任何一種有系統、有義理的文字，都是由外舉決定內涵的，經典也不例外；因此當我們瞭解了這一部經典的標題之後，也就會瞭解它的旨趣了。這裏我們首先要討論：什麼是「般若波羅蜜多心經」？
一、經名解釋
般若：查字典注音為班若或缽惹，實際上應該讀成缽瑞。這種發音是不是很標準呢？也不然，因為唐朝時代「般若波羅蜜多」的讀音是「巴尼亞巴拉咪達」，這個音譯跟梵文的原音是相吻合的。懂得梵文的人，他不會念缽瑞，而是念「巴尼亞」。
般若的基本含意是智慧，其所以不翻譯，是因為它雖然可以翻為智慧，但跟我們通常所謂的智慧，在程度上是有差距的。我們說某人很有智慧，那僅只是指他那六塵所積的表層意識。這裏的般若並不僅是指表層意識，而是指心的原態與共相。既然找不到適當的中國文字來表達，乾脆就不翻譯了。
一般法會中大多念「摩訶般若波羅蜜多」，為何「般若波羅蜜多心經」不加上「摩訶」兩個字？因為摩訶般若是全稱，只用般若是簡稱，只要提到般若，就一定是摩訶般若。摩訶般若即是大智慧，大到什麼程度？它是一切世間智能的本源和實性。世間的智慧，是否離開了般若呢？它雖然已經不是般若的原態，但卻也離不開般若，因為「煩惱即菩提」，當我們感受到煩惱的時候，就證明我們有生命、有覺性（菩提）。如果是沒有知覺的植物人，還會有煩惱嗎？為什麼不用「摩訶」，表示它是略稱，而「摩訶般若」就是具稱，就像我們講電視機是television，如果只說T.V.，別人也懂。
波羅：正確的讀音是「巴拉」，是彼岸、對岸，且含有解脫的意義。
蜜多：正確的讀音是「咪達」，是到達的意思。
我們有時說「摩訶般若波羅蜜」，有時說「摩訶般若波羅蜜多」，這也是簡稱和具稱。「多」字只是在強化語氣。有些人不懂，平常念「摩訶般若波羅蜜」念多了，他以為這是一句，經名則是多心經。佛法講求一心，哪里有什麼多心經呢？這就不正確了。
「摩訶般若波羅蜜多心經」是經名的全稱，意思是：透過根本的、原本的、一切智慧之母的偉大智能，到達解脫彼岸之心要的經典。在基本上，我們對心經應該有兩種認知：
一、心經是借著偉大的智慧，到達解脫彼岸的一種心態──法的現量的描述。
二、心經是指靠著這偉大的智慧，到達解脫彼岸，這一類經典的精華、心髓。
心經是大般若經的精華、心髓，也是借著偉大智慧，到達解脫彼岸的一種心態的敘述。因此這部經在中國流傳最廣，時間也最長。據說，玄奘大師在取經的過程中，經歷過很多的危難，就靠這部經獲得精神的力量，突破險阻艱辛，才能達成偉大歷史使命的。
我們在此只講般若波羅蜜，而在佛教中有六波羅蜜──六種解脫法門。六種波羅蜜就是布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、般若，又叫六度，度即前進、到達。這六種法門，都可以使我們到達解脫的彼岸，以六度為總綱，發為萬行，即所謂六度萬行。
為什麼這裏只說般若波羅蜜，不談其他五種？大智度論講「五度如盲，般若作眼。」布施而沒有般若波羅蜜，只能創造癡福，可以上升天堂，福報享盡依然墮落六道，那是不究竟的。為什麼這裏只說般若波羅蜜？因為般若波羅蜜，既是解脫的必須條件，也是解脫的足夠條件。
般若波羅蜜涵攝餘五度，自然就具足了六度的功德，有了般若波羅蜜，再行布施、忍辱、持戒、精進、禪定的時候，當下離能所、泯理事、三輪體空、不種因、不造業、直證解脫。如果離開般若波羅蜜，他所行的只是人天小道，只能為來世造福，而無裨於解脫道，所以般若對解脫道而言，是非常重要的。
二、般若性質
般若，又可分三種性質：
（一）實相般若：
就法的實性、法的實相來講，叫實相般若。實相般若，就是法的現量和證量，佛的「法身」的當體。
（二）觀照般若：
雖然在觀察，但不是用分別心，不是用第六識，而是用般若。用第六識，叫做取相分別，用般若則對境不起認同心，所以叫觀照；而觀照般若就是用般若觀照實相的當體。
古德說「萬事萬物，凡夫執實謂之有，二乘分析謂之空，菩薩眼見菩提、眼見佛性。」眼見佛性，你說什麼不是佛性？如果用觀照，那不用分別，當體即空。所以我們可以瞭解：般若不但是實相的本身，也是一種眼見佛性的觀照法門。
（三）方便般若：
所謂「捨方便無究竟」，說到真理的究竟處，是無法開口的。否則，有你能聽，有我能說；有能知的你，有所知的法；這與不二法門豈非南轅北轍？所以談到真正的佛法，沒有你開口的餘地，才一開口，早已不是真實的佛法了。但要啟發人們的覺性，是需要一把鑰匙的，這就是方便。例如：文字般若，文章寫得稱性，讓人讀後茅塞頓開；說法辯才無礙，使聽者斷惑、除疑，走向光明之道，這都是方便。語言三昧、文字三昧都是方便，乃至禪宗的擎拳、豎拂、棒喝也都是方便。
般若大致有這三種性質、三種作用：
實相般若是真理的本體，圓證佛性，是唯佛與佛方能究竟的。
觀照般若是以自己的摩訶般若，來照見自己的法性。有個很好的比喻說「如珠吐光，還照珠體」，好像夜明珠一樣，自己發光，照亮自己的存在。所以摩訶般若所觀照的就是自己。
方便般若，就是逗機說教、因病與藥，以種種法救種種心的善巧方便了。瞭解了這些，再討論下面的經文，就感覺很親切、很簡單、很明白了。
經：古時印度人叫「速達辣」，音譯為「修多羅」。中國也有四書五經，經典就是金科玉律，是人生的軌範。而佛經則是生命解脫路徑的指標，有如氣象報告的經緯度，是最直截了當、最標準、最不會使你迷失的路線，循著這個路線前進，就可以到達解脫的彼岸。
三、經文淺解
下面講經文：
觀自在菩薩 行深般若波羅蜜多時 照見五蘊皆空 度一切苦厄
觀自在菩薩，就經文來說，有兩種解釋：
一、是觀察自在，徹底斷惑，法界即我，觸目菩提的大菩薩。
二、是尋聲救苦的聖觀自在──觀世音菩薩。
這裏雖沒有明確的標示，但兩種意義都有；而在此所謂觀自在菩薩，是泛指一切自觀自在，觀察自在的大菩薩。
菩薩貴行，所謂六度萬行；離開行，就沒有證，也沒有菩薩。坐在那裏不動，是不能到達彼岸的。踐行般若波羅蜜，有深有淺，因為踐行的深淺，所以從登地菩薩到十地菩薩，從等覺到妙覺，都是由踐行般若波羅蜜的深淺度來分證的，並非以任何標準來規定，也無須透過人評會議。
前面所說觀照般若，就是不用六識也不離六識。法相宗的修行重點是把前五識──眼耳鼻舌身，轉為「成所作智」，把意識轉成「妙觀察智」。觀照般若是要使六識消融於般若，產生觀照作用；觀照作用就是「大圓鏡智」。
我們經常聽說一塵不染，什麼東西一塵不染呢？不是指你的色身，色身在現在這大都市里，每一秒鐘都受到可怕的污染；一塵不染是指你的心。染：就是被它黏住了、波及了、污染了。如果你只觀照而不認同，它就不會污染你了。我們用分別心，就會因見取而受染：耳朵猶如答錄機，一首歌聽幾遍，雖然沒有見過歌詞曲譜，也就會唱了，因為人腦有記錄慣性。耳朵對聲音，如膠似漆，於是就吸收了。眼睛對形象就像錄影機一樣，見過一次面就「感光」了，下次再見到，「喂！老張你好……」留有影像嘛！聽、記、想，慢慢在原本心態的表層累積成一層原無的覆蓋層，這六塵就構成了心垢，逐漸掩蓋、埋沒了原本的自我──真實的本心。觀自在菩薩，用自覺觀察，藉甚深般若波羅蜜的行證，所發露的智能解脫心態，照見了五蘊皆空──一塵不立。
五蘊又叫五陰（色、受、想、行、識）。蘊就是聚集，色、受、想、行、識，愈來愈多，於是我們從生到老，腦細胞的褶子也愈來愈多。小學畢業，只裝了小學教科書；國中畢業，又裝了國中的教材；大學畢業，又裝了不同的內容，這叫做蘊，接受多了、經驗多了、理解多了、常識多了，這就是為學日益。
如果我們用分別法，則色、受、想、行、識，每一樣都可以寫一篇很長的論文，而且大有內容，大有文章。如果我們用觀照，則色、受、想、行、識，原本不存在，原本非實有，畢竟如幻如化，空無自性。空，很多人認為是什麼都沒有，是斷滅，其實不然。佛教說空，有很多種：二乘聖人所講的空是分析空，分來分去分到最後什麼也沒有了。菩薩的空是當體空、般若空。如果用三觀的尺度來看，菩薩離二邊、行中道，二乘偏空，凡夫執有。
空，有兩種解釋：
一、「因緣所生法，我說即是空。」因，是一種動機或最初的影響力；緣是條件。由動機和條件組合的任何事物，都是原本空無自性的，空就是「無自性」。全世界所有研究形而上學的都公認：真實、真理是原本如此的，只能發現，不能創造；真理也是普遍如此的，並非在中國是真理，到外國就不是了；並非你信，它就是真理；不信，它就是罪惡。
就我們所瞭解，在這大宇宙中，除了條件的組合，根本就沒有任何永恆的個別事物的存在。所以說「因緣所生法，我說即是空」，條件組合的東西，都是空幻不實的因緣假合。
空，不是沒有，而是原本如此。諸相原本不有，再加上一個無字，豈非多餘？空是什麼？空就是指沒有個別的自我，沒有個別的自性。空是什麼？它是萬有的原因、創造的勢能、發展的餘地和不息的生命。因此森羅萬象，一一從空裏來，又到空裏去。如水泡般，來實無來，去實無去。不二法門，豈有剩義？
二、我們一講到有，就形成窒礙；說空極其自然。空是體用一元的。空就是餘地，有道是「忠厚留有餘地步，和平養無限天機。」家裏後面有院子，就可以種種花；前面有院子，還可以擺放盆景。假如前、後都沒有院子，那就毫無發展的餘地了。
心空的人，度量大，量大的人，什麼事都好商量；度量狹小的人，魯仲連來了也沒有用。所以空就是創造、發展的勢能。因為海闊任魚躍，天空任鳶飛，如果不空有什麼用？房子不空怎麼住？杯子不空誰買？船若不空一下水就沉了。所以只有空才能使人不沉淪。般若慧便是空的妙用，契合空性，摒除自我執著，才有自在逍遙的人生。
由於空，才能不斷地創新。宇宙中每一秒鐘都有新的星球形成，每一秒鐘也有許多星球殞滅。森羅萬象，全顯空的體用。而修學佛法，首先就要心空。心空就是要空去塵垢──從生到死所累積的心垢。因此才說為學日益，求學，天天有心得；為道日損，學道得丟掉很多多餘的東西，天天都在減損。要把那些捨不得的嗜好、孤僻、個性、我執、法執統統丟掉，丟到一物不存，如同桶底脫落，就是大事了畢了。
所以說：空永遠是大宇宙不斷進化、不斷開展、不斷創新的無限勢能。如果不空，就如同一潭死水，了無生機了。
佛法講空，不是叫我們去分析空，把空當成一種學問，而是要我們心空。只有掃除五蘊、六塵所積的心垢，讓心空了以後，自己原本的摩訶般若才會發露、呈現。如果用六識分別，把廢知識、假常識堆滿一腦子，每件事物都執著，摩訶般若就會被窒息、被埋葬了。
一生懷才不遇被埋沒了沒有關係，人生如幻，過程短暫，拿人與地球的壽命來比太短暫了；如果你認為地球是永恆的，就太愚昧了，連地球都要壞，何況短暫的人生？能壞的東西原本就不是你的。古人說「無量劫來賃屋住，從來不識主人翁。」無量劫來都租房子住，哪個是主人？不知道！這很有意味，也很通俗，但也說明了空絕不是死的；空是有而不實的，變動不居的。
因為用照，所以五蘊皆空，若是用分別取相，五蘊宛然實有，根本不空。本經講的是般若波羅蜜──智能解脫法門，所以舉出聖觀自在菩薩，在祂的般若觀照下，相對的五蘊就不存在了。色、受、想、行、識沒有了，就像槍靶子沒有了，子彈就沒有射擊的目標了，一切苦厄也就超越了；度就是超越。
觀自在菩薩就性質而言，有全稱的大菩薩、特稱的觀世音菩薩。就屬性而言，有悲、智二方面：
一、在智的方面是觀察自在：一切諸法，萬事萬物，入眼了然，不會執著認同，不會形成窒礙。由萬事萬物的本源，看到萬事萬物的本來面目，看到萬事萬物的最後結局，看到條件組合的萬事萬物當體是空。
二、在悲的方面是應機救苦自在：一稱南無觀世音菩薩馬上獲得解救。觀世音菩薩過去是對中國人，稍早是對東方人，現在是對全世界，都有很深的緣。很多人得了重病，求觀世音菩薩，咒大悲水喝，就痊癒了，這是大悲自在。
此外，「觀自在」是菩薩的共法。觀是覺觀，菩薩自觀自在，卓然獨立，不認同外物。既然眼耳鼻舌身意六根不實，色聲香味觸法六塵虛幻，色受想行識五蘊原本不存在，就只有自在自覺，自覺自在了。能夠這樣，自然就會超越一切痛苦、煩惱、災難了。
舍利子 色不異空 空不異色 色即是空 空即是色 受想行識 亦復如是
舍利子是指佛陀智慧第一的大弟子。這樣翻譯是梵漢合璧：舍利是梵文，子是漢文，全部梵音是「夏利布陀拉」。舍利是他母親的名字，子是他自己，合起來就是舍利的兒子。過去中東的人們也稱耶穌為「大衛的子孫」。
舍利子智慧第一，他是這部般若心經的當機者。所謂當機，有人說法，總要有人問法，而問法的人往往不是不知道，只是替別人發問。在圓覺經中，很多菩薩問法，都是替眾生發問，來逗機說教。
色不異空：異即差距、差別，一切有形、有窒礙的物質，原本沒有永恆不變的自我，因此與沒有自性、沒有自我的空性並沒有差距，當體全同。在這科學起飛的時代，不管你怎麼分析、化驗，最後的結果總是什麼也沒有；所以物質的當體就是非物質。眼睛看的、耳朵聽的、身體接觸的、意識想的都不是實體，都是因緣條件的組合；以假為真，顯然是錯覺。所謂緣起性空，是說由條件組合的東西，原本不有，畢竟是空。
空不異色：是說空無自性的物質，與空的實相當體是一；色相，原本是空，最後是空，畢竟是空。所有物質，把它分到不能再分，小到不能再小，最後就會證實是什麼都沒有。在科學發達的現代，理解色不異空、空不異色，應該是很容易的。
色即是空，空即是色：在什麼狀況下色即是空？用般若觀照，有、沒有，都不分別，只是一心。在大圓鏡智之下一心圓滿，有、沒有的問題根本不會發生。一種摩訶般若的心靈狀態與鏡子一樣，當機全現，過後無蹤。如果用另一種說法，那就是對境無心，色即是空；分別取相，空即是色。
空是沒有自性，無可尋覓，無能把捉，無可認知。如果為了說明空的道理，從前言、序論、大標題……用種種觀點來敘述，寫了一部幾十萬字的空論，結果空何嘗空？很多人說空是什麼都沒有，這叫惡取空見。空不是沒有、不是斷滅，而是大宇宙唯一的真實與永恆。
受、想、行、識，亦復如是：這是縮短語氣一筆帶過的話。色、受、想、行、識是五蘊，而色不異空，空不異色；色即是空，空即是色。剩下的受、想、行、識也都是這樣子──受不異空，空不異受；受即是空，空即是受，乃至識不異空，空不異識；識即是空、空即是識。理既相同，所以一筆帶過了。
舍利子 是諸法空相 不生不滅 不垢不淨 不增不減
法有色法、心法。心法一念三千，色法無量無邊，而它的真相是空無自性，空無自我。法是空無自體的，好像水結成冰，並非是新物質的創生；當溫度升高以後冰化成水；溫度再升高水蒸發了，也不是生命的消失。因為萬生萬物無不以空為素材，無不當體是空，所以在這一真法界裏，既沒有真實事物的新生，也沒有毀滅的現象；既沒有一個永恆不變的實體生起，也沒有一個真實獨立的實體毀滅，所以說不生不滅。
不垢不淨：海水一味。莊子說「道在屎尿」，有人認為這是大不敬，說髒話，污辱真理，其實真理是一般的，不是特殊的；真理是普遍的，不是局部的。如果真理是特殊的，那是三隻腿的雞，雖然稀奇，與大眾的生活有什麼關係？所謂「道在屎尿」，是說真理是普遍的、唯一的、絕對的，根本沒有第二、第三，觸目菩提。既然原本不生，最後無有可滅。真理不出於法界，法界無限，也就是時空無限。萬生萬物，一切現象，都可畫個「ｏ」來概括，所謂「以金作器，器器皆金」，也即是由空所顯，萬象皆空。
經云「三千及大千，如海一漚發」；海能現漚，漚不離海。在一真法界裏，有什麼垢與淨？有什麼增與減？新結成的冰塊並不表示水中多增加了一塊冰，冰塊溶解了也不表示減少了冰塊的實質。
簡單地說，一切萬生萬物無一不是由空裏來而又向空裏去，亦即佛說「諸行無常，是生滅法，生滅滅已，寂滅為樂」。空是無限生機和一切發展及開創的勢能：一切由空裏來，一切又向空裏去；從空裏來，不占地方；回到空裏去，乾淨俐落，這太好了。我們正確理解了空，就不會愚昧、顛倒，就不會錯認、謬執而逍遙自在了。
般若心經講的是般若，般若的素描就是以下的經文：
是故空中無色 無受想行識 無眼耳鼻舌身意 無色聲香味觸法 無眼界 乃至無意識界 無無明 亦無無明盡 乃至無老死 亦無老死盡 無苦集滅道 無智亦無得
這就是般若的素描。概括地說，般若的當體是個「無」，是個「無無」。因為執有則有限，無無乃無限。原本無、當體空、畢竟不可得的絕對法性，就是般若的空性、法身的素描。因為真實的是原本的，原本沒有眼睛、耳朵、鼻子、身體、意識啊！須知般若見不因眼，聽不因耳……不靠一般的官能而顯實相──生命的真相。
這裏要特別強調的是佛法乃生命之學，不必去講道理，不必去求道理，只要證得了生命的實相，就會清清楚楚地證得：自他不二，物我一如，心、佛、眾生三無差別，這些都可以證實，而不是在講空話。
在指月錄中：有位洞山良玠禪師，童年出家，師父教他念心經，教到「無眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意……」時，他說：暫停！我明明有眼睛、耳朵、鼻子、舌頭、身體……經上怎麼說沒有呢？他的師父愣住了，說：你不同於粥飯僧，你是禪宗的根器，到南方去參禪吧！以後就成了禪宗的大匠。這顯示了什麼呢？信為道源功德母，信固然好，疑也不壞；因為你不疑，就沒有問題；沒有問題，就不能解決問題；不解決問題，問題就會壓倒你。學法也是一樣，要是沒有問題──不疑，又怎會有悟？古人說大疑大悟，小疑小悟，不疑不悟。禪宗要我們信有一個真實──只此一事實的真實。要我們疑，有問題，即使辯論都沒有關係。證道歌說「圓頓教，勿人情，有疑不決直須爭。」
無眼界，乃至無意識界：界，不僅可解釋成範疇、界限或區域，主要是指根、塵相對的作用──六根對六塵所產生的作用：眼對色的感受，耳對聲的感受……這些六根對六塵所發生的一定作用就叫界。六根、六塵加六個作用，就是十八界，十八種現象。
無無明，亦無無明盡；乃至無老死，亦無老死盡：這又是一筆帶過，無明到老死，就是佛法講的十二因緣。
十二因緣，就是構成我們生死輪迴的十二個要件。因為「無明」，就有妄作而產生情感上的「行」。由行產生「識」。有了意識就隨緣受胎，剛剛受的胎叫「名色」。
所謂名色，是有而不可見，無影無像，只能形容，只有名所形容的色是小到不可見的。過去沒有顯微鏡，誰能看見ＸＹ染色體的活動？看不到，所以叫名色，只知有這麼一個東西，但還沒有成為人的胚胎。
第五是六處，六根具足，然後就出胎。
第六是觸，小孩剛生下來，什麼都不會，但卻會抓東西；國人滿周歲時，有「抓周」的習俗。到了二、三歲時，就有觸感，喜歡去接觸物品。
第七是受，感受；喜、怒、哀、樂，一切的感受都有了，大約五、六歲時就已具備。
第八是愛，約十四、五歲，有了愛就知所選擇，有了物種基本的欲念；有了欲念，就如膠似漆，念念不忘，夢寐思之，於是和原本的生命實體距離更遠了。
第九是取，包括追求和逃避；追求權利，逃避義務和責任。人們基本的欲望包括：自我保存──白天怕人，晚上怕鬼；自我我欲──食、色、領導、支配、佔有……諸欲相繼發生。古人說：臨財毋苟得，臨難毋苟免。不能說每個人都臨難求免，但苟得的人卻較多，這就叫取。
第十是有，即生有、中有與後有：透過名色、六處、觸、受、愛、取而有業，活在世上是生有；死是中有，以活著的時候所造之業為素材，形成死後的中陰身即是中有；後有即隨業入胎。
第十一是生，又出生了，入胎就要出生啊！
第十二是由老而死，這叫十二因緣。辟支佛觀十二因緣，找到了解脫之道的「苦、集、滅、道」四法印，而證解脫。但是在菩薩眼中，皆同幻化。
無無明，亦無無明盡；乃至無老死，亦無老死盡：其餘的十種因緣，都一筆帶過了。二乘聖人藉分析得解脫，菩薩則是當體即空。既然當體即空，所以無眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意，無色、聲、香、味、觸、法；六根、六塵都沒有。無眼界，乃至無意識界；十八界也沒有。無無明，亦無無明盡；乃至無老死，亦無老死盡。十二因緣只是一個虛幻的過程，菩薩不觀十二因緣，無須分析，般若觀照下，當體是空。
無苦、集、滅、道：佛法的初期，佛陀審視眾生的根機，說苦、集、滅、道，若詳細講很費詞，簡單地說，苦因集有，道由滅成。為什麼說苦因集有？從無明、行、識、名色、六處、觸、受、愛、取、有，這都是行，是有為法，聚集多了當然苦。苦有八種：
生苦──人一生下來，離開母親，就是苦。小孩子一出娘胎，沒有誰會哈哈大笑的，一出來只會用哭來表示苦。
老苦──老也很苦，身體的抵抗力差，心有天高，力不從心；想爬山爬不動，喜歡吃的東西，多吃了就不舒服。如果修養不好，想想前塵往事，一生累積了太多的無奈、挫折、抱怨、牢騷、不滿、失意……那生活不就形成了對生命的懲罰嗎？有些人打腫臉充胖子說不苦，但眼淚卻不住地流；有些人假裝頑強說人生不苦，很樂！但心裏卻像吞了黃連似的。
病苦──病是最苦的，甚至使人無法忍受。如果有朋友生病了，我們去探望他，問他：老兄！你有什麼願望啊？他會說：我只要病好了，粗茶、淡飯、布衣暖、菜根香，我就很感滿足了，不再希求其他了。事實會是如此嗎？不然，等他病好了，老毛病又都來了：吃菜嫌口味不好，看別人不順眼，老婆的髮型不好看，孩子的動作討人嫌……簡直煩透了。所以人是活在不滿裏的，不滿的本身就是一種痛苦、一種對生命的懲罰。因為錯誤恒等於煩惱，罪惡終難逃毀滅。
死苦──死更是痛苦。很多人練功夫，在死的時候要退功，功若不退，死不了；一點點的退，像蛇脫皮似的，退到哪里痛到哪里，痛苦得很。
除了生、老、病、死四種苦以外，還有：
愛別離苦──你喜歡的人，他不能永遠在你跟前。
怨憎會苦──你越討厭他，他越在你面前晃。
求不得苦──求的東西得不到，得到了又有新欲望，永遠不能滿足。物質的欲望，永遠不能填補心靈的空虛，始終是貧乏的。
五陰熾盛苦──色、受、想、行、識叫五陰，陰就是暗，沒有見天，沒有曝光。色、受、想、行、識，包括心理、生理、自己的認知、教育程度等。身體的組成，顯教講四大──地、水、火、風；密宗講六大──地、水、火、風、空、識。四大不調，百病叢生；五陰熾盛，坐臥不安；色身太健康了，精力旺盛，總想打架；受陰太旺盛，會敏感、心亂；想陰太旺盛就會妄想，胡思亂想多了，所想的都不求結論，再想下去，結果想一個問題，七、八個問題一齊湧出來，弄得精神分裂。四大不調生病固然是苦；身心太旺盛五陰熾盛無一不苦；色情狂、強暴、殺人、毆鬥逞強，一言不合，非吵即打，都是五陰熾盛之故。
一般人都是在八苦中過著執著、迷失的生活，而菩薩用摩訶般若的心態來看，這些都沒有實體。五陰固然不實，苦、集、滅、道亦是方便，要想滅苦必須行道，要真行道就要停止五陰的妄動，使之接受光明。
無智亦無得：智是能得，得是所得，一個能得的我，一個所得的法，這是二元，不契不二法門。一涉及到二，就背離了佛法的宗旨──不二。有能有所、有生有死、有得有失……都是邊見，是二分法，不是不二法門。
以無所得故 菩提薩埵 依般若波羅蜜多故 心無罣礙 無罣礙故無有恐怖 遠離顛倒夢想 究竟涅槃
因為他沒有什麼可以得到，他也不可能再得到什麼；一切只是他自己，他只能得到他自己，不可能再得到任何外在的東西，也沒有任何的外在，所以全證法性，歸無所得。
菩提薩埵：梵文ㄅㄨ刼ㄉㄚ、刼ㄙㄚ刼ㄉㄚ、，是大菩薩，簡稱ㄅㄛ刼ㄙㄚ刼ㄉㄚ、。ㄙㄚ刼ㄅㄚ、刼ㄙㄚ刼ㄉㄚ、是眾菩薩，南無ㄅㄛ刼ㄙㄚ刼ㄉㄚ、是大菩薩。菩提薩埵就是菩薩。菩薩是覺醒了的眾生，眾生是未覺醒的菩薩。菩薩為何不說是佛？因為菩薩只是生命覺醒了的眾生，還須要繼續淨化，距離佛還有一段心程，所以稱之為菩提薩埵，簡稱菩薩。
依：是依靠、依賴、依附，更是歸向、投入。菩薩把全生命、全人格、全理智、全感情投入般若波羅蜜多，所以他心裏沒有罣礙。罣礙是由前塵妄想產生印象，堆積印象而產生的我執，菩薩沒有前塵、沒有妄想、沒有我執，所以沒有罣礙。因此，既不會患得患失，也沒有有我之私；沒有有我之私，就沒有有我之執，自然就沒有恐怖。
遠離顛倒夢想：顛倒是錯誤的意思，好的說成壞的、壞的說成好的、真的說成假的、假的說成真的；乃至以正為邪、以邪為正、這都是顛倒。
至人無夢有兩種解釋：
一種是說修養到家的人，平時凡事都能「所過者化，所存者神」，不會做夢了。白天沒有記錄慣性，既不錄影，也不錄音，到了晚上睡著以後，螢光幕就放不出影像來了。
另一種解釋是至人寤寐一如。白天似乎如夢如幻，晚上也與白天清醒的時候一樣。所謂夢幻三昧、如幻三摩地就是至人的境界。能夠觀自在的菩薩，當然寤寐一如，所以遠離顛倒夢想。
究竟涅槃：究竟就是最後、畢竟。能夠證入上述境界，一切皆無的菩薩，最後一定能證得生命的真實──涅槃。涅槃就是常、樂、我、淨；涅而不生，槃而不滅，意即證得生命的永恆。
三世諸佛 依般若波羅蜜多故 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提
三世諸佛，依般若波羅蜜多故：世是時間，三世指過去、現在、未來。過去、現在、未來所有的大覺佛陀，都離不開般若波羅蜜多，他之所以成佛、解脫，都是借著大智慧才能到達解脫的彼岸，離開般若，就沒有大覺的佛陀。大覺佛陀都是因為證得般若，以般若做為他生命的內涵，做為他理智、情感的全部，方才證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。
阿耨多羅是無上，三藐是正等，三菩提是正覺。意即無上正等正覺，是至高無上的正確覺受，也就是摩訶般若。離開覺受，就沒有正覺，也沒有生命。因此，佛法最貴得正覺──無上正等正覺；最貴得正受，正受有二種意思：即真正的受用和正確的覺受，覺受不正確，便遠離解脫道。
故知般若波羅蜜多 是大神咒 是大明咒 是無上咒 是無等等咒 能除一切苦 真實不虛 故說般若波羅蜜多咒 即說咒曰
揭諦揭諦 波羅揭諦 波羅僧揭諦 菩提薩婆訶
咒是總持的語言，又稱真言──真實的語言。由此可以知道，智慧的解脫法門，有偉大無比的神秘力量，具足無量光明，可以破除無明、黑暗，開展光明的人生。沒有什麼比般若更高、更上、更尊貴的了，也沒有別的咒可以和它相提並論，更不要說能超越它，連和它相等的都沒有。能去除一切的痛苦感受，絕非虛假，所以我才說這個咒：揭諦揭諦，波羅揭諦，波羅僧揭諦，菩提薩婆訶！
四、咒文音義
心經講到此為止，附帶要說明的：咒是真言、總持，是一部經的精華，最扼要的地方，念心經不念咒很可惜，很遺憾！而咒語最注重發音，正確的讀音是：
揭諦揭諦──GeiDaGeiDa，去呀！去呀！
波羅揭諦──BaLaGeiDa，彼岸去呀！
波羅僧揭諦──BaLaShangGeiDa，大家都到彼岸去呀！
菩提薩婆訶──BuDa，SuoHa，疾速完成覺道。
通俗地說就是：去呀！去呀！大家一起去呀！邁向生命的圓滿！完成生命的覺醒。
Ken Hackshaw
very interesting piece. Thanks for sharing
Edward Chao
Dear Ken Hackshaw,
Welcome to join discussion.
Kind regards.
edward
Mohammed .
Nice thoughts; Thanks Dr. Chao
Trevor Lilley
I think you need to take this further in that strategic risks may also need to be considered against the cumulative impact of a detrimental event occurring. For example black swan type effect as the impact must be considered against the widest impact and subsequent contagion activity.
Steven Kalavity
Strategic risk management of complex enterprises requires timely and high fidelity data and knowledge sharing to allow rapid fact-based decision making. For example, the uncooperative and poor communication culture(s) at Macando hindered critical information from being shared so that the right/best decisions could be made. The technology and control processes had been developed to prevent catastrophe. It was not a technology issue, but a communication and management issue. System and process management presents the greatest risk and needs to be strategically considered.
Edward Chao
Dear Steven Kalavity,
I agree with your comments 'Strategic risk management of complex enterprises requires timely and high fidelity data and knowledge sharing to allow rapid fact-based decision making.'
I'm very appreciated that you join discussion.
Kind regards.
Edward
Steven Kalavity
Thank you Edward. I appreciate your post.
Dominic Pelletier,PMP, MBA
Mr Chao
I really like your post! There is lots to gain from risk management at all level within the organization. Risk will help you understand if gain will happen in pursuing a business model for example, acquiring a new business or as you mentioned in BP case, drilling scenario. But risk management is as always, subjective to the organization risk tolerance and doing risk management at higher level of the business, as @Steven mentioned, takes time and experience, which in most organization, one or both is missing.
We do enterprise risk management but this is not nearly where it should be. But that is a starting point and hope we keep doing better in our organization
Thanks for your post
Edward Chao
Dear Dominic Pelletier,
According to my experiences, strategic risk management is your organisation’s response to these uncertainties and opportunities. It involves a clear understanding of corporate strategy, the risks in adopting it and the risks in executing it. These risks may be triggered from inside or outside your organisation.
As you have mentioned in your comments which said 'management is as always, subjective to the organization risk tolerance and doing risk management at higher level of the business. We do enterprise risk management but this is not nearly where it should be.'
Thanks for your comments and sharing in this discussion.
Kind regards.
Edward
Cliona O Hanrahan
Dear Dr Chao
First off thanks so much for the posting and great to read your thoughts of risk at this level.
All the best
Guan Seng Khoo, PhD
Strategic risk is 1/10th desire, and 9/10th implementation. Sometimes, a mediocre strategy well-executed may yield a far better result than a perfect one poorly done!
Edward Chao
Dear Cliona O'Hanrahan,
It's my pleasure to provide practical and risk-related issues in Risk Management Online, LinkedIn.
Hoping we can share the experiences and viewpoints with each other.
Nice to meet you in Risk Management Online
Kind regards.
Edward.
Edward Chao
Further Discussion on the issue 'What's "strategic risks" and how to effectively manage?'
Strategic risks can be defined as the uncertainties and untapped opportunities embedded in your strategic intent and how well they are executed.
In fact, different types of strategic risks in business may involve upstart competitors, new product failures, or new technology suddenly replacing existing technology in a marketplace. At various times, a sudden shift in consumer buying behavior may pose a serious strategic risk to manufacturers and retailers. Growth of a company’s sales base may also stagnate for a variety of reasons, and this might pose a challenge to a company’s continued profitability. As we know, one of the more common scenarios that can expose a company to strategic risks is the upstart competitor that experiences a mercurial rise in sales.
Taking for some examples as follows. A company may have experienced decades-long market dominance in selling a type of software. A competitor then comes along with an innovative software product that consumers prefer over the first company's product. The resulting market erosion experienced by the first company may force that firm to invest heavily in innovation, in an effort to stay competitive with the newer firm.In a typical instance, a conventional approach to setting and executing strategy might look at sales growth and service delivery. Rarely does it monitor the risks of a shortfall in demand.
'Strength of brand' may be a factor in how a company manages strategic risks. A company that has a strong brand among consumers is often better positioned to withstand intrusion from competition because it can continue to bring new products to the market that strategically make use of the brand’s reputation. If a company experiences a scandalous failure in a product launch that damages the brand’s reputation, for example, that type of strategic risk can affect its reputation for years.
Kind regrds.
Edward
26-March-2015
Edward Chao
Further Discussion on the issue 'What's "strategic risks" and how to effectively manage?'
Up to now, strategic risk has become a major focus in risk-control managements, about 81% of surveyed companies now explicitly managing strategic risk – rather than limiting their focus to traditional risk areas such as operational, financial and compliance risk. Also, many companies are taking a broad view of strategic risk that doesn’t just focus on challenges that might cause a particular strategy to fail, but on any major risks that could affect a company’s long-term positioning and performance.
Kind regards.
Edward
26-March-2015
Mokoena Portia
A very informative read Edward. I like your topic. Organisations normally have strategic objectives but one wonders sometimes if these were set with risk management in mind. It becomes a challenge when risk management comes as an after thaught.
Edward Chao
'How to manage strategic risks effectively' has been popularly discussed in finan-related industry for many years.
Under risk managements' researchers or institutions, strategic risks cannot be managed through a rules-based control model. Instead, you need a risk-management system designed to reduce the probability that the assumed risks actually materialize and to improve the company’s ability to manage or contain the risk events should they occur. Such a system would not stop companies from undertaking risky ventures; to the contrary, it would enable companies to take on higher-risk, higher-reward ventures than could competitors with less effective risk management.
In addition, 'strength of brand' may be a factor in how a company manages strategic risks. A company that has a strong brand among consumers is often better positioned to withstand intrusion from competition because it can continue to bring new products to the market that strategically make use of the brand’s reputation.
Edward
29-March-2015
Cliona O Hanrahan
Hi Edward mostly I would agree with your comments but we are facing a very fast based competitive environment where a lot of companies are not really assessing their risk in getting their products out. Actually I think and especially with digital projects where and if the business case is carefully outlined this does minimise risk in this area. Another really cool way of assessing risk at some level is through web analytics which can show what to be avoided going forward. I believe that yes in the very big and expensive infrastructure or legacy project risks must be assessed properly however in the small digital faced projects it really requires you as a project manager to run with the pack and get that product out the door. Where I do look at risk is during the UX process and I believe that this is a great way to position this exercise
Edward Chao
Hi, Cliona, thanks for your reply. I agree with your viewpoints concerning about assessing risks methods 'Another really cool way of assessing risk at some level is through web analytics which can show what to be avoided going forward and where you do look at risk is during the UX process'.
Strategic risk management of complex enterprises requires timely and high fidelity data and knowledge sharing to allow rapid fact-based decision making. In addition, strategic risks cannot be managed through a rules-based control model. Instead, you need a risk-management system designed to reduce the probability that the assumed risks actually materialize and to improve the company’s ability to manage or contain the risk events should they occur.
Thanks for your joining this issue's discussion.
Edward.
Didier Verstichel
One needs to be careful with the use and abuse of the words « Strategy / Strategic ». With a stretch of the mind, it is feasible to find a (minute) link between risk of whatever nature and the Strategy. It is a matter of risk taxonomy for which there is no standard. The BP case is a good example. As per their website “Operational risk is the potential for financial loss because of human, process or technology error.” Is a strategic risk a risk arising from the strategy execution or a risk affecting the strategy? In my use of the semantic, it is the latter, not the former. BP was hit by an operational risk. Take for instance an organisation which strategy is to expand its operations in the BRICA countries. Are those strategic risks or geo-political risks?
Edward Chao
Dear Didier Verstichel,
Very thankful for your comments.
You have mentioned 'that The BP case is a good example. As per their website “Operational risk is the potential for financial loss because of human, process or technology error.” Is a strategic risk a risk arising from the strategy execution or a risk affecting the strategy?'
In fact, risk management is as always, subjective to the organization risk tolerance and doing risk management at higher level of the business. Furthermore, strategic risk management is your organisation’s response to these uncertainties and opportunities. It involves a clear understanding of corporate strategy, the risks in adopting it and the risks in executing it. These risks may be triggered from inside or outside your organisation.
I'm very appreciated with your comments.
Thanks for joining this issue discussion.
Kind regards.
Edward
Steven Kalavity
Strategy is how to guide the processes of operations that deliver the product or services. So, in my mind strategy and operations are inextricably connected. Both center around planning and management of resources aimed at meeting predetermined objectives. The main distinguishing characteristic of businesses is risk tolerance. Businesses distinguish themselves by finding a niche or focus on a particular customer (potential) need. They then build the systems and processes to support these products or services to deliver that "need." The integrity and value creation of the data used to base decisions for marketing up to delivery of products and services is key to successful risk management. Again, I advocate a knowledge risk management framework as the best way to reduce enterprise risk in general applied to strategy and operations.
Edward Chao
Dear Steven,
I'm very appreciated with your comments.
I agree with what you have mentioned that "the main distinguishing characteristic of businesses is risk tolerance, in addition strategy and operations are inextricably connected. Businesses distinguish themselves by finding a niche or focus on a particular customer (potential) need."
In fact, how to create a considerate knowledge risk management framework seems to be important for the decision-makers to evaluate the "strategic risks" and/or "operational risks."
Thanks for your comments.
Kind regards.
Edward
Steven Kalavity
Operation processes must support the strategy. You cannot get to the moon with a lawnmower engine. But, you can get to the moon. The uncertainty - risk - is reduced when systems support the objective in real terms.
Cliona O Hanrahan
This is a great discussion and is helping as I am about to do my next SlideShare presentation on project risk so thanks one and all
Rod Farrar
Hi Edward,
Thanks for sharing the discussion, however, I have a more simplistic approach to defining strategic and operational risks:
I define a strategic risk as any event that is outside the control of the organisation that would cause the organisation to alter its strategic direction. Risks in this category relate to changes to Legislation; changes to the economy; changes to competition. It should be noted that these are not preventable and all we can do is prepare just in case it does occur.
Operational Risks, on the other hand, are those events that are within or outside of the control of the organisation that impact on the achievement of the strategies that have been set by the Board.
My observation has been that too many Boards focus on what are actually operational risks, sometimes at the expense of the organisation as they have not been strategically focussed. If the Board continues to look down they may miss the threats and opportunities that arise.
This has been a really good discussion.
Rod
Edward Chao
Dear Rod,
Nice to read your comments about this issue.
You have pointed out the differences between strategic and operational risks which could lead to understand the simplistic approach to definition.
Most of the practical conditions, I agree with that you have mentioned that 'operational Risks, on the other hand, are those events that are within or outside of the control of the organisation that impact on the achievement of the strategies that have been set by the Board.' For cost-and-benefit analysis, the Board sometimes ignore some uncertainty factors inside the risks, and many Boards just focus on what are actually operational risks.
Another concept you have mentioned is that strategic risk should be noted that these are not preventable and all we can do is prepare just in case it does occur. According to past experiences, the Board often made their decision via some suggestions or information came from the manager of risk management.
“When you are dealing with risks, Corporate Management should proactively focus on strategic and transversal risks and Business Units are responsible for managing the risks
they own,” says Elisabeth Pacaud, Associate Vice President, Group Risk Management at Sanofi.
In my opinion, a strategic risk is one that directly impacts the company’s identified strategic goals whether they are diversification, innovation, or emerging countries.
According to an professional research institution report said that two thirds (67%) of the surveyed companies say the CEO, board or board risk committee has oversight over strategic risk. In EMEA, CEO direction is much lower than average and board direction is higher. Top-level oversight is particularly common at consumer companies, followed by companies in financial services and TMT. “Each group company determines risks and takes measures to meet their business needs. Important matters – including the risk strategy of each group company – will be discussed and decided at Pola Orbis Holdings’ board meetings.”
Finally, I'm very appreciated with your comments and joining this discussion.
Kind regards.
Edward
Don Tibbits
Excellent discussion, thanks.
Edward posed the question: 'Is a strategic risk a risk arising from the strategy execution or a risk affecting the strategy?' @Rod: to be clear, under your model, would the former usually be defined as operational risk and only the latter as strategic risk? @Edward: in your opening you seem to imply the former.
I'm mindful that there will sometimes be a crossover and the answer won't always be clear-cut.
Rod Farrar
Hi Don,
Under my definition, the former is an operational risk and the latter is a strategic risk. There my be some crossover but when I see Boards capturing risks such as "death of a worker" or "non compliance against Legislation" I get very worried. To me, the Board should manage the risks that affect strategy and receive reports providing assurance that the operational risks are being managed effectively.
I have decided that this is an excellent discussion for my next eBook.
Edward Chao
Hi, Rod, As a matter of fact, most of the Board don't take much time in managing the risks that affect strategy, whereas, only receive reports providing assurance that the operational risks are being managed effectively and focus the overall performance.
Perhaps, you can focus this topic to declare your viewpoints via your next eBook.
Thanks for your comments.
Edward
Jay R. Taylor
I like to think of risk management in the context of building an automobile. We put brakes on the car not to stop us, but to allow us to go faster, more safely.
Edward Chao
Dear Jay,
Nice to read your comments about this issue.
You have pointed out the basic concepts of risk managements which could lead to understand the simplistic approach to definition. This example makes sense.
Edward.