大智度論 習相應品Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Practising in Accord
如果菩薩、佛、般若乃至色受想行識都但有名字，我與眾生、壽者、知者、見者一切求之不可得，那麼還要「習應」什麼、與什麼「相應」豈不落空？〈習相應品〉一開頭就把這道難題端出來，並立刻給出全品的樞紐——前品末已說空，此品所以重說，是要於法空之外並說眾生空：修行人觀外法盡空，卻常暗許那個能觀空者不空，故須再說觀者亦空；我空易知，法空難見，二者在般若中同歸於空。順著這道門讀下去，全品之眼便浮現於品末的結穴——於一切相應之中，空相應名為第一相應，唯此一門能破諸邪見戲論而自身不可壞。其間所答，無一不是同一件事的深化：菩薩智慧所以過一切聲聞辟支佛，只因二因緣——以不可得空知一切法空而亦不見是空，又以此智慧為度脫一切眾生令得涅槃；而諸賢聖智慧同緣滅諦、同是性空無生，體性本無差別，如眾流入海同為一味，其別不在體性高下，只在能否發心度生、能否以方便住三解脫門而不取證，如仰射虛空箭箭相拄不令墮地。之一以竹麻稻茅、十方恒河沙、螢火與日出諸喻，顯二乘如螢火之夜照、菩薩如日出之遍照，並以必定分別反問置四種論，明佛以反問令舍利弗自說二乘不如菩薩。之餘上把「習應」正式落到觀行——習應色空受想行識空乃至十八界四諦空，於十八空外別出性空、自相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空七空，並層層收緊至不見相應不相應、不見生滅垢淨、色即是空空即是色、諸法空相不生不滅乃至無智無得，直到空不與空合、色不與三際合。之餘下則廣說薩婆若不與三世合、六度即般若非二法、佛即薩婆若，破有見無見二邊而行中道，乃至惡魔不能得便、諸佛擁護、重罪輕受、常值諸佛；最後以十八界不與空合說出空相應第一，明空行菩薩不墮二乘地、利根如受記無異、鈍根近受記，並以不受眾生、眾生空、眾生不可得、眾生離四句釋眾生畢竟不生不滅，收於習是空相應乃能生大慈大悲、不生慳犯戒瞋懈怠亂無智六惡之心。讀此品，不必先替「習應」安上一套可精熟的實有觀法；只須在每一種相應相裡看同一件事：所應之法是否連能合所合都已放於不可得，能觀所觀是否已在畢竟空中一味。無我無法可執而遍觀諸法，無相應相可取而遍與般若相應——這正是般若以法空眾生空並說所開的習相應之路。
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.
總說
〈習相應品〉一開篇，佛便告舍利弗：菩薩行般若時，應如是思惟——菩薩但有字、佛亦但有字、般若亦但有字，色受想行識亦但有字；乃至我、眾生、壽者、命者、知者、見者這十六種名相，一切求之皆不可得，只是不可得空故以名字說。全品因此環繞一個「習應」，卻不是問要精熟哪一套觀法，而是問：一個已知我與法都但有假名的菩薩，其智慧憑什麼過一切聲聞辟支佛，又如何才算真正與般若相應。
這一問，論主在開篇即點出樞紐。前之〈報應品〉末已說空，此品何以重說。論主的答覆是——上多說法空，今雜說法空、眾生空。修行人觀外法盡空，卻常暗許那個能觀空的人不空，故須再說觀者亦空；而我空易知、法空難見，二者在般若中同歸於空。這一句是全品的門，也是全品之眼所在。順著它讀下去，品末結穴便自然浮現——於一切相應之中，空相應名為第一相應。空行的菩薩不墮二乘地，能淨佛土、成就眾生，疾得無上菩提；其所以第一，正因唯此一門能破一切邪見戲論而自身不可壞。全品種種「習應」之相，都須放回這個樞紐來讀——離了空，習應只成又一重取著；離了眾生空與法空並說，度生便落在一個實有的能度所度上。
論主還從另一面補足這個樞紐。同是諸法實相慧、同緣滅諦、同是性空無生，聲聞辟支佛的智慧與佛菩薩的智慧體性本無差別；舍利弗正於此起疑——既然無有別異，何以說菩薩一日修智慧便過二乘。論主的答覆不在體性上分高下，而在用上顯別——二乘但觀諸法空，不能觀世間與涅槃為一，亦本不發心願度一切眾生、不迴善根向無上菩提；菩薩則以不可得空知一切法空而亦不見是空，又以此智慧為度脫一切眾生令得涅槃。愚癡與智慧入於般若，如眾流入海同為一味；然初入佛法時是癡是慧宛然有別，轉後深入乃癡慧無異。這一味與這別異，正是全品讀法的兩面——不可在體性上立二乘與菩薩之高下，卻要在發心與方便上見其天地之隔。
全品依三卷分作三分弧。之一（卷35）立空相應之問而奠基——先以法空眾生空並說答「何以重說空」，次以不可得空與度一切眾生二因緣，明菩薩智慧過二乘；其間以滿閻浮提竹麻稻茅、十方恒河沙世界、螢火蟲與日出諸喻，層層放大而歸於一義——二乘如螢火之夜照，菩薩如日出之遍照。又立必定、分別、反問、置四種論，明佛此處是以反問論詰舍利弗，令其自口說出二乘不如菩薩。這一分的重心，是把「智慧無差別」的疑，導入「發心與度生」的別。
之餘上（卷36）把「習應」二字正式落到觀行。先答菩薩云何過二乘地、住阿鞞跋致、淨佛道——以方便力住三解脫門而不取證，如仰射虛空箭箭相拄不令墮地；次明菩薩自初發意乃至坐道場常為二乘作福田、世間一切善法皆由菩薩而有。其後正說習應——習應色空、受想行識空，乃至十二入、十八界、四諦、十二因緣空，是名與般若相應；論主就此逐科廣辨五眾法相，又於十八空外別出性空、自相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空這七空，明其何以利益眾生而重出。分末層層收緊——不見色若相應若不相應、不見生滅垢淨，色空中無色，色即是空、空即是色，是諸法空相不生不滅乃至無智無得；直至空不與空合、色不與三際合。這一分的重心，是把「習應」從精熟一套觀法，改寫為在畢竟空中不取一切相應相的行處。
之餘下（卷37）以「空相應為第一」收束全品。先廣說薩婆若不與三世合、色等不與薩婆若合、佛十力等不與薩婆若合，明菩薩漏結未盡故種種法皆不與佛一切智合，而其不合正由不可見、由畢竟空。次破有見無見二邊——愛多者著有、見多者著無，二邊俱死如行狹道，唯離二邊行中道乃名相應。再明佛即薩婆若、六度即般若，行般若外更無他法可為而行；乃至不為五神通故行、惡魔不能得便諸佛擁護重罪輕受、疾得陀羅尼三昧常值諸佛。末乃直指十八界不與空合，因說空相應名為第一相應——空行菩薩不墮二乘地，如受記無異，利根者如受記、鈍根者近受記；並以不受眾生、眾生空、眾生不可得、眾生離四句釋眾生畢竟不生不滅，明菩薩習是空相應乃能生大慈大悲、不生慳犯戒瞋懈怠亂無智六惡之心。往生度眾之事，至此歸於眾生空與法空並觀的空相應之實證。
本品的說法有經、論兩層。經文多先立一種習應相或一種不合相，再說是名與般若相應；論釋則追問為何如此說、為何此處說此而不說彼、前後相如何銜接，又以出獄穿牆與破獄濟眾、苦藥假蜜、螢火與日、仰射虛空、雜毒食、行狹道二邊俱死等譬喻，顯出行法的重量。若只讀經列，習應種種相容易變成一串空字的名目；若只讀論中的譬喻，又容易失去每則譬喻所回答的那一項難題。最穩妥的讀法，是先認出該段要顯的是「相應」的哪一面，再看經文如何以不可得淨化它，最後看論釋如何把它落回法空眾生空並說的那一味。
因此讀每一段習應相時，至少可問三層。其一，這一相所應之法與所以稱相應之由是什麼——是與空合，還是連能合所合都不可得。其二，經文所說的不可得，究竟在清除哪一個能觀、所觀或相應果的取著相。其三，論釋用哪個問難，防止讀者把「無相應」讀成斷滅、或把「有習應」讀成又一重法執。本品的問答常先承認質疑有力，再以二空並說、以性自空、以語義限定之——正是這種不草率抹平兩邊的方式，使習應既不是一個實有觀法的精熟，也不是可以取消的方便說。順著這條空相應之路讀下去，全品種種習應相自會落定為同一件事：於法空眾生空並觀之中，不取一切相應相而遍與般若相應。
依原論次序讀下去
Overview
At the very opening of “Practising in Accord,” the Buddha tells Śāriputra: when a bodhisattva practises prajñā, he should reflect thus—the bodhisattva has only a word, the Buddha too has only a word, prajñā too has only a word, and form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness too have only a word; and so on to self, being, life-span-holder, life-holder, knower, and seer—these sixteen kinds of name and mark are, all of them, not to be obtained when sought, and it is only because of the emptiness of the unfindable that they are spoken of by names. The whole chapter therefore circles round a single 「習應」 tr. "practising in accord", yet it does not ask which set of contemplations one should master; it asks this: for a bodhisattva who already knows that self and dharmas alike are only provisional names, on what ground does his wisdom surpass all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and how is he to be truly in accord with prajñā?
This question the treatise-author marks out at the very opening as the pivot. The preceding chapter, “Recompense,” has already spoken of emptiness at its close—why does this chapter speak of it again? The treatise-author’s answer is: above, the emptiness of dharmas was mostly spoken of; now the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings are spoken of together. The practitioner contemplates outer dharmas as wholly empty, yet often tacitly allows that the one who is able to contemplate emptiness is not empty; therefore it must further be said that the contemplator too is empty; and the emptiness of self is easy to know, while the emptiness of dharmas is hard to see, and in prajñā the two return alike to emptiness. This sentence is the gate of the whole chapter, and also where the eye of the whole chapter lies. Read on along it, and the chapter’s final knot emerges of itself: among all kinds of accord, accord with emptiness is called the foremost accord. The bodhisattva who practises emptiness does not fall to the stage of the two vehicles, is able to purify a buddha-land and bring beings to maturity, and swiftly attains unsurpassed awakening; and the reason it is foremost is precisely that this gate alone can break all wrong views and idle discourse while itself remaining indestructible. The many marks of ‘practising in accord’ throughout the chapter must all be set back into this pivot to be read—apart from emptiness, practising in accord becomes only one more layer of grasping; apart from speaking of the emptiness of beings together with the emptiness of dharmas, the liberating of beings comes to rest on a really existent liberator and liberated.
The treatise-author also completes this pivot from another side. Being alike the wisdom of the real mark of all dharmas, alike taking the truth of cessation as object, alike empty in nature and non-arising, the wisdom of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas and the wisdom of buddhas and bodhisattvas are in their essential nature fundamentally without difference; it is just here that Śāriputra raises his doubt—since there is no difference, why is it said that a bodhisattva who cultivates wisdom for a single day surpasses the two vehicles? The treatise-author’s answer does not rank them high and low in essential nature, but shows the difference in function: the two vehicles only contemplate all dharmas as empty and cannot contemplate the world and nirvāṇa as one, nor do they in the first place arouse the mind and vow to liberate all beings, nor turn their roots of good toward unsurpassed awakening; the bodhisattva, by contrast, through the emptiness of the unfindable knows all dharmas to be empty and yet does not see even that they are empty, and further takes this wisdom as the means to liberate all beings and lead them to nirvāṇa. Delusion and wisdom, once entered into prajñā, are like the many streams entering the sea, all of a single flavour; yet at the first entry into the Buddha’s Dharma, whether it is delusion or wisdom is plainly distinct, and only after one turns and enters deeply are delusion and wisdom without difference. This single flavour and this distinctness are precisely the two faces of how to read the whole chapter—one may not set up a higher and lower between the two vehicles and the bodhisattva in essential nature, yet one must see, in the arousing of the mind and in skilful means, the distance of heaven from earth between them.
The whole chapter falls, following its three fascicles, into a three-part arc. Part One (Fascicle 35) raises the question of accord with emptiness and lays the foundation—first it answers ‘why speak of emptiness again’ by speaking of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together; next, by the two causes and conditions of the emptiness of the unfindable and of liberating all beings, it makes clear that the bodhisattva’s wisdom surpasses the two vehicles; in between, with the similes of a Jambudvīpa filled with bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds, of worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions, and of the firefly and the rising sun, it enlarges layer upon layer and returns to a single meaning—the two vehicles are like a firefly lighting the night, the bodhisattva like the rising sun lighting everywhere. It further sets out the four kinds of answer—the definite, the analytical, the counter-question, and the set-aside—making clear that here the Buddha uses the counter-question to press Śāriputra, so that from his own mouth he states that the two vehicles do not equal the bodhisattva. The weight of this part lies in leading the doubt that ‘wisdom is without difference’ into the difference of ‘arousing the mind and liberating beings.’
The Remainder, First Part (Fascicle 36) formally brings the words ‘practising in accord’ down into contemplative practice. First it answers how the bodhisattva passes beyond the stage of the two vehicles, abides as one non-retrogressing, avaivartika, and purifies the buddha-path—by the power of skilful means he abides in the three gates of liberation without taking realisation, like one shooting arrows up into empty space, each arrow propping up the last so that none is let fall to the ground; next it makes clear that the bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the mind up to sitting at the seat of awakening, is always a field of merit for the two vehicles, and that all wholesome dharmas in the world come about through the bodhisattva. After this it speaks directly of practising in accord—practising in accord with the emptiness of form, the emptiness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on to the emptiness of the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the four truths, and the twelve links of dependent origination: this is called being in accord with prajñā; on this the treatise-author discusses the dharma-marks of the five aggregates at length, heading by heading, and further, beyond the eighteen emptinesses, singles out these seven emptinesses—emptiness of nature, emptiness of specific marks, emptiness of all dharmas, emptiness of the unfindable, emptiness of non-existent dharmas, emptiness of existent dharmas, and emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas—making clear why they are set out again for the benefit of beings. The close of this part tightens layer by layer—not seeing form as either in accord or not in accord, not seeing arising and ceasing, defilement and purity; in the emptiness of form there is no form; form is emptiness, emptiness is form; this mark of the emptiness of all dharmas neither arises nor ceases, and so on to no knowledge and no attainment; until emptiness does not unite with emptiness, and form does not unite with the three times. The weight of this part lies in rewriting ‘practising in accord’ from the mastering of a set of contemplations into a place of practice where, within ultimate emptiness, no mark of accord whatever is grasped.
The Remainder, Last Part (Fascicle 37) closes the whole chapter with ‘accord with emptiness is foremost.’ First it speaks at length of sarvajñā, omniscience, not uniting with the three times, of form and the rest not uniting with sarvajñā, of the Buddha’s ten powers and the rest not uniting with sarvajñā, making clear that because the bodhisattva’s outflows and fetters are not yet exhausted, the various dharmas all do not unite with the Buddha’s omniscience, and that this not-uniting comes precisely from their being unseeable, from ultimate emptiness. Next it breaks the two extremes of the view of existence and the view of non-existence—those strong in craving are attached to existence, those strong in views are attached to non-existence; at both extremes one dies, as when walking a narrow path, and only leaving the two extremes and walking the middle way is called accord. Further it makes clear that the Buddha is sarvajñā and the six perfections are prajñā, and that apart from practising prajñā there is no other dharma that can be done and practised; and so on to not practising for the sake of the five supernormal powers, Māra being unable to get his chance, the buddhas protecting him, grave offences received lightly, swiftly attaining dhāraṇī and samādhi, and constantly meeting the buddhas. At the end it points straight to the eighteen elements not uniting with emptiness, and on that account says that accord with emptiness is called the foremost accord—the bodhisattva who practises emptiness does not fall to the stage of the two vehicles, and is no different from one who has received the prediction: one of keen faculties is like one who has received the prediction, one of dull faculties is near to receiving it; and, by not receiving beings, the emptiness of beings, beings being unfindable, and beings being apart from the four alternatives, it explains that beings ultimately neither arise nor cease, making clear that only the bodhisattva who practises this accord with emptiness can give rise to great kindness and great compassion and not give rise to the six evil minds of stinginess, breaking the precepts, anger, laziness, distraction, and lack of wisdom. The matter of going forth into births to liberate beings here returns to the real realisation of accord with emptiness, in which the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas are contemplated together.
The teaching of this chapter has two layers, sūtra and treatise. The sūtra text mostly first sets up one mark of practising in accord, or one mark of not-uniting, and then says that this is called being in accord with prajñā; the treatise’s explanation presses on why it is said so, why this is said here and not that, and how the marks before and after are joined, and further, through similes—escaping from prison through a hole in the wall versus breaking open the prison to save the many; bitter medicine given as if honey; the firefly and the sun; shooting up into empty space; food mixed with poison; walking a narrow path and dying at either extreme—brings out the weight of the practice. If one reads only the sūtra’s lists, the many marks of practising in accord easily become a string of names made of empty words; if one reads only the similes in the treatise, one easily loses the particular difficulty that each simile answers. The steadiest way to read is first to recognise which face of ‘accord’ a given section means to show, then to see how the sūtra text purifies it by the unfindable, and finally to see how the treatise’s explanation brings it back down into that single flavour in which the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings are spoken of together.
Therefore, in reading each mark of practising in accord, one can ask at least three layers of question. First, what is the dharma this mark accords with, and what is the ground for calling it accord—is it uniting with emptiness, or is even the uniter and the united unfindable? Second, the unfindability the sūtra speaks of—which mark of grasping, at the contemplator, the contemplated, or the fruit of accord, is it clearing away? Third, by which objection does the treatise’s explanation guard against the reader taking ‘no accord’ as annihilation, or taking ‘there is practising in accord’ as one more layer of attachment to dharmas? The questions and answers of this chapter often first grant that the challenge has force, and then set limits to it by speaking of the two emptinesses together, by the emptiness of self-nature, and by the bounds of meaning—it is precisely this way of not carelessly flattening the two sides that makes practising in accord neither the mastery of a really existent contemplation nor a provisional teaching that can be cancelled. Read on along this path of accord with emptiness, and the many marks of practising in accord throughout the chapter will of themselves settle into one and the same matter: within the joint contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings, grasping no mark of accord whatever, and yet being everywhere in accord with prajñā.
Reading On in the Order of the Treatise
承衍
〈習相應品〉的義脈，前有所承，後有所啟。所承者是前之〈報應品〉：彼品末已說空，本品緊接著發問——既已說空，今何以重說。可見〈習相應品〉不是另起爐灶，而是把前品所立的「空」再往深處推一層，逼出法空之外並說眾生空的答案——修行人觀外法盡空，卻常暗許能觀空者不空，故須再說觀者亦空；由此開出全品之眼，即品末所結的空相應為第一相應。所啟者，則是其後之〈往生品〉：本品既已把「習應」收於眾生畢竟不生不滅、空相應能生大慈大悲，度生之事便自然成為下一問的去向——往生品開篇即承此追問，既已說無菩薩、無般若、無去來，今何故又說有菩薩往生、有從何處終而來生此間。前品說空、此品說二空並觀、後品說無來去而遍往生，三品是同一條般若之路的次第深化。
後來古德讀本品，最著眼的正是這條「二空並說、空相應第一」的樞紐。吉藏《大品經義疏》直呼「大智論」而逐字牒引本品，以「故大智論釋習應品云」引出本品開篇「前已明生法二空，今何故復辨生空」的問答，正取本疏〈總說〉所拈出的法空眾生空並說一節；其《中觀論疏》又兩處以本品科判為據，判本品初正說菩薩習應波若、次明得益，見古德自有一套與本帙經論相間之科段不同軸的分判。慧遠《大乘義章》一處直引本品所立七空之數，列性空、相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空等目，與本品七空全同而次序略異；另一處引本品十六神我之義，判其出於大品習相應品。元康《肇論疏》兩處引本品「非色異空、非空異色，色即是空、空即是色」一段為肇論注腳，見本品此句在後世般若注疏中的分量。湛然《法華玄義釋籤》引本品「一日修智慧」句以顯般若如日照世，其《止觀輔行傳弘決》又直釋「習應」之名——如是修習使得相應，正與本品舍利弗問「云何習應般若、與般若相應」相應。此處僅誌錄諸家所引段落與本品的對應關係，以見各家如何讀本品，不判其詮釋高下，亦不取一家判釋以定本品之義。
把這一路承衍帶回本品，最值得保存的不是一張更繁複的習應分類，而是它對「相應」二字的改寫。凡夫式的相應，以有一套實有觀法可精熟、有一個能相應者去與所相應之法相合為實事；本品則反過來，愈是深達法空與眾生空並觀的不可得，愈能於一切相應相中不取一相——習應色空乃至七空，卻不見色若相應若不相應；行空得法性，卻連空與法性都不相合；直至十八界不與空合，而說空相應為第一。每一種習應相，都是同一件事的深淺不同：無法可觀而遍觀諸法，無相應相可取而遍與般若相應。
因此，〈習相應品〉最終不是教人習熟一套與般若相合的觀法，而是留下一條可反覆使用的問路法：我此刻所執的相應，是又一重能觀所觀的取著，還是連能合所合都已放於不可得？我所觀的空，是暗許了一個不空的觀者，還是法空眾生空一時並觀？能否既不把相應當作實有可取，又不因畢竟空而廢度眾之慈悲？在每一個當下答好這幾問，便已走在不取相應相而遍與般若相應的空相應之路上。
Further Resonances
The vein of meaning in the chapter on Practising in Accord has something it inherits before it and something it opens after it. What it inherits is the preceding chapter, Recompense: at the end of that chapter emptiness had already been spoken, and this chapter follows at once with a question—since emptiness has already been spoken, why is it spoken again now? One can see that Practising in Accord does not start over from nothing; rather, it pushes the “emptiness” established in the preceding chapter one layer deeper, forcing out the answer that, beyond the emptiness of dharmas, the emptiness of beings is taught alongside it—the practitioner contemplates outer dharmas as entirely empty, yet often tacitly allows that the one who contemplates emptiness is not empty, and so it must be taught further that the contemplator too is empty; from this opens the eye of the whole chapter, namely what the end of the chapter concludes: that accord with emptiness is the foremost accord. What it opens is the chapter that comes after, Rebirth: since this chapter has already gathered “practising in accord” into the ultimate neither-arising-nor-ceasing of beings, and accord with emptiness can give rise to great kindness and great compassion, the work of carrying beings across naturally becomes where the next question goes—the chapter on Rebirth, at its opening, takes up exactly this pressing question: since it has already been said that there is no bodhisattva, no prajñā, no going and coming, why is it now said again that there is a bodhisattva who is reborn, that there is a place from which one ends and comes to be born here? The preceding chapter speaks of emptiness, this chapter speaks of contemplating the two emptinesses together, the following chapter speaks of no coming and going and yet being reborn everywhere: the three chapters are the successive deepening of one and the same path of prajñā.
When later ancient masters read this chapter, what they fixed their eyes on most was precisely this hinge of “the two emptinesses taught together, accord with emptiness foremost.” Jizang, in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, calls it outright the “Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa” and cites this chapter word for word: with “therefore the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, explaining the chapter on Practising in Accord, says,” he brings out the question and answer at this chapter’s opening, 「前已明生法二空，今何故復辨生空」 tr. "The twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas has already been made clear before; why now discuss the emptiness of beings again?"—taking up exactly the section, drawn out in this exposition’s Overview, in which the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings are taught together. In his Commentary on the Middle Treatise he further, in two places, takes this chapter’s division into sections as his basis, judging that this chapter first directly teaches the bodhisattva’s practising in accord with prajñā, and next makes clear the benefit gained—showing that the ancient master had his own scheme of division, not on the same axis as the sectioning of this collection, in which sūtra and treatise alternate. Jingying Huiyuan, in his Compendium of Mahāyāna Doctrines, in one place directly cites the number of the seven emptinesses established in this chapter, listing such headings as emptiness of nature, emptiness of marks, emptiness of all dharmas, emptiness of the unfindable, emptiness of non-existent dharmas, and emptiness of existent dharmas—entirely the same as this chapter’s seven emptinesses, though slightly different in order; in another place he cites this chapter’s teaching of the sixteen names for the self, judging that it comes from the chapter on Practising in Accord of the Larger Sūtra. Yuankang, in his Commentary on the Zhaolun, in two places cites this chapter’s passage 「非色異空、非空異色，色即是空、空即是色」 tr. "Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form; form is emptiness, emptiness is form" as a gloss on the Zhaolun, showing the weight this sentence of the chapter carries in later commentaries on the prajñā literature. Zhanran, in his Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus, cites this chapter’s line 「一日修智慧」 tr. "to cultivate wisdom for a single day" to show prajñā as the sun illuminating the world; and in his Supporting Practice and Broad Resolution of Calming and Contemplation he further directly explains the name “practising in accord”—practising in this way so as to attain accord—which answers exactly to Śāriputra’s question in this chapter, 「云何習應般若、與般若相應」 tr. "How does one practise in accord with prajñā, and come into accord with prajñā?" Here only the correspondence between the passages the various masters cite and this chapter is recorded, to show how each of them read this chapter; their interpretations are not judged higher or lower, nor is one master’s judgement taken to settle the meaning of this chapter.
Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a still more intricate classification of the kinds of practising in accord, but its rewriting of the word “accord.” Accord in the ordinary person’s manner takes it as a real matter that there is a set of really existent methods of contemplation that can be mastered, and that there is one who accords who goes and unites with the dharma accorded with; this chapter reverses that: the more deeply one penetrates the unfindability of contemplating the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together, the more one can, amid every mark of accord, not grasp a single mark—practising in accord with the emptiness of form, up to the seven emptinesses, and yet not seeing form as either in accord or not in accord; practising emptiness and attaining dharma-nature, and yet even emptiness and dharma-nature do not unite; until the eighteen elements do not unite with emptiness, and accord with emptiness is declared foremost. Each mark of practising in accord is the same one matter at a different depth: with no dharma to contemplate, contemplating all dharmas everywhere; with no mark of accord to grasp, according everywhere with prajñā.
Therefore, the chapter on Practising in Accord in the end does not teach people to grow practised in a set of methods of contemplation that unite with prajñā; rather, it leaves behind a way of questioning that can be used again and again: is the accord I am holding to at this moment one more layer of grasping at a contemplator and a contemplated, or have even the one who unites and the thing united with been let go into the unfindable? Does the emptiness I contemplate tacitly allow a contemplator who is not empty, or are the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings contemplated together at once? Can I neither take accord as something really existent to be grasped, nor, because of ultimate emptiness, abandon the kindness and compassion of carrying beings across? To answer these few questions well in each present moment is already to be walking the path of accord with emptiness, which grasps no mark of accord and yet accords everywhere with prajñā.
考據Apparatus
一、科判
本品在《大智度論》釋《大品般若》的次第中屬〈釋餘品〉一段，繫卷三十五至卷三十七，論文自題「大智度論釋習相應品第三」，之餘二卷續題「之餘」，總釋《大品般若》〈習應品第三〉〔T08 0221c11–0225a23〕。品名於傳本間有二組異稱。其一，論題作「習相應」，所釋《大品》經題作「習應品第三」，經文自身注記丹本作「習相應品」〔T08 0221c 品題附注〕。其二，之餘上卷題於宮本作「習應品」、石本更題作「淨佛道釋論」〔T25 0322c02 校勘〕，是知「習相應／習應」與「淨佛道」二組品名並傳於世。讀者面正文一律稱〈習相應品〉，餘稱誌錄不判。
三卷章節井然。之一（卷三十五·0319b05–0322b）明菩薩智慧勝聲聞辟支佛之義，以滿閻浮提竹麻稻茅、十方恒河沙世界、螢火蟲、日出諸喻層層放大，並以四種論中之反問論詰舍利弗。之餘上（卷三十六·0322c01–0329b）明過聲聞辟支佛地、住阿毘跋致、淨佛道，廣釋色空乃至十八界空四諦空、七空所攝，並牒「色即是空、空即是色」與「是諸法空相不生不滅」一段。之餘下（卷三十七·0329c01–0336a）明色不與三際合、迴向不取相、六度即般若、五神通不著，終以「空相應為第一相應」及利根鈍根受記、眾生不可得四句收束。論主釋文與所牒經段嚴格【經】【論】交替，全品共五十【經】五十【論】相間成文。
論主於開篇即立本品綱領。前品既已說空，此中論主自徵「第二品末已說空，今何以重說」〔T25 0319b16〕，自答之樞紐即「上多說法空，今雜說法空、眾生空」〔T25 0319b16〕。前品多就法空立言，本品則法空眾生空雜說並顯，而歸於「空相應為第一」，是全品之骨。
二、術語考
空相應（法空·眾生空並說）。 論初即以此答重說之難：「上多說法空，今雜說法空、眾生空。」〔T25 0319b16〕又別二空之難易云「我空易知，法空難見」，而歸於「是二事般若波羅蜜中皆空」〔T25 0319b22 前後〕。本品「相應」之實義，即在菩薩習此法空眾生空而與般若相應。
十六神我。 論釋眾生但有假名，歷數十六種「我」之異名皆因緣強立，畢竟不可得：「此神，十方三世諸佛及諸賢聖求之不可得，但憶想分別，強為其名。諸法亦如是，皆空無實，但假為其名。」〔T25 0319c 段末〕神我之名相不可得，正是眾生空所依之義據。
七空。 之餘上牒經明菩薩習應七空而與般若相應：「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜習應七空，所謂性空、自相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空，是名與般若波羅蜜相應。」〔T25 0327a21〕此七空於十八空外重出，論釋其為利益眾生故廣說，非別立異法。
過聲聞辟支佛地。 之餘上明菩薩超二乘地之道：「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意行六波羅蜜，住空、無相、無作法，能過一切聲聞、辟支佛地，住阿毘跋致地，淨佛道。」〔T25 0322c22〕三解脫門是過地之具，阿毘跋致是所住之位。
不見定相。 之餘上明菩薩行般若而不取相應不相應之相：論云「菩薩得諸法實相，入般若波羅蜜，即於般若波羅蜜不見定相，若相應、若不相應」〔T25 0328a28〕相應而不見相應之定相，方是究竟相應。
空相應為第一相應。 此為全品實義之結穴。之餘下明「諸相應中，般若波羅蜜相應為最第一，最尊、最勝、最妙，為無有上……所謂空相應，是空相應勝餘相應」〔T25 0334c–0335a〕。習相應之極致，即此空相應。
三、譬喻與故事
本品譬喻密集，是論主教學命脈之所在。明菩薩智慧勝二乘，論設滿閻浮提竹麻稻茅喻：「譬如滿閻浮提竹、麻、稻、茅，諸比丘其數如是，智慧如舍利弗、目連等」〔T25 0319c22 前後〕，其智猶不及菩薩百千萬分之一。續以十方恒河沙世界喻更進放大〔T25 0320b20 前後〕，並以金剛珠、迦陵頻伽鳥子、轉輪聖王太子三喻，顯菩薩雖初心而勝於已成之二乘〔T25 0320c14〕。
釋菩薩念度眾生而二乘不作是念，論設螢火蟲喻與日出喻對顯。螢火蟲喻云「譬如螢火虫不作是念：『我力能照一閻浮提普令大明』」〔T25 0322a29〕，日出喻云「舍利弗！譬如日出時，光明遍照閻浮提，無不蒙明者」〔T25 0322b12〕，復以日天子憐愍眾生廣釋菩薩智慧光明滅眾生邪見戲論〔T25 0322b15〕。論主又立四種論以判佛答之體：「有四種論：一者必定論，二者分別論，三者反問論，四者置論」〔T25 0321b06〕，並引無畏太子喻明佛此處用反問論以詰舍利弗。
之餘下破著心取相之迴向，論設雜毒食喻：若以取相之心念薩婆若而迴向菩提，則如雜毒之食，不名真迴向〔T25 0330a〕。又明六度住畢竟空者不隨罵讚而動，與空相應而生大慈大悲，不生慳、犯戒、瞋、懈怠、亂、無智之心〔T25 0334c18〕。諸喻皆歸於一義，即菩薩以空慧攝一切行而不取相。
四、所釋經文
本論所牒之【經】段，與後秦鳩摩羅什譯《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》〈習應品第三〉〔T08 0221c11–0225a23〕逐項同序。以下十二組逐字對位，證論所釋確係此本經文，非別譯或改寫。
發端一段，經作「佛告舍利弗：『菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，應如是思惟：『菩薩但有名字，佛亦但有字，般若波羅蜜亦但有字，色但有字，受想行識亦但有字。』」〔T08 0221c12–15〕，本論卷首同段作「菩薩但有字，佛亦但有字」，義全同，惟經「名字」本論作「字」，略一字。「不可得空故但以名字說」一段〔T08 0221c19–21〕與本論之一末段逐字一致。「除佛智慧，過一切聲聞、辟支佛上，用不可得空故」〔T08 0221c22–24〕與本論之一同段逐字一致。
竹麻稻茅喻，經「譬如滿閻浮提竹麻稻茅，諸比丘其數如是，智慧如舍利弗、目揵連等」〔T08 0221c26–27〕與本論之一逐字一致，惟經作「目揵連」全稱、本論或作「目連」簡稱。「一日修智慧出過一切聲聞辟支佛上」〔T08 0222a08–09〕、「諸眾智無有差別，不相違背無生性空」問一段〔T08 0222a10–13〕，皆與本論之一逐字一致。螢火蟲喻〔T08 0222b05–06〕與日出喻〔T08 0222b09–11〕亦與本論逐字或近乎逐字相符，惟螢火蟲喻經作「照閻浮提」、本論作「照一閻浮提」，多一「一」字，「蟲」「虫」為異體。
過地淨佛道之問，經「云何菩薩摩訶薩過聲聞、辟支佛地，住阿惟越致地，淨於佛道」〔T08 0222b13–15〕與本論之餘上卷首逐字一致。全品正名句，經「佛告舍利弗：『菩薩摩訶薩習應色空，是名與般若波羅蜜相應』」〔T08 0222c10–11〕與本論之餘上逐字一致。「是諸法空相，不生不滅、不垢不淨、不增不減」一段〔T08 0223a15–17〕與本論之餘上逐字一致。結穴句，經「是空相應名為第一相應。舍利弗！空行菩薩摩訶薩不墮聲聞、辟支佛地，能淨佛土、成就……」〔T08 0224c18–19〕，本論之餘下同段作「空行菩薩摩訶薩不墮聲聞、辟支佛地，能淨佛土，成就眾生」，而「是空相應名為第一相應」一句本論見於同段稍前〔T25 0334c 前後〕，二本互見無出入。凡此皆分列並存，不強合一讀。
五、般若義眼
本品立義之樞在「空相應為第一」。前品多說法空，此品法空眾生空雜說並顯，論主自徵重說之故而答「今雜說法空、眾生空」〔T25 0319b16〕。菩薩智慧所以勝於二乘者，論判有二因緣，一者知空亦不見空，二者度一切眾生——空慧而不著空、行度而不取相，是勝二乘之所在。竹麻稻茅、恒河沙世界、螢火蟲、日出諸喻，皆為顯此一菩薩之空慧勝於無量二乘之定慧。
過地之義亦歸於空。菩薩從初發意行六度、住空無相無作，即能過聲聞辟支佛地而住阿毘跋致〔T25 0322c22〕；習應色空乃至十八界空四諦空、習應七空，即名與般若相應〔T25 0327a21〕。而相應之極，在於「不見定相，若相應、若不相應」〔T25 0328a29〕——相應而不取相應之相。六度亦非般若外別法，經明「菩薩摩訶薩不為般若波羅蜜故行般若波羅蜜」〔T25 0331c14〕；論中問者所舉「六波羅蜜乃至如、法性、實際，此是佛法」〔T25 0331c28〕之難，正逼出不為一切法而行般若之義——行般若之外更無他法可為。
品末以「空相應為諸相應中第一」總收〔T25 0334c–0335a〕。論釋利鈍二根行空相應之別，利根者「如受記無異」、鈍根者「若近受記」〔T25 0335c〕，並以「不受眾生」「眾生空」「眾生不可得」「眾生離」四句釋眾生畢竟空〔T25 0336a〕。習而相應、相應而不取，空相應勝餘相應——是般若義眼始終所在。
六、諸家異釋
古德引用本品者，此目誌錄其所引與本品之對應，不判各家詮釋高下。
吉藏《金剛般若疏》T33n1699 直呼「大智論」引本品重說之問：「故《大智論》釋習應品云『問曰：前已明生法二空，今何故復辨生空？答：前為破……』」〔T33 0118b21〕，與本論之一「問曰：第二品末已說空，今何以重說」一段義理相應，惟吉藏轉述作「前已明生法二空」，屬義譯非逐字重出。其《中觀論疏》T42n1824 兩處科判本品結構：「依《智度論》釋〈習應品〉，初正說菩薩習應波若；第二明於得益，謂重罪消滅、諸……」〔T42 0009b02〕，又「依《智度論》解〈習應品〉，初說菩薩習應波若；次中間明得益，謂重罪消滅、諸天守護……」〔T42 0123c13〕，二處互見一致，屬吉藏自家科判之軸，與本論【經】【論】相間之分不同。
慧遠《大乘義章》T44n1851 兩引本品。其一直引七空數目：「大品習應品中。說空為七。所謂性空．相空．諸法空．不可得空．無法空．有法空……」〔T44 0553a24〕，與本品七空全同七目，唯「相空」對本論「自相空」為略稱。其二引本品十六神我義：「十六神我。出大品經。神謂神主。我謂我人。」〔T44 0595b24〕，CBETA 校注標「智論第三十五習相應品」，與本論之一十六神我段相對。元康《肇論疏》T45n1859 兩引本品色空句為肇論注腳：「經云色不異空空不異色下。大品經習應品文也」〔T45 0188b16〕，又「違背不出不在其實俱空。此大品經習應品文也」〔T45 0198b08〕，對讀本論之餘上「非色異空，非空異色」一段。
湛然二處引本品。《法華玄義釋籤》T33n1717 引一日修智慧句：「行般若如日照世等者，《大品．習應品》云：『菩薩行般若一日，出……』」〔T33 0837c29〕，惟湛然引作「一日出過」、本論作「一日修智慧出過」，屬轉引省字。《止觀輔行傳弘決》T46n1912 釋「習應」之名義：「習應者，如是修習使得相應。故大品習應品中，舍利弗問：菩薩摩訶薩，云何修習般若波羅蜜，與般若波羅蜜相應」〔T46 0376c15〕，對讀本論之餘上舍利弗問句。以上僅誌錄各家所引，不判其詮釋。
七、互讀與承衍
本品「空相應為第一」及色空不二二義，是般若一系反覆承用之骨。之餘上牒經明「非色異空，非空異色，色即是空，空即是色」〔T25 0327c22〕，繼以「是諸法空相，不生不滅、不垢不淨、不增不減……是故空中無色，無受、想、行、識」〔T25 0327c28〕——此段句法與《大品》他品乃至般若諸經之色空說一脈相承，論釋其義為「五眾不異空、空不異五眾……以是故空不破五眾」〔T25 0327c25〕。色空相即而空不破法，是後出般若諸經反覆承用之定式。
本品十六神我、七空、過地淨佛道、五神通不著諸義，亦為後出般若及古德所承。慧遠《大乘義章》以本品七空立空之數目〔T44 0553a24〕、以本品十六神我立神我之目〔T44 0595b24〕，元康以本品色空句注《肇論》〔T45 0188b16〕，湛然以本品釋「習應」之名義〔T46 0376c15〕——皆是本品義理下傳之顯證。此諸承衍在於義脈之相續，各家所取隨其宗趣，本目誌其相承而不代為定讀。
八、校本與版本說明
本品校勘可與經義相涉者，擇要如下；異本讀法並列保存，正文仍從現行底本讀法。
0324b02：因緣【大】｜分別【元】【明】——「因是色分故生無作色」一段，大正本作「因緣」、元明本作「分別」，涉無作色（無表色）成立機制之措辭，因緣和合與心分別二解不同，非純字形之異。
0324b04：道【大】｜道因得道【元】【明】——元明本多「因得」二字，語意較明，強調由因而得道，屬義理表述繁簡之異。
0324b13：如經說【大】｜所謂【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】——「如經說」標舉下文為經證引文，「所謂」則直接定義，涉該段是否標舉經證框架之編輯層異讀。
0319c01：生【大】｜主【宋】【宮】——「五眾和合中生故，名為眾生」一句，大正本作「生」而強調緣生義，宋宮本作「主」而或涉「眾生」之主義訓，二讀皆通而角度有別。
0322c02：卷題「大智度論釋習相應品第三之餘（卷三十六）【大】｜大智度論卷第三十六卷釋第三品上中淨佛道品【宮】｜大智度第三品中淨佛道釋論三十八【石】」——品題本身之版本異名，宮本石本題作「淨佛道品」，與大正本「習相應品之餘」為二種稱法並傳，已誌錄不判。
以上諸條記錄正文傳遞與版本異讀，不延伸為各本高下之判。本品全帙校勘記詳存於工作底本（校勘記四百十一條全錄），本表僅傳錄與經義措辭相涉之要目。
I. Structural Placement
Within the sequence in which the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa comments on the Larger Sūtra, this chapter belongs to the section of the Commentary on the Remaining Chapters and falls in Fascicles 35 to 37. The treatise gives its own title as 「大智度論釋習相應品第三」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on Practising in Accord, the Third", and the two further fascicles continue the title with 「之餘」 tr. "the Remainder"; as a whole it comments on the Larger Sūtra's Chapter 3, "Practising in Accord"〔T08 0221c11–0225a23〕. The chapter name has two sets of alternative names among the transmitted texts. First, the treatise's title reads 「習相應」 tr. "practising in accord", while the title of the Larger Sūtra chapter it explains reads 「習應品第三」 tr. "Chapter on Practising in Accord, the Third", and the sūtra text itself notes that the Khitan edition reads 「習相應品」 tr. "Chapter on Practising in Accord"〔T08 0221c note to the chapter title〕. Second, the title of the first Remainder fascicle reads 「習應品」 tr. "Chapter on Practising in Accord" in the Palace edition, and the Ishiyama text titles it instead 「淨佛道釋論」 tr. "Expository Treatise on Purifying the Buddha-Path"〔T25 0322c02 collation note〕; hence it is known that two sets of chapter names, 「習相應／習應」 tr. "practising in accord / practising in accord" and 「淨佛道」 tr. "purifying the Buddha-path", were transmitted side by side. In the reader's main text the chapter is uniformly called the Chapter on Practising in Accord; the other names are recorded without judgement.
The sections of the three fascicles are well ordered. Part One (Fascicle 35, 0319b05–0322b) makes clear the meaning that the bodhisattva's wisdom surpasses that of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, magnifying it layer by layer through the similes of Jambudvīpa filled with bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds, of worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions, of the firefly, and of the sunrise, and it uses the counter-question reply among the four kinds of reply to press Śāriputra. The Remainder, First Part (Fascicle 36, 0322c01–0329b) makes clear passing beyond the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, abiding as an avaivartika, and purifying the Buddha-path; it explains at length the emptiness of form, down to the emptiness of the eighteen elements and the emptiness of the four truths, and what the seven emptinesses include, and it cites the passages 「色即是空、空即是色」 tr. "form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form" and 「是諸法空相不生不滅」 tr. "this mark of the emptiness of all dharmas neither arises nor ceases." The Remainder, Last Part (Fascicle 37, 0329c01–0336a) makes clear that form does not unite with the three times, that dedication does not grasp marks, that the six perfections are precisely prajñā, and that the five supernormal powers are not clung to; it closes with 「空相應為第一相應」 tr. "accord with emptiness is the foremost accord", with the conferral of predictions on those of sharp and dull faculties, and with the four phrases on beings being unfindable. The treatise-author's explanations and the Sūtra sections he cites alternate strictly, Sūtra and Treatise; the whole chapter is composed of fifty Sūtra sections and fifty Treatise sections in alternation.
At the very opening the treatise-author sets up the guiding thread of this chapter. Since the previous chapter had already spoken of emptiness, the treatise-author here raises the question himself, 「第二品末已說空，今何以重說」 tr. "at the end of the second chapter emptiness has already been spoken of; why is it spoken of again now?"〔T25 0319b16〕, and the pivot of his own answer is 「上多說法空，今雜說法空、眾生空」 tr. "above, it mostly spoke of the emptiness of dharmas; now it speaks of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together"〔T25 0319b16〕. The previous chapter mostly spoke from the standpoint of the emptiness of dharmas; this chapter speaks of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together and reveals both, and comes to rest in 「空相應為第一」 tr. "accord with emptiness is foremost": this is the backbone of the whole chapter.
II. Terms Examined
Accord with emptiness (the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings spoken of together). At its opening the treatise uses this to answer the objection about speaking again: 「上多說法空，今雜說法空、眾生空。」 tr. "Above, it mostly spoke of the emptiness of dharmas; now it speaks of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together."〔T25 0319b16〕 It further distinguishes the ease and difficulty of the two emptinesses, saying 「我空易知，法空難見」 tr. "the emptiness of self is easy to know; the emptiness of dharmas is hard to see", and comes to rest in 「是二事般若波羅蜜中皆空」 tr. "these two things are both empty within prajñāpāramitā"〔T25 0319b22 and vicinity〕. The real meaning of 「相應」 tr. "accord" in this chapter lies precisely in the bodhisattva practising this emptiness of dharmas and emptiness of beings and thereby according with prajñā.
The sixteen names for the self. In explaining that beings have only provisional names, the treatise enumerates sixteen different names for the 「我」 tr. "self", all forcibly set up from causes and conditions and ultimately unfindable: 「此神，十方三世諸佛及諸賢聖求之不可得，但憶想分別，強為其名。諸法亦如是，皆空無實，但假為其名。」 tr. "This soul, sought by the Buddhas of the ten directions and the three times and by all the worthies and sages, cannot be found; only through recollection, imagining, and discrimination is a name forcibly made for it. All dharmas are likewise: all are empty and without reality, and names are merely provisionally made for them."〔T25 0319c end of section〕 That the names and marks of the self cannot be found is precisely the doctrinal basis on which the emptiness of beings rests.
The seven emptinesses. The Remainder, First Part cites the sūtra to make clear that the bodhisattva practises in accord with the seven emptinesses and thereby accords with prajñā: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜習應七空，所謂性空、自相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空，是名與般若波羅蜜相應。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā and 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 according with prajñāpāramitā."〔T25 0327a21〕 These seven emptinesses appear again outside the eighteen emptinesses; the treatise explains that they are taught at length for the benefit of beings, and are not a separately established, different dharma.
Passing beyond the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. The Remainder, First Part makes clear the path by which the bodhisattva goes beyond the grounds of the two vehicles: 「菩薩摩訶薩從初發意行六波羅蜜，住空、無相、無作法，能過一切聲聞、辟支佛地，住阿毘跋致地，淨佛道。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva, from the first arousing of the aspiration, practises the six perfections and abides in the dharmas of emptiness, signlessness, and non-action; he is able to pass beyond all the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, to abide in the ground of the avaivartika, and to purify the Buddha-path."〔T25 0322c22〕 The three gates of liberation are the means of passing beyond the grounds; the avaivartika is the position in which one abides.
Not seeing a fixed mark. The Remainder, First Part makes clear that the bodhisattva practises prajñā without grasping the mark of according or not according. The treatise says 「菩薩得諸法實相，入般若波羅蜜，即於般若波羅蜜不見定相，若相應、若不相應」 tr. "the bodhisattva attains the real mark of all dharmas and enters prajñāpāramitā, and then in prajñāpāramitā he does not see a fixed mark, whether of according or of not according"〔T25 0328a28〕. To accord and yet not see a fixed mark of according: only this is ultimate accord.
Accord with emptiness is the foremost accord. This is where the real meaning of the whole chapter comes to a head. The Remainder, Last Part makes clear that 「諸相應中，般若波羅蜜相應為最第一，最尊、最勝、最妙，為無有上……所謂空相應，是空相應勝餘相應」 tr. "among all accords, accord with prajñāpāramitā is the very foremost, the most honoured, the most excellent, the most wondrous, unsurpassed … namely accord with emptiness; this accord with emptiness surpasses the other accords"〔T25 0334c–0335a〕. The culmination of practising in accord is precisely this accord with emptiness.
III. Similes and Stories
Similes are dense in this chapter; they are the lifeblood of the treatise-author's teaching. To make clear that the bodhisattva's wisdom surpasses that of the two vehicles, the treatise sets out the simile of Jambudvīpa filled with bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds: 「譬如滿閻浮提竹、麻、稻、茅，諸比丘其數如是，智慧如舍利弗、目連等」 tr. "just as if Jambudvīpa were filled with bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds, and there were bhikṣus as many as these, with wisdom like that of Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and the like"〔T25 0319c22 and vicinity〕; their wisdom still does not reach one part in a hundred thousand myriad of the bodhisattva's. It then goes further and magnifies it with the simile of worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions〔T25 0320b20 and vicinity〕, and with three similes—the vajra jewel, the kalaviṅka chick, and the crown prince of a wheel-turning sage king—it reveals that the bodhisattva, though at the initial mind, surpasses the two vehicles who have already accomplished their path〔T25 0320c14〕.
In explaining that the bodhisattva thinks of liberating beings while the two vehicles do not have this thought, the treatise sets the simile of the firefly against the simile of the sunrise. The simile of the firefly says 「譬如螢火虫不作是念：『我力能照一閻浮提普令大明』」 tr. "just as a firefly does not have this thought: 'My power can illuminate the one Jambudvīpa and make it everywhere greatly bright'"〔T25 0322a29〕; the simile of the sunrise says 「舍利弗！譬如日出時，光明遍照閻浮提，無不蒙明者」 tr. "Śāriputra! Just as when the sun rises, its light illuminates all of Jambudvīpa, and there is nothing that does not receive its brightness"〔T25 0322b12〕; and further, by way of the sun-deity's compassion for beings, it explains at length how the light of the bodhisattva's wisdom extinguishes the wrong views and idle discourse of beings〔T25 0322b15〕. The treatise-author also sets up the four kinds of reply to classify the form of the Buddha's answer: 「有四種論：一者必定論，二者分別論，三者反問論，四者置論」 tr. "there are four kinds of reply: first, the definite reply; second, the analytical reply; third, the counter-question reply; fourth, the reply set aside"〔T25 0321b06〕, and it cites the simile of Prince Fearless to make clear that the Buddha here uses the counter-question reply to press Śāriputra.
The Remainder, Last Part refutes a dedication that clings in the mind and grasps marks, and the treatise sets out the simile of poisoned food: if one keeps sarvajñā in mind with a mind that grasps marks and dedicates it to awakening, it is like food mixed with poison, and is not called true dedication〔T25 0330a〕. It further makes clear that one who abides in ultimate emptiness in the six perfections is not moved by abuse or praise, and that, according with emptiness, great loving-kindness and great compassion arise, and minds of stinginess, of breaking the precepts, of anger, of laziness, of distraction, and of ignorance do not arise〔T25 0334c18〕. All the similes return to one meaning: the bodhisattva gathers all practices with the wisdom of emptiness and does not grasp marks.
IV. The Sūtra Passage Explained
The Sūtra sections cited by this treatise follow item by item in the same order as Chapter 3, "Practising in Accord"〔T08 0221c11–0225a23〕, of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra translated by Kumārajīva of the Later Qin. The twelve groups below are aligned word for word, proving that what the treatise explains is indeed the sūtra text of this version, not another translation or a rewriting.
In the opening section the sūtra reads 「佛告舍利弗：『菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，應如是思惟：『菩薩但有名字，佛亦但有字，般若波羅蜜亦但有字，色但有字，受想行識亦但有字。』」 tr. "The Buddha told Śāriputra: 'When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he should reflect thus: The bodhisattva has only a name; the Buddha too has only a word; prajñāpāramitā too has only a word; form has only a word; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness too have only a word.'"〔T08 0221c12–15〕, while the same section at the head of this treatise reads 「菩薩但有字，佛亦但有字」 tr. "the bodhisattva has only a word; the Buddha too has only a word"; the meaning is entirely the same, only where the sūtra has 「名字」 tr. "name" this treatise has 「字」 tr. "word", one character fewer. The section 「不可得空故但以名字說」 tr. "because of the emptiness of the unfindable, it is spoken of only by names"〔T08 0221c19–21〕 agrees word for word with the final section of this treatise's Part One. 「除佛智慧，過一切聲聞、辟支佛上，用不可得空故」 tr. "except for the Buddha's wisdom, it surpasses all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, because it uses the emptiness of the unfindable"〔T08 0221c22–24〕 agrees word for word with the same section of this treatise's Part One.
In the simile of bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds, the sūtra's 「譬如滿閻浮提竹麻稻茅，諸比丘其數如是，智慧如舍利弗、目揵連等」 tr. "just as if Jambudvīpa were filled with bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds, and there were bhikṣus as many as these, with wisdom like that of Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and the like"〔T08 0221c26–27〕 agrees word for word with this treatise's Part One, except that the sūtra gives the full form 「目揵連」 tr. "Maudgalyāyana" while this treatise sometimes gives the short form 「目連」 tr. "Maudgalyāyana." 「一日修智慧出過一切聲聞辟支佛上」 tr. "cultivating wisdom for one day, he goes beyond all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"〔T08 0222a08–09〕 and the question section 「諸眾智無有差別，不相違背無生性空」 tr. "the knowledges of the various groups have no difference; they do not contradict one another, being non-arising and empty in nature"〔T08 0222a10–13〕 both agree word for word with this treatise's Part One. The simile of the firefly〔T08 0222b05–06〕 and the simile of the sunrise〔T08 0222b09–11〕 also agree with this treatise word for word or nearly word for word, except that in the simile of the firefly the sūtra reads 「照閻浮提」 tr. "illuminate Jambudvīpa" while this treatise reads 「照一閻浮提」 tr. "illuminate the one Jambudvīpa", with one more character, 「一」 tr. "one"; and 「蟲」 tr. "insect" and 「虫」 tr. "insect" are variant graphs.
In the question on passing beyond the grounds and purifying the Buddha-path, the sūtra's 「云何菩薩摩訶薩過聲聞、辟支佛地，住阿惟越致地，淨於佛道」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva pass beyond the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, abide in the ground of the avaivartika, and purify the Buddha-path?"〔T08 0222b13–15〕 agrees word for word with the head of this treatise's Remainder, First Part. The sentence that gives the whole chapter its name, the sūtra's 「佛告舍利弗：『菩薩摩訶薩習應色空，是名與般若波羅蜜相應』」 tr. "The Buddha told Śāriputra: 'When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises in accord with the emptiness of form, this is called according with prajñāpāramitā'"〔T08 0222c10–11〕, agrees word for word with this treatise's Remainder, First Part. The section 「是諸法空相，不生不滅、不垢不淨、不增不減」 tr. "this mark of the emptiness of all dharmas neither arises nor ceases, is neither stained nor pure, neither increases nor decreases"〔T08 0223a15–17〕 agrees word for word with this treatise's Remainder, First Part. For the culminating sentence, the sūtra reads 「是空相應名為第一相應。舍利弗！空行菩薩摩訶薩不墮聲聞、辟支佛地，能淨佛土、成就……」 tr. "This accord with emptiness is called the foremost accord. Śāriputra! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises emptiness does not fall into the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; he is able to purify the Buddha-land and to bring to maturity …"〔T08 0224c18–19〕, while the same section of this treatise's Remainder, Last Part reads 「空行菩薩摩訶薩不墮聲聞、辟支佛地，能淨佛土，成就眾生」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises emptiness does not fall into the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; he is able to purify the Buddha-land and to bring beings to maturity", and the sentence 「是空相應名為第一相應」 tr. "this accord with emptiness is called the foremost accord" appears in this treatise a little earlier in the same section〔T25 0334c and vicinity〕; the two texts attest each other without discrepancy. All these are set out separately and kept side by side, not forced into a single reading.
V. The Prajñā Eye
The pivot on which this chapter establishes its meaning lies in 「空相應為第一」 tr. "accord with emptiness is foremost." The previous chapter mostly spoke of the emptiness of dharmas; this chapter speaks of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together and reveals both. The treatise-author raises himself the reason for speaking again and answers 「今雜說法空、眾生空」 tr. "now it speaks of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together"〔T25 0319b16〕. As for why the bodhisattva's wisdom surpasses that of the two vehicles, the treatise judges that there are two causes and conditions: first, knowing emptiness yet not seeing emptiness; second, liberating all beings. The wisdom of emptiness without clinging to emptiness, and the practice of liberating without grasping marks, are where the surpassing of the two vehicles lies. The similes of bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds, of worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges, of the firefly, and of the sunrise all serve to reveal that the wisdom of emptiness of this one bodhisattva surpasses the concentration and wisdom of countless followers of the two vehicles.
The meaning of passing beyond the grounds also returns to emptiness. The bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the aspiration, practises the six perfections and abides in emptiness, signlessness, and non-action, and is thereby able to pass beyond the grounds of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas and to abide as an avaivartika〔T25 0322c22〕; practising in accord with the emptiness of form, down to the emptiness of the eighteen elements and the emptiness of the four truths, and practising in accord with the seven emptinesses, is called according with prajñā〔T25 0327a21〕. Yet the utmost of accord lies in 「不見定相，若相應、若不相應」 tr. "not seeing a fixed mark, whether of according or of not according"〔T25 0328a29〕: to accord without grasping the mark of according. Nor are the six perfections a dharma separate from prajñā: the sūtra makes clear that 「菩薩摩訶薩不為般若波羅蜜故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of prajñāpāramitā"〔T25 0331c14〕; the objection raised by the questioner in the treatise, 「六波羅蜜乃至如、法性、實際，此是佛法」 tr. "the six perfections, down to suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—these are the Buddha's dharmas"〔T25 0331c28〕, is precisely what draws out the meaning of practising prajñā not for the sake of any dharma: outside the practice of prajñā there is no other dharma to be done.
At the end of the chapter everything is gathered up in 「空相應為諸相應中第一」 tr. "accord with emptiness is foremost among all accords"〔T25 0334c–0335a〕. The treatise explains the difference between those of sharp and dull faculties who practise accord with emptiness: one of sharp faculties is 「如受記無異」 tr. "no different from one who has received a prediction", one of dull faculties is 「若近受記」 tr. "as if near to receiving a prediction"〔T25 0335c〕; and with four phrases, 「不受眾生」 tr. "not receiving beings", 「眾生空」 tr. "beings are empty", 「眾生不可得」 tr. "beings are unfindable", and 「眾生離」 tr. "beings are separated", it explains that beings are ultimately empty〔T25 0336a〕. To practise and so accord, to accord and yet not grasp; accord with emptiness surpasses the other accords—this is where the prajñā eye lies from beginning to end.
VI. Divergent Readings of the Masters
This section records the ancient masters who cite this chapter and the correspondence between what they cite and this chapter, without judging the relative merit of each master's interpretation.
Jizang's Commentary on the Diamond Prajñā (T33n1699) cites this chapter's question about speaking again, calling the work outright 「大智論」 tr. "the Treatise on Great Wisdom": 「故《大智論》釋習應品云『問曰：前已明生法二空，今何故復辨生空？答：前為破……』」 tr. "Therefore the Treatise on Great Wisdom, explaining the Chapter on Practising in Accord, says: 'Question: Before, the two emptinesses of beings and of dharmas were already made clear; why now is the emptiness of beings discussed again? Answer: Before, it was to refute …'"〔T33 0118b21〕. This corresponds in doctrine to the section in this treatise's Part One beginning 「問曰：第二品末已說空，今何以重說」 tr. "Question: At the end of the second chapter emptiness has already been spoken of; why is it spoken of again now?", except that Jizang's paraphrase reads 「前已明生法二空」 tr. "before, the two emptinesses of beings and of dharmas were already made clear"; it is a rendering of the sense, not a word-for-word reproduction. His Commentary on the Middle Treatise (T42n1824) outlines the structure of this chapter in two places: 「依《智度論》釋〈習應品〉，初正說菩薩習應波若；第二明於得益，謂重罪消滅、諸……」 tr. "According to the Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom's explanation of the Chapter on Practising in Accord, first it directly teaches the bodhisattva's practising in accord with prajñā; second, it makes clear the benefits obtained, namely that heavy offences are extinguished, that the various …"〔T42 0009b02〕, and again 「依《智度論》解〈習應品〉，初說菩薩習應波若；次中間明得益，謂重罪消滅、諸天守護……」 tr. "According to the Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom's interpretation of the Chapter on Practising in Accord, first it teaches the bodhisattva's practising in accord with prajñā; next, in the middle, it makes clear the benefits obtained, namely that heavy offences are extinguished, that the gods protect …"〔T42 0123c13〕. The two places attest each other consistently; they belong to the axis of Jizang's own outline, and differ from this treatise's division into alternating Sūtra and Treatise sections.
Jingying Huiyuan's Compendium of Mahāyāna Doctrines (T44n1851) cites this chapter twice. First, it directly cites the number of the seven emptinesses: 「大品習應品中。說空為七。所謂性空．相空．諸法空．不可得空．無法空．有法空……」 tr. "In the Chapter on Practising in Accord of the Larger Sūtra, emptiness is spoken of as seven, namely the emptiness of nature, the emptiness of marks, the emptiness of all dharmas, the emptiness of the unfindable, the emptiness of non-existent dharmas, the emptiness of existent dharmas …"〔T44 0553a24〕; its seven items are entirely the same as this chapter's seven emptinesses, except that 「相空」 tr. "the emptiness of marks" is an abbreviation of this treatise's 「自相空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks." Second, it cites this chapter's meaning of the sixteen names for the self: 「十六神我。出大品經。神謂神主。我謂我人。」 tr. "The sixteen names for the self: they come from the Larger Sūtra. 'Soul' means the soul-lord; 'self' means the self as a person."〔T44 0595b24〕; the CBETA collation note marks it as 「智論第三十五習相應品」 tr. "the Treatise on Wisdom, Fascicle 35, Chapter on Practising in Accord", corresponding to the section on the sixteen names for the self in this treatise's Part One. Yuankang's Commentary on the Treatises of Sengzhao (T45n1859) twice cites this chapter's sentences on form and emptiness as annotations to the Treatises of Sengzhao: 「經云色不異空空不異色下。大品經習應品文也」 tr. "Below 'the sūtra says form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form': this is text from the Chapter on Practising in Accord of the Larger Sūtra"〔T45 0188b16〕, and again 「違背不出不在其實俱空。此大品經習應品文也」 tr. "'Contrary, not going out, not being present—in reality all are empty': this is text from the Chapter on Practising in Accord of the Larger Sūtra"〔T45 0198b08〕, to be read against the section in this treatise's Remainder, First Part, 「非色異空，非空異色」 tr. "form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form."
Zhanran cites this chapter in two places. His Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus (T33n1717) cites the sentence on cultivating wisdom for one day: 「行般若如日照世等者，《大品．習應品》云：『菩薩行般若一日，出……』」 tr. "As for 'practising prajñā is like the sun illuminating the world' and so on: the Chapter on Practising in Accord of the Larger Sūtra says, 'The bodhisattva practises prajñā for one day and goes beyond …'"〔T33 0837c29〕, except that Zhanran cites it as 「一日出過」 tr. "for one day goes beyond" while this treatise reads 「一日修智慧出過」 tr. "cultivating wisdom for one day, goes beyond"; this is an abridgement in secondhand citation. His Supporting Practice and Broad Resolution of Calming and Contemplation (T46n1912) explains the meaning of the name 「習應」 tr. "practising in accord": 「習應者，如是修習使得相應。故大品習應品中，舍利弗問：菩薩摩訶薩，云何修習般若波羅蜜，與般若波羅蜜相應」 tr. "'Practising in accord' means cultivating and practising in such a way as to attain accord. Therefore in the Chapter on Practising in Accord of the Larger Sūtra, Śāriputra asks: how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva cultivate and practise prajñāpāramitā so as to accord with prajñāpāramitā?"〔T46 0376c15〕, to be read against Śāriputra's question in this treatise's Remainder, First Part. The above merely records what each master cites and does not judge their interpretations.
VII. Cross-reading and Further Resonances
This chapter's two meanings—「空相應為第一」 tr. "accord with emptiness is foremost", and that form and emptiness are not two—are a backbone that the prajñā lineage takes up again and again. The Remainder, First Part cites the sūtra to make clear 「非色異空，非空異色，色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form; form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form"〔T25 0327c22〕, and continues with 「是諸法空相，不生不滅、不垢不淨、不增不減……是故空中無色，無受、想、行、識」 tr. "this mark of the emptiness of all dharmas neither arises nor ceases, is neither stained nor pure, neither increases nor decreases … therefore in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, perception, constructions, or consciousness"〔T25 0327c28〕—the syntax of this section is continuous in one line with the teaching of form and emptiness in other chapters of the Larger Sūtra and in the prajñā sūtras generally, and the treatise explains its meaning as 「五眾不異空、空不異五眾……以是故空不破五眾」 tr. "the five aggregates are not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from the five aggregates … for this reason emptiness does not destroy the five aggregates"〔T25 0327c25〕. That form and emptiness are identical and that emptiness does not destroy dharmas is a set formula that the prajñā teaching takes up again and again.
This chapter's meanings of the sixteen names for the self, the seven emptinesses, passing beyond the grounds and purifying the Buddha-path, and not clinging to the five supernormal powers were also taken up by later prajñā writings and by the ancient masters. Jingying Huiyuan's Compendium of Mahāyāna Doctrines uses this chapter's seven emptinesses to establish a number for emptiness〔T44 0553a24〕 and this chapter's sixteen names for the self to establish a list of the self〔T44 0595b24〕; Yuankang uses this chapter's sentences on form and emptiness to annotate the Treatises of Sengzhao〔T45 0188b16〕; and Zhanran uses this chapter to explain the meaning of the name 「習應」 tr. "practising in accord"〔T46 0376c15〕—all of these are clear evidence of this chapter's meaning being handed down. These further resonances lie in the continuity of the line of meaning; what each master takes follows his own tenets, and this section records their succession without fixing a reading on anyone's behalf.
VIII. Witnesses and Editions
Of the collation matters in this chapter, those that may bear on the meaning of the sūtra are selected below; the variant readings are preserved side by side, while the main text continues to follow the reading of the current base text.
0324b02: 因緣【大】｜分別【元】【明】 ("causes and conditions" in the Taishō | "discrimination" in the Yuan and Ming)—in the section 「因是色分故生無作色」 tr. "because of this portion of form, non-manifest form arises", the Taishō edition reads 「因緣」 tr. "causes and conditions" and the Yuan and Ming editions read 「分別」 tr. "discrimination"; this touches the wording of the mechanism by which non-action form (non-manifest form) is established, and the two interpretations—the coming together of causes and conditions, and discrimination by the mind—differ; it is not merely a difference of graphic form.
0324b04: 道【大】｜道因得道【元】【明】 ("the path" in the Taishō | "the path; through a cause attaining the path" in the Yuan and Ming)—the Yuan and Ming editions have two more characters, 「因得」 tr. "through a cause attain", which make the sense clearer, emphasising attaining the path by way of a cause; this is a difference of fullness or brevity in the expression of meaning.
0324b13: 如經說【大】｜所謂【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】 ("as the sūtra says" in the Taishō | "namely" in the Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, and Ishiyama texts)—「如經說」 tr. "as the sūtra says" marks what follows as a scriptural citation, whereas 「所謂」 tr. "namely" defines it directly; this is an editorial-level variant bearing on whether the section is framed as scriptural proof.
0319c01: 生【大】｜主【宋】【宮】 ("arise" in the Taishō | "lord" in the Song and Palace)—in the sentence 「五眾和合中生故，名為眾生」 tr. "because it arises within the coming together of the five aggregates, it is called a being", the Taishō edition reads 「生」 tr. "arise", stressing the meaning of arising from conditions, while the Song and Palace editions read 「主」 tr. "lord", which may bear on a gloss of 「眾生」 tr. "being" as a lord; both readings make sense, but their angles differ.
0322c02: Fascicle-head title 「大智度論釋習相應品第三之餘（卷三十六）【大】｜大智度論卷第三十六卷釋第三品上中淨佛道品【宮】｜大智度第三品中淨佛道釋論三十八【石】」 tr. "'Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on Practising in Accord, the Third, the Remainder (Fascicle 36)' in the Taishō | 'Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Fascicle 36, Commentary on the Third Chapter, Upper-Middle, Chapter on Purifying the Buddha-Path' in the Palace | 'Great Wisdom, Third Chapter, Middle, Expository Treatise on Purifying the Buddha-Path, Thirty-eight' in the Ishiyama"—a variant name in the editions for the chapter title itself: the Palace and Ishiyama texts title it 「淨佛道品」 tr. "Chapter on Purifying the Buddha-Path", and this and the Taishō's 「習相應品之餘」 tr. "Chapter on Practising in Accord, the Remainder" are two designations transmitted side by side; this has been recorded without judgement.
The above items record the transmission of the main text and the variant readings of the editions, and are not extended into judgements of the relative merit of the editions. The full collation notes for this chapter are preserved in detail in the working base text (all four hundred and eleven collation notes recorded in full); this list transmits only the principal items that bear on the wording of the sūtra's meaning.