大智度論 三慧品之中Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Three Wisdoms, Part 2 of 3

The Three Wisdoms, Middle Part: Since There Is Nothing Done For and Nothing Made, Why the Three Vehicles Are Still Distinguished; Contemplating with the Five Eyes and Not Obtaining Form and So On up to Awakening, Why This Is Not the Buddha Ruining What He Himself Obtained; Why the Distinction of the Three Groups Is Speaking of Obtaining in Worldly Terms; Not Abiding in the Highest Meaning and Not Abiding in Inversion Either, Why This Does Not Amount to Not Obtaining; Why a Person Conjured by the Buddha Can Practise the Six Perfections and Turn the Wheel of the Dharma; Why the Buddha and a Conjured Person Are without Difference; Why the Merit of Making Offerings to a Conjured Buddha Equals That of Making Offerings to the Buddha; Why Calling Out Namo Buddha Once Brings Merit That Is Not Exhausted; Why Showing Dharmas by the Marks of Names Is Not Called Ruining the Dharma-Marks; If Conditioned Dharmas Are Only Names and Marks, Why One Must Still Undergo All the Toil and Suffering; Why the Three Knowledges Are Assigned to the Two Vehicles, the Bodhisattvas, and the Buddhas; Why One Who Fulfils All the Paths Should Not Realise the Limit of Reality; Why All Four Alternatives of the Places of Abiding Are Answered No; Since There Is No Difference in the Severance of the Afflictions, Why It Is Further Said That the Habitual Residues Are Severed or Not Severed; Since within the Highest Meaning There Is No Path of Speech, Why the Later Limit Is Still Spoken Of; Why the Six Glosses on the Name of Prajñāpāramitā Come in This Order; Why Benefit and Non-Benefit Are Both Given Up; Why Nothing to Be Attained Is Precisely Attaining

What Is Being Asked

The First Part opened the chapter by setting up the three questions of ‘practising prajñā, giving rise to prajñā, cultivating prajñā’. The Buddha answered the practising by form being quiescent, form being empty, form being false and deceptive, form not being firm and real; he answered the giving rise by arising like space; he answered the cultivating by cultivating the breaking up of dharmas; he went on to answer the time with 「從初發意乃至坐道場」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening", and the method with 「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 further, with the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating, none of which obtains sarvajñā, while 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness" is what is obtained, he turned the substance of the three wisdoms over from the graded gate of practice to the principle of nothing to be attained. The Middle Part comes on from this; what is asked is no longer ‘how does one practise’ but ‘since it is so, where do those distinctions come from’.

The ten-odd questions of the Middle Part of the chapter are really one road of questioning pressed straight down. The first question at the start is the most direct: since dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, on what ground can the three vehicles of the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the Buddha still be distinguished? The Buddha's answer is only one sentence—distinguishing is not within having nothing done for and nothing made; it is within having something done for and something made. This sentence sets up the criterion for the whole unit: whenever one sees a distinction, first ask on which side it stands. Subhūti at once turns this criterion back on the Buddha himself: the Buddha, contemplating with the five eyes, does not even obtain form, and so on up to does not obtain awakening—what then are the three groups of the rightly assured, the wrongly assured, and the unassured that the Buddha speaks of? The Buddha answers more thoroughly still—when I obtained awakening, from the very beginning I did not obtain the three groups of beings; that it is said there is obtaining is a worldly dharma, not the highest meaning. Subhūti then presses all three alternatives through once: is it obtained by abiding in the highest meaning? Is it obtained by abiding in inversion? If one abides in neither, is it then that it is not obtained? After three questions and three answers the Buddha no longer answers by negation, but brings out a simile instead: the person conjured by the Buddha.

The simile of the conjured person is the pivot of this unit. The conjured person does not abide in the mark of the conditioned and does not abide in the mark of the unconditioned, and yet comes and goes, also sits and also stands; he can practise the six perfections, and so on up to obtaining awakening and turning the wheel of the Dharma; he can conjure immeasurable beings, and they are in three groups—every function is plainly there, and yet asked whether he really exists, the answer is 「不也」 tr. "No". From this the Buddha makes plain what he himself practises: the Buddha knows that dharmas are like a conjuration, and just as a conjured person delivers beings, there are no real beings to be delivered. Subhūti follows this and asks again: since it is like a conjuration, what difference is there between the Buddha and a conjured person? The Buddha answers that there is no difference, because both alike can do something. This answer withdraws the two Chinese characters 「差別」 tr. "difference" from substance to function; and as to why the merit of making offerings to a conjured Buddha equals the merit of making offerings to the Buddha, the answer is still the same sentence—both are fields of merit by reason of the real mark of all dharmas. At the end the Buddha pushes the meaning of the field of merit to its extreme: leave aside this conjured Buddha—only keeping the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind, only scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, only calling out namo Buddha once, and up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted.

The latter half turns to names and marks and to the three knowledges. Since the real mark should not be ruined, why does the Buddha further distinguish and speak of form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, of inner and outer, wholesome and evil, with outflows and without outflows? The answer: by the marks of names he shows dharmas, wishing to make beings understand; the Buddha does not ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas. Subhūti presses one layer further: since all dharmas are nameless and signless, how can one show by names and marks? The Buddha answers that following worldly dharmas there are names and marks and yet there is really no place of clinging, and brings out a counter-proof—if name clung to name and mark clung to mark, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, the signless too should cling to the signless, and so on up to the unconditioned nature should cling to the unconditioned nature. With this meaning established, Subhūti asks the question of the whole unit that touches the person most closely: if all conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind and undergo all kinds of toil and suffering? The Buddha's answer does not evade it; first he restates the question exactly as it was, then resolves it with the one sentence 「是名相、名相相空」 tr. "these names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty"—names and marks are empty, and therefore practising the path is not in vain. Names and marks settled, the three knowledges are then divided: sarvajñā belongs to the two vehicles, the knowledge of the kinds of paths belongs to the bodhisattvas, the omniscience of all kinds belongs to the buddhas; the bodhisattva should know the paths of the three vehicles fully, should use these paths to deliver beings, and yet does not make the realisation of the limit of reality. As to why he does not realise it, the Buddha does not answer by principle but instead asks in return by way of Subhūti's own exhaustion of the outflows—did you, abiding within the path, obtain liberation? Abiding in what is not the path? Abiding in both the path and what is not the path? Abiding in neither the path nor what is not the path?—until Subhūti himself says 「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation", and only then does the Buddha say: the bodhisattva too is like this.

The last three sections gather up the whole unit. First, the discernment of the severance of the fetters: in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference, and yet the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all severed while those of the two vehicles are not all severed; within the unconditioned dharma difference is unfindable, and yet the habitual residue is not an affliction, and so saying that the habitual residues are severed or not severed does not go against the unconditioned's being without difference. Second, the discernment of stages: the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha are all distinguished by the unconditioned dharma, and yet this distinguishing is worldly speech; within the highest meaning there is no path of speech; within the emptiness of specific marks even the prior limit is unfindable, how much less the later limit. Third, the discernment of the name: why prajñāpāramitā is named prajñāpāramitā—the Buddha gives six glosses in a row, from the foremost crossing, the four kinds of persons obtaining the crossing, breaking up all dharmas down to atoms, suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality all entering it, no joining and no dispersing and its one mark being the signless, on to being able to give rise to all dharmas while enemies cannot sever or ruin it; and he further teaches that for the meaning of deep prajñā one should practise the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self, and the meaning of the eleven knowledges. And as soon as this character 「義」 tr. "meaning, benefit" comes out, Subhūti at once makes it a difficulty: within deep prajñā benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable; how can one practise for the sake of benefit? The Buddha gives up both—the mark of suchness of the three poisons has no benefit and no non-benefit; form and so on up to awakening are neither benefit nor non-benefit; though the worthies and sages all take the unconditioned as their benefit, they take it neither as increase nor as decrease, as the suchness of space can neither benefit nor harm beings. The last question: unconditioned prajñā is not by two dharmas and not by a non-dual dharma—how shall one obtain the omniscience of all kinds? The answer: 「無所得即是得，以是得無所得」 tr. "Nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained"—only here is the obtaining of 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness", set up when the First Part opened the chapter, at last said in full.

Passage by Passage

1. Dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make—why one should not distinguish that there are three vehicles. Subhūti takes up what the First Part made clear and raises a difficulty: since dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, the distinction of the śrāvaka vehicle, the pratyekabuddha vehicle, and the Buddha vehicle should not stand. This question does not doubt what the Buddha says; it takes the meaning the Buddha has just set up to measure the teaching the Buddha has set up—since the First Part has said that none of the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating obtains sarvajñā, and that what obtains is only like the mark of suchness, then the names of all grades lose their footing. Here the reader must first see one thing clearly: the difficulty Subhūti raises is set up along with the Dharma, not against the Dharma; whenever Subhūti raises a difficulty in the sūtra, for the most part he pushes the meaning of what came before to its very end and lets the Buddha gather it in himself.

2. Within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing; the ordinary person clings to the five aggregates of clinging and thinks of having and thinks of obtaining; the Buddha, contemplating with the five eyes, does not even obtain form and so on up to awakening. The Buddha's answer is in three layers. The first layer seals the question and sets up the criterion: 「諸法無所為、無所作，無有分別；有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "Dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, and there is no distinguishing; within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing"—distinguishing is not on the side of the unconditioned but on the side of the conditioned; the names of the three vehicles belong to the side of the conditioned, and so their standing does not hinder the unconditioned side's being without distinction. The second layer brings out why it is so: the ordinary, foolish person who has not heard the noble Dharma clings to the five aggregates of clinging, clings to dānapāramitā, and so on up to clings to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; what is the mark of this clinging? 「是人念有是色、得是色」 tr. "This person thinks that there is this form and that he obtains this form"—it is twofold: one fold is thinking that it exists, the other fold is thinking that he obtains it. Even the bodhisattva who has aroused the mind does not escape it, and so the sūtra text goes on to say 「是菩薩作是念」 tr. "This bodhisattva has this thought", wishing to obtain awakening and wishing to deliver beings from birth and death. The third layer takes the Buddha himself as proof: I contemplate with the five eyes and do not even obtain form, and so on up to do not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The five eyes are the most ultimate seeing the Buddha possesses; the most ultimate seeing does not even see a dharma that is obtained, while those who have not obtained claim on the contrary that there is a dharma to be obtained—and so the sūtra text uses the heaviest verdict of the whole unit: this is a mad and foolish person, without eyes. The teaching crux of this passage lies in the four Chinese characters 「念有」 tr. "thinking of having" and 「念得」 tr. "thinking of obtaining": every sickness of clinging to dharmas, stripped to the bottom, is only these two thoughts.

3. If the five eyes do not see any who can be delivered, why then does he obtain awakening and also distinguish three groups. Subhūti follows up very closely: since the Buddha has said that contemplating with the five eyes he does not see among beings in birth and death any who can be delivered, then, first, how now does the World-Honored One obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; second, how does he further distinguish that beings are in the three groups of the rightly assured, the wrongly assured, and the unassured? This question turns the meaning of the passage above back round to ask about the Buddha himself. Note that the three groups Subhūti brings up are not a heading of his own making; they are a teaching the Buddha set up elsewhere; to use the Buddha's teaching to press the Buddha's meaning is precisely the constant way of the questions and answers of this unit.

4. When I obtained awakening, from the very beginning I did not obtain the three groups; in order to remove false clinging, by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is obtaining, and it is not the highest meaning. The Buddha's answer has an extremely important word of time—「初不得」 tr. "from the very beginning did not obtain". It is not that having obtained he then says he does not obtain; from the very start he does not obtain. Next he answers why the three groups are set up: 「以眾生無法有法想，我以除其妄著，世俗法故說有得，非第一義」 tr. "Because beings give rise to the perception of an existent dharma with regard to a non-existent dharma, in order to remove their false clinging I say, by way of worldly dharmas, that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning". Here is set up the two-layer saying used again and again through the whole unit: beings give rise to the perception of an existent dharma with regard to a non-existent dharma; the Buddha follows their perception and says there is obtaining in order to remove their clinging; and this saying belongs to the worldly, not to the highest meaning. The reader should remember this structure—the Buddha speaks of existence in order to remove existence; it is not that the Buddha himself sees existence.

5. Is it not by abiding in the highest meaning that awakening is obtained? Having got this answer, Subhūti asks further: then is it by abiding within the highest meaning that awakening is obtained? The Buddha answers 「不也」 tr. "No". This question seems a matter of course—since it is not the worldly, it should belong to the highest meaning; and yet the Buddha does not allow it. Why does he not allow it? Within the highest meaning there is no one who obtains and no dharma that is obtained; to say ‘obtaining by abiding in the highest meaning’ is still to set up a place of abiding and to set up something obtained. What the single answer 「不也」 tr. "No" breaks is this character 「住」 tr. "abide".

6. Is awakening obtained by abiding in inversion? Subhūti turns over to the other side: then is it obtained by abiding within inversion? The Buddha still answers 「不也」 tr. "No". This question is to make the Buddha seal off both sides. Inversion is false, and within the false there is nothing to be attained—this goes without saying; the reason Subhūti still asks it aloud is to let the next question stand.

7. Abiding in neither, is it then that the World-Honored One does not obtain awakening? Both roads sealed, Subhūti then brings out his real intent: if it is not obtained by abiding in the highest meaning, and not obtained by abiding in inversion either, then is it that the World-Honored One has not obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? This question is the first question of this unit that presses right to the bottom. Whenever in reading the sūtra one reaches a sentence of this 「將無」 tr. "is it then that …?" kind, one should know that the questioner is not doubting; he is setting out the full force of the dilemma, so that the answerer cannot but change to another way of speaking—and the Buddha's next answer does indeed change its way of speaking.

8. The Buddha really obtains awakening, and yet abides nowhere, whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned. The Buddha answers 「不也」 tr. "No", and at once speaks directly: 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere—whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned". This answer is not within the two sides, nor is it outside the two sides—it does not say abiding in the highest meaning, does not say abiding in inversion, but says abiding nowhere. The mark of the conditioned faces the side of inversion; the mark of the unconditioned faces the side of the highest meaning; he abides in neither mark, and yet the obtaining is really obtaining. 「實得」 tr. "really obtained" and 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere" set side by side in one sentence is the kernel of the doctrine of this unit; the simile of the conjured person below and, at the end, 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining" are all the unfolding of this one sentence.

9. The simile of the person conjured by the Buddha—not abiding in the two marks and yet coming and going, sitting and standing; practising the six perfections and so on up to turning the wheel of the Dharma; conjuring beings who are in three groups. The Buddha does not stop at the verdict but at once brings out a simile. A conjured person is a person conjured by the Buddha's supernormal power. His marks are two: first, he does not abide in the mark of the conditioned and does not abide in the mark of the unconditioned; second, 「亦有來有去、亦坐亦立」 tr. "he too comes and goes, also sits and also stands"—not abiding, and yet having function. Next is listed at length what he practises: the six perfections of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and prajñā; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, and the five supernormal powers; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; the three samādhi of emptiness, the signless, and non-action; inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions; the ten powers of the Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, great kindness and great compassion; obtaining awakening, turning the wheel of the Dharma, and so on up to conjuring immeasurable beings who are in three groups. This list is not a display; it sets up ‘the fullness of function’ as equal to the Buddha's, so that only then can one ask whether it really exists. All the headings listed are general headings of this treatise: the six perfections are the six kinds of practice of reaching the further shore that the bodhisattva practises; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless are the concentrations of the form realm and the formless realm; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path are the backbone of the thirty-seven limbs of the path; the three samādhi are the three gates of contemplating emptiness, contemplating the signless, and contemplating that there is nothing made and nothing wished for; inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas is the general gathering of all the emptinesses; the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions are the sequence of cultivating concentration; the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to great kindness and great compassion are the merits of the Buddha. At the end he asks in return: 「是化人有行檀波羅蜜，乃至有三聚眾生不？」 tr. "Does this conjured person have any practising of dānapāramitā, and so on up to any beings in three groups?"

10. Subhūti answers No. An answer of two Chinese characters, and the whole simile stands. What the conjured person practises is plainly there, and yet really nothing is practised; the beings he conjures are plainly there, and yet really there are no beings—this is the ready-made specimen of the 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere" of the passage above. Here the reader should see clearly the momentum of question and answer: the Buddha first lists function to the very fullest, then asks whether it really exists, and the answerer cannot but say it does not; the fullness of function and the non-existence of substance stand at the same time, and this is precisely where ‘really obtaining and yet abiding nowhere’ can be understood.

11. The Buddha too is like this, knowing that dharmas are like a conjuration; the bodhisattva practises prajñā as a person conjured by the Buddha practises. The Buddha gathers the simile into two sentences: first, 「佛亦如是，知諸法如化，如化人度化眾生，無有實眾生可度」 tr. "The Buddha too is like this: he knows that dharmas are like a conjuration, and it is like a conjured person delivering beings—there are no real beings to be delivered"; second, 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，如佛所化人行」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā just as a person conjured by the Buddha practises". The first sentence explains the Buddha's obtaining and delivering; the latter sets up the bodhisattva's way of practice. What matters is that the six Chinese characters 「如佛所化人行」 tr. "as a person conjured by the Buddha practises" do not tell people not to practise; they tell people to practise thus—practising and not abiding, doing and not grasping.

12. What difference there is between the Buddha and a conjured person; the answer: there is no difference, because each can do something. Subhūti follows the simile and asks: if all dharmas are like a conjuration, what difference is there between the Buddha and a conjured person? The Buddha answers 「無有差別」 tr. "there is no difference", and the reason is only one sentence: 「佛能有所作，化人亦能有所作」 tr. "The Buddha can do something, and a conjured person too can do something". This answer must be looked at closely: the sameness and difference the Buddha judges takes neither form and substance nor root and trace; it takes only the one meaning 「能有所作」 tr. "can do something". Seen from the side of function, the two are without difference; and below, Subhūti presses one step further precisely on the side of function.

13. If there is no Buddha, can the conjured person alone do something; the answer: he can do something. What Subhūti presses is this: does the conjured person's function stand in dependence on the Buddha? If the Buddha is not there, can the conjured person on his own still do something? The Buddha answers 「能有所作」 tr. "He can do something". This answer cuts off a road of retreat—if the answer is that he cannot, then the conjured person's function is in the end the Buddha's function, and the simile does not hold; answering that he can, the standing of function does not wait on substance, and the simile can stand firm.

14. How, with no Buddha, the conjured person can do something; the simile of the Buddha Suśānta; the conjured person really has no arising and no ceasing; one should believe and know that dharmas are like a conjuration. Subhūti pursues the matter, and the Buddha brings up a real event as proof: in the past there was a Buddha named Suśānta, who, wishing to deliver bodhisattvas, conjured a Buddha and then himself passed into extinction; this conjured Buddha abode for half a kalpa doing the work of a Buddha, and having given the prediction to those who were to practise the bodhisattva practice, passed into extinction; and 「一切世間眾生知佛實滅度」 tr. "all the beings of the world thought that the Buddha had really passed into extinction". This event has three key points: first, the true Buddha had already passed into extinction and the conjured Buddha abode in the world for half a kalpa, doing the work of a Buddha and giving the prediction—a real instance of a conjured person being able to do something without a Buddha; second, the passing into extinction that the people of the world knew of was the conjured Buddha's passing into extinction, and yet what they believed was not false—the function of the conjuration is wholly accomplished in worldly truth; third, the Buddha at once points it out: 「化人實無生無滅」 tr. "The conjured person really has no arising and no ceasing". Seen together, the three matters let the final sentence 「菩薩行般若波羅蜜，當信知諸法如化」 tr. "the bodhisattva who practises prajñāpāramitā should believe and know that dharmas are like a conjuration" land firmly: it does not teach people to think of nothingness; it teaches people to know, upon wholly accomplished function, that it has no arising and no ceasing.

15. If the Buddha and a conjured person are without difference, how is giving made pure. Here Subhūti raises a difficulty from another angle, and the difficulty touches human feeling most closely: for one who makes offerings to the Buddha, up to nirvāṇa without remainder the merit is not exhausted; if the Buddha and a conjured Buddha are without difference, then for one who makes offerings to a conjured Buddha, up to nirvāṇa without remainder, should the merit likewise not be exhausted? The reason this question matters is that it pushes the principle set out before onto the matter of the field of merit—if in principle there is no difference, would not the rule of giving and its reward be thrown into disorder in matters? Whenever in reading the sūtra one sees a place where principle and matter seem to conflict, that is exactly the place where the sūtra text is about to bring out the right meaning.

16. The Buddha is a field of merit by reason of the real mark of all dharmas; the conjured Buddha too is a field of merit by reason of the real mark of all dharmas. The Buddha's answer does not divide by form and image, nor by supernormal power, but points straight to why a field of merit is a field of merit: 「佛以諸法實相故，與一切眾生天及人作福田；化佛亦以諸法實相故，與一切眾生天及人作福田」 tr. "The Buddha, by reason of the real mark of all dharmas, is a field of merit for all beings, gods and humans; the conjured Buddha too, by reason of the real mark of all dharmas, is a field of merit for all beings, gods and humans". The two sentences are the same text with only one character changed; this is so that the reader will see for himself that what they rely on is the same—the establishing of a field of merit lies in the real mark, not in whether the one who can receive offerings is true or conjured. This one answer at the same time resolves the difficulty of the passage above: giving and its reward are not thrown into disorder, because what is faced was never form and substance.

17. Leave aside this conjured Buddha: keeping the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind, scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, calling out namo Buddha once—up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted; the Buddha and the conjured Buddha are without difference, and the dharma-marks have no difference; one should enter the real mark of all dharmas, and the real mark should not be ruined. The Buddha further lessens the condition step by step and further shows the merit step by step, in three turns in all: leave aside this conjured Buddha and the merit planted at the conjured Buddha's place—only keeping the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind, up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted; leave aside this keeping of the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind—only scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted; leave aside this keeping of the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind and keeping of the Buddha in mind while scattering a flower—if there is a person who calls out namo Buddha once, up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted. The momentum of the three turns is that what is taken as object grows ever less while what is repaid does not grow less—from the offering to a conjured Buddha, lessened to a single thought of reverence, lessened to the scattering of a single flower, lessened to the sound of a single calling out. Why can it be so? The Buddha himself concludes it: 「佛福田中種其福無量」 tr. "the merit planted in the field of merit of the Buddha is immeasurable" and 「當知佛與化佛無有差別，諸法法相無異故」 tr. "know that the Buddha and a conjured Buddha are without difference, because the dharma-marks of dharmas have no difference". At the end he turns out the handle of the next passage: the bodhisattva should practise prajñāpāramitā thus and enter within the real mark of all dharmas; 「是諸法實相不應壞，所謂般若波羅蜜相，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提相」 tr. "This real mark of all dharmas should not be ruined; it is precisely the mark of prajñāpāramitā, and so on up to the mark of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Here the reader should pay attention to the joint in the sūtra text—as soon as the three Chinese characters 「不應壞」 tr. "should not be ruined" come out, Subhūti's next difficulty rises from these three characters.

18. The real mark should not be ruined—why then does the Buddha ruin the marks of dharmas and distinguish and speak of form and so on up to the conditioned and the unconditioned. Subhūti seizes on 「不應壞」 tr. "should not be ruined" and raises the difficulty: since the Buddha says the real mark should not be ruined, why does he again ruin the marks of dharmas and say: this is form; this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; these are inner dharmas and outer dharmas, wholesome and unwholesome dharmas, with outflows and without outflows, worldly and world-transcending, with contention and without contention, conditioned and unconditioned, and so forth? The last sentence presses straight on: 「將無壞諸法相？」 tr. "Is it not that the marks of dharmas are ruined?" The mechanism of this difficulty is that a character 「說」 tr. "speak" is taken as the character 「壞」 tr. "ruin"—is distinguishing and speaking the same as breaking and ruining? The Buddha's answer in the next passage draws the distinction precisely here.

19. By the marks of names he shows dharmas, wishing to make beings understand; the Buddha does not ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas. The Buddha answers 「不也」 tr. "No", and at once draws the distinction: what speaks is 「以名字相故示諸法」 tr. "it is by the marks of names that dharmas are shown", what it is for is 「欲令眾生解」 tr. "wishing to make beings understand", and what it does not do is 「壞諸法法相」 tr. "ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas". Seen together, the three phrases settle the nature of distinguishing and speaking the Dharma: the marks of names are the instrument of showing, not the substance of the dharma; what showing aims at is making understand, not making grasp. Whenever one meets a doubtful point of the kind ‘since the Buddha speaks of emptiness, why does he also speak of existence’, these three phrases are the general rule.

20. All dharmas are nameless and signless—how can one show beings by names and marks, wishing to make them understand. Subhūti presses one layer further: if it is by the marks of names that dharmas are spoken of to make beings understand, and yet all dharmas are nameless and signless, then where do the names and marks used to show people themselves stand? This question is asked very deeply—it does not ask whether the Dharma can be spoken; it asks whether the instrument that can speak has anything to rely on.

21. Following worldly dharmas there are names and marks, and yet there is really no place of clinging; the ordinary person speaks of suffering, clinging to the name and pursuing the mark, while the buddhas and their disciples neither cling nor pursue; if name clung to name, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, and so on up to the unconditioned nature should cling to the unconditioned nature; dharmas do not abide within names and marks, yet one abides only within names and marks and should not cling. The Buddha's answer is in four sections, the most closely woven passage of the whole unit. The first section sets out the thesis: 「隨世俗法有名相，實無著處」 tr. "Following worldly dharmas there are names and marks, and yet there is really no place of clinging"—names and marks have their worldly use, and yet there is no place to cling to; use and clinging are judged to be two matters. The second section brings out a test from human affairs: 「如凡夫說苦，著名、隨相」 tr. "It is as when the ordinary person speaks of suffering, he clings to the name and pursues the mark", while 「諸佛及弟子不著名、不隨相」 tr. "the buddhas and their disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark"—the same word, suffering: what ordinary persons and sages say is not different, and yet what they cling to is different, so one can see that the sickness lies not in the name but in clinging. The third section brings out a counter-proof: 「若名著名、相著相，空亦應著空，無相亦應著無相，無作亦應著無作，實際應著實際，法性應著法性，無為性應著無為性」 tr. "If name clung to name and mark clung to mark, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, the signless too should cling to the signless, non-action too should cling to non-action, the limit of reality should cling to the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas should cling to the nature of dharmas, the unconditioned nature should cling to the unconditioned nature"—the force of this section lies here: if one admits that names and marks themselves have a sticking nature, then all the Dharma-gates and headings that are set up become clinging without exception, and even these highest names—emptiness, the signless, non-action, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas, the unconditioned nature—cannot escape; this breaks clinging by pushing what is set up to the point where it cannot go through. The six headings brought up are all general headings of this sūtra: emptiness, the signless, and non-action are the names of the three gates of liberation; the limit of reality is the ultimate limit of dharmas; the nature of dharmas is the nature of dharmas; the unconditioned nature is the nature that neither arises nor ceases. The fourth section gathers up the conclusion: 「是一切法但有名相，是法不住名相中」 tr. "All these dharmas have only names and marks, and these dharmas do not abide within names and marks", and therefore 「菩薩摩訶薩但名相中住，應行般若波羅蜜，是名相中亦不應著」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, abiding only within names and marks, should practise prajñāpāramitā, and within these names and marks too he should not cling". The last sentence matters most—it does not tell people to leave names and marks; it tells people to abide in names and marks and not cling to names and marks; if one leaves them, there is nothing by which to practise and nothing by which to speak; if one clings, one loses what one practises and what one speaks.

22. If conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind and undergo all kinds of toil and suffering. The difficulty raised on the back of the above is the question of this unit that touches the person most closely. Since all conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, then for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and undergo all kinds of toil and suffering? The sūtra text at once makes the two Chinese characters 「勤苦」 tr. "toil and suffering" concrete: when the bodhisattva practises the path, he gives, upholds the precepts, practises patience, is diligent in vigour, enters meditative concentration, cultivates wisdom; practises the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; practises the practice of emptiness, the signless practice, the practice of non-action, the ten powers of the Buddha, and so on up to fulfilling great kindness and compassion. This long list does not repeat the earlier text; it is to give weight to the question 「為誰」 tr. "for whose sake"—the more solid what is listed, the harder the question is to evade. What is called 「為誰」 tr. "for whose sake" asks about the object for whom it is done: if beings are only names and marks, then those delivered are unreal; if what is practised is only names and marks, then the one who practises is unreal too.

23. Names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty; therefore he practises the bodhisattva path, obtains the omniscience of all kinds, turns the wheel of the Dharma, and delivers beings by the Dharma of the three vehicles; names and marks too are without arising, without ceasing, and without abiding-and-changing. The Buddha's way of answering is worth looking at closely: first he restates the question exactly as it was—「如須菩提所說，若一切有為法但名相者，菩薩摩訶薩為誰故行菩薩道？」 tr. "It is just as Subhūti says: if all conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, then for whose sake does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise the bodhisattva path?"—not evading, not changing the words. Next he gives the turning word: 「若有為法但名相等，是名相、名相相空。」 tr. "If conditioned dharmas are only names and marks and the like, these names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty." This is the pivot of the answer: not only are names and marks empty, the mark of names and marks is empty too. If one said only that names and marks are empty, what is emptied would still have a ‘mark of emptiness’ to be grasped, and the answer would not be complete; saying 「名相相空」 tr. "the mark of names and marks is empty" dismantles even the last footing. Once it is dismantled completely, he then brings out directly why one is able to practise: 「以是故，菩薩摩訶薩行菩薩道得一切種智；得一切種智已，轉法輪；轉法輪已，以三乘法度脫眾生。」 tr. "For this reason the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the bodhisattva path and obtains the omniscience of all kinds; having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, he turns the wheel of the Dharma; having turned the wheel of the Dharma, he delivers beings by the Dharma of the three vehicles." The way of reading is important—the three Chinese characters 「以是故」 tr. "for this reason" show that the principle of being able to practise comes precisely from emptiness; it is not practising by force even though it is empty. The last sentence further sets out its marks: 「是名相，亦無生、無滅、無住異」 tr. "These names and marks too are without arising, without ceasing, and without abiding-and-changing", gathering it up by the absence of all three marks of arising, ceasing, and abiding-and-changing. Here it corresponds head to tail with passage 2's 「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing": the names of distinction stand on the conditioned side and their nature is from the first empty, and so they stand without hindrance, and one practises not in vain.

24. Whether the World-Honored One speaks of the omniscience of all kinds; the Buddha answers: I speak of the omniscience of all kinds. Here the sūtra text starts a new section. Subhūti takes up the words 「得一切種智」 tr. "obtains the omniscience of all kinds" of the text above and asks: does the World-Honored One speak of the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha answers: I speak of the omniscience of all kinds. This one question and one answer look like superfluous words, but in fact they are the form for setting up a topic—first make certain that the name under discussion is indeed one the Buddha set up, and only then can one ask about its divisions. Short questions and short answers of this kind in the sūtra are mostly the joint for turning into a new section; they should not be passed over.

25. What difference there is among the three kinds of knowledge: omniscience, the knowledge of the kinds of paths, and the omniscience of all kinds. Subhūti then puts the real question: the Buddha speaks of omniscience, speaks of the knowledge of the kinds of paths, speaks of the omniscience of all kinds—what difference is there among these three kinds of knowledge? This chapter is named the three wisdoms, and the discernment of the three knowledges comes to ground exactly here. The reader should first remember: what is asked is 「差別」 tr. "difference", and so the answer below must divide them by the persons to whom they belong.

26. Sarvajñā is the knowledge of the two vehicles, the knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattvas, the omniscience of all kinds is the knowledge of the buddhas. The Buddha's answer is extremely brief and its divisions extremely clear: 「薩婆若是一切聲聞、辟支佛智，道種智是菩薩摩訶薩智，一切種智是諸佛智。」 tr. "Sarvajñā is the knowledge of all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; the knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas; the omniscience of all kinds is the knowledge of the buddhas." The three knowledges are attached to three kinds of persons, not to three kinds of objects. Sarvajñā is precisely the Sanskrit word for omniscience; here it is assigned to the two vehicles, speaking of the general mark of what it knows; in the next two passages Subhūti pursues the reason for each one, and so here it is only set up and not yet explained.

27. By what causes and conditions sarvajñā is the knowledge of the two vehicles; the answer: all names, that is, inner and outer dharmas, the two vehicles can know, and yet they cannot use all paths and the omniscience of all kinds. Subhūti asks the reason, and the Buddha answers: 「一切名所謂內外法，是聲聞、辟支佛能知，不能用一切道、一切種智。」 tr. "All names—that is, inner dharmas and outer dharmas—are what the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas can know, and yet they cannot use all paths and the omniscience of all kinds." This answer divides into two halves, being able to know and being able to use: what is known is 「一切名」 tr. "all names", and all names do not go beyond what inner dharmas and outer dharmas gather in; what they cannot do is 「用」 tr. "use"—they cannot use all paths, cannot use the omniscience of all kinds. The limit of the two vehicles is judged to lie not in the narrowness of what they know but in the incompleteness of what they use. Here the reader can obtain a general rule: when the sūtras and treatises judge the higher and lower of the vehicles, they mostly judge by what one can use, not by what one can know.

28. By what causes and conditions the knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattvas; the answer: he should know all paths fully, should also use these paths to deliver beings, and also does not make the realisation of the limit of reality. The Buddha answers in three phrases, each phrase a portion of the bodhisattva. First, 「一切道，菩薩摩訶薩應知：若聲聞道、辟支佛道、菩薩道，應具足知」 tr. "All paths the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should know—whether the śrāvaka path, the pratyekabuddha path, or the bodhisattva path, he should know them all fully"—the paths of the three vehicles are all within what is known, not knowing only his own path. Second, 「亦應用是道度眾生」 tr. "he should also use these paths to deliver beings"—knowing and able to use, which exactly supplies what the two vehicles of the passage above cannot do. Third, 「亦不作實際證」 tr. "and he also does not make the realisation of the limit of reality"—using the path and not taking its fruit. The three phrases together complete the mark of the knowledge of the kinds of paths: knowing fully, able to use, not realising. The third phrase is the hardest, and so below Subhūti asks several questions in a row on this one phrase.

29. Should one fulfil all the paths and yet not realise the limit of reality by these paths? The answer: while he has not yet purified a buddha-land and not yet brought beings to accomplishment, he should not realise it. What Subhūti doubts is this: since it is said that one should fulfil all the paths, and it is also said that one should not by these paths realise the limit of reality, do the before and after not conflict? The Buddha's answer does not divide by principle but by time: 「是菩薩未淨佛土、未成就眾生，是時不應實際作證。」 tr. "While this bodhisattva has not yet purified a buddha-land and has not yet brought beings to accomplishment, at this time he should not realise the limit of reality." This answer sets down an extremely important measure—not realising is not never realising; it is not realising at this time; the reason for not realising is that the buddha-land is not yet purified and beings are not yet brought to accomplishment. The bodhisattva's not taking realisation is kept back for the sake of matters not yet done, not out of timidity towards realisation.

30. The question of the places of abiding in four alternatives: abiding in the path, abiding in what is not the path, abiding in both the path and what is not the path, abiding in neither the path nor what is not the path—the Buddha answers No to all. Subhūti then seeks, alternative by alternative, the place of abiding: should the bodhisattva, abiding within the path, realise the limit of reality? The answer: No. Abiding within what is not the path? No. Abiding in both the path and what is not the path? No. Abiding in neither the path nor what is not the path? No. The four alternatives are the four gates of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence; here they are set up by the path and what is not the path. The four questions and four answers are all extremely short; in reading one must not pass over them lightly because they are short—once the four alternatives are exhausted, every place of abiding that could be set up is used up; the next question is pressed out precisely by these four answers of 「不也」 tr. "No".

31. Where should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva abide to realise the limit of reality. The four gates all closed, Subhūti then asks: then where should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva abide in order to realise the limit of reality? This question has the same momentum as passage 7's ‘is it then that the World-Honored One has not obtained awakening?’—sealing off every possibility completely to press out an answer that is not within the four alternatives. And the Buddha's way of answering is again the same as the previous time: he does not say it directly, but first asks in return.

32. The Buddha asks the four alternatives in return by way of Subhūti's own exhaustion of the outflows; Subhūti's final answer: I have nowhere I abide, not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted my mind obtained liberation. The Buddha does not answer his question but questions the man in return: 「於汝意云何？汝住道中，受諸法故，漏盡得解脫不？」 tr. "What do you think? Did you, abiding within the path, by reason of receiving dharmas, with the outflows exhausted obtain liberation?" Subhūti answers No. Abiding in what is not the path? No. Abiding in both the path and what is not the path? No. Abiding in neither the path nor what is not the path? No. After the four questions and four answers, Subhūti himself says it in full: 「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫。」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation." The teaching method of this passage is well worth savouring—what the Buddha asks about is what Subhūti himself has realised; the answer lies in the one asked, not in the Buddha's mouth; the four alternatives pressed through, he himself speaks out 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere". From this the reader can learn a method: wherever one is entangled and unclear in principle, going back to ask once about what one has oneself realised and verified will often yield it at once. Note also that Subhūti's answer has one more phrase, 「不受諸法」 tr. "not receiving any dharma"—abiding and receiving are linked; because he abides nowhere he does not receive, and because he does not receive the outflows are exhausted.

33. The bodhisattva too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality. The Buddha at once takes his own answer as the answer: 「菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，無所住，應實際作證。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality." The ‘should not realise’ of the previous passage and the ‘should realise’ of this passage do not conflict—what should not be is realising while abiding; what should be is realising without abiding. The knot of the whole passage lies only in the three Chinese characters 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere", which is exactly the same phrase as the Buddha's self-description in passage 8, 「無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "abiding nowhere, whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned".

34. The mark of the omniscience of all kinds—because of one mark it is named the omniscience of all kinds, namely that all dharmas have the mark of quiescence; what is shown and spoken by the conduct and kinds, the appearances, and the names of dharmas, the Buddha knows as it really is. Subhūti asks about the mark of the omniscience of all kinds, and the Buddha's answer is twofold. First, 「一相故名一切種智，所謂一切法寂滅相」 tr. "Because of one mark it is named the omniscience of all kinds, namely that all dharmas have the mark of quiescence"—speaking of its oneness, all dharmas return alike to quiescence, and so the knowledge too is of one mark. Second, 「復次，諸法行類、相貌、名字顯示說，佛如實知」 tr. "Again, what is shown and spoken by the conduct and kinds, the appearances, and the names of dharmas, the Buddha knows as it really is"—speaking of its manyness, whatever of the conduct and kinds, the appearances, and the names of dharmas can be shown and spoken, the Buddha knows it all as it really is. The one mark and the many knowings come out together; this is exactly the meaning of the three Chinese characters 「一切種」 tr. "all kinds": all is its manyness, kinds is its differences, and the very reason it can know its differences everywhere is that they return alike to one mark. The reader must not take one side only: take the one mark alone and one loses the kinds; take the kinds and differences alone and one loses the one.

35. Whether the severance of the fetters by the three knowledges has difference, has exhaustion, has remainder; the answer: in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference, and yet the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all severed while those of the two vehicles are not all severed. Subhūti turns to ask about the matter of severing delusion: omniscience, the knowledge of the kinds of paths, the omniscience of all kinds—in the severance of the fetters by the three knowledges is there difference, is there exhaustion or remainder? The Buddha's answer divides into two halves, and these two halves are where the whole doctrine of this passage lies: 「煩惱斷無差別」 tr. "In the severance of the afflictions there is no difference"—speaking of the afflictions severed, severing is severing, with no higher and lower; 「諸佛煩惱習一切悉斷，聲聞、辟支佛煩惱習不悉斷」 tr. "the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all entirely severed, while the śrāvakas' and pratyekabuddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are not all entirely severed"—speaking of the habitual residues of the afflictions, there is the distinction of all severed and not all severed. The division of the afflictions and the habitual residues into two matters is the key to this passage.

36. Is it not by obtaining the unconditioned dharma that these persons sever the afflictions? The answer: No. Can difference be obtained within the unconditioned dharma? The answer: No. Subhūti presses again from the side of the dharma relied on: is it not by relying on the unconditioned dharma that these persons obtain the severance of the afflictions? The Buddha answers No. Then can difference be obtained within the unconditioned dharma? The Buddha answers No. The two questions and two answers seal off the road of retreat: severing the afflictions is not without reliance on the unconditioned, and yet within the unconditioned there is no difference to be obtained—and so the saying ‘the habitual residues are severed or not severed’ has nowhere to be placed. This is exactly why the next question arises.

37. If within the unconditioned difference is unfindable, why is it said that this person's habitual residues are severed and that person's are not severed; the answer: the habitual residue is not an affliction; the two vehicles have in body and speech what resembles the mark of the three poisons, and an ordinary person who does these incurs sin; the habitual residues of the three poisons the buddhas do not have. Subhūti's difficulty is tightest here. The Buddha's answer takes only four Chinese characters as its guiding rope: 「習非煩惱」 tr. "The habitual residue is not an affliction". The habitual residue does not belong to what the afflictions gather in, and so to speak of the severing and not severing of habitual residues does not violate the rule that within the unconditioned dharma there is no difference. Next he brings out its marks: 「是聲聞、辟支佛身口有似婬欲、瞋恚、愚癡相，凡夫愚人為之得罪。是三毒習，諸佛無有。」 tr. "These śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have, in body and speech, what resembles the mark of lust, hatred, and delusion; an ordinary, foolish person who does these incurs sin. These habitual residues of the three poisons the buddhas do not have." Here three matters must be kept distinct: first, what the two vehicles show is a 「似」 tr. "resembling" mark, not real affliction; second, the same mark of body and speech, when an ordinary person does it, incurs sin, because the ordinary person's is issued from real affliction; third, the buddhas do not have even this resembling mark. So what is called the habitual residue is the mark of the remaining force not yet exhausted after the afflictions are already severed; it is tied to the surface of body and speech, not to the substance of the unconditioned—this is why saying that the habitual residues are severed or not severed does not hinder the unconditioned's being without difference.

38. The path has no dharma and nirvāṇa has no dharma—why distinguish and speak of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha; the answer: all are distinguished by the unconditioned dharma. Subhūti turns to yet another face: if the path has no dharma and nirvāṇa too has no dharma, why then distinguish and say this is a srota-āpanna, this is a sakṛdāgāmin, this is an anāgāmin, this is an arhat, this is a pratyekabuddha, this is a bodhisattva, this is a Buddha? Of the seven positions brought up, the first four are the four fruits of the śrāvaka, next is the pratyekabuddha, next the bodhisattva, next the Buddha—the full list of the grades of the three vehicles. The Buddha answers: 「是皆以無為法而有分別」 tr. "These are all distinguished by the unconditioned dharma"—what distinguishing relies on is still the unconditioned dharma. On the surface this answer conflicts with the passage above, ‘can difference be obtained within the unconditioned dharma? The answer: No’, and so Subhūti must ask again; the momentum of the sūtra text is waiting for exactly this question to bring out the right meaning.

39. Is it really by reason of the unconditioned dharma that the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha are distinguished? The answer: because of worldly speech there is difference, and it is not the highest meaning; within the highest meaning there is no path of speech; it is by reason of severing the fetters that the later limit is spoken of. The Buddha's direct answer is here: 「世間言說故有差別，非第一義，第一義中無有分別說。」 tr. "Because of worldly speech there is difference; it is not the highest meaning, and within the highest meaning there is no speaking of distinctions." It has the same syntax as passage 4's 「世俗法故說有得，非第一義」 tr. "by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning"—every distinction belongs to the function of speech, not to the substance of the highest meaning. Next he brings out why it is so: 「第一義中無言說道，斷結故說後際。」 tr. "Within the highest meaning there is no path of speech; it is by reason of severing the fetters that the later limit is spoken of." Because there is no path of speech, within the highest meaning no names such as 「須陀洹」 tr. "srota-āpanna" can be set up at all; and the reason one still speaks of there being a later limit is that it is spoken with regard to severing the fetters. The later limit is the limit after the fetters are exhausted; this name is set up with regard to the matter of severing the fetters, and it still belongs within worldly speech.

40. Within the emptiness of specific marks the prior limit is unfindable, how much less can one say there is a later limit; the Buddha affirms his words; for the sake of those who do not know, the prior and later limits are spoken of; the bodhisattva should practise prajñā by the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks, and then he clings to nothing. Subhūti seizes on the two Chinese characters 「後際」 tr. "later limit" and pushes on: within the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas even the prior limit is unfindable—how much less can one say there is a later limit! The Buddha affirms it completely and adds weight to the words: 「如是！如是！諸法自相空中，無有前際，何況有後際！無有是處！」 tr. "Just so! Just so! Within the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas there is no prior limit—how much less is there a later limit! There is no such principle!" Next he brings out the reason for speaking of them: 「以眾生不知諸法自相空故，為說是前際、是後際」 tr. "Because beings do not know the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas, for their sake it is said: this is the prior limit, this is the later limit"—the same device as passage 4's 「以眾生無法有法想，我以除其妄著」 tr. "because beings give rise to the perception of an existent dharma with regard to a non-existent dharma, in order to remove their false clinging". At the end he turns out the gate of practice: 「菩薩摩訶薩應以自相空法行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should practise prajñāpāramitā by the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks", and its proof in effect is 「則無所著：若內法、若外法，若有為法、若無為法，若聲聞法、若辟支佛法、若佛法」 tr. "then he clings to nothing—whether inner dharmas or outer dharmas, conditioned dharmas or unconditioned dharmas, śrāvaka dharmas, pratyekabuddha dharmas, or the dharmas of the Buddha". The three groups and seven headings listed go from coarse to fine—inner and outer are a pair of places, conditioned and unconditioned are a pair of natures, śrāvaka dharmas, pratyekabuddha dharmas, and the dharmas of the Buddha are the three of fruits; even the dharmas of the Buddha are among what is not clung to—this is where the emptiness of specific marks goes through to the end.

41. By what meaning prajñāpāramitā is named prajñāpāramitā; the first gloss answers: it obtains the foremost crossing, and all dharmas reach the further shore. Subhūti asks for the explanation of the name: prajñāpāramitā is constantly spoken of—by what meaning is it named prajñāpāramitā? The Buddha answers with six glosses, and this is the first: 「得第一度，一切法到彼岸，以是義故名般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "It obtains the foremost crossing and makes all dharmas reach the further shore; by this meaning it is named prajñāpāramitā." Pāramitā means reaching the further shore; among the six perfections prajñā is called the foremost crossing, and so the name is set up from its being the highest of crossings. Here the reader can first note a way of reading: whenever in the sūtra several glosses are given in a row to explain one name, their order is mostly from one's own practice on to others, from the object on to knowledge, from negation on to affirmation; it is not a restatement of the same meaning.

42. The second gloss: the buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats use this prajñā to cross over to the further shore. The second gloss sets up the name from the persons who can cross: 「諸佛、菩薩、辟支佛、阿羅漢用是般若波羅蜜得度彼岸，……」 tr. "The buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats use this prajñāpāramitā to cross over to the further shore, …" The four kinds of persons brought up gather in all three vehicles and the Buddha; it says that prajñā is the path the three vehicles all go by. The difference of this gloss from the first: the previous gloss speaks of the highest of dharmas, this gloss speaks of what persons go by in common. Seen together with the previous gloss, prajñā's being the foremost crossing is not a dharma the Buddha alone has.

43. The third gloss: distinguishing and reckoning, it breaks up all dharmas, down to atoms, and within them nothing firm and real is obtained. The third gloss sets up the name from its function: 「分別、籌量破壞一切法，乃至微塵，是中不得堅實，……」 tr. "Distinguishing and reckoning, it breaks up all dharmas, down to atoms, and within them nothing firm and real is obtained, …" Distinguishing and reckoning means analysing; breaking up means breaking the clinging to firmness and reality, not ruining its dharmas. Analysed down to atoms, firmness and reality are sought and are unfindable—this is the mark of the contemplative practice of prajñā. Note the four Chinese characters 「不得堅實」 tr. "nothing firm and real is obtained"—what is broken is the view of firmness and reality, not the matter of form-dharmas.

44. The fourth gloss: the suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality in all dharmas all enter prajñā. The fourth gloss sets up the name from what it gathers in: 「諸法如、法性、實際皆入般若波羅蜜中，……」 tr. "The suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality in all dharmas all enter within prajñāpāramitā, …" Suchness is the mark of dharmas being thus and not different; the nature of dharmas is the nature of dharmas; the limit of reality is the ultimate limit—these three names are the three terms this sūtra commonly uses to point to the highest meaning. All three enter within prajñā; that is, prajñā is not a separate dharma outside the three. The previous gloss broke down to atoms and did not obtain firmness and reality; this gloss gathers in the ultimate principle of dharmas and returns it to prajñā—one breaking, one gathering, and so the meaning is not one-sided.

45. The fifth gloss: there is no dharma that can be joined or dispersed and so on up to conditioned or unconditioned; without form, without shape, without resistance, of one mark—that is, the signless. The fifth gloss sets up the name with the phrase 「無有法」 tr. "there is no dharma", with six pairs in a row: joined or dispersed, with form or without form, visible or invisible, with resistance or without resistance, with outflows or without outflows, conditioned or unconditioned—within prajñā there is no dharma that answers to either side of any of these six pairs. Next he brings out why it is so: 「是般若波羅蜜無色、無形、無對，一相所謂無相。」 tr. "This prajñāpāramitā is without form, without shape, without resistance; it is of one mark—that is, the signless." The six pairs are all marks on which distinguished dharmas rely, and prajñā is without form, without shape, without resistance, and so the six pairs have nowhere to apply. The last phrase, 「一相所謂無相」 tr. "of one mark—that is, the signless", has entirely the same syntax as passage 34's 「一相故名一切種智，所謂一切法寂滅相」 tr. "because of one mark it is named the omniscience of all kinds, namely that all dharmas have the mark of quiescence", and the two can be read together: the one mark of knowledge lies in quiescence, the one mark of prajñā lies in the signless.

46. The sixth gloss: it can give rise to all dharmas, all the eloquence of delighting in speech, all illumination; Māra and enemies cannot sever or ruin it, because they are all unfindable within prajñā. The sixth gloss turns to set up the name from the positive side: 「是般若波羅蜜能生一切法、一切樂說辯、一切照明。」 tr. "This prajñāpāramitā can give rise to all dharmas, to all the eloquence of delighting in speech, and to all illumination." The eloquence of delighting in speech is the unobstructed eloquence of delighting in speaking; illumination is the brightness that illuminates and makes manifest. The previous glosses spoke all along of non-existence, and this gloss speaks all along of existence—this is precisely where one does not fall to the extreme of annihilation. Next he speaks of its being indestructible: 「魔若魔天、求聲聞、辟支佛人及餘異道梵志、怨讎惡人不能斷壞菩薩行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Māra and the gods of Māra, those who seek the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, and the other brahmin ascetics of the outsiders' paths, hostile enemies and evil people—none of them can sever or ruin the prajñāpāramitā the bodhisattva practises." The five kinds brought up, from gods to humans, from the inside path to the outside paths, gather in all who could make difficulty. And as to why they cannot ruin it, the Buddha does not say that the power of prajñā is strong; he only says 「是人輩，般若波羅蜜中皆不可得故」 tr. "because these persons are all unfindable within prajñāpāramitā"—those who could ruin it do not even exist within prajñā, how much less their ruining. This is the consistent way of answering throughout this unit: winning not by power but by unfindability. At the end he concludes: 「菩薩摩訶薩應如是行般若波羅蜜義。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva should thus practise the meaning of prajñāpāramitā." As soon as this one character 「義」 tr. "meaning, benefit" comes out, what follows takes this very word as its topic.

47. One who wishes to practise the meaning of deep prajñā should practise the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self, and should also practise the meaning of the eleven knowledges. The Buddha further brings out the gate of practice: the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who wishes to practise the meaning of deep prajñāpāramitā should practise the meaning of impermanence, the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of non-self, and should also practise the meaning of the knowledge of suffering, the meaning of the knowledge of origin, the meaning of the knowledge of cessation, the meaning of the knowledge of the path, the meaning of dharma-knowledge, the meaning of subsequent knowledge, the meaning of worldly knowledge, the meaning of the knowledge of others' minds, the meaning of the knowledge of exhaustion, the meaning of the knowledge of non-arising, and the meaning of the knowledge of things as they really are. The first four are the four aspects of contemplating dharmas; of the latter eleven, the four knowledges of suffering, origin, cessation, and the path are knowledges that take the four truths as object; dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge are knowledges divided by the realm taken as object; worldly knowledge is knowledge that takes the worldly as object; the knowledge of others' minds is the knowledge that knows others' minds; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are the two knowledges accomplished by those beyond training; the knowledge of things as they really are is the knowledge that knows things fully as they really are. This passage matters because it does not speak of 「深般若義」 tr. "the meaning of deep prajñā" as some remote and mysterious realm, but as these ready-made, practicable meanings—the depth of prajñā does not leave the four truths and the four aspects, and the reader should not seek another high place here.

48. Within deep prajñā benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable—how then should one practise prajñā for the sake of benefit. Subhūti at once picks up the character 「義」 tr. "meaning, benefit" and raises a difficulty: within this deep prajñāpāramitā, benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable; how then can the bodhisattva practise prajñā for the sake of the benefit of deep prajñā? This difficulty has the same momentum as passage 22's ‘if conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind’—both take the meaning of emptiness the Buddha has set up and turn back to question the practice he has set up. That the sūtra text asks twice with the same momentum shows that this doubt is a pass every learner of prajñā must go through.

49. One should think that greed, hatred, and delusion are non-benefit and all wrong views are without benefit, and such a matter should not be practised; and yet the mark of suchness of the three poisons and the mark of suchness of wrong views have no benefit and no non-benefit. The Buddha's answer again divides into two halves, and the two halves look opposite. The first half is a taking-up and giving-up at the gate of practice: the bodhisattva should have this thought—greed is non-benefit, hatred and delusion are non-benefit, all wrong views are without benefit, 「如是義不應行」 tr. "such a matter should not be practised"—in matters there is plainly what should be given up. The latter half is a giving up of both in principle: 「三毒如相，無有義、無有非義；一切邪見如相，無有義、無有非義」 tr. "The mark of suchness of the three poisons has no benefit and no non-benefit; the mark of suchness of all wrong views has no benefit and no non-benefit"—speaking of their mark of suchness, benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable. Only with both halves standing together is it the Buddha's intent: one may not abandon the giving-up of the first half because of the emptiness of the latter half, nor may one grasp the latter half as existent because of the giving-up of the first half. Here the reader should set down a measure: what is given up lies in matters; what is empty lies in suchness.

50. Form and so on up to awakening are neither benefit nor non-benefit; when the Buddha obtained awakening there was no dharma to be obtained, whether benefit or non-benefit; whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, the dharma-mark of dharmas constantly abides. The Buddha extends it further: the bodhisattva should have this thought, 「色非義、非非義，乃至識非義、非非義，檀波羅蜜乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提非義、非非義」 tr. "Form is neither benefit nor non-benefit, and so on up to consciousness is neither benefit nor non-benefit; dānapāramitā and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi are neither benefit nor non-benefit"—from the five aggregates extending to the six perfections and so on up to awakening, all dharmas are both given up. Next he brings out the proof: 「佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，無有法可得——若義、若非義」 tr. "When the Buddha obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, there was no dharma to be obtained—whether benefit or non-benefit"; this takes the Buddha's own realisation as proof, the same method of proof as passage 2's 「我以五眼觀，尚不得色乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "I contemplate with the five eyes, and I do not even obtain form, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Next he brings out its constancy: 「有佛、無佛，諸法法相常住，無有是義、無有非義」 tr. "Whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, the dharma-mark of dharmas constantly abides, and has no such benefit and no non-benefit"—the constant abiding of the dharma-mark does not depend on the Buddha's appearing in the world; this is the weightiest sentence, lifting the meaning of giving up both from what the Buddha sees to what dharmas are of themselves. At the end he concludes with the gate of practice: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，應離義、非義。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises prajñāpāramitā should be apart from benefit and non-benefit."

51. Why prajñāpāramitā is neither benefit nor non-benefit; the answer: all conditioned dharmas have the mark of making nothing. Subhūti asks why it is so, and the Buddha answers with only one sentence: 「一切有為法無作相，以是故，般若波羅蜜非義、非非義。」 tr. "All conditioned dharmas have the mark of making nothing; for this reason prajñāpāramitā is neither benefit nor non-benefit." This answer must be read along the head and tail of this unit: passage 2 says 「無所為、無所作，無有分別」 tr. "nothing they are done for and nothing they make, and there is no distinguishing", and here it says 「一切有為法無作相」 tr. "all conditioned dharmas have the mark of making nothing"—benefit and non-benefit are one layer of distinguishing; distinguishing is set up in dependence on making; since the mark of making does not exist, distinguishing has nothing to depend on, and so both are given up. With this the whole unit's answer becomes one with the criterion of the opening passage.

52. The worthies and sages all take the unconditioned as their benefit—how can it be said that prajñā has neither benefit nor non-benefit; the answer: they take it neither as increase nor as decrease, as the suchness of space can neither benefit nor harm beings. Subhūti further brings up a commonly accepted meaning as a difficulty: 「一切賢聖，若佛、若佛弟子，皆以無為為義」 tr. "All the worthies and sages, whether the Buddha or the Buddha's disciples, all take the unconditioned as their benefit"—this is the common teaching; why then does the Buddha say that prajñā has no benefit and no non-benefit? The Buddha's answer does not break what he cites, but only supplies what it has not exhausted: 「雖一切賢聖，若佛、若佛弟子，皆以無為為義，亦不以增、亦不以損。」 tr. "Although all the worthies and sages, whether the Buddha or the Buddha's disciples, all take the unconditioned as their benefit, they take it neither as increase nor as decrease." Taking the unconditioned as benefit is real, and yet this benefit does not add one portion to beings nor take one portion from beings. Next he brings out a simile: 「譬如虛空如，不能益眾生、不能損眾生」 tr. "It is as the suchness of space can neither benefit beings nor diminish beings", and at the end gathers it into the Dharma: 「菩薩摩訶薩般若波羅蜜無有增、無有損。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's prajñāpāramitā has no increase and no decrease." The reader should see clearly that what this simile compares is increase and decrease, not existence and non-existence—one may not turn out an annihilationist reading from 「如虛空」 tr. "like space".

53. Is it not by training in unconditioned prajñā that one obtains the omniscience of all kinds? The answer: training in this unconditioned prajñā, one shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds, because it is not by two dharmas. Subhūti asks: is it not by training in unconditioned prajñāpāramitā that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva obtains the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha affirms it completely and further sets down a phrase: 「如是！如是！須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩學是無為般若波羅蜜，當得一切種智，不以二法故。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who trains in this unconditioned prajñāpāramitā shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds, because it is not by two dharmas." The four Chinese characters 「不以二法」 tr. "not by two dharmas" are the eye of the topic of the final section. Training, one shall obtain, and the reason one can obtain does not come from two dharmas—only when the one who obtains and what is obtained are not divided into two can it be said to be accomplished.

54. Can a non-dual dharma obtain a non-dual dharma? The answer: No. Can two dharmas obtain a non-dual dharma? The answer: No. Subhūti at once asks about 「不以二法」 tr. "not by two dharmas" face by face. First he asks whether a non-dual dharma can obtain a non-dual dharma, and the Buddha answers No; then he asks whether two dharmas can obtain a non-dual dharma, and the Buddha answers No. The two questions and two answers seal off the road of obtaining completely: seeking the non-dual by the dual, the one who obtains and what is obtained are plainly there, and so it is not obtained; seeking the non-dual by the non-dual still sets up the one who obtains and what is obtained as two, and it is not obtained either. The momentum of these two questions is the same as passage 30's question of the places of abiding in four alternatives—going through every gate that can be set up and closing each one.

55. If neither by two dharmas nor by a non-dual dharma, how shall one obtain the omniscience of all kinds; the answer: nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained. Subhūti then brings out the final question: if the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does it neither by two dharmas nor by a non-dual dharma, how then shall he obtain the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha answers with six Chinese characters and one more phrase: 「無所得即是得，以是得無所得。」 tr. "Nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained." The first phrase breaks the 「得」 tr. "attaining" as something with something to be attained—what is called attaining is precisely nothing to be attained; the latter phrase establishes that the 「得」 tr. "attaining" is not empty—precisely by this attaining of nothing to be attained, one attains nothing to be attained. The whole unit, from passage 2's setting up of the criterion 「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing", through the self-description 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere", the simile of the conjured person, the answer 「是名相、名相相空」 tr. "these names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty", and the self-realisation 「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation", comes to its end in this one sentence. The First Part opened the chapter with 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness" as its answer to 「云何當得薩婆若」 tr. "how shall one obtain sarvajñā"; the Middle Part answers with 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining" to 「云何當得一切種智」 tr. "how shall one obtain the omniscience of all kinds"—the two answers are of one intent, and the latter is more complete.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「諸法無所為、無所作」 tr. "dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make" as meaning that all differences are false and should be broken. The Buddha's answer does not break the three vehicles; it gives the three vehicles their place—「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing". Distinguishing stands on the conditioned side and its nature is from the first empty, and so it stands without hindrance; at the end the sūtra text says plainly 「菩薩摩訶薩行菩薩道得一切種智；得一切種智已，轉法輪；轉法輪已，以三乘法度脫眾生」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the bodhisattva path and obtains the omniscience of all kinds; having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, he turns the wheel of the Dharma; having turned the wheel of the Dharma, he delivers beings by the Dharma of the three vehicles". If one reads it as saying that the three vehicles should not be set up, then the three groups, the four fruits, and the three knowledges that the Buddha himself speaks of have nowhere to be settled, which runs exactly against the 「世俗法故說有得」 tr. "by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is something to be attained" set up again and again in this unit.

Do not read 「我以五眼觀，尚不得色乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "I contemplate with the five eyes, and I do not even obtain form, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" as the Buddha saying of himself that he has realised nothing. In the same passage the Buddha says plainly 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere—whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned", and at the end gathers it up with 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining". What the five eyes do not obtain is the form and the awakening of the ordinary person's thought 「有是色、得是色」 tr. "there is this form, and he obtains this form"; what is not obtained is that mark which is thought to exist and thought to be obtainable, not what the Buddha has realised. The two sentences must be seen together; take one sentence alone and it becomes an annihilationist view.

Do not read 「佛與化人無有差別」 tr. "the Buddha and a conjured person are without difference" as the Buddha and a conjured person being the same in all respects. The sameness the Buddha judges lies only in one meaning—「佛能有所作，化人亦能有所作」 tr. "the Buddha can do something, and a conjured person too can do something"; and the equality of their fields of merit also relies only on one meaning—「以諸法實相故」 tr. "by reason of the real mark of all dharmas". The sūtra text does not say that the conjured person has all the merits of the Buddha; what is the same lies in function and in what is relied on, not in the rest. If one extends it to there being no difference at all, then the event of the Buddha Suśānta—the conjured Buddha abiding for half a kalpa doing the work of a Buddha while the true Buddha first passed into extinction—has no way to stand.

Do not read 「一稱南無佛，乃至畢苦，其福不盡」 tr. "calling out namo Buddha once, up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted" as the Buddha granting an easy merit. These three turns of words have their text above—「佛以諸法實相故，與一切眾生天及人作福田」 tr. "the Buddha, by reason of the real mark of all dharmas, is a field of merit for all beings, gods and humans"; that the merit is not exhausted depends on the field of merit faced being the real mark, not on how much effort the one who calls exerts. If one leaves the real mark and takes only the ease of a single calling out, then the one called on is still a Buddha with obtaining, as the ordinary person thinks of him—exactly the 「念有是色、得是色」 tr. "thinking that there is this form and that he obtains this form" that passage 2 of this unit breaks.

Do not read the difficulty 「佛何以故壞諸法相」 tr. "why does the Buddha ruin the marks of dharmas" as the Buddha's speaking of the Dharma having a fault. The Buddha answers very plainly: 「以名字相故示諸法，欲令眾生解；佛不壞諸法法相。」 tr. "It is by the marks of names that dharmas are shown, wishing to make beings understand; the Buddha does not ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas." Speaking and ruining are two matters: the marks of names are the instrument of showing, the dharma-marks are the substance shown. Whenever one sees the sūtra on one side saying that dharmas are nameless and signless and on the other side speaking of names and marks at length, go through it with these three phrases; there is no need to seek another reconciliation.

Do not read 「但名相中住，應行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "abiding only within names and marks, one should practise prajñāpāramitā" as telling people to leave names and marks and then practise. The words of the sūtra text are 「住」 tr. "abide" and 「不應著」 tr. "should not cling", not 「離」 tr. "leave". If one leaves names and marks, then the names of the six perfections, the paths of the three vehicles, and even the name of prajñā all have nowhere to apply, and the bodhisattva has no means to practise and no means to speak. The whole establishing of meaning in this passage lies in judging 「用」 tr. "use" and 「著」 tr. "clinging" to be two matters—the ordinary person speaks of suffering and clings to the name and pursues the mark, the buddhas and their disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark; speaking of the same suffering, ordinary persons and sages part ways, and one can see that the fault is not in the name.

Do not read 「不應以是道實際作證」 tr. "should not by these paths realise the limit of reality" as the bodhisattva fearing realisation or being unable to realise. The reason the Buddha gives is one of time—「是菩薩未淨佛土、未成就眾生，是時不應實際作證」 tr. "while this bodhisattva has not yet purified a buddha-land and has not yet brought beings to accomplishment, at this time he should not realise the limit of reality"; and his direct teaching further says 「菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，無所住，應實際作證」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality". So what is barred is realising while abiding; what is allowed is realising without abiding; the reason for not realising at this time is that it is kept back because the matters of the buddha-land and of beings are not yet done, not that realisation is impossible.

Do not read 「煩惱斷無差別」 tr. "in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference" and 「諸佛煩惱習一切悉斷，聲聞、辟支佛煩惱習不悉斷」 tr. "the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all entirely severed, while the śrāvakas' and pratyekabuddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are not all entirely severed" as contradicting each other. The Buddha has himself brought out the dividing word—「習非煩惱」 tr. "the habitual residue is not an affliction". The habitual residue does not enter what the afflictions gather in; its mark lies in the two vehicles' body and speech, 「似婬欲、瞋恚、愚癡相」 tr. "what resembles the mark of lust, hatred, and delusion", and it is not issued from real affliction; therefore when an ordinary person does the same thing he incurs sin, while the two vehicles do not incur sin. The absence of difference in severing is said of the afflictions; the all severed or not all severed of the habitual residues is said of the remaining force; the two do not collide.

Do not read 「第一義中無言說道」 tr. "within the highest meaning there is no path of speech" as meaning that, since the highest meaning cannot be spoken, all teaching may be discarded. The sūtra text follows at once with 「斷結故說後際」 tr. "it is by reason of severing the fetters that the later limit is spoken of", and the whole unit further explains the name of prajñā with six glosses and explains the meaning of deep prajñā with the eleven knowledges. That there is no path of speech means that within the highest meaning there is no name of distinction that can be placed; and the Buddha never ceased, on account of there being no path of speech, to speak to beings of the prior limit and the later limit, of the three vehicles and the four fruits. The sentence of the earlier text, 「隨世俗法有名相，實無著處」 tr. "following worldly dharmas there are names and marks, and yet there is really no place of clinging", is exactly the general rule here.

Do not read 「義與非義皆不可得」 tr. "benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable" as meaning that there is no distinction of good and evil and no choice of acting or refraining. The Buddha's answer has two halves: one half is 「貪欲非義，如是義不應行；瞋恚、愚癡非義，如是義不應行；一切邪見無義，如是義不應行」 tr. "greed is non-benefit; such a matter should not be practised; hatred and delusion are non-benefit; such a matter should not be practised; all wrong views are without benefit; such a matter should not be practised"—this is a clear taking-up and giving-up in matters; the other half is 「三毒如相，無有義、無有非義」 tr. "the mark of suchness of the three poisons has no benefit and no non-benefit"—this is the giving up of both at the mark of suchness. Taking the latter half and abandoning the first half becomes the denial of cause and effect; taking the first half and abandoning the latter half, what is given up still becomes what is clung to. Holding both halves together—only this is the leaving spoken of in 「應離義、非義」 tr. "should be apart from benefit and non-benefit".

Do not read 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining" as obtaining of itself without needing to cultivate and train. The sentence before it is 「菩薩摩訶薩學是無為般若波羅蜜，當得一切種智」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who trains in this unconditioned prajñāpāramitā shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds"—training is there, and obtaining is there too; what is broken is only the two ways of grasping, 「以二法」 tr. "by two dharmas" and 「以不二法」 tr. "by a non-dual dharma". The gate of practice of the whole unit is plain: one should practise prajñā by the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks, should abide within names and marks and not cling, should practise the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self and of the eleven knowledges, should be apart from benefit and non-benefit. If one reads it as there being nothing to practise, then all these 「應」 tr. "should" words become empty words.

Bearing on Practice

The first use is to take 「念有是色、得是色」 tr. "thinking that there is this form and that he obtains this form" as the finest of rulers. This unit's judgement of the ordinary person's clinging does not say what evil he has done; it only says he has two thoughts in his mind—thinking it exists, thinking he obtains it. One who applies effort can, on all dharmas, including the six perfections he himself cultivates, the concentrations he obtains, and the emptiness he understands, question himself by these two thoughts: at this moment am I thinking that it exists? Am I thinking that I obtain it? The sūtra says that even the bodhisattva who has the thought 「我當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，我當度眾生生死」 tr. "I shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; I shall deliver beings from birth and death" is among those rebuked, so one can see that this ruler is not set for beginners but precisely for the place where effort has taken hold.

The second use is to check one's own marks of practice by the simile of the conjured person. The sūtra lists what the conjured person practises to the very fullest—the six perfections, the meditative concentrations, the limbs of the path, the three samādhi, the emptinesses, the Buddha's merits, and so on up to turning the wheel of the Dharma and conjuring beings—and asks whether he really exists, and the answer is: No. In daily use, the practitioner—working, speaking the Dharma, upholding the precepts, sitting in meditation—can hold this simile up to himself: the function is plainly there, and there is no need to place within it a really existent doer and a thing done. What matters is that the Buddha did not teach the conjured person not to practise; he taught 「如佛所化人行」 tr. "as a person conjured by the Buddha practises"; so what this simile cures is the mind that grasps at reality, not function itself.

The third use is to employ 「用」 tr. "use" and 「著」 tr. "clinging" separately. The sūtra says 「菩薩摩訶薩但名相中住，應行般若波羅蜜，是名相中亦不應著」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, abiding only within names and marks, should practise prajñāpāramitā, and within these names and marks too he should not cling", and contrasts the ordinary person speaking of suffering with the buddhas and their disciples speaking of suffering—the same name, one clinging and one not clinging. In daily use, in all matters that involve names and words, such as making vows, setting a daily practice, keeping count, judging stages, one can carry out this twofold division: use the name to accomplish the matter, and do not give rise to a real entity upon the name. If one discards names for fear of clinging, the matter cannot be done; if through using names one grasps at reality, then the name becomes one's bond.

The fourth use is to take 「未淨佛土、未成就眾生」 tr. "not yet purified a buddha-land, not yet brought beings to accomplishment" as grounds for not taking ready-made ease. The reason the bodhisattva does not realise the limit of reality the sūtra states very concretely: what is to be done is not yet done. When one who applies effort meets a place where he could rest right there—a state appears, a fetter is suppressed for a while, a dharma yields its taste—he can question himself with this phrase: is what I vowed done? And at the same time he must remember the other sentence, 「菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，無所住，應實際作證」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality"—what is barred is resting while abiding, not that realisation should not be sought.

The fifth use is to be lenient with others and not lenient with oneself by 「習非煩惱」 tr. "the habitual residue is not an affliction". The sūtra says the two vehicles have in body and speech what resembles the mark of lust, hatred, and delusion, while an ordinary person who does these incurs sin. Seeing a rough mark in a fellow practitioner and knowing that it is not necessarily real affliction—by this one can be lenient with others; but in examining oneself one may not excuse oneself by this—the difference between the ordinary person and the two vehicles lies precisely in whether what is issued is real or not, and whether what issues from oneself is real or resembling, only oneself knows. One must also remember the last sentence, 「是三毒習，諸佛無有」 tr. "these habitual residues of the three poisons the buddhas do not have"—the habitual residues can be exhausted; there is an end to them.

The sixth use is to take the six glosses on the name as six places to set one's hand. The name of prajñā the Buddha himself explains with six meanings: the foremost crossing; the crossing the four kinds of persons go by in common; breaking up all dharmas down to atoms and not obtaining firmness and reality; suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality all entering it; no joining and no dispersing, one mark, the signless; able to give rise to all dharmas while enemies cannot sever or ruin it. These six meanings are not mere glosses of words: the third meaning is the gate of contemplative practice—analysing to the extreme and not taking firmness and reality; the fifth meaning is the gate of stopping clinging—setting up neither side in any of the six pairs; the sixth meaning is the gate of settling the mind—when meeting difficulty, not asking how great or small its power is, but only asking whether it is findable or unfindable within prajñā. The three gates are to be taken up according to occasion, and all have ready-made text to rely on.

The seventh use is to string sitting on the cushion and rising from it together with the three Chinese characters 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere". The three key phrases of this unit all return to these three characters: the Buddha's self-description, 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere—whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned"; Subhūti's self-realisation, 「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation"; the Buddha's conclusion of the bodhisattva's dharma, 「無所住，應實際作證」 tr. "abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality". The three places belong respectively to three kinds of persons—the Buddha, the two vehicles, the bodhisattva—and all bring out this phrase, so one can know it is not the dharma of a single stage. The practitioner, in every circumstance, can ask just one question: have I abided and clung here? Abiding is receiving, and receiving is not obtaining the exhaustion of the outflows—Subhūti's answer has already made clear the sequence in this.

Further Resonances

The line along which the Middle Part carries on from the First Part pushes the meaning of the three wisdoms from the gate of practice of ‘how does one practise, how does one give rise to, how does one cultivate’ on to the principle of ‘why what is practised and what is obtained do not become something to be attained’. What the First Part set up is substance, time, and method: because form is quiescent, form is empty, form is false and deceptive, form is not firm and real, one should practise prajñā; because it arises like space, one should give rise to prajñā; because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas, one should cultivate prajñā; from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening, never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā and not letting any other thought get in; and at the end it gathers up with the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating, none of which obtains sarvajñā, while what is obtained is only 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness". The Middle Part raises its difficulty from 「諸法無所為、無所作，不應分別有三乘」 tr. "dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, and one should not distinguish that there are three vehicles"; the Buddha sets up the criterion with 「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing", explains the setting up of the three groups with 「世俗法故說有得，非第一義」 tr. "by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning", describes his own realisation with 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere", and goes on with the simile of the person conjured by the Buddha to make plain that function and substance do not hinder each other—the conjured person practises the six perfections and so on up to turning the wheel of the Dharma, conjures beings who are in three groups, and yet really there is nothing whatsoever; therefore the Buddha and a conjured person are without difference, making offerings to a conjured Buddha and making offerings to the Buddha are alike fields of merit by reason of the real mark of all dharmas, and so on up to calling out namo Buddha once and the merit is not exhausted. Next it turns to the section on names and marks: by the marks of names dharmas are shown and the dharma-marks are not ruined; following the worldly there are names and marks and yet there is really no place of clinging; if name clung to name, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, and so on up to the unconditioned nature should cling to the unconditioned nature; therefore one abides only within names and marks and should not cling; and the difficulty ‘for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind and undergo all kinds of toil and suffering’ is answered with 「是名相、名相相空」 tr. "these names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty", and so practising the path is not in vain. Next it turns to the section on the three knowledges: sarvajñā belongs to the two vehicles, the knowledge of the kinds of paths to the bodhisattvas, the omniscience of all kinds to the buddhas; the bodhisattva knows the paths of the three vehicles fully, uses these paths to deliver beings, and does not make the realisation of the limit of reality; the four alternatives of the places of abiding are all answered No, and at the end, asking in return by way of Subhūti's own exhaustion of the outflows, the Buddha presses out 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere"; and the mark of the omniscience of all kinds is the one mark of quiescence together with the knowing everywhere of conduct and kinds, appearances, and names. The final three sections gather it up: in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference, and yet among the habitual residues there are those all severed and those not all severed; the habitual residue is not an affliction, and so it does not violate the unconditioned's being without difference; the four fruits and so on up to the Buddha are all distinguished by the unconditioned dharma, and yet this distinguishing belongs to worldly speech; within the highest meaning there is no path of speech, and within the emptiness of specific marks the prior limit and the later limit are both unfindable; the six glosses on the name of prajñāpāramitā; the meaning of deep prajñā, that one should practise the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self and of the eleven knowledges; and benefit and non-benefit both given up—because all conditioned dharmas have the mark of making nothing, and though the worthies and sages take the unconditioned as their benefit, they take it neither as increase nor as decrease. The final question: not by two dharmas and not by a non-dual dharma, how shall one obtain the omniscience of all kinds? The answer: 「無所得即是得，以是得無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained", which corresponds head to tail with the First Part's answer 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness", and is more complete. The Last Part then turns to the treatise-author's explanation, explaining this sūtra text passage by passage, beginning from 「若一切法無作、無起相，云何分別有三乘」 tr. "if all dharmas are of the mark of non-action and non-rising, how are three vehicles distinguished".

Of the ancient masters' explanations, two are worth recording for this unit. Jizang, in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, divides this chapter into three; his text says: 「品三：一、明三慧三慧；二、明三起；三、明般若。」 tr. "The chapter is in three: first, making clear the three wisdoms, the three wisdoms; second, making clear the three arisings; third, making clear prajñā."—this unit falls exactly on the latter half of his second division and the beginning of the third, and so his commentary divides it here into several sections. On the difficulty at the opening of this unit, Jizang marks his division and explains: 「白佛：云何分三？前者問意，既無為無作，何分別有三乘耶？」 tr. "‘Addressing the Buddha: how are the three divided?’ The intent of the question before is: since there is nothing done for and nothing made, how are there three vehicles distinguished?", and he judges the structure of the Buddha's answer: 「佛答中，初印成其問，明無為無作中無有分別三乘，有所為有所作中自分別耳。」 tr. "In the Buddha's answer, first he seals and confirms the question, making clear that within nothing done for and nothing made there is no distinguishing of three vehicles, and that within what has something done for and something made they are distinguished of themselves."—judging the first half of the Buddha's answer by the four Chinese characters 「印成其問」 tr. "seals and confirms the question" agrees exactly with what passage 2 of this unit says, ‘seals the question and sets up the criterion’. On the passage of the five eyes not seeing, Jizang first brings out where the difficulty comes from: 「我以五眼不得菩提者，此更釋凡夫生疑所以也。」 tr. "‘I with the five eyes do not obtain awakening’: this further explains why ordinary persons give rise to doubt." Next he sets up a question of his own and answers it, and his answer is in two explanations: 「今明五眼不見者，不見凡夫所見菩提」 tr. "Now it makes clear that the five eyes' not seeing is not seeing the awakening that ordinary persons see", and further 「又今見菩提而見無所見，故云不見也。」 tr. "Again, now one sees awakening and yet in seeing sees nothing, and therefore it is called not seeing."—the first explanation speaks of the object not seen, the latter speaks of the mark of the seeing; the two explanations stand side by side, not judged. On the section of the conjured person, Jizang judges it the fourth division: 「譬如他人下，第四、不住行般若也。舉化來者，釋佛無所住故得通，即明菩薩無所住故行般若也。」 tr. "From ‘It is as another person’ onward is the fourth: practising prajñā without abiding. The conjuration is brought up to explain that because the Buddha abides nowhere he obtains penetration, and this makes clear that because the bodhisattva abides nowhere he practises prajñā."—taking 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere" as the thesis of this section is the same as what passages 8 and 33 of this unit hold to. His explanation of Suśānta is gathered by the four alternatives of root and trace: 「須扇多是無本有迹句，四句易明也。」 tr. "Suśānta is the alternative of having no root and having a trace; the four alternatives are easy to understand."—this judgement of root and trace is Jizang's own explanation; the sūtra text of this treatise says only that the conjured Buddha abode for half a kalpa doing the work of a Buddha and does not set up this name; recorded side by side without judgement. On the section of names and marks, Jizang judges it the fifth division: 「是諸法實相不應懷者，第五、假名行也。此如可然品隨俗語無過，佛菩薩雖知諸法無所有，隨俗假名說也。」 tr. "‘This real mark of all dharmas should not be ruined’ is the fifth: practice by provisional name. This is like the chapter on the combustible: following worldly speech is without fault; although the buddhas and bodhisattvas know that dharmas are without anything existent, they speak by provisional names, following the worldly."; his explanation of the counter-proof says: 「若著假名者，空亦應著空也。空不著空，名豈著名耶？」 tr. "If one clung to provisional names, emptiness too should cling to emptiness. Emptiness does not cling to emptiness; how then should name cling to name?"—using 「空不著空」 tr. "emptiness does not cling to emptiness" to show in reverse 「名豈著名」 tr. "how should name cling to name" is the same line of reasoning as what passage 21 of this unit explains, and the wording is more sparing. On the section of the three knowledges, Jizang marks his division: 「爾時須菩提下，第三、明三智。為二：初、明智優劣；次、明斷不明。」 tr. "From ‘At that time Subhūti’ onward is the third: making clear the three knowledges. It is in two: first, making clear the superiority and inferiority of the knowledges; next, making clear severance and not making clear."; his explanation of what the two vehicles know says: 「一切種智謂知內外者，外即六塵、內即六根，二乘知此十二入苦空無常無我也。」 tr. "‘The omniscience of all kinds’ as knowing inner and outer: the outer is the six sense-objects and the inner is the six faculties; the two vehicles know these twelve sense-fields as suffering, empty, impermanent, and without self."—explaining the sūtra text's 「內外法」 tr. "inner and outer dharmas" by the six faculties, the six sense-objects, and the twelve sense-fields is Jizang himself taking the headings of the Abhidharma to make it concrete; the sūtra text of this treatise says only 「一切名所謂內外法」 tr. "all names, that is, inner and outer dharmas" and does not bring out the names of the six faculties and the six sense-objects; recorded side by side without judgement. His explanation of the knowledge of the kinds of paths says: 「道種智是菩薩智者，菩薩以四道度眾生，謂人天乘為福樂及三乘道」 tr. "‘The knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattvas’: the bodhisattva delivers beings by four paths, namely the vehicle of humans and gods, which is for happiness and merit, and the paths of the three vehicles"—combining the vehicle of humans and gods with the three vehicles to make four paths is likewise a heading Jizang set up himself. On the section of severance, Jizang first explains why the sūtra text answers only about the severance of the two vehicles: 「第二、明斷。但明若二乘斷不明菩薩斷者，小乘中不明菩薩有斷，今依小乘中作問，故佛但答二乘斷也。」 tr. "Second, making clear severance. That it makes clear only the severance of the two vehicles and does not make clear the bodhisattva's severance is because within the Small Vehicle it is not made clear that the bodhisattva has severance; now the question is put according to the Small Vehicle, and therefore the Buddha answers only about the severance of the two vehicles."; next he judges the two layers of the unconditioned and the sages: 「此中先明無為差別，據所悟無為無異，無為即實相也。後明無為中有諸聖不同，據能悟之智也。」 tr. "Here it first makes clear the difference within the unconditioned: according to the unconditioned that is awakened to, there is no difference, and the unconditioned is precisely the real mark. Afterwards it makes clear that within the unconditioned there are the differences of the sages: according to the knowledge that can awaken."—dividing it by what is awakened to and what can awaken takes a different route from passages 36 and 37 of this unit, which divide it by the afflictions and the habitual residues, while the difficulty resolved is the same; recorded side by side without judgement. His explanation of the later limit says: 「道斷結說後際者，聖斷結盡故得無餘，無餘即後際也。」 tr. "‘The path severs the fetters, and the later limit is spoken of’: because the sage's severance of the fetters is exhausted, he obtains the without-remainder, and the without-remainder is precisely the later limit." On the section of the explanation of the name, Jizang's general division is into four: 「第三釋般若。文為四：第一明般若能彼岸故名般若波羅蜜，第二明般若功能生善滅惡無，第三明般若能成諸觀義，第四明不耶義非義兩捨明般若。」 tr. "Third, explaining prajñā. The text is in four: first, making clear that because prajñā can reach the further shore it is named prajñāpāramitā; second, making clear the power of prajñā to give rise to good and extinguish evil and non-existence; third, making clear the meaning of prajñā being able to accomplish all contemplations; fourth, making clear prajñā by the giving up of both benefit and non-benefit.", and he sets up a question of his own to make clear why this division asks about prajñā again: 「問：上已明三慧三智，今何故更問波若？答：上離波若為三慧，今合三慧為波若。又上但明波若，今釋波羅蜜，故一品具釋般若波羅蜜也。」 tr. "Question: above, the three wisdoms and the three knowledges have already been made clear; why now ask about prajñā again? Answer: above, prajñā was separated to make the three wisdoms; now the three wisdoms are joined to make prajñā. Again, above only prajñā was made clear; now pāramitā is explained, and so the one chapter explains prajñāpāramitā in full."—explaining the reason for its reappearance by separating and joining. His explanation of the foremost crossing says: 「第一度者，聲聞下度、緣覺中度、菩薩第一度也。」 tr. "The foremost crossing: the śrāvaka's is the lower crossing, the pratyekabuddha's the middle crossing, and the bodhisattva's the foremost crossing."—dividing the three vehicles into three crossings, higher, middle, and lower; the sūtra text of this treatise says only 「得第一度」 tr. "obtains the foremost crossing" and does not bring out the names of three crossings; this is Jizang's own judgement. On the section of unconditioned prajñā, Jizang says: 「無為般若者，般若非有為非無為、為無為具足」 tr. "Unconditioned prajñā: prajñā is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, and is complete as conditioned and unconditioned", and he divides prajñā into two: 「說智及智處皆名般若，實相是無為般若，觀照文字是有為般若也。」 tr. "Both knowledge and the place of knowledge are called prajñā: the real mark is unconditioned prajñā; contemplative illumination and letters are conditioned prajñā."—the headings of the three prajñā of the real mark, of contemplative illumination, and of letters are not in the sūtra text of this treatise here; they belong to the house teaching Jizang inherited; recorded without judgement.

Junzheng's book cites the sūtra text of this unit in eight places in all, each 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", 「大品三慧品云」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger says", 「三慧品亦云」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ also says"; the format is consistent, and one can see that the text he relied on shares a source with the base text of this treatise, with slight differences in characters. His citation of the concluding words on the conjured person says: 「又品云：如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，如佛所化人行也。」 tr. "Further, the chapter says: ‘Thus, Subhūti! the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā just as a person conjured by the Buddha practises.’"—wholly the same as the sūtra text of this unit, except that at the end there is one more character, 「也」 tr. "(final particle)". His citation of the section on names and marks says: 「故大品經？三慧品云：凡夫著名取相，聞苦著苦相，乃至聞空、無相、無作著空、無相、無作。諸佛弟子不著名，不隨相。」 tr. "Therefore the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘The ordinary person clings to names and grasps at marks; hearing of suffering, he clings to the mark of suffering, and so on up to hearing of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, he clings to emptiness, the signless, and non-action. The buddhas' disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark.’"—the latter half, 「諸佛弟子不著名，不隨相」 tr. "the buddhas' disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark", compared with the sūtra text's 「諸佛及弟子不著名、不隨相」 tr. "the buddhas and their disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark", lacks only one character, 「及」 tr. "and"; the first half is Junzheng's summary citation of its meaning, not word for word. His citations of the section on the five eyes are in two places; one says 「問：大品經？三慧品云：佛五眼所不見，云何道佛來應之？」 tr. "Question: the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘What the Buddha's five eyes do not see’—how can one say the Buddha comes to respond to it?", and he explains its meaning himself: 「佛五眼所不見者，破眾生相」 tr. "‘What the Buddha's five eyes do not see’ breaks the mark of beings"; the other says 「又大品經？三慧品云：佛言：吾以五眼尚不見眾生，豈況菩提可得？」 tr. "Further, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘The Buddha said: I with the five eyes do not even see beings; how much less can awakening be obtained?’"—the latter has 「吾以五眼尚不見眾生」 tr. "I with the five eyes do not even see beings", while the sūtra text of this unit has 「我以五眼觀，尚不得色乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "I contemplate with the five eyes, and I do not even obtain form, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; the words 「不見眾生」 tr. "do not see beings" actually come from the sūtra's preceding sentence, 「若佛以五眼觀不見眾生生死中可度者」 tr. "if the Buddha, contemplating with the five eyes, does not see among beings in birth and death any who can be delivered"; Junzheng has combined the two sentences and cited them in summary. His citation of the three knowledges says: 「故大品經？三慧品云：一切智即是聲聞、辟支佛智。」 tr. "Therefore the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘Omniscience is precisely the knowledge of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.’"—the sūtra text has 「薩婆若是一切聲聞、辟支佛智」 tr. "sarvajñā is the knowledge of all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"; Junzheng puts 「一切智」 tr. "omniscience" in place of 「薩婆若」 tr. "sarvajñā"—the two names are from the first the Sanskrit and the Chinese of one meaning—and the word order is also shifted. His citation of the sentence on the signless says: 「大品？三慧品云：彼若波羅蜜，無色無形，無對一相，所謂無相也。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger says: ‘biruo pāramitā is without form, without shape, without resistance, of one mark—that is, the signless.’"—it agrees with the sūtra text's 「是般若波羅蜜無色、無形、無對，一相所謂無相」 tr. "this prajñāpāramitā is without form, without shape, without resistance; it is of one mark—that is, the signless", except that 「般」 tr. "the syllable pra- of prajñā" is written 「彼」 tr. "the syllable pi", which belongs to the variant forms of copying. His citation of the sentence on the four kinds of persons obtaining the crossing says: 「又三慧品云：諸佛、菩薩、辟支佛、阿羅漢，通是般若波羅蜜，得變彼堓。」 tr. "Further, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ says: ‘The buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats, going through this prajñāpāramitā, obtain the changing of the further bank.’"—the names and order of the four kinds of persons are wholly the same as the sūtra text, but 「用是」 tr. "use this" is written 「通是」 tr. "go through this", and 「得度彼岸」 tr. "cross over to the further shore" is written 「得變彼堓」 tr. "obtain the changing of the further bank"—three characters all differ; where this comes from is not judged, and the text and its source are recorded side by side. His citation of the merit of keeping the Buddha in mind says: 「故大品經三慧品云：一、花嚴虗空中念佛，乃至畢竟，故其福不盡。」 tr. "Therefore the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘One flower adorning space while keeping the Buddha in mind, up to the ultimate, therefore his merit is not exhausted.’"—the sūtra text has 「但以一華散虛空中念佛，乃至畢苦，其福不盡」 tr. "only scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, up to the ending of suffering, his merit is not exhausted"; the two places in Junzheng's citation, 「一、花嚴虗空中」 tr. "one flower adorning space" and 「乃至畢竟」 tr. "up to the ultimate", do not agree with the base text; where this comes from is likewise not judged, and the text and its source are recorded side by side.

The continuation title at the head of the fascicle of this unit is transmitted differently in the various editions; they are recorded side by side below without forcing a judgement. The base text has the title 「大智度論釋三慧品第七十之餘」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, commentary on the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth, continued", with the fascicle number in an interlinear note; the Song edition has 「大智度論卷八十四釋第七十品下三慧品之餘」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle eighty-four, commentary on the seventieth chapter, last part, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, continued", the Palace edition has 「大智度論卷第八十四釋第七十品下三慧品」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle the eighty-fourth, commentary on the seventieth chapter, last part, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’", and the Yuan edition and the Ming edition alike have 「大智度論卷八十四釋三慧品第七十下」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle eighty-four, commentary on the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth, last part"; the Shōgozō manuscript uses its own chapter numbering and has 「大智度經論卷第八十四釋第六十九品下」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, fascicle the eighty-fourth, commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter, last part", always one less than the base text, consistent with its having 「釋第六十九品上」 tr. "commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter, first part" at the chapter title of this chapter; the Ishiyama-dera manuscript has 「摩訶般若波羅蜜第六十九卷八十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā, the sixty-ninth, fascicle eighty-four", likewise one less, and joining the sūtra's name into the fascicle title. Besides this, within this unit there are two further collation notes that touch on the meaning and should be recorded: first, in the sūtra text 「佛何以故壞諸法相」 tr. "why does the Buddha ruin the marks of dharmas", the character 「壞」 tr. "ruin" is written 「壤」 tr. "soil" in the base text and 「壞」 tr. "ruin" in the Palace edition, and the reader-facing text now has 「壞」 tr. "ruin"; second, in 「如凡夫說苦，著名、隨相」 tr. "it is as when the ordinary person speaks of suffering, he clings to the name and pursues the mark", the character 「苦」 tr. "suffering" is written 「若」 tr. "if" in the base text, 「苦」 tr. "suffering" in the three editions of the Song, Yuan, and Ming, and 「名」 tr. "name" in the Palace edition, and the reader-facing text now has 「苦」 tr. "suffering"—neither of these two places is a case of a single character added or dropped; the choice between readings bears on the sense of the text, and so they are brought out and recorded separately; the collation notes they rest on are given in detail in the Apparatus layer. The other differences of single characters added or dropped among the editions are given in detail in the Apparatus layer.