大智度論 十無品之下Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Ten Non-existents, Part 2 of 2
十無品之下：和合無自性、無常亦不失、畢竟不生即般若、五種正觀入無二法數（經＋論）
前一品剛剛會通了摩訶衍即是般若，這一品須菩提一開口，卻把說法的對象拆到無可尋覓：菩薩前際不可得、後際不可得、中際不可得；色無邊故菩薩亦無邊；色是菩薩，是亦不可得；於一切種、一切處求菩薩不可得；菩薩但有名字；如說我名字，我畢竟不生；畢竟不生不名為色；畢竟不生之法，又當教誰般若；離畢竟不生亦無菩薩行道；而菩薩聞了這一切，心不沒、不悔、不驚、不怖、不畏——一口氣十層，所以品名十無。舍利弗便一層一層地問，須菩提便一層一層地答，從眾生無所有故、空故、離故、性無故，一路撿到六度、十八空、四念處乃至一切種智，每一門的結句都是同一句：菩薩前際不可得。為什麼空義要說到十遍？論主答得極樸實：菩薩空不是一說便得的，譬如深根大樹，不可以一斫能辦，多用斧力乃能斷。又為什麼拿「我」來作比喻？因為人人自知無我易，信法空難——得道者自證無我，未得道者耳聞說空而眼常見實——所以先破我、後破法，以小喻大，如石蜜喻甘露。往下的答覆一門一門展開：色如虛空，邊不可得、中不可得，無邊無中，但說名虛空；色於色中不可得、色於受中不可得，自他遍撿，乃至般若中無教化、教化中無菩薩；菩薩但有假名，如幻化人，假名字中更為立名；我畢竟不可得，云何當有生。到了下半品，鋒頭轉入法的自身：諸法和合生故無自性，譬如眼、色、明、空、欲見心和合而生眼識，一一撿之皆不能見，和合中亦不應有見，見法畢竟空，如幻如夢。又說一切法無常亦不失——無常破常倒，不失破斷滅倒，這五個字恰是入實相之門。畢竟不生呢？畢竟不生即是諸法實相，實相即是般若波羅蜜，云何以般若教般若——能教所教，無二無別。聞這樣徹底的無而不怖，不是強忍，而是如人夢中見怖畏事，覺已則無恐心：知一切法虛誑如幻，本無可怖之實。於是品末歸到行處：菩薩觀諸法，不受、不示、不住、不著、不言是色——五種正觀，因為五眾中有無常火能燒心，因為空聚落是賊所止處，智者不應久住。而收尾正落在不二：未破色時，生愛著色；破色之後，又生邪見著於色空——先破有著，再破空著，兩重都放下，色乃至一切種智，離是二，名不二，皆入無二法數。十無不是十次否定的堆疊，而是同一畢竟空所開的十門——般若之觀本可入一門、二門乃至無量門；撿盡一切而無所得處，正是般若行處，也正是菩薩聞之不驚不怖的所以然。
The previous chapter has just reconciled the Mahāyāna with prajñā; in this chapter, the moment Subhūti opens his mouth, he takes apart the very one the teaching is addressed to until nothing can be found: the bodhisattva's prior limit cannot be found, the later limit cannot be found, the middle limit cannot be found; because form is boundless the bodhisattva too is boundless; that form is the bodhisattva, this too cannot be found; sought in every kind and every place the bodhisattva cannot be found; the bodhisattva has only a name; as with the name ‘I’, I am ultimately non-arising; what is ultimately non-arising is not called form; a dharma ultimately non-arising, whom then is one to teach prajñā; apart from ultimate non-arising there is no bodhisattva practising the path; and a bodhisattva who hears all this has a mind that does not sink, does not regret, is not startled, not terrified, not afraid. Ten layers in a single breath, and so the chapter is named The Ten Non-existents. Śāriputra then asks layer by layer and Subhūti answers layer by layer, from ‘because beings are without anything existent, because they are empty, because they are separate, because their nature is non-existent’, sifting all the way through the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness up to omniscience of all kinds, and the closing sentence of every gate is the same sentence: the bodhisattva's prior limit cannot be found. Why must the meaning of emptiness be spoken ten times over? The treatise-author answers with utter plainness: the emptiness of the bodhisattva is not attained at one telling, just as a deep-rooted great tree cannot be felled with a single stroke of the axe, and only with many strokes is it cut through. And why take ‘I’ as the simile? Because for everyone it is easy to know for oneself that there is no self and hard to believe in the emptiness of dharmas; those who have attained the path witness selflessness for themselves, while those who have not hear emptiness spoken with their ears yet see reality constantly with their eyes; and so the self is refuted first and dharmas afterward, using the small as a simile for the great, as rock sugar is a simile for ambrosia. The answers that follow unfold gate by gate: form is like space, its edge cannot be found and its middle cannot be found, without edge and without middle, and it is merely called space; form cannot be found within form, form cannot be found within feeling, sifted through self and other, and on to ‘within prajñā there is no instruction, within instruction there is no bodhisattva’; the bodhisattva has only a provisional name, like a conjured person, a name set up further within provisional names; I am ultimately unfindable, how then could there be arising? In the latter half of the chapter the edge turns to dharmas themselves: because all dharmas arise from a coming together they are without self-nature, just as eye-consciousness arises from the coming together of eye, form, light, space, and the mind that wishes to see, and sifting each one no seeing can be found in it, nor should there be seeing within the coming together; the seeing dharma is ultimately empty, like an illusion, like a dream. Again it says that all dharmas are impermanent and yet not lost: impermanence refutes the inversion of permanence, not being lost refutes the inversion of annihilation, and these five characters are exactly the gate of entry into the real mark. And ultimate non-arising? Ultimate non-arising is the real mark of all dharmas, the real mark is prajñāpāramitā, how could one teach prajñā by means of prajñā: the one who teaches and what is taught are without duality and without difference. To hear so thoroughgoing a non-existence without fear is not forced endurance; it is like a person who sees terrifying things in a dream and, once awake, has no fearful mind: knowing that all dharmas are false and deceptive like an illusion, there is from the start no real thing to fear. So the chapter's end returns to the place of practice: the bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas, does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and does not say ‘this is form’, the five right contemplations, because within the five aggregates there is the fire of impermanence that can burn the mind, and because an empty village is where bandits lodge, and the wise should not stay there long. And the close falls exactly on non-duality: before form is refuted, love and clinging to form arise; after form is refuted, wrong view arises, clinging to the emptiness of form; first the clinging to existence is refuted, then the clinging to emptiness, both are set down, and form on to omniscience of all kinds, apart from these two, is called non-dual, and all enter the count of non-dual dharmas. The ten non-existents are not ten negations piled up but ten gates opened by one and the same ultimate emptiness; the contemplation of prajñā may enter by one gate, by two, and on to immeasurable gates. The place where everything has been sifted through and nothing is attained is exactly the place where prajñā is practised, and exactly the reason a bodhisattva hears it without being startled or afraid.
【經】 「如舍利弗所言：『如我，諸法亦如是無自性。』舍利弗！諸法和合生故無自性。舍利弗！何等和合生無自性？舍利弗！色和合生無自性，受、想、行、識和合生無自性。眼和合生無自性，乃至意和合生無自性。色乃至法、眼界乃至法界、地種乃至識種、眼觸乃至意觸、眼觸因緣生受乃至意觸因緣生受和合生無自性。檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜和合生無自性。四念處乃至十八不共法和合生無自性。 「復次，舍利弗！一切法無常亦不失。」 舍利弗問須菩提：「何等法無常亦不失？」 須菩提言：「色無常亦不失，受、想、行、識無常亦不失。何以故？若法無常，即是動相、即是空相。以是因緣故，舍利弗！一切有為法無常亦不失。若有漏法、若無漏法，若有記法、若無記法，無常亦不失。何以故？若法無常，即是動相、即是空相。以是因緣故，舍利弗！一切作法無常亦不失。 「復次，舍利弗！一切法非常非滅。」 舍利弗言：「何等法非常非滅？」 須菩提言：「色非常非滅。何以故？性自爾。受、想、行、識非常非滅。何以故？性自爾。乃至〔T25 0434a〕意識因緣生受非常非滅。何以故？性自爾。以是因緣故，舍利弗！諸法和合生無自性。 「如舍利弗所言：『何因緣故，色畢竟不生，受、想、行、識畢竟不生？』」 須菩提言：「色非作法，受、想、行、識非作法。何以故？作者不可得故。舍利弗！眼非作法。何以故？作者不可得故；乃至意亦如是。眼界乃至意觸因緣生受，亦如是。復次，舍利弗！一切諸法皆非起非作。何以故？作者不可得故。以是因緣故，舍利弗！色畢竟不生，受、想、行、識畢竟不生。 「如舍利弗所言：『何因緣故，畢竟不生，是不名為色？畢竟不生，是不名為受、想、行、識？』」 須菩提言：「色性空，是空無生、無滅、無住異；受想行識性空，是空無生、無滅、無住異。眼乃至一切有為法性空，是空無生、無滅、無住異。以是因緣故，舍利弗！畢竟不生，是不名色；畢竟不生，是不名受、想、行、識。」 「如舍利弗所言：『何因緣故，畢竟不生法，當教是般若波羅蜜耶？』」 須菩提言：「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜，般若波羅蜜即是畢竟不生，般若波羅蜜、畢竟不生，無二無別。以是因緣故，舍利弗！我說畢竟不生，當教是般若波羅蜜耶？」 「如舍利弗所言：『何因緣故，離畢竟不生，無菩薩行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？』」 須菩提言：「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不見畢竟不生異般若波羅蜜，亦不見畢竟不生異菩薩，畢竟不生及菩薩無二無別。不見畢竟不生異色。何以故？是畢竟不生及色無二無別；不見畢竟不生異受想行識。何以故？畢竟不生、受想行識無二無別。乃至一切種智亦如是。以是〔T25 0434b〕因緣故，舍利弗！離畢竟不生，無菩薩行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 「如舍利弗所言：『何因緣故，菩薩聞作是說，心不沒、不悔，不驚、不怖、不畏，是名菩薩行般若波羅蜜？』」 須菩提言：「菩薩摩訶薩不見諸法有覺知相，見一切諸法如夢、如幻、如炎、如影、如化。舍利弗！以是因緣故，菩薩聞作是說，心不沒、不悔、不驚、不怖、不畏。」 【論】 者言： 「諸法無有自性」者，以性空破諸法各各性。 此中須菩提自說：「諸法和合生，無有自性。」如和合五眾等法及六波羅蜜等善法，從是出菩薩名字；是菩薩從作法、眾緣和合生故，非一法所成，以是故言假名。是眾法亦從和合邊生，譬如有眼、有色、有明、有空、有欲見心等諸因緣和合生眼識，是中不得言眼是見者、若識是見者、若色是見者、若明是見者。若是眼、色、識等，各各不得有所見，和合中亦不應有見。以是故，見法畢竟空，如幻、如夢。一切諸法亦如是。 復次，「一切法無常亦不失」，無常破「常倒」，不失破「斷滅倒」；是無常不失法，即是入實相門，是故須菩提語舍利弗：「無常即是動相、即是空相。」一切法亦如是。 復次，「一切法非常非失」者，如十八空後義說。 「色畢竟不生」者，五眾作者、生者、起者不可得故。 復次，生相不可得者，如先破生中說。 一切法亦如是。 「何以故說若色不生為非色，非受、想、行、識」者，此中須菩提自說：「色從因緣生，無有自性，常空相。若法常空相，是法無生相、無滅相、無住異相。受、想、行、識亦如是。」故不生相法〔T25 0434c〕即是無為，非有為相。餘法亦如是。 「畢竟不生，當教誰般若」者，畢竟不生即是諸法實相，諸法實相即是般若波羅蜜，云何以般若波羅蜜教般若波羅蜜？ 若離是畢竟不生有菩薩者，應當教般若波羅蜜；是菩薩、般若波羅蜜、畢竟不生，無二無別，云何當教離畢竟不生行道者？上說中已合解。 「菩薩聞是不沒、不悔」者，菩薩於一切法中不見我、眾生乃至知者、見者，亦無說者、亦無聽者，無邪說、無正說，亦無無說者；知一切法因緣和合故生，諸緣離故滅，無有起者、無有滅者，故不畏、不怖、不沒、不悔。菩薩知一切法虛誑、無實無定；若死急時，若墮阿鼻泥犁，心猶不動，況聞虛聲而有恐怖！如人夢中見怖畏事，覺已則無恐心，知夢法能誑心，無有實事；菩薩亦如是，入世間心夢中見有恐畏，得諸法實相覺時則無所畏；知諸法但是虛誑，無有真實。 復次，譬如幻事，智者雖見，心無所惑，知是誑法；菩薩亦如是，知一切法如幻，能誑人心，是中無實，以是故不怖畏。如炎、如影、如化亦如是。 【經】 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，如是觀諸法，是時菩薩摩訶薩不受色，不示色，不住色，不著色，不言是色；受、想、行、識亦不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是受、想、行、識。眼不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是眼；耳、鼻、舌、身；意亦不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是意。檀波羅蜜不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言〔T25 0435a〕是檀波羅蜜；尸羅波羅蜜、羼提波羅蜜、毘梨耶波羅蜜，禪波羅蜜；般若波羅蜜不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是般若波羅蜜。內空不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是內空；乃至無法有法空亦如是。復次，世尊！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，四念處不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是四念處；乃至十八不共法不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是十八不共法。一切三昧門、一切陀羅尼門；乃至一切種智，不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是一切種智。 「復次，世尊！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不見色乃至不見一切種智。何以故？色不生，是非色；受、想、行、識不生，是非識。眼不生，是非眼；耳、鼻、舌、身、意不生，是非意。檀波羅蜜不生，是非檀波羅蜜；乃至般若波羅蜜不生，是非般若波羅蜜。何以故？色、不生，不二不別；乃至般若波羅蜜、不生，不二不別。內空不生，是非內空；乃至無法有法空不生，是非無法有法空，何以故？內空乃至無法有法空、不生，不二不別。世尊！四念處不生，非四念處，何以故？四念處、不生，不二不別。何以故？世尊！是不生法非一、非二、非三、非異。以是故，四念處、不生，不二不別。乃至十八不共法不生，非十八不共法。何以故？十八不共法、不生，不二不別。何以故？世尊！是不生法非一、非二、非三、非異。以是故，十八不共法不生，非十八不共法。世尊！如不生，是非如；乃至不可思議性不生，是非不可思議性。世尊！是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不生，一切智；一切種智不生，是非一切種智。何以〔T25 0435b〕故？是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，乃至一切種智、不生，不二不別。何以故？世尊！是不生法非一、非二、非三、非異。以是故，乃至一切種智不生，非一切種智。 「世尊！色不滅相，是非色。何以故？色及不滅相，不二不別。何以故？世尊！是不滅法非一、非二、非三、非異。以是故，色不滅相是非色；受、想、行、識不滅相是非識。何以故？識及不滅不二不別。何以故？世尊！是不滅法非一、非二、非三、非異，以是故，識不滅相是非識。檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜，內空乃至無法有法空，四念處乃至十八不共法，亦如是。 「世尊！以是故，色入無二法數，受、想、行、識入無二法數，乃至一切種智入無二法數。」 【論】 者言： 須菩提白佛：菩薩能如是觀諸法，於五眾中有五種正觀行：所謂「不受」，以五眾中有無常火能燒心故。 「不視」者，不取相，非但觀無常等過，觀是五眾空，不取相故。 「不住」者，不依止五眾，畏諸煩惱賊來故，不敢久住；譬如空聚落，賊所止處，智者不應久住。 「不著」者，五眾若有一罪，猶不應著，何況身有飢渴、寒熱、老病死等，心有憂愁、恐怖、妬嫉、瞋恚等，後世墮三惡道！一切無常、苦、空、無我，不得自在；如是等無量無邊過罪，云何可著？ 「不言是色」者，不以邪見說色若常、若無常等，不言五眾如是定相。乃至一切種智亦如是。 何以故？色中行五種正行，是五眾皆無生相，皆一相，一相則無相；若無相則非有五眾。乃至一切種智亦如〔T25 0435c〕是。 若一切法無生相、般若波羅蜜不二不別；得是無生心，即是般若波羅蜜；得般若波羅蜜，即知諸法不生不滅。以是故，般若波羅蜜即是不生，不二不別。 復次，須菩提自說因緣，所謂是無生法不一相、不二相、不三、不異。何以故？諸法、無生一相故。乃至一切種智亦如是。 如無生，無滅亦如是。 問曰： 末後何以故說「色乃至一切種智入無二法數」？ 答曰： 菩薩若未破色，則生愛等結使，著是色等；破色已，則生邪見，著是色空等。今色等用空智慧故，皆空不二相。 是諸法虛誑不實，內外入所攝故名為二；色等乃至一切種智，離是二，名不二。今須菩提憐愍眾生、利益諸菩薩故，說：「是諸法不二，入無二法數中。」 大智度論卷第五十二
《大智度論》卷52 · T25n1509 0430b02–0435c21
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
和合而生故無自性：從五眾（五蘊）一路數到十八不共法
『正如舍利弗所說的：「如同我一樣，諸法也是這樣沒有自性。」舍利弗！諸法是和合而生的緣故，所以沒有自性。舍利弗！哪些法是和合生而無自性的？舍利弗！色是和合生而無自性的，受、想、行、識是和合生而無自性的。眼是和合生而無自性的，乃至意是和合生而無自性的。色乃至法（外六塵）、眼界乃至法界（十八界）、地種乃至識種（地、水、火、風、空、識六界）、眼觸乃至意觸、眼觸因緣所生的受乃至意觸因緣所生的受，都是和合生而無自性的。檀波羅蜜（布施）乃至般若波羅蜜，是和合生而無自性的。四念處乃至十八不共法，是和合生而無自性的。
無常亦不失、非常非滅：動相即是空相
『再者，舍利弗！一切法無常，也不失壞。』
舍利弗問須菩提：『哪些法無常也不失壞？』
須菩提說：『色無常也不失壞，受、想、行、識無常也不失壞。為什麼呢？法若是無常，就是動搖之相、就是空相。因這因緣之故，舍利弗！一切有為法無常也不失壞。有漏法也好、無漏法也好，有記法也好、無記法也好，都是無常也不失壞。為什麼呢？法若是無常，就是動搖之相、就是空相。因這因緣之故，舍利弗！一切造作之法無常也不失壞。
『再者，舍利弗！一切法非常、非滅。』
舍利弗說：『哪些法非常、非滅？』
須菩提說：『色非常、非滅。為什麼呢？性本來就是這樣。受、想、行、識非常、非滅。為什麼呢？性本來就是這樣。乃至意識因緣所生的受，非常、非滅。為什麼呢？性本來就是這樣。因這因緣之故，舍利弗！諸法和合而生，沒有自性。
畢竟不生：作者不可得，色性本空
『又如舍利弗所說的：「因什麼因緣，色畢竟不生，受、想、行、識畢竟不生？」』
須菩提說：『色不是被造作出來的法，受、想、行、識不是被造作出來的法。為什麼呢？因為造作者不可得。舍利弗！眼不是被造作出來的法。為什麼呢？造作者不可得的緣故；乃至意也是這樣。眼界乃至意觸因緣所生的受，也是這樣。再者，舍利弗！一切諸法都非起、非作。為什麼呢？造作者不可得的緣故。因這因緣之故，舍利弗！色畢竟不生，受、想、行、識畢竟不生。
『又如舍利弗所說的：「因什麼因緣，畢竟不生，就不名為色？畢竟不生，就不名為受、想、行、識？」』
須菩提說：『色的性是空的，這空無生、無滅、也無住無異；受、想、行、識的性是空的，這空無生、無滅、無住無異。眼乃至一切有為法，性都是空的，這空無生、無滅、無住無異。因這因緣之故，舍利弗！畢竟不生，就不名為色；畢竟不生，就不名為受、想、行、識。』
不生即是般若：無二無別，離不生亦無菩薩
『又如舍利弗所說的：「因什麼因緣說，畢竟不生之法，還應當教它般若波羅蜜嗎？」』
須菩提說：『畢竟不生就是般若波羅蜜，般若波羅蜜就是畢竟不生，般若波羅蜜與畢竟不生，無二無別。因這因緣之故，舍利弗！我才說——畢竟不生，還應當教它般若波羅蜜嗎？』
『又如舍利弗所說的：「因什麼因緣說，離開畢竟不生，就沒有菩薩修行無上正等菩提？」』
須菩提說：『菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜時，不見畢竟不生異於般若波羅蜜，也不見畢竟不生異於菩薩，畢竟不生與菩薩無二無別。不見畢竟不生異於色。為什麼呢？這畢竟不生與色無二無別；不見畢竟不生異於受、想、行、識。為什麼呢？畢竟不生與受、想、行、識無二無別。乃至一切種智也是這樣。因這因緣之故，舍利弗！離開畢竟不生，就沒有菩薩修行無上正等菩提。』
不沒不悔：見一切法如夢、如幻、如炎、如影、如化
『又如舍利弗所說的：「因什麼因緣，菩薩聽到這樣的說法，心不沉沒、不追悔，不驚、不怖、不畏，就名為菩薩修行般若波羅蜜？」』
須菩提說：『菩薩摩訶薩不見諸法有能覺能知之相，見一切諸法如夢、如幻、如陽炎、如影、如變化。舍利弗！因這因緣之故，菩薩聽到這樣的說法，心不沉沒、不追悔、不驚、不怖、不畏。』
論釋和合生：眼識的譬喻，見者了不可得
以下是論主的解釋。
論主解釋說：所謂『諸法沒有自性』，是用性空來破諸法各各之性。
這裡須菩提自己說出了緣由：『諸法是和合而生的，沒有自性。』例如和合五眾等法以及六波羅蜜等善法，從這裡生出『菩薩』這個名字；這菩薩是從造作之法、眾緣和合而生的，不是由單獨一法所成，因此說是假名。這些眾法本身也是從和合一邊生起的。譬如有眼、有色、有光明、有空間、有想見的心，這些因緣和合了才生起眼識；在這當中，不能說眼是見者，也不能說識是見者、色是見者、光明是見者。既然眼、色、識等各各都不能有所見，和合之中也不應當有見。因此，見這件事畢竟是空的，如幻、如夢。一切諸法也都是這樣。
論釋無常不失與畢竟不生：破常倒，也破斷滅倒
論主解釋說：再者，『一切法無常也不失壞』——無常，破的是執常的顛倒；不失，破的是斷滅的顛倒。這無常而不失之法，就是入實相之門，所以須菩提對舍利弗說：『無常就是動相、就是空相。』一切法也是這樣。
再者，所謂『一切法非常非失』，如同先前十八空後面的義理中所說。
所謂『色畢竟不生』，是因為五眾的造作者、生者、起者都不可得。
再者，生相不可得，如同先前破『生』的段落中所說。
一切法也是這樣。
至於『為什麼說色若不生就不是色、不是受想行識』，這裡須菩提自己說明：『色從因緣生，沒有自性，恆常是空相。法若恆常是空相，這法就沒有生相、沒有滅相、沒有住異之相。受、想、行、識也是這樣。』所以不生之相的法就是無為，而非有為之相。其餘諸法也是這樣。
論釋教般若與不怖畏：夢醒的人，幻前的智者
論主解釋說：所謂『畢竟不生，還應當教誰般若』——畢竟不生就是諸法實相，諸法實相就是般若波羅蜜，怎麼能拿般若波羅蜜去教般若波羅蜜呢？
如果離開這畢竟不生另外有菩薩，那才應當教他般若波羅蜜；可是菩薩、般若波羅蜜、畢竟不生，三者無二無別，怎麼還說要去教一個離了畢竟不生的行道者呢？這在上面的解說中已經一併解明。
所謂『菩薩聽了這話不沉沒、不追悔』——菩薩在一切法中不見我、不見眾生乃至知者、見者，也沒有說者、也沒有聽者，沒有邪說、沒有正說，也沒有一個『無說者』；了知一切法因緣和合所以生起，眾緣離散所以壞滅，沒有一個起它的人、沒有一個滅它的人，所以不畏、不怖、不沉沒、不追悔。菩薩了知一切法虛誑、無實無定；即使死亡逼到眼前，即使墮入阿鼻地獄，心尚且不動，何況聽到虛的言說就恐怖呢！譬如有人在夢中見到怖畏的事，醒來以後就沒有恐懼之心，因為知道夢法能欺誑人心，並沒有實事；菩薩也是這樣，入於世間心的夢中時見有恐畏，證得諸法實相而醒覺時就無所畏懼；了知諸法只是虛誑，沒有真實。
再者，譬如幻術變出的事，有智慧的人雖然看見，心卻不受迷惑，因為知道那是欺誑之法；菩薩也是這樣，了知一切法如幻、能誑人心、其中無實，因此不怖畏。如陽炎、如影、如變化，也是這樣。
五不：從不受色到不言是一切種智
須菩提對佛說：『世尊！菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜，這樣觀諸法的時候，菩薩摩訶薩不領受色，不標示色，不依住色，不執著色，也不說「這是色」；受、想、行、識也不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是受、想、行、識」。眼不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是眼」；耳、鼻、舌、身同樣如此；意也不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是意」。檀波羅蜜不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是檀波羅蜜」；尸羅波羅蜜、羼提波羅蜜、毘梨耶波羅蜜、禪波羅蜜同樣如此；般若波羅蜜不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是般若波羅蜜」。內空不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是內空」；乃至無法有法空也是這樣。再者，世尊！菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜時，四念處不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是四念處」；乃至十八不共法不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是十八不共法」。一切三昧門、一切陀羅尼門，乃至一切種智，都不受、不示、不住、不著，也不說「這是一切種智」。
不生是非色、不滅是非色：一切法入無二法數
『再者，世尊！菩薩摩訶薩修行般若波羅蜜時，不見色，乃至不見一切種智。為什麼呢？色不生，就不是色；受、想、行、識不生，就不是識。眼不生，就不是眼；耳、鼻、舌、身、意不生，就不是意。檀波羅蜜不生，就不是檀波羅蜜；乃至般若波羅蜜不生，就不是般若波羅蜜。為什麼呢？色與不生，不二不別；乃至般若波羅蜜與不生，不二不別。內空不生，就不是內空；乃至無法有法空不生，就不是無法有法空。為什麼呢？內空乃至無法有法空與不生，不二不別。世尊！四念處不生，就不是四念處。為什麼呢？四念處與不生，不二不別。為什麼呢？世尊！這不生之法非一、非二、非三、非異。因此，四念處與不生，不二不別。乃至十八不共法不生，就不是十八不共法。為什麼呢？十八不共法與不生，不二不別。為什麼呢？世尊！這不生之法非一、非二、非三、非異。因此，十八不共法不生，就不是十八不共法。世尊！如不生，就不是如；乃至不可思議性不生，就不是不可思議性。世尊！這無上正等菩提不生，一切智也是如此；一切種智不生，就不是一切種智。為什麼呢？這無上正等菩提乃至一切種智與不生，不二不別。為什麼呢？世尊！這不生之法非一、非二、非三、非異。因此，乃至一切種智不生，就不是一切種智。
『世尊！色的不滅相，就不是色。為什麼呢？色與不滅相，不二不別。為什麼呢？世尊！這不滅之法非一、非二、非三、非異。因此，色的不滅相就不是色；受、想、行、識的不滅相就不是識。為什麼呢？識與不滅，不二不別。為什麼呢？世尊！這不滅之法非一、非二、非三、非異。因此，識的不滅相就不是識。檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜、內空乃至無法有法空、四念處乃至十八不共法，也都是這樣。
『世尊！因此，色歸入無二的法數，受、想、行、識歸入無二的法數，乃至一切種智歸入無二的法數。』
論釋五種正觀：無常火、空聚落與無量過罪
論主解釋說：須菩提向佛稟白：菩薩能這樣觀諸法，是於五眾之中有五種正觀之行。所謂『不受』，是因為五眾之中有無常之火能燒心的緣故。
所謂『不視』，是不取相——不只觀無常等過患，也觀這五眾是空，因為不取相的緣故。
所謂『不住』，是不依止於五眾；因為畏懼種種煩惱之賊到來，所以不敢久住。譬如空無人住的聚落是盜賊停留出沒之處，有智慧的人不應在那裡久住。
所謂『不著』——五眾即使只有一種罪過，尚且不應執著，何況身有飢渴、寒熱、老病死等，心有憂愁、恐怖、妬嫉、瞋恚等，後世還要墮入三惡道！一切都是無常、苦、空、無我，不得自在；像這樣無量無邊的過罪，怎麼可以執著呢？
所謂『不言是色』，是不以邪見去說色是常、是無常等等，不說五眾有這樣的決定之相。乃至一切種智也是這樣。
為什麼呢？在色之中行這五種正行，這五眾便都無生相、都是一相，一相就是無相；若是無相，就沒有五眾可立。乃至一切種智也是這樣。
論釋無生一相：得無生心即是般若
論主解釋說：一切法的無生相，與般若波羅蜜不二不別；得這無生之心，就是般若波羅蜜；得了般若波羅蜜，就了知諸法不生不滅。因此，般若波羅蜜就是不生，不二不別。
再者，須菩提自己說出了因緣，也就是：這無生之法不是一相、不是二相、不是三、不是異。為什麼呢？因為諸法與無生同是一相的緣故。乃至一切種智也是這樣。
如同無生，無滅也是這樣。
論釋末後一問：破了色的執著，別再執著色空
有人問：末後為什麼要說『色乃至一切種智入無二法數』？
回答說：菩薩如果還沒有破除色，就會生起貪愛等結使，執著這色等諸法；破除了色，又會生起邪見，執著這『色是空』等。如今色等諸法因為用空的智慧觀照的緣故，全都是空的、不二之相。
這些諸法虛誑不實，因為被內入、外入所收攝，所以名之為二；色等乃至一切種智，離了這個二，名為不二。如今須菩提因為憐愍眾生、利益諸菩薩的緣故，說：『這些諸法不二，歸入無二的法數之中。』
Arising from Coming Together, Therefore Without Self-Nature: Counting All the Way from the Five Aggregates to the Eighteen Unshared Dharmas
‘It is just as Śāriputra said: "As with me, so too dharmas are thus without self-nature." Śāriputra! Because dharmas arise from coming together, they are without self-nature. Śāriputra! Which dharmas arise from coming together and are without self-nature? Śāriputra! Form arises from coming together and is without self-nature; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness arise from coming together and are without self-nature. The eye arises from coming together and is without self-nature, and so on up to: the mind arises from coming together and is without self-nature. Form up to dharmas (the six outer sense-objects), the eye element up to the dharma element (the eighteen elements), the earth element up to the consciousness element (the six elements of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness), eye-contact up to mind-contact, the feeling born from the condition of eye-contact up to the feeling born from the condition of mind-contact—all arise from coming together and are without self-nature. Dānapāramitā (giving) up to prajñāpāramitā arise from coming together and are without self-nature. The four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas arise from coming together and are without self-nature.
Impermanent Yet Not Lost, Neither Permanent nor Extinguished: The Mark of Movement Is the Mark of Emptiness
‘Furthermore, Śāriputra! All dharmas are impermanent, and yet they are not lost or destroyed.’
Śāriputra asked Subhūti: ‘Which dharmas are impermanent and yet not lost or destroyed?’
Subhūti said: ‘Form is impermanent and yet not lost or destroyed; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are impermanent and yet not lost or destroyed. Why? If a dharma is impermanent, it is the mark of movement, it is the mark of emptiness. For this cause and condition, Śāriputra, all conditioned dharmas are impermanent and yet not lost or destroyed. Whether contaminated dharmas or uncontaminated dharmas, whether determinate dharmas or indeterminate dharmas—all are impermanent and yet not lost or destroyed. Why? If a dharma is impermanent, it is the mark of movement, it is the mark of emptiness. For this cause and condition, Śāriputra, all made dharmas are impermanent and yet not lost or destroyed.
‘Furthermore, Śāriputra! All dharmas are neither permanent nor extinguished.’
Śāriputra said: ‘Which dharmas are neither permanent nor extinguished?’
Subhūti said: ‘Form is neither permanent nor extinguished. Why? Its nature is simply so. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are neither permanent nor extinguished. Why? Their nature is simply so. And so on up to: the feeling born from the condition of mind-consciousness is neither permanent nor extinguished. Why? Its nature is simply so. For this cause and condition, Śāriputra, dharmas arise from coming together and are without self-nature.
Ultimately Non-arising: A Maker Is Unfindable, the Nature of Form Is Empty from the Beginning
‘Again, as Śāriputra said: "By what cause and condition is form ultimately non-arising, and are feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness ultimately non-arising?"’
Subhūti said: ‘Form is not a dharma that is made; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are not dharmas that are made. Why? Because a maker is unfindable. Śāriputra! The eye is not a dharma that is made. Why? Because a maker is unfindable; and so on up to the mind, which is likewise. The eye element up to the feeling born from the condition of mind-contact is likewise. Furthermore, Śāriputra! All dharmas are neither arisen nor made. Why? Because a maker is unfindable. For this cause and condition, Śāriputra, form is ultimately non-arising, and feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are ultimately non-arising.
‘Again, as Śāriputra said: "By what cause and condition is what is ultimately non-arising not called form? Is what is ultimately non-arising not called feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness?"’
Subhūti said: ‘The nature of form is empty, and this emptiness has no arising, no ceasing, and also no abiding and no alteration; the nature of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness is empty, and this emptiness has no arising, no ceasing, no abiding and no alteration. The eye, up to all conditioned dharmas—their nature is empty, and this emptiness has no arising, no ceasing, no abiding and no alteration. For this cause and condition, Śāriputra, what is ultimately non-arising is not called form; what is ultimately non-arising is not called feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness.’
Non-arising Is Itself Prajñā: Without Duality and Without Difference, and Apart from Non-arising There Is No Bodhisattva
‘Again, as Śāriputra said: "By what cause and condition is it said that a dharma which is ultimately non-arising should still be taught prajñāpāramitā?"’
Subhūti said: ‘Ultimate non-arising is prajñāpāramitā, and prajñāpāramitā is ultimate non-arising; prajñāpāramitā and ultimate non-arising are without duality and without difference. For this cause and condition, Śāriputra, I said—should what is ultimately non-arising still be taught prajñāpāramitā?’
‘Again, as Śāriputra said: "By what cause and condition is it said that, apart from ultimate non-arising, there is no bodhisattva who practises unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening?"’
Subhūti said: ‘When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he does not see ultimate non-arising as different from prajñāpāramitā, nor does he see ultimate non-arising as different from the bodhisattva; ultimate non-arising and the bodhisattva are without duality and without difference. He does not see ultimate non-arising as different from form. Why? This ultimate non-arising and form are without duality and without difference; he does not see ultimate non-arising as different from feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness. Why? Ultimate non-arising and feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are without duality and without difference. And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, which is likewise. For this cause and condition, Śāriputra, apart from ultimate non-arising there is no bodhisattva who practises unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening.’
Not Sinking, Not Regretting: Seeing All Dharmas as Like a Dream, Like an Illusion, Like a Mirage, Like a Shadow, Like a Transformation
‘Again, as Śāriputra said: "By what cause and condition is it that, when a bodhisattva hears such a teaching and his mind does not sink, does not regret, is not startled, not frightened, and not afraid, he is called a bodhisattva who practises prajñāpāramitā?"’
Subhūti said: ‘The bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not see in dharmas any mark of being able to awaken or able to know; he sees all dharmas as like a dream, like an illusion, like a mirage, like a shadow, like a transformation. Śāriputra! For this cause and condition, when a bodhisattva hears such a teaching, his mind does not sink, does not regret, is not startled, not frightened, and not afraid.’
The Commentary on Arising from Coming Together: The Simile of Eye-Consciousness—the One Who Sees Is Wholly Unfindable
What follows is the treatise-author's explanation.
The treatise-author explains: what is called ‘dharmas are without self-nature’ uses the emptiness of nature to refute each individual nature of dharmas.
Here Subhūti himself states the reason: ‘Dharmas arise from coming together and are without self-nature.’ For example, the five aggregates and other dharmas, together with the six perfections and other wholesome dharmas, come together, and from this the name ‘bodhisattva’ arises; this bodhisattva arises from made dharmas, from the coming together of many conditions, and is not formed by a single dharma alone—therefore he is said to be a provisional name. These many dharmas themselves also arise from the side of coming together. It is like this: there is the eye, there is form, there is light, there is space, there is a mind that thinks to see—when these causes and conditions come together, eye-consciousness then arises; within this, one cannot say that the eye is the one who sees, nor can one say that consciousness is the one who sees, that form is the one who sees, or that light is the one who sees. Since the eye, form, consciousness, and the rest each cannot see anything, there ought also to be no seeing within their coming together. Therefore this matter of seeing is ultimately empty, like an illusion, like a dream. All dharmas are likewise.
The Commentary on Impermanent Yet Not Lost and on Ultimate Non-arising: Refuting the Inversion of Permanence, and Refuting the Inversion of Annihilation Too
The treatise-author explains: furthermore, ‘all dharmas are impermanent and yet not lost or destroyed’—impermanence refutes the inversion that clings to permanence; not lost refutes the inversion of annihilation. This dharma that is impermanent and yet not lost is the gate of entry into the real mark, and so Subhūti says to Śāriputra: ‘Impermanence is the mark of movement, it is the mark of emptiness.’ All dharmas are likewise.
Furthermore, what is called ‘all dharmas are neither permanent nor lost’ is as was said earlier in the meaning that follows the eighteen emptinesses.
What is called ‘form is ultimately non-arising’ is because the maker, the producer, and the one who gives rise to the five aggregates are all unfindable.
Furthermore, the mark of arising is unfindable, as was said earlier in the passage that refutes ‘arising’.
All dharmas are likewise.
As for ‘why it is said that if form does not arise it is not form, not feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness’, here Subhūti himself explains: ‘Form arises from causes and conditions, is without self-nature, and is always the mark of emptiness. If a dharma is always the mark of emptiness, this dharma has no mark of arising, no mark of ceasing, and no mark of abiding and alteration. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise.’ Therefore a dharma with the mark of non-arising is unconditioned, and not of the mark of the conditioned. The remaining dharmas are likewise.
The Commentary on Teaching Prajñā and on Not Fearing: One Who Wakes from a Dream, the Wise Before a Conjuring
The treatise-author explains: what is called ‘what is ultimately non-arising—who should still be taught prajñā?’—ultimate non-arising is the real mark of all dharmas, and the real mark of all dharmas is prajñāpāramitā; how could one take prajñāpāramitā and teach it to prajñāpāramitā?
If, apart from this ultimate non-arising, there were a separate bodhisattva, then he should be taught prajñāpāramitā; but the bodhisattva, prajñāpāramitā, and ultimate non-arising—the three are without duality and without difference, so how can one still speak of teaching a practitioner of the path who is apart from ultimate non-arising? This has already been explained together in the exposition above.
What is called ‘the bodhisattva hears this and does not sink, does not regret’—within all dharmas the bodhisattva does not see a self, does not see a being, and so on up to one who knows and one who sees; there is no speaker and there is no hearer, there is no wrong teaching and no right teaching, and there is also no ‘one who does not speak’; he knows that all dharmas arise because causes and conditions come together, and are destroyed because the many conditions scatter apart, and that there is no one who makes them arise and no one who makes them cease—so he is not afraid, not frightened, does not sink, does not regret. The bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are false and deceptive, without reality and without fixity; even when death presses right before his eyes, even if he falls into the Avīci hell, his mind still does not stir—how much less would he be terrified on hearing empty words! It is like a person who in a dream sees frightening things; after he wakes he has no fear in his mind, because he knows that the dharma of dreams can deceive the human mind and that there is no real event; the bodhisattva is likewise: when he enters the dream of the worldly mind he sees things to fear, but when he realises the real mark of all dharmas and wakes, he has nothing to fear; he knows that dharmas are only false and deceptive, with nothing true.
Furthermore, it is like the things conjured up by a conjurer's art: although a person of wisdom sees them, his mind is not deluded, because he knows they are deceptive dharmas; the bodhisattva is likewise: he knows that all dharmas are like an illusion, able to deceive the human mind, with nothing real in them, and therefore he is not afraid. Like a mirage, like a shadow, like a transformation—these are likewise.
The Five Nots: From Not Receiving Form to Not Saying ‘This Is Omniscience of All Kinds’
Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā and contemplates dharmas in this way, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not receive form, does not display form, does not abide in form, does not cling to form, and also does not say "this is form"; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness he likewise does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and also does not say "this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness". The eye he does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and also does not say "this is the eye"; the ear, nose, tongue, and body are the same; the mind too he does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and also does not say "this is the mind". Dānapāramitā he does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and also does not say "this is dānapāramitā"; śīlapāramitā, kṣāntipāramitā, vīryapāramitā, and dhyānapāramitā are the same; prajñāpāramitā he does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and also does not say "this is prajñāpāramitā". Inner emptiness he does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and also does not say "this is inner emptiness"; and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, which is likewise. Furthermore, World-Honored One! When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, the four foundations of mindfulness he does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and also does not say "these are the four foundations of mindfulness"; and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, which he does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, and also does not say "these are the eighteen unshared dharmas". All the samādhi gates, all the dhāraṇī gates, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds—none of them does he receive, display, abide in, or cling to, and he also does not say "this is omniscience of all kinds".
Non-arising Is Not Form, Non-ceasing Is Not Form: All Dharmas Enter the Count of the Non-dual
‘Furthermore, World-Honored One! When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he does not see form, and so on up to he does not see omniscience of all kinds. Why? Form not arising is not form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness not arising is not consciousness. The eye not arising is not the eye; the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind not arising is not the mind. Dānapāramitā not arising is not dānapāramitā; and so on up to prajñāpāramitā not arising is not prajñāpāramitā. Why? Form and non-arising are neither two nor different; and so on up to prajñāpāramitā and non-arising are neither two nor different. Inner emptiness not arising is not inner emptiness; and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas not arising is not the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas. Why? Inner emptiness up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas and non-arising are neither two nor different. World-Honored One! The four foundations of mindfulness not arising are not the four foundations of mindfulness. Why? The four foundations of mindfulness and non-arising are neither two nor different. Why? World-Honored One! This dharma of non-arising is not one, not two, not three, not different. Therefore the four foundations of mindfulness and non-arising are neither two nor different. And so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas not arising are not the eighteen unshared dharmas. Why? The eighteen unshared dharmas and non-arising are neither two nor different. Why? World-Honored One! This dharma of non-arising is not one, not two, not three, not different. Therefore the eighteen unshared dharmas not arising are not the eighteen unshared dharmas. World-Honored One! Suchness not arising is not suchness; and so on up to the nature of the inconceivable not arising is not the nature of the inconceivable. World-Honored One! This unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening does not arise, and omniscience is likewise; omniscience of all kinds not arising is not omniscience of all kinds. Why? This unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening, up to omniscience of all kinds, and non-arising are neither two nor different. Why? World-Honored One! This dharma of non-arising is not one, not two, not three, not different. Therefore, and so on up to: omniscience of all kinds not arising is not omniscience of all kinds.
‘World-Honored One! The non-ceasing mark of form is not form. Why? Form and the non-ceasing mark are neither two nor different. Why? World-Honored One! This dharma of non-ceasing is not one, not two, not three, not different. Therefore the non-ceasing mark of form is not form; the non-ceasing mark of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness is not consciousness. Why? Consciousness and non-ceasing are neither two nor different. Why? World-Honored One! This dharma of non-ceasing is not one, not two, not three, not different. Therefore the non-ceasing mark of consciousness is not consciousness. Dānapāramitā up to prajñāpāramitā, inner emptiness up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—all are likewise.
‘World-Honored One! Therefore form enters the count of non-dual dharmas; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness enter the count of non-dual dharmas; and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, which enters the count of non-dual dharmas.’
The Commentary on the Five Right Contemplations: The Fire of Impermanence, the Empty Village, and Immeasurable Faults
The treatise-author explains: Subhūti reports to the Buddha that the bodhisattva's being able to contemplate dharmas in this way is the practice of five right contemplations within the five aggregates. What is called ‘not receiving’ is because within the five aggregates there is the fire of impermanence, which can burn the mind.
What is called ‘not viewing’ is not grasping marks—not only contemplating impermanence and the other faults, but also contemplating these five aggregates as empty, because he does not grasp marks.
What is called ‘not abiding’ is not relying on the five aggregates; because he fears the coming of the many thieves of the afflictions, he does not dare to abide long. It is like an empty village where no one lives, a place where robbers stop and roam; a person of wisdom should not abide there long.
What is called ‘not clinging’—even if the five aggregates had only a single fault, one still ought not to cling to them; how much more so when the body has hunger and thirst, cold and heat, old age, sickness, death, and the rest, the mind has sorrow, fear, jealousy, anger, and the rest, and in later lives one will still fall into the three evil destinies! All is impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, not free to be its own master; faults like these, immeasurable and boundless—how could one cling to them?
What is called ‘not saying this is form’ is not using wrong view to say that form is permanent, is impermanent, and so on; not saying that the five aggregates have such a fixed mark. And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, which is likewise.
Why? When these five right practices are carried out within form, these five aggregates all have no mark of arising and are all of one mark, and one mark is no mark; if there is no mark, there are no five aggregates to be set up. And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, which is likewise.
The Commentary on the One Mark of Non-arising: Attaining the Mind of Non-arising Is Itself Prajñā
The treatise-author explains: the mark of non-arising of all dharmas and prajñāpāramitā are neither two nor different; attaining this mind of non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā; having attained prajñāpāramitā, one knows that dharmas neither arise nor cease. Therefore prajñāpāramitā is itself non-arising, neither two nor different.
Furthermore, Subhūti himself states the cause and condition, namely: this dharma of non-arising is not one mark, not two marks, not three, not different. Why? Because dharmas and non-arising are alike of one mark. And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, which is likewise.
As with non-arising, so too is non-ceasing.
The Commentary on the Final Question: Having Broken Clinging to Form, Do Not Then Cling to Form as Empty
Someone asks: why, at the very end, is it said that ‘form up to omniscience of all kinds enters the count of non-dual dharmas’?
The answer: if the bodhisattva has not yet broken form, he will give rise to craving and other fetters and cling to form and the other dharmas; once he has broken form, he will again give rise to wrong view and cling to this ‘form is empty’ and the like. Now, because form and the other dharmas are illuminated and contemplated with the wisdom of emptiness, all of them are empty, of a non-dual mark.
These dharmas are false and deceptive and unreal; because they are gathered in by the inner sense-fields and the outer sense-fields, they are named two; form and the rest, up to omniscience of all kinds, being apart from this two, are named non-dual. Now Subhūti, out of compassion for beings and to benefit the bodhisattvas, says: ‘These dharmas are non-dual, and enter into the count of non-dual dharmas.’
十無品之下：畢竟不生即是般若，五種正觀入於無二
在問什麼
「如我，諸法亦如是無自性」——之下這一單元，從牒起舍利弗的這句話開始。之上一路立「無」：菩薩三際不可得、無邊不可得、即陰不可得、但有名字；到了這裡，前面懸著的幾問一一收攏——諸法為什麼無自性？無常怎麼又不失？色為什麼畢竟不生？既然畢竟不生，般若還教得成嗎？離了畢竟不生，菩薩還行不行道？聽到這一切而不驚不怖，憑的又是什麼？這一單元收攏的方式出人意料：不是在「無」上再添幾個「無」，而是翻過一層——「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」。前半品反覆問菩薩不可得、「畢竟不生，當教誰般若」；答案在此露面：不可得不是缺了什麼，畢竟不生本身就是般若，能教與所教無二無別。於是全單元順勢從說轉向觀：須菩提白佛，菩薩這樣觀諸法時，「不受色，不示色，不住色，不著色，不言是色」，乃至一切種智皆然，論主稱之為五種正觀；最後以「色乃至一切種智入無二法數」收束全品。所以這一單元真正要答的，是一個修行人的問題：把「無」說到底之後，人站在哪裡修？它的回答是——站在不二裡修，五種正觀就是站法。
逐段解明
先看「如我，諸法亦如是無自性」的牒答。須菩提不從玄處答，只指出一個看得見的事實：「諸法和合生故無自性」。色受想行識、眼乃至意、六塵十八界六界、六觸與觸所生受、六波羅蜜、四念處乃至十八不共法——逐科數過去，沒有一法不是眾緣湊攏而現起的；湊攏而現起，就沒有一個自己成立的性。論主用眼識作譬：「有眼、有色、有明、有空、有欲見心」，眾緣和合才生眼識；拆開來看，眼不是見者，識不是見者，色不是見者，明也不是見者——各各不能見，湊在一起憑什麼就多出一個見者？所以「和合中亦不應有見」，所以「見法畢竟空，如幻、如夢」。這一喻是全單元的地基：無自性不是否認眼前有見有聞，而是看破見聞裡沒有一個獨立自成的能見者。
再看兩句新立的話。「一切法無常亦不失」——乍聽自相矛盾：既然無常，怎麼又不失？論主一句拆明：無常破的是「常倒」，不失破的是「斷滅倒」。說無常，是不許把法抓成常住不動；說不失，是不許把無常聽成斷滅斷絕。兩邊破盡，中間現出的就是經文自己的話：「即是動相、即是空相」，而這無常不失之法「即是入實相門」。緊接著「非常非滅」，問到為什麼，須菩提只答三個字：「性自爾」——法性本來如此，不是誰安排出來的。這個性不是又立一個實有的自性；下文自明：「色性空，是空無生、無滅、無住異」——性自爾之性，正是性空之性。
第三看「畢竟不生」的兩重牒答。為什麼色畢竟不生？因為色「非作法」，「作者不可得故」；推而廣之，「一切諸法皆非起非作」。為什麼畢竟不生就不名為色？因為色性是空的，這空「無生、無滅、無住異」；生住異滅四相在空中一個也立不起來，既無生相可得，拿什麼名它為色？論主補上一句分量極重的話：不生相之法「即是無為，非有為相」——不生不是有為法群裡新添的一件東西，說到不生，已出了有為之相。
第四看全單元的樞紐。舍利弗曾問：畢竟不生之法，還應當教它般若嗎？須菩提的答直截到近乎奇險：「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」，般若即是畢竟不生，無二無別。論主替這句補出所以然：畢竟不生就是諸法實相，諸法實相就是般若，「云何以般若波羅蜜教般若波羅蜜」——若離了畢竟不生另有一個菩薩站著，那才需要教；可是菩薩、般若、畢竟不生無二無別，能教與所教之間的縫隙本來就不存在。同一把鑰匙又開了下一問：離畢竟不生，無菩薩行道——不是菩薩被取消了，而是菩薩與不生從未分開，乃至色、受想行識、一切種智，一一與不生無二無別。
第五看不驚不怖的所以然。菩薩聽了這一切，「心不沒、不悔，不驚、不怖、不畏」，憑什麼？經答：菩薩「不見諸法有覺知相」，見一切法「如夢、如幻、如炎、如影、如化」。論主展開成兩幅圖：其一，菩薩於一切法中不見我、眾生、知者、見者，無說者亦無聽者，「知一切法虛誑、無實無定」，所以「若死急時，若墮阿鼻泥犁，心猶不動」，何況聽見一句虛聲；其二，「如人夢中見怖畏事，覺已則無恐心」——夢能誑心，醒了就不怕，「入世間心夢中見有恐畏，得諸法實相覺時則無所畏」。再加幻師一喻：「譬如幻事，智者雖見，心無所惑」——智者不是看不見幻象，是看見而不受誑。怖畏之解不在把境界移走，在識破境界的誑。
第六看觀行。須菩提轉而白佛：菩薩這樣觀諸法時，「不受色，不示色，不住色，不著色，不言是色」，五事一路貫到一切種智。論主把五事釋為「五種正觀行」：不受，因為五眾（五蘊）之中「有無常火能燒心」——受進來，就要被燒；不視，即不取相，不但觀無常等過患，連五眾之空也不取作相；不住，「不依止五眾」，譬如「空聚落，賊所止處」，煩惱賊出沒之地，智者不敢久住；不著，「五眾若有一罪，猶不應著」，何況身有飢渴寒熱老病死、心有憂愁恐怖妬嫉瞋恚、後世更有三惡道——無量無邊的過罪，怎麼著得下手？不言是色，「不言五眾如是定相」，不用邪見給色安一個若常若無常的定相。五事行處，五眾「皆無生相，皆一相，一相則無相」；「得是無生心，即是般若波羅蜜」——觀到極處，觀法與般若合為一事，正好接回前文不生即般若的樞紐。
末後一問收束全品：為什麼要說「色乃至一切種智入無二法數」？論主的答是一幅修行人的自畫像：「菩薩若未破色，則生愛等結使」——沒破色時，貪愛把人拴在色上；「破色已，則生邪見，著是色空等」——破了色，又抱住色空不放。前一重是常人的病，後一重是學空人的病。用空的智慧觀之，色等皆是不二之相；諸法為內外入所攝故名為二，「離是二，名不二」。而全品最後一句點出說法的心腸：須菩提是「憐愍眾生、利益諸菩薩」才說這諸法不二、入無二法數。十個「無」說到盡頭，落點不是虛無，是悲心裡的一個不二。
不要讀錯
不要把「不失」聽成無常背後還藏著一個不壞的東西。論主分明兩邊各破：無常破「常倒」，不失破「斷滅倒」——不失是不許斷滅，不是另立一個常。若把不失讀成有法常存，恰好又掉回無常所要破的常倒裡去。
不要把「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」讀成從此不必聞、不必教、不必行。這一句拆的是能教與所教之間的縫隙，不是拆學般若的路；經文緊接著仍說「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時」，行之一字，未曾取消。
不要把五種正觀讀成五種冷淡。不受不是麻木，是不把五眾的無常之火接到心上來燒；不視不是閉眼不看，是「不取相」；不住不是棄世逃走，是看清「空聚落，賊所止處」而不把賊窩認作家宅。正觀是智慧的觀，不是壓抑的忍。
不要把破色之後的空當作新的落腳處。「破色已，則生邪見，著是色空等」——這是專為學空人點出的病。空是藥，把藥抱成家當，藥也成了病。
不要把「性自爾」讀成諸法各有一個實在的自性。這個性，經文自己註明是「色性空」之性——性空法爾如此，所以非常非滅；若讀成自性實有，便與「諸法和合生故無自性」正面相撞。
修行作用
拿眼識的譬喻做觀。正見色之時，問一問：見者是誰？是眼？是識？是色？是光明？各各推過去都不能見，和合之中也覓不得一個見者——能這樣問一遍，便是把無自性從名句搬進了日用。
拿「無常亦不失」做兩邊的藥。遭逢變壞而心生斷滅之想時，記得不失；處安穩順境而心生常想時，記得無常。「即是動相、即是空相」，兩邊都不給心一個站處，站不住處正是實相門。
拿夢覺之喻治怖畏。恐怖起時，不必急著把境界移走，先問這境誑不誑——「如人夢中見怖畏事，覺已則無恐心」。能於怖畏之中認出夢的性質，怖畏便失了它的地。
拿五種正觀做對境的日課。逢一境，五問：領受了嗎？取相了嗎？依住了嗎？執著了嗎？替它安了定相了嗎？五問問過，就是「色中行五種正行」的行處。
拿末後一問自檢。學空之後，回頭看一看是否把空抱成了新的所得——未破色時著色，破色之後著空，兩重病都得過，過了才是「離是二，名不二」。
承衍
這一單元自身就演示了什麼叫承、什麼叫衍。它承的是品初立起的十問——逐一牒舉「如舍利弗所言」，一問一答，無一懸置；它衍的是把答案推成行履——無自性衍為眼識和合之觀，畢竟不生衍為「即是般若」的樞紐，即是般若再衍為五種正觀，五種正觀終於「入無二法數」而收束全品。後來人承接這一單元，也照這個次第走：先把「無」聽成和合無自性的如實觀，莫聽成斷滅；再把不生即般若放到自己求法的心上，看能教與所教的縫隙鬆動幾分；然後把五種正觀帶回五眾日用，一境一境地驗；最後記取全品末後那一口氣——把十無說到盡頭的人，是「憐愍眾生、利益諸菩薩」才開口。無說到極處而悲心不失，不二說到極處而觀行不廢；十無品之下交到後來人手裡的，就是這一個並行不悖——見地上畢竟不生，觀行上五觀常明，開口處唯為利人。
The Ten Non-existents, Last Part: Being Ultimately Non-arising Is Itself Prajñā; the Five Kinds of Right Contemplation Enter into Non-duality
What Is Being Asked
「如我，諸法亦如是無自性」 tr. "as with the self, so all dharmas too are thus without self-nature"—this Last Part begins by taking up this sentence of Śāriputra. The First Part went all the way establishing 「無」 tr. "non-existence": the bodhisattva is unfindable in the three times, unfindable as boundless, unfindable as identical with the aggregates, having only a name; here the several questions left hanging earlier are gathered in one by one—why are all dharmas without self-nature? How is impermanence also not lost? Why is form ultimately non-arising? Since it is ultimately non-arising, can prajñā still be taught? Apart from the ultimately non-arising, does the bodhisattva still practise the path? And on what does one rely in hearing all this without being alarmed or afraid? The way this unit gathers them in is unexpected: it does not, upon 「無」 tr. "non-existence", heap a few more 「無」 tr. "non-existents", but turns over a layer—「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "being ultimately non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā". The first half of the chapter asked again and again about the bodhisattva's unfindability and 「畢竟不生，當教誰般若」 tr. "if it is ultimately non-arising, to whom shall prajñā be taught?"; the answer shows its face here: unfindability is not the lack of something; being ultimately non-arising is itself prajñā, and the one who teaches and what is taught are without duality and without difference. And so the whole unit turns naturally from speaking to contemplating: Subhūti says to the Buddha that when the bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas in this way, 「不受色，不示色，不住色，不著色，不言是色」 tr. "he does not receive form, does not display form, does not abide in form, does not cling to form, and does not say 'this is form'", and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, all alike; the treatise-author calls these the five kinds of right contemplation; at the end, with 「色乃至一切種智入無二法數」 tr. "form, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, enters the count of non-dual dharmas", the whole chapter is gathered to a close. So what this unit truly has to answer is a practitioner's question: once 「無」 tr. "non-existence" has been spoken to the very end, where does a person stand to cultivate? Its answer is—one cultivates standing in non-duality, and the five kinds of right contemplation are the way of standing.
Passage by Passage
First, look at the reply that takes up 「如我，諸法亦如是無自性」 tr. "as with the self, so all dharmas too are thus without self-nature". Subhūti does not answer from some abstruse place; he only points out a fact that can be seen: 「諸法和合生故無自性」 tr. "because all dharmas arise through coming together, they are without self-nature". Form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; the eye and so on up to the mind; the six sense-objects, the eighteen elements, the six elements; the six contacts and the feelings born of contact; the six perfections; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—counting through them category by category, there is not a single dharma that does not appear through many conditions gathering together; and what appears through gathering together has no nature established by itself. The treatise-author uses eye-consciousness as a simile: 「有眼、有色、有明、有空、有欲見心」 tr. "there is the eye, there is form, there is light, there is space, there is the mind wishing to see", and only when these many conditions come together does eye-consciousness arise; taken apart, the eye is not the seer, consciousness is not the seer, form is not the seer, and light is not the seer either—none of them can see; gathered together, on what ground would a seer be added? Therefore 「和合中亦不應有見」 tr. "in the coming together, too, there should be no seeing", and therefore 「見法畢竟空，如幻、如夢」 tr. "the dharma of seeing is ultimately empty, like an illusion, like a dream". This simile is the foundation of the whole unit: being without self-nature does not deny that there is seeing and hearing before one's eyes; it sees through to this, that within seeing and hearing there is no seer standing independently and complete in itself.
Next, look at the two newly established statements. 「一切法無常亦不失」 tr. "all dharmas are impermanent and yet not lost"—at first hearing it contradicts itself: since they are impermanent, how are they also not lost? The treatise-author takes it apart in a single sentence: impermanence breaks 「常倒」 tr. "the inversion of permanence", and not-lost breaks 「斷滅倒」 tr. "the inversion of annihilation". To say impermanent is to forbid grasping dharmas as permanently abiding and unmoving; to say not lost is to forbid hearing impermanence as annihilation and cutting off. With both sides broken completely, what appears in between is the sūtra's own words: 「即是動相、即是空相」 tr. "this is the mark of movement, this is the mark of emptiness", and this dharma of impermanence-yet-not-lost 「即是入實相門」 tr. "is itself the gate of entering the real mark". Immediately following comes 「非常非滅」 tr. "neither permanent nor extinguished"; asked why, Subhūti answers in just three characters: 「性自爾」 tr. "its nature is so of itself"—dharma-nature is originally thus; it is not something anyone arranged. This nature is not the setting up once again of a really existing self-nature; the text below makes this clear by itself: 「色性空，是空無生、無滅、無住異」 tr. "the nature of form is empty; this emptiness is without arising, without ceasing, without abiding-and-changing"—the nature in "its nature is so of itself" is precisely the nature in "the nature is empty."
Third, look at the twofold reply that takes up 「畢竟不生」 tr. "ultimately non-arising". Why is form ultimately non-arising? Because form is 「非作法」 tr. "not a made dharma", 「作者不可得故」 tr. "because a maker is unfindable"; extended further, 「一切諸法皆非起非作」 tr. "all dharmas are neither arisen nor made". Why is the ultimately non-arising not named form? Because the nature of form is empty, and this emptiness is 「無生、無滅、無住異」 tr. "without arising, without ceasing, without abiding-and-changing"; of the four marks of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, not one can be set up in emptiness; since no mark of arising can be found, with what would one name it form? The treatise-author adds a sentence of the greatest weight: the dharma of the mark of non-arising 「即是無為，非有為相」 tr. "is itself the unconditioned, not the mark of the conditioned"—non-arising is not one more thing newly added to the crowd of conditioned dharmas; to speak of non-arising is already to have gone beyond the mark of the conditioned.
Fourth, look at the pivot of the whole unit. Śāriputra had asked: should the dharma that is ultimately non-arising still be taught prajñā? Subhūti's answer is so direct as to seem almost perilous: 「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "being ultimately non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā"; prajñā is itself the ultimately non-arising, without duality and without difference. The treatise-author supplies the reason behind this sentence: being ultimately non-arising is the real mark of all dharmas, and the real mark of all dharmas is prajñā—「云何以般若波羅蜜教般若波羅蜜」 tr. "how would one teach prajñāpāramitā by means of prajñāpāramitā?"—if, apart from the ultimately non-arising, there were another bodhisattva standing there, then teaching would be needed; but the bodhisattva, prajñā, and the ultimately non-arising are without duality and without difference, and the gap between the one who teaches and what is taught never existed in the first place. The same key opens the next question as well: apart from the ultimately non-arising, there is no bodhisattva practising the path—not that the bodhisattva has been cancelled, but that the bodhisattva and non-arising have never been apart, and so on to form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and omniscience of all kinds, each one without duality and without difference from non-arising.
Fifth, look at the reason for not being alarmed and not being afraid. When the bodhisattva hears all this, 「心不沒、不悔，不驚、不怖、不畏」 tr. "his mind does not sink and does not regret, is not alarmed, is not afraid, is not terrified"—on what does he rely? The sūtra answers: the bodhisattva 「不見諸法有覺知相」 tr. "does not see that dharmas have a mark of awareness and knowing", and sees all dharmas as 「如夢、如幻、如炎、如影、如化」 tr. "like a dream, like an illusion, like a mirage, like a shadow, like a magical transformation". The treatise-author unfolds this into two pictures. In the first, the bodhisattva sees in all dharmas no self, no sentient being, no knower, no seer; there is no speaker and no listener; he 「知一切法虛誑、無實無定」 tr. "knows all dharmas to be false and deceptive, without reality and without fixity", so that 「若死急時，若墮阿鼻泥犁，心猶不動」 tr. "whether at the urgent moment of death or falling into the Avīci hell, his mind still does not stir"—how much less at hearing a single empty sound. In the second, 「如人夢中見怖畏事，覺已則無恐心」 tr. "as a person who sees fearful things in a dream has no fearful mind once awake"—a dream can deceive the mind, and once awake one is not afraid; 「入世間心夢中見有恐畏，得諸法實相覺時則無所畏」 tr. "in the dream of the mind that has entered the world one sees things to fear; on waking to the real mark of all dharmas there is nothing to fear". Then the simile of the conjurer is added: 「譬如幻事，智者雖見，心無所惑」 tr. "just as with a conjured thing: though the wise one sees it, his mind is not deluded"—the wise one does not fail to see the illusory appearance; he sees it and is not deceived. The resolution of fear lies not in moving the objects away, but in seeing through the deception of the objects.
Sixth, look at contemplative practice. Subhūti turns to address the Buddha: when the bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas in this way, 「不受色，不示色，不住色，不著色，不言是色」 tr. "he does not receive form, does not display form, does not abide in form, does not cling to form, and does not say 'this is form'", these five matters running straight through to omniscience of all kinds. The treatise-author explains the five matters as 「五種正觀行」 tr. "five kinds of right contemplative practice". Not receiving, because within the five aggregates 「有無常火能燒心」 tr. "there is the fire of impermanence that can burn the mind"—take them in, and one will be burnt. Not viewing, that is, not taking marks: not only does one contemplate faults such as impermanence, but not even the emptiness of the five aggregates is taken up as a mark. Not abiding: 「不依止五眾」 tr. "not relying on the five aggregates", which are like 「空聚落，賊所止處」 tr. "an empty village, a place where thieves stay"—the haunt of the thieves of affliction, where the wise dare not linger. Not clinging: 「五眾若有一罪，猶不應著」 tr. "if the five aggregates had even one fault, one still should not cling to them"—how much less when the body has hunger, thirst, cold, heat, old age, sickness, and death, the mind has sorrow, fear, jealousy, and anger, and later lives have in addition the three evil destinies—with faults immeasurable and boundless, how could one lay hold of them to cling? Not saying 'this is form': 「不言五眾如是定相」 tr. "not saying that the five aggregates have such-and-such a fixed mark", not using wrong view to fix upon form a fixed mark, whether of permanence or of impermanence. Where the five matters are practised, the five aggregates 「皆無生相，皆一相，一相則無相」 tr. "are all without the mark of arising, all of one mark, and one mark is no mark"; 「得是無生心，即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "to attain this mind of non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā"—contemplated to the utmost, the dharma of contemplation and prajñā become one matter, joining exactly back to the earlier pivot of non-arising being itself prajñā.
The last question gathers the whole chapter to a close: why must it be said that 「色乃至一切種智入無二法數」 tr. "form, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, enters the count of non-dual dharmas"? The treatise-author's answer is a practitioner's self-portrait: 「菩薩若未破色，則生愛等結使」 tr. "if the bodhisattva has not yet broken form, fetters such as craving arise"—before form is broken, craving ties a person to form; 「破色已，則生邪見，著是色空等」 tr. "once form has been broken, wrong view arises, clinging to this emptiness of form and the like"—having broken form, one then holds fast to the emptiness of form and will not let go. The first layer is the illness of ordinary people; the second layer is the illness of those who study emptiness. Contemplated with the wisdom of emptiness, form and the rest are all marks of non-duality; because all dharmas are included in the inner and outer sense-fields, they are called two; 「離是二，名不二」 tr. "to depart from these two is called non-duality". And the last sentence of the whole chapter points out the heart behind the teaching: it was 「憐愍眾生、利益諸菩薩」 tr. "out of compassion for sentient beings and to benefit all bodhisattvas" that Subhūti spoke of this non-duality of all dharmas, their entering the count of non-dual dharmas. When the ten 「無」 tr. "non-existents" have been spoken to their very end, where they land is not nothingness, but a non-duality within the compassionate mind.
Do Not Misread
Do not hear 「不失」 tr. "not lost" as meaning that behind impermanence there still hides something indestructible. The treatise-author plainly breaks each side: impermanence breaks 「常倒」 tr. "the inversion of permanence", and not-lost breaks 「斷滅倒」 tr. "the inversion of annihilation"—not-lost forbids annihilation; it does not set up another permanence. If one reads not-lost as some dharma existing permanently, one falls right back into the very inversion of permanence that impermanence was meant to break.
Do not read 「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "being ultimately non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā" as meaning that from now on there is no need to hear, no need to teach, no need to practise. This sentence takes apart the gap between the one who teaches and what is taught, not the road of learning prajñā; the sūtra text goes straight on to say 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時」 tr. "when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā"—the single word "practises" has never been cancelled.
Do not read the five kinds of right contemplation as five kinds of coldness. Not receiving is not numbness; it is not taking the fire of impermanence of the five aggregates onto the mind to be burnt by it. Not viewing is not closing one's eyes and not looking; it is 「不取相」 tr. "not taking marks". Not abiding is not abandoning the world and running away; it is seeing clearly that they are 「空聚落，賊所止處」 tr. "an empty village, a place where thieves stay", and not mistaking the thieves' den for one's home. Right contemplation is the contemplation of wisdom, not an endurance of suppression.
Do not take the emptiness that follows the breaking of form as a new place to settle. 「破色已，則生邪見，著是色空等」 tr. "once form has been broken, wrong view arises, clinging to this emptiness of form and the like"—this is an illness pointed out specifically for those who study emptiness. Emptiness is medicine; hold the medicine fast as one's household goods, and the medicine too becomes an illness.
Do not read 「性自爾」 tr. "its nature is so of itself" as meaning that each dharma has a real self-nature. This nature, as the sūtra text itself notes, is the nature of 「色性空」 tr. "the nature of form is empty"—being empty of nature is naturally so, and therefore neither permanent nor extinguished; if it is read as a really existing self-nature, it collides head-on with 「諸法和合生故無自性」 tr. "because all dharmas arise through coming together, they are without self-nature".
Bearing on Practice
Take the simile of eye-consciousness as a contemplation. At the very moment of seeing form, ask: who is the seer? The eye? Consciousness? Form? Light? Pushed through one by one, none of them can see, and within their coming together too no seer can be found—to be able to ask like this even once is to carry being without self-nature out of names and phrases into daily use.
Take 「無常亦不失」 tr. "impermanent and yet not lost" as the medicine for both sides. When, meeting change and decay, the mind gives rise to the thought of annihilation, remember not-lost; when, in secure and favourable circumstances, the mind gives rise to the thought of permanence, remember impermanence. 「即是動相、即是空相」 tr. "this is the mark of movement, this is the mark of emptiness"—neither side gives the mind a place to stand, and the place where one cannot stand is exactly the gate of the real mark.
Take the simile of dreaming and waking to cure fear. When fear arises, there is no need to hurry to move the objects away; first ask whether this object deceives or not—「如人夢中見怖畏事，覺已則無恐心」 tr. "as a person who sees fearful things in a dream has no fearful mind once awake". If in the midst of fear one can recognise its dream-nature, fear loses its ground.
Take the five kinds of right contemplation as the daily lesson for meeting objects. Meeting an object, ask five questions: have I received it? Have I taken its mark? Have I relied on it and abided in it? Have I clung to it? Have I fixed a fixed mark upon it? Once these five questions have been asked, that is where 「色中行五種正行」 tr. "practising the five kinds of right practice within form" is carried out.
Take the last question to examine oneself. After studying emptiness, look back and see whether one has held emptiness fast as a new attainment—before breaking form one clings to form, after breaking form one clings to emptiness; both illnesses must be passed through, and only when both are passed is it 「離是二，名不二」 tr. "to depart from these two is called non-duality".
Further Resonances
This unit itself demonstrates what it is to carry on and what it is to extend. What it carries on is the ten questions set up at the chapter's start—taking each up in turn with 「如舍利弗所言」 tr. "as Śāriputra said", one question and one answer, not one left hanging. What it extends is the pushing of the answers into practice—being without self-nature is extended into the contemplation of eye-consciousness as a coming together; being ultimately non-arising is extended into the pivot 「即是般若」 tr. "is itself prajñā"; being itself prajñā is extended further into the five kinds of right contemplation; and the five kinds of right contemplation end in 「入無二法數」 tr. "entering the count of non-dual dharmas", closing the whole chapter. Those who later take up this unit walk in this same order: first hear 「無」 tr. "non-existence" as the contemplation, true to how things are, of coming together and being without self-nature, and do not hear it as annihilation; then set non-arising-is-prajñā upon one's own mind that seeks the Dharma, and see how far the gap between the one who teaches and what is taught loosens; then carry the five kinds of right contemplation back into the daily use of the five aggregates, testing them object by object; and finally keep in mind that last breath of the whole chapter—the one who spoke the ten non-existents to their end opened his mouth only 「憐愍眾生、利益諸菩薩」 tr. "out of compassion for sentient beings and to benefit all bodhisattvas". Non-existence spoken to its utmost, and the compassionate mind not lost; non-duality spoken to its utmost, and contemplative practice not abandoned—what the Last Part of the Chapter of the Ten Non-existents hands on to those who come after is just this going-together without conflict: in view, ultimately non-arising; in contemplative practice, the five contemplations ever clear; in opening the mouth, only to benefit others.