大智度論 三慧品之上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Three Wisdoms, Part 1 of 3

The Three Wisdoms, First Part: The Three Questions of Practising, Giving Rise to, and Cultivating, and the Three Answers; For How Long, and the Mind in Sequence; All Four Alternatives Are Answered No; the Chain of Suchness, the Limit of Reality, the Nature of Dharmas, and the Nature of Self; All Dharmas Are Unspeakable; Not Practising Is Named Practising; the Equality of Something to Be Attained and Nothing to Be Attained; Practising Prajñā Because There Is Nothing It Is Done For

What Is Being Asked

The chapter title reads 「三慧」 tr. "the three wisdoms", and yet within the body of the chapter the two Chinese characters 「三慧」 tr. "three wisdoms" do not appear at all—from beginning to end, the sūtra and the treatise speak only of the three matters of practising, giving rise, and cultivating, and never name them 「三慧」 tr. "the three wisdoms". What are called the three wisdoms refer to the three matters Subhūti asks about as the sūtra opens: 「云何行般若波羅蜜？云何生般若波羅蜜？云何修般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "How does one practise prajñāpāramitā? How does one give rise to prajñāpāramitā? How does one cultivate prajñāpāramitā?" The previous chapter praised the merits of prajñā at length and said that one who practises prajñā is able to know all matters well; since the listeners already prize and delight in this Dharma, what they will naturally ask next is where to set their hand. Each of the three questions has its own bounds: practising is how it is used here and now; giving rise is from where this wisdom arises; cultivating is how, once obtained, it is nourished and grown. Each of the Buddha's three answers looks less like an answer than the one before—practising is because form is quiescent, form is empty, form is false and deceptive, form is not firm and real; giving rise is 「如虛空生故」 tr. "because it arises like space"; cultivating is 「修諸法破壞故」 tr. "because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas". What is asked is how to do it, yet what is answered is entirely the aspect of the objects contemplated; this gap is precisely the entrance to this chapter.

The sūtra that follows presses this gap step by step to the very bottom. Asked for how long, it answers from the first arousing of intent up to the seat of awakening; asked whether it is the mind in sequence, it answers constantly not abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, and 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move". If the mind does not move, then does cultivating still obtain sarvajñā or not? So there come the four questions of cultivating, not cultivating, cultivating and not cultivating, and neither cultivating nor not cultivating, and the Buddha answers all of them 「不」 tr. "No". The four alternatives exhausted, Subhūti can only ask 「若不爾，云何當得薩婆若？」 tr. "If it is not so, how will one obtain sarvajñā?"—and the Buddha then hands it down in one line through suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas, and the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life, and at the end asks in return 「我、眾生、壽命法可得不？」 tr. "Can the dharmas of a self, a being, and a life be found?", setting the whole chain down on a single 「不可得」 tr. "unfindable". From here on the sūtra turns into 「一切法不可說」 tr. "all dharmas are unspeakable", and turns again into training in neither increasing nor decreasing, training in neither arising nor ceasing, not raising up and not making the deeds of conduct, and contemplating the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas, until at last it presses out 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā". And what is the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent to do? The answer is: train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained. What is with something to be attained, and with nothing to be attained? The answer is 「諸有二者，是有所得；無有二者，是無所得」 tr. "whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained". Then is it from within something to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained, or from within nothing to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained? The Buddha allows neither end, and says only 「有所得、無所得平等，是名無所得」 tr. "the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained—this is named nothing to be attained". At the end this unit is gathered up with 「無所為故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "he practises prajñāpāramitā because there is nothing it is done for".

What the treatise-author explains is to supply the reason for every step of the sūtra. The substance of the three wisdoms: he explains practising by breaking the five aggregates, which is precisely the quiescence of nirvāṇa; explains giving rise by space, neither arising nor not arising; and explains cultivating by contemplating meditative concentration and its objects as all breaking up; and before this he records the differing explanation of 「有人言」 tr. "someone says", which matches the three wisdoms to the ground of dry wisdom, the acceptance of non-arising, and perfuming and cultivating by dhyānapāramitā, keeping it as one account without judging it. The single sentence 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move" is the most pressing; over it there are four rounds of exchange between the treatise-author and the Small Vehicle—the Abhidharma raises the difficulty that the mind does not move in the absorption without perception, the absorption of cessation, and nirvāṇa without remainder; the treatise-author cuts it off with 「不應以阿毘曇難摩訶衍」 tr. "one should not use the Abhidharma to raise difficulties against the Mahāyāna", and then argues it through to the end by way of the signless samādhi, the various meanings of the signless, whether nirvāṇa can or cannot be taken as object, and whether the three marks of nirvāṇa are provisional or real. Besides this, three rounds of question and answer explain the order of suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of dharmas; one round of question and answer explains the fault of the fourth alternative; and one round of question and answer explains the mutual dependence of the eye and form. What this unit has to answer comes down, in the end, to only two questions: since in prajñā mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, how in the end does it practise? And since all four alternatives of practising, giving rise, and cultivating fail to obtain it, on what does the bodhisattva rely to reach sarvajñā?

Passage by Passage

1. The three questions—practising, giving rise, cultivating. As the sūtra opens, Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！菩薩摩訶薩云何行般若波羅蜜？云何生般若波羅蜜？云何修般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā? How does he give rise to prajñāpāramitā? How does he cultivate prajñāpāramitā?" Three questions in one breath, each of the three Chinese characters holding one meaning: practising is the use here and now; giving rise is the condition of its first arising; cultivating is its continuing nourishment and growth. The framework of the whole chapter is set up from here; every question and answer in what follows grows out of these three Chinese characters.

2. The Buddha's three answers—practising because of quiescence, emptiness, falseness and deception, and not being firm and real; giving rise because it arises like space; cultivating because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas. Answering the first question, the Buddha speaks not of a technique but of the marks of the five aggregates: 「色寂滅故，色空故，色虛誑故，色不堅實故，應行般若波羅蜜。受、想、行、識亦如是。」 tr. "Because form is quiescent, because form is empty, because form is false and deceptive, because form is not firm and real, one should practise prajñāpāramitā. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise." Answering the second question, he takes back the words of the question and puts a simile in place of a method: 「如汝所問：『云何生般若波羅蜜？』如虛空生故，應生般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "As for what you ask, ‘How does he give rise to prajñāpāramitā?’—because it arises like space, one should give rise to prajñāpāramitā." The answer to the third question is the same: 「如汝所問：『云何修般若波羅蜜？』修諸法破壞故，應修般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "As for what you ask, ‘How does he cultivate prajñāpāramitā?’—because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas, one should cultivate prajñāpāramitā." The three answers share one format—they turn ‘how to practise’ back into ‘what the dharma practised is like’. Since the dharma is quiescent, is empty, is false and deceptive and not firm and real, the practitioner has nowhere on it to set his hand, and this having nowhere to set his hand is precisely practising.

3. For how long—from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening. Subhūti goes on to ask about the time: 「行般若波羅蜜、生般若波羅蜜、修般若波羅蜜，應幾時？」 tr. "Practising prajñāpāramitā, giving rise to prajñāpāramitā, cultivating prajñāpāramitā—for how long should one go on?" The Buddha answers: 「從初發意乃至坐道場，應行、應生、應修般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "From the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise, should give rise to, should cultivate prajñāpāramitā." Between one question and one answer, the length of the three wisdoms is fixed as the whole bodhisattva path—not a stretch of lessons on some ground or in some position, but, between the one thought of arousing the mind and the one seat of becoming a Buddha, the three matters of practising, giving rise, and cultivating are not broken off for a single moment.

4. The mind in sequence, and mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving. Subhūti asks again: 「世尊！次第心應行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Should one practise prajñāpāramitā with the mind in sequence?"—is one to practise with the mind in sequence, continuing thought after thought? The Buddha's answer has two layers: 「常不捨薩婆若心，不令餘念得入，為行般若波羅蜜、為生般若波羅蜜、為修般若波羅蜜。若心、心數法不行故，為行般若波羅蜜、為生般若波羅蜜、為修般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, not letting any other thought get in—this is practising prajñāpāramitā, this is giving rise to prajñāpāramitā, this is cultivating prajñāpāramitā. If it is because mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, this is practising prajñāpāramitā, this is giving rise to prajñāpāramitā, this is cultivating prajñāpāramitā." The first layer is a way of speaking in which there is a mind to speak of—constant mindfulness without admixture; the second layer withdraws the mind outright—mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move. The two layers stand side by side, and it is the second that is the spark of every question and difficulty that follows in this chapter.

5. All four alternatives are answered 「不」 tr. "No" . Since the mind does not move, Subhūti at once returns to the most practical concern: 「菩薩摩訶薩修般若波羅蜜，當得薩婆若不？」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who cultivates prajñāpāramitā—will he obtain sarvajñā?" The Buddha answers: 「不。」 tr. "No." Not cultivating—does one obtain it or not? 「不。」 tr. "No." Cultivating and not cultivating—does one obtain it or not? 「不。」 tr. "No." Neither cultivating nor not cultivating—does one obtain it or not? 「不。」 tr. "No." Four questions, four times the character 「不」 tr. "No", and the sūtra gives not a single sentence of explanation. The four alternatives are the fixed form by which Indian debate exhausts the possibilities; every alternative is denied—not because all four answers are wrong, but because the matter of 「得」 tr. "obtaining" itself does not stand under a question that grasps at marks.

6. If it is not so, how will one obtain it—obtaining sarvajñā is like the mark of suchness. The four alternatives exhausted, Subhūti can only ask: 「世尊！若不爾，云何當得薩婆若？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If it is not so, then how will one obtain sarvajñā?" The Buddha answers: 「菩薩摩訶薩得薩婆若，如如相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's obtaining sarvajñā is like the mark of suchness." The answer still does not fall on ‘how to do it’ but on ‘what it is like’. That obtaining can be spoken of at all lies only in its having one and the same mark as 「如」 tr. "suchness"; apart from this mark, the word ‘obtain’ has nowhere to be set down.

7. Like the mark of suchness, like the limit of reality, like the nature of dharmas, like the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life—questions passed down four levels. Subhūti does not understand, and pursues it level by level: 「世尊！云何如如相？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How is it like the mark of suchness?" The answer: 「如實際。」 tr. "Like the limit of reality." 「云何如實際？」 tr. "How is it like the limit of reality?" The answer: 「如法性。」 tr. "Like the nature of dharmas." 「云何如法性？」 tr. "How is it like the nature of dharmas?" The answer: 「如我性、眾生性、壽命性。」 tr. "Like the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life." Four questions and four answers, each sentence shorter than the one before, and each nearer to people than the one before. The first three names—suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas—are all very deep names; the last suddenly turns to self, beings, and a life: the Buddha joins the deepest principle to the ordinary person's most familiar clinging, laying the ground for the question that follows.

8. Can the dharmas of a self, a being, and a life be found—where the four-level chain lands. Subhūti asks 「云何我性、眾生性、壽命性？」 tr. "What is the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life?" The Buddha does not explain, but asks in return: 「於汝意云何？我、眾生、壽命法可得不？」 tr. "What do you think? Can the dharmas of a self, a being, and a life be found?" Subhūti answers: 「不可得。」 tr. "They are unfindable." The Buddha then concludes: 「若我、眾生、壽命不可得，云何當說有我性、眾生性、壽命性？若般若波羅蜜中不說有一切法，當得一切種智。」 tr. "If a self, a being, and a life are unfindable, how should one say that there are the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life? If within prajñāpāramitā one does not say that there are any dharmas at all, one will obtain the omniscience of all kinds." So the answer passed down four levels comes to zero—since the nature of self is unfindable, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and suchness are all likewise; and 「不說有一切法」 tr. "not saying that there are any dharmas at all" is precisely the road to obtaining the omniscience of all kinds. Only here is the reason given for the four times the character 「不」 tr. "No" was said earlier.

9. Is only prajñā unspeakable, or are the other dharmas unspeakable too. Subhūti presses on the scope: 「但般若波羅蜜是不可說？禪波羅蜜乃至檀波羅蜜亦不可說？」 tr. "Is it only prajñāpāramitā that is unspeakable? Are dhyānapāramitā and so on up to dānapāramitā also unspeakable?" The Buddha widens it to the utmost: 「般若波羅蜜不可說，檀波羅蜜乃至一切法——若有為、若無為，若聲聞法、若辟支佛法、若菩薩法、若佛法，亦不可說。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is unspeakable; dānapāramitā and so on up to all dharmas—whether conditioned or unconditioned, whether dharmas of the śrāvakas, dharmas of the pratyekabuddhas, dharmas of the bodhisattvas, or dharmas of the Buddha—are also unspeakable." The conditioned and the unconditioned, the three vehicles and the Buddha—all are included. Unspeakability is not the privilege of the one dharma of prajñā; it is the actual condition of all dharmas.

10. If they are unspeakable, how are the five destinies and the worthies and sages spoken of—the names of beings are really unfindable. What follows is the most natural difficulty: 「若一切法不可說，云何說是地獄、是畜生、是餓鬼、是人、是天，是須陀洹、是斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢、辟支佛，是諸佛？」 tr. "If all dharmas are unspeakable, how does one say: this is the hells, this is the animals, this is the hungry ghosts, this is humans, this is the gods; this is the srota-āpanna, this is the sakṛdāgāmin, the anāgāmin, the arhat, the pratyekabuddha; this is the buddhas?" The Buddha again answers with a counter-question: 「於汝意云何？是眾生名字實可得不？」 tr. "What do you think? Is the name of this being really findable?" The answer is 「不可得」 tr. "It is unfindable". The Buddha concludes: 「若眾生不可得，云何當說有地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天、須陀洹乃至佛？如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，應當學一切法不可說。」 tr. "If beings are unfindable, how should one say that there are the hells, the hungry ghosts, the animals, humans, gods, the srota-āpanna, and so on up to the Buddha? Thus, Subhūti! when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he should train in the unspeakability of all dharmas." The names of the five destinies and the four fruits are tied to beings; since the names of beings are unfindable, the names tied to them fall empty along with them. The closing sentence of this passage, 「應當學一切法不可說」 tr. "he should train in the unspeakability of all dharmas", is the first positive direction for the gate of practice in this chapter.

11. Should one train in form and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds—one should train in them as neither increasing nor decreasing. From here Subhūti turns to ask about the way of training: 「菩薩摩訶薩學般若波羅蜜時，應學色、受、想、行、識，乃至應學一切種智？」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva trains in prajñāpāramitā, should he train in form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to—should he train in the omniscience of all kinds?" The Buddha's answer does not deny the items to be trained in; it changes only the way of training: 「是菩薩摩訶薩學般若波羅蜜時，應學色不增不減，乃至應學一切種智不增不減。」 tr. "When this bodhisattva-mahāsattva trains in prajñāpāramitā, he should train in form as neither increasing nor decreasing, and so on up to—he should train in the omniscience of all kinds as neither increasing nor decreasing." Form must still be trained in; the omniscience of all kinds must still be trained in; the difference lies only in not adding a fraction to them and not taking a fraction from them while training.

12. How does one train in neither increasing nor decreasing—one trains because of neither arising nor ceasing. He asks further: 「云何色不增不減學？乃至一切種智不增不減學？」 tr. "How does one train in form as neither increasing nor decreasing? And so on up to—how does one train in the omniscience of all kinds as neither increasing nor decreasing?" The Buddha answers: 「不生不滅故學。」 tr. "One trains because of neither arising nor ceasing." That neither increasing nor decreasing is possible is because dharmas from the first neither arise nor cease; upon dharmas that neither arise nor cease, increase and decrease naturally have nothing to work on.

13. How does one train in neither arising nor ceasing—not raising up and not making the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent. He asks again: 「世尊！云何名不生不滅學？」 tr. "World-Honored One! What is named training by neither arising nor ceasing?" The Buddha answers: 「不起不作諸行業若有、若無故。」 tr. "It is because one does not raise up and does not make the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent." Neither arising nor ceasing, when it lands on the practitioner himself, is the not raising up and not making of deeds; and the four Chinese characters 「若有、若無」 tr. "whether existent or non-existent" seal off both sides—deeds that make existence are of course making, and deeds that seek non-existence are making just the same.

14. How does one not raise up and not make—because one contemplates the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas. He asks once more: 「世尊！云何不起不作諸行業若有、若無？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How does one not raise up and not make the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent?" The Buddha answers: 「觀諸法自相空故。」 tr. "It is because one contemplates the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas." By now the sūtra has pursued level by level from 「云何行」 tr. "how does one practise" to 「觀自相空」 tr. "contemplating the emptiness of specific marks"—beneath four questions, the gate of practice at last lands on a place that can be contemplated.

15. How does one contemplate the emptiness of specific marks—an item-by-item listing. Subhūti asks: 「世尊！云何應觀諸法自相空？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How should one contemplate the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas?" The Buddha's answer is a long listing, item by item: 「應觀色，色相空；應觀受、想、行、識，識相空。應觀眼，眼相空，乃至意；色乃至法；眼識界乃至意識界，意識界相空。應觀內空，內空相空；乃至應觀自相空，自相空相空。應觀四禪，四禪相空；乃至滅受想定，滅受想定相空。應觀四念處，四念處相空；乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提相空。」 tr. "One should contemplate form: the mark of form is empty. One should contemplate feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness: the mark of consciousness is empty. One should contemplate the eye: the mark of the eye is empty; and so on up to the mind; form and so on up to dharmas; the element of eye-consciousness and so on up to the element of mind-consciousness: the mark of the element of mind-consciousness is empty. One should contemplate inner emptiness: the mark of inner emptiness is empty; and so on up to—one should contemplate the emptiness of specific marks: the mark of the emptiness of specific marks is empty. One should contemplate the four dhyānas: the mark of the four dhyānas is empty; and so on up to the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception: the mark of the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception is empty. One should contemplate the four foundations of mindfulness: the mark of the four foundations of mindfulness is empty; and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi: the mark of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is empty." The five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, all the way to awakening itself—not one item is left out. Of these, the sentence least to be passed over is 「應觀自相空，自相空相空」 tr. "one should contemplate the emptiness of specific marks: the mark of the emptiness of specific marks is empty"—even the dharma that contemplates is itself among what is contemplated; otherwise the emptiness of specific marks becomes the last ground left to rely on. It closes with 「如是，須菩提！菩薩行般若波羅蜜時，應行諸法自相空」 tr. "Thus, Subhūti! when the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he should practise the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas".

16. If all marks are empty, how should one practise—not practising is named practising. Since the mark of form is empty and so on up to the mark of awakening is empty, Subhūti then asks: 「云何菩薩摩訶薩應行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "How should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha's answer is only ten Chinese characters: 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā." This is the most famous sentence of the chapter, and also the pivot of the whole chapter. Not practising is not stopping; it is not raising practising marks upon any dharma; only when practising marks do not arise does one accord with the actual condition of the dharma practised.

17. How is not practising practising—the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are all unfindable. Subhūti asks again for the reason, and the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions: 「般若波羅蜜不可得故，菩薩不可得，行亦不可得，行者、行法、行處亦不可得故，是名菩薩摩訶薩行不行般若波羅蜜，一切諸戲論不可得故。」 tr. "Because prajñāpāramitā is unfindable, the bodhisattva is unfindable, practice too is unfindable, and the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are also unfindable—this is named the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practising the prajñāpāramitā of not practising, because all idle discourse is unfindable." The bodhisattva who practises, the dharma practised, the one matter of practice, and even the threefold division into the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice—all are unfindable; what remains is only 「一切諸戲論不可得」 tr. "all idle discourse is unfindable". Not practising is practising precisely because the division of agent and object had from the first nothing on which to stand.

18. How does the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent practise—he should train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained. Here Subhūti asks with great consideration: 「若不行是菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，從初發意菩薩，云何行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "If not practising is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā, then how does the bodhisattva from the first arousing of intent practise prajñāpāramitā?"—bodhisattvas in deep positions may well not practise, but a person with a beginner's mind must, after all, have something to do. The Buddha's answer does not lower his standard; it only gives the sequence: 「須菩提！菩薩從初發意已來，應學空無所得法。是菩薩用無所得法故布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定，以無所得法故修智慧，乃至一切種智亦如是。」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva, from the first arousing of intent onward, should train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained. This bodhisattva, by the dharma with nothing to be attained, gives, upholds the precepts, is patient, is vigorous, and practises meditative concentration; by the dharma with nothing to be attained he cultivates wisdom; and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, likewise." The six perfections are practised as before; only each perfection is practised by the dharma with nothing to be attained. The beginner's mind does not first train in something to be attained and exchange it later; from the very start it does its work within nothing to be attained.

19. What is with something to be attained, and what is with nothing to be attained—whatever has duality is with something to be attained. Since 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" has become the key, Subhūti asks for its definition: 「世尊！云何名有所得？云何名無所得？」 tr. "World-Honored One! What is named with something to be attained? What is named with nothing to be attained?" The Buddha told Subhūti: 「諸有二者，是有所得；無有二者，是無所得。」 tr. "Whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained." The definition is extremely simple: the difference between something to be attained and nothing to be attained lies not in how much is attained, but in whether or not there is 「二」 tr. "duality".

20. What is duality—the eye and form, and so on up to awakening and the Buddha, are a duality. He asks further: 「何等是二有所得？何等是不二無所得？」 tr. "What is the duality that is with something to be attained? What is the non-duality that is with nothing to be attained?" The Buddha lists the items: 「眼、色為二，乃至意、法為二，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、佛為二，是名為二。」 tr. "The eye and form are a duality, and so on up to the mind and dharmas are a duality, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the Buddha are a duality—this is named duality." From the pairs of the six faculties and the six sense-objects, it goes all the way up to the pair of awakening and the Buddha. Even the highest pair—the awakening that is realised and the Buddha who realises it—is within the count of duality; this sentence pushes the range of 「二」 tr. "duality" to its very end.

21. From within which does one obtain nothing to be attained—from neither; equality is nothing to be attained. Subhūti presses one layer further: 「從有所得中無所得？從無所得中無所得？」 tr. "Is it from within something to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained? Is it from within nothing to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained?" The Buddha blocks both ends: 「不從有所得中無所得，不從無所得中無所得。須菩提！有所得、無所得平等，是名無所得。」 tr. "One does not obtain nothing to be attained from within something to be attained, nor does one obtain nothing to be attained from within nothing to be attained. Subhūti! The equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained—this is named nothing to be attained." And he teaches what to train in: 「菩薩摩訶薩於有所得、無所得平等法中應學！」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva should train within the dharma of the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained!" It concludes: 「菩薩摩訶薩如是學般若波羅蜜，是名無所得者，無有過失。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who trains thus in prajñāpāramitā—this is named a person with nothing to be attained, who is without fault." If nothing to be attained is obtained from somewhere, it once again becomes a thing, once again becomes an extreme; only by being equal with something to be attained does it not fall into being a third place that can be clung to.

22. Practising neither extreme, how does one go from one ground to another ground. Subhūti goes on to ask in terms of the stages of practice: 「若菩薩行般若波羅蜜，不行有所得、不行無所得，云何從一地至一地，得一切種智？」 tr. "If the bodhisattva practising prajñāpāramitā does not practise something to be attained and does not practise nothing to be attained, then how does he go from one ground to another ground and obtain the omniscience of all kinds?" The Buddha answers: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不住有所得中，從一地至一地。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he does not abide within something to be attained, and he goes from one ground to another ground." And he himself asks the reason: 「有所得中住，不能從一地至一地。」 tr. "If he abides within something to be attained, he cannot go from one ground to another ground." And he explains it himself once more: 「無所得是般若波羅蜜相，無所得是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提相，無所得亦是行般若波羅蜜者相。」 tr. "Nothing to be attained is the mark of prajñāpāramitā; nothing to be attained is the mark of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; nothing to be attained is also the mark of the one who practises prajñāpāramitā." The mark, the fruit, and the person—in all three places nothing to be attained is the mark; so not abiding in something to be attained, far from hindering the stages of practice, is exactly the condition by which the stages of practice advance.

23. If all three are unfindable, how does one distinguish the marks of dharmas—not obtaining form, and so on up to not obtaining awakening. Subhūti raises the three unfindables as a difficulty: 「若般若波羅蜜不可得，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦不可得，行般若波羅蜜者亦不可得，云何菩薩摩訶薩分別諸法相，是色，是受、想、行、識，乃至是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "If prajñāpāramitā is unfindable, anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi too is unfindable, and the person who practises prajñāpāramitā too is unfindable, then how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva distinguish the marks of dharmas, saying: this is form, this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to—this is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The Buddha's answer makes no accommodation; he answers straight with not obtaining: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不得色，不得受、想、行、識，乃至不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he does not obtain form, does not obtain feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to—he does not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi."

24. If they are unfindable, how does one fulfil the perfections and so on up to delivering beings—he does not practise for the sake of form. Subhūti pushes the difficulty to its most concrete side: 「云何具足檀波羅蜜乃至具足般若波羅蜜，入菩薩法位中；入已，淨佛國土、成就眾生，得一切種智；得一切種智已，轉法輪、作佛事，度眾生生死？」 tr. "How does he fulfil dānapāramitā and so on up to fulfil prajñāpāramitā, and enter the bodhisattva's Dharma-position; having entered, purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment, and obtain the omniscience of all kinds; having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, turn the wheel of the Dharma, do the work of a Buddha, and deliver beings from birth and death?"—the six perfections, entering the position, pure lands, bringing beings to accomplishment, turning the wheel of the Dharma, delivering from birth and death: the whole string of the bodhisattva's work hangs on this one question. The Buddha's answer changes only what it is done for: 「菩薩摩訶薩不為色故行般若波羅蜜，乃至不為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of form, and so on up to—he does not practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." The work is not abandoned; the place in the mind that does it for something is withdrawn.

25. For the sake of what matter does one practise—one practises prajñā because there is nothing it is done for. Subhūti then asks to the very bottom: 「世尊！菩薩為何事故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! For the sake of what matter does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha answers: 「無所為故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "He practises prajñāpāramitā because there is nothing it is done for." And he himself gives the reason: 「一切諸法無所為、無所作，般若波羅蜜亦無所為、無所作，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦無所為、無所作，菩薩亦無所為、無所作。」 tr. "All dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make; prajñāpāramitā too has nothing it is done for and nothing it makes; anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi too has nothing it is done for and nothing it makes; the bodhisattva too has nothing he does it for and nothing he makes." Dharmas, prajñā, awakening, and the bodhisattva—in all four places there is nothing done for and nothing made, and so the practitioner's mind too has nothing it is done for. Sūtra ① closes with 「菩薩摩訶薩應行般若波羅蜜無所為、無所作」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should practise prajñāpāramitā with nothing done for and nothing made". The whole passage starts from 「云何行」 tr. "how does one practise" and stops at 「無所為故行」 tr. "one practises because there is nothing it is done for"; one question, one pressing, until at last it is pressed to where even ‘why practise’ is withdrawn.

26. The treatise-author opens—Subhūti knows the minds of the assembly and asks. The treatise-author explains, first stating where this question comes from: 「聽者聞種種讚般若功德，得善知一切事，而貴愛是般若波羅蜜，方便欲得。」 tr. "The listeners, hearing the merits of prajñā praised in every way, and that it is able to know all matters well, prize and delight in this prajñāpāramitā and wish to obtain it by skilful means." Since they already prize it and wish to obtain it, where to set one's hand becomes the question closest to them; 「須菩提知眾人意，是故問佛」 tr. "Subhūti knows the minds of the assembly, and so he asks the Buddha"—the three questions are not Subhūti's own doubts; he asks them on behalf of a whole seated assembly of listeners. This sentence sets the tone of the chapter: every question and answer of the whole chapter is asked on behalf of those who wish to learn.

27. First recording another's explanation—the ground of dry wisdom, the acceptance of non-arising, perfuming and cultivating by dhyānapāramitā. Before explaining his own meaning, the treatise-author first records an older account: 「有人言：行者，在乾慧地；生者，得無生忍法；修者，得無生忍法後，以禪波羅蜜熏修般若。」 tr. "Someone says: practising is on the ground of dry wisdom; giving rise to it is obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising; cultivating it is, after obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, perfuming and cultivating prajñā by dhyānapāramitā." This explanation matches the three wisdoms to three stages, smooth and easy to understand. The treatise-author records it without adding approval or disapproval, and below goes straight on to explain it separately—keeping one account without judging it is the constant method of this treatise.

28. Explaining practising—breaking the five aggregates, penetrating them and making them empty, is precisely the quiescence of nirvāṇa. The treatise-author himself explains the Buddha's first answer: 「五眾是一切世間心所行結縛處，涅槃是寂滅相。」 tr. "The five aggregates are the place where all worldly minds move and are bound; nirvāṇa is the mark of quiescence." The five aggregates are the place where the mind moves, and that is also the place of bondage; by the power of the keen wisdom of prajñā, the bodhisattva 「能破五眾，通達令空，即是涅槃寂滅相」 tr. "is able to break the five aggregates, penetrate them, and make them empty—this is the mark of the quiescence of nirvāṇa". And then comes an extremely important turn: 「從寂滅出，住六情中，還念寂滅相，知世間諸法皆是空、虛誑、不堅實，是名般若。」 tr. "Coming out from quiescence and abiding among the six faculties, he turns back and keeps the mark of quiescence in mind, and knows that the dharmas of the world are all empty, false and deceptive, and not firm and real—this is named prajñā." Coming out of absorption and abiding among the six faculties, he looks back and sees that dharmas are false and deceptive—prajñā is not dwelling in quiescence and never coming out; it is, after coming out, still looking at the world with the eye of quiescence. The sūtra's four phrases, ‘because form is quiescent … because form is not firm and real’, here gain their practising mark.

29. Explaining giving rise—arising like space. The treatise-author explains the second answer: 「行般若，無定相故，不可得說若有、若無，言語道斷故。空如虛空，是故說『如虛空生』。」 tr. "Practising prajñā: because it has no fixed mark, one cannot say that it is existent or that it is non-existent, because the path of speech is cut off. It is empty as space is empty, and so it is said, ‘arises like space’." He then extends it by two meanings of space: 「虛空中無有法生，虛空亦不能有所生。」 tr. "Within space no dharma arises, and space too cannot give rise to anything." Why is this? 「無法、無形、無觸，無作相故」 tr. "Because it is a non-existent dharma, without shape, without touch, and has the mark of making nothing"—space is neither what gives rise nor a place where anything is given rise to; prajñāpāramitā is likewise. Taking space as the simile for arising, what it illustrates is precisely non-arising.

30. Again someone says—space is a permanent dharma and uncontrived, and so cannot give rise. Here a further differing explanation is recorded: 「復有人言：有是虛空，但以常法、無作故不能生，是為定相。」 tr. "Again, someone says: there is this space; it is only because it is a permanent dharma and is uncontrived that it cannot give rise to anything, and this is its fixed mark." This account admits that space really exists, only that because it is permanent and uncontrived it cannot give rise, and it sets up this 「不能生」 tr. "cannot give rise" as the fixed mark of space. The treatise-author likewise records it first without refuting it, leaving it to the next passage to set it off against the meaning of the Mahāyāna.

31. In the Mahāyāna, space names a non-existent dharma. The treatise-author states the meaning of his own school: 「摩訶衍中，虛空名無法，不得說常、不得說無常，不得言有、不得言無，非有非無亦不可得；滅諸戲論，無染無著，亦無文字。」 tr. "In the Mahāyāna, space names a non-existent dharma: one cannot say it is permanent, cannot say it is impermanent, cannot say it is existent, cannot say it is non-existent; neither existent nor non-existent is findable either; all idle discourse is extinguished, undefiled and without clinging, and also without letters." All four are blocked, and then it reaches 「非有非無亦不可得」 tr. "neither existent nor non-existent is findable either"—not even the fourth alternative is left. Prajñā is likewise: it 「能觀世間似如虛空。是名『生般若波羅蜜』」 tr. "is able to contemplate the world as though like space. This is named ‘giving rise to prajñāpāramitā’". Read against the previous explanation, the bounds are clear: that one takes space as a dharma with a fixed mark; this one takes space as a name upon which not even a fixed mark can be set up.

32. Explaining cultivating—contemplating meditative concentration and its objects as all breaking up. The treatise-author explains the third answer: 「菩薩得般若已，入甚深禪定，以般若力故，觀禪定及禪定緣皆破壞。」 tr. "The bodhisattva, having obtained prajñā, enters very deep meditative concentration, and by the power of prajñā contemplates meditative concentration and the objects of meditative concentration as all breaking up." Why must even the concentration one has oneself entered be contemplated and broken? 「般若波羅蜜捨一切法，不著相故。」 tr. "Because prajñāpāramitā gives up all dharmas and does not cling to marks." Cultivating prajñā is not cultivating concentration ever deeper and ever firmer; it is turning back with the power of prajñā to break the concentration one has oneself cultivated—「是名『修般若波羅蜜』」 tr. "this is named ‘cultivating prajñāpāramitā’". Here is where the sūtra's sentence 「修諸法破壞故」 tr. "because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas" lands.

33. Where the question of for how long comes from, and the Buddha's answer. The treatise-author explains where the question about the time comes from: 「聽者作是念：『一切法皆有時節。』是故須菩提問：『般若波羅蜜應幾時行？』」 tr. "The listeners have this thought: ‘All dharmas have their times.’ So Subhūti asks: ‘For how long should prajñāpāramitā be practised?’"—the root of the question lies in the common sense that ‘everything has its time limit’. The Buddha's answer, 「從初發心乃至坐道場應行」 tr. "from the first arousing of the mind up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise it", answers precisely the thought of a time limit with a practice without beginning and without end.

34. Question and answer—why speak only of practising prajñā. The treatise-author sets up a question: 「菩薩從初發心，應行十地、六波羅蜜、三十七品一切善法，何以但說行般若？」 tr. "From the first arousing of the mind, the bodhisattva should practise the ten grounds, the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path—all wholesome dharmas. Why does it speak only of practising prajñā?" The answer has two layers: first, 「須菩提但問般若故，佛答以行般若」 tr. "because Subhūti asked only about prajñā, the Buddha answers with practising prajñā"—what is answered follows what is asked, and need not seek completeness; second, 「是一切法皆與般若波羅蜜和合，以般若大故，不說餘法」 tr. "because all these dharmas come together with prajñāpāramitā, and because prajñā is great, the other dharmas are not spoken of"—it is not that the other dharmas are not practised; they are already contained within prajñā. The one is an answer fitted to the hearer; the other is an answer in principle.

35. Question and answer—why take the seat of awakening as the limit. He sets up a question again: 「般若波羅蜜無量無限，何以故以道場為限？」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is immeasurable and without limit; why take the seat of awakening as its limit?" The answer: 「先已答：是般若到佛心中轉名薩婆若。理雖一，名變故，言至道場應行。」 tr. "This has already been answered above: when this prajñā reaches the Buddha's mind, its name changes and it is called sarvajñā. Though the principle is one, because the name changes, it is said that one should practise it up to the seat of awakening." Stopping at the seat of awakening is not that prajñā comes to an end there; it is that there it changes its name. The name has a boundary but the principle has none—this distinction rescues the phrase 「至坐道場」 tr. "up to sitting at the seat of awakening" from being a statement of limitation.

36. The bodhisattva at the seat of awakening—all the dharmas obtained are given up, and the three times are penetrated. The treatise-author goes on: 「菩薩至道場，發意已來所得諸法皆捨；得無礙解脫故，皆通達三世。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva reaches the seat of awakening, he gives up all the dharmas he has obtained since arousing intent; because he obtains unobstructed liberation, he penetrates all the three times." All that has been accumulated along the way is given up entirely at the seat of awakening; given up entirely, then unobstructed; unobstructed, then penetrating the three times. Giving up and obtaining are here not the before and after of two matters, but two sides of one and the same matter.

37. Question and answer—sixty thoughts in a snap of the fingers; how can one constantly keep in mind with a single mind. The treatise-author raises a difficulty: 「彈指頃六十念，念念生滅，云何『一心常念薩婆若，不令餘念得入』？」 tr. "In the space of a snap of the fingers there are sixty thoughts, arising and ceasing thought by thought; how can one ‘with a single mind constantly keep sarvajñā in mind, not letting other thoughts get in’?" Within one snap of the fingers, thoughts have already arisen and ceased sixty times; where would an unbroken single mind come from? The answer divides the mind into two: 「一者、念念生滅心，二者、相續次第生，總名一心。以相續次第生故，雖多，名為一心。」 tr. "The first is the mind that arises and ceases thought by thought; the second is what arises continuing in sequence, and this is named in general a single mind. Because it arises continuing in sequence, though there are many, it is named a single mind." A single mind is not one unmoving mind; it is a string of minds continuing in the same direction. What is blocked becomes clear along with this: 「是時，不令貪、恚等心相續得入。」 tr. "At this time one does not let minds of greed, hatred, and the like get in and continue." He also asks and gives the reason himself: 「貪、恚等心久住則能障般若波羅蜜，念少則不能為害。」 tr. "If minds of greed, hatred, and the like abide long, they can obstruct prajñāpāramitā; if the thoughts are few, they cannot do harm." And he marks for whom this answer is given: 「此為新發意菩薩故說。」 tr. "This is spoken for the sake of a bodhisattva who has newly aroused the mind." At the end he sets it off against the mark of the great bodhisattvas: 「復有大菩薩，雖行餘諸善法，皆與般若和合，能令念念中餘心不入。」 tr. "Again, there are great bodhisattvas who, though they practise the other wholesome dharmas, all come together with prajñā, and are able to keep other minds from getting in thought by thought." The new learner's work lies in not letting them continue; the great bodhisattva, thought by thought, naturally lets nothing in—one and the same sentence of the sūtra is made real in two ways by two kinds of person.

38. The meaning of constantly keeping in mind, and the practising mark of prajñā. The treatise-author goes on to explain why constantly keeping in mind is necessary: 「菩薩多於般若中起種種戲論及諸邪心，是故佛教常念薩婆若，不令餘念得入。」 tr. "The bodhisattva often, within prajñā, gives rise to all kinds of idle discourse and to wrong minds; therefore the Buddha teaches constantly keeping sarvajñā in mind, not letting other thoughts get in." Idle discourse arises precisely upon prajñā, and so the remedy too must be applied upon prajñā. The mark of constantly keeping in mind is stated with great weight: 「常念者，心無餘向，縱使死急事至，不忘薩婆若。」 tr. "Constantly keeping in mind means that the mind has no other direction it tends toward; even if the urgent matter of death arrives, one does not forget sarvajñā." And then one sentence turns out the whole debate that follows: 「般若波羅蜜行相者，所謂心、心數法不行。」 tr. "The practising mark of prajñāpāramitā is what is called mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving."

39. Question—the Abhidharma's difficulty of the four cases in which mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move. The objector brings forward the settled teaching of four cases in which the mind does not move: 「凡夫人入無想定、若生無想天，聖人住有餘涅槃入滅盡定，一切聖人入無餘涅槃，心、心數法皆不行——是則心、心數法不行。」 tr. "When ordinary persons enter the absorption without perception or are born in the heaven without perception, when noble ones abiding in nirvāṇa with remainder enter the absorption of cessation, and when all noble ones enter nirvāṇa without remainder, mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move at all—only this is mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving." Of the four cases, two belong to ordinary persons and two to noble ones, all with clear texts to rest on. The difficulty lies in the last sentence: 「菩薩行般若時，云何心、心數法不行？」 tr. "When the bodhisattva practises prajñā, how can it be said that mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move?" The bodhisattva is right then practising prajñā, and plainly there is a mind at work; how can it be said not to move?

40. Answer—one should not use the Abhidharma to raise difficulties against the Mahāyāna. The treatise-author's answer is extremely brief: 「是事阿毘曇中說，非大乘中義。小乘、大乘種種差別，如先說。是故不應以阿毘曇難摩訶衍。」 tr. "This matter is what is said in the Abhidharma; it is not the meaning within the Great Vehicle. The various differences of the Small Vehicle and the Great Vehicle are as said above. Therefore one should not use the Abhidharma to raise difficulties against the Mahāyāna." He is not saying that the four cases the other side brings forward are false; he is saying that the ‘mind not moving’ of those four cases is a definition within another system of Dharma-gates, and to take it to measure the words here is already to have picked up the wrong ruler. This answer is not evasion; it first sets the bounds—otherwise the debate that follows could not begin.

41. Further—mind and mental-factor dharmas do not arise within the signless samādhi. The treatise-author goes on to give the positive meaning: 「無相三昧中，色等諸相滅故名『無相』；以『無相』故，不應生心、心數法；……」 tr. "Within the signless samādhi, because the marks of form and so on cease, it is named ‘signless’; because it is ‘signless’, mind and mental-factor dharmas should not arise; …" Since there is no mark to take as object, mind and mental-factor dharmas naturally have nothing from which to arise. And in passing he makes it clear: 「此亦非無想定、滅盡定。」 tr. "This too is neither the absorption without perception nor the absorption of cessation."—alike in the mind's not moving, yet the reason is entirely different.

42. Question—the Buddha speaks of the meaning of signless in various ways; one cannot name it not moving merely because it is signless. The objector cites three meanings of signless spoken by the Buddha as evidence: 「或名見諦道——信行、法行為無相人，以疾故；或說無色定，想微細難覺故亦名無相；或以三解脫門中緣涅槃故名無相。」 tr. "Sometimes it names the path of seeing the truths—persons practising in faith and persons practising by the Dharma are signless persons, because they are swift; or he speaks of the formless absorption, which, because its perception is subtle and hard to discern, is also named signless; or, because within the three gates of liberation one takes nirvāṇa as object, it is named signless." Since the one name signless has so many uses, 「是故不得但以無相故名心、心數法不行」 tr. "therefore one cannot, merely because something is signless, name it mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving". At the end he goes a step further: 「乃至緣涅槃無相法，心、心數法不滅，何況緣有相法！」 tr. "Even when taking as object nirvāṇa, this signless dharma, mind and mental-factor dharmas do not cease—how much less when taking as object a dharma with marks!"—even when taking as object a signless object such as nirvāṇa the mind is still there, how much more when taking as object what has marks.

43. Answer—nirvāṇa is without an object; how can you say one takes it as object. The treatise-author accepts in part and refutes in part: 「見諦道中、無色定中說無相可爾。」 tr. "To speak of signless within the path of seeing the truths and within the formless absorption is still acceptable." The first two meanings are admitted for the moment. What is not allowed lies in the third meaning: 「若言『緣涅槃無相法』，是事不然！」 tr. "If you say ‘taking as object the signless dharma of nirvāṇa’, this is not right!" What he rests on is the Buddha's own words of praise: 「佛常種種讚歎涅槃無相、無量、不可思議法，即是『無相無緣法』，汝云何言緣？」 tr. "The Buddha constantly praises nirvāṇa in every way as a signless, immeasurable, inconceivable dharma, that is, ‘the signless dharma without an object’; how can you say one takes it as object?" The foundation of the other side's position is ‘nirvāṇa can be taken as object’, and the treatise-author refutes it right on this foundation—not saying that the mind cannot take an object, but that nirvāṇa is at root not an object that can be taken.

44. Question—grasping the mark of nirvāṇa gives rise to mind and mental-factor dharmas; this is named taking it as object. The objector steps back to rescue his position: 「滅男、女、色等相，故名無相，不言『無涅槃相』！」 tr. "It is the marks of male, female, form, and so on that are extinguished, and so it is named signless; it was not said that ‘nirvāṇa has no mark’!" What the signless extinguishes is the marks of male, female, form, and so on; it never said that nirvāṇa itself has no mark. 「行者取是涅槃相，生心、心數法，是名緣！」 tr. "The practitioner grasps this mark of nirvāṇa and gives rise to mind and mental-factor dharmas—this is named taking it as object!"—what is taken as object is nothing else but precisely the mark of nirvāṇa. This difficulty is very fine: it restricts 「無相」 tr. "signless" to the marks that are extinguished, and so keeps back for nirvāṇa a mark that can be grasped.

45. Answer—the conditioned is false and deceptive: if it is real, it loses the false and deceptive mark; if it is not real, it cannot see nirvāṇa. The treatise-author breaks it with a dilemma. First he sets up the major premise: 「佛說一切有為生法皆是魔網、虛誑、不實。」 tr. "The Buddha says that all conditioned dharmas that arise are Māra's net, false and deceptive, and not real." And then he attacks from both ends: 「若緣涅槃心、心數法是實，則失有為法虛誑相；若不實，不能見涅槃。」 tr. "If the mind and mental-factor dharmas that take nirvāṇa as object are real, the false and deceptive mark of conditioned dharmas is lost; if they are not real, they cannot see nirvāṇa." The mind that takes the object belongs to the conditioned: to say it is real goes against the general meaning that the conditioned is false and deceptive; to say it is not real means that a mind that is not real can never see the real nirvāṇa. Both roads blocked, he concludes: 「是故汝言『涅槃有相可緣』，是事不爾！」 tr. "Therefore what you say—‘nirvāṇa has a mark that can be taken as object’—is not right!"

46. Question—the Buddha himself says that nirvāṇa has three marks. The objector further cites the Buddha's words as grounds: 「佛自說涅槃法有三相，云何言無相？」 tr. "The Buddha himself says that the dharma of nirvāṇa has three marks; how can you say it is signless?" The debate before was all in reasoning; this question brings out a sūtra proof directly—you say signless, yet the Buddha himself says there are three marks.

47. Answer—the three marks are provisional names without reality. The treatise-author answers: 「是三相假名無實。」 tr. "These three marks are provisional names without reality." And he states why they are set up: 「破有為三相故說無生、無滅、無住無異，無為更無別相。」 tr. "It is to break the three marks of the conditioned that no arising, no ceasing, and no abiding and no changing are spoken of; the unconditioned has no further separate mark." The three names, no arising, no ceasing, and no abiding and no changing, are words of refutation set up against the arising, ceasing, and abiding-and-changing of the conditioned, not marks that the unconditioned itself has on its own. The names are set up for refuting; once the refuting is done, the names too are not kept.

48. Further—apart from the mark of the conditioned, the mark of the unconditioned is unfindable. He extends it one layer further: 「生相，先已種種因緣破生，畢竟不可得故，云何有無生？」 tr. "As for the mark of arising, arising has already been broken above by all kinds of causes and conditions; because it is ultimately unfindable, how could there be non-arising?" Since arising is ultimately unfindable, the 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" spoken against arising has nothing to stand against either. So he concludes: 「離有為相，無為相不可得。是故無為但有名字，無有自相。」 tr. "Apart from the mark of the conditioned, the mark of the unconditioned is unfindable. Therefore the unconditioned has only a name and has no specific mark of its own." The name of the unconditioned is set up in reliance on the conditioned; apart from what it relies on, there is nothing under the name.

49. Further—if nirvāṇa has a mark, that is idle discourse. He extends it one layer more, this time from the side of the gate of practice: 「佛法真實寂滅無戲論；若涅槃有相，即是有定相可取，便是戲論，戲論故而生諍訟；……」 tr. "The Buddha's Dharma is truly quiescent and without idle discourse; if nirvāṇa has a mark, then there is a fixed mark that can be grasped, and this is idle discourse; because of idle discourse, disputes arise; …" And then he tests the cause by its fruit: 「若諍訟瞋恚，尚不得生天人中，何況涅槃！」 tr. "If there are disputes and hatred, one cannot even be born among gods and humans, how much less reach nirvāṇa!" Disputes and hatred cannot even keep one among humans and gods; how could they be the gate into nirvāṇa? At the end he cites the Buddha's words as conclusion: 「涅槃，無相、無量、不可思議，滅諸戲論。」 tr. "Nirvāṇa is signless, immeasurable, inconceivable, and extinguishes all idle discourse."

50. This mark of nirvāṇa is precisely prajñā—leaving the two extremes of mind and non-mind. The treatise-author gathers up the preceding passage and joins it back to the main topic: 「此涅槃相，即是般若波羅蜜，是故不應有心、心數法。」 tr. "This mark of nirvāṇa is precisely prajñāpāramitā, and therefore there should be no mind and mental-factor dharmas." And he cites an earlier chapter as proof: 「菩薩行般若，離心、非心相。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva practises prajñā, he is apart from the mark of mind and of non-mind." Then at once he guards against a possible misreading: 「若有非心相，應當難言：『無心相云何行般若？』今離此二邊，故不應難。」 tr. "If there is a mark of non-mind, one should raise the difficulty: ‘Without the mark of mind, how does one practise prajñā?’ Now these two extremes are left behind, and so one should not raise the difficulty." If 「非心」 tr. "non-mind" is a really existent mark, then the difficulty ‘without the mark of mind, how does one practise prajñā’ can stand; but what the sūtra says is to leave both extremes, mind and non-mind, and so this difficulty does not stand.

51. Further—the mind and mental-factor dharmas in the body are false and deceptive; because prajñā is true, they do not move. The last layer of explanation speaks from retribution: 「先世無明顛倒邪見因緣故，得是身。是身中心、心數法雖有善，因緣生故無自性，虛誑、不實；……」 tr. "Because of the causes and conditions of the ignorance, inversion, and wrong views of former lives, one has obtained this body. Though the mind and mental-factor dharmas in this body are sometimes wholesome, because they arise from causes and conditions they have no self-nature, and are false and deceptive, and not real; …" Wholesome minds are no exception: 「是善心果報，受人天福樂，皆是無常故，能生大苦，亦是虛誑、不實，何況不善、無記心！」 tr. "The retribution of this wholesome mind—receiving the blessings and pleasures of humans and gods—because it is all impermanent, can give rise to great suffering, and it too is false and deceptive and not real; how much more so minds that are unwholesome or indeterminate!" From this he sets up a general rule: 「因虛誑故，果亦虛誑。」 tr. "Because the cause is false and deceptive, the fruit too is false and deceptive." The last sentence is judged with great weight: 「般若波羅蜜真故，心、心數法不行。」 tr. "Because prajñāpāramitā is true, mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move." The mind's not moving is not the mind being stopped; it is that a false and deceptive mind has, from the first, no use upon the true and real dharma.

52. Subhūti asks because of this—does cultivating obtain sarvajñā. The treatise-author takes up the sūtra's four questions: 「須菩提聞是『心、心數法不行』，故問佛：『世尊！修般若波羅蜜得薩婆若不？』」 tr. "Subhūti, hearing this ‘mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move’, therefore asks the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Cultivating prajñāpāramitā, does one obtain sarvajñā?’" The questions of the four alternatives arise from this—since the mind does not move, does the matter of 「修」 tr. "cultivating" still count?

53. The Buddha says 「不」 tr. "No" —if even cultivating does not obtain it, how much less not cultivating. The treatise-author explains the first, second, and third alternatives: 「修名常行積集，皆應是心、心數法力，是故言修。」 tr. "Cultivating is named constantly practising and accumulating, all of which must be by the power of mind and mental-factor dharmas; therefore it is called cultivating." Cultivating, as cultivating, rests from the first on the power of mind and mental-factor dharmas; since the mind does not move, cultivating does not stand either, and so the first alternative is answered no. 「修尚不得，何況不修！」 tr. "If even cultivating does not obtain it, how much less not cultivating!" Since the first alternative does not hold, the second need not even be spoken of. As for the third: 「修不修者，是般若無為法故不修，能觀實相故言修；二俱有過，故言不。」 tr. "As for cultivating and not cultivating: because prajñā is an unconditioned dharma it is not cultivating, and because it is able to contemplate the real mark it is called cultivating; both have faults, and so he says no."—speaking of both sides together brings in the faults of both sides together, and so it too is answered no.

54. Question and answer—what fault has the fourth alternative. The treatise-author sets up a question: 「若第三中有過，第四有何過，復言『不』？」 tr. "If there is a fault in the third alternative, what fault is there in the fourth, that he again says ‘No’?" The third alternative speaks of both sides together, and its fault is easy to see; the fourth is already a double negation—what fault could it have? The answer: 「須菩提以取相著心問，故佛言『不』。」 tr. "Because Subhūti asks with a mind that grasps at marks and clings, the Buddha says ‘No’." The sickness lies not in the alternative but in the questioner's mind. He goes on to state why: 「以受『修不修』故有『非修非不修』，是故佛言『不』。」 tr. "Because ‘cultivating and not cultivating’ is accepted, there is ‘neither cultivating nor not cultivating’; therefore the Buddha says ‘No’." The fourth alternative is set up following upon the third; since the third has a fault, what follows upon it cannot alone escape. At the end he gives the only road without fault: 「若以不取相心說『非修非不修』，則無有過。」 tr. "If one speaks of ‘neither cultivating nor not cultivating’ with a mind that does not grasp at marks, there is no fault." The same sentence has a fault when spoken grasping at marks, and no fault when spoken without grasping at marks—the denial of the four alternatives was never a problem of the wording.

55. The four questions are not assented to; he asks again how one will obtain it. The treatise-author describes Subhūti's state: 「須菩提四種問，佛皆不聽，心惑故，復問世尊：『今云何當得薩婆若？』」 tr. "To all four kinds of question from Subhūti the Buddha did not assent; because his mind is perplexed, he asks the World-Honored One again: ‘Now how will one obtain sarvajñā?’" The four alternatives exhausted and still no road in sight—hence he says the mind is perplexed. This one Chinese character 「惑」 tr. "perplexed" matters—even Subhūti has perplexity here, which shows that the difficulty here does not lie in one's endowments.

56. The Buddha answers: like the mark of suchness; like the limit of reality. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answers given in turn: 「佛答：『如如相。』」 tr. "The Buddha answers: ‘Like the mark of suchness.’" And Subhūti 「如亦不解，是故佛言：『如實際。』」 tr. "still does not understand suchness, and so the Buddha says: ‘Like the limit of reality.’" Explaining suchness by the limit of reality is because the former was not understood, and so a nearer way of saying it is put in its place. The answer is not given in full all at once; it is adjusted level by level according to what is understood and what is not.

57. Question and answer—in the "Suchness" chapter he already spoke well of suchness; how is it that he now has doubt. The treatise-author sets up a question: 「〈如品〉中，須菩提自善說如，今云何有疑？」 tr. "In the ‘Suchness’ chapter, Subhūti himself spoke well of suchness; how is it that he now has doubt?" He spoke well of it before; why the doubt now? The answer: 「是如無一定相，是故不得不問；若如有一定相者，便應已解。」 tr. "This suchness has no single fixed mark, and so he cannot but ask; if suchness has a single fixed mark, he should already have understood it." A dharma with a fixed mark can be understood once and for all; a dharma without a fixed mark must be understood afresh at every place. He goes on to extend it with a simile: 「是如甚深無量故，須菩提有處解、有處不解；譬如大水，有人入深者、入淺者，皆名入水，不得言入淺者不入水。」 tr. "Because this suchness is very deep and immeasurable, there are places where Subhūti understands and places where he does not understand; it is like great waters: some people enter deep and some enter shallow, and all are named entering the water; one cannot say that the one who enters shallow has not entered the water." The one who enters shallow has still entered the water—understanding one portion does not preclude there still being a portion not understood; this simile blocks two misjudgements at once: one may not, because he has doubt, call his earlier understanding false; nor may one, because of his earlier understanding, call his present doubt nothing.

58. Question and answer—why take the limit of reality as a simile for suchness. The treatise-author sets up a question again: 「何以不以如喻實際，而以實際喻如？實際有何易解故譬喻？」 tr. "Why not take suchness as a simile for the limit of reality, but instead take the limit of reality as a simile for suchness? What is there in the limit of reality that is easy to understand, that it is taken as a simile?" In the ordinary way the easy is used as a simile for the hard; of suchness and the limit of reality, which is easy and which is hard? The answer: 「如、實際雖是一物，觀時異；如是諸法體性，實際是行者心取證。」 tr. "Though suchness and the limit of reality are one thing, when contemplated they differ: suchness is the essential nature of dharmas; the limit of reality is the realisation that the practitioner's mind takes up." One thing, yet contemplated with a difference: suchness is spoken of in terms of dharmas; the limit of reality in terms of what the practitioner realises. Being what is realised, it is a matter close to oneself, and so he says: 「佛以須菩提得是實際為證，故以為譬喻。」 tr. "Because Subhūti has obtained this limit of reality as his realisation, the Buddha takes it as a simile." A simile taken from what the listener has himself realised—whether it is easy to understand is relative to this particular person.

59. Question and answer—why the nature of dharmas comes last. He sets up a question a third time: 「常說『法性』次『如』，『實際』次『法性』，今『法性』何以在後？」 tr. "It is constantly said that ‘the nature of dharmas’ comes after ‘suchness’ and ‘the limit of reality’ comes after ‘the nature of dharmas’; why now is ‘the nature of dharmas’ placed after?" The customary order is suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality; now the sūtra has suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas, and so he asks. The answer: 「今欲以我性、眾生性說畢竟空故，轉次在後。」 tr. "Now it is because he wishes to speak of ultimate emptiness by means of the nature of self and the nature of beings, and so it is moved to come after." The nature of dharmas is moved later so that it immediately adjoins the nature of self and the nature of beings—the change of order is tied to where it is meant to lead.

60. Further—in the paths of seeing the truths and of training one contemplates suchness; on the path beyond training, realising it with a concentrated mind is named the nature of dharmas. The treatise-author gives a separate layer of explanation in terms of the stages of the path: 「從見諦道、學道中能觀諸法如。無學道中煩惱盡故，定心作證；定心作證故，於一切總相、別相中通達，名為法性。」 tr. "From within the path of seeing the truths and the path of training one is able to contemplate the suchness of dharmas. Within the path beyond training, because the afflictions are exhausted, one realises it with a concentrated mind; because one realises it with a concentrated mind, one penetrates within all general marks and specific marks, and this is named the nature of dharmas." Suchness is what is contemplated in the stages of training; the nature of dharmas is what is penetrated in the stage beyond training; since there is this layer of before and after, 「諸法本生處名為性，是故以法性喻實際」 tr. "the place from which dharmas originally arise is named nature, and so the nature of dharmas is used as a simile for the limit of reality".

61. The nature of dharmas has a śrāvaka share and a Great Vehicle share. The treatise-author fixes the bounds of Subhūti's doubt: 「法性有聲聞分、有大乘分；須菩提於聲聞分中不疑，大乘分中有疑故問。」 tr. "The nature of dharmas has a śrāvaka share and has a Great Vehicle share; Subhūti has no doubt within the śrāvaka share, and because he has doubt within the Great Vehicle share, he asks." One and the same nature of dharmas has two shares: in the share one has oneself realised there is no doubt; in the share not yet reached there is doubt. This sentence answers to 「有處解、有處不解」 tr. "there are places where he understands and places where he does not understand" above, and gives 「疑」 tr. "doubt" a most fitting place.

62. The Buddha takes as proof a matter ordinary people can understand. The treatise-author explains why the Buddha at the end brings up the nature of self and the nature of beings: 「佛欲以凡人所可解事為證，故言：『如我性、眾生性、壽命性。』」 tr. "The Buddha wishes to use a matter that ordinary people can understand as proof, and so he says: ‘Like the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life.’" Self, beings, and a life are the three things everyone takes to be most real—the Buddha does not take a deep dharma as proof, but takes as proof the very place where people's clinging holds tightest, precisely in order to set his hand there.

63. The counter-question—does the mark of the dharma of self really exist. The treatise-author explains the counter-question in the sūtra: 「須菩提更無所問，佛欲結句故，反問須菩提：『於汝意云何？我法相實有不？』」 tr. "Subhūti has nothing further to ask; because the Buddha wishes to conclude this phrase, he asks Subhūti in return: ‘What do you think? Does the mark of the dharma of self really exist?’" The questioning having reached this point with nothing more to ask, the Buddha closes it with a counter-question. The force of the whole passage lies in this turning back: he says no more himself, but asks the other to say it himself.

64. Subhūti has obtained the path, and so he says it does not. The treatise-author explains how he is able to answer: 「須菩提得道，故言無。」 tr. "Subhūti has obtained the path, and so he says it does not." And then he extends it by the order of stages: 「須陀洹尚不見我，何況阿羅漢！」 tr. "Even the srota-āpanna does not see a self, how much less the arhat!" A person of the first fruit already does not see a self, how much less one who has realised the stage beyond training. What the answer rests on is not inference but realisation.

65. The Buddha says—with the dull knowledge of the Small Vehicle you still do not find a self, how much less the Buddha. The treatise-author records the Buddha's advance: 「汝以小乘鈍智尚不得我，何況佛！」 tr. "With the dull knowledge of the Small Vehicle you still do not find a self, how much less the Buddha!" If even with the knowledge of the Small Vehicle one seeks a self and cannot find it, seeking it with the knowledge of the Buddha finds still less. In a single sentence he carries 「我不可得」 tr. "the self is unfindable" from what one person has realised to what is ultimately realised.

66. Because the self is unspeakable, all dharmas are unspeakable. The treatise-author concludes this passage: 「佛以智慧求我不可得，云何可說？如我不可說有，一切法亦如是。」 tr. "The Buddha seeks a self with wisdom and it is unfindable; how can it be spoken of? As the self cannot be spoken of as existent, all dharmas are likewise." From one dharma it is extended to all dharmas. Then he joins back to the aim of this chapter: 「菩薩能行是不可說法故，當得薩婆若。」 tr. "Because the bodhisattva is able to practise this unspeakable dharma, he will obtain sarvajñā." At the end he fixes the meaning of 「不可說」 tr. "unspeakable": 「不可說者，不可分別若有、若無。」 tr. "Unspeakable means that one cannot distinguish it as existent or as non-existent." Unspeakability is not a ban on speech; it is that neither of the two gates, existence and non-existence, can be settled on.

67. Subhūti asks about the distinctions of the five destinies and the noble paths. The treatise-author records Subhūti's difficulty: 「世尊！諸法若不可分別，云何分別說有地獄等五道、須陀洹等諸聖道？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If dharmas cannot be distinguished, how does one distinguish and say that there are the five destinies such as the hells, and the noble paths such as the srota-āpanna?" The five destinies are the ordinary, the four fruits the noble, and all of them are presently spoken of; since there can be no distinguishing, from where are these accounts set up?

68. The Buddha answers—beings have no fixed dharma, only provisional names. The treatise-author records the Buddha's answer: 「眾生無有定法，但有假名字，云何當分別說有地獄等？」 tr. "Beings have no fixed dharma, only provisional names; how should one distinguish and say that there are the hells and so on?" And he explains it himself: 「眾生及諸聖人，從分別眾生等故有諸道名，眾生實不可得。」 tr. "Beings and the noble ones have the names of the paths from distinguishing beings and so on; beings are really unfindable." The names of the paths come from distinguishing beings; since what is distinguished is unfindable, the names that distinguishing brings out have no reality either.

69. One should train thus in the unspeakable prajñā. The treatise-author records the sūtra's closing sentence: 「如是，須菩提！菩薩應如是學不可說般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Thus, Subhūti! the bodhisattva should train thus in the unspeakable prajñāpāramitā."—where the refuting above lands is still on a single 「學」 tr. "train". Refuting is not having nothing to do; it is changing the way of doing.

70. Question and answer—since one should train in form and other dharmas, why say unspeakable. The treatise-author records Subhūti's further question: 「世尊！菩薩應學色等諸法，今何以言學一切法不可說？」 tr. "World-Honored One! The bodhisattva should train in form and other dharmas; why now is it said that he trains in the unspeakability of all dharmas?" The Buddha answers: 「菩薩雖應學色等法，但應作不增不減故學。」 tr. "Though the bodhisattva should train in form and other dharmas, he should train in them only as neither increasing nor decreasing." The items trained in are not changed; the way of training is changed. On 「不增不減」 tr. "neither increasing nor decreasing" the treatise-author does not explain again, but says directly 「不增不減義，如先說」 tr. "the meaning of neither increasing nor decreasing is as said above"—it was explained before and is not brought out again here.

71. The Buddha himself states the causes and conditions—training in neither arising nor ceasing is training in neither increasing nor decreasing. The treatise-author points out that the sūtra carries its own causes and conditions: 「此中佛自說得不增不減因緣：『若菩薩學不生不滅法，即是學不增不減。』」 tr. "Here the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions of obtaining neither increasing nor decreasing: ‘If the bodhisattva trains in the dharma of neither arising nor ceasing, this is training in neither increasing nor decreasing.’" Neither increasing nor decreasing is possible because its root lies in neither arising nor ceasing; this sentence is the sūtra's own explanation, not something the treatise-author adds from outside.

72. Question and answer—how does one train in neither arising nor ceasing. Subhūti asks: 「云何學不生不滅？」 tr. "How does one train in neither arising nor ceasing?" The Buddha answers: 「不起不作諸行業若有、若無故。」 tr. "Because one does not raise up and does not make the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent." Here the treatise-author explains it word by word: 「有名三有：欲有、色有、無色有。」 tr. "Existence is named the three existences: the existence of desire, the existence of form, and the existence of the formless." The three existences are the extreme of existence. 「無名斷滅邊，離八聖道強欲求滅。」 tr. "Non-existence is named the extreme of annihilation: apart from the eightfold noble path, forcibly wishing to seek cessation." Non-existence is the extreme of annihilation—leaving the eightfold noble path and insisting on seeking a cessation is also making. 「以是二事，凡夫人起諸行業若善、若不善。」 tr. "Because of these two matters, ordinary persons raise up the deeds of conduct, whether wholesome or unwholesome." On the extreme of existence they make the wholesome, on the extreme of non-existence they make the unwholesome; neither goes beyond the one character 「作」 tr. "making". Then he speaks of how the bodhisattva differs: 「是菩薩知諸法實相，所謂不生不滅，是故不作三種業，不起業相應諸法，……」 tr. "This bodhisattva knows the real mark of all dharmas, which is neither arising nor ceasing, and therefore he does not make the three kinds of deeds and does not raise up the dharmas associated with deeds; …" At the end he fixes their names by the two gates of liberation: 「是名『無作解脫門』。不生不滅，是『無相解脫門』。」 tr. "This is named ‘the gate of liberation of non-action’. Neither arising nor ceasing is ‘the gate of liberation of the signless’." Not raising up and not making belongs to the gate of non-action; neither arising nor ceasing belongs to the gate of the signless—within a single sentence of the sūtra, both gates are present.

73. Question and answer—by what skilful means is one able not to make and not to raise up. The treatise-author records 「復問世尊：『何等方便故，能不作不起諸行業？』」 tr. "Again he asks the World-Honored One: ‘By what skilful means is one able not to make and not to raise up the deeds of conduct?’"—what is asked about is the skilful means for setting one's hand to it. The Buddha answers with the emptiness of specific marks, and states clearly that its function is twofold: 「菩薩爾時能作二事：一、能不作不起諸行業，二、能於一切法中行自相空。」 tr. "The bodhisattva at that time is able to do two things: first, he is able not to make and not to raise up the deeds of conduct; second, he is able to practise the emptiness of specific marks within all dharmas." The one matter of contemplating the emptiness of specific marks is both the skilful means for stopping deeds and the right practice of practising prajñā; one dharma with two uses.

74. Question and answer—if there is the emptiness of specific marks, how does one practise. The treatise-author records 「復問世尊：『若色等法自相空，云何菩薩應般若波羅蜜中行？』」 tr. "Again he asks the World-Honored One: ‘If form and other dharmas are the emptiness of specific marks, how should the bodhisattva practise within prajñāpāramitā?’" The Buddha answers: 「不行是名菩薩般若中行。」 tr. "Not practising—this is named the bodhisattva practising within prajñā." The wording of the answer the treatise-author records here differs slightly from the sūtra's 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā", but the meaning is one—in his writing the treatise-author often takes the meaning and abbreviates the words, and there is no need to suspect a separate recension.

75. He points to the causes and conditions stated—because dharmas are empty, prajñā is unfindable; because beings are empty, the one who practises is unfindable. The treatise-author points to the causes and conditions the sūtra carries with it: 「般若波羅蜜體不可得，行者、行法、行處不可得。」 tr. "The substance of prajñāpāramitā is unfindable; the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are unfindable." And then he assigns them to the two emptinesses: 「法空故，般若波羅蜜不可得，行處亦不可得；眾生空故，行者不可得。」 tr. "Because dharmas are empty, prajñāpāramitā is unfindable and the place of practice too is unfindable; because beings are empty, the one who practises is unfindable." The person who practises belongs to the emptiness of beings; the dharma practised and the place of practice belong to the emptiness of dharmas—each of the two emptinesses has its own charge, with no confusion between them. At the end he concludes: 「一切戲論不可得故，菩薩不行，名為般若波羅蜜行。」 tr. "Because all idle discourse is unfindable, the bodhisattva's not practising is named the practice of prajñāpāramitā."

76. Question—how should the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind practise. The treatise-author records Subhūti's question: 「若不行是般若行者，初發心菩薩云何應行般若？」 tr. "If not practising is the practice of prajñā, how should the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind practise prajñā?" Since not practising is taken as practising, the person of the first arousing of the mind has nowhere to set his hand; of all questions this one comes closest to the beginner.

77. Subhūti's intent—both ends are difficult, and so he asks. The treatise-author speaks out for Subhūti the dilemma within the question: 「若『不行為行』者，初發心菩薩心則迷悶；若『以行為行』者，是則顛倒，是故問。」 tr. "If ‘not practising is practising’, the mind of the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind becomes bewildered; if ‘practising is taken as practising’, this is inversion; and so he asks." If it is not practising, the beginner's mind has nowhere to set its hand; if there is practising, it falls into inversion—neither end will do, and so he asks. This passage is the treatise-author's own contribution: it turns a question that looks ordinary back into a real predicament.

78. The Buddha answers—training in the dharma with nothing to be attained is precisely non-practising. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answer: 「初發心菩薩應學無所得法。」 tr. "The bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind should train in the dharma with nothing to be attained." And at once he lays bare the sameness of the two: 「無所得法即是無行。」 tr. "The dharma with nothing to be attained is precisely non-practising."—it is not a different dharma from the earlier 「不行是行」 tr. "not practising is practising". Then he explains the word 「學」 tr. "train", and here is where the whole passage puts forth its effort: 「學名以方便力漸漸行，……」 tr. "Training is named practising little by little by the power of skilful means; …" There is sequence, there are skilful means, it can be done little by little—this is where the person of the beginner's mind sets his hand. He then makes it concrete with giving as an example: 「所謂布施時，以無所得法故應布施。」 tr. "That is, when giving, one should give by the dharma with nothing to be attained." And he further states its grounds: 「諸法實相畢竟空，畢竟空中無有可得若有、若無；菩薩住如是智慧心中，應若多若少布施；……」 tr. "The real mark of all dharmas is ultimate emptiness, and within ultimate emptiness there is nothing that can be attained, whether existent or non-existent; the bodhisattva, abiding in such a mind of wisdom, should give, whether much or little; …" Much or little is no matter; only, in the mind there is no attaining. At the end he closes with the contemplation of the thing given, the giver, and the receiver as equal: 「布施物、與者、受者平等觀故，所謂皆不可得。乃至薩婆若亦如是。」 tr. "Because he contemplates the thing given, the one who gives, and the one who receives as equal—that is, all are unfindable. And so on up to sarvajñā, likewise."

79. Subhūti's thought—something to be attained is inversion, nothing to be attained is nirvāṇa. The treatise-author explains where the following question comes from: 「須菩提作是念：『有所得故則是世間顛倒，無所得故即是涅槃。』是故問佛：『云何有所得？云何無所得？』」 tr. "Subhūti has this thought: ‘Because of something to be attained there is worldly inversion; because of nothing to be attained there is nirvāṇa.’ So he asks the Buddha: ‘What is with something to be attained? What is with nothing to be attained?’"—this question is not a question about the meaning of words; it is that he has already judged the two to be the boundary between birth and death and nirvāṇa, and so he must ask exactly where that boundary lies.

80. The Buddha answers briefly—the mark of duality is with something to be attained; the eye and form are mutually dependent. The treatise-author records the Buddha's brief answer: 「二相是有所得；無二相是無所得。」 tr. "The mark of duality is with something to be attained; being without the mark of duality is with nothing to be attained." And he himself explains the mark of duality: 「二相者，眼一、色一，兩一和合名為二。」 tr. "The mark of duality: the eye is one, form is one, and the two ones coming together are named two." And then he points out how two comes to be two: 「以眼故知是色，以色故知是眼，眼、色是相待法。」 tr. "Because of the eye one knows that this is form; because of form one knows that this is the eye; the eye and form are mutually dependent dharmas." Two is not two things each standing on its own; it is formed by each depending on the other—this explanation lays the ground for the question and answer that follow.

81. Question and answer—there is still an eye when form is not seen; how is the eye not apart from form. The treatise-author raises a difficulty: 「若不見色時亦有眼，云何眼不離色？」 tr. "If there is also an eye when form is not seen, how can it be said that the eye is not apart from form?" When the eyes are closed the eye is still there, which shows that the eye exists without depending on form. The answer: 「以曾見色故名為眼，今雖不觀色，以本為名。」 tr. "Because it has seen form before, it is named the eye; now, though it does not contemplate form, it is named by its original function." The eye gets its name from its function of having once seen form; though it does not see at this moment, the name is still borrowed from that function. Then he widens it into a general rule: 「一切有為法皆屬因緣，因屬果，果屬緣，無有定自在者。」 tr. "All conditioned dharmas belong to causes and conditions: the cause belongs to the effect, the effect belongs to the conditions, and nothing is fixed and free." And he carries it to the last pair this chapter brings up: 「乃至意、法，菩薩、佛，亦如是。」 tr. "And so on up to the mind and dharmas, the bodhisattva and the Buddha—all are likewise." At the end he closes by setting the ordinary against the noble: 「凡夫無智，各各分別，作善、不善業；智者知是二法皆虛誑、屬因緣，不以是二為二。」 tr. "Ordinary persons have no wisdom; they each distinguish, and make wholesome and unwholesome deeds; the wise know that these two dharmas are both false and deceptive and belong to causes and conditions, and do not take these two as two."—not taking these two as two is precisely the mark of nothing to be attained.

82. The intent of Subhūti's two questions. The treatise-author explains the intent of the sūtra's 「從有所得中無所得？從無所得中無所得？」 tr. "Is it from within something to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained? Is it from within nothing to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained?": 「為緣諸法取相行道故，得是畢竟空無所得？為不作緣不取相不行道故，得是畢竟空無所得？」 tr. "Is it because one takes dharmas as object, grasps at marks, and practises the path that one obtains this ultimate emptiness with nothing to be attained? Or is it because one does not take an object, does not grasp at marks, and does not practise the path that one obtains this ultimate emptiness with nothing to be attained?"—so what this question asks about is the manner of practice: is one to grasp at marks and practise the path and thereafter obtain nothing to be attained, or simply not take objects, not grasp, not practise the path, and so obtain it? Both are roads that practitioners really do walk, and so this question is very concrete.

83. If nothing to be attained is obtained within something to be attained, one practises inversion and seeks the real. The treatise-author refutes the first road: 「若有所得中無所得者，有所得即是顛倒，行顛倒云何得實？」 tr. "If one obtains nothing to be attained within something to be attained—something to be attained is inversion; practising inversion, how can one obtain the real?" Grasping at marks and practising the path is inversion; with inversion as the cause, one cannot obtain the real as the fruit.

84. If nothing to be attained is obtained within nothing to be attained, then what is without anything existent gives rise to what is without anything existent. He refutes the second road: 「若無所得中得無所得者，無所得即是無所有，無所有云何能生無所有？」 tr. "If one obtains nothing to be attained within nothing to be attained—nothing to be attained is being without anything existent; how can what is without anything existent give rise to what is without anything existent?" Not taking objects, not grasping, not practising the path is being without anything existent; what is without anything existent cannot be the cause that gives birth. At the end he concludes: 「佛以二俱過故皆不聽。」 tr. "Because both have faults, the Buddha assents to neither." What the sūtra's twofold refusal blocks is precisely these two roads.

85. Equality is ultimate emptiness—by nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well. The treatise-author gives the right road: 「有所得、無所得二事皆能平等觀。平等即是畢竟空、無所得。」 tr. "Something to be attained and nothing to be attained—both matters can be contemplated as equal. Equality is ultimate emptiness, nothing to be attained." And then he speaks of the use of nothing to be attained and where it comes to rest: 「因無所得破有所得，事既辦亦捨無所得。」 tr. "By nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well." Nothing to be attained is the medicine for breaking something to be attained; when the sickness is gone, the medicine too is given up—this sentence is the most important move in the whole chapter; if it is not given up, nothing to be attained itself becomes a new something to be attained. At the end he closes with the sūtra's teaching: 「如是菩薩於有所得、無所得平等般若中應學。」 tr. "Thus the bodhisattva should train within the prajñā of the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained."

86. This is named one who truly has nothing to be attained. The treatise-author records the closing sentence: 「若菩薩能如是學，是名真無所得者，無有過失。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva is able to train thus, this is named one who truly has nothing to be attained, who is without fault." The one character 「真」 tr. "truly" is said precisely against that false nothing-to-be-attained which has not given up nothing to be attained.

87. Going from one ground to another ground: the meaning is likewise. On the sūtra's question of 「從一地至一地」 tr. "going from one ground to another ground" the treatise-author gives no separate explanation, but says only: 「義亦如是。」 tr. "The meaning is likewise."—the principle is the same as above and is not brought out again. The advance through the stages of practice and the training in nothing to be attained are from the first two sides of one matter.

88. Subhūti's question on the three unfindables. The treatise-author records the sūtra's long question in summary: 「世尊！若般若不可得、菩提不可得、菩薩不可得，云何菩薩學般若，分別諸法相——所謂惱相是色，苦樂相是受等？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If prajñā is unfindable, awakening is unfindable, and the bodhisattva is unfindable, how does the bodhisattva train in prajñā and distinguish the marks of dharmas—that is, the mark of vexation is form, the mark of suffering and pleasure is feeling, and so on?" Here the treatise-author has himself added an explanation of names that the sūtra does not have—taking vexation as the mark of form and suffering and pleasure as the mark of feeling, drawing on this treatise's own long-standing explanation to make clear what 「分別諸法相」 tr. "distinguish the marks of dharmas" refers to. He goes on to the question from the side of the work: 「若菩薩行般若波羅蜜，色等法不可得，云何能具足檀波羅蜜等諸善法？云何能入菩薩位中？」 tr. "If, when the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, form and other dharmas are unfindable, how can he fulfil dānapāramitā and the other wholesome dharmas? How can he enter the bodhisattva's position?" And with the five Chinese characters 「如經中廣說」 tr. "as the sūtra says at length" he passes over the rest—the sūtra is very long here, and the treatise-author states plainly that he does not record it again.

89. The Buddha answers—one does not practise prajñā because of obtaining the marks of dharmas. The treatise-author records the Buddha's answer: 「菩薩不以得色等諸法相故行般若。」 tr. "The bodhisattva does not practise prajñā because of obtaining the marks of form and other dharmas." It is not that he does not practise; it is that he does not take ‘obtaining marks’ as what practice rests on.

90. He asks again—for the sake of what matter does one practise prajñā. The treatise-author records 「復問：『為何等事故行般若？』」 tr. "Again he asks: ‘For the sake of what matter does he practise prajñā?’"—the previous question asked about the dharma practised; this question asks about the matter it is done for. Since everything is unfindable, where does the motive of practice lie? This is the last question of this unit.

91. The Buddha answers—one practises because there is nothing to be attained, practising within the prajñā of non-action. The treatise-author records the Buddha's final answer: 「以無所得故行般若。」 tr. "He practises prajñā because there is nothing to be attained." And he records the reason the Buddha himself asks and gives: 「一切法空、無相、無作、無起，般若波羅蜜、菩薩、菩提亦無相、無作、無起。」 tr. "All dharmas are emptiness, signless, non-action, and non-rising; prajñāpāramitā, the bodhisattva, and awakening are also signless, non-action, and non-rising." And then he gives the right cause and excludes what is not: 「菩薩為一切法實相故行般若，非以顛倒故。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñā for the sake of the real mark of all dharmas, not because of inversion." What practice is done for is the real mark; it is not in order to obtain something, nor does it come from inversion. At the end he records the closing sentence: 「須菩提！菩薩應如是無作般若中行無作、無起故。」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva should practise thus within the prajñā of non-action, because of non-action and non-rising." The whole unit begins its questioning from 「云何行」 tr. "how does one practise" and stops at 「無作般若中行無作」 tr. "practising non-action within the prajñā of non-action"—the dharma practised is non-action, and the practising that practises it is also non-action; here question and answer become one matter.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā" as meaning there is no need to practise. The sūtra immediately states its own causes and conditions: 「般若波羅蜜不可得故，菩薩不可得，行亦不可得，行者、行法、行處亦不可得故」 tr. "because prajñāpāramitā is unfindable, the bodhisattva is unfindable, practice too is unfindable, and the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are also unfindable"—what is unfindable is the practising mark and the division of agent and object, not the doing of practice itself. The evidence is in the next question: as soon as Subhūti hears 「不行」 tr. "not practising" he is concerned for the beginner, and the Buddha's reply is not ‘so indeed there is no need to practise’, but 「應學空無所得法」 tr. "should train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained", listing item by item giving, upholding the precepts, patience, vigour, meditative concentration, and cultivating wisdom. The treatise-author further explains the word 「學」 tr. "train" as 「以方便力漸漸行」 tr. "practising little by little by the power of skilful means". The six perfections as before, the sequence as before, little by little as before—if 「不行」 tr. "not practising" means there is no need to practise, this whole passage has nowhere to stand.

Do not read 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move" as entering absorption and not raising the mind. This sentence is debated in four rounds in this unit, and the treatise-author's very first answer is: 「是事阿毘曇中說，非大乘中義。」 tr. "This matter is what is said in the Abhidharma; it is not the meaning within the Great Vehicle." The mind's not moving in the absorption without perception, the absorption of cessation, and nirvāṇa without remainder is a definition within another system of Dharma-gates. The mind's not moving here, according to the treatise-author's final explanation, has its reason in 「般若波羅蜜真故」 tr. "because prajñāpāramitā is true"—it is that a false and deceptive mind has no use upon the true and real dharma, not that the mind is pressed down and held. So the same passage of the sūtra says both 「常不捨薩婆若心，不令餘念得入」 tr. "never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, not letting any other thought get in" and 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move", and the two sentences do not clash: the former speaks of the continuing mind, the latter of the mind that grasps at marks.

Do not read 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" as a state to be held on to. This unit guards against this misreading at two points. The first is in the sūtra: asked 「從有所得中無所得？從無所得中無所得？」 tr. "Is it from within something to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained? Is it from within nothing to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained?", the Buddha blocks both ends and says only 「有所得、無所得平等，是名無所得」 tr. "the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained—this is named nothing to be attained"—if nothing to be attained can be obtained from somewhere, it once again becomes a thing. The second is in the treatise-author: 「因無所得破有所得，事既辦亦捨無所得。」 tr. "By nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well." Medicine is set out for sickness; if the sickness goes and the medicine stays, that is a new sickness. The sūtra says 「是名真無所得者」 tr. "this is named one who truly has nothing to be attained" expressly because there is a false nothing to be attained—the kind that clasps nothing to be attained and will not let it go.

Do not read the four times the character 「不」 tr. "No" is said as the Buddha refusing to answer. The treatise-author's explanation is very clear: the first alternative fails because cultivating 「皆應是心、心數法力」 tr. "must all be by the power of mind and mental-factor dharmas"; the third fails because 「二俱有過」 tr. "both have faults"; and the fourth fails with the sickness not in the alternative but in the person—「須菩提以取相著心問，故佛言『不』」 tr. "because Subhūti asks with a mind that grasps at marks and clings, the Buddha says ‘No’". At the end he further leaves a living word: 「若以不取相心說『非修非不修』，則無有過。」 tr. "If one speaks of ‘neither cultivating nor not cultivating’ with a mind that does not grasp at marks, there is no fault." The same sentence has a fault when spoken grasping at marks, and no fault when spoken without grasping at marks. In the denial of the four alternatives, what is denied is the posture of the question, not the line between what can be spoken and what cannot.

Do not read 「應觀自相空，自相空相空」 tr. "one should contemplate the emptiness of specific marks: the mark of the emptiness of specific marks is empty" as a repetitive phrase. The first 「自相空」 tr. "emptiness of specific marks" is the dharma contemplated; the second clause places even this dharma that contemplates within what is contemplated. If this sentence is left out, the emptiness of specific marks becomes the last stronghold remaining after all dharmas are empty; with this sentence, the long list the sūtra sets out—the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—truly leaves not one item out. In the same way, the sentence 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、佛為二」 tr. "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the Buddha are a duality" must not be lightly passed over either: this pair of what is realised and the one who realises is, within the count of duality, the pair least easily noticed by oneself.

Do not read the order of ‘suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas’ as a displaced slip in the text. The treatise-author sets up this question himself and answers it himself: 「今欲以我性、眾生性說畢竟空故，轉次在後。」 tr. "Now it is because he wishes to speak of ultimate emptiness by means of the nature of self and the nature of beings, and so it is moved to come after." The change of order is so that the nature of dharmas immediately adjoins the nature of self and the nature of beings. There is also a further explanation in terms of the stages of the path—on the path of training one contemplates suchness; on the path beyond training, realising with a concentrated mind and penetrating the general marks and specific marks is named the nature of dharmas. The two explanations stand together, each with its grounds; in reading, one should know that the order here is intended, not a loss in transmission and copying.

Do not read Subhūti's 「疑」 tr. "doubt" as falling back. The treatise-author finds a place for it at two points: in one he says 「是如無一定相，是故不得不問」 tr. "this suchness has no single fixed mark, and so he cannot but ask", with the simile of entering the water deep or shallow—「不得言入淺者不入水」 tr. "one cannot say that the one who enters shallow has not entered the water"; in the other he says 「法性有聲聞分、有大乘分；須菩提於聲聞分中不疑，大乘分中有疑故問」 tr. "the nature of dharmas has a śrāvaka share and has a Great Vehicle share; Subhūti has no doubt within the śrāvaka share, and because he has doubt within the Great Vehicle share, he asks". Understanding in some places and not in others is the ordinary state upon a dharma without a fixed mark. If it is read as Subhūti falling back here, the whole thread of this chapter's level-by-level pursuit turns into a record of faults.

Do not take the 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" recorded by the treatise-author as the treatise-author's own position. This unit records differing explanations at two places: one matches the three wisdoms of practising, giving rise, and cultivating to the ground of dry wisdom, the acceptance of non-arising, and perfuming and cultivating by dhyānapāramitā; the other holds that space, being a permanent dharma and uncontrived, cannot give rise. At both places the treatise-author records without refuting, and then brings out his own meaning—the former he sets against a separate explanation of the three wisdoms as breaking the five aggregates, which is precisely the quiescence of nirvāṇa, space without arising, and contemplating meditative concentration as breaking up; the latter he sets off with 「摩訶衍中，虛空名無法」 tr. "in the Mahāyāna, space names a non-existent dharma". Recording without judging is keeping one account; if what is recorded is taken as the treatise-author's own position, the separate explanation that follows becomes self-contradiction.

Bearing on Practice

Treat the three questions as three checkpoints, not as three stages. The sūtra's answers do not match practising, giving rise, and cultivating to three positions one after another—in the same passage it says 「從初發意乃至坐道場，應行、應生、應修」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise, should give rise to, should cultivate"; the three matters are three sides running side by side on one and the same road. So in daily practice one can ask oneself in this way: is the dharma I am contemplating right now being contemplated as it is—quiescent, empty, false and deceptive, not firm and real (practising)? This bit of insight of mine—was it piled up out of thoughts, or does it, like space, arise from nowhere (giving rise)? The concentrations and states I have cultivated—am I willing to let them be turned back upon and broken through by the light of prajñā (cultivating)? Each of the three questions has its own sickness; there is no need to force them into a sequence.

Fix the place of daily life by 「從寂滅出，住六情中，還念寂滅相」 tr. "coming out from quiescence and abiding among the six faculties, he turns back and keeps the mark of quiescence in mind". In the treatise-author's explanation of practising prajñā, the most important turn is here: it is not that entering quiescence is the end of it; it is that after coming out one still abides among the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and turns back to keep the mark of quiescence in mind. The seam between formal practice and daily life lies on this sentence—to judge whether practice has truly borne fruit, look not at how things are on the seat, but at whether, after getting down from the seat, one still recognises that mark at the gates of the six faculties.

Check how dearly you hold your own attainments in practice by 「捨一切法，不著相」 tr. "gives up all dharmas and does not cling to marks". The treatise-author's explanation of cultivating prajñā speaks of 「觀禪定及禪定緣皆破壞」 tr. "contemplating meditative concentration and the objects of meditative concentration as all breaking up"—even the concentration one has cultivated with such difficulty is among what is contemplated. Whatever in practice one is especially reluctant to give up—a certain quiet, a certain clarity, a certain accord—according to this passage, that is exactly the next object to be broken through by the light of prajñā. Cultivating is not guarding it ever more firmly; it is daring to let it break.

Settle thoughts with 「念少則不能為害」 tr. "if the thoughts are few, they cannot do harm". In answering the difficulty of sixty thoughts in a snap of the fingers, the treatise-author did not demand that not a single thought arise; he said only 「不令貪、恚等心相續得入」 tr. "one does not let minds of greed, hatred, and the like get in and continue", and himself gave the reason: 「貪、恚等心久住則能障般若波羅蜜，念少則不能為害。」 tr. "If minds of greed, hatred, and the like abide long, they can obstruct prajñāpāramitā; if the thoughts are few, they cannot do harm." This gives an extremely lenient yet exact measure: the arising of a thought is not failure; letting it continue and settle in is. When one notices distracting thoughts during practice, what should be done is to cut off their continuation, not to fret that they once arose. The treatise-author also marks that this is 「為新發意菩薩故說」 tr. "spoken for the sake of a bodhisattva who has newly aroused the mind"—for the beginner, this rule is just right.

Test whether constantly keeping in mind is true or false by 「縱使死急事至，不忘薩婆若」 tr. "even if the urgent matter of death arrives, one does not forget sarvajñā". The treatise-author's explanation of constantly keeping in mind takes as its measure not the number of hours but the extreme case—whether it is still there when life itself is at stake. In ordinary days one can test oneself with situations a size smaller: the instant of being affronted, the moment of utter exhaustion, the blow when things suddenly go wrong—where does the mind go first? Whether one constantly keeps it in mind shows there, not on the timetable of practice.

Apply the medicine where there is something to be attained; where the medicine is used up, give up the medicine too. The sequence the treatise-author gives is very clear: 「因無所得破有所得，事既辦亦捨無所得。」 tr. "By nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well." The two sicknesses practitioners commonly fall into lie exactly at the two ends of this sentence: one is refusing to take the medicine—wanting everything to have a footing, a progress, a state that can be spoken of; the other is becoming addicted to the medicine—saying 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" about everything, making it a catchphrase and a new self-image. For the first sickness, examine oneself by 「諸有二者，是有所得」 tr. "whatever has duality is with something to be attained"; for the second, by 「是名真無所得者」 tr. "this is named one who truly has nothing to be attained".

Make every action real through the contemplation of the thing given, the giver, and the receiver as equal. In explaining how the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind trains, the treatise-author takes giving as the example and speaks in a way that can be carried out: 「應若多若少布施」 tr. "should give, whether much or little"—much or little is no matter; 「布施物、與者、受者平等觀故，所謂皆不可得」 tr. "because he contemplates the thing given, the one who gives, and the one who receives as equal—that is, all are unfindable"—the thing given, the one who gives, and the one who receives: in none of the three places is anything set up. And he says 「乃至薩婆若亦如是」 tr. "and so on up to sarvajñā, likewise". So this method is not limited to giving: for any matter done for others, if after it is done the mind still keeps the three parts of ‘I did such-and-such for so-and-so’, that is something to be attained; put all three parts down together, and the matter is done just the same, leaving no trace upon the mind.

Turn the oppositions of daily life with 「不以是二為二」 tr. "do not take these two as two". The treatise-author's explanation of the mutual dependence of the eye and form ends in one sentence: 「凡夫無智，各各分別，作善、不善業；智者知是二法皆虛誑、屬因緣，不以是二為二。」 tr. "Ordinary persons have no wisdom; they each distinguish, and make wholesome and unwholesome deeds; the wise know that these two dharmas are both false and deceptive and belong to causes and conditions, and do not take these two as two." Every unsettling opposition in daily life—self and other, gain and loss, the favourable and the adverse—can be held up to this sentence: do these two ends each really exist on their own, or do they stand by depending on each other? Once dharmas that depend on each other are seen through, the opposition loosens by half. What matters is that the treatise-author does not teach one to merge the two into one; he teaches only not to take them as two.

Do the work without setting up what it is for. The last question of this unit is the most usable: 「菩薩為何事故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "For the sake of what matter does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" The answer is 「無所為故」 tr. "because there is nothing it is done for". Not one item of the work is reduced—the sūtra itself lists fulfilling the six perfections, entering the position, pure lands, bringing beings to accomplishment, turning the wheel of the Dharma, delivering from birth and death; what is withdrawn is only the layer of mind that is ‘doing it for the sake of such-and-such’. Making vows, doing the work, giving one's all—all as before; only, whenever the thought arises in the mind ‘this is in order to gain something’, remember that the sūtra did not answer with some purpose, but with 「一切諸法無所為、無所作」 tr. "all dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make".

Further Resonances

This unit, one sūtra section and one treatise section, sets up the framework of the whole chapter. The sūtra starts from the three questions of practising, giving rise, and cultivating, passes through for how long, the mind in sequence, and mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving, and reaches the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating, none of which obtains sarvajñā; then, passing down four levels through suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas, and the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life, it lands on 「不可得」 tr. "unfindable"; then from the unspeakability of all dharmas it turns into neither increasing nor decreasing, neither arising nor ceasing, not raising up and not making, and contemplating the emptiness of specific marks, pressing out 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā"; and it closes with the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained, not abiding in something to be attained while going from one ground to another ground, and practising prajñā because there is nothing it is done for. The treatise-author explains the reasons passage by passage, and on the sentence 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move" goes back and forth four rounds with the Small Vehicle; on the order of suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of dharmas there are three rounds of question and answer; on the fault of the fourth alternative, one round of question and answer; and on the mutual dependence of the eye and form, one round of question and answer. The centre of gravity of the whole unit can be gathered into two sentences: not practising is practising—what it breaks is the division of agent and object; the matter done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well—what it breaks is the medicine turning itself into a sickness.

The chapter title stands on two sides, and the editions are not uniform. The base text titles it "The Three Wisdoms", and the full account of the variant readings of the editions, recorded together with the variant names of the chapter title, belongs to this chapter's apparatus and is not taken up here. Only one thing is useful for reading this unit: within the body of this chapter the two Chinese characters 「三慧」 tr. "three wisdoms" do not appear; these two Chinese characters are found only in the chapter title; what the sūtra and the treatise speak of is only the three matters of practising, giving rise, and cultivating.

Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra has a complete, chapter-level commentary on this chapter, and at its very beginning points out this matter: 「經及論無三慧名，直云行、生、修般若耳。」 tr. "The sūtra and the treatise have no name ‘three wisdoms’; they simply speak of practising, giving rise to, and cultivating prajñā." And he reconciles it: 「若以般若為慧，於義得也。」 tr. "If prajñā is taken as wisdom, in meaning it holds." He further distinguishes these three wisdoms from the three wisdoms of hearing, reflection, and cultivation, also taking the sūtra as grounds: 「三慧有二：聞、思、修三，此多就無階級、階級為論耳。行、生、修三慧，多就階級、無階級為論，故經云：從初發心至坐道場，應行、修也。」 tr. "The three wisdoms are of two kinds: hearing, reflection, and cultivation, these three, are mostly discussed in terms of being without stages and with stages. The three wisdoms of practising, giving rise, and cultivating are mostly discussed in terms of stages and being without stages; therefore the sūtra says: from the first arousing of the mind up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise and cultivate." Jizang also records the differing explanations of various masters on matching them to stages, one of which corresponds to the 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" recorded in this treatise: 「論云：有人言：乾慧地為行，得無生為得無生，以後用禪波羅蜜薰修為修慧也。」 tr. "The treatise says: someone says: the ground of dry wisdom is practising; obtaining non-arising is obtaining non-arising; afterwards, perfuming and cultivating by dhyānapāramitā is the wisdom of cultivation." His own division reads: 「品三：一、明三慧三慧；二、明三起；三、明般若。」 tr. "The chapter is threefold: first, making clear the three wisdoms, the three wisdoms; second, making clear the three arisings; third, making clear prajñā." And the first section is further divided into two rounds: 「一者、略明三慧；二、廣明三慧。」 tr. "First, making clear the three wisdoms in brief; second, making clear the three wisdoms at length." The brief one is again divided into three: 「一、明三慧體；二、明修三慧時節；三、明修三慧之方。」 tr. "First, making clear the substance of the three wisdoms; second, making clear the time for cultivating the three wisdoms; third, making clear the method of cultivating the three wisdoms." What this unit corresponds to is the three sections of his brief account and the first half of his extended account. On the Buddha's answer concerning the substance of the three wisdoms, Jizang explains: 「佛答三界，三答初行中四句。言初有兩句，明菩薩深悟五陰，即是涅槃寂滅。次兩句，既深悟五陰寂滅，即知諸有五陰是虗妄。」 tr. "The Buddha answers the three realms; of the three answers, within the first, practising, there are four phrases. Of these, the first two phrases make clear that the bodhisattva deeply awakens to the five aggregates as being precisely the quiescence of nirvāṇa. The next two phrases: having deeply awakened to the quiescence of the five aggregates, he then knows that all the five aggregates of existence are false." And he records a separate explanation: 「又解云：前兩句是第一義，後兩句是世俗二諦，故是行般若也。」 tr. "Another explanation says: the first two phrases are the highest meaning, the last two phrases are the worldly—the two truths; therefore this is practising prajñā." The two explanations stand side by side, recorded without judgement. On 「如虛空生」 tr. "arises like space", Jizang states plainly that he does not take the space of the outside paths and the enumerative treatises as the simile: 「數論及外道，虗空或是常，或是無常法，今不借此為喻。」 tr. "For the enumerative treatises and the outside paths, space is either permanent or an impermanent dharma; here this is not borrowed as the simile." On the section on time, Jizang explains the intent of the Buddha's answer: 「佛答初發意坐道場者，此是無始無終義，故說始終也。」 tr. "As for the Buddha's answer of the first arousing of intent and sitting at the seat of awakening: this is the meaning of being without beginning and without end, and therefore beginning and end are spoken of." And he sets up for himself the question 「何故言行般若」 tr. "why does it speak of practising prajñā" and answers it, and what he cites as grounds is this treatise's text explaining the "Skilful Means" chapter. On the passage 「心心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move", Jizang judges where the Small Vehicle's difficulty comes from: 「心心數法不行者，小乘人罵此言也。」 tr. "As for ‘mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move’: people of the Small Vehicle revile these words." And he records the treatise-author's answer: 「此小乘法作此說也。大乘法與小乘異，故明菩薩一切心心不行也。」 tr. "This is how the dharma of the Small Vehicle speaks. The dharma of the Great Vehicle differs from the Small Vehicle, and so it makes clear that for the bodhisattva all mind and mental factors do not move." And then he states his own view: 「今明心數不行，只菩薩行般若，心雖行實無所行。」 tr. "Now it makes clear that mental factors do not move: it is simply that when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, though the mind moves, in reality there is nothing it moves in." On the passage of the four alternatives, Jizang says: 「此破四句得義也。」 tr. "This breaks the meaning of obtaining by the four alternatives." And he states its general meaning: 「然此上明修慧，今修不修四句皆淺，則知行生亦然也。」 tr. "Yet this above made clear the wisdom of cultivation; now, since the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating are all shallow, one knows that practising and giving rise are likewise." On suchness and the limit of reality, Jizang sets up his own question and answer: 「問：須菩提應解實際，云何不解？答：乃解其實際，不解薩婆若如實際也。」 tr. "Question: Subhūti should understand the limit of reality; how is it that he does not understand? Answer: he does understand the limit of reality itself; what he does not understand is sarvajñā being like the limit of reality." On the nature of dharmas coming after, Jizang has a separate explanation, which stands alongside the explanation of this treatise: 「答：是法性例人性，故迴之在後也。」 tr. "Answer: this nature of dharmas is by analogy with the nature of persons, and so it is turned round to come after." And he extends it by the stages of the Small Vehicle path: 「彼云學道為如，無學道證實際，證實際竟後方通達無量法性，故法性在後也。」 tr. "They say that the path of training is suchness and the path beyond training realises the limit of reality; only after realising the limit of reality does one penetrate the immeasurable nature of dharmas; therefore the nature of dharmas comes after." On the passage 「我性可得不」 tr. "can the nature of self be found", Jizang records the answer: 「初果人尚不見我，況羅漢耶？」 tr. "Even a person of the first fruit does not see a self; how much less the arhat?"—of one measure with the treatise-author's sentence 「須陀洹尚不見我，何況阿羅漢」 tr. "even the srota-āpanna does not see a self, how much less the arhat". On the section of the wisdom of practising, Jizang opens it into five: 「初、明無所行是行般若；第二、無得行；第三、無為無作行；第四、不住行；第五、假名行。」 tr. "First, making clear that practising nothing is practising prajñā; second, the practice without attaining; third, the practice without doing-for and without making; fourth, the practice of not abiding; fifth, the practice of provisional names." On the passage of nothing to be attained, Jizang's explanation comes to the same destination as the treatise-author's 「事既辦亦捨無所得」 tr. "the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well", while its words are not borrowed from it: 「若見得無得二，還是有得，如前二法是有所得也。今若不見得無得，始是無所得也。」 tr. "If one sees attaining and non-attaining as two, that is still attaining, just as the two dharmas above are with something to be attained. Now, if one does not see attaining and non-attaining, only then is it nothing to be attained." And he sets up a question and answer that goes one layer further: 「今還問：為從平等得平等？為從不平等以得平等？答：若有此問，還同前答，汝見等不等二，終是不等也。」 tr. "Now it is asked again: is it from equality that one obtains equality? Or is it from inequality that one obtains equality? Answer: if there is this question, it is the same as the answer before: you see equal and unequal as two, and in the end this is unequal." At the end, with the sentence 「白佛：為何事故行般若下，第三、無為無作行般若也」 tr. "from ‘said to the Buddha: for the sake of what matter does one practise prajñā’ onward: third, practising prajñā without doing-for and without making", he turns to the last passage of this unit; what follows it enters the next unit of this chapter and is not within the scope of this unit.

Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises quotes this chapter directly in many places; six of them belong to this unit, all marked with a fixed citation form of the kind 「大品經三慧品云」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says". The first quotes this unit's sentence on the practising mark: 「三慧品亦云：若心心數法不行，故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ also says: if it is because mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, one therefore practises prajñāpāramitā." The second quotes the sentence on time: 「三慧品亦云：從初發心行彼若。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ also says: from the first arousing of the mind, practise biruo." The third quotes the sentence on the wisdom of giving rise: 「大品經三慧品云：虗空生故般若生等。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: because space arises, prajñā arises, and so on." The fourth quotes the sentence on duality and non-duality, the two places mirroring each other, one reading 「大品三慧品云：諸有二者，名為有所得；無有二者，名為無所得。何等為二？所謂眼、色為二。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger says: whatever has duality is named with something to be attained; what is without duality is named with nothing to be attained. What is duality? That is, the eye and form are a duality.", the other reading 「大品經三慧品云：諸有二者有所得，無有二者無所得也。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained." There is also one place that quotes it in the form of question and answer: 「大品經？三慧品自標：問：云何名為有所得、無所得？佛答云：諸有二者，名有所得；無有二者，名無所得。」 tr. "The Larger Sūtra? The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ marks for itself: Question: what is named with something to be attained and with nothing to be attained? The Buddha answers: whatever has duality is named with something to be attained; what is without duality is named with nothing to be attained." The wording of these quotations differs somewhat from the base text—such as the form 「彼若」 tr. "biruo", the character of 「虗空」 tr. "space", and the difference between 「故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "therefore one practises prajñāpāramitā" and the base text's 「為行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "this is practising prajñāpāramitā"—presumably quoted in brief to take the sense, not transcribed word for word; how the text his book relied on stands relative to the base text is not something this unit can settle, and it is recorded as it is, without judgement.

As for the distinctions of the three vehicles, what the five eyes do not see, conjured persons delivering beings, the simile of the Buddha Suśānta, and the marks of the three knowledges—omniscience, the knowledge of the kinds of paths, and the omniscience of all kinds—and the difference in cutting off the afflictions and their habitual residues: these unfold in the Middle and Last Parts of this chapter, and are not taken up here.