大智度論 散華品之下Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Scattering Flowers, Part 2 of 2

The previous chapter told of prajñā heard by an illusory person; in this chapter the scene suddenly opens wide: the gods of the heavens of the Four Heavenly Kings, of the Trāyastriṃśa, and on to the Akaniṣṭha heaven of the three-thousand great-thousand world have a thought at one time: the venerable Subhūti lets fall this rain of dharma for us; why do we not conjure flowers and scatter them over the Buddha, the bodhisattvas, the assembly of bhikṣus, Subhūti, and prajñāpāramitā? And so conjured flowers fill the whole of space and form a flower terrace, dignified and wondrous. But Subhūti sees through it at a glance: these flowers have never been seen in the heavens; they are conjured flowers, not flowers grown on a tree; they are born of the heart-tree. Śakra Devānām Indra, following his thought, says ‘these flowers are not born flowers, nor are they born of the mind-tree’, but Subhūti turns the question back on him: if they are not a dharma that is born, they are not called flowers. But is it only these flowers that are not born? Form too is not born. If it is not born, it is not called form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and on to the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness up to omniscience of all kinds, each is not born, and of each, ‘if it is not born, it is not called such-and-such’, not one sentence allowed to collapse. The treatise-author then opens up the reason the gods scatter flowers: the gods, having heard prajñā, are like long-parched ground that receives a timely rain; irrigating and planting are always short of water, but when one timely rain falls everywhere nothing is left unsoaked. The teaching of the Small Vehicle is measured and limited, while here Subhūti, from the first arousing of the mind to the Buddha path, teaches only the real mark of all dharmas, just as a great rain filling Jambudvīpa leaves nothing unmoistened. If there is grain already in the ground it will not sprout without rain, and the practitioner is the same: without the rain of dharma, one who has aroused the mind falls back. This rain of dharma can also remove foul winds, dust, and poisonous vapours, clearing away evil initial and sustained thought, the three unwholesome roots, wrong views, and evil friends. The scattering of these flowers also has its several destinations: to scatter them over the Buddha is to make offering to the Buddha-jewel; over the bodhisattvas, Subhūti, and prajñā is to make offering to the Dharma-jewel; over the assembly of bhikṣus is to make offering to the Saṅgha-jewel. Someone asks by whose power this flower terrace is so dignified, and the treatise records two accounts side by side without judging: one says it is the merit and mastery of the gods, the small able to become great; one says it is the Buddha's spiritual power and the merit of prajñā, a small cause bearing a great result. And as for ‘flowers not born’, the treatise points out that this means ‘non-arising, empty, coming forth from nowhere’; ‘the mind-tree’ means that whatever is thought of arrives the moment it is thought. Next it turns to the eye of the whole chapter: Śakra Devānām Indra praises in his heart, ‘Subhūti's wisdom is very deep; without destroying the provisional name he teaches the real mark of all dharmas’, and the Buddha, knowing his thought, answers ‘So it is! So it is!’ Śakra Devānām Indra then asks the Buddha: what is called teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name? The Buddha himself answers him: form is only a provisional name, and Subhūti, without destroying this provisional name, teaches the real mark of all dharmas; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and on to the srota-āpanna and on to the Buddha, are all only provisional names, and Subhūti in every case teaches the real mark without destroying the provisional name. Why? The real mark of all dharmas has from the start no destroying and no not-destroying, and so what Subhūti teaches has no destroying and no not-destroying either. This sentence, ‘without destroying the provisional name he teaches the real mark of all dharmas’, is said eight times through the chapter, and is the backbone of the whole: a name is the mundane truth and need not be destroyed; the real mark is the truth of the highest meaning and is of itself just as it is; the noble one knows these two levels and, when teaching the dharma, follows ordinary people in using names, while in the truth of the highest meaning there is neither this nor that and nothing to dispute; and so he can at once leave the provisional name undestroyed and speak the real mark directly, for the two truths were never two separate pieces. Following on this ‘not destroying’, Subhūti further teaches the bodhisattva how to train: to train in this way is in fact ‘not to train in form’, because one does not see any fixed form to be trained in; if in this way one does not train in emptiness, that is called training in emptiness, because of non-duality; and on to not training for the increase of form or for its decrease, not training for the receiving of form or for its cessation. Śāriputra joins in and asks: training thus, without receiving and without ceasing, how can one reach omniscience of all kinds? Subhūti answers: this form cannot be received and there is no one who receives form, because of inner and outer emptiness, because all dharmas are not received; and precisely for this reason one can reach omniscience of all kinds. When he practises prajñā he does not see form arising or ceasing, does not see receiving or not receiving, does not see stain or purity, does not see increase or decrease, because the nature of form is empty from the start. This non-arising and non-ceasing, non-receiving and non-relinquishing, unstained and unpurified, neither joining nor dispersing, neither increasing nor decreasing, is like the great ocean: all the rivers return to it and it does not increase, the fire-pearl boils it and it does not decrease; dharma-nature abides constantly and its self-nature cannot be found, and so training reaches its end in ‘nothing trained in, nothing reached’. The treatise-author adds a sentence: why speak only of inner and outer emptiness? Because the one who receives form does not exist, inner emptiness is spoken; because form cannot be received, outer emptiness is spoken; and these two, inner and outer emptiness, gather in the emptiness of all dharmas entirely. In the latter half of the chapter Śakra Devānām Indra asks Śāriputra: where should the bodhisattva's prajñā be sought? Śāriputra answers: it should be sought in the chapter of Subhūti. This saying was passed down widely in later ages, because Subhūti constantly enters deeply into emptiness, all he teaches tends toward emptiness, and even the emptiness he teaches is empty; though the prajñā the Buddha teaches everywhere surpasses Subhūti's a hundred thousand times ten thousand times over, what is wanted here is that teaching of one flavour tending toward emptiness, and so it does not say ‘seek it in the chapter of what the Buddha taught’. Śakra Devānām Indra presses on: whose spiritual power is this? Subhūti says it is the Buddha's spiritual power. He then objects: if all dharmas are received nowhere, how can one still speak of the Buddha's spiritual power? Apart from the mark of non-receiving, apart from suchness, even the Tathāgata cannot be found. Subhūti expounds at length following his words, and the treatise-author breaks the Tathāgata down all the way: the five aggregates are not the Tathāgata, apart from the five aggregates is not the Tathāgata, the five aggregates are not in the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata is not in the five aggregates, nor does the Tathāgata contain the five aggregates; it is only because of idle discourse that there is said to be a Tathāgata, and because idle discourse is cut off there is no Tathāgata; the Tathāgata is from the start a dharma non-arising and non-ceasing, so how could one seek him by the idle discourse of existence and non-existence? To seek prajñā one should likewise not seek it in the false five aggregates, just as one who seeks a precious treasure goes to the great ocean or the jewel mountain and does not seek it in ditches and filth. Finally Śakra Devānām Indra praises this prajñā three times: it is the mahāpāramitā, it is the immeasurable perfection, it is the boundless perfection. Subhūti explains each at length: because form is great, prajñā is great, because the prior limit, the later limit, and the middle limit of form cannot be found; ‘immeasurable’ takes space alone as its simile, because some things, though great, have measure, as Sumeru, great as it is, is still only eighty-four thousand yojanas, and only space is immeasurable; form is immeasurable like space and so prajñā is immeasurable; ‘boundless’ says that form is boundless, conditions are boundless, and beings are boundless, and what is called a being is in truth not a single dharma named being but only a provisional name; this name from the start has no dharma and no destination, a name forced upon it, and beings from the very beginning are constantly pure. So the whole chapter closes on one sentence: if the mark of beings can be broken, everything else is easy to break. A grand assembly of gods gathered like clouds and conjured flowers filling the sky points, when all is said, to one thing only: the flowers scattered are flowers of non-arising, the dharma spoken is the dharma that does not destroy the provisional name, the prajñā sought is to be sought in the chapter of Subhūti and in the end cannot be found, and the prajñā praised as great, immeasurable, and boundless is ultimately empty. Not destroying a single provisional name, not concealing a single part of the real mark, everything returning to nothing to be attained and constant purity: this is the heart of the chapter on Scattering Flowers.

Where Prajñā Should Be Sought: Śāriputra Answers That It Should Be Sought in Subhūti's Chapters

At that time Śakra Devānām Indra asked Śāriputra: ‘Where should the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva be sought?’

Śāriputra said: ‘The prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should be sought in the chapters spoken by Subhūti.’

Whose Spiritual Power: Not My Spiritual Power, but the Buddha's Spiritual Power

Śakra Devānām Indra then asked Subhūti: ‘Is it your spiritual power that made Śāriputra speak the words 「菩薩摩訶薩般若波羅蜜，當於須菩提品中求」 tr. "The prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should be sought in Subhūti's chapters"?’

Subhūti said to Śakra Devānām Indra: ‘It is not my spiritual power.’

Śakra Devānām Indra asked: ‘Then whose spiritual power is it?’

Subhūti said: ‘It is the Buddha's spiritual power.’

Śakra Devānām Indra said: ‘All dharmas are without a place of receiving; why do you say it is the Buddha's spiritual power? Apart from the mark of there being no place of receiving, the Tathāgata is unfindable; apart from suchness, the Tathāgata is also unfindable.’

Within Non-receiving and Within Suchness the Tathāgata Is Unfindable: Neither Coming Together nor Dispersing within All Dharmas Is the Buddha's Spiritual Power

Subhūti said to Śakra Devānām Indra: ‘Just so! Just so! Kauśika! Apart from the mark of there being no place of receiving, the Tathāgata is unfindable; apart from suchness, the Tathāgata is also unfindable. Within the mark of there being no place of receiving the Tathāgata is unfindable; within suchness the Tathāgata is unfindable.

‘Within the suchness of form, the suchness of the Tathāgata is unfindable; within the suchness of the Tathāgata, the suchness of form is unfindable. Within the dharma-mark of form, the dharma-mark of the Tathāgata is unfindable; within the dharma-mark of the Tathāgata, the dharma-mark of form is unfindable. Within the dharma-marks of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, it is likewise.

‘Kauśika! The Tathāgata, within the suchness of form, neither comes together nor disperses; within the suchness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, he neither comes together nor disperses. The Tathāgata, apart from the suchness of form, also neither comes together nor disperses; apart from the suchness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, he also neither comes together nor disperses. And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, it is likewise. The Tathāgata, within the dharma-mark of form, neither comes together nor disperses; within the dharma-marks of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, he neither comes together nor disperses. The Tathāgata, apart from the dharma-mark of form, also neither comes together nor disperses; apart from the dharma-marks of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, he also neither comes together nor disperses. And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, it is likewise. Kauśika! Within all dharmas of these many kinds he neither comes together nor disperses: this is the Buddha's spiritual power, because it uses the dharma of nothing received.

Prajñā Is Not Sought within Form, nor Sought Apart from Form: All Dharmas Are without Anything Existent and Unfindable

‘As for what you, Kauśika, asked—「菩薩摩訶薩般若波羅蜜，當於何處求」 tr. "Where should the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva be sought?"—Kauśika! Prajñāpāramitā should not be sought within form, nor should prajñāpāramitā be sought apart from form; it should not be sought within feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, nor should it be sought apart from feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness. Why? Because this prajñāpāramitā, together with form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness—all these dharmas neither come together nor disperse; they are without form, without shape, and without resistance; they are of one mark, that is, what is called the signless. And so on up to: prajñāpāramitā should not be sought within omniscience of all kinds, nor should prajñāpāramitā be sought apart from omniscience of all kinds. Why? Because this prajñāpāramitā and omniscience of all kinds—all these dharmas neither come together nor disperse; they are without form, without shape, and without resistance; they are of one mark, that is, what is called the signless. Why? Because prajñāpāramitā is not form, nor is it apart from form; it is not feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, nor is it apart from feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; and so on up to: it is not omniscience of all kinds, nor is it apart from omniscience of all kinds. Prajñāpāramitā is not the suchness of form, nor is it apart from the suchness of form; it is not the suchness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, nor is it apart from the suchness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness. Prajñāpāramitā is not the dharma of form, nor is it apart from the dharma of form; it is not the dharma of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, nor is it apart from the dharma of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness. And so on up to: it is not the suchness of omniscience of all kinds, nor is it apart from the suchness of omniscience of all kinds; prajñāpāramitā is not the dharma of omniscience of all kinds, nor is it apart from the dharma of omniscience of all kinds. Why? Kauśika! Because all these dharmas are without anything existent and unfindable; precisely because they are without anything existent and unfindable, prajñāpāramitā is not form, nor is it apart from form; it is not the suchness of form, nor is it apart from the suchness of form; it is not the dharma of form, nor is it apart from the dharma of form; and so on up to: it is not omniscience of all kinds, nor is it apart from omniscience of all kinds; it is not the suchness of omniscience of all kinds, nor is it apart from the suchness of omniscience of all kinds; it is not the dharma of omniscience of all kinds, nor is it apart from the dharma of omniscience of all kinds.’

The Treatise Explains Why He Asks Where to Seek: He Does Not Ask about the Substance of Prajñā, Only about the Names That Can Be Read and Recited

What follows is the treatise-author's explanation.

Question: From the beginning up to now, the Buddha, Śāriputra, and Subhūti have made clear the mark of prajñāpāramitā through all kinds of causes and conditions; why, now, does Śakra Devānām Indra instead ask ‘where should prajñāpāramitā be sought’?

Answer: This is not asking about the substance of prajñā; it is only asking about the words, the names, and the things that can be read and recited of prajñā. That is why Śāriputra said: ‘It should be sought in the chapters spoken by Subhūti.’ This is because Subhūti delights in speaking of emptiness, and moreover is always skilled in cultivating emptiness. Śāriputra, although foremost in wisdom, has no view of I and self and no jealous mind, and has moreover cut off the love of dharma; therefore he said, ‘It should be sought in the chapters spoken by Subhūti.’

The Treatise Explains Why He Does Not Say to Seek It in the Buddha's Chapters: The Buddha Teaches the Dharma According to the Occasion, without Fixity, while Subhūti Heads Solely toward Emptiness

Question: The Buddha expounds prajñāpāramitā everywhere; compared with what Subhūti speaks, it surpasses it a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand times, beyond what counting or simile can compare. Why does he not say ‘seek it in the chapters spoken by the Buddha’?

Answer: Śakra Devānām Indra's meaning was: ‘Apart from the Buddha alone, who else can speak well?’ Therefore he honours Subhūti.

Furthermore, the Buddha constantly, in the six periods of a day and a night, observes beings with the buddha eye, not letting anyone fall for not having heard the Dharma; therefore he speaks according to what beings ought to understand, ought to attain, and ought to cultivate and practise. At times he says that prajñāpāramitā is impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-self, like a sickness, like a boil, and so on, and this is called ‘prajñāpāramitā’; at times he distinguishes the general marks and specific marks of dharmas; at times he says that dharmas arise from the coming together of causes and conditions, with no maker and no receiver, no knower and no seer, and this is called ‘prajñāpāramitā’; at times he speaks of the emptiness of dharmas, at times of ultimate emptiness, and this is called ‘prajñāpāramitā’. For this reason, he does not say ‘seek it in the chapters spoken by the Buddha’.

Moreover, Śakra Devānām Indra thought in his mind: ‘I do not know which one is definitely the fixed mark of prajñā.’ Therefore Śāriputra said: ‘Subhūti constantly enters deeply into emptiness; all that he says heads toward emptiness, and even the emptiness he speaks of is also empty. Therefore I say it should be sought in the chapters spoken by Subhūti.’

The Treatise Explains the Difficulty about Spiritual Power: What Difference Is There between the Mark of Non-receiving and Suchness

Śakra Devānām Indra rejoiced and praised Subhūti, saying: ‘The Venerable One's spiritual power is very great!’

Subhūti declined humbly, saying: ‘This is not my power; it is the spiritual power bestowed by the Buddha.’

Śakra Devānām Indra said: ‘If all dharmas have nothing received, why do you say it is the spiritual power bestowed by the Buddha? If one is apart from the mark of non-receiving, the Tathāgata is unfindable; apart from within suchness, the Tathāgata is unfindable.’

Śakra Devānām Indra thought thus: ‘All dharmas have the mark of non-receiving; all dharmas are empty and have no place of reliance; how can it be said that there definitely is a Tathāgata? If there is no Tathāgata, how could there be a bestowed spiritual power? Moreover, apart from the mark of non-receiving the Tathāgata is also unfindable; and now, apart from this suchness, the Tathāgata is also unfindable.’

Question: What difference is there between the mark of non-receiving and suchness?

Answer: The real mark of all dharmas is also called non-receiving, and is also called suchness. Within dharmas one must not cling, therefore it is called non-receiving; idle discourses cannot destroy it, therefore it is called suchness.

Now the Tathāgata is unfindable within emptiness, and unfindable apart from emptiness as well. Subhūti affirmed his words: ‘Just so! Just so!’ Now Subhūti speaks of this matter at length.

The Treatise Explains the Name Tathāgata: Because He Comes from within Suchness He Is Called Tathāgata

‘Within the mark of non-receiving and the mark of suchness the Tathāgata is unfindable’: either the Buddha's name is called Tathāgata, or the name of beings is called Tathāgata.

As one came from a former life, so one goes thus to a later life; this too is called Tathāgata (thus-come), and also called thus-gone. It is as said among the fourteen set-aside difficult questions: ‘The one thus-gone after death—does he exist? Does he not exist? Does he both exist and not exist? Does he neither exist nor not exist?’

As for the Buddha being named Tathāgata: just as Dīpaṃkara Buddha and the others practised the six perfections and attained the path of the Buddha, Śākyamuni Buddha too came thus, and therefore is named Tathāgata. Just as Dīpaṃkara Buddha and the others, with wisdom, knew the suchness of dharmas and came from within suchness, and therefore are named Tathāgata, Śākyamuni Buddha too came thus, and therefore is named Tathāgata.

Of these two kinds of Tathāgata, what is spoken of here is the Buddha-Tathāgata.

Because one understands that the Buddha-Tathāgata is without anything existent, all beings and all dharmas too are likewise without anything existent.

The meaning of non-receiving and of the Tathāgata is as was said earlier. Now a brief account is given once more: the mark of non-receiving and the mark of the Tathāgata are both empty, both without anything existent. Because the mark of non-receiving and the mark of suchness have no fixed nature, therefore there is no Tathāgata.

Someone says: the real mark of all dharmas is spoken of in two ways. The first: the mark of dharmas is ultimate emptiness, and this alone is real. The second: again, someone says that ultimate emptiness can be shown and can be spoken, and so it does not count as real; just as the mark of nirvāṇa cannot be shown and cannot be spoken, only this is called real. Of these two matters: within ultimate emptiness the Tathāgata is unfindable, and within the real mark that breaks ultimate emptiness the Tathāgata is also unfindable. Ultimate emptiness is the mark of non-receiving; the real mark that breaks ultimate emptiness is suchness.

The Treatise Explains the Extended Account of the Two Meanings: The Five Aggregates Are Not the Tathāgata; Sought in Five Ways, the Tathāgata Is Unfindable

From here onward, these two meanings are spoken of at length.

Within the five aggregates, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, the Tathāgata is unfindable; since the Tathāgata is unfindable, how could there be the Tathāgata's spiritual power?

The Tathāgata being unfindable is as was said earlier.

These five aggregates are not the Tathāgata; apart from the five aggregates, too, there is no Tathāgata; the five aggregates are not in the Tathāgata; the Tathāgata is not in the five aggregates; and the Tathāgata does not possess the five aggregates either.

Because the five aggregates have the marks of arising and ceasing, impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self, they are not the Tathāgata; if the five aggregates were the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata too would have to arise and cease.

Furthermore, the five aggregates are five dharmas and the Tathāgata is one; how can five dharmas make one? If five were one, one would also have to be five; if that were so, worldly dharmas and world-transcending dharmas would all fall into confusion and ruin!

For all kinds of causes and conditions such as these, the five aggregates are not the Tathāgata.

If there were a Tathāgata separately, apart from the five aggregates, the Tathāgata would have to be without seeing, without hearing, without knowing, without cognising, and would not feel suffering or pleasure either. Why? Because knowing, feeling, and the like are all dharmas of the five aggregates.

Question: The Tathāgata uses the eye, the ear, wisdom, and so on, and so is able to know and able to see; what fault is there in that?

Answer: What is able to see is the eye, not the Tathāgata. If the Tathāgata is not of the mark of seeing and yet uses the eye to see, then before he has taken up form, how does he know to use this eye? He might as well use the ear to see!

Question: The Tathāgata uses wisdom to discriminate and so is able to know—the eye is able to see and the others cannot see; therefore he uses the eye and does not take up the other faculties!

Answer: Knowing has the same fault as the eye: knowing is the five aggregates, not the Tathāgata. If knowing is used to know the eye, then with what could this knowing be known?

Question: The Tathāgata uses knowing to know the eye, and uses the eye to know form; if one wishes to know the Tathāgata, with what can he be known? If the Tathāgata is known by the Tathāgata, that would be endless, without limit!

Answer: The mark of knowing abides within knowing. If the Tathāgata knows, he is of the mark of knowing; if of the mark of knowing, he is impermanent; if impermanent, there is no later life!

Furthermore, if there were a Tathāgata separately, apart from the five aggregates, the Tathāgata would have to be permanent, like the mark of space; he ought not to change, ought not to undergo suffering and pleasure, and would also have to be without bondage and without liberation. There are all kinds of faults such as these.

Because ‘difference’ has been broken, the five aggregates are not in the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata is not in the five aggregates, and the Tathāgata does not possess the five aggregates either.

Question: It is by taking the five aggregates as causes and conditions that there is the Tathāgata; if there were no five aggregates, there would be no Tathāgata.

Answer: If the Tathāgata exists by taking the five aggregates as causes and conditions, then the Tathāgata has no own-nature; since he has no own-nature, how could he arise from other-nature?

Within the five aggregates, when the Tathāgata is sought in five ways, he is in no way findable; therefore there is no Tathāgata.

Only because of idle discourse is it said that there is a Tathāgata; because idle discourse has been cut off, it is said that there is no Tathāgata. The Tathāgata is a dharma that neither arises nor ceases; how can one seek the Tathāgata by means of idle discourse? If one seeks the Tathāgata by means of idle discourse, one does not see the Tathāgata. If there were in the end no Tathāgata at all, one would fall into wrong view! Therefore, if one seeks the Tathāgata by means of the idle discourse of existence and non-existence, all of this is wrong!

The mark of the Tathāgata is the mark of all dharmas; the mark of all dharmas is the mark of the Tathāgata; the mark of the Tathāgata is the mark of ultimate emptiness; the mark of ultimate emptiness is the mark of all dharmas.

The Treatise Explains Why Only Two Matters Are Spoken Of: The Suchness of the Five Aggregates Is the Dharma-Mark; the Simile of Touching Fire and Burning the Hand

Question: Why are only two matters spoken of here, saying ‘within the suchness of the five aggregates there is no suchness of the Tathāgata; within the suchness of the Tathāgata there is no suchness of the five aggregates’?

Answer: This is a brief account; in speaking of these two matters, the five matters are all included.

Furthermore, the twenty kinds of self-view, although all ordinary people have them, cannot arise all at one time. In this assembly now, perhaps only these two matters arise; therefore only two matters are spoken of.

As with the five aggregates, so it is likewise up to omniscience of all kinds.

The dharma-marks of the five aggregates, and so on up to the dharma-marks of omniscience of all kinds, are likewise. The suchness of the five aggregates is the dharma-mark.

Question: If suchness is the dharma-mark, why is it spoken of again?

Answer: When practitioners have arrived at the suchness of the five aggregates, their minds are startled and doubtful: why is the dharma-mark, after all, ultimately empty and without anything existent! Therefore it is said that the dharmas and dharma-marks of the five aggregates are of themselves thus. It is like a person who touches fire and burns his hand, yet gives rise to no resentment, because the mark of fire is of itself thus; but if someone grasps fire and burns him with it, he becomes angry and enraged, because someone held fire and burned him with it.

‘The Tathāgata, within the suchness of the five aggregates and within the dharma-marks of the five aggregates, neither comes together nor disperses’: apart from the suchness of the five aggregates there is no Tathāgata; this is one mark, that is, what is called the signless. Why? Because one dharma has no coming together and no dispersing; only two dharmas have coming together and dispersing. Apart from the dharma-marks of the five aggregates, too, there is no coming together and no dispersing. Why? Because apart from the dharma-marks of the five aggregates the Tathāgata is unfindable. The suchness and dharma-mark of the Tathāgata and the suchness and dharma-marks of the five aggregates are without duality and without difference; therefore it is said: ‘Apart from the suchness of the five aggregates and the dharma-marks of the five aggregates, too, he neither comes together nor disperses.’ And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, it is likewise.

It is because he is able to know in this way that the suchness and dharma-marks of dharmas neither come together nor disperse that there is this spiritual power.

The Treatise Explains Where It Should Be Sought: As Precious Treasure Is Always Sought in the Great Ocean and the Mountains of Treasure

‘Where should it be sought’: above, the mark of prajñā was spoken of by means of the Buddha's spiritual power; now it is said directly how prajñā is to be sought.

The treatise-author says: the five aggregates are false, deceptive, and impermanent; originally non-existent and now existent, having existed they again cease to exist, like an illusion, like a dream. Prajñāpāramitā is the true and real wisdom of the Buddhas; how could it be sought within the five aggregates? It is like seeking precious treasure: one always seeks it in the great ocean and in the mountains of treasure; one should not seek it in ditches and gutters or foul and filthy places. Apart from the five aggregates there is no arising and no ceasing, no making and no rising up, and no dharma-mark; within this, how could it be sought?

Furthermore, the five aggregates and prajñāpāramitā are neither one nor different, neither come together nor disperse; they are without form, without shape, and without resistance; they are of one mark, that is, what is called ‘the signless’.

Question: Prajñāpāramitā is a dharma of the mental factor of wisdom, so it can be said to be without form, without shape, and without resistance; the aggregate of form among the five aggregates—how can it be said to be without shape and without resistance?

Answer: The noble ones, with the wisdom eye, contemplate dharmas as equal and all empty, of one mark, that is, what is called the signless; for this reason, the aggregate of form too is without shape and without resistance.

Furthermore, the form that ordinary people see is not real; the various lines of reasoning are as refuted earlier.

Furthermore, there is another cause and condition: prajñāpāramitā is not the five aggregates of the kind that ordinary people see; but when the five aggregates that ordinary people see are broken, that very moment is prajñāpāramitā; therefore it is said not to be apart from the five aggregates.

And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, it is likewise.

The marks of the mark of suchness and of the dharma-mark are as was said earlier.

Three Praises of Prajñā: The Mahāpāramitā, the Immeasurable, and the Boundless Pāramitā

What follows is the sūtra text.

Śakra Devānām Indra said to Subhūti: ‘This is the mahāpāramitā; it is the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva! This is the immeasurable pāramitā, the boundless pāramitā; it is the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva! The srota-āpannas and the fruit of srota-āpanna are all accomplished by training within this prajñāpāramitā; and so on up to: the arhats and the fruit of arhat, the pratyekabuddhas and the path of the pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas are all accomplished by training within this prajñāpāramitā; bringing beings to maturity, purifying buddha-worlds, and attaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi are also all accomplished by training within this prajñā.’

Subhūti said to Śakra Devānām Indra: ‘Just so! Just so! Kauśika! This is the mahāpāramitā; it is the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva! This is the immeasurable pāramitā, the boundless pāramitā; it is the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva. By training within it one accomplishes the fruit of srota-āpanna, and so on up to the fruit of arhat, the path of the pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas; by training within this prajñāpāramitā one brings beings to maturity, purifies buddha-worlds, and attains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—has already attained, attains now, and will attain in the future.

Great: Because Form Is Great, Prajñā Is Great; the Three Limits Are Unfindable

‘Kauśika! Because form is great, prajñāpāramitā too is great. Why? Because the prior limit of this form is unfindable, the later limit is unfindable, and the middle limit is unfindable. Because feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are great, prajñāpāramitā too is great. Why? Because the prior limit of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness is unfindable, the later limit is unfindable, and the middle limit is unfindable. And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, it is likewise. For this cause and condition, Kauśika, this is the mahāpāramitā; it is the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva.

Immeasurable: Because Form Is Immeasurable, Prajñā Is Immeasurable; Like Space, Its Measure Is Unfindable

‘Kauśika! Because form is immeasurable, prajñāpāramitā is immeasurable. Why? Because the measure of form is unfindable. Kauśika! Just as the measure of space is unfindable, so too with form: its measure is unfindable. Because space is immeasurable, form is immeasurable; because form is immeasurable, prajñāpāramitā is immeasurable. Because feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, are immeasurable, prajñāpāramitā is immeasurable. Why? Because the measure of omniscience of all kinds is unfindable. Just as the measure of space is unfindable, so too with omniscience of all kinds: its measure is unfindable. Because space is immeasurable, omniscience of all kinds is immeasurable; because omniscience of all kinds is immeasurable, prajñāpāramitā is immeasurable. For this cause and condition, this prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is immeasurable.

Boundless: Because Form Is Boundless, Conditions Are Boundless, and Suchness Is Boundless, Prajñā Is Boundless

‘Kauśika! Because form is boundless, the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas is boundless. Why? Kauśika! Because the prior limit of form is unfindable, the later limit is unfindable, and the middle limit is unfindable. Because feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless. Why? Because the prior limit, the later limit, and the middle limit of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are all unfindable. And so on up to: because omniscience of all kinds is boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless. Why? Because the prior, later, and middle limits of omniscience of all kinds are unfindable. For this cause and condition, Kauśika, this prajñāpāramitā is boundless. Form is boundless, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds is boundless. Furthermore, Kauśika! Because conditions are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless.’

‘Subhūti! How is it that because conditions are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless?’

Subhūti said: ‘Because it takes as its object all boundless dharmas, prajñāpāramitā is boundless.’

‘How is it that because it takes as its object all boundless dharmas, prajñāpāramitā is boundless?’

Subhūti said: ‘Because it takes as its object the boundless dharma-nature, prajñāpāramitā is boundless.

‘Furthermore, Kauśika! Because it takes as its object boundless suchness, prajñāpāramitā is boundless.’

Śakra Devānām Indra said: ‘How is it that because it takes as its object boundless suchness, prajñāpāramitā is boundless?’

Subhūti said: ‘Because suchness is boundless, conditions too are boundless; because conditions are boundless, suchness too is boundless. For this cause and condition, the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas is boundless.

Because Beings Are Boundless, Prajñā Is Boundless: Beings Are Only a Provisional Name, Always Pure from the Very Beginning

‘Furthermore, Kauśika! Because beings are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless.’

Śakra Devānām Indra asked Subhūti: ‘How is it that because beings are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless?’

Subhūti said: ‘What do you think? What dharma is called a being?’

Śakra Devānām Indra said: ‘There is no dharma that is called a being; it is only by a provisional name that one speaks of a being. This name originally has no real dharma, and has nothing toward which it tends either; it is only a name forcibly set up for it.’

Subhūti said: ‘Kauśika! What do you think? Within this prajñāpāramitā, is it said that beings truly exist?’

Śakra Devānām Indra said: ‘No!’

Subhūti said: ‘Kauśika! If within prajñāpāramitā it is indeed not said that beings exist, then the boundlessness of beings too is unfindable. Kauśika! What do you think? When the Buddha, with a lifespan as long as kalpas as many as the sands of the Ganges, speaks of beings and speaks the names of beings, is there any dharma of beings that arises or ceases?’

Śakra Devānām Indra said: ‘No! Why? Because beings, from the very beginning, are always pure.’

Subhūti said: ‘For this cause and condition, Kauśika, because beings are boundless, know that prajñāpāramitā too is boundless.’

The Treatise Explains How Śakra Devānām Indra Can Ask: The Present Śakra Devānām Indra Is a Great Bodhisattva

What follows is the treatise-author's explanation.

Question: Śakra Devānām Indra is a srota-āpanna; how can he ask about such profound prajñāpāramitā?

Answer: Just as Subhūti is a complete arhat, and yet, to benefit bodhisattvas and out of compassion for beings, asks about what the bodhisattva practises; so Śakra Devānām Indra, although a śrāvaka, is lord of the gods, has keen wisdom, and has compassion for beings, and therefore asks about prajñāpāramitā; it is likewise.

Furthermore, someone says: ‘Within the three-thousand great-thousand world there are a hundred koṭi Śakra Devānām Indras. The Śakra Devānām Indra spoken of in the Madhyama Āgama as having attained srota-āpanna is not the same as the present Śakra Devānām Indra. The present Śakra Devānām Indra is a great bodhisattva; out of compassion for beings, he praises prajñāpāramitā in three ways, namely the mahāpāramitā, the immeasurable pāramitā, and the boundless pāramitā—this is prajñāpāramitā; because the noble paths are accomplished by training within this prajñāpāramitā.’

The Treatise Explains Great and Immeasurable: Great Because It Brings Beings into Nirvāṇa without Remainder; Sumeru, Though Great, Has a Measure

Subhūti affirmed Śakra Devānām Indra's praise and explained his words of praise at length. Because the five aggregates are great, prajñāpāramitā is great. As for ‘the five aggregates are great’: it is because the three limits are unfindable. It is also because they are immeasurable and boundless that ‘great’ is said. Breaking these immeasurable and boundless five aggregates, it sends all beings into nirvāṇa without remainder; therefore it is said, ‘prajñāpāramitā is great’. And so on up to omniscience of all kinds, it is likewise.

‘Immeasurable’ is also thus, only it differs in taking space as the simile. Some dharmas, though great, are not necessarily immeasurable; therefore space cannot always be taken as the simile. Just as Mount Sumeru, though great among the mountains, has a measure, namely eighty-four thousand yojanas.

‘Boundless’: because the five aggregates are vast, great, and immeasurable, therefore ‘boundless’ is said; also because, if the five aggregates had a bound, they would have a beginning, and if they had a beginning, they would have an end, and then they would be without cause and without condition, falling into annihilation and all kinds of such faults. Furthermore, the five aggregates are unfindable in the three times; therefore ‘boundless’ is said.

The Treatise Explains the Boundlessness of Conditions: The Four Conditions Are Present in All Places and at All Times

‘Conditions are boundless’: that is, the four conditions of all dharmas. The causal condition is able to give rise to all conditioned dharmas; the sequential condition is past and present mind and mental-factor dharmas; the object condition and the dominant condition extend to all dharmas. These four kinds of condition are present in all places and at all times; therefore it is said, ‘conditions are boundless’; because conditions are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless.

Furthermore, ‘conditions are boundless’: because the dharmas of the four conditions are false, deceptive, without reality, and ultimately empty, therefore they are boundless.

Furthermore, because it takes as its object suchness, dharma-nature, and the limit of reality, which are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless. As for ‘suchness, dharma-nature, and the limit of reality’: because they are of the mark of the naturally unconditioned, therefore they are immeasurable and boundless; as for the boundlessness of the five aggregates, it is because of the power of contemplative illumination that they are forcibly said to be boundless.

The Treatise Explains the Boundlessness of Beings: A Name Forcibly Made, Beings Originally Pure

Furthermore, ‘beings are boundless’: because beings are very many; immeasurable asaṃkhyeyas of beings of the three times and the ten directions—no one can know their number; therefore ‘boundless’ is said.

Furthermore, here the emptiness of beings is spoken of; therefore ‘boundless’ is said; it is only a name forcibly set up for it.

‘Has nothing toward which it tends either’: because beings have no fixed dharma toward which they can tend; just as fire necessarily has something toward which it tends, whereas for the name of beings there is no real being toward which to tend.

‘What do you think—within prajñāpāramitā is it ever said that beings truly exist?’ ‘No! Venerable One!’

‘If beings are truly non-existent, how could there be a bound?’

It is like this: the Buddhas are foremost among all speakers of truth; though with a lifespan as long as immeasurable kalpas as many as the sands of the Ganges they speak the names of beings, this dharma of beings does not, because of being spoken of, arise or cease—how much less so for the others, inverted, false, and deceptive, who speak for only a short time! Only because the mind of ‘I’ arises should there be beings.

These beings are not said to be ‘non-existent’ because they are taken into prajñāpāramitā; rather, it is because from the very beginning they are always pure and without anything existent, and idle discourses such as existence and non-existence have all been extinguished. Therefore it is said: ‘Because beings are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless.’

The Treatise Explains Why Boundlessness Is Spoken of at Length: When the Mark of Beings Is Broken, All the Rest Is Easily Broken

Question: Why, within ‘boundless’, is it spoken of at length, while ‘great’ and ‘immeasurable’ are spoken of briefly?

Answer: Because of the causes and conditions of beings, all ordinary people give rise to all kinds of afflictions and, within the five aggregates, commit all kinds of wrong practices, which are hard to break; therefore it is spoken of at length. If the mark of beings is broken, all the rest is easily broken.

Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle fifty-five.