大智度論 習相應品之餘上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Practising in Accord, Part 2 of 3

If the bodhisattva, the Buddha, prajñā, and even form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are names only, and if self and beings, life-holder, knower, and seer can none of them be found however one seeks them, then what is there left to ‘practise in accord’ with, and with what is one to ‘accord’? Does the whole thing not come to nothing? The Chapter on Practising in Accord sets this hard question on the table at its very opening, and at once gives the pivot of the whole chapter: the previous chapter already ended in emptiness, and the reason this chapter speaks of it again is to teach the emptiness of beings alongside the emptiness of dharmas. The practitioner contemplates outer dharmas as wholly empty, yet silently grants that the one who contemplates emptiness is not empty; so it must be said again that the contemplator too is empty. The emptiness of self is easy to know and the emptiness of dharmas hard to see, but in prajñā the two return alike to emptiness. Read on through this door and the eye of the whole chapter surfaces at the knot tied at its close: among all accords, accord with emptiness is called the foremost accord, for this one gate alone can break every wrong view and idle discourse and cannot itself be broken. Everything answered in between deepens this one matter. The bodhisattva’s wisdom surpasses that of all śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha for two causes only: by the emptiness of the unfindable he knows all dharmas as empty and yet does not see them as empty, and he uses this wisdom to free all beings and bring them to nirvāṇa. The wisdom of all the worthies and sages takes the same object, the truth of cessation, and is the same empty nature, unarisen, with no difference in its essence, as the many streams entering the sea become one taste; the difference lies not in higher or lower essence but in whether one has aroused the mind to deliver beings, and whether by skilful means one can dwell in the three gates of liberation without taking realisation, as arrows shot upward into the sky prop one another up and are not let fall to the ground. Part One uses the similes of bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds, of the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions, and of fireflies against the rising sun, to show the two vehicles as fireflies lighting the night and the bodhisattva as the risen sun shining everywhere; and by the four kinds of discourse, the definite, the analytical, the counter-question, and the set-aside, it shows the Buddha using a counter-question to make Śāriputra say for himself that the two vehicles fall short of the bodhisattva. The Remainder, First Part, brings ‘practising in accord’ formally down to contemplative practice: practising in accord with the emptiness of form, of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, up to the emptiness of the eighteen elements and the four truths; beyond the eighteen emptinesses it sets out seven more, the emptiness of nature, of specific marks, of all dharmas, of the unfindable, of non-existent dharmas, of existent dharmas, and of non-existent and existent dharmas; and it tightens layer by layer until one sees neither accord nor non-accord, neither arising nor ceasing, neither defilement nor purity, until form is emptiness and emptiness is form, the empty mark of all dharmas neither arises nor ceases, and there is no knowledge and no attainment, until emptiness does not join with emptiness and form does not join with the three times. The Remainder, Last Part, then teaches at length that sarvajñā does not join with the three times, that the six perfections are prajñā and not two dharmas, that the Buddha is sarvajñā, that one breaks the two extremes of the view of existence and the view of non-existence and walks the middle way, and so on to Māra finding no opening, the Buddhas keeping guard, grave offences being received lightly, and always meeting the Buddhas. At the last it states the foremost accord with emptiness through the eighteen elements not joining with emptiness, shows that the bodhisattva who practises emptiness does not fall to the stage of the two vehicles, that one of keen faculties is no different from one who has received the prediction and one of dull faculties is near to receiving it, and explains that beings are ultimately neither born nor extinguished by four propositions, not receiving beings, the emptiness of beings, beings as unfindable, and beings as apart, gathering it all into this: practising this accord with emptiness alone can give birth to great kindness and great compassion, and does not give rise to the six evil minds of stinginess, breach of precepts, anger, laziness, distraction, and lack of wisdom. In reading this chapter there is no need first to fit ‘practising in accord’ with some real set of contemplations to be mastered; one need only see the same one thing in every mark of accord: whether the dharma accorded with, together with the very joining of joiner and joined, has already been set down as unfindable, and whether contemplator and contemplated are already one taste in ultimate emptiness. With no self and no dharma to grasp, one contemplates all dharmas throughout; with no mark of accord to take hold of, one accords with prajñā throughout. This is the very path of practising in accord that prajñā opens by teaching the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together.

Śāriputra Asks: How Does the Bodhisattva Pass Beyond the Grounds of the Two Vehicles, Abide in the Ground of Non-retrogression, and Purify the Buddha-Path?

Śāriputra said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One, how must a bodhisattva-mahāsattva proceed in order to pass beyond the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, abide in the non-retrogressing ground of the avaivartika, and purify the Buddha-path?’

What follows is the treatise's explanation. Question: why does Śāriputra put this question? Answer: Śāriputra had earlier asked about the wisdom of the many sages being without difference, and the Buddha had already used similes of all kinds to show that the bodhisattva's wisdom is superior; since his mind had now understood this, he goes on to ask how the bodhisattva is able to pass beyond the two vehicles, abide in the ground of non-retrogression, and purify the Buddha-path. Again someone asks: people of the Small Vehicle do not abide toward becoming a Buddha, so why does Śāriputra ask about the matter of ‘purifying the Buddha-path’? Answer: Śāriputra is the great general who follows the Buddha in turning the Dharma wheel; although this question adds nothing to himself, he asks it in order to benefit the beings who seek the Buddha-path. Again, because the bodhisattva with great compassion brings much benefit, he asks about the bodhisattva's matters so as to benefit beings. Furthermore, Śāriputra, having received the Buddha's grace, broke through all wrong views and attained the fruit of the path; it is in order to repay that grace that he asks about the bodhisattva's matters. Again, within the ground of the śrāvakas Śāriputra had already exhausted its furthest limit, and what he had not yet penetrated was only the bodhisattva's matters, so he asks further. Again, because the bodhisattva's Dharma is extremely deep and subtle, although he cannot realise it, he asks out of love and delight in it—just as, seeing someone with a wondrous jewel, one asks about it out of love and delight even though one does not have it oneself.

The Buddha Answers: From the First Arousing of the Intention, Practise the Six Perfections and Abide in the Three Gates of Liberation—Shooting Up into Space without Falling into Nirvāṇa

The Buddha told Śāriputra: from the very first arousing of the intention, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the six perfections and abides in the dharmas of emptiness, signlessness, and non-action; he is then able to pass beyond all the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, abide in the avaivartika ground, and purify the Buddha-path.

The treatise explains. Question: these three matters—passing beyond the two vehicles, abiding in non-retrogression, and purifying the Buddha-path—each have their own causes and conditions in the later chapters; why does the Buddha now speak of them together in one place? Answer: here it is said briefly; later the causes and conditions of the three matters will naturally be said at length. Again, now only the causes and conditions of emptiness, signlessness, and non-action are spoken of, and only later are the various merits spoken of; therefore the three matters are spoken of together. Again someone asks: once one enters the three gates of liberation one arrives at nirvāṇa; how is it now said that by emptiness, signlessness, and non-action one is able to pass beyond the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas? Answer: if one lacks the power of skilful means, on entering the three gates of liberation one straightaway takes nirvāṇa. If one has the power of skilful means, then although abiding in the three gates of liberation and seeing nirvāṇa, with a mind of kindness and compassion one is able to turn this mind back and arouse it anew, as is said in a later chapter. It is like shooting upward into space: arrow after arrow props up the one before, not letting the arrows fall to the ground. The bodhisattva is also like this: with the arrow of wisdom he shoots upward into the space of the three liberations, and then with the following arrow of skilful means he shoots the arrow before it, not letting it fall into the ground of nirvāṇa. Although this bodhisattva sees nirvāṇa, he passes straight on without halting, looking forward to another great matter—namely unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening. Now is the time for contemplating, not the time for realising. Principles such as these should be spoken of at length. If one passes beyond these two grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas and understands that dharmas neither arise nor cease, this is the avaivartika ground. Abiding in the avaivartika ground, transforming beings and purifying Buddha-worlds—this is being able to purify the Buddha-path. Furthermore, the bodhisattva abides in the three gates of liberation and contemplates the four truths; knowing that these are the dharmas of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, he passes straight beyond the four truths and enters the one truth—namely that all dharmas neither arise nor cease, are neither stained nor pure, neither come nor go, and so on. Entering into this one truth is called the avaivartika ground. Abiding in this avaivartika ground, the ground of purifying the Buddha-path, he extinguishes the coarse and evil deeds of body, speech, and mind, and also extinguishes whatever within dharmas has been lost and spoiled from the very beginning; this is called the ground of purifying the Buddha-path.

Śāriputra Asks: While the Bodhisattva's Afflictions Are Not Yet Exhausted, Abiding in What Merit Can He Be a Field of Merit for the Two Vehicles?

Śāriputra said to the Buddha: abiding on what ground is a bodhisattva-mahāsattva able to be a field of merit for the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas?

The treatise explains. Śāriputra deeply and wholeheartedly reveres the bodhisattva, and therefore now asks: while the bodhisattva's outflows and fetters are not yet fully cut off, abiding in what merit is he able to be a field of merit for the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas?

The Buddha told Śāriputra: from the first arousing of intent, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the six perfections, all the way until he sits at the seat of awakening; throughout this interval he is constantly a field of merit for the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.

The treatise explains. The Buddha shows Śāriputra this meaning: although the bodhisattva shares with the two vehicles the three gates of liberation and the matter of going toward nirvāṇa, the bodhisattva has great kindness and great compassion, which the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not have. From the first arousing of the mind the bodhisattva cultivates the six perfections, up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, his aim being to ferry all beings across to liberation and to complete all the Buddha-dharmas; therefore he is superior.

All Wholesome Dharmas Appear in the World Because of the Bodhisattva

The Buddha went on to say: why is this? Because there is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva as cause and condition, the various wholesome dharmas of the world are able to arise.

The treatise explains. The Buddha has already explained by one cause and condition that, because the bodhisattva diligently practises the many practices, he is able to be a field of merit for the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Now he further speaks of the cause and condition of the bodhisattva's benefiting others outwardly, whereby the world has all wholesome dharmas. What is the principle here? Although the bodhisattva who has aroused the mind has not yet become a Buddha, he is already able to make the beings who can be ferried across abide in the paths of the three vehicles, and those who cannot enter the three vehicles he makes abide in the ten wholesome paths—how much more so when he becomes a Buddha! Question: the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are also causes and conditions for the world's obtaining wholesome dharmas; why is it said only that the bodhisattva is able to make the world have wholesome dharmas? Answer: the wholesome dharmas that the world has because of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas all come about because of the bodhisattva as well. If the bodhisattva did not arouse the mind, the world would not even have the Buddha-path, let alone śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. The Buddha-path is the root of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Furthermore, although there are wholesome dharmas because of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, they are few, and because they are few they are not spoken of. If even the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are not spoken of, how much less the teachers of the outside paths!

The bodhisattva went on to enumerate: what are the wholesome dharmas? They are the ten wholesome paths, the five precepts, the fast-precepts complete in eight parts; the four meditations, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions; the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four bases of supernormal power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven limbs of awakening, the limbs of the eightfold noble path—all appear in the world because of the bodhisattva. Again, because of the bodhisattva, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the Buddha's ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, great kindness, great compassion, and omniscience of all kinds all appear in the world. Again, because of the bodhisattva there are great kṣatriya clans, great brahmin clans, and great householder families; there are the heaven of the Four Heavenly Kings up to the heaven of neither perception nor non-perception—all appear in the world. Again, because of the bodhisattva there are the srota-āpanna, the sakṛdāgāmin, the anāgāmin, the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, and the Buddha—all appear in the world.

The treatise explains. Question: that the world has wholesome dharmas because of the bodhisattva may still be said; but as for great kṣatriya clans, great brahmin clans, and great householder families—even if there were no bodhisattva in the world there would still be these noble clans; how can it be said that all of them arise from the bodhisattva? Answer: because of the bodhisattva, the world has the five precepts, the ten wholesome deeds, the eight fast-precepts, and so on. These dharmas come in three grades, superior, middling, and inferior: the superior grade attains the path, the middling grade is born in heaven, and the inferior grade becomes human; that is why there are great kṣatriya clans, great brahmin clans, and great householder families. Again someone asks: even if there were no bodhisattva in the world, the world would still have the five precepts, the ten wholesome deeds, the eight fast-precepts, and the noble clans such as the kṣatriyas. Answer: the bodies the bodhisattva takes on are of all different kinds—at times he takes on a body born of the causes and conditions of karma, at times a transformation body—and teaching in the world, he proclaims wholesome dharmas of all kinds together with the dharmas of the world, the dharmas of kings, worldly conventional dharmas, the dharmas of those who leave home, the dharmas of those at home, the dharmas of lineages, and the dharmas of household life, pitying beings and protecting the world; although these are not the bodhisattva's true Dharma, he constantly practises these worldly dharmas. For this reason all of these come from the bodhisattva. Again someone asks: the bodhisattva is pure and cultivates great kindness and compassion; how could he speak of the various mixed dharmas of the world? Answer: there are two kinds of bodhisattva. The first practises kindness and compassion and enters the bodhisattva path directly. The second is the ruined bodhisattva, who also has a mind of compassion and governs the world by the laws of the state; he has no greed for gain in it, and although there is some harm he inflicts, those he brings to peace and happiness are more—he punishes one evil person so as to preserve a whole family. One who establishes laws in this way, though he is not called a pure bodhisattva, is still able to be called a ruined bodhisattva. For this reason all of these come from the bodhisattva. The various riches and honours of the world all come from the paths of the two vehicles; the paths of the two vehicles come from the Buddha, and the Buddha in turn comes about because of the bodhisattva. If there were no bodhisattva to proclaim wholesome dharmas, the world would have no path of gods, no path of humans, no path of asuras; there would be no pleasant feeling and no feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant, only painful feeling, and one would constantly hear the sound of weeping from the hells. Since the bodhisattva has such great benefit, how could he not be called a field of merit for the world? When Śāriputra heard that the bodhisattva has great merit and ought to receive offerings, he nevertheless thought in his mind: the bodhisattva's afflictions are not yet exhausted; although he has great merit, I fear he cannot digest these offerings—just as a person, though he has eaten fine food, cannot digest it because of an illness within. For this reason—

The Merit of Giving Was Already Pure and Complete from the Start: The Bodhisattva Is a Great Donor, and What He Gives Is Wholesome Dharmas

Śāriputra said to the Buddha: has the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's merit of giving already become pure and complete? The Buddha said: no. Why is this? Because it was already pure and complete from the start.

The treatise explains. Because from the moment he first arouses the mind, the bodhisattva becomes the foremost of those who make offerings for all beings. What is the principle here? Because the bodhisattva has resolved to undergo toil and suffering on behalf of immeasurable, boundless asaṃkhyeyas of beings, and to benefit immeasurable asaṃkhyeyas of beings so that they attain liberation, his aim being to obtain the power of great wisdom of all the Buddha-dharmas, able to make the world itself nirvāṇa. For causes and conditions of all these kinds it is said that it was already pure and complete from the start. Furthermore, the Buddha is restating the causes and conditions by which he is able to digest offerings.

The Buddha went on to say: Śāriputra, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is a great donor; what is it that he gives? He gives wholesome dharmas. What kind of wholesome dharmas? They are the ten wholesome paths, the five precepts, up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and omniscience of all kinds; these he gives to beings.

The treatise explains. Earlier it was said ‘because of the bodhisattva as cause and condition, the world has wholesome dharmas’; now it is said ‘the bodhisattva is the master who gives wholesome dharmas’—this is the difference between the two.

Śāriputra Asks about Practising in Accord with Prajñā; the Buddha Answers: Practising in Accord with the Emptiness of Form Is Called Being in Accord

Śāriputra said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, how does a bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise in accord with prajñāpāramitā and come to be in accord with prajñāpāramitā?

The treatise explains. It was said above that ‘cultivating prajñāpāramitā for a single day surpasses the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas’; coming from this cause and condition, the Buddha praised the bodhisattva in all kinds of ways. Such great merits as these all arise from prajñāpāramitā, and so he now asks how the bodhisattva practises this prajñāpāramitā and comes to be in accord with prajñāpāramitā. Furthermore, Śāriputra knows that prajñāpāramitā is hard to practise and hard to attain, like an illusion, like a conjuration, hard to receive and uphold; fearing only that practitioners would go astray and fall into confusion, he asks about the method of practising in accord.

The Buddha told Śāriputra: the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises in accord with the emptiness of form; this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā. Furthermore, Śāriputra, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises in accord with the emptiness of the eye; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of visible form; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharmas; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of the eye-element, the form-element, and the eye-consciousness-element; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of the ear, sound, and consciousness elements, the nose, smell, and consciousness elements, the tongue, taste, and consciousness elements, the body, touch, and consciousness elements, and the mind, dharma, and consciousness elements; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of suffering; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of origination, cessation, and the path; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of ignorance; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of constructions, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-bases, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, and old age and death; this is called being in accord with prajñā. He practises in accord with the emptiness of all dharmas—whether conditioned or unconditioned, all are empty; this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā.

The Treatise Explains the Five Aggregates at Length (1): The Aggregate of Form—the Visible and the Invisible, and the Various Aspects of Form

The treatise explains. The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness. The aggregate of form is the visible dharma. Because of this visible form as cause and condition, there is also form that is invisible yet resistant. Although the resistant is invisible, it too is called form—just as one who has attained the path is called a person of the path, and the others who have left home but not yet attained the path are also called persons of the path. What is visible? Only one field is the small portion of form that is visible and resistant, included in one sense-field. The other nine fields, together with non-manifest karma, are called invisible form. The resistant are ten fields; the non-resistant is only non-manifest form. The distinctions of with-outflows and without-outflows and so on are likewise. As a sūtra says: form is of three kinds—form that is visible and resistant, form that is invisible and resistant, and form that is invisible and non-resistant. Therefore one should know that it is not only what the eye sees that is form: the ten inner and outer fields that are able to give rise to the five consciousnesses are all called form, and because of this portion of form, non-manifest form arises.

Again, there are four kinds of form: inner and appropriated, inner and not appropriated, outer and appropriated, outer and not appropriated. Again, there are five kinds of form, namely the five sense-objects. Again, there is one kind of form, the mark of being afflicted and broken, as a sūtra says. The bodily form of beings is called the mark of being afflicted and broken; form that is not of beings is also called the mark of being afflicted and broken, because its having a mark that is able to afflict is a cause and condition, and so it too is called affliction. It is like this: if there is a body, then there are sufferings such as hunger, thirst, cold, heat, old age, illness, knives, and cudgels. Again, there are two kinds of form: the four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements; inner form and outer form; appropriated form and unappropriated form; bound form and unbound form; form that can give rise to wrongdoing and form that can give rise to merit; karmic form and non-karmic form; karmic form and resultant form; karmic form and retributive form; resultant form and retributive form; obscured indeterminate form and unobscured indeterminate form; visible form and invisible form; resistant form and non-resistant form; form with outflows and form without outflows. In this way form is distinguished into two kinds. Again, there are three kinds of form, as said above under the visible and resistant. Again, there are three kinds of form: wholesome form, unwholesome form, and indeterminate form; form of one in training, form of one beyond training, and form of one neither in training nor beyond training; form arising from what is abandoned by seeing the truths, form arising from what is abandoned by contemplation, and form arising from what is not abandoned. Again, there are three kinds of form: form bound to the desire realm, form bound to the form realm, and unbound form; there is form that can give rise to greed, form that can give rise to hatred, and form that can give rise to delusion—and the three fetters, the three outflows, and so on are likewise. There is form that can give rise to the wholesome root of non-greed, the wholesome root of non-hatred, and the wholesome root of non-delusion; the various three wholesome roots of this kind should all be spoken of at length. There is form that can give rise to obscured indeterminate dharmas and form that can give rise to unobscured indeterminate dharmas, and the unobscured indeterminate is again of two kinds—that which arises from retribution and that which does not arise from retribution; these are the two kinds of the indeterminate. Again, there are four kinds of form, as said above under the appropriated and the unappropriated; namely, the three kinds of the four great elements and derived form—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate; manifest form and non-manifest form of bodily karma, and manifest form and non-manifest form of verbal karma; received form, restraining form, used form, and unused form—these are the four kinds of form. Again, there are five kinds of form: manifest and non-manifest form of the body, manifest and non-manifest form of speech, and non-karmic form; the five sense-faculties and the five sense-objects; coarse form, moving form, shadow form, reflected-image form, and deceptive form.

Coarse form is what can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched, such as earth and stones. Moving form is of two kinds: first, the movements of beings; second, the movements of what is not beings—such as the movements of water, fire, and wind; the earth moves in dependence on others: below there is a great wind that stirs the water, and the water in turn moves the earth; the wind blows and moves the trees; as wine boils of itself and moves; as the lodestone draws iron; as pearls, jade, tridacna shell, and agate are able to move of themselves at night—all these are the karmic causes and conditions of the merit of beings in former lives, inconceivable.

Question: shadow form and reflected-image form should not be set up as a separate kind. Why? The eye together with light faces a clear mirror and is thereupon turned back, so that one sees oneself. A shadow is likewise: because the light is blocked, the shadow appears; there is no separate dharma. Answer: this is not so. When one sees an image in oil, it is black—that is not the original colour. In a knife five feet long, looked at crosswise the image of the face becomes broad, looked at lengthwise the image of the face becomes long—that is not the original face. In the rock crystal of Daqin, where there are flaws, within each flaw there is an image of the face—that is not a single image of the face. For this reason it is not that one still sees the original image. Furthermore, there is the mirror, there is the person, there is the one holding the mirror, there is light: because the many conditions come together, the image arises; if the many conditions are not complete, the image does not arise. This image is not without causes and conditions, yet neither is it within the causes and conditions; in this way it is a separate dharma of its own and is not that face. The way this subtle form arises is like this, unlike coarse form—just as because of fire there is smoke, and when the fire has gone out the smoke still remains. Question: if so, the shadow should not be spoken of separately, since it is likewise subtle form. Answer: the image in the mirror has form of all kinds of colours, whereas the shadow is only one colour; therefore they differ. Although both of these depend on a shape and move along with it, their substance is different: the shadow appears from the blocking of light, while the image arises from causes and conditions of all kinds; although both are subtle form, each is different. Deceptive form is such as a mirage, an illusion, a conjuration, a city of the gandharvas, and so on: seen from afar it can deceive a person's eye, but close up there is nothing at all. Forms of all these immeasurable kinds are collectively called the aggregate of form.

The Treatise Explains the Five Aggregates at Length (2): Feeling, Perception, Constructions, and Consciousness—Mental Concomitants Born of Contact, and the Distinctions of Each

The aggregate of feeling is as a sūtra says: because the eye takes form as its condition, eye-consciousness arises; because the three things come together, contact arises; this contact immediately makes the three aggregates arise together, namely feeling, perception, and constructions. Question: eye-consciousness also acts as a cause for the three aggregates; why is only contact spoken of? Answer: eye-consciousness abides only momentarily; having seen form it ceases, and then mind-consciousness arises, which is able to discriminate form as fine or ugly; therefore eye-consciousness is not spoken of. Because the three things—eye, form, and consciousness—come together, contact arises, and contact gives rise to the mental concomitants; the causes and conditions of eye-consciousness are more remote, and so it is not spoken of. Question: all consciousnesses have contact; why is it said only that contact is the cause and condition that gives rise to the mental concomitants? Answer: mind is of two kinds: first, mind that arises and ceases moment by moment; second, mind that continues in sequence. Contact is likewise; because contact that continues in sequence is coarser, it is said that the mental concomitants arise because of contact. Moment-by-moment contact is subtle; although it too gives rise to the mental concomitants along with it, because it is not distinct it is not spoken of. If the three things—sense-faculty, sense-object, and consciousness—come together and are able to experience suffering and pleasure, at that time the dharma of contact is distinct and clear; for this reason it is said that the mental concomitants arise because of contact. Just as the dharma of form arises from the coming together of causes and conditions, the mental concomitants are likewise—they arise from the coming together of the dharma of contact. Just as the dharma of form arises from a coming together and without a coming together does not arise, the mental concomitants are likewise—if there is contact they arise, if there is no contact they do not arise. This aggregate of feeling, as one kind, is the mark of feeling. Again, there are two kinds of feeling: bodily feeling and mental feeling; inner feeling and outer feeling; coarse and subtle; far and near; pure and impure; and so on. Again, there are three kinds of feeling: painful, pleasant, and neither painful nor pleasant; wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate; of one in training, of one beyond training, and of one neither in training nor beyond training; abandoned by seeing the truths, abandoned by contemplation, and not abandoned; feeling arising from what is abandoned by seeing the truths, feeling arising from what is abandoned by contemplation, and feeling arising from what is not abandoned; or feeling that arises from the view of the body but does not in turn act as a cause for the view of the body, or feeling that arises from the view of the body and in turn acts as a cause for the view of the body, or feeling that does not arise from the view of the body and does not in turn act as a cause for the view of the body; again, there are three kinds of feeling: bound to the desire realm, bound to the form realm, and bound to the formless realm—these are the three kinds of feeling. Again, there are four kinds of feeling: inner bodily feeling, outer bodily feeling, inner mental feeling, and outer mental feeling; together with feeling associated with the four right efforts, the four bases of supernormal power, and so on, and feeling associated with the four floods, the four bonds, and so on—these are called the four kinds of feeling. Again, there are five kinds of feeling: the faculty of pleasure, the faculty of pain, the faculty of sorrow, the faculty of joy, and the faculty of equanimity; and feeling associated with what is abandoned by seeing suffering, up to feeling associated with what is abandoned by contemplation; feeling associated with the afflictions of the five hindrances, the five fetters, and so on is likewise. Again, there are six aggregates of feeling, namely the feeling associated with the six consciousnesses. Again, mind-consciousness discriminates eighteen feelings: the eye sees form, reflects and discriminates, and the mind gives rise to joy; the eye sees form, reflects and discriminates, and the mind gives rise to sorrow; the eye sees form, reflects and discriminates, and the mind gives rise to equanimity; and so on up to mind-consciousness, likewise. Among these eighteen feelings some are pure and some defiled, making thirty-six. Each of the three times has thirty-six, making one hundred and eight. Distinguishing the meaning of feeling by causes and conditions of all these kinds is immeasurable; this is called the aggregate of feeling.

The aggregate of perception, the aggregate of associated constructions, and the aggregate of consciousness are distinguished in the same way. Why is this? Because they are associated with the aggregate of feeling. Furthermore, the Buddha says that there are four kinds of perception: small perception, great perception, immeasurable perception, and the perception of nothingness. Small perception is being aware of small dharmas. As it is said of small dharmas—small desire, small faith, small form, small objective marks—this is called small perception. Furthermore, perception bound to the desire realm is called small; perception bound to the form realm is called great; perception bound to the three formless heavens is called immeasurable; perception bound to the sphere of nothingness is called the perception of nothingness. Furthermore, perception associated with afflictions is called small perception, because it is covered by afflictions; perception with outflows yet without stain is called great perception; perception that takes the real mark of dharmas as its object is called the perception of nothingness; perception without outflows is called immeasurable perception, because it is the immeasurable dharma that takes nirvāṇa as its object. Furthermore, the Buddha says that there are six perceptions, namely perception arising in association with eye-contact, up to perception arising in association with mind-contact. This is called the aggregate of perception.

As for the aggregate of constructions, the Buddha sometimes says that all conditioned dharmas are called constructions. Sometimes he speaks of three constructions: bodily construction, verbal construction, and mental construction. Bodily construction is in-and-out breathing. What is the principle here? Because the breath belongs to the body. Verbal construction is initial inquiry and sustained examination. What is the principle here? Because first there is initial inquiry and sustained examination, and only afterwards is there speech. Mental construction is feeling and perception. What is the principle here? Because by experiencing suffering and pleasure and grasping at marks the mind is set in motion, this is called mental construction. The mental concomitants are of two kinds: first, those belonging to views; second, those belonging to craving. Among those belonging to craving, the chief is called feeling; among those belonging to views, the chief is called perception; for this reason these two dharmas are said to be mental construction. The Buddha sometimes speaks of the three constructions within the twelve causes and conditions, namely meritorious construction, demeritorious construction, and imperturbable construction. Meritorious construction is wholesome karma bound to the desire realm. Demeritorious construction is unwholesome karma. Imperturbable construction is karma bound to the form realm and the formless realm. In the Abhidharma, apart from feeling and perception, the remaining mental concomitants, together with the dharmas not associated with mind such as the absorption without perception and the absorption of cessation—this is called the aggregate of constructions.

As for the aggregate of consciousness: because the inner and outer six sense-fields come together, six kinds of awareness arise; this is called consciousness. Because the power of the inner condition is great, it is called eye-consciousness, up to being called mind-consciousness. Question: mind is itself consciousness; how can it be said that because of the power of the mind as condition, mind-consciousness arises? Answer: because mind has the mark of arising and ceasing, mostly taking the preceding mind as cause, it takes dharmas as object and mind-consciousness arises. Question: the preceding mind has already ceased; how can it give rise to the later consciousness? Answer: mind is of two kinds: first, ceasing moment by moment; second, mind continuing in sequence and so called one. For the sake of this continuing mind, all minds are called one mind; therefore there is no fault in consciousness arising in dependence on mind. Because mind-consciousness is hard to understand, the ninety-six kinds of outside paths do not say that consciousness arises in dependence on mind, but take dependence on the soul as the basis. These five aggregates have already been spoken of at length under the four foundations of mindfulness. Why is this? Because the foundation of mindfulness of the body speaks of the aggregate of form; the foundation of mindfulness of feeling speaks of the aggregate of feeling; the foundation of mindfulness of mind speaks of the aggregate of consciousness; the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas speaks of the aggregates of perception and constructions.

Question: there should not be five aggregates; there should be only the aggregate of form and the aggregate of consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness, because it discriminates according to the occasion, has different names, and so is called feeling, perception, and constructions—just as defiled consciousness is called affliction and pure consciousness is called wholesome dharma. Answer: not so. What is the principle here? If the names differ, the realities also differ; if there were no differing dharmas, the names ought not to differ. If there were only mind and no mental dharmas, mind ought not to be defiled or pure. It is like the water of a clear pool: a mad elephant enters it and makes it muddy; if a water-clearing pearl is put in, the water becomes clear; one cannot say that apart from the water there is no elephant and no pearl. Mind is likewise: because afflictions enter, they are able to make the mind muddy; because wholesome dharmas such as kindness and compassion enter the mind, they make the mind clear. For this reason one cannot say that afflictions and dharmas such as kindness and compassion are simply the mind. Question: did you not hear me say earlier, ‘defiled mind is affliction, pure mind is wholesome dharma’? Answer: if defiled mind continues, how can pure mind arise? If pure mind continues, how would defiled mind arise? For this reason this matter is not so. You know only coarse and manifest matters and do not know the mental concomitants; one may not say that something does not exist because one does not know it. One should know that there must be five aggregates.

The Treatise Explains the Five Aggregates at Length (3): The Order of the Five Aggregates, and the Ultimate Emptiness of All Dharmas

Question: if there are five aggregates, why are just five spoken of, neither more nor fewer? Answer: dharmas each have their fixed limits. Just as the hand has five fingers by its nature, one cannot ask for more or fewer. Furthermore, although conditioned dharmas are immeasurable, the Buddha divides them into five portions and they are then entirely included. Question: if so, why does he also speak of the twelve sense-fields and the eighteen elements? Answer: the meaning of the aggregates ought to be like this, but the meaning of the sense-fields and the elements is different. The Buddha is the King of Dharma; for the sake of beings he sometimes speaks briefly and sometimes at length. Some beings are not much deluded about form and consciousness but are much mistaken about the mental concomitants; therefore he speaks of the five aggregates. Some beings are not deluded about mind and the mental concomitants but are confused only about form; for the sake of such beings he speaks of form as ten fields, and speaks of mind and the mental concomitants together as two fields. Some beings are little deluded about the mental concomitants but largely fail to penetrate form and mind; for the sake of such beings he speaks of the mental concomitants as one element and form and mind as seventeen elements. Some beings do not know the arising and ceasing of the world's dharmas of suffering and do not know the path of leaving suffering; for the sake of such beings he speaks of the four truths: the world and the body are all suffering; afflictions such as craving are the cause of suffering; the cessation of afflictions is the cessation of suffering; the dharma of skilful means for extinguishing afflictions is called the path. Some beings, because they cling to an ‘I’, hold wrong views about dharmas and conceive a mark of oneness or a mark of difference, or say that the world is without cause and without condition, or fall into wrong causes and conditions; for the sake of such beings he speaks of the twelve causes and conditions. Some people say that there are permanent dharmas—some say the soul is permanent, some say all dharmas are permanent—only that at the time of destruction they are hidden and subtle and are not non-existent, and if they meet with the coming together of causes and conditions they appear again, there being no other dharma; for the sake of such people he says: all conditioned dharmas are made dharmas and have nothing permanent or fixed. It is like a wooden figure with all kinds of mechanisms: because the wooden pegs are fitted together it is able to move, yet there is nothing real about it—this is called conditioned dharma.

Question: what order is there in the five aggregates spoken of here? Answer: when a practitioner first trains in the method of contemplation, he first contemplates coarse dharmas, knowing that the body is impure, impermanent, suffering, empty, without self, and so on—such is the affliction of the body. The reason beings are greedily attached to this body is that it can give rise to pleasure; when this pleasure is examined closely, immeasurable sufferings constantly follow it, and this pleasure too is impermanent, empty, without self, and so on. Within the six sense-objects there are immeasurable sufferings; by what cause do beings give rise to greedy attachment? Because beings grasp at marks and become greedily attached—just as a person, having a particular fondness for a body, becomes attached to it, and is able to give up his life and follow it into death, grasping at its marks. Having experienced suffering and pleasure, one is set in motion and gives rise to volition and the other constructions. When the mind's constructions are set in motion, consciousness is able to know the skilful means of leaving suffering and attaining pleasure—this is consciousness. Furthermore, beings experience suffering and pleasure because of the causes and conditions of the five desires; because of the causes and conditions of grasping at marks they become deeply attached to this pleasure; because they are deeply attached to pleasure, they either give rise to the three poisons or give rise to the three wholesome roots—this is called constructions; consciousness is their master and makes use of the matters above. The five desires are form; form is the root, so the aggregate of form is spoken of first, and the rest have their names according to their order. The remaining dharmas such as the sense-fields and the elements all come in order from the five aggregates; only in the dharma-field and the dharma-element are unconditioned dharmas added, and in the four truths cessation through knowledge is added. The sense-fields, the elements, up to conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are as said above.

Now these five aggregates and the other dharmas are all empty. Why is this? Because the Lord of Sages says so. Sages are of three kinds—lower, middle, and upper—and the Buddha is their lord. Just as among the stars and the moon the sun is supreme because its light is great, the Buddha, having attained all wisdom, is called the Lord of Sages; because it is spoken by the Lord of Sages, it must be true. Furthermore, because there are the eighteen emptinesses, all dharmas are empty. If by the emptiness of nature alone all dharmas can be emptied, how much more with eighteen! If by inner emptiness and outer emptiness all dharmas can be emptied, how much more with eighteen! Furthermore, if a single dharma were not empty, there would have to be two kinds—form dharmas and non-form dharmas. Form dharmas are analysed and broken apart down to the minutest particles, and when the minutest particles are analysed they too cannot be found; in the end all are empty. Non-form dharmas, down to their arising and ceasing moment by moment, are therefore all empty, as said under the four foundations of mindfulness. Furthermore, the nature of dharmas is empty; they are only names, existing because causes and conditions come together. Just as mountains, rivers, grasses, trees, land, people, provinces, commanderies, cities, and towns are named a country; lanes, wards, markets, streets, lodgings, and palaces are named a capital; beams and pillars, rafters and ridgepoles, tiles and bamboo, walls and stones are named a hall; the upper, middle, and lower portions coming together are named a pillar; slices coming together give the name of a portion; many strips coming together give the name of a slice; many minute particles coming together give the name of a strip. These minutest particles are large, middling, and small: the large are the floating dust that can be seen; the middling are seen by the gods; the small are seen by the higher sages with the divine eye; if one contemplates them with the wisdom-eye, nothing is seen. What is the principle here? Because by nature they are in reality non-existent. If the minutest particle were real, it would be permanent: it could not be divided, could not be destroyed, fire could not burn it, water could not drown it. Furthermore, whether the minutest particle has shape or is without shape, both have faults. If it is without shape, how could it be form? If the minutest particle has shape, it makes a boundary with space, and so has divisions in the ten directions; if it has divisions in the ten directions, it is not called minute. In the Buddha-Dharma, no form, whether far, near, coarse, or subtle, is permanently abiding. Furthermore, apart from these causes, conditions, and names there is no dharma. Now, if the causes, conditions, and names of mountains, rivers, and land are removed, there is no further name of a country; if the causes, conditions, and names of lodgings, wards, roads, and streets are removed, there is no name of a capital; if the causes, conditions, and names of beams, rafters, bamboo, and tiles are removed, there is no further name of a hall; if the causes, conditions, and names of the three portions are removed, there is no further name of a pillar; if the causes, conditions, and names of the slices are removed, there is no name of a portion; if the causes, conditions, and names of the strips are removed, there is no name of a slice; if the causes, conditions, and names of the many minute particles are removed, there is no name of a strip; if the name of the middling particle is removed, there is no name of the large particle; if the name of the small particle is removed, there is no name of the middling particle; if the false seeing of the divine eye is removed, there is no name of the small particle. Because of meanings such as these, of all kinds of causes and conditions, one knows that dharmas are ultimately empty.

Question: if dharmas are ultimately empty, why are there still names? Answer: if names were real, they would be refuted together with the dharmas. If names are non-existent, you should not come and raise difficulties with them. Names and dharmas are no different; for this reason one knows that all dharmas are empty. Furthermore, all dharmas are truly empty. What is the principle here? Because not a single dharma is fixed; all arise from the coming together of many dharmas. If there is no one, there is also no many. It is like a tree: because root, trunk, branches, and leaves come together, there is the provisional name ‘tree’; if there were no tree-dharma, for whom would root, trunk, branches, and leaves come together? If there is no coming together, there is not a single dharma; if there is not a single dharma, there is also no many, because first there is one and only afterwards many. Furthermore, all the verbal idle discourse of the various views has no reality. To say the world is permanent is not so; that the world is impermanent is not so; that there are beings, that there are no beings; that it has an end, that it has no end; that there is a self, that there is no self; that dharmas are real, that dharmas are empty—none of these is so, as said earlier in the various gates of discussion. If all this idle discourse of views does not exist, how could it not be empty? Question: you say ‘that dharmas are real and that dharmas are empty are both not so’; how is it that you now say ‘dharmas are empty’? Answer: there are two kinds of emptiness. The first speaks of the emptiness of names, which only refutes attachment to existence and does not refute emptiness. The second uses emptiness to refute existence, and there is no emptiness either. It is like this: when a small kalpa comes to an end, there are weapons, epidemics, and famine, yet there are still people, things, birds, beasts, mountains, and rivers. When a great kalpa burns, the mountains, rivers, and trees, down to the great waters beneath the vajra ground, are all exhausted; when the kalpa fire has gone out, the wind that holds up the waters also ceases, and everything is vast and empty with nothing left over. Emptiness is also like this: refuting dharmas, all are empty, only emptiness remains, and yet one grasps its mark and becomes attached to it. The great emptiness refutes all dharmas, and emptiness too is emptied again. For this reason you should not raise such a difficulty. If all idle discourse is extinguished, how could it not be empty? By causes and conditions of all these kinds, emptiness is spoken of in place after place; one should know that all dharmas are empty.

To ‘practise’ is to cultivate and carry out contemplation in keeping with prajñāpāramitā, without pausing and without resting; this is called practising. It is like a disciple who follows his teacher's instruction and does not go against the teacher's intention; this is called being in accord. As the mark of prajñāpāramitā is, so the bodhisattva too follows this mark, contemplating with wisdom, able to attain and able to accomplish, without increase and without decrease; this is called being in accord—like a box and its lid, matched in size. Although prajñāpāramitā extinguishes the dharmas of the various views, by the power of wisdom it is called able to do everything and able to contemplate everything; being able to know in this way and not falling into the two extremes—this is being in accord with prajñā.

Practising in Accord with the Seven Emptinesses: Seven Emptinesses Stated Briefly Comprise the Eighteen

The Buddha went on to say: furthermore, Śāriputra, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises in accord with the emptiness of nature; this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā. In this way, Śāriputra, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practising prajñāpāramitā practises in accord with the seven emptinesses—namely the emptiness of nature, the emptiness of specific marks, the emptiness of all dharmas, the emptiness of the unfindable, the emptiness of non-existent dharmas, the emptiness of existent dharmas, and the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā.

The treatise explains. Question: why is it not said that abiding in the eighteen emptinesses, but only that abiding in the seven emptinesses, is called being in accord with prajñā? Answer: in the Buddha-Dharma, stated at length there are the eighteen emptinesses; stated briefly there are the seven emptinesses—just as, stated at length, the dharmas that aid the path are the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and stated briefly they are the seven limbs of awakening. Furthermore, these seven emptinesses are mostly used to benefit beings. As for the great emptiness and beginningless emptiness, they are spoken of because at times there are beings who give rise to such wrong views. The emptiness of nature means that the nature of all dharmas, from root to tip, is empty of itself even so—how much more in the present! Even causes and conditions are empty—how much more their fruits and retributions! The emptiness of specific marks means that the general marks and particular marks of dharmas are all contemplated as empty, and the mind then departs from them. By means of these two emptinesses, dharmas are all empty; this is called the emptiness of all dharmas. From the emptiness of nature there are marks; because marks are empty, dharmas are all empty. Because dharmas are empty, there is nothing further to be attained; this is called the emptiness of the unfindable. These four kinds of emptiness are used to refute all existent dharmas; if one takes existent dharmas and existent marks as faults, one then seizes on non-existent dharmas, and therefore the emptiness of non-existent dharmas is spoken of. If one takes non-existent dharmas as wrong, one then wishes to turn back and seize on existent dharmas, and therefore the emptiness of existent dharmas is spoken of. Earlier it was said that although the four emptinesses refute existent dharmas, the practitioner's mind leaves existence but settles in non-existence; therefore the emptiness of non-existent dharmas is spoken of next. If non-existent dharmas are said to be wrong, the mind has nowhere to lodge and wishes to turn back and settle in existence; therefore the emptiness of existent dharmas is spoken of briefly, because the mind that settles in existence has already grown weak. The emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas: the practitioner takes the emptiness of non-existent dharmas as wrong and his mind again doubts existence; if the mind contemplates existence, it again doubts non-existent dharmas; therefore he contemplates both existence and non-existence as empty, like the contemplation of inner and outer emptiness. For this reason only the seven emptinesses are spoken of.

When Practising in Accord with the Seven Emptinesses, One Does Not See Accord or Non-accord, Does Not See Arising and Ceasing, Defilement and Purity

Question: you say ‘understanding that all dharmas are empty and extinguishing the various views is called being in accord with prajñā’; contemplating in this way is called being in accord, and not contemplating in this way is not being in accord—this is discriminating right and wrong, which is itself already a view; how can you speak of ‘extinguishing’? Answer: for this reason—

The Buddha told Śāriputra: when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises in accord with the seven emptinesses, he does not see form as either in accord or not in accord; he does not see feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness as either in accord or not in accord. He does not see form as either having the mark of arising or having the mark of ceasing; he does not see feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness as either having the mark of arising or having the mark of ceasing. He does not see form as either having the mark of defilement or having the mark of purity; he does not see feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness as either having the mark of defilement or having the mark of purity.

The treatise explains. ‘He does not see form as either having the mark of arising or having the mark of ceasing’ means that he does not see the five aggregates as having arising or having ceasing. If the five aggregates had the marks of arising and ceasing, one would fall into annihilation; falling into annihilation, there would be no wrongdoing and no merit; with no wrongdoing and no merit, one would be no different from birds and beasts. ‘He does not see form as either defiled or pure’ means that he does not see the five aggregates as having bondage or having release. If the five aggregates were bound by nature, there would be none who could attain liberation. If the five aggregates were pure by nature, there would be no dharma of training in the path.

Dharmas Do Not Combine with One Another, Because Their Nature Is Empty; in the Emptiness of Form There Is No Form

The Buddha went on to say: he does not see form combining with feeling, does not see feeling combining with perception, does not see perception combining with constructions, does not see constructions combining with consciousness. Why is this? Because there is no dharma that combines with another dharma, because their nature is empty.

The treatise explains. Mind and the mental concomitants have no shape; because they have no shape, they have no place of abiding; for this reason form does not combine with feeling. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements are a combining of two touches, but among mind and the mental concomitants there is no dharma of touch, and so they cannot combine. Question: if so, why is it said that feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness do not combine together? Answer: here the Buddha himself has said that there is no dharma that combines with another dharma. Why is this? Because the nature of all dharmas is ever empty. If there is no dharma that combines with another dharma, there is also no separating from one another. Furthermore, the Buddha himself states the cause and condition—

The Buddha went on to say: Śāriputra, in the emptiness of form there is no form; in the emptiness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness there is no consciousness.

The treatise explains. Why is this? Because form and emptiness are opposed. If emptiness comes, it extinguishes form; how could there be form in the emptiness of form? It is like there being no fire in water and no water in fire, because their natures are opposed. Furthermore, some people say ‘form is not truly empty; it is only when the practitioner enters the emptiness samādhi that he sees form as empty’; for this reason it is said ‘in the emptiness of form there is no form at all, and feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise’.

Each of the Five Aggregates Is Without Its Own Mark; Form Is Emptiness, Emptiness Is Form

The Buddha went on to say: Śāriputra, because form is empty, there is no mark of being afflicted and broken; because feeling is empty, there is no mark of feeling; because perception is empty, there is no mark of knowing; because constructions are empty, there is no mark of making; because consciousness is empty, there is no mark of awareness.

The treatise explains. Question: what order is there in this meaning? Answer: earlier it was said that in the emptiness of the five aggregates there are no five aggregates; now here the cause and condition of this is stated. Because the own-mark of each of the five aggregates cannot be found, it is said that in the emptiness of the five aggregates there are no five aggregates.

The Buddha went on to say: why is this? Śāriputra, form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form; form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise.

The treatise explains. The Buddha restates the cause and condition. If the five aggregates were different from emptiness, there ought to be five aggregates within emptiness. Now the five aggregates are not different from emptiness and emptiness is not different from the five aggregates; the five aggregates are emptiness and emptiness is the five aggregates; for this reason emptiness does not destroy the five aggregates. What is the principle here? Here the Buddha himself states the cause and condition—

The Empty Mark of Dharmas Neither Arises nor Ceases, up to There Being No Buddha and No Buddha-Path; This Is Called Being in Accord

The Buddha went on to say: Śāriputra, the empty mark of these dharmas neither arises nor ceases, is neither stained nor pure, neither increases nor decreases; this dharma of emptiness is not past, not future, not present. Therefore in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, perception, constructions, or consciousness; no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas; no eye-element, up to no mind-consciousness-element; no ignorance and also no ending of ignorance, up to no old age and death and also no ending of old age and death; no suffering, origination, cessation, or path; also no knowledge and also no attainment; no srota-āpanna and no fruit of srota-āpanna, no sakṛdāgāmin and no fruit of sakṛdāgāmin, no anāgāmin and no fruit of anāgāmin, no arhat and no fruit of arhatship, no pratyekabuddha and no path of the pratyekabuddha, no Buddha and also no Buddha-path. Śāriputra, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises in accord in this way—this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā.

The treatise explains. Question: everyone knows that in emptiness there is nothing at all, no arising and no ceasing, without stain and without purity, no increase and no decrease, no dharmas whatsoever; why does the Buddha still distinguish the five aggregates and the other dharmas and say that each is empty? Answer: some people, although they too cultivate emptiness, in their perception take it that within emptiness there are still dharmas—just as a person who practises the mind of kindness, although there are no beings, imagines beings attaining happiness, and thereby himself gains immeasurable merit. For this reason the Buddha says that the nature of dharmas is ever empty of itself; it is not that the emptiness samādhi makes dharmas empty—just as water by nature has the mark of coldness, and it is fire that makes it turn hot. To say that the emptiness samādhi makes dharmas empty—this is not so. ‘Knowledge’ means the eight knowledges without outflows. ‘Attainment’ means the first attainment of the noble path, the fruit of srota-āpanna, up to the Buddha-path. This meaning has already been spoken of at length earlier.

Not Seeing Prajñā as in Accord or Not in Accord, up to Omniscience of All Kinds

The Buddha went on to say: Śāriputra, this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practising prajñāpāramitā does not see prajñāpāramitā as either in accord or not in accord; does not see the perfection of giving (dānapāramitā), the perfection of morality (śīlapāramitā), the perfection of patience (kṣāntipāramitā), the perfection of vigour (vīryapāramitā), and the perfection of meditation (dhyānapāramitā) as either in accord or not in accord; also does not see form as either in accord or not in accord; does not see feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness as either in accord or not in accord; does not see the eye up to the mind, form up to dharmas, the eye-form-consciousness elements up to the mind-dharma-consciousness elements as either in accord or not in accord; does not see the four foundations of mindfulness up to the limbs of the eightfold noble path, the Buddha's ten powers up to omniscience of all kinds, as either in accord or not in accord. In this way, Śāriputra, one should know that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is in accord with prajñāpāramitā.

The treatise explains. When the bodhisattva attains the real mark of dharmas and enters prajñāpāramitā, he sees no fixed mark even in prajñāpāramitā—whether in accord or not in accord—how much less does he see other dharmas as existing! How is it that he does not see prajñā as in accord or not in accord? It is that he does not see ‘acting in this way is in accord with prajñāpāramitā’, nor does he see ‘not acting in this way is not in accord with prajñāpāramitā’. For example, to practise by way of permanence, pleasure, and self is not in accord with prajñāpāramitā; to practise by way of impermanence, suffering, and no-self is in accord with prajñāpāramitā. To practise by way of the real is not in accord with prajñāpāramitā; to practise by way of emptiness is in accord with prajñāpāramitā. For example, to practise by way of existence or non-existence is not in accord with prajñāpāramitā; to practise by way of neither existence nor non-existence is in accord with prajñāpāramitā. Within prajñāpāramitā none of these things exist, because the mark of prajñāpāramitā is ultimately pure. The five perfections, the five aggregates, up to omniscience of all kinds are likewise. Question: that prajñāpāramitā is ultimately pure can still be said; how are the five perfections and the other dharmas pure? Answer: it was said earlier that these five things, apart from prajñāpāramitā, are not called perfections; only by combining with prajñāpāramitā are they called perfections, as is said in the first chapter on prajñāpāramitā. What is called the perfection of giving? It is not seeing a giver, not seeing a receiver, and there being no goods given. These dharmas of the five aggregates are the bodhisattva's place of contemplation; because they combine with prajñāpāramitā and because they are ultimately pure, he does not see accord or non-accord. The twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, and the twelve causes and conditions are likewise. These dharmas have no fixed nature and no fixed dharma; for this reason he does not see them as either in accord or not in accord. The eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness, up to great kindness, great compassion, and omniscience of all kinds—he also does not see these as either in accord or not in accord. Question: this bodhisattva is not a śrāvaka or a pratyekabuddha; how can he have the thirty-seven limbs of the path? He has not yet attained the Buddha-path; how can he have the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses? Answer: although this bodhisattva is not a śrāvaka or a pratyekabuddha, he also contemplates the dharmas of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, in order to ferry beings across by the paths of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Again, some say that he practises the paths of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas but simply does not take realisation, as is said in a later chapter: entering the samādhi of emptiness, signlessness, and non-action, the bodhisattva abides in these three gates of liberation and thinks: now is the time for contemplating, not the time for realising. Or there are bodhisattvas who have newly aroused the intention who hear that the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have the dharmas of the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and then recite them, keep them rightly in mind, and discriminate them; for this reason it is said that the bodhisattva has the thirty-seven limbs of the path. The Buddha's ten powers and so on are likewise. The bodhisattva himself abides in the bodhisattva's ten powers, four fearlessnesses, and eighteen unshared dharmas; abiding in these dharmas, whether he hears of, or recollects and discriminates, the Buddha's ten powers, four fearlessnesses, eighteen unshared dharmas, and so on, which are extremely deep and subtle, these too are matters within his own share. Furthermore, this bodhisattva has for immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas cultivated the Buddha's ten powers, four fearlessnesses, and so on; when he comes to sit beneath the Buddha-tree, because he attains unobstructed liberation, they increase and become pure. It is like one whose meritorious service has been established and who afterwards receives its reward; the bodhisattva is also like this—having these merits, he then receives their names. These merits all combine with the momentum of prajñāpāramitā, and so he does not see them as either in accord or not in accord. The meaning of these dharmas, from the six perfections up to omniscience, has been spoken of earlier.

Emptiness Does Not Combine with Emptiness; Why Restate the Causes and Conditions of Accord and Non-accord?

The Buddha went on to say: furthermore, Śāriputra, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, emptiness does not combine with emptiness, signlessness does not combine with signlessness, non-action does not combine with non-action. Why is this? Because emptiness, signlessness, and non-action have neither combining nor non-combining. Śāriputra, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises in accord in this way—this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā.

The treatise explains. Question: within a single mind there are not two emptinesses; how can it be said that ‘emptiness does not combine with emptiness’? Answer: emptiness is of two kinds: first, the emptiness samādhi; second, the emptiness of dharmas. The emptiness samādhi does not combine with the emptiness of dharmas. Why is this? If it were by the power of the emptiness samādhi that the emptiness of dharmas is combined with, this dharma would not be empty by its own nature. Again, emptiness is empty by its very nature and does not arise from causes and conditions; if it arose from causes and conditions, it would not be called the emptiness of nature. If a practitioner sees emptiness when he enters absorption and does not see emptiness when he leaves absorption, one should know that this is false. Furthermore, the Buddha himself states the cause and condition: in emptiness there is no combining and no non-combining, and signlessness and non-action are likewise. Śāriputra, the bodhisattva who practises in accord in this way—this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā. Question: it would have been enough to say in one place ‘he does not see being in accord or not in accord with prajñāpāramitā’; why speak again, in all kinds of ways, of the causes and conditions of accord and non-accord? If it is in accord in one place, it is in accord in all the rest; if it is not in accord in one place, it is not in accord in all the rest either—just as one blind man has no sight, and a thousand blind men are all the same. Answer: not so. Only if one wished to seek victory through idle discourse would one raise such a difficulty. Although the mark of dharmas cannot be spoken, the Buddha, out of great kindness and great compassion, speaks of it by skilful means of all kinds. Again, when the Buddha speaks the Dharma, he speaks for one kind of being to attain the path, and speaks again for those not yet awakened. Again, one statement is for cutting off the fetters of seeing the truths, a second statement is for cutting off the fetters of contemplation, and a further statement is so that all the remaining fetters are cut off portion by portion. Again, by one statement someone attains the śrāvaka path; one statement is a cause and condition for planting the pratyekabuddha path; a further statement is for arousing the mind of unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening; a further statement is for practising the six perfections; a further statement is for practising skilful means and attaining the acceptance of non-arising; a further statement is for attaining the first abiding ground; a further statement goes up to the tenth abiding ground; a further statement is for the sake of humans; a further statement is for the sake of gods. Furthermore, the mark of this prajñāpāramitā is extremely deep, hard to understand and hard to know; the Buddha knows that the faculties of beings' minds are sharp or dull. Those of dull faculties have little wisdom, and so he restates it for them. Those of sharp faculties awaken after one or two statements and do not need it restated in all kinds of ways—just as a swift horse runs at a single stroke of the whip, while a nag goes only after many strokes. For causes and conditions of all these kinds, there is no fault in the sūtra's restating.

Entering the Emptiness of Own-Marks, Form Does Not Combine with the Prior Limit, the Posterior Limit, or the Present

The Buddha went on to say: furthermore, Śāriputra, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he enters the emptiness of the specific marks of dharmas. Having entered it, form does not make combining, nor does it make non-combining. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness do not make combining, nor do they make non-combining. Form does not combine with the prior limit. Why is this? Because he does not see the prior limit. Form does not combine with the posterior limit. Why is this? Because he does not see the posterior limit. Form does not combine with the present. Why is this? Because he does not see the present. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise.

The treatise explains. Earlier it was said that ‘emptiness, signlessness, and non-action have no combining and no non-combining’; now the cause and condition is stated again: because he enters the emptiness of specific marks, the five aggregates make no combining and make no non-combining. If all dharmas are empty of specific marks, there is here no combining and no non-combining. Combining means that dharmas are as their specific marks are—as the solid mark of earth and the knowing mark of consciousness: such specific marks are not in other dharmas; this is called combining. Non-combining means that the own-mark is not within its own dharma. To state the mark of dharmas briefly: without increase and without decrease. Form does not combine with the prior limit. Why is this? Because the prior limit is empty, without anything at all, only a name. If form has entered the past, it has ceased and there is nothing; how can it combine with the prior limit? As for the posterior limit, it does not yet exist and has not yet arisen; form ought not to combine with the posterior limit. Present form arises and ceases without abiding and so its marks cannot be grasped; form ought not to combine with the present. Furthermore, the Buddha himself states the cause and condition: form does not combine with the prior limit, nor is it non-combining—why is this? Because the prior limit cannot be seen. Form does not combine with the posterior limit, nor is it non-combining—why is this? Because the posterior limit cannot be seen. Form does not combine with the present, nor is it non-combining—why is this? Because the present cannot be seen. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise.

The Three Limits Do Not Combine with One Another, Because the Three Limits Are Called Empty; This Is Called Being in Accord

The Buddha went on to say: furthermore, Śāriputra, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, the prior limit does not combine with the posterior limit, the posterior limit does not combine with the prior limit, the present does not combine with the prior and posterior limits, and the prior and posterior limits do not combine with the present either, because the three limits are called empty. Śāriputra, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises in accord in this way—this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā.

The treatise explains. Question: how do the prior limit and the posterior limit combine? Answer: some people say that the dharmas of the three times all exist: future dharmas turn into the present, and the present turns into the past. For example, the lump of clay is present, the pot is future, and the earth is past. When the pot is completed, the pot is present and the lump of clay is past, and the breaking of the pot is future. This is combining. If there truly were the mark of three times, this would not be so, because the faults would be too many; this is what non-combining is. Furthermore, the so-called combining of the three times is like this: past dharmas act as causes for the past, future, and present times; present dharmas act as causes for the present and future times; dharmas of the future time act as causes for the future time. Again, past mind and mental concomitants take the dharmas of the three times as object, and future and present mind and mental concomitants are likewise. Mind and mental concomitants already cut off are able to take as object dharmas not yet cut off; mind and mental concomitants not yet cut off are able to take as object dharmas that can be cut off. In this way the causes, conditions, fruits, and retributions of the dharmas of the three times combine with one another; this is called combining. The bodhisattva does not make such combining. Why is this? As said earlier, the past has already ceased; how can it act as cause or as condition? The future does not yet exist; how can it act as cause and condition? The present does not abide even for a single moment; how can it act as cause and condition? This is called non-combining. Furthermore, the Buddha himself states the cause and condition: because the three times and their names are all empty, how can combining be spoken of?