大智度論 大方便品之中Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Great Skilful Means, Part 2 of 3

The Great Skilful Means, Middle Part: Explaining the Three Questions, the Nine Similes, the Five Perfections Entering Prajñā, the Three Losings and Being without Losing, the Bodhisattva Path and What Is Not the Bodhisattva Path, and the Four Gates of Suchness, the Nature of Dharmas, the Limit of Reality, and Neither Joined nor Dispersed

What Is Being Asked

The whole fascicle of the First Part is sūtra text. What the sūtra asks is only three sentences—this bodhisattva who has thus accomplished the power of skilful means: how long has it been since he aroused intent? How many buddhas has he made offerings to? What roots of goodness has he planted? The Buddha answers each one, and at once turns to a long string of similes: the sun and moon illuminating the four continents, the wheel-jewel of the wheel-turning sage king, the woman without a husband, the general's armour and weapons, the minor kings attending in court, the many rivers entering the sea, a person's right hand, the wheel-jewel leading the four troops. When the similes are finished, Subhūti raises difficulty after difficulty, starting from ‘all dharmas are empty of self-nature; how does one practise the six perfections and obtain awakening?’, passing through ‘the perfections are without difference; how is prajñā the most honoured?’, ‘neither taking nor giving up; how can it be said that it arrives at sarvajñā and abides?’, ‘not keeping in mind; how do roots of goodness increase?’, all the way to 「何所住、何所得」 tr. "where does he abide, what does he attain"; besides the Buddha's answers there come four kinds of 「是失」 tr. "this is losing", and at the end the four gates of suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and neither joined nor dispersed are gathered in upon the one sentence 「是名略攝般若波羅蜜」 tr. "this is called the brief gathering of prajñāpāramitā".

The Middle Part, then, is the treatise-author explaining this whole stretch of sūtra text. That is why the face of the Middle Part is entirely different from that of the First Part: the First Part is the question and answer between the Buddha and Subhūti; the Middle Part is the treatise-author explaining, sentence by sentence, why these questions are asked in this way and why they are answered in this way. In reading the Middle Part one must first set up this dividing line—wherever 「佛答」 tr. "the Buddha answers" or 「須菩提問」 tr. "Subhūti asks" appears in this fascicle, it is not a newly begun dialogue; it is the treatise-author taking up the sūtra text of the First Part and explaining it; only where 「問曰」 tr. "Question:" and 「答曰」 tr. "Answer:" appear is it the treatise-author setting a difficulty of his own and answering it himself. These two layers must not be read mixed together as one layer.

In what the treatise-author explains there are four joints. The first joint lies in the order of the three questions: how long since arousing the mind, how many buddhas he has made offerings to, what roots of goodness he has planted—these three questions look trivial, but the treatise-author points out the source of each: one who aroused the mind long ago has not necessarily seen the Buddha, and one who has seen the Buddha has not necessarily planted roots of goodness, and so there is the second question and the third question; and the definition of 「種善根」 tr. "planting roots of goodness" the treatise-author lays down with the utmost strictness—it is not offering flowers and incense; it is practising the six perfections with a deep mind and turning them towards awakening. The second joint lies in the general meaning of the nine similes: the five perfections, if they do not obtain prajñā, are not called pāramitā. This sentence is the backbone of the whole fascicle. The treatise-author uses the woman without a husband to speak of how easily they are ruined, uses the wheel-turning king without the wheel-jewel to speak of how they do not attain the name, uses the stalwart general's weapons to speak of how they do not fear the enemy, uses the minor kings paying court and the many streams entering the sea to speak of where they tend, uses the right hand and left hand to speak of convenience and inconvenience, uses the guide in front and the wheel-jewel leading the way to speak of that by which they are brought to completion—though the similes are nine, what they make clear is only one. The third joint lies in the losing that comes from grasping at marks: clinging to emptiness is losing, clinging to prajñā's being without nature is losing, not clinging to emptiness and not clinging to being without nature and taking that to be the true path is losing, thinking oneself to be following the Buddha's words and disclosing them to others is losing; the treatise-author lists four stretches in turn, and at the end himself gathers them as 「三種皆失」 tr. "all three kinds are losing". The losings turn finer layer by layer, and the last losing is so fine that one can hardly see that it is losing—this is the most perilous place in the whole fascicle, and also the place where the treatise-author puts forth his deepest effort. The fourth joint lies in the four gates: suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, neither joined nor dispersed. The first three gates are gates of meaning; the fourth gate is a gate of breaking attachment; at the fourth gate the treatise-author sets up in particular the question and answer on the joining and dispersing of two fingers, taking apart 「合」 tr. "joining", this most ordinary of experiences, until there is nothing left to take apart, and then brings in the Buddha's words 「一切法自性無」 tr. "all dharmas are without self-nature" as the conclusion.

So what is to be read in the Middle Part is not a string of similes and a string of questions and answers; it is the position the treatise-author fixes for prajñāpāramitā: it is not the best one among the six perfections; it is that which makes the other five perfections be perfections at all. Once this position is fixed, why the losings are losing, and why the four gates can gather the brief and the extensive, can all be seen clearly from here. The final sentence, 「是名略攝般若波羅蜜」 tr. "this is called the brief gathering of prajñāpāramitā"—the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘brief gathering’ say precisely that these four gates gather the whole of prajñā into one place.

Passage by Passage

1. The first of Subhūti's three questions: how long since arousing the mind. As soon as he begins to explain, the treatise-author points out where this question comes from: 「須菩提聞菩薩摩訶薩大利根相，所謂一波羅蜜邊能生五波羅蜜，行一波羅蜜即能具五波羅蜜，如上品中說；是事希有，故問佛」 tr. "Subhūti heard of the mark of the great keen faculties of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva—namely, that from the side of one perfection he can give rise to the five perfections, and that by practising one perfection he can fulfil the five perfections, as was said in the previous chapter; this matter is rare, and so he asked the Buddha". First ask one thing: why does Subhūti ask about nothing else, only about the length of time? Because what he has heard is ‘one is able to fulfil five’—one perfection at once fulfilling the six, which by ordinary reckoning is something extremely hard to believe. With a thing hard to believe, the first thing one asks is ‘how long does it take to reach this point?’ So this question is not curiosity; it is a question that seeks the root, born of rarity. The five Chinese characters 「如上品中說」 tr. "as was said in the previous chapter" must be noted: the treatise-author states plainly that this meaning is carried over from the previous chapter and is not newly set up in this chapter; if the reader takes it as a new meaning of this chapter, then the four Chinese characters 「大利根相」 tr. "the mark of the great keen faculties" below have nothing to attach to.

2. The Buddha answers: since arousing the mind, immeasurable koṭi of asaṃkhyeya kalpas. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, saying: 「是菩薩發心已來，除大菩薩，於餘眾生無量億阿僧祇劫。」 tr. "Since this bodhisattva aroused the mind—leaving aside the great bodhisattvas, and compared with the rest of beings—it is immeasurable koṭi of asaṃkhyeya kalpas." The joint lies in the four Chinese characters 「除大菩薩」 tr. "leaving aside the great bodhisattvas". This is a phrase of limitation—it does not say that all bodhisattvas must take so long; it says that, setting the great bodhisattvas aside, and speaking of the rest of beings, it is so long. Without these four Chinese characters it would become the general rule that ‘whoever obtains the power of skilful means must pass through immeasurable kalpas’, which would go against the meaning of the Great Vehicle's sudden arousing. The treatise-author records it as it stands without changing it, precisely to leave this measure in place.

3. Where the second question comes from: one who aroused the mind long ago has not necessarily seen the Buddha. Explaining why Subhūti goes on to ask how many buddhas he has made offerings to, the treatise-author says: 「或有菩薩發心已來無量億阿僧祇劫，大罪因緣覆心故不見佛，不親近供養。」 tr. "Perhaps there is a bodhisattva who, since arousing the mind, has passed immeasurable koṭi of asaṃkhyeya kalpas, yet because the causes and conditions of great sin have covered his mind, he does not see the Buddha, and does not draw near and make offerings." The most important sentence in this passage is 「大罪因緣覆心故不見佛」 tr. "because the causes and conditions of great sin have covered his mind, he does not see the Buddha". Length of time and kalpas cannot guarantee seeing the Buddha—sin can cover the mind, and when the mind is covered, the Buddha is present and yet is not seen. So the number of years since arousing the mind is not a qualification. In reading this place, guard against one slip: do not read 「不見佛」 tr. "does not see the Buddha" as the Buddha not appearing in the world; it is that the mind is covered and does not see. The question below arises from this: since one who aroused the mind long ago has not necessarily seen the Buddha, one must ask a further question—how many buddhas has he made offerings to.

4. The Buddha answers: he has made offerings to buddhas as many as the sands of the Ganges. The treatise-author takes it up, saying: 「是菩薩為已供養如恒河沙等諸佛。」 tr. "This bodhisattva has already made offerings to buddhas as many as the sands of the Ganges." This answer has the same format as the answer above—it does not give an exact number; it gives an amount that cannot be counted. The reason the sūtra's answer takes this form is precisely that what is asked about does not lie in a number at all; if the answer were an exact number, the trainee would measure himself by the number, and it would turn into an obstruction.

5. The explanation where the two numbers meet: many numbers, the same principle. The treatise-author adds a note of his own: 「上言『無量億阿僧祇』，今言『恒河沙』者，多數理同故。」 tr. "Above it says ‘immeasurable koṭi of asaṃkhyeya’, and now it says ‘the sands of the Ganges’, because the principle of a great number is the same." This sentence resolves a possible doubt for the reader—the measure-words used in the two places differ; is what they refer to different? The treatise-author answers: it is not different; both simply take their greatness. Notes of this kind are extremely many in this treatise; their use is not to add meaning but to keep the reader from sprouting side-branches over small differences in the wording. In reading this treatise one should grow used to such notes: they tell you where there is no need to probe deeply.

6. Where the third question comes from, and the definition of 「種善根」 tr. "planting roots of goodness" . Explaining the third question, the treatise-author says: 「有菩薩久發心，雖多以華香供養諸佛，而未能種善根」 tr. "There are bodhisattvas who aroused the mind long ago, and though they have made many offerings to the buddhas with flowers and incense, they have not yet been able to plant roots of goodness"—making offerings and yet not having planted roots of goodness: this is where the third question comes from. At once the treatise-author defines 「種善根」 tr. "planting roots of goodness" with the utmost strictness: 「若以深心行六波羅蜜，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故作功德，是名『種善根』。」 tr. "If one practises the six perfections with a deep mind and makes merit for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, this is called ‘planting roots of goodness’." Of the two conditions, neither can be lacking: first, one must practise the six perfections with a deep mind; second, it must be for the sake of awakening. For whoever lacks these two, though he offers flowers and incense everywhere, the treatise-author does not allow it to be called planting roots of goodness. This place must not be read lightly: the matter of making offerings is something everyone can do; the matter of planting roots of goodness requires somewhere to dedicate it. And the treatise-author points out in particular that kind of mind which 「作是念：『我必當得果報……』」 tr. "has this thought: ‘I shall certainly obtain the retribution …’"—this is exactly the mark of the mind of one who has not planted roots of goodness: he practises the six perfections, but what he looks for is retribution, not awakening.

7. The Buddha answers: he has fulfilled the practice of the six perfections. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, saying: 「是菩薩從初發心已來，具足行六波羅蜜，一切福德無不作者，一切善法無不修集。」 tr. "This bodhisattva, since first arousing the mind, has fulfilled the practice of the six perfections; there is no merit he has not made, and no wholesome dharma he has not cultivated and gathered." This answer corresponds exactly to the definition set up above: what was asked was 「種何等善根」 tr. "what roots of goodness has he planted", and what is answered is 「具足行六波羅蜜」 tr. "has fulfilled the practice of the six perfections"—which shows that the meaning the treatise-author fixes is not his own invention; it is read out of the sūtra's answer. The six Chinese characters 「從初發心已來」 tr. "since first arousing the mind" are especially important: it is not that one becomes complete only after practising until later; it is so from the first arousing of the mind onward. This sentence is the distant cause of the losing among the losings below that is 「著菩薩所行道」 tr. "clinging to the path the bodhisattva practises"; when one reads as far as that, one can look back here.

8. Praising the rarity: the mind that came afterwards, and benefit where there is no kindness. The treatise-author explains Subhūti's praise of the rarity, analysing it into two matters. The first: 「未斷諸煩惱、未離生死，而能勝斷煩惱、離生死法者。」 tr. "He has not yet cut off the afflictions and has not yet left birth and death, yet he is able to surpass the dharma of those who have cut off the afflictions and left birth and death."—this compares the one who has not yet cut off with those who have already cut off, and says that the one who has not yet cut off is the more excellent. The treatise-author then gives the reason for it: 「無始生死已來集諸惡法，菩薩心後來，而能用後來心，不隨先所集惡心」 tr. "From beginningless birth and death onward evil dharmas have been accumulated; the bodhisattva's mind came afterwards, and yet he is able to use the mind that came afterwards and not follow the evil mind accumulated before". The evil mind is an old resident who has lived there for beginningless kalpas; the bodhisattva's mind is a newly arrived guest; that the new guest is able not to follow the old resident—only this is called rare. The second: 「一切眾生無恩於菩薩，而菩薩常欲利益。」 tr. "All beings have done the bodhisattva no kindness, and yet the bodhisattva constantly wishes to benefit them."—and it goes a layer further: 「是諸眾生或欲奪菩薩命、割截身體，菩薩欲以第一佛樂智慧命，欲與眾生。」 tr. "These beings may wish to take the bodhisattva's life or to cut and sever his body, yet the bodhisattva wishes to give to beings the life of wisdom, which is the foremost bliss of the Buddha." On one side they wish to take his bodily life; on the other he wishes to give them the life of wisdom; only when the two are set against each other is the meaning of rarity complete. In reading this passage one should know: rarity does not lie in supernormal powers; it lies in the reversal of the mind's conduct at these two places.

9. The simile of the sun and moon: the two breaths come together and the myriad things grow. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's intention in making a simile, saying 「欲令此事明了故作譬喻」 tr. "wishing to make this matter clear, he made a simile", and at once explains the simile of the sun and moon. His way of explaining this simile deserves a close look: the treatise-author does not only say that the sun and moon can illuminate; he further says 「月是陰氣，日是陽氣，二氣和合故萬物成長」 tr. "the moon is the yin breath and the sun is the yang breath; because the two breaths come together, the myriad things grow"—taking the point that the two need each other and neither can be neglected. Applied to the bodhisattva, it is 「以大悲心憐愍眾生故，能隨所願行一切善法；大智慧力故，破眾生著善法心」 tr. "because he pities beings with the mind of great compassion, he is able to practise all wholesome dharmas according to the vows he has made; because of the power of great wisdom, he breaks beings' mind of clinging to wholesome dharmas". Compassion is like the yin of the moon, wisdom like the yang of the sun; the one makes wholesome dharmas grow, the other breaks the clinging mind towards them; only when the two come together can the six perfections, and so on up to awakening, be accomplished. If there were only compassion without wisdom, wholesome dharmas would merely increase attachment; if there were only wisdom without compassion, there would be no wholesome dharmas to increase. This is the first meaning of the twin wheels in this fascicle.

10. The simile of having eyes but no sun and moon: worldly goodness and keen knowledge are not enough to illuminate. The treatise-author continues this simile and turns it over to another face: 「又復眾生雖復有眼，若無日月，則無所見」 tr. "Further, though beings have eyes, if there were no sun and moon they would see nothing". The eye is the capacity beings have of themselves; the sun and moon are illumination coming from outside; having eyes but no illumination, one sees nothing at all. Applied, it is 「眾生雖有世俗善根利智，不得般若波羅蜜照明，尚不得二乘，何況得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "though beings have worldly roots of goodness and keen knowledge, if they do not obtain the illumination of prajñāpāramitā, they cannot obtain even the two vehicles, how much less anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". This sentence is set down with great weight: worldly roots of goodness and cleverness cannot reach even the two vehicles. The misreading to guard against is taking 「利智」 tr. "keen knowledge" as a small portion of prajñā—the treatise-author's meaning is precisely the opposite: keen knowledge belongs to the eye, prajñā belongs to the sun and moon; it is not a difference of more and less within the same kind of thing.

11. Without obtaining prajñā they are not called pāramitā: because the clinging mind is not broken. The treatise-author sets down a general verdict: 「菩薩雖行五波羅蜜，不得般若波羅蜜，不得名波羅蜜，以不破著心故。」 tr. "Though the bodhisattva practises the five perfections, if he does not obtain prajñāpāramitā they do not obtain the name of pāramitā, because the clinging mind is not broken." This sentence is the backbone of the whole fascicle and must be looked at character by character. It does not say ‘without obtaining prajñā the five perfections have no merit’; it says 「不得名波羅蜜」 tr. "they do not obtain the name of pāramitā"—the merit is still there; the name and standing are not attained. Why is that? 「以不破著心故」 tr. "Because the clinging mind is not broken." Pāramitā means reaching the further shore; if the clinging mind is not broken, the root on this shore has not been pulled up, and though one practises one cannot arrive, and so one does not obtain the name. All the similes below are making this one sentence clear.

12. The simile of the woman without a husband: his mind is easily ruined. Continuing from the above, the treatise-author says: 「若菩薩乃至能自以身命布施，若無般若，其心易破，如無夫之婦，侵凌則易」 tr. "If a bodhisattva is able even to the point of giving his own body and life, yet has no prajñā, his mind is easily ruined, as a woman without a husband is easily encroached upon". What this simile takes lies at only one point—having nothing to rely on, one is easily encroached upon. In taking a simile one must see which point it takes: it does not say that the five perfections are lowly and weak; it says that whatever has nothing to guard and uphold it is easily ruined. That is why a sentence follows immediately, 「若有般若，則不可破壞」 tr. "if he has prajñā, it cannot be ruined", and only when the positive and negative are set side by side is the meaning of the simile fixed. The phrase 「乃至能自以身命布施」 tr. "even to the point of giving his own body and life" must be especially noted: giving that goes as far as giving up body and life is already the utmost; if even the utmost is easily ruined, the rest can be known.

13. The simile of the wheel-turning sage king without the wheel-jewel: because they are measured and have an end, they are not called pāramitā. The treatise-author starts afresh, saying: 「菩薩雖行種種諸餘深法，不得般若，不名為行波羅蜜，但名為行善法，有量有盡故。」 tr. "Though the bodhisattva practises various other deep dharmas, if he does not obtain prajñā he is not called one who practises the perfections; he is only called one who practises wholesome dharmas, because they are measured and have an end."—here the reason for not obtaining the name is given: being measured and having an end. At once the wheel-turning king is taken as a simile: 「雖有千子、八萬四千小王及六寶，不得名為轉輪聖王，不能飛行到四天下；若天遣金輪寶至，乃得名為轉輪聖王。」 tr. "Though he has a thousand sons, eighty-four thousand minor kings, and the six jewels, he does not obtain the name of wheel-turning sage king and cannot fly to the four continents; if the heavens send the golden wheel-jewel to come to him, only then does he obtain the name of wheel-turning sage king." The thousand sons and the six jewels are all virtues he really has; what is lacking is only the one thing, the wheel-jewel; lacking this one thing, neither the name nor the function is attained. Applied, it is 「雖有布施等諸善法，不得般若波羅蜜故，不名為『菩薩為行六波羅蜜人』，不能除障礙、行菩薩道故」 tr. "though he has giving and the other wholesome dharmas, because he does not obtain prajñāpāramitā he is not called ‘a bodhisattva who is a person practising the six perfections’, because he cannot remove the obstructions and practise the bodhisattva path". This simile and the one above divide their work clearly: the woman without a husband speaks of being easily ruined; the lack of the wheel-jewel speaks of not being attained.

14. The simile of the stalwart general's weapons, and the bodhisattva caṇḍāla. The treatise-author explains this simile very briefly: 「健將即是菩薩，器仗是般若。」 tr. "The stalwart general is the bodhisattva; the weapons are prajñā." At once he explains one by one those listed in the sūtra who are able to ruin him. Those of overweening pride the treatise-author defines as 「未得聖道，意謂已得」 tr. "they have not yet obtained the noble path, yet in their minds they think they have already obtained it"; as to why they disparage and ruin the bodhisattva, the treatise-author places it in 「菩薩說畢竟空法；是人行善法，心不同故」 tr. "the bodhisattva speaks the dharma of ultimate emptiness; these people practise wholesome dharmas, and because their minds are not the same"—it is not that they deliberately set themselves against him; it is that the dharmas they practise differ, and they naturally repel each other. Last he comes to 「菩薩旃陀羅」 tr. "the bodhisattva caṇḍāla"; the treatise-author does not set up a meaning of his own but brings in the text of the "Māra" chapter to substantiate it: 「聞魔來稱其名字而與受記，而生輕慢。」 tr. "Hearing that Māra has come, calling his name and giving him the prediction, he gives rise to contempt." This is a cross-chapter citation rarely seen in the whole fascicle, and what it cites is the text of this sūtra itself, not an outside teaching. In reading this place one should know: what the treatise-author gives 「菩薩旃陀羅」 tr. "the bodhisattva caṇḍāla" is not a term of abuse but a mark that can be verified—giving rise to contempt because Māra called his name and gave him the prediction.

15. The five perfections are spoken of for the sake of prajñā: each of the five matters has what it breaks. The treatise-author turns up a more fundamental layer of meaning: 「為般若波羅蜜故說五波羅蜜；若人能直行諸法實相，則不為說布施等入般若初門。」 tr. "The five perfections are spoken of for the sake of prajñāpāramitā; if a person is able to practise the real mark of all dharmas directly, giving and the rest are not spoken to him as the first gate of entering prajñā."—the five perfections are entrance gates set up for the sake of prajñā, not six things standing side by side with prajñā. Why they are set up lies in 「人鈍根、罪重故」 tr. "because people's faculties are dull and their sins heavy". At once he speaks of the remedy of each perfection: 「以布施破慳；持戒折薄諸煩惱；忍辱開福德門，能行難事；精進如風吹火，熾然不息；禪定攝心一定，觀諸法實相故。」 tr. "Giving breaks stinginess; upholding the precepts subdues and thins the afflictions; patience opens the gate of merit and makes one able to do what is hard to do; vigour is like wind blowing on fire, blazing without rest; meditative concentration gathers the mind in one place and settles it, for the sake of contemplating the real mark of all dharmas." Each of the five matters has what it treats, and the order is well arranged—giving treats stinginess, the precepts treat the thickness of the afflictions, patience opens the gate, vigour aids the momentum, meditation gathers in the scattering. Once the five are complete, then 「皆趣向般若波羅蜜」 tr. "all tend toward prajñāpāramitā". Two similes conclude it: the minor kings paying court to the wheel-turning sage king, and the many streams all entering the great sea.

16. Question and answer: why it is said that the five perfections are guarded by prajñā and enter sarvajñā. This is the first place where the treatise-author sets up a question and answer of his own, and what he raises as a difficulty is an unevenness in a simile: 「五波羅蜜如諸川流，般若波羅蜜應如大海；今何以言『五波羅蜜為般若波羅蜜所守護故，得入薩婆若』？」 tr. "The five perfections are like rivers and streams, and prajñāpāramitā ought to be like the great sea; why is it now said, ‘because the five perfections are guarded by prajñāpāramitā, they are able to enter sarvajñā’?" The difficulty is extremely precise—by the simile, what they enter should be prajñā, yet the sūtra says they enter sarvajñā; the two do not match. The treatise-author's answer does not lie in changing the simile but in explaining the name: 「汝不聞先說般若有種種名字耶？薩婆若即是般若異名。」 tr. "Have you not heard it said before that prajñā has various names? Sarvajñā is another name for prajñā." At once he says why the name differs: 「五波羅蜜福德，入般若波羅蜜中，即得清淨般若；般若清淨故，得佛道，變名薩婆若。」 tr. "The merit of the five perfections, entering into prajñāpāramitā, obtains pure prajñā; because prajñā is pure, one obtains the Buddha path, and its name is changed to sarvajñā."—one and the same dharma with different names in the position of cause and the position of result: in the cause it is named prajñā, at the result it is named sarvajñā. Therefore he concludes: 「是故言『入薩婆若』，即是『入般若』。」 tr. "Therefore saying ‘entering sarvajñā’ is saying ‘entering prajñā’." From this passage one can learn a method: where names and marks in the sūtra do not match, first see whether it is one substance with different names; do not hurry to judge them two matters.

17. The simile of the right hand and the left hand: the doubt that each has its own power and function. The treatise-author first brings out the doubt: 「有人疑：諸波羅蜜各各有力，何以獨言『般若波羅蜜功用為大』？」 tr. "Someone doubts: the perfections each have their own power; why is it said only that ‘the function of prajñāpāramitā is great’?" This doubt fits ordinary feeling very well—each of the six perfections has its own function, so on what ground is one perfection alone held up? The answer uses the sūtra's simile of the right hand and left hand: 「譬如人之右手，自然穩便；五波羅蜜如左手，不得般若波羅蜜，則所作不便。」 tr. "It is as a person's right hand is naturally steady and convenient; the five perfections are like the left hand—if they do not obtain prajñāpāramitā, what they do is not convenient." The subtlety of this simile lies in not disparaging the left hand: the left hand is not useless; it is inconvenient. So the greatness of prajñā does not lie in the other five perfections being useless; it lies in this: with it, things are convenient; without it, they are not.

18. Opening the eyes, the guide, and the wheel-jewel leading the way: whatever is cultivated, gathered, and brought to completion all relies on prajñā. The treatise-author sets down three similes in a row. Doing things with the eyes open speaks of all that is done being accomplished; the guide in front speaks of 「進止取捨，皆隨導師，不得自在」 tr. "in advancing and halting, in taking and discarding, all follow the guide and are not their own masters"; the wheel-jewel leading the way speaks of 「輪住餘寶則住」 tr. "when the wheel stops, the other jewels also stop". The three similes make clear one and the same meaning: 「般若波羅蜜亦如是，導五波羅蜜，所可修集成辦，皆仰般若。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is likewise: it guides the five perfections, and whatever is cultivated, gathered, and brought to completion all relies on prajñā." After this the treatise-author brings in the text of the first chapter of the Prajñā to substantiate the matter: 「菩薩欲具足檀波羅蜜，不見施者、受者及財物。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva wishes to fulfil dānapāramitā, he does not see a giver, a receiver, or wealth."—and explains it himself, saying 「先籌量分別斷一切著，然後布施，是則般若在前導」 tr. "first he reckons and distinguishes and cuts off all clinging, and afterwards he gives—this is prajñā leading the way in front". Here the two Chinese characters 「前導」 tr. "leading the way" are brought down to something real: it is not that prajñā walks in front showing the road; it is that before giving one first cuts off one's clinging. The most important section at the end is the treatise-author's explanation of the wheel's having no mind: the wheel makes no such discrimination as 「我常在前，餘寶在後」 tr. "I am always in front and the other jewels behind", and has no hatred or love of 「是可來、是不可來」 tr. "this one may come, that one may not come"; prajñā likewise makes no such discrimination as 「檀波羅蜜隨我來，尸羅波羅蜜勿來」 tr. "dānapāramitā, follow me; śīlapāramitā, do not come". Guiding without a mind—this is the eye of this passage. At the end he brings in the causes and conditions the Buddha himself sets out: 「一切法性無所能作。」 tr. "The nature of all dharmas has nothing it is able to do."—since the guiding has no mind, what is called the guide also has nothing it is able to do, and the meaning is complete.

19. Subhūti's difficulty: the nature of all dharmas is empty; how does one practise the six perfections and obtain awakening? Here the sūtra turns to raising difficulties, and the treatise-author takes it up, saying: 「須菩提聞是已，白佛言：『若一切法性空、無所有，云何菩薩行六波羅蜜能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？』」 tr. "Having heard these things, Subhūti addressed the Buddha: ‘If all dharmas are empty in nature and without anything existent, then how does the bodhisattva practise the six perfections and become able to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?’" This difficulty is pressed out precisely from the sentence above, 「一切法性無所能作」 tr. "the nature of all dharmas has nothing it is able to do": since there is nothing it is able to do, practice too does nothing, so from where would the result be obtained? All of Subhūti's difficulties have this feature—it is not that he does not believe; it is that he pushes the meaning the Buddha has set up to the very end and sees that it seems to have an obstruction.

20. The Buddha answers: without the power of skilful means they cannot be delivered. The treatise-author takes up the thought in the Buddha's answer, saying: 「諸法雖畢竟空，眾生狂顛倒故，深著不解；我若不以方便力，則不可得度。」 tr. "Though dharmas are ultimately empty, because beings are mad and inverted they cling deeply and do not understand; if I do not use the power of skilful means, they cannot be delivered."—the answer does not add to or subtract from emptiness; it sets up skilful means on the side of beings. At once the treatise-author lists in full what the two Chinese characters 「方便」 tr. "skilful means" refer to: the golden-coloured body, the thirty-two marks, the eighty minor marks, immeasurable light, supernormal powers and transformations, one finger shaking the lands of the ten directions, expounding the Dharma with the Brahmā voice without satiety, the form body, the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the eighteen unshared dharmas, unobstructed liberation, the omniscience of all kinds, great kindness and great compassion, and so on. Here one must see the treatise-author's intention clearly: skilful means is not an expedient turn of speech; it is this whole set of body and dharmas that the Buddha has accomplished; because there is this, 「然後能教化眾生，眾生必能信受」 tr. "he is then able to teach and transform beings, and beings will certainly believe and accept". The treatise-author further sets down an extremely vivid sentence: 「得如是力，假令妄語，人猶當信，何況實語！」 tr. "Having obtained such power, even if he were to speak falsely people would still believe him, how much more when he speaks the truth!"—this speaks of the power of gathering people in, not of being allowed to speak falsely; the vehemence of the phrasing is precisely to show the weight of the power of skilful means. At the end he brings in the sūtra's words 「我雖知諸法實相，能入涅槃，但為眾生故行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "though I know the real mark of all dharmas and am able to enter nirvāṇa, yet for the sake of beings I practise dānapāramitā" and 「不可以異事度眾生」 tr. "beings cannot be delivered by any other matter" as evidence: being able to enter nirvāṇa and not entering is exactly the real meaning of skilful means; the three Chinese characters of this chapter's name, 「大方便」 tr. "the great skilful means", find their footing only here.

21. A further difficulty: in ultimate emptiness there is no difference; how is prajñā the most honoured? Subhūti changes his angle and raises a difficulty again: 「若諸波羅蜜畢竟空故無差別，云何般若波羅蜜於諸波羅蜜中最尊？」 tr. "If the perfections are without difference because of ultimate emptiness, then why is prajñāpāramitā the most honoured among the perfections?" This difficulty is sharper than the previous one—the previous difficulty asked how, within emptiness, one can practise; this difficulty asks how, within emptiness, there can be higher and lower. Whenever one says ‘most honoured’, that is a difference; once ultimate emptiness is granted, where would a difference be set up? In reading the difficulty one must read out its shape as ‘a dilemma’: granting difference goes against emptiness; not granting difference goes against the sūtra.

22. The Buddha grants his difficulty and takes Mount Sumeru as a simile. The treatise-author explains the manner of the Buddha's answer, saying 「佛可須菩提，畢竟空中諸波羅蜜實無差別」 tr. "the Buddha approved Subhūti: within ultimate emptiness the perfections are indeed without difference"—first granting in full what he has set up, then bringing out a meaning on top of what is granted. The meaning brought out has two parts. The first is the one who can know: 「若無般若波羅蜜，諸波羅蜜畢竟空、無差別，誰能知者？」 tr. "If there were no prajñāpāramitā, who could know that the perfections are ultimately empty and without difference?" The very meaning of being without difference needs prajñā before it can be known. The second is the obtaining of the name: 「若無般若，五法云何得波羅蜜名字？」 tr. "If there were no prajñā, how would the five dharmas obtain the name of pāramitā?" At once he divides two times, before entering and after entering: 「五波羅蜜未入般若時，有差別；既入般若，則無差別。」 tr. "When the five perfections have not yet entered prajñā, they have difference; once they have entered prajñā, they are without difference." Sumeru is the simile: 「如諸異色物，到須彌山邊，皆同一色」 tr. "as things of various different colours, on reaching the side of Mount Sumeru, all become one colour alike"—they are one colour alike, and yet one cannot on that account say that Sumeru is not great. The treatise-author turns back to the main topic: 「檀波羅蜜等亦如是，雖無差別，皆是般若力故，不得言：『何以獨稱般若為大？』」 tr. "Dānapāramitā and the others are likewise: though they are without difference, it is all because of the power of prajñā, and one cannot say: ‘Why is prajñā alone called great?’" The point this simile takes is: what makes the things one colour is precisely Sumeru, so their being one colour does not harm its being great.

23. Not yet understanding it well, he asks again by another road. Here the treatise-author sets down an extremely important remark: 「須菩提雖蒙開釋，猶未善解，復以異塗而問世尊」 tr. "though Subhūti had received the explanation, he had not yet understood it well, and again, by another road, he asked the World-Honored One"—stating plainly that this question and the previous one are not a repetition; it is asking again by a changed road. What is the road he changed to? The treatise-author explains it himself: 「先說未得聖道空，今說得聖道空，是故說第一實義。」 tr. "What was spoken before was the emptiness of one who has not yet obtained the noble path; what is spoken now is the emptiness of one who has obtained the noble path; therefore it speaks of the foremost real meaning." The previous question asked about the emptiness as understood by the ordinary person; this question asks about the emptiness realised by the noble path. And he adds a sentence, 「第一實義聖道，是最可信，是中亦無差別」 tr. "the noble path of the foremost real meaning is the most worthy of belief, and within it too there is no difference"—precisely because it is the most worthy of belief, if there were still higher and lower within it, there would be nowhere left to retreat. In the questions and answers of this treatise, what must most be avoided is taking a question on a changed road as a repeated question; here the treatise-author has already marked it plainly.

24. The Buddha answers: distinctions are all for the sake of worldly convention; the simile of the jewel of the precious maiden. The bone of the Buddha's answer lies in one sentence: 「我說六波羅蜜分別，皆為世俗故。」 tr. "I speak of the distinctions of the six perfections all for the sake of worldly convention." At once he gives the reason: 「世人不可但為說諸法實相，聞則迷悶，生於疑悔。」 tr. "To the people of the world one cannot speak only of the real mark of all dharmas; hearing it they are bewildered and give rise to doubt and regret." So his method is 「以第一義為心，用世俗語言為說」 tr. "taking the highest meaning as the mind, one uses worldly language to speak"—the mind in the highest meaning, the words in worldly convention. These thirteen Chinese characters can serve as a general rule for reading the distinctions in all the scriptural teachings. Since the distinguishing is for the sake of worldly convention, what is distinguished is still empty: 「眾生實無有法，皆是空、不生不死、不退不起；色等法亦如是。」 tr. "Beings in reality are without any dharma; all are empty, neither arising nor dying, neither retrogressing nor rising; form and the other dharmas are likewise." At the end it comes back to: 「是故般若波羅蜜雖空，能示如是事故，而最上、最妙」 tr. "therefore, though prajñāpāramitā is empty, because it is able to show such a matter it is the highest and most wondrous"—the reason it is the highest lies in the two Chinese characters 「能示」 tr. "able to show": it is not that it is more real than the others; it is that it alone can disclose and show this matter. The jewel of the precious maiden, foremost among all women, is the simile, taking the point that it stands out alone among its own kind.

25. Taking up the sūtra: with what intention the Buddha always says that prajñā is the highest. From here the treatise-author takes up two phrases of the sūtra in a row and explains them. The first phrase, 「須菩提白佛：佛以何意故常說般若最上」 tr. "Subhūti addressed the Buddha: With what intention does the Buddha constantly say that prajñā is the highest?"—the treatise-author explains where the question comes from, saying: 「須菩提種種因緣說般若、五波羅蜜無差別，佛亦然可其所說，而復言般若最上。」 tr. "Subhūti has, by various causes and conditions, spoken of prajñā and the five perfections as without difference, and the Buddha too approved what he said, yet he further says that prajñā is the highest." Why the question arises lies precisely in the Buddha first granting that they are without difference and afterwards saying that it is the highest; granting and saying stand together, and so he cannot but ask. This passage is taking up the text; it is not a new dialogue, and the reader must not read it as yet another round of question and answer.

26. Taking up the sūtra: prajñā guards all wholesome dharmas so that they arrive in sarvajñā and abide there. What the second phrase takes up is the Buddha's words, and the treatise-author explains it, saying: 「一切雖空，若無般若，一切諸善法皆不能至薩婆若。」 tr. "Though everything is empty, if there were no prajñā, none of the wholesome dharmas could arrive at sarvajñā." And he defines what 「善法」 tr. "wholesome dharmas" refers to: 「五波羅蜜、三十七品、大慈悲等諸菩薩法。」 tr. "The five perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, great kindness and compassion, and the other dharmas of the bodhisattvas." This definition is useful—it marks out in advance the scope of the question below: what is asked about is not worldly wholesome dharmas; it is the wholesome dharmas of the bodhisattva.

27. Question and answer: why is it said only that it is by prajñā that one is able to arrive? The treatise-author sets up a question of his own: 「若行諸善法亦能至薩婆若，何以但說『般若故得至』？」 tr. "If practising the wholesome dharmas can also arrive at sarvajñā, why is it said only ‘it is by prajñā that one is able to arrive’?" The answer says: 「雖諸善法和合能破煩惱、得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，而般若波羅蜜於中功力最大。」 tr. "Though the wholesome dharmas, coming together, can break the afflictions and obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, yet among them the power and function of prajñāpāramitā are the greatest."—the answer is extremely measured: it does not deny that the wholesome dharmas coming together can break the afflictions; it only says that the power and function of prajñā are the greatest. The simile is 「大軍摧敵，而主將得功名」 tr. "a great army crushes the enemy, and the general obtains the fame of the achievement": the achievement is in fact accomplished by the many, but the name goes to the general; this is exactly why ‘only prajñā is spoken of’. What this simile treats is a kind of greed for more in the way of reading: seeing that the sūtra says prajñā is able to arrive, one then thinks the other dharmas useless.

28. Someone further says: prajñā alone is able to arrive—the evidence of the buddha-land of Lion's Thunder-Voice. The treatise-author records a stronger view: 「諸善法不得般若，不得至薩婆若；般若不得諸善法，獨能至薩婆若。」 tr. "The wholesome dharmas, if they do not obtain prajñā, cannot arrive at sarvajñā; prajñā, though it does not obtain the wholesome dharmas, is able on its own to arrive at sarvajñā." And it cites the sūtra to substantiate it: 「師子雷音佛國，寶樹莊嚴，其樹常出無量法音，所謂一切法畢竟空、無生無滅等。其土人民生便聞此法音故，不起惡心，得無生法忍。」 tr. "The buddha-land of the Buddha Lion's Thunder-Voice is adorned with jewelled trees, and its trees constantly give forth immeasurable sounds of the Dharma, namely that all dharmas are ultimately empty, without arising and without ceasing, and so on. Because the people of that land hear these sounds of the Dharma as soon as they are born, they do not give rise to an evil mind, and they obtain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas."—the people of that land hear these sounds of the Dharma from the moment they are born and obtain acceptance, and so it asks in return: 「如此人何有布施、持戒等諸功德？」 tr. "Where would such people have giving, upholding the precepts, and the other merits?" It further raises 「狂人、醉人從佛聞四諦，即時得道」 tr. "madmen and drunkards who heard the four truths from the Buddha and at that very time obtained the path" as side evidence. At the end it decides the matter from the reverse direction: 「如是等無有智慧，行餘法得道，無有是事！」 tr. "In such cases and the like, if there is no wisdom, then to practise the other dharmas and obtain the path—there is no such case!" In this passage two matters must be clearly distinguished: first, the treatise-author ‘records’ this view and does not set it up himself—the four Chinese characters 「復有人言」 tr. "someone further says" at the head of the text already mark this; second, this view and the answer above do not contradict each other—the answer above says that the many dharmas come together and the achievement of prajñā is great; this view says that in an extreme case prajñā can arrive alone. The two views standing together is exactly an instance of this treatise's recording without forcing a judgement.

29. Subhūti's difficulty: neither taking nor giving up; how can it be said that it arrives at sarvajñā and abides? The treatise-author takes up Subhūti's question, saying: 「般若畢竟空，不取聖法、不捨凡夫法，云何佛言『是般若波羅蜜能至薩婆若住』？」 tr. "Prajñā is ultimately empty; it does not take up the noble dharmas and does not give up the dharmas of ordinary persons; then why does the Buddha say ‘this prajñāpāramitā is able to arrive at sarvajñā and abide there’?" The precision of this difficulty lies in the two Chinese characters 「至」 tr. "arrive" and 「住」 tr. "abide": arriving is reaching somewhere; abiding is stopping somewhere; since there is neither taking nor giving up, there is neither reaching nor stopping. The questioner is not contending with the Buddha; he is pressing on the meaning of two verbs in the Buddha's words.

30. The Buddha grants his words and explains the meaning of taking and abiding. The Buddha first grants it in full: 「如是！如是！是般若波羅蜜無取無捨。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! This prajñāpāramitā is without taking and without giving up." At once the treatise-author explains the turn in the Buddha's words: 「雖言取薩婆若，以不取法故取。住義亦如是。」 tr. "Though it is said to take sarvajñā, it takes by way of the dharma of not taking. The meaning of abiding is likewise."—one and the same word 「取」 tr. "take" is used on two levels: what is taken is the dharma of not taking, so it is taking and yet not taking; abiding follows the same pattern. The treatise-author goes on to cite the causes and conditions the Buddha himself sets out: 「一切法不取相。」 tr. "In all dharmas one does not grasp at marks." And he defines the scope of what is called all dharmas: 「色乃至菩提。」 tr. "From form all the way to awakening." Below he says why one does not take: 「是法虛誑，從因緣生，自性無故不取，不取故不捨，以不憶念取相故。」 tr. "These dharmas are false and deceptive, born from causes and conditions; because they have no self-nature one does not take them, and because one does not take them one does not give them up, because one does not keep them in mind and grasp at marks." The three occurrences of 「故」 tr. "because" follow one another in a single line: because there is no self-nature one does not take; because one does not take one does not give up; and the hinge lies in 「不憶念取相」 tr. "not keeping in mind and grasping at marks". These five Chinese characters are where the question of the next passage comes from.

31. Subhūti's difficulty: if one does not keep in mind, how do roots of goodness increase? The treatise-author takes it up, saying: 「若不憶念色等法，云何增長善根？善根不增長，云何得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "If one does not keep in mind form and the other dharmas, then how do roots of goodness increase? If roots of goodness do not increase, how does one obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" This difficulty is extremely practical—keeping in mind is where the practitioner sets his hand to effort; if one says not to keep in mind, roots of goodness seem to have no way to accumulate. The questioner goes down two steps in a row: if they do not increase, one does not obtain awakening. If the reader has ever thought that ‘keeping the Buddha-dharma much in mind is increase’, this difficulty speaks exactly what is in your heart.

32. The Buddha answers: extinguishing keeping in mind is the three gates of liberation; the simile of planting grain among foul weeds. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, saying: 「若菩薩能滅一切法中憶念，即是空、無相、無作解脫門，解脫即是諸法實相。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva is able to extinguish keeping in mind with regard to all dharmas, this is the gates of liberation of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, and liberation is the real mark of all dharmas."—the way of answering is to equate ‘extinguishing keeping in mind’ directly with the three gates of liberation, and so the doubt about not increasing breaks of itself: extinguishing keeping in mind is not ceasing to make effort; it is precisely the utmost of effort. At once he explains the reverse side: 「雖有善根，以取相著心顛倒故不增長」 tr. "though there are roots of goodness, because of the inversion of the mind that grasps at marks and clings, they do not increase"; and planting grain is the simile: 「其苗雖好，穢草多故，不能增長。」 tr. "Though its sprouts are good, because foul weeds are many they cannot increase." The point this simile takes is exact—the sprouts are good and yet do not grow: the sickness is not in the sprouts but in the foul weeds; roots of goodness are there and yet do not increase: the sickness is not in the roots of goodness but in the mind that grasps at marks. So removing the foul weeds is making the sprouts grow, and extinguishing keeping in mind is increasing roots of goodness.

33. The causes and conditions the Buddha himself sets out: because of keeping in mind one is born in the three realms. The treatise-author records the causes and conditions spoken by the Buddha: 「以眾生憶念故，生三界善、不善處；若無憶念則不著，不著則不生。」 tr. "Because beings keep things in mind, they are born in the wholesome and unwholesome places of the three realms; if there is no keeping in mind, then one does not cling, and not clinging, one is not born." This sentence speaks of the harm of keeping in mind down to the root—it is not only an obstruction to increase; it is the cause of the places of birth in the three realms. Three clauses descend in turn: because of keeping in mind there is clinging, and because of clinging there is birth; without keeping in mind there is no clinging, and without clinging there is no birth. By the time one reads to here, the doubt of the previous passage should have wholly dissolved: the questioner thought that without keeping in mind nothing would accumulate; the Buddha answers that keeping in mind is exactly why one flows on in the round.

34. Subhūti considers and reckons, and asks about abiding and attaining. Here the treatise-author marks out a process: 「須菩提從佛聞是已，思惟籌量」 tr. "having heard these things from the Buddha, Subhūti considered and reckoned"—he does not ask as soon as he hears; he considers and afterwards asks. What he considers is: 「是法畢竟空、無所有；若行是法，亦應無所得、無住處。何以故？因果相似故。」 tr. "This dharma is ultimately empty and without anything existent; if one practises this dharma, there should also be nothing to be attained and no place of abiding. Why? Because cause and fruit resemble one another." The four Chinese characters 「因果相似」 tr. "cause and fruit resemble one another" are the ground of his reasoning: since the dharma practised is empty, the result obtained should also be empty. From this he then asks: 「菩薩作是念行般若，何所住、何所得？」 tr. "The bodhisattva who has this thought and practises prajñā—where does he abide, and what does he attain?" This question is the place in all the questions and answers of the whole fascicle where Subhūti's use of mind is most visible; the treatise-author marks out the traces of his considering expressly so that the reader may know where a good question comes from.

35. The Buddha answers: he does not abide, and so on up to: in not abiding he also does not abide. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, saying: 「色等一切法中不住，乃至不住中亦不住。」 tr. "In all dharmas, form and the rest, he does not abide, and so on up to: in not abiding he also does not abide."—the last phrase is the joint: once not abiding is set up, someone will settle himself on 「不住」 tr. "not abiding", and so another layer is broken. The treatise-author explains the reason himself: 「不取相故不著，不著故則不住。」 tr. "Because he does not grasp at marks he does not cling, and because he does not cling he does not abide." And he cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself sets out: 「是菩薩不見法有可著、可住、著者、住者。」 tr. "This bodhisattva does not see that there is any dharma that can be clung to or that can be abided in, nor one who clings nor one who abides." Four things are dismissed together—the dharma clung to, the place abided in, the person able to cling, the person able to abide. At the end the treatise-author sets down a remark on the manner of the text: 「此中法難破故，但說法，不說著者。」 tr. "Here, because dharmas are hard to break, only dharmas are spoken of, and the one who clings is not spoken of."—the sūtra here breaks only dharmas and does not break the person; the treatise-author points out that this is because dharmas are hard to break, and when dharmas are broken the person is broken of itself; this is an abbreviation often met in reading the sūtra, and the treatise-author points it out.

36. The first losing: abiding in the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas and having this thought, ‘I am able to practise thus’. From here one enters the section on the losing that comes from grasping at marks. Here the treatise-author lists four stretches of losing, and at the end himself gathers them as 「三種皆失」 tr. "all three kinds are losing"—the four stretches are the order of the text; the three kinds are the classification by meaning. For the first losing, the treatise-author takes up the sūtra, saying: 「若菩薩住是眾生空、法空，作是念『我能如是行』者，則是失、則是離。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva abides in this emptiness of beings and emptiness of dharmas and has this thought, ‘I am able to practise thus’, then that is losing, that is separation." The losing lies wholly in the two Chinese characters 「我能」 tr. "I am able". The treatise-author explains the reason: 「般若波羅蜜是不著相。是菩薩以我心外著空、內著我，不如般若行，故言遠離般若。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is of the mark of not clinging. This bodhisattva, with the mind of a self, clings outwardly to emptiness and inwardly to a self, and does not practise in accord with prajñā, so it is said that he is far from prajñā."—clinging outwardly to emptiness and inwardly to a self, he clings at both ends. What must most be noted is this: what this person abides in is the two emptinesses, and what he practises is not mistaken; the mistake lies only in his thinking that there is an 「我」 tr. "I" practising this matter. So the first losing is not an error in view; it is an error in position.

37. The next losing: breaking emptiness and clinging to prajñā's being without nature. The treatise-author marks its turn, saying: 「上以著空故失，今以破空得般若，而著般若無性故失」 tr. "above, one lost by clinging to emptiness; now, having broken emptiness and obtained prajñā, one yet loses by clinging to prajñā's being without nature"—the second losing is finer than the first: he has already broken the clinging to emptiness and no longer says ‘I am able to practise’, yet he gives rise to attachment on 「般若無性」 tr. "prajñā's being without nature". Its consequence the treatise-author states with great weight: 「失故不得受記。」 tr. "Because of losing, one does not receive the prediction." And he adds an example: 「若作是念『住般若中能生檀波羅蜜等』者，亦復是失。」 tr. "If one has this thought, ‘abiding in prajñā, one can give rise to dānapāramitā and the others’, that too is likewise losing." This example deserves attention—abiding in prajñā and being able to give rise to the perfections: the sense of the words is wholly right, and yet once there is the word 「住」 tr. "abiding" it becomes losing. It can be seen that what the losings dismiss is not an error of meaning; it is where the mind comes to rest.

38. Question and answer: what is taken as losing in the third losing. The treatise-author sets up a question of his own: 「上二失因緣可爾，今以何為失？」 tr. "The causes and conditions of the two losings above can be explained thus; what is taken as losing now?"—this question is extremely well set: each of the first two losings has something it clings to, while the third kind of person does not cling to emptiness and does not cling to being without nature, and one cannot see where the losing lies. The answer first traces back the sickness of the first two losings: 「以著空、著無性法故，便不能修檀波羅蜜等功德，而生邪見故，作是念：『若法都空，復何所行？』」 tr. "Because of clinging to emptiness and clinging to the dharma of being without nature, one then cannot cultivate dānapāramitā and the other merits, and because one gives rise to wrong views, one has this thought: ‘If dharmas are all empty, what is there that can be practised?’"—the real harm of the first two losings lies in abandoning practice. The third kind of person has seen exactly this harm and changed: 「是人以不著空、不著無性故行檀波羅蜜等」 tr. "this person, because of not clinging to emptiness and not clinging to being without nature, practises dānapāramitā and the others"; yet he immediately has the thought: 「能不著空、無性而能行是功德，是為真道。」 tr. "To be able not to cling to emptiness and to being without nature, and yet to be able to practise these merits—this is the true path." The losing lies precisely in this thought. The treatise-author decides it, saying: 「是亦為失，以其心有悕望故。」 tr. "This too is losing, because in his mind there are hopes." The two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘hopes’ are the name of this losing—he does not cling to emptiness and does not cling to being without nature, yet he clings to ‘only my doing it this way is the true path’. This is the kind of mind that practitioners most often have and can least see for themselves.

39. Losing prajñā, one cannot practise giving, and so on up to great compassion. After the three losings the treatise-author inserts a general verdict: 「若失般若，則不能行檀波羅蜜乃至大悲。」 tr. "If one loses prajñā, one cannot practise dānapāramitā, and so on up to great compassion." And he gives the reason: 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提是真實法，般若波羅蜜與此相似；檀等諸善法不相似，以其取相著故。」 tr. "Anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is a true and real dharma, and prajñāpāramitā resembles it; giving and the other wholesome dharmas do not resemble it, because they grasp at marks and cling."—the meaning is set up by 「相似」 tr. "resembling": prajñā and awakening are one and the same signlessness, so they correspond; the perfections grasp at marks, so they do not resemble it. So for one who loses prajñā, the perfections he practises do not correspond to the result he seeks, and therefore it is said that he cannot practise them. This sentence is also a footnote to the earlier ‘without obtaining prajñā they are not called pāramitā’.

40. The fourth losing: recollecting, imagining, and discriminating for oneself and disclosing it to others. The fourth losing is the finest, and the treatise-author peels it layer by layer. What this person thinks is: 「一切法不取相，諸佛知是已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "All dharmas are not grasped at as marks; the buddhas knew this and obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi."—the meaning he thinks is wholly the right meaning, and the treatise-author himself at once explains 「不取相」 tr. "not grasping at marks": 「名畢竟空，不可取，諸相滅故。」 tr. "It is named ultimate emptiness, which cannot be taken, because all marks have ceased." Yet 「亦為他開示、演說，則失般若」 tr. "if he further discloses it and expounds it for others, then he loses prajñā". Why does the right meaning turn instead into losing? The treatise-author writes out the traces of this person's mind: 「我是凡夫生死人，諸煩惱未盡，云何能得？但隨佛語，自不分別，而定心為他人說」 tr. "I am an ordinary person in birth and death, my afflictions are not yet exhausted, how could I obtain it? I simply follow the Buddha's words, do not myself discriminate, and with a concentrated mind speak to others"—this is an extremely humble person: he knows he has not obtained it, he only passes on the Buddha's words, and he does not himself discriminate. The treatise-author still judges it losing. Why? 「諸佛於諸法無所得，取義亦如是；是不取相法，乃至假名字不可說，何況有所得！」 tr. "The buddhas have nothing to be attained with regard to dharmas, and the meaning of taking is likewise; this dharma of not grasping at marks cannot be spoken of even as a provisional name, how much less could there be something attained!" At the end he concludes: 「諸佛法寂滅相，無諸戲論，一切語言道斷故。」 tr. "The Dharma of the buddhas is of the mark of quiescence, without any idle discourse, because the way of all words is cut off." The losing lies in the five Chinese characters 「自憶想分別」 tr. "recollecting, imagining, and discriminating for oneself"—in his mind he has first set up a mark of 「不取相」 tr. "not grasping at marks", and then holds this mark to speak to people. Here the losings reach their utmost: from ‘I am able to practise’, to clinging to being without nature, to clinging to the true path, to holding the right meaning and speaking it—each layer more like the path than the last, and each layer harder to know for oneself.

41. Subhūti asks: how is one who practises without these faults? The treatise-author marks Subhūti's thought, saying: 「若空有失，空空中亦有失，無取法中亦有失，然不可無道。」 tr. "If within emptiness there is losing, and within the emptiness of emptiness there is also losing, and within the dharma of not taking there is also losing—yet there cannot be no path."—the five Chinese characters 「然不可無道」 tr. "yet there cannot be no path" are the bone of this question: everywhere there is losing, and yet it is impossible that there should be no road. So he asks the Buddha: 「云何行者無是過失？」 tr. "How does one practise so as to be without these faults?" This question is the question that must come after the losings, and also the pivot on which the whole fascicle turns from breaking to establishing.

42. The Buddha answers: knowing that it cannot be found or known—one who practises thus is without losing. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, saying: 「若菩薩知諸法畢竟空、無所有、不可取，是法不可得知，如是行者則無失。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva knows that dharmas are ultimately empty, without anything existent, and cannot be taken, and that this dharma cannot be found or known, one who practises thus is without losing." The joint lies in the six Chinese characters 「是法不可得知」 tr. "this dharma cannot be found or known"—it is not knowing a thing called ultimate emptiness; it is knowing that it cannot be found or known. Knowing that it cannot be known, one sets nothing up; setting nothing up, one clings to nothing. The treatise-author at once gathers in what went before: 「菩薩著畢竟空、著無性、著菩薩所行道，佛說三種皆失。」 tr. "The bodhisattva clings to ultimate emptiness, clings to being without nature, clings to the path the bodhisattva practises; the Buddha says that all three kinds are losing."—here the losings above are gathered in three kinds: clinging to ultimate emptiness, clinging to being without nature, clinging to the path the bodhisattva practises; as for the one losing of still clinging to what the Buddha practises, it is gathered in separately in the next passage.

43. Still clinging to what the Buddha practises—now being able to be like the dharma the Buddha obtained in his mind. The treatise-author goes a layer further: 「菩薩聞是已，則捨著心，今猶著佛所行未息」 tr. "having heard these things, the bodhisattva gave up the clinging mind, yet now he still clings to what the Buddha practises and has not stopped"; his thought is: 「如佛所行，必是真道，我但當隨佛行。」 tr. "What the Buddha practises must certainly be the true path; I should only follow the Buddha in practice." The treatise-author judges: 「一切法無所有、不取相，是故為失。」 tr. "All dharmas are without anything existent and are not grasped at as marks; therefore this is losing."—following the Buddha in practice also becomes losing: this is the last gathering-in of the losings. Where it is remedied the treatise-author speaks most beautifully: 「今能如佛心中所得法，如是法相，佛亦無所得；無所得故不貪貴佛、不輕賤餘人，於一切眾生其心平等。」 tr. "Now he is able to be like the dharma the Buddha obtained in his mind: of such a mark of dharmas, the Buddha too has nothing to be attained; because of nothing to be attained, he does not covet and prize the Buddha and does not slight and despise other people; towards all beings his mind is equal."—from the Buddha's having nothing to be attained, to not prizing the Buddha and not despising people, to the mind being equal. This is the utmost of breaking attachment in the whole fascicle: even the esteem for the Buddha must be put down—not slighting the Buddha, but knowing that what the Buddha attained was from the first nothing attained.

44. A further question: if one is apart from its own mark, how can one practise? The treatise-author takes up the further question here, saying: 「如是，是清淨般若，無有過失，離自相不著。不離自相是即有相著法；若離自相，云何可行？」 tr. "Thus, this is pure prajñā, without fault, apart from its own mark and not clinging. Not to be apart from its own mark is a dharma that has marks and clings; if it is apart from its own mark, then how can one practise it?"—this question blocks both sides completely: not being apart from its own mark there is clinging; being apart from its own mark there is nothing to practise. Whenever one reads a question of this kind, blocked on both sides, one must know that the answer will certainly not lie within the two sides.

45. The Buddha answers: not giving rise to any dharma is called being able to practise prajñā. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, saying: 「若菩薩於一切法不生，是名能行般若。是菩薩不說是色若常若無常等、是色、誰色。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva does not give rise to any dharma, this is called being able to practise prajñā. This bodhisattva does not say that this form is permanent or impermanent and so on, nor is form, nor whose form." At once he explains it word by word: 「是色，破色；誰色，破人。」 tr. "Is form breaks form; whose form breaks the person."—the question 「是色」 tr. "is form" breaks attachment to dharmas, the question 「誰色」 tr. "whose form" breaks attachment to the person; the two questions are dismissed together, and person and dharmas are both empty. The scope is extended to 「色乃至一切種智，亦如是」 tr. "form, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, is likewise". At the end he says why it cannot be given rise to: 「若法如是畢竟空，推求不可得，是不可生。所以者何？性不能生性，無性不能生無性。」 tr. "If a dharma is ultimately empty in this way, and when searched for is unfindable, this is what cannot be given rise to. Why is that? Because nature cannot give rise to nature, and what is without nature cannot give rise to what is without nature."—neither road, nature or being without nature, can give rise, and so it is said: not giving rise. The answer to 「云何可行」 tr. "how can one practise it" lies in the two Chinese characters 「不生」 tr. "not giving rise": practice is not doing some one thing; it is not giving rise with regard to any dharma.

46. The simile of the four kinds of troops following: by the power of prajñā the dharmas together arrive at the Buddha path. The treatise-author gathers up what came before, saying: 「如是等破顛倒，得實論議，皆是般若波羅蜜力，餘波羅蜜皆隨從」 tr. "discourses such as these, which break inversion and obtain the true and real, are all the power of prajñāpāramitā, and the other perfections all follow it"; the simile is the four kinds of troops always following the wheel-turning sage king: 「聖王福故，四種兵皆能飛；般若力故，諸餘法皆是實性，同至佛道。」 tr. "Because of the merit of the sage king, the four kinds of troops are all able to fly; because of the power of prajñā, the other dharmas all become of real nature and together arrive at the Buddha path." The point this simile takes lies in the three Chinese characters 「皆能飛」 tr. "all able to fly"—troops by themselves cannot fly, but because of the king's merit they can; the perfections by themselves are not of real nature, but because of the power of prajñā they together arrive at the Buddha path.

47. The simile of the good charioteer driving a team of four: though there is strength, without the driver one cannot arrive. The treatise-author starts afresh, saying: 「譬如善御駕駟，不失平道。馬雖有致車之力，若無御者，則不能有所至」 tr. "It is as a person skilled at driving drives a carriage of four horses and does not lose the level road. Though the horses have the strength to pull the carriage, without the driver they cannot arrive anywhere"; applied, it is 「布施等亦如是，雖有功德果報力，無般若調御，不能至佛道」 tr. "giving and the others are likewise: though they have the power of the retribution of merit, without prajñā to tame and drive them they cannot arrive at the Buddha path". This simile and the previous one divide their work: the previous simile says that the power of prajñā changes the quality of the dharmas; this simile says that the function of prajñā lies in taming and driving. The strength of the horses stands for the power of the retribution of merit, the driver for prajñā—the strength is not lacking but the direction is, and so they cannot arrive.

48. Concluding praise: though the five perfections, having entered prajñā, are without difference, prajñā is the most honoured and most wondrous. The treatise-author closes the whole passage with one sentence: 「如是種種譬喻，五波羅蜜入般若中雖無差別，以是事故而般若波羅蜜最尊、最妙。」 tr. "By various similes such as these: though the five perfections, having entered into prajñā, are without difference, because of this matter prajñāpāramitā is the most honoured and the most wondrous." This sentence joins the two matters of the preceding text into one: it both grants that they are without difference and grants that it is the most honoured; the reason the two can stand together without contradicting each other is exactly the meaning of the earlier 「以第一義為心，用世俗語言為說」 tr. "taking the highest meaning as the mind, one uses worldly language to speak".

49. What is the bodhisattva path, and what is not the bodhisattva path. The treatise-author explains where this question comes from, marking two sources: 「須菩提聞佛種種因緣說般若最大，又聞不行是行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Subhūti heard the Buddha speak by various causes and conditions of prajñā as the greatest, and further heard that not practising is practising prajñāpāramitā"—the one is hearing the praise, the other is hearing 「不行是行」 tr. "not practising is practising". Since he knows that prajñā is the greatest and yet what is practised is the practice of not practising, the path as a path must be asked about anew. So he asks: 「世尊！何等是菩薩道？何等非菩薩道？」 tr. "World-Honored One! What is the bodhisattva path? What is not the bodhisattva path?"

50. The Buddha answers that the two vehicles are not the bodhisattva path; the treatise-author explains why the two vehicles alone are raised. The Buddha's answer is only six Chinese characters: 「二乘非菩薩道。」 tr. "The two vehicles are not the bodhisattva path." The treatise-author's explanation lies in supplying what was not raised: 「雖有凡夫及諸煩惱非菩薩道，麁故不說」 tr. "though ordinary persons and the afflictions are also not the bodhisattva path, they are not spoken of because they are coarse"—ordinary persons and the afflictions are of course not the bodhisattva path; because this is too obvious, there is no need to say it. The reason the two vehicles alone are raised lies in: 「二乘同行空、同求涅槃故，說非菩薩道。」 tr. "It is because the two vehicles likewise practise emptiness and likewise seek nirvāṇa that they are spoken of as not the bodhisattva path."—precisely because they are similar, they must be distinguished. The treatise-author further sets down a general rule: 「麁事人不疑，細事人疑故。」 tr. "For people do not doubt coarse matters; it is about subtle matters that people doubt." This is the key to reading every text of distinguishing: whatever the sūtras and treatises expressly distinguish is sure to be what is similar and easily confused. At the end he adds a sentence: 「薩婆若是菩薩道，因中說果故。」 tr. "Sarvajñā is the bodhisattva path, because it is speaking of the result in the cause." Sarvajñā is by rights the result; here it is spoken of as the path—an instance of speaking of the result in the cause, which the treatise-author points out in one phrase without further argument.

51. Subhūti praises prajñā as arising for a great matter. The treatise-author takes it up, saying: 「須菩提歡喜讚歎般若，作是言：『世尊！般若波羅蜜為大事故起。』」 tr. "Subhūti rejoiced and praised prajñā, speaking these words: ‘World-Honored One! Prajñāpāramitā arises for the sake of a great matter.’" And with 「如經中廣說，乃至『諸法常住故』」 tr. "as is said at length in the sūtra, and so on up to ‘because dharmas abide constantly’" he abridges what lies between. This kind of abridgement by 「乃至」 tr. "and so on up to" is the regular practice of this treatise: raising the head and raising the tail and abridging the middle; the reader should know that what is abridged remains in the sūtra, not that the treatise-author has cut it out.

52. Difficulty: without arising and without ceasing, how does one practise giving and upholding the precepts? The treatise-author takes up Subhūti's difficulty, saying: 「若般若無所生無所滅，云何行布施、持戒等？」 tr. "If prajñā has nothing arising and nothing ceasing, then how does one practise giving, upholding the precepts, and the rest?"—this difficulty has the same format as the earlier ‘the nature of all dharmas is empty; how does one practise the six perfections’, but what it rests on is different: the earlier one rested on emptiness of nature; this one rests on being without arising and without ceasing. The Buddha answers: 「以般若無所生無所滅，即是畢竟空；畢竟空故，不妨行六波羅蜜。」 tr. "Because prajñā has nothing arising and nothing ceasing, it is ultimate emptiness; because it is ultimate emptiness, it does not hinder practising the six perfections." The turn in the words of the answer lies in the two Chinese characters 「不妨」 tr. "does not hinder": it is not that because of emptiness one is able to practise; it is that emptiness does not hinder practice. The measure of these two Chinese characters is extremely fine—if one said that one practises because of emptiness, emptiness would become a cause that can give rise; saying ‘does not hinder’, emptiness is empty of itself and practice practises of itself.

53. Practising the dharmas for the sake of omniscience, establishing them in the real mark and dedicating them. The treatise-author relates the bodhisattva's practice, saying: 「菩薩聞種種因緣讚一切智；為一切智故，行布施等法；是法為度一切眾生故，迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the bodhisattva hears omniscience praised by various causes and conditions; for the sake of omniscience he practises giving and the other dharmas; these dharmas, for the sake of delivering all beings, are dedicated to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—three matters linked together: what it is for is omniscience, what is practised is the perfections, and those for whose sake it is done are beings. At the end he goes a layer further: 「是六波羅蜜功德安立諸法實相中，迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "The merit of these six perfections is established within the real mark of all dharmas and dedicated to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Dedicating and, beyond that, establishing in the real mark—therefore his practice 「不顛倒，正行善根故」 tr. "is not inverted, because he rightly practises roots of goodness". This passage and the earlier definition of 「種善根」 tr. "planting roots of goodness" shine on each other from before and after: practising the six perfections with a deep mind and making merit for the sake of awakening—here it is said more fully.

54. How should one train in the six perfections: neither joined nor dispersed. Subhūti asks: 「菩薩云何應習六波羅蜜？」 tr. "How should the bodhisattva train in the six perfections?" The Buddha answers: 「若菩薩觀色等諸法不合不散。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva contemplates form and the other dharmas as neither joined nor dispersed." The treatise-author explains for him the meaning of joining and dispersing: 「色等諸法顛倒煩惱和合故合，以正智慧觀故散。」 tr. "Form and the other dharmas are joined because the inverted afflictions come together, and are dispersed because they are contemplated with right wisdom." At once he speaks of the bodhisattva's contemplation: 「以利智慧深觀，則無法合；顛倒煩惱皆虛誑，故非合。」 tr. "When he contemplates deeply with keen wisdom, there is no dharma that is joined; the inverted afflictions are all false and deceptive, and so it is not joining."—what is called joining is from the first formed by the inverted afflictions; since the inversion is false, the joining too is not formed. And he points to its source, 「如先破染、染者事中說」 tr. "as was said before in the matter of breaking defilement and the one defiled". At the end he concludes: 「菩薩知諸法本不合故亦無散，則不生高心。」 tr. "The bodhisattva, knowing that dharmas are from the first not joined, also has no dispersing, and then does not give rise to a haughty mind." The four Chinese characters 「不生高心」 tr. "does not give rise to a haughty mind" are the real effect of training in the six perfections: knowing that from the first there is no joining, there is nothing to break; with nothing to break, there is nothing to exalt oneself over. The 「不合不散」 tr. "neither joined nor dispersed" here is the foreshadowing of the fourth gate below.

55. One should not think that with true wisdom one makes dharmas pure and abides in them. The treatise-author starts afresh, saying: 「菩薩不應作是念：『我以真智慧令色等諸法清淨而住其中……』」 tr. "The bodhisattva should not have this thought: ‘With true wisdom I make form and the other dharmas pure and abide in them …’" The reason is 「色等法無住處」 tr. "form and the other dharmas have no place of abiding". At once he takes fourfold abiding upon one another as a simile: 「如地住於水，水住於風，風住於空，空無所住」 tr. "as earth abides on water, water abides on wind, wind abides on space, and space abides on nothing"—layer upon layer abiding upon one another, and in the end coming back to no abiding; therefore it is said 「以本無住處故，一切都無住」 tr. "because from the first there is no place of abiding, all things abide on nothing". At the end he establishes right practice: 「菩薩應如是住無住法中，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "The bodhisattva should abide thus in the dharma of non-abiding and obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." This passage carries on from the earlier 「乃至不住中亦不住」 tr. "and so on up to: in not abiding he also does not abide": there the attachment to abiding was broken; here the abiding of non-abiding is established.

56. The simile of planting a tree: prajñā as the seed, the five perfections as the water. The treatise-author explains the simile of the tree in the sūtra, matching each thing with a meaning: 「樹是般若波羅蜜，菓是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the tree is prajñāpāramitā, and the fruit is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", and further says 「人是行者，水是五波羅蜜」 tr. "the person is the practitioner, and the water is the five perfections". And he speaks of its season: 「如人溉灌樹時，雖未見果實，時至則得時節和合，是具足諸法。」 tr. "As when a person waters a tree, though he has not yet seen the fruit, when the time comes he obtains it—the season coming together: this is the fulfilment of the dharmas." What most repays savouring in this simile lies in the phrase 「雖未見果實」 tr. "though he has not yet seen the fruit": at the time of watering the fruit has not yet appeared, and yet what is done is not in vain. When the practitioner makes effort and has not yet seen any sign of effect, this simile is set up exactly for him. What is called 「時節和合」 tr. "the season coming together" the treatise-author explains as 「具足諸法」 tr. "the fulfilment of the dharmas"—not sitting and waiting for the days to pass, but all the conditions being made complete.

57. Praising prajñā and exhorting to train in it. The treatise-author brings in the sūtra's text of praise to close this passage: 「若菩薩欲不隨他行，得諸法實相；若有邪見人來破壞，覺而不隨；若欲淨佛國土、坐道場、轉法輪，當學般若。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva wishes not to practise by following others, and to obtain the real mark of all dharmas; if, when people of wrong views come to destroy it, he is to be aware and not follow them; if he wishes to purify buddha-lands, to sit at the seat of awakening, and to turn the wheel of the Dharma, he should train in prajñā." What is listed is six matters in all—not practising by following others, obtaining the real mark, not following wrong views, the pure land, the seat of awakening, and the wheel of the Dharma. The six matters go from shallow to deep, and they come to rest in only one sentence: one should train in prajñā.

58. Subhūti asks whether one should train in prajñā; the Buddha says, I teach people to train in it. This one question and one answer are very short: 「如佛所教，菩薩當學般若？」 tr. "As the Buddha teaches, should the bodhisattva train in prajñā?" 「我教令學般若。」 tr. "I teach people to train in prajñā." Short as it is, it must not be passed over—Subhūti is confirming, the Buddha is sealing. With confirming questions of this kind in the sūtras, their use lies in what follows: once the confirmation is settled, the difficulty below has something to hold on to.

59. All dharmas are of the mark of equality; why does he teach people to train only in prajñā? Subhūti at once has a thought and raises a difficulty: 「一切法平等相，何以故但教學般若？」 tr. "All dharmas are of the mark of equality; why does he teach people to train only in prajñā?"—this difficulty comes on from the earlier ‘within ultimate emptiness there is no difference’, which shows that Subhūti turns his attention to this one meaning again and again. The Buddha answers: 「學是般若波羅蜜，於一切法得自在故，我教學般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Because by training in this prajñāpāramitā one is able to obtain mastery in all dharmas, therefore I teach people to train in prajñāpāramitā." The answer does not lie in contending over higher and lower but in speaking of function: one who trains in prajñā obtains mastery in all dharmas. Equality is the substance, mastery is the function; the substance being equal does not hinder the function having that through which it comes.

60. The three similes of prajñā being the greatest. The treatise-author compares it with three matters: 「般若波羅蜜於一切法中最大，如佛於一切眾生中最尊；又如萬川，大海為大。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is the greatest among all dharmas, as the Buddha is the most honoured among all beings; and again, as among the myriad rivers the great sea is the greatest."—the Buddha being the most honoured among beings stands for its standing out alone among its own kind; the great sea being the greatest among the myriad rivers stands for its being where they return. The three matters are raised together and what they make clear is one: being greatest is not overwhelming the rest; it is being that to which the rest return and on which they rely.

61. The metaphor of the archer, and what Māra cannot overcome. The treatise-author raises the sūtra's metaphor of the archer without repeating its text, and at once brings out the meaning: 「若菩薩能如是一切法中行自在般若，魔、若魔人所不能勝，何況增上慢及邪見人！」 tr. "If a bodhisattva is able thus to practise the prajñā of mastery in all dharmas, neither Māra nor Māra's men can overcome him, how much less people of overweening pride and people of wrong views!"—this place calls back to the earlier simile of the stalwart general's weapons: there it was said that with weapons complete one does not fear enemies; here it is said that practising the prajñā of mastery, Māra cannot overcome. Head and tail are one meaning, with many passages lying between; the reader should link them for himself.

62. Kept in mind by the buddhas of the ten directions—the simile of the brave warrior entering battle. The treatise-author explains the meaning of 「為諸佛所念」 tr. "is kept in mind by the buddhas", first pointing to its source, 「諸佛念義，如先說」 tr. "the meaning of the buddhas' keeping in mind is as was said before", and at once bringing in what the Buddha says here: 「若菩薩行六波羅蜜，亦能觀六波羅蜜畢竟空；如是人有大功夫故，為諸佛所念。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva practises the six perfections and is also able to contemplate the six perfections as ultimately empty, such a person, because he has great effort, is kept in mind by the buddhas."—the ground of being kept in mind lies in having both things together: ‘practising and being able to contemplate emptiness’. The brave warrior is the simile: 「入陣，破賊而不被瘡，則為主所念」 tr. "entering battle, breaking the bandits, and receiving no wound, he is kept in mind by his lord"; applied, it is 「破諸煩惱賊，具足六波羅蜜，而不著六波羅蜜」 tr. "breaking the bandits of the afflictions, fulfilling the six perfections, and not clinging to the six perfections". The three joints of the simile and the three joints of its application correspond one to one: entering battle matches fulfilling the six perfections, breaking the bandits matches breaking the afflictions, receiving no wound matches not clinging to the six perfections. The three Chinese characters rendered here as ‘receiving no wound’ are the finest—achievement without injury is exactly the mark of practising without clinging.

63. The buddhas keep him in mind without taking his form. The treatise-author starts afresh, saying: 「諸佛不取是菩薩色故念，不取受、想、行、識故念。」 tr. "The buddhas do not keep him in mind by taking this bodhisattva's form, nor by taking feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness." Its reason: 「色等諸法虛誑不實故」 tr. "because form and the other dharmas are false and deceptive and not real"; and that by which they do keep him in mind: 「諸佛觀是菩薩身如實相故念。」 tr. "The buddhas keep him in mind by contemplating the mark as it really is of this bodhisattva's body."—this passage is a necessary correction to the previous passage: since it was said that he is kept in mind by the buddhas, it was feared that people would think the buddhas keep him in mind because they see his form and appearance and his meritorious deeds, so this is expressly sifted out. What is kept in mind is the mark as it really is, not the five aggregates.

64. Subhūti praises the bodhisattva as having much to train in. The treatise-author explains this praise, saying: 「亦學俗法、亦學道法，亦學諸波羅蜜、亦學畢竟空，亦學起、亦學滅。」 tr. "He trains in worldly dharmas and also trains in the dharmas of the path; he trains in the perfections and also trains in ultimate emptiness; he trains in rising and also trains in ceasing." And he sets the three vehicles against one another: 「凡夫學起不能學滅；聲聞學滅不能學起；菩薩亦學起亦學滅」 tr. "ordinary persons train in rising and cannot train in ceasing; śrāvakas train in ceasing and cannot train in rising; the bodhisattva trains both in rising and in ceasing"—these three sentences are the simplest and clearest classification of the teachings in the whole fascicle: the ordinary person knows only arising, the śrāvaka knows only coming to rest, the bodhisattva trains in both sides. Therefore it is said that he has much to train in. At the end the treatise-author gathers it himself: 「是起滅如幻、如夢，畢竟空故，實無所學。」 tr. "This rising and ceasing are like an illusion, like a dream; because of ultimate emptiness, in reality there is nothing to train in." Much and nothing stand together—exactly where the question of the next passage comes from.

65. The Buddha grants his words: what he trains in is all with nothing to be attained. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's approval, saying: 「佛可其言，自說因緣：『菩薩所學，皆無所得。』」 tr. "The Buddha approved his words and himself set out the causes and conditions: ‘What the bodhisattva trains in is all with nothing to be attained.’"—what is approved is 「多有所學」 tr. "has much to train in", yet the causes and conditions given are 「皆無所得」 tr. "all with nothing to be attained". The two statements stand side by side without hindering each other: the matter of training is not abandoned; the mark of attaining is not set up.

66. Subhūti's difficulty: whether brief or extensive, all should be trained in; why is it said that there is nothing to be attained? The treatise-author takes up the difficulty, saying: 「佛所說法，若略、若廣，菩薩所應學，何以故言所學皆無所得？」 tr. "The dharmas the Buddha speaks, whether brief or extensive, are what the bodhisattva should train in; why is it said that what he trains in is all with nothing to be attained?"—this difficulty presses from the Buddha's own approval: having granted that he has much to train in, the Buddha also says it is all with nothing to be attained, and the two statements clash. The section on the four gates rises from this difficulty.

67. Subhūti's meaning: what the three vehicles train in and what the bodhisattva trains in. The treatise-author states clearly for him the questioner's meaning: 「如佛所說八萬四千法聚、十二部經，若廣、若略，諸三乘人所學」 tr. "as the eighty-four thousand heaps of Dharma and the twelve divisions of the scriptures that the Buddha has spoken, whether extensive or brief, are what people of the three vehicles train in"; while what the bodhisattva trains in is 「應學六波羅蜜若略、若廣」 tr. "should train in the six perfections, whether brief or extensive". The method of his training is: 「應當受持、親近是法，讀、誦、思惟、正觀；乃至入無相三昧，心、心數法不行。」 tr. "He should receive and uphold this Dharma and draw near to it, read it, recite it, consider it, and rightly contemplate it; and so on up to entering the signless samādhi, where mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move."—this string, from receiving and upholding to the signless samādhi, is a sequence: from the text one enters the meaning, from the meaning one enters contemplation, from contemplation one enters concentration, until mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move. At the end he concludes: 「菩薩能如是學，則能知諸法略、廣相。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva is able to train thus, he is able to know the brief marks and the extensive marks of dharmas." So one knows that the knowing of the brief and the extensive is not a classification in understanding; it comes out of this string of effort.

68. The boundary of the extensive and the brief. The treatise-author first sets up one meaning: 「廣者，從八萬四千法聚已來無量佛法；略者，乃至小品，小品中一品，一品中一段。」 tr. "What is called extensive is the immeasurable Buddha-dharma from the eighty-four thousand heaps of Dharma onward; what is called brief goes down even to the Smaller Sūtra, one chapter in the Smaller Sūtra, one passage in one chapter."—this is spoken in terms of the amount of text. That the brief goes down to a single passage says that even at its briefest it does not lose its being Dharma.

69. The second meaning, introduced by the word further: emptiness and the specific marks. The treatise-author brings out a further meaning: 「略者，知諸法一切空、無相、無作、無生無滅等；廣者，諸法種種別相分別」 tr. "what is called brief is to know that dharmas are all empty, signless, non-action, without arising and without ceasing, and so on; what is called extensive is the distinguishing of the various specific marks of dharmas"—this is spoken in terms of the general and the specific in meaning, no longer in terms of the amount of text. And he points to where it is detailed: 「如後『善知識』中說」 tr. "as is said later under ‘the good friend’". The two meanings are brought out together: the first meaning is the extensive and brief of the measure of text; the second meaning is the general and specific of the marks of meaning. The reader must not let the later meaning set aside the earlier, nor mix them into one.

70. Asked how to know the brief and extensive marks, the Buddha answers: being like the mark of suchness. Subhūti asks: 「云何菩薩知一切法略、廣相？」 tr. "How does the bodhisattva know the brief marks and the extensive marks of all dharmas?" The Buddha answers: 「若知諸法如如相者，所謂不生、不滅、不住異。」 tr. "If he knows dharmas to be like the mark of suchness, namely: not arising, not ceasing, not abiding-and-changing." The first of the four gates is set up here. What is called being like the mark of suchness is shown by the three matters 「不生、不滅、不住異」 tr. "not arising, not ceasing, not abiding-and-changing"; the three matters break the three marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Knowing these three nots is knowing suchness.

71. Question and answer: suchness being thus a single mark, how does one know the general mark and the specific marks? The treatise-author sets up a question of his own: 「若如一相、無生相，云何菩薩知是如故，知諸法總相、別相？」 tr. "If suchness is a single mark, the mark of non-arising, then how is it that the bodhisattva, because he knows this suchness, knows the general mark and the specific marks of dharmas?" And he himself marks the equation: 「總相、別相，即是略、廣相。」 tr. "The general mark and the specific marks are the brief marks and the extensive marks."—this question is asked exactly right: how can a single mark know many marks? The answer first defines what suchness means: 「如名諸法實相，常住不壞，不隨諸觀。」 tr. "Suchness is the name of the real mark of all dharmas; it abides constantly and is indestructible, and does not turn with the various contemplations."—the four Chinese characters 「不隨諸觀」 tr. "does not turn with the various contemplations" are important: it does not change according to how you contemplate. Next he speaks of the effect of obtaining suchness: 「菩薩得是如，即破無明邪見等諸顛倒；是人得實法故，一切世間法總相、別相，了了知。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva obtains this suchness, he breaks ignorance, wrong views, and the other inversions; because this person has obtained the real dharma, he knows clearly and distinctly the general mark and the specific marks of all worldly dharmas." At the end he proves it from the reverse side: 「先凡夫時智慧眼病，以無明顛倒覆故，不能實知。」 tr. "Formerly, when he was an ordinary person, his wisdom-eye was diseased; because it was covered by ignorance and inversion, he could not know as it really is."—the ordinary person's not knowing is not because dharmas are many but because the eye is diseased. Once the eye is healed, the many marks are clear of themselves.

72. A further question and answer: within the ceasing of all knowledges, how can one know clearly and distinctly? The treatise-author sets up a further question, tighter than the previous one: 「實法相者，所謂空、無相、無作，諸智滅；云何言『得如實相故，了了知諸法總相、別相』？」 tr. "What is called the mark of the real dharma is emptiness, the signless, and non-action, where all knowledges cease; then why is it said ‘because one obtains the mark as it really is, one clearly and distinctly knows the general mark and the specific marks of dharmas’?"—the difficulty lies in the three Chinese characters 「諸智滅」 tr. "all knowledges cease": since knowledge has ceased, from where would clear and distinct knowing come? The answer first rebukes its sickness: 「我已先答，而汝於如中取相故，復作是難；汝若知如，不應作是難。」 tr. "I have already answered this before, yet because you grasp at marks within suchness, you raise this difficulty again; if you knew suchness, you would not raise this difficulty."—the reason the difficulty arises is that the questioner has grasped a mark on 「如」 tr. "suchness". Next comes the direct answer: 「是如畢竟無相故，不妨知諸法總相、別相，以智慧明了了故。」 tr. "Because this suchness is ultimately signless, it does not hinder knowing the general mark and the specific marks of dharmas, because wisdom is bright, clear, and distinct." At once he sets up an excellent simile: 「譬如人年既長大，乃知小時所行皆愚癡可笑。」 tr. "It is as when a person, having grown up, only then knows that what he did as a small child was all foolish and laughable." Applied, he says: the bodhisattva 「入諸法實相，起已，還在顛倒果報六情中，念寂滅解脫樂，乃知世間六情所著皆是虛誑可捨法——是名『總相』」 tr. "having entered the real mark of all dharmas and risen from it, while still within the six faculties that are the retribution of inversion, keeps in mind the bliss of the liberation of quiescence, and only then knows that what the six worldly faculties cling to are all false and deceptive dharmas that can be given up—this is called ‘the general mark’".—the knowing of the general mark is obtained by looking back upon the world after coming out of the real mark; just as only after growing up does one know the folly of childhood. The specific marks are 「於此中分別不淨有上、中、下，無常、苦、空、無我等亦如是，乃至八萬四千種諸錯謬」 tr. "within this, distinguishing that impurity has the superior, the middling, and the inferior; impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, and so on are likewise; and so on up to the eighty-four thousand kinds of error". This simile resolves the doubt ‘knowledge has ceased, so how can one know?’: what ceases is the discrimination within inversion; what knows is the clear and distinct light that comes out and shines back.

73. General account of the three gates of suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality. The treatise-author starts afresh, saying: 「復次，知如、法性、實際故，亦知諸法略、廣相。」 tr. "Further, because one knows suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality, one also knows the brief marks and the extensive marks of dharmas." And he points to where it is detailed, 「如初品中說」 tr. "as was said in the first chapter"—the meaning of the differences among the three names has already been distinguished in the first chapter of this treatise and is not brought out again here. The first three of the four gates are set up together here.

74. The gate of the limit of reality: non-limit is the limit of reality. The treatise-author records the Buddha's words: 「非際是實際。」 tr. "Non-limit is the limit of reality." And he explains it himself, saying: 「非際者，無相可取，無定法可著。」 tr. "What is called non-limit is that there is no mark that can be taken and no fixed dharma that can be clung to."—a limit means an edge, a boundary; to say that non-limit is the limit of reality is to say that the real limit lies precisely in being without limit. Of the two phrases explained, one breaks grasping at marks and one breaks clinging to dharmas, running straight through the purport of this whole fascicle.

75. The gate of the nature of dharmas: without parts, without non-parts. The treatise-author first speaks of the effect of obtaining the nature of dharmas: 「得法性故，知色等十八性皆是法性。」 tr. "Because one obtains the nature of dharmas, one knows that the eighteen natures, form and the rest, are all the nature of dharmas." Next he records the Buddha's words: 「無分、無非分。」 tr. "Without parts, without non-parts." And he explains them word by word: 「無分者，不可示此示彼，無分別、無相、無量」 tr. "what is called without parts is that one cannot point out this or point out that; it is without discrimination, signless, and immeasurable"—this breaks the attachment to having marks and having measure; 「無非分者，不著是無相、無量等破量相」 tr. "what is called without non-parts is that one does not cling to this mark of breaking measure—the signless, the immeasurable, and so on"—this breaks the attachment to the signless and the immeasurable. At once he sums up why this double negation is set up: 「法性，二事妨故不見：一、有相、有量，二、無相、無量。」 tr. "The nature of dharmas is not seen because two things obstruct it: first, having marks and having measure; second, being signless and immeasurable." And he judges their coarseness and fineness: 「有相、有量為麁，無相、無量為細」 tr. "having marks and having measure is coarse; being signless and immeasurable is subtle"; and so he concludes, 「法性相無分、無非分」 tr. "the mark of the nature of dharmas is without parts and without non-parts". At the end he gathers the whole passage: 「菩薩入三解脫門，住如等三實法，則能籌量知一切法總相、別相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva enters the three gates of liberation and abides in the three real dharmas, suchness and the rest, and then is able to reckon and know the general mark and the specific marks of all dharmas."—this sentence gathers the first three gates. The way this double negation is set up is what most needs attention in the whole fascicle: breaking the coarse is easy, breaking the fine is hard; having broken having marks and having measure, if one abides in the signless and immeasurable, it is still an obstruction.

76. The gate of neither joined nor dispersed: wishing to ask further about other approaches of the immeasurable Buddha-dharma. The treatise-author marks Subhūti's intention, saying: 「聞佛答已，欲更問無量佛法異門事。」 tr. "Having heard the Buddha's answer, he wished to ask further about the matter of other approaches of the immeasurable Buddha-dharma." The Buddha answers: 「知一切法無合無散故，則知諸法總相、別相。」 tr. "Because one knows that all dharmas are without joining and without dispersing, one knows the general mark and the specific marks of dharmas."—the fourth gate is set up here. This gate is different in kind from the first three gates: the first three gates set up names on the side of the real mark; this gate sets up a breaking on the side of the experience closest to beings. And so below there is the question and answer on the two fingers.

77. Question and answer: the eye sees two fingers joining and dispersing. The treatise-author sets up a question of his own: 「眼見二指有合散，云何言『無合散』？」 tr. "The eye sees two fingers joining and dispersing; why is it said ‘without joining or dispersing’?" This question is set up very plainly, and also very forcefully—joining and dispersing is something everyone can see; to say there is no joining or dispersing goes against what the eye sees. The first meaning of the answer is only one sentence: 「我先言：『肉眼所見，與牛羊無異，不可信。』」 tr. "I said before: ‘What the fleshly eye sees is no different from what cattle and sheep see; it cannot be trusted.’"—first he takes away the faculty that is able to see. These words appear earlier in this treatise, and here the treatise-author only cites them without setting them up again. What is taken away is not that everything the eye sees is false; it is that taking what the fleshly eye sees as the standard of judgement cannot be established.

78. Three joints, skin, and flesh; and the greater part not joined. The treatise-author goes on to bring out the second and third meanings. The second: 「三節皮肉具足為指，指無定法。」 tr. "Only when three joints, skin, and flesh are complete is there a finger; a finger has no fixed dharma."—first he breaks the thing that is joined: a finger is from the first a gathering of three joints, skin, and flesh, and no fixed finger can be found. The third: 「設有指法，亦不盡合，一分合，多分不合；多分不合故，不得言指合。」 tr. "Even supposing there is the dharma of a finger, it is not wholly joined: one part is joined and the greater part is not joined; because the greater part is not joined, one cannot say that the finger is joined."—stepping back to grant that there is the dharma of a finger, he breaks it on the scope of the joining: when two fingers are said to join, what actually touches is only one part. The three meanings in order: breaking the eye that can see, breaking the thing that is joined, breaking the reality of the joining.

79. Question and answer: is it acceptable to call it joined because a small part is joined? The treatise-author sets up a further question: 「以少合故名為合？」 tr. "Is it called joined because a small part is joined?"—this is the questioner's ground of retreat: there is no need for complete joining; the joining of a small part is enough to earn the name of joining. The answer turns the person's own standard against him: 「指少分不名為指，云何言指合？」 tr. "A small part of the finger is not called a finger, so how can one say that the finger is joined?"—since you do not allow a small part to be a finger, how do you allow the joining of a small part to be a joining of fingers? Next he sets the positive and negative against each other: 「若多分不合不名為不合，何以少分合故名為合？」 tr. "If the greater part's not being joined is not called not joined, why should the joining of a small part be called joined?"—the same proportion is not allowed to stand where there is no joining, yet is allowed to stand where there is joining: this contradicts itself. Therefore he decides: 「是故不得言二指合。」 tr. "Therefore one cannot say that the two fingers are joined." This passage is the place of densest reasoning in this fascicle; its method is to take the standard the opponent has set up and turn it back upon him.

80. The gate of breaking one and different, and the Buddha's words as proof. Last the treatise-author brings out one meaning, breaking by way of one and different: 「指與分不異不一故，即是無指；無指故無合；入破一異門中，則都無合。」 tr. "Because the finger and its parts are neither different nor one, there is no finger; because there is no finger there is no joining; entering into the gate of breaking one and different, there is no joining at all."—the finger and its parts are neither one nor different, so the finger as a thing is not formed; if the finger is not formed, the joining has nothing to rely on. At the end he brings in what the Buddha says here as the ground: 「一切法自性無，性無故即是無法，無法云何有合散？」 tr. "All dharmas are without self-nature; because nature is non-existent, they are non-existent dharmas; how could non-existent dharmas have joining and dispersing?"—from being without self-nature to being non-existent dharmas, from being non-existent dharmas to being without joining and dispersing. The treatise-author's breaking here comes to rest in the Buddha's words, and he sets up no thesis of his own.

81. This is called the brief gathering of prajñāpāramitā. The treatise-author closes the whole fascicle, saying: 「須菩提聞佛說如、法性、實際、不合不散四門，知略、廣相，是故須菩提言：『世尊！是名略攝般若波羅蜜。略攝聞是安隱道故，一切菩薩所應學。』」 tr. "Subhūti heard the Buddha speak of the four gates—suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and neither joined nor dispersed—and knew the brief marks and the extensive marks; therefore Subhūti said: ‘World-Honored One! This is called the brief gathering of prajñāpāramitā. Because the brief gathering, when heard, is the path of peace and security, it is what all bodhisattvas should train in.’"—the two Chinese characters 「略攝」 tr. "brief gathering" are the name of this passage: because the four gates gather up entirely the brief and the extensive of prajñā, it is called the brief gathering. The three Chinese characters 「安隱道」 tr. "the path of peace and security" are its fruit: this path does not startle and does not frighten, and so it is what all bodhisattvas should train in. The whole fascicle rises from the three questions, passes through the nine similes, the losings, and the four gates, and here is gathered in upon the one phrase 「一切菩薩所應學」 tr. "what all bodhisattvas should train in"—rising from the question of how long skilful means takes and ending in the exhortation to all bodhisattvas to train: head and tail hold each other.

Do Not Misread

Do not read ‘without obtaining prajñā they are not called pāramitā’ as meaning that the five perfections are useless. The treatise-author says plainly that one who loses prajñā is 「但名為行善法」 tr. "only called one who practises wholesome dharmas"—wholesome dharmas are still wholesome dharmas, and the merit is still there; what is lost is only the name and standing of 「波羅蜜」 tr. "pāramitā", and what the name and standing attach to is ‘reaching the further shore’. So this verdict does not demote the five perfections; it says that the five perfections' being able to reach the shore depends on prajñā. If one reads it as the five perfections being useless, then the text below, 「為般若波羅蜜故說五波羅蜜」 tr. "the five perfections are spoken of for the sake of prajñāpāramitā", and the text on the remedies of the five matters, have no footing at all.

Do not pass over the four Chinese characters 「除大菩薩」 tr. "leaving aside the great bodhisattvas". In the Buddha's answer on how long since arousing the mind, the original text is 「除大菩薩，於餘眾生無量億阿僧祇劫」 tr. "leaving aside the great bodhisattvas, and compared with the rest of beings, immeasurable koṭi of asaṃkhyeya kalpas". Without these four Chinese characters, it becomes the general rule that ‘whoever obtains the power of skilful means must pass through immeasurable kalpas’. The treatise-author records it without adding argument, precisely leaving the measure within the original text; if the reader drops it on his own, what he obtains is a verdict the sūtra never spoke.

Do not read 「種善根」 tr. "planting roots of goodness" as making offerings. The treatise-author expressly sets up a meaning: 「若以深心行六波羅蜜，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故作功德，是名『種善根』。」 tr. "If one practises the six perfections with a deep mind and makes merit for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, this is called ‘planting roots of goodness’." And first he raises its counter-example—「雖多以華香供養諸佛，而未能種善根」 tr. "though they have made many offerings to the buddhas with flowers and incense, they have not yet been able to plant roots of goodness"—that person's thought being 「我必當得果報」 tr. "I shall certainly obtain the retribution". What distinguishes them does not lie in the diligence or slackness of the outward form of the deed but in where it is turned: turned towards retribution, it is not; turned towards awakening, it is.

Do not read 「薩婆若」 tr. "sarvajñā" and 「般若」 tr. "prajñā" as two dharmas. In answering the question of the rivers and streams entering the sea, the treatise-author says plainly 「薩婆若即是般若異名」 tr. "sarvajñā is another name for prajñā", and says why the name differs: 「五波羅蜜福德，入般若波羅蜜中，即得清淨般若；般若清淨故，得佛道，變名薩婆若。」 tr. "The merit of the five perfections, entering into prajñāpāramitā, obtains pure prajñā; because prajñā is pure, one obtains the Buddha path, and its name is changed to sarvajñā." In the cause it is named prajñā, at the fruit it is named sarvajñā. If one reads them as two dharmas, the sentence 「是故言『入薩婆若』，即是『入般若』」 tr. "therefore saying ‘entering sarvajñā’ is saying ‘entering prajñā’" cannot be understood.

Do not read 「導」 tr. "guiding" as a guiding with a mind. In the simile of the wheel-jewel leading the way, the treatise-author expressly adds a section: the wheel makes no such discrimination as 「我常在前，餘寶在後」 tr. "I am always in front and the other jewels behind", and has no hatred or love; prajñā likewise makes no such discrimination as 「檀波羅蜜隨我來，尸羅波羅蜜勿來」 tr. "dānapāramitā, follow me; śīlapāramitā, do not come". At the end he brings in the Buddha's words 「一切法性無所能作」 tr. "the nature of all dharmas has nothing it is able to do" as the conclusion. If one reads prajñā as a subject able to rule over the perfections, this whole section becomes dead text.

Do not read the losing that comes from grasping at marks as an error of view. Among the losings, the one of the second losing has already broken the attachment to emptiness, the one of the third losing already does not cling to emptiness and does not cling to being without nature, and what the one of the fourth losing thinks, 「一切法不取相，諸佛知是已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "all dharmas are not grasped at as marks; the buddhas knew this and obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", is the right meaning word for word. The losing the treatise-author judges falls on these places where the mind comes to rest—「我能」 tr. "I am able", 「悕望」 tr. "hopes", 「自憶想分別」 tr. "recollecting, imagining, and discriminating for oneself"—not on the meaning spoken. If in reading the losings one only goes about checking the rightness or wrongness of the meaning, one will feel that the last two losings have no losing to point to.

Do not read 「不得受記」 tr. "does not receive the prediction" as receiving a punishment. The phrase 「失故不得受記」 tr. "because of losing, one does not receive the prediction" under the second losing says that since his mind clings, it does not correspond to the conditions for receiving the prediction; it is not that the Buddha withholds it from him. Looked at together with the matter recorded in the earlier chapter, 「聞魔來稱其名字而與受記，而生輕慢」 tr. "hearing that Māra has come, calling his name and giving him the prediction, he gives rise to contempt", it can be seen all the more that in this treatise the matter of receiving the prediction is from first to last tied to the conduct of the mind, not to a permission added from outside.

Do not read 「不貪貴佛」 tr. "does not covet and prize the Buddha" as slighting the Buddha. These words come where the last losing is broken, and the full text is: 「今能如佛心中所得法，如是法相，佛亦無所得；無所得故不貪貴佛、不輕賤餘人，於一切眾生其心平等。」 tr. "Now he is able to be like the dharma the Buddha obtained in his mind: of such a mark of dharmas, the Buddha too has nothing to be attained; because of nothing to be attained, he does not covet and prize the Buddha and does not slight and despise other people; towards all beings his mind is equal." The reason he does not covet and prize is precisely that he sees that what the Buddha attained was from the first nothing attained; 「不輕賤餘人」 tr. "does not slight and despise other people" is raised together with it, which shows that what is broken is the mind that discriminates high and low, not the mind that reveres the Buddha.

Do not read 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" as there being no need to train. Subhūti praises 「菩薩多有所學」 tr. "the bodhisattva has much to train in", and the Buddha grants his words and says 「菩薩所學，皆無所得」 tr. "what the bodhisattva trains in is all with nothing to be attained"; the brief and extensive marks brought out immediately after, and the receiving and upholding, reading and reciting, considering, and right contemplation, and so on up to the signless samādhi, are all the reality of what is trained in. Having much to train in and all being with nothing to be attained stand together—this is exactly the manner of this fascicle. If one abandons training because of nothing to be attained, the text of the four gates has nowhere to be placed.

Do not take 「無相、無量」 tr. "the signless and the immeasurable" as final. When the treatise-author explains the mark of the nature of dharmas, 「無分、無非分」 tr. "without parts, without non-parts", he plainly sets up two obstructions—「一、有相、有量，二、無相、無量」 tr. "first, having marks and having measure; second, being signless and immeasurable"—and judges 「有相、有量為麁，無相、無量為細」 tr. "having marks and having measure is coarse; being signless and immeasurable is subtle"—both alike are obstructions. Having broken the coarse attachment and abiding in the fine attachment is exactly what the losings of this fascicle warn against again and again. This is the place in the whole fascicle where it is easiest to go wrong oneself: the nearer an attachment is to the right meaning, the harder it is to see for oneself.

Do not read the breaking of the two fingers as denying what the eye sees. In answering 「眼見二指有合散」 tr. "the eye sees two fingers joining and dispersing", what the treatise-author cites is 「肉眼所見，與牛羊無異，不可信」 tr. "what the fleshly eye sees is no different from what cattle and sheep see; it cannot be trusted". What is taken away is taking what the fleshly eye sees as the standard of judgement, not saying that all seeing and hearing is false. The later text further breaks it layer by layer with the three joints, skin, and flesh, the greater part not joined, and the gate of one and different—what is broken is the possibility of the concept 「合」 tr. "joining" being established, not a denial of what you have seen.

Do not read 「略攝」 tr. "brief gathering" as abridgement. What the final sentence, 「是名略攝般若波羅蜜」 tr. "this is called the brief gathering of prajñāpāramitā", refers to is the four gates of suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and neither joined nor dispersed—by the four gates the brief mark and the extensive mark of prajñā are gathered up entirely, and so it is called the brief gathering. It is not saying prajñā a little more briefly; it is finding the four places of entry that can hold the whole of it. What follows immediately, 「略攝聞是安隱道故，一切菩薩所應學」 tr. "because the brief gathering, when heard, is the path of peace and security, it is what all bodhisattvas should train in", says exactly that the use of this gathering lies in peace and security, not in saving trouble.

Bearing on Practice

Take 「深心行六波羅蜜，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故作功德」 tr. "practising the six perfections with a deep mind and making merit for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" and examine the merit you make by it. After each deed, look back with one question: where have I turned this deed? If it is turned towards retribution, the treatise-author has already said that it 「未能種善根」 tr. "has not yet been able to plant roots of goodness". This way of examining is extremely simple and extremely sharp; there is no need to wait until the matter is large before using it.

Take 「用後來心，不隨先所集惡心」 tr. "using the mind that came afterwards and not following the evil mind accumulated before" both to ease yourself and to spur yourself on. The evil mind is an old resident who has lived there for beginningless kalpas; the good mind is a newly arrived guest—feeling that old habits are hard to change is simply the fact, not a sign of retrogressing. What is to be trained is only this one thing: when this thought arises, does one follow it or not? Following or not following is something one can decide in the present moment; the number of years and kalpas is not.

Take 「以布施破慳；持戒折薄諸煩惱；忍辱開福德門」 tr. "giving breaks stinginess; upholding the precepts subdues and thins the afflictions; patience opens the gate of merit" and prescribe medicine for your own effort. Each of the five perfections has what it treats; they are not five equally good things. One whose stinginess is heavy need not first seek concentration; one who is scattered need not first seek what is hard to practise—first see where the sickness lies, then take the corresponding perfection. Using the wrong medicine is not without effect; it is slow.

Take 「先籌量分別斷一切著，然後布施，是則般若在前導」 tr. "first he reckons and distinguishes and cuts off all clinging, and afterwards he gives—this is prajñā leading the way in front" and train in actual giving. At the time of giving, first look at whether anything is set up in the three places of giver, receiver, and wealth; once the three places are empty, the giving is pāramitā. What is called prajñā leading the way in front is not first sitting in meditation and then doing good; it is cutting off the place of clinging before one sets one's hand to the deed.

Take 「其苗雖好，穢草多故，不能增長」 tr. "though its sprouts are good, because foul weeds are many they cannot increase" and examine why long practice brings no progress. When one makes effort and sees no progress, do not first ask whether the sprouts are good; go and look at the foul weeds—the mind that grasps at marks, the mind that counts results, the mind that approves of itself. Removing the weeds is making the sprouts grow; there is no need to seek fertiliser elsewhere.

Take 「以其心有悕望故」 tr. "because in his mind there are hopes" as the mirror of the third losing. Whenever in the mind there arises that moment of ‘only my doing it this way is the true path’, this losing is present. This thought is the hardest to notice, because it always appears together with correct conduct. The way to notice it is only one sentence: see whether, in that thought, there is a self waiting to be affirmed.

Take 「是法不可得知，如是行者則無失」 tr. "this dharma cannot be found or known; one who practises thus is without losing" and put down the mind that seeks proof. What is known is 「不可得知」 tr. "cannot be found or known", not knowing a thing called ultimate emptiness. Whenever you feel that you ‘have understood emptiness’, this sentence can serve as a question: has what you understood become, once again, something that can be attained?

Take 「不貪貴佛、不輕賤餘人，於一切眾生其心平等」 tr. "does not covet and prize the Buddha and does not slight and despise other people; towards all beings his mind is equal" and weigh your own reverence and contempt. Revering the Buddha and slighting people are two faces of one and the same discriminating mind; one who truly sees that what the Buddha attained is nothing attained will naturally not have his reverence fall upon high and low. In daily life, at the moment you find yourself looking down on someone, come back to this sentence.

Take 「不合不散」 tr. "neither joined nor dispersed" and view the gatherings and partings of people and affairs. Joining is formed by the inverted afflictions; dispersing is seen by the contemplation of right wisdom; once one knows that from the first there is no joining, then there is also no such thing as dispersing. This contemplation is best used on the meeting and parting of relationships and the coming and going of circumstances—not forcing oneself to say there is no feeling, but not setting up real existence on 「合」 tr. "joining", so that when dispersing comes there is nothing to be ruined.

Take 「如人溉灌樹時，雖未見果實」 tr. "as when a person waters a tree, though he has not yet seen the fruit" and bear the times when effort shows no result. At the time of watering the fruit has not yet appeared, and yet what is done is not in vain; what one waits for is 「時節和合」 tr. "the season coming together", and the season coming together the treatise-author explains as 「具足諸法」 tr. "the fulfilment of the dharmas"—not sitting and waiting for the days to pass, but making the conditions complete one by one. So what should be done when no result is seen is to examine the conditions, not to wait more intently.

Take 「入陣，破賊而不被瘡」 tr. "entering battle, breaking the bandits, and receiving no wound" and examine your mind after a matter is done. When a matter is accomplished and the mind has elation, has weariness, has calculation—that is receiving a wound. Achievement without injury is exactly 「具足六波羅蜜，而不著六波羅蜜」 tr. "fulfilling the six perfections and not clinging to the six perfections". Each time a matter is finished, one can examine oneself by this once.

Take 「肉眼所見，與牛羊無異，不可信」 tr. "what the fleshly eye sees is no different from what cattle and sheep see; it cannot be trusted" and restrain the habit of taking direct perception as the standard of judgement. What is taken away is not the content of what you see; it is your taking ‘I saw it with my own eyes’ as the ground of a conclusion. When you find yourself saying ‘I clearly saw it’, this saying is exactly what applies.

Further Resonances

On the place of this fascicle within the whole chapter, the sectional divisions of the two commentaries of the ancient masters are roughly the same, while their fullness and brevity complement each other. Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, at the beginning of this chapter, first distinguishes the meaning of the name 「方便」 tr. "skilful means", with very clear choices: 「今經云方便者，照空為實，遊空不著，涉有無滯，運用善巧，故名方便也。」 tr. "What this sūtra calls skilful means is this: illuminating emptiness is the real; roaming in emptiness without clinging, crossing into existence without obstruction, applying good skill—therefore it is called skilful means." Before that he sets it against the two sūtras, the Lotus and the Śrīmālā—the Lotus takes the One Vehicle as the real and the three as skilful means; the Śrīmālā sums up the two wisdoms as the One Vehicle, and the One Vehicle is also called skilful means; Jizang judges that these two 「皆是總義」 tr. "are both the general sense", while this sūtra 「即開一乘為方便，故是別義也」 tr. "opens the One Vehicle as skilful means, and so it is the specific sense". Having finished distinguishing the name, he then gives the division of the whole chapter: 「上明方便體及方便用竟，今第三歎釋方便勸學者修行。第一明昔因久遠歎行方便人，第二歎方便妙用窮能善巧，第三歎行方便人得無邊功德。」 tr. "Above, the substance of skilful means and the function of skilful means have been made clear; now, third, skilful means is praised and explained, exhorting trainees to practise. First, it makes clear that the former causes are long and distant, praising the person who practises skilful means; second, it praises the wondrous function of skilful means, exhausting its capacity for good skill; third, it praises the person who practises skilful means as obtaining boundless merit." What this fascicle explains falls on the greater part of his first and second sections, and the four gates of the brief and extensive at the end have already entered the front portion of his third section.

On the order of the three questions, Jizang's explanation brings out what the treatise-author explains and is still simpler: 「雖發心時久，未必多見佛，故問供養幾佛。雖復見佛，或住人天二乘，及有得善根，故問種何等善根。」 tr. "Though the time since arousing the mind is long, he has not necessarily seen many buddhas, so it asks how many buddhas he has made offerings to. Though he has seen the Buddha, he may abide in the human and heavenly states or the two vehicles, or have roots of goodness with something to be attained, so it asks what roots of goodness he has planted."—the three matters of how long, seeing the Buddha, and roots of goodness cannot stand in for one another at any layer; this is exactly why none of the three questions can be omitted. On the Buddha's answer, the phrase 「初發心度無不具足」 tr. "from the first arousing of the mind, of the perfections there is none not fulfilled", Jizang further sets up a question and answer of his own to resolve its difficulty: 「問：得無生可言具足六度，云何初心便是具足？答：發心畢竟二不別故，初是後初，初後既具後亦具」 tr. "Question: Having obtained non-arising, one could say that the six perfections are fulfilled; how is it that the first mind is already fulfilled? Answer: Because the arousing of the mind and the ultimate are not two and not separate, the first is the first of the later; since first and later are both complete, the later too is complete", and at the end comes to rest in 「是故發心即作無生觀，故六度具足也」 tr. "therefore in arousing the mind one at once makes the contemplation of non-arising, and so the six perfections are fulfilled". Explaining the completeness of the first mind by the non-duality of arousing the mind and the ultimate is the meaning Jizang brings out in this place; it and this treatise's explanation each form a road of their own, recorded side by side without judgement.

On the ten similes, Jizang first gives the pairing of an 「古解」 tr. "old explanation"—「初有十譬。古解言：十譬兩三相著，皆是歎上無盡品中三事也」 tr. "First there are ten similes. The old explanation says: the ten similes cling together in twos and threes, and all praise the three matters in the Inexhaustible chapter above"—and pairs them one by one with: being able to form the substance, forming the name, outside evil not interfering, forming inner practice, according in the cause, carefully reaching the result, the first establishing, later care, its understanding, and not discriminating within the understanding. What he pairs is not sectioned in the same way as this treatise's explanation simile by simile, yet what the two make clear does not conflict. Jizang also explicitly cites this treatise to resolve the doubt about the rivers and streams entering the sea: 「論云：薩婆若是般若異名」 tr. "The treatise says: sarvajñā is another name for prajñā", and extends it, saying 「五度入般若中皆成般若，般若變薩婆若」 tr. "the five perfections, entering into prajñā, all become prajñā, and prajñā changes into sarvajñā"—entirely the same as the treatise-author's answer in this fascicle. On the question of the foremost real meaning, Jizang also cites this treatise: 「論云：先就未得聖道空故直云空，今說得聖道空故云」 tr. "The treatise says: before, it was on the emptiness of one who has not yet obtained the noble path, and so it simply said emptiness; now it speaks of the emptiness of one who has obtained the noble path, and so it says", which is exactly what the phrase in this fascicle, 「先說未得聖道空，今說得聖道空」 tr. "what was spoken before was the emptiness of one who has not yet obtained the noble path; what is spoken now is the emptiness of one who has obtained the noble path", rests on.

On the losings, the most perilous part of this fascicle, Jizang sets up the section heading 「失中四失」 tr. "the four losings within losing", corresponding one by one with this treatise: the first losing is 「內著我、外著空，云我能行生、法二空」 tr. "clinging inwardly to a self and outwardly to emptiness, saying: I am able to practise the two emptinesses of beings and of dharmas"; the second losing is 「破著空方是般若，復著般若即是著空」 tr. "only breaking the clinging to emptiness is prajñā; clinging again to prajñā is clinging to emptiness"; the third losing is 「今住波若能具萬行，是行菩薩道，此亦失也」 tr. "now abiding in prajñā one can fulfil the myriad practices, and this is practising the bodhisattva path—this too is losing", and he dissects the mind in it, saying 「此人謂由般若故能具萬行，雖非是空不空，終有般若能成萬行，故失也」 tr. "this person thinks that it is because of prajñā that he can fulfil the myriad practices; though it is not emptiness or non-emptiness, in the end there is a prajñā that can accomplish the myriad practices, and so it is losing"; the fourth losing is 「我是生死凡夫，未能了無生，故所學皆失，唯諸佛不取相無過失。我所學佛所知，如佛所知為眾生說法，亦是失也」 tr. "I am an ordinary person in birth and death and have not yet been able to understand non-arising, so what I train in is all losing; only the buddhas do not grasp at marks and are without fault. What I train in is what the Buddha knows; as the Buddha knows, I speak the Dharma for beings—this too is losing", and at the end he explicitly cites this treatise: 「論云：著佛道故失。」 tr. "The treatise says: because of clinging to the Buddha path, it is losing." In this place Jizang further sets down a passage of extremely severe words: 「今諸法實相，何佛不佛而起佛見耶？何曾有悟不悟？而汝言凡夫未悟，佛是悟耶？乃見有失不皆是失，見悟不悟皆是不悟也。」 tr. "Now, in the real mark of all dharmas, what Buddha or non-Buddha is there, that one should give rise to a view of the Buddha? When has there ever been awakened or not awakened? And yet you say the ordinary person is not yet awakened and the Buddha is awakened? Thus seeing that there is losing is itself nothing but losing; seeing awakened and not awakened is itself nothing but not being awakened."—gathering the four losings with 「見悟不悟皆是不悟」 tr. "seeing awakened and not awakened is itself nothing but not being awakened", his blade is more exposed than this treatise's. As for the section that makes clear the attaining set against the losing, Jizang divides it, saying: 「上四皆失，今不應無得，故問云何無是過失也。」 tr. "The four above are all losing; now there should not be no attaining, and so he asks how one is without these faults." And he explains the Buddha's answer, saying: 「以了諸法無所有即無取著，不著空、不著空空、不著菩薩道、不著佛，一無所取故是清淨，故無上過失也。」 tr. "Because one understands that dharmas are without anything existent, there is no grasping and clinging: not clinging to emptiness, not clinging to the emptiness of emptiness, not clinging to the bodhisattva path, not clinging to the Buddha; because there is nothing whatever taken, it is pure, and so there are none of the faults above." The list of four non-clingings corresponds exactly to the three losings gathered in this treatise together with the one losing of 「著佛所行」 tr. "clinging to what the Buddha practises".

On the passage about training in the six perfections, Jizang divides it into two trainings: 「佛答中初作不合散習，有諸煩惱為合，正觀求不得為散，今深習般若不見，此合散也。次作不住習，恐不見散謂是正觀，故欲寄心於中住，故明無住習也。」 tr. "In the Buddha's answer, first there is the training of neither joining nor dispersing: having the afflictions is joining; seeking with right contemplation and not finding is dispersing; now, training deeply in prajñā, one does not see this joining and dispersing. Next there is the training of not abiding: it is feared that, not seeing dispersing, one will call this right contemplation and so wish to lodge the mind in it and abide there, and therefore it makes clear the training of non-abiding."—explaining where the training of not abiding comes from by ‘the fear that one will lodge the mind in it and abide there’ goes one step further in understanding the section of this treatise 「不應作是念：『我以真智慧令色等諸法清淨而住其中』」 tr. "one should not have this thought: ‘With true wisdom I make form and the other dharmas pure and abide in them’". On the simile of planting a tree, Jizang matches the meanings, saying: 「士夫是菩薩，樹子為般若水，為五度得無上菩提果也。」 tr. "The man is the bodhisattva; the seed of the tree is prajñā; the water is the five perfections; one obtains the fruit of unsurpassed awakening."

On the brief and the extensive, Jizang records two explanations and keeps both: 「一解云：八萬法藏為廣，一部為略，乃至一長行為廣，一偈為略也。二解云：略廣是總別義也。」 tr. "One explanation says: the eighty thousand treasuries of Dharma are the extensive, one text is the brief, and so on down to one prose passage being the extensive and one verse the brief. The second explanation says: brief and extensive are the meaning of general and specific." These two explanations have the same order as the two meanings the treatise-author brings out one after the other in this fascicle—the extensive and brief of the measure of text, and the general and specific of the marks of meaning. On the four gates, Jizang explains the one gate of the nature of dharmas, saying: 「法性無有此彼分，故云無非分也」 tr. "The nature of dharmas has no division into this and that, and so it says without non-parts"; explaining the one gate of neither joined nor dispersed, he points out what it treats: 「第四句不合散者，人多謂如等三法為境，悟此三法生智，智與境合，故今明不合散也。」 tr. "The fourth phrase, neither joined nor dispersed: people mostly take the three dharmas, suchness and the rest, as the object; awakening to these three dharmas gives rise to knowledge, and knowledge joins with the object; therefore it now makes clear neither joined nor dispersed."—speaking of what the fourth gate breaks as the attachment to the joining of object and knowledge is the meaning Jizang brings out at this gate. At the end he concludes on the name 「略攝」 tr. "brief gathering", saying: 「略攝般若者，知如等四法故，便知略廣，名略攝般若也。」 tr. "The brief gathering of prajñā: because one knows the four dharmas, suchness and the rest, one then knows the brief and the extensive; this is called the brief gathering of prajñā."

Of Huiying's Commentary on this chapter only one passage survives, and it falls exactly on what this fascicle explains. He explains the order of the chapter, saying: 「第六十八品者，名為方便品，即是方便門中第三品也。」 tr. "The sixty-eighth chapter is named the Skilful Means chapter; it is the third chapter within the gate of skilful means."—Huiying here too writes 「第六十八品」 tr. "the sixty-eighth chapter", agreeing with the Shōgozō and Ishiyama-dera manuscripts' chapter order that is one fewer; this is the third document in which this reading is independently seen. He explains why this chapter comes after the previous chapter: 「上明菩薩於一度中而能具足諸波羅蜜，今明所以然者，由菩薩善巧方便故，所以如此，故次六度相攝品後明方便品。」 tr. "Above it made clear that the bodhisattva, within one perfection, is able to fulfil the perfections; now it makes clear why this is so: it is because of the bodhisattva's good skill in skilful means that it is thus, and so after the chapter The Six Perfections Contain One Another it makes clear the Skilful Means chapter."—corresponding exactly to the phrase the treatise-author cites at the beginning of his explanation in this fascicle, 「一波羅蜜邊能生五波羅蜜，行一波羅蜜即能具五波羅蜜，如上品中說」 tr. "from the side of one perfection he can give rise to the five perfections, and by practising one perfection he can fulfil the five perfections, as was said in the previous chapter".

Huiying sets up a four-part division for this chapter: 「就此品中大有四分」 tr. "Within this chapter there are broadly four parts"—the first distinguishes skilful means in terms of the person; the second, from 「譬如日月周行照四天下」 tr. "it is as the sun and moon go round illuminating the four continents" onward, 「明波若方便導成眾行」 tr. "makes clear that the skilful means of prajñā guides and accomplishes the many practices"; 「第三明脩因得果，名為因果方便。第四明菩薩善學波若雙照二諦，名為照達方便。有此四意。」 tr. "the third makes clear cultivating the cause and obtaining the result, called the skilful means of cause and fruit. The fourth makes clear that the bodhisattva trains well in prajñā, illuminating the two truths together, called the skilful means of illuminating penetration. There are these four intents." What this fascicle explains spans his second, third, and fourth parts. The starting point of his third part Huiying ties to 「爾時須菩提白佛言：世尊！若一切法自性空，云何菩薩摩訶薩行六波羅蜜當得阿耨多提已下」 tr. "At that time Subhūti addressed the Buddha: World-Honored One! If all dharmas are empty of self-nature, how will the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, practising the six perfections, obtain anuttarā … awakening—from here onward"—exactly the place in this fascicle where the treatise-author takes up Subhūti's first difficulty.

What Huiying's commentary takes up passage by passage is all sūtra text of fascicle eighty-two, and what he explains often touches on the treatise-author's text in this fascicle; on the section of the buddha-land of Lion's Thunder-Voice, the sūtra phrase he takes up, 「除智慧不可以餘法度脫眾生已下」 tr. "excepting wisdom, beings cannot be delivered by any other dharma—from here onward", lies in the sūtra text of the First Part, while the matter he explains is exactly what the treatise-author cites in this fascicle, and his text is more detailed than this treatise's: 「除智慧不可以餘法度脫眾生已下，如師子雷音佛國，種種寶玩皆勝諸天，亦無行戒施等福德事，但彼諸樹等皆能出實相音，令眾生得解得無生法忍至薩婆若。」 tr. "‘Excepting wisdom, beings cannot be delivered by any other dharma’—from here onward: as in the buddha-land of Lion's Thunder-Voice, the various jewels and treasures all surpass those of the gods, and yet there are no meritorious matters such as practising the precepts and giving; it is only that the trees there and the rest can all give forth the sound of the real mark, causing beings to obtain understanding, obtain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, and arrive at sarvajñā." And he judges its meaning, saying: 「此國唯以智慧得佛，如諸天等雖有福德而不能至佛，唯智慧可有獨得佛之義，故云除智慧。若此間國土等始須福智二事得佛，如彼國者唯智慧得佛道也。」 tr. "In this land buddhahood is obtained by wisdom alone; as the gods and the rest, though they have merit, cannot arrive at buddhahood, only wisdom can have the meaning of obtaining buddhahood alone, and so it says ‘excepting wisdom’. In lands such as this one, one needs the two things, merit and wisdom, to obtain buddhahood; in a land like that one, the Buddha path is obtained by wisdom alone."—speaking separately of the two roads to buddhahood in this land and that land exactly resolves why the passage of 「復有人言」 tr. "someone further says" in this fascicle stands together with the preceding answer without contradicting it. Here Huiying further records his teacher's different explanation, citing the Sūtra of Maitreya's Ascent and the larger-text sūtra to speak of the bounds between causal nature and the Buddha-nature, and at the end says 「一解有者，不妨當說」 tr. "if there is one explanation, there is no harm in speaking of it"—keeping it without deciding; it is recorded as it is.

On the simile of the four kinds of troops, Huiying only explains the name: 「四兵者，謂車、馬、步、象等也，當說。」 tr. "The four troops are chariots, horses, foot soldiers, elephants, and so on; this will be spoken of." The passage of 「多有所學實無所學」 tr. "having much to train in and in reality nothing to train in" Huiying divides as the beginning of his fourth part: 「第四、明菩薩善學波若雙照二諦照達方便也。」 tr. "Fourth, it makes clear the skilful means of illuminating penetration, by which the bodhisattva trains well in prajñā, illuminating the two truths together." On the two marks of brief and extensive, Huiying's definition is the simplest: 「略相即是總相，廣相即是別相，大小兩乘盡有此總別二相也」 tr. "The brief mark is the general mark, the extensive mark is the specific marks; both vehicles, great and small, all have these two marks, general and specific"—the same as the treatise-author's second meaning in this fascicle, and further pointing out that the two marks, general and specific, run through both vehicles, great and small. The very last words of his commentary take up the question in the sūtra text of the First Part, 「云何菩薩摩訶薩知一切法略廣相」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva know the brief and extensive marks of all dharmas", and the treatise's explanation corresponding to it is passage 70 of this fascicle: 「云何菩薩摩訶薩知一切法略廣相已下，欲廣明之，故設此問也。」 tr. "‘How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva know the brief and extensive marks of all dharmas’—from here onward: wishing to make it clear at length, he sets up this question."—the extant text of Huiying's Commentary stops here; fascicle twenty-four ends, and nothing follows; from this chapter onward, therefore, there is no such commentary to consult. The place where it stops falls just before the four gates of this fascicle, so for the explanation of the four gates in the last passages of this fascicle, of the two commentaries only Jizang's can be cited as evidence.

The variant readings attached to the final sentence of this fascicle are recorded together below without choosing between them. In the sentence 「略攝聞是安隱道故」 tr. "because the brief gathering, when heard, is the path of peace and security", for the character 「聞」 tr. "heard" the base text has 「聞」 tr. "heard", and the four editions of Song, Yuan, Ming, and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript have 「門」 tr. "gate". The two readings each make sense: reading 「聞」 tr. "heard", it carries on from the preceding text in which Subhūti heard the four gates, meaning that hearing these four gates is the path of peace and security; reading 「門」 tr. "gate", it ties directly to the name 「四門」 tr. "four gates" of suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and neither joined nor dispersed in the preceding text, meaning that these four gates are the path of peace and security. The treatise-author's explanation in this fascicle reads exactly 「須菩提聞佛說如、法性、實際、不合不散四門」 tr. "Subhūti heard the Buddha speak of the four gates—suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and neither joined nor dispersed", so both readings have something to rely on here, and both are kept. Further, in the title at the end of this fascicle, the base text has 「論」 tr. "treatise" where the Ishiyama-dera manuscript has 「經」 tr. "sūtra"; below the fascicle number, the three editions of Song, Yuan, and the Palace add 「釋第六十九品上」 tr. "explaining the sixty-ninth chapter, first part", and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript adds 「釋第六十八品上」 tr. "explaining the sixty-eighth chapter, first part"—the Ishiyama-dera manuscript's chapter order being one fewer is consistent with what was seen before in the Shōgozō and Ishiyama-dera manuscripts and in Huiying's commentary.