大智度論 燈炷品之下Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Lamp-wick, Part 2 of 2

The Lamp-wick, Last Part: The Question of the First Mind and the Last Mind, the Simile of the Lamp-wick, the Fulfilment of the Ten Grounds, Abiding as Suchness Abides and Practising within the Highest Meaning, and the Emptiness of Specific Marks and the Three Samādhi Bringing Beings to Accomplishment

What Is Being Asked

What the First Part opened, all the way through, was 「深奧」 tr. "the profound". The Buddha explained the meaning of the profound by twelve names—emptiness, the signless, non-action, non-origination, non-arising, non-staining, separation, quiescence, suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, nirvāṇa—and extended it to all dharmas by 「色如深奧故，色深奧」 tr. "because the suchness of form is profound, form is profound"; then, by seven tiers rising one above another—giving for kalpas as the sands of the Ganges, making offerings, the six perfections, the gift of Dharma, the four foundations of mindfulness, dedication, rejoicing—he showed that practising the various goods apart from prajñā does not equal a single day of practising as taught; in the closing section the treatise-author argued that conditioned dharmas are false and deceptive and yet merit is not lost, that the eighteen emptinesses and teaching the Dharma by skilful means are without obstruction, and gave the glosses of the three meanings of countless, immeasurable, and boundless, gathering it all into one sentence—all dharmas neither increase nor decrease and are unfindable; because the bodhisattva constantly recollects the mark of quiescence of the unsurpassed path, he quickly obtains the unsurpassed path. Fascicle 74 ends here; fascicle 75 continues under the heading 「大智度論釋燈喻品第五十七之餘」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa: Explanation of the Lamp Simile Chapter, the Fifty-seventh, the Remainder" and lists the author and the translator once again; the Dharma lineage is unbroken, yet the question has been pushed to its sharpest point.

The very first sentence the Last Part speaks is picked up precisely from that 「不增不減」 tr. "neither increase nor decrease": since dharmas neither increase nor decrease, on what do roots of goodness rely to grow? On what does the bodhisattva rely to walk step by step from the ground of ordinary people to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? Subhūti presses this difficulty into a dilemma of alternatives—does the bodhisattva obtain awakening by the very first thought of mind, or by the very last thought of mind? He himself blocks the road on both sides: the first mind does not reach the last mind, the last mind is not in the first mind; the mind and the dharmas that belong to the mind are not at the same time, earlier and later; not being at the same time, they have no way to come together; not coming together, roots of goodness are not accumulated. Later in the text the treatise-author plainly points out where this question comes from: 「須菩提上聞諸法不增不減，心自生疑」 tr. "Subhūti had heard above that dharmas neither increase nor decrease, and doubt arose of itself in his mind"—the Last Part does not start a new thread; it is a sentence of the First Part not yet fully answered.

So what the Last Part must answer is three questions locked together. The first question is where the mechanism lies: how could a stream of mind that arises and ceases thought by thought, earlier and later never reaching each other, possibly accumulate into unsurpassed awakening? The Buddha does not answer from principle; he first gives a ready-made matter of fact—the lamp-wick. The second question is the road: since it is neither in the first nor in the last, what is it that the bodhisattva walks along this road? The Buddha opens the ten grounds, from the ground of dry wisdom to the Buddha ground; the treatise-author explains the name ground by ground, setting a śrāvaka meaning and a bodhisattva meaning against each other on the two sides, and places the whole graded sequence of the path beneath the simile. The third question is the place of practice: where does a bodhisattva who practises thus practise, does he practise marks or not, does he destroy marks or not? With a string of counter-questions, 「於汝意云何」 tr. "what do you think", the sūtra presses Subhūti until his reasoning is exhausted, pressing out the three Chinese characters 「如如住」 tr. "abiding as suchness abides", and at once bars the way against taking the mind as the limit of reality; at the end it returns to the emptiness of specific marks, and the emptiness of specific marks is not sitting dead in emptiness—it is precisely from within the emptiness of specific marks that the bodhisattva rises into the three samādhi, to treat three kinds of beings. The backbone of the whole unit is one sentence: it is obtained because causes and conditions come together, and what is obtained is neither first nor last, neither existent nor non-existent.

Passage by Passage

1. The question of the first mind and the last mind—mind and mental-factor dharmas are not together. Subhūti reports to the Buddha: does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi by the first mind, or obtain it by the last mind? The first mind does not reach the last mind, and the last mind is not in the first mind; since mind and mental-factor dharmas are thus not together, how are roots of goodness increased? If roots of goodness do not increase, how shall awakening be obtained? First look at the structure of this question: he is not asking ‘can it be obtained’; he is asking ‘by which thought is it obtained’. To lock the cause of attaining the path onto some one thought of mind, and then to prove that no single thought can bear it—this is exactly the ancestral pattern of every difficulty of the form ‘because it is impermanent it cannot be accomplished’. What are called mental-factor dharmas are the various dharmas belonging to the mind that arise at the same time as the mind; not together means that earlier and later do not exist side by side at the same time. The whole difficulty lies in the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘not together’.

2. The Buddha grants a simile—as when a lamp is lit, the first flame and the last flame. The Buddha tells Subhūti: I shall tell you a simile; when the wise obtain a simile, the meaning is easily understood. As when a lamp is lit: is it the first flame that burns the wick, or the last flame that burns the wick? The way the Buddha answers this question is worth remembering first: he does not first break the questioner's logic; he first substitutes a matter of fact the questioner sees every day. In this treatise a simile is not a rhetorical ornament; it pulls the four Chinese characters rendered here as ‘inconceivable’ right before the eyes. The sentence 「智者得譬喻，則於義易解」 tr. "when the wise obtain a simile, then the meaning is easily understood" is precisely why similes are set up throughout the chapter.

3. It is not the first flame that burns the wick, nor is it apart from the first flame. Subhūti answers: it is not the first flame that burns the wick, nor is it apart from the first flame; it is not the last flame that burns the wick, nor is it apart from the last flame. Once the four positions are out, the questioner's difficulty breaks of itself—he himself talks this way. One must see clearly that these four positions are not abstruse talk: a lamp is lit for a whole night; ask which instant's fire scorched the wick, and no one can name a particular instant; but to say it has nothing to do with the first flame also makes no sense. Not, and not apart from: the two sides hold at the same time—this is the grammar of the dharma of causes and conditions.

4. Is the wick burned or not? The Buddha asks again: what do you think, is the wick burned or not? This question is the joint of the simile. The four positions before broke only ‘it belongs to some one flame’, and have not yet established ‘the fact is accomplished’; the Buddha must make the second half solid, otherwise the four positions slide toward annihilation—that would be the real misreading.

5. The wick is really burned. Subhūti answers: World-Honored One! The wick is really burned. The three Chinese characters rendered here as ‘the wick is really burned’ weigh a thousand catties. Neither first nor last does not mean not burned; that its cause cannot be pinned down does not hinder its result from being plainly there. Those who read the four positions and fall into emptiness are precisely those who have missed this sentence.

6. Matching the simile—the bodhisattva is also like this, and obtains it by fulfilling the ten grounds. The Buddha matches the simile: the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is also like this: he does not obtain awakening by the first mind, nor does he obtain it apart from the first mind; he does not obtain it by the last mind, nor does he obtain it apart from the last mind, and yet he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Herein the bodhisattva, from the first arousing of intent, practises prajñāpāramitā, fulfils the ten grounds, and obtains awakening. Where the simile is matched, one more sentence appears—from the first arousing of intent he practises prajñā and fulfils the ten grounds. The simile answers ‘how it can be accomplished’; this sentence answers ‘by what road it is accomplished’; without this sentence, neither first nor last would become obtaining without a cause.

7. What are the ten grounds? Subhūti asks: what are the ten grounds, fulfilling which the bodhisattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? This question is the turning point of the whole section. What was said above was principle; what is wanted here is the road; the sūtra follows the momentum and opens the whole graded sequence of the path, and the chapter's simile of 「燈炷」 tr. "the lamp-wick" and its teaching of 「十地」 tr. "the ten grounds" here lock together into one matter.

8. The names of the ten grounds, and neither first nor last repeated. The Buddha answers: he fulfils the ground of dry wisdom, the ground of the stage of nature, the ground of the person of the eight, the ground of seeing, the ground of thinning, the ground of freedom from desire, the ground of what has been done, the pratyekabuddha ground, the bodhisattva ground, the Buddha ground; fulfilling these grounds he obtains awakening; having trained in these ten grounds, it is not by the first mind that he obtains it, nor apart from the first mind; it is not by the last mind that he obtains it, nor apart from the last mind, and yet he obtains awakening. As soon as the names are listed, the Buddha at once repeats the four positions once more. The intent is utterly clear: the ten grounds are not ten steps for people to tread up one by one to collect a prize—if the ten grounds could be made solid as a staircase, 「非初非後」 tr. "neither first nor last" would be overturned again. Opening the road and barring clinging are done in one breath.

9. Subhūti praises the dharma of causes and conditions as very deep. Subhūti says: World-Honored One! This dharma of causes and conditions is very deep—namely, not by the first mind, not apart from the first mind, not by the last mind, not apart from the last mind is awakening obtained, and yet awakening is obtained. He is not repeating; he is confirming: these four positions are not a word game; they are the depths of the dharma of causes and conditions itself. In this treatise the praise in the two Chinese characters 「甚深」 tr. "very deep" is a signal that a finer objection is sure to follow in the text below; and indeed the Buddha at once turns to the arising and ceasing of the mind.

10. When the mind has ceased, does this mind arise again? The Buddha asks in return: what do you think, when the mind has ceased, does this mind arise again? What was discussed before was ‘the first mind and the last mind’; now he directly dissects ‘a single thought of mind’ itself. To prove that roots of goodness can be accumulated, one must first make clear just how the mind arises and ceases—this is putting the principle of the simile back onto the dharma of mind to check the sum.

11. No, World-Honored One. Subhūti answers: No. If it ceased and arose again, it would become a permanently abiding thing coming and going back and forth, and then it would not be an impermanent mind. The first question first seals off the side of 「常」 tr. "permanence".

12. When the mind arises, is it the mark of ceasing? The Buddha asks again: when the mind arises, is it the mark of ceasing? The point of the question turns, from the past mind that has already ceased to the present mind now arising. This is the rhythm of the counter-questions in this section—each question moves only one step, and allows no one to slur it over.

13. It is the mark of ceasing. Subhūti answers: it is the mark of ceasing. Arising contains ceasing; it does not wait for decay before it is called impermanent. This answer is the correct understanding of the Buddhist meaning of impermanence: it is not that first there is a thing abiding and then it decays; the very moment of arising is already the mark of ceasing.

14. Is the mark of the mind's ceasing itself ceasing? The Buddha asks again: the mark of the mind's ceasing—is it ceasing? Is the mark of ceasing itself ceasing, or is there a ceasing apart from the mark of ceasing? This question looks tongue-twisting but is really the vital point of the marks of dharmas—if mark and dharma are confused as one thing, the fault appears at once.

15. No, World-Honored One. Subhūti answers: No. The treatise-author himself explains the reason for this answer later in the text: if the mark of ceasing were itself ceasing, then within a single mind there would be two divisions of time, the time of arising and the time of ceasing, contrary to the meaning of 「心不過一念」 tr. "the mind does not exceed a single thought".

16. Does it also abide just so? The Buddha tells Subhūti: what do you think, does it also abide just so? Since he does not allow ‘the mark of ceasing is ceasing’, is he then saying it abides permanently? The Buddha hands him the second side too. Taking the two questions together, both ends, permanence and annihilation, are blocked, and Subhūti has no road to retreat—this is precisely the purpose of the counter-question form.

17. Abiding as suchness abides. Subhūti says: World-Honored One! It also abides just so, abiding as suchness abides. The answer comes when reasoning is exhausted, yet what comes out is not a third position; it is a return to the real mark: the mark of the mind's abiding is the same as the mark of abiding of 「如」 tr. "suchness". The vital point is this—it is not a compromise; it is leaving the very framing of the question as ‘permanence / annihilation’.

18. If this mind abides as suchness abides, should it be taken as the limit of reality? The Buddha at once presses forward: if this mind abides as suchness abides, should it be taken as the limit of reality? The sentence just established, the Buddha at once tests, to see whether it has been misread as ‘the mind is the ultimate’. Whenever a good answer has just left the mouth, this treatise always tries its boundary once on the reader's behalf.

19. No, World-Honored One. Subhūti answers: No. The mind cannot be taken directly as the limit of reality. Here first remember the conclusion; the treatise-author explains the reason later in two layers—one in terms of Subhūti's measure of realisation, one in terms of the limit of reality being signless.

20. Is suchness deep? The Buddha asks: is suchness deep? Having said that the mind abides as suchness abides and also that it cannot be taken as the limit of reality, just how deep, then, is this 「如」 tr. "suchness"? The question is utterly natural and utterly vital: the depth or shallowness of suchness decides whether the two answers before contradict each other.

21. Very deep. Subhūti answers: World-Honored One! Very deep. The treatise-author explains the true state of this answer: because Subhūti cannot know completely, he says very deep. This sentence reminds the reader that 「甚深」 tr. "very deep" here is not words of praise but a confession that what he knows has limits.

22. Is suchness only this mind? The Buddha asks: is suchness only this mind? Is 「如」 tr. "suchness" just this mind? This pushes 「心如如住」 tr. "the mind abides as suchness abides" to an extreme—if suchness were the mind, suchness would become a thing with discrimination.

23. No, World-Honored One. Subhūti answers: No. Suchness and mind are not one. The reason is in the treatise-author's text below: suchness is one mark, not two marks; the mind, being born of the causes and conditions of recollection, imagining, and discrimination, is therefore two marks.

24. Is this mind apart from suchness? The Buddha asks again: is this mind apart from suchness? Apart from suchness, is there another mind? The previous question broke 「一」 tr. "oneness"; this question breaks 「異」 tr. "difference"; the two gates of one and different are this treatise's constant method for examining the relations of names and marks.

25. No, World-Honored One. Subhūti answers: No. Suchness and mind are not different. Taken together with the preceding passage, it is not one and not different—exactly the same grammar as the earlier four positions of 「非初非後」 tr. "neither first nor last", applied to suchness and mind.

26. Does suchness see suchness? The Buddha asks: does suchness see suchness? Since they are neither one nor different, can suchness see itself? This question presses straight on subject and object. If within suchness a seer and a seen were set up, suchness would become two marks.

27. No, World-Honored One. Subhūti answers: No. The treatise-author below explains this as 「如中無分別」 tr. "within suchness there is no discrimination": no knower and no known. This answer gathers the whole section of counter-questions into the absence of subject and object, and thereby plants the root for 「無處所行」 tr. "practising for no place at all" below.

28. If the bodhisattva can practise thus, is it practising deep prajñā? The Buddha asks: if the bodhisattva can practise thus, is it practising deep prajñāpāramitā? Everything before was examining dharmas; this question turns to the person—does the view examined this way, when it lands in practice, count as deep prajñā? From here the joint of the sūtra turns from 「解」 tr. "understanding" to 「行」 tr. "practice".

29. To practise thus is to practise deep prajñā. Subhūti says: if the bodhisattva-mahāsattva can practise thus, it is practising deep prajñāpāramitā. He answers in the affirmative. The treatise-author below points out the state of mind in which he affirms it: because he contemplates the Small Vehicle as shallow and thin, and contemplates the dharma of the Great Vehicle as deep.

30. Practising thus, where does he practise? The Buddha asks: the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practising thus—where does he practise? The affirmation has just landed, and the Buddha at once asks the place. Wherever there is 「行」 tr. "practice" there must be 「處」 tr. "a place"—this is the firmest rope of ordinary feeling.

31. Practising for no place at all—abiding in the suchness of dharmas, without thought, without a place of thought, without a thinker. Subhūti says: practising thus is practising for no place at all. Why? The bodhisattva practising prajñāpāramitā abides in the suchness of dharmas, without such thought, without a place of thought, without a thinker. The three occurrences of 「無」 tr. "without" are a set: the one who can think, the place thought of, and thinking itself—all three wheels are quiescent. Note that he does not say ‘do nothing at all’; what he says is practising without landing in a place.

32. The Buddha asks again where he practises. The Buddha tells Subhūti: if the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises thus, where does he practise? The same question asked once more. The treatise-author below explains the intent: fearing that people, hearing 「無處所」 tr. "no place at all", would fall into annihilation, he asks once more, pressing out the positive statement. Repeated questions in this treatise are never mere repetition.

33. Practising within the highest meaning; the two practices are unfindable. Subhūti says: this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practising thus practises within the highest meaning, because the two practices are unfindable. The previous answer negated; this answer affirms. What is called the two practices being unfindable means that both layers, the one who practises and what is practised, have nothing to be found—it is not setting up another place called 「第一義」 tr. "the highest meaning" in which to practise.

34. Practising within the highest meaning without thought—is it practising marks? The Buddha asks: if the bodhisattva practises within the highest meaning without thought, is he practising marks? No sooner is 「第一義」 tr. "the highest meaning" established than he tests whether it has become a new mark to be grasped. This is the method running through this section: establish a meaning, then examine that meaning.

35. No, World-Honored One. Subhūti answers: No. The treatise-author explains: all dharmas are ultimately empty and without recollection; this is not practising marks. Practising without thought, it therefore does not amount to grasping at marks.

36. Does this bodhisattva destroy marks? The Buddha asks: does this bodhisattva-mahāsattva destroy marks? Not grasping at marks—is that destroying the marks of dharmas? This question is extremely vital—not grasping at marks and destroying marks are separated by only a single line; fall on the wrong side and it becomes annihilation.

37. No, World-Honored One. Subhūti answers: No. Not grasping at marks is not the same as destroying marks. This answer is the direct barrier set before the place in the whole unit most easily misread.

38. What is called not destroying marks? The Buddha presses: what is called not destroying marks? The Buddha does not allow him to answer with only the one word 「不」 tr. "no"; he wants him to state the reasoning. The long answer in the next passage is the summation of the gate of practice for the whole chapter.

39. Not making the thought of destroying marks; by the power of skilful means neither grasping nor destroying; entering the three samādhi within the emptiness of specific marks. Subhūti says: this bodhisattva, practising prajñāpāramitā, does not make this thought—I shall destroy the marks of dharmas; the bodhisattva who has not yet fulfilled the Buddha's ten powers, four fearlessnesses, four unobstructed knowledges, great kindness and great compassion, and eighteen unshared dharmas does not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; by the power of skilful means, toward dharmas he neither grasps at marks nor destroys marks. Why? Because he knows that all dharmas are empty of specific marks. Abiding in this emptiness of specific marks, for the sake of beings he enters the three samādhi, and by the three samādhi brings beings to accomplishment. This passage has three layers, each interlocking with the next: the first layer is the mind's conduct—the thought of breaking marks does not arise at all; the second layer is the station—while merits are not yet fulfilled one does not obtain awakening, so one cannot rush to sweep the marks clean and be done; the third layer is the support—the emptiness of specific marks. The meaning of the emptiness of specific marks is this: dharmas do not wait for someone to break them; their specific marks are empty from the start, so there is neither need to grasp nor anything to destroy. The last sentence is the most vital—abiding in the emptiness of specific marks one enters the three samādhi; emptiness is not the end point, it is the place from which function arises.

40. How does one enter the three samādhi and bring beings to accomplishment? Subhūti asks: World-Honored One! How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva enter the three samādhi and bring beings to accomplishment? The question lands exactly where it should. Having said 「用三三昧成就眾生」 tr. "by the three samādhi brings beings to accomplishment" before, if he does not explain how it is used, the emptiness of specific marks still hangs in the air.

41. The three samādhi set against three kinds of beings. The Buddha answers: the bodhisattva abiding in these three samādhi, seeing beings practising within the dharmas of making, by the power of skilful means teaches them to obtain non-action; seeing beings practising within the mark of self, by the power of skilful means teaches them to practise emptiness; seeing beings practising within all marks, by the power of skilful means teaches them to practise the signless. The three samādhi here are not an arrangement of three states of concentration; they are three prescriptions for three illnesses: to those who act and receive bodies, non-action; to those who cling to I and mine, emptiness; to those who grasp at marks and discriminate, the signless. Sūtra ③ ends here; the treatise-author below will lay out the pathology of each prescription once more.

42. The treatise-author takes up the sūtra's question. The treatise-author begins his explanation, first taking up the sūtra's question: Subhūti asked the Buddha whether one obtains the unsurpassed path by the first mind or by the last mind. The form in which this treatise explains a sūtra is first to cite the question and then to resolve the difficulty; following this marker, the reader knows which sentence is being explained below.

43. Question: for what cause and condition did Subhūti pose this difficulty? The treatise-author sets up a question: for what cause and condition did Subhūti pose this difficulty? This question is where this treatise's skill in teaching shows most. The sūtra records only the question; the treatise-author wants to trace where the question came from—once the origin of the question is clear, the answer can land on solid ground.

44. The marker of the answer. The treatise-author opens what follows with Answer:. In this treatise's form, objection and explanation each make up their own passage; seeing the marker, the reader knows that what follows is the explanation, and does not mistake the words that set up the difficulty for the correct meaning.

45. Where the doubt came from—having heard above of neither increase nor decrease. Answer: Subhūti had heard above that dharmas neither increase nor decrease, and doubt arose of itself in his mind—if dharmas neither increase nor decrease, how is the unsurpassed path obtained? Furthermore, if the unsurpassed path is obtained by practising rightly as things really are, only the Buddha can do so; the bodhisattva has not yet severed ignorance and the other afflictions—how can he practise rightly as things really are? This is exactly the joint between the First Part and the Last Part. The doubt has two layers: one layer on the side of the dharma—if there is neither increase nor decrease, there is nothing to be increased; one layer on the side of the person—if the afflictions are not severed, there is no strength to practise rightly. Neither layer is a doubt forced out for argument's sake; both are doubts a practitioner really does raise.

46. Subhūti himself states the cause and condition of his difficult question. Furthermore, Subhūti here himself states the cause and condition of his difficult question, namely: the first mind does not reach the last mind, the last mind is not in the first mind; how are roots of goodness increased and the unsurpassed path obtained? The treatise-author pointedly notes: the reason for raising the difficulty is given by the questioner himself, without the treatise-author drafting it for him. The rigour of this treatise in resolving difficulties lies here—first let the other side finish stating his own reasons.

47. Therefore he asked this question. For such causes and conditions as these he asked this question: is it obtained by the first mind, or by the last mind? The two preceding passages are gathered into one sentence. Reading to this point one should understand that beneath this seemingly contrived question of alternatives lies an honest perplexity.

48. The Buddha answers with the deep dharma of causes and conditions—not only the first mind, and not apart from the first mind. The Buddha answers with the deep dharma of causes and conditions, namely: it is not obtained only by the first mind, nor is it obtained apart from the first mind. Why? If it were obtained only by the first mind and not by the last, the bodhisattva on first arousing the mind would already be the Buddha; if there were no first mind, how could there be a second or third mind? The second and third minds take the first mind as their root cause and condition. The treatise-author fills in the reasons on both sides for the Buddha: the fault of saying ‘only the first mind’ is that on first arousing the mind one should already become the Buddha; the fault of saying 「離初心」 tr. "apart from the first mind" is that the later mind has nowhere to come from. One breaks, one establishes—exactly the practical use of the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘causes and conditions’.

49. Also not only the last mind, and also not apart from the last mind. As for its being also not only the last mind and also not apart from the last mind—this last mind too is not apart from the first mind; if there were no first mind there would be no last mind. The first mind gathers all kinds of immeasurable merit, and the last mind then fulfils it; because it is fulfilled, he can sever the afflictions and their habitual residues and obtain the unsurpassed path. This passage puts the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘accumulation’ back in their proper place: roots of goodness are not stock stored in some one thought; they are gathered all the way from the first mind, and only at the last mind are they declared complete. Severing the habitual residues of the afflictions and accomplishing the path happens at the time of fulfilment, and is not the work of some one thought.

50. Subhūti himself states the cause of his difficulty—not together, therefore not coming together. Subhūti here himself states the cause and condition of his difficulty: the first and last mind and mental-factor dharmas are not together; not being together, the past has already ceased and cannot come together; if there is no coming together, roots of goodness are not gathered; if roots of goodness are not gathered, how is the unsurpassed path accomplished? The treatise-author lays out the questioner's whole chain of reasoning: not together → not coming together → not gathered → not accomplished. Only when this chain is seen clearly does one know at which link the Buddha's answer undoes it—precisely the link of 「和合」 tr. "coming together".

51. The Buddha answers with a simile from a present matter—like the lamp-wick. The Buddha answers with a simile from a present matter: like the lamp-wick: it is not the first flame alone that burns it, nor is it apart from the first flame; it is not the last flame alone that burns it, nor is it apart from the last flame, and yet the lamp-wick is burned. What is called a present matter is a matter ready before the eyes and open to verification. The questioner's chain was reasoned out; the Buddha's answer is pointed out—the lamp-wick is right there burning, and however rigorous the reasoning, it cannot reason this fact away.

52. Matching and explaining the simile—the lamp stands for the path, the wick for the afflictions, the flames are like wisdom. The Buddha says to Subhūti: you yourself see that the wick is burned: neither first nor last, and yet the wick is burned; I too, with the Buddha-eye, see the bodhisattva obtain the unsurpassed path—not by the first mind nor apart from the first mind, not by the last mind nor apart from the last mind, and yet he obtains the unsurpassed path. The treatise-author then matches and explains it item by item: the lamp stands for the bodhisattva path; the wick stands for ignorance and the other afflictions; the flames are like the wisdom that accords with the first ground and so on up to the wisdom that accords with the vajra samādhi; what burns the wick of ignorance and the other afflictions is neither the flame of wisdom of the first mind nor the flame of wisdom of the last mind, and yet the wick of ignorance and the other afflictions is burned up, and the unsurpassed path is accomplished. Only once the matching is made has the simile really landed. The vital thing is the pairing of 「汝自見」 tr. "you yourself see" with ‘I see with the Buddha-eye’: the matter of fact seen with your own eyes and the principle seen by the Buddha-eye are one and the same pattern.

53. The ten grounds help to accomplish the path. Here the Buddha further explains the causes and conditions of obtaining the unsurpassed path, namely: the bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the mind onward, practises prajñāpāramitā and fulfils the first ground and so on up to the tenth ground; these ten grounds all help to accomplish the unsurpassed path. Remember the two Chinese characters 「佐助」 tr. "help": the ten grounds are conditions that help to accomplish, not the master that obtains. If the ten grounds are read as a staircase of qualifications for collecting awakening, the four positions before were spoken in vain.

54. The ten grounds: the ground of dry wisdom and the rest. The ten grounds are the ground of dry wisdom and the rest. One sentence opens the account. Below, each ground's name is explained in turn, and each ground is explained with both a śrāvaka meaning and a bodhisattva meaning—this is the form in which this treatise explains the ten grounds, and in reading one must look at both sides together.

55. The ground of dry wisdom—having wisdom but no water of concentration. The ground of dry wisdom is of two kinds: first, the śrāvaka's; second, the bodhisattva's. The śrāvaka, solely for the sake of nirvāṇa, exerts himself diligently, keeps the precepts with a pure mind, and is fit to receive the path; he may practise the samādhi of contemplating the Buddha, or the contemplation of impurity, or practise kindness and compassion, the contemplation of impermanence, and the other contemplations, discriminating and gathering the wholesome dharmas and abandoning the unwholesome dharmas; though he has wisdom, without obtaining the water of meditative concentration he cannot attain the path; therefore it is called the ground of dry wisdom. For the bodhisattva, it is from the first arousing of the mind up to before obtaining compliant acceptance. The meaning of the Chinese character 「乾」 tr. "dry" lies precisely in 「不得禪定水」 tr. "not obtaining the water of meditative concentration"—having wisdom without concentration, like dry ground. On the bodhisattva's side it is matched with the station from the first arousing of the mind up to before obtaining compliant acceptance.

56. The ground of the stage of nature—obtaining the water of concentration, loving and clinging to the real mark without giving rise to wrong views. The ground of the stage of nature: for the śrāvaka, from the dharma of warmth up to the highest worldly dharma; for the bodhisattva, he obtains compliant acceptance, loves and clings to the real mark of all dharmas, and yet does not give rise to wrong views, and obtains the water of meditative concentration. It stands directly against the ground of dry wisdom: that one lacks the water of concentration, this one obtains it. On the bodhisattva's side there is one more sentence, 「不生邪見」 tr. "does not give rise to wrong views"—loving and clinging to the real mark without falling into the net of views is exactly the measure of this station.

57. the ground of the person of the eight—the fifteen minds and the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. the ground of the person of the eight: from the acceptance of the dharma of suffering up to the acceptance of the subsequent knowledge of the path—these are the fifteen minds; for the bodhisattva, it is the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, entering the bodhisattva's position. What are called the fifteen minds are the fifteen moments of mind that appear in sequence in the station of the path of seeing, starting from the acceptance of the dharma of suffering and ending at the acceptance of the subsequent knowledge of the path; in this station one has entered the stream of the noble ones but has not yet obtained the fruit. On the bodhisattva's side it is matched with the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and entering the bodhisattva's position—both sides carry the meaning of ‘entering the position’, and so they are matched.

58. The ground of seeing—first obtaining the noble fruit, and the avaivartika. The ground of seeing: first obtaining the noble fruit, namely the fruit of the srota-āpanna; for the bodhisattva, it is the avaivartika ground. The previous ground was the practice of the fifteen minds; this ground is its fruit; on the bodhisattva's side it is matched with the ground of non-retrogression, taking what the two share: ‘realised and not retrogressing again’.

59. The ground of thinning—the nine kinds of afflictions partly severed, the remaining vapour also thin. The ground of thinning: either the srota-āpanna or the sakṛdāgāmin, because the nine kinds of afflictions of the desire realm are partly severed; for the bodhisattva, having passed beyond the avaivartika ground and up to before becoming a Buddha, he severs the afflictions, and their remaining vapour is also thin. 「薄」 tr. "Thinning" means partly severed but not yet exhausted; it is not the thinness of slighting. On the bodhisattva's side the range is extremely long—from non-retrogression upward to before becoming a Buddha, all lies in this station; from this one sees that the matching of the ten grounds is not a grid of equal lengths.

60. The ground of freedom from desire—the anāgāmin and the five supernormal powers. The ground of freedom from desire: being free of greed and the other afflictions of the desire realm and so on—this is called the anāgāmin; for the bodhisattva, because of the causes and conditions of freedom from desire he obtains the five supernormal powers. Both sides take 「離欲」 tr. "freedom from desire" as the cause; the fruit is on one side non-returning, on the other the supernormal powers. This also reminds us: in this treatise supernormal powers have always been the fruit of freedom from desire, not a separate craft.

61. The ground of what has been done—the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, and accomplishing the Buddha ground. The ground of what has been done: the śrāvaka obtains the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, and obtains arhatship; for the bodhisattva, it is accomplishing the Buddha ground. 「已作」 tr. "What has been done" means that what was to be done is accomplished. On the śrāvaka's side this is the ultimate fruit; on the bodhisattva's side it is matched directly with the Buddha ground—the same name, but a vastly different weight; the matching of the ten grounds is in terms of corresponding position in the sequence, not in terms of equal merit.

62. The pratyekabuddha ground—contemplating the deep dharma of causes and conditions and accomplishing the path. The pratyekabuddha ground: in a former life he planted the causes and conditions of the pratyekabuddha path, and in this life, obtaining a small cause and condition, he goes forth, and also contemplates the deep dharma of causes and conditions and accomplishes the path; he is called a pratyekabuddha; pratyeka in the language of Qin means causes and conditions, and it is also called awakening. This item also explains the meaning of the name: the one word pratyeka is rendered as causes and conditions and is also rendered as awakening. Of the ten grounds, this one alone marks out the name of a person, and the treatise-author below raises a question on this very point.

63. The bodhisattva ground—three accounts side by side. The bodhisattva ground: from the ground of dry wisdom up to the ground of freedom from desire, as said above. Furthermore, the bodhisattva ground: from the Ground of Joy up to the Ground of the Dharma Cloud, all are called the bodhisattva ground. Someone says: from the first arousing of the mind onward up to the vajra samādhi is called the bodhisattva ground. One ground, three accounts: one in terms of the bodhisattva portion included in the first six grounds, one in terms of the names of the ten grounds, and the third is another school's account. The treatise-author sets them side by side without deciding—「有人言」 tr. "someone says" is this treatise's marker for recording divergent accounts; the reader should know that here there are still divergent understandings, and must not cling to only one account.

64. The Buddha ground—practice fulfilled in his own ground, contemplation fulfilled in other grounds. The Buddha ground: the omniscience of all kinds and the other dharmas of the buddhas; the bodhisattva fulfils practice in his own ground and fulfils contemplation in other grounds; because the two matters are complete, it is called fulfilment. The two Chinese characters 「具足」 tr. "fulfilment" here receive a definition: it is not walking through all ten grounds once that is called fulfilment; it is practice full on one's own ground and contemplation full on other grounds, practice and contemplation both complete. This meaning, shining back on ‘fulfilling the ten grounds he obtains awakening’ above, shows what that sentence really points to.

65. Question: why is it not said that the bodhisattva resembles the pratyekabuddha ground? The treatise-author sets up a question: why is it not said that the bodhisattva resembles the pratyekabuddha ground? The question is extremely fine. Every ground before was matched as ‘for the bodhisattva it is such-and-such a station’; only at the item of the pratyekabuddha ground does the treatise-author's explanation change its tone; a reader who does not pay attention slides past it, and the treatise-author pulls it out for the reader.

66. The marker of the answer. The treatise-author opens what follows with Answer:. Once this marker appears, the two passages below both explain this one question.

67. The other grounds do not state a name; the pratyekabuddha ground states a name. Answer: The other grounds do not state a name; the pratyekabuddha ground states the name of the pratyekabuddha. The first layer of the answer establishes its meaning from the wording: the names of the other grounds are all names of stations, while this ground alone takes its name from a person; since the name points to a person, one cannot well say ‘resembling a certain person’. The answer is plain, but it is the fact.

68. The bodhisattva does the pratyekabuddha's work by wisdom—the example of Mañjuśrī. Furthermore, the bodhisattva can distinguish and know the beings who can be delivered by the causes and conditions of a pratyekabuddha; therefore the bodhisattva by wisdom does the pratyekabuddha's work, as in the Śūraṃgama Sūtra, where Mañjuśrī seventy-two koṭi times became a pratyekabuddha. The second layer of the answer turns one level further: in this ground the bodhisattva is not ‘resembling’; he really does it—to deliver beings who should be delivered by a pratyekabuddha, the bodhisattva at once manifests that work. What is cited is scriptural proof, not a figure of speech.

69. Having filled nine grounds and cultivated near to the Buddha path, it is called fulfilment. The bodhisattva too is like this: having filled nine grounds and cultivated and gathered the dharmas of a Buddha, though the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and the rest are not yet fulfilled, because by cultivation he is near the Buddha path it is called fulfilment; for this reason it says: because the ten grounds are fulfilled, he obtains the unsurpassed path. This passage resolves a difficulty: since the ten powers and the rest are not yet fulfilled, why does the sūtra say fulfilled? The answer lies in the Chinese character 「近」 tr. "near"—cultivation already near the Buddha path, on that account it is called fulfilment. The 「具足」 tr. "fulfilment" of the sūtra does not say that merit is already complete; it says that the road has already arrived.

70. Because dharmas come together from causes and conditions, it is obtained neither first nor last. Because all these dharmas come together from causes and conditions, it is not the first, nor apart from the first, not the last, nor apart from the last, and yet the unsurpassed path is obtained. The treatise-author gathers the whole great section on the ten grounds back into the general principle of the simile. With this, the first great question of the Last Part is fully answered: the increase of roots of goodness does not lie in some one thought; it lies in the continuity of the coming together of causes and conditions; one cannot point to one of them and obtain it, nor can one leave any one of them and accomplish it.

71. Subhūti praises and doubts again—does this mind abide or cease? Subhūti, because he reveres this dharma, praises it, saying: World-Honored One! This dharma of causes and conditions is very deep, namely that the past mind neither ceases nor abides, and yet can increase and obtain the unsurpassed path; this matter is very deep and rare, hard to believe and understand! Does this mind abide, or cease? After the praise there is still a question—it is exactly this question that draws out the long section of back-and-forth objections below. The treatise-author's laying-out lets the reader see clearly: the Buddha's chain of counter-questions that follows is not issued without cause; it arises in response to this one doubt.

72. The intent of the Buddha's counter-question—he asks because of the arising and ceasing seen by the six faculties. As for the Buddha's asking Subhūti in return 「於汝意云何？若心滅已更生不」 tr. "What do you think? When the mind has ceased, does it arise again?": though all dharmas are ultimately empty, neither arising nor ceasing, because beings see dharmas that arise and cease with the six faculties, he asks whether the mind, having ceased, arises again. This sentence resolves the premise of the whole section of counter-questions: ultimate emptiness is what the Buddha sees; arising and ceasing is what beings see; only by setting the question where beings see can the question get in. Without understanding this premise, one would feel that the Buddha contradicts himself.

73. Once the mind has ceased it does not arise again—arising again falls into permanence. Subhūti says: No, World-Honored One! Why? When the mind has ceased, how should it arise again? If the mind arose again after ceasing, it would fall into permanence. The reason for the answer is only one sentence: if it ceased and arose again, what ceased did not truly cease; it would be a permanently abiding thing coming and going—the fault of the view of permanence is established by this.

74. Above he asked of the past; now he asks of the present. As for whether, when the mind arises, it is the mark of ceasing—having asked above of the past mind, now he asks whether the mark of the present mind should cease or not. The treatise-author specially marks the shift in the order of questions: first the past, then the present. The counter-question form most easily confuses readers; hints of this kind from the treatise-author keep track of the road for the reader.

75. It is the mark of ceasing—arising and ceasing depend on each other. Therefore he answers: it is the mark of ceasing. Why? Arising and ceasing are dharmas that depend on each other; where there is arising there must be ceasing; because what formerly did not exist now exists, and what has existed returns to non-existence. The two Chinese characters 「相待」 tr. "depend on each other" are the key: arising and ceasing are not two events that happen one after the other; they are two faces of one matter, standing in mutual dependence. Understanding this, ‘arising is itself the mark of ceasing’ is no longer hard to grasp.

76. Is the mark of the mind's ceasing ceasing—is it identical, or is there another? As for whether the mark of the mind's ceasing is ceasing—is the mark of the mind's ceasing itself ceasing? Or is there a further ceasing? The treatise-author unfolds the sūtra's brief question into two branches of alternatives. Once it is unfolded, the fault becomes visible.

77. One mind does not fall into two times—the proof of the eight phrases of the Abhidharma Sūtra. He answers: No, World-Honored One! Why? If it were itself ceasing, then one mind would have two times—the time of arising and the time of ceasing. For those who speak of impermanence, the mind does not exceed the time of a single thought. As the Abhidharma Sūtra says: there are arising dharmas and non-arising dharmas; there are dharmas about to arise and dharmas not about to arise; there are ceasing dharmas and non-ceasing dharmas; there are dharmas about to cease and dharmas not about to cease. An arising dharma has two kinds in one present mind: first, arising; second, about to cease; arising is not the mark of being about to cease, and the mark of being about to cease is not arising. This is not so; therefore he says no. This passage is the finest section in the whole unit. The eight phrases cited set ‘already so’ against ‘about to be so’: the 「欲」 tr. "about to" of about to arise and about to cease means about to be but not yet arrived. Since in the one present mind there is both arising and about-to-cease, and yet arising is not about-to-cease and about-to-cease is not arising—if one says the mark of ceasing is itself ceasing, one must lodge two divisions of time in a single thought, contrary to 「心不過一念」 tr. "the mind does not exceed a single thought". Therefore he answers no.

78. Should it abide thus—abiding permanently is the mark of not ceasing. As for whether it should abide thus—if the mark of ceasing is not itself ceasing, should it abide permanently? If it abides permanently, that is the mark of not ceasing. The treatise-author points out how the Buddha presses with this question: not allowing 「即是滅」 tr. "is itself ceasing", he must then try ‘abides permanently’; only when both sides have been tried is there no escape from the line of reasoning.

79. Reasoning exhausted, he answers: abiding as suchness abides. The Buddha objects back and forth in this way; Subhūti, his reasoning exhausted, has this thought: if I say the mark of ceasing is itself ceasing, then one mind falls into two times; if I say it does not cease, it really is the mark of ceasing—how can I say it does not cease? Because both lines of reasoning above have faults, Subhūti answers from the wisdom he himself has realised: World-Honored One! It abides just so, abiding as suchness abides. 「理窮」 tr. "Reasoning exhausted" does not mean losing the debate; it means the road of thinking has been walked to its end; where the road ends he no longer answers by thinking, but answers instead by the wisdom he has realised. What one most needs to remember in reading this passage is this one turn—the three Chinese characters rendered here as ‘abiding as suchness abides’ are the words of a realised state, not yet another line of reasoning.

80. The question whether the mind can be taken directly as the limit of reality. As for whether, if this mind abides as suchness abides, it should be taken as the limit of reality—if one says that the mark of the mind abides the same as suchness abides, suchness is the limit of reality; if so, can the mind be taken directly as the limit of reality? The treatise-author completes the logic of the Buddha's question: suchness and the limit of reality are of one substance; since the mind abides as suchness abides, is it not the limit of reality? The question follows naturally from the reasoning, and that is why the answer below becomes so vital.

81. Subhūti does not allow it—the mind is a false and deceptive dharma. Subhūti says: No, World-Honored One! Why? Subhūti has long revered this limit of reality; the mind is a false and deceptive dharma; the wisdom-power of the Small Vehicle is slight and cannot contemplate the mind as directly the limit of reality; therefore he says no. The treatise-author's explanation here is extremely honest: he does not say that Subhūti answered perfectly; he says that his measure of realisation is such—revering the limit of reality, regarding the mind as false and deceptive, and therefore unable to make this contemplation. This is this treatise's constant way of recording the limits of an answerer, not a disparagement.

82. Question: since Subhūti has said this mind is suchness, why can it not be taken as the limit of reality? The treatise-author sets up a question: if Subhūti has already said that this mind is suchness, why can it not be taken as the limit of reality? Precisely this doubt is in the reader's mind, and the treatise-author asks it for him. The previous passage said only that Subhūti could not; it did not say whether in principle it could be; this question fills in the layer of principle.

83. The marker of the answer. The treatise-author opens what follows with Answer:. The three passages below all explain this question—one in terms of name and meaning, one in terms of the measure of realisation, one in terms of the signless.

84. Suchness means the real mark of all dharmas; the real mark of the mind is also called suchness. Answer: Suchness means the real mark of all dharmas; the real mark of the mind is also called suchness. First the name and its meaning are settled: suchness is the name of the real mark of all dharmas, and the real mark of the mind is likewise called suchness. This sentence first grants that 「心如」 tr. "the mind is suchness" holds, and only then can it say why the mind still cannot be taken as the limit of reality.

85. Two meanings: Subhūti's intent, and the limit of reality being signless. Subhūti's mind held that what ordinary people see with the six faculties is false and inverted, and therefore at fault; saying now that the mark of the mind is as it really is, is without blame; therefore he said abiding as suchness abides; now the limit of reality is nirvāṇa, and because Subhūti has long prized nirvāṇa, he cannot take the mind directly as nirvāṇa; therefore he says no. Furthermore, because the limit of reality is signless, one cannot say that the mind is the limit of reality. Two reasons: one on the side of the person—having long prized nirvāṇa, he is unwilling to let the false and deceptive mind stand for it; one on the side of the dharma—the limit of reality is signless, and whoever says 「心即是」 tr. "the mind is" has already grasped at a mark. The second is the general principle, not limited to Subhūti alone—this is where this passage truly lands.

86. Where the question whether suchness is deep comes from. As for whether suchness is deep—because Subhūti said that the mind abides as suchness abides and further said that it cannot be taken as the limit of reality, therefore the Buddha asks: is suchness very deep? The treatise-author points out where this question comes from: taken together, the two statements seem to obstruct each other, and the Buddha therefore asks about the depth of suchness. Once where the question comes from is clear, one knows how much the answer weighs.

87. He answers very deep—because he cannot know completely. Because Subhūti cannot know completely, he answers: very deep. The treatise-author again points out the limits of the answerer. 「甚深」 tr. "Very deep" here is not describing how good suchness is; it is a confession that what he knows cannot reach its bottom.

88. Is suchness only this mind? As for whether suchness is only this mind—the Buddha, on the phrase 「心如如住」 tr. "the mind abides as suchness abides", pushes the question: how could suchness be only this mind? This question carries on from the meaning of 85: since one cannot say that the mind is the limit of reality, neither can one say that suchness is the mind.

89. Suchness is one mark; the mind is two marks. Subhūti answers: No, World-Honored One! Why? Suchness is one mark, not two marks; the mind is born of the causes and conditions of recollection, imagining, and discrimination, and therefore is two marks. Suchness knows nothing; the mind knows something; moreover, because suchness is ultimately pure it knows nothing, while the mind has awareness and knowing. Three distinctions: one mark and two marks, knowing nothing and knowing something, ultimate purity and having awareness. What is called two marks is the discriminating and the discriminated forming a pair; because the mind is born from the causes and conditions of recollection, imagining, and discrimination, it must form a pair. Suchness is not so.

90. Apart from suchness there is no mind—all dharmas have suchness. Apart from suchness, with the mind it is likewise. Why? All dharmas have suchness; how could there be a mind apart from suchness? The previous passage broke ‘suchness is the mind’; this passage breaks ‘there is a mind apart from suchness’. One sentence of reason suffices: all dharmas have suchness; the mind too is one among dharmas; apart from suchness there is no mind to be found. Neither one nor different is here firmly established.

91. Can suchness see suchness? The Buddha asks Subhūti: can suchness see suchness? Since it is neither one nor different, can one say that suchness sees itself? This question probes straight at subject and object. Whenever a seer and a seen are set up, it has already fallen into two marks, contrary to 「如是一相」 tr. "suchness is one mark".

92. Within suchness there is no discrimination—not abiding in suchness, the nature of dharmas, or the limit of reality. He answers: within suchness there is no discrimination—this is knowing, this is the knowable; this bodhisattva does not abide in suchness, the nature of dharmas, or the limit of reality; he truly practises the deep bodhisattva path. What is called 「是知、是可知」 tr. "this is knowing, this is the knowable" is the knower and the known; within suchness there is no such discrimination, and so there is no matter of its seeing itself. The last sentence is especially vital: not abiding in suchness, not abiding in the nature of dharmas, not abiding in the limit of reality—only this is truly practising the deep bodhisattva path; even the three highest names and marks may not be abided in and clung to.

93. If he practises thus, can he practise deep prajñā? The Buddha asks Subhūti: if he practises thus, can he practise deep prajñāpāramitā? Having examined the dharma, he turns back to examine the person. This question corresponds to the sūtra, and here the treatise-author turns to a section on the gate of practice.

94. He answers because he contemplates the Small Vehicle as shallow and thin and the Great Vehicle as deep. Subhūti, contemplating for himself the Small Vehicle as shallow and thin and contemplating the dharma of the Great Vehicle as deep, answers: to practise thus is to practise deep prajñāpāramitā. The treatise-author once again records the answerer's state of mind. Such records in this treatise are not idle strokes—they let the reader know that the same sentence weighs differently in different mouths.

95. Breaking the haughty mind—the self-assessment of bodhisattvas who have not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. At that time there were bodhisattvas who had not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas who, hearing this dharma, became haughty in mind, calling themselves out of the Small Vehicle and deep into the Great Vehicle. Wishing to break their haughty mind, the Buddha asked Subhūti: the bodhisattva practising thus—where does he practise? This passage is the scene the treatise-author supplies. In the sūtra one sees only the Buddha asking once more; the treatise-author points out that this question was for a certain class of listeners—the deeper the Dharma, the more easily arises the pride of ‘I have already entered deep’; the method of breaking this pride is not rebuke, but asking once more ‘where do you practise’.

96. Practising for no place at all—abiding in suchness, nothing is discriminated. Subhūti says: practising thus is practising for no place at all. Why? Because the bodhisattva abides in suchness and discriminates nothing. The answer is clean. The reason the haughty mind arises is precisely that in the mind a ‘place I have reached’ has been secretly set up; with the single phrase no place at all, the clinging falls away of itself.

97. He asks again, fearing a fall into annihilation. Hearing of practising for no place at all, the bodhisattva may fall into annihilation; therefore the Buddha asks Subhūti again: the bodhisattva practising prajñā—where does he practise? The treatise-author again points out the Buddha's intent. Right after breaking the haughty mind he guards against the view of annihilation—this is the two-handed method this treatise follows throughout: in pulling out the clinging to one side, it must guard against toppling over to the other.

98. Practising within the highest meaning—the highest meaning has no two marks. Subhūti says: he practises within the highest meaning. The mark of the highest meaning is that it has no two marks. It is established positively, and what is established is still non-duality. If one takes 「第一義」 tr. "the highest meaning" as a high place one can abide in, it becomes one mark again; the treatise-author negates even as he speaks, leaving no place to abide.

99. Practising the highest meaning without thought—is it practising the dharma of grasping at marks? The Buddha says to Subhūti: what do you think, if the bodhisattva practises the highest meaning without thought, is he practising the dharma of grasping at marks? No sooner is the highest meaning established than it is tested. Here the rhythm is entirely the same as in Sūtra ③: establish a meaning and examine that meaning; only when it passes the examination may it be used.

100. Ultimately empty and without recollection, this is not practising marks. Subhūti says: No, World-Honored One! Why? All dharmas are ultimately empty and without recollection; this is not practising marks. The key of the answer lies in 「無憶念」 tr. "without recollection"—grasping at marks can only be established by way of recollection, imagining, and discrimination; since there is no recollection, grasping at marks has no footing.

101. Does this bodhisattva destroy marks and obtain the signless? The Buddha asks Subhūti: does this bodhisattva destroy marks and obtain the signless? After not grasping at marks, the most ready misunderstanding is ‘then knock the marks away’. The Buddha brings this misunderstanding up directly as a question.

102. Marks from the very beginning do not exist—only inversion is removed. Subhūti says: No! Marks from the very beginning do not exist; it is only for the sake of removing inversion; he does not destroy the marks of dharmas. One sentence settles the case: marks do not exist from the beginning, so there is nothing to destroy; what the bodhisattva removes is inversion, not the marks of dharmas. This saying is the correct understanding of the whole unit's meaning of ‘neither grasping nor destroying’.

103. If he does not destroy marks, how does he practise the signless practice? The Buddha says to Subhūti: if he does not destroy marks, how does he practise the signless practice? The pursuit is utterly natural: if marks are not destroyed, where does signless practice come from? Without pressing this question, the previous answer could still be read as an evasion.

104. Not making the thought of breaking marks—by the power of skilful means making it neither as having marks nor as without marks. Subhūti says: World-Honored One! The bodhisattva does not make this thought—I shall break marks, and therefore practise prajñā. This bodhisattva, not yet having fulfilled the Buddha's ten powers and the other dharmas of the buddhas, by the power of skilful means makes it neither as having marks nor as without marks. The answer has two sections: one on the mind's conduct—the thought of breaking marks does not arise; one on the station—merit not yet complete, and by skilful means he holds the middle. The power of skilful means here is not an expedient trick; it is the very capacity not to fall into either side.

105. Grasping at marks and breaking marks both have faults—leaving the two extremes and practising the middle way. Why? If he grasps at marks, these marks are all false, deceptive, and lying speech, with many faults; if he breaks marks, he falls into annihilation, also with many faults. Therefore he grasps neither at having marks nor at being without marks. To grasp at a mark is the dharma of existence; not to grasp at a mark is the dharma of non-existence; by the power of skilful means he leaves these two extremes of existence and non-existence and practises the middle way. This passage sets the faults of both sides side by side and then marks out the middle way. Note the sentence 「不取相即是無法」 tr. "not to grasp at a mark is the dharma of non-existence"—even 「不取」 tr. "not grasping" can be clung to as an extreme of non-existence, so the middle way is not a compromising third point; it is abiding on neither of the two extremes, existence and non-existence.

106. Because of emptiness of own-nature he does not cling to existence or non-existence—the emptiness of specific marks also breaks its own mark. Here the Buddha himself states the cause and condition, namely: knowing that all dharmas are empty of own-nature, he does not cling to existence or non-existence. The emptiness of specific marks breaks the marks of all dharmas, and also breaks its own mark. The last sentence is the most crucial: this knife, the emptiness of specific marks, having broken the marks of all dharmas, breaks itself too, leaving no 「空」 tr. "emptiness" in the hand. If a mark of emptiness is left over, it is exactly the illness that the people of dull faculties below fall into.

107. The non-action samādhi severs beings' making of vows—the wrong vows of receiving bodies in the six destinies. The bodhisattva, abiding within this emptiness of specific marks, gives rise to the three samādhi to benefit beings. Beings in the six destinies make all kinds of vows and receive bodies: some do not gather the mind and cannot cultivate merit, indulge themselves and create deeds as they please; if they are to fall into the hells, at the time of death, pressed by a cold wind, they wish to obtain fire, and so enter the three evil destinies, such as the hells; if they become human, they are also poor and lowly; some gather the mind, can subdue avarice, practise giving, keeping the precepts, and other good conduct, and are born in places of wealth and pleasure among humans and gods of the desire realm; some leave the desire realm and remove the five hindrances, and by the five faculties of faith and the rest obtain the dhyānas with five limbs and the others, and are born in the form realm; some, because they relinquish all marks of form, extinguish the marks of resistance, and do not attend to the marks of diversity, enter the formless absorption of the sphere of boundless space and the rest. All these makings are wrong vows. Why? Because in the long run all shall break down and fall; as when a bird is tied with a cord: when the cord runs out, it comes back again. The bodhisattva by this non-action samādhi severs beings' making of vows. This passage ranges the receiving of bodies in the six destinies all the way up to the formless absorptions, yet the conclusion is uniform: all who make vows and receive bodies are making wrong vows—regardless of how high or low the place of birth. The simile of the bird tied with a cord is exact: with a long cord it flies far, and when the cord runs out it must still come back; the length of a stay in the heavens is exactly the length of the cord. What the non-action samādhi severs is precisely this cord.

108. The emptiness samādhi severs I and mine—the body empty, the mind like an illusion. Moreover, this body is entirely empty, having only sinews and bones and the five viscera, smeared with blood, wrapped in skin, filled with impurity, moved by wind as the mind directs; this mind arises and ceases without abiding, like an illusion, like a transformation, without a fixed real mark. Because beings see these marks of coming and going and of speech, they say there is a person, there is a self, there is what belongs to the self, and give rise to inverted minds; only because of recollection, imagining, and discrimination is there this error. The bodhisattva by the emptiness samādhi severs beings' mind of I and mine, and causes them to abide in emptiness. Body and mind are contemplated together on both sides: the body is analysed into sinew, bone, blood, and skin and has no master; the mind arises and ceases like an illusion and has no fixity. The reason the view of self arises is seeing the marks of coming and going and of speech and falsely reckoning a master behind them—the root of the illness is still recollection, imagining, and discrimination.

109. The signless samādhi severs the marks—grasping at marks gives rise to afflictions. Moreover, beings grasp at the marks of male and female, of form, sound, smell, and taste, of beautiful and ugly, of long and short; because of grasping at marks they give rise to all kinds of afflictions and undergo sorrows and sufferings. The bodhisattva by this signless samādhi severs beings' marks and causes them to abide in the signless. This item forms one set with the preceding two: the illness of making vows is treated by non-action, the illness of clinging to self by emptiness, the illness of grasping at marks by the signless. Three illnesses, three medicines, clearly in order.

110. Question: if obtaining emptiness is enough, what use are the signless and non-action? The treatise-author sets up a question: if in teaching and transforming beings it is enough to have them obtain emptiness, what use are the signless samādhi and the non-action samādhi? An excellent question. Since emptiness can break everything, why set up two more gates? If this question is not asked clearly, the three samādhi become a bed piled upon a bed.

111. The marker of the answer. The treatise-author opens what follows with Answer:. The passage below is the closing of the whole chapter.

112. The difference of keen and dull—for those who grasp at a mark of emptiness the signless is taught; for those who wish to make a body again non-action is taught. Answer: Beings' faculties are keen or dull. Those of keen faculties, hearing emptiness, at once obtain the signless and non-action. Those of dull faculties, hearing that emptiness breaks all dharmas, then grasp at a mark of emptiness; therefore the signless is taught. If someone, though knowing emptiness and the signless, because of this wisdom wishes further to make a body—this is a conditioned dharma, with all kinds of faults and troubles; therefore one should not make a body, as a sūtra says: apart from the bodhisattva's body, any other body is not delightful even for the space of a finger-snap, how much less to abide in it long! Therefore non-action is taught. For these reasons the three samādhi are fully taught, to teach and transform beings. The answer has three layers: for those of keen faculties one gate suffices, the three samādhi being originally of one flavour; those of dull faculties, hearing emptiness, grasp at a mark of emptiness, so the one gate of the signless is needed to take apart even the mark of emptiness; and there are those who know both emptiness and the signless yet still want to rely on this wisdom to receive one more body, so the one gate of non-action is needed to sever their vow of receiving a body. The sentence cited, 「離菩薩身，餘身彈指頃不可樂」 tr. "apart from the bodhisattva's body, any other body is not delightful even for the space of a finger-snap", marks out the single exception—the bodhisattva's body is received for the delivering of beings, and is not among what is severed. The whole chapter ends here: starting from the lamp-wick's neither first nor last and stopping at the three samādhi set up to fit the capacities, the whole text speaks of only one thing—it is accomplished by the coming together of causes and conditions, and therefore one may not cling to any one part of it, nor may one brush aside the whole.

Do Not Misread

Do not read ‘obtaining awakening neither by the first mind nor by the last mind’ as obtaining without a cause. Right after the four positions comes the sentence 「炷實燋」 tr. "the wick is really burned", and where the simile is matched there comes straight after it the sentence 「從初發意行般若波羅蜜，具足十地」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent he practises prajñāpāramitā and fulfils the ten grounds"—the sūtra twice adds this stroke precisely to guard against this misreading. That one cannot pin down some one thought as the cause of attaining the path does not mean that attaining the path has no cause; the treatise-author says plainly 「是諸法皆因緣和合故」 tr. "because all these dharmas come together from causes and conditions"; what is broken is the clinging to ‘obtaining only by some one thought’, not cause and effect itself.

Do not read the ten grounds as ten rungs of a ladder. The treatise-author marks the ten grounds as 「佐助成無上道」 tr. "helping to accomplish the unsurpassed path", and further explains the two Chinese characters 「具足」 tr. "fulfilment" by ‘fulfilling practice in one's own ground, fulfilling contemplation in other grounds’. If the ten grounds could be climbed rung by rung to collect awakening, why would the Buddha, right after listing the ten grounds, at once repeat once more ‘not obtained by the first mind, nor obtained apart from the first mind’? Opening the road and barring clinging appear together in the same passage; lacking either, it becomes lopsided.

Do not read ‘having filled nine grounds, though the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and the rest are not yet fulfilled … it is called fulfilment’ as merit already complete. The treatise-author's reason is 「以修習近佛道故」 tr. "because by cultivation he is near the Buddha path"—what is called fulfilment is said in terms of the road being already near, not in terms of merit being already full. The sūtra's 「具足」 tr. "fulfilment" and the ordinary feeling of ‘perfect completeness’ are not one meaning.

Do not read 「如如住」 tr. "abiding as suchness abides" as yet another line of reasoning. The treatise-author specially records the origin of this answer: Subhūti, after 「理窮故」 tr. "because his reasoning was exhausted", 「自以所證智慧答」 tr. "answered from the wisdom he himself had realised". All the questions and answers before lie within thinking; this sentence has already gone beyond thinking. To treat it as a third position set alongside permanence and annihilation is to lose its reality.

Do not read ‘the mind cannot be taken directly as the limit of reality’ as disparaging the mind. The treatise-author first establishes 「如名一切法實相，心實相亦名如」 tr. "suchness means the real mark of all dharmas; the real mark of the mind is also called suchness", and does not deny that the real mark of the mind is suchness; what is not allowed is the statement 「心即是實際」 tr. "the mind is the limit of reality", which grasps at a mark—「以實際無相故，不得言『心即是實際』」 tr. "because the limit of reality is signless, one cannot say ‘the mind is the limit of reality’". The dividing line lies in the two Chinese characters 「即是」 tr. "is", not in the mind.

Do not read 「不取相亦不壞相」 tr. "neither grasping at marks nor destroying marks" as vague equivocation. The fault of grasping at marks lies in 「是相皆虛誑妄語」 tr. "these marks are all false, deceptive, and lying speech"; the fault of breaking marks lies in 「墮斷滅中」 tr. "falling into annihilation"; since the faults of both sides are clear, the middle way is not a smoothing-over; it is leaving both extremes and having no other place to abide. The treatise-author adds one more cut—「不取相即是無法」 tr. "not to grasp at a mark is the dharma of non-existence"—not allowing even 「不取」 tr. "not grasping" to be clung to as an extreme.

Do not read 「自相空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks" as an emptiness one can abide in and cling to. The treatise-author says plainly 「自相空破一切法相，亦自破其相」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks breaks the marks of all dharmas, and also breaks its own mark". If emptiness is kept in the hand, it becomes the mark of emptiness grasped by those of dull faculties, and the sūtra sets up the signless samādhi separately precisely for this illness. Breaking without keeping the breaker—only that is the emptiness of specific marks.

Do not read 「是諸所作，皆是邪願」 tr. "all these makings are wrong vows" as a rebuke of cultivating merit and being born in heaven. This saying is spoken of the one kind of person who 「作願受身」 tr. "makes vows and receives bodies"—all who by the power of a vow take a body that is the retribution of one period shall in the long run break down and fall, and so it is called a wrong vow; the simile of the bird tied with a cord speaks of its necessarily coming back, not of those with short cords being evil. What the non-action samādhi severs is the vow of receiving a body, not people's practising giving and keeping the precepts.

Bearing on Practice

Take the simile of the lamp-wick to treat the anxiety of ‘when will I ever finish the practice?’ When effort shows no progress, the mind often secretly asks which sitting, which day's work counts. Remember 「非初焰燋炷，亦非離初焰」 tr. "it is not the first flame that burns the wick, nor is it apart from the first flame"—there is no sitting that is the sitting, and no sitting is sat in vain; to ask by which thought the path is attained is to cut continuous effort into pieces and pick among them. The three Chinese characters rendered here as ‘the wick is really burned’ are a guarantee to all who apply themselves according to the Dharma.

Take 「初心集種種無量功德，後心則具足」 tr. "the first mind gathers all kinds of immeasurable merit, and the last mind then fulfils it" to settle into the long-enduring mind. That today's strength of mind is not yet enough to sever the habitual residues of the afflictions is the fact; but the treatise-author says clearly that severing the residues happens at the time of fulfilment, and fulfilment is gathered all the way from the first mind. What is gathered today does not show its effect today—knowing this, one does not give up because there is no effect.

Take the two-sided explanation of the ten grounds to measure one's own station. The ground of dry wisdom has no water of concentration, the ground of the stage of nature obtains the water of concentration, the ground of the person of the eight enters the position, the ground of seeing obtains the fruit, in the ground of thinning the remaining vapour is also thin—each ground has marks that can be verified. Measuring oneself is not pinning a station-label on oneself; it is looking at oneself against these marks to see which item is lacking: if there is wisdom but the water of concentration is not yet obtained, one should make up concentration; if one loves and clings to the real mark but wrong views are not yet purified, one should make up view.

Take 「不住如、法性、實際」 tr. "not abiding in suchness, the nature of dharmas, or the limit of reality" to examine the abiding and clinging in one's view. When the practice has deepened, what is hardest to let go is often not a coarse object but the 「如」 tr. "suchness" one has realised oneself. The treatise-author matches this sentence with 「真行深菩薩道」 tr. "truly practising the deep bodhisattva path"—whenever one feels one is abiding in a very high place, one should look back at this sentence.

Take 「爾時，有未得無生法忍菩薩聞是法則心高」 tr. "at that time there were bodhisattvas who had not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas who, hearing this dharma, became haughty in mind" to illuminate one's own Dharma-pride. Hearing deep Dharma and having the feeling ‘I have already entered deep’ is the most common barrier on the path of training. The Buddha breaks this pride with only one question—where do you practise? Ask oneself this once, and the haughty mind has nowhere to settle.

Take the three samādhi to prescribe medicine according to the illness. In daily life, when one raises the mind to receive a body and seek a further existence, illuminate it with non-action; when one reckons a self and what belongs to a self and gives rise to love and hatred, illuminate it with emptiness; when afflictions arise over the marks of male and female, beautiful and ugly, long and short, illuminate them with the signless. The three gates need not be used all together; see which illness is present before you.

Take 「知空、無相，因是智慧，更欲作身」 tr. "knowing emptiness and the signless, because of this wisdom wishes further to make a body" as a warning to oneself. Having read emptiness until it is familiar, one instead wants to rely on this bit of view to take a good body again, a good situation—the treatise-author specially lists this kind of person separately. Conditioned dharmas have all kinds of faults and troubles; once this thought arises, it is a road of retreat, not progress.

Take 「離菩薩身，餘身彈指頃不可樂」 tr. "apart from the bodhisattva's body, any other body is not delightful even for the space of a finger-snap" to establish a vow. These are not words of weariness with the world; they point out the one body worth receiving: the body received to deliver beings. Knowing that other bodies are not delightful, arousing the mind to receive a body and deliver people is not forcing oneself; it is the only way out.

Further Resonances

For the Last Part, the divergence of the titles among the ancient masters is most worth recording. The base text titles fascicle 74 "The Lamp-wick", yet the continuation heading of fascicle 75 calls itself "The Lamp Simile"—two places within one text differing from each other; the Song, Yuan, and Palace editions title it "The Profound", and the Ming edition further states of itself, in an interlinear note under the title, that the sūtra reads "The Lamp-wick Profound". Looked at from the side of the sūtra text, the proper name of this chapter of the Larger Sūtra is "The Profound", while the interlinear note of the Khitan edition clearly writes "The Lamp-wick"—the sūtra and treatise layers each run two sets of titles in parallel, not arbitrary changes by later people. Jizang in his commentary lists the chapter as 「深奧品」 tr. "The Profound", yet when discussing the chapter's core simile calls it straightforwardly 「燈炷喻」 tr. "the lamp-wick simile"—the title uses that one while the term uses this one. In what Huiying transmits, the table of contents reads 「灯喻品」 tr. "The Lamp Simile", while the commentary text separately brings up an ancient name, saying 「第五十七品釋論者，名為淨土品」 tr. "the treatise's explanation of the fifty-seventh chapter is named the Pure Land chapter"; his reason is that since this chapter has made clear that the non-retrogressing bodhisattva's self-practice in the two virtues of wisdom and severance is already sufficient, next it should go on to adorn and purify lands to receive and transform beings, and therefore he names its treatise-explanation Pure Land—this is a name established from how the divisions of the text carry on, and it is yet another line apart from the Lamp-wick and the Profound. What Junzheng transmits lists three more names, saying 「此或題灯炷啄品，或歸功德品，或云住菩提品」 tr. "this is sometimes titled the Lamp-wick Pecking chapter, or the Returning Merit chapter, or called the Abiding in Awakening chapter". The Ishiyama text's title is further 「燈柱」 tr. "lamp-pillar", the same name as 「燈炷」 tr. "lamp-wick" and 「灯炷」 tr. "lamp-wick" but in a different character-form. All these names appear in the various transmitted texts and among the ancient masters; this unit records them all as they are, without judging better or worse.

Junzheng, citing the sūtra text of the ten grounds in this chapter, writes the item 「八人地」 tr. "the ground of the person of the eight" as 「八忍地」 tr. "the ground of the eight acceptances", differing from the base text. The base text has no collation note here to compare against; Junzheng himself also says: 「在見諦中，有八忍之位，是八忍人，故名八人地也」 tr. "within the seeing of the truths there is the station of the eight acceptances; these are the persons of the eight acceptances, and therefore it is named the ground of the person of the eight"—in his hands the two names were already interchangeable; the meanings the two names point to can also be read against each other—the base text's ground of the person of the eight the treatise-author explains as 「從苦法忍乃至道比智忍，是十五心」 tr. "from the acceptance of the dharma of suffering up to the acceptance of the subsequent knowledge of the path—these are the fifteen minds", which is exactly the continuity of acceptance and knowledge in the fifteen moments of the path of seeing, and writing 「八忍地」 tr. "the ground of the eight acceptances" does not contradict this meaning either. Both forms are recorded side by side, without forcing an explanation.

Further, as to the fascicles to which this chapter's sūtra and treatise belong, the records of the ancient masters also differ: some, when citing this chapter's text, attach it to fascicle 78 of the Great Treatise, which does not agree with fascicles 74 and 75 of the current base text. Such differences of fascicle number are not rare among the ancient masters' ways of citing books; the difference is recorded without judging right or wrong.

As to the vein of meaning, the First Part closed with 「不增不減、不可得」 tr. "neither increase nor decrease, unfindable", and the Last Part raises its doubt and asks from exactly this place; the simile of the lamp-wick answers its 「云何增益」 tr. "how are they increased", the teaching of the ten grounds answers its ‘by what road is it accomplished’, abiding as suchness abides and practising within the highest meaning answer its ‘where does one practise’, and the emptiness of specific marks and the three samādhi answer its ‘what after emptiness’. One unit, four turns, and they return to the one meaning of the coming together of causes and conditions. The previous chapter spoke of the turning and not turning of the avaivartika; this chapter speaks of how the bodhisattva who does not turn walks from the first mind to the ultimate; the next chapter turns to the matter of entering samādhi in a dream, pushing one layer further precisely from the meaning of practising for no place at all—since practice has no place, then between waking and sleeping there is no difference either. Three chapters in one line—this can be seen here.