大智度論 願樂品Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Aspiration and Delight

Aspiration and Delight: Why the Two Chinese Characters Rendered Here as ‘Aspiration and Delight’ Are the Overall Title of This Chapter; Why Śakra Does Not First Praise the Buddha but First Thinks That Those Who Arouse the Mind Go Above All Beings; Why the Mind of Rejoicing Can Be Weighed, by the Simile of a Single Hair Drawing Drops from the Sea, to the Point Where It Cannot Be Known by Number; Why Not Rejoicing Is Actually Judged to Be Māra's Retinue; Why Rejoicing and Dedication Must Speak of the Mark of Neither One nor Two; Why Not Mind and Not Apart from Mind Is Not an Equivocation; Why Subhūti, Just When the Merit Is at Its Height, Suddenly Challenges the Buddha with the Mind Being Like an Illusion; Why Every Layer of the Three Rounds of Question and Answer Is Answered ‘No’; Why ‘Within Two Separations How Can There Be Anything Attained’ Is the Hardest Question of the Whole Chapter; Why Ultimate Separation Becomes Instead the Reason One Can Obtain Awakening; Why the Buddha Saying It Is Hard and Subhūti Saying It Is Not Hard Is No Contradiction between Master and Disciple; Why the Similes of Space, the Illusory Person, the Image in a Mirror, the Conjured Person, and the Wooden Puppet All Come Down on Non-discrimination; Why, If All Dharmas Are without Discrimination, There Are Still the Distinctions of the Six Destinies and the Four Fruits; Why the Treatise-Author Explains the Superiority of Arousing the Mind by the Four Similes of the Crown Prince in the Womb, the Prince Not Yet Enthroned, the Kalaviṅka Bird, and the Śrāmaṇera; and Why What People of the Small Vehicle Say and What Some Say in the Treatises of the Mahāyāna Are Alike Called the Two Extremes

What Is Being Asked

What this chapter asks about is a matter that looks very shallow and is in fact very hard: when I see another person accomplish something in practising the path, does this single thought of gladness in me have any weight?

The two Chinese characters of the chapter's name, 「願樂」 tr. "aspiration and delight," come from a single thought of Śakra at the head of the chapter—he sees that when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas he has already gone above all beings, and so says that, as for these beings who can arouse the intent of awakening, 「其餘眾生應當願樂」 tr. "the remaining beings should aspire to it and delight in it." Aspiration and delight is not envy, nor is it an empty blessing; in this chapter it has a very concrete shape: scattering flowers, making a vow, rejoicing, and dedicating. Śakra does these four things all in one breath, and then asks the Buddha a question about quantity—giving rise to the mind of rejoicing toward the meritorious virtue of the bodhisattvas of these several stages, the one who has first aroused intent, the one who has long aroused intent, the avaivartika, and the one bound to buddhahood in one more birth, how much merit does one obtain for each? The Buddha's answer does not give a number; it gives a twofold weighing: the four continents, and so on up to the three-thousand great-thousand world, can all be weighed and their weight known, but the merit of the mind of rejoicing cannot be weighed; were the three-thousand great-thousand world filled with sea-water, and one took a single hair, split it into a hundred parts, and with one part of the hair drew up drops, the number of drops could still be known, but the merit of the mind of rejoicing cannot be known by number. What is compared is the greatest measure and the finest measure, and what is shown is only one thing—this merit does not lie along the road of measure at all.

Śakra then puts the words very heavily: those who do not rejoice in anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi are all Māra's retinue, born having come from within Māra. How can a mental act that looks so soft be judged so severely? Śakra himself gives the cause: the bodhisattvas who arouse the mind are born for the sake of breaking Māra's domain, and so the mind of rejoicing and Māra's domain stand directly against each other as cure and sickness. And the rejoicing he teaches carries a limiting phrase: 「以不一不二相故」 tr. "because of the mark of neither one nor two." From here the chapter begins to turn hard.

The one who turns it to its hardest point is Subhūti. Just when the merit in the sūtra text is at its height, he suddenly challenges the Buddha with 「是心如幻」 tr. "this mind is like an illusion": if the mind is like an illusion, how can it obtain awakening? The Buddha does not answer directly but asks back three times, and all three of Subhūti's answers are 「不也」 tr. "no"—the first answer states that he does not see the illusion and does not see the mind that is like an illusion; the second answer says only 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"; the third answer states that he does not see that, apart from the illusion and apart from the mind that is like an illusion, there is some further dharma that obtains awakening. After the three rounds Subhūti draws his own conclusion: all dharmas are ultimately separated, and if they are ultimately separated they should not be cultivated and should not be destroyed; 「二離中云何能有所得」 tr. "within two separations how can there be anything attained." The Buddha's answer goes beyond all expectation: precisely because of ultimate separation one can obtain; were it not ultimate separation, it would not be called prajñā, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. The bone of the whole chapter lies in this one turn.

After this come three closing passages. First, the Buddha says that the bodhisattva practising the deep meaning and not realising the two vehicles 「能為難事」 tr. "is able to do what is hard," while Subhūti says it is not hard—the words of master and disciple are opposite; the treatise-author divides them by worldly truth and the truth of the highest meaning, and points out that the Buddha's saying it is hard and saying it is not hard are both set up with respect to the hearer. Second, Subhūti brings out at length the similes of space, the illusory person, the image in a mirror, the person conjured by the Buddha, and the craftsman's wooden puppet; all the similes come down on non-discrimination, and the last two (the person conjured by the Buddha and the craftsman's wooden puppet) further add 「能有所作」 tr. "can have something it does." Third, Śāriputra, taking this up, asks: if all dharmas are without discrimination, from where do the differences of the six destinies and the four fruits come? Subhūti answers with receiving bodies through inversion, and with the worthies and sages too existing because of non-discrimination, and ends with one sentence—the bodhisattva should practise the prajñā of non-discrimination, and having practised the prajñā of non-discrimination, he then obtains the anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi of non-discrimination.

The treatise section explains following the text. The treatise-author first explains why arousing the mind surpasses all beings, extending it layer upon layer with four similes: the crown prince in the womb, the prince not yet enthroned, the kalaviṅka bird, and the arhat of the six supernormal powers with the śrāmaṇera; and he brings up the two accounts, what people of the Small Vehicle say and what some say in the treatises of the Mahāyāna, judging them to be the two extremes and taking the middle way. Next he explains the good benefit, the foremost among lives, the scattering of flowers, the question and answer on sin and merit not being able to be given to others, the field of merit of rejoicing, breaking Māra's realm, neither one nor two, and not mind yet not apart from mind; then, following the sūtra text, he explains the three rounds of counter-question on the empty mind being like an illusion, the simile of touching space with a finger, and the fault that with a fixed mark there would be no four truths and no Three Jewels; at the end he explains the division by the two truths of hard and not hard, the simile of the wooden puppet accomplishing matters, the simile of the four rivers entering the sea, and the three fetters being inversion together with worldly truth and provisional names. Look at the head and the tail together: this chapter rises from a single thought of rejoicing and ends in the prajñā of non-discrimination—the reason rejoicing is immeasurable is precisely that it is without discrimination.

Passage by Passage

1. Śakra thinks that those who arouse the intent of awakening go above all beings, and that the remaining beings should aspire to it and delight in it. The head of the chapter is not the Buddha speaking; it is Śakra having a thought. He first cites that when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections, prajñā, meditation, vigour, patience, morality, and giving, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, he has already 「出一切眾生之上」 tr. "gone above all beings," how much more when he obtains awakening; next he says that those who hear of sarvajñā and have faith obtain the good benefit among humans and the foremost among lives, how much more those who arouse the intent of awakening; only the last sentence arrives at the chapter's name—the remaining beings should aspire to it and delight in it. First ask a question here: why is ‘hearing and having faith’ set apart from 「發意」 tr. "arousing intent" and spoken of as two grades? The answer lies in the sentence-form that advances step by step—faith is the entrance, arousing intent is the decision, and aspiration and delight is a third party's attitude toward the first two. Let the reader not read aspiration and delight as a bystander's courtesy: Śakra sets it after faith and arousing intent, as one step on the same road.

2. Śakra scatters māndārava flowers and makes a vow, and asks how much merit rejoicing in the four kinds of bodhisattvas brings. Śakra acts upon his thought: he scatters heavenly māndārava flowers over the Buddha and vows that those who seek awakening may be fully endowed with the dharmas of a Buddha, the omniscience of all kinds, and the dharmas of the one who is so of himself, and that those who seek to be śrāvakas may be fully endowed with the dharmas of a śrāvaka; he swears of himself that he will never give rise to a single thought to make a bodhisattva turn back, nor make him turn back and fall to the ground of the two vehicles; he further vows that the bodhisattvas may redouble their vigour, and states on their behalf the bodhisattvas' vow—「我既自度，亦當度未度者」 tr. "Having delivered myself, I shall also deliver those not yet delivered," and so on up to 「我既滅度，當使未入滅度者得滅度」 tr. "Having myself passed into extinction, I shall cause those who have not yet entered extinction to attain extinction"; only at the end does he put his question: giving rise to the mind of rejoicing toward the meritorious virtue of the bodhisattvas who have first aroused intent, who have long aroused intent, the avaivartika, and the one bound to buddhahood in one more birth, how much merit does one obtain for each? In this passage one must see Śakra's order clearly: first he scatters the flowers, next he makes the vow, next he swears not to turn back another's mind, and only at the end does he ask about merit. Putting the question about merit last is not seeking a reward; it is seeking understanding—he wants to know the weight of this single thought of his own.

3. The Buddha weighs the merit of rejoicing by the two similes of weighing by the pound and of a single hair drawing drops from the sea. The Buddha's answer gives no figure; it gives two weighings. The first takes the great: the world of the four continents and the three-thousand great-thousand world can all be weighed and their weight known, but the merit of the mind of rejoicing cannot be weighed. The second takes the fine: were the three-thousand great-thousand world filled with sea-water, and one took a single hair, split it into a hundred parts, and with one part of the hair drew up the sea-water drop by drop, the number of drops could still be known, but the merit of the mind of rejoicing cannot be known by number. Here first dispel a misunderstanding: this does not say that the merit of rejoicing is ‘very great’. If it were only very great, it would still be on the road of what can be weighed and counted; what the sūtra text cites is precisely the utmost of the weighable and the countable, and it sets them apart with 「不可稱」 tr. "cannot be weighed" and 「不可數」 tr. "cannot be counted"—what is set apart is a kind, not a quantity. Brought down to practice: the mind that reckons how much merit its own rejoicing obtains is itself not within this kind.

4. Śakra says that those who do not rejoice are all Māra's retinue, and that one should give rise to rejoicing and dedication, because of the mark of neither one nor two. Śakra takes up the Buddha's answer and goes a layer further, and his verdict is very heavy: beings whose minds do not rejoice in awakening are all Māra's retinue; minds that do not rejoice are born having come from within Māra. How can it be judged so severely? Śakra himself gives its cause—these bodhisattvas who arouse the mind are 「為破魔境界故生」 tr. "born for the sake of breaking Māra's domain." Since the birth of the bodhisattvas who arouse the mind is precisely for breaking Māra, then which way a mind that gives rise to no gladness toward them is facing is self-evident. The last sentence matters most: those who wish to love and revere the Three Honoured Ones should give rise to the mind of rejoicing, and having rejoiced should dedicate it to awakening, 「以不一不二相故」 tr. "because of the mark of neither one nor two"—rejoicing and dedication are not two good deeds one can claim credit for; they must be practised within the mark of neither one nor two. The list of the Three Honoured Ones is not given in this chapter, nor does the treatise explain it; it is not supplied here.

5. The Buddha approves his words, and says that one who rejoices and dedicates constantly meets the buddhas and so on up to quickly drawing near to awakening, not mind and not apart from mind. The Buddha approves Śakra's words and speaks at length of the marks of the fruit: he constantly meets the buddhas, never sees evil forms, hears evil sounds, smells evil scents, eats evil tastes, touches evil tangibles, or follows evil thoughts, is never far from the buddhas, and from one buddha-realm to another buddha-realm draws near to the buddhas and plants roots of goodness. Next he brings out the cause: because he rejoices and dedicates the roots of goodness of immeasurable asaṃkhyeya bodhisattvas who have first aroused intent, and so on up to those of the second ground, the third ground, and so on up to the tenth ground, and the bodhisattvas bound to buddhahood in one more birth, he quickly draws near to awakening, and having obtained awakening delivers immeasurable beings. The last sentence suddenly turns hard—「非心、非離心」 tr. "not mind, and not apart from mind." Let the reader not hurry here to seek an explanation: the Buddha places the most substantial retribution and the emptiest distinction in the same passage precisely so that the practitioner may know that the reason the retribution is inexhaustible is that it is not tied to a mind that can be clung to.

6. Subhūti challenges the Buddha with the mind being like an illusion. The scene turns, and the speaker changes from Śakra to Subhūti. What he asks is only one sentence: this mind is like an illusion; how can it obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? This question comes very suddenly—the text above has just been speaking of the boundless retribution of rejoicing and dedication, and he, of all moments, asks at this moment about the illusoriness of the mind. Why at this moment? Precisely because the last sentence above is 「非心、非離心」 tr. "not mind, and not apart from mind"; since the Buddha himself has said that the mind cannot be clung to, Subhūti thereupon questions it through to the bottom. When one meets such a sudden turn in reading the sūtra, first look for the last words of the sentence before; most often it connects.

7. The Buddha asks in return: do you see this mind that is like an illusion? The Buddha does not answer head-on; he first asks back: what do you think? Do you see this mind that is like an illusion? This is the first round of the chapter's three rounds of question and answer. The Buddha's way of answering deserves attention: what Subhūti asked was ‘how does a mind like an illusion obtain awakening’, yet the Buddha first asks him ‘have you seen that mind which is like an illusion?’ This question moves the topic from ‘can it obtain or not’ to ‘is there anything seen or not’—whenever there is a hard question, first ask whether the matter it relies on holds; this is the constant method of this sūtra.

8. Subhūti answers: he does not see the illusion, nor does he see the mind that is like an illusion. The answer of the first round: No, World-Honored One! I do not see the illusion, nor do I see the mind that is like an illusion. This answer has two halves: the illusion itself is not seen, and the mind's being like an illusion is also not seen. A misunderstanding must be dispelled—this does not say ‘I have not yet seen it’, but that neither the illusion nor being like an illusion has any mark that can be seen. If there were something that could be seen, it would be a real dharma, and so would not be called an illusion.

9. The Buddha asks again: if there is no illusion and no mind like an illusion, do you see this mind? The second round. The Buddha follows Subhūti's answer and pushes on: since the illusion and the mind that is like an illusion are both not to be seen, do you see this mind? This question is cutting off the line of retreat—the previous answer negated only the layer of 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion," and still left a 「心」 tr. "mind"; this question of the Buddha's goes straight for the mind. In reading the treatise one should learn this manner of questioning that clears away step by step: to break one layer and leave one layer is the same as not having broken anything.

10. Subhūti answers: No. The answer of the second round is only the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘No’. The sūtra text adds no explanation and cuts off at once. The place of a short answer is often where the mental act is most real—the more one says, the more it resembles an explanation; here not even a reason is given, which precisely shows the truth of his not seeing.

11. The Buddha asks a third time: apart from the illusion and apart from the mind that is like an illusion, do you see some further dharma that obtains awakening? The third round. The Buddha steps back once more and sets up a question: leaving aside the illusion and leaving aside the mind that is like an illusion, is there some other dharma that can obtain awakening? This question is the last gate—the first two questions broke the mind and being like an illusion; this question breaks ‘there is a separate dharma’. The ordinary person's thought of seeking a dharma outside the mind is brought to a halt precisely here.

12. Subhūti answers that he does not see it, and states of himself that because of ultimate separation there is nothing attained within two separations. The answer of the third round is the longest, and is also the pivot of the sūtra section. Subhūti first answers that he does not see it, then states of himself the reason: he does not see some further dharma, nor what dharma could be said to be either existent or non-existent; because the mark of dharmas is ultimately separated, it does not fall into existence and does not fall into non-existence; if a dharma is ultimately separated, it cannot obtain awakening, and a dharma without anything existent should also not obtain it; all dharmas are without anything existent, and within them there is no one stained and no one pure; therefore prajñā and so on up to awakening are all ultimately separated; if they are ultimately separated, they should not be cultivated and should not be destroyed; and at the end he closes with a question—「若般若波羅蜜畢竟離者，云何因般若波羅蜜得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "If prajñāpāramitā is ultimately separated, how is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi obtained because of prajñāpāramitā?" 「二離中云何能有所得？」 tr. "Within two separations how can there be anything attained?" In this passage one must see clearly that Subhūti is not chanting a tune of emptiness: he pushes the answers to the Buddha's previous three questions through to the bottom, and pushes out a real deadlock. The hardness of the whole chapter lies in this deadlock's having been pushed out honestly, not set up as a difficulty.

13. The Buddha answers: precisely because of ultimate separation one can obtain; it is not that it is not because of prajñā, nor is it that by separation one obtains separation. The Buddha's answer has three parts. First, approval: Excellent! Excellent! Prajñā and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds are ultimately separated. Second, the turning-over: precisely because of ultimate separation, 「以是故能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "for this reason one can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; were it not ultimate separation, it would not be called prajñā, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. Third, the double negation: it is not that awakening is obtained not because of prajñāpāramitā, nor is awakening obtained by obtaining separation through separation. This is the place most easily misread: the Buddha is not saying that 「離」 tr. "separation" is a thing that can be taken up and used as a cause; the last part, 「亦不以離得離」 tr. "nor by separation does one obtain separation," guards precisely against this error. Ultimate separation is not another road; it is the real mark of this road; obtaining because of it is not taking it as a tool.

14. Subhūti sighs that the meaning practised is very deep. Subhūti, hearing the answer, sighs: the meaning practised by the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is very deep. A single sentence of sighing is the closing mark of the preceding passage of debate. When one sees a sigh in reading the sūtra, one should look back at which sentence it sighs at—what is sighed at here is precisely the turning-over, ‘because of ultimate separation one can obtain’, and not a general sigh at prajñā.

15. The Buddha says he is able to do what is hard, practising the deep meaning and not realising the two vehicles. The Buddha, following his sigh, adds a meaning: the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas are able to do what is hard, namely practising this deep meaning and not realising the grounds of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha. The hardness lies not in the difficulty of understanding the deep meaning, but in entering deeply and not taking realisation. First ask a question: entering emptiness deeply and taking realisation is what the two vehicles properly accomplish; why here is it judged a failing? The answer lies in the mind that has been aroused—the bodhisattva's practice is not for his own getting out, so although he arrives at the place where he could realise, he does not realise. Brought down to practice: the single thought, in a still state, that ‘here I can rest’ is precisely the pass this passage speaks of.

16. Subhūti says it is not hard, because of the practice with nothing to be attained. Subhūti, however, says it is not hard, and gives his own reason: the bodhisattva does not find a meaning that can be realised, does not find prajñā realising, and there is also no one who realises; if all dharmas are unfindable, then what is the meaning that can be realised, what is the prajñā that realises, what is the one who realises, and, having realised, obtains awakening? Therefore it is called 「菩薩摩訶薩無所得行」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practice with nothing to be attained"; the bodhisattva practising this becomes clear about all dharmas. Here first dispel a misunderstanding: Subhūti is not arguing against the Buddha. His 「不難」 tr. "not hard" is said with respect to the substance of dharmas—since there is neither one who realises nor what is realised, where would hardness be established? The Buddha's 「難」 tr. "hard" is said with respect to the practitioner. The two accounts each rest on one truth, and the treatise section has its own division of them.

17. Hearing the deep Dharma and being not startled, not sinking, not terrified, not afraid, is called practising prajñā. Subhūti, continuing from the above, speaks of the marks of practice: when the bodhisattva hears this deep Dharma, his mind is not startled, does not sink, is not terrified, is not afraid; this is called practising prajñā; while practising he does not see ‘I practise prajñā’, does not see prajñā, does not see ‘I shall obtain awakening’, and does not have the thought 「聲聞、辟支佛地去我遠，薩婆若去我近」 tr. "the grounds of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha are far from me, sarvajñā is near to me." The sūtra text sets the four 「不」 tr. "not" side by side and does not distinguish their marks, and what the treatise section extends is likewise only the one sentence 「不驚、不沒、通達無礙者，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "one who is not startled, does not sink, and penetrates without obstruction—this is called practising prajñāpāramitā." Only when the four matters can be passed can one speak of practising. The last sentence matters most—not having the thought of far and near means that there may not be a progress chart in the practitioner's mind.

18. The similes of space, the illusory person, the image in a mirror, the Buddha having no love and no hate, and the Buddha's discriminating notions being severed. Subhūti brings out similes at length as proof: space does not have the thought 「有法去我遠、去我近」 tr. "there is a dharma far from me, near to me," because space is without discrimination; the illusory person does not have the thought 「幻師去我近，觀人去我遠」 tr. "the conjurer is near to me, the onlookers are far from me," because the illusory person is without discrimination; the image in a mirror does not have the thought 「所因者去我近，餘者去我遠」 tr. "that on which I depend is near to me, the rest are far from me," because the image is without discrimination; again, as the Buddha has no love and no hate, the bodhisattva who practises prajñā also has no love and no hate, because within prajñā there is no hate and no love; again, as all the Buddha's discriminating notions are severed, all the discriminating notions of the bodhisattva who practises prajñā are also severed, because of ultimate emptiness. The similes all take one meaning: for the three similes of space, the illusory person, and the image in a mirror, the sūtra text uniformly gives only the one reason 「無分別故」 tr. "because it is without discrimination," and does not distinguish what each illuminates. In reading the similes one may not remember only the differences in the material of the similes; one must look at the one sentence to which all the similes return alike.

19. The two similes of the person conjured by the Buddha and the craftsman's wooden puppet: without discrimination and yet able to have something it does. The last two similes turn out a new meaning: the person conjured by the Buddha does not have the thought of far and near, because the conjured person is without discrimination; it is because there is something to be done that the conjuring is made, and the matter the conjured person does is without discrimination; again, as a craftsman or a craftsman's apprentice, because there is something to be done, makes a wooden puppet, whether man or woman, elephant, horse, ox, or sheep, this that is made can also have something it does, and yet is also without discrimination. So prajñā too is like this: because there is something to be done, it is said that this matter is accomplished, and yet prajñā too is without discrimination. Here first ask: the earlier similes spoke of non-discrimination; why must these two similes add 「能有所作」 tr. "can have something it does"? The answer lies in guarding against the failing of one extreme—if non-discrimination is read as being able to do nothing, it becomes the emptiness of wood and stone. So these two similes are the closing of the whole passage: non-discrimination does not obstruct accomplishing matters; precisely because of non-discrimination one can accomplish inexhaustible matters.

20. Śāriputra asks: is it only prajñā that is without discrimination, or are the other perfections also without discrimination? The third change of speaker: Śāriputra asks Subhūti. What he asks is very short—is only prajñā without discrimination, or are dhyānapāramitā and so on up to dānapāramitā also without discrimination? This question seems to seek confirmation of a commonplace, but in fact it is meant to force out the scope of 「無分別」 tr. "non-discrimination." Whenever a question in the sūtra takes the form ‘only … also …’, this is most often its intent.

21. Subhūti answers: the five perfections are also without discrimination. Subhūti says to Śāriputra: dhyānapāramitā is without discrimination, and so on up to dānapāramitā too is without discrimination. The answer is direct and makes no further analysis. Here one must catch a consequence: since the six perfections are alike without discrimination, how are the differences in the names and marks of the six perfections established? Śāriputra's next question steps exactly on this place; from which one can see that after a short answer there is bound to be a pressing forward.

22. Śāriputra asks further: if all dharmas are without discrimination, why are there the distinctions of the six destinies and the four fruits? Śāriputra pushes the scope to the bottom: form and so on up to consciousness, the eye and so on up to the mind, forms and so on up to dharmas, eye-consciousness contact and so on up to mind-consciousness contact, the feeling born from the condition of eye-contact and so on up to the feeling born from the condition of mind-contact; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; emptiness, the signless, non-action; the ten powers of the Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, great kindness and great compassion, the eighteen unshared dharmas, awakening, the unconditioned nature—are these also without discrimination? If all dharmas are without discrimination, how is it discriminated that there is the birth and death of the six destinies—hells, hungry ghosts, animals, gods, humans, and asuras? How is it discriminated that this is a srota-āpanna, a sakṛdāgāmin, an anāgāmin, an arhat, a pratyekabuddha, the buddhas? This question is the greatest question of the whole sūtra section, and is also the question that is bound to arise in the reader's mind. One must see its structure clearly: the first half exhausts all dharmas, the second half brings out two groups of differences—one the defilement of the six destinies, the other the purity of the worthies and sages. Both ends, defiled and pure, must be accounted for; only then is the question fully asked. The list of the six destinies the sūtra text itself gives here; the lists of the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and so on are not given in this chapter, and are not supplied.

23. Subhūti replies: bodies are received through inversion; because of non-discrimination there are the worthies and sages; one should practise the prajñā of non-discrimination and obtain the awakening of non-discrimination. Subhūti's answer has three parts. First, explaining the six destinies: because of the causes and conditions of inversion beings perform deeds of body, speech, and mind, and according to the retribution of the original deeds of their desire they receive the bodies of the six destinies. Second, explaining the worthies and sages: the srota-āpanna exists because of non-discrimination, the fruit of srota-āpanna too exists because of non-discrimination, and so on up to the arhat and the fruit of arhatship, the pratyekabuddha and the pratyekabuddha path, the Buddha and the Buddha path—these too exist because of non-discrimination; the buddhas of the past too exist because of non-discrimination, because discrimination is severed. Third, concluding and exhorting to practice: one should know that all dharmas are without discrimination and of indestructible mark, because they are like the suchness of dharmas, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality; the bodhisattva should practise the prajñā of non-discrimination, and having practised it he then obtains the awakening of non-discrimination. The wonder of this answer lies in the two roads standing apart: the differences of defilement come from inversion, the differences of purity come from non-discrimination—the former are distinctions produced by delusion, the latter are distinctions that exist after distinction is severed. The two Chinese characters 「便得」 tr. "then obtains" in the last part connect very steadily: practising the cause of non-discrimination, one obtains the fruit of non-discrimination; cause and fruit are of one flavour.

24. The explanation says: the treatise section begins. The treatise-author leads off the whole treatise section with 「釋曰」 tr. "The explanation says," and sets up no separate headings. These two Chinese characters are the only general heading of the whole treatise section; below them he explains passage by passage following the sūtra, without dividing it into further sections. In reading the treatise one should take this as the boundary: before it is the sūtra, after it are the words of the treatise-author; if words of the sūtra appear again, they are all the treatise-author restating the sūtra.

25. Śakra Devānām Indra and the people in the assembly are glad and have a thought. The treatise-author first supplies the setting the sūtra text leaves unclear: at that time Śakra Devānām Indra and the people in the assembly were all glad together, and Śakra Devānām Indra had this thought—the merit this bodhisattva has while practising the bodhisattva path still surpasses all beings, how much more when he achieves awakening! Why must the treatise-author supply 「皆共歡喜」 tr. "all were glad together"? Because the sūtra text records only the thought of Śakra alone; the treatise-author points out that this thought came out of what the great assembly felt together, and is not Śakra's private view. In reading the treatise one often sees this kind of supplementary stroke: it does not add events; it restores the scene.

26. Beings are of two kinds, those who have aroused the mind and those who have not; those who have aroused the mind surpass. The treatise-author establishes the first meaning: beings are of two kinds, first those who have aroused the mind, second those who have not aroused the mind; the bodhisattvas who have aroused the mind surpass all who have not aroused the mind. Why is this? These people plant the causes and conditions of the immeasurable and unsurpassed dharmas of a Buddha, and wish to deliver all beings, causing them to be free of suffering and obtain happiness; the other beings only seek happiness for themselves and wish to give suffering to others. Here first dispel a misunderstanding: what surpasses lies not in ability but in direction. The reason the treatise-author gives is, from beginning to end, only one—facing toward oneself or facing toward others. Brought down to practice: to examine whether one stands on the side of 「發心」 tr. "arousing the mind," one need not look at accomplishment; look at whom this single thought is for.

27. Question: arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and those with the five powers have all left desire behind, while one who arouses the mind has not left desire behind; how can he surpass them? The treatise-author sets his own first question, and asks it very reasonably: the arhats, the pratyekabuddhas, and those with the five powers are people who have left desire behind, while one who arouses the mind may not yet have left desire behind and only have aroused the mind; how can he surpass them? The weight of this question lies in the two Chinese characters 「離欲」 tr. "leaving desire behind"—that is realisation of a solid, real kind, while one who arouses the mind may have nothing at all. Whoever reads the words ‘arousing the mind surpasses’ and is not convinced at heart—this question is asked precisely on your behalf. The list of the five powers is not given in this chapter, and is not supplied.

28. Answer: it has already been answered in an earlier chapter; like the crown prince in the womb, and the prince not yet enthroned. The treatise-author's answer has three parts. First, pointing the way: this matter has already been answered in various ways in earlier chapters, and is not brought out again. Second, the proper answer: although the arhats and the rest have exhausted their outflows, they are not equal to the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind. Third, two similes: as the crown prince of a wheel-turning sage king, though still in the womb, already surpasses the other sons; as the crown prince of a king of a country, though not yet enthroned, surpasses the great ministers who have rank, wealth, and honour. The two similes take one meaning but illuminate different things: the crown prince in the womb illuminates his being already settled before he is born; the crown prince not yet enthroned illuminates his being already honoured before he holds office. What is honoured lies in lineage and in the position to be inherited, not in present ability—this is exactly the meaning of ‘direction’ in Passage 26 given visible form.

29. Bodhisattvas who have aroused the mind are of two kinds, those who practise the bodhisattva path and those who only emptily arouse the mind; like the kalaviṅka bird in the shell. The treatise-author at once supplies an important distinction: bodhisattvas who have aroused the mind are of two kinds, first those who practise the bodhisattva path of the perfections and the rest, second those who only emptily arouse the mind; and he specifically says that the ones spoken of here are 「行菩薩道者」 tr. "those who practise the bodhisattva path." Why must this sentence be supplied? Because if the answer of Passage 28 lacked this limit, it would become the excess ‘all who arouse the mind surpass the arhats’. Next he brings out a simile: as the kalaviṅka bird in the shell, before it has uttered a sound, can already surpass all birds; the bodhisattva, though he has not yet become a Buddha, practises the bodhisattva path, utters the sound of the real mark of all dharmas, and breaks the idle discourse of all the outside paths and of Māra's people, how much more when he becomes a Buddha! The place this simile illuminates is 「聲」 tr. "sound"—the bird surpasses by its sound, the bodhisattva surpasses by the sound of speaking the real mark; simile and what it likens interlock very tightly.

30. Someone says: whoever arouses the mind a single time saying, ‘I shall become a Buddha and extinguish the suffering of all beings,’ surpasses because the deeds of mind and mouth are weighty. This passage is another's account, not the treatise-author speaking for himself. Someone says: if there is one who can, with a single arousing of the mind, say 「我當作佛，滅一切眾生苦」 tr. "I shall become a Buddha and extinguish the suffering of all beings," then although he has not yet cut off the afflictions and has not yet practised hard deeds, because the deeds of mind and mouth are weighty he surpasses all beings; all beings seek happiness for themselves, and for their own sake love those close to them; the arhats and the pratyekabuddhas, though they do not crave worldly happiness, seek the happiness of nirvāṇa for the sake of extinguishing their own suffering and cannot act for beings; the bodhisattva's mind gives rise to it and his mouth says it for the sake of delivering all, and therefore he surpasses. Here the reader must remember a boundary: this account sets the ground of 「勝」 tr. "surpassing" down in the weightiness of the deeds of mind and mouth, going one step further than the treatise-author's ‘direction’, down to the level of deeds. The treatise-author records it without judging, and the reader need not hurry to judge either.

31. The simile of the arhat of the six supernormal powers and the śrāmaṇera. The treatise-author brings out a long simile. An arhat of the six supernormal powers had a śrāmaṇera carry his robe and bowl and walk along the road; the śrāmaṇera reflected by what vehicle he should enter nirvāṇa, and at once aroused the mind to enter nirvāṇa by the Buddha vehicle; the master knew his thought, at once took the robe and bowl and shouldered them himself, and pushed the śrāmaṇera to walk in front. The śrāmaṇera again reflected that the Buddha path is very hard, and that one abides long in birth and death and receives immeasurable suffering, and that he would rather enter nirvāṇa early by the Small Vehicle; the master again gave the robe-and-bowl bag back to the śrāmaṇera to carry and told him to walk behind. So it went three times. The śrāmaṇera found it strange that his master behaved like a child at play, and the master answered: when you first thought of arousing the mind to become a Buddha, that mind was precious and weighty, and so you abode within the path of my teacher; such a person even the pratyekabuddhas ought to make offerings to, how much more an arhat, and for this reason I pushed you in front; your mind turned back in regret, wishing to take the Small Vehicle, yet you had not yet obtained it, and you were far removed from me, and therefore I made you walk behind. The śrāmaṇera, on hearing this, was startled into understanding—my master can know my mind; with a single arousing of intent I have already surpassed the arhat, how much more on accomplishing it—and at once firmly abode of himself in the Dharma of the Great Vehicle. The merit of this simile is that it places 「勝」 tr. "surpassing" in an everyday scene that can repeat back and forth: the positions of front and behind change with the thought, three times changed, and the master does not weary of it. Brought down to practice: the surpassing of arousing the mind is not a title conferred once and for all; it is a living fact that appears with the thought and is lost with regret.

32. To surpass need not be to surpass in all matters, as in terms of flying the bird surpasses the human. The treatise-author at once keeps his own measure: the name surpassing need not be surpassing in all matters; it is only in the matter of 「一發心，欲作佛，度眾生」 tr. "a single arousing of the mind, wishing to become a Buddha and deliver beings" that he surpasses; as for all the other things, meditative concentration, liberation, and so on, he does not yet have them—how could it be said that he surpasses? As, speaking in terms of flying, the bird surpasses the human. The merit he will obtain in the future—this matter is not discussed. This passage is the most important brake of the whole treatise section. First ask: since it has already been said that arousing the mind surpasses the arhat, why does he limit himself again? The answer lies in guarding against excess—if it were not limited, then one who arouses the mind could on this ground slight all people with real realisation, and that is precisely the other extreme this treatise breaks. Brought down to practice: to spur oneself on by arousing the mind is permissible; to exalt oneself by arousing the mind is not; what surpasses is only in one matter, and all the other matters must still be cultivated from the beginning.

33. People of the Small Vehicle say: even a bodhisattva bound to buddhahood does not surpass a small śrāmaṇera who has obtained immeasurable restraints. The treatise-author brings up the account of the first extreme: people of the Small Vehicle say that even a bodhisattva bound to buddhahood does not surpass a small śrāmaṇera who has obtained immeasurable restraints. The ground of this account lies in the substance of the precepts—the śrāmaṇera receives the precepts and obtains immeasurable restraints, a merit that can be pointed to in the present; the bodhisattva bound to buddhahood, if discussed in terms of restraints, need not exceed him. The treatise-author records his words and adds no refutation; the reader should look at its ground as it really is, and only then will he know from where the judgement of 「二邊」 tr. "the two extremes" below comes.

34. Some say in the treatises of the Mahāyāna: one who arouses the mind of the Great Vehicle, even among base and evil petty people, still surpasses those of the two vehicles who have obtained liberation. The treatise-author brings up the account of the second extreme, and makes clear that its source is in the treatises of the Mahāyāna: some people speak thus—one who has aroused the mind of the Great Vehicle, even though he is among base and evil petty people, still surpasses those of the two vehicles who have obtained liberation. This account is exactly opposite to the former: the former takes the substance of the precepts in the present as its standard, this takes the mind that has been aroused as its standard and does not ask about the person's baseness and evil. The two accounts each hold one end and each make sense of their own—the reason the treatise-author sets the two accounts side by side is precisely to show that the failing of holding one end lies not in being wrong but in being one-sided.

35. The two extremes and the middle way; therefore it is said that at the time of the first arousing of the mind one surpasses all beings. The treatise-author gives his verdict: these are called the two extremes; to be apart from these two extremes is called the middle way; the meaning of the middle way is as said above, and because it has the reality of meaning and principle it should be taken; therefore it is said, 「初發心時，勝一切眾生，何況成佛！」 tr. "At the time of the first arousing of the mind he surpasses all beings, how much more when he becomes a Buddha!" Here one must see clearly that the middle way is not a compromise. The standard of taking and rejecting the treatise-author gives is only one sentence—「以其有義理實故」 tr. "because it has the reality of meaning and principle"; what is taken is the reality of meaning and principle, not a median value between two accounts. Brought down to practice: when one meets two accounts that both make sense and exclude each other, first ask what each rests on, then ask which account stands on the reality of meaning and principle; do not first calculate proportions.

36. Explaining the sūtra phrase 「聞薩婆若信者，得人中善利」 tr. "those who hear of sarvajñā and have faith obtain the good benefit among humans." The treatise-author turns to explaining the words of the first passage of the sūtra text, bringing up the sentence 「聞薩婆若信者，得人中善利」 tr. "those who hear of sarvajñā and have faith obtain the good benefit among humans" without explaining it at once, leaving it for the several accounts below. Why does the treatise-author set up a heading here? Because in the sūtra text this sentence is only an attendant phrase, and never defines what 「善利」 tr. "the good benefit" is; wherever the sūtra brings out a name and mark without defining it, the treatise-author mostly sets up a heading for it and gathers the several accounts—when one sees this format, one knows that what follows is a laying-out side by side and not a fixed judgement.

37. Someone says: the six perfections are the benefit. The first account. It takes the six perfections themselves as the benefit—that is, the dharma practised is itself the benefit obtained, without waiting for retribution. This account is the most direct; what it holds to lies in the causal practice.

38. Someone says: the retribution of the six perfections is the benefit, namely wheel-turning sage kings, Śakra and the Brahmā kings, kings of humans, kings of the Dharma, and so on. The second account. It takes the retribution of the six perfections as the benefit, and lists its items side by side—wheel-turning sage kings, Śakra and the Brahmā kings, kings of humans, kings of the Dharma, and so on. This account stands exactly opposite to the former: the former takes the cause, this takes the fruit.

39. Someone says: to obtain the state of the avaivartika, not to fall into the evil destinies, and to be constantly born among humans and gods in places of wealth and honour. The third account. It takes the position of non-retrogression as the benefit, together with its marks—not falling into the evil destinies, and being constantly born among humans and gods in places of wealth and honour. What this account takes lies in ‘safety’, that is, the safety line of practice.

40. Someone says: the bodhisattva, abiding in the supernormal powers of retribution, travels to the ten directions making offerings to the buddhas and teaching and transforming beings, and obtains great benefits such as these. The fourth account. It takes the use of the supernormal powers of retribution as the benefit: travelling to the ten directions making offerings to the buddhas, teaching and transforming beings by various skilful means, teaching and transforming beings by the causes and conditions of faith and acceptance. What this account takes lies in ‘use’. The four accounts are laid out side by side, from cause to fruit, from safety to use, and the treatise-author judges none of them. The reader need not choose one of the four accounts, but should see that the phrase 「善利」 tr. "the good benefit" in this treatise can hold so broad an explanation—it was never a narrow name and mark.

41. Explaining 「壽命中最」 tr. "the foremost among lives": two kinds of life, and the life of wisdom. The treatise-author explains the second phrase of the sūtra text: beings have two kinds of life, first the life-faculty, second the life of wisdom; because this person obtains the life of wisdom it is said, 「壽命中最」 tr. "the foremost among lives." Next he connects the sūtra's intent: how much more one who arouses the mind! One who arouses the mind is worthy of reverence and worthy of honour; why is this? As the causes and conditions said before—「能捨自樂、與他樂；不自憂苦，憂他人苦故。」 tr. "Because he can give up his own happiness and give happiness to others; because he does not grieve over his own suffering but grieves over the suffering of others." Of this passage first ask: how can life be of two kinds? The answer lies in the headings the treatise-author himself sets up—the life-faculty is the span of the bodily life, the life of wisdom is the life obtained by those who hear of sarvajñā and have faith. The headings of the two lives come from this place in this treatise. Brought down to practice: the length of the bodily span cannot be sought, but the continuance or severance of the life of wisdom lies in one's own single thought of taking or rejecting.

42. Śakra Devānām Indra scatters heavenly māndārava flowers, as the sūtra says at length. The treatise-author passes over the sūtra's passage of scattering flowers in a single sentence: at that time Śakra Devānām Indra, wishing to show the mark of gladness, scattered heavenly māndārava flowers over the Buddha, as the sūtra says at length. The four Chinese characters 「如經廣說」 tr. "as the sūtra says at length" are the treatise-author's abbreviating stroke—what the sūtra text has already made clear is not retold. When one sees these four Chinese characters in reading the treatise, one should go back to the sūtra text and read it oneself, and may not suppose that the treatise-author abbreviates because he does not value it.

43. Question: sin and merit cannot be given to others; why does Śakra say that by this merit those who seek the Buddha path may be fully endowed with the dharmas of a Buddha? The treatise-author sets the second question. This question is very solid: sin and merit are made and received by each person himself and cannot be given to others; even if one wished to give them one could not; then is Śakra's phrase 「以此福德令求佛道者具足佛法」 tr. "by this merit may those who seek the Buddha path be fully endowed with the dharmas of a Buddha" not empty words? Whoever, reading the words of dedication in the sūtra, gives rise at heart to the doubt ‘does this really have any use’—this question is asked precisely on your behalf.

44. Answer: though it cannot be given to others, yet one makes one's own mind good; and it shows not clinging to merit. The treatise-author's answer has two parts, and neither answers from ‘can it be given or not’. First, though it cannot be given to others, yet one makes one's own mind good—the real effect of dedication falls first on one's own mind. Second, Śakra Devānām Indra shows by this that he does not cling to merit, and therefore gives the mind of rejoicing to those who seek the Buddha path, and to the śrāvakas likewise. In this answer one must see clearly where it turns: what is asked is ‘can the giving succeed’, what is answered is ‘what this single thought of giving has done’. Brought down to practice: the benefit of dedication lies in being able to let go, not in being able to give; if one reckons whether the giving arrives or not, it becomes instead clinging to merit.

45. Śakra states of himself that though he has obtained the śrāvaka path he does not give rise to a single thought to make a bodhisattva turn back. The treatise-author restates the sūtra and explains Śakra's words: though I have obtained the śrāvaka path, I do not give rise to a single thought to make a bodhisattva turn back toward the mind of the two vehicles; why is this? The bodhisattvas see that beings in birth and death have all kinds of suffering, and, wishing to benefit all the world, make this vow: 「未度者我當等度」 tr. "Those not yet delivered I shall deliver equally." The weight of this passage lies in the standing of the speaker—a person who has already obtained the śrāvaka path keeps guard, for the bodhisattvas, over the vow not to retreat to the two vehicles. First ask: the road he himself walks is this one; why does he not wish others to walk it too? The answer lies in the suffering he sees—the reason Śakra gives is not the height of the roads but that the suffering of beings still waits to be delivered.

46. Beings in the assembly have a thought: what difference is there between rejoicing in a person who has first aroused the mind and rejoicing in a person who has long aroused the mind? The treatise-author supplies another setting the sūtra text leaves unclear: among the beings in the assembly some had this thought—if, as said above, rejoicing has merit, what difference is there between rejoicing in a person who has first aroused the mind and rejoicing in a person who has long aroused the mind? This thought is the origin of Śakra's question below. The treatise-author supplies it in order to make clear that Śakra's question is not a private question but resolves a doubt on behalf of the many. When one sees this kind of supplementary stroke in reading the treatise, one should know that behind an abrupt question in the sūtra text there is most often a doubt of the assembly.

47. Śakra, wishing to resolve the doubt of the many, asks the Buddha, as the sūtra says at length. The treatise-author makes clear Śakra's intent in asking the Buddha: Śakra Devānām Indra, wishing to resolve the doubt of the many, asked the Buddha, 「世尊！於初發心菩薩功德隨喜得幾許福德？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Rejoicing in the meritorious virtue of the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind, how much merit does one obtain?" as the sūtra says at length. Here one must remember the position of the one asking: Śakra is not asking for himself. Whoever asks on behalf of the many, what he asks must seek to be clear and usable, not to be profound—this too is the reason this chapter's answer uses weighing and not abstruse talk.

48. Because the field of merit is immeasurable and boundless the merit cannot be known by number; rejoicing in those near the Buddha path brings still greater merit. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answer: this merit is immeasurable and boundless, because it is planted in an immeasurable and boundless field; people cannot know it by number, and so similes are spoken to make it understood, as the sūtra says at length. Next he supplies a meaning: though the virtue of rejoicing is immeasurable and boundless, toward those who are near the Buddha path the merit of rejoicing is greater still. This passage has two layers; do not read them merged into one. First, the reason the merit cannot be counted is that the field in which it is planted is immeasurable and boundless—the emphasis is on the field, not on the size of the mind. Second, though it is alike immeasurable, rejoicing toward those near the Buddha path brings greater merit—within the immeasurable there is still more and less. The two meanings stand together without obstructing each other, just as this chapter earlier says 「不可稱量」 tr. "cannot be weighed" and here says 「轉多」 tr. "greater still."

49. Śakra says that those who do not rejoice are Māra's people come from the heaven of Māra, because in Māra's domain they have accumulated evil minds. The treatise-author explains Śakra's heavy words: at that time Śakra, because he was glad, said to the Buddha that all who hear of this merit and do not rejoice are Māra's people, come from the heaven of Māra; why is this? Because in Māra's domain they have accumulated evil minds, they do not rejoice. The sūtra says plainly 「諸心不隨喜者，從魔中來生」 tr. "minds that do not rejoice are born having come from within Māra," words that concern the place of origin; the cause the treatise-author gives is 「在魔境界，積集惡心故不隨喜」 tr. "being in Māra's domain, because they have accumulated evil minds they do not rejoice," words that concern accumulation. The two phrases of sūtra and treatise stand together, and this chapter does not merge them into one account. Brought down to practice: if the mind that does not rejoice is left to accumulate, the domain naturally follows it; these words are a warning, not a verdict.

50. Here the causes and conditions are spoken: the mind of rejoicing can break Māra's realm, and so one should dedicate the mind of rejoicing to awakening. The treatise-author points out the causes and conditions the sūtra text carries with it: the mind of rejoicing can break Māra's realm; therefore those who seek the Buddha path, those who wish to love and revere the Three Honoured Ones and not abandon them, should dedicate the mind of rejoicing to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This passage and Passage 49 are exactly one positive and one negative: not rejoicing, one accumulates Māra's domain; rejoicing, one breaks Māra's realm. Only when the two passages are seen together does one know why this chapter speaks of a single thought of rejoicing as so important—it is the single thought that stands directly against Māra's domain.

51. Explaining 「不一不二相」 tr. "the mark of neither one nor two." The treatise-author glosses the words in the sūtra: he does not see that dharmas have any one fixed mark that does not belong to causes and conditions, and so it says 「不一」 tr. "not one"; he does not discriminate between the mind of rejoicing and the mind of dedication, and this is called 「不二」 tr. "not two," because of ultimate emptiness. This gloss must be read word by word: 「不一」 tr. "not one" breaks the fixed mark; 「不二」 tr. "not two" breaks the partition between agent and object—if the mind of rejoicing and the mind of dedication are split into two things, there comes to be one who dedicates and a dharma that is dedicated. Brought down to practice: rejoicing and then dedicating are not two procedures; they are the continuation of a single thought.

52. The Buddha further extols the meritorious virtue of rejoicing: quickly obtaining the sight of the buddhas, the six faculties not receiving evil sense-objects, and never being apart from the sight of the buddhas. The treatise-author explains the words in which the Buddha, having approved Śakra's intent, further extols the meritorious virtue of rejoicing: because this person constantly recollects the merits of the buddhas of the ten directions and rejoices, he quickly obtains the sight of the buddhas; again, because with a deep mind he wishes all beings to be free of suffering and obtain happiness, therefore, going and coming within birth and death, his six faculties from the first do not receive evil sense-objects; he is never apart from being born before the buddhas, because he does not cut off the practice of planting the seed of seeing the buddhas. The order of this passage deserves attention: first it speaks of the rejoicing that recollects the buddhas, next of the deep mind toward beings, and the two together obtain the fruit 「六情初不受惡塵」 tr. "the six faculties from the first do not receive evil sense-objects." What is protected is the six faculties, and what is practised lies at the two ends of recollecting the buddhas and keeping beings in mind—it is not setting up a separate dharma of guarding the doors of the faculties.

53. The Buddha himself speaks the causes and conditions: because one rejoices in the bodhisattvas of the first arousing of the mind and so on up to those bound to buddhahood in one more birth, one quickly accomplishes the Buddha path. The treatise-author points out that here the Buddha himself speaks the causes and conditions: because this person rejoices in all the bodhisattvas, from countless asaṃkhyeya bodhisattvas of the first arousing of the mind up to immeasurable bodhisattvas bound to buddhahood in one more birth, he obtains the retribution above, quickly accomplishes the Buddha path, and delivers immeasurable asaṃkhyeya beings. This passage takes up the fruit of Passage 52 and supplies its cause—what is rejoiced in is not one person or one matter; it is the whole, from the first arousing of the mind up to the one bound to buddhahood in one more birth. Brought down to practice: if rejoicing reaches only the kind of people one likes oneself, it is not the rejoicing spoken of here.

54. Because one dedicates according to the real mark, it is said: not mind, and also not apart from mind. The treatise-author explains the distinction at the end of the sūtra passage: this bodhisattva, by reason of this merit, dedicates it according to the real mark of all dharmas; within the real mark the mind is unfindable, and therefore it is said, 「非心，亦不離心」 tr. "not mind, and also not apart from mind"; it is the meaning of 「不一不二」 tr. "neither one nor two" spoken above, spoken again because the matter is different. This passage unties the difficulty left over by Passage 5. First ask: why must it say not mind and yet also say not apart from mind? The answer lies in the mind's being unfindable within the real mark—since it is unfindable, one may not take the mind as a support and speak of dedicating, and this is called not mind; yet dedicating is not a separate matter apart from this mind, and this is called not apart from mind. The treatise-author further points out that this meaning is precisely the 「不一不二」 tr. "neither one nor two" of the earlier text, only spoken once more because what it faces is a different matter. When one sees words such as 「以事異故更說」 tr. "spoken again because the matter is different" in reading the treatise, one knows that the earlier and later phrases are one meaning, and there is no need to set up a separate new explanation.

55. Subhūti takes up the emptiness in which there is no mark of mind and challenges the Buddha. The treatise-author explains the turn in the sūtra text: Subhūti, having heard this, took up this emptiness in which there is no mark of mind and challenged the Buddha—this mind is not mind, empty, without anything existent, like an illusion; how can it obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? Here the treatise-author points out in a word what Subhūti relies on: what he takes up to make his challenge is precisely the 「非心」 tr. "not mind" that the Buddha himself spoke. If in reading the sūtra section this question feels abrupt, look at this sentence of the treatise-author's and it becomes clear: the blade the challenger holds was handed to him by the Buddha's own hand.

56. The Buddha asks in return: do you see this fixed mark of the empty mind as like an illusion? The treatise-author restates the Buddha's first counter-question: do you see this fixed mark of the empty mind as like an illusion? The treatise-author, in restating the sūtra, adds the two Chinese characters 「定相」 tr. "fixed mark" with the intent that what is asked is whether there is a determinate mind-mark like an illusion that can be pointed to. These two Chinese characters are the key to the treatise section's explanation of the first round of question and answer in the sūtra text: what the Buddha asks is not ‘do you believe the mind is like an illusion’, but ‘can you point out that mind which is like an illusion?’

57. Subhūti has a thought: if the mind is empty like an illusion, how can it be seen? And so he answers no. The treatise-author supplies the mental act before Subhūti's answer: if the mind is empty like an illusion, how can it be seen? If it can be seen, then it is not empty. Therefore he answered, 「不」 tr. "No." This passage is the treatise-author supplying a line of reasoning for the sūtra text: the sūtra text has only a single 「不也」 tr. "no"; the treatise-author writes out the reason behind this 「不」 tr. "no"—what can be seen is not empty; this is the simplest and clearest criterion. Brought down to practice: whoever feels ‘I have seen emptiness’ need only hold this one sentence up to himself.

58. The Buddha asks again: if the mind is empty and without anything existent, do you see within it any idle discourse of either existence or non-existence? The treatise-author restates the Buddha's second question: if the mind is empty and without anything existent, do you see within it any idle discourse of either existence or non-existence? What this question breaks is not the mind but the idle discourse upon the mind—the debate between the two ends of existence and non-existence. First ask: since he has already answered that he does not see the mind, why further ask about existence and non-existence? The answer lies in the habit of the human mind—although the mind cannot be seen, the discourse ‘it exists’, ‘it does not exist’ still arises of itself. This question gathers up precisely this layer.

59. He answers: No. The answer of the second round is again only the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘No’. Neither sūtra nor treatise adds any explanation. Reading the treatise to this point one can see a rhythm: the questions deepen step by step, while the answer is of one flavour throughout—not that it cannot be said, but that there is nothing to be said.

60. The Buddha asks a third time: apart from this empty mind without anything existent and like an illusion, do you see some further dharma that can obtain the unsurpassed path? The treatise-author restates the Buddha's third question: apart from this empty mind, without anything existent and like an illusion, is there some other dharma that can obtain the unsurpassed path? What this question breaks is the view ‘there is a separate dharma’. The three questions seen together form one sequence: the first breaks the mark of mind, the second breaks the discourse of existence and non-existence, the third breaks a separate dharma outside the mind—once all three roads are cut, only then comes the challenge below.

61. He answers that he does not see it. The answer of the third round. At this point the three questions and three answers are all finished, and the ground on which Subhūti stands leaves no retreat; the challenge of the next passage arises naturally. The short answer is short precisely because the road ahead is exhausted.

62. Because it is not seen and unfindable, it is ultimately separated and ultimately empty; seeing, cultivating, severing, and realising are unfindable. The treatise-author extends its meaning: because it is not seen and is unfindable, how could there be a dharma that either exists or does not exist? Because all dharmas are ultimately separated and ultimately empty, they do not fall into existence and do not fall into non-existence; if a dharma does not fall within existence and non-existence, then it is ultimately without anything existent, and should not obtain the unsurpassed path; for these causes and conditions prajñāpāramitā has the mark of ultimate separation, because to see existence and non-existence are both faults; dhyānapāramitā and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi likewise have the mark of ultimate separation; if a dharma is ultimately separated, then it cannot be found to be seen, cannot be found to be cultivated, cannot be found to be severed, cannot be found to be realised; practising this dharma, there is further nothing attained, because of ultimate separation. This passage pushes the difficulty to its very end: the four matters of seeing, cultivating, severing, and realising are all unfindable. A misunderstanding must be dispelled—this does not say that practice is useless, but that upon a dharma of ultimate separation one may not form the notion of one who can see, can cultivate, can sever, can realise. In the last sentence, 「行是法則更無所得」 tr. "practising this dharma, there is further nothing attained," the word 「行」 tr. "practising" may not be passed over: the dharma must still be practised.

63. Subhūti challenges: how does one obtain ultimate separation by ultimate separation? It is like touching space with a finger. The treatise-author explains Subhūti's proper challenge: now prajñāpāramitā is ultimately separated, and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is ultimately separated; how does one obtain ultimate separation by ultimate separation? If one dharma being ultimately separated should still not have anything attained, how much less two separations! Next he brings out a simile: as when one touches space with a finger—because space has no contact, the finger cannot touch it; how much less when both have no contact! It is also like space and nirvāṇa. This simile is extremely fine: when one end has no contact it already fails; when both ends have no contact it fails all the more. What the simile illuminates is the unfindability of ‘being accomplished in mutual dependence’—if what obtains and what is obtained are both without self-nature, where could the single matter of obtaining be set up? This challenge is the hardest question of the whole chapter; the reader may well pause here, first let the challenge stand, and then look at the Buddha's answer.

64. The Buddha approves his words and at once speaks the causes and conditions: because of ultimate separation it can be obtained. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's approval and answer: the Buddha, knowing that Subhūti spoke in accord with the real mark of all dharmas, approved his words, 「善哉！善哉！」 tr. "Excellent! Excellent!" and at once spoke the causes and conditions—if prajñāpāramitā is ultimately separated and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is ultimately separated, for these causes and conditions it can be obtained. Here first ask: why does the Buddha first approve a challenge? The answer lies in the words the treatise-author adds—「隨諸法實相說故」 tr. "because he spoke in accord with the real mark of all dharmas." Subhūti's challenge itself arose in accord with the real mark, and so it is first approved; approving its ground, he then turns over its clinging. When one sees in reading the treatise that the Buddha first approves and then turns over, one should know that what is approved is the ground, and what is turned over is the clinging.

65. If a dharma definitely had a mark and were not empty, there would be no four truths, no Three Jewels, and so on up to no dharmas at all. The treatise-author brings out the grounds of the Buddha's answer, using a proof from the contrary: if one dharma definitely had a mark and were not empty, it would be a permanent dharma, with the mark of non-arising; if there is no real mark of arising, there is no mark of ceasing; if there is no arising and ceasing, there are no four truths; if there are no four truths, there is no Dharma Jewel; because there is no Dharma Jewel, there is also no anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—because the Dharma Jewel is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; if there is no Dharma Jewel, there is no Buddha Jewel; if there is no Buddha and Dharma, there is no Saṅgha Jewel; if there are no Three Jewels, there are no dharmas at all—there are such faults and offences as these. The last sentence turns back: with the mark of ultimate separation, one penetrates without obstruction. This passage is the most complete chain of reasoning in this chapter, and in reading it one must fasten it link by link: with a fixed mark there is no arising; with no arising there is no ceasing; with no arising and ceasing there are no four truths; with no four truths there is no Dharma Jewel; with no Dharma Jewel there is no awakening, no Buddha Jewel, no Saṅgha Jewel, no dharmas at all. The lists of the four truths and of the three fetters are not given in this chapter, and are not supplied; the list of the Three Jewels this passage itself gives—the Dharma Jewel, the Buddha Jewel, the Saṅgha Jewel.

66. Ultimate separation, know that it is also separated from emptiness; therefore the sūtra says one does not obtain two separations by two separations. The treatise-author guards one layer further: if ultimate separation is spoken of, know that it is also separated from emptiness; if it is not separated from emptiness, it is not called ultimate separation. Next he restates the sūtra as proof: therefore the sūtra says, 「般若波羅蜜畢竟離故，能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；雖不離般若波羅蜜得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不以二離而得二離」 tr. "because prajñāpāramitā is ultimately separated, one can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; though it is not apart from prajñāpāramitā that one obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, neither does one obtain two separations by two separations"; because of ultimate emptiness one should not raise the challenge. This passage is the last line of defence against clinging in the whole chapter: if 「離」 tr. "separation" is not separated from 「空」 tr. "emptiness," then separation itself becomes again a dharma that can be clung to, and Subhūti's challenge would stand once more. Brought down to practice: whoever takes emptiness as something attained—this passage is precisely its cure.

67. Subhūti, knowing that what the Buddha says is of a very deep mark, sighs. The treatise-author explains the turn in the sūtra text: Subhūti knew that what the Buddha said was of a very deep mark, and therefore said to the Buddha: if the bodhisattva can practise thus, then this is practising the very deep meaning. The treatise-author here adds the phrase 「知佛所說甚深相」 tr. "knew that what the Buddha said was of a very deep mark," pointing out the origin of the sigh: the sigh is not a courtesy; it is words after understanding.

68. The Buddha approves his words: to be able to practise the very deep meaning and not realise the two vehicles, entering deeply into emptiness with sharp wisdom and not realising nirvāṇa, is what is hard. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's approval and its reason: this bodhisattva is able to do what is hard—able to practise such a very deep meaning and yet not realise the two vehicles; why is this? This bodhisattva, single-mindedly, with sharp wisdom enters deeply into emptiness and does not realise nirvāṇa; this is what is hard. Here one must see clearly where the 「難」 tr. "hardness" lies: not in emptiness being hard to enter, but precisely in entering deeply with sharp wisdom and still not taking realisation. The two Chinese characters 「利智」 tr. "sharp wisdom" that the treatise-author adds matter most—the dull do not enter deeply, and naturally have no realisation to take; to enter deeply and not realise is what is hard.

69. Subhūti says it is not hard: because of the practice with nothing to be attained, all dharmas are illuminated. The treatise-author restates Subhūti's contrary account: as I understand the meaning the Buddha speaks, this is not hard; why? This person does not find any one fixed mark of this very deep meaning that can be realised, does not find prajñāpāramitā, does not find one who realises; who would realise by the very deep meaning? If he does not realise this very deep meaning, who would obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? This is called the bodhisattva's practice with nothing to be attained; practising this path, he illuminates all dharmas. The ground of this passage is the same as Passage 16: with neither one who realises nor what is realised, hardness has nowhere to be established. Read the two places together, and one can know that Subhūti's account is consistent from first to last, not an ingenious argument of the moment.

70. Question: the Buddha says it is hard and Subhūti says it is not hard; the meaning of master and disciple should be the same; why do they contradict each other? The treatise-author sets the third question, and asks it most properly: the Buddha says 「難」 tr. "hard," Subhūti says 「不難」 tr. "not hard"; the meaning of master and disciple should be the same; why do they each contradict the other? This question is the most important question of the whole treatise section, because what it concerns is the pattern of teaching the Dharma, not merely the meaning of one passage. Whoever, reading the sūtra, sees that what the Buddha and a disciple say is opposite and is uneasy at heart—this question is asked precisely on your behalf.

71. Answer: the Buddha speaks by worldly truth, Subhūti speaks by the truth of the highest meaning; and each follows the capacity of the hearer. The treatise-author's answer has two layers. First, the division by the two truths: the Buddha speaks by reason of worldly truth, Subhūti speaks by reason of the truth of the highest meaning; the Buddha says that the bodhisattva obtains this very deep meaning, Subhūti says that the bodhisattva also does not obtain this very deep meaning. Second, speaking according to capacity: the Buddha, on Subhūti's account, speaks for the sake of beings—there are people who, hearing of a hard matter, arouse the mind, and so the hard matter is spoken of; there are people who, hearing of a hard matter, give up and retreat, and so it is said there is no hardness. Only when the two layers are seen together is it complete: it is not only that the truths they rest on differ, but also that the capacities they face differ. Brought down to practice: one who, hearing 「難」 tr. "hard," has his resolve roused, takes the account of hardness; one who, hearing 「難」 tr. "hard," has his mind retreat, takes the account of not hard—both accounts are set up for you, and need not be taken up to attack and break each other.

72. This is called the practice with nothing to be attained; abiding in this practice, one penetrates all dharmas without obstruction. The treatise-author closes this section: this is called the bodhisattva's practice with nothing to be attained; abiding in this practice, he penetrates all dharmas without obstruction. The word 「住」 tr. "abiding" is the eye of this passage—nothing to be attained is not a view that is done with once it has passed; it is a practice one can abide in. Brought down to practice: penetrating without obstruction is not seeking some further skill; it is the natural mark of abiding within nothing to be attained.

73. Subhūti says: hearing of ultimate separation and not being startled, not sinking, and penetrating without obstruction—this is called true practice and deep practice. The treatise-author restates Subhūti's words and adds a judgement: if the bodhisattva, hearing ultimate separation spoken of thus—that there is no dharma to be realised, no one who takes realisation, and also no prajñā and no anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—is at that time not startled, does not sink, and penetrates without obstruction, this is called practising prajñāpāramitā; one who practises prajñāpāramitā—this is called true practice and deep practice. This connects with the 「不驚、不沒、不怖、不畏」 tr. "not startled, does not sink, not terrified, not afraid" of the sūtra text in Passage 17 and is simpler still, naming only the two matters of not being startled and not sinking. The judgement 「真行、深行」 tr. "true practice and deep practice" that the treatise-author adds in the last sentence fixes the marks of practice spoken of earlier under a single name.

74. Not seeing prajñā, not seeing that I practise, not making the discrimination that the two vehicles are far and the Buddha path near. The treatise-author extends its marks: this bodhisattva does not see prajñāpāramitā, and also does not see that I practise prajñāpāramitā, does not see anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and also does not see that this dharma can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; he is altogether without discrimination; this bodhisattva abides securely within the real mark of all dharmas, and therefore does not make this discrimination, saying 「二乘離我遠，佛道離我近」 tr. "the two vehicles are far from me, the Buddha path is near to me." This passage corresponds exactly to Passages 17 and 18 and the others of the sūtra section, and the treatise-author adds one sentence that matters most—「安住一切諸法實相中」 tr. "abides securely within the real mark of all dharmas." Not making the discrimination of far and near is not pressing thought down; it is that the place where one abides has from the first no far and near.

75. The similes of space and the rest are to make clear ultimate emptiness; though prajñā is empty, if there is something cultivated it can accomplish its matter. The treatise-author explains the similes as a whole: here the similes of space and the rest are spoken; these similes are for the sake of making clear the meaning of ultimate emptiness; though prajñāpāramitā is empty, if there is something cultivated, it can accomplish its matter; and so on up to: like the wooden puppet, whatever matter it is made to do, it can accomplish it all. This passage is the closing of the similes, and guards against the same failing as Passage 19 of the sūtra section. First ask: since ultimate emptiness has been spoken of, why say again that it can accomplish its matter? The answer lies in the four Chinese characters 「若有所修」 tr. "if there is something cultivated"—emptiness does not obstruct cultivation, cultivation does not obstruct emptiness. Brought down to practice: not to cultivate on the pretext of emptiness is precisely what this passage breaks.

76. Śāriputra asks whether only prajñā is without discrimination, and extends his challenge: if the five matters are all empty, there are no six names and nothing to be practised. The treatise-author restates Śāriputra's question and extends the intent of his challenge: if only prajñā is empty and without discrimination, the other perfections should have marks, and then the bodhisattva path would have separate differences and not be equal; again, in the first chapter it is said, 「行檀波羅蜜時，無施者、受者、亦無財物」 tr. "when practising dānapāramitā there is no giver, no receiver, and also no goods"; how then is a difference now spoken of? If the five matters are all empty, then there is no discrimination, there are no six names, and there is also nothing to be practised. The wonder of this passage lies in the challenge reaching both ends at once: to say they differ makes the bodhisattva path unequal; to say they do not differ loses both the names of the six perfections and practice. The treatise-author cites the words of this treatise's first chapter as proof, questioning it by this treatise's own text—when one sees in reading the treatise the citation 「初品中說」 tr. "it is said in the first chapter," one should know that it is the treatise-author citing his own earlier text, not citing another book.

77. Subhūti says the five perfections too are empty and without discrimination; those who have not obtained the acceptance of non-arising have discrimination, as the four rivers before they have met the great sea. The treatise-author restates Subhūti's answer and supplies its meaning: the five perfections too are empty and without discrimination; those of the first arousing of the mind, who have not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, have discrimination. Next he brings out a simile: as the four rivers, before they have met the great sea, have separate names, and once they have entered the great sea are without difference; the bodhisattva too is like this—within the truth of worldly convention there are differences, in the truth of the highest meaning there is no discrimination. This simile best resolves the double difficulty of Passage 76: the separate names are not false, and entering the sea is not nothingness—the four rivers, before they enter the sea, have names, waters, and currents all really there to be pointed to; once they have entered the great sea, they are without difference of themselves without waiting to be broken. Brought down to practice: to see differences while not yet having obtained the acceptance of non-arising is not a mistake; it is a stage; there is no need, on hearing the teaching of non-discrimination, to force oneself to wipe out one's present discriminations. The list of the four rivers is not given in this chapter, and is not supplied.

78. Śāriputra asks further: if all dharmas are without discrimination, how are there the distinctions of the six destinies and the four fruits? The treatise-author restates Śāriputra's further question: form and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and so on up to the unconditioned nature—are these also without discrimination? If these dharmas are empty and without difference, how are there the separate differences of the six destinies? How is it discriminated that there are the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha path? This question is the question of Passage 22 of the sūtra section; the reason the treatise-author restates it is that the answer below is to be divided into two roads—the differences of defilement and the differences of purity—and so the question too must bring up both ends again. When one sees the treatise restate a question of the sūtra, one should know that below there is bound to be a new explanation, not a repetition.

79. Subhūti answers: from inversion deeds arise and retribution is received, craving is the root; the differences of the six destinies come from inversion and are not real. The treatise-author explains the first road—the differences of defilement: although all dharmas are ultimately empty and without discrimination, these beings, from their mad and inverted minds, give rise to deeds of body, speech, and mind, and according to their deeds receive bodies as the retribution of those deeds; craving is the root; only because they are pressed by desire do they give rise to clinging minds, while dharmas have no fixed mark; the retribution of deeds is what is called the six destinies; for this reason one knows that emptiness and being without anything discriminated is their real root, and only because of inversion, which is not real, are there the differences of the six destinies. In this passage the treatise-author adds a phrase the sūtra text does not have—「貪欲是本」 tr. "craving is the root"—pointing the root of inversion one layer further down. One must see clearly the direction of the conclusion: the real root is emptiness without discrimination, and difference is what inversion adds; it is not that there is a further six destinies on top of emptiness; it is that inversion sees the undifferentiated as differentiated.

80. The worthies and sages too are born from the dharma of non-discrimination: severing the three fetters is severing inversion, and because of worldly truth and provisional names there are fruits. The treatise-author explains the second road—the differences of purity: again, the worthies and sages, the srota-āpanna and the rest, are also born from the dharma of ultimate emptiness and non-discrimination; namely, the dharma of severing the three fetters is called the fruit of srota-āpanna; the three fetters are precisely inversion; recognising inversion and removing it is called severing; therefore the dharma of severing is emptiness and without discrimination; because of worldly truth a person is provisionally named, and because he obtains this dharma it is called the fruit of srota-āpanna; therefore one should know that the srota-āpanna person and the fruit are ultimately empty and without discrimination; and so on up to the Buddha and the Buddha path, which are likewise. This passage is the tightest link of the whole treatise section. First ask: since the differences of the worthies and sages can truly be realised, why say they too are without discrimination? The answer lies in the treatise-author's two steps—first, the three fetters that are severed are precisely inversion, and the dharma that severs inversion is emptiness without discrimination; second, the so-called ‘person who obtains the fruit’ is a provisional name of worldly truth. So the reason a fruit is established is precisely that discrimination has been severed; the reason a person is named is precisely that worldly truth provisionally sets him up. The list of the three fetters is not given in this chapter, and is not supplied.

81. Here the causes and conditions are spoken: the buddhas of the past too severed discrimination and entered nirvāṇa without remainder; therefore it is said that the dharma of causes and conditions is very deep. The treatise-author points out the causes and conditions the sūtra text carries with it: not only is there no discrimination in the present; the buddhas of the past, as many as the sands of the Ganges, because all discrimination was severed, entered nirvāṇa without remainder, and there is not the least dharma with a fixed mark that can be discriminated; all dharmas are ultimately empty, because they enter the gate of suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality; therefore it is said, 「因緣法甚深」 tr. "the dharma of causes and conditions is very deep," because one enters this gate of samādhi. This passage pushes non-discrimination from the present back to the buddhas of the past; what is realised is not a principle of one time, but the gate through which all the buddhas alike pass. The last phrase, 「入是三昧門故」 tr. "because one enters this gate of samādhi," is the footing the treatise-author himself adds—the very deep is not only the depth of meaning and principle; there is a gate that can be entered.

82. The bodhisattva should practise the prajñā of non-discrimination and obtain the anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi of non-discrimination. The last passage of the whole chapter, where sūtra and treatise return alike to this one sentence: the bodhisattva should practise thus the prajñāpāramitā of non-discrimination; because he practises the prajñāpāramitā of non-discrimination he obtains the dharma of non-discrimination, namely anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This sentence is the same as the concluding words of the sūtra text in Passage 23; the treatise-author brings it up again and does not explain it further—because cause and fruit are one and the same non-discrimination, there is nothing more that can be said. Looking back over the whole chapter: its rising place is Śakra's single thought of rejoicing, its closing place is the prajñā of non-discrimination; the reason rejoicing cannot be weighed is precisely that, if it is practised thoroughly, it is the non-discrimination spoken of here. Head and tail were from the first one matter.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「隨喜」 tr. "rejoicing" as an easy small good. This chapter places rejoicing in the position that stands directly against Māra's domain—Śakra says that those who do not rejoice are Māra's retinue; the treatise-author explains its cause as 「在魔境界，積集惡心故不隨喜」 tr. "being in Māra's domain, because they have accumulated evil minds they do not rejoice," and further points out that the causes and conditions the sūtra text carries with it are 「隨喜心能破魔界」 tr. "the mind of rejoicing can break Māra's realm." Since it is the mind that breaks Māra, it is not casually saying a kind word. Moreover, the object of rejoicing in the sūtra text is the whole of the bodhisattvas, from the bodhisattvas of the first arousing of the mind up to the bodhisattvas bound to buddhahood in one more birth, and the treatise-author states plainly that they are 「無央數阿僧祇」 tr. "countless asaṃkhyeya"; if rejoicing reaches only the kind of people one is close to and finds agreeable, it is not the rejoicing this chapter speaks of.

Do not read the simile of a single hair drawing drops from the sea as ‘the merit is very great’. What the simile cites is precisely the utmost of the weighable and the utmost of the countable—the great-thousand world can be weighed and its weight known, and drawing up the sea-water drop by drop with one part of a hair, the number of drops can still be known; while what is said of the merit of the mind of rejoicing is 「不可稱量」 tr. "cannot be weighed" and 「不可數知」 tr. "cannot be known by number." What is set apart is a kind, not a quantity. If it is read as an extremely large figure, then the words below, 「非心、非離心」 tr. "not mind, and not apart from mind" and 「不一不二相」 tr. "the mark of neither one nor two," have nothing at all to rest on. The treatise-author's explanation of why the merit is immeasurable likewise lies not in the size of the mind but in 「以種無量無邊田中」 tr. "because it is planted in an immeasurable and boundless field"—the emphasis is on the field.

Do not read ‘arousing the mind surpasses the arhat’ as licence to slight people with real realisation. The treatise-author himself sets up three limits: first, the ones spoken of here are 「行菩薩道者」 tr. "those who practise the bodhisattva path," not those who only emptily arouse the mind; second, 「勝名不必一切事中皆勝」 tr. "the name surpassing need not be surpassing in all matters"—what surpasses is only in the one matter of a single arousing of the mind wishing to become a Buddha and deliver beings, and 「諸餘禪定、解脫等，猶尚未有」 tr. "all the other things, meditative concentration, liberation, and so on, he does not yet have"; third, what people of the Small Vehicle say and what some say in the treatises of the Mahāyāna are brought up side by side and judged alike to be the two extremes. With all three limits in place, one can see that these words are for spurring oneself on, not for ranking people high and low. In the simile of the śrāmaṇera, the master changes his position three times, which shows exactly that this 「勝」 tr. "surpassing" appears with the thought and is lost with regret.

Do not read 「畢竟離」 tr. "ultimate separation" as there being nothing at all that needs to be cultivated. From ultimate separation Subhūti pushes out 「不可得見、不可得修、不可得斷、不可得證」 tr. "it cannot be found to be seen, cannot be found to be cultivated, cannot be found to be severed, cannot be found to be realised," which seems to cut off the gate of practice; but in the last sentence of that same passage the treatise-author writes 「行是法則更無所得，畢竟離故」 tr. "practising this dharma, there is further nothing attained, because of ultimate separation"—the three Chinese characters 「行是法」 tr. "practising this dharma" have never been withdrawn. After that the treatise-author further says 「般若波羅蜜雖空，若有所修，能成其事」 tr. "though prajñāpāramitā is empty, if there is something cultivated, it can accomplish its matter," and takes as simile the wooden puppet, which, whatever matter it is made to do, can accomplish it all. What is excluded is forming the notion of one who cultivates upon cultivation, not cultivation. Not to cultivate on the pretext of emptiness is precisely the extreme this chapter plainly breaks.

Do not read the Buddha's saying 「難」 tr. "hard" and Subhūti's saying 「不難」 tr. "not hard" as master and disciple contradicting each other. The treatise-author's answer has two layers: one is the two truths—the Buddha speaks by worldly truth, Subhūti speaks by the truth of the highest meaning; the other is capacity—there are people who, hearing of a hard matter, arouse the mind, and so the hard matter is spoken of; there are people who, hearing of a hard matter, give up and retreat, and so it is said there is no hardness. The two accounts are not one true and one false, but each faces one capacity and each rests on one truth. The reader should take them up according to his own present condition, and need not settle victory and defeat between the two accounts.

Do not read 「一切法無分別」 tr. "all dharmas are without discrimination" as differences being entirely false and cultivation and realisation being wholly an empty setting-up. Subhūti's answer divides into two roads: the differences of the six destinies exist from inversion, which is not real, while the differences of the four fruits are 「因畢竟空無分別法生」 tr. "born from the dharma of ultimate emptiness and non-discrimination"—the former are what delusion adds, the latter are established after discrimination is severed. The two roads may not be lumped together. The treatise-author further takes the four rivers entering the sea as simile and states plainly 「初發心、未得無生法忍者有分別」 tr. "those of the first arousing of the mind, who have not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, have discrimination," from which it can be seen that to see differences before reaching that stage is not a fault. To wipe out one's present stage and work in the name of 「無分別」 tr. "non-discrimination" is precisely what the treatise-author means to guard against in this passage.

Bearing on Practice

The first use is to take rejoicing as a practice that can be taken up at any time. The order this chapter shows is very concrete: seeing another accomplish something in practising the path and giving rise to gladness in the mind, followed by making a vow, followed by dedicating, and in dedicating not discriminating between the mind of rejoicing and the mind of dedication. This whole string needs no seat of practice and needs no time; as soon as the thought arises it can be practised. The treatise-author further points out that its real effect falls first on one's own mind—「雖不可與人，然自令心好」 tr. "though it cannot be given to others, yet one makes one's own mind good"; so there is no need first to settle the doubt ‘can merit be given to others or not’; first do this single thought.

The second use is to examine oneself by the three Chinese characters 「破魔界」 tr. "break Māra's realm." The treatise-author explains the cause of not rejoicing as 「在魔境界，積集惡心」 tr. "being in Māra's domain, having accumulated evil minds," and the power of rejoicing as 「隨喜心能破魔界」 tr. "the mind of rejoicing can break Māra's realm." In daily life, when one sees a fellow practitioner obtain the Dharma, obtain a name, obtain favourable conditions, if a trace of displeasure arises in the mind, one can at once hold this single thought up to oneself: is this thought accumulating, or is it breaking? Accumulating is silent, and in time it becomes a domain of itself; breaking is also silent, and in time it becomes a habit of itself. This chapter links the finest single thought to the greatest domain precisely so that people may apply their effort in the fine places.

The third use is to guard the surpassing of arousing the mind with the treatise-author's three limits. When spurring oneself on by arousing the mind, first ask whether one is of the kind that 「行諸波羅蜜等菩薩道」 tr. "practises the bodhisattva path of the perfections and the rest," or of the kind that 「但空發心」 tr. "only emptily arouses the mind"; next remember that what surpasses is only in one matter, and that meditative concentration, liberation, and the rest one 「猶尚未有」 tr. "does not yet have"; and remember further that in the simile of the śrāmaṇera the order of positions changes with the thought. Holding the three together, arousing the mind can give rise to strength and not give rise to pride.

The fourth use is to take 「不驚、不沒、不怖、不畏」 tr. "not startled, does not sink, not terrified, not afraid" as four checks for when one hears the deep Dharma. The sūtra text only lists these four matters and does not distinguish their marks, and what the treatise section extends is likewise only the one sentence 「不驚、不沒、通達無礙者，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "one who is not startled, does not sink, and penetrates without obstruction—this is called practising prajñāpāramitā." The four matters are not passed through once and for all; each time one hears the deep Dharma one can examine oneself once. What the sūtra text sets immediately after the four passes is 「不見我行般若」 tr. "does not see ‘I practise prajñā’"—from which it can be seen that the look of having passed is not the mind feeling settled, but not setting up even the thought ‘I am practising’.

The fifth use is that the simile of the four rivers entering the sea can give a place to one's present stage. To see discriminations while not yet having obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, the treatise-author states plainly, is due to the stage one is at, not a fault. The practitioner can thereupon work with both hands together: with one hand, discriminating as before between good and evil, between Dharma-gates, between stages, and so cultivating; with the other, knowing that these separate names will in the end be without separation in the great sea. If, on hearing the teaching of non-discrimination, one first abandons discrimination, it is abandoning the river's name before entering the sea, and both ends fall into emptiness.

Further Resonances

The backbone of this chapter is one passage of sūtra text and one passage of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Śakra Devānām Indra's thought that those who arouse the intent of awakening go above all beings and that the remaining beings should aspire to it and delight in it; next come the scattering of māndārava flowers and the vow, the oath not to make a bodhisattva turn back, and the question how much merit rejoicing in the meritorious virtue of the four kinds of bodhisattvas brings; the Buddha, with the two similes of weighing by the pound and of a single hair split into a hundred parts drawing drops of sea-water, weighs the merit of rejoicing as not able to be weighed and not able to be known by number; Śakra says that those who do not rejoice are all Māra's retinue, and that one should give rise to rejoicing and dedication because of the mark of neither one nor two; the Buddha approves his words and speaks at length of constantly meeting the buddhas and so on up to quickly drawing near to awakening, not mind and not apart from mind. Next it turns to Subhūti challenging the Buddha with the mind being like an illusion; the Buddha asks back three times and Subhūti three times answers that he does not see, at the end stating of himself that all dharmas are ultimately separated, and within two separations how can there be anything attained; the Buddha answers that precisely because of ultimate separation one can obtain, that it is not that it is not because of prajñā, nor that by separation one obtains separation. Next Subhūti sighs that the meaning practised is very deep; the Buddha says that to be able to practise the deep meaning and not realise the two vehicles is doing what is hard; Subhūti, because of the practice with nothing to be attained, says it is not hard, and says that hearing the deep Dharma and being not startled, not sinking, not terrified, not afraid is called practising prajñā, bringing out at length the similes of space, the illusory person, the image in a mirror, the Buddha having no love and no hate, the Buddha's discriminating notions being severed, the person conjured by the Buddha, and the craftsman's wooden puppet, making clear that being without discrimination one can yet have something one does. At the end it turns to Śāriputra asking Subhūti whether only prajñā is without discrimination or the five perfections too, and, if all dharmas are without discrimination, how there are the distinctions of the six destinies and the four fruits; Subhūti replies with receiving bodies through inversion, and with the worthies and sages too existing because of non-discrimination, and concludes that the bodhisattva should practise the prajñā of non-discrimination and, having practised it, then obtains the anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi of non-discrimination. Treatise ① explains following the text under "The explanation says": first it supplies the setting of the assembly's shared gladness and establishes the meaning of the two kinds of beings and that those who arouse the mind surpass; it sets the first question and answer (why the arhats and the rest, who have left desire behind, do not surpass those who arouse the mind) and answers it with the two similes of the crown prince in the womb and the prince not yet enthroned; next it distinguishes the two kinds of arousing the mind and brings out the simile of the kalaviṅka bird in the shell; it records what someone says, that surpassing lies in the weightiness of the deeds of mind and mouth; it brings out the long simile of the arhat of the six supernormal powers and the śrāmaṇera; next, keeping its own measure, it says that to surpass need not be to surpass in all matters, as in terms of flying the bird surpasses the human; it brings up the two accounts, what people of the Small Vehicle say and what some say in the treatises of the Mahāyāna, judging them to be the two extremes and taking the middle way. Next it explains the sūtra phrase ‘the good benefit’, laying out four accounts side by side, and explains ‘the foremost among lives’, establishing the two kinds of life, the life-faculty and the life of wisdom; it passes over the passage of scattering flowers and sets the second question and answer (sin and merit cannot be given to others, so why does Śakra say that by this merit those who seek the Buddha path may be fully endowed with the dharmas of a Buddha); it explains Śakra's statement of himself that he will not make bodhisattvas turn back, supplies the thought of the beings in the assembly who doubted the difference, and explains Śakra's asking the Buddha on behalf of the many, together with the field of merit being immeasurable and boundless and rejoicing in those near the Buddha path bringing still greater merit; it explains that those who do not rejoice are Māra's people and that the mind of rejoicing can break Māra's realm, glosses 「不一不二相」 tr. "the mark of neither one nor two," explains the Buddha's further extolling of the meritorious virtue of rejoicing and his own speaking of the causes and conditions, and explains that because one dedicates according to the real mark it is said, not mind and also not apart from mind. Next, following the sūtra, it explains Subhūti's taking up the emptiness in which there is no mark of mind to challenge the Buddha, the Buddha's three rounds of counter-question, and Subhūti's thought and answers, and extends it that because of ultimate separation seeing, cultivating, severing, and realising are unfindable; it explains the challenge of touching space with a finger and the Buddha's approving his words, the proof from the contrary that if a dharma definitely had a mark and were not empty there would be no four truths, no Three Jewels, and so on up to no dharmas at all, and that ultimate separation, one should know, is also separated from emptiness; it sets the third question and answer (why the Buddha saying it is hard and Subhūti saying it is not hard contradict each other) and answers it with worldly truth and the truth of the highest meaning, together with speaking according to capacity; it explains true practice and deep practice, not making the discrimination of far and near because one abides securely in the real mark, and that the similes are to make clear ultimate emptiness and that prajñā, though empty, can accomplish its matter; at the end it explains Śāriputra's challenge and the simile of the four rivers entering the sea, deeds arising from inversion and receiving the retribution of the six destinies, that severing the three fetters is severing inversion and that because of worldly truth and provisional names there are fruits, and that the buddhas of the past too severed discrimination and entered nirvāṇa without remainder, concluding that the bodhisattva should practise the prajñā of non-discrimination and obtain the awakening of non-discrimination.

As for differences in the chapter's name: the base text of this edition has "Aspiration and Delight," while the various texts have separately the three names "Pure Vow," "Aspiration, Delight, and Rejoicing," and "Vow and Practice"; see the Apparatus for details. Of the ancient masters' explanations, two schools can be recorded for this chapter. Jizang, in his commentary on this chapter, uses the name 「淨願品」 tr. "the chapter Pure Vow," and states of himself the reason for the name, saying: 「從初作名云淨願品，上已二品教學平等，此復是更教菩薩，今見化他行成，宜應更生隨喜發願供養，勿起癈忘之心也。」 tr. "The name is made from the beginning, calling it the chapter Pure Vow. The two chapters above have already taught training in equality; this is again a further teaching of the bodhisattva: now, seeing the practice of transforming others accomplished, one should further give rise to rejoicing, making vows, and offerings, and not give rise to a mind of neglect and forgetting." He divides this chapter into two, saying: 「就初段中為二：第一明隨喜功德無邊大果報，二明正觀成就得菩提果。」 tr. "Within the first section there are two: the first makes clear the boundless great retribution of the meritorious virtue of rejoicing; the second makes clear that right contemplation is accomplished and the fruit of awakening obtained."—dividing this chapter in two by rejoicing and right contemplation, which accords with the order of this treatise's treatise section, first explaining arousing the mind and rejoicing, then explaining the prajñā of non-discrimination. His explanation of the sūtra phrase 「出一切眾生之上」 tr. "goes above all beings" cites two accounts that are as if from one mould with the two extremes this treatise judges: 「出一切眾生之上者，小乘人言補處菩薩猶是凡夫，不及沙彌無量律儀；大乘弊惡，下劣人一發菩提心勝辟支佛羅漢，此二皆失也。」 tr. "As for ‘goes above all beings’: people of the Small Vehicle say that the bodhisattva bound to buddhahood is still an ordinary person and does not match the immeasurable restraints of a śrāmaṇera; in the Great Vehicle, a base and evil, inferior person, with a single arousing of the mind of awakening, surpasses the pratyekabuddhas and arhats. These two are both mistaken." And the explanation he sets up himself says: 「今明若初發大心大願，則發心為勝、二乘為劣；若就戒定慧行為論，則二乘為勝、發心為劣。」 tr. "Now it is made clear: if it is a matter of first arousing the great mind and the great vow, then arousing the mind is superior and the two vehicles inferior; if the discussion is in terms of the practice of morality, concentration, and wisdom, then the two vehicles are superior and arousing the mind inferior."—this divides superior and inferior by the aspect under discussion, and is close to the measure kept by this treatise's sentence 「勝名不必一切事中皆勝」 tr. "the name surpassing need not be surpassing in all matters," while each words it in its own way; recorded side by side without judgement. His explanation of the challenge of the two separations also brings out a simile of his own, saying: 「如指觸空，空無觸故，指不能觸，況無二物而欲觸耶？」 tr. "As a finger touches space: because space has no contact, the finger cannot touch it; how much less, when there are not two things, could one wish to touch?"—the same as this treatise's simile of touching space with a finger. Huiying, explaining this chapter, uses the same name as the base text of this edition, opening the chapter by saying: 「第六十三品者，名為願樂品。」 tr. "The sixty-third chapter is named the chapter Aspiration and Delight." His chapter sequence differs by one place from the base text of this edition. He explains the reason for the sequence, saying: 「所以次等學品後明此品者，上品明菩薩具於生法二忍，內德既充，外為世間人天所樂，及為一切眾聖愛念，此品之生正以於此，故次等學品後明願樂品。」 tr. "The reason this chapter is set forth next after the chapter Equal Training is that the chapter above made clear that the bodhisattva is endowed with the two acceptances, of beings and of dharmas; his inner virtue being full, outwardly he is delighted in by the humans and gods of the world and is lovingly kept in mind by all the sages; the arising of this chapter is precisely due to this, and therefore the chapter Aspiration and Delight is set forth next after the chapter Equal Training." He too divides this chapter into two parts, saying: 「爾時釋提桓因已下，就此品中大有二分：第一明嘆美波若行般若德，及隨喜迴向功德無量無邊；第二從須菩提白佛已下，明無分別波若不可思議，雖復冥懸而無方大用。」 tr. "From ‘At that time Śakra Devānām Indra’ onward, within this chapter there are broadly two parts: the first makes clear the praise of the virtue of prajñā and of practising prajñā, and that the meritorious virtue of rejoicing and dedication is immeasurable and boundless; the second, from ‘Subhūti said to the Buddha’ onward, makes clear that the prajñā of non-discrimination is inconceivable, and though it is hidden and remote, it has a great function without bounds."—the boundary between the two parts falls exactly at the place where Subhūti addresses the Buddha, which accords with the turning-point of this treatise's sūtra section. His explanation of 「非心、非離心」 tr. "not mind, and not apart from mind" says: 「心相即寂，心無心相，故云非心。雖心相即寂，亦不離此心而得迴向，故云不離也。」 tr. "The mark of mind is itself quiescent; the mind has no mark of mind; therefore it says not mind. Though the mark of mind is itself quiescent, yet it is not apart from this mind that dedication is obtained; therefore it says not apart."—this and the meaning taken by this treatise's sentence 「於實相中心不可得」 tr. "within the real mark the mind is unfindable" illuminate each other, while their words are each different. His explanation of the contradiction between hard and not hard says: 「如來為益一類眾生故說難，善吉為益一徒眾生故說易，雖云難易其理實冥」 tr. "The Tathāgata, to benefit one kind of beings, says it is hard; Subhūti, to benefit one group of beings, says it is easy; though it is called hard and easy, their principle is in truth one in the hidden depth"—dividing the two accounts by benefiting beings, which is close to this treatise's judgement by the two truths together with capacity, but without setting up the name of the two truths. His explanation of the simile of the kalaviṅka bird says: 「在㲉中者，喻菩薩在生死無明㲉藏中心力已勝也。」 tr. "‘In the shell’ likens the bodhisattva, within the shell-store of birth, death, and ignorance, his strength of mind already surpassing." (The character he uses differs in form from the one the base text of this edition has; see the Apparatus for details.) Further, the chapter heading and the general table of contents of Huiying's commentary both have 「釋願樂品第十四」 tr. "Explaining the Fourteenth Chapter, Aspiration and Delight," which, compared with 「釋願樂品第六十四」 tr. "Explaining the Sixty-fourth Chapter, Aspiration and Delight" as fixed by the collation notes of the same book, lacks the two Chinese characters 「六十」 tr. "sixty"; this belongs to an omission in copying, and is recorded without judgement. In Junzheng's commentary and in the writings of the Tiantai school, for this chapter's title and for the similes and phrases found only in this chapter, all that was swept this time is 〔not found〕; the gap is marked as it really is, and it is not filled with text from elsewhere.