大智度論 轉不轉品之上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Turning and Not Turning, Part 1 of 2

Turning and Not Turning, First Part: Māra Ruins the Arousing of the Mind by the Meaning of Emptiness; Turning and Not Turning Are Both Called Non-retrogression; The Gloss of the Three Names Firm, Unmoved, and Not Turning; The Marks of Non-retrogression Item by Item

What Is Being Asked

Avaivartika means non-retrogressing. The marks of non-retrogression have already been set out before; this chapter goes on to set out more of them, and yet the moment it opens its mouth, what comes first is a passage spoken by Māra. What deserves attention in this passage is this: Māra does not urge people to do evil; Māra expounds the Dharma. He says that sarvajñā, omniscience, is equal to space, and that dharmas are equal to space; since emptiness is without anything existent, then 「無有得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，亦無有不得者」 tr. "there is no one who obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and no one who does not obtain it", and so this whole toil and suffering of yours is endured in vain, and the unsurpassed awakening you have heard of 「皆是魔事，非佛所說」 tr. "is all a deed of Māra, not spoken by the Buddha". Every sentence sounds like prajñā, yet the conclusion is to make a person give up his vow. The first question of the First Part, a single unit, lies right here—when the meaning of emptiness itself is taken up to cancel the arousing of the mind, on what does the practitioner stand firm?

The answer the sūtra text gives is not to refute the meaning of emptiness but to use the meaning of emptiness to the very end: the bodhisattva should reflect that although dharmas are empty, 「眾生不知、不見、不解」 tr. "beings do not know, do not see, do not understand", and so 「我亦以是如虛空等無所有、自相空大誓莊嚴得一切種智」 tr. "I too, adorned with this great vow—like space, equal to it, without anything existent, empty of specific marks—shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds". Emptiness does not cancel the adornment; emptiness is precisely the shape of the adornment. Next the sūtra text itself shakes out an answer that seems self-contradictory: Subhūti asks whether it is not turning that is called avaivartika, or whether turning too is called avaivartika; the Buddha answers that both are so—not turning in the grounds of the two vehicles is called not turning, and turning in the grounds of the two vehicles is also called not turning. The treatise-author gathers these two answers together by the two truths. From here on the sūtra text sets out the marks of non-retrogression all the way through: entering the dhyānas and samādhis at will yet not receiving their fruit, prizing nothing among all wholesome dharmas, as a householder receiving the five desires and gathering in beings by skilful means, the vajra-holding spirit king following and guarding him, constantly being complete in the five faculties, being a superior person, practising pure livelihood—and every mark is stamped with the same seal-sentence, 「以是行、類、相貌，當知是名阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩」 tr. "by this conduct, kind, and appearance, know that this is called an avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattva".

The treatise-author explains, mark by mark, why each is so, and in four places sets up question and answer to probe the difficulties: why is receiving the five desires called skilful means? Since there are spirit kings to guard him, does the bodhisattva then have no strength of his own? The Abhidharma says that one who has not severed his roots of goodness is accomplished in the five faculties; why does it say here that one without the five faculties is an ordinary person? The marks of the superior person spoken of in other sūtras are very many; why is only the single matter of a single mind without distraction taken here? What the First Part must answer is these two questions—‘how to remain unmoved when Māra's words accord with the Dharma’ and ‘why turning and not turning are both called non-retrogression’—together with the reasons behind each of the marks of non-retrogression.

Passage by Passage

1. Māra ruins the mind by the meaning of emptiness; the bodhisattva turns the meaning of emptiness back into adornment. The sūtra text sets out the first mark, yet begins from a hindrance: 「惡魔到菩薩所，壞其心」 tr. "evil Māra comes to where the bodhisattva is and ruins his mind"; the skeleton of Māra's words is three sentences—sarvajñā is equal to space, dharmas are equal to space, and in emptiness 「無有得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，亦無有不得者」 tr. "there is no one who obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and no one who does not obtain it"; the conclusion is 「汝唐受勤苦」 tr. "you toil and suffer for nothing", that the awakening he has heard of 「皆是魔事，非佛所說」 tr. "is all a deed of Māra, not spoken by the Buddha", and 「汝當放捨是願」 tr. "you should give up this vow". The reflection the bodhisattva should make, the sūtra text gives as well: although dharmas are like space, 「而眾生不知、不見、不解」 tr. "yet beings do not know, do not see, do not understand", and so 「我亦以是如虛空等無所有、自相空大誓莊嚴得一切種智」 tr. "I too, adorned with this great vow—like space, equal to it, without anything existent, empty of specific marks—shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds", and he expounds this Dharma for beings so that they obtain the four fruits, the path of the pratyekabuddha, and so on up to unsurpassed awakening. At the end it concludes in three minds—「應堅固其心，不動、不轉」 tr. "he should make his mind firm, unmoved, not turning"—and says that 「堅固心、不轉、不動心行六波羅蜜，當入菩薩位中」 tr. "with a firm mind, a mind not turning and unmoved, he practises the six perfections and shall enter into the bodhisattva's position". What must be seen clearly is this contrast: Māra uses emptiness to arrive at ‘no need’; the bodhisattva uses emptiness to arrive at ‘all the more need’. The emptiness is the same emptiness; the difference lies in whether the side of 「眾生不知」 tr. "beings do not know" is taken into view along with it.

2. Subhūti asks—of turning and not turning, which one is called avaivartika. 「須菩提白佛言：『世尊！不轉故名阿鞞跋致？轉故亦名阿鞞跋致？』」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Is one called avaivartika because of not turning? Is one also called avaivartika because of turning?’" This question is asked with great precision: in the passage just before, the Buddha had only just said 「不動、不轉」 tr. "unmoved, not turning", and the literal sense of the name avaivartika is precisely non-retrogression; how then could 「轉」 tr. "turning" also be called non-retrogression? Subhūti brings the contradiction into the open on the reader's behalf—he is not seeking a name, but asking whether this name can be used both ways.

3. The Buddha answers that both are so. 「佛言：『不轉故名阿鞞跋致，轉故亦名阿鞞跋致。』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘One is called avaivartika because of not turning; one is also called avaivartika because of turning.’" The Buddha does not pick one; he acknowledges both sides. The answer is given before the reason, and this is a common order of teaching in the sūtra text: first lay down a verdict that seems not to make sense, force out the next question, and then resolve it within the next question. On reaching this point there is no need to hurry to reconcile them; the sense of contradiction is exactly what is meant to be kept.

4. Subhūti asks again how. 「須菩提白佛言：『世尊！云何不轉故名阿鞞跋致，轉故亦名阿鞞跋致？』」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! How is it that one is called avaivartika because of not turning, and also called avaivartika because of turning?’" The same sentence is asked a second time, the only difference being the two added Chinese characters 「云何」 tr. "how"—the first question asked whether it holds; this question asks how it holds. That the sūtra text sets out the two questions separately shows precisely that this meaning cannot be passed over in one leap.

5. The Buddha explains the two turnings—not turning in the grounds of the two vehicles is not turning, and turning in the grounds of the two vehicles is also not turning. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「若菩薩摩訶薩於聲聞地、辟支佛地不轉，是故名不轉。若菩薩摩訶薩於聲聞地、辟支佛地轉，是故亦名不轉。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not turn in the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground, for this reason he is called not turning. If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva turns in the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground, for this reason he is also called not turning." The key lies in what the word 「轉」 tr. "turn" is set against: not falling into the grounds of the two vehicles is not turning; having fallen and turning out of the grounds of the two vehicles is still not turning. One word with two meanings, hinging entirely on the preceding 「於聲聞地、辟支佛地」 tr. "in the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground"—turning away from the two vehicles and not entering the two vehicles are, with respect to unsurpassed awakening, one and the same matter. At the end it stamps the seal-sentence for the first time in this passage, 「以是行、類、相貌，當知是名阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩相」 tr. "by this conduct, kind, and appearance, know that this is called the mark of an avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattva", and says that for this reason 「惡魔不能壞其意」 tr. "evil Māra cannot ruin his intent"—turning back to fasten onto Māra's hindrance at the opening.

6. He enters the dhyānas and samādhis at will, yet does not receive their fruit. The avaivartika, 「若欲入初禪，第二、第三、第四禪，乃至滅定禪，即得入」 tr. "if he wishes to enter the first dhyāna, the second, the third, the fourth dhyāna, and so on up to the dhyāna of the absorption of cessation, is at once able to enter"; if he wishes to cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, the emptiness, signless, and non-action samādhis, and so on up to the five supernormal powers, 「即能修」 tr. "he is at once able to cultivate them". And yet 「不受四念處果」 tr. "he does not receive the fruit of the four foundations of mindfulness", 「不受諸禪果」 tr. "does not receive the fruit of the dhyānas", and so on to 「不證須陀洹果，乃至不證辟支佛道」 tr. "does not realise the fruit of the srota-āpanna, and so on up to not realising the path of the pratyekabuddha"; rather, 「故為眾生受身，隨其所應而利益之」 tr. "he deliberately takes a body for the sake of beings, and benefits them according to what suits them". The crux of this mark is ‘able yet not taking’: the samādhis all obtained, the limbs of the path all cultivated, yet not a single fruit received. It is not that he cannot cultivate his way up; it is that he will not cash it in halfway—once the fruit is cashed in, the road of taking bodies to ferry beings is cut off.

7. Prizing nothing among all wholesome dharmas; in the four deportments a single mind undisturbed. This mark is listed at great length: he does not prize form, does not prize marks, does not prize the two vehicles, does not prize each limb of the six perfections, does not prize the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, or the four formless absorptions, does not prize the five supernormal powers, does not prize the limbs of the path, does not prize the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and so on to 「不貴淨佛世界、不貴成就眾生，不貴見佛，不貴種善根」 tr. "does not prize purifying buddha-worlds, does not prize bringing beings to accomplishment, does not prize seeing buddhas, does not prize planting roots of goodness". The reason is 「一切法自相空，不見可貴法、能生貴心者」 tr. "all dharmas are empty of specific marks; he sees no dharma that can be prized, nor any that can give rise to a prizing mind". This is where it is easiest to misread: not prizing even purifying buddha-worlds, seeing buddhas, and planting roots of goodness is not to slight these matters; it is rather to refrain from setting down upon these matters an entity that is 「可貴」 tr. "prizable"—the moment what is prized becomes real, the mind has somewhere to hang. So the sūtra text says immediately after that he, 「於四種身儀中，出入來去、坐臥行住，一心不亂」 tr. "within the four kinds of bodily deportment, going out and coming in, coming and going, sitting, lying, walking, standing, is single-minded and undisturbed"—the testing mark of prizing nothing falls upon these four bodily deportments of walking, standing, sitting, and lying.

8. As a householder he receives the five desires, yet himself practises the six perfections and teaches others to practise them; he gives the precious things filling Jambudvīpa. This mark places non-retrogression in the place least like a seat of awakening: 「若在居家，以方便力為利益眾生故受五欲」 tr. "if he dwells in a household, by the power of skilful means, for the sake of benefiting beings, he receives the five desires". And what he does is giving—「須食與食，須飲與飲，衣服、臥具乃至資生所須盡給與之」 tr. "to those who need food he gives food, to those who need drink he gives drink; clothing, bedding, and so on up to whatever is needed to support life, he gives them all"; moreover he himself practises dānapāramitā, teaches others to practise it, praises its dharma, and rejoices in and praises those who practise it, the four matters all complete, and likewise for śīla and so on up to prajñā. As a householder he can give 「滿閻浮提珍寶」 tr. "precious things filling Jambudvīpa", and so on up to 「三千大千世界滿中珍寶」 tr. "the three-thousand great-thousand world filled with precious things", and yet 「亦不自為，常修梵行，不凌易虜掠他人令其憂惱」 tr. "he does not do it for himself either; he always cultivates pure conduct, and does not insult, belittle, plunder, or rob others so as to cause them sorrow and vexation". Receiving the five desires set side by side with cultivating pure conduct—this is exactly what is most glaring in this mark; the dividing line lies in the four Chinese characters 「亦不自為」 tr. "does not do it for himself either"—he receives in order to gather in beings, not for himself.

9. The vajra-holding spirit king constantly follows and guards him. 「執金剛神王常隨逐」 tr. "The vajra-holding spirit king constantly follows him", and makes a vow: 「是菩薩摩訶薩當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，我常隨逐。」 tr. "This bodhisattva-mahāsattva will obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; I shall constantly follow him." And so on up to 「五姓執金剛神常隨守護」 tr. "the vajra-holding spirits of the five clans constantly follow and guard him". Therefore 「若天、若魔、若梵、若餘世間大力者不能破壞是菩薩摩訶薩薩婆若心」 tr. "whether gods, or Māra, or Brahmā, or any other of great strength in the world, none can break this bodhisattva-mahāsattva's mind of sarvajñā". Note that the object of the sūtra text's guarding is not body and life but 「薩婆若心」 tr. "the mind of sarvajñā"—what is guarded is the mind, and what would be broken is also the mind. As for what the five clans refer to, the sūtra text gives only their number and not their names; here, following the sūtra, nothing is added.

10. He is constantly complete in the five faculties of the bodhisattva. 「菩薩摩訶薩常具足菩薩五根：信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根，是名阿鞞跋致相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva is constantly complete in the five faculties of the bodhisattva: the faculty of faith, the faculty of vigour, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of wisdom; this is called the mark of the avaivartika." The names of the five faculties the sūtra text itself lists; as for their meaning in present-day words (the sūtra and treatise do not gloss them faculty by faculty here; following the common meaning, briefly stated): faith is believing and receiving, vigour is diligence that does not retrogress, mindfulness is not forgetting the object, concentration is the mind on a single object, wisdom is illuminating clearly. This mark looks ordinary, yet it is where the treatise-author below expands at length—the presence or absence of the five faculties is exactly the boundary between the ordinary and the noble.

11. He is a superior person, not an inferior person. 「阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩為上人，不為下人。」 tr. "The avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattva is a superior person, not an inferior person." A single verdict, with no explanation added, hence the question below. The sūtra text uses 「上人」 tr. "superior person", a term the world also commonly uses, and this is exactly what forces out where the criterion of 「上」 tr. "superior" actually lies.

12. Subhūti asks what a superior person is. 「須菩提白佛言：『世尊！云何為上人？』」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! What is a superior person?’" This question is of the same form as the earlier 「云何不轉故名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "how is it that one is called avaivartika because of not turning"—the sūtra text establishes a name, and Subhūti seeks its criterion. If readers first answered it themselves, most would answer with virtuous conduct, with wisdom, with the breadth of ferrying beings; the Buddha's answer is narrower than all of these.

13. The Buddha answers—practising the mind of awakening single-mindedly, without distraction, is a superior person. 「若菩薩摩訶薩一心行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，不散亂，是名上人。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva single-mindedly practises the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, without distraction, this is called a superior person." Only one matter is taken, and it is the innermost matter. No merits are listed, no stations of fruit are listed; it asks only whether this one mind is scattered or not. The advantage of setting the criterion here is that it cannot be feigned, nor does it increase or decrease with the richness or poverty of one's circumstances.

14. Not practising spell-craft, compounding medicines, or casting spells on ghosts—this is practising pure livelihood. The last mark speaks of the purity of making a living: 「不作呪術、合和諸藥，不呪鬼神令著男女問其吉凶、男女祿相、壽命長短」 tr. "he does not practise spell-craft or compound medicines, and does not cast spells on ghosts and spirits to make them possess men and women so as to ask about their fortune, the marks of emolument of men and women, and the length or shortness of life". The reason still returns to emptiness—「知諸法自相空，不見諸法相，故行淨命」 tr. "knowing that all dharmas are empty of specific marks, he does not see the marks of dharmas, and so practises pure livelihood". This mark pulls non-retrogression back to the most everyday level: fortune and misfortune, emolument, and long or short life are exactly the four things the human heart can least let go of; he does not make his living by them because he fundamentally does not see any such real mark that could be divined or averted.

15. The treatise-author begins his explanation, first citing Māra's words. The treatise-author explains, first marking 「復有阿鞞跋致菩薩相」 tr. "there are further marks of the avaivartika bodhisattva", and then cites that one sentence of Māra's from the sūtra text: 「薩婆若與虛空等。」 tr. "Sarvajñā is equal to space." It is the method of the Expository Treatise that every extended explanation first raises the text being explained; here only one sentence is cited, which shows that the treatise-author holds this sentence to be the pivot of the whole passage of Māra's hindrance—the several passages below all take apart these seven Chinese characters.

16. The other names of sarvajñā—first fixing what is meant. 「薩婆若有種種名字：或說一切智，或說一切種智，或說無上道，或說無量諸佛法，或說菩提，皆是薩婆若名字。」 tr. "Sarvajñā has names of many kinds: it is called omniscience, or called the omniscience of all kinds, or called the unsurpassed path, or called the immeasurable dharmas of the buddhas, or called awakening; all these are names of sarvajñā." Having listed five other names, the treatise-author nails down what is meant in this passage: 「此中說薩婆若，當知是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Where sarvajñā is spoken of here, know that it is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." This step is a rule of explaining a sūtra—the same noun in different places refers more broadly or more narrowly; only when what it refers to here is fixed first will the disputation that follows not fall into the void.

17. The substance of Māra's words—empty and without anything existent, your teachers deceive you. 「一切菩薩皆願欲得薩婆若」 tr. "All bodhisattvas vow and wish to obtain sarvajñā", and so Māra sets to work from here. The treatise-author fills out Māra's words: 「是薩婆若空無所有，但諸師誑汝耳！如虛空無所有、無色無形、不可知；薩婆若亦如是。」 tr. "This sarvajñā is empty and without anything existent; it is only that your teachers deceive you! As space is without anything existent, without colour, without shape, and cannot be known, so too is sarvajñā."—「是故說與虛空等」 tr. "therefore it is said to be equal to space". Filling out the sentence 「但諸師誑汝耳」 tr. "it is only that your teachers deceive you" shows his discerning eye most of all: where Māra truly puts his effort is not in the meaning of emptiness but in sowing discord; first he says the Dharma is empty, then he says the teachers deceive, and only thus can he uproot a person from both ends at once, the Dharma and the teacher.

18. Māra's words go on to break down the aids to the path, and urge regret and the giving up of the vow. The treatise-author goes on to explain the two Chinese characters 「諸法」 tr. "dharmas" in the sūtra: 「諸法者，六波羅蜜等趣薩婆若助道法；是法亦空」 tr. "‘Dharmas’ means the six perfections and the other dharmas that aid the path tending toward sarvajñā; these dharmas too are empty", and so 「無得薩婆若者、無趣薩婆若、無有助道者」 tr. "there is no one who obtains sarvajñā, no tending toward sarvajñā, and nothing that aids the path". Māra goes a step further and reverses right and wrong: 「汝師常教汝離魔事，薩婆若即是魔事。何以故？捨涅槃、取生死故。」 tr. "Your teacher always teaches you to keep away from the deeds of Māra, yet sarvajñā is itself a deed of Māra. Why? Because it abandons nirvāṇa and takes up birth and death." And so on to saying 「汝先所聞經、若六波羅蜜義，非是佛法，皆是人造」 tr. "the sūtras you heard before, and the meaning of the six perfections, are not the Buddha's Dharma; they were all made by people", and he frightens him with the marks of the three evil destinies. This whole passage can be read as a lesson in reverse: it employs the meaning of emptiness, the teaching lineage, the scriptural teaching, and karmic retribution, all four, and every one of them is twisted to support the same conclusion—give up. Discerning Māra lies not in discerning words but in discerning where these words lead a person.

19. The bodhisattva is aware of the deed of Māra—only adornment by the emptiness of specific marks is fitting. The avaivartika, hearing these things, 「即覺知魔事」 tr. "is at once aware that it is a deed of Māra", knowing that 「是魔毀呰薩婆若」 tr. "this is Māra disparaging sarvajñā". His reason has two layers: first, 「一切法雖空無所有，而凡夫眾生顛倒覆心故，不知、不見」 tr. "although all dharmas are empty and without anything existent, ordinary beings, because inversion covers their minds, do not know and do not see"—emptiness does not mean there is no need to speak; precisely because beings do not know, someone must speak; second, 「若一切法空，我以實莊嚴，是不相應；若諸法空，莊嚴亦空者，是則相稱」 tr. "if all dharmas are empty and I adorn with what is real, that does not correspond; if dharmas are empty and the adornment too is empty, then this is fitting". This is the finest turn in the whole passage: Māra says that because of emptiness adornment is useless; the treatise-author answers that because of emptiness adornment is fitting—to adorn empty dharmas with real dharmas would instead be amiss. The meaning of emptiness is not a reason to abolish the gates of practice; it is the ruler that corrects the gates of practice.

20. The fruit of the srota-āpanna is of two kinds; the conditioned and the unconditioned are both empty. The treatise-author cites the sūtra text's 「令眾生得須陀洹果」 tr. "causes beings to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna" and at once distinguishes: 「須陀洹果有二種：一者，三結斷——無為法，二者，空、無相、無作三昧相應——有為須陀洹果。」 tr. "The fruit of the srota-āpanna is of two kinds: first, the severance of the three fetters—an unconditioned dharma; second, what corresponds to the emptiness, signless, and non-action samādhis—the conditioned fruit of the srota-āpanna." Both are empty, but the reasons for their emptiness differ: 「有為法中，三解脫門故空；無為法中，無生、無住、無滅相故即是空」 tr. "among conditioned dharmas, it is empty because of the three gates of liberation; among unconditioned dharmas, because of the marks of non-arising, non-abiding, and non-ceasing, it is itself empty"; and so on up to unsurpassed awakening likewise. This passage follows on from the one above—since he has said he would cause beings to obtain the fruit, he must make clear that the fruit obtained is also empty, or else the sickness of 「以實莊嚴」 tr. "adorning with what is real" slips back in by way of the fruit. The names of the two kinds the treatise-author's own text already gives; there is no need to seek them elsewhere.

21. The gloss of the three names firm, unmoved, and not turning. The treatise-author explains the three minds of the sūtra text, one name, one meaning: 「一切諸煩惱箭不入故，名為堅。一切外道魔民不能轉故，名不動。於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不退故，名不轉。」 tr. "Because none of the arrows of the afflictions enters, it is called firm. Because none of the outside paths or Māra's people can turn it, it is called unmoved. Because it does not retrogress from anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, it is called not turning." The boundaries of the three lie in the enemy each faces—firm faces the inner afflictions, unmoved faces the outside paths and Māra's people, not turning faces retrogression from awakening. 「是菩薩以如是三種心，行六波羅蜜，入菩薩位」 tr. "This bodhisattva, with these three kinds of mind, practises the six perfections and enters the bodhisattva's position", and 「入菩薩位者，名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "one who has entered the bodhisattva's position is called avaivartika". These three Chinese characters are often taken as a stack of synonyms, but the treatise-author gives each its own face of counteraction; only by reading this layer clearly does one know that non-retrogression is not some undifferentiated firmness but three gates each guarded on its own. As for the meaning of the bodhisattva's position, the treatise-author notes himself 「如先說」 tr. "as said before", and does not explain it again here.

22. Subhūti's question re-cited. The treatise-author restates the question in the sūtra in the third person: 「須菩提問：『不轉故名阿鞞跋致？轉故名阿鞞跋致？』」 tr. "Subhūti asks: ‘Is one called avaivartika because of not turning? Is one called avaivartika because of turning?’" Here the treatise-author is narrating the sūtra text; it is not that another Subhūti speaks within the treatise; such is the method of the Expository Treatise, and in reading one must keep distinct the question in the sūtra and the question and answer in the treatise.

23. The Buddha answers in two ways because of the two truths. The treatise-author judges: 「佛二種答，以二諦故，所謂世諦、第一義諦。」 tr. "The Buddha answers in two ways because of the two truths, namely worldly truth and the truth of the highest meaning." On the side of worldly truth: 「若菩薩入菩薩位，轉聲聞、辟支佛心，直入菩薩位，是名轉。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva enters the bodhisattva's position, turning away the mind of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha and entering straight into the bodhisattva's position, this is called turning." On the side of the highest meaning: 「不轉者，入阿鞞跋致第一義，諸法一相中，所謂無相，尚無一乘定相，何況三乘！則無所轉；」 tr. "Not turning: entering the highest meaning of the avaivartika, within the one mark of all dharmas, that is, the signless, there is not even a fixed mark of one vehicle, how much less of three vehicles! So there is nothing to turn;" The resolution by the two truths untangles the contradiction very thoroughly—at the level of names and marks, there really is a movement of turning out from the mind of the two vehicles, and to say 「轉」 tr. "turning" is the truth; at the level of the one mark, the signless, of all dharmas, even one vehicle has no fixed mark, and since the boundaries of the three vehicles are not set up, there is no place that can be turned, and to say 「不轉」 tr. "not turning" is the truth as well. It is not taking one of two answers; it is two levels each speaking its own truth.

24. Sovereign in meditative concentration yet not receiving the blessings of the long-life heavens; surveying the ten directions and choosing where to take a body. The treatise-author explains the sixth mark: the avaivartika, 「雖行欲界法度眾生，於禪定出入自在」 tr. "though he practises the dharmas of the desire realm to ferry beings, is sovereign in entering and leaving meditative concentration"; from this sovereignty, in teaching others to cultivate the limbs of the path, the three gates of liberation, and so on up to the five supernormal powers, 「皆得自在」 tr. "he attains sovereignty in all of them". And 「雖入禪定，其心清淨柔軟故，不受長壽天福，於欲界教化」 tr. "though he enters meditative concentration, because his mind is pure and soft, he does not receive the blessings of the long-life heavens, but teaches and transforms in the desire realm"; 「雖修四念處道法，亦不證須陀洹果，乃至不證辟支佛道」 tr. "though he cultivates the dharmas of the path of the four foundations of mindfulness, he does not realise the fruit of the srota-āpanna, and so on up to not realising the path of the pratyekabuddha". At the end it says, 「觀十方國土，知何處有可利益眾生處，故為受身生其國」 tr. "he surveys the lands of the ten directions, knows where there is a place where beings can be benefited, and so takes a body and is born in that land". The sūtra text says only that he does not receive the fruit; the treatise-author adds the two concrete places to which he does not go—one is the blessings of the long-life heavens, the other is the realisation of the two vehicles—and adds that taking a body is not being dragged by the force of karma but surveying, choosing a place, and going there. Able to enter yet not taking, able to be born yet choosing for himself—this is the twofold sovereignty of this mark.

25. Prizing only unsurpassed awakening, and so prizing nothing in other matters. The treatise-author explains the seventh mark: 「一心深念，常不離阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故，但貴阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，不貴餘事」 tr. "because he single-mindedly and deeply recollects it and never leaves anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he prizes only anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and does not prize other matters"—the example raised is 「諸佛三十二相金色身」 tr. "the golden-coloured bodies of the buddhas with the thirty-two marks"; 「不捨本願度眾生故，不貴聲聞、辟支佛道」 tr. "because he does not abandon his original vow to ferry beings, he does not prize the path of the śrāvaka or the pratyekabuddha"; 「貴無所得、畢竟空故，不貴是布施，乃至不貴種善根，何況五欲世間利養」 tr. "because he prizes nothing to be attained and ultimate emptiness, he does not prize this giving, and so on up to not prizing the planting of roots of goodness, how much less the five desires and worldly gain and offerings". This passage supplies the pivot for the sūtra text's long list: it is not that nothing at all is prized; only one thing is prized, and so the rest is light by comparison. Even the Buddha's marks and signs are not among what is prized, precisely because what is prized is awakening itself, not the adorning marks of awakening.

26. Prizing nothing, he is unmoved by gain and loss. The treatise-author goes one layer deeper, speaking from the reverse side: 「有人有所貪貴故，心動、不能自安，若得則歡喜，失則憂慼」 tr. "some people, because there is something they crave and prize, are moved in mind and cannot be at ease in themselves; if they gain it they rejoice, if they lose it they grieve"; the bodhisattva, 「無所貴、無所貪故，至於得失，心清淨不動」 tr. "because he prizes nothing and craves nothing, when it comes to gain and loss, his mind is pure and unmoved". This sentence turns 「不貴」 tr. "not prizing" from an attitude into a mechanism—the mind shakes because something cherished is staked at both ends, gain and loss; when the stake is withdrawn, gain and loss naturally cannot move it. Above it spoke of non-retrogression; here it gives the inner principle of non-retrogression.

27. Body and speech in harmony; in the four deportments nothing amiss. The treatise-author explains the four kinds of bodily deportment in the sūtra: 「身行、口行調和不異故，身四威儀一心常念，無所違失」 tr. "because the conduct of body and the conduct of speech are in harmony and not at variance, in the four deportments of the body he is single-minded and ever mindful, with nothing amiss"; and he gives a second cause: 「深入禪波羅蜜故，身四威儀無所違失，」 tr. "because he has entered deeply into dhyānapāramitā, in the four deportments of the body there is nothing amiss," The two reasons are one inner and one outer—one is that body and speech correspond and are not at odds, the other is that the power of meditative concentration flows through the four deportments. That in walking, standing, sitting, and lying he can be single-minded and undisturbed rests not on deliberate self-restraint, but on these two layers.

28. Question—what kind of skilful means is receiving the five desires? The treatise-author poses a question, first citing the sūtra text: 「經中說：『阿鞞跋致菩薩方便力，為利益眾生故受五欲。』是何等方便？」 tr. "The sūtra says: ‘The avaivartika bodhisattva, by the power of skilful means, receives the five desires for the sake of benefiting beings.’ What kind of skilful means is this?" This question asks, on the reader's behalf, about the most unsettling sentence. The sūtra text sets receiving the five desires side by side with non-retrogression; if no reason were given, readers would either give rise to doubt or give rise to licence. Posing the question is an interception.

29. Answer—the simile of taking up fire with tongs; born in a rich and noble family, he is then able to give. The treatise-author answers with a simile: 「譬如以鉗取火，雖捉而不燒。五欲如火，能燒人善根。」 tr. "It is as when one takes up fire with tongs: though one holds it, one is not burned. The five desires are like fire; they can burn up a person's roots of goodness." At once he states the bodhisattva's practical consideration: 「我出家一身，云何能以布施攝眾生？眾生多須飲食、衣服，須法者少。」 tr. "I, having gone forth, a single body, how can I gather in beings by giving? Beings mostly need food and drink and clothing; those who need the Dharma are few." So he is 「生富貴家，布施眾生，恣其所須」 tr. "born in a rich and noble family, gives to beings, and gives them whatever they need", and can benefit widely both beings who have gone forth and those at home, 「譬如大地，人民、鳥獸皆蒙利潤」 tr. "as with the great earth, on which people, birds, and beasts all receive its benefit"; the last sentence says 「是時四種行六波羅蜜」 tr. "at this time he practises the six perfections in four ways". The point of the simile lies in those tongs: what holds the fire is not the hand but the implement; what receives the five desires is not the craving mind but skilful means. To grasp fire without tongs is to burn one's hand. As for the so-called four ways of the last sentence, the treatise-author does not give their names here; following the text, nothing is added.

30. When one who has gone forth praises giving, people do not believe and accept it; so by skilful means he becomes one of the white-robed. The treatise-author goes on to give a second reason: 「若出家讚布施，或有人言：『汝自一身無財，但教人施。』則不信受。」 tr. "If one who has gone forth praises giving, someone may say: ‘You yourself are a single body without wealth, and only teach others to give.’ Then they do not believe and accept it." So 「菩薩方便作白衣，以財充滿一切而勸行施，人則信受」 tr. "the bodhisattva by skilful means becomes one of the white-robed, fills everyone with wealth and urges them to practise giving, and people then believe and accept it". This is the reality of speaking the Dharma: if the one who urges giving has nothing to give himself, his words carry no weight. That skilful means is skilful means lies precisely in its attending to whether the listener can believe and take it in, and not only to whether the speaker himself is clean.

31. He becomes a wheel-turning sage king, Śakra, or the Brahmā king; having severed lust, he is not proud. The treatise-author sets out these matters at length: he may become a wheel-turning sage king, and 「心念施時，則滿閻浮提珍寶」 tr. "when he thinks of giving, then precious things fill Jambudvīpa", as in the palace of King Crown-born, 「心生欲寶則寶至于膝」 tr. "when his mind gave rise to a wish for treasure, the treasure came up to the knee"; or he may become Śakra or the Brahmā king, 「能雨珍寶滿三千世界，供養於佛」 tr. "able to rain down precious things filling the three-thousand world, as offerings to the Buddha". And the key lies in 「為攝眾生故，而自不受」 tr. "it is for the sake of gathering in beings, and he himself does not receive it". Then he explains the sentence in the sūtra about not insulting and belittling: 「人受五欲，則心生憍慢，凌易於人。是人常斷婬欲故，諸煩惱薄，不生憍慢；不生憍慢故，不凌易眾生。」 tr. "When people receive the five desires, their minds give rise to pride, and they insult and belittle others. Because this person has always severed lust, his afflictions are thin and he does not give rise to pride; because he does not give rise to pride, he does not insult and belittle beings." Rich and noble yet not overbearing toward others—this rests not on self-restraint but on afflictions being thin from the start—the outward mark of enjoyment and the inner reality can be wholly two separate things; this is where the tongs simile above takes concrete form.

32. Having obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and received the prediction, the spirit kings by rule should follow and guard him. The treatise-author explains the ninth mark: 「若菩薩得無生法忍、入菩薩位、得受記，即時執金剛神王等法應隨逐守護」 tr. "if the bodhisattva obtains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, enters the bodhisattva's position, and receives the prediction, at that very moment the vajra-holding spirit king and the others by rule should follow and guard him"; 「得佛道時，則現其身，時令人見。」 tr. "When he attains the path of the Buddha, they then manifest their bodies, and at times let people see them." The two Chinese characters 「法應」 tr. "by rule should" are the most important—it is not protection sought for, but a matter that naturally corresponds to arriving at this station; and ordinarily they do not appear, letting people see them only when he attains the path—which shows that they guard without disturbing.

33. The marks of breaking by humans and breaking by non-humans. The treatise-author points out the cause and condition the sūtra text itself states: 「此中自說因緣：『若人、若非人無能破壞。』」 tr. "Here it states the cause and condition itself: ‘Whether human or non-human, none can break him.’" At once he lists two kinds: 「人破者，若殺、若縛、若論議得勝等」 tr. "breaking by humans: killing, or binding, or winning in debate, and so on"; 「非人破者，與病，令狂，若奪命，若作惡身令其恐怖，若變作佛身說邪道。」 tr. "breaking by non-humans: giving illness, driving mad, or seizing life, or taking on an evil body to terrify him, or transforming into the body of a Buddha to preach a wrong path." Three things done by humans, five things done by non-humans, and 「如是等不能折伏菩薩」 tr. "such things as these cannot subdue the bodhisattva". Worth noting is that the treatise-author sets 「論議得勝」 tr. "winning in debate" side by side with killing and binding as breaking by humans, and puts 「變作佛身說邪道」 tr. "transforming into the body of a Buddha to preach a wrong path" in the last place of breaking by non-humans—the two heaviest items both do no harm to the body; what they harm is one's view; and this follows exactly the same road as the opening, where Māra ruins the mind with words of Dharma.

34. Question—since the spirit kings guard him, does the bodhisattva then have no strength of his own? The treatise-author poses a question: 「若為金剛神王所守護者，菩薩自無有力？」 tr. "If he is guarded by the vajra spirit king, does the bodhisattva himself have no strength?" This question strikes a real concern: if protection is spoken of too heavily, the practitioner's own strength appears dispensable; what the relation between protection and one's own strength actually is must be accounted for.

35. Answer—the bodhisattva has his own strength, and his merit can draw the spirits' protection. The treatise-author answers: 「菩薩亦自有力。復以菩薩功德故，能使金剛神所守護」 tr. "The bodhisattva also has strength of his own. Further, because of the bodhisattva's merit, he can bring about being guarded by the vajra spirits"; because he is guarded by the spirits, 「雖未得法身，而功德增益」 tr. "though he has not yet obtained the Dharma body, his merit increases"; and 「使天神見金剛神侍衛故，益加敬畏」 tr. "because it lets the gods and spirits see the vajra spirits attending and guarding him, they grow all the more in reverence and awe". The answer has an order: first it straightforwardly acknowledges that his own strength is not lacking; then it says that the spirits' protection is itself drawn by merit—it is not that strength is insufficient and outside help is borrowed, but that virtue is abundant and brings others to come and take refuge; the third layer further says that protection in turn increases merit and increases the gods' reverence. The causes and effects accord with one another; they do not replace one another.

36. Complete in the bodhisattva's faculties—the simile of the five faculties. The treatise-author explains the five faculties in the sūtra: 「『具足菩薩根』者，如人無眼等五情根，則無異木石；五情力故，能見、能聞。菩薩心中無信等五根，即是凡夫，不入聖數。」 tr. "‘Complete in the bodhisattva's faculties’: as a person without the eye and the other four faculties is no different from wood or stone; by the power of the five faculties one can see and can hear. If in the bodhisattva's mind there are not faith and the other four faculties, he is an ordinary person and does not enter the count of the noble." The simile is taken very heavily: without the five faculties one is the same as wood or stone. Faith, vigour, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are to the Dharma body and the life of wisdom exactly what the eye and ear are to form and sound—not dispensable auxiliary conditions, but the organs by which one can or cannot receive.

37. Question—the Abhidharma says that one who has not severed his roots of goodness is accomplished in the five faculties. The treatise-author poses a question, citing another scripture to raise a difficulty: 「如《阿毘曇經》說：『誰成就五根？答曰：不斷善根者。』今何以言『無信等五根，即是凡夫』？」 tr. "As the Abhidharma Sūtra says: ‘Who is accomplished in the five faculties? Answer: one who has not severed his roots of goodness.’ Why now does it say, ‘without faith and the other four faculties, one is an ordinary person’?" The difficulty is forceful: if all who have not severed their roots of goodness are accomplished in the five faculties, then most ordinary people too have the five faculties; why does it say that one without the five faculties is an ordinary person? The two texts contradict each other, and a distinction is needed.

38. Answer—accomplished yet not brought into use; the simile of the small child. The treatise-author distinguishes two meanings, 「成就」 tr. "accomplished" and 「發用」 tr. "brought into use": 「不斷善根眾生雖成就五根，而不能發起為用」 tr. "beings who have not severed their roots of goodness, though accomplished in the five faculties, cannot bring them forth into use"; the simile says, 「譬如小兒雖成就煩惱婬欲等，未能發用，故言無」 tr. "as a small child, though accomplished in the afflictions, lust and the rest, cannot yet bring them into use, and so it is said he has none"; so 「信等五根亦如是，眾生雖有，不發不用，是故不數」 tr. "faith and the other four faculties are likewise: though beings have them, they do not bring them forth and do not use them, and therefore they are not counted". This judgement shows great measure: the two texts do not in fact contradict each other; the Abhidharma speaks of the presence of the substance, while here it speaks of the absence of the function. The simile of the small child is especially apt—the seeds of affliction are really there; only the time has not yet come; to say he 「無」 tr. "has none" is said with respect to what is presently active, not with respect to the seeds.

39. Faith and the other four faculties are of two kinds—belonging to the two vehicles and belonging to the buddhas and bodhisattvas. The treatise-author further judges that the five faculties are of two kinds: 「一者、屬聲聞、辟支佛，二者、屬佛、諸菩薩。」 tr. "First, those belonging to śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; second, those belonging to the buddhas and the bodhisattvas." the five faculties of the two vehicles 「能深信涅槃，能以智慧知世間無常、空，能知涅槃寂滅」 tr. "can deeply believe in nirvāṇa, can by wisdom know the world as impermanent and empty, can know nirvāṇa as quiescence"; the five faculties of the bodhisattva 「能生深慈悲心於怨惡眾生，亦能觀諸法實相，所謂無生無滅等；雖未得佛，亦能信受佛事」 tr. "can give rise to a deep mind of kindness and compassion toward hostile and evil beings, and can also contemplate the real mark of all dharmas, namely non-arising, non-ceasing, and the rest; though he has not yet attained buddhahood, he can also believe and accept the matters of the Buddha". Faculties of the same name, but with different objects: one side takes nirvāṇa and quiescence as its object; the other takes hostile and evil beings and the real mark of non-arising and non-ceasing. That the sūtra text says 「菩薩五根」 tr. "the five faculties of the bodhisattva" and not the five faculties in general—this is precisely where the dividing line lies.

40. Because of the bodhisattva's faculties he can see the supernormal powers of the buddhas. The treatise-author raises one further test: 「有以菩薩根故，能見、能聞、能知諸佛神通力，非諸聲聞、辟支佛所及」 tr. "there are those who, because of the bodhisattva's faculties, can see, can hear, and can know the power of the supernormal powers of the buddhas, which the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas cannot reach", and cites the Sūtra of Inconceivable Liberation as proof: 「舍利弗、目連、須菩提等雖在佛左右，以無菩薩根故，不見是大菩薩會及所有神通力，亦不聞佛說不可思議解脫。」 tr. "Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Subhūti, and the others, though at the Buddha's left and right, because they lacked the bodhisattva's faculties, did not see this great assembly of bodhisattvas or all its supernormal powers, nor did they hear the Buddha speak of inconceivable liberation." So he concludes: 「若菩薩具足得是信等五根故，名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "because the bodhisattva completely obtains these faculties, faith and the other four, he is called avaivartika". This proof is very forceful: at the Buddha's side alike, great arhats alike, yet what they saw and heard was not the same—seeing or not seeing lies not in distance but in the faculties.

41. Question—the marks of the superior person in other sūtras are very many; why is only one matter taken? The treatise-author poses a question: in other sūtras it is said that 「善人身、口、意業無惡」 tr. "the deeds of body, speech, and mind of a good person are without evil", 「知恩、報恩」 tr. "knowing the debt of kindness and repaying kindness", 「能為一切眾生故，自捨身樂，安隱眾生」 tr. "for the sake of all beings being able to give up one's own bodily pleasure to make beings safe", 「有所利益，不求果報」 tr. "benefiting without seeking a reward", and so on—all are marks of the superior person; 「何以故但說『不散亂心行無上道一事，名為上人』？」 tr. "why is it said only that ‘practising the unsurpassed path with an undistracted mind, this one matter, is called a superior person’?" This question asks about the narrowness of the criterion—with so many virtues, why keep only one.

42. Answer—a single mind without distraction gathers in all wholesome dharmas entirely. The treatise-author answers: 「此中佛自略說：一心不散亂，盡攝諸善法。」 tr. "Here the Buddha himself speaks briefly: a single mind without distraction gathers in all wholesome dharmas entirely." The reason is: 「貪重佛道故，一切諸煩惱折薄，是故於眾生深加慈心，能自以身命給施，何況不知報恩等！」 tr. "Because he craves and values the path of the Buddha, all the afflictions are broken and thinned; therefore toward beings he deepens his mind of kindness and can give even his own body and life—how much less would he fail to know to repay kindness and the like!" It is not that the Buddha left the other virtues out as unwanted; it is that once this one is established, the rest naturally follow—once the afflictions are thin, the mind of kindness is naturally deep; if even body and life can be given, how much more such lighter matters as knowing and repaying kindness. It is narrow because it is at the source; the many virtues are the streams of this one source.

43. Practising pure livelihood—explaining the three matters of spell-craft, compounding medicines, and casting spells on ghosts. The last passage explains pure livelihood: 「常一心念阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，清淨持戒故，不行邪命」 tr. "because he always single-mindedly recollects anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and upholds the precepts purely, he does not practise wrong livelihood". The treatise-author sets out the reality of each item: spell-craft 「能翳身令人不見，能變人為畜獸」 tr. "can screen the body so that people do not see it, can change people into domestic animals and beasts"; compounding medicines is 「餌食求仙，亦合和諸藥療疾，求財及求名聲」 tr. "eating elixirs seeking to become an immortal, and also compounding medicines to cure illness, seeking wealth and seeking fame"; casting spells on ghosts is 「有人欲知未來事，祝鬼令著男女，問其吉凶、生男生女、壽命脩短、豐樂勝負等」 tr. "someone wishes to know future matters, casts a spell on a ghost to make it possess a man or a woman, and asks about fortune, whether a boy or a girl will be born, the length or shortness of life, abundance and joy, victory and defeat, and so on". At once he gives the boundary of what is permitted: 「若有作者，為攝眾生，破其憍慢，不為財利名聞。」 tr. "If there are those who do it, it is to gather in beings and break their pride, not for wealth, gain, or fame." At the end it returns to emptiness: 「是人知一切諸法自相空故，不見諸法相——所謂己身、妻子、男女等；不見是相故，不行邪命。」 tr. "Because this person knows that all dharmas are empty of specific marks, he does not see the marks of dharmas—namely his own body, wife and children, sons and daughters, and the like; because he does not see these marks, he does not practise wrong livelihood." Within one passage all three layers are complete—first setting out the reality of wrong livelihood, then opening the gate of skilful means while limiting its motive, and at the end gathering it up with the emptiness of specific marks. What is forbidden has never been the art itself, but the mind that uses it to trade for wealth, gain, and fame.

Do Not Misread

Do not read Māra's words as a heresy recognisable at a glance. Māra opens by saying that sarvajñā is equal to space and that dharmas are equal to space; these two sentences are not in themselves wrong, and in the sūtra the Buddha too says 「是一切法與虛空等，無所有、自相空」 tr. "all these dharmas are equal to space, without anything existent, empty of specific marks". Māra's sleight of hand lies in the conclusion—from emptiness he draws out 「汝唐受勤苦」 tr. "you toil and suffer for nothing" and 「汝當放捨是願」 tr. "you should give up this vow". If one discerns Māra only by discerning words and sentences, one will certainly fail to discern him; what must be seen is toward which side of the arousing of the mind these words lead a person. In the same passage Māra also adds the sentence 「但諸師誑汝耳」 tr. "it is only that your teachers deceive you", precisely to uproot a person from both ends at once, the Dharma and the teacher; if a single speech both belittles the Dharma and sows discord against the teaching lineage, then however much its words and sentences resemble prajñā, one may first give rise to suspicion.

Do not read 「轉故亦名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "one is also called avaivartika because of turning" as meaning that retrogressing also counts as not retrogressing. The 「轉」 tr. "turning" of the sūtra text has an explicit thing it is set against—「於聲聞地、辟支佛地轉」 tr. "turns in the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground" is turning out of the grounds of the two vehicles, not turning back from the mind of awakening. The treatise-author further distinguishes by the two truths: on the side of worldly truth there is the matter of turning out; on the side of the highest meaning, because 「尚無一乘定相，何況三乘」 tr. "there is not even a fixed mark of one vehicle, how much less of three vehicles", there is nothing to turn. Both meanings are fastened to the same direction; neither meaning permits a retrogressing mind.

Do not read 「不貴淨佛世界、不貴成就眾生，不貴見佛，不貴種善根」 tr. "does not prize purifying buddha-worlds, does not prize bringing beings to accomplishment, does not prize seeing buddhas, does not prize planting roots of goodness" as abandoning wholesome dharmas. The sūtra text itself states the reason as 「一切法自相空，不見可貴法、能生貴心者」 tr. "all dharmas are empty of specific marks; he sees no dharma that can be prized, nor any that can give rise to a prizing mind", and the treatise-author further makes clear that he 「但貴阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，不貴餘事」 tr. "prizes only anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and does not prize other matters"—it is not that wholesome dharmas are not done, but that no prizable reality is set up upon wholesome dharmas. The treatise-author then gives the mechanism: with something craved and prized, 「若得則歡喜，失則憂慼」 tr. "if they gain it they rejoice, if they lose it they grieve"; prizing nothing, 「至於得失，心清淨不動」 tr. "when it comes to gain and loss, his mind is pure and unmoved". So 「不貴」 tr. "not prizing" is in order to be able to keep practising, not in order not to practise.

Do not read receiving the five desires as a householder as opening the gate to indulgence. The sūtra text itself sets alongside it 「亦不自為，常修梵行，不凌易虜掠他人令其憂惱」 tr. "he does not do it for himself either; he always cultivates pure conduct, and does not insult, belittle, plunder, or rob others so as to cause them sorrow and vexation"; the treatise-author uses the simile of taking up fire with tongs to explain how one can hold it without being burned, and points out that this person 「常斷婬欲故，諸煩惱薄」 tr. "because he has always severed lust, his afflictions are thin". Skilful means has its qualifications—only when there is first a mind that does not do it for itself, and first the reality of afflictions already thin, can there be talk of gathering in beings by the five desires. Reverse the order, and it is burning one's hand.

Do not read the protection of the vajra spirits as meaning that one's own strength is unnecessary. The treatise-author poses this question and answers plainly 「菩薩亦自有力」 tr. "the bodhisattva also has strength of his own", and says 「以菩薩功德故，能使金剛神所守護」 tr. "because of the bodhisattva's merit, he can bring about being guarded by the vajra spirits"—protection is the fruit drawn by merit, not a substitute for insufficient strength of one's own. Further, what the sūtra text guards is 「薩婆若心」 tr. "the mind of sarvajñā", not body and life; of the matters of breaking by humans and by non-humans that the treatise-author lists, the two heaviest are 「論議得勝」 tr. "winning in debate" and 「變作佛身說邪道」 tr. "transforming into the body of a Buddha to preach a wrong path", neither of which touches the body. To read the protection as insurance for bodily safety is to mistake entirely what it guards.

Do not read 「無信等五根，即是凡夫」 tr. "without faith and the other four faculties, one is an ordinary person" as contradicting the Abhidharma. The treatise-author's distinction is the two meanings of substance and function: one who has not severed his roots of goodness, 「雖成就五根，而不能發起為用」 tr. "though accomplished in the five faculties, cannot bring them forth into use", just as a small child, though accomplished in the afflictions, cannot yet bring them into use, 「故言無」 tr. "and so it is said he has none". The two texts each speak of one meaning; there is no need, nor is it permissible, to force a judgement of which is right and which is wrong.

Bearing on Practice

Test every speech that resembles the Dharma by ‘where does this lead me’. The First Part opens with a hindrance of the highest grade—what is spoken is emptiness, what is cited is prajñā, and the conclusion is to give up the vow. The waverings met with in daily life are mostly cruder, but their structure is the same: a line of reasoning that sounds thoroughly lucid, which in the end draws out ‘there is no need any more’. Take this passage as a measuring rule: do not first dispute the words, only ask on which side of the arousing of the mind it lands; if it would have one let go, however lofty the words, set it aside first.

Use 「若諸法空，莊嚴亦空者，是則相稱」 tr. "if dharmas are empty and the adornment too is empty, then this is fitting" to correct one's own attitude in practice. After practising a long time two sicknesses often arise: one thinks that because of emptiness there is no need to practise; the other practises real dharmas with a real mind and finds no peace. This sentence of the treatise-author's cures both sicknesses together—emptiness does not abolish adornment; it only forbids adorning with a real mind. In doing things one still gives one's full strength, only one does not set upon the matter a ‘this is really existent merit’.

Check oneself by each of the three names, firm, unmoved, and not turning. The three faces of counteraction the treatise-author gives are very usable: the arrows of the afflictions cannot shoot in—this is firm, and this barrier is within; the outside paths and Māra's people cannot turn it—this is unmoved, and this barrier is in outer conditions; not retrogressing from awakening—this is not turning, and this barrier is in the vow. When one feels oneself wavering, first recognise which barrier has loosened: whether afflictions have arisen within, whether a different condition has come from outside, or whether the vow itself has grown faint. The methods of counteraction for the three barriers are each different; recognise the wrong barrier, and one applies the wrong strength.

Untie the bond of gain and loss by 「不貴」 tr. "not prizing". Whenever one feels that gaining some matter brings great joy and losing it great grief, know that a prizable reality has been set up there. Following the treatise-author's prescription, it is not to press down joy and grief, but to turn back and look at what is prized—gather what is prized into one place, and the rest naturally cannot move the mind. This takes far less effort than counteracting the emotions directly.

Settle oneself by the two meanings of substance and function, and do not give up on oneself because what is present has not yet become active. the five faculties, 「雖有，不發不用，是故不數」 tr. "though they have them, they do not bring them forth and do not use them, and therefore they are not counted"; so too with the small child's afflictions. Practitioners often, having practised long without seeing any benefit, come to doubt that they have any roots of goodness at all. The treatise-author's distinction gives another answer: the substance is present but the function has not yet been brought forth; what is lacking is bringing it forth, not whether it exists. What should be done is to find a way to bring it forth, not to judge oneself as having no share.

Take a single mind without distraction as what holds everything together, and do not set oneself long lists of virtues. Of the marks of the superior person, the Buddha takes only one matter, and the treatise-author says it 「盡攝諸善法」 tr. "gathers in all wholesome dharmas entirely". The longer the curriculum, the easier it is to scatter; bring one's strength back to this one—craving and valuing the path of the Buddha, without distraction—and the rest, the mind of kindness, giving, knowing and repaying kindness, will follow along. Work at the narrow place, and the broad place accomplishes itself.

Further Resonances

The First Part, a single unit of one sūtra passage and one treatise passage, establishes the pivot of this chapter and the first half of the marks of non-retrogression. The sūtra text opens with Māra's words and closes with pure livelihood, and in between sets out one after another—entering the dhyānas and samādhis at will yet not receiving their fruit, prizing nothing among all dharmas, as a householder receiving the five desires by skilful means, the vajra-holding spirit king following and guarding him, constantly being complete in the five faculties, being a superior person, practising pure livelihood; the treatise-author explains, mark by mark, why each is so, and fixes what is meant by the other names of sarvajñā, resolves Māra's hindrance by 「若諸法空，莊嚴亦空者，是則相稱」 tr. "if dharmas are empty and the adornment too is empty, then this is fitting", divides three barriers by the three glosses of firm, unmoved, and not turning, resolves the two answers on turning and not turning by the two truths, and at the end settles one meaning each by the three similes of taking up fire with tongs, the five faculties, and the small child. The weight of the whole passage can be gathered into one sentence: emptiness is not a reason to let go; it is the reason one can keep practising.

On the chapter title the editions are not uniform. The base text titles it "Turning and Not Turning", while the sūtra text of the Larger Sūtra and Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra both title it "Firmness"; the sūtra text further has an interlinear note beneath the chapter title, 「丹本轉不轉品」 tr. "the Khitan edition: the chapter Turning and Not Turning", which accords with the wording of the base text. The two sides' names each have their basis; here they are recorded side by side without judgement. Jizang, at the very opening of this chapter, explains how the two names complete each other: 「有人言：不退與堅固，左右相成。所以不退者，由堅固也；所以堅固者，由不退也。又人解云：內煩惱不能壞為不退，外惡緣不能動為堅固也。」 tr. "Someone says: non-retrogression and firmness complete each other from left and right. The reason one does not retrogress is firmness; the reason one is firm is non-retrogression. Another person explains: that inner afflictions cannot ruin it is non-retrogression; that outer evil conditions cannot move it is firmness." And he matches them with this treatise's gloss of the three minds: 「二、論釋三心，言煩惱箭射不能入為堅固，於三菩提不退為不退，外惡緣不能動為不動心也。」 tr. "Second, the treatise explains the three minds, saying that the arrows of the afflictions, when shot, being unable to enter is firmness; not retrogressing from saṃbodhi is non-retrogression; outer evil conditions being unable to move it is the unmoved mind." The names Jizang matches differ slightly from this treatise—this treatise names firm by 「煩惱箭不入」 tr. "the arrows of the afflictions do not enter", names unmoved by 「外道魔民不能轉」 tr. "the outside paths and Māra's people cannot turn it", and names not turning by ‘not retrogressing from awakening’, whereas Jizang puts non-retrogression in the place of not turning; the two are seen side by side, recorded without judgement. Huiying's Commentary has no dedicated section on this chapter, but in his commentary on a later chapter points back to this chapter twice: once saying 「但據從上不退品已來皆說故」 tr. "only because it is all spoken from the Non-retrogression chapter above onward", and once, in the passage on the vajra-holding spirits, saying 「五種執金剛神已下，上不退品中言五性，今言五種」 tr. "From ‘the five kinds of vajra-holding spirits’ on: in the Non-retrogression chapter above it says five natures; now it says five kinds"—both take 「上不退品」 tr. "the Non-retrogression chapter above" as a general name for the chapters before this, so that Huiying's division takes this chapter as continuous with the preceding chapter in one thread. Both masters lean toward non-retrogression and firmness explaining each other and running through from before to after, which exactly throws light on the two-way tone of this unit's sūtra text, 「不轉故名阿鞞跋致，轉故亦名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "one is called avaivartika because of not turning; one is also called avaivartika because of turning".

As for the remaining items of the marks of the avaivartika—not speaking of worldly matters such as the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, and the eighteen elements, but liking to speak only of prajñā; abiding in the emptinesses and the limbs of the path, clear about his own ground and without doubt; the trial in which Māra takes the body of a Buddha and gives the prediction of the two vehicles; and on to protecting the Dharma without sparing body and life, the dhāraṇī of hearing and retaining, and the rest—the Last Part of this chapter goes on to unfold them; they are not anticipated here.