大智度論 無生品之上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Non-arising, Part 1 of 2

The previous chapter sifted the bodhisattva through ten layers to where nothing could be found; in this chapter Śāriputra opens his mouth and asks once more the three most elementary things: what is a bodhisattva? what is prajñāpāramitā? what is contemplation? As if everything were starting over from the beginning. The treatise-author says it plainly: the emptiness of the bodhisattva is like a deep-rooted great tree that no single stroke of the axe can fell; and the Buddha's Dharma is like a great cool and lovely pool, where those in front have drunk their fill and gone while those behind have not yet drunk. To ask again is not to repeat. Subhūti's answer takes the three names apart one by one: to arouse the great mind for unsurpassed awakening and yet cling to no dharma, that is a bodhisattva; separation, separation from the five aggregates, separation from the six perfections, separation from omniscience, and ‘separation’ is precisely another name for ‘emptiness’, that is prajñā; to contemplate form as neither permanent nor impermanent, neither pleasant nor painful, neither self nor non-self, falling into none of the eight, that is contemplation. Then the edge turns to the chapter's title: the non-arising of form is not form, the non-duality of form is not form, form enters the count of non-dual dharmas. Why? The mark of form is empty at root, and within the emptiness of form there is no form and no arising; to refute the duality of form is called non-dual, to refute the arising of form is called non-arising, one and the same emptiness entered by different gates. It is like tearing down a privy to build a house: though the privy is gone, the impression of impurity remains; only when one knows that the privy was from the start a conjured thing is that impression truly set down. Form is non-arising from the start; it is not that today wisdom has made it non-arising. So Subhūti says to the Buddha: a bodhisattva who contemplates all dharmas in this way sees the non-arising of form as ultimately pure, and on to seeing the non-arising of the Buddha and the Buddha's dharmas as ultimately pure. Śāriputra at once seizes the crux: if all dharmas are non-arising, why does the srota-āpanna cut off the three fetters and cultivate the path? why does the bodhisattva undertake difficult practices? why does the Buddha turn the wheel of Dharma? Subhūti answers cleanly: I do not wish that there be anything attained within the non-arising dharma. But this is not not-knowing and not-attaining: there is knowing and there is attaining, only not by way of a dual dharma; because of worldly names there are srota-āpanna on to the buddhas, while in the truth of the highest meaning there is no karma and no result, no arising and no ceasing. Asked again whether it is an arisen dharma that arises or an unarisen dharma that arises: an arisen dharma has already arisen and should not arise again; an unarisen dharma does not yet exist and should not have arising; half arisen and half unarisen does not arise either. The mark of arising is sifted through, and arising is like an illusion, like a dream, arising from false and deceptive dharmas. Here the treatise-author supplies two ladders: the contemplation of non-arising has two kinds, the compliant acceptance and the acceptance of non-arising, and ultimate purity is the purity of the acceptance of non-arising; from arousing the mind, subduing the mind, illumination, going forth and arriving, to the unsurpassed, the five kinds of awakening are laid out all the way to sitting at the seat of awakening. And the acceptance of non-arising is not cold: the bodhisattva regards beings as father and mother, as children, as his own body, and love arises of itself, not love by exertion; one who gives rise to a mind of difficulty and a mind of suffering cannot accomplish even the small affairs of the world, let alone the Buddha path. In the latter half of the chapter Śāriputra praises Subhūti as one who should stand foremost among teachers of the Dharma, and Subhūti replies with a single sentence: because all dharmas have nothing to rely on. The nature of form is always empty, relying neither on the inner, nor on the outer, nor on what is between the two, and so whatever is asked is answered, like wind moving through space, with nothing to obstruct it. The six perfections then divide into the worldly and the world-transcending: clinging to the mark of self, the mark of other, and the mark of giving, unmoving and unemerging within the world, this is worldly giving; purified in three parts, the self unfindable, no recipient seen, the thing given unfindable and no reward hoped for, able to move and able to emerge, this is world-transcending giving. What moves is the compliant acceptance; what emerges is the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. The six perfections, mixed with giving and morality, are the far path; the thirty-seven limbs, having only concentration and wisdom, are the near path. Where does all this power come from? It is the power of prajñāpāramitā: apart from the two extremes of annihilation and permanence, existence and non-existence, it can give rise to and can receive all wholesome dharmas, as the great ocean can receive the myriad rivers and streams; as in compounding medicines, the croton seed has the greatest force. Nor do the thought of great compassion and the thought of ultimate emptiness hinder each other: because beings are empty the thought too is empty, the names differ but the meaning is one, and objectless compassion is born exactly from ultimate emptiness. At this point the Buddha, who has been sitting and listening all along, speaks: excellent! excellent! The prajñāpāramitā as you have taught it is all by receiving the Buddha's intent; those who train in prajñāpāramitā should train as you have taught. The three-thousand great-thousand world quakes in six ways, and the Buddha smiles and declares: as I teach prajñā in this world, so too do the buddhas of the immeasurable worlds of the ten directions teach it. Why does the earth quake? When a bodhisattva arouses the mind, when a nāga king comes out of the water, by the Buddha's spiritual power, when gods and humans attain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; and to take the essential, the earth quakes always because the real mark of all dharmas is being taught, that is, prajñāpāramitā. Non-arising taught to its very end is not a dead stillness but a living word at which the great earth quakes in six ways.

Śāriputra's Three Questions, and Subhūti's Answer on the Meaning of Bodhisattva: Arousing the Great Mind, Knowing Without Clinging

At that time the venerable Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘The bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā and contemplates all dharmas—what is a bodhisattva? What is prajñāpāramitā? What is contemplation?’

Subhūti said to Śāriputra: ‘As to what you ask, “What is a bodhisattva?”—for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi (unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening) this person arouses the great mind, and therefore he is called a bodhisattva. He also knows all dharmas and all their kinds of marks, and yet within them he does not cling; he knows the mark of form and does not cling, up to knowing the eighteen unshared dharmas and also not clinging.’

Śāriputra asked Subhūti: ‘What is the mark of all dharmas?’

Subhūti said: ‘If, by way of names, the coming together of causes and conditions, and so on, one knows of dharmas that this is form, that this is sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharmas, that this is inner, that this is outer, that this is a conditioned dharma, that this is an unconditioned dharma—knowing dharmas by such names, marks, and words is called knowing the mark of dharmas.

Answering the Meaning of Prajñā and the Meaning of Contemplation: It Is Called Prajñā Because of Far Removal, and Contemplation Is the Eightfold Double Negation

‘As to what Śāriputra asks, “What is prajñāpāramitā?”—because of far removal, it is called prajñāpāramitā. From what dharmas is it far removed? It is far removed from the aggregates (the five aggregates), the elements (the eighteen elements), and the sense-fields (the twelve sense-fields); far removed from dānapāramitā (the perfection of giving) up to dhyānapāramitā (the perfection of meditation); far removed from inner emptiness up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas (the last of the eighteen emptinesses); therefore far removal is called prajñāpāramitā. Furthermore, it is far removed from the four foundations of mindfulness, up to far removed from the eighteen unshared dharmas, far removed from omniscience. Through this cause and condition, far removal is called prajñāpāramitā.

‘As to what Śāriputra asks, “What is contemplation?”—Śāriputra! When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he contemplates form as neither permanent nor impermanent, neither pleasure nor suffering, neither self nor non-self, neither empty nor not empty, neither a mark nor signless, neither action nor non-action, neither quiescent nor not quiescent, neither removed nor not removed; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise. 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 the samādhi gates (the gates of concentration in which the mind abides on a single object), all the dhāraṇī gates (the gates of total retention), up to omniscience of all kinds—all of these he contemplates as neither permanent nor impermanent, neither pleasure nor suffering, neither self nor non-self, neither empty nor not empty, neither a mark nor signless, neither action nor non-action, neither quiescent nor not quiescent, neither removed nor not removed. Śāriputra! This is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva contemplating all dharmas when he practises prajñāpāramitā.’

What follows is the commentary.

Why Ask Again What Was Already Asked: A Great Tree Is Not Felled at One Stroke, and at a Fine Pool All May Come to Drink, Earlier or Later

Someone asks: The so-called ‘meaning of bodhisattva, the meaning of prajñāpāramitā, and the meaning of the contemplations’ were already asked about above; why are they asked about again now?

The treatise-author answers: The simile of the great tree has already been given in answer earlier—a great tree cannot be felled at one stroke; this matter is difficult, and so it is asked again.

Furthermore, this prajñāpāramitā has immeasurable meanings, as is said in the chapter on Dharmodgata: ‘Prajñāpāramitā is immeasurable like the water of the great ocean, and like Mount Sumeru with all its kinds of adornment.’ Therefore the question is put.

Again, although this question is the same, the meanings given in answer differ in all kinds of ways.

Furthermore, the Buddhas have cut off love of dharma; they do not set up scriptures, nor do they adorn their words; solely to rescue beings, they speak according to those who are to be liberated. It is like a vast, clear, and cool fine pool: immeasurable beings come to drink, earlier or later, and each goes away satisfied. Those who hear the Dharma are likewise—the Buddha has earlier spoken of the bodhisattva, of prajñā, and of contemplation; those who came first gained some understanding and went away, while those who came later have not yet heard it, and so it is asked again.

Explaining ‘Bodhisattva’: Of the Three Kinds of Awakening, Only the Buddha's Awakening Is Taken

As to what is called ‘bodhisattva’:

‘Awakening’ (bodhi) is of three kinds: there is the awakening of the arhat, there is the awakening of the pratyekabuddha, and there is the awakening of the Buddha. The wisdom of one beyond training is pure and without stain, and so it is called awakening. Although the bodhisattva has great wisdom, the residual habits of the afflictions have not yet been wholly removed, and so it is not called awakening. Here only one kind is spoken of, namely the awakening of the Buddha. ‘Sattva’ is rendered in the language of Qin as “beings”. These beings, for the sake of the unsurpassed path, arouse the mind and practise.

Furthermore, ‘sattva’ is also called the great mind. This person arouses the great mind and seeks unsurpassed awakening but has not yet realised it, and therefore he is called a ‘bodhisattva’. The Buddha has already attained this awakening and so is not called a bodhisattva, because the great mind has already been fulfilled.

The remaining meanings of ‘bodhisattva’ are as was said at length earlier.

Furthermore, the Buddha here himself states the cause and condition: ‘This person practises for the sake of the Buddha path, and knows the mark of all dharmas and yet does not cling.’ What is called ‘the mark of all dharmas’ is the approach by which dharmas can be known—that this is form, that this is sound, and so on. To speak of the meaning of bodhisattva in brief: first he knows the specific mark of each dharma, such as the hard mark of earth, and afterwards he knows the mark of ultimate emptiness; within these two kinds of wisdom he also does not cling, but acts solely for the sake of liberating beings.

Having attained such wisdom, the bodhisattva is able to be far removed from all dharmas with specific marks. For instance, within form he is removed from form; being removed from form is the emptiness of specific marks; what is called ‘far removal’ is another name for ‘emptiness’. The bodhisattva attains prajñāpāramitā, and toward all dharmas his mind is entirely far removed. Why? Because he sees the faults of all dharmas.

Explaining Prajñā and Contemplation: Far Removal Is Another Name for Emptiness

‘Aluomi’ is rendered in the language of Qin as “far removal”; ‘pāramitā’ is rendered in the language of Qin as “crossing to the other shore”. These two sounds are close, and their meanings also meet, and so ‘aluomi’ is used to explain ‘pāramitā’.

From what dharmas is it far removed? From the aggregates, the elements, and the sense-fields, up to omniscience. Because it is far removed from these dharmas, it is called prajñāpāramitā; just as dhyānapāramitā is able to tame a person's mind, prajñāpāramitā is able to make a person far removed from all dharmas.

What is called ‘contemplation’ is not contemplating dharmas as permanent, impermanent, and so on, as was said earlier.

Why Not Arising Is Not Form: In the Emptiness of Form There Is No Form and No Arising

Śāriputra asked Subhūti: ‘Through what cause and condition is form not arising then not form? Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness not arising then not consciousness, up to omniscience of all kinds not arising then not omniscience of all kinds?’

Subhūti said: ‘Form—the mark of form is empty, and within the emptiness of form there is no form and no arising; through this cause and condition, form not arising is then not form. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness—the mark of consciousness is empty, and within the emptiness of consciousness there is no consciousness and no arising; through this cause and condition, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness not arising are then not feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness. Śāriputra! Dānapāramitā—the mark of dānapāramitā is empty, and within the emptiness of dānapāramitā there is no dānapāramitā and no arising; śīlapāramitā (the perfection of morality), kṣāntipāramitā (the perfection of patience), vīryapāramitā (the perfection of vigour), dhyānapāramitā, prajñāpāramitā (the perfection of wisdom)—prajñāpāramitā: the mark of prajñāpāramitā is empty, and within the emptiness of prajñāpāramitā there is no prajñāpāramitā and no arising; through this cause and condition, Śāriputra, prajñāpāramitā not arising is then not prajñāpāramitā. Inner emptiness up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and omniscience of all kinds are likewise; through this cause and condition, inner emptiness not arising is then not inner emptiness, up to omniscience of all kinds not arising is then not omniscience of all kinds.’

Why Not Two Is Not Form, and Enters the Number of Non-dual Dharmas: One Mark, the Signless—Form Is Itself Non-arising

Śāriputra asked Subhūti: ‘Through what cause and condition do you say, “Form not two is then not form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness not two are then not consciousness; up to omniscience of all kinds not two is then not omniscience of all kinds”?’

Subhūti answered: ‘All that is form is all that is not two; all that is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness is all that is not two. All these dharmas neither come together nor disperse; they are without form, without shape, without resistance, of one mark—what is called the signless. The eye up to omniscience of all kinds are likewise. Through this cause and condition, Śāriputra, form not two is then not form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness not two are then not consciousness; up to omniscience of all kinds not two is then not omniscience of all kinds.’

Śāriputra asked Subhūti: ‘Through what cause and condition do you say, “This form enters the number of non-dual dharmas; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness enter the number of non-dual dharmas; up to omniscience of all kinds enters the number of non-dual dharmas”?’

Subhūti answered: ‘Form is not different from non-arising, and non-arising is not different from form; form is itself non-arising, and non-arising is itself form. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are not different from non-arising, and non-arising is not different from consciousness; consciousness is itself non-arising, and non-arising is itself consciousness. Through this cause and condition, Śāriputra, form enters the number of non-dual dharmas; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness enter the number of non-dual dharmas; up to omniscience of all kinds is likewise.’

What follows is the commentary.

The Simile of Clearing Away a Privy to Make a Dwelling: The Nature of Form Is Always of Itself Non-arising, Not Made So by the Power of Wisdom

Someone asks: When the previous chapter ended, the question of ‘not arising’ should have followed at once; why is it asked only here?

The treatise-author answers: The three great dharmas are easy to understand and benefit many beings, and so they were asked first.

‘Through what cause and condition is form not arising not form, up to omniscience of all kinds not arising not omniscience of all kinds?’

Subhūti answers: ‘Form is empty; within form there is no mark of form.’

The practitioner uses this wisdom of non-arising to make form non-arising; if he is able to attain this non-arising, he forms in his mind the thought, ‘Now I have attained the real mark of form’—and so it is said, ‘form not arising is not form’. In truth the nature of form is always of itself non-arising; it is not that the power of wisdom now makes it non-arising. It is as when someone breaks form down and makes it empty, yet still keeps the notion of the form that was there originally; for example, one clears away a privy and makes it into a dwelling, and although now there is no longer a privy, the notion of impurity still remains. If one is able to know that the privy was from the beginning non-existent, merely made by illusory transformation, one no longer has the notion of a privy. The practitioner is likewise: if he is able to know that form from the very beginning has been naturally non-arising, he no longer keeps the notion of form. Therefore it is said, ‘form not arising is not form’. Up to omniscience of all kinds is likewise.

Non-arising and Not Two: One in Meaning, Different in Gate—the Emptiness of Specific Marks and the Emptiness of Dispersal

Someone asks: You yourself said earlier, ‘Non-arising is itself non-duality’; why is it asked again now?

The treatise-author answers: Although the meaning is one, the gate of contemplation by which one enters differs.

What was said above breaks down the views that the effect already exists within the cause, or that there is no effect; whether arising and the dharma are one or different, and so on; whether this arising is the first arising or a later arising—breaking down all such kinds of arising is called ‘non-arising’. What is now spoken of breaks down all kinds of twos, such as the eye and form, existence and non-existence, and so it is called ‘not two’.

Some practitioners first enter the gate of the contemplation of non-arising and afterwards enter not-two; some first enter not-two and afterwards enter the contemplation of non-arising. Although the meaning is one, practitioners each make their own distinctions.

Breaking down the two of form, it is said to be ‘not two’; breaking down the arising of form, it is said to be ‘non-arising’.

The cause and condition of non-arising spoken of above is ‘the emptiness of specific marks’; the cause and condition of not-two spoken of now is ‘neither coming together nor dispersing, of one mark—what is called the signless’, and so on. Although the meaning is the same single emptiness, above it is the emptiness of specific marks, while here it is the emptiness of dispersal.

Breaking Down and Dispersing Is Itself Non-arising; There Can Be No Further Non-arising

As to what is called ‘form enters the number of non-dual dharmas’—the practitioner contemplates the mark of form as neither arising nor ceasing; at this time the form he discriminates is now turned into non-arising, and so it is said that form not arising is itself not two. Why? Once form is broken down and dispersed, it is non-arising. Just as, when dharmas were discriminated earlier, there could be no separate arising apart from form, so now, form being broken down and dispersed is itself non-arising, and there can also be no further, separate non-arising. Therefore form itself enters the number of non-dual dharmas.

These two arhats have finished their joint discussion before the Buddha; Subhūti reports to the Buddha and speaks this meaning again because he wishes the Buddha to bear witness to it.

Subhūti Reports to the Buddha: He Sees All Dharmas as Non-arising, Because of Ultimate Purity

At that time Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā and contemplates all dharmas in this way, at this time he sees form as non-arising, because of ultimate purity; he sees feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness as non-arising, because of ultimate purity. He sees the self as non-arising, up to the knower and the seer as non-arising, because of ultimate purity. He sees dānapāramitā as non-arising up to prajñāpāramitā as non-arising, because of ultimate purity. He sees inner emptiness as non-arising up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas as non-arising, because of ultimate purity. He sees the four foundations of mindfulness as non-arising up to the eighteen unshared dharmas as non-arising, because of ultimate purity. He sees all samādhi and all dhāraṇī as non-arising, because of ultimate purity; up to seeing omniscience of all kinds as non-arising, because of ultimate purity. He sees the ordinary person and the dharmas of the ordinary person as non-arising, because of ultimate purity. He sees the srota-āpanna and the dharmas of the srota-āpanna, the sakṛdāgāmin and the dharmas of the sakṛdāgāmin, the anāgāmin and the dharmas of the anāgāmin, the arhat and the dharmas of the arhat, the pratyekabuddha and the dharmas of the pratyekabuddha, the bodhisattva and the dharmas of the bodhisattva, the Buddha and the dharmas of the Buddha as non-arising, because of ultimate purity.’

Śāriputra Raises a Difficulty: If All Dharmas Do Not Arise, Why Cut Off the Fetters and Cultivate the Path, Attain Awakening and Turn the Dharma Wheel?

Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘According to the meaning of what I have heard Subhūti say—form is not arising, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are not arising, up to the Buddha and the dharmas of the Buddha are not arising. If that is so, one ought not to attain the srota-āpanna and the fruit of the srota-āpanna, the sakṛdāgāmin and the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the anāgāmin and the fruit of the anāgāmin, the arhat and the fruit of the arhat, the pratyekabuddha and the path of the pratyekabuddha; one ought not to attain the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, or omniscience of all kinds; nor would there be the distinctions of the six paths; nor would one attain the five kinds of awakening of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva. Subhūti! If all dharmas are of the mark of not arising, why does the srota-āpanna cultivate the path in order to cut off the three fetters, why does the sakṛdāgāmin cultivate the path in order to make lust, hatred, and delusion grow thin, why does the anāgāmin cultivate the path in order to cut off the five fetters of the lower part, and why does the arhat cultivate the path in order to cut off the five fetters of the upper part? Why does the pratyekabuddha cultivate the path for the sake of the dharmas of the pratyekabuddha? Why does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva do what is hard to do and undergo all kinds of suffering for the sake of beings? Why does the Buddha attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? Why does the Buddha turn the Dharma wheel?’

Subhūti Answers: Within the Dharma of Non-arising Nothing Is Attained, and the Bodhisattva Does Not Practise the Path with a Mind That Finds It Hard

Subhūti said to Śāriputra: ‘I do not wish that there be any attainment in the dharma of non-arising. Nor do I wish that within the dharma of non-arising one attain the srota-āpanna and the fruit of the srota-āpanna, up to not wishing that within the dharma of non-arising one attain the arhat and the fruit of the arhat, the pratyekabuddha and the path of the pratyekabuddha. Nor do I wish that within the dharma of non-arising the bodhisattva do what is hard to do and undergo all kinds of suffering for the sake of beings. Nor does the bodhisattva practise the path with a mind that finds it hard. Why? Śāriputra! One who gives rise to a mind of hardship and a mind of suffering cannot benefit immeasurable asaṃkhyeya beings. Śāriputra! Now the bodhisattva has compassion for beings and regards beings as his father and mother, brothers, as his children, and as his own self; in this way he is able to benefit immeasurable asaṃkhyeya beings, and this is because he employs nothing to be attained. Why? The bodhisattva-mahāsattva should give rise to such a mind: “Just as I am unfindable in all places and in all kinds, so too are inner and outer dharmas.” If he gives rise to such a notion, there is no mind of hardship and no mind of suffering. Why? Because this bodhisattva does not receive anything in all kinds, in all places, and in all dharmas. Śāriputra! Nor do I wish that within the dharma of non-arising the Buddha attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor do I wish that within the dharma of non-arising the Dharma wheel be turned, nor do I wish that the path be attained by means of the dharma of non-arising.’

What follows is the commentary.

The Two Kinds of Contemplation of Non-arising: Compliant Acceptance and the Acceptance of Non-arising

The treatise-author explains: The contemplation of non-arising is of two kinds—first, the contemplation of compliant acceptance; second, the contemplation of the acceptance of non-arising. The non-arising spoken of before is the contemplation of compliant acceptance, and is not ultimately pure; gradually cultivating the compliant contemplation, one attains the acceptance of non-arising, and then it is ultimately pure.

Someone asks: The bodhisattva has not yet wholly cut off the fetters, has not yet attained the Buddha path, and his wisdom is not yet fully pure; how can it be called ‘ultimately pure’?

The treatise-author answers: When this bodhisattva attains the acceptance of non-arising, he extinguishes the afflictions, attains the bodhisattva path, and enters the bodhisattva position; although there still remain traces of the afflictions, which come to an end only when he sits at the seat of awakening, because they cause no obstruction, it is ultimately pure.

Furthermore, what is called ‘ultimately pure’ is ultimate purity spoken of with respect to the compliant path, not spoken of with respect to the Buddha path.

Because of the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas, from seeing form as non-arising and ultimately pure, up to the Buddha and the dharmas of the Buddha being non-arising and ultimately pure.

Subhūti, through all kinds of causes and conditions, has said that the mark of all dharmas is definitely non-arising; because of this matter, Śāriputra raises such a difficulty: among the worthies and sages, the least is the srota-āpanna and the dharmas of the srota-āpanna; the greatest is the Buddha and the dharmas of the Buddha. If that is so, then among the sages there would be neither great nor small, among the dharmas of the sages neither superior nor inferior, and there would also be no distinctions of the six paths—this is the brief difficulty; the later questions, about cultivating the path in order to cut off the three fetters and so on, are the extended difficulty.

The Five Kinds of Awakening: From Arousing the Mind to the Unsurpassed

Someone asks: What are the five kinds of awakening?

The treatise-author answers: First, compliant acceptance; second, the acceptance of non-arising; with the three kinds of awakening added to these. Among the three awakenings, one passes beyond the first two and abides in the third awakening.

There are also another five kinds of awakening: the first is called ‘the awakening of arousing the mind’—amid immeasurable births and deaths, one arouses the mind for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and so it is called awakening; this is speaking of the fruit within the cause. The second is called ‘the awakening of subduing the mind’—breaking the afflictions, subduing one's own mind, and practising the perfections. The third is called ‘the awakening of illumination’—contemplating the root and branch, the general marks, and the specific marks of the dharmas of the three times, discriminating and weighing them, and attaining the real mark of all dharmas, which is ultimately pure, and is precisely the mark of prajñāpāramitā. The fourth is called ‘the awakening of going forth and arriving’—within prajñāpāramitā one attains the power of skilful means, and also does not cling to prajñāpāramitā; one extinguishes all afflictions, sees all the Buddhas of the ten directions, attains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, goes out of the three realms, and arrives at sarvajñā (omniscience). The fifth is called ‘unsurpassed awakening’—sitting at the seat of awakening, cutting off the residual habits of the afflictions, and attaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.

The above is the meaning of the five awakenings.

The meaning of how the other worthies and sages cut off the fetters is as was said earlier.

Why the Practice of the Pratyekabuddha and the Many Practices of the Bodhisattva Are Not Spoken Of

Someone asks: The path of the śrāvaka speaks at length of the meaning of cutting off the fetters; why is the practice of the pratyekabuddha not spoken of, nor the bodhisattva's having all kinds of practices?

The treatise-author answers: Compared with the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha has no separate path; it is only that his merit is greater, his faculties sharper, and he enters a little more deeply into the real mark of all dharmas—in this he differs. Although the bodhisattva path has all kinds of many practices, the practices that are hard to do and the ascetic practices are rare matters; beings, seeing them, say with joy: ‘The bodhisattva does such practices for our sake!’ The other practices, though deep and wondrous, are not known to people and cannot move people, and so they are not spoken of.

Furthermore, as to the intent of Śāriputra's difficulty: if all dharmas are non-arising, empty, and quiescent, and all beings crave pleasure, why does the bodhisattva alone undergo ascetic practice?

Furthermore, the Buddhas always delight in far removal and quiescent extinction, have cut off love of dharma, and know definitely that dharmas neither turn nor return; why then do they still turn the Dharma wheel for the sake of beings?

The Six Kinds of Sages and the Two Kinds of Fault: Within the Dharma of Non-arising There Is Nothing at All

Subhūti spoke of the dharma of non-arising before the Buddha, and the Buddha did not rebuke or refute him; he gained a gladdened mind and the power of unobstructed delight in speaking, and answered Śāriputra: I too do not in any way wish that within the dharma of non-arising there be the six kinds of sages—the bodhisattva is left out, and so it says ‘six’—or the distinctions of the six paths. Why? Because he has attained realisation of the dharma of non-arising. The so-called distinctions among the dharmas of the sages and among the sages—within the dharma of non-arising, none of these exists at all.

Furthermore, within the dharma of non-arising there are two kinds of fault: the ‘coarse fault’—because of the wrongdoing of killing, stealing, and so on, there are the three evil destinies; and the ‘subtle fault’—because of practising the merits of giving, morality, and so on with a clinging mind, there are the three good destinies.

Great Compassion Forms the Cause and Condition: As with Father and Mother, Children, and One's Own Self, Love Arises Naturally

If the bodhisattva gives rise to a mind of hardship and a mind of suffering, he cannot liberate all beings. Just as with the small affairs of the world, if one's mind finds them hard and takes them as suffering, one still cannot accomplish them—how much less the accomplishing of the Buddha path!

The cause and condition by which one is able to accomplish it is the mind of great kindness and great compassion—regarding beings as father and mother, as children, and as one's own self. Why? Toward father and mother, children, and one's own self, love arises naturally; it is not that one first reasons it out and only then loves. Because the bodhisattva has well cultivated the mind of great compassion, toward all beings, even enemies and foes, he is equally loving and mindful. Whatever means of benefit are brought about as the recompense of great compassion, he begrudges none of them at all; all that he has, inner and outer, he gives wholly to beings. The cause and condition of not begrudging spoken of here is ‘in all places, in all kinds, and in all dharmas unfindable’. If the practitioner has first entered the Buddha-dharma, he uses the emptiness of beings and knows that dharmas are without self; now he uses the emptiness of dharmas and knows that dharmas too are empty. Through these two causes and conditions, this mind of great compassion and the emptiness of all dharmas, he is then able not to begrudge anything he has, inner or outer, to benefit beings; he does not give rise to the notion of practice that is hard to do or the notion of ascetic practice, but is single-minded, vigorous, and joyful. It is like a person who, for his own sake and for the sake of his father and mother, wife and children, toils in body and labours at his work and does not regard it as suffering; if he does it for others, he has no joyful mind.

Ascetic practice and practice that is hard to do are as is said in a later chapter, in ‘the causes and conditions of the jātaka, in which he transformed himself and manifestly took on the form of an animal’.

Returning and Not Turning: Because It Breaks Down False Inversion, It Is Called Turning the Dharma Wheel

Because all dharmas are ultimately empty and are of an inconceivable mark, all dharmas return and there is nothing that is turned, and so it is not called turning; it is only for the sake of breaking down false inversion that it is called ‘turning the Dharma wheel’.

The Path Attained by an Arising Dharma? The Path Attained by a Non-arising Dharma?—There Is Knowing and There Is Attaining, but Not by Two Dharmas

Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘Now, do you wish that a person attain the path by an arising dharma? Or attain the path by a non-arising dharma?’

Subhūti said to Śāriputra: ‘I do not wish that a person attain the path by an arising dharma.’

Śāriputra said: ‘Now, does Subhūti wish that a person attain the path by a non-arising dharma?’

Subhūti said: ‘Nor do I wish that a person attain the path by a non-arising dharma.’

Śāriputra said: ‘According to what Subhūti says, then there is no knowing and no attaining.’

Subhūti said: ‘There is knowing and there is attaining, only not by two dharmas. Now, because of the names of the world there is knowing and there is attaining; because of the names of the world there are the srota-āpanna up to the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, and the Buddhas; within the first real meaning there is no knowing and no attaining, no srota-āpanna up to no Buddhas.’

‘Subhūti! If because of the names of the world there is knowing and there is attaining, do the distinctions of the six paths likewise exist because of the names of the world, and not according to the first real meaning?’

Subhūti said: ‘Just so! Just so! Śāriputra! Just as because of the names of the world there is knowing and there is attaining, the distinctions of the six paths likewise exist because of the names of the world, not according to the first real meaning. Why? Śāriputra! Within the first real meaning there is no deed and no recompense, no arising and no ceasing, without purity and without stain.’

Does a Non-arising Dharma Arise? Does an Arising Arise?—Arising and Not Arising, the Two Dharmas, Are of One Mark, the Signless

Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘Is it that a non-arising dharma arises? Or that an arising dharma arises?’

Subhūti said: ‘I do not wish that a non-arising dharma arise, nor do I wish that an arising dharma arise.’

Śāriputra said: ‘What kind of non-arising dharma is it that you do not wish to arise?’

Subhūti said: ‘Form is a non-arising dharma, empty of self-nature, and I do not wish it to arise; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are non-arising dharmas, empty of self-nature, and I do not wish them to arise; up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is a non-arising dharma, empty of self-nature, and I do not wish it to arise.’

Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘Does arising arise? Or does not-arising arise?’

Subhūti said: ‘Neither does arising arise, nor does not-arising arise. Why? Śāriputra! Arising and not-arising—these two dharmas neither come together nor disperse; they are without form, without shape, without resistance, of one mark—what is called the signless. Śāriputra! Through this cause and condition, neither does arising arise, nor does not-arising arise.’

Delighting in Speaking of Non-arising: Even Delight in Speaking and Words Do Not Arise

At that time Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘Does Subhūti delight in speaking of the dharma of non-arising and the mark of non-arising?’

Subhūti said to Śāriputra: ‘I delight in speaking of the dharma of non-arising, and I also delight in speaking of the mark of non-arising. Why? The non-arising dharmas and the mark of non-arising, and also delight in speaking and words—all these dharmas neither come together nor disperse; they are without form, without shape, without resistance, of one mark—what is called the signless.’

Śāriputra said to Subhūti: ‘You delight in speaking of the non-arising dharma, and you also delight in speaking of the non-arising mark; is this delight in speaking and these words themselves also non-arising?’

Subhūti said: ‘Just so! Just so! Śāriputra! Why? Śāriputra! Form does not arise, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness do not arise; the eye does not arise, up to the mind does not arise; the earth element does not arise, up to the consciousness element does not arise; bodily action does not arise, verbal action does not arise, mental action does not arise; dānapāramitā does not arise, up to omniscience of all kinds does not arise. Through this cause and condition, Śāriputra, I delight in speaking of the non-arising dharma, and I also delight in speaking of the non-arising mark, and this delight in speaking and these words also do not arise.’

What follows is the commentary.

Śāriputra's Question of the Two Barriers: Apart from the Conditioned and the Unconditioned, How Can Attaining the Path Be Spoken Of?

The treatise-author explains: At that time Śāriputra, knowing that Subhūti's delight in speaking was unobstructed, asked: ‘If all dharmas are of the mark of non-arising, how is this mark of non-arising to be realised? Is it realised by an arising dharma? Or is it realised by a non-arising dharma? If it is realised by an arising dharma—the arising dharma is false and deceptive, and you have already broken it down through all kinds of causes and conditions; moreover, it is impossible to use an arising dharma to be liberated from arising dharmas. If it is realised by a non-arising dharma—non-arising does not yet have the mark of a dharma and cannot be used to realise anything; then how is it realised?’

Subhūti does not receive either of the two dharmas, because both sides have faults, as was said earlier.

Śāriputra thinks thus: ‘The Buddha's sūtras say that two dharmas gather up all dharmas—either the conditioned or the unconditioned. Arising is conditioned; non-arising is unconditioned. Now Subhūti has departed from these two dharmas; how can he speak of the matter of attaining the path?’ Having thought thus, he then asks Subhūti: ‘Is there then no such matter as attaining the path?’

Subhūti is a great arhat, foremost in practising the samādhi of non-contention; he speaks of this non-arising only for the sake of bodhisattvas—‘How can you hold a wrong view and say that there is no one who attains the path?’ And so he says, ‘there is knowing and there is attaining’. ‘Knowing’ and ‘attaining’ are other names for attaining the fruit of the path.

For the Sake of the Worldly It Is Said to Exist: Within the First Meaning There Is No Sage and No Ordinary Person

Subhūti, fearing to contradict his earlier words, therefore says: it is because it is not by two dharmas. It is only for the sake of the worldly that it is said there are the srota-āpanna up to the Buddha. Why? All dharmas truly have no mark of self; now using “self” to distinguish the srota-āpanna up to the Buddha—this is a worldly dharma.

Furthermore, it is because the emptiness of dharmas has not yet been attained that one says, ‘this is wholesome, this is unwholesome, this is conditioned, this is unconditioned’, and so on; within the first meaning, because there are no beings, there is no srota-āpanna up to no Buddha; because dharmas are empty, there is no fruit of the srota-āpanna up to no Buddha path. The sages and the dharmas of the sages are themselves false and deceptive, without any fixed reality—how much more the deeds of the six paths of ordinary people and their recompense!

Breaking Down Arising by Four Alternatives: What Has Arisen Does Not Arise Again, and What Does Not Yet Exist Ought Not to Arise

Someone asks: Subhūti has already, through all kinds of causes and conditions, spoken definitely of the non-arising dharma; why does Śāriputra now ask again, ‘Does a non-arising dharma arise, does an arising dharma arise’?

The treatise-author answers: Because Subhūti spoke above of the causes and conditions of attaining the path, Śāriputra grasped Subhūti's intent—that although he speaks of the non-arising dharma and breaks down all dharmas, he speaks so for the sake of causes and conditions, and his mind does not cling to the non-arising dharma—and so he asks again. Again, because this dharma is very deep, he wishes the hearers to understand it clearly and distinctly, and so he asks again. What was asked above concerned the practice of attaining the path; what is now asked is, in general, how all dharmas arise. Looking with the wisdom eye, one knows that all dharmas do not arise; yet now one presently sees dharmas arising, and so he asks ‘how do they arise?’

Subhūti answers: Both matters are wrong. If ‘arising’ arises—the arising dharma has already arisen and ought not to arise again! If ‘not-arising’ arises—the arising dharma does not yet exist and ought not to arise. If it is said that at the moment of arising it is ‘half arisen and half not arisen’, that too does not arise—the part already arisen has already finished arising; the part not yet arisen has no arising. Therefore Subhūti does not use this view of the fleshly eye, because it does not penetrate; he does not receive either of the two dharmas, but only says: this arising is like an illusion, like a dream, arising from false and deceptive dharmas; one should be far removed from it, and should not grasp its marks.

Śāriputra asks: ‘What kind of dharma is it, that both are not received?’

Subhūti, for the sake of worldly truth, says that form up to omniscience of all kinds are ultimately non-arising and naturally of the mark of emptiness, and does not wish that there be arising within the real; if it is spoken of in terms of the falsity and deception of worldly truth, there can be arising, but the arising too is like an illusory transformation.

The cause and condition of not arising spoken of here is ‘neither coming together nor dispersing’.

Arising and the Dharma Are Not Different; Receiving the Question and Receiving the Praise, His Mind Too Is Without Shame

Someone says: Arising and the dharma are different, holding that ‘arising is permanent, while the dharma that arises is impermanent’, and so it is asked again. The one who answers holds that arising and the dharma are not different—if one has spoken of the arising dharma, one has already spoken of the mark of arising.

Arising and not arising are as was said above.

Śāriputra, having heard what Subhūti said, knew that Subhūti's mind loved and delighted in the dharma of non-arising, and so said to Subhūti: ‘You truly love and delight in speaking of the dharma of non-arising!’

Subhūti at once received this question, and his mind was without shame. Why? Because this discussion cannot be broken down and has no fault or wrongdoing. How is this known? Subhūti himself said: ‘There is no dharma that can come together, no dharma that can disperse; without form, without shape, empty, of one mark—what is called the signless.’ He does not receive even the mark of emptiness—how much less any other mark?

Śāriputra praised him once more: the dharma of non-arising that you delight in speaking of, and the words too, are all non-arising—this indeed is real purity! If delight in speaking and words were not non-arising, and one spoke only of outer things as non-arising, that would not be purity.

Subhūti at once received this praise too, and answered Śāriputra: ‘Not only are delight in speaking and words non-arising; form up to omniscience of all kinds, too, all have nothing that arises.’