大智度論 夢中不證品之下Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Not Realising It in a Dream, Part 2 of 2

Not Realising It in a Dream, Last Part: The Mark of Prajñā Is Like Space, Why There Are Stain and Purity, the Ten Rounds of Questions on Practising Prajñā, and the Acceptance of the Non-arising of Dharmas and the Prediction

What Is Being Asked

The First Part, a whole fascicle, answers throughout a single question: how does one recognise the avaivartika? The sūtra starts from dreams—in a dream he does not crave the two vehicles and does not crave the three realms; in a dream he sees the Buddha and hears the Dharma and at once understands the meaning in it; in a dream he sees armies rising, fire breaking out, and his kin dying, and is not startled and not terrified; in a dream he sees the three evil destinies and at once arouses the vow of a pure land; in a dream he sees hell-fire burning beings and makes the oath, and the fire goes out; from dream it passes to waking: by day, seeing fire break out in a city, he likewise puts it out by the oath. Then it turns to the reverse side: bodhisattvas who have not practised the six perfections for long and have not entered the bodhisattva's position are deceived by evil Māra with an 「空誓」 tr. "empty oath", deceived with the names and clans of their former lives, deceived with the names they will bear as buddhas in the future, deceived with the dharma of seclusion; one by one they give rise to overweening pride, slight, mock, disparage, and scorn others, and fall into the two grounds. At the end the Buddha shows the right road—「當親近恭敬供養善知識」 tr. "one should draw near to, respect, and make offerings to the good friend"—setting side by side the good friend who is a person and the good friend who is a dharma, and saying that the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas of the path are the World-Honored One, are the path, are the great light, are father, are mother. The treatise-author explains passage by passage, and on the similes of the 「四重禁」 tr. "four grave prohibitions" and the 「五逆」 tr. "five heinous sins", and on the name 「微細魔事」 tr. "subtle deeds of Māra", settles the meaning of each one by one.

The Last Part comes on from this, yet changes the face of the topic. What the First Part asked about was 「相」 tr. "mark"—the conduct, kind, and appearance of the avaivartika; what the Last Part asks about is 「體」 tr. "substance"—what mark prajñāpāramitā itself has. The sūtra opens at once with a question from Subhūti: 「何等是般若波羅蜜相？」 tr. "What is the mark of prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha's answer is only two sentences: the mark that is like space; without the mark of anything existent. All the questions and difficulties of the whole unit from here on are pressed out of these two sentences.

What is pressed out is three layers of difficulty. The first: if prajñā is like space, and all dharmas too are like space, all separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness, then where are the stain and purity of beings to be set up? And on what can the bodhisattva rely to obtain awakening? The Buddha does not answer from the meaning of emptiness; instead he asks a homely question—have beings, through the long night, been practising the mind of I and mine? Because of the mind of I and mine there is going and coming in birth and death, and going and coming in birth and death is stain; without the mind of I and mine there is no going and coming, and not going and coming is purity. Stain and purity are set up not on dharmas but on whether the mind practises or does not practise. The second: if the nature of all thoughts is of itself separated and of itself empty, what footing is left for the words 「不離薩婆若念」 tr. "not leaving the thought of sarvajñā"? If the nature of prajñā is of itself separated and of itself empty, what footing is left for the words ‘equal to prajñā’ and obtaining awakening? The Buddha's answer is again two phrases—neither increase nor decrease; neither one nor different. The third is the most dangerous and also the longest: this being so, what in the end is 「行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā"? The sūtra asks eleven questions in a row, from emptiness, apart from emptiness, prajñā, and apart from prajñā, through the five aggregates, the six perfections, the dharmas that aid the path, and on to the suchness of dharmas and the limit of reality, asking of each 「是行般若波羅蜜不」 tr. "is this practising prajñāpāramitā or not", and the Buddha answers each 「不也」 tr. "No"; when the ten questions are exhausted, Subhūti then puts the eleventh, the general question: 「云何行名菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "What practice is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha does not answer head-on, but presses back with four counter-questions—do you see a dharma that practises prajñā? Do you see a place where it can be practised? Is the dharma that is not seen findable? Should the unfindable dharma arise? All four answers are 「不」 tr. "no", and here the Buddha passes a verdict: 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍。」 tr. "This is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas."

When the questioning reaches this point, the joint of the whole unit first comes into view: the 「行」 tr. "practice" of prajñā is not finding a dharma that can practise and a place that is practised; it is that on all dharmas nothing is findable and the mind does not arise again. Once the acceptance of non-arising is established, the matter of the prediction follows from it—Subhūti asks again: is the prediction obtained in the mark of non-arising? In the mark of arising? In the mark of neither arising nor non-arising? The Buddha's three answers are all 「不也」 tr. "No". At the very end the treatise-author sets up a question of his own to close the whole unit: since the practitioner really receives the prediction by the acceptance of non-arising, why does the Buddha still say 「不」 tr. "no"? The answer lies in one place—Subhūti asks 「以著心、得心問」 tr. "with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining"; the Buddha's 「不」 tr. "no" does not deny the matter of the prediction; it cuts off his clinging mind. And the treatise-author cites the brahmin ascetic Vatsa asking whether there is a self or no self, and the Buddha remaining silent, as evidence: the dharma was never unreal; the place from which the question was asked was already wrong, and so he did not answer.

So what is to be read in the Last Part is not one more string of marks of the avaivartika; it turns over the ground of the two Chinese characters 「不證」 tr. "not realising" of the First Part and shows it: the reason one does not take realisation even in a dream is precisely that the substance of prajñā is like space and without anything existent, and there is not one dharma that can be taken up as realisation. The First Part speaks of matters, the Last Part speaks of principle; the First Part is the mark of practice, the Last Part is the mark of substance. Only here are the four Chinese characters of the chapter title, 「夢中不證」 tr. "not realising it in a dream", fully spoken.

Passage by Passage

1. Subhūti asks about the mark of prajñā. After the continuation title of fascicle 77, the sūtra at once raises a new question: 「爾時，須菩提白佛言：『世尊！何等是般若波羅蜜相？』」 tr. "At that time Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! What is the mark of prajñāpāramitā?’" First ask a question: has not the mark of prajñā already been spoken of earlier in this sūtra? It is precisely because it has been spoken of that the question here is a joint. At the end of the First Part's fascicle the Buddha had just finished saying that the six perfections are the World-Honored One, are the path, are the great light, are father, are mother, and had also said 「是般若波羅蜜中廣說諸法，是菩薩摩訶薩所應學處」 tr. "within this prajñāpāramitā all dharmas are spoken of at length; this is where the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should train"; since people are taught to train, the trainee will naturally seek its marks and appearance. So this question is not repetition; it is seeking the reality after hearing the praise. In reading this passage, first get ready for one thing: the 「相」 tr. "mark" the Buddha gives below will not be a set of features that can be pointed out—were it so, it would be of the same format as Māra's deception in the First Part, 「汝有如是功德、如是相」 tr. "you have such merit, such marks".

2. The Buddha answers: the mark that is like space; without the mark of anything existent. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「如虛空相是般若波羅蜜相。須菩提！般若波羅蜜無所有相。」 tr. "The mark that is like space is the mark of prajñāpāramitā. Subhūti! Prajñāpāramitā is without the mark of anything existent." Two sentences and no more, yet they are the root of the whole unit. Why take space as the simile? Space as a thing, first, cannot be pointed to in shape or colour; second, does not obstruct the coming and going of any form; third, is everywhere, and yet no single place is itself. So too prajñā: its marks and appearance cannot be pointed to, it does not obstruct the distinctions of dharmas, it pervades all dharmas, and yet not one dharma is prajñā. The second sentence, 「無所有相」 tr. "without the mark of anything existent", goes one layer further—the first sentence still shows it by a simile; the second states its substance directly: what is called its mark is precisely being without anything existent. Here one must guard against a slip: 「無所有相」 tr. "without the mark of anything existent" does not say that prajñā has no mark; it says that its mark is exactly being without anything existent; the mark and being without anything existent are not two things. In the First Part, when the treatise-author explained the causes and conditions of not realising, he said that the bodhisattva 「常行畢竟空」 tr. "constantly practises ultimate emptiness"; what he constantly practises is this.

3. Subhūti asks again: is the mark of all dharmas also like this? Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！頗有因緣，如般若波羅蜜相，諸法相亦如是耶？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Are there perhaps causes and conditions whereby, as is the mark of prajñāpāramitā, so too is the mark of all dharmas?" This question is asked in a highly ordered way: knowing now that the mark of prajñā is being without anything existent, he asks whether this mark belongs to prajñā alone, or whether it can be extended by analogy to all dharmas. The four Chinese characters 「頗有因緣」 tr. "are there perhaps causes and conditions" are a way of asking that holds the matter in doubt and requests—not daring to judge outright, he first asks whether there is such a principle or not. He asks cautiously precisely because the matter asked about is extremely great: if the mark of all dharmas is all like the mark of prajñā, then between prajñā and all dharmas there are no longer two layers.

4. The Buddha answers: just so, just so; all dharmas are separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「如是！如是！」 tr. "Just so! Just so!"—repeating the words to seal his approval, and then gives the causes and conditions: 「一切法離相、空相。」 tr. "All dharmas are separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness." Then with 「以是因緣故」 tr. "for these causes and conditions" he brings it back to the original question and says it once more: 「如般若波羅蜜相，諸法相亦如是，所謂離相、空相故」 tr. "as is the mark of prajñāpāramitā, so too is the mark of all dharmas, namely because they are separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness". The pattern of this passage deserves attention: the Buddha's answer is not just 「是」 tr. "yes"; it is ‘yes, and the reason it is so lies here’. The reason lies in the two Chinese characters 「離」 tr. "separated" and 「空」 tr. "empty"—being separated is not uniting with marks; being empty is having no self-nature to be found; the two characters are raised together and neither can be taken one-sidedly. Take 「離」 tr. "separated" one-sidedly and it becomes isolation; take 「空」 tr. "empty" one-sidedly and it becomes annihilation and non-existence.

5. Subhūti raises a difficulty: within separation and emptiness, where are stain and purity and the one who obtains awakening? This passage is the first layer of difficulty in the whole unit; the text is long and the reasoning dense, and it must be taken apart sentence by sentence. 「若一切法一切法離，一切法一切法空」 tr. "if all dharmas, all dharmas, are separated; all dharmas, all dharmas, are empty"—repeating the words 「一切法」 tr. "all dharmas" says that separation and emptiness are not another layer of judgement added onto dharmas; dharmas themselves are separation, are emptiness. This being so, the difficulty is threefold. First, 「云何知眾生若垢、若淨」 tr. "how is it known whether beings are stained or pure"—stain and purity have nothing to rest on. Second, 「離相法無垢、無淨，空相法無垢、無淨；離相、空相法不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，離相、空相無法可得」 tr. "a dharma separated from marks is without stain and without purity; a dharma of the mark of emptiness is without stain and without purity; a dharma separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness cannot obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; in what is separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness there is no dharma that can be obtained"—even the path that can obtain has nothing to rest on. Third, 「離相中，空相中，無有菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 tr. "within what is separated from marks, within the mark of emptiness, there is no bodhisattva who obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—even the person who can obtain has nothing to rest on. The three difficulties strip away layer after layer, and the last sentence is the most important: 「世尊！我云何當知佛所說義？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How am I to know the meaning of what the Buddha has said?" Subhūti is not refuting the Buddha; he is seeking understanding—he says plainly that what he wants is to know the meaning of what the Buddha has said. This sentence fixes the character of the passage: it is a difficulty raised in asking for instruction, not a difficulty raised in dispute.

6. The Buddha counter-asks with the mind of I and mine; Subhūti answers that they practise it. The Buddha does not answer directly from the meaning of emptiness, but asks: 「於汝意云何？是眾生長夜行我、我所心不？」 tr. "What do you think? Have these beings through the long night practised the mind of I and mine or not?" Subhūti answers: 「如是！世尊！眾生長夜行我、我所心。」 tr. "Just so, World-Honored One! Beings through the long night have practised the mind of I and mine." First ask a question: why does the Buddha leave principle aside and ask about a matter? Because the fault of the one raising the difficulty lies precisely in looking for 「垢淨」 tr. "stain and purity" as a property on dharmas. Once he looks on dharmas, dharmas all being empty and separated, naturally he cannot find it. The Buddha asks in another place—he does not ask whether dharmas have stain and purity; he asks whether beings have the practice of this mind. The two Chinese characters 「長夜」 tr. "the long night" must not be passed over: ‘the long night’ speaks of how long it has been, so long that one does not notice it as practice; not noticing it as practice is what is called being an ordinary person.

7. He asks again: is this mind separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness or not? The Buddha asks again: 「於汝意云何？是我、我所心離相不？空相不？」 tr. "What do you think? Is this mind of I and mine separated from marks or not? Of the mark of emptiness or not?" Subhūti said: 「世尊！我、我所心離相、空相。」 tr. "World-Honored One! The mind of I and mine is separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness." With this question the Buddha returns Subhūti's own difficulty to him untouched: you say all dharmas are separated and empty; then the mind of I and mine too is separated, is empty—this you grant. Once Subhūti has granted it, there is no retreat for him in what follows. Here one can see the Buddha's way of answering a difficulty: he does not break what the other has set up; he pushes forward from what the other has set up.

8. The third question: is it by this mind that beings go and come in birth and death? The Buddha asks again: 「於汝意云何？以此我、我所心，眾生往來生死中不？」 tr. "What do you think? Is it by this mind of I and mine that beings go and come within birth and death, or not?" Subhūti answers: 「如是！世尊！以此我、我所心，眾生往來生死中。」 tr. "Just so, World-Honored One! By this mind of I and mine beings go and come within birth and death." The whole joint lies in this one question. The previous question has already granted that this mind is separated and empty; this question asks whether this separated and empty mind can still make beings go and come in birth and death. The two matters stand side by side and do not obstruct each other—emptiness does not obstruct its being a cause; separation does not obstruct its bringing matters to completion. To think that because it is empty it has no function is not to understand emptiness.

9. The Buddha concludes: because they go and come, there is stain and vexation; without this mind, there is purity. The Buddha says: 「如是！須菩提！眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱。須菩提！若眾生無我我所心、無著心，是眾生不復往來生死中；若不往來生死中，則無垢惱。如是，須菩提！眾生有淨。」 tr. "Just so, Subhūti! Because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation. Subhūti! If beings had no mind of I and mine, no clinging mind, these beings would no longer go and come within birth and death; if they do not go and come within birth and death, then there are no stain and vexation. Thus, Subhūti, beings have purity." Here the meaning of stain and purity is settled: stain is not a property called stain on dharmas; it is the matter of 「往來生死」 tr. "going and coming in birth and death"; purity is not some other property called purity on dharmas; it is the matter of 「不復往來」 tr. "no longer going and coming". So stain and purity can be spoken of without going against the emptiness of all dharmas—what is spoken of is practising or not practising, not the self-nature of dharmas. The one raising the difficulty had thought the Buddha must set up a separate position for stain and purity outside emptiness; the Buddha's way of answering is: stain and purity were never in that position in the first place.

10. Subhūti declares and confirms: practising thus, he practises no dharma at all, and none can subdue him. Having heard this, Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！若菩薩摩訶薩如是行，為不行色，不行受、想、行、識，為不行四念處乃至八聖道分，為不行內空乃至無法有法空，為不行佛十力乃至一切種智。」 tr. "World-Honored One! If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises thus, he does not practise form, does not practise feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; he does not practise the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; he does not practise inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; he does not practise the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds." What is listed here is four classes in all: the five aggregates, the limbs of the path, the emptinesses, and the dharmas of the Buddha, from the coarse to the fine, from the worldly to the world-transcending; the intent is to say that 「不行」 tr. "not practising" reaches through everything, not merely not practising worldly dharmas. Why is this? 「是法不可得，亦無行者，亦無行處，亦無行法。」 tr. "This dharma is unfindable; there is also no one who practises, also no place of practice, also no dharma of practice." Three absences stand side by side—no person, no place, no dharma. Then Subhūti passes a judgement himself: 「菩薩摩訶薩如是行，一切世間諸天、人、阿修羅不能降伏。是菩薩摩訶薩，一切聲聞、辟支佛所不能及。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises thus cannot be subdued by any of the gods, humans, and asuras of the world. This bodhisattva-mahāsattva cannot be reached by any śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha." Why can he not be reached? 「所住處無能及故，所謂菩薩位。」 tr. "Because the place where he abides is one no one can reach, namely the bodhisattva's position." The last sentence, 「是菩薩摩訶薩行應薩婆若心，無能及者」 tr. "this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the mind that accords with sarvajñā; there is no one who can reach him", is the close. In this passage one must note: Subhūti turns from raising difficulties to declaring and confirming—he does not go on questioning; he pushes the Buddha's answer to the end and speaks the conclusion himself. This is a turning point in the momentum of the questions and answers of this unit.

11. The Buddha approves, and puts the first question of weighing. The Buddha first seals it with approval: 「須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩如是行，疾近薩婆若。」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises thus quickly draws near to sarvajñā." After the approval he turns at once to the weighing of merit. The first question is set extremely high: 「若閻浮提眾生盡得人身，得人身已，皆得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；若有善男子、善女人盡其形壽供養、恭敬、尊重、讚歎，持是善根迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是人以是因緣得福多不？」 tr. "If the beings of Jambudvīpa all obtained a human body, and having obtained a human body all obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; and if a good man or a good woman, for the whole of his or her life, made offerings to them, respected, honoured, and praised them, and dedicated these roots of goodness to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—would this person, by these causes and conditions, obtain much merit or not?" This supposition lifts the object of the offerings to the utmost at a single stroke—it is not making offerings to ordinary people but to people who throughout Jambudvīpa have all obtained awakening; it is not an offering for a moment but for the whole of a lifetime; and after the offering it does not stop at receiving merit, but further 「迴向」 tr. "dedicates" it to awakening. All three layers are at the utmost, precisely to build up force for the 「不如」 tr. "is not as good as" below.

12. Subhūti answers: very much. 「須菩提言：『甚多！世尊！』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘Very much, World-Honored One!’" This answer looks like no more than a sentence said in passing, but it is in fact required by the pattern of weighing—first grant that it is much, and only then say that it is not as good; if it were not first granted, the two Chinese characters 「不如」 tr. "is not as good as" would have nothing to be compared with. In reading texts of this kind, the words of granting must not be treated as a foil and passed over.

13. The Buddha answers that it is not as good as expounding prajñā, and puts the second question of weighing. The Buddha says: 「不如是善男子、善女人於大眾中說是般若波羅蜜，出示、分別，照明、開演，亦應般若波羅蜜行正憶念，其福多。」 tr. "It is not as good as this good man or good woman expounding this prajñāpāramitā in the great assembly—showing it, distinguishing it, illuminating it, and expounding it—and also rightly recollecting in accord with the practice of prajñāpāramitā; that merit is greater." The matter of expounding prajñā is divided here into four items—showing, distinguishing, illuminating, and expounding; and one further matter is added: 「亦應般若波羅蜜行正憶念」 tr. "and also rightly recollecting in accord with the practice of prajñāpāramitā". The four items face others; the last one faces oneself; lacking the last, the one who expounds has himself obtained nothing. It also says 「乃至三千大千世界中眾生，亦如是」 tr. "and so on up to the beings in the three-thousand great-thousand world, it is likewise"—pushing Jambudvīpa out to the three-thousand great-thousand world: the quantity increases once again, but the principle does not change. The second question turns in another direction: it does not compare offerings; it compares teaching and transforming—「教行十善道、四禪、四無量心、四無色定，教令得須陀洹道乃至阿羅漢、辟支佛道，教令得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "teaching them to practise the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, teaching them to obtain the path of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the arhat and the pratyekabuddha path, teaching them to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Here the ten wholesome paths are the goodness of humans and gods; the four dhyānas and the four formless absorptions are grounds of concentration; the four immeasurable minds are the practice of kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity; from the srota-āpanna up to the pratyekabuddha are the fruits of the two vehicles; and at the last, on up to awakening—from the shallow to the deep, each one taught to completion; it can be called the utmost of teaching and transforming.

14. Subhūti again answers: very much. 「須菩提言：『甚多！世尊！』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘Very much, World-Honored One!’" As in the previous case. Each of the two rounds of weighing has one granting and one taking away, in an even pattern; the granting lies with Subhūti and the taking away with the Buddha, which shows precisely that the weighing is not the Buddha asking himself and judging by himself.

15. The Buddha answers that it is not as good as expounding prajñā—the edge of the fields of merit, the four immeasurable minds, the light of great knowledge, and the simile of the maṇi jewel. This passage is the longest and contains five layers, each of which must be made clear. The first layer is the taking away: 「不如是善男子、善女人以是甚深般若波羅蜜為眾生說，出示、分別，照明、開演，亦不離薩婆若，得福多。」 tr. "It is not as good as this good man or good woman expounding this very deep prajñāpāramitā for beings—showing it, distinguishing it, illuminating it, and expounding it—and also not leaving sarvajñā; the merit obtained is greater." Compared with the previous round it adds the two Chinese characters 「甚深」 tr. "very deep", and changes 「應般若波羅蜜行正憶念」 tr. "rightly recollecting in accord with the practice of prajñāpāramitā" into 「亦不離薩婆若」 tr. "and also not leaving sarvajñā"; the meaning is the same and the wording changes. The second layer explains why: 「是菩薩摩訶薩不遠離應薩婆若心，則到一切福田邊。何以故？除諸佛，無有餘法如菩薩摩訶薩勢力。」 tr. "This bodhisattva-mahāsattva, not being far from the mind that accords with sarvajñā, reaches the edge of all fields of merit. Why? Apart from the buddhas, there is no other dharma with power like the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's." The fields of merit have an edge, and that edge lies in the Buddha; the bodhisattva is next to the Buddha, so it is said that he reaches the edge. The third layer speaks of where his power comes from: 「諸菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，於一切眾生中起大慈心；見諸眾生趣死地故，而起大悲；行是道時歡悅而生大喜；不與想俱，便得大捨。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas practise prajñāpāramitā, they give rise to the mind of great kindness toward all beings; because they see beings heading for the ground of death, they give rise to great compassion; practising this path, they are glad and give rise to great joy; not being together with perception, they then obtain great equanimity." Each of the four minds has a condition from which it arises—kindness takes all beings as its object, compassion takes beings' heading for the ground of death, joy takes the gladness of practising the path, equanimity takes 「不與想俱」 tr. "not being together with perception". Once the four minds are listed, the Buddha sums them up: 「是為菩薩摩訶薩大智光明。大智明者，所謂六波羅蜜。」 tr. "This is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's light of great knowledge. The brightness of great knowledge is namely the six perfections." The fourth layer speaks of his receiving offerings without shame: 「是諸善男子雖未作佛，能為一切眾生作大福田，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦不轉」 tr. "though these good men have not yet become buddhas, they can be a great field of merit for all beings, and they also do not turn back from anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; of the clothing, food and drink, bedding, seats, medicine for illness, and whatever is needed to sustain life that they receive, 「念能畢報施主之恩，疾近薩婆若」 tr. "they think of being able to repay in full the kindness of their donors, and quickly draw near to sarvajñā"; from this there are five wishes—「欲不虛食國中施，欲示眾生三乘道，欲為眾生作大明，欲拔出三界牢獄，欲與一切眾生眼」 tr. "wishing not to eat the alms of the country in vain, wishing to show beings the paths of the three vehicles, wishing to be a great light for beings, wishing to pull them out of the prison of the three realms, wishing to give eyes to all beings"—all concluding in 「應常行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "one should constantly practise prajñāpāramitā". The fifth layer speaks of the continuity of the practice: expounding prajñā, recollecting prajñā, practising prajñā, the three matters going round in a cycle, 「不令餘念得生，晝夜勤行般若波羅蜜相應念，不息不休」 tr. "not letting other thoughts arise, day and night diligently practising the thought that accords with prajñāpāramitā, without stopping and without resting". It ends with the maṇi jewel as a simile: the one who obtains it and then loses it again 「常憶念是摩尼珠」 tr. "constantly recollects this maṇi jewel", thinking: ‘How could I suddenly have lost this great treasure!’ The bodhisattva's constant recollection of the mind of sarvajñā is likewise. The point this simile takes is not the preciousness of the treasure but the urgency of the thought after losing it—one who has never lost it does not know how to think of it; therefore it takes the three stages 「未曾得」 tr. "had never obtained it", 「後時得」 tr. "later obtained it", and 「後復失之」 tr. "afterwards lost it again" to build up its force.

16. Subhūti raises a difficulty: the nature of all thoughts is of itself separated and of itself empty. Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！一切念性自離、一切念性自空，云何菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜不離應薩婆若念？是遠離空法中無菩薩，亦無念、無應薩婆若。」 tr. "World-Honored One! The nature of all thoughts is of itself separated; the nature of all thoughts is of itself empty. How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, practising prajñāpāramitā, not leave the thought that accords with sarvajñā? Within this dharma that is far removed and empty there is no bodhisattva, and also no thought, and nothing that accords with sarvajñā." This is the first half of the second layer of difficulty. The difficulty is aimed with great precision: the Buddha has just taught people to 「常憶念」 tr. "constantly recollect", and yet since the self-nature of thought is separated and empty, the one who thinks, what is thought of, and the thought—all three matters—cannot be set up. The last sentence raises three in a single breath—no bodhisattva, no thought, nothing that accords with sarvajñā—exactly the same format as the earlier difficulty's ‘no stain and purity, no awakening, no one who obtains’. One can see that Subhūti's difficulties are not doubts raised word by word as they come; they are an inquiry with a fixed form.

17. The Buddha answers: knowing thus is precisely not leaving the thought of sarvajñā. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「若菩薩摩訶薩如是知一切法性自離、一切法性自空，非聲聞、辟支佛作，亦非佛作；諸法相常住、法相、法住、法位、如、實際，是名菩薩行般若波羅蜜不離薩婆若念。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva knows thus that the nature of all dharmas is of itself separated and the nature of all dharmas is of itself empty, not made by the śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, nor made by the Buddha; that the marks of dharmas abide always—the mark of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the position of dharmas, suchness, the limit of reality—this is called the bodhisattva's practising prajñāpāramitā without leaving the thought of sarvajñā." The way of answering is most wondrous: he does not deny that the nature of thought is of itself separated and of itself empty; instead he sets up 「如是知」 tr. "knowing thus" itself as the thought that does not leave. The one raising the difficulty thought that 「離空」 tr. "separated and empty" and 「不離念」 tr. "not leaving the thought" were two matters that go against each other; the Buddha points out that what is called not leaving the thought of sarvajñā is precisely the matter of knowing that all dharmas are separated and empty. And he adds a sentence to guard against misunderstanding—this separation and this emptiness were not made by anyone: 「非聲聞、辟支佛作，亦非佛作」 tr. "not made by the śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, nor made by the Buddha"; since they are not made, they cannot be destroyed. Last he speaks of the causes and conditions: 「般若波羅蜜性自離、性自空，不增不減故。」 tr. "Because the nature of prajñāpāramitā is of itself separated, its nature is of itself empty, and it neither increases nor decreases." The four Chinese characters ‘neither increase nor decrease’ are laid down in advance for the next passage.

18. Subhūti raises a difficulty again: if its nature is of itself separated and empty, how is one equal to prajñā and obtains awakening? Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！若般若波羅蜜性自離、性自空，云何菩薩摩訶薩與般若波羅蜜等，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If the nature of prajñāpāramitā is of itself separated and its nature is of itself empty, how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, being equal to prajñāpāramitā, obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" This is the second half of the second layer of difficulty. 「等」 tr. "Equal" has the sense of uniting with and matching. The difficulty lies here: a dharma that is separated and empty has nothing that can be united with; since it cannot be united with, the phrase ‘equal to prajñā’ falls empty, and obtaining awakening cannot be spoken of either. The earlier difficulty takes away his thought; this difficulty takes away his obtaining.

19. The Buddha answers: neither increase nor decrease, neither one nor different; one who hears and is not startled abides in the ground of the avaivartika. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「菩薩摩訶薩與般若波羅蜜等，不增不減。何以故？如、法性、實際不增不減故。所以者何？般若波羅蜜非一非異故。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who is equal to prajñāpāramitā neither increases nor decreases. Why? Because suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality neither increase nor decrease. Why is that? Because prajñāpāramitā is neither one nor different." Two layers of causes and conditions: the reason it neither increases nor decreases is that suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality neither increase nor decrease; the reason for that is that prajñā is neither one nor different. 「非一非異」 tr. "Neither one nor different" speaks of prajñā in relation to suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—to call them one erases their names; to call them different tears apart their substance; therefore both are negated. At the end it turns out a place of testing: 「若菩薩聞如是般若波羅蜜相，不驚、不沒、不畏不怖、不疑。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva hears such a mark of prajñāpāramitā and is not startled, does not sink, is not afraid and not terrified, does not doubt." The five are raised in a row, and all are marks of the mind retreating on hearing a deep dharma. As for one who is able not to retreat—「當知是菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，當知是菩薩摩訶薩必住阿鞞跋致地中」 tr. "know that this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā; know that this bodhisattva-mahāsattva surely abides in the ground of the avaivartika". This is one place where this unit joins the chapter title: the First Part tests the avaivartika by not craving and not realising in a dream; here he is tested by hearing the deep prajñā and not being startled or terrified—one test is in matters, one test is in principle.

20. The first four of the eleven questions: emptiness, apart from emptiness, prajñā, apart from prajñā. From here on is the third layer of difficulty; the sūtra lays out the eleven questions in a single breath. The first four questions are raised directly on prajñā and emptiness, without passing through particular dharmas. The first question: 「般若波羅蜜空、無所有、不堅固，是行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is empty, without anything existent, not firm—is this practising prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!" The second question: 「離空，更有法行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Apart from emptiness, is there some further dharma that practises prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The third question: 「是般若波羅蜜，行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Does this prajñāpāramitā practise prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The fourth question: 「離般若波羅蜜，行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Apart from prajñāpāramitā, does anything practise prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The four questions form two pairs: emptiness and apart from emptiness are one pair, prajñā and apart from prajñā are one pair; each pair is a double dismissal of identity and separation. In reading these four questions, first recognise clearly what is being asked—it is not asking whether prajñā is empty; it is asking whether the matter of 「空」 tr. "emptiness" itself is simply 「行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā". Answering ‘no’ is precisely to cut off the road of taking emptiness as an object to be practised.

21. The next six questions: asking through the particular dharmas one by one. The fifth question asks about form, the sixth about feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness—these two together make up the five aggregates. The seventh asks about the six perfections, the eighth about the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—these two together make up the dharmas that aid the path. The ninth asks about 「色空相、虛誑不實、無所有、不堅固相，色如相、法相、法住、法位、實際」 tr. "the mark of the emptiness of form, the mark of its being false and deceptive and unreal, without anything existent, not firm; the mark of the suchness of form, the mark of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the position of dharmas, the limit of reality", and the tenth extends this to feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—these two questions do not ask about the substance of dharmas; they ask about the mark of emptiness of dharmas, and about suchness and the limit of reality. To all six questions the answer is 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!" The order of these six questions forms three layers of itself: first the five aggregates, the sphere contemplated; next the limbs of the path, the practice that contemplates; last suchness and the limit of reality, the principle realised. Sphere, practice, and principle—all three are asked about one by one and none is granted, from which one can see that 「行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā" does not lie in any one of these three. That the sūtra does not tire of dividing form and feeling-perception-constructions-consciousness into two questions, and of joining the string of the mark of emptiness with the string of suchness and the limit of reality into one question, is precisely to make people know that of what is dismissed nothing is left out; it cannot be passed off by naming the general outline.

22. The eleventh, general question: what practice is called practising prajñā? 「世尊！若是諸法皆不行般若波羅蜜，云何行名菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If these dharmas all do not practise prajñāpāramitā, what practice is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā?" The previous ten questions each asked about one matter; this one question gathers up all of the previous ten. It is asked with great honesty: since the roads have all been cut off, he asks directly where the road is. The position of this question is most important—without this question, the ten answers before would be only a string of negations; with this question, the ten negations become the means of pressing out the right answer.

23. The Buddha answers with four counter-questions. The Buddha does not say directly 「如是行」 tr. "practise thus", but puts four questions in a row. The first question: 「汝見有法行般若波羅蜜者不？」 tr. "Do you see any dharma that practises prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"—dismissing the dharma that can practise. The second question: 「汝見般若波羅蜜菩薩摩訶薩可行處不？」 tr. "Do you see a place where the bodhisattva-mahāsattva can practise prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"—dismissing the place that is practised. The third question: 「汝所不見法，是法可得不？」 tr. "The dharma that you do not see—is this dharma findable or not?" Answer: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"—dismissing the dharma not seen as still something attained. The fourth question: 「若法不可得，是法當生不？」 tr. "If a dharma is unfindable, should this dharma arise or not?" Answer: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"—dismissing the unfindable dharma as still due to arise. The order of the four questions gathers along a single road: from the dharma to the place, from the place to the attaining, from the attaining to the arising, and at the last even 「生」 tr. "arising" is not granted. What are called the four answers are these four places where 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!" stands as an answer on its own; in the prediction passage below, the head of Subhūti's answer has one more instance of the same words, but it runs on into the words that follow and does not stand as a sentence on its own, so it is not in this count. One should note the skill of the third question: people often set up, in the place of ‘not seeing’, another ‘dharma that is not seen’ to take as something attained, and the Buddha pursues it with one more question right there.

24. The Buddha passes a verdict: this is called the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. 「須菩提！是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍。」 tr. "Subhūti! This is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas." The joint of the whole unit is here. As for what is called the acceptance of non-arising, the sūtra does not set up a separate definition; it takes the four answers before as its definition—seeing that no dharma practises, that there is no place where it can be practised, that the dharma not seen is unfindable, that the unfindable dharma should not arise—this is acceptance. Three matters follow. First, 「菩薩摩訶薩成就是忍，得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who accomplishes this acceptance obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; second, 「是名諸佛無所畏、無礙智」 tr. "this is called the fearlessness and unobstructed knowledge of the buddhas"; third, 「菩薩摩訶薩行是法忍，勤精進，若不得大智、一切種智，所謂阿耨多羅三藐三菩提智者，無有是處！」 tr. "if the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises this acceptance of dharmas and diligently exerts himself were not to obtain great knowledge, the omniscience of all kinds, namely the knowledge of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—there is no such possibility!"; and it explains why: 「是菩薩摩訶薩得無生法忍故，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不減不退。」 tr. "Because this bodhisattva-mahāsattva has obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, even up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi he does not decrease and does not retrogress." The order of the three matters cannot be reversed: first the prediction is spoken of, speaking of his position; next fearlessness and unobstructed knowledge, speaking of his being of one substance with the dharmas of the Buddha; last the certainty of obtaining, speaking of his end.

25. Is the prediction obtained in the mark of non-arising, in the mark of arising, in the mark of neither arising nor non-arising? Subhūti, having obtained the name 「無生忍」 tr. "acceptance of non-arising", at once raises questions on this name, three in all. The first question: 「諸法無生相，此中得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "The mark of the non-arising of dharmas—is the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi obtained in this or not?" Answer: 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!" The second question: 「諸法生相，此中得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "The mark of the arising of dharmas—is the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi obtained in this or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The third question: 「諸法非生非不生相，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "The mark of dharmas neither arising nor non-arising—is the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi obtained in it or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The three questions seal off each place in turn: non-arising, arising, neither arising nor non-arising—in none of the three places is there ground for receiving the prediction. The intent of this passage is very clear—the Buddha has just said 「菩薩摩訶薩成就是忍，得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who accomplishes this acceptance obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", and people at once take 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" as a real dharma to grasp at, so it must be broken at once.

26. Subhūti asks directly: how does one know the dharma by which the prediction is obtained? 「世尊！諸菩薩摩訶薩云何知諸法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How do the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas know by what dharmas the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is obtained?" It is of the same format as the eleventh, general question: since three roads have been sealed, he asks directly for the right road. This question and the earlier general question mirror each other front and back; it is the second joint in the questions and answers of this unit.

27. The Buddha counter-asks; Subhūti answers that he does not see. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「汝見有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "Do you see any dharma that obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi or not?" Subhūti answers: 「不也！世尊！我不見有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記，我亦不見法有得者、得處。」 tr. "No, World-Honored One! I do not see any dharma that obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor do I see any dharma that has one who obtains it or a place of obtaining." The answer has two items more than the question—「得者」 tr. "one who obtains it" and 「得處」 tr. "a place of obtaining"; these are the one who acts and that which is acted on of the four counter-questions before, and Subhūti supplies them here himself, which shows that he has already grasped the Buddha's meaning and does not wait for the Buddha to press him again.

28. The Buddha approves: when nothing is attained, he does not think this thought. The Buddha says: 「如是！如是！須菩提！若菩薩摩訶薩於一切法無所得時，不作是念：『我當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，用是事得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提處。』」 tr. "Just so! Just so, Subhūti! When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva has nothing to be attained in all dharmas, he does not think this thought: ‘I shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; by this matter anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is obtained; this is the place of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.’" The thoughts dismissed are also three matters—I shall obtain, by this matter it is obtained, this is the place of awakening; that is, the one who obtains, the cause of obtaining, and the place of obtaining. Last he speaks of the causes and conditions in two layers: 「諸菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，無諸憶想分別」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas who practise prajñāpāramitā have no recollection, imagining, and discrimination", and also 「般若波羅蜜中無諸分別憶想故」 tr. "because within prajñāpāramitā there is no discrimination, recollection, or imagining". The former speaks in terms of the person, the latter in terms of the dharma; the person's freedom from discrimination comes from the dharma's freedom from discrimination. Sūtra ② ends here.

29. The treatise-author's Question: the mark of prajñā has already been spoken of in many ways above; why ask again now? The treatise section opens at once with 「問曰：」 tr. "Question:"—the treatise sections of this chapter do not begin with 「釋曰：」 tr. "Explanation:"; both treatise sections are so, and it is recorded as it is. What is asked: 「上已種種說般若相，今何以更問？」 tr. "The mark of prajñā has already been spoken of in many ways above; why ask again now?" With this question the treatise-author raises a doubt on the reader's behalf: the mark of prajñā has been spoken of in more than one place earlier in the text; why trouble to ask again? He sets up this question precisely to give the answer below something to land on.

30. The treatise-author's Answer: prajñā is foremost and subtle, and one never tires of hearing it. The treatise-author answers: 「般若波羅蜜第一微妙，聞者無厭足，無滿時，無一定相，故不應難。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is foremost and subtle; those who hear it never tire of it, there is no time when they are sated, and it has no single fixed mark; therefore one should not object." The three phrases advance step by step—because it is subtle, those who hear it never tire of it; because they never tire of it, there is no time when they are sated; and the reason there is no time when they are sated is that it has no single fixed mark. Since it has no fixed mark, speaking of it is inexhaustible and asking of it is inexhaustible too; therefore 「不應難」 tr. "one should not object", that is, one should not treat asking again as a fault. He further gives a piece of evidence: 「如十住大菩薩於般若波羅蜜猶未滿足，何況須菩提小乘人！」 tr. "As even the great bodhisattvas of the ten abodes are not yet fulfilled with regard to prajñāpāramitā, how much less Subhūti, a man of the Small Vehicle!" By the unfulfilment of those of the ten abodes he shows the still greater unfulfilment of a man of the Small Vehicle; this is a way of arguing from the high to the low, not a disparagement.

31. Furthermore: above he heard prajñā praised as father and mother, and so he asks again. 「復次，上聞種種讚般若是父、是母等，是故更問。」 tr. "Furthermore, above he heard prajñā praised in many ways as father, as mother, and so on; therefore he asks again." This is the second answer, standing side by side with the first and not obstructing it. The first answer speaks in terms of the substance of prajñā; this answer speaks in terms of the questioner's occasion: at the end of fascicle 76 the Buddha had just praised the six perfections with twelve matters—they are the World-Honored One, are the path, are the great light, are the torch, are knowledge, are wisdom, are the rescue, are the refuge, are the island, are the ultimate path, are father, are mother; having heard such praise, one would naturally seek their substance and mark. The two answers come out together and the treatise-author does not judge which is better; this is precisely the constant method of this treatise.

32. Because of the question, the Buddha speaks at length for the sake of the other beings. 「佛因須菩提問，為餘眾生故，廣說般若波羅蜜相。」 tr. "Because of Subhūti's question, the Buddha, for the sake of the other beings, spoke at length of the mark of prajñāpāramitā." This sentence is the treatise-author's placing of the sūtra text: though the questioner is Subhūti, the intent of the speaker does not stop at Subhūti. Wherever in the sūtras there is one question and the Buddha speaks at length, it should mostly be seen this way—the question is the occasion; the speaking is for the assembly.

33. The explanation of the mark of space. The treatise-author cites the sūtra and explains it: 「須菩提！所謂虛空相是般若波羅蜜相。如虛空無色相、無非色相，般若波羅蜜亦如是無所有相。」 tr. "Subhūti! What is called the mark of space is the mark of prajñāpāramitā. As space has no mark of form and no mark of non-form, prajñāpāramitā likewise is without the mark of anything existent." The whole explanation lies in the seven Chinese characters 「無色相、無非色相」 tr. "no mark of form and no mark of non-form". The reason space serves as the simile is not only its openness but, more, its double negation—it cannot be said to be a mark of form, and it cannot be said to be a mark of non-form either. The prajñā that is without the mark of anything existent is likewise: it cannot be held to be existent, nor can it be held to be non-existent. If one takes only 「如虛空」 tr. "like space" and not this double negation, one easily falls into taking emptiness as a thing.

34. Subhūti asks further; the Buddha answers that there are. 「須菩提更問：『頗有因緣，諸法相如般若相不？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked further: ‘Are there perhaps causes and conditions whereby the mark of all dharmas is like the mark of prajñā, or not?’" Here the treatise-author retells the sūtra's question in narrative form and does not use the 「問曰」 tr. "Question:" format; in reading, one should know that it is a re-citation of the sūtra and not the treatise-author asking himself. 「佛答：『有。一切法究竟空、究竟離相，故說：「如般若波羅蜜相，一切法亦如是。」』」 tr. "The Buddha answered: ‘There are. All dharmas are ultimately empty and ultimately separated from marks; therefore it is said: “As is the mark of prajñāpāramitā, so too are all dharmas.”’" The two Chinese characters 「究竟」 tr. "ultimately" in the answer are the force the treatise-author adds in explaining the sūtra—the sūtra says only ‘separated from marks, of the mark of emptiness’; the treatise uses 「究竟」 tr. "ultimately" to show that it is thorough, meaning that it is not empty in parts nor separated in small measure.

35. Subhūti raises a difficulty: within what is separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness, how are there stain and purity, how is the path obtained? 「須菩提難：『若一切法離相、空相，云何知有垢、淨？云何菩薩得無上道？』」 tr. "Subhūti objected: ‘If all dharmas are separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness, how is it known that there are stain and purity? How does the bodhisattva obtain the unsurpassed path?’" The treatise-author gathers the three layers of difficulty in the sūtra into two questions: stain and purity, and obtaining the path. He gathers them without losing anything, because the third difficulty, 「無有菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 tr. "there is no bodhisattva who obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", is already contained in 「云何菩薩得無上道」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva obtain the unsurpassed path". Here one can see the treatise-author's method of retelling the sūtra: he takes its bones, not its wording.

36. I and mine are ultimately non-existent; root and branch are both empty. The treatise-author first cites the Buddha's counter-question: 「佛告須菩提：『於汝意云何？眾生長夜行我、我所等。』」 tr. "The Buddha told Subhūti: ‘What do you think? Beings through the long night have practised I, mine, and so on.’" He then at once explains its meaning: 「是佛所說義，如我、我所畢竟無，眾生狂顛倒因緣故，生諸煩惱；煩惱因緣故有業；業因緣故，於生死中往來——是事本末空。」 tr. "The meaning of what the Buddha says is this: though I and mine are ultimately non-existent, because of the causes and conditions of their mad inversion beings give rise to the afflictions; because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions there are deeds; because of the causes and conditions of deeds they go and come within birth and death—this matter is empty from root to branch." Here a chain of causes and conditions is laid out: inversion gives rise to the afflictions, the afflictions give rise to deeds, deeds bring about going and coming. And at the end one sentence is passed, 「是事本末空」 tr. "this matter is empty from root to branch"—it does not say that this chain does not hold; it says that it holds and has no self-nature. Why is that? The treatise-author explains it himself: 「我無故，我所心虛誑；我所心虛誑故，諸餘因果展轉法皆是虛誑。」 tr. "Because there is no self, the mind of what belongs to self is false and deceptive; because the mind of what belongs to self is false and deceptive, all the other dharmas of cause and effect that follow one upon another are false and deceptive." False and deceptive does not equal non-existent; what is false and deceptive has the matter but not the reality.

37. Contemplating the five aggregates with real wisdom—as when the sun rises, all darkness is dispelled. 「若因般若波羅蜜實智慧，觀五眾無常、苦、空、無我，離自相，自相空，從本來畢竟不生。」 tr. "If by the real wisdom of prajñāpāramitā one contemplates the five aggregates as impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, separated from specific marks, empty of specific marks, from the very beginning ultimately non-arising." What is contemplated here is four in all—impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and no-self, all contemplated with regard to the five aggregates; the contemplation reaches 「離自相，自相空」 tr. "separated from specific marks, empty of specific marks", and on to 「從本來畢竟不生」 tr. "from the very beginning ultimately non-arising". Once it is so contemplated, then 「我、我所心則滅；如日出，眾冥皆除」 tr. "the mind of I and mine ceases; as when the sun rises, all darkness is dispelled". The point the sun-rise simile takes lies in ‘not waiting to drive each one out’—once the sun has risen, the darkness has no place to stand; it does not mean that there is some other dharma that removes the dark. What follows goes along with this and lists the order of ceasing: because the mind of I and mine ceases, the other afflictions cease; because the other afflictions cease, the causes and conditions of deeds cease; because the causes and conditions of deeds cease, going and coming within birth and death is cut off; 「是名為淨」 tr. "this is called purity". It stands exactly opposite to the order of arising in the preceding passage—one in forward order, one in reverse, forming a pair.

38. Though the marks of dharmas are all empty, yet by these causes and conditions there are purity and stain. 「雖一切法相皆空，亦以如是因緣故有淨、有垢。」 tr. "Though the marks of all dharmas are all empty, yet by such causes and conditions there are purity and stain." This sentence is the treatise-author's conclusion to the two preceding passages, and also the direct answer to Subhūti's first layer of difficulty: emptiness and stain and purity do not obstruct each other, because what stain and purity rest on is whether causes and conditions are practised or not practised, not the self-nature of dharmas. In reading this sentence one should look back at the Buddha's way of answering in the sūtra—the Buddha answered by asking about the mind of I and mine, and the treatise-author states plainly the principle of that way of answering.

39. Subhūti, having thought it over and weighed it, speaks to the Buddha. 「爾時，須菩提思惟籌量佛語已，白佛言：『世尊！菩薩如是行，實不行色等一切法。何以故？是菩薩不得是法若行、行處、行者。』」 tr. "At that time Subhūti, having considered and reckoned the Buddha's words, said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! The bodhisattva who practises thus really does not practise form or any dharma at all. Why? This bodhisattva does not obtain this dharma, whether as practice, place of practice, or one who practises.’" The treatise-author specially adds the four Chinese characters 「思惟籌量」 tr. "considered and reckoned" to point out that Subhūti's words here are not a response made as soon as he heard, but a declaring and confirming after he has digested it. The three matters raised—practice, place of practice, one who practises—are the sūtra's dharma of practice, place of practice, and one who practises; the order differs a little and the meaning is the same.

40. The explanation of ‘none can subdue him’—clinging to provisional names and practising the real dharma. The treatise-author cites the sūtra's 「若菩薩能如是行，一切人、天世間無能降伏」 tr. "if the bodhisattva can practise thus, no one in the world of humans and gods can subdue him" and explains it in four layers. First, the general judgement: 「世間人皆著假名，是行者行實法，是故不能伏。」 tr. "The people of the world all cling to provisional names; this practitioner practises the real dharma; therefore they cannot subdue him." The one who subdues and the one subdued must stand on the same layer; since what they cling to differs, there is naturally nothing that can be subdued. Second, the extension: 「世間人著一切虛誑顛倒及虛誑果報，是菩薩於畢竟空中尚不著，何況餘法！」 tr. "The people of the world cling to all that is false, deceptive, and inverted, and to false and deceptive retributions; this bodhisattva does not cling even to ultimate emptiness, how much less to other dharmas!" Since he does not cling even to ultimate emptiness, there is not one place where a hand can be laid on him. Third, it divides the sūtra's two sentences: 「天、人、阿修羅世間者，是三種善道中有智慧人」 tr. "the world of gods, humans, and asuras means the people with wisdom in the three good destinies"—this speaks of those who have not obtained the path; 「又復一切聲聞、辟支佛所不能及者，上三善道，據未得道人；此中說得道者不能及」 tr. "and further, as for ‘cannot be reached by any śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha’: the three good destinies above refer to people who have not obtained the path; here it says that those who have obtained the path cannot reach him"—this speaks of those who have already obtained the path. One sentence governs ordinary people, one sentence governs the noble ones; the sūtra's two sentences are not a repetition. Fourth, it speaks of the causes and conditions for his being unreachable: 「菩薩入法位，一切魔、魔所使無能惱者」 tr. "the bodhisattva enters the Dharma-position, and none of the Māras or those Māra employs can trouble him", and also 「是菩薩常行應薩婆若心，則近阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。何以故？不著一切法，常集一切助道法故。」 tr. "This bodhisattva constantly practises the mind that accords with sarvajñā, and so is near to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Why? Because he does not cling to any dharma, and constantly gathers all the dharmas that aid the path." In the last sentence, 「不著」 tr. "does not cling" and 「常集」 tr. "constantly gathers" raised together are most worth savouring—not clinging does not obstruct constantly gathering, and constantly gathering does not obstruct not clinging.

41. The Buddha approves his words and praises him. 「佛可其言而讚。」 tr. "The Buddha approved his words and praised him." With six Chinese characters the treatise-author concludes the passage above, and with six Chinese characters he opens the passage below. Extremely short sentences of this kind are often read hastily in the treatise, but they are in fact the pivots of the sections: Subhūti's declaring and confirming above here obtains the Buddha's approval, and what follows then turns to the weighing that benefits others.

42. First he praises benefit for oneself; now he makes clear benefit for others—the question of weighing. 「佛欲以如是智慧為他人說故，先讚菩薩自利益；今為利益他，分別福德果報故，問須菩提……」 tr. "Because the Buddha wished this wisdom to be spoken for others, he first praised the bodhisattva's benefit for himself; now, for the sake of benefiting others, and to distinguish the retribution of merit, he asks Subhūti …" This sentence fixes the character of the two rounds of weighing: the weighing is not comparing the amount of merit to exhort people to seek merit; it is to show the matter of ‘speaking this wisdom for others’. The sūtra text cited is abbreviated with the four Chinese characters 「如經廣說」 tr. "as the sūtra says at length": 「於汝意云何？閻浮提眾生盡得人身，如經廣說。乃至應薩婆若心，出一切福田之上。」 tr. "What do you think? The beings of Jambudvīpa all obtain a human body—as the sūtra says at length. And so on up to: the mind that accords with sarvajñā goes beyond all fields of merit." That the treatise-author does not record again sūtra text already given in full is a constant practice of this treatise; it is not abridging and leaving unexplained.

43. The edge of the fields of merit—because prajñā cannot be exhausted. 「是中說因緣：『若菩薩能自行般若波羅蜜，亦能教化，是人於一切福田能到其邊。』」 tr. "Here the causes and conditions are spoken: ‘If a bodhisattva can himself practise prajñāpāramitā and can also teach and transform, this person can reach the edge of all fields of merit.’" The treatise-author at once explains the measure of 「福田」 tr. "fields of merit": 「福田者，從須陀洹乃至佛。」 tr. "Fields of merit run from the srota-āpanna up to the Buddha." He also explains why he can reach their edge: 「是菩薩能如所說般若波羅蜜履行，則得作佛。」 tr. "This bodhisattva can walk in prajñāpāramitā as it has been spoken, and so obtains buddhahood." Last he speaks of why it surpasses other merit: 「餘福德善法，離般若波羅蜜故皆盡，般若波羅蜜不可盡故。」 tr. "Other merit and wholesome dharmas are all exhausted because they are apart from prajñāpāramitā; because prajñāpāramitā cannot be exhausted." Exhaustible and inexhaustible are the verdict of this passage. Merit apart from prajñā has a measure, and so it can be exhausted; prajñā is measureless, and so it cannot be exhausted.

44. The causes and conditions of his power—the acceptance of equality and great compassion as the root of the Great Vehicle. 「言無有餘福德如菩薩摩訶薩力勢者，是中自說因緣：『菩薩行般若時，得諸法平等忍；得平等忍故，雖行空，亦能生四無量心。』」 tr. "As for the saying that no other merit has power like the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's, here the causes and conditions are spoken by the sūtra itself: ‘When the bodhisattva practises prajñā, he obtains the acceptance of the equality of all dharmas; because he obtains the acceptance of equality, though he practises emptiness he can also give rise to the four immeasurable minds.’" Here a link is supplied that the sūtra text lacks but that the principle requires: the acceptance of equality. With this acceptance one can 「雖行空，亦能生四無量心」 tr. "though practising emptiness, also give rise to the four immeasurable minds"—the reason emptiness and kindness and compassion do not hinder each other lies precisely here. Among the four immeasurable minds the treatise-author specially marks out one: 「四無量心中，大悲是大乘之本」 tr. "among the four immeasurable minds, great compassion is the root of the Great Vehicle", and he explains its sphere: 「見眾生就於死法，如囚受戮。」 tr. "He sees beings going toward the dharma of death, like a prisoner going to execution." The simile of the prisoner going to execution takes the suffering that is already fixed but has not yet arrived, which an onlooker has no way to bear in his place. He concludes with a turn: 「諸菩薩能生六波羅蜜等乃至一切種智，是故諸菩薩能生大悲。」 tr. "The bodhisattvas can give rise to the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds; therefore the bodhisattvas can give rise to great compassion." One must note the direction of this sentence—it is not that because of great compassion they can give rise to the six perfections; it is that because they can give rise to the six perfections and on up to the omniscience of all kinds, they can give rise to great compassion; when there is the power to save, compassion is then real.

45. Before obtaining the unsurpassed path he is already a field of merit. 「是故是人雖未得無上道，已是一切眾生之福田。」 tr. "Therefore, though this person has not yet obtained the unsurpassed path, he is already the field of merit of all beings." This sentence carries on from the above and sets up a rank: not yet a Buddha, and yet already fit to receive offerings. The First Part's fascicle said that Māra deceives the bodhisattva with ‘you have already received the prediction’ and makes him give rise to pride; here it says that there really is virtue fit for this without waiting for the prediction. Only when the two places are read side by side does one know that this sentence is not self-approval.

46. One who would not eat the alms of the country emptily should train in prajñā. 「是故言：『菩薩摩訶薩若欲不空食國中施者，當學般若波羅蜜。』」 tr. "Therefore it is said: ‘If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva wishes not to eat the alms of the country emptily, he should train in prajñāpāramitā.’" The treatise-author cites the sūtra and takes the three Chinese characters 「不空食」 tr. "not eating emptily" as his heading. The sūtra writes 「不虛食」 tr. "not eating in vain"; the treatise-author writes 「不空食」 tr. "not eating emptily"; ‘in vain’ and ‘emptily’ are interchangeable wording, with no difference in meaning. This heading brings the meaning of the field of merit spoken of above down onto the one who receives offerings.

47. The meaning of not eating emptily—he can repay the donor, and can make the donor's merit inexhaustible. 「不空食名能報施主，能生道，能令施主之福無盡，乃至入涅槃。」 tr. "Not eating emptily means he can repay the donor, can give rise to the path, and can make the donor's merit inexhaustible, even up to entering nirvāṇa." Three matters stand side by side: repaying the donor speaks in terms of the receiver; giving rise to the path speaks in terms of the Dharma; making the donor's merit inexhaustible speaks in terms of the giver. The three run through as one—when the receiver can give rise to the path, the giver's merit is then inexhaustible; if the receiver has no path, the giver's merit has a measure and can be exhausted. This passage is the right understanding of the phrase 「不空食」 tr. "not eating emptily"; it must not be read only as the receiver's own sense of shame.

48. Showing the paths of the three vehicles, being a great light, pulling out of the four bonds, giving the five eyes—the thought that accords with it is the mind of prajñā. 「若示眾生三乘道，為眾生示一切智大明，亦欲拔出三界獄中四縛，欲令眾生得五眼，應常行般若波羅蜜相應念。」 tr. "If he would show beings the paths of the three vehicles, show beings the great light of omniscience, and also wishes to pull them out of the four bonds in the prison of the three realms, and wishes to make beings obtain the five eyes, he should constantly practise the thought that accords with prajñāpāramitā." Here 「三界獄中四縛」 tr. "the four bonds in the prison of the three realms" and 「五眼」 tr. "the five eyes" are both words the treatise-author uses in explaining the sūtra: the sūtra says 「拔出三界牢獄」 tr. "pull out of the prison of the three realms" and 「與一切眾生眼」 tr. "give eyes to all beings"; the treatise-author uses the four bonds to speak of what binds them and the five eyes to speak of what is given—this explains the treatise from its own text and does not cite another account; only, the treatise-author here merely raises the names of the four bonds and the five eyes and does not give their items, nor are their items found elsewhere in this unit, and they are not forcibly supplied here. The last sentence is the most important: 「相應念者，即是般若心。若行般若波羅蜜心；若有所說，但說般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The thought that accords with it is the mind of prajñā. Either he practises the mind of prajñāpāramitā, or, if he has something to say, he says only prajñāpāramitā." He explains the sūtra's 「相應念」 tr. "the thought that accords with it" directly as 「般若心」 tr. "the mind of prajñā"; the two matters of speech and silence in the next passage come out of this.

49. The Buddha commands his disciples constantly to practise two matters. 「佛勅弟子，若和合共住，常行二事：一者、賢聖默然，二者、說法。」 tr. "The Buddha commanded his disciples, when they live together in harmony, constantly to practise two matters: first, the noble silence of the worthies and sages; second, speaking the Dharma." These two matters are the treatise-author citing the Buddha's standing rule to explain the preceding sentence. The number of two matters is not in the sūtra; the treatise-author raises it himself, and its items too are listed by the treatise-author himself—silence and speaking the Dharma; no item is added beyond these. In reading this passage one must know that what is cited is the observance of the Saṅgha living together, and the treatise-author takes it to match the speech and silence of prajñā.

50. The noble silence of the worthies and sages and speaking the Dharma—going out of and into prajñā, and not letting other minds enter. 「『賢聖默然』者，是般若心；『說法』者，說般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "‘The noble silence of the worthies and sages’ is the mind of prajñā; ‘speaking the Dharma’ is speaking prajñāpāramitā." Once the two matters have been matched, the treatise-author speaks of their cycle: 「是人從般若心出，說般若波羅蜜；說般若波羅蜜已，還入般若中，不令餘心、餘語得入。晝夜常行，是不休不息。」 tr. "This person comes out of the mind of prajñā and speaks prajñāpāramitā; having spoken prajñāpāramitā, he enters back into prajñā, not letting other minds or other words enter. Practising it constantly day and night, this is without resting and without stopping." Coming out and speaking, speaking and entering back—this is one going and one returning; what is guarded lies in the one sentence 「不令餘心、餘語得入」 tr. "not letting other minds or other words enter". At the end it says 「如是得先所說功德」 tr. "thus he obtains the merit spoken of before", pointing back to the merit listed earlier, which shows that the two matters of speech and silence are not a separate gate of practice.

51. The simile of the poor man who loses a treasure. 「佛欲令是事明了，故說譬喻：『如貧人失大價寶，常念不離。菩薩亦如是不離薩婆若心，常行般若波羅蜜，不休不息。』」 tr. "The Buddha, wishing to make this matter clear, therefore spoke a simile: ‘As a poor man who has lost a treasure of great price constantly thinks of it and never leaves it, so the bodhisattva likewise does not leave the mind of sarvajñā, constantly practising prajñāpāramitā without resting and without stopping.’" The sūtra has a man who obtains a maṇi jewel and loses it again; the treatise-author has a poor man who loses a treasure of great price—the point taken is the same, both lying in the urgency of the thought after the loss; and in changing 「士夫」 tr. "a man" into 「貧人」 tr. "a poor man" the treatise-author shows still more that what he loses is bound up with his body and life. The intent of this simile is not to teach people to grieve, but to teach them that the thought needs no forcing: one who truly knows it for a great treasure and has lost it thinks of it without being urged.

52. Subhūti raises a difficulty: all thoughts are empty; how does he not leave the thought of sarvajñā? 「爾時，須菩提聞是事，白佛言：『世尊！若一切諸念空，云何菩薩不離薩婆若念？空中，菩薩不可得，薩婆若亦不可得。』」 tr. "At that time Subhūti, hearing this matter, said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If all thoughts are empty, how does the bodhisattva not leave the thought of sarvajñā? Within emptiness the bodhisattva is unfindable, and sarvajñā is also unfindable.’" The treatise-author retells the sūtra's difficulty, still in narrative form. What are named as unfindable are two—the bodhisattva and sarvajñā; compared with the sūtra's three matters it lacks one, 「念」 tr. "thought", but the Buddha's answer below speaks precisely of the self-nature of thought, so nothing is lost.

53. The Buddha answers: to know that all dharmas are separated from self-nature, that the mark of dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality abide always in the world. 「佛答：『若菩薩知一切法離自性，非聲聞、辟支佛所作，亦非佛所作，自從因緣出；諸法法相、如、實際常住世間，即是菩薩不離般若波羅蜜行。』」 tr. "The Buddha answered: ‘If the bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are separated from self-nature, not made by the śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, nor made by the Buddha, but come forth of themselves from causes and conditions; that the mark of dharmas of all dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality abide always in the world—this is the bodhisattva's practice that does not leave prajñāpāramitā.’" Beyond the sūtra text the treatise-author supplies one phrase, 「自從因緣出」 tr. "come forth of themselves from causes and conditions"—the sūtra says only that they are not made by the two vehicles and not made by the Buddha; the treatise points out where they come from: they come forth from causes and conditions. Not made, and coming from conditions—this is precisely the constant way this treatise explains emptiness. The four Chinese characters 「常住世間」 tr. "abide always in the world" also deserve attention: what abides always is the mark of dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality, not some one dharma; to read it as some permanently abiding thing existing in the world would be a great error.

54. The Buddha himself speaks the causes and conditions: because it is empty and separated, it neither increases nor decreases. 「佛自說因緣：『般若波羅蜜空故、離故，不增不減。』」 tr. "The Buddha himself spoke the causes and conditions: ‘Because prajñāpāramitā is empty and separated, it neither increases nor decreases.’" The treatise-author uses 「自說因緣」 tr. "himself spoke the causes and conditions" to point out that this sentence is the reason given by the sūtra text itself, not added by the treatise-author. The reason it neither increases nor decreases lies in emptiness and separation—if it had self-nature, there would be ground for increasing and decreasing.

55. Subhūti asks again: if its nature is empty, how does one unite with prajñā and obtain the unsurpassed path? 「須菩提聞是，復問佛：『若般若波羅蜜性空，云何菩薩與般若合得無上道？』」 tr. "Subhūti, hearing this, asked the Buddha again: ‘If the nature of prajñāpāramitā is empty, how does the bodhisattva unite with prajñā and obtain the unsurpassed path?’" The treatise-author changes the sūtra's 「等」 tr. "equal" into 「合」 tr. "unite"—‘equal’ is matching, ‘unite’ is according; the meanings reach each other. This question is the retelling in the treatise section of the second half of the second layer of difficulty.

56. The Buddha answers following his words: prajñā is suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality. 「佛隨須菩提語：『若菩薩與般若波羅蜜合，則不增不減；諸法如、法性、實際不增不減故，般若波羅蜜不增不減。』」 tr. "The Buddha, following Subhūti's words, said: ‘If the bodhisattva unites with prajñāpāramitā, then there is neither increase nor decrease; because the suchness of dharmas, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality neither increase nor decrease, prajñāpāramitā neither increases nor decreases.’" The five Chinese characters 「隨須菩提語」 tr. "following Subhūti's words" are the treatise-author pointing out the Buddha's way of answering—he answers in the very words of the question and does not set up new names. After the answer the treatise-author himself adds a turn: 「般若波羅蜜，即是諸法如、法性、實際；如、法性、實際，即是般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is the suchness of dharmas, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality; suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are prajñāpāramitā." The two sentences point to each other; they state plainly the relation of identity contained in the character 「故」 tr. "because" of the sūtra text.

57. The explanation of neither one nor different—worldly dharmas are either one or two; prajñā is not so. 「此中佛自說因緣：『如如等三法非一非異，般若亦如是。』」 tr. "Here the Buddha himself speaks the causes and conditions: ‘As the three dharmas, suchness and the rest, are neither one nor different, so too is prajñā.’" The treatise-author at once illustrates it by the reckoning of the world: 「世間法，非一即是二，不異即是一；般若波羅蜜則不爾。」 tr. "Worldly dharmas, if not one, are two; if not different, are one; prajñāpāramitā is not so." One and two, one and different—on worldly dharmas these are an exhaustive division into two; prajñā goes beyond this division, and so it is called 「無量無邊」 tr. "measureless and boundless". He concludes with three phrases: 「空、無相、無作故不增不減；若菩薩得是不增不減，則能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Because of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, it neither increases nor decreases; if the bodhisattva obtains this neither-increase-nor-decrease, then he can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." That the three gates of liberation appear here is precisely to say where neither increase nor decrease comes from; it is not setting up a separate section.

58. Hearing this, he penetrates without obstruction—because the mark of self is severed, he has nothing to fear. 「若菩薩聞是事，通達無礙、入佛智慧，雖未作佛，信力故於佛法中亦無疑，不怖、不畏。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva hears this matter, he penetrates it without obstruction and enters the wisdom of the Buddha; though he has not yet become a Buddha, by the power of faith he has no doubt with regard to the Buddha's Dharma, and is not terrified and not afraid." The treatise-author specially marks out the two Chinese characters 「信力」 tr. "the power of faith"—that one can be without doubt before becoming a Buddha is not because one has already realised, but because the power of faith upholds one. He further explains why he has nothing to fear: 「凡夫著我心故有畏，是菩薩我相斷故無所畏。」 tr. "Ordinary people have fear because they cling to the mind of self; this bodhisattva has nothing to fear because the mark of self is severed." The root of fear is in the self; sever the self, and fear has nowhere to arise from. At the end it says: 「當知是菩薩即住阿鞞跋致地，亦能正行般若。」 tr. "Know that this bodhisattva abides in the ground of the avaivartika, and can also rightly practise prajñā." This corresponds to the sūtra's words of testing, and also reflects back on the 「不證」 tr. "not realising" of the chapter title—not being startled and not terrified, and not taking realisation in a dream, are one and the same ground of mind.

59. The explanation of the eleven questions, the first: is the mark of emptiness practising prajñā? 「須菩提聞是菩薩正行般若波羅蜜，是故問佛：『世尊！般若波羅蜜觀一切空、不牢固，是空相為行般若不？』」 tr. "Subhūti heard that this bodhisattva rightly practises prajñāpāramitā, and therefore asked the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Prajñāpāramitā contemplates everything as empty and not solid—is this mark of emptiness practising prajñā or not?’" The treatise-author first gives the reason for the question—because he heard 「正行般若」 tr. "rightly practises prajñā", he asks what practising is. 「佛言：『不也！』何以故？若空無有法，云何行般若？」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘No!’ Why? If in emptiness there is no dharma, how is prajñā practised?" What follows 「何以故」 tr. "Why?" is the treatise-author explaining the reason for the Buddha's answer, not the Buddha's words; in reading, they should be kept apart. The reason explained is very simple: since there is no dharma in emptiness, there is no one who can practise.

60. The second: apart from emptiness, is there some further dharma that practises prajñā? 「『離是空，更有法行般若不？』佛言：『不也！』何以故？若一切法空、無相、無作，云何離空更有法？是故說『不』。」 tr. "‘Apart from this emptiness, is there some further dharma that practises prajñā or not?’ The Buddha said: ‘No!’ Why? If all dharmas are emptiness, the signless, and non-action, how could there be some further dharma apart from emptiness? Therefore he says ‘no’." The treatise-author's explanation still dismisses the question as it is put: since all dharmas are empty, signless, and of non-action, in the place of 「離空」 tr. "apart from emptiness" there is no dharma that can be set up. These two questions, one of identity and one of separation, correspond to the first pair among the first four questions of the sūtra.

61. The third: does prajñā practise prajñā?—a dharma does not practise itself. 「須菩提聞空非行般若、離空非行般若，一切法皆攝在般若中，今但問：『般若行般若不？』」 tr. "Subhūti heard that emptiness is not practising prajñā, and that apart from emptiness is not practising prajñā; all dharmas are contained in prajñā; now he asks only: ‘Does prajñā practise prajñā or not?’" The treatise-author first describes the momentum of his turning the question: once the two roads are cut off, he asks about prajñā itself. He explains: 「法不自行，應以異法行，是故言『不』。」 tr. "A dharma does not practise itself; it should be practised by a different dharma; therefore it is said ‘no’." Four Chinese characters make the verdict—「法不自行」 tr. "a dharma does not practise itself". This is a general rule, not only for prajñā; the explanations of the five aggregates and of the dharmas that aid the path below all come out of it.

62. The fourth: apart from prajñā, is there some further dharma that practises prajñā? 「復問：『離般若，更有法行般若不？』佛言：『不。』何以故？一切法攝在般若中，更無法行般若。」 tr. "He asked again: ‘Apart from prajñā, is there some further dharma that practises prajñā or not?’ The Buddha said: ‘No.’ Why? All dharmas are contained in prajñā; there is no further dharma that practises prajñā." Since the previous passage has said that a dharma does not practise itself and should be practised by a different dharma, someone is bound to ask: then where is the different dharma? This question is exactly that. The answer lies in 「一切法攝在般若中」 tr. "all dharmas are contained in prajñā"—since there is no dharma outside prajñā, the so-called different dharma does not exist either. The first four questions end here.

63. The fifth: do the five aggregates practise prajñā? 「先來略問行般若者，今問名字因緣：『五眾行般若不？』」 tr. "Before, he asked in brief about the one who practises prajñā; now he asks about the causes and conditions of the name: ‘Do the five aggregates practise prajñā or not?’" The treatise-author points out the turn in the questioning—the first four questions were brief questions; from here on he asks about what the name rests on. What is called the causes and conditions of the name means that a person is only a provisional name for the coming together of the five aggregates. 「佛言：『不。』何以故？是五眾從虛誑和合因緣，不自在故，無住相，云何能行？」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘No.’ Why? These five aggregates come from false and deceptive causes and conditions coming together; because they are not independent, they have no abiding mark; how could they practise?" Three matters serve as the explanation: false and deceptive coming together, not being independent, having no abiding mark. Having no abiding mark is especially important—practice must have abiding before it has somewhere to proceed from; without abiding there is no such thing as practice.

64. The sixth: do the six perfections and the other dharmas that aid the path practise prajñā? 「須菩提更問：『若菩薩假名字空不實故不行般若，今六波羅蜜等諸助道法行般若波羅蜜不？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked further: ‘If the bodhisattva does not practise prajñā because the provisional name is empty and unreal, do the six perfections and the other dharmas that aid the path now practise prajñāpāramitā or not?’" The questioning turns again: since the person cannot practise, can the dharmas practise? 「佛言：『不。』何以故？如五眾和合有故不能行，是諸法亦如是。」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘No.’ Why? As the five aggregates cannot practise because they exist by coming together, so too are these dharmas." Taking the five aggregates as the example for all dharmas—whatever exists by coming together falls under this same verdict. Here one can see that in explaining the sūtra the treatise-author does not set up a new principle item by item, but runs one principle through them all.

65. The seventh: do the mark of emptiness of form and the other dharmas, and suchness and the limit of reality, practise prajñā? 「『色等法空相、不牢固，如、法相、法位、法住、實際，是法行般若不？』佛答：『是法無為法，不生不滅，常住自性故不行。』」 tr. "‘The mark of emptiness of form and the other dharmas, their not being solid, suchness, the mark of dharmas, the position of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the limit of reality—do these dharmas practise prajñā or not?’ The Buddha answered: ‘These dharmas are unconditioned dharmas, neither arising nor ceasing, abiding always in their self-nature; therefore they do not practise.’" The previous two questions dismissed the conditioned dharmas that come together; this question dismisses the unconditioned—suchness and the limit of reality. The reason they do not practise changes—it is not falseness and having no abiding; it is 「不生不滅，常住自性」 tr. "neither arising nor ceasing, abiding always in their self-nature"; since there is no arising and ceasing, there is nothing that can be called practice. The conditioned does not practise because it has no abiding; the unconditioned does not practise because it has no change; both roads are cut off. The explanation of the sūtra's ten questions ends here.

66. The general question: who is it that practises prajñā? 「須菩提問佛：『世尊！假名字故，人不行；諸法亦和合因緣生、無自性故亦不行，誰當行般若？若不行，云何得無上道？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Because it is a provisional name, the person does not practise; dharmas too, because they arise from causes and conditions coming together and have no self-nature, also do not practise; who then is it that practises prajñā? If there is no practising, how is the unsurpassed path obtained?’" The treatise-author retells the sūtra's eleventh, general question more plainly—the sūtra asks only 「云何行名菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "what practice is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā"; the treatise asks directly 「誰當行般若」 tr. "who then is it that practises prajñā", and adds a sentence, 「若不行，云何得無上道」 tr. "if there is no practising, how is the unsurpassed path obtained". With both roads, person and dharma, cut off, he asks where the practitioner is.

67. The Buddha answers with a counter-question. 「今佛以反問答：『於汝意云何？』」 tr. "Now the Buddha answers with a counter-question: ‘What do you think?’" The treatise-author first points out that the way of answering is a counter-question, and then says why the Buddha uses a counter-question: 「須菩提從佛急求行般若者，是故佛問：『汝以慧眼見，定有一法行般若不？』」 tr. "Subhūti urgently sought from the Buddha the one who practises prajñā; therefore the Buddha asked: ‘Do you see with the wisdom-eye that there is definitely a dharma that practises prajñā, or not?’" The two Chinese characters 「急求」 tr. "urgently sought" are set down with great precision—the questioner has already presupposed in his mind that there must be a practitioner who can be pointed to; the Buddha does not expound the Dharma to him head-on, but only makes him go and look for himself. What is asked is further limited to the two matters 「慧眼」 tr. "the wisdom-eye" and 「定有」 tr. "definitely there is": not by the fleshly eye or the divine eye, and no definite dharma is allowed.

68. Subhūti answers from the three gates of liberation that he does not see. 「須菩提因三解脫門入諸法實相中，法相不可得，何況行者！是故答言：『世尊！不見有行般若者。』」 tr. "Subhūti, by the three gates of liberation, has entered the real mark of all dharmas; the mark of dharmas is unfindable, how much less one who practises! Therefore he answered: ‘World-Honored One! I do not see anyone who practises prajñā.’" The treatise-author explains why he can answer—not by inference, but by entering the real mark through the three gates of liberation. 「法相不可得，何況行者」 tr. "the mark of dharmas is unfindable, how much less one who practises" argues from the heavy to the light: the dharma relied on is still unfindable; the person who relies on it can still less be spoken of.

69. He asks again about the place of practice; the answer is that he does not see it—all contemplations cease. 「復問：『汝見是般若波羅蜜菩薩行處不？』須菩提答：『不見。』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘Do you see the place where the bodhisattva practises this prajñāpāramitā or not?’ Subhūti answered: ‘I do not see it.’" The one asking here is the Buddha. The treatise-author explains why he does not see it: 「般若波羅蜜中一切諸觀滅：若常若無常、若生滅等，無一法定相是般若，云何當說是般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "Within prajñāpāramitā all contemplations cease: whether permanent or impermanent, whether arising and ceasing, and so on—no dharma with a fixed mark is prajñā; how then could one say, ‘this is prajñāpāramitā’?" What ceases is 「觀」 tr. "contemplation"—every discriminating contemplation, permanent and impermanent, arising and ceasing, and so on. Because contemplation ceases there is no fixed mark to point to; because there is no fixed mark there is no place to practise.

70. He asks again whether the dharma not seen exists or does not exist—the wisdom-eye is real; the fleshly eye and the divine eye are false and deceptive. 「復問：『若汝以智慧眼不見法，是不見法為有為無？』答言：『無。』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘If you do not see a dharma with the eye of wisdom, does this dharma that is not seen exist or not exist?’ He answered: ‘It does not exist.’" The treatise-author explains it: 「佛說智慧眼實，肉眼、天眼虛誑；須菩提以慧眼觀，不見，故言無。」 tr. "The Buddha says that the eye of wisdom is real, and the fleshly eye and the divine eye are false and deceptive; Subhūti contemplated with the wisdom-eye and did not see, therefore he said it does not exist." Here a criterion is given: only by knowing with which eye one contemplates are one's words settled. Only what the wisdom-eye does not see can be said not to exist; to say that something does not exist because the fleshly eye or the divine eye does not see it is no ground. This passage is often read as the treatise-author disparaging the fleshly eye and the divine eye; in fact what is disparaged is the way of taking realisation that uses those two eyes as evidence.

71. He asks again whether this dharma arises—idle discourse has already ceased. 「復問：『若法無、不可得，是法有生不？』答言：『不生。』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘If a dharma does not exist and is unfindable, does this dharma arise or not?’ He answered: ‘It does not arise.’" The treatise-author explains: 「是法本自無、畢竟空、無所有，是法有、無等戲論已滅，云何有生？」 tr. "This dharma is by origin of itself non-existent, ultimately empty, without anything existent; the idle discourse of this dharma's existing, not existing, and so on has already ceased; how could there be arising?" 「有、無等戲論已滅」 tr. "The idle discourse of existing, not existing, and so on has already ceased" is the key point: not only is it not granted to exist, it is not granted not to exist either; when existence and non-existence have both ceased, the question of arising has nowhere to be placed. With this, the sūtra's four counter-questions have each been explained in the treatise section.

72. The Buddha tells Subhūti: this is called the acceptance of non-arising—it is said by way of worldly dharma, not in the highest meaning. 「佛語須菩提：『若菩薩於是法中通達無疑，信力、智慧力故，能住是法中，是名無生忍。』」 tr. "The Buddha told Subhūti: ‘If the bodhisattva penetrates this dharma without doubt, and by the power of faith and the power of wisdom can abide in this dharma, this is called the acceptance of non-arising.’" To the sūtra's 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas" the treatise-author adds two powers—the power of faith and the power of wisdom; what makes abiding possible lies here. The two turns that follow are the most important. The first: 「五眾中假名菩薩，得如是法，是名行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The provisionally named bodhisattva within the five aggregates, obtaining such a dharma—this is called practising prajñāpāramitā." The one who can practise prajñā turns out to be precisely the provisionally named bodhisattva within the five aggregates—the text before has dismissed both roads, person and dharma; here it returns the provisional name to him; this is not reversing the verdict; it is saying that the subject of practice lies only in the provisional name and not in a real dharma. The second: 「世俗法故說，非第一義；第一義中，諸戲論語言即是無生。」 tr. "It is said by way of worldly dharma, not in the highest meaning; in the highest meaning, all words of idle discourse are themselves non-arising." The words 「是名無生忍」 tr. "this is called the acceptance of non-arising" are themselves a worldly way of speaking; in the highest meaning, even setting up this name is idle discourse, and the very nature of idle discourse is non-arising. At the end it says 「得是無生忍，便受無上道記」 tr. "obtaining this acceptance of non-arising, he then receives the prediction of the unsurpassed path", which leads into the next passage.

73. With single-minded diligent vigour he surely obtains it—the body born of the Dharma-nature and the last body. 「佛言：『若菩薩一心勤精進，不休不息，隨無生忍行，不得是大智慧、無上智慧、一切智，無有是處！』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘If the bodhisattva, single-mindedly and diligently exerting himself without resting and without stopping, practises in accord with the acceptance of non-arising, and does not obtain this great wisdom, unsurpassed wisdom, omniscience—there is no such possibility!’" The treatise-author explains the principle of this certainty, citing a sūtra as ground: 「如經說：『若無因無緣則無果報，邪因緣亦無果報，因緣少亦無果報。』」 tr. "As a sūtra says: ‘If there is no cause and no condition, there is no retribution; with wrong causes and conditions there is also no retribution; with scant causes and conditions there is also no retribution.’" The three sentences show one meaning by its reverse—when right causes and conditions are complete, there is surely retribution. Since there is this rule, the order that follows is clear of itself: the one who obtains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas 「捨是生死肉身，得法性生身，住菩薩果報神通中，一時能作無量變化身，淨佛世界、度脫眾生」 tr. "gives up this fleshly body within birth and death and obtains the body born of the Dharma-nature; abiding in the supernormal powers that are the bodhisattva's retribution, he can at one time make immeasurable transformation bodies, purify buddha-worlds, and deliver beings"; going further, 「是人末後身具足佛法，坐道場」 tr. "this person in his last body fulfils the dharmas of a Buddha and sits at the seat of awakening". It concludes: 「具足正因緣，若不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無有是處！所以者何？是人得無生忍法，一心直進，無有廢退故。」 tr. "With the right causes and conditions complete, that he should not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—there is no such possibility! Why is that? Because this person has obtained the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising and goes straight forward single-mindedly, with no giving up and no retrogression." The bone of the whole passage lies in the three Chinese characters 「正因緣」 tr. "right causes and conditions": it does not rely on the power of the vow, does not rely on a response from above; it is that when causes and conditions are complete, the retribution follows of necessity.

74. The marks of one who has not obtained the acceptance of non-arising—the simile of travelling by land and riding a boat, and the question of the prediction raised. 「菩薩未得無生法忍，深著世間法，諸煩惱厚，雖有福德善心，軟薄不進故，為煩惱所遮；得無生忍法，無復是事。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who has not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas clings deeply to worldly dharmas, and his afflictions are thick; though he has merit and a wholesome mind, because it is soft and thin and does not advance, he is blocked by the afflictions; when he obtains the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, this is so no longer." First the illness of not having obtained it is made clear: clinging, thickness, softness and thinness. Next the simile is set up: 「未得無生忍法，用力艱難，譬如陸行；得無生法忍已，用力甚易，譬如乘船。」 tr. "Before obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, effort is arduous, as in travelling by land; having obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, effort is very easy, as in riding a boat." The point the simile of travelling by land and riding a boat takes lies in the difficulty or ease of the effort, not in the distance of the road; both are travelling, but what they rely on differs. Having made clear how precious it is—「是故無生法忍，諸菩薩所貴」 tr. "therefore the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas is what the bodhisattvas prize"—he then brings out the question: 「以是貴故，須菩提問：『世尊！得無生法故受記？』」 tr. "Because it is so prized, Subhūti asked: ‘World-Honored One! Is it because one obtains the dharma of non-arising that one receives the prediction?’" The treatise-author says plainly that the motive of this question lies in 「貴」 tr. "prizing": because it is precious, he wishes to grasp it as the ground of receiving the prediction. The three rounds of 「不」 tr. "no" below are all to cut this off.

75. The Buddha says no—the dharma of non-arising has no mark of attaining. 「佛言：『不也！』何以故？無生法不生不滅、無得相，云何因是受記？」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘No!’ Why? The dharma of non-arising neither arises nor ceases and has no mark of attaining; how could one receive the prediction because of it?" What is dismissed is not the dharma of non-arising but 「因是受記」 tr. "receiving the prediction because of it"—this 「因」 tr. "because of". Since the dharma of non-arising has no mark of attaining, it cannot serve as the ground relied on. This counters exactly the motive of Subhūti in the preceding passage.

76. He asks again whether the prediction is obtained by an arising dharma—an arising dharma is false and deceptive, false speech. 「復問：『生法得記耶？』佛言：『不得。』何以故？生法虛誑妄語、作法，云何得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提真實法？」 tr. "He asked again: ‘Is the prediction obtained by an arising dharma?’ The Buddha said: ‘It is not obtained.’ Why? An arising dharma is false and deceptive, false speech, a made dharma; how could it obtain the true and real dharma of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The arising dharma is judged three ways: false and deceptive, false speech, a made dharma. The reason it does not obtain is that the false and deceptive cannot bring about the true and real; this speaks of the two ends not matching each other, not setting up a separate principle.

77. He asks again whether the prediction is received by arising-and-non-arising—both have a fault. 「復問：『生不生得受記不？』佛言：『不也！』何以故？此二俱有過故。」 tr. "He asked again: ‘Is the prediction received by arising and non-arising or not?’ The Buddha said: ‘No!’ Why? Because both of these have a fault." The treatise-author passes only a six-character verdict: 「此二俱有過故。」 tr. "Because both of these have a fault." He does not explain further, because the two previous rounds have each already brought out its fault—holding to non-arising has the fault of non-arising, holding to arising has the fault of arising; raise them together and both faults are present, without needing to be said again. The brevity of this passage shows precisely the fullness of the two before it.

78. He asks again how the prediction is to be given—the Buddha counter-asks. 「復問：『世尊！若爾者，云何當授記？』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘World-Honored One! If that is so, how is the prediction to be given?’" It is of the same format as the earlier 「誰當行般若」 tr. "who then is it that practises prajñā": three roads having been sealed, he asks directly for the right road. 「佛反問：『汝以慧眼觀，見有法與菩薩授記不？』」 tr. "The Buddha counter-asked: ‘Contemplating with the wisdom-eye, do you see any dharma that gives the bodhisattva the prediction, or not?’" The way of answering is also the same as before—again by the wisdom-eye, again with 「見有法」 tr. "do you see any dharma" as the question. The two counter-questions, earlier and later, stand facing each other: one asks about practice, one asks about the prediction; one dismisses the practitioner, one dismisses the receiver of the prediction.

79. He answers that he does not see—it is quiescent from the beginning, and here the sūtra itself speaks the causes and conditions. 「答言：『不見。』何以故？是法從本已來寂滅相，是中無見不見、授記不授記，亦不見阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無得法、亦無得者。」 tr. "He answered: ‘I do not see it.’ Why? This dharma from the beginning has been of the mark of quiescence; within it there is no seeing or not seeing, no giving the prediction or not giving the prediction; nor does one see anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and there is also no dharma obtained and also no one who obtains." What is dismissed is fourfold: seeing and not seeing, giving the prediction and not giving the prediction, the awakening that is obtained, the person who can obtain. With the four dismissed, the treatise-author points out that the sūtra has its own causes and conditions: 「此中自說因緣：『般若波羅蜜無是憶想分別。』」 tr. "Here the sūtra itself speaks the causes and conditions: ‘Prajñāpāramitā has no such recollection, imagining, and discrimination.’" With the four Chinese characters 「自說因緣」 tr. "itself speaks the causes and conditions" he attributes it to the sūtra and does not claim it as his own account.

80. The treatise-author's Question: why does the Buddha still answer with the principle of non-arising? The treatise-author asks: 「須菩提上問『菩薩得無生忍故受記』，佛言『不』；佛何以還以無生理答，所謂『菩薩行般若時，無一切憶想分別』？」 tr. "Above, Subhūti asked, ‘the bodhisattva receives the prediction because he obtains the acceptance of non-arising’, and the Buddha said ‘no’; why then does the Buddha still answer with the principle of non-arising, namely, ‘when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, he has no recollection, imagining, and discrimination at all’?" This question is set up with great fineness: earlier he denied receiving the prediction by non-arising; later he answers with the principle of non-discrimination—and non-discrimination is precisely the principle of non-arising; do earlier and later not contradict each other? The whole unit comes to rest on this one doubt; had this question not been set up, the three rounds of 「不」 tr. "no" earlier would very easily be read as denying the matter of the prediction.

81. The treatise-author's Answer: because he asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, it is said ‘no’. The treatise-author answers: 「行者實以無生忍故受記，而須菩提為菩薩故，以著心、得心問，以是故言『不』。」 tr. "The practitioner really receives the prediction by the acceptance of non-arising, but Subhūti, for the sake of the bodhisattvas, asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, and therefore it is said, ‘no’." One sentence settles it: the matter of the prediction really rests on the acceptance of non-arising; what the Buddha's 「不」 tr. "no" denies is the clinging in the place of the question, not the reality of the matter. The four Chinese characters 「為菩薩故」 tr. "for the sake of the bodhisattvas" also must not be passed over—the treatise-author says only that this question is put 「為菩薩故」 tr. "for the sake of the bodhisattvas", a question from the standpoint of a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, so that the Buddha may break it; as to whether Subhūti himself clings or does not cling, the treatise-author does not say, and the reader need not judge on his behalf. Since what is broken is the clinging in the question, the answer naturally cannot be read as a negation of the matter in fact or principle.

82. The simile of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa—the Buddha was silent and did not answer. 「如一切法實無我，婆蹉梵志問佛：『有我不？』佛默然不答。『無我不？』佛亦不答。一切雖實無我，以梵志著心問，欲戲弄無我，故不答。」 tr. "As all dharmas are really without self, and yet when the brahmin ascetic Vatsa asked the Buddha, ‘Is there a self or not?’ the Buddha was silent and did not answer; ‘Is there no self or not?’ the Buddha again did not answer. Though everything is really without self, because the brahmin asked with a clinging mind, wishing to make sport of non-self, he did not answer." This simile corresponds closely to the verdict above: non-self is real, yet the questioner clings, so the Buddha does not answer; not answering is not having no settled teaching; it is not responding to his clinging mind. Take this as the pattern for what came before—receiving the prediction by non-arising is real, yet the questioner clings, so the Buddha says 「不」 tr. "no". Being silent and saying 「不」 tr. "no" are equally ways of not responding to a clinging mind.

83. The intent of Subhūti's question—he knows there is the matter of the prediction, but not by contemplating what dharma it is obtained. 「須菩提問意：知定有受記事，但不知觀何法得記，故問。」 tr. "The intent of Subhūti's question: he knows that there definitely is the matter of receiving the prediction, but does not know by contemplating what dharma the prediction is obtained; therefore he asks." Here the treatise-author divides the intent of Subhūti's question into two halves: the matter is known; the dharma is not known. What is asked lies only in the latter half. This division limits the earlier 「不」 tr. "no" with great clarity—what is denied is the structure ‘obtaining the prediction by contemplating some dharma’, not the matter of the prediction.

84. The Buddha asks by the dharma he has obtained. 「是故佛以須菩提所得法問：『汝以慧眼見定有法受記不？』」 tr. "Therefore the Buddha asked by the dharma Subhūti had obtained: ‘Do you see with the wisdom-eye that there is definitely a dharma that receives the prediction, or not?’" What is called 「所得法」 tr. "the dharma he had obtained" refers to the wisdom-eye and the three gates of liberation that Subhūti himself had realised. The Buddha does not ask by another dharma, but only by what he has already obtained—this is the pattern of the counter-questions throughout the unit: he makes the questioner look with the measure he already has in hand; when he cannot see, the question stops of itself.

85. Abiding in the three gates of liberation, he contemplates the nature of dharmas and does not see one who receives the prediction. 「須菩提住三解脫門中，觀法性，不見定有受記者，諸法法性無相、無量故；若不見受記法，云何當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者？」 tr. "Subhūti, abiding in the three gates of liberation, contemplates the nature of dharmas and does not see that there is definitely one who receives the prediction, because the nature of dharmas of all dharmas is signless and measureless; if he does not see a dharma of receiving the prediction, how could there be one who shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The reason for not seeing is twofold: the nature of dharmas is signless, so there is nothing to point to; the nature of dharmas is measureless, so there is nothing to bound. Since there is no dharma of receiving the prediction, there is also no person who shall obtain awakening—this follows what he contemplates and pushes it to the end.

86. The feeling of difficulty then ceases; he understands of himself and has no doubt. 「須菩提聞是受記者空，難情則息，自解無疑。」 tr. "Subhūti heard that the one who receives the prediction is empty; the feeling of difficulty then ceases; he understands of himself and has no doubt." The difficulties of the whole unit stop here. The key point is in the two Chinese characters 「自解」 tr. "understands of himself": it is not being made to yield; it is seeing for himself. The reason the Buddha did not speak head-on earlier but repeatedly used counter-questions shows its effect precisely here—an understanding handed over by speaking is in the end not as good as an understanding seen for oneself.

87. The Buddha approves his understanding and concludes. 「佛可其意：『如是！如是！汝不見不得法是實。何以故？般若波羅蜜相，無所分別故。』」 tr. "The Buddha approved his understanding: ‘Just so! Just so! Your not seeing and not obtaining a dharma is real. Why? Because the mark of prajñāpāramitā is without anything discriminated.’" The closing sentence of the sūtra lies in 「無諸憶想分別」 tr. "has no recollection, imagining, and discrimination"; the treatise-author's closing sentence lies in 「無所分別」 tr. "without anything discriminated"; the two answer to each other. The last sentence at the same time gathers back the opening question of the whole unit—what is the mark of prajñā? The answer: without anything discriminated. Head and tail are joined, and the unit of the Last Part ends here.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「如虛空相是般若波羅蜜相」 tr. "the mark that is like space is the mark of prajñāpāramitā" as saying that prajñā has no mark. The treatise-author explains it with 「如虛空無色相、無非色相」 tr. "as space has no mark of form and no mark of non-form"—the double negation raised together guards precisely against both extremes. To say it has a mark is certainly a mistake, and to say it has no mark is a mistake too; the sūtra follows at once with 「般若波羅蜜無所有相」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is without the mark of anything existent", and what is set up is still a 「相」 tr. "mark"; it is only that the content of this mark is being without anything existent. Read as having no mark, the later 「聞如是般若波羅蜜相，不驚、不沒、不畏不怖、不疑」 tr. "hears such a mark of prajñāpāramitā and is not startled, does not sink, is not afraid and not terrified, does not doubt" would have nothing to be heard.

Do not read 「離相、空相」 tr. "separated from marks, of the mark of emptiness" as saying that stain and purity cannot be spoken of. The sūtra says plainly: 「眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱」 tr. "because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation"; 「若不往來生死中，則無垢惱。如是，須菩提！眾生有淨」 tr. "if they do not go and come within birth and death, then there are no stain and vexation. Thus, Subhūti, beings have purity". The treatise-author says it more plainly still: 「雖一切法相皆空，亦以如是因緣故有淨、有垢」 tr. "though the marks of all dharmas are all empty, yet by such causes and conditions there are purity and stain". What stain and purity rest on is whether causes and conditions are practised or not practised, not the self-nature of dharmas; to think that because of emptiness both stain and purity are done away with is exactly what the Buddha's one question about the mind of I and mine sets out to break.

Do not read the ten rounds of 「不也」 tr. "No" as saying that prajñā cannot be practised. What the ten questions dismiss is the structure ‘taking some dharma as what is practised’—emptiness cannot be taken as what is practised, apart from emptiness cannot be taken as what is practised, prajñā itself cannot be taken as what is practised, and the five aggregates, the dharmas that aid the path, and even suchness and the limit of reality cannot be taken as what is practised. The treatise-author explains the general rule: 「法不自行，應以異法行」 tr. "a dharma does not practise itself; it should be practised by a different dharma", and also 「一切法攝在般若中，更無法行般若」 tr. "all dharmas are contained in prajñā; there is no further dharma that practises prajñā". What is dismissed is the practice that takes a dharma as its ground, not the matter of practice itself; if the matter of practice were also done away with, the later 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas" would have nothing to hang on.

Do not read 「無生法忍」 tr. "the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas" as a state that can be acquired. The sūtra follows at once with three questions—is the prediction obtained in the mark of non-arising, in the mark of arising, in the mark of neither arising nor non-arising—and all three answers are 「不也」 tr. "No", precisely to cut this off. The treatise-author says further 「世俗法故說，非第一義；第一義中，諸戲論語言即是無生」 tr. "it is said by way of worldly dharma, not in the highest meaning; in the highest meaning, all words of idle discourse are themselves non-arising"—even the name 「無生忍」 tr. "acceptance of non-arising" is a worldly way of speaking. If it is taken as a thing to be grasped, it shares one root with the illness in the First Part's fascicle of giving rise to overweening pride on hearing a name.

Do not read the Buddha's three rounds of 「不」 tr. "no" as denying the matter of the prediction. The treatise-author sets up a question and answers it himself, saying plainly 「行者實以無生忍故受記，而須菩提為菩薩故，以著心、得心問，以是故言『不』」 tr. "the practitioner really receives the prediction by the acceptance of non-arising, but Subhūti, for the sake of the bodhisattvas, asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, and therefore it is said, ‘no’". And he cites the simile of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa as evidence—non-self is real and yet the Buddha was silent, precisely because the questioner clung. What is denied is the place of the question, not the matter. Read as a denial, the earlier sentence 「菩薩摩訶薩成就是忍，得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who accomplishes this acceptance obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" would have nothing to rest on.

Do not read 「不見」 tr. "not seeing" as knowing nothing at all. The sūtra's 「不見」 tr. "not seeing" has its limitation—「汝以慧眼見」 tr. "you see with the wisdom-eye". The treatise-author explains it: 「佛說智慧眼實，肉眼、天眼虛誑；須菩提以慧眼觀，不見，故言無」 tr. "the Buddha says that the eye of wisdom is real, and the fleshly eye and the divine eye are false and deceptive; Subhūti contemplated with the wisdom-eye and did not see, therefore he said it does not exist". Not seeing is the wisdom-eye shining to the very bottom and finding nothing to point to; it is not having not yet looked. To pass off ordinary not-yet-seeing as this not-seeing is to not know and yet take oneself to have realised.

Do not read 「不與想俱，便得大捨」 tr. "not being together with perception, they then obtain great equanimity" as being without mind and without feeling. This sentence stands at the end of the four immeasurable minds; the first three minds are great kindness, great compassion, and great joy, each with its object; when it comes to equanimity it says 「不與想俱」 tr. "not being together with perception", meaning that one does not take the marks of beings as the object—not that one does not take beings as the object. In this passage the treatise-author says further 「大悲是大乘之本」 tr. "great compassion is the root of the Great Vehicle" and 「見眾生就於死法，如囚受戮」 tr. "he sees beings going toward the dharma of death, like a prisoner going to execution"—which shows that equanimity and compassion go together without conflict.

Do not read 「賢聖默然」 tr. "the noble silence of the worthies and sages" as not expounding the Dharma. The treatise-author plainly sets up two matters: 「一者、賢聖默然，二者、說法」 tr. "first, the noble silence of the worthies and sages; second, speaking the Dharma", and explains them as 「是人從般若心出，說般若波羅蜜；說般若波羅蜜已，還入般若中」 tr. "this person comes out of the mind of prajñā and speaks prajñāpāramitā; having spoken prajñāpāramitā, he enters back into prajñā". Silence and speaking are the two faces of one going and one returning; what is guarded is only 「不令餘心、餘語得入」 tr. "not letting other minds or other words enter". To hold not speaking as the higher would go against the sūtra's 「若欲有說，但說般若波羅蜜」 tr. "if he wishes to say something, he says only prajñāpāramitā".

Do not read the similes of the maṇi jewel and of the poor man losing his treasure as teaching people to grieve and be vexed. The sūtra takes the three stages 「未曾得」 tr. "had never obtained it", 「後時得」 tr. "later obtained it", and 「後復失之」 tr. "afterwards lost it again"; the treatise-author takes the one stage 「常念不離」 tr. "constantly thinks of it and never leaves it"; what both take lies in the thought's needing no forcing, not in the look of grief. The method of a simile is to take one point of it and not drag in the rest; this is the general rule of this treatise.

Bearing on Practice

Take 「眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱」 tr. "because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation" to examine your own judgement of stain and purity. Do not look on dharmas for whether you are stained or pure; look at the going and coming—when this one thought arises, is the mind going into birth and death, or not going? The graduation of stain and purity lies not in whether one's feeling is clear or turbid, but in whether the mind practises or does not practise. Looked at this way, there is a great deal to examine in a single day, and none of it lands anywhere remote.

Take 「法不自行，應以異法行」 tr. "a dharma does not practise itself; it should be practised by a different dharma" to check where you apply your effort. Whoever thinks that some Dharma-gate is in itself the practice, and that merely keeping hold of it is applying effort, has already been exposed by this sentence. The dharma is what is relied on; the practice lies in the mind that relies on the dharma; if the mind does not practise, keeping the dharma however long is only keeping hold of a name.

Take 「是法不可得，亦無行者，亦無行處，亦無行法」 tr. "this dharma is unfindable; there is also no one who practises, also no place of practice, also no dharma of practice" to practise letting go of the mind that seeks realisation. Applying effort while seeking a position of ‘already arrived’ is exactly what these three matters dismiss. The First Part says not to take realisation in a dream; the Last Part says the place of practice is unfindable—the two places have one meaning: not taking realisation is not slackness; it is not setting a false finishing point on the road.

Take 「以著心、得心問，以是故言『不』」 tr. "asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, and therefore it is said, ‘no’" to examine the way you ask. When there is doubt in the mind and you ask others or ask yourself, first see whether this question seeks to make the principle clear or seeks an affirmation. If it is the latter, then answering and not answering are both of no benefit—as with the question of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa, the Buddha was simply silent.

Take 「信力、智慧力故，能住是法中」 tr. "by the power of faith and the power of wisdom can abide in this dharma" to tell your own illness apart. One whose mind wavers on hearing the deep Dharma either falls short in faith or falls short in wisdom. One who falls short in faith should apply effort to the Buddha's words; one who falls short in wisdom should apply effort to contemplation and practice; the two cannot stand in for each other—to demand faith by wisdom or wisdom by faith are both wrong treatments.

Take 「汝以慧眼見，定有一法行般若不」 tr. "do you see with the wisdom-eye that there is definitely a dharma that practises prajñā, or not" as the test of every experience. When you see a mark, gain a state, or have some realisation, first ask one question: with which eye was this seen? If it was seen by imagination, by emotion, or by someone else's words, then what was seen is no ground. Only what the wisdom-eye does not see is a non-existence that can be spoken of.

Take 「餘福德善法，離般若波羅蜜故皆盡，般若波羅蜜不可盡故」 tr. "other merit and wholesome dharmas are all exhausted because they are apart from prajñāpāramitā; because prajñāpāramitā cannot be exhausted" to weigh the merit you cultivate. Merit made without being turned toward prajñā has a measure, and when the measure is used up it stops; so after giving and keeping the precepts one must still come back to prajñā—not to belittle merit, but to make what has a measure enter the measureless.

Take 「不空食名能報施主，能生道，能令施主之福無盡」 tr. "not eating emptily means he can repay the donor, can give rise to the path, and can make the donor's merit inexhaustible" to check your mind in receiving offerings. When receiving others' offerings, shame is not the most important thing; whether one can give rise to the path is the most important thing; if one can give rise to the path, the giver's merit is then inexhaustible. Reckoning the account this way, shame turns into vigour.

Take 「未得無生忍法，用力艱難，譬如陸行」 tr. "before obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, effort is arduous, as in travelling by land" to ease your own difficulty of the moment. When applying effort feels laborious everywhere, it is not necessarily that you have taken the wrong road; most likely you are still at the stage of travelling by land. Knowing it to be a stage and not a fault, you need not doubt what you practise because of the hardship; nor need you think, because of a moment's ease, that you have already boarded the boat.

Take 「難情則息，自解無疑」 tr. "the feeling of difficulty then ceases; he understands of himself and has no doubt" to regard your own doubts. Doubt is not settled by pressing it down, nor by someone else's word of assurance; it is by seeing that the place of doubt was never something to doubt that doubt ceases of itself. So when doubt comes, the most useful thing is not to look for an answer but to see clearly the very object of the doubt—once it is seen clearly, the feeling of difficulty ceases of itself.

Further Resonances

The line that runs from the First Part into the Last Part turns the ground of the two Chinese characters 「不證」 tr. "not realising" over from matters to principle. All that the First Part says is matters: in a dream not craving the two vehicles or the three realms, in a dream seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, in a dream seeing painful matters and not being startled or terrified, in a dream arousing the vow of a pure land, in a dream making the oath that puts out hell-fire, and even when awake, seeing fire break out in a city and putting it out by the oath; this is followed by the four kinds of deception by Māra—the empty oath, telling the names and clans of former lives, telling the name of the future Buddha, praising the place of seclusion—each of which makes a bodhisattva who has not entered the position give rise to overweening pride and fall into the two grounds; and it closes with drawing near to the good friend, the good friend who is a person and the good friend who is a dharma. The Last Part turns instead to ask about principle: what mark the substance of prajñā has. The Buddha answers: like space, without anything existent; and from this three layers of difficulty are pressed out—stain and purity have nothing to rest on, thought and obtaining have nothing to rest on, practising prajñā has nothing to rest on. The answers to the three difficulties each have one sentence: stain and purity lie in 「眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱」 tr. "because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation"; thought and obtaining lie in 「不增不減」 tr. "neither increase nor decrease" and 「非一非異」 tr. "neither one nor different"; practising prajñā lies in the 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas" that follows the four counter-questions. Once the three answers stand, it closes with the three rounds of 「不」 tr. "no" on the prediction and the question and answer the treatise-author sets up himself, coming to rest in 「以著心、得心問，以是故言『不』」 tr. "asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, and therefore it is said, ‘no’". Seeing the First Part and the Last Part together, the four Chinese characters of the chapter title are at last complete: one who does not take realisation in a dream does not forcibly refrain from taking it; it is that the substance is originally without anything existent and there is nothing to take.

The title of this chapter is handed down differently in the various witnesses; they are recorded together here without a forced judgement. The base text titles it "Not Realising It in a Dream"; for the continuation title at the head of this unit's fascicle, the four editions of the Song, Yuan, Palace, and Ming all write 「夢誓」 tr. "Dream Oath", as the Ming edition writes 「大智度論卷第七十七釋夢誓品第六十一之下」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle seventy-seven, commentary on the Dream Oath chapter, the sixty-first, Last Part"; the Shōgozō manuscript uses its own chapter numbering and writes 「大智度經論卷第七十七釋第六十品訖第六十二品」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, fascicle seventy-seven, commentary on the sixtieth chapter through to the end of the sixty-second chapter", constantly one less than the base text. The Larger Sūtra text of the variant translation also has the proper title 「夢誓品」 tr. "The Dream Oath chapter", while its Khitan-edition interlinear note writes 「夢中不證品」 tr. "Not Realising It in a Dream chapter", agreeing with the base text; its Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, and Shōgozō texts, five in all, also all write 「夢中不證」 tr. "Not Realising It in a Dream". The two names take different things: 「夢中不證」 tr. "not realising it in a dream" is set up from his not taking realisation even in a dream; 「夢誓」 tr. "dream oath" is set up from his making an oath and vow in a dream; the first half of this chapter has exactly the text of making the oath that puts out the fire, and the second half lies wholly in the principle of not taking realisation, so each of the two names gets one side.

Jizang, explaining this chapter in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, at the very start of the chapter glosses the two names by each other: 「此品亦云夢中不證者，不證明覺時不證，今夢中亦不證也。上云證據覺不證，今明夢誓就夢中發願」 tr. "As for this chapter also being called ‘Not Realising It in a Dream’: ‘not realising’ makes clear not realising when awake, and now in a dream also not realising. Above, ‘realising’ spoke of not realising with respect to waking; now it makes clear that the Dream Oath concerns arousing a vow in a dream"; and setting the two chapters before and after against each other, he says 「前云夢行者，如文夢中脩行，今是夢中發願，故兩品行願各舉也」 tr. "the earlier one is called Dream Conduct, as the text says, cultivating practice in a dream; this one is arousing a vow in a dream; therefore the two chapters each raise one of practice and vow"—thus practice and vow are assigned to the two chapters, and each of the two names is tied to one. On the opening question of this unit, Jizang explains why Subhūti asks again about the mark of prajñā: 「聞聞相品已問般若相，今更聞者，論云：般若深妙無一定相，十地尚未滿解，況小乘人耶？以聞無厭足故更問也。」 tr. "Having heard that the chapter on Hearing Marks already asked about the mark of prajñā, why is it asked again now? The treatise says: prajñā is deep and subtle and has no single fixed mark; even those of the ten grounds have not yet fully understood it, how much less a man of the Small Vehicle? Because hearing it is never tiring, he asks again." The 「論」 tr. "treatise" he cites is this treatise's answer here, and it agrees exactly with the treatise-author's passage 「般若波羅蜜第一微妙，聞者無厭足，無滿時，無一定相」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is foremost and subtle; those who hear it never tire of it, there is no time when they are sated, and it has no single fixed mark". On the difficulty of stain and purity, Jizang judges what the Buddha's answer takes up and leaves aside: 「佛答中不答得菩提難，但答無垢淨難」 tr. "in the Buddha's answer he does not answer the difficulty about obtaining awakening, but answers only the difficulty about there being no stain and purity"; and he explains the meaning of purity: 「以了如即有，無所有便名淨也。」 tr. "Understanding suchness, there is existence; being without anything existent is then called purity." On the passage of speech and silence, Jizang's explanation falls in the same section as the treatise-author's and pushes it further: 「常行波若、常說波若者，即聖說法。聖嘿然，從般若心說般若，說般若竟還入波若心。如行說、如說行，故語嘿皆是波若」 tr. "Constantly practising prajñā and constantly speaking prajñā is the noble speaking of the Dharma. In the noble silence, from the mind of prajñā one speaks prajñā, and having finished speaking prajñā one enters back into the mind of prajñā. Speaking as one practises and practising as one speaks, therefore speech and silence are both prajñā", and further: 「非但說波若是波若，以波若心說一切法，一切法皆般若。」 tr. "Not only is speaking prajñā itself prajñā: when one speaks all dharmas with the mind of prajñā, all dharmas are prajñā." On the division of the second half of this unit, Jizang divides it into three sections: 「第二、明脩行，為三：初、明無所念；二、明無所行；三、明無得記」 tr. "Second, making clear cultivation and practice, in three: first, making clear that there is nothing thought of; second, making clear that there is nothing practised; third, making clear that there is no obtaining of the prediction"—which corresponds exactly to the order of the three layers of difficulty in this unit. He explains the acceptance of non-arising: 「是名無生忍者，於一切法不行即不生心，名無生忍也」 tr. "As for ‘this is called the acceptance of non-arising’: not practising any dharma is not giving rise to the mind; this is called the acceptance of non-arising"; and he explains the breaking of obtaining the prediction: 「上來見行故是生病，今則無行著無生病，故更息無生。」 tr. "Up to now, seeing practice was the illness of arising; now, having no practice, there is the illness of clinging to non-arising; therefore non-arising too is further stilled."

Huiying's Commentary comments on this chapter passage by passage, and for the fascicle-77 portion sets up a separate heading, 「之餘」 tr. "the remainder". He explains why Subhūti asks here about the substance and mark: 「則論自釋云：所以善吉於此乃問波若相者，佛上既讚嘆波若是世間是道是大明等，善吉既聞此義故，所以於此中更問其軆相也」 tr. "So the treatise itself explains: the reason Good Auspice asks here about the mark of prajñā is that the Buddha above praised prajñā as the world, as the path, as the great light, and so on; since Good Auspice has heard this meaning, he therefore asks further here about its substance and mark"—the same intent as the treatise-author's second answer, 「上聞種種讚般若是父、是母等，是故更問」 tr. "above he heard prajñā praised in many ways as father, as mother, and so on; therefore he asks again". On the phrase 「頗有因緣」 tr. "are there perhaps causes and conditions", Huiying records two explanations and keeps both: 「師言：頗者，是偏義」 tr. "My teacher says: po has the sense of ‘partial’", and also 「有人訓字解云：頗者，即是可辭。言可得如此文也」 tr. "Someone, glossing the character, explains: po is a word of possibility; it says ‘can it be as this text says’"; the former explanation takes it as partial, not daring to speak outright; the latter takes it in the sense of a word of possibility; the two accounts stand side by side without judgement. On the meaning of stain and purity, Huiying explains: 「明眾生不解此我我所心等法皆離故而忘行之，忘行之故往反生死，故名垢，不行故名淨也」 tr. "It makes clear that beings do not understand that these dharmas—the mind of I and mine and the rest—are all separated, and so heedlessly practise them; because they heedlessly practise them, they go and return in birth and death, and so it is called stain; not practising is called purity"—judging stain and purity by practising and not practising, entirely the same as the treatise-author's judgement. On the ten rounds of questions and answers in this unit, Huiying has a separate division, making clear the number of the questions and their sections: 「此下善吉凡設十一問，問脩進之方。前四句是其問正宗，次色是行般若等下有六句，是其別歷法助難之意，第十一問是總上十意，更設此一總問也」 tr. "From here down Good Auspice sets out eleven questions in all, asking about the way of cultivating and advancing. The first four phrases are the main thrust of his questioning; next, from ‘form is practising prajñā’ and so on, there are six phrases below, which carry the intent of passing through the dharmas one by one to support the difficulty; the eleventh question gathers up the ten intents above and further sets out this one general question"—the division into four, six, and one agrees exactly with the order of the sūtra. On 「諸法平等忍」 tr. "the acceptance of the equality of all dharmas", Huiying explains directly: 「諸法平等忍者，即是無生忍也。」 tr. "The acceptance of the equality of all dharmas is the acceptance of non-arising." On the passage of the wisdom-eye not seeing, he explains the ceasing of all contemplations: 「諸觀滅已下，明諸觀法既是分別鄣，不見無分別理，故亦屬無明也。」 tr. "From ‘all contemplations cease’ onward: it makes clear that since the dharmas of contemplation are obstructions of discrimination and do not see the principle of non-discrimination, they too belong to ignorance." On the body born of the Dharma-nature, he explains: 「菩薩於法性中智慧功德，法身冥於法性而增長盛明，故云法性生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's wisdom and merit within the Dharma-nature: the Dharma body merges darkly with the Dharma-nature and grows and flourishes in brightness; therefore it is called born of the Dharma-nature."

On the prediction passage, Huiying further records a difference between the sūtra and the treatise, recorded here as well without choosing: in the prediction passage the sūtra asks about three places in all—the mark of non-arising, the mark of arising, and the mark of neither arising nor non-arising—while the questions given in the treatise section differ slightly from the sūtra; on this Huiying says 「上經中乃有第四句無第三，此中有第三句無第四句，若別行經中則具足四句也」 tr. "In the sūtra above there is the fourth phrase and not the third; here there is the third phrase and not the fourth; in the separately circulated sūtra all four phrases are complete"—comparing the sūtra, the treatise, and the separately circulated text, the three together, he speaks of the four phrases as either complete or lacking. This is a difference handed down from of old; it is recorded as it is, and the choice between them belongs to the translator.