大智度論 大如品之上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Great Suchness, Part 1 of 2

The Great Suchness, First Part: Why "Form Is Sarvajñā" Is Not a Blurring Together; Why "Very Deep" Is Not Merely Hard to Understand; Why What All the World Cannot Believe Must Still Be Spoken; Why "This Dharma Accords with All Dharmas" and Yet Is Unobstructed, Non-arising, and without a Place; Why Being Born Following the Buddha Is Neither from Form nor Apart from Form; Why One Suchness, without Duality and without Difference, Does Not Level Out Differences; Why Six Thousand Bodhisattvas Who Met Five Hundred Buddhas Became Arhats Instead; Why a Great Bird with a Great Body and No Wings Means Being without Prajñā and without Skilful Means

What Is Being Asked

The chapter's name is a single Chinese character, 「如」 tr. "suchness", and all the difficulty of the chapter presses down on this one character. The scroll opens with the gods of the desire realm and the form realm scattering flowers and coming to praise; yet what they praise with is not words of eulogy but a verdict that almost no one dares to take up: within prajñā it is said thus—「色即是薩婆若，薩婆若即是色」 tr. "form is sarvajñā; sarvajñā is form"—and moreover 「色如相、薩婆若如相，是一如，無二無別」 tr. "the mark of suchness of form and the mark of suchness of sarvajñā are one suchness, without duality and without difference". Form is this body before one's eyes that decays, it is mountains and rivers, tiles and gravel; sarvajñā is the Buddha's omniscience. When these two ends are spoken of as one, the world of course 「所不能信」 tr. "cannot believe" it. The gods themselves know this, and so as soon as their praise is finished they add at once: very deep, hard to see, hard to understand, not to be known by thinking. The Buddha not only does not soften it, but goes to meet it and acknowledges it: precisely because this Dharma is very deep, 「佛初成道時，心樂嘿然，不樂說法」 tr. "when the Buddha first attained the path, his mind delighted in silence and did not delight in expounding the Dharma"—the silence after the attaining of the path was, it turns out, pressed out by this very sentence, 「一如，無二無別」 tr. "one suchness, without duality and without difference".

What the single unit of the First Part must answer is a threefold question. The first: is one suchness without duality and without difference a levelling of differences into a single lump? The sūtra text's answer lies not on the side of affirmation but on the side of negation—「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無得者、無得處、無得時」 tr. "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi (unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening) has no one who obtains it, no place of obtaining, no time of obtaining"; one suchness can be one precisely because there is no obtainable thing standing there to divide you from me. The second: since the world cannot believe it, why speak it? The treatise-author distinguishes 「名字一切」 tr. "the all of names" from 「實一切」 tr. "the real all", and lays down a most important order—「知者必有信，先信後知故」 tr. "one who knows must have faith, because faith comes first and knowing after"; faith is not a substitute for knowing but the threshold of knowing. The third, to which the unit gives the most space: Subhūti is praised by the gods as 「隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha"—can he bear this praise or not? Subhūti does not accept it, and treats the praise as a sickness to be cured—in a row he uses four rounds of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore" to unfold 「如相故，須菩提隨佛生」 tr. "because of the mark of suchness, Subhūti is born following the Buddha", every round saying that the suchness of the Tathāgata and the suchness of Subhūti are one and the same suchness; at the end the treatise-author takes over and, with nine further rounds of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore", brings them together, right up to 「五眾色等法中假名如來」 tr. "within form and the other dharmas of the five aggregates, ‘Tathāgata’ is a provisional name", returning even the two Chinese characters 「如來」 tr. "Tathāgata" to a provisional name.

The latter half of the unit changes the scene. The gods scatter incense again, and Subhūti speaks the four sharpest lines of the whole chapter—「不從色中」 tr. "not from within form", 「不從色如中」 tr. "not from within the suchness of form", 「不離色」 tr. "not apart from form", 「不離色如」 tr. "not apart from the suchness of form"—four lines that dismantle 「隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha" cleanly from every place that could be grasped. Then Śāriputra and the Buddha ask and answer about the unfindability of the suchness of form, and in the assembly bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, and bodhisattvas each attain their path: two hundred bhikṣus exhaust their outflows, five hundred bhikṣuṇīs obtain the purity of the Dharma-eye, five thousand bodhisattvas obtain the acceptance of non-arising, while 「六千菩薩」 tr. "six thousand bodhisattvas", having heard the Dharma, actually 「成阿羅漢」 tr. "became arhats". This stroke is the most glaring fact of the whole chapter: bodhisattvas who had met five hundred buddhas and practised five perfections, 「無般若波羅蜜、無方便力故」 tr. "because they were without prajñāpāramitā and without the power of skilful means", realised it at the limit of reality and fell back to being śrāvakas. For this the Buddha spoke the simile of the great bird—its body a hundred yojana long and without wings, throwing itself down from the Heaven of the Thirty-three to Jambudvīpa. The greatness of the merit is precisely the reason the fall is heavy. The last question the First Part must answer lies right here: practising alike emptiness, the signless, and non-action, why does one person become a Buddha and another an arhat?

Passage by Passage

1. The gods scatter flowers and come to praise—form is sarvajñā; the mark of suchness is one suchness, without duality and without difference. The gods of the desire realm and the form realm scatter heavenly powdered sandalwood incense and lotus flowers of four colours from afar over the Buddha, come to where the Buddha is, bow their heads at the Buddha's feet, stand to one side, and only then open their mouths. What they praise falls into two parts: the first part says 「諸佛阿耨多羅三藐三菩提甚深、難見、難解、不可思惟知、微妙寂滅，智者能知，一切世間所不能信」 tr. "the anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi of the buddhas is very deep, hard to see, hard to understand, not to be known by thinking, subtle, wondrous, and quiescent; the wise can know it; all the world cannot believe it"; the second part says why this is so—「是深般若波羅蜜中，如是說：『色即是薩婆若，薩婆若即是色……』」 tr. "within this deep prajñāpāramitā it is said thus: ‘Form is sarvajñā; sarvajñā is form…’", and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds and sarvajñā being identical with each other, while 「色如相、薩婆若如相，是一如，無二無別」 tr. "the mark of suchness of form and the mark of suchness of sarvajñā are one suchness, without duality and without difference". First one must recognise the thread of this passage: the gods are not praising the greatness of the Buddha's merit; they are pointing out the difficulty of a sentence. The difficulty is not in the wording; it is that it requires one to see the form before one's eyes and the Buddha's omniscience as one and the same thing. Only by entering the chapter from this sentence does one avoid reading 「如」 tr. "suchness" as some remote and abstruse technical name.

2. The Buddha approves and tells why he kept silent on first attaining the path—no one who obtains it, no place of obtaining, no time of obtaining. The Buddha answers 「如是！如是！」 tr. "Just so! Just so!", claiming as his own, sentence by sentence, the words the gods have cited, and at once follows with a rare account of himself: 「以是義故，佛初成道時，心樂嘿然，不樂說法。」 tr. "For this reason, when the Buddha first attained the path, his mind delighted in silence and did not delight in expounding the Dharma." Why, if it is very deep, did he not delight in speaking? The Buddha himself gives the verdict—「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無得者、無得處、無得時，是名諸法甚深相，所謂無有二法」 tr. "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi has no one who obtains it, no place of obtaining, no time of obtaining; this is called the very deep mark of all dharmas—that is, there are no two dharmas". To attain the path and yet attain nothing—no one obtains, no place of obtaining, no time of obtaining: content of this kind has nothing that can be handed over, and so between speaking and not speaking there arises a difficulty. Then the Buddha spreads out a long string in the pattern 「甚深故，是法甚深」 tr. "because it is very deep, this Dharma is very deep": space, suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, the inconceivable, the limitless, no coming and no going, non-arising and non-ceasing, without stain and without purity, without knowing and without obtaining, and so on up to self and the knower and the seer, form and feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, dānapāramitā and so on up to prajñāpāramitā, inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds—not one is not very deep. This string of parallel clauses must be read as a single whole: to be very deep is not a property of some one dharma; it is the one same mark of all dharmas within suchness.

3. The gods speak again—it is not expounded for the sake of receiving form, nor for the sake of relinquishing form. The gods acknowledge that 「是所說法，一切世間所不能信」 tr. "this Dharma that is expounded, all the world cannot believe", and go further to state why the world cannot believe it: this Dharma 「不為受色故說，不為捨色故說」 tr. "is not expounded for the sake of receiving form, and is not expounded for the sake of relinquishing form", and so too with feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the fruit of the srota-āpanna, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds; whereas 「諸世間皆受著行」 tr. "all the worlds practise receiving and clinging"—form is self, is mine, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds is self, is mine. What matters most in this passage is the two Chinese characters 「受」 tr. "receive" and 「捨」 tr. "relinquish". Every inclination of the world goes by no road other than these two: to want it, or not to want it; and the Dharma that prajñā expounds walks neither road. The human mind has nowhere to set itself down, and so it cannot believe. It is not that the principle is too abstruse; it is that there is nothing to grasp.

4. The Buddha approves and judges that one who practises for the sake of receiving form cannot cultivate the perfections. The Buddha again answers 「如是！如是！」 tr. "Just so! Just so!", restates that it is not expounded for receiving or relinquishing, and at once brings it down onto the practitioner: 「若有菩薩為受色故行，乃至為受一切種智故行，是菩薩不能修般若波羅蜜」 tr. "if there is a bodhisattva who practises for the sake of receiving form, and so on up to practising for the sake of receiving the omniscience of all kinds, this bodhisattva cannot cultivate prajñāpāramitā"; dhyāna, vīrya, kṣānti, śīla, and so on up to dānapāramitā—none can be cultivated, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds cannot be cultivated. Here the names of the six perfections are set out one by one: dāna is giving, śīla is morality, kṣānti is patience, vīrya is vigour, dhyāna is meditation, prajñā is wisdom—the sūtra text counts backwards from prajñā all the way down to dāna. One must see the weight of this sentence: it does not say that one who grasps at marks cultivates less or cultivates more slowly; it says he 「不能修」 tr. "cannot cultivate". When the six perfections are practised with a mind that receives and takes, what is practised is already not pāramitā.

5. Subhūti expounds—it accords with all dharmas and yet is unobstructed, non-arising, and without a place. Subhūti takes up the word and says 「是法隨順一切法」 tr. "this Dharma accords with all dharmas", and asks and answers himself why it accords: it accords with prajñā and so on up to dānapāramitā, accords with inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, accords with the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. After according, he speaks of a threefold mark—「是法無礙」 tr. "this Dharma is unobstructed": it does not obstruct form, and so on up to it does not obstruct the omniscience of all kinds, 「如虛空等故」 tr. "because it is equal to space", because it is equal to suchness, the nature of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the limit of reality, the nature of the inconceivable, and the rest, because it is equal to emptiness, the signless, non-action, and the rest; 「是法不生相」 tr. "this Dharma is of the mark of non-arising": form does not arise, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds does not arise, all because they are unfindable; 「是法無處」 tr. "this Dharma is without a place": the place of form is unfindable, and so on up to the place of the omniscience of all kinds is unfindable. The point in this passage that is easily misread is that 「隨順」 tr. "according" and ‘unobstructed, non-arising, without a place’ seem opposed: if it can accord with all dharmas, how can it also be said to be non-arising and without a place? Subhūti's meaning is precisely that they complete each other—only because it has no substance of its own and no location can it accord with everything everywhere without obstructing anything. Only things that have bulk crowd one another out.

6. The gods praise Subhūti as born following the Buddha. Hearing these words the gods at once praise him: 「須菩提是佛子，隨佛生。何以故？須菩提所說皆與空合。」 tr. "Subhūti is a son of the Buddha, born following the Buddha. Why? Because what Subhūti says all tallies with emptiness." The criterion is given with great clarity—it is not because Subhūti's eloquence is good or his seniority deep, but because 「所說皆與空合」 tr. "what he says all tallies with emptiness". This sentence at the same time plants a problem in advance for what follows: if one is called a son of the Buddha on the strength of 「與空合」 tr. "tallying with emptiness", then are those who tally with emptiness only Subhūti? The four rounds of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore" below discuss precisely where this 「合」 tr. "tallying" actually tallies.

7. Subhūti does not accept the praise and asks in return—born following the Buddha because of the mark of suchness, not coming and not going. Subhūti does not thank them for the praise; first he lifts the words of praise up and asks them once more: 「汝等言：『須菩提是佛子，隨佛生。』云何為隨佛生？」 tr. "You say: ‘Subhūti is a son of the Buddha, born following the Buddha.’ What is being born following the Buddha?"—this is the first time in this unit that he demonstrates his way of handling praise: not denying it, not receiving it, only pressing after its reason. At once he gives the first meaning: 「如相故，須菩提隨佛生」 tr. "because of the mark of suchness, Subhūti is born following the Buddha", because 「如來如相不來不去，須菩提如相亦不來不去」 tr. "the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata does not come and does not go; the mark of suchness of Subhūti also does not come and does not go". That being born following the Buddha holds lies not in lineage from a teacher, nor in walking the same way, but in the marks of suchness on both sides being alike without coming and going. Once the praise lands on suchness, there is no longer a subject standing there to receive it with self-satisfaction.

8. The second round—born following the Buddha from the very beginning; within this mark of suchness there is no mark of suchness either. 「復次，須菩提從本已來隨佛生」 tr. "Furthermore, Subhūti from the very beginning has been born following the Buddha": it is not that he follows only now, on hearing the Dharma today; he has followed from the beginning. The reason is that 「如來如相即是一切法如相，一切法如相即是如來如相」 tr. "the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is the mark of suchness of all dharmas; the mark of suchness of all dharmas is the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata". Most crucial is the final sentence—「是如相中亦無如相」 tr. "within this mark of suchness there is no mark of suchness either". Having gathered everything back into suchness, if this sentence were not added, 「如」 tr. "suchness" would become a new entity. At this very point the discussion takes itself apart: within suchness there is no thing called suchness to be found. This sentence is the floodgate of the whole chapter that keeps 「如」 tr. "suchness" from being gripped into a substance.

9. The third round—permanent abiding, without otherness and without difference, without a place of obstruction, without making and never not such, without thought and without difference, not far from the mark of suchness of all dharmas. This passage is the longest, raising six aspects in one breath: the suchness of the Tathāgata is of 「常住相」 tr. "the mark of permanent abiding", and the suchness of Subhūti is likewise of the mark of permanent abiding; the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is 「無異無別」 tr. "without otherness and without difference", and the mark of suchness of Subhūti is likewise without otherness and without difference; the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata 「無有礙處」 tr. "has no place of obstruction", the mark of suchness of all dharmas likewise has no place of obstruction, and the two are 「一如，無二無別」 tr. "one suchness, without duality and without difference"; 「是如相無作，終不不如」 tr. "this mark of suchness is without making; it is never not such"; the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is 「一切處無念無別」 tr. "everywhere without thought and without difference", the mark of suchness of Subhūti is likewise, and moreover 「不異不別、不可得」 tr. "not other and not different, and unfindable"; at the end it says 「如來如相不遠離諸法如相，是如終不不如」 tr. "the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is not far from the mark of suchness of all dharmas; this suchness is never not such", and so 「須菩提如不有異，為隨佛生，亦無所隨」 tr. "the suchness of Subhūti has no otherness; this is being born following the Buddha, and there is nothing followed either". Layer upon layer it is the same pattern—raise one mark of the suchness of the Tathāgata, and prove that the suchness of Subhūti is the same in this one mark. And the closing phrase 「亦無所隨」 tr. "there is nothing followed either" is the eye of the needle of the whole passage: following all the way to the end, there is not even anything followed. If there were a Buddha out in front to be followed, being born following the Buddha would once more become a relation between two things.

10. The fourth round—not past, not future, not present. 「復次，如來如相不過去、不未來、不現在，諸法如相亦不過去、不未來、不現在，是故須菩提為隨佛生。」 tr. "Furthermore, the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is not past, not future, not present; the mark of suchness of all dharmas is also not past, not future, not present; therefore Subhūti is born following the Buddha." The preceding rounds spoke in terms of space and of marks and appearances; this round speaks in terms of time. If suchness fell into any one of the three times, there would be arising and passing away; only by not falling into the three times can one speak of 「從本已來」 tr. "from the very beginning". This round echoes the eighth: the 「本」 tr. "beginning" in being born following the Buddha from the very beginning is not some moment long ago; it is not being within time.

11. The fifth round—the suchness of the three times and the suchness of the Tathāgata, the suchness of form and so on up to the suchness of the omniscience of all kinds and the suchness of the Tathāgata, are one suchness, without duality and without difference. The previous round said it does not fall into the three times; this round goes a step further and says they are not within each other: 「如來如不在過去如中，過去如亦不在如來如中」 tr. "the suchness of the Tathāgata is not within the suchness of the past, and the suchness of the past is not within the suchness of the Tathāgata", and the future and the present are all likewise; then it gathers all into 「過去未來現在如、如來如，一如，無二無別」 tr. "the suchness of past, future, and present and the suchness of the Tathāgata are one suchness, without duality and without difference". Then from time it pushes on to all dharmas: the suchness of form, the suchness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the suchness of self and so on up to the suchness of the knower and the seer, the suchness of dānapāramitā and so on up to the suchness of prajñāpāramitā, the suchness of inner emptiness and so on up to the suchness of the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the suchness of the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the suchness of the omniscience of all kinds—each one with the suchness of the Tathāgata 「一如，無二無別」 tr. "one suchness, without duality and without difference". One must see clearly the way of inference here: first it says ‘not within it’, then it says 「一如，無二無別」 tr. "one suchness, without duality and without difference". Not containing or including each other and yet one suchness—this is exactly the precise meaning of 「一」 tr. "one" here: not a merging, but that there were never two to merge.

12. The Buddha's decisive seal—because he obtains this suchness he is called Tathāgata. When Subhūti has finished his five rounds, the Buddha puts forth a single decisive verdict: 「須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩得是如故，名為如來。」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva, because he obtains this suchness, is called Tathāgata." The name Tathāgata is established not from the marks and signs, nor from supernormal power, but from obtaining this suchness. And according to the treatise-author's explanation below, this sentence is precisely the Buddha's words—the treatise marks it itself, saying 「佛語須菩提：『是名為如，佛因此如故，名為如來。』」 tr. "The Buddha said to Subhūti: ‘This is called suchness; because of this suchness the Buddha is called Tathāgata.’" Therefore, though here there is no wording 「佛告」 tr. "the Buddha told", the speaker must not be mistaken for Subhūti calling himself by name. On reaching this sentence one should look back to the eighth's 「是如相中亦無如相」 tr. "within this mark of suchness there is no mark of suchness either"—only an obtaining that obtains nothing is what the Tathāgata obtains.

13. When the chapter on the Mark of Suchness was spoken, the great earth shook in six ways. Sūtra ① closes with a sentence of narration: 「說是〈如相品〉時，是三千大千世界大地六種振動」 tr. "when this chapter on the Mark of Suchness was spoken, the great earth of this three-thousand great-thousand world shook in six ways"—the east rose and the west sank, the west rose and the east sank, the south rose and the north sank, the north rose and the south sank, the centre rose and the four sides sank, the four sides rose and the centre sank. The six marks of the six kinds of shaking each form a pair, each of the two overturning the other—and these marks of themselves mirror the meaning of the chapter: wherever something rises there must be somewhere that sinks, and there is not one place that is a fixed and real footing. This is not an ornamental stroke; it is 「無二無別」 tr. "without duality and without difference" played out on the great earth.

14. The treatise-author's first question and answer—why it is at times praised as very deep; the simile of the eddies of river water. At the very opening of the scroll the treatise-author asks: 「若般若波羅蜜無不甚深，何以或時讚甚深？」 tr. "If prajñāpāramitā is nowhere not very deep, why is it at times praised as very deep?" Since prajñā is very deep everywhere, why must the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘very deep’ be specially singled out? Answer: within prajñā, 「或時分別諸法空，是淺；或時說『世間法即同涅槃』，是深」 tr. "at times all dharmas are discriminated as empty, and this is shallow; at times it is said that ‘the dharmas of the world are the same as nirvāṇa’, and this is deep". Form and the other dharmas are the Buddha's Dharma; the hearer believes the Buddha's words in his mind, but his own wisdom does not reach it, and therefore he says it is very deep. It closes with a simile: 「譬如河水，有洄復深處、有淺處。」 tr. "It is like the water of a river, which has eddies and deep places and has shallow places." In this passage one misreading must be guarded against—shallow and deep do not mean that prajñā itself is thick or thin; it is that one and the same river shows people different degrees of difficulty at different places. What is called very deep is a name set up with respect to the hearer's wisdom not reaching it.

15. The second question and answer—if all the world cannot believe it, what is the use of speaking it; the all of names and the real all. The question: since the Dharma the gods praise cannot be believed by all the world, what is the point of speaking it? Answer: 「一切有二種：一者、名字一切，二者、實一切。」 tr. "‘All’ is of two kinds: one, the all of names; two, the real all." The all spoken of here is the all in name: because the greater number do not believe, it says 「一切」 tr. "all". This is a most practical rule for reading the sūtras: in the sūtra's 「一切世間所不能信」 tr. "all the world cannot believe", the 「一切」 tr. "all" is not a quantifier meaning exhaustive without remainder; it is a name set up with respect to the greater part. If one took it as the real all, the sūtra text would contradict itself—if not a single person could believe, the Buddha's expounding of the Dharma would be in vain. The treatise-author goes on to say 「如此中說『微妙寂滅，智者能知』，知者必有信，先信後知故」 tr. "as it says here, ‘subtle, wondrous, and quiescent; the wise can know it’—one who knows must have faith, because faith comes first and knowing after", and the order of faith and knowing is settled by this.

16. Where faith lies—when wisdom has known it, that is called faith. 「復次，是般若波羅蜜，惟佛能知。眾生聞所說而信者，此中不名為信；智慧知已，名為信。」 tr. "Furthermore, this prajñāpāramitā only the Buddha can know. Beings who hear what is said and believe it—here that is not called faith; when wisdom has known it, that is called faith." This sentence and the preceding passage's 「先信後知」 tr. "faith first and knowing after" seem opposed, but in fact they belong to two different places: at the point of entry one must first believe and only then can one know; at the point of culmination only when wisdom illuminates and sees does it count as true faith. Assent that arises from hearing others speak, the treatise-author does not allow to be called faith. Taking the two passages together, the word faith has two levels, shallow and deep, which must not be confused—shallow faith is the gate, deep faith is the fruit.

17. The third question and answer—if only the Buddha can know, why say the wise can know? Question: 「若爾者，何以言『微妙，智者能知』？」 tr. "If that is so, why does it say ‘subtle and wondrous; the wise can know it’?" Just above it was said that only the Buddha can know; here it is said that the wise can know—is that not contradictory? Answer: 「一切世間無能遍盡知諸佛智者，寂滅，智者能知少分。」 tr. "In all the world there is none who can know the wisdom of the buddhas completely and exhaustively; it is quiescent, and the wise can know a small part of it." The joint lies in the difference between 「少分」 tr. "a small part" and 「遍盡」 tr. "completely and exhaustively": the one who knows completely and exhaustively is only the Buddha; what the wise know is a small part. The contradiction is resolved. When, in reading a prajñā treatise, one meets statements that contradict each other before and after, this passage is a model—most often a difference of quantity has had its word left out.

18. The proof of the small part—the srota-āpanna severs the three fetters; the paths increase in turn. The treatise-author gives proof: 「如須陀洹於無上道得少分，所謂斷三結；如是諸道，展轉增多。」 tr. "As the srota-āpanna obtains a small part of the unsurpassed path, namely the severing of the three fetters; in this way the paths increase more and more in turn." What the srota-āpanna obtains on the unsurpassed path is very little, yet it is truly obtained; from there it increases stage by stage in turn. It closes with a proof from the contrary: 「若世間都不信者，云何有諸道？」 tr. "If the world did not believe at all, how would there be the paths?" Since there really are people of the srota-āpanna and so on up to all the paths, it is evident that the world is not without a single one who can believe. The answer to this question comes down at last on fact and not on argument.

19. Prajñā and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi differ in name and are one in substance. 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提即是般若波羅蜜，但名字異——在菩薩心中為般若，在佛心中名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is prajñāpāramitā; only the names differ—in the bodhisattva's mind it is prajñā; in the Buddha's mind it is called anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." The same dharma is named prajñā in the causal position and named unsurpassed awakening in the position of the fruit. This judgement is most important: if prajñā and awakening were two things, then what one who practises prajñā tends toward would be some other thing; since they differ in name and are one in substance, to practise prajñā is already to be within awakening. The treatise-author then sets two sentences of the sūtra side by side—「是中說『色等法即是薩婆若，薩婆若即是色等法』」 tr. "here it says ‘form and the other dharmas are sarvajñā; sarvajñā is form and the other dharmas’", and 「此中說『色等法如、薩婆若如，無二無別』」 tr. "here it says ‘the suchness of form and the other dharmas and the suchness of sarvajñā are without duality and without difference’"—the former sentence speaks of identity in terms of dharmas, the latter speaks of oneness in terms of suchness; the two sentences have one meaning.

20. The Buddha further states the cause and condition—suchness is the name for the real mark of form and the other dharmas; the simile of burning sandalwood and mixed woods. The treatise-author explains why the Buddha approved the gods: 「佛可諸天子意，更說因緣：『如名色等諸法真實相。』」 tr. "The Buddha approved the gods' meaning and further stated the cause and condition: ‘Suchness is the name for the real mark of form and the other dharmas.’" Then comes the simile: 「譬如除宮殿及諸陋廬，如燒栴檀及雜木，其處虛空無異……」 tr. "As when palaces and mean huts are removed, or as when sandalwood and mixed woods are burned, the space where they stood is no different…" Palaces and mean huts differ in nobility, sandalwood and mixed woods differ in fragrance and stench, yet once they are torn down or burned away, the space that remains is no different. The difference between form and sarvajñā is just like the difference between palaces and mean huts; 「求其實，皆是如」 tr. "seeking their reality, all are suchness". This simile also explains the sūtra's silence on first attaining the path—「知甚深法，凡夫人難悟故」 tr. "because he knew that the very deep Dharma is hard for ordinary people to awaken to". What must be noticed in the simile is the two Chinese characters 「除」 tr. "remove" and 「燒」 tr. "burn": one does not seek space outside the things; one exhausts their reality right in these very things.

21. The three causes of being very deep. 「復次，是法無二故甚深，如虛空故甚深，如、法性等甚深故甚深。」 tr. "Furthermore, this Dharma is very deep because it is without duality; very deep because it is like space; very deep because suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the rest are very deep." The treatise-author gathers the long string of very-deeps that the Buddha spoke above into three: no duality, like space, and suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the rest being very deep in themselves. The first speaks in terms of principle, the second in terms of simile, the third in terms of the names of dharmas. When one meets a long string of parallel clauses in reading a sūtra, one can learn this method—first find how many heads it can be gathered into, then make each head concrete in turn; only then will one not be left with nothing but a string of sounds.

22. The treatise-author restates the gods' second address—knowing that this Dharma has no mark that can be taken. The treatise-author restates the sūtra text in the third person: 「爾時，諸天子知是法無可取相，白佛言：『是所說法，一切世間所不能信，是法不為受色等法故說。』」 tr. "At that time the gods, knowing that this Dharma has no mark that can be taken, said to the Buddha: ‘This Dharma that is expounded, all the world cannot believe; this Dharma is not expounded for the sake of receiving form and the other dharmas.’" In the restatement one judgement is added that the sūtra text does not have—「知是法無可取相」 tr. "knowing that this Dharma has no mark that can be taken". This is the treatise-author supplying the working of mind behind the gods' words: the gods say it is not expounded for receiving or relinquishing because they already know that this Dharma has no mark that can be taken. Here the speakers are still the gods; it is not a separate view set up by the treatise-author, and in reading one must not mistake it for a new party to the dialogue.

23. The Buddha approves their words—one who practises for the sake of receiving form and the rest cannot cultivate the merits. 「佛可其言，『若有菩薩為受色等故行菩薩道，不能修般若波羅蜜等諸功德』。」 tr. "The Buddha approved their words: ‘If there is a bodhisattva who practises the bodhisattva path for the sake of receiving form and the rest, he cannot cultivate prajñāpāramitā and the other merits.’" Of the Buddha's answer to the gods in Sūtra ① the treatise-author gives only a one-sentence summary and does not unfold it further. Why so brief? Because the meaning has already appeared before—when one practises by grasping at marks, what is practised is not a perfection; that was judged above. Between detail and brevity the explanation has its own sense of measure: what was not said before is given in detail; what was said before is given briefly.

24. Subhūti tells the cause and condition of being unobstructed—the simile of the mark of space in a wall and the peg. The treatise-author explains what Subhūti said, 「是般若波羅蜜相，隨順一切法，無所障礙」 tr. "this mark of prajñāpāramitā accords with all dharmas and has nothing that obstructs it", first adding a sentence on why it is unobstructed—「於般若波羅蜜亦不著」 tr. "he does not cling even to prajñāpāramitā"; then saying that the cause and condition of not obstructing is 「如虛空等故」 tr. "because it is equal to space". Then comes the simile: 「譬如壁中先有空相，小兒以橛釘之，力少故不入，大力者能入……」 tr. "As in a wall there is already the mark of space; a small child drives a peg into it, and because his strength is small it does not go in, while one of great strength can drive it in…" The wall was never truly solid; within it there was already the mark of space; it is only that the small child's strength is small and he cannot drive the peg in. 「行者亦如是，色等諸法中，自有如實相，智慧力少故，不能令空，大智者能知。」 tr. "The practitioner is likewise: within form and the other dharmas there is of itself the mark of things as they really are; because the power of his wisdom is small, he cannot make them empty, while one of great wisdom can know it." One must aim precisely at what this simile breaks: what it breaks is not ‘the dharmas are originally not empty and the power of wisdom can make them empty’—quite the opposite—the mark of emptiness is there from the start, and what the power of wisdom reaches is only 「能入」 tr. "can drive it in" and 「能知」 tr. "can know"; it does not create an emptiness. The last sentence: 「是故說：『諸法無礙，如虛空平等。』」 tr. "Therefore it is said: ‘All dharmas are unobstructed, equal like space.’"

25. Non-arising and no place of abiding—if a non-arising dharma were findable, it would not be ultimate emptiness. 「色等法不生，亦不可得，以是故名『不生』。」 tr. "Form and the other dharmas do not arise, and they are also unfindable; for this reason it is called ‘non-arising’." The treatise-author at once adds a sentence that goes to the vital point: 「非但色等不生，若不生法可得，則非畢竟空，非名無得。無住處亦如是。」 tr. "Not only do form and the rest not arise; if a dharma of non-arising were findable, it would not be ultimate emptiness, and would not be called without obtaining. No place of abiding is likewise." This is one of the sharpest self-dismantlings in this unit. Hearing that form and the rest do not arise, the easiest thing for people to do is to seize the conclusion 「不生」 tr. "non-arising"; the treatise-author cuts it off on the spot—if there were a dharma called non-arising that could be found, ultimate emptiness would not hold. Only when the meaning of non-arising, together with the two Chinese characters 「不生」 tr. "non-arising", is unfindable, is it ultimate emptiness. No place of abiding follows the same principle.

26. The treatise-author restates the gods' praise—what he knows and what he says all tally with emptiness. 「爾時，諸天子白佛言：『世尊！須菩提隨佛生。何以故？所知所說皆與空合。』」 tr. "At that time the gods said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Subhūti is born following the Buddha. Why? Because what he knows and what he says all tally with emptiness.’" The treatise-author restates the sūtra's praise as the starting point of the long explanation of 「隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha" below. The sūtra text originally reads 「所說皆與空合」 tr. "what he says all tallies with emptiness"; in restating it the treatise-author writes 「所知所說」 tr. "what he knows and what he says", one more Chinese character, rendered here as ‘know’—besides what is said, what is known is also raised, the meaning being to mark that this praise does not stop at words. Here the speakers are still the gods; the treatise-author is only citing the sūtra, not setting up a new question.

27. The three kinds of seed—born not in accord, born in accord, born superior. 「復次，經說有三種子：一者、不隨順生，二者、隨順生，三者、勝生。」 tr. "Furthermore, the sūtras say there are three kinds of seed: first, born not in accord; second, born in accord; third, born superior." Seed here has the sense of offspring: born not in accord is an unworthy son; born in accord is a son who takes after his father; born superior is a son who surpasses his father. The treatise-author then points out how worldly dharmas and the Buddha's Dharma differ here—「世人皆願二種子：隨順子，勝子。佛法中惟欲一種：隨順生，以無有勝佛故。」 tr. "Worldly people all wish for two kinds of seed: the son in accord and the superior son. In the Buddha's Dharma only one kind is wished for: born in accord, because there is none who surpasses the Buddha." Worldly parents all hope their children will outdo them; in the Buddha's Dharma only the one kind, in accord, is sought, and the reason is very simple and clear—there is no one who can surpass the Buddha. The standing of the name 「隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha" is fixed by this classification.

28. The sons of the Buddha are five—born from his mouth, born from the Dharma; the pratyekabuddha is not among them. 「佛子有五，皆從口生、法生：須陀洹乃至阿羅漢，入正位菩薩。」 tr. "The sons of the Buddha are five, all born from his mouth, born from the Dharma: the srota-āpanna and so on up to the arhat, and the bodhisattva who has entered the right position." The four stations from the srota-āpanna to the arhat, together with the bodhisattva who has entered the right position, make five kinds, all born from hearing the Dharma the Buddha spoke, and so it says born from his mouth, born from the Dharma. Then he speaks of one who is not counted among them: 「辟支佛雖佛法中種因緣，無佛時自能得道，不得言從佛口生，因緣遠故。」 tr. "Though the pratyekabuddha planted causes and conditions within the Buddha's Dharma, he can attain the path by himself at a time when there is no Buddha; it cannot be said that he is born from the Buddha's mouth, because the causes and conditions are distant." It is not that the pratyekabuddha has no affinity with the Dharma; it is that the affinity is distant—though in the past he planted the cause, in this life he appears at a time without a Buddha and awakens by himself, not through the Buddha's mouth. This distinction gives the name 「佛子」 tr. "son of the Buddha" a clear boundary: not everyone who attains the path is called a son of the Buddha; he must, in this life, be born from the Buddha's mouth and from the Dharma.

29. Subhūti belongs to those born in accord—the dharma he practises cannot be broken or ruined, like space. 「諸漏盡者，是隨順生。須菩提於漏盡中，常樂畢竟空，是隨順生。」 tr. "Those whose outflows are exhausted are born in accord. Subhūti, among those whose outflows are exhausted, always delights in ultimate emptiness; he is born in accord." All whose outflows are exhausted belong to those born in accord, and Subhūti among them in particular always delights in ultimate emptiness. Why does delighting in ultimate emptiness count as following the Buddha? The treatise-author answers himself: 「所行法不可破壞如虛空，佛法如是相，是名隨佛生。」 tr. "The dharma he practises cannot be broken or ruined, like space; the Buddha's Dharma is of such a mark; this is called being born following the Buddha." The criterion lies not in status but in the mark of the dharma practised—the mark of the Buddha's Dharma is that it cannot be broken or ruined, like space; whoever's practice matches this mark is born following the Buddha. This sentence turns the gods' praise into a standard that can be tested.

30. The question—why is the bodhisattva who has entered the Dharma-position not said to be born in accord with the Buddha? Since the preceding passage took the dharma practised as the criterion, a difficulty arises at once: 「何以不說入法位菩薩隨順佛生？」 tr. "Why is the bodhisattva who has entered the Dharma-position not said to be born in accord with the Buddha?" Does not what the bodhisattva who has entered the Dharma-position practises match the mark of the Buddha's Dharma even better? Why does the sūtra single out Subhūti and not them? This question is asked exactly rightly—it forces the criterion of the preceding passage to account for its own scope. The treatise-author does not give a single decisive answer to it but lists the views of three schools, which is a special stroke in the form of this unit.

31. The first ‘someone says’—the difference between outflows exhausted and not exhausted. 「有人言：漏未盡故不說，須菩提漏盡故說。」 tr. "Someone says: because their outflows are not yet exhausted, they are not spoken of; because Subhūti's outflows are exhausted, he is spoken of." The first school judges by whether the outflows are exhausted or not: the bodhisattva who has entered the Dharma-position still has subtle outflows not yet exhausted, while Subhūti's outflows are already exhausted, and so the sūtra raises Subhūti. This view is the most direct; it relies on the preceding passage's words 「諸漏盡者，是隨順生」 tr. "those whose outflows are exhausted are born in accord", and follows them without complication.

32. The second ‘someone says’—near the gate of nirvāṇa without remainder, and going back and forth in birth and death. 「有人言：入無餘涅槃者，是第一清淨。阿羅漢末後身住有餘涅槃，近無餘涅槃門故說。菩薩雖有深利智慧，往返生死中，是故不說。」 tr. "Someone says: one who enters nirvāṇa without remainder is foremost in purity. The arhat in his final body abides in nirvāṇa with remainder and is near the gate of nirvāṇa without remainder, and so he is spoken of. The bodhisattva, though he has deep and keen wisdom, goes back and forth within birth and death, and therefore he is not spoken of." The second school speaks not in terms of outflows but in terms of where one is headed: the arhat has already arrived at the edge of the gate of nirvāṇa, while the bodhisattva goes deep into birth and death, going back and forth to deliver beings. This view turns the reason for not speaking of him from ‘insufficient’ to ‘not on the same road’—the bodhisattva is not said to be born following, not because he is lower, but because he is still walking back and forth.

33. The third ‘someone says’—the two kinds of prajñā, and the great bodhisattvas with bodies born of the Dharma-nature. The third school is the most detailed: 「般若有二種：一者、唯與大菩薩說，二者、三乘共說。共聲聞說中，須菩提是隨佛生；但與菩薩說時，不說須菩提隨佛生。」 tr. "Prajñā is of two kinds: first, that expounded only to the great bodhisattvas; second, that expounded in common to the three vehicles. In what is expounded in common with the śrāvakas, Subhūti is born following the Buddha; when it is expounded only to the bodhisattvas, Subhūti is not said to be born following the Buddha." The reason for not speaking of it lies in the occasion of the expounding. Why, when it is expounded only to the bodhisattvas, is there no place for the śrāvakas? Because 「法性生身大菩薩，是中無有結業生身，但有變化生身，滅三毒、出三界，教化眾生、淨佛世界故，住於世間，此中都無一切聲聞人」 tr. "the great bodhisattvas with bodies born of the Dharma-nature—among them there is no body born of fetters and karma, there is only a body born of transformation; they have extinguished the three poisons and left the three realms, and abide in the world in order to teach and transform beings and purify buddha-worlds; here there are no śrāvakas at all". The Buddha and the bodhisattvas share one mind of great kindness and compassion, and so the bodhisattva is called born following; 「須菩提但取涅槃故，不說隨生」 tr. "because Subhūti takes only nirvāṇa, he is not said to be born following". The last sentence determines where this sūtra belongs: 「此經共二乘說。」 tr. "This sūtra is expounded in common with the two vehicles." The three schools are set side by side and the treatise-author does not judge which is right—this is the practice, consistent throughout this work, of recording without judging; the reader should let the three views stand together, and should not take up one view for himself and discard the other two.

34. Subhūti does not accept the gods' praise—the suchness of all dharmas is of one mark, namely the signless. 「諸天雖讚，不應受，語諸天子言：『諸法如一相，所謂無相，是因緣故隨佛生，如不異故。』」 tr. "Though the gods praise him, he should not accept it, and he said to the gods: ‘The suchness of all dharmas is of one mark, namely the signless; by this cause and condition he is born following the Buddha, because suchness is not other.’" The treatise-author speaks for Subhūti the reason for not accepting the praise: the 「隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha" that the praise points to is itself a matter of suchness; suchness is of one mark, and one mark is the signless, so there is no one who can accept this praise. This sentence at the same time sets the general outline for the ten rounds of bringing-together below—all the 「復次」 tr. "furthermore" that follow say one and the same thing: suchness is not other.

35. Citing the sūtra to prove the first round—not coming and not going. 「如經中說如：『如來如相不來不去，須菩提如相亦不來不去。』」 tr. "As the sūtra speaks of suchness: ‘The mark of suchness of the Tathāgata does not come and does not go; the mark of suchness of Subhūti also does not come and does not go.’" The treatise-author first brings the sūtra's original sentence back in as the starting point of the ten rounds of bringing-together. The form of the Expository Treatise can be seen here: first cite the sūtra, then unfold the meaning; citing the sūtra uses the sūtra's own words, unfolding the meaning uses its own words, and the two are not mixed.

36. The second round—the suchness of the Tathāgata is ultimately empty; the suchness of all dharmas includes the suchness of Subhūti. 「復次，如來如畢竟空，一切法如亦畢竟空。一切法如中攝須菩提如，是故須菩提用如來如故隨佛生。」 tr. "Furthermore, the suchness of the Tathāgata is ultimately empty, and the suchness of all dharmas is also ultimately empty. Within the suchness of all dharmas the suchness of Subhūti is included; therefore Subhūti, by means of the suchness of the Tathāgata, is born following the Buddha." This round adds one more layer, the frame of an inference: first both ends are set up as ultimately empty, then it is said that the suchness of Subhūti is included by the suchness of all dharmas, so that he can be born following the Buddha by way of the suchness of the Tathāgata. The several rounds below all use this frame—raise one virtue of the suchness of the Tathāgata, prove that the suchness of all dharmas equally has this virtue, and conclude with the suchness of Subhūti entering the suchness of all dharmas. Once this frame is recognised, the nine rounds of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore" no longer read as repetition.

37. The third round—without recollection, imagining, and discrimination; permanently abiding; like space. 「復次，如如來如無憶想分別、常住、如虛空，須菩提如亦如是。」 tr. "Furthermore, just as the suchness of the Tathāgata is without recollection, imagining, and discrimination, permanently abiding, and like space, the suchness of Subhūti is likewise." The three virtues raised in this round are precisely the meaning, in Sūtra ①'s third round of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore", of 「常住相」 tr. "the mark of permanent abiding" and 「一切處無念無別」 tr. "everywhere without thought and without difference". Here the treatise-author turns the sūtra's words into the words of a treatise-writer and says them once again; this is not superfluous—the sūtra text's weight is on listing the marks, the treatise-author's weight is on proving the inclusion, and the same mark bears different duties in the two layers.

38. The fourth round—because of unobstructed liberation, there is no impediment among all dharmas. 「復次，如如來如得無礙解脫故，一切法中無罣礙；一切法如亦如是，於一切法中亦無罣礙。如來如、一切法如，一如無異；須菩提如亦入一切法如故，是以隨佛生。」 tr. "Furthermore, just as the suchness of the Tathāgata, because it has obtained unobstructed liberation, is without impediment among all dharmas, the suchness of all dharmas is likewise, and is also without impediment among all dharmas. The suchness of the Tathāgata and the suchness of all dharmas are one suchness without otherness; because the suchness of Subhūti also enters the suchness of all dharmas, he is therefore born following the Buddha." This round speaks in terms of being unobstructed. Note that the phrase 「得無礙解脫」 tr. "has obtained unobstructed liberation" is a virtue of the fruit spoken on the side of the Tathāgata, and the treatise-author at once turns it into a universal mark of suchness—it is not that the Tathāgata alone has a kind of unobstructedness; it is that suchness itself is unobstructed, and the Tathāgata is unobstructed because he has obtained this suchness.

39. The fifth round—the mark of suchness of all dharmas is without making and without a maker. 「復次，諸法如相無作、無作者，如來如相亦如是；須菩提如，一切法如攝，故隨佛生。」 tr. "Furthermore, the mark of suchness of all dharmas is without making and without a maker, and the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is likewise; the suchness of Subhūti is included by the suchness of all dharmas, and so he is born following the Buddha." This round speaks in terms of making and the maker. The previous round broke obstruction; this round breaks making. The phrase without a maker is especially important: since there is no one who can make, 「隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha" is also not someone causing someone to be born.

40. The sixth round—everywhere always without recollection, imagining, and discrimination. 「復次，如如來如相，一切處常無憶想分別；須菩提如，一切法如攝，故隨佛生。」 tr. "Furthermore, just as the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is everywhere always without recollection, imagining, and discrimination, the suchness of Subhūti is included by the suchness of all dharmas, and so he is born following the Buddha." This round raises being without recollection, imagining, and discrimination just as the third round did, but adds the four Chinese characters 「一切處常」 tr. "everywhere always", saying it once more in terms of the universality of place and time. The same virtue spoken in two rounds shows exactly where the treatise-author does not shrink from repetition—he wants the reader to run into the same thing again and again on different facets.

41. The seventh round—the suchness of the Tathāgata is not apart from the suchness of all dharmas; rightly contemplating all dharmas is called Buddha. 「復次，如來如相不離一切法如。正觀一切法，名為佛；一切法是因緣，佛是果報，是故說：『如來如不離一切法如。』」 tr. "Furthermore, the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is not apart from the suchness of all dharmas. Rightly contemplating all dharmas is called Buddha; all dharmas are the causes and conditions, the Buddha is the fruit and retribution; therefore it is said: ‘The suchness of the Tathāgata is not apart from the suchness of all dharmas.’" This round brings out an exceedingly weighty sentence—「正觀一切法，名為佛」 tr. "rightly contemplating all dharmas is called Buddha". The Buddha is not some separate thing; it is the name of one who rightly contemplates all dharmas; all dharmas are the cause, the Buddha is the fruit. Since cause and fruit are not apart, the suchness of the Tathāgata and the suchness of all dharmas are naturally not apart. At the end it concludes: 「是如實故常如，無不如時；須菩提如亦如是不異，故隨佛生，亦無法可隨。」 tr. "Because this suchness is real, it is always such; there is no time when it is not such; the suchness of Subhūti is likewise not other, and so he is born following the Buddha, and there is no dharma that can be followed either." Again a closing phrase of 「無所隨」 tr. "nothing followed", at one with the way the third round of Sūtra ① closes.

42. The eighth round—passing out beyond the three times. 「復次，如來如相無憶想分別、出過三世，一切法如亦如是；須菩提如亦出三世，是故隨佛生。」 tr. "Furthermore, the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is without recollection, imagining, and discrimination and passes out beyond the three times, and the suchness of all dharmas is likewise; the suchness of Subhūti also goes out of the three times, and therefore he is born following the Buddha." This round speaks in terms of time, corresponding to Sūtra ①'s 「不過去、不未來、不現在」 tr. "not past, not future, not present". Passing out beyond the three times does not mean that it has some other place outside the three times; it means that it is not gathered in by the three times.

43. The ninth round—emptiness does not abide in emptiness; the simile of space not abiding in space; the three times without end and without limit. 「復次，如來如不在過去如中，何以故？如來空，過去亦畢竟空，是故空不在空中住；譬如虛空不住虛空中。」 tr. "Furthermore, the suchness of the Tathāgata is not within the suchness of the past. Why? The Tathāgata is empty, and the past is also ultimately empty; therefore emptiness does not abide within emptiness—just as space does not abide within space." This is the most beautiful explanation of the whole passage—the sūtra says ‘not within it’, and people mostly take it to mean that two things repel each other; the treatise-author instead says that both sides are empty, and emptiness has no place in which to abide, so they are not within each other. The simile uses space not abiding in space, direct and to the point. Then he explains the sūtra's 「三世如、如來如，不二不分別」 tr. "the suchness of the three times and the suchness of the Tathāgata are not two and not discriminated": the suchness of the three times is empty, signless, without arising and without ceasing, and so on, and the suchness of the Tathāgata is likewise; the suchness of the three times is without obstruction, the past is without end and without limit, the future and the present are also without end and without limit, and the suchness of the Tathāgata is likewise; 「此三世十方無窮無邊，須菩提如亦如是」 tr. "these three times and ten directions are without end and without limit, and the suchness of Subhūti is likewise". Not within each other and yet not two—this is the meaning of the fifth round of Sūtra ①, and only here does the treatise-author supply its reason in full.

44. The tenth round—the suchness of the five aggregates and the suchness of the Tathāgata are without duality and without difference; six things that may not be said; ‘Tathāgata’ as a provisional name. 「復次，五眾如乃至一切種智如、如來如，無二無別。何以故？色等諸法和合故有如來。」 tr. "Furthermore, the suchness of the five aggregates and so on up to the suchness of the omniscience of all kinds, and the suchness of the Tathāgata, are without duality and without difference. Why? Because form and the other dharmas come together, there is the Tathāgata." From this come six sentences of negation: it may not be said 「但是色等法」 tr. "it is only form and the other dharmas"; it may not be said 「離色等法」 tr. "apart from form and the other dharmas"; it may not be said 「色等法在如來中」 tr. "form and the other dharmas are within the Tathāgata"; it may not be said 「如來在色等法中」 tr. "the Tathāgata is within form and the other dharmas"; it may not be said 「色等法屬如來」 tr. "form and the other dharmas belong to the Tathāgata"; it may not be said 「無如來」 tr. "there is no Tathāgata". The six sentences form pairs—identity and separation, being within and containing, belonging and total absence—sealing off one by one every possible relation between the Tathāgata and the five aggregates, and at the end leaving only one sentence: 「五眾色等法中假名如來。」 tr. "Within form and the other dharmas of the five aggregates, ‘Tathāgata’ is a provisional name." Then it closes on suchness: 「如來如即是一切法如，是故說『色等法如、如來如，不二不別』。」 tr. "The suchness of the Tathāgata is the suchness of all dharmas; therefore it is said, ‘the suchness of form and the other dharmas and the suchness of the Tathāgata are not two and not different’." The last sentence judges the views of ordinary people and sages: 「凡夫人見有二有別，聖人觀無二無別；聖人可信，凡夫人所見不可信。」 tr. "Ordinary people see duality and difference; the sages contemplate it as without duality and without difference; the sages can be believed; what ordinary people see cannot be believed." This chapter returns even the two Chinese characters 「如來」 tr. "Tathāgata" to a provisional name, and only here does it reach the bottom.

45. The Buddha's decisive seal—Tathāgata means one who, practising as it really is, has come into the Buddha's Dharma. 「佛語須菩提：『是名為如，佛因此如故，名為如來。』」 tr. "The Buddha said to Subhūti: ‘This is called suchness; because of this suchness the Buddha is called Tathāgata.’" The treatise-author then explains the meaning of the name Tathāgata: 「如來者，如實行來到佛法中。」 tr. "Tathāgata means one who, practising as it really is, has come into the Buddha's Dharma." Practising as it really is, and by practising coming into the Buddha's Dharma—therefore he is called Tathāgata. This explanation returns Tathāgata from an honorific title to a course of practice—such is the reality of what is practised; come is where the practice arrives. The sentence in the twelfth passage on Sūtra ① is explained by this, and that its speaker is the Buddha is also made certain by this sentence.

46. When this suchness was spoken, the earth shook in six ways, as said above. Treatise ① closes with one sentence: 「說是如時，地六種震動，如上說。」 tr. "When this suchness was spoken, the earth shook in six ways, as said above." The sūtra text has already listed the six marks in detail; the treatise-author does not list them again, but only ties them on with the three Chinese characters 「如上說」 tr. "as said above". This too is the form of the Expository Treatise—marks the sūtra text has already made clear, the treatise does not bring out again.

47. The gods scatter incense again and praise Subhūti as born following the Buddha by the suchness of the Tathāgata. Sūtra ② begins afresh: the gods of the desire realm and the gods of the form realm scatter heavenly powdered sandalwood incense over the Buddha 「及散須菩提上」 tr. "and scatter it over Subhūti", and say to the Buddha: 「未曾有也！世尊！須菩提以如來如隨佛生。」 tr. "It has never been before, World-Honored One! Subhūti, by the suchness of the Tathāgata, is born following the Buddha." Read against the scattering of flowers at the opening of Sūtra ①, this passage has one more joint—this time the incense is also scattered on Subhūti. The words of praise also go a step further than before: before it said only 「是佛子，隨佛生」 tr. "is a son of the Buddha, born following the Buddha"; now it says 「以如來如隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha by the suchness of the Tathāgata", already using the meaning of the discussion. The gods' understanding is advancing, and the sickness Subhūti treats in the next passage arises precisely at this point of advance.

48. Subhūti's four lines break clinging—not from form, not from the suchness of form, not apart from form, not apart from the suchness of form. Subhūti speaks again to the gods, four lines in a row: 「須菩提不從色中隨佛生，亦不從色如中隨佛生；不離色隨佛生，亦不離色如隨佛生」 tr. "Subhūti is not born following the Buddha from within form, nor is he born following the Buddha from within the suchness of form; he is not born following the Buddha apart from form, nor is he born following the Buddha apart from the suchness of form"; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, and so on up to the unconditioned, are all the same four lines. It closes with the overall cause: 「是一切法皆無所有、不可得，無隨生者，亦無隨生法。」 tr. "All these dharmas are without anything existent and unfindable; there is no one born following, and no dharma of being born following." The arrangement of the four lines must be seen clearly—from and apart from are one pair, and the dharma and the suchness of the dharma form another level, together making four corners; when the four corners are sealed off there is nowhere to cling. Pay particular attention to the line 「不離色隨佛生，亦不離色如隨佛生」 tr. "he is not born following the Buddha apart from form, nor is he born following the Buddha apart from the suchness of form": what is excluded is ‘being born following the Buddha apart from form or apart from the suchness of form’—after breaking ‘born from form’, people most easily fall into ‘something separately born apart from form’ and settle down there; this line blocks exactly that road; both not-from and not-apart are dismissed, and only then does being born following the Buddha have nowhere to cling. The last sentence, 「無隨生者，亦無隨生法」 tr. "there is no one born following, and no dharma of being born following", dismisses both person and dharma.

49. Śāriputra addresses the Buddha—form itself is unfindable, how much less the suchness of form. Śāriputra takes up the word: 「是如實不虛，法相、法住、法位甚深；是中色不可得，色如不可得。」 tr. "This suchness is real and not false; the mark of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, and the position of dharmas are very deep; within this, form is unfindable, and the suchness of form is unfindable." And he gives his own reason: 「色尚不可得，何況色如當可得！」 tr. "Form itself is unfindable—how much less could the suchness of form be findable!" Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, are all inferred in this way. This way of inference is itself worth learning: from coarse to fine, from what is relied on to what relies on it—if even coarse, manifest form is unfindable, there is still less reason for the suchness of form, set up in dependence on form, to be findable. Śāriputra here is not asking a question but confirming; he says Subhūti's four lines over again in his own idiom.

50. The Buddha approves Śāriputra. The Buddha answers 「如是！如是！」 tr. "Just so! Just so!", and restates Śāriputra's words exactly as they were: this suchness is real and not false, the mark of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, and the position of dharmas are very deep, form is unfindable, the suchness of form is unfindable, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds is unfindable, the suchness of the omniscience of all kinds is unfindable. The Buddha's restating is not a saving of effort but a sealing—here the Buddha says it again in the disciple's own words, which is to permit these words to stand as a settled statement.

51. Bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, and bodhisattvas, hearing the mark of suchness, each attain their path. 「舍利弗說是如相時」 tr. "When Śāriputra spoke this mark of suchness"—this is an inserted clause of narration, not a change of speaker—in the assembly four kinds gained different benefits: 「二百比丘不受一切法故，漏盡得阿羅漢；五百比丘尼，遠塵離垢，諸法中得法眼淨，生天、人中；五千諸菩薩摩訶薩得無生忍法；六千菩薩諸法不受故，漏盡，心得解脫，成阿羅漢。」 tr. "Two hundred bhikṣus, because they did not receive any dharma, exhausted their outflows and became arhats; five hundred bhikṣuṇīs, far from the dust and free of defilement, obtained the purity of the Dharma-eye with regard to all dharmas and were born among gods and humans; five thousand bodhisattva-mahāsattvas obtained the acceptance of non-arising; six thousand bodhisattvas, because they did not receive any dharma, exhausted their outflows, their minds attained liberation, and they became arhats." Four kinds side by side: the first three are all favourable benefits, but the fourth is an adverse turn—the six thousand were originally bodhisattvas, yet having heard the Dharma they actually 「成阿羅漢」 tr. "became arhats". One and the same session of Dharma, four kinds of result; and the most glaring one falls precisely on the kind highest in station. The several passages below are all occasioned by this matter.

52. The causes and conditions of the six thousand bodhisattvas—they met five hundred buddhas and practised the mark of difference. The Buddha himself tells Śāriputra how it came about: 「是六千菩薩先世值五百佛，親近供養」 tr. "these six thousand bodhisattvas in former lives met five hundred buddhas, drew near to them and made offerings", and within the Dharma of the five hundred buddhas practised giving, morality, patience, vigour, and meditation; 「無般若波羅蜜、無方便力故，行別異相」 tr. "because they were without prajñāpāramitā and without the power of skilful means, they practised the mark of difference", giving rise to the discriminating thought 「是施、是持戒、是忍辱、是精進、是禪定」 tr. "this is giving, this is morality, this is patience, this is vigour, this is meditation". Because they practised the mark of difference they did not obtain the mark of no difference; because they did not obtain the mark of no difference they could not enter the bodhisattva's position; because they could not enter the bodhisattva's position, 「得須陀洹果乃至阿羅漢果」 tr. "they obtained the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the fruit of the arhat". This chain of cause and effect must be seen clearly link by link; the root of the sickness is not that they practised the five perfections too little, but lies in the three Chinese characters 「別異相」 tr. "the mark of difference"—seeing the five perfections as five things unrelated to one another, each with a substance of its own. The last sentence pushes one layer further: 「菩薩摩訶薩雖有道，若空、若無相、若無作法，遠離般若波羅蜜、無方便力故，便於實際作證，取聲聞乘。」 tr. "Though a bodhisattva-mahāsattva has the path—whether emptiness, or the signless, or the dharma of non-action—because he is far from prajñāpāramitā and without the power of skilful means, he then realises it at the limit of reality and takes the śrāvaka vehicle." Even having cultivated the three gates of liberation, one can still fall back to being a śrāvaka—what is lacking is only prajñā and skilful means.

53. Śāriputra's question—practising the three gates of liberation alike, why do the fruits differ? Śāriputra at once asks: 「何因緣故，俱行空、無相、無作法，遠離方便力故，於實際作證取聲聞乘？菩薩摩訶薩亦修空、無相、無作法，有方便力故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "For what cause and condition do those who alike practise the dharmas of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, because they are far from the power of skilful means, realise it at the limit of reality and take the śrāvaka vehicle, while bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, who also cultivate the dharmas of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, because they have the power of skilful means, obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" This question is the axis of the latter half of the unit: the dharmas cultivated are the same, the fruits obtained are opposite—where after all does the difference lie? The question can be asked so cleanly because the preceding passage has already laid out the fact of ‘having the path and yet falling’.

54. The Buddha's answer—far from, or not far from, the mind of sarvajñā. The Buddha's answer is very short: 「有菩薩遠離薩婆若心，修空、無相、無作法，無方便力故，取聲聞乘」 tr. "there are bodhisattvas who, far from the mind of sarvajñā, cultivate the dharmas of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, and because they are without the power of skilful means, take the śrāvaka vehicle"; 「復有菩薩摩訶薩不遠離薩婆若心，修空、無相、無作法，有方便力故，入菩薩位，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "and again there are bodhisattva-mahāsattvas who, not far from the mind of sarvajñā, cultivate the dharmas of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, and because they have the power of skilful means, enter the bodhisattva's position and obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". There is only one criterion—whether or not the mind of sarvajñā is left. Cultivating the three gates of liberation alike, when the mind is tied to omniscience it is skilful means; when the mind is not tied, it becomes a step toward realising and entering the limit of reality. Note that this answer neither denies the three gates of liberation nor says that what the śrāvakas cultivate is wrong; it only points out that the same dharma bears different fruit on different minds.

55. The simile of the great bird, first question—having thrown itself down without wings, can it get back up? The Buddha puts forth a simile: 「譬如有鳥，身長百由旬，若二百、三百由旬，而無有翅，從三十三天，自投閻浮提。」 tr. "It is like a bird whose body is a hundred yojana long, or two hundred, or three hundred yojana, and which has no wings, throwing itself down from the Heaven of the Thirty-three to Jambudvīpa." Then he sets a question: if this bird, midway, has the thought of wanting to return to the Heaven of the Thirty-three, 「能得還不？」 tr. "can it get back or not?" Śāriputra answers: 「不得也！世尊！」 tr. "It cannot, World-Honored One!" Three points in the simile need attention—its body is a hundred yojana long and so on up to three hundred, stating its greatness to the utmost; 「而無有翅」 tr. "and has no wings", lacking only one thing; 「自投」 tr. "throws itself down", it jumps of itself, it is not pushed. Greatness, lacking wings, throwing itself down—only when the three come together is there this simile.

56. The second question—if it wishes its body to be without pain and without vexation, can it be? The Buddha asks again: this bird further makes a wish, 「到閻浮提，欲使身不痛不惱」 tr. "on reaching Jambudvīpa, I wish my body to be without pain and without vexation"—can it be without pain and vexation? Śāriputra answers: 「不得也！世尊！是鳥到地，若痛、若惱、若死、若死等苦。」 tr. "It cannot, World-Honored One! When this bird reaches the ground, there is pain, or vexation, or death, or suffering equal to death." And he gives the reason himself: 「是鳥身大而無翅故。」 tr. "Because this bird's body is great and it has no wings." The order of the two questions is deliberate: the first asks whether it can go back, the second whether it can keep its body whole. The former cuts off its retreat; the latter cuts off its hope of good luck. And of Śāriputra's two answers, the second states the reason himself—the body is great and it has no wings—so the key to the simile comes out of the listener's own mouth, and the Buddha below need only apply the simile.

57. Applying the simile—cultivating five perfections for kalpas like the sands of the Ganges and falling into the two vehicles; dedicating by grasping the sound of the names. The Buddha applies the simile: though a bodhisattva 「如恒河沙等劫修布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定，發大事、生大心」 tr. "for kalpas equal to the sands of the Ganges cultivates giving, morality, patience, vigour, and meditation, sets out on a great undertaking and gives rise to a great mind", and takes on immeasurable vows for the sake of attaining awakening, if he is 「遠離般若波羅蜜、方便力故」 tr. "far from prajñāpāramitā and the power of skilful means", then he falls either into the arhat or into the path of the pratyekabuddha. The reason is still that he practises the five perfections 「遠離薩婆若心」 tr. "far from the mind of sarvajñā". The Buddha further points out another sickness: though the bodhisattva recollects the morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and knowledge and vision of liberation of the buddhas of past, future, and present, it is by 「取相受持」 tr. "receiving and upholding them by grasping at marks"; he really does not know or understand these five-part virtues of the buddhas, and 「但聞空、無相、無作名字聲，而取名字聲迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "only hears the sound of the names emptiness, the signless, and non-action, and grasping the sound of the names dedicates it to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Dedicating in this way, he 「住聲聞、辟支佛地中，不能得過」 tr. "abides in the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground and cannot get beyond it". This passage points out a kind of effort that is very easily mistaken—recollecting the virtues of the buddhas while grasping at marks, reciting the names of the three gates of liberation while grasping at the sound—the outward form entirely alike, yet with no real understanding.

58. The positive side—from the first arousing of intent not far from the mind of sarvajñā, not grasping at marks. The reverse side told, the Buddha brings out the positive side: 「有菩薩摩訶薩從初發意已來，不遠離薩婆若心」 tr. "there are bodhisattva-mahāsattvas who from the first arousing of intent onward are not far from the mind of sarvajñā", who practise the five perfections and, 「不遠離般若波羅蜜及方便力故，不取相」 tr. "because they are not far from prajñāpāramitā and the power of skilful means, do not grasp at marks"; with regard to the morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and knowledge and vision of liberation of the buddhas of the three times, 「不取空解脫門相，不取無相、無作解脫門相」 tr. "they do not grasp at the mark of the emptiness gate of liberation, and do not grasp at the marks of the signless and non-action gates of liberation". In this way they 「不墮聲聞、辟支佛道，直至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "do not fall into the path of the śrāvaka or the pratyekabuddha, but go straight to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Read item by item against the preceding passage, the difference lies entirely in grasping at marks or not grasping at marks: the things practised are the same, the virtues of the buddhas recollected are the same, even the three gates of liberation are the same; the only difference is not grasping at marks upon them.

59. The name of the power of skilful means concluded—practising the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds with a mind free of marks. The Buddha concludes with the definition of the power of skilful means: 「是名菩薩方便力，以離相心行布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定，乃至離相心行一切種智。」 tr. "This is called the bodhisattva's power of skilful means: with a mind free of marks he practises giving, morality, patience, vigour, and meditation, and so on up to practising the omniscience of all kinds with a mind free of marks." Skilful means here is not a clever technique; it is a mind free of marks. At this point the whole chapter has made the four Chinese characters 「無方便力」 tr. "without the power of skilful means" clear—what the six thousand bodhisattvas lacked was not technique, but that one thought, while practising the perfections, of not grasping at marks.

60. Śāriputra's understanding—being far from them one may attain or may not attain; one should cultivate with a mind of no obtaining and no marks. Śāriputra addresses the Buddha, saying 「如我解佛所說義」 tr. "as I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said": the bodhisattva who is not far from prajñā and skilful means is 「近阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "near anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", because 「從初發心已來無法可知」 tr. "from the first arousing of the mind onward there is no dharma that can be known"; whereas good men and good women who are far from prajñā and skilful means 「或得、或不得」 tr. "may attain or may not attain" awakening, because the giving and so on up to meditation they practise all grasp at marks, and so they are 「於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不定」 tr. "not fixed with regard to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". At the end the right practice is given: a bodhisattva who wishes to attain awakening 「不應遠離般若波羅蜜、方便力」 tr. "should not be far from prajñāpāramitā and the power of skilful means", should abide within prajñā and skilful means, and 「以無得無相心，應修布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定；乃至以無得無相心，應修一切種智」 tr. "with a mind of no obtaining and no marks should cultivate giving, morality, patience, vigour, and meditation; and so on up to: with a mind of no obtaining and no marks should cultivate the omniscience of all kinds". The five Chinese characters 「或得、或不得」 tr. "may attain or may not attain" deserve the most attention—practising while grasping at marks is not certain not to attain; it is unfixed; precisely because it is unfixed, prajñā is needed all the more. Sūtra ② closes with this right practice.

61. The treatise-author explains the gods' intent—they think that by Subhūti's power of wisdom all dharmas are made like the Buddha's Dharma. Treatise ② is headed with 「釋曰」 tr. "Explanation:"; it first cites the sūtra's account of the gods scattering incense and praising, and at once lays bare the intent held in the gods' minds: 「須菩提智慧力故，令一切法皆如佛法，是故說隨佛生。」 tr. "By Subhūti's power of wisdom all dharmas are made to be like the Buddha's Dharma; therefore they say he is born following the Buddha." This sentence is the treatise-author's diagnosis for the next passage—the gods take 「一切法皆如佛法」 tr. "all dharmas are like the Buddha's Dharma" as something brought about by Subhūti's power of wisdom. Once a maker and a made are set up, suchness becomes a thing that has been made.

62. Subhūti cuts off their esteem—four ways of breaking the mind that clings to suchness. 「須菩提知諸天子心少貴尚是諸法如，是故須菩提欲斷諸天子心故說：『是如畢竟空相。』」 tr. "Subhūti knew that the gods' minds slightly esteemed and prized this suchness of all dharmas; therefore, wishing to cut off the gods' minds, Subhūti said: ‘This suchness is of the mark of ultimate emptiness.’" The key lies in the three Chinese characters 「少貴尚」 tr. "slightly esteemed and prized"—the gods did not cling to it as real; there was only a slight intent of valuing and admiring in their minds; and Subhūti would cut off even this one subtle portion of esteem. The treatise-author then points out the function of the sūtra's four lines: 「以四種破著如心，所謂：『須菩提不在色中，不在色如中，不以色等、不以色等如，不離色等、不離色等如，隨佛生。』」 tr. "By four ways he breaks the mind that clings to suchness, namely: ‘Subhūti is born following the Buddha not within form, not within the suchness of form, not by means of form and the rest, not by means of the suchness of form and the rest, not apart from form and the rest, not apart from the suchness of form and the rest.’" Once words of praise are prized, they become a new place of clinging—what this passage demonstrates is how to treat the love and reverence that arise from the Dharma, not how to treat coarse and heavy afflictions.

63. The Buddha himself states the cause and condition—these dharmas are all empty and unfindable. 「佛此中自說因緣：『此法皆空、不可得。』」 tr. "Here the Buddha himself states the cause and condition: ‘These dharmas are all empty and unfindable.’" With one sentence the treatise-author ties on the overall cause of the last part of the sūtra passage. Subhūti's four lines breaking clinging speak in terms of marks; this sentence of the Buddha speaks in terms of substance; the four lines can break precisely because the substance of dharmas is originally empty.

64. Śāriputra says this suchness is very deep. 「舍利弗言：『世尊！是如甚深！是如中但色等法不可得，何況色等法如當可得！』」 tr. "Śāriputra said: ‘World-Honored One! This suchness is very deep! Within this suchness even form and the other dharmas are unfindable—how much less could the suchness of form and the other dharmas be findable!’" The treatise-author restates Śāriputra's words in Sūtra ②. In restating, he gathers the sūtra's long parallel string into a single sentence, while keeping the momentum of 「何況」 tr. "how much less"—when the Expository Treatise cites the sūtra it takes the sinews and bones, not the whole body; this is one example.

65. Question and answer—what is form and the other dharmas, and what is the suchness of form and the other dharmas? The treatise-author sets himself a question: 「何者是色等法？何者是色等法如？」 tr. "What is form and the other dharmas? What is the suchness of form and the other dharmas?" This question is very plain, yet it is the foundation of the whole of Treatise ②—above, a great deal has been said about form and the other dharmas and the suchness of form and the other dharmas being unfindable; what, after all, does each refer to? Answer: 「色等法，眼所見等諸法；如名『色等法實相，不虛誑』。」 tr. "Form and the other dharmas are the dharmas seen by the eye and the rest; suchness is the name for ‘the real mark of form and the other dharmas, not false and deceptive’." Form and the other dharmas are the dharmas presently before one, seen by the eye and the rest; suchness is the real mark of these dharmas, not false and deceptive. Only once the definitions are set can one speak below of misrecognising and of knowing the real.

66. The retribution of error—unwholesome deeds fall into the evil destinies, wholesome deeds are born among humans and gods, deeds without outflows take the Small Vehicle. 「人於色等如法中錯謬故」 tr. "Because people err with regard to form and the other dharmas and the dharma of suchness", they either give rise to unwholesome deeds and fall into the evil destinies, or give rise to wholesome deeds and are born among humans and gods, 「終歸磨滅，還生諸苦」 tr. "in the end returning to being ground away and giving rise again to all kinds of suffering"; or they give rise to deeds without outflows, and 「應求大利而取小乘，不得畢竟清淨如相故」 tr. "should seek the great benefit yet take the Small Vehicle, because they do not obtain the ultimately pure mark of suchness". Three roads side by side: evil deeds fall into the evil destinies; wholesome deeds are born among humans and gods yet in the end return to being ground away; deeds without outflows yet taking the Small Vehicle. One must see that the treatise-author counts the third road as error too—giving rise to deeds without outflows is already a world-transcending practice, yet because they do not obtain the ultimately pure mark of suchness they lose the great benefit. This passage corresponds exactly to the matter of the six thousand bodhisattvas in Sūtra ②: the harm of misrecognition does not stop at the evil destinies; the most regrettable kind occurs in a good place.

67. Form and the other dharmas are false and are not themselves suchness; knowing them as they really are is suchness. 「色等法皆是作法、有為、虛妄、從顛倒生、凡夫所憶想分別行處，是故色等法虛妄，不即是如。」 tr. "Form and the other dharmas are all made dharmas, conditioned, false, born from inversion, the sphere in which the recollection, imagining, and discrimination of ordinary people move; therefore form and the other dharmas are false and are not themselves suchness." This sentence must be read together with the sūtra's 「色即是薩婆若」 tr. "form is sarvajñā" at the head of the chapter, lest it be read as a contradiction. The treatise-author goes on to complete it: 「知色等法如實故即是如，因色等法得如名，是故言：『不離色等法得如。』」 tr. "Knowing form and the other dharmas as they really are is precisely suchness; it is because of form and the other dharmas that suchness gets its name; therefore it is said: ‘Suchness is obtained not apart from form and the other dharmas.’" Regarding form and the other dharmas as the sphere in which the recollection, imagining, and discrimination of ordinary people move, they are false and not themselves suchness; regarding knowing them as they really are, these very form and other dharmas are suchness, and the name of suchness, moreover, is established because of form and the other dharmas. So the 「即」 tr. "is" at the head of the chapter is not a blurring together; it is the identity of the moment of knowing as it really is; and the phrase 「不離色等法得如」 tr. "suchness is obtained not apart from form and the other dharmas" guards against seeking a suchness separately, apart from form.

68. Form and the other dharmas entering suchness are all of one mark—Subhūti's humility. 「色等法入如中，皆一相無異；是故須菩提謙言：『非但我隨佛生，一切法亦如是相。』」 tr. "Form and the other dharmas, entering suchness, are all of one mark, without otherness; therefore Subhūti humbly says: ‘Not only am I born following the Buddha; all dharmas too are of this mark.’" Here the treatise-author brings out a flavour in Subhūti's four lines breaking clinging—humility. Since all dharmas entering suchness are alike of one mark, the matter of being born following the Buddha is shared by all dharmas; why should it be mine alone? The gods' praise thereby falls empty—not refuted, but extended until there is nothing left to praise.

69. Śāriputra praises—if the cause is empty, how much more the fruit. 「舍利弗讚歎須菩提所說：『色等法亦畢竟空，何況如！』因若空，何況果！」 tr. "Śāriputra praised what Subhūti said: ‘Even form and the other dharmas are ultimately empty—how much more suchness!’ If the cause is empty, how much more the fruit!" The treatise-author makes Śāriputra's words into a single inference of cause and fruit: form and the other dharmas are the cause; the name of suchness is obtained from form and the other dharmas, so in this position suchness is the fruit. Since the cause is ultimately empty, the fruit is all the more unfindable. This sentence at the same time answers passage sixty-seven—the name of suchness is established because of form and the other dharmas, so the momentum of inferring emptiness from the dharmas to suchness follows naturally.

70. Hearing the very deep mark of suchness, beings each gain the benefit of the path. 「聞如是甚深如相，眾生各得道利益。」 tr. "Hearing such a very deep mark of suchness, beings each gained the benefit of the path." With one sentence the treatise-author ties on the sūtra text of Sūtra ② on the four kinds attaining the path, without listing them again one by one. The Chinese character 「各」 tr. "each" is the eye—hearing the same Dharma, what each obtains is different, which is precisely what sets up the four questions below.

71. Question and answer—prajñā is expounded for bodhisattvas, so why did six thousand people become arhats; the simile of carrying vessels to the sea. Question: 「是般若波羅蜜為菩薩說，何故六千人成阿羅漢道？」 tr. "This prajñāpāramitā is expounded for bodhisattvas; why did six thousand people accomplish the path of the arhat?" Answer: the treatise-author first points out that the Buddha had already answered this difficulty in advance—「佛知必有難者，自為舍利弗說因緣：『是人無般若波羅蜜、無方便力。』」 tr. "The Buddha knew there would surely be someone to raise this difficulty, and himself told Śāriputra the cause and condition: ‘These people were without prajñāpāramitā and without the power of skilful means.’" Then he unfolds their course of practice: in the past they made merit without skilful means and so practised crookedly, not rightly; being apart from prajñā, they clung deeply to wholesome dharmas; now, hearing prajñā from the Buddha, 「深厭世間，慈悲心薄故求自利，不受一切法，即得阿羅漢」 tr. "they were deeply weary of the world, and because their minds of kindness and compassion were thin, they sought their own benefit, did not receive any dharma, and at once attained arhatship". At the end comes an exceedingly important verdict: 「於般若無咎。」 tr. "There is no fault in prajñā." Prajñā is not at fault. And it closes with a simile: 「如人持器詣海，隨器大小，各自取足。」 tr. "As when people carry vessels to the sea, each according to the size of his vessel takes his fill." The sea water is without limit and what is obtained is limited; the limit lies in the vessel, not in the sea. This simile connects exactly with the Chinese character 「各」 tr. "each" of passage seventy.

72. Question and answer—not obtaining the dharma without discrimination refers to the past five hundred lifetimes. Question, citing the sūtra: 「六千菩薩無般若波羅蜜、方便力故，行五波羅蜜，不得是無分別法，作阿羅漢。」 tr. "The six thousand bodhisattvas, because they were without prajñāpāramitā and the power of skilful means, practised the five perfections, did not obtain this dharma without discrimination, and became arhats." At once it raises a difficulty: 「若一切聖人皆得無為法，得無為法即是無分別，何以此中說『不得無分別法，作阿羅漢』？」 tr. "If all sages obtain the unconditioned dharma, and obtaining the unconditioned dharma is being without discrimination, why does it say here ‘did not obtain the dharma without discrimination, and became arhats’?" The difficulty is very finely made—having become an arhat, one has obtained the unconditioned, which is being without discrimination; why does the sūtra text say he did not obtain non-discrimination? Answer: 「非說今世聽法時；乃是過去五百世時，不得般若、方便，修集五波羅蜜功德，以是故言：『不得無分別。』」 tr. "It is not speaking of the time of hearing the Dharma in this life; it is that in the past five hundred lifetimes, not having obtained prajñā and skilful means, they cultivated and gathered the merit of the five perfections; for this reason it says: ‘did not obtain non-discrimination’." Once the times are distinguished, the contradiction is resolved: not obtaining non-discrimination speaks of the past five hundred lifetimes, not of today. The treatise-author then supplies the consequence: 「失菩薩信等五根；失菩薩信等五根故，雖聞般若，不得如菩薩所聞即於實際作證。」 tr. "They lost the bodhisattva's five faculties, faith and the rest; because they lost the bodhisattva's five faculties, faith and the rest, though they heard prajñā, they could not hear it as bodhisattvas hear it, and at once realised it at the limit of reality." The accumulated habits of five hundred lifetimes caused the bodhisattva's five faculties, faith and the rest, to be lost; though today they hear prajñā, what they hear is already different from what bodhisattvas hear. The method of this answer is worth remembering: when the sūtra text contradicts itself before and after, first see whether it is not speaking of the same time.

73. Question and answer—practising emptiness, the signless, and non-action alike, one becomes a Buddha and one an arhat. Question: 「俱行空、無相、無作，何以一人得作佛、一人作阿羅漢？」 tr. "Practising emptiness, the signless, and non-action alike, why does one person attain buddhahood and one person become an arhat?" This is Śāriputra's question in Sūtra ②, raised once more by the treatise-author, and answered even more briefly than in the sūtra text: 「雖有種種因緣，得阿羅漢大因緣，所謂離薩婆若心行空等故。」 tr. "Though there are causes and conditions of many kinds, the great cause and condition of becoming an arhat is practising emptiness and the rest with a mind that has left sarvajñā." It acknowledges that the causes and conditions are of many kinds, yet marks out only the one great cause and condition—practising emptiness and the rest with a mind that has left sarvajñā. The three gates of liberation are a shared dharma; the mind of sarvajñā is the distinguishing condition; the shared dharma determines the mark of what is practised, and the distinguishing condition determines the fruit toward which it tends.

74. The matter of the great bird—the golden-winged bird just out of the shell, its wings not yet formed. The treatise-author first explains what the bird in the simile is: 「『大鳥』者，金翅鳥在於天上，如此間人鳥雀等無異。」 tr. "‘The great bird’: the golden-winged bird is in the heavens, no different from sparrows and the like among people here." The heavens are to the golden-winged bird what the human world is to sparrows—its ordinary place. He also explains why it does not come to the human world: 「此鳥食龍，翅出毒風，扇一切人眼失明故。」 tr. "This bird eats nāgas, and its wings give off a poisonous wind which, fanning, makes the eyes of all people lose their sight." Then he supplies the factual ground for the plot of the simile: 「是鳥初出𣫘，羽翼未成，意欲飛去，即時墮落，中道心悔：『我未應飛。』還欲住本天，上舍摩梨樹上；是鳥身大，羽翼未成，不能舉身。」 tr. "This bird, just out of the shell, its wings not yet formed, wished to fly away, and at once fell; midway its mind regretted: ‘I ought not yet to have flown.’ It wished to go back and dwell in its own heaven, up on the śālmalī tree; this bird's body was great, its wings not yet formed, and it could not lift its body." The sūtra text says only 「無有翅」 tr. "has no wings"; the treatise-author supplies 「羽翼未成」 tr. "its wings not yet formed"—it was not born without wings; it flew before the time of having wings had come. With this one addition, the meaning of the simile turns from a lack to rashness.

75. Clause-by-clause correspondence—the bird's body, great, without two wings, Mount Sumeru, space, flying when it ought not yet fly, death, what equals death, pain or vexation. The treatise-author assigns them clause by clause: 「『鳥身』，是菩薩身。『大』者，世世廣集五波羅蜜功德。『無兩翅』者，是無般若波羅蜜、無方便。『須彌山』者，是三界。『虛空』，是無量佛法。」 tr. "‘The bird's body’ is the bodhisattva's body. ‘Great’ is the merit of the five perfections gathered broadly life after life. ‘Without two wings’ is being without prajñāpāramitā and without skilful means. ‘Mount Sumeru’ is the three realms. ‘Space’ is the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha." Then he explains the plot: 「『未應飛而飛』者，是菩薩功德未成滿，欲行菩薩三解脫門、欲遊無量佛法虛空中而自退沒，是心雖欲願作佛而不能得。」 tr. "‘Flying when it ought not yet fly’ is the bodhisattva whose merit is not yet complete and full, who wishes to practise the bodhisattva's three gates of liberation, wishes to roam in the space of the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha, and of himself falls back and sinks; this mind, though it wishes and vows to become a Buddha, cannot attain it." Finally he assigns the results: 「『若死』者，是阿羅漢道；『死等』者，辟支佛道。『若痛、若惱』者，失菩薩本願功德。」 tr. "‘Death’ is the path of the arhat; ‘what equals death’ is the path of the pratyekabuddha. ‘Pain or vexation’ is losing the merit of the bodhisattva's original vow." Among these, the two phrases 「須彌山」 tr. "Mount Sumeru" and 「虛空」 tr. "space" do not appear in the sūtra text of this chapter (the sūtra says only 「無有翅」 tr. "has no wings" and 「從三十三天，自投閻浮提」 tr. "throwing itself down from the Heaven of the Thirty-three to Jambudvīpa"); they are words the treatise-author brings out in making the assignments. Nine items correspond one by one, and among them the assignment of 「大」 tr. "great" is most worth savouring—a great body is not a sickness; it is the merit of the five perfections gathered broadly life after life; precisely because the merit is great and there is no prajñā or skilful means, the fall hurts so badly. The three gates of liberation are here assigned to the matter of 「欲飛」 tr. "wishing to fly": they may be wished for but not rushed at; to set out before merit is full is to fall back and sink of oneself.

76. The Buddha's own concluding sentence—where the simile is applied, the meaning is clear of itself, so it is not spoken. 「佛自結句：『乃至住是無得無相心中應布施等。』此經中合喻，義自明了，故不說。」 tr. "The Buddha's own concluding sentence: ‘…and so on up to: abiding in this mind of no obtaining and no marks, one should give and so on.’ Where the simile is applied in this sūtra, the meaning is clear of itself, so it is not spoken." Treatise ② closes with this: of the right practice Śāriputra set out at the end of the sūtra passage, the treatise-author cites only its concluding sentence; as for the part where the Buddha has already applied the simile himself, 「義自明了，故不說」 tr. "the meaning is clear of itself, so it is not spoken". Where the Expository Treatise stops is also a rule: a simile already applied in the sūtra text is not applied again; a meaning already made clear in the sūtra text is not explained again. The single unit of the First Part ends here.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「色即是薩婆若」 tr. "form is sarvajñā" as lumping ordinary people and sages into one. The treatise-author says it clearly: 「色等法皆是作法、有為、虛妄、從顛倒生、凡夫所憶想分別行處，是故色等法虛妄，不即是如。」 tr. "Form and the other dharmas are all made dharmas, conditioned, false, born from inversion, the sphere in which the recollection, imagining, and discrimination of ordinary people move; therefore form and the other dharmas are false and are not themselves suchness." Regarding form as the object of the recollection, imagining, and discrimination of ordinary people, form is not itself suchness; one must 「知色等法如實故即是如」 tr. "know form and the other dharmas as they really are, and that is precisely suchness". The sūtra's 「即」 tr. "is" is the identity of the moment of knowing as it really is, not a mixing of the false and the true into one. If it is read as a blurring together, then practice and non-practice, delusion and awakening, would all be without distinction, and the matter of the six thousand bodhisattvas in the whole chapter could not be spoken of at all.

Do not read 「如」 tr. "suchness" as some final substance. The second round in Sūtra ① itself blocks this road—「如來如相即是一切法如相，一切法如相即是如來如相。是如相中亦無如相」 tr. "the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata is the mark of suchness of all dharmas; the mark of suchness of all dharmas is the mark of suchness of the Tathāgata. Within this mark of suchness there is no mark of suchness either". The treatise-author further says 「若不生法可得，則非畢竟空」 tr. "if a dharma of non-arising were findable, it would not be ultimate emptiness". Whoever grips suchness, non-arising, or ultimate emptiness into something that can be found—what he grips is, at that very moment, not what it points to. This chapter judges even the two Chinese characters 「如來」 tr. "Tathāgata" to be 「五眾色等法中假名如來」 tr. "within form and the other dharmas of the five aggregates, ‘Tathāgata’ is a provisional name"—how much more a single character, suchness.

Do not read 「一切世間所不能信」 tr. "all the world cannot believe" as meaning that everyone is unable to believe. The treatise-author has already distinguished 「名字一切」 tr. "the all of names" from 「實一切」 tr. "the real all", and says 「如此中說名字一切，以多不信故言『一切』」 tr. "as here it speaks of the all of names: because many do not believe, it says ‘all’". If read as the real all, the Buddha's expounding of the Dharma would become vain, and the matter 「如須陀洹於無上道得少分」 tr. "as the srota-āpanna obtains a small part of the unsurpassed path" could not be established either. For the quantifiers in the sūtras one must see whether it is the all of names or the actual all—this is a commonly used measuring rod for reading the prajñā sūtras and treatises.

Do not read the matter of the six thousand bodhisattvas as prajñā having a fault. The treatise-author specially sets down a verdict: 「於般若無咎。」 tr. "There is no fault in prajñā." In one and the same session of Dharma, two hundred bhikṣus exhaust their outflows, five thousand bodhisattvas obtain the acceptance of non-arising, six thousand bodhisattvas become arhats—the difference is not in the Dharma heard but in 「持器詣海，隨器大小」 tr. "carrying vessels to the sea, each according to the size of his vessel". Still less should one conclude from this that hearing the deep Dharma is dangerous and not dare to hear it; the retreat of the six thousand bodhisattvas was caused by practising the mark of difference in the past five hundred lifetimes and losing the bodhisattva's five faculties, faith and the rest, not by today's hearing.

Do not read 「無方便力」 tr. "without the power of skilful means" as lacking a clever technique. The Buddha himself gave the definition: 「是名菩薩方便力，以離相心行布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定，乃至離相心行一切種智。」 tr. "This is called the bodhisattva's power of skilful means: with a mind free of marks he practises giving, morality, patience, vigour, and meditation, and so on up to practising the omniscience of all kinds with a mind free of marks." Skilful means is simply the mind free of marks, not another set of techniques. Likewise, the fall of the 「大鳥」 tr. "great bird" is not due to insufficient merit—「『大』者，世世廣集五波羅蜜功德」 tr. "‘great’ is the merit of the five perfections gathered broadly life after life"—it is precisely because the merit is great and this one mind is absent that the fall is so heavy.

Do not read 「隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha" as an honour that can be received. Subhūti handles this praise twice: at first he asks in return 「云何為隨佛生」 tr. "what is being born following the Buddha", and in the end he says 「非但我隨佛生，一切法亦如是相」 tr. "not only am I born following the Buddha; all dharmas too are of this mark". The treatise-author further points out that the gods' 「心少貴尚是諸法如」 tr. "minds slightly esteemed and prized this suchness of all dharmas", and what Subhūti would cut off is precisely this one exceedingly subtle portion of esteem. Even the mind of reverence toward the Dharma counts, here, as something clung to.

Do not read the three 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" as meaning that the treatise-author already has a settled judgement. As to why the bodhisattva who has entered the Dharma-position is not said to be born in accord with the Buddha, the treatise-author lists three views without judging—the first in terms of outflows exhausted or not exhausted, the second in terms of being near the gate of nirvāṇa without remainder or going back and forth in birth and death, the third in terms of the two kinds of prajñā and the place of expounding. The three views standing together is the consistent form of this treatise; the reader should not take up one view for himself and cut off the other two.

Bearing on Practice

Check one's own view by the two sides, 「即」 tr. "is" and 「不即」 tr. "is not". One who can recite 「色即是薩婆若」 tr. "form is sarvajñā" while nothing stirs in his mind has, most likely, only accepted a way of speaking. One can use the treatise-author's two sentences to question oneself: is the form I am now taking as object the form that is 「凡夫所憶想分別行處」 tr. "the sphere in which the recollection, imagining, and discrimination of ordinary people move", or the form known as it really is? The former is false and not itself suchness; the latter is it, right here. This question pulls the great verdict at the head of the chapter back from the lips to the object of the present thought.

Let 「先信後知」 tr. "faith first and knowing after" settle the order of entry, and let 「智慧知已，名為信」 tr. "when wisdom has known it, that is called faith" settle the measure of culmination. At the start, when one hears the deep Dharma and cannot understand it, one need not reproach oneself as faithless—the treatise-author says 「知者必有信，先信後知故」 tr. "one who knows must have faith, because faith comes first and knowing after"; faith was always meant to come before knowing. And after long practice one must not rest content with hearing and believing; the treatise-author also says 「眾生聞所說而信者，此中不名為信；智慧知已，名為信」 tr. "beings who hear what is said and believe it—here that is not called faith; when wisdom has known it, that is called faith". The first sentence settles a person; the second spurs a person on; the two sentences must be carried on one's person together.

Use the method of the four lines breaking clinging to treat the mind that esteems the Dharma. Whenever a sense of treasuring arises toward some dharma—treasuring some view, some moment of accord, some passage of scripture—one can take Subhūti's four lines to illuminate oneself: was it obtained from within this? Was it obtained from within the suchness of this? Was it obtained apart from this? Was it obtained apart from the suchness of this? When none of the four corners offers a place to settle, the mind of esteem comes to rest of itself. The gods Subhūti treated were only 「少貴尚」 tr. "slightly esteeming and prizing", which shows that this method is used at the subtlest places.

Use 「離相心」 tr. "the mind free of marks" to examine the manner of practice of each perfection, rather than examining how much is practised. The six thousand bodhisattvas practised the five perfections in the presence of five hundred buddhas—one cannot say they practised little; the sickness lay in giving rise to the thought 「是施、是持戒、是忍辱、是精進、是禪定」 tr. "this is giving, this is morality, this is patience, this is vigour, this is meditation" and in 「行別異相」 tr. "practising the mark of difference". When practising giving one can ask oneself: at this moment is there standing in my mind a thing called giving? If there is, this perfection has already fallen into the mark of difference. The power of skilful means is not to be sought elsewhere; it lies just in whether this one thought is free of marks or not.

Use 「持器詣海」 tr. "carrying vessels to the sea" to measure oneself without making light of oneself. Hearing the same Dharma, what each obtains differs; the limit lies in the vessel, not in the sea. A small vessel is not the sea's fault, nor need one therefore not go to draw water; what can be done is to change the vessel for a larger one—the treatise-author points out that the vessel of the six thousand bodhisattvas was small because 「慈悲心薄故求自利」 tr. "because their minds of kindness and compassion were thin, they sought their own benefit". So the way to enlarge the vessel lies in kindness and compassion and in not abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, not in how much of the Dharma one hears.

Use the simile of the great bird to warn oneself that merit and prajñā must not be one-sidedly neglected. A great body without wings—the thicker the merit, the fiercer the momentum of the fall. When one has practised the path a long time and practice has gradually accumulated, one should most of all question oneself by this simile: are my two wings there?—prajñā is one wing, skilful means is one wing; lacking one, all the merit accumulated becomes weight dragging downward. And the four Chinese characters 「羽翼未成」 tr. "its wings not yet formed" that the treatise-author supplies are one more medicine: it is not that one should not fly, but that one flies before they are formed; while merit is not yet full, to go on gathering it honestly is steadier than rushing to rise high.

Further Resonances

The single unit of the First Part, two sūtra passages and two treatise passages, sets up the general outline of the whole chapter. Sūtra ① opens with the gods praising 「色即是薩婆若」 tr. "form is sarvajñā" and 「一如，無二無別」 tr. "one suchness, without duality and without difference"; the Buddha takes this up and tells why he kept silent on first attaining the path, judging 「無得者、無得處、無得時」 tr. "no one who obtains it, no place of obtaining, no time of obtaining" to be the very deep mark of all dharmas; Subhūti expounds that 「是法隨順一切法」 tr. "this Dharma accords with all dharmas" and yet is unobstructed, non-arising, and without a place, and with four rounds of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore" unfolds 「如相故，須菩提隨佛生」 tr. "because of the mark of suchness, Subhūti is born following the Buddha"; it is sealed at the end with 「得是如故，名為如來」 tr. "because he obtains this suchness he is called Tathāgata", and closes with the great earth shaking in six ways. Treatise ① first clears the way through the gods' words with three matters—the judgement of shallow and deep, the all of names and the real all, and faith first and knowing after—then explains their meaning by prajñā and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi differing in name and one in substance, the simile of burning sandalwood and mixed woods, and the simile of the mark of space in a wall and the peg; it further fixes the standing of 「隨佛生」 tr. "born following the Buddha" by the three kinds of seed and the five sons of the Buddha, lists the three schools of 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" without judging, and at the end brings together the suchness of the Tathāgata and the suchness of Subhūti with nine rounds of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore", stopping at 「五眾色等法中假名如來」 tr. "within form and the other dharmas of the five aggregates, ‘Tathāgata’ is a provisional name". Sūtra ② turns to practice and fruit: Subhūti's four lines break clinging, Śāriputra confirms that the suchness of form is unfindable, the four kinds who hear the Dharma attain the path differently while the six thousand bodhisattvas instead become arhats, the Buddha judges the reason by the simile of the great bird without wings, and concludes that 「離相心行布施」 tr. "practising giving with a mind free of marks" is precisely the power of skilful means. Treatise ② then explains them item by item—the four ways of breaking clinging, the definitions of form and the other dharmas and of the suchness of form and the other dharmas, the three roads of error, the simile of carrying vessels to the sea, not obtaining non-discrimination belonging to the past five hundred lifetimes, leaving the mind of sarvajñā as the great cause and condition of becoming an arhat—and closes with the matter of the golden-winged bird and the nine-item clause-by-clause correspondence. The principle of 「如」 tr. "suchness" and the practice of 「方便」 tr. "skilful means" have, in the First Part, already become one matter: knowing suchness without skilful means, there is the fall of the great bird; practising the perfections without leaving the mind of sarvajñā, one goes straight to awakening.

As for the ancient masters' sectional divisions of this chapter, Jizang judges it the fourth of four chapters, and his commentary opens: 「此第四、合中下根人如如而學，具成上三品。」 tr. "This is the fourth: it has people of middling and lower faculties training in accord with suchness, fully completing the three chapters above."—taking this chapter as the overall gathering-in of the three chapters before it: people of middling and lower faculties training in accord with suchness, and so this chapter is set up. This places the chapter in terms of the order of the whole work; it does not explain the meaning of this chapter's sūtra text, and the reader may take its placement and leave it at that. Further, Junzheng cites the matter of the six thousand bodhisattvas of this chapter, and his text reads 「有六十菩薩於五百佛所行六波羅蜜等，具行萬行而無方便故、實際作證故，不得入菩薩位」 tr. "there were sixty bodhisattvas who, in the presence of five hundred buddhas, practised the six perfections and the rest, fully practising the myriad practices, yet because they were without skilful means and because they realised it at the limit of reality, could not enter the bodhisattva's position"; the number he cites is sixty, which differs from the 「六千菩薩」 tr. "six thousand bodhisattvas" of this work's base text. The two readings are recorded side by side without judging which is correct; the text of the base text is not altered because of what an ancient master cites.

The single unit of the Last Part continues from here and turns to the discussion of hard to obtain and easy to obtain: the gods say anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is hard to obtain; the Buddha approves and says 「亦無所得，無能知、無可知、亦無知者」 tr. "there is also nothing to be attained; there is no one able to know, nothing that can be known, and also no knower"; Subhūti, on the contrary, says it is easy to obtain because all dharmas are empty of nature; Śāriputra raises the retrogressing and turning back of bodhisattvas like the sands of the Ganges as a challenge; Subhūti then, with form, apart from form, the suchness of form, apart from the suchness of form, suchness, the nature of dharmas and the rest, and apart from suchness and the rest, asks back sentence by sentence 「於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提退還不」 tr. "does it retrogress and turn back from anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi or not", and Śāriputra answers each time that it does not retrogress; Pūrṇa has Śāriputra further ask about a single bodhisattva vehicle; Subhūti, since within suchness there is no discrimination of three vehicles, establishes the meaning of one vehicle, and the Buddha praises him as excellent. After that the Buddha broadly shows the gates of practice for accomplishing awakening—an equal mind, a mind of kindness, a lowly intent, a mind of safety, an unobstructed mind, a mind without vexation, a mind of love and respect, and, with regard to the ten wholesome paths and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, the four matters ‘practising it oneself, teaching others, praising, rejoicing’ carried out together—and closes the sūtra with two thousand bodhisattvas obtaining the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; the treatise explains the equal mind, the nine grades of people, the meaning of a lowly intent, the mind of safety, the acceptance of beings as the first gate of the acceptance of dharmas, and the ten wholesome paths as the guest and old dharmas, and gathers the whole chapter together with obtaining the acceptance of non-arising through the completeness of both dharmas. That is not anticipated here.