first the realm of sentient beings, then abiding in prajñā, and finally the release of increase, decrease, taking, and abandoning item by item.
Later still, the Annotated Explanation of the Diamond Sūtra compiled by Honglian explicitly cited this chapter’s two sentences on not abiding in any dharma and the absence of a mark of abiding when explaining “abiding.” From the questions and answers of this sūtra, through canonical reincorporation in the Mahāratnakūṭa, to a later lay reader using its actual words to explain abiding, a line of onward transmission can be verified. How the respective sūtras and commentaries are doctrinally integrated remains a matter for neutral record, not adjudication here.
Nor does this chapter close the question. It begins by asking why practice still remains, passes through the non-abiding of the realm of sentient beings, and arrives at abiding in prajñā without taking or abandoning. The next exchange turns to ask whether the dharmas of all Buddhas are supreme. Onward movement here first means allowing this chain of questions to continue, rather than turning non-abiding into an answer that stops inquiry.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Realm of Sentient Beings · Exposition · Summer 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
《文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經》不立品目。本章依底本對話輪攝第八至第二十三輪，緊接前章「眾生界不增不減」之答。舍利弗先問：眾生界既不增減，菩薩為何仍求菩提、常行說法；文殊以眾生空相及說法中無一法可得作答。佛再以四組短問答追問眾生界的相、量、處所與所住，接著轉問如何住般若；文殊答以不住法為住、無住相即住。末後佛問善根如何增減，文殊以三重無增無減領起長答，逐項說不捨凡夫法、不取賢聖法，不見生死、涅槃、垢惱、功德及諸法有可取捨、增減、生滅、高下與好醜。
底本範圍共六百九十七字，起於〔T08 0726c09〕，止於〔T08 0727a14〕。節名「眾生界」取自本章經語。
二、異譯對勘
（一）證據強度
玄奘《大般若波羅蜜多經》第七曼殊室利分在〔T07 0965a〕有可對讀段。局部逐字對勘只取得兩枚同序且各自唯一的共文：「於一切法亦無增」與「不見生死，況」。兩枚共文達到雙有序線索的最低門檻，故本章與該段的義段對讀屬弱證成；這不等於逐句對齊，也不證明兩本文句義理全同。
僧伽婆羅本 T233 在本單元未取得逐字對應的有序證據。現階段只誌錄到此；不引用 T233 文充作本章對讀，也不由未證成逕斷對應段缺失。
（二）兩組義段對讀
一、無增無減
- 曼陀羅仙本：「若能如是住般若波羅蜜，於諸善根無增無減，於一切法亦無增無減。是般若波羅蜜性相亦無增無減。」〔T08 0726c〕
- 玄奘本：「我修甚深般若波羅蜜多，於善、於惡無增無減。世尊！我修甚深般若波羅蜜多，於一切法亦無增減。」〔T07 0965a〕
兩本都由修般若說到法之無增無減；前本連說善根、一切法與般若性相，後本先說善惡，再說一切法。項目與措辭並不全同，只作義段對讀。
二、不見生死與涅槃
- 曼陀羅仙本：「不見生死，況復厭離；不見涅槃，何況樂著。」〔T08 0727a〕
- 玄奘本：「修此法者不見生死，況有厭離！不見涅槃，況有欣樂！」〔T07 0965a〕
兩本同以不見生死、涅槃為先，繼而說無從厭離或欣樂；曼陀羅仙本作「樂著」，玄奘本作「欣樂」。細部義域是否全同，存疑。
三、經論宗依
本章的宗依由本經自語直接給出。舍利弗問菩薩為何仍求菩提、說法，文殊答「我說法中無有一法當可得故」〔T08 0726c〕；佛追問眾生界，文殊答「眾生界量，如佛界量」「眾生無住，猶如空住」〔T08 0726c〕；轉入觀行後，又以「以不住法為住般若波羅蜜」「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」〔T08 0726c〕定住般若之答。其長答最後落在「法無取捨，住實際故」〔T08 0727a〕。本目只依這些本章經句立眼，不另以外論補造判釋。
四、本章釋要
本章先把前章的無增無減推成行上的疑問：若眾生界不增不減，菩薩為何仍求菩提、常行說法？文殊並未另立一個可得的眾生、菩薩或法來回答，而說眾生悉空相，說法中無一法可得。佛隨即追問：既說無眾生，何以又說眾生與眾生界？文殊的回答不作長論，只用四輪短答依次說眾生界相如諸佛界、其量如佛界量、其量不可思議、眾生無住猶如空住。
經文接著由眾生界之無住轉問住般若。文殊先答以不住法為住；佛再追問何以不住法名住，文殊答以無住相即住。當佛問這一住如何令善根增長或損減，文殊不沿增減兩端回答，而連說善根、一切法與般若性相皆無增無減。
長答再把無增無減落到一組組取捨上：不捨凡夫法，不取賢聖法；不以涅槃為可樂，不以生死為可厭；不見垢惱可捨，也不見功德可取；不見諸法生滅、增減，不悕取，也不見法相有可求者；不立好醜、高下，不作取捨。末句各自給出理由：離諸相、等法性、住實際。本章只循經文的問答次第展開，不把「無住」另升格為本章未說的術語。
五、術語
| 術語 | 古德傳音／發音輔助 | 本章所給的義界 |
|---|---|---|
| 眾生界 | 無古德音寫可徵者從闕 | 經問其相、量、處所與所住；答為相如諸佛界、量如佛界量、不可思議、無住如空住 |
| 佛界／諸佛界 | 無古德音寫可徵者從闕 | 本章只用來回答眾生界之相與量；不另界定佛界自身 |
| 不可思議 | 無古德音寫可徵者從闕 | 回答眾生界量有無處所之問，表明其量不能以思量定出 |
| 不住法 | 無古德音寫可徵者從闕 | 文殊用來回答如何住般若波羅蜜；下輪再以無住相說明 |
| 無住相 | 無古德音寫可徵者從闕 | 經文作「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」，不另立一個住相 |
| 實際 | 無古德音寫可徵者從闕 | 長答末句用來說明法無取捨：「法無取捨，住實際故」 |
| 悕取 | 無古德音寫可徵者從闕 | 與「不見法相有可求者」連說，指心有所希求、取著 |
本章沒有可據古德音寫繫定的梵語，羅馬字從闕；不以近代梵文校本補作文字出處。
六、譬喻
本章只有一個極短的自有譬喻：「眾生無住，猶如空住。」〔T08 0726c〕。喻體是虛空之住，所答的是眾生界相有無所住。經文不另解喻，也沒有在本章把它擴成其他名相；故此處只錄其問答位置與所顯，不另加喻義。
七、徵引承衍
《大寶積經·文殊說般若會》第四十六重收本段，從眾生界問答至住般若與不取不捨，見〔T11 0651a–b〕。這是藏內重收的經文承衍，文字與本底本大體相承，句讀與少數用字略有差別。
明洪蓮編《金剛經註解》錄陳雄說住無所住時，明標《文殊般若經》，並徵引本章不住法為住的問答，末句逐字作「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」〔X24 0769c17–21〕。此處只核錄其確有徵引；不把陳雄對《金剛經》的會釋倒灌成本章本義，亦不列入古德釋義。
已核的一行三昧徵引網屬卷下後段，不在本章，故不移入此處。
八、校本定位
- 底本：T08n0232〔0726c09–0727a14〕，共六百九十七字；原典實跨 0726c、0727a 兩頁。
- 玄奘對讀：T07n0220 第七曼殊室利分〔0964c–0965b〕；本單元只由兩枚有序唯一共文弱證成義段對讀。
- T233：本單元未取得逐字對應證據；不引用、不判闕。
- 〔T08 0726c12〕底本作「言」，異讀作「白佛言」（四本）。
- 〔T08 0726c17〕底本作「是」，異讀無「是」（一本）。
- 〔T08 0726c18〕底本作「佛」，異讀無「佛」（三本）。
- 〔T08 0726c23〕底本作「云」，異讀作「言云」（四本）。
- 〔T08 0727a06〕底本作「無」，異讀作「不」（四本）。
- 〔T08 0727a10〕底本作「悕」，異讀作「希」（四本）。
原典層依底本文字，以上六處均保留底本讀法。本單元校記全錄，不以頁欄邊界截斷。
1 · Classificatory Placement
Mañjuśrī’s Teaching of the Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra has no chapter divisions. According to the dialogue rounds of the base text, this chapter comprises rounds 8–23 and directly follows the preceding chapter’s answer that the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases. Śāriputra first asks why bodhisattvas still seek awakening and constantly teach the Dharma if the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases. Mañjuśrī replies in terms of the empty mark of sentient beings and the absence of any single attainable dharma in his teaching. The Buddha then pursues four short exchanges concerning the mark, measure, location, and abiding of the realm of sentient beings, before turning to ask how one abides in prajñā. Mañjuśrī answers that not abiding in any dharma is abiding and that the absence of a mark of abiding is itself abiding. Finally, the Buddha asks how roots of goodness increase or diminish. Mañjuśrī begins with a threefold neither-increase-nor-decrease and then explains in detail that one neither abandons ordinary dharmas nor takes up noble dharmas, and that one sees neither saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, afflictive defilements, merit, nor any dharma as something to take or abandon, increase or decrease, arise or cease, rank as high or low, or judge as beautiful or ugly.
The sealed base-text range contains 697 characters, beginning at〔T08 0726c09〕and ending at〔T08 0727a14〕. The section title “Realm of Sentient Beings” is taken from the language of the chapter itself.
2 · Collation with Other Translations
(1) Strength of Evidence
The Mañjuśrī Division of Xuanzang’s Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Seventh Assembly, contains a passage at〔T07 0965a〕that can be read in parallel. Local verbatim collation yields only two shared phrases that are both unique and occur in the same order: 「於一切法亦無增」— “in all dharmas likewise no increase” — and 「不見生死，況」— “not seeing saṃsāra, how much less.” These two ordered correspondences meet the minimum threshold for a weakly established passage-level parallel. This does not amount to sentence-by-sentence alignment and does not prove that the two recensions are doctrinally identical in every phrase.
No ordered verbatim evidence for a corresponding passage has been obtained in the Saṅghabhara recension, T233, for this unit. The record stops at that point: no T233 wording is cited as a parallel for this chapter, and the absence of established evidence is not turned into a claim that the corresponding passage is missing.
(2) Two Passage-Level Parallels
1. Neither Increase nor Decrease
- Mandrasena recension: 「若能如是住般若波羅蜜，於諸善根無增無減，於一切法亦無增無減。是般若波羅蜜性相亦無增無減。」〔T08 0726c〕. tr. “If one can abide in the prajñā-pāramitā in this way, the roots of goodness neither increase nor decrease; all dharmas likewise neither increase nor decrease; and the nature and mark of the prajñā-pāramitā also neither increase nor decrease.”
- Xuanzang recension: 「我修甚深般若波羅蜜多，於善、於惡無增無減。世尊！我修甚深般若波羅蜜多，於一切法亦無增減。」〔T07 0965a〕. tr. “In cultivating the profound prajñā-pāramitā, I neither increase nor decrease what is wholesome or unwholesome. World-Honored One! In cultivating the profound prajñā-pāramitā, I likewise neither increase nor decrease any dharma.”
Both texts move from cultivating prajñā to the absence of increase and decrease in dharmas. The former speaks successively of roots of goodness, all dharmas, and the nature and mark of prajñā; the latter first speaks of wholesome and unwholesome and then of all dharmas. Their items and wording are not wholly identical, so they are read only as passage-level parallels.
2. Not Seeing Saṃsāra or Nirvāṇa
- Mandrasena recension: 「不見生死，況復厭離；不見涅槃，何況樂著。」〔T08 0727a〕. tr. “One does not see saṃsāra; how much less could one reject and leave it? One does not see nirvāṇa; how much less could one delight in and cling to it?”
- Xuanzang recension: 「修此法者不見生死，況有厭離！不見涅槃，況有欣樂！」〔T07 0965a〕. tr. “One who cultivates this Dharma does not see saṃsāra; how much less could there be rejection and departure? One does not see nirvāṇa; how much less could there be delight?”
Both texts begin by not seeing saṃsāra and nirvāṇa and continue by saying there is no basis for rejection or delight. The Mandrasena recension has 「樂著」— “delight and clinging” — while the Xuanzang recension has 「欣樂」— “delight.” Whether their finer semantic ranges are wholly identical remains uncertain.
3 · Scriptural and Treatise Ground
The doctrinal ground of this chapter is supplied directly by the sūtra’s own words. When Śāriputra asks why bodhisattvas still seek awakening and teach the Dharma, Mañjuśrī replies, 「我說法中無有一法當可得故」〔T08 0726c〕— tr. “Because within the Dharma I teach there is not a single dharma that can be attained.” When the Buddha asks about the realm of sentient beings, Mañjuśrī replies, 「眾生界量，如佛界量」— tr. “The measure of the realm of sentient beings is like the measure of the Buddha-realm,” and 「眾生無住，猶如空住」— tr. “Sentient beings have no abiding, just as space abides”〔T08 0726c〕. Once the exchange turns to contemplation, he defines abiding in prajñā with 「以不住法為住般若波羅蜜」— tr. “One abides in the prajñā-pāramitā by not abiding in any dharma,” and 「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」— tr. “To be without a mark of abiding is itself to abide in the prajñā-pāramitā”〔T08 0726c〕. His long answer finally rests on 「法無取捨，住實際故」〔T08 0727a〕— tr. “Dharmas have neither taking nor abandoning because they abide at the reality-limit.” This rubric establishes its point only through these sentences from the chapter and does not add a further adjudication from an external treatise.
4 · Essential Explanation of This Chapter
The chapter first turns the preceding chapter’s neither-increase-nor-decrease into a question about practice: if the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases, why do bodhisattvas still seek awakening and constantly teach the Dharma? Mañjuśrī does not answer by establishing an attainable sentient being, bodhisattva, or Dharma. He says that sentient beings are entirely of the mark of emptiness and that within the Dharma he teaches not a single dharma can be attained. The Buddha immediately presses the point: if there are no sentient beings, why speak of sentient beings and their realm? Mañjuśrī offers no long exposition, but answers in four short rounds that the mark of the realm of sentient beings is like the realm of all Buddhas, its measure is like the Buddha-realm, its measure is inconceivable, and sentient beings have no abiding, just as space abides.
The sūtra then turns from the non-abiding of sentient beings to abiding in prajñā. Mañjuśrī first answers that not abiding in any dharma is abiding. When the Buddha asks how not abiding can be called abiding, he replies that being without a mark of abiding is itself abiding. When the Buddha asks how this abiding causes roots of goodness to increase or diminish, Mañjuśrī does not answer along the two alternatives of increase and decrease. He says successively that roots of goodness, all dharmas, and the nature and marks of prajñā neither increase nor decrease.
The long answer then applies neither-increase-nor-decrease to pair after pair of taking and abandoning: one neither abandons ordinary dharmas nor takes up noble dharmas; one neither treats nirvāṇa as delightful nor saṃsāra as repellent; one sees neither afflictive defilements to abandon nor merit to acquire; one sees neither arising and ceasing nor increase and decrease among dharmas, neither longs to grasp nor sees anything in the marks of dharmas that can be sought; and one establishes neither beauty and ugliness nor high and low and performs neither taking nor abandoning. The final sentences give the reasons in turn: apart from all marks, equal in dharma-nature, and abiding at the reality-limit. The chapter follows the sequence of its own questions and answers and does not elevate “non-abiding” into a technical term that the chapter itself does not establish.
5 · Terms
| Term | Ancient transmission / pronunciation aid | Scope supplied by this chapter |
|---|---|---|
| 眾生界 · realm of sentient beings | No ancient-master transliteration is available here | The chapter receives 「眾生界不增不減」— “the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases” — and asks about its mark, measure, location, and abiding; the replies culminate in 「眾生無住，猶如空住。」— “Sentient beings have no abiding, just as space abides.” |
| 佛界／諸佛界 · Buddha-realm / realm of all Buddhas | No ancient-master transliteration is available here | This chapter uses the term only to answer questions about the mark and measure of the realm of sentient beings; it does not separately define the Buddha-realm itself. |
| 不可思議 · inconceivable | No ancient-master transliteration is available here | It answers whether the measure of the realm of sentient beings has a location, indicating that its measure cannot be fixed through conceptual thought. |
| 不住法 · not abiding in any dharma | No ancient-master transliteration is available here | Mañjuśrī uses it to answer how one abides in the prajñā-pāramitā; the next exchange explains it through the absence of a mark of abiding. |
| 無住相 · no mark of abiding | No ancient-master transliteration is available here | The sūtra says, 「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」— “To be without a mark of abiding is itself to abide in the prajñā-pāramitā”; it does not establish a separate mark of abiding. |
| 實際 · reality-limit | No ancient-master transliteration is available here | The final sentence of the long answer uses it to explain why dharmas have neither taking nor abandoning: 「法無取捨，住實際故」— “Dharmas have neither taking nor abandoning because they abide at the reality-limit.” |
| 悕取 · longing to grasp | No ancient-master transliteration is available here | It is paired with 「不見法相有可求者」— “not seeing within the marks of dharmas anything that can be sought” — and means that the mind longs for and clings to something. |
No Sanskrit in this chapter can be securely anchored to an ancient master’s transmitted transliteration. Romanization is therefore omitted, and no modern Sanskrit critical edition is used as authority for the chapter’s wording.
6 · Simile
The chapter has only one very brief simile of its own: 「眾生無住，猶如空住」〔T08 0726c〕— tr. “Sentient beings have no abiding, just as space abides.” The vehicle is the abiding of space, and the point answered is whether the mark of the realm of sentient beings has somewhere it abides. The sūtra does not further explain the simile or extend it into other terms in this chapter. This rubric therefore records only its place in the exchange and what it shows, without adding further figurative meaning.
7 · Citations and Onward Transmission
The forty-sixth assembly of the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra, the “Mañjuśrī Teaching of Prajñā Assembly,” incorporates this passage again, from the questions about the realm of sentient beings through abiding in prajñā and neither taking nor abandoning, at〔T11 0651a–b〕. This is an onward transmission through canonical reincorporation. Its wording broadly follows the base text, with differences in punctuation and a small number of characters.
When Honglian’s Ming compilation, the Annotated Explanation of the Diamond Sūtra, records Chen Xiong’s explanation of abiding without anywhere abiding, it explicitly names the Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and cites this chapter’s exchange on not abiding in any dharma as abiding. Its final sentence reads word for word, 「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」〔X24 0769c17–21〕— tr. “To be without a mark of abiding is itself to abide in the prajñā-pāramitā.” This records only that the citation is genuinely present. Chen Xiong’s interpretation of the Diamond Sūtra is not projected backward as the original meaning of this chapter and is not presented as an ancient master’s exegesis.
The verified citation network concerning the single-practice samādhi belongs to a later chapter of the lower scroll and is not moved into this chapter.
8 · Witness Placement
- Base text: T08n0232〔0726c09–0727a14〕, totaling 697 characters; the source text actually spans 0726c and 0727a.
- Xuanzang parallel: T07n0220, Seventh Assembly, Mañjuśrī Division〔0964c–0965b〕; only two ordered unique shared phrases weakly establish a passage-level parallel for this unit.
- T233: no verbatim corresponding evidence has been obtained for this unit; no text is cited and no absence is adjudicated.
- At〔T08 0726c12〕the base text has 「言」— tr. “said”; four witnesses read 「白佛言」— tr. “said to the Buddha.”
- At〔T08 0726c17〕the base text has 「是」— tr. “this”; one witness omits it.
- At〔T08 0726c18〕the base text has 「佛」— tr. “Buddha”; three witnesses omit it.
- At〔T08 0726c23〕the base text has 「云」— tr. “said / how”; four witnesses read 「言云」— tr. “said.”
- At〔T08 0727a06〕the base text has 「無」— tr. “there is no”; four witnesses read 「不」— tr. “not.”
- At〔T08 0727a10〕the base text has 「悕」— tr. “long for”; four witnesses read 「希」— tr. “hope for.”
The source-text layer follows the sealed wording of the base text and retains the base reading in all six places. The critical notes for this unit are assigned by the character boundaries and are not cut off at the page-column boundary.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Realm of Sentient Beings · Apparatus · Summer 2026