Teacher classes | * The text is reproduced in the language of submission only.

"What's the matter with you? If someone turns 3,000,

"The seven treasures of the border, to be used as a velvet, for man's sake, and to be blessed?"

Here's what we're talking about:

"What do you think? And if some people use the world of 3,000 to make a plough of a platter in front of an invincible number of people, why do you think he's so different? Isn't his Ford very nice? Isn't Ford very big? Isn't it really great?

He said:

"If so, Lord. The man has been blessed with good fortune. "It is true that this man has a very different cause and that he has an incredible, very rich Ford.

Let us not say that the world is full of 3,000 thousand people, and that even we have a flower, or a little bit of it, in the presence of Buddha, or of victory, which is an incredible feat.

Why so much? The Lord said to Shao Buddha: "If Ford is true, if he does not speak of Ford, then Ford has no cause, and so has Ford."

And Buddha said to Tokuhei, "You should understand that. If this Ford existed or if it were real, he would not have said so much.

Because his Ford had no real face. So, in many of the Buddhist scriptures, it's a very great way to do it."

The main point here is the truth, the truth, the truth, the truth, the truth, and the following is a little bit more.

As you are all aware, the Queen has declared all kinds of laws in many Buddhist scriptures to those who have followed them. This is a convenient method for beginners. Reliance on the use of a plough to allow practitioners to build up their resources and to excavate their sins is also the reason for a very different victory.

Of course there are a lot of ways. So here the esteemed gave him an example.

It's been told all three thousand years before.

Many of the literatures, such as Theory of Equivalence, speak of the wide range of 3,000 worlds. Isn't it a great credit that some people spend their lives in 3,000 worlds? Such a question is raised here.

And the Buddha was well aware of Buddha's great victory, and he said, "The Lord has a great deal to say."

"This man is a man of great fortune, a man of great virtue, a man of great virtue, and a man of great merit at the hands of 3,000 thousand men in the world. Why? This is mainly not true.

With that in mind, the Ford born is quite great. For the law taken by God, on the one hand, is empty, so the merit of Bush is great. It says in the Middler: "The law of manhood, I say empty. "It means that all laws taken on account of their fate are empty.

For the sake of emptiness, Bush has gained a great deal of credit. It's connected to what I said yesterday.

Yesterday, I said, "The past is unattainable, the present is unattainable and the future is unattainable. "If the hearts are not, will there be no truth in the accumulation of resources? There will be such questions.

And say to him immediately: "Although the nature of the heart is not available, the food of the famous Ford is sufficient, and the utilitarians of the spirit will never be exhausted, even between the figs. " Yesterday and today have such a connection.

There is a lot of Ford, and we all know that a man can't measure all the life in a world full of 3,000.

But why are you so talented? Everyone knows that. Because it's empty, because it's not true.

Some of us may have learned to be empty, some of us have not yet done so, and the merit of emptyness is very great, and some may not necessarily accept it. But if we really get a very different interpretation of the law of origin, especially of air law, in our own survival, it is because all the laws are empty, because there is no sesame truth in all the laws, and it makes sense to be causal or causal. There will also be a deep understanding of this.

"If Ford is real, if he doesn't say Fordo," would he be substantial if we looked at the subtle truth? If there is a substantial clemency or a substantive philosophies, then there is no great charisma in many Buddhist scriptures, nor at all.

As I said earlier, "You can't be measured without you." "It means that if you don't do it, it's very good. But if you live with him, you can say that you have no merit. Or say, if Ford had, then he would not have earned it.

And what we're doing in our monastery is focusing on the obstacles.

If we really have an honest, honest face, it should be broken in the procession.

That day we learned the book "The Incarceration of the Buddha" to say, "The smell and the knowledge are not covered up. And whosoever is covered in it, for he is determined. "This is what the Wisdom says when it is self-proof."

What we have here is either a sense of sight or a perception, and what we have here is a cause of pain, or a stubborn truth. It means that the most important thing we're going to break here is a solid vision that must be broken. Because he's the cause of pain.

That is also what is said in the Inquisition, where the true heart must be broken, and it must not be broken, it is a cause of pain and a cause of rotation. If we also have a committed way of doing so when we do so, there is no merit at all.

This has been the case in history. It was also very proud when Liang Mu-di came to see him. It said, "When I was king, I made statues, wrote scriptures, and made burrows and provided for the monks, and I did something beyond the reach of the gods. He asked Damozu.

"Without a bit of merit, you are a little of man's merit and of folly," said the Dharmazu. "When Liang became unhappy with that, the two of them became premature.

When we performed that day, in order to take advantage of the Buddha's fate, it seemed that Liang had accepted the Buddha's law, and the Damozu had passed on to him the victory. But we made this up, and if he learned the Book, he would know he couldn't live with each other, and he wouldn't be so obsessed with it: "I'm doing a good show now. How great I am!

At the time, the law of the Great affording of the Handee could also be described as not very flourishing. Although he had a history of the Buddha before his arrival, perhaps the King did not learn well at that time, and he was not happy when he told him he had no merit.

Ford is not real. If Ford is real, there is no merit. Because it's impossible to produce merit in the actual law. For the sake of emptiness, all laws are dreamt of. If it's a dream, it's good enough to be good. Thus, in many scriptures, Buddha has also said, "There is an incredible virtue in the way of Bush, and the same reason for it."

Butcher's work is as good as his words, and we don't say it here.

"What's the matter with you? Can you see the Buddha?"

"No, sir. They should not be seen in their faces. " What do you think here? Would Buddha not be able to see Buddha's face in such a way as to be able to fit?

And he said: No, it is not. For it would be unreasonable not to see Buddha in a colorful image.

"Why? It's colorful, it's not colorful, it's colorful."

As has already been said in the scriptures, it's not color, it's color or color, so it makes no sense for you to see him in color.

总而言之，这里很多都是用胜义和世俗相结合而宣说诸法的本性，这里也是这样说的。刚才我们前面讲了福德分，前面和后面如果详细观察，我觉得还是有很大联系。福德资粮产生色身，智慧资粮产生法身，这是特殊的因缘关系。

龙猛菩萨在《六十正理论》最后要接近回向的时候，也有这样的偈子：“以此之善根，回向诸众生。积福智资粮，愿众得二身。”意思就是说，龙猛菩萨以造中观《六十正理论》的善根，回向一切众生，愿一切众生圆满福德资粮和智慧资粮，然后获得色身和法身——福德资粮获得色身，智慧资粮获得法身，是这样的因缘关系。

这样的一种因缘，人们觉得会不会是福德所产生的资粮实有呢？有这样的一种疑问。这样的时候，我们就说：“福德产生的色身，只不过是名言当中说的，名言当中我们也可以这样承认，按照龙猛菩萨所讲的那样可以承认的。但是从真正胜义当中来讲，色身与福德是一种离戏论的关系，实际上并不是分开的，也不是因缘聚合的”。

《涅槃经·憍陈如品》当中也是这样讲的：

“色是无常，因灭是色，获得解脱，常住之色。” 意思就是说，色是无常的、是灭尽的。但是获得解脱，经常安住在色当中。意思是说，色身就是法身，法身就是色身，它是这样一种意思。

还有《大乘起信论》当中也讲到：“以法身是色实体故，能现种种色。”意思是，法身实际上是色体，色体当中可以显现色法。

有些不懂大乘佛法的人一看，可能会觉得是不是有矛盾？法身怎么会变成色体？色体怎么会显现色呢？也有这样的想法。但是真正在了义经典或者大乘经典相结合的时候，就可以这样说的。

因此，这个当中所说的如来的色身非色身，也可以说色身是本空离戏的光明显现，这个自相是一种显现。“色即是空，空即是色”也是这个道理。

“是名具足色身”，大概可以这样解释。

“须菩提，于意云何？如来可以具足诸相见不？”

“不也，世尊。如来不应以具足诸相见。” 因为色身当中有相好，相好实际上是色身的一分。既然色身不具足，那么报身佛的相好具不具足呢？实际上相好也是不具足的，三十二相也是不具足的。

当时释迦牟尼佛问须菩提：“你是怎么想的？如来具足诸相吗？”

那么具足这样的妙相能不能见到如来的相呢？当然名言当中来说是可以的。我们也经常在释迦牟尼佛金光灿灿的佛像面前做顶礼，然后看见佛像、看见佛光。当时释迦牟尼佛在世的时候，很多人看见。有些外道或没有缘分的人，看见释迦牟尼佛的身相不是很庄严，但是有缘分的人，尤其是信心非常强烈的弟子，看见释迦牟尼佛的身体有不共同的转轮王的法相。因此，他们说见到了殊胜的妙相，但是实际上这也是不合理的。

这里说到，“须菩提，以身相能不能见到佛陀？”这样问的。须菩提回答：“不可能，如来不应该以具足诸相来见到佛。”

因为如来的身相实际上是没有正确的相，没有真实外相。《妙法莲华经》当中说：“若得做佛时，具三十二相。天人夜叉众，龙神等恭敬。是时乃可谓，永尽灭无余。”意思是说，我们看见佛具足三十二相，实际上是真正的一种灭尽的标志。不是非相有的或者实有的，不可能实有存在。因此，不应该以具足各种妙相来了知如来。

下面也是说，如果愚者用现相来求是不合理的，用行相来求也是不合理的。所以，平时外面行相上的佛像，是一种清净的象征，因此有不可思议的加持。但是最究竟来说，如来的这些身相并不是最究竟的。

《入菩萨行论》当时也是说：“别人摧毁佛像、佛塔的时候，不要对他生嗔恨心，因为他们没有感受的缘故。”确实是这样的。如果别人摧毁佛像、焚烧佛像，真正从如来的身相上讲，它是一种象征而已。如来真正的身相是一种无为法，无为法怎么会被火烧毁呢？怎么会用其他的物品砸碎呢？这是不可能的。

密乘中说这是一种不了义的形象幻化网。但是一说不了义的形象幻化网，你们就认为如来不分相，所有的佛像都不需要恭敬，也不要这样想。因为虽然说不了义，但是如果不恭敬，有些大乘或者小乘，还有一些没有智慧的人容易生邪见。

所以，大乘佛法要在法器面前才可以宣说，非法器面前不能宣说的原因也是这样的。不仅是大圆满，大乘佛法当中也是，像这种问题，可能很多人都不能接受。

这里说的是什么呢？我们看到的释迦牟尼佛或者文殊菩萨，这不是很了义的，不是用这样的形象而能见到佛的，真正能见到佛就是我们心的本来面目。什么时候已经开悟了，什么时候通达了，这时候是真正的开悟，也是真正的明心见性，也可以称为明心见佛。

这里的佛并不是有名有相的。所以，真正古代高僧大德，称为明心见佛的原因也是这样。以相好不能真正衡量佛，这是为什么呢？

“何以故？如来说诸相具足，即非具足，是名诸相具足。”

如来在很多佛经中也是说过，真正的相并不是真正的相具足，也可以说名言当中的相。

实际上在胜义中观察时，全部是不具足的。全部不具足的缘故，不可能用语言文字来表达，它是一种不可思议的。在胜义当中来说，如来真正的法相是不可思议的境界，我们用声音和色法来表示是非常困难的。

“诸佛自证三菩提，不思议法界超越心地。”

《大日经》里有一个《真言品》中这样说。诸佛的自证三菩提是不可思议的境界，也是超越心地的。

我们凡夫人可能会想，如来既然不是诸相，那他会是什么样呢？不可能吧，除了有相和无相以外，哪里还有一个法？会这样想的。但是，如来已经真正证悟了不可思议的境界，超越心地的境界。因此，我们凡夫人衡量如来到底是怎么样呢？这并不是非常合理。

比如说我身体的影像在镜子里面，但是镜子里面实际上只有一种相，不是真正如来，用不可思议来表达也可以。一切的相并不是真正的相，所有的相状并非究竟的实相。

“凡所有相，皆是虚妄”，我引用《金刚经》中的教证也可以吧。有很多高僧大德也讲过，前面的教证，后面应用也可以。因此说，所有的相都是不存在的，讲这个道理。

“须菩提，汝勿谓如来作是念：我当有所说法。莫作是念，何以故？若人言如来有所说法，即为谤佛，不能解我所说故。” 须菩提，你不要说如来是这样想的。我当有所说的法，你不要认为如来有所说法，不能这样想。为什么呢？你不要说，也不要这样想。

如来说了法，如来转了三次法轮，你千万不要想，也不要这样说，为什么这样呢？

“若人言如来有所说法”，如果这个世界上有些人说如来已经说过法，这样说的人是故意诽谤佛法。

“即为谤佛，不能解我所说故”，他不能完全了解我所说法的密意。

确实是这样的。从表面上来看，尤其是一些小乘学者一看到这里，就有点接受不了：“如来明明已经转了三次法轮，然后也宣说了八万四千法门”，小乘有的说是八万法门，“但不管怎么说，已经宣说了这么多的法门。如果说佛有说法，怎么会是诽谤如来呢？”

这应该不是诽谤如来。如来自己也经常说，我某某时候说过什么什么法，这样的话，会不会他自己诽谤自己呢？有这样的认为。

这种想法实际上是不合理的。怎么不合理呢？我们可以这样观察。从不了义的方面来说，在暂时众生的迷乱显现面前，佛陀确实宣说了佛法。《法华经》当中也有这么一句：“佛说过去世，无量灭度佛。安住方便中，一切说是法。”佛陀说，过去的时候有无量佛已经出世，每一个佛陀都安住方便当中，也说过佛法。

所以在佛经当中也很明显的记载，佛曾说过去的无量佛已经说过法，现在佛也是安住在方便当中说法。并不像我们社会上的人都是安住在贪嗔痴当中说法，或者以自己的贪心为主给别人说法，或者以自己的嗔恨心、愚痴心来说法。

佛陀根本不相同的。他安住在智慧和方便当中宣说佛法。所以从名言量的角度来说，当然佛陀已经为众生宣说过佛法，但是真正从一切诸法的实相，或者一切诸法的究竟法界来说，一切诸法的法性就是等性。除等性以外，佛陀没有说过任何法。他所说的一切法，全都是一种名言假相，这样的假相实际上是不究竟的。

因此在佛经当中也是这样讲的：“凡以诸名言，宣说之诸法，是法皆无有，此乃诸法性。” 意思就是说，凡是依靠名言而宣说的诸法，全部是没有的，这就是诸法的法性，这就是诸法的规律，这就是诸法的本性。《宝力经》当中这样讲的：“虽说诸法已谙名言量，但此法皆非有，此乃法无相。”意思就是说，当时文殊菩萨在佛陀面前说，虽然依靠名言假相来宣说诸法，这全部没有的，无有任何相状。

因此，从最究竟的实相来说，佛陀从来没有说过法，他是沉默不言的。沉默不言实际上是佛所说的真正的一种境相。禅宗的《证道歌》当中也这样说的：“道默时说，说时默，若言有说谤如来。”沉默的时候就是说法，说法的时候就是沉默。如果有人说佛陀说法，这就是诽谤佛法，

《证道歌》你们去看一下也可以。

因此，最究竟的实相来说，佛陀没有宣说过任何法。这里跟前面的教证引用的方式有点不同，我想反正最究竟的意义是一样的。前面“佛陀怎么没有说法”所引用的教证和这里引用的方法可能有一点不同。

“须菩提，说法者，无法可说，是名说法” 这个明天再讲。